sentence (the so-called numerus oratorius) is satisfied with a development at the close of the sentence (cf. Cicero, De Oratore, iii. 46). But also the difference in the kind of intonation in many languages, depending on the position and nature of the accented syllable, įs explainable only by the nature of rhythm. This is true especially of the distinction of the acute (öğús), grave (Bapús), and extended or circumflex (Teρiowμevos) in Greek, i.e. of elevated tone, depressed tone, and the tone composed of both, _, _, and _^ or ; of which the last two are only special modifications and representatives of the first, as of the normal tone. That the so-called acute or rising tone stands only on the penultimate or antepenultimate, while on the ultimate it is exchanged for the grave or falling tone, is explained by the fact that it constitutes the elevation of the rhythmical undulation of the voice, and therefore requires and presupposes a subsequent depression as the necessary support of the elevation; consequently that, where the latter is wanting, as on the last syllable, it can, of course, not noticeably rise, and becomes a low tone, or rather a relatively lower or depressed tone. But it rises again and becomes a high tone, as soon as a syllable is added to it, e.g. elkov, εἰκόνος ; ἀντὶ, ἀντίος, ὃς, ὅστις; σοφὸς, σοφία, and σοφόςτε; or when it stands at the close of a sentence, where on account of the pause it is enabled to rise. This is called also by the Greek grammarians ἐγείρειν τόνον (also ὀρθοτόνειν), in opposition to kolew, which was used of the depression in the 1 The height of the elevation is variable, and corresponds to the extent of the falling part (of which more hereafter). 2 The Jewish grammarians also call the accent on the final syllable 2, "below," i.e. deep tone, in opposition to by, "above," i.e. high tone, on the penultimate. As opposed however to the acute, i.e. sharp tone, it would be appropriately called the obtuse or suppressed tone (außλús, as it really is termed by one Greck grammarian); somewhat as in German poetry for similar reasons the monosyllabic rhymes are called obtuse, in contradistinction to the more melodious dissyllabic rhymes. * Something similar is found in Hebrew, where in pause the short vowel of the final syllable is lengthened, and the rejected penultimate is restored and receives the accent: katăl`, katāl“: katelū`, katāllū. one over the present low ore; e.g virtù, cent de, áde, pu te (Latin, low ione (the former therefore being rega did a 3 erect one, ps, the later as the recumben. cr inclined one). The same is the case with the Italian grams callables whh have become such through the oc the final syllabie (hence called voci trone), and thus na from the former high tone pieti, può, from the mor virtúte, pietáte, etc.). This intonation of the fal sylla) 14 of polysyllabic words, confl.cting, as it does, wh the nat rhythm, and hence many languages known or not we 3ognized, is in general unquestionably owing the preponderance which this syllable (always allable of formation or inction) has obtained, on the one hand, by i own weight (partly quantitate, partly logical or etymological,. on the other hand, by re incidental weakness of the oot, o. the incapacity of the yllable of formation or connecting vowel immediately preceding to receive the accent, or by the rejection of this syllable. It is owing, therefore, to the fact that the equilibrium between root and termination most clearly discernible in the Sanscrit) is pushed forward upon the latter. Hereelong, first, grave case-e."ngs. These are citho. absolutely grave, as -eì, ì (-Tì, -10), as mandaue, or (which 1 take to be a case-ending, instrument is the lik of which are f d in most of the adverbial endings); or the relatively grave the genitive and dat ve of the third declension of alı mum. 1 in monosyllabus. as unvòs,, with unva, μives 1 This is, to be sure, in re not recgnizable in the short endings of these cases in the Sing. of the 2d Del.; but it is in the 1st and 20. here the short vowels of the Nom., Acens., and Vcc., a and o, are lengther and those already long aaccented take the circumflex: 75, ?; -ov, e but -, -a, -os, -ov, -e: -âs, -â; -í¡s, -?; -oû, -ậ; -aîv cîs, but -à, -ù; -às, -oùs. This is explained by the Sanserit, in whicl. these cases together with the locative and instrumenta are the oblique cases, and have org dags, o contradistinction to the weaker ondings of t casus recti (to wheb. besides the No.n. and Voc., also the Accus. blon), and are charecterized by reciprocal action and equilibrium between reot and termination, formation endings and case-endings, as in all parts of specel. As here casus obligeas, and in the verb the modus obliquus as opposed to the rectus, are desiga, ted by strong or terminations, so, on the other hand, also Trine geruel, es opi 3 he normal masculine, as in ali languages. (sometimes with an abbreviation of the root, as xepòs, xepì, with χεῖρα; πυρὸς, μυός, fron. πύρ, μὓς), or in dissyllables with the expulsion of the vowel of the syllable of formation, as πατρὸς, ἀνδρὸς, γαστρὸς instead of πατέρος, etc. (also transferred to μητρός, θυγατρὸς instead of μήτερος, etc., like θρηκός instead of θρήϊκος), κυνὸς instead of κυόνος (more of the same in Sanscrit). Next, here belongs a series of formation-endings joined, as a general rule, to the simple root. Thus, the participles of the 2d Aor. act. and pass. -v, -òv and -eìs, -èv (Sanscrit -ant, -at), the Perf. act. -s, -via, -òs (Sanscrit -'vân, fem. -ushî, neut. -vas from ivans); e.g. þìïòv together with φεύγων, τυπεὶς with τύψας ; likewise the participles in -ds, -εὶς, -ous, -ùs, neut. -àv, -èv, etc. of the verbs in -u (Sanscrit -ant, -vant, neut. at, -vat); pass. Part. -7òs, with rejection of the connecting vowel (Sanscrit -itas, -tàs), c.g. TUTTÒS, σTĂTÒS, Betòs, tätòs, K\ŬTòs (also Sanscrit tuptàs, sthitis, dhītàs, tātùs, s'ru'tas). Again, substantives from the simple root, sometimes with to el modified; as, the grave feminine ending -ή, - (Sanserit a eg. τομὴ, φυγὴ, φθορὰ ; ονὴ, e.g. ἡδονὴ, avovn, Sanscrit -a e.g. játand, vandana; and denominatives in -tà (Sanscrit ju), also -ùs, -tùs, -às (-ados); and the masculine-eds (Sanscrit -us, ûs), as, Toμeùs ; -TǹP (Sanscrit -tr. accus. taram and taram) fem. -τρίς, e.g. θύτὴρ, δοτήρ, πατὴρ, but unrηp (Sanscrit piti from pâ, but mâtâ); -μòs (Sanscrit -mas) and fem. -un (from short stems, otherwise -nun, etc.), but neut. -μα (Suserit man and mam), ως θεσμός, δεσμός, σμὴ, στιγμὴ, but θῆμα, στίγμα. Adjectives: added to the simple stem, os (Sanscr. -ds, trasis), as φανὸς, τομὸς, -νὸς pass.=-τὸς (Sanscrit -nas); denom. -ivòs, -ewòs (Sanscrit -in. -inàs), -λòs, -nλòs, -wλòs (Sanscrit -làs, -alàs, -ilas, -ulas), from which the abstract -ωλὴ; -ρὸς with the connecting vowel -ερός, -ηρός, -ωρὸς (Sanscrit -ràs, -iràs, -uràs, -êras, -ôras), -ixòs, -aкòs (Sanscrit -akás, -ikàs); -vs neut. -ù (Sanscrit -ùs, -ù) from which again -VKòs (Sanser. -ukàs), -ǹs neut. -ès (San.cr. -ás, -as). In general ་་ Cf. on the Semitic languages my "Abhandlung über das System der Seit. Demonstrativbildung u. s. w." in the "Zeitschrift für Künde des Mrge lands" ii. 150 sq. that which draws the tone to one ending rather than another not different in quantity, is the more pointed concrete significance, as e.g. the concrete, as opposed to the purely abstract, a positive gender, as opposed to the lack of gender (neuter), a derivative, individualized notion, as opposed to a general, radical notion. Cf. the same ending as concrete, -òs, as abstract masc. and neut. -os, adj. -ùs, -ǹs, -eùs, vs. abstr. neut. -os; masc., fem. -μòs, -μn, vs. neut. -μa. In another class of monosyllables and dissyllables, especially particles-like the prepositions, indefinite pronouns, and adverbs-which either receive no tone and lean upon another word (enclitics), or at the most receive, like dissyllables, the grave accent, their incapacity to take the rising slide lies in the dependent character of the notion which they represent, and their consequent close connection with the following or foregoing word. But as soon as, by a change in their position or meaning, they become independent, the unaccented words and enclitics receive the grave, the others the acute accent, e.g. è, ds, and ἔξ, ὥς, ; περι, πέρι; τις, τις, τίς; ποτε, ποτέ, πότε. In like manner the verbs eiu and pnu, which on account of their close connection with other words often stand without accent, have, when in a different position, the acute accent on the final syllable of all the forms of the present, as, eiμì, éσTÒv, etc., which otherwise do not have it, and or then receives the acute, čσT. A perfect analogy to this is furnished in the above-mentioned Hebrew accentuation in the course of the sentence (kat lù) as distinguished form that of the pause kata'lû.1 Finally, as regards the prolonged or 1 The above examples may suffice to illustrate the part which the rhythmical law has in the position of the grave accent—a point which needs and deserves a minute and thorough investigation, but which I could here only touch upon incidentally. Yet I can now at least refer to the complete presentation of the facts and the comparison with the Sanscrit in Bopp's Vergleichende Accentuationssystem, although the principle is there not recognized. The view above propounded respecting this accent, as being low tone, conflicts with the prevalent doctrine, according to which it is made equivalent to tonelessness. This conception rests, it is true, on the unanimous testimony of the Greek and Latin grammarians, who also, following Dionysius Thrax and his commentators, make the inference that therefore all unaccented syllables should strictly be circumflex tone, that which determines its use instead of the acute accent, lies also in the rhythmical relation between marked with this accent; and the odd statement is even added, that the ancient, more accurate grammarians really had so written (of which of course there is no trace to be found in the MSS.); vid. Villoison, Anecdota ii. 111 sq., 118 sq. On this notion rests furthermore the singular designation of the verba wapočúтova by Bapúrova, which is also found as early as Dionysius Thrax (art. gramm. cap. 16, in Fabricius, biblioth. gr. vii. 31). And this view might be traced back even to the authority of Plato, Crat. 35 (the oldest mention of accents, of course only of the oral accents), where undoubtedly Bapeîa is used, in contradistinction to ὀξεία, of a syllable that has become toneless (φι in Δίφιλος, from Διῒ and φίλος). Nevertheless I do not hesitate to pronounce this notion a misunderstanding on the part of the ancient grammarians, such as are so often found in them, as in the earlier grammarians of every nation. Only so much seems to be true in it: the word Bapela, in distinction from geîa as used of an accented syllable, was used also (and perhaps first, if we may draw a conclusion from that passage in Plato) of an unaccented syllable (for both words, as used by Plato, relate to syllables, not to posedíɑ, as in later writers), oğús and ỏɛúvw being probably at first used only in the wider sense of the intonation (properly speaking, the making sharp or prominent) of a syllable in general, that is, exactly like our "rise" and "fall," by which we understand primarily only accent and lack of accent. But this holds of course only of the oral pronunciation, not of the signs now used. That the inventors of these designated by only the absence of accent, and originally applied it to every unaccented syllable (which in that case, to be sure, they must have done), is too foolish a thing to accuse them of; but it is also positively senseless, because it is in contradiction to the actual use of the sign on the ultimate. For if it is nothing but a sign of tonelessness, then it is incomprehensible what it has to do just here, since with this exception it never stands on the unaccented syllables. But if, as Dionysius and his followers say (what is quite true), it here stands instead of the acute accent in the midst of a sentence (ev T σvvéreia, vid. Villoison ii. 112), then that is a new significance, different from the other, and this, as the only one actually in use, is also the only one, and nothing more is to be said about it, except to state the kind of the tone. Accordingly that alleged significance of tonelessness, which never appears in actual use, is at any rate a transcendental, prehistoric one, and without any practical validity; without doubt, however, even as an alleged fact of literary history, from the very first groundless, and the offspring of a false inference. It is rather quite clear that the sign, which is likewise a tone-sign, can denote nothing but a kind of tone different from the acute; indeed the invention of various signs necessarily implies the observance of various kinds of intonation; and to this must be referred also the terms ogeîa and Bapeîa in the language of grammarians (what kind of tone it designates, is clear enough of itself, and its use is, I trust, sufficiently illustrated above). It is therefore, time that our philologists stop repeating that meaningless fable, which the thoughtful Buttmann (ausführliche Gr. § 9, 2) gives with the discreet remark added, "according to the theory of the ancients," and § 13 A. 3 attempts to modify and rectify against |