From the same root DIH springs the Sanskrit word +deha+, body; body, like figure, being conceived as that which is formed or shaped. Bopp identified this +deha+ with Gothic _leik_, body, particularly dead body, the modern German _Leiche_ and _Leichnam_, the English _lich_ in _lich-gate_. In this case the master of Comparative Philology disregarded the phonetic laws which he had himself helped to establish. The transition of _d_ into _l_ is no doubt common enough as between Sanskrit, Latin, and Greek, but it has never been established as yet on good evidence as taking place between Sanskrit and Gothic. Besides, the Sanskrit _h_ ought in Gothic to appear as _g_, as we have it in _deig-s_, dough, and not by a tenuis. Another Sanskrit word for body is +kalevara+, and this proved again a stumbling-block to Bopp, who compares it with the Latin _cadaver_. Here one might plead that _l_ and _d_ are frequently interchanged in Sanskrit and Latin words, but, as far as our evidence goes at present, we have no doubt many cases where an original Sanskrit _d_ is represented in Latin by _l_, but no really trustworthy instance in which an original Sanskrit _l_ appears in Latin as _d_. Besides, the Sanskrit diphthong _e_ cannot, as a rule, in Latin be represented by long _â_. If such things could happen to Bopp, we must not be too severe on similar breaches of the peace committed by classical scholars. What classical scholars seem to find most difficult to learn is that there are various degrees of certainty in etymologies even in those proposed by our best comparative scholars, and that not everything that is mentioned by Bopp, or Pott, or Benfey as possible, as plausible, as probable, and even as more than probable, ought, therefore, to be set down, for instance, in a grammar or dictionary, as simply a matter of fact. With certain qualifications, an etymology may have a scientific value; without those qualifications, it may become not only unscientific but mischievous. Again, nothing seems a more difficult lesson for an etymologist to learn than to say, I do not know. Yet to my mind, nothing shows, for instance, the truly scholarlike mind of Professor Curtius better than the very fact for which he has been so often blamed, viz.: his passing over in silence the words about which he has nothing certain to say.