[88] This protecting consonant was dropped in pronunciation at a later period.
[89] Why so? Did sheep and cows also begin with vowels only, adding b and m afterwards to make up their bah and moo?
[90] The examples taken from Gabelentz’s Grammar and an article in Techmer’s Internat. Zeitschrift I.
[91] I must also mention A. Conrady, Eine indochinesische Causativ-denominativ-bildung (Leipzig, 1896), in which Lepsius’s theory is carried a great step further and it is demonstrated with very great learning that many of the tone relations (a well as modifications of initial sounds) of Chinese and kindred languages find their explanation in the previous existence of prefixes which are now extinct, but which can still be pointed out in Tibetan. Though I ought, therefore, to have spoken of prefixes instead of ‘flexional endings’ above, p. 371, the essence of the contention that prehistoric Chinese must have had a polysyllabic and non-isolating structure is thus borne out by the researches of competent specialists in this field.
[92] Madvig Kl 170, Max Müller L 1. 271, Whitney OLS 1. 283, G 124, Paul P 1st ed. 181, repeated in the following editions, see 4th, 1909, 350 and 347, 349; Brugmann VG 1889, 2. 1 (but in 2nd ed. this has been struck out in favour of hopeless skepticism), Schuchardt, Anlass d. Volapüks 11, Gabelentz Spr 189, Tegnér SM 53, Sweet, New Engl. Gr. § 559, Storm, Engl. Phil. 673, Rozwadowski, Wortbildung u. Wortbed., Uhlenbeck, Karakt. d. bask. Gramm. 24, Sütterlin WGS 1902, 122, Porzezinski, Spr 1910, 229.
[93] Two explanations of this formative element were given by the old school: according to Schleicher C § 290, it was the root ja of the relative pronoun; according to Curtius and others it was the root i ‘to go,’ Greek fer-o-i-mi being analyzed as ‘I go to bear,’ whence, by an easy (?) transition, ‘I should like to bear,’ etc.
[94] Cf. Sommer, Lat. 528, and on Armenian and Tokharian r forms MSL 18. 10 ff. and Feist KI 455. But it must not be overlooked that H. Pedersen (KZ 40. 166 ff.) has revived and strengthened the old theory that r in Italic and Keltic is an original se.
[95] If s was a definite article, why should it be used only with some stems and not with others? Why should neuters never require a definite article?
[96] While it is difficult to see the relation between a demonstrative pronoun or a deictic particle and genitival function, it would be easy enough to understand the latter if we started from a possessive pronoun (ejus, suus), and, curiously enough, we find this very sound s used as a sign for the genitive in two independent languages, starting from that notion. In Indo-Portuguese we have gobernadors casa ‘governor’s house,’ from gobernador su casa (above, Ch. XI § 12, p. [213]), and in the South-African ‘Taal’ the usual expression for the genitive is by means of syn, which is generally shortened into se (s) and glued enclitically to the substantive, even to feminines and plurals: Marie-se boek ‘Maria’s book,’ di gowweneur se hond ‘the governor’s dog’ (H. Meyer, Die Sprache der Buren, 1901, p. 40, where also the confusion with the adjective ending -s, in Dutch spelt -sch, is mentioned. For the construction compare G. dem vater sein hut and others from various languages; cf. the appendix on E. Bill Stumps his mark in ChE 182 f.).
[97] Cf. Lloyd George’s speech at Dundee (The Times, July 6, 1917): “The Government will not permit the burdens of the country to be increased by what is called ‘profiteering.’ Although I have been criticized for using that word, I believe on the whole it is a rather good one. It is profit-eer-ing as distinguished from profit-ing. Profiting is fair recompense for services rendered, either in production or distribution; profiteering is an extravagant recompense given for services rendered. I believe that unfair in peace. In war it is an outrage.”