188 



♦ KNOWLEDGE ♦ 



[June 1, 1887. 



dhigh (d/iar/li), which originally represented, perhaps, the dull 

 sound of thumping, pounding, &c. It signifies to knead, 

 form, mould, and to it must be referred English dough, Lat. 

 jingere, fyura, figmentum (cf. Sk. deha=dhegha, a body). 

 The earliest and rudest sounds may have been first 

 those natural ones that accompany feeling and sen- 

 sation, then onomatopoeias, rough imitations of those sounds 

 that would natiu-ally appeal to the ear, which organ 

 it has been observed is far more ideal than the eye. We 

 would, with Herbert Baynes, reverse the assertion of L. 

 Geiger and say that " Language has sprung from the ear, 

 from sound, and not from the eye and light." And we know 

 very well that words like dear, bright, &c., are derived from 

 roots that originally referred to sound. From what is loud 

 we can pass on by metaphor to what is dear or bright. Our 

 words blithe and bliss go back to a root meaning to shine, 

 which again is connected with a root denoting loud noise. 

 Such a root as Sanskrit dhil (of which we have allied forms 

 in dhnksh, to kindle ; dhi'ip, to smoke ; dhur, dhurv, to throw 

 down ; dhdv, to run, wash) is the outcome of a group of 

 onomatopojic roots imitative of the howUng wind, the roar- 

 ing fire, rushing water and rolling stones, and the phenomena 

 connected with them, as the shaking and rustling of trees, 

 ilashing cf fire, ic. Hence such derivatives as Sk. 

 dhi'ai, dust ; dliitma, smoke, fume ; Old Slavic da-chu, breath. 

 It has been urged against onomatopoeias that they are not 

 fertile, and produce no offspring. It may be so no(y perhaps, 

 because our wealth of words makes us independent of this 

 mode of adding to our vocabulary. But an onomatopwic 

 vocable had formerly a numerous progeny. Take, for 

 instance, the root bhki. {bhlad) ; from this have sprung the 

 English words blow, blabber, bladder, blast, blare, bluster, 

 blood, bloom, blossom, bloated— cf. 'Ln.tin flare, fatiis.flumen, 

 Jlosjtiamen ; Greek, c^Xi'eir, Trac^Xn'^r,., <^Aa(T/tns,A'C. If we look 

 at one of Professor Max Miiller's roots (11 Off, p. 631) 

 denoting " noise (inarticulate)," we shall find it by no means 

 iinjjrodactive. 



A Sanskrit dictionary gives us numerous derivatives of the 

 root kruc;, among which we note words for reviling, pitying, 

 lamenting. The same root furnishes us with names for 

 jackal (kroshtu) and osprey (ut-ki-oi;a). 



In Sanskrit, a highly developed and literary language, and 

 in many respects very artificial, we find abundant remains 

 of onomatopoeic roots, which are only a small sample of what 

 one finds in any of the living Hindu dialects descended from 

 Sanskrit. We find, however, in Sanskrit kit hfij, cry or sing 

 as a bird; kuiij , to rnsile ; guj, gun/, to buzz; ghu (ghu-r, 

 ghu-s), to utter a deep sound; ghrrughunh/a, to snore, 

 whistle ; cf. Marathi ghu-ghu, the hoot of the owl or 

 pigeon ; ghor, the death-rattle (Sk. ghora, terrible), a 

 swollen river, frightful, &c. 



But we need not go on to multiply instances of the 

 onomatopwic element in language. We have ample proof 

 of its existence and influence. We need not be ashamed 

 of it — though we may indeed marvel that such a wonderful 

 work of art, as language undoubtedly is, has sprung from 

 such rude beginnings. It renders, however, what, at 

 first sight, seems wonderful and mysterious, simple and 

 intelligible. 



Prof. I\Iax Miiller ably defends the fundamental prin- 

 ciples laid down by Bopp as against the followers of the new 

 school of Comparative Philology. He discusses many 

 interesting points connected with the old theory that some 

 suflixes contain " elements of independent significance." 

 Our upward, turning or bending up, he compares with the 

 Sanskrit ud-ak, which has the same meaning, from the pre- 

 position ud=^up, and the root ai'ic, to bend. He has a very 

 long discussion on the suffix tAti (Lat. -fas, Eng. -tij), the 

 conclusions of which are by no means convincing. 



In taking leave of our author, we only hope that he may 

 have health and leisure to write the other " treatise " he 

 projjoses to give to the world, namely on " the Self that 

 seems to see and seems to think " — and " Who that Self is.' 



(§ 2i£{lp. 



By Richard A. Proctor. 

 A CORRESPONDENT Writes us a letter beginning — 



Dear Sir, — Matter is spirit, is it not 1 Or what is spirit, or wLat 

 is matter ? 



and so forth. I ask in answer simply — not, I fear, in the 

 right spirit — Does it matter 1 



* * * 



A CORRESPONDENT rebukes me for regarding it as a mere 

 superstition that after a misdeal there will be a singleton 

 among the hands next dealt — because " he feels bound to 

 regard it as a fact, though depending on a law not yet under- 

 stood." In other words, he does not happen to have noticed 

 any case when, after a misdeal, there has not been one 

 singleton at least among the hands next dealt. No amount 

 of such experience, however, would prove that to be a fact 

 which in the nature of things cannot be. On the contrary, 

 a single experience to the contrary proves that the supposed 

 fact is no fact : and I have observed at least a score of cases 

 in which there has been no singleton in the deal following 

 a misdeal. Science cannot, however, deal seriou.sly with 

 any idea involving the sequence of an event as if caused by 

 another, when, in the nature of things, there can be no 

 causation. 



* * * 



Playing without shuffling, or with very little shuffling, 

 there will be fewer singletons, as there will be fewer 

 irregular hands, than when the cards are freely shuffled — 

 and for very obvious reasons. When the cards are taken 

 up after a hand has been played they are in tricks, and 

 among the tricks a considerable number have all the four 

 cards of one denomination. Any such trick not separated 

 by shuffling, will in the next deal give one card of the same 

 suit to each player, and so will diminish the chance that 

 any player will get but one card of that suit. A few 

 undivided tricks will greatly diminish, then, the chance 

 that any player will get a singleton of any suit. 



* * * 



When, however, the deal following the misdeal is from 

 another pack the chance of a singleton cannot be increased 

 or diminished by the misdeal, through the operation of any 

 law, understood or misunderstood — unless the interruption 

 of the play leads to a fresh and extra-thorough shuffling of 

 the pack to be used for the next deal. Such shuffling to 

 some degree increases the chance of a singleton, and it is to 

 be remembered that the odds are always greatly in favour 

 of a singleton occurring, except when the cards are scarcely 

 shuffled at all, when as the play proceeds there is a decided 

 tendency to equally divided hands. 



* * * 



A CORRESPONDENT inquires why I removed the chapter on 

 " Other Universes " from Guillemin's Heavens as revised 

 by me ; and my opinion on the statements as to the dis- 

 tance of certain clusters in that chapter. I regard these 

 statements as without any foundation whatever in fact, and 

 I removed the chapter because I thought — or rather, I 

 knov} — that we have no sort of evidence in regard to ex- 

 ternal galaxies. 



