242 : 5. The following notes on languages were taken mostly from the
_History of Language_, by Henry Sweet, and were supplemented by the
writings of W. D. Whitney, and an article on “Indo-European Languages,”
by Peter Giles.
All languages may be roughly divided into two great groups, _isolating_
and _agglutinative_.
The isolating languages are constructed on the principle of single,
distinct words for each idea, and do not employ forms which add or drop
syllables, or letters, in order to obtain variety of expression, tense,
mode, person, number, etc. However, the element of intonation frequently
plays a large part in multiplying the number of possible forms, and
therefore of ideas, in isolating languages, by imparting to otherwise
identical words different meanings through pitch, rising or falling
inflection or accent.
To the isolating languages belong most of those of southeastern
Asia,—Chinese, Burmese, Siamese, Thibetan, Annamite, Cochin-Chinese,
Malayan, etc. The term isolating does not necessarily imply words of one
syllable, although there is a tendency in this direction since the roots
are stripped of all incumbrances of a modifying nature so common in
agglutinative or synthetic languages. The Chinese, Burmese, Siamese and
Annamite are classed as monosyllabic, the Thibetan as half-monosyllabic,
while the Malay is polysyllabic.
Because languages are isolating in structure does not mean that they
necessarily all belong to one family. They merely have this structural
principle in common. To establish family relationships it is necessary
to investigate the sets of phonetics used, the root forms, the types of
ideas expressed, the composition of the sentence and various other
important points included under the psychology of habit and growth forms
of speech. No one of these alone is ordinarily sufficient to prove that
two languages are of one common stock, since extensive borrowing of all
kinds has occurred since time immemorial.
Nevertheless, in point of fact, taking languages as they now exist, only
those have been shown related which possess a common structure, or have
together grown out of the more primitive radical stage, since structure
proves itself a more constant and reliable evidence than vocabulary.
But, on the other hand, since all structure is the result of growth, and
any degree of difference of structure, as well as of difference of
material, may be explained as the result of discordant growth from
identical beginnings, it is equally inadmissible to claim that the
diversities of languages prove them to have had different beginnings.
In isolating languages, word order is very important, but here again the
peculiar character of any tongue of this type depends upon the order
selected, or the relative importance of ideas (general, specific, etc.).
The employment of particles makes possible a freer word order.
The _agglutinative_ languages are those which combine roots or parts of
words or elements into new wholes to express other related ideas than
those imparted by the single forms, or else entirely new concepts.
Frequently these combinations are still separable on occasion into their
original elements, or, if inseparable in their secondary meanings, their
original parts with their derivations are still recognizable as such.
Again, the component parts are no longer independent, but form a firmly
knit whole.
In some languages certain classes of elements have arisen which may be
added in a perfectly formal manner to other fixed roots or elements,
with or without slight phonetic modifications of either or both parts.
Since this occurs in conformity with fairly fixed rules, the meanings of
the resultant combinations are, according to the class of the attached
elements used, fairly analogous. Thus in English many verb roots obtain
the present participle by the addition of the formal element _ing_, in
itself now meaningless, but once, no doubt, a separate root.
The process of agglutination may be accomplished in many different ways,
any of which may be characteristic of whole groups of unrelated
languages. These may be roughly divided first into mono- or
oligo-synthetic and polysynthetic. The former very nearly approach the
isolating languages, since usually only one element may be added at a
time, but the process of addition may be accomplished in any of the ways
possible to agglutination.
Agglutination includes prefixing, suffixing and infixing in all degrees
of complexity and fixity. Thus languages may be spoken of as
agglutinative only in a relative sense. Some are much more so than
others, both in point of the number of elements which it is possible to
add, and their dependence upon one another and the root, denoting a
higher or lower degree of inextricability in blending.
Many languages are only loosely agglutinative and the component parts of
the compounds readily resolve. In others, as in the inflecting
languages, the combination is inextricable.
Thus under the head of agglutinative we have the merely agglutinative or
synthetic, readily resolvable combinations, which are often hardly
distinguishable from isolating languages, and the less easily divisible
inflectional and incorporating types. Any or all of the three processes
of infixing, prefixing and suffixing may be employed in simple
agglutinative combinations.
In inflectional languages the root is attended by prefixes or suffixes
which form inseparable modifiers. At times phonetic changes occur which
render the complex unlike the simple joining of its component parts.
As Mr. Sweet says: “If we define inflection as ‘agglutination run mad’
we may regard incorporation as inflection run madder still, for it is
the result of attempting to develop a verb into a complete sentence.” In
some languages, such as the incorporating, a verb is sufficiently
distinct in its meaning not to require an independent pronoun. French
and Spanish, though not belonging to this category, contain words with
the incorporating idea, as in Spanish _hablo_, I speak, and French,
_pluit_, it rains. Where polysynthesism is the prevailing character, the
verb may be sufficiently comprehensive to include the objective pronoun
as well as the subjective, so that it is possible to find in one word a
transitive, as well as in others an intransitive, sentence. But this is
only rudimentary incorporation, and borders on inflection. Some American
Indian languages carry it to a very high degree, appending to or
inserting into this simple complex not only nouns which may stand in
apposition to the implied or actual pronouns, but particles and
modifiers of every description. (See the _Handbook of American Indian
Languages_, published by the Bureau of American Ethnology at
Washington.) Frequently during this process various parts undergo
phonetic changes in accordance with fixed laws, so that the final
complex may not at all resemble a string of the original elements, but
becomes a new, inseparable and fixed word containing a whole sentence of
ideas. This sentence, in some languages, may carry throughout certain
modifiers for all noun elements—for instance, as to whether the objects
under discussion are visible or invisible. These modifiers bear definite
relationships to the nouns, and the “sentence word” in each of its parts
must then be conjugated as a verb in an even more complicated manner.
This is agglutination par excellence, and is frequently so complex as to
be utterly bewildering to the Indo-European mind, even though the
Indo-European languages themselves employ agglutination to a limited
degree and of certain varieties, particularly of the inflectional order.
Compared to the most complicated Indian tongues, English is in the
position of Chinese to Indo-European languages in its structural
simplicity, though of course in Chinese we have an added complexity in
the use of pitch, etc.
There are certain types of speech which secure changes (plurals, etc.)
by internal vowel modification. English itself makes use of this device,
but it is the outstanding feature of Semitic tongues.
Sweet says: “There are many other minor criteria of morphological
classification. The most important of these is perhaps that of the
agglutinative or inflectional elements before or after the word or stem
[modified]. In Turkish and in other Altaic languages, as also in
Finnish, these are always post-positions, so that every word begins with
the root which always has chief stress. The Bantu languages of South
Africa, on the other hand, favor prefixes.... The Semitic languages
favor prefixes and post-positions about equally. The Aryan languages are
mainly post-positional, with occasional use of prefixes, most of which,
however, are of later origin.”
It must not be supposed that languages fall into absolutely distinct
categories because of their structure. No language to-day is purely of
one type or another. There have been too many centuries of borrowing and
change for that condition to now be possible for any language, nor are
there any longer what might be called primitive tongues. They have all
long since outgrown that state, whatever it may have been, even the
Botocudo of Brazil, which is generally ranked as the most primitive.
Languages may now be classified only according to their prevailing
tendencies. Thus, modern English is in part isolating, in part
inflectional and in part agglutinative, as that term is generally
applied. Basque is an incorporating language, far removed geographically
and linguistically from any other of that character. The Indo-European
family may be considered as inflectional, because that process is a
prominent feature, but it is by no means the only one present, nor is it
exclusively typical of that family.
There is no doubt that all languages pass through certain stages in
their development, but it is not at all true that they all have
eventually the same or even similar histories. There are endless
possibilities of growth and decay, and this fact alone excludes any set
evolutionary scheme. Nor are the isolating languages the most primitive.
On the contrary, they are as complex in their way as the most
agglutinative North American tongues, and as expressive, for some
psychological categories.
There is little doubt that all languages have begun on an isolating
principle of simple roots for single ideas, from which they have
diverged in endless variety. Probably all inflectional languages had an
isolating and agglutinative stage, although this is by no means proved.
The Chinese seems to have undergone an agglutinative past of some sort,
but to have resolved again into simple roots, with only traces of fuller
forms, but with the added complexity of tone, accent, and order, to
give, as Sweet puts it, “that extreme of elliptical conciseness and
concentrated force of expression, which excites our admiration.”
English has become analytical, for many older inflected words have now
been worked over into combinations of independent words, but this is far
from a complete or consistent process. Probably it will never become
like the Chinese, for to do away now with its inflectional system
entirely would necessitate a complete upheaval of structure which is not
likely to happen in the course of normal inner development, particularly
with a vast literature to assist in stabilizing present forms.
As regards polysynthesism, or amount of agglutination, the Aryan tongues
are intermediate; they allow affixes, but only within certain limits.
Languages undoubtedly differ from one another in their richness and
power of expression, but may not be used as a test of the intellectual
capacity of those who now speak them. In fact, men of any race can learn
any language, unless abnormal. To account for the great and striking
difference of structure among human languages is beyond the power of the
linguistic student, and will doubtless always continue so. We are not
likely to be able even to demonstrate a correlation of capacities,
saying that a race which has done this and that in other departments
might have been expected to form such and such a language. Every tongue
represents the general outcome of the capacity of a race as exerted in
this particular direction, under the influence of historical
circumstances which we can have no hope of tracing, but there are
striking anomalies to be noted.
“The Chinese and the Egyptians have shown themselves to be among the
most gifted races the earth has known; but the Chinese tongue is of
unsurpassed jejuneness, and the Egyptian, in point of structure, little
better, while among the wild tribes of Africa and America we find
tongues of every grade up to a high one or the highest. This shows
clearly enough that mental power is not measured by language structure.
On the whole the value and rank of a language are determined by what its
users have made it do—a poor tool in skilful hands can do vastly better
work than the best tool in unskilful hands, even as the ancient
Egyptians, without steel or steam, turned out products which, both for
colossal grandeur and for exquisite finish, are the despair of modern
engineers and artists.” In other words, we must not underestimate the
important part played by habit or inertia. “The formation of habit is
slow, and once formed it exercises a constraining as well as a guiding
influence.”
The Indo-European language is one of the most highly organized families
of tongues that exist, and its greatest power lies (in modern English,
etc.) in its mixed structural and material character. So to the
Indo-European family belongs incontestably the first place, and for many
reasons,—the historical position of the peoples speaking its dialects,
who have now long been the leaders in world history, the abundance,
variety and merit of its literatures ancient and modern and, most of
all, the great variety and richness of its development. These have made
it an illustration of the history of human speech, which is extremely
valuable and the training ground of comparative philology.
W. D. Whitney gives the following linguistic groups in order of their
importance from a literary standpoint:
1. Indo-European (Indo-Germanic). 2. Semitic. 3. Hamitic. 4.
Monosyllabic or Southeastern Asiatic. 5. Ural-Altaic (Scythian,
Turanian). 6. Dravidian or South Indian. 7. Malay-Polynesian. 8.
Oceanic— _a._ Australian and Tasmanian. _b._ Papuan and Negrito,
etc. 9. Caucasian— _a._ Circassian. _b._ Mitsjeghian. _c._
Lesghian, Georgian. 10. European Remnants— Basque. Etruscan?
Lydian? 11. South African, Bantu. 12. Central African. 13.
American.
The first ten groups are families. So little is or was known about the
last three groups that the author of the article classed together what
are now known to be vast agglomerations of families. For instance, the
American languages include several hundred distinct stocks, of which
fifty are found in California alone. These are all, according to our
present knowledge, utterly unrelated. It is known that the central
African tongues belong to a different group than the southern, and it
would be advisable to consult Sir Harry Johnston’s recent large work on
the Bantu languages.
The subdivision of the Indo-European family into cognate languages is
given here to show the great diversity of tongues that may spring from
one ancestor. Not all the dialects, nor even languages, have been
included, but only those best known:
I. Centum (European).
1. Greek.
ANCIENT MODERN
{ Latin. Portuguese
{ Oscan. Spanish.
2. Italic. { Umbrian Catalan.
{ Minor dialects of Provençal.
{ ancient Italy.
French. { Tuscan.
Italian. { Calabrian.
Friulian.
Ladin.
Romansch.
Rumanian.
{ { Irish.
{ _Q._ Celtic { Manx.
{ { Scotch Gaelic.
3. Celtic {
{ { Ancient Gaulish.
{ _P._ Celtic { Welsh.
{ { Cornish.
{ { Breton or Armorican.
{ Gothic.
{ { Swedish.
{ { Danish.
{ Scandinavian { Norwegian.
{ { Icelandic.
{ { Old Norse.
{
Germanic or {
Teutonic {
{
{ { English.
{ { Frisian.
{ West { Low Frankish { Dutch.
{ Germanic { { Flemish.
{ { Low German.
{ { High German.
5. Armenian.
[6. Tokharian?]
II. Satem. (Eastern Europe and Asia.)
{ { Zend.
{ Sanskrit { Old Persian.
1. Aryan or { { Modern Persian.
Indo-Iranian {
{ Hindu, and nearly all the modern languages
{ of India [and of the Pamirs].
{ { Lithuanian.
{ { Lettish.
{ _a_ { Old Prussian or Borussian, extinct
{ { since the 17th century.
{
{ { { Old Bulgarian.
{ { { { Great Russian
{ { 1. S.E. { { and White Russian.
2. Balto-Slavonic { { Slavic { Russian. { Little Russian or
{ { { Ruthenian.
{ _b_ { { Servian.
{ { { Slovene.
{ {
{ { 2. West { Polish.
{ { Slavic. { Czech or Bohemian.
{ { { Sorb.
3. Albanian.
242 : 16. _Cf._ S. Feist, 2, p. 250. On the archaic character of
Lithuanian, see Taylor, 1, p. 15, and the authorities he quotes. Also
Schrader, Jevons translation.
242 : 20–243 : 4. Deniker, 2, p. 320, sums up Hirt’s position on this
question in the footnote: “According to Hirt the home of dispersion of
the primitive Aryan language would be found to the north of the
Carpathians, in the Letto-Lithuanian region. From this point two
linguistic streams would start flowing around the mountains to the west
and east; the western stream, after spreading over Germany (Teutonic
languages), left behind the Celtic languages in the upper valley of the
Danube, and filtered through on the one side into Italy (Latin
languages), on the other side into Illyria, Albania, and Greece
(Helleno-Illyrian languages). The eastern stream formed the Slav
languages in the plains traversed by the Dnieper, then spread by way of
the Caucasus into Asia (Iranian languages and Sanscrit). In this way we
can account, on the one hand, for the less and less marked relationship
between the Aryan languages of the present day and the common primitive
dialect, and on the other hand, for the diversity between the two groups
of Aryan languages, western and eastern.”
If this were so, Sanskrit should more closely resemble the Slavic than
the western languages. As it is, the old Vedic speech, the earliest form
of Sanskrit, is said to show more affiliations with Greek than with any
other of the Aryan tongues (see Taylor, 1, p. 21, and authorities
quoted), a fact which merely adds another proof to our hypothesis that
sometime between 2000 and 1500 B. C. the Nordics filtered down the
Balkan peninsula in their earliest wave and about the same time other
branches found their way into northwestern India. The Sanskrit alphabet
is more closely related to the Phœnician than to any other. At the time
of the first Nordic expansion their language was not reduced to writing.
The alphabet used for early Sanskrit, was, according to Professor
Bühler, probably introduced into India by traders from Mesopotamia about
800 B. C. Another authority on the relations of Greek and Sanskrit is
Johannes Schmidt, _Die Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse der Indo-germanischen
Sprachen_, Weimar, 1872.
243 : 4. Prof. J. D. Prince, correspondence, in discussing the kinship
of prehistoric Ugrian to Aryan says that, although it is a temptation to
believe in it, there is insufficient data for proving it. As careful a
scholar as Szinnyei, in his _Vergleichende Grammatik der Ugrischen
Sprache_, is careful not to commit himself. But see Zaborowski, 3; also
the notes to p. 236 : 26; and Deniker, 2, pp. 349–351.
243 : 12. Deniker, 2, p. 320 and the authorities he quotes.
243 : 20. See the notes to pp. 158 : 21 and 159.
243 : 25. See p. 158 and also the notes on languages to p. 242 : 5.
244 : 1. See p. 157 and the notes.
244 : 6. Latin derivatives. Zaborowski, 1, p. 2. See table of languages,
in the note to p. 242 : 5 of this book.
244 : 12–28. Ripley, pp. 423–424; Freeman, 2, p. 217; Obédénare, p. 350;
Ratzel, vol. III, p. 564; and the articles on the Balkans and Hungary in
the _Geographical Review_, by Cvijič and Wallis. _Cf._ G. Poisson, _The
Latin Origin of the Rumanians_.
244 : 29–245 : 3. Freeman, 1, p. 439.
245 : 3. Jordanes, _History of the Goths_; Procopius, _The History of
the Wars_; Gibbon, _Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_, chaps. I and
XI; Freeman, _The Historical Geography of Europe_, pp. 70–71; also the
notes to pp. 143 and 156 : 10.
245 : 12. Sarmatians. See the note to p. 143 : 21. The same for the
Venethi. Under the Roman dominion Latin speech appears to have spread
from the Adriatic coast eastward over the Balkans replacing the native
dialects except along the shores of the Ægean and in the large cities.
246 : 9. Freeman, 1, pp. 440–441.
246 : 15. Ripley, p. 425.
246 : 24. See the note to p. 173 of this book.
246 : 27. Rhys and Jones, _The Welsh People_, pp. 12, 13.
247 : 3. See the note to p. 174; Oman, 2, pp. 13, 14; Rice Holmes, 1,
pp. 409–410; 2, pp. 319–320; Rhys and Jones, pp. 1, 2.
247 : 9. Goidels. Rice Holmes, 1, pp. 227, 291 and 455–456.
247 : 16. Rice Holmes, 1, pp. 229, 456; Oman, 2, p. 16. See also p. 174
of this book.
247 : 23. Ripley, p. 127; Feist, 4, p. 14; Ridgeway, 1, p. 373; and pp.
195 and 212 of this book.
247 : 27. See the note to p. 247 : 3.
248 : 3. Fleure and James, pp. 146, 148; D’Arbois de Jubainville, 2, p.
88.
248 : 6. Rice Holmes, 2, pp. 319–321; Taylor, 2, pp. 138, 167–168;
Beddoe, 4, p. 20.
248 : 12. Neo-Celtic. D’Arbois de Jubainville, 2, p. 88; Fleure and
James, p. 143.
248 : 14. Rice Holmes, 2, p. 12.
248 : 29–249 : 4. See the notes to pp. 177–178 of this book.
249 : 16. Beddoe, 4, p. 223.
249 : 20. The same, pp. 241–242; Ripley’s maps, pp. 23 and 313; but
consult Beddoe, 4, p. 66, for criticisms of evidence derived from place
names; Taylor, 2, p. 119.
249 : 27–250 : 1. Beddoe, 4, pp. 139, 241–242.
250 : 1 _seq._ Taylor, 2, p. 173; Palgrave, vol. I of _The English
Commonwealth_; Oman, 2, pp. 158 seq.
250 : 6. Taylor, 2, pp. 170–171.
250 : 14. Ripley, p. 22; Taylor, 2, pp. 137–138.
250 : 20. Jordanes, XXXVI; Gibbon and others.
250 : 24. Ripley, pp. 531–533.
250 : 28 _seq._ _Cf._ Ripley, pp. 101, 151 _seq._
251 : 7 _seq._ _Cf._ Rice Holmes, 2, pp. 309–314.
251 : 18. See the note to p. 182 of this book.
251 : 26. Since the Belgæ were the last wave of the Celts, and Cymric
was the later Celtic, this deduction is inevitable, even if there were
no facts, such as place names, history, etc., to prove it. See the note
to p. 248 : 6.
251 : 28–252 : 2. Beddoe, 4, p. 35; Ripley, pp. 101, 152; Taylor, 2, pp.
95, 98.
252 : 5. See the note to p. 196 : 7.