46 
Thus we see all these sources of 
the English language concentrating 
by gradual steps into the Sanscrit, 
one of the oldest languages of Cen- 
tral Asia, which has spread its 
branches all over the globe. Being 
the original language of that race of 
men, fathers of the Hindus, Per- 
sians, Europeans, and Polynesians. 
All the affinities between English 
and Sanscrit, are direct and striking, 
notwithstanding many deviations 
and lapse of ages. While those be- 
tween the English and other primi- 
tive languages, such as Chinese, 
Mongol, Arabic, Hebrew, Coptic, 
Berler, &c. are much less in num- 
ber and importance; being probably 
derived from the natural primitive 
analogy of those languages with the 
Sanscrit itself, when all the langua- 
ges in Asia, were intimately con- 
nected. 
Many authors have studied and 
unfolded the English analogies with 
many languages; but few if any have 
ever stated their numerical amount. 
Unless this is done we can never 
ascertain the relative amount of mu- 
tual affinities. It would be a very 
laborious and tedious task to count 
those enumerated in Webster’s Dic- 
tionary. My numerical rule affords 
a very easy mode to calculate this 
amount without much trouble. 
Thus to find the amount of affini- 
ties between English and Latin, let 
us take 10 important 
dom in each. 
words at ran- 
Wr. Eng. 
Sp. Eng. 
Latin. 
Woman 
Vumehn 
Femina. 
ft Water 
Yuater 
Aqua. 
t Earth 
Erth 
Terra. 
f God 
God 
Deus. 
ft Soul 
Sol 
Anima. 
One 
Uahn 
Unum. 
ft House 
Haus 
Domus. 
f Moon 
Muhn 
Luna 
Star 
Star 
Aster. 
ft Good 
Gud 
Bonus. 
We thereby find 3 affinities in 10 
or 30 per cent, as many analogies or 
semi affinities marked t equal to 15 
per cent, more, and 4 words or 40 
per cent, have no affinities. This will 
probably be found a fair average of 
the mutual rate in the Old English; 
but the modern has received so many 
Latin synonyms as to exceed perhaps 
this rate. 
Of these analogies, it is remarka- 
ble, that most are not direct from 
the Latin, or even through the 
French; but are of Saxon origin, 
which had them with the Latin pre- 
viously. 
Thus the affinities between the 
English and Greek or Russian, are 
derived through the Pelagic and 
Thracian, unless lately adopted. 
Boxhorn and Lipsius first noticed 
the great affinities of words and 
grammar between the Persian and 
German dialects: 25 German wri- 
ters have written on this. But Wes- 
ton in a very rare work printed at 
Calcutta in 1816, on the conformity 
of the English and European lan- 
guages with the Persian, has much 
enlarged the subject, and has given 
as many as 480 consimiiar words be- 
tween Persian and Latin, Greek, 
English, Gothic, and Celtic; but he 
has not stated the numerical amount 
of these affinities. All this is not sur- 
prising since the Iranians or Per- 
sians were also a branch of Hindus, 
and this language a child of the Zend, 
a dialect of the Sanscrit. Hammer 
has found as many as 560 affinities 
between German and Persian. 
But the late work of Col. Kenne- 
dy, Researches on the origin and 
affinity of the principal languages of 
Asia and Europe, London, 1828, 4to. 
is the most important as directly 
concerning this investigation; not- 
withstanding that he has ventured 
on several gratuitous assertions; and 
has many omissions of consequence. 
Kennedy states that the Sanscrit 
has 2500 verbal roots, but only 566 
have distinct meanings; while each 
admitting of 25 suffixes they form 
60,000 words, and as they are sus- 
ceptible of 958 increments, as many 
as 1,395,000 words may be said to 
exist in this wonderful language. 
Yet out of these 2500 roots, as 
many as 900 are found by Kennedy 
