II. SINCE the shortest expression of a thought is a word, those thoughts, which are most frequently and emphatically in their minds, mankind have embodied in this terse form. Thoughts which occur less frequently, less uniformly, or less vividly, in consequence come to be expressed by the juxtaposition of several words mutually supplementing each other. The notion of man, for instance, uniformly occurring to all men at all times, in all languages is represented by a specific word. And suppose a tall race to come frequently in contact with people considerably smaller than themselves, it would be just as intelligible to meet with the expressions 'giant' and 'dwarf' in their language. On the other hand, if a middle-sized race had never seen men of a different type, and were suddenly thrown together with giants and dwarfs, there would be no special names existent in their language to apply to the novel phenomena, which would have to be called by compounds put together at the spur of the moment, such as 'large man,'' small man.' The conceptions 'large' and 'small,' which, occurring everywhere, would have had special words allotted to them long ago, would require to be used to denote certain subdivisions of the conception 'man,' for which, being rare in the region, no special words would have been previously created. A good example is supplied by the common English words 'journey' and 'voyage,' in contradistinction to the corresponding German expressions Reise' and 'Seereise.' In England, whose insular position makes travel by water almost as common as by land, a special word for each of these various modes of journeying has been framed; in Germany, where the number of land journeys is greatly in excess, the less frequent sea-journey is either expressed generally as 'Reise, or distinguished by a combination of two words, as 'See-Reise.'* The like holds in more abstract notions. Suppose a strong, manly race in a position involving frequent warfare. Amongst a nation thus placed, we should expect to find words denoting the qualities of which it most stood in need. Strength, courage, determination, daring, intrepidity, audacity, &c., would be the absorbing themes of thought and action, and therefore be designated by a corresponding variety of individual words. Again, another tribe, to whom it had been granted to live in peace, would have had less occasion to feel, and therefore to express, the martial feelings forced upon its less fortunate neighbour. Of course, since courage has to be displayed not only in war but also in ordinary life, it is probable that, even in its idyllic repose, the pacific tribe would possess a proper word for this necessary, or at least desirable, quality of man; but the multifarious synonyms mentioned would be wanting, inasmuch as the opportunity for developing and practising ever fresh, ever more marked, aspects of courage would not have occurred. Hence, if on some special occasion unusual courage were necessary and forthcoming, it would be called great courage, but not daring. Let us take an example from afar in order to prove the homogeneity of all languages in this respect. Ancient Egyptian 'hap' means a law given by the gods, as well as a human statute and the judgment delivered. For each of these three notions Latin has at least one special term'fas, jus, judicium.' To the Egyptians all law was divine, * The relevancy of the above remarks is not affected by the fact that 'journey' may also be used for such travels as include journeys both by land and water. So much the less as the proper word for this combined conception is 'travel.' the priest the only judge, and his dictum an immediate efflux of heavenly truth, whose winged image he bore on his neck. So the three ideas were merged into one and received only one designation.* With the Romans, however, who, by the side of their sacerdotal lore, early developed a most ingenious secular jurisprudence, a distinction between the three notions was made, and a special word set apart for each. From these few examples it will be seen that words express the most usual and emphatic thoughts of a people; that the dictionary contains a genuine and unquestionable reflex of a nation's intellectual traits; and that in its authentic evidence we have a ready means of investigating the mental history of any of the various races of the globe. A nation, to have many words for a concept, must have been much at work upon it, must have developed and varied it, and nicely shaded it off; on the other hand, from a people less abundantly stocking any particular division of its dictionary, we naturally draw the opposite conclusion. When defining significations with exactness, the dictionary assumes the dignity of a psychological thesaurus, and becomes a vivid and boldly delineated sketch of a national type. A sketch, not a portrait. For since obviously many thoughts are expressed not by single, but by several words strung together, single words give but a sketch of the national way of thinking, the requisite colouring being supplied by sentences, arguments, and books. The word is the brick that goes into the wall; the sentence the building; each volume, each book, a town in itself. For a description of these buildings we must look to the history of literature; the examination of the single stone, used ever and anon anew, is the function of philology. So, too, is the review of set phraseology, joining two or several words in stereotyped combination, and forming in reality but a single term. Diodor. i. 48, 75. |