(Vol. iv., pp. 339, 458.)
In commenting on the criticisms of J. B., may I be allowed to follow the
order of his own reasoning as much as possible?
1st. I am glad to find that Scapula is right, but I must object to the
use of the participle _acquiescing_, as applied to me. My word is
"_de_duction," and is applied to a rule grounded upon Scapula's
correctness, and may, I think, settle the sense of those disputed verses
in Matt. xiii. 55, 56, to say nothing of two indisputable proofs which
might be adduced.
2nd. _I_ am wrong--for what? for _appearing_, in the eyes of J. B., to
have done that which I have not done,--for bringing in links of "the
Indo-Germanic languages," which I have neither done, nor can do.
3rd. "The word is solely and peculiarly Greek." Let me give only one
etymon by way of preparation for my answer. Let us take the word
_mouse_. Well, it comes from the Latin _mus_, which comes, you will say,
from the Greek [Greek: mys], and there are many clever etymologists,
excepting a few, with J. B. and myself, would say, "it is solely and
peculiarly Greek;" but _we_ go up to the Sanscrit (the _mother_ of
European languages), and bring forward _mush_, a mouse, and here is _the
terminus_--and why? because _mush_ signifies _to steal_, and therefore
sufficiently describes the nature of the little animal. Now, because we
cannot _find_ an existing link between the Greek and Sanscrit, is that a
reason for asserting [Greek: adelphos] to be of pure Greek _origin_? No;
and if J. B. will only recollect that all words in Sanscrit, excepting
bare primary roots, are compounded after the same manner as [Greek:
adelphos] or rather [Greek: del-ph], he will, I hope, find that I have
_not been wrong_ in my _etymon_. Moreover, let J. B. prove, _if he can_,
what is _the meaning_ of [Greek: delph] in the Greek, unaided by any
other language.
4th. Why is the Sanscrit _bhratre_ brought into the contest? perhaps to
prove what has not been proved, viz. that _it also_ signifies _frater
uterinus_.
5th. "How happened it that the word [Greek: phrater] was lost in Greek?"
Why, because the Greeks thought it too _barbarous_ a word to _own_, as
coming through the Latins from the barbarous Goths, Scandinavians, &c.!
Let us pass over irrelevant matter till we come to
6th. J. B.'s authoritative rule, "that no apparent similarity between
words in the Semitic and Asian (read Sanscrit) families can be used to
establish a real identity, the two classes of language being _radically_
and fundamentally distinct." Vide _mouse_, and a hundred more roots,
that might quash this rule.
To conclude, I did not introduce the Sanscrit _dal_ into my former note,
because, I suppose, an idea passed through my mind that I might offend
some "_interesting_ points in Greek manners."
I have only one more remark to make, which is, that the Sanscrit
_bhra-tre_ is a compound word like [Greek: del-phys]. I will give the
full etymology of this word _bhra-tre_, to prove that J. B. has done
wrong in bringing in a word to militate against his _own_ rule. Persian,
_bra-dar_; Sanscrit, _bhra-tre_; Gothic, _bro-thar_; Islandic,
_bro-dir_; German, _bru-der_; Swedish and Danish, _bro-der_;
Anglo-Saxon, _bro-ther_. Now, will J. B. prove that the Hebrew, Chaldee,
and Syriac [Hebrew: bar], _bar_, a son, is not connected with the
Persian and Sanscrit _bra_ and _bhra_? If he does, I shall doubtless be
edified.