94 On Comparative Philology, 



language, is, that nt is the termination of the third person plural in the 

 verb ; in which point the European languages agree with the Celtic and 

 the Sanskrit. Wliich has copied from which ? for who can believe it to be 

 accident ? In this matter may be adduced the fact, that tlie pronoun / 

 (whose ciiaracteristic in Greek, Latin, Sanskrit, &c. is m,) is in Persian 

 man, in Ottoman ben : the Turkish of Tabreez makes the oblique cases, 

 mdnini, mana, mdni ; and the plural biz ; and in all Turkish, the suffixes 

 indicating the first person, singular and plural to verbs or nouns, are in 

 and maz, mez. Here the similarity to Greek and Latin is too striking to 

 be believed accidental : yet it is an axiom with Linguists, that the Tartar 

 and the Gothic are as separate in origin as the Greek and the Hebrew. 

 Again; the Coptic and the Hebrew are perfectly dissimilar; yet / is in 

 Coptic avoK, in Hebrew anoki; and thou, is in Coptic t'doK, in Hebrew 

 dtta, from Arabic enta ; while in all three languages K is the immutable 

 element* in the syllables expressing tki/ or thine. So much would alone 

 be curious ; but now it is to be added, that in the Berber, / is nakJii, thou 

 is Kattshi, and K plays the very same part in the suffix of the second per- 

 son. So much has been here stated, merely to show tiiat the question 

 needs to be considered thoroughly, whether languages may not borrow 

 each other's pronouns and inflexions, while their whole material remains 

 incongruous. In the decision of which, facts must be the chief guide ; 

 and every fresh language of acknowledged antiquity and of affinities as yet 

 unknown, may throw fresh light on the subject. Indeed the Amharic lan- 

 guage, which at first was supposed a dialect of the Gheez, and thus to be 

 Shemitic, is now alleged by the most recent inquirers to be of African 

 pedigree, and only to have imitated Shemitic inflexions. 



It will be remarked, that in stating what is to be expected in common to 

 two kindred languages, no notice has been taken of the composition of the 

 alphabet. In truth, these are so seriously altered by unknown laws of 

 euphony, that they furnish no criterion at all. Almost might it seem as 

 though latitude, climate, and habits of life aftected these things ; yet it 

 would be most untrue to suppose that savages talk with rough consonants, 

 and polished or effeminate nations with soft ones. But while Greek was 

 celebrated for harmony, and of the consonants which the English consider 

 oriental had not one, if it was not ^ or <7<r, (for the ^ we have in Europe 

 on every side of us,) Sanskrit has all the Arabic consonants, ain only ex- 

 cepted. This ain, so decidedly peculiar, exists in the Berber, even in 

 words that do not appear in the existing Arabic. Yet the same may be 

 said of Persian, which equally contains this letter in old Farsi words. On 

 the whole, the discussion of the elementary sounds of a language appears 

 to yield but a very feeble help to an argument of this nature. 



* This seems to show, that the oldest Shemitic forms are, entak, thou, entakum, 

 ye, and entak, v9ok, are manifestly the same. 



