170 
were to attempt to describe any object by some inherent quality which it pos- 
sessed, we should find it the most difficult thing imaginable. W e fancy sometimes 
that words are thus expressive of ideas by their sound ; but that is mostly 
imaginative. If we take, for instance, the words “ rush ” and “ crush,” — the 
one signifying rapid motion, and the other arrested motion — which are almost 
quite opposite in idea ; yet they both appear perfectly expressive, merely 
because, through the association of ideas, we are accustomed to connect the 
meanings of the words with their sound, and so we think that they are 
expressive. Again, bearing upon the question of change of dialect, we must 
all have observed what a difference exists amongst ourselves with regard to 
the pronunciation of the English language. If you go down to Whitechapel, 
you will not find the same dialect there as you will find in Belgrave Square. 
Language, as it were, develops and grows naturally, and as it grows it some- 
times also tends to corrupt in its growth. The only thing which preserves it 
from more rapid alterations now, as formerly, is that it is written. In 
former days, when men had not the facilities for writing which they now so 
commonly possess, and when they wrote on stones or on tablets of wax, and 
when a still greater majority of the people than now were necessarily illiterate, 
language must have degenerated or altered very rapidly ; and thus would be 
originated that great diversity of speech among mankind which we are now 
trying to account for. But, if anything is clear from the numerous philological 
differences and theories of language that exist, it is this, — namely, that there 
has been a “confusion of tongues” in the world. Ido not think we can 
want any more absolute proof than we already have to be convinced of this. 
Professor Byrne. — There is one principle in the law of Confucius which 
ought to be mentioned. He taught the Chinese that they should give atten- 
tion to things and not to words. It is a part of their religious duty to carry 
out this principle. 
Mr. Reddie. — I fancy they must have been very unsuccessful in doing 
so, for they have more words than any other nation in the world. (Laughter.) 
Mr. Warington. — I wish to state that in the observations which I made I 
was not criticising the paper ; I was rather praising the author for not using 
an argument which he might have used. 
The Chairman. — I may say that I did not understand the observations 
of Mr. Warington as criticisms upon the paper. I rather thought that he 
was calling attention to an argument which might have been used, but was 
not used by Dr. Thornton. I think the arguments in the paper have been 
very ably sustained in the discussion ; and the views advanced by the 
author have been supported by the very interesting fact which has been 
mentioned by Captain Fishbourne with respect to the Chinese language. 
The variety of language spoken in China affords a remarkable confirmation of 
what Dr. Thornton has been maintaining in his paper. There is this re- 
markable distinction between the Chinese and every other language, it is 
a language of ideographic symbols ; all other languages are phonetic. The 
symbols used by the Chinese do not represent sounds ; they represent things, 
as was stated by Professor Byrne. It is a very remarkable fact, that in a 
