CELTIC AND LATIN LANGUAGES.

(Vol. viii., p. 174.)

There was a Query some time ago upon this subject, but though it is one

full of interest to all scholars, I have not observed any Notes worth

mentioning in reply. The connexion between these two languages has only of

late occupied the attention of philologers; but the more closely they are

compared together, the more important and the more striking do the

resemblances appear; and the remark of Arnold with regard to Greek

literature applies equally to Latin, "that we seem now to have reached that

point in our knowledge of the language, at which other languages of the

same family must be more largely studied, before we can make a fresh step

in advance." But this study, as regards the comparison of Celtic and Latin,

is, in England at least, in a very infant state. Professor Newman, in his

_Regal Rome_, has attention to the subject; but his induction does not

appear sufficiently extensive to warrant any decisive conclusion respecting

the position the Celtic holds as an element of the Latin. Pritchard's work

upon the subject is satisfactory as far as it goes, but both these authors

have chiefly confined themselves to a tabular view of Celtic and Latin

words; but it is not _merely_ this we want. What is required is a critical

examination into the comparative structure and formal development of the

two languages, and this is a work still to be accomplished. The later

numbers of Bopp's _Comparative Grammar_ are, I believe, devoted to this

subject, but as they have not been translated, they must be confined to a

limited circle of English readers, and I have not yet seen any reproduction

of the views therein contained in the philological literature of England.

As the first step to considerations of this kind must be made from a large

induction of words, I think, with your correspondent, that the pages of "N.

& Q." might be made useful in supplying "links of connexion" to supply a

groundwork for future comparison. I shall conclude by suggesting one or two

"links" that I do not remember to have seen elsewhere.

1. Is the root of _felix_ to be found in the Irish _fail_, _fate_; the

contraction of the dipththong _ai_ or _ê_ being analogous to that of

_amaïmus_ into _amêmus_?

2. Is it not probable that _Avernus_, if not corrupted from [Greek:

aornos], is related to _iffrin_, the Irish _inferi_? This derivation is at

any rate more probable than that of Grotefend, who connects the word with

[Greek: Acherôn].

3. Were the _Galli_, priests of Cybele, so called as being connected with

fire-worship? and is the name at all connected with the Celtic _gal_, a

flame? The word _Gallus_, a Gaul, is of course the same as the Irish _gal_,

a stranger.

Notes and Queries, Number 219, January 7, 1854 A Medium of Inter-communication for Literary Men, Artists, Antiquaries, Genealogists, etc. · 第 72 / 136 题