210 EEV. J. IVERACH MUNRO, M.A.^ ON THE WITNESS OP 



genitive, in u or o the old nominative. Perhaps more interesting 

 and convincing still, you will find the old genitive in one part of 

 the verb and the nominative in another. The language had lost 

 all idea of their origin, but there they are side by side. Take the 

 e in Latin, for example, of onoiieo. The e is none other than our old 

 friend the genitive. But why should the perfect of moneo be 

 monui, u taking the place of e ? The answer is that they built 

 their wall with the stones they had, and took the u of the old 

 nominative as their perfect. The form domiii perfect of domare, 

 rare as the perfect of a verb in a, is probably a survival of what 

 was once much more extensively used. Indeed, the m itself 

 may have developed out of the ti with the pronominal i 

 affixed. 



These facts illustrate one set of a s, i s (c s), and ti s (o s) in 

 Indo-European, and some of their uses. Professor Sayce says, 

 Preface to the second edition of Introduction to the Science of 

 Language, p. x : " But as de Saussure was the first to notice, there 

 was more than one e and more than one 6 in the parent speech. 

 There was, on the one hand, an e and an 6 which interchanged 

 with one another, as in Xiyere and Xeyofiev, the e, as Pick has 

 discovered, marking an originally accented syllable, and the 6 

 an unaccented ; while on the other hand we find traces of another 

 and independent o as in irocrLf;, potis, as well as of another and 

 independent e." 



The facts do not appear to warrant mere accent as the cause 

 of interchange of e and o, but the two sets undoubtedly exist. 

 We have already illustrated one, the other is found between the 

 biliteral roots — for example, iroai^, to use Professor Sayce's 

 instance. These roots themselves form a most important part 

 of the proof of the original identity of Semitic-Indo-European, 

 which I can do no more than refer to here. Colonel Conder has, 

 however, laid us under an obligation in this respect by his 

 valuable paper " On the Comparison of Asiatic Languages," Vol. 27 

 of the " Transactions of the Victoria Institute." 



These vowels play an important part in the development of 

 Semitic, and the philologist cannot be too careful in making sure 

 whether the u is that of the old nominative ending or the active 

 u of the primitive stem ; or to speak more exactly as well as 

 more comprehensively, to which set of vowels any ablaut 

 belongs. 



To show how far-reaching and important the distinction is : 

 There is in the Hebrew triliteral verb of the first form, or Qal, a 

 passive participle of the form qd-tid, that is with a in the first 

 syllable and u in the second. The u in the second syllable is 



