104 STUDIES IN AJSriMAL LIFE. 



elements of wMcli they could have been composed. 

 If we find such forms as fai aimS,-we can explain 

 them by a mere reference to the radical means which 

 French has still at its command, and the same may 

 be said even of compounds like faimerai, i. e., je- 

 aimer-ai, I have to love, I shall love. But a change 

 from/e suis to tu es is inexplicable by the light of 

 French grammar. These forms could not have 

 grown, so to speak, on French soil, but must have 

 been handed down as relics from a former period — 

 must have existed in some language antecedent to 

 any of the Eoman dialects. Now, fortunately, in 

 this case, we are not left to a mere inference, but as 

 we possess the Latin verb, we can prove how, by 

 phonetic corruption and by mistaken analogies, 

 every one of the six paradigms is but a national 

 metamorphosis of the Latin original. 



" Let us now look at another set of paradigms : 



Sanscrit. ^^'^J; Zend. Doric. s,„°'„'^i„, L.tin. GolWc. Annen. 



I am Ssmi 6smi ahmi kfi/ii yesniQ sum im em. 



Thou art Ssi essi ahi ka-a-i yesi es is ea. 



He ia dsti esti asti Itni yestS eat ist €. 



We (two) are . . 'svAs eava yesva . . . siju 



.You (two) are.. *8thd8 esta stho? 'i&o-tov yeata ... syuts ... 



They (two) are. 'st&s (esti) sto ? ka-Tov yesta ... 



We are *8m&3 esmi hmahi ka-fjies yesmS aumua syum emq. 



You are 'ath^ eate stha kaTe yeate estis sijup gq. 



They are sSnti (esti) h£nti ^vt* Bowite sunt sind en. 



" From a careful consideration of these forms, we 

 ought to draw exactly the same conclnsions ;, first- 

 ly, that all are but varieties of one common type ; 

 secondly, that it is impossible to consider any of 

 them as the original from whi(3h the others have 



