michelson: American Indian languages 233 



facts. Our whole endeavor should be to place American lin- 

 guistics on a rigid scientific basis, not upon a foundation of 

 guesses. If I have spoken strongly on this point it is because 

 some of the most eminent Americanists apparently desire to do 

 the latter. They wish, without sufficient reserve, to consolidate 

 stocks that apparently resemble each other, and are content to 

 leave it to the next man to prove or disprove their cases. I do 

 not deny that very likely they have made some extremely happy 

 guesses, but I do deny that the evidence thus far produced, has 

 been of such a nature as to compel acquiescence in all the results 

 they claim to have obtained. 



The opponents of the views here expressed will reply that the 

 proofs demanded are more suitable to the so-called exact sciences 

 than they are to philology; that if such a program be adhered to, 

 we can not possibly hope to accomplish our task, as the languages 

 are rapidly disappearing; that they are interested only in great 

 facts, not minutiae; and that Indo-European philologists con- 

 cern themselves largely with the latter simply because the great 

 facts of Indo-European philology are known, and hence there is 

 nothing else left for them to busy themselves with. To all of 

 which the following rejoinder maybe made: The proofs demanded 

 may possibly be more rigid than those the Indo-Europeanists 

 ordinarily demand, but it should be noted that every year the 

 proofs demanded by the latter are becoming more and more 

 rigorous, so that the disparity is after all being rapidly reduced, 

 and in time doubtless the proofs demanded by philology will 

 be fully comparable to those demanded by the exact sciences; 

 that there is no advantage in erecting a magnificent edifice 

 on such a weak foundation that it may topple over any minute; 

 it is better to do even a little, and that portion well; and lastly, 

 though it may be granted that Indo-Europeanists today are 

 primarily concerned with minutiae, the discoveries of Grimm, 

 Grassmann, Verner, Brugmann, Collitz, Schmidt, Ascoli, de 

 Saussure — all of which were due to more rigorous methods — 

 are of capital importance; and lastly it should be observed that 

 centuries of quasi-scientific study of languages preceded the 

 discovery of the genetic relationship of Indo-European languages, 



