And remark, these very datives and locatives of nouns formed by the suffix ος in Greek, as in Sanskrit, _es_ in Latin, though they yield no infinitives in Greek, yield the most common form of the infinitive in Latin, and may be traced also in Sanskrit. As from _genus_ we form a dative _generi_, and a locative _genere_, which stands for _genese_, so from _gigno_ an abstract noun would be formed, _gignus_, and from it a dative, _gigneri_, and a locative, _gignere_. I do not say that the intermediate form _gignus_ existed in the spoken Latin, I only maintain that such a form would be analogous to _gen-us_, _op-us_, _fœd-us_, and that in Sanskrit the process is exactly the same. We form in Sanskrit a substantive +càkshas+, sight, +càkshus+, eye; and we find the dative of +càkshas+, _i.e._ +càkshase+, used as what we should call an infinitive, in order to see. But we also find another so-called infinitive, +jîvàse+, in order to live, although there is no noun, +jîvas+, life; we find +áyase+, to go, although there is no noun +áyas+, going. This Sanskrit +áyase+ explains the Latin _i-re_, as *+i-vane+ explained the Greek ἰέναι. The intention of the old framers of language is throughout the same. They differ only in the means which they use, one might almost say, at random; and the differences between Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin are often due to the simple fact that out of many possible forms that might be used and had been used before the Aryan languages became traditional, settled, and national, one family or clan or nation fancied one, another another. While this one became fixed and classical, all others became useless, remained perhaps here and there in proverbial sayings or in sacred songs, but were given up at last completely, as strange, obsolete, and unintelligible.