पृष्ठम्:The Sanskrit Language (T.Burrow).djvu/२४

SANSKRIT AND INDO-EUROPEAN *J old system of nominal inflection has to a large extent broken down, and the percentage of words in the vocabulary for which it is possible to find satisfactory etymologies is comparatively small. At the same time some features of the two languages have an ancient aspect which suggests that they are derived from a comparatively early form of Indo-European. This would imply a comparatively early migration in the case of Tocharian, and such an assumption accounts best for the great difference between Tocharian and Indo-Iranian. We must assume that an Eastern Indo-European dialect group had for centuries existed in isolation before the comparatively late migration which took Indo-Iranian to Asia from the central Indo-European area. The separation of Hittite and the languages allied to it from the main body of Indo-European must have taken place earliest of all. This is the only way to explain the great differ- ences which exist between it and the type of Indo-European that has been reconstructed from the previously known mem- bers of the family. The most striking feature of Hittite is the preservation of h, which has elsewhere disappeared. In addition to this the language deviates from the usual type in many other respects. In the formation of nouns the percentage of consonantal stems, and in particular the old neuter types in l and r alternating with n, is much greater than in the standard types of Indo-European, The feminine gender is undeveloped. The inflection of nouns is much simpler than in the type of Indo-European represented by Sanskrit, and there is no reason to believe that this is due to losses on the part of Hittite. Above all, the conjugation of the verb differs widely from the system reconstructed largely by the comparison of Sanskrit and Greek, which at one time passed for primitive Indo-European. Con- sideration of these facts has led some scholars, notably E. Stur- tevant, to separate Hittite from the Indo-European family proper, and to postulate an earlier Indo-Hittite from which Hittite on the one hand and Indo-European on the other are separately descended. The majority of opinion is against this extreme view and it seems more satisfactory to speak of Early and Late Indo-European, rather than of Indo-Hittite and Indo- European. It has already been pointed out that the dialect divisions of Indo-European go back to a period long antedating the migration of Indo-Iranian. Even though the separation of