Ghe Science of Language. A LECTURE SANSCRIT AND HEBREW, THE TWO WRITTEN, PRIMITIVE, ; LANGUAGES, COMPARED. BY WILLIAM BROWNE HODGSON, HONORARY MEMBER OF THE ASIATIC SOCIETIES OF LONDON AND PARIS. NEW P ORG ee. 1: FREDERICK A. PRATT, PRINTER. v; Ghe Srience of Language. LECTU RE. SANSCRIT AND HEBREW, THE TWO WRITTEN, PRIMITIVE, LANGUAGES, COMPARED. BY WILLIAM BROWNE HODGSON, HONORARY MEMBER OF THE ASIATIO SOCIETIES OF LONDON AND PARIS. NEWPORT R. I: FREDERICK A. PRATT, PRINTER. 1868. ns = ae tnd ' 1 i) “ an ptm - PREFACE, Tus lecture, on the Science of Language, is but an imperfect outline. It was delivered, by request, before the Historical Society of Georgia. The Southern Confederacy is alluded to. It may, therefore, be proper to say, that the essay was written amidst the clang of arms. The only decision made by that fiery conflict, in renewal of all historic experience, was, that might is right. At its inception, whilst denying the expediency or necessity of war, I asserted the inalienable right of self-government. At its conclusion, as expressive of conquest, that right was allowed to the conquered, with the condition, that they approved and admitted to political equality, the voices ofa barbarian race. The doctrine of race is involved in that of language; and this “essay claims for the races speaking the Aryan tongues, to which English be- longs by inheritance, all political, ethical and social supremacy. That su- premacy, of God’s ordination, man now proposes to overrule, by the bayo- net, in favor of the exotic, inferior, race. It may be foreseen, that such a sacrilegious attempt to degrade the nobler race, will be punished by the eternal law of retributive justice. : The unity of the human race was not, properly, a subject of this essay. The allusions made to it were incidental. The faculty of speech, which is but the expression of thought and conscience, however rude and limited, implies unity of purpose, in the moral structure of man. Diversity in unity, being the law of creation, there must be degrees, in the development of speech, as of intelligence and conscience. In cognate creations, there exist no abrupt differences, nor developments, per saltum. From the negro of Congo, to Shakespeare; from the Dyak of Borneo, to Webster, the transition is more abrupt, than from the dray-horse to the Arabian steed. The comparison would be equally good, betwixt Webster and the Natick cobbler. I have approached the origin of man, with undoubting faith in the Mosaic books. In that of Genesis, every word is a mystery, or in the language of St. Augustine, tot verba, tot sacramenta. The “Testimony of the Rocks,” estab- Iv. PREFACE. lishes its harmony with science. The fossil regions of Siberia, prove the once torrid climate of the poles, and the adaptation of the young world, to the ne- groid races which existed before Adam. If the existence of the pre-adamite races be rejected, it would be difficult to understand the bookof Genesis. Inthe creation of Adam, man first rose to his highest dignity and intelligence, as a tiller of the soil. For, till then, “the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.” Unity of language would seem to be a correlative, to that of the human race. The diversity in unity of both, may be derived from the same law of thought and conscience, which make the supreme distinction of man, above other animals. Speech must, thus, result in diversity, corresponding with the different impressions made upon the consciousness and thought of races, under various developments of their moral faculties. The objects of nature, would, naturally, be the first, to engage man’s moral faculties and perceptions. “And whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name there- of.’ Abstract and metaphysical language, the result of internal consciousness, was the production of intellectual faculties slowly developed. In the city of Babel, in the land of Shinar, ‘‘ the people were one, and they had the same language.”’ ‘‘ And the whole earth (land) was of one language and of onespeech.’”’ The philosophic statement of this utterance, concurs with edhe Hebrew text—one word and one lip. The confusion of language which arose among one people, using the same words and having one lip, arose from an alteration, in the use cf those lips, and the other physical organs of speech. This produced phonetic changes, in the utterance, of the same word, by which aB became P. V.orF. By this phonetic change, in the consonants of one people, and one word, they ceased to ‘understand one another’s speech.” The profound analysis of Grimm, to which I have alluded, elicited the laws, by which, these phonetic changes of consonants, are governed. The results of modern science are in harmony with the words of Divine Revelation. The more recent science of language, with its imperfect results, tends to confirm that harmony. ii ae a “—_ —_ THE SCIENCE OF LANGUAGE. Comparative philology creates the science of lan- guage. Its methods, like those of comparative anatomy and the physical sciences, are positive, not theoretic, Based on facts and the observation of phenomena, it re- jects conjecture, and admits nothing which is not proved. This recent science belongs to the present century. It has only been reduced to system, within the last twen- ty years. It proposes, by a comparison of the vocabula- ries and grammars of the innumerable languages and dialects, spoken by the inhabitants of this globe, to deter- mine their relationship and affinities—This will, also, determine the relationship of the different races of men who speak those languages. It is thus, that the cog- nate science of ethnology, derives its most authoritative facts and logical arguments, from comparative philology. If, for instance, it should be found, that the words of the Sanscrit language were similar to, or identical with, those of the Hebrew or Shemitic languages, then there would exist positive evidence, that they were closely ‘allied. It would, also, be prima facie evidence, that the 6 races of men, speaking those languages, were of the same origin. But science demands more than similarity or identity of words, to establish identity of race. Anoth- er condition is required. The grammatical structure, or the mechanism of the two languages, in comparison, must also be alike or identical. Ifthe words alone were the same, this would prove that the languages were the same ; but it would not prove that the two people were of the same race —The negroes of St. Domingo speak French words, and so do ours speak English. This does not prove the negro races to be, either. French or En- glishmen. In neither case,can the African speak gram- matically, or connect words ina phrase, according to the genius of the French and English languages. The words which they have adopted, or imitated, from the superior race, are connected together, according to the mould or genius, which a law of nature imposes upon each separate language. The language of each distinct race, has its own grammatical laws from which it can- not escape. An African will use French or English words, but he will connect them in speech, as nature taught him to connect the words of African language. An educated African may be taught to speak English grammatically ; but never will a whole people, con- quered or subject, acquire the syntax of the dominant race. Hence, in this process of adopting a foreign lan- guage, an irregular or inchoate form of speech, is pro- duced. Here, it is called patois; and on the shores of the Mediterranean, Lingua Franca. Language is the expression of the intellectual development of a race. Grammar, or the mechanism of its structure, is the vi- tality of language, and the speech of every race, has its own form of life. ss 7 The physiology of speech, presents another great characteristic of races. There are physical laws, which govern and control, the utterance of vocal sounds. Eve- ry race has its own mode of pronouncing consonants. The physical organs, tongue, teeth, lips, palate and throat, are required for the pronunciation of consonant letters. These letters are classed by grammarians, as dental, labial, palatal and guttural. These, again, are divided into tenues, medial and aspirate. Comparative philology derives much of its authoritive doctrine, from the physiology or organism of speech. Take one illus- tration. Z'is a lingual consonant. Th is a linguo- dental, that is, both the teeth and tongue are used in its »ancé, Neither the German nor Frenchman pronounce Lutter t; in thing, If he attempts it with effort, the sound will be mushy and dull, not sharp and hissing as in English—Thing. The cognate science of Ethnography has for its do- maingbesides language, the physical features of men. Their hair, eyes, crania, brain and zygomatic arch. It thus reaches the boundary of comparative anatomy. Comparative philology has, therefore, its laws. One is, that similarity of words proves the relationship of the languages. Another is, that the grammatical structure and the vocabularies, both being alike, presume, or prove, the identity of the races of men, as well as that of their language. The comparison of the Sanscrit and Shemitic languages will presently be made, under the authority of these two laws. It is of the plenitude of human reason—that ray of the divine intelligence—that it attempts to scan the past. It reflects, on the present, and anticipates the fu- ture. Ihave wished to know something, of the prime- 8 val history of man, and of the first conditions of human speech. I know, that it is of divine origin, as man ney- er invented a language. The attempts of Leibnitz, have served but as amusement, to scientific curiosity. I see before me, a vast multitude of idioms and dialects, now spoken on this beautiful kosmos or globe. I perceive what they are now; just as science teaches me, that I stand now on the plieocene formation, the most recent in geology. This is tertiary ; but there are two other older formations, the secondary and primitive. So also in language, there are recent pleiocene and secondary formations. To the secondary, belongs the Sanserit ; and even now, science seeks to trace it to the primeval primitive rocks. Does chronology, or periods of time, apply to geologic formations? I think not; nor do I think it applies to language. The concentric circles in the body of a tree, will denote its age. Within the his- toric period, the growth and developments of language, may be traced. But there was also a pre-historiqgage. There was human speech, before all history, xs Whore were tribes and people, who had no prophet to an- nounce their aspirations or sorrows ; no poet to record their deeds. It is of divine record, as of scientific authority, that in the “garden eastward in Eden,” was placed primeval man. This paradise was pleasantly watered, by classic streams, the Tigris and Euphrates. Its confines were bounded by the Caspian, and the mountains of Himal- ya and Ararat. Its climate was tropical, in that, astro nomic era, when, by mutation of the earth’s axis, or re- duced incandescence, the animal life of the equator, ex- isted in the arctic zone. In the bosom of this sacred, mysterious land, there sprung up in the course of time, 9 two mighty families of language, the Sanscrit, or Ja- phetic, and the Shemitic. They are the cradles of all religion, and religion is the parent of all civilization, We may wish to know, if there were one primeval language, from which all others were derived. It is of divine authority, that “God hath made of one blood all the nations of men, for to dwell on all the face of the earth.” This unity of men, would seem to imply, unity of speech. The unity of the human race is derived from its moral and intellectual constitution. The speech of man, is the spontaneous expression of the thought, conscience, and the moral sentiments of this intellectual being. Thought is spontaneous; so is speech in all its diversities of expression. The Divine Creator be- stowed on maa, the faculty of reason, and with it, the power of expression, through the mechanism of vocal organs. Speech flowed from the lips of primeval man, spontaneously, and perfect in all its wonderful combina- tions. Diversity, not uniformity, is the law of nature. His- tory dawns upon a world, peopled with tribes and races. All mountains and plains, all banks of streams, and shores of ocean, were then covered with tribes, each hav- ing its distinct form of speech. The first recorded ut- terances of man, are lyric. A hymn to the Divine Crea- tor, a-litany, a prayer, is the earliest expression and necessity, of man’s conscience and moral sentiment, It is the first spontaneous utterance of the poor Indian, with untutored mind, as it is the noblest emotion, of the proud science of the lettered sage. All thought im- plies spontaneous faith in God. Natural atheism does not exist. As speech is but the expression of thought and conscience, so in the history of language, there is 2 10 nothing, in intellectual expression, anterior to the lyric hymn. The “likeness of God,” in which man was ere- ated, is psychical—of the soul. Conscience preceded language. “The tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” was logically and historically, antecedent to the utter- ance of names, for the objects of creation. In these di- vine rays of conscience and intelligence, lies the unity of man. I respect humanity in all its members. It was my fortune, once, to have embarked with that great say- age, Black Hawk, chief of the Sioux. At the early dawn of light, [ found him at the prow of the ship, with his hands extended towards the breeze, chaunting his lyric praise to the unseen Manito. In the presence of this religious, thoughtful savage, I,too, reverently bowed with the profound conviction that of “one blood were all men made.” In the presence, too, of that barbarian, who was, at once, the prophet, priest, and king of his tribe, I could read the condition of men on this globe, before the historic age. He was the analogue, or rep- resentative, of all the primitive men, who, in all the four quarters of the globe, appeared at the dawn of history. They were all creations of the Divine power, all perfect in their physical and mental organization, endowed with the faculty of thought and the attribute of conscience ; all were endued, under physiological laws, with yocal or- gans. Diversity prevailed in their physical structures, unity in their moral and intellectual attributes. This diversity of language, and its divine origin, im- press the philosopher, with reverence and awe. Ata cabinet dinner in Washington, given by the then Sec- retary of State, John Quincy Adams, the question was asked by a guest, which was the greatest miracle re- 11 corded in the New Testament. There were eminent statesmen, and foreign diplomatists, present. Opinions varied. The wedding wine of Cana, was opposed to the feeding of the multitude by the sea of Gallilee. Final- ly, Mr. Adams declared that in his judgment, the mira- cle of the Pentecost was the greatest. On that day, “there was assembled at Jerusalem, devout men from out of every nation, under Heaven. They were all con- founded, because they heard every man speak in the tongue of the other, in which he was born.” Such was the conviction of the statesman and philosopher, that as no language was ever invented by man, so could not these “devout menof Jerusalem,” suddenly acquire the tongues of each other, but by an immediate manifesta- tion of Divine Power. Comparative philologists proceed in the classification of languages as the naturalist classifies plants, according to genera, species, and varieties. The tomato and pota- to both belong to the family of solanums, of which there are hundreds of varieties. The languages of this globe have been grouped into four different divisions, called the Aryan, Shemitic, Turanian, -and Allophylian. To the Aryan, belongs Sanscrit; to the Shemitic, Hebrew ; to the Turanian, Mongol and Tartar; to the Allophy- lian, all the others, Each of these great families or ®cenera, embraces vast varieties. The Sanscrit, for in- stance, is the mother of Zend, Persian, Hindoustanee, in Asia; and of the Sclavonian Lithuanian, German and Celtic, in Europe. Each of these sub-families, is again divided into lesser dialects, derived from the parent stem. From Sclavonian are derived Russian, Servian, Bohe- mian and Croatian. ” « 12 From Lithuanian, are descended Old Prussian, Lettish and Latin. From German come Gothic, Scandinavian, Dutch and English. From Upper German come the Old, Middle and New High German and Greek. From Celtic are derived Erse, Gaelic, Welsh and Bre- ton. ‘I his numerous class of Sanscrit languages are called Indo-European, as they occupy western Europe. Their. descendants fill wp North America, from the Pacific to the Atlantic ocean. The classification of comparative philology may be still further exemplified, by the Shemitic languages and dialects. i: Hebrew and its dialects, Phenician and Punic. II. Aramaean. Its derivations are Chaldaic and Syriac. II. Arabic, literal and vulgar. Its dialects are numerous. ab cM Abyssinian, from which are derived Amharic, Gheez and others. You will thus perceive, how the two great linguistic families, Sanscrit and Shemitic, have been treated under the system of comparative philology. It isnot possible to extend beyond these two, the classification of languages, in this general review. Much time would be required. — But as I have spoken of the Turanian division, I may say that it comprehends the Mongolians and the Mantchous, who are the actual governing race in China; the Turks, and the Finns; in fact, all the tribes north of the San- 13 scrit belt. To the south of the Shemitic parallel, and intermingling with it, are the Coptic of Egypt and the extensive -Berber family, which covers the whole of North Africa. Under the equator, and stretching to the Cape of Good Hope, Africa presents innumerable tribes, each having its distinctive idiom, . I close this cursory and imperfect review, with the notice of a remarkable phenomenon. Here and there, over the area occupied by a dominant family of languages, its current of extension is arrested, by the appearance in its midst, of an insulated distinct idiom. The Coptic in Egypt, stands like a rock in the flood of Arabic idioms, which surround it on all sides. The Magyar, or Hungarian, in the midst of Sclavonic ele- ments, is in a like linguistic condition, having no affi- nity to the surrounding idioms. They may be called intrusive languages, like the intrusive rocks of geology, piercing through the overlying strata. The same phe- nomenon occurs in Mexico, where the Ottomite tribe, small in number, is entirely surrounded by Aztec idioms, Inthe absence of historic proof, we may advance a theory of this phenomenon. A conquering race may have overrun a country of rude primitive tribes. Some | of these, may have escaped absorption and extinction, by the protection of localities. Or as in the case of the Hungarians, who are a Finnish, Ugrian race, they may have conquered a fertile region, encamped there, and perpetuated their race in that locality. The special characteristics of the Sanscrit and She- mitic languages, demand consideration. The Sanscrit, now no longer a living language, like Hebrew and Latin, is still like them, the sacred language of religion and law. Itis the sacred language of the Brahmins - 14 and the Boudhists. It is preserved in the liturgy of the Vedas, and in the civil institutes of Menu. The Vedas, by commen accord of Savans, is as ancient as the Pen- tateuch. Its existence will date fifteen centuries before the Christian era. I have presented to you a table of European languages descended from Sanscrit, among which, you will recall the Persian, German, Greek, Latin, English, French, and all Romanic dialects. If you will recur to the law which I announced, as establishing the affinity of languages, that is, similarity of words and grammatical structure, then you will demand a compa- rison of both, and first of words. Sanscrit. Latin. German. Maths eects. Man usya Mann Father. . 0.0: Pitar Pater Fader Mother. ......Matar Mater Mutter Sime se es Sunus Sohn Daughter... . Duhitar Dochter Brother... ... Bratar Frater Bruder This comparitive list might be indefinitely enlarged. The numerals in Sanscrit, Greek, Latin, German and English, are almost identical. In the passage of the same word through cognate languages, the spelling becomes different. One conso- nant is changed for another—The most striking illus- tration of this,is the word Padas, a foot, in Sanserit, which becomes podes or pous in Greek ; pes in Latin ; fotus in Gothic; vwoz in High German; fuss in Low German; and foot in English. These changes are in conformity with the physiologic law of speech. That law, the result of profound investigations by the learned German Grimm, is this : The nine mute consonants are divided into 15 Labials, Linguals. Gutturals. p. b. ft t. d, dh. k. kh, th. These consonants are again divided into tenues, or soft; medial; and aspirates : Tenues. Medial. Aspirates, Labials _ p. b. ph. or f. Linguals t. d., . th. Gutturals k. g. kh. It was found by investigation, that there existed a regular interchange of tenues, medials and aspirates, in the different dialects of sanscrit. This interchange pro- duced Grimm’s law. Thus the terms of consanguinity as pitar, a father; matar,a mother; duhitar, a daugh- ter; passing through Persian and German to our own Anglo Saxon, present the same letters and almost the same vocalization, with the phonetic changes of con- sonants, The earliest example of the mutation of consonants, is recorded in the book of Judges. When the Ephramites attempted to pass over to the Gilsadites, to ascertain the truth of his nationality, the Ephramite was required to pronounce the word s/ibboleth, meaning a fountain of running water. Instead of the Gileadite shzbboleth, he said sibboleth, for as the record says, “he could not frame to pronounce it right.” The shibboléth of the Sicilian vespers, where Italians massacred the French, was Cicero. Instead of Chichero the Frenchman said Sisero; for he could not frame to pronounce it right. In South America, the shibboleth of the Royalists was Ciudad, which the Republican pronounced Studad, and the Castilian Royalist, Z’hitedadth. What shall be the shibboleth of the Confederates? Shall it be Cow— (Keow)—or Tube-~(7o0b) Such are the differences 16 produced on the physical organs of speech, by climate and locality, or social and moral habits. Proceeding now, to compare the grammatical struc- ture of Sanscrit, let us see rf that also, by the law which I stated, proves the affinity of these Indo-European dia- lects. The grammar of languages are, in their construc- tion, synthetic or analytic. Synthetic applies to those, which mark the relation of the parts of speech, by in- flectional terminations. Analytic grammar dispenses with inflexions at the end of the word, and places pre- positions before the word, to indicate relations. Sanserit, Greek, Latin, Gothic and Saxon are synthetic languages, having inflexions of nouns and verbs. Persian and English are analytic, like all the modern Romanic lan- . guages. They reject terminations, and use prepositions instead. In the conjugation of verbs, they use auxiliary verbs instead of terminal inflexions. The present tense of the verb Dadami I give, shows identity. Sanscrit. Greek. Latin. . Dadami. Didomi. ego Do. Dadasi. Didos. tu das. Dadati. Didose. ille dat. To illustrate the use of auxiliary verbs, to mark the relations of time, take, in Greek, the verb Tupio, I strike, Romanic, or modern Greek, forms the conjugation, J will strike, by thelo tupsei, instead of tupso, in Archaie Greek. J have struck, instead of tetupha, becomes echo tupset. Amabor, 1 will be loved, becomes in French, je serail aimé. All modern languages, Spanish, Italian, and English, use auxiliary verbs, to denote relations of time, instead of inflexional terminations. : So, in the declension of nouns, Corpus hominis, the body of a man, becomes in French, le corpsdel’ homme, 17 in Italian, ilcorpo de l’ uomo; in Spanish, el cuerpo del hombre, in Portuguese, o corpo do homem. Hence you perceive, that the tendency of modern tongues, is to change synthetic structure. to analytic; to substitute prepositions for suffixes; in fact to analyze a mass, into its component parts, and to give expression to these, components. E The grammatical structure of these Sanscrit dialects, has thus, in the course of time, undergone a great change. It has been a process of disintegration, like that of the primitive rocks. It is a psychologic phenomenon, the result of the reflective ‘faculties. Did men and nations decide, that a single word, including in itself, the reia- tions of case and number, should be analyzed into its component parts, and that relations should be ex- pressed by prefixes, standing as independent words, to point out those conditions? I think not. No coun- cil of men has ever changed the structure of a language. Such movements come from within, and are the ex- ponents of the intellectual nature of man. There is a class of languages called polysynthetic, or doubly syn- thetic. Such are our Indian tongues and the Numi- dian. The phrases of these barbarians, are a lump of words, rolled up into one. Ooraskhasahnagara, I will not giwett to him, is an example. Children, speak in a lump, synthetically. Education gives them the anyla- tic faculty, and then they begin to separate into parti- cles, what was at first, a fused mass. Nations were not educated, when the process of disintegration com- -menced. We can only record the fact, that synthetic or inflexional languages, have become analytic or reflec- tive. The Tunanian idioms are agglutinate. They 3 18 “ glue together in one word, the subject, predicate and object. The historical deduction, therefore, is, that the higher you ascend in time, the more complicated languages are found to be, where synthesis is their genius. There is a system of languages in Eastern Asia, as the Chinese and its cognates, which are monosyllabic, and have no inflections or particles of connection. They may be called Atactic, as having no order or structure. The meaning of a word in composition, is to be determined by its position. Cotton comes from the South, is ex- pressed by Cotton comes; origin, South. This is the genius of that Eastern people, which corresponds with their intellectual and moral character. It is stationary, stereotyped, and incapable of intellectual development. This unorganized speech of the Chinese, is strongly in contrast with the utterances of that great barbarian Black Hawk, when he poured out his prayerful aspira- tions to the Divine Creator, who had given him speech of delicate inflections, and wonderful involutions. His speech was alike perfect, with-the majesty of this form. Having said so much of the Sanscrit, as a synthetic language, abounding in capacities for the expression of thought, in its relations of person and number, time and mood, by inflections of words, by suffixes or termina- tions, I may now turn to the Shemitic. Its genius and idiosyncracies are strikingly different from the In- do European, which we have treated. The Shemitic vocabularies have nothing in common with the Sanscrit. To show this, it may be sufficient to compare their words, with the short list of Sanscrit and English words, already submitted. Ab is father ; am, mother ; bint, daughter ; ahi, brome 19 = and so on. No dissimilarity could be greater. It may be assumed, therefore, that under the first law of lin- guistics, no affinity exists. The same result is deduced from a comparison of the two grammars. In the gram- matical classification of languages, I have said there were two great divisions—those of inflexions and those of prepositions. The Shemitic constitute a third division, or class. Their peculiar characteristic is, that gram- matical relations are mostly expressed, by an internal alteration of the sound of the root word. They have, also, some prefixes and suffixes; but the syntax is gov- erned, by changing the vowel sounds of the root. The inflexion is from within, and not entirely from without. Every word, with few exceptions, consists of three radi- cal, consonant letters ; consequently, the language is dissabyllabic. Unlike the Indo-European tongues, it is incapable of forming compound words. Such a com- pound as equilateral, or triangle, would not be possible in Hebrew. To exemplify what is meant by an internal alteration of the vowel sounds of the triliteral root, one instance may suffice. ‘Take the verb katab, to write. The pre- sent participle becomes ‘atid, writing ; and katub is writ- ten ; torah, a law, becomes tor in the plural. But plurals are also formed by a suffix or termina- _tion. To denote these internal changes, the system of vowel points, called masoretic, was introduced after the return of the Israelites from captivity. During their long residence in a foreign land, their language became corrupted or disused. If, then, the words of the sacred writings were originally written with three consonants and with no vowel points, it became evidently impossi- ble for the unlearned, to read the words correctly. If, 20 . for instance, English were a dead language, how could you pronounce correctly the two consonants b, b, form- ingaword? It might be pronounced bad, bid, bod, bud. This constitutes the great difficulty, in reading all Shem- itic dialects, Arabic included. In the word katab, to write, which I have cited, there are three letters—k, t,b. They may be read in many different ways, as katib, kitab, kutoub, and so with end- less variation. Hvery_word, in every language, must have vowels attached to consonants. They may not be written, but they must be pronounced. They are in- herent in speech, and voice is impossible without them. Thus it became a necessity, when Hebrew, as a living language, fell into disuse, to adopt a system like that of the masoretic points, in reading. This system, with its tones, accents and diacritic points, is excessively com- plicated. They are the preliminaries to the study of all Hebrew grammar, whose syntax, declensions, and con. jugations are based upon them. Open the grammars of Ewald or Gesenius, and you will find an immensity of rules for their government. After all, the numerous ‘vowel points in Hebrew, should not surprise us, if we re- flect, that there are in English, nineteen different vowel sounds arising out of the powers of a, e, 1,0, u. A has ~ four powers, represented by fate, far, fall, fat. The Hebrews have distinct vowel points to mark these pow- ers; we have not. These are the salient characteristic distinctions be- tween the Sanscrit or Japhetic, and the Shemitic lan- guages. Theyare entirely dissimilar. Yet I am not ignorant of the new school of philologers, which, in the ultimate analysis of human speech, reduces all words to demonstrative and predicative roots. These predicative 21 roots, or names of things, are conceived to be derived from the objects of nature, by imitation or onomatopeia. The impression made by these objects, upon the con- science or perceptive faculty, results in a vocal sound, as sound is produced by all objects, when struck. This is predicative. Domonstrative roots are interjections or particles of speech. At the head of this school are the Oxford Professor, Muller, and the learned states- man, the Baron Bunsen, The Hebrew language is stereotyped and inflexible. Jt expresses but two conditions of time—the past and the future. It speaks in command of authority for the future, appropriately for law, and records the fast with majestic imagery to adorn the narrative. It has no affluence of conjective particles, to modify the statement of prepositions or logical ratiocinations. There are thirty verses in the first chapter of Genesis. The con- junction particle, and, is the only one used in twenty- nine of these verses. The Sanscrit and its Indo-European derivations have a different genius. They are languages of metaphysics and abstract ideas, capable of expressing logical analy-- sis, and of investigating the laws of mind and matter. This Aryan race had worked out the precession of the equinoxes before the captivity of Babylon; and before that period, it had embodied, in five systems of philoso- phy, the physchologic speculations which have given renown to Scottish and German schools of metaphysic- ians. They had reached the syllogism in logic, whilst other races had stopped at the enthymene. To the Aryans, the human race is indebted, for its progress in civil policy, in government, science, and the arts of civ- ilized life. Magna Charta and Habeus Corpus, are the 22 great conquests of this race, whilst others have made no advancement in national life. It has given us the Copernican system and its complement the principle of Newton, and the three great laws of Kepler. The im- perfect but ingenious methods of Aristotle have been rectified by the organon of Bacon. Alchemy has been displaced by chemistry; and astrology by astronomy, in the celestial mechanism of Laplace. By polarity of light, we have learned that the sun is not incandes- cent, but flame ; and Kirchoff of Heidelbérg has just discovered, as the climax of Aryan analysis and induc- tion, that the sun has its chemistry; that as all metals in combustion present their peculiar spectrum colors, so the colored rays of the sun could only be produced, by the combustion of certain metals. But there isa religious connexion between the San- scrit and Hebrew languages, which must ever consecrate them in the affections of mankind. They are the agen- cies through which, God has made known his attributes, and completed the two dispensations of his eternal council. From out of the bright effulgence of Horeb and the flashing thunders of Sinai, came forth the He- brew oracle—*“ I am the God of Abraham ; thou shalt have no other Gods before me.” And when men had been educated to a recognition of the divine govern- ment, then the agency of another language was used, to bring in a new dispensation. Man was to be drawn nearer to his Creator; the terror of the law was to be tempered by Love. And so,in the fullness of time, the dead letter of the Hebrew law, with its ritual more lifeless still, gave place to the Sanscrit-Greek gospel. In this language, the beloved disciple announced, that God was love; and that the divine Logos had brought 23 life and immortality into the world. By the agency of this Japhetic tongue, the first recorded prophecy has received its fulfilment, last in time, “God shall enlarge Japheth ; he shall dwell in the tent of Shem; and Ca- naan shall be his servant.”