Monosyllabic Languages.

115

gives rise to the delusion that every language must admit of the formation of substantive, pronoun, verb, preposition, and conjunction by means of appended syllables or sounds. The novice meets with his first surprise in the Semitic languages which, although not deficient in forms, employ unwonted means of effecting their definitions of meaning. An examination of the African and Northern Asiatic languages discloses the yet more surprising fact, that in these not only the gender but the verb disappears. But we fall into incredulous perplexity on learning that languages exist which have not risen even to the formation of words, especially when it is added, that a highly civilized people with a language of this description have composed works exhibiting profound knowledge of the world, and stories of artistic polish and great subtlety. Yet there is the best evidence to show that all languages have proceeded from such rude beginnings.

All monosyllabic languages are destitute of those phonetic or syllabic suffixes which elsewhere mark noun, adjective, or verb, and still more of those which distinguish the subject of a transaction from its object; for as yet there are no words at all, but only roots. We would however at once warn the uninitiated not to mistake the monosyllabic sounds of German and English with the radicals of true monosyllabic languages. We can certainly construct long sentences with monosyllabic words, as for instance, Der Mann ging auf die Jagd, und schoss ein Reh, etc. (The man went out to hunt and shot a deer), but in this example gin-g and Jag-d are only apparently monosyllables, and schoss accidentally so. English, to a far greater extent than German, has declined towards a rigidly monosyllabic condition by dint of phonetic decay and abrasion, though it has preserved the clear distinction of the grammatical categories and only in a few cases, such as butter, oil, pepper. cudgel, the hearer or reader has to guess from the context whether the substantive or the verb is intended.2

I

The Chinese language dispenses with all grammatical distinctions of meaning. It is destitute of all inflections, of all distinctions between substantive and verb, and of verbal structure

1 Whitney, Language and the Study of Language, p. 264.

2

Tylor, Early History of Mankind, p. 80.

of any description. The syllable sin may signify honour, honourable, to be honourable, to act honourably, and even to trust. What it means in any given case is decided by its position in the sentence and the context.3 By the contact of root with root the meaning is defined, and thus the sense is conveyed to the hearer as by verbal structure. In English also synonyms are sometimes multiplied for the sake of clearness, as in pathway, or classificatory suffixes are appended as in maple-tree.4 In German, too, we say Hai-fish, Tannenbaum, Elenthier, (dogfish, fir-tree, moose-deer). These examples are, however, only remotely analogous, for, strictly speaking, combinations of words ought not to be compared with the grouping of roots. In Latin no special arrangement of words is prescribed in the structure of a sentence, and the position of the parts of speech is left to the artistic feeling of the speaker; Chinese, on the contrary, follows the strictest precepts in regard to syntax. Roots which are to serve for a closer definition (attributes), whether as adjective or genitives, must precede the subject or verb which they are to define. Supplements (objects) must follow that which is to be supplemented (the verb.) The grouping of two roots is naturally, in countless cases, liable to ambiguity. If tschung (faith) and kyün (prince) are combined, a European might be in doubt whether the good faith of the prince or the loyalty of the subject be intended. But in all such cases custom has long ago firmly fixed the sense in which alone such a group is valid; as the Chinese recognizes only the duty of subjects, this group signifies loyalty. The Chinese groups of roots often consist

of several parts. For difference of opinion the Chinese say, I east, thou west, ni tung, wo si; and for conversing, thou asking, I answering, ni wen, wo ta. Weight is called light-heavy, khing tschung, and distance far-near, ywan kin. In German we have a similar form of word in hell-dunkel (light-dark, i.e., twilight); pianoforte; in Spanish, we find calofrio (warm-cold) for fever, and

3 Steinthal, Characteristik der hauptsächlichste Typen des Sprachbaues, p. 117. Berlin, 1860. Where other authorities are not cited, the present chapter has been borrowed from this invaluable book.

Whitney, Study of Language, p. 335.

The Chinese Language.

117

altibajo (high-low) for depression.5 As they have no word for virtue, the Chinese say loyalty, respect for parents, temperance, justice, tschun, hyau, tsye, i, thus enumerating what they regard as the highest duties of a Chinaman. In all such combinations of roots the sequence is invariably prescribed. Neither can any one speaking by means of roots, as do the Chinese, say simply read or eat, but he must say read book, or eat rice.

Even in Chinese there are feeble beginnings of a formation of words. All roots indeed preserve their independence, yet there are some by the addition of which other roots are raised to the value of substantives. Of this sort is thau, head, so that according to its position tschi may signify show or finger, but tschi-thau always means finger. Again, the root tsz, signifying son, is applied as a diminutive, so that from tau, sword, tau-tsz, swordson, is formed, signifying knife. In the enumeration of objects a descriptive designation is always added, much as we say in German, ein Laib Brot (a loaf of bread), ein Blatt Papier (a sheet of paper), ein Bund Heu (a truss of hay), eine Elle Leinwand (a yard of linen). A Chinaman, enumerating idols, learned men, or officials, affixes the predicates, honours, dignities, jewels, to the number mentioned. The sex of animals is indicated by the addition of two roots, which in this connection confer the sense of man or of mother.

The plural is formed in Chinese by the addition of roots signifying many or all.

The rules of syntax are thus sufficient to give perfect clearness to a language consisting entirely of monosyllabic roots. The Chinese may therefore claim to have supplied every requisite for the interchange of thought by these simple means. Nevertheless, of all languages of the world, Chinese is in the lowest stage of development. It burdens the memory with the recollection of an immense number of combinations of radicals on which custom

Tober, Psych. Bedeutung der Wortzusammensetzungen, in Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie, vol. v. p. 209. 1868.

6 The Mexicans and Malays always append to the number the word stone, the Javans grain, the Niasmalays fruit. In these languages therefore it is not customary to say three chickens, four children, five swords, but three stones chickens, four grains children, five fruits swords. Tylor, Early History of Mankind, p. 208.

alone has bestowed an unalterable signification, and thereby needlessly enhances the difficulty of acquiring the language. We are therefore at a loss to comprehend how a man of such sagacity as Steinthal could reckon it among his inflected languages, for he himself admits that, "If morphological structure be alone considered, the order would necessarily be different. Chinese in particular, which now occupies such a high position, would then be transferred to the lowest."7 Steinthal would think little of a zoologist if he were to rank the highly endowed ant among the vertebrata because it is psychologically superior to the lancelet. Yet his classification is of this sort. Among the Siamese and Burmese, the southern neighbours of the Chinese, we also find purely monosyllabic languages. Yet they already surpass the Chinese in the number of roots which are applied to the definition of meaning. Their rules of syntax prescribe that in Siamese the auxiliary root precedes, while in Burmese it follows the principal root. By the addition of these roots, substantives and verbs, active as well as passive, are differentiated. We may presume that if these two languages are left to develop undisturbed, the formation of words will be effected in one preeminently by means of prefixes, in the other by means of suffixes.

But

In the Malay languages, geographically connected with the Burmese and Siamese, the syllables which define the sense are sometimes placed before, and sometimes, though less frequently, after the principal root. A great chasm separates them from the types hitherto described, for they contain polysyllabic roots. no part of speech is as yet strictly differentiated, so that the same root or group of roots is capable of executing the functions of a substantive, an adjective, a word expressive of action, or even of a preposition. There are no syllables by the addition of which gender, case, number, tense, mood, and person can be expressed. Pronouns only, demonstrative particles, and a few prepositions, already perform their special grammatical duties. Personal pronouns alone are susceptible of a sort of plural definition by combination with numerical expressions; this gives rise to a dual and a plural, both of which forms may also be used either inclusively 8 Steinthal, p. 145.

Typen des Sprachbaues, p. 328.

or exclusively, as the person or persons addressed are or are not to be involved. Genuine verbs are totally wanting; they are replaced by substantives expressing an action, much as if we were to render the idea, "I walk to the east," by the words, "my walk to the east." Thus in the Dyak language the prefix ba means, to be affected by something. From tiroh, sleep, arises batiroh, to sleep; from kahovut, cover, bakahovut, covered; hence ia batiroh bakahavut, literally, he with sleep with cover, represents the idea, he sleeps covered.

A characteristic of these languages is the frequent use of such repetitions and reduplication as, in older stages of development, occurred also in highly advanced languages. In Latin a vestige of such word formations has been preserved in quisquis, and similar traces of past ages in dedit and peperit. The Malay languages moreover distinguish simple repetitions, in which the accent remains unaltered, from reduplication, in which the anterior word loses the accent. By repetition they express multiplication, augmentation, or duration; by reduplication enfeeblement or instability is implied, so that tendäténdä signifies often, tendä tendä, on the contrary, to stop from time to time.9 This poverty

in expedients for the definition of meaning does not, however, exclude a wealth of expressions. In Malay there are no less than twenty sounds expressive of the idea of striking, according to whether it be with thin or thick wood, gently, downwards, upwards, horizontally, with the hand, the palm, the fist, a club, a sharp edge, a flat surface, with one thing against another, with a hammer, or driven in like a nail.

Scattered over the north of Asia and Europe in five large groups, the Tungús, Mongolian, Turkish, Samoyed, and Finnish, we find a linguistic structure strictly limited to the addition of suffixes. The grammatical functions of each word in the sentence are pretty sharply defined by means of these appendages. The suffix sit signifies a person occupied with the subject of the preceding root. From ati, wares, the Yakut constructs ati-sit, merchant; from ayi, creation, ayi-sit, creator. An action is signified by the addition of ir, and therefore, from tial, wind,

9 Steinthal, Sprachtypen. Whitney, Study of Language, p. 319.