[39]                      
        The appended short paper (“Stadial Classification of Languages according to N. Marr”)^[1] was written way back in 1949 (at the height of the domination of Acad. N. Marr’s “New theory of language” in Soviet linguistics).
        The paper was written at the suggestion of Kandid N. Charkviani, the then leader of the Republic and supervisor of the publication of the 8-volume Explanatory Dictionary of the Georgian Language (1st volume was off the press in 1950; 8th volume, in 1964).
        In 1949 Marr was no longer alive (he died in 1934) but his “New theory” enjoyed unlimited power as an embodiment of the only Marxist theory opposed to “the reactionary bourgeois Indo-European linguistics”.
        The “New theory” of Marr was created in 1923-26, on the basis of a four- element palaeontological analysis, according to which all languages allegedly originated from the same material of tribal names (Sal, Ber, Yon and Roš) and their manifold crossing. Why precisely “four elements” was never specified by Marr (an arbitrary hypothesis on the “primary state”).
        Marr believed, however, that even at present an original element could and should be identified in any word: a comparison of languages was impermissible unless this was done; if the element was “detected” words of any languages (Chinese, Finnish, Georgian, Hebrew, etc.) could be freely compared.
        An unheard of arbitrariness in the comparison of words and languages was thus inculcated.
        Nobody would have taken seriously such “reasonings”, but they came from Academician Marr, a major orientalist, the author of most valuable studies on Armenian and Georgian philology, and a well-known student of Kartvelian and a number of other languages of the Caucasus.
        Marr’s theory of stadial development is intrinsically connected with the palaeontological element-analysis: langages display unitariness in their original material but differ in their stages of development.
        Marr and his “New theory” rested not only and not so much on the scholarly prestige of his earlier studies.
[40]              
        In 1928 Marr wrote: “Now there is nowhere to go: there is no salvation in any country, or in any scholarly emigration — external or internal — from the seeds of the Japhetic theory, that undermines the old teaching(!)”.[2]
        It was on such methods that the dominant position of Marr’s four-element palaeontological analysis was maintained.
        Marr died in 1934. His follower, Acad. I. I. Meshchaninov, devoted to the elements (and their phonetic “substantiation”) the article: “Basic Linguistic Elements (from the Japhetological Viewpoint)”[3], but after Marr’s death he never dealt either with the elements or their substantiation.
        However, he never rejected the monopoly of the “New theory”: the monopoly was preserved on the basis of stadial-typological patterns.
        In 1940, at the meeting of the Department of Literature and Language (DLL), at which Arn. Chikobava’s paper on the essence of language according to the conceptions of H. Paul, F. de Saussure, K. Vossler,... N. Marr... was discussed (the problem being treated from the principled positions of Soviet linguistics), the head of the indicated department, Acad. Meshchaninov, stated that the Institute of Language and Thinking “does not work on t h e elements” and the paper just delivered will be published in the “Izvestija of the DLL” (this caused the indignation of some participants of the meeting).
        The paper containing criticism of Marr’s elemental palaeontology was not printed in the “Izvestija”[4]; instead, an editorial by Meshchaninov was published, in which the palaeontological elements were not rejected, since the “New theory” failed to work without the elements. The dictatorship of the elements continued.
        In 1947, when the country was engaged in overcoming the grave consequences of the war years, the Academy of Sciences of the USSR held a discussion on the problems of b i o 1 o g y. The fortunes of biological science were in the hands of Acad. T. Lysenko, the author of the stadial theory of the evolution of plants.
        This theory could allegedly assure a “double harvest of potatoes”, “branched wheat” and such like blessings. The heavy period of the monopoly of Acad. Lysenko and his stadial theory set in.
        In 1948, the N. Ja. Marr Institute of Language and Thinking organized in Leningrad a special session devoted to the results of the discussion of the problems of biology: if the theory of stadial evolution of plants received official approval, Marr’s theory of stadial development of languages deserved the same.
        In 1949 the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences discussed at
[41]    
its special meeting the “situation at the linguistic front”, and arrived at the following decision: “Acad. N Marr's “New theory” be considered the only materialistic, Marxist theory of language, and everything that disagrees with it be resolutely rejected”.
        True, this was not a decision taken by a directive organ, but it came from the most authoritative scientific institution of the country; hence the monopoly of Marr’s “New theory” in Soviet linguistics was recognized.
        Those who held dissentient views were accused of all mortal sins — ideological and political.
        Practical measures were expected, and were actually taken on local initiative (thus, in Armenia Acad. Hrachja Acharjan, a well-known linguist, was suspended from Yerevan State University, as well as Acad. H. Kapan- tsjan, academician-secretary of the Department of Literature and Language.
        1949 was a heavy year for Soviet linguistics.

                       * * *

        As noted at the outset, in the spring of 1949 I was requested to write an article on Marr’s “stages of language development”.
        In early April, 1950 I was notified from the directive organ of the Republic that in a few days I was to travel to Moscow: “Problems of linguistics will be discussed there with the secretaries of the Central Committee”; I was told to prepare myself for it.
        Thus, in the evening of 10 April we (the First Secretary K. Charkviani, the Chairman of the Council of Ministers, two ministers and I) were in Moscow, at J. Stalin’s villa.
        Only problems of linguistics were discussed, namely: Stalin’s remarks on the Explanatory Dictionary of the Georgian Language (the first volume of which had just come out), and the question of Marr’s “New theory”.
        It was decided to hold a discussion: I was charged with writing a special paper for the discussion (J. Stalin: “Write it, and we shall see. If it answers the purpose, we shall have it published. And this is your paper, I am returning it”, and he put the folder with my paper on the language-stages on the table; but then he added; “I shall better keep it for the time being: let us see how you will write now about these problems and then I shall return your paper”^[5]).

                   * * *

        The article for the discussion that I was requested to write on 10 April, 1950 was read by Stalin twice; at the same time he made notes, and to discuss them I visited him twice at his villa, the discussions continuing 2—3 hours.
        Stalin hated ambiguities. He was interested in problems of language actually in connection with the national question. Against the prevalent
[42]    
view, it should be noted that one could argue with him. At times, he agreed on some point saying; “After all, you seem to be right in that”.
        He was not informed on Marr’s palaeontological element-analysis (“reading the tea-leaves”, as he referred to it during the discussion but he was not at all convinced by Marr’s ultra-left, loud slogans (“Marr professed Marxism loudly, but he was not a Marxist” — Stalin’s words at our meeting on 10 April, 1950).
        Apparently, Stalin’s attitude to Marr was not positive even prior to the discussion.
        Thus, in the summer of 1930 at the 16th Congress of the Party Stalin had an opportunity to hear Marr’s greeting on behalf of the VARNITSO^[6], typical of Marr not only in style:
        Marr:

“Since the very first days of the October Revolution I have stood shoulder to shoulder with comrades-communists, and together with other non-party people of congenial temper, have helped the cause of revolutionary scientific and cultural construction, unprecedented in scope... The October Revolution liberated all the working people, including scholars languishing in the thralls of dark idealism”.
        “Under conditions of complete freedom granted to science and scholarship Soviet power that aids the boldest and most audacious scientific quests in the sphere of genuine materialistic outlook, I endeavoured to evolve and now too continue to develop — already with a new personnel of scholars-communists and staunch non-party comrades-in-arms,—a theoretical teaching on language — the area of my scholarly work. Having realized the falsity of indifference to politics and, naturally, rejecting it, at the present moment of intensified class struggle, I am standing firmly at my post of a fighter of the scientific-cultural front — for the clear-cut general line of proletarian scientific theory, and for the general line of the Communist Party. Such a non-party person, I believe, has the right to be charged with the high honour of reading out to you, comrades, this responsible document on behalf of the VARNITSO” ^[7].

        As the head of the VARNITSO delegation, the non-party Marr delivered a speech at the 16th Congress of the Communist Party that could have been envied by any old Party-member.
        Soon Marr was admitted to the Party and he decided to put the dissentient out of his way.
        This referred primarily to Tbilisi University whose rectorship he was offered in 1933 (by K. Oragvelidze, a department chief at the Central Com-
[43]    
mittee of the Communist Party of Georgia), but Moscow did not agree (for Marr was vice-president of the Acad. Sci. USSR).
        Unexpectedly the question arose of marking the 45th anniversary (not a jubilee date!) of Marr’s scholarly activity, and this must have aroused Marr’s suspicions. Marr did not live till the 45th anniversary of his scholarly activities.
        At one of our meetings to discuss the draft of the paper, Stalin said — out of context: “And Lysenko does not let anybody live in peace”. I said; “There is talk of a double harvest of potatoes and branched wheat” (At that time the newspapers Wrote about these things!)
        “Double harvest of potatoes! Branched wheat — that is questionable; and Lysenko does not let anybody live in peace”; then he added; “we shall criticize him”.

                   * * *

        Lysenko’s stadial development of plants was the basis for demanding (on the part of Marr’s followers) a monopoly for Marr’s stadial theory of language.
        Now the untenability of the one and the other had come to light.

                       * * *

        An episode we witnessed during the first meeting with Stalin at his villa (10th April, 1950) is characteristic:       
        He had learnt that in Armenia academicians Hrachja Acharjan (from Yerevan University) and H. Kapantsjan (from the Department of Literature and Language of the Acad. Sci. Armenian SSR), dissenting with Marr’s “New theory”, were dismissed. Stalin asked me about these specialists, and then called Arutjunov, the first secretary of the Central Committee in Yerevan, to the telephone.
        The conversation was short.
        After greeting him, Stalin asked:
        “Have Professors Acharjan and Kapantsjan been dismissed?”...
        “Why?”...
        “There were no other causes?”...
        “That was a wrong action to take, comrade Arutjunov”, he said putting the receiver down.
        Frankly speaking, we listened to the conversation with a feeling of profound satisfaction.
        Academicians Acharjan and Kapantsjan were reinstated to their posts before the discussion began.

                   * * *

        Note: The present writer’s “On some questions of Soviet linguistics” was published in the “Pravda” newspaper on 9 May, 1950 (opening the well- known discussion on problems of Soviet linguistics).
[44]

        Stadial Classification of Languages According to N. Marr (21 April, 1949)
        The palaeontological method constitutes the core of Acad. N. Marr’s- Japhetic theory, the following two theoretical propositions being intrinsically connected with the indicated method: (a) on the unitariness of the glottogonic (language-creative) process, and (b) stadial (stage-) development of languages (stadial classification of languages).
        The indicated propositions are declared to be the basic achievement of the Japhetic theory as a new doctrine of language that overturns the racist principles of bourgeois linguistics.
        Is this really so? This question can be answered after the clarification of (a) What is the doctrine of language stages based on? (b) What does ilj establish? and (c) Where does it lead to?
        To begin with the crucial point: the palaeontological method. This method studies the earliest stages of human speech. In Marr’s Japhetic theory the analysis of elements (the so-called four-element analysis) serves as the palaeontological method.
        The formula of the analysis runs: All words of all languages of the world consist of four elements (Sal, Ber, Yon and Roš). “In the vocabulary of no language can there be found anything more than these four elements”. “Unless a word is analysed according to the number of the elements it contains, comparison is impossible; without such an analysis the comparative method is invalid”^[8].
        Analysis in terms of elements is the “technique of the new theory of language”. It does not exclude comparison; on the contrary, it represents a new technique of comparison — comparison according to the elements. What can be compared? Any words of any language: a Georgian word can be compared with a Chinese one, or with Latin, Arabic, as well as with Chuvash, Turkish as freely as with that of Basque. The only thing to do is to “identify” the element that “underlies” the word (e. g. Marr compares the Georgian cqali “water”, Armenian Jur “water” Turkish su “water”, Chinese suj “water”—all deriving from the element Sal... With the help of the elements the Russian iz-rek-at' “to utter”, Svanian rakw “said”, Armenian jajn “voice”, Georgian ena “tongue”, English tongue, Laz Canapa “to call” are “compared”... On the basis of the analysis according to the elements Marr declares that the names Japheth, Karapet and Prometheus are linguistically identical. By means of the same element-analysis Marr “establishes” that culture is a Turkish word (see: N. Marr. On a linguistic mission to the eastern Mediterranean, 1934, p. 95)^[9].
[45]              
        Such is the method of analysis according to the elements in Marr’s new doctrine of language.
        Let us assume for a moment that this is actually the case, i. e. all words of all the languages of the world derive from the four elements Sal, Ber, Yon and Ro§. What follows from this? Where does the postulation of the original four elements lead to?
        Since all languages come from the same (four) elements, all languages are of common origin: hence, neither there are nor can there be any languages differing in the original material — differing in terms of the original element (it follows that — technically speaking—all languages are of the same root).
        Thus, the elements — this common original material, according to Marr—were responsible for the unity of origin, and later of the unity of language-creation (glottogonic) process: unity and not uniformity of the process (without a common original material — in the presence of common factors of development we would have had uniformity rather than unity of the language-forming process). The unitary origin of human speech — the unitary process of language-formation is conditioned by the unitariness of the original material (the four elements).
        But the existence of different languages is undeniable: different in terms of their vocabulary, or word- or sentence-structure, more or less different in terms of their phonetic systems — a fact universally known.
        Whence this difference? Since the initial material of all languages is common, and since the process of language-creation is unique how did different languages emerge? To what are different languages due? This is Marr’s answer: Different languages represent different stages of development: the difference is due to the place a language (a group of languages) occupies in the unitary process of language-creation (glottogony).
        Major periods of the unitary glottogonic process were referred to by Marr as stages of development. A single stage can comprise several language systems (i. e. language families).
        To what are the different stages of language due? They reflect “changes in language and thinking” due to “the changes in the mode of production” — such is the general answer.
        What should these “changes in language” be like to warrant speaking of a new stage? In other words: according to what characteristics is a “language stage” identified? This is not known: neither with Marr nor with his followers can one find an answer to this question^[10].
[46]              
        How many stages are in evidence in the available languages? This is not known precisely. Marr arranged languages tentatively according to the stages of development as follows :
        I. Languages... of the primary period: (1) Chinese and (2) Middle- and Far-African Languages
        II. Languages... of the secondary period: (1) Ugro-Finnish, (2) Turkic and (3) Mongolian
        III. Languages... of the tertiary period: (1) Japhetic languages, and (2) Hamitic languages (near- and Far-African)
        IV. Languages... of the quaternary period: (1) Semitic languages (Arabic, Hebrew), and (2) Indo-European Languages (classical written languages: Sanskrit, Greek, Latin). See: N. Marr, “Why is it so difficult to become a linguist-theoretician?” Selected Works, vol. 2, p. 405).

        In this table languages are arranged in four chronological tiers according to “when they originated”, and “which stage of development they represent”.
        As is seen from the table, the process of evolution begins with Chinese and is completed with the Indo-European languages. What place is occupied by our, i. e. Ibero-Caucasian languages (Japhetic languages—according to Marr’s terminology)? These languages in Marr’s table occupy a stage lower than that of the Indo-European languages being assigned to the tertiary period; they precede the Indo-European languages: the Indo-European languages are none other than a subsequent state, the Japhetic being a preceding stage.
        Marr writes: “Indo-European languages represent only anew formation^[11] of the same Japhetic languages” (Selected works, vol. I, p. 187).
        How did this new formation emerge? Marr says: “The Indo-European languages... are the result of a special degree of hybridization, caused by a revolution in the society’s mode of production, apparently connected with the discovery of metals and their use in the economy” (N. Marr. The Indo- European languages of the Mediterranean. Selected Works, vol. 1, p. 185).
        Thus, the fact has been established; an explanation is also given: the development of metallurgy — a phenomenon of the basis, and the transformation of Japhetic languages into Indo-European — a phenomenon of the superstructure; “changes in the mode of production” and “a new stage in the development of languages!” In a word, genuine Marxism— a scientifically substantiated proposition!
        However, one thing seems strange: our peoples (i. e. the Japhetids) were the creators of metallurgy, this being well-known (Marr himself emphasized this more than once). Metallurgy developed with the Japhetic peoples, leading to the development of corresponding languages, and as a result... Indo-European languages came into being. And what about Japhetic langua-
[47]    
ges proper? They became arrested in the tertiary period, i. e. they remain at the same stage of development in which they were before the development of metallurgy.
        How can such a situation be conceived? Marr does not give a definite answer to this question (in general, ambiguity serves as a reliable armour to the Japhetic theory)^{[12] [13]}.
        Judging by separate pronouncements of Marr, he viewed the picture of development roughly as follows: the “parent” language becomes arrested at its own stage, while the “born” language moves forward.
        To quote Marr: “Languages of the whole world represent the product of a single glottogonic process, belonging to one or another system, one super- ceding another; the languages of the superceded systems characterize the peoples fallen away from the general world movement, irrespective of whether they have again been brought into the world mainstream of life— by world economy or world community or whether they have traversed a new historical path of their high cultural development of the system, i. e. with the language of an outmoded system—or some peoples become arrested by their economy and society at respective stages of the evolution of humanity” (N. Marr. Language. In: Collected Works, vol. 2, p. 135).
        The gist of this passage is as follows; in the process of unitary language- creation some systems (groups, families of languages) are superceded by others; the superceded systems are obsolete; such obsolete languages are characteristic of peoples “fallen away from the general world movement”.
        In short, falling out of the “world movement” interrupts the development of a language, but a return to that ill-fated world movement does not renew its development.
        Thus, the verdict on the “superceded languages”, i. e. those that have fallen out of the world movement, is final: languages are fixed at definite stages of development of the unitary glottogonic process, history having set them boundaries which they cannot cross.
        The first, second and third periods of Marr’s stadial scheme are made up of such obsolete, superceded languages, fallen out of “the world movement”. Only in terms of such an arrest at definite stages can the existence at present of Chinese (a language of the first period) and of Indo-European languages (languages of the quaternary period) can be accounted for: i. e. the languages of all four stages coexist.
        What is the fate of our languages according to Marr’s stadial scheme? The Japhetids, the creators of metallurgy, participating in the process of “world movement”, gave life to Indo-European languages, but having dropped out of the process of “world movement”, got stuck at the tertiary period, short of the “quaternary” period: the “quaternary” period — the latest in terms of the time of its origin and the highest as to the stage of development —
[48]    
proved to be destined for Semitic (Arabic, Hebrew, etc.) and Indo-European languages.
        The Japhetic languages failed to reach the quaternary period and, if we put trust in Marr’s Japhetic theory, they will never reach it, for the Japhetic languages represent a “superceded system” — one that has dropped out of the process of “world movement”.
        Hence, the Georgian language has not reached the level of Latin: it got stuck at an earlier stage of development; an earlier stage amounts to a lower one, and Georgian is pinned down to this stage, according to Marr’s stadial scheme.
        Such is the verdict of history according to the Japhetic theory. This verdict, though, can hardly embarrass anybody, for materialistic science does not know peoples that have dropped out of the process of historical development and are incapable of developing: neither are such languages known.
        The Japhetic languages (i. e. Ibero-Caucasian languages) is by no means a mythical stage of development — frozen, moreover, at a definite period of its development, to suit the far-fetched scheme of the Japhetic theory.
        The Japhetic languages are living representatives of an ancient group of numerous languages, the speakers of which were the creators of the ancient civilization of the Near East—a civilization that nourished the Greco- Roman ancient civilization, and hence, the entire culture of Western Europe.
        The dead languages of this ancient civilization — Hittite, Hurrian, Urartian (or Chaldean)—are neither Indo-European, nor Semitic and Uralo- Altaic (this is the view of eminent authorities on the indicated languages)^[14].
        The languages just cited are peculiar; genetically they can be related only to the equally peculiar living languages of the Ibero-Caucasian cycle (Basque included). We are confronted with an original world of Hittite-Iberian languages.
        This is what Marr himself thought at one time. This is what many authorities still think, and not only our Soviet scholars but foreign specialists as well, the latter hardly being socially interested in acknowledging the genetic relationship with the ancient languages of the Near East.
        “We must concur with Schuchardt" — wrote the Italian linguist-polyglot Trombetti — that peoples that were earlier spread over a vaster territory have become concentrated in the region of the Caucasus. The most recent investigations appear to be agreed that the following languages; Chaldean, Mitanni (Hurrian), Elamite, Hittite, Etruscan, Cretan, Iberian (in Spain) and Basque are more or less directly related to the original Caucasian group of languages (see; A. Dirr, Einführung in das Studium der Kaukas. Sprachen; 1928).
[49]              
        That is what foreign scholars write — what they are obliged to write by force of facts! Does it' become Soviet scholars to assert — against obvious facts — that these languages represent nothing but a stage of development, obsolete at that, and dropped out of the unitary process of “world development”.
        Acad. S. Janashia, writing about Marr’s contribution to the study of Japhetic languages, points out: “Later, however, Marr fell into an error in acknowledging all languages to have been Japhetic at a definite early stage of their development”. — Acad. I. Javakhishvili, N. Berdzenishvili and S. Janashia. A History of Georgia (Russian variant, 1946, p. 17). Janashia saw Marr’s delusion in the latter’s declaration of the Japhetic languages to be a stage of development.
        The fate of the Japhetic languages in Marr’s stadial scheme is significant. Neither do other languages fare better (barring the Indo-European and Semitic languages, of course).
        How was the question of these languages solved in “old linguistics”? Implied here is historical-comparative linguistics which originated— as is seen from its designation —as a result of the application of an historical point of view on language.
        Comparative-historical linguistics groups languages according to their origin (on the genealogical principle), assuming differing original language material. Thus, e. g., the word denoting “three” (tri in Russian) in Latin sounds as tres, in Sanskrit trayas, in this case Russian, Latin and Sanskrit having common original material, a common root. “Three” in Georgian sounds as saml, in Turkish as ufi, hence the Georgian sami can be reduced neither to the Turkish ud, nor to the Latin tres, their roots being different. They cannot be compared, for Georgian is not related to Indo-European languages, or to Turkish.
        Related languages form a group—a so-called “family of languages”. Such are, for example: the Hittite-Iberian family (comprising the living Ibero- Caucasian languages), the Indo-European family, the Semitic family, the Ugro-Finnish family.
        Such is the genealogical classification of languages into families (i e. according to their origin—original material).
        In the genealogical classification language families are arranged, if one may put so, “on the horizontal plane”, “side by side”, as having an independent origin, a concrete language individuality, and independent historical paths of development (which, of course, does not exclude the uniformity of definite features in the development, due to common features in he development of the socio-economic life of peoples; but this is uniformity rather than unity, inasmuch as the original material is different).
        The comparative-historical method aims at elucidating the historical paths of the development of languages within separate families, and only then to tackle the problem of the historical interrelationship of different language families, as far as the available concrete material will allow it.
[50 ]   
F. Engels gave a complimentary characterisation of comparative-historical linguistics (see: “Anti-Dühring”, 6th ed., p- 233); he applied the comparative-historical method in his linguistic research (Marx called Engels a. specialist in comparative linguistics).
        In his works Engels adheres to the point of view of genealogical classification (see: “Anti-Dühring”; “The origin of the family, private property- and state”; his research into Germanic dialects). Incidentally, this demonstrates the untenability of Marr’s claim that genealogical classification was- a racist concept.
        Marr’s Japhetic theory rejected the comparative-historical method, re- placing it by the palaeontological method (element-analysis). Marr’s Japhetic theory denies the difference in the original material of languages. Genealogical classification was replaced by stadial classification: horizontal arrangement was replaced by vertical, according to the place occupied in the unitary glottogonic process.
        By reducing all languages to the four elements, Marr deprived them of individuality, equating all the wealth of human speech to derivatives of the- mystical four elements
        By arranging these “depersonalized” languages according to stages of development, he further asserted the exclusive superiority of the Indo-European (and Semitic) languages: no other languages have reached the stage that: was attained by the Indo-European languages—all other languages have become arrested at more or less earlier, archaic stages^[15]-
        All this was done under the guise of combating racism. But no racist" has ever run into such an allegation!
        The basic evil of Marr’s Japhetic theory is “the doctrine of elements”, palaeontological element-analysis. We have seen where it leads to. What gave rise to it? How and where has anyone succeeded in proving that all languages- derive from the four elements (Sal, Ber, Yon and Roš)? Nowhere and nobody has ever proved it, for it cannot be proved. More strange is the fact that Marr never made an attempt to prove his basic proposition; this is incredible but a fact (The indicated elements—tribal names—were chosen by Marr arbitrarily, because—he reasoned—tribal names are the most ancient words!).
        To the annoying question: Why precisely four elements? Marr gave fantastic explanations (something like the following: the four parts of the world— the four elements!); ultimately he came to assert that “Some things need: not be proved—they can be demonstrated” (N. Marr, Concerning the Baku- Discussion on Japhetology and Marxism, 1932, p. 44).
        Thus, an indemonstrable theorem was declared an axiom.
[51]              
        Let us imagine that at the beginning (i- e. many thousands of years ago) there were four elements, from which hundreds of languages and thousands of roots emerged. Is it possible to trace these roots back and establish which element makes the root of a word? (“Without this a comparative analysis is impossible”, according to Marr).
        To look for such primeval elements in words of modern languages means to abolish history that gave rise to many most diverse languages, or to bring down the science (of language) to the level of sorcery.
        Marr’s doctrine of elements is an expression of monstrous anti-historicism, it is a denial of elementary scholarly methods of thinking.
        It is characteristic that Turkish racists grasped at the principle of Marr’s element-analysis but found it more convenient “to reduce all the words of all languages of the world not to the four but to one element, namely, to the Turkish gun “sun”; by such a simple method “it was proved” that all languages were derived from the Turkish language!
        What are the conclusions?
        1. Marr’s stadial classification of languages (theory of stages) is closely connected with the palaeontological method (element-analysis!) and with the proposition on the unitary glottogonic (language creational) process of the J aphetic theory.
        2. Marr’s stadial classification of languages, resulting from the doctrine of elements is scientifically untenable, and socially unacceptable.
        Notwithstanding Marr’s unsubstantiated statement, the stadial classification— far from undermining the basic principles of pseudo-scientific racism—intrinsically leads to anti-Marxist, anti-scientific racist claims.
        3. Only when one is unfamiliar with the real situation or totally lacks responsibility can he claim that the palaeontological analysis (in terms of elements), and the propositions on the unitary glottogonic process and the stadial classification of languages in Marr’s Japhetic theory constitute achievements of Soviet materialistic linguistics: these “achievements” can only discredit Soviet linguistics—a materialistic science of language.
        4. The monstrous anti-historicism of Marr’s Japhetic theory lies at the root of all its vicissitudes. Analysis in terms of elements is an embodiment of this anti-historicism, determining the principal aspects of Marr’s Japhetic theory—both in its positive and critical (critique of bourgeois linguistics) parts.
        Marr’s followers renounced element-analysis in 1940, while the propositions resulting from the indicated analysis^[16] are to the present day proclaimed to be achievements of materialistic linguistics.
[52]              
        5. This is seen not only in the irresponsible statements made by some “linguists without language” (e. g. G. B. Serdjuchenko in “Literaturnaja gazeta”).
        The Department of Pedagogical Institutes at the Ministry of Higher Education enjoins its institutes to include in the curricular course of “Introduction to Linguistics” the theory of stages, Marr’s doctrine of the glottogonic process as a necessary instructional material.