4 A. H. Edgj'en, 



the original root of these forms was ta, not tan. But Van 

 den Glieyn was tlie first to present a detailed argument 

 in favor of this view, and may be considered as its chief 

 advocate. 



The following considerations based, in the main, on an 

 examination of the inflectional and derivative forms of the 

 tan-MQ.xh'S, in Sanskrit, but also on the evidence of cognate 

 forms in other languages, would seem to confirm, in the 

 main, the position taken by Brugman, although its cor- 

 rectness is not made dependent on the theory of a nasal 

 vowel. 



The Hindus classified with the /<? //-class ten verbs, viz., 

 three in -/■// .• arn, ghani, tarn ; one in -/;/ .• ksin ; five in -an : 

 ksan {ksari), tan, man, van, san ; and one in -ar : kai;- — the 

 only one that does not terminate in a nasal. To these have 

 been added, on more or less convincing evidence from the 

 Sanskrit literature, in, Jian, and tar. 



As regards those three roots that terminate in -rn, the fol- 

 lowing considerations are to be noticed. 



The mere fact that the root arn is said to be inflected 

 exactly like the well-authenticated root ar (r), — both form- 

 ing the strong and weak stems riw and rnn, — -and that the 

 meaning assigned to each is the same, suggests that the for- 

 mer is nothing but an artificial extension of the latter, having 

 no independent existence whatever, — a suggestion which is 

 corroborated by the facts in the case. In the first place, no 

 verb-form whatever outside of the present system has been 

 made from a radical ariu Further, among all the derivatives 

 (not less than 35) that must be referred to either of the two 

 roots in question, only three, drnas, drna, rnd, contain a nasal. 

 But that nasal may here be explained as belonging to the 

 suffix. The primitive suffix -nas, though rare, occurs beyond 

 question in some words (cf. dp-nas ' possession,' -bhar-nas 

 'offering,' etc.) formed precisely like dr-nas. A primitive 

 suffix -na is, indeed, hardly met with, except in participles. 

 But drna 'agitated,' as a noun (m.) 'flood,' if not a participle, 

 is too evidently of the same stock with drnas ' flood ' to be 



20 



