[Footnote 15: See _Sanskrit Grammar_, § 497. I doubt whether in Greek ἀγγελλω is a denominative verb and stands for ἀγγελ(ο)ϳω (Curtius, _Chronologie_, p. 58). I should prefer to explain it as ἀνα-γαρ-ίω, to proclaim, as a verb of the fourth class.] [Footnote 16: Lex Repetund. “ceivis romanus ex hac lege fiet, nepotesque -- ceiveis romanei justei sunto.” Cf. Egger, _Lat, Serm. Vetust. Reliq._, p. 245. Meunier, in _Mémoires de la Societé de Linguistique de Paris_, vol. i. p. 34.] [Footnote 17: Still used as long by Plautus; of. Neue, _Formenlehre_, ii. p. 340.] [Footnote 18: In old Latin the termination of the first person singular was _em_. Thus Quintilian, i. 7, 23, says: “Quid? non Cato Censorius _dicam_ et _faciam_, _dicem_ et _faciem_ scripsit, eundemque in ceteris, quæ similiter cadunt, modum tenuit? quod et ex veteribus ejus libris manifestum est, et a Messala in libro de s. littera positum.” Neue, _Formenlehre_, ii. p. 348. The introduction of _feram_, originally a subjunctive, to express the future in the first person, reminds us of the distinction in English between _I shall_ and _thou wilt_, though the analogy fails in the first person plural. In Homer the use of the subjunctive for the future is well known. See Curtius, _Chronologie_, p. 50.] [Footnote 19: Historically the _i_ in _tuleritis_ should be long in the subjunctive of the perfect, short in the future.] [Footnote 20: Bleek, _On the Concord_, p. lxvi.] [Footnote 21: In δώ-σω, for δωσίω, the _i_ or _y_ is lost in Greek as usual. In other verbs _s_ and _y_ are both lost. Hence τενεσίω becomes τενέσω, and τενῶ the so-called Attic future. Bopp, _Vergleich-Grammatik_, first ed., p. 903. In Latin we have traces of a similar future in forms like _fac-so_, _cap-so_, etc. See Neue, _Formenlehre_, ii. p. 421. The Epic dialect sometimes doubles the σ when the vowel is short, αἰδέσσομαι. But this can hardly be considered a relic of the original σι, because the same reduplication takes places sometimes in the Aorist, ἐγέλασσα.] [Footnote 22: See Bopp, _Vergleichende Grammatik_, §§ 897, 898. These verbal adjectives should be carefully distinguished from nominal adjectives, such as Sanskrit +div-yá-s+, divinus, originally +div-i-a-s+, _i.e._, divi-bhavas, being in heaven; ὀίκεῖος, domesticus, originally οἴκει-ο-ς, being in the house. These are adjectives formed, it would seem, from old locatives, just as in Bask we can form from _etche_, house, _etche-tic_, of the house, and _etche-tic-acoa_, he who is of the house; or from _seme_, son, _semea-ren_, of the son, and _semea-ren-a_, he who is of the son. See W. J. van Eys, _Essai de Grammaire de la Langue Basque_, 1867, p. 16.] [Footnote 23: Bopp, _Vergleichende Grammatik_, §§ 888-898.] [Footnote 24: Bacon, _Novum Organum_, i. 55.]