seemed particularly desirable that this condensed sketch of the progress in linguistic methods should be made accessible to those who are not conversant with German philological literature, more especially to those who are desirous of subsequently devoting more attention to the subject. If this translation shall serve to awaken or strengthen an interest in the science which owes its origin as well as many of its most able representatives to Germany, I shall feel amply repaid for any time and labor spent upon it. A few words will suffice in explanation of the method I have pursued. My first aim was to render the sense of the German with the utmost possible accuracy, so that if I have erred, it has been on the side of too close adherence to the text of the original. In those instances where trivial alterations have been made, this has occurred with the knowledge and consent of the author, and the same is true of the very few notes I have ventured to add, which are always designated as the translator's. No one who has not made a similar attempt can realize the peculiar difficulties of transferring the German philological nomenclature to the English tongue, where certain of the technical terms, it is true, already have their recognized equivalents, but others are either differently rendered by different scholars, or are not represented at all in the language. In many cases where an important term could not be adequately translated, I have thought it only fair to introduce the German word in brackets. The titles of the German works quoted I have thought it more advisable to repeat in their original shape, since few of these works are translated, and for purposes of reference the German title would be necessary. Whenever Prof. WHITNEY has been quoted, I have naturally referred to his own book, instead of to JOLLY's German translation, and similarly, the extracts from BOPP's Analytical Comparison appear in their original English form, as well as the remarks of Sir WILLIAM JONES on page 1. Two or three of the longer sentences from CURTIUS' Grundzüge have been quoted in the English translation, in which case the page of the translation has been added in square brackets. In my transcription of Sanskrit words I have adopted the method recommended by Prof. WHITNEY in the "Proceedings of the American Oriental Society" for Oct. 1880, and used by him in his Sanskrit Grammar, which forms the second volume of this series; for Zend, HÜBSCHMANN's transcription, advocated by him in Kuhn's Zeitschrift, 24, page 328 seq., has been employed. In conclusion, I must express my heartiest gratitude to Prof. DELBRÜCK for the cordial sanction he has given to my undertaking, and above all, to Prof. SIEVERS, who was so kind as to read over the whole translation, and to offer many valuable hints and suggestions. Leipzig, Dec. 1881. E. CHANNING. CONTENTS. I. HISTORICAL PART, Chapters I-IV. CHAPTER I FRANZ BOPP, pages 1-26. 1. Bopp's views of the origin of inflection, 3-16. BOPP at first follows FRIEDRICH SCHLEGEL. Theory of the latter, 3-5. Bopp's theory in its first form, 5—9. Bopp's theory in its second form, 9-12. The third and final form, 12-15. 2. BOPP's method of comparing given languages, 16—25. Is Borr's mode of view that of natural science? His general views of language, 17-20. Bopp's conception of phonetic laws: a) mechanical laws (i. e. law of gravity), 20—21 ; b) physical laws, 21-23. Incompleteness of BOPP's system of phonetics, especially evident in his treatment of non-Indo-European languages, 23–24. Comprehensive estimate of BOPP, 25-26. CHAPTER II: BOPP'S CONTEMPORARIES AND SUCCESSORS DOWN TO WILHELM VON HUMBOLDT, 26-28. A. W. VON SCHLEGEL, 28-32. SCHLEGEL'S position toward BOPP, 29. LASSEN's critique, 30-31. JACOB GRIMM, 32-34. A. F. POTT, 35-36. THEODOR BENFEY, 36. Development of linguistic science down to SCHLEICHER, 37-40. Progress in knowledge, 37-39; in method, 39-40. CHAPTER III: AUGUST SCHLEICHER, pages 40-55. HEGEL'S influence, 40-42. Influence of natural science, 42-44. SCHLBICHER's works, 44-45. Comparison between his views and Bopp's, 45-47. SCHLEICHER's parent speech, 48-53. SCHLEICHER not a scientist, but a philologist, 54-55. CHAPTER IV: NEW ENDEAVORS, pages 55-61. New endeavors are manifest in the following tendencies: 1) Less interest is felt in the history of inflection (i. e. the origin of forms in primitive periods of the parent speech), 56. 2) It is recognized that no composition of unfinished linguistic elements can take place in the individual languages, 57. 3) More rigorous demands are made upon phonetic laws. The view arises that phonetic laws admit of no exceptions, 60. In consequence of this, attention is especially drawn to formations by analogy, 60. Importance of modern languages, 61. II. THEORETICAL PART, Chapters V-VII. CHAPTER V: THE AGGLUTINATION THEORY, pages 61-102. Improbability of the other two theories which have thus far appeared: a) the evolution theory, in the form given it by WESTPHAL, 62-66; b) LUDWIG'S adaptation theory, 66-71. Bopp's theory supported by the analogy of other languages, 71-73. Thus the agglutination theory is recommended in principle. A special discussion follows: 1) roots, 73-85; 2) the noun, 85-92; 3) the verb, 92-99. Can we distinguish different periods in the primitive speech? 100. ASCOLI's hypothesis, 100-101. Concluding observations, 101–102. CHAPTER VI: PHONETIC LAWS, pages 102-130. Sketch of the views of G. CURTIUS. Three notions are prominent: 1) pho- netic laws; 2) analogy; 3) the influence of sense on sound. These are dis- 1. Influence of sense on the preservation of sound, 106–107. 2. Action of analogy, 107–113. Demarcation of the field, 108. Classi- 3. Phonetic laws, 113-130. Definition of the notion "phonetic change" as such, 113-115. The regularity of phonetic change cannot be inductively proved, 115-117. Hence a solution is sought deductively, 117-129. What are the causes of phonetic change? according to CURTIUS, WHITNEY, OST- HOFF, 117-120. More general theory, in agreement with BENFEY, 120. From this stand-point is shown: 1) how a language can split into dialects, 121–122; 2) how great a uniformity can be expected within the bounds of the dialect, 123-129. Fluctuations must be assumed for a state of transition, 123—124; but no permanent lack of uniformity in the treatment of sounds, 125-129. Comprehensive remarks on the notion and significance of phonetic laws, CHAPTER VII: THE SEPARATION OF THE RACES, pages 130–139. BOPP's view, 131-132. Theory of a genealogical tree, 132-134. "Wave- CHAPTER I. FRANZ BOPP. When FRANZ BOPP (born in 1791), the founder of comparative philology, began to devote his attention to Sanskrit, the statement that the language of the Brahmans was nearly related to the languages of Europe, especially to Latin and Greek, had been repeatedly made, and strengthened by a number of authentic proofs. Above all, Sir WILLIAM JONES, the first president of a society organized in Calcutta for the exploration of Asia, had, as early as 1786, expressed himself on this point as follows: "The Sanskrit language, whatever may be its antiquity, is of wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either; yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and in the forms of grammar, than could have been produced by accident; so strong that no philologer could examine all the three without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists. There is a similar reason, though not quite so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothic and Celtic, though blended with a different idiom, had the same origin with the Sanskrit." (Cf. BENFEY, Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft, page 348.) In the main coïncident with the above, but less correct in one point, are the opening sentences of FRIEDRICH SCHLEGEL'S celebrated book on the language and wisdom of the Hindus (Ueber die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier, Heidelberg, 1808): DELBRÜCK, Introduction to the Study of Language. 1 |