206 MAJOR C. RB: CONDER, B.E., D:C.L., Ti.D., MOR-ALS., 
forms of the various main divisions. This enquiry has often 
been attempted in a fragmentary manner, and very remarkable 
results have been noted. ‘Thus Egyptian has been seen to 
present similarities to both Aryan and Semitic speech. 
Chinese has been said to be comparable with both Mongolic 
and Aryan languages in some of its words. The identity 
of roots Aryan and Mongolic has been indicated by 'Tomas- 
chek and Donner. The Saree between certain Aryan 
and Semitic roots were carefuily (though not always correctly ) 
recorded by Gesenius; the connection of Akkadian and 
Chinese was indicated by Lenormant, while others have seen 
in the Akkadian an Aryan element; and others, again (fol- 
lowing Halévy), have denied that it is anything more than a 
Semitic language. Are we to suppose that in each case the 
scholars in question—who were all trained linguists, and not 
mere dabblers in language—have been misled by a few 
chance coincidences ? or, may we not rather be led to suspect 
that some real connection does exist, binding together 
Janguages which, however different in structure, were once 
spoken in parts of Asia not far distant from each other ? 
Against such a view two main objections are raised. First 
that the resemblances are accidental, or due to the same 
causes leading to like results in ndependent cases. Secondly, 
that the similarities are due to the interchange of foreign, or 
“Joan” words, between various and originally distinct 
languages. It is certain that an apparent similarity often 
disappears when we trace back the words to their oldest 
forms, and it is also certain that from a very early time the 
trading relations, which bound the various civilised peoples 
together, led to the interchange of many foreign words for 
foreign objects; but while these circumstances should render 
us very cautious in research, they do not suffice to dispose 
of the main question. It becomes a matter of careful study 
to ascertain how far these resemblances are traceable in the 
earliest radical forms of the oldest languages, and how far 
they are concerned with common objects and ideas, which it 
is not natural to suppose would have been expressed by 
foreign words. As regards independent adoption of like 
words, while it is easy to imagine that simple sounds—imita- 
tive of natural ones—might so appear in languages not 
really connected, the same cannot be said when more 
developed roots, and parts of speech, are found to be common 
to the various great stocks. 
My only claim to speak on such a subject lies in the fact 
