THE EVOLUTION OF LANGUAGE. 171 



coined from time to time. Both these methods— the 

 habit of generalizing unconsciouslj^ from single terms, 

 and the trick of coining new words in a Avholly con- 

 ventional way— are still continually employed by sav- 

 ages as well as by children. Thus, to take an example 

 of the first, Mr. John Moir, one of the earliest white 

 men to settle in East Central Africa, was at once 

 named by the natives Mandala, which means " a re- 

 flection in still water," because he wore on his eyes 

 what looked to them a still water (spectacles). After- 

 wards they came to call not only Mr. Moir by that 

 name, but spectacles, and finally— when it entered 

 the country— glass itself. Examples of generalization 

 among children abound in every nursery. A child is 

 taken to the window by his nurse to see the moon. 

 The easy monosyllable is caught up at once, and for 

 some time the child applies it indiscriminately to any- 

 thing bright or shining— the gas, the candle, the fire- 

 light are each " the moon." Mr. Romanes records a 

 case where a child made a similar use of the word star 

 —the gas, the candle, the firelight were each " a star." 

 If the makers of Language proceeded on this principle, 

 no wonder the philologist has riddles to read. How 

 often must the savage children of the world have 

 started off naming things from two such different 

 points ? Mr. Romanes mentions a still more elaborate 

 example which was furnished him by Mr. Darwin : 

 " The child, who was just beginning to speak, called a 

 duck ' quack,' and, by special association, it also called 

 water ' quack.' By an appreciation of the resemblance 

 of quahties, it next extended the term 'quack' to 

 denote all birds and insects on the one hand, and all 

 fluid substances on the other. Lastly, by a still more 



