Setshuana dialects, Dr. Bleek remarks: "One is . justified to consider r in these dialects as a sort of floating letter, and rather intermediate between 1 and r, than a decided sound." 1

Some faint traces of this confusion between r and l may be discovered even in the classical languages, though here they are the exception, not the rule. There can be no doubt that the two Latin derivatives aris and alis are one and the same. If we derive Saturnalis from Saturnus, and secularis from seculum, normalis from norma, regularis from regula, astralis from astrum, stellaris from stella, it is clear that the suffix in all is the same. Yet there is some kind of rule which determines whether alis or aris is to be preferred. If the body of the words contains. an 1, the Roman preferred the termination aris; hence secularis, regularis, stellaris, the only exceptions being that 7 is preserved (1) when there is also an r in the body of the word, and this r closer to the termination than the 7; hence pluralis, lateralis; (2) when the forms part of a compound consonant, as fluvialis, glacialis.2

=

Occasional changes of into r are to be found in almost every language, e. g. lavender, i. e. lavendula; colonel, pronounced curnel (Old French, coronel; Spanish, coronel); rossignole lusciniola; cæruleus from cœlum; kephalargía and lethargía, but ōtalgía, all from algos, pain. The Wallachian dor, desire, is supposed to be the same word as the Italian duolo, pain. In apôtre, chapitre, esclandre, the same change of intor has taken place.3

1 Sir G. Grey's Library, vol. i. p. 135.

2 Cf. Pott, Etymologische Forschungen, 1st edit. ii. 97 where some ex ceptions, such as legalis, letalis, are explained.

8 Diez, Vergleichende Grammatik, i. p. 189.

=

=

On the other hand r appears as l in Italian albero arbor; celebro cerebrum; mercoledì, Mercurii dies; pellegrino, pilgrim peregrinus ;

altare.1

autel =

In the Dravidian family of languages the change of l into r, and more frequently of r into l, is very common.2

Instances of an utter inability to distinguish between two articulate sounds are, however, of rare occurrence, and they are but seldom found in languages which have received a high amount of literary cultivation. What I am speaking of here is not merely change of consonants, one consonant being preferred in one, another in another dialect, or one being fixed in one noun, another in another. This is a subject we shall have to consider presently. What I wished to point out is more than that it is a confusion between two consonants in one and the same language, in one and the same word. I can only explain it by comparing it to. that kind of color-blindness when people are unable to distinguish between blue and red, a color-blindness quite distinct from that which makes blue to seem red, or yellow green. It frequently happens that individuals are unable to pronounce certain letters. Many persons cannot pronounce the l, and say r or even n instead; grass and crouds instead of glass and clouds; ritten instead of little. Others change r to d, dound instead of round; others change to d, dong instead of long. Children, too, for some time substitute dentals for gutturals, speaking of tat instead of cat, tiss instead of kiss. It is difficult to say whether their tongue is more 1 Diez, l. c. i. p. 209

2 Caldwell, Dravidian Gı ammar, p. 120.

at fault or their ear. In these cases, however, a real substitution takes place; we who are listening hear one letter instead of another, but we do not hear as it were two letters at once, or something between the two. The only analogy to this remarkable imperfection peculiar to uncultivated dialects may be discovered in languages where, as in Modern German, the soft and hard consonants become almost, if not entirely, undistinguishable. But there is still a great difference between actually confounding the places of contact, as the Hawaians do in k and t, and merely confounding the different efforts with which consonants belonging to the same organic class ought to be uttered, a defect very common in some parts of Germany and elsewhere.

This confusion between two consonants in the same dialect is a characteristic, I believe, of the lower stages of human speech, and reminds us of the absence of articulation in the lower stages of the animal world. Quite distinct from this is another process which is going on in all languages, and in the more highly developed even more than in the less developed, the process of phonetic diversification, whether we call it growth or decay. This process will form the principal subject of our sixth Lecture, and we shall see that, if properly defined and understood, it forms the basis of all scientific etymology.

Wherever we look at language, we find that it changes. But what makes language change? We are considering at present only the outside, the phonetic body of language, and are not concerned with the changes of meaning, which, as you know, are

sometimes very violent. At present we only ask, how is it that one and the same word assumes different forms in different dialects, and we intentionally apply the name of dialect not only to Scotch as compared with English, but to French as compared with Italian, to Latin as compared with Greek, to Old Irish as compared with Sanskrit. These are all dialects; they are all members of the same family, varieties of the same type, and each variety may, under favoring circumstances, become a species. How then is it, we ask, that the numeral four is four in English, quatuor in Latin, cethir in Old Irish, chatvar in Sanskrit, keturi in Lithuanian, tettares in Greek, pisyres in Æolic, fidvor in Gothic, fior in Old HighGerman, quatre in French, patru in Wallachian?

Are all these varieties due to accident, or are they according to law; and, if according to law, how is that law to be explained?

I shall waste no time, in order to show that these changes are not the result of mere accident. This has been proved so many times, that we may, I believe, take it now for granted.

I shall only quote one passage from the Rev. J. W. Appleyard's excellent work, "The Kafir Language," in order to show that even in the changes of languages sometimes called barbarous and illiterate, law and order prevail (p. 50) :

"The chief difference between Kafir and Sechuana roots consists in the consonantal changes which they have undergone, according to the habit or taste of the respective tribes. None of these changes, however, appear to be arbitrary, but, on the contrary, are regulated by a uniform system of variation. The

vowels are also subject to the same kind of change; and, in some instances, roots have undergone abbreviation by the omission of a letter or syllable." Then follows a table of vowel and consonantal changes in Kafir and Sechuana, after which the author continues: "By comparing the above consonantal changes with § 42, it will be seen that many of them are between letters of the same organ, the Kafir preferring the flat sounds (b, d, g, v, z), and the Sechuana the sharp ones (p, t, k, f, s). It will be observed, also, that when the former are preceded by the nasal m or n, these are dropped before the latter. There is sometimes, again, an interchange between dentals and linguals; and there are, occasionally, other changes which cannot be so easily accounted for, unless we suppose that intermediate changes may be found in other dialects. . . . It will thus be seen that roots which appear totally different the one from the other, are in fact the very same, or rather, of the same origin. Thus no one, at first sight, would imagine that the Sechuana reka and the Kafir tonga, or the Kafir pila and the Sechuana tsera, were mere variations of the same root. Yet a knowledge of the manner in which consonants and vowels change between the two languages shows that such is the case. As corroborative of this, it may be further observed, that one of the consonants in the above and other Sechuana words sometimes returns in the process of derivation to the original one, as it is found in the Kafir root. For example, the reflective form of reka is iteka, and not ireka; whilst the noun, which is derived from the verb tsera, is botselo, and not botsero."