- •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
III will be understood to include, or rather absorb, group IV.
Theoretically, of course, certain relational concepts may be expressed
pure, others mixed, but in practice it will not be found easy to make
the distinction.]
[Footnote 112: The line between types C and D cannot be very sharply
drawn. It is a matter largely of degree. A language of markedly
mixed-relational type, but of little power of derivation pure and
simple, such as Bantu or French, may be conveniently put into type C,
even though it is not devoid of a number of derivational affixes.
Roughly speaking, languages of type C may be considered as highly
analytic ("purified") forms of type D.]
This conceptual classification of languages, I must repeat, does not
attempt to take account of the technical externals of language. It
answers, in effect, two fundamental questions concerning the
translation of concepts into linguistic symbols. Does the language, in
the first place, keep its radical concepts pure or does it build up its
concrete ideas by an aggregation of inseparable elements (types A and C
_versus_ types B and D)? And, in the second place, does it keep the
basic relational concepts, such as are absolutely unavoidable in the
ordering of a proposition, free of an admixture of the concrete or not
(types A and B _versus_ types C and D)? The second question, it seems to
me, is the more fundamental of the two. We can therefore simplify our
classification and present it in the following form:
_
I. Pure-relational _/ A. Simple
Languages \_ B. Complex
_
II. Mixed-relational _/ C. Simple
Languages \_ D. Complex
The classification is too sweeping and too broad for an easy,
descriptive survey of the many varieties of human speech. It needs to be
amplified. Each of the types A, B, C, D may be subdivided into an
agglutinative, a fusional, and a symbolic sub-type, according to the
prevailing method of modification of the radical element. In type A we
distinguish in addition an isolating sub-type, characterized by the
absence of all affixes and modifications of the radical element. In the
isolating languages the syntactic relations are expressed by the
position of the words in the sentence. This is also true of many
languages of type B, the terms "agglutinative," "fusional," and
"symbolic" applying in their case merely to the treatment of the
derivational, not the relational, concepts. Such languages could be
termed "agglutinative-isolating," "fusional-isolating" and
"symbolic-isolating."
This brings up the important general consideration that the method of
handling one group of concepts need not in the least be identical with
that used for another. Compound terms could be used to indicate this
difference, if desired, the first element of the compound referring to
the treatment of the concepts of group II, the second to that of the
concepts of groups III and IV. An "agglutinative" language would
normally be taken to mean one that agglutinates all of its affixed
elements or that does so to a preponderating extent. In an
"agglutinative-fusional" language the derivational elements are
agglutinated, perhaps in the form of prefixes, while the relational
elements (pure or mixed) are fused with the radical element, possibly as
another set of prefixes following the first set or in the
form of suffixes or as part prefixes and part suffixes. By a
"fusional-agglutinative" language we would understand one that fuses its
derivational elements but allows a greater independence to those that