is first an acc. and later a nom. is confirmed by the use of nau in Skt. as an acc. and not a nom., while in Avestan the corresponding enclitic acc. has developed a nom. nå. It may be that we have here the starting-point for the use of the acc. pl. as a nom. in Latin, which we see in homines, a use which spreads to the sing. in the French homme (= hominem), while on (= homo) has become a specialized term.

While nau in Skt. is the enclitic acc. for us two', nas is the corresponding enclitic pl. for 'us'. The English 'us' is the German uns (= ns), which is a reduced grade of nas, which may have been nos or nes in Indo-Germanic. This reduced form appears in the first syllable of the accented acc. asmān (= ṇsman), and in the Aeolic appe (= nsme), the Skt. asma-, found in the dat. asmabhyam and the instr. asmābhis. The Doric form is due, which gets its aspirate from με 'you', just as εσμέν gets its first syllable from ἐστέ. From ἄμμε and åμe, old accusatives, come the nominatives aμμes and aμes. The Attic queîs has changed a to ŋ and -es to -es after the analogy of rpeis, thinks Brugmann; for it is a plural, not a dual.

We have found the root of 'us' in a reduced form of nos; but 'we' seems an older form of vos. This form appears in the Skt. vām, the enclitic acc. for 'you two', in vayam, the Skt. nom. pl. for 'we', and in āvām and yuvām, the nom. duals for 'we two' and 'you two', as also in vas, the enclitic acc. for 'you'. We may begin with vām, according to Brugmann for va-am, the va being the same word as is used to form the 1st dual aorist, to which is added -am after the analogy of aham, tvam, vayam, and yuyam. This va 'two' is our 'we' and the Latin vos, got from the same root and in the same way as the Skt. vas, and being the plural form. The root va 'two' has become 'we two' by association with verbal forms in the first pl. and 'you two' by association with verbal forms in the second pl.

This vām (two) is joined to the root yu- in yuvām, the Skt. nom. dual 'you two'. The root yu-, also found in the Skt. nom. pl. yūyam 'you', is the root of our 'you', and seems the same as the root of Latin iuvo 'I help'. In Greek we have the Aeolic μue, and the Doric μe, corresponding phonetically to the Skt. yuşma- in the instr. yuşmabhis with you'. It passes to the Attic vueîs, formed like μeis, except that the rough breathing is not got by analogy, but represents the Skt. y. The v added in νῶιν, σφῶιν, ἡμῖν, and ὑμῖν is probably the same that we have in Toσív and åvdpáσiv, though that does not explain it, for it seems older in vŵw.

ν

Nos and vos, then, are to be associated in derivation with the Skt. enclitic duals nau and vām, and with the Skt. enclitic plurals nas and vas. Brugmann notes that they, too, are used as enclitics at times, as in: ob vos sacro, old for obsecro vos, and: Quo nos cumque feret melior fortuna parente (Od. 1. 7. 25). Both of them have a double genitive, one with a singular ending and a singular meaning: nostrivestri; and the other a plural in form and meaning: nostrum-vestrum. It is worth noting that these twin genitives are formed, not from nos and vos directly, but from the dual possessive forms noster and vester; so that here again we have a balancing of singular and plural in connexion with the dual, such as we have repeatedly observed.

When we turn to the 2nd and 3rd dual forms we get a balancing, not of number but of person. We noticed how in the aorist tenses of the verb the 3rd dual is used at times for the 2nd, and the 2nd for the 3rd; while in the present tenses the 2nd is used throughout, when we turn to dual pronouns of the 2nd and 3rd persons, we have the 3rd person with a slight variation used throughout. We have seen how vôï and vŵe are used for 'we two'; opï is used for 'you two', and ope for 'they two'. Brugmann's idea, that in σpŵï the & is for an older F and that it must be connected with σú, seems most improbable. Both σøôï and σpŵe are dual forms got from op after the analogy of voï and vôe. Brugmann shows us (Vergl. Gr. II, p.413) how from où (= σFoû) we get an instrumental opt or σow, mistaken later for a dative and expanded to σφίσι or σφίσιν; how this develops a genitive σφέων, an accusative σφέας or σφέα, and a nominative σφεῖς. There can be little doubt that opŵï and opŵe are variant duals developed from the same instrumental, and that the problem here is much the same that we have in the German use of Sie for Ihr, and later for Du.

The use of μes and nos for èyú and ego is very common in Greek and Latin, and we shall speak of it presently when dealing with the Plural of Modesty. That of vues and vos for σú and tu is not developed in either classical Greek or Latin, though we find uses approaching it from which the later uses in Low Latin and French are derived. These consist in the choice of a single person out of the number addressed, so that he or she alone of that number is indicated by the noun or pronoun used in the address; as in: vña ¿Oúvete, φαίδιμ' Οδυσσεῦ (Od. 12. 82), προσέλθετ ̓ ὦ παῖ (Soph. Ο. C. 1 104), heus foras exite huc aliquis (Pl. Epid. 399), ibitis Aegaeas sine me, Messala, per undas (Tibull. 1. 3. 1), vos, O Calliope, precor, adspirate canenti (Aen. 9. 525).

The use of Sie for Ihr probably arose from a substitution of indirect for direct address, similar to that which substitutes ella for voi in Italian; and in Greek, too, it is likely that, in addressing a herald or a vassal chief, the king feeling that the absent ruler, and not the present herald, should determine the form of address, used 'they two', and not you two', in addressing him and his lord. Latin prefers the second person to the third in such a case, but the Greek use here seems to follow the lines of modern courtesy.

VIII

INTER

WHILE words ending in -ter are not duals, as some Roman grammarians taught of uter and neuter, in origin they are connected with the dual notion, the ending -ter being a comparative ending. It is interesting to see how far they continue to express this notion, how far they pass on to the expression of three or more, or pass back to one. In this respect the uses of inter will prove noteworthy.

Inter has cognates in all branches of Indo-Germanic: in Sanskrit and Zend, in Armenian and Old Bulgarian, in Greek and Italic, in German and Celtic. In English we have under, in German unter meaning among' as well as 'below'. In Latin, while it usually means 'between', or 'among', it is at times the equivalent of per. Its derivation is not obscure, the first syllable being the Latin in, Greek ev, English in. When en- is followed by a syllable with an initial mute, the e becomes i in Latin, and so the Greek evrós appears there as intus. We can see the same tendency in our pronunciation of England. The cognate of inter in Greek, evrepa, is a substantive, not a preposition.

The ending -ter is evidently the same as the Greek ending -TEPOS, and we have it in the Latin exterus, which develops a double comparative, exterior. The corresponding interus has disappeared, interior having taken its place. It is the usual ending for comparatives in Sanskrit; and there, too, it is often joined with prepositions, as in uttaras 'higher', from ud 'up'. In English and German the usual comparative ending is -er, which we see in the Latin superum and inferum. While in Latin the idea of below is usually given by inferus and infra, inter in composition has this meaning at times, as in interire 'to go down' and interficere 'to slay'. We shall understand this shifting better if we compare the use of imus 'lowest', primarily the superlative of in (= in-mus) and meaning inmost, as we see it in Catullus's phrase: imis exarsit tota medullis (64. 93). But it is commonly felt to be a superlative of inferus, as in imis avolsam solvit radicibus (Aen. 8. 237-8), where in relation to the earth 'lowest' is also inmost'.

Inter, then, as a preposition means primarily 'between two objects', as in: qui (mons) est inter Sequanos et Helvetios (B. G. 1. 2). Virgil often places it so as to present us with a picture of this meaning, as in: terras inter caelumque (Aen. 4. 256). But just as the dual passes from a pair to two or more pairs, so we find inter passing to two pairs in: namque manus inter maestorumque ora parentum (Aen. 2. 681), and then to several in: ante oculos interque manus sunt omnia vestras (11. 311). In this way it seems to have been transferred to a plurality of objects with the meaning 'among', as in: micat inter omnes Iulium sidus, velut inter ignes Luna minores (Od. 1. 12. 46-8).

Scholars have been puzzled by a curious repetition of inter 'between', found in both prose and verse. We read: inter Hectora Priamiden animosum atque inter Achillem ira fuit capitalis (Sat. 1. 7. 11-13), and again: Nestor componere lites inter Peliden festinat et inter Atriden (Ep. 1. 2. 11-12). Wickham's note is: 'an illogical, but a Latin use', and he compares: quid intersit inter popularem ... et inter constantem (Cic. Lael. 95. 25). But though we feel this use illogical for inter 'between', it seems quite logical for inter among', as in Lycus inter et hostes inter et arma fuga muros tenet (Aen. 9. 556-7), with which compare: fortunate senex, hic inter flumina nota et fontes sacros frigus captabis opacum (Buc. 1. 51-2). Either is right with inter 'among'; but for inter 'between' we feel that the logical use is that in: inter Padum atque Alpes (Liv. 5. 35. 2). We have then inter between' at times in Latin following a syntax not unusual for inter among'; a syntax which gives a higher degree of weight and balance to the pair in competition.

But we read in Lucretius: inter saepta meant voces et clausa domorum transvolitant (1. 354-5) 'voices pass through walls, and fly through houses shut', Munro. It seems clear that here inter is used for per; and in Virgil:

Ecce autem flammis inter tabulata volutus

Ad caelum undabat vertex turrimque tenebat (Aen. 12. 672–3), 'and lo! a spire of flame wreathing through the floors wavered up skyward and held a turret fast', Mackail. In this sense of per it is more usual for time than for place. Cicero writes: qui inter annos tot unus inventus sit (Leg. Man. 68. 23), and: quae inter decem annos... nefarie flagitioseque facta sunt (Verr. 1. 37. 13); and Livy: inter ipsum pugnae tempus decem naves regiae ... ad Thronium in sinu Maliaco stabant (36. 20. 5). In all these examples it seems