Page images
PDF
EPUB

1851.

Comparison of Cognate Languages.

303

evident. It is as if we had before us the diaries of several travellers who all set out on the same journey, but who, according to their individual tastes and characters, noted down the various events in their passage from place to place in a different style and a different spirit. When this collateral evidence is wanting, our knowledge of the historical progress of any single idiom must generally be deficient and uncertain. The Greek language, for instance, which in ancient times exhibits so great a variety of dialectical formations, has come down to us only in one narrow stream, as the modern Greek. In trying to account for the new grammatical forms of this classical idiom, we look in vain for that kind of collateral evidence which the six parallel dialects of the language of Rome offer in such abundance; so that if we cannot explain the new modes of expression by a reference to the old Kown, we are left without any further help. Happily the changes which the language of Athens suffered in its transition from the old to the modern Greek, are less considerable by far than those experienced by the Latin during the vicissitudes of its historical and national development. Most of the new grammatical forms can still be recognised by a classical scholar. The declension has been preserved almost entirely the same as in the ancient grammar. The conjugation also contains hardly any new elements. Some forms have gone out of use, as, for instance, the Dative in the declensions, the Dual in declension and conjugation, the Optative, and also, to a great extent, the old Infinitive. There are also some few periphrastic tenses which have found their way into the modern Greek; but they are by no means so perplexing as similar forms in the Romance dialects. Everybody acquainted with the character of secondary formations in language, will understand at once the process by which compound tenses, such as Jew ypáva, I shall write, ἔχω γράψει, I have written, εἶχα γράψει, I had written, la ypáve, I should write, have been formed; and, with the exception of foreign words, which may easily be traced back to their original source the dictionary of the pwpain yλwooa offers hardly any difficulties.

But if in languages like the modern Greek, we can explain the new formations by comparing them with the ancient types out of which they have sprung, it is evident that this method would altogether fail, if we tried to apply it to an analysis of ancient idioms.

As, generally speaking, we know no Greek before Homer, no Latin before Ennius, no German before Ulfilas, it is impossible to trace the historical formation of these languages farther back. There is no language, or at all events we do not

know it, from which the Greek, Latin, and Gothic, under their oldest forms, could be said to have been derived. The only method of investigation, therefore, which can be applied to these languages, consists in a comparative analysis of cognate idioms, a method which was suggested to us before, in exploring the growth of the modern offshoots of the Latin stock-the Romance dialects. It is true that attempts have been made to derive German from Latin, Latin from Greek, and Greek from Hebrew, yet such theories would scarcely find an advocate in the present century." If, therefore, the nature and laws of the old languages which, historically and philosophically, claim the highest importance, are to be explained at all, it can only be done by a comparative analysis of cognate tongues; and this is the object of Comparative Philology.

But how is it possible, with this chaotic mass of languages from all parts of the world before us, to say, which are cognate languages, and which are not? Although Comparative Philology may exclude all modern or secondary languages, yet the number of old and primary languages is so large, and the characters of many even of them at first sight, so heterogeneous,

The Greek language has always been a rich source for mystical etymologists. We give a few amusing specimens of these derivations in support of a theory, that the whole history of the world from China to Russia is nothing but an allegorical representation of human life:La Chine, hiatus, de xairw, hisco, représente l'enfant-monde, ouvrant la bouche pour respirer et se nourrir; l'ennui du monde.

L'Egypte, activitas resupina; Aiyúnrios, de ait, aiyós, capra, le grand symbol de la vivacité d'esprit, dans le langage allégorique, et de Trioc, resupinus, représente l'enfant-monde au berceau, soumis comme on sait qu'étaient les Egyptiens.

La Babylonie, inarticulation des paroles et confusion des pensées; de baba, vox inarticulata, et üλwv de λn, materia,

sylva, symbole des idées croissantes comme des

arbres.

L'Assyrie, qui avance vers l'ordre et l'arrangement des idées; de aorov, prope, et uptor, favus, les cellules hexagones. La Medie, qui commence à méditer en soi-même, à former des desseins; de undos, consilium.

La Perse, la première jeunesse, fougueuse, emportée; de rép0w, infinitif actif, époαι, vasto.

Athènes, la vigueur florissante; ábáva, immortalitas, de à privatif, et θάνατος, mors.

Rome, la virilité forte et robuste de l'animal-monde.

La Russie, les rides de la vieillesse; de pvooóc, rugosus.

1851.

Superficial Classification of Languages.

305

that it would be impossible to advance one step towards a scientific solution of the problem in question, without first trying to arrange the whole mass in certain groups or families.

If in the cases mentioned before, we had taken German or English, instead of Italian and Spanish, to explain the formation of the Future in French, we should have found no explanation. at all, or probably a wrong one. Yet both these languages are immediately bordering on the French, and both show by their vocables, that they are largely indebted to the Latin, from which the French also is derived. With regard to modern languages, indeed, a knowledge of the political history of the nations by whom they were spoken, is generally sufficient to indicate their genealogical connexion; but we have no such help for classifying the languages of old nations.

This classification had been attempted long before the rise of Comparative Philology, but it had never before been founded on the nature of language itself. Languages had been classified either according to their geographical distribution, (such as the languages of Europe, Asia, Africa, America, and Australia,) or according to the physical races of man by whom they were spoken (such as the Caucasian, Mongolian, Negro and Malay). It was usual also, to speak of sacred and profane, classical and oriental, living and dead languages, but all these divisions were based only on external accidents. By undertaking, for the first time, a classification of languages according to the peculiar character of their etymological and grammatical structure, Comparative Philology has found that tongues, spoken in the most distant regions of the world, and by nations apparently unconnected by any historical intercourse, may yet belong to the same family, while, in other cases, languages, spoken in one and the same district, can be shown to be of a totally different origin. Great results have been obtained in this manner, and other sciences, like Ethnology and History, have largely availed themselves of these new discoveries. Yet, however interesting and important the facts may be, which have been elicited from a comparison of languages, this subject is as yet very far from being exhausted. There are still languages in the world which have never been studied at all. Many others are known only by scanty and often untrustworthy lists of words. And although the characteristic features and broad outlines of several groups have been established by philological research, yet the number of languages which have been subjected to a careful analysis of their grammatical and etymological structure, is comparatively small. It is true that for general purposes, lists of words, when drawn up carefully, are sometimes sufficient, if not

to prove, at least to indicate, the connexion of languages. This process, however, has so frequently been found unsuccessful, that Comparative Philology has altogether discouraged it. It is true also, that as a first attempt a division of languages, according to their general character, may be instructive. Yet by knowing that certain tongues are monosyllabic, agglutinative, or inflectional, we know little more than a scholar of natural history, who has observed, that some animals have two, and others four legs, while some have no legs at all. It is much the same, as if we were to classify men, birds, and whales as bipeds, or eels and serpents as fishes. This is not meant, to deny that terms such as monosyllabic, agglutinative, and inflectional, synthetic and analytic, are very useful and appropriate for a classification of languages. But such terms have a meaning only after languages have been subjected to the most careful analysis, and, so to say, to a microscopic anatomy of their grammar. They mean nothing at all in the mouths of people, who do not know even the alphabets of the very languages which they venture to classify.* The less we know of lan

[ocr errors]

* A striking confirmation of this is offered in a work lately published by Dr. Latham, On the Varieties of Man.' This gentleman, to whom we owe already a history of the English language, embodying the results of Grimm's celebrated Teutonic Grammar, has also thought it necessary in his present work to avail himself of the results of Comparative Philology, and to bring them to bear on the natural history of man. But, instead of following Dr. Prichard's excellent work,-'Researches into the Physical History of Man,'— which is by no means antiquated, Dr. Latham has adopted a division of languages which seems to be entirely his own. He divides all the languages of the world into four classes, which he calls aptotic, agglutinate, amalgamate, and anaptotic. He admits, however, of only three methods of grammar-the Classical, English, and Chinese. All the languages, dead or living, are referred to one of these classes with astonishing rapidity. There remains but one family of languages, which Dr. Latham considers hypothetical, - the Arian Indo-Germans.' Sanskrit is to him a very doubtful language, still more its modern descendants, Hindi, Bengali, Mahratti, &c. According to him, 'the nation that is at one and the same time Asiatic and Indo-Germanic remains to be discovered.' This prejudice against Sanskrit is not peculiar to Dr. Latham. It is, or at all events it was, shared by many who found it troublesome to learn this new language. Sanskrit was called a factitious idiom, concocted by the Brahmins after the expedition of Alexander into India; a theory which Schlegel considers as happy as that which would account for 'the Egyptian pyramids as natural crystallisations.' There is another point, however, where Dr. Latham seems to have a fair claim on originality. We must quote his own words, because we might be suspected of misrepresenting his opinions. The criticism, or, rather,

1851. Ethnological Results of Comparative Philology. 307

guages, the easier, of course it is, to classify them, and to apply to them scientific names in an unscientific manner. But Comparative Philology is not a study for amateurs, and has nothing in common with the premature attempts of those precocious systematisers, who see no difficulty in bringing all the languages of the world under certain categories, although they would find it difficult to translate but one sentence from the idioms, which they have so hastily cast into the crucible.

It is, however, not so much an interest in language itself, which has given rise to these systems, as the pressing importance of other questions, which are more or less dependent on the results of Comparative Philology. Of these, the most remarkable are the problems relating to the early diffusion of nations in times not reached by history, and to the common origin of mankind. It is clear, that as soon as all languages, spoken by man, can be traced back to one common source, it will be in vain to maintain any longer that the physical varieties of man necessitate the admission of an independent origin for each race. It was natural, therefore, that the advocates both of the monogenetic and polygenetic theory should have tried

[ocr errors]

'scepticism,' he says, which has been extended by others to the 'Indo-Gangetic languages of Hindostan, is extended by the present 'writer to the Persian.' He afterwards maintains, that the language of the arrow-headed inscriptions is Sanskrit.' Colonel Rawlinson, Burnouf, and Lassen, might have saved themselves their trouble if they had been informed of this before. But Dr. Latham has allowed himself to be misled into a still greater mistake. Colonel Rawlinson, Burnouf, and Lassen have shown, that the Persian branch of the Indo-European stock has preserved, particularly in its oldest literary document, the Zend avesta, ancient forms, which occur in the Veda, but have been modified in the more modern Sanskrit. Dr. Latham, not knowing that the language of the cuneiform inscriptions differs from that of the Veda nearly as much as that of Cicero from Homer, has misunderstood this grammatical observation, and imagines that the language of Darius approaches so much to the Vedic dialect, as to prove that the Veda cannot be older than Darius. The premises are wrong, but still more the conclusion. For if we applied this principle to other facts of Comparative Philology, we might say, because the Lithuanian, as spoken at the present day, approaches so much to the Sanskrit as to possess in its declensions Sanskrit terminations, which have been modified in the other IndoEuropean idioms; therefore Sanskrit may not be much older than the Lithuanian, which any traveller may still hear spoken in parts of Prussia. But there is a Nemesis in every thing; and in the only instance where Dr. Latham attempts to give an authentic specimen of cuneiform writing every letter stands TOPSY-TURVY.

« PreviousContinue »