The Scottish Celtic review

—;98 The Laivs of Auslaid in Irish.the compounds as-ririu, as-riri.These forms show the conjunctive-flexion;ria (i.e., prehistoric ricit) stands in the same relationto riri (i.e., prehistoric riri-it), in which in the present the conjunctiveindidea (i.e., niddidi) stands to ni6icli (gloriatur ; i.e.mudi-it). See A. II. 4, B. IX., and Excursus i. 1. The reduplicatedfuture has everywhej-e else the conjunctive-flexion ; and itis remarkable that this future ririu, riri, standing beside a perfect,shows an indicative-flexion. We may here refer to therelation of the Vedic forms of the ind. perf jaghdna, and of theconjunctive jayhanat (Delbriick's Altind. Verb. 57), and assumethat in Irish a further trace has been preserved of the conjunctivewith a short vowel in the stem (see B. IX. 2).^ By means ofSkr. forms, the original relation of the connected indicative andconjunctive forms, may be represented in the following mannerIND. PERF.jaghana.jaghantha.jaghdna.CONJ.(jaghand) cf vocd.(jaghanas.)jaghanat.All Indo-Germanic languages realise, in the course of time, atendency to distinguish, as a general rule, the conjunctive by thelength of the stem vowel. In this way, the more distinctlyconjunctive ria has been formed alongside of riri.According to Stokes, ibiu is another example of a future formedlike 7'iriu: 7n praindigiuh-sa ocus ni ibiu (I will not eat and Iwill not drink) Beitr. zur Vergl. Spr. vii. IG. The passive formebar, which occurs in the Leb. Bi'ecc. p. 9b (Facs.), proves that Ir.ibimm (I drink) is a pres. tense formation, like Skr. pibdmi, Lat.bibo. Now, one might suppose from the gloss, deugaigfit i. ibait,on fotabunt in the Lat. Text of the Milan Codex, fol. 30° (Goid.-p. 35) that the pres. ind. of ibimm had been used as a futurebut, on the one hand, the glosses ai'e not always accurate as totense, and, on the other hand, ibixi would be a present-form, whichwe would have to put into the 3i'd conjugation. The comparativephilologist is here readily reminded of Gr. Trlofxai, the xi-o'If we trace riri to riri-it, but, on the other hand, fel to vel-ai, we mustadmit that certainly a want of agreement appears, in these prehistoric forms,in the treatment of the conjunctive vowel : ririu, riri, might be connected,according to the phonetic relations, with the pres. of the 3rd coujugation{rCidiu, rddi), whilst vd-at could only have been connected with the pres. ofthe 1st conjugation {beir for ber-it) ; but, then, vel-it would have become feil,fiL as in the iudicative.