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 eithe 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. 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. ¿§, ¿s, 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 eσTɩ then receives the acute, čσTI. A perfect analogy to this is furnished in the above-mentioned Hebrew accentuation in the course of the sentence (katlù) as distinguished form that of the pause kata'lû.1 Finally, as regards the prolonged or

But

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 napočúтova 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 sit 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 Bapeîa, in distinction from otela 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 posadía, as in later writers), oğús and ỏgúvw 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 Tỷ σvvéweig, 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 oţeîa 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

elevation and depression. For, as the acute accent, as was seen above, is in place only when the elevation, through its quantity or its tone, stands in a certain equilibrium with the following depression (_,~,~,or), so, on the other hand, the protracted accent takes its place when the syllable of elevation, through its nature and position, has a decided preponderance over the following depression, or (by means of contraction) absorbs it into itself. Hence the ancient grammarians describe this tone not merely as simply protracted, but as curved, i.e. as rising and then falling, thus uniting in itself elevation and depression,1 which was appropriately represented by the sign or, and designated by the term περισπώμενος (also συνημμένος and κεκλασμένος οι TEPIKEKλAOμÉVOS. Consequently it stands (1) not on a syllable merely lengthened by position, but only on one long by nature, because only such an one is capable of protraction and of a preponderance; (2) not on the antepenultimate (because the two following syllables completely balance the elevation), but only one of the last two; (3) also not on a long penultimate, when one equally long follows (because then again the depression forms the same equilibrium with the elevation as in the preceding case, and keeps the latter within bounds), but only when the following syllable is short, and thus gives the preponderance to the preceding, and gives to the accent full liberty to extend itself at pleasure, and thus, in a certain sense, to take a part of the depression into itself, as is wont to be done involuntarily in following the rhythmical impulse to fill up the measure and restore the equilibrium, 0.5. πρώτος = but πρώτου = (whereas aos is

his own faint, yet well-grounded doubts, nevertheless, without examining more carefully the correctness of the premise. Also the usual designation of the words in question as acúтova I must consider incorrect, and not justified by the fact that they appear at the close of the sentence. This position gives the accent a special force, and raises it thus to a high tone, but proves nothing as to the normal tone of the ultimate in connected discourse, any more than does in Hebrew the lengthening of a syllable in pause as to the normal quantity.

1 This is also virtually confirmed by the fact that in cases of enclisis another accent may follow this one immediately in the same word, as aŵuá pav, alás te

rather a pure trochee,=); (4) on the last syllable only either when it is known or obscurely felt to be a syllable formed by the contraction of two into one, hence really etymologically composed of rise and fall, as is shown in the sign ^ (musically represented⚫or), in which cases very early contractions have been retained in the feeling of the language (as, that of -v from -úwv, cf. Lat. -árum, found even in the Sanscrit), or when, as an inflection-ending, it receives special emphasis (a grave inflection-ending). Here belong, in the noun, in the 1st and 2d Decl., the terminations of the oblique cases of the genitive and dative, in distinction from those of the casus recti, which receive the simple grave tone (on which see p. 34, note): 1st Decl. -s, -î -aîv, -ŵv, -aîs, but -ǹ, -à -aì, -às; 2d decl. -oû, -@, -oîv, -ŵv, -oîs, but -à, -oì, -oùs; Attic 2d Decl. - -v, -ŵv, -ŵs, but -ws, -wv, -w -ŵ, -ws (only the Gen. sing. - deviates from the rule); contracted forms of the 3d Decl. -oûs, -oî, -oîv, -ŵv, -oîs, but - in the Nom. and Acc. sing. and dual. Here are to be reckoned also some adverbial forms, which strictly, as in all languages, are similar oblique cases; not only those that are commonly counted among this class, in -, -îs, -oû, -î for -, -oî (in names of places, as locative), as es̟, óμoû, eikî, but also, as I think, the most common adverbial ending -ws, when the final syllable is accented (cf. the Sanscrit adverbial endings -ât and -ăsja, the former ablative, the latter genitive of words in -as-os, from which -ws). So in the verb, the grave endings in the simple (shortened) stem of the 2d Aor. Inf. -eîv, Subj. pass. -ŵ, -s, etc., Imp. middle -oû, as also of the so-called 2d Fut. of

1 These are commonly explained by the rules of contraction, and for the recusant Accusative - (instead of - from -óa) an arbitrary analogy, i.e. conformity to the Nom., is assumed. But by reference to the above general law of declensions the difficulty is solved without doing any violence. The difficult Vocative oî, found with the Nom. & (whose diphthong also in Sanscrit undergoes a gunification, i.e. a diphthongification, of the i and u in the Voc. in ê, ô ai, au (eu)) has the circumflex probably on account of the diphthong (which, as being compound, is everywhere held to be longer than a simple long syllable, and accordingly can more easily draw the circumflex to itself), as eû from eùs (in an open syllable, made such by the dropping of the final s).

the verbs in A, μ, v, p: -ŵ, -eîs, etc., -eîv, -wv, and of the socalled Attic Fut. -i, -veis, etc.; whose strong circumflex endings I would derive, not, with Buttmann, from contraction after the previous rejection of the s in the future, but from the weak or pure stem and an inflection peculiar to itself, and independent of that of the 1st Fut. (as of the 1st Aor.).1 As to the cases in which this accent stands on monosyllables which seem to be neither contractions nor inflection-endings, the interrogatives πῶς, ποῖ, που, etc. are doubtless to be taken as case-endings, like the corresponding adverbial-endings; in other cases, the antithesis-as vûv and the enclitic vvv-and other emphasis, or an effort to make up for the smallness of the word by a counter-weight, as Tûρ, μûs, etc., may have led to it. Moreover it cannot but be that in final syllables or monosyllables which have also the downward slide the boundary between the two is often indistinct, and our present means of investigation allow us to come to no determinate result.

1 The very similarity and close relation to one another of the 1st Aor. and 1st Fut. on the one hand, and the 2d Aor. and 2d Fut. on the other, and on the contrary the total difference of the formations on both sides, clearly shows that we have before us here two different modes of formation of the Pret. and Fut., which go independently alongside of each other. In the Aor. this is already acknowledged; but it is true also of the Fut. The one, 1st Aor. and 1st Fut., is formed by welding on the auxiliary verb as (esse) in the corresponding forms, as is now evident from the Sanscrit, and repeats itself in almost all languages. The other, 2d Aor. and 2d Fut., however, is formed from the pure stem in its simplest form with strong mode-endings; the former often with a reduplication in front (so in Sanscrit); the latter has no analogy in Sanscrit, but has it in Latin, and is plainly, in strictness, a Subjunctive (like the Lat. Fut. in the 3d and 4th Conj.), which, as is well known, is most closely related to the Future. That those strong endings with the circumflex however, cannot have arisen merely from contraction, is shown by the Inf. of the 2d Aor. act. -eîv (Dor. -év or -îv, with -ev, -ny in the Pres.), which can be derived from no conceivable contraction, and by the Imp. middle -o, which at least does not conform to the rule of contraction, and points to an -éσo, consequently (as in -è of the Imp. act. of many words, in -éoal of the Inf. middle, and -v, -els of the Part.) can be explained only by an independent tendency of the accent towards the formation-endings, i.e. a tendency lying in the character of the formation. Since, nevertheless, in the case of - there are in Ionic corresponding resolved forms, it is obvious how little reliance can be placed on this argument in the other cases.