REASON AND DIVERS TONGUES. 247 



however, that these demonstrative elements were prob- 

 ably ' once full or predicative words,' " and he quotes 

 Prof. Sayce as saying, " It is difficult to conceive 

 how a word could ever have gained a footing if it did 

 not from the first present some independent predicative 

 meaning." To this Mr. Romanes again replies that we 

 should "remember the sounds which are arbitrarily 

 invented by young children and uneducated deaf-mutes, 

 not to mention the inarticulate clicks of the Bushmen." 

 But why are we to suppose that such clicks and arbi- 

 trarily invented sounds never had any "independent 

 predicative meaning"? Certainly the arbitrarily in- 

 vented sounds of many children and deaf-mutes must 

 indisputably have such meaning. 



Prof Sayce is quoted* as saying that "an in- 

 flectional language does not permit us to watch the 

 word-making process so clearly as do those savage 

 jargons, in which a couple of sounds, like the Grebo 

 ni ne, signify ' I do it,' or ' You do not,' according to 

 the context and the gestures of the speaker. Here 

 by degrees, with the growth of consciousness and the 

 analysis of thought, the external gesture is replaced 

 by some " uttered sounds. Now, if the Professor means 

 by "the growth of consciousness," its evolution from 

 a state of mind devoid of consciousness, he errs greatly. 

 For the sounds ni ne could never be uttered with 

 meaning by any unconscious being. We take it he 

 only means the greater diversity of direction of con- 

 sciousness, and we are supported in this belief by his 

 expression — "and the analysis of thought." But, how- 



* p. 303. 



