RESEARCHES INTO THE ORIGIN AND AFFINITY OF THE PRINCIPAL LANGUAGES OF ASIA AND EUROPE. BY LIEUTENANT COLONEL VANS KENNEDY, OF THE BOMBAY MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT. Cum remotæ GENTIUM ORIGINES historiam transcendant, LINGUÆ nobis præstant veterum Leibnitii Opera, tom. iv. p. 186. LONDON: PRINTED FOR LONGMAN, REES, ORME, BROWN, AND GREEN, PATERNOSTER-ROW. 1828. Un Homme de Lettres, célébre, grand ennemi des Etymologies, a dit qu'il falloit être sans raison pour douter que pain vînt de panis: mais si cette Etymologie n'est point trompeuse, l'Art Etymologique n'est point trompeur, puisque toutes les Etymologies qui le composent et que nous donnerons, seront aussi sûres que celle-là; qu'elles ne consisteront également que dans des comparaisons de mots, où il seroit aussi impossible de voir ce qu'on y voudroit voir, que de ne pas y voir ce qui y est. LONDON: Printed by A. & R. Spottiswoode, Monde Primitif, tom. iii. p. 35. PREFA CE. It is much to be regretted that all writers who have entered into etymological discussions, or who have employed etymology as the medium of other researches, should have permitted their judgments to be guided and influenced by some favourite hypothesis. For, however anxious an author may be to discover truth, still, if his mind be occupied by preconceived opinions, it is impossible for him to avoid giving more attention and more force to such circumstances as support these opinions, than to such as oppose them. Too many writers, also, in conducting an argument respecting the origin and affinity of nations, or even respecting their idolatry, have indulged in such absurdity of etymologies, and such mis-selection and perversion of authorities, as must render their love of truth extremely questionable. The ridicule, therefore, that is thrown on etymology, and the distrust with which it is received as proof, are the natural consequences of its having been employed so improperly. But, as it is illogical to argue from the abuse to the use, no work ought to be condemned on mere inspection of its titlepage, because erroneous methods have been adopted in the previous discussion of the same subject. The following RESEARCHES, also, whatever other defects may be attributable to them, are at least free from the spirit of hypothesis. For, having occasion to compile a Maratha dictionary, I amused myself, while collecting materials for that work, in noting down the Sanscrit words which I recognised as belonging to any language with which I was acquainted; and it was not until I had collected five hundred such words, that I began to enquire into the causes which could have introduced them into five distinct languages. Until then I had acquiesced in the correctness of the usual opinions entertained respecting the origin and affinity of languages, although doubts of their justness had often occurred to me. But, on further examining the subject, I found that none of the systems which had been proposed could adequately explain the causes of that intimate connection which must have existed, at some remote period, between a people speaking Sanscrit and the ancestors of the Greeks, Romans, and Goths. It was, therefore, necessary to discover some more probable and satisfactory explanation of so remarkable a circumstance, and I accordingly stated the conclusions to which its investigation had led me, in a paper which I laid before the Literary Society of Bombay, in November, 1822. This This paper, however, I afterwards withdrew, as it occurred to me that neither its limits allowed the subject to be fully discussed, nor had I myself obtained all the information respecting it which was requisite. For I conceive it incumbent on every writer to ascertain, as far as possible, what may have been previously published on the topic which he intends to discuss. But the want of books prevented me, for some time, from having it in my power to enlarge and improve the paper just mentioned in the manner that I wished. Having at length, however, made myself, I believe, sufficiently acquainted with the principal opinions which prevail respecting the origin and affinity of languages, I now venture to lay the following RESEARCHES before the public. V The original object of this work was merely to exhibit the remarkable affinity which exists between the Greek, Latin, Persian, Gothic, and Sanscrit languages, and to explain the causes which had, in my opinion, produced it. But, on further consideration, it appeared to me that neither of these points could be satisfactorily demonstrated, until the prevailing hypothesis respecting the existence of a primitive tongue, and respecting the origin of the Greeks, Romans, and Goths, had been first examined and refuted. I have, in consequence, been obliged not only to enter into a review of these subjects on which so much has been already written, but, also, in considering them, to differ in opinion, less or more, from every author by whom they have been previously discussed. But no person has hitherto applied a competent knowledge of Arabic, Persian, and Sanscrit to etymological purposes, and from new data, therefore, it may be permitted to draw new conclusions. One writer, indeed, Dr. A. Murray, in his History of European Languages, has pretended to an acquaintance with Sanscrit and Persian; but the very erroneous judgment of the origin and nature of these languages which he has expressed, evinces that his knowledge of them must have been extremely superficial. He has himself, at the same time, admitted that he had not the Sanscrit language completely before him*; nor was it possible that he could, as no Sanscrit dictionary was then published. But Persian was perfectly accessible in grammars, dictionaries, and editions of works containing together the original text and its translation; and the ignorance, therefore, of this language betrayed by Dr. Murray is altogether inexcusable. It is not, however, so much the errors contained in this work, as the dogmatic tone in which the opinions are expressed, that are * Hist. of European Languages, vol. ii. p. 381. |