290 MEXTAL EVOLUTION EV MAX. 



For my own part, I think it highly probable that there 

 is an element of truth in the Yeo-he-ho theory, although 

 I deem it in the last degree improbable that imitative sounds 

 of this kind constituted the only source of aboriginal speech. 

 At the most, it seems to me, this branch of onomatopoeia 

 can be accredited with supporting but a small proportional 

 part of aboriginal language-growth. Nevertheless, as already 

 observed, I can have no doubt at all that the principle of 

 onomatopoeia in all its branches has been the most important 

 of all principles which were concerned in the first genesis of 

 speech. That is to say, I fully agree with the almost unani- 

 mous voice of philological authority on this matter, which 

 may be tersely expressed by allowing Professor Whitney to 

 act as spokesman. 



" Beyond all reasonable question, there was a positively 

 long period of purely imitative signs, and a longer one of mixed 

 imitative and traditional ones, the latter gradually gaining 

 upon the former, before the present condition of things was 

 reached, when the production of new signs by imitation is 

 only sporadic and of the utmost rarity, and all language-signs 

 besides are traditional, their increase in any community being 

 solely caused by variation and combination, and by borrowing 

 from other communities." * 



But now, having thus stated as emphatically as possible 

 my acceptance of the theory of onomatopoeia, I have to 

 express dissent from many of its more earnest advocates 

 where they represent that it is necessarily the only theory to 

 be entertained. In other words, I do not agree with the 

 dogma that articulate speech cannot possibly have had any 

 source, or sources, other than that which is supplied by vocal 

 imitations.! For, on merely antecedent grounds, I can see 



Krafte, keine spiachschaffendc Fiiliigkcit, wie eiiic willklirliche qualitas occulta' " 

 {Ursprung der Sprache, s. 24). Sayce, also, well remarks of this hypothesis, "It 

 really rests upon aii a priori conception of the origin of speech, which is neither 

 borne out by linguistic facts nor easily intelligible. . . . Such a theory of language 

 is plainly mystical" {Introduction to Scieiue of Language, vol. i., pp. 66, 67). 



* Encyclo. Brit., art. " Philology," vol. xviii., p. 769. 



t See, for instance, Y^xx'^i.x, Chapters on I.angtiage, p. 184. 



