Chapter III. On The Origin Of Synonymes.
Section I.
First Source of Synonymes the Metaphorical Character of Human Language in its Infancy. Even modern Languages metaphorical or descriptive, as regards the Names of Substances recently known to Man. Progressive Change from a metaphorical to a conventional Character displayed by more Modern compared to more Ancient Languages. Illustration from the Sanscrit Words for “The Sun.”
But not only may the dispersion of Synonymes be referred to influences of which the active agency still continues; it will appear that the first Origin of the numerous Synonymes which Human Language presents may also be explained by means of causes still in operation!
Human Language, in its infancy, was descriptive or metaphorical. Nouns, or names of objects, were expressive of some of their dominant or most conspicuous qualities. Hence, inasmuch as in different individuals, and in the same individual at different times, the faculty of Imagination is affected by various characteristics, a great diversity of descriptive terms were generally devised for the same objects, and these, as their primitive metaphorical meanings were insensibly forgotten, gradually lapsed into arbitrary or conventional Nouns. That this is a correct explanation of the origin of a [pg 095] large portion of the Synonymes in which Human Tongues abound, will be apparent from an examination of two venerable Oriental Languages, the Hebrew and the Sanscrit, which indisputably display through their whole structure a metaphorical or pictorial character.
The same truth is confirmed by facts within the range of our actual experience—facts that suggest reflections of high interest!
Several thousand years have passed away since man first became acquainted with the most prominent and familiar of those objects with which he is surrounded. For these objects he has inherited from his remote ancestors names which he learns in infancy, and which relieve him from the task of inventing anew appropriate designations. But though Nature presents no new features, the progress of Science has in modern times revealed a few new substances unknown to our forefathers, which have served at intervals to call forth the exercise of the same inventive powers by which language was originally constructed! Now if we examine the names that were originally conferred on the various chemical substances which have been brought to light in our own and in the last generation, we shall arrive at the instructive result that these names almost wholly consist of descriptive terms, representing either some of their most obvious properties, or the various conclusions formed by different philosophers on the subject of their nature and composition.[87] Further, we shall [pg 096] find that many of these new substances gave rise, in the first instance, to numerous descriptive terms! That these terms were for some time used concurrently! That subsequently a portion of them fell into disuse! That finally the remainder gradually lost the descriptive significations at first attached to them, and acquired the character of mere arbitrary or conventional names!
Hence it is evident, and most assuredly it is a result of the highest interest, that the native and permanent tendencies of the Human mind itself distinctly point to the conclusion that language must originally have been descriptive or metaphorical! Hence, also, we derive a vivid illustration of the sameness of those tendencies, as exhibited both in the latest and in the earliest ages of the world, in the trains of thought excited by new objects in the minds of the Philosophers of modern days, and in those of the simple forefathers of the Human Race, whose
“Souls proud Science never taught to stray
Far as the solar walk or milky way!”
As we ascend from Modern into remote ages, Human Language gradually reassumes its Metaphorical character. Moreover, it will appear that the transition may be traced occurring in different classes of words at different epochs: terms for newly-discovered substances or new inventions being descriptive in all languages; terms for the most common and conspicuous objects of nature, on the other hand, not exhibiting this quality, except in the most ancient Tongues; while in specimens of Language belonging to intermediate eras, an intermediate character is observable; terms for less common and less conspicuous natural objects being more generally descriptive than they are in modern Tongues, &c.
The nature and steps of this transition will be more distinctly perceived if viewed retrospectively:
1. Modern Languages.
In such languages as the modern English, French, and German, probably the great majority of terms are conventional, though we meet with numerous names of animals, birds, &c. which are descriptive, as “Black-bird.” In words applied to new inventions or discoveries, a descriptive character is commonly displayed, as in “Rail-road” (Eng.), “Eisen-bahn” (Ger.), “Chemin de fer” (French), i.e. “Iron-way.”
2. Ancient Specimens of the European Languages.
In the oldest written specimens of the Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, &c., the vestiges of a descriptive origin rapidly increase. The names of Animals and Birds are found to be nearly all either descriptive or imitative, and Synonymes are much more numerous in certain classes of words.
The names for “The Sun, The Hand,” &c., and other objects enumerated at page 8, as the first on which appellations must have been conferred by Man, seem to have become purely conventional previously to the date of the earliest Celtic or Saxon MSS. But, on the other hand, a comparison of Languages serves to indicate that in this class of terms also these Tongues were Metaphorical in remote ages prior to the era of History. Thus “Grian,” The Sun, (Irish,) means “A Burner” in Welsh. Again, the Celtic and Gothic races have been too long separated to use the same conventional terms. But they frequently agree in the basis of the descriptive terms, from which the conventional terms are derived. Thus Llygad, “An Eye,” (Welsh,) is totally unlike the English “Eye,” (“Auge,” German;) but it is identical in its root with the English word Look. “Traed,” The Feet, (Celtic,) is unlike “Foot,” but its root is identical with “Tread” (English)! Celtic scholars have often derived the English “Tread” from the Celtic or Welsh “Traed;” but the Verb “Tread” (“Tret-en,” German) is used by all the Gothic nations from the Danube to Iceland!
The Greek and Latin also conspicuously exhibit a more Metaphorical character than the modern tongues of Europe.
3. The Sanscrit and the Hebrew.
It is agreed that in the entire structure of these languages a metaphorical character is displayed; even such words as the names for “The Sun,” &c. are for the most part metaphorical or descriptive.
The truth and extensive application of the principle under discussion will be best understood by a perusal of Appendix A, which contains ample illustrations of the rule that while the conventional significations of words are preserved in one Language, the same words commonly occur in others in kindred metaphorical meanings. In this place, however, may be appropriately introduced one illustration derived from the various Sanscrit words for the Sun. These words, which are all considered to be descriptive or metaphorical, have obviously formed the source of the following Conventional Terms for that Luminary, which occur in Indo-Germanic languages of more modern form:
Different Words for the Sun in Sanscrit, and their distribution in other Indo-Germanic Languages.
| Sanscrit. | Persian. | Greek. | Latin. | German and English. | Welsh. |
| Hailih | Sol. (S. Hail-ih.) | Hail. | |||
| Hail-is | He-elios. | ||||
| Sura | Ser-en, A Star. | ||||
| Sunu | Sun, Sonne. | ||||
| Mihira | Mihira. |
Section II.
Second Source of Synonymes. Imitative Origin of the Elements of Human Language. Imitative Character of Ancient Languages. Imitative Origin of Language consistent with the Unity of the Human Race. Supported by Analogy. Adam Smith's Opinion that the first Elements of Language were Nouns, considered. Progress of Language in Infancy. Illustration, from Campbell's Hohenlinden, of the Influence of the Imitative Faculty on the Imagination. Progressive Growth of Language. Important Exception to the Principle of the Imitative Origin of Language. Origin of the Harsh and Open Sounds of Ancient Languages.
In its infancy, Language was metaphorical, but it was directly Imitative of surrounding objects at its birth! Hence, as will now be explained, another source of the synonymes in which Human Tongues abound!
Did man derive his language from the direct instruction of his Creator, or from the natural exercise of those faculties with which he has been endowed? For the former opinion no argument, either Scriptural or Philosophical, has ever been advanced. In favour of the latter, proofs deducible from Language, Analogy, and the actual features of the Human Mind, conspire.
In the Hebrew, and other ancient languages, Man's first imitative efforts are distinctly traceable,[88] and as we ascend from modern to earlier eras in the history of Human Tongues, and extend our comparison by including within its range a greater number of kindred dialects, we shall find—not only the features of a descriptive or metaphorical character, as [pg 100] already noticed—but also the vestiges of an imitative origin progressively increase. Thus, for example, the English words for two common birds, the “Owl” and the “Crow,” have no other effect on the ear than that of mere arbitrary or conventional terms; they have been too much abbreviated any longer to suggest distinctly the source from which they have sprung. But in the Swedish “Ul-u-la,” and the Sanscrit “Ul-u-ka,” the reiterated screams of “the bird of night” are plainly mimicked, as is the harsh guttural croak of the crow in the German “Krähe!”
Those writers who have espoused, and those who have impugned, the conclusion that language is the natural fruit of the endowments which have been conferred on our species, have, for the most part, mutually assumed that conclusion to be irreconcilable with the common origin of the different nations and languages of the globe. Each ancient sept, they take for granted, must in that case be inferred to have had a distinct origin, and to have invented a distinct language for itself. But there is no necessary connexion between the premises and the conclusion. All nations may have emanated from one parent sept, and all languages may have sprung from one parent tongue, and yet the parent speech may, notwithstanding, have been the product of Man's own native energies in the earliest era of his existence! Our species may have been invested with the faculty of constructing a language adequate to meet all its first wants, and yet that faculty may have been exercised only once!
The conclusion adopted above is supported by the dictates of Analogy, as traceable in the instance of provisions made for wants analogous to those which language is calculated to supply. Destined to pass successively through various phases of civilization, and to push his colonies into every clime and country, Man required and has received, both in his physical and mental constitution, powers of adaptation [pg 101] that enable him to conform to those marvellous changes which are incident to his condition as a Progressive Being. His first infantine feelings are expressed by imitations of surrounding objects, and as his higher moral and intellectual faculties are developed, they find utterance in metaphors derived from the organs of sensation. In those advances which he was mysteriously intended to make from age to age, he would have been fettered and not aided by the gift of an immutable language! His wants in this respect have been more wisely provided for by the power which has evidently been conferred upon him of framing in the first instance a language calculated to express his earliest wants as they successively arose, and of subsequently moulding it to suit the emergencies of his condition.
It was the opinion of Adam Smith that the elements of language consist of Nouns or Names of things. From this opinion, M. Du Ponceau dissents. Nor is this conclusion confirmed by an analysis of languages, which serves to show, on the contrary, that these elements or roots partake less of the character of Nouns or Names of Objects than of that of Verbs or terms descriptive of their actions and qualities. This result appears to be a necessary consequence of the imitative origin of language, for it is only their characteristic sounds or other salient qualities that admit of imitation, it is impossible to copy by the voice the objects themselves! The English word Cuc-koo furnishes an excellent example. This word is now used as a Noun or Name. But it is quite manifest that originally it was a mere imitation of the characteristic cry of the bird, in other words it was descriptive of a single quality or action!
But though they partake of the character of Verbs rather than of that of Nouns, it will, I conceive, appear that the roots or elements of language do not in reality belong to any existing class of grammatical terms. In the Hebrew and the [pg 102] Sanscrit the “Root” is neither a Noun nor a Verb, but the common basis of both. Nor is the application of this maxim confined to ancient languages; it may be shown to apply extensively to modern languages also, as in the following examples, derived from the English:
| Root. | Noun. | Verb. |
| Burst. | Burst. | I burst. |
| Thrust. | Thrust. | I thrust. |
| Crack. | Crack. Crack-er. | I crack. |
| Wrench. | Wrench. | |
| Hiss. | Hiss. | I hiss. |
| Rumble. | Rumbl-er. | It rumbles. |
| Break. | Break. Break-er. | I break, &c. |
| Croak. | Croak. Croak-er. | I croak. |
The previous examples will serve to illustrate at once the proposition they are intended to support, and also the imitative character of the roots or elements of language. This character, it will be observed, does not occur exclusively in terms primarily descriptive of sounds, it is displayed in an equally unequivocal manner in terms descriptive of other physical qualities, as in “Thrust, Burst, Wrest,” &c.
It is obvious that the human voice possesses the power of copying sounds more perfectly than other external impressions. But the attempt at imitation is not more conspicuous than it is in other cases, in which the imitation is necessarily more imperfect. Thus Kōōm, used in Persia and Wales for “a hollow circular valley,” “Coop” (English), are attempts by means of the motion of the lips, &c. to imitate the shapes of the subjects of description.
The evidence furnished by language in support of the proposition [pg 103] suggested above, viz., that its roots or elements do not consist either of Nouns or Verbs, but of sounds which constitute the common basis of both, will be found, I conceive, to derive direct confirmation from an examination of the faculties employed in the formation of language, and the order of their development.
Man is endowed with two faculties of a very different nature, of which language seems to be the joint product, viz., with powers of imitation and powers of reflection. Now the elementary sounds, or roots of language, may be viewed as exclusively the work of the imitative propensity; the steady appropriation of these elements as recognized descriptions of actions and objects seems, on the other hand, to be the result of the progressive growth and of the reiterated subsequent exercise of the functions of Memory and Abstraction. Thus we find infants mimic sounds long before we can suppose their minds to be sufficiently developed permanently to associate such sounds with particular objects; afterwards, as their faculties are gradually unfolded, these imitations are appropriated as names. Accordingly we find that almost all children are in the habit of using a certain number of words thus formed, which are understood and employed by the guardians and companions of their infancy.[89] An instructive example of the natural activity of those mental qualities to which language first owed its existence—an activity which is repressed by no other cause than by the maturity of languages in use, which fully meet all the exigencies of the social state!
The vehement gesticulations of uncivilized tribes is another manifestation of the imitative propensity. Nor are the vestiges of its influence among civilized nations altogether confined [pg 104] to the period of childhood. They may be recognized in the marked, though generally unconscious, disposition we feel to select words imitative of the ideas we seek to convey, and in the pleasure we derive from works of imagination, in which the sound is rendered “an echo of the sense,” in conformity to the critical rule of classical antiquity. Of the sublime associations called forth by a happy appeal to the imitative faculty, we possess a fine example in the lines of the great living Poet, which, with a fastidiousness as marvellous as the genius by which they were conceived, he proposed to cancel, as being “Drum and Trumpet lines!”[90]
“On Linden when the sun was low
All bloodless lay the untrodden snow,
And dark as winter was the flow
Of Iser rolling rapidly.
“But Linden saw another sight
When the trump blew at dead of night,
Commanding fires of death to light
The darkness of her scenery!
“By torch and trumpet fast array'd
Each warrior drew his battle blade,
And furious every courser neigh'd
To join the dreadful revelry!”
(Campbell's “Hobenlinden.”)
The progressive appropriation of elementary sounds or Roots to the various purposes of language, and the consequent development of grammatical forms, remain to be explained.
In the first instance these Roots were, it would seem, employed alike both as Verbs and Nouns, &c.; the requisite distinction, it may be inferred, was made by Signs. In the course of time the Noun was distinguished by characteristic additions identical, as may be proved, with terms for “Man.”
This tendency to personify appears, as Du Ponceau observes, to be “according to nature!” The English word Smith, and the German Schmidt, are nouns of the primitive kind, being mere transcripts of the Root. On the other hand, in the English “Join-er, Break-er,” we have examples of Nouns distinguished as such by a grammatical suffix, “Er,” which, in German, means “He,” and in Turkish means “A Man.” In the Pehlwi, an ancient dialect of Persia, which is intimately connected with the English, and other Gothic languages, we actually find the English word “Man,” used for the same purpose as “Er,” in the above example. Thus we have Ruis-man, “A Head,” (Pehlwi,) Ras (Arabic), and Rosh, “A Head,” (Hebrew,) Lager-man, “The Foot,” (Pehlwi,) Lagyl (Wogul), Leg (English).
The Verb, and its different persons, were distinguished by pronouns, annexed in various modes.[91]
Finally, it may be noticed, that since all other branches of Human Language have been shown to be derivable from terms originally applied to Material actions and objects, (see pages [11], [12], [13];) and since these have been proved to be products of the imitative faculty, it follows that all the elements of language are ultimately traceable to the same source. There is, however, an important exception.
There is a class of terms, including many of those expressive of domestic relations, which cannot be traced to imitation, but seem to consist of those sounds which are most easy to pronounce. They may, in fact, be viewed as the fruits of the first essays of the organs of articulation.[92]
| Hebrew. | |
| A.m. A Mother. Also, the lower arm (with the hand) by which a child is supported. | Amee A Father, (Mangree, a Negro Dialect.) |
| Mamma, Mother, a Teat, a Breast, (Latin.) | |
| A.m.e. A Maid Servant. | Mamma.[93] A Father, (Georgian.) |
| A.m.n. A Nurse, To support, nurse. | A.m.e. A Nurse, (German.) |
| A.m.ou.n. A Child, &c. &c. | Mam. A Mother, (Welsh.) Mamma (English). |
It will be perceived that the application of terms from this “Root” was not confined to parents, but was extended to other objects familiar in childhood.
Other examples of the principle just noticed occur in Abba, “Father,” (Hebrew,) Ab-avus, Av-us, and Papa (Latin). These words are clearly traceable to sounds which may be readily pronounced in infancy.
The Hebrew, and some other ancient Oriental tongues, are distinguished by the frequent occurrence of harsh aspirates and gutturals, and of vehement and discordant tones, which, in many instances, are utterly incapable of representation by means of any sounds in use among the nations of modern Europe. Now if language had an imitative origin, and if these ancient Oriental tongues can be viewed as specimens of language near its source, and the European tongues as specimens more altered by time, these features of contrast will be satisfactorily explained. This will be evident from the following considerations.
As Language in its incipient state must have been an imperfect medium of communication, it may be concluded that [pg 107] the auxiliary aid of Signs was commonly resorted to; violent motions of the hands and the feet were probably combined with intonations of the voice, expressive, even to exaggeration, of the ideas intended to be conveyed. Now the influence of this cause was obviously calculated to give to language in its infancy the very qualities which are ascribed to the Hebrew and some other ancient languages, viz., fulness, distinctness, and in some respects extreme harshness.
On the other hand, the natural progress of language will account also for the opposite qualities displayed by the dialects of modern Europe. As Society advanced, the severe features that belonged to Language at its first commencement must have gradually softened down. Words originally intelligible only as imitations of the qualities of objects, or by reason of the signs with which they were accompanied, must have gradually acquired conventional meanings, calculated to render the use of signs and of rough and painful articulations unnecessary. Compare, as examples, the words already noticed, viz., the English word “Crow,” and the German guttural word “Krä-he,” the English “Owl,” and the Swedish and Sanscrit “Ulula,” and “Ulu-ka.”
Many writers on subjects of this nature appear to fall into considerable confusion of thought in the eulogies which they are prone to bestow on those particular languages to which their studies have been chiefly directed. In some instances we find a language extolled for the fulness and clearness of its sounds, while another is eulogized for its softness. These different qualities cannot with consistency be regarded as merits in languages that belong to the same stage of society. A more judicious view of the subject would involve the conclusion to which the previous considerations must give rise, viz., that a full and distinct language is the result of necessity in the infancy of society, and that a soft and abbreviated [pg 108] language is the joint product of the dictates of convenience and taste that influence its later stages.
It is probable that in the features under discussion the ancient Oriental Tongues do not differ from the languages of Europe more widely than the earliest differ from the latest specimens of the latter class of languages. The difference in this respect between the Anglo-Saxon and the modern English has already been noticed. The abbreviated pronunciation of the French, compared to the parent Latin, is another instance of the same kind. The following is an example of similar variations in three Celtic dialects, showing a progressively contracted pronunciation:
| Welsh. | Irish. | Manx. | |
| Arm. | Braich. | Brak (obsolete). Raigh. | -Ri. |
| Gold. | Ayr. | Or. | -Eer. |
| A Year. | Bluyddyn. | Bleadhain. | Blien. |
The Isle of Man was not occupied by the Irish until the fourth century. Yet the Manx differs from the Irish perhaps even more widely than the Irish differs from the Welsh.
The desire to render language a more rapid and convenient medium of thought may be regarded as the principal source of changes of this nature.
Section III.
Application of these Conclusions to the Question of the Unity of the Human Race.
It may be objected that if language were in its origin imitative, the identity of the various languages of the globe shown in this work may be accounted for on that principle, without ascribing that important fact to an original unity of race. But an answer to this objection is involved in the following passage from the Mithridates of Adelung and Vater:
“In those instances in which the sound imitated is very definite and invariable, the imitation is so likewise (as in that of the name of the Cuckoo, which is nearly the same in all languages). But this is seldom the case. Generally the natural sound is very variable; hence one people imitates one, and another a different change. A very striking example occurs in the names for Thunder. Distinct as this natural sound is, the impressions which it makes on the ear are very variable, and it has accordingly given rise to a great number of different names, which all betray, nevertheless, their origin in Nature. In my Ancient History of the German Language I have adduced, in proof of this proposition, 353 of these names from the European languages.”
It appears, then, that the principle that language was imitative in its origin does not involve the inference that there is for that reason a tendency in human language to Unity. On the contrary, this principle leads, as has been shown, to the very opposite conclusion. Hence features of affinity displayed by different Tongues must be referred to original unity of race.
Section IV.
Recent Origin of the Human Race.
The Hebrew and Sanscrit, as pointed out in the previous Sections, display certain features which cannot have long survived the infancy of language. The caprices of custom, the progress of the human mind, and the dictates of convenience, are calculated to efface these features within a limited period of time. Hence it follows, that the existence of language, and of the Species by which it is employed, could not have commenced at an era very remotely anterior to the date of the earliest specimens of these ancient Tongues; for it must be borne in mind that the identity of the Hebrew and the Sanscrit with other Human Tongues having been proved (see [Appendix A]), the vestiges of recent formation which these two languages display furnish evidence of the recent origin, not only of the ancient nations by whom they were spoken, but also of the Human Race. As previously noticed, no difficulty is felt in accounting for the descriptive character of the scientific names which occur at page [95], on the ground that the substances named have only lately become known to man. The existence in the Sanscrit of numerous descriptive Synonymes for the “Sun” (see page [98]), the most conspicuous object in nature, is an example which, as already intimated, must suggest analogous reflections.
Viewed with reference to the lapse of a few centuries, the changes language undergoes are too irregular to furnish a safe test of the date of historical events. But adverting to the progress of the European languages within the last thousand years, we may infer, nevertheless, that the effect of a long interval in producing extensive changes is certain.
Judging from these data, I conceive it may reasonably be concluded that the ancient Hebrew and Sanscrit remains could not have preserved the descriptive or metaphorical character to the same extent as they have done had the Human species been introduced at a period anterior to the date assigned to that event by our received systems of chronology.