Where such differences between languages are numerous, and where they include conceptions which are essential to the higher flights of the intellectual faculties, it is evident that the nation lacking these qualities in its language is put to a serious disadvantage in the progressive march of the race. It may, in fact, be by this condition absolutely incapacitated from reaching the higher levels of culture as long as it preserves its native tongue unchanged. So important did this aspect of linguistics appear to one of the profoundest writers of this century, Wilhelm von Humboldt, that he devoted the last and greatest work of his life to a demonstration of the influence which the structural differences of human speech exert on the mental development of the race.
Copious Vocabularies not a Proof of in that work Humboldt laid down with clearness the principles of this branch of ethnological science, many erroneous opinions still prevail on the subject. Thus it is often stated in writings of scientific pretensions that rude lan guages have limited vocabularies, and that a copious supply of words and synonymous expressions is one of the characteristics of a superior tongue. Both statements are quite erroneous. One might as well say that the interminable gabbling of some men is a proof of superior intellectual gifts. It is usually just the reverse. So it is with nations. Within the range of their ideas savages have frequently far more copious vocabularies than civilized nations. Thus it has been estimated that the natives of Tierra del Fuego, one of the lowest tribes of this continent, have a vo cabulary of thirty thousand words, but it is all within the limits of the most concrete ideas, and is an exhausting catalogue of petty distinctions. The Eskimos have twenty words to signify fishing for particular kinds of animals, as seals, walrus, whales, etc., but have no word signifying " to fish " in general. So, many American dialects possess words with the meanings " to eat hard things," " to eat soft things," " to eat meat," " to eat fruit," etc., but no general word " to eat." Such apparent rich ness is actual poverty, and the student would be led widely astray who should quote it as a proof of the superiority of these tongues. It is not the mere extent, but the range and character of the vocabulary that are decisive in such cases.
Regularity of Structure.—Nor does regularity of structure or an abun dance of grammatical forms offer any guarantee that a language belongs among those of the highest rank. On the contrary, both these traits are more common in tongues of a low order of development. Where all verbs are regular and have but one conjugation, as is the case in various South American dialects and in others in India, it is indicative of a lack of picturesqueness and force in the language which reacts injuriously on its speakers. The very abundance of forms is a clog to the intellect,
diverting the attention from the main and central thought of the proposi tion to occupy it with a quantity of useless accessory details. This is markedly the case in many American languages. To illustrate it we may quote the example given by Major J. W. Powell in his Introduction to the Study of Indian Languages : " A Ponca Indian, in saying that a man killed a rabbit, would have to say, ' The man, he, one, animate, standing, in the nominative case, purposely, killed, by shooting an arrow, the rabbit, he, the one, animate, sitting, in the objective case ;' for the form of a verb, to kill, would have to be selected, and the verb changes its form by inflection and incorporated particles to denote person, number, and gender as animate or inanimate, and again as standing, sitting, or lying, and case as nominative, objective, etc. ; the form of the verb would also express whether the killing was done accidentally or purposely, and whether it was done by shooting or by some other process, and, if by shooting, whether by bow and arrow or with a gran ; and the form of the verb would in like manner have to express all these things relating to the object ; that is, the person, number, gender, and case of the object ; and from the multi plicity of forms of the verb ' to kill ' this particular one would have to be selected. Perhaps one time in a million it would be the purpose to express all these particulars, and in that case the Indian would have the whole expression in one compact word ; but in all the remaining cases in the million all of these particulars would have to be thought of in the selection of the forum of the verb, when no valuable purpose would be accomplished thereby." Capacity to Express can we accept the capacity of a language to express thoughts as an evidence of its excellence. It is a fact proved by the records of missionary labors in savage lands that the mysteries of religion, which are among the most recondite of all medita tions, can be conveyed in the forms of any tongue yet discovered, though new words may have to be introduced. It is not at all certain, however, that those native born to these tongues understand the phrases as do their teachers. But the fact remains that the forms of the most barbarous lan guages are such that they may be developed to admit the expression of any kind of idea.