358 
Hebrew I do not assert ; but that it was something like the Hebrew I think 
we may fairly deduce, because of the permanence of the words Adam (Admu 
in the Assyrian), and perhaps, Eve ; and still more particularly from the 
permanence of the words, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, which, of course, have 
only their meaning in Hebrew, and these meanings are very definitely 
associated with the destinies of these great divisions of the human race. 
The Hon. Secretary. — Before the discussion commences I have to read 
the following communication from the Rev. Isaac Taylor, D.D. : — 
“ I much regret not having been able to be present at the reading of Mr. 
Brown’s very able paper on ‘ Language.’ I very sincerely congratulate you 
on having succeeded in obtaining such competent treatment of a most difficult 
subject. If I had been present I should gladly have expressed a general 
agreement with Mr. Brown’s positions, though I think, on the whole, assign- 
ing rather more importance to the theories of Geiger and Noire than he has 
done.” 
Mr. R. Gust says that the true theory of language is in its infancy, and 
alludes to the many hundred languages of Africa having “ extraordinary 
resemblances” and “ inexplicable differences,” and agreeing with each other 
in nothing ; some elaborate, others showing no power of development, some 
dying out. He adds, that a preparatory step to inquiry into the origin of 
human speech should be to frame a language-map, showing the habitat of the 
speakers of the languages and a genuine vocabulary of the language spoken.* 
Admiral E. G. Fishbourne, C.B., R.N. — We are all much indebted 
to the author of this valuable paper ; but I must confess that, in my opinion, 
if he had followed out the premises to their legitimate conclusions, he would 
have come to the result that I now venture to put before you, and which has 
already been alluded to by Mr. Howard. Adam was created, and he was 
among other things, declared to be very good ; therefore, we must assume 
that we have God’s authority for saying he was perfect in his organism and 
faculties. He was called upon by God to name the animals, and, according 
to the paper we have just heard, there is no arbitrary naming, but Adam 
recognised the specific qualities of the particular animals, and gave them 
names accordingly. Then we pass on to the confusion of language. You 
will here observe that the people were at first of one language and 
of one speech. I do not think the two words were indifferent ; I 
believe they meant two different ideas of language and speech. Language 
implies the grammatical form of the language, whereas speech was a 
* Professor Ludwig Noir6 writing to the author from Mayence, says : — 
“ Your interesting brochure has given me great pleasure. Complete under- 
standing of the weightiness of the problem, and earnest endeavour after 
truth is expressed in it.” 
Professor Sayce, of Oxford, adds, “I have been delighted with what you 
have written ; I know of no other publication in w r hich the present state of 
the question in regard to the origin of speech is presented with as much 
earning, clearness, and compactness.” 
