cratylus- 第11部分

fact。



Language　is　an　aspect　of　man；　of　nature；　and　of　nations；　the

transfiguration　of　the　world　in　thought；　the　meeting…point　of　the　physical

and　mental　sciences；　and　also　the　mirror　in　which　they　are　reflected；

present　at　every　moment　to　the　individual；　and　yet　having　a　sort　of　eternal

or　universal　nature。　　When　we　analyze　our　own　mental　processes；　we　find

words　everywhere　in　every　degree　of　clearness　and　consistency；　fading　away

in　dreams　and　more　like　pictures；　rapidly　succeeding　one　another　in　our

waking　thoughts；　attaining　a　greater　distinctness　and　consecutiveness　in

speech；　and　a　greater　still　in　writing；　taking　the　place　of　one　another

when　we　try　to　become　emancipated　from　their　influence。　　For　in　all

processes　of　the　mind　which　are　conscious　we　are　talking　to　ourselves；　the

attempt　to　think　without　words　is　a　mere　illusion；they　are　always

reappearing　when　we　fix　our　thoughts。　　And　speech　is　not　a　separate

faculty；　but　the　expression　of　all　our　faculties；　to　which　all　our　other

powers　of　expression；　signs；　looks；　gestures；　lend　their　aid；　of　which　the

instrument　is　not　the　tongue　only；　but　more　than　half　the　human　frame。



The　minds　of　men　are　sometimes　carried　on　to　think　of　their　lives　and　of

their　actions　as　links　in　a　chain　of　causes　and　effects　going　back　to　the

beginning　of　time。　　A　few　have　seemed　to　lose　the　sense　of　their　own

individuality　in　the　universal　cause　or　nature。　　In　like　manner　we　might

think　of　the　words　which　we　daily　use；　as　derived　from　the　first　speech　of

man；　and　of　all　the　languages　in　the　world；　as　the　expressions　or　varieties

of　a　single　force　or　life　of　language　of　which　the　thoughts　of　men　are　the

accident。　　Such　a　conception　enables　us　to　grasp　the　power　and　wonder　of

languages；　and　is　very　natural　to　the　scientific　philologist。　　For　he；　like

the　metaphysician；　believes　in　the　reality　of　that　which　absorbs　his　own

mind。　　Nor　do　we　deny　the　enormous　influence　which　language　has　exercised

over　thought。　　Fixed　words；　like　fixed　ideas；　have　often　governed　the

world。　　But　in　such　representations　we　attribute　to　language　too　much　the

nature　of　a　cause；　and　too　little　of　an　effect；too　much　of　an　absolute；

too　little　of　a　relative　character；too　much　of　an　ideal；　too　little　of　a

matter…of…fact　existence。



Or　again；　we　may　frame　a　single　abstract　notion　of　language　of　which　all

existent　languages　may　be　supposed　to　be　the　perversion。　　But　we　must　not

conceive　that　this　logical　figment　had　ever　a　real　existence；　or　is

anything　more　than　an　effort　of　the　mind　to　give　unity　to　infinitely

various　phenomena。　　There　is　no　abstract　language　'in　rerum　natura；'　any

more　than　there　is　an　abstract　tree；　but　only　languages　in　various　stages

of　growth；　maturity；　and　decay。　　Nor　do　other　logical　distinctions　or　even

grammatical　exactly　correspond　to　the　facts　of　language；　for　they　too　are

attempts　to　give　unity　and　regularity　to　a　subject　which　is　partly

irregular。



We　find；　however；　that　there　are　distinctions　of　another　kind　by　which　this

vast　field　of　language　admits　of　being　mapped　out。　　There　is　the

distinction　between　biliteral　and　triliteral　roots；　and　the　various

inflexions　which　accompany　them；　between　the　mere　mechanical　cohesion　of

sounds　or　words；　and　the　'chemical'　combination　of　them　into　a　new　word；

there　is　the　distinction　between　languages　which　have　had　a　free　and　full

development　of　their　organisms；　and　languages　which　have　been　stunted　in

their　growth；lamed　in　their　hands　or　feet；　and　never　able　to　acquire

afterwards　the　powers　in　which　they　are　deficient；　there　is　the　distinction

between　synthetical　languages　like　Greek　and　Latin；　which　have　retained

their　inflexions；　and　analytical　languages　like　English　or　French；　which

have　lost　them。　　Innumerable　as　are　the　languages　and　dialects　of　mankind；

there　are　comparatively　few　classes　to　which　they　can　be　referred。



Another　road　through　this　chaos　is　provided　by　the　physiology　of　speech。　

The　organs　of　language　are　the　same　in　all　mankind；　and　are　only　capable　of

uttering　a　certain　number　of　sounds。　　Every　man　has　tongue；　teeth；　lips；

palate；　throat；　mouth；　which　he　may　close　or　open；　and　adapt　in　various

ways；　making；　first；　vowels　and　consonants；　and　secondly；　other　classes　of

letters。　　The　elements　of　all　speech；　like　the　elements　of　the　musical

scale；　are　few　and　simple；　though　admitting　of　infinite　gradations　and

combinations。　　Whatever　slight　differences　exist　in　the　use　or　formation　of

these　organs；　owing　to　climate　or　the　sense　of　euphony　or　other　causes；

they　are　as　nothing　compared　with　their　agreement。　　Here　then　is　a　real

basis　of　unity　in　the　study　of　philology；　unlike　that　imaginary　abstract

unity　of　which　we　were　just　now　speaking。



Whether　we　regard　language　from　the　psychological；　or　historical；　or

physiological　point　of　view；　the　materials　of　our　knowledge　are

inexhaustible。　　The　comparisons　of　children　learning　to　speak；　of　barbarous

nations；　of　musical　notes；　of　the　cries　of　animals；　of　the　song　of　birds；

increase　our　insight　into　the　nature　of　human　speech。　　Many　observations

which　would　otherwise　have　escaped　us　are　suggested　by　them。　　But　they　do

not　explain　why；　in　man　and　in　man　only；　the　speaker　met　with　a　response

from　the　hearer；　and　the　half　articulate　sound　gradually　developed　into

Sanscrit　and　Greek。　　They　hardly　enable　us　to　approach　any　nearer　the

secret　of　the　origin　of　language；　which；　like　some　of　the　other　great

secrets　of　nature；the　origin　of　birth　and　death；　or　of　animal　life；

remains　inviolable。　　That　problem　is　indissolubly　bound　up　with　the　origin

of　man；　and　if　we　ever　know　more　of　the　one；　we　may　expect　to　know　more　of

the　other。　　（Compare　W。　Humboldt；　'Ueber　die　Verschiedenheit　des

menschlichen　Sprachbaues；'　M。　Muller；　'Lectures　on　the　Science　of

Language；'　Steinthal；　'Einleitung　in　die　Psychologie　und

Sprachwissenschaft。'



。。。



It　is　more　than　sixteen　years　since　the　preceding　remarks　were　written；

which　with　a　few　alterations　have　now　been　reprinted。　　During　the　interval

the　progress　of　philology　has　been　very　great。　　More　languages　have　been

compared；　the　inner　structure　of　language　has　been　laid　bare；　the　relations

of　sounds　have　been　more　accurately　discriminated；　the　manner　in　which

dialects　affect　or　are　affected　by　the　literary　or　principal　form　of　a

language　is　better　understood。　　Many　merely　verbal　questions　have　been

eliminated；　the　remains　of　the　old　traditional　methods　have　died　away。　　The

study　has　passed　from　the　metaphysical　into　an　historical　stage。　　Grammar

is　no　longer　confused　with　language；　nor　the　anatomy　of　words　and　sentences

with　their　life　and　use。　　Figures　of　speech；　by　which　the　vagueness　of

theories　is　often　concealed；　have　been　stripped　off；　and　we　see　language

more　as　it　truly　was。　　The　immensity　of　the　subject　is　gradually　revealed

to　us；　and　the　reign　of　law　becomes　apparent。　　Yet　the　law　is　but　partially

seen；　the　traces　of　it　are　often　lost　in　the　distance。　　For　languages　have

a　natural　but　not　a　perfect　growth；　like　other　creations　of　nature　into

which　the　will　of　man　enters；　they　are　full　of　what　we　term　accident　and

irregularity。　　And　the　difficulties　of　the　subject　become　not　less；　but

greater；　as　we　proceedit　is　one　of　those　studies　in　which　we　seem　to　know

less　as　we　know　more；　partly　because　we　are　no　longer　satisfied　with　the

vague　and　superficial　ideas　of　it　which　prevailed　fifty　years　ago；　partly

also　because　the　remains　of　the　languages　with　which　we　are　acquainted

always　were；　and　if　they　are　still　living；　are；　in　a　state　of　transition；

and　thirdly；　because　there　are　lacunae　in　our　knowledge　of　them　which　can

never　be　filled　up。　　Not　a　tenth；　not　a　hundredth　part　of　them　has　been

preserved。　　Yet　the　materials　at　our　disposal　are　far　greater　than　any

individual　can　use。　　Such　are　a　few　of　the　general　reflections　which　the

present　state　of　philology　calls　up。



（1）　　Language　seems　to　be　composite；　but　into　its　first　elements　the

philologer　has　never　been　able　to　penetrate。　　However　far　he　goes　back；　he

never　arrives　at　the　beginning；　or　rather；　as　in　Geology　or　in　Astronomy；

there　is　no　beginning。　　He　is　too　apt　to　suppose　that　by　breaking　up　the

existing　forms　of　language　into　their　parts　he　will　arrive　at　a　previous

stage　of　it；　but　he　is　merely　analyzing　what　never　existed；　or　is　never

known　to　have　existed；　except　in　a　composite　form。　　He　may　divide　nouns　and

verbs　into　roots　and　inflexions；　but　he　has　no　evidence　which　will　show

that　the　omega　of　tupto　or　the　mu　of　tithemi；　though　analogous　to　ego；　me；

either　became　pronouns　or　were　generated　out　of　pronouns。　　To　say　that

'pronouns；　like　ripe　fruit；　dropped　out　of　verbs；'　is　a　misleading　figure

of　speech。　　Although　all　languages　have　some　common　principles；　there　is　no

primitive　form　or　forms　of　language　known　to　us；　or　to　be　reasonably

imagined；　from　which　they　are　all　descended。　　No　inference　can　be　drawn

from　language；　either　for　or　against　the　unity　of　the　human　race。　　Nor　is

there　any　proof　that　words　were　ever　used　without　any　relation　to　each

other。　　Whatever　may　be　the　meaning　of　a　sentence　or　a　word　when　applied　to

primitive　language；　it　is　probable　that　the　sentence　is　more　akin　to　the

original　form　than　the　word；　and　that　the　later　stage　of　language　is　the

result　rather　of　analysis　than　of　synthesis；　or　possibly　is　a　combination

of　the　two。　　Nor；　again；　are　we　sure　that　the　original　process　of　learning

to　speak　was　the　same　in　different　places　or　among　different　races　of　men。　

It　may　have　been　slower　with　some；　quicker　with　others。　　Some　tribes　may

have　used　shorter；　others　longer　words　or　cries：　　they　may　have　been　more

or　less　inclined　to　agglutinate　or　to　decompose　them：　　they　may　have

modified　them　by　the　use　of　prefixes；　suffixes；　infixes；　by　the　lengthening

and　strengthening　of　vowels　or　by　the　shortening　and　weakening　of　them；　by

the　condensation　or　rarefa