3. If from words we pass on to the varieties of syntac- tical arrangement, the same degree of analogy will be found to exist between class and class, or between fam- ily and family in the same class; in other words, no peculiarity exists in one which does not admit of ex- planation by a comparison with others. The absence of all grammatical forms in an isolating language ne- cessitates a rigid collocation of the words in a sentence according to logical principles. The same law prevails to a very great extent in our own language, wherein the subject, verb, and object, or the subject, copula, and predicate, generally hold their relative positions in the order exhibited, the exceptions to such an arrangement being easily brought into harmony with that general law. In the agglutinative languages the law of ar- rangement is that the principal word should come last in the sentence, every qualifying clause or word pre- ceding it, and being, as it were, sustained by it. The syntactical is thus the reverse of the verbal structure, the principal notion taking the precedence in the latter (Ewald, jSprac/iif. A bhandl. ii, 29). There is in this noth- ing peculiar to this class of languages, beyond the great- er uniformity with which the arrangement is adhered to; it is the general rule in the classical, and the occa- sional rule in certain of the Teutonic, languages. In the Shemitic family the reverse arrangement prevails; the qualifying adjectives follow the noun to which they belong, and the verb generally stands first; short sen- tences are necessitated by such a collocation, and hence more room is allowed for the influence of emphasis in deciding the order of the sentence. In illustration of grammatical peculiarities, we may notice that in the agglutinative class adjectives qualifying substantives, or substantives placed in apposition with substantives, remain undeclined; in this case the process may be compared with the formation of compotmd words in the Indo-European languages, where the final member alone is inflected. So, again, the omission of a plural termina- tion in nouns following a numeral may be paralleled with a similar usage in our own language, where the
TONGUES, CONFUSION OF 469 TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
terms " pound" and " head" are used collectively after a numeral. We may again cite tlie peculiar manner of expressing the genitive in Hebrew. This is effect- ed by one of the two following methods — placing the governing noun in the status constriictus, or using the relative pronoun with a preposition before the governed case. The first of these processes appears a strange in- version of the laws of language ; but an examination into the origin of the adjuncts, whether prefixes or af- fixes, used in other languages for the indication of the genitive will show that they have a more intimate connection with the governing than with the governed word, and that thej' are generally resolvable into either relative or personal pronouns, which serve the simple purpose of connecting tlie two words together ((iarnett, Essai/s, p. 214-'227). The same end may be gained by connecting the words in pronunciation, which would lead to a rapid utterance of the first, and consequenth'' to the changes which are witnessed in the status con- sfructus. The second or periphrastic process is in ac- cordance with the general method of expressing the genitive; for the expression "the Song which is to Solomon" strictly answers to " Solomon's Song," the s representing (according to Bopp's explanation) a com- bination of the demonstrative sa and the relative i/a. It is thus that the varieties of construction may be shown to be consistent with unity of law, and that they therefore furnish no argument against a common origin.
4. Lastly, it may be shown that the varieties of lan- guage do not arise from any constitutional inequality of vital energy. Nothing is more remarkable than the compensating power apparently inherent in all lan- guage, whereby it finds the means of reaching the level of the human spirit through a faithful adherence to its own guiding principle. The isolating languages, being shut out from the manifold advantages of verbal com- position, attain their object by multiplied combinations of radical sounds, assisted by an elaborate sj'stem of ac- centuation and intonation. In this manner the Chinese language has framed a vocabulary fully equal to the demands made upon it; and though this mode of devel- opment may not commend itself to our notions as the most effective that can be devised, yet it plainly evinces a high susceptibility on the part of the linguistic fac- ulty, and a keen perception of the correspondence be- tween sound and sense. Nor does the absence of in- flection interfere with the expression even of the most delicate shades of meaning in a sentence; a compensat- ing resource is found partly in a multiplicity of sub- sidiary terms expressive of plurality, motion, action, etc., and partly in strict attention to syntactical arrange- ment. The agglutinative languages, again, are deficient in compound words, and in this respect lack the elastic- ity and expansiveness of the Indo-European family ; but they are eminently synthetic, and no one can fail to admire the regularity and solidity with which its words are built up, suffix on suffix, and, when built up, are suffused with a uniformity of tint by the law of vowel- harmony. The Shemitic languages have worked out a different principle of growth, evolved, not improbably, in the midst of a conflict between the systems of prefix and suffix, whereby the stem, being, as it were, enclosed at both extremities, was precluded from all external in- crement, and was forced back into such changes as could be effected by a modification of its vowel-sounds. But whatever may be the origin of the system of internal inflection, it must be conceded that the results are very effective, as regards both economy of material and sim- plicity and dignity of style.