The Orion, or Researches into the Antiquity of the Vedas c13.8

c13.8

With these instances before us, it would be unreasonable to deny that the three possible changes of *kr* and *gr*, which obtain in Teutonic languages, do not take place as between Greek and Sanskrit, at least *initially*; and if these changes take place initially, analogy at once suggests that they would also take place *medially*. At any rate there is no reason why they should not. It may be urged that a comparison of Sk. *chakra* with Gk. *kuklos* shews that a medial *kr* is retained as it is. But as pointed out above the argument is not conclusive. There may be cases where *kr* is retained as it is. But we have seen that by the side of such cases, instances can be quoted where it is changed to *pr* or *r* initially; and we may expect the same threefold possible change *medially*. It is admitted that labialisation takes place *medially*; and we have therefore to see if there are any instances where a gutteral is dropped before a liquid in the body of a word. K. Brugmann tells us that at one period *gn* and *gm* came to be represented by *n* and *m* in Greek; cf. *gignomai* and *ginomai*, *stugnos* and *stunos*. Now this change in the body of a word is exactly similar to that of *agmen* into *amen*, and is evidently due to the same rule, which accounts for the latter change. Similarly Gk. *anoos* may be compared with Sk. *ajna*, and Gk. *arinos* to Sk. *aghrâna*. But I do not lay much stress on these inasmuch as these words may be supposed to have been derived by the addition of the prefix alpha to the already existing Greek forms, and not directly obtained from Sanskrit *ajna* and *aghrâna*. The change of *gignomai* into *ginomai* or of *gignosko* into *ginosko* cannot, however, be so accounted for, and if *g* before *n* is dropped in the body of a word, there is no reason why it should not be dropped before *r* on the analogy of the phonetic rule given above. Works on philology do not give any more instances of such changes, but as observed above, the attention of scholars does not appear to have been directed to this point. Otherwise I do not think it was difficult to discover the similarity between Gk. *turos* and Sk. *takra*. *Takra* is derived from *tanch* (*teng*) to contract, to coagulate or curdle, and according to Fick the root is Indo Germanic. It is an old Vedic root, and we have such expressions as *dadhnâ âtanakti* ‘coagulates (milk) with curds’ in the Taittiriya Sanhitâ II. 5. 3. 5. *Takra* therefore literally means ‘curdled milk’ and not ‘curds mixed with water’ as the word is understood in modern Sanskrit. Now, if we suppose that the rule, which sanctions the omission of *g* or *k* before *r* or *m* in other languages, also holds good as between Greek and Sanskrit, not only initially (as in *grâvan* and *laos*) but also medially, as in *gignomai* and *ginomai*, Sk *takra* may be easily identified with Gk. *turos* meaning ‘cheese’. *Takra* may thus be said to have retained its root meaning in Greek.