Prominence being thus given to the non-Sanskritic character of the grammar of one Indo-Gangetic language, the undeniable fact of a vast per-centage of the vocables being Sanskrit, fell in value, as a sign of philological relation.
Thence came an application of the criticism which had unfixed the Mahratta language to the other (apparently) more undoubtedly Iranian dialects of Northern India—the Udiya, the Gujerati, the Hindi, and the Bengali.
The present writer believes that it unfixes these also; an opinion to which he has been led quite as much by what has been said by the defenders as by what has been said by the impugners of their Sanskritic origin. It is not likely any better case will be made out for this, than the one contained in a very able Dissertation of Dr. Max Müllers.[191] Yet it is so unsatisfactory, that it almost proves the question the other way.
Now all this goes to show that Iranian Indo-Germans are not to be looked for in India; except, of course, as a foreign element to the originally Tamul population.
Whether they are to be looked for elsewhere, and (if anywhere) in what quarters, follows the notice of the—
PERSIAN STOCK.
Physical conformation.—Cranium, dolikhokephalic; complexion, varied, fair with the mountaineer tribes, dark with those of the sandy deserts of the south; features, sometimes regular and delicate, sometimes bold and prominent; in the one case approaching the character of the high-caste Indians, in the other Semitic or sub-Semitic.
Area.—Persia, Beloochistan, Affghanistan, Bokhara, Kafferistan.
Languages.—Undeniably Sanskrit in respect to a great per centage of the vocables. Not undeniably Sanskrit in respect to their grammatical structure.
The last sentence contains the reason for the provisional character of the present classification. The criticism, or rather scepticism, which has been extended by others to the Indo-Gangetic languages of Hindostan, is extended by the present writer to the Persian.