778. With regard to the formation of verbs there remains nothing to be added to what has been already said regarding the structure of roots and the classes of verbal bases (§. 109a.) which proceed thence, and subsequently respecting the formation of derivative verbs. The primitive pronouns, and the appellations of numerals, do not follow the ordinary rules for the formation of words (see §. 105.), and, with their derivatives, are discussed in the paragraphs allotted to them. We shall now discuss simply the formation of substantives and adjectives; and, first, those which stand in close connection with the verb, and, both in the organization and in the application of language, play a very important part: we allude to the participles and the infinitive. It might be said that we ought to treat of the formation of nouns before treating of their inflection, because words must be formed before they are inflected. But for practical considerations it appeared more useful, at first, only to lay down the principle of the formation of words generally, as is done in §§. 110. 111., and to defer the more full investigation of the subject to this place. At all events, the theory of the formation of tenses must precede that of the participles, as the latter; for the most part, irrespective of their nominal suffixes, rest on a principle of formation similar to that of the corresponding tenses of the indicative, and bear a sisterly, if not a filial relation to them.

105. There are in Sanscrit, and the languages which are akin to it, two classes of roots: from the one, which is by far the more numerous, spring verbs, and nouns (substantives and adjectives) which stand in fraternal connection with the verbs, not in the relation of descent from them, not begotten by them, but sprung from the same shoot with them. We term them, nevertheless, for the sake of distinction, and according to prevailing custom, Verbal Roots; and the verb, too, stands in close formal connection with them, because from many roots each person of the present is formed by simply adding the requisite personal termination. From the second class spring pronouns, all original prepositions, conjunctions, and particles: we name them Pronominal Roots, because they all express a pronominal idea, which, in the prepositions, conjunctions, and particles, lies more or less concealed. No simple pronouns can be carried back, either according to their meaning or their form, to any thing more general, but their declension-theme (or inflective base) is at the same time their root. The Indian Grammarians, however, derive all words, the pronouns included from verbal roots, although the majority of pronominal bases, even in a formal respect, are opposed to such a derivation, because they, for the most part, end with a: one, indeed, consists simply of a.

112. The Indian Grammarians take up the declinable word in its primary form, i.e. in its state when destitute of all case-termination; and this bare form of the word is given also in dictionaries. In this we follow their example; and where we give Sanscrit and Zend nouns, they stand, unless it is otherwise specified, or the sign of case is separated from the base, in their primary form. The Indian Grammarians, however, did not arrive at their primary forms by the method of independent analysis, as it were by an anatomical dissection or chemical decomposition of the body of language; but were guided by the practical use of the language itself, which, at the beginning of compounds—and the art of composition is, in Sanscrit, just as necessary as that of conjugation or declension— requires the pure primary form; naturally with reservation of the slight changes of the adjoining limits of sound, rendered necessary at times by the laws of euphony. As the primary form at the beginning of compounds can represent every relation of case, it is, as it were, the case general, or the most general of cases, which, in the unlimited use of compounds, occurs more frequently than any other.

The study of Comparative Philology has of late years been cultivated in Germany, especially, with remarkable ability and proportionate success. The labours of Grimm, Pott, Bopp, and other distinguished Scholars, have given a new character to this department of literature ; and have substituted, for the vague conjectures suggested by external and often accidental coincidences, elementary principles, based upon the prevailing analogies of articulate sounds and the grammatical structure of language.

But although the fact that a material advance has been made in the study of Comparative Philology is generally known, and some of the particulars have been communicated to the English public through a few works on Classical Literature, or in the pages of periodical criticism ; yet the full extent of the progress which has been effected, and the steps by which it has been attained, are imperfectly appreciated in this country. The study of the German language is yet far from being extensively pursued ; and the results which the German Philologers have developed, and the reasonings which have led to them, being accessible to those only who can consult the original writers, are withheld from many individuals of education and learning to whom the affinities of cultivated speech are objects of interest and inquiry.

281. The declension of the adjective is not distinct from that of the substantive; and if some inflected forms, which in the Sanscrit and Zend belong only to the pronouns, have, in the cognate languages, emerged from the circle of the pronouns, and extended themselves further, they have not remained with the adjectives alone, but have extended themselves to the substantives also. As regards the Greek, Latin, and Sclavonic, we have already explained at §§. 228. 248. and 274. what has been introduced from pronominal declension in those languages into general declension: we will here only further remark that the appended syllable sma, in §. 165. &c., which, in Sanscrit, characterises only the pronominal declension, may in the Pali be combined also, in several cases, with masculine and neuter substantive and adjective bases, and indeed with all bases in a, i, and u, including those which, originally terminating in a consonant, pass by augment or apocope into the vowel declension; thus the ablative and locative singular of kêsa, “hair,” is either simply kêsâ (from kêsât, see p. 300), kêsê, or, combined with sma or its variation mha, kêsa-smâ, kêsa-mhâ, kêsa-smin, kêsa-mhi. In the Lithuanian, this syllable, after dropping the s, has, in the dative and locative singular, passed over to the adjective declension, without imparting itself to that of the substantive, and without giving to the adjective the license of renouncing this appended syllable; as, géram, “bono,” geramé, “in bono.”

I contemplate in this work a description of the comparative organization of the languages enumerated in the title page, comprehending all the features of their relationship, and an inquiry into their physical and mechanical laws, and the origin of the forms which distinguish their grammatical relations. One point alone I shall leave untouched, the secret of the roots, or the foundation of the nomenclature of the primary ideas. I shall not investigate, for example, why the root I signifies “go” and not “stand”; why the combination of sounds STHA or STA signifies “stand” and not “go.” I shall attempt, apart from this, to follow out as it were the language in its stages of being and march of developement; yet in such a manner that those who are predetermined not to recognise, as explained, that which they maintain to be inexplicable, may perhaps find less to offend them in this work than the avowal of such a tendency might lead them to expect. In the majority of cases the primary signification, and, with it, the primary source of the grammatical forms, present themselves to observation in consequence of the extension of the circle of our knowledge of languages, and of the confronting of sister bases separated for ages, but bearing indubitable features of their family connection.