PRINCIPLES OF LINGUISTIC SCIENCE. 109 



apprenension of the grammatical relations to be expressed by the combination 

 of elements, and in the general way in -which they apply their resources to tlie 

 expression of these relations. Indo-European languages arc what is generally 

 called " inflective." By this is meant, that they show a pcc;iliar aptitude in 

 closely combining the radical and formal elements, forgetting their separate 

 individuality, and accepting the compound as integral sign cf the thing indi- 

 cated ; submitting it then, as a whole, to the altering processes of linguistic 

 growth. This tendency shows itself very differently in different constituents 

 of the language : in untruthfulhj, for example, the four elements are held in- 

 dependently apart ; while in sing, sang, sung, song, inflection has reached its 

 extreme result, substituting an, internal variation for original aggregation. The 

 value of this distinction Avill appear more clearly as we go on to consider the 

 characteristics of the other great families. We will take them up in an order 

 partly geographical, partly based upon their relative importance. 



The second family is the Semitic, or Shemitic, so called because the descent 

 of most of the nations speaking its languages is traced in the Bible to Shem. 

 Its principal branches are : 1. The northern, Syriac or Aramaic. 2. The 

 central, Hebrew and Phenician. 3. The southern, Arabic, with its outliers in 

 Eastern Africa, the languages of Abyssinia. It is a strongly marked group, 

 and, though occupying but a narrow territory, is of prime consequence, from 

 the conspicuous part which the race speaking it has played in the history of 

 the world. In the great empires of Mesopotamia the Semitic race first rose to 

 high importance; then in the commercial and civilizing activity of the Phe- 

 nicians, whose colony, Carthage, long disputed the dominion of the world with 

 Rome. Meantime, the politically almost insignificant little people of the 

 Hebrews were producing a religion and religious literature, Avhich, made uni- 

 versal by Christ, were to become the mightiest elements in history. Finally, 

 in the Mohammedan uprising, the third branch of the race advanced suddenly 

 to a leading place, and for a while threatened even to reduce to vassalage the 

 Indo-European nations ; and it is still a conquering and civilizing power in 

 parts of Asia and Africa. 



The Semitic type of language is also inflective, like the Indo-European, but 

 not in such a way as implies any historical connexion between the two. The 

 Semitic tongues are in many respects of a more strange and isolated character 

 than any others known. Their most fundamental peculiarity is the triliterality 

 of their roots, every Semitic verbal root containing just three consono.nts. 

 And it is composed only of consonants : their vocalization is almost solely a 

 means of grammatical flexion. Thus, q-t-l is a root conveying the idea of 

 "killing;" then qatala means "he killed;" qvtila, "he was killed;" vqtul, 

 "kill;" qtitil, "killing;" iqtal, "causing to kill;" qatl, "murder;" qitl, 

 "enemy;" qutl, "murderous;" and so on. Prefixes and suflixes are also used, 

 but to only a limited extent ; there is little left for them to do ; the formation 

 of derivative from derivative, by accumulation of affixes, is almost totally un- 

 known. This significant vocalization is, to our knowledge, an ultimate fact in 

 Semitic speech in all its forms, as is the radical triliterality; but it seems im- 

 possible to regard the latter, especially, as absolutely original ; and many at- 

 tempts are made, with but indifferent success as yet, to reduce the roots to a 

 simpler and less Procrustean form, out of which they should be a development. 

 The different languages are of very near relationship, like German, Dutch, and 

 Swedish, rather than like German, French, and llussian, for instance. Nor 

 have they varied in the coui-se of their i'ecorded history to anything like the 

 same extent with the Indo-European languages. Everything in Semitic speech 

 wears an aspect of peculiar rigidity. 



The Semitic verb is strikingly unlike ours in its apprehension of the element 

 of time. It distinguishes only two tenses, whose chief distinction is that of 

 complete and incomplete action : each may be, in different circumstances, either 



