« PredošláPokračovať »
Sans. cus-itum, to kiss.
5. The declension of the verb is substantially the same in Latin and in Sanscrit. Our limits will by no means admit of going through an analysis of the whole verb. We will confine ourselves, therefore, to the inflexions of the present tense, taking the substantive verb as our first example.
Sans. asmi asi asti smah stha santi.
Although this verb is irregular both in Latin and Sanscrit, yet we find them corresponding with each other throughout. It may, however, be satisfactory to view the analogy in a more regular example
Sans. jivami jivasi jivati jivamah jivathah jivanti.
Lat. vivo vivis vivit vivimus vivitis vivunt. It is deserving of remark, that the verb as-tun, esse, to be, is defective, having only four tenses. The other tenses of the Latin verb, as fui, &c. are derived from the root bhu, also signifying existence. The letter bh, as we have observed above, is often changed into f, in Latin. The Persic has precisely the same irregularity; and the preterite of hustum, I am, is budam, I was, corresponding with fui.
The preceding examples prove, that the termination of the first person, both singular and plural, in Sanscrit and Persic, is characterized by the letter m. as it is in most tenses in Latin,-thus, amabam, amabamus; that the second person singular is distinguished, in Sanscrit and Latin, by s, which is omitted in Persic; that the third person has t, in the two first languages, which is changed to din Persic; that tha, tis, and id, distinguish the second person plural in the three languages; and anti, ant, and and, form the terminations of the third person plural. Their analogies and their differences equally suggest some curious ob-.
1. It is obvious, that, in all the three tongues, the letter m distinguishes me, the person who speaks. A language so refined as the Sanscrit, must have undergone many changes in advancing from rudeness to a state of such metaphysical perfection; and many words have probably been altered, which remain unchanged in the vernacular dialects. Thus, in Bengalese, ami, I, represents the Sanscrit aham; and this word, subjoined to the root of the verb, accordingly gives the first person singular, jis ami, I live. In Latin, it is formed by elision from the same words viv-(eg)-o, tivo. In Persic, this person is formed by adding am. Bb 2
Hence, purs-am, I ask, the termination being obviously a contraction of ami.
2. The consonant t, marks the third person singular in Latin and in Sanscrit. It is the only radical letter of the third personal pronoun, in the latter language: thus, jiva-ti, is literally he lives. This, indeed, is less obvious in Latin, because the pronoun tud no longer exists. In its room the demonstrative pronoun etud has been substituted, and the t changed into ; hence illud. The radical letter is found also in iste and perhaps in id, and, at all events, the use of the t as the termination of the third person, proves that it formerly existed as a pronoun, viv-it.
3. In the first person plural, a difference seems to occur; but it is only apparent. Its termination, in both Latin and Sanscrit, is mus. But the Brahmans direct, that wherever s occurs as a final, it shall be converted to h. Before this arbitrary change, there was jivamus, corresponding with the vivimus of the Romans. But whence this mus in both languages? In Sanscrit, the plural pronoun nah, we, was originally nos, and changed by the rule above mentioned. But nos itself, in both languages, is manifestly a corruption of mos, m being the radical letter of the first personal pronoun, whether plural or singular: vivimus would therefore have become vivinos, if verbs were as susceptible of change as the other parts of speech.
4. s and the mark the second person singular and plural in Sanscrit: s, sti, and stis or tis, in Latin; amas, amatis, amavisti, amavistis. If the s be derived from a pronoun, it is lost in both languages, and only exists in the Greek wv. We think it possible they may be contractions of the root stha, sta, stand: ama-vi-sti, he who stands here (i. e. thou) loved. The use of the Gothic st, to form the same person, is completely in favour of this supposition, which, however, we only give as a conjec
5. The terminations of the third person plural are, anti, ant, and and, in Sanscrit, Latin, and Persic. The origin of those terminations should be found in the nominative plural of the pronoun tud; but if anta was ever its form (a conjecture highly probable, from our extensive class of names possessing it), it is now become obsolete.
The Sanscrit imperative resembles the Latin as-tu, let him be, es-to. Sunto, let them be, is identical-sunto. The hints of Mr Tooke, in his admirable treatise, are confirmed and illustrated by the Sanscrit verb. That ingenious writer conjectures audiam to be a contraction of audi(re)am(o), I wish or love to hear. The termination of the Sanscrit future seems to us manifestly formed from a verb signifying desire; the root ish, desire,
being regularly added with the signs of the persons, to compose the future. Thus, the root yach, seek, becomes yach-ishyati, he will seek. Our readers will have observed, that the Sanscrit infinitive has the termination of the Latin supine.-Da-tum,, to give, is the supine in one language, and the infinitive in the other; and has the same signification in both. The Sanscrit preterite is formed by a reduplication of the root: thus, from the root raj, shine, comes roraj, he shone. Evident traces of this are to be found in a multitude of Latin verbs in the same tense, as dedi, cecidi, cecini, pepuli, steti, &c. &c. The participles present and past are formed by the addition of identically the same terminations in both languages.
We have now said enough, we trust, (our readers may possibly think too much), to show the analogy between the languages of the East and those of the West. In the course of our observations, we have had occasion to consider and to compare the structure of both. But, of a language which Sir William Jones has not scrupled to call more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more excellently. refined than either,' it would not be easy to give an idea within the limits of a review. It would be still more difficult to render a dissertation on grammar interesting to the general reader.
All the distinctive characters which discriminate antient from modern languages, are found united in the Sanscrit. Whoever compares a work composed in it, with its translation into Bengalese, will recognise the same peculiarities which distinguish the Latin from its modern derivatives. Its eight cases render the use of prepositions superfluous; and in Sanscrit, these are exclusive ly employed as prefixes to verbs, being without signification alone. To the same circumstance the Indian poets are indebted for the freedom of their transpositions, the sense remaining perspicuous, without subjecting the words to any settled collocation in the composition of each sentence. This structure facilitates those harmonious measures, so much preferable to rhyme, which the modern poets of Persia and India, as well as of Europe, are obliged to call to their assistance, to conceal the defects, and to compensate the monotony of their language. But whatever elegance the modern tongues may be susceptible of, every man capable of enjoying the charms of composition feels, that what is gained in precision, is lost in energy; that the capability of saying much in few words, is one of the first excellencies of a language; and that mere perspicuity is far from compensating that energetic conciseness, which, in the writers of antiquity, at once delights and exercises the understanding of the reader.
ART. VII. The Radical Cause of the present Distresses of the West India Planters pointed out, and the Inefficiency of the Measures which have been hitherto proposed for relieving them demonstrated, &c. &c. By William Spence, F. L. S. Second Edition. 8vo. pp. 105. London, Cadell & Davies. 1808.
An Inquiry into the Policy and Justice of the Prohibition of the
is now some time since we called the attention of our readers to the alarming state of colonial affairs; and endeavoured to trace to their true source, evils, the existence of which no man can deny, whatever difference of opinion may prevail as to their causes, or their extent. We were led, by these inquiries, to a demonstration as rigorous as the nature of the subject would allow, that the slave traffic alone is the cause of the distresses in question; that the consequences of that long course of crimes which men have, by a singular perversion of language, been accustomed to call a branch of commerce, are now felt in their full force; and that our mercantile interests are at length suffering most severely for our long neglect of humanity and justice. The subject has, since the publication of those remarks, undergone a great deal of discusson, both in Parliamentary committees and out of doors. The West Indians have asserted, that their case was not fairly before the public when we last considered it; and they have attempted to make it better, by bringing more of it forward. We are therefore reduced to a necessity, which, without any affectation, we must term a very unpleasant one, of going over the whole question in detail, and sifting the arguments and calculations of those who maintain doctrines opposite to our own, with a minuteness, not the less tiresome because it is indispensable. We have to apologize to our readers for leading them over so much dry and tedious matter; but the subject is highly important; and it is in vain to meet particular estimates, and minute details of sums and dates, by any general or theoretical views. Such views are, no doubt, to guide us through the details; and, if rightly-applied, they render the deductions of political arithmetic as certain as the demonstrations of the mixed mathematics, we ought, perhaps, rather to say, of the other branches of the mixed mathematics. We must pre
mise a few remarks on the two very valuable tracts now before
Mr Spence's name is sufficiently known to the public by his former work. We had the fortune to dissent from the doctrines of that work very widely; but, unless in so far as he undervalues colonial possessions, we find nothing in the present pamphlet which does not command our implicit assent. Indeed, there is so remarkable a coincidence between his views of the subject, and those advanced in our former Number, that we cannot but feel highly flatttered at receiving such respectable support. The two arguments were published nearly at the same time; and not the smallest reason exists for suspecting any previous communication. Both parties may therefore feel the more confident in the accuracy of their reasonings. The coincidence alluded to is so close, that it would be quite superfluous to give any abstract of Mr Spence's tract;-we should only be repeating our own statements. For the same reason, we dare not express our whole opinion of Mr Spence's merits, lest we might be accused of indirectly extolling our own.
The Inquiry' of Mr Bell is a work of great value. It contains a clear, just, and faithful examination of the whole of the principles upon which the question of the distilleries must be discussed. The author's doctrines are uniformly sound; and his views are those of a political economist, more than commonly skilful in the application of his science to practice. It might perhaps have been better, if, taking the question up in its most general form, he had treated of the plan for substituting rum for British spirits, and thus transferring the home distillery to the West Indies. The question of substituting sugar for grain in the home distillery, is to be determined by the same views; and differs from the former only in certain special circumstances, of which some weaken, while others strengthen the application of the general argument. As we shall treat this matter at length in the sequel, it is unnecessary to present our readers with any abridgement of Mr Bell's very able and judicious performance. Our views will be found to agree precisely with his, as far as the topics coincide; and we shall considerably abridge our discussion of the points touched upon by him, in the full confidence that, by referring to his tract, the deficiency will be most amply supplied.
The only objection which we think it necessary to state to either of these works, is common to both; and we consider it as a charge of some moment. Mr Spence clearly traces the distresses of the planters to their overtrading; and shows, that no remedy exists for the evil but a decrease of sugar. Mr Bell examines one of the remedies proposed,-demonstrates its impolicy