vary greatly according to the sounds which precede them, as when the s of the nominative in Greek is preserved in ánax but dropped in daimon, lengthening the preceding vowel. Hence have arisen the varied and complex inflections of the ancient languages.

English, on the other hand, prefers to denote general relations by prefixes, which are not liable to be modified, or incorporated into the root-word. The practical result in writing is that most English modifiers can be written as separate words, and regarded as such, even when their meanings are quite as abstract as those of the inflections of the old languages. The preposition of, for instance, in of a man is quite as abstract as the is in Latin hominis, and, like it, is absolutely unmeaning when separated from its noun, although the accident of its being written as an independent word blinds us to the fact. The real functional distinction between the two is that while of is always perfectly distinct and recognizable in all its combinations, the Latin -is is both ambiguous in itself, being used to express a number of other cases as well, and is only one of a large number of means of denoting the same case, as may be seen by comparing the endings of hominis, mensae, dominī, domūs, which have not a single sound in common. What must strike an

impartial observer is the waste of power involved in employing so many forms, most of which have at the same time a number of other vague and contradictory meanings, to express an idea which in a modern language like English can be expressed by a single unambiguous word.

By the side of their useless complexity of inflection, ancient languages show a remarkable vagueness of thought, both in grammar and vocabulary. Compare the extreme vagueness of the meanings of the half-a-dozen cases in Greek and Latin with the precision of the numerous English prepositions which correspond to them. The same want of differentiation is shown in the vocabulary as well. Even in those cases in which an ancient language has a considerable number of words to express a given group of abstract ideas, it often happens that each single word runs through and exhausts the whole series of ideas, so that nothing at all is gained by the fullness of the vocabulary. In such a case a modern language utilizes each word to express a definite idea.

The traditional character of ancient languages often leads them into downright absurdities, such as the use of grammatical

genders, which, strange to say, are still retained more or less in all the Aryan languages of Europe with the exception of English. In fact, there can be no question that the highly inflected Aryan languages are in many respects far more irrational than those which stand on a lower scale of development, and that such a language as English owes its superiority as a means of expression in a great degree to developments which have many analogies to those of non-Aryan and even savage languages.

The statement that English has little or no grammar simply means that the grammatical structure of English is so regular and transparent that a very moderate amount of analysis is enough to enable the learner to find his way through it. But regularity and symmetry are by no means inconsistent with complexity, and, as a matter of fact, English is one of the most complex languages that has ever existed. If grammar be defined as the expression of general relations, whether that expression be effected by suffixes or prefixes, by inflections or prepositions and auxiliaries, then English has the most copious grammar of any in the world. The difference between the complexity of an ancient and of a modern language is that that of the former is to a great extent unmeaning and useless, while that of the latter implies a correspondingly full and minute analysis of the ideas expressed by it.

Of course, it must not be forgotten that all languages are extremely defective, if compared with an ideal standard, and that consequently the difference between them can only be one of degree; but if those languages are the most rational which express ideas most clearly, simply, and regularly, there can be no question of the superiority of the modern languages in rationality, and consequently as a means of intellectual training also. If, on the other hand, the mechanical acquisition of irrational distinctions of form, and familiarizing oneself with vague and loose expressions of thought, is the best training for the mind, then there can be no question of the superiority of ancient languages.

It cannot be denied that the defects of ancient languages are compensated by many real advantages, although these advantages have nothing to do with intellectual training. One superiority of most ancient languages is the simplicity, clearness, and sonorousness of their phonetic structure. The very vagueness of their meanings, again, although in itself a serious defect, brings with it great freshness, freedom, and picturesque

ness of metaphor, which, together with their fullness of sound, eminently fit them for poetry and oratory, and for æsthetic purposes generally.

The assimilations, contractions, and other phonetic changes of modern languages not only diminish their harmony and fullness of sound, but also make them indistinct by diminishing the individuality of the older distinctions, or even, as is so often the case in English, by confounding originally distinct words under one common form. But even these defects do not affect the value of modern languages as instruments of intellectual training.

The defects of the inflectional languages are most clearly shown in those cases in which an inflectional system has been retained after it has been made superfluous by the development of prefixes, auxiliaries, etc., and a fixed word-order. Modern German is a marked example of such a transition language. Although it has adopted the fixed word-order of a modern language, and makes an extensive use of auxiliaries, prepositions, etc., it still retains many of the old inflections, together with the three grammatical genders. The result is that while in some cases the old inflections still express an independent meaning, as when the distinction between the English in and into is expressed by in with the dative and accusative respectively, in others they are superfluous, the idea being already fully expressed by means analogous to those employed by such a language as English. Such distinctions, for instance, as those between guter and gute in ein guter mann and der gute mann are really quite useless, being fully expressed by the ein and the der. Again, in the old languages the distinctions of grammatical gender, together with the laws of concord, allowed the separation of adjectives from the nouns to which they belong, which, although of little use for purposes of expression, yet added greatly to the harmony and picturesqueness of the language by causing variety, and especially by preventing the repetition of the same heavy endings close together; but in German, with its fixed word-order, they are almost useless, and, indeed, the agreement between adjective and noun is abandoned when the adjective stands predicatively -curiously enough, in the only position in which it would be of any use although it is superfluously retained in the attributive position of the adjective.

Such a language as Swedish, on the other hand, with its simplicity, its clearness and harmony of phonetic structure, and

its few, but clear, simple, symmetrical inflections, really combines, to a great extent, the advantages of ancient and modern languages. German has also the antique clearness and sonorousness of sound, in which it is infinitely superior to English and French, which certainly carry off the palm for simplicity and precision, English, again, being unquestionably foremost in many-sidedness and power.

In comparing the ancient languages among themselves, it must be borne in mind that Greek, owing to the greater intellectual activity of those who spoke it, and the consequent necessity of precision and many-sidedness of expression, is in many respects more modern in structure than Latin. The excessive use of the article and the heaping of particles in Greek are characteristic contrasts with the Latin usages.

It must further be remembered that archaism of structure by no means implies that the language is a dead one. We have in Russian an example of a living language of great literary, social, and political importance, which vies in inflectional complexity with Latin and Greek; and it is a question whether a study of it would not prove as good a practical training in the use of an inflectional language as that of the classical languages.

Of course, if modern languages are to be studied at all, they must be studied properly. The superficial study of modern languages certainly tends to deteriorate the mind, just as every other superficial study does, but it is equally possible to study dead languages superficially, as also in a narrow and unscientific spirit.

APPENDIX

BIBLIOGRAPHY

THE following notices do not aim at any fullness, but are merely intended as a first guide to those who wish to pursue the subject further. Many of the books here given themselves contain more or less full bibliographies.

General Works

Paul, H.: Principien der Sprachgeschichte. [Purely theoretical and abstract.]

Halle, 21886.

Von der Gabelentz, G.: die Sprachwissenschaft. Leipzig, 1891. [Deals with the practical as well as the theoretical study of languages.]

Storm, J.: Englische Philologie. Leipzig, 21892. [Purely practical; gives incidentally much information about general phonetics, together with many details about other languages besides English.]

Periodicals

Maître phonétique, la; organe de l'Association phonétique des professeurs de langues vivantes, edited by P. Passy. Address: Fonetik, Bourg-la-Reine, France.

Phonetische Studien, Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche und praktische Phonetik, edited by W. Vietor, I-VI. Marburg, 1888-93. Continued in the form of an Appendix to die Neueren Sprachen, Marburg, 1894, foll. [This publication, like the previous one, is not confined to phonetics, but contains articles of a wider linguistic interest, both theoretical and practical.]

Modern Language Quarterly of Language and Literature, edited by H. Frank Heath, London.

Phonetics

Sweet, H.: Primer of Phonetics. Oxford, 1890.

Sketch of Phonetics in Primer of Historical English Grammar. Oxford, 1893.

Grandgent, C. H.: German and English Sounds. Boston, U.S.A., 1893. [Very good diagrams of the tongue-positions.]

Sievers, E.: Grundzüge der Phonetik. Leipzig, 1893. [Deals