TRANSACTIONS OF THE SECTIONS. 161 



ds, as dur-mands. But the question now raised is whether there may not be com- 

 pounds, the last element of which is a verbal root, or a primary noun from which 

 this is derived, to which the suffix in was attached as implying possession ; and 

 whether the in of such compounds has not become in the nominative -779, -es ; so that 

 these adjectival terminations are in some instances the equivalents of the Sanskrit 

 adjectival terminations i, i. This is supposed by Dr. Hincks to have been the case 

 in such instances as p.v\o-ei5-i)s, d-Aijd-ijj, Tpi-rjp(ecr)-rjs, &c. ; the roots being id 

 (Pe8), \a8 and (pes. The original form of the suffix implying possession he supposed 

 to be ith, which was liable to pass both into is and into in. Thus, in the first person 

 plural of active verbs the original form meth, written -p.er, -p.eS (retained in the pas- 

 sive, where we have in classical Grsek -p.eda), became p,eu and dialectically pes. It is 

 this th, written in the old alphabet r or 8, which is so apt to be dropped between 

 vowels, and at the end of a word, and which in the latter position, if not dropped, 

 must be changed into a or v. In reality, the root which is above written ep(s was 

 epe8, ereth. 



The addition of the suffix in, implying possession, to a compound, is unusual in 

 Sanskrit; but instances may be produced. One is, according to Bopp, dmndya-sdr- 

 in, In Lithuanian, however, a suffix is generally added to the compound. It ap- 

 pears in the present languages as i, which Bopp supposes to have been ia, but which 

 may have been originally in, The usual form of a Lithuanian compound is did-burn-is, 

 rot-pon-is, tri-kamp-is ; na-baga-s, without the suffix, is spoken of by Bopp as 

 exceptional. 



This is one reason for supposing that ths language to which these words belong 

 was of Lithuanian origin. The suffix in, which appears not only in ligwindinas, but 

 in the proper names nora. Kustaspi, gen. Liyrukhinas, may be connected with the 

 Lithuanian is and the Greek >;?, but is abhorrent to the genius of both the Sanskrit 

 and Zend languages. 



The difference between Pev8 aud PeiS seems also to require some observations. 

 The root is Pe8 ; and according to the custom of the Indo-European languages, and 

 especially of the eastern family, or families of them, a nasal may be introduced 

 between a short vowel and the consonant which follows it. The Greek et and of 

 were in the old Cadmean alphabet the representatives of the long vowels i and u. 

 They are equivalent to iy and uw, 1 and P being in that alphabet semivowels ; and 

 these long vowels were substituted for e and o followed by a nasal, when that nasal 

 was omitted. It is worthy of notice, however, that in the inscription on a broken 

 obelisk in the British Museum, in the first column, where the king enumerates the 

 animals that he had taken or killed, or rather designed to do so (blanks for the 

 number being left before each name of an animal, which were never filled up), men- 

 tion is made in the twenty-third line of " Ugwidiui " followed by the plural sign. 



The omission of the nasal in the word, as here written, shows that it was not essen- 

 tial. The plural sign after ni is here substituted for the Indo-European termination 

 nas. Possibly Ugwidiui is intended for the nominative singular feminine ; or it may 

 be the nominative ligwidi with the Assyrian termination of the accusative plural. 



The word wida is used in Old Prussian for "likeness;" sta-wida and ka-ioida 

 representing the Latin talis and qualis. This is another indication of a connexion 

 between the languages to which these words belong, and the old Lithuanian. 



A third indication of this is derived from the name Idsanan. As used in the 

 Assyrian inscriptions, it denoted the Indo-European tribes on the west of Assyria ; — 

 those who called themselves by this name. Exactly in the same way, the Egyptians 

 applied the name \2>V to the Semitic tribes in whose language this word signified 

 " the peoples." Now this word Idsanan was originally l&ihanan ; and while its 

 stern is the same as that of the name of the Lithuanian people, it has other affinities, 

 which are very remarkable. The Lydians, AuSoi, were evidently a branch of the 

 same people ; notwithstanding the mythic derivation of their name given by Hero- 

 dotus. But their identity with the Lutan or Ludan of the Egyptian inscriptions is 

 equally certain, and still more important, as it shows us that for a considerable time 

 before they pushed their conquests to the neighbourhood of Egypt (viz. to Mount 

 Lebanon), they had been waning against them on their northern frontier, when 

 their empire extended to Mesopotamia. 



The termination of this name requires some remarks. It may be the Semitic- 

 1860. 11 



