b o o k . f u i ) j e c t . I regretted that time would not permit thè learned
. Laplander to enter into a detail of all the reafons which had
induced him to adopt this hypothefis ; but we may conclude,
that ftrong probability lies on this fide of the queftion, when
we find two natives, of Hungary, and o f Lapland, both
men o f letters, and both well verfed in their own. dialects,
affirming it from their own convidtion, without any inter-
courfe or collufion. Having both treatifes in my poffeffion,
which are extremely rare, I ffiall comprife, in a fhort com-
pafs, the arguments which feem to prove the iimilarity of
the two languages.
It muft not befuppofed that a Laplander entering Hungary,
or an Hungarian travelling into Lapland, would be
immediately underftood by the natives : for though the inhabitants
o f thefe two countries ffiould be unqueftionably
allowed to be branches from the fame * ftock; yet, as the -reparation
from that original took place at a time when they
had no alphabet, it mull: neceflarily follow, from the gradual
change which all languages neceflarily undergo in the lapfe
o f time, and by the adoption of words from the neighbouring
nations, that each people could never have retained fepa-
ratelys/Zthe primitive charaiterifticks o f their original tongue;
it is fufficient, if, in the general mode o f pronunciation, in
the fimilarity of many words, and in the grammatical ftruc-
ture o f the phrafes, both nations retain a ftrong degree of
refemblance ; and thus much appears to be the cafe in the
Hungarian and Lapland idioms.
In the firft place, the pronunciation of the Lapland tongue
is fo extremely peculiar and'difficult, that a Swede or Dane,,
* N o p e r io tf in th e leaft converfant in and Danifli are. all derived from the antient
t}ie flu d y o f lan gu ag es prefumes to doubt G o th i c k o r T e u to n ic k , and ye t thefe diffe-
th a t the Engliih-, G e rm an , D u t ch , Swediih,' rent nations 4© no,t uiiderfiand e a c h other. ,
unlefs
unlefs educated from their infancy in the country, can- never c h a p .
attain it; whereasSainovits was able to catch the genuine ac- - j
cent without the leaft. difficulty,, although, before his arrival
in the country, ¡he had not the leaft acquaintance with their
language ; the articulation ih many refpedts being fo per-
fedtly. familiar to him, that, to ufe his own expreflion,
“ while he heard them converting, he thought he was in
“ his own country ft?’ , ,
The next proof o f their affinity refts upon the fimilarity
of particular words plainly proceeding from the fame ftock.
Of thefe Sainovits has given a vocabulary, comprizing 150
common to both, and whofe refemblance cannot be doubted.
As thefe expreflions fell under, his obfervation during a ihort
refidenee in the country, it is probable that, if he had continued
there a longer ¡time, he would, have difcovered many
more.
The two idioms are further deraonffrated to be the fame
from a furprizing agreement in the. declenfion o f nouns, in
the comparifoh o f adjectives, in a peculiar ufe o f numerals,
pronouns, affixes, fuffixes, and prepofitions, in the mode o f
conjugating verbs, and in the auxiliary verbs; for in all thefe
circumftances the two people differ as much from the nations
bordering upon both, as they are analogous to each o th e r ;
“ So that we may venture to conclude,” adds Oehrling, “ that
“ the German does not approach nearer to the Swediih, or
“ the Chaldean to the Hebrew, than the Lapland to the
“ Hungarian.”
From thefe premiies the fame ingenious author concludes,
“ that the Laplanders are undoubtedly defcended from the
* “ Interea, quamvis Lap p on ibu s vo ce s “ ipfos fermocinantes au direm, in Patria,
enunciandi modus Angular is prorfn s fit, M inter.Ungaros me verfari credere n?,” p . 14.
“ mihi tamen ita familiaris ac c id it , vit, diira*
6 “ Huns,