36 COMPARATIVE LANGUAGE 



object throughout is to trace the development of a linguistic phe- 

 nomenon from its earliest attainable stage to its latest expression. 

 Comparative grammar is simply a history of a group of related lan- 

 guages, and when that is said, its relation to the history of an indi- 

 vidual language of the group is obvious. They are not different 

 sciences, one merely auxiliary to the other, but represent a wider 

 and a narrower range of the same subject. Whatever differentiation 

 exists is consequent only upon a division of labor. The historian of 

 the Greek language, for example, is, from the purely linguistic stand- 

 point, a specialist within the Indo-European field. And if the wider 

 outlook of comparative grammar is essential to the intelligent 

 study of the history of the individual language, it is no less true 

 that comparative grammar depends for its very existence upon the 

 investigation of the special facts and conditions of each language. 

 The material presents itself in various forms, and its critical employ- 

 ment involves an acquaintance with paleography, epigraphy, metres, 

 numismatics, history of private and public institutions, in fact, 

 every branch of philology in its wider sense. The errors to which the 

 historian of a single language ignorant of the results of comparative 

 grammar is liable are no whit more serious than the dangers which 

 await the comparative grammarian who deals with material of which 

 he has only a superficial knowledge, whose familiarity with a given 

 language is limited to turning the pages of the grammar and lexicon. 

 The comparative . grammarian covers so wide a field that it is ob- 

 viously impossible for him to possess an intimate, detailed, acquaint- 

 ance with all the languages of the group. He may be expected to 

 know something of all, at least in their earlier stages, and a good 

 deal about some. He should have the broader philological training in 

 some of the fields, in classical philology, Indie or Indo-Iranian philo- 

 logy, Germanic, Celtic, or Slavic philology, if only to make him fully 

 conscious of his limitations and need of cooperation in the others. 

 And his selection of such a field will depend upon his individual 

 tastes. But at best he must rely to a considerable degree upon the 

 investigations of those whose interest is largely concentrated on the 

 individual language. 



In all . this I hope I shall not be understood as ascribing to the 

 student of one language the role of a handmaiden who gathers 

 materials only to lay them at the feet of the comparative grammarian. 

 It is true that no special investigation however minute can fail to 

 be of some interest and value to the comparative grammarian, but 

 its author is certainly not debarred from drawing his own conclusions 

 simply because he is not a professed comparative grammarian. Each 

 language offers numerous problems of its own, which involve pro- 

 cesses taking place within the historical period, and which can be 



