31G 
REPORT —1847. 
notion under the same emission and intonation of voice, and blending boA 
for the mind as well as the ear and the eye, into one or^nized whole, m- 
posed, as it were, both of an etymological and a phonic arsis and thma 
more fit to exercise the synthetic and artistic capabilities of the human inta- 
lect, of which moreover it favours the developmcmt, by perfecting what imt 
be called the oh^eclivc beauty of language, inasmuch as, through tlm varru; 
union of a series of miflivcs with one unchanging root, it endms 
of infie.xion with the apiiearance of vital activity. Tlic other method, w < 
gives distinct breath and accent to each incidental notion, j 
the cor|K>real and intellectual eye is constantly reue'ung that tliracult p 
cess of tho understanding, through whicli the primitive root, which ainp 
involved a full sentence, has decomposed itself into its logical elcmts ^ 
is better calculated for the exercise of the analytical and , 
powers of the intellect, and as it prevents the meaning even of the s p®*. 
imitative sound from being obscured, servos to quicken the 
each minute member of the sentence, and thus to augment the 
force of tho. language. i .i, Tri* 
Aud now whicli oftliese two methods is tlie more micient? ** 
tonic languages it is certain that the analytical tendency which non , 
nates in tiieir etymological department is not the primitive j. j, 
it is not found hi their most ancient dialect, the Gothic, which has 
the synthetic habits of the Sanscrit and tlie Latin: and hence, 
guage in u’hich the analytical method of dcelensicm and conjugation m ^ 
observed, it baa been suspected by modern philology to bo the ^ 
corapo&ition. Hut the case is different with the Celtic, which by’ j- 
structure, as well .as by its history, lays claim to a much Ingbcr m ^ 
than the Teutonic, and reaches back to an epoch in the history o _ 
speech anterior, ns we may infer from philosophical uousidcralion^ 
of the synthetic principle represented by the Sanscrit, aud 
analytical principle must have [irevailed. This conclusion i* h’“y 
and confinnod as a fairt, by one of the greatest discoveries of L fi 
logy, that of the Old Egyptian. This language, at the same , 
shows ill a considerable portion of its grammatical features— 
formation of roots, tho choice and specification of their meaiuug, ^ 
system of conjiigntinn—a decided primitive affinity to the 
other manifests an almost total absence of the obser\-ances of 
synlhesis, so systematically carried nut by tlie younger 
that the rlecomposition which has taken place in the Teutonic ^ 
with relenmcc to the Sanscrit, is, with reference to die more ancisc 
tongue, only a kind of rolurii to their original slate. And I 
that Ibis return has been eflected uot more bv their insUnctive , 
recover the lost perception of the nieaniiig of most of the iiicmen 
than by tho influence of the Celtic, which in all its uon-Sanscntic 
most strikingly eorrespouds with the Old Egyptian. 
This correspondence refers first, to a considerable number oi Ijj- 
and word.s, which, as far as I am aware, belong exclusively to thosv’ 
guages; e.ff. 
ra, stm. 
— aah, unxm. 
— siw, star. 
Ir. la, day. 
mas, to suchlcy youvg, child. 
mirsvngy 
