1860.] Is the "Puslito a Semitic Language ? 345 



compared with vi^U (mát) " broken ;" which again reminds one strongly 

 of two difficult French words bearing the same relation to one 

 another, viz. chasser " to hunt" and casser " to break." 



Frequently the Pusbto preserves the simple form of Persian com- 

 pounds : c^Lw^ " to send" is evidently compounded with the San- 

 skrit y ; but the Persian o>¿U«*j| means " to stand" whilst the Pushto 

 ásta-wul (wul is the Infinitive termination of transitive verbs) is 

 " to send ;" d¿iU<J| (componnded with the frequent Sanskrit abhi = 

 o|) " to scatter" has no simplex in Persian, but in Pushto " to 

 scatter" is J^-U» (shandal) ; ^J^Lió " to fix in the ground," com- 

 pounded with the Sanskrit inseparable preposition ni, has no simplex 

 in Persian, but in Pushto J^s-f- (shakh-awul) is " to bury." 



Such instances might be very largely multiplied, but only a few 

 have been hastily culled, without much order, with a view, not to 

 exhaust the subject, but rather not to weary the reader who may 

 take a greater interest in the general philological question than in 

 the Pushto language partieularly ; and these instances will at least 

 show that a language cannot be Semitic which is so intimately con- 

 nected in its lexical store (grammatieal forms there is no room in 

 this paper to discuss) with the prominent members of the Indo- 

 European family of languages, and that in words not such as could 

 be borrowed from another language, but such necessary every-day 

 terms as form the staple of every language, and such as every tribe 

 and nation, in their separation from the parent stock, take with them 

 as a common inheritance. 



Peshawur, August, 1860. 



