20 SANSKRIT AND INDO-EUROPEAN Close similarity in the declension of i- and u- stems, as illustrated by equations like Dat. S. Skt. sundve : 0, SI. synovi. B. Pronouns and A dverbs : (i) Common characteristics in the form of the personal pronouns, e.g. Nom. S. in -om t Skt. ahdnt , O. SI. azu , nasalised accusative, Skt. mini, 0. SI. Gen. S. Av. mana, 0. SI, mene (as opposed to Skt. mama). (2) The extended stem of the demonstrative pronoun, etc., in certain cases, e.g. Dat. S. Masc. Skt. tasmai f O. Pruss. kasntu stesmu, O. SI. tomu, Fem. Skt. tdsyai , O. Pruss, stessiei . (3) Preference for the interrogative stem k w o- as opposed to the stem k w i-, Skt, ka- f Lith. kds. (4) The possession of certain common pro- nominal stems, e.g. Av, ava~ f O. SI. ov& t Skt. Av. ana Lith. ands, O. SI. onu . (5) Various adverbs, Skt. kuha } Av. kuda
- where 0. SI. ktide, Skt. kadd ' when ? iada 1 then ', Lith.
kadd y tadd , Skt. nd 1 like Lith. net , Skt. bahis ‘ outside O. SL bezu ‘ without J f Skt, vind, O. SI. vune ‘ outside ’, O, Pers, (1 avahya ) radi 1 on account of {that}', O. SI. (logo) radi. C. The Verb. In the conjugation of the verb features special to Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavonic are not remarkably com- mon. This may partly be due to the fact that Slavonic (and to a greater extent, Baltic) is only recorded late, and in the verbal inflection is less conservative than it is in the nominal inflection (e.g. loss of the perfect and the middle). Points of note are (1) similarities in the s- aorist, e.g, vrddhi of root (SI. vesti : vesu } Skt. vdhati avdksam) and termination -om of isg. (as opposed to Gk. a) ; (2) The future in syo- is found with cer- tainty only in Indo- Aryan and Lithuanian : Skt. ddsyami ' I will give 1 Lith, duosiu ; (3) The causative is well developed in both groups, and many identical forms can be quoted, e.g. Skt. bodhdyati ‘ he awakens O. SI. buzdg, buditi. In the sphere of vocabulary Indo-Iranian shares with Baltic and Slavonic a considerable number of words which are not found in the other Indo-European languages. These corres- pondences are much more numerous than those which can be discovered between Indo-Iranian and any other member of the family, and they supply important evidence for the early con- nection of the two families. There is for instance no common Indo-European word for ' goat Sanskrit ajd- is connected with Lith. ozys , but parallels are absent in other IE languages. Greek and Armenian which go together in this case, as frequently have a similar word (a?f, arc) , but one that cannot be united
