Of the dispersion of mankind after the flood, we have a succinct account in the 10th chapter of Genesis. The three sons of Noah spread their families in different directions; from Skin proceeded the Elamites or Persians, the Assy rians, the Syrians, and Hebrews ; from Ham, the Cushites, Egyptians, Ethiopians, and inhabitants of Africa ; from Ja pheth, the inhabitants of Northern Asia, and of the greater part of Europe. The original language carried in each of these directions must have suffered numerous changes, so that in time it is not wonderful, that the traces of mutual analogy should in a great measure disappear ; still coinci cidences are occasionally discovered, which give a high degree of probability to the notion of the common origin of the whole.
When the first migrating colonies had established them selves in a particular territory as a permanent residence, the language which they carried with them would assume a peculiar and distinctive character ; and if some ages afterwards elapsed before it was again necessary for any new colony to migrate, the particular language of that ter ritory would be so completely formed, and so firmly rooted among all the members of the community, that much of it would necessarily be carried along with any colonies that should afterwards be sent forth, and thus would form the language of any new settled territory.
It is a fact perfectly well ascertained, that migrations of whole communities, in quest of new settlements, were common in ancient times. Each of these national colonies, then, would bring with them their peculiar speech ; so that it is not in the least wonderful, that in many regions over which successive waves of population passed, a language should in process of time arise, composed of se veral of the preceding ones, blended and amalgamated, as it were, into one common mass, and constructed with peculiar characters and idioms of its own. Thus, it is probable, were formed the languages of ancient Greece and Italy ; and thus it is evident also arose all the languages of modern Europe.
Proceeding upon these grounds, we may conceive the original language of the family of Noah spread in various directions ; carried by one set of colonies through Armenia, Persia, and the adjacent territories, into all the regions of the east, as far perhaps as Tartary and China, and forming the groundwork of the Armenian, the ancient Persian, the Sanscrit, perhaps too of the original spoken Chinese, as Nye] I as of all the languages related to each of them ; carried by another set into the regions of Arabia, Egypt, Abyssinia, and the remote parts of Africa, and there giving origin to the old Egyptian, the Coptic, the /Ethiopic, and their re lated tongues ; again carried by a third set to Scythia, or the Russian territory, Asia Minor, Ionia, Greece, Italy, and gradually through the farther parts of Europe, and there constituting the radical groundwork of the old Pclasgic, the Gothic, the Celtic, and all their kindred or derivative dialects. Among those families whose migrations were
least extensive, this primitive tongue, fewest changes, would retain most ut its original form ; and thus it is probable, that in the language of Jacob and ins descen dants, of the Phtenicians, the Cualdeans, and the nities connected with them, more of the primitive lorm and character remained, than among the remoter and more with Iy scattered tribes that spread through Africa and Europe.
If these theoretical views of the filiation of tongues cannot be fully and directly confirmed by the immediate comparison of the different languages, as they now are found to exist, this is not in the least to I.e wondered at, considering the inevitable changes many of them must have undergone in their progress through different countries; but if we attentively mark the precise manner in which such changes might be expected to operate, and make the necessary allowances on that account, in comparing the apparent ground-work of the languages scattered over the globe, a coincidence tt ill be found, far closer and more .striking than could at first be supposed.
Changes in language, let it be observed, may take place upon single words, by a sort of caprice among dif ferent tribes, introducing sometimes a transposition of let ters, sometimes an insertion of letters, for the sake of a Teal or fancied euphony : sometimes a contraction or abbre viation of letters, probably for the sake of dispatch ; and sometimes a reduplication of particular syllables, perhaps from some ideal emphasis attached to them. Of all these occurring in the same language, we have examples familiar to us, both in our own vernacular tongue, and in others with which we are generally conversant. But changes of this kind are particularly observable in the transplantation of a word from one language into another. Thus, in Greek became forma in Latin ; from the Latin granarium we derive our word garner ; the Celtic ros has become our horse, just as, in common Scotch, the English grass is changed into gorse, thirty into threlly, cross into corse. Consonants of the same order, too, are often interchanged ; p is used instead of b, d instead of t, g for k. An aspirate is very frequently thrown in, by which /t in one language becomes 9 or f in another ; d or t becomes th, and g or c the aspirated gh. In transplanting words, likewise, it is very common for one people to add, and another to take away, the peculiar terminations which characterize different tongues. The Latin regnum became reign in English, co/unz, cic/, in French ; U1trajerlurrz was made Utrecht ; jzondus became the French /toids ; sermo, on the other hand, became sermon, oratio, oration, and so of others.