157 
Greek helps itself to plenty of Turanian words : rovcfrefci, gun, 
a^kvri, master, from Turkish, are examples. So 
the Shemitic Syriac has no difficulty in borrowing and adopting 
from Aryan Greek not only such words as ».mn Aflj nm avy- 
k\7]T0 ?, j^cmo Q -^\^ V^'MO'o-ofcofAov, but even such a particle as 
a P ? an d the Hamite Coptic can assimilate not only words 
from Shemitic Hebrew, but also Aryan Greek — CUDSU.&. aco^a, 
‘4'*X H ty u XV> C’TO^nH crroXrj , ^(Jjp^v In the same 
way the Aryan Persian has introduced and appropriated a large 
vocabulary of pure Shemitic (Arabic) words; and the Turanian 
Turkish has done the same to such an extent, that the Osmanli 
of the capital is scarcely intelligible to the Turkish peasant from 
the country, I his easy adoption of foreign and unfamiliar words 
seems to prove that there is not that difficulty of blending which 
would be sure to characterize languages specifically and radically 
different. Were the difference such between the Aryan and 
Shemitic, the Modern Persian would be no more possible than 
a breed between a trilobite and a batrachian. 
II. Further, we are often startled at finding in the vocabu- 
laries of extremely different languages traces of similar roots, 
and remarkable coincidences of words. A great many of these 
may be allowed to be mere coincidences ; a great many more 
may be really borrowed either by one from the other, or by both 
from the same source. But still the phenomenon remains ; there 
will still be a residuum of similarities which can be best explained 
by the doctrine of a common origin. Thus the Coptic verb 
TAKO f to perish, corrupt,’ is perhaps borrowed from the Greek 
rrj/ca ), but it looks very like a derivative from an earlier common 
origin, goq f a serpent,’ is exactly like the Greek o<f>is ; but if 
a borrowed word it would be spelt with the c|> phi: its having 
the non- Greek letter C| fei, and the ^ hori prefixed for the 
spiritus lenisy seems to prove, that (unless we suppose it came 
fiom Egyptian into Greek) the two words are derivatives from a 
common root, prior to the distinction between Hamitic and 
Aryan. (The Shemitic has a fuller form from the same root • 
Arab, ^1, Heb. So, comparing Coptic with Hebrew, 
the word 10AA for D^, f sea,’ maybe a borrowed one; but JLiOOT, 
‘ water,’ is a word as old as the time of Moses, whose name is 
derived (probably) from AAOOY OY2C6 , f water-saved,’ and can 
scarcely be the Hebrew . It must be a growth from a prior 
