334 
REPORT—1847. 
For the termination he, used for the dative and accusative in Bengali, Dt, 
Stevenson brings forward the following analogies : ko in Hindi, Am in Telu^ 
gai in Singhalese, and gya or ge in Tibetan. He supposes this terminalioD 
to take its origin from the Marathi dative, lugi, derived from the terb 
Idgane, to come in conlaijt with, by changing the vowel, shaqwniiig tilt 
consonant, and omitting the first syllable Id, witich syllable serves agsiii a 
the sign ot the dative in other Indian languages. Even if we adinitteildw 
deri^^ation to be true, the word Idgane is a well-known Sanscrit rout, wkvl 
Dr. Stevenson is very well aware of. But how fond be is of the msI' 
chthunicai origin of tliese fornts, wc may sec from the following rctnut o' 
his : that this word Uigi itself, he says, may be derived from the S*o«w 
Js no objection whatever; for it may have been derived from a root »»■ 
inon to many languages, and be just as independent of the Brahmiainl 
tongue as our own word htg. 
1 here arc two methods of nccountiiig for grammatical elements vbuli 
occur in modern langnnges. The one may be culled the lingutdkok ibf 
other the hisiorical. 'J’he former consists in pointing ont analogits bviw® 
the loriii and meaning of inflectional oleiricntsin different languages of'hi 
same family, J hig method li«s generally been adopted and carried outsic 
Frof. llopp and his school. It is indeed the only possible 
thod in comparing the grajumatical forms of languages which liiatoricsi'J 
and geographically stand bo far the one from the other, as for insianct, tl|« 
(jcrmat) from the Sanscrit. In comparative researchesof this kinilith°W 
required to trace analogieg in the form and character of the elements, 
consutute tlio grammar of a language, and to show etvroologically the oriS" 
and tlie dcvelopmcntof these grammatical forms. Whetlicr the one Isnguf 
be anterior in iu formation, .md whether there existed a hisiorical connectior; 
betwetn them, is a question which originally has nothing to do wHfi *1''^ 
Jmguijitjcal inquiries. 
1 lie i^se however hecomes different when we compare langu*^^*' 
)is orical progress ol which we can follow through certain jwriodS' 
1 t f’^cussary to give to comparative inquiries as much as {sw’*’*® 
iibioricfti character, by trying to explain modern grammatical forms by 
eiemenu, vvhich were used, though in a different way, bv the same lana'iap 
n I s .nn^iior state, and to show if rjossible the period of transition froind* 
nu o the other. Thus in a comparative analysis of the modern 
graimuar u would be necessary first of all to have recourse to die ?«»•«>• 
I a iinuer winch the Persian language appears to us at certain hisior*^*! 
1. dm case that neither the grammar of the Pawndi^ 
r ^ V'’** *^’*'**‘ die Acbacmcnidian or Zend language furnidic*'^ 
Key tor the grauinwtirai forms of the modern Persian, it would be of imen** 
rh.. 1 oti'fer kindred languages. For it is certaialylf* 
ion ‘ cases, where a 
tn ..V I between two Jungiiages, it is notwitlistandlug impo***^ 
r fbrms of tiie one by those of the other, ^ 
“1"*^ the most unmistakcable analog 
vet wr.*!.! , opportunity is given, thebUtoricalnied^ 
the JUii *r languages, which have a historical growth, l>b 
linuui! ‘ ^ 1 *'^ die New German, See., the right of the roefdt 
oriuiu af*»l ^ eJiOOt-e the present case, the question about 
trastina i) accusative, as an opportunity fof 
> a linguistic jioint of view it is difficult to find an analogy ^ 
