'Morphological' and 'Genealogical' classifications-Table of the Indo-European family-Table of correspondence between its members-'Romanic' or 'Romance' languages; their origin-Table of correspondence between them-Features of PAGE General principle of phonetic change to secure ease of articula- tion-Comparative strength or difficulty of sounds according to the physical conditions of their production-Consonants; Number of Cases-Gender and modes of generic distinction— Pronouns without Gender: First and Second Personal, and Distinction between Noun and Verb-Augment, Connecting Vowel-Classification of Verbs-Person-Endings- Mood- CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY. the work. questions. THE main object of the present work, as indicated by its title, Object of is the philological explanation of the Inflections in Greek and Latin. For the purposes, however, of such explanation it is necessary to presume a certain acquaintance with the main results of the Science of Language or Comparative Philology, and with the terms commonly in use among philologists; and we must begin with a clear understanding, (1) of the general classi- Preliminary fication of Languages, and the place in the history of human speech of those languages with which we are immediately concerned, viz. Greek and Latin; (2) of the classification of Sounds and the letters by which they are represented, and of the processes of change which sounds have undergone in human. speech; (3) of the constituent elements of language - i. e. 'roots' or simplest forms, and formative elements, including Inflections. Into questions of the origin of language, and the connection between its simplest discoverable forms and the ideas expressed by them, we need not enter. The balance between the two extreme views of language as a conventional 1 1 1 The view that language is conventional,' in the sense that people meet or ever met together to deliberate on the meaning and changes of words, is of course easily ridiculed. The term, however, may also be applied to language in opposition to the idea that there is any necessary connection between words or 'roots' and the ideas signified by them, or that there are organic forces of growth in speech itself which, by some mysterious natural process, without human agency, produce new material B of the Na ture and Origin of Language unneces sary. Discussion production-a view based upon the apparent meanlessness of its formal elements-and language as an organic being, producing those formal elements by virtue of a mysterious principle of growth inherent in its nature, has been clearly drawn by Professor Max Müller in those Lectures on the Science of Language1, 'to whose world-wide popularity (it has been well said) Comparative Philology owes its present position and its present charm and for this question, with others that relate to the aim and methods of Comparative Philology, we cannot do better than refer to a book which for every English student of that science should be the avenue by which he approaches it. But we may examine the relation of Latin and Greek words to each other or to Sanskrit, or trace the history of varying forms in any one language, without touching such questions as that of the Onomatopoeic or Interjectional origin of human speech (the 'Bow-Wow' and 'Pooh-Pooh' theories of Professor Max Müller), or deciding whether language arose from imitations of cries and sounds (as it often does in the nursery) or from exclamations expressive of pleasure or pain or other emotions of mind or body. The furthest researches into the history of language and the utmost possible analysis of written or spoken languages bring us to certain primitive and elementary combinations of and alter old. These ideas exercise a kind of fascination over many students of language; but it is reasonably maintained that spoken language (as distinct from the faculty of language implanted in man) is an external medium of communication, learnt in childhood by mere imitation, and not inherited as a race-characteristic, or independently produced by each individual with his mental and bodily growth. The acquisition by each individual of his own language in childhood is the gradual accumulation, by imitation of those around him, of a stock of signs, which are so far arbitrary and conventional,' in that each is bound to the idea signified only by a tie of mental association, and not by any natural and necessary connection. 'Language' is not a faculty or capacity, but a developed result; and the assumption that man is gifted at his birth not only with the capacity, but also with its elaborated results, is a theory, not of a Divine, but of a 'miraculous' origin of speech. 6 The question of the Nature and Origin of Language has been recently treated in a popular form, by Prof. Whitney in his Life and Growth of Language (see especially ch. xiv). He assigns a more important place to the 'imitative' or 'onomatopoeic' principle than some philologists allow; but on a question of this nature much latitude of opinion is possible, and his remarks are very suggestive and instructive. i See Lectures, Series I. Lect. v. on Comparative Grammar.' sounds which we call 'roots;' but we cannot arrive with any certainty even at the ultimate form of these roots. The earliest traceable condition of that 'Indo-European' speech, of which (as we shall see) Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin, with the other languages comprised under that term, are dialectical varieties, is evidently far removed from the primeval time when language first arose—as is clear, among other reasons, from its highly developed vowel-system, and the employment of vowel change rather than the earlier and simpler method of reduplication1 to express modifications of ideas: and therefore speculations as to the connection between its elements and the ideas expressed by them can be of little use for the purposes of a science which (as Professor Max Müller points out) collects facts and accounts for these facts as far as possible. It is at least probable that language owes its origin to a combination of imitational and interjectional sounds: for it is difficult to assign any other origin to speech, and the phenomena of dawning speech in infants point to this as one natural origin for conscious sound: but the existing materials of language, with which alone Philology has to do, give us no data upon which to base any calculations as to the exact mode in which such growth of speech began. Passing by, therefore, such questions as unpractical and insoluble, we may proceed to the consideration of the points already mentioned as introductory to the explanation of Greek and Latin Inflections; viz. the classification of languages, the classification of sounds, the changes and modifications of sounds, and the elements of word-formation. These will occupy the next four chapters, and the discussion of Inflections properly so called will follow in chap. vi. 1 On this point consult Peile's 'Introduction to Greek and Latin Etymology,' and see below, ch. iv. |