Language an Organism.

315 being crossed by the lower animals; and eternally separating their nature and power from our own; and he is a coward who, fearing for his supremacy, or from want of faith in Scripture, would forbid scientific investigation. The essential capacities and tendencies of man led him universally and inevitably to speech: worked out a foreseen and intended result. He has not risen from a brute-condition by the product of speech; for he could never have produced language had he not been endued, at the outset with those powers, both of body and mind, which constitute man. He was mainly what he is now when the first beginnings of speech came forth; as lion was lion when he began to roar.

Wilhelm von Humboldt says language is an “organism," and "man does not so much form language, as discern with a kind of joyous wonder its developments coming forth of themselves." It accords with this, that philology refers the original forms of language to the primitive stage of the ancient human race. All men speak, their power of brain and capacity of thought are enlarged by speech, but no such differences are wrought as those which separate one animal species from another: all men, however differently they speak, are of one species. "Linguistic principles are actually worked out with as much originality, and more extensively if not more profitably, among savages than among cultured men. Examples are found in the Algonquin system of compounding words, and in the Esquimaux a scheme of grammatical inflexion. Metaphor and syntax also belong to the infancy of human expression. Indeed, language, in many respects, is by a sort of rough and ready ingenuity having more to do with the rule of thumb, Mr. Tylor says, than "with systematic arrangement and scientific classification." The "old barbaric engine" is better, more precise, comprehensive, and beautiful in many of the ancient tongues, than in any or all of the patched and tinkered modern speech. This accords. with the Divine account concerning the beginning of human existence; but we prefer just now, to treat language as the product of art, a contrivance; and to regard human thought and conduct generally as organic and working under fixed laws.

1 "Primitive Culture," Vol. i. p. 216: Edward B. Tylor.

If language is the product of thought in union with capable organism, and used as an instrument for imparting and receiving thought, it is due to the power of intelligence adapting means to ends. This is a highly complicate and intricate capacity. The psychic energies underlying the faculty and exercise of speech, bringing it to conscious exercise-themselves trained and developed by it, belong to those fundamental principles of religion, art and science, which make man what he is. Inner consciousness is by it externalised for ourselves and others, as the revelation and interpretation of the acts of the soul. For this purpose common sounds were imitated; self-expressive or emotional tones were uttered with varying emphasis force and speed; gestures were used, and motions of the features. This being possible by the possession of those various faculties and capacities which led inevitably to the production of speech. So far, therefore, we may say, no man is born a speaker, an artist, or an engineer; a lone man would not speak, and every child learns the language in which he talks; but the child, the lone man, engineer, artist, speaker, are born with the enabling faculties.

Carry the investigation somewhat further.

Every division of the human race has been long enough in existence to form its speech-capacity into language. Should we, if a new race came into being, by whatever means, find it gifted with speech? Or would speech have to be wrought out in the manner work-tools are invented and inproved? In one or the other of these ways must language have come. How is it with the lower animals? Not one of them originates civilisation, or culture-whether linguistic or artistic. Their utmost capacity only enabling them to receive training by a higher race, in activities, which they, themselves, have no power to evoke; and the imitative gesture, or grimace, or tone, is never human; but parrot-like. Inward power fails, whatever the outward occasion; but man possesses inward power and outward opportunity.

A lone man, science says—“ would not speak, nor initiate culture"-we do not admit either as more than hypothesis; but are certain that man would seek his like, and find

woman. This would be by cogitation of the individual, involving self-knowledge or personality; then by consciousness of other and separate existences; then by desire seeking for another ego. This process of instruction and education is visible behind the veil of Scripture words. The impelling energy leading man from solitude, where he might possibly have remained speechless as the lower animals, to pour himself forth in human intercourse and in Divine communion. It is easy to imagine how Adam's language grew out of the spiritual ground of his heart. Thoughts and emotions being rooted then, as now, in the spirit; planted there by manifold sensations, quickening in distinct and branching into vivid perceptions; bloomed and ripened into the flowers and fruits of words. Thus we have the basis of speech, in the powers of man; the impelling cause, in the soul of man; leading to consciousness of himself and of others; and the necessity for speech, in the various wants of human nature.

We are told "That is no acceptable explanation to a scientific man which calls for a special force at the beginning, to act like a deus ex machina, and then retire to act no more." Keep the marvellous out of view, then, altogether, and say "Man began as a learner, and continued a learner;" but before the training and shaping process, a mental equipment, however small, was necessary; those animals which are nearest to man in structural arrangement do not speak; only creatures, such as parrots, in whose vocal organs it is not easy to trace the cause of the power. For a man to see as if trees are walking, there must be a little vision; and the apparatus of speech would be of no use unless, in connection with consciousness, were a definite reach and power of reflection to grasp handle and shape, in the different departments of mental action, signs of conceptions and their relations. In fact, the active and creative force of language resided in man as a marked and distinctive characteristic; and, thus possessing the physical and mental instrumentality, the need of expression produced speech.

It is not needful to adopt any theory as to the consonantal triple roots and internal inflexion of the Semitic speech

or as to monosyllabic roots; nor to decide whether the first words were nouns or verbs; nor yet to account for the fact that clever people, like the Chinese, have a language which, in many respects, is structurally the lowest, and in resource the poorest; nor is any dogmatic statement warranted either as to unity or separateness at the beginning. Science inclines to take "formless roots" as the origin of all language, but what those roots precisely were can hardly be traced out. It may fairly be thought, that as a calf will run about and help itself even on the day of birth; so man, having the organs of speech, when the opportunity came would use them; application and development necessarily must follow; not with words as parts of speech, to be put together in sentences, for no man, though capable as Homer and Demosthenes, can speak any language until he has learned it; but possibly with comprehensive utterances, one word conveying a whole statement. Demonstration, one way or other, is impossible.

Take words to pieces, or put them together; compare modern with ancient, and rich languages with poor; yet neither philologically nor historically is there any warrant for saying that former men worked on any other linguistic base than that now used. This is the more interesting, because there is not in any known language a word which can be said to exist, pu, by nature. The cry of animals is instinctive, but human speech is conventional; and every word stands in its accepted use, é, by an act of attribution, determined by men's circumstances, habits, and references.1 It is impossible to trace language even to human natural cries, brutal are out of the question; and no uttered sound, nor any combination of articulations come or came into existence as the natural sign of an intellectual conception. We may as hopefully look to the beasts for our language, as for the particular and definite beginnings of the arts which develop our clothes, our instruments, our buildings. The voice has been given to us for speech, but only as the hands are given to write with; and it

3

2

1 "Life and Growth of Language," p. 282: Prof. Wm. Dwight Whitney. 2 "Life and Growth of Language," p. 288: Prof. Wm. Dwight Whitney. 3 "Life and Growth of Language," p. 289: Prof. Wm. Dwight Whitney.

Ancient Languages.

319

is simply because they are most effective for speech and written word that they are the universal agents.

We may trace many languages to one parent language; take the sentences, words, and letters to pieces, dissolve them by crucial analysis into primitive forms, natural sounds, and voluntary expressions; but what of that? Man, to be sure, is an imitative animal, but not instinctively, nor in a mechanical way; he imitates because he has the capacity, just as he is an artist; the latter being only a higher development of the former. Take a mechanism to pieces; separate the brass, the iron, the wood, the leather, fuse and burn them; but, apart from the human intelligence adapting and constructing the materials, they are not the equivalent, nor explanation of the machine. What avails it that animals make noises which man fashions into speech; or that birds have notes which men attune to song; or that in the woods and on the sea are heard those rustlings, breathings, roarings, which men combine in orchestral harmonies? Man is naturally that intelligent creature whose material frame and inward spirit, possessing many and various faculties and capacities led inevitably to the production of speech, and to elaborate language. These capacities and tendencies universally and inevitably worked out the Creator's foreseen and intended result, language becoming, in an especial manner, the incorporation of the acts of the soul; a living breathing revelation of man to man, and of man to God.

Comparative Philology has now succeeded in assigning the dialects of mankind, with more or less precision, to three families of speech; the Turanian, the Semitic, and Aryan." The ancient languages are the most scientific, complex, and perfect in their structure; therefore, it is argued "the forms and laws of structure, involved in the most perfect condition of language, were endowments of primeval man."2 Knowledge grew, the seeds of thought were planted, the experiences of individuals and of races became registered, the intelligence stored up in the brain obtained further expression in writing. Revelation was made

1 Prof. Max Müller.

* "Prehistoric Man," Dan. Wilson, LL.D.