Abstract
MR. C. STANILAND WAKE objects to my remarks on his paper on the “Adamites,” which paper he protests is “written at least in a truly scientific spirit.” This, I venture to say, is just Mr. Wake's error. He does not seem to be aware that comparative philology has a scientific method, and that words have to be compared by sound and structure according to fixed and even strict principles. Mr. Wake comes upon a Sanscrit word pita, father, and finds in it a primitive root ta, which he compares with another syllable ta got by cutting in two in the same way an Arabic verb, ’ata. Had he looked into the structure of Sanscrit, he would have found that pita is the nominative case, and precisely the one that does not snow the real crude-form of the word, which is pitar, the tar being a suffix. If it is lawful to compare languages by cutting words up anyhow and finding resemblances among the bits, of course connections may be found between any languages whatsoever. In the same easy way Mr. Wake finds a relation in Polynesian mythology between a divine being called Taata (by the way, he should have taken the name in one of its fuller forms, such as Tamata or Tangata), and another divine being called Tiki. But these are two different gods with different attributes, why should their names be altered to make them into one?
Article PDF
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
I., M. The Adamites. Nature 5, 480 (1872). https://doi.org/10.1038/005480b0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/005480b0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.