Fune 29, 1871] 
NATURE 
167 

The Germans, on the other hand, in teaching science, em- 
ploy their own language to a large extent, and impose a 
definite scientific meaning upon common words. It is are- 
markable evidence of the formative power of the German 
language, that it should have been able to produce an imi- 
tation of the systematic chemical nomenclature of the 
French school so complete that it is used in Germany as 
familiarly as the original system is in France and England. 
The fact that the most cultivated nation in the world, the 
Germans, find that they can teach science in their verna- 
cular, deserves the most careful consideration—it seems to 
furnish at once an argument and an example. 
In discussing this question, it is necessary to examine 
the capabilities of the English language with reference to 
the purposes of public instruction, but in the first instance 
we may glance at the development of scientific language 
in some of the countries of Europe during the last three 
hundred years. 
When the progress of science rendered it necessary to 
employ new terms in order to express new ideas, two diffe- 
rent methods were adopted by different nations, Let us 
compare the French and English with the German and 
Dutch method. When, for instance, the French wanted 
to express in one word the “ knowledge of the stars” or 
the “ study of the stars,” they borrowed the Greek word 
astronomia, and called it astronomze. In like manner the 
English said astronomy but the Germans expressed 
the meaning of the term in their own language, calling it 
Strn-kunde or “star-knowledge ;” similarly the Dutch 
said Starvre-kunde, and they have continued using such 
words to the present day. 
In English, then, it has been the custom to take Latin 
or Greek compounds ready made, although in many in- 
stances we might have translated them if we had chosen 
to do so. If we look to the literal meaning, the original 
difference between sfhere, globe, and da// is that the first 
is Greek, the second Latin, and the third Saxon. So the 
Germans call a hemi-sphere a “half-ball,” and the g/ode 
upon which we live the “ earth-ball.” 
Now if, in any language, the compound words are, to a 
great extent, derived from other tongues, such words will 
be comparatively unintelligible to those who are not con- 
versant with foreign languages. In such a case, the 
common people wiil learn the words rather by practice 
and association than by any exact knowledge of the 
original meaning; and to the same degree the learned 
must enjoy a privilege which the illiterate do not possess. 
Hence there is, in English, a broad distinction between 
the speech of the general public and the language of 
science. 
Suppose that a working man, in this country, wishes to 
study Botany, he cannot read one of the ordinary works 
on that subject, without having his attention distracted by 
scores of new words which are either Latin or Greek, or 
else are derived from those languages. Thus he is often 
disheartened ; or, if he succeeds, it is a long time before 
he overcomes the check which he experienced at the 
outset, and many a likely student is thus discouraged at 
the very threshold of his studies. 
But the German writers, when they make books for 
their people, proceed upon a different plan. For if they 
give the Latin and Greek terms, it is only in brackets, 
and by way of parenthesis ; while inthe body of the work 
they use plain German words, and keep on employing 
such terms throughout the whole work. Hence, at the 
first reading, a German youth may go straight on, without 
paying attention to the Latin terms, and so make himself 
master of the facts. Afterwards, at a second or third 
reading, he may study the learned terms, which are re- 
peated in brackets, from time to time, in order to catch 
the eye of the reader, and thus imprint themselves upon 
his memory. 
For instance, in describing the parts of a flower, the 
writer does not begin by talking about a “calyx,” but 

speaks of the cwf (calyx), and calls the leaves of the cup 
cup-leaves (sepals). Similarly, the “corolla” is the crown, 
and its leaves are crown-/eaves (petals). Thus, when he 
wishes to tell the learner that a crows (corolla) has 
several leaves, he does not tell him that the “corolla is 
polypetalous,” but that the “crown is many-leaved,” or 
that the “ crown-leaves are many.” 
There is a danger that some of the terms thus employed 
may not be quite accurate. But the Germans are willing 
to risk the chance of misapprehension for the sake of 
making an impression on the mind of the reader, and 
gaining his attention. If then, half a loaf is better than 
no bread, it seems more advisable that an unlettered man 
who wishes to study science, should go through a book 
which is intelligible, though not absolutely accurate, rather 
than attempt to read a treatise which is admirably cor- 
rect, but so full of hard words, that he is tempted at every 
line to throw down the book in despair. 
We have to consider whether such a method can be 
carried out in English, There can be no doubt that the 
public would welcome:any proposal for the publication of 
elementary scientific works written in a simple style. 
Some steps have already been taken in this direction, and 
scientific writers appear to be cautiously feeling their way. 
But the plan has not been carried out systematically or 
boldly, nor has the language of science been fully 
examined in reference to popular instruction. 
Nor are scientific men entirely convinced that the pro- 
posed simplification is practicable, or even desirable. 
Some of them deny that the English language is equal to 
the task, because we have lost that power of making com- 
pound words which confessedly existed in Old English, 
and which still exists in German. Others contend that 
even in German the method is characterised by want of 
precision, and gives rise to confusion ; hence they main- 
tain that it is better to frame the scientific terms in words 
which are not familiar to the common ear, in order to 
ensure precision and to guard against error. 
But in arguing this question two points may be ob- 
served. First—That men of high attainments are less 
averse to the proposed method than men of inferior 
ability. Secondly—That all are more disposed to see it 
tried in some other science than in the one which they 
themselves profess. The grammarian, or the mathema- 
tician would not greatly object to a plan for simplifying 
Botany ; “for that,” they say, “is a science of hard 
names.” But the botanist replies, “ No, you must not 
touch Botany ; suppose you were to try Mathematics.” 
The argument cuts both ways. It is evident that each 
acknowledges the value of fixed technical terms in his 
own science, and yet is not unwilling to see a simplifi- 
cation introduced in other branches of study. 
The objections urged against the proposed method are 
of two kinds :—(1) that the system itself is misleading, 
and the method inaccurate ; (2) that even if the plan be 
practicable in German it is not possible in English. 
We shall, in the next article, review these objections in 
their order, 
WM. RUSHTON 

= es 

NOTES 
WE are glad to learn that steps are being taken to bring about 
such a general application from men of science to the Govern- 
ment for further deep-sea explorations as we referred to some 
little time ago. This is as it should be. We hear also, that, 
on the invitation of some of the leaders of science there, Mr. 
Gwyn Jeffreys will proceed to America in the middle of August, 
to inspect, in company with Prof. Agassiz, the collections obtained 
in the American dredgings. Such a proceeding will be of the 
utmost value to science, and no one is more fitted than Mr. Gwyn 
Jeffreys to perform such an important work. 
