5 



tion of signs should be made according to a " mean " or average. There can be no 

 phihisophic consideration of signs according to a " mean " of observations. The 

 final object is to ascertain the radical or essential part as distinct from any individual 

 nourish or mannerism on the one hand, and from a conventional or accidental abbre- 

 viation on the other ; but a mere average will not accomplish this object. If the hand, 

 being in any position whatever, is, according to five observations, moved horizon- 

 tally one foot to the right, and, according to five other observations, moved one foot 

 horizontally to the left, the " mean" or resultant will be that it is stationary, which is 

 not in any way corresponding with any of the ten observations. So if six observa- 

 tions give it a rapid motion of one foot to the right and five a rapid motion of the 

 same distance to the left, the mean or resultant would l)e somewhat diflftcult to express, 

 but perhaps would be a slow movement to the right for an inch or two, having 

 certainly no resemblance either in essentials or accidents to any of the signs actually 

 observed. In like manner the tail of the written letter " y " (which, regarding its mere 

 formation, might be a grai)hic sign) may have, in the chirography of several persons, 

 various degrees of slant, may be a straight line or looped, and may be curved on either 

 side ; but a " mean " taken from several manuscripts would leave the nnfortunate letter 

 without any tail whatever, or travestied as a "m" with an amorphous fiourish. A 

 definition of the radical form of the letter or sign by which it can be distinguished 

 from any other letter or sign is a vei\v different proceeding. Therefore, if a "mean" 

 or resultant of any number of radically different signs to express the same object or 

 idea, observed either among several individuals of the same tribe or among different 

 tribes, is made to represent those signs, they are all mutilated or ignored as distinctive 

 signs, though the result may possibly be made intelligible in practice, according to 

 principles mentioned in the " Introduction to the Study of Sign Language" of the present 

 writer; and still another view nniy be added, that because a sound of broken English 

 may t)e understood by an intelligent Englishman it is no proof of that scmnd being an 

 English word or a word of any language. The adoption of a " mean" may be practi- 

 cally useful in the formation of a mere interpreter's jargon, though no one (;an use it 

 but himself or those who memorize it from him, but it elucidates no principle. It is 

 also practically convenient for any one determined to argue for the uniformity and 

 universality of sign-language as against the variety apparent in all the realms of 

 nature. On the "mean" principle, he only needs to take his two-foot rule and arith- 

 metical tables and make all signs his signs and his signs all signs. Of course they are 

 uniform, because he has made them so after the brutal example of Procrustes. 



In this connection it is proper to urge another warning, that a mere sign-talker is 

 often a bad authority u])on principles and theories. He may not be liable to the satir- 

 ical conii)liment of Dickens's " brave courier," who "understood all languages indifter- 

 ently ill " ; but many men si)eak some one language fluently, and yet are wholly unable 

 to explain or analyze its words and forms so as to teach any one else, or even to give 

 an intelligent summary or classification of their own knowledge. What such a sign- 

 talker has learned is by memorizing, as a chdd may learn English, and though both 

 the sign-talker and the child may be able to give some separate items useful to a phi- 

 lologist or foreigner, such items are spoiled when colored by the attempt of ignorance 

 to theorize. A German who has studied IDnglish to thorough mastery, excei)t in the 

 mere facility of speech, may in a discussion upon some of its principles be contradicted 

 by any mere English sjieaker, who insists upon his superior knowledge because he 

 actually speaks the language and his antagonist does not, but the student will probably 



