Not only do the more perfected of these languages use the same ele ments with greater strength than the less perfected, but we also have transitions from the latter to the form.-r, which show clearly the process of gradual refinement of the tongues. Therefore, the original root of the Mongolian tongues throws much light upon the history of the develop ment of speech; it shows us a whole scale of tongues, which, starting front the most simple possible form of human speech (1. e., the monosyllabic), progresses through more and more perfect formations to a point (in the Finnish) which does not essentially differ from the height of development as found in the Indo-Germanic.
There are three points which this mother-speech teaches clearly, and although they are well known everywhere, we must at least allude to them on account of their great importance: First, nations who have attained considerable culture, either by them selves or from foreign sources, exhibit a highly developed speech, in which the forms of thought attain a fitting expression. This is the case among the Mongolians with the Chinese and the Finns, the Americans with the Mexicans and Oiiiebuas, with the Semites of the Arabic-African races, etc.
Secondly, no ethnologic race shows only undeveloped tongues: with almost all we find true formal elements of speech, as among the Mongo lians in Chinese and Finnish, and so at least approximately in the Mex ican and in the Semitic speeches, etc. The Malayan and Tagala belong, at least in part, here.
Thirdly, if a certain number of tongues remain rude and undeveloped, it does not follow that all the nearly-related tongues remain upon the same level of development, as the highly-developed Finnish proves.
Thus we have, first, the monosyllabic tongues of China, Farther India, and .Thibet, which last two form the transition to the polysyllabic of the Ural-Japanese. All the idioms in this category make no distinction between verb, substantive, and adjective, but the same word may appear as either. The words have no outward form of difference; and what is a very remarkable fact—and indeed unique—is, that the words appearing in the spoken language are often pure roots, so that the original form of sound which the linguistic genius of this people created has been applied in the language just as they formed it, without noteworthy changes, and so remains. Unintentional changes in the sounds of the words have gradually crept in, but these need not concern us here.
All these elements of speech are monosyllabic, as originally the roots of all tongues were either monosyllabic or reduplicating; and it appears that the psycho-physical foundation upon which the linguistic genius of this people rested insisted upon and long clung to this monosyllabism; for only in later times were groups of roots formed by collocation into polysyllabic words, in which the original formative elements had lost their meaning. These linguistic elements of conventional and modified
meaning usually follow the radical, either as independent words or as loosely-attached suffixes, of which a number sometimes may come after a word. The use of prefixes is also not rare. They are much employed in the languages of Farther India.
By means of this binding together of single words these languages supply to a degree the lack of inflections—not perfectly, however, for unity and plurality, sex, person, case, moods, etc. are all wanting. They express these conceptions by independent words, often leaving it to the speaker to think out and add the various relations. That this is a very rough procedure is plain, and yet the Chinese adopts it just as do the other tongues. The means by which these idioms devoid of inflection are enabled to render the expression of thought is by the relative position of the words.
The Chinese language has this well marked, its rule being to place the attribute before the subject, the subject before the predicate, and the pred icate before the object. This order is also observed by the tongues of Farther India, and they, as well as the Chinese, make use of certain par ticles, inasmuch as the position of the word is not enough to give a clear idea of the various relations, the particles rendering the doubtful meaning quite clear. By their aid the attribute, object, etc. can be determined. There are also particles which express the relations of the predicate. Fre quently a certain manner of speaking decides in cases which would other wise remain doubtful in meaning.
In spite of all this, these tongues—even the Chinese—do not stand high. The best that the latter can do is to give a correct exposition of common logical relations; further than this the language expresses noth ing: individual ideas are presented in an isolated form, and therefore vaguely; the defining power, as we possess it in the formation of our words, is wanting with them or added by means of independent words. The same root, according to circumstances, may mean "great," "great ness," "to make great," or "to be great." Of course the tongue of the Chinese, with its fixed position of the word, is a much more compact one than ours (the German). Their thoughts are more abstract, their ideas not so keen, less positive, so much with them coining into one word which we separate with sharper comprehension. The best that the Chinese mind possesses comes to them from without, through their thoughts into their speech, the speech itself giving only the most commonplace ideas. The languages of Farther India are somewhat less abstract, but on that very account less logical.