ilaupt.] ^48 [Nov 21, 



On the Coordination of (lie Various Methods of Expressing Thought as 

 Applied to tin' System of Public School Instruction. By Lewis M. Huupt, 

 C. E., Prof, of Cioil Engineering, University of Pennsylvania. 



{Read before the American Philosophical Society, November 21, 1879.) 



Language, in its most general signification, is any medium by which 

 thoughts or ideas may be conveyed from one person to another, and the 

 avenues through which it affects the human intelligence are the senses. 



In transmitting an idea, the senses maybe called into action either singly 

 or in combination. Thus speaking involves the sense of hearing, for a 

 person born deaf must of necessity be dumb also. We may therefore re- 

 gard the vocal organs and the ear as complementary functions for the trans- 

 mission and reception of audible intelligence. These may be supplemented 

 or entirely supplanted in their absence by the hand and eye, also comple- 

 mentary. In both of these cases the vocal organs and hand are the media 

 of, while the ear and eye are the guides to, the proper form of expression. 



From this it follows that there may be two distinct forms of language, 

 namely, Oral, or that proceeding from the mouth, as in speaking, and 

 Graphical, or that produced by the hand, as in writing, drawing, and 

 printing. Oral language appeals to the ear of the recipient, Graphical, to 

 the eye, for the correct interpretation of the idea intended to be expressed. 

 If the same meaning be given to a combination of words, by the recipient, 

 as was intended by the originator of an idea, then the result will be an 

 identity of thought and a mutual understanding resulting in harmony. 

 But as words have many meanings, the same words may produce very 

 different impressions upon different minds even under similar circumstances, 

 hence, to avoid misunderstanding, with its attendant confusion or discord, 

 it is desirable to employ, if possible, a less ambiguous form of language. 



A single instance will serve to illustrate this proposition. 



Let the name of a substance, as iron, be mentioned. An audience com- 

 posed of physicists, chemists, engineers, artisans, artists and literati imme- 

 diately begin to think of some of its characteristic properties. 



While the man of letters may regard it as a rigid, incombustible sub- 

 stance, the chemist considers it flexible and burns it with great brilliancy; 

 ■while the prisoner may look upon it as an obstruction, the electrician makes 

 it a channel of communication. The agriculturalist may use it as an im- 

 plement of peace, whilst the soldier will make it an instrument of war. 

 With the civil or mechanical engineer it is an important material of con- 

 struction, whilst with the military engineer it is an engine of destruction. 



"The meaning of such a word is like the rainbow: everybody sees a 

 different one, yet all maintain it to be the same." 



It is thus with many words in our vocabulary, and hence arise sectarian- 

 isms, difficulties, violations of contracts and tedious litigation to determine 

 the sense of some particular form of expression. 



It is not necessary to dilate further upon the ambiguities of language, 

 nor of the many serious and sometimes comical mistakes resulting from 



