THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OE CALIEORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES 
 
 FROM THE LIBR^ARY 
 OF 
 
 ELI SOBEL
 
 VHB TEMPLB PRIMERS 
 
 THE HISTORY OF 
 LANGUAGE 
 
 By HENRY SWEET, M.A.
 
 0® 
 
 p 
 
 a 
 
 / 
 
 Ch 
 
 o ^^ 
 
 k2IB>cO 
 
 5=^ 
 
 Ni>C^<? 
 
 i 
 
 !| 
 
 11 
 
 •rir 
 
 
 > 
 
 IT 
 
 'rr 
 
 \ 
 
 
 2°^ 
 IT > 
 
 r o ^ 
 
 
 m n c-.H 
 
 = 2-1 
 ?rS.5 bo 
 
 £.5 I 
 
 (t<3 3
 
 THE 
 
 HiSTORYPf. 
 IJANGUAGE 
 
 BY^HEHRY 
 SWEET' m. A 
 
 BEDFORD • STREET • LONDON
 
 All rights resen 
 
 First Edition, 1900 
 Reprinted, 1901, 1908, 1016, 1920, 1930 
 
 PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN
 
 r 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 When asked by Mr. Dent to write an introduction to the 
 principles of Comparative Philology for his series, I willingly 
 consented, not only because I had the necessary materials 
 ready to hand, but also because I felt there was still room for 
 an addition to the already large literature of the subject ; a 
 subject which, however, admits of being approached from so 
 many different points of view that any competent treatment of 
 it is sure to have some special merits of its own. 
 
 The first part of this book deals with the deilnirion of the 
 science of language, its scope (p. 20) and methods, and the 
 life of language generally. In this part I have aimed at 
 clearness of statement and adequate illustration, and have tried 
 to avoid truisms and superfluous generalizations on the one 
 hand, and over-abstraction and linguistic mysticism on the 
 other. 
 
 In order to give greater definiteness and concreteness to 
 the reader's impressions I have added a second parr, consisting 
 of a brief sketch of the structure of that family of languages 
 to which English belongs — the Aryan or Indogermanic — 
 together with a discussion of its affinities to other families of 
 languages, which last will serve both to widen the reader's 
 linguistic horizon and to prepare him to follow problems which 
 cannot be ignored much longer. 
 
 In the last chapter the reader is introduced to a still 
 wider view of language by the discussion of some of the 
 most interesting questions of general philology — that of the
 
 vi PREFACE 
 
 individuality of language and the connexion between language 
 and nationality. 
 
 It need hardly be said that care has been taken to exclude 
 antiquated views and statements. Arguments founded on 
 language are so often appealed to by investigators in other 
 branches of knowledge, such as archaeology and anthropology, 
 and the science of language affords so many analogies for the 
 biologist and naturalist that it is important that the information 
 given in works on language should be as reliable as possible. 
 And yet we still meet arguments founded on the assumption 
 that such a language as Chinese represents the primitive stage 
 in the evolution of speech (p. 70), that the languages of savages 
 change completely in a single generation (p. 79), that the 
 old inflectional languages are the most perfect types of speech, 
 and so on. 
 
 I have tried to confine myself as far as possible to the 
 statement of those views and results which are generally 
 accepted. But comparative philology is still too young a 
 science to make it possible to exclude all unsettled and dis- 
 puted questions. It would, for instance, be unreasonable to 
 ask me to cut out all reference to the most ancient language 
 in the world merely because a small but noisy band of para- 
 dox-lovers and hunters after notoriety still profess to disbelieve 
 the existence of a *' so-called Accadian or Sumerian language." 
 
 In short, every one who undertakes to write a book of this 
 kind must rely on his own judgment. He must avoid as far 
 as possible the discussion of questions on which he feels doubt- 
 ful ; but on the other hand he is bound to express his opinion 
 definitely on all questions on which his mind is made up, even 
 if he stands alone in his views. 
 
 I foresee most opposition to the chapter on Aryan affinities. 
 In philology, as in all branches of knowledge, it is the speci- 
 alist who mOot strenuously opposes any attempt to widen the 
 field of his methods. Hence the advocate of affinity between 
 the Aryan and the Finnish languages need not be alarmed 
 when he hears that the majority of Aryan philologists reject 
 the hypothesis. In many cases this rejection merely means
 
 PREFACE vii 
 
 that our specialist has his hands full already, and shrinks from 
 learning a new set of languages — a state of mind which no 
 one can quarrel with. Even when this passively agnostic 
 attitude developes into aggressive antagonism, it is generally 
 little more than the expression of mere prejudice against de- 
 throning Aryan from its proud isolation and affiliating it to 
 the languages of yellow races ; or want of imagination and 
 power of realizing an earlier morphological stage of Aryan ; 
 or, lastly, that conservatism and caution which would rather 
 miss a brilliant discovery than run the risk of having mistakes 
 exposed. 
 
 I have therefore pursued the affinities of Aryan as far as 
 the impartial application of generally accepted principles 
 seemed to yield definite results. I cannot but accept these 
 results, because, if I reject them, I must also reject the results 
 of comparative Aryan philology itself (p. 120). 
 
 But I have not gone a step beyond what I feel to be solid 
 ground. If I had pursued all the tempting combinations and 
 far-reaching generalizations suggested by the linguistic dis- 
 coveries of the last twenty years, it would, for instance, have 
 been easy to connect Aryan with Chinese. But plausible as 
 Lacouperie's and Ball's affiliation of Chinese to Sumerian is, it 
 cannot be regarded as proved in our present ignorance of the 
 history of Chinese itself. Till the history of Chinese sounds 
 has been written any comparison of it with other languages 
 cannot be anything but tentative. 
 
 It would have been still more premature to include in a 
 book of this kind a discussion of the relationships of those 
 languages which lie — or seem to lie — outside the "Aryo- 
 Altaic " and Semitic families, especially as regards partially 
 deciphered languages such as Etruscan and Hittite. 
 
 But mischievous as it would be to mix up conjecture with 
 fact in such a branch of the subject as this, there is a time for 
 pure hypothesis, and there is a place for it even in an element- 
 ary book. It would, for instance, be a mistake to ignore the 
 question of the origin of language merely because it cannot be 
 approached except by a priori conjecture : indeed, the mere
 
 rrn PREFACE 
 
 fact of this being the only method obviates any clanger of 
 misleading. So also the illustration of the possibility of 
 existing languages being only a few centuries old (p. 88) is 
 on the face of it frankly conjectural ; if it turns out to be 
 untenable it will still serve to enlarge the reader's knowledge 
 and stimulate his imagination. Similar remarks apply to the 
 discussion of the age of Aryan (p. 99). 
 
 From what has been said it is evident that although this 
 book is not intended to be an original contribution to com- 
 parative philology, it must almost inevitably contain some 
 original views and results. In the statement of the principles 
 of sound-change will be found several modifications of earlier 
 views : thus the inconsistencies pointed out by P. Passy in 
 the exposition of these views has led me to a still further 
 divergence from the views of the latter, culminating in the 
 axiom that "the imitation of sounds is generally perfect" 
 (p. 19). Much of what I have said about the conditions of 
 linguistic change and stability is, I think, new, as also my 
 view of the origin of the Aryan race (p. 129), which has 
 already received the approval of some eminent scholars. 
 
 Ox/orJ, 
 
 December 1899.
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 I. LANGUAGE AND ITS STUDY 
 
 PAGE 
 
 What is Language? i 
 
 Language Imperfect and Traditional .... 3 
 
 Change ; Dialects and Cognate Languages ... 4 
 
 Comparative and Historical Philology .... 5 
 
 General Grammar ; Principles and Methods of Gramm:ir . 6 
 
 Effects of Change ; the Science of Language ... 10 
 
 II. SOUNDS OF LANGUAGE 
 
 Phonetics, Phonology ... . . . ij 
 
 Consonants ......... 13 
 
 Vowels ........ . , 15 
 
 Synthesis; Glides ly 
 
 III. SOUND CHANGES 
 
 The Imitation of Sounds Generally Perfect , 
 
 Organic Shifting ........ 
 
 Acoustic Changes ....... 
 
 Combinative Changes . ..... 
 
 External Changes ; Changes Gradual .... 
 
 Sound-Laws . ....... 
 
 Phonetic Looseness . 
 
 General Principles: Economy; Comparative Ease of Sounds 
 Relative Stability of Sounds ...... 
 
 Influence of Race and Climate ..... 
 
 19 
 
 20 
 21 
 
 22 
 
 23 
 24 
 27 
 30 
 31 
 3*
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 IV. MORPHOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT 
 
 The Origin of Language 
 
 Logical and Grammatical Development 
 
 Word-Order . , . , 
 
 Composition ..... 
 
 Derivation ; Form-Words 
 
 Inflection .... 
 
 Reduplication ; Origin of the Parts of Spe 
 
 Evolution of tile Verb 
 
 Evolution of the Preposition 
 
 Concord 
 
 Gender 
 
 Morphological Classification of Language 
 
 Isolating .... 
 
 Agglutinative , , . 
 
 Inflectional .... 
 
 Polysynthetic ; Incorporating 
 
 Analytical .... 
 
 :ch 
 
 V. CHANGES IN LANGUAGE 
 
 Periods ; Development of Dialects 
 
 Strata: Literary and Colloquial .... 
 
 Families of Languages ; Mixed Languages . 
 
 Rapidity of Change 
 
 Changes in Morphological Structure . . . . 
 
 Antiquity of Language . . ... 
 
 General Results of Change ... . . 
 
 Control of Change . . .... 
 
 Limitations of Control : General Levellino- of Structure 
 
 VI. THE ARYAN LANGUAGES 
 
 Original Home 
 
 Age ; General Structure ..... 
 
 Sounds ....... 
 
 Accentuation . ...... 
 
 Gradation ....... 
 
 Inflections ....... 
 
 Concord; the Inflectional Instinct 
 
 Primitive Aryan Inflections ....
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 VII. AFFINITIES OF ARYAN 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Ugrian ...... ...iiz 
 
 Altaic .......... 121 
 
 Sumerian .......... 124 
 
 The Aryan Race . . 129 
 
 VIII. THE INDIVIDUALITY OF LANGUAGES 
 
 Phonetic Individuality . . . , . . 135 
 
 Range of Expression ....... 137 
 
 Language and Nationality ....... 139 
 
 Bibliography ......... 146
 
 I 
 
 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 Language and its Study 
 
 What is Language ? Language may be defined as the 
 expression of thought by means of speech-sounds. In other 
 words, every sentence or word by which we express our ideas 
 has a certain definite form of its own by virtue of the sounds 
 of which it is made up, and has a more or less definite 
 meaning. 
 
 The first thing in the study of language is to realize clearly 
 this duality of form and meaning, constituting respectively the 
 formal ?iTi<i the logical (or psychological) side of language. 
 
 Although language is inconceivable without this polarity of 
 form and meaning, it is often convenient — and even necessary 
 — to look at language from a more or less onesidedly formal 
 or logical point of view, as the case may be. The study of 
 the formal side of language is based on phonetif s — the science 
 of speech-sounds ; the study of the logical side of language is 
 based on psycholo gy — the science of mind. 
 
 But every expression of meaning by sound does not neces- 
 sarily constitute language in the strict sense of the word. 
 
 Such sounds as oh ! ah ! pah ! and the other interjections 
 with which we express emotions, call for attention, utter 
 commands, and so on, convey definite enough ideas, but by 
 themselves they no more constitute language than the corre- 
 sponding cries of animals do, Some of them Indeed are
 
 2 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 excluded from the language of the speaker by their form. 
 Thus we have interjections consisting entirely of consonants, 
 such as the lengthened sh / with which we enjoin silence, and 
 \.\\e pst ! with which Germans call waiters in restaurants: we 
 have to make sh ! into hush before we can admit it into the 
 English language. 
 
 What these sounds lack is *' articulation" — that is, logical 
 articulation. From a formal point of view, such interjections 
 ?LS pah ! or the cry of the cuckoo, or the bleat of the sheep, 
 or the series of whistles with which a monkey expresses 
 surprise or curiosity, are fairly articulate ; but they are not 
 logically articulate like the sentences of language proper, in 
 which words are combined together to express corresponding 
 combinations of ideas into thoughts. Such an interjection as 
 sh I expresses the same ideas as the sentences / ivish you to be 
 silent I be silent ! \ dont mahe so much noise / but it expresses 
 them vaguely : it is equivalent to a sentence, and yet is not a 
 sentence. It is true that we can have sentences consisting of 
 a single word, such as the imperative come ! We regard coirie 
 in itself as a word because we can freely combine it with other 
 words to form sentences, which we cannot do with sh ! till 
 we have transformed it into a real word ; it is therefore, as we 
 have said, neither a word nor a sentence, but something 
 between the two. 
 
 Lan£u age, then, implies the differentia tion^Qf ivnvd and sen- 
 tence. It IS evident that until it has reached this stage, it 
 cannot claim to be an efficient expression or instrument of 
 thought. This differentiation has not been attained by animals: 
 they can express ideas by sounds, but they cannot combine 
 these sounds together to express corresponding combinations 
 of ideas. Thus they can make a sound which serves — whether 
 intentionally or not — to warn their companions of danger ; but 
 they cannot, as far as we know, combine other sounds with 
 it to indicate the nature of the danger ; and if they indicate the 
 source or locality of the danger, it is only by instinctive move- 
 ments or glances.
 
 LANGUAGE AND ITS STUDY 
 
 There are other ways besides speech by which ideas may 
 De communicated. One of these, as we have jast seen, is 
 gesture. When gestures, instead of being isolated, are 
 consciously combined to show combinations of ideas, we 
 have a true gesture-language, perfectly analogous to speech- 
 language. Among the natives of North America the multiplicity 
 of mutually unintelligible languages has led to the development 
 of a common gesture-language in which conversations of some 
 length can be carried on. A similar means of communication 
 is often spontaneously developed among deaf-mutes in civilized 
 countries. This natural language of deaf-mutes must be care- 
 fully distinguished from the artificial "deaf-and-dumb alphabet," 
 which is a mere mechanical reproduction of the letters with 
 which the words of the ordinary language are written. 
 
 This gesture-language is — in j t^s^inipler_J^^rms, at any rate^ 
 — pract[callvthe_jc|^^ worldjitiss aiQ th at 
 
 deai^muie^ElHS^ readily^ndersjan^T^Hefsign^^aniuage of 
 
 s^va^es^ 
 
 Language Imperfect and Traditional. In ordinary 
 language or "speech-language," on the other hand, the con- 
 nection between form and meaning is much less direct. It is 
 far easier to find appropriate gesture-symbols than it is to find 
 appropriate and self-interpreting phonetic ones. It is true that 
 it is easy enough to suggest such ideas as those of blowing 
 and drinking by sound, and we can perceive a certain con- 
 nection between the initial consonants of the English words 
 mouth and nose and the things these words stand for ; but the 
 gesture-speaker has a much simpler and surer way of express- 
 ing them by merely pointing to them with his finger, and in 
 the same way he can indicate other parts of the face, and find 
 gestures to express such ideas as hearing and seeing, which 
 cannot be directly suggested by any combination of sounds. 
 
 Of course, in a highly developed gesture-language the 
 meaning of the gestures would not be always self-evident ; 
 but the number of self-interpreting signs is always infinitely 
 greater than in speech-language. The consequence is, as 
 regards the latter, that a fully developed speech-language has
 
 4 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 to be learnt from the beginning by each generation of its 
 speakers ; that is, it is kept up by tradition. This further 
 implies permanent communities of some extent. The absence 
 of these conditions among animals is alone enough to explain 
 why they have not developed their interjectional cries into a 
 genuine language. 
 
 But the superiority as regards directness of association is 
 not invariably on the side of gesture-language, as we see in 
 such an imitative word as cuckoo. It is evident, therefore, 
 that ideas must from the beginning have been expressed by a 
 combination of gesture and sound. As gesture is only avail- 
 able in the light of day or of the camp-fire and when the 
 speakers are face to face, there would also be a tendency from 
 the first to develop the more convenient sound-signs and to 
 extend their use as much as possible, till at last they consti- 
 tuted the majority of the words, and what was at first an 
 easily learnt natural language became a complex traditional 
 one of infinitely greater convenience and range of expression. 
 
 Change ; Dialects and Cognate Languages. As 
 soon as language became traditional, the connection between 
 sound and meaning became practically arbitrary, so that not 
 only was there a necessity of continually adding to the vocab- 
 ulary and making the means of expression more precise, but 
 there was nothing to check the natural tendency to change 
 which we observe in all languages. Languages thus began to 
 have histories. 
 
 Again, natural gesture-language is uniform everywhere. A 
 traditional speech-language, on the other hand, requires un- 
 interrupted intercourse between the whole body of its speakers 
 to keep it uniform, and as this is difficult or even impossible 
 beyond a certain area, all languages tend to split up first into 
 a group of dialects and then into a group of cognate languages, 
 as when Latin split up into an Italian, a Gaulish, a Spanish 
 dialect, etc., and these dialects developed into the separate 
 languages Italian, French, Spanish, which together form part 
 of the Romance family of languages, whose common parent- 
 lanouage is Latin.
 
 LANGUAGE AND ITS STUDY 5 
 
 ' Most of the changes in language are so gradual that the 
 speakers of each language are unconscious of them at the 
 time. Even those changes which are the result of conscious 
 innovation must be the result of some natural tendency or 
 general want ; otherwise they would not be adopted by the 
 majority of the speakers of the language. Besides, if every 
 individual speaker modified the common language differently, 
 the result would be mutual unintelligibility, which could be 
 avoided only by keeping the language entirely unchanged ; 
 hence the mere fact of language changing implies uniformity 
 of change in the language of each individual speaker of it. 
 
 Hence linguistic changes are, on the whole, regular. „Given, 
 fo r instance, a ^Latin^L prd, we c an__g enerally tell bef orehand 
 with consi derable accur acy wha tior mit will assu me"ln~Ttalia n 
 an3]The_other Kornahc'elanguages ;~~ajid if iFfs lost in any of 
 these^JaQg uages^_ w ^"caDro iten~giv^ a ~reasorr"fbr the loss, as 
 aIso^^r_any changes of meanmg^a"wor3niTay^under£0 in^ ny 
 one'^Romance^tari^age^ ^ 
 
 ^'Comparative and Historical Philology, Con- 
 versely, by comparing words of similar form and meaning in 
 the different Romance languages we can often tell beforehand 
 what was the original Latin word of which they are all 
 descendants ; thus by comparing Italian chiamare with Spanish 
 llamar we can infer the parent form, Latin clamare. In this 
 way the science of comparative philology, as it is called, is 
 able to re-construct to some extent the lost parent of such a 
 family of languages as the Aryan by comparing together 
 Sanskrit, G reek, Latin,_English and the oth er jnembeiis of 
 the family. 
 
 We see, then, that the comparison of such cognate lan- 
 guages as Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin is only an extension of 
 the purely historical investigation which traces the changes of 
 a single language, as when we trace the development of Old 
 English (Anglo-Saxon) through the Middle English of 
 Chaucer down to Modern English. So also, if all the 
 Romance languages except Italian had been lost, comparative 
 Romance philology would shrink to historical Italian grammar.
 
 6 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 In reconstructing a hypothetical parent-language it is neces- 
 sary to take all the languages of the. family into account, for 
 even those which have diverged most widely from the parent- 
 language may preserve sounds or grammatical forms and other 
 linguistic features which are lost in the other languages. Thus 
 in the Aryan family English alone has preserved the original 
 Aryan sound of w, and French still preserves the s of the 
 plural of nouns, which is lost in Italian. And yet English 
 and French are on the whole the least archaic, the least 
 conservative languages of their respective families. 
 
 General Grammar, Historical and comparative philo- 
 logy content themselves with tracing the phenomena of a 
 language or a group of cognate languages as far back as 
 possible without necessarily trying to explain the origin of the 
 oldest linguistic phenomena thus arrived at. This latter is the 
 task of general (or philosophical) grammar, which deals, not 
 with any special languages, but with the general principles 
 which underlie the grammatical phenomena of all languages, 
 whether cognate or not. In fact, general grammar prefers to 
 compare languages which are genealogically distinct — or, at 
 any rate, only remotely connected — because, when we find 
 the same grammatical constructions and linguistic changes 
 developing independently in several unconnected languages, 
 we have all the more reason for believing that they are the 
 result of some general tendency in language, as when we see 
 English and Chinese developing almost the same principles of 
 word-order. 
 
 Principles and Methods of Grammar. The im- 
 pertect nature of the association between sound and meaning in 
 language not only makes it liable to continual change, but also 
 determines its structure generally, so that language is only 
 partly rational and logical : there is in all languages an 
 element of irrationality. 
 
 In the first place, only a part of the phenomena of a 
 language can be brought under general rules. Hence the 
 separation of dictionary and grammar, the former dealing, with 
 the isolated facts of language, the latter only with what can be
 
 \ LANGUAGE AND ITS STUDY 7 
 
 brought under general rules. In an ideally perfect language 
 such an antithesis would not exist; and the connection be- 
 I tween the form and meaning even of such primary words as 
 man would fall under general principles just as much as the 
 formation of its plural or its place in an interrogative sentence 
 — so that we should be able to give rules by which, perhaps, 
 the m in man denoted " living being," the n denoted " rational- 
 ity," and so on. It is evident that in such a language every- 
 thing would be grammar, and the dictionary would be simply 
 an alphabetical index to the grammar. 
 
 As science is concerned only with what can be brought 
 under general principles, we can understand how the science 
 of language deals mainly with grammar ; in fact, if we only 
 widen our conception of grammar a little, comparative grammar 
 and comparative philology become convertible terms. 
 
 But even in grammar everything is not rational and sym- 
 metrical. The grammar of every language is full of irregu- 
 larities, exceptions, anomalies, and inconsistencies — that is, the 
 correspondence between grammatical form and grammatical 
 function is imperfect. Hence the separation of acxidence and 
 syntax, which obliges us, for instance, to learn all about the 
 different forms of the subjunctive mood in one part of the 
 grammar, and learn the rules for its use in another place. 
 Those who try to define accurately and consistently the line 
 between accidence and syntax forget that the separation be- 
 tween the two is entirely a matter of practical convenience, 
 not of scientific principle, and that in a perfect language any 
 such separation would be not only irrational but impossible. 
 
 Even in syntax we can make a distinction between forma/ 
 and analytical syntax on the one hand and logical or synthetic 
 syntax on the other hand, the former being die point of view 
 of the hearer, the latter of the speaker. The hearer has the 
 forms given to him and has to infer their meanings, partly 
 from the forms themselves, partly from che context ; the 
 speaker has the meanings in his mind, and has to select those 
 forms which convey them most clearly. So also in the 
 scientific investigation of a language we can cither take such a
 
 8 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 form as the nominative case — supposing the language has one 
 — and examine its s\mtactical uses or grammatical meaning ; 
 or we can take such a grammatical relation as that of subject 
 and predicate, and inquire into the ditferent ways in which it 
 is expressed grammatically either in some language or group 
 of cognate languages or in language in general. It is evident 
 that formal must precede logical syntax, which latter belongs 
 more to general grammar. 
 
 Every grammatical category is — or ought to be — the ex- 
 pression of some logical category. Thus the grammatical 
 categories "plural of nouns," " plural of verbs," or the more 
 general ones " plural " or " number " are the formal ex- 
 pressions of the logical categories " morc-than-ones " or 
 "discrete quantity." 
 
 In a perfect language every grammatical category would 
 correspond exactly to some logical category, but in actual lan- 
 guage they often diverge from one another. Often, too, a 
 grammatical category is more or less completely wanting. 
 Thus, in many languages there is no grammatical category 
 number, such an idea as that of " men " being expressed by 
 the unmodified man and left to be gathered from the context, 
 or else expressed by the addition of some such word as Jiiarrv 
 or some, which is a " lexical " and not a grammatical method 
 of expression. 
 
 Or a grammaiical category may have so many discon- 
 nected functions that it is impossible to find any one logical 
 category to correspond, as is the case with such an inflec- 
 tion as the dative in Greek and with some of the English 
 prepositions. 
 
 Or it may have so vague a meaning that it is difficult or 
 impossible to find any corresponding logical category ; thus 
 the distinction between such abstract nouns as 'whiteness, 
 goodness and the adjectives ivh'ite, good is a purely gram- 
 matical one, there being no logical ditference between such 
 pairs as ivh'ite and ichiteness. 
 
 Besides these negative defects, the grammatical and logical 
 categories often contradict one another more or less directly
 
 LANGUAGE AND ITS STUDY 9 
 
 as in many a man^ where the grammatical category " singular 
 number " contradicts the meaning of the word many. 
 
 It is characteristic of the imperfections of language that 
 the word "rule" in grammar always suggests the idea of 
 "exceptions" and "irregularities." 
 
 The only phenomena which can be brought under general 
 rules are those which have something in common by which 
 they are associated together in the mind by the p ocess of 
 group-association, so that association-groups are formed. Thus 
 the words trees and houses and all the other plurals in -s are 
 associated together both formally and logically. Such plurals 
 as men and children are associated with them logically, but 
 from a formal point of view are only partially associated 
 with them : children and trees are formally associated together 
 inasmuch as they both have plural inflections, but they are 
 disassociated by their inflections being entirely different. 
 When we say therefore that men and children are irregular 
 plurals, we mean that they are partially isolated from and 
 stand outside the main group of regular plurals. 
 
 When logic triumphs over grammar, the result is sometimes 
 an anti-grammatical construction, as in the frequent association 
 of a plural verb with a sing lar collective noun [the party ivere 
 assembled). Such constructions are often the result of ending 
 a sentence with a construction difl^erent from the one with 
 which it was began (anacoluthia), of which the example just 
 given may also be regarded as an instance. An important 
 class of antigrammatical constructions are those which result 
 from a blending of two different constructions, as when in 
 colloquial English we blend the two constructions this kind 
 and these things into these hind of things. Blending is closely 
 allied to anacoluthia, which may be defined as successive blend- 
 ing, while blending itself is really simultaneous anacoluthia. 
 
 There are also antilogical constructions, which misrepresent 
 the logical relations between the ideas expressed by them. 
 The most marked antilogical constructions are those which 
 result from " shifting," as in the Latin laudatum Irl " to be 
 about to praise," which means literally " to be gone to praise "
 
 lo THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 instead of " to go to be praised," the marking of the passive 
 meaning being shifted from the transitive verb to the intransi- 
 tive auxihary, which is incapable of being conceived in the 
 passive relation. 
 
 Effects of Change. The changes and anomalies in the 
 growth of language which we have been considering are by 
 no means purely injurious in their effects. 
 
 In the first place, even the purely destructive changes are 
 often useful, as when phonetic decay shortens unwieldy poly- 
 syllables and gets rid of useless inflections. 
 
 Again, changes which result in the formation of new dis- 
 tinctions — as when in spoken English / iv'ill not develops into 
 ril not, I ivojit — though they greatly increase the complexity 
 and irregularity of the language, are, on the other hand, 
 essential factors in the development of language : as we shall 
 see hereafter, such distinctions as those of the parts of speech 
 are to some extent the result of phonetic changes ; and it is 
 mainly by metaphor and other changes of meanings that a 
 language is able to build up a whole dictionary of abstract 
 terms on the foundation of a few hundred root-words. 
 
 The Science of Language. The business of the 
 science of language is first to get a clear idea of the nature of 
 the various linguistic processes — sound-changes, loss of sounds, 
 changes of meaning, etc. — and then to trace in detail their 
 effect on the structure of language, explaining the causes of 
 each phenomenon, and referring them all as far as possible to 
 general principles. The science of language has, therefore, to 
 deal with such questions as these: — Why do languages 
 change ? What are the exact processes by which one lan- 
 guage splits up into a group of cognate languages ? How are 
 we to find out whether two or more languages are cognate or 
 not, and how are we to find out their parent language ? What 
 is the origin of the distinction between noun and verb and ttie 
 other parts of speech ? What is the origin of inflections ? 
 Such questions as these naturally suggest still wider ones, 
 such as the origin of language, the connection between race 
 and language, together with others which are practical rather
 
 LANGUAGE AND ITS STUDY n 
 
 than scientific, such as the applications of philology to the 
 practical mastery of languages, the decipherment of inscrip- 
 tions and other writings in unknown languages, and remoter 
 applications of philology to archaeological and historical in- 
 vestigations, as when by a study of the hypothetical primitive 
 vocabulary of the Aryan languages we try to discover the 
 state of civilization of the speakers of the undivided parent 
 Aryan language. 
 
 It is a curious reflection to have to make that if language 
 were a perfect expression of thought, there would be no science 
 of language. Language would then be simply an art. There 
 would be but one language unchanging both in time and place. 
 Without linguistic change there could be no historical grammar 
 and no comparative philology. 
 
 The peculiar charm of the study of languages lies precisely 
 in the mixture of the rational and the irrational, the arbitrary 
 and exceptional with the symmetrical and regular which they 
 all present. After the inflexible logic of the exact sciences, 
 it is a relief to turn to the science of language : a language is 
 like a friend whose very faults and weaknesses endear him to 
 us. The peculiar value of the study of language as a training 
 for the mind is the result of its combination of scientific 
 method with human interest. The science of language is in 
 this respect intermediate between the natural sciences on the 
 one hand and history and literature on the other, to which 
 latter it is also the most indispensable auxiliary.
 
 CHAPTER II 
 Sounds of Language 
 
 The whole science of speech-sounds is included under 
 phonology^ which includes the history and theory of sound- 
 changes ; the term phonetics excludes this, being concerned 
 mainly with the analysis and classification of the actual sound. 
 
 In discussing sounds it is necessary to employ a consistent 
 phonetic notation, which we enclose in ( ) to prevent con- 
 fusion with the traditional or " nomic " spelling of the lan- 
 guage we are dealing with ; thus (hedz) is the phonetic 
 spelling corresponding to the nomic heads. In dealing with 
 dead languages, whose pronunciation is more or less uncer- 
 tain, it is better to keep the traditional spelling, and supple- 
 ment its deficiencies by diacritics, as when we put a macron 
 over the a of Latin mater to show that it is long, instead 
 of doubling it (aa), as we should do in a purely phonetic 
 transcription. 
 
 The first task of phonetics is to describe the shape and 
 positions of the throat, tongue, lips, and the other organs of 
 speech by which sounds are produced; this is the organic side 
 of phonetics. The acoustic study of sounds classifies them 
 according to their likeness to the ear, and explains how the 
 acoustic effect of each sound is the necessary result of its 
 organic formation. Thus the high pitch and clear sound 
 which is common to the consonant (s) and the vowel (i) is 
 the result of a narrow passage being formed in the fore part of 
 the mouth between the fore part of the tongue and the palate; 
 and this similarity of sound explains why in late Latin such
 
 THE SOUNDS OF LANGUAGE 13 
 
 words as spiritu[s) developed an (i) before the (s), whence 
 modern French (cspri) through '^ispiritu.^ 
 
 For scientific purposes it is necessary to have a general 
 knowledge of the whole field of possible sounds, for in dealing 
 with any one sound it is often necessary to know all the 
 sounds it may have developed out of and all that it is liable 
 to change into. 
 
 The first thing is to master certain general distinctions. 
 The most important of these is breath and voice. In ordinary 
 breathing or sighing the glottis or space between the vocal 
 chords in the throat is wide open, so that the air from the 
 lungs passes through without producing any sound except 
 that caused by its friction against the sides of the throat and 
 mouth passages. The simplest breath-sound is the aspirate 
 (h). If, on the other hand, the edges of the glottis are 
 brought together so that the passage of air between them 
 makes them vibrate, we have voice. The simplest form of 
 voice is the "neutral" vowel (9) in sofa (soufa). 
 
 If the passage from the back of the mouth into the nose 
 is left open by lowering the soft palate, we get a nasal sound, 
 such as (m), which by closing the nasal passage becomes (b), 
 as in amber. There are also nasal vowels, which we mark by 
 adding («), as in the French (vse/;) •y/'w, where we have the 
 nasal vowel corresponding to the English (ae) in man. 
 
 Consonants, If any vocal organs are brought together 
 so as either completely to stop the passage, as in (b, ra), or 
 cause audible friction (hiss or buzz), as in (f, s), a consonant 
 is the result. All consonants go in pairs of breath and voice. 
 Thus to the lip-teeth-breath (or voiceless) consonant (f) cor- 
 responds the lip-teeth-voice (v). Breath consonants are 
 sometimes expressed by adding the modifier (^h) to the symbol 
 of the corresponding voice consonant; thus (w/6) in tuby is 
 the breath consonant corresponding to the lip-back-voice 
 consonant (w). 
 
 Some consonants have hardly any audible friction when 
 voiced, such as (m, w, 1). Such consonants resemble vowels, 
 1 The * is used to show that the form is hypothetical only.
 
 14 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 and are therefore called vowel-like (or liquid) consonants. 
 But in their breath forms (w>6, U) the friction is clearly 
 audible. 
 
 Consonants admit of a twofold division by form and by 
 place. By form we distinguish open consonants, such as 
 (s, w, f), j-/o/>^f J consonants, such as (b, t, k), nasa/f such as 
 (m, n),and si(/e (or divided) consonants, such as (1), formed 
 by stopping the middle of the passage, and leaving it open at 
 the sides, and trilled consonants, which are the result of 
 vibration of flexible parts of the mouth ; thus in the trilled 
 Scotch (r) the point of the tongue vibrates against the gums, 
 the English (r) in r<?<r/ being the corresponding open consonant 
 without any trill. 
 
 By place we distinguish back (guttural) consonants, formed 
 by the root of the tongue and the back of the mouth, such as 
 (k),fronl, such as (j) in you^ point, such as (r, t, n), blade 
 (s, z), formed by the point together with the surface of the 
 tongue immediately behind it, from which the blade-point (y) 
 in she and (3) in rouge are formed by raising the point of 
 the tongue towards the (r) -position, Up, such as (b, m), lip- 
 teeth (f, v), lip-back [why w), formed by narrowing the lip- 
 opening and raising the back of the tongue at the same time. 
 There are also throat-consonants : the throat-stop or glottal 
 stop ( ' ) is the sound produced in coughing. The aspirate 
 (h) may be regarded as a weak open throat-consonant, the 
 peculiar Arabic consonants ha and 'en being strong open throat- 
 consonants — (h) the breath, (') the voice-consonant. 
 
 Beside the main positions back, front, etc., there are an 
 infinite number of intermediate positions, which we distinguish 
 roughly as inner, or nearer the throat, and outer, or nearer the 
 lips. Thus (r) is inner point, (]?), as in thin, and (^), as in 
 then, are outer point or teeth-point, the ordinary English (t, 
 d, n, 1) being formed in an intermediate position. 
 
 The consonant (w) is really a compound consonant — formed 
 in two different places at once. The German consonant (x-zf ) 
 in auch as compared with the simple (x) in ach is also a 
 compound consonant, but in its formation the back element
 
 THE SOUNDS OF LANGUAGE 15 
 
 predominates over the lip element instead of being subordi- 
 nate to it as in (w) or (w/'), so that it is a lip-modified 
 back consonant, which we indicate by adding (w). So also 
 we may use (J) to show front-modification. Thus the French 
 (1) in elle is really (l/),the middle of the tongue being arched 
 up towards the (j) -position. 
 
 Vowels, Vowels are the result of different shapes of 
 the voice-passage, each of which moulds the neutral voice- 
 murmur (a) into a different vowel, mainly by different posi- 
 tions of the tongue and lips, but without narrowing the passage 
 so much as to cause an audible hiss or buzz, which would 
 make the vowel into a consonant. The number of possible 
 vowels is as unlimited as the number of the organic positions 
 which produce them. But if we select certain definite posi- 
 tions as fixed points, it is easy to determine intermediate 
 positions. 
 
 If we pass from such a vowel as (i) in pit to (do) in fa//, 
 we can feel that the root of the tongue is drawn back, while 
 in (i) the fore-part of the tongue is raised towards the palate. 
 We may therefore call (i) a. front and (o) a Ifac^ vowel. In 
 (3) the tongue is in an intermediate position which we call 
 mixed. Again, if we pass from (i) to (as) in matt, we can 
 feel that the front of the tongue is lowered, so that we may 
 call (ae) a /otu vowel as opposed to the /jig/j (i), in which 
 the tongue is brought as close to the palate as is possible 
 without making the (i) into a consonant — a kind of (j). If 
 in passing from one to the other we stop half-way, we get the 
 w/rf vowel (e) in mett. If, again, we stop half-way between 
 (i) and (e) we get the second vowel in pity, which we may 
 define either as "lowered high-front'* or "raised mid-front." 
 
 Every vowel may be rounded by bringing the lips together. 
 Thus, if we round (i), we get the high-front-round (y), 
 which is the sound of French u. 
 
 We have, lastly, the difHcult distinction of narrotu and 
 nvide. Thus French (i) in si is the high-front-narrow vowel 
 corresponding to the wide English (/) in it, wide vowels 
 being distinguished when necessary by italics. So also (w)
 
 i6 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 in English good is the wide of the Scotch (u) m good, which 
 is the high-back-narrow-round vowel. In the formation of 
 narrow vowels the tongue and flexible parts of the mouth are 
 made tense and convex in shape, while in wide vowels they 
 are relaxed and flattened. 
 
 Vowels of different formation often have the same, or nearly 
 the same, pitch or inherent tone. Thus the high pitch and 
 clear tone of (i) or (/') may be dulled either by rounding or 
 retraction of the tongue towards the high-mixed position of 
 (i) in Welsh dyn or (V) in English pretty, the result being 
 that (i) has the same pitch as (y), (V) has the same pitch as 
 [y). There is the same relation between the low-mixed- 
 narrow (aa) in English ^wrr and the low-front-round-narrow 
 (oeoe) in French /><?z/r, which are very similar in sound though 
 formed in totally different ways. 
 
 *< Widening " a vowel flattens the tongue and therefore 
 has an effect similar to lowering the whole body of the 
 tongue ; hence the high-front-wide (/) is similar in sound 
 to the mid-front-narrow (e) in French ///. Mid-front-wide 
 (f) in English men resembles the low-front-narrow (e) in 
 Scotch men and English care so closely that we can class the 
 two together as ** open " varieties of the " close " French 
 (e). So also the mid-back-wide-round (o) in German 
 stock and the low-back-narrow-round (o) in English fall 
 form acoustic pairs. 
 
 The various open voice consonants must necessarily yield 
 more or less distinct vowel-sounds when their position are 
 expanded so as to remove audible friction. Thus if we start 
 from the back-open-voice (y) in German sage, and increase 
 the distance between tongue and palate, we obtain a pure 
 vowel-sound, which will be either the mid-back- wide (a) in 
 father or the mid-back-narrow (e) in come if the (y) is 
 formed in a medium position, or the low-back-wide (a) of 
 French ^i/i? if we start from inner (y). Conversely, if we 
 narrow the lip-opening of (u), we get (w), and the front 
 vowels become varieties of (W when the tongue is brought 
 close to the palate.
 
 THE SOUNDS OF LANGUAGE 17 
 
 Synthesis. We have hitherto considered sounds from 
 the point of view of analysis. We have now to consider their 
 synthesis, that is, the different ways in which they are joined 
 together. We first have to learn to recognize the distinc- 
 tions of quantity or length, stress or loudness, and intonation 
 or tone. 
 
 By quantity sounds are distinguished as long, half-long 
 or medium, and short, the two former being indicated by 
 doubling. 
 
 There are also three degrees of stress: strong (•), half- 
 strong or medium (:), and tueak, which is marked when 
 necessary by prefixing (-), these marks being put before 
 the sound on which the stressed syllable begins, as in (:kon- 
 tra'dikt) contradict, which has exactly the same stress as 
 the sentence (:kBm -at 'WBns) come at once! A syllable is a 
 group of sounds containing a vowel or vowel-like consonant 
 uttered with one impulse of stress. If two vowels are 
 uttered with one impulse of stress, they together constitute 
 a diphthong. 
 
 Intonation is either level (-), rising ('), or falling ( '). 
 The rising tone may be heard in such questions as luhat', the 
 falling in answers, such as yes\ In intonation we must also 
 distinguish the length of the rise or fall. Thus tuhat' with a 
 short rise — beginning rather high — expresses mere inquiry, 
 but with a long rise — beginning low — it expresses surprise 
 or indignation. There are also compound tones formed by 
 combining a rise and a fall in one syllable, viz. the compound- 
 rising (falling-rising) tone marked ", and the compound-falling 
 (rising-falling) tone marked "", as in taie care" expressing 
 caution or warning, oh^ expressing sarcasm. 
 
 Glides are sounds in which the organs of speech do not 
 remain in any one definite position, but keep on moving, so as 
 to form an indefinite series of different positions. We generally 
 make glides in passing from one position to another. Thus 
 in such combination of sounds as (aja), we first have the (a)- 
 position and then the movement up towards the (j) -position, 
 producing an indefinite number of sounds intermediate between
 
 i8 
 
 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 (a) and (j). If we stop for a moment just before we get to 
 the (j), we form a distinct (i), giving (aija). 
 
 But there are also glideless combinations, as in (haend) 
 hand, where the (d) is simply the (n) lengthened and unna- 
 salized, so that there is no change whatever in the position of 
 the tongue in passing from the (n] to the (d)
 
 CHAPTER III 
 Sound Changes 
 
 The sounds of any one period of a language are transmitted 
 to the next generation almost entirely by imitation, only 
 occasionally aided by inspection of the movements of the 
 organs of speech. But it is to be observed that uniformity 
 of pronunciation and perfect imitation are only relative terms. 
 The differences in the quality of the voice caused by slight 
 differences in the shapes and sizes of the oral passages in each 
 individual make it impossible for one individual to imitate 
 exactly the sounds of another. But we learn instinctively to 
 allow for these inevitable differences, and by long practice we 
 are able to know with certainty that our interlocutor's sound 
 is as near our own as the peculiarities of our respective organs 
 will allow, and we regard the imitation as practically, though 
 not ideally, perfect. 
 
 The Imitation of Sounds Generally Perfect. 
 The learning of vernacular sounds by imitation is a slow and 
 difficult task, but the conditions of beginning in infancy, 
 having nothing else to do, and, above all, of the mind being 
 unhampered by conflicting associations with the sounds of 
 other languages, are so favourable, and the inducements to 
 learn are so strong, that the imitation is in most cases practically 
 perfect. It is not only that mis-pronunciations tend to make 
 the speaker more or less unintelligible, but there is also an 
 incessant pressure brought to bear by the majority on all 
 peculiarities of speech which are in the minority, this pressure 
 being specially effective when it takes the form of ridicule. 
 That the pronunciation of average normal individuals who 
 
 19
 
 20 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 have emerged fron the tentative stage of infancy may be a 
 perfect imitation of that of the preceding generation is proved 
 by the numerous instances there are of unstable sounds being 
 handed down unchanged through many generations. Thus 
 the difficult Semitic throat-sounds which were lost in Assyrian 
 more than 4000 years ago through mixture with a non-Semitic 
 population, are preserved in Arabic to the present day. The 
 preservation of Aryan (w) in Modern English — a sound 
 which easily loses its back element and then passes into (v) 
 on the one hand, and is liable to change to (yw, y, g) on 
 the other — is, perhaps, still more remarkable. It would be 
 useless to multiply examples, because the preservation of sounds 
 unchanged through at least several generations is the rule, not 
 •Jtie exception, in all languages. 
 
 Organic Shifting, The main cause of sound-change 
 must therefore be sought elsewhere. The real cause of sound- 
 change seems to be organic shifting — failure to hit the mark, 
 the result either of carelessness or sloth. Every one is liable 
 to such failures occasionally ; but as the failure of the organic 
 sense — that is, the muscular sensations which accompany 
 every movement of the organs of speech — is being con- 
 tinually corrected by the acoustic sense as well as by the 
 necessity of making oneself understood, these inducements to 
 change do not generally have any very appreciable permanent 
 effect on the pronunciation. The same individual who makes 
 luhat ? into (woh) or (wo) or even a muffled (aa) and yes 
 into a mere grunt, will, when excited or asked to repeat what 
 he is saying, come out with a sharp and clear enunciation. 
 
 But a slight deviation from the pronunciation learnt in 
 infancy may easily pass unheeded, especially by those who 
 make the same change in their own pronunciation ; for in 
 this case the acoustic sense, instead of correcting, will en- 
 courage the innovation. If a speaker is isolated in any way 
 from hearing the pronunciation of his contemporaries, his 
 pronunciation will change rapidly, but it will, of course, have 
 no effect on the pronunciation of the community at large. 
 Adults who have become deaf generally develop marked
 
 SOUND CHANGES 21 
 
 divergences from the normal pronunciation they formerly- 
 followed. 
 
 Acoustic Changes. Infants learning to speak do un- 
 doubtedly mispronounce through defective imitation, as when 
 they make (I?) in through, etc., into (f), which is as purely an 
 acoustic and not an organic change as that of ())) into (s), so 
 often made by foreigners. The frequent infantine change of 
 (s) into (t) is, on the other hand, purely organic, for the two 
 sounds have no acoustic resemblance whatever ; this change is 
 an example of "not hitting the mark," or, rather, of over- 
 hitting it : instead of merely bringing the blade of the tongue 
 close to the palate, the child overdoes it by bringing the 
 organs into actual contact. It is evident therefore that the 
 child must first have learnt to pronounce (s) correctly — 
 which is, indeed, one of the easiest sounds to imitate — and 
 then have modified its own pronunciation through carelessness 
 or forgetfulness. 
 
 In arguing from the mispronunciations of children we must 
 be careful to distinguish between those which are peculiar to 
 children's language and those which also occur in the language 
 of adults. Now it is a significant fact that in actual language 
 (]j) does not undergo the acoustic or imitative change into 
 (f) or (s), but becomes (t), which, like the infant's change 
 of (s) into (t), is an organic rather than an acoustic change. 
 So also the Russian (f) in Fedor from Theodore is not a 
 change in Russian itself, but is merely an imitation of an 
 unfamiliar foreign sound. 
 
 But we must not go into the opposite extreme of denying 
 all acoustic changes in normal speech. The frequent change 
 of point (r) into the back consonant (y) — either with or 
 without trill — as in the usual French and German pronun- 
 ciation, is an example, although this change is greatly helped 
 by the fact that the back trill, in which the uvula (the 
 extremity of the soft palate) is simply lifted up by the root 
 of the tongue, is distinctly easier than the point one. 
 
 There is another class of acoustic changes which we may 
 call " distinctive " changes, by which a sound is modified so 
 B
 
 22 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 as to make it more distinct to the ear ; thus when (b) and 
 outer or dental (d) become open consonants between vowels 
 — a frequent change in many languages — the resulting ( c^) is 
 kept, but the *' lip-open " or bilabial (/5) generally becomes 
 the lip-teeth (v), which has a sharper buzz, and is more 
 distinct from (w). 
 
 The frequent changes by which two sounds of similar 
 acoustic effect are made more distinct to the ear are partly 
 organic, partly acoustic. 
 
 Combinative Ctianges. The changes we have hitherto 
 considered are isolative as opposed to combinative sound-changes, 
 such as that of (x) into (9) in German ich, where the front 
 vowel (i) has changed the original back consonant — still 
 preserved in Swiss German — into the nearest front one. 
 This change is, of course, purely organic. In it, the as- 
 similative influence works forwards. We have an example 
 of backwards-working organic assimilative change in the 
 mutation (umlaut) of the Germanic languages ; for it is now 
 generally admitted that such changes as that of back (uu) to 
 the corresponding front vowel (yy) in Old English ^wwj-, 
 " mouse," plural mys from older *musi, began with the 
 change of (s) into front-modified (s/) — a sound which may 
 be heard in Russian — which then gradually fronted the 
 preceding vowel. Such influences may also be backwards 
 and forwards at the same time, as in the very frequent voicing 
 of a breath consonant between vowels, or when a voiced stop 
 becomes open between two vowels — that is, is made more like 
 a vowel — both changes being shown in the conversion of 
 Latin y^/<3 into Provencal y«<^^, French y>rt(? (fee^g), y/*?. 
 When a diphthong such as (au) is "smoothed" into a long 
 vowel (00), there seem to be always intermediate stages such 
 as (ao, DO, do) with mutual assimilation of the two vowels. 
 
 Divergent ChangeS' All the above changes are con- 
 vergent, and purely organic. There are also a large number 
 of divergent changes, which are purely acoustic, being the 
 result of striving after distinctness, as when the diphthong 
 (ou) in no is exaggerated into (au) in the vulgar London and
 
 SOUND CHANGES 23 
 
 other English dialects. The frequent change of (ii) into 
 diphthongs of the (ai)-type, as in English tuine and German 
 ivein from older 'w'ln began with the failure to begin the vowel 
 at the proper height, giving a very close (ei), which, being 
 liable to be confused in sound with (ee), was made into (ai, 
 ai, a\, oi), etc. by divergence. Such a change is therefore 
 partly organic, partly acoustic. 
 
 External Changes. Such a change as that of Middle 
 English eyen into Modern English eyes is evidently neither an 
 organic nor an acoustic change. In fact it is not a phonetic 
 change at all, but rather a substitution of one plural ending 
 for another — a substitution by analogy, in this case the 
 analogy of the regular plurals in -j". Such a change as thar 
 of rt to in the preterites broke, spoke, from earlier brake, 
 spake, was regarded as an organic change by the older school 
 of philologists, but we know now that this is as little a 
 phonetic change as that of the plural -en into -es. In this case 
 the analogy was that of the of the preterite participles broken, 
 spoken, etc. ; he spake having nearly the same meaning as he 
 has spoken, the vowel of the latter was extended to the former 
 word. The change of (fj) into (s) in such inflections as 
 speaketh, speaks, is probably also a purely " external '' change, 
 and not, as might be supposed, an example of defective 
 imitation, for there is no other example of such a change at 
 the time when (fi) became (s) in verb endings. 
 
 Changes Gradual. It is evident that such changes as 
 that of (ii) into (ai) must be gradual in their operation, for 
 the direct change would be equally opposed to organic and to 
 acoustic principles. So also when we see (m) between 
 vowels becoming (v) — as is often the case in the Celtic 
 languages — we assume some such series as (/3«, ^, v), the first 
 being simply a (m) formed with imperfect lip-closure. 
 
 If, then, we had reason to believe in such a direct change 
 as that of (k) into (p), we should have to assume that the 
 change was acoustic, which in this case would offer no 
 difficult) - as all the voiceless stops are very similar in sound ; 
 if, on the other hand, we rejected the acoustic explanation.
 
 24 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 we should have to assume some such series as (kw, pw, p) 
 with various intermediate changes. 
 
 Sound Laws. If a child or a foreigner makes through 
 into (fruu), we naturally expect them to carry out this change 
 of (j:) into (f) everywhere. Indeed, it stands to reason that 
 if the child or the foreigner finds it " impossible " to pronounce 
 (])) in one word, he will find it just as impossible to pronounce 
 it in any other. 
 
 When such changes are carried out in actual language, 
 they are called sound-laws. Thus the sound-law that German 
 d corresponds to th in English, as in ding^ denhen, compared 
 with things think, means that the common Germanic (})) has 
 been changed in German into (d), of course, through inter- 
 mediate (^). In this sense, a sound-law may be regarded as 
 simply a statement of the fact that in a certain period of a 
 certain language its speakers got into the habit of mis- 
 pronouncing a certain sound. The convenient expression 
 sound-law must not be allowed to mislead us into regarding 
 such a generalization as "Grimm's Law" as a general law or 
 principle binding for all languages or even for all periods of 
 one language : it is simply a collection of statements of the 
 result of certain changes that took place at certain definite 
 periods of certain languages. Thus from that part of Grimm's 
 Law which states that to original Aryan voice stops correspond 
 breath stops in Low German and English and various de- 
 velopments of aspirated breath stops in High German — 
 as in Latin domare, English tame, German %ahm (tsaam) — 
 we may infer the possibility of such changes in other languages, 
 but we cannot assume them anywhere as facts until they have 
 been proved to have actually taken place. We can as little 
 assume that because a certain change has taken place in one 
 period of a language, it necessarily occurred at an earlier 
 period or will occur at a later period of that language : each 
 period has its own "sound-laws," and Modern German is 
 no more able to change (t) into (ts) than English is. 
 
 In stating sound-laws we muse of course be careful to make 
 our statements as definite as possible. Thus the statement in
 
 SOUND CHANGES 25 
 
 Grimm's Law that English / appears as 2 in German does 
 not apply to the combination sf, as in German stein = English 
 stone, where the (s) prevented the development of the aspirate 
 (th) out of which German (ts) developed, because (s) it- 
 self is a kind of aspirate, so that such a combination as (sth) 
 would seem to be a double aspiration. It is evident that this 
 is merely an exception to a statement, not to any actual law. 
 
 Specially important are the limitations of sound-changes by 
 conditions of general synthesis. Thus the changes of long 
 vowels follow quite different laws from those of short vowels ; 
 it is easy to see that the length of (ii) alone makes it possible 
 to lower the first half of it towards (e) while keeping the 
 second half unchanged, so that the change of short (i) into 
 (ai) would be almost impossible, at least from an organic 
 point of view. 
 
 The influence of stress is important. Long vowels get 
 shortened in unstressed syllables, as in (fraidi) Friday, com- 
 pared with (dei) day, and short vowels undergo different 
 changes in unstressed syllables from those they undergo when 
 under full stress, and are often merged in the one obscure (a), 
 which is then liable to be dropped entirely ; thus to the 
 Germanic form sunno preserved in Gothic correspond Old 
 English sunne with close (e), which has passed through 
 Middle English sunne, sonne (sunna) into sun. 
 
 Intonation, too, often has a considerable effect on sound- 
 changes, and appears to be sometimes a direct cause of change. 
 A rising tone or high pitch tends to raise the natural pitch of 
 vowels, making a into e through (ss), while falling tones have 
 the opposite effect of deepening a in the direction of 0. Both 
 changes may be observed in the Aryan languages ; the e of 
 the Greek vocative h'lppe is the result of the high tone on both 
 syllables which naturally accompanies calling, while the of 
 the nominative h'lppos = Latin eqvus older eq-vos " horse," is 
 probably the result of a falling tone. 
 
 These limitations often give rise to doublets, such as 
 the "strong" emphatic (him) and the "weak" (im). as 
 in (ai sdd 'him not 'hsd) compared with (ai so -im jestadi),
 
 26 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 {^6GEt) demonstrative and (^at) conjunction and relative pro- 
 noun, as in (ai nou ^at ^xt s truw) / inotv that that is true. 
 This last is an instance of how language utilizes new distinc- 
 tions of sound which are the result of mechanical causes — in 
 this case of difference of stress — to express distinctions of 
 meaning or grammatical function. It often happens that a 
 weak form whose origin is forgotten becomes strong — that is, 
 capable of taking full stress — and then perhaps developes a 
 new weak form of its own. Thus of and iv'ith were in Middle 
 English pronounced (of, wi]?), which in early Modern English 
 became (ov, wi'S) when unstressed. In the present English 
 (wi^) has entirely supplanted the earlier strong form (wif)), 
 which has become extinct, while o^and of (ov) are now dis- 
 tinct words, the latter having developed a new weak form of 
 its own — (3v), 
 
 As we have already remarked, such phenomena are not 
 exceptions to sound-laws, but simply elements of a more 
 accurate delinition of them. 
 
 Many changes which were formerly regarded as genuine 
 exceptions are now recognized to be external — that is, to 
 be substitutions, not changes — so that such a change as that 
 of ^ to in spoke (p. 23) is no longer regarded as an 
 exception to the law which requires a to be kept unchanged 
 in such words. 
 
 Many exceptions which are not explained by analogy are 
 the result of mixture of dialects or languages. Thus English 
 hale is simply the northern form corresponding to the standard 
 Southern avhole, both being equally regular developments of 
 the common form Old English hal. Many irregularities in 
 Latin phonology are the result of the introduction of words 
 from the cognate languages Oscan and Umbrian. Such 
 changes as those of (m) into (p) in such names as Peggy, 
 Polly, are also the result of borrowing from a foreign language 
 — that of the nursery. 
 
 Lastly, an isolated change is not necessarily an irregular 
 one. Thus the change of old English civa]) into modern 
 English quoth is not parallel to that of brake into broke — on
 
 SOUND CHANGES 27 
 
 the contrary, it is strictly organic and perfectly regular, but is 
 the result of so many peculiar circumstances and shiftings of 
 stress that it is the only word in the language in v/hich this 
 final result could be attained. So also with such a change as 
 that of French monsieur into (psj^). That this last change 
 is only occasional cannot be regarded as constituting irregu- 
 larity, for every change must have a beginning ; this change is 
 only occasional simply because the combination of circum- 
 stances which alone make it possible as yet occur only 
 occasionally. 
 
 If, then, we carefully remove all such disturbing factors as 
 analogy, mixture of dialects, etc., we find our a priori con- 
 clusions confirmed — that is, that an exception to a law of 
 sound-change is from the point of view of ordinary civilized 
 languages impossible, and, indeed, almost inconceivable. 
 
 But in the actual life of language, a state of things in which 
 internal sound-changes are carried out through several genera- 
 tions without being affected by external influences is almost as 
 inconceivable. Hence from a practical point of view the 
 " invariability of sound-laws " merely means that if an apparent 
 exception does not fall under some organic or acoustic law, 
 we should look out for analogy or some other external cause. 
 
 Phonetic Looseness, Nor must it ever be forgotten 
 that language is only a means to an end. Civilized languages, 
 which are spoken by populous communities and over areas of 
 some extent, and which mvolve copious vocabularies and the 
 expression of complex and varied thought, must be precise in 
 their articulation ; and the habit of precise articulation becomes 
 so ingrained in the speakers of these languages that, as already 
 remarked, they regard all deviations from their accustomed 
 organic positions as impossibilities. 
 
 Under different circumstances, different ideals may prevail. 
 Many savage and half-civilized communities certainly seem to 
 take sound-change much more lightly than we do. Trust- 
 worthy observers tell us, for instance, that in one of the Poly- 
 nesian languages of the Pacific, Samoan, the consonant (k) 
 existed only in the single vi 0x6. puke, "catch I "; that it was
 
 28 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 then substituted for (t) more and more in some of the Samoan 
 islands, and then spread rapidly over the whole group. 
 Whitmee remarks, speaking of Samoan, " many of the natives 
 are exceedingly careless and incorrect in the pronunciation of 
 consonants, and even exchange or transpose them without con- 
 fusion, and almost unnoticed by their hearers ; as in manu for 
 namu ' a scent,' lagoga for lagona * to understand,' lavaau for 
 'valaau ' to call ' ; but they are very particular about the pro- 
 nunciation of the vowels." There is similar testimony with 
 regard to the other languages of the Pacific, not only Polyne- 
 sian and Melanesian, but also some of the Malay languages. 
 
 Strange as such a state of things may seem, much of it is 
 evidently only an exaggeration of what happens in all lan- 
 guages. Among the island populations of the Pacific the tend- 
 encies to careless articulation which exist everywhere are 
 allowed greater scope partly from the intellectual indolence of the 
 speakers, partly from the want of external restraint. In small, 
 scattered communities which are constantly liable to be broken 
 up into still smaller ones, the instability of external circum- 
 stances rejects itself in the language. Such languages are 
 like the language of children : they are always starting afresh, 
 and are in a constant ferment of experiment and phonetic 
 licence checked only by the necessity of being intelligible to a 
 small circle of hearers. The temperament and circumstances 
 of these people are both those of children, and their sound- 
 changes have a childish character. The instability of their 
 surroundings gives their speech that tentative character which 
 we observe in the articulation of infants. As already remarked, 
 all changes must have a beginning. Even in such a language 
 as German some one must have begun to make his (r) into a 
 back sound, and to untrill it, and it was only gradually that 
 the change spread through whole communities. The only 
 difference is that in such a language as Samoan there are a 
 greater number of such tentative changes going on at once. 
 
 When, however, we are told that a Samoan pronounces 
 sometimes (t) and sometimes (k) at random, we seem to 
 be really on unfamiliar ground. It is true that in some in-
 
 SOUND CHANGES 29 
 
 stances this fluctuation is simply mixture of dialects. In other 
 instances this explanation will not apparently hold good : there 
 really seems to be a perfectly spontaneous fluctuation between 
 the two sounds. But it would be desirable to have this 
 fluctuation defined more closely. Does it mean that the 
 speaker varies incessantly between outer (dental) and inner 
 (t), outer and inner front (c), outer and inner (k) in 
 uttering one and the same word ? We do not find any hint 
 that such is the case. If, on the other hand, it means that the 
 speaker hesitates between two detinite sounds — such as outer 
 (t) and medium (k) — then the phenomenon cannot be 
 described as laxity but as duality of pronunciation — a kind of 
 traditional bilingualism, for which we are inclined to seek 
 some non-organic external cause. If the speaker really uttered 
 an indefinite variety of intermediate sounds, we might ascribe 
 it simply to childish restlessness and love of variety — which, 
 again, are external factors, not organic ones. 
 
 On the whole, it is best to admit that as yet we are not in 
 full possession of the facts of sound-change in all types of 
 languages and under all possible conditions, and that con- 
 sequently our theories may still be one-sided. We may even 
 have to admit that some languages allow each sound — or 
 rather certain sounds which are less logically distinctive than 
 the others — to diverge from its normal or medium articulation 
 in all directions to a certain degree, so that a sound is to them 
 not one definite point, as it were, but an indefinite number of 
 points within a circle, as if in English we pronounced the 
 vowel in father with a continual variation between broad 
 French a. and all the intermediate stages between it and the 
 ** outer " thin long (aa) v/rich is nearly the (as) in man. If 
 we allowed the same licence to (ae) itself, it is difficult to see 
 how (aa) and (as) could be kept from running together, so 
 that only the distinction of quantity would remain. There is 
 much difficulty in realizing such a fluctuation, not only because 
 it is opposed tc the practice of most languages, but also 
 because such carelessness can only be the result of laziness, 
 and the lazier the speaker the more to his advantage it is to
 
 30 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 select that shade of sound which is easiest and most convenient 
 to form and to keep to it. 
 
 General Principles : Economy. We now come to 
 the question whether there are any great general principles 
 which underlie the special sound-changes or " sound-laws " 
 of a given language. 
 
 There can be no doubt that the principle of economy plavs 
 an important part in the sound-changes of language. We 
 have economy of time in the shortening of words and the 
 dropping of syllables by which, for instance, the four syllables 
 of the Middle English hy cause that have been shortened into 
 (bikoz) and even into (koz). The spirit that prompted the 
 English saying '' time is money," is clearly stamped on the 
 history of the language. 
 
 Economy of effort, or laziness, is most clearly shown in 
 the way in which all languages strive after ease of transition, 
 as in convergent sound-changes. Such individual changes as 
 the untrilling of (r), which is common to many highly civil- 
 ized communities, is an undoubted case of economy of effort. 
 The fate of the consonants in many Pol5'nesian languages, in 
 which whole sentences can be made up of vowels only, reflects 
 the listless indolence of their speakers. The laziness is often 
 mental rather than physical, as when the distinction of short 
 and long vowel-quantity is lost in such languages as Russian, 
 and, to a great extent, in the Romance languages. Such 
 changes as those of (|?) into (t), which are contrary to the 
 principle of avoiding unnecessary physical effort, are really 
 cases of mental laziness — in this case, of not taking the trouble 
 to measure the distance between tongue and palate. 
 
 Comparative Ease of Sounds. It is dangerous to 
 assume that the loss or modification of a sound is the result 
 ot its inherent difficulty — except in such cases as the untrilling 
 of (r). The mere fact that a sound exists in any language is 
 a proof that it is not in itself difficult. To the ordinary adult 
 speaker all familiai sound? are easy, all unfamiliar sounds are 
 not oni;' difficult but impossible. The Semitic throat con- 
 sonants have been handed down UDchanged for many thousand
 
 SOUND CHANGES 3» 
 
 years, and Arab children learn them with as much ease as the 
 other consonants ; and their early loss in Assyrian, and their 
 later loss in Hebrew and Ethiopic is sim.ply the result of the 
 large mixture of and contact with alien races to whom these 
 sounds were unfamiliar. 
 
 When we observe the tolerably general tendency of sounds 
 to change from back to forward by which (k) before (i) and 
 the other front vowels becomes first the front-stop (c) — a stop 
 formed in the same place as (j) — and then (t/'),as in English 
 chin compared with German kinn, and by which Latin u 
 becomes (y) in French une, the converse change being com- 
 paratively rare and generally due to external influences, we 
 are tempted to attribute this to the greater effort of moving 
 the more unwieldy root of the tongue. But this tendency is 
 more probably due to the fact that the sounds formed in the 
 fore part of the mouth are more numerous and more sharply 
 defined than the back ones, so that the tendency is due rather 
 to acoustic considerations of distinctiveness than to organic 
 ones. 
 
 Relative Stability of Sounds, It is more profitable 
 to consider the relative stability of sounds. Long vowels are 
 less stable than short vowels because their length makes it 
 more difficult to maintain the tongue-position uniform through- 
 out them, and diphthongs are still less stable because of the 
 temptation to convergent changes or the necessity of divergent 
 changes ; hence in English such a short vowel as i in ivit is 
 as old as anything in Sanskrit, while most of our long vowels 
 and diphthongs are at most a few centuries old. 
 
 The most unstable sounds as regards position are those 
 which can be modified in more than one direction, such as the 
 medium mid (a) in English father^ which can be changed in 
 the direction either of (o) or (e). So also among the con- 
 sonants, the front stops are remarkably unstable ; they gener- 
 ally develop in the direction of {\fif, ts, s), as in French chien 
 from Latin canem through (csene), but they are sometimes 
 shifted back to the (k) -position. Thus in Egyptian Arabic 
 the Old Arabic front-stop-voice (j) in gamal, ** camel," has
 
 32 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 become (g) instead of (d^, ;) as in the other dialects, although 
 proof is still afforded that (j) was the original sound by the 
 development of Old Arabic ivagh^ " face," into (wi/) through 
 (-jh, c, \f), the (j) having been unvoiced by the (h). 
 
 Influence of Race and Climate. There can be no 
 doubt that an intimate mixture of races leads to a mixture of 
 language and of sounds, and that this effect may also be 
 produced by mere contact of the two races, if continued long 
 enough ; but this introduction of foreign sounds is not change, 
 but substitution. As regards modification of native sounds, 
 we do not find that the children of Europeans born in Arab- 
 s])eaking countries have anv more difficulty in learning the 
 Arabic sounds than the children of natives. 
 
 On the whole, the influence of other races and other 
 languages is mostly indirect. In the first place, as we see 
 from the Semitic languages, it tends to eliminate those sounds 
 which are peculiar to the original language. Secondly, if 
 there is any conflict between different tendencies, the foreign 
 element will throw its weight into that scale with which it is 
 most in sympathy. 
 
 The influence of climate may be seen in the frequency with 
 which (a) is rounded in the direction of (o) in the northern 
 languages of Europe — as in English stone from Old English 
 ttan — as compared with the southern languages, in which it is 
 generally preserved; this rounding of (a) is doubtless the 
 result of unwillingness to open the mouth widely in the chilly 
 and foggy air of the North. But, on the whole, climate 
 seems to have hardly more influence than race. 
 
 We must finally remember once more that all these general 
 principles of change are subordinate to the main function of 
 language, that is, the expression of ideas, and that all changes 
 which imperil this function must be, and are, strenuously 
 resisted. English people are quite as much inclined as French 
 to drop final consonants, to get rid of ()?) and so on, but such 
 tendencies are resisted in English because they would make 
 the language unintelligible.
 
 CHAPTER IV 
 Morphologfical Development 
 
 The Origin of Language. We have already seen 
 that language proper or " traditional language " was preceded 
 by what we may call "natural language," which consisted 
 partly of gestures, partly of sounds and sound-groups directly 
 associated with the ideas they represented. There are three 
 principal ways in which such associations can be formed, 
 yielding the three classes of imitative, interjectional, and 
 symbolic words, all of which have left numerous traces in 
 traditional language. 
 
 But caution is necessary in dealing with such words, for 
 the association between words and their meanings is so strong 
 that we are apt to assume a natural connection of sound with 
 sense whicli may be purely imaginary. Thus to an English- 
 man the English names of the colours suggest the idea of 
 each colour much more vividly than the French names ; but 
 a Frenchman would not admit that there is anything in such 
 a word as yellow to suggest yellowness. Again, in many 
 words which really seem to have an imitative or symbolic 
 element in their sounds, this may be the result of comparatively 
 recent sound-changes. Thus the [/) in such words as English 
 shame and German scham, schande has nothing to do with the 
 interjection hush ! the initial consonants in these words being 
 merely late developments of older (sk), preserved in Swedish 
 and Danish sham^ etc. 
 
 Beginning, however, with the imitative words, there can be 
 no doubt about such words as cuckoo and cock. Both of these 
 words first appeared in EngHsh within — or almost within — 
 
 33
 
 34 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 historical periods ; both supplanted the earlier words geac and 
 hana respectively, the latter being preserved in Old English 
 in the Northern dialects as well as in the compound han-cred 
 "cock-crow," and to the present day in the derivative hen» 
 Nor are either of them of foreign origin ; they are, in short, 
 new roots formed by direct imitation of the sounds uttered by 
 the birds they represent. The origin of language is therefore 
 bv no means so mysterious a problem as many people would 
 have us believe ; it is a process which is going on almost 
 under our eyes. There are hundreds of words in English, 
 German, and other modern languages, which have been formed 
 quite recently in similar ways. Thus the familiar word 
 humbug appeared first about the year 1 7 50, and was certainly 
 evolved or invented not long before that time. Unfortunately 
 we know nothing certain about its origin ; and it is possible 
 that it is merely a compound of the already existing words 
 hum and hug^ in which case it did not involve the creation of 
 a new root. The word hum itself is, however, an undoubtedly 
 imitative root of comparatively late origin, like Z'z/zz, hang^ 
 pop^ and hundreds of others. 
 
 That imitative words really formed part of the vocabulary 
 of primitive languages is clear from such words as mau " cat " 
 in Egyptian and Chinese ; in neither of these languages — 
 which are not cognate with one another — is there any reason 
 to suppose that there ever was any other word for the animal 
 in question. When we consider such apparently imitative 
 words as Sanskrit haka " crow," and the many words in 
 which the cries of birds are imitated by back consonants, we 
 cannot but regard it as probable that Old English geac itself 
 was originally an imitative word. 
 
 These imitative words are important as bearing on the 
 question of the original phonetic structure of language. On 
 the basis of the fact that Sanskrit and Gothic have only three 
 short vowels a, i, u, it used to be assumed that the older 
 languages had much fewer sound-distinctions than modern 
 ones. But we know now that this simplicity in the sound- 
 structure of Sanskrit and Gothic is not original, but the result
 
 MORPHOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT 35 
 
 of comparatively late levelling and the consequent loss of the 
 two other vowels e and 0. That primitive language must 
 have had a large number of sounds to build up its words with 
 is evident from the consideration that man in his pre-articulate 
 stage was a hunter, and therefore must have been skilled in 
 decoying wild animals by imitating their cries — which has 
 always been an amusement of the young of the human species 
 apart from any utilitarian considerations. Thus in the life of 
 the Anglo-Saxon saint GuJ?lac, the enumeration of the good 
 moral qualities displayed by him in childhood reaches a 
 climax in the assurance, " nor did he imitate the various cries 
 of birds." 
 
 We now come to the interjechonal words. A comparison 
 of the numerous interjections of disgust and dislike and 
 similar emotions, beginning with lip consonants, such as pah ! 
 fie ! Danish fy ! German pfu'i ! make it highly probable at 
 least that the Aryan root which appear in Sanskrit as p'l 
 **hate," and in the Old English y7o«J "enemy," whence 
 Modern English ^^-w.^, is of similar origin. The agreement of 
 Arabic w*^//'* calamity," also used as an interjection luoe ! with 
 the English nvoe. Old English -iva-la " alas ! " is the result of 
 independent development of what appears to be an inter jectional 
 root. 
 
 The most interesting and important is the third class — 
 the symbolic roots. These seem to have arisen by what we 
 may call " lingual gesture," which, again, may have often 
 begun with a cry for attention to the manual gestures involved 
 in pointing to the teeth, lips, and other parts of the mouth. 
 Sympathetic — at first unconscious — lingual gesture would then 
 naturally accompany the hand-gesture, which by degrees 
 would be dropped as superfluous ; thus, supposing the cry for 
 attention took the form of the clear open (aa), the "lingual 
 gesture" for "teeth " might assume some such form as (ata) 
 or (ada), which would at the same time serve to express the 
 allied meanings "bite, eat, food," which could be gradually 
 differentiated into such roots as those preserved in Latin cdere 
 "eat," dens "tooth" literally "eater" or "biter."
 
 36 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 Such roots as those contained in English ivinci, German 
 ivehen "blow (of the wind)/' may be regarded either as the 
 result of actual blowing with the mouth, or as imitations of 
 the sound of the wind. In either case some such breath 
 sound as (w^) in nvhat would be a better imitation, and this 
 may have been the original form of the initial consonants of 
 the root. Other lip consonants have the same symbolic or 
 imitative meaning in Old English hla'wan " blow," and the 
 new formation pxffan *' puff, blow," Chineseyi/w^ *' wind," and 
 in many other words. 
 
 We can hardly doubt that primitive man expressed drinking 
 by an " in-breathed " open-lip-breath consonant, that is, by 
 drawing in breath between the lips. As in-breathed sounds 
 could not be long tolerated in the midst of the normal out- 
 breathed ones, such sounds would soon be formed in the 
 same way as the latter, whence the Aryan roots contained in 
 Sanskrit p'lhami, Latin h'lhere "drink." We have what is 
 probably another kind of symbolism in the Arabic Jarah 
 "drink," whence our "sherbet." 
 
 But there is a similar class of consonants known as " clicks," 
 which still survive in some primitive languages of California 
 and South Africa, where they appear to have been native to 
 the Bushman and Hottentot languages, whence they were 
 borrowed by some of the Bantu or Kaffir languages, such as 
 Zulu. The sound expressed by tut ! is a point-click, formed 
 by putting the point of the tongue in the (t) -position and 
 sucking the air from under it, so that when the contact is 
 released, a smacking sound is produced ; so also a lip-click 
 is a kind of smacking kiss, and a unilateral side-click is the 
 old-fashioned sound tor encouraging a horse. These sounds, 
 as well as the in-breathers, were probably originally " food- 
 sounds " — at first sounds accompanying the taking of food, 
 which were then used to express the ideas of food, asking 
 for food, etc. Just as Latin b'lbere is a disguised in-breather, 
 so also such a word as Gothic mim% " flesh," " meat," may 
 contain a disguised click. 
 
 It may be remarked that some of the interjections may be
 
 MORPHOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT 37 
 
 partly or wholly symbolic, such as hush ! whose dull hiss 
 seems naturally to contrast itself with the sharp (s), which 
 we instinctively use to incite a dog or imitate the sound made 
 by a snake. 
 
 Symbolism seems even to have provided language with 
 some of its purely grammatical elements. The demonstrative 
 point-consonant in the, tha[t) = Greek /o, thou = Latin tuy 
 and numerous other words, seems to be the result of the 
 sympathetic tongue-gesture which would naturally accompany 
 the action of pointing with the fingers. 
 
 Some pronominal roots seem to have arisen through a vague 
 symbolism which associated the easiest and most obvious of 
 all consonants with *' mother " and then with " me," the 
 next easiest consonant (p) being then associated with the 
 idea of "father," whose (f) by Grimm's Law corresponds 
 to original Aryan (p) preserved in Latin ^^/<fr. Nothmg is 
 more widely spread than the roots ma *' mother,"/^ " father," 
 and the use of m to indicate the pronoun of the first person. 
 The association between the ideas "mother" and "myself" 
 might easily lead to the idea of " father," suggesting that of 
 " the nearest outsider," as distinguished from the remoter 
 objects indicated by those consonants which result from 
 lingual pointing — (t, n, 1). When we find some languages 
 using m- for "father" — as in the Georgian mama "father" 
 — we need not be surprised to find a certain laxity in the use 
 of the pronominal elements as well. 
 
 In the old-fashioned lengthening of the vowel of little to 
 emphasize the idea of littleness we have an undoubted in- 
 stance of deliberate symbolism, for the form leetle cannot be 
 explained as a possible organic development of Old English 
 lytel, the regular development of which, with the length of 
 the vowel preserved, is seen in the proper name Lyte» Still 
 more deliberate is the symbolism by which a modern French 
 chemist made sulphate into sulphite, nitrate into nitrite, intend- 
 ing by the substitution of the thin-sounding (i) to indicate a 
 less degree of chemical action — a symbolism which is lost in 
 the English pronunciation (-ait). We find a similar-
 
 38 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 differentiation in the Manchu Tartar ama "father,'' err.e 
 ** mother." In some savage languages the persons of the 
 pronouns are differentiated out of the one common demonstra- 
 tive form by the use of (i) to denote " I," (u) to denote the 
 distant "he," and so on. Many primitive languages use (u) 
 to denote bigness, reminding us of the German child who, 
 according to Gabelentz, made up a language of his own in 
 which the vowels were symbolically modilied to show dis- 
 tinctions of size, so that when his father appeared before him 
 in a big fur travelling-coat, he called him not papa^ but pupu ; 
 so also he called an easy chair luhul, a miniature toy chair 
 lih'il, and so on. 
 
 However uncertain these explanations may be, they are 
 enough to show at any rate the possibility of language having 
 been evolved through spontaneous associations of sounds with 
 ideas. 
 
 Logical and Grammatical Development, But 
 language has from the beginning a purely logical development 
 as well. 
 
 It is enough to glance through the varied meanings of the 
 commoner verbs and adjectives given in an ordinary dictionary 
 of any language to see how easily a large vocabulary may be 
 developed out of a comparatively scanty stock of root-words ; 
 and the impression is further strengthened if we look at a 
 dictionary in which the words are arranged under roots and 
 families of words. Even the most abstract metaphysical 
 words are often transparently material in their origin, such as 
 concept^ German anschauung, and the word metaphysics itself, 
 which is ultimately derived from a root meaning " to grow " 
 — and any word may be more or less directly of imitative or 
 symbolic origin. As Tylor remarks, " it might seem difficult 
 to hit upon an imitative word to denote a courtier, but the 
 Basuto of South Africa do this perfectly ; they have a word 
 ntsi-nts't, which means a fly, being, indeed, an imitation of its 
 buzz, and they simply transfer this word to mean also the 
 flattering parasite who buzzes round the chief like a fly round
 
 MORPHOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT 39 
 
 But we are concerned mainly with the grammatical develop- 
 ment of language. 
 
 The first step in this direction was to combine two or more 
 of the primitive imitative or interjectional cries or linguistic 
 gestures to indicate a combination of the ideas associated with 
 them. When this was done — when, for instance, hiss there 
 hole meant, or might mean, "there is a snake in that hole,'* 
 or cuckoo here meant " the cuckoo has come," cuckoo^ etc., 
 came to be real words instead of vague sentence-words, as in 
 the pre-linguistic period when the first sentence might perhaps 
 have been vaguely expressed by the single word hiss. 
 
 At first the logical connection between the words of these 
 primitive sentences must have been quite vague, and probably 
 the order of the words did not matter much — in short, the 
 sentence had no form. 
 
 Word=order. But even before the logical significance of 
 word-order had dawned on the minds of the speakers, some 
 sentences which had become stereotyped by incessant repetition 
 must have settled down to a fixed word-order ; and when this 
 had been carried out in a number of separate sentences, some 
 more or less definite general principles must have been evolved. 
 Nor must it be forgotten that even in the pre-linguistic stage 
 in which gesture predominated, there must have been some 
 principles of order, for even the modern deat-mute child fol- 
 lows certain principles in this respect, which are quite inde- 
 pendent of the word-order of what would be his native lan- 
 guage, if he were capable of speech. Thus Tylor tells us 
 that " in conveying to a deaf-and-dumb child the thought of a 
 green box, we must make a sign for * box ' first, and then 
 show, as by pointing to the grass outside, that its colour is 
 green. The true gesture-syntax is * box green,' and if this 
 order were reversed, as it is in the English language, the child 
 might fail to see what grass had to do with a box." So also 
 the deaf-and-dumb order of the cat killed the mouse is '* mouse 
 cat kill." 
 
 The principle of this arrangement is to mention first what 
 is permanent and can be taken for granted, and then to add
 
 40 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 whatever qualifies it. A tree is something permanent, while 
 its greenness, the fall of its leaves, and still more its being struck 
 by lightning, are more or less changeable attributes or phe- 
 nomena associated with it ; hence the natural logical order is 
 tree green, tree haves fall, tree lightning struch. Similarly the 
 deaf-and-dumb order mouse cat kill implies that the idea which 
 first suggests itself to the gesture-speaker's mind is that of 
 the mouse running about. 
 
 This suggests another natural method of word-order, that 
 is, putting tirst the word that expresses the most prominent or 
 emphatic ideas. One result of emphatic word-order is that 
 the same combination of words may show different orders 
 under different circumstances. Thus, if in the last sentence 
 the speaker thinks first of the cat watching at a mouse's hole, 
 the word cat would naturally come first. So also if we see a 
 man in the distance, we see first that it is a man and not an 
 animal, and then perhaps see that the man is black, so that the 
 idea man is the emphatic and permanent one ; but if we say 
 " not the white man but the black man," the last man h?vS so 
 little logical prominence or emphasis that we could omit it 
 altogether. 
 
 In this way we can understand how different languages have 
 different word-orders, and also how some languages have 
 freer word-orders than others, the order being freest in those 
 languages which, like Latin, show the relations between words 
 by inflection, although even in Latin there are certain general 
 principles, or at least, tendencies of word-order, so that it is 
 only in the artificial language of poetry that we find such a 
 violent separation of words as in 
 
 hanc deus et melior litem natura d'lremit. 
 
 It is easy to see too how in this way there have been periods 
 of fluctuation and experiment in word-order, the result of which 
 often was to show that the most natural or the most logical 
 order was not always the most distinct or the most practically 
 convenient. Thus in the purely nominal sentences — without 
 any verb — of parent Aryan, which are still preserved in such
 
 MORPHOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT 41 
 
 Latin constructions as ars longa, v'lta bre-vis^ it would be im- 
 possible to distinguish between " short life " and " life is 
 short '* without inverting the logical order noun + adjective, 
 that is, making the originally em])hatic and exceptional order 
 adjective + noun the ordinary normal one. The extensive 
 occurrence of this order in a variety of languages shows that 
 it must have had some practical convenience to recommend it. 
 
 Composition. This " pre-adjunct " order — putting the 
 adjunct or modifying word before its head-word, that is, the 
 word whose meaning it modities — is evidently very old in 
 Aryan, for it is the basis of the Aryan method of forming 
 compound words. Such compounds as the Sanskrit raja-putra 
 " king's son," Greek h'lppo-damos " horse-taming," theo-dotos 
 " god-given, given by a god," are simply fragments of sen- 
 tences — they were originally free groups of words preserved 
 from the pre-inflectional period of Aryan, in which gram- 
 matical relations were shown by merely putting the adjunct- 
 word before its head-word ; in the above compounds the first 
 elements are equivalent respectively to genitives, accusatives, 
 and instrumental or ablatives. As the connection between 
 the members of such groups was felt to be more and more 
 intimate, the whole group came at last to have only one 
 accent, as if it were a single word ; hence, when it became 
 the rule that every noun and adjective must have its relations 
 to the other words in the sentence shown by inflection, the 
 first elements of these groups were passed over and allowed 
 to remain uninflected, and being regarded now as only parts 
 of words, they lost their freedom of position in the sentence, 
 and so such a form as hippo could only form part of a word, 
 and was no longer an independent word. 
 
 In a compound, the simple words of which it is made up 
 are brought into such close connection that they are "isolated " 
 from the other words of the sentence in which they occur ; 
 but nevertheless each element must be recognizable as being, 
 originally at least, an independent word. Thus, although 
 J:'ippo is not in itself an independent word, the mind connects 
 it without effort with the independent word h'tppos ; and in
 
 42 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 ■English the compound blackbird is isolated from the group 
 black bird only by having one strong stress instead of two, and > 
 by having a special meaning which does not result from merely 
 putting together the meanings of black and bird 
 
 If both elements of a compound cease to be recognizable, 
 the compound becomes indistinguishable from a simple word, 
 as in the case of the monosyllabic lord from Old English 
 hlaford, itself a disguised form of the compound hlaf-iveard 
 " bread-guardian." 
 
 Derivation. When one of the elements of a compound 
 or word-group is isolated from any association with an inde- 
 pendent word, as -ord in hlaford is isolated from lueard, it 
 often develops into a derivative prefix or suffix, that is, a 
 sound or group of sounds which can be added to words to 
 form new words, not mere compounds. Thus the ending -lie 
 in Old English ivljlic "womanly, feminine," is only a dis- 
 guised form of He " body," so that ivlflic was originally a 
 possessive compound, "woman-body" meaning "having the 
 body or form of a woman." So also the derivative prefix 
 un- in unkno-cun, unseen differs only from not in being incapable 
 of separation from the word it modities. 
 
 Composition and derivation, though the result of the fixed 
 order of words in sentences, are thus word-forming and not 
 sentence-forming processes. We will now turn our attention 
 to the grammatical means — other than word-order — by which 
 this is effected. 
 
 Form=words. In such a sentence as the nature of man 
 is radically good we can observe two classes of words, viz. 
 full-^duords — nature, man, radically, good — and form-ivords or 
 " empty words," as the Chinese grammarians call them — the, 
 of, is — which have little or no independent meaning of their 
 own, and serve only to define the meaning of full-words and 
 show how they are connected together. In gesture-language 
 such a sentence would be expressed — if it could be expressed 
 at all — simply by the juxtaposition of its full-words. In 
 Chinese also this sentence could be translated into one com- 
 posed entirely of full- words : jin sirf pen fen, literally,
 
 MORPHOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT 43 
 
 "man nature root good." In Chinese the fact that "man" 
 is an adjunct to " nature " might be made clearer by putting 
 between them the form-word or particle ci — -Jin c'l sirj\ 
 
 The older school of philologists regarded form-words as 
 arbitrary inventions made for the express purpose of showing 
 grammatical relations. One of the earliest and most energetic 
 opponents of this view was our countryman Home Took, 
 whose Diversions of Pur/ey, first published about 1770, is an 
 attempt to show that even prepositions and conjunctions once 
 had a definite independent meaning, and are simply worn-down 
 forms of full-words — a view which is now generally accepted. 
 Thus he connects if, Old English gif with the verb to give, 
 making out that i/' originally meant "given (or granted) that." 
 Although we know now that this view is incorrect, and that 
 if IS really formed from an old noun meaning "doubt," we 
 cannot be severe on Home Took for this and the other mis- 
 taken etymologies in his book ; as regards if, he was misled 
 by the Scotch tovm gin, which, however, really seems to owe 
 its n to association with the participle given. 
 
 Even when we cannot trace a form-word back to an 
 original material form-word, we can generally make it at least 
 probable that it once had a definite meaning. Thus we can 
 trace back the history of ihe to a period when there was no 
 article at all — as is still the case in Russian and Finnish — and 
 the had the full demonstrative meaning " that " or " this," till at 
 last we can trace it up to the Aryan demonstrative symbolic 
 root /-. 
 
 Inflected form-words such as is are, of course, of much 
 later origin. This word originally meant " dwell," and be 
 originally meant "grow," and we can still see traces of a distinc- 
 tion of meaning in the early Sanskrit use of as and bhii, the 
 latter being used mainly with reference to innate or permanent 
 attributes. So also the Spanish estar " be " is simply the Latin 
 stare " stand." We can easily see from such expressions as // 
 stands to reason, stand convicted, rest satisfied, how full verbs 
 may sink into " link-verbs," and then into mere grammatical 
 devices for showing that the following word is a predicate.
 
 44 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 Inflection. Inflection itself has exactly the same func- 
 tion as the use of form-words, as we see by comparing the ' 
 nature of man with mans nature. The difference is a mainly 
 formal one : a form-word, however abstract its meaning may 
 be, is still to some extent an independent word, while an 
 inflection is formally on a level with a derivative element, being 
 only a part of another word with which it is indissolubly 
 connected. Not that there is necessarily any formal distinc- 
 tion between an inflection and a form- word. Thus in Johns 
 here the form-word is is run on to the preceding word exactly 
 in the same way as in Johns house; but we can easily show 
 that in the former sentence the s is really an independent word 
 by transposing into here's John, or by making it emphatic — 
 here is John. So also Chinese ci is as much an independent 
 word as English of ; if it became inseparably connected with 
 the preceding word, jinci would be almost as much a genitive 
 case as mans is. 
 
 We can see the development of inflection out of independent 
 words which have lost their formal independence in such forms 
 as the French future parlerai from Late ha.tm pa rabo/are haheo 
 " I have to speak," and the modern Scandinavian passive 
 formed by adding -s to the corresponding active forms, the j- 
 being a shortened form of Icelandic -sh, as in hiiask " prepare 
 oneself," whence the borrowed English to busk, the -sk again 
 being only a shortening of sik ' oneself.* 
 
 Inflections such as these last, which are added to an already 
 inflected word, are conveniently distinguished as " secondary " 
 inflections. But it must always be borne in mind that any of 
 the inflections we call " primary " in Aryan may be really of 
 secondary origin, for an inflectional system is not necessarily 
 built up all at once. 
 
 As the end of a word or group of words is more 
 liable to phonetic decay than the beginning, most inflections 
 assume the form of "post-flections." We have examples of 
 " pre-flection " m the Arabic verb ; thus kataba " write " has 
 present or future taktubu " she writes," with preflection, pre- 
 terite katabat " she wrote," with post-flection. The Aryan
 
 MORPHOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT 45 
 
 augment, as in Greek e-tupe " he struck," may be a genuine 
 primary pre-tlection, while the ge- of the Old English preterite 
 participle, as in ge-d'ip-od " named, yclept,'' is an example of a 
 secondary pre-flection. 
 
 The curious phenomenon of " intro-flection," as in Arabic 
 ihtasaha " he acquired for himself," from the root kasaba 
 "gain," seems to be developed out of the two other forms; 
 thus ihtasaha is the result of transposition of the / of earlier 
 '^'it-kasaba. 
 
 In some languages introflection is very fully developed. A 
 similar phenomenon is also found in derivation. In both cases 
 it seems to be the result of a desire to join the " adfix " or 
 addition to the original word or " stem " as closely as possible. 
 
 Another way in which inflections are more intimately 
 connected with their stems is by sound-change, as when some 
 such inflection as "^/o/i developed in Modern German 'mx.of'(isse 
 with a vowel different from that of the singular yi/j-j. In the 
 corresponding English plural feet^ the old -i after causing a 
 similar mutation (p. 22) of the preceding vowel was at last 
 dropped entirely, so that the inflection is now marked by 
 vowel-change only. The " gradation " of our strong verbs 
 by which we distinguish such forms as s'lng^ sang, sung, is a 
 striking instance of how sound-changes which were originally 
 accidental — in this case the result of the stress falling on 
 diff^erent syllables in different inflections of the verb — have 
 come to have a definite grammatical inflectional function. 
 
 Of course, if an inflection is lost before it modifies its stem, 
 the word becomes uninflected, as also if any modification left 
 behind by the lost inflection is afterwards got rid of by further 
 change either internal or external. Thus in Old-English the 
 older neuter plural *sceapu " sheep " lost its -u in accordance 
 v.ith the general law that the -u of the neuter ])lural is dropped 
 after a long syllable, so that in Old and also in Modern English 
 the word has the same form for singular and plural. We have 
 examples of much more extensive loss of inflection. Thus in 
 Old Arabic the cases are distinguished mainly by the three 
 endings -u, -/, -a, standing respectively for the nominative,
 
 46 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 genitive, and accusative ; these light endings were dropped 
 already in Old Arabic at the end of a sentence, and were then 
 dropped everywhere, so that Arabic has now no cases at all. 
 
 It may happen that an inflectional element, instead of 
 becoming more and more a part of its stem till at last, perhaps, 
 it disappears altogether, may pursue the opposite course of 
 development, and even regain something of the formal 
 independence of the free particle or full-word of which it is the 
 descendant. This has happened with the genitive ending in 
 English. Such a group of words as commander-in-chief still 
 forms its plural commanders-in-chief ^ but its genitive singular is 
 commander-in-chief ^ s — a form which might lead a speaker of a 
 rigorously inflectional language like Latin to infer that the 
 preposition in governs the genitive in English. So also, while 
 in Middle England they still said the hinges sune of Engelond, 
 the present construction is the king of England' s son, the genitive 
 inflection being freely added to the last member of a group, even 
 if it is an adverb or some other word incapable of taking such 
 an inflection ; the genitive inflection in Modern English is, 
 in fact, treated as if it were a suffixed preposition or particle. 
 
 When to the purely phonetic and mechanical possibilities 
 of change and decay are added the logical changes of function 
 and meaning to which inflections are as much liable as inde- 
 pendent words, we need not be surprised to find great diver- 
 gence between form and function in most inflectional systems. 
 Even in so simple an inflectional system as that of English 
 we have homonym inflections such as man s^ speaks, and 
 synonym inflections such as horses and oxen. No one would 
 think of trying to find a common meaning for the inflections 
 of mans, dogs, and speaks ; but it is almost as futile to attempt 
 it with such a grammatical category as the dative case in 
 Greek, which is really made up of a variety of Aryan cases — 
 dative, ablative, locative — which have been confounded 
 together partly by phonetic decay, partly by confusion of 
 meanings and grammatic functions. 
 
 Hence the development of schemes of inflections such as 
 the declensions and conjugations of Latin, which are partly
 
 MORPHOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT 47 
 
 made up of periphrastic forms, that is, of combinations of 
 inflected words with form-words, which form-words, again, 
 may be either uninflected particles as in the EngHsh to goy or 
 inflected words such as auxiliary verbs. It is evident that 
 such Latin perfects as dixit and the periphrastic locutus est are 
 logically identical in character. 
 
 Reduplication, One of the most primitive and natural 
 ways of strengthening, emphasizing, or otherwise modifying the 
 meaning of a word is to repeat it ; even in English we can say 
 good good or had lad in the sense of ** very good," " very 
 bad." Such repetition-groups are very common in many 
 languages, such as those belonging to the Malay group. They 
 are used to express a great variety of meanings and gram- 
 matical functions, such as plural of nouns — man-man = " men " 
 — the superlative degree of adjectives, to make verbs causative 
 — groiv-grotv = "make to grow" — and many others. 
 
 Such repetitions are apt to be disguised by phonetic changes, 
 as when in Japanese /:uni " country " makes its plural kuniguni 
 through the tendency to make a breath consonant voiced 
 between vowels. There is also a tendency to shorten the 
 first element, so that instead of two distinct words we have 
 only reduplication, that is, a repetition of its first syllable, as in 
 the Aryan reduplication preserved in such perfects as Latin 
 momord'i "I bit," Gothic Iiaihait = hehatt "I commanded," 
 which in Old English appears in the disguised and contracted 
 form Iiet " commanded, named," traces of the reduplication 
 being, however, still preserved in the Anglian form heht, whence 
 in Middle English h'lghte, " hight, was named." 
 
 We see from reduplication that what appears to be inflec- 
 tion is not necessarily the result of independent form-words 
 having lost their independence, although such a prefix as 
 mo~ in momord'i is really in a certain sense a worn down 
 full-word. 
 
 Origin of the Parts of Speech. It is evident that 
 the relations between full-words in a sentence depend partly on 
 their meaning. Thus man, tree, snoiv, and other " substance- 
 words " are most frequently used as head- words, to be further
 
 48 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 defined by "attribute-words," some of which denote more 
 or less permanent attributes, such as h'lg, green, <white, while 
 others denote changing attributes or phenomena, such as come, 
 fall, melt. There is further a tendency to take the permanent 
 attributes for granted, and so to use them attributively, while 
 phenomena, which cannot be so easily taken for granted, 
 require to be stated expressly in the form of a predicate, as 
 in the big tree fell. 
 
 These three kinds of words — substance-words, attribute- 
 words, and phenomenon-words — would tend therefore to as- 
 sociate themselves with different grammatical functions and to 
 take different positions in the sentence, and by degrees 
 different classes of form-words would cluster round them. 
 Thus substance-words would often be used as subjects and come 
 first in the sentence, and would naturally be modified by 
 words expressing distinctions of number and place, which by 
 degrees might develope into inflections of number and place — 
 one tree, tivo trees, three trees, many trees, at the tree, behind the 
 tree, under the tree, aivay from the tree, etc. Phenomenon- 
 words would be first used mainly as predicates, and would 
 gravitate towards the end of a sentence, and would be 
 naturally accompanied by words denoting distinctions of time, 
 activity and passivity and other conditions of phenomena, 
 which might gradually develope into tenses, moods, voices, 
 etc. Permanent attributes, lastly, would naturally immedi- 
 ately follow or precede the substance-word they qualified. 
 In short, substance- words, attribute- words, and phenomenon- 
 words would gradually develope into nouns, adjectives and 
 verbs respectively. 
 
 But from the beginning it would be necessary to make 
 statements about the greenness and other attributes of trees 
 as well as their falling, and also to use substance-words as 
 predicates ; and in time the want would be felt of using 
 phenomenon-words as attributes [running <zvater), and also of 
 using attribute-words and phenomenon-words as subjects of 
 statements or as head-words. Hence most languages have 
 devices for making adjectives into "abstract nouns," such as
 
 MORPHOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT 49 
 
 greenness^ and verbs into verbal nouns or infinitives and verbal 
 adjectives or participles. 
 
 In this way, although the idea of substance-word almost 
 necessarily calls forth the idea of the grammatical category 
 "noun," the converse is not the case: the term noun cannot 
 possibly be defined by reference to the meanings of the words 
 included under it. We can hardly define a noun even by 
 its purely grammatical functions : it is true that the main 
 function of a noun is to serve as a head-word or subject-word, 
 but a noun in the genitive case or as the first element of a 
 compound may be a pure attribute-word having the function 
 of an adjective, and any noun may be logically a predicate — • 
 for in such a sentence as gold is a metaly the strictly gram- 
 matical predicate is /V, but the logical predicate is metal. 
 Indeed, the only certain tests of nouns and the other parts of 
 speech are purely formal ones. Such a word as stone is a 
 noun not because it is a substance-word, but because it has 
 plural stones ; and silk in silk thread is not an adjective for 
 the purely formal reason that it does not admit of degrees 
 of comparison, while silken in silken thread, although in this 
 connection it is quite as much a substance-word as silk itself, 
 is an adjective because its form allows of such a comparative 
 as more silken. 
 
 In a language like Chinese, which has no inflections and 
 uses only a few grammatical form-words, and relies mainly 
 on word-order, it is still more difficult than in English to 
 discriminate the parts of speech. Apart from their gram- 
 matical context Chinese words can only be classed as substance- 
 words and phenomenon-words — "dead words" and "living 
 words " as the Chinese grammarians respectively call them — 
 and so on. If a substance-word is put before another sub- 
 stance-word — either with or without the particle ci between 
 them — it becomes an adjunct-word. Further than this we 
 cannot go in our grammatical analysis of Chinese. We have 
 no right to call jin ci either an adjective or a genitive case, 
 nor can we settle definitely whether jin in jin si-q is to be 
 regarded as a genitive or an adjective, or whether the two
 
 50 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 words together constitute a compound or a mere word-group. 
 Hence what we for convenience call nouns and adjectives in 
 Chinese are strictly speaking only noun- and adjective- 
 equivalents, just as in English we might call of man a genitive- 
 equivalent or oh man I a vocative-equivalent. In such a 
 language as Latin, on the other hand, vir is definitely a 
 noun and nothing else, and if we wish to use it as an 
 adjective we must change it into some such form as vinlisj 
 which, again, has to be further modified before it can be used 
 as an adverb. 
 
 But, after all, the differences between languages as regards 
 clearness of the parts of speech are only of degree. There is 
 even less formal distinction between adverb v^nd conjunction 
 in English than there is between noun-equivalent and ad- 
 jective-equivalent in Chinese. Even in Latin we cannot tell 
 without the context whether such a word as senex is a noun 
 or an adjective. 
 
 Evolution of the Verb. In languages which do not 
 definitely mark off the parts of speech there can be no verb : 
 there can only be phenomenon-words and predicate-words ; 
 a phenomenon-word may be used as a predicate-word, but 
 it may also be used as a subject-word — that is as a noun- 
 equivalent. In Chinese any word may be used as a predicate, 
 and, as we have seen, even in Aryan, nouns and adjectives 
 could be used as predicates without the help of a verb. In 
 Old Arabic the distinction between nominal and verbal 
 sentences is quite a regular and normal one. When in Old 
 Arabic a nominal sentence would otherwise be ambiguous- or 
 when it is desired to emphasize the subject, a personal pro- 
 noun of the third person is inserted, as in allahu huiva / hajju, 
 " God is the Hving one," literally " God he the living." 
 
 This addition of a personal pronoun is a common method 
 of marking the predicate in a variety of languages. Although 
 we still know very little of the origin of the Aryan inflec- 
 tions, we know that the personal inflections of the verb are 
 simply personal pronouns that have lost their independence. 
 We can still see the pronoun of the first person in the English
 
 MORPHOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT 51 
 
 a-m and that of the third person in ha-th, whose (])) is a 
 modification of Aryan /, originally a demonstrative gesture- 
 sound. 
 
 But we must not suppose that such combinations had a 
 definitely predicative function from the beginning. It is clear 
 from a study of primitive languages that such a word as hath 
 or has originally meant nothing more than " his having " or 
 "his holding." Indeed, there are many languages in which 
 there is no distinction between the personal element in "he 
 has" and the possessive "his house," both being expressed 
 by adding the same personal pronoun or pronominal suffix to 
 a noun or noun-equivalent ; as in Old Egyptian, where meh-a 
 " I fill," literally " filling of me," has the same form as 
 pera " my house." 
 
 The next step in the evolution of the verb was the de- 
 velopment of a special form for predication made distinct from 
 the possessive form, either by the disuse of the latter in its 
 suffixed form, or else by one or both of the two forms under- 
 going different sound-changes, or by any other process of 
 differentiation. Thus in Finnish kate-n'i " my hand," k'dte-s'i 
 "thy hand," the endings are distinct from and yet evidently 
 allied with those of sano-n " I speak," sano-t " thou speakest." 
 
 These last forms are verbs in the strict sense of the word. 
 But it is evident that at first the only result of the differ- 
 entiation of " I speak " from " my speech " was to create a 
 special form to express predication. In some languages, the 
 predicate-inflections by means of what were originally pro- 
 nouns can be applied to any word, just as in Chinese any 
 word can be made into a predicate by putting it in certain 
 definite positions with regard to other words in the sentence. 
 In some African languages even personal pronouns can be 
 " conjugated " in such sentences as " it is I." 
 
 Verb in its strict grammatical sense implies the antithesis 
 of noun. The Finnish, Aryan, and Semitic verb is a true 
 verb because its personal endings are not added to any word 
 indiscriminately, but only to certain definite words which, as 
 a whole, belong to the class of phenomenon-words. When
 
 52 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 this stage is reached, so far from " I speak " being felt to be 
 equivalent to " my speaking " or " my speech " with the idea 
 of predication added, the two words speak and speech are 
 regarded as forming opposite poles as far as their grammatical 
 functions are concerned. 
 
 The difficulty which now arises as to how to use words 
 that are not phenomenon-words as predicates is solved, 
 as we have seen, in two ways. One is to keep up the 
 primitive method of showing that a word is predicative by 
 simply putting it after its subject, resulting in nominal as 
 opposted to verbal sentences. The other is to develope verbs 
 of feeble phenomenality, such as "stand, sit, grow" into 
 " copulas " or verbs of pure, abstract predication ; such verbs 
 are, logically speaking, predicative prefixes (or suffixes) to 
 the real logical predicate. 
 
 Evolution of the Preposition. — The evolution of the 
 preposition is second in importance only to that of the verb. 
 
 A preposition is, logically speaking, a word put before a 
 noun-word — noun, pronoun, infinitive — to make it into an 
 adjunct- word. Thus in a man of honour the " preposition- 
 group " of honour is an adjunct to the noun man, mfree from 
 care [ he did it lu'ith ease, the preposition-groups are adjuncts 
 to an adjective and a verb respectively. Another way ot 
 making a noun into an adjunct is by inflecting it ; hence the 
 preposition of in of honour is logically equivalent to a genitive 
 ending, andyVow care mfree from care is equivalent to care in 
 the " caritative " case, and so on, so that we may call of honour 
 a " genitive-equivalent." It must be understood that every 
 word that is capable of making a noun-word into an adjunct 
 is not necessarily a preposition ; thus in a man having i^a sense 
 of) honour, the participle having undoubtedly has this function, 
 but it is not a preposition simply because it is a part of a verb 
 with nothing to make it different from any other verb — that is, 
 no word can be regarded as belonging definitely to the class 
 of prepositions or any other part of speech unless it is isolated 
 or marked off in some way from the other parts of speech. 
 
 Such words as of from, w/V/j, which are completely isolated
 
 MORPHOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT 53 
 
 fi om all parts of speech except that of prepositions by being 
 used only as prepositions are called primary prepositions. It is 
 true that of is evidently connected with the adverb off" and 
 from with the adverb ^ro in to and fro, but they are distinctly 
 separated from them not merely by difference of meaning but 
 also by difference of form — they are, in fact, distinct words. 
 There is a less distinct kind of prepositions called secondary, 
 which were originally words belonging to other parts of speech 
 used analogously to primary prepositions, as in to 'walk round 
 the park | half past twelve | notiuithstanding that. The prepo- 
 sition round was originally an adjective, and the other two are 
 in form indistinguishable from inflected parts of verbs, although 
 in the case of past an arbitrary distinction of spelling has been 
 made between it and passed. But although there is no formal 
 isolation here — nothing in the form of these words to show 
 they are grammatically different from the adjective round or 
 the participle passed in the time has passed quickly — yet there 
 is grammatical isolation, for it is impossible to regard round 
 in lualk round the park as an adjective, and past in half -past 
 twelve is felt to be grammatically analogous to half after twelve, 
 where there is no doubt of after being a genuine primary pre- 
 position. So also o^in it is a long way off is an adverb, but 
 in the ship was anchored just off the coast the words off the coast 
 constitute a preposition-group just as much as by the coast ; 
 indeed o^is now sometimes substituted for of in such con- 
 structions as he bought it off a man in the street. The logical 
 difference between an adverb and a preposition is simply that 
 the adverb can independently qualify another word, as in quite 
 ready, very well, while a preposition can only do so indirectly 
 by entering into a preposition-group. An adverb is, or 
 may be, a full-word, a preposition can only be a connective 
 form-word, although it can at the same time have a definite 
 enough meaning of its own, as in going to and from school, 
 where the prepositions have the same meaning as the adverbs 
 in to and fro. If an adverb is put before a noun, as in he is 
 quite a gentleman, it approximates to an adjective, although in 
 this construction we know it is not an adjective, because if it
 
 54 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 were, it would come after the definite article, as in he is a 
 perfect gentleman ; hence in such a construction as you are the 
 very man I ivant we cannot help regarding very as having 
 been completely converted into an adjective. Hence also in 
 off" the coast we must regard ojf as being no longer an adverb 
 but a preposition. 
 
 Besides general grammatical considerations, we have also 
 in English a purely formal test to distinguish between adverbs 
 and prepositions, that is, that the latter " govern " a pronoun 
 in the objective case : of me, nuith us, round him, past him, off" 
 them. 
 
 If we trace the Modern English objective case back to 
 Old English, we find that it is the result of blending together 
 two old Aryan cases — the accusative and the dative. In Old 
 English some prepositions govern the accusative only, some 
 the dative, some both accusative and dative, some the genitive. 
 In the older Aryan languages the prepositions govern a still 
 greater variety of cases. When a preposition governs a variety 
 of cases in an Aryan language, there is generally a difference 
 of meaning, as in the old Aryan usage still preserved in 
 Modern German by which in governs the accusative when 
 motion is implied — that is in the meaning of our "into" — 
 the dative when rest is implied. In Latin the accusative by 
 itself is used to express the goal of motion, as in domum 
 ** (go) home," and " rest in " is often expressed simply by 
 putting the noun in some disguised form of the original Aryan 
 locative case, as in doml " in the house, at home," tota urbe 
 "in the whole city," the addition of a preposition being 
 obligatory in other parallel constructions just as much as in a 
 modern language. It is not difficult therefore to infer that the 
 Aryan prepositions were originally adverbs, which at first 
 were adjuncts not to the noun but to the accompanying verb, 
 so that such a Latin sentence as in urbem contcndit originally 
 meant " he in-marched to-the-city," the verb being, of course, 
 intransitive. By degrees these old adverbs came to be more 
 and more closely connected in thought with the inflected nouns 
 they now served to define, till at last the original meanings of
 
 MORPHOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT 55 
 
 the cases were subordinated to those of the accompanying 
 prepositions, and in some cases forgotten. 
 
 In the modern analytic languages such as French and 
 English, the prepositions have encroached so much on the 
 cases as to have come to be complete substitutes for them. 
 
 It was very different with the old pre-inflectional prepositions, 
 which were exactly on a level with the present English pre- 
 positions in their combination with nouns and with those 
 pronouns which do not distinguish an objective case — that is, 
 they could be distinguished from adverbs or particles and 
 other parts of speech only by their grammatical functions 
 combined with a certain amount of isolation. 
 
 All prepositions must theoretically be referred back ulti- 
 mately to full-words ; that is, all prepositions were originally 
 secondary. 
 
 In Chinese the words which serve as prepositions are 
 generally phenomenon-words ; thus the instrumental ivith is 
 expressed by /' " take," as in fat jin i' jin " to kill a man 
 with a sword," literally " kill man take sword," and in 
 Modern Chinese " he was eaten by a tiger " is expressed by 
 *' suffer tiger eat was." Indeed, in Old Chinese we some- 
 times feel doubtful whether we ought not to regard our pre- 
 position as a verb ; thus even the first sentence given above 
 might be translated " having taken a sword he killed the 
 man " without doing violence to the rules of grammar, but as 
 the words do not naturally suggest such a literal translation, 
 we are justified in regarding the construction as a prepositional 
 one. 
 
 In Arabic the prepositions were originally nouns, which, in 
 the inflectional period of the language, were isolated from the 
 other nouns by being indeclinable. Thus " he distinguished 
 between them " was originally expressed by '* he distinguished 
 the interstice of them," the original construction being of 
 course liable to be obscured, as in baina yada'i-h'i " (he 
 appeared) before him," literally "between two-hands-of- 
 him " ; ba'ina is from the point of view of Old Arabic simply 
 a fossilized accusative singular of the masculine noun ha'inun
 
 56 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 *' interstice, separation," itself a regularly formed verb-noun. 
 Of course, it is by no means certain that all the Arabic pre- 
 positions were originally nouns ; but the majority of them 
 must have had that origin, for otherwise there would be no 
 reason for the rule that all prepositions without exception 
 govern the genitive. We see that although Arabic prepositions 
 govern a case, they do so from a grammatical point of view 
 which was totally different from that which prevailed in the 
 Aryan languages. 
 
 The old primitive pre-inflectional prepositions of early forms 
 of speech were of course used with much greater freedom and 
 vagueness of function than those of inflectional languages. 
 Even in Latin and German prepositions do not always pre- 
 cede their nouns, but appear occasionally as " post-positions." 
 In that most ancient of languar^es, Sumerian, there is a well- 
 defined class of post-positions, which may be regarded 
 either as suffixed particles — enclitic prepositions — or as loosely 
 joined-on inflections, into which it is evident that such post- 
 positions might easily develope. Hence in such constructions 
 as Latin in urhe it is conceivable that the same particle might 
 appear twice over, as a worn-down suffix and as a kind of 
 prefix. 
 
 Concord. In primitive language permanent attribute- 
 words were naturally put in juxtaposition with the substance- 
 word they qualified. 
 
 Many languages then found it natural and convenient to 
 bring out more clearly the connection between head-word and 
 adjunct-word by repeating the form-words or inflections of 
 the former before or after the latter as well, the result being 
 grammatical concord. Thus in / bought these books at Mr. 
 Smith's, the bookseller s, the repetition of the genitive ending 
 serves to show more clearly that bookseller is an adjunct to — 
 stands in apposition to — Mr. Smith's, and the repetition of the 
 plural inflection of books in the preceding these has the same 
 function. But English has so few inflections left that it has 
 lost most of the old Aryan concords. Thus there is no 
 concord m green trees, the trees became green, where in Latin
 
 MORPHOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT 57 
 
 green would repeat the inflections of trees, just as these does in 
 English. 
 
 The concord in they are, where they and are are both in the 
 plural number, arose in a different way. In Aryan a finite 
 verb was capable of forming a complete sentence by itself, and 
 the independent personal pronouns were added only when 
 emphatic. By degrees, as the endings became more and more 
 indistinct, the addition of the personal pronouns became 
 obligatory, as in German, English, and French. These lan- 
 guages go so far as to add a pronoun to impersonal verbs, as 
 in it rains, when the it is quite unmeaning, for the subject is 
 already contained in the verb itself, the word rain by itself 
 implying " water falls," or something of the sort. 
 
 Concord is in itself not only superfluous but unmeaning and 
 illogical : the plural in those men there does not imply more 
 than one pointing, nor does the idea of green in green trees 
 admit of plurality ; and although by the plural are in they are 
 we may be said to imply more than one beings or existings, 
 this follows from the they, and does not require to be empha- 
 sized over again. But nevertheless, concord, like many other 
 illogical developments in language, has its uses. The free 
 word-order in such a language as Latin is mainly the result 
 of concord. 
 
 The highest development of concord is seen in Zulu 
 and the other Bantu languages of South Africa. In Zulu 
 every noun belongs to one of sixteen classes, each of which 
 has movable prefixes, some having a singular, some a plural 
 meaning, and when a noun is used in a sentence, all the 
 following words having reference to it must begin with a 
 prefix referring back to it. Thus the word for " man " being 
 umuntu, plural ahantu, the sentence " our handsome man 
 appears, we love him " is expressed by 
 
 umuulM ivtlM wwwchle wyabonakala, simtanda, 
 
 which, with the substitution of " men " for " man " becomes 
 
 ahaMlM ^etu ahaz\AQ ^dtyabonakala, si/^atanda.
 
 58 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 These concords extend far beyond the limits of Aryan 
 concord. Even the genitive enters into concord with its 
 head-word ; thus iniosi " chief" — familiar to readers of Rider 
 Haggard — enters into such groups as umuntu tuenkosi " the 
 king's man," ahantu benkosi *' the king's men." 
 
 These repetitions, clumsy as they are, give great precision 
 to the sentence, obviating the use of the still clumsier the 
 former, the latter, or such evasions of grammatical inadequacy 
 as he i^the plaintiff'^ said that he (^the defendant") said that his 
 ( the plain ti^s ) father said. 
 
 Gender, Gender is the expression of sex-distinctions 
 by means of grammatical forms. All languages have words 
 for " man, male, woman, female," and some distinguish gender 
 in the pronouns by means of such words as "he, she, it." 
 
 In English the grammatical category " masculine " generally 
 agrees with the logical* category "male" and so on, that is, 
 English gender is natural. In Old English the Aryan 
 grammatical gender was still preserved, as it still is in German 
 also. By grammatical gender things are as often masculine 
 and feminine as neuter, and even the names of living beings 
 may be neuter. Of course, in those languages which have 
 only the two personal genders all the names of things must 
 be either masculine or feminine. 
 
 In Modern English we occasionally diverge from the 
 principles of natural gender, as when a ship is called " she " 
 and the sun is called " he." These newly-formed genders — 
 for in old EngHsh ship was neuter and sun feminine — are the 
 result of personilication, the personification in the case of sun 
 being due partly to the influence of the corresponding Latin 
 and French words, which have the grammatical masculine 
 gender. 
 
 It was for a long time assumed that the old Aryan 
 grammatical genders were also the result of personification. 
 But when we find in Old English and German hand made 
 feminine and finger made masculine, while foot is masculine 
 and toe feminine, it is difficult to explain the inconsistency, 
 and even xl foot and toe followed the analogy of hand and
 
 MORPHOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT 59 
 
 Jinjer, we should still fail to see how the distribution of the 
 two genders could be justified by any assumptions of masculine 
 denoting what is strong and big, feminine what is small and 
 delicate, and so on ; and if there ever were principles of per- 
 sonification or analogy with distinctions of sex, it is impossible 
 to explain why they have been so completely lost in the 
 commonest words. 
 
 It is now, indeed, generally agreed that grammatical gender 
 in Aryan is not the result of personification, but has developed 
 out of a different distinction which had originally nothing to 
 do with distinctions of sex. It is believed, for instance, that 
 the ending -a owes its association with the female sex to its 
 chance agreement with the Aryan root ma " mother " and 
 other fortuitous associations. That there is nothing a priori 
 improbable in this supposition is shown by the fact that in 
 Tibetan, which otherwise does not distinguish gender — not 
 even in the pronouns — the endings -pa^ -po are used to denote 
 male, and -ma^ -mo to denote female beings, as in hodpa 
 "Tibetan man," rgjalpo " king,'' /^o^//z<3 " Tibetan woman," 
 rgjahno " queen," it being clear from their other uses that they 
 had originally nothing to do with distinctions of sex, which 
 they seem to have come to denote only through their chance 
 associations with the symbolic use of ^ for " father " and m for 
 "mother." 
 
 The fact that in Greek, neuter plural nouns are regularly 
 associated with verbs in the singular can only be explained on 
 the asauniption that the neuter plural was originally a collective 
 or abstract noun: when a Greek said "all things changes," 
 he must originally have meant " totality [panta) changes," 
 or something of the kind. 
 
 The fact that the Aryan neuter plural ending was in some 
 instances at least originally the same as the feminine singular, 
 as in Latin hona^ leads inevitably to the further inference that 
 feminine endings had originally the same collective or abstract 
 meaning ; which is confirmed by the fact that most abstract 
 nouns are still feminine in the Aryan languages. 
 
 As regards the masculine, it has long been conjectured that
 
 6o THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 the ending -j-, as in Latin bonus, rex, was originally only a 
 demonstrative, for its other function — that of pointing out the 
 subject in a sentence — cannot be explained in any other way. 
 It is at any rate evident that it had originally nothing to do 
 with sex, for even such endings as Greek -os, Latin -us are 
 occasionally feminine, as in the Latin manus " hand " with the 
 same irrational gender as the Old English hand. The category 
 masculine was therefore at first simply the opposite of what 
 was implied by the category feminine — that is, it implied the 
 individual as opposed to the collective or abstract. Masculine 
 and feminine were at first the only genders in Aryan, as the 
 neuter could not have been evolved till the two original 
 categories had become associated with distinctions of sex ; 
 and, besides, the Aryan neuter shows every sign of being a 
 secondary and late development. The Hamitic and Semitic 
 languages have only the two personal genders, and in them 
 grammatical gender is fully developed from the very beginning 
 of our knowledge of them. 
 
 The grammatical marking off of nouns into two opposite 
 categories is common in the languages of barbarous races, 
 such as those of North America. This contrast assumes 
 various forms : sometimes that of living and lifeless, sometimes 
 that of human and animal, sometimes a vaguer one of higher 
 and lower. Many American-Indian languages make this 
 distinction of higher and lower, the higher including not only 
 male human beings, but sometimes even weapons, fishing-nets 
 and other valued implements ; while the lower includes not 
 only lifeless objects generally, but often also the women of 
 the tribe. All this shows that the confusion between feminine 
 and neuter in Aryan is not so improbable as it might at first 
 sight appear, when once the idea of individuality had developed 
 into that of " male human being " through such stages as 
 "important, strong, vigorous," etc. 
 
 It may be added that although we cannot explain Aryan 
 grammatical gender by personification, there may have been, 
 and probably was, a good deal of personification during the 
 period when the later sex-gender was represented by the
 
 MORPHOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT 6i 
 
 earlier stage of what we may call "class-gender," resembling 
 what we see in the Bantu languages, where, although the 
 division of the classes as a whole is not regulated by con- 
 siderations of sex, some of the numerous classes are assigned, 
 as one might expect, to such special sex-categories as * man, 
 woman, men.* 
 
 The mechanical distinctions of grammatical gender in such 
 languages as the old Aryan cannot be kept up except by an 
 elaborate system of inflection and concord. When inflections 
 decay, the distinctions of gender are gradually lost. English 
 has no grammatical gender at all. Dutch and Danish in 
 their colloquial forms have only two genders, the common or 
 personal and the neuter, although they still keep up the three 
 genders in their pronouns, just as English does. Other Aryan 
 languages, such as Lithuanian and the Romance languages, have 
 given up the neuter, and so returned to the earlier distinction 
 of masculine and feminine only, so that in these languages 
 every lifeless thing must necessarily be seemingly personified. 
 
 Morphological Classification of Languages. 
 Languages may be roughly classed according to their morpho- 
 logical character — that is, their grammatical structure in the 
 widest sense — as isolating, agglutinative, inflectional, and 
 incorporating. 
 
 Isolating languages show grammatical relations partly by 
 the relative position or order of their full-words, partly by the 
 use of particles. Old Chinese is mainly a " position-language," 
 for it indicates the chief grammatical categories by word- 
 order, and only uses grammatical particles when obliged to do 
 so by considerations of clearness and to avoid ambiguity. 
 Other isolating languages, such as Burmese, make a more 
 extensive use of particles, which allows a freer word-order ; 
 these are " particle-languages " par excellence. 
 
 Isolating languages consist, therefore, of strings of formally 
 independent words. Thus if English were made up entirely 
 of sentences such as the following, it would be an isolating 
 language : you hnoiv many people | do you know it f | a ten
 
 62 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 pound note. Even \{ do you were contracted into (djuw), the 
 isolating character would still remain, for such a change is a 
 purely mechanical one, without any morphological function. 
 
 Although many languages of the isolating type, such as 
 Malay, are polysyllabic, there is a distinct tendency in this 
 class of languages to the monosyllabic form, which not only 
 makes them shorter and more convenient, but also clearer in 
 structure, through getting rid of the possibility of confounding 
 the unaccented syllable of a full-word with a form-word, as 
 when in English tell her (teb) is confounded with teller. We 
 have a group of monosyllabic isolating languages in the East 
 of Asia, comprising Chinese and its cognate Burmese together 
 with the unrelated Siamese and Annamite or Cochin-Chinese 
 and other languages. 
 
 Nearly all these languages are also tone-languages, that is, 
 in them each word has a definite rising, falling, or compound 
 tone associated with it, which is as much an integral part of 
 it as any of its vowels or consonants ; so that words which 
 would otherwise be identical are often distinguished by differ- 
 ences of tone. Thus in some negotiations between English- 
 men and Chinese there was some excitement when the 
 interpreter informed the Englishmen that the Chinese speaker 
 had referred to England as "your country of devils," with 
 the depreciating epithet usually applied to foreigners ; it 
 turned out that he had misheard as kiuei kivok " devil country," 
 what was really pronounced kivel hnvoh " honoured or dis- 
 tinguished country " — at least so the Chinese said. 
 
 In the agglutinative languages grammatical relations are 
 shown by prefixing, suffixing, or infixing sounds and syllables 
 which are no longer independent words, and yet are clearly 
 distinguishable from the full-words they modify, and not in- 
 extricably blended with them as in inflection. If English, in 
 addition to word-order and form-words, indicated grammatical 
 relations only by such formations as un-just-ly, care-less-ness, it 
 would be an agglutinative language. 
 
 There are various degrees of agglutination. Loosely
 
 MORPHOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT 63 
 
 agglutinative languages, in which the agglutinative inflections 
 and derivative elements still retain some of their original free- 
 dom of position — so that, for instance, the case suffixes of 
 nouns can change places with those denoting the plural — and 
 in which many of the agglutinative elements still show distinct 
 etymological relations with independent words, are often 
 hardly distinguishable from isolating languages. 
 
 Tibetan is an example of a half-monosyllabic agglutinative 
 language, which has apparently developed out of an earlier 
 isolating and purely monosyllabic stage, Tibetan being, indeed, 
 closely cognate to Chinese and Burmese. This half-mono- 
 syllabic structure may be illustrated by supposing that in 
 English we allowed such words as manly ^ un-knoivn^ use-less-ly, 
 but not such combinations as ivoman-ly or demi-god. 
 
 Even in the most advanced agglutination, such as we see in 
 Turkish aya-lar "officers," ev-ldr "houses," aya-lar-da " in 
 (the) officers," the suffixes, though they are as devoid of in- 
 dependent meaning as any Aryan inflections, have nothing in 
 their form to distinguish them from independent words, and 
 although not necessarily kept unchanged under all circum- 
 stances, they are clearly distinguishable from the word they 
 modify. 
 
 When, on the other hand, the word and its inseparable 
 modifiers are so closely connected that it becomes necessary 
 to distinguish between abstract '* stems " and actually existing 
 independent words, agglutination becomes inflection. Thus 
 in modern Finnish — which is as good a type as any of a fully 
 developed inflectional language — the word for *' hand " has 
 
 Sing. 
 
 Nomin. 
 
 kds'i 
 
 Plural. 
 
 Nomin. 
 
 kddet 
 
 Genitive 
 
 kdden 
 
 
 Gen. 
 
 kdsien 
 
 Partitive 
 
 kdttd 
 
 
 Part. 
 
 kdsid 
 
 Illative 
 
 I'dteen 
 
 
 Illative 
 
 kds'iin 
 
 Ablative 
 
 kddeltd 
 
 
 Ablative 
 
 kdsdtd 
 
 Here the body of the word not only shows a variety of forms 
 — iJj-, kdd-.^ kdt but it is impossible to distinguish by
 
 64 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 mere inspection between the original word and its inflections : 
 we cannot form the plural nominative from the singular nomin- 
 ative, nor in the latter can we tell whether the final -z is an 
 inflection or part of the original word. 
 
 It so happens that the nominative singular iasi has another 
 form iate-, which, however, does not occur as an independent 
 word, but only when followed by a possessive suffix, as in 
 J^ateni "my hand," and iasi can easily be explained as a later 
 form of iafe in accordance with the general rule that -e in such 
 words becomes -/ which then changes a preceding / to s, the 
 change of / to ^ in kaden^ kadet, etc., being also the necessary 
 result of phonetic laws, ^kate^ then, is the theoretical "stem" 
 which nowhere exists as an independent word, although there 
 can be no doubt of its having done so at a comparatively 
 recent period. It is also to be observed that most of the 
 endings, such as -//^, -/, are not only logically, but also form- 
 ally incapable of standing alone, most of the oblique cases of 
 the plural being distinguished from the corresponding ones of 
 the singular solely by the insertion of / ; and although most of 
 the endings, such as -Ita, are clearly recognizable in both 
 numbers and through all the declensions, others are beginning 
 to show variations and obscurations — thus the original partitive 
 ending ~ta, -t'd has shrunk to -a, -a in the plural. 
 
 We see here the germs of those changes and confusions 
 which have resulted in what Gabelentz well calls " the 
 defective-system " of inflections such as we see in the Aryan 
 languages, as in the Latin verb, where in the first conjugation 
 -at is indicative, -et subjunctive, while in the second -et is 
 indicative, and in the third -at is subjunctive ! 
 
 The most abstract form of inflection and the farthest 
 removed from the agglutinative stage is that which we see in 
 English forms such 2iS footy feet, sing, sang, sung. This form 
 of inflection is most consistently and widely developed in the 
 Semitic languages, where the " external inflections " of Finnish 
 and the Aryan languages are largely replaced by vowel-change, 
 transpositions of vowel and consonant, consonant-doubling, 
 and other forms of "inner flection," as when in Arabic the
 
 MORPHOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT 65 
 
 borrowed word mil " mile " forms its plural atnyal on the 
 analogy of native plurals, and salim " be safe " forms a causative 
 sallam " deliver up," whence by perfectly regular changes the 
 infinitive or verb-noun t-asUm " surrender.'* 
 
 The important distinction between polysytithetlc on the 
 one hand and oligo- or mono-synthetic on the other runs 
 through all agglutinative and inflectional languages. Many of 
 the agglutinative languages are highly polysynthetic, that is, 
 they allow an almost indefmite number of derivative or inflec- 
 tional elements to be tacked on to one word, as when Turkish 
 sev " to love " forms not only the simple infinitive sevmek, 
 but also such monsters as sevifdirilememek " not to be able to 
 be made to love one another." 
 
 The more abstractly grammatical Semitic languages on the, 
 other hand are almost monosynthetic : they have indeed such 
 ample resources in the way of inner modification that they 
 seldom have occasion to add more than one derivative element 
 at a time, their free use of prefixes making it still more un- 
 necessary to pile one suffix on another as is done in prefixless 
 Turkish ; in such a word as m-uslim-at-un " female believer," 
 where m- is the mark of the participle, -(2/ of the feminine, -un 
 of the nominative, we reach the limits of polysynthetism in 
 Arabic. From a Semitic point of view such formations as 
 English use-ful-ness^ Latin com-pon-er-et-ur appear half agglu- 
 tinative, and such inflectional forms as Sanskrit ^^^^-Mj'^j- "to 
 feet " appear as downright agglutinations — which, indeed, 
 they may very well be. 
 
 As regards polysynthetism, Finnish and Aryan are inter- 
 mediate between the two extremes — they allow heaping of 
 suffixes, but only within certain reasonable limits. 
 
 It is to be noted that " polysynthetic " is often used in the 
 sense of " incorporating," to which we will now turn our 
 attention. 
 
 If we define inflection as " agglutination run mad," we may 
 regard incorporation as inflection run madder still : it is
 
 65 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 the result of attempting to develope the verb into a complete 
 sentence. 
 
 In a language whose personal verb-endings are distinct 
 enough not to require the help of independent pronouns, an 
 intransitive verb is often able to constitute a sentence by itself, 
 as in the Latin ven'i " I have come," plu'it " it rains " ; and 
 there are many languages of polysynthetic tendencies in which 
 the inflections of a transitive verb necessarily include an in- 
 flectional pronominal element to indicate the object as well as 
 the subject, so that transitive verbs are also capable of forming 
 a complete sentence. 
 
 This is the beginning of incorporation, which is nowhere 
 more logically carried out than in Mexican or Nahuatl, in 
 which even nouns in the objective relations can be incorporated 
 bodily into the verb. Thus from ka "eat" is formed not only 
 n't-k-ka " I-it-eat," but also nl-naka-ka *' I-meat-eat," in both 
 of which forms it must be understood that all the prefixes are 
 real agglutinative or inflectional elements, for the independent 
 words for " I," ** he or it," " meat," are iieKvatlJenvatl, nahatl 
 respectively ; or rather, these verb-forms are compromises 
 between composition, agglutination, and inflection, naha-y for 
 instance, being evidently an older form which was perhaps 
 originally an independent word, from which nahatl is a later 
 formation ; with which compare the origin of composition in 
 Aryan (p. 41). 
 
 The more general way of expression in Mexican in such 
 cases is nikha in nahatl " I-it-eat the meat," the principle 
 being to begin with a generalized abstract sentence-equivalent, 
 and then to specify details by tacking on complementary full- 
 words standing in apposition to the pronominal inflections, very 
 much as in such French constructions as^V Va'i im 'votre frere. 
 
 But Mexican goes further than this. It expresses *' I am 
 building a house for my son " similarly by " I-it-build my- 
 son (with possessive prefix) a house," and to make it quite 
 clear that the first complement is in the indirect object rela- 
 tion, the verb is put in what may be called '* the datival 
 mood " by the addition of the inflection -Hay which gives the
 
 MORPHOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT 67 
 
 gereral sense of " doing for, or with reference to some one 
 else." 
 
 If a transitive verb has not a definite object, an indefinite 
 one must be included in the inflection of the verb ; thus " I 
 strike" must be expressed either by niteiuiteki " I-someone- 
 strike," or n'ltlatuitek'i " I-something-strike." 
 
 In some of the North American languages these principles- 
 are carried much further, so that whole sentences are con- 
 jugated as verbs in a much more complicated manner. 
 
 We have a solitary European example of an incorporating 
 language in Basque, an isolated language still spoken in the 
 North of Spain and South of France, whose inflectional 
 resources are lavished on providing inflections to express all 
 possible combinations of pronouns with verbs, such as I-go-to~ 
 h'tm^ let'them-bring'her-tO'Us, the pronominal elements of which 
 are, of course, only clipped and disguised forms of independent 
 pronouns. 
 
 There are many other minor criteria of morphological 
 classification. 
 
 The most important of these is perhaps that of the position 
 of the agglutinative or inflectional elements before or after the 
 word or stem. In Turkish and the other Altaic languages, 
 as also in Finnish, these are always postpositions, so that every 
 word begins with the root, which always has the chief stress. 
 The Bantu languages of South Africa, on the other hand, 
 favour prefixes : they may be described as prefix-agglutinative 
 concord languages. The Semitic languages favour prefixes 
 and postpositions about equally. The Aryan languages are 
 mainly postpositional with occasional use of prefixes, most of 
 which, however, are of later origin. 
 
 An impartial study of the morphological development of 
 languages makes it tolerably certain that all inflectional lan- 
 guages must once have been isolating and have passed through 
 the agglutinative stage. 
 
 When a language loses its inflectional character, and indi- 
 cates grammatical relations by means of particles, such as
 
 68 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 the prepositions which play so prominent a part in English 
 grammar, and by auxiliary verbs, etc., it is said to become 
 analytical, in as much as it " analyses " its older inflected 
 words into combinations of independent words. But if we 
 examine even such thorough-going analytical languages as 
 English and French, we see that this process of analysis is 
 not carried out with any consistency. In the first place, 
 many grammatical categories are lost more or less completely 
 without any attempt being made to supply their place by 
 analytical combinations. Thus both English and French 
 have allowed the accusative inflection of nouns to fall into 
 complete disuse, and have not supplied the want by the use of 
 A preposition, as Spanish does with nouns denoting persons in 
 such constructions as vencio al enem'igOy literally, " he-conquered 
 to-the-enemy.'* Again, many of the new formations of 
 French and the other Romance languages have completely 
 lost their analytical* character by becoming secondary inflec- 
 tions, such as the futures and conditionals of the verbs (p. 44). 
 Lastly, even the most analytical languages preserve some at 
 least of the old inflections. Thus English has only one case- 
 inflection of nouns, and French has none, but, on the other 
 hand, the French verb is still fairly rich in inflections, especi- 
 ally if we include the secondary ones, which we have every 
 right to do in comparing the French inflectional system with 
 that of Latin, for some of the Latin inflections themselves 
 are certainly of secondary origin. The Italian verb-inflections 
 are still fuller through not being worn away by phonetic 
 decay, and such inflections as these are quite as distinct as 
 anything in Latin: — 
 
 Indie. Present 
 
 Preterite 
 
 Future 
 
 parlo 
 
 parlal 
 
 parlero 
 
 parli 
 
 parlasti 
 
 parlera'i 
 
 parla 
 
 parlo 
 
 parlera 
 
 parl'iamo 
 
 tarlammo 
 
 parleremo 
 
 parlate 
 parlano 
 
 parlaste 
 parlarono 
 
 parlerete 
 parleranno
 
 MORPHOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT 69 
 
 These inflections are certainly different in detail from the 
 original Latin ones, but nevertheless they show no decay 
 whatever of the inflectional principle ; every person is per- 
 fectly distinguished without the help of any independent 
 pronouns, and more than this cannot be expected from any 
 inflectional system. 
 
 Even the English inflections, few as their number is, are 
 an integral and essential part of the language. The fact that 
 we can form many English sentences without any inflections 
 at all does not justify us in classing English among the isolat- 
 ing languages, as long as it still continues to inflect the 
 preterites of hundreds of verbs by vowel-change either alone 
 [sing, sang) or in combination with external inflection (/<?//, 
 told). The complete distinction of the persons in the singular 
 am, are, is is quite exceptional, but the excessive frequency of 
 these forms gives them great morphological weight. We can 
 imagine our genitive inflection being supplanted by the pre- 
 position of, as has actually been the case in spoken Dutch, 
 but we cannot imagine English losing its plural inflection of 
 nouns except by a sudden and complete upheaval of the whole 
 morphological structure of the language. In short, there is 
 no reason to suppose that English will ever become unin- 
 flectional by any process of normal inner development, and 
 there seems good reason for extending this assumption to other 
 languages also ; so that we cannot but accept Sayce's dictum, 
 ** once inflectional, always inflectional." 
 
 Hence, while English appears as almost uninflectional when 
 compared with such a language as Latin, it appears in the 
 opposite light when compared with an isolating language such 
 as Chinese. One important result of what we may call 
 " inherited inflectional instincts " is that in English we still 
 proceed from the special to the general, while Chinese does 
 exactly the reverse. Thus in English we are compelled by 
 the structure of the language to put every noun either in the 
 singular or the plural, so that when we have to express such 
 an idea as that of man generally or man in the abstract, we 
 fluctuate helplessly between singular and plural — man is . , ,
 
 70 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 men ore . . , the lion is . . , lions are . . We are equally 
 helpless when we have to make a statement without defining 
 its exact relation to the time when we are speaking ; thus in 
 such a sentence as the ancients did not know that Africa . . 
 an island., we hesitate whether to use nvas or is. In Chinese, 
 on the other hand, in which the number of a noun or the 
 tense of a verb is never expressed when it can be gathered 
 with certainty from the context — which they can in the 
 majority of instances — such difficulties can never arise : in 
 Chinese we should simply say man rational, Africa island, and 
 should only add the necessary particles if we wished expressly 
 to emphasize the ideas of plurality, past tense, etc. This 
 deep-seated difference between the English and the Chinese 
 linguistic mind is clearly shown in translating into Chinese 
 such a statement as that some one was born in a certain street 
 in a certain town in a certain province in a certain country ; 
 here Chinese would entirely reverse the order, beginning with 
 the country, and descending progressively from generals to 
 particulars. 
 
 These considerations are enough to refute the plausible 
 hypothesis that Chinese may, after all, only be an analytical 
 language which has carried out the revolt against inflection in 
 a more radical manner than English. 
 
 But, on the other hand, there can be little doubt that the 
 old idea of Chinese having preserved unchanged the earliest 
 type of human speech is as false. On the contrary, there is 
 clear proof in the structure of the language itself that it was 
 once polysyllabic, and that its words were to a great extent 
 formed by the addition of agglutinative elements, some of 
 which may have had the function of cases, etc. A comparison 
 with the cognate languages confirms these conclusions, and 
 also shows that the Chinese word-order is not original, and 
 that the language must consequently have formerly expressed 
 grammatical relations by other means. 
 
 We see then that while a language is still in the loosely 
 agglutinative stage, it has two opposite possibilities of develop- 
 ment open to it. It may develope its agglutinative elements
 
 MORPHOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT 
 
 into a complex system of inflection, which may take the form 
 of cumbrous polysynthetism or incorporation ; or, on the other 
 hand, it may shake off its loose aggkitinations, and let them 
 fall back into their original state of independent particles ; and 
 when it has once learnt to dispense with superfluities, it may 
 carry out the principle of relying on the context to that 
 extreme of elliptical conciseness and concentrated force of 
 expression which exciles our admiration in Old Chinese.
 
 CHAPTER V 
 Changes in Language 
 
 Periods, The first general effect of change in a language 
 is that there comes a time when the earliest written documents 
 of that language become obscure, and at last unintelligible, so 
 that we are obliged to admit certain more or less detinite 
 periods in the language, such as Old English, Middle English, 
 and Modern English, each of such periods admitting further 
 subdivisions within itself. 
 
 Development of Dialects. The unity of a language 
 can be kept up only by uniform intercourse between all its 
 speakers ; and if this is wanting, the language begins to split up 
 into dialects. 
 
 If this development of differences of dialect is simply the 
 result of the community being spread over too wide a tract of 
 uniform country, the result will be an infinite number of 
 dialects, each differing but slightly from the nearest one, but 
 differing in course of time very considerably from those furthest 
 away from it. But there will be no definite lines of division, 
 and the dialects will shade off insensibly one into another ; so 
 that any division, say, into a Northern, Central, and a Southern 
 group of dialects, will necessarily be arbitrary in the case of 
 those dialects which are exactly intermediate between the most 
 marked Northern and Central or Central and Southern dialects. 
 Even if we compare two languages, we find such dialects as 
 some of the North Italian, which are exactly half-wav between 
 French and Italian. This overlapping of dialects is increased 
 by the fact that any one of the numerous changes wliich cause 
 differences of dialect may have ditferent boundaries from those 
 
 72
 
 CHANGES IN LANGUAGE 73 
 
 of the other changes. Thus a North-Central dialect may have 
 a certain consonant change in common with the Northern 
 group, or some of its sub-dialects, while in other respects 
 following the changes of the other Central dialects. 
 
 If a dialect or group of dialects is sharply separated from 
 the other dialects or groups by mountains, wide rivers, or 
 other natural boundaries, or by differences of government or 
 religion, it will correspondingly diverge from all the others and 
 develope features of its own. 
 
 But when civilization brings with it the necessity of central- 
 ization, it becomes necessary to use one special dialect as a 
 means of general communication throughout the country, 
 especially if some of the dialects have become mutually 
 unintelligible. If centralization goes on long enough, this 
 common or standard dialect, after being influenced more or 
 less by the local dialects, begins to supplant them, first in the 
 speech of the educated, and then in that of the lower classes, 
 till at last nothing remains of the original dialect but some 
 peculiarities of speech and intonation, which last seems to 
 survive longest. Thus it is that London English has not 
 only become the educated speech of the whole kingdom, but 
 has almost completely absorbed the rustic dialects of the home 
 counties. 
 
 Such a standard or non-local dialect is, of course, itself 
 liable to split into local dialects again. Thus Italian has its 
 local dialects occupying the areas of the old Italian dialects — 
 or rather languages — cognate with Latin, although they are 
 not in any way descended from the latter, which had indeed 
 become extinct long before Latin began to split up into dialects. 
 The old Laconian dialect of Greek, on the other hand, still 
 survives, while most of the other Greek dialects are mere 
 descendants of the Common Late Greek or Late Attic of 
 the New Testament. 
 
 As no language can be absolutely uniform for any length of 
 time over any large area, such a change as that of Old into 
 Middle English really means the change of one group of 
 dialects into another group of dialects. Hence the convenience
 
 74 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 of taking some one standard, dialect as the representative of 
 each period, as when we base the chronology of our division 
 of the periods of English on the changes in the inflectional 
 vowels of the Southern dialect : when we make the loss of 
 unstressed e in the fifteenth century the mark of the end of the 
 Middle and the beginning of the Modern period, as in sun = 
 Middle English sunne, this applies only to the Southern dialect, 
 for in the Northern dialect the " final <?" was completely 
 dropped at least three centuries earlier. 
 
 Strata : Literary and Colloquial. In most languages 
 there are " strata " or dialects which are non-local in the sense 
 of never having had a definite locality, and which correspond 
 to distinctions of class, culture, or occupation in the speakers 
 of the language, the most important of these dialects being the 
 result of the contrast of educated and vulgar, literary and 
 colloquial speech. The distinction between educated or refined 
 and vulgar is often a very fluctuating one ; thus in English 
 the present vulgarism sparronv-grass for asparagus, and such 
 pronunciations as (forard, piktar) for foriuard, picture, were 
 considered perfectly correct two centuries ago. 
 
 As regards the distinction between literary and colloquial, 
 it is important to observe that the literary peculiarities of any 
 given period of a language are, for the most part, simply 
 fossilized colloquialisms of an earlier period ; thus the poetical 
 and liturgical thou hast instead of you have was still a familiar 
 colloquialism in the last century — so familiar, indeed, that it 
 became vulgar and was dropped in polite speech, but was kept 
 up in literature, mainly through the influence of the liturgical 
 dialect of the Bible and Prayer-book. 
 
 It is now generally admitted that the only stratum of language 
 which is natural in its development is the spoken language, of 
 which the literary language is a more or less arbitrary and 
 conscious modification, besides being, as already remarked, a 
 mixture of colloquialisms of difl^erent periods, and therefore 
 more or less of an anachronism. It is now an axiom of 
 scientific philology that the real life of language is in many 
 respects more clearly seen and better studied in dialects and
 
 CHANGES IN LANGUAGE 75 
 
 colloquial forms of speech than in highly developed literary 
 languages. 
 
 But although some of the latter — such as Homeric Greek 
 and Spenserian English — are so mixed and arbitrary in their 
 composition as to be simply monstrosities, we must be careful 
 not to exaggerate the artificiality of literary dialects. The 
 most far-fetched literary constructions and expressions are 
 seldom arbitrary : they are generally founded on something 
 in the spoken language of some period or other. The long 
 compounds of Sanscrit literature are simply exaggerations of 
 the natural formations of the spoken language. 
 
 The importance of dialects may, on the other hand, be 
 easily over-estimated, especially by half-taught enthusiasts, who, 
 for instance, pick out a few conservative features in Lowland 
 Scotch, and persuade themselves that it is the pure Anglian 
 dialect of Old English preserved unchanged, in spite of the 
 evident fact that it has diverged quite as much from Old 
 English as the standard dialect has. Most of the present 
 English dialects are so isolated in their development and so 
 given over to disintegrating influences as to be, on the whole, 
 less conservative than and generally inferior to the standard 
 dialect. They throw little light on the development of 
 English, which is more profitably dealt with by a combined 
 study of the literary documents and the educated colloquial 
 speech of each period as far as it is accessible to us. 
 
 Wherever the literary language is strongly developed, we 
 must be prepared to find numerous traces of its influence on 
 the spoken language. It is important to observe that these 
 literary importations, though conscious artificialities in one 
 generation, may become natural and unconscious in another. 
 Thus English is full of historically incorrect pronunciations 
 which have resulted from the attempt to follow spellings based 
 on false etymologies and analogies, as when we pronounce 
 author with ( J)) instead of (t).' Our dialects swarm with mis- 
 pronunciations of learned words, which make up a large 
 proportion of their special vocabularies. 
 
 It is necessary to observe that the distinction between
 
 7b THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 literary and colloquial does not necessarily imply the existence 
 of a written literature. The archaic language of the oldest 
 Sanskrit hymns was faithfully preserved by oral tradition, 
 together with the rules of grammar and pronunciation which 
 alone made that faithful preservation possible, long before 
 they were committed to writing. The ancient Hindoos, in- 
 deed, put more trust in oral tradition than in any manuscript 
 authority. Even unlettered savages, such as the natives of 
 the Andaman islands, have a traditional language employed 
 only in poetry which differs considerably from the language 
 of everyday life. 
 
 Families of Languages. The difference between a 
 group of dialects and a group or family of cognate languages 
 is one of degree only, the most marked contrast being between 
 a group of mutually intelligible dialects only one of which is 
 the expression of national life, and a group of connected but 
 mutually unintelligible languages, each of which is the ex- 
 pression of a distinct national life, culture, and literature. 
 We can thus answer the question, Dialect or language ? either 
 from a purely linguistic or a political point of view : from the 
 latter point of view such languages as Spanish and Portuguese, 
 Norwegian and Swedish, are unquestionably distinct languages, 
 although linguistically speaking they are scarcely more than 
 dialects of each other. In fact, the Galician dialect, though 
 politically within Spain, is purely Portuguese, so that if it is 
 a dialect of Spanish, Portuguese must be one also. Dialects 
 frequently overlap political divisions in this way. Thus the 
 Catalan dialect in Spain is Provencal, not Spanish, while the 
 Provengal dialects, though for the most part politically French, 
 are almost as distinct from French as French from Italian. 
 
 Mixed Languages, Whenever two dialects or languages 
 come in contact, there is sure to be influence either on one 
 side only or on both, the influence being generally much 
 stronger on one side. The standard dialect may swallow 
 up the local ones, but it is always liable to be influenced 
 by them : every literary language is the result of mixture of 
 dialects to some extent
 
 CHANGES IN LANGUAGE ^^ 
 
 Families of languages do not admit " a standard language/' 
 but nevertheless those languages of a family which have the 
 greatest political, Hterary or intellectual weight combined with 
 the largest population do practically exercise much the same 
 influence as a standard dialect, especially if they are in a 
 central position. Thus we find first Low and then High 
 German exercising a strong influence on the Scandinavian 
 languages : half the vocabulary of Danish is High and Low 
 German, the latter being mainly the result of the supremacy 
 of the Hanse-towns in the Middle Ages. The strength of 
 this influence is strikingly shown in the Danish pehersvend 
 "bachelor,'* literally "pepper-boy," which was originally 
 a nickname applied to the unmarried clerks of the Hanse 
 firms. 
 
 Even when the two languages are so distinct as to show 
 no outward sign of being cognate, there may still be influence, 
 which, indeed, depends mainly on the intimacy of the 
 intercourse between the speakers of the two languages. 
 
 When two races are absolutely mixed by conquest or 
 immigration, the influence is of course still stronger, but the 
 language which is most strongly influenced through being at a 
 disadvantage in any way generally becomes extinct, as when 
 the Scandinavianinvadersof Normandy, and the Scandinavian 
 founders of the Russian monarchy became respectively French- 
 men and Russians in speech, the former again losing their 
 adopted language in England. We see from these examples 
 that the influence of the lost lan,(Tuage on the surviving one 
 may vary indefinitely in degree. The small body of Scandina- 
 vians in Russia have left practically no linguistic traces behind 
 them, and the vast hordes of JMongols who afterwards held 
 Russia for many centuries have had but a superficial influence 
 on the language, while the Normans, through learning to speak 
 a language which was the great vehicle of Western culture, 
 have had a great and permanent effect on English. 
 
 The great problem of comparative philology is to dis- 
 tinguish between those resemblances which are the result of
 
 78 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 common parentage and those which are the result of influence, 
 or what is called "borrowing." The whole science of com- 
 parative philology is based on the assumption that, as a general 
 rule, one language does not adopt the morphological structure 
 of another — it does not adopt strange inflections or methods 
 of word-formation or syntax, while the vocabulary and the 
 idioms may be borrowed to any extent. 
 
 These general principles must not be pressed too hard or 
 carried out too mechanically. Thus the wholesale adoption 
 of Latin words in Enghsh has led to the adoption of many 
 Latin plurals, but there are no signs of such plural endings as 
 -;' spreading to words of native origin. The Latin structure 
 of sentences, too, has had some influence on the literary dia- 
 lect of English as of all the European languages ; but these 
 influences have hardly affected the spoken language ; and, 
 indeed, even the literary language has now got rid of most of 
 the Latinisms of the last century. 
 
 Hence it is that such a mixed language as Pigeon- English, 
 though the bulk of its vocabulary is mis-pronounced English, 
 is in structure purely Chinese, with hardly a trace of English 
 inflections, or even of Enghsh syntax. 
 
 Nevertheless, there are several remarkable instances where a 
 number of languages, apparently genealogically distinct, show 
 striking resemblances not only in sounds, but also in general 
 structure. Thus in the Caucasus we have a number of unrelated 
 languages — some of which, such as Armenian and Ossetian, 
 are of Aryan origin — all having rare and remarkable phonetic 
 peculiarities in common. In Eastern Asia we find Chinese, 
 Tibetan, and Burmese agreeing not only in having true aspirates, 
 but also in aspirating hiss-consonants in such combinations as 
 (ts, t/'), which they often make into (tsh, t/h), and sharing these 
 marked peculiarities together with monosyllabic structure and 
 word-intonation — which last is wanting only in Tibetan — 
 with the neighbouring Siamese and Annamite, with which 
 they are not in any way related, although they have strongly 
 influenced their vocabulary, especially that of Siamese. It 
 is remarkable to observe that the complexity of the tone-
 
 CHANGES IN LANGUAGE 79 
 
 distinctions increases as we advance south-eastwards : Tibetan 
 has no word -tones, Burmese has only two, Siamese has live. 
 North Chinese four, while in South Chinese (Cantonese) and 
 Annamite the number of tones reaches its maximum. These 
 facts seem to show that the borrowing, if any, is on the side 
 of Burmese and Chinese, but against this we must set the 
 unexpected fact that Mon and Cambodgian, which are ap- 
 parently the real aboriginal languages of Further India, and 
 which are similar in structure to, though unconnected with 
 Annamite, have no word-tones at all. It seems, then, that 
 the distinction of word-tones must have developed and spread 
 out from some small centre in South- Eastern Asia without 
 any regard to linguistic relationship. 
 
 This kind of influence is no doubt in some cases more 
 negative than positive — that is, it merely means that if two 
 neighbouring languages have certain features in common, their 
 juxtaposition helps each to preserve what might perhaps 
 otherwise be lost. 
 
 Rapidity of change. When we see how quickly 
 languages change, and then find comparative philologists 
 making far-reaching inferences about the structure of some 
 hypothetical parent language thousands of years ago from a 
 form preserved in some illiterate dialect of the present day, 
 we are apt to feel distrust of results obtained in such a 
 way. 
 
 But it must be remembered that rapidity of change is 
 always one-sided, and that innovations in one part of the 
 structure of a language are always compensated by increased 
 conservatism in other respects ; for without this conservative 
 reaction language would speedily become unlit to communicate 
 ideas. 
 
 A statement has often been repeated that missionaries 
 among some tribe in Central America found that the language 
 changed so rapidly that the grammar of it made by a pre- 
 decessor only a generation before was already quite antiquated 
 and useless. Those who quote this as an instance of the 
 supposed rapidity of change in the languages of uncivilized
 
 8o THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 populations fail to see that the story confutes itself ; for if the 
 language changed so completely in a single generation, the 
 children, parents, and grandparents in a family would be 
 mutually unintelligible, and traditional language would there- 
 fore be useless, and would have to be replaced by gesture- 
 language. It is also to be observed that the only certain fact 
 is that the grammar was useless — all the rest is inference from 
 this fact; and this suggests the question whether the grammar 
 was not quite as useless when it was first composed. 
 
 There is, indeed, quite as strong testimony the other way, 
 showing that uncivilized languages can, under certain cir- 
 cumstances, be just as conservative as literary languages. 
 F. Miiller, speaking of the language of a very primitive race, 
 says : " The Eskimo language is of great importance for the 
 history of language, because it offers us a sure chronological 
 standard for estimating the phonetic changes of uncivilized 
 languages. As Kleinschmidt remarks, * The Eskimos in 
 Labrador have been separated for at least a thousand years 
 from the Greenlanders, and yet the languages of the two differ 
 less than, for example, Danish and Swedish or Dutch and 
 Hamburg Low- German. The inhabitants of Boothia Felix, 
 with whom Captain John Ross in his second Polar expe- 
 dition passed three years, understood a good deal of what 
 he read to them out of a Greenland book, and would no 
 doubt have understood more of it if they had heard it from 
 a Greenlander, and perhaps all of it, if a Greenlander had 
 talked to them about matters of everyday life.' " 
 
 There is no evidence to show that unwritten languages 
 necessarily change quicker than others. As already remarked, 
 a language may be a literary without being a written language. 
 But the important fact to realize is that however faithfully an 
 archaic stage of a language may be handed down by oral tra- 
 dition or by writing, this does not prevent the spoken language 
 from changing. While the Alexandrian grammarians were 
 busily employed in fixing and recording a standard which, as 
 they fondly imagined, would make classical Attic Greek the 
 universal language of culture for all times, the mongrel popu-
 
 CHANGES IN LANGUAGE 8i 
 
 lation of Byzantium was unconsciously evolving the present 
 Romaic, which differs more from the Alexandrian Greek 
 than Italian does from the language of Cicero. So also in 
 England the fixity of our orthography during the last few 
 centuries seems to have promoted rather than hindered the 
 rapid changes in our vowels. 
 
 Other causes must be sought for linguistic conservatism. 
 One of the most important of these is stability of external 
 circumstances and conservatism of life and habits in the 
 speakers of the language. The Eskimos have preserved their 
 language almost unchanged because their life is in the main 
 still that of the stone-age inhabitants of Europe, of whom 
 they seem to be the last surviving representatives : they have 
 had few new ideas to find expression for, and have had but 
 few strangers among them to corrupt the purity of their 
 speech. So also it has often been a subject of wonder that 
 the uncultured Lithuanian peasant should speak a language 
 which, although not quite so identical with Sanskrit as some 
 would have us believe, is certainly much nearer to it than the 
 Neo-Sanskrit dialects of the intelligent and cultivated Hindoo. 
 But it is this very want of culture and contact with the great 
 world of ideas that has enabled the Lithuanians to preserve 
 with such comparative fidelity a language built up of unstable 
 inflections, although, as we shall see, other factors have con- 
 tributed to this result. Where stability of circumstances and 
 life is wanting, civiUzed and uncivilized languages alike change 
 rapidly, as we see in the islands of the Pacific. With most 
 civilized languages the external conditions are intermediate 
 between the two extremes : the disturbing influences of in- 
 creasing complexity of life are balanced by the influence of 
 tradition and organization. Hence it is that the standard 
 dialect of a civilized language is generally on the whole not 
 less conservative than any one of the local dialects. 
 
 All languages, too, have periods of conservatism, so that a 
 language which is changing rapidly at the present time may 
 turn out to be as conservative as another which is apparently 
 stationary, if both are compared with their common parent
 
 82 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 language, simply because the one which Is now stationary 
 may have had earlier periods of change and innovation. 
 
 Arabic is a striking instance of a language which changes 
 comparatively little through natural stability of structure. In 
 Arabic, as in the other Semitic languages, most of the roots 
 are " triliteral " — that is, they consist of three consonants ; 
 and much of the grammatical work that in other languages is 
 effected by means of derivative syllables and composition is 
 in Semitic done by inner vowel-change and transposition of 
 vowels and consonants, the consonants — with certain definite 
 exceptions — remaining unchanged through all the transforma- 
 tions of a root. Thus in Arabic from ^/7c/" skin" is formed the 
 denominative verb gallad '■^ to bind (a book)," whence again 
 by equally regular changes is formed the verb-noun tagUd 
 "binding," just as taslim "surrender," is formed from saliam 
 (p. 65), so that the same root can be used twice over in the 
 collocation taglid gild ^^\q.2x\\^y binding," disguised, and yet 
 transparently visible. It is evident that in such a language 
 there is but little temptation or occasion to shorten words 
 by dropping prefixes or suffixes ; the only elements that 
 could, and were, got rid of in this way were the case- 
 inflectional vowels, whose loss has not altered the general 
 character of the language. Hence also the complex and 
 irregular " inner plurals " have been generally preserved 
 because of their shortness and phonetic convenience, the 
 plural in some instances being shorter than the singular, as 
 in mudun " cities," singular madtnat. In short, such a lan- 
 guage must be taken as it is, or else let alone — " pigeon 
 Arabic " would be an impossibility. Hence it is that even 
 Egyptian Arabic is still very conservative, while the lan- 
 guage of the Bedaween of Arabia, which has the further 
 advantage of unchanged habits of life and freedom from 
 foreign influence on its speakers, is almost more archaic than 
 the Babylonian Semitic of six thousand years ago, which 
 was exposed to strong foreign influence from the beginning. 
 Parent Aryan with its half worn-out inflections is an example 
 of a naturally unstable language ; so that although it is a Ian-
 
 CHANGES IN LANGUAGE 83 
 
 guage of probably later development than Semitic, its present 
 descendants on the whole show a much greater departure 
 from the original structure. 
 
 As regards the relative rapidity of change in a group of 
 dialects or cognate languages, the chief cause of change is 
 isolation from the other languages of the group; in a compact 
 body of languages, the greater the distance from the centre, 
 the greater the changes, while, on the other hand, the most 
 central dialect or language is generally the most conservative. 
 Thus among the Semitic languages the Egyptian dialect of 
 Arabic is the most central, having Syrian Arabic on one side 
 and the North African dialects of Arabic on the other, and 
 the conservative Bedaween Arabic all round it; hence in spite 
 of the strong foreign influences to which it has been exposed 
 it is still remarkably conservative, especially in its sounds. 
 The Bedaween dialects of Arabia are still more so because 
 of the extreme conservatism of their life and the absence 
 of foreign influence, all the adjoining countries being also 
 inhabited by Arabic-speaking populations. Lithuanian is also 
 a central language ; it has the great advantage of having the 
 comparatively archaic Slavonic languages on one side and its 
 own near cognate Lettish on the other, this language act- 
 ing as a bulwark against German influence, so that Lithuanian 
 is surrounded on all sides by kindred languages of a fairly 
 conservative character. At the present time the most central 
 of the Germanic languages is the High German of North 
 Germany, which is accordingly more archaic in its inflections 
 than either Dutch, and Low German on the North or the 
 Upper German dialects of Switzerland and the South. 
 
 It is to be observed that the same conservative influences 
 may be exercised, though probably in a less degree, by 
 languages which arc either not cognate or only remotely so. 
 It seems at least probable that both Slavonic and Lithuanian 
 owe some of their preservation of the unstable Aryan in- 
 flections — Russian, for instance, has still eight cases — to the 
 example of Finnish with its complicated and yet symmetrical 
 inflectional system which gives the noun fifteen cases.
 
 84 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 Distance from the centre involves not only absence of con- 
 trol by cognates but also liability to foreign influence. This 
 last, however, is probably only a secondary cause of the 
 remarkably unconservative character of English and French. 
 These languages are the most remote from the original 
 centres of their respective groups, and both have developed 
 morphological characteristics which are far in advance of 
 anything in their immediate cognates : we need only call to 
 mind the monosyllabic tendencies of both languages and their 
 great development of homonyms, which seems almost to call 
 for the distinctions of word-tones, the English loss of gram- 
 matical gender, the almost complete loss of the plural ending -j 
 in spoken French, and its peculiar periphrastic partitive case 
 (du pain) which — against all Aryan analogy — is used almost 
 in the subject relation {^voila du pain), its use of the old 
 adverb en (from Latin inde) as a pronoun, and so on. 
 
 We have in Modern Icelandic an instructive instance of 
 the conflict between the two factors of conservatism in life 
 and absence of foreign influence on the one hand and com- 
 plete isolation from direct contact with cognate languages on 
 the other. The result is that the language instead of de- 
 veloping in an analytical direction similar to that of its 
 immediate cognates, Norwegian, Danish and Swedish, has 
 preserved its old inflectional system absolutely unimpaired on 
 the whole although with frequent modifications of detail : in 
 Modern as in Old Icelandic the definite article and the pro- 
 noun " they " still sharply distinguish all three genders, and 
 when "they" refers to a man and a woman together, or even 
 to two things one of which is grammatically masculine, the 
 other grammatically feminine, the pronoun is still put in 
 the neuter plural. In the other Scandinavian languages, on the 
 other hand, the noun-inflections are almost as much levelled 
 as in English, and even grammatical gender is only partially 
 preserved, these languages being as much inferior to modern 
 German in inflectional conservatism as Icelandic is superior 
 f£) it. But the sounds of Modern Icelandic have undergone 
 the most fantastic changes through the want of control by
 
 CHANGES IN LANGUAGE 85 
 
 cognate languages. Thus a has become (au), and au itself 
 has become (oei), the front-round y has been levelled under 
 t, and so on, while in the other Scandinavian languages it has 
 been kept distinct from /, and a has merely been rounded 
 into a variety of (dd) without any further exaggeration. 
 Icelandic, in fact, as regards its sounds behaves like an adult 
 whose speech by deafness has been isolated from the con- 
 trol of his fellow-speakers. It is curious to observe that the 
 island-Portuguese of the Azores shows a curious change of 
 long vowels into diphthongs equally opposed to the tendencies 
 of the continental mother-language. Lastly, some of the 
 most phonetically degraded and most morphologically sim- 
 plilied forms of speech are found among the scattered island 
 populations of the Pacific, where the factors of unsettled life, 
 continual migration and isolation all work together. 
 
 Changes in Morphological Structure. The ques- 
 tion of change of morphological structure has already been 
 discussed (p. 67). As we have seen, we have to dis- 
 tinguish between change and substitution of structure: Pigeon 
 English is not a natural development of English, but a recast- 
 ing of the English vocabulary in a new and foreign mould. 
 So also with the various forms of English and other European 
 languages spoken by negroes, although here the new mould is 
 more that of an alien mind than of an alien language. Such 
 hnguages as Yiddish — the German spoken by Jews — so ably 
 investigated by Wiener, shows foreign influence mainly in 
 the vocabulary, its effect on the structure being chiefly the 
 negative one of getting rid of useless traditional complexities. 
 
 The comparative philologist must realize that any one of 
 the ancient languages he has to deal with — however classical 
 and elaborately literary it may be in its extant form — may 
 have been originally a " substitution-dialect " like Pigeon 
 English. It may even have been a " selection-language " 
 like the Chinook jargon of the West Coast of North America, 
 which is a mixture of English and various native vocabularies 
 with a large number of newly formed imitative, interjectional 
 and symbolic roots. There is this simple difference between 
 D
 
 86 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 the two that a selection-language in the presumably rare cases 
 in which it is not swallowed up by one of the languages of 
 which it is made up developes into a language with so strong 
 an individuality of its own that it cannot be regarded as a 
 dialect, and in time it would probably lose all apparent con- 
 nection with its sources. But if a form of Negro- English 
 developed into a traditional independent form of speech, we 
 might have an absolutely uninflectional form of speech, of 
 evident English origin from the point of view of comparative 
 philology, which, if we had no means of tracing back its 
 history continuously, we might regard as the result of normal 
 inner development. 
 
 Antiquity of Language, The oldest written docu- 
 ments of human speech take us back about 10,000 years. 
 But civilization is certainly far older than 8000 B.C., and the 
 invention of writing is certainly older too — how much older 
 we cannot tell. It is still more hopeless to inquire into the 
 age of language itself — that is, fully developed traditional 
 language. The question is of especial importance in its bear- 
 ing on the great problem of the descent of all languages 
 from one common primeval language or from a number of 
 independently evolved parent languages. 
 
 The abandonment of the old idea that the supposed 
 language of Paradise — Hebrew — was this primeval language 
 led to a reaction against such a priori assumptions, and philo- 
 logists, like botanists and zoologists, began to take a pride in 
 setting up as many species — that is, independent families of 
 languages — as possible. But increased knowledge, and the 
 more systematic comparisons thus made possible seem now to 
 be bringing us gradually up to far-reaching combinations which 
 will greatly reduce the number of originally distinct families, 
 so that no cautious investigator would now venture to deny 
 dogmatically the possibility of all languages having a common 
 origin, though he would always be able to make certain 
 reservations in favour not only of Volaplik but of other 
 languages which we will consider hereafter. 
 
 It is evident that our prospects of finding our way back to
 
 CHANGES IN LANGUAGE 87 
 
 such a universal parent-language depend greatly on the length 
 of time that has elapsed since the first evolution of language. 
 It is also clear that the greater the age we assign to extant 
 languages, the greater the chance of their having a common 
 origin in spite of their want of similarity; so that the greater 
 the possibihty of such a common origin the more difficult 
 becomes the task of recovering the primeval language. 
 
 There is no need to dwell on the influence of language as 
 a factor in civilization. It is indeed so self-evident that there 
 is a danger of exaggerating it, and forgetting that it is by no 
 means an indispensable factor. It is clear that the evolution 
 of language itself postulates a considerable intellectual and 
 social development; and if civilization had thus to begin with- 
 out the help of language — that is, fully developed traditional 
 speech-language — there is no reason why it should not have 
 advanced a long way without it : there is no reason why the 
 hypothetical homo alalus " speechless man " should not have 
 developed the art of picture-writing side by side with that 
 of building houses and even temples. There is therefore the 
 possibility of the evolution of language being a comparatively 
 recent event. If so, we must apparently, for several self- 
 evident reasons, content ourselves with limiting the number of 
 original parent-languages as much as possible, and give up the 
 search for a common primeval language. 
 
 One obvious reservation as regards the original unity of 
 human speech must be made at once. The large number 
 of new roots that have been created in all languages must 
 at once be subtracted from the common vocabulary of the 
 languages of earth: it is no use trying to trace back such 
 words as buzz and cuckoo to a primitive Hebrew or any 
 other primeval root. It is this constant possibility of in- 
 dependent re-creation which makes polyglot comparisons 
 uncertain: the agreement of Chinese y}/ mu' with English 
 father and mother does not prove much as regards either the 
 affinities of the two languages or the existence of similar 
 words in any possible parent-language. 
 
 We have, lastly, the possibility of the formation of totally
 
 88 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 new languages. If roots can be created at any period, 
 what difficulty is there in assuming the wholesale creation 
 of a body of roots sufficient to form the foundation of a 
 whole vocabulary ? The Chinook jargon, of which we have 
 already spoken, is in part such a new language. We have 
 only to go a little further, and suppose two or three children 
 speaking mutually unintelligible languages — one of two per- 
 haps being a slave of another tribe — lost in the forest, and 
 forced to communicate by gesture till they spontaneously 
 developed a language of their own, and then becoming the 
 parents of a tribe. Even in civilized communities children 
 left to themselves sometimes evolve languages unintelligible to 
 the rest of the world. It is true that in these cases part at 
 least of the vocabulary consists of nursery words distorted out 
 of recognition, but the result is practically a language which 
 cannot be regarded as descended from that of the children's 
 parents. 
 
 We have, I think, an actual specimen of a new-formed 
 language — whether wholly or only partly new — in that of the 
 Botocudos of Brazil. Although the native languages of 
 America do not all show the elaborate polysynthetic and 
 incorporating structure of Eskimo, Algonquin, Mexican, 
 Quichua, etc., most of them are by no means primitive in 
 structure, and show signs of having had a long history behind 
 them. It is quite otherwise with Botocudo. Our knowledge 
 of this curious language is unfortunately very imperfect, but 
 the following details, taken from the supplement to F. 
 Miiller's Grundr'iss, will give an idea of its structure — or 
 rather want of structure — about which Mliller remarks ; 
 *'This peculiar idiom of the New World, which seems to 
 have no cognates, belongs to the isolating languages with 
 incipient agglutination, and is characterized by a simple un- 
 developed grammatical structure which differs completely 
 from the ordinary type of American languages. There is 
 no formal distinction between noun and verb ; both are 
 entirely undefined. Adjuncts generally precede their head- 
 words, except that the attribute generally follows its head-
 
 CHANGES IN LANGUAGE 89 
 
 word. The attribute-relation is not distinguished from the 
 predicate-relation. The verb is not defined as to time, and 
 does not even seem to require to have past time marked by 
 adverbs ; the future alone is marked by the word * to- 
 morrow ' when necessary. The system of numeration is 
 undeveloped, and seems to consist of names of fingers.'' It is 
 interesting to observe that this primitive language has a con- 
 siderable number of elementary sounds, including long and 
 short and nasalized vowels, back and front as well as point 
 and lip nasals (r;, n, n, m), and distinguishes voice and breath 
 stops. Its chief means of grammatical expression are word- 
 order, the use of original nouns as prepositions, and the addition 
 of such words as *' many " to express the plural. Its roots 
 are polysyllabic as well as monosyllabic, although some of the 
 former appear to be compounds, composition and repetition 
 being the chief means of forming new words. There is no 
 formal mark of composition, which is therefore generally 
 indistinguishable from mere word-grouping. The extra- 
 ordinary clumsiness of the groups by which the most primitive 
 ideas are often expressed serves to strengthen the impression 
 that the language makes of being a late formation. Thus an 
 ox is called " hoof split big," that is, the big animal with the 
 split hoof, a sheep " hoof split little," such word-groups being 
 by no means confined to the expression of ideas which may 
 have been originally foreign to the speakers : thus "eyelid" 
 is called " eye hole skin," " beardless " is expressed by "face 
 hair not." There is, at first sight, nothing in the structure 
 of this language to oblige us to believe that it is more than a 
 few centuries old ; and there may be other examples among 
 savage languages. But a detailed etymological comparison 
 with the neighbouring languages would be necessary before 
 expressing a definite opinion. As we see, F. Miiller regards 
 it as an isolated language. 
 
 General Results of Change. As already remarked, 
 all languages and all periods of them are liable to a variety of 
 changes. The meanings of words, word-groups, sentences, 
 and parts of words (inflections, derivative syllables, etc.) are
 
 90 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 liable to change, because these meanings are generally more or 
 less vague, and we are always either narrowing them — as when 
 the Old English genitive is in modern English restricted more 
 and more to its possessive meaning — or extending them, ex- 
 tension by metaphor and transference of meaning being the 
 main source of expressions for new ideas, as in the word source 
 itself. 
 
 All changes in the relations between words must be either 
 in the direction of convergence or divergence. If convergent 
 changes are carried far enough, they result in the complete 
 levelling of distinctions. Phonetic levelling results in homo- 
 nyms, such as a bear^ to hear ; convergent changes of meaning 
 end in producing synonyms, such as heg'm, commence. Diver- 
 gent changes also create new forms in the shape of doublets, 
 such as of, off. 
 
 Grammatical irregularities are mainly the result either of 
 purely phonetic changes — as in the preterite kept from keep — 
 or of convergent changes of meaning — as in go, ivent, where 
 ivend has become identical in meaning with go — or of a 
 combination of both. 
 
 Control of Change. Although logical considerations 
 cannot alter the direction of changes, they still have a con- 
 siderable control over them. Indeed, every language at any 
 given period is the result of an incessant struggle between the 
 tendency to change and the logical effort to get rid of the 
 resulting ambiguities and complexities. If we consider that 
 the initial consonant-mutations of Welsh — by which, for 
 instance, tad "father" becomes dad in the combination ei dad 
 " his father " and thad in the combination e'l thad '* her father " 
 — the vowel-mutation or umlaut of the Germanic languages, 
 the liaisons of Modern French, and the many other similar 
 changes in different languages are really tendencies common 
 to all speech, we cannot help seeing that their unrestrained 
 working through only a few centuries would make any 
 language so irregular and phonetically decayed as to be unfit 
 for the expression of ideas, besides being too complex to be 
 retained in the memory of its speakers. As an instance of
 
 CHANGES IN LANGUAGE 91 
 
 what actually does happen in language we may take the Old 
 Irish toibnim *' I drive," dosennat " they drive," tafnetar " they 
 drove," toffund "to drive," all formed by the working of 
 strict phonetic laws from the Aryan verb-root sivand with 
 the prefixed particle do. 
 
 In each language such anomalies are allowed to accumulate 
 till they become a strain on the memory or cause ambiguity, 
 and then the whole system has to be reformed. 
 
 This implies, in the first place, that the speakers of a 
 language, although they cannot absolutely prevent changes, 
 yet have a considerable power of resisting and retarding them. 
 When boys at school ridicule pronunciations and expressions 
 which do not conform to those of the majority, they are doing 
 their best to prevent change. If they did not do so, and if 
 the rest of the community did not exercise the same control 
 over the speech of individuals, the languages of two successive 
 generations might become mutually unintelligible, as we see in 
 the frequent instances of children left to themselves developing 
 a language understood only by themselves. 
 
 This is another reason why each generation can tolerate 
 only a certain amount of change ; so that if a language changes 
 much in one direction, it has to make up for it by being 
 correspondingly conservative in another direction. Thus 
 English has greatly changed its vowels in the last few centuries, 
 as we see by comparing the pronunciation with the spelling of 
 such words as tale, tail, be, few — the spellings of which are 
 fairly close representations of their pronunciation at the be- 
 ginning of the modern English period — but has been conserv- 
 ative with its consonants ; while French drops its consonants 
 freely, as in bete compared with the borrowed English beast, 
 which still keeps the Early Old French s of beste, and is 
 phonetically careless in its treatment of final consonants. As 
 consonant-loss and vowel-weakening together would make 
 English unintelligible, one of these i-'^ndencies has to be re- 
 sisted, and from a variety of causes ic was the former tendency 
 which was resisted. Even the Polynesian languages are 
 conservative as regards their vowels (p. 28).
 
 92 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 In dealing with the results of changes which it is too late 
 to prevent, the main question the speakers of the language 
 have to settle with each change — of course, unconsciously — 
 is whether it is useful or not to the language considered as a 
 means of expression. 
 
 In dealing with superfluous distinctions, the general tendency 
 of language is simply to get rid of them. Thus of the three 
 traditional synonyms sky^ heaven, tuelkiTiy the present spoken 
 English preserves only the first. Spoken languages, in fact, 
 as a general rule do not tolerate synonyms. Even with such 
 familiar synonyms as begin and commence, buy and purchase in 
 English, there can be no hesitation as to which word in each 
 pair is the natural expression of the idea, and which is super- 
 fluous : even the most affected and pretentious speaker would 
 hardly talk of commencing to purchase : the colloquial use of 
 such words as commence is, in fact, a case of mixture of dialect 
 — mLxture with the literary dialeet. ^Vhen we are told that 
 Arabic is the most copious language in the world because it 
 has five hundred words for a lion, we feel sure beforehand 
 that most of these will turn out to be fantastic literary terms 
 belonging to a variety of periods ; as a matter of fact, even 
 classical Arabic prose generally has only one word for " lion " 
 [asad), for which each of the modern Arabic dialects substi- 
 tutes one — and only one — other word. 
 
 If both of a pair of doublets can be utilized to express a 
 useful distinction — as in of, ojf, a{ji), one — they are kept; 
 otherwise there is a tendency simply to discard one of them, 
 as in the case of Modern English (wi))). The growth of 
 proper names out of ordinary nouns and adjectives often shows 
 how otherwise superfluous distinctions may be utilized, as in 
 milner, which is sim])ly an older form of miller, mickle and 
 mitchell, which are respectively Northern and Southern de- 
 velopments of Old English micel, whence Modern English 
 much, which was originally a weak form which lost its / 
 through want of stress. 
 
 Defective distinctions, on the other hand, can be remedied 
 only by the formation of new distinctions. Thus if numerous
 
 CHANGES IN LANGUAGE 93 
 
 homonyms lead to ambiguity, a new word of allied meaning 
 is substituted for one of the members of a homonym-group, or 
 one of the words is differentiated by the addition of a de- 
 rivative syllable, or in some other way. In Modern Chinese, 
 where the number of homonyms is enormous, most full-words 
 are in the spoken language made into compounds, as if in 
 English we were to differentiate the like-sounding son, sun, by 
 expanding them respectively into "son-boy " and " sun-star." 
 
 The difficulties caused by grammatical irregularities are 
 met in various ways. If the forms that make up a gram- 
 matical category become hopelessly confused by phonetic 
 changes and confusions of meaning, the inflections or other 
 grammatical forms are simply got rid of, as when Italian 
 abolished the Latin case inflections after phonetic decay had 
 reduced such forms as hominls, hom'tni, homine, hominem to 
 some such common form as "^om'ine — not even keeping such 
 distinct forms as -orum, -ihus — and substituted the use of 
 prepositions. 
 
 If this cannot be done, levelling is had recourse to, as in 
 the change of English brethren into brothers, where the rare 
 inflection -en is levelled under the excessively frequent -j-, 
 and the stem-vowel e is levelled under that of the singular 
 brother, brother s, this change being further aided by the 
 analogy of the great majority of the other plurals, in which 
 the plural keeps the stem-vowel of the singular ; in other 
 words, the -s and the vowel are extended to those forms 
 which are in the minority. 
 
 The choice of the form under which the exceptions are 
 levelled — which then becomes the " regular form " — is deter- 
 mined partly by its relative frequency, partly by considerations 
 of distinctness and convenience. Thus Middle and Modern 
 English had the choice practically between two endings for 
 the plural of nouns, that is, ^en and -es ; but as the Southern 
 Middle English tendency to drop final weak -n made the 
 former ending ambiguous, it was necessary to adopt the latter, 
 in spite of the resulting confusion with the -s of the genitive, 
 the confusion being afterwards made worse by the introduction
 
 94 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 of the Northern verb-ending -x instead of -th. But these 
 three grammatical functions were so distinct logically as to 
 make confusion impossible, and so the logical instinct of the 
 language acquiesced in the arrangement. 
 
 Limitations of Control, These last changes illustrate 
 an important limitation in the logical control of changes, viz. 
 that although the linguistic instinct can both prevent changes 
 and utilize them when actually carried out, and also get rid 
 of them, it cannot exercise foresight with regard to them ; 
 as Paul says, language knows nothing of precautions against 
 the future results of changes. 
 
 Still less can distinctions that have once been lost be 
 deliberately restored. The linguistic instinct cannot create 
 doublets, it can only utilize them when formed by purely 
 mechanical processes. Thus whatever may be the explana- 
 tion of the diiference in pronunciation betv/een the noun luind 
 and the verb luinci in English, we may be quite sure that the 
 shortening of the vowel in the former is not the result of any 
 attempt to distinguish it from the verb — a distinction which 
 is, indeed, quite superfluous, as the two words are always 
 fully distinguished by their contexts. As a matter of fact, 
 such dilferentiations are generally not made when they are 
 most required. 
 
 The development of distinctions of tone in such a language 
 as Chinese, by which words that would otherwise be identical 
 in form are kept apart, used to be explained as a compensation 
 for the contusions caused by phonetic decay — that is, that 
 when two words became homonyms, a tone was " invented '* 
 to keep them distinct, and that as confusion increased, more 
 and more distinctions of tone were elaborated to keep pace 
 with the demands of distinctness. The real explanation of 
 this apparent use of word-tones for purposes of differentiation 
 is the exact opposite. It was the development of tone- 
 distinctions that led to the carelessness of articulation and the 
 multiplication of what without the tones would be homonyms. 
 
 General Levelling of Structure. The various 
 processes of logical control and levelling of irregularities often
 
 CHANGES IN LANGUAGE 95 
 
 gi'/e a deceptive smoothness to the surface of a language, and 
 make us incHned to assume that it was so from the beginning, 
 and that this symmetry and simphcity of structure is the 
 result of long-continued harmonious development, when it 
 may be only a recent levelling. In this way we learn to look 
 with suspicion on a language which, for instance, uniformly 
 throws the chief stress on the first, or the last, or the last 
 but one (penultimate) syllable of words, and to keep our 
 minds open for the admission that this may be only a late 
 levelling of a more varied system of stress. 
 
 The triliteralism of Semitic roots (p. 82) is a striking 
 instance of the way in which language manages to carry out 
 consistently some general but not universal tendency. It is 
 evident from the comparison of such Arabic "roots'* as 
 far-r " flee," farag " split," y^r^^y, faraz " separate, "y^zr^, 
 " spread," farih " have the mind dilated, be pleased," etc., 
 that these forms were originally derivatives of an older 
 biliteral root far. This is confirmed by the fact that many 
 existing Arabic root- words are plainly biliteral and not triliteral, 
 such as ibn " son," plural ban-un, and are universally acknow- 
 ledged as such. Roots like amar " command," which begin 
 with a strong vowel, seem at first sight to be also biliteral. But 
 no Arabic grammarian would admit this ; and when asked 
 where the third consonant was, would point to the initial glottal 
 stop or *'hamza" with which an Arab, like a German, be- 
 gins an initial emphatic vowel ; and, indeed, just as katab 
 " write " has present jahtub " he writes," so also amar or 
 ^amar has present y'^a'wz/r. But this exaggeration of the initial 
 closure of the glottis was probably at first only a device of 
 the linguistic instinct for pressing these biliteral roots into the 
 triliteral mould ; the immediate impulse being probably given 
 by the attempt to construct from amar, etc., a form parallel 
 to the type o{ jaktub and numerous presents of the same form. 
 
 We may illustrate another levelling device of language by 
 an imaginary example. Suppose English had remained an 
 unmixed descendant of Old English, and by phonetic decay had 
 become almost entirply monosyllabic, and that the last words
 
 96 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 to resist this contraction were unseen, unhwjun, arid the other 
 derivatives with prefixed un-. The equal stress on prefix and 
 root and the distinct meaning of the former might then easily 
 lead the linguistic instinct to regard these derivatives not as 
 dissv liable words, but as groups of monosyllables — un seen 
 parallel to not seen. In this way a language which had been 
 forced by a process of levelling into the monosyllabic mould 
 might retain a good many disguised polysyllabic words. 
 
 ^
 
 CHAPTER VI 
 
 The Aryan Langua§:es 
 
 The chief languages of the Aryan or Indogermanic family 
 may be classed as follows, different periods of their develop- 
 ment being separated by dashes : — 
 
 (A) East' Aryan or Asiatic : 
 
 (^) Indian languages : Sanskrit, the sacred language of 
 India — Pali, the language of the Buddhist scriptures, and the 
 other Prakrit dialects — Sindhi, Panjabi, Gujarati, Hindi 
 (or Hindustani), Bengali and the other Gaurian languages, 
 to one of which the different dialects of the Gipsy language 
 belong. 
 
 [b) Iranian languages : Zend or old Bactrian, the Old 
 Persian of the Cuneiform inscriptions — Pehlevi — Modern 
 Persian. 
 
 [c) Armenian, which is really intermediate between East- 
 and West-Aryan. 
 
 (B) West-Aryan or European: 
 
 [d) Greek, the most important of whose dialects belong 
 to three main groups: (i) Ionic and Attic, (2) Doric, (3) 
 iEolic — Modern Greek or Romaic is a continuation of the 
 Attic dialect. 
 
 !e) Albanian. 
 f) Italic group : Oscan, Umbrian, Latin — the Rom- 
 ance languages : Italian, Provengal, French, Spanish, Portu- 
 guese, Roumanian. 
 
 (^) Celtic languages : Gaulish. The Goidelic group : Irish, 
 Manx, Gaelic of Scotland. The Cymric group : Welsh, 
 Cornish, Breton (introduced from Britain). 
 
 97
 
 98 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 (^h) Slavonic languages : Old Bulgarian or Ecclesiasucal 
 Slavonic — Russian, Polish, Bohemian, Servian, Bulgariar. 
 
 (/) Baltic languages : Lithuanian, Lettish. 
 
 (/) Germanic languages : Gothic. Scandinavian lan- 
 guages : Icelandic, Norwegian, Swedish, Danish. West 
 Germanic : Old Saxon, Dutch, Flemish, Frisian, English, 
 all of which constitute the Low-German group; (High) 
 German. 
 
 Original Home. We know from history and tradition 
 that the Aryan languages did not originally occupy anything 
 like their present territory. We know that at the time when 
 the hymns of the Rig- Veda — the oldest literary document 
 of Sanskrit — were composed, the Aryan invaders of India 
 were still confined to the north-west corner of the country, 
 and we know that Greece and Italy were originally inhabited 
 by non- Aryan races who spoke non- Aryan languages ; for it 
 is now certain that whatever family of languages Etruscan 
 and Pelasgian belong to, it is not Aryan. It is now generally 
 assumed that the original home of the Aryans must be sought 
 somewhere in central or northern Europe. A comparison 
 of the peculiarities of each language shows that they must at 
 first have diverged gradually and with little or no disruption 
 of geographical continuity, although the divergences were in 
 many cases afterwards increased by extensive migrations. 
 Thus we find very close resemblances and special afhnities 
 between Celtic and Latin, less close resemblances between 
 Celtic and Germanic, while in the same way the Baltic 
 languages are closely allied to the Slavonic, and yet show 
 some affinities with Germanic. Slavonic again, shows 
 likeness with the Asiatic group, and Armenian shares so 
 many of the peculiarities of the European and the Asiatic 
 group that it is diihcult to decide under which to class it. 
 
 The only way to do justice to these various relationships 
 is to assume that when parent Aryan began to split up into 
 separate languages or dialects, these incipient languages 
 occupied much the same relative positions as they do now : —
 
 THE ARYAN LANGUAGES 99 
 
 I Germanic 
 
 Celtic Lithuanian Slavonic 
 
 Italic Greek Armenian 
 
 Zend, Sanskrit 
 
 We shall be able to come to more definite conclusions as- 
 to the original home of Aryan when we have considered its 
 affinities with other families of languages. 
 
 Age. The oldest contemporary documents of the Aryan 
 languages are the Greek and Latin inscriptions, which take 
 us back, however, no further than about the sixth century b.c. 
 The oldest Aryan literary document is the oldest collection of 
 Sanskrit hymns known as the Rig- Veda (more correctly 
 rgveda "hymn-wisdom"), which were handed down by 
 minutely accurate oral tradition long before they were com- 
 mitted to writing. The relation of their language to that of 
 the later Brahmanas and the still later classical Sanskrit of the 
 Indian grammarians, which must have been a dead language 
 before the rise of Buddhism in the sixth century b.c, shows 
 that their language cannot well be later than about 2000 b.c, 
 and is perhaps older. 
 
 It is, of course, still more uncertain how far we are carried 
 back by the hypothetical reconstruction of parent Aryan on 
 the basis of the comparison of the oldest forms of each Aryan 
 language. This reconstruction does not carry us farther back 
 than that late period of the language which immediately pre- 
 ceded its break-up into distinct languages — that is, to a period 
 in which these languages were only represented by slight dia- 
 lectal variations, all of which need not, however, have neces- 
 sarily corresponded exactly to the later divisions into languages. 
 We may, perhaps, venture on the conjecture that the Aryan 
 language still constituted an undivided whole about 10,000 
 B.C. — undivided in the sense that all Aryan speakers were still 
 able to understand each other with perfect ease. 
 
 General Structure. The general results of comparative 
 philology seem to justify us in regarding the oldest Sanskrit as 
 a fairly true representation of the general structure of parent
 
 too THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 Aryan in that stage of development which immediately prec<'ded 
 its breaking up into distinct languages. In one feature, how- 
 ever, the Asiatic group must be regarded as less conserviti\e 
 than the European, and that is in the vowels. It is nov 
 .generally admitted that the simplicity of the Sanskrit vowel- 
 system with its three short vowels a, /', u is delusive, and tha: 
 the European languages have preserved the parent Aryan 
 vowels much more faithfully, so that the vowel-system obtained 
 by a comparison of the oldest Greek dialects is not very far 
 removed from the original Aryan one, and is at any rate much 
 more archaic than that of the Asiatic group, not only in its 
 preservation of e and o, but also in its diphthongs. Sanskrit 
 has, on the other hand, not only preserved the Aryan accent- 
 uation in its main features, but also the chief characteristics of 
 its consonant-system. 
 
 It must also be remembered that the earliest specimens of 
 writing in India — the inscriptions of Acoka — date only from 
 the middle of the third century B.C. — that is, after Sanskrit 
 had ceased to be a living language. From the elaborate and 
 accurately phonetic alphabet of these inscriptions — which is 
 probably of South Arabian origin — is indirectly derived the 
 much later Devanagari alphabet in which Sanskrit literature 
 has been mainly preserved. 
 
 It is evident, therefore, that the Sanskrit levelling of shorts 
 and under a may be a late change, and that the apparent 
 absence of these vowels and of other archaic features from the 
 present text of the Rig- Veda may be merely an inevitable 
 result of forcing the language into the mould of the Devana- 
 gari alphabet, which certainly distorts it in many ways, as 
 shown by the fact that we cannot make metre of the text 
 without considerable modifications. We have, at any rate, 
 clear proof in Sanskrit itself of its having had e and o in the 
 same words in which they occur in the European languages. 
 Thus original /' becomes the front stop c before a — European 
 f, as in ca = Latin que (Aryan h), while it remains un- 
 changed before a = European o, this latter being preserved in 
 Sanskrit in such collocations as in agivo dramati " the horse
 
 THE ARYAN LANGUAGES loi 
 
 runs," where the -o stands for older -oz from Aryan -os pre- 
 served in the Greek l/tppos. It is, however, to be observed 
 that the Sanskrit phoneticians — the earhest of whom go back 
 to about the sixth century b.c. — give no hint of the existence 
 of short e or o. 
 
 Sounds. Parent Aryan seems to have had at least the 
 following 'voivels : 
 
 a ; /', e ; Uj 
 
 all of which occurred both short and long. The e was an 
 open sound, perhaps once the same as the English (os) mman. 
 There were also a considerable number of diphthongs : 
 ai, e'ty oi ; au, eu^ ou 
 all of which also occurred with the first element long : 
 J/, el, 01 ; au, eu, ou 
 The chief consonants were : 
 
 j n I J, (z) w 
 
 /', g f , J t, d p, b 
 
 kh, gh ch, jh th, dh ph, hh 
 
 [y]) («) n m 
 
 of which those in ( ) were only secondary developments, r\ for 
 instance being only a modification of n before k and the other 
 back consonants. The aspirates in the third line constitute a 
 characteristic feature of Aryan, especially the voice aspirates 
 gh, etc. The breath aspirates were no doubt the same in 
 Aryan as they still are in the traditional pronunciation of 
 Sanskrit, that is simply ordinary English (k), etc., uttered 
 with independent stress on the breath-glide that follows the 
 stop, exactly as in the Irish pronunciation of such a word as 
 tell. The voice-aspirates differ in the present pronunciation of 
 Sanskrit from simple g, etc., in having strong stress on the 
 glide to the following vowel as in dadhami " I place " com- 
 pared with dadami " I give," but the Sanskrit grammarians 
 seem to make dh, etc., a combination of d, etc., with a voice 
 throat-sound like that of Arabic V/z, which also occurred alone
 
 I02 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 in Sanskrit as a weakening of gh^ as in hant'i " he kills '* 
 (present participle ghnant); it is called " sonant h " by Euro- 
 pean scholars. It is, therefore, uncertain whether the Aryan 
 aspirates were originally emphatic forms of i g, etc., or con- 
 tractions of simple /' g, etc., and a following throat consonant h, 
 which was voiced after voice consonants. Besides the normal 
 back consonants i, /-/', g, gh there were four other back con- 
 sonants which probably differed from them in being formed 
 as far back as possible in the mouth, like the Arabic qaf^ 
 developing afterwards into hiv, etc., in which the w may be 
 taken to imply only a rounding or lip-modification of the 
 preceding consonant, not a combination of (k), etc. + (w). 
 
 The vowel-like consonants r, /, n and the other nasals were 
 capable of assuming syllabic functions — that is, of being used 
 like vowels. This syllabic use of r and / is preserved in Old 
 Sanskrit, as in the participles hrta " made," klpta " arranged" 
 compared with haromi " I make," halpam'i " I arrange," in 
 both of which latter a = Aryan e. In the present pronuncia- 
 tion of Sanskrit they are made into r, / + a vowel, irta 
 becoming iritaj as in the word Sanskrit itself. In the other 
 Aryan languages they are resolved in the same way into the 
 corresponding consonant preceded or followed by a vowel, the 
 consonant itself being then sometimes dropped, as is also the 
 case in the Sanskrit representative of syllabic n. Thus Aryan 
 Into " stretched " appears in Sanskrit as taia^ in Greek as tatSs, 
 in Latin as ientus, while Greek derkomai "see" has aorist 
 edrakon = Sanskrit adr^am with ra = syllabic r. These 
 syllabic consonants also occurred long : at any rate, we can 
 hardly explain such preterite participles as Sa.nsknt purna = 
 English fullj Greek strotos " spread " with z7r, ro instead of 
 r, ar respectively, except on the supposition that they are 
 developments of Aryan pllno, strrto. 
 
 The development of these syllabic consonants is, as may be 
 inferred from the examples given, the result of their losing the 
 accompanying vowel in originally unaccented syllables. This 
 leads us to a consideration of the most important factor in 
 Aryan sound-changes — its accentuation.
 
 THE ARYAN LANGUAGES 103 
 
 Aryan seems originally to have had but one accent — the 
 acute — which consisted in uttering one syllable with greater 
 force than the others together with either a rising or a high 
 level tone, any following syllable being then uttered with 
 diminishing stress and a falling tone, unless it was followed by 
 another acute accent, in which case it became a low level or 
 grave tone, every syllable before an acute or after a falling tone 
 being grave. Such are the main principles of Old Sanskrit 
 accentuation, which no doubt apply also to parent Aryan. 
 The agreement of Greek and Sanskrit proves also that it had 
 a circumflex or compound-falling tone, the result of contract- 
 ing two vowels — an acute followed by a falling one — into one 
 syllable. Thus the acute accent of the Greek nominative 
 time becomes circumflex in the genitive times, where the inflec- 
 tion is a contraction of -ees or something similar. In Vedic 
 Sanskrit the long vowels of such contracted inflections are 
 often metrically equivalent to two syllables, just as in English 
 sarcastic oh ! with a compound-falling tone sounds like two 
 syllables — one for each of the elements of the compound 
 tone. 
 
 The place of the accent was not restricted by any considera- 
 tions of quantity or distance from the end of the word, as 
 was afterwards the case in Greek and Latin, nor was it 
 restricted to the root-syllable of a word, as was afterwards the 
 tendency in the Germanic languages. Although we cannot 
 help assuming that all derivative and inflectional elements must 
 originally have been unaccented — for this is the main condi- 
 tion of their development — this was no longer the case in 
 Aryan as we know it. On the contrary, certain inflectional 
 elements had come to be regarded as emphatic, and so became 
 capable of taking away the accent from the root-syllable. 
 The " augment " — the inseparable prefix f- which marked past 
 time — regularly did so, as in the aorist which appears in 
 Sanskrit as adrgam. In the nouns the nominative, vocative 
 and accusative — that is, the more abstractly grammatical cases 
 — were " strong " cases, that is, they threw the stress on to 
 the stem, while in the other cases the endings are emphasized.
 
 I04 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 Hence all noun-inflection was originally accompanied by shift- 
 ing of accent, which is still preserved in such Sanskrit and 
 Greek forms as 'oah = Latin vox, Greek ops " voice," 
 accusative singular vacam, opa, but genitive vacas, opos. The 
 verb, too, shows similar shittings, as in Sanskrit e{i " he goes," 
 imas " we go," Greek eiti, tmen (where the accent has been 
 thrown back) = Aryan eitt, imes. 
 
 These last examples also afford illustrations of a marked 
 characteristic of Aryan — its tendency to weakened unac- 
 cented sounds, in which it bears a striking resemblance to 
 Modern English with its changes of strong-stress (aa) are, 
 (/ael) shall, {^^^) ^^^^ (aj/al,!), as in (ailgou) / tuill go. In 
 completely unaccented or " grave " syllables the tendency was 
 to drop short vowels altogether, as in Sanskrit asmi '* I am," 
 smas " we are " = Aryan esm'i, srnes ; and this is, as already re- 
 marked, the origin of the syllabic consonants, as when Greek 
 derkomai "see " has aorist edrahon with the regular accent on 
 the augment, ra being the regular Greek representation of 
 syllabic r. Just as Aryan er in derkomai became r when 
 unaccented, so also the diphthongs «, eu were reduced to /, u 
 respectively when unaccented, as in Aryan imes compared 
 with eimi, and Greek pustbs " known " compared with the 
 present peuthomai. 
 
 The Aryan vowels were not less susceptible to the influences 
 of intonation. The difference of the Greek nominative hippos 
 and the vocative hippe can easily be explained by supposing 
 that the o is the result of the falling tone which necessarily 
 followed the acute accent on the first syllable, while the e in 
 the vocative is the natural result of shouting out each syllable 
 with a high, clear tone. The alternation of o, o with e, a, e, 
 a in other cases may, therefore, also be the result of 
 changes of intonation which are, however, still very obscure 
 and doubtful. This alternation is shown in such Greek pairs 
 as demo " build," domos " house," leipo " leave " perfect 
 leloipe, akris " point " okris " pointed," rhegnumi " break " 
 perfect erroge, phami " speak," phone " voice." 
 
 The distinctions of quantity were sharply defined in
 
 THE ARYAN LANGUAGES 105 
 
 Aryan, even syllabic consonants being distinguished as long 
 and short. 
 
 Compensatory lengthening of short vowels was frequent. 
 The most important cases are those which fall under the law 
 that the vowel of an accented short syllable is lengthened when 
 a following syllable is dropped, as in Latin vox compared 
 with Sanskrit 'vaca(s)f Greek epos, Greek i/ops "thief," 
 compared with ilopos " thief," Greek^^/^r" father," compared 
 with accusative patera. 
 
 Such lengthenings as that in Sanskrit janu " knee," com- 
 pared with Greek gonu and the other instances in which 
 appears as a in Sanskrit, may be the result of intonation, for 
 in some of the Chinese dialects vowels are regularly length- 
 ened under certain tones — especially falling ones. As we 
 have seen, the ol gonu, etc., may be the result of the influence 
 of such a falling tone. 
 
 As we have seen, the loss of sounds plays a prominent 
 part in Aryan phonology. Not only vowels are freely 
 dropped, as in smes " we are," pater- " father," but also con- 
 sonants. Thus the Sanskrit nominative ^/Va is explained a« 
 the result of dropping the original r before another word 
 beginning with a consonant, just as in English the (r) ol 
 father is dropped when the next word begins with a conson- 
 ant, as in (faa^a wiljam). In Sanskrit the other form ^p'ltat 
 was afterwards supplanted by pita even when a vowel 
 followed. 
 
 Gradation. One result of all these, and the many other 
 sound changes in Aryan, was that the vowels were associated 
 together in more or less definite gradation-series, the character 
 • of which was partly dependent on the accompanying conson- 
 ants. The following are examples of some of these series, 
 with examples from the different languages : — 
 
 er, er, or, or, r : Greek phero = Aryan h/jero " I carry," 
 Old English h^r, " bier," Greek derkoma'i, perfect dedorka, 
 phor, "thief," literally "carrier (off)," Greek edrakon. 
 
 ei, oi, i : Greek le'ipo " leave," perfect lelo'ipa, aorist el'ipon, 
 to which correspond Old English beVifan " remain," preterite
 
 io6 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 belafy noun Idf " leavings," whence by mutation lajan ** to 
 leave," and the preterite participle hel'ifen^ 
 
 en, on, n : Old English h'lndan " bind," preterite hand^ 
 preterite participle lunden from older Germanic hundano with 
 the accent on the last syllable, where the un is the Germanic 
 representative of the syllabic n. 
 
 We see from these last examples how the old Aryan 
 gradation came in the separate Aryan languages to be associ- 
 ated with definite grammatical functions, till at last these 
 originally mechanical changes came themselves to have in- 
 flectional values, and at last in some cases supplanted the 
 original inflections. The Germanic and Old English pre- 
 terites are the lineal descendants of the Aryan reduplicating 
 perfects, traces of the original reduplication being still 
 preserved in such Old English forms as heht '* commanded, 
 named" from hatan (p. 47). 
 
 Already in parent Aryan these gradations and other sound- 
 changes ran through the whole language, adding fresh 
 complexity not only to its inflectional, but also to its deriva- 
 tional processes. 
 
 Inflections. The Aryan inflections were both numer- 
 ous and irregular, apart from the variations which resulted 
 from gradation and the numerous other changes brought 
 about by shifting of stress, influence of intonation, and loss of 
 vowels and consonants. 
 
 Thus the nouns had three numbers, singular, dual, and 
 plural. The smgular of nouns had at least eight cases, 
 nominative, vocative, accusative, dative, genitive, ablative, 
 locative, instrumental, these distinctions being less clear in 
 the plural, and still less so in the dual, in which only three 
 cases or groups of cases are clearly distinguished. The 
 comparative indistinctness of the plural inflections is pro- 
 bably the result of the case-inflections having blended with 
 the following plural-inflection, although there is in Aryan 
 nothing like the regular correspondence of singular and 
 plural inflections which we observe in Finnish. The case- 
 endings vary not only according to the number, but also
 
 THE ARYAN LANGUAGES 107 
 
 according to the gender of the noun. As the distinctions of 
 grammatical gender are of secondary origin in Aryan (p. 59), 
 such inflectional distinctions must also be of secondary origin. 
 It is to be observed that the different forms of the inflections 
 are not mere variations of one common form, but are often 
 perfectly distinct in origin — grammatical synonyms. 
 
 The endings vary according to the character of the stem, 
 the most important distinction being that between polysyllabic 
 vocalic stems — the most important of which again are the 0- 
 stems (chiefly masculine) and the J-s'tems (feminine), such 
 as ectuo *' horse," feminine ecwa — and the consonantal stems, 
 which may be monosyllabic, as in the Greek nominative 
 singular ops " voice," Latin vox, compared with the Greek 
 nominative singular hippos = Aryan ectuos. Monosyllabic 
 stems ending in vowels also belong to the consonantal class, 
 such as nau " ship." 
 
 The real relation between these two classes of stems has 
 long been a matter of dispute. The old school of philolo- 
 gists who started from the axiom that all roots were mono- 
 syllabic regarded the ^-stems as consonant roots + a 
 demonstrative element -a. But when we find the final vowel 
 of such a word as ecivo preserved not only in composition 
 (Greek hlppo'), but also in the vocative, in which all philo- 
 logists agree in seeing the bare word without any inflectional 
 addition, we cannot but regard it as an integral part of the 
 word — as part of the root, in fact. It is, therefore, possible 
 that instead of the vocalic stems being extensions of the con- 
 sonantal stems, the latter are shortenings of the vocalic stems. 
 In fact the lengthening in such nominative as Greek phor 
 (p. 105) seems almost to prove that this is so — at least in 
 many instances. 
 
 The endings themselves vary greatly in character. The -t 
 of the nominative is apparently of pronominal or demonstrative 
 origin (p. 37). Other endings, such as the locative, may 
 from their meaning be conjectured to have been originally 
 particles similar to prepositions. Others, such as the dative 
 plural ending preserved in Latin omnibus, Sanskrit -hhjas.
 
 io8 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 and the Sanskrit instrumental plural -blns^ are clumsy 
 agglutinations with what look like old nouns. 
 
 The ver6-endings which denote person show clear traces 
 of the development out of suffixed pronouns. 
 
 As in the nouns, the endings differ — though in a less 
 degree — according as they come in contact with a vocalic or 
 a consonantal verb-stem, as in the vocalic bhero '* I carry," 
 bhereti " he carries," compared with the consonantal esmi " I 
 am," est't " he is." This analogy is an argument for the 
 verb-stems having been originally nouns. 
 
 The verb is remarkable in showing pre-flection in the 
 form of the augment with which the imperfect and aorist are 
 formed, as in the imperfect ehherom " I carried," ehheret " he 
 carried," the endings of the aorist being similar in charac<^er, 
 as in edrcom *' I saw," edrces *' thou sawest," edrcet ** he 
 saw." The shortening of the endings is apparently the result 
 of the accent being thrown back on the augment. The 
 perfect has the most peculiar endings, as may be seen by 
 comparing the last three forms with the corresponding ones 
 of the perfect singular dedorca^ dedorctha, dedorce. 
 
 Besides these tenses, there was also an s-aorist, preserved 
 in such forms as Latin dixit " he said," = dic-s-it, a 
 pluperfect formed from the perfect by prefixing the augment, 
 and a future formed by adding -sjo. 
 
 Aryan also had special stems for the subjunctive and 
 optative moods. The subjunctive is formed by adding some 
 vowel to the verb-stem, whence the long vowels in the sub- 
 junctives of vocalic verbs, as in Sanskrit bhavasi " thou 
 mayest be," Latin legas compared with the corresponding 
 indicative forms bhavas'i, leg'ts. The mark of the optative 
 is j7, weak i as in sjem " I would be," simen " we would be," 
 bheroim " I would carry." The imperative is represented partly 
 by the uninflected v^rb-stem, as in bhere " carry ! ," partly by 
 special endings. 
 
 There were also special forms for the passive and middle 
 (or reflexive) voices, die latter being apparently the original ;
 
 THE ARYAN LANGUAGES 109 
 
 Its endings seem to be derived from those of the active, as in 
 the third person singular hheretai compared with the corre- 
 sponding active form hhereti. 
 
 The verb distinguished three numbers like the noun, but 
 made no distinction of gender, as in the Semitic languages, 
 which is an additional argument in favour of noun-gender 
 being of late development in Aryan. 
 
 From the verb-stems are also formed by means of special 
 derivative elements verb-nouns or infinitives, and verb-adjec- 
 tives or participles, which are inflected like nouns and 
 adjectives respectively. 
 
 Besides the distinction of vocalic and consonantal stems, 
 the verb also has a number of special present-stems, some 
 formed by adding syllables, some by reduplication, some by 
 infixing a nasal, and so on, as in the Greek deik-numi " I 
 show " compared with deih-tos " capable of proof," d'ldomi " I 
 give'* compared with dotos "given," Latin ru-m-po "I break" 
 compared with ruptus " broken." These various formations 
 no doubt originally had special meanings of their own, of 
 which some of them still show traces, especially those in 
 -sk which were originally inchoative verbs : Latin cre-sco 
 "increase," originally "begin to grow." 
 
 Concord; the Inflectional Instinct, As might 
 be expected in so highly inflectional a language, concord was 
 fully developed, so that adjectives were generally sharply 
 marked off from nouns by their power of taking the 
 inflections of all three genders. When concord had once 
 established itself, it must have greatly strengthened the in- 
 flectional instinct, and also had a great influence on the 
 development of grammatical gender. 
 
 All this led to other important results. In the first place a 
 general tendency developed itself to give a definite grammatical 
 form to each logical category. The parts of speech were 
 marked off by easily recognizable formal characteristics, and 
 a strict line was drawn between what we may call " major " 
 and " minor " parts of speech, the former being declinable, the 
 latter — comprising adverbs and particles — indeclinable, and
 
 no THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 therefore generally incapable of being used as nouns or verbs, 
 etc., until they had received an appropriate derivative syllable. 
 As the major parts of speech were the natural rulers in a 
 sentence, a feeling gradually sprang up that no full-word — 
 unless an abverb — could take its place as an independent 
 member of a sentence till an inflection had been tacked on to 
 it, not merely as a means of showing its concord-relations and 
 other special relations to the other words in the sentence, but 
 also to show that it was really an independent word, and 
 not part of another word. Hence the bare stem or root 
 was employed only in the case of those declinable words j 
 which were capable of constituting sentences by themselves — i 
 that is, nouns in the vocative and verbs in the imperative, | 
 vocatives and imperatives being on a level with interjections, , 
 which are " sentence-words " rather than words in the ordinary 
 sense. Otherwise such bare stems as ecivo, bhere, made the 1 
 hearer expect either another inflected full-word to make up a 
 compound, or else an inflection — which might be preceded by 
 a derivative element — to make up a simple word. 
 
 Primitive Aryan Inflections, It is clear from a 
 survey of the inflections of Late Aryan as revealed to us by 
 comparative philology, that they are but the ruins of an older 
 system, in which the inflections were much more numerous, 
 but at the same time more distinct and regular. Thus there 
 was probably a period when the noun had twice as many 
 cases, which were added to all nouns alike with but trifling 
 modification by the final sounds of the stem. 
 
 There must also have been a period in which the instincts 
 of inflection and concord were only beginning to assert them- 
 selves ; in which inflections were freely omitted when they 
 could be easily supplied from the context — when, for instance, 
 three good man could do duty for three good men on the ground 
 that plurality was already indicated by the numeral, and that 
 concord was to be shown grammatically only when it was 
 really wanted. 
 
 This period, again, must have been preceded by one of 
 more or less loose agglutination, in which the cases were mere
 
 THE ARYAN LANGUAGES iii 
 
 post-positions ; and this period was preceded in its turn by ar 
 isolating period, in which grammatical relations were indicated 
 by word-order and the use of particles. In this oldest pre- 
 agglutinative period post-adjunct order [man good) must have 
 prevailed (p. 41 ) — a tendency which was completely reversed 
 afterwards.
 
 CHAPTER VII 
 Affinities of Aryan 
 
 After we have learnt all we can by comparing the 
 different Aryan languages among themselves and reconstruct- 
 ing their common ancestor, the next step is to find a basis 
 of comparison with other non-Aryan families of languages. 
 Just as the Slavonic languages are non-Germanic languages, 
 and yet akin to the Germanic languages, so also there may 
 be languages which though not Aryan may still be cognate 
 with parent Aryan through descent from the same remote 
 ancestor. 
 
 The first step in determining the ai^nities of a language 
 or group of languages is to find out its original home. As 
 we have seen, the evidence drawn from the Aryan languages 
 is in favour of a central or north European origin, and there 
 is nothing in the history of the speakers of these languages to 
 make this conclusion improbable. 
 
 The next step is to determine what other families of 
 languages were geographically conterminous with Aryan 
 during the period of its unity. 
 
 Ugrian. If, then, we look eastwards, we find the 
 Aryan languages in direct contact with the great Ugrian 
 family, of which Finnish and Hungarian are the most 
 prominent representatives. Of the other Ugrian languages, 
 Esthonian is a mere dialect of Finnish, and Lappish is closely 
 connected with it, these three constituting a special West- 
 Finnic group. West- Finnic, together with the more easterly 
 Volga and Permian groups, constitutes the Finnic division. 
 The other main division, the Ugric or Uralic, is represented 
 
 I 12
 
 AFFINITIES OF ARYAN 113 
 
 by Hungarian together with Ostiak and Vogul, which last 
 are spoken on both sides of the Ural mountains, and extend 
 therefore into Asia : — 
 
 (West Finnic: Finnish, ( rr - /T\/r \ 
 
 \ Lappish \ Hungarian (Magyar) 
 
 Finnic < _. , ^^ Uffric < Vogful 
 
 Volga group 
 
 Permian group 
 
 Tr 1 Ugric < Vogul 
 
 Volga group ^ | ^J^j^ 
 
 The Ugrian languages have not a long literary history. 
 The oldest documents of Finnish date back only a few 
 centuries. Those of Hungarian are older ; but even the 
 earliest of them are less conservative on the whole than 
 Modern Finnish. That Finnish has changed but little 
 during the last 1600 years or more — certainly much less than 
 most of the Aryan languages — is shown by the archaic 
 character of its loan-words, especially those from the 
 Germanic languages, such as kun'ingas " king,'* where the a = 
 Aryan of the stem is preserved, which is lost already in 
 Gothic — the most archaic of the Germanic languages. So 
 also kaunis = Gothic skauns, German schoriy keeps the stem- 
 vowel /. Some of the other loan-words exhibit still more 
 remarkable archaisms. It is to be remarked that Finnish 
 had probably got into the habit of reducing initial consonant- 
 groups to a single consonant long before the period of these 
 borrowings, so that the initial s of Germanic *skaunts was 
 dropped at once — not in consequence of any later change. 
 
 All the evidence points to the northern half of Russia as 
 the original home of the undivided Ugrians, who, however, 
 even now are much less divided than the Aryans. Aryan and 
 Ugrian must therefore have been neighbours from the begin- 
 ning. The character of the loan-words — which show a 
 striking predominance of ideas relating to military and political 
 organization — seems to prove, indeed, that when they were 
 first introduced, the Ugrians must have been in a state of 
 political subordination to the more warlike Germanic race. 
 
 But the borrowing was sometimes the other way. Anderson 
 has shown that the Aryans occasionally borrowed words from
 
 114 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 the Ugrians, especially names of weapons, such as the Slavonic 
 toporu " axe," Finnish tappara, which is a regular derivative 
 from tappaa "strike, kill." 
 
 When we consider that a comparison of Finnish with 
 Hungarian shows at first sight but little resemblance, while 
 the divergences between the different Aryan languages are 
 still greater, it stands to reason that the divergences between 
 Aryan as a whole and Ugrian as a whole must be greater 
 still, so that the number of genuine cognate words which are 
 easily recognizable must be small, while there is always the 
 suspicion of borrowing. 
 
 But when we find a word occurring in the eastern as well 
 as the western Ugrian languages and at the same time denoting 
 ideas which are not likely to require a borrowed word to 
 express them, then we are justified in rejecting the hypothesis 
 of borrowing on either side, or at least in hesitating to reject 
 the hypothesis of common origin. Anderson — who was the first 
 to investigate the question in a scientific and impartial spirit — 
 has made detailed comparisons of part of the vocabularies of 
 the two families, and the result is to establish beyond reason- 
 able doubt that Aryan and Ugrian have a certain number of 
 roots in common. Thus the familiar Finnish word sanakirja 
 "dictionary," literally "word-book," is made up of such 
 roots. With Sana compare the Sanscrit svana " sound," Old 
 Irish son "word." We have another derivative from the 
 root Siva in Sanskrit svara " sound," old EngHsh andsivaru 
 " answer " ; here again we have Finnish parallels such as 
 sorina "noise,'* saarna "sermon," and many others. The 
 word k'trja "book" has also the meanings " mark, furrow, 
 incision," showing that it was originally applied to letters 
 carved on wood, just as hooh = Old English ioc, which also 
 has the meaning " beech tree," originally meant a slab of 
 beech- wood carved with runic letters. It is formed from the 
 Ugrian root i-r " to cut," cognate with the Aryan root 
 preserved in Modern English in shear, score, plough-share 
 = Old English sceran, scoru, scaru, with which compare 
 Finnish koro "notch," -hara in aurankara "ploughshare."
 
 AFFINITIES OF ARYAN 115 
 
 The Aryan root appears also without the s, as in Greek iaro 
 "shear, shave." 
 
 The absence of the initial s in the Finnish words may be 
 original, but it may also be the result of the already mentioned 
 phonetic law which does not allow more than one initial con- 
 sonant, in consequence of which such borrowed Germanic 
 words as those corresponding to Old English dryhten " lord " 
 and strand " shore " appear in Finnish in the disguised forms 
 ruht'mas "prince" and ranta. This peculiarity — which runs 
 through all the Ugrian languages — together with the want of 
 any original distinction between breath and voice stops — 
 g, d, h being mere secondary forms of i, /, p — and the general 
 poverty of the Ugrian consonant-system add greatly to the 
 uncertainty of comparison. 
 
 The difficulties about borrowing do not affect a comparison 
 of the grammatical structure of the two families ; for, whatever 
 may be said about the unlimited possibilities of mixture of 
 languages, there is no evidence that the fundamental gram- 
 matical structure of a language is ever appreciably modified by 
 foreign influence. We know that as long as scholars confined 
 themselves to comparisons of the vocabularies of the different 
 Aryan languages, the relationships of these languages continued 
 to be a matter of vague guesswork : it was not till Bopp 
 and his successors began a methodical comparison of their 
 inflections that the true relationship was established, and the 
 science of comparative philology put on a really scientific basis. 
 It is interesting to observe that just as the older school of 
 investigators preferred the most improbable hypotheses of 
 borrowing to admitting the clearest evidence of a common 
 origin of Aryan and Ugrian, so also the pre-scientific com- 
 parers of Latin and Greek with the Germanic and other 
 Aryan languages hardly ever got further than to admit the 
 possibility of borrowing, even the boldest of them only going 
 so far as to suggest that Greek and Latin might have borrowed 
 words from the rude tribes of the north instead of 'vice versa. 
 
 The morphological comparison of Ugrian and Aryan is
 
 ii6 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 much facilitated by the fact that the Ugrian languages are, 
 like the older Aryan languages, inflectional. In their present 
 stage of development, indeed, the West-Finnic languages are 
 in some respects more rigorously inflectional and further 
 removed from the agglutinative stage than Sanskrit itself. 
 But on the whole the present Finnish inflections are dis- 
 tinctly more primitive than the oldest Aryan ones. They 
 are more numerous, more regular in form, and more concrete 
 and primitive in meaning. Thus the noun has fifteen cases, 
 in most of which the original local meaning is clearly 
 discernible: in fact the Finnish inflections are in most cases 
 what we should be inclined on a priori grounds to postulate as 
 constituting the prehistoric stage in parent Aryan. 
 
 The Finnish verb is poor in tense-distinctions, but rich in 
 moods, infinitives and participles, as well as in derivative 
 elements, out of which the mood-distinctions seem in many cases 
 to have developed. Like the Aryan verb it has three persons 
 and two numbers, to which some of the languages add a dual. 
 The personal endings of the Finnish verb are evidently suffixed 
 pronouns. These endings and the pronouns themselves bear 
 so close a resemblance to the corresponding Aryan forms that 
 it amounts to identity in some cases. Thus the present 
 indicative oi sanoa "to say" — compare j^/7iz " word " — is 
 conjugated as follows : 
 
 m'ln'd sanon plural : me sanomme 
 
 s'lna sanot te sanotte 
 
 han sanoo he sanovat 
 
 The most superficial comparison of this paradigm not only 
 with such Sanskrit forms as bha-vami " I am," plural bhavamasy 
 second person plural bhavatka^ but with the corresponding 
 forms of such languages as Modern Italian, would be enough 
 to establish a common origin. If we trace the Finnish forms 
 further back by comparison with the other Ugrian languages, 
 the resemblances become still more striking. 
 
 Thus the ending of the first person singular was originally 
 -w, which is still preserved in Lappish — where it becomes -b
 
 AFFINITIES OF ARYAN 117 
 
 in some dialects — and in most of the other languages, Finnish 
 itself showing traces of it. The independent pronoun of the 
 second person singular appears in Lappish as ton, don, the other 
 languages also pointing to initial /- as the older form. The 
 older form of "he'* appears from similar evidence to 
 have been sana, together with another form saiva or saivan, 
 which is probably cognate with the Aryan reflexive pronoun 
 seive, seiuo, Latin suus. Finnish shows another ending -p'l, 
 -vi of the third person singular, which seems to be one of the 
 primitive p-pronouns (p. 37), together with a third ending 
 "Sen, which may contain the same pronominal element as the 
 Aryan ending -ti. In the third person plural the h of the 
 pronoun is a later form of s, as in the singular. The verb- 
 ending is transparently nominal in character, being simply the 
 singular -w with the noun-plural-/ — compare i^V<?-/ "hands." 
 There is no blind borrowing or imitation here, but a free 
 selection from a common stock of pronominal material. 
 
 We cannot expect the same degree of similarity in the 
 noun-inflections. One great difficulty is that what appears to 
 be one case may be really two distinct cases run together. 
 
 Thus in Finnish the genitive and the accusative singular 
 both end in -n, but in some of the other languages the accusa- 
 tive preserves the older form -m or -me, as in the Lappish 
 demonstrative tarn, which is identical in root, inflection and 
 meaning with the Sanskrit tarn. Unfortunately the uses of 
 the Ugrian accusative afford us no direct clue to its original 
 meaning, but the Aryan use of the accusative to denote the 
 goal of motion may well be the original one in Ugrian also, 
 where nearly all the other cases still preserve direct traces of 
 ■their original local meanings. 
 
 In identifying the accusative ending -m in Ugrian and Aryan, 
 one reservation must be made. The Sanskrit tarn is specific- 
 ally masculine as opposed to feminine, the ending -m being 
 also used to mark the neuter nominative singular. Lappish 
 tarn, on the other hand, has no such restrictions, for Lappish, 
 like the other Ugrian languages, knows nothing of grammatical 
 gender. But this — which has been urged as one of the strongest 
 E
 
 ii8 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 arguments against any affinity between the two families — is 
 only a welcome confirmation of the original absence of gender 
 in the Aryan languages themselves. 
 
 After what we have seen of the resemblance between the 
 Aryan and Ugrian pronouns, we need not be surprised to find 
 in some of the Ugrian languages a definite suffix -sa or -s 
 having the functions of a definite article, which is otherwise 
 wanting in the Ugrian languages. Finnish has lost this -s as 
 an independent suffix, but still preserves it in a good many 
 words, where, however, it has been fossilized so as to become 
 part of the stem of the word, its meaning having been quite 
 forgotten, as \n parmas, ess'ne parmas-na, " in (the) bosom," 
 by the side of the original form parma without any s. The 
 preservation of the j- in Aryan loan-words, as in kun'mgat 
 *' king," kaun'is "beautiful" — where it has also become part 
 of the stem — is no doubt the result of identifying the 
 Aryan nominative ending -s with the Ugrian definite suffix 
 of which the Aryan -j itse'f is only a later development, or ; 
 parallel development from the same demonstrative root. 
 
 We thus find in Ugrian the germs of the Aryan nominative 
 case and masculine gender, although Ugrian itself is still 
 equally destitute of a masculine gender and a distinctive 
 nominative case ; for in Finnish the nominative singular is 
 simply the bare stem, from which it is difl^erentiated only by 
 secondary phonetic changes (p. 64), just as in Aryan we 
 find such nominatives as pater marked solely by secondary 
 changes (p. 105). . 
 
 We have thus found forms in Ugrian so similar to the 
 nominative and accusative singular endings in Aryan as to 
 make their identity and consequently their common origin at 
 least highly probable. But this identification does not throw 
 much fresh light on Aryan morphology, and merely serves to 
 confirm conclusions drawn from the Aryan languages 
 themselves. 
 
 It is different with the following views, founded on an 
 ingenious speculation of Anderson, which throw unexpected 
 light not only on the origin of Aryan cases, but also on some
 
 AFFINITIES OF ARYAN 119 
 
 of the details of the development of grammatical gender. Our 
 starting-point is the Finnish partitive case. 
 
 The partitive ending is -ta, the / being often dropped in 
 accordance with the general tendencies of the language, and 
 the a being changed to a= (as) whenever the laws of " vowel- 
 harmony " require this change. Its original meaning was 
 motion from a place ; and this meaning is still preserved in 
 some adverbial uses, as in kaukaa " from afar," where -aa is 
 a contraction of -ata. The partitive was therefore originally 
 an ablative, and is probably remotely cognate with the 
 Sanskrit and early Latin ablative in such words as agvad= Latin 
 eqvd[d). It is easy to see how the idea of " motion from " 
 or "taking from" developed into that of "part of," as in 
 le'ipaa " some bread " — leip'd being the borrowed Germanic 
 word represented by English loaf — corresponding to the 
 French du pain, literally "from the bread." 
 
 In Finnish the subject as well as the object is put in the 
 partitive whenever the meaning requires it, as in mteh'id tulee 
 " some-men are coming," the verb being then always put in 
 the singular; compare m'lehet tule-vat "the men are coming," 
 where we have a " total " instead of a " partial " subject, 
 with the verb in the plural. This is an interesting parallel to 
 the Greek use of singular verbs after neuter plurals ; the 
 difference being, of course, that while the Greek neuter plurals 
 were originally singulars, the Finnish partitive miehid is as 
 distinctly plural in form — as shown by the inserted / — 
 although it has come to be felt as equivalent to a collective 
 singular. 
 
 There is an analogous distinction in the predicate. Thus 
 ki'u't on kova, where the predicate kova is in the nominative, 
 means " the stone is hard," that is, " not a soft stone " ; 
 while kivi on kovaa, where the predicate is in the partitive, 
 means " stone belongs to — is part of — the class of hard things." 
 Here again we see the tendency of the partitive to suggest the 
 idea of abstractness or generalization. 
 
 But if in such constructions as those last described the 
 subject is a living being, the complement must always be in the
 
 I20 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 nominative, not in the partitive ; thus in such a sentence as 
 " man is mortal," the predicate " mortal " is put in the 
 nominative. This is done also even when the subject is 
 merely a part of a living being, such as hands, feet, hair. 
 
 Here we see clearly the tendency to associate the partitive 
 with what in Aryan would be the neuter gender. This is 
 carried, according to Anderson, still further in Esthonian, 
 where mud = Finnish muuta, the partitive of muu, " otlier, 
 different," in some constructions entirely excludes the idea 
 of a living being. 
 
 If, then, Lappish tarn is to be identified with Sanskrit tarrif 
 we are justified in comparing tat a, the Fmnish partitive 
 singular of the same demonstrative pronoun, with the Sanskrit 
 neuter singular tad, Gothic ]:ata. If so, the neuter pronoun 
 ending still preserved in English //, that, ivhat, is nothing but 
 the last remains of an old partitive case or agglutinative 
 postposition. 
 
 We have not space to dwell on the equally striking 
 agreements in the derivative endings of the two families, 
 which, again, often amount to identity. 
 
 If all these and many other resemblances that might be 
 adduced do not prove the common origin of Aryan and 
 Ugrian, and if we assume that the Ugrians borrowed not 
 only a great part of their vocabulary, but also many of their 
 derivative syllables, together with at least the personal endings 
 of their verbs from Aryan, then the whole fabric of com- 
 parative philology falls to the ground, and we are no longer 
 justified in inferring from the similarity of the inflections in 
 Greek, Latin, and Sanskrit that these languages have a 
 common origin. In fact, the whole controversy about the 
 affinities of Aryan and Ugrian has no longer any ground to 
 stand on, for there is no longer any Aryan family, and no 
 longer any obstacle to assuming that the dusky inhabitants of 
 India simply borrowed their inflections from Greek and Latin 
 in their prehistoric stages of development. 
 
 That the long-continued proximity of the two languages
 
 AFFINITIES OF ARYAN 121 
 
 has kept them HnguistlcalJy closer together than would per- 
 haps otherwise have been the case, is probable enough. The 
 resemblance of Finnish to the nearest Aiyan language — that 
 is, Russian — is very remarkable, in the syntax as well as in 
 the general morphology. But all such influence is mainly 
 negative — in the way of arresting change, not of causing it. 
 
 Altaic. The affiliation of Aryan to Ugrian is only 
 the first step in the investigation of its affinities. If we 
 pursue our course still further east, we come at once on the 
 great Altaic family of languages covering nearly the whole 
 of northern Asia from the Ural mountains to the Pacific 
 Ocean. These languages are spoken by a fairly homogeneous 
 Tartar or Mongol race, to which the eastern Ugrians also 
 belong. Even the Fins still preserve certain Mongol char- 
 acteristics, in spite of the large mixture of Germanic blood. 
 
 Just as Ugrian represents an earlier stage of Aryan, so 
 also the more highly developed of the Altaic languages, such 
 as Turkish, may be said to represent an earlier stage of 
 Ugrian itself. Thus in Ugro- Aryan the plural of nouns is 
 formed by adding either the vowel i or a consonant which 
 appears in Finnish as / and in Aryan as s — perhaps originally 
 the English (])) — as in Finnish kdde-t "hand-s," partitive 
 plural k'ds-i-a, Greek diko-i " houses,*' there being Ugrian 
 evidence to make it almost certain that this / is a weakening 
 of kj whose unaccountable absence from the Aryan inflections 
 is therefore only apparent. Thus in these languages the 
 plural is formed by suffixes which are incapable of standing 
 alone, while the Turkish plural ending -lar, though not an 
 independent word, has nothing in its form to show that it 
 is not one. Again, in Altaic, these suffixes are so loosely 
 connected with the stem that they can often change places 
 with one another, and can be strung on one after another 
 in a way that would be impossible in Aryan and most West- 
 Finnish languages (p. 65). For these reasons we must 
 regard the Altaic languages as agglutinative rather than 
 inflectional. 
 
 A general survey of the Altaic languages, beginning with
 
 122 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 the highly developed, half inflectional languages of the West, 
 shows, as we advance east, a progressive preponderance of 
 agglutinative over inflectional tendencies, and, at the same 
 time, progressive simplification of the grammatical structure. 
 In the Mongol dialects the grammatical suffixes are more 
 loosely joined to their stems than in Turkish, and at the 
 same time they are much fewer in number, so that many 
 grammatical relations are expressed only vaguely, or not at 
 all, and the parts of speech are only imperfectly discriminated. 
 In Manchu, the most eastern of the continental Altaic 
 languages, what seems to us so necessary a distinction as 
 that of singular and plural has no grammatical mark, being 
 only indicated when necessary by some such word as "many," 
 as in Chinese. 
 
 With this loosely agglutinative structure is probably con- 
 nected what is the most striking formal feature of these 
 languages, which at the same time constitutes the main bond 
 of union between them and the neighbouring Ugrian languages 
 — that is, vowel-harmony. Vowel-harmony is common to all 
 the languages of the two families, though it is almost — but 
 not entirely — lost in Japanese in the extreme east, and 
 Esthonian in the extreme west. It is fully developed in 
 Finnish, though not so elaborately as in some of the Turkish 
 dialects of Siberia. In Finnish, the vowels are divided, from 
 the point of view of vowel-harmony, into the three classes 
 hard, soft, and neutral. The hard vowels comprise all the 
 la:k vowels, the soft the corresponding front vowels — what 
 we should call "mutated" vowels, (j, o, a) — while those 
 front vowels which have no corresponding back vowels are 
 regarded as neutral (he). If the first vowel of a word 
 is hard, all the other vowels in the word must be either hard 
 or neutral, as in muuttumattomuudestansa " from his unchang- 
 ingness " ; if the first vowel is soft, all others must be soft 
 or neutral, as in tytymattomyydestansa " from his discontented- 
 ness." In some instances the vowel of a suffix is made 
 identical with the one that immediately precedes, and this 
 is carried out consistently in some of the Turkish dialects.
 
 AFFINITIES OF ARYAN 123 
 
 The physiological explanation of vowel-harmony is, of 
 course, that it is simply the result of laziness ; that is to say, 
 that when the tongue was once put in the back or front 
 position respectively, it was found easiest to keep the tongue 
 in that position throughout the rest of the word as far as 
 possible. The tendency to subordinate all the vowels in a 
 word to the first vowel was greatly strengthened by the fact 
 that in the Ugrian and Altaic languages the first syllable 
 is always the root or stem, and always has the chief stress. 
 Hence vowel-harmony serves both to further emphasize the 
 subordination of the suffixes to the stem, and to bind these 
 loose elements more closely together, and so assert the unity 
 of the word as much as possible. 
 
 The affinity of Ugrian to Altaic is postulated not only 
 by vowel-harmony and by geographical continuity and identity 
 of race, but also by the general morphological relations 
 between the two families, which are parallel, as already 
 remarked, to those between Ugrian and Aryan : for just as 
 Ugrian shows a stage of inflection out of which the Aryan 
 inflections would naturally develope, so also Altaic shows a 
 stage of agglutination out of which, as shown in Turkish, 
 such inflections as we find in Ugrian not only could, but 
 almost inevitably must have developed. 
 
 We have thus arrived at the further result that the Aryan 
 languages are a branch of the great Ugro-Altaic family, the 
 whole group of languages extending now from the Pacific 
 to the Atlantic with hardly a break. It is interesting to 
 observe the continuity and the progressiveness of the develop- 
 ment of these languages from east to west. In Japanese in 
 the extreme east we have a language which has never emerged 
 from a primitive agglutinative type, in which the suflixes are 
 so loosely joined to their stems that they seem as if they 
 were on the point of falling off; then as we advance west- 
 ward, we are met by increasing complexity of agglutinative 
 structure, culminating in Turkish, till in the Ugrian languages 
 we find fully developed inflection, accompanied by a gradu- 
 ally increasing simplification and selection, till we find in
 
 124 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 Central Europe two most perfect and characteristic types 
 of inflectional speech — that is, Finnish and Lithuanian, which 
 latter is now the most conservative of the Aryan languages. 
 Then, as we advance still further westward away from the 
 central languages (p. 83), we find the inflectional system 
 decaying more and more, till at last in the extreme West we 
 find English in as nearly as possible the same stage morpho- 
 logically as Japanese in the extreme East. 
 
 But we are still some way from the end of our inquiry, 
 the next stage of which takes us to the valley of the 
 Euphrates. 
 
 Sumerian. The cuneiform or arrow-headed inscrip- 
 tions on the clay tablets and other remains found in the 
 valley of the Euphrates and the neighbouring countries throw 
 startling light on the origin of the Aryo-Altaic languages, 
 and carry back their literary history to the very dawn of 
 civilization. 
 
 The cuneiform system of writing was extensively applied 
 to many diiferent languages belonging to different families. 
 The decipherment of the old Persian cuneiform inscriptions, 
 the oldest of which belong to the sixth century B.C., led 
 to the decipherment of the earlier Assyrian and Babylonian 
 inscriptions, both written in a Semitic language closely allied 
 to Hebrew. 
 
 Further excavations in the valley of the Euphrates revealed 
 numerous monuments of a still earlier and non-Semitic race 
 and language, the so-called Accadian, or Sumerian, as it is 
 now generally designated. 
 
 The antiquity of Sumerian may be judged from the fact 
 that it was already beginning to be a dead language as early 
 as 2000 B.C. The definite ascendency of the Semites in the 
 mixed population of ancient Chaldea began with the reign 
 of Sargon I, himself a Semite, who united the two provinces 
 of Sumir in the south and Accad in the north into one 
 kingdom. The Sumerian civilization must have been an 
 old-established one long before this event, which took place 
 about 3800 B.C., and the Sumerians must have been in pos-
 
 AFFINITIES OF ARYAN 125 
 
 session of wiPitIng before 8000 B.C., which is about the date 
 of the earhest written documents in Sumerian that have yet 
 been discovered. 
 
 Some very ancient statues that were discovered in Baby- 
 lonia fully confirmed the conclusion that the Sumcrians were 
 not a Semitic race. On the contrary, these statues showed 
 all the characteristics of the Tartar or Finnic race. And 
 when some progress had been made in deciphering the old 
 Sumerian language, it was found to show striking signs of 
 affinity with the languages of the Tartar races — more especi- 
 ally with the Ugrian family. With all distrust of similarity 
 of vocabulary, one cannot but be struck by such resemblances 
 as those between Sumerian hha " fish " and Finnish kala^ 
 h'ldu "moon" and Finnish huu, Vepse-Finnish kuda't. 
 The comparison, too, of Sumerian urudu "copper" with 
 Finnish rauta " iron " is certainly more plausible than the 
 older assumption that the Fins, who were the acknowledged 
 masters of the Germanic tribes in the art of metal- working, 
 learnt the use of iron from the latter, and then, instead 
 of simply adopting the Germanic name for it, took the 
 Scandinavian word rauYi "hematite" as its designation. 
 The truth is that raiiYi and rauta are both independent 
 formations from one Aryo- Altaic root meaning "red" or 
 "dark." 
 
 But the main argument in favour of the affinity of Sumerian 
 with the Ugro- Altaic family is that they are all governed by 
 the great law of vowel-harmony, which in Sumerian as well 
 as in Ugro- Altaic gave rise to the characteristic vowel (ae) in 
 English man as the " soft " form of a together with front- 
 rounded vowels resembling or identical with French u and cii. 
 Many languages all over the world show various convergent 
 acoustic sound-changes, but none of them show anything like 
 vowel-harmony as carried out in these two groups of languages, 
 and we cannot but regard this as being as decisive a proof of 
 affinity as similarity of inflections would be. 
 
 Inflectional resemblances we cannot reasonably expect ; for 
 some of the Altaic languages themselves have hardly advanced
 
 126 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 even to the agglutinative stage at the present day, and we 
 cannot therefore expect a language which must practically be 
 a near approach to the parent Altaic language to have developed 
 inflections thousands of years ago. 
 
 Primitive as the structure of Sumerian is, it is far from 
 being that isolating, monosyllabic, Chinese-like language we 
 might be inclined to expect. On the contrary, its roots, or 
 what appear to be such, are as often polysyllabic as mono- 
 svllabic, and this applies to particles as well as full-words ; 
 many, too, of the monosyllables seem to be late contractions 
 of longer words. 
 
 Grammatical relations are shown in a variety of ways : — 
 
 ( 1 ) by reduplication, which appears in various stages, 
 sometimes in that of complete repetition of the word, some- 
 times in various contracted forms, so that only the beginning 
 of the word is repeated, as in the Aryan reduplication. 
 
 (2) hy prolongation, that is, the addition of a vowel, pre- 
 ceding consonants being doubled: thus the "prolonged " form 
 of ad " father " is adda. We may, however, conjecture that 
 the relation between the two forms is the same as the relation 
 between vocalic and consonantal stems in Aryan may be — 
 that is, that prolongation is the original stage. 
 
 (3) by prefixes and suffixes, the same adfixes sometimes 
 having different functions according as they precede or follow 
 their stems. One stem may receive many of these elements : 
 the language is highly polysynthetic. 
 
 (4) by particles, which are however often difficult to 
 distinguish from the loosely agglutmated adfixes, particles 
 which otherwise appear to be quite free, often entering into 
 apparently close union with the former. 
 
 (5) by tuord-order, which, however, does not play a very 
 prominent part in the morphology of a language which is 
 provided with so many adlixes. 
 
 As might be expected, grammatical categories and relations 
 are often not marked at all, but left to be inferred from the 
 context. Thus the plural of nouns is often the same as the 
 singular ; the genitive relation is often shown by mere post-
 
 AFFINITIES OF ARYAN 127 
 
 position of the genitival word, as in e odda (prolonged forni) 
 " house father," according to the general principle of putting 
 adjunct-words after their head -words. 
 
 The whole structure of the language is based on the noun. 
 Adjectives — which, in accordance with the general principles 
 of Sumerian word-order, always follow their nouns— are not 
 formally distinguished from these, and may indeed be them- 
 selves regarded as nouns in apposition or in the genitive 
 relation, thus the half compound lu-gal " prince, king," 
 literally " man strong," might also be explained as "man of 
 strength." 
 
 The nouns have, of course, no distinctions of grammatical 
 gender. They take postpositions answering to the cases of 
 Finnish and Aryan, of which there are about nine — no doubt 
 mere remains of a larger number. One of these, -gim or 
 -gime^ means "like," the others seem to be originally local in 
 their meanings. -r<7, often shortened to -r, is apparently a 
 verb *' go." -ta " in, out of, from " may be the parent of 
 the Finnish partitive and the Aryan ablative. The plural is 
 either left unmarked, or reduplication is used, as with kur 
 " mountain, country," plural kur kur ^ or some periphrase is 
 used. Prolongation of nouns seems to imply emphasis, as in 
 kurkura "the mountains." 
 
 The pronouns p!ay an important part in Sumerian grammar. 
 The personal pronouns when absolute — that is, not used as 
 adfixes — take various prolonged or emphatic forms, as with 
 %a-~i " thou " ; when a postposition is added, they resume 
 their shorter forms, as in ma-ra, " to me." But the pro- 
 nouns generally appear in the form of adfixes ; thus the 
 possessive pronouns are suffixes, as in e--z.u "thy house," 
 with the same order as with other genitival or adjecti\al 
 words. 
 
 Verb-stems are capable of prolongation and reduplication, 
 like the nouns, the bare stem generally having a preterite 
 meaning, as in the Aryan root-aorist (Greek el'ipon), while 
 the prolonged and reduplicated forms have a durative or 
 present meaning, which again reminds us of the Aryan present-
 
 128 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 stems. Special stems are formed by prefixes, most of which 
 are identical in form with the noun-postpositions. Thus 
 verbs of motion take ra-, which is therefore identical with 
 the accusative postposition -ra. The negative particle nu- is 
 often shortened and mixed up with other prefixes, so that 
 practically we get a negative inflection of the verb. So also 
 with other prefixed particles. 
 
 As regards the persons, the first and second are generally 
 expressed by adding the possessive suffix to the prolonged 
 root, as in garra-mu " I make," garra-zu " thou makest," 
 from gar " make,*' the third person being left without any 
 pronominal suffix, as in the Aryan perfect [dedorce " he has 
 seen "). 
 
 The verb-forms are greatly complicated by the addition of 
 prefixes to denote the pronominal objects " me," " him," etc. 
 Even pronouns in the dative relation are incorporated into the 
 verb, as also a variety of particles. 
 
 All these additions follow each other in a more or less 
 definite order, which, however, curiously enough varies at 
 different periods of the language. In the later language the 
 stem-prefixes ra-, etc., often follow instead of immediately 
 preceding the verb-root. 
 
 The result of so many different adfixes coming together 
 and being subject to all the disguises produced bv the working 
 of vowel-harmony, shortening, elision and blending together, 
 is great complexity and irregularity, this chaotic, elastic irre- 
 gularity being, however, very different from the stiff, fossilized 
 irregularity of Aryan forms. 
 
 Sumerian may, then, be briefly described as a loosely agglu- 
 tinative highly polysynthetic language with a tendency towards 
 incorporation. 
 
 Such a language can easily develope in the two opposite 
 directions of complexity and simplicity. By making its 
 agglutinations fixed and permanent, it would develope either 
 into an inflectional language like Finnish or a definitely in- 
 corporating language of the Basque type, according to the 
 nature and amount of the logical control exercised over the
 
 AFFINITIES OF ARYAN 129 
 
 resulting forms. If, on the other hand, the agglutinations, 
 instead of being tightened, were loosened again, the result 
 would be that compromise between agglutinative and particle 
 languages which we observe in the eastern branch of the 
 Altaic family ; and if the resulting particles were reduced to 
 a minimum, and the words became monosyllabic by phonetic 
 decay, a language of the isolating type would be evolved. 
 Hence we see that the comparatively isolating structure of the 
 eastern Altaic languages does not necessarily imply an isolating 
 parent-language. 
 
 Whatever the precise relations between Sumerian and 
 Aryan may be, there can be little doubt that Sumerian brings 
 us much nearer than. Finnish or Altaic do to the common 
 ancestor of them all. At any rate, there is nothing in the 
 morphological character of Sumerian to make such a relation 
 improbable. 
 
 The Aryan Race. The great difficulty of the Aryan 
 problem and one of the chief reasons for the prevailing pre- 
 judice against the hypothesis of a common origin of Aryan 
 and Finnish is that the evidence of race seems to contradict 
 that of language. The archaeological researches of late years 
 have shown that the undivided Aryans must have had a fairly 
 definite type of their own, and that physically they were very 
 different from the round-headed (brachycephalic), yellow- 
 skinned Mongols, and that the primitive Aryan type is still 
 faithfully preserved in the rural districts of Sweden : the 
 original Aryans were a tall long-headed (dolichocephalic) race 
 with blue eyes, fair hair, and pink-and-white complexion. 
 Not only were they not an Asiatic race, but all the evidence 
 seems to show that they were the descendants of the savages of 
 the stone period, who were the first inhabitants of Europe. 
 
 Aryan cannot therefore have been their original language ; 
 it must have been a borrowed language — a language, as we 
 have seen, of Asiatic origin. But instead of the Aryans 
 coming from Central Asia and driving out a supposed Finnic 
 population, as was formerly supposed, it was the Fins who 
 invaded Europe and imposed their language on an alien race.
 
 I30 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 From what we know of the spread of Babylonian and Chinese 
 civilization in historical times, there is reason to suppose that 
 the spread of Asiatic culture and language in Europe was a 
 very gradual and even to some extent a peaceful process, 
 although it was no doubt aided by the polished jade or bronze 
 weapons of the newcomers, to which the aborigines could only 
 oppose weapons of chipped flint and bone-tipped arrows. 
 
 The immediate ancestors of the Aryans must therefore 
 have been not only a mixed race, but a race in which the 
 foreign element was strong enough to prevent the native lan- 
 guage from getting the upper hand, as is generally the case 
 when the conquerors constitute only a small body of aristo- 
 crats. But in all cases in which the langpage of the conquered 
 absorbs that of the conquerors, the former constitute a settled 
 population of some degree of civilization, being indeed gener- 
 ally superior in culture and therefore inferior in physical energy 
 to their conquerors. In the case of the first invasion of 
 Europe by Asiatics the circumstances were reversed ; it was 
 impossible that a scattered population of hunters and fishers 
 should impose their language on a compact body of compar- 
 atively civilized invaders, who, however inferior they may 
 have been in stature and muscular vigour, had metals and 
 numbers on their side. 
 
 How is it then that the Swedes, who are undoubtedly as 
 pure Aryans as any, both in race and language, show an 
 almost pure European or Caucasian type ? 
 
 The solution of the problem lies in the influence of climate. 
 It is now generally agreed that the Caucasian is a bleached 
 race — that its fairness is the result of long exposure to the 
 intense Cwld of the glacier period, which of course continued, 
 though in a milder form, long after the Ime of the glaciers 
 had retreated to the Scandinavian peninsula. Hence even 
 now the pure European races of the North thrive only in cold 
 climates, and melt away under the sun of the tropics. Hence 
 also when the fair races are mixed with darker ones the latter 
 get the upper hand in southern climates : even the climate of 
 England, inclement as it seems to a Southerner, is too mild
 
 AFFINITIES OF ARYAN iji 
 
 for the pure blonde type, which is becoming rarer and rarer 
 every century. As we go further south, we find that in 
 Germany, for instance, the dark-skinned, short-headed type 
 predominates more and more over the fair-haired, white- 
 complexioned, long-headed type of the north of Germany, till 
 at last the long-heads form only a small percentage of the 
 population, except in mountainous regions where the chmatic 
 conditions tend to keep up the vigour of the fair race. 
 
 Those investigators of Aryan affinities who, in their attempts 
 to reconcile European race-affinities with Asiatic language- 
 affinities, have been driven into assuming, against the main 
 body of evidence, that the primitive Aryans were a pre- 
 dominantly short-headed and not a long-headed race, have 
 overlooked the easy solution of the difficulty afforded by the 
 consideration that if exposure to a warm climate modifies a 
 mixed race in the way just described, the reverse change of 
 climate would affect that same population in a reverse way : 
 that is to say, they have omitted to consider what would be 
 the effect on such a mixed race of exposure to a colder 
 climate. 
 
 If we suppose a mixed population of long-heads and short- 
 heads occupying the plains of Central Europe at a time when 
 the extreme north of the continent was still kept uninhabitable 
 by sheets of ice, and then suppose some of these following the 
 retreating ice-line into the peninsula of Scandinavia, we have 
 a probable hypothesis which sufficiently explains how in this 
 hiixed population thus restored to conditions exactly similar 
 to those which had evolved one of its component races, the 
 latter rapidly developed at the expense of the other, so that 
 the proportion of long to short skulls in the old Swedish 
 burial-places of the earliest prehistoric period is exactly the 
 reverse of what we f nd in Southern Germany. 
 
 It is still generally assumed that the short skulls in these 
 burial-places are those of an alien race — perhaps Finnish serfs. 
 But it is not necessary to assume that the aristocrats should have 
 buried low-class foreigners in their own cemeteries ; and it is 
 simpler to accept these short skulls as a proof that the Aryan
 
 t32 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 race itself was a mixed one. So also the tall, short-headed 
 race which undoubtedly existed in Western Europe in pre- 
 historic times may well be the result of a similar mixture 
 of races. 
 
 An additional argument in favour of Scandinavia having 
 been the original home and nursery of a definite Aryan race 
 as opposed to the other mixed European populations is afforded 
 by the dialectal relations of the Aryan language to its cognates. 
 If Aryan had developed anywhere south of Scandinavia — if 
 it had developed in the plains of Lithuania, as would other- 
 wise appear the most probable hypothesis — Aryan and Ugrian 
 would be connected by many links of intermediate dialects. 
 But of this we see no traces : the two families are sharply 
 and definitely opposed to one another in morphological struc- 
 ture, in spite of their common origin. This points clearly to 
 a long period of isolation and solitary incubation, so to speak, 
 on the part of that dialect of Ugro- Altaic which developed 
 into the earliest stage of parent Aryan ; and this condition is 
 satisfied, as far as we can see, only by the hypothesis of 
 Scandinavia having been the original home of the Aryan race 
 and the Aryan language. Penka, the great advocate of the 
 Scandinavian origin of the Aryans, has collected numerous 
 and weighty arguments for this theory from the history and 
 traditions of the different Aryan nations themselves.
 
 CHAPTER VIII 
 The Individuality of Languages 
 
 In passing from one language to another the most general 
 impression we receive is that of the strong individuaUty of 
 each of them. No two languages are alike : even such mere 
 dialects as Spanish and Portuguese, Danish and Swedish, are 
 sharply contrasted in many essential features. We soon learn 
 to recognize each language by its phonetic structure not only 
 as heard, but also in its written form; even if we know 
 practically nothing of the language, we can often say after 
 reading a few lines, " this is Russian or Servian, this looks 
 like Malay, this is a North-American Indian language." 
 After further study we learn to feel the deeper divergences of 
 grammatical structure, range of ideas, and the way in which 
 ideas are analyzed and expressed ; and all this can be ob- 
 served and felt spontaneously without any help from direct 
 grammatical and philological training. 
 
 In fact, the comparative and historical study of languages is 
 apt to blind us to the recognition of the essential individuality 
 of each of them. 
 
 After studying the comparative grammar of the Ar\an 
 languages with its incessant repetition of comparisons of a 
 few hundred words such as Sanskrit sunu^ Old Bulgarian 
 synii, Lithuanian sunus. Old English sunu. Modern English 
 son, we are apt to forget that such close resemblances are few 
 and far between, and that even in the most conservative 
 Aryan languages the number of native words that can be at 
 once recognized as Aryan is surprisingly small. And when 
 we come to a language such as Albanian, we find that it is so 
 133
 
 134 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 full of loan-words from the Romance and Slavonic languages, 
 and from Turkish and Romaic, that out of more than five 
 thousand words only about four hundred can be proved to be 
 native. This is an extreme case ; but even in such languages 
 as Sanskrit and Greek the number of words of foreign or 
 obscure etymology is greater than any one would imagine 
 a prioriy and it must not be forgotten that some of the words 
 for which etymologies have been found may be familiarizations 
 of foreign words, like sparrotu-grass for asparagus. When we 
 find the Sanskrit word for ** bear " (animal) derived from a 
 root meaning "to shine," we cannot help suspecting either 
 this explanation or a false etymology. Of those words whose 
 etymology is certain, many are so disguised by sound-changes 
 and changes of meaning that none but a philologist could 
 recognize them. So also dialect-enthusiasts pick out a few 
 sensational archaisms, and ignore the fact that the special 
 vocabulary of their dialect is made up just as much of dis- 
 tortions of often only half-understood words of French and 
 learned origin imported direct from the standard language, 
 such as bayonet, bj-otichitis. It is the same with the recognition 
 of athnities. Finnish, Lappish and Hungarian are closely 
 related, but it was not till 1770 that the Hungarian Sajnovics 
 published his proof that Hungarian and Lappish were the 
 same language — that is, cognate — and so laid the foundations 
 of comparative Ugrian grammar. Nor was it without hesitation 
 that the founders of Aryan comparative philology admitted 
 the Celtic languages into the Aryan family. 
 
 We find the same individuality in the general structure of 
 languages. Sanskrit, Latin and Greek are all inflectional 
 languages belonging to the same family, and yet they make a 
 very dilferent use of their common inflectional material. 
 There can be no greater contrast than that between the varied 
 building up of the Latin sentence with its constant alternation 
 oi direct and indirect narration, accusative with infinitive, 
 and ablative absolute, and its finely-graded sequence of tenses, 
 and the heavy and monotonous classical Sanskrit sentence 
 overloaded with participles and gerunds, often to the almost
 
 THE INDIVIDUALITY OF LANGUAGES 135 
 
 comp'.ete exclusion of the finite verb, and its long compounds 
 which usurp the functions of inflection. Greek, again, uses 
 its inflections in a very different way from Latin, and more 
 like th? modern analytical languages of Europe. 
 
 From th's point of view the morphological classification of 
 languages acts as a welcome corrective to the purely genealogical 
 and historical classification. It teaches us both to recognize 
 what are the really characteristic and more or less permanent 
 features in the different periods of a language or in the members 
 of a group of cognate languages, and also to realize that 
 languages genealogically unconnected may develope similar 
 morphological structure. But even an elaborate morphological 
 classification does but scant justice to the infinite variety of 
 linguistic structure, as we see from what has just been said 
 about the divergent structure of Sanskrit, Latin, and Greek. 
 
 Phonetic individuality. The first thing that strikes 
 us in a new language is, of course, its phonetic structure. 
 This depends, in the first place, on the sounds of which it is 
 composed. Every language, and every period of a language, 
 selects for its own use only some out of the whole body of 
 available sounds. Thus English has mixed vowels, but no 
 front-round vowels of the type of French u, and it is rich in 
 hiss-sounds. Arabic, again, is characterized by its numerous 
 back and throat consonants — x, y, k, q (inner k), h, ', ' 
 (glottal stop). The number of elementary sounds in a lan- 
 guage is also characteristic. Harmonious and sonorous languages 
 have few sounds with well-marked distinctions, especially 
 in the vowel system ; while an exceptionally large number 
 of sounds, as in Celtic Irish, and to a less extent in English 
 and Russian, implies numerous transitional and intermediate 
 sounds, which detract from the harmony of the language and 
 give it a certain character of indistinctness and even monotony. 
 Very characteristic, too, are distinctions which result from 
 different principles of combination. Thus English and Arabic 
 tolerate what in other languages would seem intolerably harsh 
 consonant-groups, which in Arabic, however, are excluded 
 from the beginning of the word, while English has no more
 
 136 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 objection to such initial combinations as (str-) than it has to 
 such final groups as (-ksts). Then we have endless synthetic 
 distinctions of stress, quantity, and intonation. In some lan- 
 guages, such as French, there is a tendency to equal stress on 
 all syllables. In Finnish there is a strong stress on the first 
 syllable with rigorous preservation of the distinctions of short 
 and long vowels, double and single consonants in the unstressed 
 syllables, which is elfected not so much by exaggerating the 
 length of the long vowels and double consonants as by 
 excessive shortening of the short vowels and uttering the 
 single consonants as lightly as possible. In English we have 
 strong stress on any syllable with great obscuration of the un- 
 stressed syllables. In Russian and the Romance languages there 
 is hardly any distinction of quantity in the vowels ; and in 
 Spanish we hear a combination of very short vowel-quantity 
 and falling intonation which gives the language a harsh and 
 almost brutal character in spite of the harmony of its vowels. 
 In Swedish every full-stressed vowel is either long or followed 
 by more than one consonant, so that there are no short stressed 
 syllables, which gives a certain heaviness to this harmonious 
 language. The influence of intonation on the general phonetic 
 character of a language is equally important. The monotonous 
 falling tones of Finnish and the predominance of rising tones 
 in Scotch and of compound rising tones in American-English 
 are among the most marked phonetic characteristics of these 
 forms of speech, and the ones that strike a foreigner first. 
 The constant alternation of varied word-tones in Chinese 
 give a peculiar graceful animation to the language which 
 reminds one of the twittering of birds. 
 
 Besides these influences, the general quality of the voice is 
 liable to be modified by changes in the shape of the throat 
 and mouth passages, which give rise to the various qualities of 
 voice known as clear, dull, muffled, nasal, wheezing, strangled 
 voice. The last effect is a disagreeable feature of Portuguese 
 pronunciation. 
 
 Every language has certain general tendencies which control 
 the organic formation of its sounds, constituting what is called
 
 THE INDIVIDUALITY OF LANGUAGES 137 
 
 its organic basis or basis of articulation. Thus in English we 
 flatten and lower the tongue, hollow the fore part of it and 
 generally draw it back from the teeth, while we keep the lips 
 in a neutral position without either pouting them or spreading 
 them out at the corners. This flattening of the tongue leads 
 to widening of the vowels, its hollowing gives a general dull 
 resonance which is especially noticeable in the (1), while the 
 retraction of the tongue favours the development of mixed 
 vowels, and the neutral position of the lips tends to eliminate 
 front-round vowels. In French everything is reversed ; the 
 tongue is arched and raised and advanced, and the lips 
 articulate with energy, whence narrowness both in vowels 
 and consonants, a tendency to outer (dental) articulation of 
 point and blade consonants, and full development of front- 
 round vowels. The organic basis together with the general 
 synthetic distinctions of stress and intonation are often more 
 permanent than the actual sounds of a language, and a minute 
 comparative study of such features will in the futwe be an 
 essential branch of comparative philology. But the organic 
 basis is, of course, like everything else in language, liable to 
 change. Thus the organic basis of early or Tudor Modern 
 English seems to have been different in many respects from 
 that of the present English and to have been nearer to that 
 of Modern French. 
 
 Range of Expression. If we turn now from the 
 purely formal to the grammatical and logical characteristics 
 of languages, our attention may first be directed to differences 
 in range of expression. We cannot expect the speakers of 
 a language to have expressions for ideas and things with 
 which they are unacquainted ; but even within the limits of 
 what is common to all minds we find great diflerences in 
 detail. Often in speaking a foreign language we seek in vain 
 for a precise equivalent for some native word or idiom, and 
 find that there is not any definite equivalent, and that we 
 must content ourselves with a vague periphrasis. Sometimes 
 the difficulty arises from want of an abstract general term, 
 as when in savage languages there is no word for " tree " but
 
 138 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 only names for the different kinds of trees, or no word for 
 "wash" but only words for washing the feet, washing the 
 hands and so on. On the other hand, the expression may be 
 too vague ; most languages have words like get in English or 
 coup in French, which to a foreigner seem to mean almost 
 anything. 
 
 In comparing the range of expression and copiousness of 
 vocabulary in different languages we must be cautious in as- 
 suming that a language is unable to express a certain idea merely 
 because we do not find the expression in the exact place in 
 the language where we expect to find it. As we have seen, 
 there are many languages which have no plural inflection or 
 indeed any grammatical marking of the plural ; but this does 
 not imply that they are unable to make the distinction ; in 
 such languages the plural is marked by the addition of some 
 such word as "several" or "many." So also we make the 
 German mannle'in into "little man " with a full-word instead 
 of a diminutive ending. We arc often inclined to admire and 
 envy languages which have special derivative elements with 
 which they can express such ideas as " succeed in shooting a 
 bird," " gain by singing," " begin to become red," and 
 express the idea of smallness combined either with that of 
 affection or of contempt by the addition of special endings ; 
 but all the ideas conveyed by such formations can generally 
 be expressed with greater precision and often with equal 
 brevity in a language destitu'.e of them. 
 
 In estimating the copiousness of the vocabulary of a language 
 we ought strictly first to eliminate everything that can be 
 formed a priori — that is, such compounds and derivatives as 
 giraffe-catcher or bonnetless, which, logically speaking, are no 
 more independent words than the phrases catcher of giraffes 
 and tv'ithout a bonnet — together with all fantastic literary new 
 formations which perhaps occur only in the writings of a single 
 author. We must also limit ourselves strictly to one period 
 of a language: the English of the Neiv English Dictionary is 
 not one language, but half-a-dozen. So also in comparing 
 the number of roots we must, when we come to the Semitic
 
 THE INDIVIDUALITY OF LANGUAGES 
 
 139 
 
 trilitcral roots, make some allowance for the fact that they are 
 really derivatives from biliteral roots (p. 95.) 
 
 Language and Nationality. The interesting question 
 now arises, How far are the infinite varieties in the charac- 
 ters of languages to be regarded as the expression of the 
 national characteristics of their speakers ? 
 
 As already remarked, we cannot expect to find in a 
 language expressions for what is unfamiliar to its speakers. 
 Hence from a meagre vocabulary we cannot but infer a low 
 intellectual development — so low indeed as to make the 
 speakers unable to observe the objects around them. The 
 question is, whether such languages really exist outside the 
 imaginations of a priori theorists. A statement has often been 
 repeated that the natives of a certain district in the South of 
 England had only three hundred words in their vocabulary. 
 But when we find a missionary in Tierra del Fuego compiling 
 a dictionary of 30,000 words in the Yaagan language — that is, 
 a hundred times as many — we cannot give any credence to this 
 statement, especially if we consider the number of names of 
 different parts of a waggon or a plough, and all the words 
 required in connection even with a single agricultural operation, 
 together with names of birds, plants, and other natural objects. 
 The complexity and variety of external objects and phenomena 
 is so great that even on a purely material and objective basis 
 there would be no difficulty in increasing the vocabulary 
 indefinitely. The truth seems to be that in all languages — 
 whether primitive or advanced — words are formed to express 
 whatever calls for expression, and this goes on till the vocabu- 
 lary is so large that any addition to it would be a strain on the 
 memory of the average speaker. The condition of any word 
 being permanently adopted into the vocabulary is that it must 
 occur often enough not to be forgotten by the majority of the 
 speakers. 
 
 It is therefore more profitable to consider the relative 
 frequency of the different categories of ideas in the vocabulary. 
 If a group of cognate languages have no word in common to 
 express any idea connected with agriculture, but have many
 
 I40 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 unborrowed words connected with hunting, we are inclined to 
 infer that the speakers of the parent language had not emerged 
 from the hunting or at least the nomadic stage. A compari- 
 son of the common Aryan vocabulary seems to show that the 
 undivided Aryans were nomad herdsmen and hunters, with 
 perhaps some knowledge of agriculture, but with hardly any 
 knowledge of metal-working. The common Semitic voca- 
 bulary shows a striking poverty in designations of external 
 nature ; and the negative evidence thus afforded of life in a 
 barren monotonous country is confirmed by positive linguistic 
 evidence of the primitive Semites having been dwellers of the 
 desert ; which, with other arguments, leaves but little doubt 
 that their original home was Arabia. 
 
 But " linguistic palaeontology " requires caution and control 
 by archseology. Thus it used to be assumed that because all 
 the Aryan languages had originally the same word for 
 "horse" — even Old English still preserves Aryan ecivo in 
 the form of coh — therefore the Aryans must have ridden or 
 at least driven horses. But the archaeological evidence only 
 tells us that the Stone-age ancestors of the Aryans hunted the 
 horse for its flesh, so that all the Aryan ecivo allows us to 
 infer is that the Aryans were acquainted with the wild horse 
 of the plains of Europe. 
 
 We have also to be cautious in drawing negative conclusions. 
 Thus it has been inferred from the absence of any common 
 Aryan or Ugrian word for "blue" and some other colours 
 together with a variety of other evidence of the same kind 
 that the older races were more or less colour-blind. But it 
 was afterwards observed that all the colours whose names can 
 be referred back to parent Aryan and parent Ugrian are 
 colours of cattle ; that is, the first colours to receive special 
 names were those by which they identified their most valued 
 domestic animals. This is confirmed by the fact that in 
 Finnish the word for " colour," that is kam}a, originally 
 meant simply "hair." It is evident therefore that such 
 limitations have nothing to do with the degree of development 
 of the colour-sense : these primitive people did not speak
 
 THE INDIVIDUALITY OF LANGUAGES 141 
 
 much of " blue " because they had little occasion to do so ; 
 and if they had, it was easy to say " like the sky, the colour 
 of the sky." 
 
 That the vocabulary of a language not only can, but must 
 reflect something of the character and environment of its 
 speakers is evident. The question how far the morphological 
 structure of a language does so, is more difficult. 
 
 Here, again, caution is necessary. When we find the Old 
 Germanic languages modifying the Aryan principles of concord 
 by putting an adjective which refers to a man and woman 
 together in the neuter plural instead of the masculine plural, 
 as was originally done, we are inclined to regard it as a proof 
 that our forefathers had already developed something of that 
 abstract and philosophical turn of mind which the average 
 Englishman is apt to associate with the name " German." 
 But it turns out tliat the change was originally a purely 
 phonetic one, by which the old dual ending was confused 
 with that of the neuter plural. So it was not the minds of the 
 speakers which created this new principle of concord; it was 
 the phonetic change which created first the new concord, and 
 then the logical sense that it was more rational to include 
 male and female under the more abstract neuter than to merge 
 them under what was considered the superior sex. 
 
 The doubling of the middle consonant in Arabic verb-roots 
 to give them a special causal or transitive meaning, as in sallam 
 "surrender," seems a natural enough piece of symbolism, but 
 it is more probable that these forms are the result of contrac- 
 tions of the reduplicated roots which have similar grammatical 
 functions in the cognate Hamitic languages of North Africa. 
 It is still more doubtful whether the curiously symmetrical use 
 of the three short vowels ^, /, w, in Arabic to denote the 
 accusative, genitive, and nominative cases respectively is any- 
 thing but fortuitous, for such abstract symbolism seems far 
 beyond the mental capacity of a primitive population. We 
 might as well attempt to find symbolism in j///^, sang, sung. 
 
 XVe also have to be careful in our chronology. From the 
 fact that some of the Aryan-speaking populations have been
 
 142 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 the great carriers of civilization, and that the Aryan languages 
 were originally inflectional, it has been inferred that the in- 
 flectional structure is in some way an expression of the intel- 
 lectual superiority of the Aryan race. But the truth is that 
 at the time when the Aryans laid the foundations of their 
 inflectional system they were far from being in an advanced 
 state of civilization, and that it was not till a long time after 
 that — after they had served their apprenticeship to the older 
 civilizations of the Mediterranean, Egypt, and Western Asia 
 — that they developed any independent intellectual activity. 
 It must also be observed that some of the great triumphs of 
 civilization have been achieved by nations speaking Aryan 
 languages in the analytical rather than the inliectional stage. 
 Even of Greek we may say that its genius is analytical rather 
 than inflectional, and that instead of the Greek inflections 
 being the expression of Greek intellect, they were rather 
 antagonistic to it. 
 
 The only features of Greek that can be really reflections of 
 the Greek mind are those which were developed in the 
 language itself. The contrast between the Greek and the 
 less intellectual Roman mind is clearly stamped on the lan- 
 guages of these two nations. The practical Roman was con- 
 tented V. ith a narrow concrete vocabulary, and aimed at a 
 businesslike conciseness of expression, to which he was 
 inclined to sacrifice both flexibility of expression and distinct- 
 ness of meaning. All of this he found compatible with, and 
 to some extent in harmony with his traditional system of 
 inflections, which he accordingly developed in such a way as 
 to create a perfect type of inflectional speech — that is, from 
 the syntactical point of view. The active Greek mind, on 
 the other hand, required flexibility and clearness of structure 
 wherewith to give expression to his abstract speculations, and 
 finding the purely inflectional system inadequate for his wants, 
 proceeded to anticipate the analytical developments of the 
 later Aryan languages. He evolved a definite article, which 
 in time lost nearly all meaning, and became a mere prop for 
 inflections — a grammatical device for inflecting infinitives and
 
 THE INDIVIDUALITY OF LANGUAGES 143 
 
 sn on. The analytical genius of the Greeks is most clearly 
 shown in their particles, whose over-development at the same 
 time reflects some of the weak sides of their intellectual 
 temperament. 
 
 Chinese bears in its structure still more definite marks of 
 intellectual power. It combines Roman brevity with Greek 
 love of clearness and moderation of expression, but shows 
 none of the imaginative and poetical qualities reflected in 
 most Aryan languages. It is characteristic of the Chinese 
 mind that it never personifies : in such a collocation as 
 that which is literally translated his hand guide me, where 
 hand would otherwise be naturally taken as the subject, we 
 must take it adverbially, and translate " with his hand he 
 guides me." The Chinese linguistic instinct is, as we have 
 seen (p. 69), highly abstract and generalizing, and this 
 tendency, together with the desire of logical clearness, has 
 led to a great development of particles, which, like the 
 Greek, are often untranslateable. This use of particles is 
 however partly the result of the development of sentence, 
 intonation being hindered by the word-tones, many of these 
 particles serving practically as marks of punctuation. If 
 Old Chinese is often ambiguous, this is partly the result of 
 our unfamiliarity with Chinese trains of thought, partly of 
 excessive conciseness and reliance on the context, in which 
 Chinese is the very antipodes of Greek and the other Old 
 Aryan languages. 
 
 Intellectual activity is shown as clearly in the structure of 
 the Chinese sentence as in those of Greek and Latin. The 
 flexibility of the Old Chinese construction and the ease with 
 which logically prominent words are put at the beginning of 
 the sentence are truly marvellous when we consider that all 
 this is done in spite of the dependence of Chinese grammar on 
 word-order and with the help only of a few loose particles. 
 
 The other extreme of artless monotony is shown in Arabic 
 and the other Semitic languages. Arabic has practically no 
 infinitives or participles and makes but little use of dependent 
 sentences, so that its periods are very short, and mainly para-
 
 144 THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 
 
 tactic. The Arabic sentence with its excessive use of finite 
 verbs is, however, not at all clumsy hke that of the later San- 
 skrit and the Ugro-Altaic languages with their excessive use 
 of infinitives and participles ; on the contrary, its simplicity 
 gives a great charm to simple narrative. But the sentence 
 structure of all these languages gives the impression either of 
 want of intellectual activity or of over abstraction. It is to be 
 observed that the earlier pre-classical Sanskrit prose is much 
 lighter and more varied than the classical, and makes a free 
 use of finite verbs ; much of the heaviness of the later language 
 may be the result of its being a dead language. 
 
 The South African Bantu languages certainly reflect one 
 of the most prominent national characteristics of their speakers. 
 The African is a born orator and lawyer : he loves arguments 
 and elaborate statements. It seems evident, therefore, that it 
 was the necessity of knowing " who's who " in a complicated 
 legal statement which led to the elaboration of their peculiar 
 system of concord (p. 57). 
 
 We have lastly to remember that language is not merely a 
 means of expression. Even when a language is extended 
 from the service of everyday life to that of science, meta- 
 physics, and religion, there still remains its assthetic and 
 literary use. We cannot regard language exclusively from 
 the practical and utilitarian point of view. Language was, 
 almost from the beginning, a plaything as well as an intel- 
 lectual tool — a vehicle of wit, humour, imagination and poetrv. 
 From this point of view we can understand — what would 
 otherwise be a puzzle — why the development of such a com- 
 mon-sense language as Chinese is but an isolated phenomenon. 
 The imaginative and emotional Arvan or Semite could never 
 have followed the narrow path of Chinese linguistic develop- 
 ment. To them Chinese would appear like a solid and sym- 
 metrically built house without ornament outside and with walls 
 bare of pictures. 
 
 But even the Semitic languages, with all their picturesque- 
 ness and emotional force, lack the flexibility and variety of the 
 Aryan languages, in which they are, indeed, inferior to the
 
 THE INDIVIDUALITY OF LANGUAGES 145 
 
 Ugrian languages as well. The Semitic languages compared 
 with the Aryan always give the impression of rigid schematism 
 and artificial symmetry. It is a significant fact that no Sem- 
 itic race has ever produced anything resembling an epic poem: 
 it is only the Aryan and the Ugrian languages that can afford 
 a frame for such a sustained effort of imagination.
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 The following list includes only some of those books which will be 
 found most directly useful to beginners, or to those who wish to follow 
 up special branches of study. Purely popular books are mostly excluded, 
 as also those which now have a mainly historical interest. Fuller 
 bibliographies will be found in many of the books cited, as also in 
 Sonnenschein's Best Books and Reader s Guide. 
 
 GENERAL WORKS. 
 Paul, H. Principicn der Sprachgeschichte. Halle, 4th edn., 1909. 
 
 Grundriss der Germanischen Philologie. Strassburg, 1909. 
 
 Strong, H. A. Introauction to the Study of the History of Language. 
 
 London, 1891. [An adaptation of the above work for English 
 
 readers.] 
 Von der Gaselentz, G. Die Sprachivissenschaft. Leipzig, 2nd edn., 
 
 1901. 
 Sayce, A. H. Princif>lei of Comparati'vc Philology. London, 3rd edn., 
 
 1885. 
 Sweet, H. Ne'w English Grammar, Part I. Oxford, 1900. 
 
 The Practical Study of Languages. London, 1899. 
 
 MiJLLER, F. M. Einleitung in die SprachiLtssenschaft. Vienna, 1876- 
 88. [Gives brief sketches of the structure of the chief languages 
 and linguistic families, together with a general introduction.] 
 
 Handbuch der Klassischen Alter, i 900. 
 
 Whitney, W. D. Life and Groiuth of Language. New York, 1875. 
 
 Language and the Study of Language. New York, edn. of 1899. 
 
 Wade, G. W. Elementary Chapters in Comparati've Philology. 18 87. 
 
 WuNDT, W. V'olker psychologic. Leipzig, 1900. 
 
 MiSTELi, F. Characteristik der haupts'dchlichsten Typei des Sprachkaus. 
 Berlin, 1S93. 
 
 Byrne, J. General Principles of the Structure of Language. London, 
 2 vols., I 885. 
 
 PoRZCziNSKi. tinleitung in die Sprachzuissenschuft. 1910. 
 
 FiNCK, F. N. Die Haupttypen des Sprachbaus. Marburg, 1910.
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 147 
 
 PHONOLOGY. 
 Passy, p. Etude sur les Changements Fhonittques. Paris, 1890. 
 
 The Sounds of the French Language. Paris, 19 13. 
 
 Sweet, H. History of English Soundu Oxford, 1888. 
 
 Primer of Phonetics. 1906. [Clarendon Press Series.] 
 
 Wechssler. debt ex Lautgesetze ? 1900. 
 
 ARYAN, 
 
 HiRT, K., and Streitberg, W. Indogermanifche Bibliothek. Strassburg, 
 
 1907. 
 Meringer, R. Indogermanische Sprachtuissenschaft. Leipzig (Sammlung 
 
 Goschen), 1897. 
 Giles, P. iihort Manual of Comparati'ue Philology for Classical Students. 
 
 London, 1901. 
 Streitberg, W. Urgermanische Grammatik. Strassburg, 1S96. 
 Lindsay, W. M. The Latin Language, an Historical Account of Latin 
 
 Sounds, Stems, and Flexions. Oxford, 1894. 
 Penka, K. Herkunft der Arier. Teschen, 1 886. [Largely superseded.] 
 Taylor, I. Origin of the Aryans. London, 1890. [Largely super- 
 seded.] 
 Brugmann, C, and Thumb, A. Untersuchungen zur indo-germanischen 
 
 Sprach-und Kulturicissenschaft. Strassburg, 19 10. 
 Schrader, O. Sprachvergleichung und Urgeschichte. Strassburg, 3rd 
 
 edn., 2 vols., 1906-7. 
 HiRT, H. Die Indogermanen. Strassburg, 2 vols., 190:5-7. 
 Feist, S. Europa im Lichte der Vorgeschichte und die Ergebnisse der 
 
 Vergleichenden indogermanischen Sprachiuissenschaft. Halle, 1910. 
 Brugmann and Delbruck. Grundriss der Vergleichenden Grammatik 
 
 der indogermanischen Sprachen. Strassburg, 6 vols., 1 886-1 900; 
 
 voL ii, 1906-9. 
 Much, M. Die Heimat der Indo-Germanen. Berlin, 1904. 
 Meillet, A. Introduction a I'itude comparati'ue des Ungues indo- 
 
 europiennes. 1912, 3rd edn, 
 
 Les diaUctes indo-europeens. Paris, 1908. 
 
 Les Langues dans I' Europe nou-velle. Paris, 1918.
 
 148 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 UGRIAN. 
 
 Eliot, C. N. E. Finnish Grammar. Oxford, 189 1. [Historical a 
 
 comparative as well as practical.] 
 Anderson, N. Studien zur Vergleichung der Indogermanischen u 
 
 Finnisch-ugrischen Sprachen. Dorpat, 1879. 
 Recent literature is contained mainly in periodicals : see especia 
 
 Journal de la SocUte Finno-ougrienne (Helsingfors), and Finnisc/. 
 
 ugrische Forschungen (Helsingfors and Leipzig). 
 
 ALTAIC. 
 
 Grunzel, J. ErHuurf einer Vergleichenden Grammatik der Altaisch 
 Sprachen nebst einem Vergleichenden Worterbuch. Leipzig, 1895. 
 
 Vambery. Uigurische Sprachmonumente under das Kudatku Bilik. Editic 
 by Radlov, St. Petersburg, 1900. 
 
 Winkler. Das UralahHische und seine Gruppen. Berlin, 18S5. 
 
 Der Uralahaische Sprachstamm, das Finnische und das Japanisch 
 
 Berlin, 1909. 
 
 SIMERIAN. 
 
 HoMMEL, F. Sumerische Lesestiicke. Munich, 1894. [Includes syll 
 
 baries and a short grammar.] 
 Prince, J. D. Materials for a Sumerian Lexicon. Leipzig, 1905--. 
 See also correspondence between Briinnow and Halevy in Rci. 
 
 Semitique, 1906 ; also Journal of Royal Asiatic Society, si 
 
 " Sumerian or Crytography." 
 
 PaiSTED IN (jtia:AT Britain by Richard Clat ti Sons, Limited, 
 
 BLNOAT, SUFFOLK..
 
 1^
 
 UC SOUTHERN Ri 
 
 000 011 750 
 
 i\\ 
 
 V