chapter 10 History, Comparativism, and Morphology: Al-Suyūṭī and Modern Historical Linguistics Francesco Grande 1 Introduction This paper investigates several aspects of al-Suyūṭī’s linguistic thought and their relationship with modern historical linguistics with a particular regard to morphology. Section 1 illustrates the methodological underpinnings of modern historical linguistics. Section 2 explores a potential parallelism between these and the methods of which al-Suyūṭī avails himself in his description of Arabic. Particular attention is paid to al-Suyūṭī’s treatise al-Muzhir fī ʿulūm al-lugha wa-anwāʿihā and to the three conceptual elements of history, comparativism and morphology. Finally, section 3 provides the main conclusions, clarifying the extent to which al-Suyūṭī’s linguistic thought and modern historical lin- guistics converge. 2 The Emergence of Modern Historical Linguistics: A Review and Reconsideration The emergence of modern historical linguistics is traditionally dated back to the nineteenth century when German scholars such as Franz Bopp (1791– 1867) and August Schleicher (1821–1868) founded this scientific discipline and established the so-called “comparative method”. This was used in the descrip- tion of mainly—though not exclusively—Indo-European languages.1 As terms such as “historical” and “comparative” indicate, the epistemological discourse on modern historical linguistics (MHL henceforth) generally tends to identify its methodological bases by comparing languages within a given lan- guage-family. In addition, it includes the study of the history of these languages 1 In a famous work that was published in its definitive form posthumously in 1871, Schleicher actually discussed not only the Indo-European cladistic model (Stammbaumtheorie) but also the structure of non-Indo-European languages (cp. Schleicher, Compendium 1–9). We will return later on this point. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/97890043345�6_0�� 202 Grande and the regularity of phonetic rules that, from this perspective, are responsible for the change from one given language stage to another.2 Furthermore, the epistemological discourse on MHL also describes history as a methodology underpinning this science, which is deeply rooted in a Darwinian framework: the history of a (given) language(s) is driven by evolution.3 Continuing in this strain, we should also recognize that the beginnings of MHL, thus character- ized, are largely indebted to contemporary sciences such as biology, anatomy, and chemistry—in short, the so-called natural sciences.4 It is hardly questionable that it is precisely traceable or measurable meth- ods such as historical investigation and comparativism that have made MHL a scientific discipline. However, it is also true that the epistemological discourse on the emergence of such a science often associates the above methodologi- cal underpinnings with some stereotypes. According to textual research car- ried out in the 1960s, the most notable of these is Schleicher’s interpretation of the historical change undergone by (a given) language(s) in terms of Darwin’s evolutionism, which in bare bones proceeds from simple to complex. In fact, ascribing to Schleicher such an interpretation is clearly at odds with his well- known view that Greek, Latin and Sanskrit, for instance, are the result of the corruption and decay (Verfall) of their perfect, common Indo-European ancestor. This view, which interprets language change as a complex-to-simple process, owes more to the theory of dégénération formulated by the French Illuminist Buffon (1707–1788) than to Darwin’s evolutionism.5 Another interesting stereotype concerning the rise of MHL revolves around the underlying methodology labeled as comparativism. While the claim is often found in the literature that this method brings into comparison the linguistic codes traditionally known as languages (in order to reconstruct a common ancestor),6 closer scrutiny of the foundation works of this disci- pline reveals that, in fact, the latter was also concerned with linguistic codes 2 See e.g. Bloomfield, Language 3–20, and Lehmann, Linguistics 23–46. 3 See e.g. Lehmann, Linguistics 31: “In his Compendium (1871) Schleicher attempted to apply the procedures of the natural sciences. In this effort he was strongly influenced by the ideas on evolution.” Cp. also the references mentioned in Maher, Tradition of Darwinism 9. 4 See e.g. Lehmann, Linguistics 27, and the previous fn. Cp. also Salmon, Morphology 16–7. 5 Maher, Tradition of Darwinism 5–7. This study also shows that the Darwinian character of early MHL is a commonplace that arguably arose, among other things, as a consequence of Schleicher’s interest for Darwinism, to which he devoted, in effect, the study Die Darwinsche Theorie und die Sprachwissenschaft. 6 See e.g. Lehmann, Linguistics 8: “after Jones’s statement, however, scholars in Europe began systematic comparison of older forms of English and German with Latin, Greek, Sanskrit and other languages.”.