2 A. H. Edgi'cn, 



However improbable I judged Van den Gheyn's mode of 

 explanation, I was satisfied to dismiss the question for the 

 time being. But as no agreement is yet reached with regard 

 to the treatment of the tan-\Q.xhs, — some, as especially 

 Sanskrit grammarians, adhering to the Hindu classification, 

 while others disagree concerning the principle on which the 

 Eighth class should be given up, — ■ it has seemed that an 

 amplified review of my own arguments may not be useless as 

 a contribution towards a definite settlement of the disputed 

 question. 



The root-verbs of the Sanskrit language are by Hindu 

 grammarians, as is well known, classified, according to the 

 various forms of their present-stems, into ten groups or con- 

 jugational classes, which are designated by the root heading 

 each group in the native lists. The present-stems of the 

 su and the /«;/-class {i.e. of classes Fifth and Eighth) are 

 said to be formed respectively by adding to the root the 

 suffixes -im {sii-nu-) and -// {tan-ti-), which are gunated in 

 strong forms. 



The Hindu system of classification, and along with it the 

 distinction made between the jvz-class and the taji-c\-A.ss, was 

 naturally enough adopted in the earlier grammars published 

 in Europe. Bopp, however, who did not fail to notice that 

 all the roots of the /««-class — - kar alone excepted — termi- 

 nate in -;/, doubted the propriety of separating in principle 

 the /rt/^-class from the i-?/-class, and suggested that the tense- 

 sign for both the classes was originally -na, and that this sign 

 in the /(^/^class then lost its initial nasal after the nasal of 

 the root. Yet his doubts did not lead him to deviate in his 

 own grammar from the Hindu classification. Benfey, like- 

 wise, was inclined to combine the two classes into one, and 

 suggested, though, like Bopp, without special investigation of 

 the subject, or practical application of the principle, that the 

 nasal of the tan-vQxhs, may in fact have been artificially trans- 

 ferred to them from the suffix. 



Such suggestions, however, as were made by Bopp and 

 Benfey were generally left unheeded by later grammarians as 



i8 



