in Thessalian (KATOLKÉVTEσσL), Phocian (ie pouvaμóveσσ), and Corinthian (νομιζόντεσσι, νικώντεσσι); -ασσι in Tarentine and Heraclean (ποϊόντασσι, πρασσόντασσι, Κυπαρχόντασσι); -ονσι in Arcadian (πολιτεύονσι), Cretan (ἐπιβάλλονσι), Argive (ἐπαγγέλονσι), and Argolic (Ouovo); OVTOLS in Aetolian (VIKEÓVTOLS, etc.-this termination taken over in Laconian); and -ουντοις in West Locrian (επιτελούντοις, ἐκλογευόντοις). As the dative plural pépovo shows, the third plural pépovo may have come from *bherontsi just as plausibly as from *bheronti, as is usually assumed; but the OscoUmbrian -ns can scarcely be explained by a secondary pre-form *-nt, whereas it may very well be derived from *-n(t)s. We may, therefore, say that in Osco-Umbrian secondary final *-nt-s (*bherent-s) > -ƒ (Umbrian frehtef, etc.), but that original final *-nts >-ns (Oscan fufans). It is possible that *-ntsi may explain the Apabhra, sa Prakrit termination -ahi, (e.g. vaṭṭahin ordinary Prakrit vaṭṭanti, Sanskrit vartanti), which Pischel" regarded as of doubtful origin, and which can scarcely be derived from an original *-nti. One may, however, suggest the following development: -ahi, < *-ahin < *-asin < *-atsin < *-antsi, the evolution being influenced by analogy with the first and second persons plural, vaṭṭahun, vaṭṭahu.

=

etc., is still employed etymologically, it is now pronounced as a, etc., but we know from the testimony of Praetorius79 that a, was spoken with nasalisation as late as the end of the seventeenth century. It is not altogether correct, then, to say, as does Brugmann, so that in Lithuanian the third singular has replaced the third plural; the fact is, rather, that the loss of nasalisation in the third plural has led this to coincide with the third singular, which, as already noted, was probably an injunctive in origin.

Returning to the Modern Greek form, we observe that in certain dialects both -ovo and -ovv occur, as in the Southern Sporades, where the ending - is used with or without the pronoun, but the ending -σ only without it, the exact opposite to the rule in East Crete.81 It is also worth noting, in this connexion, that -o- and -ou- often interchange in the Modern Greek inflection of the verb, e.g. present active dévo(v)μe; present passive δένο(υ)μαι, δενο(ύ)μαστε; imperfect passive ἐδένουμου(ν), édevóμovv(e), etc.; and in some dialects, especially of Northern Greece, one even has such forms as dévov 'déw'.82 The - in dévovv(e) is probably added by analogy with δένο(ν) με δέομεν, etc.

83

Finally, one may suggest that the rule in Sanskrit sandhi that a sibilant is added to words ending in a nasal when they are followed by words beginning with a palatal or dental, and that final n is doubled before a word beginning with a vowel, often really points to an original termination *-nts in the verb such as demonstrably exists in the participle, thus explaining not only gacchans ca, icchans tatra, but also abhara,s tataḥ, and possibly abharann iha.

IX. Summary

If we summarise the views advanced in this study, we may formulate our reconstruction of the Indo-European personal endings in the present and imperfect active in the following table. Here the italicised forms are those in which I deviate more or less from the current views, my difference in the thematic dual and first and second persons plural being that I consider the forms in *-si to have been originally athematic, and those in *-(s), without *-i, to have been originally thematic.

The origin of the distinction between the athematic and the thematic inflections is very problematical. In any case, the theory of H. Zimmer that Old Irish preserves the ancient differentiation by employing conjunct (thematic) forms after preverbs, but absolute (athematic) forms when no preverb precedes (e.g. di-an-beir 'to whom he carries': berid 'he carries'), is scarcely tenable.85 It seems possible to suggest, however, that the basis of the difference was accent, since the athematic types, as shown especially by Sanskrit and Greek, show varying accent, whereas accentuation is unchanging in the thematic types (Sanskrit emi, imás: Greek εἰμι, ἵμεν [< *ιμέν, είμι, ΐμεν κ*ϊμέν, cf. also εσμέν, Sanskrit

cf.

86

smás]; Sanskrit dádhāmi, dadhmási: Greek ríðŋμi, tibeμev [<*tidaμév]; Sanskrit krnómi, krnmási: Greek ζώννυμι, ζώννυμεν [< *ζωννῦμι, ζωννυμέν]; cf. also, possibly, Sanskrit ásmi, smás, sthá: Albanian jam, jemi, jini [<*ji-ni-te];87 as contrasted with the thematic types, e.g. Sanskrit bhávāmi, bhávāmas: Greek piw, proμev).

Perhaps athematic verbs originally had no primary accent of their own, but at most only secondary accents, so that it may be significant that the only two Greek verbs which are still true enclitics (eim, ønμ) are athematic (cf. also the enclitic use of sum in Italic, e.g. Latin ortumst 'ortum est', Oscan teremnatust 'terminata est'). Here also belongs the well-known Vedic principles that the indicative is not accented unless it stands at the beginning of an independent clause or anywhere in a dependent clause.

In other words, the athematic verb may have been originally an enclitic, and the non-enclitic verb, which had a primary accent of its own, may have had the thematic form. If this be true, in the case of such doublets as Sanskrit éti: ayati; dāti, dádāti : dádati; dāṣṭi, dāśnóti : dašati; Greek δείκνυμι : δεικνύω; βίβημι : βιβάω, βαίνω; φέρτε : φέρω (cf. Latin ferte),89 the former (athematic) may have been originally enclitic, the latter (thematic) originally non-enclitic. This suggestion is advanced, however, merely as a working hypothesis, not as a reasoned theory, and much less as a demonstrated explanation.

87 Cf. G. Meyer, 'Das Verbum Substantivum im Albanesischen', in Philologische Abhandlungen Martin Hertz. . . dargebracht 81–93, Berlin, 1888.

88 For the accentuation or non-accentuation of verbs see Brugmann, Grundriss 1. 953–4, 957, 965–7, 972–3; B. Delbrück, Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen 3.58-64, 76-85, Strasbourg, 1900; Hirt, Der indogermanische Akzent 169-206, 304-9, do. 1895.

89 Brugmann, Grammatik 315–6, 320, 331, 334, 339; Hirt, Griechische Sprache 499-500.

THE EXPRESSION OF THE FUTURE

CHARLES C. FRIES

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

The concept of time in relation to action finds expression in the verbal forms of a great many, although not all, languages. 'In English we have made up our minds that all action must be conceived of in reference to three standard times',—the present, the past, and the future. Of these three, the devices for the expression of the future—their origin, development, and present use-receive from our grammarians the least satisfactory treatment.

The common school grammars of modern English usually give as the one means of indicating future time the combination of shall and will with the infinitive form of the verb and name it the future tense.? Some give two forms of the future tense: one for simple futurity and another for determination. As a matter of fact, however, the use of the auxiliaries shall and will with the infinitive is but one of several important methods of expressing the future and certainly does not deserve the title “the future tense'. Some other combinations having a claim to be included in an English future tense are:

(a) the verb to be + prepositional infinitive. (He is to go with the committee.)

(b) the verb to be-about + prepositional infinitive. (The man is about to dive from the bridge.)

(c) the verb to be + going + prepositional infinitive. (They are going to go by automobile.)

Then too, the present form of the verb frequently refers to future time both in subordinate clauses and in independent sentences when some other word than the verb, or the context in general, indicates the time idea. (If it rains, I cannot go.) (He returns from his trip tomorrow.)

On the other hand, the use of shall and will to express determination (sometimes called 'the emphatic future', or 'the colored future', or "the

* E. Sapir, Language 104.

See, for example, Kittredge and Arnold, The Mother Tongue (1901), 2. 240. * See, for example, Scott and Buck, A Brief English Grammar, 125 (1907).

3