Language (Lat. lingua, tongue), in a general . sense, any means of communicating thought. Man commonly accomplishes it through the organs of sight and hearing, and when these are impaired through the sense of touch. Visible speech is mainly that of gestures and of writing. Gestures are chiefly used by primitive races with whom language is but little developed, and by cultured people to converse with those who cannot hear. The scientific forms of unspoken language have been described in the articles Blind, and Deaf and Dumb. For the unsystematic and pictorial representations of thought, see Hieroglyphics; and for the various graphic systems, see Writing-. This article treats of language only in the narrower and ordinary sense of oral or articulate speech, and specially of the results of the theoretical study of it. The character and functions of the organs of speech are discussed under Voice. - Language is most commonly studied for practical purposes only, to gain greater assurance and accuracy in the use of one's vernacular, or to acquire the use of other tongues which afford commercial, social, or literary advantages. The science of language, however, is not simply the study of a language or of languages.
Though in a measure grounded on, and to a high degree aided by, a practical knowledge of languages, the science does not include the art of acquiring and imparting languages, to which the name of linguistics is properly confined. Hence it often happens that a great scholar in the science of language is not also a good linguist, or polyglot. There is another method of studying language which, in a narrower sense, does not come within the province of the science of language, namely, philology. In the narrower limitation of the term, as accepted by many recent writers, philology comprehends only scientific researches into the relations of anything expressed by language. The study of language is not its object, but simply a means. It uses language only as a key to the social, moral, intellectual, and religious history of mankind, as preserved in the literary monuments of given nations and ages. Thus classical philology inquires into the culture of Greece and Rome only; oriental philology investigates that of eastern peoples; Germanic philology studies the Germanic or Teutonic races; and so on. Philology, therefore, is thus not confined by the limits of purely linguistic investigation, and is in fact a historical discipline.
Many scholars accordingly counsel the disuse of the term " comparative philology" as a designation for the science of language. The term "comparative grammar "is also considered inaccurate, as it indicates rather a division of the science of language. Thus linguistics, philology, and the science of language are conceived as three totally distinct sciences, though of necessity interdependent. Linguistics, as the practical study of languages, dead or living, cannot be treated here, but reference must be made to the numerous article's on the separate languages. Philology, conceived as the science of the culture of a given racial or historical division of mankind, is also too vast and varied for detailed treatment here; and its multifarious subjects of study must be consulted in the articles devoted to each. - The science of language inquires into the origin of language; into the laws of the development of one, or several, or all languages; into the reasons of the diversities or similarities of languages; into the causes of the grammatical and syntactical constructions peculiar to each; and into the relations which various languages hold to each other. The results attained in these classes of inquiries form therefore the subject and order of this article.
The origin of language is still, as Prof. Whitney has expressed it, an uncontrollable subject, and other scholars regard it even as an insoluble problem. Many adhere to the belief that language was specially given by God, and hence that there was originally a single perfect language. Some hold that the statements of the Bible do not require such inference, and maintain, like T. Hewitt Key in his "Language, its Origin and Development" (London, 1874), that "the Mosaic account expressly assigns the immediate invention to Adam." Steinthal's objection to the theory of the divine origin of language, namely, that if language had been created in the first human beings, their children could not have gained possession of it, for the reason that what God gives to one as a special endowment no other is able to learn from him, is an argument beyond human reason either to accept or to refute. Benfey says (Geschich-te der Sprachwissenschaft, etc, Munich, 1869) that the question of the origin of language lies beyond the province of the science of language, and belongs to the natural sciences.
He argues that if these establish that mankind is not the offspring of a single human couple, it will be impossible to uphold the doctrine of the original unity of all human speech; and that if they prove that man could not have appeared upon earth otherwise than as a single couple, it will be impossible to establish the original diversity of speech, unless it be assumed that the first human beings were speechless. Many authorities now hold that man was originally speechless, and Jager, Bleek, Schleicher, Fr. Muller, and others, have recently attempted to explain the origin of language after the Darwinian theory of development. The fact that at least nineteen twentieths of speech is demonstrably man's own work, has led Prof. Whitney to ask ("Language and the Study of Language," New York, 1867), "Why should the remaining twentieth be thought otherwise?" Those who consider language an art handed down and developed from generation to generation, and who hold that in retracing its history we must arrive at a generation which could not speak, nevertheless experience great difficulties in theorizing on the natural causes and the nature of the beginnings of language. The ancients held the theory that words were originally formed by imitations of natural sounds.
They called this principle of coining words onomatopoeia, word-making. (See Lersch, Sprachphilosophie der AIten, Bonn, 1838-'41.) It cannot be denied that every language has a stock of words which are imitations of sounds given out by certain things or animate beings. The cuckoo, the peewit, the whip-poor-will of North America, and the tuco-tuco of South America, are irresistible examples of this law. But, says Hewitt Key, here one is at once met by the objection that though such an origin is readily conceived in the case of giving names to living creatures, or to those acts which have their special noise, as scratching, thumping, hissing, yet how can provision be made for terms which belong to the other senses, as for example that of the eye, and still more for the conceptions of the mind? Such objections are not considered unanswerable. The noise whirr is believed to serve as a natural symbol of the idea of revolution, and thus the German has wirren, to twist, the French virer, the English veer, and to wear (of a ship). The same sound forms an important part of whirl, whorl, world (the round globe), warp, worm in the double sense of the wriggling creature so called and the helix of a screw, and wort in the sense of root, as spiderwort.
It is also heard in the initial letters of writhe, wreath, wrench, wrest, wring, wrist, wriggle, wrap, wry. Similar examples of the recurrence of natural sounds in numerous words expressive of abstract or concrete ideas, seemingly remote from the original ideas connected with such sounds, may be found in all known languages. Of course it is not maintained, as Blackie expressly says in his Horce Hellenicce (London, 1874), that all current words are to be explained on this principle alone. It is maintained only that the original stock of which language was made up consisted of such roots, and that a large proportion of them, after the changes of thousands of years, bear their origin distinctly on their face. Max Muller ridiculed this view of language, generally known as the mimetic theory, as " the bowwow theory," without being able to disprove the justice of its application. In his " Lectures on the Science of Language" (London, 1863), he advocates another theory, namely, that man was endowed with a creative faculty which gave to various conceptions phonetic expressions, and hence that there were at first only a few roots of words expressive of general ideas, under which man classified his particular or special ideas, so that such class of words retains in all languages some phonetic type.
This mystic doctrine of "phonetic types," first propounded by Heyse, to which for a time, after Max Midler's elaboration, great favor was shown, has now been generally discarded, and even by Max Muller himself. It is evident to every sober thinker, says Wilkins in the " Essays and Addresses by Professors and Lecturers of the Owens College, Manchester " (London, 1874), that the solution of the problem of the origin of language must reside " in some operation of the imitative principle, quickened in all probability by circumstances which we are able to a certain extent to reconstruct, and aided, at first very largely, but always in lessening measure, by the language of sign and gesture." The ohomatopoetic or mimetic theory is greatly assisted by, or rather includes, the interjec-tional or exclamatory theory, elaborated by Wedgwood in his "Origin of Language" (London, 1866). For example, the interjection fie! pfui! is in all probability the physical effect of disgust at an offensive smell, which makes us close the passage of the nose and breathe strongly through the compressed lips - faugh! and hence the Icelandic fui, putridity, with the adjective full, foul, and our secondary adjective fulsome.
It has been justly observed that a considerable number of the so-called interjections are but imperatives of verbs, often greatly abbreviated; nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that the mimetic and exclamatory theories are as yet the only means attained of giving a rational account of the development of language. There remains, however, the difficulty of explaining how, prior to any knowledge of language, man was led to signify his conceptions by spoken words, and to devise such modulations for the purpose as to give rise to the same conceptions in the minds of others equally ignorant of language; but, as Farrar attempts to prove in his work " On the Origin of Language" (London, 1860), it would seem that man is led instinctively to the articulate reproduction of natural sounds, and that the conception that it was possible to express in sound the inward emotions arose from the felt significance of the instinctive and involuntary cries which are the germs of interjections. Similarly, says Bleek in his Ueber den Ursprung der Sprache (Weimar, 1868), the sounds of sensations and imitations are natural and involuntary utterances of emotions which are excited by the play of the organs.
The lately deceased Lazarus Geiger, in his Ursprung und Entwicke-lung der menschlichen Sprache und Vernunft (Stuttgart, 1868 and 1872), a work of admirable learning and ingenuity, attempts to demonstrate that all words were developed from a single primitive form, analogous to the evolution of the organisms of animals and plants, and to the development of races and peoples. As German and Sanskrit, French and Italian, once formed a single language, and their diversities are due only to the prolonged separation of the peoples, he is led to believe that all the languages of the earth grew out of a single germ, and that the still greater diversities are owing only to more extended periods of separation. Without rejecting the proposition of the mimetic and exclamatory theories that man began to speak by imitating the sounds which he heard animate beings or inanimate objects produce, Geiger is of opinion that man was guided in the selection of utterances by that which he saw, or that he grouped every new sound under some other sound with which he was familiar. He further holds that the use of language in a measure preceded and produced reasoning, or at least that thought without language must have been different from the present mode of thinking by means of and with language.
He arrives consequently at the conclusion that man could speak before he was in possession of tools and implements. The interdependence of thought and language, and the independence of the one from the other, have ever been subjects of philosophical discussion, but unproductive of positive results. Hence, linguistic scholars have many theories in regard to the measure and degree of such relationships. Prof. Whitney, for example, holds fast to his conclusion that thought is anterior to language, and independent of it, and that thought need not be internally or externally expressed in order to be thought. This, however, lies beyond the sphere of the science of language proper. Only the development of language within more or less historical times, based on researches into the condition of real languages either of the present or the past, can admit of truly scientific study. - Etymology is the science of tracing the history of words, and of determining the laws according to which words change form and meaning in the history of a single language, or in a group of related languages, and if possible through all languages, back to the germinal words of the beginnings of speech. Languages change very rapidly.
The language spoken in Rome about A. D. 1000 was widely different from the language of the ancient Romans or the modern Italians. The speech of the aborigines of Africa changes so rapidly that, according to the experience of missionaries, that of any particular tribe becomes entirely incomprehensible within a single generation. About 900 languages and 5,000 dialects are now known. The difficulty of deducing for all certain laws of growth and change is therefore apparent. In all languages words have been constructed by putting together previously existing forms of words. Thus, previous to the form irrevocability, there was irrevocable, which was preceded by revocable, which again was formed from revoke (Fr. revoquer, Latin revocare), which, with evoke, invoke, and provoke, was composed from the Latin verb vocare, to call, whose element is voc. All the suffixes and prefixes employed in the composition of these words have their own distinct meaning and office, and some of them formed at one time independent words. When the final element of a word, like voc, in Sanskrit vak, has been found, which is the case when a combination of letters has been reached which cannot be further stripped of formative parts, then the so-called root of a word has been obtained.
Thus Chinese, though actually possessing about 40,000 words, has only about 450 roots; Hebrew and Sanskrit have about 500 roots; and probably no language has many more. Primary roots consist of only a vowel, as i, to go; or of a vowel and consonant, as ed, to eat; or of a consonant and vowel, as da, to give. Secondary roots have a vowel enclosed by two consonants, as tud, to push. Tertiary roots have two consonants followed by a vowel, or one vowel followed by two consonants, or first two consonants, then a vowel followed by another consonant, or two consonants, a vowel, and again two consonants; as plu, to flow; ard, to hurt; spas, to spy; spand, to tremble. Out of such simple and few roots not only the words of one but of numerous languages have been formed. Thus from the Sanskrit root ar comes the Latin arare, Greek apovv, Irish ar, Lithuanian arti, Russian orati, Gothic arjan, Anglo-Saxon erjan, English ear (the verb), and many other words in the same and other languages. Similar examples of the connection existing among the languages related to English and ancient Sanskrit, as well as the laws which seem to regulate the changes of sounds within this group, have been given in the article Germanic Races and Languages. The roots of the Semitic languages (Hebrew, Chal-dee, Aramaic, Arabic, and others) generally consist of three or more consonants.
Chinese roots have generally but a single consonant followed by one or two vowels. Outside of the Indo-European languages little can be definitely established, as it is requisite, in order to attain positive etymological results, that not a single link in the historical connection between a language discussed and the ancient mother language should be wanting. Rei-nisch, in his work, Der einheitliche Ursprung der Sprachen der alten Welt (Vienna, 1873), has attempted to establish the intrinsic concatenation of the languages of central Africa, Ethiopia, Egypt, Arabia, Syria, and the Aryan family of speech; but there are still many gaps to be filled up to render the subject entirely clear. F. Lenormant's endeavors, in Etudes accadiennes (Paris, 1873 et seq.), and in La magie chez les Chaldeens et les origines accadiennes (1874), to develop Jules Oppert's opinion that at the basis of some of the oldest Semitic languages, as Elamitic and Assyrian, lie Finnic and Ugrian (or Turanian) strata of languages, are also far from conclusive. Hewitt Key, in his recent work mentioned above, has expressed the opinion that the Indo-European languages are closely connected with the speech of the Finns and Lapps; but this opinion also can hardly be considered substantiated.
Nevertheless these works and similar ones, as Delitzsch's Studien uber die in-dogermanisch-semitische Wurzelverwandtschaft (Leipsic, 1873), and Donner's Vergleichendes Worterbuch der Finnisch- Ugrischen Sprachen (Helsingfors, 1874), indicate that many scholars perceive that the Indo-European, Semitic, and Turanian groups of languages may possibly have been derived from some one primitive form of speech. The opinions of Lazarus Gei-ger and other theorists on the origin of language may therefore be finally established by genuine etymological researches. But even if there is hope of an ultimate demonstration of the intrinsic oneness of all human speech, the difficulties still to be overcome are enormous. The phonetic changes which transform words of one language into almost unrecognizable sounds in another, somewhat distantly related, call for most searching examination of the conditions of speech in the various races. The laws of sound are circumscribed by physical conditions. Many languages are entirely devoid of certain sounds; thus the Chinese cannot produce many European utterances, saying Yamelika for America; and the aborigines of the Society islands say Tut instead of Cook. Friedrich von Schlegel asserts that the Aztec language has not the sounds of b, d, f, g, r, s, j, v; the Otomi lacks f, i, k I, r, s; the To-tonaka lacks 5, d, f, r; the negroes have no r, the Australians no s; most Polynesian languages have no sibilants whatever, and others have only seven consonants, which is the lowest number known.
These imperfections and differentiations of the organs of speech render etymological researches exceedingly difficult. The usual alphabets of from 20 to 26 letters admit of the construction of many billions of words, and these letters are far from sufficient to represent the sounds of all languages. The hopelessness of ever building up the complete laws of the phonetic changes occurring in the almost 6,000 languages and dialects known, is further increased by the fact that our knowledge of human speech is confined to historic periods, and that the beginnings of language in prehistoric times, of which no monuments have come down to us, are highly essential to the construction of a satisfactory etymological system. On examining the savage languages now spoken, which many regard as counterparts of the forms of speech used in the childhood of mankind, it is found that the simplest sounds often signify the very opposite in other languages of the same degree of development. The sounds most easily produced, ba, pa, ma, and da, are generally expressions for father and mother; but what signifies father in one language, signifies mother in another; thus in Georgian mama is father, and dada mother; and in Tuluva, amme father, and appe mother.
It has long been evident that the mere comparison of words would not be productive of satisfactory results. In fact, the day that Bopp first conceived the idea of bringing the test of the method of inflection to bear upon the question of the affinity and development of tongues, was the real birthday of the science of language. - Grammar is the scientific understanding and explanation of the sounds, forms, and functions of words and their parts, and of the construction of sentences. Comparative grammar seeks, by comparing the grammars of several languages, to reach the laws of inflection and construction common to them, and possibly to all languages. General or historic grammars attempt to explain the growth of language within a specified group of languages. When languages are analyzed in any state already reached, and not in a state of transition, they become the subject of special grammars, belonging to the province of linguistics. Comparative and historical grammars have almost exclusively been written on the Aryan or Indo-European family of speech, enumerated below.
It is generally held that the genealogical relation and order of these languages has been demonstrated; and, though conjecturally only, yet with a tolerable degree of certainty, the extinct and primitive languages spoken by the races before separating into new branches have been reconstructed. Johannes Schmidt, in Die Verwandtschaftsterhaltnisse der indogerma-nischen Sprachen (Weimar, 1872), objects to the idea of a genealogical tree of the Aryan or Indo-European languages, and proposes in its stead a kind of geographical basis of classification; saying: "You no sooner consign to the realms of myths the so-called original languages constructed in modern times, such as the European, North-European, Slavo-Germanic, South-European, Graeco-Italic or Italo-Celtic, than the mathematical certainty disappears, which was believed to have been already attained for the work of reconstructing the Indo-Germanic mother speech." It is true that there is still much need of argument and illustration to prove the genealogical relationship of the Aryan family of speech; and even August Fick, in Die ehemalige Spracheinheit der Indogerma-nen Europas: eine sprachgeschichtliche Unter-suchung (Gottingen, 1873), seems, without sustaining all of Schmidt's premises, to be in favor of revising the order of the branches of the Indo-European tree of languages.
Yet without adopting the theory of the concatenation of the Aryan languages, it is impossible to present a just idea of the nature, methods, and results of comparative philology or grammar, or the theoretical study of language. The whole group of those languages is supposed to come from a primitive language of monosyllabic structure; the reason being that all Aryan words can be reduced to roots of single syllables. Grammatically considered, there are two classes of roots: demonstrative or pronominal roots, ultimately indicative of position merely; and predicative or verbal roots, indicative of quality or action. Pronominal roots give rise primarily to demonstrative, personal, and interrogatory pronouns; secondarily to possessives and relatives, adverbs of position and direction, and several minor classes of words. Their number is about 15, all consisting either of a vowel only, or of a vowel preceded by a consonant. The predicative or verbal roots number several hundred, of various compositions of letters, but always forming a single syllable, and indicative of the properties, motions, sounds, etc, of natural objects. The combining of verbal with pronominal roots, for the sake of definiteness of expression, gradually developed various parts of speech.
Singular, dual, and plural numbers were invented; prefixes of adverbial elements and repetitions of roots served to render verbal forms, which at first were neither past, present, nor future, but according to connection expressive of either, capable of indicating the various tenses. Interposition of vowels formed the moods, and modifications of roots, compositions with others, or extensions of pronominal endings, produced intensives, desideratives, causatives, and reflexives. Certain derivatives of verbal roots were used as nouns, which again received distinctive suffixes, capable of designating various relations, so-called case endings. On what principle the distinctions of gender were made (for in the oldest forms of language there are masculines, feminines, and neuters which do not depend on sex) is very obscure. In early language all words were either verbs or nouns. Adverbs and prepositions were generated by separating from verbs and nouns various inflectional suffixes which served to indicate the relations of time, place, etc.
Conjunctions also came very late into existence; the definite articles came from demonstrative pronouns; the indefinite article from the numeral one; and interjections, which should be merely ejaculations without verbal significance, were increased in number by using abbreviated or corrupted words or phrases. The great cause of the varied appearances or pronunciations of words originally the same in the speech of several races, is love of ease in utterance. To economize efforts of voice, long words are abbreviated, and combinations of harsh or difficult sounds are rendered more agreeable and easy by omitting, inserting, or assimilating the letters, or by putting the accent back or forward, or by modifying the tone and length of vowels. The reasons for preferring one form to another are not always exactly definable, but as a rule the linguistic laws of phonetic alteration conform to the physical laws of articulation. The sense or ideas of proportion, rhythm, harmony, euphony, varying in nations of different degrees of culture, are also important factors in the mutations of language. One race abandons elements of speech highly valued by another, makes compounds which another abhors, and retains and adopts what others reject.
Thus, while some languages of the Indo-European family continue to conjugate by changes of vowels and consonants, and by affixes, infixes, and suffixes, other languages indicate tenses, moods, and voices in a great measure by separate words. The same is observable in the declension of nouns. Then again words change meaning in the same language in the course of its development, and in passing from one language to another; new words are coined; other words are taken from foreign languages, and some of them are used in a sense they did not possess; others again obtain more than one meaning; some words of originally different significations become synonymous; and synonymes again become anonymes. The causes which produce in different ages and races these numerous significations of the same words, or of derivatives from the same root, have also been analyzed. Comparative grammar goes still further. Various languages have various modes of constructing sentences; words are placed in various relations to each other; they govern various cases; their order or sequence is changed; they combine into so-called idiomatic expressions, which if verbally translated into another language would often appear entirely void of meaning; and these often purely psychological causes have also been investigated.
Yet even the grouping of languages into families of speech is far from being conclusive. A. W. von Schlegel proposes three divisions: languages without any grammatical structure, languages that make use of affixes, and inflectional languages. The last he considers superior to the others, and he calls them organic languages, for the reason that, according to him, they contain a living principle of development and growth, and alone possess, so to speak, an abundant vegetation; in other words, they have the wonderful faculty of forming an endless variety of words, and of marking the connection of ideas which these words denote by means of an inconsiderable number of syllables, which separately considered have no signification, but which precisely define the meaning of the word to which they are attached. Friedrich von Schlegel, in the second place, contends for two main genera of languages, dividing them into those which express secondary ideas by an internal change of the root or inflection, and those which effect the same object by an added word which already in itself expresses the additional idea, whether of plurality, of past or future, or other relation.
Bopp again demands three classes: first, monosyllabic languages, which are incapable of composition, and consequently without grammar and organism, as the Chinese; secondly, languages with monosyllabic roots admitting of composition, which are almost exclusively indebted to this power for their organic development or grammar; thirdly, languages with dissyllabic verbal roots, containing three essential consonants on which the fundamental meaning rests, as the Hebrew and Arabic. By many writers, Prichard for example, in his "Eastern Origin of the Keltic Nations" (London, 1831), and Duponceau to whom he refers, the idioms of the American tribes are called polysynthetic or polysyllabic, implying a marked difference from the so-called monosyllabic languages of S. E. Asia. Other writers define some languages as synthetic, as opposed to those which are analytic. Steinthal, in his Charakteristik der liauptsachlichsten Typen des Sprachbaues (Berlin, 1860), divides languages into two great classes, culture languages and uncultivated languages, each with the subdivisions, the isolating and the inflecting. Hewitt Key, after stating these distinctions, rightly remarks that all of them seem to be groundless.
The assertion that Chinese has a peculiar monosyllabic character, and is devoid of grammatical formation, is founded on a gross error, as is shown in our article China, Language and Literature of. The alleged distinction between word-building by addition of affixes, and word-building by means of inflection, does not exist. Domini, domino, dominum are thus said to be formed from dominus by an inflection of us into i, o, um respectively; but all four forms have proceeded from agglutination of what was a significant syllable in the first place, followed by a compression. Polysynthetic or polysyllabic, applied to the native American languages and the Basque, is an error similar to that committed in the case of Chinese. (See American Indians, Languages of the.) To all appearance, groups of languages, though clearly and closely related, indicate more than a single type, and are not surely to be derived from a single primitive tongue, excepting perhaps the languages spoken by the Caffres and Malays, and, but less probably, those of the Papuans and Australians. All other groups seem to be polyglottic, or derived from several root forms of speech in no manner related.
It has therefore been attempted to attain a less objectionable classification by combining the results of linguistic and ethnological researches. We have given under Ethnology (vol. vi., p. 756) the latest classification of racial distinctions, which is equally supported by the relations apparently existing among the various forms of speech. We shall therefore elaborate the same table, with special reference to the labors of the distinguished linguist and ethnologist Friedrich Muller, as given in part in the account of the travels of the Austrian frigate Novara around the world (Vienna, 1868), and in part in the independent work entitled Allgemeine Ethno-graphie (Vienna, 1873). Not in all cases, as will be seen on comparison with the ethnological table, are the linguistic groups entirely the same, and the various subdivisions may be considered as breaks in the line of connection.
The languages spoken in Papua, by the aborigines of the Sunda islands, and in the Philippines.
1. Kama, Kora, Cape dialect. 2. Bushman tongues.
1. Eastern group, a. Kafir languages: Kafir, Zulu. b. Zambesi languages, spoken by the Barotse, Bayeye, and Mashona. c. Zanzibar languages: Kisuaheli,Kikamba. Kinika, Ki-hiau. 2. Central group, a. Setchuana (Sesuto, Sero-long, Sehlapi). b. Tekeza, spoken by the Mankolosi, Matonga. and Mahloenga. 3. Western group, a. Bunda, Herero, Londa. b. Congo, Mpongwe, Dikele, Isubu, and Fernando Po.
1. Mande languages: Mandingo, Bambara, Susu, Vei, Kono. Tere, Gbandi, Londoro, Mende, Gbese, Toma. and Mano. 2. Volof language. 8. Felup languages: Felup, Filham, Bola, Sarrar, Pa-pel, Biafada. Pajade, Bagd, Kallum, Temme, Bullom, Sherbro, and Kisi. 4. Bijogo. 5. Banyum. 6. Nalu. 7. Bulanda. 8. Limba. 9. Landoma. 10. Sonrhai. 11. Houssa. 12. Bornoo languages: Kanori, Teda, Munio, Nguru, and Kanem. 13. Kru languages: Kru and Grebo. 14. Eva languages: Eva, Yoruba, Oji, and Akra. 15. Ibo languages: Ibo and Nupe. 16. Mbafu. 17. Mitchi. 18. Musgu languages: Batta, Musgu, and Logone. 19. Baghirmi. 20. Maba. 21. Nile languages: Bari, Dinka. Nuer, and Shilluk.
1. Northern division. 2. Southern division, a. Western group: languages spoken on the Swan river and King George's sound. b. Central group: the Parnkalla languages on the Murray river and Encounter bay. c. Eastern group: languages near Lake Macquarie. Moreton bay, Kamilaroi, Viraturoi,Vailvun, Kokai, Pikumpul. Paiampa, King-ki, Turrupul, and Tippil. 3. Tasmanian languages.
1. Melanesian languages: language of the Feejee islands, Annatom, Erromango, Tana, Mallikolo, Lifu, Baladea, Bauro, Guadalcanar, etc. 2. Polynesian languages, a. Samoa, Tonga, Maori, Tahitian. and Rarotonga. b. Language of the Marquesas islands, and Hawaiian. 3. Malayan languages, a. Tagala group: 1. languages spoken on the Philippines - Tagala, Bisaya, Pampanga, Ilocana, and Bicol; 2, languages spoken on the La-drones; 3, Malagasi. 4. Language of Formosa, b. Malayo-Javanese group: Malayan, with several dialects, Javanese, Sunda, Madurese, Bughis, Mankasar, Alfuric, Batak, and Dayak.
1. Uralo-Altaic languages, a. Samoyedic: Yurak, Tavgy, Ostiak-Samoyed, Yenisean, and Kamassin. b. Finnic: 1, Suomi and Laplandish; 2, Ostiak, Vogul, and Magyar; 3, Sirian and Votiak; 4, Tcheremiss and Mor-dvin. c. Tartaric: 1, Yakut; 2, Turkish and Tchuvash; 3, Nogai and Kumuk; 4, Tchagata, Uigur, and Turkmene; 5, Kirghiz. d. Mongolic: 1, eastern language; 2, western language (Kalmuck); 3, northern language (Buriat). e. Tungusic: 1, Mantchu; 2, La-mut; 3, Tchapogir. 2. Japanese. 3. Corean. 4. Monosyllabic languages (so named for convenience).
a. Thibetic and Himalayan languages, b. Burmese, Rakhaing, and the Lohita languages, c. Siamese, Khamti, Khassia, and the language of the Miao-tse. d. Anamese. e. Chinese: 1, Kwanhoa (dialect of Peking and Nanking); 2, Fukian; 3, Kwangtung (Punti and Hakka dialects). f. Isolated languages: Indo-Chinese languages, Talaing, and the languages of the Khamen, Tsiampa, and Kwanto.
1. Yukagir. 2. Koriak, Tchuktchi. 3. Languages of Kamtchatka and of the Kurile islands (Aino). 4. Languages of the Yenisei-Ostiaks and Kotts. 5. Language of the Esquimaux. 6. Language of the Aleutians.
1. Kenai languages. 2. Athabascan languages, a. Qualihoqua. Tlatskanai, Ump-qua, and Hoopa. b. Language of the Apaches, Nava-jos, Lipans. etc. 3. Algonquin languages: Cree, Ottawa, Ojibway, Miemac, and Mohegan. 4. Iroquois languages: Onondaga, Seneca, Oneida, Cayuga, and Tuscarora. 5. Dakota language. 6. Pani. 7. Appala-chee languages: Natchez, Muscogee, Choctaw, and Cherokee. 8. Languages on the N. W. coast: Kolo-shes and Nootka. 9. Oregon languages: Atna, Se-lish, Chinook, Calapooya, Wallawalla, and Sahaptin. 10. Californian languages: Cochimi and Pericu. 11. Yuma languages. 12. Isolated languages of Sonora and Texas: language of the Pueblos. 13. Isolated languages of Mexican aborigines. 14. Aztec languages: Mexican (Nahuatl) and Sonora languages. 15. Maya languages: Maya and Huasteca. 16. Isolated languages of Central America and the Antilles.
17. Caribbean languages: Caribbean and Arrawakan.
18. Tupi languages: Tupi and Guarani. 19. Isolated languages of the Andes. 20. Araucanian. 21. Guay-curu-Abiponian. 22. Puelche. 23. Tchuelhetic. 24. Pesharah. 25. Chibcha. 20. Quichua languages: Quichua and Aymara.
1. Munda languages: language of the Kol, Ho, Santals, etc. 2. Dravida languages: Tamil, Telugu, Tulu, Canarese, Malayalam, etc. 3. Cingalese (Elu)
1. Foolah languages: Futatoro, Foota-Jallon, Masena, Borgoo, and Sackatoo. 2. Nuba languages: Nubi, Dongolavi, Tumale, Koldagi, and Konjara b. Iranian group: 1. old Persian, Pehlevi, Parsi, modern Persian and its dialects, Kurdish, Beluchi; 2. Zend, Afghan; 3, Ossetian; 4, Armenian, c. Celtic group: Welsh, Gaelic, d. Italic group: Etruscan (?), Um-bric, Oscan, Latin, and the Romance languages (Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, French, Rhaeto-Romanic. Rouman). e. Thraco-Hlyrian group: Albanese. f.
1. Basque. 2. Caucasian languages. a. Lesghian, Avar, Kasiku-muk. b. Circassian, Abkhasian. c. Kistie (Tush). d. Georgian, Lazish, Mingrelian, and Suanian. 3. Semitic languages. a. Hamitic languages: 1, Libyan group (Ta-Masheg); 2, Ethiopic group (Bedsha, So-mauli, Dankali, Galla); 3, Egyptian group (ancient and modern Egyptian or Coptic), b. Semitic languages: 1, northern group - Chaldee, Syriac, Hebrew, Samaritan, Phoenician; 2, southern group - Ethiopic, Tigre, Amharic, Himyaritic, Arabic. 4. Aryan or Indo-European languages, a. Indian group: 1, old Indie (Sanskrit). Pali, Prakrit; 2, modern Indian languages - Bengali. Assami, Oriya, Nepaulese, Cashme-rian. Sindhi, Punjaubi, Hindustani, Gujarati, Marathi; 3, language of the Sijaposh, Dardu tribes. and gypsies.
• Greek group: ancient and modern Greek, g. Letto-Slavic group: 1, Slavic languages - old Slavic, Bulgarian, Serb. Slovenish, Russian, Polish, Polabic, Bohemian; 2, old Prussian languages - Lithuanian, Lettish. h. Germanic languages: Gothic, High German (Old, Middle, and New), Low German (Old, Middle, and New), Anglo-Saxon, English, Frisian, Flemish, Dutch.