Viewing page 20 of 23

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

June 19, 67.

Dear Fanny,

I have received your learned letter of June the second, which I will try to answer. I hope you will get the one of 15 or 16 pages which I wrote last week.  You are now getting too deep for me & I confess to not understanding the meaning of two or three words in [[strikethrough]] the [[/strikethrough]] your last letter as for instance where you speak of a Gothic aspirate corresponding [[strikethrough]] with [[/strikethrough]] always with a Sanskrit tenuis.

I am glad to see Max Muller gives such strong & good names as Bow wow to [[strikethrough]]his [[/strikethrough]]theories but when he talks of [[strikethrough]]that [[/strikethrough]] dialectical regeneration replacing a thing I doubt if his ideas are then as clear, [[strikethrough]] Most people I know when not f [[/strikethrough]] even to himself.

His learning will probably tell him if in very old fashioned latin they used habeo habere to form tenses in general instead of essere but I would not call it a [[strikethrough]] corruption [[strikethrough]] phonetic corruption. The change from the expression I have to go out tomorrow to I am to go out tomorrow, but would suppose it another way of saying the same thing.  Short words are very seldom corrupted especially those which are used by every man woman & child in a nation a hundred or thousand times a day.

The use of the verb to be to make futures is not uncommon in English at all. We have often heard what is to be will be = what will be will be.

Transcription Notes:
Please review a couple of unknown or uncertain words in [[ ]]. https://www.yourdictionary.com/tenuis suggests 'tenuis' is the right word.