THE GROWTH OF A LANGUAGE 353 



to speak and to write by writing correctly. It was in this way that the 

 masters of Greek and Latin literature acquired their skill. They heard 

 these languages correctly spoken ; they saw them correctly written ; they 

 were taught rhetoric, but not grammar. Later the rules of the art were 

 deduced from the study of connected discourse, among others of Homer. 

 Here is a matter that defies analysis or explanation. We can only say 

 that the masters of speech knew by a sort of instinct how to give their 

 inflected words one form when occupying a certain place in the sentence 

 and another when occupying another. Every word in the Homeric 

 poems can be " parsed," that is, its position in the sentence can be log- 

 ically and historically explained; yet they are the production of hun- 

 dreds of men of whom probably not one could write. In its earliest 

 stages language was correctly used by instinct; we later-comers are 

 compelled to do so by a laborious process because we do not hear it 

 correctly used. Instruction in the native tongue is a comparatively 

 recent innovation. Why should an Englishman be taught English when 

 he learned it in childhood? He was put to the study of Latin, and 

 perhaps of Greek; English was left out of the account. 

 Bacon says : 



Words are formed at the will of the generality, and there arises from a bad 

 and unapt formation of words a wonderful obstruction to the mind. Nor can 

 the definitions and explanations with which learned men are wont to guard and 

 protect themselves in some instances afford a complete remedy — words still 

 manifestly force the understanding, throw everything into confusion and lead 

 mankind into vain and innumerable controversies and fallacies. 



That is, as speech always represents the past, those who use it are 

 unconsciously influenced by the thoughts of those who employed it in 

 former times. There is thus an inherent weakness in adhering to what 

 is commonly called a classic style, the style after which the literary man 

 strives. On the other hand, the scientist is always on the lookout for 

 something new ; he must use new terms, if not new forms of expression. 

 While a scientist may set forth general principles in a model style, when 

 he becomes technical and precise this is no longer possible. Thus there 

 is a certain degree of incompatibility between the scientist and the 

 litterateur. 



In the consideration of human speech we must take into account 

 two factors: one subjective, the other objective. They are as nut and 

 screw, as lock and key, as hand and glove. These two factors must 

 grow up together, so to speak; they must at least become thoroughly 

 familiar through long association. Viewed in respect to language, the 

 human mind may be compared to a hard substance upon which it is 

 difficult to produce impressions, upon which impressions can be made 

 only by oft-repeated blows. But impressions is merely a make shift 

 word borrowed from the material world for lack of a better. The 

 passive mind does not comprehend the meaning of a word or phrase 



