LANGUAGE. 



581 



them monosyllabic. It seems evident also, that as the 

 vowel sounds are often uncertain and variable in their 

 enunciation, they would frequently l>e interchanged in 

 Common speech, and no variation in them would affect 

 \preaaion of the particular idea meant to be con- 

 veyed ; it would be to the consonant sounds alone, in 

 which the diversity i-. fixed and obvious, that recourse 

 must have been had as the radical and uniform signs 

 by which the diversity of ideas or feelings was to be 

 marked. Bach consonant sound might therefore have 

 a particular signification annexed to it, which it would 

 always retain, with whichever of the vowel sounds it 

 happened to be united. Farther, there is surely no- 

 thmg absurd or improbable in supposing, that when 

 men began to give names to what excited their feel- 

 ings, the same or similar feelings would be expressed 

 by the same, or nearly similar sounds; that the expres- 

 sive pan of these sounds being what formed the conso- 

 nants, whenever the desire or necessity of indicating a 

 feting or idea once signified recurred anew, this would 

 he done by a repetition of the same consonant sound 

 which had . first been employed to make it known. 

 Hence each diffeient consonant, when enunciated, 

 would soon come to denote a particular range of idea*, 

 agreeing among themselves in some common quality, 

 and distinct from what were expressed by any of the 

 others. What particular range of ideas each consonant 

 aoBad was to be applied to express, mu>t have been 

 none of them possessing any specific 

 r it more applicable to one idea than 

 If ever then, any general principles are to 

 be traced upon which any language has been origi- 

 nally constructed, in regard to the application of parti- 

 ostar lUMiJs to particular classes of ideas, this must be 

 done solely by the observation of facts, as actually 

 found to occur in the existing primitive languages. 

 An yet, however, we want the materials for such an in- 

 ductive investigation. Perhaps farther researches, con- 

 ducted upon philosophical views, into the real compo- 



clla- 



parts of those languages that merit the apjx-l 

 of original tongues, as forming their roots within 

 may in time elucidate some parts of this 

 i subject. In any such investigation, however, 

 it would be absolutely necessary to examine each lan- 

 guage separately, and trace its roots unmixed with 

 -ot'anv other tongue. When the roots of different 

 f* have thus been investigsted, a subsequent 

 i of these with one another, might enable us 

 to determine whether any, and what degree of affinity 



I languages to which they belong. A 

 on such an inductive process would l>e 

 chimerical. Within the hound* of a par- 

 ticular language, etymology is a pretty safe guide. It 

 is only when rashly applied to various a d discordant 

 language that it is ready to bewilder and mi-lead. 

 ' 1 the various original languages of the globe be 



MChflgi- 

 le. might 

 , the opi- 

 to carry 



with it much proboNHly.'strengthenetl by many curi- 

 ous proofs of actual coincidim. but tll mtmfactory 

 evidence a poilmori is wanting an evidence such as a 

 radical analysis in the manner now pointed out would 

 alone be capable of furnishing. 



Although we cannot attain to any romp'ete di*ro- 



'_ very ot the actual origin and progress of the difft rent 



MMk fcfW* *P*MP i various parts of Uie work), yet 



tateilqn 



into such a point of com par 

 qowation. whether all are derived 

 rtved. At 

 of their common origin may be 



some interesting facts in regard to the transmission, Language. 

 migration, and filiation of languages, are within our S ^"Y*' 

 reach. A few remarks on that subject, may therefore 

 with propriety be here introduced. 



From the most ancient and most authentic of all his- One primi- 

 torical records, the Sacred Scriptures, we know the fact, tive lan- 

 that all mankind were originally descended from a sin- g u "gc. 

 gle pair, and that our great progenitor did undoubted- 

 ly possess and make use of articulate language. What 

 the particular language was which was then employed 

 we have no means of ascertaining. We are, however, 

 sufficiently warranted to conclude, that this primeval 

 language must have consisted at first of very few and 

 simple sounds, and that it was gradually extended as 

 the new situations of men in society required new modes 

 of expression. The primitive language, in all proba- 

 bility, continued radically the same, though enlarged 

 by accessions closely related to the parent stock, during 

 the whole antediluvian ages ; and there is little reason 

 to doubt, when we take into view the longevity of the 

 patriarchs, affording opportunities to men of different 

 generations to mingle together, that from Adam down 

 to Noah the language first made use of suffered no es- 

 sential change. . When the tremendous event of the 

 deluge reduced the whole population of the earth to a 

 single family, the primitive language, as received and 

 used by the patriarch Noah, would still be preserved in 

 his family, and form the only language then used among 

 men. In this state, we find that language continued 

 tili the confusion of tongues at Mabel, before which pe- Confusion 

 riod, we are assured by the sacred historian, " the of '""BjJ 88 

 whole earth was of on* language and of one speech." a 

 Whether this primitive language was the same with 

 any of the languages of which we have still any re- 

 mains, has been a subject of much dispute. That the 

 primitive language continued at least till the dispersion 

 of mankind consequent upon the building of Babel, 

 there seems little reason to doubt. When, by an imme- 

 diate interposition of divine power, the language of men 

 was confounded, we are not informed to what extent 

 this confusion of tongues prevailed. It is unnecessary 

 to suppose, that the former language was completely J le P nm> 

 obliterated, and entire new modes of speech at once in- miaee not 

 traduced . It was quite sufficient, if such changes only obliterate* 

 were effected, as to render the speech of different com- 

 panies or different tribes unintelligible to one another, 

 that their mutual co-operation in the mad attempt in 

 which they had all engaged might be no longer practi- 

 cable. The radical stem of the first language might 

 therefore remain in all, though new dialects were form- 

 ed, bearing among themselves a similar relation with 

 what we find in the languages of modern Europe, deri- 

 ved from the same parent stein, whether Gothic, Latin, 

 or Slavonian. In the midst of these changes, it is rea- 

 sonable to suppose that the primitive language itself, 

 unaltered, would still be preserved in someone at least 

 of the trills or families of the human race. Now in 

 none of these was the transmission so likely to have 

 taken place, as among that branch of the descendants 

 of Shrm, from which the patriarch Abraham proceed- 

 ed. Upon these grounds, therefore, we may conclude, 

 that the language spoken by Abraham, and by him trans- 

 mitted to his posterity, was in fact the primitive lan- 

 guage, modified indeed and extended in the course of time, 

 but still retaining its essential parts far more complete- 

 ly than any other of the languages of men. If these 

 conclusions are well founded, they warrant the infer- 

 ence, that, in the ancient Hebrew, there are still to be 



