« PreviousContinue »
ple, and using the verbal adjective to express futurity, made, with regular phonetic change, (calitavyam) calidavvam and caliavvam. This in turn became caliba, or, in Bengali, calib, not by any means at first a personal future, but impersonal, for any person and number. For this reason, when a Bengali hạd to say 'I shall go,' he added to calib (eundum) the word ā, which is pronounced, and often phonetically spelled, õ, that is, the word 'me' in the agent-case; so that calibo or yābo is Latin, eundum-mihi, ibo, maribo is ‘I shall strike' (* to strike by me'). Here then we have a verbal ending which in reality is nothing but a personal pronoun. In exactly the same way, māris is ‘he struck ’and the s, although to all appear.
, ance a verbal termination, is in reality the final reduction of the third personal pronoun, meaning by him,' while the first part of māris is a phonetic reduction of the past passive participle, mārita, mārida, māria, mārya, māri. In both of these cases the impersonal form was preferred, as it is in Sanskrit. So māry-am is struck by me' in the Sauraseni form, am being 'by me' (in Hindi, mărilam māridam has the same origin). The last stage is exemplified in Rājast hānī, where the agent-case has been supplanted by the nominative. Thus wah uthio,
he rose' (instead of usā, ‘risen by him '). This is a recent development, showing that all sense of the impersonal origin has been lost and the verbal has at last attained to the state of a completely inflected verbal form, the nominative pronoun replacing the agent-case. So the Hindi has hü māio, 'I killed,' instead of killed by me.'
To the adaptationist, who repudiates such synthesis as un-Aryan, such a development within comparatively recent time should furnish food for reflection. On the other hand, the genesis of a tense of precise future meaning out of the indefinite (infinitive) meaning supports the view that the direction of development of meaning is toward precision. The vague and general becomes exact and specific.
But further. Future forms may serve as subjunctives. In one group of dialects the same form in one dialect is future, in another subjunctive. But this future. subjunctive is really an indicative filled out with the copula · be. Thus in Rājasthāni the subjunctive differs in the first person from the indicative only in adding to the latter • (1) am.' 'I go’is indicative, “I am go' (going) is subjunctive, as in karū and karū hãi (hãi, I am '). Both future and subjunctive are expressed by hii mārīgõ, “I shall (or may) heat,' hi uthugõ, · I will arise '; as in the preterite jito ha gio (gio, 'went') is literally ‘I (be)came alive.' But in one dialect of this group, hì mārūgo serves only as future,ʻI shall beat’and hii mări hai, ‘I am beating,' serves as subjunctive. The usual future is made with gõ, hì us-tah kahugo, ‘I will speak to him.' 1
In all this we are reminded of the Tibeto-Burman verb (or lack of it), where there is only a verbal noun and the future is made by adding a post-positive for,' in the sense of in order to.' In Burmese we find 'gā,' with,' added to a stem to serve as a future-sign, just as 'with’ (ge-) makes a German perfect. In the Lushai dialect, .do,' thwa, is added to a stem to make an imperative, suggesting that in tou, Sk. idhi, we have really •do come,' vdhā. In the Hindu-Kush the
1 The Sanskrit scholar will observe how the ablative' sense has yielded to that of the locative in us-tah, ‘him-to.' But really location in general is expressed by tas even in Sanskrit. Thus itah is here,' even to here' as well as “hence,' as in Sak, ito dattadrstih is with look directed hither,' on this side.'
deliberative subjunctive is made by adding to the indicative the interrogative a, which, when added to a stem in a, makes ā, just as hanti, indicative, becomes hanati, subjunctive, and bharati becomes bhdrāti. As another example of an ending which is a word, some dialects make the subjunctive by adding kyah, 'perhaps,' to the indicative; thus kudddu is ‘I strike,' and kudddukyah is ‘I may strike.
The passive in Yidghah is made by adding kshiyah to the verbal stem, and kshiyah is the word for 'go.' The present as a future may be illustrated by the Bhojpuri of Palaman, which regularly uses present as future, yai, 'I will go,' kahi,' I will say,' instead of yaib (yābo) and kahab (kaham). This indicative is the Nāipālī future. By adding lā, 'gone,' to the present indicative (subjunctive) a future is produced like that of Hindusthāni (with gă, dekhāgā, *I am going [that] I see,' that is, 'I shall see'); thus dekhūlā is ‘I shall see' in Nāipālī, but the Bhojpuri uses the same form, dekhilī, as a present. Eastern Maithili has here dekhibo (ö), like Bengali -ibā (©). And what is the 'inserted i' in dekh-i-bo? It appears also in one of the Eastern Hindi dialects (called by Dr. Grierson Surgujia), where there is “ a tendency to pronounce [i.e. insert] a final or unaccented short i in the preceding syllable,” best illustrated by ka-i-r for kar, ma-i-nase for manise. A tendency' of this sort may be enough to explain the same phenomenon at an earlier date.
Hindi is analytic, Bengali is synthetic. Thus ghara-kā or ghara-mă of Hindi becomes gharak, etc. So in modern Aryan we have just the conditions which would have produced ‘endings.' Hindi gharak is a combination of two words (the kā is reduced from krta in oblique form as ‘for '), the latter of which has become a mere ending, but was once a separate special word with a definite meaning. Why should we doubt that in the same way it was of old quite Aryan (as it is now) to possess analytical forms reducible to synthetic combinations? Further, as regards the subjunctive idea, it is plain that there is no a priori necessity for deriving it from a volitive through a deliberative into a prospective notion, as is now generally thought to have been its course.
5. The Relation of Accent to Elision in Latin Verse, by Professor Albert Granger Harkness, of Brown University. This paper will be found in the TRANSACTIONS.
In the discussion Professors Bennett, Radford, H. F. Burton, Fitch, Knapp, Dr. Magoun, and the author participated.
6. Some Linguistic Principles and Questions involved in the Simplification of the Nomenclature of the Brain, by Professor Burt G. Wilder, of Cornell University ; read by invitation.
1 On the connection of the -tavyd forms with the infinitive, see Brugmann, KVG. § 8og; Gr. Gr., $ 583. The gerundive meaning, even after it is fully established in Sanskrit, occasionally lapses back into the infinitive-potential sense. Thus in Mbh. vii. 54. 37, yady evam etat kartavyam mayā na syād vină prabho, means only " if this cannot be done without me, O Lord,” (“not to do'). The Sanskrit future stem is also employed to make verbal adjectives. The oldest case is yáni karisya krnuhi,' do what (things) are to be done' (kartavyāni) RV. i. 165. 9, according to Sāyaṇa; but this may be a false reading, as is now generally assumed. Later we find janisya as in Rām. vii. 24. 5. 58, na jāto na janisyo vā, as in the older phrase jāto janitavyo vā.
The object of Simplification of the Nomenclature of the Brain is to render the knowledge of the structure and functions of that most complex organ more easy to advance, to record, to teach, and to disseminate among the laity.
The leading ideas of this paper were stated in an address, “ Paronymy versus Heteronymy as Neuronymic Principles," read by me, as President, before the American Neurological Association twenty years ago. It was published in the Transactions of the Association, Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, vol. XII, No. 3, July, 1885, and reprints were somewhat generally distributed among contemporary neurologists and anatomists. In some respects it would have been read more appropriately before this Association. However, several members of this Association have already directly assisted me. An early colleague, Isaac Flagg, suggested paronymy in 1885. A later colleague, now President Benjamin Ide Wheeler, for nearly twenty years, often at the cost of interrupting his own studies, has promptly and helpfully responded to my etymologic queries. It is therefore fitting that from Dr. Wheeler should have come the proposal that I be invited to read this paper.
Simplification of anatomic language in general was advocated by me in 1871, and in 1880 attention was called to the special need with respect to the brain. The magnitude and difficulties of the task were not fully realized until 1884, in dealing with the neurologic portion of Fuster's Encyclopaedic Medical Dictionary. From works and periodicals in all languages there was compiled an alphabetic list of about 10,500 names for the (at the most) 500 known parts and features of the brain.1
The need of some sort of classification of this host of terms was literally forced upon me, and there was gradually evolved a dichotomous arrangement substantially identic with the subjoined Table.
Recognition of the labors of predecessors, and acknowledgment of the coöperation of contemporaries, here and abroad, are recorded in the following papers :
“ Paronymy versus Heteronymy” (mentioned above); “Neural Terms, International and National,” Journal of Comparative Neurology, vol. VI, pp. 216– 352, Dec., 1896 ; “Some Misapprehensions as to the Simplified Nomenclature of Anatomy"; address, as President, before the Association of American Anato. mists, Dec. 28, 1898; Proceedings of the Association, eleventh session, pp. 1539 ; also Science, n.s., vol. IX, April 21, 1899, pp. 563-581. The paper last named discusses the objections and adverse criticisms that have been offered. Of these the most accessible in this country is a “Review” in Science, n.s., vol. VII, May 20, 1898, pp. 715-16; the printer's blunder ("chippocamp” for hippocamp), involving injustice to both parties concerned, was corrected by the reviewer at the end of Science for June 3.
1 of these more than 3000 (an average of at least six for each part) were Latin and thus osten. sibly international. Many, however, were more or less completely restricted to certain countries, institutions, or writers. The Report (embodied in the B. N. A.) of the "Nomenclatur-Commis. sion," adopted in 1895 by the Anatomische Gesellschaft, while defective in many respects and practically ignoring the previous labors of English-speaking anatomists as individuals and as committees, " buried" a large number of " dead or dying " terms; those who aim at still further improvement of neuronymy may now confine their attacks to a smaller number of naines, ex. changing, so to speak, the shot-gun for the rifle.
DICHOTOMOUS CLASSIFICATION OF ANATOMIC TERMS
( Toponyms: Terms of Description with respect to Form (e.g.
circular), Constitution (e.g. hollow), Location (eg. mesal) Direction (eg. dorsad).
Since 1888 I have coöperated in formulating Reports of Nomenclature Committees of the Association of the American Anatomists, the American Neurological Association, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. In 1892, a committee of the last-named body adopted unanimously the report of a committee ? (of which I was not a member) which is so clear, concise, and comprehensive that it is here reproduced with some explanatory interpolations in brackets :
a. “Terms relating to position and direction [toponyms] should be intrinsic rather than extrinsic ; that is, should refer to the organism itself rather than to the external world."
b. “So far as possible terms (of designation) should be single, designatory words (mononyms] rather than descriptive phrases."
c. “Terms derived from the names of persons (eponyms) should be avoided.” d. “ Each term should have a Latin [international] form.”
“ Each term should have also a [national] form in accordance with the genius of each modern language, e.g., a paronym of the [actual or constructive] original Latin form.”
The Advantages of Mononyms are (1) Brevity (caeteris paribus) ; (2) Free1 Of course Paronyms and Heteronyms are also either Mononyms or Polyonyms.
2 The committee consisted of G. L. Goodale, chairman, J M. Coulter, Theodore Gill, C. S. Minot, and S. H. Gage, secretary. The report was entitled “Preliminary Contribution of the American Branch of the International Committee on Biological Nomenclature of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.” It gave due credit to other committees and to individuals.
dom from permutation ; (3) Less liability to diversity of abridgment and abbreviation ; (4) Capacity for simple inflection, composition and paronymization.
Methods of obtaining Mononyms. — 1. Selection from among existing mononyms ; e.g., of gyrus rather than convolutio.
2. Adoption of words not previously used in those senses; e.g., porta for foramen interventriculare (Monroi).
3. Dropping superfluous qualifiers, especially eponymic genitives ; 1.8., pons Varolii = pons; thalamus opticus = thalamus.
4. Dropping nouns of more or less general application and employing adjectives as substantives ; e.g., corpus callosum callosum ; dura mater = dura,
5. Replacing locative adjectives by prefixes of like force ; eogu, cornu posterius = postcornu.
Some preëxisting mononyms were undesirably and needlessly long; simile names, e.g., trapezoides, olivare, and restiforme, were reduced to the corresponding troponyms trapezium, oliva, and restis. Metaphoric diminutives were reduced to the base, since absolute size has no significance ; logu, vallicula = vallis.
Paronyms and Heteronyms. · The designation of all vernacular names not resembling or related to the technic Latin terms which they translated by heteronym, Gr. eTepuvų,jos, soon occurred to me. But the correlative was less easily found. The natural correlative of heteronym is homonym; homosynonym also suggested itself. But the former had been used exclusively for words having different meanings, while synonym was restricted to equivalents in the same language. The German Fremdwort and its English equivalent, loan-word, would strictly include only such borrowed words as are wholly unchanged in the transfer; furthermore, as words, they do not lend themselves to the formation of derivatives. When it seemed almost inevitable that a new word must be coined Professor Isaac Flagg suggested paronym, the base of paronymy, from mapuvòmos, the formation of one word from another by inflection or slight change. After it was adopted and published, another colleague, C. C. Shackford, proposed isonym.
The Object of Paronymy is to confer upon technic terms an acceptable national aspect without obscuring their essential international character. Besides the papers named above, this subject is discussed in “Some Neural Terms,” Biologia cal Lectures, 1896–97.
Principal Established Methods of Anglo-paronymy. - 1. Change of pronunciation only; e.g., Cicero, thalamus. This is also exemplified in the English pronunciation of Paris.
2. Slight change of the ultima ; e.g., fibra = fiber.
5. The ultima is dropped from the nominative, leaving the stem; e.g., organum = organ; myelon = myel.
6. The ultima is dropped from the nominative, leaving less than the stem ; 6.g., programma = program, not programmat.
7. The ultima (inflective ending) is dropped from the genitive, leaving the stem, which is longer than the nominative ; e.g., positio (positionis) = position.
8. Elision of the penultimate vowel and replacement of the ultima by a silent e; e.g., musculus = muscle.