[Footnote 5: See _Biographia Britannica Literaria_, vol. i. p. 110.] [Footnote 6: M. M.’s _Lectures on the Science of Language_, vol. i. p. 171.] [Footnote 7: Ibid., p. 176.] [Footnote 8: See Notes A and B, pp. 43, 45.] [Footnote 9: See M. M., _Science of Religion_, 1873, p. 293.] [Footnote 10: See Weber, _Indische Studien_, vol. i. p. 38.] [Footnote 11: See Haug, in Ewald’s _Biblische Jahrbücher_, vol. vi. p. 162.] [Footnote 12: _Anab._, i. 2, 7: Ἐνταῦθα Κύρῳ Βασίλεια ἦν καὶ παράδεισος μέγας, ἀγρίων θηρίων πλήρης, ἅ ἐκεῖνος ἐθήρευεν ἀπὸ ἵππου, ὁπότε γυμνάσαι βούλοιτο ἑαυτόν τε καὶ τοὺς ἵππους. Διὰ μέσου δὲ τοῦ παραδείσου ῥεῖ ὁ Μαίανδρος ποταμός κ.τ.λ. _Hell._, iv. 1, 15: Ἐν περιειργμένοις παραδείσοις κ.τ.λ.] [Footnote 13: See _Indian Antiquary_, 1874, p. 332.] [Footnote 14: Grassmann, Kuhn’s _Zeitschrift_, vol. ix. p. 23.] [Footnote 15: Ebel, Kuhn’s _Zeitschrift_, vol. viii. p. 242.] [Footnote 16: Schleicher, _Compendium_, § 112.] [Footnote 17: Lottner, Kuhn’s _Zeitschrift_, vol. ix. p. 319.] [Footnote 18: Leo Meyer, _Die Gothische Sprache_, § 31.] [Footnote 19: Choeroboscus, _B. A._, p. 1274, 29: Τὰ ἀπαρέμφατα ἀμφιβάλλεται εἰ ἄρα εἰσὶ ῥήματα ἢ οὐχί. Schoemann, _Rede-theile_, p. 49.] [Footnote 20: Apollonius, _De Constr._, i. c. 8, p. 32: Δυνάμει αὐτὸ τὸ ῥῆμα οὔτε πρόσωπα ἐπιδέχεται οὔτε ἀριθμούς, ἀλλὰ ἐγγενόμενον ἐν προσώποις τότε καὶ τὰ πρόσωπα διέστειλεν . . . . καὶ ψυχικὴν διάθεσιν. Schoemann, l.c. p. 19.] [Footnote 21: Note C, p. 47.] [Footnote 22: Benfey, _Orient und Occident_, vol. i. p. 606; vol. ii. pp. 97, 132.] [Footnote 23: _Chips_, vol. iii. p. 134.] [Footnote 24: Dr. Kielhorn in his grammar gives correctly +tad+ as base, +tat+ as nom. and acc. sing., because in the latter case phonetic rules either require or allow the change of _d_ into _t_. Boehtlingk, Roth, and Benfey also give the right forms. Curtius, like Bopp, gives +yat+, Schleicher +tat+, which he supposes to have been changed at an early time into +tad+ (§ 203).] [Footnote 25: Weich ist es (_ṭ_ oder _ḍ_) wohl im abl. sing., +gafnâṭ+ (+gafnâdha+). Justi, _Handbuch der Zendsprache_, p. 362.] [Footnote 26: _Orient und Occident_, vol. i. p. 298.] [Footnote 27: _Entwickelung der Lateinischen Formenlehre_, 1870, p. 20.] [Footnote 28: _Grundriss der Lateinischen Declination_, 1866, p. 9.] [Footnote 29: See Benfey, l.c. p. 298.]