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！
gives a complete paradigm of the verb； without suggesting that the double
or treble forms of Perfects； Aorists； etc。 are hardly ever contemporaneous。
It distinguishes Moods and Tenses； without observing how much of the nature
of one passes into the other。 It makes three Voices； Active； Passive； and
Middle； but takes no notice of the precarious existence and uncertain
character of the last of the three。 Language is a thing of degrees and
relations and associations and exceptions： grammar ties it up in fixed
rules。 Language has many varieties of usage： grammar tries to reduce them
to a single one。 Grammar divides verbs into regular and irregular： it
does not recognize that the irregular； equally with the regular； are
subject to law； and that a language which had no exceptions would not be a
natural growth： for it could not have been subjected to the influences by
which language is ordinarily affected。 It is always wanting to describe
ancient languages in the terms of a modern one。 It has a favourite fiction
that one word is put in the place of another； the truth is that no word is
ever put for another。 It has another fiction； that a word has been
omitted： words are omitted because they are no longer needed； and the
omission has ceased to be observed。 The common explanation of kata or some
other preposition 'being understood' in a Greek sentence is another fiction
of the same kind； which tends to disguise the fact that under cases were
comprehended originally many more relations； and that prepositions are used
only to define the meaning of them with greater precision。 These instances
are sufficient to show the sort of errors which grammar introduces into
language。 We are not considering the question of its utility to the
beginner in the study。 Even to him the best grammar is the shortest and
that in which he will have least to unlearn。 It may be said that the
explanations here referred to are already out of date； and that the study
of Greek grammar has received a new character from comparative philology。
This is true； but it is also true that the traditional grammar has still a
great hold on the mind of the student。
Metaphysics are even more troublesome than the figments of grammar； because
they wear the appearance of philosophy and there is no test to which they
can be subjected。 They are useful in so far as they give us an insight
into the history of the human mind and the modes of thought which have
existed in former ages； or in so far as they furnish wider conceptions of
the different branches of knowledge and of their relation to one another。
But they are worse than useless when they outrun experience and abstract
the mind from the observation of facts； only to envelope it in a mist of
words。 Some philologers； like Schleicher； have been greatly influenced by
the philosophy of Hegel； nearly all of them to a certain extent have fallen
under the dominion of physical science。 Even Kant himself thought that the
first principles of philosophy could be elicited from the analysis of the
proposition； in this respect falling short of Plato。 Westphal holds that
there are three stages of language： （1） in which things were characterized
independently； （2） in which they were regarded in relation to human
thought； and （3） in relation to one another。 But are not such distinctions
an anachronism？ for they imply a growth of abstract ideas which never
existed in early times。 Language cannot be explained by Metaphysics； for
it is prior to them and much more nearly allied to sense。 It is not likely
that the meaning of the cases is ultimately resolvable into relations of
space and time。 Nor can we suppose the conception of cause and effect or
of the finite and infinite or of the same and other to be latent in
language at a time when in their abstract form they had never entered into
the mind of man。。。If the science of Comparative Philology had possessed
'enough of Metaphysics to get rid of Metaphysics；' it would have made far
greater progress。
（4） Our knowledge of language is almost confined to languages which are
fully developed。 They are of several patterns； and these become altered by
admixture in various degrees；they may only borrow a few words from one
another and retain their life comparatively unaltered； or they may meet in
a struggle for existence until one of the two is overpowered and retires
from the field。 They attain the full rights and dignity of language when
they acquire the use of writing and have a literature of their own； they
pass into dialects and grow out of them； in proportion as men are isolated
or united by locality or occupation。 The common language sometimes reacts
upon the dialects and imparts to them also a literary character。 The laws
of language can be best discerned in the great crises of language；
especially in the transitions from ancient to modern forms of them； whether
in Europe or Asia。 Such changes are the silent notes of the world's
history； they mark periods of unknown length in which war and conquest were
running riot over whole continents； times of suffering too great to be
endured by the human race； in which the masters became subjects and the
subject races masters； in which driven by necessity or impelled by some
instinct； tribes or nations left their original homes and but slowly found
a resting…place。 Language would be the greatest of all historical
monuments； if it could only tell us the history of itself。
（5） There are many ways in which we may approach this study。 The simplest
of all is to observe our own use of language in conversation or in writing；
how we put words together； how we construct and connect sentences； what are
the rules of accent and rhythm in verse or prose； the formation and
composition of words； the laws of euphony and sound； the affinities of
letters； the mistakes to which we are ourselves most liable of spelling or
pronunciation。 We may compare with our own language some other； even when
we have only a slight knowledge of it； such as French or German。 Even a
little Latin will enable us to appreciate the grand difference between
ancient and modern European languages。 In the child learning to speak we
may note the inherent strength of language； which like 'a mountain river'
is always forcing its way out。 We may witness the delight in imitation and
repetition； and some of the laws by which sounds pass into one another。 We
may learn something also from the falterings of old age； the searching for
words； and the confusion of them with one another； the forgetfulness of
proper names （more commonly than of other words because they are more
isolated）； aphasia； and the like。 There are philological lessons also to
be gathered from nicknames； from provincialisms； from the slang of great
cities； from the argot of Paris （that language of suffering and crime； so
pathetically described by Victor Hugo）； from the imperfect articulation of
the deaf and dumb； from the jabbering of animals； from the analysis of
sounds in relation to the organs of speech。 The phonograph affords a
visible evidence of the nature and divisions of sound； we may be truly said
to know what we can manufacture。 Artificial languages； such as that of
Bishop Wilkins； are chiefly useful in showing what language is not。 The
study of any foreign language may be made also a study of Comparative
Philology。 There are several points； such as the nature of irregular
verbs； of indeclinable parts of speech； the influence of euphony； the decay
or loss of inflections； the elements of syntax； which may be examined as
well in the history of our own language as of any other。 A few well…
selected questions may lead the student at once into the heart of the
mystery： such as； Why are the pronouns and the verb of existence generally
more irregular than any other parts of speech？ Why is the number of words
so small in which the sound is an echo of the sense？ Why does the meaning
of words depart so widely from their etymology？ Why do substantives often
differ in meaning from the verbs to which they are related； adverbs from
adjectives？ Why do words differing in origin coalesce in the same sound
though retaining their differences of meaning？ Why are some verbs
impersonal？ Why are there only so many parts of speech； and on what
principle are they divided？ These are a few crucial questions which give
us an insight from different points of view into the true nature of
language。
（6） Thus far we have been endeavouring to strip off from language the false
appearances in which grammar and philology； or the love of system
generally； have clothed it。 We have also sought to indicate the sources of
our knowledge of it and the spirit in which we should approach it； we may
now proceed to consider some of the principles or natural laws which have
created or modified it。
i。 The first and simplest of all the principles of language； c