He wrote, The Sanskrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of wonderful structure, more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either. Yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of the verbs and in the forms of grammar, than could not possibly have been produced by accident. Let me underline that. Than cannot possibly have been produced by accident. So he says there's a lot of commonality between the Sanskrit and Latin and Greek, and it's a strong affinity, a strong connectedness that could not have been produced by accident. So strong indeed that no philologer could examine all three without believing them to have sprung from some common source. Let me underline that.