Whilst I am looking over my materials, among which Aufrecht’s contribution looks very well, I feel very strongly the want of a report of the last results of the Caucasian languages. My two lines on Rosen look too miserable; also new works have appeared on the subject. Samiel help! I am entirely of your opinion concerning the transliteration, but I maintain that you must send me a table (key) to _your_ own transliteration. For your table of the forty-eight is otherwise not easy for my good English readers, or even for me; and to most it is unintelligible. With the others I shall soon find my way. I intend to insert a chapter on definite terminology. I think it must be settled from the only tenable hypothesis, namely, the spreading abroad from one central point in mid-Asia,—that is, from the great district which (originally) was bounded towards the north by the open Polar Sea, with the Ural Island or Peninsula; to the west by the Caucasus and Ararat; east by the Altai and Altan Mountains; and south by the continuation of the Taurus Mountains, which stretch in the interior from west east, as far as the Hindu-Kush. Therefore, for Turanian == Ural-Altaic, or the northeastern branch. For Semitic == Aramean, from Aram, the Mesopotamian highland. For Japhetic == Eastern highland, or southeastern branch. What do you think of this? I must get free from Semitie, etc., because _Chamitic_ appears to be primitive Semitic, just as Turanian leans towards Iranian. The carriage is there. Best thanks to Aufrecht. You are indulging in a beautiful dream if you imagine that I have Dietrich here. I have studied his two volumes. I wish I could summon him to help me. He was most anxious to come to England. I am afraid of a young scholar whom I do not know personally. [40.] _August 4, 1853._ Only a word, my dear friend, to express to you my delight and admiration at your Turanian article. I was so carried away by it that I was occupied with it till far into the night. It is exhaustive, convincing, and succinct. What do you feel about the present state of the investigations on the Basque? I have convinced myself by my extracts from the grammar and dictionary that Basque is Turanian, but I have nothing fit for printing. I have never seen Rask’s work. Do you know it, and can you make anything out of it? There is only one point on which I do not agree with you. You say there is no purely monosyllabic language. But even that wretched modern Chinese has no dissyllabic word, as that would entail a loss of the accent. Or do you deny this? I have covered the baldness of our German vulgarism, “thief,” “liar,” in Böhtlingk versus Schott, and said, “With an animosity more German than Attic.” Does that please you? Greetings to Aufrecht. [41.] ABBEY LODGE, _August 22, 1853_.