SECTION II.

PHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS OF THE EGYPTIAN VOCABULARY: THE PLACE OF KHAMISM AS TO THE FORMATION OF STEMS AND ROOTS.

A.

THE MORE DEFINITE PURPORT OF THE PROBLEM.

I.

ACTUAL STATE OF RESEARCH

INTO THE FORMATION OF EGYPTIAN AND SEMITIC ROOTS.

EVERY Sound student of the philosophy of language will admit that the foregoing grammatical inquiry precludes the presumption of the result being the effect of accident. Single foreign words may be introduced, but not grammatical forms. The notion, therefore, of the coincidences in grammar being due to any other cause than a community of origin, both as regards history and family affinity, is quite inadmissible.

It is

lamentable to see philologers of repute and merit struggling to evade this conclusion, and sheltering themselves behind negative formulas about the fundamental diversity of the great families of language, and similar arbitrary assumptions. If they argued only on these grounds against an unscientific method of treating the subject, they would be perfectly justified. But they seem not to be aware that they are themselves guilty of the utmost disregard to science, not to say of thoughtlessness, when they admit the fact, but demur to the conclusion, because their philosophical knowledge of language leaves them in the lurch. From the moment we see that grammatical forms are merely the earliest roots, the real meaning of which is lost, or at all events obscured by

the progressive steps in language, this is tantamount to saying that the roots of words in the two associated languages which we have compared are the same from the beginning. But this also necessitates the admission of the historical unity of the whole raw material of language. There is no fact, to a certain extent, of so personal a character as the conversion of a full root into a formative word or letter. A foreign race may adopt single words, but not forms. For forms have no signification, except for the language in which they are stamped: they do not denote separate things, but rather relations, which are repeated at every breath and in every sentence. Numerals only may be an exception at certain stages of development, inasmuch as they are not connected with the other forms, are used almost always arbitrarily, and but seldom.

On the above well-established proposition all true philology, as founded by the Germans at the beginning of this century, is based. But, upon a closer examination into the linguistic facts as now before us, the assumption that grammatical forms are pure matters of fancy, and had no original meaning, will turn out to be illogical and unhistorical. We find suffixes and all other formative particles growing out of stems which have an essential value, just as objectively as flexion grows out of suffixes. It is, lastly, a symptom of obsolete narrowmindedness, for a philologer to admit the relation of mother and sister languages, but refuse to adopt it in more remote stages. Languages are allowed to have a mother and sister, but not a primitive grandmother. The only reason for this is, that such theories have been formed one-sidedly upon the basis either of the Semitic or Iranian languages, or at most of the two together; and more especially because, owing to the prevalence of the Indomania, the Arian, which is the youngest of all formations, was treated as the oldest. It is not to be expected of such eminent and meritorious

scholars as Pott, that they should extend their field of view to the vast domain of Asiatic languages: but, with so many linguistic facts before them, they may be expected to abstain from applying generally formulas which have only grown up in that narrow field, and which cease to be true when pushed beyond those limits. Here again the course we have been pursuing for fifty years is the only correct one, but we must pursue it throughout. This will require a more thorough historical philosophy of language, as well as an extension of philological research, especially as regards Egypt. Unfortunately there have been as yet no speculative philosophers with a sufficient knowledge of etymology to bring the laws of the formation of language within the sphere of their observation, and but few men of philological science who are familiar with the general laws of mind and its creations, and who have investigated thought as such in its own proper domain.

The right mode of conducting an historical work like the present, seems to me to be that adopted throughout -to let facts which have been philologically sifted speak for themselves, by bringing them within the focus of historical investigation.

The first step therefore, in such an analysis, must be that of the process of formation of the Egyptian vocabulary. We possess a sufficient number of Old Egyptian words about which there is no doubt, to enable us to take a closer view of what this process actually was. It is true that this requires much preliminary study, and I will mention here what my own have been in order to prepare myself for the task.

Upon the basis of the dictionary in the first volume, which contains the most numerous list of Egyptian words in existence, and which have been thoroughly tested by hieroglyphical research, availing myself also of the new words which have been discovered since its publication, have, in the first place, made a collection of such

stems and roots as express an idea.

Interjections have

accordingly been excluded as being obviously composite words, and all strictly proper names of animals, plants, and minerals. These latter were unquestionably originally pure qualificative words, but their meaning is for the most part lost, as it is indeed in most cases in our own mother tongues. Exclusive of these, there remained about 450, which were given in the alphabetical list in the first volume. Since then the untiring energy of my friend Mr. Birch has enabled me to double the number. Thus, after omitting whatever does not belong to this comparative collection, we possess a mine of hieroglyphical treasure hitherto not even dreamed of for the comparative vocabulary. This will be found in the following volume.

As regards myself, I have arranged these old Egyptian words according to the stages of formation which they indicate, and this is the basis on which I proceed in the following philosophical analysis. I begin with the pure vocalised syllables, and then go on to their consonantal development in the pure syllable with a vowel termination. By this means I arrive at the impure syllable which begins with a vowel and ends with a consonant. Etymologists are aware that, strictly speaking, the pure syllable alone represents the consonantal roots which were originally monosyllabic. But here the vowel must have the power of an independent breathing. We find, however, that it frequently changes in different gradations of higher and lower tone between A, I, and U, and is the floating element in the progressive process of formation of language.

From the monosyllabic (biliteral) stems and roots, we proceed to the dissyllables and then to the triliterals. There we enter upon the historical stage of the Semitic formation of words, and their vowels are consequently not taken into account, but considered as changeable combinations of accent with consonants.

There still remain the words which consist of four letters, the quadrilitteræ of the Semites, complete dissyllabic words.

From the limited space devoted to this subject here I cannot give this preliminary labour, nor the second, so indispensable as the complement of it, which I went through for the purposes of the present research; I mean the organic compendium of all the Hebrew roots. It is generally admitted that Professor Ernest Meyer of Tübingen has altogether failed in accomplishing this successfully, from taking a one-sided view. But there are also the preparatory studies of Professor Dietrich of Marburg, on the formation of Semitic roots, a synopsis of which was given in my "Outlines" by Dr. Paul Bötticher (de la Garde). These two works, together with the general grammatical researches of Ewald, and the lexicographical collections of Gesenius and Fürst, may suffice to convince every historical student of language, of the possibility of referring all triliteral to biliteral roots. But I feel warmly that this ought to be the next problem for science to solve, taking Egyptian as the basis. Dietrich has attempted to illustrate the laws of the formation of quadriliteral roots out of triliteral. I entertain no doubt, however, from my compendium of all the triliteral roots, that it offers fewer difficulties as to research, but requires a more thorough philosophy of language to prove the most interesting point of all, namely, that the triliteral roots were first formed out of the biliteral. The fact itself I consider beyond all doubt. My studies, however, have convinced me of three important points:

First, That our success here depends upon starting from what is called the historical Semitic, as Ewald stated long ago:

Secondly, That in this particular the Egyptian is more important than the Arian: and

Thirdly, That in some of their roots the Arian lan