6 HISTORY OF LANGUAGE 



for the course indicated as being followed is that the user of speech 

 often feels that with the words sufficient to make his meaning com- 

 prehended, it may not after all be fully comprehended. He seeks 

 therefore to add to its clearness by the addition of terms and phrases 

 which will not leave the hearer or reader in the slightest doubt. 

 Hence always has come and always will continue to come into speech 

 an army of expressions which we group under the general names of 

 expletives and redundances. These often cause great grief to the 

 grammarian; but the user of speech cannot be deterred from employ- 

 ing them because he recognizes that the first aim of his utterance is 

 to be distinctly understood. These expressions, in consequence, 

 are not really expletives and redundances. So they might be deemed, 

 were men always in a state of mental alertness, so that nothing what- 

 ever escapes their attention. But unfortunately the human mind is 

 apt to be inattentive. It often misses the sense, which in theory has 

 been sufficiently expressed to be conveyed fully. Therefore in every 

 tongue and at all periods men resort to strictly superfluous words and 

 expressions to prevent their meaning being missed or overlooked. As 

 one illustration out of scores, take in our own tongue the placing of 

 the preposition from before the adverbs hence, thence, and whence. 

 From the fourteenth century to the present day it has been so 

 employed constantly by the best speakers and writers. Strictly 

 speaking, the preposition is unnecessary. There are places, indeed, 

 where its introduction could be deemed no other than an impertin- 

 ence. There are other places where it adds distinctly to the ease of 

 comprehension. 



Nor is clearness the only thing aimed at by the users of speech in 

 the employment of what from one point of view is superfluous. There 

 is equally the desire to impart force to expression. Examples of this 

 abound on every side. " Forever and ever" is a phrase that theoret- 

 ically conveys no more meaning than the simple "forever"; but it 

 makes more of an impression upon the mind. Linguistically, not 

 morally, the desire to strengthen the expression is the justification of 

 the vast variety of expletives which make up the vocabulary of pro- 

 fanity. When the practice of it is frequent, it defeats its own end; 

 but when sparingly indulged in, especially in situations where great 

 interests are at stake, it conveys an intensity of meaning that the 

 mere words, though carrying the full sense, do not even remotely 

 suggest. 



Let us now proceed to the consideration of two other opposing 

 agencies, always operating upon language, which more especially 

 affect the inflectional system. They might be called the principles 

 of unity and diversity; but as these words are susceptible of being 

 misunderstood, I shall call them, from the paths they mainly adopt, 

 the principles of analogy and authority. In the matter of inflection 



