Hugo Schuchardt Archiv

26. V. 00
15 Rawlinson Road, Oxford

Dear Sir,

I am much obliged to you for your letter last month.

You confirm my idea that German scholars are sceptical about Aryo-Finnic affinities. But Winkler¹ has shown such a want of judgment in his views of the relationship between the Ugrian & the Altaic languages that I do not feel much confidence in him, in spite of his learning. It seems to me that the question lies in a nutshell: how are we to explain the identity of Aryan & Finnic verb-endings?²; is the development of vowel-harmony in Accadian (Sumerian) & Ugro-Altaic enough to establish common origin? If not, then I do not see any more reason for connectg Ugrian with Alatic than with Aryan: the numerals are distinct, & there is but little |2| superficial resemblance in inflections & vocabulary.

Susian³ is, of course, quite distinct from Sumerian & from Altaic & Ugrian. I wish I could persuade you to re-consider the arguments I have adduced – to consider not so much the difficulties of accepting the views I have stated, but rather the difficulties of rejecting them. I wish I could read the article by Budenz⁴ which you mention; but altho I read Finnish easily, I have no practical knowledge of Hungarian. But I must learn it soon, if I can find a suitable book to begin with.

I am glad to know that you are working at the affinities of Bask. Its grammatical structure has always looked to me like a development of the ‘incorporating’ tendencies of Sumerian, & quite distinct from that of Hamitic & Semitic, however much its vocabulary may owe to Hamitic.

The European languages are probably much mixed both morphologically & lexically. I am inclined to conjecture that the |3| grammatical gender of the Aryan languages & and the use of plural inflection in Aryan (& Finnish) may be due to Hamitic – or even Semitic (?) – influence; the connecn between feminine gender & plurality is remarkable both in Aryan & Semitic.

I agree with you in thinking that the principles on which we assume or reject linguistic affinity require discussion; & this is one of the reasons why I have, after some hesitation, given a chapter on Aryan affinities in my book. The science of language is, after all, still a very young one.

I too think it possible that all languages have a common origin.

The difficulties of race are great. As you see in my book, I have tried to get over the difficulty of the Aryan race by a new hypothesis.⁵

Thomsen⁶ makes out Etruscan to be a Caucasian language⁷; but the Etruscans were ‘pingues et obesi’,⁸ which looks like a Tartan race.

Lacouperie⁹ connects Chinese with Sumerian, |4| but he not only derives their civilization from Susiania, but also tells us that the Chinese were originally fair & blue-eyed, which is quite against affinity with the Mongolic Sumerian; while if we assume that they spoken Susian, this would harmonize with the affiliation of Susian to the languages of the Caucasus. But, on the other hand, we have red-haired Kirgiz Tartars, & other traces of fair race in Central Asia which may be an independent development, distinct from the European ‘Caucasian’ race.

Henry Sweet