CHAPTER IX.

ORIGINAL CREATION.

We must not suppose that the conditions under which language was originally created were different from those which we are able to trace and to watch in the process of its historical development. We must not suppose that mankind once possessed a special faculty for coining language, and that this faculty has died out. Education and experience must have developed our faculties no less for the creation of language than for other purposes; and if we have ceased to create new materials for language at the present day, the reason must be that we have no further need to do so. The mass of linguistic material which we have inherited is, in fact, so great that it is scarcely possible for us to conceive a new idea for which, in the existing language, we could not find some word or form either ready to our hand, or capable of being made more or less suitable to express it, or at least able to supply some derivative for the purpose. On the other hand, we must admit that the process of new creation has never wholly ceased in language; and even in English we find a certain quantity of words whose derivation is unknown, and which seem to be unconnected with any Indo-European language; _e.g._, dog, rabbit, ramble, etc.[81]

Again, we must not suppose that the history of language falls into two parts--a period of _roots_, and another period when language was _built up_ of roots. At first, indeed, every idea to be expressed demanded the creation of a new term; and even when the stock of existing words had already become considerable, new thoughts must constantly have arisen for which, as yet, there was no expression. Still, as the existing vocabulary grew larger, the necessity for absolutely new words, not connected with or derived from others already existing, grew less and less; and it would therefore seem as if the need for such formations would have gradually disappeared completely. But a little consideration will suffice to show that, at all stages in the history of language, there must have existed a certain necessity for new creations to express new ideas; and we have a right to assume that in later times, as civilisation grew more complex, the degree in which new creations were necessary remained a considerable one.

The essence of original creation consists in the fact that a group of sounds is connected with a group of ideas, without the intervening link of any association already existing between a similar, related sound-group, and a similar, related idea. When the Dutch chemist, Van Helmont, conceived the novel idea of a category which should embrace all such substances as _air_, _oxygen_, _hydrogen_, etc., he invented a new term, ‘gas,’ which, unless the fancied connection with the word ‘geest’ (ghost) was indeed present in his mind, was a ‘new creation.’ If, on the other hand, some one were now to invent some entirely new process of treating gases, or of treating other substances with gases, and to indicate such an operation by some such form as _gasel_, the word _gasel_ would no doubt be quite new, but we should not speak of it as an ‘original creation’ in the sense in which we use the words in this chapter. It would be a new _derivative_.

Original creation is due, in the first instance, to an impulse which may disappear and leave no permanent traces. It is necessary, in order that a real language may arise from this process, that the sounds should have operated upon the mind so that memory can reproduce them. It is further necessary that other individuals should understand the sounds which thus constitute a word, and should be able to reproduce them as well.

We find that the new is named in language after what is already known; in fact, the old and the new stand related to each other as cause and effect: in other words, the new is not produced without some kind of connection with the old. This connection generally consists of some pre-existing association between cognate words and cognate ideas. In the case, then, of original creation, the essence of which we declared to be the absence of that link, some other connection must exist; and this will generally be found in the fact that the sounds and their signification suggest each other. The sounds in that case will strike the generality of hearers as appropriate to the meaning intended to be conveyed, and the speaker will be conscious that those sounds are peculiarly fitted to express the idea which is in his mind. As an instance, we might take the barbarously constructed word ‘electrocution,’ now in use in America to denote the new method of inflicting the death penalty in that country. The word _electric_ is understood; and so is the word _execution_: the barbarous new word is the effect of our previous comprehension of these two words. Such appropriateness will secure the repetition of the new creation by the same speaker, and make probable the spontaneous creation of the same term by various speakers living in the same mental and material surroundings, both which effects are essential conditions for the common acceptance of the new expression.

The most obvious class of words to illustrate this connection between sound and meaning is what is known as ‘onomatopoietic;’ _i.e._ names which were plainly coined in order to imitate sounds. The most common of these are such as seem to be imitations of noises and movements. Such are _click_, _clack_, _clink_, _clang_, _creak_, _crack_, _ding_, _twang_, _rattle_, _rustle_, _whistle_, _jingle_, _croak_, _crash_, _gnash_, _clatter_, _chatter_, _twitter_, _fizz_, _whiz_, _whisk_, _whiff_, _puff_, _rap_, _slap_, _snap_, _clash_, _dash_, _hum_, _buzz_, _chirp_, _cheep_, _hiss_, _quack_, _hoot_, _whirr_, _snarl_, _low_, _squeak_, _roar_, _titter_, _snigger_, _giggle_, _chuckle_, _whimper_, _croon_, _babble_, _growl_.[82] Those with the suffix _le_ are used to express iteration, and so to form frequentative verbs. These suffixes are specially noticeable in words of imitative origin, such as the list given in Skeat, English Etymology, p. 278. Some verbs denote at once a noise and an explosion, like _bang_, _puff_; French, _pan_, _pouf_: others a noise and motion, as _fizz_, _whirr_. These are words which appear to date from comparatively modern English. There would be no difficulty in gathering from Greek and Latin parallel instances, namely of words imitative of sounds, which seem to be new creations and have no apparent connection with any other Indo-European language, such as _gannire_, χρεμετίζειν.

It would seem, therefore, that, as far as we can judge, the original creations of language must have consisted in words expressive of emotion on the one hand, and of sounds on the other.

Because, in such words as we have been considering, we recognise an intimate affinity between the sound and the signification, it does not however follow that all these words must necessarily have been in their origin onomatopoietic. There are some cases in which the words have been consciously modified so as to imitate the sound; as, _hurtle_, _mash_, _smash_. _Some_ may thus, perhaps, only _seem_ to be ‘new creations,’ but it is very unlikely that this is generally the case. Nay, we may say it is certain that most of such words as we have been considering are ‘new creations,’ and we are further strengthened in this conviction by the fact that we frequently find words of similar meaning, and very similar forms, which cannot, according to the laws of sound, be referred to a single original; such are, e.g., _crumple_, _rumple_, _crimp_; _slop_, _slap_, _slip_; _squash_, _gash_; _grumble_, _rumble_. These seem to support the idea that they were formed as imitative of sound.

Strictly speaking, however, the only absolutely certain original creations are interjections. True interjections, at least those usually employed, are as truly learnt by tradition as any other elements of language, and it is owing to their association that they come to express emotion. But, as reflex-utterances to sudden emotions, they essentially belong to the class of words we are now considering. Once existing, they become conventional, and hence it is that we see different sounds employed to express the same emotions in different languages. Thus we have in English to express surprise, _Dear me!_--in Greek, Παπαί--German, _Aha!_ The Englishman says _Hulló_ with rising, where the Portuguese would say _Holà_, with falling intonation. To express pain, we have _Alas! Welladay! Woe’s me!_--in German, _Ach! Weh!_ _Au!_--in French, _Oh! Hélas! Ciel!_--in Gaelic, _Och! Och mo chreach!_ To express joy, we have in English, _Hurrah_, _Good!_--in German, _Heida! Heisa! Juch! Juchheisa!_--in Greek, Εὖγε!--in Latin, _Evax!_--in French, the old expression, _Oh gay!_ (Molière, Mis., Act. I., sc. iii.). Hence it is, too, that individuals employing the same dialect employ different interjections to express the same emotion. Thus, different individuals in the same linguistic community might employ, to express disgust or disbelief, _Pshaw! Fudge! Stuff!_ _Nonsense!_ etc.

Of the interjections cited above, it may be noticed that some, like _Pshaw!_ and _Pooh!_ seem to be a primitive and simple expression of feeling. Most interjections, however, seem to be made up of existing words or groups of words; cf. _farewell_, _welcome_, _hail_, _good_, _welladay_, _bother_, _by ‘r Lady_, _bosh_: and this is the case in the most various languages. In many cases, their origin is quite concealed by sound changes; as in _hélas_, which is really derived from the natural sound _hé_, and _las_, ‘weary,’ and has come to be pronounced ‘hél_as_.’ Other instances are _Welladay! Zounds!_ (i.e. _God’s wounds_), _Jiminy_ (i.e. _Jesu Domine_). Some of these have been assimilated by popular etymology to words existing in the language; such as _Welladay!_ into which meaningless expression the old form wellaway (A.S. _wá lá wá_ = _wo! lo! wo!_) has been turned. Other instances are _harrow_, in Chaucer, from N.F. _haro_; _goodbye_, from _God be wi’ ye_; _palsangguné_ = _par le sang béni_ (Molière); _cadedis_, in Gascon, (= _cap de Dieu_ = caput Dei). Some, again, have come to be used as expressions of emotion, being in their origin foreign words whose signification is partially or wholly forgotten; such are _Hosannah!_[83] (Save, we pray), _Hallelujah!_[84] (Praise ye Jehovah).

There seems, however, to be a certain number of words which owed their origin immediately to reflex movements, and which come to be employed when we happen to again experience a similar sudden excitement. Such words as these are _bang_, _dash_, _hurrah_, _slap_, _crack_, _fizz_, _boom_. There are, probably, ‘interjections’ which, in single cases, are natural productions, and in all cases lie near the field of natural production; _e.g._, the sign of shuddering, or shivering with cold, horror, fright (often written _ugh!_). It accompanies the shiver of the body and is itself the result of an expulsion of air from the lungs through the vocal passages where all the muscles are in a state of sympathetic contraction. _Aau!_ may also be, in single cases, a natural production. _Aautch_ is a sort of diminutive of it. Again, the sound used in clearing the throat is a purely natural production. Coupled with closure of the lips, forcing an exit by the nasal passages, it assumes the form _hm!_--or _hem!_ as commonly written. As commonly appearing preparatory to speaking, it comes by association to have value in attracting attention.

Many of these words are, at the same time, substantives or verbs as well; and in this case it is often difficult to say whether the interjectional use, on the one hand, or the nominal and verbal on the other, is the original. For us, however, this is at present immaterial; as long as in the one we have a real ‘original creation,’ the other meaning may be a derived one. Duplication and triplication of sounds is often employed, and often the vowel sounds belonging to the different syllables are differentiated by _ablaut_. Thus _chit-chat_, _ding-dong_, _snip-snap_ (Shakespeare, Love’s Labour’s lost, V. i.), _tittle-tattle_, _kit-kat_ (in ‘the Kit-kat Club’), _sing-song_, _see-saw_, _gew-gaw_, _tick-tack_; French, _clic-clac_, _cric-crac_, _drelin-drelon_, _cahu-caha_ (used to express the jolting of a vehicle). Words used as substantives only, are formed in somewhat similar pairs as _hurly-burly_, _linsey-woolsey_, _hotch-potch_; and so also are adverbs such as _helter-skelter_, _higgledy-piggledy_. Old language material, too, is often employed in the formation of such words as _sing-song_, _ding-dong_, _boohoo_, _rub-a-dub_, _zig-zag_. We may compare also such formations as _ring-a-ching-a-chink-chink_. There are other words due to the same imitative impulse, which, however, are formed according to the regular laws of language. Such are combinations of several words echoing the sound, and differing only in their vowels: such as _flicker and flacker_, _crinkle-crankle_, _dinging and donging_.

_Nursery language._ Most nursery language is imitative of natural sounds, and reduplication plays an important part in the words in this; cf. _bow-wow_, _puff-puff_, _gee-gee_, etc.[85] This language is not invented by children, but is received by them like any other, and welcomed by those who have to teach infants, as facilitating the efforts of the teacher. The relation of the sound to the meaning which often still exists therein, facilitates the acceptance of the word by the child to be taught. Indeed, the words of the language of culture are sometimes actually compounded with words of nursery language, as in the case of _moo-cow_, _baa-sheep_, _coo-dove_. It must further be remarked that, when a language has developed into a state of culture and finds it necessary to create new words, these words accommodate themselves to the forms already existing in the language, and undergo processes of formation similar to those which have operated on the words already existing in the language. They appear with the derivation and flection syllables common in the language at the time when they were created. For instance, supposing _cackle_ and _chuckle_ to be words of this sort, _cack_, and _chuck_ or _chugh_ are the only parts due to original creation;--the termination _le_ seems a regular iterative form, and the words have come to be classified with others of the same formation, and treated in the same way. Similar instances are αἰάζω (αἰαί) οἰμώζω (οἰμοι), etc.

_Roots._ We are led to see, then, from such forms as _cackle_, that what we regard as a _root_ need not necessarily ever have existed as a bare root, as an independent element; but immediately upon its appearance, it is naturally provided with one or more suffixes or prefixes in accordance with the exigencies of the language. Thus, for instance, in the Middle ages a belfry was called _clangorium_. And further, the _function_ of new creations is determined by the analogy of other words existing in the language; and thus the new words, as soon as they appear in the language, conform to the laws of language, and an element appears in the words which does not depend upon original creation. So φεῦ forms a verb in Æschylus, Agamemnon: τί ταῦτ’ ἔφευξας (1194; see also line 960); cf. _ächzen_ in N.H.G., and the use of such words as _crack_, _crackle_, _crackling_.

In what has been said hitherto, we have mainly considered the form in which language appears; but neither in this nor in its syntax must we suppose that the first creations with which language began were operated upon by any such influences as analogy. We must suppose them to have been entire conceptions, condensed sentences, as when we cry out _Fire!_ _Thieves!_ They are really, it will be seen, predicates; and an impression unspoken but felt by the speaker forms their subject. The impressions made by noises and sounds would be those that would naturally strike first upon man’s consciousness; and to express these he creates the first sounds of language. The oldest words, therefore, seem to have been imperfectly expressed conceptions partaking of an interjectional character.

Again, it must be remembered that the new creations of primitive man must have been made with no thought of communication. Until language was created, those who uttered the first sounds must have been ignorant that they could thereby indicate anything to their neighbours. The sounds which they uttered were simply the reflection of their own feelings, or when they came by observation to associate with their neighbours’ feelings. But as soon as other individuals heard these reflex sounds, and at the same time had the same feelings, the sounds and feelings were in some way connected, and must have passed into the consciousness of the community as in some measure connected as cause and effect. We must also suppose that gesture language developed side by side with the language of sounds: and, indeed, it is not until language has reached a high degree of development that it can dispense with gesture language as an auxiliary. The Southern nations, which use most interjections, employ also most gesticulations. The Portuguese language, for instance, is exceedingly rich in interjections, and moreover these interjections are in common use, to an extent which at first strikes a foreigner as excessive and almost unpleasant, but which he soon learns to appreciate. Conversation in Portuguese often derives a peculiar charm and picturesqueness from the frequency with which one of the speakers expresses his meaning, quite clearly, with some interjection (e.g. _ora_) and some gesticulation.[86]

We must further remember that, as soon as a speaker has recognised the fact that he can, by the means of language, communicate his thoughts, there is nothing to prevent the sounds uttered consciously as the vehicles of communication from attaching themselves to those which are merely involuntary expressions of feelings. Whether the group of sounds so produced shall disappear or survive must depend on its suitability to fill a need, and on many chance circumstances.

It should also be noticed that we must suppose the original human being, who had never as yet spoken, to have been absolutely unable to reutter at his will any form of speech which he had chanced to produce. He would slowly and gradually, after repeatedly hearing the sound, acquire the capacity for reproducing it. The children of our own day hear a certain number of definite and limited sounds repeated by persons in whom identical motory sensations have developed.

We are driven, therefore, to assume that language must have begun with a confused utterance of the most varying and uncertain articulations, such as we never find combined in any real language. We may thus gather that the consistency in motory sensation necessary to a language must have been very slow in developing.

The result, then, at which we arrive is that no motory sensation can attain to a definite form and consistency except for such sounds as are favoured by their natural conditions. The sounds most open to be acted on by such conditions are those immediately resulting from the attempt to express natural feelings; in the endeavour to express these, nature, which prompted the feelings, must have prompted some uniformity of utterance. The traditional language must at its outset have contented itself with comparatively few sound signs, even though a large quantity of different sounds were, on different occasions, uttered by the different individuals.

The process of utterance must have been long and tedious before anything worthy to be called a language could come into existence. A language cannot be produced until individuals belonging to the same linguistic community have begun to store up in memory the product of their original creations. When they can draw upon their memory at will, and can count upon reproducing the same sound-groups to represent the same ideas, and can likewise count upon these sound-groups being understood in the same sense, then, and not till then, can we speak of language in any true sense.

If this be the true test of the existence of a language, it is no doubt true that we must admit that many beasts possess language. Their calls of warning or of enticement are clearly traditional, and are learnt from those around them. They utter the same cries to express the same emotions, and this consistently. But the language of beasts suffices only for the expression of a simple and definite feeling. The language of man consists in the grouping of several words so as to form a sentence. Man thus develops the power of advancing beyond simple intuition, and of pronouncing judgment on what is not before him.