I now proceed to point out a second difficulty. If Curtius uses these same personal terminations, +masi+, +tvasi+, and +anti+, as proof positive that they must have been compounded out of +ma+ + +tva+, and +tva-tva+, before there were any case terminations, I do not think his argument is quite stringent. Curtius says: “If plural suffixes had existed before the coining of these terminations, we should expect them here, as well as in the noun” (p. 33). But the plural of the pronoun _I_ could never have been formed by a plural suffix, like the plural of _horse_. _I_ admits of no plural, as little as _thou_, and hence the plural of these very pronouns in the Aryan language is not formed by the mere addition of a plural termination, but by a new base. We say _I_, but _we_; _thou_ but _you_, and so through all the Aryan languages. According to Curtius himself, +masi+, the termination of the plural, is not formed by repeating +ma+, by saying I and I, but by +ma+ and +tva+, I and thou, the most primitive way, he thinks, of expressing _we_. The termination of the second person plural might be expressed by repeating _thou_. “You did it,” might have been rendered by “thou and thou did it;” but hardly by treating _thou_ like a noun, and adding to it a plural termination. The absence of plural terminations, therefore at the end of the personal suffixes of the verbs, does not prove, as far as I can see, that plurals of nouns were unknown when the first, second, and third persons plural of the Aryan verbs were called into existence. Again, if Curtius says, that “what language has once learnt, it does not forget again, and that therefore if the plural had once found expression in nouns, the verb would have claimed the same distinction,” is true, no doubt, in many cases, but not so generally true as to supply a safe footing for a deductive argument. In so late a formation as the periphrastic future in Sanskrit, we say +dâtâ-smaḥ+, as it were _dator sumus_, not +dâtâraḥ smaḥ+; and in the second person plural of the passive in Latin _amamini_, though the plural is marked, the gender is always disregarded.