Scriptural idioms. Psychology. serious an importance has been attached to a careful study of the idioms, in which the different portions of the Old and New Testament were composed. The books of the New Testament (with perhaps the exception of St. Matthew's gospel) were all originally written in Greek. It is sufficiently obvious, however, that the Apostolic writers did not employ the purest Greek idiom of the classic ages; and this is easily to be accounted for. Their native tongue was Aramean or Syro-Chaldean. Those among them who had studied the Mosaic law must have been versed in the pure Hebrew. But there was a numerous class of Jews, who are described as Hellenists, that is, imitators of the Greeks. The word 'EXλŋvioráç, indeed, is rendered in our translation "Grecians," and in the Vulgate Græcis; but being regularly formed from the verb έXλŋvíw, must mean persons who imitated the Grecians in opinions, language, or otherwise.1 The Hellenistic Jews were spread, in great numbers, through many provinces, where the Gospel was eventually preached; and where various local dialects and idioms prevailed. Some critics even think that in the writings of St. Paul, the idiom of his native city Tarsus, or at least of his native province Cilicia, is to be detected. The idioms derived from the Hebrew and Aramean are indiscriminately termed by most critics Hebraisms. They have been distinguished, however, into perfect and imperfect. The former consists of such words, phrases, and constructions, as belong exclusively to the Hebrew or Aramean language; the latter of such as exist, but are rarely found in Greek writings, or which the Apostles at least did not derive from that source. 106. Lastly, I would observe that the comparative study of the idioms of different languages closely connects Glossology with the Philosophy of the Human Mind. It opens wide and various views of the modes in which men in different stages of civilization, and under different influences, habitually group together their thoughts and feelings, and connect them in certain modes of arrangement. As the same human organization is the basis of all our vocal sounds, so the same mind and spirit is the basis of all our grammatical forms; but the articulations in the one case, and the grammatical forms in the other, are susceptible of great modification from external causes. The wider the field of our observation of idioms extends, the more correct and clear will be our perception of the connection between the faculties of the mind and the possible modes of their expression in speech. Within living memory the sphere of this observation has been immensely extended, and great errors have in consequence been corrected. It was supposed by Lord MONBODDO, from the accounts given by La Hontan and others, "that the Huron tribes in North America had scarcely any articulation, but conversed chiefly by vocal cries aspirated, as in salutation, for example, ho, ho, ho; and that their language was little better than animal cries from the throat, of different tones, divided Simonis, Introd. p. 241. 66 now and then by a guttural consonant, and without composition or derivation." These errors have come down to the present day. "Very strange notions" (says Mr. Howse), "and as erroneous as strange, have been entertained with respect to the American Indians and their languages. It has not only been said that these tribes have few ideas, and that their languages are consequently poor; but a writer in a respectable American periodical, of a recent date ('North American Review,' Jan. 1826), has even gone so far as to assert that this strange poverty in their language is supplied by gesticulation: that the head, the hands, and the body, are all put in requisition to aid the tongue in the performance of its duty. An assertion so extravagant, so diametrically opposed to the truth, is only here noticed as evidence of the ignorance that still prevails on this very interesting subject." Again, The grammatical character of the Cree, as an inflected language on an extended plan, leads to the inference of a higher origin than the mere casual, irregular, invention of man: and an attentive analysis of its structure confirms this view. When I observe in the verb, the method and consistency of its various derivative modes (deriv. adject. imitat. augment, frequent and abund. iterat. dimin. distrib. transit.; general, special, and particular; causat. making, possess, instrum. and their various combinations), the regularity and exactness of their respective subdivisions (conjug. voice, mood, tense, gender, number, person). Again, the manner, extent, and accuracy of the pronominal inflexions (defin. and indefin.) in their manifold, double, triple, quadruple, combinations; the clearness of the correlative modifications (princip. and subord. absol. and relat. act. and pass. defin, and indefin. of person, time, and action, pos. and neg. &c.), and the distinctness in form and signification through all the details;-when I contemplate this complicate, but accurate mechanism, in connection with a concord and government, blending and connecting the several parts of the system together, and a peculiar idiom or genius presiding over all, I cannot but recognise in such a system a regular organization of vocal utterance, affording to my own mind a circumstantially conclusive proof that the whole is the emanation of ONE, and that a DIVINE mind.' 1 Monboddo, Orig. and Prog. of Language. CHAPTER IV. Speech a common faculty. How to be analyzed. Phonetic quality. OF THE VOICE. 107. ALTHOUGH, in a treatise like the present, it is impossible to enter into a minute examination of all the modes of speech which different bodies of men employ in the communication of their thoughts and feelings, yet the brief outlines above given suffice to show that there is no association of rational beings on this globe, to whom the Almighty has not granted the faculty of Voice. Those legendary races of men, who hissed like serpents, or sang like birds, or were mute as fishes, existed only in the imagination of narrators, and the credulity of auditors or readers. True it is, that besides the power of voice, mankind, in all ages and countries, have enjoyed other faculties, which are figuratively called the Language of Look, and the Language of Gesture; but these, though occasionally coming in aid of words, or even supplying their place, as in the pantomimes and ballets of action, have never superseded their use in any community. It is needless to allude further to them at present; but occasions may occur hereafter, in which their influence on speech itself may be noticed. Reverting to the consideration of the numerous languages, dialects, and idioms, noticed in the preceding chapters, I may observe, that different as they are from each other, and consequently unintelligible at first to persons to whom they are not habitually familiar, still it is always found possible to acquire a knowledge of them by study, and even to reduce them to certain rules. To trace up those rules to common grammatical principles, and to notice analogies in their development by mankind under different circumstances and influences, is the proper province of Glossology. 108. Speech being the expression of the mind by means of the voice, if we would analyze any particular system of speech, whether called a language, tongue, dialect, idiom, or the like, we must consider it both phonetically, that is, as to its properties of sound, and grammatically, that is, as to its properties of signification. In both respects, we must extend our investigation from the most obscure development of the faculty in children, savages, and peasants, to its most brilliant display, by the poets, orators, and philosophers of civilized life. 109. To begin with the phonetic quality. It was shown in my former treatise, that the human voice is produced by certain organs, so framed by the great Author of Nature, as to constitute a minute with voice, to enable them to live together in a society different from Distin letters. 110. The first mode assumes that the letters of a given language have been formed on a correct system; but when that is not the case, guished by this mode is of course productive of error. Thus Dr. Lowth reckons the English i as a vowel, and y as a vowel similar to i in sound ;* whereas i is often a diphthong, as in the pronoun I;5 and the English y is simply a superfluous letter. Again, an Italian considers the sound expressed by c in cento to be that of a simple consonantal articulation; whereas it is really complex, and is expressed (though inaccurately) in English by Ch, as in Charles, or tch as in itch; and in German by tsch, as in Deutsch and Tschako. 996 111. In the second mode, men rely principally, if not solely, on the By the ear. discriminating power of the Ear, disregarding alphabetical arrangement, and but slightly adverting to the form or action of the vocal organs. But the ear, like every other part of our frame, requires great care and attention to bring its powers to perfection; and indeed can seldom be reckoned a sure criterion of sound. "Au cujuslibet auris est" (says Quintilian) "exigere literarum sonos? Non herculè magis quàm nervorum.' "Can every man's ear judge accurately of the sound of letters? No indeed, any more than of musical notes." We frequently meet with persons, who are said to have no ear for music. They may perhaps distinguish the 'Stabat Mater' of ROSSINI from a jig, but they don't know a third from a fifth, or a flat from a sharp. In like manner, we find ears so obtuse, as to make "Morn" rhyme to "Dawn," and to call Her Majesty and the Prince-Consort" Wictoria" and "Halbert." Differences of this kind being transmitted from parent to child, often serve to mark certain local dialects. Besides 1 Univ. Gram. c. xvi. 2 Aristot. Polit. iii. 4. 8 Caswall, Physiology of the Organ of Hearing, p. 57. 6 Instit. Orat. lib. i. c. iv. By the vocal organs. which, the attention of the lower classes of the community is seldom directed to nice distinctions of vocal sound, as we may observe in the imperfect rhymes of many local proverbs, e. g. Skiddaw, Helvellyn, and Catchedecam Are the three highest hills in all England. And in this way many of the rhymes of so exquisite a poet as Burns may be accounted for: such as If this defect of ear leads to variations in our own language, it must operate much more forcibly on a tongue which is wholly new to the hearer, and in respect to words which he hears but seldom repeated. This consideration is of great importance to the Glossologist: first, because many of the languages which he has to examine are only known to him by the report of travellers, whose vocabularies often differ, as well in point of sound as of signification; and, secondly, because the alphabets, in which those vocabularies are written have been formed on no uniform principle, and by persons whose auditorial faculties were far from acute. Hence few individuals would at first sight recognize Owhyhee, the scene of our admirable circumnavigator's death, in the island of Hawaiia; or suspect the Cherokee language to be meant by Tschirokisian. Our ancestors knew the Arabian Prophet by the name of Mahound: about a century ago he was uniformly called Mahomet; and we now find him designated Mahommed, Mohammed, Mahummed, Muhammed, Mahmoud, &c. In estimating the phonetic qualities of a language, therefore, the ear must not be taken as a certain standard of sound; and if defective, its incorrectness is seldom wholly cured. A foreigner does not easily acquire the fluent pronunciation of a native; and the shibboleth of his provincial birthplace often sticks to the orator in the senate, and the courtier in the palace. 112. We come to the third mode of judging, namely, by a consideration of the organs employed. Here it must be owned, that the anatomy of the vocal organs was but little known to the ancients, nor until of late years was it much attended to by the moderns; and even in the present day, the best anatomists confess that is far from being fully and accurately understood. Dr. RUSH, of Philadelphia, in his elaborate treatise on the Philosophy of the Human Voice,' observes that there are no confirmed opinions among physiologists on the mechanism of the voice." M. MAJENDIE, in his Elementary 1 Phil. Hum. Voice, ed. 1845, p. 99. |