按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
relation to other words； are always exercising an influence over them。
Words appear to be isolated； but they are really the parts of an organism
which is always being reproduced。 They are refined by civilization；
harmonized by poetry； emphasized by literature； technically applied in
philosophy and art； they are used as symbols on the border…ground of human
knowledge； they receive a fresh impress from individual genius； and come
with a new force and association to every lively…minded person。 They are
fixed by the simultaneous utterance of millions； and yet are always
imperceptibly changing；not the inventors of language； but writing and
speaking； and particularly great writers； or works which pass into the
hearts of nations； Homer； Shakespear； Dante； the German or English Bible；
Kant and Hegel； are the makers of them in later ages。 They carry with them
the faded recollection of their own past history； the use of a word in a
striking and familiar passage gives a complexion to its use everywhere
else； and the new use of an old and familiar phrase has also a peculiar
power over us。 But these and other subtleties of language escaped the
observation of Plato。 He is not aware that the languages of the world are
organic structures； and that every word in them is related to every other；
nor does he conceive of language as the joint work of the speaker and the
hearer； requiring in man a faculty not only of expressing his thoughts but
of understanding those of others。
On the other hand； he cannot be justly charged with a desire to frame
language on artificial principles。 Philosophers have sometimes dreamed of
a technical or scientific language； in words which should have fixed
meanings； and stand in the same relation to one another as the substances
which they denote。 But there is no more trace of this in Plato than there
is of a language corresponding to the ideas； nor； indeed； could the want of
such a language be felt until the sciences were far more developed。 Those
who would extend the use of technical phraseology beyond the limits of
science or of custom； seem to forget that freedom and suggestiveness and
the play of association are essential characteristics of language。 The
great master has shown how he regarded pedantic distinctions of words or
attempts to confine their meaning in the satire on Prodicus in the
Protagoras。
（5） In addition to these anticipations of the general principles of
philology； we may note also a few curious observations on words and sounds。
'The Eretrians say sklerotes for skleroter；' 'the Thessalians call Apollo
Amlos；' 'The Phrygians have the words pur； udor； kunes slightly changed；'
'there is an old Homeric word emesato； meaning 〃he contrived〃；' 'our
forefathers； and especially the women； who are most conservative of the
ancient language； loved the letters iota and delta； but now iota is changed
into eta and epsilon； and delta into zeta； this is supposed to increase the
grandeur of the sound。' Plato was very willing to use inductive arguments；
so far as they were within his reach； but he would also have assigned a
large influence to chance。 Nor indeed is induction applicable to philology
in the same degree as to most of the physical sciences。 For after we have
pushed our researches to the furthest point； in language as in all the
other creations of the human mind； there will always remain an element of
exception or accident or free…will； which cannot be eliminated。
The question； 'whether falsehood is impossible；' which Socrates
characteristically sets aside as too subtle for an old man （compare
Euthyd。）； could only have arisen in an age of imperfect consciousness；
which had not yet learned to distinguish words from things。 Socrates
replies in effect that words have an independent existence； thus
anticipating the solution of the mediaeval controversy of Nominalism and
Realism。 He is aware too that languages exist in various degrees of
perfection； and that the analysis of them can only be carried to a certain
point。 'If we could always； or almost always； use likenesses； which are
the appropriate expressions； that would be the most perfect state of
language。' These words suggest a question of deeper interest than the
origin of language； viz。 what is the ideal of language； how far by any
correction of their usages existing languages might become clearer and more
expressive than they are； more poetical； and also more logical； or whether
they are now finally fixed and have received their last impress from time
and authority。
On the whole； the Cratylus seems to contain deeper truths about language
than any other ancient writing。 But feeling the uncertain ground upon
which he is walking； and partly in order to preserve the character of
Socrates； Plato envelopes the whole subject in a robe of fancy； and allows
his principles to drop out as if by accident。
II。 What is the result of recent speculations about the origin and nature
of language？ Like other modern metaphysical enquiries； they end at last in
a statement of facts。 But； in order to state or understand the facts； a
metaphysical insight seems to be required。 There are more things in
language than the human mind easily conceives。 And many fallacies have to
be dispelled； as well as observations made。 The true spirit of philosophy
or metaphysics can alone charm away metaphysical illusions； which are
always reappearing； formerly in the fancies of neoplatonist writers； now in
the disguise of experience and common sense。 An analogy； a figure of
speech； an intelligible theory； a superficial observation of the
individual； have often been mistaken for a true account of the origin of
language。
Speaking is one of the simplest natural operations； and also the most
complex。 Nothing would seem to be easier or more trivial than a few words
uttered by a child in any language。 Yet into the formation of those words
have entered causes which the human mind is not capable of calculating。
They are a drop or two of the great stream or ocean of speech which has
been flowing in all ages。 They have been transmitted from one language to
another； like the child himself； they go back to the beginnings of the
human race。 How they originated； who can tell？ Nevertheless we can
imagine a stage of human society in which the circle of men's minds was
narrower and their sympathies and instincts stronger； in which their organs
of speech were more flexible； and the sense of hearing finer and more
discerning； in which they lived more in company； and after the manner of
children were more given to express their feelings； in which 'they moved
all together；' like a herd of wild animals； 'when they moved at all。'
Among them； as in every society； a particular person would be more
sensitive and intelligent than the rest。 Suddenly； on some occasion of
interest （at the approach of a wild beast； shall we say？）； he first； they
following him； utter a cry which resounds through the forest。 The cry is
almost or quite involuntary； and may be an imitation of the roar of the
animal。 Thus far we have not speech； but only the inarticulate expression
of feeling or emotion in no respect differing from the cries of animals；
for they too call to one another and are answered。 But now suppose that
some one at a distance not only hears the sound； but apprehends the
meaning： or we may imagine that the cry is repeated to a member of the
society who had been absent； the others act the scene over again when he
returns home in the evening。 And so the cry becomes a word。 The hearer in
turn gives back the word to the speaker； who is now aware that he has
acquired a new power。 Many thousand times he exercises this power； like a
child learning to talk； he repeats the same cry again； and again he is
answered； he tries experiments with a like result； and the speaker and the
hearer rejoice together in their newly…discovered faculty。 At first there
would be few such cries； and little danger of mistaking or confusing them。
For the mind of primitive man had a narrow range of perceptions and
feelings； his senses were microscopic； twenty or thirty sounds or gestures
would be enough for him； nor would he have any difficulty in finding them。
Naturally he broke out into speechlike the young infant he laughed and
babbled； but not until there were hearers as well as speakers did language
begin。 Not the interjection or the vocal imitation of the object； but the
interjection or the vocal imitation of the object understood； is the first
rudiment of human speech。
After a while the word gathers associations； and has an independent
existence。 The imitation of the lion's roar calls up the fears and hopes
of the chase； which are excited by his appearance。 In the moment of
hearing the sound； without any appreciable interval； these and other latent
experiences wake up in the mind of the hearer。 Not only does he receiv