PRINCIPLES OF LINGUISTIC SCIENCE. 107 



which we must regard as original. First, it must he claimed that our analyses are 

 real, and not imaginary ; they are the retracing of the steps of a previous 

 synthesis. This is palpably the case with the latest of them, as in the case 

 of truthful (trutli-ful ) and godhj (god-like) ; it is equally clear, too, as regards 

 all the formative apparatus which is peculiar to the Germanic languages, since 

 this must have been elaborated by them from their own materials, since the 

 separation of the Germanic branch from the rest of the fiimily. But there is 

 no stopping in this series of admissions. Every word-element, separable by 

 analj'sis, of Avhich the genesis can be shown, which can be carried back to a 

 word having an independent status in the language, must have been appended 

 as an independent vocable to the words with which it was first connected. 

 And even more. Considering how easily the evidence of origin becomes oblit- 

 erated by the processes of phonetic alteration, we may not deny a former in- 

 dependence to formative elements of which we cannot now trace the genesis. 

 The parts into which etymological analysis separates our words are, as a uni- 

 versal rule, those by the actual putting together of which the words in ques- 

 tion wei'e once made up. In analyzing irrevocahility, for example, we take 

 off affix after affi"x, leaving each time a word to which that affix had been 

 added, till at last is left only the syllable ?;oc, which conveys the idea of "call- 

 ing," and which, though nowhere appearing in its naked form in actual use, 

 we must believe to have existed before any one of the various affixes with 

 which we find it in combination was appended to it. To such syllables, which 

 we call roots, we everywhere arrive by pushing our analytical process to the 

 utmost, and these we believe to be the germs out of which language has actu-> 

 ally grown. In other words, the Indo-European languages began with an 

 original monosyllabic stage. From monosyllabic roots, by processes not difTer- 

 iug in nature from those which are still in operation, has been developed the 

 marvellous and richly vai-ied structure of our modern speech. TMs is a truth, 

 the recognition of which has been reached, almost with unanimity, by students 

 of language ; the objections which are urged against it by the few who refuse 

 it their belief are founded in misapprehension and prejudice, and are of no 

 avail. 



The Indo-European roots are of two classes : roots of position, demonstra- 

 tive or pronominal roots, and roots of quality, pi'edicative or verbal roots. The 

 former form chiefly pronouns and prepositions ; the latter, verbs and nouns. 

 Pronominal roots denote the relations of things to the speaker as regards place ; 

 their fundamental distinction is between the this and the tJiat, the nearer and 

 the remoter object. They are of the simplest phonetic form, genei'ally a sim- 

 ple consonant with a following vowel, composing an open syllable, and they 

 are but few in number. The verbal roots are more numerous, counting by 

 hundreds, and they are of every variety of form, from a simple vowel to a 

 vowel both preceded and followed by one or more consonants. Instances are : 

 i and gd, denoting simple motion ; ak, swift motion ; std, standing ; vas, stay- 

 ing ; sad, sitting; ^?«(:/, walking; vart, turning; pat, flying; ad, eating; pa, 

 drinking; vid, seeing; vak, speaking; da, giving; garhh, grasping; dik, 

 pointing out; hhar, bearing; kar, making; bandh, binding; hhd, shining; 

 bhu, growing, &c., «Scc. They represent each its own meaning in its naked- 

 ness of all limitations or applications, in a state of indeterminateness from 

 which it is equally ready to take on the semblance of verb, substantive, or 

 adjective. 



The first beginnings of polysyllabism were made by compounding together 

 roots of the two classes. Thus, the addition to the root vdk, "speaking," of 

 the pronominal elements mi, si, ti, produced combinations to which usage as- 

 signed the meaning "I speak, thou speakest, he speaks," laying in them the 

 same idea of predication which we put into the ambiguous word love, when we 

 say " I love." Other pronominal elements, modified or combined to express 



