APPENDIX.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SOUTHERN REVIEW.

A writer in the Review for May, has made remarks on certain passages in the 'Introduction to the American Dictionary,' which the readers of the Review may think deserving notice by the author. I shall, therefore, make a few observations on some of the writer's assertions; confining myself to the more prominent points.

1. In page 340, the writer charges me with mistaking "zaviduyu' and two other Russian words, "for the infinitives." But I have made no such mistake. I never wrote, said or thought these words to be infinitives.

2. In the same page he observes, that it will be difficult to find any analogy between the Russian 'ees' and 'so.' But I have said nothing respecting such analogy, as far as orthography is concerned. I have said the Russian 'so,' as a mark of comparison, answers nearly to the English so or as. Why did the writer mutilate the passage? My remark is correct, as in this sentence. "He is as large as I am." 66 'Il est aussi grand que moi." Here the Russian 'so' would stand for 'as' in English, and 'aussi' in French.

3. To discredit the evidence of the identity of national origin, and languages drawn from the affinity or sameness of words, the writer challenges me to show any two languages in which we shall not be able to point out at least forty or fifty words resembling each other, if not entirely the same in both languages. In return, I challenge him to point out any two languages radically distinct, in which there is one word composed of the same sounds or letters, and signifying the same thing, to be found in both languages.

error.

In the writer's long account of the origin and connexion of nations and languages, there may be some truth, and there is, doubtless, much No confidence can be placed in the traditional accounts of migrations of men, anterior to the age of authentic history. The most certain knowledge of the early descent of any tribe or nation from a particular stock, is to be obtained from their language.

The writer (p. 345) observes that the Persian language is original, but has been enriched with Median, Greek, Latin, and even German words. This is all a mistake. The ancient Persian language was one branch or dialect of the original language, and the parent of the Gothic, Teutonic and Celtic. Persia was the seat of the nations or tribes which migrated and brought these languages into Europe. A part of the modern Persian is Arabic; but no person who has examined the Persic from beginning to end, as I have done, can have the slightest hesitation in admitting that the original language of Persia was the source of the Celtic and Teutonic. The Persians have borrowed nothing from Greece, Italy or Germany.

In page 357, the writer speaks of the difference of organs among nations who live in distinct climates and countries. This is the first intimation I have ever had, that men, in different climates, have differVOL. V.-NO. 11. 33

ent organs of speech. If the writer means that men, in different countries, are sometimes accustomed to a different use of their organs in enunciation, I shall not contend with him.

4. In page 378, the writer calls in question my derivation of the Teutonic 'binnan' or 'binnen,' (within) and remarks that the Germans use 'binnen' (within) only in relation to time. But, in my German dictionary, 'binnenland' is rendered 'within land,' which has no reference to time. In Dutch, the same word occurs, in my dictionary, in more than thirty words, in every one of which, 'binnen' relates to 'place,' and not once to 'time.' In Saxon also, the word is used in relation to place, in John xi. 30. Such is the evidence of the writer's accuracy!

The writer then says, that baynan' in Arabic, signifies distinctly, clearly, evidently, and nothing else; and is derived from 'ayin,' the eye. Both these affirmations are incorrect and groundless. Any person looking into Castle's Lexicon, will see that the Arabic word does signify something besides 'clearly' or 'evidently.' That 'baynan' is from 'ayin,' the eye, is not true. The sense of 'clearly,' ‘evidently,' is probably never, certainly not in this case, from the name of 'eye.' It is from opening,' ' expanding,' a sense often connected with separating, and these are the primary sources of the verb. So in Scripture, "Did not our hearts burn within us, while he opened to us the Scriptures." To 'open,' in this case, is to explain, to make clear or evident; and this is reason or common sense, that runs through all the languages I have examined.

The formation of 'baynan' from 'ayin,' is wholly arbitrary; there is not the slightest ground for thinking the word compound, and no such mode of formation has occurred to my researches, which have embraced more than twenty languages. It is an hypothesis just as absurd, not to say ridiculous, as to suppose 'cart' formed from 'art,' with c prefixed: a 'charm' from 'arm,' or 'stable' from 'able.'

5. The writer, in the same page, writes that 'ge' in German, is no preposition, and has by itself no signification at all. And what is this to the purpose? Have I said any thing to that effect?

But, says the writer, in the German, ‘glaube,' faith, belief, the g belongs to the root, for 'laube' alone is a 'bower,' which can have no connexion with belief;' consequently, the g is no preformative particle. How hastily men write before they understand their subject! And how rashly they run into contradictions! The writer admits that the German 'glaube' is the same as the Saxon 'geleaf,' with the change of ƒ into b. This admission contradicts the assertion, that g belongs to the root; for a moment's inspection of a Saxon Lexicon shows, demonstrably, that 'geleaf' is a compound of the prefix 'ge,' with 'leaf,' from the root of 'leave.'

The word 'laube' in German, is rendered a 'bower' or 'arbour;' but how could the writer overlook the fact, that the word, in this sense, is from 'laub,' a 'leaf;' a bower or arbour being thus named from its foliage. This by the way.

But the German 'glaube' and Saxon 'geleaf' are more directly connected with the English leave,' 'permission;' the same verb in Saxon, signifying to believe,' to 'leave,' and 'to permit.' If the writer had embraced the whole subject, he would have known that although the the simple word 'laub,' does not occur in German in the sense of 'be

lief' or of 'leave,' yet it does occur in the compound ‘ur-laub,' 'leave,' a furlow, that is, leave of absence.

To show how carelessly and rashly men make assertions, I will here set down this word and some of its affinities, in several dialects.

Gothic.-Ga-laubyan,' to believe; 'Us-laubyan,' to give leave, [us

is out.]

Saxon.-Ge-leafan,' to believe, to permit, to leave; ‘Ge-leaf,' belief, faith, leave, license: Læfan,' to leave; 'lefan,' to believe, to permit ; 'Leaf,' leave, license; a leaf [of a tree.]

Dutch.-Ge-loof,' belief; Ge-looven,' to believe; 'Verlof,' leave, permission. Eng. 'furlow.'

Swedish. Orlof,' leave. Danish, 'Orlov.' English, furlow,' [f is lost, as w is in ord,' word.]

German.-Ur-laub,' leave, furlow.

It is certain then that the German 'glaube,' belief, is contracted from 'gelaube,' and that g does not belong to the root. The same contraction occurs in 'gleich' and 'gelyth,' even; Eng. like; and in ‘gluch' and 'geluch;' Eng. luck.

Let the reader notice that the first syllable of 'furlow,' is our vulgar 'fur,' used for 'far,' 'distant.' This in Dutch is 'ver,' in 'verlof;" 'fur,' 'far' and 'ver' being mere dialectical variations of the same word. Let him notice also, that the last letter of 'furlow,' in the continental languages, is a labial; b, for v. This shows the common spelling furlough,' with gh, guttural or palatal letters, to be an egregious blunder.

6. The writer remarks, p. 380, that we should never confound a preposition with a mere particle, however similar they may appear. For example, the German particle 'ver,' which has no meaning at all, except when prefixed to a verb, ought not to be confounded with the preposition 'vor,' which has a distinct meaning of its own, and does not stand in any etymological connexion with the particle 'ver.'

But the only difference between what the writer here calls a particle and a preposition, is that one is always used in composition and the other is not. 'Ver' is used only in composition; vor' is used both in composition and by itself. The consequence of this doctrine is, that 'vor' is sometimes a particle and sometimes a preposition. Such are the mischiefs of names ill applied; of distinctions ill understood, and of misapprehending differences, by supposing them radical, when they are merely accidental.

'Ver' is the English 'fur,' as any person may know by looking into a Dutch dictionary, or indeed, into a German dictionary, and seeing its uses in composition. Vor' is the English 'fore,' 'for.' These words are differently applied, but are undoubtedly from one root. The orthography is varied just as it is in other cases. 'Far' is the German and Dutch 'ver,' and our vulgar 'fur;' but the latter in 'furlow,' is not vulgar. Just so we have, and use indifferently, farther' and 'further,' dialectical forms of the same word. These words are from one source: in Saxon, 'faran,' 'to go,' 'or pass,' 'to fare;' in Dutch, 'vaaren;' in German, 'fahren;' in Swedish, 'fara;' in Danish, 'farer.' Now, beyond all question, these are the same words as the Greek TopEuw.' The first vowel is varied in the different dialects; 'far' corresponds with fare,'

6

'faran;' and 'vor' corresponds with ropew.' In like manner are varied 'ver,' 'fur,' 'fore.' The sense of 'fore' is taken from ‘advancing;' so is 'far.' Hence the use of 'ver' to denote 'completion,' that is, a great or the utmost advance; just like 'per' in Latin, in 'perdoctus,' and for the same reason.

That 'ver' and the English fore,' 'for,' are from one root, is evident from the compounds-German, 'vergessen,' to 'forget;' verbieten,' to 'forbid;' 'vergeben,' to 'forgive;' Dutch, vergeeten,' 'verbieden,' 'vergeeven.' Here 'ver' and 'for' are, doubtless, dialectical

forms of the same word.

7. The writer says also, that the Greek ‘avrí,' when used as a preposition, indicates no opposition or contrariety. This is so far from the truth, that opposition is its principal sense, and the source of all its applications. It is the same word as the Latin 'ante,' differently applied. Ante' is 'before;' that is, in front, but without the sense of opposing; 'avri' has its sense of opposition from the same circumstance, being in front. Hence, it is easy to deduce all its applications.

In Genesis xlvii. 17, we read that Joseph gave bread for horses, aprovg avri TUN ITTOV. Septuagint. Here the sense is in opposition or contrariety. Joseph gave bread against horses—that is, as an equivalent in exchange; as we say, 'to set one thing against another.' So in French, "de les changer contre les plus tresors." Pelloretier. So in sales, we say, 'to sell goods for money;' that is, literally, 'to sell goods against money;' in Saxon, 'to give or deliver against money.'

But what can be said in favour of a writer, who gravely derives ‘avr” from the Arabic 'anta,' thou; and 'anah,' to answer, from ano,' the pronoun I? I really have not patience to refute such idle conjectures.

8. The writer charges me with confounding the German adverb ‘nahe,' near, with the preposition 'nach,' after, and says, perhaps, nachbar,' neighbour, was originally spelled 'nahbar.' To this I reply, perhaps, it was not; and now we are equal in conjecture.

The truth is, 'nahe,' adjective, adverb and noun, is from 'nach,' nigh; a word which, in Saxon, is written 'neah,' 'neahg,' neh, 'nich,' ‘nik,' and in composition, 'nea.'. In Dutch it is abbreviated to 'na.' In Saxon, 'neighbour' is written 'neahgebur,' ‘neahbur,' ‘nehbur,' 'nehhe-bur,' 'neh-gebur,' and in other ways. But whatever is the spelling, the original word is 'nach.' This, in German, signifies to, by, upon, at, according, as well as after. The ship is bound nach Hamburg,' to or for Hamburg'-'to strike at one,' nach einem schlagen'-according to the Scriptures,' nech der schreft.'

So in Russ, 'na' is rendered in German by 'auf' 'nach,' ' zu,' 'fur;' in French, 'sur,' ‘au,' ‘a,' ‘pour,' 'en.' In Russ, 'na primir,' 'after or according to a model,' is rendered in German, 'nach dem muster;' in French, selon le modele.'

The primary sense of 'nach' is 'pressed,' 'made close, from some root signifying to go,' move,' or 'drive.' Hence are easily deducible all its senses, expressing nearness, imitation, proceeding towards, or following.

9. There are other passages of the reviewer's observations equally erroneous; but I shall omit further reply,.except to the sweeping sentence in page 340, that "similar errors have been committed by our

author in his concise and brief explanation of the German and Danish languages, throughout which, grammatical incorrectness, not to say ignorance, are so conspicuous as to leave no doubt that he had not studied even their elementary principles."

On this I would observe, let the writer specify and prove the errors to which he alludes. Until he does this, he must be considered a calumniator.

If the writer is disposed to pursue the subject, I would recommend to him to spend as many months as I have years, in examining and comparing twenty or thirty languages. By the time he shall have finished his examination, I can assure him he will be perfectly satisfied that the authors, on whom he relies for etymologies, have not understood the first rudiments of the subject. Experience has taught me that any man who intends to understand the history and philosophy of language, must explore a wider field than the lexicographers of Europe have yet surveyed, with reference to these subjects. And the more an inquirer extends his views, the more necessity will he see of still further inquirythe better will he understand the difficulties of the subject--the more diffident will he be of his own qualifications to judge, and of his right to reproach and condemn the decisions of those who have sought for truth with at least as much zeal and labour, and with as honest views as himself. N. WEBSTER.

New-Haven, June 1830.

Reply from the writer of the Article on Etymology in the Tenth Number of the Review. As we have undertaken to review the work of Mr. Webster, and consequently to examine the arguments upon which his philological conclusions and results are founded, we are by no means willing to dispute the author's long labour, and the twenty dictionaries which he has before him, but will enter into a direct refutation of the arguments in his letter, where there are any, and pass with entire silence over those advanced results for which he states no other reasons but his despotic, 'qu'il sait ainsi.'

1st. Mr. Webster protests never having said, thought, or written the several Russian words to be infinitives. But he has translated all these words with the English 'to': to envy, to see, to tear, to be astonished or stupified, to pacify, to reconcile, to make peace; four pages further, the author again translates the Russian word Uberayu:' to put in order, to adjust, to mow or reap, to cut, to dress. We now ask any reader acquainted with the English grammar, whether all these English words are infinitives, or the first person present tense indicative mood? It is astonishing that Mr. Webster has not given, in all these instances, one Russian infinitive which he ought to have done, and which he would have done, had he not laboured under the mistake we have noticed. analogy of the radicals, ought always to be derived from their respective infinitives, but never from the different moods, persons, and tenses, which by their irregularity, often deviate in such a manner from their radical infinitives, as hardly to exhibit any resemblance between them. In the case before us, the author was desirous of shewing an analogy between the Russian word 'viju,' (I do see) but which he translates 'to see,' and the latin' video;' now there is really no resemblance whatever between ‘viju'

The