94 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CANADIAN INSTITUTE. 



after the connection of Japan with India led to the formation of a 

 new syllabary, based on the other, but presenting a more cursive 

 form, and reducing the number of syllabic signs. This syllabic state 

 of a language marks a distinct stage in the growth of language, or 

 rather of linguistic symbols. But there is still another stage in 

 which individual signs are used to represent individual sounds, as 

 they are uttered by the organs of speech ; and now there is possible 

 a classification of sounds, and consequently of letters into vowels 

 and consonants, or into dentals, labials, gutturals, and nasals, and an 

 alphabet is formed. Now this throughout is a gradual development. 

 The figui-ative writing of the Egyptians was developed into the 

 alphabet of the Phoenicians. The conventional figurative writing of 

 the Chinese was developed into the syllabic of the Japanese, and 

 from that into the alphabet of the Coreans. The writing of the 

 Accadians was developed into the cuneiform character of the 

 Assyrians and the Babylonians, and from this passed, on the one 

 hand into the syllabic cuneiform of the Persians, and of the Cypriots 

 on the other. What we wish especially to jjoint out is, that these 

 changes mark distinct stages in lingiiistic development, and conse- 

 quently in the development of civilization, for the two are inseparably 

 connected. But Prof. Campbell imagines that the syllabic form is 

 peculiar to the Turanian languages. That we may not misrepresent 

 him we shall quote his own words. He says : — " The problem there- 

 fore is to find the powers of the Turanian alphabet or syllabary, 

 Besides the Cypriote, the Corean of far Eastern Asia has furnished 

 me with phonetic values of forms belonging to the Etruscan and 

 other old Turanian syllabaries." Again : — " As the syllabic values 

 of the Aztec characters are well known, I gained in them the actual 

 key to the old Turanian syllabaries." With only a passing allusion 

 to the absurdity of connecting the Aztec characters with the Gypi'iote, 

 we wish to lay especial stress on Prof. Campbell's association of 

 syllabism with the Turanian languages. On the other hand we 

 would expi^ess our entire divergence from him, and we maintain that 

 syllabism is a stage of linguistic development common to the Semitic 

 and the Aryan with the Turanian languages. Take Persian as a 

 type of the Aryan ; Egyptian, or Assyrian, or Babylonian of the 

 Semitic, as well as Japanese of the Turanian. It is quite true that 

 very many of the Turanian languages at the pi'esent day ai'e syllabic. 

 The Japanese have only now reached that stage of development in 



