The New Art of Memory/Chapter 5
CHAP. V.
Language.
Sect. 1.—On learning Languages.
The learning of Languages is, in these days, an object of such general pursuit, and at the same time of such real importance, that every plan of instruction which has for its object to abridge the labour of this study, or to give permanence to its acquisitions, comes to our consideration with the strongest claims on our attention. The first approach to the study of Languages presents to view a long and dreary passage, but which must be travelled through with care and diligence, by those who wish to make any useful progress. Now it would certainly be a great advantage to turn and shorten this toilsome road, and be enabled to pursue our journey through the regions of science by more direct and less fatiguing advances.
That any course of learning should be devised by which the acquisition of Languages shall be tendered an expeditious and unlaborious task, it would be presumptuous to expect.
But it may be reasonably hoped, that, in the progressive improvement of human experience, new methods of instructions may be introduced, in this as well as in other sciences, which may afford additional facilities to learning, and clear away many obstacles to improvement which former ages were unable to remove.
It is quote obvious that the difficulty in acquiring a foreign language consists in the constitutional difference of out our native tonight, and that which we propose to learn. If the grammatical properties of the two languages were similar, the were obtaining of a copia verborum would be an undertaking of no great difficulty. But how considerable a labour it is to obtain a perfect knowledge even of the genders and declensions of nouns, the conjugation of verbs, and other matters which are the very initials of language, any one who has had the least experience of the drudgery of teaching can well testify.
It would seem, then, that one of the most extensive facilities which can be afforded in this matter, is to point out the affinities of different languages—to systematise, as far as can be, their similarities; and, where it is practicable, to trace and notify their variances. In other words, if the expression may be allowed, to exhibit the universalities of language.
Something of this nature will be attempted in the present chapter. It is inserted, because it constitutes a part of M. Von Feinaigle's instructions; and because the Editor hopes that, it will be found to contain some useful matter. But he does not mean to delude the reader into an expectation that he will be here provided with a sort talismanic key, which shall enable him, wihout labour and wihtout loss of time, to unlock the janua linguarum. Indeed that (whatever some interested enthusiasts may pretend), nor any honest man venture to promise. All that will be here attempted will be, to exhibit some of the most important similarities of different languages, notwithstanding individual peculiarities, they still retain strong marks of affinity in many essential particulars.
Facies non omnibus una,
Nec tamen diversa, qualena decet esse sororim
Ov.Met.1.2.v.13.
And, to bring the matter more home to practice, to offer some rules, by the assistance of which one language may be usefully applied to the acquisition of another.
As we are about to consider some of the universal properties of language, it may not, perhaps, be thought improper to enter on the subject with a slight sketch of the origin of language.
Sect. 2.—Sketch of the Origin of Language.
"We are informed by Scripture, that when the building of Babel was begun, about eighteen hundred years after the fall, the whole earth was of one speech. And had no miraculous interposition taken place, it is probable, that some traces of it would have remained in every language to this day. For, though, in so long a time, many words must have been changed, many introduced, and many forgotten, in every country, yet men being all of the same family, and all deriving their speech from the only one primitive tongue, it may be presumed that some of the original words would still have been in use throughout the whole eanh: even as in ull the modern languages of Europe, some Greek, and some Hebrew, and a great deal of Latin, is still discernible. But Providence thought fit to prevent this; and by confounding the language of the builders of Babel, to establish in the world a variety of primitive tongues.
****
"Languages are either Primitive or Derived, That those which are formed out of the same parent tongue should all resemble it and another, and yet should all be different, is not more wonderful, than that children and their parents should be marked with a general family likeness, and each distinguished by peculiar features. Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, French and a great deal of the English Tongue, are derived from the Latin; with the addition of many new modes of termination and syntax which were introduced by the northern nations. And, therefore, all these languages resemble the Latin and one another; and yet each is different from it and from all the rest. But, if we could compare two original or primitive tongues together, the Hebrew for instance with the Gothick or the Cletick, of the language of China, with that of the Hurons in North America, we should not discern, perhaps, the least similitude: which, considering that all mankind are of the same family, could not be fully accounted for without supposing that some preternatural events like that at the confusions of Babel, had some time or other taken place. But this history solves all difficulties."[1]
This is the general opinion respecting the origin of the diversity of Languages; but it is not an uncontroverted doctrine. Dr. Priestley[2] has argued upon this point in the following manner:—
"The present diversity of language is generally believed to have taken its rise from the building of Babel, and to have been brought about by the interposition of the Divine Being; but it is no impiety to suppose, that this (agreeable to most other operations of the Deity) might have been brought about by natural means. The possibility of this natural deviation seems to be deduced from the following considerations.
"First. The primitive language, or that which was spoken by the first family of the human race, must have been very scanty, and insufficient for the purposes of their descendants, in their growing acquaintance with the world.
"Secondly. Not being fixed by the practice of writing, it would be very liable to variation.
"Thirdly. Supposing the primitive language to have had few inflections, (because few would have been sufficient,) it would easily admit any inflections, which chance or design might suggest to the founders of different families, or to their successors. These different inflections would consequently introduce different constructions of words, and different rules of syntax: and thus what are called the very stamina of languages, would be formed independently of one another, and admit of all possible varieties.
"Fourthly. Considering into what different climates mankind were dispersed, furnished with the bare rudiments of the art of speech, into what different ways of living they fell, and how long they continued without the art of writing, (without which no language can be fixed,) it seems to be no wonder that languages should be so different as they are; both with respect to the rules of inflection, with the fundamentals of grammar which depend upon them, and the words of which they consist.
"The difficulty which some allege there is, in conceiving how languages should arise in the world so very different, not only in the words, but in the manner of using them, seems to arise wholly from the supposition, that the primitive language was copious, regular, and perfect in all its parts: the difficulty of changing such a language is allowed; but the fact, is apprehended, is much easier accounted for upon the present hypothesis.
"To these arguments it may be added, that to a person thoroughly acquainted with the present state of mankind, the prodigious diversity of human manners and customs may probably appear almost as difficult to be accounted for, as the diversity of languages only."
The late Dr. G. Gregory has observed on this subject, that it is impossible to say what was the nature of the confusion of language at Babel; whether it consisted in the invention of new terms, or in the improper use of the old. The miracle at Babel, he adds, might be only a temporary confusion,[3] sufficient to set aside that useless and absurd undertaking: and it is more natural to suppose, that the consequent dispersion of mankind was the effect of dissentions occasioned by having misunderstood each other, than that they could not live together, because they did not all continue to speak the same language.
II. The origin of alphabetical writing is involved in as much doubt as that of the diversity of language; and the controversies which have arisen on both subjects have been similarly conducted—one side pretending to found their arguments on the authority of the Scriptures, and the other side denying that those records furnish any such inference.
They who have recourse to supernatural interposition to account for the origin of writing, allege that the first alphabetical writings were the two tables of stone, which, as we are informed by Moses, were written by the finger of God himself. And it must be acknowledged (in the words of Dr. Priestley) that the oldest account we have concerning the use of letters in Asia and Greece is so circumstanced, as by no means to clash with this hypothesis. It seems likewise very probable from Robertson's comparison of Alphabets, that all the known ones might originally have been derived from the Hebrew, or Samaritan.
But in opposition to these arguments, it has been asked—If the Deity had taught or revealed such an art to mankind, why is it not explicitly noted in that complete history of revelation, which inspiration has handed down to us? The writing on the tables at Mount Sinai is not spoken of as a new invention; and if it had been such, and particularly if it had been the immediate act of the Deity, is there the least probability that so important a fact would have been omitted by the sacred historian? There are various other arguments in this matter, but these form the hinge of the dispute; and we shall close this subject with a very satisfactory observation of Dr. Priestley, who remarks, that, the imperfections of all alphabets, the Hebrew by no means excepted, seems to argue them not to have been the product of divine skill, but the result of such a concurrence of accident and gradual improvement as all human arts, and what we call inventions, owe their birth to. For certainly, the alphabets in use bear no marks of the regularity and perfection of the works of nature: the more we consider the latter, the more reason we see to admire their beauty, just proportions, and consequent fitness to answer their respective ends; whereas, the more we examine the former, the more defects, superfluities, and imperfections of all kinds we discover in them. Besides, had there ever been a divine alphabet, it would certainly have established itself in the world by its manifest excellence, particularly as, upon this supposition, mankind were incapable of devising one themselves.
III. But whatever may be the origin of alphabetical writing, it is certain that all alphabets are, more or less, defective. In the orthography of modern languages, in particular, it is a great inconvenience, as has been truly observed,[4] that the pronunciation does not correspond with the writing; but that the same letters have different sounds, and the same sounds are often represented by different letters; some letters also, according to the pronunciation, are superfluous in some words, in others letters are wanting. This is chiefly a mark of their derivation from other languages: since, in many of those differences, the spelling leans to the antients, when the pronunciation is modern. Thus the (p) in the word receipt is not pronounced; but it shows the derivation of the word from recipio in Latin. Some words of the same sound are spelled differently, to preserve a distinction in writing, as air heir: hair heir, etc. Other words, on the contrary, which are spelled in the same manner, are pronounced differently, to preserve a distinction in speaking; as I read, and I have read.
Sect. 3.—Account of some attempts towards forming a universal Character or Alphabet.
All the alphabets extant are charged by Bishop Wilkins with great irregularities, with respect both to order, number, power, figure, &c.
As to the order it appears, says he, inartificial, precarious, and confused, as the vowels and consonants are not reduced into classes, with such order of precedence and subsequence as their natures will bear. Of this imperfection the Greek alphabet, which is one of the least defective, is far from being free: for instance, the Greeks should have separated the consonants from the vowels; after the vowels they should have placed the diphthongs, and then the consonants; whereas, in fact, the order is so perverted, that we find the ο the fifteenth letter in the order of the alphabet, and the ω, or long ο, the twenty fourth and last: the ε the fifth, and the η the seventh letter.
With respect to number, they are both redundant and deficient; redundant by allotting the same sound to several letters, as in the Latin c and k, f and ph; or by reckoning double letters among the simple elements of speech, as in the Greek ξ and ψ the Latin q or cu, x or ex, and the j consonant. They are deficient in many respects, particularly with regard to vowels, of which seven or eight kinds are commonly used, though the Latin alphabet takes notice only of five. Add to this, that the difference among them with regard to long and short, is not sufficiently provided against.
The powers again are not more exempt from confusion; the vowels, for instance, are generally acknowledged to have each of them several different sounds; and among the consonants weneed only bring as evidence of their different pronunciation the letter c in the word circa, and g in the word negligence. Hence it happens, that some words are differently written, though pronounced in the same manner, as cessio and sessio; and others are different in pronunciation, which are the same in writing, as give, dare, and give, vinculum.
Finally, he adds, the figures are but ill concerted, there is nothing in the characters of the vowels answerable to the different manner of pronunciation; nor in the consonants analogous to their agreements, or disagreements.
As we are on this subject, the reader may not be displeased, perhaps, to have the various schemes which have been proposed for the emendation and correction of the English Alphabet brought together in one concise view.
"There have been many schemes offered for the emendation and settlement of our orthography; which, like that of other nations, being formed by chance, or according to the fancy of the earliest writers in rude ages, was at first very various and uncertain, and is yet sufficiently irregular: of these reformers some have endeavoured to accommodate orthography better to the pronunciation, without considering that this is to measure by a shadow; to take that for a model or standard, which is changing while they apply it. Others, less absurdly indeed, but with equal unlikelihood of success have endeavoured to proportion the number of letters to that of sounds, that every sound may have its own character, and every character a single sound. Such Mould be the orthography of a new language to be formed by a synod of grammarians upon principles of science. But who can hope to prevail on nations to change their practice, and make all the old books useless? or what advantage would a new orthography procure equivalent to the confusion and perplexity of such an alteration.
"One of the first who proposed a scheme of regular orthography, was Sir Thomas Smith, Secretary of State to Queen Elizabeth, a man of real learning, and much practised in grammatical disquisitions[5] After him another mode of writing was offered by Dr. Gill, the celebrated Master of St. Paul's School in London. Dr. Gill was followed by Charles Butler, a man who did not want an understanding, which might have qualified him for better employment. He seems to have been more sanguine than his predecessors, for he printed his book according to his own scheme.
"In the time of Charles I. there was a very prevalent inclination to change the orthography; as appears, among other books, in such editions of the works of Milton as were published by himself. Of these reformers every man had his own scheme; but they agreed in one general design of accommodating the letters to the pronunciation, by ejecting such as they thought superfluous. Same of them would have written these lines thus:
Bishop Wilkins afterwards, in his great work of the philosophical language, proposed, without expecting to be followed, a regular orthography; by which the Lord's prayer is to be written thus:
Yar Fádher høitsh art in héven, halloed bi dhyi nam, dhi cingdym cym, dhy sill bi dyu in erth as it is in héven, etc."
Here Dr. Johnson has closed his account, which we shall endeavour to complete by noticing some other philosophical speculations of a similar nature that have been submitted to the public. But we shall first present the reader with amore detailed account of Bishop Wilkins' plan of a universal and philosophical language. This account we shall give in an extract from Dr. Priestley's Lectures on the Theory of Language, because it contains the most clear and concise exposition of it, that can possibly be given.
"Having in the first place, with prodigious labour and exactness, distributed all things to which names are given into classes; under forty genuses or general heads, (some of which, however, are subordinate to others) he assigns a short and simple character to each of these forty genuses,—a definite variation of the character, to each difference under the genuses, and a further variation for each species, etc. By this means, the characters, representing all things that have names, have the same analogies with one another that the things themselves have.
"Characters being provided for the names of things, the grammatical distinctions of words, numbers, tenses, persons, voices, etc. are denoted by some appendage to the character.
"In this manner may we be furnished with an universal character, which shall represent ideas directly, without the intervention of any sounds, and which may be equally understood by people using any language whatever.[6]
"To make this character effable, the Doctor (Wilkins) appropriates a single sound to the characters representing each genus and difference, and also to each variation and appendage before mentioned: and they are so contrived, that the simple sounds adapted to all the parts of the most complex character may be pronounced with ease, as one word.
"By this means any people, after they had applied this character to represent their ideas, might soon learn to read it in the same manner as any other people; whereby, in conversation as well as in writing, they might make themselves perfectly understood by one another.
"The elements of this character and language are so few, and the combination of them so easy, that the Doctor (Wilkins) says he has no doubt, that a person of a good capacity and memory may, in one month's space, attain to a good readiness of expressing his mind this way, either in the character or language.
"As the names of individuals cannot be comprehended in tables of genuses and their differences, the Doctor (Wilkins) hath contrived an alphabet of all the simple articulations of the human voice; to which he hath assigned two sets of characters, to be used at pleasure: the one consists of short and plain strokes, the other is a kind of delineation of the position of the organs in forming the articulations."
This plan Dr. Priestley considers the most rational of all the plans of a universal and philosophical language. And he adds, whenever this noble project is resumed, it seems to be impossible to proceed upon a better plan than this. The principal thing that is wanting to the perfection of it is a more perfect distribution of things into classes than, perhaps, the present state of knowledge can enable us to make.
Mr. Lodwick, in the Philosophical Transactions,[7] gives 'an Essay towards an universal Alphabet.' His plan was to contain an enumeration of all such single sounds, as are used in any language: by means of which people should be able to pronounce truly and readily any language; to describe the pronunciation of any language that shall be pronounced in their hearing, so as others accustomed to this language, though they had never heard the language pronounced, shall at first be able truly to pronounce it: and lastly, this character was to serve to perpetuate the sounds of any language whatever.
The construction of "a new alphabet, and a reformed mode of spelling," has also occupied the attention of that celebrated Philosopher, Dr. Franklin. His plan may be seen in his miscellaneous works.[8] In this alphabet he has attempted to provide that no letter should have two sounds, and every sound should be represented by a distinct letter. "It is to be observed, (he says) that in all the letters, vowels, and consonants, wherever they are met with, or in whatever company, their sound is always the same. It is also intended, that there be no superfluous letters used in spelling; i. e. no letter that is not sounded; and this alphabet, by six new letters, provides that there be no distinct sounds in the language, without letters to express them. As to the difference between short and long vowels, it is naturally expressed by a single vowel, where short; a double one, where long; as for mend, write mend; but for remained, write remeen'd; for did write did, but for deed write diid, etc."
In this alphabet c is omitted as unnecessary; k supplying its hard sound, and s the soft; k also supplies well the place of z, and with an s added, the place of x: q and x are therefore omitted. The vowel u, being sounded as oo, makes the w unnecessary. The y, where used simply, is supplied by i, and where as a diphthong, by two vowels: that letter is therefore omitted as useless. The jod, j, is also omitted, its sound being supplied by a new letter, which serves other purposes.
The philosophical construction of the alphabet may be best seen in the following account, written by himself, and entitled:
Page:The new art of memory (IA artofmemoryfound00fein).pdf/160 carried on between the Doctor and Miss Stephenson, on this subject, and in winch the former urges the utility of his scheme, and endeavours to answer the objections raised against it."[9]
Mr. Noah Webster, another American author, has proposed a more moderate innovation, u to render our orthography sufficiently regular and easy."
1. The omission of all superfluous or silent letters. Thus bread, head, give, breast, built, meant, realm, friend, would be spelt, bred, hed, giv, brest, bilt, ment, relm, frend.
2. A substitution of a character that has a certain definite sound, for one that is moie vague and indeterminate. Thus, mean, near, speak, grieve, zeal, would become, meen, neer, speek, greeve, zeel. Thus key should, be written kee; laugh, laf; daughter, dawter; blood, blud; character, karacter; chorus, korus, etc.
3. A trifling alteration in a character, or the addition of a point would distinguish different sounds, without the substitution of a new character. Thus a very small stroke across ike would distinguish its two sounds. A point over a vowel might answer all the purposes of dif- ferent letters. And for the diphthong ou, let the two letters be united by a small stroke, or both engraven on the same piece of metal, with the left hand line of the to united to the o.
These, with a few other inconsiderable alterations, Mr. Webster thinks, "would answer every purpose, and render the orthography sufficiently correct and regular."[10]
The only other scheme of reformation we shall notice is that put forth by Mr. Elphinston.We shall transcribe the first paragraph of his preface.[11]
"Evvery tung iz independant ov evvery oddher. Hooevver seeks dhe anallogy (or nattural rule) ov anny tung, must dherfore find it at home; nor wil dhe seeker seek in vain. Inglish diccion dhen haz no laws, but her own. Yet, in her picturage, and consequently in much ov her livving practice; hav anny oddher laws, or any lawlesnes, been prefferably regarded. No more cau anny language adopt dhe system ov any oddher; dhan anny nacion, dhe hoal pollity oν anoddher nacion: for such adopter wer no more a distinct nacion or language ; wer but a mongrel, or an eccoe."
Sect. 4.—Proposed Philosophical Arrangement of the Alphabet as applied to Language in general.
The ordinary arrangement of the alphabet being thus defective and unphilosophical, we shall propose another mode of disposing the letters, which we shall endeavour to justify, by assigning a reason for allutting to each letter the particular place which it occupies. We shall exhibit our alphabet, then, in this form:—
 | A table should appear at this position in the text. See Help:Table for formatting instructions. |
According to this scheme, the letters are distributed into Four columns, each column containing five letters. This arrangement is not an arbitrary one, but is made upon principles of philosophical propriety.
Page:The new art of memory (IA artofmemoryfound00fein).pdf/164 Page:The new art of memory (IA artofmemoryfound00fein).pdf/165 Page:The new art of memory (IA artofmemoryfound00fein).pdf/166 Page:The new art of memory (IA artofmemoryfound00fein).pdf/167 Page:The new art of memory (IA artofmemoryfound00fein).pdf/168 Page:The new art of memory (IA artofmemoryfound00fein).pdf/169 Page:The new art of memory (IA artofmemoryfound00fein).pdf/170 Page:The new art of memory (IA artofmemoryfound00fein).pdf/171 Page:The new art of memory (IA artofmemoryfound00fein).pdf/172 Page:The new art of memory (IA artofmemoryfound00fein).pdf/173 Page:The new art of memory (IA artofmemoryfound00fein).pdf/174 Page:The new art of memory (IA artofmemoryfound00fein).pdf/175 Page:The new art of memory (IA artofmemoryfound00fein).pdf/176 Page:The new art of memory (IA artofmemoryfound00fein).pdf/177 Page:The new art of memory (IA artofmemoryfound00fein).pdf/178 Page:The new art of memory (IA artofmemoryfound00fein).pdf/179 Page:The new art of memory (IA artofmemoryfound00fein).pdf/180 Page:The new art of memory (IA artofmemoryfound00fein).pdf/181 Page:The new art of memory (IA artofmemoryfound00fein).pdf/182 Page:The new art of memory (IA artofmemoryfound00fein).pdf/183 Page:The new art of memory (IA artofmemoryfound00fein).pdf/184 Page:The new art of memory (IA artofmemoryfound00fein).pdf/185 Page:The new art of memory (IA artofmemoryfound00fein).pdf/186 Page:The new art of memory (IA artofmemoryfound00fein).pdf/187 Page:The new art of memory (IA artofmemoryfound00fein).pdf/188 Page:The new art of memory (IA artofmemoryfound00fein).pdf/189 Page:The new art of memory (IA artofmemoryfound00fein).pdf/190 Page:The new art of memory (IA artofmemoryfound00fein).pdf/191 Page:The new art of memory (IA artofmemoryfound00fein).pdf/192 Who created? God created—Deus is the nominative. What did he create? the heaven and the earth: cælum et terram will immediately be presented to us; our cælestial and terrestrial cannot fail to give the meaning of these words, and the final m will point out to us that they are in the accusative case.
In this manner, we should proceed for two or three pages, and then read them for three or four times more, till we can translate with tolerable facility. We do not consult grammars to learn the rules, but merely to solve any difficulty that may occur. In the present mode, the grammar is learned in the language, and not the language in the grammar. Every rule is an abstraction, and cannot be understood without an example. Instead of long rules we learn examples, and these should be fixed upon the walls of a room in proper order.
The striking analogy between many modern languages, and the consequent facility of acquiring several languages, at the same time, must be evident to every one. This is particularly the case with the English, German, Latin, French, Italian, Spanish, and Portugueze languages.
- ↑ Beattic on Language, in his Dissertations, pp.304-206, 4°.
- ↑ Lecture on the Theory of Language, p. 287, and seq.
- ↑ This conjecture, as Dr. Gregory states in a note, is confirmed by a criticism of Mr. Bryant, who remarks, in his analysis of Ancient Mythology, that שפה really signifies lip, and that consequently the miracle was not any alteration in the language, but a failure or incapacity in labial utterance, which, soon after their separation, they recovered.
- ↑ Priestley's lectures on Language, p. 43.
- ↑ In the preface to Dr. Jobusou's English Dictionary (from which this account is extracted) a specimen may be seen of his reformed orthography. The want of proper types, however, renders it impossible to exhibit this and other specimens here.
- ↑ The languages of Europe have one instance of this kind of writing. Their arithmetical figures, which were derived from the Arabians, are significant marks precisely of the same nature as the universal characters above mentioned. They have no dependence on words; but each figure represents an object—represents the number for which it stands: and accordingly, on being presented to the eye, is equally understood by all the nations, who havę agreed in the use of those cyphers—by Italians, Spaniards, French and English, however different the languages of those nations are from one another, and whatever different names they give in their respective languages, to each numerical cypher.—Blair on the Belles Lett. Lect. vii.
- ↑ Vol. xvi. p. 126.
- ↑ Vol. ii. p. 357. ed. Lond. 1896.
- ↑ Mr. Webster states, that the Doctor, amidst all his other employments, public and private, actually compiled a Dictionary on this scheme of reform, and procured types to be cast for printing it. But it never was printed.
- ↑ Dissertations on the English Language, p. 394.
- ↑ Propriety ascertained in her Picture, 40.