132 



K is used for C, TJ for Tsch, &c. but no rule has been exactly observed 

 throughout. Sometimes Sh is expressed by S, at other times the 

 importance of the H is shown by writing it in full. 



The chief design has been to show how by prefixes and affixes, by 

 the dropping out of medials, and the rejection novv of the first and 

 now of the last element, an almost infinite series of changes not only 

 can be permitted, but have actually realized themselves in the lan- 

 guages and dialects of the earth; how that no idea can be technically 

 said to be expressed by man labially, or dentally, or gutturally, or 

 nasally, seeing that the very same series of dissyllables which in one 

 direction ends in a single labial, is sure, when followed in another di- 

 rection, to end in a dental, and when followed in a third direction, to 

 end in a guttural or nasal; while the very same simple guttural, den- 

 tal, or labial, reappears in the different series as a vehicle for different 

 ideas. To illustrate by an example or two: — 



HAIR, from such double full forms as GURuGURu (197), CyPy' 

 HUiR (153), tJe'RaChe'R (159), &c., passes down through one long 

 range of changes to become a simple labial Fa (164), and through 

 as long a range of changes in another direction, to become a simple 

 dental oT (69). MAN passes on from similar full forms down to 

 such simple forms as Mo, Tshu, or ;^oi. STONE becomes To, Ko, 

 aL, aN, iSH and oFe. On the other hand, and to illustrate the other 

 phase of the law, CaLGaSSen (1 37) means Plair, — KuDaCeS (58) 

 means xMan,— and CiT'XiN (158) means Head. MieZ (56), MeS 

 (57), mean Man, while MaZda (171), MaZ (107), mean Hair. HaiR 

 in English and XeiR Hand in Greek, GoiR Man and KeR Stone, 

 cannot be distinguished philologically. Many other like instances 

 will appeal to the eye, without further remark; and would be innu- 

 merable had we some scores of such tables made out. 



It follows, from facts like these, that two theories respecting the 

 great body of monosyllables must be adopted. First, they do not 

 belong to the organic primary sounds by which our involuntary animal 

 nature utters itself, and so their study in that department will be a 

 failure. It is evident that a stone or a bird cannot relate itself in- 

 differently to all the organs of sjjeech in turn, if that be the kind of 

 relation by which it gets itself named. If, for instance, its original 

 organic name, not invented but simply exasperated by all mankind 

 unconsciously, be TO, then it could not be KO, nor could it be ISH, 

 nor AN, nor oFe. Are these then alterations? but if that be once 

 granted, the science of Comparative Philosophy commits suicide. 

 Secondly, the great body of monosyllables so far from being originals 



