484 ON THE ANALOGY IN THE FORMATION OF SOME 



admitted, would it not account for such words as xctrafiyitrto, 

 icivirero, Xsfso, bgtrso, ottre, onreraty afg — rem, &C, which have SO 

 much perplexed the celebrated Dr Clarke, (see Notes on 

 Iliad, B. 35. E. 109. ; I. 613.) in a manner more satisfactory 

 than is done by the arbitrary method of imagining new 

 Presents in — <ru, from which these forms may be deduced : 

 For it is only to account for such anomalous forms that these 

 new Presents have been imagined ; and the grammarians would 

 no doubt have assumed imaginary new Presents also, to ac- 

 count for such 1st Aorists, as g^sa, Ik^u, if, by so doing, these 

 aorists could have been reduced to the usual analogy. 



Now this supposition, namely, that the 9.d Aorist, as well as 

 the 1st, follows the analogy of either Future, which is thus ren- 

 dered in some degree probable, has actually taken place, at 

 least in some instances. Thus the compounds of rspm, 



r from the 1st Future ctvorepu has in 

 uTorepva •< the 2d Aor. Part. ccvorspav, as well 

 C as from the 2d Fut. cczoraf^u, a^ord^uv. 



So \%Wi they came, II. 23. v. 38. ; xarejSjja-er©, //. 24. v. 191., 

 both of which follow the analogy of the first Futures, viz. /{•» 

 (from txu venio) and xct,ru@*j(roficti. And every person acquaint- 

 ed with the elements of Greek is aware, that, as psm is the 

 primary form, whence, by the common reduplication, arises, 

 first, (fiipsvuj and then, dropping the short s, by what the 

 grammarians call syncope, pipm, and as ysva is the primary- 

 form, from whence, in like manner, is derived ytyvu (Latin 

 gigno) and yiyvopm : so 9t%u is the primary form, which, by 

 like reduplication and syncope, gave birth to mxru, cado, 

 from which primary form ore™, making in the first Future 

 r£<nsy, there is formed the second Aor. lireo-ov in common use ', 

 which, in so far, both illustrates and confirms the foregoing 

 hypothesis. 



The 



