Professor Ebel,[15] in order to avoid this difficulty, proposed a different explanation. He supposed that the _k_ of the root _ak_ was softened to _kv_, and that _augô_ represents an original _agvâ_ or _ahvâ_, the _v_ of _hvâ_ being inserted before the _h_ and changed to _u_. As an analogous case he quoted the Sanskrit enclitic particle _ca_, Latin _que_, Gothic *_hva_, which *_hva_ appears always under the form of _uh_. Leo Meyer takes the same view, and quotes, as an analogon, _haubida_ as possibly identical with _caput_, originally *_kapvat_. These cases, however, are not quite analogous. The enclitic particle +ca+, in Gothic *_hva_, had to lose its final vowel. It thus became unpronounceable, and the short vowel _u_ was added simply to facilitate its pronunciation.[16] There was no such difficulty in pronouncing *_ah_ or *_uh_ in Gothic, still less the derivative form *_ahvô_, if such a form had ever existed. Another explanation was therefore attempted by the late Dr. Lottner.[17] He supposed that the root _ak_ existed also with a nasal as _ank_, and that _ankô_ could be changed to _aukô_, and _aukô_ to _augô_. In reply to this we must remark that in the Teutonic dialects the root _ak_ never appears as _ank_, and that the transition of _an_ into _au_, though possible under certain conditions, is not a phonetic process of frequent occurrence. Besides, in all these derivations there is a difficulty, though not a serious one, viz.: that an original tenuis, the _k_, is supposed irregularly to have been changed into _g_, instead of what it ought to be, an _h_. Although this is not altogether anomalous,[18] yet it has to be taken into account. Professor Curtius, therefore, though he admits a possible connection between Gothic _augô_ and the root _ak_, speaks cautiously on the subject. On page 99 he refers to _augô_ as more distantly connected with that root, and on p. 457 he simply refers to the attempts of Ebel, Grassmann, and Lottner to explain the diphthong _au_, without himself expressing any decided opinion. Nor does he commit himself to any opinion as to the origin of αὐγή, though, of course, he never thinks of connecting the two words, Gothic _augô_ and Greek αὐγή, as coming from the same root. The etymology of the Greek αὐγή, in the sense of light or splendor, is not known unless we connect it with the Sanskrit +ojas+, which, however, means vigor rather than splendor. The etymology of _oculus_, on the contrary, is clear; it comes from a root _ak_, to be sharp, to point, to fix, and it is closely connected with the Sanskrit word for eye, +akshi+, and with the Greek ὄσσε. The etymology of the German word _Auge_ is, as yet, unknown. All we may safely assert is, that, in spite of the most favorable appearances, it cannot, for the present, be traced back to the same source as either the Greek αὐγή or the Latin _oculus_.