p 
 
 *62 ', AN. ESSAY 
 
 ON 
 
 ANALOGY IN SYNTAX 
 
 CQlDDLETON 
 
f 
 111 
 
 BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME 
 FROM THE 
 
 SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND 
 
 THE GIFT OF 
 
 Hetting W. Sage 
 
 1891 
 
 A..4.g,M,s: iJF-.li...J.9..a 
 

 DATE DUE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 MW\ 
 
 drtBKAK 
 
 rTOA'fo 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 GAYLORD 
 
 
 
 PRINTED IN U.S.A. 
 
 ' 
 
 Cornell University Library 
 p 671.M62 
 
 Essay on analogy in .syrtax. 
 
 3 1924 026 457 493 
 
The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924026457493 
 
AN ESSAY 
 
 ON 
 
 ANALOGY IN SYNTAX 
 
 ILLUSTRATED CHIEFLY FROM THE CLASSICAL LANGUAGES 
 
 WITH AN APPENDIX CONTAINING THE INSTANCES OF 
 
 SYNTACTICAL ANALOGY PECULIAR TO HERODOTUS 
 
 BY 
 
 G. MID D LET ON, B.A. 
 
 SCHOLAR OF EMMANUEL COLLEGE, CAMBKIDGE 
 
 LONDON 
 LONGMANS, GEE EN, AND CO. 
 
 AND NEW YORK: 15 EAST 16"> STREET 
 1892 
 
/CORNELL/^ 
 I UNIVERSITY 
 \ LjBRARY^ 
 
 H2r€)— ^-^f 
 
 /^, i±5Z0t> 
 
 ABEBDEEN UNIVERSITY EBESS. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The following pages comprise an extension of an 
 essay on Analogy in Syntax which was awarded the 
 Sudbury-Hardy man dissertation prize at Emmanuel 
 College, Cambridge, last year. 
 
 The books to which I am chiefly indebted are as 
 follows : Brugmann's Greek Syntax and Schmalz's 
 Latin Syntax in I wan Midler's Handbuch der 
 kl'assischen Altertiomswissenschaft ; Delbriick's Syntak- 
 tisehe Forschungen, vols. iv. and v. (the latter embracing 
 his Altindische Syntax) ; Delbriick's Ablativ Localis 
 Lnstrumentalis ; Monro's Homeric Grammar; Cauer's 
 Delectus Inscriptionum Graecarum; Eoby's Latin 
 Grammar; Draeger's Historische Syntax der lateinis- 
 ahen Sprache ; Wordsworth's Fragments and Specimens 
 of Early Latin; Cobet's Variae Lectiones; Whitney's 
 Sanskrit Grammar; Skeat's Gospel of St. Mark in 
 Gothic; Vincent and Dickson's Handbook to Modern 
 Greek. My chief obligations are due to H. Ziemer's 
 Das psychologische Moment in der Bildung syntak- 
 tischer Sprachformen, which forms the second part of 
 his Junggrammatische Streifzuge (Colberg, 1883). I 
 have adopted his threefold division of analogy, and 
 have taken a few illustrations from him which are 
 acknowledged in their proper places. 
 
I have taken a large number of examples from 
 Herodotus, whose style illustrates the principles of 
 analogy better than that of any other Greek author. 
 Like other early writers of prose, he is unfettered by 
 the traditional canons of literary expression, and writes 
 in a manner not far different from that which he might 
 have used in speaking ; and we may therefore expect 
 to find a very considerable freedom in his syntactical 
 usages. An appendix has been added in which an 
 attempt has been made to give a complete list of 
 the results of analogy which are peculiar to Herodotus. 
 I have used Stein's edition of Herodotus throughout,, 
 and have found Schweighauser's Lexicon Herocloteum 
 useful occasionally. 
 
 My special thanks are due to Mr. P. Giles, Fellow 
 of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, and University 
 Reader in Comparative Philology, for kindly reading 
 the whole of the proof-sheets and giving me many 
 valuable suggestions. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 § 1. The Scope of Analogy, ... 
 § 2. Formal Assimilation, ... 
 § 3. Assimilation of Meaning, 
 §4. Complex Analogy, 
 
 PA OK 
 
 7 
 
 'J 
 
 10 
 
 11 
 
 I. Formal Assimilation. 
 
 § 5. Gender, ... 
 
 § 6. Number, 
 
 § 7. Case, 
 
 § 8. Person, 
 
 S 9. With the Comparative, .. 
 
 $ 10. Tense 
 
 $ 11. Mood, 
 
 S 12. Voice, 
 
 § 13. Style, 
 
 t) 14. 
 
 § 15. Gender, 
 S 16. Number, 
 $ 17. Mood, 
 
 II. Assimilation of Meaning. 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 
 
 16 
 
 
 
 19 
 
 
 
 28 
 
 
 
 29 
 
 
 
 30 
 
 
 
 32 
 
 
 
 36 
 
 
 
 36 
 
 39 
 
 .' 40 
 
 41 
 
 
 
 44 
 
 III. Complex Assimilation. 
 
 $ 18 
 
 § 19. Gender, 
 
 § 20. Number, 
 
 $ 21. Case, 
 
 ij 22. Pregnant Constructions, 
 
 § 23. Person, 
 
 $j 24. Pronouns, 
 
 J 25. With Comparative and Superlative, 
 is 26. Tense, 
 
 45 
 45 
 46 
 47 
 56 
 57 
 58 
 58 
 60 
 
27. Mood, 
 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 61 
 
 28. Oratio Obliqua, 
 
 
 
 
 
 62 
 
 29. Voice 
 
 
 
 
 
 62 
 
 30. Infinitive Constructions, 
 
 
 
 
 
 64 
 
 31. Negatives, 
 
 
 
 
 
 68 
 
 32. Style, 
 
 
 
 
 
 69 
 
 33. Dissimilation, 
 
 
 
 
 
 71 
 
 34. Syntactical Analogy in Herodotus, . 
 
 
 
 
 
 72 
 
 Index of Authors, 
 
 
 
 
 
 87 
 
 Index of Subjects, 
 
 
 
 
 
 93 
 
ANALOGY IN SYNTAX. 
 
 § 1. Analogy has always been recognised as to some extent 
 an agent in speech-change, but it is only within the last few 
 years that the wideness of the principle has been understood, 
 and an attempt made to ©lassify the different forms of its 
 working. It was called in occasionally by Curtius to explain 
 forms that did not fit in with his particular theories, but 
 has been used much more freely and systematically by the 
 new school of philologists in explanation of apparent devia- 
 tions from the phonetic laws which according to them admit 
 of no exceptions. 1 The application of the principle to syntax, 
 however, has been the theme of but few treatises ; and this 
 in spite of the fact that its operations are much more ex- 
 tended there than in morphology. 
 
 In the history of forms, the two great influences at work 
 are in their nature widely apart. Phonetic change is purely 
 physiological, while change due to analogy always pre- 
 supposes thought. In the region of syntax, phonetic change 
 has naturally no place. All syntactical change is psycho- 
 logical, and one of the chief agents of this change is analogy. 
 
 In logic, analogy is the most unstable and untrustworthy 
 form of reasoning. The resemblance extends to syntax. A 
 sentence is the expression of thought, but an expression 
 which proceeds not so much on the lines of logical rules as on 
 the association of ideas. As Delbriick has pointed out, 2 this 
 
 1 See Brugmann, Gr. Gh: page 12. 
 
 - Syntaktische Forschungen, vol. iv. page 148. 
 
may be seen especially in the order of words in most of the 
 Indo-European languages. Seeing that the association of 
 ideas plays such an important part in the formation of sen- 
 tences, it is not remarkable that the several members of a 
 proposition should affect each other, or that syntactical 
 forms, united in the mind by some internal connexion, 
 should be found to exert a mutual influence. People are 
 continually making analogical, and therefore probably 
 false enthymemes, and so in syntax the spoken language 
 is continually making new formations on very slight 
 points of similarity, and without a thought as to whether 
 the new formations correspond with original forms. 
 Thus analogy works, as far as formal grammar goes, illo- 
 gically, until stereotyped forms arise, to depart from which 
 would be mere pedantry. It is in the spoken language, of 
 course, that this development is most widely seen, while in 
 literature it is in the early authors that we find the most 
 numerous examples. All periods of a language, however, 
 are full of the products of analogical change founded on the 
 association of ideas ; and if this principle is kept steadily in 
 view, many difficulties in syntax will disappear, and the rise 
 of many linguistic phenomena be easily accounted for. 
 
 Analogical formations are found in the earliest records of 
 every language, and no claim to antiquity, however great, is 
 enough to prove a construction entirely original, or free from 
 contamination, which must have been active as soon as 
 language came into being. Thus it is needless to justify, as 
 has been done, a construction like outo? r/v a£ta>Taro? rcov 
 Trpoyeyevrjuivav, "he was the most deserving of ( = more 
 deserving than) those that went before him," as strictly 
 logical and uncontaminated, simply because it has a parallel 
 in the Veda. The construction is due to the confusion of 
 thought and the habit of loose thinking inherent in the 
 
9 
 
 human mind, and no doubt as common among the original 
 Indo-Europeans as in the nineteenth century. Whether any 
 perfectly logical language ever did exist is a question that 
 admits of no documentary proof ; but it is certain that the 
 earliest records we have of any tongue exemplify most of 
 the general types of assimilation. 
 
 § 2. In words united into sentences we ordinarily get a 
 certain amount of agreement, that is, one word affects an- 
 other closely connected with it to this extent, that we shall 
 not find, e.g., one masculine and the other feminine, one 
 singular and the other plural, except for some special reason. 
 This amount of agreement is common to all Indo-European 
 languages. But there are many further cases where words 
 closely connected show an assimilation of form which one 
 would not expect to find, and which can be shown to be later 
 than the corresponding instances where the assimilation is 
 not carried out. The difference between the two consists 
 in this, that there are two kinds of formal analogy, one of 
 which is very early, and often Indo-European, for example, 
 the agreement of a verb with its subject in number ; and a 
 second kind, which is later and special, for example, the fre- 
 quent phenomenon of the predicate in the sub-oblique clauses 
 of Oratio Obliqua being turned into the infinitive to corre- 
 spond with the mood of the chief dependent clause. It is 
 often difficult to tell whether a given assimilation of form is 
 an early or a late development. As pointed out above, even 
 though it may be Indo-European, it is not necessarily free 
 from assimilation, as, from the uniformity of nature, the 
 principle must always have been in operation. Again, the 
 mere fact that an assimilation is found in several Indo-Euro- 
 pean languages does not prove that the construction belongs 
 to the original tongue, for independent development on 
 similar lines is a much commoner thing in syntax than is the 
 
10 
 
 corresponding phenomenon in morphology. One mighc as 
 well postulate a common linguistic origin for the construction 
 which different languages present of a noun of multitude 
 taking a plural verb. The usage is said to occur in Semitic 
 as well as in Indo-European languages, but the reason is 
 purely psychological, and does not necessarily come within 
 the scope of comparative philology. 
 
 Formal Analogy, 1 then, particularly as applied to its 
 working on non-assimilated and more original forms, may 
 be defined as follows : — Two forms which have originally 
 distinct functions are, through association of ideas caused 
 by proximity or frequent union, assimilated to each 
 other. 
 
 The working of this influence is seen to be very widely 
 spread, and comes up in tense, mood, voice, gender, number, 
 and case. The assimilation may be either progressive or 
 regressive, i.e., a form may be assimilated either to one which 
 follows it or to one which precedes it. To the assimilation 
 of form may be added that of position, and here it is that 
 the influence of assimilation on general style cemes in. 
 This last, however, must in great part be considered under 
 original as opposed to later assimilation. 
 
 § 3. Formal analogy gives -us likeness of form where we 
 might reasonably expect difference; the converse departure 
 from what may be called the normal form is found in The A s- 
 similation of Meaning. Here two forms which we might ex- 
 pect to find in agreement are outwardly different. Here, 
 too, we must look for a psychological reason. This section, 
 like the first, is due to the association of ideas, but the in- 
 fluence is exerted in the opposite way. We have outward 
 unlikeness, but inward likeness, that is, real assimilation in 
 
 1 Of. Ziemer, Junggrammatische Streifxiiye, page 63. 
 
11 
 
 the midst of seeming diversity. So Cic. Verr. ii. 2, 32, 
 huiusmodi monstrum, qui est assecutus. 
 
 Change of expression produced by real assimilation is 
 much less common than change due to formal assimilation, 
 and there are comparatively few cases which can be shown 
 to be not original. Such, for example, is the construction 
 where a singular noun of multitude 'takes ' a plural verb. 
 Again, when a grammatically masculine or feminine noun, 
 denoting an inanimate object has in the predicate a neuter 
 adjective, we probably have the older construction ; and this 
 supposition fits in with the modern theory of the develop- 
 ment of grammatical gender. 
 
 § 4. The third section, which is by far the most frequent, 
 presents by its very nature only non-original expressions. It 
 may be called Complex Analogy, and consists in the formation 
 of a third syntactical form out of a mixture of other two. 
 The two factors that go to make the new expression may be 
 outwardly dissimilar, but are united by an inward bond of 
 meaning, that is, by the psychological association subsisting 
 between the two original expressions. This kind of contami- 
 nation has always been a powerful agent in the development 
 of language. We cannot always trace it, and many expres- 
 sions that appear simple to us may in reality have arisen 
 from a complex system of analogical workings. Many 
 examples, however, exist, where it can be shown to a 
 certainty that a construction has arisen from a contamina- 
 tion of two earlier ones, and, nature being uniform, we can 
 apply the principle to more obscure cases, and by speculation 
 as to their history often arrive at important results. Let 
 us take an example of this mixture from Herodotus, iucovw, 
 "I hear," and its compounds, take throughout Greek the geni- 
 tive of the person speaking ; while ireidofiai, " I obey," takes 
 in the same way the dative of the person obeyed. Both 
 
12 
 
 these constructions, then, a/coveiv twos and ireiQeaQai rivt are 
 found in Herodotus, but from the inward similarity of 
 meaning subsisting between the two verbs, and from the 
 fact that they were thus associated in the mind, their con- 
 structions became completely confused, and two new usages 
 arose : (1) ukowiv tiv'i, (2) irddecrOal tcvos. Thus (1) Herod. 
 iv. 141, eTraKOvaa<; rq> irpunq) KeXevafiari, which is a mixture 
 of eTraicovaac; rod TrpdtTov KeXevcrfzaro^ and Tridofievos rq> 
 TTpa>TG> KeXeva-fiari. (2) Herod, vi. 12, ireidd>fie6a avrov, which 
 is contaminated from dicovwfj,ev avrov and Treodciofieda avrw. 
 
 The whole history of language is full of such develop- 
 ments. One verb, for instance, has a certain traditional 
 case-construction. If it is a word much used, the tendency 
 is for other rarer verbs of a similar meaning to take its con- 
 struction. The history of many such usages cannot now be 
 traced, but it is none the less certain that the tendency was 
 always an extremely common one. Take as a comparison 
 to case-construction the idiomatic use of certain prepositions 
 in English. Thus at after laugh, jeer, scoff, sneer, jest, 
 titter, giggle, and the like, probably comes from a single 
 instance ; while words of the converse meaning are also 
 associated together, but with a different construction. Thus 
 — to grieve for, to mourn for, to lament for. The construc- 
 tions have become stereotyped, and to depart from them 
 nowadaj's would be ungrammatical. 
 
 It is quite possible for this process of contamination to 
 come about for other reasons than a sense-resemblance in 
 two or more words. Anything that connects two words to- 
 gether in the mind, even slightly, may be enough to cause a 
 mixture of usages. Thus words denoting fulness take the 
 ablatival genitive in Greek, and sometimes the ablative in 
 Latin, from their psychological connexion with the contra- 
 positive notion of want, which, naturally enough, goes with 
 
13 
 
 the ablative. Similarly, mere outward resemblance of form 
 between two words may lead to their association in the mind 
 and so to their contamination. 
 
 Having thus sketched the different ways in which the 
 principle of analogy works, we shall proceed to examine 
 them at greater length. 
 
 I. Formal Assimilation. 
 
 This is found with gender, number, case, person, tense, 
 mood and voice. 
 
 §5. Gender. The chief question here is whether assimila- 
 tion or non-assimilation is the earlier. A comparison ot 
 Indo-European languages leads us to favour the view that 
 the former, if not original, is at all events found as far back 
 as we can go. That is, whenever we find an adjective quali- 
 fying a noun, the two together agree in gender. Of course, 
 it must always be kept in mind that we are dealing here not 
 with natural but with grammatical gender. The latter, in 
 the different Indo-European branches, is mainly arranged on 
 the lines of certain terminations, which became associated 
 with some special natural gender, from the starting-point of 
 some outstanding word which happened to have that termina- 
 tion. 1 (C'f. the use of -f as feminine in Sanskrit, starting pro- 
 bably from stri, a woman.) Then, by the working of analogy (1) 
 nouns with similar form, and (2) nouns with similar meaning - 
 would follow the start thus given. It was only natural that 
 adjectives should follow this analogy, and agree in gender 
 with the words they qualify. Some of these adjectives were 
 no doubt originally nouns, 3 and their terminations, when 
 
 1 See Brugmann on the subject in Techme^s Zeitschrift, vol. iv. p. 100 ff. 
 
 2 So, e.g., Spoo-or became feminine on analogy of epa-rj. Note that 
 Spoo-os is not found in Homer. 
 
 3 Gf. expressions like dvrjp aXteis, and Latin, homo servus ; musca 
 femina. 
 
14 
 
 they became adjectives, were often changed to agree with 
 their corresponding nouns. All this, however, must have 
 taken place in Indo-European times, and, from the evidence 
 of the cognate languages, we may safely put down the 
 assimilation as existing in the primitive speech. 
 
 When, however, a noun stands in the subject, and an 
 adjective agreeing' with it in the predicate, the case is some- 
 what different. If the noun is grammatically masculine or 
 feminine, but naturally neuter, the adjective may be neuter. 
 Now it would be quite possible to consider this as an instance 
 of original non-assimilation, which owes its survival to the 
 slight break caused by the copula between the two connected 
 words ; but in that case we should expect an adjective to be 
 suffixless and be in form like the German, Es ist sehr halt, 
 as opposed to kaltes Wetter ; and we shall probably be right 
 in considering such a case as an example of real assimilation 
 (II.), without, however, any difference of meaning. That is, 
 the analogy of meaning has in this case proved stronger than 
 the analogy of form. Examples are : Herodotus ii. 68, 
 o Be Tpo^iXb<; elprjvalov ol eWi. Plato, Rep. 617 E., dperr) Be 
 aBea-TroTov. Of. the familiar, Triste lupus stabulis (Virgil, 
 E. iii. 80). 
 
 Other Indo-European languages present the same contrast 
 between the two cases. Thus in some Keltic languages 
 the adjective agrees with its noun if both are in the subject, 
 but in other situations this is not the case. 
 
 An important instance of attraction in gender is seen in 
 the Latin fut. infin. in -urum. This, as shown by Dr. Post- 
 gate, 1 is formed from the locative of the supine and infinitive 
 form -esum, and is found as -urum- after feminine nouns. Its 
 real nature was afterwards forgotten, and it was looked on 
 as adjectival. Hence -uram arose after feminine nouns. 
 
 1 See Classical Review, vol. v. p. 301. 
 
15 
 
 In Latin and Greek, pronouns were usually assimilated, 
 but a neuter was admissible. Contrast Plato, Crat. 433 E., 
 \eyet, elvai ravrr]p opdorr/ra uvop-aros, f;vv9iJKT]v, and Livy, ii. 
 38, Maturavimus proficisci, si hoc profectio et non fuga est. 
 In this case it is hardly possible that change of gender made 
 the slightest difference in the meaning. 
 
 When there are several subjects, the adjective or parti- 
 ciple often agrees in gender with the last. So, Cic. ad Quir. 
 6, Consules prsetores tribuni plebis senatus Italia cuncta sem- 
 per a vobis deprecata est. This gender assimilation also takes 
 place after quam, and in the predicates of other subordinate 
 clauses. So the well-known, Thebse, quod caput est Boeotiae. 
 
 Assimilation of gender is found in some cases where we 
 should not expect it. Thus with words like ttoXvs, Trkelaros, 
 X0M7-09, and ^/tuo-i/?, instead of the neuter with the partitive 
 genitive, we may have the adjective assimilated in gender to 
 the genitive. Thus Herod, ii. 10, Taurij? T179 %<»jo»?? -f) iroXkrj. 
 Ibid., E^ivdBwv vr/acov rat r)p,L<xea<; r)Br) vyrrupov ireiroi^Ke. 
 Contrast vi. 12, to Xonrbv t?)? rjfiepr)?. We may also compare 
 Thuc. vii. 25, ^akeircoTaTT) o" fjv tt;? crravpaxrea)'; 17 KpvipLos. 
 The non-assimilated construction in all these cases is in- 
 dubitably the older. 
 
 Again, the very usual formula in phrases like ttjv icaXeo- 
 (jbkvrjv "Tkafyv is distinctly not original. We should expect e? 
 tov tottov 'TKairjv ica\eop,evov, or something similar. 
 
 Under this head we must also treat as assimilated, usages 
 like BuKaios elp,i Bpav. The older construction BUaiov icrTw 
 ep.e Bpav, etc., occurs over and over again, and we must look 
 on the personalised construction before us as due to assimi- 
 lation of gender. Contrast Herod, i. 32, BUcu6<; io-ri, (pipecrdai, 
 with i. 39, ifjui rot, BUaiop iari <ppd^etv. A similar explanation 
 probably holds good for SijXo? elpi and the like. These 
 usages are found universally in Greek. 
 
16 
 
 § 6. Xumber. Exactly parallel to the gender assimilation 
 found in rj ttoWtj t^? 777? is the assimilation of number 
 involved in the use of ovSives and ovSa/Aoi, (which are two 
 corresponding strong and weak forms of the same stem, the 
 termination only being different), ov&ei? = ovK eh, "not even 
 one," and oiSeU avTwv will become ovSeves avrwv, the plural 
 coming from the influence of the following genitive. So 
 Pern. 233, 2, ovhevas toiv 'EW-qvwv ; Herod, i. 57, ovSa/Mola-c 
 Tmp vvv <r<f>ea<; Trepioi/ceovTcov. A similar change has taken 
 place in the case of ovherepos. So Herod, vii. 103, tovtiov 
 ovherepa. We may compare Livy, xxx. 8, utraque cornua for 
 utrumqttc common. Gf. English " none of them were," where 
 the singular is the original construction, and none is taken as 
 plural on the analogy of them. 
 
 The plural of e/ca<rTo<; has one original use, viz., where it 
 means " separate companies of," but besides this it is used 
 simply for eKaaro^, the verb being in the plural on account 
 of real assimilation, and in its turn producing eicaarot. So 
 Herod, ii. 66, eVao-rot exovrei %v\a. For more particulars 
 concerning the usages of this word, see the section on Real 
 Assimilation (§ 16). 
 
 A like assimilation of number is seen when abstract nouns 
 are used in the plural side by side with plural words to which 
 they refer. This assimilation, which is peculiarly Hero- 
 dotean, is non-original, and unusual elsewhere in Greek. So 
 Herod, ii. 10, elal Be ical aWoi irorafioX, ov Kara tov NeTKov 
 iovres aeydOea. Herodotus often uses the non-assimilated 
 form. Thus i. 199, Herat, etSeo? re hrafifikvai elcri ical fj,eydOeo<;. 
 SfjXd earo, old t earl we find in different Greek authors with 
 a meaning undistinguishable from the corresponding singular 
 forms. So Herod, ix. 11, BfjXa <ydp on crvfifia^oc fiaaiXeo'i 
 ywoueda. The construction is to be closely compared with 
 the corresponding neuter plural forms of verbals in -T609, 
 
17 
 
 and Johannes Schmidt would no doubt use them both to 
 strengthen his theory of the rise of the neuter plural in -a. 
 A simpler explanation, however, is to suppose that the plural 
 forms were first used when the subject was in the plural, 
 and then came to be used indiscriminately later on. Thus 
 the construction could arise from a sentence like Herod, iii. 
 72, $} iroWd i<rri to, \6yrp fiev ouy old re BrjXciiaai, epyip Se, 
 where olov re would do quite as well. 
 
 On the other hand, we occasionally find in Herodotus 
 non-assimilation of number when the adjective is in the 
 predicate, in cases where other Greek authors would un- 
 doubtedly give the assimilated form. As regards the rela- 
 tive antiquity of the two usages, two views are possible. 
 We may treat the non-assimilated form under Eeal Assimila- 
 tion, and compare it with the neuter plural in Greek taking 
 a singular verb, or we may take the opposite view that it 
 represents a more original state of matters. I believe the 
 former to be the correct explanation. Examples are : Herod, 
 iii. 42, peya iroLevpevos ravra, where we should expect fieydXa. 
 So, ix. 90, eu7rer6? re avroZcn e<f>i) ravra yuveadai. 
 
 The history of the dual in Indo-European has been con- 
 siderably affected by formal assimilation. This appears 
 more in Sanskrit than it does in Greek, which, along with 
 Zend, keeps more closely to the original Indo-European 
 conditions. 1 Two uses of the dual in Greek may be dis- 
 tinguished : (1) a real dual, which denotes a pair of things 
 that always go together ; (2) an extension side by side with 
 the plural, which will naturally admit of a verb in the plural, 
 as the dual here simply means a number of things, which in 
 this case happens to be two. Thus : rl iradovTe Xekdo-fieOa 
 (Iliad, xi. 313). 
 
 Sanskrit makes bo.th kinds of dual take a verb in the 
 1 So Delbriick, Syntaktische Forschungen, vol. iv. page 14. 
 2 
 
18 
 
 dual. In spite of the difference between the two series, 
 there was great confusion between them in Greek, and it is 
 improbable that the original conditions have been in all cases 
 preserved. Thus 6We can take either a dual or a plural 
 verb ; its use with the singular, as oaae Saiercu, is not neces- 
 sarily due to its being considered as a unity, but rather to 
 the analogy of the neuter plural. In Sanskrit, with dva, 
 where Greek Bvo shows the plural, we have the dual. 
 This is due solely to assimilation. Contrast Homeric 
 Bvo av8pe<; with Sanskrit tasya dvavacva stah, " he has 
 two horses ". The assimilation is just what might have 
 been expected, and may have begun in very early times. In 
 Kovpco Se KpivOevTe 8va> ical Trevrij/covra fBqrrjv, the dual comes 
 in on account of the hva. Of. Sanskrit ekasaste cate = 
 261. The disappearance at an early stage of even the real 
 dual in the dialects other than "Homeric" and Attic is 
 simply due to the fact that naturally it seldom occurred, 
 and so its functions were in every case taken by the 
 plural. 
 
 The other heads of assimilation of number may be con- 
 veniently grouped under the concords produced by proximity 
 and the like. So we may have agreement with the last of 
 two subjects instead of agreement with the plural idea. 
 Thus : Herod, ii. 11, prj^V & ? v avro) ical a/j,Tra>Ti<; ava 
 iraaav r]/j,eprjv ^tverac. Cic. ad Att. ix. 10, 2, nihil libri, 
 nihil litters, nihil doctrina prodest. So in Sanskrit, Veda 
 ii., 25, 2, tokam ca tasya tanayam ca vardhate, " his race 
 and progeny exists". Similarly we find agreement in 
 number with the predicate. So Ovid, A. A. iii. 222, Quas 
 geritis vestes sordida lana fuit. This often happens in sen- 
 tences that express measurement. Thus : Herod, ii. 15, 
 t>)<? to Trepifierpov ardBiot eiai eUcai Kai eKarbv KaX e^aicicr- 
 
19 
 § 7. Formal Assimilation of Case. 
 
 "Attic " Attraction, where the relative pronoun, instead of 
 taking the case natural to its own verb, is assimilated to the 
 case of its antecedent, is found in all Greek dialects, in Latin 
 and in other Indo-European languages. Where it occurs in 
 Latin, it is not to be looked upon as a Graecism, but as a 
 development quite natural in a highly-inflected language. 
 The usage has probably developed independently in Greek, 
 and is not Indo-European. There is only one example in 
 Homer, Iliad, v. 265, yever)? ^? Tpcot irep evpiioira Zeiis Sco/ee, 
 where Monro explains yever}<; as a partitive genitive. Later 
 examples are : Lesbian Inscr. (Cauer 431), rfc evuoias a? 
 e%oi<7/. Delphian Inscr. (Cauer 209), rot? ayuvois oh a ttoXis 
 Ti9r)Ti. So for relative adverbs. Plato, Crito, 45 B, iroX- 
 \aj(pv fxev yap icai aXXoae ottoi av afy'iicr) ayairrjaovai ere (an 
 instance of regressive assimilation). Latin examples are: 
 Cic. ad Att. x. 8, 7, illo augurio quo diximus ; iii. 19, 2, 
 me tuse litterse numquam in tantam spem induxerunt 
 quantam aliorum. Gellius, xi. 1, 3 : Eius numeri, cuius dixi- 
 mus. A possible instance is found in Lex Acilia Bepetuu- 
 darum 12, in diebus x proxumeis, quibus h. 1. populus plebesve 
 iouserit. Cf. with this Lucretius, i. 944, videtur tristior esse 
 quibus non est tractata, where quibus is used by attraction 
 for a quibus, as here quibus cannot be dative of agent after a 
 passive verb, a construction not admitted by Lucretius. 1 
 
 It would be quite possible to hold that Attic attraction 
 arose from instances where the antecedent and relative are 
 naturally in the same case. These are, e.g., in Herodotus, of 
 extreme frequency, and would give an easy starting-point 
 for the analogy to work. Eor the regressive assimilation, 
 which is not nearly so common in Greek, cf. Herod, ix. 
 
 1 See Munro, ad loc. 
 
20 
 
 88, Tov? Be aWovs avBpas toih; igeBoaav oi Q-rj^aloi, oi ftev 
 i&6/ceov, etc. ; Terence, Eun. 653, Uunuchum, quern dedisti 
 nobis, quas turbas dedit. The usage is very common in 
 classical Sanskrit. Of. Nala, i. '26, Damayanti tu yarn 
 lw/msam samupadhavad antike sa manusim girarn krtva Dama- 
 yantim atbabravlt. 
 
 Of tbe same nature as Attic attraction are the case assimi- 
 lations found in Greek from early times with ovBeU ogtis ov, 
 el Tt?, olo?, and the like. Examples are : Herod, iii. 68, <rv 
 Be irapa 'At6<t(T7]<; irvOev oreo) tovtw crvvoiKeei, avrrj re eiceivq 
 Kal <tv ; vii. 145, oiBa/ilav ' EWrjviK&v rcov ov woWbv fii^a, 
 where tcov stands for oreav ; iv. 28, acfjoprjTo 1 ; olos yiverat 
 icpvfux; ; iv. 194, a<p6ovoi, oaoi. 
 
 On the other hand, in a-rro^ei Be t?}? ■%a>p7)<; rfjt; 'Apatity? 
 8e<nrea-iov a>9 rjBv (iii. 113), Oeaireaiov is attracted to rjBv. 
 
 In Thuc. vii. 21, avBpai o'tow; Kal ' Adr)vaLov<;, we have a 
 double attraction. Single attraction, on the other hand, is 
 found in Aristoph. Ach. 601, veavias 8' olov? av BiaBeBpaKora<;, 
 if we keep the MS. reading. Paley, Bergk, and Meineke give 
 olo? av, and Holden gives the possible construction oiovs ere. 
 
 In Dem. De Falsa Leg. § 206, Shilleto gives t^ ol'a Trap' 
 rjfj.a>v earl iroXneLat;. The MSS. give oias, which Scheefer sug- 
 gests should be kept, omitting earl ; and this is no doubt the 
 proper reading. In De Falsa Leg. § 248, tou? olo<; ovros av- 
 6panro<;, Shilleto passes without remark. Cobet (Var. Led. 
 page 551) would assimilate it by reading oiovs. 
 
 We see from the above that there are three constructions 
 of o to? rendered j ustifiable by usage — the plain grammatical use, 
 that with single, and that with double assimilation. Con- 
 sequently one can hardly agree with Cobet when he amends 
 all passages that do not fit in with the assimilated con- 
 struction. 
 
 Parallel to the above usage are forms like davfiaarax; to?, 
 
21 
 
 virepfyvw a>?. So Msch. De Falsa Leg. § 40, irapaZo^w; o>? 
 (piXavdpcoTrav;. Two words could get welded together like this 
 in Latin, as — Horace, Odes, i. 27, 6, immane quantum dis- 
 crepat ; Pliny, xviii. 277, infinitum quantum congelat. So 
 mire quam. 
 
 Phrases like a>9 avTG>?, <u<? r rrapaifKrjala><i, a\\a><; ov8a[x.a><: 
 a\\o)9 kox;, ovSafiodi eripmdv (Herod, iii. 113), are to be ex- 
 plained on the same principle. Besides this, I would suggest 
 that the use of ti? in phrases like evrt^ta rt? roiijSe is really 
 based on case-assimilation. The phrase does not mean " a 
 certain piece of luck of the following kind," but " somewhat 
 like this," and for rt? we should naturally expect an adverb. 
 
 Whether the personal "use with verbs of such words as 
 7Tjowto9 and Trporepo? instead of their corresponding adverbs 
 is a later assimilation is very doubtful. The similar Latin 
 construction is well known, and in classical Sanskrit we have 
 phrases like prathamo nivrttas = irpmrou avehOovTes, while 
 Vedic examples are not unknown. 1 This coincidence may 
 well lead us to infer that such constructions, if not original, 
 were at any rate very early assimilations. Examples are : 
 Herod, i. Ill, r t yvvrj elpero irporipri, with which contrast ii. 
 161, to>v irpoTepov j3acr£ke<ov. So ii. 34, AtyvTrros avrvr) Keerai, 
 as opposed to (in the same chapter) fj Xwoditt] avn'ov Keerat. 
 Cf. Cicero, Rose. Am. 6, Eoscius erat Eomae frequens. 2 
 
 The use of two words agreeing in case where we should 
 expect to find one as a partitive genitive belongs in many 
 instances to case-assimilation. Instances of such assimi- 
 lation are found in late phrases like da fridam pusilluni, 
 " give a little cup of cold water,'' and trama pensum, " a hank 
 of wool," found on Pompeian inscriptions. These may be 
 
 1 See Delbriick, Syntaktische Forschungen, v. page 78. 
 ~ Possibly in this way recens comes to be used for nuper. 
 
22 
 
 compared with phrases in German like Ein Glas Bier. The 
 genitive of material, on the other hand, has a very high 
 antiquity; cf. Vedic madhos patram, "a vessel of honey"; 
 Mranyasya kalagas, " a pot of gold ". Are there any such case- 
 assimilations in Greek ? The usual position of fxiao*; before 
 the article is a strong argument in favour of the supposition 
 that the original construction was fieaov + genitive, and that 
 the ordinary construction is due to later assimilation. So 
 e? yuecra? ra<; Suva? would stand for e? /licrov to>p hivwv. A 
 similar explanation may possibly hold good for 7ra?, which 
 mostly shows the same position before the article. The 
 position of adj. + article + noun of the oblique predicate, 
 which is not common in early Greek, is explicable on quite 
 different grounds. 1 This view of the construction of /u.ea-09 
 is corroborated by instances of non-assimilation. Thus 
 Herod., iv. 171, Kara fieaov t?}? %<op»/? ; viii. 23, fiexpi fieo-ov 
 Tifiepr)?. Another argument is found in the use of the Sanskrit 
 madhya ( = peOio-, ueao-) . Thus Veda, i. 115, 4, madhya kartos, 
 <: in the midst of the work ". Compare with the above the 
 proverbial phrase irdvia Se/ca, " ten of everything," for iravrav 
 Se/ca. Other instances are : — 
 
 Herod, viii. 4, iirl p.ia0S rpirficovTa raXdvToi.cn, where we 
 should expect eVt ^lo-Q& rpo^Kovra raXavrmv ; Inscr. (Cauer 
 No. 10), 'BiOvQia wapaKaddrjKa ra> ^iKa^aioo TerpaKariai p.vcu 
 dpyvpico ; cf. Livy, xxix. 5, arma magnus numerus. So 
 modern Greek t Tpei? /x,vpidSe<; cnpaTiurrai ; ev Trorrjpiov vepo. 
 
 When a whole is subdivided, we more often find the 
 whole expressed as a genitive ; but it may be made to agree 
 in case with the parts. So S. C. de Bacanalibus, Homines 
 pious v oinvorsei virei atque mulieres ne quisquam fecise 
 
 1 This is a non-original expression, corning under section iii., and 
 borrowed from ordinary prediction. Thus pe-yaKy rfj <j>avrj exPV T0 * s 
 possible only on the assumption of an original r] <j>covt) co-ti fieyakr]. 
 
23 
 
 velet; Herod, ii. 55, Bvo 7re\«aoa? . . . dvairra^eva^, ttjv 
 fiev avretov . . . ttjv Se airiKea-dai,. There is nothing to show 
 which of the two possible constructions is the older. 
 
 Another phrase that has its origin in case-assimilation is 
 given by the type eV2 ra ifiirepa avr&v instead of to. vpwv 
 avrwv, for which we may compare the common Latin phrase 
 mens miseri amicus, etc. Here the assimilation works in the 
 way we should least expect. Parallel to this usage is the 
 use of possessive adjective instead of personal pronoun in -q 
 ifj-rj Bba/3o\i], " the charge against me " (Plato, Apology, 19 A). 
 
 Case-assimilation sometimes goes from one clause to 
 another. Thus in Latin after quam. Terence, Phormio, 591, 
 ego hominem callidiorem vidi neminem quam Phormionem. 
 
 The same thing happens with idem— qui ; tantus — quantus. 
 So Cicero, Sen. 1, Suspicor te eisdem rebus quibus me ipsum 
 interdum gravius commoveri. It is, of course, quite possible 
 to supply quibus suspicor me ipsum commoveri, but this is 
 clumsy. 1 A Greek parallel is Herod, iv. 61, e? \efi7)Ta<; tVt- 
 ^(opiovi, fiaXtara Aeafiioiat, /cpaTr/pcri irpocreiiceXovs %u>p2? rj otl 
 fii&va';. The similar usage with ware is well known. Cf. 
 Herod, ix. 94, koX fiera ravra avriica 'ifJifyvrov jxavTLK.r)V elye, 
 ware kcu 6vofiaaTo<;. yeveadai, where 6vo/j,aarov might be ex- 
 pected. Compare the two possible constructions. with efi wre. 
 That there is no distinction of meaning involved may be seen 
 from a comparison of (1) ecj>' Sre ekevOepos el/j,ev ical ave^>aino<; 
 a.7ro TravTav tov irdvra ypovov (Delphic Inscr., Cauer 219) ; (2) 
 iiricxreva-e Nt/coo . . . e<j)' wre ekevOepav el/xev KaX dve^airrov dirb 
 irdvrav tov iravra filov (Cauer 215). In Oratio Obliqua we find 
 sometimes case-assimilation, and sometimes the accusative 
 and infinitive proving the stronger. No distinction of mean- 
 
 1 Ziemer, Jung. Streif. page 74, quotes a good example from Nepos, 
 Hann. 5, Minucium magistrum equitum pari ac dictatorem imperio 
 fugavit. 
 
24 
 
 ing, of course, is involved by the difference of construction. 
 Contrast Herod, iii. 53, avve<yivd>(ricero e&>uT&> ov/ceri eivai 
 SvvaTOS, and iv. 94, ovre d-rrodvycnceiv eavrovf vofJ.L%ovai. In 
 Herod, i. 56, we have ekirl^wv ovB' 5>v avrbs ovBe ol e% avrov 
 iravaeadai /core t?7? apxn*- Cobet ( V. L. page 91) would read 
 tou? : which, of course, we should have had but for the assimi- 
 lation. On the other hand, in a sentence like <pr)/j,l Belv eicelvov<; 
 diroXeaOai,, ip.e Be au^ea-dai, the explanation of ipe is not that 
 some particular force is meant to be brought out by the case 
 (as some grammarians would have it), but simply that the 
 attraction of the other accusative has in this case proved 
 stronger than the usual construction, since e/ie comes late 
 in the sentence. The two constructions are equally pos- 
 sible in Homeric Greek. Contrast (1), without attraction, 
 <r$>&lv fiev t iireoace fiera TrpcoToicriv eovTWi eardp,ev (II. iv. 
 341) ; (2) with attraction, 
 
 ifiol Be ice KepBiov elrj 
 (rev d<pap,apTOV(TT] yfibva Bvfievai (II. VI. 410). 
 
 Monro's distinction of meaning (Homeric Grammar § 240) 
 seems hardly necessary. Latin presents the same choice 
 of constructions. Thus: vobis necesse est fortibus viris 
 (fortes vires) esse. As regards priority of usage, the proba- 
 bility is on the side of the assimilated construction, from the 
 fact that the accusative and infinitive construction can be 
 shown on other grounds to be non-original. 
 
 It has been maintained that, where the dative occurs in 
 Oratio Obliqua, we have a case of datival attraction. We 
 have, of course, two real datives, the noun and the infinitive, 
 but the probability is that the construction is original, and 
 that no later assimilation has taken place, although Monro 
 (Homeric Grammar, § 239) appears to hold that this has 
 happened. Thus, according to him, in cases like alcrxpbv 
 
■25 
 
 yap ToSe y earl ical eaaopkvoHJi TrvdeaOat, it is irvdeadcu that 
 is the true dative, while eacrofievoiat is merely attracted 
 to it. However, there is nothing to show that this is a later 
 construction, and its occurrence in Vedic argues strongly for 
 its being original. Thus, Rigveda, v. 31, 4: brahman a 
 indram mahayanto arkair avardayann ahaye hantavd u = "for 
 the snake, to kill it " (Delbriick, S. F. vol. v. page 89). 
 
 Under the head of formal assimilation of case comes the 
 construction of the double accusative, a usage which shows 
 a great wealth of development even in early Greek. The 
 construction is most familiar to us from the Latin usage, 
 whereby verbs of asking, teaching, concealing, etc., take two 
 accusatives, the one of the person and the other of the thing. 
 It is very early, occurring as it does in the Veda. Thus : 
 tvam aham satyam icchami, "I desire truth from thee". It 
 has been continued into modern Greek. Cf.yep.lfci to ttottj- 
 piov Kpaa-'u, " he fills the cup with wine ". 
 
 In Latin we find for each of the accusatives an alternative 
 construction possible. Thus, Cic. Vert: ii. 4, 15, de eius 
 iniuriis iudices docere ; Cic. Verr. ii. 4, 12, 29, te celare de 
 phaleris. It is to be observed that the accusatives are under 
 the government of the same verb, a fact which to a large 
 extent helps in causing the attraction. Subjoined is a list 
 of the chief types found in Greek, the examples being mostly 
 taken from Herodotus. 
 
 (1.) Verbs of teaching : — 
 
 Herod, iv. 78, rhv fj fir/Tijp avrr) yXmcradv re 'EWdSa zeal 
 rypafipara iSiSaije. 
 
 (2.) Verbs of answering :— 
 
 ii. 173, ravra /xev tou? <f>i\ovs afieiyfraro. 
 
 Contrast with this (in the same chapter) 6 S' d/xet/SeTo 
 roio-iSe avTov<;, and cf. Rigveda, x. 80, 7, agnim maham avo- 
 cama suvrktim, " we have sung a great hymn to Agni ". 
 
26 
 
 (3.) Verbs of reminding : — 
 
 vi. 140, avap.ifivrjcr/ccoi' crcpeas to ^(prjcrrrjpiov. 
 
 (4.) Verbs of asking and inquiring : — 
 
 iii. 58, avrovs e/carbv rakavra eirprjf-av. 
 
 Pindar, 01. vi. 81, airavTas iv oikoi elpero iralBa bv EvdSva 
 re/cot. 
 
 (5.) Verbs of taking away: — 
 
 vii. 104, o'{ fie yepea airekofievot irarpcola. 
 
 Contrast vi. 65, dirocnepeei Aevrv^iBea rod ydfiov, and 
 compare Brahmanas, xxi. 1, 1, indro marutah sahasram 
 ajinat, " Indra took a thousand from the Maruts " 1 . 
 
 (6.) Verbs of doing : — 
 
 iii. 59, fieydXa Kaica eiroLrjaav Aiyivrjra<;. 
 
 Cf. Bigveda. v, 30, 9, kim ma karann abala. asya senah, 
 " what could his powerless armies do to me ? " (Delbriick.) 
 
 Contrast with these : — 
 
 ii. 141, aTifia TroievvTa e? avTovs. 
 iv. 26, 7Tat9 Be Trarpl tovto iroieet,. 
 
 (7.) Verbs of concealing : — 
 
 vii. 28, oiire ere diroKpy^rco . . . ttjv ifiecovTov ovaiav. 
 
 (8.) General instances of external and internal accusa- 
 tive : — 
 
 i. 163, tcZ^o? TrepiftakeaOai rrjv ttoXiv. 
 An extreme instance is found in i. 178, /j.e<ya6o<; iovaa fiercoTrov 
 eKaarov ; that it is not an ordinary construction is shown by 
 the fact that it breaks down in this passage, and becomes an 
 anacolouthon. 
 
 The construction, where the subject of the dependent 
 interrogative becomes the object of the principal clause, 
 should probably be put under the same head! By it also we 
 get two accusatives after the leading verb, the one a sub- 
 stantive, the other a clause. Thus in Plautus, Pcrsa, iv. 4, 
 1 Quoted by Delbriick, S. F. vol. v. page 180. 
 
27 
 
 83, Ego patriam te rogo quse sit tua, we have really three 
 accusatives depending on the principal verb. The usage is 
 very common in Greek also. 
 
 One or two further instances of case-assimilation from 
 Latin may be added. 
 
 (a) Assimilation of the dative is seen with verbs meaning 
 to have or give a name ; as — ncmen dicere, cognomen addere, 
 nomen esse. Thus : — 
 
 PL Men. 1096, Huic item Mensechmo nomen est. 
 The other construction, i.e., with the nom., is about as com- 
 mon as the one above. The assimilated construction seldom, 
 if ever, occurs in Greek. 
 
 (b) An extreme case of assimilation in the accusative is 
 seen in the expression of dates : as — ante diem quartam 
 Kalendas Ianuarias. The use oiplus, amplius, and minus, when 
 they seem not to affect the construction, appears at first 
 sight to be akin to the above, but the reason is quite different. 
 The ordinary explanation is that the usage is purely para- 
 tactic, so that, for example, non amplius viginti annos natus 
 = natus viginti annos, non amplius. To this there are two 
 objections. 
 
 (1.) As far as probability goes, the explanation suits 
 negative much better than positive sentences. Thus the 
 explanation of, amplius centum cives (Cicero, Verr. i. 1, 5), 
 as = centum cives, amplius, " a hundred citizens, more than 
 that," seems unsatisfactory. 
 
 (2.) The explanation implies a complete transposition of 
 the logical order without any manifest cause, as the com- 
 parative always comes first in this usage. The construction 
 may have arisen thus : The two forms decern annos natus and 
 amplius decern annis got mixed, and the construction before 
 us is the result. It will be shown later (§ 25) that in no depart- 
 ment does greater syntactical contamination appear than when 
 
28 
 
 words signifying comparison are involved. The explanation 
 seems to find a corroboration in a late usage, which shows 
 how far contamination could go when age was expressed ; 
 for we find the construction natus decern annorum 1 on the 
 analogy of sentences like cum esset decern annorum. 
 
 (c) The word quisque has been a remarkable field for 
 analogical influence. With a genitive it is rare. Lucr. iv. 
 1005, seminiorum quaeque. Hor. Sat. i. 4, 106, vitiorum 
 quasque. With numbers that express plurality, as quinto 
 quoque anno, "in every fifth year," and with superlatives, as 
 optimus quisque, " all the best," its meaning is perfectly 
 obvious. With primus, as Livy, xlii. 48, exercitui diem 
 primam quamque dicere (the very first day), its meaning, in 
 connexion with its original signification, is not quite evident. 
 It is probably modelled on its use with superlatives (primus, 
 cf. 7Tjod)To?, being really a superlative also) ; thus optimus quis- 
 que = " all the best " = " the very best " ; hence primus quis- 
 que = " the very first". With suiis it may be used in an 
 
 •ordinary grammatical manner, as — suum quisque flagitium 
 aliis abiectantes ; and when quisque follows suus, attraction 
 of case may ensue. Thus, Ante omnia colonus curare debet, 
 ut opera rustica suo quoque tempore faciat (Gai. ap. Dig. 
 19, 2, 25, §2).* 
 
 (d) Several instances of assimilation of the vocative are 
 found in Latin. Thus Lucan, Pharsalia, viii. 335 : — 
 
 quid, transfuga mundi, 
 terrarum notos tractus caelumque perosus 
 adversosque polos alienaque sidera quseris 
 Chaldseos culture deos, et barbara sacra, 
 Parthorum famulus ? 
 § 8. Assimilation of Person. This, generally speaking, is 
 
 1 Quoted by Schmalz, Latin Syntax, § 69 (4). 
 
 2 See Eoby, Lat. Gr. § 2288. 
 
29 
 
 not assimilation properly so called, but represents the original 
 and normal construction. The only case where any differ- 
 ence of expression can come in is where the rules of concord 
 are involved. Thus in English we can say " I am the first 
 that has escaped," or " have escaped " ; one of these may be 
 called ungrammatical ; but attraction has simply proved 
 stronger than the ordinary grammatical rule. So for the 
 common rule that two subjects of one predicate, of different 
 persons, have the verb in the 1st or 2nd plural, as the case 
 may be. 
 
 Thus we = (1) plural of T ; (2) I + thou, or, I + he, or, I 
 + you, etc. 
 
 You = (1) plural of thou (all addressed directly) (2) thou 
 + he, or, thou + they, or, you -f- he, etc. 
 
 A construction like Soph. 0. C. 852 : — 
 
 66ovveK avTos avrov ovre vvv kcCKcl 
 
 S/3tt9, 
 
 is best brought under the head of contamination, but it may 
 be remarked here that avros, which is quite normal, attracts 
 avrov by its form, so that the latter gets to be used for the 
 second, as it may also be used for the first person. Of a 
 kindred nature is Plautus, Trinummus, 156, nunc si ille hue 
 salvos revenit, reddam suom sibi, where Roby's explanation 1 
 of an ellipse does not seem to be best. He thinks it is for 
 reddam ei suom sibi. However, suom is quite regular ; while 
 sibi for ei is due to suom. 
 
 § 9. Formal Assimilation with the Comparative. The degrees 
 of comparison are very fertile in all sorts of analogical construc- 
 tions. Under our present head comes the usage where an 
 adjective after 77 or quam, which we should expect to find in 
 the positive, is attracted to a comparative preceding the con- 
 junction. The usage is found in Homer, Od. i. 164, i\a<j>p6- 
 1 Lett. Gr. § 2265. 
 
30 
 
 repot fj afyveiorepoi, and is common in Attic. So Eur. Medea, 
 485, Trp66vixos fiaXXov r) aocpmripa. It is found in Herodotus, 
 but not frequently. So iii. 65, iiroirjaa raxvrepa rj ao$<i>Tepa, 
 and with a slight variation of form, ii. 37, TrpoTi^wvTes icaOapol 
 elvai rj evirpe-Trearepoi. The construction is not found in old 
 Latin, but occurs frequently in Cicero, Livy, and Tacitus. 
 Thus : Cicero de opt. gen. ii. 6, ut — acutiorem se quam 
 ornatiorem velit. Tacitus Annals xv. 3, compositius quam 
 festinantius. 
 
 § 10. Formal Assimilation of Tense. The tendency of all 
 languages to substitute hypotaxis for parataxis, has, as a rule, 
 proved stronger than the power of assimilation, which helped 
 in the formation of the primitive forms supplanted by later 
 subordinating usage. Still, such natural assimilations remained 
 common in the popular, and therefore to some extent in the 
 literary speech ; and evidence is not wanting to prove that in 
 many cases language went back unconsciously to the primitive 
 forms. Thus we have to do with two kinds of assimilation 
 here, the primitive usage, and the later instances of the 
 tendency. So in modern Greek, paratactic usage cannot 
 always be looked upon as original, but often as the result of 
 later formal assimilation. Thus rjKovaa airbv Xeyovra is 
 how every Athenian would have expressed the idea, " I 
 heard him say," while the modern Greek equivalent is of 
 the form rjicovcra kcu eXeje. Specially common is this with 
 verbs of beginning an action, as rjpxicre koX eVXaie a construc- 
 tion to which, curiously enough, Lowland Scotch presents 
 an exact parallel in " She begoud and grat" (= She began 
 and cried). So also for participle + verb. Modern Greek 
 prefers verb + koX + verb. Thus for l&wv ivUrjcrev we should 
 have elSe icai ev'iK-qaev. 
 
 Formal assimilation of tense is the usual construction of 
 4>0dvco and similar verbs, a present participle being united 
 
31 
 
 with a present indicative, and an aorist participle with an 
 aorist indicative. Contrast \d6e fiiooo-as with ekdvOave 
 fiocKwv. An examination of Herodotus for this construction 
 shows that the vast majority of instances have the tenses 
 agreeing, while a very small proportion display difference of 
 tense. Thus : — 
 
 vi. 65, <$>6a<ra<; avrbs Ttjv UepKaXov apTrd<ra<; /cal a\onv 
 yuvalica. 1 ■ 
 Contrast:— 
 
 iv. 61, rv^ecai. e^oz'Te?. 
 
 v. 33, erv^e ovBeU ($>v\daacov. 
 It is probable that here the assimilated construction is 
 primitive, and that in the other cases the special functions 
 of the tenses have been lost sight of. 
 
 Amaius fui for amatus sum is probably an instance 
 of tense assimilation. So Plautus, Poen. Prol. 40, quod 
 paene oblitus fui. 2 Cf. Sen. Mp. ix. 14, et tamen 
 non -vivet, si fuerit sine homine victurus ; where we 
 should have expected sim. I do not believe there is 
 any difference of meaning between amatus sum and ama- 
 tus fui. 
 
 The historical present may have the tense of its subor- 
 dinate clause assimilated to it. Thus : Cicero Verr. ii. 3, 60, 
 auget atque onerat te bonis condicionibus, si uti velis : si ex 
 provincia Sicilia tota statuas idoneum iudicem nullum posse 
 reperiri, postulat a te ut Eomam rem reicias. 
 
 The following are pure instances of attraction (see Draeger 
 I. § 151). 
 
 (1.) An imperf. subjunct. referring to an unreal present 
 
 1 Cf. Iliad v. 98, km /3aX' iTrattra-ovra rvxa>v Kara hi^iov 2>fiov. 
 
 2 According to Draeger, § 134, there are only four examples of fui 
 with the perf. part, in ante- classical Latin. This would go to show that 
 the usage is not original. 
 
32 
 
 may have in the subordinate interrogative clause an imperf. 
 instead of a pres. subjunct. 
 
 Cicero, ad Att. xi. 24, 5, vellem scriberes, cur ita putares. 
 
 (2.) So in relative clauses which refer to the present. 
 
 Livy, xxvi. 49, mese populique Romani disciplinae 
 ca,ussa facereni ne quid, quod sanctum usquam esset, apud 
 nos violaretur. 
 
 (3.) In sentences with cum and quod as above. 
 
 Cicero, de Natura Deorum, i. 17, 45, nam et prsestans 
 deorum natura hominum pietate coleretur, cum et aeterna 
 esset et beatissima. 
 
 (4.) With ^. 
 
 Cicero, ad Qu. fr. i. 1, 45, facies enim perpetuo, quae 
 fecisti, ut omnes aequitatem tuam laudarent. Here fecisti 
 has influenced the tense of laudarent. 
 
 Cicero, in his desire for uniformity, is specially fond of 
 this kind of attraction. We may compare the similar 
 attraction in English, whereby general statements in oratio 
 obliqua after a past tense are themselves turned into a past 
 tense. This construction is usually held to be wrong. 
 Thus : He quoted the saying that the half was greater than 
 the whole. 
 
 In Greek, mood assimilation in subordinate clauses is 
 commoner than tense assimilation, but one example of the 
 latter is found in relative sentences coming under a protasis 
 whose imperfect refers to an impossible present, so that in 
 the relative clause we ought to have a present. Thus: et 
 •rrdvG' a irpoarjice TrpaTTOvrcov r/ficov KaKu><; et%e ra Trpdyfiara, 
 ovB' av iXirU r\v. (Demosthenes.) 1 
 
 § 11. Formal Assimilation of Mood . The assimilation of the 
 mood of sub-oblique clauses of oratio obliqua to the infinitive 
 of the chief oblique clause is common in Greek. As to the 
 1 Quoted by Ziemer, Jung. Streif. page 81. 
 
33 
 
 question whether the infinitive occurring in a sub-oblique 
 relative clause may not have been infinitive originally be- 
 cause of paratactic usage, we should, before deciding it, 
 require to know whether the accusative and infinitive con- 
 struction is earlier or later than the change of the demon- 
 strative into the relative. With regard to other sub-oblique 
 clauses we have certainly a later formal assimilation. That 
 it was well established in Greek may be seen from a list 
 of the principal types of the usage in Herodotus. 
 
 (1.) With relatives, ii. 32, aviiceo-dai e? iroK.iv iv Trj iravTas 
 elvau. 
 
 (2.) With eirei, iv. 10, rr)t> B\ itrei oi yevofievovs toiis iraiSas 
 avBpcodrjvai, tovto fiev a<pL ovvo/xara Oeadai. 
 
 (3.) With d>5, ii. 107, tov Be, to? fxaQelv tovto, crvfx^ov- 
 \evecr6at,. 
 
 (4.) With ok<»9, ii. 140, o/«u? yap oi <$>olto,v. 
 
 (5.) With el, ii. 64, el £>v elvat too 0eq> tovto firj <pl~K,ov, ovk 
 av ovBe to. /cTijvea Troieeiv. 
 
 (6.) With hioTL, hi. 55, Tifiav Be ?Sa[ilov<; e<p7), SioTt Ta<j)fjvai 
 oi tov 7ra,7nroi> Brjfioaoa biro %ap.ia>v. So, also, iii. 156, iradelv 
 Be ravra Bioti o-ufi,6ov\evaai, where the reading o-vfifiovXevo-ai 
 is unnecessary. 
 
 (7) With e? o, ii. 102, tov eXeyov . . . KaTaaTpe^eaBai, 
 e? o irXeovTa fiiv irpoaco aTTiKeaOai,, 
 
 (8) With etas, iv. 42, eKirXeeiv ea>? . . . ai^iKveeaOai. 
 
 (9) With eo-Te, vii. 171, ecne . . . vvv vifieo-0cu, Of. also 
 Hhodian Inscription (Cauer, 179), virep ov vvv Bia/cpiveo-Qcu. 
 
 .Cicero, de Fin. iii. 19, 64, Mundum autem censent regi 
 numine deorum, ex quo illud natura consequi. 
 
 It is to be noticed that this construction is not pre- 
 Ciceronian, a fact which of itself would preclude any possi- 
 bility of an Indo-European origin. 
 
 In Greek the indicative often appears in oratio obliqua 
 
 3 
 
34 
 
 with on, &>?, etc., after a past tense, this being the original 
 usage and the natural construction, and not due to attraction 
 to the mood of the principal verb. The optative of oratio 
 obliqua was a purely Greek development, due first, according 
 to Brugmann, 1 to such sentences as Iliad, v. 301, rov KTapevai 
 /ieyaatB?, o? tk rov y avTws 'iXOoi, and the indicative was at 
 all times possible as a vivid exponent of the usual optative, 
 and the two moods often stand together under the govern- 
 ment of a single verb. 
 
 It is remarkable that we have no instance in Greek or 
 Latin of any formal assimilation to the indicative such as is 
 implied in English in the gradual loss of the subjunctive in 
 the protasis of a sentence whose apodosis is indicative. Thus : 
 " If this is so, all is lost " is now correct, even if the protasis 
 is the expression of an improbability, whereas once it would 
 have had to be, " If this be so ". 
 
 Formal assimilation of the optative has also sprung up in 
 different languages. Thus in Sanskrit : atha hayam Iksam 
 cakre, katham nu tad aviram katham ajanam syad yatraham 
 syam iti, " how can there be a lack of heroes and people 
 where I am?"; where syam is for asmi. 2 In Homer the 
 general rule is that if the principal clause contains an opta- 
 tive, the mood of the subordinate clause is also optative. 
 Thus : Od. xxi. 161, r/ Be k eireira yrfficud' o? ice TrXeicrra iropoi. 
 These are, however, exceptions. 3 In later Greek also, attrac- 
 tion of the optative takes place in relative and adverbial 
 sentences. Thus, after an optative of wish : iEsch. Hum. 297, 
 e\6oi 07T6>? yevotro. After optative not of wish : Eur. Hel. 435, 
 Tt? av fioXoi 6'cTTt? BiayyeuXeie ; so Elean Inscr. (Cauer, 253), Al 
 £e fii-mdelav ra ^Uaia op /AeyicrTov Te\o? e^ot tcai rot /SacrtXde?. 
 
 1 Gr. Gr. § 167. - Quoted by Delbriick, 8. F. vol. v. page 553. 
 3 Monro. Horn. Gram. § 301. 
 
35 
 
 It was shown under the previous heading that the tenses 
 of sub-oblique clauses in Latin are often assimilated. In 
 like manner the moods can be affected (see Draeger, Latin 
 Syntax, §151). 
 
 (1) In Relative Glauses. 
 
 Cicero, Tusc. i. 16, 37, Tantumque valuit error — ut corpora 
 cremata cum scirent, tamen ea fieri apud inferos fingerent, 
 quae sine corporibus nee fieri possent nee intellegi. 
 
 (2) In Temporal Glauses. 
 
 Cicero, Acad. ii. 3, 9, cum eo Catulus et Lucullus nosque 
 ipsi postridie venissemus quam apud Catulum fuissemus. 
 
 (3) With qitod = that. 
 
 Cicero de Hep. i. 6, 11. Maximeque hoc in hominum 
 doctorum oratione mihi mirum videri solet, quod, qui tran- 
 quillo mari gubernare se negent posse, quod nee dedicerint 
 nee umquam scire curaverint, eidem ad gubernacula se 
 accessuros profiteantur excitatis maxime fluctibus. 
 
 (4) With ut. 
 
 Cicero, Tusc. ii. 2, 5, atque oratorum quidem laus ita 
 ducta ab humili venit ad summum, ut iam— senescat, brevi- 
 que tempore ad nihilum ventura videatur, philosophia 
 nascatur Latinis quidem litteris, etc. Here we should have 
 expected a new principal clause with verb nascitur. 
 
 (5) With quam. 
 
 Livy i. 38, ut non quietior populus domi esset quam 
 militiae fuisset. 
 
 Latin examples of assimilation of the infinitive are : — 
 
 (1) After quam. 
 
 Cicero, Fata. ii. 16, adfirmavi quidvis me potius perpes- 
 surum quam ex Italia ad bellum me exiturum. 
 
 (2) After ut. 
 
 Cicero, Fro Gluentio § 138, quod saepe dictum est, ut mare 
 agitari atque turbari, sic populum Eomanum, etc. 
 
36 
 
 (3) Causal. 
 
 Livy xxvi. 27, quia si qui evasissent aliqua, velut feras 
 bestias per agros vagari. 
 
 (4) Temporal. 
 
 Livy iv. 51, cum interim — legem confestim exerceri. 
 
 (5) Conditional (once only). 
 
 Tacitus Ann. ii. 33, nisi forte clarissimo cuique plures 
 curas esse. 
 
 § 12. Formal Assimilation of Voice. In old Latin, possum, 
 queo, and negueo have passive forms which are used with 
 passive infinitives. So Lucretius, i. 1045, queatur ; iii. 1010, 
 potest ur. Lex Acilia Bepetundarum, ubei de piano recte legi 
 possitur. 
 
 So also coepi and desino are used in the passive form 
 generally when the verb following is really passive. If it is 
 merely deponent or middle, the governing verb is active. 
 Cicero, Verr. i. 9, 25, comitia nostra haberi coepta sunt. 
 Livy i. 57, obsidione munitionibusque coepti premi hostes. 
 
 A curious construction is found in Cauer 171, aveyrc\.r)Tov 
 avrov Trapeaxv™! where the reflexive notion is expressed 
 twice, so that we might consider it as parallel to the above 
 constructions. The ordinary form is irapexeiv iavrov; as 
 irape^eiv ifxavTov ifjufjieXerdv (Plato, Phaedr. 228 E). Com- 
 pare the use of dtmdnam (the Sanskrit reflexive) with the 
 middle in the Atharva-Veda, sa yajnam dtmdnam vyadhatta, 
 " he changed himself into the sacrifice ". 
 
 § 13. Lastly, we have to treat of the general effect on 
 style exercised by formal analogy. Here, as in the cases 
 above, we must differentiate between original and later 
 assimilation. 
 
 («) Parataxis, as opposed to hypotaxis, is an original 
 mode of expression, and consists in placing alongside of each 
 other two or more similarly constituted clauses. Many 
 
37 
 
 examples of a half-way stage between the two occur in early 
 writers. Thus we have the use of Be in the apodosis of a 
 conditional sentence (1) with Be in the protasis. Herod, iv. 
 61, f)v Be [irj cr<pi Trapfj 6 \e/3r}<;, ol Be . . . inroKatovav. (2) 
 with /j,ev in the protasis. Herod, iv. 65, rjv p.ev fj Trevqs, 6 Be 
 . . . xpaTai. 
 
 We have also parataxis in the rule that " and who " after 
 a preceding "who" cannot be translated by ical o?. Here 
 the original paratactic and simple analogy proved too strong, 
 and the second clause relapsed into a principal clause exactly 
 parallel to the clause of the antecedent. 
 
 (5) Balanced structure is much more frequent than 
 chiasmus, which, however, is due to the same kind of 
 analogy, in that it brings close together two words 
 which are mutually opposed and so adhere together in the 
 mind. 
 
 As a noteworthy instance of balanced structure may be 
 mentioned the fact that the- inclusive (i.e., chiasmic) order 
 like 6 tov 'AXegdvBpov vlos is very rare in early writers. 
 
 Balanced structure may be looked upon as the original, 
 although chiasmus occurs early enough, and is well exem- 
 plified in other languages, e.g., in Sanskrit. 
 
 (c) Pleonastic usage comes under formal assimilation in 
 this way : the two parts of a clause or expression are assimi- 
 lated to each other by having the idea repeated. They are, 
 of course, non-original, though from their nature, many of 
 them have sprung up very early. It would be hard to prove 
 that the double negative, for instance, is not Indo-European. 
 Under pleonasm may be mentioned : — 
 
 (a) The double negative. Under this head the psycho- 
 logical explanation cannot be too strongly insisted on. Two 
 forms are here used where either would do, and their con- 
 junction arises from the fact that, owing to their similarity 
 
38 
 
 of meaning, they are associated together in the mind of the 
 speaker. The ordinary forms are so common as to be 
 hardly worth exemplifying. A particular form of the double 
 negative is seen in /iSXkov rj ov. 1 
 
 OS) The double comparative. 
 
 (7) Bepetition of words. 
 
 So the repetition of the article (rare in early Greek). 
 Similarly the repetition of av, which must often have been 
 quite unconscious. So words like Homeric 7rpoTrpoKv\ivB6- 
 Mevo?. Of. Sanskrit, punah punah, uparyupari. So /aovos 
 fiovov, eKa>v iicovTi, etc. 
 
 (B) Epanalepsis. 
 
 Herod, ii. 35, 01 Be avBpes /car oi«ou? ewre? vtyaivovai 
 vtyawovcrb Be 01 jxev 0CKK01. 
 
 (e) Eepetition of the idea by other forms, as irpoaay avb 
 — ofioio<; Kal •7rapa7r\7jaio<; — tcro? re ical Sfiow; : English, 
 " choose and elect," " all and whole ". Of. Plautus, Captivi, 
 i. 1, 13, suo sibi suco vivont. A common example is the 
 cognate accusative. 
 
 The construction by which fieWa and some other verbs 
 take the future infinitive I should treat under this head as 
 a later assimilation, a view which corresponds with the 
 known fact that the future infinitive is a special Greek de- 
 velopment. In Herodotus, fieX\a> takes the future seventy-two 
 times, and the present or aorist forty times (only four or five 
 instances with the aorist) ; and no distinction of meaning is 
 
 1 Modern examples of the double negative are : — 
 He never yet no villainy ne said 
 in all his life unto no manner wight. — (Chaucer, Prologue.) 
 
 jfein geuct unb ®(utfy fcmtnt nid)t fo fyeij; 
 
 ate I)eitntid)c Siefee, bie Olicmanb nid)t iueif. — (German Volkslied.) 
 
 Of. also the use of French ne in comparative and negative sentences. 
 
39 
 
 involved in the difference of tense. 1 It is, however, remark- 
 able that e6e\to = p,e\Xo) is never used with the future in- 
 finitive. Other verbs present a similar choice of construc- 
 tions. So iirivoeiv, virohe-)(ea6ai, •Kpoahe^crOai.. In Herod. 
 V. 34, ovSev iravTWi tt poaeSe/covTO e7rt cn^ea? to aroKov tovtov 
 op/jLijo-eadai, the original usage would be opfiaaOcu or 6pp,ri- 
 a-aa-dat. Thus the literal translation would be " expected 
 the expedition for a setting out against them ". Here we 
 preserve the datival origin of the infinitive, and also get a 
 hint of how the accusative and infinitive construction could 
 arise after such a verb. Similarly we find the future in- 
 finitive with fiovkeaOai in a single passage in Herodotus, iv. 
 Ill, /3ov\op,evot, eg avrecov TralSai eKyevijcreadai,. 
 
 (£) Some cases of ellipsis involve a mixture, but others 
 are cases of formal analogy, the assimilation consisting in 
 bringing the connected words as near as possible. An 
 example is the omission of the copula, which is common 
 enough both in Latin and Greek. A possible view to take 
 would be that the omission of the copula is an original con- 
 struction, and it is exceedingly common in early writings, 
 e.g. in Vedic. So Bigveda vii. 12, 3, tvam varuna uta mitro 
 agne, " thou art Varuna and also Mitra, Agni ". 
 
 II. Assimilation of Meaning. 
 
 § 14. We come next to the assimilation of meaning, which 
 is the converse of the assimilation of form. In the first case 
 we get likeness of form where difference was to be expected ; 
 here the psychological working of the inner meaning pro- 
 duces difference where likeness was to be expected. Thus 
 a sentence like "The populace were agitated" couples to- 
 gether a singular noun and a plural verb, the reason of the 
 
 1 We find the two constructions in a single sentence in iii. 43, e< tov 
 jieWovTos ytpe(T$at 7rpr}y[iaTOS, and Te\evTT](T€iv /ieAAoi TloKvKpaTrjs. 
 
40 
 
 usage being that the noun is a collective one, and the speaker 
 pays less attention to the fact of its being singular. This 
 does not necessarily mean that there is any difference in 
 signification between the two forms, but merely implies that 
 one assimilation has proved stronger than another. 
 
 § 15. Gender. The grammatical gender often yields to the 
 stronger assimilation of the natural gender. In Vedic, in atara, 
 the dual of matr, " a mother," and meaning " parents," is 
 found once with a masc. adj. 
 
 Cf. Plato, Laches, 180 E, ra jieipdicia 7rpo? aSXrfKov! Bt,a- 
 \e<y6fj.evoi,. 
 
 Greek Inscr. (C.auer 215), cra)/j.a ywai/ceiov, a ovo/ma Niko> ; 
 (216), crcbfia ryvvai/ceiov, a opo/xa 'A/x/xia. 
 
 Terence Andria, iii. 5, 1, illic scelus, qui me [perdidit]. 
 
 So hie simia, as a popular idiom. 
 
 Similarly the neuter may be used of inanimate things, 
 whose grammatical gender is masc. or fern. Thus Herod, ii. 
 92, eaTt, Be Kal rj pc^a tov Xarov tovtov iBcoBinrj ical iyyXvccrei, 
 iTTieiiceus, iov aTpoyyvXov. 
 
 A relative may also be in real assimilation with a personal 
 pronoun supplied out of a preceding possessive adjective. 
 Soph. 0. C. 730, t»j? 6jU% iireiaohov, ov firyr d/cveXre, 
 Terence Adelph. v. 4, 27, id mea minume refert, qui sum 
 natu maxim us. 
 
 It is almost certain that the assimilation of the natural 
 gender is a construction prior to that of the grammatical 
 gender, which, though of course Indo-European, has been 
 shown by Brugmann x to be a later development. This, how- 
 ever, does not mean that such sense-analogies are all sur- 
 vivals of a previous state of things, as they might start up 
 at any time, however fully the grammatical assimilation had 
 been carried out. 
 
 1 In Techmer's Zeitschrift, iv. p. 100. See above, § 5. 
 
41 
 
 The history of the masculine nouns of the first declension 
 must be brought under this section. These were originally 
 collective substantives of feminine gender, and got their 
 subsequent rules of concord, and some of their forms as well, 
 from real assimilation of gender. This, according to Del- 
 briick, is borne out by the similar use of -ta in Slavonic. 
 Thus veavLa<i was originally a fem. veouvia, " a body of youths," 
 cf. Lat. inventus. So originally l-niroTa, fem., "the chivalry ". 
 It is quite conceivable that even with these original feminine 
 forms they could take a masculine adjective in the predicate 
 from sense-assimilation. Then formal assimilation would 
 operate and the noun itself would be made masculine in form 
 on the analogy of nouns of the second declension, to which, 
 of course, the agreeing adjectives would belong. 
 
 § 16. Number. («) A collective noun is often joined to a 
 plural verb or other word. 
 
 Iliad, xv. 305, f) ttXtjOw WKoveovro. 
 
 Herod, iii. 113, to Se erepov 7?Vo9 tcov otasv t<x<? ovpas 
 ■7r\aTea<; <$>opeovai, which may be compared with conversa- 
 tional English " those kind of people ". 
 
 Pindar, 01. i. 131, daveiv he olaiv avd-yxa, tL ice rt? avcavv/xov 
 ryrjpa<; iv cticotw Kadq/Jievos eyjroi fiarav. 
 
 So also exao-To? may be used with the plural as well as 
 with the singular. Contrast Herod, viii. 107, w<; rd%eo? et^e 
 eicacrTOS, and ix. 59, &>s "irohSiv e/cacrTO? eZ^oz/. 
 
 Cf. the similar uses of aXKo? dXKov, etc. + singular or 
 plural verb. 
 
 Harmonists like Cobet would deal with all -such usages 
 according to the rules of logic. In Cobet's Variae Zectiones 
 pages 113, 114, we find a great many emendations of passages 
 where ewao-To? or aX\o<; dWov, etc., occur, and where the 
 MS. reading is changed to avoid apparent violations of 
 logic. Many such emendations, however, are rendered 
 
42 
 
 unnecessary if the principles of analogical change are kept 
 steadily in view. 
 
 The construction is extremely common in English. So 
 " The jury have agreed ". It occurs in Gothic. Thus St. 
 Mark iii. 32, setun bi ina managei, "the multitude sat 
 about him". It is very common in early Latin and in all 
 periods of the language. 
 
 Plautus, Most. T. 2, 20, sibi quisque inde exemplum ex- 
 petunt. 1 
 
 In Greek, a noun -\-fieTa with genitive, and in Latin, a 
 noun-f-cwm w Jth ablative can take a plural verb. 
 
 Cato {apud Gellium, xiv. 2, 26), si sponsionem fecissent 
 Gellius cum Turio. 
 
 Eeal assimilation also takes place in sentences like tem- 
 pus necessitasque postulat (Cicero, Off. i. 23, 81), where the 
 two nouns form one notion. This explanation is preferable 
 to explaining postulat as agreeing in number with the nearest 
 noun. 
 
 (&) Under this head comes the peculiar Greek construction, 
 whereby a neuter plural takes a singular verb. The theory, 
 lately propounded anew by Johannes Schmidt, that neuter 
 plurals in -a are really feminine singulars with a collective 
 meaning, though supported by many parallel usages from 
 other languages, may be considered to be not proved. If it 
 were true, the construction of the Greek neuter plural with a 
 singular verb would be susceptible of an easy explanation. 
 However, the older view, that the neuter plural in this con- 
 struction is looked upon as one mass, seems perfectly good, 
 and would come in naturally as an instance of real assimila- 
 tion. The two usages are joined to the same noun in Herod, 
 vi. 41, i/c t?}? ol reicva iyevero tcl e'9 Uepcra? KeKocr/Mearat. 
 
 1 The converse of this is seen with nos = ego ; as — nobis merenti 
 (Tibull. Lygd. vi. 55). See Schmalz, Lett. Syntax, § 21 b. 
 
43 
 
 Note. — The use of a plural verb with a neuter plural noun is com- 
 moner in Homer than in later writers. This is an argument in favour 
 of the view that the other construction is an innovation which was 
 almost fully carried out later on ; a position strengthened by the great 
 rarity of the usage in Vedic. We have it in na te vivyan mahimcinam 
 rajansi, "the fields of space do not contain thy greatness" (Eigveda, 
 vii."21, 6). 1 
 
 The construction may also be compared with one occa- 
 sionally found in Herodotus, where a word like ravra is 
 joined to an adjective in the neuter singular. Here, doubt- 
 less real assimilation takes place, the neuter plural being 
 looked upon as one whole. So v. 98, ravra Se atcovaavres o' 
 nauoves Kapra re axrrvacrrov hrot,r\<Tavro, for which we may 
 compare Plato, Protagoras 314 C, Sogav ravra (like e'So^e 
 ravra). The " Schema Pindaricum " is also a further ex- 
 tension of the construction. We may compare the common 
 phrase ea-nv o'L A Latin parallel is astante civibus suis, found 
 on an inscription ; also praesente and a.bsente found agreeing 
 with plural nouns (Schmalz, Lat. Gr. § 21 b). 
 
 (c) Treatment of Dual. This number existed in Indo- 
 European, but its fortune has been very varied in the 
 different languages. It was properly used of things that 
 were naturally pairs ; and while in Sanskrit the analogy 
 has gone in the direction of associating a dual verb with 
 all duals, whether natural pairs or not, the tendency in Greek 
 has rather been in the direction of sense-analogy, that is, of 
 putting a plural verb even with those duals that represent 
 natural pairs 2 ; and the absence of a first person dual in 
 verbs can only be held to be the beginning of a conscious- 
 ness, which became universal in late Greek, as well as in 
 several dialects in the classical period, that the dual was 
 unnecessary for the purposes of language. 
 
 1 See Delbruck, 8. F. v. page 83. 2 See above, page 17. 
 
44 
 
 With this we may compare the occasional usage in Latin, 
 whereby qui is put for uter, when two persons are spoken 
 of. Thus, Livy, xxvii. 40, qui eorum prior vicisset. 
 
 § 17. Real Assimilation of Mood in Sequence. In clauses 
 dependent on a historic present we may have the indicative 
 (or conjunctive in final clauses), or we may have the optative. 
 The former is an example of formal, the latter of real assimi- 
 lation. So Herod, i. 110, iceXevei ere ' Aarvdyrj'; . . . o/ctu? 
 av to-xlo-to, Bia<f>6apel,rj. The same conditions hold good 
 for the tenses of the subjunctive after a historical present in 
 Latin. 
 
 We have now treated of two out of the three sections 
 into which analogy is divided ; but before coming to the 
 third, let us ask the question : Is it possible for a syntactical 
 form to alter its original signification apart from the in- 
 fluence of another form ? To a certain extent it, is. The 
 analogical change may be worked out in the word itself, 
 which may shade off into meanings more or less akin to the 
 original one. In this way, the Greek future in -o-w has 
 certainly passed from the meaning of intention to that of 
 simple futurity. The two meanings, though distinct, are 
 very close, so that the change of meaning can be accounted 
 for without looking at any other forms. Thus we have the 
 Homeric to. iaa6/j.eva, where no intention is signified. So 
 also the original meaning of the subjunctive gave rise to 
 many kindred significations. An original form with an 
 indefinite use may be differentiated into definite usages, all 
 akin to the original one, and many of them due to no external 
 influence. So with the present, which in all probability was 
 originally a general tense ; afterwards, besides being used for 
 present time and past time with " historic sense," it was 
 undoubtedly employed in Indo-European for the future, a 
 use very common in Teutonic and found in Sanskrit. 
 
45 
 III. Complex Assimilation. 
 
 § 18. The third kind of analogy, which may be called 
 complex, is quite different from the two kinds already 
 mentioned, and presupposes two original factors which are 
 combined to form a new expression. It has a wider influence 
 than either of the other two, and all languages are full of its 
 results. It is certain that many of the constructions that 
 appear to us quite simple are really the product of contamina- 
 tion. Some of them are probably beyond analysis ; others j 
 however, present a very fair field for speculation, from the fact 
 that we possess examples of a more primitive usage to guide 
 us to their origin. A third class is composed of those which 
 we can see, as it were, in the process of manufacture ; and 
 for these we must look particularly to early writers. Thus 
 the result of a syntactical contamination either may succeed 
 in displacing the original constructions, or may exist along- 
 side of them as an alternative usage. 
 
 An innovation in syntax always proceeds on the lines of 
 old syntactical processes, and must therefore be the result 
 of contamination. Thus, if we find a verb taking an un- 
 usual case, an explanation of the phenomenon will be 
 usually found in the common construction of some other 
 verb of kindred meaning. 
 
 Let us now proceed to classify various forms which this 
 kind of analogy assumes. 
 
 § 19. Gender. It is certain that the gender of nouns in 
 Greek, as in other languages, has undergone change in a 
 considerable number of cases. This must have begun very 
 early, and the change in most instances was complete 
 before the date of any of our literary records. The traditional 
 grammatical gender of nouns in -o? is masculine, and of 
 nouns in -a (-tj) feminine. It is probable that the exceptions 
 
46 
 
 to this rule are due to the working of syntactical contamina- 
 tion, i.e., a word in -o? sometimes became feminine through 
 psychological association due to similarity of meaning with 
 a word in -a. 
 
 It has been held that 086? and vf)<ro<; have become feminine 
 on the analogy of some words of the first declension. The 
 difficulty is to get a probable word. 01^77 has been suggested 
 as the starting-point for r) 6B6<;, but this is not very likely. 
 So the gender of riireipoi, ^epa-os, tnroSos, etc., has been 
 attributed to the influence of jr), and similarly r/ vXrj may 
 have produced rj /8i5/3Xo5. On the whole we have no certain 
 evidence to go upon in these cases ; and it is more certain 
 that a change of gender has taken place than how it has 
 taken place. The only thing in the way of proof that can 
 be adduced is found in cases where the words whose gender 
 has changed and those that may have so influenced them go 
 together. 
 
 So Herod, iv. 123, t?5? x^PV^ iova-r}^ %ep<rov ; ii. 140, 
 <nroBq> re koI <yfj. 
 
 § 20. Number. Under the head of real assimilation we 
 have already examined a considerable number of instances 
 where singular and plural words went together, but where 
 no outside influence was active, the psychological working 
 being from the one word to the other. There are cases, 
 however, of the plural being found for the singular, where 
 probably another construction altogether has given rise to 
 the one in question. Thus in Latin, nee-nee often takes a 
 plural verb instead of a singular, there being really con- 
 tamination, arising probably from the construction of et-et. 
 So with aut, and seu; as — Plautus, True. ii. 4, 47, quserere 
 puerum aut puellam, qui supponantur. So the use of irorepa 
 in Greek where we should expect iroTepov may come from 
 the use of afitporepa. So Herod, ii. 114, Korepa BrjTa tovtov 
 
47 
 
 i&fiev aa-ivea iicifkeeiv fj aTre\d>/j,eda ra eywv fa^ 6 - 1 An 
 instance of the converse phenomenon is to be found in the 
 familiar use of (pipe Si and dye Si with the plural. 
 
 § 21. Case, (a) In modern Greek we get a variety of 
 constructions with prepositions and their cases that are not 
 classical. Thus we have icakbv hC ■%/*&<;, " good for us ". 
 This is the result of phrases like iwpdx&r] Si ^/ia?, " it was 
 done on account of us". Now, evpa-yQr] tjiuv can be used/ 
 and likewise koXov r\pTw. Make a proportion, and we get the 
 new form : eirpa^Qt] rjfuv : eirpa-yQi] St r\p,a<i : : kcCKov r^iiv : 
 /caXbv St 17/ia?. 
 
 In Greek, Teutonic, and Keltic, the ablative, the locative, 
 and the instrumental have disappeared ; and in Latin, the 
 locative and the instrumental have no separate form. This 
 is partly due to the forms of the different cases coalescing 
 through the working of phonetic laws, but the most im- 
 portant factor in the change is syntactical analogy working 
 in the same way as the modern Greek example above. We 
 shall have to point out in the different languages various 
 points where the meanings of the cases met, so that it 
 became possible that a case should gradually be supplanted 
 by another. If these points of union can be found, it is 
 easy to see how formal analogy, as exemplified under the 
 first head, would help to work out a uniformity. 
 
 It is to be observed that even in Sanskrit all these 
 cases are not distinguished. The ablative has a special 
 form only in the 'singular of masculine and neuter -a stems ; 
 elsewhere in the singular it corresponds with the genitive, 
 and in the plural with the dative, while in the dual, the 
 instrumental, dative, and ablative are represented by one 
 form. 
 
 1 Similarly in English a plural instead of a singular verb after either- 
 or and neither-nor is often found in careless writing. 
 
48 
 
 The ablative and genitive have in Sanskrit the following 
 ideas in common : — 1 
 
 (1) Both are employed to express removal, and so, 
 difference. 
 
 (2) Both may be used after verbs of fearing. 2 
 
 (3) The ablative is used with comparatives, while the 
 genitive is used with words of likeness {cf. similis in Latin, 
 and, by analogy, dissimilis also with the genitive). 
 
 (4) Both are used absolutely. 
 
 How far these meanings have developed in the two 
 cases separately in Sanskrit can never be told ; probably 
 the genitive was originally a case used with nouns, and the 
 ablative a case originally used with verbs ; the genitive also 
 would denote connexion, and the ablative, as its name im- 
 plies, separation. Now these two ideas are converse, and 
 therefore cohere in the mind, and consequently their asso- 
 ciation led to their confusion. Thus in Greek, the genitive 
 represented two cases, (1) true genitive, (2) true ablative ; 
 while of the true genitive we have (a) the (original) nominal 
 use, and (/3) the (non-original) use with verbs. Greek shows 
 the period of total fusion of the cases ; Sanskrit that of 
 partial fusion both in form and in meaning ; while we can 
 only infer the conditions of the original period, when pre- 
 sumably the two cases had quite distinct functions. For 
 example, the ablative expresses removal in lobhat krodhah 
 prabhavati, "passion arises from greed," and the genitive 
 denotes place from which in grrm me, "learn from me". 
 Thus, if the genitive is originally a case used with nouns, 
 the last example must be due to contamination. So 
 instances might be given of similarity in the other uses. 
 
 1 For the uses of the eases in Sanskrit, see Whitney, Sanskrit Grammar," 
 §§ 267-805. 
 
 2 Gf. Lat. a quo genere . . . numquam timui (Cicero, pro Sulla, xx. 59). 
 
49 
 
 In Latin, the locative, instrumental, and ablative have 
 been merged into one case. A similar contamination of 
 function is seen in the Italic dialects. Thus, the Oscan 
 form tanginud, " according to agreement," has the meaning 
 of an instrumental, although the ablative form is still kept, 
 a fact which proves that the functions of the cases had come 
 close to each other. Contrast, however, usages in Umbrian, 
 where the locative is still used with prepositions implying 
 rest. Thus, super Jeumne = Lat. super comitium} The San- 
 skrit instrumental probably includes two original cases, the 
 comitative and the case of agency, two ideas which are very 
 easily united. The points in which the instrumental and 
 the locative unite or come close are many; thus, " accom- 
 paniment," "time," "person with whom". Suppose these 
 united ; we have then to explain how confusion between the 
 instrumental and the ablative is possible. Here we have to 
 consider the same confusion that took place between the 
 genitive and the ablative, that is, contamination of two 
 opposites, which, as such, are inseparably connected in the 
 mind, and so produced a construction based on combination. 
 Thus, the instrumental is used in Sanskrit, not only with 
 saha, "with," but with vind, "without". Now the prepo- 
 sition, in its original signification, is neither more nor less 
 than an amplification of the meaning of the case ; that is, 
 it can only be employed with a case denoting a kindred 
 signification. Hence the use of a case with a preposition 
 of opposite meaning implies a confusion in mind of these 
 two meanings. Such a confusion is, as stated above, the 
 natural result of the laws of association. So in Vedic, 
 words compounded with vi- take an instrumental ; as vat- 
 
 1 Here Latin has generalised the construction proper only to verbs 
 of motion, just as it has done with trans, where contrast the use of the 
 Umbrian traf. 
 
 4 
 
50 
 
 sair viyuta yad dsan, " when they were separated from their 
 calves ". Conversely to this, the Latin instrumental became 
 merged in the ablative. In the same way ablatival forms 
 like ko\o>s, which' are used as adverbs, must have been 
 made at a time when the instrumental and the ablative 
 had already got contaminated. 
 
 We have still another confusion of cases to account for, 
 that is, that in Greek and Teutonic the meanings of the 
 locative and the instrumental have been taken on by the 
 dative. Is there any point of union between these cases ? 
 In Sanskrit, the dative is the case of the remoter object, 
 after verbs of giving, declaring, pleasing, etc. Hence it 
 comes to mean "inclination to," and here it comes close to 
 one of the uses of the locative. 
 
 Thus dative, mahyam namantam pradigag catasrah, " let 
 the four quarters bow themselves to me " (Rigveda). Com- 
 pare the use of the locative of goal : ma prayacche 'gvare 
 dhanam, "do not offer wealth to a lord". Cf. also Latin 
 locative of goal ; as, it clamor eaelo, where caelo was long taken 
 for a dative. Conington allows the possibility, and there is 
 no reason wby the Romans themselves should not have con- 
 sidered it as such. The varied fortunes of the instrumental 
 are shown very well by the different uses of the Greek forms 
 in $t{v). In this connexion it would be interesting to know 
 what was the original function of the Latin -bus. 
 
 The gulf between tbe cases being thus bridged over, the 
 analogy due to combination began to work, and many non- 
 original constructions arose. Just as cum with the ablative 
 in Latin is really illogical, so the use of prepositions with 
 the dative is due to contamination. It is not found in Vedic 
 or indeed in Sanskrit at all, whereas it is regular in Greek, 
 Gothic, and Keltic. 
 
 (b) In several Greek dialects there exists a certain 
 
51 
 
 amount of contamination between the functions of the 
 nominative and those of the accusative. Thus in Attic, 
 the true nominatives 7rd\et?, evyevels are used for the accusa- 
 tive plural. Conversely, Delphian shows \xvas Se/caTeTopes 
 (for BeKareropcK) 1 These contaminations, of course, arose 
 from the community of meaning possessed by the nomina- 
 tive and the accusative. We may compare the similar con- 
 fusion in English between who and whom, the former being 
 often used, even by good writers, as the object of a preposi- 
 tion or of a transitive verb. 2 
 
 (c) Another very common instance of case-contamination 
 in Greek is the use of the dative for the possessive genitive. 
 So (Elean Inscr.) a Fpdrpa rot? FaXetot?. The usage could, 
 and probably did, arise in two ways. 
 
 (1) From instances where the dative really depended on 
 a verb, like Herod, i. 80, Bii<p0apTo re to> Kpoia-a r) iXTris, 
 which we should translate by " The hope of Croesus 
 perished". This would lead to usages like oi vlo<;, "his 
 son," where no verb exists. 3 
 
 (2) From instances where the natural genitive was 
 attracted into the dative by another dative present, thus 
 forming a bridge between formal and complex assimilation. 
 Thus :— 
 
 Herod, ii. 78, ev rrjai, crvvovo-iyat, tolctl evSaC/j,ocn clvtwv; 
 iii. 16, ov&afia><; ev v6fiq> ovSerepoiai iari. 
 
 (d) The accusative, properly speaking, is a verbal case, 
 that is, a case that defines and limits the action of a verb, 
 whether it be transitive or intransitive. The accusative of 
 
 1 See Brugmann, Gr. Gr., 2 page 203. 
 
 2 An extreme instance of ease-contamination is seen in the use in 
 modern Greek of 6Vov (= iv a>, etc.) used for all cases of the relative. 
 Thus tov avhpa ottov d8a, " the man whom I saw". 
 
 3 The use of poi and o-oi as possessives may possibly belong to Indo- 
 European. Brugmann, Gr. Gr., 209 ; Delbrtick, S. F., v. page 205. 
 
52 
 
 respect with adjectives may also be looked upon as an 
 accusative that defines predication, and is probably Indo- 
 European, though its widely extended use has been developed 
 first upon Grecian ground. 1 But besides these we have in 
 Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin, constructions which are un- 
 doubtedly non-original, and borrowed from the proper use of 
 the accusative. That is, we find the accusative used with 
 expressions equivalent to verbs, where we might expect 
 these equivalent expressions to take the constructions 
 peculiar to themselves, and not those of the verbs they 
 represent. The constructions we are dealing with here must 
 therefore be the result of contamination. Thus in Sanskrit, 
 primary derivatives in -in take the accusative, as enam abhib- 
 hasinl, "speaking to him". So verbal nouns in -a from 
 derivative stems, as svargam abhikanksaya, "desiring para- 
 dise " (Eigveda). With nouns in -tr as tyaktarah samyuge pra- 
 ndn, "risking life in battle". And so with ordinary adjec- 
 tives occasionally, as, Ncdam anuvrata, "faithful to Nala". 
 
 Greek has the construction frequently, Eurip., Ion 572, 
 o S' $£a<? bpOws, tovto trap e%« 7ro#o?, where icafi e^ei Trodos 
 stands for Kaya> -noOm. iEsch. S.c. T. 289, pepLfivai £g>ttv- 
 povao Tapfto? rbv ap^LTeixv Xeew. Soph. 0. C. 584, ra 8' eV 
 /teo-w 7) Xijariv tcr^ei? rj Si ovSevbs iroiei. 
 
 It should be noticed that in Greek the analogy has not 
 been extended to the same degree as in Sanskrit. 
 
 We have Latin parallels in animum advortere with the 
 accusative, and the usage iusiurandum adigere aliquem. The 
 rare construction of adjectives in bundus taking an accusa- 
 tive is of a kindred nature, but such adjectives are practically 
 used as participles. An example is Livy xxv. 13, vita- 
 bundus castra hostium. Another parallel to the Sanskrit 
 usage is Plautus, Amph. 34, iusta sum orator datus. 
 1 Brugnaann, Gr. Gr., page 204. 
 
53 
 
 (e) The constructions taken by many verbs in Greek and 
 Latin form a section of case-contamination. The clearest 
 examples are found in early writers like Herodotus and 
 Plautus, who were less bound by traditional usage than other 
 authors, and who consequently originated many case-con- 
 structions on the analogy of normal ones. The cases of 
 mixture are of two kinds (i.) where the verb takes its con- 
 struction from a noun or adjective and (ii.) where it takes 
 its construction from some other verb. 
 
 (i.) Under this head probably come verbs like r)<yep.oveva>, 
 fiaaikevw, rvpavvevo), <TTpaT7}<yea>, and other words meaning 
 control. Such verbs are denominative, and naturally take 
 the same construction as the nouns from which they are 
 derived. So in Herod, hi. 15, einTpoiTeveiv owt/)?. The 
 verb itself is a comparatively late formation, and the above 
 example probably represents its earliest construction, with 
 the genitive, on the analogy of eirLTpoiro<; ; its use with the 
 accusative must be later, and may be compared with the 
 similar construction of Bopvcf>opea> on the analogy of <f>v\d<r<ra>. 
 So Herod, iii. 36, -XprjcrTcos rrjv aeavTov irarpCSa iireTpoTrevaas. 
 This is the usual construction in later writers. Similar 
 denominative verbs are 7rpocpr]TeiiG>, rpirjpap^io). 
 
 So on the analogy of an adjective ; as — tpaodat, from tpc?, 
 which takes the genitive. Thus ii. 35, iparai, ywrj ph ovSefiia 
 outs ep<revo<; Beov ovre drjXerjs, avBpe? Be Trdvrwv T€ ical iraakasv. 
 This construction is confined to Herodotus. Liddel and 
 Scott quote an instance of the verb from Pausanias, where 
 it takes the dative. Similarly dpicrrevw and KaX\t,<neva> take 
 the genitive on the analogy of apio-ros and xaWioTo?. 
 
 Doubtless the development of many of these constructions 
 has been greatly helped by the analogy of ap%co and such 
 words, which probably took a genitive originally. So also 
 in Sanskrit a genitive can follow verbs meaning "rule" or 
 
54 
 
 "authority"; as — tvam icise vasimarn, "thou art lord of 
 good things" (Eigveda). 1 This Sanskrit usage precludes 
 the otherwise possible view that the construction of apx w 
 with the genitive arose from denominative verbs. 
 
 With the above we may compare Latin cupidvs with 
 genitive leading to cupio with genitive. So Plautus, Miles, 
 iv'. 1, 17, quae cupiunt tui. Similarly imideo with genitive on 
 analogy of invidus. Hor. Sat. ii. 6, 84, neque ille sepositi 
 ciceris nee longae invidit avenae. 2 The phrase in Herod, vii. 
 59, reXevra avrov, "is the end of it," is probably modelled' on 
 reXo? iarlv avrov, and it cannot be explained as being due to 
 the analogy of any such verb as Travofiai. 
 
 (ii.) The second class is composed of verbs whose case- 
 construction is based on that of some other verb psycho- 
 logically connected with it. The contamination between 
 the constructions of aKoveiv and irtideaOai found in Hero- 
 dotus has been already mentioned, 8 and a list of the 
 examples in that author will be given later (see § 34). 
 Latin iubeo sometimes takes a dative on the analogy of 
 impero. So Tac. Ann. xiii. 15, Britannico iussit, exsurgeret. 4 
 Impertire aliquem cdiqua re = dmiare aliquem aliqua re + im- 
 pertire alicui aliquid. So Sueton. Oct. 25, triumphales 
 numquarn donis impertiendos putavit. 6 
 
 Many verbs properly intransitive became transitive on 
 the analogy of other verbs of kindred meaning. Such has 
 been the case with o-e'/So/xat, whose use with an accusative is 
 post-Homeric. From a comparison of the kindred- word in 
 Sanskrit, tyajclmi, " I abandon," " I shun," and from the fact 
 
 1 See "Whitney, Sanskrit Grammar, § 297 c. 
 
 " Roby, however (Lat. Gr. § 1330), considers it to be a Grsecism. 
 
 3 See above, § 4. 
 
 4 Cf. duoi probare (possibly on the analogy of favere), quoted from. 
 Sallust by Quintilian, ix. 3, 12. 5 Ziemer, J. S. p. 101. 
 
55 
 
 that it is passive and not middle in form (cf. aor. iae^d^v, 
 Soph. Fr. 168, etc.), (rifiofiai must have originally meant, " I 
 am shunned by," "I am humiliated before". This came 
 near in meaning to, " I feel awe of," " I fear," and the word 
 probably took its (external) accusative on the analogy of 
 Se/Sw, or some similar verb. The same holds good with 
 respect to <f>o/3io/Aa(, "I am frightened," and eK7r\a<yfivai, 
 which sometimes take the accusative. Similarly in Latin 
 transitive verbs like metuere produced a host of analogical 
 constructions. Thus the accusative is found with tremere, 
 horrere, tremiscere, contremiscere, trepidare, pallescere, 
 pavere, pavescere, expavescere, abhorrere. So phrases like 
 Tyrrhenum navigat eequor, pointed out by Quintilian (ix. 3, 17) 
 as a departure from the ordinary usage, are probably due to 
 the analogy of other verbs. An example from Plautus is the 
 use of perire and deperire (Cist. i. 3, 43) with the accusative 
 on the analogy of amo. Like many such early usages, it is 
 confined to one author, and never gained a footing in the 
 language. 
 
 In most cases where the above case-contamination has 
 taken place the link uniting the two verbs is the psychological 
 connexion based on nearness of signification, or converse 
 meaning. An example of the latter is the use of discrepo, 
 discordo, etc., with cum + ablative on the analogy of words 
 of opposite meaning like consentio. The following is an 
 attempt to explain the intransitive use of e^co from con- 
 tamination based on the nearness in sound of two words. 
 In this construction, which is common even in Homer, e'^w 
 is evidently used in exactly the same sense as elfiu, and the 
 question is : Can we find any form which could lead to the 
 contamination of these two verbs? We have such in the 
 inceptive form eaice (common in Homer), which could be 
 easily confused with ecrx e in Ionic, a dialect where the 
 
56 
 
 aspirates were pronounced with a very slight difference, or 
 with none at all, from the corresponding tenues. Thus iv 
 Omvfiari ecricov (Herod, iv. 129) would naturally lead to iv 
 OcovfiaTi eax ov > a quite possible construction. Contrast the 
 two following phrases : — 
 
 Herod, vii. 143, ei e<? 'Adrjvaiovs el%e to eVo? eipr)[x,evov 
 6WT&)? ; 119, CTKTjvr) fiev ecrice Tre7rrjyvia. 
 
 Here we have both verbs used as auxiliaries, and it would 
 be hard, in the face of such close usage, to assert that con- 
 tamination has not taken place. In the same way it is 
 possible that the intransitive use of igirj/M comes from, or is 
 at all events helped by, its confusion .with e^eifii, the two 
 forms uniting in levai, and levai, both pronounced without 
 aspiration in Ionic. 
 
 § 22. Closely allied to the contamination of cases are the 
 so-called pregnant constructions, or, to be more exact, the 
 confusion subsisting between the verbs of motion to or from 
 a place and those of rest in a place. It is so common that 
 an Indo-European origin for it might very well be postulated, 
 although it could very easily arise independently in many 
 languages. Examples from Herodotus are : — 
 
 ii. 18, oi etc Mapeyf 7r6Xto? ; iii. 62, crra? e'? /j,ecrov ; iii. 73, 
 aX\o8i, lovras ; v. 25, e's top l^wv, alongside of iv ra> kclti^wv. 
 
 A Latin example is : {Lex Agraria) quei in agrum com- 
 pascuom pequdes maiores non plus x pascet ( Wordsw., p. 191) . 
 
 Such constructions occur frequently in legal documents. 
 
 So evhodev = within. Pindar, P. ii. 135, 0v/xbv Tep-TreraL 
 evhoOev. Cf. the use of fiaicpav as in 97 fiaiepav 7rdX(<?, "the 
 far-off city" (iEsch.). 
 
 A Gothic example is : Wulfila, Mark, i. 29, qemun in 
 cjarda Seimonis, where garda is the dative. So in English : 
 (Rest instead of motion.) Where are you going? (So Um- 
 brian ifi = ibi or eo.) (Motion instead of rest.) There were 
 
57 
 
 three kings into the East (Burns). This construction is 
 quite regular in Lowland Scotch. 1 
 
 § 23. Person. Whether the use of the stem iavro- for other 
 persons than the third is due to contamination is rendered 
 doubtful from the fact that Sanskrit sva, which corresponds 
 to the e- of eavrov, is an emphatic anaphoric pronoun referring, 
 without distinction of person, to a word mentioned before. 
 This circumstance, at all events, shows that if we have a 
 mixture here, that is, if sua was originally only of the third 
 person, the contamination must have taken place very early. 
 The usage is found sparingly in several branches of Greek 
 literature, and that it has been a lasting one may be seen 
 from the modern Greek, ^Xdirro/iev tovs eavTovs yita?. Exam- 
 ples are : — 
 
 («) for 1st person. Herod, iv. 97, rdhe Xiyeiu (pairj ti? dv 
 /ie imvTov e'lveicev. (Stein reads euecovrov.) 
 
 (b) for 2nd person. Herod, i. 108, firjSe . . . a-ol ecovrip 
 irepiTreari'i. (Stein reads avrS.) 
 
 It was rather commoner in Attic, probably from the fact 
 that, the form being avTos, it was more readily attracted to 
 airoi. Thus Soph. El. 285, KXaiw avrr) 77-po? avrrjv. 
 
 Whatever doubt there may be as to the origin of the use 
 of eavro- with 1st and 2nd persons, the similar use of o-^et? 
 is certainly not original. Probably it is a contamination due 
 to the use of eavrov, etc. An example is Isocr. 62 e, where 
 the MSS. give e/380/j.rJKOVT eri) StereXea-afiev daracriaaToo 7rpo? 
 <r<f)a<; ai/Tow. Others read ^a?. 
 
 In oratio obliqua 1st and 2nd persons as a rule become 
 3rd person. Cases, however, exist where the usage is only 
 half carried out, and such instances naturally involve a 
 
 1 The dialectic use of iv for els as iv tov Tro\efiov (Theban Inscr., Cauer, 
 353) is not parallel, .iv and ivs {els) being originally varieties of the same 
 word. 
 
58 
 
 mixture of persons. An example is Herod, viii. 143, vvv re 
 airdyyeWe &>9 'A6rjvaioi, Xey overt . . . firjKore op.o\oyr]creiv 
 f}/u,ea<; aep^y. Cobet (V. L. page 425) would make this 
 conform to the ordinary usage by omitting a>? 'AOrjvaloi 
 Xeyovai,. A Latin parallel is found in Varro, de lingua Latina, 
 ix. 15, hi qui pueros in ludum mittunt, idem barbatos non 
 docebimus. 
 
 § 24. Mixture with other pronouns. Greek shows consider- 
 able contamination of the usages of 6'?, ti?, tis, and oans. 
 Thus we find : — 
 
 (a) o? for n's interrogative. 
 
 Herod, iii. 50, apa "are, u> TralSes, o? vfiewv ttjv fjLTjTepa 
 aireKreive ; ii. 121, yvapiadeis o? el'?;. 
 
 It is possible that this construction may arise from 
 sentences like the first, where o? can be resolved into tovtov 
 09, and then be applied to sentences like the second, where 
 09 cannot be so resolved. The analogy, however, stopped 
 half-way, and we do not find. ov used for rfc in direct questions. 
 
 (6) SaTK indistinguishable from 09 in usage. 
 
 Herod, ii. 99, ttoKlv KTiaai tcivttjv r/rt? vvv Me'ficptv KaXeerai. 
 
 (c) Scttk for Ti? indefinite. 
 
 Herod, iii. 145, ovto? o ti Brj i^afiaproov iv yopyvprj eSeSeTO. 
 
 § 25. Contamination with Comparative emit Superlative. In 
 comparison we find, as we should expect, a wide field for confu- 
 sion of thought, and consequently confusion of expression. 
 Thus phrases like ev£at/j,oveaTaTo<; tuiv irporepov yeyevrjfj,eva)v 
 are really illogical, the superlative being put for the compara-. 
 tive, through a mixture 1 between the true genitive with the 
 superlative and the ablatival genitive with the comparative, 
 and though parallels from Vedic can be adduced, they must 
 be looked upon as non-original. Compare with this the con- 
 fusion implied in the use of aWo? etc., in sentences like 
 1 See, however, Ziemer, Jung. Streif. page 132. 
 
59 
 
 Herod. V. 8, eireira 8k Bdirrovai KaraicaoaavTes f) aXAwj <yrj 
 KpvyjravTes. So also "comparatio compendiaria " involves 
 contamination. Thus Herod, i. 172, vopotcsi 8e XP^"™ 
 iceympid^kvoicri ttoWov raiv re aXXav avOpmirav KaX Kapaiv. 
 
 The original sequence of the comparative was probably 
 the ablative of separation, as seen in the Latin ablative, the 
 Greek ablatival genitive, and the Sanskrit ablative. The 
 Greek f\ and the Latin quam must be considered as later 
 usages. Let us see whether they are free from contamina- 
 tion. As regards the Latin quam, its meaning is probably 
 "in which degree," and it ought properly to go with a pre- 
 vious tarn; as — tarn bona quam pulchra est, "she is good to 
 that extent to which she is fair ". Its original use is there- 
 fore parallel to constructions like aeque — atque, or acque — ac. 
 Probably, therefore, its use has been transferred from 
 this kind of sentence to that involving a comparative, that 
 is, from sentences which express likeness to those which 
 express difference. That such confusion was possible is seen 
 from sentences like : dexteram tuam non tarn in bellis quam 
 in promissis firmiorem (Cicero, pro DeioL iii. 8). Of. also Gr. 
 &><?, " as," an exact analogue to quam, "as," after comparatives. 
 So fxaXkov Trpeirei. a>? (Plato, Apology, 36 D.). 1 
 
 The use of r\ in Greek after a comparative presents many 
 difficulties ; the following is suggested as an explanation. 
 
 Se and fj denote difference, as opposed to /cat, which im- 
 plies agreement. Words like 6p,oUo<;, 6 avTos, etc., which 
 signify agreement, take a dative, an alternative (and pre- 
 sumably later) construction being xat. Thus Herod, v. 65, 
 etc twv avTecov yeyovoTet; KaX ol ap,<f>l KoSpop. Words denoting 
 difference, as a\\o<;, take an ablatival genitive, an alterna- 
 tive (and, from the evidence of other languages, later) con- 
 struction being Se or r). That r/, " or," denotes opposition 
 1 See Mr. Adam's edition ad loc. 
 
60 
 
 can be seen by resolving "Either A is B, or C is D," into 
 four hypothetical syllogisms, according to the ordinary rules 
 of logic. Such is the only real "either — or" or " rj — 77". 
 This would fit in with the probable theory that the use of 
 -rj — 7] came before the use of 77 alone. 
 
 Se is found after aXXo?. So Herod, hi. 154, aX\a> p.ev wv 
 ovk i(f>pd^eTO epyco Svvarb^ elvai fjiiv inro^eipir/v iroir\uai, el 8' 
 £o)vtov \a)/3rjo-d/j,evo<; avTO/j.o\r)aete e? avroix;. Cf. with this 
 the English phrase, "None but he". In the same way f/ 
 is found. So Herod, ii. 14, dXXo tl rj ol Tainy ol/ceovres 
 AIjvtttuov ireiviqoovcn ; so with e/iira\iv, Herod, ix. 56, 
 •r)iaav to. efiiraXiv rj Aa/ceSai/Aovioi.. Similarly to express 
 difference, even after an adjective in the positive degree, 
 Herod, ix. 26, ovtcd a>v Slxaiov rjfiea<; e'xetv to erepov icepas r) 
 irep 'A drjvaiovs. It is suggested, then, that from cases like the 
 above, 77 may have obtained its wide-spread use in Greek as 
 the particle commonly used after a comparative. 
 
 § 26. Mixture of Tense Functions. We find the historical 
 present often used side by side with past tenses. It might 
 be expected that in a single sentence the present and other 
 tenses would not be found parallel to each other, but that 
 they would be assimilated by formal analogy. This, although 
 the general rule, is by no means universal in any author. 
 Thus we may have present and aorist together, as in Herod, 
 i. 66, where evvo p.r)6ria av and aefioncu stand parallel to each 
 other. So with present and imperfect, as irpoae^piji^e alreei 
 Si (Herod, v. 11). 
 
 We have undoubted contamination of the functions of 
 the imperfect and the aorist. This, as pointed out by Del- 
 briick, 1 is found occasionally in Homer, as in Iliad, i. 437, 
 where we have fialvov — firjaav — /Si} parallel to each other. 
 In such cases it is futile to look for any distinction of mean- 
 1 S. F. vol. iv. page 105. 
 
61 
 
 ing between the two tenses, and we are naturally led to the 
 assumption that their meanings became identical because of 
 their great point of similarity, the fact that they agree in 
 treating of past time. This confusion of tense-function 
 has many parallels in Sanskrit, where the Vedic distinction 
 of meaning between the imperfect and the aorist is obliterated 
 in the classical language. 
 
 A special case is the use of the present with a past signi- 
 fication with words like irpoTepov in Greek and iamdudum. 
 in Latin. Of. the similar use of pura in Sanskrit, as lanma- 
 tram api cen mahyam na dadati pura bhavan, " if you have 
 never before given me even an atom" (Mahabharata). 1 
 
 §27. Mixture of 3 foods. Instances of irregular sequence in 
 moods, as when an optative follows a present tense, are 
 rare, and probably there is always a special reason for such 
 a phenomenon. An example is Herod, ii. 93, avrexovrai — 
 Xva Br) /mt) dp.dproi.ev. The mixture of moods in conditional 
 sentences is probably non-original, the previous condition 
 of things being to have the moods of the protasis and of the 
 apodosis the same. In connexion with such usages many 
 futile attempts have been made to discover minute distinc- 
 tions of meaning where none exists, and where we have 
 simply a mixture of constructions. An' example is Herod, 
 vi. 13, ev eTTi<ndp*evoi, &>? el K.a\ to irapebv vavrucbv virepfta- 
 Xoiaro, aX\o <T(pi Trapearai irevTaifKricnov . 
 
 Such contaminations are much commoner in later Greek. 
 
 Another type of mood-contamination is that involved in 
 the construction where we have an imperative in an object 
 clause after olSa. There are about a dozen instances in the 
 dramatists. Thus :— 
 
 Soph. 0. T. 543, otad' to? ttoltjctov. 
 
 TSurip. /. T. 1203, -ola-da vvv a p.oi yevicrdco. 
 1 Quoted by Whitney, Skt. Gr. § 778 a. 
 
62 
 
 Each of these constructions is the result of mixture, and can 
 be analysed into an equivalent phrase which follows ordinary 
 grammatical rules, i.e., olaOa b Bel ere iroiija-ai. The propor- 
 tion may be thus stated : Bel Troirjaai : iroirjaov : : olaff b Bel 
 Troifjaai : ola& b iroi^aov. The usage finds an exact analogue 
 in Sanskrit. Thus : katham ete gunavantah kriyantdm, " how 
 are they to be made virtuous ? " This construction is quoted 
 by Whitney, Sanskrit Grammar, § 572 b, but he institutes no 
 comparison with the Greek usage. 
 
 § 28. Mixture ivith Oratio Obliqua. To be closely compared 
 with contamination of mood is the case where oratio obliqua 
 with the accusative and infinitive and clauses with ci>? get 
 mixed up. So Herod, i. 207, where elirov— oti — airoTptyetv 
 is compounded of elirov on airoTpe\jrec and elirov airorpeyfreiv. 
 The frequent expression in the same author, &>? ipol Boiceeiv, 
 is possibly a contamination of a>? e/ioi BoKeei, and e/xol Boicieiv. 
 Other examples are : — 
 
 Thuc. iv. 37, Kkeav yvoiii oti BtatpOaprjo-ofievov^ avTovs. 
 
 Plato, Apology, 37 B., eXco/xai &>v ev olB' oti, Kaxoov ovtcov. 
 Here the participle corresponds to the infinitive: 
 
 These examples may be compared with English phrases 
 like " whom I know is good " and " who I know to be good," 
 constructions which are sufficiently common in careless 
 writing. The usage also occurs in Latin. Varro, de lingua 
 Latina, ix. 74, ad huiuscemodi vocabula analogias esse ut dixi. 
 This is compounded of analogise sunt, ut dixi + analogias 
 esse dixi. 
 
 Examples are also found of a similar contamination 
 between a genitive absolute and a clause. Thus : Herod, ii. 
 134, eire'vre yap iroWdicis Kr)pvacr6vTa>i> Ae\<\>wv e* deoirpoirlov 
 o? fiovkono irowr\v t% Alaooirov "yfrvxfys aveXeaOai, aXkos (lev 
 ovBels ifpavrj. 
 
 § 29. Voice. The passive in Indo-European is probably 
 
63 
 
 not original. The aorist passive in Greek arose from intran- 
 sitive forms like iSdfiijv, which became the basis of similar 
 forms from intransitive verbs, the resulting signification of 
 which was naturally passive. 1 In the earliest literary period 
 this analogy must have been fully developed, as we find, 
 e.g., phrases like ev-rrerea %«/o&>0??wm in Herodotus, whereas 
 even late Greek kept up in this case the original active as a 
 possibility. Cf. usages like Oavpao-Tos ISeiv, etc. For the 
 other tenses in Greek, the middle was employed to form a 
 passive signification, this being really the result of contami- 
 nation of function ; while in Latin and Keltic new forms 
 sprung up, in all probability originally from the active. A 
 noteworthy usage in Greek is the use of the future middle 
 with a passive meaning instead of the later passive form. 
 It will thus be seen that the line between the voices was 
 not always clearly defined. Further, we find, besides ori- 
 ginal actives where the passive could be used later, cases 
 where the functions of the two voices are mixed up. So 
 in modern Greek we have iravw used as a middle, and in 
 early Latin we find the present participle used in a passive 
 sense, as rebus agentibm in Laberius. 2 There are in Greek 
 many examples of verbs which have changed their- original 
 active sense. So eic8i8a>/ju, eVXewro), irpoa-^dWai. Are these 
 simply confusions between the functions of the active and the 
 passive — as so often happens in English — or are they rather 
 due to the influence of other verbs ? It is often difficult to 
 decide which of these two reasons has produced the con- 
 tamination, and probably both causes have operated here. 
 The opposite alteration of intransitive to transitive is in 
 great measure a branch of case-contamination as treated of 
 8/bove (§21 e). A verb, originally intransitive, was made to take 
 
 1 See Brugmann, Gr. Gr. § 150 ; Delbruck, S. F. iv. page 75 ff. 
 
 2 Gf. Quintilian, ix. 3, 13. 
 
64 
 
 an accusative on the analogy of some word of kindred mean- 
 ing which took that case. Sometimes it may arise from a 
 misunderstanding, as when a participle and a finite verb go 
 together, the former really governing the accusative, and 
 the latter being really intransitive. So Herod, iii. 99, rbv 
 <ydp Srj e? yfjpa<; diriKOfievov OvcravTet Karevco^eovrai. Similarly 
 when a transitive and an intransitive finite verb go together, 
 the latter may often have been taken to govern the accusa- 
 tive ; as Herod, iii. 100, to e\jrovcri re koX aneovrai. This 
 would lead to vi. 57, aireofievoi, /Aerd tSuv ftaatXeav rd Brj- 
 /j,oaia. 
 
 A very common feature of language is the fact that a 
 compound verb is found in a transitive sense when the 
 simple is intransitive. The usual explanation is that it is the 
 preposition that governs the case ; but here also we have 
 nearly always the working of analogy. The fact of a verb's 
 being compound argues for a comparatively late origin, and 
 its construction is modelled on that of some earlier simple 
 verb which it approached in meaning. Thus inrepfidWo- 
 fjMi, " I excel," takes the construction of vi/cdw. 
 / § 30. Rise of Infinitive Constructions from Contamination. 
 Two constructions, that is, with the infinitive or with the 
 participle, are possible after verbs like 6pda>, yiyvd>aKw, 
 tfraivoficu, fiavdavco, iravw. This raises the question which 
 of the two is original. I think the participial construction 
 has strong claims to be considered the earlier. Thus 
 <yi<yvo)<TK<o avTov ovra is perfectly free from contamination, 
 whereas yuyvaxrica) avrov elvai involves the accusative and 
 infinitive construction, which Brugmann l has shown could 
 arise from sentences like eiceXevaev ifie hpdv, where f'/te 
 was taken to be the subject of Bpdv instead of the object 
 of iice\ev<rev. An accusative and infinitive construction is 
 1 Or. Gr. § 170. 
 
65 
 
 similarly involved in <\>a'iva> avrov elvat, which would lead 
 to cj)aiveTai elvat instead of <j>atveTat a>v. 
 
 At the same time, the infinitive construction is found 
 with these verbs in Homer, while Attic seems to have been 
 inclined to preserve the participial construction. Herodotus 
 uses now the one construction and now the other, apparently 
 without any difference of meaning. Contrast v. 67, pa^a>- 
 Sotf? eiravae ayoovl^eadat with i. 133, iadtovTas av ov iraveadai, 
 "would not leave off eating"; where, however, we have 
 in the same sentence a different meaning in TretvoovTa? 
 ■n-aveadat, "to leave off when hungry". Difficulties like 
 this last may possibly have helped in the formation of the 
 infinitive construction. 
 
 Under later infinitive constructions founded on analogy 
 the use of eoo-Te with the infinitive should probably be taken. 
 Some light is thrown on its origin by the usage of early 
 writers, and in the following attempt to show its history?* 
 the examples are taken from Herodotus. There are only 
 two instances of the usage in Homer. 2 
 
 The simplest and earliest method of expressing a result 
 is to have the principal clause and the consecutive clause 
 paratactically placed side by side. Thus iii. 12, at Se t&v 
 AlyvTTTicov ovtq) 8ij ti iayypai, /JLoyis av ~kidq> Traujas Btap- 
 prjgeias. Similarly the consecutive clause can be introduced 
 by the relative, and as it is originally a demonstrative we 
 have parataxis here as well. So iv. 52, ovtco Brj ti eovcra 
 TTiKpr), f) fjteydOei crfu/cprj iovaa Kipva tov" Tiravtv iovra TTOTa- 
 fjbbv iv oXtyotat, piyav. So also evda is used in iv. 28, Sucr^et- 
 [iepo<; 8e avrr) rj /caTaXe^deccra iracra, X^PV ovrai h-q ti eo-ri, 
 evda . . . yiveTat. 
 
 w?, " so," is occasionally found introducing the con- 
 secutive clause, the paratactic arrangement being still pre- 
 2 See Monro, Horn. Gram. § 235. 
 5 
 
66 
 
 served. Thus iii. 130, iBtopeero Ar)p,oKr)Bea ovrco Brf n Bayfrikei 
 Bwpefj (09 tow airoTrLTTTovras dirb t5>v <f>ia\ea>v o-TaTrjpas eiro- 
 fievos o oiKeTrj'i aveXeyero. 
 
 The usual form &<rre is also the sign of a clause paratac- 
 tically arranged beside a preceding one, with the meaning 
 "and so". Thus we should render it literally in the 
 numerous instances where an indicative precedes and follows. 
 
 The following are the usages of ware in Herodotus. 
 Whenever an infinitive precedes, whether independent of or 
 due to the oratio obliqua, an infinitive follows it. When 
 an indicative precedes, an indicative, in the majority of cases, 
 follows, but not in all, and there the difficulty comes in. 
 The first type, where an infinitive comes before and after, is 
 easily explained from mood-assimilation. Thus, i. 189, 
 hrr\'Treikir)o~e ovrco Brj fuv acrdevea rroorjo-eiv, coo~re . . . Sta/3?;- 
 aea-Oab. In such a sentence ware was still " and thus," but 
 finally its paratactic nature was lost, the re was no longer 
 recognised to be = " and," and the word was simply viewed 
 as introducing a result. Thus, in a sentence like iv. 145, 
 evijye a-(j>ea<; oocrre Troieetv, the Scrre is little else than tu?, and 
 we might translate literally, " He urged them tliiis — for 
 doing" Here, of course, we should have the infinitive, 
 whether &are were present or not. For this rendering of 
 co? and for the punctuation, cf. v. 95, KaTtjWage Se <5Se,' vepeo-- 
 6a t, eicaTepovs ttjv e^oucrt. Here we might substitute ware 
 for coSe without in the least changing the meaning. 
 
 That coo-re is not the only word where the paratactic 
 force of the -re has been lost, may be seen from words like 
 are, olo<i ts, eVeire, oaov re, and perhaps SBe, coBe if the -Be 
 is the same word as the conjunction. The statement that 
 re is used in a general signification throws no light on the 
 origin of the construction. For similar uses where the 
 paratactic usage has been forgotten, cf. Be in apodosi after 
 
67 
 
 pev or Be in the protasis. Cf. also Sanskrit ca {-re) in 
 sentences like ydvanta eva te tavancca, sa, "as great as they 
 were, so great was he," where the (probably original) para- 
 tactic force of ca was lost. 
 
 The infinitive after oiWe is therefore due to two causes : — 
 
 (1) a preceding infinitive ; 
 
 (2) identification with <w?. 
 
 It is quite possible that the construction of irplv with the 
 infinitive may have arisen from cases where an infinitive pre- 
 ceded it . Cf. even irpoTepov r) used thus, in a construction which 
 cannot possibly be original ; vii. 2, wporepov fj fiao-iXevo-ai. 
 
 Some further remarks may be added on the development 
 of particles through contamination. to? has been affected 
 largely in this way. Thus, as is well known, its mean- 
 ing of "towards" with words signifying persons has come 
 from sentences like fjkOev &>? e/*e, where a>?, " as," or 
 " with the intention of," and i/ii is the accusative of motion 
 to. This usage is practically confined to Attic, and is very 
 rare in other dialects. 
 
 o>9 in phrases like a;? ra^iaTa must really come from the 
 verb. Cf. Herod, iv. 71, afuWcbfievot xal trpoQvp.eop.svoi to? 
 fiiyierrov iroifj<rai, where to? could go with the verb instead 
 of with /jLeyuTTov. Similarly to? with numbers in the meaning 
 of "about" really comes from a misunderstanding, as the 
 word originally goes with the verb. Cf. Herod, vii. 184, to? 
 ava SirjKO(7i,ov<s avBpa<; \oyi£o/j,evoiai iv eKaarr) vt)t, " calculating 
 thus, two hundred men in each ship ". So with the phrase 
 to? eKacrro 1 ;. 
 
 Noteworthy also is the mixture of function between on 
 and Sioti. on means " that " and " because " ; Bton means 
 " because," and gets the meaning of " that " from analogy. 
 The usage occurs as early as Herodotus. So ii. 50, Bion p.ev 
 ryap etc rcbv fiapftdpcov rjieet, Trvv&av6p.evo<; ovroo evpicrica> iov. 
 
68 
 
 It has been continued, and is frequent in late Greek. We 
 may compare the common use of a quod clause in late Latin 
 instead of accusative and infinitive, as also the very late use 
 of si for an even when a negative precedes. 
 
 The use of ti in an intensive signification, found in Hero- 
 dotus and Plato (cf. Herod, ii. 104, apx^lov tl, "very old"), 
 is probably the result of contamination. The following is 
 suggested as an origin for the usage. In negative phrases 
 like ovSev ti, "nothing at all," ti is intensive even if taken 
 literally, and this is transferred analogically to cases like 
 ■jtoXKov ti ■xpij/xa tcov t&kvwv, "very large". This view is 
 corroborated by phrases like Herod, i. 181, ov iroXKm teg,,. 
 " not by any great amount ". So fiaXKov ti from oi/Bi tl 
 fj.aWov (Herod, vi. 123, and elsewhere), for which we may 
 compare Latin par ( = non maior) atque leading to maior atque- 
 Hence ti became a mere intensive, and we have phrases like 
 Herod, ii. 37, TrXrjBos ti, " a very large crowd " ; apyalov ti, 
 "very old" (quoted above); ovtco &■>] ti (a very common 
 phrase), cf. ov 8ij ti, " by no means ". A very clear instance 
 is Herod, ii. 27, avpr) Se airo yjrvxpov twos <pi\iei irveeiv, " very 
 cold". 
 
 § 31. Mixture with Negatives. There has been considerable 
 contamination in the usages of ov and /«?. This mixture is. 
 found in early Greek, and lapse of time tended rather to lead 
 to further contamination between them, until in modern 
 Greek the usages of p,r), when compared with the classical 
 standard, are positively ungrammatical. The limits of ov- 
 and fi-rj, however, were at no time absolutely defined. 1 An 
 
 1 That the one can be substituted for the other through the influence, 
 of formal analogy may be seen from Pindar, 01. i. 7, /iijko-' deXi'ov aiedjrci 
 «AXo OdKimm-fpov iv dpipa (pacvvbv aarpov ipj]pas fii' alOipos prjb' 'OXvpmav 
 ayava (piprepov avSdtropev, where fiijS* for ovfi' is due to pr/ner of tha 
 previous clause. 
 
69 
 
 early instance of fifj being used where ov might have been 
 expected is Herod, vi. 66, oiirw Br) r) IIvdLr) iiretpareovTtov r&v 
 deoirpoiroDv eicpive fir) 'ApurTcovo<; elvai Ar)fiapryrov nraiSa. On 
 the other hand, we have sometimes ov used for fir]. We 
 find the similar mixture of ne and non in Latin ; cf. the use 
 of non with imperatives in Ovid, and phrases like non per- 
 damus noctem (Petronius). There is not, however, the 
 same original difference between ne and non as there is be- 
 tween oi and fir). 
 
 § 32. Style. Lastly under the head of contamination may 
 be considered its general effect on style. This influence we 
 have in many usages of conjunctions. Cf. the occasional 
 use of ovre — 8e instead of oine — re; of /iev — fikvroi; and in 
 Latin of et — autevi and atque — autem. So also ovre and o&Se 
 were mixed up in use, and this led to the use in later 
 Greek of ov#ei? for ouSet? ; and the same confusion took 
 place between firfSek and /irjOeis. 1 
 
 It was noticed under the first heading that balanced 
 structure owes its existence mainly to the assimilation of 
 form and position. Conversely, anacoloutha, which, strictly 
 considered, are illogical, are caused by the use of construc- 
 tions which in- some sentences are correct, but in the case in 
 question, are not so. In them we have examples of the influ- 
 ence of contamination exerted over whole sentences. Such 
 constructions are particularly common in conversational 
 language, and their great frequency in Plato is probably an 
 artistic recognition of the fact. They are used, however, 
 in all branches of literature quite unconsciously, and not 
 for the sake of producing the effect of naturalness, but 
 
 1 So Aetolian Inscription (Cauer 237), ko\ p.r\6kva ayeiv AhaKav /j.tj8c 
 rSiv iv AlraXia noXvrevovTav robs Keious fu}8afi.nd£v opfiiyjievov p^re Kara yav 
 fir/Te Kara daKarrav pyre ttot ' AfKJHKTVoviKov pr)Te ttot o'XXo i'yK\rj)j.a firjdiv 
 6)ff A.Ito>\S)P ovrav raw Keiayv. 
 
70 
 
 simply because the written language always is, more or less, 
 a reflex of the spoken. Misplacement of conjunctions is a 
 very common example of anacolouthon. Thus we find re 
 misplaced in Homer, Iliad, x. 466 (undoubtedly a late pas- 
 sage) :— 
 
 BeeXov B' eVi crfj/id t' e0rjKev, 
 crvfifidp-^ras Bovaicas p,vpiiC7]<; r epidrfXea^ 6£bu?. 
 
 So in Herodotus, where a second clause stands in strong 
 opposition to one which immediately precedes it, the Be 
 which denotes this opposition is very often placed not after 
 the proper word, but after the pronoun which introduces 
 the second clause, and which we should not expect to be 
 present. Thus, ii. 17, teal rrjv p,ev 'Icoveov yvco/Arjv diriefiev, 
 fi/j.ei<; Be wBe xal irepl tovtcov Xeyop,ev. Especially common in 
 this way is o Be. Thus, vi. 3, ttjv fiev yevofievqv avrolcri alTuqv 
 ov fidXa i^e(j>at,ve, 6 Be eXeye. That such usages are not 
 foreign to our own language may be seen in the use of " not 
 only," which in a large proportion of cases implies an 
 anacolouthon, even in the best writers. So also the mis- 
 placement of one of a pair of correlative conjunctions like 
 "neither — nor". Cf. "when neither they make for truth 
 nor for advantage " (Bacon's Essays). 
 
 There are other forms of anacolouthon common in 
 most Greek authors. Among these may be mentioned the 
 use of the genitive absolute, when the nominative is in 
 apposition to the subject of the sentence. So Herod, v. 
 81, ■jreiprjaap.e'vwv Be rcbv @7]f3aicov . . . aSn? oi ©i}- 
 fialoi Trep.yfravTe'i aireBLBo<rav . Another common type is 
 found in sentences like Herod, iii. 16, to a>v Karaicaleiv ye 
 Tovi ve/cpoix; ovBap,a><; ev v6fia> ovBerepoiai io-Tt, Hepa-gai p.ev 
 Bi oTrep etprjTat,, dew ov BUaiov elvai Xeyovres vifieiv veicpbv 
 uvdpcoTrov. 
 
71 
 
 § 33. It would be interesting to discuss how far the prin- 
 ciple of dissimilation has acted in syntax. Its influence on 
 morphology, which is very irregular and circumscribed, has 
 two divisions : — 
 
 (1) Where a sound is altered ; as cancer for career. 
 
 (2) "Where a sound is omitted ; as rerpaxfiov for Terpd- 
 Spax/Aov. 
 
 A probable parallel to (1) is the frequent usage in Greek, 
 where after verbs of knowing, etc., an infinitive instead of 
 a participle follows when there is a participle in close 
 proximity. 
 
 So Herod, v. 106, XaQi aurbv eir eavrov j3aW6p.evov 
 ireiroiriicevai. Its general effect on style may be seen in the 
 frequent use of synonyms for the sole purpose of avoiding 
 the repetition of a word. 
 
 (2) Many instances of Ellipsis may be compared with 
 the second division. The ear would be offended by the 
 repetition of words necessary to a full logical statement ; so 
 that here dissimilation must act. Cf. a well-known instance 
 Xva iu.rj Sofjco a>? av iK(j)o/3eiv v//.a? (2 Cor.- x. 9), which = "va fir) 
 §o£co (roiavTa Troielv) cos av (Sotjaifii iroielv el So^aifii) iicfyofteZv 
 bfias. 
 
Appendix on Syntactical Analogy in Hekodotus. 
 
 § 34. Subjoined is a list of the instances in Herodotus 
 where syntactical analogy produces a usage peculiar to that 
 author. 
 
 (1) Formal, (a) The following instances occur of abstract 
 plural nouns due to attraction exercised by words to which 
 they refer : — 
 
 i. 202, vrj<rov<; Aecrfiq) fieyddea irapa.ifK.r]<Tia<;. 
 
 ii. 10, ov Kara rov NelXov iovres p,eyd8ea. 
 
 ii. 53, okoIol rives to, e'iBea. 
 
 iii. 102, fiv p fit] Ke<; fieyddea eyovre^ kvvo>v. 
 
 iii. 107, 6'(£te? crfiiKpol ra fieydOea, ttoikuXoi to, e'iBea. 
 
 iv. 72, rcov "■nirav Kara firjicea %v\a irayea 8ie\ao~avre<;. 
 
 vii. 103, fieyddea togovtoi. 
 
 viii. 113, rolai e'iBea virrjpxe, " those of a good appearance ". 
 
 (&) The peculiar case assimilation in i. 56 has been 
 already quoted : eKiri^aiv ovB' 3)v avrh<; ovBe ol e£ axnov irav- 
 aeadai /core tj}? ap)(fj<;. 
 
 There is one parallel in Herodotus, but there a nomina- 
 tive is changed into an accusative : iv. 196, dBt/ceeiv Be oiiBe- 
 T6/30U? • oiire yap avTovs rov ^pvaov dirTeaOai . . . out i/celvov? 
 twv <{>opTia>v airretrOai. 
 
 (c) To be compared with phrases like aWco? /cm? is the 
 unusual construction in iii. 104, ol Be Br) "IvBoi eXavvovcri eVt 
 tov 'xpvaov, \e\oyio-fieva>s o/c&>9, Kav/idrcov tuv Oep/iordTiov 
 iovrmv, eaovrai iv T77 dpTrayfi. Perhaps also -irpwra may 
 obtain its common use as an adverb from phrases like irpwra 
 fiev — fierd Be, which is very frequent in Herodotus. 
 
73 
 
 (d) Two instances occur of e? repeated by attraction 
 where we should expect eV : — 
 
 ii. 150, e? TTjv SvpTiv rrjv e? Atfivrjv. 
 
 vii. 239, e? to %pr)<TT)jpiov to e? AeXcfrovs aireirepv^av. 
 
 (e) In connexion with case-assimilation, it is to be noted 
 that Herodotus is very fond of using the partitive genitive 
 where agreement might have been expected. Cf. i. 107, twv 
 Mdyav' Tolo-t, oveipoTroXotai, where we should have expected 
 rot? Mayloa oveipoiroXoK. Especially common is the use of 
 tk with the genitive plural where we should look for tj? 
 with the nominative singular. So also with the genitive 
 after the copula, as, i. 67, ol Be dyadoepyol elo-i t£>v do-Tcov 
 [for elo-iv ao-ToC], quite in the style of a logical formula 
 showing the inclusion of the subject in the predicate. There 
 is no evidence to show that any of these usages is historically 
 antecedent to the constructions that show agreement. 
 
 (/) Case agreement based on attraction is frequently 
 found where a genitive absolute would be the normal con- 
 struction. The following instances occur : — 
 
 i. 7, 'HpaicXelBai ea-xpv Tr)V apyrfv . . . Tral<; ivapa 7t<xt/30? 
 e/cSeKOfievos ttjv upy/jv. 
 
 i. 52, aviOijKe al^h 1 ' o"reper)v iracrav xpvcrirjv, to %vcttov 
 Trjai Xoy^rjai ibv oyttoto)? ^pvaeov. 
 
 i. 98, oi'/coSoytteet Tel^ea p,eyd\a . . . erepov eTepa> kvk\u> 
 iveo~Tea>Ta. 
 
 ii. 41, tov<; epaeva<; KdTopvcrcrovo-i, e/caaTot, ev toIcti irpoaa- 
 TeioMTi, to Kepas to eTepov r) kcl\ dfMpoTepa vnepe^ovTa. 
 
 ii. 48, dyaXfiara vevp6o~ira<na, to, irepiipopeovcri kcito, KO)/j,a<; 
 yvvaiices , vevov to aiBolov. 
 
 ii. 66, Tavra Be yiv6fj,eva, irevOea fieydXa tovs At,yvirTiov<i 
 KaTaXa/iffdvei. 
 
 ii. 133, iv a ol BvcbBetca erea clvti e| iretov yevr\Tai, al vvKTes 
 rjfiipat Troievfievai. 
 
74 
 
 iii. 95, to Be ypvo-Lov Tpio-KaiBe/caaTdcnov \oyiX,bfxevov, to 
 yfrriy/j.a evplaKerai iov, etc. 
 
 iii. 99, <j)dfj,evoi avTov tt]k6/j,€vov ttj vovaq> to. Kpea crc^tcrt 
 BiafydetpeaOcu. 
 
 iv. 50, avTiTidepeva TavTa avTi<rrjK(Oo-L<; ry'tveTat. 
 
 iv. 71, avakap,ftavovo-i tov veicpbv, KaTaKeKrjpa/xevov pev to 
 oSifia, T7)v Be vrjBvv dvao-^iaOelo-av icai icaffapOelo-av. 
 
 V. 76. ol XotTrol T03i> o-vfiixd-^wv ot^OVTO . . . TeTdpTOV Brj 
 tovto eVt ttjv 'Attoctjv aTriKofievoi Aa>piee<;. 
 
 vii. 157, a\r)<; yevo/j.ev7) Trdaa -fj 'JEXXa? %el/3 /xeydkri avvd- 
 yeTai. 
 
 Like the first example given above but quite normal is 
 ii. 166, to. e? TrdXefiov i-Traa/ceovcn p,ovva, Trots irapa Trarpos 
 iKBeKOfj.evo<;. 
 
 (2) Assimilation of Meaning. The only deviation from 
 general usage under this head is the construction already 
 mentioned where a singular adjective is joined with a neuter 
 plural. The following instances occur : — 
 
 i. 89, Kvpqi Be eVt/ieAe? eyeveTo tcl Kpolcro<; e'nre. 
 iii. 42, fieya Trotevfjuevo'; ravTa. 
 
 V. 98, TavTa Be aKova-avTes ol IIaiove<; icdpTa dcnraaTov 
 eTroirjaavTO. 
 
 ix. 90, 6V7T6T69 Te avTolat e<fyr) TavTa <yiveo-0ai. 
 
 (3) Contamination, (a) Case. No such confusion is found 
 in Herodotus as is represented in Attic by the use of the true 
 nominative 7ro'Aet9, evyeveis for the accusative plural. (An 
 exception, however, is rpew). ttoXk; has its nominative 
 plural TroXies, and its accusative plural ttoXick; or iroXi<;, thus 
 showing no contamination. It is very doubtful if the 
 accusative form ttoXk is ever used for the nominative plural. 
 It may be added that there is no contamination between 
 nominative and accusative plural in stems in -119. The 
 nominative is -ves, the accusative is -was or -u?. 
 
75 
 
 In two passages, i. 35, and vii. 8, we have the extraordi- 
 nary phrase iv r)p.erepov, "in our own country". It is a 
 mixture between iv rj/Merepto and iv r)p,a>v. A similar phrase 
 £9 ri/jLerepov occurs in Homeric Hymn iii. 370. 
 
 6? oil, according to Stein, has good MS. authority in 
 i. 67 ; iii. 31 ; iv. 12 ; iv. 30 ; iv. 160 ; iv. 166 ; iv. 181 ; iv. 
 196 ; v. 51 ; v. 86, though e? 6 is much commoner. The 
 phrase may arise from a mixture between e? 6 and ew? ov or 
 pexpi ov. 
 
 Parallel to the above is possibly the Herodotean phrase 
 iirl fiaXXov (i. 94 ; iii. 104 ; iv. 181) for which en fj.a\\ov 
 used to be read. It may be a mixture between fiaWov and 
 eirl nfkeov or eVt fie&v, both common phrases. The propor- 
 tion may be thus stated : Tfkeov : eVt ttKeov : : p,aX\ov : eVt 
 fi&Wov. 
 
 Of verbs taking a genitive on the analogy of nouns a 
 peculiar usage is that of reXevrdv, "to form the end of". 
 The instances are : — 
 
 ii. 32, r] TeKevrq, rfjs Atl3vr)<;. 
 
 vii. 59, rekevTa Be aiirov Seppeiov a/cprj 6vop,aar^ 
 Here TeXevra represents Te\o? earl, unless we suppose that the 
 genitive is due to the construction of ap%&>, which gives the 
 contrapositive idea. The use of reXevrav with the genitive 
 in Attic as == Travop,ai (Thuc. iii. 59, etc.) is quite different, the 
 case being there ablatival. 
 
 Of verbs taking a genitive from their corresponding 
 adjectives we have Ipdo-dai ii. 37, Iparat ovk et? e/cdcTov tS>v 
 6eS>v dXXa iroXXoi. So also ii. 35 already quoted, fieo-ovv 
 has the unusual construction of the genitive in i. 18], 
 fMeaovvri T775 avafiao-iot;. 
 
 Contamination between the Construction of Verbs. The fol- 
 lowing are the instances of contamination between the case- 
 constructions of clkoxxo and ireiOofiat. 
 
76 
 
 i. 59, XiXeovos irei6ea6ai. 
 
 i. 126, efieo rreidecrdai. 
 do. efieo Tret,6ofievoi. 
 
 V. 29, rovrcov rreiOecrOai. 
 
 v. 33, efieo irelOecrOat,. 
 
 vi. 12, fir) rreidwfieda avrov. 
 
 i. 214, ol Kvpos ovk iarficovo-e. 
 
 vi. 87, oi ovBe ovtco eo-ijieovov ol , A6rjvaioi. 
 
 iv. 141, iiraKovaa^ t&5 Trpa>ru> KeXevcrfian. 
 
 vi. 14, avrfKovarr)cravre<; rolcri crrparrjyoicn (cf. direiOeco). 
 
 iii. 88, KarrjKovaav IHparjai. So KarrjKOOS twice with 
 dative i. 141, Kpoiaui rjcrav Karr\Kooi. 
 
 iii. 88, ol rjcrav /carrf/cooi. ** 
 
 The general construction of verbs in Kara- signifying 
 depreciation or insult is with the genitive. Herodotus shows 
 several deviations from this rule. KarayeXdv is found some- 
 times with the genitive but mostly with the dative, probably 
 on the analogy of efiiral^m, or eyyeXda. 
 
 iii. 37, ttoXXo, rmyaXfian KareyeXacre. 
 
 ill. 38, ipolcri re /cat vofiaioicri KarayeXdv. 
 
 iii. 155, Ilepcrrjcri, KarayeXdv. 
 
 iv. 79, rjfilv KarayeXdre. 
 
 vii. 9, KarayeXdcrai r/filv. 
 
 So Ka9v/3pl£a). 
 
 i. 212, rpirrjfioplBi rov arparov Karv{3picra<;. 
 
 Cf. vi. 65, Karojxvvrai Arffiaprjrtp. 
 
 11. 133, KaraKeKpi/juevav 77877 ol rovrcov. 
 
 vii. 146, rolcri KareiceKpiro ddvaros. 
 
 ix. 99, rolcri, Kal KareBoKeov veo-%p,bv ctv ri rroieeiv (probably 
 on the analogy of avveiBivai) . 
 
 vii. 191, xaraeiBovres r<£ dve/Mp (cf. eVaetSto). KarrfXoyea 
 is found with the accusative in 
 
 1. 84, KarrfXoyrjcre rovro. 
 
77 
 
 i. 144, rbv vofiov /caTT}\6yj)cre. 
 ill. 121, KaTrjXoyeovra to, 'Opoireu) 7rp^yfiara. 
 Contrast aXoyem with genitive, and cf. dfieXea with accusative 
 in vii. 163, ravrr/v ttjv oSbv rjfiiXrjcre. The accusative may be 
 due to the analogy of some word like utrcoOea. So /caraa- 
 Ka>TTT(o (only in Herod.) occurs with the accusative in ii. 173 ; 
 hi. 37 ; hi. 151. In iii. 151 KaTopxeofiai is found with 
 accusative. It seems to be used with genitive elsewhere. 
 
 wapa'xpaonai shows different constructions. With accu- 
 sative {cf airasOea)). 
 
 i. 108. TTpijy/jba fir]8afi,&><; •jrapa%pijcrri. 
 viii. 20, irapa^pTjadfievoi tov JBa/«So? %pi)crfi6v. 
 With genitive (cf. aXoyew). 
 
 ii. 141, Trapaxprja-dfievov rwv /j.a%ip.cov AIjvttticov. 
 Trapaxpe(bp,evoL is used absolutely in iv. 159 and vii. 223, and 
 the verb occurs with e? and accusative in 
 V. 92 a, Trapaxpacr&e e? tou? <Tvp,p.dj(ov<;. 
 vofj,[£a) is found with the dative in the following places : — 
 ii. 50, vofii^ovcn AlyviVTiot oirS' rjpcocn oirSiv. 
 iv. 63, va\ Se ovtov ovSev vofii^ovai. 
 iv. 117, dxovy Se ol ^avpofmrai vofit^ouai S/cvdiKrj. 
 The construction is on the analogy of 'xpdop.ai,, probably 
 helped by phrases like v6p,oi<ri ypimviai (v. 3), and vofit^ovraf 
 XpaaOai (i. 202), which are of frequent occurrence. 
 
 8opv<f>opeco might be expected to take the genitive; it is 
 found with the accusative on the analogy of <$>vXdo-o-w. 
 ii. i68, iSopv<popeov rbv /3ao-iXea. 
 iii. 127, tov xLkiot, Hepcrewv iSopvcfropeov. 
 iii. 128, Sopvcfropeeiv 'Opohea. 
 
 TinrTea-dac, " to lament," is found with the accusative, 
 the nearest parallel being the Homeric icoineadcu. 
 ii. 42, TviTTovTao rbv Kpwv. 
 ii. 61, tov Be rvirTOVTai, ov p,oi baiov ian Xeyeiv. 
 
78 
 
 ii. 132, rtiTTTcovrai, top 6eov. 
 
 yXlxecOai occurs in one passage with irepL + genitive on 
 analogy of fid^ecrdai. Elsewhere it takes the genitive. 
 
 ii. 102, 8en/o>? ykvxp/ievouri irepl tt)? e\ev9epir)<;. 
 
 There are several instances of BvvaaQai in the sense of 
 " to be worth " taking a nominative after it on the analogy of 
 elvai. 
 
 ii. 30, hvvaTcu Be tovto to eVo? Kara tt)v 'EiWrjvav yXaxraav 
 oi e£ dpto~Teprj<; %eipb<; wapiardfievoi fiatriXei. 
 
 iv. 110, Zvvarai Be to ovvofia tovto dvBpoKTOvoi. 
 
 iv. 192, hvvcnai Be /car' 'EWdBa yXaao-av fiovvoL 
 
 vi. 98, BuvaTai Be . . . raura rd ovvofiaTa, Aapelos epj;ei7)<;, 
 ttep£»?? aprjios, 'ApTofjep!;ri<;fj,e<ya<; dpijLO<;. 
 
 v. 53, 6 wapaadyyT]!; BvvaTai TpttficovTa cndBia (probably 
 nominative). 
 
 Founded on this construction of Bvvafiai is 
 
 ii. 149, at eicaTov opyvial BiitcuaL eicn o-TaBiov e^aTfkedpov. 
 
 Compare with the above ovvofia e%ei, followed by the 
 nominative on the analogy of ovvofid&Tai. 
 
 iv. 56, ovvofia Be e^et to irep 6 %<wpo? ai/Tos, Teppos. 
 
 V. 52, ovvofia e^ei TvvBr]<;. 
 
 vi. 103, ovvofia e^cov Mi\Tt,dBr]<;. 
 
 By a similar construction, the Sanskrit iti, which in 
 meaning represents modern quotation marks, takes the 
 nominative where the accusative might have been expected. 
 Thus: svargo lolca iti yam vadanti, "what they call the 
 heavenly world ". 
 
 a7ropea> is found twice with accusative on analogy of ovk 
 olBa or dyvoeo) — a usage also found in Aristotle. 
 
 ill. 4, aTTopeovTi Trjv eXacriv 6'«<u? tt]v dvvBpov Bieiarepa 
 
 iv. 179, diropkovTi ttjv e^ayayqv. 
 Parallel to this is the construction in vii. 139, ovk av dp,ap- 
 rdvot, to dXrjdis (== elBelr) av). 
 
79 
 
 Some instances occur of verbs which signify disagree- 
 ment taking a dative on the analogy of words of opposite 
 meaning. 
 
 ii. 16, o TtjV 'Ao-urjv ovpl^wv rrj Alf3vy. 
 
 iv. 28, Ke'XcopicrTai ovtos 6 ^(etfimv tov<; rpoirow; iracri, rolai 
 ev aWouri xaypuoiai yivofiivotcrt, ^ei/jLaxri. 
 
 vii. 70, BiaXXdaaovret; etSo? oiiBev roicn erepoicri. 
 
 Cf. efnraXiv with dative in ii. 35, epmaXiv roicn aXXoio-i, 
 the word being elsewhere used with the genitive or with i). 
 We may compare the phrases " different to " and " to differ 
 with," which are often found in inexact writing. 
 
 iv. 140, XeXvfievrjs t?79 ye(pvprj<; evTv^ovrc;'. The genitive 
 is on the analogy of the simple verb, and the construction is 
 found only here and in Soph. Phil. 1333, ivTv^cov 'Atrickrrm- 
 Basv. A similar usage is vii. 208, aXoyLrj? iveKvpcre 77-0A.X?)?, 
 the construction of which is unique. Cf. with these examples 
 Soph. Phil. 320, <twtv)(g>v tcaiccov avBpcov 'ArpeiBwv, and other 
 Attic instances given by Prof. Jebb, ad loc. 
 
 V. 104, ZgeXdovra to acrrv. 
 
 vii. 29, e^rfkdov tt)v Uepcriha ymprjv, 
 The accusative here is due either to the analogy of Xelira), or 
 from the opposite idea in io-ipxo/j,ai. Two other parallels 
 are found. 
 
 v. 103, eK-TrXaxravres e%co top 'EXXtfcnrovrov. 
 
 vii. 58, e|?a> tov ' EXXijo-ttovtov irXewv, unless indeed e£a> is 
 to be considered as a preposition. 
 
 ii. 180, tot;? AeX<pov<; eire^aXXe reTapT7jp.opi.ov tov p,t,adio- 
 /xaTo? irapao-^elv. Here we should expect rolcn, AeX<polai, 
 and the construction is modelled on that of Set. Cf. the 
 similar usage in other authors, also on the analogy of Set, 
 where the verbals in -Teo? take the accusative of the person 
 instead of the dative of the person. So Plato, Orito 49 A, 
 ovBevl Tpo-iTco <pap,ev eic6vTa<; aBt,/cr)Teov elvao, a contamination 
 
80 
 
 of movaiv dBiKrjTeov elvai and helv e/covTas ahiiceZv. In iv. 68, 
 on the other hand we find the dative after an impersonal 
 verb where we might have expected the accusative. SeBo/c- 
 tcu Tolai irpanoKTb tcov fiavTieov- avrolai air6~S\va6ai. The 
 dative is on the analogy of Keerat. In v. 38, we find Becv 
 used with a mixed construction e'See yap Srj av^fiax^ two's 
 ol fj,e<ydX7)$ igevpedrjvai. This is compounded of eBee rrv/i- 
 tiaxiy<> tiv6$ ol fteyd\i]<; and eBee avfifxaxiriv . . . fieyaXrjv 
 egevpeOrjvai. 
 
 iv. 75, wydfievoi rfj Trvpirj. The dative is on the analogy 
 of rihopcu or x a ' l P w - An example of the normal construction 
 is Vlll. 144, Vfxecov dydfieOa ttjv irpovoit]v. 
 
 v. 19, p,7]he \nrdpee rfj irocn. The dative, according to 
 Stein, is on the analogy of -rrpoapAveiv. 
 Vll. 22, tirearaaav tov epyov. 
 VU. 117, tov eVearewTa t^s Sicopy-yo?. 
 The genitive here, which is not unexampled in Attic, may 
 be due to the analogy of a PX a, @aai\eva>, etc. For the 
 ordinary construction, cf. vii, 35, rwv l-nmTemrw -rfj tyl-i. 
 
 Vll. 91, dyxoTaTco rfjo-i AlyvjTTi,Tjo-i fj,a X aLp V o-i Treiroivfieva. 
 The dative may be due to the analogy of irapairXfrw, or, 
 as Stein suggests, because dyxoTd™ ir€7roirifiiva=o>/ioio}fteva. 
 dy X ov elsewhere in Herodotus takes genitive. The dative, 
 however, occurs in Pindar. 
 
 vin. 61, eirtyp-r/^eiv airoXt dvhpi. Here we should expect 
 the accusative. Stein suggests that the dative is due to the 
 analogy of the common phrase yjrrj^ov BiBovai tivc. 
 
 ix. 2, "E\\ vva <; TTepiylveaOai. The accusative is on the 
 analogy of vlkclv. 
 
 l. 91, dpxofievo? inr' eicelvoLo-i. 
 1. 95, vtto Ilepo-yai eBeBoiiXcovTo. 
 l. 201, vtt' etovT<p irocrio-aadcu. 
 These instances are on the analogy of vtt6 tivl ehat. 
 
81 
 
 •7rpofj,r)0eo/j,ai is found with two case-constructions : — 
 
 (1) genitive ii. 172, irpopjrjdieadai ewvrov (so iii. 78). Of. 
 genitive with nrpoopdw. 
 
 (2) accusative ix. 108, irpop7]6e6pevo<; rbv dhe\<pebv Maala- 
 jt]v. The accusative construction occurs also in Plato, and 
 may be on the analogy of ripav. 
 
 viii. 72, oi /3or]8ijcravTe<; /ecu virepappooDiovre'; rjj 'EWdSi 
 Kivhwevovarj. We have here a non-original case-construction, 
 unless, indeed, it is /So^^crai/re? that governs the dative. 
 
 viii. 140 (/3), ivopeco vp.lv ov^ o'toiai re e<rop.ivoicn. The 
 dative, which is nowhere else found with the verb, is on the 
 analogy of crvveiSevcu. 
 
 The following are further examples of expressions equi- 
 valent to a verb taking the construction of that verb : — 
 
 i. 24, avaKcos eyeiv tiov iropOpicov. 
 
 viii. 109, (Tiropov aya/ccos e^eTco. 
 Here the genitive is found, because dvaiccS<; e%eiv = eVt/ieXet- 
 gQcu. So d&vpa iroievpai is found with genitive, the phrase 
 being = Owvpd^w. 
 
 vii. 99, 'A preplans dcopa iroievpai. 
 
 ix. 58, 'Apra/Bd^ov dmvpa koX paXKov eTroievpr/v. 
 
 So with 7T6/JI for the same reason. 
 
 iii. 23, Ocoupa Be iroievpevcov tcov /caTacrKotriov irepl riov 
 erecov. 
 
 The phrase in i. 68, Bwpui 7roievpevo<; ttjv ipyacrbrjv may be 
 also due to Oavp-d^co, but can be taken quite literally, " con- 
 sidering the work a marvel ". Similar instances are : — 
 
 i. 160, oi\d<; Kpidkiov irpo^vaiv iiroiiero deiov ovSevi (from 
 irpo)(eeiv). 
 
 i. 127, Xijdrjv iroievpevos (= eirL\av8av6pevo<;) rd piv iopyee. 
 
 i. 93, ypdp,p,ara iveKeKoXairro rd e/cacrToi e^epydcravTo. 
 
 iv. 87, evrap.a>v ypdppara (= ypd^a<;~) . . . edvea irdvra 
 ocra irep r\ye. 
 
 6 
 
82 
 
 iv. 88, fcSa ypayjrdfievos iracrav ttjv £evi;iv. - 
 
 ix. 78, eiraivov e'if et? inro -iravTaiv HirapTi,r]T€(i)v. 
 The construction here is due to the analogy of iiraivea. _ 
 
 The following expressions, though not exactly -coming 
 under case-construction, are the product of contamination ;— 
 
 i. 5, ovk ofioXoytovai Ileparjcri, ovtco $OLyiice<;. 
 This = ofjuoXoyiovai Ilepa-pat, + Xeyovcrt, ovto> a>? Ilepaai. , 
 
 i. 137, dvrjKeaTov TrdOos ephew, probably a mixture between 
 jraOos iraOeiv and ica/cbv epBeiv. ,-< 
 
 i. 180 (and elsewhere), to fieo-ov avTr/s irorau.o<; $iepyei = To 
 fiecrov avTt)? iroTap.b<i iroiel -\r fj-ecrrju ahj-qv 7roTa/io? 'ipyei. h 
 
 (b) There are two instances of mixture between the 
 genitive after a comparative and tf after a comparative : — 
 
 vii. 26, "va nrrfyal uvaSi&cvat, MaidvBpov -jrora/MOV icaX erepov 
 ovk eXdaaovo<; rj MaidvBpov. Here rj MaidvBpov =.MaidvBpov . 
 + rj MaiavBpo<; — a confusion helped by the preceding genitive. 
 Stein denies that there is any mixture here, but admits the 
 other instance : — ■_, 
 
 viii. 120, Ta'AfiSripa IBpvrai wpbs tov 'EXXrjairovTov paXXov 
 
 7} TOV ^TpVpLOVOS KCLl TYj<; 'HlOVOS, 
 
 In. iii, 124, fioyXeo-Oai yap -irapOeveveaOai. TrXea xpovov f) 
 tov 7rar/3o? eo-Teprjo-Oai presents a strange mixture ; the 
 normal form would be ftovXecrdai yap irap6evevea6ai ttoXXop 
 Xpovov fJiaXXov r) tov 7raTp6f i<TTepfjo-9ai. (So Stein, who 
 compares Od. i. 164.) ,. , 
 
 (c) The peculiar construction of pexpt- ov with a genitive 
 instead of with a clause is also the result of contamination, 
 It may be stated thus in the form of a proportion : /xe%/Dt 
 with clause : fiixpi with genitive : : fiexpt ov with clause : 
 /i!%/at ov with genitive. 
 
 The following instances occur : 
 i. 181, p-^XP 1 ov °/ ct p> Trvpywv. , , 
 ii. 19, fJ-eXP 1 ov TpoTT^cov twv depiveaf. 
 
83 
 
 ii. 173, /i£%/Ot orev irXrjOova-rj^ dyoprj?. 
 iii. 104, fiexpi ov dyoprjs SiaXvaio?. 
 Like the above is ii. 53, y^x? L ov """payr/v re ical %#e?. 
 
 (d) There are a few instances of a peculiar usage wherein 
 oratio recta and oratio obliqua appear to be mixed up. 
 When one accusative and infinitive construction has another 
 dependent on it, and the subject of the second is the same 
 as the subject of the first, the subject of the second some- 
 times stands in the nominative instead of the accusative as 
 we should expect. 
 
 i. 2, T01/9 Se vwoKpivatjQai, ft)? ovBe eiceivoi 'lovs rrjs 'Apyeut)<i 
 4-Bocrdv cr<pi, Bo/cas ri]<; apTrayr)*; • ovBe &v avrol Bwaetv eicelvouri. 
 
 ii. 141, ical 01 Bb%ai ev rrj oyjri hncrrdvra rbv debv Qapavveiv 
 <o? ovBev Trelaerai ayapi dvrid^cov rbv 'ApafiCwv arparbv • 
 avrbs yap 01 irefiifreiv rtficopovi. 
 
 ii. 118, tow? Be TevKpovs rbv avrbv Xoyov Xeyeiv p,rj p,ev e%eiv 
 *EXkvr)v . . . /cat ovk dv 8t«aK»9 avrol 8t«a? vwej(eiv. 
 
 iv. 15, (fidvai yap crfyi rov 'AiroXXmva 'IraXia>rea>v fiovvoiat, 
 Br) atruceadak e? rr)V •ycoprjv, ical avros oi eireadat vvv emv 
 'Apiarer]? • rore Be, ore elrrero rw 6ecp, elvat /copal;. 
 
 (e) Mixture of Persons. There is only one certain instance 
 of o-<pel<; being used otherwise than for the third person : — 
 
 V. 92, (a.) el yap Br) rovro ye Bo/ceeo vfilv elvat, ^prjcrrbv &crre 
 rvpavvevecrQai to.? -ttoXk, airol rrpwroi rvpavvov Karaarr)crap,evoi 
 irapd cr(bio-L avroiat ovrco Kal rolai dXXoicn Bi%r)a9e Kariardvai. 
 
 The reading cr<f>eas in iii. 71, dXXd acfiea<; avrb<; eyat icare- 
 pea>, " I myself will denounce you," implies a similar mixture. 
 Here, however, Stein reads cr<f>ea. 
 
 (/) In connexion with the non-original uses of &>?, it is to 
 be noted that <£>? in the sense of "towards" occurs only 
 once in Herodotus : — 
 
 ii. 121 (e), ecreXdovra a>? rov fiao-iXeos rr)v Ovyarepa. 
 
 There is one earlier example in Homer, Od. xvii. 218. 
 
INDICES. 
 
INDEX OF AUTHORS. 
 
 The references are to pages; 
 
 
 
 ■ •'• 
 
 
 
 GREEK. 
 
 j&schines — 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Herodotus — • 
 
 De Falsa Leg. 40, 
 
 21 
 
 Book i. 
 
 sEsahylus — 
 
 
 Ch, 68, ..... . si 
 
 I Eum. 297, . 
 
 34 
 
 " ■- ■ . 80, 
 
 
 
 
 51 
 
 •' S.c. T. 289, 
 
 52 
 
 , 84, 
 
 
 
 
 76 
 
 Aristopl lanes — 
 
 
 :,' /,',' 89, 
 
 
 
 
 74 
 
 Aoh. 601, . 
 
 20 
 
 T -'."I 91, 
 
 
 
 
 80 
 
 Demosthenes — 
 
 
 93, 
 
 
 
 
 81 
 
 -233, 2, . . . 
 
 . . 16 
 
 r •: 94, 
 
 
 
 
 75 
 
 De Falsa Leg. 206, . 
 
 20 
 
 t- 95, 
 
 
 
 
 80 
 
 De Falsa Leg. 248, . 
 
 20 
 
 -7 .-.■ . 98, 
 
 
 
 
 73 
 
 Euripides — 
 
 
 jj , .-.-; 107, 
 
 
 
 
 73 
 
 Hel. 435, . 
 
 34 
 
 c- 108, 
 
 
 
 
 . 57, 77 
 
 Ion 572, . . 
 
 52 
 
 .110, 
 
 
 
 
 44 
 
 I. T..1203, . 
 
 61 
 
 ': 111, . 
 
 
 
 
 21 
 
 Med. 485, . 
 
 30 
 
 ; : . ; .126, 
 
 
 
 
 76 
 
 Herodotus — • 
 
 
 ,r .127, 
 
 
 
 
 81 
 
 Book i. 
 
 
 133, 
 
 
 
 
 65 
 
 Ch. 2, 
 
 83 
 
 137, 
 
 
 
 
 82 
 
 5, . . . 
 
 82 
 
 141, 
 
 
 
 
 76 
 
 7, 
 
 73 
 
 144, 
 
 
 
 
 77 
 
 24, . . . 
 
 81 
 
 V " 160, 
 
 
 
 
 81 
 
 32, . 
 
 15 
 
 163, 
 
 
 
 
 26 
 
 35, 
 
 75 
 
 172, 
 
 
 
 
 59 
 
 39, 
 
 15 
 
 178, 
 
 
 
 
 26 
 
 52, 
 
 73 
 
 180, 
 
 
 
 
 82 
 
 56, 
 
 . 24, 72 
 
 181, 
 
 
 
 68, 
 
 75,82 
 
 57, 
 
 16 
 
 .189, 
 
 
 
 
 66 
 
 59, 
 
 76 
 
 V '■ 199, 
 
 
 
 
 16 
 
 66, 
 
 60 
 
 201, 
 
 
 
 
 80 
 
 67, 
 
 . . 73, 75 | 
 
 . 202, ' . 
 
 
 
 
 72, 77 
 
Herodotus — 
 
 
 
 
 Herodotus — 
 
 
 
 
 Book i. 
 
 Book ii. 
 
 Ch. 207, .... 62 
 
 Ch. 141, . ' . .26, 77, 83 
 
 212, .... 76 
 
 149, 
 
 
 
 78 
 
 214, .... 76 
 
 150, 
 
 
 
 73 
 
 Book ii. 
 
 161, 
 166, 
 
 
 
 21 
 
 74 
 
 Ch. 10, 15, 16, 72 
 
 168, 
 
 
 
 77 
 
 11, 
 
 
 18 
 
 172, 
 
 
 
 81 
 
 14, 
 
 
 
 60 
 
 173, 
 
 
 
 25, 77, 83 
 
 15, 
 
 
 
 18 
 
 180, 
 
 
 
 79 
 
 16, 
 17, 
 
 
 
 79 
 70 
 
 Book ] 
 
 ii. 
 
 18, 
 
 
 
 56 
 
 Ch. 4, 
 
 78 
 
 19, 
 
 
 
 82 
 
 12, 
 
 
 65 
 
 27, 
 
 
 
 68 
 
 15, 
 
 
 
 53 
 
 30, 
 
 
 
 78 
 
 16, 
 
 
 
 . 51, 70 
 
 32, 
 
 
 
 33, 75 
 
 23, 
 
 
 
 81 
 
 34, 
 
 
 
 21 
 
 31, 
 
 
 
 75 
 
 35, 
 
 
 53, 75, 79 
 
 36, 
 
 
 
 53 
 
 37, 
 
 
 30, 68, 75 
 
 37, 
 
 
 
 . 76, 77 
 
 41, 
 
 
 73 
 
 38, 
 
 
 
 76 
 
 42, 
 
 
 
 77 
 
 42, 
 
 
 
 . 17, 74 
 
 48, 
 
 
 
 73 
 
 43, 
 
 
 
 39 
 
 50, 
 
 
 
 67, 77 
 
 50, 
 
 
 
 58 
 
 53, 
 
 
 
 72, 83 
 
 53, 
 
 
 
 24 
 
 55, 
 
 
 
 23 
 
 55, 
 
 
 
 33 
 
 61, 
 
 
 
 77 
 
 58, 
 
 
 
 20 
 
 64, 
 
 
 
 33 
 
 59, 
 
 
 
 26 
 
 66, 
 
 
 
 16,73 
 
 62, 
 
 
 
 56 
 
 68, 
 
 
 
 14 
 
 65, 
 
 
 
 30 
 
 78, 
 
 
 
 51 
 
 68, 
 
 
 
 20 
 
 92, 
 
 
 
 40 
 
 71, 
 
 
 
 83 
 
 93, 
 
 
 
 61 
 
 72, 
 
 
 
 17 
 
 99, 
 
 
 
 58 
 
 73, 
 
 
 
 56 
 
 102, 
 
 
 
 33, 78 
 
 78, 
 
 
 81 
 
 104, 
 
 
 
 68 
 
 88, 
 
 
 76 
 
 107, 
 
 
 
 33 
 
 95, 
 
 
 74 
 
 114, 
 
 
 
 46 
 
 99, 
 
 
 
 . 64, 74 
 
 118, 
 
 
 
 83 
 
 100, 
 
 
 
 64 
 
 121, 
 
 
 
 . 58, 83 
 
 102, 
 
 
 
 72 
 
 132, 
 
 
 
 78 
 
 104, 
 
 
 
 . 72, 75, 83 
 
 133, 
 
 
 
 . 73, 76 
 
 107, 
 
 
 
 72 
 
 134, 
 
 
 
 62 
 
 113, 
 
 
 
 . 20, 21, 41 
 
 140, 
 
 
 
 . 33, 46 
 
 i 121, 
 
 
 
 77 
 
89 
 
 Herodotus — 
 
 Oh. 124, 
 127, 
 128, 
 130 K 
 145, 
 151, 
 154, 
 155, 
 156, 
 
 Ch. 10, 
 12, 
 15, 
 
 26, 
 28, 
 30, 
 . 42, 
 50, 
 52, 
 56, 
 61, 
 63, 
 65, 
 68, 
 71, 
 72, 
 75, 
 78, 
 79, 
 87, 
 88, 
 94, 
 97, 
 110, 
 111, 
 117, 
 123, 
 129, 
 140, 
 141, 
 lf5', 
 159, 
 
 Book iii. 
 
 Book 
 
 20^ 
 
 23 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Herodotus — 
 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 
 Book 
 
 iv. 
 
 82 
 
 Ch. 160, 
 
 7fi 
 
 77 
 
 166, 
 
 
 
 75 
 
 77 
 
 171, 
 
 
 
 22 
 
 66 
 
 179, 
 
 
 
 78 
 
 58 
 
 181, 
 
 
 
 75 
 
 77 
 
 192, 
 
 
 
 78 
 
 60 
 
 194, 
 
 
 
 20 
 
 76 
 
 196, 
 
 
 
 72. 75 
 
 33 
 
 
 
 Book v. 
 
 
 Ch. 3, 77 
 
 33 
 
 8, . . 
 
 
 59 
 
 75 
 
 11, . . 
 
 
 60 
 
 83 
 
 19, . . 
 
 
 80 
 
 26 
 
 25, . . 
 
 
 56 
 
 , 65, 79 
 
 29, 
 
 
 76 
 
 75 
 
 33, 
 
 
 31, 76 
 
 33 
 
 34, . . 
 
 
 39 
 
 74 
 
 38, 
 
 
 80 
 
 65 
 
 51, . . 
 
 
 75 
 
 78 
 
 52, . . 
 
 
 78 
 
 31,37 
 
 53, 
 
 
 78 
 
 77 
 
 65, 
 
 
 59 
 
 37 
 
 67, 
 
 
 65 
 
 80 
 
 76, 
 
 
 74 
 
 67, 74 
 
 81, . . . 
 
 
 70 
 
 72 
 
 86, 
 
 
 75 
 
 80 
 
 92, . . . 
 
 
 77, 83 
 
 25 
 
 95, 
 
 
 66 
 
 76 
 
 98, 
 
 
 43, 74 
 
 81 
 
 103, . ... 
 
 
 79 
 
 82 
 
 104, 
 
 
 79 
 
 24 
 
 106, 
 
 
 71 
 
 57 
 
 
 78 
 
 Book vi. 
 
 39 
 
 Ch. 3 70 
 
 77 
 
 12, . . . 
 
 12, 15, 76 
 
 46 
 
 13, 
 
 61 
 
 56 
 
 14, . . . 
 
 76 
 
 79 
 
 41, . . . 
 
 42 
 
 12, 76 
 
 57, 
 
 64 
 
 66 
 
 65, 
 
 26, 31, 76 
 
 77 
 
 66, 
 
 
 
 69 
 
?90 
 
 Herodotus — 
 
 
 
 ■ \. 
 
 Herodotus — 
 
 
 
 .Book vi. 
 
 Book viii. 
 
 
 Ch, 87, .... 76 
 
 Ch. 107, 
 
 41 
 
 98, 
 
 
 
 78 
 
 109, 
 
 
 81 
 
 103, 
 
 
 
 78 
 
 113, 
 
 
 72 
 
 123, 
 
 
 
 68 
 
 120, 
 
 
 •' . 82 
 
 140, 
 
 
 
 26 
 
 140, 
 
 
 81 
 
 
 143, 
 
 
 58 
 
 Book vii. 
 
 144, 
 
 
 80 
 
 .Ch. 2, 67 
 
 ;": 
 
 
 8, 
 
 
 
 75 
 
 : Book ix. 
 
 
 9, 
 
 
 
 76 
 
 Ch. 2, 
 
 80 
 
 22, 
 
 
 
 .. 80 
 
 11, 
 
 
 16 
 
 26, 
 
 
 
 82 
 
 26, 
 
 
 60 
 
 28, 
 
 
 
 26 
 
 56, 
 
 
 60 
 
 29, 
 
 
 
 79 
 
 58, 
 
 
 81 
 
 35, 
 
 
 
 80 
 
 59, 
 
 
 41 
 
 58, 
 
 
 
 79 
 
 78, 
 
 
 82 
 
 59, 
 
 
 
 54, 75 
 
 88, 
 
 20 
 
 70, 
 
 
 
 79 
 
 90, 
 
 .17, 74 
 
 91, , . 
 
 
 
 80 
 
 94, 
 
 23 
 
 99, 
 
 
 
 81 
 
 99, 
 
 76 
 
 103, 
 
 
 '_ 
 
 72 
 
 108, . 
 
 81 
 
 104, 
 
 
 
 26 
 
 Hornet — 
 
 
 117, 
 
 
 
 80 
 
 11. i., 437, 
 
 60 
 
 119, 
 
 
 
 56 
 
 iv., 341, 
 
 24 
 
 139, 
 
 
 
 78 
 
 v., 98, . 
 
 31 
 
 143, 
 
 
 
 56 
 
 v., 265, 
 
 19 
 
 145, 
 
 
 
 20 
 
 v., 301, 
 
 34 
 
 146, 
 
 
 
 76 
 
 vi., 410, 
 
 24 
 
 157, 
 
 
 
 74 
 
 x., 466, 
 
 70 
 
 163, 
 
 
 
 77 
 
 xi., 313, 
 
 17 
 
 171, . . 
 
 
 
 33 
 
 xv.,. 305, . 
 
 41 
 
 184, 
 
 
 
 67 
 
 Od. i., 164, 
 
 29 
 
 191, 
 
 
 
 76 
 
 xvii., 218, . 
 
 83 
 
 208, 
 
 
 
 79 
 
 xxi., 161, 
 
 34 
 
 223, : 
 
 
 77 
 
 Hymns, iii., 370, 
 
 75 
 
 239, 
 
 
 . ■ 73 
 
 Inscriptions — 
 
 
 
 Cauer 10, . 
 
 22 
 
 Book viii. 
 
 171, . ■ . 
 
 36 
 
 Ch. 4, . , . . 22 
 
 179,- . 
 
 33 
 
 20, . . 77 
 
 209, . . . 
 
 19 
 
 23, . . 22 
 
 215, 
 
 . 23, 40 
 
 61, .80 
 
 216, . 
 
 40 
 
 72, 
 
 
 
 81 
 
 219, 
 
 
 23 
 
91 
 
 Inscriptions — 
 
 
 Plato— 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Cauer 237, . 
 
 69 
 
 Crito 49 A, 
 
 79 
 
 253, . 
 
 34, 51 
 
 Laches 180 E, . 
 
 40 
 
 353, . .' . 
 
 57 
 
 Phaedr. 228 E, . 
 
 36 
 
 431, . . ; . : 
 
 19 
 
 Prot. 314 C, 
 
 43 
 
 Isocrates — 
 
 
 Bep. 617 E, 
 
 14 
 
 '" 62E,.. . . . ■. ..•■• 
 
 57 
 
 Sophocles — 
 
 
 New Test. — 
 
 7 
 
 :■ ■ Elect. 285, 
 
 57 
 
 ! 2 Cor. *., 9, . . , .; :. 
 
 71 
 
 0. C. 584 
 
 52 
 
 Pindar — .HI ..' 
 
 
 730, . .- . 
 
 40 
 
 01. i., 7 
 
 68 
 
 852, . 
 
 29 
 
 i., 131, ... 
 
 41 
 
 0. T. 543, . 
 
 i 61 
 
 vi.,.81,. 
 
 26 
 
 Phil. 320, . 
 
 79 
 
 P. it, 136, 
 
 56 
 
 1333, 
 
 79 
 
 Plato— '■ 
 
 
 Prag. 168 
 
 55 
 
 ■■ Apol. 19 A, ,•*,< . 
 
 23 
 
 Thucydides — 
 
 
 36 D, 
 
 59 
 
 iii., 59, . . ■> 
 
 '• . 75 
 
 37 B, 
 
 62 
 
 iv., 37, . 
 
 62 
 
 Crat. 433 E, 7 .i ■■■ , 
 
 15 
 
 vit, 21, 
 
 20 
 
 Crito45B, ..iir.i.' 
 
 19 
 LAI 
 
 vit, 25, . 
 IN. 
 
 15 
 
 Gicero-r- . .(. 
 
 
 Cicero - 
 
 ■" 
 
 Acad, it, 3, 9, . 
 
 35 
 
 Verr. t, 9, 25, . 
 
 36 
 
 ad Att. iit, 19, 2, 
 
 19 
 
 ii., 2, 32, . 
 
 11 
 
 ix., 10, 2, . : 
 
 18 
 
 it, 3, 60,,. 
 
 31 
 
 x., 8, 7, . 
 
 19 
 
 ': it, 4, 12, 29, . 
 
 25 
 
 xt, 24, 5, 
 
 32 
 
 ii., 4, 15, . 
 
 25 
 
 ad Pam. it, 16, . 
 
 35,j 
 
 •. &aius — 
 
 
 ad Qu. fr. t, 1, 45, 
 
 32 
 
 Dig. 19, 2, 25, 
 
 28 
 
 ad Quir. 6, 
 
 15 
 
 Gellius — 
 
 
 de Pin. iit, 19, 64, . 
 
 33 
 
 xt, 1, 3, . 
 
 19 
 
 de' N. D. t, 17, 45, . 
 
 32 
 
 xiv., 2, 26, . 
 
 42 
 
 de Off. t, 23, 81, 
 
 42 
 
 Horace — 
 
 
 de opt. gen. ii., 6, 
 
 30 
 
 Od. i., 27, 6, 
 
 21 
 
 de Bep. t, 6, 11, 
 
 35 
 
 Sat. t, 4, 106, . 
 
 28 
 
 de Sen. 1, . 
 
 23 
 
 Sat. it, 6, 84, . 
 
 .' 54 
 
 pro Cluent. 138, 
 
 35 
 
 Inscriptions — 
 
 
 pro Deiot. iii., 8, 
 
 59 
 
 Lex Acit Bep., . 
 
 . 19, 36 
 
 pro Sulla xx., 59, 
 
 48 
 
 Lex Agraria, 
 
 56 
 
 Bosc. Am. 6, 
 
 21 
 
 Pompeian Inscr. , 
 
 21 
 
 Tusc. t, 16, 37, . 
 
 35 
 
 S. C. de Bac, . 
 
 22 
 
 ii.; 2, 5, . 
 
 35 
 
 Livy — 
 
 
 Verr. i., 1, 5, . 
 
 27 
 
 t, 38, ... 
 
 35 
 
92 
 
 Livy — 
 
 
 Plautus — 
 
 
 i., 57, . . . 
 
 36 
 
 Persa iv., 4, 83, . 
 
 26 
 
 ii., 38, 
 
 15 
 
 Poen., prol. 40, . 
 
 31 
 
 iv., 51, 
 
 36 
 
 Trm. 156, . 
 
 29 
 
 xxv., 13, . 
 
 52 
 
 True, ii., 4, 47, . 
 
 46 
 
 xxvi., 27, . 
 
 36 
 
 Pliny — 
 
 
 xxvi., 49, . 
 
 32 
 
 xviii., 277, . 
 
 21 
 
 xxvii., 40, . 
 
 44 
 
 Quintilian — 
 
 
 xxx., 8, 
 
 16 
 
 ix., 3, 12, 
 
 54 
 
 xlii., 48, . 
 
 28 
 
 ix., 3, 13, . 
 
 63 
 
 Lucan — 
 
 
 ix., 3, 17, . 
 
 55 
 
 Phars viii., 335, 
 
 28 
 
 Suetonius — 
 
 
 Lucretius — 
 
 
 Oct. 25, . 
 
 54 
 
 i., 944, . 
 
 19 
 
 Tacitus — 
 
 
 i., 1045, . 
 
 36 
 
 Ann. ii., 33, 
 
 36 
 
 iii., 1010, 
 
 36 
 
 xiii., 15, . 
 
 54 
 
 iv., 1005, . 
 
 28 
 
 xv., 3, 
 
 30 
 
 Kepos — 
 
 
 Terence — 
 
 
 Harm. 5, . 
 
 23 
 
 Adelph. v., 4, 27, 
 
 40 
 
 Ovid — > 
 
 
 Andria iii., 5, 1, 
 
 40 
 
 A. A. iii., 222~, . 
 
 18 
 
 Eun. 653, . 
 
 20 
 
 Plautus — 
 
 
 Phormio 591, 
 
 23 
 
 Amph. 34, . 
 
 52 
 
 Varro — 
 
 
 Capt. i., 1, 13, . 
 
 38 
 
 de ling. Lat. ix., 15, . 
 
 58 
 
 Cist, i., 3, 43, , . 
 
 55 
 
 ix., 74, . 
 
 62 
 
 Men. 1096, 
 
 27 
 
 Virgil — 
 
 
 Miles iv., 1, 17, . 
 
 54 
 
 Eel. iii., 80, 
 
 14 
 
 Most, i., 2, 20, . 
 
 42 
 
 SANS] 
 
 -OUT. 
 
 
 Brah. xxi., 1, 1, 
 
 26 
 
 Bigveda v., 31, 4, 
 
 25 
 
 Nala i., 26, 
 
 20 
 
 vii., 12, 3, . 
 
 39 
 
 Bigveda i., 115, 4, 
 
 22 
 
 vii., 21, 6, . 
 
 43 
 
 v., 30, 9, 
 
 26 
 GOT 
 
 x., 80, 7, . 
 HIC. 
 
 25 
 
 St. Mark i., 29, 
 
 56 
 
 St. Mark iii., 32, 
 
 42 
 
INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 -a neut. plu. in 16, 42. 
 
 Ablative and gen. contaminated in 
 Greek and Sanskrit, 48 ; loc. instr. 
 and abl. in Latin, 49. 
 
 Accusative, double, 25 ; ace. and nom. 
 contaminated, 51, 74 ; ace. with 
 verbs orig. intrans., 54 ; aec. a 
 verbal case, 51 ; after expressions 
 = a verb, 52, Y8. 
 
 Adjective, agreement in gender with 
 noun, 13 ; followed by ace. in 
 Sanskrit, 52. 
 
 Anaooloutha, 69. 
 
 Analogy, its scope, 7 ; formal, 9, 13, 
 72 ; of meaning, 10, 39, 74 ; com- 
 plex, 11, 45, 74. 
 
 Aorist parallel to pres. and imperf., 
 60 ; origin of aor. pass., 63. 
 
 Balanced Structure, 37. 
 
 Case, formal assimilation of, 19 ; 
 Attic attraction, 19 ; rel. attracted 
 to antecedent, 19 ; with oliSeis 
 oaris oi, otos, &s, 20 ; tis, 21 ; 
 adjectives for adverbs by, , 21 ; 
 agreement instead of partitive 
 gen., 21 ; with fteffos, travTa 5eVa, 
 22 ; with divided whole, 23 ; 
 with poss. adj., 23 ; from one 
 clause to another, 23 ; in Or. 
 Obi., 24 ; double aec, 25 ; with 
 nomen dicere, etc., 27; in expres- 
 sion of dates in Lat., 27 ; with 
 quisquc, 28 ; of vocative in Lat., 
 28. 
 
 Contamination of, 47 ; (a) abl. and 
 gen. in Greek and Skt., 48 ; loc. 
 instr. and abl. in Lat. and Italic 
 dialects, 49 ; loo. instr. and dat. 
 in Greek and Teutonic, 50 ; (b) 
 nom. for ace. in Attic, 51, 74 ; 
 ace. for nom. in Delphian, 51 ; 
 (c) dat. for poss. gen., 51 ; (d) 
 aec. after verbal derivatives, 52 ; 
 case after expressions = a verb, 
 52, 78, 80, 81 ; («) case construc- 
 tions of verbs derived (i.) from 
 nouns and adjs., 53 ; (ii.) from 
 other verbs, 11, 54, 75-82 ; intran- 
 sitive verbs take an ace. on ana- 
 logy of other verbs, 54 ; intrans. 
 use of ex w > 55 ; of i^tn/u, 56. 
 
 Chiasmus, 37. 
 
 Collective nouns with plural verb, 40, 
 41. 
 
 Comparative, formal assimilation of, 
 29 ; double, 38 ; mixture of con- 
 struction with, 58, 82 ; comparatio 
 compendiaria, 59 ; Lat. quam, 
 Gi.'ii, 59. 
 
 Copula, omission of, 39. 
 
 Dative, assimilation of in Lat., 27 ; 
 dat. loc. and instr., 50 ; used for 
 poss. gen., 51. 
 
 Se in apodosi, 37 ; after aAAos, 60 ; 
 misplaced, 70. 
 
 Si6n for on, 68. 
 
 Dissimilation in Syntax, 71. 
 
 Dual. 17, 43. 
 
94 
 
 e/ca(TTOs, 16, 41. 
 
 Ellipsis, 39, 71. 
 
 English usages, 16, 29, 30, 32, 34, 38, 
 39, 41, 42, 47, 51, 56, 57, 60, 62, 
 70, 79. 
 
 iy Tjfierepou, 75. 
 
 Epanalepsis, 38. 
 
 iirl [taWov, 75. 
 
 t£it)fu, intrans. use of, 56. 
 
 is ov, 75. 
 
 i%a>, intrans. use of, 55. 
 
 Eeminine nouns in -os, 46 ; in -I in 
 Skt., 13. 
 
 Euture, Greek in -<ra, 44. 
 
 Gender, formal assirn. of, 13 ; with 
 infin. in -urum, 14 ; with pro- 
 nouns, 15; with nearest, subj., 
 15 ; with ttoAvs, vKetffTos, etc. , 15 ; 
 personalised constructions due 
 to, 15 ; real assim. of, 40 ; gram- 
 matical gender, 13, 40 ; change 
 of,, in Greek, 45 ; masc. nouns in 
 -as, -i]s, 40 ; fern, nouns in -or, 46. 
 
 Genitive, partitive, 22 ; gen. and abl. 
 contaminated, 48 ; partitive gen. 
 instead of agreement, 73. 
 
 Herodotus, syntactical analogy in, 
 72-83. , ', 
 
 ^,29,59,82. 
 
 Imperfect for pres. by formal assim., 
 
 32 ; imperf. parallel to pres. or 
 aor., 60. 
 
 Infinitive, attraction of, in Or. Obi., 
 
 33 ; due to contamination, 64 ; 
 ace. and infin., 64 ; ace. after 
 (patvofiat, etc., 64 ; Sore with 
 infin., 65 ; irpiv with infin., 67, 
 
 Instrumental, 49, 50. 
 
 Intransitive verbs with ace, 54, 64. 
 
 Locative, 47, 49. 
 
 Masculine nouns of 1st decl., 41. ,, 
 
 fieWw and other verbs with fut. infin., 
 
 38. 
 yueVos, 22. - -, . (Hi 
 
 /ts'xpi o5 with gen., 82. r. ; - 
 
 Modern Greek, usages in, 22, 25, 30, 
 47, 51, 63. 
 
 Mood, attraction of, 32 ; in subordinate 
 clauses of Or. Obi., 33 ; of opt., 34 
 in sub-oblique clauses in Lat., 35 
 real assimilation in sequence, 44 
 mixture with, 61 ; oTo-8' as iroln- 
 rrov, 61. 
 
 Negatives, double, 37 ; mixture of, 68. 
 
 Nominative for ace, 51, 74 ; ace. for 
 nom., 51. 
 
 Number, formal assim. of, 16 ; with 
 oudej/es, o'jSaj^oi, oySerepa, 16; with 
 intLiTTos, 16 ; abstract nouns, 16 ; 
 oTa t eo-ri,' etc., 16-; with dual, 
 17 ; to nearest subj. or to p^ed., 
 18 ; real assim. of, 41 ; with col- 
 lective nouns, 41 ; wi,th cuam-os, 
 aAAos bAAo?, 41 ; Lat. instances, 
 
 42 ; neut. plu. with sing. vb. in 
 Greek, 42 ; Sanskrit, 43 ; adj. in 
 sing, with .toOto, 17, 43, 74 ; 
 "Schema Pindaricum " and 
 Latin parallels, 43 ; with dual, 
 
 43 ; mixture with, 46 ; Lat. nec- 
 nec, seu- t seit, aut-atU, 46 ; Gr. iti- 
 Tepa, 46 ; (pepe- 5e, &ye 8e with 
 plural, 47. .. , , 
 
 oltrd' us 'jroirja'Qi/y 61. , , , ,: ; 
 
 Optative, in or. obi., 34 ; attraction 
 of optative, 34 ; opt. after historic 
 present, 44 ; after pres. tense, 61. 
 
 Oratio Obliqua, infin. in sub T ohlique 
 clauses, 9, 33 ; Opt. of, 34 ; mix- 
 ture of constructions in, 62, 83. 
 
 Parataxis, 30, 36, , 
 
 Partitive genitive, 22 ; assimilated 
 ..construction corresponding to, 
 
 . 21,;,,' :■■,'. .,,! 
 Passive, Voice, 62.., , , ..^ 
 
 Person, formal assim. of, 28 ; with 
 
 ,a'niv, ,29 ; mixture of, 29, 57, 83 ; 
 
 ; with eavrSv .(?), 57 j, w^th p-^eis, 
 
 ..57, 83 ; other .instances, ,57, 
 
 ' "58. 
 
95 
 
 Phonetic Change, 7, 71. 
 
 Pleonasm, 37. 
 
 Predicate, oblique, 22. 
 
 Pregnant constructions, 56. 
 
 Present tense, 44, 60, 61. 
 
 Pronouns, assimilated in gender, 15 ; 
 mixture of, 57, 58. See Person. 
 
 Eepetition of ideas, 38 ; of words, 38. 
 
 Style, influenced by formal analogy, 
 10, 36 ; by contamination, 69. 
 
 Subjunctive, imperf. in Lat. by at- 
 traction, 31 : for indie, by attrac- 
 tion in Lat., 35. 
 
 Tense, formal assim. of, 30 ; paratac- 
 tic usage due to, 30 ; with </>flaVto, 
 etc., 30 ; fui with perf. part., 31 ; 
 with subjunct. in Lat. , 31 ; im- 
 perf. for pres. in Greek, 32 ; mix- 
 ture of tense functions, 60 ; pres. 
 and aor., imperf. and aor., 60; 
 tenses in classical Sanskrit, 61 ; 
 pres. with iamdudum and Skt. 
 pura, 61. 
 
 Teutonic, pres. in, 44 ; cases in, 47. 
 
 ti, intensive use of, 68. 
 
 -urum, fut. infin. in, 14. 
 
 Verbs with case-construction on ana- 
 logy (i.) of nouns and adjectives : 
 dpitTTeuo), &atrt\eiiu, etc. , 53 ; ipaff- 
 0m, 53, 75 ; i^aovv, 75 ; cupio, 
 invideo, 54 ; (ii.) of other verbs : 
 &yafiai, 80 ; aKoiw, 12, 76 ; a/j.ap- 
 
 riva, 78 ; o/«A.e«, 77 ; hrop4a>, 78 ; 
 yKixo/iat, 78 ; Sei, 80 ; SioAAaVerw, 
 79 ; Sopuipopea, 53, 77 ; Svva/im, 
 78 ; iynvpu, 79 ; Ivopia, 81 ; iv- 
 Tvyxdvw, 79; <NfeA.0e?j/, 79; liri- 
 0d\\a>, 79; iTrulrqcptfa, 80; iQur- 
 Tayiiaj, 80 ; vbs. in koto-, 76, 77 ; 
 \ma.p4a>, 80 ; vopifa, 77 ; ovpifa, 
 79 ; Trapaxpdo/iai, 77 ; weido/iai, 12, 
 76 ; Tvepiyivojiai, 80 ; ir\ea>, 79 ; 
 Trpofiri6eofi.ai, 81 ; TvvTo/j.ai, 77 ; 
 6wepappa>$4a>, 80 ; x«p(C», 79 ; dis- 
 crepo, 55 ; impertio, 54 ; iubeo, 
 54 ; navigo, 55 ; probo, 54. 
 
 Verbs, expressions equivalent to, 52, 
 78, 80, 81. 
 
 Verbals in -reos, 79. 
 
 Vocative, assimilation of, in Latin, 
 28. 
 
 Voice, attraction of, 36 ; with possum, 
 queo, coepi, desino, 36 ; in Greek 
 and Skt., 36 ; active used as 
 middle, 63 ; middle in passive 
 sense, 63 ; origin of passive, 63. 
 
 as after comparatives, 59 ; clauses 
 with &s contaminated with Or. 
 Obi., 62 ; &s introducing consecu- 
 tive clause, 65 ; as prep., 67, 83 ; 
 with superlatives and numbers, 
 67. 
 
 Sot-6, formal assim. after, 23 ; with 
 infin., 65. 
 
 ABEBDEEN UNIVEBSITY PBESS.