- •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
Indicate relations. All these and similar distinctions are not merely
theoretical possibilities, they can be abundantly illustrated from the
descriptive facts of linguistic morphology. Further, should it prove
desirable to insist on the degree of elaboration of the word, the terms
"analytic," "synthetic," and "polysynthetic" can be added as descriptive
terms. It goes without saying that languages of type A are necessarily
analytic and that languages of type C also are prevailingly analytic and
are not likely to develop beyond the synthetic stage.
But we must not make too much of terminology. Much depends on the
relative emphasis laid on this or that feature or point of view. The
method of classifying languages here developed has this great
advantage, that it can be refined or simplified according to the needs
of a particular discussion. The degree of synthesis may be entirely
Ignored; "fusion" and "symbolism" may often be combined with advantage
under the head of "fusion"; even the difference between agglutination
and fusion may, if desired, be set aside as either too difficult to draw
or as irrelevant to the issue. Languages, after all, are exceedingly
complex historical structures. It is of less importance to put each
language in a neat pigeon-hole than to have evolved a flexible method
which enables us to place it, from two or three independent standpoints,
relatively to another language. All this is not to deny that certain
linguistic types are more stable and frequently represented than others
that are just as possible from a theoretical standpoint. But we are too
ill-informed as yet of the structural spirit of great numbers of
languages to have the right to frame a classification that is other than
flexible and experimental.
The reader will gain a somewhat livelier idea of the possibilities of
linguistic morphology by glancing down the subjoined analytical table of
selected types. The columns II, III, IV refer to the groups of concepts
so numbered in the preceding chapter. The letters _a_, _b_, _c_, _d_
refer respectively to the processes of isolation (position in the
sentence), agglutination, fusion, and symbolism. Where more than one
technique is employed, they are put in the order of their
importance.[113]
[Footnote 113: In defining the type to which a language belongs one must
be careful not to be misled by structural features which are mere
survivals of an older stage, which have no productive life and do not
enter into the unconscious patterning of the language. All languages are
littered with such petrified bodies. The English _-ster_ of _spinster_
and _Webster_ is an old agentive suffix, but, as far as the feeling of
the present English-speaking generation is concerned, it cannot be said
to really exist at all; _spinster_ and _Webster_ have been completely
disconnected from the etymological group of _spin_ and of _weave (web)_.
Similarly, there are hosts of related words in Chinese which differ in
the initial consonant, the vowel, the tone, or in the presence or
absence of a final consonant. Even where the Chinaman feels the
etymological relationship, as in certain cases he can hardly help doing,
he can assign no particular function to the phonetic variation as such.
Hence it forms no live feature of the language-mechanism and must be