IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 '^O 
 
 ^ji<^ 
 
 {./ 
 
 .v^ 
 
 
 
 Ms 
 
 We 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 2.8 12.5 
 
 Qv; 
 
 I: 
 I 
 
 1^ m 
 
 
 2.2 
 
 1.25 i 1.4 
 
 1.6 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ^<? 
 
 
 
 v 
 
 Photograohic 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 
 <^ 
 
 N> 
 
 4 
 
 '% 
 
 V 
 
 
 o^ 
 
 ^t^ 
 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, K.Y. 14580 
 
 (716) 877-4503 
 
CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CmM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Instttut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be bibliographically unique, 
 which may alter any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 L'Institut a microfilmd le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'ii lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image rdproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la m^thode normale de filmage 
 sont indiquds ci-dessous. 
 
 n 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 □ 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 Covers damaged/ 
 Couverture endommagee 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaurde et/ou pelliculSe 
 
 □ Cover title missing/ 
 Le titre tie couverture manque 
 
 □ Coloured maps/ 
 Cartes g^ographiques en couleur 
 
 Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 ere de couleur (i.e. autre que bteue ou noire) 
 
 I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Reli^ avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distortion le long de la marge int^rieure 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, 
 mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas 6x6 filmees. 
 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 
 ^y 
 
 n 
 
 71 
 
 n 
 
 n 
 
 Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommag6es 
 
 Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 Pages restaur^es et/ou pellicul^es 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages d6color6es, tachet^es ou piquees 
 
 Pages detached/ 
 Pages detachees 
 
 Showthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 Quality of print varies/ 
 Qualite in^gale de I'impression 
 
 Includes supplementary material/ 
 Comprand du materiel supplementaire 
 
 I I Only edition available/ 
 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refiimed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partiellement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, 
 etc., ont 6t6 filmdes d nouveau de facon it 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 D 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Com/nentaires suppl6mentaires: 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 14X 18X /ZX 
 
 26X 
 
 30X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 IM^^H 
 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
I 
 
 tails 
 I du 
 odifier 
 une 
 mage 
 
 The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 National Library of Canada 
 
 The images appearing here are the bust quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 L'exempiaire i\\m6 fut reproduit grdce d la 
 g6ndrosit6 de: 
 
 Bibliothdque nationale du Canada 
 
 Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettetd de I'exomplaire filmd, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first paga with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprimde sont film6s en commenpant 
 par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
 plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont film6s en commenpant par la 
 premiere page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la dernidre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 The las^: recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol —^^ (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED "I, or the symbol V '.meaning "END "). 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la 
 dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbole —■*- signifie "A SUIVRE", le 
 symbole V signifie "FIN". 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre 
 filmds d des taux de reduction diffdrents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre 
 reproduit en un seul clich6, il est filmd d partir 
 de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la mdthode. 
 
 rrata 
 to 
 
 pelure, 
 n it 
 
 □ 
 
 32X 
 
 1 2 3 
 
 1 2 3 
 
 4 5 6 
 
t^tmn 
 
 / 
 
 N 
 
 
 NAI KWiAL 
 
 LIBHAIIY 
 
 
 C A N A 
 
 D A 
 
 UJlil 
 
 ioiiii gi)i' 
 
 NATIONALE 
 
 ON THE 
 
 NATURE OF EOOTS AND WORDS. 
 
 BY W. H. VAN DER SMIS8EK, M.A., 
 Lecturer on German at University College, Toronto. 
 
 y. 
 
V3 
 
 -^.■I.-yi«A*'>F:-fa',rtl!V->J.-.V. 
 
 v4!„,:jfi,5iji,«ji^,pAyM*X"*i;T'i>i ■./■-.-.(; r>^. ' 
 
 /(>»& 
 
 *^ 
 
 .ctCllin'// UyiA HT^.;^)n 'In :!;i rf/.X 
 
 . ' I' •: ifK;'.'," h;vG v a ' , w. .'w '- 
 
r 
 
 [From, the "Canadian Journal," July, 1377.1 
 
 \ 
 
 i<.' *-(">|tj i,<',«il .'i')i- ..i -fiiiijrf ,Hil „il'W-«iii i^iiil-id Oil (>j •!(» ,/-l'1t.-*.7Xi'« 
 •'[tjii 
 
 ! 1. 
 
 ■f 
 
 -Mi .t, ,.,!.nni» '.^t' « BY W. H. VAN DER SMIS8FV, Vl.K., ifA.m\l siilAit ni 
 ;u:d"i!i -n '\y.tdl J^ecturer on German at Univenity College, Toronto, 1- .jij^j'ja rt^i^j 
 
 ON THE NATURE OF ROOTS AND WORDS. 
 
 The fafit that Glottology is still a young science is nowhere more 
 sfci'ikingly illustrated than in that branch of it which treats of the 
 nature of primitive language and its sources. The student, standing 
 on the threshold, and approaching this subject free from all precon- 
 ceived opinions, cannot fail to observe that in this particular at least 
 the inductive stage has not yet been reached. Hei-e facts are rarest 
 and theories most abundant ; here disputes are hottest and loudest, 
 and the angry disputants frequently forget the courtesy of scientific 
 discussion, as was the case in the late attack of Professors Steinthal 
 and Max Miiller on Professor Whitney. So unsatisfactory indeed 
 have been the results of the discussion hitherto, that many of the 
 most eminent glottologists have given up the enigma in despair, and 
 become thoroughly sce^/ ' <j1 as to the possibility of our ever arriving 
 at any definite or positivrj knowledge on the subject of the origin of 
 language. Bopp, Pott, I.'.psius, and many others consider the -> oil 
 of mystery hanging over i^ii,; q lestion as absiluteh and in3xorably 
 impenetrable. Benfey and Schleicher \/ould remove the consideration 
 of this question from the jurisdiction of linguistic science altoj-ether : 
 the former handing it over to Psychology, the latter to J\nthro- 
 pology ; * while the Soci6t(5 de Linguistique de Paris absolutely forbids 
 the admission of any communication on this subject by its statutes. 
 
 Of late, however, a more hopeful tone has prevailed, owing largely, 
 no doubt, to the increased study of the languages of savage nations, 
 and the philosophic consideration of the phenomena preseiited by 
 them. For it is here we approach most nearly to primitive man 
 in the matter of language, as in point of every department of culture, 
 and from such facts as we can here gather we must make our induc- 
 tions as to the nature of primitive language. 
 
 * Geiger, Urspning der Sprache, p. C7, tt seqq. 
 
■s-^ 
 
 VATURE OP ROOTS AND WORDS. 
 
 It is the object of this paper not to attempt to penetrate any 
 mystery, or to go behind the veil, but rather to show tliat thei-e is 
 no veil to go behind, no mystery to penetrate ; and to point out the 
 fact that in the known ])henomena of existing speecli we have ample 
 materials for deciding on the nature of primitive language ; for I 
 firmly believe that the greater part, if not the wliole, of the obscurity 
 in which this subject is shrouded, or supposed to bo shrouded, has 
 been created liy the dust raised by the disjiutants battling in behalf 
 of their respective theories, and from their failure to perceive that 
 while, on the one hand, no one theory is sufficient to account for all 
 the phenomena of speech, yet, on the other, all the theories advanced 
 contain a large amornt of truth ; and error commences in each case 
 at the point where any disputant endeavours to establish his own 
 theory as the only true rule of faith, to the exclusion of all others. 
 
 I shall also try to point nut that there is no necessity to have 
 recourse to miraculous phenomena of any sort in this inquiry. Those 
 who support the theory of the directly divine origin of language are 
 not the only ones to call the miraculous to their assistance. To my 
 thinking, at least, Bleek's theory of the evolution of language is the 
 most miraculous of all ; and not far behind it in this respect is Pro- 
 fessor Max Miiller's attribution of the power of abstraction to man 
 in his ])rimitive state : of both of which theories, more hereafter. 
 
 Before inquiring, however, into the nature of primitive language, 
 it will bo necessary to define language itself, more especially in its 
 relation to the first language makers. Language and its object may 
 be defined as "the intelligible expression of thought in articulate sound 
 as a means of communication between man and man." 
 
 Some writei*s define language as being the expression of thought 
 and feeling, but I would I'eply with Schleicher,* that the immediate 
 expression of feeling is not one of the i)rimary objects of language, 
 and that language expresses feeling only in the form of an idea or a 
 thought.! 
 
 Having now defined what language is, let us next determine where 
 our inquiries are to commence — at what stage of human progress. 
 There are extreme evolutionists, in linguistic as in biological science, 
 
 • Die deutache Sprache, p. 4. 
 
 t The interjections, of course, are the direct expression of feeling, and as such must be 
 excepted from this statement in so far us tUey are to be considered as a constituent element of 
 language ; a point which will be subsequently discussed. 
 
 I " 
 
NATUIIE OF ROOTS AND WOKDS. 
 
 who would traco the origin of speocli to the inarticulate cries of 
 the authro]K)i(l ape or pithecoid man, I do not know which. Let 
 Wilhehn Bleek, cousin of the archievolutiouist Haeckel, state his 
 own case. 
 
 " The fact," he says,* " that conditions similar to those of humanity 
 can no longer develof) tliemselves from animal speechlessness, proves 
 nothing ; just as the fact that the progress of a language like that 
 of the Hottenttits to the stage of development reached by its no very 
 distant ludogermanic relatives is now impossible, proves nothing." 
 
 But if this fact proves nothing, we may at least recpiire that tlu^ 
 evolutionist should prove something. I do not, of course, deman<l 
 that he should devolo}) language from animal cries by actual experi 
 mont ; but I do most emj)hatically demand that he should prove tlu? 
 po.ssibility of such development, or of the capacity for such develo])- 
 ment in the lower orders. 
 
 The substance of his argument on this point is contained in a note 
 to the passage above quoted, which reads as follows : "Those classes 
 of animals that stand next to man are, if not externally at least 
 internally, in a different condition from that in which they were at 
 the period when hunianity arose. Being as yet hardly formed, they 
 were then not only more susceptible of change, but thei'e also lay in 
 them a stronger impulse toward further progress, and the attainnu^nt 
 of a higher stage. This impulse had to be satisfied, as was done in 
 the case of human beings ; or, if it remained long without satisfac- 
 tion, it would necessarily be extinguished, and therewith ceased the 
 {)Ossibility of their freeing themselves from the condition in which 
 they were. This condition became all the while more and more 
 confirmed; and what at first was the uncertain advance of a fovwartl 
 impulse toward formation, and, at the same time, the first stej)s 
 towards a further development of this power, forms now the petrifieil, 
 stereoty[)ed forms of a species of animals which seems to have long 
 ago been deprived of the possibility of internal change."! 
 
 Here, in order to prove something, two groundless assumptions 
 are made to fill the gaps in the logic of facts, to supply the " missing 
 link" in the evolutionary chain, viz. : first, a miraculous impulse of 
 which no proof is given ; and, secondly, an equally miraculous capa- 
 
 * Origiii uf Liinguage : Ainoiican translation, p. 46. 
 
 t I ivgivt ex.'etMlinyly tliut the original was not accessible, as the earulessuess ot the.AraeiJcau 
 translator has made the translation barely intelligible. 
 
 2 ill 
 
"^ 
 
 NATUIIE OF ROOTS AND WORDS. 
 
 oity for dovoloplii;^ tliat impiilso wliich rents on a similar foundation. 
 In other words, the capacity for dovelopuieut, the mius prohandyoi 
 which lies with the advocate of this view, is taken for granted. 
 
 Let US atten)pt to foUow Bhx'k, however, in tlje further develop- 
 Tnenfc of his tlusory. "Hound," he says,* "is a mere accessory to 
 feeling. Not only ia there feeling without it, hut it is comparatively 
 seldom that feeling is made perceptible to- the ear." Precisely so ; 
 and yet from this comparatively rare manifestation of feeling he 
 would derive all language. But the converse of this is also true, 
 viz., that " it is comj)aratively seldom" that speech is the manifesta- 
 tion of feeling, though ])erhaps somewhat less seldom with primitive 
 than with civilized man. The ohject of the first communication 
 between man and man was not to convey feeling, but to satisfy 
 inunediate and pressing wants, as we shall see again further on ; and 
 to indicate these wants, it was necessary to give names to the things 
 that would satisfy them. If I should have an opportunity at sonm 
 future time of treating, sis I propose to do, of the sources of lan- 
 guage, I shall give Bleek's synopsis of liis own theoiy in full, tJiat 
 my readers may judge of it for themselves. For the present, however, 
 I sliall content myself with stating that he jaoceeds to develop 
 interjections from animal cries by the awakening of consciousness, anil 
 then to develop all articulate speech from the.se latter, by a jjrocess 
 which I frankly confess my inability to understand. 
 
 If this evolutionary theory be the true one, Schleicher is no doubt 
 perfectly justified in relegating the consideration of this question to 
 the domain of other sciences. But comparative lexicograjihy lias 
 given the death-blow to the theory that interjections arc the onlv 
 source of language, and has demonstrated the impossibility of such 
 origin for the great majority of Aryan roots at least. 
 
 As long, however, as no more positive evidence than tliis can be 
 adduced in support of the development of speech from the inarticulate 
 cries of animals, the glottologist who desires to avoid the imputation 
 of mere theorizing, and to rely on facts alone, must look elsewhere 
 for the sources of language, and may reasonably i-efuse to carry back 
 his researches further than to the earliest period at which we have 
 positive evidence of the existence of man as man ; that is, as a creature 
 enilowed with higher attributes than the apes. The startling discovei-ies 
 made within the last forty years, by the explorations of geologists 
 
 \ 
 
 - 
 
 * Origin of Liinguiige : Aviicrii'ati Transliition, p. 5(i. 
 
NATURE OP ROOTS AND W0UD9. 7 
 
 jind arclm'ologists, have lu;en assiimod to rolegato the Pjirliest traces 
 of the oxistenco of our nice to a jMJiiod ho immensely remote, as to 
 «tartle and confound the bohlest imagination ; an antiquity of hun- 
 dredn, nay, thousands of centuries being demanded for man. These 
 discovei'ies have at hnist proved beyond a doubt that man was an 
 inliabitant of Europe, not only when the mammoth, the woolly 
 rhinoceros, the reindeer and other arctic fauna inhabited the south 
 of France, but also when the lion, the hysena, the hippo[)ot{inuis and 
 other animals now [)eculiar to ti'opical countries, ranged as far north 
 as Great Britain. 
 
 This question of the antiquity of man is, however, of no direct 
 interest to the glottologist, except in so far as it gives a greater lapse 
 of time for the great changes which language must have undergone^ 
 since its birth. He is more concerned in inquiring whether there be 
 any evidence as to the intellectual capacity of the fii'st of our race, to 
 whose existence these records bear witness. 
 
 What manner of men were they, then, of whom we have the earliest 
 traces ; the contemporaries of the mammoth and other extinct animals ? 
 The river-drift gravel-beds of the Somme, the subterranean cave 
 dwellings of Germany, France and Great Britain, the older among 
 the lake-dwellings of Switzerland, the shell-mounds of Denmark, iill 
 give the same answer : the first men were tool-makers and tool-users. 
 Their tools were, to be sure, of the rudest description ; but they have 
 outlasted the remains of the men themselves. The direct evidence 
 as to the personal structure of primeval man is confined to a few 
 remains of bones, more }>articularly to two portions of skulls. Of 
 the more ancient of the two, the Engis skull, considered by Sir 
 Charles Lyell to be undoubtedly coeval with the mammoth and other 
 pleistocene mammalia. Prof. Huxley* says : ** It is, in fact, a fair 
 average human skull, which might have belonged to a phUosopher, 
 or might have contained the thoughtless brain of a savage. "t 
 
 The nature of the stone axes and arrow-heads, the fliut-flakes, the 
 bone awls, &c., unearthed by these discoveaies, is sufficiently familiar 
 to the genei'al i-eader, and it is only necessary to state that the earliest 
 specimens consist of unpolished stones, rudely chipped to the required 
 
 * Man's Place in Nature, p. 156. 
 
 f The antiiiuity of the other relic, the Neanderthal skull, which is "the most pithecoid " nt 
 known human crania, is not so well established ; and Prof. Iluxley himself says (Man's Place 
 in Nature, p. 159), that "the fossil rymaUis of man hitherto discovered do not seem to t.ike us 
 apiireciably nearer to the loA^er pithecoid form." 
 
8 
 
 NATUHK OF ROOTS AND WORDS. 
 
 hIiiijk', an<l licariini; what me known as [)aIa'olitliic charactonst'cs, 
 and that they greatly oxco(ul, in nunilxT at loiust, untl probably also 
 in anti(iuity, any remainH of Inunan bonos yet (Hacov(>ro(l. Those 
 datii may Hcom very meagre ones from which to draw any valid con- 
 clusion as to the intcsllectual, moiiil and social condition of these first 
 tool-niakciH. liut it is in the solution of this pi-oblom that the science 
 of primitive culture, in tlio h.mds of such nu>n as Sir John Lubbock 
 and Professor Wilson, has achieved its greatest triiunphs, and Ix-en 
 raised to tlu! rank of an in<luctive science. The archa-ologists ha\e 
 pointed out that [)rimitive man, so far f»'om being extinct, and known 
 only by his remains, still occupies a cotisideralde portion of the 
 liid»itable globe, and that " primitive " is synonymous witli " savage." 
 They have applied the comparative method, wliich has produced such 
 wonderful results in the study of language, to their own science, and 
 have inferred the condition of the first men from the j)henomena 
 actually observable among existing savage races, many of them still 
 in the {)aheolithic stage, manufacturing and using tools wliicli are 
 exact reproductions for the most ])art of those found with the remains 
 of extinct mammalia. Sir John Lubbock* pictures primeval man as 
 ignorant of pottery, spinning and agriculture, having no domestic 
 unimals, 2)erhaps not even the dog, unable to count to ten, " his 
 weapons of the rudest chamcter, and his houses scarcely worthy of 
 tlu^ nilMu^" As to his moral condition, we may add that he was 
 probably destitute of all religious ideas, or of any conception of a 
 futui'e state, and that he was in some cases, though exceptionally, a 
 cannibal. As to his social state, he was ceitainly gregarious, living 
 in commimities of greater or less extent. In fact, he was a savage, 
 wretched indeed, clad in skins and living by the uncultivated products 
 of the earth and the spoils of the chase, luinting the lower animals 
 wifh most rudimentary weapons of stone, bone, flint, itc. ; his wants 
 few, but i)ressing, and dictated by hunger, thirst and cold. 
 
 The picture is dark enough, yet not too dark to be a faithful 
 representatioii of many savage races at the present day : The Hotten- 
 tots and Bushmen of Africa, the Veddahs and Andaman Islanders of 
 Asia, the Australians and Feejeeans ef Australasia, the Esquimaux 
 and Nootka-Columbians of our own noi-thern half-continent, the 
 Brazilians, Patagonians and Fuegians of South Americji. Of this 
 any one may satisfy himself by a glance at Sir John Lubbock's most 
 
 
 * Prehistoric Times, 2nd ed., cli. xvi. 
 
NATURE OF R0OT8 AND WORDS. 
 
 «) 
 
 
 inteWNitin^ skotcli of the manneift and custoinH of niodorr" 8aviig«;8, 
 contaiuod in oliaptorH xiv.-xvi. of iiis " PreluHtoiic TiriicH." 
 
 What Ihon aro th(( cliarnctoriHtifH wiiich He|)iini^(.' niodoni savages 
 from tho lower animals? Thoy arc thr«e in number, viz.: tho faculty 
 of making ami using tools, tho use of firo,''^ and last, but not least, 
 articulate speech. We have already aeeu that the earliest human 
 beings of whose existence we have positive evidence, the contem- 
 poraries of the mammoth, were, like the lo'./^est of modern savages, 
 tool makers and to(»l-usei'S. Traces of their use of lire have been 
 discovered at the lowest depths and in conjiMiction with sonui of the 
 most ancient remains in many cavcjs of Great Britain, according to 
 Mr. W. Boyd Dawkins.f How stands the case then with regard to 
 the third point, the caj)acity for articulate speech I Leaving the tise 
 of fire out of the question, and confining ourselves to the first and 
 third points, the ai-gument may be stated in syllogistic form as 
 follows . — 
 
 ( i ) All tool-makers and tool-users are capable of articulate H[)eecli ; 
 ( ii ) The fii-st men of whom we have remains were tool-makers and 
 
 tool-u.sers ; therefore 
 ( iii ) The first men were capable of articulate speech. 
 
 As, however, we know of no casi of the direct invention of language, 
 it remains to be seen whethi . there is anything in the nature of 
 language to make its dii-ect invention by creatures of such limited 
 mental cai)acity, as the first men may be assunied to have been, an 
 impossibility or even improbability. 
 
 Before, however, we enter upon the discussion of this question, 
 there is another to be answered. We have already seen what manner 
 of men the primitive language-makers, in all probability, were. Let 
 us next Inquire whi/ they spoke at all — .vhat interests gave them the 
 first impulse to the invention of speech. 
 
 This motive is contained in the definition of language given above, 
 as " the intelligible expression of thought in articulate sound as a 
 
 * Alvuro lie Saavedra, as (luoted by Liil)'.)oek, op. cit., p. 647, mentions a race of savagus who 
 were ignorant of fire ; and Cajitain Will<?s, U. 8. N., made the same statement of ilie inliabit- 
 ants of tlie island of Falcaafo. Tlie latter statement, however, is questioned by Mr. Taylor 
 (Early History of Manliind, p. 230), on the ground that their language contains a wonl for 
 " fire." It should be added that some Australian tribes are unable to produce lire, ttioiigh not 
 ignorant of its use. 
 
 t Cave-Huntiui,', chap, viii. 
 
10 
 
 NATURE OF HOCTS AND WORDS. 
 
 means of communication between man and man." In othei' woids, 
 th? primary ])urpose of language, or the reason that man talked at 
 all, was that he wanted something, and wanted some one else to know 
 it and to help him in supplying his wants. His motive in using 
 articulate sounds was not the communication of his feelings ; his 
 emotions of pain, anger, A-c, could have been made known readily 
 and completely enough by inarticulate cries, groans, howls and grov/ls. 
 The motive was the pressing want of the moment. His wants may 
 be summed up in two words : nourishment and warmth. The natural 
 objects wiiich supplied the means of satisfying these were at once the 
 l)rimary caiise and object of l.'is first woi'ds. These would be edible 
 roots, the fruits of the earth, the earth in which they grew, the plants 
 wiiich bore them ; further, the animahj he hunted, tlieir skins, bones, 
 (fee, and the implements with which he hunted and worked — natural 
 and artificial — sticks and stones, bows and arrows, axes, awls, &c. 
 As man is a social animal, and the unit of society is, as Sir Henry 
 INIaine* has pointed out, not the individual but the family, we must 
 add himself, his relations and friends. The sun, moon and stars, the 
 sea and the sky, were all objects ot less primary iniportivnce to him. 
 From the nature, then, of the names given to himself, his relations 
 and allies, to the edible products of the earth and the plants producing 
 them, to the beasts and implemints of the chase, we should be able to 
 infer the principles on which primitive language was formed; and, as 
 we have disposed of the why, we now come to the consideration of 
 the question : What manner of language was it that primitive man 
 made use of] 
 
 The answer to this question must be obtained in the same way as 
 we nrri 'e at the determination of primitive man's intellectual, moi*al 
 and social condition, viz., by the compara.tive method, by pn inquiry 
 into the nature of language as we find it spoken at the present day. 
 Nor will it be necessary to have recourse for this purpcs^je to the lan- 
 guages of savage nations, since the qualities most essential towards the 
 determination of the present problem are, as we shall see, inherent 
 in all language by its very nature, and are intensified in proportion 
 to the degradation of the users of language in the scale of culture. 
 In illustrating the following argument, I s?iall confine myself almost 
 entirely to ground fau.iliar, more than any other, to the general 
 student of language, viz., the Aryan roots. 
 
 ♦ Early Village Communities, Leciure iii. 
 
 
NATURE OF ROOTS AXD WORDS, 
 
 11 
 
 L. Geiger, in his " Ursprun^r der Spraohe," has shown, with equul 
 force and clearness, that tlie great distinguishing chanicteristic of 
 these roots is infinite variability. I shall endeavour to illustrate this 
 fact by examples, drawn partly from his work, and partly from other 
 sources. 
 
 If any one will glance at a dictionary of Aryan roots, and the 
 meanings attributed to tJiem, he can scarcely fail to be struck by the 
 fact that here confusion seems to be the order of the day ; that, in 
 tact, the state of primitive language answers, to speak with Geiger,* 
 to Ovid's description of Chaos : 
 
 " Primfi fuit rerum confusa sine ordine moles 
 Unaqiie ernnt facies, sidera, terra, fretnm." 
 
 This confusion aro.se from two causes : 1st, that one and the same 
 root was used to name totally different actions or objects, sometimes 
 entirely unconnected with, sometimes remotely akin to each other ; 
 and 2nd, that the same action or object was indicated by a number 
 of different roots ; so that, in reality, any combination of sounds 
 might be used to indicate any action or object, and conversely the 
 same object or action might be indicated by any number of different 
 combinations of sounds.t 
 
 Tho examples illustrative of these vai'Iations may be arranged iMider 
 the following four categories : 
 
 I, Variations of meaning in roots identical in sound. 
 
 II. Variations of fneaning in different words derived from tho 
 
 same root, or from different roots identical in meaning. 
 
 III. Variations of meaning in the same word (as distinguished 
 
 from a root). 
 
 IV. Various roots or words expressing the same idea. 
 
 I-— Variatioxs of Mbaning in Roots Iden-^tcal in Sounu. 
 On reftirring to Leo Meyer's Lexicon of Indogermanic Roots (the 
 l).artial Italian ti-anslation is the only shape in which the work is 
 accessible to me+), I find that of the first fifty-four roots (beginning 
 with the simplest in form) exactly one-half have two or more meanings 
 assigned to them. Of these twenty-seven, fifteen have double moan- 
 
 • Op. cit., p. 153. 
 
 t Ibid., p. 89, etsaiq. ' 
 
 t Conipendio di Gram. C..„i,,. ,1. antit'o, rii.liino, Qn-od ed Italico .li A. Sclileicher, e ^o-8i<-(. 
 '1. radifi Iiido-Italo-Qrecho di L. Mejer, recati in Italiano da D. Pezzi. Torino e Ihemv, ISOP. 
 
:A^.. 
 
 12 
 
 NATURE OF ROOTS AND WORDS. 
 
 ings, and five treble ; single instances occurring of four, five, seven, 
 eight, 1111(1 even nine meanings attachei' to i-oots identical in sound. 
 It will only be necessary to give the few following examples : — 
 
 PA=" drink;" whence 8kr. ^K'-^(t-?Hi=" I drink;" Gv. pe-p6-ka, po-ais 
 (rr=" drink "), &c. ; Lat. po-tus, po-to, po-culum, &c. 
 
 PA=:" pi'otect," "maintain," "rule;" whence Skr. pd-mi="I pro- 
 tect;" Gr. po-sis (="husband"), des-poi-na, des-po-ten, po-tnia, 
 pa-ter; Lat. pa-te,r, po-tis, pu-tens, po-tiri, pa-sco, pu-hulam, kc* 
 
 DA="give," "divide," "bind." 
 
 AD (a variety of da ?)=" eat," "smell," "hate." 
 
 KAR, or kal (r and / being interchangeable) = " call," "do," "move," 
 "curl," "divide," "conceal," "cook," "gladden." 
 
 II. — Variations of Meaning in Different Words Derived from the 
 Same Root, or from Different Roots Identical in Meaning. 
 
 My illustrations under this head will be taken from Geiger's work,t 
 already so frequently referred to, and will be confined to derivatives 
 traceable to the single idea of " binding," as represented by different 
 roots, all containing that meaning. The root da=" bind," mentioned 
 above, which occurs in the Gr. deo (whence diadem, and perhaps dei, 
 implying necessity), is referred by Geiger to an older form, dja. 
 With this is closely connected the root c^a»i=" tame," whence, in 
 this signification, Lat. domare, dominus, &c. The primary significa- 
 tion was doubtless "bind," "join," &c., whence Gr. demas, "body," 
 " frame ;" demos, " community," " people ;" damar, "wife" (t-o/z-JUX) ; 
 demo, " build," and donios, "house;" Lat. domus. Corresponding to 
 this root (;/«»i=" tame," we have the Skr. javi, with the same 
 signiHcation. Then we have the root jm=" unite," "bind," to which 
 the same authority refers zonyiumi, and to which miiy also be referred 
 the Lat. jus, and Engl, justice, jury, &c. Clo.jely akin to this in 
 Kound and meaning is the root juff, ov jung, Lat jungo, Gr. zeucjnumi, 
 to yoke or harness, Lat. jugum (and con-jux). Germ, joch, Eng. yoke. 
 To dam and jam Geiger adds another root, gam. Skr. dampati and 
 (/ampatl=^'' husband and wife ;" ja)na='^twin" and gami=^" brothers 
 and si.sters" (Geschwister), Lat. gemini. Skr. J<i»u=" sister " and 
 "daughter-in-law;" for the latter we have also gdmd; gdmdtri and 
 ;a/?ia<ri=" son-in-law." With this ai'e connected Gr. gamhros, Lat. 
 
 !■ 
 
 t- 
 
 * I unly give di-rivntivcs with the first examples, as tliey are suliluieutly well l(uuwn ti> tin- 
 general student. ' 
 
 t Oj>. ci(., i>. SO, et neij'i. 
 
NATURE OF ROOTS AND WORDS. 
 
 1^ 
 
 I 
 
 *" 
 
 \ 
 
 V 
 
 gener, "son-in-law, and Gr. gamos, wedlock." By the side of this 
 word gamhros we may place pentheros, the Greek word for a father- 
 in-law (from the root bandh, whence also Eng. biml, and Gr. penthos 
 ="giief "), with the passing remark that Euripides and Sophocles 
 invert thtse significations, the former using gambros for "father-in- 
 law," the latter pentheros for " son-in-law. From other various roots 
 of similar signification are derivable the Germ, b'chwager, Schwiiher, 
 Schwieger, all indicating lelations by marriage ; the Lat. socius ; 
 the various Indogerm. names for sister; the Lat. nepos, Gr. anepsios, 
 our nephew, niece, Germ. Neffe, Nichte, Old Norse ni/i!=" sister" or 
 "bride," Old High-Germ. ra//!=" granddaughter," "niece," "step- 
 daughter." Beside the Lat. jus from ju, as given above, we may 
 place lex, from lig (whence lig-are), with the same meaning of binding. 
 This by no means exhausts the illustrations that might be drawn 
 from the same source ; but quite suflicient lias been said to show over 
 what an immense field this one idea ranges, and I must refer my 
 readers for further illustration to Professor Max Miiller's interesting 
 treatment of several Aryan I'oots in his " Lectures on the Science of 
 Language."* The four words house, wife, justice and yoke are far 
 enough apart, in fact, to show this, almost without further amplifica- 
 tion. Nor do I hold myself responsible for the cori-ectness of all 
 Geiger's derivations : a sufficient number ai'e beyond doubt to fully 
 illustrate the point under consideration. 
 
 III. — Variations of Meaning in the Samf Word. 
 These variations must of course be distinguished, on the one hand, 
 from those which are the result of metaphor, or of application extended 
 from one object to others on account of a real or fancied resemblance 
 {e.g. the use of the word beam for the rays of light, k,c.) ; and on the 
 ot'ier, from words of different derivation, that have accidentally 
 assumed the same form (e.g. cleave^^" to adhere;" Germ. Meben ; and 
 c^eave=" to split;" Gevm. Ha ff en). The variations here meant are 
 such as arise from mere indefiniteness of application, from failui'e 
 or disinclination to invent a new word for the varying conception. 
 As examples of the occurrence of this variation of the same word in 
 different languages, I may mention the English bell=tiniinnabulum, 
 and the German 6e/^e7i=" to bark;" Engl. (/MHt6="mute;" Germ. 
 (/«mw=" stupid" (the word "dumb" being commonly used in the 
 
 * First Series, lectures vi., vii. ; Second Series, Lecture vii. 
 
u 
 
 NATURE OF ROOTS AND WORDS. 
 
 United States in the latter signification, a use not unknown even in 
 this country) ; Engl. mist=nebula ; Germ. Mist=" dnng,^' &c. But 
 we need not go beyond the limits of one and the same language for 
 onr illustrations. I have already referred to the change of meaning 
 in the Greek qamhros and pentheros, and the Skr. garni. In the 
 common usage of Southern Germany, Vetter means, indifferently, 
 'uncle," "cousin" and" nephew;" and the fem. Base, similarly, 
 means " aunt," " cousin " and " niece." So the Skr. 'i;arca»=" bright- 
 ness" and "dirt,"* and the German Zo/te=" flame " and " tan-bark j"t 
 the Lat. we/?os=" grandchild" and "nephew;" the Greek kuanos 
 indicates shades as varying as blue and black. So the Engl, black and 
 bleach are the same word originally ; fond means " affectionate" and 
 "foolish." To these might be added words the signification of which 
 has gradually changed in course of time, such as silly, slight (German 
 <*e%=:" hajipy ;" J sc/i?ec/i<="bad," formerly " straight" or "level,") 
 ifec. ; but I have preferred to confine myself to varying meanings in 
 use at the same time, and in the mouths of the same people. This 
 variation of meaning is sometimes indicated by a slight change of 
 sound, as Engl, hand, bond, bound. 
 
 IV. — Various Roots or Words Expressing the Same Idea. 
 
 Turning again to the Lexicon of Roots, we find the conception of 
 " binding " indicated by the five roots da, sar, bandh, ju, dja, if not 
 l)y more ; that of " rubbing," or " crushing," by tar (whence tero, ifec), 
 and kar ; that of "going," by ga, ki (Gr. kinein ; Lat. ci-ere), ar 
 (Lat. oriri), par (Gr. poreuein), sar (Gr. hormdn), and others. Of 
 various words in the same language expressing the same idea, we may 
 instance the Engl, sea and ocean, with the corresponding Germ. See 
 (fem.) and Meer ; the Germ, dunkel and Jinster ; the Engl, room, 
 chamber, ajxirtment ; the German Zimmer and Stuhe. These examples 
 might also be multiplied to a much greater extent ; but those given 
 are sufficient for our pi-esent pui'pose. 
 
 So much as to variability in the content, or meaning, of words and 
 roots. If we consider next their phonetic form, we shall find the 
 same characteristic of infinite variability equally developed. 
 
 Roots have been treated by gi-amraai'ians as things fixed and 
 invariable by their veiy essence ; but many of them are admitted to 
 
 * Geiger. Urspr. d. Spr., p. 150. 
 
 t Geij^er considers tlimu to be tlie saiiie wcinX.—flnd. 
 
 X Tli'i Germau selig, like tlie Engl. h,ipi)y, is u.sed in slang as eiiuivalent to " intoxicated." 
 
 ( 
 
 [ 
 
 ^ 1 
 
 I 
 
NATURE OF HOOTS AND WORDS. 
 
 15 
 
 J 
 
 I 
 
 have phonetic forms primarily different. Thus ga="go" is referred 
 to a primitive form gva, whence are derived Skr. jlgdmi " I go • " 
 a-gdt, "he went;" as wel! as Gr. eM, bai-nS, bUas, &c., and Lat 
 ve-mre ; da, dja, ju=" bind," are mere variations of the same fom • 
 ka7- and kal have ah-eady been referred to as admittedly identical,' 
 and the same is the ca^e witli tar and tal ; va and m;;=«« w'^ave •" 
 avi and chi=" fear;" ksi, ski, ska=- dentvoy ;" km and klu=<' hear •" 
 gal and .y/a="shine" (as also ghar, which is surely only a variety of 
 lorm). The roots might be greatly reduced in number by considering 
 the variations of form and meaning, and classifying them accordingly'! 
 Thus kar and kal=- curl," also " rub," " crush," may be reasonabl v 
 regarded as mere arbitrary variations of tor and ta/.=" rub," "crush," 
 &c., if we take into account the inability of primitive man to dis- 
 tinguish different sounds.* So with ar, par, sar=''go;" also tor=:= 
 "tremble," "move rapidly." 
 
 We must of course allow to primitive language an infinitely greater 
 latitude in its phonetic changes than takes place in a speech more or 
 less fixed by the introduction of writing, and we do, as a matter of 
 fact, find that phonetic changes, as well as changes of signification, 
 are much more rapid with savage than with civilized nations. 
 
 " The dialects of barbarian tribes," says Professoi Sayce,t " are 
 perpetually altering. There is nothing to preserve them— neither 
 traditions, nor ritual, nor literature. The savage has the delight of 
 a child in uttering new sounds, and exhibiting his power and invent- 
 iveness in this manner, with none of the restraints by which civiliza- 
 tion confines the invention of slang to the schoolboy and the mob. 
 ... The barbarian is especially open to all the influences of 
 external nature, climate, food, and so forth, with nothing to check 
 the disintegrating effect these may have upon the combination of 
 sounds." Further on + the same authority says : " Nothing is really 
 harder than to keep a language from changing where it is not 
 protected by the habits of settled life." So Max Miiller tells us that 
 among the wild tribes of Siberia, Africa and Siam, " two or three 
 generations are sufficient to change the whole aspect of their dialects."§ 
 Nay, more than this, he quotes the statement of Moffat, the African 
 
 p.*24t" "'"'^ ^''''*' "' """*''' ""^ ^"'""' " ^''"''^''' "' Comparative Philology." 2nd edition, 
 
 t Op. cit., p. 83. 
 ; . t Ibid., p. 85. 
 
 § Lectures, First Series, p. 35. 
 
16 
 
 NATURE OF ROOTS AND WORDS. 
 
 missionary, that in that country " in the course of one generation the 
 entire character of the language is changed ;" * and also tells us of 
 " missionai'ies in Central America who attempted to write down the 
 language of savage tribes, and who compiled with great care a 
 dictionary of all the words they could lay hold of. Returning to the 
 same tribe after the lapse of only ten years, they found that this 
 dictionary had become antiquated cand useless. Old words had sunk 
 to the ground, and new ones had risen to the surface ; and to all 
 outward ajipearance the language was completely changed."! 
 
 The multiplicity of barbarian dialects is another proof of this 
 rapidity of change. Gabriel Sagard, missionary to the Hurons in 
 1G2G, as quoted by the same author, J" states that among these North 
 American tribes hardly one village S[)eaVs the same language as 
 another ; nay, that two families of the same village do not speak 
 the same language." Again : § " In the neighbourhood of Manipura 
 [near the Irawaddy] alone, Captain Gordon collected no less than 
 twelve dJalects. ' Some of them,' he says, ' are spoken by no more 
 than thirty or forty families, yet so different from the rest as to be 
 unintelligible to the nearest neighbourhood.' " 
 
 After this digi'ession, let us i'eturn again to the changes of outward 
 form. If we begin comparing the varying forms which the same 
 roots have assumed in difi'erent derivatives, the examples ci'owd upon 
 us to such an extent that it is hard to say which we should take 
 first. What can be more unlike in form than Lat. semetipsissimus 
 and Fi\ raeme ; Lat. canis and Germ. Hand', Germ. Zahn, Lat. dens, 
 Eng. tooth (the last of which lias not a single letter in common with 
 either of its foreign relatives) 1 But fev."- words in an extract from 
 Chaucer would remain unchanged in a modernized version, after the 
 lapse of only a few centuries, which we are now taught to regard as 
 a very trifling portion of the history of the human race. Nor should 
 it be forgotten that phonetic laws originated and came into force, in 
 the Aryan languages for instance, at a period much later iihan the 
 existence of the language which consisted chiefly of the Aryan roots 
 in the form which is assigned to them by comparative lexicography, 
 when what afterwards developed into a phonetic law was merely a 
 l)honetic halit or usage, but still variable, and not prevalent to such 
 
 ♦ Lectures, First Series, p. 56. 
 
 t Ibid., p. 53. The italics are my own. 
 
 X Ibid., p. 53. 
 
 § Ibid., p. 54. 
 
NATURE OF ROOTS AND WORDS. 
 
 17 
 
 an oxtent as to constitute any dopavture from it an anomaly, or even 
 iri'egularity.* 
 
 Variations of form in the same word, within the limits of one and 
 the same language, have of course been greatly reduced in number by 
 the stereotyped charact/cr of written speech, and its diffusion in this 
 form by the ju'inting press. Still such duplicate forms are by no 
 means rare. We write inquiry or enquiry ; a few years ago we called 
 a telegraphic message a telegrajwA or telegram ; and English lexico- 
 grapbers differ widely as to the spelling of a large number of words. 
 Vulgar spelling is, of coui'se, infinitely more fluctuating. If we turn 
 to an older language, such as Latin, for examples, we have scores of 
 such duplicate forms as adfero and affero, adlatum and allatiim, «fec., 
 &c. Nicknames constitute another variation of form of the same 
 word. The English language is particularly rich in nicknames that 
 differ widely from the original, e.g., Dick or Dickon for Richard ; 
 Harry, Hal, Hank, for Henry ; Robin and Bob for Robert ; Jennie, 
 Jeannie, Jane, for Johanna, ikc, &c. The German furnishes Hinz 
 for HeinHch and Kunz for Conrad, and in the southern dialects Seppi 
 for Joseph, Nazerl for Ljnatius, and a host of others. To these may 
 be added varieties of surnames, e.g., Rohirnon, Robertson, Rohison, 
 Robeson and Robson ; Boyce and Boys, kc. In point of pronunciation 
 and accentuation, usage is equally fluctuating. So we still hesitate 
 between either and either, and within a short time gi'eat variations 
 occur. Similarly accent varies in a short time, and in individual 
 usage. Bdlconyf seemed barbarous a few decades ago ; and with 
 regard to another word, I may say (almost) with Ingoldsby : 
 
 " Re-maj/i-der some atj-le it ; while others revile it • 
 
 As bad, and say re-mainder — 'tisii't worth while, it ■ , 
 
 Would seem, to dispute, when we know the result immat- ' ' 
 erial — I accent, myself, the penultimate." 
 
 The variations of pronunciation, both of vowels and consonants, in 
 different dialects of the same language, are too familiar to require 
 illustration. The South German and the Saxon are notoriously 
 incapable of distinguishing p from b, or t from d ; the Alsatian makes 
 his b, when between two vowels, into a v, and says aver for aber ; as 
 the Spaniard makes his d into dh, or even I {Madrid pronounced 
 Madridh, or Madril, whence Madrileno, " a citizen of Madrid") ; and 
 the Cockney scatters his h's about most recklessly. 
 
 ♦ Cf. Geiger, Urspr. d. Spr. p. 78 et seqq. 
 
 t Max MUUer, Lectures, &c., First Series, p. 36. 
 
18 
 
 NATURE OF BOOTS AND WORDS. 
 
 Precisely similar results may bo obtained from an examination of 
 the component i)artH of words, the formative atHxes ; I'csnlts which 
 may be arranged under similar categories, viz. : various aftixes with 
 the same meaning, various meanings of the same affix, and vaiious 
 forms of the same affix. Under the first head, we have the attixes -dom, 
 -hood or -head, -ric, Germ, -thum (Noi-se -domr), -heit, or -keit, -reich, 
 all identical, or nearly so, in meaning, when considered as affixes 
 merely, and without reference to their derivation ; as to the second, 
 the prefix dls-, for instance, cannot be said to have precisely the same 
 significance in dis-cover, dia-teiul, dis-hearten, nor the suffix -dom in 
 wia-dom and king -dom ; and the series of Tetitonic suffixes above 
 mentioned will furnish with abundant illustrations under the third 
 category. Thus -head and -hood ai'e mere arbitrary variations of the 
 same suffix, which is in German -heit : we say ch.i\(\-houd, but God- 
 head ; the Eng. child-AootZ corresponds to Germ. kind/te/<, and Norse, 
 barn-(^omr ; the Eng. wis-cZont to Germ. Weis-Zteti ( Weis-^A^tw has a 
 different meaning); Eng. king-(/om=Germ. Konig-ret'cA; bishop?'tc= 
 Bis-i/tM OT ; and so on, ad injiniticvi. 
 
 Such, then, is the matei-ial, the outward form of language, even as 
 spoken by the most highly civilized nations, and fixed, as far as 
 language can be fixed, by the diffusion of the written and printed 
 word. The great characteristic of articulate speech, as we know and 
 use it, is infinite variability of meaning and of form, so that, on 
 the one hand, the same word may, in course of time, be at the 
 opposite poles of signification (e.g. kuanos=" hlxie," or "black;" can- 
 didus='^ white ") ; and, on the other, words identical in meaning and 
 derivation are as far apart as possible in form (e.g. Fr. larme, and Eng. 
 tear). The ruder and more uncultivated the language, the more 
 fluctuating its forms and the meanings attached to them ; and most 
 fluctuating and unstable of all the speech of the primitive language- 
 makers. 
 
 How, then, is this infinite variability and fluctuation, this " confu- 
 sion of everything with everything else," as Geiger calls it, consistent 
 with our definition of language, as a means of intelligible communi- 
 cation between man and man ? What power was it that brought 
 order out of this chaos 1 The answer has been hirted at already : 
 this agent is habit, or usage. The case cannot be better stated than 
 in the words of Geiger : * 
 
 • Op. cit., p. 58. 
 
 m 
 
NATURE OF HOOTS AND WOIIDS. 
 
 lU 
 
 <M 
 
 ,,, "In the development of particiiliii' ineaningH, a groat niunber of 
 external circuin.stauces have a sliare ; in general, however, linguistic 
 USAGE {Sprachyebranch) may bo regarded as the combining cause of 
 the particular meaning attacluid to a word. Linguistic usage is the 
 habit of vs'ituj a loord in a particular sense." 
 
 Both the significance and the form of a word are first changed by 
 habit, then fixed by usage. These changes may, in fact, bo defined 
 us (liffertntiatlon by the usage of the vwjority in a majoiity of cases of 
 application. The habit of using a word alone keejjs it in existence : 
 lose the habit, and you lose the word. 
 
 Tliese variations, however, must not be regarded as the result of 
 conscious change on the part of the language-nuikers, for all habit is 
 unconscious. Primitive language, the creature of unconscious habit, 
 is incapable of metaphorical application. When a word became the 
 arbitrary sign of an action, object or idea, its original meaning and 
 derivation was lost sight of, and ceased to be present to the mind of 
 the speaker. The meanings of words change in a regular succession 
 {IS determined by habit and usage, " the last link of the series having 
 no clear connection with the first."* We have seen that the Gr. damar. 
 " wife," is connected with damao, " to tame ;" yet the idea of taming 
 (or of binding, which is the root meaning) was of course never present 
 to a Greek when he used the word ; nor did he think of penthos. 
 "grief," when he spoke of his j^^^fheros, "father-in-law." So it is 
 only by a conscious eflbrt of thought that we connect wedlock with 
 bolts and locks. Of cour.se the fundamental idea contained in the 
 root was the reason of its original apjilication in the particular sense ; 
 but once habitually used in this sense, consciousness ceased, and the 
 fundamental meaning was completely forgotten. 
 
 Having determined then that primitive man often indicated the 
 same idea or object by different names, and widely different and 
 even contradictory ideas by the same name, let us inquire why and 
 how he as a general thing indicated similar objects by similar names. 
 This inquiry is, in fact, identical with the vexed question as to the 
 capacity of the primitive language-makers to form general ideas, aiid 
 with that of the priority of general or particular names. Prof. Max 
 Miiller is one of the chief upholders of the priority of general ideas. 
 and of primitive man's capacity for forming them. His ai-gumeut 
 may be best stated in his own language, as follows: " Man," he says.f 
 
 * Op. cit., p. 58. 
 
 t Lectures on Science of Ljinguajje, Second Series, p. 64. 
 
L'O 
 
 NATUKE OK KOOTa AND WORDS. 
 
 could not name a troe ... or any object . . . without 
 discovering first souio <j;eneral (Hiality that seemed at tlio time most 
 characteristic of the object to be named." To this wo answer 
 that suci. abstraction is totally incompatible, not ordy with the intel- 
 lectual capacity of primitive man, but with intelligibility, which was 
 ])Ostuhited as an attribute essential to constitute language a means of 
 connminication between man and man. "We have only to state the 
 projjosition," says Professor Sayco,* very truly, " to see how absurd 
 it is. . . . There is no common bond of intcUigibilitv between 
 such universal ideas. . . . These abstract ideas must either be 
 the la.st result of reflection, the universals arrived at after a long 
 course of ediication, or else must be of the vaguest and most unmean- 
 ing character. In the first case, we are ascribing to the barbarian 
 the mind of the civilized man ; in the second case, any language at 
 all would be out of the question. Two persons could not talk together 
 in vague genei-alities, more especially when their convei'sation would 
 be imistly confined to the bare necessities of life." 
 
 Man, to be intelligible to his fellow-man, must have named objects, 
 not from a general, but from a jmrtictdm; quality. For his name was 
 firet ai)plied to an individual tree or other object, in which some 
 partiadar quality struck him as its most prominent characteristic ; 
 and it was then applied to all individuals which bore a general resem- 
 blance to the fii'st individual tree or other object named, though the 
 diff(!rence might be wide indeed, and the particular quality which 
 was the cause of the original name entirely absent. Thus general 
 names, as used in primitive speech, arose from confusion, from in- 
 aVjility to distinguish difierences or failure to notice them, not from 
 any miraculous power of abstraction and generalization, a power 
 utterly wanting in the savage, i.e. in the primitive man of the present 
 day. So a child will call a butterfly a bird, as it was originally called 
 a fly, on account of the particular quality of flying common to both ; 
 and a leech a tish, because both swim ; and most people call a whale 
 a fish, because they ai'e ignorant of the difference. So the South Sea 
 Islanders called the hoi-se a "man-can-ying pig," according to the Rev. 
 William Ellis, "the hog being the quadruped with which they were 
 most familiar, and the name serving in their limited vocabnlaiy as 
 the generic designation for every other four-footed beast." f Now, 
 
 1 
 
 * Oj). cit., p. 220. 
 
 t Life of W. Ellis, p. 38. 
 
VATrRR ov ROOTS AVD wonna. 
 
 21 
 
 /•I 
 
 surely thero is no (jeueral reHeiiiMaiioo between a pig and a horse; 
 the name was given, on the contrary, from tlie particnfnr reaevi- 
 blance of four-footed ne.ss, to whicli was ad(Utd the partindar difference 
 "man-carrying." J liave no access to any Polynesian vocabulary, but 
 I very nuich doubt whether these savages had a word to indicate the 
 abstract word '* tpuuhuped ;" and it should l)e jtarticularly observed 
 that they did not call the hoifiea man-carrying ///Mf/r»yw(/, but a "man- 
 carrying ;»V/." Tlic Oxford professor himself'' (piotes a nimilar story 
 of the naming of the dog by other savages in the same way from the 
 pig. This, T supj)()se, he would attribute to a general resemblance ; 
 and he goes on t(» say : " It would, however, very soon be felt as an 
 inconvenience not to be able to distinguish between a dog and a pig. 
 . . . How couhl that be effected ?" The answer is contained in the 
 instance given above, viz. : that a partindar resemblance caused both 
 animals to be at first designated by the same name ; and when it was 
 desired to distinguish them from each other, a particidar difference 
 was used to mark the distinction. 
 
 Indeed, all the phenomena of savage languages go to prove the 
 incapacity of the savage to form abstract ideas. As Professor Sayce 
 well says : t "In fact, the notion is absolutely contradicted by what 
 we observe among modern savages. Here the individual objects have 
 names enotigh, while general terms are very rare. The Mohicans have 
 words foi- cutting various objects, but none to signify cutting simply ; 
 and the Society Islanders can talk of a dog's tail, a sheep's tail, or a 
 man's tail, but not of tail it.self. * The dialect of the Zulus is rich in 
 nouns denoting different objects of the same genus, according to some 
 variety of colour, redundancy or deficiency of members, or some other 
 peculiarity,' such as * red cow,' ' white cow,' ' brown cow.' " 
 
 Again, Professor Max Miiller says : J "All naming is classification, 
 bringing the individual under the general : and whatever we know, 
 whether empirically or scientifically, we know it only by means of our 
 general ideas." 
 
 To this I reply that we acquire our general ideas of objects by the 
 cumulative process of making the acquaintance of many different 
 individuals, and of the particidar attributes common to all of them. 
 " It is the particidar" says Geiger,§ " not the individiial, that is the 
 
 • Life of W. Ellis, p. 311. 
 
 t Principles of Comparative Philology, p. 221. 
 
 ) Lectures on Science of Language, Second Series, p. 385, 
 
 S Op. cit., p. 107. - ' 
 
22 
 
 naturp: of roots and words. 
 
 oppoHito of tho sf^noral. Only the iTidividuul has a real oxistonce, 
 but oiKili iiuliviiliial coiiildiit's within itself tho particular and tho 
 ji^ouoral. TJic (fitcrai in only wiiat is coiinnon to several individuals" 
 (and is thoroforo synthotic by nature, aiul of later growth), "the 
 particular is what diHtinguishcs individuals." 
 , What has lutherto been said may be suninu'd up in tho following 
 
 statements: — ,, . . .„...„ *,.,,.;,.. . ,• , 
 
 Y , I. (rt) That the gi'ounds on wliich tlui possibility of the evolution of 
 oi!; «!< li articuhito speech from the inarticulate cries of the lower 
 • ,, , , animals hns been advocated are insutlicient and untenable, 
 
 ,,,> ..,> (b) That our iiKf.urii'H as to ja-imitive lanj^uage should commence * 
 • i,, .. with primitive man, i.e, with the first men of wlmse exist- 
 
 ' enc© Jis men we have positive evidence. 
 
 II. («) That tho earliest human beings of whose existence wo have 
 
 siich evidence were tool-makei"s and tool-users, and that 
 
 "" '• ' their tools were of the same kind as those used by savage 
 
 races now in existence, i.e., by the pi-imitive man of tho 
 
 '"'' ' present day. 
 
 "''" (h) That all tool-makers and tool-users known to us are capable 
 '* of articulate s]ioech, and actually use it; and that therefore 
 
 ;>'ii;i ^g^ rpi^g oavliost liuman beings of whose existence we have 
 '"'•'• evidence were capable of using, and probably did use, 
 
 ''-'^■"' articulate speech. ^u- ..,...•;''■• -f"» :■ . 
 
 III., That the phenomena of language, as spoken at the present day, 
 and as it has been spoken within the period of which wo 
 have historical evidence, furnish us with data amply sufficient 
 to enable us to draw, by a process of inductive reasoning, the 
 following conclusio);s as to the nature of primitive words : 
 1 °, That the most prominent general characteristic of all langUMge 
 is its infinite variability and constant fluctuation, and that 
 in two r.'spects, viz. ; 
 (i.) In respect to content or significance. 
 
 (a) The same sounds were used to name different objects ; 
 ;; . and, vice versa, ' . .■ 
 
 (6) The same ideas were named by different sounds ; and 
 
 therefore 
 (c) Primitive names were infinitely variable in meaning. 
 
 (ii.) In respect to form the variability was equally great. 
 
 ■JUi'.Hl OJ I. 
 "Mil U' iUu 
 
 
 .■J:-«:t: 
 
 A 
 
NATURE OP ROOTS AND WORDS. 
 
 23 
 
 ff , 
 
 
 2®, That in respect both tonieiuiing and form, tlio (lotorniiimtivo 
 cause of the proftax'utiiil use of a jiarticuhir meaninj^, or 
 form, wuH indivitlual haltit doveiopo'l into general iiHugo, 
 which caused Himilar olij«!ctH, in co'irwo of time, to I)h 
 indicated, as a ruK;, by .simihir woundH, in the same com- 
 munity, and gav(( gi-eater stability, and tlierefoie greater 
 intelligibility, to laiigiiago. 
 
 3°. That the variation of meaning, the application of the sume 
 names to dilH-rent objects or ideas, could oidy lako place 
 when the idea which was the primary cause of the use of 
 the particular name had been entirely forgotten, and had 
 become a mere arbitiaiy outward sign. 
 
 4°. That primitive language, in order to be an inteUiyible means 
 of communication between man and num, nnist have dealt 
 only in concrete or individual names and in particular 
 id(Mis, and that aljstract names and general ideas were the 
 result of a subse(pient process of comparison between the 
 difterent individuals, Avith regard to a number of ^mrticular 
 attributes common to many, which caused the general 
 resemblance to be perceived. 
 
 Surely there is nothing miraculous in the direct invention of a 
 vehicle of communication, an engine of thought, so unstable, so 
 variable, so fluctuating as this, and yet so easily fixed by means so 
 natural and unconscious as habit and usage, and at the same time so 
 perfectly answering the purpose for which it was created or invented. 
 
 We have, however, considered language only in one aspect — with 
 regard to the isolated word and its content. Now Professor Sayce, 
 in his very ingenious and interesting work on i'\e "Principles of 
 Comparative Philology," has lately pointed out, with great force and 
 clearness, that language consists not only of words but of sentences. 
 The word bears the same relation to the sentence that letters do to 
 words. A letter is nothing by itself, nor can a word express thought, 
 except as a member of a seixtence. The interjection can exjiress 
 emotion, not thought ; and to this the imperative of the verb is akin 
 in usage, though not in origin. 
 
 We have, therefore, as yet only completed half the task proposed ; 
 we have described the nature of primitive words as abstract and 
 isolated things, incapable of conveying thought. We have still to 
 
24 
 
 NATURE OF ROOTS aKD WORDS. 
 
 consider the nature of primitive words in relation to each other ; in 
 other words, the natuie of primitive grammar. 
 
 With regard alf.o to the other task wliich we set ourselves, namely, 
 to prove that the dii-ect invention of language was a thing within the 
 capacity of the lowest savage, or, in other words, of primitive man, 
 one-half still remains to be drne. We liave avtemj>ted to show 
 that yeneral names could not be primarily intelligible ; we have still 
 to show how individual names' could be made so. In other words, 
 we have to determine the sources of primitive language. 
 
 As, however, this paper has already greatly exceeded the limits 
 originally proposed, these subjects must be left for future discussion. 
 
 \