By separating the root from the ending in this way we may the more easily detect the additions to the root, and their meanings. _As_ is the root expressing the idea of being, existing; _mi_ is from a root meaning _I_ (preserved in _me_, Greek and Lat. _me_, _mi_, _m[ich]_, etc.); so we get _as-mi_, am-I, or I am. Then we may trace this form of word through a number of languages connected with the Sanskrit. The most important part of _as-mi_, the consonants, are preserved in the Latin _sum_, I am, from which, by some further changes come the French _suis_, the Italian _sono_: the same word appears in our _a-m_, and in the Greek _eimi_ (Doric _esmi_), I am. Next, coming to the second word, we see one of the _s’s_ cut out, and we get _a-si_, in which the _a_ is the root, and the _si_ the addition signifying _thou_. To this addition correspond the final _s’s_ in the Latin _es_, French _es_--_tu es_, and the Greek _eis_ (Doric _essi_). So, again, in _as-ti_, the _ti_ expresses he, and this corresponds to the Latin _est_, French _est_, the Greek _esti_, the German _ist_; in the English the expressive _t_ has been lost. We will not continue the comparison of each word; it will be sufficient if we place side by side the same tense in Sanskrit and in Latin,[24] and give those who do not know Latin an opportunity of recognizing for themselves the tense in its changed form in French or Italian:-- ENGLISH. SANSKRIT. LATIN. I am _as-mi_ _sum_. thou art _a-si_ _es_. he is _as-ti_ _est_. we are _’s-mas_ _sumus_. ye are _’s-tha_ _estis_. they are _’s-anti_ _sunt_. The plural of the added portion we see contains the letters _m-s_, and if we split these up again we get the separate roots _mi_ and _si_, so that _mas_ means most literally ‘I,’ and ‘thou,’ and hence ‘we.’ In the second person the Latin has preserved an older form than the Sanskrit, _s-t_ the proper root-consonants for the addition part of the second person plural, combining the ideas thou and he, from which, ye. The third person plural cannot be so easily explained.