Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rasmus Rask Investigation of The Origin of The Old Norse or Icelandic Language
Rasmus Rask Investigation of The Origin of The Old Norse or Icelandic Language
OR ICELANDIC LANGUAGE
AMSTERDAM CLASSICS IN LINGUISTICS, 1800 1925
AMSTERDAM STUDIES IN THE THEORY AND HISTORY
OF LINGUISTIC SCIENCE Series I
General Editor
E.F.K. KOERNER
Zentrum fr Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Typologie
und Universalienforschung, Berlin
efk.koerner@rz.hu-berlin.de
Amsterdam Classics in Linguistics has been established to provide the student of language
sciences with significant original sources constituting the capital of ideas on which modern
linguists have built. The series offers new editions of important though nowadays often
inaccessible 19th and early 20th century works, together with introductions by present-day
specialists in the field in which these studies are placed within their historical context and their
relevance for contemporary linguistic pursuits is shown.
A complete list of titles in this series can be found on http://benjamins.com/catalog/acil
Volume 18
New edition
of the 1993 English translation by
NIELS EGE
With an introduction by
FRANS GREGERSEN
University of Copenhagen
RASMUS RASK
Investigation on the Origin of the Old Norse or Icelandic Language
Preface i
Investigation on the Origin of the Old Norse or Icelandic Language 1
Foreword & Acknowledgments
The Niels Ege translation of Rasmus Rasks prize essay (1818) originally appeared
in 1993 as volume 26 of the Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague. The
publishing house of the Travaux was the illustrious C. A. Reitzel, then owned
by the enthusiast Sven Olufsen who however went insolvent in 2008. The books
Olufsen held in commission for the Copenhagen Linguistic Circle, i.e., the
remaining volumes of the series, not only went out of print but were for the
most part destroyed in the chaotic period following the bankruptcy. However,
the Circle and its series editor Una Canger managed to salvage enough copies of
Eges translation to be in a position to offer one of them to the publishing house
of John Benjamins for photographic reprint. The original files for the translation
had been prepared most judiciously during an extended period of repeated turns
of proof reading by Niels Ege and Una Canger, so that they would be as close
to perfect as humanly possible. For that reason it would have been an immense
waste of effort to do anything but reproduce photographically the original edition
of the translation. Together with a new, much fuller introduction it now appears
as volume 18 of the Amsterdam Classics in Linguistics series.
I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the
daughters of the late Niels Ege, Majken, Tina and Hannah, as well as the
Linguistic Circle of Copenhagen, in particular its president Kasper Boye, for
permission to reprint the translation. For his unstinting support throughout the
production of the new materials for the present re-edition, I am grateful to E.F.K.
Koerner, editor of the series where it rightfully belongs. I wish to thank Una
Canger for her unwavering support of this project and Jens Ege, brother of the
late Niels Ege, for placing at my disposal the text of his speech delivered at Niels
Eges funeral. Many of the biographical details in the section on the translator
have been taken from this text.
I am also very grateful to two anonymous referees for numerous
suggestions of improvements of style which have all been accepted. Their and the
editors request for additional information, I have tried to meet. All shortcomings
will remain my responsibility.
The portrait of Rask was drawn by David Monies (18121894). The engraving
is found in the Beretning om Gravmlet over Prof. R. Rask [Report on the
monument for Prof. R. Rask] ed. by Konrad Gislason, Martin Hammerich &
Peder Goth Thorsen (Kjbenhavn: Bianco Luno, 1842). The illustration here
has been taken from the inside cover of this booklet issued by the committee.
The portrait of Rask reproduced in Thomas L. Markeys re-edition of the
English translation by Sir George Webbe Dasent (1843) of Rasks own Swedish
Anvisning till Islndskan eller Nordiska Fornsprket of 1818 constitutes a
reproduction of the same portrait but it has a signature added which Rask
himself never used, viz. Rasmus Christian Rask. (Rask had dropped his
original middle name for both orthographic and religious reasons.)
Monies introduced a number of corrections of detail according to the
memory of those who could still remember Rask in 1842, but otherwise
based his engraving on the only other existing portrait of Rask. This was
published in his and his Swedish friend Arvid Augustus Afzeliuss (17851871)
edition of the so-called Older Edda, Edda Smundar hinns froa. Collectio
carminum veterum scaldorum Saemundiana dicta. Quam, ex codicibus
pergamenis chartaceisque cum notis et lectionibus variorum, ex recensione
ERASMI CHRISTIANI RASK curavit ARV. AUG. AFZELIUS (Holmiae: Typis
Elmenianis, 1818). The 1818 portrait is reproduced in Rasks Selected Writings
of 1932, vol.I. One of the significant differences between the 1818 and the 1842
portraits is that in 1818 Rask is pictured in typical peasant clothes, whereas he
is dressed like a gentleman professor in the 1842 version.
Introduction to the New Edition
of Niels Eges 1993 Translation
of Rasmus Rasks Prize Essay of 1818*
1. Introduction
it in Danish in the first edition of the Royal Danish Academys Oversigt (i.e.,
summary of proceedings), rsted 18131815. For readers of German it is in-
teresting to note that the 1932 corrected edition features a parallel German ap-
paratus and a translation of the introduction as a separate work. The work itself,
however, is still in Danish.
The reason for this strange state of affairs seems to be that Jacob Grimm
(17851863) made the results of the prize essay available to a linguistic commu-
nity generally unable to read Danish (obviously, he himself was) as an integrated
part of his second edition of his German grammar (Grimm 1822); and due to
the rapid development of Indo-European comparative philology in the early 19th
century, the substantial results of the prize essay, notably the contributions to the
delimitation of the Indo-European family and the specific letter correspondences
governing the relationships between Germanic and Greek and Latin, were soon
considered common knowledge (the latter under the name of Grimms Law), or
even out of date since Sanskrit had not been taken sufficiently into account.
That might again make readers wonder whether publishing the reprint and
the translation is a service only to historians of linguistics. Of course, it is a
service to historians of linguistics to make a classic text available in the only
language which the majority of historians feel at ease with. And it is to be hoped
that the burgeoning field of the history of linguistics will thereby receive a new
impetus to scrutinize the early beginnings of Indo-European scholarship. But,
just as importantly, the translation of this work of genius reveals that even if de-
tails in the substantial treatment of the various branches of language have now
been superseded, the theoretical parts of the book, notably the introduction and
the first chapter, are still worth reading by all linguists for their own sake.
two years later to experience a breakthrough of a new pedagogy and new regu-
lations which replaced a fundamentally medieval tradition of grammar-school
teaching in Denmark. The new order was at the beginning only established in
Trondheim, Copenhagen, and Odense since it was considerably more costly (cf.
Paludan 1885: 7879, and Henrichsen 1861, where the content of the reform
is outlined). It is an accident, but an extremely lucky one, that Rask was able
to transfer in 1802 to the new type of school which in Odense was apparently
blessed with an extremely well-qualified faculty, many of whom were soon pro-
moted, some to the university (Diderichsen 1960: 2829 and elsewhere).
Diderichsen 1960 demonstrates in detail how much Rask owed to his school
days at Odense precisely because the reform had as its explicit goal to further
independent thinking. This was ideal for Rask (Bjerrum 1959: 1718) and it
is interesting to see that one of his most important teachers, the mathemati-
cian Carl Ferdinand Degen (17661825),1 characterizes him as among the most
gifted in these words:
Talent for application of already acquired knowledge, that is a practical genius,
and for applying them in a new way, that is a heuristic genius, I think I have detect-
ed with R. R does show an aptitude for independent judgment and reasoning.2
(Degen in the school protocol 31 March 1803, after Diderichsen 1960: 20)
Diderichsen has also documented that the philologist S.N.J. Bloch (17721862)
who was Rasks teacher of Greek, profoundly influenced his general linguistic
outlook, and his grammatical apparatus in particular (see Diderichsen 1960:
3339). Yet, Bloch praises precisely Rasks independent mind:
And he is not one of those numerous individuals who without any further
investigation takes for granted all that his teacher says; oftentimes he will make
good, well founded, even very fine protests and counter suggestions.3 (Bloch in
the school protocol of October 1803; after Diderichsen 1960: 32)
It was while still in school that Rask found his unique object of study, Old Norse.
It is certainly true that there was an interest in matters Icelandic among his
1. On Degens own attempts to create a new etymological method cf. Karlsson et al 2000: 158.
2. Talent til at anvende allerede erhvervede Kundskaber, altsaa et praktisk Genie, og til at an-
vende dem paa en ny Maade, altsaa et heuristisk Genie, troer jeg at have sporet hos R. [] R.
viser altsaa Anlg til at dmme og slutte selv. (Unless otherwise noted, all translations from
Danish originals are the present authors own: F.G.)
3. Og er han ikke af den store Hob, der uden videre Undersgelse tager for fuldt alt hvad
Lreren siger. Idelig gjr han mig gode, velgrundede, ofte endog meget fine Anmrkninger
og Indvendinger.
*xiv Editors Introduction
contemporaries but the lack of knowledge of Icelandic, the language of the sagas,
was almost total. So, Rask had to start by himself. He had already begun study-
ing Icelandic early in 1804 (Diderichsen 1960: 30) but in March 1805 he had, as
a tribute to his diligence, been awarded the Schning edition of Snorris Heim-
skringla, more specifically the three parts which had appeared by then bound
in one volume (Diderichsen 1960: 30; Petersen 1834: 4-5; Letters I: 298). In his
biography of Rask, his schoolmate, and later the first professor of the Nordic lan-
guages in Denmark, Niels Matthias Petersen (17911862), details the method
invented for this purpose (Petersen 1834: 56):
The only means which Rask had at his disposal for the study of this language [i.e.
Old Norse] was Heimskringla itself, the text with the translations [into Danish
and Latin]; while reading it he would extract, using the same method which he
applied in his many linguistic studies later, the morphological structure [Dan.
Formlre] of the language by scrutinizing the various contexts in which each
word occurred. With a language as difficult as the Old Norse it would have been
thought impossible for anyone else his age. The difficulties were multiplied con-
siderably by the uncritical treatment of the text (which in later years he would
often elaborate on privatissime for me) since not only was the same word not
written in the same way, the very grammatical forms were confused. It was thus
a hard and tedious job by repeated comparisons to discover which form was the
right one. He proceeded in the following way: he wrote down each form of the
word as it occurred in the text in his notebook and quoted the passage where
it was found, compared when he found it repeated and thus carried on until
finally a number of nouns, pronouns and verbs etc. were completed. This was
continued until as many paradigms were laid out as were necessary to complete
the system; then began the ordering of declensional classes and finally a com-
plete make-over after an ordered plan.4
4. Den eneste Hjlp, som Rask havde til at studere dette Sprog, var Heimskringla selv, Tek-
sten med Oversttelserne; under Lsningen uddrog han, p samme Mde, som i sine mange
senere Sproggranskninger, Sprogets Formlre ved at betragte de forskjellige Forbindelser, i
hvilke hvert Ord forekom; ved et s vanskeligt Sprog som det islandske, mtte det for enhver
anden p hans Alder tykkes en Umulighed. Vanskeligheden forgedes meget ved den ukrit-
tiske Behandling af Teksten (hvilken han i senere r oftere privatissime har udviklet mig), da
ikke blot det selvsamme Ord ikke var skrevet p samme Mde, men selve de grammatikalske
Former vare forvirrede; det var derfor et mjsommeligt Arbejde, ved gjentagen Sammenlig-
ning endelig at udfinde, hvilken Form der var den rette. Hans Fremgangsmde dermed var
flgende: han optegnede hver enkelt Ordform efterhnden som den forekom p sit Sted i
sit Hfte, og siterede hvor den fandtes, sammenlignede, nr den kom igjen, og blev sledes
ved, indtil enkelte Navneord, Stedord, Gjerningsord, o.s.v. stode opstillede fuldstndig; dette
fortsattes s lnge, indtil s mange Paradigmata vare forhnden, at der kunde granskes over
det hele System, hvorefter Deklinatsioner, o.s.v. skulde ordnes; da begyndte en Omarbejdelse
efter ordnet Plan.
Editors Introduction *xv
historical purposes].5 The book was translated by its author into Swedish and
considerably enlarged (1818) and this enlarged edition minus the authors pref-
ace was translated into English by Sir George Webbe Dasent (18171896). That
edition has been reprinted photographically as no. 2 of Amsterdam Classics in
Linguistics with an introduction by Thomas L. Markey which partly also cov-
ers the prize essay and its importance (Markey 1976: xxvi-xxix). This volume
also includes valuable bibliographical information on manuscripts and works on
Rask to which I hereby refer the reader of the present work. The bibliographical
details may, however, now be supplemented by direct searches via the web in the
collections of the Danish Royal Library at www.kb.dk using Rask as the author
entry, since the various Rask manuscripts are now included in the searchable
catalogue.
2.2 To Iceland
Rask not only wanted to study the Icelandic language in manuscripts; he wanted
to actually go to Iceland to see for himself the places where all the events he had
read about had taken place and to learn the language to perfection. First, how-
ever, he got the chance to go to Sweden and Norway with Nyerup. The travels
were dressed up as scientific but also had the secret objective of espionage which
Rask naively betrayed to Blow (Letters I: 109; 116). The voyage occurred at the
time when Napoleon was about to invade Russia and there were tensions along
the borders. But as it happened Rask met individuals in Stockholm (notably
Arvid August Afzelius (17851871)), in Uppsala and in Norway, who were later
to be of importance in his work on Icelandic.
Rask had mentioned his intention to go to Iceland already in a very personal
and frank letter to Blow about his future position and scientific plans (Letters
I: 106-115 at 112), and had thus indirectly sought Blows support. He now re-
ceived support to finish his prize essay, not only from Blow but also from the in-
fluential Norwegian businessman Jacob Aall (17731844) (Letters I: 157), and an
Icelander offered him free passage to Iceland. Finally, he had in fact also received
the support of the Board of the University (commentary in Letters III,1: 62).
While he was in Iceland Rask finished the prize essay and sent the manu-
script down to the Royal Academy in Copenhagen (Letters I: 172). In a long
letter of 4 July 1814 to his former professor of theology Peter Erasmus Mller
(17761834), Rask does everything he can to downplay expectations about the
5. [H]vor [...] den gamle og almennordiske Sprogform ikke er s tydelig adskilt fra den ny
islandske, som den vel burde vret, for med sikkerhed at kunne anvendes i dybere Sprogun-
dersgelser
Editors Introduction *xvii
quality of the manuscript: he was forced to work in the only room in the house
(i.e. surrounded by a lot of people and unable to lay out his books) and he makes
many excuses about the style of his work, while insisting so much the more on
its valuable content. The prize essay must have been underway for quite some
time for it was only received at the Academy on 2 December 1814 (Lomborg
1960: 481).
Rask was deeply surprised by the poverty he found where the events de-
scribed in the sagas had once taken place; but he was even more impressed by
the natural scenery and the people he met on the island. In letters he boasted
that he was actually taken for an Icelander, so well had he learnt to speak the lan-
guage, and he gave vivid descriptions of the geysirs in whose immediate vicinity
he had been camping together with a friend.
The importance of Rasks visit to Iceland lies in the fact that he acquainted
himself thoroughly with Icelandic through hunting down the individuals who
spoke the language to perfection (he complains about Reykjavik being infected
by Danish). He writes in English in a letter to an unknown recipient that
This most valuable remainder of Gothic Antiquity, and almost the only one pre-
served in Iceland, is certainly the ancient general language of all the kingdoms
of the North; which is still spoken throughout that Island to a truly astonish-
ing degree of purity and elegance. This I may pretend to ascertain; for having
travelled through the kingdoms of Denmark, Sweden and parts of Norway in
order to study the languages and the philological antiquities of the North, I have
now spent these two years in travelling around the island of Iceland to inquire
into the present state of that remarkable language, and in every corner of the
country I have been able to converse with the natives in the antient [sic] Scan-
dinavian tongue and I have found them reading still the old sagas of the heroic
age. (Letters I: 183)
Rask had thus entered into close friendships with a number of Icelanders who
were active in preserving the islands cultural heritage. This was the golden age
of learned societies. They would produce the critical editions needed for the ad-
vancement of knowledge and they would form the material basis of production
by securing enough subscriptions. In picturing the lonely genius in his study,
it is often overlooked that Rasmus Rask was an expert at doing such organiza-
tional work. He virtually created the two societies that were to become central in
promoting scholarship on Icelandic (cf. commentary in Letters III,1: 66f): Hi
slenzka Bkmenntafjelag and the Nordisk Oldskriftselskab. He served as the
chairman of both.
Back from Iceland Rask had formed another plan. He wanted to get the prize
essay published and he also wanted to work further along the lines suggested in
*xviii Editors Introduction
it, but most of all, and all through his life, he wanted a job that would enable
him to establish his own household and let him work solely on the issues he
was concerned with. Thus, the perennial problem for Rask was how to navigate
strategically in order to make himself attractive as a candidate for a professorship
for the powers that be, while still producing scholarly publications. The problem
was in principle unsolvable. If he did not produce any scholarly work, he would
not get a position because he would be considered finished as a scholar. If he did
publish, he would risk, in the eyes of the authorities, seeming not to be in need
of a permanent position at all.
The rebuke to which Rask was subjected is somewhat mollified when the text
subsequently suggests that Rask be given the assignment of publishing the Olaf-
sen supplement to Ihres Glossarium if he remains in Denmark, a job worth an
estimated 200 Rigsbankdaler a year (ibid: 212). The plan was later to be renewed
when the Academy in March 1824, at the suggestion of Mller, granted Rask the
6. I nrvrende Tidspunct kunde det mere end nogensinde synes upassende, at Danske
vilde bidrage til at Islandske Skrifter og Islnderes Arbeider udkom i Sverrig. Naar Hr. Rask
i Stokholm udgiver den prosaiske Eddas Text, paa samme Tid, da man i Danmark med of-
fentlig og privat Anstrngelse strber vrdigen at publicere de Monumenter, som ere Nor-
dens Stolthed og Danmarks Ejendom, saa kan denne private Indiscretion neppe nok tilgives
den ivrigt udmrkede unge Mands videnskabelige Nidkirhed; men dersom Det Kongelige
Danske Videnskabernes Selskab begik en lignende Ubetnksomhed, saa vilde denne vist op-
vkke Kyndiges offentlige Uvillie, og muligen endog paadrage det Hs. Majestt Kongens,
Selskabets ophjede Velgirers, allerhjeste Mishag.
*xx Editors Introduction
7. Det er sandt at Fdrenelandet har tildels sat mig istand til at erhverve mine Kundskaber;
men det er ogsaa sant at det har aldrig brudt sig om at benytte dem. The use of the old (and
modern-day Icelandic) word order in the dependent clause is significant.
Editors Introduction *xxi
Mller went to the King to present him with his especially dedicated copy. This
was immediately before the end of 1817 because I [Mller] knew that the
travel scholarships were to be handed out soon (Letters I: 293) and he did in
fact obtain a promise of support. From now on, everything went surprisingly
smoothly: Rask was granted money from the King for the voyage (see Letters I:
293-294 and commentary ad loc.); and the very letters to document the renewed
support for 1819 were sent in transcription to Rask while he was in St. Peters-
burg in cover letters from Mller (Letters I: 408-413). Rask was en voyage. The
journey would take him to Persia, India and Ceylon and would allow him to buy
a collection of manuscripts for the Royal Library in Copenhagen unmatched by
any other collection in Europe.
The manuscripts that Rasmus Rask brought home with him were first listed
in volume 3 of his collected works edited by his half brother H. K. Rask (the list
was also published separately in 1838). They have recently been the subject of
scholarly treatment in a complete catalogue (Buescher 2011). As for Rasks own
manuscripts, the reader is referred to the complete inventory in Letters III.2:
515-593.
Rasmus Rask had a peculiar way to travel. Everywhere he went he sought
the acquaintance of men who have studied the local language, or indeed any
language, struck up a linguistic friendship in order to borrow the materials they
have available so as to be able to broaden his own linguistic horizon, and offered
his own materials in return. In this way his travels became a truly linguistic
expedition, much to the chagrin of his audience at home who had expected co-
lourful and vivid descriptions of exotic sights. N.C.L. Abrahams, a somewhat
younger and more successful contemporary, says in his memoirs that he and a
number of other young friends were invited to Nyerups place immediately after
Rasks return, but did not get anything out of the traveler except a story about
how he had once ridden an elephant (Abrahams 1876: 179-180).
To travel in his study so to speak, was Rasks inventive way to make the best
out of a very complicated and potentially life-threatening ordeal. He had not at
all wanted to go to India himself. What he wanted was to have at his disposal
materials akin to the saga manuscripts on which he could base an analysis of
the Eastern languages, notably Sanskrit. When in September 1818 he learned
in a letter from Nyerup (Letters I: 337-338) that the Danish medical doctor and
botanist Nathanael Wulff Wallich (17851854) had presented the Copenha-
gen University Library with all that has been printed in later years in Calcutta
and Serampore, among which no less than 3 different Sanskrit grammars and a
*xxii Editors Introduction
8. Alt hvad i senere Aaringer er bleven trykt i Calcutta og Serampore. Deriblandt ikke min-
dre end 3 forskjellige Grammatikker over Sanskritsproget samt et Sanskrit-Lexicon. Buescher
(2011: xvii) classifies the manuscripts from the Wallich donation as solely concerning Ay-
urveda topics but this is only part of the donation.
9. Amsterdamska (1987) has pointed to an interesting riddle: Why was it German scholars
and not English or French ones that brought Sanskrit into continued and systematic universi-
ty study? There are reasons to be found for this in the various university systems adopted but
Amsterdamska also suggests that the ideology of historicist idealism was decisive (Amster-
damska 1987: 35-36). This seems to me both true and important. It should not be overlooked,
however, that the idea of a German linguistic unity and common historical past had impor-
tant political ramifications as well.
Editors Introduction *xxiii
10. Most of these works were printed in India and thus could be the books that Rask himself
acquired and tried to sell in 1831; certainly Bopp mentions Wilson (cf. note 11).
*xxiv Editors Introduction
had had access to what was available and thus was completely au courant. Since its
latest entry is dated 1823, Marie Bjerrum dates the list as a whole as having been
written over the course of the period 18201823 (which would mean en voyage).
Whether that is true for the other manuscripts is impossible to say; they probably
represent a sustained effort lasting several years.
Taken as a complete system we note that Rask in order to build the gram-
mar of a language (cf. note 25 below) used dictionaries and philology in the
strict sense as his essential instruments, and that in consequence he had to mas-
ter all these now separate and specialized linguistic fields of inquiry.
But it was not to be. Rask left his materials for a Sanskrit grammar for
posterity, but no one noticed; he himself discarded all things Asiatic in despair
when he did not get the professorship he so desired (cf. next section) and only
returned to this branch of learning during the 1830s when it was too late to
finish his original plans.11
11. A curious letter from Franz Bopp to Rask of 20 February 1831 has survived (Letter 940,
Letters II: 254-255) in which Bopp declares himself willing to assist Rask in selling his schne
Sammlung sanskritischer Bcher. Why Rask wanted to sell his Sanskrit books just when he was
again preoccupied with the Oriental languages, remains a mystery. The letter is very generous
and kind and seems to indicate genuine friendship. So, for instance, Bopp suggests that Rask
would be able to find a better position (than at the University of Copenhagen) in Prussia. The
sale in the end turned out to be unsuccessful and the books were returned to Rask.
12. Ironically, Rask himself by his very scholarship and reputation would become instru-
mental in making the authorities at the University of Copenhagen create two regular profes-
sorships in 1844, shortly after his death: one in the Nordic languages and one in Oriental
Editors Introduction *xxv
1823), who succeeded his father Johan Christian Kall (17141775), but he died
in October 1823, less than half a year after Rasks return. Rask, however, was not
promoted; the professorship was taken over by Jens Lassen Rasmussen, who
had catalogued the Wallich donation in 1819, thus showing his broad knowl-
edge of all the so-called Oriental languages. Rasmussen had been an adjunct
since 1813 and an extraordinary professor since 1815, and thus by university
traditions could expect an ordinary professorship (Slottved 1978: 147). This
was completely in line with what the university authorities found rational at the
time, although we as observers with hindsight may appreciate the feelings that
Rask must have had. When, he must have asked himself, would he ever be in a
position to be promoted and when had the world of learning ever heard of Jens
Lassen Rasmussen?13
Rask applied for a post as soon as he arrived in Copenhagen and, after a
year of waiting, was given the title of Professor of literary history with special
reference to Asiatic literature on 14 May 1825 (Slottved 1978: 165) but no raise
in pay. On the contrary, for formal reasons the Board decided that he was to be
given the pay that he had already been given as part of his previous job as a uni-
versity librarian, but only as an extraordinary bonus for a period of three years,
and thus he had to beg for a renewal every three years.
Jens Lassen Rasmussen died in 1826, however, and at this junction Rask must
again have had high hopes of getting the position. Now he was the extraordi-
nary professor waiting in line for an ordinary professorship. His hopes turned to
nothing, however, when Matthias Hagen Hohlenberg (17971845) who was even
younger than Rask but was the son-in-law of Ove Malling (for whom see section
3.1 below), was appointed as Rasmussens successor. Hohlenberg, after 5 years in
the position, opted for the professorship in theology and thus left the post vacant
in 1831. Finally, Rask got it in December that year (Slottved 1978: 147).
A complication of some relevance here was that the logic of Rasks whole lin-
guistic enterprise told him to make his basic data as comparable as possible, as
can be seen in the text of the prize essay itself. One obstruction was of course the
various indigenous orthographies. He not only worked out a scheme for translit-
erating all the Indian languages into a European orthographical system and had
languages. Both were filled by pupils of Rask: Niels Matthias Petersen, his friend and biogra-
pher (17911862), and Niels Ludvig Westergaard (18151878), his most obvious pupil as a
Sanskrit scholar, respectively.
13. Rasmussen had studied with Silvestre de Sacy and was an original scholar on the subject
of Islamic connections to the Western world, notably trade connections. He was the son in
law of N.C. Kall, his predecessor in the position. According to the biographical entry at www.
denstoredanske.dk, he committed suicide.
*xxvi Editors Introduction
printing types made for that purpose (Mller 1833: 19), but also analyzed the
Danish orthography in his great treatise called Forsg til en videnskabelig dansk
Retskrivningslre (An attempt at a scientific treatment of Danish orthography)
(Rask 1826), and by doing so paved the way for what was later to become stan-
dard Danish orthography (Gregersen 1985, Galberg Jacobsen 2010).
This did not, however, make Rask popular. Firstly, even his colleagues did
not understand why he spent so much time and energy on this subject (though
it should be obvious that it was part and parcel of his program), and secondly,
the populace ridiculed him as the inventor of strange letters (Mller 1833: 23).
He insisted that societies that were to print his contributions, such as the Royal
Academy and the Nordisk Oldskriftselskab, use his own orthography but for
that very reason his written works were denied publication. He even left the
Royal Danish Society for Danish Language and History because members had
complained that he wanted to use his own orthography in his own contributions
(Werlauff 1847: 197, note r). No wonder he felt left alone. Even N. M. Petersen
quarreled with him as to the right method of getting his orthography used. The
issue here was not the orthography per se (although Petersen did later change
some aspects of the program) but how to promote it. Rask was adamant that if
only enough authors used it, the readers would accept it, whereas Petersen had a
much more pessimistic view and preferred gradual reform. Markey (1976: xxiii)
quotes the insidious letter written by Christian Molbech (17831857) to Jacob
Grimm which concludes in the joke, ascribed to the King, that one wondered
that the only result of the many years of travel to distant countries would be an o
above the a. (Rask had suggested using the letter <> instead of double a.)
Early on Rask had had ideas that he was being persecuted: in modern day
terms he suffered from some sort of paranoia. In a letter to the above mentioned
Swedish colleague Cnattingius about his childhood and later biography, he writes
as follows:
It happened once at a foreign place where I had to learn something that I got a
pretty strong portion of arsenic on an open sandwich. I know the person who
gave it to me to revenge himself on me or my father; I know the occasion and
remember with certainty the exact circumstances, but my conscience tells me
that I was innocent and I have a long time ago forgiven this matter and so will
not mention any one.14 (Letters I: 296)
14. Undertiden hnde det att jag p et frmmanda stlle, der jag skulle lra ngon ting, fick
en ganska stark portion arsenik p en smrgs. Jag knner personen, som gaf mig den fr att
hmnas p mig eller min far, jag vet anledningen och erinrar fullkomligt vl den minsta om-
stndigheten; men mitt samvete sger mig att jag var oskyldig, och jag har lnge sedan frltit
denna sak, hvarfre jag ingen vill nmna.
Editors Introduction *xxvii
He goes on to say how he got sick and was confined to bed for the better part
of a year and how he still suffers from the consequences! It is curious to note
that there are certain similarities between the later attacks of paranoia in India,
where he could not understand what the natives were saying and feared for his
life (Mller 1833: 18 with reference to the diary, see Rnning 1887: 109) and
later on when he thought that he was being poisoned by his erstwhile fiance,
Louise Nyerup, daughter of his paternal friend Rasmus Nyerup. The similarities
lie in the fact that he explicitly forgives the natives in India and that he thought
that Louise Nyerup would poison him by putting before him a particular kind
of food.
Now that he was in fact being persecuted for his beliefs (in a rational Danish
orthography), his anxieties grew, and N.M. Petersen details how he thought he
was being poisoned and some other time that he would be burnt to death like
the saga-hero Njal (Petersen 1908: 189, cf. note 1).
Markey (1976: xxv) bases his rendering of the relationship to Nyerup and his
daughter on Diderichsens discovery among N. M. Petersens papers of a draft for
his biography of Rask, where Petersen is much more explicit than he is in the
published biography of 1834 (Diderichsen 1960: 216). It is vital in this case to
distinguish between the facts and the interpretations by Petersen and Diderichsen.
The facts are that Nyerup was until his death at age seventy in 1829 a provost of the
Regensen and thus had free lodging there (and a lot of space) and was at the same
time head of the University Library. Rask wanted to succeed him in both of these
positions when his paternal friend died. He thus applied for both (Letters II: 224f
and commentary ad loc.; Diderichsen 1960: 216-263). Now, what Petersen says is
that Rask had wondered why he did not get promoted, Petersen concludes that he
had fallen out of favour, presumably because of the feud about the orthography
during 1825 and 1826. This turned out not to be true in the end, but it is the basis
for Rasks speculations. Petersen surmises that it was possible that someone was
trying to force Rask to marry a person whom he disliked thoroughly. This some-
one presumably was Rasmus Nyerup who wanted his youngest daughter married
and cared for.
Louise Nyerup was born in 1799 and, by the customs of the day, she was a
housekeeper for her father since Nyerups wife had died in 1818, and she was
the only unmarried daughter to remain at home; it was high time that she got
married if she was to have a chance; both Nyerup and she herself were getting
older. Rask, on the other hand, as we have heard above, had actually suspected
Louise Nyerup of being able to plan to poison him in March 1829. This was
two years after Rask had proposed to her only to see the engagement broken off
under peculiar circumstances which hurt him immensely (P. E. Mller 1833:
27). Rask mentions in his letter of application to the Board of the University
*xxviii Editors Introduction
Rask was buried on 20 November 1832, and since the organizers had ex-
pected a large crowd, they had ordered 13 carriages complete with drivers and
servants. But the students relieved the pall bearers and carried his coffin from
his home in Badstuestrde no.17 to Nrreport. Here the hearse waited to take
him to Assistens Cemetery where his grave is still to be found. The hearse was
followed to its destination by a huge crowd of Copenhageners.
After the funeral his books were sold. Clearly they made up the better part
of the fortune left by his estate, a fortune which when he lived served him as a
scholar and thus could not be used to ameliorate his living conditions. We have a
good grasp of which books Rask had owned, since there is a complete catalogue
of the auction, numbering 1773 items in total (Christensen 1932a, b).
early years that the dissertation defense had to wait until he had finished his own
book. Finally, Jrgen Rischel wrote a booklet on Rasmus Rask celebrating his
bicentenary in 1987. For English-only researchers, the treatment in Karlsson et
al. (2000: 156-164 and ad indicem) may be recommended, since it places Rask
among his contemporaries in the Nordic countries and does so on the backdrop
of the European scene. Diderichsen wrote a short version of his book as his con-
tribution to the Wenner-Gren Foundation symposium on Revolution vs. Con-
tinuity in the Study of Language in August 1964. It was first published as part of
the volume of Diderichsens papers produced on the occasion of his all too early
death (Diderichsen 1966) but is now readily available in Hymes (1974). The So-
ciety for Nordic Philology has celebrated selected anniversaries by publishing
a book dedicated to ascertaining the state of the art. In 1937, when the first 25
years had passed, Poul Andersen (19011985) wrote the piece on Rask (Ander-
sen 1937). In 1979 the University of Copenhagen celebrated the first 500 years
of its existence by staging a number of scientific symposia. Among them was the
RaskHjelmslev symposium on Typology and Genetics of Language a report
of which may be found in Thrane et al. (1980). The translator of the prize essay,
Niels Ege, contributed several papers, the most obviously relevant one being Ege
(1980). Jrgen Rischel in his contributions to volume 2 of the handbook on the
Nordic languages edited by Bandle et al. has given a highly original overview
of The Contribution of the Nordic countries to historical-comparative linguis-
tics: Rasmus Rask and his followers (Rischel 2002). Finally, Hans Frede Nielsen
contributed the biographical entry on Rask in volume 24 of Hoops Reallexikon
(Nielsen 2003).
Among the books on Rask written by non-linguists we may single out F.V.V.
Rnnings treatment which is well documented and lucidly written (Rnning
1887). Rask has even found his way into Danish fiction as witnessed by recent
publications by the well known writer Hanne Marie Svendsen (2009) and the
considerably younger author Mathilde Walther Clark (2005). A popular biogra-
phy of Rasmus Rasks life and letters by Kirsten Rask appeared in 2002.
Louis Hjelmslev has discussed the origin and wording of this question in his
commentary to the corrected edition of 1932. He suggests that it might have
been Peter Erasmus Mller who was responsible for the proposal to announce
this question precisely at that time, but that he could not have had any knowl-
edge of the fact that Rask had prepared an investigation along these lines in
his school days (Hjelmslev 1934: 2-3, with reference to a now lost letter quoted
by Petersen 1834: 15-18). P. E. Mller cannot, however, have been the original
spokesman for Rask at the meeting when the prize question was formulated
since he was not yet a member of the Royal Academy in 1810. He was only elect-
ed in 1811 (Lomborg 1942: 365). Neither was Johan von Blow able to speak
for Rask. He was awarded an honorary membership only in 1815 (ibid: 431);
Rasmus Nyerup was elected even later, in 1823, immediately before Rask himself
in 1825 (Lomborg 1942: 367). On the other hand, the previously mentioned C.
F. Degen was a member (ibid. 363).
It turns out that the question16 bears the signatures of the following mem-
bers of the Historical Class of the Academy: A(braham) Kall, N(iels Iversen)
Schow, (Ove) Malling and B(rge) Thorlacius.17
The authors turn out to be a cross section of Danish intellectuals interest-
ed in the historical elucidation of the state of Denmark and its past: Abraham
Kall (17431821) was by then senior Professor of History and Geography at the
University of Copenhagen. Niels Iversen Schow (17541830) was extraordinary
Professor of Archaeology; Ove Malling (17471829) was an extremely influen-
tial civil servant and for some time prime minister, now mostly known for his
book on Store og gode handlinger, which was used as a reader (and a template
for spelling) by successive generations of pupils from 1777 onwards (Malling
1777), and finally Brge Thorlacius (17751829), who was the son of the learned
16. Interestingly, the word order is a little different from the one given by Rask himself in the
prize essay and accords better with the one given above than the translation found below on
page 8 of the edition.
17. The excerpt from the protocol at the Academy was kindly sent to me by Katrine
Hassenkam Zoref.
*xxxii Editors Introduction
Figure 1. The original question posed by the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters.
At the top the Danish version: At undersge med historisk Critik, og oplyse med passende
Exempler, af hvilken Kilde det gamle skandinaviske Sprog sikkrest kan udledes; at angive
Sprogets Charakteer og det Forhold, hvori det fra ldre Tider og igiennem Middelalderen
har staaet, deels til Nordiske, deels til Germaniske Dialecter; samt nyagtigen at bestemme
de Grundstninger, hvorpaa al Udledelse og Sammenligning i disse Tungemaal br bygges.
For the two translations cf. the present text. After the signatures there is a message from the
Secretary (Thomas Bugge [17401815], Professor of Mathematics) who asks the Professor
of Latin, Brge Thorlacius, to add a Latin version which is the easily readable version below.
Editors Introduction *xxxiii
Icelander who was to finish the Schning edition of Heimskringla, Skuli Thorla-
cius Thordarson (17411815), and who himself took over where his father had
left off. Thorlacius the younger may be supposed to be the real instigator of this
particular question although he only signed last (probably, they signed accord-
ing to year of election and thus seniority in the Academy). He had only been
appointed to the post as an ordinary Professor of Latin in1803 and elected to
the Academy in 1810, the year in which the question was formulated; but with
his background and typically rationalistic erudition it would be obvious to see
him as the instigator par excellence among these four. Incidentally, he was also
the son in law of Abraham Kall, the senior member of the group (and thus the
one to sign first).
We may discuss how much the question actually limited Rasks response and
how much it furthered it. It did indeed determine the characteristic structure of
the work in that the Icelandic language is taken as the pivot for a comparative
exercise taking us through the various geographical candidates for the position
as the language best suited to elucidate the source of the Old Icelandic or Nordic
tongue, gradually giving a total picture of which languages were related to Ice-
landic and which were not. This, however, was probably very much a picture of
the development of the authors own studies, having Icelandic as the core around
which he built his successive raids into foreign territory, always illuminating
them by first casting the available evidence in the same mould.
On the other hand, the strategy used allows the author to demonstrate his
mastery of his own stated principles of discovery in that he has to discard any
original relationship in four out of the eight cases which he analyzes, namely,
Greenlandic, Celtic, Basque and Finnic. In the case of Celtic this soon turned
out to be wrong but it is still interesting to study why Rask came to the wrong
conclusion and why he changed his mind so quickly (Pedersen 1924: 53).
Rask wrote at a time when the differentiation between what Collinge calls
the T (for Typology) strain, the G (for Genetic) strain and finally the E (for
Evolution) strain was not in place (Collinge 1995). This gives the prize essay its
character of being close to the discovery of the various types of linguistic rela-
tionships outlined in the theoretical chapter at the beginning of the prize essay.
The sheer possibility of being wrong is still open and vibrant. That only enhances
its value for us in forcing us to question whether the orthodoxy of differentiating
between the various strains has indeed brought us closer to a clear picture of the
history of language or not. The present interest in language contact, originally
fuelled by the appearance of Thomason & Kaufman (1988), and the somewhat
more recent (renewed) revolt against seeing languages as delimited national en-
tities under the watchword of languaging (e.g., Jrgensen 2010) bear witness to
the fact that this is not a foregone conclusion.
*xxxiv Editors Introduction
18. Or rather, in the prize essay he isnt. Diderichsen 1968 lists Herderian statements in his
other works (233, note 6), but I would seriously question whether the statements are really
Herderian or just commonplace for the period. This merits further study.
19. The relationship between Rask and the two brothers Grimm has been analyzed in detail
by Sonderegger 1986, where a most useful survey of the German reception of Rask may also
be found.
Editors Introduction *xxxv
the Royal Academy has published a prize question calling for an investigation of
the source of the old Nordic language. This I have thought I would try to answer
and I will explain the Icelandic by the Greek as the oldest and most original lan-
guage in the whole of Europe. The question was actually to be answered last year
and I sent in a specimen of the treatise with a request for extension. I had sent
in a number of lexical comparisons and of the grammar a comparison between
the declension systems of Icelandic and Greek where each ending in the first
was referred to and deduced by the last. I showed these fragments to Nyerup
and he said that they were excellent and that the grammatical comparison was
something completely new which no one before me had discovered or even
suspected. A verdict just as flattering I received from Professor Erasm. Mller,
who is in that class of the Academy that will have to evaluate it. Obviously I
was highly flattered and encouraged and the more so since I believe by this in
addition much can be illuminated of the inner workings of the Greek language
itself.20
The Academy granted the extension on 3 January 1812 (Lomborg 1960: 481),
but the essay was not delivered to the Academy until 2 December 1814 (ibid.).
By that time Rask was on his trip to Iceland. Much has been made of the fact
that Rask was unable to see the book through the printing press, as stated in
Rasks own preface below, and that professors Nyerup and Finn Magnusson
(17811847), the latter among the first learned Icelanders to greet Rasmus Rask
as a worthy friend of Iceland (Letters I: 87ff.) and later to become Chief of the
Archives in Copenhagen, had to correct the proofs. This is not quite true how-
ever, since the very last proofs seem to have been sent to Rask himself when he
was in Stockholm (Letters I: 242, 256, 283). However that may be, the extremely
complicated nature of the printing assignment and the haste which was so char-
acteristic of Rask in combination with the above-mentioned factors in sum
explain the many discrepancies that Hjelmslev notes between the manuscript
and the edition. These discrepancies have been resolved in the corrected edition
20. af Videnskab. Selskab er udsat den Prisopgave at undersge det gamle nordiske Sprogs
Oprindelse. Dette har jeg tnkt at forsge paa og jeg udleder Islandsken af Grsken som
det ldste og originaleste Sprog i hele Evropa [.] Opgaven var egentlig for forrige Aar og jeg
indsendte en Prve af Afhandlingen med Anmodning om Udsttelse. Det indsendte inde-
holdt en Del Lexicalske Sammenligninger, og af grammati. en Sammenligning imellem den
islandske og Grske Deklinatsionsteori, hvori enhver Endelse i den frste var henfrt til og
udledt af det sidste. Jeg viste Nyerup disse Brudstykker og han sagde de vare fortrffelige og
at den grammatikalske Sammenligning var noget ganske nyt, som ingen fr havde opdaget
eller ahnet [.] En ligesaa smigrende Dom fik jeg af Prof. Erasm. Mller som er i den Klasse
af Vidensk. Selskab der skal bedmme det. Naturligvis maatte dette smigre mig meget og
opmuntre mig saa meget mer som jeg tror derved tillige kann opdages og oplyses meget i det
grske Sprogs inderste Vsen.
*xxxvi Editors Introduction
by Hjelmslev, and this corrected edition without variants is the basis for the
present work, Niels Eges translation into English. Thus, this version may be said
to convey to the reader what Rask would have intended to communicate, as far
as we are able to reconstruct this, if he had written his work in the international
language of today.
The prize essay was evaluated by the Historical Class at the Royal Academy.
The evaluators produced the following verdict:
The treatise with the motto Sialdan eru dasmidir ahlaupavrk21 which was de-
livered to the Academy contains many erudite and new investigations, bears
witness to vast linguistic knowledge and an extraordinary gift of combination.
Although the author has not yet reached as far back as to the oldest and furthest
removed sources of the Nordic languages and although he has not treated the
Persian, the Indic and other Asiatic languages with the same diligence and suc-
cess as that with which he has treated the comparison of the Gothic, Finnic,
Slavic, and Thracian (Greek and Latin) languages, he has yet penetrated deeper
into the origins of the Nordic languages than any of his predecessors and the
stretch of the road that he has cleared is already so considerable and his new
discoveries so important that the treatise for these reasons seems to deserve the
prize. Some points which one would wish the author to take into closer con-
sideration might on demand be conveyed to him.22 (rsted 1813/1815: 29-30)
We note that already in 1815 the evaluators point to the lack of a thorough inves-
tigation of the Oriental and Asian languages and thereby so to speak outline the
program that Rask was to follow after his completion of the prize essay. There
seems to have been a demand for knowledge about precisely these languages
in the air, or rather in the Zeitgeist. This is backed up by a letter only five years
later from Nyerup to Rask, by then in St. Petersburg, where Nyerup mentions
the fact that Sanskrit is after all, as we all know, the basis on which our progress
21.. This Icelandic proverb says literally that rare are those works which are worth admiration,
i.e. it is not easy to produce an admirable work. I gratefully acknowledge the help of Ari Pll
Kristinsson here.
22. Den med Devise: Sialdan eru dasmidir ahlaupavrk indkomne Afhandling indeholder
mange lrde og nye Undersgelser, rber udbredte Sprogkundskaber, og en ualmindelig
Combinationsgave. Er Forfatteren end ikke trngt frem til de nordiske Sprogs ldste og fjer-
neste Kilder, og har han ikke med saadan Flid og Held, som den, hvormed han har behandlet
Sammenligningen af de Gothiske, Finniske, Slaviske, Traciske (Grske og Latinske) Sprog,
undersgt det Persiske, det Indiske og flere asiatiske Sprog, er han dog trngt dybere ind i
de nordiske Sprogs Oprindelse end nogen af hans Forgjngere, og den Strkning af Veien,
han har banet, er allerede saa betydelig, og det Nye, han har opdaget, saa vigtigt, at Afhan-
dlingen desaarsag synes at fortjene den udsatte Prmie. Nogle Poster, som man nskede For-
fatteren vilde tage under niere Overveielse, skulle paa Forlangende blive ham meddeelte.
Editors Introduction *xxxvii
rests.23 Nyerup goes on to mention that two professors were already lecturing
on Sanskrit in Germany, one in Berlin (Franz Bopp), the other in Bonn (August
Wilhelm Schlegel [17671845]). In other words, Nyerup agreed with Rask that
he did not have to go to India to gather materials for his Sanskrit studies.
Thus the Academy had approved the prize essay but that was of course not
enough. The book still had to appear and to be brought to the notice of the world
of learning. The Secretary of the Royal Academy, the famous Danish physicist
Hans Christian rsted (17771851), wrote a fairly substantial resum of the es-
say in the same volume of Oversigt over Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes
Selskabs Forhandlinger og det Medlemmers Arbeider de sidste to Aar (Summary
of negotiations of the Royal Danish Academy of Science and Letters and a re-
view of the works published by its members) which had carried the evaluation
(rsted 1813/1815: 19-24). Considering the position of the Royal Danish Acad-
emy and other academies in the contemporary world of learning, this must have
been a most effective advertisement of a treatise soon to appear.
Rask applied for money to print the book and the King provided a grant for
the printing in May 1817 (see Letters I: 233) in the middle of the crisis created
by Rasks stay in Sweden. When the prize essay was finally printed (it was fin-
ished in January 1818), it did indeed have a deep and lasting influence on Rasks
life, since it was on the occasion of delivering the book to his Majesty Frederik
VI that Peter Erasmus Mller succeeded in obtaining the grant from the Kings
treasury to make Rasks travels to India and Ceylon possible.
The structure of the essay itself and its results have been admirably and
thoroughly discussed in Holger Pedersens introduction to the Hjelmslev edi-
tion. Pedersen wrote on the essay from the point of view of the Neogrammarian
school and thus pointed out where Rask went wrong compared with the prevail-
ing orthodoxy: He did not clearly distinguish between sounds and letters (Ped-
ersen 1932: xxxii; cf. Gregersen(2009 [1987]): 36 et passim), he was wrong about
Celtic (but very soon corrected the mistake (Pedersen, p. xxviii) and he does not
clearly distinguish between typological and genetic comparisons (p. xxxi), but
he may be excused for his mistakes by the heritage from the past. More serious
seems to be the possible accusation of not belonging to the historical school
which alone is responsible for progress according to Pedersen (p. xxx) but rather
to the systematic school (i.e. language philosophy, to use Pedersens term, or a
structuralism avant la lettre to follow Hjelmslevs analysis in his Commentaires
of 1951). Pedersen quickly dismisses the discussion by noting that Systemat-
ics is no opposition to language history, on the contrary it may be an excellent
23. Sanskrit er jo, som bekjendt, det hvorpaa alt vor Vee og Vel beroer.
*xxxviii Editors Introduction
preparation for it.24 Yet, half a page later he concludes that the ultimate goal that
Rask had in mind undoubtedly was to discover genetic relationships.25
I think Pedersens suspicion captures some of the essence of the work as it
vacillates between the various currents which were then as now present on the
linguistic scene (if not at that time so precisely formulated as it is now): Histori-
cal studies focused on genetic relationships still owe us a theoretical solution to
the riddle of how hunter gatherer languages might be related in the distant
past before the advent of writing (and nationalities). And contact linguistics and
languaging still have to provide answers about how much we are in fact able to
reverse the contemporary, yet of course historical, conception of language which
seems to be if not inherently then at least irreparably Herderian.
From this point of view as from Pedersen (1932: xxxi) the methodologi-
cal and theoretical first chapter of the book stands out as the main contribution
and the most important reason why this book will never fall out of fashion. Let
me make just two observations.
To my knowledge, this is the first time the distinction between theoretical
and applied linguistics is central to a linguistic argument (p.17 in the transla-
tion): The theoretical part of Etymology is characterized as follows: on the
basis of well-known and indisputable instances, [it] finds out and sets forth the
propositions and rules on which its applied counterpart bases itself , whereas
the applied type of linguistic analysis includes a dictionary and a grammar. This
distinction is supplemented by a distinction between single language descrip-
tions and universal statements. As we have seen above, Rask is in like measures
concerned with finding the unique system appropriate for each language and
with having the same plan for all descriptions in order to obtain strict compa-
rability. The theoretical part of the linguistic effort would then be the abstract
24. Men systematik er ikke nogen modstning til sproghistorie, kan tvrtimod vre en
udmrket forberedelse dertil.
25. An episode from Rasks latest year recounted by Henrichsen 1861 (and repeated by Jes-
persen 1918: 58 with a comment on the word build (danne) cf. below) may perhaps give us an
impression of how Rask saw himself: About a year before his death I found him with an as
far as I can recall Georgian bible in front of him working on such a grammatical topic and
when asked how he could do this without a dictionary or any other instrument or preliminary
work, he answered that he did not need anything else than the Lords prayer in a particular
language in order to build the morphological system of the language. Such was the expertise
he had accomplished. [Omtrent en Maaned fr hans Dd traf jeg ham endnu med en, saa
vidt jeg mindes, georgisk Bibel foran sig, sysselsat med et saadant grammatisk Arbeide, og da
jeg spurgte ham, hvorledes han bar sig ad dermed uden Ordbog og andet Hjelpemiddel eller
Forarbeide, svarede han, at han ikke behvede Andet end Fadervor i et Sprog for at danne
samme Sprogs Formlre. Saadan Frdighed havde han opnaaet, (Henrichsen 1861: 14)].
Editors Introduction *xxxix
plan arrived at which ensures comparability, while the applied part would cor-
respond to the various descriptions of single languages made according to the
plan, e.g., the description of Sanskrit outlined above.
Rask underlines a demand for an extensive knowledge of languages and
makes fun of predecessors who demonstrably did not have that. As we have
seen, he was himself eager to analyze all (kinds of) languages he met on his way.
Furthermore, he seems to have been well aware of the artificiality of any delimi-
tation of languages (cf. the discussion on pages 2829 of the translation below),
but still demands that the practicing linguist analyze each language on its own
terms. In this he is more Humboldtian26 (or structuralist?) than one would ex-
pect of one of the founders of Indo-European comparative philology, cf. also his
concept of the structure and inner essence of a language (p. 33 and again p. 36).
The demand for structural analysis is basic to the proposition that seems to
have made Rask the first to state that lexical correspondences were secondary,
grammatical similarities primary, in the investigation of genetic correspondenc-
es between languages. This was his claim to fame according to Pedersen, and one
must admit that the case is well argued. But from a modern perspective, Rasks
insistence that language mixing may result in simplification, his bifurcation of
the lexicon into the basic vocabulary and lexicon for special purposes, whether
they be scientific or relating to commerce or politeness (pp. 34-35), and his ideas
of universal laws of sound change (4546) are equally thrilling. Did he really
write that? Yes he did, just study the text below!
Niels Ege was born in 1927, the youngest of three brothers, in rbk, Funen,
where his father practiced as a medical doctor. He graduated in 1944 from the
local gymnasium as the youngest student in the country and at the same time the
student with the highest marks. He immediately took up studies at the Univer-
sity of Copenhagen, at first at the Faculty of Law but soon transferred to com-
parative Indo-European philology with Louis Hjelmslev as his chosen professor.
Niels Ege distinguished himself early on as one of Hjelmslevs brightest stu-
dents and contributed a much admired piece to the Festschrift presented to his
teacher on his 50th birthday (Recherches structurales, 1949). In this paper, which
26. Actually, Humboldt approached Rask in a letter from Schloss Tegel of 25 August 1826
on the occasion of his son in law going to Denmark (Letters II: 184-186). There is no indica-
tion of an answer, but that might have been conveyed by word of mouth by the son in law, of
course.
*xl Editors Introduction
is actually the first one in the whole collection which also includes papers by
distinguished scholars such as Roman Jakobson and mile Benveniste, Ege dis-
cusses a Saussurean problem, that of the arbitrariness of the linguistic sign. He
courageously, and to my mind convincingly, argues that Benveniste had misun-
derstood Saussure. At the time, he had only studied linguistics for five years. He
was thus an immediate success.
He was, however, considerably delayed in finishing his studies: the process
of his taking the final magister exam started in 1953 and only ended in 1957, due
to his already by then highly developed perfectionism coupled with the atro-
cious demands that the study of Indo-European linguistics at the University of
Copenhagen made on its practitioners. A student who wanted to pass his ma-
gister exam had to master all branches of Indo-European. As we all know, this
is well-nigh impossible. In addition, thorough knowledge of a non-Indo-Euro-
pean language was required. In consequence, Hjelmslev actually only graduated
four students as magisters of Comparative Indo-European Philology during his
entire career as a university professor of linguistics at the University of Copen-
hagen (19371965).
Already before the long march towards a final degree started, Ege seems to
have been desperately in doubt as to his abilities and his standing. He wrote to
Eli Fischer-Jrgensen (19112010), then reader in phonetics, and expressed his
concerns and even seems to have complained that he had had too little attention
from Louis Hjelmslev (Letter from EFJ of 21 July 1952, in the Ege archives). Eli
Fischer-Jrgensen wrote a sensitive and sensible reply. She explained Hjelmslevs
life-long adversity to giving advice to his students, particularly if they did not
seek it themselves, and urged him to push forward and to confront his native
penchant for self-criticism, which, as she points out, had probably been nour-
ished by his studies at the local school (actually the same one she had attended)
where he had found no competition for his talent. Throughout she delicately
used herself to illustrate parallels in their careers (early success followed by seri-
ous doubts and unhappiness). In the end, she persuaded him to finish his studies
by writing the required M.A. thesis on the Bloomfield school. This paper, which
survives in the Ege archives, is interesting for its perspective: it is that of a glos-
sematicist looking at a related, competing, school of linguistic thought.
One reason for Eges delayed exam was that he had a job to do at the same
time, the intelligence work discussed below. Thus he had to choose between a
career at the military and a career in scholarly research. In 1962 he opted for the
latter. During his student years, Niels Ege had taken courses at Yale in 19511952
with Bernard Bloch (19091965) where he acquired an interest in Japanese.
Thus in 1962, he went to Japan where he taught Linguistics at the International
Editors Introduction *xli
Christian University in Tokyo. From this period dates a paper called Introduc-
tion to Glossematics which is all too little known (Ege 1965). Ege had unusual
gifts for teaching and readers who wish to understand glossematics, which ar-
guably is not easy to approach due to its revolutionary view of language and
linguistic categories, may well benefit from starting here.
From Tokyo, Ege went to Berkeley, California, where during his stay from
1965 to 1968 he was able to witness at close range the turmoil around the theory
of transformational generative grammar. When he returned to Denmark in 1968
to take up a scholarship with Sren Egerod (19231995), the famous Danish
Sinologist, he brought back news of the situation in the United States which was
highly appreciated, at least by his students, of which the present author was one.
When Louis Hjelmslev died in 1965, linguistic studies at the University of
Copenhagen had to be restructured completely. Through a series of accidents,
Niels Ege had to relinquish his research scholarship in order to become the
central person of the restructured linguistics program and, together with Una
Canger (b.1938), a student of Hjemslevs and Francis Whitfields (19161996),
one of its two main teachers. By then his self-criticism had culminated to the
extent that he published nothing at all; he had in fact turned into an inveterate
linguistic skeptic. Paradoxically, this made him a highly demanding and there-
fore brilliant teacher, since he was in no position to profess any eternal truths
about anything at all, while on the other hand he was able to argue pro et contra
about the advantage and disadvantage of any solution to any linguistic problem.
However, Niels Ege himself was not happy with his university work. He finally
left the university in order to work full-time at what he had been doing almost
since his first student years, i.e., military intelligence work. Starting when he
was at high school and broke German codes for the resistance movement in
Denmark, he had specialized in this line of work. For many years he worked as a
professional code-breaker for the Defense Intelligence Service and he enjoyed it.
Admittedly, there he found the spirit of a shared quest for truth that he missed
so much at the university!
Niels Ege never retired completely from intelligence work until forced to do
so by the illness that killed him in November 2002, but he did scale down his
work in order to devote himself to the planning, begun several years earlier, of
the publication of an English translation of Rasks prize essay, in celebration of
the 150th anniversary of its appearance in 1968 (cf. his Translators Note below).
Accompanied by the untiring support and the steady encouragement of Una
Canger, he was finally able to finish the task in 1993. Eges translation of the prize
essay was published as volume XXVI of the Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de
Copenhague, a book series founded by Hjelmslev. In his important Translators
*xlii Editors Introduction
Note, Ege writes in detail about the principles underlying the translation, the
difficulties he had encountered in the course of the translation process, and the
solutions adopted in translating the prize essay into English.
I am immensely grateful to be allowed to contribute to bringing the trans-
lation, reflecting Niels Eges and Rasks minds performing a spirited dialogue
across the divide of 175 years, to the attention of the linguistic world once again.
References
27. Most of the works mentioned here are also mentioned in the bibliographies in Rask 1976.
Editors Introduction *xliii
Rask, Rasmus. 1968. Breve fra og til Rasmus Rask III,1-2 [Letters from and to Rasmus Rask
vol. III,1-2]. Ed. Marie Bjerrum. Kbenhavn: Munksgaards forlag (for the Danske Sprog-
og Litteraturselskab). [III,1 contains commentary to Letters I and II; III,2 contains person
and subject indexes and a complete catalogue of Rasks manuscripts.] [Cited as Letters
III,1-2.]
Rask, Rasmus. 1976. A Grammar of the Icelandic or Old Norse Tongue. [New edition of Rask
1843, with preface, introduction, bibliographies and notes by T. L. Markey.] (= Amster-
dam Classics in Linguistics, 2.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Rask, Rasmus. 1999. Photographic reprint of Rask 1818b as Foundations of Indo-European
Comparative Philology, 18001850 ed. Roy Harris, volume II. London & New York: Rout-
ledge.
B. Secondary sources
Abrahams, N[icolai] C[hristian] L[evin]. 1876. Meddelelser af mit Liv [Information about my
life]. Ed. by Arthur Abrahams. Kjbenhavn: Forlagsbureauet.
Amsterdamska, Olga. 1987. Schools of Thought: The development of linguistics from Bopp to
Saussure. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Andersen, Poul. 1937. Rasmus Rask. Fra Rask til Wimmer: Otte Foredrag om Modersmaals-
forskere i det 19. Aarhundrede udgivne af Selskab for Nordisk Filologi [Eight lectures on
students of the mother tongue from the 19th century published by the Society for Nordic
Philology], 7-33. Kbenhavn: Gyldendal.
Bjerrum, Marie. 1957. Hvorfor rejste Rask til Kaukasus og Indien? [Why did Rask go to the
Caucasus and India?]. Danske studier 1957.80-100.
Bjerrum, Marie. 1959. Rasmus Rasks afhandlinger om det danske sprog: Bidrag til forstelse af
Rasks tnkning [Rasmus Rasks treatises on the Danish language: Contributions to the
understanding of Rasks thinking]. Kbenhavn: Dansk videnskabs forlag.
Buescher, Hartmut. 2011. Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscripts. Copenhagen, Det Kongelige
Bibliotek: Nias Press. [Catalogues of Oriental Manuscripts, Xylographs, etc. in Danish Col-
lections vol.7.]
Carey, W[illiam]. 1806. A Grammar of the Sungskrit Language. Serampore.
Christensen, Carl C. 1932a. Rasmus Rasks sidste Bopl og Skiftet efter ham [Rasmus Rasks
final abode and the administration of his estate]. Personalhistorisk Tidsskrift 53 (series
9 vol. 5): 49-52.
Christensen, Carl C. 1932b. Rasmus Rask, hans dd og hvad han efterlod sig. [Rasmus Rask,
his death and what he left to his heirs]. Danske Studier 1932.1-21.
Clark, Mathilde Walter. 2005. Tingenes uorden [The disorder of things]. Kbenhavn: Sam-
leren.
Colebrooke, H[enry] T[homas]. 1805. Grammar of the Sanscrit Language. Calcutta.
Colebrooke, H[enry] T[homas]. 1808. Cosha, or Dictionary of the Sanskrit Language by Amera
Sinha, with an English Interpretation and Annotations. Serampore.
Collinge, N[eville] E[dgar]. 1995. History of Comparative Linguistics. Concise History of the
Language Sciences: From the Sumerians to the Cognitivists ed. by E.F.K. Koerner & R.E.
Asher, 195-202. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Diderichsen, Paul. 1960. Rasmus Rask og den grammatiske tradition. Studier over vendepunk-
tet i sprogvidenskabens historie [Rasmus Rask and the grammatical tradition: Studies on
the turning point in the history of linguistics]. (= Historisk-filosofiske Meddelelser udgivet
*xliv Editors Introduction
Hymes, Dell H., ed. 1974 . Studies in the History of Linguistics: Traditions and paradigms.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Ihre, Johan. 1769. Glossarium Suiogothicum in quo tam hodierno usu frequentata vocabula,
quam in legum patriarum tabulis aliisque vi medii scriptis obvia explicantur, et ex dia-
lectis cognatis, Moesogothica, Anglo-saxonica, Alemannica, Islandica ceterisque Gothic et
Celt originis illustrantur. 2 vols. Upsali: Typis Edmannianis.
Jacobsen, Henrik Galberg. 2010. Ret og skrift: Officiel dansk retskrivning 17392005, [Right
and writing: Official Danish orthography 17392005], 1-2. (= University of Southern
Denmark Studies in Scandinavian Languages and Literatures 95 = Dansk Sprognvns
skrifter, 42). Odense: Syddansk Universitetsforlag.
Jespersen, Otto. 1918. Rasmus Rask i Hundredret efter hans hovedvrk [Rasmus Rask at the
centenary of his major work]. (Folkets frere, udg. af Fred. Nrgaard og Anders Uhrskov.)
Kbenhavn: Gyldendal.
Jrgensen, J[ens] Normann 2010. Languaging: Nine years of poly-lingual development of a
young Turkish-Danish grade school student. 2 vols. (= Copenhagen Studies in Bilingual-
ism, the Kge series K1516.) Kbenhavn: Det humanistiske fakultet, Kbenhavns Uni-
versitet.
Karlsson, Fred, Caroline Henriksen, Even Hovdhaugen & Bengt Sigurd. 2000. The History of
Linguistics in the Nordic Countries. Helsinki: Academia Fennica.
Koerner, E[rnst] F[rideryk] Konrad 1976. Foreword. Rask 1976: vii-viii.
Lomholt, Asger. 1942. Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab 17421942: Samlinger til
selskabets historie I [The Royal Danish Academy of Science and Letters 17421942. Col-
lections to the history of the Academy I]. Kbenhavn: Ejnar Munksgaard.
Lomholt, Asger. 1960. Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab 17421942. Samlinger
til selskabets historie III [The Royal Danish Academy of Science and Letters 17421942.
Collections to the history of the Academy III]. Kbenhavn: Ejnar Munksgaard.
Malling, Ove. 1777. Store og gode Handlinger af Danske, Norske og Holstenere. Kjbenhavn:
Gyldendal.
Mangold, Sabine. 2004. Eine weltbrgerliche Wissenschaft Die deutsche Orientalistik im 19.
Jahrhundert. (= Pallas Athene, Beitrge zur Universitts- und Wissenschaftsgeschichte, 11.)
Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.
Markey, Thomas L[loyd]. 1976. Rasmus Kristian Rask: His life and work. Rask 1976: xv-lii.
Mller, Peter Erasmus. 1833. Nekrolog: Professor R. Chr. Rask (Slutning). [Obituary: Profes-
sor R. Chr. Rask (conclusion)]. Dansk Litteratur-Tidende for 1833, No.2.17-31.
Nielsen, Hans Frede. 2003. Rask, Rasmus Kristian. Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertum-
skunde. Founding ed. Johannes Hoops; new ed. by Heinrick Beck, Dieter Geuenich &
Heiko Steuer, vol. XXIV, 143-146. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.
Paludan, Julius. 1883. Det hiere Skolevsen i Danmark, Norge og Sverige [The higher educa-
tional system in Denmark, Norway and Sweden]. Kjbenhavn: Wilhelm Prior.
Pedersen, Holger. 1916. Et blik p sprogvidenskabens historie, med srligt hensyn til det histo-
riske studium av sprogets lyd [A view on the history of linguistics with particular refer-
ence to the study of sounds]. Kbenhavn: J. H. Schultz. (Photographic reprint, together
with Pedersen 1924. rhus: Arkona 1978.)
Pedersen, Holger. 1924. Sprogvidenskaben i det nittende Aarhundrede. Metoder og resultater.
Kbenhavn: Gyldendal. (Photographic reprint, together with Pedersen 1916): rhus:
Arkona, 1978.)
*xlvi Editors Introduction
Pedersen, Holger. 1931. Linguistic Science in the 19th Century. Transl. John Webster Spargo.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. (Paperback reprint as The Discovery of Lan-
guage. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1962.)
Pedersen, Holger. 1932. Indledning [Introduction]. Rask 1932: xiii-xv.
Pedersen, Holger. 1983. A Glance at the History of Linguistics, with particular regard to the
historical study of phonology. Transl. of Pedersen 1916 by Caroline Henriksen. With an
introduction by E.F.K. Koerner. (= Studies in the History ofthe Language Sciences, 7.) Am-
sterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Petersen, Carl S. 1908. Brevvexling mellem N.M. Petersen og Carl Sve: Et bidrag til Skandi-
navismens og den nordiske Filologis Historie [Correspondence between N. M. Petersen
and Carl Sve: A contribution to the history of Scandinavianism and Nordic philology].
Kbenhavn: Det Schubotheske.
Petersen, Niels Matthias. 1834. Fortale: Bidrag til Forfatterens Levnet [Foreword: Contribu-
tions to the life of the author]. Rask 1834 I, 1-115.
Rask, Kirsten. 2002. Rasmus Rask: Store tanker i et lille land. En biografi [Rasmus Rask: Grand
thoughts in a small country. A biography]. Kbenhavn: Gad.
Rasmussen, J[ens] L[assen]. 1819. [On the Wallich donation of manuscripts to the Library of
the University of Copenhagen]. Dansk Litteratur-Tidende for Aaret 1819, 105-112; 121-
128; 135-144; 153-157.
Recherches structurales 1949. Ed. by C. A. Bodelsen, Paul Diderichsen, Eli Fischer-Jrgensen
& Jens Holt. (= Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague, 5.) Copenhague: Nordisk
Sprog- og Kulturforlag.
Rischel, Jrgen. 1987. Sproggranskeren Rasmus Kristian Rask: Forskerbedrifter og bristede
forhbninger [The linguist Rasmus Rask: Research feats and lost hopes]. Odense: Odense
universitetsbibliotek / Odense universitetsforlag.
Rischel, Jrgen. 2002. The Contribution of the Nordic Countries to Historical-Comparative
Linguistics: Rasmus Rask and his followers. The Nordic Languages: An international
handbook of the history of the North Germanic languages ed. by Oskar Bandle et al., vol.
I, 124-133. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Robins, R[obert] H[enry]. 1967. A Short History of Linguistics. London: Longmans. (2nd, cor-
rected ed., 1979.)
Rnning,F[rederik Vilhelm Valdemar]. 1887. Rasmus Kristian Rask: Et Mindeskrift i Anled-
ning af Hundredrsdagen for hans Fdsel [Rasmus Kristian Rask; A commemorative vo-
lume on the occasion of his centenary]. Kbenhavn: Karl Schnberg.
Schlegel, Friedrich.1808. ber die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier. Ein Beitrag zur Begrndung
der Alterthumskunde. Nebst metrischen bersetzungen indischer Gedichte. Heidelberg.
(Reprinted as Vol. I of Amsterdam Classics in Linguistics, with an Introduction by E.F.K.
Koerner, Amsterdam: John Benjamins 1977.)
Slottved, Ejvind. 1978. Lrestole og lrere ved Kbenhavns Universitet 15371977
[University chairs and teachers at the University of Copenhagen 15371977].
Kbenhavn: Samfundet for dansk Genealogi og Personalhistorie.
Sonderegger, Stefan. 1986. Rasmus Kristian Rask und die Brder Jacob und Wilhelm Grimm.
Festschrift fr Oskar Bandle zum 60. Geburtstag am 11. Januar1986. Ed. by Hans-Peter
Naumann with Magnus von Platen and Stefan Sonderegger (= Beitrge zur nordischen
Philologie, 15), 115-130. Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhahn.
Svendsen, Hanne Marie. 2009: Rudimenter af R.: Roman [Fragments of R.: A novel]. Kben-
havn: Gyldendal.
Editors Introduction *xlvii
Thomason, Sarah Grey & Terrence Kaufman. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization and Ge-
netic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Thomsen, Vilh[elm]. 1887. Rasmus Kristian Rask (17871887). Nordisk Tidsskrift (Let-
terstedtska) 1887: 593-606. (Repr. in Thomsen, Samlede Afhandlinger, vol. I,125-144.
Kbenhavn: Gyldendal 1919.) [German translation in Bezzenbergers Beitrge zur Kunde
der Indogermanischen Sprachen 14. 317-330 (1889).]
Thomsen, Vilh[elm]. 1902. Sprogvidenskabens Historie. En kortfattet Fremstilling af dens
Hovedpunkter [The history of linguistics: A brief account of its main points]. (=Indbydel-
sesskrift til Kjbenhavns Universitets Aarsfest i Anledning af H.M.Kongens Fdselsdag den
8. April 1902.) (Repr. in Thomsen, Samlede Afhandlinger I: 1-106. Kbenhavn: Gylden-
dal, 1919.)
Thrane, Torben, Vibeke Winge, Lachlan Mackenzie, Una Canger & Niels Ege, eds. 1980. Ty-
pology and Genetics of Language: Proceedings of the Rask-Hjelmslev Symposium held at the
University of Copenhagen 3rd5th September 1979. (= Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de
Copenhague, 20.) Copenhagen: The Linguistic Circle of Copenhagen.
Werlauff, E[rich] C[hristian]. 1847. Det Kongelige Danske Selskab for Fdrelandets Historie i
dets frste Aarhundrede [The Royal Danish Society for History and Language of the na-
tive country in its first century]. Kjbenhavn: Qvist.
Wilkins, Charles. 1808. A Grammar of the Sanscrita Language. London: Printed for the author
by W. Bulmer & Co. and sold by Black, Parry & Kingsbury.
Wilson, H[orace] H[ayman]. 1819. SanskritEnglish Dictionary. Translated and enlarged
from an original compilation prepared by learned natives for the College of Fort Wil-
liam. Calcutta: Printed by Ph. Pereira at the Hindustanee Press.
Wimmer, Ludvig F[rants] A[dalbert]. 1887. Rasmus Kristian Rask: Mindetale ved
Universitetets Reformationsfest p hundredrsdagen efter Rasks Fdsel [Rasmus Kristian
Rask: A commemorative speech at the University celebration of the Reformation at the
occasion of his centenary]. Kbenhavn: Gyldendalske Boghandel.
Yates, William. 1820. Grammar of the Sanscrit Language on a new plan. Calcutta.
rsted, Hans Chr[istian]. 1813/1815. Resum of Rask (1818a). Oversigt over Det Kongelige
Danske Videnskabernes Selskabs Forhandlinger og det Medlemmers Arbeider de sidste to
Aar [Summary of negotiations of the Royal Danish Academy of Science and Letters and
a review of the works published by its members], 19-24. Copenhagen.
Translator's Not e
*) The only extensive excerpt ever to be translated i s the chapter on Thracian, whic h wa s published
in German by J S Vater in 1822.
*l Translators Note
Translated by
Niels Ege
re a e
as
T
T E I G .
Investigation
o
the rigin
of
The ld orse
or
Icelandic anguage
as
ontents
Introduction pag e1
2. - elti c
.- asqu e8 9
.- inni c9 1
5. - Slavi c 11
6. - etti c1
.- Thracia n 15 1
8. - th e siati c language s . . 28
rigin of the ld orse
or Icelandic anguage
Introduction
n Etymolog y i n Genera l
and s o f o r t h .
ne ma y b e sure , therefore , t h a t whereve r resemblance ,
s t r i k i n g resemblance , i s foun d betwee n severa l w o r d s , t h i s
h a s a n a t u r a l cause whethe r t h i s caus e i s origina l kinshi p
between t h e language s i n question , o r thes e w o r d s hav e bee n
picked u p b y on e languag e fro m anothe r t h r o u g h borrowin g i n
l a t e r tim e - t h a t i s ye t t o b e decide d pendin g close r
investigation. renc h i s anothe r languag e fro m whic h t h e
analyzer o f ordi c language s ca n gai n ver y l i t t l e
information, bu t i t i s generall y know n t o b e descende d fro m
atin no w i f w e conside r t h e exten t t o whic h t h e w o r d s o f
t h a t languag e hav e becom e unrecognizabl e an d ho w muc h mor e
so the y woul d b e i f renc h spellin g wa s adapte d mor e t o
c u r r e n t pronunciatio n - t h a t ma y war n u s t o b e somewha t
more cautiou s no t t o condem n a l l resemblance s o r derivation s
a s whimsicalitie s j u s t becaus e no t a l l l e t t e r s a r e alik e i n
t h e w o r d s on e w a n t s t o compar e an d explai n fro m eac h
o t h e r . E.g. , i f on e accept s ent n it sel etc . a s having
come fro m atin , on e ca n h a r d l y den y som e s o r t o f connec -
tion a l s o betwee n ent s no nocte) , sal is is piskis) ,
, , , and Icel . ind r n tt Germ.
a t salt is r ona d ttir Germ. o ter d r
lat r etc.
The etymologis t ma y t h u s us e h i s knowledg e eve n o f
foreign language s t o goo d advantage withou t an y insigh t
into t h e r e l a t e d languages , o n t h e o t h e r hand , i t i s u t t e r l y
futile t o embar k o n languag e a n a l y s i s . T h i s i s t h e mos t
conspicuous fla w i n t h e etymolog y o f t h e ncient s the y
knew l i t t l e o r nothin g o f o t h e r language s an d wante d 6 t o
derive everythin g fro m t h e i r own . I t wil l suffic e t o quot e
t h e familia r ' l s a no n lucendo' an d ' en s qvo d a d r e s
omnes veniat ' a s example s o f t h e impropriet y o f t h i s .
The languag e analyze r equippe d wit h thes e qualitie s
should a b s t a i n fro m eve r derivin g w o r d s fro m a n e n t i r e
c l a s s o f language s an d neve r quot e an y wor d allegin g i t t o
ET M G I GE ER 1
*) In this connection I must point out also that is very frequentl y transpose d i n Icelandic derivative s
stemming fro m ga all e.g. rg r or, mor e often , rg l ir 'the very ol d on e nam e o f a giant)',
g lingr and g l ingr 'a year-ol d lamb' , in whic h th e orde r o f roo t letter s i s the sam e a s i n ebr .
gl
ET M G I GE ER 1
h a r d sof t spirant s
labial l e t t e r s ) Engl ,
lingual l e t t e r s t d
palatal letter s j) g j)
ET M G I GE ER
1) Interchange of vowels
a e o a l t e r n a t e , e.g . Icel . resta rast rost inn
Swed. s a el Germ. e el Dan . o l
c o .
a e , ) laga ago gi
Icel. saga s g r 65
a e , ) ann s ag n s
ess l s Icel . ara erd
a o d are t lerare eol.
, eol. , Icel. si r or si r Dan . S ),
sni r or sni r Dan. Sne), and , and
.
e o endo ond s o , o ,
s l gen Icel . er Engl , or Icel. er ld
Engl, orld ole
e i ani s ent s Icel . ind r sedeo
sido Icel. setia sitia leggia liggia s rengia s ringa at.
enit rench int
o Icel. ngr Swed. ng Icel. tr Dan . ro
r lna s s re
oli nox la o ili s
6) Transposition of letters
r at. erno eol. at. ir s
re o ser o terti s ard s Icel .
k r o s s Dan. ors nglo-Sax. g rs r s orst r o s t
eor t Engl. rig t an d man y o t h e r s .
s nglo-Sax . is p l u r a l i as la e las e a e
s e a ian Engl. as Dan. ske), eol . for ,
for , at. as ia Gr. , at. is s Gr .
, and t h e like . 68
eol . at. lg s Gr . o , ith. ilnas at.
len s olish d gi Dan . lang ) Russ . dolgi Gr . o ,
ol. slo e Russ . s ln e Dan . Sol) .
a r e inserte d a f t e r suc h a s fo r -
fro m , Icel . ti ra Icel . li r Engl . li
Dan. a Icel . la 0
d t a r e inserte d a f t e r o fo r ,
from , tendo Dan . aane Germ . ond r
before d t a s i n ndo fro m whic h di t ndo t t di
s indo s idi an d t h e like .
ll t h e s e l e t t e r s a r e a l s o ofte n foun d t o b e omitte d fro m
w o r d s i n whic h the y originall y occurred , example s o f whic h
have i n p a r t bee n given . u r t h e r , singl e vowel s a r e ver y
frequently droppe d whe n w o r d s a r e contracted , suc h a s
al a gl s ina na ita na ta
d t
. Th e simpl e syste m
nomin. genit. plur. genit. in Rask
1. euter a a u na 1.
2 . Masculine i a, i a ar a .
. eminine a ur na, a 6.
irst conjugatio n
lass present past condit. partic.
1 ha s ar adi adi adr
2 ir di ti di ti dr tr
r di ti wit h di ti dr tr
vowel change )
i s monosyll. di ti i di ti i supine t ad
5 ha s r eri eri inn
. Secon d conjugatio n
lass pres. past pl. cond. partic.
1 ha s r vowe l u inn
2- r- a inn
- r- ei i i inn
- r- inn
60 RIGI T E D RS E G G E
5 r a inn
6- r - inn
1. Greenlandi c
2. elti c
r i t i s h Gaeli c
ymric Gothic
ymric
a 'mother '
ra d 'brother '
T ES R E T EG T I G GE S 8
R SS, et re ith . et ri
Moesog.
at. in e Gr .
Russ. at ' ol . ie
ith. en i Germ, n Icel.
i Moesog.
e Gr . at. se etc .
sait at. e te
t w at . o to r . it
na at . no e Gr .
108 dg de ern read dekem ) G r .
gain gaint iginti Gr . x arch .
Irish
. asque .
111 . innic .
) th e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c l e t t e r , i.e . t h e l a s t mai n
consonant o f th e wor d itself no t infrequentl y t h i s i s
changed i n t h e cours e o f declensio n renderin g t h e wor d quit e
unrecognizable ye t thes e change s tak e plac e accordin g t o
certain, fixe d r u l e s , e.g . osi ' a year' , gen . oden 'o f a
year' oteni 'o f m y year' irsi ' a son g Dan . Vers)' , i n t h e
gen. irren in t h e acc . irtt T h i s chang e i n t h e
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c l e t t e r doe s no t correspon d t o t h e ymri c
consonant chang e r e f e r r e d t o above , whic h occurre d onl y
initially i n w o r d s accordin g t o t h e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e endin g
of t h e immediatel y precedin g word , wherea s t h i s i s interna l
t o t h e wor d an d depend s o n t h e wor d itsel f an d i t s
r e l a t i o n s i n t h e context . Moreover , t h e actua l change s a r e
quite different fo r i n innis h changes t o t i s droppe d
or become s d i s droppe d o r become s tt becom e
t an d s o f o r t h , e.g . lei 'bread' Icel . lei r Dan . e n
e in t h e gen. lei n 'of bread' , ota ' a hous e Icel . ot
gen. oan o r odan oi a ' a so n Dan . og)' o an and t h e
like
) t h e mai n vowe l o f t h e word , whethe r i t i s on e o f
t h e simpl e vowel s a o on e o f t h e raise d vowel s
it woul d b e mor e c o r r e c t t o w r i t e in accordanc e wit h
Estonian an d wit h t h e tw o o t h e r s i n innis h i t s e l f ) , o r on e
of t h e indifferen t vowel s e , i fo r t h e vowel s o f a l l
s y l l a b l e s o f t h e endin g depen d o n t h a t . Vowe l chang e i s a n
important facto r i n Icelandi c declensio n also , bu t i t i s
entirely differen t fro m t h a t o f innish fo r i n Icelandic , i t
i s t h e vowe l o f t h e wor d whic h i n certai n case s i s change d
in accordanc e wit h t h a t o f t h e ending , wherea s i n innis h i t
i s t h e vowe l o f t h e endin g whic h i n a l l case s i s determine d
by t h a t o f t h e word t h e actua l change s a r e a l s o quit e
different.
ossessive pronoun s a r e expresse d b y suffixe s 115 o r
by t h e genitiv e o f t h e persona l pronouns , o r b y both e.g .
s eid n 'our a t h e r ' is 'father' , eid n i s t h e genitiv e
T ES R E T EG T I G GE S 9 5
innish Icelandi c
in g in t h e acc . ig Gr.
96 RIGI T E D RS E G G E
sin ig -
n se ann ann sig
e r ngloS . e
te t r ge
e et e t i eo
plur. 1. ii ie ier
2. dii ti e ier
. sii si e Germ. sie
present p a s t
inn- . apl . inn- . apl . Gree k
sing. 1 . i i -o v
2. i i -
. - - -i - i -
dual 1. - n i e i en -
2. ete et ide iten -
. a an i g a i an -
plur. 1. e i e i e - ,
2. etet et ide ite -
. in -ov .
innish ordic
ies a man) Sw. es a coward)
oi a a son ) - o e a boy ) Dan .
en aag Ice
l. s i
i a inn- . i a dreing s i
- ig a ancilla ) Dan .
ige Icel . a
121 la si a child ) puella)
Dan. e n a s i.e . a youn g
si a hand ) i n t h e gen . boyish dandy )
den tt onehanded ) - e te n i.e . t h e
inn- . g etta apl . g t left hand ) e t
hand) ung . aandet
lei bread) inn- . la e Icel. lei r Dan . en e e
apl. la e at. li also i n
Slavic)
re o a fox ) inn- . rie an - re r S wed. r Dan .
apl. re e
irri a cat ) Dan. is issen i n unen
irr ing used a s
is in callin g a
cat
ato a worm ) gen . ado n el ad r Sw . at o r
as Dan . addi e
appears t o b e a d i m i -
nutive o f t h e innis h
tar udder ) - g r Germ . ter
at. er Gr .
esi water ) - essi i.e . Dan . ds e
eri sea) , E s t . err i - poet. ar Germ . eer
apl. r at. are also i n
Slavic)
aaldo wave ) - alda gen. ldo
T ES R E T EG T I G GE S 10 1
herd)
126 git e id an d idl ngr
tied o a wolf ) t a bitch) lik e Icel.
t a 'fox ' Dan . e
g o e palate ) apl. g e g r Germ. a en
arddo apl . ar de th e erdar Shoulders)
p a r t of t h e bod y found
between t h e Shoulders)
sar e woun d wit h scab ) s r a wound ) at s ra to
apl. saires wound)
l onddo apl . l onto l nd s a l ndi stat e o f
nature) mind) Swed. l nne
a a a apl . aa gr ol d Dan . aag
brother in-law)
iergo food ) ergia t a s t e ) i rg nour -
ishment)
g erdos osie r twig ) g erddo gi rd g i r t h ) ngloS . gerd
girth) Engl. ard
isso whey ) isa
d o e judgement ) d i d r eg d i
judge)
sa sa water i n r i v e r s ) si r s r i n t h e gen. si
ar s ar Germ. ee
aerro a wave ) apl . aro ra
r o mist ) r i mist ) r r dark )
r r darkness )
ra de t hunder) reidar r r reidarslag
thunder an d lightning )
tte apl . ete inn. tta danger )
t trouble, peril )
itto goal ) id at ida Dan . e t ed
at ede
12 galddo a well, lda a long , bu t n a r r o w
spring) and dee p swamp , a w a t e r
r u t ) Dan . ilde Th e
106 RIGI T E D RS E G GE
German elle an d el
len see m t o hav e a dif -
ferent e x t r a c t i o n an d
t o correspond t o Dan .
et ld at lde re
d etc. , Icel . ella
o la apl . l l Dan . l erhap s t h e
same thin g happene d t o
t h i s festiva l whe n ors e
mythology was introduced,
a s happene d whe n h r i s t i -
anity w a s introduced
t h e ol d nam e was kept,
but applied i n a ne w way
a t an y r a t e , t h i s seem s
t o m e mor e plausibl e tha n
a l l th e unfounde d conjec -
t u r e s I have see n abou t
t h e derivatio n o f t h i s
word.
n or apl . n orra young ) Dan. et or a small, inno-
cent child , a l a s s )
la tes boring) la ta leidr r leidist
I loathe )
a as warm, hot) a a heat , bake ) Germ.
a en
ar as generous ) apl . r quick , pronus ) rl tr
ar o generous)
l writing) on s iai a document )
la I write )
la ddo a smal l space ) leid a way , direction ) g
la ddi lead ) leidi I lead)
tti pre vent) g tti cease )
128 ala r o a r , bellow ) at elia at a la
illi seduce ) g illi
T ES R E T E G T I G GES 10
s i m i l a r l y in r i s i n g af -
firmation.
Moesog. father)
edne mother ) inn- . an na mother) ana grand-
dne mother)
e e father's brother ) a a
inn- . e
no mother's b r o t h e r ) ang
arne son) inn- . arne erne
Moesog. pv
a a o r a e inn- . a i Eskim o a a a
ga shoe ) boot)
onne a n egg ) inn- . nni Eskimo onn
anne innis h na
ung. on
ese summer ) inn- . a rsa Eskimo o asa pre-
gi sse Moesog . sumably t o b e read
ith. sara vuasa o r wasa )
o a r i v e r ) inn- .
o innis h o i
ermian country )
innish aa n na
apl. e e o r e day,
sun) innis h a
1 dna or enn e
a dog) inn- . dna e
ni nes a cape ) ni l
a beak ) innis h no a n a cape) .
5. Slavic.
follows in Russia n
. eute r w o r d s
1. nom. end s in o, e, gen . in -a, plur . -a , gen . -
2. - - - - e, gen . -i a , plur . -a , gen .
1 8 . Masculine w o r d s
. nom. h a s - , gen. a plur . i gen . o
.- - - ' , - j , gen. a plur . - i , gen . -ej
G. eminin e w o r d s
5. nom. h a s a a gen . i plur . i gen . -
6. - - -' , gen. - i , plur . -i, gen . e
. i r s t system
1. euter nom. in o e a gen . a plur . -a,
gen.- , e.g. delo ' work', l i
le osla n a r alo
do s o
2. Mascul. -- - , gen. a plur . i
gen. o e.g . stol ' table', in
. emin. -- a a gen . - i plur . i
gen. - , e.g. i ' room', od
r la
. Second system
. euter nom. in - i e , gen . -i'a , plur . -i a , gen . - j , e.g .
r o d n e 'birth' , ran e
1 9 5 . Mascul. - - - ' , - j , gen . a plur . - i , gen .
T ES R E T E G T I G GES 11
olish Icelandic
sing. nom. and voc. g g s
accus, g s
genit. g si g sar
dative g si
instr. g sia g s wit h the articl e
loc. g si g sinni
T ES R E T EG T I G GES 121
Russian olis h
Gr. Moesog . rea d v s)
nom. Icel. r ngloS . e Dan . i
at. nos Moesog. o Germ , ns
acc. nas nas Dutch ons Icel . oss Dan. os
nostri Moesog . o Germ .
gen. nas nas nser
no i s Moesog . o ngloS .
d a t . na na si Germ , ns Icel . oss
instr. n i na i
In t h e Germanic languages n i s transposed , an d i n t h e
ordic assimilate d wit h s into ss Th e interchange o f
and or is common.
The 2 . perso n i s
In Russ . I n olis h
nom. t t Gr. at . t Moesog. o
Icel. Dan. , Swed. , an d
Germ. d
acc. te a ie ie i at . te Germ, di Icel .
ig Dan. an d Swed . dig
d a t . te to ie i at. ti i Germ , dir Icel . r
plur. Germ. r Moesog . o Dutc h
g ngloS. ge Dan.
acc. as as at. os
dat. a arn o is
instr. i a i
1 9 masc. femin.
nom. on ona Icel. ann n Swed. on
acc. ona ann ana
gen. one ans ennar Swed . ennes
d a t . one one
- on enni Swed . enne
l o c . on one
Russian olis h
odin eden i s t h e Icelandi c einn read
ejdn), b u t i t s inflection i n
b o t h language s i s lik e t h a t
of adjectives .
d a d d oie d a d ie Moesog. Icel .
t t eir t r Germ, ei
tri tr Icel. r r Germ, drei Dan .
tre
151
neuter an d mase . fem. neuter masc . fem.
n. an d v . d a d t t eir t r
acc. d a d d t t t r
gen. d t eggia
dat. d t ei o r
instr. d J t ei r nglo-S . t a
128 RIGI T E D RS E G G E
n. an d v . tri ri rr ri r
ace. tre riggia
dat. tre re or
instr. tre a re r
Russian olis h
e et re ter ith. et ri Moesog.
or Icel. i g r o r g r
at. at or an d eol .
Gr. are actuall y th e
same word .
t i - en i Gr . eol.
Moesog. Germ. n Icel .
i Dan . e at. in e is
t h e same .
s est' se - s e s Moesog . Germ.
se s at. an d Icel . se
se ' sied se t ni Moesog. Germ.
sie en Dan. s Icel . si
152 os ' os as t ni Moesog. h Germ.
a t at o to Icel . tta
d t' d ie i de ni
d s t' d iesi d s i ti Moesog. ho v
at. de ern Gr. Germ, e n
ngloS. t n Icel . t Dan . ti
sto sto one
hundred'))
t s a t sia 'on e Moesog. Icel. s
thousand') nd or s ndrad seem
ith. t s t o b e compose d o f t h e S l a -
tan t is vic wor d an d t h e ordi c nd
o r ndrad 'on e hundred' l a t e r
i t h a s becom e s n d Dan .
send wit h omitted.
T ES R E T EG T I G GE S 12 9
plural
ed ie edi s t arch. s u b j . ti
edite ie ie editis tit o r tid
oni edat ied a ed nt edant ta
6. etti c
in o r d e r a t l e a s t t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t m y clai m i s a s compat -
ible wit h t h e h i s t o r i c a l account s a s Thunmann's . s fa r a s
t h e languag e i s concerned , fro m i t s apparen t compositio n of ,
or s i m i l a r i t y to , o t h e r languages , n o conclusion s ca n b e
drawn concernin g t h a t o f t h e people t h e r e i s h a r d l y an y
word i n Syria c whic h i s no t foun d i n ebre w o r rabic , bu t
t h e S y r i a n s a r e no t fo r a l l t h a t 165 simpl y a mixtur e o f
J e w s an d r a b s t h e r e i s ver y l i t t l e i n appis h whic h i s
not a l s o found , i n fact , i n innis h an d ordic , bu t eve n s o
i t woul d b e equall y unreasonabl e t o assum e t h e app s t o
have arise n b y a blendin g o f inn s an d orsemen . u t a s
f a r a s t h e etti c people s a r e concerned , t h e i r language , whe n
we observ e i t closely , b e a r s som e ver y clea r s i g n s o f t h e i r
being a special , independen t grou p o f peopl e an d languag e
c l a s s bot h i n nou n an d ver b inflectio n i t i s differen t fro m
and mor e comple x t h a n t h e Slavi c languages , r a t h e r
different, a l s o , fro m t h e Gothic however , t h e notio n t h a t a
more comple x languag e shoul d r e s u l t fro m t h e blendin g o f
two simple r language s i s s o completel y c o n t r a r y t o a l l
experience concernin g t h e usua l cours e o f n a t u r e t h a t w e ma y
save ourselve s a l l f u r t h e r t r o u b l e o f refutin g t h e opinio n
r e f e r r e d t o concernin g t h e l a t e origi n o f t h e e t t s fro m
blending, an d f l a t l y declar e Thunmann' s clai m unprove d an d
unfounded, whe n h e s a y s s ist ni t gli das die
ettis e ation den eiten e istirte da das and
el es sie n n i esit at on andern l ern eset t
ar nd on ent ernten egenden ist sie ni t and die
stsee ge o en
ut if , i n fact , t h e ettic languages hav e s o muc h
s i m i l a r i t y t o t h e Slavic , whic h wer e s o closel y r e l a t e d t o
us, an d t o t h e Gothi c language s themselves , t h a t t o t h e
casual observe r the y appea r t o b e mixe d o f bot h - w e ma y
conclude t h a t the y mus t b e mor e closel y aki n t o u s t h a n t h e
Slavic languages , an d t h a t observin g the m somewha t mor e
closely i s quit e certai n t o b e w o r t h t h e t r o u b l e . I n doin g
T ES R E T EG T I G GE S 1 1
. Th e firs t syste m
nom. gen. i n s t r . dua l plur . ace .
of m a s c . 1 . a ) as ai s
b) is io i i iei l s
16
of fem. 2. a) a os i os s
b) -e s i s s
.
The secon d syste m
of masc . . a ) is is -i i i is
of fem. b ) is is i i i s is
of masc . . s a s i s s
. Th
e pur e v e r b s
future p a s t impers.
a) s a seek) s s s oa s ti
b) li love ) l s l a l ti
c) lai a hold) lai s lai ia lai ti
1 0 . The impur e v e r b s
future p a s t impers, m .
a) la sin praise) la sis la sina la s nti
b) rise ) s a ti
T ES R E T EG T I G GE S 1 5
t o w a r d s , maritim e m a t t e r s , which , i n t h e i r t r i b a l s e a t i n t h e
center o f a g r e a t continent , the y coul d no t possibl y b e
accustomed to a fac t whic h seem s completel y inconveivable ,
if the y a r e assume d t o hav e originate d a t t h e mout h o f t h e
Vistula an d alon g t h e s h o r e s o f t h e alti c Se a t h r o u g h
blending o f inns , Goths , an d Slavs , t h e tw o forme r o f
which people s hav e bee n mos t accustome d t o t h e se a fro m
time immemorial . efor e the y emerg e i n h i s t o r y , then , the y
probably bordere d d i r e c t l y o n t h e Vid s th e Gepids ) t o t h e
Southeast, an d t h e exodu s o f t h e l a t t e r gav e the m a n
opportunity t o invad e ithuani a an d r u s s i a an d expe l t h e
remains o f th e Gothi c people s s t i l l lef t t h e r e . Thes e Gothi c
peoples inhabitin g t h e Souther n coas t o f t h e alti c Sea ,
were, a s sai d before , Gothonians , Guttonians , Vits,
urgundians, Rugians , and t h e like , an d fro m her e Thunman n
assumes t h a t t h e G o t h s Eas t G o t h s an d es t Goths )
migrated t o t h e region s mor e t o t h e Sout h - whic h seem s
unlikely, 1 5 judgin g fro m t h e numbe r an d powe r o f these ,
the real , Goths . I thin k i t i s mor e plausibl e t h a t the y
were t h e mai n stock , o f whic h t h o s e t o t h e ort h wer e a
branch an d i f w e conside r Scandinavia , s i t u a t e d immediatel y
opposite, w e fin d t h e r e f i r s t otland Danis h lland the n
e stra an d estra a tland Danis h otland o r lland an d
next tland or tland Dan . lland a s wel l a s
org ndar l r orn ol and gen t o t h e South , an d t h u s
we understan d wher e th e Gothi c people s fro m alon g t h e
Southern s h o r e s o f t h e alti c Se a went , whe n e t t s an d
Slavs cam e in . I n t h i s plac e I mus t ye t mentio n t h a t
tland or tland i s calle d itland b y t h e ancients , which ,
a s Thunman n h a s show n p . ) i s merel y a differen t
pronunciation o f t h e sam e name , abou t a s Swedis h s old
Dan. si no w s li s ol d Dan . l s an d man y o t h e r s ,
rench rod ire Engl. rod e read p r o d j u s ' ) , r . s ite
Engl. s it rea d s j u t ' ) i n t h i s wa y t h e soun d o f ha s
been interchange d wit h i o r i o r even i n man y instances .
150 RIGI T E D RS E G G E
. Thracian
158 RIGI T E D RS E G G E
and e.g . and , and ,
why, eve n i n prope r names , suc h a s an d , and
many o t h e r s t h e sam e a l t e r n a t i o n i s foun d i n Moesogothic ,
especially i n th e ending , wher e t h e soun d coul d no t b e
distinguished s o precisely , a s i n and
teacher, whil e i t woul d o t h e r w i s e see m inexplicable . inally ,
i t i s a l s o see n fro m t h e inne r essenc e an d analog y o f t h e
language, fo r wher e o becomes , invariably become s
e.g. , - , o ,
but t h a t i s ou r h a s neve r bee n disputed . f th e
consonants, t h e onl y on e t o b e note d i s , which wa s
pronounced s d b y t h e ncients , whic h i s see n quit e clearl y
from t h e fac t t h a t i t make s positsi o i n t h e poets , an d t h a t
i t wa s actuall y w r i t t e n in Doric , wher e t h e doubl e l e t t e r s
had no t be n adopted t h e objectio n o f som e discriminatin g
expert t h a t i t i s sometime s replace d b y in t h e eolian s
i s o f n o avail fo r i n t h a t sam e dialec t i s replace d b y
and by - accordingly , i t wa s a dialec t pronunciatio n
and n o longe r t h e sam e sound . was t h e h a r d Englis h t
and t h e Icelandi c , bu t a c t u a l l y r a t h e r t h e l a t t e r , whos e
sound i t s t i l l h a s t h e differenc e betwee n t h a t soun d an d
that o f t i n Englis h being , i n fact , ver y insignificant .
was t h e Germa n whic h i s foun d a l s o i n Moesogothi c an d
t h e Slavi c languages .
ow, upo n comparin g t h e genuin e pronunciatio n o f Gree k
a s w e hav e t h u s briefl y 185 e s t a b l i s h e d i t , wit h t h a t o f
Icelandic, t h e clai m mad e abov e wil l h a r d l y b e foun d t o hav e
been exaggerated . I t wil l b e see n t h a t t h e Gree k
a i s t h e Icel . a i s t h e Icel .
au - - - -- - g
ax - - - --- d
e sd) - - ol d st)
n- - - ei i n ein
one, una ) -- - an d c )
ON THE SOURCE OF THE GOTHIC LANGUAGES 15 9
- - old au - - - 1
o - - - o - - - m
- - - - - -
o - - - ey (Germ. eu), - - -
approx. the - - -
present au - - - ihr)
- - old i - - - s
- - - - - - t
- - - - - - f
- - Icel. approx. Icel. h
- - old y (Germ, ch)
is the Icel. ps.
kinn, akr.
becomes o Dan. g i er Icel . i r ero
eg ber.
becomes d d r so also in atin,
deus.
becomes g Dan. g der ega gr
ta, gall.
becomes s se sa an s e n Dan .
n.
. Th e firs t syste m
nom. gen. plur. dat.
neuter 1 ) ha so v
um i a is
mase. 2) - o
us i i is
femin. )- , ,
a ae ae is a s
. The secon d s y s t e m
neuter )-
- is a i s s
common 5 )- , -
- s, is es i s s e s
166 RIGI T E D RS E G GE
for ) for ), 5) i n t h e p a s t i n . ll
of t h i s i s a l s o agree s ver y closel y wit h t h e ithuania n
participles an d adjectives her e thos e o f Slavi c a r e
somewhat f a r t h e r a p a r t . ati n ma y hav e fewe r participles ,
but her e to o thos e o f t h e assiv e g o b y t h e f i r s t system ,
a s wel l a s th e ctiv e participl e o f t h e future , bu t t h a t o f
t h e presen t b y t h e second , endin g i n ns fo r n t s ) a s t h i s
participle h a s no t adopte d an y feminin e fro m t h e f i r s t
system, bu t i s inflecte d throughou t accordin g t o t h e second ,
i t follow s fro m t h e abov e t h a t i t i s unabl e t o distinguis h
t h e tw o persona l genders . T h i s h a s a l s o le d m e t o r e g a r d
t h e above-mentione d w o r d s o f ati n i n t h e inheren t es a s
i r r e g u l a r fo r ha d t h e r e bee n a r e g u l a r declensio n i n th e
second syste m specificall y fo r feminin e w o r d s , i t woul d
s u r e l y hav e bee n applie d here , inasmuc h a s bot h Gree k an d
ithuanian distinguis h t h e feninin e i n thes e participle s an d
a l s o conform s t o t h e dispositio n o f ati n i n inflectin g
adjectives an d participle s precisel y lik e t h e nouns .
ronouns d o hav e som e ending s o f t h e i r own , bu t a p a r t fro m
t h a t the y exhibi t nothin g w o r t h y o f an y note , a s f a r a s
elucidating t h e genera l syste m o f t h e s e language s i s
concerned.
The Gree k ver b syste m i s describe d an d expounde d i n
highly differen t f o r m a t s b y tw o p a r t i e s accordin g t o t h e
socalled t r a d i t i o n a l an d moder n t h e o r i e s . Ther e ar e
undoubtedly som e e r r o r s o n bot h sides . Th e traditiona l
arrangement i s mos t unreasonable , a t l e a s t i n i t s usua l form ,
breaking u p a l l o f t h e analog y o r d i n a r i l y foun d i n t h e
system o f an y huma n tongu e an d makin g t h e inflectio n o f
these w o r d s s o i r r e g u l a r , s o complicate d an d s o confusin g
t h a t accordin g t o t h i s doctrin e t h e entir e languag e h a r d l y
h a s on e singl e complet e an d r e g u l a r wor d t o show t h e
modern arrangement , o n t h e o t h e r hand , 196 i s simple ,
r e g u l a r , an d i n accordanc e wit h o t h e r language s o f t h e sam e
c l a s s , bu t doe s no t appea r t o exhaus t t h e multitud e o f
T ES R E T E G T I G GES 169
. Th e f i r s t conjugation , pur e v e r b s
open has - - - -
or 2
- - - -
'
contr. - - -
- - -
closed 5. - - - -
- - - -
T ES R E T EG T I G GE S 1
a di i
ominative.
instead o f
Genitive.
. s n s s n s n son r
V. s n s n son r
cc. s n s n son
G. ,- s na s s na sonar
s n a s ni
188 RIGI T E D RS E G G E
218 lura l
s na s nir
s na s nir
s na son s ni
s na ena sona
s n
Moesogothic an d ithuania n s n s an d s n is
which com e fro m t h e expande d endin g o f ati n s i s
j u s t a s orn t o orn s et t o edi s edr t o
atri s etc . s f a r a s t h e genitiv e i n ar i s concerned ,
t h e s h i f t fro m t o ar appears l e s s d r a s t i c no w t h a t w e
have see n t h a t ithuania n as i s Gree k in t h e nominative ,
and recallin g ho w s constantly s h i f t s int o r i n orse
f u r t h e r , w e frequentl y hav e a i n Icelandi c wher e Moesogothi c
and o t h e r language s hav e and vic e versa , a s i n h
iarta t nga ater dir t h u s Gree k
s i m i l a r l y correspond s t o Moesogothi c b r o t h e r ) , whic h
means t h a t accordin g t o t h e usua l s h i f t s might a l s o giv e
r i s e t o ar wha t migh t see m mor e peculia r i s t h e fac t t h a t
these ending s s ar whic h correspon d t o at. is s Gr .
of t h e secon d declensiona l syste m i n ati n an d Greek , a r e
used wit h w o r d s havin g r i n Icelandic , althoug h t h i s endin g
a c t u a l l y corresponde d t o s of t h e f i r s t system . S t i l l ,
t h i s i s a l s o easil y explaine d fro m t h e foregoing , wher e w e
observed t h a t Icelandi c r o r ) r correspon d t o bot h s
of t h e f i r s t syste m an d t o s s o f t h e second . Th e
reason i s t h a t Icelandi c d r o p s t h e auxiliar y vowel , whereb y
r e a l l y become s Icelandic r ) , i n o t h e r w o r d s w o r d s
from t h e f i r s t syste m a r e t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e second*) .
ccordingly, w e shoul d no t expec t t o fin d an y s i m i l a r i t y
between t h e Thracia n an d ordi c language s i n t h e o t h e r
endings o f w o r d s i n whic h r r corresponds t o s bu t
only i n thos e 220 i n whic h i t correspond s t o s is s
genitive s e.g . o and at. ager agri
agro do no t agre e wit h a r a rs a r i as i f t h e atin
were ager a g r i s a g r i ) whereas is is is is is i a g r e e s
with Icelandi c an d Germa n is r is s is i is is es
is e etc . i n t h e o t h e r form s a s well . Thu s a wor d ma y
The dativ e
The accusative
The vocative
o at e n ree an at n n t e e ne T s a t rn s
nto n t e re a n n en n s o a s s o e n earl er
n t e ne te r t e en n s also a er es ro t e
ol ree ne te r n o o r o arn e t o e se later
t a s ot no nat e a sat e an e la at e
nas as t es e t re e ases n ar a l are ent a l n t s
en er or n l t oes not a e an eren e n t e
e ne an t e ne te r et e r t e e n t e or s ta e n
ro t e ree no nat e o r ro t e o at e t nt e
as l ne t s o o st a t t o es ro t e o at e
T s s on r e st l rt e r on ons er n T e
o letel ent a l as eo t e rs t e lens o n
tra t onall rat er t e t r e lens o n n ree an at n
n or s n a e a n t e o at e n an en t
ree s t l l a s t e no nat e an n at n re a ne so
t ro o t T e a t t at t e al an t e l ra l o
not a e a se arat e e la at e ne t e r n ree nor n
at n nor n t an an an t at on er sel t e e nt e
or o a e t e s n oeso ot o not a e a se arate
l ral or t orro t e r en n s ent rel ro t e
s ler s ste o no ns no r o t e a e an real
l ral n elan t e en n e n u t ro o t T e
a t t a t ne t e r ree no r at n no r t an an a e an
s e n te e lens on o a e t es or an t n els e
orres on n t o t alt o t s o n n al l ot
lan a e t o t e e t on o r t e rono n
t an an a a en t o a e t e s s so et n ent rel
erent a n n o n l en e on a e t e en n s o r
e lens ons erea s on ersel ne t e r elan n lo
a on or oeso ot o r an ot er Nor o r er an
ale t as an ot e r tra e o an e la at e o r an t n
else t orres on to t s or o r ss o
n or l n t e T ra an ett an la lan a es
T e a t t a t t e no nat e ro er n as als o se n
e la at ons n ree s as at
ON THE SOURCE OF THE GOTHIC LANGUAGES 205
ominative plural.
Degrees of comparison.
or nher el ontraete
nr oser
nchster n lo
nehst el ns tur
o re ote a r a a n lo feor el fiarri o r
or firri an fjrn, ro
t e elan er
at f irra or fyrra
re o e
ro el fir art er
e a os t
or first n lo fyrrest
or an t e hardur er hart
a e t e stron
o er l t kartus
stron tter
or hardar er hrter
or el at herda)
hardastur
' or t stur an sd
t a n nserte 1
saldus
star stastur
Venus a t all a n a e vnn o r n r
t e st a s vetus) aroes e v nur
venustus - vnstur
or at pro or ol for an fur t s t l l
pri, ro pridie n o o n s for
pridem an se era l ro fyrir fyrri
ot ers fyrrum
t pirm at prius fyrr s fyr-ri, n
prior; t s s t e onl t e rs t r s
ase n ree a s n erent orres on n
st nstea o o n to an r n an
t e o arat e erea s prius prior, t e se on
220 RIGI T E D RSE G GE
The pronouns
ded
16. - or at. e i or ig ngloS . m e
The Greeks coul d no t aroes e e Germ, i
pronounce or at
the en d o f w o r d s , bu t
when t h a t was dropped,
i became e , j u s t a s
fortis forte, an t e
like t h e Icelandi c
or, i n general , Gothic
form i s t h u s n o doubt
t h e o l d e s t here
- or i s t h e bas e Icel . wit h inser ted
form fro m whic h n Moesog.
i s contracted, an d from ) ith.
and poet . - or anes
read m o) e x -
panded, at. i
- or Dor. - Moesog. Germ, ir Icel .
r ith. man, by the
same change o f into s
and r 25 which we
have j u s t ha d so many
examples o f in th e
genitive p l u r a l an d the
second degre e of
adjectives
1 . or in t h e nomi - Moesog. Germ, ns
native an d accusativ e Dutch ons Icel. oss are
dual, at. n s i s t h e bot h accusativ e and
nominative an d accusa - dativ e
tive o f t h e p l u r a l ,
I t a l . noi olish an d
Russ. nas oh . n s
a r e accusativ e and
ON THE SOURCE OF THE GOTHIC LANGUAGES 223
genitive
i in t h e genitive ) wit hr for Moesog. -
Germ. nser ngloS .
ser
i in t h e dative ) Moesog.
at. no is wit h s
for n
18. Dor. - or Moesog. Germ, ir Icel .
- ith. es r ngloS . e
Dor. - Icel. r o r or
Dor. - in t h e dual Icel . id ngloS. an d
ith. dd o r e d Moesog . . The o t h e r
composed wit h d two ) cases o f t h i s word i n
t h e dual a r e
ebrew ' o i I, ' n a Moesog . ngloS.
nu or na n we, a p - n Icel .o r gen.
pears t o b e connect- ngloS . n er Icel .
ed t o o r fo r o ar whic h presup -
onkur) a t an y r a t e , pos e a further sepa -
t h e r e i s scarcel y r a t e r o o t form. 258
anything in t h e T h r a -
cian, ettic, Slavic,
or inni c language s
with whic h i t ma y b e
classed.
accusative
Dor. or Moesog., keeping ,
Germ. dir Icel . r
contracted Dor. Moesog. with inserted
poetic expansion Icel. n
- - )
20. or is th e Moesog. i n the dual
nomin. an d accus . ngloS . git old Icel. id
dual, at. os is th e Moesog. i n the plura l
nominative plural, ngloS. ge Germ.
Ital. oi rom this r old Icel . r Moesog.
Russian and olis h i n the gen. ,
in the nominativ e and shoul d rathe r be
as in th e accusative , classe d wit h , but
and th e ithuania n th e ati n adj. ester
dual ju-du,which has show s that th e vowe l
s in th e plural formed has also been e 259
formed lik e Gr .
o Dor. - -
21. Dor. in th e ngloS . eo i Icel . dr
accusative Moesog.
- eo Icel . d r Moesog.
The person j u s t r e f e r r e d t o - t h e t h i r d - i s , fo r on e
thing, incomplet e a s f a r a s expressing an d distinguishin g
gender an d numbe r i s concerned, and, for another, i t h a s
eventually com e t o b e use d mostl y a s a reflexive pronoun
another mor e complet e word , whic h s t r i c t l y speakin g r e f e r r e d
26 1 originally t o t h e . person*), having bee n adopted t o
denote t h e t h i r d p e r s o n , - t h e caus e bein g t h a t t h e p e r s o n s
from the fact tha t thi s word s s i sig s r s n i s actuall y ofte n use d i n thi s way , a s a persona l
pronoun, in the old language - this being, however, much more frequent still in the oldest Greek wit h
its corresponding o . ccordingly, i t can scarcel y b e disputed b y anyon e tha t under -
stands this . The ide a is this ancien t Gree k ha d personal pronouns or ) and
o , of which the . and . were equivalent in the nominative . Thi s led to their eventually bein g
mixed up in the other cases as well, the . remaining in use only in case the . grammatical person
was both subject an d object reflexive), about a s in atin an d in Icelandic o f the present day but
f nally, as a trul y reflexive word was formed t o this person , in th e same wa y a s t o the other tw o
persons, v ov , it fell into disuse entirely, the structure in Greek becoming i n
the end the same as in English wit h i sel t sel sel o w there wer e just persons, but in
addition reflexive pronouns, one for each replacin g the persons and no reflexive pronoun in the
oldest language. s also observed by Rask in the said place, pedantic grammars have in more recent
times wanted to break up the old word which served as the pronoun for the third person in the oldest
Greek or decompose it into two words by accentuating it differently whe n used in the reflexive sens e
from whe n i t was used personall y - in th e same wa y tha t the y like to differentiat e e.g .
o , etc., notwithstanding the fact tha t i t i s obviousl y the same word , whic h ma y hav e
several meanings , as in all other languages. gains t thi s the Danish reviewer in the learned Gazette
quotes Demosthenes , wh o canno t b e blame d fo r pedantry bu t i n s o doin g he ha s either
misunderstood this , as so many other things in his author, or else he must depart from the commonly
held suppositions concerning the origin and the misuse of the Greek accents.
2 0 RIGI T E D RSE G GE
Singular
om. fo r Icel . ad cc. Dor . ith . t Icel .
cc. fo r Icel . ad Gen. Dor . Moesog . extende d
Icel . ann Icel. eirrar a f t e r th e secon d s y s -
Gen. afte r th e 1 . system ) Icel . ess tem i n Icelandi c an d Moesogothi c
after th e second )
Dat. fo r ) ith . d a t . t instr . Dat. fo r ) Moesog . Icel .
t rni o r t Icel . ei eirri
lural
om, an d acc . ngloS . a Icel . a om. Dor. , Icel . r
om.mase. Dor . Moesog . Icel . eir
after th e secon d system )
cc.masc, Dor . Icel . cc. ith . tas Icel . r
Gen. contr . Moesog . extende d Gen. Moesog . extende d Icel .
Icel. eirra eirra
dat. tie 's to s
Dat. ith . Icel. ei Dat. ith . Icel. ei
i n s t r . tais to is
2
2 RIGI T E D RSE G GE
2 9. Moesog. Icel. l
qvalis r Germ. el er 2 2
. o ) Moesog. ngloS.
hvper el hvr
. ter Dor . ngloS . o er a er or a er
alter wit h Icel . i n t h e plur . adrir
inserted i) for a l - Germ. ander Icel . i n t h e
t e r u s ) ith . a ntras sing. annar
secundus)
at neuter - nauper naper
6. - g er by contraction )
. - nig Germ. einige
have a l r e a d y bee n l i s t e d o n p .
21 ..
The cardinals.
The ordinal s
The verbs
*) This language has as yet bee n studie d so little and so inadequately tha t I cannot refer t o
any a t al l serviceabl e grammar for that whic h i s foun d i n i es an d e doe s not deserve thi s
name.
2 2 RIGI T E D RSE G GE
indicative conditiona l
at. Icel . at . Icel .
Sing. 1 . ora o o ora ore ori
2 . ora s ora r ores ori r
. ora t ora r ore t ori 285
lur. 1 . ora s or ore s ori
2. ora tis or it ore tis ori t
. ora n t ora ore t ori
indicative conditiona l
at. Icel . at . Icel .
Sing. 1 . era eri ala ali
2. ere s eri r ales alir
. ere t eri alet ali
lur. 1 . ere s eri ale s ali
2. ere tis erit aletis alit
. ere n t eri aient ali
ora to orad or do
ta e to egid
er to erd
teg to e t for teg e
a ens Moesog. h v
a end s h v Ice . a andi an d s a andi
In t h e f i r s t conjugatio n
at. Icel .
1.cl. at s ad r e.g . orat s orad r
cl et s t s d r t r a it s a d r read
a d r
do it s ta id r ta inn
.cl. it s id r d r inn
etit s edid r edinn
In t h e secon d conjugation
l.cl.-t s t r o r d r inn strat s str d r
2.cl. t s t r o r d r inn te t s a t r a inn
Sing, da Gr . -x
dir -x
-di -xe
Plur. -dum
-dut
d -x - fo r x v .
The passive.
frost)
1 . at. ert s Moesog. Germ. rde
ert a Icel . rd
18. a hill , ridge) , Icel . r n land) , poet.
poet.
19. poet. old - e or e a a n island , a p -
pears a l s o t o hav e bee n
used abou t t h e mainland ,
as i n ne Skaane
dins e dense)
20. at. ins la Germ . nsel
21. - an island , seem s - nes a cape , a n isthmus )
t o hav e bee n use d abou t
peninsulas e.g . -
o )
22. Germ. on
2 . at. l i s - leir masculine ) Germ , der
e
2 .- al al is al
ith. l es
25. at. i i is i Dan . eg Germ. e
ith. i is Dutch e i
26. at. aes aer is old air e r copper) e rir ore ,
is se e ndi leges money ) i n t h e pl . a rar
ta lar p . 15 ) , fro m e.g . la sir a rar fro m
t h i s aerari whic h s re probabl y
b e s t compare d t o at.
a r plur . a ra jus t
a s Icel . g ll Dan . ld
298 Germ , an d ngloS .
gold undoubtedl y com e
from Gymr . gol d treas -
ures, money) . u t e r
copper, ore ) i s at. aes
aeris an d ra di iro n
T ES R E T EG T I G GE S 26 1
ore) i s at. ra d s ra
d s l
2 . dawn, Icel . a str east ) Germ . st
e a s t ) Engl . east
28. at. es er s estr west)
es er
29. - dies diei dagr dativ e deg
ith. dien
0. - at. no nott Germ. a t
no t is ith . na t is
1. at. nsis ith . - nadr Germ. onatti
n or nesis
2. year) season, - r Germ. a r
time)
. at. r r or Dan . aar
. ith. etas et r a year , a winter )
ngloS., Germ. an d Dan.
inter
s n
' ' with digamma)
old at. di s li s
100. Dor. at. Moesog. - Icel. r r
er or
101. ith. d t - D u t c h dog ter I c e l .
d t e r ' s ) dot tir
102. contribulis) - I c e l . r dir
a t . rater
10 . a t . s ror ith . - Icel. s stir
sess sessers R u s s . Dan . oster Dutch ster
sestra o l . siostra a s
re st s a
rando stosr a
rendo st s a oe
rendo oest s a eri
estern s
10 . at. oet s oetare Icel . da bear) str
embryo) 0 dr
f o d d e r ) E n g l . ood
105. a t . so Dan . iger ader Germ .
er so r s ieger ater
Dan. oger Germ. ager
106. at. id a Russ. ngloS. d e Germ. itt e
do a Moesog.
10 . a t . os es os tis I c e l . g str G e r m . ast
ost s R u s s . gost '
108. a t . or s or or ro r Germ. r er
is
109. at. t d Dutc h it Germ.
is ith . da a t
110. at. a t t i a Germ.
a t opf )
111. tonsura) from - r Dan. aar Icel .
r r grey hai r
T ES R E T EG T I G GE S 26
o
18 . - solea s li Dan. e n aal Germ .
die o le
5. djectives .
long
200. - rt s Dutch ort Germ . r
201. at. ten is nn r Dan. t nd Germ .
d nn Engl . t in
make) at maker - magur (mag rari) an
(makrior) mager
at priskus - ferskur friskur an
t preskas nlea f rsk frisk er frisch
ened t h e mai n notio n
is whic h i s i n i t s
11 f i r s t origina l
s t a t e an d power )
20 . at. no s ith . - n r Germ . ne
naujas
at juvenis jun-ior - ngr (ngri) er jung
jnger n lo geong
(geongor se gyngra)
206. - gr r Germ. gra
at sen-ex senis - sein (seinni) an sen
t snas or snis.
In ati n sen ior show s
i t t o b e a n adjective
segnis ma y a l s o belon g
here
208. - - - r r Dan. r
a-kerbus er herbe
210. ith. ielas il rdi an d il
211. at. a s r
212. - dig'n s t ginn worthy, noble)
tign dignity)
karus - kieerr ar kjerur
21 . at. satis sadd r satisfied )
satur t stus er satt
satio an d Gr . ad sedia satiate)
ith. s tin s a t i s f y ) Germ . s ttigen
2 RIGI T E D RS E G G E
6. Verbs.
2 1. - le re Dan . l e Germ .
flehen
2 2. - st n r gemitus ) a d st nia
G e r m . st nen 1
2 . at . g sta re ith . Germ . osten
kasztoti
2 . a t . so n s ith .- s en Swed .s n Dan .
sapnas, somnio a Svn el a sofna e
d r e a m i n g ) so ni in so na fal l asleep )
at dormire - draumur a dream
dreymir dream, t
droom droomen el
dor a s l e e p )
2 6. li e down ) - Uggia ei legid lega
at lektus e a leggi)
at sede-re con- - e sit a sitia (hefi
-sid-ere t se-deti setid) er sitzen el
Russ. sidt ' s e e set a setia an
s a d i t ' saette saette isatte) er setzen
2 8. - a t . sta re ad st Dan . staa Germ .
ste-ti t stow-ju stehen, a standa
stowti ss stou
stoat* ol sta-
at kre-sko kr e-vi - gr se g re-ri a gra
Dan. gro
2 0. ol d - ) at . - g e a a Dan . ge
auge-re au-xi o r
aug-si)
2 1. - ega Dan . e e
2 2. at . a e re a a Dan . a e Germ .
haben
243. fru-i - bru-ka an bruge er
brauchen
2 .- sero se i sat a d s p a s t seri Germ .
t se-ti sen o r shen. at sero
2 6 RIGI T E D RS E G G E
h a s i t s p a s t i n t h e Icel .
seri se i i s fro m t h e
ith. an d 1 Germ .
or se-ti s en, sa- tum
from t h e Icelandi c for m
s
- satus el sd er Saat
2 5. Dan. e e Germ . en
. at mulg-ere - milka an malke er
t milsz-ti melken
at koqvere (- kocka) an kaage e
kka er kochen
bulla-re - bulla
kande-re ak-ken- - kynda n l kind-le
dere
kandela kyndill n l candle
250. o at. do s ti r Dan . er ad
Russ. do ti ra build)
251. at. teg ere e ia Dan . t e Germ.
t steg-ti decken
at. te t ith . - a Dan. ag Germ . a
stgas
252. at. orare ora Dan . ore Germ.
bohren
25 . v at. ola l na Dan. olle Germ.
Mhle
at molere - mala (mel ml) o r mala
t mal-ti t m maladi an my lia melia
prefixed, a s w e hav e l a ola from oli
seen example s o f above ) a trifle )
at ten-do - pen a penia er deh-
nen
stringere con- - streingia ro strngr)
stringere
25 . at. le to letta 15
T ES R E T EG T I G GE S 2
. articles.