To which he is answered--"provided it does not clash
with historical facts and ethnology." It may be--no doubt it is, as far
as his knowledge goes--"the only evidence worth listening to with regard
to ante-historical periods;" but when something of these alleged
"prehistorical periods" comes to be known, and when what we think we
know of certain supposed prehistoric nations is found diametrically
opposed to his "evidence of language," the "Adepts" may be, perhaps,
permitted to keep to their own views and opinions, even though they
differ with those of the greatest living philologist. The study of
language is but a part--though, we admit, a fundamental part--of true
philology. To be complete, the latter has, as correctly argued by
Bockt, to be almost synonymous with history. We gladly concede the
right to the Western philologist, who has to work in the total absence
of any historical data, to rely upon comparative grammar, and take the
identification of roots lying at the foundation of words of those
languages he is familiar with, or may know of, and put it forward as the
result of his study, and the only available evidence.
Pages:
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431