158 
root, from which was also formed. Tlie same must be said, 
I think, of the following coincidences, taken at random : 
C ff^Y D'Uttf (two). Cc|>OTOY O^Sip (lips). 
cxjJUlOYff POiDlp (eight). Ai.UJOY’T JTID (to die). 
HTT (to live, to be). 
Such a coincidence as that of ujUJTU , ‘ to be done ’ or f born,’ 
with the Aryan Teutonic f scippan, ‘ schaffen, our f shape 
(originally f to create ’), is perhaps fortuitous, — that is, I mean, 
does not spring from any identity of root But as instances of a 
number of singular similarities between Turanian and H ami tic 
we may compare the Coptic HI withTurkish^ (a house), £.?\OY 
with (a youth), g,0O with ol (a horse). 
The similarities of Shemitic and Aryan are innumerable : the 
most remarkable are pointed out in every good Hebrew, Syriac, 
Arabic, or ^thiopic Lexicon. I select at random half a dozen : 
( to roar’ (of bulls) .... ift our cow. 
T T 
‘ mountain ’ finft? opos. 
(hif ’il) ( to nourish ’ .... wq,Tpe<j>-t o. 
(nif’al), Syr. f to bend, kneel,’ ipr, yow, our knee. 
T13 f to divide ’ pars, part-is. 
— T 
nn3 (^s) ‘ to open’. . . . . . mr-avvviu, pat-eo. 
Again, the two negatives in' Turkish are and ^ . The ^ is 
perhaps the Arabic C ; but is it a mere coincidence that the 
Greek words are ovk and p^rj ? or that the Turkish for ‘ well is 
«d (pronounced ctyt, but written when the Greek is ev? Ho 
not such similarities point to a time and a tongue anterior to the 
separation of Aryan and Turanian ? But we may go a step 
further. On comparing other languages with Chinese, we find 
some strange similarities. A proportion of these may be, as I 
have said, mere chance resemblances in sound ; but some it will 
not be fanciful to consider as arising, in part at least, from unity 
of derivation. I take at random a few from the 214 radical 
forms (Grundsetzen) of the Chinese. 
jin , * a man,’ resembles Sanskrit s^T , e to know,’ and to 
produce ;’ as if t( the rational,” and “ the animal,” were to be 
