stands for an original or intentional +viś-viś+; thus showing again the succession of the three stages, juxtaposition, +viś-viś+, combination +vi-viś+, inflection, the same, +vi-viś+, though liable to further phonetic modification. Used as a nominal base the same root +viś+ appears, without any change, in the nom. plur. +viś-as+, the settlers, the clans, the people. Now here again Professor Pott himself has endeavored to explain the inflection +as+ by tracing it back to the pronominal base +as+, in +asau+, _ille_. He therefore takes the plural +viś-as+ as a compound, meaning “man and that;” that is to say, he traces the inflection back to a combinatory origin. By raising the simple base +viś+ to +viśa+, we arrive at new verbal forms, such as +viś-â-mi+, I enter, +viś-a-si+, thou enterest, +viś-a-ti+, he enters. In all these inflectional forms, the antecedent combinatory stage is still more or less visible, for +mi+, +si+, +ti+, whatever their exact history may have been, are clearly varieties of the pronominal bases of the first, second, and third persons, +ma+, +tva+, +ta+. Lastly, by raising +viś+ to +veśa+, we arrive at a new nominal base, and by adding to it the stem of a demonstrative pronoun _s_, we form the so-called nom. sing. +veśa-s+, οἶκο-ς, _vicu-s_, from which we started, meaning originally house-here, this house, the house. In all this Professor Pott would fully agree, but where he would differ, would be when we proceed to generalize, and to lay it down as an axiom, that all inflectional forms _must_ have had the same combinatory origin. He may be right in thus guarding against too hasty generalization, to which we are but too prone in all inductive sciences. I am well aware that there are many inflections which have not yielded, as yet, to any rational analysis, but, with that reservation, I thought, and I still think, it right to say that, until some other process of forming those inflections has been pointed out, inflection may be considered as the invariable result of combination.