Jones states the Indo-European hypothesis in Calcutta

Assembled from 35 blocks · 1 evidence · 32 related

1. Story
2. In his Third Anniversary Discourse to the Asiatick Society of Bengal, William Jones argued that Sanskrit's affinity to Greek and Latin in verb roots and grammatical forms was too strong to be accidental, and that the three had sprung from a common source which perhaps no longer existed. The claim of a lost common ancestor, rather than descent of one attested language from another, is what makes this the conventional starting point of comparative linguistics. The discourse was published in the first volume of Asiatick Researches in 1788. The date of 2 February 1786 is as given in the standard accounts and was not re-checked in this session.
3. Knowledge
4. Indo-European
5. Sanskrit
6. Sir William Jones
7. Jones states the Indo-European hypothesis in Calcutta
8. Grimm formulates the first sound shift as a system
9. Connections
10. Grimm formulates the first sound shift as a system
11. Sir William Jones
12. Sanskrit
13. Indo-European
14. Jones states the Indo-European hypothesis in Calcutta
15. Grimm's Law — the first Germanic sound shift
16. Jacob Grimm
17. The regularity of sound change
18. The comparative method
19. Jones states the Indo-European hypothesis in Calcutta
20. Verner's Law — the exception that rescued the rule
21. Indo-European
22. Jones states the Indo-European hypothesis in Calcutta
23. Verner explains the exceptions to Grimm's Law
24. Proto-Indo-European
25. Uralic
26. Trans-New Guinea
27. Dravidian
28. Hittite
29. Sanskrit
30. Jones states the Indo-European hypothesis in Calcutta
31. Hrozný identifies Hittite as an Indo-European language
32. Proto-Indo-European is spoken
33. Phylogeography puts the Indo-European homeland in Anatolia
34. Evidence
35. Supports the statement that Jones argued in 1786 for a common lost source of Sanskrit, Greek and Latin on the evidence of verb roots and grammatical forms. V55 verification basis: this session had no access to any source — WebFetch was egress-blocked for every host attempted and the WebSearch budget was exhausted before authoring — so the cited work was not retrieved, and no page, volume or figure quoted from it was re-checked. The discourse is paraphrased, never quoted verbatim, and the delivery date of 2 February 1786 is taken from the standard accounts rather than from the publication itself.