cratylus-第13节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



individual　can　use。　　Such　are　a　few　of　the　general　reflections　which　the

present　state　of　philology　calls　up。



（1）　　Language　seems　to　be　composite；　but　into　its　first　elements　the

philologer　has　never　been　able　to　penetrate。　　However　far　he　goes　back；　he

never　arrives　at　the　beginning；　or　rather；　as　in　Geology　or　in　Astronomy；

there　is　no　beginning。　　He　is　too　apt　to　suppose　that　by　breaking　up　the

existing　forms　of　language　into　their　parts　he　will　arrive　at　a　previous

stage　of　it；　but　he　is　merely　analyzing　what　never　existed；　or　is　never

known　to　have　existed；　except　in　a　composite　form。　　He　may　divide　nouns　and

verbs　into　roots　and　inflexions；　but　he　has　no　evidence　which　will　show

that　the　omega　of　tupto　or　the　mu　of　tithemi；　though　analogous　to　ego；　me；

either　became　pronouns　or　were　generated　out　of　pronouns。　　To　say　that

'pronouns；　like　ripe　fruit；　dropped　out　of　verbs；'　is　a　misleading　figure

of　speech。　　Although　all　languages　have　some　common　principles；　there　is　no

primitive　form　or　forms　of　language　known　to　us；　or　to　be　reasonably

imagined；　from　which　they　are　all　descended。　　No　inference　can　be　drawn

from　language；　either　for　or　against　the　unity　of　the　human　race。　　Nor　is

there　any　proof　that　words　were　ever　used　without　any　relation　to　each

other。　　Whatever　may　be　the　meaning　of　a　sentence　or　a　word　when　applied　to

primitive　language；　it　is　probable　that　the　sentence　is　more　akin　to　the

original　form　than　the　word；　and　that　the　later　stage　of　language　is　the

result　rather　of　analysis　than　of　synthesis；　or　possibly　is　a　combination

of　the　two。　　Nor；　again；　are　we　sure　that　the　original　process　of　learning

to　speak　was　the　same　in　different　places　or　among　different　races　of　men。　

It　may　have　been　slower　with　some；　quicker　with　others。　　Some　tribes　may

have　used　shorter；　others　longer　words　or　cries：　　they　may　have　been　more

or　less　inclined　to　agglutinate　or　to　decompose　them：　　they　may　have

modified　them　by　the　use　of　prefixes；　suffixes；　infixes；　by　the　lengthening

and　strengthening　of　vowels　or　by　the　shortening　and　weakening　of　them；　by

the　condensation　or　rarefaction　of　consonants。　　But　who　gave　to　language

these　primeval　laws；　or　why　one　race　has　triliteral；　another　biliteral

roots；　or　why　in　some　members　of　a　group　of　languages　b　becomes　p；　or　d；　t；

or　ch；　k；　or　why　two　languages　resemble　one　another　in　certain　parts　of

their　structure　and　differ　in　others；　or　why　in　one　language　there　is　a

greater　development　of　vowels；　in　another　of　consonants；　and　the　likeare

questions　of　which　we　only　'entertain　conjecture。'　　We　must　remember　the

length　of　time　that　has　elapsed　since　man　first　walked　upon　the　earth；　and

that　in　this　vast　but　unknown　period　every　variety　of　language　may　have

been　in　process　of　formation　and　decay；　many　times　over。　



（Compare　Plato；　Laws）：



'ATHENIAN　STRANGER：　　And　what　then　is　to　be　regarded　as　the　origin　of

government？　　Will　not　a　man　be　able　to　judge　best　from　a　point　of　view　in

which　he　may　behold　the　progress　of　states　and　their　transitions　to　good

and　evil？



CLEINIAS：　　What　do　you　mean？



ATHENIAN　STRANGER：　　I　mean　that　he　might　watch　them　from　the　point　of　view

of　time；　and　observe　the　changes　which　take　place　in　them　during　infinite

ages。



CLEINIAS：　　How　so？



ATHENIAN　STRANGER：　　Why；　do　you　think　that　you　can　reckon　the　time　which

has　elapsed　since　cities　first　existed　and　men　were　citizens　of　them？



CLEINIAS：　　Hardly。



ATHENIAN　STRANGER：　　But　you　are　quite　sure　that　it　must　be　vast　and

incalculable？



CLEINIAS：　　No　doubt。



ATHENIAN　STRANGER：　　And　have　there　not　been　thousands　and　thousands　of

cities　which　have　come　into　being　and　perished　during　this　period？　　And　has

not　every　place　had　endless　forms　of　government；　and　been　sometimes　rising；

and　at　other　times　falling；　and　again　improving　or　waning？'



Aristot。　Metaph。：



'And　if　a　person　should　conceive　the　tales　of　mythology　to　mean　only　that

men　thought　the　gods　to　be　the　first　essences　of　things；　he　would　deem　the

reflection　to　have　been　inspired　and　would　consider　that；　whereas　probably

every　art　and　part　of　wisdom　had　been　DISCOVERED　AND　LOST　MANY　TIMES　OVER；

such　notions　were　but　a　remnant　of　the　past　which　has　survived　to　our

day。'）



It　can　hardly　be　supposed　that　any　traces　of　an　original　language　still

survive；　any　more　than　of　the　first　huts　or　buildings　which　were

constructed　by　man。　　Nor　are　we　at　all　certain　of　the　relation；　if　any；　in

which　the　greater　families　of　languages　stand　to　each　other。　　The　influence

of　individuals　must　always　have　been　a　disturbing　element。　　Like　great

writers　in　later　times；　there　may　have　been　many　a　barbaric　genius　who

taught　the　men　of　his　tribe　to　sing　or　speak；　showing　them　by　example　how

to　continue　or　divide　their　words；　charming　their　souls　with　rhythm　and

accent　and　intonation；　finding　in　familiar　objects　the　expression　of　their

confused　fanciesto　whom　the　whole　of　language　might　in　truth　be　said　to

be　a　figure　of　speech。　　One　person　may　have　introduced　a　new　custom　into

the　formation　or　pronunciation　of　a　word；　he　may　have　been　imitated　by

others；　and　the　custom；　or　form；　or　accent；　or　quantity；　or　rhyme　which　he

introduced　in　a　single　word　may　have　become　the　type　on　which　many　other

words　or　inflexions　of　words　were　framed；　and　may　have　quickly　ran　through

a　whole　language。　　For　like　the　other　gifts　which　nature　has　bestowed　upon

man；　that　of　speech　has　been　conveyed　to　him　through　the　medium；　not　of　the

many；　but　of　the　few；　who　were　his　'law…givers''the　legislator　with　the

dialectician　standing　on　his　right　hand；'　in　Plato's　striking　image；　who

formed　the　manners　of　men　and　gave　them　customs；　whose　voice　and　look　and

behaviour；　whose　gesticulations　and　other　peculiarities　were　instinctively

imitated　by　them；the　'king　of　men'　who　was　their　priest；　almost　their

God。。。But　these　are　conjectures　only：　　so　little　do　we　know　of　the　origin

of　language　that　the　real　scholar　is　indisposed　to　touch　the　subject　at

all。



（2）　　There　are　other　errors　besides　the　figment　of　a　primitive　or　original

language　which　it　is　time　to　leave　behind　us。　　We　no　longer　divide

languages　into　synthetical　and　analytical；　or　suppose　similarity　of

structure　to　be　the　safe　or　only　guide　to　the　affinities　of　them。　　We　do

not　confuse　the　parts　of　speech　with　the　categories　of　Logic。　　Nor　do　we

conceive　languages　any　more　than　civilisations　to　be　in　a　state　of

dissolution；　they　do　not　easily　pass　away；　but　are　far　more　tenacious　of

life　than　the　tribes　by　whom　they　are　spoken。　　'Where　two　or　three　are

gathered　together；'　they　survive。　　As　in　the　human　frame；　as　in　the　state；

there　is　a　principle　of　renovation　as　well　as　of　decay　which　is　at　work　in

all　of　them。　　Neither　do　we　suppose　them　to　be　invented　by　the　wit　of　man。

With　few　exceptions；　e。g。　technical　words　or　words　newly　imported　from　a

foreign　language；　and　the　like；　in　which　art　has　imitated　nature；　'words

are　not　made　but　grow。'　　Nor　do　we　attribute　to　them　a　supernatural　origin。　

The　law　which　regulates　them　is　like　the　law　which　governs　the　circulation

of　the　blood；　or　the　rising　of　the　sap　in　trees；　the　action　of　it　is

uniform；　but　the　result；　which　appears　in　the　superficial　forms　of　men　and

animals　or　in　the　leaves　of　trees；　is　an　endless　profusion　and　variety。　

The　laws　of　vegetation　are　invariable；　but　no　two　plants；　no　two　leaves　of

the　forest　are　precisely　the　same。　　The　laws　of　language　are　invariable；

but　no　two　languages　are　alike；　no　two　words　have　exactly　the　same　meaning。　

No　two　sounds　are　exactly　of　the　same　quality；　or　give　precisely　the　same

impression。



It　would　be　well　if　there　were　a　similar　consensus　about　some　other　points

which　appear　to　be　still　in　dispute。　　Is　language　conscious　or　unconscious？　

In　speaking　or　writing　have　we　present　to　our　minds　the　meaning　or　the

sound　or　the　construction　of　the　words　which　we　are　using？No　more　than

the　separate　drops　of　water　with　which　we　quench　our　thirst　are　present：　

the　whole　draught　may　be　conscious；　but　not　the　minute　particles　of　which

it　is　made　up：　　So　the　whole　sentence　may　be　conscious；　but　the　several

words；　syllables；　letters　are　not　thought　of　separately　when　we　are

uttering　them。　　Like　other　natural　operations；　the　process　of　speech；　when

most　perfect；　is　least　observed　by　us。　　We　do　not　pause　at　each　mouthful　to

dwell　upon　the　taste　of　it：　　nor　has　the　speaker　time　to　ask　himself　the

comparative　merits　of　different　modes　of　expression　while　he　is　uttering

them。　　There　are　many　things　in　the　use　of　language　which　may　be　observed

from　without；　but　which　cannot　be　explained　from　within。　　Consciousness

carries　us　but　a　little　way　in　the　investigation　of　the　mind；　it　is　not　the

faculty　of　internal　observation；　but　only　the　dim　light　which　makes　such

observation　possible。　　What　is　supposed　to　be　our　consciousness　of　language

is　really　only　the　analysis　of　it