3 Sir William Jones: observed that Samskritam bore a certain resemblance to classical Greek and Latin
Wikipedia on this indologist as at 25/26 July 2006 - William Jones (philologist):
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Sir William Jones (September 28, 1746 â April 27, 1794) was an English philologist and student of ancient India, <b>particularly known for his proposition of the existence of a relationship among Indo-European languages</b>.
Jones was born at Beaufort Buildings, Westminster; his father (also named Sir William Jones) was a mathematician. The young William Jones was a linguistic prodigy, learning Greek, Latin, <b>Persian</b>, Arabic and the basics of Chinese writing at an early age. By the end of his life he knew thirteen languages thoroughly and another twenty-eight reasonably well, making him a hyperpolyglot.
Though his father died when he was only three, Jones was still able to go to Harrow and on to university. He graduated from University College, Oxford in 1764. Too poor, even with his award, to pay the fees, he gained a job tutoring seven-year-old Earl Spencer, son of Lord Althorp and as such an ancestor of Princess Diana. He embarked on a career as a tutor and translator for the next six years. During this time he published Histoire de Nader Chah, a French translation of a work originally written in Persian done at the request of King Christian VII of Denmark who had visited Jones - who by the age of 22 had already acquired a reputation as an orientalist. This would be the first of numerous works on Persia, Turkey, and the Middle East in general.
For three years beginning in 1770 he studied law, which would eventually lead him to his life-work in India; after a spell as a circuit judge in Wales, and a fruitless attempt to resolve the issues of the American Revolution in concert with Benjamin Franklin in Paris, he was appointed to the Supreme Court of Bengal in 1783.
In the Subcontinent he was entranced by <b>Indian culture, an as-yet untouched field in European scholarship, </b>and founded the Asiatic Society of Bengal. Over the next ten years he would produce a flood of works on India, launching the modern study of the subcontinent in virtually every social science. He also wrote on the local laws, music, literature, botany, and geography, and made the first English translations of several important works of Indian literature.
<b>Contributions</b>
Of all his discoveries, Jones is best known today for <b>making and propagating the observation that Sanskrit bore a certain resemblance to classical Greek and Latin</b>. In <i>The Sanscrit Language</i> (1786) he <b>suggested that all three languages had a common root</b>, and that indeed they <b>may all be further related, in turn, to Gothic and the Celtic languages, as well as to <i>Persian</i></b>.
<b>His third discourse</b> (delivered in 1786 and published in 1788) with the famed "philologer" passage is often cited as <b>the beginning of comparative linguistics and Indo-European studies</b>. This is Jones' most quoted passage, <b>establishing his tremendous find in the history of linguistics</b>:
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Sanscrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a <i>wonderful structure</i>; 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 the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Athough the Dutchman Marcus Zuerius van Boxhorn (1612â1653) and others had been aware that Ancient Persian belonged to the same language group as the European languages no later than the mid-17th century, and American colonist Jonathan Edwards Jr., published in 1787, had demonstrated that Algonquian and Iroquoian language families (families not merely languages) were related with supporting data (which Jones lacked), it was Jones' discovery that caught the imagination of later scholars and has become the semi-mythical origin of modern historical comparative linguistics.
Jones is also indirectly responsible for some of the feel of the English Romantic movement's poetry (including the likes of Lord Byron and Samuel Taylor Coleridge), as his translations of "eastern" poetical works were a source for that style.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course Samskritam and ancient Avestan (Persian) are related, but William Jones could see the relation between Samskritam and Greek & Latin <i>before</i> he could see the relation between Samskritam and Persian (even late Parsi)? He was a 'linguistic prodigy' who had 'learnt Persian' according to this Wikipedia article. Was something wrong with his observation skills?
As seen above: to Jonesy, Samskritam appeared better than Europe's pride (ancient Greek and Latin): 'more perfect, more exquisitely refined'. He found that it had 'so strong an affinity to Latin and Greek that it couldn't be an accident' (nevertheless, this same 'sharp' observer could only suppose that Samskrit 'might' further be related to Persian). Hence the claim: Samskritam must be connected to the Europeans <i>somehow</i> - after all, it's better than Europe's classical languages according to this 'linguistic prodigy'! The Oryans will emerge soon, Jones having now postulated the Japhetic language family group (later to be called Indo-European family group - see previous post which states that Jonesy was the one who used 'Japhetic' for the language family before it started being called IE).
Strange, Jones is already convinced - without the help of the indologist linguistic stretchercises of today - that Samskritam belongs to the Japhetic (European, from European race) language group whilst the Bible makes Indians themselves a Hamitic people. Could this have influenced the AIT - where Japhetic Europeans needed to have invaded Hamitic India so that the presence of a Japhetic language in a Hamitic country can be explained? (This is a rhetorical question by the way, as the answer is obvious in Jones' choice of Japhetic to name the language family)
Wikipedia on this indologist as at 25/26 July 2006 - William Jones (philologist):
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Sir William Jones (September 28, 1746 â April 27, 1794) was an English philologist and student of ancient India, <b>particularly known for his proposition of the existence of a relationship among Indo-European languages</b>.
Jones was born at Beaufort Buildings, Westminster; his father (also named Sir William Jones) was a mathematician. The young William Jones was a linguistic prodigy, learning Greek, Latin, <b>Persian</b>, Arabic and the basics of Chinese writing at an early age. By the end of his life he knew thirteen languages thoroughly and another twenty-eight reasonably well, making him a hyperpolyglot.
Though his father died when he was only three, Jones was still able to go to Harrow and on to university. He graduated from University College, Oxford in 1764. Too poor, even with his award, to pay the fees, he gained a job tutoring seven-year-old Earl Spencer, son of Lord Althorp and as such an ancestor of Princess Diana. He embarked on a career as a tutor and translator for the next six years. During this time he published Histoire de Nader Chah, a French translation of a work originally written in Persian done at the request of King Christian VII of Denmark who had visited Jones - who by the age of 22 had already acquired a reputation as an orientalist. This would be the first of numerous works on Persia, Turkey, and the Middle East in general.
For three years beginning in 1770 he studied law, which would eventually lead him to his life-work in India; after a spell as a circuit judge in Wales, and a fruitless attempt to resolve the issues of the American Revolution in concert with Benjamin Franklin in Paris, he was appointed to the Supreme Court of Bengal in 1783.
In the Subcontinent he was entranced by <b>Indian culture, an as-yet untouched field in European scholarship, </b>and founded the Asiatic Society of Bengal. Over the next ten years he would produce a flood of works on India, launching the modern study of the subcontinent in virtually every social science. He also wrote on the local laws, music, literature, botany, and geography, and made the first English translations of several important works of Indian literature.
<b>Contributions</b>
Of all his discoveries, Jones is best known today for <b>making and propagating the observation that Sanskrit bore a certain resemblance to classical Greek and Latin</b>. In <i>The Sanscrit Language</i> (1786) he <b>suggested that all three languages had a common root</b>, and that indeed they <b>may all be further related, in turn, to Gothic and the Celtic languages, as well as to <i>Persian</i></b>.
<b>His third discourse</b> (delivered in 1786 and published in 1788) with the famed "philologer" passage is often cited as <b>the beginning of comparative linguistics and Indo-European studies</b>. This is Jones' most quoted passage, <b>establishing his tremendous find in the history of linguistics</b>:
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Sanscrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a <i>wonderful structure</i>; 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 the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Athough the Dutchman Marcus Zuerius van Boxhorn (1612â1653) and others had been aware that Ancient Persian belonged to the same language group as the European languages no later than the mid-17th century, and American colonist Jonathan Edwards Jr., published in 1787, had demonstrated that Algonquian and Iroquoian language families (families not merely languages) were related with supporting data (which Jones lacked), it was Jones' discovery that caught the imagination of later scholars and has become the semi-mythical origin of modern historical comparative linguistics.
Jones is also indirectly responsible for some of the feel of the English Romantic movement's poetry (including the likes of Lord Byron and Samuel Taylor Coleridge), as his translations of "eastern" poetical works were a source for that style.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course Samskritam and ancient Avestan (Persian) are related, but William Jones could see the relation between Samskritam and Greek & Latin <i>before</i> he could see the relation between Samskritam and Persian (even late Parsi)? He was a 'linguistic prodigy' who had 'learnt Persian' according to this Wikipedia article. Was something wrong with his observation skills?
As seen above: to Jonesy, Samskritam appeared better than Europe's pride (ancient Greek and Latin): 'more perfect, more exquisitely refined'. He found that it had 'so strong an affinity to Latin and Greek that it couldn't be an accident' (nevertheless, this same 'sharp' observer could only suppose that Samskrit 'might' further be related to Persian). Hence the claim: Samskritam must be connected to the Europeans <i>somehow</i> - after all, it's better than Europe's classical languages according to this 'linguistic prodigy'! The Oryans will emerge soon, Jones having now postulated the Japhetic language family group (later to be called Indo-European family group - see previous post which states that Jonesy was the one who used 'Japhetic' for the language family before it started being called IE).
Strange, Jones is already convinced - without the help of the indologist linguistic stretchercises of today - that Samskritam belongs to the Japhetic (European, from European race) language group whilst the Bible makes Indians themselves a Hamitic people. Could this have influenced the AIT - where Japhetic Europeans needed to have invaded Hamitic India so that the presence of a Japhetic language in a Hamitic country can be explained? (This is a rhetorical question by the way, as the answer is obvious in Jones' choice of Japhetic to name the language family)