or glued to it to express the various modifications, the latter losing their independent form in so doing, as joy-ful-ly, from the three roots joy, full, and like. So in Turkish, to the root sev, signifying love, are joined five formative roots, making the word sev-ish-dir-il-eme-mck, i. e., not capable of being made to love one another.*

The third class composes what are termed inflcctional languages, where all the roots lose their independent form, and by fusion with each other constitute a new, indivisible word, as the root true, with its prefix and affixes, makes the word untruthful

ness, etc.

Comparing these two modes of classification with each other, it is found that the Aryan and Semitic families are, for the most part, inflectional languages; the Turanian, including the dialects of Central Africa and America, agglutinative; and the Chinese, and its related dialects, monosyllabic. the same time, words of each type are found more or less in them all. This fact, and the importance of it to the discussion in hand, will be again adverted to presently.

At

The question now recurs to us, How does the existence of these numerous families and groups of languages bear upon the antiquity of man on the

* Whitney, p. 319.

earth? Do not the radical differences between them differences traceable back beyond the period of authentic history - prove that they could not have had a common origin in any one primitive tongue; or, if that were intrinsically possible, that it could not have been within the space of time which the Bible chronology allows subsequent to the date of Noah? To this inquiry we may reply,—

1. There stands at the very threshold of that period the recorded fact of a miraculous" confusion of tongues," by which the antecedent speech was broken up into a variety of dialects, each unintelligible to those who spoke the others. Before that time, "the whole earth was of one language and of one lip" (Gen. xi. 1, margin), i. e., probably one in substance and one in utterance. To defeat their design of building a city and tower, which should preserve them as one people in one locality forever, God "confounded their language, that they might not understand one another's speech." And this event is distinctly assigned as the reason why the one family was broken up and scattered into the various parts of the earth. Here, then, is an adequate and complete explanation of the origin of. diversity in human speech. We know not, indeed, precisely what was the thing done, whether a change was wrought in the vocabulary or the gram

mar of language, or in pronunciation only, nor into how many portions the one common speech was divided. From the analogy of other miracles, we should judge it probable that no more was done than was needful to effect the purpose in view. There is always, so to speak, a husbanding of divine power, by which the contravention or transcending of nature's laws is made as slight as possible. We may well suppose, that while real changes were introduced into the forms of language, its substance should have remained essentially the same. But be this as it may, here is the great fact of diversity accounted for. Neither the degree of that diversity, nor the length of time required for it on natural principles, affords any further difficulty.

And this fact, let me remark further, is to be taken with the Scripture chronology, both to explain and confirm it. If the latter fixes the confusion of language and the dispersion of the nations at a point no more remote than a few centuries before the era of history, it also affords the very key that was needed to show how those events were

chronologically possible. If science, so called, rejects the miracle, she throws away the only key which can solve the mystery. Let her find a better one if she can.

2. In accordance with the supposition just made,

it is ascertained that under all the apparent differences existing among languages, there is very much also in common between thein. Our space will not permit us to go into details on this point. They may be seen in the works on comparative grammar, and other treatises of philology. The article in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, already referred to, mentions four particulars in which manifest tokens of unity between the families of languages may be discerned, viz., "in the original material out of which language was formed" (monosyllabic roots); " in the stages of formation through which it has passed; in the general principle of grammatical expression ; and, lastly, in the spirit and power displayed in the development of these various formations." The article adds, "Such a result, though it does not prove the unity of language in respect to its radical elements, nevertheless tends to establish the à priori probability of this unity; for if all connected with the forms of language may be referred to certain general laws, if nothing in that department owes its origin to chance or arbitrary appointment, — it surely favors the presumption that the same principle would extend to the formation of the roots, which are the very core and kernel of language. Here, too, we might expect to find the operation of fixed laws of some kind or other producing results of a

uniform character; here, too, actual variety may not be inconsistent with original unity."

On the question of an original identity in the roots of the different families, it seems to be agreed by philologers that the time has not come for pronouncing a positive opinion. Too little is yet known respecting the primary elements of languages to warrant definite conclusions. There certainly is no proof that the original roots were not identical. The most that can be affirmed seems to be, as expressed by Professor Whitney, "that language affords certain indications of doubtful value, which, taken along with certain other ethnological considerations, also of questionable pertinency, furnish ground for suspecting an ultimate relationship. The question, in short, is not yet ripe for settlement.” *

3. In proportion as our knowledge of the various families of languages increases, the differences between them diminish, and new affinities come to light. It is ascertained that classes are not separated from each other so widely, and by such sharp lines of demarcation, as at first appeared. "The agglutinative languages are not wholly agglutinative; the Finnish and Turkish classes of the UralAltaian family are, in certain instances, inflectional, the relational adjunct being fully incorporated with

* Language, p. 308.