what it was we will, as we did before, begin by examining the formation of some of the languages with which we are, probably, more or less familiar. Let us note how very many more variations on the same root are to be found in some languages than in others. On the root _dic_, which in Latin expresses the notion of speaking, we have the variations _dico_, _dixi_, _dicere_, _dictum_, _dictio_, _dicto_, _dicor_, _dictor_, _dictator_, _dictatrix_, etc.; and yet this does not nearly exhaust the list, for we have all the changes in the different tenses of _dico_, _dicto_, _dicor_, etc., in the different cases of _dictio_, _dictator_. dictatrix, etc. The languages which contain these numerous variations upon one root are what are called the _inflected_ languages, and the greater number of the changes which they make come under the head of what grammarians call inflexions. These inflexions are of no meaning in themselves, they have no existence even in themselves as words. And yet what is curious is that they are the same for a great number of different words; and they express the same _relative_ meaning in the places where they stand whatever the word may be. If the _-nis_ of _dictionis_ expresses a certain idea relative to _dictio_, so does the _-nis_ of _lectionis_ express the same idea relative to _lectio_, the _-nis_ of _actionis_ the same idea relative to _actio_, and so forth. Or, to take an example from a modern inflected language, if the _-es_ of _Mannes_, expresses a certain idea relative to _Mann_, so does the same inflexion (_-es_ or _-s_) in _Hauses_, _Baums_, etc., relative to _Haus_ and _Baum_. Now, how are we to explain this fact? Our grammars, it is true, take it for granted, and give it us as a thing which requires no explanation--the genitive inflexion is _-nis_ or _-es_, or whatever it may be. That is all they tell us. But we cannot be content to take anything of course. An explanation, however, is not difficult, and follows, _almost_ of course, on the exercise of a little common sense. If the _-es_ of Mannes, Hauses, Baumes (Baums) expresses the idea ‘of,’ then, at one time or another, _es_, or some root from which it is derived, must have _meant_ ‘of.’ This explains easily and naturally enough the inflexions in any inflected language. They have no meaning now, but at one time they (or their original forms--their ancestors, so to speak) had no doubt just as much meaning by themselves as our ‘of.’ And therefore the only difference between our use in England to-day, and the ancestral use in a primitive language, was that we say ‘of [the] man,’ and the ancestral language would have said ‘man-of,’ ‘house-of,’ etc. This accounts for the same genitive forms being used for so many different words.