of the Greek Tongue, 229 



not far removed from the sound of lo in roio. So that, possibly, 

 the difference between roio and rov originally consisted in little 

 more than the mode of writing them. Whilst upon the subject 

 of the datives and genitives, considered in connection with one 

 another, I may observe, that it is quite a mistake to consider 

 the use of the dative for the genitive a Graecism, it being as 

 properly a Hebraism. But, in truth, it is also very remarkably 

 a Latinism, the genitives of the first declension being, in fact, 

 none other than datives, as, for example, musce, common to 

 both cases, is properly only a dative, being from the Greek 

 Movariy the Doric or iEolic a. being used in the Latin instead of 

 the common 73. In this way also we account for there being 

 but one form common to both cases in the dual. Coming novv 

 to the accusative, we find it formed from the radix, with r 

 prefixed, by suffixing v thus, t.o.v. The force of this y 

 seems to denote, that the action expressed by the governing 

 word, whether verb or preposition, has arrived at and rests in 

 the radix, so that v will possibly be taken from the pre- 

 position £v, in. This seems to be a just view of a distinct 

 accusative: for, in truth, in expressing any action as resting 

 on a noun, there is no absolute necessity for introducing any 

 new modifying idea, and consequently we need not necessarily 

 expect any characteristic inflection which may distinguish it 

 from the nominative. Were it so, we should be sure to find 

 always a corresponding particle or preposition to express this 

 characteristic in languages where the cases are uninflective, 

 which, however, we know does not take place, as in the sen- 

 tences — Samuel saw John, and John saw Samuel, nothing of 

 this kind is to be found. That there is no necessity for a dis- 

 tinct accusative, is further manifest from there being none such 

 in neuter nouns or in the dual number. 



It is not my intention, neither would time permit me, to carry 

 the analysis into every part of the article. I would observe, 

 however, that the nominative plural ol or roi, seems closely 

 allied to the ancient dative singular roi. Now, at first view, it 

 may seem difficult to account for this, although these cases are 

 even exactly the same in the first declension of the Latins. 

 When, however, we consider how nearly the dative singular is 

 connected with the genitive singular, and that this latter is 

 very generally inflected in Latin and English, and in the third 



