Page:The Cornhill magazine (Volume 1).djvu/476

 The various species of cats do not differ more than these six languages differ: and yet the resemblances point in each case to a common origin. Max Müller, in his brilliant essay on Comparative Mythology,[*] has said:—

"If we knew nothing of the existence of Latin—if all historical documents previous to the fifteenth century had been lost—if tradition, even, was silent as to the former existence of a Roman empire, a mere comparison of the six Roman dialects would enable us to say, that at some time there must have been a language from which all these modern dialects derived their origin in common; for without this supposition it would be impossible to account for the facts exhibited by these dialects. Let us look at the auxiliary verb. We find:—

Italian. Wallachian. Rhætian. Spanish. Portuguese. French.

I am sono  sum sunt  sunt  soy  sou  suis

Thou art sei  es  eis  eres  es  es

He is e  é (este)  ei  es  he  est

We are siamo  súntemu  essen  somos  somos  sommes

You are siete  súnteti  esses  sois  sois  êtes (estes)

They are sono  súnt  eân (sun) son  são  sont.

It is clear, even from a short consideration of these forms, first, that all are but varieties of one common type; secondly, that it is impossible to consider any one of these six paradigms as the original from which the others had been borrowed. To this we may add, thirdly, that in none of the languages to which these verbal forms belong, do we find the elements of which they could have been composed. If we find such forms as j'ai aimé, we can explain them by a mere reference to the radical means which French has still at its command, and the same may be said even of compounds like j'aimerai, i.e. je-aimer-ai, I have to love, I shall love. But a change from je suis to tu es is inexplicable by the light of French grammar. These forms could not have grown, so to speak, on French soil, but must have been handed down as relics from a former period—must have existed in some language antecedent to any of the Roman dialects. Now, fortunately, in this case, we are not left to a mere inference, but as we possess the Latin verb, we can prove how, by phonetic corruption, and by mistaken analogies, every one of the six paradigms is but a national metamorphosis of the Latin original.

"Let us now look at another set of paradigms:—

Sanskrit. Lithuanian. Zend. Doric. Old      Latin. Gothic. Armen. Slavonic.

I am ásmi  esmi  ahmi  [Greek: emmi] yesmě  sum  im  em

Thou art ási  essi  ahi  [Greek: essi] yesi  es  is  es

He is ásti  esti  asti  [Greek: esti] yestǒ  est  ist  ê

We (two) are 'svás  esva  yesva  siju

You (two) are 'sthás  esta  stho? [Greek: heston] yesta sijuts

They (two) are 'stás (esti)  sto? [Greek: eston] yesta

We are 'smás  esmi  hmahi  [Greek: esmes] yesmǒ  sumus  sijum  emq

You are 'sthá  este  stha  [Greek: este] yeste  estis  sijup  êq

They are sánti  (esti)  hěnti  [Greek: enti] somtě  sunt  sind  en


 * See Oxford Essays, 1856.