15. Describe with illustrations the influence of the Celtic and of the Scandinavian languages upon our English vocabulary.

16. Mention eight English words which have come to us from different foreign languages and state the source of each.

17. What is the source of each word in the following sentence?— 'Meanwhile the great rhetorical fabric gradually arose. He revised, erased, strengthened, emphasized, with indefatigable industry.'

18. What is the origin of the words priest, bard, fealty, punkah? What kind of intercourse led to the adoption of each of these words into our vocabulary?

19. Write any four consecutive lines of English poetry and underline the words of non-Teutonic origin.

20. Illustrate the influence of the social and political institutions of the Normans upon the English vocabulary.

21.

What is meant by speaking of a word of foreign origin as 'acclimatized' or 'naturalized'?

[See § 92, I. We may also describe as 'imperfectly naturalized' a foreign word which retains in English its foreign pronunciation, e.g. ennui. Think of some more examples.]

22.

How do we obtain names for new ideas and new inventions? Give instances.

[Bear in mind that in some cases these novelties are named after the men by whom they were introduced.]

23. English has borrowed largely from other languages.' Does this seem to you an advantage or a drawback?

Give a few examples of words thus borrowed.

[A language should have a vocabulary large enough to express the ideas of the people who use it. In what respects would English be deficient without its Latin or Greek element? On the other hand, there is a risk that the synonyms of a mixed vocabulary may land a speaker or writer in tautology or fallacious argument. Thus an orator advocated freedom of speech' on the ground that every man ought to have 'unrestricted liberty of expressing his sentiments."]

22

CHAPTER III.

THE INDO-EUROPEAN OR ARYAN FAMILY OF LANGUAGES.

24. WHEN we are learning Greek or Latin, French or German, we come across some words that are the same in form as their English equivalents and many more words that are very like them. Take the English words one, three, me, is. Everybody can see the resemblance of these words to the French un, trois, me, est; to the Latin unus, tres, me, est; to the German ein, drei, mich, ist; to the Greek ev, τpeîs, με, ἐστί. A knowledge of other languages of Europe would enable us to carry the comparison further with the certainty of finding in them corresponding resemblances. From the fact that these similarities exist we are not to draw the inference that our English ancestors derived the word me from the Latin, or that the Romans derived their word me from the Greek. We did not wait for the Romans to supply us with a necessary word like me, nor were the Romans without it until they took it from the Greeks. With regard to the French words un, trois, me, est, the case is different; they do 'come from' the Latin unus, tres, me, est, for the Romans conquered Gaul, and the Gauls adopted in the main the language of their conquerors. But me was good English before the Normans came to England. Such words as secure, convict, hospital, detect, have really 'come from' the Latin: we borrowed them directly. But it would be a great mistake to suppose that wherever we find a

likeness between words in two languages, there has been any borrowing at all, direct or indirect.

Now resemblances such as we see between words like one, three, me, is, in a number of different languages, are too many for them to be the result of chance. If then the similar words in one language have not been taken from those in another, how are we to account for the similarity?

25. The explanation is this, that the various languages have proceeded from a common source. Suppose that many of the nations of Europe and Asia are descended from a tribe which existed some thousands of years ago. Suppose that, as this tribe increased in numbers, it became a difficult matter to supply the growing population with food. We know what happens in our own time and country when men find a difficulty about getting a livelihood in the place of their birth. They go somewhere else. Sometimes they move from the country districts and settle in the large towns. Sometimes they leave the old country and seek their fortunes in a new one. The men who cut themselves adrift from their old moorings are, as a rule, the younger, more vigorous, and more enterprising members of the community. The old folk stay on at home. In much the same fashion we may imagine that this primitive nation witnessed long ago the exodus of many of the more hardy and energetic of its members. With their tents and their cattle, these younger men would wander away from the family settlement, until they found a district which seemed attractive as a permanent resting-place, a district with a river at hand and pasture for the herds. And here the descendants of these emigrants would remain until in their case was repeated the history of what had happened to their fore. fathers. The pressure of an increasing population would make a fresh migration necessary, and a part of the tribe would again set out to found a new settlement. Suppose

that, three or four thousand years later, a traveller came upon the descendants of the original tribe, scattered abroad through Europe and Persia and India, he would find that, in spite of the changes which removals and the lapse of many centuries had brought about in their languages, these languages contained beneath the surface many points of resemblance.

Now this supposition that from an early race of men there started forth, at different times, parties of emigrants from whom have sprung a posterity which occupies a portion of Asia and almost the whole of Europe, is a supposition only. Historical records on the subject we have none. We cannot therefore speak of these migrations with the same certainty which we feel when we speak of the English coming from Schleswig-Holstein, or of the Normans coming from France. In proof of these invasions of Saxons and Normans we can produce written testimony. The migrations of our supposed primitive tribe are matters of inference, but the inference is one which we feel justified in drawing, because it enables us to explain the existence. of these similarities between many of the languages of Europe and Asia.

A comparison of most of the languages of Europe with many of the languages of India discloses to us the fact that, instead of being totally different, they present many points of resemblance, so many indeed that we are driven to the conclusion that these languages have proceeded from a common source. This collection of languages we call the Indo-European or Aryan Family of Languages.

26. It is believed that three or four thousand years ago there lived, somewhere between the Hindu-Kush mountains and the Caspian Sea, a tribe, or tribes of the same race, called Aryans. Though we have no written memorials of these Aryans, the habits and character of the people are

known to us as inferences from facts revealed by philological research. Experts in the Science of Language tell us that these Aryans lived in towns, kept cattle, ploughed the ground, used metals, made boats, could count up to a hundred, recognised family relations, and had various names for God. And the line of argument by which they establish these conclusions is of this kind:-If, say they, we find existing in various disguises, in a number of different languages, the same word to express 'horse,' 'sheep,' ' plough,' 'spear,' then the tribe from which these modern races have sprung must have had a word for horse, sheep, plough, spear, and if they had the word, they must have been acquainted with the thing. Thus we see once more how language throws a light upon history, or even reveals to us history which is otherwise hidden.

Let

27. Of these Aryan languages some are more closely allied than others. The more closely allied languages we arrange in classes which we call Stocks. Then again we subdivide a stock into classes of still more closely allied languages, and these subdivisions we call Branches. us treat our own language in this fashion. In the first place, it belongs to the Teutonic stock. But many other languages belong to this stock, some of which resemble English more closely than others. Dutch, Flemish, German, Icelandic, Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, are all of them Teutonic languages, but they fall into different groups. English we said was a Low-German language: so is Dutch; so is Flemish. Modern German is the only representative of the High-German branch. Although on the Continent High-German is of greater importance than the Low-German languages, Low-German is of greater antiquity. Indeed High-German is a development from Low-German and began its separate existence about the seventh century Then again the languages of Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, form a third group, which we call Scandinavian.