________________
APRIL, 1885.]
DESCENT OF THE TRANSGANGETIC PEOPLE.
121
and significant one, and ought to be received with One may be strongly persuaded that the really respectful attention, whether we are or are not ultimate roots of human speech were monosylla. ready at once to accept it. Our author proceeds bio, and may devise theories to account for these to bring up facts from the various languages longer radical entities, without yielding their which may be regarded as giving it support. radical nature. A combination, for example, of These are, in his opinion, manifold. The Chinese, root with root makes only a root, unless one of in the first place, shows in some of its existing the two enters, with a recognized and corresponddialects and in its older phases remains of a ent value, into a whole series of combinations, greater fulness of phonetic form, especially having becoming thus a modifier to its fellow in each final consonants which the classical language has combination. The lost Chinese finals have yet to now lost. Similar facts are found in Siamese and be shown to possess in this way a grammatical Burmese. But the most striking case is the character, before they can be held to prove the Tibetan; the written forms of this language, dating Chinese not a language of roots. That the from the seventh century, present numerous Chinese and its relatives “have run a long career consonant combinations, now silent except in of development, and grown worn with age, like the certain dialects, and indicating former possession languages of Europe," is of course true. All by its words of more than the single syllable to existing languages, 80 far as we know, have which they are now restricted. In some cases, it behind them the same immense past, and a past is asserted, these affixes have an apparent of never-ending growth and change. Of this grammatical character; and Professor Kuhnpast, the period covered by the development of ventures to claim that in the other languages also the Indo-European inflective system is probably are seen signs of fusion of a numeral particle with only a small part. At any rate, he who imagines the proper numeral: but, as already stated, the that in determining the Indo-European roots he comparative table he gives to show this is has arrived at a point anywhere near the actual extremely unconvincing. He regards, however, beginnings of human speech is immensely misthe evidence he presente as absolutely demonstrat. taken. But that the Chinese has never had a ing that the Chinese monosyllabism is no original development even remotely like that of Euroone, but a result of phonetic decay. Such is well pean tongues is sufficiently shown by its present known to be the opinion of Lepsius, and of more condition, which is as unlike as possible to that than one other recent authority; and the indica of the monosyllabic part of English, wherein are tions must be confessed to point decidedly that lacking neither parts of speech, nor derivatives, way, although by no means so unmistakably as is nor inflections. If the Chinese, in growing out here assumed.
of a presumable original monosyllabism, acquired So far, however, as regards the bearing of this nothing in the way of structure of which it could new (asserted) aspect of the Chinese upon the retain the results when phonetically decayed, it is
neation as to an original root-stage of language still a root-language, and almost or quite a good in general, the views of our author are open to as ever for the use long made of it :-namely, to criticism : and it is the more desirable to spend show how a language destitute of grammatical a few words upon the matter, inasmuch as there structure can answer the needs even of a gifted are others now-a-days who go even further than and highly civilized people, and thus to take he in claiming that the root-theory breaks down away all difficulty fpom the assumption that the hopelessly if the support of Chinese original mono- first rude human beings made a language of root syllabism is withdrawn from under it. No misap- serve their restricted purposes. prehension could well be greater than this. Aroot, For the impregnable basis of the radicarian in the first place, is not a phonetic element of a theory, as has been repeatedly pointed out, is given extent. It is simply a significant element twofold. In the first place, its theoretic neceslacking any grammatical character, not admitting sity; since anything devised and created by human an analysis which demonstrates in it a formal beings, as part of their progress upward toward part, marking it as a part of speech, a derivative a state of culture, must have begun with what from a more primitive word, or an inflectional is simplest in its kind. To regard men as using form. A language composed only of such ele- from the start words made up of a radical part ments is a root-language, whatever be their and a formative or grammatical part is precisely length. Dissyllabism does not take away the equivalent to regarding them as having begun to radical character. There are languages enough fight and to work with tools that had handles. to be found-for example, the ancient Egyptian He who does not see this has still to learn what and the modern Polynesian-of which the roots are language is and what has been its history. The in part or prevailingly of more than one syllable. other and completely correlative part of the basis
