§ 16. The works are three in number in which this learned and intelligent prosecutor of Vedic studies1 set forth his own ideas on the origin and the development of the forms in the Aryan languages: ideas so opposed to the doctrines generally professed and in part at least so peculiar to this investigator and put forth by him with an arrangement so different from that to which most of the books on philology have accustomed us, that we feel it to be no easy task on our part to describe in a precise and clear manner at any rate the most important of them. 2 For limiting our discourse to a few remarks on the fundamental conceptions alone of Ludwig's morphological system we have several reasons, among which it may suffice to note only this, that, if we were disposed to overstep such boundary lines, we should be compelled to guide our readers through too long and intricate paths without being able to promise them a reward commensurate with the hard toil. To avoid the risk of altering the doctrine of Ludwig, in describing it compendiously, we shall avail ourselves, as far as possible, of the exact phrases used by him, quoting the books and the pages from which we shall extract them. Our exposition will be accompanied 1 The first volume, not long since published at Prague, of a translation by him and a commentary of the Rigveda (Der Rigveda oder die heiligen hymnen der Brâhmana zum ersten male vollständig ins deutsche übersetzt mit commentar und einleitung) is discussed very favourably by A. De Gubernatis in the 1st number of the Bollettino italiano degli studi orientali which is under his direction, and which we heartily recommend to our readers, especially those of Italy, as a work which does honour to our studies, and deserves to be praised and forwarded. Die entstehung der a-declina tion und die zurückführung ihrer elemente auf das ihr zu grunde liegende pronomen zugleich mit der darstellung des verhältnisses der anomina zu den derivierten verbalformen: ein beitrag zur geschichte der wortbildung im indogermanischen (Sitzungsberichte d. K. Acad. d. wissenschaften, phil.-hist. cl., lv. 131-94). Der infinitiv im veda mit einer systematik der litauischen und slavischen verbs, Prag, 1871.-Agglutination oder adaptation? eine sprachwiszenschaftliche streitfrage mit nachträgen zu des verfaszers‹ Infinitiv im veda,' Prag, 1873. by notes, in which we shall point to the most important critical observations on the theories of Ludwig made by distinguished students of philology, among whom we may mention Delbrück,' Bergaigne, Jolly.3 We must see in the first place what is the opinion which 1 Zeitschrift f. vgl. sprachforsch, xx. 212-40: this review of the work Der infinitiv im veda etc. was met by Ludwig with a vigorous reply in the pamphlet Agglutination oder adaptation? in which he undertook to defend and develope certain opinions set forth in the preceding monograph. 2 Revue critique d'histoire et de littérature, 7th year, 1st semester pp. 385-93. Zeitschr. f. völkerpsychologie, etc., viii. 62-73. We regret that we have been absolutely unable here in Turin to read the remarks made by Benfey on the work D. inf. im v. in the North British Review (Jan.— March, 1871), which were such as to deserve the thanks of Ludwig himself. [The writer (Benfey's name is not appended) of the article in the North Brit. Rev., after giving extracts to shew the nature of Ludwig's theory, proceeds to offer a brief criticism, and concludes with quoting a few passages from the Veda in which he thinks Ludwig's interpretation is wrong. On the theory itself of the origin of IndoGermanic inflection he remarks that it is "almost entirely based on the deviations from ordinary Sanscrit, relating to inflective forms and grammatical relations which are found in the traditional texts of the Veda." “The justification of de widely different from those of Professor Ludwig. Many of these phenomena may prove to be byeforms of phonetic origin. As to the date assigned by Ludwig to the completion of the grammar (see below,p.111) the reviewer observes "Surely if the grammar, which by the hypothesis was completed only about 2000 B.C., was still, 500 years later, among the Indians, in such an unsettled condition that a multitude of forms could express all relations indefinitely, then the other tribes could not possibly have attained to a grammatical form in such harmonious conformity with Sanscrit and Zend." Though Ludwig "endeavours to point out analogous phenomena in other languages. scarcely any of his hypothesis can be admitted by careful critics." But "in that part of the work which deals exclusively with Vedic forms without regard to the theory of inflection. the preponderance of good is so great that the work takes a very high place in the field of Vedic research."-Tr.] Ludwig holds of modern historical and comparative philology; the reasons will thus appear which separate him from the linguistic school, the doctrines of which on the origin and the changes of Indo-European inflexion were developed and set forth with fidelity, vigour and pre-eminent coherence of principles and methods by A. Schleicher. Recent investigators have not, so Ludwig thinks, made good and sufficient use of the historical method. The impor93 tance of the Vedic language with reference to the study of the Aryan dialects has been theoretically recognised, but "in practice, as we must admit, the base of the philological comparison of to-day is Greek ;' only it has been rendered intelligible by means of Sanscrit. As long as the common phonetic laws suffice to show in the Greek form a modified Sanscrit form, Sanscrit is welcome, and then the Sanscrit trumpet is allowed to speak: when Sanscrit is irreconcilable with Greek, the former is deprived of all power of harm by explaining it, that is to say, by maintaining à priori a a doctrine with regard to it, instead of allowing ourselves to be taught by Sanscrit. Nay, it would be very easy, starting from principles of logic, to demonstrate that the method which now prevails in the science of language is false and to be rejected. It consists in nothing else than changing comparison into a historical process. From a series of forms mutually connected one is arbitrarily taken, 1 We gladly take this opportunity of observing that, if we are not deceived, one of the most serious obstacles in the way of free and truly scientific philological investigation is the influence still exercised upon our minds by the ideas and even the technical terms of the Greek and Latin grammarians: ideas often erroneous, terms not unfrequently inexact (especially in Latin), to which we have been only too much accus. tomed, and to which even at present the young are accustomed by a method of teaching often incompatible with contemporary science. -As far as Vedic grammar is concerned much is with reason expected from the studies of Benfey. Meanwhile, we are very glad to notice Delbrück's book Das altindische verbum aus den hymnen des Rigveda seinem baue nach dargestellt, Halle, 1874. the originality of which neither is nor can be proved, this is compared with the rest, and the expression of the relative difference is insensibly transformed into a historical process. Nor is it of any use to assume, as the school of Bopp is in the habit of doing, stems which did not in reality exist or the existence of which cannot be proved: mere hypotheses, results of an à priori study which cannot form a solid base for a truly scientific knowledge. Not only in its progress, but from the very starting point, must philological investigation be severely historical. "The scientific treatment of the languages of the Aryans must be founded, in the truest sense of the word, on the Veda, as far as it extends.” It must "seek for stems the reality of which can be proved, the meaning of which is clearly revealed by the syntactical relation in which they are presented to us." A stem is, according to Ludwig, in the historical process of language, every word-form which is considered as separated from the sentence, or as not exercising a function in it nor placed in strict relation with the others of which the sentence is made up in the contrary case we have a word-form declined or conjugated ("flectiert"). Hence it is clear that historical grammar (with practical grammar we have not to concern ourselves in this work) ought to perceive in inflexion a syntactical fact, and what and how extensive .... we cannot 1 D. inf. im v., p. 83, and on p. S7 he writes: 66 help considering almost as harmful, as would be a positive neglect, the manner in which not unfrequently at the present time use is made of the Veda." See Agglutination, etc., pp. 39-40 (§ 20). 2 D. inf. im v., p. 70. 3 D. inf. im v., p. 87. Here we should not omit to mention that Ludwig (Agglutination, etc., p. 82 sqq.) professes with respect to the accuracy of the Vedic text a faith which is not shared by all Vedic scholars, among whom Delbrück declared his doubts in his review of of Ludwig's book, D. inf. im r. It is a problem of Vedic scholarship with which neither the nature of our special studies, nor that of the present book allows us to concern ourselves. D. inf. im v., p. 70. are the relations which unite syntax with morphology in Ludwig's system.' : now proceed to examine carefully the characteristics which the author attributes to his stems, so different as they are from those of ordinary modern philology. In the first place, he teaches, there is neither stem nor root which originally ended in a consonant; the final sound of every stem is a vowel (generally) and 5 this position is considered by Ludwig as so fundamental, that, until his opponents demonstrate its falsity, his doctrines will always remain unshaken. Secondly, he denies that the suffixes, in which we have been accustomed to perceive the signs of inflexion, had originally the function of denoting those definitions of ideas which or 1 Agglutination, etc., pp. 107 and 111; see also p. 29. 2 Die enstehung der a-declination, etc. see especially § 14.-Agglutination, etc., pp. 113-5. On pp. 117-8 of this book he considers the -i of the locative not as a suffix, but as the final element of the stem: nor does he explain otherwise the -i of the potential (D. inf. im v. p. 118) and the verbal termination -i (pp. 138-40). À propos of the many roots and stems which are generally thought to end in a consonant, and to which Ludwig assigns the vowel i as a final sound, let us note the observation of Bergaigne, according to whom the new hypothesis frees us, it is true, from the difficulty caused by the copulative vowel in several forms, but forces us to admit the disappearance of i in a much greater number of forms. Ludwig, continues the critic quoted, always recognises the primitive form in that which is richest in phonetic elements in order not to be obliged to suppose in the others anything but phonetic decay: but in that case it is necessary to have recourse to very grave phonetic changes, the possibility of which, as they are supposed to have taken place in a pre-historic age, we cannot directly prove, and which, as they are found, according to the hypothesis in question, in profoundly different ways even in one and the same language, and with respect to the same primitive sound, seem à priori almost impossible.-After this it will perhaps appear to the reader a little strange that Ludwig proves him. self, in his criticisms on modern linguistic science, so severe in the matter of phonetic laws (Agglutination, etc., p. 30, etc.). Let Indian scholars consider whether it is possible to regard as proved, e.g., the derivation of the -us of the 3rd plur. act. "from -arus =-aru-s," whether phonology can accept, as a proven thesis, this very important disappearance of sounds (D. inf. im v., p. 126 sqq.). |