236 Mr. Sankey on the Analijsis and Structure 



active, as tutT'E^-oj, which, by leaving out the s, became the 

 form of the first future tuti-s-m, or as written, rv>\^co ; or 

 leaving out the s-, rvitiu^ and contracting -rvitw^ second future. 

 Hence, also, we account for the two futures of the passive : 

 from the simple radix tvk^ we obtain the second future ruir-Y,- 

 aofjiaci, or inserting and aspirating r, rvTr-^-naofxaci, while the 

 middle futures follow^ in their formation, the analogy of active 

 futures. Now, the first indefinite does also take f, and reject 

 it in the very same circumstances, in which this takes place 

 in the future. Yet considering the force of this tense, it does 

 not seem in significancy to partake any thing of a future, 

 while the prefix augment and the termination a. ally it rather 

 with past tenses, and especially the perfect ; s-, therefore, 

 seems rather to arise from a sibilation before the termination a, 

 instead of an aspiration, just as the Latins, from the Greek l|, 

 form sex, by sibilating instead of aspirating. It is obvious, 

 then, if this view be correct, that the same verbs which for 

 euphony reject $■ in the future, must also reject this sibilation 

 from the aorist ; hence, then, the aorist seems to adopt the cha- 

 racteristic of the future, whereas it more properly takes the 

 peculiar characteristic a of the perfect, whilst its prefix aug- 

 ment shews that it is included in the class of past tenses in 

 general. The disadvantage of thus, as it were, mechanically 

 connecting two tenses together, without considering whether 

 there be really any natural connection between them as to 

 power, is, that it not only throws difficulties in the way of the 

 analysis, but, still more, it leads to vague ideas as to the value 

 of one or other of them, whilst we expect to find, for example, 

 something of a future character in that which is really and 

 analytically a perfect; hence, then, the very unsatisfactory 

 name of indefinite or aorist, when it should be more properly 

 a perfect. In this way, then, we see the Greeks have three 

 perfects active, the proper and distinctive characteristic of 

 them all being the a after the root, the force of which is equi- 

 valent to our auxiliary have. And it is remarkable, we find ac 

 retaining this meaning as a distinct auxiliary in the third person 

 sin<Tular present indicative, or root, of the French verb avoir. 

 Hence then, synthetically, we form the three perfects active ; 

 thus, suffixing a. to the root, prefixing the augment, and redu- 



