the Pluperfect of eiuì, but only in the singular number, the first Person Dual, and the first Person Plural. Valpy remarks, that the Ionic changes ev, as, ɛ, of the Pluperfect, into ɛa, ɛas, ɛɛ, &c., as ¿TETúpɛa, as, &c. But for the augment it would perhaps be more correct to say that it inserts & before the final a of the Perfect, Térupa common Greek, TεTúpɛa, Ionic. So much for the six regular and undoubted tenses of the Greek Verb, and I shall now proceed to say a few words respecting those two hypothetical ones which are denominated the Second Future and Second Aorist, which appear to me to be the mere figments of grammarians, and two others which are so little used as hardly to require a formal enumeration as distinct tenses, the Paullo-PostFuturum, and Aoristus Eolicus. XXXV. The Second Future. The Greek grammar of Moor says, "Futurum Secundum et Aoristus Secundus optimis Grammaticis nullum in Græca lingua locum habere videntur. Fut. 2. nihil aliud est quam contractio Attice Fut. 1. Sic TUTTŵ formatur a Fut. 1. obsoleti verbi TUTTέw, habentis in Fut. Prim. TUTTέσw, eliso σ, TUTÉ, contracte TUT," (page 73). Valpy also says, the Second Future seems to be an Old Attic form of the First, and has consequently the same sense. We might indeed call the two Futures the Common and the Attic. But in another part, Moor says, much more justly, "Futurum Secundum Activum formatur a Præsenti” (page 152). And the Greek grammar of Jones says, "the Ionians insert before the & pronominal terminations of the Second Future, τυπέω, τυπέεις, for TUTTO, TUTTEIS, &c. These are contracted and circumflexed by the Dorians (and Attics) τυπῶ, τυπεῖς, τυποῦμεν, &c.” (page 161). I experience great difficulty in admitting those arbitrary insertions or rejections of letters, which grammarians are so fond of supposing. I have little doubt that the oldest form of τυπῶ was what is called the Ionic τυπέω, and as little that that word was compounded by adding w, the Present of the Auxiliary Verb To be, to the Sanskrit root TUTT, and its Future by adding low, the Future of the same Auxiliary Verb. Eow, in some instances contracted to ow, Εσω, σω, is I believe invariably the formative of what is called the First Future of verbs in every instance, except in the fifth conjugation of liquids. The Port Royal remarks that verbs ending in λw, μw, vw, pw form their first (and only) Future like the Present, except that they make the penultima short and circumflex the last syllable, but that in an early stage of the language the termination ow was general for these verbs as well as for the rest, and that the Æolic, the oldest dialect of Greece, continued to retain the use of a, especially in verbs in pw. The fact appears to be that the a was dropped in the Future of these liquid verbs, from a supposed regard to euphony, and that from analogy with them the poets first used the Present Tense of verbs ending in mutes in a future sense, being induced to do so for the sake of the convenience or necessity of their art, and finally circumflexed it, and called it a Second Future. The accomplished translator of Matthiæ's Greek Grammar says, "the Second Future which is here spoken of is an imaginary tense invented by the Grammarians, and ought to be expunged from the common school grammars." (Vol. i. p. 47, Remarks.) * XXXVI. The Second Aorist. Of this tense, the Greek Grammar of Moor remarks, and it appears to me very justly, "Aoristus Secundus est verè Imperfectum." That of Jones says, "the Second Aorist differs, I conceive, from the Imperfect only as they are derived from different roots; " and that of Valpy, "some Grammarians believe that the Second Aorist, when it differs from the Imperfect, is the Imperfect of an obsolete verb of a kindred form, as ἔτυπον from τύπω, ἔταγον from τάγω, &c. The latter also remarks of the two Aorists, that they are so similar in signification, that there are few verbs in which both forms are used. XXXVII. The Paullo-Post-Futurum. Respecting this tense the Grammar of Moor observes, "quod autem dicitur Paullo-post-Futurum videtur nihil aliud The late Rev. E. V. Bloomfield, M. A. esse quam Futurum Primum Medium, Ionicè reduplicatum, ut TεTúομαι ;" and that of Jones, "the form called by grammarians Paulo-post-Futurum is not a distinct tense, but the First Future Middle augmented: τίσομαι, τετίσομαι ; τύψομαι, TεTÚVOμai." The Port Royal says, "of the three Futures, the last is only for the Passive, and is commonly called the Paulo-post-Future, because it signifies the thing imminent; but this tense is very little used." XXXVIII. Aoristus Eolicus Atticis usitatissimus. Moor remarks of this tense," Æolicè, Ionicè, et Atticè,” and the Port Royal says, the " Æolic Aorist of the Optative is formed from the Aorist of the Indicative by dropping the augment, and putting a before a, as rupa, Túia. The Attics frequently use this Aorist, but then it is only in the second and third person singular, and the third plural." I entertain not the smallest doubt, that the termination of every tense of every verb in the Greek language was primarily derived from some form of the Auxiliary Verb To be, which certainly exists in many forms. I have already observed, that many verbs in Greek are so like sipì, sum, that there can hardly be a doubt that their tenses have been mixed and confounded, and it is remarkable that ea, which appears to be the formative of the tense in question, is the Perfect Tense, Indicative Mood, Middle Voice of eipt, eo, and was, in all probability, at a remote period a tense of the verb To be. It corresponds letter for letter with the terminations of Tú-sia, except in the third person plural, where the Aorist forms rústav, and the Perfect of eiμ, to go, laol. The First Aorist is said, in the Eton Grammar, to be formed from the First Future, by changing w into a, and prefixing the augment, and if we exchange the final w of Túw for ea, we have the Aoristus Æolicus Tú-ea. XXXIX. Of the Moods. Jones's Greek Grammar remarks, that Verbs conveying a meaning universally and unconditionally true, and as such certain, are used in the Indicative Mood; while those which express a conditional or uncertain sense, are placed in the Subjunctive. While the Indicative Mode has four terminations in w, ov, a, and ɛv, it is remarkable that the Subjunctive has only one in w, the Optative two in o and αιμι, and the Imperative two in & and ov. I mention this circumstance for the sake of suggesting an analogy with the Sanskrit. In that language the Indicative Mood has six tenses, which is also the case with the Greek, if we reject the Second Future and Second Aorist, as I am persuaded we ought to do; but the Imperative, the Potential, the Precative, and the Conditional Moods, have only one tense each; and this was probably the case with the Greek in her early infancy, shortly after she had parted with her Oriental mother. XL. On the Formatives or Terminations of the Greek Verb. This subject could never have remained covered with so thick a veil of mystery, during so long a period, but for three principal reasons : 1. Because the genuine and simple root of the Greek is hardly ever, in any instance, to be found in Greek, what is called the root being almost invariably a compound word. 2. Because Greek having hitherto been regarded as an original or underived language, few attempts have been made to illustrate it, except from Greek sources, and those by whom the attempts have been made, have been, for the most part, very badly qualified, possessing no comprehensive knowledge of the languages of Asia. 3. Because what is called the Verb Substantive, To be, in Greek, from which the tenses of almost every other verb are formed, is one of the most irregular verbs in the language, being found in three distinct forms as under: — "Ew, sum, Dammii Lexicon in voce. Eiui, sum, Scapula Lexicon. "Eoμai, sum, Port Royal Greek Grammar, book 3. c. 15. Eton Greek Grammar, p. 67. 'Eyo ("Ew), Pronomen ego, est ab eo, sum, Dammii Lexicon. This remark, if traced to its origin, and followed out to all its consequences, is sufficiently important to produce a complete revolution in grammar. The difficulty is to begin with the beginning. I believe it to be as under: An, Time, an hour, Arabic (Richardson). Ana, I, the Personal Pronoun. Ana, Times, part of Time. Ana and Anah, Chaldee, I; also I am (Gibbs's Gesenius in voce). Ano, Syriac, I; Ano Ano, contracted, Enono, ego sum. Av-w, Greek, Sum, in Compound Verbs, but not found existing in a simple state. All the Persons of the Verb Substantive, then, in some of the Shemitic languages, at least in the Present Tense, are both a pronoun and a verb, and signify either the person that exists, or existence itself. This fact has long been familiar to me; but the word Ego, in Damm's Lexicon, has made me aware, for the first time, that it was also the case in Greek; and as the Sanskrit An, or Ana, breathe, live, and the Greek "Avw, sum (in composition), appear to be cognate, not to say identical, with nearly the same word in Arabic, Chaldee, and Syriac, the line of separation appears to be broken down between the two great families of written languages, the Shemitic and Sanskrit, in a particular which throws much light on the formation and modus significandi of the Greek and indeed all other verbs. If I open a Greek Lexicon at the word Kaio (Kaíw), I learn that its signification is uro, accendo, cremo. But Kaio does not signify simply to burn, nor does uro in Latin; but in both instances, I burn; so that the words, although in the simplest form in which they exist in the two languages, do not appear to be simple, but compound, consisting of a pronoun combined with some unknown root. What is that root? Europe was both |