582 



LANGUAGE. 



Language, found the traces of the original speech. Whether this 

 S 'Y"' ' ancient Hebrew more nearly resembled the Chaldean, 

 the Syrian, or what is now termed the Hebrew, it is 

 unnecessary here to inquire ; these languages, it has 

 never been denied, were originally and radically the 

 same, though, from subsequent modifications, they ap- 

 pear to have assumed somewhat different aspects. 

 Dispersion The dispersion of mankind was a necessary effect of 

 of mankind, the multiplication and increase of the families of the 

 human race ; and in this dispersion, we shall find the 

 great sources of new and essential changes of Ian- 

 guage. A change of situation most generally infers a 

 change of climate operating on the organs of speech, 

 and still more extensively affecting the productions of 

 the earth, the nature and number of human wants, 

 and the means of supplying them. Most frequently, 

 too, does the change of- situation give rise to new oc- 

 cupations and pursuits, and thes'e to the widest and 

 most essential differences in the 1 state of society and the 

 modes of life, of manners, and of thought. In all these 

 changes, it is almost impossible that language should 

 fail to undergo many alterations ; new objects and pur- 

 suits require new expressions and new modes of speech ; 

 and if the dispersed and migrating colonies be so com- 

 pletely separated by barriers difficult to pass, that little 

 or no communication with them can be had, it is easy 

 to see, that where the languages originally brought 

 with these colonies was scanty and incomplete, the 

 change of language might be so great and so rapid, 

 that the languages would soon appear to be totally dif- 

 ferent, and much attention would be required to trace 

 out the original affinity. As these colonies diverged 

 still larther, new differences would arise, till the origi- 

 nal stem became often nearly imperceptible. 



Of the dispersion of mankind after the flood, we have 

 a succinct account in the 10th chapter of Genesis. The 

 three sons of Noah spread their families in different di- 

 rections ; from Shem proceeded the Elamites or Per- 

 sians, the Assyrians, the Syrians, and Hebrews ; from 

 Ham, the Cushites, Egyptians, Ethiopians, and inha- 

 bitants of Africa ; from Japheth, the inhabitants of 

 Northern Asia, and of the greater part of Europe. The 

 original language carried in each of these directions 

 must have suffered numerous changes, so that in time 

 it is not wonderful, that the traces of mutual analogy 

 should in a great measure disappear ; still coincidences 

 are occasionally discovered, which give a high degree 

 of probability to the notion of the common origin of the 

 whole. 



When the first migrating colonies had established 

 themselves in a particular 'territory as a permanent re- 

 sidence, the language which they carried with them 

 would assume a peculiar and distinctive character; 

 and if some ages afterwards elapsed before it was 

 again necessary for any new colony to migrate, the par- 

 ticular language of that territory would be so complete- 

 ly formed and so firmly rooted among all the members 

 of the community, that much of it would necessarily 

 be carried along with any colonies that should afterwards 

 be sent forth, and thus would form the language of any 

 new settled territory. 



It is a fact perfectly well ascertained, that migrations 

 of whole communities in quest of new settlements were 

 common in ancient times. Each of these national co- 

 lonies, then, would bring with them their peculiar 

 speech ; so that it is not in the least wonderful, that in 

 many regions over which successive waves of popula- 

 tion passed, a language should in process of time arise, 

 composed of several of the preceding ones, blended and 



S 



amalgamated, as it were, into one common mass, and Language, 

 constructed witli peculiar characters and .idioms of its ~-y-^ 

 own. Thus, it is probable, were formed the languages 

 of ancient Greece and Italy; and thus it ft evident 

 also arose all the languages of modern Europe. 



Proceeding upon tliese grounds, we may conceive Migration! 

 the original language of the family of Noah spread in of the ori- 

 various directions; carried by one set of colonies through ginal 

 Armenia, Persia, and the adjacent territories, into all tongue, 

 the regions of the east, as far perhaps as Tartary and 

 China, and forming the groundwork of the Armenian, 

 the ancient Persian, the Sanskrit, perhaps too of the ori- 

 ginal spoken Chinese, as well as of all the languages re- 

 lated to each of them ; carried by another set into the 

 regions of Arabia, Egypt, Abyssinia, and the remote 

 parts of Africa, and there giving origin to the old Egyp- 

 tian, the Coptic, the ^Ethiopic, and their related tongues ; 

 again carried by a' third set to Scythia, or the Russian 

 territory, Asia Minor, Ionia, Greece, Italy, and gra- 

 dually through the farther parts of Europe, and there 

 constituting the radical groundwork of the old Pelas- 

 gic, the Gothic, the Celtic, and all their kindred or 

 derivative dialects. ' Among those families whose mi- 

 grations were least extensive, this primitive tongue, 

 undergoing fewest changes, would retain most of its 

 original form ; and thus it is probable, that in the 

 language of Jacob and his descendants, of the Phoeni- 

 cians, the Chaldeans, and the communities connected 

 with them, more of the primitive form and character 

 remained, than among the remoter and more widely 

 scattered tribes that spread through Africa and Eu. 

 rope. 



If these theoretical views of the filiation of tongues 

 cannot be fully and directly confirmed by the imme- 

 diate comparison of the different languages as they now 

 are found t exist, this- is not in the least to be won- 

 dered at, considering the inevitable changes many of 

 them must have undergone in their progress through 

 different countries ; but if we attentively mark the 

 precise manner in which such changes might be ex- 

 pected to operate, and make the necessary allowances 

 on that account, in comparing the apparent ground- 

 work of the languages scattered over the globe, a co- 

 incidence will be found, far- closer and more striking 

 than could at first be supposed. 



Changes in language, let it be observed, may take Causet of 

 place upon single words by a sort of caprice among change in 

 different tribes, introducing sometimes a transposition the fol ' ra 

 of letters, sometimes an insertion of letters, for the ar 

 sake of a real or fancied euphony ; sometimes a con- 

 traction or abbreviation of letters, probably for the 

 sake of dispatch ; and sometimes a reduplication of par- 

 ticular syllables, perhaps from some ideal emphasis at- 

 tached to them. Of all these occurring in the same 

 language, we have examples familiar to us, both in 

 our own vernacular tongue, and in others with which 

 we are generally conversant. But changes of this kind 

 are particularly observable in the transplantation of a 

 word from one language into another. Thus, pe^Qv in 

 Greek became forma in Latin ; from the Latin grana- 

 rium we derive our word garner ; the Celtic ros has 

 become our horse, just as, in common Scotch, the Eng. 

 lish grass is changed into garse, thirty into Ihre.ly, 

 cross into corse. Consonants of the same order, too, 

 are often interchanged ; p is used instead of b, d in- 

 stead of t, g for k. An aspirate is very frequently 

 thrown in, by which p in one language becomes <p orj' 

 in another ; d or t becomes ih, and g or c the aspirated 

 gh. In transplanting words, likewise, it is very com. 



words. 



