- •Instinct); speech is a non-instinctive, acquired, "cultural" function.
- •Indulgent criticism, be termed an element of speech, yet it is obvious
- •Impressions or images that sentient beings have formed or may form of
- •In the brain, together with the appropriate paths of association, that
- •Visual speech symbolisms is, of course, that of the written or printed
- •Is the correspondence that they may, not only in theory but in the
- •Its later stages, we associate with literature is, at best, but a
- •Incapacity of an element to stand alone. The grammatical element,
- •It has not yet succeeded in this, apart, possibly, from isolated adverbs
- •Independent word or as part of a larger word. These transitional cases,
- •Vowel (_-mü_, animate plural). Such features as accent, cadence, and the
- •Its feeling of unity so long as each and every one of them falls in
- •Into the subject of discourse--_the mayor_--and the predicate--_is going
- •Instinctive utterance that man shares with the lower animals, they
- •Value which the others do not possess (think of _storm and stress_). If
- •In such a word as _please_. It is the frequent failure of foreigners,
- •I have gone into these illustrative details, which are of little or no
- •Voluntary speech movements with the all but perfect freedom of voluntary
- •Independent muscular adjustments that work together simultaneously
- •Variations in pitch which are present not only in song but in the more
- •Ignoring transitional or extreme positions. Frequently a language allows
- •It is highly doubtful if the detailed conditions that brought about the
- •In that the compounded elements are felt as constituting but parts of a
- •Incapable of composition in our sense. It is invariably built up out of
- •Ideas as delimit the concrete significance of the radical element
- •It is not always, however, that we can clearly set off the suffixes of a
- •It will not be necessary to give many further examples of prefixing and
- •Indicates activity done for the subject (the so-called "middle" or
- •Is characteristic of true verbal forms that they throw the accent back
- •Indicates that there is implied in this overburdened _-s_ a distinct
- •Interrogative sentence possesses an entirely different "modality" from
- •Is the outgrowth of historical and of unreasoning psychological forces
- •I have exaggerated somewhat the concreteness of our subsidiary or rather
- •Indeed, there is clear evidence to warrant such a reading in. An example
- •Independent word; nor is it related to the Nootka word for "house."]
- •Is indefinite as to aspect, "be crying" is durative, "cry put" is
- •Implication in terms of form. There are languages, for instance, which
- •Idea, say an action, setting down its symbol--_run_. It is hardly
- •Isolated elements in the flow of speech. While they are fully alive, in
- •Instead of "a rich man."
- •Its unique structure. Such a standpoint expresses only a half truth.
- •Independently and frequently. In assuming the existence of comparable
- •Various kinds. First and foremost, it has been difficult to choose a
- •Inferred from the context. I am strongly inclined to believe that this
- •Into more than one of these groups. The Semitic languages, for instance,
- •Involved in this difference than linguists have generally recognized. It
- •Is one that either does not combine concepts into single words at all
- •Isolating cast. The meaning that we had best assign to the term
- •Is at the mercy of the preceding radical element to this extent, that it
- •Its indicative suffix, is just as clearly verbal: "it burns in the
- •III will be understood to include, or rather absorb, group IV.
- •Indicate relations. All these and similar distinctions are not merely
- •Ignored; "fusion" and "symbolism" may often be combined with advantage
- •Ignored in defining the general form of the language. The caution is all
- •I need hardly point out that these examples are far from exhausting the
- •Into "isolating," "agglutinative," and "inflective" (read "fusional")
- •Interesting, however, to note that of the three intercrossing
- •In the technical features of language. That highly synthetic languages
- •In which we can cover up our fault by a bit of unconscious special
- •It is probable that rhythm is an unconscious linguistic determinant even
- •Is still not as difficult to reconcile with our innate feeling for
- •In certain paradigms particular cases have coalesced. The case system is
- •In later medieval and in modern times there have been comparatively few
- •It_. Can it be that so common a word as _its_ is actually beginning to
- •It. We could hold to such a view if it were possible to say _the dog
- •It is only animate pronouns that distinguish pre-verbal and post-verbal
- •Impatience of nuancing is the group _whence_, _whither_, _hence_,
- •Vocabulary is rich in near-synonyms and in groups of words that are
- •Is an interesting example. The English type of plural represented by
- •In other words, to state in a definitive manner what is the "phonetic
- •Is quite frequent in the history of language. In English, for instance,
- •In the singular (_foot_, _Fuss_) and modified vowel in the plural
- •In all manner of other grammatical and derivative formations. Thus, a
- •Itself in one way and another for centuries. I believe that these
- •Variations won through because they so beautifully allowed the general
- •I would suggest, then, that phonetic change is compacted of at least
- •Is identical with the old Indo-European one, yet it is impressive to
- •It was different in German. The whole series of phonetic changes
- •Instance, "umlaut" plurals have been formed where there are no Middle
- •Is often so small that intermarriages with alien tribes that speak other
- •Into England, a number of associated words, such as _bishop_ and
- •Imprint of the Sanskrit and Pali that came in with Hindu Buddhism
- •Is anywhere entering into the lexical heart of other languages as French
- •Its customary method of feeling and handling words. It is as though this
- •Is the presence of unaspirated voiceless stops (_p_, _t_, _k_), which
- •Is biological, sense, is supremely indifferent to the history of
- •Its colonies, represent a race, pure and single? I cannot see that the
- •Is such[183] as to make it highly probable that they represent but an
- •Intrinsically associated. Totally unrelated languages share in one
- •Various--political, cultural, linguistic, geographic, sometimes
- •Importance, while the linguistic division is of quite minor
- •Intelligible historical association. If the Bantu and Bushmen are so
- •In language and culture. The very fact that races and cultures which are
- •Is only apparently a paradox. The latent content of all languages is the
- •It goes without saying that the mere content of language is intimately
- •Intertwined two distinct kinds or levels of art--a generalized,
- •Indeed, is precisely what it is. These artists--Whitmans and
- •Is under the illusion that the universe speaks German. The material
- •Important are its morphological peculiarities. It makes a great deal of
- •Inherent sonority and does not fluctuate significantly as to quantity
- •Verse has developed along very much the same lines as French verse. The
- •Verse, on the principles of number, echo, and contrasting pitches. Each
- •Vocalic,
- •International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
- •Including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Inferred from the context. I am strongly inclined to believe that this
supposed "inner formlessness" of certain languages is an illusion. It
may well be that in these languages the relations are not expressed in
as immaterial a way as in Chinese or even as in Latin,[96] or that the
principle of order is subject to greater fluctuations than in Chinese,
or that a tendency to complex derivations relieves the language of the
necessity of expressing certain relations as explicitly as a more
analytic language would have them expressed.[97] All this does not mean
that the languages in question have not a true feeling for the
fundamental relations. We shall therefore not be able to use the notion
of "inner formlessness," except in the greatly modified sense that
syntactic relations may be fused with notions of another order. To this
criterion of classification we shall have to return a little later.
[Footnote 95: E.g., Malay, Polynesian.]
[Footnote 96: Where, as we have seen, the syntactic relations are by no
means free from an alloy of the concrete.]
[Footnote 97: Very much as an English _cod-liver oil_ dodges to some
extent the task of explicitly defining the relations of the three nouns.
Contrast French _huile de foie de morue_ "oil of liver of cod."]
More justifiable would be a classification according to the formal
processes[98] most typically developed in the language. Those languages
that always identify the word with the radical element would be set off
as an "isolating" group against such as either affix modifying elements
(affixing languages) or possess the power to change the significance of
the radical element by internal changes (reduplication; vocalic and
consonantal change; changes in quantity, stress, and pitch). The latter
type might be not inaptly termed "symbolic" languages.[99] The affixing
languages would naturally subdivide themselves into such as are
prevailingly prefixing, like Bantu or Tlingit, and such as are mainly or
entirely suffixing, like Eskimo or Algonkin or Latin. There are two
serious difficulties with this fourfold classification (isolating,
prefixing, suffixing, symbolic). In the first place, most languages fall
Into more than one of these groups. The Semitic languages, for instance,
are prefixing, suffixing, and symbolic at one and the same time. In the
second place, the classification in its bare form is superficial. It
would throw together languages that differ utterly in spirit merely
because of a certain external formal resemblance. There is clearly a
world of difference between a prefixing language like Cambodgian, which
limits itself, so far as its prefixes (and infixes) are concerned, to
the expression of derivational concepts, and the Bantu languages, in
which the prefixed elements have a far-reaching significance as symbols
of syntactic relations. The classification has much greater value if it
is taken to refer to the expression of relational concepts[100] alone.
In this modified form we shall return to it as a subsidiary criterion.
We shall find that the terms "isolating," "affixing," and "symbolic"
have a real value. But instead of distinguishing between prefixing and
suffixing languages, we shall find that it is of superior interest to
make another distinction, one that is based on the relative firmness
with which the affixed elements are united with the core of the
word.[101]
[Footnote 98: See Chapter IV.]
[Footnote 99: There is probably a real psychological connection between
symbolism and such significant alternations as _drink_, _drank_, _drunk_
or Chinese _mai_ (with rising tone) "to buy" and _mai_ (with falling
tone) "to sell." The unconscious tendency toward symbolism is justly
emphasized by recent psychological literature. Personally I feel that
the passage from _sing_ to _sang_ has very much the same feeling as the
alternation of symbolic colors--e.g., green for safe, red for danger.
But we probably differ greatly as to the intensity with which we feel
symbolism in linguistic changes of this type.]
[Footnote 100: Pure or "concrete relational." See Chapter V.]
[Footnote 101: In spite of my reluctance to emphasize the difference
between a prefixing and a suffixing language, I feel that there is more