Quotes are in italic, my comments are in normal. If a quote is unintermitted continuation it has (+) in the beginning.
If then we want to study the history of the human mind in its earliest phases, where can we hope to find more authentic, more accurate, more complete documents than in the annals of language?
Modern etymology is based on asummed interpretations of texts.
There is this ancient crypt underlying everywhere the ground-floor of our language, and though that crypt is often very troublesome to explore, very slippery and full of cobwebs, no one can any longer deny its existence, or doubt that it consisted of what, for want of a better name, we call roots.
He is probably referring the obvious connection. ( Available in this page: Language the One. )
What we have more ately learnt is that these roots, or these elements, which resist further analysis, expressed originally concepts, and that these concepts can, in most cases, be traced back to simple states of consciousness of certain primitive acts of our own, which, if repeated and conceived as one, contain within themselves the first germs of general and abstract concepts.
Is it a typo or intentional? ( Explained: Manipulation of latin numerals ) This is a bit disappointing if they were to realize it around that time. I mean it is almost not worth for me reading Max Müller considering what I can extract is very limited. (Not that I am able to utilize my time pragmatically.)
In following parapgrahs he mentions 800 Sanskrit root (that expresses around 120 concepts) can caver almost all of the Sanskrit words. 800 is big number and his definition of root is confusing. He is probably implying something. He writes 120 concepts as I20 maybe like latin numerals he is implying 20-1 = 19 total concepts. (Though "I" instead of 1 seems like frequently used.) Which is in the middle of viable range. He also writes 8oo instead of 800. Not that those numbers are artificial he has books relating Sanskrit grammar. There is a conflicting footnote that doesn't make sense. The fact is that there can't be real distinctions as concepts and roots.
The fact then that nearly the whole of the Sanskrit Dictionary can be accounted for with about 8oo roots, expressing about I20 concepts, remains unaffected by all these vague surmises. All we mean when we call these roots ultimate elements is that, for the present at least, they admit of no further analysis.
He directly says this is the case for Sanskrit regardless of "all these vague surmises". I guess pretty explanatory. And he also explains why numbers is that high in context of Sanskrit. Overall I can say he uses the expression of concepts to refer roots. And uses the term root as a proxy forcibly. He refers such roots as "predicative roots". He is not even implying most of the time.
In the Semitic languages we are never satisfied till we have traced words back to their roots, and even though the radical meanings assigned to some nouns are very startling, the general principle that words must have had a radical predicative meaning is never doubted in Hebrew or Arabic. Why then should it be considered so incredible that the same holds good with regard to the Aryan languages?
Classic extreme exaggeration when he can't say straight facts. Aryan languages? As joke as semitic ones. At that time people were really fanatic. They were really thinking Aryan languages represent development in civilization meanwhile Turan languages had to stay practical and logical due to restraints in transmission capability of literature. (As part of propaganda Max Müller also participated in.) He probably thinks about names like “Satan” as writing “even though the radical meanings assigned to some nouns are very startling”. (There is an explanation here for satan.)
(+) Nothing seems to have given so great offence to certain students of anthropology as what I consider one of the fundamental principles of the Science of Language, namely that everything in language had originally a meaning, or, what is the same thing, that every word is derived from a predicative root. These roots may not always give the anthropologist the answer which he expected, they may sometimes startle even unprejudiced scholars by the strangeness of their replies. But without supposing that our interpretation of the facts of language is always right, the facts themselves remain, whether they are ignored or ridiculed, and they will have to be explained, however troublesome they may appear.
He directly states that predicative roots does not represent the truth. (Like 800 roots in the Sanskrit) He furthermore refers to cases like Satan. Which is part of manipulation done by probably Augustus. It is important that he emphasizes this after referring Semitic languages. He I think also implies Semitic languages can be worked out. He doesn't say the same thing for Sanskrit. And even uses proxy terms to cause confusion. Makes unnecessary explainations. Although he is very direct as he repeats same things clearly. As he clearly states in case of Sanskrit, 800 roots cannot be investigated further.
What is, for instance, the meaning of the word Father? Has any more plausible interpretation been offered than that it meant feeder, protector, ruler? Pater, Sk. pitar, consists of a radical element Pa, and a derivative element tar. The root PA means to feed in pa-bulum, food; it means to protect in Sk. go-pa, cow-herd; and it means strong, ruler, king, in Sk. pa-ti, lord, der-nó-ns, lord, potis, strong. Some scholars may doubt about the connection of p a in pati with pa in pater, but the fact that father was intended by the early Aryas as a feeder, protector, and lord, would not be in the least affected by this. Which of these three meanings was present to the mind of the original framers of the word it is impossible to say. A root lives in its derivatives, and its meanings are called out and differentiated by the varying purposes which it is made to serve. But whether the Aryas, before they were broken up into Hindus, Persians, Greeks, Italians, Teutons, Slaves, and Celts, conceived the father as a feeder, or & protector, or a ruler, it is quite clear that they could not have framed such a name during the so-called metrocratic stage, when, as we are told, the mother was the feeder, protector and ruler of her young, and the father no more than a casual visitor.
He gives the word “father” as example and implies it is a term developed during slavery period. He make it seem like he is avoiding this scenario but he leaves no other explanation than slavery for formation of the word “father”. I think he is giving this example this way because he thinks this is important diffirantiator for langauges used in slavery periods. Sanskrit, Persian and Hindi has it but other Indian languages usually has different things. It also seems like he implies a connection between farther and father. Is the word Slaves a typo instead of Slavs? Why not. The thing is he is actually very straightforward here. He just uses standard tactics that spreads focus and mentions things that are true but actually not much relevant.
…To the students of Agriology such facts are unwelcome, and they try to laugh them away. They hoped to see in the image of the earliest stage of society as reflected in the mirror of language, clear traces of metrocracy, of communal marriage, of omophagy and cannibalism, but there were none. It does by no means follow therefore that the Aryas never passed through these stages of brutality, savagery, and barbarism. They may or they may not have done so. Al I maintain is that their language has preserved no traces of it, and that there is no evidence, so far as I know, more ancient and more trustworthy than language.
Not that I care but I feel like he abuses English little bit too much. I wasn't even able to realize it in previous quote. I just read what google redirected as did you mean this. Meritocracy refers to society based on individuality and by metro+cracy he means slavery. And also it really seems like he intentionally put a comma before "clear traces of metrocracy". And he is referring it with “so-called” like he is not the only one who uses it. And he emphasize again about "brutality, savagery, and barbarism". There are no signs of those. I think he implies they were very compliant slaves. Although he uses this metrocratic term frequently. And extremely absurdly. Yes, he literally refers to slavery again, again and again with this term.
… Whenever language has been forced to give evidence in support of metrocratic and similar theories, the attempt has always failed. I do not for one moment deny the existence of a metrocratic stage of society in some part of the world, nor do I maintain that we find no traces of it here and there, in the customs even of certain Aryan races.
He refers to specific instance before stating the first sentence. He is refering to the forced approach he just described in previous sentences. I think rest is pretty clear. He doesn't deny it for one moment. Nor he can ignore traces of it in customs of certain Aryan races. I wonder when did British realize this. It seems like he was someone really trusted. I think especially in case of this book he think that nobody really intelligent would read this shit. At least would pay too much attention. So maybe he laced this one blatantly. Although he may have very similar book date is probably also important factor.
(+) All I object to is the unnatural craving of discovering such customs à tout prix. Because, for instance, the Hindus say mâtâ-pitarau for father and mother, not pitâ-mâtarau, it has been argued that they were still in a metrocratic stage when they formed that compound, as if the children's love and a father's inborn chivalry did not supply a far better explanation.
Seems like he implies it is more about who is able to claim the name. He may be implying that mothers took over the name pitarau in some instances because it was framed as a more important figure. (Especially considering father is artificial term unlike easily pronounced terms like dad, baba, mom. Normally mother claims more natural sounds baby pronounce early which is moma. Father and grandparents takes bab/dad/nan. English is interesting as babies named “baby” which is hilarious. Not unique to English. But they are referred based on a sound they make early.) Although this is my speculation. But he is interesingly shy about making a clear statement.
Although Europeans have had made up something for everything it is obvious that father is related to feudality. Interestingly religion adhered to some of the terminology. Which is actually not much different than mother taking over the name father.
But the words for brother have been made to yield another proof of metrocratic life, if not among all the Aryas, at least among the Greeks. If bhrâtar meant originally no more than the carriers of a family, or a clan, we can understand how in Homer φρήτρη (phrḗtrē) came to be used in the sense of a company of young men, living together, working together, and fighting together, without necessarily being the sons of the same parents. And if φράτωρ (phrátōr) in Greek became restricted to the meaning of a member of a φρατρία (phratría), a new name was wanted to express children of the same parents; brothers and sisters. We see the same process repeated in modern language where, as in Spanish, frey takes the sense of friar, and is replaced by hermano in the sense of brother, as sorella is by hermana. But the Agriologists at once smell a rat. Why, they ask, was a brother called άδελφός in Greek, which meant ά-δελφός, i.e. co-uterinus, born of the same mother? Does not that show that brotherhood was determined by the mother alone, and that the Greeks were still in a metrocratic state when they invented this new name?
I don't fully understand this but back then I guess he would explain it by saying “I have to be realistic people are not idiot”. And I guess conjecture was slightly different back then. British probably wouldn't care about reputation of Greek. Also “fare” means rat in Turkish. “But the Agriologists at once smell a rat.” sounds weird. Today it may seem like cats are more liked than rats but in past at least in Europe cats were feared. Turkish word “fare” probably has a weird story. It etymologically seems isolated. Although it may be Arabic loanword and resembles meanings related to a infiltrator like mole and sneakiness but those are obivously over the animal. It is possible that this word is also manipulated by Augustus or someone else. Pray and Fear also may be related. Turkish has many words that assumed to be Arabic loanword which Arabs also heard from Romans originally. Roman culture has a particular distaste for serpents and rodents which reflected in Semitic culture.
It may seem like he is talking about something like communism but for countless reasons he is talking about some kind of feudal system without directly referring to. Or referring with the term metrocracy. Maybe he also thinks the word “feudal” was also manipulated. In the relevant timeline medieval feudality is not necessarily relevant.
British were probably very strict about Semitic languages. Restrictions regarding the rest were probably less strict and based on agreement upon building a general narrative.