Chapter II

THE NOTION OF BEING IS INCORPORATED WITH THE VERB AS AN AUXILIARY.

Auxiliary verbs are used only for certain tenses, or form the entire conjugation. The former arises from accidental causes having relation only to these tenses, not to the verb in general. The latter readily arises when a substantive verb offers an easy means of conjugation by uniting with another verb. Sometimes the conjugation by means of an auxiliary shows that the linguistic sense of a notion sought something beyond the person and tense signs to express the verbal power itself, and therefore had recourse to a general verb. This can, indeed, only be constituted of those elements and a radical; but the want in the language is thus supplied, once for all, and does not return with every verb.

An excellent example of this is furnished by the Maya conjugation. In an analysis of it we find an element that neither belongs to the root, nor is a person, tense or mode sign, and when their varieties and changes are compared, there is evident throughout a marked anxiety to express the peculiar verbal power in the form of the verb.

The conjugation in the Maya language is formed by affixing the pronouns and mode and tense signs to the stem. The pronoun is, according to a distinction to be noted hereafter, either the possessive pronoun or that one which, without verbal power in itself, yet receives it when a predicate is attached to it to form a sentence.

Besides this, the suffix _cah_ accompanies all verbs in the present and imperfect; and the suffix _ah_ accompanies all transitive verbs through the remaining tenses, except the future. Present, 1st person, sing., _canan-in-cah_, I guard; imperf. 1st pers. sing., _canan-in cah cuchi_; perf., 1st pers. sing., _in canan-t-ah_. _In_ is the possessive pronoun, _cuchi_ the sign of the imperfect, _t_ in the perfect is a euphonic letter.

The idea of transitive verbs is here taken somewhat narrower than usual. Only those are included which govern a word outside of themselves. All others are considered intransitive, even those which of themselves are active, but either have no expressed object (as, I love, I hate, etc.), or the word which they govern is in the verb itself, as in the Greek ~oikodomeo, oikoureô~. As these can govern a second accusative, the object incorporated in the verb is included in the idea they express.

The tenses of the intransitive verbs, except the present and imperfect, while they drop _ah_ and the possessive pronoun, are formed with that pronoun which forms sentences with a predicate.

There are cases where not only the present omits _cah_, but where the stem, if it ends in _ah_ as is often the case, drops it, and substitutes _ic_. The signification then alters, and indicates an habitual action or quality. As _ic_ is the sign of the gerund, this change appears to be the transformation of the verb into a verbal, and to effect this, it must be united to that pronoun which serves as the substantive verb; _ten yacunic_, I love, properly, I am loving (habitually).

What _cah_ and _ah_ mean by themselves, we are not informed. Where _cah_ is attached to the stem of some verbs it signifies intensity. _Ah_ is as a prefix the sign of the male sex, of the inhabitant of a place, and of names derived from active verbs. Hence it seems to have meant at first person, man, and later to have become a pronoun, and finally an affix. It is noteworthy that the same difference exists between _ah_ and _cah_, as between _en_ and _ten_. The _c_ may therefore be a radical sound. In the conjugation, _cah_ is treated wholly as a verb. For in this the possessive pronoun is always prefixed; and as in the present and imperfect it is placed after the stem of the verb and before _cah_, it is evident from the difference between the two forms _canan-in-cah_ and _in-canan-t-ah_, that in the former _cah_, and in the latter _canan_, are regarded as the verbs. _Canan-in-cah_ is precisely as the English "I do guard."

_Cah_ is consequently a true auxiliary verb; _ten_, when it appears in conjunction with _en_ must have the notion of Being understood: _ah_ appears to be of similar nature, but as it appears only in the conjugation of transitive verbs, it is a verbal sign, and thus receives its verbal power. That _cah_ and _ah_ do really possess this powever[TN-8] is evident from the fact that they are never used whenever either of the pronouns which are always associated with the notion of Being is present.

Except in the future of transitive verbs, there is no instance in the conjugation where the stem of the verb is not accompanied by one of these four syllables, all of which indicate Being, and all of which have the force of auxiliary verbs.

The future of transitive verbs not only does not take any of these syllables, but even rejects _ah_ when it is the terminal syllable of the stem. In this case no other termination replaces it. On the contrary, all other verbs receive a new suffix in their future, varying as they are of one or many syllables. The nature of these suffixes has not been explained.

The definite results of this analysis are as follows:

1. The Maya language possesses in its conjugation, besides the inflection syllables of the persons and tenses, another element, which, except in the simple future of transitive verbs, distinctly carries with it the notion of Being; in the future of most verbs there is such an element, but of unknown origin, and it only fails in the future of one class of verbs.

2. This language displays an effort to express, besides the other purposes of the verb, particularly its synthetic power, which is all the more apparent as it uses different means in different cases, but all designed to accomplish the same purpose.

The Yaruri language constructs the whole of its conjugation in a yet simpler manner by means of an auxiliary verb.

The union of the pronoun and the tense sign which, as we have already seen, forms the substantive verb, affixed to the stem, completes the inflections of the one and only conjugation of attributive verbs, except that the independent pronouns are prefixed. Neither the stem nor the auxiliary words suffer any changes, except the insertion of an _n_ in one person. The union remains, however, a loose one, and when person and tense are manifest by the connection, the auxiliary verb is omitted. This happens in certain verbs ending in _pa_. These, contrary to the usual rule, change in the perfect this termination to _pea_, by which the tense is made apparent, and as the person is evident from the prefixed personal pronoun, the auxiliary can be dropped without danger of obscurity.

The formation of certain tenses by means of auxiliaries is also frequent in American languages.

An optative of this nature in the Lule language has already been mentioned.

In the Mixteca tongue the imperfect is thus formed from the present, which carries with it the personal sign, and the perfect without its personal sign, a proceeding which, however rude and awkward it may be, shows a just appreciation of the peculiarity of this past tense, which expresses an action as going on, and therefore present in past time. The expression of continuous action is placed first, "I sin," then this is more precisely defined by the mark of past time, "this was so;" _Yo-dzatevain-di-ni-cuvui_. _Yo_ is the sign of the present, _ni_ of the preterit, _di_ is the pronoun; the other two words, _to sin_ and _to be_: "I was sinning."

The sign of the present, _yo_, is probably an abbreviation of the verb _yodzo_, I stand upon or over something, and so there is a second auxiliary in the sentence. This may often be a means of discovering the origin of tense signs, as, especially in American tongues, tenses are often formed by the union of verbs, as also occurs in Sanscrit and Greek.

The Othomi distinguishes certain past tenses, which, however, are separated by other characteristics, by a prefixed _xa_, which is called the third person singular of a substantive verb. As these tenses are precisely those in which the action must be completed, the perfect, pluperfect and future perfect, not, however, the imperfect and past aorist, such a connection is very suitable. Of this verb we have only _xa_, and there is another substantive verb _gui_, which itself takes _oca_ in its conjugation.

The Totonaca language unites the perfect, in the person spoken of, with the third person singular of the future of the substantive verb, to form a future perfect. This is no completed form, but only an awkward sequence of two verbs; _yc-paxquilh-na-huan_, literally, "I have loved, it will be,"="I shall have loved."

In similar manner the substantive verb is used to form a tense of the subjunctive.

The sign of both the perfects in this tongue is the syllable _nit_, and _niy_ means "to die." It is not improbable that this affix is derived from this verb. Death and destruction are suitable ideas to express the past, and some languages employ negative particles as signs of the preterit. In the Tamanaca this is not exactly the case, but the negative particle _puni_ added to a word which signifies an animate thing, intimates that it has died; _papa puni_, the deceased father, literally, "father not." In the Omagua tongue the same word signifies old, dead, and not present.

In the Maipure and Carib tongues the negative particles _ma_ and _spa_ are also the signs of the preterit. Bopp's suggestion that the Sanscrit augment was originally _a_ privative finds support in this analogy. Yet I would not speak conclusively on this point, as probably that, the Greek augment ~e~, and the Mexican _o_, are only lengthened sounds, intended to represent concretely the length of the past time. At any rate one must regard the negation as an actual destruction, a "been, and no longer being," not as simply a negation of the present.