5. We see in language a complicated whole, which we are usually accustomed to consider as it is, without attempting to ascertain what it has been. We see all regularity and beauty, and we do not often ask ourselves the question, has language always been thus regular and beautiful When we look back into the earlier periods of human nature, we find that this, which now wears so much the appearance of art, was originally the in vention of necessity, gradually perfected and brought into a systematic form by causes which have operated generally, but have received modification from the influence of local or temporary circum stances. A complete history of the origin and progress of language, would be a. history of the human mind. Our direct evidence is not vertexcensive, and indeed we are too much obliged to have recourse to hypothesis in tracing the progress of improvement in any department of science. We are unable always to ascertain (as Mr. Stewart observes) how men have actually conducted themselves on parti cular occasions, and we are then led to inquire in what manner they are likely to have proceeded, limn the principle of their nature, and the circumstances of their external situation. In such inquiries the detached facts which the remains of antiquity, or the narrations of travellers, or the actual appearances of language at present, afflird us, serve as landmarks for our speculations. " In examining the history of mankind, as well as in examin ing the phenomena of the material world, when we cannot trace the process by which an event has been produced, it is often of importance to be able to show how it may have been produced by natural causes. The steps in the formation of language cannot probably be determined with certainty ; yet if we can show, from the known principles of human nature, how all its various parts might gradually have arisen, the mind is not only to a cer tain degree satisfied, but a check is given to that indolent philosophy, which refers a miracle whatever appearances both in the natural and moral worlds it is un able to explain." 6. Diodorus Siculus and Vitruvius sup posed, that the first men lived for some time in the woods and caves, like the beasts, uttering only confused and inar ticulate sounds ; till, associating for mu tual assistance, they came by degrees to -use articulate sounds, mutually agreed upon, for arbitrary signs or marks of those ideas in the mind of the speaker, which he wanted to communicate to the hearer. By what degrees they proceeded from inarticulate to articulate sounds, these writers do not attempt to point out, and unless we admit that those articulate sounds were connected with certain feel ings, in the same manner as what are called the natural signs, or, that they were easily produced, (which will not be allowed by any who have attended to the structure of the organs of speech) the account we have received from a better informed historian will not lose its ground. Moses leads us to understand that the ru diments of language were given to man by his Maker. Here was the first step, and here it is reasonable to believe the divine communication ceased, and that man was left to complete what he had been taught to begin. Let us then sup pose the use of articulation given, and its application in some instances pointed out, in the invention of the names of animals ; which, we may observe, is in fact the first step which would probably have been taken, presupposing th e use ofarticulation, if no divine interposition had taken place.
7. Words would originally be simply the signs of things, and farther, of indi viduals. New objects, for which necessity required a name, would receive different names from those already given ; but if there were a striking similarity between a new object, and one which had already received a name, the old name would be transferred. One of the principles of as sociation is similarity, and the new im pression would recal the idea of a former object which it resembled, and conse quently the word with which that object was connected; and thus, what originally was a name for an individual only, would gradually become the name of a multi tude. Thus Lee Boo, who had been taught by his fellow voyagers to call a great Newfinindland dog by the name of Sailor, used to call every dog he saw Sailor. There is little or no difficulty at
tending the appellation and classification of sensible objects : it is an operation sim ple and easy, if some articulate sounds were known.
8. When several objects had received the same name, it would sometimes be necessary to distinguish them. Our pro cedure in such cases is, to connect with the name of the object the name of a dis tinguishing quality, or some word of a restrictive force, or to specify some rela tion which it has with other objects ; but this supposes that to be already done, which we must suppose is to be done. Now we must bear in mind that similarity (sensible, external similarity) and local connection, are those principles of asso ciation which are known to be most active in the minds of the illiterate and unculti vated, and that they must also have been the most active in the minds of all men in the rude states of society. A peculiar colour (which would furnish one criterion of distinction) would, therefore, suggest the idea of some object remarkable for that colour ; and the name of this second object, joined with the name which the first had in common with others, would confine this general term to the particu lar object which it was intended to spe cify. This is a procedure so simple, that we may expect to find some traces of it still remaining to us ; and accordingly, among others, we have the expression, an orange ribbon, which will exemplify what has been said : if we wish to dis tinguish a ribbon by its colour, we are in this case able, agreeably to the custom of our language, to connect with the word ribbon, the name of an object remarkable for that colour. It must however be ob when tracing out other examples of this contrivance, and the application of it to other qualities; that sensible qualities were those, and those only, which would be first noticed, and most requisite to he noticed. Local situation, or vicinity to some object, would furnish another ground for distinction ; the fountain near the cave, for instance. Now to express this, the procedure would be simple and intelligible, if immediately preceding or following the term denoting fountain, the term denoting cave were added ; in like manner as we at present use the expres sions, barn-pawl, &c. This juxtaposition of the signs, to signify the contiguity or similarity-of the objects which they de note, is natural, and, in a language little extended, sufficiently adequate for all the purposes of common life : but it is obvious that it would allow of great latitude of in terpretation; andhence, as languages be came more copious, contrivances were used to denote the nature of the connec tion which existed between objects de noted by the signs employed. The chief of these is the employment of preposi tions ; and these, in the outset, furnish additional proof that the procedures we have spoken of were in reality those of the early framers of language, (see Cu a MAR, § 41, p-rtiaukirlyrespecting from); but these were contrivances of a later date than those of which we here speak. By degrees it was by some tribes found convenient . to designate those names which were employed in connection with other names to point out some quality or restricting circumstance of the thing sig nified, by some note that they were so employed. They might without any dis advantage have left the inference to sim ple juxtaposition ; hut this appears to have been done in few languages after im provements began to take place: and to effect such designation, words (in some cases denoting add, join, &c.) were sub joined to the particularizing names, and they then became adjective. (See GRAM. MAK, § 22.) The Chinese, however, make no distinction between words when em ployed as nouns and as adnouns ; the same word when placed first being an adjec tive, and when placed last, a substantive. We do the same in many instances ; but a large proportion of our simple adjec tives are formed as above, and are never employed as substantives ; the Chinese, on the other hand, when a substantive is not to be used adjectively, acid a desig nating syllable to it.