As far as this system is founded in truth, Language appears to be not altogether arbitrary in its origin. Among the ancient Stoic and Platonic Philosophers, it was a question much agitated, " Utrum nomina 66 rerum sint naturâ, an impositione? φυσει ἡ θεσί;” by which they meant, Whether words were merely conventional symbols; of the rise of which no account could be given, except the pleasure of the first inventors of Language? or, Whether there was some principle in nature that led to the assignation of par. ticular names to particular objects? and those of the Platonic school favoured the latter opinion. * more stridulous, according as the idea which is to be suggested requires. He gives various examples. Thus; words formed upon St, always denote firmness and strength, analogous to the Latin sto; as, stand, stay, staff, stop, stout, steady, stake, stamp, stallion, stately, &c. Words beginning with Str, intimate violent force, and energy, analogous to the Greek στρωννυμι ; as, strive, strength, strike, stripe, stress, struggle, stride, stretch, strip, &c. Thr, implies forcible motion; as, throw, throb, thrust, through, threaten, thraldom. Wr, obliquity or distortion; as, wry, wrest, wreath, wrestle, wring, wrong, wrangle, wrath, wrack, &c. Sw, silent agitation, or lateral motion; as, sway, swing, swerve, sweep, swim. Sl, a gentle fall, or less observable motion; as, slide, slip, sly, slit, slow, slack, sling. Sp, dissipation or expansion; as, spread, sprout, sprinkle, split, spill, spring. Terminations in Ash, indicate something acting nimbly and sharply; as, crash, gash, rash, flash, lash, slash. Terminations in Ush, something acting more obtusely and dully; as crush, brush, hush, gush, blush. The learned Author produces a great many more examples of the same kind, which seem to leave no doubt, that the analogies of sound have had some influence on the formation of words. At the same time, in all speculations of this kind, there is so much room for fancy to operate, that they ought to be adopted with much caution in forming any general theory. * Vid. Plat. in Cratylo. " Nomina verbaque non posita for"tuito, sed quadam vi & ratione naturæ facta esse, P. Nigidius in 1 1 This principle, however, of a natural relation between words and objects, can only be applied to Language in its most simple and primitive state. Though, in every tongue, some remains of it, as I have shewn above, can be traced, it were utterly in vain to search for it throughout the whole construction of any modern Language. As the multitude of terms increase in every nation, and the immense field of Language is filled up, words, by a thousand fanciful and irregular methods of derivation and composition, come to deviate widely from the primitive character of their roots, and to lose all analogy or resemblance in sound to the thing signified. In this state we now find Language. Words, as we now employ them, taken in the general, may be considered as symbols, not as imitations; as arbitrary, or instituted, not natural signs of ideas. But there can be no doubt, I think, that Language, the nearer we remount to its rise among men, will be found to "Grammaticis Commentariis docet; rem sane in philosophiæ " dissertationibus celebrem. In eam rem multa argumenta dicit, " cur videri possint verba esse naturalia, magis quàm arbitraria. " Vos, inquit, cum dicimus, motu quodam oris conveniente, cum " ipsius verbi demonstratione utimur, et labias sensim primores "emovemus, ac spiritum atque animam porro versum, & ad eos " quibus consermocinamur intendimus. At contra cum dicimus " Nos, neque profuso intentoque flatu vocis, neque projectis labiis " pronunciamus; sed et spiritum et labias quasi intra nosmet " ipsos coërcemus. Hoc sit idem et in eo quod dicimus, tu, & 66 ego, & mihi, & tibi. Nam sicuti cum adnuimus & abnuimus, " motus quodam illo vel capitis, vel oculorum, a natura rei quem " significat, non abhorret, ita in his vocibus quasi gestus quidam " oris et spiritus naturalis est. Eadem ratio est in Græcis quoque "vocibus quam esse in nostris animadvertimus." A. GELLIUS, Noct. Atticæ, lib. x. сар. 4. partake more of a natural expression. As it could be originally formed on nothing but imitation, it would, in its primitive state, be more picturesque; much more barren, indeed, and narrow in the circle of its terms, than now; but as far as it went, more expressive by sound of the thing signified. This, then, may be assumed as one character of the first state, or beginnings of Language, among every savage tribe. A second character of Language, in its early state, is drawn from the manner in which words were at first pronounced, or uttered, by men. Interjections, I shewed, or passionate exclamations, were the first elements of speech. Men laboured to communicate their feelings to one another, by those expressive cries and gestures which nature taught them. After words, or names of objects, began to be invented, this mode of speaking, by natural signs, could not be all at once disused. For Language, in its infancy, must have been extremely barren; and there certainly was a period, among all rude nations, when convers ation was carried on by a very few words, intermixed with many exclamations and earnest gestures. The small stock of words which men as yet possessed, rendered these helps absolutely necessary for explaining their conceptions; and rude, uncultivated men, not having always at hand even the few words which they knew, would naturally labour to make themselves understood, by varying their tones of voice, and accompanying their tones with the most significant gesticulations they could make. At this day, when persons attempt to speak in any Language which they possess imperfectly, they have recourse to all these supplemental methods, in order to render themselves more intelligible. The plan too, according to which I have shewn, that Language was originally constructed, upon resemblance and analogy, as far as was possible, to the thing signified, would naturally lead men to utter their words with more emphasis and force, as long as language was a sort of painting by means of sound. For all those reasons this may be assumed as a principle, that the pronunciation of the earliest Languages was accompanied with more gesticulation, and with more and greater inflexions of voice, than what we now use; there was more action in it; and It was more upon a crying or singing tone. To this manner of speaking, necessity first gave rise. But we must observe, that, after this necessity had, in a great measure, ceased, by Language becoming, in process of time, more extensive and copious, the ancient manner of Speech still subsisted among many nations; and what had arisen from necessity continued to be used for ornament. Wherever there was much fire and vivacity in the genius of nations, they were naturally inclined to a mode of conversation which gratified the imagination so much; for an imagination which is warm is always prone to throw both a great deal of action, and a variety of tones into discourse. Upon this principle, Dr. Warburton accounts for so much speaking by action, as we find among the Old Testament Prophets; as when Jeremiah breaks the potter's vessel, in sight of the people; throws a book into the Euphrates; puts on bonds and yokes; and carries out his household stuff; all which, he imagines, might be significant modes of expression, very natural in those ages, when men were accustomed to explain themselves so much by actions and gestures. In like manner, among the Northern American tribes, certain motions and actions were found to be much used, as explanatory of their meaning, on all their great occasions of intercourse with each other; and by the belts and strings of wampum, which they gave and received, they were accustomed to declare their meaning, as much as by their discourses. With regard to inflexions of voice, these are so natural, that, to some nations, it has appeared easier to express different ideas, by varying the tone with which they pronounced the same word, than to contrive words for all their ideas. This is the practice of the Chinese in particular. The number of words in their Language is said not to be great; but, in speaking, they vary each of their words on no less than five different tones, by which they make the same word signify five different things. This must give a great appearance of music or singing to their Speech. For those inflexions of voice, which, in the infancy of Language, were no more than harsh or dissonant cries, must, as Language gradually polishes, pass into more smooth and musical sounds : and hence is formed, what we call, the Prosody of a Language. It is remarkable, and deserves attention, that botli in the Greek and Roman Languages, this musical and gesticulating pronunciation was retained in a very high degree. Without having attended to this, we shall be at a loss in understanding several passages of the Classics, which relate to the public speaking, and the theatrical entertainments of the Ancients. It appears, from many circumstances, that the prosody both of the Greeks and Romans was carried much farther than ours, or that they spoke with more |