LANGUAGE.

I.—ORIGIN OF language: remarks on the idiom and genius of language. Language, in the proper sense of the term, signifies the expression of our ideas and their various relations by certain articulate sounds, which are used as the signs of those ideas and relations. By articulate sounds are meant those modulations of the voice, or of sound emitted from the thorax, which are formed by means of the mouth and its several organs, the teeth, the tongue, the lips, and the palate. In a more general sense, language is sometimes used to denote all sounds by which animals of any kind express their particular feelings and impulses in a manner that is intelligible to their own species.

Nature has endowed every animal with powers sufficient to make known those sensations and desires with which it is necessary, for the preservation of the individual or the continuance of the kind, that others of the same species should be acquainted. For this purpose, the organs of all vocal animals are so formed as, upon any particular impulse, to utter sounds, of which those of the same species instinctively know the meaning. The summons of the hen is instantly obeyed by the whole brood of chickens; and in many others of the irrational tribes a similar mode of communication may be observed between the parents and the offspring, and also between one animal and another. But it is not amongst animals of the same species only that these instinctive sounds are mutually understood. It is as necessary for animals to know the voices of their enemies as those of their friends; and the roaring of the lion is a sound of which, previously to all experience, every beast of the forest is naturally afraid. Between these animal voices and the language of men, however, there is very little analogy. Human language is capable of expressing ideas and notions, which there is every reason to believe that the mind of the brutes cannot conceive. “Speech,” says Aristotle, “is made to indicate what is expedient and what inexpedient, and, in consequence of this, what is just and unjust. It is therefore given to men, because it is peculiar to them, that of good and evil, just and unjust, they only, with respect to other animals, possess a sense or feeling.” The voices of brutes seem intended by nature to express, not distinct ideas or moral modes, but only such feelings as it is for the good of the species that they should have the power of making known; and in this, as in al! other respects, these voices are analogous, not to speaking, but to weeping, laughing, singing, groaning, screaming, and other natural and audible expressions of passion or appetite. Another difference between the language of men and the voices of brute animals consists in articulation, by which the former may be resolved into distinct elementary sounds or syllables; whereas the latter, being for the most part inarticulate, are not capable of such a resolution. Hence Homer and Hesiod characterize man by the epithet μοξοψ, or voice-dividing, as denoting a power peculiar to the human species; for though there are a few birds which utter sounds that may be divided into syllables, yet each of these birds utters but one such sound, which seems to be employed rather as a note of natural music than for the purpose of giving information to others; and her.ee, when the bird is agitated, it utters cries which are very different, and have no articulation.

A third difference between the language of men and the significant cries of brute animals, is, that the former is the product of art, the latter derived from nature. Every human language is learned by imitation, and is intelligible only to those who either inhabit the country where it is vernacular, or have been taught it by a master or by books. But the voices in question arc not learned by imitation; and being wholly instinctive, they are intelligible to all the animals of that species by which they are uttered, though brought together from the most distant countries on earth. That a dog which had never heard another bark, would notwithstanding bark himself, and that the barkings or yelps of a Lapland dog would be instinctively understood by the dogs of Spain, Calabria, or any other country, are facts which do not admit of doubt. But there is no reason to imagine that a man who had never heard any language spoken would himself speak; and it is well known that the language spoken in one country is unintelligible to the natives of another country where a different language is spoken. Indeed it seems obvious, that were there any instinctive language, the first words uttered by all children would be the same; and that every child, whether born in the desert or in society, would understand the language of every other child, however educated or however neglected. Nay, more, we may venture to affirm that such a language, though its general use might, in society, be superseded by the prevailing dialect of art, could never be wholly lost; and that no man of one country would find it difficult, far less impossible, to communicate the knowledge of his natural and most pressing wants to the men of any other country, whether barbarous or civilized. The exercise of cultivated reason, and the arts of civil life, have indeed eradicated many of our original instincts, but they have not eradicated all.

There are external indications of the internal feelings and desires, which appear in the most polished society, and which are confessedly instinctive. The passions, emotions, sensations, and appetites, are naturally expressed in the countenance by characters which the savage and the courtier can read with equal readiness. The serene look, the smoothed brow, the dimpled smile, and the glistening eye, denote equanimity and good will, in terms which no man can mistake. The contracted brow, the glaring eye, the sullen gloom, and the threatening air, denote rage, indignation, and defiance, as plainly and forcibly as revilings or imprecations. To teach men to disguise these instinctive indications of their temper, and

To carry smiles and sunshine in their face, When discontent sits heavy at their heart, constitutes a great part of modern manners. Yet in spite of every effort of the utmost skill, and of every motive resulting from interest, the most consummate hypocrite, or the most hackneyed politician, is not always able to prevent his real disposition from becoming apparent in his countenance. He may indeed, by long practice, acquire a great command over his temper, and the instinctive signs of it; but at times nature will predominate over art, and a sudden and violent passion will flash in his face, so as to be visible to the eye of every beholder. If these observations be just, and we flatter ourselves that no man will call them in question, it seems to follow, that, if mankind were prompted by instinct to use articulate sounds as indications of their passions, affections, sensations, and ideas, the language of nature could never be wholly forgotten, and that it would sometimes predominate over the language of art. Groans, sighs, and some inarticulate lively sounds, are naturally expressive of pain and pleasure, and equally intelligible to all mankind. The occasional use of these no art can wholly banish; and if there were articulate sounds, [7:13:61]naturally expressive of the same feelings, it is not conceivable that art or education could banish the use of them, merely because by the organs of the mouth they are broken into parts and resolvable into syllables.

It being thus evident that there is no instinctive articulated language, it has become an inquiry of some importance, how mankind were first induced to fabricate articulate sounds, and to employ them for the purpose of communicating their thoughts. Children learn to speak by insensible imitation; and When advanced some years in life, they study foreign languages under proper instructors. But the first men had no speakers to imitate, and no formed language to study. By what means, then, did they learn to speak? On this question only two opinionscan possibly be formed. Either language must have been originally revealed from heaven, or it must be the fruit of human invention.

The latter opinion is strongly supported by Lord Monboddo, in his very learned and able work on the Origin and Progress of Language. But he candidly acknowledges, that if language was invented, it was of very difficult invention, and far beyond the reach of the grossest savages. Accordingly he holds, that though men were originally solitary animals, and had no natural propensity to the social life; yet, before language could be invented, they must have been associated for ages, and have carried on in concert some common work. Nay, he is decidedly of opinion, that before the invention of an art so difficult as language, men must not only have herded together, but also formed some kind of civil polity, existed in that political state a very long time, and acquired such powers of abstraction as to be able to form general ideas. But it is obvious, that men could not have instituted civil polity, or carried on in concert any common work, without communicating their designs to each other; and there are four ways by which the author thinks that t* is might have been done before the invention of speech, viz. 1st, Inarticulate cries, expressive of sentiments and passions; 2d, Gestures, and the expression of countenance; 3d, Imitative sounds, expressive of audible things; and, 4th, Painting, by which visible objects may be represented.

Of these four ways of communication, it is plain that only two have any connection with language, inarticulate cries and imitative sounds; and of these the author abandons the latter as having contributed nothing to the invention of articulation, though he thinks it may have helped to advance its progress. “I am disposed,” says he, “to believe, that the framing of words with an analogy to the sound of the things expressed by them belongs rather to languages of art than to the first languages spoken by rude and barbarous nations.” It is therefore inarticulate cries only that must have given rise to the formation of language. Such cries are used by all animals who have any use of voice, to express their wants; and the fact is, that all barbarous nations have cries expressing different things, such as joy, grief, terror, surprise, and the like. These, together with gestures and expressions of the countenance, were undoubtedly the methods of communication first used by men. We have but to suppose, says our author, a great number of our species carrying on some common business, and conversing together by signs and cries; and we have men just in a state proper for the invention of language. For if we suppose their numbers to have increased, their wants would also increase; and then these two methods of communication would become too confined for that larger sphere of life which their wants would make necessary. The only thing, then, that remained to be done, was to give a greater variety to the instinctive cries; and as the natural progress is from what is easy to what is more difficult, the first variation would be merely by tones from low to high, and from grave to acute. But this variety could not answer all the purposes of speech in society; and being advanced so far, it was natural that an animal so sagacious as man would go on farther, and come at last to the only other variation remaining, namely, articulation. The first articulation would be very simple, the voice being broken and distinguished only by a few vowels and consonants. And as all natural cries are from the throat and larynx, with little or no operation of the organs of the mouth, it is natural to suppose, that the first languages were for the greater part spoken from the throat; that what consonants were used to vary the cries, were mostly guttural; and that the organs of the mouth would at first be very little employed. From this account of the origin of language, it appears that the first sounds articulated were the natural cries by which men signified their wants and desires to one another, such as calling one another for certain purposes, and other such things as were most necessary for carrying on any joint work; then in process of time other cries would be articulated, to signify that such and such actions had been performed or were performing, or that such and such events had happened relative to the common business. The names of such objects as they were conversant with would be invented; but as we cannot suppose savages to be deep in abstraction or skilful in the art of arranging things according to their genera and species, all things, however similar, except perhaps the individuals of the lowest species, would be expressed by different words not related to each other either by derivation or composition. Thus would language grow by degrees; and as it grew, it would be more and more broken and articulated by consonants; but still the words would retain a great deal of their original nature of animal cries. Add thus things would go on, words unrelated still multiplying, till at last the language would become too cumbersome for use, and then art would be obliged to interpose, and form a language upon a few radical words, according to the rules and method of etymology.

Those who think that language was originally revealed from heaven, consider this account of its human invention as a series of mere suppositions hanging loosely together, and the whole suspended from no fixed principle. The opinions of Diodorus, Vitruvius, Horace, Lucretius, and Cicero, which are frequently quoted in its support, are in their estimation of no greater authority than the opinions of other men; for as language was formed and brought to a great degree of perfection long before the era of any historian with whom we are acquainted, the antiquity of the Greek and Roman writers, who are comparatively of yesterday, gives them no advantage in this inquiry over the philosophers of France and England. Aristotle has defined man to be a ζοιον μtμητoοον, or imitative animal; and the definition is certainly so far just, that man is much more remarkable for imitation than invention; therefore, say the r< asoners on this side of the question, had the human race been originally mutum et turpe pecus, they would have continued so to the end of time, unless they had been taught to speak by some superior intelligence. That the first men sprung from the earth like vegetables, no modern philosopher has ventured to assert; nor does there anywhere appear sufficient evidence that men were originally in the state of savages. The oldest book extant contains the only rational cosmogony known to the ancient nations; and that book represents the first human inhabitants of this earth, not only as reasoning and speaking animals, but also as in a state of high perfection and happiness, of which they were deprived for disobedience to their Creator. Moses, setting aside his claim to inspiration, deserves, from the consistency of his narrative, at least as much credit as Moschus, or Democritus, or Epicurus; and from his prior antiquity, if antiquity could on this subject have any weight, he would deserve more, as [7:13:62]having lived nearer to the period of which they all write. But the question respecting the origin of language may be decided without resting on authority of any kind, merely by considering the nature of speech, and the mental and corporeal powers of man. Those who maintain it to be of human invention, suppose men at first to have been solitary animals, afterwards to have herded together without government or subordination, then to have formed political societies, and by their own exertions to have advanced from the grossest ignorance to the refinements of science. But, say the reasoners whose cause we are now pleading, this is a supposition contrary to all history and all experience. There is not upon record a single instance well authenticated of a people emerging by their own efforts from barbarism to civilization. There have indeed been many nations raised from the state of savages; but it is known that they were polished, not by their own repeated exertions, but by the influence of individuals or colonies from nations more enlightened than themselves. The original savages of Greece were tamed by the Pelasgi, a foreign tribe; and were afterwards further polished by Orpheus, Cecrops, Cadmus, and others, who derived their knowledge from Egypt and the East. The ancient Bomans, a ferocious and motley crew, received the blessings of law and religion from a succession of foreign kings; and the conquests of Rome at a later period contributed to civilize the rest of Europe. In America, the only two nations which at the invasion of the Spaniards could be said to have advanced a single step from barbarism, were indebted for their superiority over the other tribes, not to the gradual and unassisted progress of the human mind, but to the wise institutions of foreign legislators.

This is not the proper place for tracing the progress of man from the savage state to that of political society; but experience teaches us, that in every art it is much easier to improve than to invent? The human mind, when put into the proper track, is indeed capable of making great advances in arts and sciences; but if any credit be due to the records of history, it has not, in a people sunkin ignorance and barbarity, sufficient vigour to discover that track, or to conceive a state different from the present. If the rudest inhabitants of America and other countries have continued, as there is every reason to believe they have continued, for ages in the same unvaried state of barbarism; how is it imaginable that people so much ruder than they, as to be ignorant of all language, should think of inventing an art so difficult as that of speech, or even to frame a conception of the thing. In building, fishing, hunting, navigating, and the like, they might imitate the instinctive arts of other animals, but there is no other animal that expresses its sensations and affections by arbitrary articulate sounds. It is said, that before language could be invented, mankind must have existed for ages in large political societies, and have carried on in concert some common work; but if inarticulate cries, and the natural visible signs of the passions and affections, were modes of communication sufficiently accurate to keep a large society together for ages, and to direct its members in the execution of some common work, what could be their inducement to the invention of an art so useful and difficult as that of language?

Let us however suppose, say the advocates for the cause which we are now supporting, that different nations of savages set about inventing an art of communicating their thoughts, which experience had taught them was not absolutely necessary; how came they all, without exception, to think of the one art of articulating the voice for this purpose? Inarticulate cries, out of which language is fabricated, have indeed an instinctive connection with our passions and affections; but there are gestures and expressions of countenance with which our passions and affections are in the same manner connected. If the natural cries of passion could be so modified and enlarged as to be capable of communicating to the hearer every idea in the mind of the speaker, it is certain that the natural gestures could be so modified as to answer the very same purpose (see Pantomime) ; and it is strange that, among the several nations who invented languages, not one should have stumbled upon fabricating visible signs of their ideas, but that all should have agreed to denote them by articulated sounds. Every nation whose language is narrow and rude supplies its defects by a violent gesticulation; and therefore, as much less genius is exerted in the improvement of any art than was requisite for its first invention, it is natural to suppose that, had men been left to devise for themselves a method of communicating their thoughts, they would not have attempted any other than that by which they now improve the language transmitted by their fathers. It is vain to urge that articulate sounds are fitter for the purpose of communicating thought than visible gesticulation; for though this may be true, it is a truth which could hardly occur to savages, who had never experienced the fitness of either; and if, to counterbalance the superior fitness of articulation, its extreme difficulty be taken into view, it must appear little less than miraculous that every savage tribe should think of it rather than the easier method of artificial gesticulation. Savages, it is well known, are remarkable for their indolence, and for always preferring ease to utility; but their modes of life give such pliancy to their bodies, that they could with very little trouble bend their limbs and members into any positions agreed upon as the signs of ideas. This is so far from being the case with respect to the organs of articulation, that it is with extreme difficulty, if at all, that a man advanced in life can be taught to articulate any sound which he has not been accustomed to hear. No foreigner who comes to England after the age of thirty ever pronounces the language tolerably well; an Englishman of that age can hardly be taught to utter the guttural sound which a Scotchman gives to the Greek χ, or even the French sound of the vowel u; and of the solitary savages who have been caught in different forests, we know not that there has been one who, after the age of manhood, learned to articulate any language so as to make himself readily understood. The present age has indeed furnished many instances of deaf persons being taught to speak intelligibly by skilful masters moulding the organs of the mouth into the positions proper for articulating the voice; but who was to perform this task amongst the inventors of language, when all mankind were equally ignorant of the means by which articulation is effected? In a word, daily experience informs us, that men who have not learned to articulate in their childhood, nevcrafterwards acquire the faculty of speech but by such helps as savages cannot obtain; and therefore, if speech was invented at all, it must have been either by children who were incapable of invention, or by men who were incapable of speech. A thousand, nay, a million, of children could not think of inventing a language. While the organs are pliable, there is not understanding enough to frame the conception of a language; and by the time that there is understanding, the organs are become too stiff for the task, and therefore, say the advocates for the divine origin of language, reason as well as history intimates, that mankind in all ages must have been speaking animals; the young having constantly acquired this art by imitating those who were older; and we may warrantably conclude, that our first parents received it by immediate inspiration.

To this account of the origin of language an objection readily offers itself. If the first language was communicated by inspiration, it must have been perfect, and held in reverence by those who spake it, in other words, by all [7:13:63] mankind. But a vast variety of languages have prevailed in the world; and some of these which remain are known to be very imperfect, whilst there is reason to believe that many others are lost. If different languages were originally invented by different nations, all this would naturally follow from the mixture of these nations; but what could induce men possessed of one perfect language of divine original, to forsake it for barbarous jargons of their own invention, and in every respect inferior to that with which their forefathers or themselves had been inspired?

In answer to this objection, it is said, that nothing was given by inspiration but the faculty of speech and the elements of language; for when once men had language, it is easy to conceive how they might have modified it by their natural powers, as thousands can improve what they could not invent. The first language, if given by inspiration, must in its principles have had all the perfection of which language is susceptible; but from the nature of things it could not possibly be very copious. The words of language are either proper names or the signs of ideas and relations; but it cannot be supposed that the All-wise Instructor would load the memories of men with words to denote things then unknown, or with the signs of ideas which they had not then acquired. It was sufficient that a foundation was laid of such a nature as would support the largest superstructure which they might ever after have occasion to raise upon it, and that they were taught the method of building by composition and derivation. This would long preserve the language radically the same, though it could not prevent the introduction of different dialects in the different countries over which men spread themselves. In whatever region we suppose the human race to have been originally placed, the increase of their numbers would in process of time either disperse them into different nations, or extend the one nation to a vast distance on all sides from what we may call the seat of government. In either case they would everywhere meet with new objects, which would occasion the invention of new names; and as the difference of climate and other natural causes would compel those who removed eastward or northward to adopt modes of life in many respects different from the modes of those who travelled towards the west or the south, a vast number of words would in one country be fabricated to denote complex conceptions, which must necessarily be unintelligible to the body of the people inhabiting countries where those conceptions had never been formed. Thus would various dialects be unavoidably introduced into the original language, even whilst all mankind remained in one society and under one government. But after separate and independent societies were formed, these variations would become more numerous, and the several dialects would deviate farther and farther from each other, as well as from the idiom and genius of the parent tongue, in proportion to the distance of the tribes by whom they were spoken.

If we suppose a few people either to have been banished together from the society of their brethren, or to have wandered of their own accord to a distance, from which through trackless forests they could not return (and such emigrations have often taken place), it is easy to see how the most copious language must in their mouths have soon become narrow, and how the offspring of inspiration must have in time become so deformed as hardly to retain a feature of the ancestor whence it originally sprung. Men do not long retain a practical skill in those arts which they never exercise; and there are abundance of facts to prove, that a single man cast upon a desert island, and having to provide the necessaries of life by his own ingenuity, would soon lose the art of speaking with fluency his mother tongue. A small number of men cast away together, would indeed retain that art somewhat longer; but in a space of time not very long, it would in a great measure be lost by them or their posterity. In this state of banishment, as their time would be almost wholly occupied in hunting, fishing, and other means within their reach to support a wretched existence, they would have very little leisure, and perhaps less desire, to preserve by conversation the remembrance of that ease and those comforts of which they now found themselves for ever deprived: and they would of course soon forget all the words which in their native language had been used to denote the accommodations and elegancies of polished life. This at least seems to be certain, that they would not attempt to teach their children a part of language which in their circumstances could be of no use to them, and of which it would be impossible to make them comprehend the meaning; for where there are no ideas, the signs of ideas cannot be made intelligible. From such colonies as this, dispersed over the earth, it is probable that all those nations of savages have arisen, which have induced so many philosophers to imagine that the state of the savage was the original state of man; and if so, we see that from the language of inspiration must have unavoidably sprung a number of different dialects all extremely rude and narrow, and retaining nothing of the parent tongue, except perhaps the names of the most conspicuous objects of nature, and of those wants and enjoyments which are inseparable from humanity. The savage state has no artificial wants, and furnishes few ideas that require terms to express them. The habits of solitude and silence incline a savage rarely to speak; and when he speaks, he uses the same terms to denote different ideas. Speech therefore, in this rude condition of men, must be extremely narrow and extremely various. Every new region, and every new climate, suggests different ideas and creates different wants, which must be expressed either by terms entirely new, or by old terms used with a new signification. Hence must originate great diversity, even in the first elements of speech, among all savage nations, the words retained of the original language being used in various senses, and pronounced, as we may believe, with various accents.

When any of those savage tribes emerged from their barbarism, whether by their own efforts or by the aid of people more enlightened than themselves, it is obvious that the improvement and copiousness of their language would keep pace with their own progress in knowledge and in the arts of civil life; but in the infinite multitude of words which civilization and refinement add to language, it would be little less than miraculous were any two nations to agree upon the same sounds to represent the same ideas. Superior refinement, indeed, may induce imitation, conquests may impose a language, and extension of empires may melt down different nations and different dialects into one mass; but independent tribes naturally give rise to diversity of tongues, nor does it seem possible that they should retain more of the original language than the words expressive of those objects with which all men are at all times equally concerned. The variety of tongues, therefore, the copiousness of some, and the narrowness of others, furnish no good objection to the divine origin of language in general; for, whether language was at first revealed from heaven, or in a course of ages invented by men, a multitude of dialects would inevitably arise as soon as the human race had separated into a number of distinct and independent nations.^[1. In the foregoing view of this subject, the argument for the supernatural origin of language is evidently that which the author wishes to favour. But though -we have, with some slight alterations, reprinted this part of the article, which was written for the earlier editions of this work, we are far from adopting the very unphilosophical opinion which it supports. We do not assert, because we could have nothing like evidence for such an assertion, that the Deity did not originally bestow on man the gift of speech; but we think, with I.ord Monboddo, and many others, that if such a boon ever was conferred, it must, in the revolutions and calamities that have befallen the human race, inevitably have been lost; and therefore, that as multitudes of languages exist and have ever existed, the art of speech is one which man is capable of attaining to, independently of any supernatural aid. This is the view taken by our best philosophers. Thus, Mr Stewart, notwithstanding his well-known caution in forming conclusions on momentous subjects, unhesitatingly avows his conviction, that “the human faculties are competent to the formation of language.” (Philosophy of the Mind, vol. iii. chap. 1.) In another place, the same admirable writer makes the following philosophical observations on this subject :—“The steps in the formation of language cannot probably be determined with certainty; yet if we can show, from the known principles of human nature, how the various parts may naturally have arisen, the mind is not only to a certain degree satisfied, but a check is given to that indolent philosophy which refers to a miracle whatever appearances, either in the natural or moral world, it is unable to explain.” One of the most ingenious attempts that ever has been made to show by what steps the human mind would naturally proceed in the acquisition of speech, is that contained in Dr Adam Smith’s “Considerations on the Formation of Languages.” His theory may perhaps be liable to objection in some of its details; but it is developed with singular clearness and simplicity; and it must, in its general scope and design, be allowed by all candid and competent judges to be eminently philosophical. This essay was annexed by its author to the first edition of his Theory of Moral Sentiments ; and we are told by Mr Stewart, that he always regarded it with great partiality, and that he reprinted it, without a single alteration, in the last edition of that work which he himself revised. Mr Stewart’s commentary upon it (Philosophy of the Mind, ubi supra) ought to be perused alongst with it ]
[7:13:64]

As the knowledge of languages constitutes a great part of erudition, as their beauties and deformities furnish employment to taste, and as these depend much upon the idioms of the different tongues, we shall proceed to make a few remarks upon the advantages and defects of some of those idioms of language with which we are best acquainted. As the words idiom and genius of a language are often confounded, it will be necessary to inform the reader, that by idiom we would here be understood to mean that general mode of arranging words into sentences which prevails in any particular language; and by the genius of a language, we mean to express the particular set of ideas which the words of any language, either from their formation or multiplicity, are most naturally apt to excite in the mind of any one who hears it properly uttered. Thus, although the English, French, Italian, and Spanish languages nearly agree in the same general idiom, yet the particular genius of each is remarkably different. The English is naturally bold, nervous, and strongly articulated; the French is weaker, and more flowing; the Italian more soothing and harmonious; and the Spanish more grave, sonorous, and stately. Now, when we examine the several languages which have been most esteemed in Europe, we find that there are only two idioms among them which are essentially distinguished from one another; and all those languages are divided between these two idioms, following sometimes the one and sometimes the other, either wholly or in part. The languages which may be said to adhere to the first idiom, are those which in their construction follow the order of nature; that is, express their ideas in the natural order in which they occur to the mind; the subject which occasions the action appearing first; then the action accompanied with its several modifications; and, last of all, the object to which it has reference. These may properly be called analogous languages; and of this kind are the English, French, and most of the modern languages in Europe. The languages which may be referred to the other idiom, are those which follow no other order in their construction than what the taste or fancy of the composer may suggest; sometimes making the object, sometimes the action, and sometimes the modification of the action, to precede or follow the other parts. The confusion which this might occasion is avoided by the particular manner of inflecting their words, by which they are made to refer to the others with which they ought to be connected, in whatever part of the sentence they occur, the mind being left at liberty to connect the several parts with one another after the whole sentence is concluded; and as the words may be here transposed at pleasure, those languages may be called transpositwe languages. To this class we must, in an especial manner, refer the Latin and Greek languages. As each of these idioms has several advantages and defects peculiar to itself, ŵe shall endeavour to point out the most considerable of them, in order to ascertain with greater precision the particular character and excellence of some of those languages now principally spoken or studied in Europe.

The partiality which oπr forefathers, at the revival of letters in Europe, naturally entertained for the Greek and Roman languages, made them look upon every distinguishing peculiarity belonging to them as one of the many causes of the amazing superiority which those languages evidently enjoyed above every other at that time spoken in Europe. This blind deference still continues to be paid to them, as our minds are early prepossessed with these ideas, and as we are taught in our earliest infancy to believe, that to entertain the least idea of our own language being equal to the Greek or Latin in any particular whatever, would be a certain mark of ignorance or want of taste. Their rights, therefore, like those of the church in former ages, remain still to be examined; and we, without exerting our reason to discover truth from falsehood, tamely sit down satisfied with the idea of their undoubted pre-eminence in every respect. But if we look around us for a moment, and observe the many excellent productions which are to be met with in almost every language of Europe, we must be satisfied that even these are now possessed of some powers which might afford at least a presumption, that if they were cultivated with a proper degree of attention, they might, in same respects, be made to rival, if not to excel, those beautiful and justly admired remains of antiquity. Without endeavouring to derogate from their merit, let us, with the cool eye of philosophic reasoning, endeavour to bring before the sacred , tribunal of truth some of those opinions which have been most generally received upon this subject, and rest the determination of the cause on her impartial decision.

The learned reader well knows, that the several changes which take place in the arrangement of the words in every transpositive language, could not be admitted without occasioning great confusion, unless certain classes of words were endowed with particular variations, by means of which they might be made to refer to the other words with which they ought naturally to be connected. From this cause proceeds the necessity of several variations of verbs, nouns, and adjectives ; which are not in the least essential or necessary in the analogous languages, as we have pretty fully explained under the article Grammar, to which we refer for satisfaction on this head. We shall in this place consider, whether these variations are an advantage or a disadvantage to language.

As it is generally supposed that every language the verbs of which admit of inflection, is on that account much more perfect than one where they are varied by auxiliaries, we shall, in the first place, examine this with some degree of [7:13:65]attention; and, that what is said on this head may be the 'more intelligible, we shall give examples from the Latin and English languages. We make choice of these languages, because the Latin is more purely transpositive than the Greek, and the English admits of less inflection than any other language that we are acquainted with.

If any preference be due to a language from the one or the other method of conjugating verbs, it must in a great measure be owing to one or more of these three causes: Either it must admit of a greater variety of sounds, and consequently afford more scope for harmonious diversity of tones in the language; or a greater freedom of expression is allowed in uttering any simple idea, by the one admitting of a greater variety in the arrangement of the words which are necessary to express that idea than the other does; or, lastly, a greater precision and accuracy in fixing the meaning of the person who uses the language, arise from the use of one of these forms rather than from the use of the other. For, as every other circumstance which may serve to give a diversity to language, such as the general and most prevalent sounds, the frequent repetition of any one particular letter, and a variety of other circumstances of that nature, which may serve to debase a particular language, are not influenced in the least by the different methods of varying the verbs, they cannot be here considered. We shall therefore proceed to make a comparison of the advantages or disadvantages which may accrue to a language by inflecting its verbs, with regard to variety of sound, variety of arrangement, and accuracy of meaning.

The first particular that we have to examine is, whether the one method of expressing the variations of a verb admits of a greater variety of sounds. In this respect the Latin seems, at first view, to have a great advantage over the English; since the words amo, amabam, amaveram, amavero, amem, &c. seem to be more different from one another than the English translations of these, I love, I was loving, I had loved, I shall have loved, I may love, &c. ∙. for although the syllable am is repeated in every one ćf the first, yet, as the last syllable usually strikes the ear with greater force, and leaves a greater impression, than the first, it is very probable that many will think the frequent repetition of the word love, in the last instance, more striking to the ear than the repetition of am in the former. We wi∏ therefore allow this its full weight, and grant that there is as great, or even a greater, difference between the sounds of the different tenses of a Latin verb, than there is between the words that are equivalent to them in English. But as we here consider the variety of sounds of the language in general, before any just conclusion can be drawn, we must not only compare the different parts of the same verb, but also compare the different verbs with one another in each of these languages. And here, at first view, we perceive a most striking distinction in favour of the analogous language over the inflected ; for, as it would be impossible to form a particular set of inflections, different from one another, for each particular verb, all those languages which have adopted this method have been obliged to reduce their verbs into a small number of classes, all the words of each of which classes, commonly called conjugations, have the several variations of the modes, tenses, and persons, expressed exactly in the same manner, which must of necessity introduce a similarity of sounds into the language in general, much greater than where every particular verb always retains its own distinguishing sound. To be convinced of this, we need only repeat any number of verbs in Latin and English, and observe on which side the preference with respect to variety of sounds must fall.
[table]
[table]

The simaarity of sounds is here so obvious in the Latin, as to be perceived at the first glance; nor can we be surprised to find it so, when we consider that all their re- ∙ gular verbs, amounting to four thousand or upwards, must be reduced to four conjugations, and even these differing but little from one another, which must of necessity produce the sameness of sounds which we here perceive; whereas, every language that follows the natural order, like the English, instead of this small number of uniform terminations, has almost as many distinct sounds as original verbs.

But if, instead of the present of the indicative mood, we should take almost any other tense of the Latin verb, the similarity of sounds would be still more perceptible, as many of these tenses have the same termination in all the four conjugations, particularly in the imperfect of the indicative, as below.
[table]

It is unnecessary to make any remarks on the Latin words in this example. But in the English translation we have carefully marked in the first column the words without any inflection; and in the second, have put down the same meaning by an inflection of our verb; which we have been enabled to do, from a peculiar excellency in our own language unknown to any other, either ancient or modern. Were it necessary to pursue this subject farther, we might observe, that the perfect tense in all the conjugations ends universally in ι, the pluperfect in eram, and the future in am or bo; in the subjunctive mood the imperfect universally in rem, the perj'ect in crim, the pluperfect in issem, and the future in ero; and as a still greater sameness is observable in the different variations for the persons in these tenses, seeing the first person plural in all tenses ends in mus, and the second person in us, with little variation in the other persons, it is evident that, in respect to diversity of sounds, this method of conjugating verbs by inflexion is greatly inferior to the more natural method of expressing the various connections and relations of the verbal attributive by different words, usually called auxiliaries.
[7:13:66]

The second particular by which the different methods of marking the relation of the verbal attributive can affect language, arises from the variety of expressions which either of these may admit of in uttering the same sentiment. In this respect, likewise, the method of conjugation by inflection seems to be deficient. Thus the present of the indicative mood in Latin can at most be expressed only in two ways, viz. scribo and ego scribo, which ought, perhaps, in strictness to be admitted only as one; whereas, in English, we can vary it in four different ways, viz. Ísí, I write ; 2dly, I do write ; 3dly, write I do ; ⅛thly, write do I.^[2. We are sufficiently aware that the last variation cannot in strictness be considered as good language, although many examples of this manner of using it in serious composition, both in poetry and prose, might easily be produced from the best authors in the English language. But, however unjustifiable it may be to use it in serious composition, yet, when judiciously employed in works of humour, this and other forced expressions of the like nature produce a fine eiíect, by giving a burlesque air to the language, and beautifully contrasting it with the purer diction of solid reasoning. Shakspeare has on many occasions showed how successfully these may be employed in composition, particularly in drawing the character of Ancient Pistol in Henry V. Without this liberty, Butler would have found greater difficulty in drawing the inimitable character of Hudibras. Let this apology suffice for having inserted this and other variations of the same kind, which, although they may be often improper for serious composition, have still their use in language. ] And if we consider the further variation which these receive in power as well as in sound, by having the emphasis placed on the different words, instead of four we will find eleven different variations. Thus, I write, with the emphasis upon the I ; 1 write, with the emphasis upon the word write. Let any one pronounce these with the different emphases necessary, and he will be immediately satisfied that they are not only distinct from each other with respect to meaning, but also with regard to sound. The same must be understood of all the other parts of this example.

I do write. I do write. I do WRITE. Write I do. Write I do. Write I do. Write do I. Write do I. Write do I.

None of the Latin tenses admit of more variations than the two above mentioned; nor do almost any of the English admit of fewer than in the above example; and several of these phrases, which must be considered as exact translations of some of the tenses of the Latin verb, admit of many more. Thus the imperfect of the subjunctive mood, which in Latin admits of the above two variations, admits in English of the following:

I might have written. Written I might have. Have written I might. Written might have I. 1 written might have. Have written might I.

And if we likewise consider the variations which may be produced by a variation of the emphasis, they will be as under:

I might have written. I might have written. I might HAVE Written. I might have written. Written I might have. Written I might have. Written I might have. Written I might have. Have written I might. Have written 1 might. Have written I might. Have written 1 might. Written might have I. Written might have I. Written might have I. Written might have I.

I written might have. I written might have. I written might have. I written might HAVE. Have written might I. Have written might I Have written might I. Have written might I.

In all twenty-four variations, instead of two. If we likewise consider that the Latins were obliged to employ the same word, not only to express “I might have written,” but also, “I could, I would, or I should have written,” each of which would admit of the same variations as the word might, we have in all ninety-six different expressions in English for the same phrase, which in Latin admits only of two, unless they have recourse to other forced turns of expression, which the defects of their verbs in this particular has compelled them to invent. <

But if it should be objected that the last circumstance we have taken notice of as a defect can only be considered as a defect of the Latin language, and is not to be attributed to the inflection of their verbs, seeing they might have had a particular tense for each of these different words might, could, would, and should ; we answer, that even admitting this excuse to be valid, the superiority of the analogous language as such still remains in this respect as twelve to one. Yet even this concession is greater than ought to have been made. For as the difficulty of forming a sufficient variety of words for all the different modifications which a verb may be made to undergo is too great for any rude people to overcome, we find, that every nation which has adopted this mode of inflection, not excepting the Greeks themselves, has been obliged to remain satisfied with fewer words than would have been necessary even to effect this purpose, and make the same word serve a double, treble, or even quadruple office, as in the Latin tense which gave rise to these observations. So that, however in physical necessity this may not be chargeable upon the particular mode of construction, yet in moral certainty it must always be the case; and therefore we may safely conclude, that the mode of varying verbs by inflection affords less variety in the arrangement of the words of the particular phrases, than the method of varying them by the help of auxiliaries.

But if there should still remain any shadow of doubt in the mind of the reader, whether the method of varying the verbs by inflection is inferior to that by auxiliaries, with regard to diversity of sounds or variety of expression, there cannot be the least doubt that, with respect to precision, distinctness, and accuracy in expressing any idea, the latter enjoys a superiority beyond all comparison. Thus the Latin verb amo may be Englished either by the words I love or I do love, and the emphasis placed upon any of the words that the circumstances may require; by means of which the meaning is pointed out with a force and energy which it is altogether impossible to produce by the üse of any single word. The following line from Shakspeare’s Othello may serve as an example:

Excellent wretch í

Perdition catch my soul, but I do tονe thee.

Here the strong emphasis on the word do gives it a force and energy which conveys, in an irresistible manner, a most perfect knowledge of the situation of the mind of the speaker at the time. That the whole energy of the expression depends upon this seemingly insignificant word, we may be at once satisfied of by keeping it away, in this manner:

Excellent wretch!

Perdition catch my soul, but I love thee.

How poor, how tame, how insignificant is this, when compared with the other. Here nothing remains but a [7:13:67]tame assertion, ushered in with a pompous exclamation, which could not here be introduced with any degree of propriety. Whereas, in the way that Shakspeare has left it to us, it has an energy which nothing can surpass; for, overpowered with the irresistible force of Desdemona’s charms, this strong exclamation is extorted from the soul of Othello in spite of himself. Surprisedat this tender emotion, which brings to his mind all those amiable qualities for which he had so much esteemed her, and at the same time fully impressed with the firm persuasion of her guilt, he bursts out into that seemingly inconsistent exclamation, Excellent wretch! and then he adds in the warmth of his surprise, thinking it a thing most astonishing that any warmth of affection should still remain in his breast, he even confirms it with an oath, Perdition catch my soul, but Zdo love thee. “In spite of all the falsehoods with which I know thou hast deceived me, in spite of all the crimes of which I know thee guilty, in spite of all those reasons for which I ought to hate thee, in spite of myself, still I find that I love; yes, I do love thee.” We look upon it as a thing altogether impossible to transfuse the energy of this expression into any language whose verbs are regularly inflected.

In the same manner we might go through all the other tenses, and show that the same superiority is to be found in each. Thus, in the perfect tense of the Latins, instead of the simple amavi, we say I have loved ; and by the liberty we have of putting the emphasis upon any of the words which compose this phrase, we can in the most accurate manner fix the precise idea which we mean to excite; for if we say, I have loved, with the emphasis upon the word I, it at once points out the person as the principal object in that phrase, and makes us naturally look for a contrast in some other person, and the other parts of the phrase become subordinate to it: “he has loved thee much, but I have loved thee infinitely more.” The Latins, too, as they were not prohibited from joining the pronoun with their verb, were also acquainted with this excellence, which Virgil has beautifully used in this verse:

Nos patriam fugimus:

Tu, Tityre, lentus in umbra, &c.

We are not only enabled thus to distinguish the person in as powerful a manner as the Latins, but can also with the same facility point out any of the other circumstances as principals; for if we say, with the emphasis upon the word have, “I have loved,” it as naturally points out the time as the principal object, and makes us to look for a contrast in that peculiarity, I have : “I have loved indeed; my imagination has been led astray, my reason has been perverted; but, now that time has opened my eyes, I can smile at those imaginary distresses which once perplexed me.” In the same manner we can put the emphasis upon the other word of the phrase, loved ; “I have loved.” Here the passion is exhibited as the principal circumstance; and as this can never be excited without some object, we naturally wish to know the object of that passion, “Who! what have you loved T' are the natural questions we would put in this case. “I have loved Eliza.” In this manner we are, on all occasions, enabled to express, with the utmost precision, that particular idea which we would wish to excite, so as to give an energy and perspicuity to the language, which can never be attained by those languages whose verbs are conjugated by inflection; and if to this we add the inconvenience which all inflected languages are subject to, by having too small a number of tenses, so as to be compelled to make one word on many occasions supply the place of two, three, or even four, the balance is turned still more in our favour. Thus, in Latin, the same word, amabo, stands for shall or will love, so that the reader is left to guess from the context which of the two meanings it was most likely the writer had in view. In the same manner may or can love are expressed by the same word, amēm ; as are also might, could, would, or should love, by the single word amarem, as we have already observed, so that the reader is left to guess which of these four meanings the writer intended to express; an ambiguity which occasions a perplexity very different from that clear precision which our language allows of, by not only pointing out the different words, but also by allowing us to put the emphasis upon any of them we please, which superadds energy and force to the precision it would have had without that assistance.

Upon the whole, therefore, after the most candid examination, we must conclude that the method of conjugating verbs by inflection is inferior to that which is performed by the help of auxiliaries ; because it does not afford such a diversity of sounds, nor allow such variety in the arrangement of expression for the same thought, nor give so great distinction and precision in the meaning. It is, however, attended with one considerable advantage above the other method; for as the words of which it is formed are necessarily of great length, and more sonorous than in the analogous languages, it admits of a more flowing harmony of expression; for the number of monosyllables in this last greatly checks that pompous dignity which naturally results from longer words. Whether this single advantage is sufficient to counterbalance all the other defects with which it is attended, is left to the judgment of the reader to determine. But we may remark before we quit the subject, that even this excellence is attended with some peculiar inconveniences, which shall be more particularly pointed out in the sequel.

But perhaps it might still be objected, that although the comparisons we have made above may be fair, and the conclusion just, with regard to the Latin and English languages, yet it does not appear clear, that on that account the method of conjugating verbs by inflection is inferior to that by auxiliaries ; for although it be allowed that the Latin language is defective in point of tenses; yet if a language were formed which had a sufficient number of inflected tenses to answer every purpose; if it had, for instance, a word properly formed for every variation of each tense; ene for I love, another for I do love ; one for I shall, another for I will love ; one for I might, another for I could, and would, and should love ; and so on through all the other tenses; that this language would not be liable to the objections we have brought against the inflection of verbs; and that of course the objections we have brought are only valid against those languages which have followed that mode and executed it imperfectly. We answer, that although this would in some measure remedy the evil, yet it would not remove it entirely. For, in the first place, unless every verb, or every small number of verbs, were conjugated in one way, having the sound of the words in each tense, and division of tenses, as we may say, different from all the other conjugations, it would always occasion a sameness of sound, which would in some measure prevent that variety of sounds so proper for a language. And even if this could be effected, it would not give such a latitude to the expression as auxiliaries allow; for although there should be two words, one for I might, and another for I could love, yet as these are single words, they cannot be varied; whereas, by auxiliaries, either of these can be varied twenty-four different ways, as has been shown above. In the last place, no single word can ever express all that variety of meaning which we can do by the help of our auxiliaries and the emphasis. I have loved, if expressed by any one word, could only denote at all times one distinct meaning, so that to give it the power of ours, three [7:13:68]distinct words at least would be necessary. However, if all this were done; that is, if there were a distinct conjugation formed for every forty or fifty verbs; if each of the tenses were properly formed, and all of them different from every other tense as well as every other verb; and these all carried through each of the different persons, so as to be all different from one another; and if likewise there were a distinct word to mark each of the separate meanings which the same tense could be made to assume by means of the emphasis; and if all this infinite variety of words could be formed in a distinct manner, different from each other, and harmonious; this language would have powers greater than any that could be formed by auxiliaries, if it were possible for the human powers to acquire such a degree of knowledge as to be able to employ it with facility. But how could this be attained, since upwards of ten thousand words would be necessary to form the variations of any one verb, and a hundred times that number would not include the knowledge of the verbs alone of such a language ř^[3. This assertion may perhaps appear to many very much exaggerated; but if any one should think so, we only beg the favour that he will set himself to mark all the variations of tenses, mode, parson, and number, which an English verb can be made to assume, varying each of these in every way that it will admit, both as to the diversity of expression and the emphasis, and he will soon be convinced that we have here said nothing more than enough. ] How much, therefore, ought we to admire the simple perspicuity of our language, which enables us, by the proper application of ten or twelve seemingly trifling words, the meaning and use of which can be attained with the utmost ease, to express all that could be expressed by this unwieldy apparatus? What can equal the simplicity or the power of the one method, but the well-known powers of the twenty-four letters, the knowledge of which can be obtained with so much ease, whilst their powers know no limits? or, what can be compared to the fancied perfection of the other, but the transcript of it which the Chinese seem to have formed in their unintelligible language?

Having thus considered pretty fully the advantages and defects of each of these two methods of varying verbs, we cannot help feeling a secret wish arise in our mind, that there had been a people sagacious enough to have united the powers of the one method with those of the other; nor can wė help being surprised, that among the changes which took place in the several languages of Europe after the downfall of the Roman monarchy, some of them did not accidentally stumble on the method of doing it. From many concurring circumstances, it seems probable that the greater part, if not all, of the Gothic nations that overran Italy at that time, had their verbs varied by the help of auxiliaries; and many of the modern European languages which have sprung from them, have so far borrowed from the Latin, as to have some of the tenses of their verbs inflected. Yet the English alone have in any instance combined the joint powers of the two, which could only be done by forming inflections for the different tenses in the same manner as the Latins, and at the same time retaining the original method of varying them by auxiliaries; by which means either the one or the other method could have been employed as occasion required. We have luckily two tenses formed in that way, the present of the indicative, and the aorist of the past. In almost all our verbs these can be declined either with or without auxiliaries. Thus the present, without an auxiliary, is, I love, I write, I speak ; with an auxiliary, I do write, I do love, I do speak- In the same manner, the past tense, by inflection, is, I loved, I wrote, 1 spoke ; by auxiliaries, I did love, I did speak, I did write. Every author who knows any thing of the power of the English language, knows the use which may be made of this distinction. What a pity is it that we should have stopt short so soon. How blind was it in many other nations to imitate the defects without making a proper use of that beautiful language which is now numbered among the dead.

After the verbs, the next most considerable variation we find between the analogous and transpositive languages is in the nouns; the latter varying the different cases of these by inflection ; whereas the former express all the different variations of them by the help of other words prefixed, called prepositions. Now, if we consider the advantages or disadvantages of either of these methods under the same heads as we have done the verbs, we shall find, that with regard to the first particular, viz. variety of sounds, almost the same remarks may be made as upon the verbs; for if we compare any particular noun by itself, the variety of sound appears much greater between the different cases in the transpositive, than between the translation of these in the analogous language. Thus rex, regis, regi, regem, &c. are more distinct from one another in point of sound, than the translation of these, a king, of a king, to α king, a king, 8οc. But if we proceed one step further, and consider the variety which is produced in the language in general by the one or the other of these methods, the case is entirely reversed. For as it would have been impossible to form distinct variations, different from one another, for each case of every noun, they have been obliged to reduce all their nouns into a few general classes, called declensions, and to give to all those included under each class the same termination in every case, which produces a like similarity of sound with what we already observed was occasioned to the verbs from the same cause; whereas, in the analogous languages, as there is no necessity for any constraint, there is almost as great a variety of sounds as there are of nouns. The Latins have only five different declensions; so that all the great number of words of this general order must be reduced to the very small diversity of sounds which these few classes admit of; and even the sounds of these few classes are not so much diversified as they might have been, as many of the different cases in the different declensions have exactly the same sounds, as we shall have occasion to remark more fully hereafter. We might here produce examples to show the great similarity of sounds between different nouns in the Latin language, and variety in the English, in the same way as we did of the verbs; but as every reader in the least acquainted with these two languages can satisfy himself in this particular, without any further trouble than by marking down any number of Latin nouns, with their translations into English, we think it unnecessary to dwell longer on this particular.

But if the inflection of nouns is a disadvantage to a language in point of diversity of sounds, it is very much the reverse with regard to the variety it allows in the arranging the words of the phrase. Here, indeed, the transpositive language shines forth in all its glory, and the analogous must yield the palm without the smallest dispute. For as the nominative case, or that noun which is the cause of the energy expressed by the verb, is different from the accusative, or that noun upon which the energy expressed by the verb is exerted, these may be placed in any situation that the writer shall think proper, without occasioning the smallest confusion; whereas in the analogous languages, as these two different states of the noun are expressed by the same word, they cannot be distinguished [7:13:69] but by their position alone; so that the noun which is the efficient cause must always precede the verb, and that which is the passive subject must follow, which greatly cramps the harmonious flow of composition. Thus the Latins, without the smallest perplexity in the meaning, could say either Brutum amavit Cassius, or Cassius amavit Brutum, or Brutum Cassius αmavit, or Cassius Brutum amavit. As the termination of the word Cassius always points out that it is in the nominative case, and therefore that he is the person from whom the energy proceeds; and in the same manner, as the termination of the word Brutum points out that it is in the accusative case, and consequently that he is the object upon whom the energy is exerted; the meaning continues still distinct and clear, notwithstanding of all these several variations; whereas, in the English language, we could only say, Cassius loved Brutus, or, by a more forced phraseology, Cassius Brutus loved. Were we to reverse the case, as in the Latin, the meaning also would be reversed; for if we say Brutus loved Cassius, it is evident, that instead of being the person beloved, as before, Brutus now becomes the person from whom the energy proceeds, and Cassius becomes the object beloved. In this respect, therefore, the analogous languages are greatly inferior to the transpositive; and, indeed, it is from this single circumstance alone that they derive their chief excellence.

But although it thus appears evident that any language which has a particular variation of its nouns to distinguish the accusative from the nominative case, has an advantage over those languages which have none; yet it does not appear that any other of their cases adds to the variety, but rather the reverse; for in Latin we can only say Amor Dei ; in English the same phrase may be rendered either the love of God, of God the love, or, by a more forced arrangement, God the love of. And as these oblique cases, as the Latins called them, except the accusative, are clearly distinguished from one another and from the nominative by the preposition which accompanies them, we are not confined to any particular arrangement with regard to these, as with the accusative, but may place them in what order we please, as in Milton’s elegant invocation at the beginning of Paradise Lost.

Of man’s first disobedience, and the fruit of that forbidden tree, whose mortal taste Brought death into the world, and all our wo, With loss of Eden, till one greater man Restore us, and regain the blissful seat, Sing, heavenly muse.

In this sentence the transposition is almost as great as the Latin language would admit of, and the meaning as distinct as if Milton had begun with the plain language of prose.

Before we leave this head, we may remark, that the little attention which seems to have been paid to this peculiar advantage derived from the use of an accusative case different from the nominative, is somewhat surprising. The Latins, who had more occasion to attend to this with care than any other nation, and even the Greeks themselves, have in many cases overlooked it, as is evident from the various instances we meet with in their languages where this is not distinguished. For all nouns of the neuter gender, both in Greek and Latin, have in every declension their nominative and accusative singular alike. Nor in the plural of such nouns is there any distinction between these two cases; and in Latin all nouns whatever of the third, fourth, and fifth declensions, of which the number is very considerable, have their nominative and accusative plural alike. So that their language reaps no advantage in this respect from almost one half of their nouns. Nor have any of the modern languages in Europe, however much they may have borrowed from the ancient languages in other respects, attempted to copy from them in this particular; from which perhaps more advantage would have been gained than from copying all the other supposed excellencies of their language. But to return to our object.

It remains that we consider whether the inflection of nouns gives any advantage over the method of defining them by prepositions, in point of distinctness and precision of meaning? But in this respect, too, the analogous languages must come off victorious. Indeed, this is the particular in which their greatest excellence consists; nor was it, we believe, ever disputed but that, in point of accuracy and precision, this method must excel all others, however it may be defective in other respects. We observed under this head, when speaking of verbs, that it might perhaps be possible to form a language by inflection which should be capable of as great accuracy as in the more simple order of auxiliaries; but this would have been such an infinite labour that it was not to be expected that ever human powers would have been able to accomplish it. More easy would it have been to have formed the several inflections of the nouns so different from one another as to have rendered it impossible ever to mistake the meaning. Yet even this has not been attempted. And as we find that those languages which have adopted the method of inflecting their verbs are more imperfect in point of precision than the other, so the same may be said of inflecting the nouns; for, not to mention the energy which the analogous languages acquire by putting the accent upon the noun, or its preposition, when in an oblique case, according as the subject may require, to express which variation of meaning no particular variety of words have been invented in any inflected language, they are not even complete in other respects. The Latin, in particular, is in many cases defective, the same termination being employed in many instances for different cases of the same noun. Thus the genitive and dative singular, and nominative and vocative plural, of the first declension, arc all exactly alike, and can only be distinguished from one another by the formation of the sentence; as are also the nominative, vocative, and ablative singular, and the dative and ablative plural. In the second, the genitive singular and nominative and vocative plural are the same, as are also the dative and ablative singular, and dative and ablative plural, except those in um, whose nominative, accusative, and vocative singular, and nominative, accusative, and vocative plural, arc alike. The other three declensions agree in as many of their cases as these do, which evidently tends to perplex the meaning, unless the hearer is particularly attentive to and well acquainted with the particular construction of the other parts of the sentence; all of which is totally removed, and the clearest certainty exhibited at once, by the help of prepositions in the analogous languages.

It will hardly be necessary to enter into such a minute examination of the advantages or disadvantages attending the variation of adjectives ; as it will appear evident, from what has been already said, that the endowing them with terminations similar to, and corresponding with, substantives, must tend still more to increase the similarity of sounds in any language, than any of those particulars we have already taken notice of; and were it not for the liberty which they have, in transpositive languages, of separating the adjective from the substantive, this must have occasioned such a jingle of similar sounds as could not fail to have been most disgusting to the ear: but as it would have been impossible in many cases, in those languages where the verbs and nouns are inflected, to have pronounced the words which ought to have followed each other, unless their adjectives could have been separated from the substantives; therefore, to remedy this inconvenience, they [7:13:70]were forced to devise this unnatural method of inflecting them also; by which means it is easy to recognise to what substantive any adjective has a reference, in whatever part of the sentence it may be placed. In these languages, therefore, this inflection, both as to gender, number, and case, becomes absolutely necessary; and, by the diversity which it admitted in the arranging the words of the several phrases, might counterbalance the jingle of similar sounds which it introduced into the language.

Having thus examined the most striking particulars in which the transpositive and analogous languages differ, and endeavoured to show the general tendency of every one of the particulars separately, it would not be fair to dismiss the subject without considering each of these as a whole, and pointing out their general tendency in that light: for we all know, that it often happens in human inventions, that every part which composes a whole, taken separately, may appear extremely fine; and yet, when all these parts are put together, they may not agree, but produce a jarring and confusion very different from what we might have expected. We therefore imagine a few remarks upon the genius of each of these two distinct idioms of language, considered as a whole, will not be deemed useless.

Although all languages agree in this respect, that they are the means of conveying the ideas of one man to another; yet as there is an infinite variety of ways in which we might wash to convey these ideas, sometimes by the easy and familiar mode of conversation, and at other times by more solemn addresses to the understanding, by pompous declamation, &c. it may so happen, that the genius of one language may be more properly adapted to the one of these than the other, while another language may excel in the opposite particular. This is exactly the case in the two general idioms of· which we now treat. Every particular in a transpositive language is peculiarly calculated for that solemn dignity which is necessary for pompous orations. Long-sounding words, formed by the inflection of the different parts of speech; flowing periods, in which the attention is kept awake by the harmony of the sounds, and in expectation of that word which is to unravel the whole; if composed by a skilful artist, are admirably suited to that solemn dignity and awful grace which constitute the essence of a public harangue. On the contrary, in private conversation, where the mind wishes to unbend itself with ease, these become so many clogs which encumber and perplex. At these moments we wish to transfuse our thoughts with ease and facility, we are tired with every unnecessary syllable, and w ish to be freed from the trouble of attention as much as may be. Like our state robes, we would wish to lay aside our pompous language, and enjoy ourselves at home with freedom and ease. Here the solemnity and windings of the transpositive language are burdensome; while the facility with which a sentiment can be expressed in the analogous language is the thing that we wish to acquire. Accordingly, in Terence and Plautus, where the beauties of dialogue are most charmingly displayed, transposition is sparingly used. In this humble, though most engaging sphere, the analogous language moves unrivalled; in this it wishes to indulge, and never tires. But it in vain attempts to rival the transpositive in dignity and pomp: the number of monosyllables interrupts the flow of harmony; and although they may give a greater variety of sounds, yet they do not naturally possess that dignified gravity which suits the other language. This, then, must be considered as the striking particular in the genius of these two different idioms, which marks their characters.

If we consider the effects which these two different cha racters of language must naturally produce upon the people who employ them, we will soon perceive, that the genius of the analogous language is much more favourable for the most engaging purposes of life, the civilizing the human mind by mutual intercourse of thought, than the transpositive. For as it is chiefly by the use of speech that man is raised above the brute creation; as it is by this means he improves every faculty of his mind, and, to the observations which he may himself have made, has the additional advantage of the experience of those with whom he may converse, as well as the knowledge which the human race have acquired by the accumulated experience of all preceding ages; as it is by the enlivening glow of conversation that kindred souls catch fire from one another, that thought produces thought, and each improves upon the other, till they soar beyond the bounds which human reason, if left alone, could ever have aspired to; we must surely consider that language as the most beneficial to society which most effectually removes those bars that obstruct its progress. Now, the genius of the analogous languages is so easy, so simple and plain, as to be within the reach of every one who is born in the kingdom where it is used to speak it with facility; even the rudest among the vulgar can hardly fall into any considerable grammatical errors: whereas, in the transpositive languages, so many rules are necessary to be attended to, and so much variation is produced in the meaning, by the .slightest variations in the sound, that it requires a study far above the reach of the illiterate mechanic ever to attain. So that, how perfect soever the language may be when spoken with purity, the bulk of the nation must ever labour under the inconvenience of rudeness and inaccuracy of speech, and all the evils which this naturally produces. Accordingly, we find, that in Rome, a man, even in the highest rank, received as much honour, and w;as as much distinguished among his equals, for being able to converse with ease, as a modern author would be for writing in an easy and elegant style; and Caesar among his contemporaries was as much esteemed for his superiority in speaking the language in ordinary conversation with ease and elegance, as for his powers of oratory, his skill in arms, or his excellence in literary composition. It is needless to point out the many inconveniences which this must unavoidably produce in a state. It is sufficient to observe, that it naturally tends to introduce a vast distinction between the orders of men; to set an impenetrable barrier between those born in a high and those born in a low station; to keep the latter in ignorance and barbarity, while it elevates the former to such a height as must subject the other to be easily led by every popular demagogue. How far the history of the nations who have followed this idiom, of language confirms this observation, every one is left to judge for himself.

II. AFFINITIES OF LANGUAGES.^[4. This part of the article was written by the late Dr Thomas Young, for the Supplement to the former editions of this work. ]

The study of the affinities of various languages is so far one of the most important of all branches of human knowledge, as it affords, when properly applied, an unerring test of the truth or falsehood of historical evidence, without which it would sometimes be impossible to unravel the mysteries of contradictory testimonies, respecting the relations of the different races of mankind. We have, for example, no traditional evidence in support of any connection between the ancient Egyptians and the Indians; whilst, on the other hand, a number of persons, who came with the English army from the East Indies into Egypt, were so strongly impressed with the resemblance of the [7:13:71] Egyptian and Indian temples, which appeared even to excite the religious feelings of many of the natives who were amongst the troops employed, that a very general inclination has arisen from these circumstances, to consider the Egyptian mythology as merely a branch of the Indian. But if the Egyptian people had really been of Indian origin; that is, if the Egyptians and Indians had really been one people, at any later period than that at which the whole of the Indian and European races were separated from their common stock; the languages of India and of Egypt could not but have exhibited some features of resemblance, which would have preserved the traces of the connection; whilst, in fact, there is much less similarity between the Egyptian and the Indian, than between the Indian and the Greek, or the English and the Persian; so that etymology may here be adduced as confirming the evidence, or as justifying the silence, of history; and the resemblance of the mythological representations must be considered as in great measure accidental.

It is, however, only with regard to the languages of the ancient world that we can feel much interest in such an investigation. The American dialects might afford equally extensive subjects of speculation in a metaphysical and critical point of view; but the concerns of barbarians, unconnected and remote from all contact with literature or civilization, and destitute of all historical records, will scarcely be thought to require any great portion of attention from a philosophical inquirer; and there is ample scope for the employment of all our faculties in the analysis and.comparison of the various languages of Europe, Asia, and Africa. If, indeed, an extraordinary exertion of enterprise and industry, which can be expected from a few distinguished individuals only in the course of as many centuries, should make known relations, such as Alexander von Humboldt has appeared to discover, between the American and Asiatic nations, a new field would be opened for the gratification of our curiosity; but it can scarcely be expected that these points of resemblance can be sufficiently numerous to afford any thing like demonstrative evidence, until the whole subject has been much more deeply and repeatedly discussed. In the mean time, a very brief enumeration of the names of the American languages is all that can be required, on an occasion like the present; except the insulated though interesting remark, that the countries separated by Behring’s Straits exhibit, as might indeed be expected, strong resemblances in some of their languages.

Of language in general we do not here intend to treat, but merely of languages as they are distinct from each other. It is not, however, very easy to say what the definition ought to be that should constitute a separate language; but it seems most natural to call those languages distinct, of which the one cannot be understood by common persons in the habit of speaking the other, so that an interpreter would be required for communication between persons of the respective nations. Still, however, it may remain doubtful whether the Danes and the Swedes could not, in general, understand each other tolerably well, and whether the Scottish Highlanders and the Irish would be able to drink their whisky together without an interpreter; nor is it possible to say, if the twenty ways of pronouncing the sounds belonging to the Chinese characters, ought or ought not to be considered as so many languages or dialects, though they would render all oral intercourse between the persons so speaking the language actually impracticable. But, whether we call such variations different languages, or different dialects, or merely different pronunciations of the same dialect, it is obvious that they ought all to be noticed in a complete history of languages; and, at the same time, that the languages so nearly allied must stand next to each other in a symmetrical order; the perfection of which would be, to place the nearest together those languages in which the number of coincidences in the signification of words throughout the language are the most numerous.

It has sometimes been imagined, that all languages in existence present something like a trace of having been deduced from a common origin; and it would be difficult to confute this opinion by very positive evidence, unless every separate language had been very completely analysed and examined by a person well acquainted with a variety of other languages, with which it might be compared. But, without such an examination, the opinion must remain conjectural only, and no more admissible as demonstrated, than the opinions of some empirics, that there is only one disease, and that the only remedy for it is brandy. In an essay on probabilities, lately published in the Philosophical Transactions, Dr Young has remarked, that “nothing whatever could be inferred, with respect to the relation of two languages, from the coincidence of the sense of any single word in both of them,” that is, supposing the same simple and limited combinations of sounds to occur in both, but to be applied accidentally to the same number of objects, without any common links of connection; “and that the odds would only be three to one against the agreement of two words, but if three words appeared to be identical, it would be more than ten to one that they must be derived, in both cases, from some parent language, or introduced in some other manner,” from a common source; whilst “six words would give near 1700 chances to one, and eight near 100,000; so that, in these last cases, the evidence would be little short of absolute certainty.”

The author of the article in the Quarterly Review, on Adelung’s Mithridates observes, that, setting out from the establishment of a certain number of separate languages as species, “we may proceed to comprehend, in the description of one family, such as have more coincidences with each other than diversities, and to refer to the same class such families as exhibit any coincidences at all that are not fortuitous, imitative,” that is, from onomatopoeia, “or adoptive. In order, however, to avoid too great a number of classes, which would arise from an inadequate comparison of languages imperfectly known, it may be proper, in some cases, to adopt a geographical distinction, as sufficient to define the limits of a class, or to assist in its subdivision into orders. We are thus obliged to employ an arrangement of a mixed nature and, in fact, the tests of affinity here proposed depend so much on the progress of our knowledge in the study of each language, tnat the results must unavoidably be liable to great uncertainty and fluctuation, so that we can reasonably expect nothing more than an approximation to an arrangement completely methodical.

“If,” continues the reviewer, “the resemblance or identity of a single word, in two languages, supposed to be exempt from the effects of all later intercourse, were to be esteemed a sufficient proof of their having been derived from a common stock, it would follow, that more than half the languages of the 'universe would exhibit traces of such connection, in whatever order we might pursue the comparison. Thus we find in a very great number, and perhaps in a majority of known languages, that the sound of the vowel a, with a labial consonant, is employed for the name of Father ; and if this be supposed to be something like an onomatopoeia, or an application of the first sounds which ,an infant naturally utters, the same reason cannot possibly be assigned for the still more general occurrence of the combination nm in the term name, which is by no means likely to have originated from any natural association of this kind. But neither [7:13:72]these points of resemblance, nor any other that can be assigned, are absolutely universal; for, besides the numberless varieties referrible more or less immediately to Abba, Father, we have at least twenty different and independent terms for the same relation in the old world ;” Tia, Issa, Plar, Hair, Rama, Diam, Bina, Kettem, Assainalagi, Medua, Thewes, Sunk, lot, Anathien, Messee, Indaa, Nu, Nam, Monung. Dengabey, Ray, Tikkob, and Oa; and about as many for Name, besides those languages in which the version of an abstract term of this kind is less likely to have been ascertained; Ming, Trem, Diant, Sheu, Hes-Sara, Slιem, Tsarship, Ad, Nipta, Lüm, Sacheli, Assia, Wasta, Ngala., Taira, Sünna, Ran, Hhili, Ding, Dbai, and Angkara. “ At the same time, therefore, that we venerate the traces of our common descent from a single pair, wherever they are still perceptible, we must not expect to find them in all existing languages without exception; and an Etymologico Universale, considered as intended to establish such a perfect community of derivation, can only be regarded as a visionary undertaking. Nor must we neglect to unite, in some common arrangement of classification, those languages which have the words here specified, or any other radical words, in common, as incomparably more related to each other than the Chinese to the Cantabrian, or the Irish to the Hottentot.

“The gradations, by which a language is likely to vary in a given time, seem to be in some measure dependent on the degree of cultivation of the language, and of the civilization of the people employing it. From Homer to the Byzantine historians, the Greek language remained essentially the same for 2000 years; the German has varied but little in 1500; and even the English, notwithstanding its mixture with French and Latin, has altered but three radical words out of the fifty-four which constitute the Lord’s Prayer, in the same period. On the other hand, a few barbarians in the neighbourhood of Mount Caucasus and of the Caspian Sea, of modern origin, and ignorant of the art of writing, are divided into more nations speaking peculiar languages, radically different from each other, than the whole of civilized Europe. In such cases, little light can be thrown upon history by etymological researches, while, with regard to more cultivated nations, we obtain, from the examination of their languages, historical evidence of such a nature, as it is scarcely possible for either accident or design to have falsified.”

According to the supposition of Professor Adelung, it seems not improbable that Thibet, on the east of Cashmere, may “have been the habitation of Adam immediately after his fall, and the country occupied by the descendants of Cain. In Thibet, and in the countries immediately beyond it, the languages of at least a hundred and fifty millions of people are still principally monosyllabic; and from this peculiarity, as well as from the singular simplicity of their structure, they are supposed to constitute the most ancient class of existing languages, though it must be confessed that much of Adelung’s reasoning on this subject is extremely inconclusive.” Mr Townsend remarks very judiciously, that one of the canons of Rudbeck is by no means admissible. “He states, that a language, which has numerous monosyllabic expressions, is a parent language. The English has more than 3700 monosyllabic expressions, and the Chinese has none but such; yet neither of them is, for that reason, to be considered as a parent language. Certain it is, that all languages, by abbreviations, have a tendency to become monosyllabic, and therefore a language which abounds in monosyllables is ancient, and these commonly are the most antiquated parts of every language. New compounds are incessantly created. These are abbreviated, and in process of time be come monosyllabic. In deriving, therefore, a word in one language, from its correspondent expression in some other language, we must ever bear in mind, that, unless in the formation of new compounds, the least abbreviated is commonly the parent, and the most abbreviated its offspring. Would it be possible for any one to persuade us that Colaphus was derived from Cuff, or Blaspheme from Blame? “A similar instance,” says the reviewer, “might be found in Trachelos and Hals of the Greeks and Germans; for certainly Hals is more like Trachelos than like Collum.

The Chinese, however, which is the principal, and probably the most ancient, of the monosyllabic languages, is distinguished from almost all others by a more marked peculiarity, which is, that its written characters, instead of depicting sounds, are the immediate symbols of the objects or ideas, and are even imperfectly represented by the sounds, whatever difference of accent or tone may be exhibited by the most refined speaker; as indeed it may happen accidentally in our own language, that we maybe at a loss to explain, without circumlocution, whether we mean to say Son or Sun ; Beer or Bier ; Bear or Bare ; You, Ewe, Yew, or U ; but in the Chinese the real cause of this essential characteristic appears to be, that the symbol was in fact originally intended as a hieroglyphic or picture of the object, though the resemblance, coarse as it probably was at first, has been generally altogether lost by the modifications which the character has conventually undergone. And in this point of view the Chinese would require to be classed with the old Egyptian only, since we know of no other language which was habitually expressed in hieroglyphics and their immediate derivatives. It is not at all uncommon for the same sound in Coptic, as in Chinese, to have four or five senses all essentially different, as may easily be observed in turning over a dictionary; noou, for instance, means Bad, and Them, and a Shower, in two verses of St Matthew (v. 45, 46), and perhaps several other things.

Another ancient and extensive class of languages, united by a greater number of resemblances than can well be altogether accidental, may be denominated the Indo-European, comprehending the Indian, the West Asiatic, and almost all the European languages. If we chose to assign a geographical situation to the common parent of this class, we should place it to the south and west of the supposed origin of the human race; leaving the north for our third class, which we can only define as including all the Asiatic and European languages not belonging to the two former; which may be called Atactic, or, perhaps, without much impropriety, Tataric ; and which may be subdivided into five orders, Sporadic, Caucasian, Tartarian, Siberian, and Insular. The African and American languages will constitute a fourth and fifth class, sufficiently distinct from all the rest, v but not intended to be considered as any otherwise united among themselves, than by their geographical situation. There is indeed little doubt, that some of the languages here called Tatarie are essentially allied to others, which are referred to the Indo-European class; but they have been too little investigated to allow us to make the selection that would be required for completing the classification.

The following tables are copied, with considerable additions, from Adelung’s Mithridates. The words Heaven and Earth are chosen as specimens, because they seem to be known in a greater number of languages than any others, except the name of Father, which is supposed to exhibit, in some cases, a fallacious similarity. The German orthography has been principally employed, except in such languages as are usually written in the Roman characters, the pronunciation of the consonants being more uniform than in English, and that of the vowels differing little from the Italian.
[7:13:73]
[table]
[table]
[table]
[7:13:74]
[table]
[table]
[7:13:75]
[table]
[table]
[7:13:76]
[table]
[table]
[7:13:77]
[table]

The Hottentots have three particular clicking sounds, made by withdrawing the tongue from the teeth, the fore part and the back part of the palate: they are respectively denoted by T ’, T”, and Τ’”. The first two appear to re- ' semble the sounds sometimes used to express a trifling vexation, and to make a horse go on, or to call to poultry.
[table]
[7:13:78]
[table]
[table]
[7:13:79]
[table]
[table]

The tables will at least serve, notwithstanding some imperfections and uncertainties, as a convenient synopsis for facilitating the reference to a brief sketch of the history of the different families of languages.

1. The strongest proof of the great antiquity of the Chinese language appears to be the extreme simplicity of its structure, and the want of those abbreviations and conventional implications which have been sometimes called the wings of languages. It is natural that, in attempting to express ideas at once by characters, the rude pictures of material objects should first have been principally, if not exclusively traced; thus the Egyptians had ©,; for the sun and moon, and θ for a country or field, and the Chi nese have still (Ĳ f f [+) for these objects respectively, the characters having been made square instead of [7:13:80]round, which some of them were in their more ancient forms. The Egyptians represented a man by a figure kneeling, and stretching out his hand, or, in the enchorial character, thus . The Chinese figure may originally have been of the same form; but at present is more like a pair of legs only, , whilst a dog seems to have three or four legs; or . A thousand, according to Mr Jomard’s ingenious conjecture, was copied from the lotus, with its seed vessel, having a great multitude of seeds, and the Chinese is certainly not altogether unlike the

Egyptian , nor is the character for light , which seems intended to represent a radiant body, altogether different from the ¢¶) or so often found among the hieroglyphics of Egypt, although it is not easy to believe, with Mr Palin, that the manuscripts found with the mummies agree precisely with a Chinese version of the Psalms of David, character for character. The successive introduction of figurative expressions and characters may easily be imagined; but it would be useless to enter at present into further details of this kind, on grounds almost entirely speculative. The Chinese are said to have been, in the ninth century, a race of people resembling the Arabs; their physiognomy was contaminated in the thirteenth and fourteenth by a mixture with their conquerors, the Mongols; but their language remained unaltered. The dialect of Tonkin is sometimes called the language of Anarn, and the Guan ; on occasions of state they use the Chinese character, but more commonly a character of their own, probably resembling that of the Siamese. Dr Leyden observes, that at least twenty different nations employ the Chinese characters, though they read them quite differently; and he considers the Cochin-Chinese, the Cantonese, and the Japanese, as all essentially different from the Mandarin Chinese, though they have all some words in common. He gives us as the names of the dialects of Chinese, constituting almost as many separate languages, 1, Kong, spoken at Canton; 2, Way ; 3, Nam ; 4, Chew ; 5, Sew ; 6, Lui ; 7, Limm ; 8, Khurn, or Mandarin; 9, Siu; 10, Kunng ; II, Hyong san, spoken at Macao; 12, San talik; 13, Nam kei ; 14, Pun ngi ; 15, Tong khun ; 16, Eo khun, or Chinchow. There is also a language spoken by the Quan to, between Tonkin and China, a people who consider themselves as more ancient than their neighbours. Notwithstanding, however, all this supposed diversity, we may trace a considerable resemblance in the spoken language, even as far as Corea. In all these dialects, the conversation is a sort of recitative, and the different notes give distinct meanings to the words; as in fact we distinguish in English the sense of Μ? from Μ! or simply Μ.; tones perfectly understood, though never written. The Chinese are without the sound of the letter r, and several other sounds common in Europe; the only way in which they express foreign words is by putting together the characters of the nearest import, with a symbol of pronunciation annexed to them; thus, for Christus and Cardinalis, they are obliged to write Ki lu su tu su and Kia ul fi na li su, with a mouth annexed to them. The names of places are generally distinguished by a square enclosing the characters which express them, and the names of men, in some books, by a line drawn on one side of the characters only. .In this there seems to be a distant analogy to the ring which encloses proper names in the Egyptian inscriptions, but the names of places were not distinguished in this manner by the Egyptians. The dialects of Cambodia and Laos have received some mixture of Malayan from their neighbours; in writing the former of these, sometimes called K , hohmen, according to Dr Leyden, the Bali, or old Sanscrit character, is employed; and the latter has some analogy with the Siamese; indeed, both the Siamese and the Avanese are disposed to derive themselves from Laos. It may be seen, from the specimens exhibited in the article Philology, that at least some of the Chinese dialects have sounds agreeing in several instances with European words of the same import; but the agreement is scarcely precise enough to justify our inferring from it an original connection between the languages.

2. The language of Siam resembles the Chinese in its simplicity and metaphorical structure, though not so decidedly monosyllabic. It is obvious, however, that the distinction of monosyllabic and polysyllabic could not, in very ancient times, have been so positively laid down as at present, since it was usual, in almost all countries, to write the words contiguous to each other in a continued series, without any divisions between them; and, even in modern printing, there is a happy invention, which often restores this agreeable obscurity, under the name of a hyphen, by the use of which we avoid the difficulty of determining whether we wish to employ one word or several. The Siamese call themselves Ehay ; and a part of their country is distinguished by the appellation Tai hai, or Great T’hay. The numerals resemble the Mandarin Chinese; several words of the language are borrowed from the Bali; it is written in an alphabetical character, which is said to be complicated and refined.

3. The Avanese or Burmanish, has also borrowed some polysyllabic words from the Bali, and is written in a peculiar alphabetical character. It must be considered as an era in the history of this country, that its emperor has employed Mr Felix Carey, at his own expense, to establish a printing press at Ava, his metropolis, for printing a translation of the Scriptures in Burmanish. A dialect, spoken in the district called Tanengrari, is said to be of greater antiquity. The Mon or Peguan is called by Dr Leyden a distinct original language; but it is written in the Avancse character, and Adelung’s specimen scarcely differs at all from the Burmanish. The language of Arakan and Rashaan is called Rukheng ; it contains a number of words from the Bali, many of them converted into monosyllables by an imperfect pronunciation. Dr Leyden considers it as the connecting link between the monosyllabic and the polysyllabic languages; and he calls it an original language, notwithstanding its acknowledged derivation from its neighbours. It employs the Devanagri alphabet, including the letter r. Out of fifty words of Rukheng, quoted by Buchanan, the seven which are not Burman are only varieties of pronunciation. The Kiayn or Kolun, and the Kukis, north-east of Chatigong, are mentioned as neighbouring tribes, speaking languages almost entirely different from the Rukheng. We find, in Mr Buchanan’s paper, some specimens of the languages of the Burma empire, which it is difficult to distribute methodically without a further knowledge of their peculiar characters, but some of which may, without impropriety, be introduced here.
[table]
[7:13:81]
[table]

4. The language of Thibet, or the Tangutish, has some words in common with the Chinese, but is less simple in its structure. It is at least as ancient as the religion of the country, which is nearly coeval with Christianity. Its character is well known to be alphabetical, from the title of the learned work of Father Georgi on the subject.

5. The Indo-European languages have been referred to a single class, because every one of them has too great∙a number of coincidences with some of the others to be considered as merely accidental, and many of them in terms relating to objects of such a nature that they must necessarily have been, in both of the languages compared, rather original than adoptive. The Sanscrit, which is confessedly the parent language of India, may easily be shown to be intimately connected with the Greek, the Latin, and the German, although it is a great exaggeration to assert any thing like its complete identity with either of these languages. Thus, we find, within the compass of the Lord’s Prayer only, Pida, Pitir, among the Sanscrit terms for Father, Gr. Pater ; Nama, or Na-mαdheya, for Name, Gr. Onoma, Onomati ; Radshiam, Kingdom, Lat. Regnum from Rego ; Manasam, Will, like the Greek Menuo, and the Latin Mens ; Stira, Earth, Gr. Era, whence perhaps the Latin Terra ; and Danim, or Devanagri Dia, Day, Lat. Dies. There arc also some singular resemblances of declension and conjugation between the Sanscrit and the Greek, Dodami, Dodasti, Do-dati ; in old Greek, Didomi, Didosi, Didoti. In a tablet of the date 23 b. c. we find Kritico for a Judge, Gr. Crites, Critico. In Mr Townsend’s work we also find some well-selected instances of resemblance between the Sanscrit and other languages: thus, Bhru, is Brow ; Pota, a Boat ; Bad, a Bath, Germ. Bad ; Dliara, Terra ; Nava, Novus ; Nakta, Nocte, Night ; Pad, Foot, Patte ; Pratha-mα or Protoma, first, whence we deduce both the Greek protos and the Latin primus ; and Upadesaca, Didasco, Doceo, and Disco. We have also Vayajan, wind, in Russian, Viecanic ; and Vidhava, widow, Latin, Vidua, German, Wittwe, Russian, Vdova. The nt of the’plural verb is found in the Sanscrit Bhavαnti, they are, Dadanti, they give. Sir William Jones and many others have attributed to some of the works which are still extant in Sanscrit an antiquity of four or five thousand years; but Professor Adelung denies the validity of any of the arguments which have been adduced in favour of a date at all approaching to this.

The Sanscrit, even in its earliest state, can scarcely have been altogether uniform throughout all the countries in which it was spoken, and it has degenerated by degrees into a great diversity of modern dialects: the term signifies learned or polished. Beyond the Ganges, it is called Bali or Magudha, which, the missionaries say, “scarcely” differs from Sanscrit; the term Magudha is said to mean mixed or irregular. In Siam the Sanscrit is still the language ŋf elegant literature; and it is often employed throughout India, with some little difference of construction, under the name of Devanagari, the divine language. The Prakrit is rather a vague term, meaning, according to Mr Colebrooke, common or vulgar; but it is also applied to the language of the sacred books of the “Jainas.” We find in a little publication, entitled a Brief View of the Baptist Missions and Translations, some useful information respecting the Indian languages and dialects, into a great number of which these laborious and disinterested persons have made or procured translations of the whole of the Scriptures, which they have printed at Serampore, near Calcutta. The dialects, which they enumerate, are principally arranged in a geographical order; and, beginning with those which are spoken towards the middle of India, as the pure Sanscrit and its least modified dialects, we may place next to them the languages of the countries bordering on the monosyllabic nations, towards the north and east: we have here the dialects of Nepal, Assam or Uhumiya, Tiperah, and Kassai, of which little more is known than that translations into the first two have been already executed: the Bengalee is spoken in and about Calcutta: the Hindee or Hinduvee is spoken about Agra; it is printed in the Devanagri character, the font of which contains more than 800 varieties of letters and their combinations; the Urdu or Oordoo is a subdialect of the Hindee, as well as the Brijbassa, which is nearer to the Sanscrit than some other dialects: the Jypura is mentioned as another language belonging to the same neighbourhood: the Hindustance is spoken in Hindustan Proper, or Lower Hindustan; the missionaries say it is “diametrically different” from the Hindee: the Moors or “Mongol Indostanish” seems to belong to this country, being mixed with a good deal of Persian and Arabic, unless it be rather referrible to the Hindee: the dialects of Udaipura, Benares, and Munipura, are also called separate languages: the Goandee is spoken at Nagpore, in the Mahratta country: further east is Orissa or Uriya, the language of which is printed in a character requiring 300 different types: the Telug or Wαrug is spoken about Cuddalore and Madras: the Telinga further west: the Carnatic has a peculiar language, besides the Tamul, which is spoken from Palea-cate, near Madras, to Cape Comorin, and the Mαrwa, which appears to belong to a part of this country. About Cochin in Travancore we have the Maleiam : further north, the languages of Malabar, Kanara, and of the Decan ; the dialect of Malabar is of considerable antiquity, being found in two copper tablets as old as the eighth or ninth century: then comes the Kunkuna, about Bombay: the Mahratta is further inland: the Guzurat on the coast: and, beyond the Indus, the Beloshee in Belochistan: north of this we find the Afghan or Pushtu language, which contains more Hebrew words than any of its neighbours; the people are said to have come from the north about 2000 years ago, and, according to a Persian tradition, to be descended from King Saul; indeed the language stands somewhat more correctly under the Median family in the Mithridates, but since it forms the connecting link between the two families, it might perhaps be as conveniently arranged among the more numerous species of the Sanscrit; it is written in the Arabic character, with some additional letters for expressing the Sanscrit sounds. The language of Multan, north of Sindh, has about one tenth of Persian mixed with it. The Gipsies were certainly expelled from some part of India by the cruelties of Timur Leng, about the year 1400; and they were probably some of the Zingans, in the neighbourhood of Multan, their language having a great number of coincidences with that of Multan, and being still more manifestly a dialect of the Sanscrit, although they have adopted many European, and [7:13:82]especially Sclavonian words. When they first appeared in Europe, they were supposed to amount to about half a million; at present they are less numerous.

The Maldivian is peculiar to the group of small islands from which it is named; the Baptists have already printed some books in it. The people are said greatly to resemble those of Ceylon. The Cingalese, which is spoken in great part of Ceylon, is a mixture of several of the continental dialects; and it has been observed, that the proper names in Ceylon mentioned by Ptolemy are of Sanscrit origin. Dr Leyden gives, as a proof of the antiquity of the Malayan, that the Temala of Ptolemy is derived from Tema, tin. The connection of this language with the Sanscrit has not been very universally admitted; and some of those who have studied it most are disposed to consider it as wholly original; but, in the purest part of the language, Dr Leyden confesses that there is a considerable resemblance to the Avanese and the Siamese; the words derived from the Sanscrit he considers as somewhat less numerous, amounting, however, to about 5000; they are generally less like the Bali than the Sanscrit; and a still smaller number are borrowed from the Arabic. The character of the monosyllabic languages is in some measure retained. Sir William Jones considered the Malayan as a derivative of the Sanscrit: Mr Marsden supposes it to have received its Sanscrit words through Gujerat; Dr Leyden rather from Kalinga or Telinga; and it exhibits some traces of the dialects of Tamul and Maleialam. Besides these various sources, it is said to have borrowed some of its simplest words from the Javanese and the Bugis; and it has become more nearly monosyllabic by dropping the first syllables of some of the words which it has adopted. The Javanese is said to be more ancient than the Malayan: the empire of Java was formerly powerful and flourishing: the ancient language was much like the Sanscrit, more so than the Malayan, but was written in a peculiar character. Dialects of this language are still spoken in Bali and in Madura. Leyden thinks the Malays were derived from Java; Marsden rather from Sumatra, though he allows •that there are some reasons for conjecturing that an old Sanscrit colony may have settled many hundred years ago in Java, and mixed its language with a supposed mother tongue of that Asiatic race.

Of the Sumatran dialects, the principal, according to Dr Leyden, is the īìatta, spoken by a people who occupy the centre of the island, and who still, like some other Indian nations, retain the custom of eating their old relations. The language seems to be partly original, and partly connected with the Malayan, and other dialects of the neighbouring islands. The Pejang is chiefly a mixture of Batta and Malayan; in the Larnpuhn or Lampung there is also some Javanese. The Achi has admitted a still further influx of words belonging to all the Mussulman jargons of the neighbourhood, especially to that of the Mapulas of Malabar. There are other dialects of less note in Néas and the Poggy Islands, most resembling the Batta. This language is provided with a peculiar alphabet, which is remarkable for being written from the bottom of the paper upwards, like the Mexican hieroglyphics; though the Battas, as well as the Chinese, sometimes hold their books so as to read horizontally. In Borneo there appear to be several dialects, or rather separate languages; two of them, according to Dr Leyden, are the Biaju and the Ti-sun. The Andaman language is inserted here for want of a better place only; it does not appear to have any connection with the Sanscrit, and may possibly be found to be more like that of Madagascar: the people seem to belong to the Papuas, a distinct original race, according to Dr Leyden, black, and with woolly hair.

Besides the numerous translations into languages of the Indo-European, “class, the Baptist missionaries have also printed some Armenian and Persian works at the indefatigable press of Serampore, which is supplied by a letter-foundery and a paper-mill, belonging to the same establishment, enabling them to execute the whole business at less than half the expense of European books of the same magnitude. The little pamphlet already quoted contains also specimens of the characters of the Sanscrit, Assam, Bengalee, Mahratta, Sikh, and Cashmirian, which somewhat resemble each other in the square form of their characters; as well as of the Burman, Orissa, Telinga, and Cingalese, which have a more rounded and flourished appearance; of the Tamul, ,which looks a little like Armenian; of the Afghan and the Persian used in India; and of the Chinese, both as printed from blocks, and from the moveable metal types which have been cast at Serampore.

6. The connection of the Median family with the Sanscrit on one side, and with the Greek and German on the other, is sufficiently proved by the words Abitap, Zend. Sun, Sanscr. Abitaba ; Dar, Ter, Pers. Door, Sanscr. Dura, Tawara, Javanese, Turi, Gr. Ehura, Germ. Thur, Thor ; Dip, Pers. Land or Island, Sanscr. Dihp ; Dochtar, Pers. Pothré, Zcnd. Daughter, ∙Gr. Thügater, Germ. Tochter, Sanscr. Putri ; Jaré, Zend. Year, Sanscr. Jaliran, Germ. Jαhr ; and Ishk, Zend. Love, Sanscr. Itsha. To this list we may add, from Dr Leyden, Stree, Zend. Woman, Sanscr. Stri ; Aste, Zend. He is, Sanscr. Asti, Gr. Esti ; Hapte, Zend. Seven, Sanscr. Saptah, Gr. Hepta. There are also some coincidences with the Chaldee, but the Median is certainly not a dialect of the Chaldee. Sir W. Jones and others have said that the Zendish was nearest to the Sanscrit, and the Pehlvi to the Chaldee or Arabic. In ancient Media, the Zendish t was the language of the northern, and the Pehlvi, or Parthian, of the southern parts; the word Pehlvi or Pahalevi is supposed by Leyden to have been nearly synonymous with Pali or Bali, though this is said to be derived from Bahlika, an Indo-European country. The Zendish was more particularly appropriated to religious purposes, and the Pehlvi had in a great measure superseded it for common use at a very early period; under the Sassanides, again, from the third to the seventh century, the use of the Pehlvi was discouraged, and the old Persian substituted for it. It is said, however, that in the remote parts of the country, about Shirwan, some traces of the Pehlvi may still be found in existence. The Zendavesta of Zoroaster, which is still extant in Zendish, is said to have been written 520 years b. c. ; and Adelung follows Anquetil in asserting its authenticity, even in opposition to the opinion of Jones and Richardson. These languages have little or no connection with the Georgian and Armenian, which have succeeded them in some of the same countries. The old Persian, which seems to be much connected with the Pehlvi, has remained in use, either as a living or as a learned language, ever since the time of the Sassanides; it was current among the Persians when they were conquered by the Arabs in the seventh century; and it is the language of the Shah Namch of Firdusi, written in the tenth century, as well as of the Ayeen Ahbery, of which the date is about 1600. The modern Persian became a cultivated language about the year 1000, having received a considerable mixture of Arabic and Turkish words. The term Parsee is commonly applied to a corrupt Pehlvi, spoken by the refugee fire-worshippers in Bombay.

The Goths are said to have inhabited, for some centuries, the countries about the Black Sea, and may originally have bordered on Persia. From this circumstance, and probably also from the effects of a later irruption of the Goths into Persia, which is recorded in history, we may easily explain the occurrence of many Persian words in German, and in the other languages of Northern Europe. Professor Adelung has examined more than two hundred cases of such resemblances, and has found only one sixth [7:13:83]part of them in Anquetil’s vocabularies of the more ancient dialects. He has, however, omitted to state what proportion the whole magnitude of these vocabularies bears to that of a complete dictionary of the language. It is well known that an essay was published a few years since in London, On the Similarity of the Persian and English Languages ; and a more elaborate work on the relations of the Persian languages, by Mr le Pileur, has since appeared in Holland. Mr le Pileur attempts to explain the is or s of the genitive of the northern languages, by the Persian preposition ez, which seems to be synonymous with the Greek and Latin ex ; but he has not shown that this ez ever follows the noun to which it relates.

The Kurds speak a corrupt dialect of the Persian; they are probably derived from the Carduchi of the Greeks, who inhabited the Gordiaean Hills. They spread into Persia about the year 1000, and are now situated on the borders of the Persian and Turkish dominions. The language of the Afghans, about Candahar, is said to contain about one fourth of Persian, and some Tartarian, besides the Sanscrit which abounds in it.

7. The Arabian family is called by the German critics Semitic, from Shem the son of Noah, as having been principally spoken by his descendants. Though not intimately connected with the European languages, it is well known to have afforded some words to the Greek and, Latin; it has also some in common with the Sanscrit, though apparently fewer than either the Greek or the German. Thus we have Acer, Hebr. a Husbandman, Ager, Lat. a Field ; Asther, a Star, Gr. Aster, Hara, Buri, Germ. Burg ; Ben, Hebr. Son, Sanscr. Bun, Child ; Esh, Hebr. Eshta, Chald. Fire, Sanscr. Aster ; and lsh, Hebr. Man, Sanscr. lsha, Man or Lord. The Hebrew Ani, Anoki, I, has been noticed by Townsend and others as affording an etymology for Ego as well as for Ni or Mi of verbs, for the Anoh of the Egyptians, and even for the Ngo of the Chinese.

The northern nations of this family have sometimes been comprehended under the name Aramaic, in contradistinction to the middle or Canaanitish, and the southern or Arabian. The Eastern Aramaic, or old Chaldee, is very little known; it was the language of a people situated in the north of Mesopotamia, which is now the south of Armenia; a part of them extended themselves further south, and became Babylonians, of whose dialect some traces are said still to exist about Mosul and Diarbeker. The old Assyrians, between the Tigris and Media, were a colony of the Babylonians, and spoke a language unintelligible to the Jews (2 Kings, xviii). The Western Aramaic has become known, since the Christian era, as the Syriac, in which there is an ancient and valuable translation of the New Testament. It is still spoken about Edessa and Harran. The Palmyrene was one of its dialects; the modern Assyrian of the Russian vocabularies appears to be another.

The language of the Canaanites is said by St Jerome to have been intermediate between the Hebrew and the Egyptian. The people are supposed to have come originally from the Persian Gulf; the Philistines, who were found among them, to have emigrated from the Delta to Cyprus, to have been thence expelled by the Phoenicians, and to have adopted the language of the Canaanites when they settled among them. The book of Job is considered as affording some idea of the dialect of Edom; it is well known to contain many Arabisms, besides some other peculiarities. The Phoenician is only known from a few coins and inscriptions found chiefly in Cyprus and in Malta, and not yet very satisfactorily deciphered, though Akerblad is convinced, by some of them, that it varied but very little from the Hebrew; of its descendant, the Punic, or Carthaginian, a specimen is preserved in the speech of Hanno in Plautus, as happily arranged by Bochart; the objection of Adelung, respecting the want of a proper name, appearing to have arisen from a mistake. The last six lines of the text are probably either a repetition of the same speech in the old Libyan of the neighbourhood, or a jargon intended to imitate it.

The Hebrews originated among the Chaldeans, Terah, the father of Abraham, having been a native of Ur, or Edessa, beyond the Euphrates. They adopted the language of the Canaanites, among whom they led a nomadic life, till their residence in Egypt, which must probably have had some effect in modifying their language. After that time, however, it appears to have varied but little, in a period of 1000 years, from Moses to Malachi; and this circumstance Adelung considers as so uncommon and improbable, that he is disposed to believe that the writings of Moses must have been modernized at least as late as the time of Samuel. The old Hebrew became extinct, as a living language, about 500 b. c. ; 1000 years afterwards, the Masoretic points were added, to assist in its pronunciation; and this was done in some measure upon the model of the Syro-Chaldaic, which at that time was still spoken. The Septuagint version, which is much older, supports, in the instances of many of the proper names, the reading indicated by the points; but in about as many others it appears to deviate from that system, and to agree with a mode of pronunciation founded upon the text or principal characters alone. The reading in Greek letters of Origen, in his Hexapla, tends, on the whole, very strongly to support the points. The Chaldee had superseded the Hebrew at the time of the captivity, and was gradually converted into the Syro-Clialdaic, which is called Hebrew in the New Testament. The Targums, and the Talmud of Babylon, are in the older Chaldee; and a Syro-Chaldaic translation of the New Testament has been discovered to be still in existence.

The Samaritan somewhat resembles the Chaldee. It was formed among the Phoenicians and others, who occupied the habitations of the ten tribes when they were carried into captivity by Salmanassar and Esarhaddon. Its peculiar alphabet is well known as a mere variation of the Hebrew.

The Rabbinical dialect was principally formed in the middle ages, among the Spanish Jews, who were chiefly descended from the inhabitants of Jerusalem; while those of Germany and Poland were generally Galileans, and spoke a ruder dialect of the Hebrew than the fugitives from the metropolis.

The Arabs have been a distinct, and in a great measure an independent nation, for more than 3000 years. Some of them were descended from Shem; others, as the Cushites, Canaanites, and Amalekites, from his brother Ham. Their language, as it is found in the Koran, contains some mixture of Indian, Persian, and Abyssinian words. Its grammar was little cultivated until a century or two after the time of Mahommed. It is certainly copious, but its copiousness has been ridiculously exaggerated and absurdly admired. The best Arabic is spoken by the upper classes in Yemen; in Mecca it is more mixed; in Syria corrupt, and still more so in some parts of Africa. There are dialects which require the assistance of an interpreter to make them intelligible; at the same time, it has been maintained by Aryda, a learned Arab of Syria, in contradiction to Niebuhr, that the Arabic of the Koran is still employed in conversation among the best educated of the people, as well as in correct writing. The Arabs living in houses are called Moors, and those of Africa are the best known under this name. The Ma-puls or Mapulets of Malabar and Coromandel are a numerous colony of Arabs, who have been settled there above a thousand years.

The Ethiopians are descended from the Cushite Arabs. In the time of Nimrod they conquered Babylon; before that of Moses they emigrated into Africa, and settled in [7:13:84]and about Tigri; in Isaiah’s time they seem to have extended to Fez; and at present they occupy Tigri, Amhara, and some neighbouring countries. They became Christians in 325, but retained the initiatory ceremony of the Jews and Mussulmen. The pure or literary Ethiopic is called Geez, or Axumitic, in contradistinction to the Ainharic, by which it was superseded as the language of common life in Amhara about the fourteenth century, although it is still spoken, without much alteration, in some parts of Tigri, while in others, as in Hauasa, a different dialect is spoken. The Ethiopic was first particularly made known in Europe by the elaborate publications of Ludolf. Mr Asselin has lately procured a translation of the whole of the Bible into the Amharic, as it is now spoken at Gondar; it was executed by the old Abyssinian traveller who was known to Bruce and to Sir William Jones, and it is said to be now printing at the expense of some of the British societies.

The Maltese is immediately derived from the modern Arabic, without any intervention of the Punic. The island, having been successively subject to the Phaeacians, Phoenicians, Greeks, Carthaginians, Romans, and Goths, was subdued by the Arabians in the ninth century; in the eleventh the Normans conquered it; and it remained united with Sicily until it became in some measure independent, under the knights of St John.

8. The Lycian isonly known from a few short inscriptions copied by Mr R. Cockerell, and published in Mr Walpole’s collection, together with two or three longer ones, which have been lately brought from Antiphellos by the enterprising and indefatigable Mr W. J. Bankes. By means of a proper name in one of Mr Cockerell’s inscriptions, we obtain a part of the alphabet; thus î is a ; Δ, D; e, i; P, R; 3 > s ; and probably A, ιι; and I, l. A further comparison of the different parts of the other inscriptions with the Greek phrases that almost uniformly accompany them, implying “for himself and his wife and his children,” gives us the words a, or at , - hi, himself; sa, his, or for his, hrdi, or perhaps hroi, wife ; tidaimi, son ; tidaima, children ; and atbi, and. It does not appear that any of these words would authorize us to place the Lycian language as a member of the great Indo-European class; but it is reported to have been much mixed with Greek, and, on account of its geographical situation, it may be allowed to occupy a temporary rank between the principal oriental and European languages. If it has a shadow of likeness to any other language, it is perhaps to the Cimbric; and Tidaimi may also possibly be allied to the Greek Titheno, to nurse.

9. Respecting the ancient Phrygian, we have a few traditions only, which at least agree in giving it a high antiquity, as the source of several Greek words. Thus, Plato observes, in his Cratylus, that the terms denoting fire and water are not derived from any other Greek words, but are Phrygian primitives. It seems, however, that water was called Bedü by the Phrygians, and the word resembles the Bada, Bath, of the northern nations, as well as the Vate, water, of the Swedes; Mairai, the fates, derived from the Phrygian, is compared to Meyar, virgins, of the Gothic; and Bek, bread, is as much like our Bake, as like the Albanian Buk, bread.

The Greek has no very intimate or general connection with any of the older languages which have been preserved entire, although there are a number of particular instances of its resemblance to the Sanscrit, some of which have been already mentioned; it has also many German and Celtic words, some Sclavonian, and, as it is said, a few Finnish. It can only have been immediately derived from the language of the neighbouring Thracians and Pelasgians, who secin to have come originally from the middle of Asia, through the countries north of the Black Sea, and to have occupied not only Greece and Thrace, but also the neighbouring parts of Asia Minor, where they probably retained their ancient dialect to a later period than elsewhere. The whole of the Thracian states were greatly deranged by the expedition of the Celts in 278 B. c. which terminated in their settling the colony of Galatia. The Dacians, or Getae, who principally occupied Bulgaria, extended themselves further northwards, and afterwards constituted the Roman provinces of Moesia and Dacia, which were conquered by the Goths in the third century. The Macedonians, in the time of Alexander, spoke a language which was nearly unintelligible to the Greeks in general; even the Pelasgi in Epirus and Thessaly long retained a dialect materially different from their neighbours, and in Arcadia still longer. The Hellenes, who emigrated from Asia Minor into Greece, were not sufficiently numerous to carry their own dialect with them, although the language assumed their name. The Graeci in Italy were Pelasgians, although Dionysius of Halicarnassus includes them in the denomination Hellenic; their language must have been Aeolo-Doric, and it was in this form that the Latin received its mixture of Greek; the Lacedemonian also retained it till a late period, writing, for instance, instead of Pais, Poir, as in Latin Puer. The Aeolic appears once to have extended over Attica, and to have left some Aeolisms in the old Attic dialect. This dialect was the principal basis of the common language of Greece at a later period, which must have been the most cultivated under the protection of the court of Alexandria, and which continued to be spoken and written in the highest circles of Constantinople throughout the middle ages. By degrees it degenerated into the modern Romaic, having received a mixture of Turkish and Italian, and perhaps of some other neighbouring languages.

11. The German family is sufficiently connected with a variety of others belonging to the Indo-European class, to be admitted into it upon a very short investigation. Its resemblances to the Greek, within the compass of the Lord’s Prayer, besides Father and Name, are Wille, Wollen, Gr. Boule, perhaps Brot or Proat, bread, like Artos, and Freyen or Losen, like Rhiicin and Lusein. Dr Jamieson has shown very clearly, in his Hermes Scythicus, how immediately the structure of the Gothic languages is derived from that of the Greeks. Thus the ein of the Greek infinitive became in the Moeso-Gothic an or ian, in German en : the ιcus of the adjectives, Moeso-Gothic, ags, igs, or eigs, as mahteigs, mighty, Germ, machtig ; the Sclavonians have ski, the Swedes ska: the inos, Lat. en us, Anglo-Saxon en : the Licos, Latin lis, German lich, English like ; thus pelicos is what like, at least in Scotland; the Moeso-Gothic swaleiks is our such ; sameleiks is similis. Los, Lis, lion, of diminutives, in Latin lus, becomes in Moeso-Gothic ilo, as barnilo, a little child; in German mannl is a little man. Among the pronouns we have Ego in Greek and Latin, Moeso-Gothic ικ, Icelandic eg, Sw edish jag; emou, mou, Gr., Latin mei, Moeso-Gothic meina, German meiner; emoi, moi, Latin Mini, Moeso-Gothic Mis, Swedish mig, Dutch my ; eme, me, Latin me, Moeso-Gothic Miκ, Anglo-Saxon me, Dutch my. Sü, Doric tü, Latin ru, Moeso-Gothic τπu. Is in Latin, Moeso-Gothic is; ejus, Moeso-Gothic is, ιzos; id, Moeso-Gothic ita, English it ; quis, cujus, cuι, quem, Moeso-Gothic quhas, quhis, quhe, QUHANA, the last having the n, as the Greek hon ; uter, whether ; alter, other, seems to be derived from anther, enthera, meaning one of them, so that in this instance the Gothic has the appearance of the greater antiquity, while the Greek affords, on the other hand, an etymology for ekeinos, from ekei, there, which is wanting to the Moeso-Gothic gains or jains, the Ale-mannic gener, the German jener, and the English yon- [7:13:85]der or yon. Again, among the numerals, deka has been derived from deo, as if both hands were tied together; and pente has a strong resemblance to panta, as if all the five fingers were reckoned: and, on the other hand, da cuig in Gaelic, meaning twice five, has been considered as the original of deca. But none of these etymologies seems to be so decisive of originality as that of caterva, which is evidently related to turba or turma, while the first syllable remains unexplained in Latin; but in the Celtie we have cad tarf or cath tarf, a war troop, agreeing undeniably with the sense. For another example, we may take ventus and wind, for which we find no Latin etymology, while the German furnishes us with wehen, to blow, and thence wehend and wind ; the words nodus and knot afford also a similar instance, nodus having nothing nearer to it in Latin than neo, to spin, necto, to unite; but in German we have knutten, to join, and in English knit and knead from the same root. The degrees of comparison are expressed in Greek by eros and ιsros; in Anglo-Saxon by er or era, and ιsτ or ast. Er seems to mean before, as well as the Latin or. The Coptic has no comparative, but for better than I, the Egyptians said very good before me. It would seem at first sight natural to make than a preposition, as well as before, and to say better than me ; but the faet is, that in English, as well as in German, it was usual of old to say then or denn in this sense; and lie is wiser than I meant only, he is wise before, then I follow. The idea of time or place is now dropped as unessential to the kind of priority in question, but the ground of the grammatical construction remains unaltered. In Moeso-Gothic the comparative termination is ιzo or ozo, the superlative ιsτs or ista; thus the Greek meizon becomes meizo, and maists is obviously megistos. The old megalos is mikils, mickle or muckle; and minor, minimus, became minnizo, minnists ; in Persian, mih is great, milder, greater, mihtras, greatest ; better seems to be from the old German bied or bieder, upright, honest, and resembles the Persian bihter, better. The Moeso-Gothic verbs have also some striking resemblances in their form to the Latin; thus the present tense of to have is haba, habais, ha- ΒΑ1Τ11; HABAM, ΗΑΒΑΙΤΗ, HABAND; HABUIT İS HABA1DA; HABENS, HABANDS; HABENTIS, HABAND1S; HABENTEM, HABANDAM; HABENTES, HABANDANS. The substantive verb singular in Greek is cimi, eis, esti ; the plural in Latin sumus, estis, sunt; the Moeso-Gothic has im, is, ist, siJUM, suuτH, sind; and sis is suais; esse, wisan. The Moeso-Gothic nouns frequently retain the resemblance of the Greek more strongly than their more modern derivatives: thus a τooτπ does notseem to point very immediately to dentem or odonta as its source; but the older form ruNTiiu is clearly the intermediate stage of this modification; and numberless other instances of the same kind might easily be found.

The Germans were known, as early as the time of Pytheas, that is, 320 b. c. as consisting of the Jutes in Denmark, the Teutones on the coast to the east of them, the Ostiaeans next, and lastly the Cossini, Cotini, 'or Goths. Professor Adelung imagines that the eastern nations, or Suevi, employed almost from the earliest times a high German dialect, and the western, or Cimbri, a low German; the Suevi he supposes to have been driven, at a remote period, into the south of Germany by the Selavonians; and some of the Goths appear to have extended as far as the Crimea. The Bible of Ulphila, in the Gothic or Moeso-Gothic of 360, is the oldest specimen in existence of the German language. Besides the Greek and Latin, which appear to prevail so much in the language, it exhibits a considerable mixture of Selavonian and Finnish; the translation is far more literal than it could be made in any of the more modern dialcets of the German, and sometimes appears to follow the text with somewhat too much servility.

The modern German, founded on the higher dialects of Saxony, was fixed and made general by Martin Luther. There are many shades of dialect and pronunciation in the different parts of this diversified country, but none of them of any particular interest, or established by any literary authority. There are still some German colonies in the territories of Vieenza and Verona, called the Sette Comuni, which retain their language. The German Jews have a peculiar jargon, borrowed in some measure from their brethren in Poland, which they write in Hebrew characters; and another similar mixture of discordant dialects is spoken by the Rothwelsh, a vagabond people in the south of Germany, who have sometimes been confounded with the Gipsies.

The Low Saxon, or Platt Deutsch, is spoken about Halberstadt, and farther north, in the countries between the Elbe and the Weser; it seems to be intimately connected with the Frieslandish and Danish, as well as with the English. The Frieslanders originally extended from the Rhine to the Ems, and the Canchi, thence to the Elbe; these countries still retain a dialect materially varying from those of their neighbours. The Brokmic laws of the thirteenth century exhibit some remarkable differences from the German of the same date: thus we find in them īłedieva, a judge, or Peeve, instead of Pichter ; Kenne, kin ; and sida, side, as in Swedish, instead of seite. The Batavian Frieslandish approaches very much to the English; it has several subdialects, as those of Molkwer and Hinde-lop. Some of the Cauehish Frieslanders remain in the territory of Bremen; the North Frieslanders occupy Heligoland, Husum, and Amröm. .

The Dutch language is a mixture of Frieslandish, Low Saxon, and German, with a little French. It appears, from Kolyn’s Chronicle, to have been distinctly formed as early as 1156.

The Scandinavian branch of the Germanic family is characterized by the want both of gutturals and of aspirates, which renders its pronunciation softer and less harsh; and by some peculiarities of construction, for instance, by the place of the article, which follows its noun, both in Danislι and Swedish, instead of preceding it, as in most other languages. The name of Denmark is first found in the ninth century; until the sixth the people were called Jutes. Norway, in the ninth century, was termed Nordmanland. A corrupt Norwegian is still, or was lately, spoken in some of the Orkneys, which were long subject to Norway and Denmark. In the eastern parts of Iceland, the language is much like the Norwegian; but, on the coast, it is mixed with Danish. The oldest specimen of Icelandic is the Jus Ecclesiasticum of 1123. The term Runic relates to the rectilinear characters cut in wood, which were sometimes used by the Scandinavian nations. The Swedes are derived from a mixture of Scandinavians with Goths from Upper Germany, but their language does not exhibit any dialectic differences corresponding to this difference of extraction. Mr Townsend has given us a list, from Peringskiold, of 670 Swedish words resembling the Greek; but it must be confessed that the resemblance is in many eases extremely slight.

The Saxons are mentioned by Ptolemy as a small nation in Holstein, whence, in conjunction with the Frieslanders, and the Angles of south Jutland, they came over to England, about the year 450. The Saxons settled principally south of the Thames, the Angles north. At the union of the Heptarchy, the Saxon dialect prevailed, and the Anglish, which nearly resembled the Danish of that time, was less in use; but new swarms of Danes having inundated the north of England in 787, the Danish dialect was introduced by Canute and his followers; and it is about this period that our earliest specimens of the [7:13:86]Anglo-Saxon are dated. The Saxon dialect again obtained the ascendancy under Edward the Confessor; and although some French was introduced by this prince, and still more by William the Conqueror, into the higher circles of society, the courts of law, and the schools, yet the use of the French language never became general among the lower classes, and the Saxon recovered much of its currency in the thirteenth century, when the cities and corporate towns rose into importance, under Edward the First. In the fourteenth century it was permanently established, with the modifications which it had received from the French; and it may be considered as truly English from this period, or even somewhat earlier, at least if Pope Adrian’s rhymes are the genuine production of 1156. It is still much more German than French; in the Lord’s Prayer, the only words of Latin origin are Trespass, Temptation, and Deliver. Professor Adelung’s remarks on the simplicity of the English language appear to be so judicious as to deserve transcribing. “The language,” he observes, “only received its final cultivation at the time of the Reformation, and of the civil disturbances which followed that event; nor did it acquire its last polish till after the Revolution, when the authors who employed it elevated it to that high degree of excellence, of which, from its great copiousness, and the remarkable simplicity of its construction, it was peculiarly capable. It is the most simple of all the European languages; the terminations of its substantives being only changed in the genitive and in the plural, and the alterations of the roots of the verbs not exceeding six or seven. This simplicity depends in some measure on a philosophical accuracy, which is carried systematically through the whole language, so that the adjectives, participles, and article, are indeclinable, being in their nature destitute of any idea of gender, case, or number; and the form of generic distinction is [almost entirely] confined to objects which are naturally entitled to it. The pronunciation, on the other hand, is extremely intricate; and foreign proper names, in particular, are much mutilated whenever they are adopted by the English.”

12. The Celtic family forms a very extensive and very interesting subdivision of the Indo-European class. It has been asserted by some writers, “that the six original European languages, the Iberian, Celtic, Germanic, Thracian, Sclavonian, and Finnish, were just as distinct at the beginning of their history as they now are ;” but this assertion must be subjected to considerable modification. The thing is in itself so improbable, as to require far more evidence than we possess to establish it, even if that evidence were of a more decisive nature; and, in fact, it will actually be found, upon a comparison of the Gothic of Ulphila with the more modern dialects, that the Germanic of that day did approach more nearly, both to the Celtic and to the Thracian or Greek, than any of its more modern descendants do. The change of tunthu into tooth, for which the Germans have zahn, has already been noticed; the atta and himina of Ulphila seem to be more like the Irish Atair and Neamh, than the modern ' ater and Himmel are; and the Moeso-Gothic vair, which answers to the Cimbric fear, a man, is not at present found in German, though its traces may still be observed in the Firiobarno of the Franks in 1020; the antiquity of the root is shown by the Celtic names in Caesar beginning so often with ver, and still more strongly by the testimony of Herodotus, that the Scythian called a man aior. At the same time, therefore, that we admit the propriety of considering the Celtic and Germanic as families clearly distinct, with respect to any period with which we are historically acquainted, we must not forget that they exhibit undeniable traces of having been more intimately connected with each other, and with their neighbours, in the earlier stages of their existence. The resemblances of the Celtic to the Latin are too numerous to require particular notice, the immediate and extensive connection between these languages being universally admitted; but if any evidence were desired on this subject, it might be obtained in abundance, by a reference to Court de Gebelin’s Monde Primitif. With respect to the Greek, the terms Hael, sun; Dur, water; Deru, oak; Garan, crane; Crunn, ice, are among the Celtic words of the most indisputable originality; and their resemblance to Helios, Hudor, Drills, Geranos, and Cruaen, is equally undeniable. We find, also, in the Cimbric, Bαs, low, connected with Bathus, Bara, bread, perhaps with Bora, food; Deyrnas, kingdom, with Turannis ; Dyro, give, with Doreue ; and Gogoriant, glory, perhaps with Gau-riaon, exulting. With the German it is easy to find a number of very near approaches to identity, even in that Celtic which can be proved, principally from the etymologies of proper names, to be prior to the date of any known or supposed secondary intercourse or mixture of the natives concerned. Thus we have, either accurately or very nearly in the same signification, Ap, Affe, or Ape ; Barra, Barre ; Bleun, Blume ; Bolgan, Balge ; Brig, Berg ; Brogil, Briilil ; Carra, Karre ; Doga, Teich ; Galb, Klab ; Garan, Kranich ; Gnabat, Knabe; Lancea, J^anze ; Marc, Mähre ; Marga, Märgel ; Redya, Reiten; Rit or Rat, Rad; and Ur, Auer ; and it is impossible to suppose that so numerous a series of coincidences can have been derived from accidental causes only.

The Celts may be imagined to have emigrated from Asia after the Iberians or Cantabrians, and before the Thracians or Pelasgians, settling principally in Gaul, and spreading partly into Italy, under the name of Ausonians and Umbrians. In 570 B. c. they undertook expeditions for the purposes of conquest, but they were subdued by the Romans. Their language was current in Gaul till the sixth or seventh century, when it was superseded by the rustic Roman, which by degrees became French; in Ireland and Scotland it has remained with few alterations; in Wales and Brittany it has been more mixed. The Gauls must have peopled Britain at least as early as 500 b. c. The true ancient Britons are the Highlanders of Scotland only, having been driven northwards by the Cimbri: they still call their language Gaelic. The Irish are probably derived from these Highlanders; they were originally termed Scots or Scuits, that is, fugitives, from the circumstance of their expulsion from Britain; so that, where the Scots are mentioned before the tenth century, as by Porphyry in the third, we are to understand the Irish. Gildas, in 564, sometimes calls them Scotch and sometimes Irish. After the retreat of the Romans from Britain, a part of them re-entered Scotland about the year 503, and changed its name from Caledonia to Scotia Minor. In 432 St Patrick laid the foundation of the civilization of Ireland; and, in the seventh century, several Irish priests undertook missions to the continent. At the beginning of this century, some Scandinavian freebooters had begun to visit Ireland; and, in the year 835, they formed large colonies of emigrants, who established themselves firmly in that country, and in the Scottish islands, bringing with them many Gothic words, which became afterwards mixed with the Celtic, and which seem to constitute about one fifth part of the modern Irish and Gaelic, 140 Gothic words being found under the first six letters of the alphabet only. Some of these Normen remained distinct from the Irish till the year 1102. The oldest specimens of the Irish language, admitted by the continental critics to be authentic, are of the ninth century; though some of our antiquaries have imagined they have discovered records of a much earlier date. The Gaelic of the Isle of Man, is mixed with Norwegian, English, and Welsh. A Gaelic colony formerly [7:13:87]established at Walden, in Essex, has been placed by Chamberlayne in Italy, as a nation of Waldenses.

The Cimbric or Celto-Germanic language was remarked by Caesar as differing from the Gallic, although the distinction has not always been sufficiently observed. The Cimbrians seem to have existed as a nation 500 or 600 years B. c.; the Gauls called them Belgae; the invaded Britain a little before Caesar’s time, and drove the ancient inhabitants into the Highlands and into Ireland. Having called the Saxons to their assistance against the Scots and Picts in the fifth century, they were driven by their new allies into Wales, Cornwall, anċĻBrittany. Their language is remarkable for the frequent changes of the initial letters of its radical words in the formation of cases and numbers; thus, from Pen, a man, in Britannish, is derived the plural Tud ; from Vreg, a woman, Groages. Almost half of the Welsh language seems to be German, and half of the remainder is perhaps Latin or Celtic; of the Britannic, about half resembles the Latin or French. Brittany was originally inhabited by the Armoricans; whether they were properly Belgae or Gauls is uncertain. The country was named Britannia Minor, from the emigration of the British in 449; these new comers mixed with the original inhabitants, all speaking the same language, and in a few years became so numerous, as to be able to send an army of 12,000 men to the assistance of the Emperor Anthemius.

Professor Adelung is disposed to consider the German portion of the different branches of the Celtic, which varies from one fifth to one half of the whole language, as an accidental mixture, and derived through different channels. But we cannot in all cases find any historical evidence of the existence of these channels; it is difficult, for example, to suppose that the Scandinavian incursions were able at any early period to influence the language of the Highlands of Scotland; and wherever it happens, as it frequently does, that no term is to be found, in the Irish, the Gaelic, or the Welsh, for expressing the same idea, besides the word that they all have in common with the German, it is scarcely possible to believe that there ever was any other Celtic word, which has been so uniformly superseded by independent causes. We find, for instance, under the two first letters of the alphabet only, the words Ap or Apa in Irish, Ap in Welsh, Affe or Ape in Gothic; again, Abal, Afal, Αpfil ; Angar, Aneang, Enge; Email, Bach, Backen; Barr ad, Barr, Bare; Beoir, Bir, Bier; Biail, Bwiall, Beil ; Bocan, Bwch, Bock ; Brathair, Brawd, Bruder ; Bul, Bwla, Bulle ; and the same agreement is found in almost all other instances of German words that are detected in the Irish language.

The much-disputed question respecting the antiquity of the poems attributed to Ossian has an immediate reference to the history of the Celtic languages. It has been observed, with apparent justice, by Professor Adelung, who is not in general sceptical on such occasions, that if these poems were really very ancient, their language could not but exhibit marks of antiquity. There is an Irish Leavre Lecan at Paris, written in the thirteenth century, and scarcely intelligible to the best Irish scholars of the present day; the oldest Gaelic manuscripts have also peculiar expressions no longer in use; while the works supposed to be the productions of a period so much more remote are found to be in “excellent modern Gaelic, impressed with all the marks of the language of Christianity, and of that of the Norwegian invaders, whether these conquerors may be supposed to have influenced the Gaelic language immediately in Scotland, or by the intervention of Ireland.” It must not, however, be forgotten, that these marks of Scandinavian intercourse are somewhat more ambiguous than Professor Adelung is disposed to admit; and that a book written in the thirteenth century is more likely to have preserved the language in an antiquated form than poems so marvellously committed to memory from continual recitation only, by people supposed to understand them, and of course imperceptibly modifying the expressions without intending to alter them. But since an invasion from Lochlin, that is, Denmark or Norway, is actually mentioned in “Fingal,” the author of the poem could certainly not have been older than the seventh or eighth century, if we are to credit the historical accounts of these invasions; and since, in the poems discovered by Dr Matthew Young, St Patrick is introduced discoursing with Ossian respecting the Christian religion, we have an additional argument for denying that he was contemporary with Caracalla or Carausius, these emperors having both lived in the third century, and St Patrick in the fifth.

14. The Etruscan is only known as the immediate parent of the Latin; but it was written in a character totally different, and was read from right to left. Notwithstanding the industry and ingenuity of Lanzi, the evidence of the accuracy of his interpretations is somewhat imperfect. We should naturally have expected to find more words of a Celtic or Gothic origin, and not merely Greek or Latin words with the terminations a little varied, as Ustite for Ustura, Tribo for Tribus, and Urte or Urta for Heorte ; still less should we have expected that the same sense should be expressed sometimes by a Greek and sometimes by a Latin word, as lJrtu and Puni for Bread, Capros and Feres for a Boar. The Etrurians and Umbrians were originally a branch of the Celts from Rhaetia, as is shown by the similarity of the names of places in those countries, as well as by the remains of Etruscan art found in that part of the Tyrol; they are supposed to have entered Italy through Trent, about the year 1000 B. c., and to have afterwards improved their taste and workmanship under the auspices of Demaratus of Corinth, who settled in Etruria about 660 b. c. (See Etruria and Etruscans.)

15. The Latin language is placed at the head of a family, rather with regard to the number of its descendants than to the independence of its origin, being too evidently derived from the Celtic, mixed with Greek, to require particular comparison. The first inhabitants of Italy appear to have been Illyrians or Thracians, Cantabrians, Celts, Pelasgians, and Etrurians. Rome, from its situation, would naturally acquire much of the languages of these various nations, and at the same time much of the Greek from the colonies in the south of Italy. In the time of Cicero, the Italian songs, supposed to be about 500 years old, were no longer intelligible, even to those who sang them. We find, in an inscription still more ancient, and approaching to the time of Romulus, Loses for Lares ; and for Flores, Pleores, which is somewhat nearer to the Celtic Eleun. In the time of Numa, for Hominem liberum, we have Hemonem loebesom ; we find, also, a d added to the oblique cases, as Capited for Capite, which, as well as the termination ai, in the genitive aulai, pen-nai, is taken immediately from the Celtic, and is even found in modern Gaelic.

The Latin remained in perfection but a few centuries. In the middle ages, a number of barbarous words were added to it, principally of Celtic origin, which are found in the glossaries of Dufresne and Charpentier. At the end of the seventh century it began to acquire the character of Italian, as Campo divisum est; and, in the eighth century, in Spain, we find, as an example of its incipient conversion into Spanish, Vendant sine pecho, de nostras terras. The formation of the Italian language may be said to have been completed by Dante, in the beginning of the fourteenth century; and it was still further polished by the classical authors who immediately succeeded 1 m. It contains many German words, derived from the [7:13:88]different nations who occupied in succession the northern parts of Italy, and some Arabic, Norman, and Spanish, left by occasional visitors in the south. It is spoken by the common people in very different degrees of purity. Among the northern dialects, that of Friuli is mixed with French, and with some Sclavonian. The Sicilians, having been conquered in succession by the Greeks, Carthaginians, Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Normans, Germans, French, and Spaniards, have retained something of the language of each. Sardinia has given shelter to Iberians, Libyans, Tyrrhenes, Greeks, Carthaginians, Romans, Vandals, Byzantines, Goths, Lombards, Franks, Arabs, Pisans, and Aragonians; and the proper Sardinian language is a mixture of Latin with Greek, French, German, and Castilian. Corsica has also been occupied by a similar diversity of nations; its peculiar idiom is little known, but the dialect of the upper classes is said to approach nearly to the Tuscan.

Spain, after its complete subjugation by the Romans, enjoyed some centuries of tranquillity. The Vandals and Alans retained their power in Spain but for a short time; the Suevi, on the north coast, somewhat longer; and from these nations the rustic Roman, which had become general in Spain, received some words of German origin. It derived, however, much more from the Arabic during the domination of the Moors, which lasted from the beginning of the eighth century to the end of the fifteenth; and, at one time, the Arabic was almost universally employed throughout the country, except in the churches. The Spanish language advanced the most rapidly toward perfection during the height of the national prosperity, which immediately followed the conquest of America. It was afterwards neglected, and again more particularly cultivated by the Academy of Madrid, in the eighteenth century; as far at least as an academy can be supposed to have any influence in the modifications of a language.

The Portuguese is supposed to have received a mixture of French from the followers of Count Henry of Burgundy, under whom Portugal first formed a separate state in 1109; but the language is very different from that of the confines of France and Spain; and the nasal vowels, which are remarkable in the Portuguese, differ materially from those of the French, or of any other nation. Many Latin words are retained in the Portuguese which are not found in any other modern language; and it is remarkable that almost all the words of the language are contracted, by the omission of some of the radical letters of the originals.

The Rhaetians, in the country of the Grisons, were subdued by the Romans in the time of Augustus. They became part of the Alemannish kingdom, under Theodobert, in 539; their union with Switzerland took place in the beginning of the fourteenth century. Half of the Grisons speak the Romanish language, immediately derived from the Latin, though mixed with some German, which has been particularly made known by Mr Planta’s account of it in the Philosophical Transactions. One third speak German, with some mixture of Romanish words, and the rest a bad Italian.

France, in the time of the Romans, was occupied by the Gauls, together with the Aquitanians, who were probably Cantabrians, and the Cimbrians or Belgians. From the rustic Roman, mixed with the languages of these nations, the Romance was gradually formed. In the fifth century, the Franks took possession of the north-eastern part of the country. They retained their language for some centuries, but by degrees it became mixed with the Romance, and formed French, of which at least one fifth is supposed to be of German origin, though many of the German words seem to have been admitted through the medium of the Italian. In the south of France, the language remained more exempt from the influence of the German, under the name of the Provençal; and the troubadours contributed, especially from the eleventh to the thirteenth century, to give it refinement and currency; but, in later times, the Langue d’oui has prevailed over the Langue d’oc, which is now spoken by a few of the lowest class only.

The last and least genuine of the descendants of the Latin is the Wallachian, about one half of which is borrowed from the German, Sclavonian, and Turkish. The original Thracians of the country must have been in a great measure superseded by the successive settlements of various nations; in the third century, some of the Goths and Vandals; in the fourth, the Jazyges, after Attila’s death; in the fifth, some Huns and Alans; about the end of the seventh, the Bulgarians, and afterwards the Petschenegers and Hungarians, established themselves in it; and, in the thirteenth century, Wallachia became an independent state. The Latin part of this language has much of the Italian form, and had even assumed it as early as the fifth century. It must have been derived from Roman colonies, and more lately, perhaps, from the missionaries sent into the country by Pope Gregory XI. The Dacian or Hungarian dialect prevails on the north of the Danube; the Thracian, or Cutzo-Wallachian, on the south; the latter is more mixed with Greek and Albanian. There is also a small Wallachian colony in Transylvania.

The Cantabrian or Biscayan has many words in common with the Latin, whether originally or by adoption, and was probably in some measure connected with the Celtic dialects, which were the immediate predecessors of the Latin, though still sufficiently distinct from them. The Cantabrian √4z7ω, Father, has some resemblance to the Irish At'air, and the Moeso Gothic Atta ; Gern is not wholly unlike Coelum ; Ereenjaa, Regnum ; and Borοndatia, Voluntas ; the coincidence of Gun, Day, with the Tartarian, is perhaps more accidental. But the word Lurre, Earth, which seems at first sight so unlike any other language, is in all probability the derivative of Tellure; and this form of the word affords also a connecting link with the Irish Talu, and may have been contracted into the more common Latin word Terra ; a supposition which seems to lessen the probability of the original connection of this form of the word with the Greek Era, and the Sanscrit Stira. The Biscayan is still spoken in the angles of France and Spain adjoining to the northern extremity of the Pyrenees. The same people were called Cantabrians in the north, and Iberians in the south, and extended between the Pyrenees and the Rhine, as Ligurians, or inhabitants of the coast. They have adopted a few German words, perhaps from the empire of the west Goths; and they have furnished the modern Spanish with more than a hundred original words of their own. The construction of the language is extremely intricate; its verbs have eleven moods, among which are a consuetudinary, a voluntary, a compulsory, and a penitudinary. Larramendi’s Grammar, published at Salamanca in 1729, is called El Impossible Vencido. A valuable abstract of the most interesting particulars relating to the language is found in the Additions to the Mithridates, by the Baron William von Humboldt, late Prussian ambassador to the court of Great Britain, printed at Berlin 1816. Dr Young has lately remarked, in the Philosophical Transactions for 1819, that at least six of the words contained in Humboldt’s vocabulary coincide very accurately with the Coptic, or ancient Egyptian, though they are not found in any of the languages of the neighbouring countries; and he infers that the chances are “more than a thousand to one, that, at some very remote period, an Egyptian colony established itself in Spain.” It may be observed, that one of these words, guchi, little, appears to be also Turkish or Tartarian; so that it becomes a se [7:13:89]cond instance of a coincidence between this language and the Cantabrian.

16. The connection of the Sclavonian and Lithuanian, and of the other branches constituting the Slavic family, with the languages of the Indo-European class in general, is sufficiently established, without exceeding the limits of the Lord’s Prayer, by the resemblance of Nebi or Nebesi to the Cimbric Nefoedd, and the Greek Nephos, and of Wolja and Chljeb to the Gothic Wilja and Hlaif. The Sclavonians are the descendants of the ancient Sarmatians, who were situated north of the Black Sea and of the Danube. They were conquered by the Goths, and then driven by the Tartars and Huns into the north-east of Germany, and the neighbouring countries. Procopius calls them Spori, and divides them into the Sclavi and Antes, the latter, perhaps, the same as the Wends. They formed, at an early period, two principal states, Great Russia, about Novogorod, and Little Russia, on the Dnieper, its capital being Kiew. The Russi were a Scandinavian branch, under Rurik, to whom the Sclavonians of the former state submitted in 862, whence they were called Russians; and Rurik’s successor, Oleg, conquered Kiew. After several vicissitudes, the Russians were liberated by Iwan Wasiliewitch, at the end of the fifteenth century; and this period was the beginning of their greatness. Their language has some mixture of Greek, Finnish, Swedish, Tartarian, and Mongol. The ecclesiastical dialect was uniformly retained in all literary works in the former part of the last century, but now the language of conversation is generally adopted in writing. This language is more immediately derived from that of Great Russia; that of the church, which is called the Slawen-ish, rather from Little Russia, and especially from the dialect of Servia. The Malo-Russian dialect is somewhat mixed with the Polish, and is spoken in Ukraine and Little Russia; the Susdalian is mixed with Greek and other languages, and is spoken in Thrace.

In 640, the Sclavonians took possession of Illyria, which before that time had been overrun by a variety of other nations; and they still retain it, under the names of Servians, Croatians, and Southern Wends. The Servians are supposed to have come from Great Servia, now East Gallicia, on the Upper Vistula; the Croatians from Great Chro-batia, probably situated on the Carpathian Mountains. Cyril first adapted the Greek alphabet to the Sclavonian language in Pannonia; his letters were afterwards a little altered, and attributed to St Jerome, in order to reconcile the people to their use; and in this form they are termed Glagolitic characters. The Servian dialect is intermediate between the Russian and the Croatian. The Bulgarians speak a corrupt Sclavonian, which Boscovich, from Ragusa, could scarcely understand. The Uskohs are a wild race of the Bulgarians, extending into Carniola, and speaking a mixed language. The dialect of Sclavonia and Dalmatia is nearly the same as that of Servia and Bosnia; the churches use the ecclesiastical language of Russia. In Ragusa, the orthography approaches, in some measure, to the Italian. The Servian is also imperfectly spoken by a small colony in Transylvania. The Southern Wends were first distinguished in 630, and were probably so named, like the Veneti, from being settled on the shores of rhe Adriatic, the word Wend or Wand meaning Sea. They are now mixed with Germans in Carniola, Carinthia, and Lower Stiria. In Hungary there is a small colony, who call themselves Slowens, and speak /the Wendish dialect of the Sclavonian. The western Slavonians, or the proper Sclavi, write their language in the Roman characters; but the specimens copied from Adelung are accommodated in their orthography to the German mode of pronunciation.

The Poles probably came with the Russians from the

Danube into the countries abandoned by the Goths; the name Pole implies an inhabitant of plains. Their language was partly superseded by the Latin in the tenth century, when they received the rites of the Latin church; but it has in later times been more cultivated. The Cas-subians, or Kashubians, in Pomerania, speak a Polish mixed with a little German. In Silesia, the names of places in the plains are Sclavonian; in the hills, more lately occupied, German; but German has been the language of Breslau ever since the year 1300.

The Bohemians emigrated with the Moravians and Slowake into their present habitations about the middle of the sixth century, after the destruction of the kingdom of Thuringia by the Franks and Saxons. There is a Bohemian hymn of the date 990, and a chronicle in rhyme of 1310. One third of the Bohemians are of German origin, and speak a corrupt German.

The Serbs or Wends came about the same time into the countries between the Saal and the Oder, from the neighbourhood of the Volga or the Crimea; a few of them are still left in Lusatia, under the name of Wends or Sclavonians, and some in Misnia. In Pomerania the Wendish became extinct about 1400: but the Polabes in Lüneburg, on the Leyne, kept up till lately a language consisting of a mixture of Wendish and German. The Sora∙ bic of the Russian vocabulary seems to be the same with this Serbian.

Of the Lithuanian or Lettish language, two thirds are Sclavonian, the rest is principally German. When the Goths had removed from the Baltic towards the Black Sea, their neighbours the Aestii remained for some hundred years independent, till, in the sixth century, the Sclavonians incorporated themselves with them, and formed the Lettish people and language. The Old Prussian was spoken, at the time of the Reformation, in Samland and its neighbourhood, but it is now lost; it contained more German than the other Lithuanian dialects. The Prussian Lithuanian is spoken from the Inster to Memel, especially in Insterburg. The Polish Lithuanian, in Samogitia, has a little mixture of Polish. The proper Lettish is current in Lettland and Courland; it is purest about Mittau and Riga; the old Courlanders having been Fins, this dialect has received a little Finnish from them. The Crivingian is another dialect, spoken by the Krewins in Courland.

17. The Tshudish or Finnish, the Hungarian, and the Albanian languages, have some traits of resemblance to each other; they are placed as forming the sporadic or scattered order of the great Tatarie or Asiatic class, being in some measure geographically detached from the rest, and scattered through different parts of Europe; they immediately follow the Indo-European class, as exhibiting an occasional resemblance to some of the languages contained in it, though not enough to make it certain that the connection is essential or original. Thus the Finnish is said to have some coincidences with the Greek, the Laplandish with the Hebrew, the Hungarian with the Finnish, and the Albanian with all its neighbours.

The term Tshudish is employed as comprehending the Fins, Laplanders, Esthonians, and Livonians; a race of people of unknown origin, but in all probability unconnected with the Huns or Mongols. Their languages are remarkable for the great complexity of their structure; their nouns, for example, having from ten to fifteen cases, among which are reckoned, in the Finnish, a nuncupative, a conditional accusative, a factitive, a mediative, a descriptive, a penetrative, a locative, a privative, and a negative. The Esthonian has less direct variety of termination, but several intricate combinations. There is also a great mùltiplicity of dialects, partly from a mixture of Scandinavian, and partly from other causes; in Lapland, al [7:13:90] most every church has a peculiar version of the service kept for its use. The Finnish is intermediate between the Laplandish and the Esthonian. The Esthonians are the Aestii of the Romans, the name implying Easterly, and being appropriate to the country, and not to the people. The principal dialects of their language are those of Reval and of Dorpat; some authors also consider the dialect of the Krewins in Courland as belonging to it. The Livonian is much mixed with other languages, and has been almost superseded by the Lettish. Amongst the Laplandish words which Rudbeck has derived from the Hebrew, we find Aedhame, Earth, like the Hebrew Ada-meh ; Hadas, New, H. Khadesh ; Hadshe, the Moon, H. Hliadesh ; Jed, the Hand, H. Id ; Ise, Man, H. Ish ; Pothi, persuaded, H. Pathehh ; Saedke, Law, H. Tzedelι ; and Safothi, Rested, II. Sabbath. In the Finnish, Kana is something like the English and German Hen.

18. The Hungarians inhabited, in the fourth century, the country of the Bashkirs, between'the Tobol, the Volga, and the Jaik, perhaps as colonists, since their name signifies strangers. Their language was spoken in this neighbourhood as late as the thirteenth century; in the sixth they were conquered by some of their Turkish neighbours; in the end of the ninth they were forced by the Petschenegers, a Tartarian nation, to remove nearer to the Carpathian Mountains. They were then engaged in the German wars, and their country having been occupied during their absence by the Bulgarians, they took possession of the Bulgarian kingdom on the Theiss, as well as of Pannonia. Their language is somewhat like the Finnish, but the people are very different from the Fins in appearance; which might indeed be the effect of a difference of climate; but, in fact, the language appears to be still more like the Sclavonian, with a mixture of a multitude of others; it has some words from various Tartarian dialects, German, French, Latin, Armenian, Hebrew, Persian, and Arabic; but it has no traces of the Mongol, nor is it possible that the people can be descendants of the Huns, whose character and cast of features can never be eradicated. The word Coach, so general in Europe, is originally Hungarian, having been derived from the town of Kots, where coaches are said to have been invented. The Szecklers, in Transylvania, speak a language like the Hungarian; it is uncertain whether they are a Hungarian colony, or remains of the Petschenegers; but, however this may be, there is little doubt that the Hungarians are principally of Tartarian extraction, though much mixed with other nations.

19. The Albanians speak a language, of which a considerable portion is Greek, Latin, German, Sclavonian, or Turkish; but the rest seems to be perfectly, distinct from any other language with which we are acquainted. They are probably connected with the Albanians between Mount Caucasus and the river Cyrus, who are supposed to be derived from the Alani; some of them seem to have entered Bulgaria as late as 1308. In 1461, many of them fled from the Turks to Italy and Sicily, where they still exist near Reggio and Messina. The Clementines are an Albanian colony, who followed the Austrian army in 1737; such of them as escaped from the pursuit of the Turks established themselves in Syrmia.

20. The languages referred to the Caucasian order have little to distinguish them from the resUof the class, except their geographical situation, in the immediate neighbourhood of the Caucasian Mountains. They have a general resemblance to some others of the languages of Northern Asia, and particularly to the Samojedic dialects, spoken on the mountains between Siberia and the Mongols. Except the Armenian and Georgian, they are scarcely ever employed in writing; and principally, perhaps, from this cause, they exhibit as great a diversity, in the space of a few square miles, as those of many other nations do in as many thousands. It is only conjectured that most of the inhabitants of these countries are derived from the miscellaneous fragments of expeditions of various nations, left behind in their passage through them at different periods.

The connection of the Armenian with the Sanscrit and the Persian, is just enough to make it equally possible that the coincidences may have been derived from a common parent, or that one language may have simply borrowed detached words from the other. We find, in different parts of Mr Townsend’s work, about ten Armenian words resembling some other language; these are, Air, a man, Air, Irish; Atamn, a tooth, Odonta, Greek; Chuerh, four, Cha-tur, Sanscrit; Dor, a door; Ε, is, Est, Latin; Es, I, laze, Russian; Gas, a goose, Gans, German; Houze, a house; Lakeil, to lick, Leicliciìi, Greek; and Sirt, the heart. Nothing is known of the history of the Armenian before the time of Miesrob, who translated the Bible into it, in 405; the historian Moses, of Chorene, was his pupil. The language flourished till the year 800, and is still preserved in tolerable purity in the cloisters. The common people speak a dialect more corrupt and mixed. The fathers of the Armenian convent at Venice have been very laudably employed in the improvement of the literature of their nation, by the publication of several very elegant editions of Armenian books, which have been executed at their press; in particular, of an Armenian translation of Eusebius, containing some passages which are not extant in Greek, and said to have been copied from a manuscript of great antiquity at Constantinople. It is, however, very remarkable, that, as they candidly confess, the copy, when first received by them, contained the corrections and additions of Scaliger, in conformity with the text of the printed Greek edition; and the copyist, when questioned, asserted that he had merely translated and inserted passages of his own accord, and in silence, in order to make the work more perfect. Still the Armenian Eusebius is a very handsome book, and every way calculated to do credit to the Venetian editors and their patrons; a Latin translation of it only has been published by Angelo Mai at Milan.

21. The Georgians are supposed to have derived their name from the river Cyrus or Gur, and to have extended formerly to Colchis, under the denomination of Iberians. Moses of Chorene, in the fifth century, mentions the Georgian translation of the Bible. The old language is still preserved in the churches, and the common dialect of the country is derived from it, together with the Kartuclislι, Imirettish, Mingrelish, and Suanetish, which are varieties of that dialect; the Tushetish is mixed with some Kistic. The Georgians have no fewer than thirty-seven letters, and among them a variety of aspirates and sibilants, of no very agreeable sounds.

22. The Abassic nations seem to be the oldest inhabitants of the Caucasian country. 23. The Circassians are situated to the east of them, on the promontory of North Caucasus. 24. The Ossetes, on the left of the Terek, north of the mountain; the dialect of the Dugors is scarcely distinguishable from this. 25. The Kisuc, spoken by the In-gushans, and their neighbours at the head of the Terek, is connected with the Tushctic Georgian. 26. The Lesgians, east of Caucasus, on the Caspian Sea, have a number of distinct dialects, or rather languages. Thus, the Chunsag and Avarie, the Dido, the Kasi Kumuk, the Andi, and the Ahushan, have little connection with each other, except that the Dido somewhat resembles the Chunsag, of which the Avarie, the Antsug, and the Dzhar, seem to be subordinate dialects. The Kasi Kunifik appears to have adopted some words of the Armenian, and the Andi and Akushan[7:13:91] of the Georgian. The dialect of Kubesha resembles that of Akusha, and retains no traces of a supposed European origin.

27. The languages of the central and elevated parts of Asia are comprehended in the order Tartarian ; they extend from the Caspian Sea to the mouth of the Amur, through countries which have been, in former ages, the constant scenes of emigration and barbarism. The Turco-Tartarians are supposed to correspond to the descendants of the Magog of the Scriptures, and to some of the Scythians of the Greeks. The Turks of Turkestan seem to have been the Massagetae and Chorasmii of the ancients; their country extended north of Persia and Thibet, from the Caspian to the Altaic Mountains. In the twelfth century they wrae brilliant and victorious; at present, a few of their descendants only are left in the neighbourhood of the Mongols, and their language is no longer spoken; the Turcomans scattered in Persia and Arabia are derived from the same race. The Osmans, now commonly called Turks, left Turkestan in 545, and succeeded in the conquest of Persia. They were denominated Osmans, from one of their leaders, in the fourteenth century. Their language has been much mixed with Arabic and Persian. This language, with the neighbouring dialects, has been considered in the table as belonging to a family called Caspian, the word Tartarian having been previously applied to the whole order. Several of these dialects exhibit a mixture of words from the language of the Mongols, which, as well as the Calmuck, has a sufficient connection with them to be arranged as belonging to the same Turco-Tartarian family. It would, perhaps, be equally correct to consider some of them rather as distinct languages than as dialects of a single one; but it is not easy to discriminate those which are entitled to this rank; and, on the other hand, some specimens have been admitted, from the Comparative Vocabularies, which scarcely deserved to be noticed as separate dialects. The Bucharians are situated between the Oxus and Jaxartes, on the river Koly. They still retain some traces of a superior degree of civilization, by which they were once distinguished. Their language is little known, but it seems to be at least as much connected with the Median and Arabian families as with the Caspian. The Tartars were described by the terms Scythians, Bulgarians, Avari, and other appellations, before they were conquered and united by Genghiz Khan the Mongol. In the year 1552 they became subject to the Russians. The most westerly are the Nogaic or Nagaic and Crimean Tartars; their language is much like the Turkish, but mixed with some Mongol. Those of Cumania in Hungary have now forgotten their original language, and speak the Hungarian, the last person who understood the Cumanian hav r ing died in 1770. They entered Hungary in 1086, and became Christians in 1410. The Tartarian, or rather Caspian, is spoken in great purity aboutKasan; a dialect somewhat different in Orenburg; and another by the Kirgishes, who occupy part of the ancient Turkestan. “Among the Siberian Tartars, the remains of the kingdom of Turan, some are Mahometans; others, as the Turalinzic villagers, have been made Christians; at least the Archbishop Phi-lophei performed the ceremony of baptizing them, by ordering his dragoons to drive them in a body into the river.” The inhabitants of the banks of the Tara, a branch of the Irtish, are said to be derived from the Bucharians. The Tshulimic Tartars enjoy the same advantage as the Turalinzic, and are considered as Christians by the Russians. The Teleutes, in Sonjor, are heathens, nearly like the Shamanites of India. The Jakuts extend along the Lena to the sea; their language contains some Mantshuric and some Tungusic. That of the Tshuwashes, on the Volga, is said to have been once completely distinct from the Tartarian or Caspian; and even at present, though more mixed with it, may require to be classed as forming a separate species.

The Mongols are marked by their features as a race very different from the other Tartars; the character of their countenance seems to be easily propagated from father to son, and never to be completely effaced; their original habitation appears to have been in the neighbourhood of the Altaic Mountains. The description of the Huns, found in Ammianus, Procopius, and others, agrees exactly with the present Mongols, whom the Chinese still call Kiong nu ; and more particularly with the Calmucks. The proper names of the Huns are also found to be explicable from the Mongol language. In the first century they were driven westwards by the Chinese: under Attila they penetrated into the middle of Europe; and they were little less successful at subsequent periods, under Genghiz Khan and Timur Leng. When they were expelled from China, after having held it in subjection for more than a century, they carried back no civilization with them; nor was either of the languages permanently affected by this temporary mixture of the nations, although the physiognomy of the Chinese bears ample testimony of its having once existed. The construction of their language seems to be very indirect and figurative. Mr Townsend has copied from General Val-lancy a long list of words, in Strahlenberg’s Mongol Vocabulary, which agree very remarkably with the Irish; among these we find Are and Ere, man, Irish Ar, Air, Fear ; Arul, a spindle, Irish Oirle; Alemamodo, an apple-tree, Irish Amhalmhaide ; Asoc, to ask, Irish Ascadlι ; Baichu, I live long, Irish Booth, long life; Bugu, a buck, Irish Boe, a he goat; Choy, a ewe, Irish Choi ; and Choraga, a lamb, Irish Caorog ; without going any further in the alphabet. The last two instances are very striking, and seem to point very strongly at that part of the east from which the Ceits may be supposed to have originally emigrated. The Calmuck dialect is somewhat mixed with the neighbouring Tartarian. The Tagurians, or Daurians, between the lake Baikal and the Mongol Hills, are said to be of Mantshuric origin: but their language evidently resembles the Calmuck. The Burattish is from the Russian Vocabularies.

28. The Mantshurians are sometimes improperly called Eastern Mongols; they are subjects of the empire of China. Their language is rude, and not much like the Chinese, though evidently derived from the monosyllabic class. It has some few words in common with the European languages, as Kiri, patient, Kirre, German, Cicur, Latin, tame; Furu, Furor ; Lapta, rags, Lappen, German; Sengui, blood, Sanguis; Ania, a year, Annus ; but, considering the remoteness of their situation, we can scarcely form any conclusion from the occurrence of these resemblances. Μ. Abel Rémusat held the appointment of professor of this language at Paris; but it was found difficult for him to render its study very popular in the midst of so busy a metropolis. Whether the language of the island of Sagalien, opposite to the mouth of the Amur, is a dialect of the Mantshuric, or totally distinct, and requiring to be classed with the insular languages, appears to be not yet sufficiently ascertained. The Corean has been supposed to be a mixture of Mantshuric and Chinese: the Coreans do not understand either of those languages when they are spoken, but this fact is perfectly compatible with the supposition.

29. The Tungusians, in the east of Siberia, subject to the Chinese, speak a peculiar language, mixed with some Mongol. The Russian vocabularies contain specimens of a variety of their dialects, besides those of the Tshapogirs on the Jenisei, and the Lamuti on the Sea of Ochotsk, none of them particularly interesting or remarkable.

30. The languages belonging to the Siberian order occupy the principal part of the north of Asia, between the mountainous Tartarian territory and the Frozen Sea. At the commencement of this order, we find a variety of in [7:13:92]considerable nations in the neighbourhood of the confines of Europe and Asia, which have their distinct languages, probably formed, in times comparatively modern, out of the fragments of others. They have almost all of them some Finnish words, but none a sufficient number to justify us in considering them as dialects of the Finnish language, although the people were very probably connected with the Fins as neighbours, in the middle ages, on the banks of the Dwina and elsewhere. The Sirjanes, in the government of Archangel, speak nearly the same language with the Permians, who are partly in the same government, and partly in that of Kasan. The Wotiaks, on the Wiatka, also in Kasan, have a dialect which seems to be intermediate between the Permian and the Tsheremissic. 31. The Woguls, situated on the Kama and the Irtish, afford specimens of several dialects in the Russian collection; they seem to have borrowed a few words from the Hungarian, and much more from the language of the Ostiaks (32), who are also divided into several races. 33. The Tskere-misses, situated on the Volga, in Kasan, have a little mixture of Turco-Tartarian. 34. The Morduins, on the Oka and Volga, have about one eighth of their language Finnish, and also some Turco-Tartarian words. The Moktanic is a dialect differing but slightly from the Morduin. 35. The Teptjerai are people paying no taxes, who originated from the relics of the Tartaro-Kasanic kingdom in the sixteenth century, and who are said to speak a language peculiar to themselves. The arrangement of all these dialects must remain very imperfect, for want of a greater number of specimens of their peculiarities.

36. The Samojedic nations are situated north of the Tartars, by whom they may possibly have been driven into their present habitations. Their languages seem to have some affinity with the Caucasian and Lesgian dialects, and some of them with the Wogulic and Ostiak families; the specimens in the Comparative Vocabularies seem to have been multiplied somewhat too liberally. 37. The Camashes are situated on the right of the Jenisei; they are Shamanites or Buddists; their language seems to be a mixture of several others, and is divided into several very distinct dialects. The Koibals have been baptized; they have borrowed some words from the Turco-Tartarian family. The Motors are situated on the Tuba. 38. The Ostiaks on the river Jenisei afford us five specimens of languages totally different from those of the Ostiaks already mentioned, but nearly connected with each other, so that they may properly be called Jenisei-Ostiaks. 39. The Jukagirs, or Ju-kadshirs, are few in number; they arc situated between the Jakuti and the Tshutshi; they have some Jakutish words mixed with their language, and some Tsheremissic. 40. The Koriaks and the Tshutshi occupy the north-easternmost point of Siberia; the proper Koriak is spoken on the bay of Penshin; the Kolymic on the river Kolyma, the Tigilicοη the Tigil in Kamtschatka, and the Karaginic on the island Karaga; the Tshutshic has been considered as a dialect of the Koriak. 4L The Karntschatkans are a little further south; the Tigilic Kamtschatkan is found, however, on the north of the Tigil; the Srednish to the west, on the Bolshaia, and the Jozhnyshic on the river Kamtschatka, and towards the South Cape. The languages of the neighbouring parts of America, according to Professor Vater, greatly resemble the Tshutshic.

The Insular order of the Tatarie or Atactic class of languages must be understood as comprehending all the Asiatic islands east of Borneo. 42. The language of the Curi-lees is spoken not only in the principal of these islands, but also in Kamtschatka, about Cape Lopatka; but in some of the islands the Japanese is spoken. The Japanese derive themselves from the Chinese, but their language contradicts this opinion; they have evident traces of Mongol extraction or relationship. The amiable islanders of Looehoo will long be remembered by the British public, for the hospitality they showed to the Alceste and the Lyra; their language appears to be related to the Japanese, as might be expected from their situation. Formosa was conquered by the Dutch in 1620, but in 1661 it was taken from them by a Chinese pirate: the next year some books were printed in the Formosan language in Holland, the recapture of the island not being yet known there; in 1682, it was finally given up to the Chinese government. 47. The Moluccan is considered by Dr Leyden as an original language; that of Magindanao contains some Malayan, Moluccan, Tagalish, and Bugis. The Tαgalish, or Gala, is the principal language of the Philippines, and almost as generally understood in that neighbourhood as the Malay and Hindustance in other parts; it is allied to the Malayan and to the Javanese, and was probably derived in great measure from these languages; it also resembles in some measure the Bugis. The Bissayish is a ruder dialect of the Tagalish. The Sulu differs but little from these dialects, being derived from the same sources. The Bugis is the language of Celebes; it is supposed to be more ancient than the Javanese; it seems to contain no Sanscrit, but much Malay, Tagalish, and Javanese, and some of the old Ternate, or Mohiccan; it is written in a peculiar character, and some good poetry is found in it. There is a dialect called the Mungharar. The Birna somewhat resembles this dialect; it is spoken in the eastern parts of Sumbawa, and the western of Endé or Flores; it is written either in the Bugis or the Malay character; it seems to have a distant resemblance to the language of Orissa. The dialect of Sumbawa exhibits some slight variations. A few single words, as Matta, the eye, and Matte, death, are found to coincide in almost all the islands of the Pacific Ocean ; the languages of which, notwithstanding their immense distances, seem to differ less than those of the inhabitants of some very small continental tracts; and they might probably be divided into a few well-defined families, if our knowledge of them were more complete. The resemblance of Matte to the Arabian Mot, and the Latin Mactare, is probably accidental.

The number of the African languages is supposed to amount to one hundred or one hundred and fifty, and as many as seventy or eighty of them have been distinguished with tolerable accuracy. The population of Africa seems to have been derived from Arabia, and, as some critics think, rather from the southern than from the northern parts; a great number of its present inhabitants are negroes, but these cannot be distinguished from the rest by any infallible criterion. The account given by Ptolemy of the interior part of the country appears to be wonderfully accurate and extensive; although some of his measures seem to be erroneous, and not sufficiently reconcileable with the truth, even by adopting Major Rennell’s hypothesis respecting them. It is however remarkable that Ptolemy followed Hipparchus in extending the eastern coast of Africa to the Ganges, although more correct ideas of its form had been entertained at Alexandria before his time.

The Egyptians demand the priority in treating of the inhabitants of Africa, from their early connection with ancient history, both sacred and profane. It is observable that the representations of the old Egyptians have countenances more or less approaching to the negro physiognomy, though the dry bones of the skeleton have that character somewhat less decidedly than they must have had when clothed with the thick lips and flattish noses of the generality of the representations; at the same time there are sculptures of great antiquity, which exhibit features not unlike those of correct Grecian or Roman beauty; and others have a considerable resemblance to the Arabian nation. At present the people of middle Africa in general are more or less like negroes, but they are somewhat less [7:13:93]dark, and their noses and lips are less peculiar; the women sometimes screamed if Burckhardt made his appearance on a sudden, and called him the Devil, because he was white. The Egyptians are supposed by some writers to have received their civilization from Ethiopia; but there are at present no traces of the remains of high civilization farther south than Nubia, except a few scattered monuments about Axum, of no great antiquity. The Egyptians were at first called Copts by the Saracens, and their language has been commonly distinguished by the appellation Coptic, that is, as written in characters which are principally Greek, and frequently intermixed with a number of pure Greek words; but not a single fragment of Coptic has yet been discovered in this form that is earlier than the establishment of Christianity in Egypt; and it seems probable that the character was introduced by the early Christians at the time of the translation of the Scriptures into Coptic, which is certainly of very high antiquity. The Greek authors frequently mention an Egyptian alphabet of twenty-five letters; but no traces of any such alphabet are found in the multitudinous inscriptions or manuscripts that have been preserved by the exertions of the numerous and adventurous travellers who have lately visited the country. The Greek words mixed with the Coptic are not considered by the grammarians as incorporated with the language, nor are they admitted into the dictionaries The genuine language bears very evident marks of great antiquity; its construction is simple and often awkward; and a great number of its words are monosyllables. We have positive evidence of its having remained unaltered from the time of Herodotus, Plutarch, and other Greek authors; and it affords us the etymology of the name of Moses, and of some other words mentioned in the Scriptures. It exhibits a few coincidences with other ancient languages, but not enough to enable us to consider it either as the offspring or the parent of any of them, except that it gives us something like an explanation of the meaning of some of the Greek particles. Out of one hundred and fourteen original Egyptian words, there are fifty-two that resemble the Greek, twenty-seven the German and English, eighteen the Hebrew, three the Syriac, two the Arabic, two the Sanscrit, one the Sclavonian, and one the Cantabrian. It is, however, probable, that a person more intimately acquainted with the languages of the Arabian family would have been able to find a much greater number of coincidences, since nations which had so much intercourse as the Jews and the Egyptians could scarcely fail to have many words in common, even if their languages had been at first completely different; and probably many of the Arabic roots, which are not Hebrew, may be found in the Egyptian. To the Cantabrian word inserted in this enumeration, Dr Young added five others, the whole six being Berria, new; Ora, a dog; Guchi, little; Oguia, bread: “Otsoa,” a wolf, whence the Spanish Onza ; and Shashpi, seven: in Coptic, Berì, new; Uhor, a dog; Kudshi i little; Oik, bread; Uonsh, a wolf; and Shaskf, seven. Hence he infers, that “if we consider these words as sufficiently identical to admit of our calculating upon them, the chances will be more than a thousand to one that, at some very remote period, an Egyptian colony established itself in Spain; for none of the languages of the neighbouring nations retain any traces of having been the medium through which these words have been conveyed. On the other hand,” he continues, “if we adopted the opinions of a late learned antiquary,” General Vallancey, “the probability would be still incomparably greater that Ireland was originally peopled from the same mother country; since he has collected more than one hundred words which are certainly Egyptian, and which he considers as bearing the same sense in Irish; but the relation, which he has magnified into identity, appears in general to be that of a very faint resemblance; and this is precisely an instance of a case in which it would be deceiving ourselves to attempt to reduce the matter to a calculation.” It may, indeed, be imagined that the Egyptian dominions may formerly have extended to the Straits of Gibraltar, and that Spain may have derived a part of its population from this part, of Africa, which approaches so near to it; but it could scarcely have happened that no traces of Egyptian monuments should ever have been found at any distance from the Nile, if that active people had really occupied any considerable portion of the neighbouring continent. The word Chemistry, in Greek Chemia, is well known to be derived from the Egyptian; it has successively been compared, by the Quarterly Reviewer, to Cliirn or Clιem, heat, and to Chem, secret, the latter being the more probable origin of the two; and a third etymon might be found, if it were required, in the Dshem, or Ghem, to find, or Invention. The Coptic language has been nearly extinct for about two centuries; but the service has been read in Coptic much more lately in some of the churches, though it has now been almost entirely superseded by the Arabic. The proper Coptic, or Memphitic, which was the dialect of Lower Egypt, is supposed, from a word quoted by Herodotus, to be the most ancient; the Sahidic or Thebaic of Upper Egypt was probably preserved for a longer time, especially in some of the monasteries; there is a separate version of the principal part of the Bible in this dialect, fragments of which have been published by Mingarelli and Woide; a third dialect, much resembling the Thebaic, is commonly called the Bashmuric; and a fourth, the Oasitic, has been partially made known by Mr Quatremère de Quincy. The Egyptians have left no traces of their language among the people who at present occupy the countries that they inhabited; the Nubian vocabularies collected by Burckhardt contain no Coptic words; the people are of different Arab races, but have acquired peculiar dialects, probably mixed with those of the neighbouring negro nations, of several of which we find specimens in Mr Salt’s Voyage to Abyssinia. But one of the most learned, as well as the most adventurous and industrious, of modern travellers, has remarked some coincidences between the old Egyptian language and that of the Barabras, who are neighbours of the Nubians, and extend to the confluence of the Tacazze and the Nile. The Geez and Amharic have already been mentioned as descendants of the Arabian family; they seem to have introduced some traces of this extraction into several of the neighbouring dialects, probably by the translations of the Scriptures, or by the use of the Koran. Professor Vater has taken some pains to prove that the language of Amhara, the Camara of Aga-tharchides, is wholly independent of the Ethiopic and Arabian; but in this he appears to be mistaken. It exhibits some slight resemblance to the Sanscrit, in a few instances; thus, Tshegure is hair, in Sanscrit, Tshicura. Macrizi tells us, that there are, in the whole, fifty Abyssinian dialects; but he has probably exaggerated their number. We have obtained more authentic information respecting them from the collections of Bruce, and of his editor, Murray, and still more lately from Dr Seetzen and Mr Salt. Of the Mek of Dongola, the representative of a long race of the Christian kings of Nubia, little is now known, except that he is in a great measure dependent on the king of Sennaar on the one hand, and has been expelled from a part of his territories by the Mamelukes on the other. Of the Agows and the Gafats, neighbours of the Abyssinians, and situated on the Bahr el Azrek, as well as the Jewish Falashas, who are scattered over the country, especially in Dembea, we have read much in the historical romances of Mr Bruce, which certainly give a faithful picture of the countries to which they relate, notwithstanding some unaccountable inaccuracies with respect to the personal adventures of the author.
[7:13:94]

The north of Africa is occupied by inhabitants not much differing in appearance from the Arabs. Its three principal divisions are the coast, the country of wild beasts, and the desert. The later Arabs have expelled the earlier Africans from the first division, and partly from the second; the Berbers occupy the third, inhabiting principally the Oases, or cultivable islands, scattered through the desert from Mount Atlas to Egypt, and speaking, as Horneman first ascertained, the same language throughout this vast extent. They were first well described by Leo Africanus: they are probably the remains of the Mauritanians, Numidians, Gaetulians, and Garamatians. There is no foundation whatever for the opinion of some modern authors of celebrity, that their language is derived from the Punic. We even find, from Sallust, that the Numidian language differed from the Carthaginian, and from Valerius Maximus; that it was written in a peculiar character, perhaps the same with that which is found in the inscriptions from Lebeda, now in the court of the British Museum. The language of the Canaries considerably resembles the Berber; thus, milk is Acho in Berber, and Aho in the Canaries. These islands were discovered in 1330, and afterwards conquered, with some difficulty, by the Spaniards. The inhabitants were a fine race of men, and lived in comfort and tranquillity; and they still present some traces of their original character and condition.

The country between the desert Zahara and the Niger is inhabited by a race of people who have a great resemblance to negroes, but are somewhat different from them. In the east are those of Soudan or Afnu, and Begermah ; in the west the Foulahs ; the Fellatas are a branch of these, extending considerably to the north-east, with a mixture of negroes.

Of the languages of the negroes, strictly so called, many interesting specimens have been collected by the zeal of the evangelical missionaries in the Caribbee Islands, and published by Oldendorp, in his Account of the Mission; but they do not afford us sufficient materials to enable us to trace any extensive connections or dependencies among their multifarious dialects.

There are some points of coincidence between the language of Madagascar and those of the Malays, the Philippine islanders, the Beetjuana Caffres, and the Corana Hottentots: there are also a few words, in many of the African dialects, borrowed from the modern Arabic, not, as Court de Gebclin would persuade us, from the Phoenician. Nor can any other of the affinities be very distinctly established.

The Caffres have little of the negro character except the black colour, and less of this as they become more remote from the equator. They are supposed to extend across the whole of Africa, immediately north of the Hottentots, as far as Benguela and Quiloa. The Hottentots, with their neighbours the Bosjemen, speak different dialects of the same singular language, in different parts of their country. Of that of the Dammaras, little or nothing is known. Lichtenstein has classed them as Hottentots; but Barrow, who was better acquainted with them, considers them as Caffres.

(Gesner, Mithridates do Differentiis Linguarum, Zurich, 1555, 8vo; Megiser, Specimen XI.. Linguarum, 1592; Duret, Thresor de l’ Histoire des Langues, 4to; Lüdeken (Müller), Specimina IΛnguarum, Berl. 1680; Chamberlayne, Oratio Dominica, Amst. 1715; Schultz, Orientalischer und Occidentalischer Sprachmeister, Leipz. 1748; Hervas, Saggio, Hervas, Idea dolľ Universo, Cesenn. 1778-87, vol. xvii.-xxi. 4to; Vocabularia Comparativa, 2 vols. 4to, Petersburg, 1787, 4 vols. 1790; Bergmann, Specimina, Ruien, 1789; Marsden’s Catalogue of Dictionaries and Grammars, 1796; Marcel, Oratio Dominica, Paris, 1805; Adelung und Vater, Mithridates, oder allgemeine Sprachhunde, 4 vols. 8vo, Berlin, 1806—17; Le Pileur, Tableaux Synoptiques de Mots similaires, 8vo, Paris and Amst. 1812; Jamieson’s Hermes Scythicus, 8vo, Edin. 1814; Townsend’s Character of Moses, vol. ii. 4to, Bath, 1815; Leyden, Asiatic Researches, x.; Brief View of the Baptist Missionsand Transactions, 8vo,Lond. 1815; Vater, Index Linguarum totius Orbis, 8vo, Berl. 1815; Vater, Proben Deutscher Mundarten; Seetzens Nachlass, 8vo, Leipz. 1816; Arndt, Ursprung und Verwandtschaft der Europaischen, Sprachen, 8vo, Frankfort, 1818, compared with the Russian; Volney sur l’Etude Philosophique des Langues, 2d edit. 8vo, Paris, 1820; laments that he has not the happiness to understand German; Quarterly Review, No. xix. 8vo, Lond. 1813, xxvii. 1816.)