Part 26

I shall try to answer as briefly as possible. The 400 or 500 roots which remain as the constituent elements in different families of language are not interjections, nor are they imitations. They are _phonetic types_ produced by a power inherent in human nature. They exist, as Plato would say, by nature; though with Plato we should add that, when we say by nature, we mean by the hand of God.(349) There is a law which runs through nearly the whole of nature, that everything which is struck rings. Each substance has its peculiar ring. We can tell the more or less perfect structure of metals by their vibrations, by the answer which they give. Gold rings differently from tin, wood rings differently from stone; and different sounds are produced according to the nature of each percussion. It was the same with man, the most highly organized of nature’s works.(350) Man, in his primitive and perfect state, was not only endowed, like the brute, with the power of expressing his sensations by interjections, and his perceptions by onomatopoieia. He possessed likewise the faculty of giving more articulate expression to the rational conceptions of his mind. That faculty was not of his own making. It was an instinct, an instinct of the mind as irresistible as any other instinct. So far as language is the production of that instinct, it belongs to the realm of nature. Man loses his instincts as he ceases to want them. His senses become fainter when, as in the case of scent, they become useless. Thus the creative faculty which gave to each conception, as it thrilled for the first time through the brain, a phonetic expression, became extinct when its object was fulfilled. The number of these _phonetic types_ must have been almost infinite in the beginning, and it was only through the same process of _natural elimination_ which we observed in the early history of words, that clusters of roots, more or less synonymous, were gradually reduced to one definite type. Instead of deriving language from nine roots, like Dr. Murray,(351) or from _one_ root, a feat actually accomplished by a Dr. Schmidt,(352) we must suppose that the first settlement of the radical elements of language was preceded by a period of unrestrained growth,—the spring of speech—to be followed by many an autumn.

With the process of elimination, or natural selection, the historical element enters into the science of language. However primitive the Chinese may be as compared with terminational and inflectional languages, its roots or words have clearly passed through a long process of mutual attrition. There are many things of a merely traditional character even in Chinese. The rule that in a simple sentence the first word is the subject, the second the verb, the third the object, is a traditional rule. It is by tradition only that _ngŏ ģin_, in Chinese, means a bad man, whereas _ģin ngŏ_ signifies man is bad. The Chinese themselves distinguish between _full_ and _empty_ roots,(353) the former being predicative, the latter corresponding to our particles which modify the meaning of full roots and determine their relation to each other. It is only by tradition that roots become empty. All roots were originally full whether predicative or demonstrative, and the fact that empty roots in Chinese cannot always be traced back to their full prototypes shows that even the most ancient Chinese had passed through successive periods of growth. Chinese commentators admit that all empty words were originally full words, just as Sanskrit grammarians maintain that all that is found in grammar was originally substantial. But we must be satisfied with but partial proofs of this general principle, and must be prepared to find as many fanciful derivations in Chinese as in Sanskrit. The fact, again, that all roots in Chinese are no longer capable of being employed at pleasure, either as substantives, or verbs, or adjectives, is another proof that, even in this most primitive stage, language points back to a previous growth. _Fu_ is father, _mu_ is mother; _fu mu_ parents; but neither _fu_ nor _mu_ is used as a root in its original predicative sense. The amplest proof, however, of the various stages through which even so simple a language as Chinese must have passed is to be found in the comparatively small number of roots, and in the definite meanings attached to each; a result which could only have been obtained by that constant struggle which has been so well described in natural history as the struggle for life.

But although this sifting of roots, and still more the subsequent combination of roots, cannot be ascribed to the mere working of nature or natural instincts, it is still less, as we saw in a former Lecture, the effect of deliberate or premeditated art, in the sense in which, for instance, a picture of Raphael or a symphony of Beethoven is. Given a root to express flying, or bird, and another to express heap, then the joining together of the two to express many birds, or birds in the plural, is the natural effect of the synthetic power of the human mind, or, to use more homely language, of the power of putting two and two together. Some philosophers maintain indeed that this explains nothing, and that the real mystery to be solved is how the mind can form a synthesis, or conceive many things as one. Into those depths we cannot follow. Other philosophers imagine that the combination of roots to form agglutinative and inflectional language is, like the first formation of roots, the result of a natural instinct. Thus Professor Heyse(354) maintained that “the various forms of development in language must be explained by the philosophers as _necessary_ evolutions, founded in the very essence of human speech.” This is not the case. We can watch the growth of language, and we can understand and explain all that is the result of that growth. But we cannot undertake to prove that all that is in language is so by necessity, and could not have been otherwise. When we have, as in Chinese, two such words as _kiai_ and _tu_, both expressing a heap, an assembly, a quantity, then we may perfectly understand why either the one or the other should have been used to form the plural. But if one of the two becomes fixed and traditional, while the other becomes obsolete, then we can register the fact as historical, but no philosophy on earth will explain its absolute necessity. We can perfectly understand how, with two such roots as _kûŏ_, empire, and _ćung_, middle, the Chinese should have formed what we call a locative, _kŭŏ ćung_, in the empire. But to say that this was the only way to express this conception is an assertion contradicted both by fact and reason. We saw the various ways in which the future can be formed. They are all equally intelligible and equally possible, but not one of them is inevitable. In Chinese _ỳaó_ means to will, _ngò_ is I; hence _ngò ỳaó_, I will. The same root _ỳaó_, added to _ḱiú_, to go, gives us _ngò ỳaó ḱiú_, I will go, the first germ of our futures. To say that _ngò ỳaó ḱiú_ was the necessary form of the future in Chinese would introduce a fatalism into language which rests on no authority whatever. The building up of language is not like the building of the cells in a beehive, nor is it like the building of St. Peter’s by Michael Angelo. It is the result of innumerable agencies, working each according to certain laws, and leaving in the end the result of their combined efforts freed from all that proved superfluous or useless. From the first combination of two such words as _ģin_, man, _kiai_, many, to form the plural _ģin kiai_, to the perfect grammar of Sanskrit and Greek, everything is intelligible as the result of the two principles of growth which we considered in our second Lecture. What is antecedent to the production of roots is the work of nature; what follows after is the work of man, not in his individual and free, but in his collective and moderating, capacity.

I do not say that every form in Greek or Sanskrit has as yet been analyzed and explained. There are formations in Greek and Latin and English which have hitherto baffled all tests; and there are certain contrivances, such as the augment in Greek, the change of vowels in Hebrew, the Umlaut and Ablaut in the Teutonic dialects, where we might feel inclined to suppose that language admitted distinctions purely musical or phonetic, corresponding to very palpable and material distinctions of thought. Such a supposition, however, is not founded on any safe induction. It may seem inexplicable to us why _bruder_ in German should form its plural as _brüder_; or _brother_, _brethren_. But what is inexplicable and apparently artificial in our modern languages becomes intelligible in their more ancient phases. The change of _u_ into _ü_, as in _bruder_, _brüder_, was not intentional; least of all was it introduced to expressed plurality. The change is phonetic, and due to the influence of an _i_ or _j_,(355) which existed originally in the last syllable and which reacted regularly on the vowel of the preceding syllable; nay, which leaves its effect behind, even after it has itself disappeared. By a false analogy such a change, perfectly justifiable in a certain class of words, may be applied to other words where no such change was called for; and it may then appear as if an arbitrary change of vowels was intended to convey a grammatical change. But even into these recesses the comparative philologist can follow language, thus discovering a reason even for what in reality was irrational and wrong. It seems difficult to believe that the augment in Greek should originally have had an independent substantial existence, yet all analogy is in favor of such a view. Suppose English had never been written down before Wycliffe’s time, we should then find that in some instances the perfect was formed by the mere addition of a short _a_. Wycliffe spoke and wrote:(356) _I knowlech to a felid and seid þus_; _i.e._ I acknowledge to have felt and said thus. In a similar way we read: _it should a fallen_; instead of “it should have fallen;” and in some parts of England common people still say very much the same: _I should a done it_. Now in some old English books this _a_ actually coalesces with the verb, at least they are printed together; so that a grammar founded on them would give us “to fall” as the infinitive of the present, _to afallen_ as the infinitive of the past. I do not wish for a moment to be understood as if there was any connection between this _a_, a contraction of _have_ in English, and the Greek augment which is placed before past tenses. All I mean is, that, if the origin of the augment has not yet been satisfactorily explained, we are not therefore to despair, or to admit an arbitrary addition of a consonant or vowel, used as it were algebraically or by mutual agreement, to distinguish a past from a present tense.

If inductive reasoning is worth anything, we are justified in believing that what has been proved to be true on so large a scale, and in cases where it was least expected, is true with regard to language in general. We require no supernatural interference, nor any conclave of ancient sages, to explain the realities of human speech. All that is formal in language is the result of rational combination; all that is material, the result of a mental instinct. The first natural and instinctive utterances, if sifted differently by different clans, would fully account both for the first origin and for the first divergence of human speech. We can understand not only the origin of language, but likewise the necessary breaking up of one language into many; and we perceive that no amount of variety in the material or the formal elements of speech is incompatible with the admission of one common source.

The Science of Language thus leads us up to that highest summit from whence we see into the very dawn of man’s life on earth; and where the words which we have heard so often from the days of our childhood—“And the whole earth was of one language and of one speech”—assume a meaning more natural, more intelligible, more convincing, than they ever had before.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

And now in concluding this course of Lectures, I have only to express my regret that the sketch of the Science of Language which I endeavored to place before you, was necessarily so very slight and imperfect. There are many points which I could not touch at all, many which I could only allude to: there is hardly one to which I could do full justice. Still I feel grateful to the President and the Council of this Institution for having given me an opportunity of claiming some share of public sympathy for a science which I believe has a great future in store; and I shall be pleased, if, among those who have done me the honor of attending these Lectures, I have excited, though I could not have satisfied, some curiosity as to the strata which underlie the language on which we stand and walk; and as to the elements which enter into the composition of the very granite of our thoughts.

APPENDIX.

[Transcriber’s Note: The Appendix contains genealogical tables of the language families. In the original, they were displayed as wide landscape pages, which could not be rendered effectively in e-book format. The information in them has been reproduced here in textual paragraphs.]

No. 1. Genealogical Table of the Aryan Family of Languages.

The Aryan Family consists of two Divisions: The Southern Division, and the Norther Division.

The Southern Division consists of two Classes: the Indic and Iranic.

The Indic Class consists of the dead languages Prakrit and Pali, Modern Sanskrit, and Vedic Sanskrit, and the modern Dialects of India, and the Dialects of the Gipsies.

The Iranic Class consists of the dead languages Parsi, Pehlevi, Cuneiform Inscriptions, Zend, and Old Armenian; the the living languages of Persia, Afghanistan, Kurdistan, Bokhara, Armenia, and Ossethi.

The Northern Division consists of six Classes: Celtic, Italic, Illyric, Hellenic, Windic, and Teutonic.

The Celtic Class consists of two Branches: Cymric and Gadhelic.

The Cymric Branch consists of the dead language Cornish, and the living languages of Wales and Brittany.

The Gadhelic Branch consists of the living languages of Scotland, Ireland, and Man.

The Italic Class consists of the dead languages Oscan, Latin, and Umbrian, together called Lingua Vulgaris, or Langue d’oc and Langue d’oil, and the living languages of Portugal, Spain, Provençe, France, and Italy.

The Illyric Class consists of the living languages of Wallachia, the Grisons, and Albania.

The Hellenic Class consists of the dead Κοινή languages, Doric, Æolic, Attic, and Ionic, and the living language of Greece.

The Windic Class consists of three Branches: Lettic, South-East Slavonic, and West Slavonic.

The Lettic Branch consists of the dead language Old Prussian, and the living languages of Lithuania, Kurland and Livonia (Lettish).

The South-East Slavonic Branch consists of the dead language Ecclesiastical Slavonic, and the living languages of Bulgaria, Russia (Great, Little, White Russian), Illyria (Slovenian, Croatian, Servian).

The West Slavonic Branch consists of the dead languages Old Bohemian and Pelabian, and the living languages of Poland, Bohemian (Slovakian), and Lusatia.

The Teutonic Class consists of three branches: High-German, Low-German, and Scandinavian.

The High-German Branch consists of the dead languages Middle High-German Old High-German, and the living language of Germany.

The Low-German Branch consists of the dead languages Gothic, Anglo-Saxon, Old Dutch, Old Friesian, and Old Saxon, and the living languages of England, Holland, Friesland, and North of Germany (Platt-Deutsch).

The Scandinavian Branch consists of the dead language Old Norse, and the living languages of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Iceland.

No. 2. Genealogical Table of the Semitic Family of Languages.

The Semitic Family Family consists of three Classes: the Arabic or Southern, the Hebraic or Middle, and the Aramaic or Northern.

The Arabic or Southern Class consists of the dead languages Ethiopic and the Himyaritic Inscriptions, and the living languages of Arabic and Amharic.

The Hebraic or Middle Class consists of the dead languages Biblical Hebrew, the Samaritan Pentateuch (third century, A. D.), the Carthaginian, Phœnician Inscriptions, and the living language of the Jews.

The Aramaic or Northern Class consists of the dead languages Chaldee (Masora, Talmud, Targum, Biblical Chaldee), Syriac (Peshito, second cent. A. D.), Cuneiform Inscriptions of Babylon and Nineveh, and the living language Neo-Syriac.

No. 3. Genealogical Table of the Turanian Family of Languages, Northern Division.

The Northern Division of the Turanian Family consists of five Classes: the Tungusic, Mongolic, Turkic, Samoyedic, and Finnic (Uralic).

The Tungusic Class consists of two Branches: Western and Eastern.

The Western Branch consists of the languages of the Chapogires (Upper Tunguska), Orotongs (Lower Tunguska), and the People of Nyertchinsk.

The Eastern Branch consists of the languages of the Lamutes (Coast of O’hotsk) and Mandshu (China).

The Mongolic Class consists of three Branches: Eastern or Mongols Proper, Western Mongols, and Northern Mongols.

The Eastern or Mongols Proper Class consists of the languages of the Sharra-Mongols (South of Gobi), Khalkhas (North of Gobi), and Sharaigol (Tibet and Tangut).

The Western Mongols Class consists of the languages of the Chosot (Kokonúr), Dsungur, Torgod, Dürbet, Aimaks (tribes of Persia), and Sokpas (Tibet).

The Northern Mongols Class consists of the language of the Buritäs (Lake Baikal).

The Turkic Class consists of three Branches: Chagatic, S. E., Turkic, N., and Turkic, W.

The Chagatic Branch consists of the languages of the Uigurs, Komans, Chagatais, Usbeks, Turkomans, and People of Kasan.

The N. Turkic Branch consists of the languages of the Kirgis, Bashkirs, Nogais, Kumians, Karachais, Karakalpaks, Meshcheryäks, People of Siberia, and Yakuts.

The W. Turkic Branch consists of the languages of the People of Derbend, Aderbijan, Krimea, Anatolia, and Rumelia.

The Samoyedic Class consists of two Branches: Northern and Eastern.

The Northern Branch consists of the languages of the Yurazes, Tawgi, and Yenisei.

The Eastern Branch consists of the languages of the Ostiako-Samoyedes, and the Kamas.

The Finnic (Uralic) Class consists of four Branches: Ugric, Bulgaric, Permic, and Chudic.

The Ugric Branch consists of the languages of the Hungarians, Voguls, and Ugro-Ostiakes.

The Bulgaric Branch consists of the languages of the Tcheremissians and Mordvins.

The Permic Branch consists of the languages of the Permians, Sirianes, and Votiaks.

The Chudic Branch consists of the languages of the Lapps, Finns, and Esths.

No. 4. Genealogical Table of the Turanian Family of Languages, Southern Division.

The Southern Division of the Turanian Family consists of six Classes: the Taïc, Malaic, Gangetic, Lohitic, Munda (See Turanian Languages, p. 175), and Tamulic.

The Taïc Class consists of the languages of Ahom, Laos, Khamti, and Shan (Tenasserim).

The Malaic Class consists of the languages of the Malay and Polynesian Islands. (See Humboldt, Kavi Sprache.)

The Gangetic Class consists of two Branches: the Trans-Himalayan, and the Sub-Himalayan.

The Trans-Himalayan Branch consists of the languages Tibetan, Horpa (N.W. Tibet, Bucharia), Thochu-Sifan (N.E. Tibet, China), Gyarung-Sifan (N.E. Tibet, China), Manyak-Sifan (N.E. Tibet, China), and Takpa (West of Kwombo).

The Sub-Himalayan Branch consists of the languages Kenaveri (Setlej basin), Sarpa (West of Gandakéan basin), Sunwár (Gandakéan basin), Gurung (Gandakéan basin), Magar (Gandakéan basin), Newár (between Gandakéan and Koséan basins), Murmi (between Gandakéan and Koséan basins), Limbú (Koséan basin), Kiranti (Koséan basin), Lepcha (Tishtéan basin), Bhutanese (Manaséan basin), and Chepang (Nepal-Terai).

The Lohitic Class consists of the languages of Burmese (Burmah and Arakan), Dhimâl (between Konki and Dhorla), Kachari-Bodo (Migrat. 80° to 93-1/2°, and 25° to 27°), Garo (90°-91° E. long.; 25°-26° N. lat.), Changlo (91°-92° E. long.), Mikir (Nowgong), Dophla (92° 50’-97° N. lat.), Miri (94°-97° E. long.?), Abor-Miri, Abor (97°-99° E. long.), Sibsagor-Miri, Singpho (27°-28° N. lat.), Naga tribes (93°-97° E. long.; 23° N. lat.) (Mithan) E. of Sibsagor, Naga tribes (Namsang), Naga tribes (Nowgong), Naga tribes (Tengsa), Naga tribes (Tablung N. of Sibsagor), Naga tribes (Khaü, Jorhat), Naga tribes (Angami, South), Kuki (N.E. of Chittagong), Khyeng (Shyu) (19°-21° N. lat. Arakan), Kami (Kuladan R. Arakan), Kumi (Kuladan R. Arakan), Shendus (22°-23° and 93-94°), Mru (Arakan, Chittagong), Sak (Nauf River, East), and Tungihu (Tenasserim).

The Munda Class consists of the languages Ho (Kolehan), Sinhbhum Kol (Chyebossa), Sontal (Chyebossa), Bhumij (Chyebossa), Mundala (Chota Nagpur), and Canarese.

The Tamulic Class consists of the languages Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Gond, Brahvi, Tuluva, Toduva, and Uraon-kol.

INDEX.

Abdu-l-Kadir Maluk, Mulla, Shah of Badáún, his general history of India, and other works, 151 _note_.

Abhîra, or Âbhîra, at the mouth of the Indus, 204.

Abiria, the, of Ptolemy, 204.

Ablative, the, in Chinese, 119 _note_.

Abraham, the language of, 278.

Abu Saleh, his translation from Sanskrit into Arabic, 150.

Abyssinian language, ancient and modern, 281.

Academy, New, doctrines of the, embraced in Rome, 107.

Accusative, formation of the, in Chinese, 118 _note_.

Achæmenian dynasty, inscriptions of the, 210.

Adelung, his Mithridates, 142.

Adjectives, formation of, in Tibetan, 113 _note_. in Chinese, 119 _note_.

Ælius Stilo, Lucius, his lectures in Rome, on Latin grammar, 109.

Affinity, indications of true, in the animal and vegetable world, 26, 27.

Afghanistan, the language of, 210.

Africa, South, dialects of, 64.

African language, an imaginary, 223.

_Âge_, history of the French word, 292.

Agglutination in the Turanian family of languages, 291.

Aglossoi, the, of the Greeks, 92.

Agriculture of the Chaldeans, work on the, 279. Punic work of Mago on, 94 _note_.

Ahirs, the, of Cutch, 204.

Akbar, the Emperor, his search after the true religion, 151.

Akbar, his foundation of the so-called Ilahi religion, 151. works translated into Persian for him, 151. not able to obtain a translation of the Veda, 152.

_Albania_, origin of the name, 242.

Albanian language, origin of the, 201.

Albertus Magnus, on the humanizing influence of Christianity, quoted, 129 _note_.

Alchemy, causes of the extinction of the science, 19.

Alexander the Great, influence of his expedition in giving the Greeks a knowledge of other nations and languages, 93. his difficulty in conversing with the Brahmans, 93.

Alexandria, influence of, on the study of foreign languages, 96. critical study of ancient Greek at, 97.

Algebra, translation of the famous Indian work on, into Arabic, 149.

Algonquins, the one case of the, 221 _note_.

America, Central, rapid changes which take place in the language of the savage tribes of, 62. great number of languages spoken by the natives of, 62. Hervas’s reduction of them to eleven families, 63.

Amharic, or modern Abyssinian, 281.

Anatomy, comparative, science of, 27.

Anglo-Saxon, the most ancient epic in, 177.

Angora, in Galatia, battle of, 308.

Anquetil Duperron, his translation of the Persian translation of the Upanishads into French, 154. his translation of the works of Zoroaster, 168, 206.

Apollo, temple of, at Rome, 102.

AR, the root, various ramifications of, 252.

Arabic, influence of, over the Turkish language, 83. ascendency of, in Palestine and Syria, 281. original seat of Arabic, 281. ancient Himyaritic inscriptions, 281. earliest literary documents in Arabic, 281. relation of Arabic to Hebrew, 281.

Aramaic division of Semitic languages, 276. two dialects of, 276.

Ariana, the, of Greek geographers, 240.

_Ariaramnēs_, father of Darius, origin of the name, 241.

Aristotle on grammatical categories, 97, 126.

_Armenia_, origin of the name, 242.

Arpinum, provincial Latin of, 67.

_Article_, the, original meaning of the word, 98. the Greek, restored by Zenodotus, 99.

Ârya. _See_ Aryan.

Ârya-âvarta, India so called, 237.