LANGUAGE. 



583 



Lfii;c. raon for one people to add, Mid another to take away, 

 s ""~i'"^*' the peculiar terminations which characterise different 

 tongues. The Latin rrgnum became reign in English, 

 ear/urn, del, in French ; Ultrojtcium was made Utrecht ; 

 noiK/iu became ii;e French ;oiW*; ifrmo, on the other 

 hand, t>ecame sermon, oralio, oration, and so of others. 

 Nor is it only in regard to sound and form, that va- 

 riations ensue in tran-planting words; alterations slight- 

 er t tirt, but afterwards remarkable, often take place 

 in their meaning and application. A part of a thing 

 comes to be used for the whole ; the genus becomes 

 the specie* ; proper names become appellatives ; the 

 instrument and cause are substituted for the effect ; the 

 ign for the thing signified, and the thing containing 

 -.16 thing contained. New combinations are often 

 formed from change of circum-tances, by which one 

 part of the meaning of a word only is retained, but 

 much of the original idea forgotten. 



In these, and miny other ways, words may change 

 sometimes their form, and sometimes their application, 

 in pacing from one people to another ; yet, upon pro- 

 per attention, their- radical identity will be percepti- 

 ble. In the investigation of radicals, therefore, it would 

 be proper first to begin by throwing off the prepositive 

 panicles and idiomatic terminations, retaining only 

 what may be termed the matrix of the word ; next, to 

 compare together the corresponding word in different 

 languages, marking the distinctive genius of each, and 

 thus gradually to proceed from one to another, as along 

 the links of a continued chain, till the remoter relations 

 become apparent. We are at liberty also to consider 

 letters of the same organ as commutable, labials with 

 labials, gutturals with guttural-, dentals with dentals, 

 and palatines with palatines ; all nations have assumed 

 the liberty of such cltanges in the comparison of tongues, 

 therefor* these are invariably to be looked for. 



Keeping these general principles in view, it will be 

 obvious that affinities, and clote affinities too, may be 

 found, where none could at first have been suspected. 

 That our term jaunty i from the Latin dies, might 

 at first seem absurd ; but by observing that from 

 diet comes diurnut, from that the Italian ginrno, the 

 French jour uuljournet, we are at once led to the source 

 of ourjounry. Bnkop seems little related to riiiscojms ; 

 but when we find that the word was anciently biicop, 

 anil that a and b are consonants of the same organ, the 

 identity becomes evident. 



I f, then, we wish to attempt the discovery of the ra- 

 dical identity of languages, we must be prepared to 

 meet with, and to make the necessary allowances for, 

 multiplied changes in the modes we have enumerated ; 

 and if these necessary allowances are made, the filia- 

 tions of language often present a curious and interest- 

 ing subject of contemplation. The subject, however, 

 is too extensive to be fully taken up in such a work as 

 this , a few remarks only on some of those languages 

 which are best known to us may be introduced. 



Of the ancient languages of which any knowledge 

 remains, the Hebrew Certainly claims the first place, 

 on account of its undoubted antiquity, its peculiar 

 structure, and the strong claims it seems to have to be 

 considered as either the same with, or at least the im- 

 mediate descendant of the primitive tongue. It is a 

 language much admired by those who understand it, 

 and mutt ever be of high importance as the original 

 vehicle of the revelation of the divine will to roan. In 

 it the cases of nouns are denoted by prepositions pre- 

 fixed ; the tenses of the verbs are three the past, pre- 

 sent, and future, formed by certain additions to the root, 

 and, properly speaking, it has but one conjugation. 



f 

 Hebrew. 



It is regularly formed from roots within itself, and these Languaga 

 roots are for the most part monosyllabic, consisting ^~"Y"~ " / 

 generally of three letters, sometimes but rarely of 

 four. 



That this language was in fact the same with the 

 Phoenician, and other languages spoken through Pales- 

 tine and the neighbouring countries, in the earlier 

 times, as far at least as Syria, Mesopotamia, and Chal- 

 dea, seems pretty generally admitted. Of the other 

 early languages, the ancient Persian, the Egyptian, 

 and the Scythian, we know so very little, that it would 

 be hazardous to say more, than that their relation to 

 the Hebrew admits of little doubt. In spreading to 

 the westward through Asia Minor into Greece, this 

 ancient language transplanted by the Phoeniciansbecame, 

 through the medium of the old Pelasic, the parent of 

 the Greek. 



The Greek language is too well known to require Greek 

 any particular illustration. Its copiousness, elegance, 

 and force, have been the subject of universal panegy- 

 ric. The Greek language was evidently first brought 

 in a rude state from Phoenicia into Greece and the Gre- 

 cian islands ; its most ancient dialect, the JEMc, the 

 parent of the Doric, exhibits probably the earliest form 

 in which it appeared in its new soil. Transplanted in- 

 to Ionia, it assumed a softer aspect, suited to the dis- 

 position of a poetical and musical people. Carried on- 

 wards to Attica, it became the language of business 

 and active life in an enterprising, commercial, and 

 at the same time an intelligent and polished nation. 

 There, aceordingly, as we find in the Attic dialect, it 

 was subjected to abbreviations and contractions, adapt- 

 ed for dispatch, but, at the same time, regulated on 

 the truest principles of elegance and taste. Though 

 the (ireek language is justly regarded as forming its 

 words from roots within itself, and has accordingly 

 been distinctly analysed into its radical primitives, yet 

 these very primitives exhibit so full a resemblance to 

 corresponding roots in Hebrew, that the identity of 

 origin cannot be doubted. Th duration of the Greek 

 language from Homer down to the times of the Lower 

 Empire, exceeds that of most other languages ; and 

 even yet, although much corrupted, it holds its place 

 in the countries where it once was fixed. 



From the earlier Greek proceeded the Latin, which Latin. 

 is in fact little else than the /V.olic Greek, with a mix- 

 ture probably of some Etruscan and Sabine, and per- 

 haps some German and Gaulic words gradually receiv- 

 ed from the neighbouring countries. 



While these languages we have mentioned were thus Gothic and 

 formed in early times, it is probable that the founda- Celtic. 

 tions of the Gothic and the Celtic were also laid. How 

 far back, however, we are to date the first formation 

 of these languages, and in what order they spread 

 through the northern and western countries of Europe, 

 has been a subject of controversy, agitated with a keen- 

 ness rather disproportioned to the importance of the 

 subject. Both of them appear evidently to have been 

 brought, at a remote period, from the regions border- 

 ing on the Caspian and Euxine Seas, by colonies pass- 

 ing northward and westward in quest of a settlement. . 

 It is not improbable, that at first the two languages 

 were not very dissimilar ; and even yet many resem- 

 blances in their structure may be traced. The Gothic 

 spread through the north of Europe, and was evident- 

 ly the parent of the Danish, the Swedish, the German, 

 and the ancient Saxon. Of one branch of the Gothic 

 tongue, the Mceso-Gotfiic, we have a valuable fragment 

 in the translation of the Gospels by Ulphilas, written 

 so early as the fourth century ; which, although only 



