Theories of the Origin of Language 519 



vibrations, by the answer which they give. Gold rings differently 

 from tin, wood rings differently from stone ; and different sounds are 

 produced according to the nature of each percussion. It may Wi- 

 the same with man, the most highly organised of nature's work 1 .'' 

 Max Miiller's repudiation of this theory was, however, not very 

 whole-hearted for he proceeds later in the same argument: "Heyse'fl 

 theory, which I neither adopted nor rejected, but which, as will l>e 

 seen, is by no means incompatible with that which for many yean 

 has been gaining on me, and which of late has been so clearly 

 formulated by Professor Noire\ has been assailed with ridicule and 

 torn to pieces, often by persons who did not even suspect how much 

 truth was hidden behind its paradoxical appearance. We are still 

 very far from being able to identify roots with nervous vibrations, 

 but if it should appear hereafter that sensuous vibrations supply at 

 least the raw material of roots, it is quite possible that the theory, 

 proposed by Oken and Heyse, will retain its place in the history of 

 the various attempts at solving the problem of the origin of language, 

 when other theories, which in our own days were received with 

 popular applause, will be completely forgotten 2 ." 



Like a good deal else that has been written on the origin of 

 language, this statement perhaps is not likely to be altogether clear 

 to the plain man, who may feel that even the " raw material of roots " 

 is some distance removed from nervous vibrations, though obviously 

 without the existence of afferent and efferent nerves articulate speech 

 would be impossible. But Heyse's theory undoubtedly was that every 

 thought or idea which occurred to the mind of man for the first time 

 had its own special phonetic expression, and that this responsive 

 faculty, when its object was thus fulfilled, became extinct Apart 

 from the philosophical question whether the mind acts without 

 external stimulus, into which it is not necessary to enter here, it is 

 clear that this theory can neither be proved nor disproved, because 

 it postulates that this faculty existed only when language first began, 

 and later altogether disappeared. As we have already seen, it is 

 impossible for us to know what happened at the first beginnings of 

 language, because we have no information from any period even 

 approximately so remote; nor are we likely to attain it Even in 

 their earliest stages the great families of language which possess a 

 history extending over many centuries— the Indo-Germanic and the 

 Semitic— have very little in common. With the exception of Chinese, 

 the languages which are apparently of a simpler or more primitive 

 formation have either a history which, compared witli that of the 

 families mentioned, is very short, or, as in the case of the vast 

 majority, have no history beyond the time extending only over a 



1 Max Muller as above, translating from Heyse. a Scienc 0) Thought, p. 212. 



