ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.

PART I.

THE ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.

CHAPTER I.

GENERAL RELATIONS OF LANGUAGE.

DEFINITION OF LANGUAGE.

§ 1. LANGUAGE, from the Latin word lingua, the tongue, through the French langage, is the utterance of articulate sounds of the human voice for the expression of thought.

Besides spoken language, there is likewise what is called natural language. The external sign of the internal movement of the mind, called by Cicero the sermo corporis, is known and read of all men. The signs by which the internal thoughts and feelings can be announced are of three classes: 1. Modification of the features of the face, as when a frown expresses anger. 2. Variation of the limbs or gestures of the body, as when the upraised clinched fist expresses a threat. 3. Modulations of the voice, as when a groan expresses pain.

But these various classes of natural signs, though they constitute a universal language, furnish a mode of communication but little above what brutes enjoy. Much, indeed, was accomplished by the ancient pantomimes, as likewise much has been done by actors, and by the teachers of deaf

B

mutes. But how entirely inadequate are these natural signs, even in their most improved mode of use, to answer the ends to which speech is subservient! In the articulate sounds of the human voice are materials furnished by nature for forming a collection of signs fit to express the thoughts and emotions of the human mind. Brutes utter certain sounds indicating their feelings; but these sounds are vocal, not articulate. They are not divided by consonants. This distinctive characteristic of human speech is alluded to in the Homeric phrase, Il., b. i., μéропшν аνОрwπwν,"articulatespeaking or speech-dividing men."

THE ORIGIN OF LANGUAGE.

§ 2. As to the origin of language, three opinions have been maintained. 1. That language was the pure gift of God, conveyed in vocal sounds to the listening ear, as from a teacher to a pupil. 2. That it was the invention of man, contrived for the purpose of communication. 3. That it was neither the pure gift of God nor an invention of man, but the spontaneous result of his organization, just as reason is.

The argument for this last opinion is physiological. It is derived from the structure of the organs of speech, and from the adaptation of the soul to every part of the body, to the tongue as well as to the hand. In thus creating the soul to act in and through the body, the Deity conferred on man, from the first, the power of speech, so that language is the necessary result of his constitution, and human speech and human nature are inseparable. Thus constituted, thus endowed by his Creator with the gift of speech, the First Father of our race was qualified from the first to give names to the animals which his Creator "brought before him to see what names he would give them." And, inasmuch as speech is but the image of the mind, we may believe that, impressed by some prominent attribute in each animal, he gave a name imaging his impression. According to this view, language is not the result of compact on the part of many, nor of inventive contrivance on the part of some individual, but is a natural phenomenon of the race. It is an emanation from the common soul of man, through the organs of the body, in

obedience to laws as necessary as the laws which govern any other mental operation.

Whether language was thus developed, as from a germ or pre-existing type, within the soul, or, according to the first opinion, was a pure gift supernaturally bestowed upon man at some period subsequent to his creation, are questions that have not been settled to the entire satisfaction of every competent inquirer. That it was the invention of man, contrived for the purpose of mutual communication, is incredi ble. On the contrary, the declaration of William von Humboldt we can readily admit. "According to my fullest conviction, speech must be regarded as naturally inherent in man; for it is altogether inexplicable as a work of his understanding in its simple consciousness. We are none the better for allowing thousands and thousands of years for its invention. There could be no invention of language unless its type already existed in the human understanding. Man is man only by means of speech, but in order to invent speech he must be already man."

Whatever was the origin of language, it is not to be supposed that the vocabulary possessed by the first generation was more extensive than was necessary to express the ideas they wished to communicate. In the progress of society, as new ideas were originated, new words would be invented, just as words are now invented when they are needed to express new ideas. That, from the first, a connection may exist between the objective word and the subjective idea, though we do not understand the nature of that connection, is just as evident as that there is a connection between the body and the soul, though the nature of this connection is not under. stood. Indeed, we know that there is a natural connection in the case of those words, namely, onomatopoetic, which in pronunciation imitate the sounds which they indicate, the sounds being, in other words, an echo to the sense; and we can infer some such a connection as to large classes of other words.

THE UNITY OF LANGUAGE.

§ 3. The original unity of language is indicated, 1. By the supposed unity of the human race, of which there is satisfactory evidence. 2. By the declaration in Genesis, that the whole earth was "of one language and one speech." 3. By the analogies and affinities among the different languages, pointing to a common origin.

Affinities among languages may be seen either in their similarity of construction, in which case the proof is grammatical, or in the similarity of words themselves, in which case the proof is lexical. Of the former kind of proof the Comparative Grammar of Bopp furnishes examples. Occasional examples will be given in the part on etymology in this work. Only the latter kind of proof can be here adduced, as sufficiently satisfactory and more convenient. When, for instance, in Sanscrit we find nama, and in Latin nomen, both meaning name; nasa in the one, nasus in the other, both meaning nose; and when we find this similarity be tween a great many words in the two languages, we are necessarily led to infer that a relationship exists between the two languages. The same kind of reasoning may be ex. tended to several languages to prove an affinity between them.

DECLENSION IN

THE GOTHIC LANGUAGES, SHOWING
THEIR AFFINITY.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Fishes,

fisk, fisk, fisk.

fisc-as, visch-en, fisk-ar, fisch-e, fisk-os,
Fishes', fisc-a, visch-en, fisk-a, fisch-e,
To fishes, fisc-um, visch-en, fisk-um, fisch-en, fisk-en,
Fishes, fisc-as, visch-en, fisk-ar, fisch-e, fisk-ans, fisk-e, fisk-ar, fisk-a,

fisk-e, fisk-ar, fisk-um.

fisch, fisk,

fisk-e, fisk-ar, fisk-ar.

fisk-e,

fisk-es, fisk-ars, fisk-a.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »