368 



SCIENCE, 



[Vol. VI., No. 142. 



phonetically similar forms, because it was felt 

 to be significant ; Brugmann replies that the pro- 

 cesses of phonetic change are unconscious, quite 

 ignoring the meaning of sounds, as, in fact, 

 we often find that phonetic decay removes let- 

 ters that we know to have been originally signifi- 

 cant. 



The second principle discussed by Curtius, an- 

 alogy, is one the influence of which has always 

 been more or less acknowledged by writers on 

 language; but it has usually been regarded as a 

 secondary and sporadic force, leading (as the current 

 expression ' false analogy ' indicates) to malforma- 

 tion and confusion. The new school holds, on the 

 contrary, that analogy is a natural, universally 

 active force, equally prominent in the processes of 

 forming and of learning languages. In our ordi- 

 nary speaking, words present themselves to us in 

 groups, and a new word is assigned to its most 

 natural group, and treated accordingly. " The 

 action of groups is, along with phonetic change, 

 at least in our observation of accessible periods, 

 the most important factor in the development of 

 language " (Paul). A familiar example in English 

 is the tendency to convert strong preterites into 

 weak, as 'crowed' instead of the old 'crew.' The 

 analogic process, being thus assimilative, acts in 

 opposition to the differentiating influence of jdIio- 

 netic change, which more commonly tends to de- 

 stroy the similarity between words. The younger 

 philologists call in the principle of analogy to ac- 

 count for a number of phonetic phenomena, wliich 

 the older generation of scholars either treated as 

 unintelligible anomalies or endeavored to explain 

 by referring them to the desire to retain significant 

 letters, etc. Curtius objects to this wide extension 

 of the principle, on the ground that its employment 

 is arbitrary, and that it rests on no better basis 

 ■ than the admitted usage of modern languages. 

 Brugmann rejoins that there is no reason to sup- 

 pose a difference in this respect between ancient 

 and modern languages ; and Delbriick, in his 

 ' Emleitimg in das sprachstudium,' endeavors to 

 define the character of analogical change. 



The third and fourth points of Brugmann's reply 

 to Curtius relate to questions of Indo-Germanic 

 grammar, such as whether the primitive Indo- 

 Germanic language had not only the vowels a, i, u, 

 as the older school holds, but also e, o, together with 

 diplithongs and sonant nasals and liquids, and 

 what the origin of the inflections was. Brugmann 

 remarks that the new philology does not abso- 

 lutely avoid all glottogonic or morphogonic prob- 

 lems, but only those in which there are clearly 

 not sufficient data for a solution ; and whether it 

 is worth while to attack any given problem, each 

 man must decide for liimself. Finally, in the 



third piece of his pamphlet, Brugmann replies to 

 some points made by Johannes Schmidt. 



The new philological school may be said to 

 represent a more rigid adherence to law in the 

 treatment of linquistic questions. While grate- 

 fully acknowledging the eminent services rendered 

 to the science of language by Bopp, Grimm, Pott, 

 Benfey, Schleicher, Curtius, and others, it claims 

 to carry out more consistently the principles they 

 lay down, and to fill in part the gaps they left. 



C. H. Toy. 



CHEMICAL NOMENCLATURE. 



A COMMITTEE of fourteen chemists, including 

 such eminent men as WiUiamson, Frankland, 

 Crum Brown, Odling, and Armstrong, presented 

 then- third report on chemical nomenclature to the 

 British association at the Aberdeen meeting. This 

 committee was entrusted with the duty of "draw- 

 ing U13 a statement of the varieties of chemical 

 names which have come into use, and of indicat- 

 ing the causes which led to their adoption, as well 

 as considering what can be done to bring about 

 some convergence of the views on chemical 

 nomenclature obtaining among English and for- 

 eign chemists." 



This weighty committee produce, as might be 

 expected, an eminently conservative report ; they 

 regard as ill advised any attempt, on etymological 

 gi-ounds, to change a system so firmly established 

 as that involved in the present use of the prefixes 

 hypo and hyper. 



After confirming the terminations ic and ous, 

 the committee considers the minor question how 

 far the termination ous ought to be written in the 

 forms ious and eous. The answer is: as seldom as 

 possible ; cupreous has given way to cuprous, and 

 'ruthenious' and 'iridious' should also lose the 

 superfluous i. 



In answer to the question whether the termina- 

 tion ic should be employed in the names of salts 

 of which only one class is known — as magnesic 

 sulphate instead of magnesium sulphate, the com- 

 mittee says : "There is something to be claimed for 

 both systems ; and, as the diversity of practice does 

 not lead to confusion, the question need not be 

 regarded as vital." In om' opinion, the committee 

 might have exerted their influence to suppress the 

 use of the unmeaning and often non-euphonious 

 termination ic. Such terms as 'zincic' and 

 ' nickelic ' offend the ears of hearers ; * scandic ' 

 and ' ytterbic ' would be unwelcome. 



The committee calls attention to the advantage 

 of affixmg the syllable ic to the names of positive 

 radicals in ethereal salts. The ambiguity arising 

 in speaking ethyl phenylacetate, which might be 

 taken for ethylphenyl acetate, can be obviated by 



