صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

many more by looking over the rules of transition, with their examples, that exist between German and Dutch, &c." The greater part of the 1250 words that are taken from the classic stock, are only found in composition. Primitives, derivatives, and compounds, taken from this stock, make in all about 17,700 words. About 900 of the primitives belong to the Latin, about 330 to the Greek. With them the same method for preparing a pupil may be followed. But, as I am still engaged in working out that plan practically, and not time enough having yet elapsed to judge of its efficacy for these languages, I shall not now go into any details, but make only a few remarks. The changes that have taken place with the Latin and Greek words adopted in English do not follow organic laws like those existing between the English and the other Germanic Languages, or between the Gothic and the Latin and Greek, as given in the well-known passage of J. Grimm's D. Gr. I. p. 584. “The Latin (and Greek) words,” (says T. M. M“Culloch, D.D., in his excellent little English Grammar, p. 87,) “which have been adopted, have, for the most part, suffered (only) a change of termination.” If we wished to point out in these adopted words, examples of organic laws, we should have but to compare words of the same root, and the same original meaning, but the one coming into the English through the Germanic, the other through the classic stock. In fact, we should find examples enough to illustrate the whole of Grimm's law respecting the Classic and Gothic languages. Classic p and Gothic f as pater(nal) and father; Classic f and Gothic b, as to (per)forate and to bore; Classic b and Gothic p, as burse and purse;" Classic t and Gothic th, as trinity and three; Classic th and Gothic d, as ther(iac) and deer; Classic d and Gothic t, as dent(ist) and tooth; Classic k and Gothic h, (instead of ch, v. Grimm, l.c. p. 584, fin.) as (uni)oorn and horn; Classic ch and Gothic g, as chol(eric) and gall; Classic g and Gothic k, as gelid and cold. But besides these, there are other advantages we can draw from those primitives of the classic stock. They will help us also to acquire a most desirable stock of words for the study of any of the modern languages belonging to the classic stock, as the Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, French, &c. Each such introductory study has to begin, as already stated, with a comparison between the English and the other respective system of simple sounds, following physiological principles, so that one may be enabled to reduce, to a sort of standard measure, all sounds of any language which one may wish to compare with English. We have still to go one step farther; the intimate connexions of the English language go beyond the Germanic and classic stock. For these two are again only branches of the tribe of the Indo-European languages, and in this way intimately connected with the Sanscrit, Persian, Lithuanian, Slavonic, and Celtic stocks. From this fact we may fairly conclude (by analogy,) without knowing yet exactly the whole importance of it, that the English language will give us most desirable aid in learning any of the last-named languages. But now that our range is wider, it will be well to consider the simple roots of the English language, instead of its primitives. There are about 497 roots to the 3820 primitives; 470 of them are Sanscrit roots, or roots which the English has in common with the Sanscrit.” If in the Indian languages the proportion of the roots to the primitives, or to the whole mass of words derived from them, were the same as in English, i. e. if each root gave about 7 primitives, or 100 words of all sorts, those 470 roots would give 3350 primitives, or 47,000 words. I know very well that it is neither useful nor practical to take up such an enormous mass of words; I put the numbers down only to shew in a few lines what might be got from the English language for linguistic studies, if any one should wish to take advantage of all the facilities it offers to the student. A few examples will suffice to show, that in point of simple etymology, the Sanscritis in many cases almost more nearly related to the English than any of the Germanic languages, e. g.:

for the t—sounds before us, such as it
exists in its three gradations from the
classic languages to the Gothic and Old
High German, from Lat. tu, to Goth.
thu, and Ohg. du, e. gr., Dan. Ting—
Eng. thing—Germ. Ding, Torn—thorn
—Dorn, Trang—throng—Drang, tyk—
thick—dick, tynd—thin—diinn, Törst
—thirst—Durst, Tyv — thief— Dieb,
tinke—to think—denken, &c.
* Although J. Grimm has not given
that rule—for in exhibiting his law he
does not mention the English language,

(l.c. i. p. 581,)—yet it may be said to
belong to him, as the English stands
almost always in the same consonantal
relation to the New High German as the
Gothic does to the Old High German.
All the examples are given from my own
collections.—Comp. T. Hewitt Key's
Alphabet. London, 1844. P. 49.
* J. Grimm, l.c. p. 58, says, that he
does not know any German word begin-
ning with p, high Germ. f(pf) answer-
ing the classic b, (as 34%t, A. S. paad,

hg. pfad) to prove his law in this case. 7 In these statements I follow prin

cipally F. G. Eichhoff–Parallèle des Langues de l'Europe et de l'Inde, Paris,

1836,-who gives a detailed list of the

550 Sanscrit roots that allow a parallèle
des Langues de l’Europe et de l’Inde.
N. L. Westergaard, in his Radices Lin-
gua Sanscritae, Bonn, 1841, has about
3,500 verbs, of which about 1,380 are
roots, yet without counting the “ra-

dices etymologicae, quae ab antiquis-
simis grammaticis in collectiones radi-
cum non relatae sunt,” p. 333.
Fr. Bopp, in his Glossarium Sanscri-
tum, Berlin, 1847, has the same number
of roots as Westergaard. Wilson, in the
2d edition of his Sanscrit Grammar,
1847, gives a list of 500 roots, the most
useful verbs (he says).

Mad,” (to be mad, Wilson's Sanskrit Gramm. Ed. II., 1847, p. 295;) here Sanscrit and English are both the same. Let us compare what is said about the etymology of “mad” in one of the best English Dictionaries, (C. Richardson's Ed. II. 1844, ad voc.) “The older etymologists refer to the Greek; but do not agree upon the specific source. Sk-yemaad, gemaed, insanus, vecors. Ital. matto, stultus. Seren.—from Go. mod, anger. Tooke, from A. S. metan, somniare, to mete, to dream; past p. maett, maed. Tooke also disputes the Greek origin ascribed to It. matto. The Greek derivatives (he observes) in the It. proceed through the L.; and in the Latin there is nothing which resembles “matto.””

* J. Grimm, l.c. p. 588, Obs. 1, says, * Another interesting example of this that “Words of the Classic, Gothic, sort, is the verb “to pour,” of which and High Germ. languages, in which no satisfactory etymology has been given two consonants follow his law (as retzu, yet. Ch. Richardson, ad roc., says: Goth. thragjan : rois, fötjus) are “Mins, derives from D. bor-en, to tilt (a doubly sure; those that have only one vessel,) sk.—either from the sound of agreeing and the other disagreeing, falling water, or from L. purus. In are suspicious; still more so those that some parts of England the influx of the are found with the very same conso- tide, the rush of it, is called the bore; nants in all the three languages.” To and in Scotland an opening in the clouds, this we observe, that the following words, when the sky is thick and gloomy, or though they preserve almost all their during rain, is called the blue bore.— consonants unchanged, do not fall under Jamieson. The word “bore” in each the last point of the given rule, as one of these usages, may be traced to the of the two consonants of each word is A. S. bor-ian, to bore, to pierce ; and either a Liquid or a Spirant. But Li- cons., to make an opening. To pour quids (and mostly Spirants too,) remain (by the change of p into b,) may be the unchanged, (Grimm. l.l. p. 581. Thus same word, and app. as above explaina word with two Liquids may keep its ed.” But there is no other example of consonants throughout the languages of an A. S. b. being changed into English the Indo-European tribe, e. gr., name, p. Perch, A. S. baers, bears, the Scr. náman, Lat. nomen, Gr. 3-voua, only word that might be adduced, is deGerm. name, Slav. imja (Them. imen, rived from the L. perca. The Sanscrit instead of nimen,) Gal. ainm, Pers. nam. root is simply pár, implere, satiare, lar

Bhri (frigere, affare, Westerg. l. l. p. 78; chauffer, brûler, Eichhoff l. l. p. 341,) root to the verb “to brew.”

Stri (étendre, répandre, Eichhoff l. l. p. 292,) to strew.

Man (putare, credere, opinari, Westerg. l. l. p. 196,) comp.

to mean.

Van (négocier, acquérir, Eichhoff l. l. p. 323,) comp. to win. Dal (findere, Westerg. p. 251, Eichhoff p. 281,) comp. to deal. Sék (aller, approcher, to seek, Eichhoff p. 271,) comp. to seek. Was' (desiderare, Bopp. l. l. p. 311,) comp. to wish,

Váj (excitare, parare, Westerg. p. 120,) comp. to wake, to

watch.

Vaksh (crescere, Bopp. p. 304) comp. to wax.
Mur (circumdare, Bopp. p. 267,) to mure.
I might furnish a great many more examples of the same:

kind, if this were the proper place for reviewing the rules of consonantal transitions between these two languages.” The English having, for the most part, thrown off the Germanic inflexions, and yet in most cases retained the radical letters, presents in many cases (as we have seen,) almost Sanscrit roots; even Latin words have been, in English, contracted in such a way, that one who had not traced the origin of such words historically, might be tempted to take them for pure Sanscrit. As we have had “man” to mean, “dal” to deal, thus Sanscrit “prach” (precor,) might be the root of the verb “to preach,” as the meaning agrees perfectly well with the English word: yet “to preach” is contracted from the Latin praedicare. With these roots, then, and the others that might easily be acquired besides by following the organic laws of transition, and by easy and regular derivations and compositions, we should get that stock of words which must be considered indispensable, if we wish to learn Sanscrit in a shorter time, and with less trouble, than is generally the case. The greater part of these roots would give, also, important aid in learning any of the modern Indian languages connected with Sanscrit, as the Hindi, Hindoostani, Maharashtri, Pendshabi, &c. There is no doubt that an Englishman has, in his native language, root-words enough to begin any of those languages with a considerable stock of words, and that would do much to remove that one impediment, the thought of which is the most deterring of all in beginning a new language.

giri, trajicere (cf. Bopp's Gloss. p. 222,
Westerg. p. 77,) to pour; Bopp derives
L. pleo, ejectà vocali, mutator in l, and
rooranul, &c. from it. As to the A. S.
bor-ian, L. for-are, it can only answer
the Sanscrit bh in bhuro, ferire (v. Do-
naldson's New Cratylus, p. 137; after
Pott's Etymologische Forschungen, 1. p.
84; and Westerg. l. l. p. 260,) showing
the very natural common origin of fe-
rire and forare.
10 Donaldson, N. Cr., p. 132, gives,
after Bopp, a certain number of com-
parative examples to illustrate Grimm's
law. If English words were introduced

into that list, we should easily see, that
in many cases they are next to Sanscrit,
e. gr. bhratr, £4%rwé, frater, Gt. brö-
thar, Ohg, pruoder. Among these, the
Gothic approaches Sanscrit the nearest,
but the English “brother,” having a
short vowel in the first syllable, comes
still nearer; cf. H. H. Wilson's Sansc.
Gr, 2d ed. p. 4. The same is the case
with bhr s. bhar, pigw, fero, Gt. baira,
ohg. piru. Again the English, to bear,
stands nearer than the Gt. baira. Again
Aiza, lingo, Gt. laigó, ohg lékóm; the
English “to lick” comes next to Sans-
crit “lih,” &c.

As for the other languages of the Indo-European tribe, I can only say, that according to Eichhoff, out of the 470 EnglishSanscrit roots, 242 are met with in the Lithuanian, 146 in the Russian language, that is, one full half of them in the former, almost one-third in the latter. But we need not go any farther; we have said enough to show, first, that want of words is one of the greatest impediments in learning languages; and secondly, that the English language, when properly studied for the purpose, would remedy that impediment, as it contains words enough for every language within the Indo-European tribe to begin with advantageously, and that therefore writers of grammars (of ancient or modern languages,) should give, before the accidence, the full list of those English words, which, according to established rules of transition, might be made use of in beginning the new language with which the Grammar is concerned. At the same time I cannot help pointing out, that by this method the study of every other language would contribute largely to a profound knowledge of the mother tongue. And this fact alone is, in my opinion, the highest recommendation that could be made out for any specific method of learning languages.

B. GABLERs

« السابقةمتابعة »