This similarity leads to the thought that a true phonetic radical may exist in this _t_, and may induce us to consider this word not as a p.r.o.noun but as a substantive verb. But this makes no difference. The fact remains that the word is used both as a simple p.r.o.noun and also as a substantive verb. In the translation of the Lord's Prayer, the word _toon_ is a simple p.r.o.noun. If _t_ is a radical, it may just as well come from the p.r.o.noun. Some languages offer clear examples of this. In the Maipure the expression for the third person singular recurs with all the other persons, as if this sound meant the person, the man generally, and the first and second persons were denoted as the "I-person," "thou-person," etc. In the Achagua language the same radical occurs in all the p.r.o.nouns, but does not, as in the Maipure, stand alone for the third person singular, but in it, as in the other persons, appears as an affix.

At any rate, this p.r.o.noun answers, in the Maya, all the purposes of the substantive verb, and there is no other in the language.

It is quite intelligible that in the conceptions of rude nations the idea of an object, and especially of a person, cannot be separated from the idea of his existence. This may be applied to the forms of expression above mentioned. What seems a violent and ungrammatical omission of the verb, is probably in those people an obscure a.s.sociation of thoughts, a non-separation of the object from its being. Probably it is from the same source that in some American languages every adjective is so considered that it includes not the idea alone, but the expression, "it is thus, and thus const.i.tuted."

In the Yaruri language the absence of a phonetic radical meaning "to be" is yet more apparent. Each person of the p.r.o.noun is a different word, and they have no single letter in common. The p.r.o.noun which has verbal power is almost identical with the independent personal p.r.o.noun. The tense signs are prefixed to it. Thus, _que_, I am; _ri que_, I was, &c. This _ri_, however, is merely a particle which expresses that something is remote, and corresponds with our "from."

_Ui-ri-di_, there was water there, literally "water far is" (from us is). The subjunctive of this substantive verb is given as _ri_, "if I were." This means, however, "in," and is a particle. The notion of Being is added, as in the p.r.o.noun; and the ideas, "in the being," and "if I were," pa.s.s into each other.

Strictly speaking, both the verbal notations here expressed are identical with those already mentioned. Here also the verb is supplied by the mind. The difference is that in the latter case the p.r.o.nouns alone signify being, and contain this notion in themselves, whereas in the other cases this notion arises from the conjunction of subject and predicate. Then also in the Maya language there is a special p.r.o.noun for this sole purpose. As far as the forms go, they entirely resemble those of a true verb, and if _que_ and _ten_ are regarded as mere verbs substantive, one who did not examine their elements would take them to be true verbs like the Sanscrit _bhu_, the Greek e??, and the Latin _sum_. The example of these languages thus teaches that in the a.n.a.lysis of the substantive verbs of other tongues it is not necessary that a common phonetic radical need be employed.

In the Huasteca language the substantive verb is replaced by affixing a tense sign to the independent p.r.o.nouns; _naua itz_, I was, _tata itz_, thou wert, etc. But the case is not the same. The p.r.o.noun receives the verbal power by the suffix _itz_, and this appears only in later times to have become a sign of the preterit, and in an earlier period to have had a general sense. The mountaineers who seem to have retained the older forms of the tongue use the _itz_, not only in the preterit, but in the present and future. It was doubtless the expression of some general verbal idea, as, to be, to do, etc.

II.

THE NOTION OF BEING IS INCORPORATED WITH THE VERB AS AN AUXILIARY.

Auxiliary verbs are used only for certain tenses, or form the entire conjugation. The former arises from accidental causes having relation only to these tenses, not to the verb in general. The latter readily arises when a substantive verb offers an easy means of conjugation by uniting with another verb. Sometimes the conjugation by means of an auxiliary shows that the linguistic sense of a notion sought something beyond the person and tense signs to express the verbal power itself, and therefore had recourse to a general verb. This can, indeed, only be const.i.tuted of those elements and a radical; but the want in the language is thus supplied, once for all, and does not return with every verb.

An excellent example of this is furnished by the Maya conjugation. In an a.n.a.lysis of it we find an element that neither belongs to the root, nor is a person, tense or mode sign, and when their varieties and changes are compared, there is evident throughout a marked anxiety to express the peculiar verbal power in the form of the verb.

The conjugation in the Maya language is formed by affixing the p.r.o.nouns and mode and tense signs to the stem. The p.r.o.noun is, according to a distinction to be noted hereafter, either the possessive p.r.o.noun or that one which, without verbal power in itself, yet receives it when a predicate is attached to it to form a sentence.

Besides this, the suffix _cah_ accompanies all verbs in the present and imperfect; and the suffix _ah_ accompanies all transitive verbs through the remaining tenses, except the future. Present, 1st person, sing., _canan-in-cah_, I guard; imperf. 1st pers. sing., _canan-in cah cuchi_; perf., 1st pers. sing., _in canan-t-ah_. _In_ is the possessive p.r.o.noun, _cuchi_ the sign of the imperfect, _t_ in the perfect is a euphonic letter.

The idea of transitive verbs is here taken somewhat narrower than usual.

Only those are included which govern a word outside of themselves. All others are considered intransitive, even those which of themselves are active, but either have no expressed object (as, I love, I hate, etc.), or the word which they govern is in the verb itself, as in the Greek ????d?e?, ??????e?. As these can govern a second accusative, the object incorporated in the verb is included in the idea they express.

The tenses of the intransitive verbs, except the present and imperfect, while they drop _ah_ and the possessive p.r.o.noun, are formed with that p.r.o.noun which forms sentences with a predicate.

There are cases where not only the present omits _cah_, but where the stem, if it ends in _ah_ as is often the case, drops it, and subst.i.tutes _ic_. The signification then alters, and indicates an habitual action or quality. As _ic_ is the sign of the gerund, this change appears to be the transformation of the verb into a verbal, and to effect this, it must be united to that p.r.o.noun which serves as the substantive verb; _ten yacunic_, I love, properly, I am loving (habitually).

What _cah_ and _ah_ mean by themselves, we are not informed. Where _cah_ is attached to the stem of some verbs it signifies intensity.

_Ah_ is as a prefix the sign of the male s.e.x, of the inhabitant of a place, and of names derived from active verbs. Hence it seems to have meant at first person, man, and later to have become a p.r.o.noun, and finally an affix. It is noteworthy that the same difference exists between _ah_ and _cah_, as between _en_ and _ten_. The _c_ may therefore be a radical sound. In the conjugation, _cah_ is treated wholly as a verb. For in this the possessive p.r.o.noun is always prefixed; and as in the present and imperfect it is placed after the stem of the verb and before _cah_, it is evident from the difference between the two forms _canan-in-cah_ and _in-canan-t-ah_, that in the former _cah_, and in the latter _canan_, are regarded as the verbs.

_Canan-in-cah_ is precisely as the English "I do guard."

_Cah_ is consequently a true auxiliary verb; _ten_, when it appears in conjunction with _en_ must have the notion of Being understood: _ah_ appears to be of similar nature, but as it appears only in the conjugation of transitive verbs, it is a verbal sign, and thus receives its verbal power. That _cah_ and _ah_ do really possess this powever[TN-8] is evident from the fact that they are never used whenever either of the p.r.o.nouns which are always a.s.sociated with the notion of Being is present.

Except in the future of transitive verbs, there is no instance in the conjugation where the stem of the verb is not accompanied by one of these four syllables, all of which indicate Being, and all of which have the force of auxiliary verbs.

The future of transitive verbs not only does not take any of these syllables, but even rejects _ah_ when it is the terminal syllable of the stem. In this case no other termination replaces it. On the contrary, all other verbs receive a new suffix in their future, varying as they are of one or many syllables. The nature of these suffixes has not been explained.

The definite results of this a.n.a.lysis are as follows:

1. The Maya language possesses in its conjugation, besides the inflection syllables of the persons and tenses, another element, which, except in the simple future of transitive verbs, distinctly carries with it the notion of Being; in the future of most verbs there is such an element, but of unknown origin, and it only fails in the future of one cla.s.s of verbs.

2. This language displays an effort to express, besides the other purposes of the verb, particularly its synthetic power, which is all the more apparent as it uses different means in different cases, but all designed to accomplish the same purpose.

The Yaruri language constructs the whole of its conjugation in a yet simpler manner by means of an auxiliary verb.

The union of the p.r.o.noun and the tense sign which, as we have already seen, forms the substantive verb, affixed to the stem, completes the inflections of the one and only conjugation of attributive verbs, except that the independent p.r.o.nouns are prefixed. Neither the stem nor the auxiliary words suffer any changes, except the insertion of an _n_ in one person. The union remains, however, a loose one, and when person and tense are manifest by the connection, the auxiliary verb is omitted. This happens in certain verbs ending in _pa_. These, contrary to the usual rule, change in the perfect this termination to _pea_, by which the tense is made apparent, and as the person is evident from the prefixed personal p.r.o.noun, the auxiliary can be dropped without danger of obscurity.

The formation of certain tenses by means of auxiliaries is also frequent in American languages.

An optative of this nature in the Lule language has already been mentioned.

In the Mixteca tongue the imperfect is thus formed from the present, which carries with it the personal sign, and the perfect without its personal sign, a proceeding which, however rude and awkward it may be, shows a just appreciation of the peculiarity of this past tense, which expresses an action as going on, and therefore present in past time.

The expression of continuous action is placed first, "I sin," then this is more precisely defined by the mark of past time, "this was so;" _Yo-dzatevain-di-ni-cuvui_. _Yo_ is the sign of the present, _ni_ of the preterit, _di_ is the p.r.o.noun; the other two words, _to sin_ and _to be_: "I was sinning."

The sign of the present, _yo_, is probably an abbreviation of the verb _yodzo_, I stand upon or over something, and so there is a second auxiliary in the sentence. This may often be a means of discovering the origin of tense signs, as, especially in American tongues, tenses are often formed by the union of verbs, as also occurs in Sanscrit and Greek.

The Othomi distinguishes certain past tenses, which, however, are separated by other characteristics, by a prefixed _xa_, which is called the third person singular of a substantive verb. As these tenses are precisely those in which the action must be completed, the perfect, pluperfect and future perfect, not, however, the imperfect and past aorist, such a connection is very suitable. Of this verb we have only _xa_, and there is another substantive verb _gui_, which itself takes _oca_ in its conjugation.

The Totonaca language unites the perfect, in the person spoken of, with the third person singular of the future of the substantive verb, to form a future perfect. This is no completed form, but only an awkward sequence of two verbs; _yc-paxquilh-na-huan_, literally, "I have loved, it will be,"="I shall have loved."

In similar manner the substantive verb is used to form a tense of the subjunctive.

The sign of both the perfects in this tongue is the syllable _nit_, and _niy_ means "to die." It is not improbable that this affix is derived from this verb. Death and destruction are suitable ideas to express the past, and some languages employ negative particles as signs of the preterit. In the Tamanaca this is not exactly the case, but the negative particle _puni_ added to a word which signifies an animate thing, intimates that it has died; _papa puni_, the deceased father, literally, "father not." In the Omagua tongue the same word signifies old, dead, and not present.

In the Maipure and Carib tongues the negative particles _ma_ and _spa_ are also the signs of the preterit. Bopp's suggestion that the Sanscrit augment was originally _a_ privative finds support in this a.n.a.logy. Yet I would not speak conclusively on this point, as probably that, the Greek augment e, and the Mexican _o_, are only lengthened sounds, intended to represent concretely the length of the past time. At any rate one must regard the negation as an actual destruction, a "been, and no longer being," not as simply a negation of the present.

III.

THE NOTION OF BEING IS PRESENT IN THE VERBAL FORM ONLY IN IDEA.

In this case the verb consists only of the stem, and the person, tense, and mode signs. The former are originally p.r.o.nouns, the latter particles. Before they are worn down by use to mere affixes, the three following cases may arise:

1. That all three of these elements are equally separable and loosely connected.

2. That one of the two, the person or the tense and mode signs, obtains a closer connection with the stem, and becomes formal, while the other remains loosely attached.

3. That both these are incorporated with the stem, and the whole approaches a true grammatical form, although it does not fully represent it.

_Case 1st._

The only language I can instance here is that of the Omaguas, as I know no other with such a decided absence of all true grammatical forms in the verb. The independent p.r.o.nouns, the stem words of the verbs, and the particles of tense and mode are merely placed together without any change, without internal connection, and apparently without fixed order; _usu_, to go; 1st pers. sing. pres. _ta usu_; 2d pers. sing. perf. _avi ene usu_ (_ene_ is the p.r.o.noun, _avi_ the sign of the perfect). Subjunctive, 1st pers. sing. pres. _ta usu mia_; 2d pers. sing. perf. _avi epe usu mia_.

Sometimes, when a misunderstanding is not feared, the verbal stem is employed without these qualifying particles, and cannot then be distinguished from a noun. _Paolo amai amano_. The last word means "to die," but grammatically the sentence can as well be rendered, "Paul only die" (_i. e._ has died), as "Paul only dead."

It is true that the suffix _ta_ changes nouns to verbs: _zhiru_, clothes, _zhiru-ta_, to clothe; but it also changes verbs to nouns, _yasai_, to cover, _yasai-ta_, a cover. This may be explained by the theory that this suffix conveys the idea _to make_, which is taken sometimes actively, sometimes pa.s.sively.

According to the above, the Omagua conjugation falls in the cla.s.s where an attributive is united to a p.r.o.noun and the verb is omitted; only that here definite tense syllables appear, and this brings the construction nearer to the idea of a conjugation.

_Case 2d._

1. The Maipure, Abipone, Mbaya and Mocobi languages place only the personal sign in intimate connection with the verb, and allow the tense and mode signs to be loosely attached. They have therefore but one type of personal forms to be applied in every tense and mode by means of the particles or the affixes formed from them. This type, taken alone, usually forms the present; but, accurately speaking, this name cannot be a.s.signed it; because the signs of the other tenses are also dropped when this can be done without obscurity. _Ya-chaguani-me-yaladi._ Here the first word is in the indefinite form, though it is not the present but the perfect. The _me_ is really the preposition "in;" but usage has adopted it for the subjunctive sign, and so the Spanish grammarians call it; or rather, the verb is considered to be introduced by a conjunction, "if," "as," so that it is usually not in the present but a past tense.

If this is the case with the last verb, the first one must have the same tense, and so the whole phrase, without any tense sign, means, "I had helped him when I said it."