Primitive Aryans Of American

Written in 1891, this book offers a controversial theory about the origins of Native American cultures, arguing that they are descended from the ancient Indo-Aryan peoples of Asia. The author contends that the similarities between Sanskrit and Nauatl (the language of the Aztecs) provide compelling evidence of this connection, and presents a detailed analysis of linguistic and cultural similarities to support his claim. This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work is in the "public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.

This Is A New Release Of The Original 1908 Edition.

This is a reproduction of a book published before 1923. This book may have occasional imperfections such as missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. that were either part of the original artifact, or were introduced by the scanning process. We believe this work is culturally important, and despite the imperfections, have elected to bring it back into print as part of our continuing commitment to the preservation of printed works worldwide. We appreciate your understanding of the imperfections in the preservation process, and hope you enjoy this valuable book.

Purchase of this book includes free trial access to www.million-books.com where you can read more than a million books for free. This is an OCR edition with typos. Excerpt from book: CHAPTER II Method Of Working.? Ancient Forms -Cow, Sheep?Consonantal Equivalence and Vowel Genesis?Meanings Any explanations of my method of research would be superfluous in the case of the trained philologist, but as this work is intended for general use among educated people, I may be excused for presenting here a few general directions for the guidance of the reader. First of all, let us remember that vowel mutation is very important, though the causes of change are not so easily traced as in consonant mutation which usually takes place under very definite principles of change.1 Cow.?The Sanskrit root go (gau) means cow. How small the change in 5,000 years. The Sanskrit g has advanced to A; in English; the Greek is bous (bo); the Latin bos or vacca. The Mexican for cow is quaquaue (pronounced ka-ka-way). Note here a curious thing. The Aztecs had no cows. The animal, if known to them, could have been known only as the bison (bos bubalus), but their name for cow is doubtless a reduplication of the Sanskrit gau, ov yd-gi, with, a possessive ending. Now, how did they manage to retain this name for several thousand years intact, supposing that for a long time they were strangers to the animal? This may be explained if we assume a borrowed Assyrian root, though it is doubtfulif such assumption be sound philology. The root ka once meant any projecting, prominent feature or object as a horn of a cow, a pole set in the ground, and even the human hand. The Accadians used it 5,000 years ago, and the Assyrians much later in the same sense. (See ka in Norris' Assyrian Dictionary.) Hence, if no Aztec had seen a cow for thousands of years, it would be in keeping with the genius of his language, to resort to the old name. But I do not maintain that this actually happened, since the st...