the author, whenever the forms with r and those with are distinct in meaning, Old Bactrian appears always to have rejected the latter, while the former appear for the most part abundant. It is known, and proved by examples, that a language can be so powerfully averse from certain sounds as to lose them altogether. A grave objection to the existence of the Proto-Aryan / certainly cannot be derived from the Old Persian, in which, Heymann observes, with the exception of two proper names, no form with corresponds to a primitive form with 7. Lastly, if the Sanscrit 7 had been developed from r, independently of the European 7, it is clear we ought to find examples of Sanscrit /= European r, since it is evidently quite possible, and even probable, that the original was preserved, at least in some cases, in the European mother-language and became, on the contrary, in Old Indian, which does not always exhibit the primitive sound unchanged nor always preserve them intact more faithfully than the cognate languages. The lack of such examples is, in Heymann's view, a new proof of the change 22 ofr to even in the primitive and fundamental language of the Aryans. But just as in many European roots the change of to is complete, while the former sound remained unaltered in the corresponding Indo-Iranic roots, so the greater frequency in the development of the may be considered as a characteristic of the Aryan dialects of Europe: certainly not the change of r to l as a phenomenon arising in every case separately on Asiatic and on European ground.

The opinion of the author is supported by that most important prosecutor of Iranic studies, Spiegel,' who however acknowledges, on the other hand, the weight of the contrary arguments. That the ancient Iranians possessed a letter indicating the sound 7, and that it is a mere accident (as Lepsius and Oppert think) that 1 Beiträge, etc., viii. 121-28.

such a written symbol is not found in documents which have come down to us, seems to Spiegel, on account of the number and magnitude of such documents, by no means probable. Possibly the ancient Iranic dialects. knew the not less than the Old Indian: but it may be that there was not a clear consciousness of the dif ference existing between and r, and hence such difference was not represented by a written symbol. The experience of the readers compensated for the want of a special sign. Spiegel believes, however, that the absence of a letter expressing the in the ancient Iranic forms no grave obstacle to the admission of the Proto-Aryan existence of the . J. Schmidt, in the severe criticism which he passed upon Heymann's' brochure, throws upon him the reproach of having undertaken the investigation without sufficient preparation, of not having consistently followed the same method, of having sometimes arbitrarily derived meaning from meaning; while he affirms the only result of such labour to have been to prove that, as a rule, there do not appear in the Old Iranian those stems of words which in Sanscrit and in the European languages have 23. Schmidt thinks that in order to solve the proposed problem it is necessary to investigate the less ancient Iranic languages, all of which, he says, have the 7. Such a sound occurs also in Persian and Scythian names handed down to us by the Greeks, and in Zend alphabets. This fact Heymann should have brought forward, and he should have availed himself of the authority of Lepsius and of Oppert, who has made it appear, if not certain, at all events very probable, that a symbol used twice in proper names on the Cuneiform Persian Inscriptions has the power of 7.2 Bezzenberger, in his critical remarks on Heymann's monograph, declared himself less favourable

1 Jenaer literaturzeitung, 1874, pp. 204-5.

2 Revue de linguistique, iii. 459, sqq.; iv. 207, sqq.

to the hypothesis of a Proto-Aryan . He does not believe in the primitive nature of the sound / except when there are not Iranic forms with r arrayed against forms with

of the other Aryan languages: but, when the former appear, we ought to recognise in their the primitive. sound. That even in the oldest and fundamental Aryan forms with were developed, with a meaning more or less distinct from the primitive forms with r, this critic is not very much inclined to believe, because, in his opinion, he is prevented from doing so by several words drawn from the less ancient Iranic dialects, which Heymann ought to have taken into account. It may appear strange that Sanserit should have given to forms. with, which have been developed independently of the European forms, the same sense as we find in the latter: but it would appear more strange still that the Iranic languages should in every case have lost the forms with 7 with their definite meanings or, from an inconceivable dislike of 7, should have substituted for them new forms.

To us the arguments adduced in favour of the claims of this sound to be Proto-Aryan, appear both in number and weight to be so superior to those of the opposite side, that we think it reasonable to add to the catalogue of the primitive phonetic elements of our linguistic stock the 21 sound 7, though we readily admit the possibility, that, both in the last periods of the Aryan unity, and also immediately before its division, the and the r were not yet always quite distinct from each other, and that of the difference which separates them our most ancient fathers had not as yet full consciousness.

§ 5. Passing now from the study of the consonants to that of the vowels, and of the various and remarkable relations which we see to exist between these two classes of the phonetic elements, we hasten to mention, in the most

1 Zeitschrift f. vgl. sprachforschung, xxii. 356-61.

complimentary terms, the important work of J. Schmidt, entitled, Zur geschichte des indlogermanischen vokalismus (Weimar, 1. 1871; II. 1875). According to the intentions of the author it should consist of three parts, or of three monographs, distinct, but nevertheless closely allied to each other. The first two have already seen the light, and one of them investigates the action exercised by the nasals on the preceding vowels, the other that of r, on the neighbouring vowels; the third, the publication of which does not seem to be close at hand, will attempt to solve the problem whether, in the Proto-Aryan mother-language, there existed roots of like meaning with different vowels, one set of roots beside the other, and, if that shall appear to be the fact, in what way such diversity of vowels has originated.' This is one of the most solid, rich and useful works which have been given to the public in the last few years in the field of Aryan philology, in that it throws light upon a series of important facts, not yet sufficiently examined, with a rare diligence and learning which is extended in a wonderful way to all the families of our linguistic stock, and with an uncommon acuteness of skill; arriving at results exceedingly important both for the history of the Indo-European 25 vowel-system generally, and for that of the individual languages. We regret that the limits of this work constrain us to notice only the chief among such results, and that the reader cannot form an adequate conception of the minute disquisitions in which consists the value of the work under discussion: but we are consoled by the hope that a book of such worth will be read and reflected upon by all who give their attention to philological studies.

2

After some considerations which need not be noticed here,

1 Ibid. sect. 2nd, p.iv.

2 See on this work the two critical articles of Delbrück (Zeitschrift f. vgl. sprachforschung, xxi.

73-92) and of Bezzenberger (Göttingische gelehrte anzeigen, 1875, pp. 1313-44).

Schmidt, in the first of his monographs, proceeds to treat of the lengthening and increase of vowels caused by following nasals. And starting from the origin of the nasals in radical syllables he observes that all the inserted nasal elements are not simply phonetic and devoid of all etymological value whatever, but arise partly, as Kuhn remarked, from nasal suffixes (cf. Lat. pango and Gr. #ýyvv-u, Sanser. junýmas and junaými). This passing of the nasal from the suffix into the root will have come about just as in epenthesis or metathesis, which consists in the passing of an ior j into the preceding syllable, and of which Old Bactrian offers us so many examples; the nasal, added as a suffix, will have given by assimilation a nasal sound to the preceding syllable, and will have then sometimes disappeared: in Greek, e. g., from the stem and root λaß- we should have the series *λαβ-νω, *λαμβανω, λαμβάνω, or *λαβ-νω, *λαβ-ανω, *λαμβάνω, in which, as in the preceding, the nasal suffix has been preserved. Afterwards Schmidt proceeds to discuss the lengthening of vowels owing to following nasals in Indo-Iranic, in Teutonic, in Lithuanian, in Old Bulgarian, in the three Northern European families taken together, in Keltic, in Latin, in Greek, in GraecoItalic, in European: from among the very numerous 26 examples quoted by him we select the Indo-Iranic (mās) (= European mans) [month], the Graeco-Italic vikanti (Dor. Fikari, Lat. viginti, cf. Sanser. riçati) and the European stibh (from stimbh, stambh). Some of the forms quoted show us that the lengthening took place not after the disappearance of the nasal (as compensation), but while it still existed. The increase also may take its rise from the influence of a nasal, so that we have, in the same or in different languages, a form with a nasal beside another with increase: as instances our author adduces junakti and jogatē (Ved.) from the root jug, bhinatti and bhēdati (Ved.) from the root blid; πυνθάνομαι (πεύθομαι) and bodhami,