1866. | as indicating the Antiquity of Man. 233 
shuth, a derivative of the same root, is foundation; and the name 
Seth is also a derivative, meaning set or appointed instead of 
another. 
The numeral adjectives are commonly and very properly adduced 
to prove the relationship of languages, and at least five of the ten 
integers can be shown to be the same in the Aryan and Semitic 
families of speech. Thus, echad, one, in Hebrew and its cognate 
tongues, has the same radical letters in the Pehlevi, advek, and with- 
out daleth (d), in Sanskrit eka, and Pehlevi, jek. Heb. sh’nayrm, 
two, Arab. atnan, Syr. taren, Chal. terain. The primary form appears 
to be ¢eni, and this has been softened to dw? in Sanskrit ; Gothic, 
twa, Greek and Latin, duo, and German, zwe?. Heb. shalosh, three, 
Arab. thalathah, Chal. telath. The primary form seems to be in the 
Zend, teshro, and transposed from this both Chal. telath and Greek, 
treis, Lat. tres, Sanskrit, tz, one liquid taking the place of another. 
Heb. shésh, six, of analogous form in other Semitic languages, 
and in Sansk. shash, Zend, qswas, Slav. schest, Gr. hex, Lat. scx. 
Heb. sheva’, and so both Syr. and Arab., Sansk. sapta, Goth. sebum, 
Ger. sieben, and Eng. seven. It is also probable that five, and other 
numbers in Hebrew and the Aryan languages, were originally 
the same, but as the analogy is not so evident as in those already 
adduced, and as five out of the ten numbers are amply sufficient, I 
shall not trouble the reader with analogies which might tend rather 
to perplex than to instruct him. There are multitudes of other 
words in all the parts of speech in the Semitic family which find 
their equivalents similar both in form and meaning in the Aryan, a 
fact of which everyone may convince himself by a careful perusal of 
Gesenius’s excellent ‘ Hebrew Lexicon,’ which has furnished most of 
the examples already quoted; but it would be useless to increase 
the number of words here, as those already produced are more than 
sufficient to prove that all the Aryans and Semites once spoke the 
same language, and consequently, that they did not spring origin- 
ally from different centres of creation, but rather constituted a single 
family, originating in one locality. It would be interesting now to 
inquire whether the numerous dialects of Asia, Africa, the Poly- 
nesian Islands, and the aboriginal tribes of America would bear the 
same test, and thus prove that all men are members of one family— 
the descendants of one parent; but this task must be deferred, as it 
has no connection with the problem now under consideration. I 
presume, however, that it can no longer be doubted that the Aryan 
and Semitic peoples sprung from one stock, and in order to account 
for the great varieties in their several languages, it is necessary to 
suppose that a separation of the two great families or divisions hap- 
pened in a very early period of the existence of mankind, and that 
then the languages of both families grew gradually and expanded, 
without haying any material connection with each other, from some 
R 2 
