E.

PERSONAL PRONOUNS.

I.

THE FIRST AND SECOND PERSONS.

I. ANK, in Coptic anok, in Hebrew 'anokhi, must, from its very formation, be a compound particle. AN is also a part of the word used to express the second person (ANTEK), and cannot therefore indicate the specialty of the first. It is found in fact on the oldest monuments as an independent word, the primary meaning of which is, breaking out, appearing, lighting, beautiful; and it is a very natural way of designating personality. For instance, we find a King An (with the symbol of the fish) joined to the sign of the sun (Ra), i. e. splendour of Ra, shining sun. Heliopolis, therefore, the city of the sun, called in the Septuagint On, probably means simply the shining, appearing, the splendour of Helios. There is consequently no doubt of its being a substantial particle, any more than of the fitness of that independent signification to express personality, as being, in the strictest sense of the word, the Appearing.

But what is K? In the first place EK, a word with an initial sound. But according to all the laws of wordformation it must have had a terminal sound in the root, and the most natural one is KA. This is one of the oldest and most distinctive roots, for it signifies the male (mas, the man as such), the ox. The probability of its denoting a masculine object is increased by the fact that in the second person, where there is a distinction of gender, ANtek becomes ANta in the feminine. ANK, therefore, is AN-KA, shining-ox.

2. NTK-NTA. N (en) is AN abbreviated in com

position, the general personal sign to mark this antithesis. K must also be the same KA, and T the distinguishing letter. It cannot be the sign of gender, as it is in the noun, for it is common to both genders. Here, therefore, it must be understood in its nominal application, as the Giving, the Offering (in Egyptian TA, Coptic, ti), and hence the Egyptian word is also used for a crane stretching itself out as it were.

Here TA is the determinative, the word which defines. the meaning, as K is in the first person. They both occur in Iranian. The Sanskrit word aham (whence ego, io, je) retains from the old root the abbreviated ah (in Zend, aspirated, azem; in Old Norse, ek). The am is an offset peculiar to the Iranian, which is used to mark the first person in the oldest Greek conjugation (mi); we find it also in the Latin sum. Originally, perhaps, it was a more general sign of the person.

The T of the second person has been invariably retained: tuam (twam) in Sansk., tu in Lat., Tú in Doric (an older form than σú), thu in Goth. ; thou in English, du in German. The Indian affirmative am might be considered as a weakened form of K; but it is more probably a new offset, and one of general importance. It does not follow that it is worn down in the other Iranian languages; they did not possess it in their common heritage. The Semitic forms (see a complete synopsis in my "Outlines," vol. i. p. 247.) anokhi. anta, atta, are identical with the Egyptian. The к is found in both persons; when used as a suffix, it denotes the second person.

But at what a different stage of development do they here stand! They are not merely devoid of any etymology, and wholly unexplainable, but were also clearly

as unintelligible to the Semitic mind, as I and thou are. to us, and as aham and tuam were to the Bactrians.

II.

THE THIRD PERSON.

HERE we come upon entirely new ground.

NTUF, he; NTUS or NTS, she: F and S being suffixes.

The Semitic hu' (hva) and its suffix v appear to have some connexion with the verb (havah) to be. But the verbal formation is probably the later, and therefore more developed form, as the pronominal construction is in general older than the very abstract Verbum substantivum.

NT, according to the above remarks, resolves itself into AN-TA: the most general way of marking personality, and the specific one of Not-I, here considered as the third person. They are both abbreviations.

We have UF retained in the older form AF. Thus ufa, to punish, is pronounced in the simpler form af, and signifies, flesh, i. e. born from somebody, son; as we have in the Semitic, "flesh of my flesh." The restoration accordingly is (AN. TA.) UF (F), the determinative letter being used, according to the natural law, as a suffix.

The feminine form resolves itself into

(AN. TU.) AS (suffix s).

AS signifies the prominent, and therefore noble, a honorary title of woman, considered objectively.

III.

PLURAL FORMS.

FIRST Person. NN (nen) is now proved to be an old The Coptic forms are pronounced

Egyptian form.

Uor M

anan, anon, anen.

It is evidently the expression of

plurality by reduplication:

AN. AN.

Second Person. NTUTN, masc. and fem. Semitic, antem, attem; feminine, anten, atten.

We stated in the Accidence that MTUTN is the masculine form, although with some reserve; further researches, however, have led to the conclusion that it is an exceptional, and, properly speaking, a wrong, way of writing the word; the present inquiry shows it to be so. It resolves itself, therefore, into the following:

AN.T.U. T. AN.

The general person-root AN is repeated, as in the first person. But the sign of plurality is placed between the repetition, which sign we have shown to be u in nouns, preceded and followed by the special sign of the second person (r instead of TA). This formation would lead to the conclusion that two groups are combined:

(AN. AN) + (T. U . T).

The determinative T is retained in the Semitic languages as well as the general form AN, though there is nothing analogous to either in these languages. The final M in Hebrew is connected with IM in nouns plural: it was adopted because N had ceased to have any signification. Here the Arian forms are entirely different.

Third Person. NTSN =(AN. TE) + SeN.

ANT is borrowed from the singular of the third perSEN forms the suffix of the third person plural.

son.

It has been retained in Semitic, but with a soft breathing (hem, hen) and it has no meaning.

F.

THE OTHER PRONOMINAL ROOTS.

1. The Article. PA (8), TA (†), NA (oi, ai, Tá). Of these the forms in most general use are PA and TA. For instance, with a nasal sound at the end, the amplified article becomes the complete demonstrative: PeN-TeN-APU, hi, hæ, hæc (suffixed).

When strengthened by the addition of ur (the old dual form) it becomes the most simple relative:

PUI-TUI, qui, quæ.

With AI, UI, or A, I, the possessive; with N for the plural:

ó, n, oi, ai poỡ.

ó, ý, oi, ai σoũ.

PAI, &c., TAI, &c., NAI,
PAIK, &c., TAIK, &c., NAIK,
PAIF, &c., TAIF, &c., NAIF, ό, ή, οἱ, αἱ αὐτοῦ, αὐτῆς.
and so for the rest (Vol. I. p. 284. seqq.).

To revert to PA; here the underlying independent element is very clear, it signifies man.

The other words TA, NA, &c., are taken wholly from the personal pronominal roots. In the Semitic the root Pa has disappeared, except in the Aramaic demonstrative pun, pon, this (comp. pō, here), which is also suffixed to the main stem.

2. SU, this, the; Hebr. zu, zeh, zot. In the Chaldee cuneiform inscriptions, sa, who; compare the sh in Phoenician and Babylonian in the sense of the Hebrew asher, who. Hence, in the above languages, sh (the