著者

田中 利光

出版者

学術雑誌目次速報データベース由来

雑誌

言語研究 (ISSN:00243914)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.1988, no.93, pp.61-80, 1988

---

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, <I>American Anthropologist</I>, 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.<BR>Jones' idea or hypothesis that Sanskrit, Greek, Latin and others were derived &ldquo;from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists&rdquo; was excellent and probably original. Although partially his idea has been keenly criticized for the expression &ldquo;perhaps&rdquo;(e. g. v. H. Pedersen. The <I>Discovery of Language</I>, 1931, p.18), as for the point, Arlotto's interpretation (Introduction to Historical Linguistics, 1972, p.40) is considered correct.<BR>Now, can we say that Iones' hypothesis &ldquo;was not, like Halhed' s theory, the result of a process of linguistic reconstruction&rdquo;(v. R. Rocher, <I>Recherches de Linguistique</I>, 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.<BR>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 &ldquo;not the result of a process of linguistic reconstruction.&rdquo;