limpa-ti _rumpo_ limpana-ti λαμβάνε(τ)ι but all would probably agree with Curtius in placing the formation of these themes, both verbal and nominal, between the radical and the latest inflectional period. A point, however, on which there would probably be considerable difference of opinion is this, whether it is credible, that at a time when so many nominal themes were formed,--for Curtius ascribes to this Fourth Period the formation of such nominal bases as λόγ-ο, intellect, = +lipa-ti+ λοίπ-ο, left, = +laipa-ti+ λιγ-νύ, smoke, = +lip-nau-ti+ δάφ-νη, laurel, = +lip-nâ-ti+-- the simplest nominal compounds, which we now call nominative and accusative, singular and plural, were still unknown; that people could say +dhṛsh-nu-más+, we dare, but not +dhṛsh-ṇú-s+, daring-he; that they had an imperative, +dhṛshṇuhí+, dare, but not a vocative, +dhṛshṇo+? Curtius strongly holds to that opinion, but with regard to this period too, he does not seem to me to establish it by a regular and complete argument. Some arguments which he refers to occasionally have been answered before. Another, which he brings in incidentally, when discussing the abbreviation of certain suffixes, can hardly be said to carry conviction. After tracing the suffixes +ant+ and +tar+ back to what he supposes to have been their more primitive forms, +an-ta+ and +ta-ra+, he remarks that the dropping of the final vowel would hardly be conceivable at a time when there existed case-terminations. Still this dropping of the vowel is very common, in late historical times, in Latin, for instance, and other Italian dialects, where it causes frequent confusion and heteroclitism.[32] Thus the Augustan _innocua_ was shortened in common pronunciation to _innoca_, and this dwindles down in Christian inscriptions to _innox_. In Greek, too, διάκτορος is older than διάκτωρ; φύλακος older than φύλαξ. Nor can it be admitted that the nominal suffixes have suffered less from phonetic corruption than the terminations of the verb, and that therefore they must belong to a more modern period (pp. 39, 40). In spite of all the changes which the personal terminations are supposed to have undergone, their connection with the personal pronouns has always been apparent, while the tracing back of the nominal suffixes, and, still more, of the case-terminations to their typical elements, forms still one of the greatest difficulties of comparative grammarians.[33]