Summary of the Results deducible from the previous Sections. The Changes which have occurred in the English, Scandinavian, and Celtic Languages, sufficient to account for the Differences among all Human Tongues. Causes which give rise to the Abandonment and specific Appropriation of Synonymes. Total Differences of Grammatical Forms no Proof of a fundamental Difference of Language. The Relation which the Languages of one Continent, viewed in the aggregate, bear to the individual Languages of such Continent, the same as that which the ancient Scandinavian bears to its derivative Dialects, &c. Incipient Changes in the Language of Australia.The facts developed in the previous Sections obviously present a satisfactory solution of the problem suggested at page 25, viz., whence it has come to pass that languages almost totally different in their present composition could have sprung from one original Tongue? That existing languages have sprung from one source is a proposition of which the proofs have been explained in the same Chapter in which this problem has been suggested. (See Chap. I.)In the preceding Sections it has been shown, agreeably to the statement contained in Section I., that Languages are exposed to two prominent causes of change; viz., the abandonment by different branches of the same race—1, of different Synonymes; 2, of different meanings of the same Synonyme.From the facts Historically proved in the previous Sections it will be found to be an indisputable truth, that—assuming their operation to be continued for an adequate period of time,—these[pg 088]two causes are calculated to produce, from one parent Tongue, languages of which the differences are apparently fundamental. For example, if the differences between the Gothic and Celtic languages noticed at page28,—languages which differ almost totally,—are compared with those which have been proved to have arisen in the last nine hundred years among the various branches of the Scandinavian and the Celtic, it will be seen at once that the latter are of precisely the same nature as the former. The only distinction is that they are fewer in point of number! But on the other hand, it is certain that the same causes of change—acting at the same rate during a previous period of treble that length of time—might have produced between two branches of a common original speech differences equally numerous with those which the Gothic and Celtic exhibit; in other words, differences sufficiently extensive almost entirely to exclude all vestiges of original unity!But it must be added, that it would be highly erroneous to infer that the rate of change previous to the commencement of the Historical period was the same as it has been since; it must have been much more rapid! Changes of this nature are prompted by the dictates of convenience, which suggest the extinction of superfluous words, and the appropriation of the remainder to distinct though kindred purposes; names for“Water, Rivers, the Sea,”for example, were doubtless in the first instance applied indifferently to all these objects. Now, inasmuch as languages are more redundant in their earlier than they are in their later stages, it is apparent that these changes, of which this redundant character is the source, must be more rapid.This explanation would fully account for the diversity of structure evinced by the Gothic and Celtic Tongues, which probably differ as widely as any languages of the globe, without referring the commencement of their separation to a[pg 089]more remote date than would be quite consistent with received systems of Chronology. That the Celtic and Gothic were originally one speech, and that the differences which they now display have arisen in this manner, will be evident from Section II. (page26,) combined with the facts developed in the other Sections of this Chapter.Difference of Grammatical forms has been supposed to afford proof of a fundamental difference of language. A comparison of those of the languages previously noticed will show this to be a highly erroneous conclusion! The Welsh and Irish differ most widely in their grammars, though the general resemblance of these languages proves their original identity. The German and English also differ very widely, the majority of the Pronouns being unlike. Again, even the modern and the provincial English have different Auxiliary Verbs, &c. &c. These are results of the same principle, viz., the tendency to abandon, or appropriate differently, the various elements of a common parent speech.Moreover since Pronouns, which are the principal basis of Grammar, are merely different Synonymes for“Man,”or a“Human Being”(see page13), appropriated to different Persons, the supposition that kindred nations may be expected in all cases to use the same grammatical forms is founded on the gratuitous and highly unreasonable assumption, that the process of appropriating these various Nouns to different Persons must have been complete at a very early period, before the separation of the Human Race into distinct Tribes!But though the rejection of superfluous Synonymes, and the specific appropriation of the remainder are results of the dictates of convenience, the selection of the particular synonymes which are retained, and the particular mode of application, are results dependent on individual caprice and idiosyncracy. Hence we find, as has been shown in previous[pg 090]Sections, the various branches of the same race adopt and abandon different terms. This feature, which has been traced in the Historical progress of languages, completely explains the phenomenon especially noticed at the close of the First Chapter, viz., the positive identity which we find on the one hand, when the languages of the different Continents are compared in the aggregate, combined on the other with a difference nearly total among individual languages, occurring, in many cases, among the languages of contiguous nations of the same Continent. In each separate tribe there is a tendency to abandon part of the parent speech, but as different tribes generally abandon different parts, probably no portion of the original tongue is lost! Its component parts are dispersed, and not destroyed! There is a complete and perfect analogy between the relation which will be found to prevail between the languages of each continent viewed in the aggregate as one original Tongue—compared with the individual existing languages of the same continent—and the relation shown in the previous Sections to prevail between the ancient“Danska Tunge”and its derivative Scandinavian Tongues—between the Anglo-Saxon and the modern English Dialects—between the ancient Celtic and the modern Welsh and Irish!A recent work on Australia, by Colonel Grey, furnishes an account of the language of that country, so strikingly corroborative of the views developed above with respect to the origin of the various languages of the other four great Divisions of the Globe, that I have been induced especially to advert to Colonel Grey's statement in this Section.“The arguments which prove that all the Australian dialects have a common root, are:“1st. A general similarity of sound, and structure of words, in the different portions of Australia, as far as yet ascertained.[pg 091]“2d. The recurrence of the same word with the same signification; to be traced, in many instances, round the entire continent, but undergoing, of course, in so vast an extent of country, various modifications.“3d. The same names of natives occurring frequently at totally opposite portions of the continent. Now, in all parts of it which are known to Europeans, it is ascertained that the natives name their children from any remarkable circumstance which may occur soon after their birth; such being the case, an accordance of the names of natives is a proof of a similarity of dialect.“The chief cause of the misapprehension which has so long existed with regard to the point under consideration is that the language of the aborigines of Australiaabounds in synonymes, many of which are,for a time, altogetherlocal; so that, for instance, the inhabitants of a particular district will use one word forwater,85while those of a neighbouring district willapply another, which appears to be a totally different one. But when I found out that in such instances as these both tribesunderstood the words which either made use of, and merely employed another one, fromtemporary fashion and caprice, I felt convinced that the language generally spoken to Europeans by the natives of anyone small districtcould not be considered as a fair specimen of the general language of that part of Australia, and therefore in the vocabulary which I compiled in Western Australia, I introduced words collected froma very extensive tract of country.“Again, in getting the names of the parts of the body, &c. from the natives, many causes of error arise, for they have[pg 092]names for almost every minute portion of the human frame: thus, in asking the name for thearm, one stranger would get the name for theupper arm, another for thelower arm, another for the right arm, another for the left arm, &c.; and it therefore seems most probable that in the earlier stages of the inquiry into the nature of the language of this people, these circumstances contributed mainly to the erroneous conclusion, that languages radically different were spoken in remote parts of the continent.“One singularity in the dialects spoken by the aborigines in different portions of Australia is, that those of districtswidely removed from one anothersometimes assimilatevery closely, whilst the dialects spoken in the intermediate onesdiffer considerably from either of them. The same circumstances take place with regard to their rites and customs; but as this appears rather to belong to the question of the means by which this race was distributed over so extensive a tract of country, I will not now enter into it, but merely adduce sufficient evidence to prove that a language radically the same is spoken over the whole continent.“If, then, we start from Perth, in Western Australia, following the coast in a southerly direction, it will be found that between Perth and King George's Sound a common language is spoken, made up of several dialects, scarcely differing from one another in any material points, and gradually merging into the dialects of these two places, as the two points considered are nearer to one or the other.“The word for the Sun at Perth isNganga, whilst at Adelaide it isTin-dee; but the word used by the natives at Encounter Bay, South Australia, thirty-six miles from Adelaide, isNgon-ge, and the word used in the southern districts of Western Australia for the Stars isTiendee;[pg 093]thus, by extending the vocabularies of the two places, the identity of the language is shown.”86The reader who by a perusal of the previous Sections has learned how rapid are the changes which languages undergo, will not merely conclude, with Colonel Grey, that the population of Australia must be descendants of one Sept, but he will conclude also that the first colonization of that continent must be referred to a comparatively recent date. Australia is nearly as large as the Continent of Europe, and yet we find one language prevail over the whole of its extensive surface! It may be inferred with certainty, from the changes which one thousand years have produced in the European languages, that this fact makes it probable that the date of the origin of the Australian tribes must have been comparatively recent,—makes it impossible that it can have been remote!In relation more immediately to the conclusions developed in this Section, it remains to be noticed that the trifling incipient differences of dialect in the language of Australia, as described by Colonel Grey, afford a vivid picture of the first phases of that process which, during the course of a series of ages, has given rise to the different languages of the four great Continents of Asia, Europe, Africa, and America!But how are we to account for the origin of these numerous synonymous terms which abound in all, especially in ancient, languages?This subject will be discussed in the next Chapter.
Summary of the Results deducible from the previous Sections. The Changes which have occurred in the English, Scandinavian, and Celtic Languages, sufficient to account for the Differences among all Human Tongues. Causes which give rise to the Abandonment and specific Appropriation of Synonymes. Total Differences of Grammatical Forms no Proof of a fundamental Difference of Language. The Relation which the Languages of one Continent, viewed in the aggregate, bear to the individual Languages of such Continent, the same as that which the ancient Scandinavian bears to its derivative Dialects, &c. Incipient Changes in the Language of Australia.The facts developed in the previous Sections obviously present a satisfactory solution of the problem suggested at page 25, viz., whence it has come to pass that languages almost totally different in their present composition could have sprung from one original Tongue? That existing languages have sprung from one source is a proposition of which the proofs have been explained in the same Chapter in which this problem has been suggested. (See Chap. I.)In the preceding Sections it has been shown, agreeably to the statement contained in Section I., that Languages are exposed to two prominent causes of change; viz., the abandonment by different branches of the same race—1, of different Synonymes; 2, of different meanings of the same Synonyme.From the facts Historically proved in the previous Sections it will be found to be an indisputable truth, that—assuming their operation to be continued for an adequate period of time,—these[pg 088]two causes are calculated to produce, from one parent Tongue, languages of which the differences are apparently fundamental. For example, if the differences between the Gothic and Celtic languages noticed at page28,—languages which differ almost totally,—are compared with those which have been proved to have arisen in the last nine hundred years among the various branches of the Scandinavian and the Celtic, it will be seen at once that the latter are of precisely the same nature as the former. The only distinction is that they are fewer in point of number! But on the other hand, it is certain that the same causes of change—acting at the same rate during a previous period of treble that length of time—might have produced between two branches of a common original speech differences equally numerous with those which the Gothic and Celtic exhibit; in other words, differences sufficiently extensive almost entirely to exclude all vestiges of original unity!But it must be added, that it would be highly erroneous to infer that the rate of change previous to the commencement of the Historical period was the same as it has been since; it must have been much more rapid! Changes of this nature are prompted by the dictates of convenience, which suggest the extinction of superfluous words, and the appropriation of the remainder to distinct though kindred purposes; names for“Water, Rivers, the Sea,”for example, were doubtless in the first instance applied indifferently to all these objects. Now, inasmuch as languages are more redundant in their earlier than they are in their later stages, it is apparent that these changes, of which this redundant character is the source, must be more rapid.This explanation would fully account for the diversity of structure evinced by the Gothic and Celtic Tongues, which probably differ as widely as any languages of the globe, without referring the commencement of their separation to a[pg 089]more remote date than would be quite consistent with received systems of Chronology. That the Celtic and Gothic were originally one speech, and that the differences which they now display have arisen in this manner, will be evident from Section II. (page26,) combined with the facts developed in the other Sections of this Chapter.Difference of Grammatical forms has been supposed to afford proof of a fundamental difference of language. A comparison of those of the languages previously noticed will show this to be a highly erroneous conclusion! The Welsh and Irish differ most widely in their grammars, though the general resemblance of these languages proves their original identity. The German and English also differ very widely, the majority of the Pronouns being unlike. Again, even the modern and the provincial English have different Auxiliary Verbs, &c. &c. These are results of the same principle, viz., the tendency to abandon, or appropriate differently, the various elements of a common parent speech.Moreover since Pronouns, which are the principal basis of Grammar, are merely different Synonymes for“Man,”or a“Human Being”(see page13), appropriated to different Persons, the supposition that kindred nations may be expected in all cases to use the same grammatical forms is founded on the gratuitous and highly unreasonable assumption, that the process of appropriating these various Nouns to different Persons must have been complete at a very early period, before the separation of the Human Race into distinct Tribes!But though the rejection of superfluous Synonymes, and the specific appropriation of the remainder are results of the dictates of convenience, the selection of the particular synonymes which are retained, and the particular mode of application, are results dependent on individual caprice and idiosyncracy. Hence we find, as has been shown in previous[pg 090]Sections, the various branches of the same race adopt and abandon different terms. This feature, which has been traced in the Historical progress of languages, completely explains the phenomenon especially noticed at the close of the First Chapter, viz., the positive identity which we find on the one hand, when the languages of the different Continents are compared in the aggregate, combined on the other with a difference nearly total among individual languages, occurring, in many cases, among the languages of contiguous nations of the same Continent. In each separate tribe there is a tendency to abandon part of the parent speech, but as different tribes generally abandon different parts, probably no portion of the original tongue is lost! Its component parts are dispersed, and not destroyed! There is a complete and perfect analogy between the relation which will be found to prevail between the languages of each continent viewed in the aggregate as one original Tongue—compared with the individual existing languages of the same continent—and the relation shown in the previous Sections to prevail between the ancient“Danska Tunge”and its derivative Scandinavian Tongues—between the Anglo-Saxon and the modern English Dialects—between the ancient Celtic and the modern Welsh and Irish!A recent work on Australia, by Colonel Grey, furnishes an account of the language of that country, so strikingly corroborative of the views developed above with respect to the origin of the various languages of the other four great Divisions of the Globe, that I have been induced especially to advert to Colonel Grey's statement in this Section.“The arguments which prove that all the Australian dialects have a common root, are:“1st. A general similarity of sound, and structure of words, in the different portions of Australia, as far as yet ascertained.[pg 091]“2d. The recurrence of the same word with the same signification; to be traced, in many instances, round the entire continent, but undergoing, of course, in so vast an extent of country, various modifications.“3d. The same names of natives occurring frequently at totally opposite portions of the continent. Now, in all parts of it which are known to Europeans, it is ascertained that the natives name their children from any remarkable circumstance which may occur soon after their birth; such being the case, an accordance of the names of natives is a proof of a similarity of dialect.“The chief cause of the misapprehension which has so long existed with regard to the point under consideration is that the language of the aborigines of Australiaabounds in synonymes, many of which are,for a time, altogetherlocal; so that, for instance, the inhabitants of a particular district will use one word forwater,85while those of a neighbouring district willapply another, which appears to be a totally different one. But when I found out that in such instances as these both tribesunderstood the words which either made use of, and merely employed another one, fromtemporary fashion and caprice, I felt convinced that the language generally spoken to Europeans by the natives of anyone small districtcould not be considered as a fair specimen of the general language of that part of Australia, and therefore in the vocabulary which I compiled in Western Australia, I introduced words collected froma very extensive tract of country.“Again, in getting the names of the parts of the body, &c. from the natives, many causes of error arise, for they have[pg 092]names for almost every minute portion of the human frame: thus, in asking the name for thearm, one stranger would get the name for theupper arm, another for thelower arm, another for the right arm, another for the left arm, &c.; and it therefore seems most probable that in the earlier stages of the inquiry into the nature of the language of this people, these circumstances contributed mainly to the erroneous conclusion, that languages radically different were spoken in remote parts of the continent.“One singularity in the dialects spoken by the aborigines in different portions of Australia is, that those of districtswidely removed from one anothersometimes assimilatevery closely, whilst the dialects spoken in the intermediate onesdiffer considerably from either of them. The same circumstances take place with regard to their rites and customs; but as this appears rather to belong to the question of the means by which this race was distributed over so extensive a tract of country, I will not now enter into it, but merely adduce sufficient evidence to prove that a language radically the same is spoken over the whole continent.“If, then, we start from Perth, in Western Australia, following the coast in a southerly direction, it will be found that between Perth and King George's Sound a common language is spoken, made up of several dialects, scarcely differing from one another in any material points, and gradually merging into the dialects of these two places, as the two points considered are nearer to one or the other.“The word for the Sun at Perth isNganga, whilst at Adelaide it isTin-dee; but the word used by the natives at Encounter Bay, South Australia, thirty-six miles from Adelaide, isNgon-ge, and the word used in the southern districts of Western Australia for the Stars isTiendee;[pg 093]thus, by extending the vocabularies of the two places, the identity of the language is shown.”86The reader who by a perusal of the previous Sections has learned how rapid are the changes which languages undergo, will not merely conclude, with Colonel Grey, that the population of Australia must be descendants of one Sept, but he will conclude also that the first colonization of that continent must be referred to a comparatively recent date. Australia is nearly as large as the Continent of Europe, and yet we find one language prevail over the whole of its extensive surface! It may be inferred with certainty, from the changes which one thousand years have produced in the European languages, that this fact makes it probable that the date of the origin of the Australian tribes must have been comparatively recent,—makes it impossible that it can have been remote!In relation more immediately to the conclusions developed in this Section, it remains to be noticed that the trifling incipient differences of dialect in the language of Australia, as described by Colonel Grey, afford a vivid picture of the first phases of that process which, during the course of a series of ages, has given rise to the different languages of the four great Continents of Asia, Europe, Africa, and America!But how are we to account for the origin of these numerous synonymous terms which abound in all, especially in ancient, languages?This subject will be discussed in the next Chapter.
Summary of the Results deducible from the previous Sections. The Changes which have occurred in the English, Scandinavian, and Celtic Languages, sufficient to account for the Differences among all Human Tongues. Causes which give rise to the Abandonment and specific Appropriation of Synonymes. Total Differences of Grammatical Forms no Proof of a fundamental Difference of Language. The Relation which the Languages of one Continent, viewed in the aggregate, bear to the individual Languages of such Continent, the same as that which the ancient Scandinavian bears to its derivative Dialects, &c. Incipient Changes in the Language of Australia.The facts developed in the previous Sections obviously present a satisfactory solution of the problem suggested at page 25, viz., whence it has come to pass that languages almost totally different in their present composition could have sprung from one original Tongue? That existing languages have sprung from one source is a proposition of which the proofs have been explained in the same Chapter in which this problem has been suggested. (See Chap. I.)In the preceding Sections it has been shown, agreeably to the statement contained in Section I., that Languages are exposed to two prominent causes of change; viz., the abandonment by different branches of the same race—1, of different Synonymes; 2, of different meanings of the same Synonyme.From the facts Historically proved in the previous Sections it will be found to be an indisputable truth, that—assuming their operation to be continued for an adequate period of time,—these[pg 088]two causes are calculated to produce, from one parent Tongue, languages of which the differences are apparently fundamental. For example, if the differences between the Gothic and Celtic languages noticed at page28,—languages which differ almost totally,—are compared with those which have been proved to have arisen in the last nine hundred years among the various branches of the Scandinavian and the Celtic, it will be seen at once that the latter are of precisely the same nature as the former. The only distinction is that they are fewer in point of number! But on the other hand, it is certain that the same causes of change—acting at the same rate during a previous period of treble that length of time—might have produced between two branches of a common original speech differences equally numerous with those which the Gothic and Celtic exhibit; in other words, differences sufficiently extensive almost entirely to exclude all vestiges of original unity!But it must be added, that it would be highly erroneous to infer that the rate of change previous to the commencement of the Historical period was the same as it has been since; it must have been much more rapid! Changes of this nature are prompted by the dictates of convenience, which suggest the extinction of superfluous words, and the appropriation of the remainder to distinct though kindred purposes; names for“Water, Rivers, the Sea,”for example, were doubtless in the first instance applied indifferently to all these objects. Now, inasmuch as languages are more redundant in their earlier than they are in their later stages, it is apparent that these changes, of which this redundant character is the source, must be more rapid.This explanation would fully account for the diversity of structure evinced by the Gothic and Celtic Tongues, which probably differ as widely as any languages of the globe, without referring the commencement of their separation to a[pg 089]more remote date than would be quite consistent with received systems of Chronology. That the Celtic and Gothic were originally one speech, and that the differences which they now display have arisen in this manner, will be evident from Section II. (page26,) combined with the facts developed in the other Sections of this Chapter.Difference of Grammatical forms has been supposed to afford proof of a fundamental difference of language. A comparison of those of the languages previously noticed will show this to be a highly erroneous conclusion! The Welsh and Irish differ most widely in their grammars, though the general resemblance of these languages proves their original identity. The German and English also differ very widely, the majority of the Pronouns being unlike. Again, even the modern and the provincial English have different Auxiliary Verbs, &c. &c. These are results of the same principle, viz., the tendency to abandon, or appropriate differently, the various elements of a common parent speech.Moreover since Pronouns, which are the principal basis of Grammar, are merely different Synonymes for“Man,”or a“Human Being”(see page13), appropriated to different Persons, the supposition that kindred nations may be expected in all cases to use the same grammatical forms is founded on the gratuitous and highly unreasonable assumption, that the process of appropriating these various Nouns to different Persons must have been complete at a very early period, before the separation of the Human Race into distinct Tribes!But though the rejection of superfluous Synonymes, and the specific appropriation of the remainder are results of the dictates of convenience, the selection of the particular synonymes which are retained, and the particular mode of application, are results dependent on individual caprice and idiosyncracy. Hence we find, as has been shown in previous[pg 090]Sections, the various branches of the same race adopt and abandon different terms. This feature, which has been traced in the Historical progress of languages, completely explains the phenomenon especially noticed at the close of the First Chapter, viz., the positive identity which we find on the one hand, when the languages of the different Continents are compared in the aggregate, combined on the other with a difference nearly total among individual languages, occurring, in many cases, among the languages of contiguous nations of the same Continent. In each separate tribe there is a tendency to abandon part of the parent speech, but as different tribes generally abandon different parts, probably no portion of the original tongue is lost! Its component parts are dispersed, and not destroyed! There is a complete and perfect analogy between the relation which will be found to prevail between the languages of each continent viewed in the aggregate as one original Tongue—compared with the individual existing languages of the same continent—and the relation shown in the previous Sections to prevail between the ancient“Danska Tunge”and its derivative Scandinavian Tongues—between the Anglo-Saxon and the modern English Dialects—between the ancient Celtic and the modern Welsh and Irish!A recent work on Australia, by Colonel Grey, furnishes an account of the language of that country, so strikingly corroborative of the views developed above with respect to the origin of the various languages of the other four great Divisions of the Globe, that I have been induced especially to advert to Colonel Grey's statement in this Section.“The arguments which prove that all the Australian dialects have a common root, are:“1st. A general similarity of sound, and structure of words, in the different portions of Australia, as far as yet ascertained.[pg 091]“2d. The recurrence of the same word with the same signification; to be traced, in many instances, round the entire continent, but undergoing, of course, in so vast an extent of country, various modifications.“3d. The same names of natives occurring frequently at totally opposite portions of the continent. Now, in all parts of it which are known to Europeans, it is ascertained that the natives name their children from any remarkable circumstance which may occur soon after their birth; such being the case, an accordance of the names of natives is a proof of a similarity of dialect.“The chief cause of the misapprehension which has so long existed with regard to the point under consideration is that the language of the aborigines of Australiaabounds in synonymes, many of which are,for a time, altogetherlocal; so that, for instance, the inhabitants of a particular district will use one word forwater,85while those of a neighbouring district willapply another, which appears to be a totally different one. But when I found out that in such instances as these both tribesunderstood the words which either made use of, and merely employed another one, fromtemporary fashion and caprice, I felt convinced that the language generally spoken to Europeans by the natives of anyone small districtcould not be considered as a fair specimen of the general language of that part of Australia, and therefore in the vocabulary which I compiled in Western Australia, I introduced words collected froma very extensive tract of country.“Again, in getting the names of the parts of the body, &c. from the natives, many causes of error arise, for they have[pg 092]names for almost every minute portion of the human frame: thus, in asking the name for thearm, one stranger would get the name for theupper arm, another for thelower arm, another for the right arm, another for the left arm, &c.; and it therefore seems most probable that in the earlier stages of the inquiry into the nature of the language of this people, these circumstances contributed mainly to the erroneous conclusion, that languages radically different were spoken in remote parts of the continent.“One singularity in the dialects spoken by the aborigines in different portions of Australia is, that those of districtswidely removed from one anothersometimes assimilatevery closely, whilst the dialects spoken in the intermediate onesdiffer considerably from either of them. The same circumstances take place with regard to their rites and customs; but as this appears rather to belong to the question of the means by which this race was distributed over so extensive a tract of country, I will not now enter into it, but merely adduce sufficient evidence to prove that a language radically the same is spoken over the whole continent.“If, then, we start from Perth, in Western Australia, following the coast in a southerly direction, it will be found that between Perth and King George's Sound a common language is spoken, made up of several dialects, scarcely differing from one another in any material points, and gradually merging into the dialects of these two places, as the two points considered are nearer to one or the other.“The word for the Sun at Perth isNganga, whilst at Adelaide it isTin-dee; but the word used by the natives at Encounter Bay, South Australia, thirty-six miles from Adelaide, isNgon-ge, and the word used in the southern districts of Western Australia for the Stars isTiendee;[pg 093]thus, by extending the vocabularies of the two places, the identity of the language is shown.”86The reader who by a perusal of the previous Sections has learned how rapid are the changes which languages undergo, will not merely conclude, with Colonel Grey, that the population of Australia must be descendants of one Sept, but he will conclude also that the first colonization of that continent must be referred to a comparatively recent date. Australia is nearly as large as the Continent of Europe, and yet we find one language prevail over the whole of its extensive surface! It may be inferred with certainty, from the changes which one thousand years have produced in the European languages, that this fact makes it probable that the date of the origin of the Australian tribes must have been comparatively recent,—makes it impossible that it can have been remote!In relation more immediately to the conclusions developed in this Section, it remains to be noticed that the trifling incipient differences of dialect in the language of Australia, as described by Colonel Grey, afford a vivid picture of the first phases of that process which, during the course of a series of ages, has given rise to the different languages of the four great Continents of Asia, Europe, Africa, and America!But how are we to account for the origin of these numerous synonymous terms which abound in all, especially in ancient, languages?This subject will be discussed in the next Chapter.
Summary of the Results deducible from the previous Sections. The Changes which have occurred in the English, Scandinavian, and Celtic Languages, sufficient to account for the Differences among all Human Tongues. Causes which give rise to the Abandonment and specific Appropriation of Synonymes. Total Differences of Grammatical Forms no Proof of a fundamental Difference of Language. The Relation which the Languages of one Continent, viewed in the aggregate, bear to the individual Languages of such Continent, the same as that which the ancient Scandinavian bears to its derivative Dialects, &c. Incipient Changes in the Language of Australia.
The facts developed in the previous Sections obviously present a satisfactory solution of the problem suggested at page 25, viz., whence it has come to pass that languages almost totally different in their present composition could have sprung from one original Tongue? That existing languages have sprung from one source is a proposition of which the proofs have been explained in the same Chapter in which this problem has been suggested. (See Chap. I.)
In the preceding Sections it has been shown, agreeably to the statement contained in Section I., that Languages are exposed to two prominent causes of change; viz., the abandonment by different branches of the same race—1, of different Synonymes; 2, of different meanings of the same Synonyme.
From the facts Historically proved in the previous Sections it will be found to be an indisputable truth, that—assuming their operation to be continued for an adequate period of time,—these[pg 088]two causes are calculated to produce, from one parent Tongue, languages of which the differences are apparently fundamental. For example, if the differences between the Gothic and Celtic languages noticed at page28,—languages which differ almost totally,—are compared with those which have been proved to have arisen in the last nine hundred years among the various branches of the Scandinavian and the Celtic, it will be seen at once that the latter are of precisely the same nature as the former. The only distinction is that they are fewer in point of number! But on the other hand, it is certain that the same causes of change—acting at the same rate during a previous period of treble that length of time—might have produced between two branches of a common original speech differences equally numerous with those which the Gothic and Celtic exhibit; in other words, differences sufficiently extensive almost entirely to exclude all vestiges of original unity!
But it must be added, that it would be highly erroneous to infer that the rate of change previous to the commencement of the Historical period was the same as it has been since; it must have been much more rapid! Changes of this nature are prompted by the dictates of convenience, which suggest the extinction of superfluous words, and the appropriation of the remainder to distinct though kindred purposes; names for“Water, Rivers, the Sea,”for example, were doubtless in the first instance applied indifferently to all these objects. Now, inasmuch as languages are more redundant in their earlier than they are in their later stages, it is apparent that these changes, of which this redundant character is the source, must be more rapid.
This explanation would fully account for the diversity of structure evinced by the Gothic and Celtic Tongues, which probably differ as widely as any languages of the globe, without referring the commencement of their separation to a[pg 089]more remote date than would be quite consistent with received systems of Chronology. That the Celtic and Gothic were originally one speech, and that the differences which they now display have arisen in this manner, will be evident from Section II. (page26,) combined with the facts developed in the other Sections of this Chapter.
Difference of Grammatical forms has been supposed to afford proof of a fundamental difference of language. A comparison of those of the languages previously noticed will show this to be a highly erroneous conclusion! The Welsh and Irish differ most widely in their grammars, though the general resemblance of these languages proves their original identity. The German and English also differ very widely, the majority of the Pronouns being unlike. Again, even the modern and the provincial English have different Auxiliary Verbs, &c. &c. These are results of the same principle, viz., the tendency to abandon, or appropriate differently, the various elements of a common parent speech.
Moreover since Pronouns, which are the principal basis of Grammar, are merely different Synonymes for“Man,”or a“Human Being”(see page13), appropriated to different Persons, the supposition that kindred nations may be expected in all cases to use the same grammatical forms is founded on the gratuitous and highly unreasonable assumption, that the process of appropriating these various Nouns to different Persons must have been complete at a very early period, before the separation of the Human Race into distinct Tribes!
But though the rejection of superfluous Synonymes, and the specific appropriation of the remainder are results of the dictates of convenience, the selection of the particular synonymes which are retained, and the particular mode of application, are results dependent on individual caprice and idiosyncracy. Hence we find, as has been shown in previous[pg 090]Sections, the various branches of the same race adopt and abandon different terms. This feature, which has been traced in the Historical progress of languages, completely explains the phenomenon especially noticed at the close of the First Chapter, viz., the positive identity which we find on the one hand, when the languages of the different Continents are compared in the aggregate, combined on the other with a difference nearly total among individual languages, occurring, in many cases, among the languages of contiguous nations of the same Continent. In each separate tribe there is a tendency to abandon part of the parent speech, but as different tribes generally abandon different parts, probably no portion of the original tongue is lost! Its component parts are dispersed, and not destroyed! There is a complete and perfect analogy between the relation which will be found to prevail between the languages of each continent viewed in the aggregate as one original Tongue—compared with the individual existing languages of the same continent—and the relation shown in the previous Sections to prevail between the ancient“Danska Tunge”and its derivative Scandinavian Tongues—between the Anglo-Saxon and the modern English Dialects—between the ancient Celtic and the modern Welsh and Irish!
A recent work on Australia, by Colonel Grey, furnishes an account of the language of that country, so strikingly corroborative of the views developed above with respect to the origin of the various languages of the other four great Divisions of the Globe, that I have been induced especially to advert to Colonel Grey's statement in this Section.
“The arguments which prove that all the Australian dialects have a common root, are:
“1st. A general similarity of sound, and structure of words, in the different portions of Australia, as far as yet ascertained.
“2d. The recurrence of the same word with the same signification; to be traced, in many instances, round the entire continent, but undergoing, of course, in so vast an extent of country, various modifications.
“3d. The same names of natives occurring frequently at totally opposite portions of the continent. Now, in all parts of it which are known to Europeans, it is ascertained that the natives name their children from any remarkable circumstance which may occur soon after their birth; such being the case, an accordance of the names of natives is a proof of a similarity of dialect.
“The chief cause of the misapprehension which has so long existed with regard to the point under consideration is that the language of the aborigines of Australiaabounds in synonymes, many of which are,for a time, altogetherlocal; so that, for instance, the inhabitants of a particular district will use one word forwater,85while those of a neighbouring district willapply another, which appears to be a totally different one. But when I found out that in such instances as these both tribesunderstood the words which either made use of, and merely employed another one, fromtemporary fashion and caprice, I felt convinced that the language generally spoken to Europeans by the natives of anyone small districtcould not be considered as a fair specimen of the general language of that part of Australia, and therefore in the vocabulary which I compiled in Western Australia, I introduced words collected froma very extensive tract of country.
“Again, in getting the names of the parts of the body, &c. from the natives, many causes of error arise, for they have[pg 092]names for almost every minute portion of the human frame: thus, in asking the name for thearm, one stranger would get the name for theupper arm, another for thelower arm, another for the right arm, another for the left arm, &c.; and it therefore seems most probable that in the earlier stages of the inquiry into the nature of the language of this people, these circumstances contributed mainly to the erroneous conclusion, that languages radically different were spoken in remote parts of the continent.
“One singularity in the dialects spoken by the aborigines in different portions of Australia is, that those of districtswidely removed from one anothersometimes assimilatevery closely, whilst the dialects spoken in the intermediate onesdiffer considerably from either of them. The same circumstances take place with regard to their rites and customs; but as this appears rather to belong to the question of the means by which this race was distributed over so extensive a tract of country, I will not now enter into it, but merely adduce sufficient evidence to prove that a language radically the same is spoken over the whole continent.
“If, then, we start from Perth, in Western Australia, following the coast in a southerly direction, it will be found that between Perth and King George's Sound a common language is spoken, made up of several dialects, scarcely differing from one another in any material points, and gradually merging into the dialects of these two places, as the two points considered are nearer to one or the other.
“The word for the Sun at Perth isNganga, whilst at Adelaide it isTin-dee; but the word used by the natives at Encounter Bay, South Australia, thirty-six miles from Adelaide, isNgon-ge, and the word used in the southern districts of Western Australia for the Stars isTiendee;[pg 093]thus, by extending the vocabularies of the two places, the identity of the language is shown.”86
The reader who by a perusal of the previous Sections has learned how rapid are the changes which languages undergo, will not merely conclude, with Colonel Grey, that the population of Australia must be descendants of one Sept, but he will conclude also that the first colonization of that continent must be referred to a comparatively recent date. Australia is nearly as large as the Continent of Europe, and yet we find one language prevail over the whole of its extensive surface! It may be inferred with certainty, from the changes which one thousand years have produced in the European languages, that this fact makes it probable that the date of the origin of the Australian tribes must have been comparatively recent,—makes it impossible that it can have been remote!
In relation more immediately to the conclusions developed in this Section, it remains to be noticed that the trifling incipient differences of dialect in the language of Australia, as described by Colonel Grey, afford a vivid picture of the first phases of that process which, during the course of a series of ages, has given rise to the different languages of the four great Continents of Asia, Europe, Africa, and America!
But how are we to account for the origin of these numerous synonymous terms which abound in all, especially in ancient, languages?
This subject will be discussed in the next Chapter.