86 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



change — differences wholly insufficient to mark the death of one lan- 

 guage and the birth of another. 



Old English is synthetic, with an elaborate system of inflections ; 

 modern Enghsh is analytic, and almost inflectionless. We must not fall 

 into the error of supposing that this change has been brought about by 

 the Norman Conquest. Other kindred dialects, as Danish and Low 

 Dutch, have undergone similar changes without the influences of exter- 

 nal causes. So our mother-tongue has developed itself into its present 

 forms, not by chance or by the will of Norman masters, but according 

 to fixed laws. In its wonderful grow^th, and in all its seemingly lawless 

 transformations, it has followed necessary rules. In our teaching, we 

 must leave the unfruitful field of guess-work, and investigate the man- 

 ner in which the general laws of linguistic change and development are 

 applicable to the growth of the English language. It is impossible to 

 explain words and grammatical facts, or idioms, except by their history. 

 We must first know their affiliations and the facts that have preceded 

 them ; just as in the sciences of observation, such as chemistry or 

 natural history, we can give an account of a fact only by knowing what 

 has preceded it. For instance, in order to explain the manner in which 

 a tree is formed, it is not enough to study the tree as it stands before 

 us in its full-leaved glory ; it is necessary to construct a history of the 

 tree by the aid of accurate observations of the different states and 

 forms through which it has successively passed. We are able to under- 

 stand clearly what is only through a knowledge of what has been. We 

 can discover the causes of a phenomenon only by taking a comprehen- 

 sive view of antecedent phenomena. Grammar, in its true method, is 

 the botany of language. 



Modern English without old English is a tree without roots — a 

 lifeless trunk. The words that have been imported from Latin and 

 other sources have been ingrafted upon the English stock, and draw 

 their life-nourishment from roots that strike deep down into the death- 

 kingdoms of the oldest Teutonic speech. 



Theoretically, we begin Avith what is oldest and farthest from us, 

 to explain all that follows in the course of time ; but practically, in 

 learning and in teaching, we begin with what is nearest and best known, 

 and work back to what is less and less familiar. 



As an illustration of what I mean by studying a fact historically, 

 take the plural of the word foot. The boy or girl learns in the ele- 

 mentary school that the plural oi foot is feet^ and accepts it as an ulti- 

 mate, inexplicable fact. But the man or woman in the college or uni- 

 versity may ask why the plural is feet and not foots. I am afraid 

 there are some very learned teachers of Latin and Greek who could 

 not answer, except with a growl about the lawlessness of the English 

 language. However, it is explicable. Going back twelve hundred 

 years, we find our present form fot, fet. There seems to be an end of 

 our search. But we can go farther; for, looking into the old Saxon, 



