106 The Rev. Dr. Wall on the Nature, Age, and Origin of the 



it was first applied, we shall find very strong additional reasons for curtailing its 

 reputed age ; — reasons which are still further strengthened by the consideration 

 that, in yielding to them, we not only get rid of great difficulties — I might 

 perhaps say absurdities — which embarrass the prevailing opinion upon the sub- 

 ject ; but also arrive at a rational and consistent explanation of the cause of the 

 original formation of both the verbal and the graphic system of the Brahmans. 

 In the first place, the language in question is by no means of a primitive kind, 

 nor is its grammatical mechanism at all that of an ancient tongue. I admit that 

 in very rude and possibly very ancient languages, long in use before their ingre- 

 dients were prevented from any further amalgamation by the adoption of 

 alphabetic writing, various groups of words may, by gradual or fortuitous blend- 

 ings, have been reduced to single terms ; and the accumulation of such compounds 

 has the effect of producing great intricacy as well as exuberance of expression. 

 Thus, for instance, in the Basque dialect there are said to be seventeen degrees 

 of comparison, which evidently must have arisen from different combinations of 

 adverbs having, in the rapidity of oral communication, happened to run into each 

 other, in such a manner as not to be separable into their original distinct forms 

 when alphabetic writing came to be applied to them. But the complexedness of 

 the Sanscrit language is not of this nature ; a great share of it, at least, has been 

 produced by the extension of technical distinctions to cases to which they do not 

 in strictness apply ; so that we find here exhibited a junction of skill and igno- 

 I'ance which is very compatible with the supposition of the Brahyians having 

 imperfectly learned the grammatic art from foreigners, but not at all with that of 

 their having arrived at it originally by means of their own ingenuity. Thus 

 their use of the verb, to be, in all the tenses of an active, a passive, and a middle 

 voice, cannot be accounted for by any accidental amalgamations of formative 

 particles with the principal word ; and seems as inconsistent with the simplicity 

 of a primitive language as it is with true correctness of thought.* To imagine 

 that a tongue displaying peculiarities of this kind could be very ancient, is at 

 variance with every fair deduction that can be drawn upon the subject from 

 writings which are of acknowledged great antiquity. 



• This example will be more particularly considered when I come to show the artificial structure 

 of the Sanscrit language. 



