314 
REPORT— 1847. 
fragmentary and im^rfect, and in many of its parts not intelligible withouii 
comparison of the sister dialects. 
It will be known to most of niy hearers, that the Japhetic family ol 
guagoii, on which the labours of modern philology have been cMefly emiJoTtd 
and of which Bopp, in bb Comparative Grammurt may be said to 
the Hrat etymological antdysis, comprises, as exhibited * 
seven following djalecU—tlie Sanscrit, Old Persian, Greek, Laun, Liui* 
niaii, flctavonic and Tenlontc. It will be known perhaps that lu coe^ 
quence of the works of Dr. l*richanl and M. Pictet*, the Celtic bw, uua' • 
appearance of Hopp's Coni|>arative (jraitimar, been acknowledgeii m 
eighth of these sister languages, tlie entire circle of which, and thertoy'''' 
comparative undersuuiding of each of them, sceina thus complel^. li»» 
of the new light, which has been thrown upon this family by the 
ledgeraent of tlin Celtic as one of tliu Iiido-Teutonlc dialectic may 
be perceived in several works of modern philology, particulany 
edition of Bopp’s Dictionary. Due great prejudice however seems stul _ 
clinging to the scliool to which we owe the scientific deraonstranoD o 
affinity of the Celtic with Iho Sanscrit—intimately connected 
that very accuracy and soundness in its method of investigation lor ^ 
we admire it—which has hitherto prevented that demoustration 
yielding all the immense advantages which science had reason toe^ 
from it. I mean that tlio writers of thiH school are as .7*”^ kW 
down to regard the Sanscrit both as the hidtorical and philosnp i ^ 
plus nltni of the comparative grammar of the 
an exedusive system of minute references to this " Indo- reutomc 
tonguo,” as they call it, have lost sight of any stage of human 
pendent of, and perhaps anterior to the Sanscrit, which 
in one of its sister dialectr. In examining the Celtic, Pictet and nopP • 
discovered that this language, while in one portion of lU is 
it exhibits a systematic affinity with the Sanscrit, in another 
evident estrangement from it. But Pictet, instead of beginning his 
with a comparison of these two portions, vfhich he would thiw . 
form one inseparable living whole, limited himself to the analysis® ^ 
scritic portion, putting aside the other as a mere secondary 
result ns he supposed of accidental contact with one of the ^ 
language* ; and by so doing he placed himself in a position that 
but lead to a mUlftterpretatiori of many features of even the p,. 
tion. Bopp, on his part, though he did enter on the analysis 
Saiiscrilic portion, yet having confined his view to some isolated 
particularly the Irish declensioo—^ud having examined even these o. ^ 
the influence of his Saiiscritic propmsessioas, detected in them n® 
murilated and degenerated forms of his favourite tongue, whe^ ^^ 
have bceu that the Sanscrit, iu sereral of these very features whic ^ ^ 
lysed, exhibits, if not mutilated forms, at least the caput «ufriu 
Celtic element. ^ • 
Of th<! leading features in which the Celtic differs from ieps**" 
have alretuly mentioned anil explained one, belonging to the pao ^ ^ 
merit, namely, the transmutation of initials; another uyssii®* 
departini'iit is the transmutation of vowels, which is regula^ ) 
to, but much more fully developed than those which J „„ or, 
tion of primary and secondary vowels ( Uviklaug and Amm' 
Onmm, Umlaut and Ablaut') in the Teutonic. ^ feaiH*' 
Ihe moral principle of language in which originate both 
J Adinite dcs Langues Ccltiques avee le Sanscrit; par Adolphe 1^®'® 
courouud par i’Institut. Paris, 1 B 37 . 
