CHAPTER FOURTH.

CHARACTERISTICS OF LANGUAGES.

§. 37. All languages have their characteristic traits.

FROM the consideration of the origin and use of particular words and phrases, we naturally proceed to the characteristic peculiarities of languages. It is with nations, in some degree, as with individuals; every nation has a character, as each man has; and in like manner, every language possesses its distinctive traits, not less than the mode of expression, which is employed by individuals.

Let us, therefore, look a moment at this subject in reference to particular writers.-The style of a writer is understood to have relation chiefly to his choice of words and his manner of arranging them. Every writer of genius employs a style in some degree peculiar to himself. It cannot well be otherwise, since the mind of every individual is, in some respects, unlike that of all others. There are differences in situation; differences in intellect and feeling, in knowledge and taste, which necessarily lay the foundation for differences in style. Whenever, therefore, a writer attempts to embody and set forth to others the series of his intellectual operations and feelings, such exposition will necessarily have a form and impress of its own. So true is this, that it is hardly more difficult to detect an author's style, when it is once well-formed, than it is to distinguish one man's hand-writing from another's. And what is true of his manner of expression in the case of an individual, is equally so of national dialects. The languages of all nations have a style or peculiarity of manner. They are marked by certain prevailing characteristics, which readily distinguish them from those of other nations.

§. 38. Characteristics of the languages of uncivilized nations. In the first place, there are certain general traits, which are characteristic of all languages, that are spoken by the rude, uncultured tribes of men. As such uncivilized communities are in general ignorant of alphabetical writing, they cannot be expected to furnish us with numerous specimens of mental effort. Their glory is committed to the traditions of their country; and we rarely find among them any thing more than some brief historical sketches, war songs, and speeches. But even from these imperfect sources, we can form a judgment on the present subject.

The words, which such tribes employ, are generally few in number, compared with the vocabulary of civilized nations. Their knowledge is very limited; their ideas are few; and it is a necessary consequence, that their words should be few likewise. Incapable of aiding their perceptions by remote deductions of reasoning, they draw instruction from the visible teachings of the woods, the waters, and the sky; but even the external world is very imperfectly learnt, while they are almost wholly ignorant of the world within. And the range or compass of their language corresponds to the compass of their knowledge.

It is further worthy of remark, that only a small proportion of the words, employed by uncivilized tribes, are the signs of abstract ideas. Having but few abstract notions and, consequently, but few names for them, they are under the necessity of resorting constantly to figurative illustrations; so that their language seems to partake of the materiality of the external objects, with which they are chiefly conversant. But aided, as they are, by metaphorical expressions, their stock of words still remains small; and the sentences, which they utter, must, therefore, of necessity be short.

These short and figurative sentences are inspirited by the infusion of the untamed passions of a savage mind. There is a vivacity in their griefs, their joys, and their anger, which is almost peculiar to uncivilized life."The bones of our countrymen, (say the Chiefs,) lie uncovered; their bloody bed has not been washed clean; their spirits cry against us; they must be appeased; sit no longer inactive upon your mats; lift the hatchets; console the spirits of the dead."

§. 39. Characteristics of language in civilized and scientific nations. As a nation advances in knowledge, its language becomes more strictly conventional, losing by degrees that metaphorical aspect, which it presented in its earlier periods. A variety of new words are introduced, which previously had no existence, because the things, for which they stand, were not then known. New arts have their technical names and epithets, and new sciences furnish us with their novel nomenclatures.

The distiller speaks of the cohobation of liquors; the worker in mines of collieries; the chemist of sulphates and muriates; the botanist and mineralogist employ a variety of terms, peculiar to their respective departments. An increased refinement and abstraction discovers itself in terms, appropriated to moral, political, and literary subjects; and the language in all respects is more removed from the senses, and becomes more intellectual. But while it is, by a natural consequence of mental improvement, more exact and scientific, it is less directly and strikingly indicative of external objects and of the passions of men, and is, therefore less poetical. As terms become more abstract, they are necessarily less picturesque. This is the natural consequence of their not being limited to particular objects, but extended over a vast surface of things. A Savage, if he had the most refined language of Europe at his command, would be at a loss to express in it the strong emotions, which agitate him, and the outward and living beauties of his woodland scenery; he would choose for that purpose the dialect of his tribe.

§. 40. Characteristics of languages depend much on the people's habits.

Individual writers, as already observed, have a style, that is, characteristics of expression, of their own; for every one has a tendency to connect together thoughts or words, which are the signs of thought, agreeably to his peculiar intellectual habits and passions. But languages also, considered in their whole extent, have a style; because the nations, the whole mass of people, that make use of those languages, have their characteristics, as well as individuals. It follows, then, from this, that languages assume their general character or style, in a good measure, from that of the people; and this is what we are willing to maintain.

It will certainly be found on inquiry, that the language of every people has words, combinations of words, peculiarities of grammatical construction, &c. springing entirely out of the national habits and the exigencies of their peculiar circumstances. Thus, as was remarked on a former occasion, we have the word CORBAN in Hebrew, OSTRAKISMOS in Greek, PROSCRIPTIO in Latin, and we may add, ANGGAROS in Persian, ROTURIER in French, and many others, which are either wholly peculiar to their respective languages, or employed with some peculiarity of meaning, not elsewhere acknowledged. No modern language had originally words precisely corresponding to the Latin terms TRIBUNUS, CONSUL, PROCONsul, PRÆTOR, ÆDILIS, LICTOR, &C. The terms, by which they are translated into the modern languages of Europe, are the Latin words themselves, with only a slight alteration of form.

The Greek and Latin Languages are distinguished by the practice of transposition; and for this purpose they have furnished certain classes of their words with particular variations, by means of which they are made to refer to other words, with which they are naturally connected by the meaning or the sense of the passage. We find combinations of words and peculiarities of grammatical construction in the Hebrew and its cognate dialects, which we do not find either in the languages of Greece and Rome, or in those of modern Europe; and this will be found to be more or less the case in all other languages or classses of languages, which we may compare together. It is owing both to a deficiency of appropriate terms, and to peculiarities in grammatical construction, that Missionaries have often met with great perplexities in translating the Bible into the dialects of heathen countries.

The single fact, without going into particulars, that no person can become fully acquainted with the true import and spirit of a language, without an acquaintance with the geography of their country and its natural scenery, without a knowledge of the dress, buildings, arts, religion, customs, and history of the people, seems enough in support of the remark, that languages take their character from the circumstances. of those, who speak them. If the fact, on which the conclusion is founded, be doubted, then we ask, why instructers consider it so essential, that their pupils should have a knowl

edge of the antiquities of the Romans, of the antiquities of the Greeks, of the antiquities of the Hebrews ?-and why this course is pursued, or is acknowledged to be requisite, in respect to every other dead language ? *

§, 41. Languages aid in forming correct ideas of national character.

If the statements in the preceding section be true, it follows, that a knowledge of languages very much helps us in acquiring a knowledge of the character of the people, who speak them. The study of every language is the examination of a new chapter in the history and operations of the mind; that is, of the mind, as it is modified by the peculiar circumstances, the climate, government, habits, &c., of a people. Without an acquaintance, therefore, with their vernacular tongue, the critic will in vain take it upon him, to judge of the philosophy of their literature and character. is this more than any thing else, that breathes the national spirit; it fixes and retains it, when all its other monuments and memorials are gone, and after the nation itself is extinct.

It

We may perhaps even go further, and assert, that changes in languages are indices to particular events. In other words, that events of an extraordinary nature, whether they have relation to the sciences or politics, are often accompanied with corresponding effects on language. No one can be ignorant, that great and radical changes in the sciences are usually attended with alterations, improvements, and accessions of this kind. Some years since the French chemist Lavoisier laid the foundation of a new system of chemistry. In order to complete and sustain the revolution, of which he had been so conspicuous an instrument, he and his associates invented a new nomenclature, which has since been pretty generally adopted.

Nearly at the same time happened the great political convulsion in France, which also had its effects on the French. language. The patriotic Necker remarked this, and complained with no small degree of feeling of the barbarisms, which he asserted had sprung up within a short time.

He

* See for some further illustrations of this subject Heckewelder's and Duponceau's Correspondence respecting the Languages of the American Indians, Letter vin.