darwin and modern science-第162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！


n　Columbus　in　exploring　America。　　In　Italian　generally　the　form　〃patata〃　has　survived。　　The　tubers；　however；　also　suggested　a　resemblance　to　truffles；　so　that　the　Italian　word　〃tartufolo〃；　a　diminutive　of　the　Italian　modification　of　the　Latin　〃terrae　tuber〃　was　applied　to　them。　　In　the　language　of　the　Rhaetian　Alps　this　word　appears　as　〃tartufel〃。　　From　there　it　seems　to　have　passed　into　Germany　where　potatoes　were　not　cultivated　extensively　till　the　eighteenth　century；　and　〃tartufel〃　has　in　later　times　through　some　popular　etymology　been　metamorphosed　into　〃Kartoffel〃。　　In　France　the　shape　of　the　tubers　suggested　the　name　of　earth…apple　（pomme　de　terre）；　a　name　also　adopted　in　Dutch　（aard…appel）；　while　dialectically　in　German　a　form　〃Grumbire〃　appears；　which　is　a　corruption　of　〃Grund…birne〃；　〃ground　pear〃。　　（Kluge　〃Etymologisches　Worterbuch　der　deutschen　Sprache〃　（Strassburg）；　s。v。　〃Kartoffel〃。）　　Here　half　the　languages　have　adopted　the　original　American　word　for　an　allied　plant；　while　others　have　adopted　a　name　originating　in　some　more　or　less　fanciful　resemblance　discovered　in　the　tubers；　the　Germans　alone　in　Western　Europe；　failing　to　see　any　meaning　in　their　borrowed　name；　have　modified　it　almost　beyond　recognition。　　To　this　English　supplies　an　exact　parallel　in　〃parsnep〃　which；　though　representing　the　Latin　〃pastinaca〃　through　the　Old　French　〃pastenaque〃；　was　first　assimilated　in　the　last　syllable　to　the　〃nep〃　of　〃turnep〃　（〃pasneppe〃　in　Elizabethan　English）；　and　later　had　an　〃r〃　introduced　into　the　first　syllable；　apparently　on　the　analogy　of　〃parsley〃。

The　turkey　on　the　other　hand　seems　never　to　be　found　with　its　original　American　name。　　In　England；　as　the　name　implies；　the　turkey　cock　was　regarded　as　having　come　from　the　land　of　the　Turks。　　The　bird　no　doubt　spread　over　Europe　from　the　Italian　seaports。　　The　mistake；　therefore；　was　not　unnatural；　seeing　that　these　towns　conducted　a　great　trade　with　the　Levant；　while　the　fact　that　America　when　first　discovered　was　identified　with　India　helped　to　increase　the　confusion。　　Thus　in　French　the　〃coq　d'Inde〃　was　abbreviated　to　〃d'Inde〃　much　as　〃turkey　cock〃　was　to　〃turkey〃；　the　next　stage　was　to　identify　〃dinde〃　as　a　feminine　word　and　create　a　new　〃dindon〃　on　the　analogy　of　〃chapon〃　as　the　masculine。　　In　Italian　the　name　〃gallo　d'India〃　besides　survives；　while　in　German　the　name　〃Truthahn〃　seems　to　be　derived　onomatopoetically　from　the　bird's　cry；　though　a　dialectic　〃Calecutischer　Hahn〃　specifies　erroneously　an　origin　for　the　bird　from　the　Indian　Calicut。　　In　the　Spanish　〃pavo〃；　on　the　other　hand；　there　is　a　curious　confusion　with　the　peacock。　　Thus　in　these　names　for　objects　of　common　knowledge；　the　introduction　of　which　into　Europe　can　be　dated　with　tolerable　definiteness；　we　see　evinced　the　methods　by　which　in　remoter　ages　objects　were　named。　　The　words　were　borrowed　from　the　community　whence　came　the　new　object；　or　the　real　or　fancied　resemblance　to　some　known　object　gave　the　name；　or　again　popular　etymology　might　convert　the　unknown　term　into　something　that　at　least　approached　in　sound　a　well…known　word。

〃The　Origin　of　Species〃　had　not　long　been　published　when　the　parallelism　of　development　in　natural　species　and　in　languages　struck　investigators。　　At　the　time；　one　of　the　foremost　German　philologists　was　August　Schleicher；　Professor　at　Jena。　　He　was　himself　keenly　interested　in　the　natural　sciences；　and　amongst　his　colleagues　was　Ernst　Haeckel；　the　protagonist　in　Germany　of　the　Darwinian　theory。　　How　the　new　ideas　struck　Schleicher　may　be　seen　from　the　following　sentences　by　his　colleague　Haeckel。　　〃Speech　is　a　physiological　function　of　the　human　organism；　and　has　been　developed　simultaneously　with　its　organs；　the　larynx　and　tongue；　and　with　the　functions　of　the　brain。　　Hence　it　will　be　quite　natural　to　find　in　the　evolution　and　classification　of　languages　the　same　features　as　in　the　evolution　and　classification　of　organic　species。　　The　various　groups　of　languages　that　are　distinguished　in　philology　as　primitive；　fundamental；　parent；　and　daughter　languages；　dialects；　etc。；　correspond　entirely　in　their　development　to　the　different　categories　which　we　classify　in　zoology　and　botany　as　stems；　classes；　orders；　families；　genera；　species　and　varieties。　　The　relation　of　these　groups；　partly　coordinate　and　partly　subordinate；　in　the　general　scheme　is　just　the　same　in　both　cases；　and　the　evolution　follows　the　same　lines　in　both。〃　　（Haeckel；　〃The　Evolution　of　Man〃；　page　485；　London；　1905。　　This　represents　Schleicher's　own　words：　　Was　die　Naturforscher　als　Gattung　bezeichnen　wurden；　heisst　bei　den　Glottikern　Sprachstamm；　auch　Sprachsippe；　naher　verwandte　Gattungen　bezeichnen　sie　wohl　auch　als　Sprachfamilien　einer　Sippe　oder　eines　Sprachstammes。。。Die　Arten　einer　Gattung　nennen　wir　Sprachen　eines　Stammes；　die　Unterarten　einer　Art　sind　bei　uns　die　Dialekte　oder　Mundarten　einer　Sprache；　den　Varietaten　und　Spielarten　entsprechen　die　Untermundarten　oder　Nebenmundarten　und　endlich　den　einzelnen　Individuen　die　Sprechweise　der　einzelnen　die　Sprachen　redenden　Menschen。　　〃Die　Darwinische　Theorie　und　die　Sprachwissenschaft〃；　Weimar；　1863；　page　12　f。　　Darwin　makes　a　more　cautious　statement　about　the　classification　of　languages　in　〃The　Origin　of　Species〃；　page　578；　（Popular　Edition；　1900）。）　　These　views　were　set　forth　in　an　open　letter　addressed　to　Haeckel　in　1863　by　Schleicher　entitled；　〃The　Darwinian　theory　and　the　science　of　language〃。　　Unfortunately　Schleicher's　views　went　a　good　deal　farther　than　is　indicated　in　the　extract　given　above。　　He　appended　to　the　pamphlet　a　genealogical　tree　of　the　Indo…Germanic　languages　which；　though　to　a　large　extent　confirmed　by　later　research；　by　the　dichotomy　of　each　branch　into　two　other　branches；　led　the　unwary　reader　to　suppose　their　phylogeny　（to　use　Professor　Haeckel's　term）　was　more　regular　than　our　evidence　warrants。

Without　qualification　Schleicher　declared　languages　to　be　〃natural　organisms　which　originated　unconditioned　by　the　human　will；　developed　according　to　definite　laws；　grow　old　and　die；　they　also　are　characterised　by　that　series　of　phenomena　which　we　designate　by　the　term　'Life。'　　Consequently　Glottic；　the　science　of　language；　is　a　natural　science；　its　method　is　in　general　the　same　as　that　of　the　other　natural　sciences。〃　　（〃Die　Darwinische　Theorie〃；　page　6　f。）　　In　accordance　with　this　view　he　declared　（op。　cit。　page　23。）　that　the　root　in　language　might　be　compared　with　the　simple　cell　in　physiology；　the　linguistic　simple　cell　or　root　being　as　yet　not　differentiated　into　special　organs　for　the　function　of　noun；　verb；　etc。

In　this　probably　all　recent　philologists　admit　that　Schleicher　went　too　far。　　One　of　the　most　fertile　theories　in　the　modern　science　of　language　originated　with　him；　and　was　further　developed　by　his　pupil；　August　Leskien　（〃Die　Declination　im　Slavisch…litanischen　und　Germanischen〃；　Leipzig；　1876；　Osthoff　and　Brugmann；　〃Morphologische　Untersuchungen〃；　I。　（Introduction）；　1878。　　The　general　principles　of　this　school　were　formulated　（1880）　in　a　fuller　form　in　H。　Paul's　〃Prinzipien　der　Sprachgeschichte〃；　Halle　（3rd　edition；　1898）。　　Paul　and　Wundt　（in　his　〃Volkerpsychologie〃）　deal　largely　with　the　same　matter；　but　begin　their　investigations　from　different　points　of　view；　Paul　being　a　philologist　with　leanings　to　philosophy　and　Wundt　a　philosopher　interested　in　language。）；　and　by　Leskien's　colleagues　and　friends；　Brugmann　and　Osthoff。　　This　was　the　principle　that　phonetic　laws　have　no　exceptions。　　Under　the　influence　of　this　generalisation　much　greater　precision　in　etymology　was　insisted　upon；　and　a　new　and　remarkably　active　period　in　the　study　of　language　began。　　Stated　broadly　in　the　fashion　given　above　the　principle　is　not　true。　　A　more　accurate　statement　would　be　that　an　original　sound　is　represented　in　a　given　dialect　at　a　given　time　and　in　a　given　environment　only　in　one　way；　provided　that　the　development　of　the　original　sound　into　its　representation　in　the　given　dialect　has　not　been　influenced　by　the　working　of　analogy。

It　is　this　proviso　that　is　most　important　for　the　characterisation　of　the　science　of　language。　　As　I　have　said　elsewhere；　it　is　at　this　point　that　this　science　parts　company　with　the　natural　sciences。　　〃If　the　chemist　compounds　two　pure　simple　elements；　there　can　be　but　one　result；　and　no　power　of　the　chemist　can　prevent　it。　　But　the　minds　of　men　do　act　upon　the　sounds　which　they　produce。　　The　result　is　that；　when　this　happens；　the　phonetic　law　which　would　have　acted　in　the　case　is　stopped；　and　this　particular　form　enters　on　the　same　course　of　development　as　other　forms　to　which　it　does　not　belong。〃　　（P。　Giles；　〃Short　Manual　of　Comparative　Philology〃；　2nd　edition；　page　57；　London；　1901。）

Schleicher　was　wrong　in　defining　a　language　to　be　an　organism　in　the　sense　in　which　a　living　being　is　an　organism。　　Regarded　physiologically；　language　is　a　function　or　potentiality　of　certain　human　organs；　regarded　from　the　point　of　view　of　the　community　it　is　of　the　nature　of　an　institution。　　（This　view　of　language　is　worked　out　at　some　length　by　Prof。　W。D。　Whitney　in　an　article　in　the　〃Contemporary　Review〃　for　1875；　page　713　ff。　　This　article　forms　part　of　a　controversy　with　Max　Muller；　which　is　partly　concerned　with　Da