« PreviousContinue »
€60ev. The original dative must have been ofi$i (sibi), and the accusative ofe or oe, the latter however differently pronounced from oe the accusative of où, while the former passed into opé. In the plural we have vos by the side of opà, and opâs and oploù by the side of se and sibi ; opétepos by the side of vester (Féotep-os by transposition).
It is now held that neither the Greek nor the Latin F had the sound of our letter. The Greek is commonly represented
• by the Latin f, as ppntip is frater, dépw is fero, &c., p-h or b-h being more nearly the original sound. The digamma is most commonly the Latin u or v (oikos = Fikos vicus), but we cannot
( certainly say if this u was our v or rather our w, as uinum and uicus are wine and wick. The v and the f are closely allied sounds; between vine and fine there is no other difference than that the former word has a faint echo (so to say) in the throat, and may be called semi-guttural.
What was the exact difference to the Greek ear between the original H or h; the sibilant-aspirate in èĘ, éttà, ünn, of which the Latin forms are sex, septem, silva; and the digamma presumed to exist in such words as Fεκών, Fέκαστος, and the evanescence of which has left the rough breathing; this seems a difficult question, especially as there must have been some distinction of sound between òs suus, and ós the relative 3 ; and between étromal, which does not admit of a hiatus before it “, though sequor is its Latin form (like åreobai compared with salio), and éKAOtos, which nearly always does. The sibilantaspirate is well shown in our pronoun she from the Anglo-Saxon heó. Even here a local patois pronounced the latter word without the s sound, whence has arisen a modern vulgarism, which is often mistaken for an ignorant error of grammar, “her (or hoo) did it,” for “she did it.” A breathing ejected through compressed teeth, or what might be termed a “dental-guttural”
3 The relative As does not seem to take the digamma, though I have seen it so written on a rather early vase.
* We have due émovrai in Theog. 268, and in several passages of Homer.
sound, appears to be the basis of the sibilant-aspirate, which made silvα from ύλη 5.
Curtius remarks (Gr. Et. 369) that the occasional lengthening
a vowel before dis (õote lis, Il. xviii. 318) indicates a primitive word Fîs. If so, it was clearly pronounced more like slis. Compare the archaic stlis (our strife) with lis, litis. The word in that case would stand for λεfίς, like λέαινα for λεβάνια and λέων λέFων, λαF = Réw for RéFwv, from root daF = laß (New Cratylus, $ 455), and the initial o would be a residue of the original of.
The loss of the of from the written language, while it was retained in pronunciation from the necessity of the metre, is singularly illustrated by such verses as Theogon. 819,
δωκε δε Κυμοπόλειαν οπυίειν, θυγατέρα ήν. Also Scut. Herc. 59,
αυτόν και πατέρα καιν'Αρην άτον πολέμοιο. Where ofnv and oFoy must have been the original words, and do not happen to have passed into the written forms oorv and opòv, as in other places. In Il. vi. 358,
ένθα με κύμ’ απόερσε πάρoς τάδε έργα γενέσθαι, compared with Il. xxi. 283,
όν ρά τ’ έναυλος αποέρση χειμώνι περώντα, and ibid. 329,
μή μιν άποέρσεις μέγας ποταμός βαθυδίνης, we have an obscure aorist meaning to sweep away,' applied to a rapid current. In two of these places the metre shows that the of must originally have existed. Hence we may infer a root swer (our swirl), possibly connected with oúp-elv, a verb which bears exactly the same sense.
It has been stated above, that the original of, or F, or sv,
5 There were local dialects of this word, several forms of which are known; cúan or Fúan, in Scaptesula for OkaTT) Úrn, and Sila, a forest in South Italy; üxFn or Fúa Fn, silva ; and úr Fn or ulva, the reeds and sedge on river banks. In my opinion, the root is FeaF, volvo, seen in etely and its numerous derivatives, the primary idea being that of dense and close packing. The Homeric ron, our wood, seems a change of d and a. Compare 'ion with ian. There is no probability in the etymology suggested by Curtius (376) from su, procreare. It seems very reasonable to explain Ilium (Flacos) as the closely-packed or densely-peopled town.
seems to have had the value, not merely of a letter, but of a syllable, viz. EF (generally changed into eń), or fe by transposition. Thus from ίσος (Fίσβος) we have νηος επίσης, from Fίκελος επιείκελος, FeFoικώς by the side of the Ionic έoικώς and the Attic cikós 6.
If we compare eikooi with viginti, we shall see that the el is a long syllable caused by the digamma with the e, i. e. Felkooi
, for Fikoou (Fixati)? This, again, by a singular capability of reduplication, quite consistent with the genius of the Greek language, became Fe-Fe-lkooi. So we have in Od. xii. 78,
ουδ' ει οι χειρές τε FeFείκοσι και πόδες ελεν. There must have been an old aorist ioato, “it made itself like,' i. e. 'it appeared.' As in ionul, it took the digamma (compare our wise); and thus from Fe-loato arose é-Fe-loato. Compare Od. v. 398,
ως 'Οδυση ασπαστόν έFείσατο γαλα και ύλη. Where the initial F has vanished from the first Fe. Again, we have έειπε (έFειπε) by the side of είπε or Fείπε, εέλδωρ, έέργει, αν-έελπτος (άνα-Fελπτος), είσκω, εέρση, εέλσαι.
In all these it is evident that ce could not have been an open dissyllable. The Homeric éFépyet passed into cipyer of the later Attic, špyer of the Ionic; while the aspirated cípyeu perhaps represents ofe-épyw. The Homeric FeFiokw is evidently Fe-Fείσκω. Ηesiod too has είς ώπα FeFίσκειν, Οpp. 62.
The above facts appear most clearly from the transition of o Fos (or ôs), suus, into both Feòs and éFós 8. Thus, in Theog.
( 467, we have
παϊδας έFoυς κατέπινε, Ρέην δ' έχε πένθος άλαστον.
6 Used also in Il. xxi. 254, TQ eikus šitev. On the other hand, Thucydides uses the form απεoικότως.
? This is a more reasonable explanation than to conclude, with Curtius (134), that “the diphthong in the first syllable seems to be a mistake.” This indeed appears to be the true explanation of the o in olvos, olkos, 'O reùs=Fineús. The sound of the diphthong represented wi or hwi, as olotpos and õiords are our word whizz. Probably then olvos was pronounced wheenos.
8 Compare meus with èuós. Dr. Flack (Proleg. p. 42) gives the various epic forms ofos, oefos, é Fds, Fos, Feós. The old Romans said sis oculis for suis, &c., pronounced swis.
But in Opp. 328,
ός τε κασιγνήτoιo Fεού ανά δέμνια βαίνει. Pindar, as well as Homer, uses the simpler form Fós. What is rather remarkable, the still further curtailed form òs seems to have been used in early times; for we find in Od. v. 407,
όχθήσας δ' άρα Fείπε προς ον μεγαλήτορα θυμόν. And here indeed it would be easy to suppose the original reading was Fείπε Γεω μεγαλήτορι θυμώ. But a little after the time of Peisistratus, if we may trust an apparently genuine epigram quoted by Thucydides (vi. 54), the word was used without any digamma
μνήμα τόδ' ής αρχής Πεισίστρατος Ιππίου υιός. That the digamma often represented Fe or ef, is also shown by the words čap, éapıvòs, ciapuós. Comparing the Latin ver, we conclude that the old word was Fap (for Fecap). Hence we obtain Feap and ef-ap, respectively čap and clap (year), and ciapivòs for eFapıvós. Vernus is evidently Fapivòs, as nocturnus is vuitepivòs, and aeternus is aeviterinus. Indeed, the words aetas (aevitas) and aevum compared with aiày seem to show that the original form was either å-ef-wv or aiFwv. A good illustration of the facility with which ef became fe by transposition, is έκηλος by the side of εύκηλος, i. e. Fέκηλος and έFκηλος, both from εκών.
As in many words the initial F has left only an aspirate breathing', so it has passed into a vowel when employed, as it constantly was, in the middle of words, or even at the end of root-syllables. Thus we have Boüs for BoFs, éxeva for éxeFa Or έχεF-σα, χεύσω for χεF-σω, χυτός for χεF-τος (χεύτός), κλυτος
• An example of this is ēdva for Fédra, which is also written čedva, i. e. Fedva (our wed). It is a question if ávéedvov, not åváedvov, should be read in Il. ix. 146, and åvéennta for åvaéanta in Theog. 660. If a privative is a clipped form of åvà, “the backward way,' i.e. the converse (analogous to our like and un-like, &c.), we can thus explain such forms as νηνεμος, νώνυμος, for ανάνεμος, ανώνυμος, and the unmutilated compounds åvá-FEATTOS, &c. Otherwise, we must assume a primitive ve (as in vétodes, 'footless ') lost in Greek, but retained in the Latin ne (nefas, &c.). See Curtius, Gr. Et. 317.
for κλεF-τός. We have, even in Pindar, αλάτα for άτα, and υπο-φαύτιες (φώτις). So αύλαξ for afλακς is from the root Fελκ, which becomes a sibilant in sulcus. In other words the F became ι, as in λείος for λέFoς (levis), καίω for κάτω, νειός for νέFoς, είαρ for Fαρ, κλαίω for κλάψω (fut. κλαύσω), φατειος for patefos, Scut. Herc. 161,-a form which is seen in the Latin verbal adjective sativus, &c. So perhaps Øuotios for ópófios, όλώϊος and όλοιός for ολόFιος (ολοφώνιος).
There is some difficulty in accounting for the forms oida and čolka, in which there is the double influence of the digamma in the root, and the lengthened syllable of the perfect, as in πέπoιθα. The participle however is not oιδώς, but ειδώς, and there are metrical reasons for thinking Fiews, Fidvia, was an epic usage, though whether a genuine or merely an imitative one, seems open to doubt.
It may be conjectured, that the true power of the F was first dropped in monosyllables, where it was not metrically necessary to avoid a hiatus. A comparison with the Latin shows that there were in the early Greek many digammated monosyllabic roots and crude forms, which became dissyllables in the Latin inflexion or vocalisation. Thus, vafs, Bofs, ofs, Klafs (roots vaF, BoF, ), were changed in Greek into vaûs, Boüs, ois, Kleis, and in Latin into navis, bos, bovis, ovis, clavis?. Other monosyllables might be cited, as Fap (ip) ver, klefs for kis (whence Kléa, “lays'), lefs, levis (neios), and probably Spurs for Spūs. The Greek termination of adjectives in -ùs or -EÙS may originally have been -Fs. Thus, nüs or éüs (whence eŮ, bene) was perhaps éfs, "Apns or ’Apeùs was åpefs, ūdùs was ofadf-s (as shown by suavis). There is a diversity of opinion among scholars, whether T is a letter of the primitive alphabet (and it occurs in the earliest inscriptions), or was at first represented by the vowel-sound of F, as Franz and Donaldson maintain. Thus it is somewhat uncertain whether pv (péw),
· That Keleiv, 'to shut,' was originally kiéFelv or kadFelv, is proved by the Latin claudo and clavis. Compare kalw, katow, Khalw, khaúow.