PHILOLOGICAL GENIUS OF THE MODERN GREEK LANGUAGE. 23 
 préBa, from prew. 
n otépa, os TTEpis. 
n popada, % popas. 
And this termination dda, when it had once caught the popular ear, became . 
a favourite norm for the formation of abstract substantives even when there 
was no objective case of the third declension from which to make the transfer. 
Thus,— 
For  dapmporns, Aaprupaca. 
For  ¢pdvyars, ppovnpaoa. 
From vdoTpos, vooTypdaoa, 
In the same way with masculines,— 
For pas, Eporas. 
een, TaTEpas. 
” anp, aépas. 
»  Bacrrevs, Baowuas. 
yy ex, (Zaz.) Piyas. 
For, in fact, sin non Attic Greek was the favourite termination of mascu- 
line agents, as we see in Cosmas, Ducas, and other proper names of the Middle 
Ages. So for the Attic dpromouds they preferred the shorter form dprds, for 
@pohoyorrowos, @pohoyas, and many others. The prevalence of this termination 
is specially marked by the systematic use of the form B\érwvras for Bdérwv as 
the nominative of the participle, and that in both genders. The termination os 
of the second declension is sometimes used in the same way, as yépos for yépwv, 
dpdxos for dpaxwv; of which confusion we have examples also in the classic 
authors, as d\aoropos (HomER, AMSCHYL., and Sopu.) for dddorwp, pdptupos for 
pedptup. To the same category of regularisation belong, of course, the forms 
KaNyTEpos, ToAOTaTOs, peyadyHTEpos, meyaddraros, for the well-known irregular 
forms of the classical grammar. 
Proposition XX V.—The previous observations relate exclusively to the 
changes that time has wrought on individual words, apart from their relation 
to one another. Now, the elements of language which indicate the method 
of the connection of one word with another, or of one sentence with another, are 
suggest any very satisfactory explanation” of the phenomenon. The explanation seems simply to be 
that, in the case of most nouns, which are not agents, we think of them regularly as objects of our 
thoughts and feelings, that is, grammatically, we generally use the objective case; and even in the case 
of agents, we feel more strongly, and have to express more frequently, our action on them than their 
action on us, as, J ike nim, I hate nim, J tev wim, I order um, I forbid ur, &e. 
