с

=

He then proceeds to show how, by means of successive corruptions, the two Proto-Aryan -sounds became changed in 13 such a way that it was possible for them to be confounded. The change of the primitive explosive guttural surd into a sibilant, a change which we see in several Indo-Iranic words and in the Slavo-Lithuanian words corresponding to them (as we have just now seen), took place, if we believe Havet, separately in each of the two sections of the languages mentioned, just as, e.g., the c (Lat. k) of centum was sibilised in the c of the French word cent quite independently of the of the Old Indian and Zend çata-'. Hence he proceeds to demonstrate the existence of the double & in the ProtoAryan period by the following equations: 1st. GraecoItalo-Keltic k, Teutonic h (k) = Indo-Iranian & (corresponding to our c), Sl. s, Lith. š (); in all these languages in the most ancient form the sound was k: hence it was before the separation. 2nd. k,Gaelic k, Kymric p-Pan-Keltic kw; k, Lat. kw, Osco-Umbrian p= Pan-Italic kw; k1=π, Ion. x Pan-Hellenic kw: hence k, Graeco-Italo-Keltic kw-k-Teutonic hv (kw), ƒ (p, kw), h (k) = Proto-Teutonic kw; k=Lithu-Slav. k, sometimes kw, p (kw): hence k1 = Teutono-Lithu-Slavonic ku-hence k, European kw-k1 = Indo-Iranick,ť (=k' of the more usual transcription), sometimes p (kw), kw: thence k1 = Indo-Iranian primitive kw. Now, if k, is=kw of Indo-Iranian and of the fundamental European, there results this last equation: = Proto-Aryan kw. The limits prescribed for our treatise do not allow us to follow Havet in the replies which he makes to several objections, and in the exposition of the advantages which he believes may be derived from his theory. Jolly himself

1 ".. La rencontre ario-slave est aussi fortuite que la rencontre ariofrançaise et. . . . nous n'avons pas plus à détacher le lettoslave du groupe européen que le français du groupe roman."-Note that under

=

=

the term 'Aryan' Havet understands Indo-Iranian. In the belief that this wonderful coincidence is accidental the French philologist will not, we think, have many students of language on his side.

also, in the monograph quoted above, admits in Proto14 Aryan two k-sounds quite distinct from each other, the true physiological value of which we can with difficulty determine, because they have reached us only in one series of representatives. He, therefore, willingly accepts Havet's symbols: k1, k,. The fact, observes Jolly, that the written language had only one letter for the guttural tenuis, contributed unquestionably to confuse two sounds originally distinct. Nevertheless it should be remarked that the written language, whence the written letters used by the Aryan peoples took their origin, offered them two characters for the primitive sound , by which they might well have indicated with accuracy its two different values.

Fick's hypothesis, well received and defended by the philologists mentioned, found a formidable opponent in that. learned and acute inquirer Johann Schmidt, who subjected it to a severe examination, in his review of Fick's work on the ancient linguistic unity of the Indo-Germans of Europe. Against Fick's theory of the primitive double J. Schmidt observes, in the first place, that, by the confession of Fick himself, these two supposed Proto-Aryan guttural sounds coalesced in Teutonic almost always into h; frequently into k on Greek and Latin ground; in Irish they are not distinguished at all, nor are they always clearly discernible in Kymric. He goes on to quote examples of Indo-Iran. Sl. 8, Lith. sz reflected by Lat. qu, and of = Ç descendants of kv, corresponding to Sanser. ç, against the assertions of Fick. Further "the South-European languages and the German not only have often the simple

where

Fick's rule requires kv, but also kv when the rule forbids it, i.e. the distinction between the two sounds in these lan15 guages is not generally complete." From the Lectures of Ascoli he learns that there is not always a well marked difference between the two k-sounds even in Indo-Iranian and in

1 Jenaer literaturzeitung, 1874, pp. 201-4.

Slavo-Lithuanian. Therefore the development of k into kj (Sanser. ç, Sl. 8, Lith. sz) was still incomplete when a relation of continuity existed between Indo-Iranian and LithuSlavonic: much less complete must it evidently have been during the far more ancient period of the primitive Aryan unity. Moreover, observes our critic, every Proto-Aryan tenuis has side by side with it a media with an aspirate: thus we have t, d, dh-p, b, bh. Hence if we were bound to admit a primitive double , we should have to expect also a Proto-Aryan double g and double gh, especially as the IndoIranic and the Slavo-Lithuanian dialects have sounds which we might look upon as descendants of the six sounds above named, i. e. Sanser. k, g, gh, h, and c, g', h; Old Bulgarian k, g, and sz; Lith. k, g, and sz, . Now Fick is far from wishing to demonstrate in the primitive and fundamental Aryan the existence of a double media and a double aspirate corresponding to the supposed double tenuis k. Lastly, if the k, of Fick (Indo-Iran. ç, Sl. 8, Lith. sz) corresponded to the simple h (not kv) of the other European languages, the logical result would be that the Indo-Iranic and Lithu-Slavonic mediæ and aspirates of this tenuis ought to be represented in the other European languages by g, gh, not changed into gv, ghv: and this cannot be positively affirmed.

Bezzenberger, in his critical remarks on the second part, recently published, of J. Schmidt's work, Zur geschichte des indogermanischen vokalismus,' has given expression to certain opinions concerning the present argument, which we do not think it right to pass by in silence. "In the fundamental Lithu-Slavonic language," he writes, "there 18 was not from the very beginning a sibilant as a substitute for the primitive k., or a corruption of it, such as the Sanser. ç is, or presupposes, but it was reflected by a simple k. This results-1st from its being represented by a simple & in the other European languages, 2ndly from the fact that this

1 Göttingische gelehrte anzeigen, 1875, pp. 1313-44.

""If in some cases," he

has been preserved in some cases. observes, "the development of the sibilant from k is a phenomenon of less ancient origin, it may be such in all the cases," and accidental. Therefore the agreement of the Sanser. and Old Bactr. c with the Slav. & and with the Lith. sz is quite unimportant. He then proceeds to examine some etymological views held by J. Schmidt in opposition to Fick, which seem to him of doubtful value. He thinks it very doubtful also that every tenuis must have side by side with it a media and an aspirate, as Schmidt supposes, and he quotes, by way of example, the labial media which is so rare, and has an existence so scantily demonstrated in the fundamental Aryan.

It is clear from the foregoing exposition that, in spite of the efforts of Ascoli, of Fick, and of some other philologists, the history of the Proto-Aryan has not yet been explained in such a way as to dispel all obscurity. For the final solution of the problem we still need fresh studies on the descendants of the sound in question. And the results of the fresh researches will be far more useful to philology than many people think, in that the problem, which we have discussed up to this point, is intimately connected, as will be 17 seen later, with that of the special affinities which are generally thought to exist between the various families of the Aryan linguistic stock."

29.

1 Windisch, Beiträge, etc. viii.

2 The second argument may be left to the judgment of the most authori tative students of the Lithu-Slavonic dialects. But, so far as concerns the first, we may be allowed to observe that it can hold good only on the hypothesis of a fundamental European language, the existence of which, as we shall see in the second part of this book, has not been yet proved in a way to satisfy the strict

but just exigencies of modern philology.

Schleicher, Compendium, etc. Weimar, 1871, § 117.

4 Our account of the most recent studies on the Indo-European & has been lately charged (who would have predicted it?) with violated perspective (Ascoli, Studi Critici, ii. 29)! The charge, however, is not accompanied by any explanation or. proof, so that we do not even know whether linear perspective or aerial

§ 3. And it is for this reason that our attention is drawn to another consonant, the existence of which in the primitive and fundamental Aryan is still doubtful. We