language, so far as this can be effected by reference to the laws and usages of language, is the province of him who proposes to teach grammar as an art. (6) In practical treatises for the instruction of the young, the science and the art are usually taught together. The laws of language, to some extent, are explained in connection with their practical application to a particular language. (7) It seems the most judicious course to teach the elementary principles of universal grammar (the science of grammar) in connection with the particular grammar of our mother tongue, and with the aid of illustrations drawn, as much as possible, from that language of which the forms, usages, and significance are most familiar to us.

§ 7. (1) Artificial language is presented to us in two distinct forms, viz., spoken language and written language. It is often necessary, in grammatical researches, to keep steadily in view the distinction between these two forms of language. (2) A neglect of this precaution has frequently led to confusion of thought and inaccuracy of expression. (3) Spoken language consists of signs of thought, expressed by the organs of speech, and addressed to the

ears.

These signs are called words. (4) Written language, on the other hand, consists of signs of these signs; that is, of signs of words. (5) We call both classes of signs words; and hence frequent confu sion. (6) It is to be wished that we had a special name for a written word, to distinguish it, where necessary, from a spoken word, and also a name for a written letter, to distinguish it from a spoken sound.

§ 8. (1) It is not by the use of separate unconnected words, repeated in succession without rule or law, but by the properly regulated combination of words, that we, in almost every case, communicate our thoughts to one another. Though it is not to be denied that every word has significance of some sort (2), a single word is seldom in our language the sign of a complete thought. (3) We cannot

grammars intended for the instruction of the young? (7) What method is recommended ⚫s judicious?

§ 7. (1) In what two distinct forms is artificial language presented to us? (2) Why is it necessary to keep this distinction in view? Ans. Because "a neglect," &c. (3) Of what does spoken language consist? (4) Of what written language? (5) By what common name are the signs of spoken and written language designated? (6) What is to be wished in order to avoid the danger of confounding spoken signs and written signs?

§ 8. (1) Do we generally express our thoughts by unconnected words, or by combinations of words? (2) Are single words often in our language the signs of complete

announce clearly in the English language even the simple fact that we are cold, without the use of more than one word. The shortest form of expressing this simple thought requires the use of three words, I am cold. Each of these words is, no doubt, a significant sign, but; at the same time, incapable alone of communicating a clear declaration of thought to those around us. (4) Again, every combination of words will not express thought. A combination made at random generally expresses nothing but nonsense.

(5) Hence the necessity of paying attention to the principles which regulate, in each particular language, the combination of words, in order to express thought clearly and forcibly. The investigation of these principles is the purpose proposed in a treatise on grammar. (6) It is to the fact that the artificial signs, which unite to express our thoughts, are complicated, and require skilful combination, that the Laws of Grammar owe their origin. (7) If every word served as the sign of a complete thought, whilst the number of words requisite for the purpose of communicating our thoughts (contrary to what might, at first sight, be expected) would be greatly increased, Grammar would either be altogether useless, or its province would be greatly limited, and entirely changed. This may be illustrated by referring to some few words in our language which express a complete thought: (8) for example, Yes and No. Such words fall not within the ordinary rules, nor even within the ordinary classifications and nomenclature of grammar. All complexity is here excluded, since a single sign expresses a complete thought; consequently, the application of all laws of combination is excluded. Grammatical science and art, as now understood, are null and useless, so far as concerns such signs.

§ 9. After these preliminary remarks, the reader will be prepared to find that (1) WORDS-THE CLASSIFICATION Of words, the MODIFICATION OR CHANGES OF FORM which WORDS undergo in order

thoughts? (3) Repeat the illustration. (4) Do all combinations of words, or combinations made at random, express thought?

(5) What is the inference drawn from these facts? (6) To what do the laws of grammar owe their origin? (7) If every word were to serve as the sign of a complete thought, what consequences would follow in reference to the number of words necessary to form a copious language, and in reference to systems of grammar? (8) Illustrate this position.

§ 9. (1) Enumerate the subjects which are to engage our attention in the following pages.

to express a MODIFIED MEANING, and, especially, THE laws or PRIN CIPLES which regulate THE COMBINATION OF WORDS for the purpose of expressing THOUGHT, form the subject matter of the following pages.

APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION.

Till recently, two opinions, in reference to the origin of language, have divided the learned. According to the one, the original language was the direct gift of God to our first parents. According to the other, language is the invention of man himself—the work of his conscious reason.

According to the first opinion, man must have been taught the words of language, as a scholar is taught a foreign language at the present day. Such instruction presupposes a knowledge of what is to be expressed by language. If this opinion is correct, all man's first know. ledge, as well as the language in which to express it, must have been a direct revelation. It may be objected that all this is inconsistent with the mode in which God has treated man in other things. He has bestowed on man powers of research and invention, and generally left these to find their natural development, under the circumstances in which he has placed him. The opinion now stated seems also inconsistent with the language employed in Genesis 2: 19, where we are informed that God brought the animals "unto Adam, to see what he would call them; and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof." In accordance with the opinion we are considering, we should expect rather to have been told that God gave the names and taught them to Adam, and that whatsoever God called every living creature, that was the name thereof. On the contrary, Adam is represented as already possessed of the power of speech, and as spontaneusly inventing names for the objects around him.

According to the second opinion, man is the inventor of language, in the same sense in which he is the inventor of the various contrivances which distinguish civilization; and it is consistent with this opinion, as held by the ancients, to suppose that man may have remained for a long time after his appearance on earth without the advantage of language, as we know that he did in fact remain destitute of many of the most valuable inventions which he now possesses. The poet, in accordance with this view, describes men, when they first crawled from the earth, as devoid of articulate speech: "Mutum et turpe pecus." This theory gives to man the glory of contriving lan

guage, in the same sense as he claims the glory of other human inventions.

It is objected to this view of the origin of language, that it is inconceivable how men, without some considerable advance in civilization, without some progress towards social order, could invent and agree upon a language, and equally inconceivable how they could have made any advance towards social order without the help of language. It might, indeed, be answered that the invention of language and the progress of civilization advanced simultaneously-pari passu. But another and more serious objection is, that this theory, at least in its boldest form, is inconsistent with what is recorded in the Scriptures in regard of the primitive condition of man; and perhaps it is equally inconsistent with all that we can discover of the history of our race from other resources, and with the conjectures of a sound and enlightened philosophy.

Another theory of the origin of language has been more recently proposed; first, we believe, by the philosophical grammarians of Germany, viz., that language is a spontaneous growth—the result of that organization bestowed by our Creator on his rational offspring on earth. This theory, subjected to proper modifications, we think less objectionable than either of the preceding. It is more reconcileable, both with what is said in reference to this matter in Genesis, and with all the historical facts which bear upon this subject. It is more conformable, also, with what we see every day subjected to our observation in the progressive growth of language.

According to this theory, language is a growth—an organized growth, because the product of an organization—just as the intellectual improvement of our race is a growth—a development of powers lodged in man at his creation-a growth, progressive according to our wants. As our knowledge is enlarged, the vehicle of communication is simultaneously enlarged. According to this theory, every thought of a being organized as man is, naturally labors to find utterance, and calls into exercise his powers of articulation.

This theory accounts for the conformity discovered in the general laws of structure in all languages, and for the resemblance of many of the original words in these languages to the things which they represent. This is especially exemplified in words which express sounds, and in the names given to animals and to actions distinguished by some peculiarity of sound. (See Introduction to Becker's Ausführliche Deutsche Grammatik.)

Viewed according to this theory, articulate language is natural, as

well as what has been distinguished from it by the name of natural language. Still, it is in some sense arbitrary and artificial. It is subjected, as regards its external form, to human volition, to human choice, to human caprice if you will, as is manifest from the manner in which we see languages daily grow under our eyes, as well as from the vast variety and diversity of the languages which we find in the world. No such diversity is found in those natural signs which constitute what has been called natural language. These are invariably always the same in the same race of animals, and instantly alike intelligble to each individual of the race.