298 
REPORT— 1847. 
fonnations. There is a further development, but that development doesaol 
run in the Semitic line, In the Semitic formations, the copula is constanik 
expressed by the pronominal form (//«), whereas the Iranian, as well bj tk 
Turanian, therefore all Japhetic languages, have already the more absma 
and therefore more advanced verbal form (to hf). In this decisive cb- 
ractcritftic those African tongues side with the Japhetic. Andsotlitv i 
in the whole system of eonjugntion in oppositiou to the Semitic conjogtiwi 
as explained al>ove. As tho American and, Id a certain maimer, all Tuna* 
languages are distinguished by their system of incorporatiou, aud in iwii* 
cular of agglutination of wonU, t'»gcthBr with tliat of postposition; d® 
theate African idioms bear the typo of prefixes and indicate the coagrutw* 
of the |>arts of speech by changes in the initials of the words. Lepsiu* J^^ 
liminai*)' ubscrvntions r(*?tpectitig the two latiguages of tlie Upper Nile, dk 
covered and analysed by him, lead to the supposition, that they too repraat 
a dwidedly greater advancentent than the Egyptian. 
1 ho ulterior (piestion then will be, Jjave tiln^‘C languages (in form wa® 
matter) through the ChumUtic formation? And if so, is their prinun 
formation reducible directly to Asiatic Chamisra, or have they passed thwup 
the Egyptian ? 
feel unable to answer these (|uesfion 3 . The combined progressed! 
study ot thr language oi‘ Egypt and of lJio.se of central and southern Afn» 
^ ycai's, enable us to see clearly on this point. 
Nor do we undertake to answer the question whether tiiat wreck of « 
,M,„vMugy, iromu general point ot view, is in us iniaiicy. 
merit coiisists in liaving given us n tunic diotionaiy, that is to say, adiewn^ 
which dot‘8 indeed deserve tliat name, an alphabetic collection of sounds, w 
a system of signs. JJut the execution of this laudable plan is verj' defe«;^ 
ihe object of real jihilology must be to classify,with the necessary regsro; 
the accent, the nuinherlcbs significations of a full root or syllable, in 
inanoer that the primitive significations may be discovered; for, as w «* 
case still 111 the Egyptian, one sound comprises generally many roots m 
apparently I Jeiitical, but originally different. The ancient style ought w ht 
consulted fur this purpose, if not exclusively, at least most parocuUd' 
IreatlUff 1 Q tins innnnu.. f,\m ___ i /.i.-..-/...nnn J)> 
.p .. . .. f-—II uut exclusively, . 
fKr. ^ manner for instonce, the roots nffh (the pronouny^ ^ 
■ * ' moo), the original 
.. SUI It 
mfo /‘V* mother (Joo anil moo), tne ongmiu 
raeamug of the two words will bo easily ascertained, and the signifi®^ 
eci c, ^pe*ak, speaking for lead to .the natural origin of the p*^ 
mina^ signihcalion. Nor is it less important to discover the origiwl 
nunciation and tbo phonetic rules of that Ungiiage. Endlicher has bc«« ^ 
nrst, in his Chinese grammar, to consult the language on this point. 
thinking, that a system of tranRcriptions in Latin 
g I 0 H introduced in the tonic dictionarv as well as in the 
and the ancient texts published in the some ilmnncr. The pbUolog«»l * 
literature would thus bec^ 
Inm,.;.; ^ ‘r ' p'^'^sophical and comparative study of that most 
thafw?'^' being taken up by general scholars in 
arfJr r ® comparison of roots; a'thoiigb 
CbinTJ fnh f"/r historical study oi‘ the signs by the 
peculiar *‘*‘.'''dl also contribute much to the real understanding of 
peculiar formation. The study of the Tibetan or Bliotiya language, 
