Among the chapters of our project dealing with conceptual history, mine is probably not typical. The idea of it was conceived during the Helsinki meeting of 2008, when, listening to the interesting contributions, I realized that there was a definite need for some linguistic background to the discussion. I mentioned this to Bo Stråth, who immediately welcomed the idea. To tell the truth, without the enthusiasm and insistence of Bo, I would never have become a member of this project, which has been an experience that I have found fascinating.

My contribution in this chapter therefore concentrates on language, and mainly on sociolinguistics and diachronic linguistics. I understand that there are some methodological problems involved and, in spite of my different approach, I fully accept the importance of the study of concepts as used in actual texts. But this is a joint venture and, while others have concentrated on texts and on the Sattelzeit or transitional period from the 1880s, I see my task as shedding some light on the linguistic background. In doing this, I cannot work without dictionaries, although I have also verified the original Sanskrit uses in texts. I came to the conceptual history project as an outsider – a philologist – and I planned my contribution accordingly. My recent reading of and about Koselleck was certainly beneficial.