cratylus-第17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！



produce　a　far　finer　music　than　any　crude　imitations　of　things　or　actions　in

sound；　although　a　letter　or　two　having　this　imitative　power　may　be　a　lesser

element　of　beauty　in　such　passages。　　The　same　subtle　sensibility；　which

adapts　the　word　to　the　thing；　adapts　the　sentence　or　cadence　to　the　general

meaning　or　spirit　of　the　passage。　　This　is　the　higher　onomatopea　which　has

banished　the　cruder　sort　as　unworthy　to　have　a　place　in　great　languages　and

literatures。



We　can　see　clearly　enough　that　letters　or　collocations　of　letters　do　by

various　degrees　of　strength　or　weakness；　length　or　shortness；　emphasis　or

pitch；　become　the　natural　expressions　of　the　finer　parts　of　human　feeling

or　thought。　　And　not　only　so；　but　letters　themselves　have　a　significance；

as　Plato　observes　that　the　letter　rho　accent　is　expressive　of　motion；　the

letters　delta　and　tau　of　binding　and　rest；　the　letter　lambda　of　smoothness；

nu　of　inwardness；　the　letter　eta　of　length；　the　letter　omicron　of

roundness。　　These　were　often　combined　so　as　to　form　composite　notions；　as

for　example　in　tromos　（trembling）；　trachus　（rugged）；　thrauein　（crush）；

krouein　（strike）；　thruptein　（break）；　pumbein　（whirl）；in　all　which　words

we　notice　a　parallel　composition　of　sounds　in　their　English　equivalents。　

Plato　also　remarks；　as　we　remark；　that　the　onomatopoetic　principle　is　far

from　prevailing　uniformly；　and　further　that　no　explanation　of　language

consistently　corresponds　with　any　system　of　philosophy；　however　great　may

be　the　light　which　language　throws　upon　the　nature　of　the　mind。　　Both　in

Greek　and　English　we　find　groups　of　words　such　as　string；　swing；　sling；

spring；　sting；　which　are　parallel　to　one　another　and　may　be　said　to　derive

their　vocal　effect　partly　from　contrast　of　letters；　but　in　which　it　is

impossible　to　assign　a　precise　amount　of　meaning　to　each　of　the　expressive

and　onomatopoetic　letters。　　A　few　of　them　are　directly　imitative；　as　for

example　the　omega　in　oon；　which　represents　the　round　form　of　the　egg　by　the

figure　of　the　mouth：　　or　bronte　（thunder）；　in　which　the　fulness　of　the

sound　of　the　word　corresponds　to　the　thing　signified　by　it；　or　bombos

（buzzing）；　of　which　the　first　syllable；　as　in　its　English　equivalent；　has

the　meaning　of　a　deep　sound。　　We　may　observe　also　（as　we　see　in　the　case　of

the　poor　stammerer）　that　speech　has　the　co…operation　of　the　whole　body　and

may　be　often　assisted　or　half　expressed　by　gesticulation。　　A　sound　or　word

is　not　the　work　of　the　vocal　organs　only；　nearly　the　whole　of　the　upper

part　of　the　human　frame；　including　head；　chest；　lungs；　have　a　share　in

creating　it；　and　it　may　be　accompanied　by　a　movement　of　the　eyes；　nose；

fingers；　hands；　feet　which　contributes　to　the　effect　of　it。



The　principle　of　onomatopea　has　fallen　into　discredit；　partly　because　it

has　been　supposed　to　imply　an　actual　manufacture　of　words　out　of　syllables

and　letters；　like　a　piece　of　joiner's　work；a　theory　of　language　which　is

more　and　more　refuted　by　facts；　and　more　and　more　going　out　of　fashion　with

philologians；　and　partly　also　because　the　traces　of　onomatopea　in　separate

words　become　almost　obliterated　in　the　course　of　ages。　　The　poet　of

language　cannot　put　in　and　pull　out　letters；　as　a　painter　might　insert　or

blot　out　a　shade　of　colour　to　give　effect　to　his　picture。　　It　would　be

ridiculous　for　him　to　alter　any　received　form　of　a　word　in　order　to　render

it　more　expressive　of　the　sense。　　He　can　only　select；　perhaps　out　of　some

dialect；　the　form　which　is　already　best　adapted　to　his　purpose。　　The　true

onomatopea　is　not　a　creative；　but　a　formative　principle；　which　in　the　later

stage　of　the　history　of　language　ceases　to　act　upon　individual　words；　but

still　works　through　the　collocation　of　them　in　the　sentence　or　paragraph；

and　the　adaptation　of　every　word；　syllable；　letter　to　one　another　and　to

the　rhythm　of　the　whole　passage。



iv。　　Next；　under　a　distinct　head；　although　not　separable　from　the

preceding；　may　be　considered　the　differentiation　of　languages；　i。e。　the

manner　in　which　differences　of　meaning　and　form　have　arisen　in　them。　　Into

their　first　creation　we　have　ceased　to　enquire：　　it　is　their　aftergrowth

with　which　we　are　now　concerned。　　How　did　the　roots　or　substantial　portions

of　words　become　modified　or　inflected？　and　how　did　they　receive　separate

meanings？　　First　we　remark　that　words　are　attracted　by　the　sounds　and

senses　of　other　words；　so　that　they　form　groups　of　nouns　and　verbs

analogous　in　sound　and　sense　to　one　another；　each　noun　or　verb　putting

forth　inflexions；　generally　of　two　or　three　patterns；　and　with　exceptions。　

We　do　not　say　that　we　know　how　sense　became　first　allied　to　sound；　but　we

have　no　difficulty　in　ascertaining　how　the　sounds　and　meanings　of　words

were　in　time　parted　off　or　differentiated。　　（1）　The　chief　causes　which

regulate　the　variations　of　sound　are　（a）　double　or　differing　analogies；

which　lead　sometimes　to　one　form；　sometimes　to　another　（b）　euphony；　by

which　is　meant　chiefly　the　greater　pleasure　to　the　ear　and　the　greater

facility　to　the　organs　of　speech　which　is　given　by　a　new　formation　or

pronunciation　of　a　word　（c）　the　necessity　of　finding　new　expressions　for

new　classes　or　processes　of　things。　　We　are　told　that　changes　of　sound　take

place　by　innumerable　gradations　until　a　whole　tribe　or　community　or　society

find　themselves　acquiescing　in　a　new　pronunciation　or　use　of　language。　　Yet

no　one　observes　the　change；　or　is　at　all　aware　that　in　the　course　of　a

lifetime　he　and　his　contemporaries　have　appreciably　varied　their　intonation

or　use　of　words。　　On　the　other　hand；　the　necessities　of　language　seem　to

require　that　the　intermediate　sounds　or　meanings　of　words　should　quickly

become　fixed　or　set　and　not　continue　in　a　state　of　transition。　　The　process

of　settling　down　is　aided　by　the　organs　of　speech　and　by　the　use　of　writing

and　printing。　　（2）　The　meaning　of　words　varies　because　ideas　vary　or　the

number　of　things　which　is　included　under　them　or　with　which　they　are

associated　is　increased。　　A　single　word　is　thus　made　to　do　duty　for　many

more　things　than　were　formerly　expressed　by　it；　and　it　parts　into　different

senses　when　the　classes　of　things　or　ideas　which　are　represented　by　it　are

themselves　different　and　distinct。　　A　figurative　use　of　a　word　may　easily

pass　into　a　new　sense：　　a　new　meaning　caught　up　by　association　may　become

more　important　than　all　the　rest。　　The　good　or　neutral　sense　of　a　word；

such　as　Jesuit；　Puritan；　Methodist；　Heretic；　has　been　often　converted　into

a　bad　one　by　the　malevolence　of　party　spirit。　　Double　forms　suggest

different　meanings　and　are　often　used　to　express　them；　and　the　form　or

accent　of　a　word　has　been　not　unfrequently　altered　when　there　is　a

difference　of　meaning。　　The　difference　of　gender　in　nouns　is　utilized　for

the　same　reason。　　New　meanings　of　words　push　themselves　into　the　vacant

spaces　of　language　and　retire　when　they　are　no　longer　needed。　　Language

equally　abhors　vacancy　and　superfluity。　　But　the　remedial　measures　by　which

both　are　eliminated　are　not　due　to　any　conscious　action　of　the　human　mind；

nor　is　the　force　exerted　by　them　constraining　or　necessary。



（7）　We　have　shown　that　language；　although　subject　to　laws；　is　far　from

being　of　an　exact　and　uniform　nature。　　We　may　now　speak　briefly　of　the

faults　of　language。　　They　may　be　compared　to　the　faults　of　Geology；　in

which　different　strata　cross　one　another　or　meet　at　an　angle；　or　mix　with

one　another　either　by　slow　transitions　or　by　violent　convulsions；　leaving

many　lacunae　which　can　be　no　longer　filled　up；　and　often　becoming　so

complex　that　no　true　explanation　of　them　can　be　given。　　So　in　language

there　are　the　cross　influences　of　meaning　and　sound；　of　logic　and　grammar；

of　differing　analogies；　of　words　and　the　inflexions　of　words；　which　often

come　into　conflict　with　each　other。　　The　grammarian；　if　he　were　to　form　new

words；　would　make　them　all　of　the　same　pattern　according　to　what　he

conceives　to　be　the　rule；　that　is；　the　more　common　usage　of　language。　　The

subtlety　of　nature　goes　far　beyond　art；　and　it　is　complicated　by

irregularity；　so　that　often　we　can　hardly　say　that　there　is　a　right　or

wrong　in　the　formation　of　words。　　For　almost　any　formation　which　is　not　at

variance　with　the　first　principles　of　language　is　possible　and　may　be

defended。



The　imperfection　of　language　is　really　due　to　the　formation　and　correlation

of　words　by　accident；　that　is　to　say；　by　principles　which　are　unknown　to

us。　　Hence　we　see　why　Plato；　like　ourselves　unable　to　comprehend　the　whole

of　language；　was　constrained　to　'supplement　the　poor　creature　imitation　by

another　poor　creature　convention。'　　But　the　poor　creature　convention　in　the

end　proves　too　much　for　all　the　rest：　　for　we　do　not　ask　what　is　the　origin

of　words　or　whether　they　are　formed　according　to　a　correct　analogy；　but

what　is　the　usage　of　them；　and　we　are　compelled　to　admit　with　Hermogenes　in

Plato　and　with　Horace　that　usage　is　the　ruling　p