ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA.

Page 53. line 2. from bottom, before "invention" insert "the."

54. line 8. for " book ii." read "book xi."

55. line 9. for "lib. i." read "lib. ii."

92. line 13. after “accusative" add “distinguished by distinct terminations, the dative and ablative being included in the genitive."

129. note, for "Wilkinson" read "Rawlinson."

249. line 12. from bottom, for "Proculus" read "Proclus."

342. last line, after " Egyptian," for "J" read "I."

418. line 11. from bottom, for "inscriptions" read "inscription."

INTRODUCTION.

1. In the present advanced state of philological knowledge, any man about to make an addition to the mass which is already so vast, may very reasonably be asked what end he proposes to himself, and by what means he intends to effect it; and, unless he can return a satisfactory answer to both questions, he can hardly expect that his work will be attended to, when he observes the various new productions which the press pours forth every day with such increasing profusion, most of which, while they make fewer demands on the time and attention of the reader, are likely to afford him more entertainment and gratification than a work that is merely philological.

2. The present work was undertaken under a conviction that most of the philological treatises which have been given to the world, up to this time, have failed, because they have been founded on too narrow a foundation of fact; because their authors have written as if there were no other languages in existence than the Greek and Latin, or at any rate as if they were the only ones deserving the notice of scholars, and have drawn all their examples and illustrations from them accordingly. Believing that the Baconian method of reasoning is as applicable to philology as to physics; that the obscurities with which the subject of language is in a peculiar manner beset, could be dispelled in no other way than by concentrating all the rays of light that can be collected from every attainable source however remote; and that no mode of safety was to be found except by consulting a multitude of counsellors; I have anxiously looked about in every direction in

which such guides might be expected to present themselves, and my attention has been attracted more especially to the East.

3. A little reflection on the subject convinced me beyond the power of doubt, that all the assistance has not been derived from the languages of Asia, in elucidating those of Europe, which they are capable of affording; and further consideration suggested the possibility that I might effect something myself, that I might at least point out the true road, though I could not expect to make any considerable advances in it, and collect materials for a foundation to be laid at a future period by stronger and abler hands. I was well aware that many of the great philologists of the last and the preceding century, as well as those nearer our own times, Scaliger, Vossius, Schultens, Valckenaer, Ruhnken, Lennep, and Hemsterhuys, were familiarly acquainted with most of the Shemitic languages; but I was also aware that the labours of Halhed, Jones, Colebrooke, and Wilkins, by laying open the stores of knowledge contained in the Sanskrit, constituted a new era in philology, and that a boundless extent of country was unfolded not to be commanded by the highest point of that Pisgah occupied by the distinguished scholars comprised in the first list.

4. Of these Lennep produced a work expressly devoted to the etymology of the Greek language, and Hemsterhuys attempted to prove that all the words in that language might be derived from a very limited number of primitive roots*:

*This was a favourite theory seventy or eighty years since, when Adam Smith published his "Considerations concerning the first Formation of Languages," and perhaps one more utterly unfounded was never conceived. In that work the following passage occurs: "The Greek seems to be, in a great measure, a simple uncompounded language, formed from the primitive jargon of those wandering savages, the ancient Hellenians and Pelasgians, from whom the Greek nation is said to have been descended. All the words in the Greek language are derived from about three hundred primitives; a plain evidence that the Greeks formed their language almost entirely among themselves, and that when they had occasion for a new word, they were not accustomed, as we are, to borrow it from some foreign language, but to form it either by composition or derivation from some other word or words in their own."

and yet I think it is a point susceptible of demonstration, that a large proportion of the words in the Greek language are not primitive to that language, but derivative; and that of those which up to this time have been in an especial manner selected as its radicals, few will be found deserving of that character, as they are neither roots, nor do they exist in a simple state, but are on the contrary clearly compounds, the component parts of which may be pointed out and traced to their true origin. I know no better mode of imparting my ideas to my reader, and inducing him to partake of my conviction, than by stating the way in which that conviction was attained, which I will do as briefly as is consistent with clearness.

5. I shall commence by giving a few words from such of the Shemitic languages as I am acquainted with, which have passed into the Greek and Latin; and an attentive reader cannot fail to perceive, not only that the terminations of the Asiatic words are varied in the derivative languages, but that they are all varied in precisely the same way.

6. The first impression on my mind is one of surprise, that the Greek and Latin appear to have borrowed so few words from the Shemitic languages, widely as these languages are diffused over western Asia; for though many words might be added to the preceding lists, and I should experience no difficulty in doing so myself, still the coincidences are so few as may serve to convince us that we have not discovered the birthplace and the parents of the Greek and Latin. The next observation which can hardly fail to strike every one is, that the words adopted by those European languages from the Asiatic, are rarely found in their primitive state, the Greek being changed by the added terminations Os, As, E, and On; and the Latin by the terminations Us, Is, A, and Um. These additions appear to indicate a radical difference in the genius and character of the languages, which it is much easier to notice than to account for. The first and most obvious conjecture is, that these terminations of Greek and Latin words were added to the Asiatic roots as marks of gender; and if they had all been derived from the Persic, this idea would have carried much probability with it, as that language, like the English, Turkish, and Armenian, acknowledges no distinction of gender in words, but such as are founded on difference of sex: but in all the Shemitic languages, the Arabic, Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, Samaritan,