cratylus-第20章

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！


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　principle；　'quem　penes

arbitrium　est；　et　jus　et　norma　loquendi。'



（8）　There　are　two　ways　in　which　a　language　may　attain　permanence　or　fixity。

First；　it　may　have　been　embodied　in　poems　or　hymns　or　laws；　which　may　be

repeated　for　hundreds；　perhaps　for　thousands　of　years　with　a　religious

accuracy；　so　that　to　the　priests　or　rhapsodists　of　a　nation　the　whole　or

the　greater　part　of　a　language　is　literally　preserved；　secondly；　it　may　be

written　down　and　in　a　written　form　distributed　more　or　less　widely　among

the　whole　nation。　　In　either　case　the　language　which　is　familiarly　spoken

may　have　grown　up　wholly　or　in　a　great　measure　independently　of　them。　　（1）

The　first　of　these　processes　has　been　sometimes　attended　by　the　result　that

the　sound　of　the　words　has　been　carefully　preserved　and　that　the　meaning　of

them　has　either　perished　wholly；　or　is　only　doubtfully　recovered　by　the

efforts　of　modern　philology。　　The　verses　have　been　repeated　as　a　chant　or

part　of　a　ritual；　but　they　have　had　no　relation　to　ordinary　life　or　speech。　

（2）　The　invention　of　writing　again　is　commonly　attributed　to　a　particular

epoch；　and　we　are　apt　to　think　that　such　an　inestimable　gift　would　have

immediately　been　diffused　over　a　whole　country。　　But　it　may　have　taken　a

long　time　to　perfect　the　art　of　writing；　and　another　long　period　may　have

elapsed　before　it　came　into　common　use。　　Its　influence　on　language　has　been

increased　ten；　twenty　or　one　hundred　fold　by　the　invention　of　printing。



Before　the　growth　of　poetry　or　the　invention　of　writing；　languages　were

only　dialects。　　So　they　continued　to　be　in　parts　of　the　country　in　which

writing　was　not　used　or　in　which　there　was　no　diffusion　of　literature。　　In

most　of　the　counties　of　England　there　is　still　a　provincial　style；　which

has　been　sometimes　made　by　a　great　poet　the　vehicle　of　his　fancies。　　When　a

book　sinks　into　the　mind　of　a　nation；　such　as　Luther's　Bible　or　the

Authorized　English　Translation　of　the　Bible；　or　again　great　classical　works

like　Shakspere　or　Milton；　not　only　have　new　powers　of　expression　been

diffused　through　a　whole　nation；　but　a　great　step　towards　uniformity　has

been　made。　　The　instinct　of　language　demands　regular　grammar　and　correct

spelling：　　these　are　imprinted　deeply　on　the　tablets　of　a　nation's　memory

by　a　common　use　of　classical　and　popular　writers。　　In　our　own　day　we　have

attained　to　a　point　at　which　nearly　every　printed　book　is　spelt　correctly

and　written　grammatically。



（9）　Proceeding　further　to　trace　the　influence　of　literature　on　language　we

note　some　other　causes　which　have　affected　the　higher　use　of　it：　　such　as

（1）　the　necessity　of　clearness　and　connexion；　（2）　the　fear　of　tautology；

（3）　the　influence　of　metre；　rhythm；　rhyme；　and　of　the　language　of　prose　and

verse　upon　one　another；　（4）　the　power　of　idiom　and　quotation；　（5）　the

relativeness　of　words　to　one　another。



It　has　been　usual　to　depreciate　modern　languages　when　compared　with

ancient。　　The　latter　are　regarded　as　furnishing　a　type　of　excellence　to

which　the　former　cannot　attain。　　But　the　truth　seems　to　be　that　modern

languages；　if　through　the　loss　of　inflections　and　genders　they　lack　some

power　or　beauty　or　expressiveness　or　precision　which　is　possessed　by　the

ancient；　are　in　many　other　respects　superior　to　them：　　the　thought　is

generally　clearer；　the　connexion　closer；　the　sentence　and　paragraph　are

better　distributed。　　The　best　modern　languages；　for　example　English　or

French；　possess　as　great　a　power　of　self…improvement　as　the　Latin；　if　not

as　the　Greek。　　Nor　does　there　seem　to　be　any　reason　why　they　should　ever

decline　or　decay。　　It　is　a　popular　remark　that　our　great　writers　are

beginning　to　disappear：　　it　may　also　be　remarked　that　whenever　a　great

writer　appears　in　the　future　he　will　find　the　English　language　as　perfect

and　as　ready　for　use　as　in　the　days　of　Shakspere　or　Milton。　　There　is　no

reason　to　suppose　that　English　or　French　will　ever　be　reduced　to　the　low

level　of　Modern　Greek　or　of　Mediaeval　Latin。　　The　wide　diffusion　of　great

authors　would　make　such　a　decline　impossible。　　Nor　will　modern　languages　be

easily　broken　up　by　amalgamation　with　each　other。　　The　distance　between

them　is　too　wide　to　be　spanned；　the　differences　are　too　great　to　be

overcome；　and　the　use　of　printing　makes　it　impossible　that　one　of　them

should　ever　be　lost　in　another。



The　structure　of　the　English　language　differs　greatly　from　that　of　either

Latin　or　Greek。　　In　the　two　latter；　especially　in　Greek；　sentences　are

joined　together　by　connecting　particles。　　They　are　distributed　on　the　right

hand　and　on　the　left　by　men；　de；　alla；　kaitoi；　kai　de　and　the　like；　or

deduced　from　one　another　by　ara；　de；　oun；　toinun　and　the　like。　　In　English

the　majority　of　sentences　are　independent　and　in　apposition　to　one　another；

they　are　laid　side　by　side　or　slightly　connected　by　the　copula。　　But　within

the　sentence　the　expression　of　the　logical　relations　of　the　clauses　is

closer　and　more　exact：　　there　is　less　of　apposition　and　participial

structure。　　The　sentences　thus　laid　side　by　side　are　also　constructed　into

paragraphs；　these　again　are　less　distinctly　marked　in　Greek　and　Latin　than

in　English。　　Generally　French；　German；　and　English　have　an　advantage　over

the　classical　languages　in　point　of　accuracy。　　The　three　concords　are　more

accurately　observed　in　English　than　in　either　Greek　or　Latin。　　On　the　other

hand；　the　extension　of　the　familiar　use　of　the　masculine　and　feminine

gender　to　objects　of　sense　and　abstract　ideas　as　well　as　to　men　and　animals

no　doubt　lends　a　nameless　grace　to　style　which　we　have　a　difficulty　in

appreciating；　and　the　possible　variety　in　the　order　of　words　gives　more

flexibility　and　also　a　kind　of　dignity　to　the　period。　　Of　the　comparative

effect　of　accent　and　quantity　and　of　the　relation　between　them　in　ancient

and　modern　languages　we　are　not　able　to　judge。



Another　quality　in　which　modern　are　superior　to　ancient　languages　is

freedom　from　tautology。　　No　English　style　is　thought　tolerable　in　which；

except　for　the　sake　of　emphasis；　the　same　words　are　repeated　at　short

intervals。　　Of　course　the　length　of　the　interval　must　depend　on　the

character　of　the　word。　　Striking　words　and　expressions　cannot　be　allowed　to

reappear；　if　at　all；　except　at　the　distance　of　a　page　or　more。　　Pronouns；

prepositions；　conjunctions　may　or　rather　must　recur　in　successive　lines。　

It　seems　to　be　a　kind　of　impertinence　to　the　reader　and　strikes

unpleasantly　both　on　the　mind　and　on　the　ear　that　the　same　sounds　should　be

used　twice　over；　when　another　word　or　turn　of　expression　would　have　given　a

new　shade　of　meaning　to　the　thought　and　would　have　added　a　pleasing　variety

to　the　sound。　　And　the　mind　equally　rejects　the　repetition　of　the　word　and

the　use　of　a　mere　synonym　for　it；e。g。　felicity　and　happiness。　　The

cultivated　mind　desires　something　more；　which　a　skilful　writer　is　easil