The Online Library of Liberty

A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

• Preface
• Key to Abbreviations and References
• Introduction
• 1.: The Manuscript
• 2.: The Lectures
• 3.: Considerations Concerning the First Formation of Languages
• 4.: Rhetoric and Literary Criticism
• 5.: System and Aesthetics
• Bibliographical Note
• Lectures On Rhetoric and Belles Lettres: Lecture 2D.
• Lecture 3D.: Of the Origin and Progress of Language 1
• Lecture 4tha
• Lecture 5. A
• Lecture 6.THA: Of What Is Called the Tropes and Figures of Speech. B
• Lecture. 7. A
• Lecture. 8. A
• Lecture. 9tha
• Lecture. 10tha
• Lecture. 11 a
• Lecture. 12.THA: Of Composition
• Lecture. 13 a
• | Lecture. 14 a
• Lecture 15tha
• Lecture. 16th. a
• Lecture XVII. A
• Lecture Xviii a
• Lecture. Xixth. a
• Lecture. XX.THA
• Lecture Xxist. a
• Lecture Xxiida
• Lecture Xxiiida
• Lecture Xxivtha
• Lecture XXV. A
• Lecture Xxvitha
• Lecture Xxvii a
• Lecture Xxviiitha
• Lecture Xxix a
• Lecture. Xxx a
• Considerations Concerning the First Formation of Languages,&c. &c.1
• Appendix 1 (see P. 32) the Bee, Or Literary Weekly Intelligencer, For Wednesday, May 11, 1791.
• Appendix 2 Table of Corresponding Passages

Lecture 3^d.

Monday Nov. 22

Mr. Smith

Of the origin and progress of language 1

It seems probable that those words which denote certain substances which exist, and which we call substantives, would be amongst the first contrived by persons who were inventing a language. Two Savages who met together and took up their dwelling in the same place would very soon endeavour to get signs to denote those objects which most frequently occurred and with which they were most concerned. The cave they lodged in, the tree from whence they got their food, or the fountain from whence they drank, would all soon be distinguished by particular names, | 18 as they would have frequent occasion to make their thoughts about these known to ^a one another, and would by mutual consent agree on certain signs whereby this might be accomplished.

Afterwards when they met with other trees, caves, and fountains concerning which they would have occasion to converse, they would ^b naturally give the same name to them as they had before given to other objects of the same kind. The association of ideas betwixt the caves, trees, etc. and the words they had denoted them by would naturally suggest that those things which were of the same sort might be denoted | v.18 ^c by the same words. Thus it might perhaps be that those words which origin[in]ally signifyed singular ^d objects came to be Special names to certain classes of things. [As our Savages made farther advances they would have occasion not only for names to the severall substances near them but also for words to express the relations betwixt those severall objects.] ^e

These names however as the objects multiplied would not be sufficient to distinguish them accurately from one another: they would therefore be necessitated to have recourse to their peculiar relations or qualities. These are commonly expressed by prepositions or adjectives. | 19 This is what chiefly difficults Mr Rousseay 2 to wit, to explain how generall names were 1^st formed, as they require abstract thought and what is called generallization, before they can be formd according to his way of thinking: Which he thinks me[a]n at first hardly capable of. ^f | v.19 Thus they might express a certain tree by saying the tree above the cave. But those expressed by prepositions would not go any great length: they would then call in that [the] of the adjectives, and thus they might say, the Green tree, to denote one that was Green from one that was not. The invention of adjectives would have required a much greater degree of exertion than that of substantives, for these following reasons. The quality denoted by an adjective is never seen in the abstract, but is always concreted with some substance or other, and the word signifying such a quality must be formed | 20 from it by a good deal of abstract ^g reflection; besides this quality ^h is not seen in any generall set of things, tho it is a generall quality, but must be at first formed from some singular object. For this reason we may imagine those adjectives would be formed before any of the substantives denoting the abstract[i] qualities of those bodies to which the adjectives are applied. Thus Green would be formed before Greeness, as the quality tho abstract in itself is seldom ⁱ considered but when concreted with some substances realy existing and perceived in some singular one before us, whereas the quality abstracted from any body is never seen | 21 but is only formed by abstraction and generalization from those bodies where they are found. It is also necessary before such adjectives be formed that those who form them have seen other things of the same kind which have them not. Thus the word Green if it was originally formed from the colour of a tree would not have been formed if there were no trees of a different colour. But when there were other trees found of another colour, they might call such a tree, a green tree; and from thence other trees, and afterwards other things of that colour might get | v.21 appellation. From thence too, the quality of greeness would at length be formed by farther abstraction. When there is so much abstraction required to form those adjectives that denote colours, which are the most simple of all, it is plain there would be ^j much greater in forming more complex and general ones.

But whatever difficulty there might be in the formation of adjectives, there must be still more in forming prepositions. For that which is signified by them is not found in any one particular set of things but is common to all those in a certain relation. Thus above denotes the relation | v.22 of superiority, below that of inferiority, with regard to anything in that relation. It is not concreted with any other thing but is of itself originally abstract. We may say a green tree, or any thing else is green, but above is connected with the relation that two things bear to one another. It happens too that those prepositions which necessarily most frequently occur are those that are most abstracted and metaphysicall. There is none of which such frequent use is made as of the preposition Of; which at the same time is the most abstract of the whole number of | v.23 them all. It denotes ^k no particular relation betwixt the things it connects but barely signifies that there is a relation. And if we were to ask an ordinary man what he meant by the word Of he might be allowed at least a weak to consider of it. We may see the generall signification of it from the various and conterary relations it is used to express as betwixt the whole and its ^l parts. Thus we may say the son of the father <or the father> of the son; the fir tree of the forest or the forest of the fir trees: Other prepositions can not be used so generally, when we say the tree above the cave and the cave above the tree, | v.24 but this cannot be said with regard to the same thing.

When such is the difficulty of forming these prepositions, which are so very requisite, it was naturall for the contrivers of language, whom we are not to suppose very abstract philosophers, would contrive some method to ^m answer these purposes by a more easy method. That which was most naturall and obvious and that which we find was the case in all the primitive and simple languages, is to express ⁿ by various modifications of the same word what would otherwise require a preposition. This they | v.25 have done by varying the termination of the substantive; the different prepositions whose place was thus supplied gave occasion to the differen<t> cases and according as fewer or more of them were thus supplied the cases would be more or less in number in different languages, in some 5, 6 or in others ten.

The agreableness of the same sound repeated or love of Rythme ^o made them suit their adjectives to the terminations of the suitable substantives and hence it came to pass that all the adjectives were declined in the same manner as the substantives, tho the signification is noway altered; as, Malus ^p , Mali, Malorum, Malis | v.26 etc., all signify evil and are varied only to make them suit the substantiv<e>s, as Equus, Equi, Equorum, Equis etc.

As all animalls are of some sex and other things of none and it was requisite to have a distinction in this respect, and the quality in the abstract being not easily comprehended, they rectified this by making another sort of a change in the noun of one sex: hence Equus, Equa: and as those of another quality had no sex they formed here another sort which denoted those of neither of the other two qualities. For the same reason as they suited the adjectives to the declension of cases so also | v.27 they would to that of gender, and hence Equus bonus, Equa bona, pratum bonum.

As more objects than one of the same sort occurred it was necessary to distinguish betwixt the singular person and those cases where there were more than <one> together; and as abstract numbers are also of difficult comprehension they here likewise invented another variation to denote number, hence the singular, duall and plural number. {The original languages have all the duall as the Hebrew and Sclavonic.} To this de<c>lension or variety also they accomodated their adjectives for the same reason that we before menti| v.28oned. Hence came Equus, Equi, and ἀνηρ, ἀνερε, ἀνερες, and to these the adjectives, bonus, boni, and ἀγαθος, ἀγαθω ἀγαθοι.

Hence we may see how complext their declensions must have become. The substantive nouns declined thro 5 cases in 3 numbers will have 15 varieties, and the adjectives having besides 3 genders will have 45.

Besides these various parts they would have occasion for some words to describe or express certain actions. Every thing we say is either affirming or denying something and to do this some other | v.29 master sort of word was necessary and this was the reason of the invention of verbs, for without no one thing could be expressed. Hence probably verbs of the impersonall form would be the first invented of any, as they would express a whole sentiment or assertion in this way. So Pluit, Ningit are compleat assertions. The savages we supposed together might for instance use the word venit to express the coming of some terrible animall as a Lion, which they expressed compleatly in one word. Afterwards other beasts coming they would naturally use the same | v.30 word to give the alarm. So this word would come to signify some terrible beast, then any frightfull object and last<l>y any approach in the abstract. For the same reasons as they invented number and person in nouns they would in the verbs as ^q a greater or less number might be coming. According to the time different variations would also be made. {They might indeed have used the same word for different tenses had they known the pronouns, but these were not invented in the early times we are talking of, as too abstract. The different words made for different things of the same origin is like the forming of the letters. The first writer would probably use a different ^r character for each ^s word but this would soon be troublesome and occasion some other contrivance; so different flexions of words would be also invented.}

In this complex state languages would probably have continued had it not been for the mixture of different nations. The only thing that could have had any effect | v.31 was this so great complexity which would make them at a loss and might run them into improprieties of grammar; and so we see the Greeks and Romans were forced to instruct their children in the ^t grammar of their own tongue. But the chief cause of the declension from this custom was the intermixture of different nations. ^u When two nations thus met, when <one> was at a loss to express himself in the other language he would be led to supply this defect in. ^v | 33 some easy manner. The most obvious is that of the substantive and possessive verbs. The substantive verbs sum with the passive participle would supply all the passive voice, and the auxiliary or rather possessive habeo would by a stranger with the help of the supine be made to supply the whole of the active. The prepositions would be put also in the place of the declensions of nouns.—A Lombard ^w when he had forgot amor for I am loved, would say ego sum amatus, A citizen of Rom<e>, civis de Roma. For I have loved, Ego hab<e>o amatum, | v.33 instead of ^x amavi.

These mixtures the more they are multiplied the more the language would lose of its complexness and be supplied in this manner. The simpler the language the more complex. The Greek seems to be very originall as all the primitives are only about 300. The Latin formed of it and the Tuscan is complex but much less so. The French, of the Latin and the native of the country, still less; and the English less still, being formed from the French and the Saxon. The languages | v.34 in this have made advances a good deal similar to those in the constructions of machines. They at first are vastly complex but gradually the different parts are more connected and supplied by one another. But the advantage does not equally correspond. The simpler the machine the better, but the simpler the language ^y the less it will have variety and harmony of sound and the less it will be capable of various arrangement: and lastly it will be more prolix. ^z

[1 ]A more elaborate version of this lecture was published in The Philological Miscellany (1761) as ‘Considerations concerning the first formation of Languages, and the different genius of original and compounded Languages’. See p. 201.

[a]their deleted

[b]replaces might be

[c]From v.18 to v.60 the main text is generally on the verso page

[d]replaces particular

[e]As . . . . . objects cancelled by oblique strokes

[2 ]See note on Rousseau, p. 205.

[f]rest of page blank

[g]MS abstraction, ion deleted

[h]must be deleted

[i]replaces never

[j]a deleted

[k]nor written above, then deleted

[l]MS it is

[m]replaces do this (or? these)

[n]what deleted

[o]the t wrongly inserted later

[p]mala, malum deleted

[q]perso deleted

[r]a different replaces but an

[s]replaces one

[t]elements of deleted

[u]These who are most simple are all most complex. Thus deleted

[v]32 and v.32 blank

[w]would deleted

[x]ego deleted

[y]replaces machine

[z]35 and 36 blank