Chapter III: Front Matter (3)

I add a few words on the infinitive in English, though it has been well treated by Dr. March in his “Grammar of the Anglo-Saxon Language,” by Dr. Morris, and others. We find in Anglo-Saxon two forms, one generally called the infinitive, _nim-an_, to take, the other the gerund, _to nim-anne_, to take. Dr. March explains the first as identical with Greek νέμ-ειν and νέμ-εν-αι, _i.e._, as an oblique case, probably the dative, of a verbal noun in _an_. He himself quotes only the dative of nominal bases in _a_, e.g. +namanâya+, because he was probably unacquainted with the nearer forms in _an-e_ supplied by the Veda. This infinitive exists in Gothic as _nim-an_, in Old Saxon as _nim-an_, in Old Norse as _nem-a_, in Old High German as _nem-an_. The so-called gerund, to _nimanne_, is rightly traced back by Dr. March to Old Saxon _nim-annia_, but he can hardly be right in identifying these old datival forms with the Sanskrit base +nam-anîya+. In the Second Period of English (1100-1250)[35] the termination of the infinitive became _en_, and frequently dropped the final _n_, as _smelle_ = _smellen_; while the termination of the gerund at the same time became _enne_, (_ende_), _ene_, _en_, or _e_, so that outwardly the two forms appear to be identical, as early as the 12th century.[36] Still later, towards the end of the 14th century, the terminations were entirely lost, though Spenser and Shakespeare have occasionally to _killen_, _passen_, _delven_, when they wished to impart an archaic character to their language. In modern English the infinitive with _to_ is used as a verbal substantive. When we say, “I wish you to do this,” “you are able to do this,” we can still perceive the datival function of the infinitive. Likewise in such phrases, “it is time,” “it is proper,” “it is wrong to do that,” _to do_ may still be felt as an oblique case. But we have only to invert these sentences, and say, “to do this is wrong,” and we have a new substantive in the nom. sing., just as in the Greek τὸ λέγειν. Expressions like _for to do_, show that the simple _to_ was not always felt to be sufficiently expressive to convey the meaning of an original dative.

WORKS ON THE INFINITIVE.

The infinitive has formed the subject of many learned treatises. I divide them into two classes, those which appeared before and after Wilhelm’s excellent essay, written in Latin, “De Infinitivi Vi et Natura,” 1868; and in a new and improved edition, “De Infinitivo Linguarum Sanscritæ, Bactricæ, Persicæ, Græcæ, Oscæ, Umbricæ, Latinæ, Goticæ, forma et usu,” Isenaci, 1873. In this essay the evidence supplied by the Veda was for the first time fully collected, and the whole question of the nature of the infinitive placed in its true historical light. Before Wilhelm the more important works were Hofer’s book, “Vom Infinitiv, besonders im Sanskrit,” Berlin, 1840; Bopp’s paragraphs in his “Comparative Grammar;” Humboldt’s paper, in Schlegel’s “Indische Bibliothek” (II. 74), 1824; and his posthumous paper in Kuhn’s “Zeitschrift” (II. 245), 1853; some dissertations by L. Meyer, Merguet, and Golenski. Benfey’s “Sanskrit Grammar” (1852), too, ought to be mentioned, as having laid the first solid foundations for this and all other branches of grammatical research, as far as Sanskrit is concerned. After Wilhelm the same subject has been treated with great independence by Ludwig, “Der Infinitif im Veda,” 1871, and again “Agglutination oder Adaptation,” 1873; and also by Jolly, “Geschichte des Infinitivs,” 1873.

I had myself discussed some questions connected with the nature of the infinitive in my “Lectures on the Science of Language,” vol. ii. p. 15 seq., and I had pointed out in Kuhn’s “Zeitschrift,” XV. 215 (1866) the great importance of the Vedic +vayodhai+ for unraveling the formation of Greek infinitives in σ-θαι.

THE INFINITIVE IN BENGALI.

At a still earlier time, in 1847, in my “Essay on Bengali,” I said: “As the infinitives of the Indo-Germanic languages must be regarded as the absolute cases of a verbal noun, it is probable that in Bengali the infinitive in _ite_ was also originally a locative, which expressed not only local situation, but also movement towards some object, as an end, whether real or imaginary. Thus the Bengali infinitive corresponds exactly with the English, where the relation of case is expressed by the preposition _to_. Ex. tâhâke mârite âmi âsiyâchi, means, I came to the state of beating him, or, I came to beat him; âmâke mârite deo, give me (permission), let me (go) to the action of beating, _i.e._, allow me to beat. Now as the form of the participle is the same as that of the infinitive, it may be doubted if there is really a distinction between these two forms as to their origin. For instance, the phrase âpan putrake mârite âmi tâhâka dekhilâm, can be translated, I saw him beating his own son; but it can be explained also as, what they nonsensically call in Latin grammar _accusativus cum infinitivo_, that is to say, the infinitive can be taken for a locative of the verbal noun, and the whole phrase be translated, I saw him in the action of beating his own son, (_vidi patrem cædere ipsius filium_). As in every Bengali phrase the participle in _ite_ can be understood in this manner, I think it admissible to ascribe this origin to it, and instead of taking it for a nominative of a verbal adjective, to consider it as a locative of a verbal noun.”

THE INFINITIVE IN THE DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES.

I also tried to show that the infinitive in the Dravidian languages is a verbal noun with or without a case suffix. This view has been confirmed by Dr. Caldwell, but, in deference to him, I gladly withdraw the explanation which I proposed in reference to the infinitive in Tamil. I quote from Dr. Caldwell’s “Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian Languages,” 2d ed. p. 423: “Professor Max Müller, noticing that the majority of Tamil infinitives terminate in _ka_, supposed this _ka_ to be identical in origin with _kô_, the dative-accusative case-sign of the Hindi, and concluded that the Dravidian infinitive was the accusative of a verbal noun. It is true that the Sanskrit infinitive and Latin supine in _tum_ is correctly regarded as an accusative, and that our English infinitive _to do_, is the dative of a verbal noun; it is also true that the Dravidian infinitive is a verbal noun in origin, and never altogether loses that character; nevertheless, the supposition that the final _ka_ of most Tamil infinitives is in any manner connected with _ku_, the sign of the Dravidian dative, or of _kô_, the Hindi dative-accusative, is inadmissible. A comparison of various classes of verbs and of the various dialects shows that the _kâ_ in question proceeds from a totally different source.”

[Transcriber’s Note:

In the following section the Devanagari letters were printed without virama, but they should be read as the consonant alone.]

ON LABIALIZED AND UNLABIALIZED GUTTURALS.

As in my article on _Vayodhai_, published in Kuhn’s “Zeitschrift,” 1866, p. 215, I had entered a _caveat_ against identifying Greek β with Sanskrit ज, I take this opportunity of frankly withdrawing it. Phonetically, no doubt, these two letters represent totally distinct powers, and to say that Sanskrit ज ever became Greek β is as irrational to-day as it was ten years ago. But historically I was entirely wrong, as will be seen from the last edition of Curtius’ “Grundzüge.” The guttural sonant check was palatalized in the Southeastern Branch, and there became j and _z_, while in the Northwestern Branch the same g was frequently labialized and became gv, v, and b. Hence, where we have ज in Sanskrit, we may and do find β in Greek.

But after withdrawing my former _caveat_, I make bold to propose another, namely, that the original palatal sonant flatus, which in Sanskrit is graphically represented by j, can never be represented in Greek by β. Whether j in Sanskrit represents an original palatal sonant check or an original palatal sonant flatus can generally be determined by a reference to Zend, which represents the former by j, the latter by _z_. We may therefore formulate this phonetic law:--

+“When Sanskrit j is represented by Zend _z_, it cannot be
represented by Greek β.”+

In this manner it is possible, I believe, to utilize Ascoli’s and Fick’s brilliant discovery as to a twofold, or even threefold, distinction of the Aryan k, as applied to the Aryan g. They have proved that all Aryan languages show traces of an original distinction between a guttural surd check, k, frequently palatalized in the Southeastern Branch (Sk. c, Zend c) and liable to labialization, in Latin, Greek, Cymric, and Gothic; and another k, never liable to labialization, but changed into a flatus, palatal or otherwise, in Sanskrit, Lithuanian, and Old Slavonic. They showed, in fact,--

[Transcriber’s Note:
The following list has been rotated 90° for space.]

Sanskrit. क (च) श
Lith. k sz
Slav. k, č, c s
Gadh. c c
& Cym. p
Lat. c, qu, v c
Greek. κ, κϝ, κκ, κ
π, ππ,
τ, ττ,
Gothic. hv, h h

In the same manner we ought in future to distinguish between a guttural sonant check, g, frequently palatalized in the Southeastern Branch (Sk. j, Zend j), and liable to labialization, like k; and another g, never liable to labialization, but changed into a flatus, palatal or otherwise, in Zend, Lithuanian, and Old Slavonic. As we never have π = श we never have β = ज, if ज in Zend is _z_.

The evidence will be found under Sk. +jan+, +jabh+, +jar+ (to decay, and to praise), +jush+, +jñâ+, +jñu+, +jâmâtar+; +aj+, +bhrâj+, +marj+, +yaj+, +raj(atam)+.

Gothic _quinô_, Gadh. _ben_, Bœot. βάνα depend on Zend +jeni+; Gadh. _baith-is_ on Zend +jaf-ra+. It is wrong to connect σβεσ with +jas+, on account of Zend +zas+, and +gyâ-ni+ with βία, on account of Zend +zyâ-ni+.

[Footnote 1: The following statute was approved by the University
of Oxford in 1868 (_Statuta Universitatis Oxoniensis_, iv., i.,
37. §§ 1-3):--

“1. Professor philologiæ comparativæ a Vice-Cancellario, et
professoribus linguarum Hebraicæ, Sanskriticæ, Græcæ, Latinæ, et
Anglo-Saxonicæ eligatur. In æqualitate suffragantium rem decidat
Vice-Cancellarius.

“Proviso tamen ut si vir cl. M. Müller, M.A., hodie linguarum
modernarum Europæ professor Taylorianus, eam professionem intra
mensem post hoc statutum sancitum resignaverit, seque professoris
philologiæ comparativæ munus suscipere paratum esse scripto
Vice-Cancellarium certiorem fecerit, is primus admittatur
professor.

“2. Professor quotannis per sex menses in Universitate incolat et
commoretur inter decimum diem Octobris et primum diem Julii
sequentis.

“3. Professor duas lectionum series in duobus discretis terminis
legat, terminis Paschatis et S. Trinitatis pro uno reputatis;
scilicet per sex septimanas in utroque termino, et bis ad minimum
in unaquaque septimana: atque insuper per sex septimanas unius
alicujus termini bis ad minimum in unaquaque septimana per unius
horæ spatium vacet instruendis auditoribus in iis quæ melius sine
solennitate tradi possunt. Unam porro ad minimum lectionem
quotannis publice habeat ab academicis quibuscunque sine mercede
audiendam. De die hora et loco quibus hæc lectio solennis habenda
sit academiam modo consueto certiorem faciat.”]

[Footnote 2: An offer to found a professorship of Chinese, to be
held by an Englishman whom even Stanislas Julien recognized as the
best Chinese scholar of the day, has lately been received very
coldly by the Hebdomadal Council of the University.]

[Footnote 3: _Liber Sextus Decretalium_ (Lugduni, 1572), p. 1027:
“Ut igitur peritia linguarum hujusmodi possit habiliter per
instructionem efficaciam obtinere, hoc sacro approbante concilio
scholas in subscriptarum linguarum generibus ubicunque Romanam
curiam residere contigerit, necnon in Parisiensi, et Oxoniensi,
Bononiensi, et Salmantino studiis providimus erigendas; statuentes
ut in quolibet locorum ipsorum teneantur viri catholici,
sufficienter habentes Hebraicæ, Arabicæ, et Chaldææ linguarum
notitiam.”]

[Footnote 4: Greaves, _Oratio Oxonii habita_, 1637, p. 19: “Paucos
ultra centum annos numeramus ex quo Græcæ primum literæ oras hasce
appulerunt, antea ignotæ prorsus, nonnullis exosæ etiam et invisæ,
indoctissimis scilicet fraterculis, quibus religio erat graece
scire, et levissimus Atticæ eruditionis gustus hæresin sapiebat.”]

[Footnote 5: See _Biographia Britannica Literaria_, vol. i.
p. 110.]

[Footnote 6: M. M.’s _Lectures on the Science of Language_,
vol. i. p. 171.]

[Footnote 7: Ibid., p. 176.]

[Footnote 8: See Notes A and B, pp. 43, 45.]

[Footnote 9: See M. M., _Science of Religion_, 1873, p. 293.]

[Footnote 10: See Weber, _Indische Studien_, vol. i. p. 38.]

[Footnote 11: See Haug, in Ewald’s _Biblische Jahrbücher_, vol.
vi. p. 162.]

[Footnote 12: _Anab._, i. 2, 7: Ἐνταῦθα Κύρῳ Βασίλεια ἦν καὶ
παράδεισος μέγας, ἀγρίων θηρίων πλήρης, ἅ ἐκεῖνος ἐθήρευεν ἀπὸ
ἵππου, ὁπότε γυμνάσαι βούλοιτο ἑαυτόν τε καὶ τοὺς ἵππους. Διὰ
μέσου δὲ τοῦ παραδείσου ῥεῖ ὁ Μαίανδρος ποταμός κ.τ.λ. _Hell._,
iv. 1, 15: Ἐν περιειργμένοις παραδείσοις κ.τ.λ.]

[Footnote 13: See _Indian Antiquary_, 1874, p. 332.]

[Footnote 14: Grassmann, Kuhn’s _Zeitschrift_, vol. ix. p. 23.]

[Footnote 15: Ebel, Kuhn’s _Zeitschrift_, vol. viii. p. 242.]

[Footnote 16: Schleicher, _Compendium_, § 112.]

[Footnote 17: Lottner, Kuhn’s _Zeitschrift_, vol. ix. p. 319.]

[Footnote 18: Leo Meyer, _Die Gothische Sprache_, § 31.]

[Footnote 19: Choeroboscus, _B. A._, p. 1274, 29: Τὰ ἀπαρέμφατα
ἀμφιβάλλεται εἰ ἄρα εἰσὶ ῥήματα ἢ οὐχί. Schoemann, _Rede-theile_,
p. 49.]

[Footnote 20: Apollonius, _De Constr._, i. c. 8, p. 32: Δυνάμει
αὐτὸ τὸ ῥῆμα οὔτε πρόσωπα ἐπιδέχεται οὔτε ἀριθμούς, ἀλλὰ
ἐγγενόμενον ἐν προσώποις τότε καὶ τὰ πρόσωπα διέστειλεν . . . .
καὶ ψυχικὴν διάθεσιν. Schoemann, l.c. p. 19.]

[Footnote 21: Note C, p. 47.]

[Footnote 22: Benfey, _Orient und Occident_, vol. i. p. 606; vol.
ii. pp. 97, 132.]

[Footnote 23: _Chips_, vol. iii. p. 134.]

[Footnote 24: Dr. Kielhorn in his grammar gives correctly +tad+ as
base, +tat+ as nom. and acc. sing., because in the latter case
phonetic rules either require or allow the change of _d_ into _t_.
Boehtlingk, Roth, and Benfey also give the right forms. Curtius,
like Bopp, gives +yat+, Schleicher +tat+, which he supposes to
have been changed at an early time into +tad+ (§ 203).]

[Footnote 25: Weich ist es (_ṭ_ oder _ḍ_) wohl im abl. sing.,
+gafnâṭ+ (+gafnâdha+). Justi, _Handbuch der Zendsprache_, p. 362.]

[Footnote 26: _Orient und Occident_, vol. i. p. 298.]

[Footnote 27: _Entwickelung der Lateinischen Formenlehre_, 1870,
p. 20.]

[Footnote 28: _Grundriss der Lateinischen Declination_, 1866,
p. 9.]

[Footnote 29: See Benfey, l.c. p. 298.]

[Footnote 30: In the dictionary of Boehtlingk and Roth we read
_s.v._ +gnâ+, “scarce in the singular; nom. sing. seems to be
+gnâs+, according to the passage Rv. IV. 9, 4, and Naigh. I. 11,
in one text, while the other text gives the form +gnâ+.” Against
this, it should be remarked, that it would make no difference
whether the MSS. of the Naighaṇṭuka give +gnâ+ or +gnâs+. +Gnâ+
would be the nom. sing., +gnâs+ would be the form in which the
word occurs most frequently in the Veda. It is easy to see that
the collector of the Naighaṇṭuka allowed himself to quote words
according to either principle.

Devarâja, in his commentary on +gnâ+, explains it: “Gamer dhâtor
dhâpṛ́vasyajyatibhyo naḥ (U. S. III. 6) iti bahulakân napratyayo
bhavati ṭilopaś ca; ṭap. Gatyarthâ buddhyarthâḥ jânanti karmeti
gnâḥ. Yadvâ gacchati yajñeshu; abhí yajñám gṛṇîhi no gnâvaḥ
(patnîvaḥ) Rv. I. 15, 3. Chandâṃsi vai gnâ iti brâhmaṇam iti
Mâdhavaḥ. Asmấ îd u gnấś cid (Rv. I. 61, 8) ity api; gâyatryâdyâ
devapatnya iti sa eva. Tasmâc chandasâm gâyatryâdînâm vâgrûpatvâd
gnâvyapadeśaḥ.”

In his remarks on Nigh. III. 29, it is quite clear that Devarâja
takes +gnâḥ+ as a nom. plur., not as a nom. sing. He says: Menâ
gnâ iti stríṇâm; ubhâv api śabdau vyâkhyâtau vânnâmasu. Mânayanti
hi tâḥ patiśvaśuramátulâdayaḥ, pûjyâ bhûshayitavyâś ceti smaraṇât.
Gacchanty enâḥ patayo patyârthinaḥ. The passage quoted in the
Nirukta III. 29, gnâs tvâkṛntann apaso ’tanvata vayitryo ’vayan,
is taken from the Tâṇḍyabrâhmaṇa I. 8, 9. “O dress! the women cut
thee out, the workers stretched thee out, the weavers wove thee.”

Thus every support which the Nighaṇṭu or the Nirukta was supposed
to give to the form +gnâḥ+ as a nom. sing. vanishes. And if it is
said _s.v._ +gnâspati+, that in this compound +gnâḥ+ might be
taken as a nom. sing., and that the Pada-text separates
+gnâḥ-patiḥ+, it has been overlooked that the separation in Rv.
II. 38, 10, is a mere misprint. See Prâtiśâkhya, 738. The compound
+gnâspatiḥ+ has been correctly explained as standing for
+gnâyâspatiḥ+, and the same old genitive is also found in
+jâspatiḥ+ and +jâspatyam+. See also Vâjasan. Prâtiśâkhya, IV. 39.
It is important to observe that the metre requires us to pronounce
+gnâspati+ either as +gnăāspătĭḥ+ or as +gănāspătĭḥ+.

There is, as far as I know, no passage where +gnâḥ+ in the Veda
can be taken as a nom. sing., and it should be observed that
+gnâḥ+ as nom. plur. is almost always disyllabic in the Rig-veda,
excepting the tenth Maṇḍala; that the acc. sing. (V. 43, 6) is,
however, disyllabic, but the acc. plur. monosyllabic (I. 22, 10).
In V. 43, 13, we must either read +gn̆āḥ+ or +ōshădhī̆ḥ.+]

[Footnote 31: Sthâ, svâbhiprâyabodhanânukûlasthiti, to reveal by
gestures, a meaning not found in our dictionaries. Wilson renders
it wrongly by to stay with, which would govern the instrumental.
+Śap+, cursing, means to use curses in order to convey some
meaning or intention to another person.]

[Footnote 32: Wilson’s _Sanskrit Grammar_, p. 390.]

[Footnote 33: In verbs compounded with prepositions the accent is
on the penultimate: _e.g._, +samídhe+, +atikráme+, etc.]

[Footnote 34: See M. M.’s _Translation of the Rig-Veda_, I.
p. 34.]

[Footnote 35: Morris, _Historic Outlines of English Accidence_,
p. 52.]

[Footnote 36: Morris, l.c. p. 177.]

II.

REDE LECTURE,

DELIVERED IN THE SENATE HOUSE BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE, ON FRIDAY, MAY 29, 1868.[1]