sz^ SANSKRIT AND INDO-EUROPEAN 15 words are : Lat. credo , Ir. cretim , Skt. srad-dha- * believe 7 ; Lat. rex , Ir. ri 1 king 7 ; Skt, raj-, rAjan-, Ir. rtgain ‘ queen 7 ; Skt. rajni, Ir. rtge ‘ kingdom 7 ; Skt. rajya- ; Lat. ius ‘ justice 7 , iustus, Ir. nisse ‘ just, righteous ’, Skt. yos t A v.yaos' rightness, purity 7 ; Lat. ensis ‘ sword 7 , Skt. asi- ; Lat. res ' property ' ; Skt. rai - ; Ir. bro ' millstone 7 ; Skt. grAvan - (also, differently rr/ * formed Goth, qairnns, etc.) ; Ir. gert ' milk 7 , Skt. ghrtd- ‘ ghee 7 ; Ir. aire (gen, s. airech) ' chief, noble 7 ; Skt. aryd ^<?^ Ary a- ' master, lord, noble, Aryan More dubious is the old equation Lat, flamen, Skt. brahman- ‘ priest Many of these words are connected with religion, law, etc., and the fact that they are preserved in these two branches alone is due to the highly conservative tendencies which characterised the societies concerned. They do not imply any close connection between the original dialects on which the languages are based. Greek shows little sign of close connection with any of the other centum- groups. On the contrary its closest connection appears to be with the s^tew-languages, particularly with Indo- Iranian and Armenian. It is sufficient to glance through a comparative grammar of Sanskrit to see that the correspond- ences between Sanskrit and Greek are much more numerous than those between* Sanskrit and any other language of the family outside Indo-Iranian. This is particularly so in the case of verbal inflection. The fact that the two languages are recorded from such an early period is partly responsible for this state of affairs, but it is by no means entirely so. Some of the common features involved are of late Indo-European origin, and must be regarded as common innovations, and not as cases of the common preservation of ancient forms. For instance the Indo-European languages have no common form of the genitive singular of o-stems. The form -osyo which is common to Greek (-oio, ov), Armenian (-oy) and Indo-Iranian (Skt. - asya , Av. -ahya) has no more claim to antiquity than Italo- Celtic -i or the Hittite form {-as, <os) which appears to be identical with the nominative. In fact the great variations in case suggest that the various forms have developed in the late Indo-European period when the language was already widely divided into dialects. It is therefore important evidence of close prehistoric connection. Likewise the augment is found only in Greek (e^epe), Indo-Iranian (Skt. dbharat) and Armen- ian [eber), with traces of Phyrgian. Since there is no reason to
