THE

METHODIST QUARTERLY REVIEW.

OCTOBER, 1841.

EDITED BY GEORGE PECK, D. D.

ART. I.-A Critical Grammar of the Hebrew Language. By ISAAC NORDHEIMER, Doctor in Philosophy of the University of Munich; Professor of Arabic, Syriac, and other Oriental Languages in the University of the City of New-York. In two volumes, 8vo. Vol. I, pp. 280. New-York: Wiley and Putnam. 1838. Vol. II, pp. 360. 1841.

THE attention which has been bestowed upon the study of languages during the last fifty years has produced great and important results. For it has been not merely the study of words and grammatical forms, but, in addition, an extended and comprehensive view of the general principles of language, of the changes it has undergone, and of the causes which have produced such diversities of speech in different nations. The investigations of the philologist have not been restricted, as was once the case, within the limits of the languages of ancient Greece and Rome; but every region of the earth has been penetrated, and the dialects of almost every nation or tribe brought to light and critically analyzed, for the purpose of discovering the primitive elements of speech. During no period in the history of literature have so much labor and research been bestowed upon long-mooted questions in philology, and at no time have so many attacks been made upon positions long since regarded as established. The result of the labors and investigations carried on within this period has been, if not the creation, at least the perfecting of the science of ethnography or comparative philology:-A science which has unfolded mysteries for the solution of which neither history nor tradition had afforded any clew; it has it has gone back further than the conjectures of fabulous or poetic history; it has traced the migrations of tribes, the revoluVOL. I.-31

tions of ages, and the genealogy of mankind, with a certainty no tradition could afford. For as Horne Tooke (the learned and ingenious author of the Diversions of Purley) says, “Language cannot lie; and from the language of every nation we may with certainty collect its origin."

To corroborate the Mosaic account of the creation and dispersion of mankind, early philologists had rested content with the hypothesis that all languages were resolvable into one, and that the Hebrew. This was a mere hypothesis, which their limited researches had by no means definitely established; consequently, upon the discovery of the numerous dialects of America, Africa, and Polynesia, its advocates were beset with difficulties seemingly insurmountable. Philologists, both Christian and infidel, were now abroad searching for all dialects, resolving them to their primitive elements, and seeking for the ultimate atoms from which all these varied inflections had been formed. Every day new languages were brought to light, and the difficulty of referring all to one, primitive and universally diffused, seemed proportionally to increase. The old philologist was driven from his point, and the unbeliever, placing confidence in untenable hypotheses or half-completed researches, exultingly proclaimed that here was another science which gave the lie to the divine records, and would allow the Mosaic history to be nothing more than a "significant mythus," or an illustrative fable. But infidelity in this, as in other similar instances, had come to premature conclusions. The decision was made before all the witnesses had been brought to the stand, even before half the languages of the world had been examined. And not only was the conclusion defective in this respect, but another great error existed in the manner in which the comparison of languages was made. Trifling and whimsical analogies of words merely had been discovered, and these, in a science which had, as yet, no settled principles of investigation laid down, were made to prove a near affinity between languages: so, on the other hand, a dissimilarity of sounds was thought to establish a radical difference.

This system of procedure was now to be changed. Discoveries had been made sufficient to show, that tracing affinities by such a method as this was entirely unphilosophical, and while it gave unbounded license for fanciful conjecture, at the same time it afforded no true principle for correct judgment. Words alone were

not to be compared, the external appearance of language was not to be the only object of study, but words in their arrangement and consecution were to be analyzed, and the internal structure of speech critically investigated. For there is an inherent tendency in language to change its vocal sounds, even while its grammar remains fixed and determinate. Hence, in proceeding upon the system of merely comparing a certain number of words, the philologist was liable at every stage of his progress to fall into errors. Thus the conclusions, to which many arrived as to the radical difference of the languages they had investigated, afforded the infidel ground for his denial of the Mosaic account of the peopling of the world from a single pair, and of the subsequent dispersion of mankind. For, he argued, if the whole world was originally "of one language and of one speech," whence come these numerous dialects so radically different? Why have not languages more affinities common to all? But he was reasoning on false hypotheses, or rather on premises not fully established. For the elder Humbolt, whose linguistic researches, together with those of his brother, gave new impulse to this science, says, "Languages are much more strongly characterized by their structure and grammatical forms, than by the analogy of their sounds and roots; and the analogy of sounds is sometimes so disfigured in the different dialects of the same tongue as not to be distinguishable; for the tribes into which a nation is divided, often designate the same object by words altogether heterogeneous. Hence we are easily mistaken, if, neglecting the study of inflections and consulting only the roots, we decide upon the absolute difference of two idioms from the simple want of resemblance in sound." This was the rock upon which the presumptuous philologist had split-passing by the internal structure of speech and consulting external appearances alone; neglecting the grammar of language to observe merely the resemblance or dissimilarity of sounds. Thus, it was asserted not only that the numerous dialects of our American aborigines were

"The Jesuits in China inform us, that in that great empire, with a written language intelligible to half the people, the inhabitants of one village can scarcely understand the speech of another."-Dr. Lang's View of the Polynesian Nation.

† See Genesis xi, 1.

See "Humboldt's Personal Narrative."

entirely different from the languages of the eastern hemisphere, but that dissimilarities existed in the dialects of different tribes sufficient to mark them as distinct and peculiar. So Dr. Von Martius, who bestowed considerable labor and research upon the dialects of the South American Indians, in view of what he considered such striking differences, unable to conceive of their proceeding from the eastern continent, pronounced the American Indians to be indigenous. Such unphilosophical conclusions can only be accounted for, by supposing that their authors wished in every possible way to invalidate the Mosaic history. More recent and extended researches have proved such theories to be false, for although there does exist great diversity in the external features of the American languages, yet there is "a common principle of mechanism" in their internal structure, which we cannot explain otherwise than by referring them to a common origin. Our countryman, the late Dr. Barton, bestowed much labor and investigation upon this subject, and in examining eighty-three different American languages, he discovered in them a wonderful similarity of structure. Later, yet independent, researches have proved these languages to be cognate to those of Eastern and South-eastern Asia. The various dialects of the Polynesian nations are also on strict philological principles referred to an Asiatic origin. Thus we find that the great diversity of languages is more apparent than real, and that all can be referred to a few prominent divisions.‡

After discovering and investigating the structure of a multitude of languages, the ethnographist arrived at still more definite conclusions. He has succeeded, 1st. In demonstrating the original unity of language; 2d. In showing that, independent of revelation, we must suppose some violent disruption of society, (and not a gradual change or different arrangement of elements,) in order to account for the existing diversity of lan

"Ipsos Germanos indigenos, crediderim."-Tacitus, De Moribus Ger

manorum.

†The results of his labors will be found in "Mithridates," vol. iii, compiled by Vater.

Sir William Jones was of the opinion that three great branches of language were sufficient to account for all the existing dialects.

{ The "Saggio prattico delle Lingue" of Hervas contains the Lord's prayer in three hundred different dialects, with explanatory and grammatical notes. The "Mithridates" of Adelung and Vater is still more extensive and critical.