THE DEVELOPMENT OF LANGUAGE. 133 



•even need on all occasions for the words to be transmitted to him ^vith deliber- 

 ate intention, and by a human mouth ; sometimes the child seizes them in the 

 involuntary sounds he titters, or in the accidental sounds he catches." And he 

 cites a remarkable example from Fi-ancis Lieber (" Smithsonian Contributions 

 to Knowledge," Vol. 2, p. 15) : — 



"A member of my own family," saj's Mr. Lieber, "showed, in early infancy, 

 a peculiar tendency to form new words, partly from sounds which the child 

 caught, as to ivohior to stop, from the interjection v:oh used by waggoners when 

 they wish to stop their horses ; partl}^ from symphenomenal emissions of 

 sounds. Thus, when the boy was a little above a year old, he had made and 

 established in the nursery the word nim for everything fit to eat. I had 

 watched the growth of this word. First, he expressed his satisfaction at seeing 

 hi.s meal, when hungry, by the natural humming sound, which we might 

 express thus, hin. Gradually, as his organs of speech became more skilful, 

 and repetition made the sound more familiar and clearer, it changed into the 

 more articulate tim and im. Finally, an n was placed before it, nim being 

 much easier to 2:)ronounce than im , when the mouth has been closed. But soon 

 the growing mind began to generalize, and nim came to signify everything 

 edible ; so that the boy would add the words good, or bad, w'hich he had learned 

 in the meantime. He now would say fjood nim, had nim, his nurse adopting 

 "the word with him. On one occasion he said fie nim, for bad, reptdsive to eat. 

 There is no doubt but that a verb to nim, for to eat, would have developed 

 itself, had not the ripening mind adopted the vernacular language, which was 

 offered to it ready made." 



M. Taine, though he dwells much and forcibly on the physiological view, 

 including especially the functions of the brain, does not indicate the peculiar 

 light which that study casts on the subject in question. This has been lately 

 done by his countryman, the distinguished anthropologist. Dr. Topinard, in 

 his notable lecture on "The last stages of the genealogy of man," published 

 in his Bemie d'Ajithropoloyie for May, 1888. After referring to the fact- 

 suggested by an argument of Professor Vogt— that the young monkey is more 

 intelligent than the adult. Dr. Topinard remarks :—" But this greater intelli- 

 gence of the young is the rule with all animals, including man, if we consider 

 the facts. At this stage the brain is larger, relatively to the body ; it is in a 

 manner virgin, more impressionable ; it grows extremelv fast, and seeks only to 

 absorb, to work, to turn to use the blood w^hich it receives. What is more 

 marvellous than the way in which our children learn to speak, to read, to 

 write ! Should we be capable, w^e adults, of the amount of rapid memory 

 demanded by the mass of words and ideas which we impress upon them ? " 



It is satisfactory to be able to adduce, in confirmation of the ideas set forth 

 in the preceding paper, these striking facts and arguments, from two of the 

 highest authorities in Europe on questions of mental philosophy and physiology. 

 For the reference to the passage in M. Taine's book I am indebted to the cour- 

 tesy of Professor Max Miiller, who is naturally interested in the results of an 



