result can possibly be derived from etymological researches. Adelung, in the Preface to his Mithridates, professes to describe merely what is and how it is; and, had he restricted himself to such disquisitions, the value of his work would have been greatly increased: but man can never be contented with an account of things as they actually exist, and have existed from a certain known time, but wishes, in order to discover their hidden origin, to penetrate into the remotest and darkest secrets of nature. With respect, however, to languages, this wish is obviously vain: for the origin of nations cannot be ascertained by the means of history; and the most laborious etymological researches will merely render evident that all languages cannot possibly be derived from one primitive tongue, and, consequently, that all the various races of mankind now existing cannot have descended from one common parent.* If, therefore, the etymologist persist in compelling all languages to depose to an identity which does not exist, it must be obvious that the result of such etymological tortures must exhibit such an appearance of improbability and contradiction to common sense, as to render it totally undeserving of attention: but, if he confine himself merely to tracing the real affinities of languages, he will be enabled to elucidate at least the origin of some of the people of this world; and, by a continuation of researches conducted on the same plan, the affinity, if not the actual origin, of all nations might at length be demonstrated with the utmost certainty. semblables..... C'est un raport beaucoup plus étendu, plus vague, moins caractérisé, qui exige de tout autres yeux pour être saisi, qui ne peut être que le résultat d'un trèsgrand nombre de comparaisons, qui ne considère pas les mots un à un, mais par grandes masses; non les individus, mais les espèces," &c. - Monde Primitif, tom. iii. p. 273. * I ought to add, unless the miracle which occasioned the total confusion of tongues be admitted; because, in that case, the radical diversity of languages would be no argument against the authenticity of the Mosaic history. N.B. In Oriental words written in Roman characters, the vowels and diphthongs are to be pronounced as in Italian, and the consonants as in English; with exception of g, which is always to be pronounced hard, its soft sound being represented by j. PART II. GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. I AM perfectly aware of the ridicule to which etymologists, in general, so deservedly expose themselves: but, as it is universally admitted that the filiation of the different races of mankind, at those early periods of the world respecting which history is silent, may be satisfactorily determined by affinity of language, the extravagancies of etymologists ought not to prove prejudicial to researches of so much importance, if conducted on self-evident principles. For, if two words of distinct languages, similar or nearly similar in sound, bear precisely the same signification, the identity of such words cannot with any reason be disputed. Should, also, their meanings be not the same, but the difference consist merely in one of the significations being such as might arise from a natural connection of ideas, and the sound of the words be at the same time similar, little doubt can exist with regard to their identity. For instance, the Sanscrit kumam a lake and xuμя a wave, stoma the head and στομα the mouth, bălăm an army and bellum war, or even māra killing and mār a snake, are clearly identical terms. As long, therefore, as the etymologist confines his identification of words to those only which agree in sound and meaning, he proceeds on the surest grounds; and, for judging of the justness of his conclusions, nothing farther is necessary, than the mere inspection of the words of the different languages which he compares together. The person who is acquainted and he who is unacquainted with the languages compared, |