171 
nation like China, which is a yery exclusive nation, and a nation possessing 
the power of writing, you need not travel out of it to look for an illustration 
of all the arguments which have been maintained in Dr. Thornton’s paper. 
If you take one of the northern provinces in China, and compare the dialect 
spoken there with that spoken in one of the southern provinces 
Captain Fishbourne. — You might take the adjoining provinces. 
The Chairman. — You will find that if, as Captain Fishbourne states, you 
compare the dialects even of the adjoining provinces, the diversity between 
them is so great that the inhabitants cannot understand each other ; yet they 
have no difficulty in communicating their thoughts in writing. It is also to 
be remembered that we possess exactly the same kind of thing in the language 
of our arithmetical calculations. If we write down an arithmetical calcula- 
tion, or an equation in algebra, it can be read by a man in France or Germany 
who knows nothing about our language ; and thus mathematicians write 
down their symbols, and can communicate their ideas, though they may not 
be able to speak the same language. With regard to the observations of Mr. 
Warington, I differ from him in thinking that Dr. Thornton has neglected 
the comparison of the different grammars as well as the words of languages, 
though I don’t think so much can be made out of the argument from gram- 
mar. Nothing can be more unsettled than the grammar of our own language, 
I know some who state that we have no grammar at all ; such is the delight- 
ful position in which we are placed. It must have been observed by every 
one, that our language has degenerated from the complex grammar of its 
supposed parent language. At any rate we have lost almost all our inflexions, 
and have nearly arrived again at what some might think the more primitive 
style of language. 
Rev. Dr. Thornton. — Allow me to say, before I allude to the remarks 
which have been made on my paper, that I thank you most heartily for the 
vote of thanks which you have passed to me. I can assure you that I had 
great pleasure in preparing the paper, and that pleasure has been very 
much enhanced by hearing the many valuable observations which it has 
called forth. With reference to the observations of Dr. Tregelles, they were 
so favourable, that any remark upon them would be presumptuous on my 
part ; nor was there anything in those of Mr. Warington which calls for any 
particular remark ; I think he appreciated my arguments very fairly. I 
argued that, putting Scripture entirely out of the question, there is no reason 
to believe, from the study of man’s speech, that what we find stated historically 
in the Scripture is not true, or that it disagrees with the conclusions which we 
fairly derive from the facts obtained from other sources. Of course it is im- 
possible to invent a theory which will square with facts in every particular, 
and my argument was that the apparent probability inclined in favour of 
Scripture. It is perfectly true that suffixes and prefixes are originally separate 
words attached to the inflected word, as, for instance, the verb “ have ” may 
be clearly traced as a suffix in the futures and conditionals of Romance verbs ; 
and the use of these attachments in so many different families of languages 
is a proof of their common origin. The choice of prefix by one family and of 
