Professor Pott in his “Etymologische Forschungen” (1871, p. 16), a work which worthily holds its place by the side of Bopp’s “Comparative Grammar,” questions the correctness of that statement; but in doing so he seems to me to have overlooked the restrictions which I myself had introduced, in order to avoid the danger of committing myself to what might seem too general a statement. I did not say that every form of inflection had been proved to spring from a previous combination, but I spoke of those cases only where we have succeeded in a rational analysis of inflectional forms, and it was in these that I maintained that inflection had always been found to be the result of previous combination. What is the object of the analysis of grammatical inflections, or of Comparative Grammar in general, if not to find out what terminations originally were, before they had assumed a purely formal character? If we take the French adverb _sincèrement_, sincerely, and trace it back to the Latin _sincerâ mente_, we have for a second time the three stages of juxtaposition, combination, and, to a certain extent, inflection, repeated before our eyes. I say, inflection, for _ment_, though originally an independent word, soon becomes a mere adverbial suffix, the speakers so little thinking of its original purport, that we may say of a stone that it falls _lourdement_, heavily, without wishing to imply that it falls _luridâ mente_, with a heavy, lit., with a lurid mind. If we take the nom. sing. of a noun in Sanskrit, Greek, or Latin, we find that masculine nouns end frequently in _s_. We have for instance, Sk. +veśa-s+, Gr. οἶκο-ς, Lat. _vîcu-s_. These three words are identical in their termination, in their base, and in their root. The root is the Sk. +viś+, to settle down, to enter upon or into a thing. This root, without undergoing any further change, may answer the purpose both of a verbal and a nominal base. In the precative, for instance, we have +viś-yâ-t+, he may enter, which yields to a rational analysis into +viś+, the root +yâ+, to go, and the old pronominal stem of the third person, _t_, he. We reduplicate the root, and we get the perfect +vi-viś-us+, they have entered. Here I can understand that objections might be raised against accepting us as a mere phonetic corruption of +ant+ and +anti+; but if, as in Greek, we find as the termination of the third pers. plur. of the perfect ᾶσι, we know that this is a merely phonetic change of the original +anti+,[29] and this +anti+ has been traced back by Pott himself (whether rightly or wrongly, we need not here inquire) to the pronominal stems +ana+, that, and +ti+, he. These two stems, when joined together, become +anti+,[30] meaning _those_ and _he_, and are gradually reduced to ᾶσι, and in Sanskrit to +us+ for +ant+. What we call reduplication has likewise been traced back by Pott himself to an original repetition of the whole root, so that +vi-viś+