The Natural History of the Varieties of Man

by R. G. Latham

3. The descendant of the common stock from which the Europeans on one side, and Mongolians on the other, originated. In all these cases his differential characters are accounted for by the doctrine of descent.

b. Contrast, however, the case of an Australian Black. He has Mongol characters and he has Negro characters; so that, looking to his form only, he presents the phenomenon of transition; yet he is in none of the predicaments of the Finlander, since few ethnologists believe that, in the way of descent, he has any but the most indirect relationship to the African.

Hence, transitional forms are of two kinds, the first indicates descent, affiliation, and historical connexion; the second, the effect of common climatologic, alimentary, or social influences. This last will be called quasi-transitional.

B. Terms descriptive of differences in the way of language.—At the present moment, there are three methods by which the relation between the different words that constitute sentences is indicated:—1. The method of which the Chinese is a sample; 2. The method of which the Greek and Latin are samples; 3. The method of which the English is a sample.

In the way of illustration, though not in the way of history, it is best to take the second first.

1. The Classical method.—In a word like homin-em, there are two parts, homin-, radical; -em, inflectional. In the word te-tig-i, there are the same. The power of these parts is clear. The tig- and homin- denote the simple action, or the simple object. The te- denotes the time in which it takes place; the -i the agent. In the proposition te-tig-i homin-em, the -em denotes the relation between the object (the man touched) and the action (of touching). Logically, there are two ideas, e.g., that of the action or object, and that of the superadded conditions in respect to time, agency, and relation. In Latin and Greek, as in many other languages, these superadded conditions are expressed by altering the form of the original word. Sometimes this is done by the addition of some sound or sounds, sometimes by simple change—(a,) homin-is, homin-em; (b,) speak, spoke. Now this method of expressing the relation between the different words of a proposition by changes in the form of the words themselves is called the method of inflection, and languages which adopt it are called inflectional.

2. The English method.—The English language possesses inflections. Words like father-s, touch-ed, spoke, are instances of it. Nevertheless it has such important non-inflectional methods, that it may fairly be put in contrast with the Latin and Greek. Where a Roman said te-tig-i, we say I have touched, or I touched; using I, a separate word, instead of the incorporated syllable -i. Where a Roman said patr-i, we say to father; where a Roman said tang-am, we say I will (or shall) touch. In other words, we make auxiliary verbs and prepositions do the work of inflections, expressive of case and tense.

3. The Chinese method.—The Chinese method agrees with the English in expressing the different conditions and relations of actions and objects by separate words rather than by inflections; and it carries this principle so far as to have even a less amount of inflection; according to some writers, none at all. Wherein, then, does it differ? Even thus. The English is non-inflectional because it has lost inflections which it once possessed. The Chinese is non-inflectional because inflections have never been developed. This involves a great difference between the nature of the words which, in the two languages (English and Chinese) do the work of the Greek and Latin inflections. In English they are, generally speaking, so abstract, as to have a meaning only when in the context with other words. In Chinese they are often the names of objects and actions, i.e. nouns and verbs. If, instead of saying, I go to London, figs come from Turkey, the sun shines through the air, we said, I go, end London, figs come, origin Turkey, the sun shines, passage air, we should discourse after the manner of the Chinese.

But what if the inflectional parts of inflected words (nouns and verbs) were once separate words, which have since been incorporated with the radical term? In such a case, the difference between languages of the Chinese, and languages of the classical type would be a difference of degree only. Nay more, in languages like the Chinese the separate words most in use to express relation may become adjuncts or annexes. In this case, inflection is developed out of mere juxtaposition, and composition. Is this a hypothesis or a real fact? It is thus much of a fact. The numerous inflectional languages fall into two classes. In one the inflections have no appearance of having been separate words. In the other their origin as separate words is demonstrable.