出版社：Japan Science and Technology Information Aggregator, Electronic
摘要：It has been remarked now and then that Monboddo and others had recognized the relationship of the Indo-European languages earlier than Jones (e. g. v. E. L. Cloyd, American Anthropologist , 71 (1969), 1134). In such a remark, however, usually it has been overlooked that their idea on the relationship of the European languages or of the European languages and Sanskrit was confused. Jones' idea or hypothesis that Sanskrit, Greek, Latin and others were derived “from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists” was excellent and probably original. Although partially his idea has been keenly criticized for the expression “perhaps”(e. g. v. H. Pedersen. The Discovery of Language , 1931, p.18), as for the point, Arlotto's interpretation (Introduction to Historical Linguistics, 1972, p.40) is considered correct. Now, can we say that Iones' hypothesis “was not, like Halhed' s theory, the result of a process of linguistic reconstruction”(v. R. Rocher, Recherches de Linguistique , 1980, p.178) No.We merely do not know how the detailed process was. And the all-over framework of the process appears simple and common but is to the point and masterly. It was succeeded to and developed later by F. Schlegel and others. Jones seems to maintain an ambiguous attitude toward Slavic. He seems to want to except it from the Indo-European family. And later Celtic appears to have been excepted, and Egyptian to have been included. If it is true, just these ideas were “not the result of a process of linguistic reconstruction.”
