234 Mr. Sankey on the Analysis and Structure 



to the latter. We, however, shall take a correcter view, in 

 considering that the double letter § disguises both the last 

 consonant of the radix, whether y, x, or x? and $■, here a cha- 

 racteristic of the nominative singular, so that to take apua^f 

 and comparing it with the other cases, as the dative singular 

 apvocy-it we find the root is apTrocy, which, suffixing in the no- 

 minative singular, r, becomes ocpTra^. Now, the dative plural 

 is formed from the same radix apiray, by postfixing y and i, the 

 characteristics of the case and number, thus giving us acp'Tra^-i. 

 What in truth leads to the idea of the dative plural depending 

 for its formation on the nominative singular, more immediately 

 than the other cases, is the simple circumstance of the double 

 letter ^ occurring in them both and in them only. In this 

 way also, we account for ^pi^i, the dative plural of a nomina- 

 tive singular 9-§iS. Here, analysis gives us rpi% as the radix, 

 which, suffixing s for the nominative singular, and transferring 

 the aspiration thus lost, from the final consonant x, to the initial 

 r, we have ^pi^. Again, postfixing to the root rpixy s and i, 

 the characteristics of the dative case and of the plural number, 

 and bringing forward the aspiration, we obtain S-pt^-*. 



When the radix terminates in av, as Atav, then suffixing s in 

 the nominative singular, we have Aia«f, and contracting Aias, 

 the V again appearing in the oblique case, as Aiav-ros. So like- 

 wise the adjective itxs was originally ^ravf, or changing v into a, 

 'Tiococs, contracted into TtoLs. And here I may observe, that in 

 both adjectives and participles which follow this declension, 

 the neuter is properly the radix, just as here 9rav is the root. 



If the radix terminates in ev as Tiy(p3'ev, then the nominative 

 singular taking f after it, becomes Tt;(p3-svs-, or changing v into a, 

 rv(phioe,s, which, according to the analogy of the tongue, con- 

 tracts into Ti^(p3-sjf, for though sa not followed by s contracts 

 into 0}, yet with $• after it regularly is contracted into st, as aX'n- 

 9'eas', aX'wS'Ets". 



Here I would remark, that the fornlation of the feminine of the 

 participles active, as the present, &c., such as Xeyy^a, is thus ac- 

 counted for : originally, like the Latin, there was but one gender 

 in these participles, which was formed from the radix by suffix- 

 ing s, thus giving us, for example, from Xeyov "k^yo^s, as we find in 

 the Latin legens stans, &c., of all genders : postfixing, however, 



