54 COMPARATIVE LANGUAGE 



Now since all investigations along any one of the three main lines 

 indicated by Schleicher if they are to be inductive must neces- 

 sarily rest upon a careful examination of the facts of actual lan- 

 guages and dialects, the large mass of special problems which are 

 connected with each individual language and dialect form, in a sense, 

 problems of comparative philology, nor can they be regarded as 

 minor problems, inasmuch as the whole structure of linguistic science 

 ultimately rests upon their correct solution. And yet a discussion of 

 even a select number -of such special problems seemed both impos- 

 sible and unsuited to the present occasion. For, extending over 

 a great variety of languages, they would require for their adequate 

 presentation the combined labor of many specialists. On the other 

 hand, their very nature would restrict an interest in them to a 

 comparatively small number, as their discussion would, of necessity, 

 have to be of a very technical character. But since these lectures are 

 addressed, I take it, to a wider audience, I have selected a number 

 of problems which are more general, and I shall endeavor to discuss 

 briefly some general problems and tendencies of linguistic thought, 

 which by influencing the methods of investigation, determine, to 

 a considerable extent, the manner in which special problems present 

 themselves for treatment, the point from which their objects are 

 viewed, and the way in which they are grouped and correlated. 



In his division of the comparative study of language, Schleicher 

 distinguished between the "historical" and the "grammatical" 

 application of the comparative method to a group of cognate lan- 

 guages. And the contrast between these two as to the ultimate 

 purpose and end for which the comparative method is used is, even 

 now, so important for a proper valuation of the results achieved that 

 I cannot forego dwelling briefly upon it. The difference may perhaps 

 be summed up in these words, that in its last aims Schleicher's 

 "historical" method is reconstructive, while his "grammatical" 

 method is* interpretative. In taking Bopp as representative of the lat- 

 ter, I do not, of course, refer to his attempt at explaining the origin 

 of those forms which express grammatical relations (or, in simple 

 words, the origin of inflection), but rather to what he considered a pre- 

 liminary step toward the solution of this problem, namely, the com- 

 parative description of the organic structure of the Indo-European 

 languages. In fact Bopp's lasting importance does not lie in the 

 attempted solution of the riddle of inflection, but in what his com- 

 parative method allowed him to do for each individual and con- 

 crete language embodied in his Compendium. By it he was enabled 

 "to extend his gaze beyond the narrow confines of a single lan- 

 guage and to group its facts, in the light of all the cognate mem- 

 bers of the same family, so as to bring system and organic con- 

 nection into the linguistic material presented by each individual 



