Lectures on The Science of Language 30

Lectures on The Science of Language 30

(3) of consonant, consonant, vowel, and consonant; for instance,

_spaś_, to see;

 

(4) of consonant, consonant, vowel, consonant, and consonant; for

instance, _spand_, to tremble.

 

 

The primary roots are the most important in the early history of language;

but their predicative power being generally of too indefinite a character

to answer the purposes of advancing thought, they were soon encroached

upon and almost supplanted by secondary and tertiary radicals.

 

In the secondary roots we can frequently observe that one of the

consonants, in the Aryan languages, generally the final, is liable to

modification. The root retains its general meaning, which is slightly

modified and determined by the changes of the final consonants. Thus,

besides _tud_ (_tudati_), we have in Sanskrit _tup_ (_topati_, _tupati_,

and _tumpati_), meaning to strike; Greek, _typ-tō_. We meet likewise with

_tubh_ (_tubhnâti_, _tubhyati_, _tobhate_), to strike; and, according to

Sanskrit grammarians, with _tuph_ (_tophati_, _tuphati_, _tumphati_). Then

there is a root _tuj_ (_tunjati_, _tojati_), to strike, to excite; another

root, _tur_ (_tutorti_), to which the same meaning is ascribed; another,

_tûr_ (_tûryate_), to hurt. Then there is the further derivative _turv_

(_tûrvati_), to strike, to conquer; there is _tuh_ (_tohati_), to pain, to

vex; and there is _tuś_ (_tośate_), to which Sanskrit grammarians

attribute the sense of striking.

 

Although we may call all these verbal bases roots, they stand to the first

class in about the same relation as the triliteral Semitic roots to the

more primitive biliteral.(268)

 

In the third class we shall find that one of the two consonants is always

a semivowel, nasal, or sibilant, these being more variable than the other

consonants; and we can almost always point to one consonant as of later

origin, and added to a biconsonantal root in order to render its meaning

more special. Thus we have, besides _spaś_, the root _paś_, and even this

root has been traced back by Pott to a more primitive _aś_. Thus _vand_,

again, is a mere strengthening of the root _vad_, like _mand_ of _mad_,

like _yu-na-j_ and _yu-n-j_ of _yuj_. The root _yuj_, to join, and _yudh_,

to fight, both point back to a root _yu_, to mingle, and this simple root

has been preserved in Sanskrit. We may well understand that a root, having

the general meaning of mingling or being together, should be employed to

express both the friendly joining of hands and the engaging in hostile

combat; but we may equally understand that language, in its progress to

clearness and definiteness, should have desired a distinction between

these two meanings, and should gladly have availed herself of the two

derivatives, _yuj_ and _yudh_, to mark this distinction.

 

Sanskrit grammarians have reduced the whole growth of their language to

1706 roots,(269) that is to say, they have admitted so many radicals in

order to derive from them, according to their system of grammatical

derivation, all nouns, verbs, adjectives, pronouns, prepositions, adverbs,

and conjunctions, which occur in Sanskrit. According to our explanation of

a root, however, this number of 1706 would have to be reduced

considerably, and though a few new roots would likewise have to be added

which Sanskrit grammarians failed to discover, yet the number of primitive

sounds, expressive of definite meanings, requisite for the etymological

analysis of the whole Sanskrit dictionary would not amount to even one

third of that number. Hebrew has been reduced to about 500 roots,(270) and

I doubt whether we want a larger number for Sanskrit. This shows a wise

spirit of economy on the part of primitive language, for the possibility

of forming new roots for every new impression was almost unlimited. Even

if we put the number of letters only at twenty-four, the possible number

of biliteral and triliteral roots would amount together to 14,400; whereas

Chinese, though abstaining from composition and derivation, and therefore

requiring a larger number of radicals than any other language, was

satisfied with about 450. With these 450 sounds raised to 1263 by various

accents and intonations, the Chinese have produced a dictionary of from

40,000 to 50,000 words.(271)

 

It is clear, however, that in addition to these predicative roots, we want

another class of radical elements to enable us to account for the full

growth of language. With the 400 or 500 predicative roots at her disposal,

language would not have been at a loss to coin names for all things that

come under our cognizance. Language is a thrifty housewife. Consider the

variety of ideas that were expressed by the one root _spaś_, and you will

see that with 500 such roots she might form a dictionary sufficient to

satisfy the wants, however extravagant, of her husband—the human mind. If

each root yielded fifty derivatives, we should have 25,000 words. Now, we

are told, on good authority, by a country clergyman, that some of the

laborers in his parish had not 300 words in their vocabulary.(272) The

vocabulary of the ancient sages of Egypt, at least as far as it is known

to us from the hieroglyphic inscriptions, amounts to about 685 words.(273)

The _libretto_ of an Italian opera seldom displays a greater variety of

words.(274) A well-educated person in England, who has been at a public

school and at the university, who reads his Bible, his Shakespeare, the

“Times,” and all the books of Mudie’s Library, seldom uses more than about

3000 or 4000 words in actual conversation. Accurate thinkers and close

reasoners, who avoid vague and general __EXPRESSION__s, and wait till they

find the word that exactly fits their meaning, employ a larger stock; and

eloquent speakers may rise to a command of 10,000. Shakespeare, who

displayed a greater variety of __EXPRESSION__ than probably any writer in any

language, produced all his plays with about 15,000 words. Milton’s works

are built up with 8000; and the Old Testament says all that it has to say

with 5,642 words.(275)

 

Five hundred roots, therefore, considering their fertility and pliancy,

was more than was wanted for the dictionary of our primitive ancestors.

And yet they wanted something more. If they had a root expressive of light

and splendor, that root might have formed the predicate in the names of

sun, and moon, and stars, and heaven, day, morning, dawn, spring,

gladness, joy, beauty, majesty, love, friend, gold, riches, &c. But if

they wanted to express _here_ and _there_, _who_, _what_, _this_, _that_,

_thou_, _he_, they would have found it impossible to find any predicative

root that could be applied to this purpose. Attempts have indeed been made

to trace these words back to predicative roots; but if we are told that

the demonstrative root _ta_, this or there, may be derived from a

predicative root _tan_, to extend, we find that even in our modern

languages, the demonstrative pronouns and particles are of too primitive

and independent a nature to allow of so artificial an interpretation. The

sound _ta_ or _sa_, for this or there, is as involuntary, as natural, as

independent an __EXPRESSION__ as any of the predicative roots, and although

some of these demonstrative, or pronominal, or local roots, for all these

names have been applied to them, may be traced back to a predicative

source, we must admit a small class of independent radicals, not

predicative in the usual sense of the word, but simply pointing, simply

expressive of existence under certain more or less definite, local or

temporal prescriptions.

 

It will be best to give one illustration at least of a pronominal root and

its influence in the formation of words.

 

In some languages, and particularly in Chinese, a predicative root may by

itself be used as a noun, or a verb, or an adjective or adverb. Thus the

Chinese sound _ta_ means, without any change of form, great, greatness,

and to be great.(276) If _ta_ stands before a substantive, it has the

meaning of an adjective. Thus _ta jin_ means a great man. If _ta_ stands

after a substantive, it is a predicate, or, as we should say, a verb. Thus

_jin ta_ (or jin ta ye) would mean the man is great.(277) Or again,

 

ģin ngŏ, li pŭ ngŏ,

would mean, man bad, law not bad.

 

Here we see that there is no outward distinction whatever between a root

and a word, and that a noun is distinguished from a verb merely by its

collocation in a sentence.

 

In other languages, however, and particularly in the Aryan languages, no

predicative root can by itself form a word. Thus in Latin there is a root

_luc_, to shine. In order to have a substantive, such as light, it was

necessary to add a pronominal or demonstrative root, this forming the

general subject of which the meaning contained in the root is to be

predicated. Thus by the addition of the pronominal element _s_ we have the

Latin noun, _luc-s_, the light, or literally, shining-there. Let us add a

personal pronoun, and we have the verb _luc-e-s_, shining-thou, thou

shinest. Let us add other pronominal derivatives, and we get the

adjectives, _lucidus_, _luculentus_, &c.

 

It would be a totally mistaken view, however, were we to suppose that all

derivative elements, all that remains of a word after the predicative root

has been removed, must be traced back to pronominal roots. We have only to

look at some of our own modern derivatives in order to be convinced that

many of them were originally predicative, that they entered into

composition with the principal predicative root, and then dwindled down to

mere suffixes. Thus _scape_ in _landscape_, and the more modern _ship_ in

_hardship_ are both derived from the same root which we have in

Gothic,(278) _skapa_, _skôp_, _skôpum_, to create; in Anglo-Saxon,

_scape_, _scôp_, _scôpon_. It is the same as the German derivative,

_schaft_, in _Gesellschaft_, &c. So again _dom_ in _wisdom_ or

_christendom_ is derived from the same root which we have in _to do_. It

is the same as the German _thum_ in _Christenthum_, the Anglo-Saxon _dôm_

in _cyning-dom_, _Königthum_. Sometimes it may seem doubtful whether a

derivative element was originally merely demonstrative or predicative.

Thus the termination of the comparative in Sanskrit is _tara_, the Greek

_teros_. This might, at first sight, be taken for a demonstrative element,

but it is in reality the root _tar_, which means _to go beyond_, which we

have likewise in the Latin _trans_. This _trans_ in its French form _très_

is prefixed to adjectives in order to express a higher or transcendent

degree, and the same root was well adapted to form the comparative in the

ancient Aryan tongues. This root must likewise be admitted in one of the

terminations of the locative which is _tra_ in Sanskrit; for instance from

_ta_, a demonstrative root, we form _ta-tra_, there, originally this way;

we form _anyatra_, in another way; the same as in Latin we say _ali-ter_,

from _aliud_; compounds no more surprising than the French _autrement_

(see p. 55) and the English _otherwise_.

 

Most of the terminations of declension and conjugation are demonstrative

roots, and the _s_, for instance, of the third person singular, he loves,

can be proved to have been originally the demonstrative pronoun of the

third person. It was originally not _s_ but _t_. This will require some

explanation. The termination of the third person singular of the present

is _ti_ in Sanskrit. Thus _dâ_, to give, becomes _dadâti_, he gives;

_dhâ_, to place, _dadhâti_, he places.