the fundamental distinction between this and that which they are applied to express, would lead us too far. So much as this may be pointed out: those beginning with m are especially employed to denote the subject, the ego, 'me myself;' those with t and n are used more demonstratively, and those with k interrogatively. They are few in number, hardly counting a dozen all together, including some which are probably variants of the same original. They are of the simplest phonetic structure, consisting either of a pure vowel, like a or i, or of a vowel combined with a single preceding consonant, forming an open syllable, which is the easiest that the organs of articulation can be called upon to utter; instances are ma, na, ta, tu, ka.
The roots of the other class, those of action or quality, are very much more numerous, being reckoned by hundreds; and, they are of more complicated structure, illustrating every variety of the syllable, from the pure single vowel to the vowel preceded or followed, or both, by one consonant, or even by more than one. They are of objective import, designating the properties and activities inherent in natural objects—and prevailingly those that are of a sensible phenomenal character, such as modes of motion and physical exertion, of sound, and so forth. Let us notice a few instances of roots which are shown to have belonged to the original language of our family by being still met with in all or nearly all of its branches. Such are i and ga, denoting simple motion; ak, swift motion; stā, standing; ās and sad, sitting; kī, lying; pad, walking; vas, staying; sak, following; vart, turning; sarp, creeping; pat, flying; plu, flowing; ad, eating; pā, drinking; an, blowing; vid, seeing; klu, hearing; vak, speaking; dhā, putting; dā, giving; labh, taking; garbh, holding; dik, pointing out; bhar, bearing; kar, making; tan, stretching; skid and dal, dividing; bandh, binding; star, strewing; par, filling; mar, rubbing; bhā, shining; bhū, growing, etc., etc.
In endeavouring to apprehend the significance of these roots, we must divest their ideas of the definite forms of conception which we are accustomed to attach to them: each represents its own meaning in nakedness, in an indeter-
17
