Philological Proofs of the Original Unity and Recent Origin of the Human RaceJohnes, Arthur James
History
Philological Proofs of the Original Unity and Recent Origin of the Human Race
Johnes, Arthur James
Ethnology; Human beings -- Origin; Language and languages; Monogenism and polygenism
These remains are probably pregnant with information of the profoundest
interest with regard to the early history of mankind! Further inquiries
similar to those conducted by Dr. Lepsius with respect to the phases
through which the Egyptian Tongue has passed, will probably bring to light
numerous proofs of an increasing approximation in its most ancient
specimens to the languages of Asia and also to those of the other regions
of the continent of Africa. Even in the present state of our knowledge, I
may point out that indications are not altogether wanting that the Hebrew
and other Semetic Tongues in some respects appear to form a connecting
link between the Egyptian and other African languages, on the one hand,
and the Sanscrit and other languages, termed Indo-European, on the other.
These indications occur not in the words but in the structure of the
Semetic Tongues.
In explaining the origin of language, I have noticed that the basis or
Root of the Noun and Verb is the same, while the requisite distinction
between the different parts of speech is made by appropriate additions, as
in the instance of the syllable Er, in Build-er.
It may be inferred that all additions now employed grammatically as
prefixes or suffixes were in the first instance used indifferently either
before or after the Root. But we find, in this respect, a marked
difference between the Indo-European and the Egyptian Tongues. In the
former, these grammatical agents are almost invariably placed after, while
in the Egyptian they in some instances follow, and in others precede the
Root. It will be evident, however, that these grammatical forms themselves
are, in numerous important instances, the same in these two Classes of
Tongues, and that it is only the order in which they are placed that is
different. Thus, in forming the feminine from the masculine, the Egyptians
used a prefix, Th, which forms a suffix in the Welsh, as in Son,(124) “A
Brother,” Th-son, “A Sister,” (_Egypt._) Gen-eth, “A Girl,” (_Welsh._)
Again, the Egyptian plural is formed by prefixing N, as in Phe, Heaven,
singular; N Pheou, Heavens, plural, (_Egypt._,) while in many of the
Indo-European tongues plurals are often formed by subjoining N, as in Ox,
Ox-en (_Eng._), Ych, Ych-en (_Welsh_.), &c.
Now in the Hebrew, Chaldee, &c., though suffixes are employed in numerous
instances, formative prefixes are also used, though not so generally as in
the Egyptian, between which language and the Indo-European tongues the
Semetic languages therefore occupy, in this respect, an intermediate
place.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account