Introduction to the Study of Language

Introduction ¬to the ¬Study of Language:
¬A Critical Survey of the History and Methods of Comparative Philology of the Indo-European Languages.
¬By
¬B. Delbrück.
¬Authorized Translation, With a preface by the author.
¬This work is copyright.
¬ Leipzig,
1882
PREFACE.
¬ The character of the present work is mainly determined by the circumstance that it is intended by the author to facilitate the study of the "Grammars" which Breitkopf & Hartel are publishing, as well as the comprehension of comparative philology in its newest form. ¬The field of this "Introduction" is no broader than that of the above-mentioned "Grammars". Wherever in the following pages language, language-development, phonetic laws etc. are discussed, Indo-European language, Indo-European language-development etc., must alone be understood. I have felt the less inclination to discuss questions which lie outside the Indo-European domain, as for example those suggested by universal philology, because in reality the influence of philosophical linguistic research upon the science founded by Bopp has always been of slight account, and is very trifling at present. In limiting myself to the departments of phonetics and inflection I have also followed the "Grammars", but I must acknowledge that I should not, perhaps, have practised this self-denial if I had not just shown, in the fourth volume of my syntactical investigations [Die Grundlagen der griechischen Syntax, Halle, 1879), how in my opinion the comparative syntax of the Indo-European languages should be treated.
AUTHOR'S PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH
TRANSLATION.
¬ In writing the present work, my only thought was to introduce some of my countrymen to the study of the Indo-European languages, and to call their attention to certain points in the history and present condition of this study. Accordingly, the preface, as well as my treatment of the subject, were destined for German readers. On this account it seems to me especially important that the English translation should be preceded by a few words of explanation, or, I might almost say, of apology.
¬Above all, I would deprecate any comparison of this short and unpretentious "Introduction" with the extensive works of Max Muller, Whitney und Sayce. I by no means aim to furnish an explanation of the nature of language in general, as these scholars have done ; it is only my wish to show how a minute section of the whole linguistic mass has been studied, and in my opinion ought to be studied. It is true that in one chapter, that which treats of agglutination, I touch on more general ground, and it would perhaps have been better if here I had at least attempted to discuss my disagreement with Sayce's views somewhat in detail. I hope that in case of a second edition I shall be able to extend my original plan in this direction.
18
Contents.
¬ I. Historical Part, Chapters I— IV.
¬CHAPTER I : Franz Bopp, pages 1—26.
¬1. Bopp's views of the origin of Inflection , 3 — 16. Bopp at first follows Friedrich Schlegel. Theory of the latter, 3 — 5. Bopp's theory in its first form, 6 — 9. Bopp's theory in its second form, 9 — 12. The third and final form, 12—15.
¬2. Bopp's method of comparing given languages, 16 — 25. Is Bopp's mode of view that of natural science? His general views of language, 17 — 20. Bopp's conception of phonetic laws : a) mechanical laws (i. e. law of gravity), 20 — 21 ; h) physical laws, 21 — 23. Incompleteness of Bopp's system of phonetics, — especially evident in his treatment of non-Indo-European languages, 23 — 24. Comprehensive estimate of Bopp, 25 — 26.
¬CHAPTER II: Bopp's Contemporaries and Successors down to August Schleicher, pages 26 — 40. ¬Wilhelm von Humboldt, 26 — ^28. A. W. von Schelgel, 28 — 32. Schelgel's position toward Bopp , 29. Lassen's critique , 30 — 31. Jacob Grimm, 32 — 34. A. F. Pott, 35 — 36. Theodor Benfey, 36. Development of linguistic science down to Schleicher, 37 — 40. Progress in knowledge, 37—39; in method, 39—40.
¬CHAPTER III : August Schleicher, pages 40—55. ¬Hegel's influence, 40 — 42. Influence of natural science, 42 — 44. Schleicher's works , 44 — 45. Comparison between his views and Bopp's , 45 — 47. Schleicher 's parent speech, 48 — 53. Schleicher not a scientist, hut a philologist, 54 — 55.
¬CHAPTER IV : New Endeavors, pages 55—61. ¬New endeavors are manifest in the following tendencies : 1) Less interest is felt in the history of inflection (i. c. the origin of forms in primitive periods of the parent speech), 56. 2) It is recognized that no composition of unfinished linguistic elements can take place in the individual languages, 57. 3) More rigorous demands are made upon phonetic laws. The view arises that phonetic laws admit of no exceptions, 60. . In consequence of this, attention is especially drawn to formations hy analogy, 60. Importance of modern languages, 61.

CHAPTER I.
¬ FRANZ BOPP.
¬When Franz Bopp (born in 1791), the founder of comparative philology, hegan to devote his attention to Sanskrit, the statement that the language of the Brahmans was nearly related to the languages of Europe, especially to Latin and Greek, had been repeatedly made, and strengthened by a number of authentic proofs. Above all. Sir William Jones, the first president of a society organized in Calcutta for the exploration of Asia, had, as early as 1786, expressed himself on this point as follows :
¬" The Sanskrit language, whatever may be its antiquity, is of wonderful structure ; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either; yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and in the forms of grammar, than could have been produced by accident ; so strong that no philologer could examine all the three without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists. There is a similar reason, though not quite so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothic and Celtic, though blended with a different idiom, had the same origin with the Sanskrit." (Cf. Benfey, Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft, page 348.)