Neither this primitive, äxw, nor any one of these its five first derivatives are now found in lexicons, except only the verb ἀκέομαι.

Valckenaer undertakes to prove the former existence in the language of them all, by a numerous progeny of words, which yet remain; and which, according to the uniform analogy of the language, must have derived from them their origin.

Of these derivatives he has brought together an hundred, through all of which he discovers a certain resemblance in signification; that, to wit, of sharpness-the verb axw having had, he thinks, the same meaning with the Latin verb acuo, found in Greek among its first regular derivatives.

To conclude this analogical reasoning which leads to the discovery of lost primitives may be compared with that by which an architect is guided in his restoration of an ancient ruin. If he see a range of columns; interrupted here and there by intervals of double the usual space; and about them, scattered fragments of the same material; parts to all appearance of columns of the same size and order with the rest; he will with certainty infer that there once stood in these vacancies pillars like the rest; and, from examination of the fragments, and of the columns yet standing, he can easily determine what parts are wanting to complete the colonnade.

LECTURE V.

ANALOGY OF

THE GREEK LANGUAGE.

HAVING in the preceding lecture considered the subject of analogy, as contained in Valckenaer's "Observationes Academicæ," I proceed now, in continuation, to explain the character of those other works, which were spoken of together with Valckenaer's, as having relation to this subject.

Von Lennep's Lectures, which next claim our attention, are entitled "Prælectiones Academicæ de Analogia Linguæ Græcæ, sive Rationum Analogicarum Linguæ Græcæ Expositio." They treat of the subject of Analogy in general, but dwell especially on that part of it which relates to the formation and inflexion of verbs. Previous to the publication of Von Lennep's Lectures, while

they were circulated in manuscript only, and in Holland chiefly, Villoison introduced them to the knowledge of European scholars generally, by a sort of abstract, which he gave in the notes to his edition of Longus, of Von Lennep's doctrine of the Greek verb. It was therefore that the edition of those lectures published by Scheidius after Von Lennep's death is dedicated to Villoison.

Von Lennep considers the simplest forms in the Greek language to be verbs consisting of the five simple vowels with the termination of the verb, i. e. w added to them, as aw, ɛw, iw, ow, vw; or with the termination, which he thinks more ancient, as αμί, εμι, ιμι, ομι, υμιο Of all which simple forms he undertakes to show, if not the actual, at least the former existence in the language. But, passing over this division of his subject, which he handles much as Valckenaer does, let us confine ourselves to a brief survey of his system of the Greek verb.

He observes, that as there are but three persons, so there are properly but three tenses; the present, the future and the perfect. These therefore were the tenses first invented and employed, and from them, accordingly, do we find nouns derived, and not from the other tenses of the verb; which are to be regarded only as degrees of these, adopted at a later period to perfect the language.

;

before w, The ter

The future is formed from the present in the active voice of verbs in w by inserting and the perfect by changing w into xa. minations of the present and future are w, 85, 81, ετον, επον, ομεν, επε, ουσι ; those of the perfect α, ας, ε, ατόν, ατον, αμεν, ατε, ασι. To these simple rules he makes all supposed anomalies conform. The second future falls under the same analogy; the tense improperly so called by grammarians being, in fact, a regular future, derived from some obsolete present tense of a kindred verb. Thus TUT, λιπώ, etc. are derived from τυπέω, λιπέω ; of which the futures τυπέσω, λιπέσω, being pronounced by the Ionians τυπέω, λιπέω, were contracted by the Attics to τυπῶ, λιπῶ. So too both futures of the passive voice, both futures of the middle voice, and the tense called paulo-post-futurum, are all reduced to a single future passive, derived from different kindred forms of the same verb-rupehooμa is from the active future τυφθήσω of the verb τυφθέωσυπή σομαι from τυπήσω, the future of the verb τυπέω. In Aristophanes is found a future of another kindred verb, viz. Turrhow in Nub. v. 1445—rutchdes in Plut. v. 21-and the passive TUTTdoua in Nub. v. 1382. This Turrhdouas might with the same propriety be called a third future passive, as ruμas a second; but this comes from τυπτέω, as τυφθήσομαι does from συφθέω, and τυπήσομαι from τυπέω. In like

manner the future middle, as it is called, rúfquai, is formed from rú↓w, the future of the verb Túπw ; and the second future middle, ruržual, from the Ionic future τυπέω (for τυπέσω) of the verb τυπέω from this Ionic future active being formed τυπέομαι, which the Attics contracted to rurouμal. So likewise the paulo-post-futurum, rerú↓oua, is, in fact, the future passive of the verb τετύπω.

Thus all those five tenses, the two futures passive, the two middle, and the paulo-post-futurum, are reduced to one and the same tense-the future passive—and follow the same rule in their formation; but are to be referred to different kindred verbs.

And, as the second futures active and passive, with the two futures middle, and the paulo-postfuturum have no existence as separate tenses, unless in the imagination of grammarians: such is the case also with the second aorists active and middle; which are, in fact, imperfect tenses; the former of the active, the latter of the passive voice. And, in like manner, both the aorists, as they are called, of the passive voice are really imperfect tenses of verbs in . Thus TUTOV is an imperfect tense, related to rúre precisely as srúrroV is to τύπτω ; and ἐτυπόμην, the supposed second aorist of the middle voice, comes from TÚTopal, as the imperfect ετύπτομην from τύπτομαι. The, so