Brinton.] dlU [March 20, 



§ T. Formal and Material Elements of Language. 



A fundamental distinction in philosophic grammar is that 

 which divides the formal from the ifnaterial element of speech. 

 This division arises from the original double nature of each 

 radical, as expressing both Being and Action. 



On the one hand, Action involves Relation; it assumes an' 

 object and a subject, an agent, a direction of effort, a result of 

 effort ; usually also limitations of efibrt, time and space, and 

 qualifications as to the manner of the effort. In other words, 

 Action is capable of increase or decrease both in extension and 

 intension. 



On the other hand, Being is a conception of fixed conditions, 

 and is capable of few or no modifications. 



T\xQ fornvil elements of a language are those which express 

 Action, or the relation of the ideas ; they make up the affixes of 

 conjugations and declensions, the inflections of words; they in- 

 dicate the parts of speech, the so-called " grammatical catego- 

 ries," found in developed tongues. The material elements are 

 the roots or stems expressing the naked ideas, the conceptions 

 of existence apart from relation. 



Using the terms in this sense, Humboldt presents the follow- 

 ing terse formula, as his definition of Inflection : " Inflection is 

 the expression of the category in contrast to the definition 'of the 

 ideay^ Nothing could be more definitive and lucid than this 

 concise phrase. 



The inflectional or formal elements of language are usually 

 derived from words expressing accessory ideas. Generally, they 

 are worn down to single letters or a single syllable, and they 

 usually may be traced back to auxiliary verbs and pronouns. 



Often various accessories are found which are not required by 

 the main proposition. This is a common fault in the narratives 

 of ignorant men and in languages and dialects of a lower grade. 

 It is seen in the multiplication of auxiliaries and qualifying 

 particles observed in many American languages, where a vast 



* His explanation of inflection is most fully given in his Introductory Essay, 

 Uebcr die Vcrscliicdenheit, etc., § 14, Gesammelte Werke, s. 121. sqq. A sharp, but 

 friendly criticism of tliis central point of his linguistic philosophy may be 

 found in Steinthal, CharakterisHk der HauptsHchlichsten Typen des Sprachbones, 

 ss. G8-61. Humboldt certainly appears not only obscure in parts but contra- 

 dictory. 



