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"If we knew nothing of the existence of Latin—if all historical documents previous to the fifteenth century had been lost—if tradition, even, was silent as to the former existence of a Roman empire, a mere comparison of the six Roman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.
