ON THE COMPARISON OF ASIATIC LANGUAGES. Dae 
pronoun, ANT, may have arisen in the same manner from the 
demonstrative Te, Ze, Se, which is common to Aryan and 
Mongolic speech, as meaning “thou.” 
The particles which form the cases of the noun, are in 
like manner very widely distributed with small variation of 
meaning, and thei origin is traceable in Akkadian and 
Egyptian. The commonest come from the roots BU, “to 
Deze AL torise > RA.“ toego (2 NA, to walk 7 AN) to 
breathe,” to which the Aryan and Semitic, with the Egyptian, 
add the less common TAR, “to pass” or “reach.” The 
particle AD, “to” or “at,” whence the Assyrian adi and the 
Akkadian ta, may arise from the old root DA, “to move.” 
On such simple foundations the system of particles, which 
form so material an element in civilised speech, appears 
gradually to have arisen, with innumerable modifications and 
changes in various languages, The early demonstratives 
alone enable us to see that such words do not of necessity 
involve a primary separation, but rather indicate a primary 
connection of all the great Asiatic groups. 
There is, I believe, nothing very new or heretical in such 
a proposition. The method of development, which is the 
same throughout, has been separately followed by scholars 
in the various languages, and the similarities of both roots 
and particles has often been pointed out. Dr. Isaac Taylor 
has been the first boldly to claim an ultimate connection 
between Finnic and Aryan languages, and has given many 
cogent reasons for his view which have not been met. Quite 
recently, I believe, at the Oriental Congress of 1891, the 
similarities of Egyptian to Aryan and Semitic speech have 
again been pointed out, and though I have not had the 
advantage of reading what was then said, these comparisons 
are so evident that they must strike every enquirer. But 
what is more interesting is that Egyptian often supplies the 
link between words which might otherwise be thought to 
have no connection. ‘Thus, for instance, MAR means “to 
die” in Aryan languages, but in Semitic speech the root is 
MAT. Atanearly period when R and T were not distin- 
guished, these roots might be the same. In Egyptian we 
find both mer and met for “to die,” and it is not conceivable 
that for such an idea a foreign word would be used. The 
root MAR means “to crumble” or “ decay,” and in this sense 
is not unknown in Semitic speech, 
Dr. Isaac Taylor’s proposition is, however, capable of 
greater development than that of his original publication. 
