The Daily times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1886-1889, 1888-01-20
NATIONS AS TAKERS.
LEADING CONVERSATIONAL CHARAC-
TERIsTlcS OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE.


The Scot even il he will not converse
will usually argue, and the Londoner vii
tell anecdotes but the English peasant is
as rule, person with Il gift tor empty
| meditation. The Irish peasant, on tn,
other hand, talks readily and pleasantly
in short sentences usually full OF expires
sion; so does the Italian, who knows less
than the Englishman; and so does the
Bengalee, who knows hardly more thsn
| the animals around him. The latter, in
deed, talks frequently and with ANNA.
| ton, though almost always Oh n single
subject-money. Ii has been said by one
who wrote after years Of observation,
| that if two Bengalees talk for five minutes
the word paisa pencel will always be
heard; but talk they do, with remark,
| answer, rej0inder and repartec What il
| the cause of that difference.
Professor Mahaffy suggests an answer
| which seems TO us TO SAVIOR OF artificial
| protundity, and therefore 70 be very un-
| like Professor Mahafty, who usually says
| his true thought, even ii il Is little out
OF place: II fancy the causes Of these SO.
| ciai differences are rather recent than
primeyal; they do not depend directly
upon climate or atmosphere, ard il | may
| quote TIE opinion OF wise friend on this
| large question, | should say that one chief
| cause of the talking or social ability Of
| some peasantries over others, is the fact
| that their proximate ancestors were a
biiingual people. Thus the great major
| ity Of west Irish and north Scotch peas
ants are descended from grandtathers
whose talk oscllated between Celtic and
English: and who were, therefore, con
stsntly educated in intelligence by the
problem of translating ideas from one
| language into another, not to mention the
distinct inheritance Of the special ideas
peculiar TO each ana every language.
This is an education in expression, in
| thinking and therefore IN conversation,
wholly foreign to the English midland
boor, who has never heard more than 200
or 800 words of q very rude provincial
| dialect Of English, aud therefore com
| mands neither th8 words nor the ideas OF
tha outlying provinces
\ theory OF that kind should explain the
facts, and this does not explain them. If
| II MElt IL kkr. VIZ NOIitCb nDhll NC - u
| lent as rne men, having even less Of cu.-
ture, bat they are not On The contrary,
! the wives OF those sileE. rural folk can
often Chat agroeabiy. and give and take IN
conversation They do not only narrate;
they d.5cuss and are capable even Of
r7neh halinage, which helps the argument
ir,ctly on Moreover, the chattering
propios--the Neapoltaus for instance
| IRE not biiingual; and the best takers in
| tac world. the born Parsians. spring Of
ancestors who klewno language but their
INa Til. hoFder peoples, too, are not
exceptionally laxative, as we see in
Waie-, AID the Swiss peasgntTy, for al
their linguistic requirements, are eX-
coltiou9ly taciturn. Nobody would say
that an Al;stlan, accustomed from child
hood 70 tvo llnguages, and those among
the richest ia the world, was moro con-
versatile tLan q Lyonnais. who hardly
knows OF the existence OF two, while a
Partisan seems nimble in talk by the side
OF BruXellois, who is never for an in
slant out OF the hearing Of two tongues.
The man who is bilingual, either in fact
or by tradition has no doubt larger
command Of words, bpt Is the command
# WORT; tie Key 10 the secret II so, why
40 lie women, as we said before, talk bet
Ter than the men. ana why are not all the
cultivated equally capable Of eonyersa-
ton. How often can q professors com
paratycly ignorant wife talk well, while
the learned husband - Incapable Of con-
versaton, And, finally IL the difference
| Is n question OF knowledge OF any sort,
why does wine 50 often, and up 10 point,
brighten talk and talkerst IL cannot add
thoughts, OF increase q limited repertoire
of words Al most alcohol, IN any
form, can but iInpart courage, and per-
haps Hide speed ID the movements Of
the brain We should say that the power
OF talk, in the sense OF converting. came
first Of all from the wish t. talk, the de
sire 70 manifest ones self 10 others, and
that this was in the first instance exactly
what the professor says II is nOt--a race
popularity Nothing runs more COM
| pletely in families than the habit Of con
versing much, and race is nothing bur
big family. Did M MahaTy, in his
whole life, ever meet Jew who could not
talk, or who did not wish to talk or who, II
circumstances favored him, did not talk
little too readily Persians and Arabs,
who know nothing, chat twice IS readily
as Scotch farmers, who know much; ana
the populace OF Naples, men as ignorant
as the fishes Of their bay, talk, and talk
well all day. The Greeks have been chat
terboxes for 1900 years, and have lived
for 500 Of them side by side with Turks,
who in the lower classes scarcely converse
at all. 1t il not even true, so far as our
observation goes, that, outside the leu
tonic race, class makes any perceptible
difference, an Italian or Greek or French
workman talking quite az readily as his
superiors, and enjoying talk quite aS
much.
We fear that the truth is one which
Professor Mahaffy's courtesy induces him
only to hint, viz, that the Teuton OF all
three branches-German, Englishman and
American-though he il filing the world,
and may possibly master IL, Is slow
witted being, who does not by nature
enjoy talk, but rather feels II worry to
be called on to understand words and
make q response to them 50 quickly. He
does not take In readily, and therefore
has little pleasure in hearing talk; and he
cannot give out quickly, and therefore
suffers in uttering it. As to the cause Of
1 L. - e