158 
REPORT—1847. 
principles upon which his arrangement proceeded. He belie^•ed then, as he 
believes now, that, making certain allowances for the extension of the u]du^ 
tion, either consciously or unconsciously on the part of the author, the prin¬ 
ciples upon which the majority of the languages of Europe, as well as those 
of a large portion of Asia, are arranged and classified, have been the principle* 
for the classification of all other languages. The distinct conception which 
a philologist entertains ot the points of likeoGas and the points of difference 
between those members ot that great division of languages which he is la the 
habit of calling LidQ-Euroiaan, regulates his views as to the value of the 
affinities ordiscref>ancifrs between other languages; so that, where he attend 
to classify at all, he asks the following questions; —Are the langnapes with 
which I arn dealing os like as the most unlike langHagesi comjiared under 
t le term Indo* Hurnpeun ? Is the difference between them less or greater thu 
that between the Portuguese and Icelandic, the Persian and German, th* 
Greek and Gaelic ? Questions like these give him the rule by wliich be me*- 
sures differences, and riotcrniines the value of di visions; and the rule, although 
a rough one, is the best which u'l; jiosscss in the present .--tate of our philology, 
j g*'o>^P higher than the one terniod Indo-European exists under any 
^nnite recognized Uenouiiimtion, languages wliich are nut comprised within 
other at H ^**'^^* Jivisioiw are in no asmiairnd degreo of relationship toeaeh 
Again, just ns wc regulate our views of the higher classifications by thekoown 
affinities between the different languages of the Indo-European family, iod-i 
we, in respect to the minor groujifl and subordiuate subdivisions, detemiinr 
our notions from those classes which we know by the names of Gothic, Celtic, 
ftiavonie, &c.;^ so that in asking whethej’ two language* belong to the same 
ivisjon of a given group, wo ask whether they arc os like each other a« (say) 
the modern Greek and Portuguese, the Swiss and Icelandic; in other wonls, 
whether they are aa like ouch other as the two most distant dialects of 
gothic stock of Jaiiguagca respectively. This, again, al¬ 
though a convenient rule, isf rough und empirical. 
nnA ^ ’ ^ oxteni to which particular languages stand alone 
recognized relationship with other longues, the posi- 
Riirii nf toI ^*^1'^*^ of Biscay forces itself upon our notice as amea- 
least 1 a^iil!Stion,“ phiMogical isolation ; or, if not as a measure,at 
Eiminp afford the same philological phenomenon that is afforded by 
Indo.Emop?armTSicV"“®'‘“^^^ l^elonging to groups so different as the 
phtenomenon that is afforded by Europe iii 
^ The exffint i"“'‘ language like the Basque?^ 
Questions is til the mvwtIgaUoim of learned mm have answered these 
the like oftbem^K^-* of the forthcoming pages; such questions, and 
it beinir tn ffir. ’ staple subjects of ethnographical philology; and 
vok? of I^guages was fi«t in- 
The alnh-dw^nf!! w* philology is a more indirect instrument 
lologv is reniiislii countries are ethnographical facts; and ph«* 
onl/wlien wp «rpf Jhrni- In African cthnolosv, however, it 
-/requires” 
fewest couipiSS^'k' is the locality where there aw the 
lust in the present arra,} ^yPtj Barbary and Abyssinia coue 
P anaiJgement These are the points where Africa coniM’** 
