= APPENDIX I. ON THE LOCATIVE CASES. = 1. In Tables III. IV. and in IIa., we find the postposition Aṛ (= Latin Ad Irish Ag) joined to accus. case. Asam-ar, ad aram; Spinam-ar, ad mensulam; Spantim-ar, ad patinam; but in concord with another accusative the final y vanishes; as tertiam-a(r) spanti(m). This use of ar, a- is wholly confined to those tables, and seems to indicate their antiquity. = 2. Final -en (= Latin In with accus. Greek eis) is also found in Table III. IV. alone. Arwam-en, els &poupav, in arvum; Wocom-en, in focum; Esonom-en, in sacrum; are the only instances with accusative. With dative case, the same once expresses rest; viz. Arwe-n, èv ȧpoúpą. But final n in Umbrian always tends to become m, as in Latin musam for μovσav, num for μv; moreover final m readily vanishes. It is instructive to find in Ib. 16, Pone menes Aceroniamem, Quum venies in Aquiloniam, (where final -em is evidently corrupt for -en) and in the parallel place of the later dialect, VIb. 52, Ape Acesoniam-e benust, Postquam in Aquiloniam venerit; where -em has become -e, At the same time, for the case of rest, "At Aquilonia,” we have Aceronie (the mere dative) Ib. 43, and Acersonie-m, (dative with -m-em = -en, in) VIIa. 52. Thus just enough is preserved to clear up the origin of these terminations. 3. Some uncertainty hangs over the particle -ne, which we cannot overlook in Menz-ne, apud mensam, side by side with Menzarum, mensarum. Besides this, there is Armu-ne, apud exercitum, where apparently -ne is joined to ablative, not to dative. Does this distinguish -ne from en, as in and apud? Menz(â)-ne, or Menze-ne? of the a-declension, and Aṛmu-ne of the o-decl. are our only instances. [Dicamne (IIa. 8) I now see to have a widely different interpretation. Ufestne, IV. 22, is wholly dark. In the a-declension the prevalent forms are as follows:: -en. tote-me, in urbe totam-e, in urbem toter-e, in urbibus Totaf-e, may be replaced by Totaf-em; so that -e, -em no doubt mean Totêre is euphonic for Totêse; as Facurent for Facusent, Totarum for Totasum, Ererec for Eresec; even in the old dialect, s between two vowels becoming r. A.K. are disposed to treat Totese as a variation of the dative Totes, similar to Tuaîo for Tiμaîs: but this seems to open the new question, whether Tuaîo itself is not abbreviated from TIμaîo-EV, and similarly Totere for Totês-en. In the singular, Tote-me is anomalous. Is it for Tote-ne? If so, m changes to n in the middle of a word; and why is it not Totâ-me, with abl. as Armu-ne? It seems a lame reply,-"Tota-me would confound the thought with that of Totam-e." To avoid confusion, it would have been obvious rather not to corrupt n to m than to change ablative to dative. In fact in the o-declension this confusion does exist. Esonome (apparently) means in sacro, or in sacrum: whether from confounding Esono-me with Esonom-e(n), there are no means of deciding. In Ib. 14, we have Wapef-em awiecluf-e, represented in VIb. 51 (later dialect) by Uapef-e auieclu. The former shows an attempt at concord, converting the postposition into a case, by adding -e to Awiecluf. See III. 20. 4. A new difficulty rises in two passages, where the meaning is clear; Esme pople, in hoc populo (or intra hunc populum), and Esmei stahmei, intra hoc templum. Why have we datives? The question is the same as we just now put concerning Tote-me. Apparently then the -me of Esme is the same as of Toteme. Is then Esme contracted from Eseme? (I see nothing gained by inventing a new demonstr. Esmo Eso.) Esme contracted is so closely in analogy to Menzne, that (the sense being the same) we seem forced to identify the -me with the -ne, although the latter governs an ablative in Armu-ne. Perhaps we ought to expect, in regard to the case of Rest, such unaccountable irregularities, when in Greek the πτνοφι, ουρανοφι, στηθεσφι perplex us, while we have in Latin Brundusii, at Brundusium, Belli, at war; which look like genitives, although we read Carthagini, at Carthage; Tibure, at Tivoli. Whoever can believe that Brundisii is a "dative in disguise," may well believe the same of Aṛmu in Aṛmune. What if the radical o which generally vanishes in the dative of the Umbrian, stood its ground in the composition of the dative with -ne, exceptionally? Then Aṛmune means Armoe-ne. I have no better solution. APPENDIX II. ON DERSUA, MERSTA. Dersua has a moral notion akin to "favourable” in every passage. For instance VIb. 51, "Then let him invoke Parrha dersua; and let him not turn back until he get a sight of the dersua. After he has seen the dersua," etc.; where the general idea is "the lucky bird.” Dersecor in VIa. 26, an epithet of armies, cannot mean appearing in a quarter of the heavens, but must mean something like well-omened. Again, Mersta is an opposite to Dersua, VIa. 15, 16: yet it too in its own limits is lucky. This appears from the emphatic repetition, Merstaf aueif, merstaf anglaf esonaf, VIa. 3. Notoriously in antiquity Dextra and Sinistra were, each in its turn, lucky; although Sinistra might also be unlucky. Cicero says (Divin. 2, 39), “Haud ignoro quae bona sint, sinistra nos dicere, etiamsi dextra sint:" "I am not unaware that, whatever is good, we call sinister, even if it be on the right hand;" i.e., the true sense of sinister was fortunate, prosperous; its secondary sense, left. This agrees with the two Greek words for "left," ebávvuos well-omened, and apiσrepòs an irregular derivative from poros, as though Optimusculus, "second best?" Is it by chance that in Gaelic and Irish Sonas means prosperity, whence might come Sonas-ter αριστερός : Be that as it may; if ἀριστερὸς be connected with ǎpioтos, aperǹ, 'Apns, then as 'Apns in Italy is Mars, (and appŋy is Mas, maris), so poros might be Mersto. [I am aware that Vir, virtut, side by side with Marem, Martem deride à priori reasoning as to what must be.] On the other hand Dersua is certainly very like değiά. When the sense of the two words Dersua, Mersta must fulfil just the conditions which de§ià and åpiotepà do fulfil, it is far more probable that the words etymologically coincide, than that the double similarity of sound be the result of pure accident. Besides, Dersecor VIa. 26, is excellently represented in sense and sound by değio: is this also accident? = Dersua and Mersua certainly mean something: yet Messrs. A.K. do not help us to guess what they can mean. They have no counter theory. What is to be said against this obvious hypothesis, started (I learn from them) by Grotefend? 1. That we already have Destro for right, and Nertru for left. This is as though we refused to believe Degiós to mean right, and apiσtepòs left, because değiτepòs is right, and vvvμos left. Latin also has two words for left, viz., lævus connected with Greek; and Sinister, perhaps Sabine, and connected with Umbrian and Gaelic. Moreover Destro is obviously detrepo in disguise, and Dersua is to Destra nearly as defià to deţiτepá. Against such coincidences it is in vain to argue that "ther in Dersua remains unaccounted for." Such delicate accuracy assumes that a language is equably developed by one law; whereas, in fact, it is the product of many inconsistent laws acting at once, and it is sure to import both words and analogies from foreign sources. Loyal and Legal are both English : this is but a type of a multitude of instances. Besides we have Desua as well as Dersua; Aceronia, Acersonia, Acesonia, for the same place. 2. A more formidable objection arises from comparing Ia. 1, 2, with VIa. 1; which seem to show Pernaie Postnaie as replaced by Dersua and Mersta. Now if the former mean Antica, Postica, how can the latter mean Dextra, Sinistra ? for what is in front is not at the right hand. If there were no other way of escape, I should render Pernaie, Postnaie, early and late (as I did in my first paper) rather than abandon the obvious sense of Dersua and Mersta, while unable to imagine any substitute; for our proof that Antica, Postica are the truer rendering, begins and ends in the fact that these are words common with Latin augurs. Nevertheless, Messrs. A.K. themselves, in a remarkable quotation from Paulus Diaconus, remove our difficulty (vol. i. 98); for he says: "Denique et quæ ante nos sunt, antica, et quae post nos, postica dicuntur; et dexteram anticam, sinistram posticam dicimus." I am incompetent to canvass the subtle explanation offered of these words. Be the cause what it may, the fact is attested that, through some confusion or other, what is one moment called Antica, may the next be called Dextera. The Sabine augury, used at the installation of Numa Pompilius in Livy, is irreconcileable with Varro's doctrine, probably Latin; the former making Antica the east, the latter making it the south. Cicero, above quoted, says that things on the right are called Sinistra, if they are good; yet Virgil uses Sinistra of things bad. No à priori reasoning avails us in such a mixture of inconsistencies, nor must even verbal contradictions shock us. STEPHEN AUSTIN, PRINTER, HERTFORD. LINGUISTIC PUBLICATIONS OF TRÜBNER & CO., 57 AND 59, LUDGATE HILL, LONDON, E.C. Adi Granth (The); OR, THE HOLY SCRIPTURES OF THE SIKHS, translated from the original Gurmukhī, with Introductory Essays, by Dr. ERNEST TRUMPP, Professor Regius of Oriental Languages at the University of Munich, etc. Roy. 8vo. cloth, pp. 866. £2 12s. 6d. Ahlwardt.-THE DIVÁNS OF THE SIX ANCIENT ARABIC POETS, Ennábiga, 'Antara, Tarafa, Zuhair, 'Algama, and Imruolgais; chiefly according to the MSS. of Paris, Gotha, and Leyden, and the collection of their Fragments: with a complete list of the various readings of the Text. Edited by W. AHLWARDT, 8vo. pp. xxx. 340, sewed. 1870. 128. Aitareya Brahmanam of the Rig Veda. 2 vols. See under HAUG. Alabaster.-THE WHEEL OF THE LAW: Buddhism illustrated from Siamese Sources by the Modern Buddhist, a Life of Buddha, and an account of H.M. Consulate-General in Siam; M.R.A.S. Demy 8vo. pp. lviii. and 324. 1871. 148. Alif Lailat wa Lailat.-THE ARABIAN NIGHTS. 4 vols. 4to. pp. 495, 493, 442, 434. Cairo, A.H. 1279 (1862). £3 38. This celebrated Edition of the Arabian Nights is now, for the first time, offered at a price which makes it accessible to Scholars of limited means. Andrews.-A DICTIONARY OF THE HAWAIIAN LANGUAGE, to which is appended an English-Hawaiian Vocabulary, and a Chronological Table of Remarkable Events. By LORRIN ANDREWS. 8vo. pp. 560, cloth. £1 11s. 6d. Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland (The Journal of the). Published Quarterly. Vol I., No. 1. January-July, 1871. 8vo. pp. 120-clix, sewed. Illustrated with 11 full page Plates, and numerous Woodcuts; and accompanied by severa folding plates of Tables, etc. 78. Vol. I., No. 2. October, 1871. 8vo. pp. 121-264, sewed. 48. Vol. I., No. 3. January, 1872. 8vo. pp. 265-427, sewed. 16 full-page Plates. 4s July and Oct, 1872. 8vo. pp. 137-312. 9 plates and a map. 68. Vol. V., No. 1. Vol. V., No. 2. 5s. Vol. VI., No. 3. 500 20,6,78 April, 1873. 8vo. pp. 136. With 8 plates and two maps. 4s. January, 1877. 8vo. pp. 98, sewed. With 8 plates. 4s. With 8 plates. 58. With 4 plates and a map. 8vo. pp. 146, sewed. With 11 plates. 5s. 8vo. pp. iv. and 184, sewed. With 7 plates. 5s. 1 |