lectures on the science of language 19

lectures on the science of language 19

The first great step in advance, therefore, which was made in the

classification of languages, chiefly through the discovery of Sanskrit,

was this, that scholars were no longer satisfied with the idea of a

general relationship, but began to inquire for the different degrees of

relationship in which each member of a class stood to another. Instead of

mere _classes_, we hear now for the first time of well regulated

_families_ of language.

 

A second step in advance followed naturally from the first. Whereas, for

establishing in a general way the common origin of certain languages, a

comparison of numerals, pronouns, prepositions, adverbs, and the most

essential nouns and verbs, had been sufficient, it was soon found that a

more accurate standard was required for measuring the more minute degrees

of relationship. Such a standard was supplied by Comparative Grammar; that

is to say, by an intercomparison of the grammatical forms of languages

supposed to be related to each other; such intercomparison being carried

out according to certain laws which regulate the phonetic changes of

letters.

 

A glance at the modern history of language will make this clearer. There

could never be any doubt that the so-called Romance languages, Italian,

Wallachian, Provençal, French, Spanish, and Portuguese, were closely

related to each other. Everybody could see that they were all derived from

Latin. But one of the most distinguished French scholars, Raynouard, who

has done more for the history of the Romance languages and literature than

any one else, maintained that Provençal only was the daughter of Latin;

whereas French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese were the daughters of

Provençal. He maintained that Latin passed, from the seventh to the ninth

century, through an intermediate stage, which he called Langue Romane, and

which he endeavored to prove was the same as the Provençal of Southern

France, the language of the Troubadours. According to him, it was only

after Latin had passed through this uniform metamorphosis, represented by

the Langue Romane or Provençal, that it became broken up into the various

Romance dialects of Italy, France, Spain, and Portugal. This theory, which

was vigorously attacked by August Wilhelm von Schlegel, and afterwards

minutely criticised by Sir Cornewall Lewis, can only be refuted by a

comparison of the Provençal grammar with that of the other Romance

dialects. And here, if you take the auxiliary verb _to be_, and compare

its forms in Provençal and French, you will see at once that, on several

points, French has preserved the original Latin forms in a more primitive

state than Provençal, and that, therefore, it is impossible to classify

French as the daughter of Provençal, and as the granddaughter of Latin. We

have in Provençal:—

 

_sem_, corresponding to the French _nous sommes_,

_etz_, corresponding to the French _vous êtes_,

_son_, corresponding to the French _ils sont_,

 

and it would be a grammatical miracle if crippled forms, such as _sem_,

_etz_, and _son_, had been changed back again into the more healthy, more

primitive, more Latin, _sommes_, _êtes_, _sont_; _sumus_, _estis_, _sunt_.

 

Let us apply the same test to Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin; and we shall see

how their mutual genealogical position is equally determined by a

comparison of their grammatical forms. It is as impossible to derive Latin

from Greek, or Greek from Sanskrit, as it is to treat French as a

modification of Provençal. Keeping to the auxiliary verb _to be_, we find

that _I am_ is in

 

Sanskrit Greek Lithuanian

_asmi_ _esmi_ _esmi_.

 

The root is _as_, the termination _mi_.

 

Now, the termination of the second person is _si_, which, together with

_as_, or _es_, would make,

 

_as-si_ _es-si_ _es-si_.

 

But here Sanskrit, as far back as its history can be traced, has reduced

_assi_ to _asi_; and it would be impossible to suppose that the perfect,

or, as they are sometimes called, organic, forms in Greek and Lithuanian,

_es-si_, could first have passed through the mutilated state of the

Sanskrit _asi_.

 

The third person is the same in Sanskrit, Greek, and Lithuanian, _as-ti_

or _es-ti_; and, with the loss of the final _i_, we recognize the Latin

_est_, Gothic _ist_, and Russian _est’_.

 

The same auxiliary verb can be made to furnish sufficient proof that Latin

never could have passed through the Greek, or what used to be called the

Pelasgic stage, but that both are independent modifications of the same

original language. In the singular, Latin is less primitive than Greek;

for _sum_ stands for _es-um_, _es_ for _es-is_, _est_ for _es-ti_. In the

first person plural, too, _sumus_ stands for _es-umus_, the Greek

_es-mes_, the Sanskrit _’smas_. The second person _es-tis_, is equal to

Greek _es-te_, and more primitive than Sanskrit _stha_. But in the third

person plural Latin is more primitive than Greek. The regular form would

be _as-anti_; this, in Sanskrit, is changed into _santi_. In Greek, the

initial _s_ is dropped, and the Æolic _enti_, is finally reduced to

_eisi_. The Latin, on the contrary, has kept the radical _s_, and it would

be perfectly impossible to derive the Latin _sunt_ from the Greek _eisi_.

 

I need hardly say that the modern English, _I am_, _thou art_, _he is_,

are only secondary modifications of the same primitive verb. We find in

Gothic—

 

_im_ for _ism_

_is_ for _iss_

_ist_.

 

The Anglo-Saxon changes the _s_ into _r_, thus giving—

 

_eom_ for _eorm_, plural _sind_ for _isind_.

_eart_ for _ears_, plural _sind_

_is_ for _ist_, plural _sind_

 

By applying this test to all languages, the founders of comparative

philology soon reduced the principal dialects of Europe and Asia to

certain families, and they were able in each family to distinguish

different branches, each consisting again of numerous dialects, both

ancient and modern.

 

There are many languages, however, which as yet have not been reduced to

families, and though there is no reason to doubt that some of them will

hereafter be comprehended in a system of genealogical classification, it

is right to guard from the beginning against the common, but altogether

gratuitous supposition, that the principle of genealogical classification

must be applicable to all. Genealogical classification is no doubt the

most perfect of all classifications, but there are but few branches of

physical science in which it can be carried out, except very partially. In

the science of language, genealogical classification must rest chiefly on

the formal or grammatical elements, which, after they have been affected

by phonetic change, can be kept up only by a continuous tradition. We know

that French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese must be derived from a

common source, because they share grammatical forms in common, which none

of these dialects could have supplied from their own resources, and which

have no meaning, or, so to say, no life, in any one of them. The

termination of the imperfect _ba_ in Spanish, _va_ in Italian, by which

_canto_, I sing, is changed into _cantaba_ and _cantava_, has no separate

existence, and no independent meaning in either of these modern dialects.

It could not have been formed with the materials supplied by Spanish and

Italian. It must have been handed down from an earlier generation in which

this _ba_ had a meaning. We trace it back to Latin _bam_, in _cantabam_,

and here it can be proved that _bam_ was originally an independent

auxiliary verb, the same which exists in Sanskrit _bhavâmi_, and in the

Anglo-Saxon _beom_, I am. Genealogical classification, therefore, applies

properly only to decaying languages, to languages in which grammatical

growth has been arrested, through the influence of literary cultivation;

in which little new is added, everything old is retained as long as

possible, and where what we call growth or history is nothing but the

progress of phonetic corruption. But before languages decay, they have

passed through a period of growth; and it seems to have been completely

overlooked, that dialects which diverged during that early period, would

naturally resist every attempt at genealogical classification. If you

remember the manner in which, for instance, the plural was formed in

Chinese and other languages examined by us in a former Lecture, you will

see that where each dialect may choose its own term expressive of

plurality, such as _heap_, _class_, _kind_, _flock_, _cloud_, &c., it

would be unreasonable to expect similarity in grammatical terminations,

after these terms have been ground down by phonetic corruption to mere

exponents of plurality. But, on the other hand, it would by no means

follow that therefore these languages had no common origin. Languages may

have a common origin, and yet the words which they originally employed for

marking case, number, person, tense, and mood, having been totally

different, the grammatical terminations to which these words would

gradually dwindle down could not possibly yield any results if submitted

to the analysis of comparative grammar. A genealogical classification of

such languages is, therefore, from the nature of the case, simply

impossible, at least, if such classification is chiefly to be based on

grammatical or formal evidence.

 

It might be supposed, however, that such languages, though differing in

their grammatical articulation, would yet evince their common origin by

the identity of their radicals or roots. No doubt, they will in many

instances. They will probably have retained their numerals in common, some

of their pronouns, and some of the commonest words of every-day life. But

even here we must not expect too much, nor be surprised if we find even

less than we expected. You remember how the names for father varied in the

numerous Friesian dialects. Instead of _frater_, the Latin word for

brother, you find _hermano_ in Spanish. Instead of _ignis_, the Latin word

for fire, you have in French _feu_, in Italian, _fuoco_. Nobody would

doubt the common origin of German and English; yet the English numeral

“the first,” though preserved in _Fürst_, _prïnceps_, prince, is quite

different from the German “Der Erste;” “the second” is quite different

from “Der Zweite;” and there is no connection between the possessive

pronoun _its_, and the German _sein_. This dialectical freedom works on a

much larger scale in ancient and illiterate languages; and those who have

most carefully watched the natural growth of dialects will be the least

surprised that dialects which had the same origin should differ, not only

in their grammatical framework, but likewise in many of those test-words

which are very properly used for discovering the relationship of literary

languages. How it is possible to say anything about the relationship of

such dialects we shall see hereafter. For the present, it is sufficient if

I have made it clear why the principle of genealogical classification is

not of necessity applicable to all languages; and secondly, why languages,

though they cannot be classified genealogically, need not therefore be

supposed to have been different from the beginning. The assertion so

frequently repeated that the impossibility of classing all languages

genealogically proves the impossibility of a common origin of language, is

nothing but a kind of scientific dogmatism, which, more than anything else, has impeded the free progress of independent research.