100 



KTriNOLOOT OF THE INDO-PAGIFIO JSLANDa. 



ifouble words. But when au oUjcet lias acquired ideal indiviiJiiali- 

 ty its iisiine tendB to become a specific coiiveuiioiial one. Ifg 

 etymologieiil meanin^j becomes first obscure and then disappea'-f'. 

 Hence any change? in the iiiimc, however induced, bas tlie effert 

 of giving it ft conventional individuality, and of obtiicrtiting the 

 sense of ibe anciunt conneclion with otbur applications of the same 

 root. For ex{«n][)t{>, if the lluir, Face, Mouth and Nose were 

 originally designated by the single root for Head, the disliiiciioiis 

 being indicated by variations in the accessory definitives or qn»»fi- 

 lives, these compounds might concrele into words the coiniection 

 of which was no longer felt, and in the gradual plionetic change to 

 which vocables are liable ifte root itself in ench of its ajipliealions 

 might acr^nirc pecniiiii'ines of foi-in. By the drojjping of the defi- 

 nitives or qualiiivca the bare root might come to be used as a 

 distinct word in each of its acquirud forms. Tl»e most comtnon 

 cause of the limitation of a root or of parlicular forms of a root to 

 one of several meanings, or to one par£ of the object it originally 

 described, has been the acquisition of distinct names for some of 

 the other meanings or paits, cither in 1 he internal progress of the 

 dialect or from the influence of another dialect or language. The 

 separation of languages into sevej'al dialects has been th ' chief 

 cause of the niuttiptication of sprcific eonventioiial appliea- 

 tions of the same root, and the mutual influence of tfjcse dialects 

 appears to have been the principal reason why we find in a 

 single vocabulary the same root current in different forms 

 and with a differtnt meaning for eacb. 



The glossarial variation and complexitj^ are greatly bcigbtencd 

 by the circumstance of the same object bavin;^ often received 

 several names. The progress of language would tend to give to 

 each a limited conventional application. One of the words for Head 

 might be restricted to Head, a second to Hair, a third to Skidl, 

 a fourth to Face, a fifth to Eye &,e. Each of the dialects formed 

 before this change began might appropriate a diflercnt name to 

 several of these objects, so that the same word might signify Head 

 in one, Skull in a second, Face in a third and so on. As the roots 

 would frequently undergo phonetic changes, subsequent intercourse 

 between the ti-ibes speaking these dialects might lead to a vocabu 

 lary which had retained one of the ancient roots with a particular 



