266 MENTAL EVOLUTION IN MAN. 



First, let us consider the number of roots out of which 

 languages are developed — or, rather, let me say, the number 

 of elementary constituents into which the researches of 

 philologists have been able to reduce those languages which 

 have been most closely studied. Of course the probability 

 — nay, the certainty — is that the actual number of roots must 

 in all cases be considerably less than philologists are now 

 able to prove. 



Chinese is composed of about five hundred separate words, 

 each being a monosyllable. In actual use, these five hundred 

 root-words are multiplied to over fifteen hundred by 

 significant variety of intonation ; but the entire structure of 

 this still living language is made up of five hundred mono- 

 syllabic words. In the opinion of most philologists we have 

 here a survival of the root stage of language ; but in the 

 opinion of some we have the remnants of erosion, or " pho- 

 netic decay." * This difference of opinion, however, is not 

 a matter of importance to us ; and therefore I will not discuss 

 it, further than to say that on account of it I will not here- 

 after draw upon the Chinese language for illustrations of 

 "radical" utterance, except in so far as philologists of all 

 schools would allow as legitimate.! 



Hebrew has been reduced to about the same number of 

 roots as Chinese — Renan stating it in round numbers at five 

 hundred. % But without doubt this number would admit of 

 being consideraly reduced, if inquiries were sufficiently 

 extended to the whole Semitic family. 



According to Professor Skeat, English is entirely made 

 up of 461 Aryan roots, in combination with about twenty 

 modifying constants. § The remote progenitor, Sanskrit, has 



* Sayce, Introduction to Science of Language^ ii. 13. 



t The difference of opinion in question seems to arise from individual 

 prepossessions with regard to the ulterior question whether or not the aboriginal 

 roots of all languages must have been polysyllabic. For my own part, and for 

 the reasons already given, I can see no presumption in favour of the view that 

 primitive languages must all have presented the "polysenthetic genius." 



X Histoire des Langiies Semitique, p. 138. 



§ Etymological Dictionary, p. 746. 



