LANGUAGE

Imperfectly. Thus it has been found that tlio Greek aspirate is often represented in Latin by s, l|, s-rr*, sex, scptem; that the Greek 3- is frequently represented in the Teutonic tongues by/, ^ovt, trotrr,^, foot, father; ihat the Greek and Latin d is often z in German, dens, dtg^ttis, decern — xahn, zehe, zehen. A good list of the most common among these transformations will be found in the Penny CyclopcEdia, art. " Language," taken from Potts' Eti/moloiiische Forschimgen. Correspondence in inflexions is a still closer sign of relationship. That peculiar cla of Greek verbs commonly called in our grammars "verbs in mi" has a corresponding cla in the Sanskrit, Zend, and some Sclavonic tongues. J stand. Thou Blandest He stands. ^ Greek. Itrry.i. SanslTit. Tisthpmi. Tisthasi. Tis that i. Lithuanian. Stowmi. stow i. Stow* J sive. Thou gives t. He gives. hduju,!. Dadami. Dadasi. Dadato. Dudmi. Dusi. Dusti. In other cognate languages this mode of conjugation is either lost or much altered. Here, therefore, is an indication (not, of course, a conclusive one) of a nearer connection between these than others of the same family; Celtic and Latin, far instance. The connection between languages being established, the mind is next led to consider their derivation one from another. And here historical a istance soon fails us. We say that Spanish and Italian are derived from Latin, because we know the fact historically; but at the earliest period of which we have any authentic account we find several independent nations using different, but strongly resembling varieties of speech, of whose historical connection we know nothing. We know little, for example, on the question in what consisted the relationship between the Latins and the Greeks; and nothing whatever as to tlie connection of either with the Celts or the Sclavonians. And hence it is easy to perceive the absurdity of the fashion, of which we still constantly meet with examples in dictionaries and works of reference, of speaking of words in cagnate languages as "derived" from one another; for example, a Latin word as "derived" from the Greek, an English as " derived" from the German. The Romans undoubtedly, in later ages, borrowed a few word« from the richer vocabulary of Greece; e. g. hist or i a,poerna; and the English have borrowed a very few from the Germans. But Greek and Latin, Anglo-Saxon and German, are respectively only varieties, derived alike from some ancient. original which our inquiries are unable to reach. The distinction between a separate language and a dialect is very arbitrary. We speak of Spanish and Portuguese, Swedish and Danish, as distinct languages; yet they resemble each other quite as nearly as some varieties of French, perhaps of Italian. The name seems appropriated, in ordinary usage, to every variety of speech which is in national use for purposes of government and literature. Tlie relative antiquity of languages is a subject involved in obscurity, and on which our conclusions are little better than conjectural. The theory that all languages are derived from a common original is difficult to be maintained; and yet there is no doubt that the tendency of modern research is, by accurate cla ification, to reduce the number of original tongues from which those in actual use are derivative varieties. The following table of languages, divided into cla es or groups, is given by Dr. Young, in the art. " Language," in the Encyclopcedia Britannica. "Chinese. 1. Monosyllabic cla ; 2. Indo-European cla : Siamese. Avanese..Tibetan. 'Sanskrit. Zend (Median). Semitic (Arabian, Syriac, Hebrew, ike.) Lycian. Phrygian. Greek. Germanic. Celtic. Etruscan. Latin. Cant a brian. I. Sclav ic. 3. Tartaric cla . 4. African cla . 5. American cla . This cla ification, however, is rather geographical than ethnographical, and in some respects apt to mislead. For example, those great families of languages, the Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, and Germanic, are all nearly connected with one another. The Celtic and Sclavic belong to the same division: while the Semitic languages form a very G37 peculiar group apart, and should be excepted from the Indo-European cla . Languages have also been cla ed in the following manner: — 1. Languages composed of monosyllabic roots without any form of grammar. These have no inflexions, and variety of meaning Is only shown by the position of words in a sentence. To this order belong the languages which Dr. Young terms monosyllabic. 2. Languages composed of monosyllabic roots with a great abundance of grammatical forms. -Of these the great Indo-European family are an example 3. I^anguages whose verbal roots consist, in their present form, of two syllables, and require three consonants to expre their fundamental meaning. This division appears to comprehend the Semitic languages only, as far as is at present ascertained. The comparative perfection of a language, as an instrument for the communication of thought, depends mainly on its copiousne . In order to estimate this, it must be borne in mind that the cla es of words employed in a language are all reducible into two, which have been termed by some notional and relational. The former expre distinct ideas or notions; the latter serve to display the relation, connection, and order of ideas. Nouns and verbs belong to the first cla ; prepositions, adverbs, ., and the signs denoting the inflexions of verbs and nouns, to the latter. With respect to the former cla , all languages, to be serviceable for the purposes of life, must be sufficiently copious to expre all distinct notions. But the comparative riclme of a language is mainly shown by the manner in which this is done. As nations advance from barbarism towards civilization new notions, and new varieties of notions, are constantly requiripg utterance. In those in which this can easily be done by composition (as in Greek and German), great faciliti s are afforded for the easy expre ion of thought, comparatively with those in which it can only be effected by the laborio'us proce of borrowing and adopting words from the voca'oularies of more advanced nations. But it is in the relational words, or modes in which relations of ideas are expre ed, that the genius of difl'erent languages most varies. The Chhiese, in their singular and obscure tongue, seem never to have reached beyond the proce of varying the collocation of their unchangeable roots in the sentence, in order to expre varieties of meaning. The next proce should appear to be that of using auxiliary words. In many languages (our own among the number) relations are almost wholly expre ed in this manner. But in others the auxiliary words have, in course of time, coalesced with the principal; so that many relations are expre ed by varying the beginning, termination, . of the principal word. This, at least, is the most probable origin of those forms termed in grammar inflexions, or forms of declension and conjugation, in which Greek, Latin, Sanskrit, German, and their derivative languages are more or le rich; the Greek, for example, being more copious than the Latin or modern German, in having the dual form and additional tenses (the aorists, and the paulo-post futurum). And some languages (especially among the American Indians) are so curiously constructed as to carry the power of inflexion far beyond this point. A complex idea which, in English, would require to be expre ed by a pronoun, an adverb, and an auxiliary verb (or perhaps a second auxiliary verb also, e. g. " I desire," or "I abstain"), together with the principal verb, would in some American languages be expre ed merely by a variety of the form of the principal verb itself. As a general rule, the power of inflexion adds greatly to the copiousne of a language; and although some cntliusiasts in their admiration of our own have maintained that the proce of conjugating or declining by auxiliary words and particles is more convenient, and affords more variety and harmony, than that by changes in the termination of the verb or noun, it is probable that few candid reasoners will hold the same opinion. But there are distinctions in language, arising out of relations simply imaginary, which may be pronounced unnece ary and cumbersome. Such are the genders, common to almost all languages of the Indo-European family except our own, but for which it would be difficult to a ign either utility or beauty. Another and a more substantial disadvantage of languages rich in inflexions, if the fact be true, is to be found in the greater difficulty which common people are supposed to have in framing tl^eir speech grammatically and accurately under this system than the other. The greater the niceties of a language, it has been urged, the greater the difference must inevitably be between the variety spoken and written by educated men and that in use among the uneducated; and it has been contended that in ancient Italy, for instance, the rustic language was altogether different from the written Latin. But the facts on which this reasoning rests may be pronounced extremely controvertible. There are certainly some grounds for the suspicion that there was an unusual diference between the vulgar and the polished KGm;u» Page 651