CHAPTER XI.

THE FUTURE OF LANGUAGE.

“Even as a hawke fleeth not hie with one wing, even so a man reacheth not to excellency with one tongue.”--ROGER ASCHAM.

We have seen that philology offers no proof of a universal primitive language. The question now arises, Is there any probability of a universal future language? Does it seem likely that the day will ever come when all men shall be of one speech? The noble Indo-Germanic race has carried its power and its conquests over a vast surface of the globe, and our own tongue[268]--which receives by common consent the meed of the most powerful of existing languages--is probably spoken by at least a hundred millions of the human race. Have we any reason to believe that English will hereafter prevail over every other dialect, and become in some form or other the language of the world?

That the Arian race is the destined inheritor of the future world seems clear to the least discriminating glance, because it has proved itself to be the race most capable of perfectibility, and therefore most worthy of power. But that any one language spoken by the various branches of their race will ultimately prevail to the exclusion of all others is an event which hardly seems probable; if probable, it is still in the present state of the world undesirable; and even were it certain, yet the permanent existence of such a language is incompatible with the present condition of human intelligence.

1. The development of a future universal language seems improbable. It is true that dialects become merged in languages, and these languages lost in others still more extensive, just as streams flow into rivers, and rivers into the sea. It is true that diversity of idioms is the characteristic of barbarism, and unity the slow result of civilisation. But against these considerations we must set the extraordinary tenacity of national associations and national characteristics. However far we may look into the future, we see nothing to show us that the distinctions of nations were not intended to be as permanent as the oceans that divide them; and nothing to make us expect that all humankind will be gathered hereafter (in its present general condition) under one universal empire, and into one school of religion and of thought.

2. But even were it probable that there would be only one language hereafter, such a consummation would not be desirable, because it would greatly hinder the search for truth, and would tend to reduce men to a dead level of uniformity, a Chinese dryness and mediocrity of intelligence. It is, indeed, conceivable that a universal growth of mammon-worship, making merchandise almost the only occupation of mankind, might tend to give to languages that form of practical abbreviation which we find in telegraphic despatches, and which, to economise phrases and expense, neglects grammar, and puts down the smallest possible number of words, with no desire beyond that of being barely understood.[269] But such abbreviation, useful as it may be for certain purposes, would, if applied to all the forms of language, despoil it for ever of all ornament and all poetic charm, and so far from enabling us to rival the noble languages of antiquity, would reduce us to a condition from which the instincts of our race would inevitably break loose, to begin a fresh career of discovery and thought.

“Truths,” said Coleridge,[270] “of all others the most awful and interesting are too often considered so true that they lose all the power of truth, and lie bed-ridden in the dormitory of the soul, side by side with the most despised and exploded errors.” By frequent use, as by repeated attrition, the brightness and beauty of a word is worn bare, and it requires a distinct effort of attention to restore the full significance to the forms of expression with which we are most familiar. “Hence it is,” says Mr. Mill,[271] “that the traditional maxims of old experience, though seldom questioned, have often so little effect on the conduct of life, because their meaning is never, by most persons, really felt, until personal experience has brought it home. And thus, also, it is that so many doctrines of religion, ethics, and even politics, so full of meaning and reality to first converts, have manifested a tendency to degenerate rapidly into lifeless dogmas, which tendency all the efforts of an education expressly and skilfully directed to keeping the meaning alive are barely found sufficient to counteract.” The weight and importance of these remarks will best be felt by those who have observed how new and rare meanings are perceived when we read the words, for instance, of Holy Writ in their original language, and lose sight for a moment of those groundless fancies with which long association has confused our perception. To study the Bible in other languages than our own is like looking upon the Urim and Thummim when, for him who rightly consulted it, the fire of the divine messages flashed upon its oracular and graven gems.

Hence language is most important, is almost indispensable to the human race for the perpetual preservation of truths which would otherwise be banished “to the lumber-room of the memory,” rather than be prepared for use “in the workshop of the mind.” For words are constantly acquiring new shades of meaning in consequence of the things which they connote, and to such an extent is this the case, that our quotations of an author’s actual words often involve a gross anachronism, because his “pure ideas”[272] have often become our “mixed modes.” If, for instance, we were to use the word “gravitation” in translating various passages of ancient authors, we might be led to assert that the great discovery of Newton had been anticipated by hundreds of years; and yet we know that those authors had no conception whatever of the law which that word recalls to our minds.

Both in the history of the world, and in the growth of individual intellects, the study of language has produced the noblest results. To it more than to any other cause we owe the outburst of freedom in thought which produced the Reformation, and the mighty advance of humanity which followed that emancipation of the intellect of Europe from the ignorance fostered by a depressing superstition; and to it in very great measure we owe the matchless power and beauty of our own tongue. “Indeed, the adoption of words from dead languages into English has, above all other causes, tended to increase the number of our simple ideas, because the associations of such words being lost in the transfer they are at once refined from all alloy of sense and experience.”

The old Roman poet,[273] proud in the unusual erudition which had made him master of three languages, used to declare, that he had three hearts, and his opinion has been echoed by a modern poet[274] with emphatic commendation--

“Mit jeder Sprache mehr, die Du erlernst, befreist Du einen bis daher in Dir gebundenen Geist, Der jetzo thätig wird mit eigner Deukverbindung, Die aufschliesst unbekannt gewesene Weltempfindung. Ein alter Dichter, der nur dreier Sprachen Gaben Besessen, rühmte sich der Seelen drei zu haben, Und wirklich hätt’ in sich alle Menschengeister Der Geist vereint, der recht wär’ alle Sprachen Meister.”

The Emperor Charles V. went still further, and declared that “in proportion[275] to the number of languages which a man knew, in that proportion was he more of a man.” There may have been exaggeration in this expression, but at any rate it arose from the conviction of an important truth. And we may add with Göthe the undoubted certainty, “Wer fremde sprache nicht kennt, weiss nichts von seiner eigenen.” Perhaps in this sentence we may find the reasons why so few know their own language in half its richness and power.

3. A universal language could not, in the present state of human intelligence, last for any long period. New circumstances of life, new discoveries of thought, new conquests of art and science, would require new forms of expression. The influences of climate and history would produce fresh revolutions in the character of nations, and the change of character would necessitate modifications of the prevalent idiom, which in the course of time would diverge so widely from the parent language, as to be unintelligible unless separately acquired. There is in language, as we have seen repeatedly, an organic life; it is an incessant act of creation, ever progressing, ever developing. To reduce it to one stereotyped[276] and universal form would be to contradict the very law of its being, by substituting an eternal immobility for that power of growth and alteration which constitutes its very existence.

If all men be hereafter of one speech, it can only be after they have arrived at a condition when knowledge has superseded the necessity of inquiry, when intuition supplies the place of discovery, and certainty has been substituted for faith. As far as the science of philology can pronounce an opinion, we must infer, that the familiar line will remain true henceforth as heretofore--

Πολλαὶ μὲν Θνητοῖς γλῶτται, μία δ’ Ἀθανάτοισι. Mortals have many languages, the Immortals one alone.

APPENDIX.

A LIST OF SOME BOOKS, VALUABLE AS AIDS IN THE GENERAL STUDY OF PHILOLOGY.

GERMAN.

_Bopp_, Vergleichende Grammatik.

_Bopp_, Vokalismus.

_Bopp_, Accentuationssystem.

_Grimm_, Ueber den Ursprung der Sprache. Berlin, 1858.

_Grimm_, Geschichte der Deutsch. Sprache.

_Grimm_, Ueber die namen der Donners. 1856.

_Heyse_, System der Sprachwissenschaft. Berlin, 1856.

_Steinthal_, Der Ursprung der Sprache. Berlin, 1858.

_W. von Humboldt_, Ueber die Verschiedenheit des Menschlichen Sprachbaues. 1836.

_Steinthal_, Grammatik, Logik, und Psychologie. Berlin, 1855.

_Lersch_, Die Sprachphilosophie der Alten. Bonn, 1841.

_Weber_, Indische Skizzen. Berlin, 1857.

_Pott_, Etymologische Forschungen.

_Pott_, Die Ungleichheit Menschlicher Rassen.

_Schlegel_, Philosophische Vorlesungen. Wien. 1830.

_Schleicher_, Linguist. Untersuchungen.

_Zeuss_, Grammatica Keltica.

FRENCH.

_Renan_, De l’Origine du Langage. 2me ed. Paris, 1858.

_Renan_, Histoire et Système Comparés des Langues Sémitiques. Paris, 1858.

_Benloew_, Aperçu Général de la Science Comparative des Langues. Paris, 1858.

_Benloew_, De l’Accentuation dans les langues Indo-Européennes. Paris, 1847.

_Charma_, Essai sur le Langage. Paris, 1846.

_Pictet_, Les Origines Indo-Européennes. Paris, 1859.

_Nodier_, Notions de Linguistique.

_Victor Cousin_, Cours de 1829, et Fragmens Philosophiques.

_Degerando_, Des signes et de l’art de penser.

_Balbi_, Introduction à l’atlas ethnographique du globe.

_Fauriel_, Dante et les Origines de la Langue et de la Littérature Italienne.

_Thommerel_, Sur la Fusion de l’Anglo-Norman avec l’Anglo-Saxon.

ENGLISH.

_Horne Tooke_, Diversions of Purley.

_Harris_, Hermes.

_Bunsen_, Philosophy of Universal History.

_Max Müller_, Survey of Languages.

_Max Müller_, Oxford Essay on Comparative Mythology.

_Latham_, The English Language.

_Dr. Donaldson_, New Cratylus.

_Dr. Donaldson_, Varronianus.

_Garnett_, Philosophical Essays.

_Hensleigh Wedgwood_, Etymological Dictionary.

Transactions of the Philological Society.

I have here indicated a few only out of a very large number of books which will be found useful by a Philological student. The list might be very easily and very considerably enlarged, but any one who once takes up the study will find in the books here mentioned ample materials on which to commence. The questions suggested by the study of Language are so closely connected with those of Moral Philosophy, that almost every philosophical work contains matter valuable to the Philologist. From Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero, down to Locke and Leibnitz, there is no great philosopher who has not in some degree entered on reasonings respecting the nature and origin of Language. Perhaps there is no more important result from the study of Language than the greater clearness which it necessarily gives to our metaphysical conceptions, and the attention which it necessarily turns to the phenomena of the mind.

THE END.

BRADBURY AND EVANS, PRINTERS, WHITEFRIARS.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Σίβυλλα δὲ μαινομένῳ στόματι καθ’ Ἡράκλειτον ἀγέλαστα καὶ ἀκαλλώπιστα καὶ ἀμύριστα φθεγγομένη χιλίων ἐτῶν ἐξικνεῖται τῇ φωνῇ διὰ τὸν θεόν.--Plut. _de Pyth. Orac._ p. 397 et p. 627. Wytt. Lapalle’s _Heraclitus_, p. 29.

[2] Sir John Stoddart. “Bei allem was Sprache heissen soll, wird schlechterdings nichts weiter beabsichtiget, als die Bezeichnung des Gedankens.”--Fichte, _Von der Sprachfähigkeit und dem Ursprunge der Sprache_. “Die Sprache ist die Aeusserung des denkenden Geistes in articulirten Lauten.”--Heyse, _System der Sprachwissenschaft_, S. 35.

[3] Grimm, _Über den Ursprung der Sprache_, S. 11.

[4] Grimm, s. 52.

[5] Renan, _De l’Origine du Langage_. Deux. éd. p. 69.

[6] Bunsen, _On the Philosophy of Universal History_, ii. 126.

[7] Humboldt’s _Cosmos_, ii. 107-109, ed. Sabine.

[8] Philology has been well defined as the cognitio cogniti, and Comparative Grammar, (the branch of Philology which occupies itself with the study of the birth, the development, and the decadence of various languages, together with their divergences and affinities), has deserved the title of Θριγκὸς μαθημάτων φιλολογικῶν, “the coping-stone of philological inquiries.” See _Science Comparative des Langues_, par Louis Benloew. Paris, 1858.

[9] Thus, though Zend and Sanskrit are the oldest languages of the Indo-European family, they are offsets of an _older_ primitive one. “Among other evidences of this, may be mentioned the changes that words had already undergone in Zend and Sanscrit from the original form they had in the parent tongue; as in the number ‘twenty,’ which being in the Zend ‘_visaiti_,’ and in Sanscrit ‘_vinsaiti_,’ shews that they have thrown off the ‘d’ of the original ‘dva,’ two.”--Sir G. Wilkinson in Rawlinson’s _Herod_. i. p. 280.

[10] Charma, _Essai sur le Langage_, p. 60.

[11] “Ici comme ailleurs on a commencé par bâtir des systèmes, au lieu de se borner à l’observation de faits.”--Abel Rémusat.

[12] Bunsen, _Phil. of Un. Hist._ i. 40. The philosophers who held these views were called “Analogists,” while those who leaned to the conventional origin of language were styled “Anomalists.” But Plato and Aristotle admit the existence of both principles, and have written on the subject with a depth of philosophical insight, which, in spite of their defective knowledge, has never been surpassed. See Humboldt’s _Cosmos_, i. 41, ii. 261.

[13] Plato’s _Cratylus_, p. 423, et passim; and Schleiermacher’s Introduction. The great authority on the ancient views of philology is Lersch, _Sprachphilosophie der Alten_. (Bonn, 1838-1841.) The question which agitated the schools was, φύσει τὰ ὀνόματα ἢ θέσει; it was generally decided in favour of the “Analogists,” though often for frivolous reasons. See Aul. Gell. _Noct. Att._ x. 4. (Renan, p. 137.) Cf. Xen. _Mem._ iv. 6. 1. Arrian, _Epict._ i. 17, ii. 10. _Marc. Aur._ iii. 2; v. 8; x. 8. These views of the _mimetic_ character of words (Arist. _Rhet._ iii. 1, 2), and their _intrinsic_ connection with things, did not seem to be much disturbed by the fact of the multiplicity of languages, although this fact led Aristotle to place the conventional element first. The very word βάρβαρος implies a lofty contempt for all languages except Greek, and traces of a similar contempt may be found in the vocabulary of many nations. Cf. Timtim, Zamzummim, &c., Renan, p. 178. Pictet’s _Origines Indo-Eur._ p. 56, seqq. (1 Cor. xiv. 11.)

[14] ὃς ἂν τὰ ὀνόματα ἐπίστηται ἐπίστασθαι καὶ τὰ πράγματα. Plato, _Crat._ 435, _c._ In proof that Plato _did_ recognise both elements of language--the absolute and the conventional, see _Crat._ 435, _c._, and _Philol. Trans._ iii. 137. For an able exposition of the _Cratylus_, see Dr. Donaldson’s _New Crat._ p. 93, seqq.

[15] Herodot. ii. 2.

[16] Raumer, _Gesch. der Hohenstaufen_, iii. 491, quoted by Baehr, _Herod._ l. c. For some other theories on the primitive language, see Cardinal Wiseman’s _Lectures on Science_, i. 19. Becanus supposed seriously that Low Dutch was spoken in Paradise. _Hermathena_, lib. ix. p. 204. “That children naturally speak Hebrew,” is one of the vulgar errors which had to be exploded even in the time of Sir T. Browne. _Vulg. Err._ v. ch. 26. When James IV. of Scotland repeated the experiment of Psammetichus, the infants were shut up with a dumb man, and spoke Hebrew spontaneously! Basque, Swedish, Russ, &c., have all had their advocates. Charma, _Essai sur le Langage_, p. 242, seqq. Leibnitz, _Lettre à M. de Sparvenfeld_, § 8.

[17] Renan, p. 147.

[18] There are some noble remarks to this effect in Schlegel’s _Philosophische Vorlesungen_. Wien. 1830. Hebrew scholars will readily remember cases of the importance attached by the sacred writers to the mere _sound_ of words; a remarkable instance may be seen in Jer. i. 11, 12, and a curious play on sounds occurs in the second verse of Genesis.

[19] Grimm, s. 12.

[20] “I am by no means clear that the dog may not have an analogon of words.”--Coleridge. Similarly Plato attributes a διάλεκτος to animals, adducing some very interesting proofs. See Clemens Alexandr. _Strom._ i. 21, § 413. See, too, Thomson’s _Passions of Animals_. “They also know, and reason not contemptibly.”--Milton.

[21] μέροπες βροτοί.--Homer, passim.

[22] As in the instance of Balaam.--Numb. 22. Cf. Tibull. ii. v. 78. Hom. _Il._ τ. 407, &c.

[23] Dr. Latham points out that this statement requires modification; e.g., it is doubtful whether a _howl_, and not a bark, is not the organic and instinctive sound uttered by dogs. (_Encycl. Brit._ Art. _Language_.) Still we do not anticipate that any one will dispute the general proposition. See Heyse, _System der Sprachwissenschaft_, § 25.

[24] Grimm, 13, 14. “Language,” he adds (p. 17), “can only be compared to the cries of animals, in respect that both are subjected to certain physical conditions of organism.”

[25] “On a très judicieusement remarqué sur celle-ci,” says M. Nodier, “que la seule induction qui en résultât naturellement, fort concluante pour la langue primitive et immodifiable des chèvres ne prouvoit rien en faveur de la première langue de l’homme; puisque les chèvres formoient elles-mêmes d’une manière très-distincte les deux articulations dont ces enfants avoient composé leur étroit vocabulaire.” Sir Gardner Wilkinson discredits the whole story, and supposes that it originated among the Greek ciceroni in Egypt, because he thinks that children, unless artificially instructed, would not have been able to get beyond the labial sound “be.” (Rawlinson’s _Herodotus_, i. 251.) Surely this is merely a begging of the question. The fact that the inference from the experiment was one unfavourable to the national vanity of the Egyptians, is only one of the reasons which induce us to credit its reality. Larcher (ad loc.) rightly regards the ος as merely the Greek termination.

[26] “Mutum et turpe pecus.”--Hor. _Sat._ i. 3. 99. Similar views are to be found in Diod. Sic. i. 1; Vitruv. _Archit._ ii. 1. “Thrown as it were by chance on a confused and savage land, an orphan abandoned by the unknown hand that had produced him.”--Volney. Epicurus thought that men spoke just as dogs bark, φυσικῶς κινούμενοι.

[27] Lucret. v. 1027-1089. The whole passage is one of remarkable beauty and ingenuity. Neither Epicurus nor Lucretius excluded altogether the innate element; v. Diog. Laert. x. 75, sq. Lucretius rightly regards language as no less natural than gesticulation, and so might have taught a lesson to Reid and Dugald Stewart. See Fleming’s _Vocab. of Philosophy_, s. v. _Language_. The whole theory is stated and ridiculed by Lactantius, _Institt. Divv._ vi. 10.

[28] He began

“In murmurs which his first endeavoring tongue Caught infant-like from the far-foamèd sands.”

An extremely curious Esthonian legend (the only one which Grimm has discovered bearing any resemblance to the Babel-dispersion) seems to involve the same conception. God, seeing that population was too crowded, determined to disperse men, by giving to each nation a distinct tongue. Accordingly, he placed on the fire a caldron full of water, and made the different races successively approach, who appropriated respectively the various sounds of the hissing and singing water.--Grimm, p. 28. Others have compared with it the Mexican legend about the doves. See Winer, _Biblisches Realwörterb._ s. v. _Sprache_.

[29] Spenser’s _Faërie Queen_.

[30] For assertions of the conventional character of language, see Arist. περὶ Ἑρμηνείας, ii. 1. Plato, _Crat._ ad in. Harris, _Hermes_, iii. 1. Locke, iii. 1-8. Fénelon, _Lettre sur les occupations de l’Acad._ § 3. (These are quoted at length by Charma, p. 208.) Smith, _Theory of the Moral Sentiments_, ii. 364. Grimm, 39, 40. Lersch, _passim_.

[31] Renan, p. 78.

[32] See Wiseman, p. 54. This theory of the development of human language required the supposition of an indefinite period of human existence; but even if this be freely admitted, it is impossible to prove the _first step_ by which unarticulated sounds, the _merely passive_ echoes of blind instincts or outward phenomena, could develop into the expression of thought. See Bunsen, ii. 76. It would have been marvellous indeed, if man had by the mere possession of vocal cries, not differing from those of animals, been able to raise himself from the utterances of instinct and appetite to express the emotions of admiration, hope, and love. See Nodier, _Notions_, p. 14.

[33] Bunsen, ii. 130.

[34] Thus words and phrases repeatedly acquire a conventional meaning for a generation, and then recur to their old sense. Almost every sect, every profession, and even every family, have certain words in use to which they attach a peculiar and special meaning, which is sometimes unintelligible to others. M. Cousin has been unable to discover the meaning which the Port-Royalists attached to the word “machine.” See Charma, p. 209.

[35] Wilhelm von Humboldt, _Lettre à M. Abel Rémusat_. Paris, 1827.

[36] Grimm, § 28.

[37] In the following observations, I quote the thoughts of M. Renan, pp. 81-83. I have not used inverted commas, because I have often transposed and abbreviated his actual words. Very similar are the excellent remarks of Nodier, which are too apposite to be omitted. “On ne me soupçonnera pas d’être d’assez mauvais goût pour avoir attendu à substituer mes théories aux faits de révélation.... Je crois fermement que la parole a été donnée à l’homme, comme je le crois de toutes les facultés que la création a réparti entre les créatures. Le seul point sur lequel j’ose différer des casuistes du son littéral, c’est que ce don ne me paroît pas avoir consisté dans la communication d’un système lexicologique tout fait, &c.”--_Notions de Linguistique_, p. 9.

[38] A beautiful illustration of Herder’s will help to show our meaning. “Observe,” he says, “this tree with its vigorous trunk, its magnificent crown of verdure, its branches, its foliage, its flowers, its fruits, raising itself upon its roots as on a throne. Seized with admiration and astonishment, you exclaim, ‘It is divine, divine!’ Now observe this little seed; see it hidden in the earth, then pushing out a feeble germ, covering itself with buds, clothing itself with leaves; you will again exclaim, ‘It is divine!’ but in a manner more worthy and more intelligent.”

[39] Nothing has been more fatally prejudicial to the progress of science than a theological bias in its votaries; and nothing more fatal to the peace of true discoverers than its ignorant tyranny. Adelung shows true wisdom in prefacing his _Mithridates_ with the statement, “Ich habe keine Lieblingsmeinung, keine Hypothese zum Grunde zu legen. Noah’s Arche ist mir eine Verschlossene Burg, und Babylon’s Schutt bleibt vor mir völlig in seiner Ruhe.”

[40] It seems to me, however, that Grimm’s special arguments on this subject are weak (p. 26); he is clearly right in pointing out the futility of such conjectures as those of Lessing, that language was made known to man by intercourse with intermediate spirits. (Lessing, _Sämmtl. Schriften_, Bd. 10.)

[41] _Préface aux Œuvres Philos. de Maine de Biran_, iv. p. xv.

[42] Charma, _Essai sur le Langage_, p. 129.

[43] Dr. Whewell, _Hist. of Ind. Science_, iii. 504. A host of eminent authorities, from Bacon down to Sir John Herschel, have said the same thing;--hitherto, alas, in vain! See Herschel’s _Letter to Dr. Pye Smith_. Mill’s _Dissert._ i. 435-461. Renan, _Hist. Rel._ xxvii. Charma, p. 248.

[44] St. Gregory of Nyssa has expressed himself on this subject with startling freedom of thought. He alludes with ironic pity to those who speak of the Deity as the fabricator of Adam’s language, an opinion which he expressly calls a sottish and ridiculous vanity, quite worthy of the extravagant presumption of the Jews. And on the subject of Babel, he says, “The confusion of tongues must be necessarily attributed to the will of God according to the theologic point of view, but according to the truth of history it is the work of man.”--_Contra Eunomium, Or._ xii. p. 782. Nodier, p. 56. St. Augustin distinctly implies the same thing.--_De Ord._ ii. 12.

[45] Since writing the above, I have met with another Biblical argument in favour of the Revelation of Language, drawn from Gen. i. 5. καὶ τὸ μὲν φῶς ἐκάλεσεν ὀ Θεὸς ἡμέραν, τὸ δὲ σκότος νύκτα· ἐπεί τοι γε ἄνθρωπος οὐκ ἂν ᾔδει καλεῖν τὸ φῶς ἡμέραν ἢ τὸ σκότος νύκτα. ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ μὲν τὰ λοιπὰ, εἰ μὴ τὴν ὀνομασίαν εἰλήφει ἀπὸ τοῦ ποιήσαντος ἀυτὰ Θεοῦ.--Theophil. _ad Autolyc._ ii. 18. ed. Wolf. p. 140. I present this argument without reply to any one who is convinced by it.

[46] Stewart, _Phil. of the Mind_, iii. 1.

[47] “This method of referring words immediately to God as their framer, is a short cut to escape inquiry and explanation. It saves the philosopher much trouble, but leaves mankind in great ignorance, and leads to great error. _Non dignus vindice nodus._ God having furnished man with senses, and with organs of articulation, as he has also with water, lime, and sand, it should seem no more necessary to form the words for man, than to temper the mortar.”--_Divers. of Purley_, Pt. i. ch. 2.

[48] Gen. ii. 19, 20.

[49] e.g. There is no hint of _grammar_, the very blood of language. “Une Langue n’est pas une seule collection des mots.”--Cousin, _Cours de 1829_, iii. 212.

[50] Renan, p. 85. See an eloquent passage of Schlegel’s to the same effect, quoted in Wiseman’s _Lect._ i. 108. Pythagoras probably had some vague sentiment of the kind when he said that “the name-giver” was both the most ancient and the most rational of men. The Egyptians worshipped Theuth as the Regulator of Language; and the Chinese referred its origin to their great mysterious King Fohi. See Cic. _Tusc. Disp._ i. 28. Lersch, _die Sprachphilos. der Alten_. Bonn, 1838, i. 23-29.

[51] Bunsen, i. 49.

[52] The fact that man is a social animal (ζῶον πολιτικὸν) which has been so strangely urged by the advocates of a revealed language, from Lactantius down to M. de Bonald and the Abbé Combalot, in no way militates against this conclusion.

[53] Heyse, _System der Sprachwissenschaft_, § 50.

[54] Schlegel.

[55] Wil. von Humboldt.

[56] Grimm.

[57] Renan.

[58] The Revelation of Language is supported in a book by J. S. Süssmilch, Berlin, 1766. An excellent review of the main opinions is given by R. W. Zobel, _Gedanken über die verschiedenen_ _Meinungen der Gelehrnten von Ursprunge der Sprachen_. Magdeb. 1733.

[59] See Franck’s _Dictionnaire des Sciences Philosophiques_, Art. _Signes_. I must here again caution the reader that the view here supported is _not_ the conventional theory of language condemned in the last chapter, although it might easily become so in the hands of a person inclined to look at the physiological rather than the psychological aspects of the question.

[60] This is an expression of F. Schlegel’s (_Philos. Vorlesungen_, p. 78-80). Renan also quotes the authority of Humboldt and Goethe.

[61] “Seht, es ist schwer zu denken auf welche Art man denkt.... Ich denke, und mit dem Zeuge, womit ich denke, soll ich denken wie dieses Zeug beschaffen sei,” &c.--Tieck, _Blaubart_, act. ii. sc. 1.

[62] We are, for instance, obliged entirely to pass over the question as to the Primum Cognitum, on which see Sir W. Hamilton’s _Lectures_, ii. 319-331.

[63] “One might be tempted to call Language a kind of Picture of the Universe, where the words are as the figures and images of all particulars.”--Harris’s _Hermes_, p. 330. This is something like Plato’s curious notion that words are a μίμησις of external things.--Heyse, _System_, s. 24. ἐοικέναι γὰρ τὰ ὀνόματα ... εἰκόσι τῶν ὁρατῶν.--Heraclitus, _ap. Ammonium ad Arist. de Interp._ p. 24. Democritus called them ἀγάλματα φωνήεντα.

[64] Garnett’s _Essays_, p. 281-341.

[65] Quoted by Mr. Garnett, p. 283.

[66] Grimm, 29-31. Compare Heyse, _System_, s. 28. “Nur was gedacht ist, kann gesprochen werden; und das klar gedachte ist nothwendig auch ansprechbar.” What St. Paul saw in his rapture was only unutterable because it recalled no human analogon. (2 Cor. xii. 4.)

[67] Manudscha, Goth. Manniska, Germ. Mensch; from the root man, “to think.” Compare φράζειν, “to speak,” and φράζεσθαι, “to think.”--Heyse, s. 40. Turner ad Herod, ii. 7.

[68] “Speech,” says Humboldt, “is the necessary condition of the thought of the individual.” The statement should at least be qualified by the word “now.” For some allusions to this interesting discussion, see Archbishop Whately’s _Logic_, ch. ii. M. de Bonald _assumed_ the reverse: “L’homme pense sa parole _avant_ de parler sa pensée.” See, too, Mill’s _Logic_, ii. 201. Charma, p. 134. Of course the short-hand of human intelligence is too infinitely rapid and abbreviated for us to be always able to read it off with facility; or, as Mr. Tennyson expresses it,

“Thought leapt out to wed with thought, Ere thought could wed itself to speech;”

but we are inclined to believe that without _some_ signs (not necessarily words--see Charma, _Essai sur le Langage_, p. 50) thought could not exist. When we cannot express what we mean, the reason probably is that we have no _clear_ meaning. “Die Sprache ist nichts anderes als der in die Erscheinung tretende Gedanke, und beide sind innerlich _nur eins und das selbe_.”--Becker, _Organism. der Sprache_, p. 2. “Sans signes nous ne penserions presque pas.”--Destutt de Tracy, _Idéologie_, pt. xvii. Plotinus distinctly asserts the contrary. Τὸ δὴ λογιζόμενον τῆς ψυχῆς οὐδένος πρὸς τὸ λογίζεσθαι δεόμενον σωματικοῦ ὀργάνου.--_Ennead_, v. 1, ch. 10.

[69] _In Memoriam._

[70] See Harper, _on the Force of the Greek Tenses_.

[71] _Der Ursprung der Sprache._ Berlin, 1851. We closely follow M. Renan’s exposition as given in his preface, pp. 31, sq. Heyse sums it up in one sentence, “Man kann mithin in dem Worte ein dreifaches Moment unterscheiden: 1. die Lautform; 2. das dadurch bezeichnete in Sprachbewusstsein liegende Merkmal der Vorstellung; 3. den reinen Begriff, welchen der denkende Geist in seiner Erhebung über die Individuelle Vorstellungsweise bildet, und als dessen Zeichen ihm gleichfalls das Wort dienen muss.”--Heyse, _System_, s. 160.

[72] Garnier, _Traité des facultés de l’Ame_. Renan, p. 90.

[73] _Motus animi._ In the origin of language, the spontaneous awakening of a sense of the _possibility_ of expressing thought by speech, was in point of fact simultaneous with the production of an objective Language as the material in which the awakened intelligence could find expression. Heyse, s. 47.

[74] See _ante_.

[75] On this law of association, see Sir W. Hamilton’s _Lectures_, i. 366.

[76] Exclamations, natural interjections would probably be the first to acquire significance.

[77] In some savage languages abstraction is at the lowest ebb. Thus, in Iroquois, there is no word for “good” in the abstract, but only words for “a good man,” &c.; and in Mohican there is no verb for “I love,” independent of the forms which involve the object of the affection, as “I love him,” “I love you.”--Adelung’s _Mithrid._ iii. b. p. 397. So again the Chinese in many cases cannot express the simple conception without a periphrasis, and have words for “elder brother” and “younger brother,” but not for “brother.”--Humboldt.

[78] See Gesenius, _Lehrgebäude_, p. 479. Ewald’s _Hebrew Grammar_, § 201. “The Mandschou is most like the Semitic here; in it the origin is still plainer, since _ama_ means father, _eme_ mother, according to the uniform distinction of _a_ as the stronger, and _e_ as the weaker vowel.”--Renan, _Hist. des Langues Sémitiques_, p. 452. Rawlinson’s _Herodotus_, i. 481.

[79] Similarly it has been observed by M. Nodier that the most ancient names of God are composed only of the softest and simplest vowels (_Notions_, p. 15). This reminds us of the famous oracle, φράζεο τὸν πάντων ὕπατον θεὸν ἔμμεν’ Ιάω.

[80] _Über den Ursprung_, &c., p. 35.

[81] It is strange that the French language should not have adopted the same course as the English, in discarding this useless rag of antiquity. The influences which led to the decision of genders in any particular case were purely fanciful.

[82] Renan, p. 28.

[83] Rousseau, _Essai sur l’Origine des Langues_.

[84] _Notions_, p. 24 sqq. The remarks on the labials are too amusing to be omitted. “Le bambin, le poupon, le marmot a trouvé les trois labiales; il bée, il baye, il balbutie, il bégaye, il babille, il blatère, il bêle, il bavarde, il braille, il boude, il bouque, il bougonne sur une babiole, sur une bagatelle, sur une billevesée, sur une bêtise, sur un bébé, sur un bonbon, sur un bobo, sur le bilboquet pendu à l’étalage du bimbelotier. Il nomme sa mère et son père avec des mimologismes caressants, et quoiqu’il n’ait encore découvert que la simple touche des lèvres, l’âme se meut déjà dans les mots qu’il module au hasard. Ce Cadmus au maillot vient d’entrevoir un mystère aussi grand à lui seul que tout le reste de la création. Il parle sa pensée.” Want of space alone compels us to refrain from transcribing the remarks on the progress of infants and of society to the dentals. We must say, however, that such speculations must be very sparingly indulged by sober philologists. Many of them, at first sight plausible, were refuted by Plato long ago in the _Cratylus_, and they lead to a grammatical mysticism which has been well exposed by M. Charma, _Essai_, p. 213.

[85] By roots we do not mean words used in the primitive language, but rather “skeletons of articulate sound.” “They are merely the fictions of grammarians to indicate the _core_ of a group of related words.”--Hensleigh Wedgwood’s _Etymolog. Dict._ p. iii. For some remarks on the nature of roots, see Donaldson’s _New Cratyl._ bk. iii. ch. 1. Ewald’s _Hebrew Gram._ § 202. This naked kernel of a family of words is often best found in the _youngest_ dialects, e.g. _kind_ (child) from γίγνομαι, genitum, &c. Grimm, _Deutsche Gramm._ ii. 5. 3. Bopp. _Vgl. Gramm._ s. 131.

[86] One or two philosophers (e.g. Kircher, Becher, Dalgarno, Bp. Wilkins, Descartes, Leibnitz) have amused themselves with the invention of languages quite arbitrary, in which every word was to be accurately determined; but no artificial language actually used has ever thus arisen. The German _rothwelsch_, the Italian _gergo_, the French _narquois_, the English “_thieves’ language_,” the _lingua franca_ which serves for commercial purposes on the shores of the Mediterranean, the strange jargon spoken by the Chinese and English at Hong Kong, &c., have all arisen from _a corruption of existing languages_ by metaphors, new words, new meanings, derivation, composition, &c. See Leibnitz, _Nouv. Essai sur l’Entendement Humain_, iii. I. 2.

[87] Mr. Garnett, _Essays_, p. 105. Latham, _Lect. on Language_.

[88] What, for instance, is the origin of the initial σ in such words as σμικρὸς, σφάλλω, or of the initial vowels in ὄνομα, ὀδοὺς, ἀμέλγω, &c.?--Garnett, p. 107.

[89] When a boy answers a lady in the words “Yes, ’m,” he is not aware that his “’m” is a fragment of the five syllables mea domina (madonna, madame, madam, ma’am, ’m.) “Letters, like soldiers, being very apt to desert and drop off in a long march.”--_Divers. of Purley_, pt. i. ch. vi. “Les noms des saints et les noms des baptêmes les plus communs en sont un exemple.”--De Brosses.

[90] See _Philological Transactions_, v. 133 sq.

[91] _Phil. Trans._ v. 133 sq. “The facility with which unusual or difficult words are corrupted is being at this moment strikingly illustrated in the numerous Spanish words introduced into our language through the American conquests in Mexico; cañon, estancia, stampedo, &c., are already altered in form.”--R.G.

[92] _Engl. Lang._ i. p. 356, 4th ed. St. Aldhelm’s Head, in Dorsetshire, is always pronounced and generally written St. Alban’s Head, although St. Alban had no connection with it. Penny-come-quick was a very natural corruption of Pen, Coombe, and Ick, the former name for Falmouth. These words form a curious chapter in the history of language. There is no doubt that the mythological legends of a later period are largely suggested by the corruption of names, as in the case of _Aphrodite_, _Dionysus_, &c. The fiction of an Oriental nation provided with a two-fold tongue (Diod. Sic. ii.) might easily spring from the word δίγλωσσος. See many such instances in Lersch. iii. 6 fg. The Greek Ἱεροσόλυμα presents a _double_ instance of this, being corrupted from יְרוּשָּׁלַיִם, which is itself probably a corruption of the old Canaanite name for Jerusalem. _Dict. of Bibl. Ant._ s. v.

[93] The instance is a pure supposition, for sherbet, syrup, and shrub are from the same Arabic root, coming to us from three different sources.--Latham.

[94] We know of very few words _invented_ on simply arbitrary grounds. “Sepals” was devised by Neckar to express each division of the calyx (Whewell, _Hist. Ind. Sc._ ii. 535), and yet we see at once that it is only a very slight alteration of the word “petals,” and this no doubt was the reason, not only for the choice of it, but also for the ready currency which it obtained. The term “Od force” is another instance. Chemistry at one period affected to give to simple bodies only such names as were destitute of all significance; but it abandoned this practice in consequence of the absurdities and impossibilities which it involved. (v. Renan, p. 148.) Thus, “_sulfite_” and “_sulfate_” are due to Guyton de Morveau. (Charma, p. 66.) “_Ellagic_” acid is the name given by M. Braconnot to the substance left in the process of making pyrogallic acid, and it is derived from Galle read backwards (_Hist. Ind. Sc._ ii. 547); but such terms are justly reprobated by men of science. Even proper names, which some have supposed to be often arbitrary, are in almost every case found capable of a real etymology. “Ils n’ont pas, plus que les autres mots, été imposés sans _cause_, ni fabriqués _au hasard_, seulement pour produire une bruit vague.”--De Brosses. This was noticed very early; see _Schol. ad Hom. Od._ xix. 406.

[95] Renan, p. 122.

[96] Nodier, p. 39. See, too, Garnett’s _Essays_, p. 89.

[97] Bunsen, _Outlines_, s. ii. 84. 78.

[98] _Essais de Phil. Morale_, p. 344. (The word שָׁמַיִם comes from a root signifying height.) Several of the instances in this paragraph are from M. Vinet.

[99] “Augustus himself, in the possession of that power which ruled the world, acknowledged that he could not make a new Latin word.”--Locke, iii. 2. 8.

[100] Renan, p. 143. “Though the origin of most of our words is forgotten, each word was at first a stroke of genius, and obtained currency, because for the moment it symbolised the world to the speaker and the hearer.... As the limestone of the Continent consists of infinite masses of the shells of animalcules, so language is made up of images and tropes, which now in their secondary use have long ceased to remind us of their poetic origin.”--Emerson, _Ess. on the Poet_.

[101] Take, for instance, the word “fal-lals,” borrowed from the burden of a song, and often used to describe female vanities. Does not this word afford a curious analogy to the word “falbala,” the origin of which (to express similar articles) has occupied the attention of distinguished philosophers? It has been explained as follows. It is said that a witty prince of the eighteenth century once entered an elegant shop, and determined to try to the utmost the assurance of the (probably pretty) milliner. He therefore asked for a _falbala_, inventing the oddest vocable he could think of. With admirable but unconscious insight into the principle of language, the undisturbed female at once brought him the garniture de robe called volant, which ended in light floating points. She instinctively caught the notion involved in flabella, flammula, &c.--Nodier, p. 211. The story is told differently by De Brosses, _Form Méch._ ch. xvi. § 14. The word has excited much discussion. Leibnitz connects it with _fald-plat_, and Hoffman with _furbelow_. Charma, p. 306. The murderer, Pierre Rivière, invented the word _ennepharer_ for the torture to which he used, when a boy, to subject frogs; and the word _calibène_ for the instrument which he constructed to kill birds. Charma, p. 66. Du Mérit notices the purely musical names which children instinctively give to those who inspire them with strongly marked feelings of love. “Rumpelstiltskin,” the name of the imp in the fairy tale, is a good instance of the reverse.

[102] It is mainly among the people, rather than with philosophers, that the power of inventing names has lingered. Some write the name Plonplon, and make it a familiar abbreviation of Napoleon; but accomplished Frenchmen give differing accounts of the word.

[103] “Ὄνομα ποίεω. Ὀνοματοποιΐα est dictio ad imitandum sonum vocis conficta, ut cum dicimus _hinnire_ equos, _balare_ oves, _stridere_ valvas.” Charis. iv. p. 245. Lersch, i. 129-232. The Latins call it “fictio nominis.”

[104] Renan, p. 136. We have already endeavoured to guard against the misconception that language is in any sense a _result_ of imitation: a mere power of imitating the sounds of nature belongs to animals as well as to man.--Heyse, s. 91, and supra ch. i.

[105] Wedgwood’s _Etym. Dict._ p. v. It is necessary to be cautious, of course, in deducing the processes of language from the observation of children. See Heyse, s. 47. The word moo-cow is a mixture of pure onomatopœia, and onomatopœia after it has become conventional.

[106] See the lists of such vocabularies in the _Transactions of the Philol. Soc._

[107] Wedgwood, p. v.

[108] L. 45. “Proprium tigridis, a sono. Alii leg. _raucant_.”--Forcellini, _Lex._

[109] Wedgwood, p. vi. The name is not native probably, for the native tribe-names mostly end in qua; as Griqua, Namaqua, &c.

[110] Nodier, p. 79 seq. Dr. Pickering quotes an account of the _original people_ of Malay, in which it is said that “their language is not understood by any one: they lisp their words, _the sound of which is like the noise of birds_.” (_Races of Man_. Bohn ed. p. 305.)

[111] Bunsen, _Outlines_, ii. 82. The poet Shelley implied the same thought in _Alastor_:

“I wait breath, Great Parent, that my song May _modulate_ with motions of the air, And murmurs of the forest and the sea, And voice of living beings, and woven hymns Of night and day, and _the deep heart of man_.”

[112] Locke _on the Human Understanding_, iii. I. § 1, 2.

[113] Harris’s _Hermes_, bk. ii. ch. 2, 3rd ed. p. 325.

[114] Renan, p. 139, quoting Adelung, _Mithrid._ i. p. xiv. Grimm, _Über die Namen des Donners_. (Berlin, 1855.) If the words “tonitru,” “donner,” &c., be not originally onomatopœian, as some assert (who derive them from _tan_, Gr. τείνειν), they _became_ so from a feeling of the need that they should be.--Heyse, s. 93.

[115] Wedgwood, p. 5. The word “pouf” is also used of falling bodies, as in the Macaronic verse, “De brancha in brancham degringolat atque facit ‘_pouf_.’” It would be interesting to trace the causes for the divergencies in sound of obvious onomatopœian words in various languages: e.g. it is clear that “ding-dong” could only be used to denote the sound of a bell in a country possessing large heavy bells, and therefore churches. The sound _bil_ or bell (Cf. t_in_t_in_nab_u_lum), expressive of a clear sharp tinkle, would naturally be used by a people, like the Galla, only accustomed to the small bells sold as trinkets by foreign traders. Among the Suaheli languages (out of five words given in Krapf’s vocabulary), no word for a bell at all resembles the sound. I am indebted to my friend, Mr. Garnett, for these remarks, as well as for other ingenious suggestions.

[116] Wedgwood, _Etymol. Dict._

[117] Nodier, p. 41. Even when the sound is no guide, _different_ characteristics are chosen by different nations to furnish a name. The names “_fledermaus_,” “_flittermouse_,” are suggested like “_chauve souris_,” by the structure of the bat; νυκτερὶς and _vespertilio_ by its habits; if the differentia of the animal be _very_ marked, its name will probably be derived from it in all languages, as _noctiluca_, glow-worm, _luccio_lato, ver _luisant_, &c.; yet even then not in all, as _Johannis-wurm_. Compare again σεισιπυγὶς, _motacilla_, _cutretta_, _wagtail_, with _Bachstelze_, _hoche-queue_, &c. If the bird be rare, it is much more likely to have numerous names, because the observation of each casual observer as to its chief attribute is not liable to so much revision. Take as an instance the night-jar, which is also called fern-owl, churn-owl, goat-sucker, wheel-bird, dorhawk, &c. See, too, Garnett’s _Essays_, pp. 88, 89.

[118] “The _physiognomy_, however, of a group of languages remains unaffected by the divergency of their vocabularies; e.g. almost every word in the Ethiopic family of languages contains a liquid generally in connection with a mute as its most prominent and essential feature.”--R. G.

[119] It is represented as a punishment in some legends, as in the fragment of Abydenus, &c., quoted by Euseb. _Præp. Ev._ ix. 14. Joseph. _Antt._ I. iv. 3. Plat. _Polit._ p. 272. Plin. vii. 1. xi. 112. But see Abbt’s Dissertation, “_Confusionem linguarum non fuisse pœnam humano generi inflictam_.” Hal. 1758.

[120] καὶ περιΐστα δὲ κατ’ ὄλιγον εἰς τυραννίδα τὰ πράγματα.--Joseph. _Antt._ I. iv. 2.

[121] 1 Cor. xiii. 8; Rev. vii. 9; Zach. viii. 23; Zeph. 9, &c.

[122] “Trotz alle dem,” is Freiligrath’s rendering of Burns’ “for a’ that.” I may remark here, that many of these instances are borrowed from Mr. Wedgwood’s _Etymol. Dictionary_, of which the first part only is yet printed. This work, although not free from errors, has the merit of having put forward some very clear and original views on this subject.

[123] Abridged from Mr. Wedgwood in the _Phil. Transac._ ii. 118.

[124] Latham _on the Engl. Lang._ 4th ed. p. xlix. Heyse, _System_, s. 73 fg.

[125] Traces of this feeling are found in Quinctilian (_Instt. Orr._ i. 5). “Sed minime nobis concessa est ὀνοματοποιία.... Jamne hinnire et balare fortiter diceremus, nisi judicio vetustatis niterentur?” See, too, viii. 6. Other passages quoted by Lersch (_Sprachphilosophie_, i. s. 130), are Varro (_L. L._ v. p. 69); Diomed. iii. p. 453, &c. Plato calls it ἀπείκασμα, and the Grammarians ἀπὸ ἤχους.

[126]

“La gentile alouette avec son tire lire, Tire l’ire aux fachez, et tire-lirant tire Vers la route du ciel: puis son vol vers ce lieu Vire, et désire dire à dieu Dieu, à dieu Dieu.”

The verse seems to me too laboured and unnatural.

[127] “Many at least of the celebrated passages that are cited as imitative in sound, were, on the one hand, not the result of accident, nor yet on the other hand of study; but the idea (?) in the author’s mind spontaneously suggested appropriate sounds.”--Archbp. Whately’s _Rhetoric_, iii. s. 2.

[128] _Essai sur les fondements de la psychologie._ The same psychologist in his Essay on the Origin of Language says of those who maintain a revealed language, that they give us “comme article de foi une hypothèse arbitraire et amphibologique.”--_Œuvres Inéd. de Maine de Biran_, iii. pp. 229-278.

[129] See some admirable remarks to this effect in Mr. F. Whalley Harper’s excellent book on the _Power of Greek Tenses_.

[130] Donaldson’s _New Cratylus_, p. 220, 4th ed.

[131] Donaldson’s _Greek Grammar_, s. 67-79.

[132] For the development and more clear enunciation of these views, we must refer to the works quoted.

[133] Donaldson’s _New Crat._ ch. ii. Plato (_Crat._ p. 435) thought the numerals offered a proof that at least _some_ part of language must be the result of convention and custom (συνθήκη καὶ ἔθος).

[134] Bopp’s _Comparative Grammar_, § 311.

[135] Dr. Donaldson aptly compares (_New Crat._ § 154) the vulgarism “number one” as a synonym for the first person, and “proximus sum egomet mihi.”

[136] Bopp’s _Comparative Grammar_, §§ 309, 323. Donaldson’s _New Crat._ ch. ii.; _Greek Gram._ § 246. For the Hebrew numerals see _Maskil-le Sophir._ pp. 41 sq. by the same author. Other works are Pott, _Die quinäre und vigesimale Zählmethode._ Halle, 1847. Mommsen, in Höfer’s _Zeitschr. für die Wiss. der Spr._ Heft 2, 1846. In Greenland the word for 20 is “a man,” (i.e. fingers + toes = 20); and for 100 the word is _five men_, &c.! It might have been thought that particles were eminently (what Aristotle calls them) φωναὶ ἄσημοι, and yet even _their_ pedigree may be traced; and in fact no clear line of distinction can be drawn between them and the φωναὶ σημαντικαί.--Heyse, s. 108 ff.

[137] For instance, we find M. A. Vinet (_Essais de Philos. Morale_, p. 323) speaking of the verb as the word which founds, or, so to speak, creates an ideal world side by side with the real world, and of which the real world is either the expression or the type. The word “verb” has often been dwelt on as showing the importance attached to this part of speech; the German “_zeitwort_” is more to the purpose. The Chinese call it _ho-tseu_, or the living word (Silvestre de Sacy, _Principes de Gram. Gén._ i. ch. 1.)

[138] Compare the Italian _stare_, Spanish _estar_. Prof. Key (_Trans. of Phil. Soc._ vol. iv.) quotes an anecdote of a lady who had to tell her African servant, “Go and fetch big teacup, he _live_ in pantry.” We cannot, however, accept his derivations of “esse” from “edo,” and “vivo” from “bibo.”

[139] See Renan, p. 129. Becker, _Organism der Sprache_, p. 58. In point of fact, the conception of existence in untaught minds is generally concrete, and often grossly material. Vico mentions the fact, that peasants often say of a sick person “he still eats,” for “he still lives.” “In the Lingua Franca the more abstract verbs have disappeared altogether; ‘to be’ is always expressed by ‘to stand,’ and ‘to have’ by ‘to hold.’

‘Non _tener_ honta Questo _star_ la ultima affronta.’

This shows the tendency of language to degradation when not upheld by literary culture and elevated thought. Barbarism proved as efficacious in materialising the conception of the Latin races, as in sweeping away the niceties of their grammar. To this day the Spaniards say, _tengo hambre_, for _esurio_.”--R. G.

[140] See Wedgwood, p. xvii.

[141] Who would have thought _à priori_ that the word “stranger” has its root in the single vowel _e_, the Latin preposition for “from”? Yet we see it to be so, “the moment that the intermediate links of the chain are submitted to our examination,--e, ex, extra, extraneus, étranger, stranger.”--Dugald Stewart, _Philos. Es._ p. 217, 4th ed.

[142] Adelung, _Mithridates_, iii. 6, p. 325.

[143] Benloew, _De la Science Comp. des Langues_, p. 22.

[144] _Essay on English Dialects_, p. 64.

[145] Still more strange are the variations presented by the root ἄω. See Leibnitz, _Nouv. Ess. sur l’Entendement Humain_, iii. 2. 2; and Donaldson’s _New Crat._ p. 476.

[146] _New Crat._ p. 80.

[147] The “lucus à non lucendo” principle, which explained various positive words as though they were derived from the _absence_ of the quality they attributed, has long been given up by all sound scholars. Of course such names as Euxinus, Beneventum, Εὐμενίδες, “good folk,” “crétin,” “natural,” &c., arise in a totally different manner, as well as the name Parcæ, absurdly derived “a non parcendo.” The supposed instances of “Antiphrasis,” as the grammarians called it, are eminently absurd, e.g. Varro, _L. L._ iv. 8: “Cœlum, contrario nomine _celatum_, quod apertum est.” Donat. _de Trop._ p. 1778: “Bellum, hoc est minimè bellum.” They confused it with irony and euphemism. See Lersch, i. s. 132, 133.

[148] _Essays_, p. 284 sq.

[149] _Dict. des Sciences Philosoph._ p. 646. Locke _on the Under._ III. ii. 6.

[150] Thus the long opposition to the Newtonian theory in France rose mainly from the influence of the word “attraction.” See Comte’s _Pos. Philos._ (Martineau’s ed.) i. p. 182. For the tremendous consequences of the introduction of the term “_landed proprietor_” into Bengal, see Mill’s _Logic_, ii. 232. It caused “a disorganisation of society which had not been introduced into that country by the most ruthless of its barbarian invaders.” “Fetish,” as adopted by the negroes from the Portuguese, “feitição” (sorcery), is an instance of a word changing meaning with the feeling of the speakers.

[151] ἤθους χαρακτήρ ἐστι τ’ ἀνθρώπου λόγος.--Stob. The language of a people expresses its genius and its character.--Bacon, _De Augm. Scient._ vi. i. Cf. Diog. Laert. p. 58. Quinct. xi. p. 675. Cic. _Tusc. Disp._ v. 16.

[152] Ἔστι μὲν οὖν τὰ ἐν τῇ φωνῇ τῶν ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ παθημάτων σύμβολα.--Arist. _De Interp._ I. i.

[153] Nodier, p. 65.

[154] Victor Cousin, _Cours de Phil._ iii. Leçon Vingtième.

[155] Φύσικα, i. 1. The name alligator (Spanish, _el_ lagarto, _the_ lizard) is another instance of the same kind of thing, as indeed is the Greek κροκόδειλος.

[156] See Renan, 120 sqq. Theocrit. ii. 18. The French word colère is from χόλος, bile; our word anger, from the root “ang” (ἄγχι, ἀγχονὴ, angle, angina, angustus, &c.) implying _compression_. The Greek στόμαχος explains itself.

[157] πρὸ ὀμμάτων ποιεῖν. For abundant instances of Hebrew metaphors see Glassii _Philologia Sacra_, where there is a long chapter on the subject.

[158] Emerson’s _Nature_.

[159] Compare ἐφιέμαι, ὀρέγομαι.

[160] Three derivations have been proposed: _re-lego_, Cic. _de Nat. Deor._ ii. 28; _re-ligo_, Lact. _Div. Inst._ 4; _re-eligo_, Augustin, _de Civ. Dei_, x. 3. See Fleming’s _Vocabulary of Philosophy_.

[161] See Bunsen’s _Outlines_, ii. 142 seqq. Dyaus, θεὸς, deus, &c., from the root _div_, to shine. The derivation of our English word “God” is doubtful; but I fear the beautiful belief that it is deduced from “good” must be abandoned. Grimm (_Deutsch Myth._ p. 12) shows that there is a grammatical difference between the words in the Teutonic language signifying “God” and “good;” _if_ the Persian “Khoda” can be derived from the Zend “qvadáta,” Sanskrit “svadata,” _à se datus, increatus_, a very appropriate etymology would be given.

[162] See Dugald Stewart’s _Philosoph. Essays_, p. 217, 4th ed. Compare the widely different conceptions of happiness involved in the derivations of two such words as “beatus” and “selig.” Or take the word “poet;” if in these days of wider knowledge and shallower thought, we find it nearly impossible to frame a satisfactory definition of poetry, how should we have been able to invent the word itself, which goes to the very root of the matter, by at once attributing to “the maker” that divine creative faculty whereby he is enabled “to give airy nothing a local habitation and a name?”

[163] χαλκαίνω, πορφύρω.

[164] “Une lumière éclate, des couleurs crient, des idées se heurtent, la mémoire bronche, le cœur murmure, l’obstination se cabre contre les difficultés.”--Nodier, p. 45.

[165] For the facts alluded to in this passage, see Herod. iii. 46, iv. 132. Liv. i. 54. Jerem. xix. 10, &c.

[166] Arist. _Rhet._ iii. 10.

[167] ἤστραπτ’, ἐβρόντα, κἀνεκύκα τὴν Ἑλλάδα.--Aristoph. “Proinde tona eloquio.”--Virg. _Æn._ xi.

[168] _Sartor Resartus_, ch. x. Compare Heyse, s. 97. “Die ganze Sprache ist durch und durch bildlich. Wir sprechen in lauter Bildern ohne uns dessen bewusst zu sein.” He gives abundant instances, classified with German accuracy. See, too, Grimm, _Gesch. d. d. Sprache_, s. 56 ff. Pott, _Metaphern vom Leben_, &c. _Zeitschr. für Vergleich. Sprachf. Jahrg._ ii. _Heft_ 2.

[169] Luke, xii. 27.

[170] Mr. Kingsley has compared the ancient ballad,

“Could harp a fish out of the water, Or music out of the stane, Or the milk out of a maiden’s breast That bairns had never nane,”

with the modern adaptation,

“O there was magic in his voice, And witchcraft in his string!”

The expression of Herodotus about the Libyan wild asses, ἄποτοι, οὐ γὰρ δὴ πίνουσι, contrasts forcibly the two styles.--R. G.

[171] “Verborum translatio instituta est inopiæ causâ.”--_De Orator._ iii. 39.

[172] Dr. Whewell’s _Philos. of the Inductive Sciences_, ii. 460. Mill’s _Logic_, ii. ch. iv. p. 205.

[173] Take, for instance, the botanical description of the _Hymenophyllum Wilsoni_; “fronds rigid, pinnate, pinnæ recurved subunilateral, pinnatifid; the segments linear undivided, or bifid spinulososerrate.”--_Philosophy of Ind. Sci._ i. 165. This is the perfection of scientific terminology, but how would it answer the purposes of common life? And how would poetry be possible with such clumsy terms as these? At the same time, in _Science_, dry precision of nomenclature is better than poetical terms like the mediæval “flowers of sulphur.” _Fancy_ would only mislead in terminology which requires accuracy; _e.g._ δίπους, the Greek name for _jerboa_ might easily have led to mistakes.

[174] Sir Thos. Browne, _Christian Morals_, ii.

[175] Berkeley, _Principles of Hum. Knowledge_, xxxv.

[176] “It is remarked by a great metaphysician, that abstract ideas are, in one point of view, the highest and most philosophical of all our ideas, while in another they are the shallowest and most meagre. They have the advantage of clearness and definiteness; they enable us to conceive and, as it were, to span the infinity of things; they arrange, as it might be in the divisions of a glass, the many-coloured world of phenomena. And yet they are ‘mere’ abstractions, removed from sense, removed from experience, and detached from the mind in which they arose. Their perfection consists, as their very name implies, in their idealism; that is, in their negative nature.”--Jowett _on Romans_, &c., ii. 88.

[177] Ecclus. xlii. 23.

[178] Nodier, p. 58 sqq.

[179] Ἔοικεν ὁ τὴν Ἴριν Θαύμαντος ἔκγονον φήσας οὐ κακῶς γενεαλογεῖν.--Plato, _Theæt._ p. 155.

“La maraviglia Dell’ ignoranza e la figlia E del sapere La madre.”

[180] Mr. Mill was the first to point out the soliloquising character of poetry.--_Essays and Dissertations._

[181] Coleridge, _Aids to Reflection_.

[182] Nodier.

[183] See _Précieux et Précieuses_ par Ch. L. Livet. 12^o, 1860. Masson’s _Introduction to French Literature_, ch. iv.

[184] “And the regeneration of a people is always accompanied by a rekindled interest in its early literature.” We can hardly overrate the effect produced by the publication of Bishop Percy’s _Reliques_, and much may be hoped from the reproduction of the old romancers, &c., in Spanish, of late years.

[185] _Essay on Human Understanding_, III. i. 5.

[186] Horne Tooke, Part I. ch. ii.

[187] Dr. Whewell, _Hist. of New Phil. in Eng._ p. 72.

[188] We consider this on the whole a less objectionable term than “sensualist” or “sensuist;” the latter word is uncouth, and the former, from the things which it connotes, is hardly fair.

[189] See V. Cousin, _Cours d’Histoire de la Phil. Morale_.

[190] οὔτε τῆς ψυχῆς ἴδιον τὸ αἰσθάνεσθαι οὔτε τοῦ σώματος.--Arist. _de Somno_, i. 5. “Sensation is not an affection of mind alone, nor of matter alone, but of an animated organism, i.e. of mind and matter united.”--Mansell’s _Metaphysics_, p. 92.

[191] “Il n’y a rien dans l’intelligence qui ait passé par les sens; rien, pas même l’idée des sens!”--Charma, _Essai sur le Langage_, p. 34. This is far truer than the assertion of D’Alembert, that “the object of Metaphysics is to examine the origin of ideas, and to prove that they all come from our sensations.”--_Elém. de Philos._ p. 143.

[192] Ἡ μνήμη ταῖς αἰσθήσεσι συμπίπτουσα εἰς ταὐτόν ... φαίνονταί μοι σχεδὸν οἷον γράφειν ἡμῶν ἐν ταῖς ψυχαῖς τότε λόγους.--Plat. _Philebus_, p. 192.

[193] Penser c’est sentir.

[194] πάντων μέτρον ἄνθρωπος.--Protagoras.

[195] We allude to his monstrous hyperbole “that it would be our duty to hate God if bidden to do so by Him,” which is merely equivalent to the sycophant’s excuse, πᾶν τὸ πραχθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ κρατοῦντος δίκαιον.

[196] On the title of Horne Tooke’s treatise, “Winged Words, or Language not only the Vehicle of Thought, but the Wheels,” see Coleridge, _Aids to Refl._ p. xv.

[197] Leibnitz, _Nouv. Ess._ The passage is quoted by Dr. Donaldson, _New Crat._ ch. iii., where the reader will find some admirable remarks on the subject of this chapter.

[198] Mr. Wedgwood’s _Etym. Dict._ p. ii.

[199] _Essays_, p. 18 seqq.

[200] _Diversions of Purley_, Part II. ch. v.

[201] _Essays_, p. 28.

[202] See Vinet, _Essais_, p. 349.

[203] Kant, quoted by Chalybäus, _Speculative Philosophy_, Tr. Tulk. p. 31.

[204] “There still remains the question, ‘Do things as they are resemble things as they are conceived by us?’--a question which we cannot answer either in the affirmative or in the negative; for the denial, as much as the assertion, implies a _comparison_ of the two,” (which is impossible, if they are absolutely unknown). Mansell’s _Metaphysics_, p. 354.

[205] Act I. sc. iv.

[206] This was the ground taken both by Plato and Aristotle in refuting the Sophists. See _Theætet._ p. 176. Arist. _Eth. Nic._ v. 7. Aristoph. _Nub._ 902 (quoted by Mr. Mansell, _Metaphysics_, p. 387).

[207] See Proverbs, ch. viii. 22. Jewish philosophy reaches its most passionate and eloquent strains in the expansion and inculcation of this belief. Ecclus. passim.

[208] See Victor Cousin, _Cours de l’Hist. de la Phil. Mor._ iii. p. 214 seqq.

[209] Dr. Donaldson, _ubi sup._

[210] Vinet, p. 349.

[211] See Harris, _Hermes_, iii. 4.

[212] Charma, p. 64.

[213] Bunsen’s _Outlines_, ii. 146. The whole chapter is well worthy of attentive study, for the profound and noble thoughts which it contains.

[214] Renan, p. 108. Grimm, 37.

[215] Renan, p. 185.

[216] Cf. 2 Kings, xix. 35. Such expressions as “a bullock that hath horns and hoofs” belong not so much to this tendency to avoid all possibility of mistake, as to the desire for something graphic--the πρὸ ὀμμάτων ποιεῖν.

[217] “L’opium endormit parce qu’il a une vertu soporifique.” e.g. “When the essence of gold and its substantial form was said to consist in its _aureity_, the attempt at philosophic explanation was no whit superior to those quoted in the text.” The word “aureity” was merely an effort of abstraction, but it was supposed to answer all questions and solve all doubts.

[218] First used by M. Duponceau in his English translation of the German Grammar of Zeisberger. Charma, p. 266. Schleicher called these languages “Holophrastic.”

[219] Humboldt, quoted by Charma, p. 222.

[220] Max Müller, p. 113. Compare Molière, _Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme_, iv. 4. “Mons. Jourdain: _Tant de choses en deux mots?_--Cov.: Oui, la langue turque est comme cela, elle dit beaucoup en peu de paroles.”

[221] Ampère, _Rev. des Deux Mondes_. Fevrier, 1853, p. 572.

[222] Also called “_incorporant_.”

[223] Charma, p. 223.

[224] Grimm, ss. 37-47.

[225] Renan, p. 160 seqq. It is doubtful whether the Pali was anything more than an artificial language. If so, however, it is an unique phenomenon, and it must not be forgotten that a similar opinion was once entertained respecting the Sanskrit and Zend.

[226] Precisely the same change takes place in the growth of English from Saxon, and Danish from Icelandic.

[227] _Hist. des Langues Sém._ v. 1, 2, and 3.

[228] _Über den Urspr. d. Sprache_, p. 50. Another weighty testimony to the splendour of the English language may be found in Adelung’s _Mithridates_.

[229] See Benloew, p. 15 sqq. Humboldt, _Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues_, ad finem.

[230] The Chinese ‘l’ is pronounced like ‘r.’

[231] Many readers may recall the story of the late Mr. Albert Smith about the Bishop being described in the mixed jargon of Hong Kong as the “A-one-heaven-business-man.”

[232] Adelung, _Mithridates_, i. p. 412. Some deny the monosyllabic character of Chinese. (Prof. Key, Art. _Language, Engl. Cycl._)

[233] It should be observed that triliteralism is not _necessarily_ incompatible with monosyllabism. See _Hist. des Langues Sémitiques_, p. 94, 2nde ed.

[234] As אָב father, אֵם mother, אָח brother, הר mountain, יָד hand, יוֹם day, &c.

[235] Renan, p. 168. I must content myself here with a general reference to M. Renan, to whose works I have been very greatly indebted throughout the chapter, and indeed, as I have repeatedly observed, throughout the book.

[236] Pott’s formula for the morphological classification of languages was that they are “isolating,” “agglutinative,” and “inflectional.” Professor Müller and Baron Bunsen have shown that these divisions nearly correspond with three stages of political development--“Family,” “Nomad,” and “State.”

[237] _Encycl. Brit._ Art. _Language_. (Dr. Latham.)

[238] “On l’a désignée par les noms de famille Indo-Germanique ou Indo-Européenne, lesquels ne sont _ni logiques ni harmonieux_, car ils n’expriment qu’imparfaitement le sens qui leur est attribué, et leur longueur démesurée en rend l’emploi fort peu commode.”--Pictet’s _Origines Indo-Eur._ p. 28. They have, however, the advantage of explaining themselves.

[239] Burnouf, _Commentaire sur le Yaçna_, p. xciii. See also Bunsen’s _Outlines_, i. 281.

[240] These traces are most ably pointed out in the _Edinburgh Review_ for October, 1851, quoted in an interesting note by Prof. Max Müller, _Survey of Languages_, p. 28, 2nd ed. See, too, Pictet, pp. 27-34, who connects the root _ar_ with the words Erin, Elam, Ariovistus, Arminius, oriri, &c. If this be a right derivation of Erin, the fact is important, as showing that some memory of the old name was preserved in the extreme West as well as in the East.

[241] By a writer in the _Saturday Review_ for Nov. 19, 1859.

[242] P. 49.

[243] For a graphic sketch of early Arian life as deduced from the records of language, see Weber’s _Indische Skizzen_, pp. 9, 10; Pictet’s _Origines Indo-Européennes_; Müller’s _Ess. on Comp. Mythology_.

[244] Müller, p. 28 sqq.

[245] Except some popular modern divines.

[246] Lassen, _Indische Alterthumskunde_. Renan, 219 seqq. Klaproth builds an argument for the Northern origin of the Arians on the word “birch,” which bears an analogous name “not only in the German and Slavonic tongues, but also in the Sanskrit--_b’hurjja_.... It seems birch was the only tree the invaders recognised, and could name, on the south side of the Himalaya; all others being new to them. The inference may be right or wrong--it is, at all events, ingenious.” Garnett’s _Essays_, p. 33. See Klaproth, _Nouv. J. Asiat._ v. 112. Pictet, _Orig. Ind._ i. 217. The fact that the words for oyster are derived from the same root in the European languages (Gk. ὄστρεον, Ang.-Sax. _ostra_, Irish _oisridh_, Cymr. _œstren_, Russ. _üstersü_, French _huître_, Germ. _Auster_, &c.), but _not_ in the Sanskrit or Indian branch of the Arian family,--would seem to show that there was a great separation of Eastern and Western Arians before the family had reached the shores of the Caspian. A similar fact is observed in the name for flax, (Gr. λίνον, Lat. _linum_, Goth. _lein_, Ang.-Sax. _lîn_, Cym. _llin_, Russ. _lenû_, &c.), and shows that the Western Arians were the first of the family to desert pastoral for agricultural pursuits. _Id._ pp. 320, 516. Few studies are more interesting than the “linguistic palæontology,” which thus enables us to revive the form of an extinct language and civilisation.

[247] Renan, p. 235.

[248] _Histoire des Langues Sém._ pp. 1, 2.

[249] Müller’s _Survey_, p. 23 seqq.

[250] _Hist. des Langues Sémitiques_, pp. 70-90.

[251] The name was suggested by Baron Bunsen in 1847. _Outlines_, i. 64. He even argues for the Turanian character of the Chinese; “although it is certain that the same opposition exists between the two as there is between inorganic and organic life.” General laws, operative in the formation of all languages, ought not to be taken for indications of special affinity; who would maintain the identity of quadrupeds and birds from the analogy of their respiratory and digestive systems? In the formation of languages certain first principles were necessarily observed by all, and this of course leads to some general resemblances.

[252] “Turanian speech is rather a _stage_ than a _form_ of language; it seems to be the form into which human discourse, naturally, and, as it were, spontaneously throws itself.... The principle of agglutination, as it is called, which is its most marked characteristic, seems almost a necessary feature of any language in a constant state of flux and change, absolutely devoid of a literature, and maintaining itself in existence by means of the scanty conversation of Nomades.”--Rawlinson’s _Herodotus_, i. p. 645.

[253] It is rather strange that this name, so peculiarly appropriate, and so much preferable to the other, has not met with wider acceptation. It was suggested by Dr. Prichard, “the greatest of English ethnologists.”

[254] Dolly Pentreath, the last person who could speak Cornish, died in 1770.

[255] Bunsen, _Outlines_, ii. 92.

[256] Ferrier’s _Institutes of Metaphysics_, p. 13.

[257] Adr. Balbi, _Atlas ethnographique_. _Disc. prélim._ lxxv-lxxix.

[258] Garnett’s _Philol. Essays_, p. 85, &c., where the supposed instances are examined. Most of them are, as might have been expected, simple onomatopœias of the most obvious kind. See Renan, _Hist. des Langues Sém._ p. 450 seqq. Nothing requires more care than an inquiry of this kind;--often two words which have identically the same letters have no connection with each other, while two others derived from a common source have not one letter in common. As an instance of the former case, take the French souris “a smile,” and souris “a mouse,” (from _subridere_ and _sorex_ respectively); as an instance of the latter, take the word cousin, derived from _soror_ through _consobrinus_.

[259] _Outlines_, i. 476.

[260] _Outlines_, i. 143, 165 seqq.

[261] A very curious instance of this is the word שווין _shoes_, found in a Syro-Chaldaic Lectionarium in the Vatican. We may here remark that Dr. Young’s celebrated calculation--that, if eight words are identical in two languages, the chances of a direct relation between the languages are 100,000 to one--is very exceptionable. See Dr. Latham, in the _Encycl. Brit._ Art. _Language_. The greatest care is necessary to distinguish between words really cognate, and accidental isolated resemblances. See Pictet, _Orig. Ind._ p. 13, 17.

[262] _Survey of Lang._ p. 11.

[263] Renan, p. 216.

[264] _Hist. des Langues Sém._ p. 84 seqq.

[265] Renan quotes Mövers, _Die Phœnizien_, i. 33.

[266] _Hist. des Langues Sém._ 490, 491. Whenever passages are in semi-inverted commas, it will be understood that they are almost directly translated from the author referred to.

[267] The accounts of various missionaries among the New Zealanders, American Indians, and aboriginal Australians, give a strange and _mournful_ confirmation of these assertions.

[268] That there is more probability in favour of English becoming prevalent throughout the globe, than in favour of any other language acquiring a future universality, is admitted by all who have studied the subject. See Benloew, _Aperçu Général_, p. 92. Grimm, _Ueber der Ursprung_, p. 50. Russian is another language which probably has a great future.

[269] Benloew, _Aperçu Général_, p. 91.

[270] _Aids to Reflection_, p. 1.

[271] Mill’s _Logic_, ii. 221.

[272] These thoughts are admirably developed in a beautiful Essay on the Abstract Idea of the New Testament, by Mr. Jowett (ii. 90). See, too, W. von Humboldt’s tract _Ueber d. Entstehen d. grammat. Formen und ihren Einfluss auf die Ideenentwickelung_, as well as the chapter _Ueber die Verschiedenheit des Menschlichen Sprachbaues_, which forms the introduction to the treatise on the Kawi language.

[273] “Q. Ennius tria corda se habere dicebat, quod loqui Græce et Latine et Osce sciret.”--A. Gell.

[274] Rückert.

[275] “Il disoit et répétoit souvent, quand il tomboit sur la beauté des langues, ... qu’autant de langues que l’homme sçait parler, autant de fois est il homme.”--Brantôme.

[276] See Destutt de Tracy, _Grammaire Or._ vi.

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE

Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within the text and consultation of external sources.

Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text, and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained: for example, humankind, human kind; Thibetian, Tibetian; incognisable; endued; analagon; cumbrous; acceptation.

Pg xiii: missing ‘--’ inserted in front of ‘The root’. Pg 7: ‘so irreconcileably’ replaced by ‘so irreconcilably’. Pg 14: ‘of Nüremburg’ replaced by ‘of Nuremberg’. Pg 44: missing anchor for Footnote [72] inserted after ‘into ideas.’. Pg 66: ‘Schephifoun (שְׁפִיפוֹךּ)’ replaced by ‘Schephifoun (שְׁפִיפוֹן)’. Pg 84: ‘Hebrew לָהֵדּ’ replaced by ‘Hebrew לָחַךְ’. Pg 93: ‘recal the manner’ replaced by ‘recall the manner’. Pg 101: ‘Π, Φ, Τ’ replaced by ‘Π, Ϙ, Τ’ (the archaic letter qoppa). Pg 105: ‘הָוַה (houa)’ replaced by ‘הָוָה (houa)’. Pg 110: missing anchor for Footnote [145] inserted after ‘to sit.’. Pg 146: ‘Skakspeare spoke’ replaced by ‘Shakespeare spake’. Pg 146: ‘That Milton held!’ replaced by ‘Which Milton held.’. Pg 147: missing anchor for Footnote [185] inserted after ‘our senses.’. Pg 159: missing anchor for Footnote [203] inserted after ‘of things.’. Pg 175: ‘the deal level’ replaced by ‘the dead level’. Pg 184: ‘rom the earliest’ replaced by ‘from the earliest’. Pg 184: ‘to h is day’ replaced by ‘to this day’. Pg 199: ‘Eugène Bornon’ replaced by ‘Eugène Burnouf’. Pg 210: ‘so irreconcileably’ replaced by ‘so irreconcilably’. Pg 212: ‘of course, develope’ replaced by ‘of course, develop’. Pg 223: ‘the most depised’ replaced by ‘the most despised’. Pg 230: ‘De signes et’ replaced by ‘Des signes et’. Pg 230: ‘de la Litérature’ replaced by ‘de la Littérature’.

Pg 5 Footnote [9]: this page has two anchors for this Footnote. Pg 11 Footnote [18]: ‘Wiem. 1830.’ replaced by ‘Wien. 1830.’. Pg 16 Footnote [27]: this page has two anchors for this Footnote. Pg 21 Footnote [37]: ‘lexicologique t fait’ replaced by ‘lexicologique tout fait’. Pg 56 Footnote [89]: ‘apt tod desert an’ replaced by ‘apt to desert and’. Pg 58 Footnote [91]: ‘cañon, stancia’ replaced by ‘cañon, estancia’. Pg 59 Footnote [92]: ‘from יְדושָּׁלַיִמ’ replaced by ‘from יְרוּשָּׁלַיִם’. Pg 72 Footnote [103]: ‘Ὄνοματοπαΐα’ replaced by ‘Ὀνοματοποιΐα’. Pg 74 Footnote [106]: this page has two anchors for this Footnote. Pg 98 Footnote [128]: ‘les fondements de’ replaced by ‘les fondements de la’. Pg 108 Footnote [143]: ‘Beuloew’ replaced by ‘Benloew’. Pg 114 Footnote [150]: ‘See Coulte’ replaced by ‘See Comte’. Pg 126 Footnote [164]: ‘se cadre contre’ replaced by ‘se cabre contre’. Pg 130 Footnote [168]: ‘Die gauze Sprache’ replaced by ‘Die ganze Sprache’. Pg 145 Footnote [183]: ‘Précieuse and Précieuses’ replaced by ‘Précieux et Précieuses’. Pg 162 Footnote [208]: ‘l’Hist. de’ replaced by ‘l’Hist. de la’. Pg 183 Footnote [234]: ‘אַמ mother’ replaced by ‘אֵם mother’. Pg 188 Footnote [239]: ‘sur le Yaçua’ replaced by ‘sur le Yaçna’.