Language Part 7

[Transcriber's note: Footnote 105 refers to the paragraph beginning on line 4081.]

It is necessary to understand that fusion of the radical element and the affix may be taken in a broader psychological sense than I have yet indicated. If every noun plural in English were of the type of _book_: _books_, if there were not such conflicting patterns as _deer_: _deer_, _ox_: _oxen_, _goose_: _geese_ to complicate the general form picture of plurality, there is little doubt that the fusion of the elements _book_ and _-s_ into the unified word _books_ would be felt as a little less complete than it actually is. One reasons, or feels, unconsciously about the matter somewhat as follows:--If the form pattern represented by the word _books_ is identical, as far as use is concerned, with that of the word _oxen_, the pluralizing elements _-s_ and _-en_ cannot have quite so definite, quite so autonomous, a value as we might at first be inclined to suppose. They are plural elements only in so far as plurality is predicated of certain selected concepts. The words _books_ and _oxen_ are therefore a little other than mechanical combinations of the symbol of a thing (_book_, _ox_) and a clear symbol of plurality.

There is a slight psychological uncertainty or haze about the juncture in _book-s_ and _ox-en_. A little of the force of _-s_ and _-en_ is antic.i.p.ated by, or appropriated by, the words _book_ and _ox_ themselves, just as the conceptual force of _-th_ in _dep-th_ is appreciably weaker than that of _-ness_ in _good-ness_ in spite of the functional parallelism between _depth_ and _goodness_. Where there is uncertainty about the juncture, where the affixed element cannot rightly claim to possess its full share of significance, the unity of the complete word is more strongly emphasized. The mind must rest on something. If it cannot linger on the const.i.tuent elements, it hastens all the more eagerly to the acceptance of the word as a whole. A word like _goodness_ ill.u.s.trates "agglutination," _books_ "regular fusion,"

_depth_ "irregular fusion," _geese_ "symbolic fusion" or "symbolism."[106]

[Footnote 106: The following formulae may prove useful to those that are mathematically inclined. Agglutination: c = a + b; regular fusion: c = a + (b - x) + x; irregular fusion: c = (a - x) + (b - y) + (x + y); symbolism: c = (a - x) + x. I do not wish to imply that there is any mystic value in the process of fusion. It is quite likely to have developed as a purely mechanical product of phonetic forces that brought about irregularities of various sorts.]

The psychological distinctness of the affixed elements in an agglutinative term may be even more marked than in the _-ness_ of _goodness_. To be strictly accurate, the significance of the _-ness_ is not quite as inherently determined, as autonomous, as it might be. It is at the mercy of the preceding radical element to this extent, that it requires to be preceded by a particular type of such element, an adjective. Its own power is thus, in a manner, checked in advance. The fusion here, however, is so vague and elementary, so much a matter of course in the great majority of all cases of affixing, that it is natural to overlook its reality and to emphasize rather the juxtaposing or agglutinative nature of the affixing process. If the _-ness_ could be affixed as an abstractive element to each and every type of radical element, if we could say _fightness_ ("the act or quality of fighting") or _waterness_ ("the quality or state of water") or _awayness_ ("the state of being away") as we can say _goodness_ ("the state of being good"), we should have moved appreciably nearer the agglutinative pole.

A language that runs to synthesis of this loose-jointed sort may be looked upon as an example of the ideal agglutinative type, particularly if the concepts expressed by the agglutinated elements are relational or, at the least, belong to the abstracter cla.s.s of derivational ideas.

Instructive forms may be cited from Nootka. We shall return to our "fire in the house."[107] The Nootka word _inikw-ihl_ "fire in the house" is not as definitely formalized a word as its translation, suggests. The radical element _inikw-_ "fire" is really as much of a verbal as of a nominal term; it may be rendered now by "fire," now by "burn," according to the syntactic exigencies of the sentence. The derivational element _-ihl_ "in the house" does not mitigate this vagueness or generality; _inikw-ihl_ is still "fire in the house" or "burn in the house." It may be definitely nominalized or verbalized by the affixing of elements that are exclusively nominal or verbal in force. For example, _inikw-ihl-'i_, with its suffixed article, is a clear-cut nominal form: "the burning in the house, the fire in the house"; _inikw-ihl-ma_, with its indicative suffix, is just as clearly verbal: "it burns in the house." How weak must be the degree of fusion between "fire in the house" and the nominalizing or verbalizing suffix is apparent from the fact that the formally indifferent _inikwihl_ is not an abstraction gained by a.n.a.lysis but a full-fledged word, ready for use in the sentence. The nominalizing _-'i_ and the indicative _-ma_ are not fused form-affixes, they are simply additions of formal import. But we can continue to hold the verbal or nominal nature of _inikwihl_ in abeyance long before we reach the _-'i_ or _-ma_. We can pluralize it: _inikw-ihl-'minih_; it is still either "fires in the house" or "burn plurally in the house." We can diminutivize this plural: _inikw-ihl-'minih-'is_, "little fires in the house" or "burn plurally and slightly in the house." What if we add the preterit tense suffix _-it_? Is not _inikw-ihl-'minih-'is-it_ necessarily a verb: "several small fires were burning in the house"? It is not. It may still be nominalized; _inikwihl'minih'isit-'i_ means "the former small fires in the house, the little fires that were once burning in the house." It is not an unambiguous verb until it is given a form that excludes every other possibility, as in the indicative _inikwihl-minih'isit-a_ "several small fires were burning in the house." We recognize at once that the elements _-ihl_, _-'minih_, _-'is_, and _-it_, quite aside from the relatively concrete or abstract nature of their content and aside, further, from the degree of their outer (phonetic) cohesion with the elements that precede them, have a psychological independence that our own affixes never have. They are typically agglutinated elements, though they have no greater external independence, are no more capable of living apart from the radical element to which they are suffixed, than the _-ness_ and _goodness_ or the _-s_ of _books_. It does not follow that an agglutinative language may not make use of the principle of fusion, both external and psychological, or even of symbolism to a considerable extent. It is a question of tendency. Is the formative slant clearly towards the agglutinative method? Then the language is "agglutinative." As such, it may be prefixing or suffixing, a.n.a.lytic, synthetic, or polysynthetic.

[Footnote 107: See page 110.]

[Transcriber's note: Footnote 107 refers to the paragraph beginning on line 3331.]

To return to inflection. An inflective language like Latin or Greek uses the method of fusion, and this fusion has an inner psychological as well as an outer phonetic meaning. But it is not enough that the fusion operate merely in the sphere of derivational concepts (group II),[108]

it must involve the syntactic relations, which may either be expressed in unalloyed form (group IV) or, as in Latin and Greek, as "concrete relational concepts" (group III).[109] As far as Latin and Greek are concerned, their inflection consists essentially of the fusing of elements that express logically impure relational concepts with radical elements and with elements expressing derivational concepts. Both fusion as a general method and the expression of relational concepts in the word are necessary to the notion of "inflection."

[Footnote 108: See Chapter V.]

[Footnote 109: If we deny the application of the term "inflective" to fusing languages that express the syntactic relations in pure form, that is, without the admixture of such concepts as number, gender, and tense, merely because such admixture is familiar to us in Latin and Greek, we make of "inflection" an even more arbitrary concept than it need be. At the same time it is true that the method of fusion itself tends to break down the wall between our conceptual groups II and IV, to create group III. Yet the possibility of such "inflective" languages should not be denied. In modern Tibetan, for instance, in which concepts of group II are but weakly expressed, if at all, and in which the relational concepts (e.g., the genitive, the agentive or instrumental) are expressed without alloy of the material, we get many interesting examples of fusion, even of symbolism. _Mi di_, e.g., "man this, the man" is an absolutive form which may be used as the subject of an intransitive verb. When the verb is transitive (really pa.s.sive), the (logical) subject has to take the agentive form. _Mi di_ then becomes _mi di_ "by the man," the vowel of the demonstrative p.r.o.noun (or article) being merely lengthened. (There is probably also a change in the tone of the syllable.) This, of course, is of the very essence of inflection. It is an amusing commentary on the insufficiency of our current linguistic cla.s.sification, which considers "inflective" and "isolating" as worlds asunder, that modern Tibetan may be not inaptly described as an isolating language, aside from such examples of fusion and symbolism as the foregoing.]

But to have thus defined inflection is to doubt the value of the term as descriptive of a major cla.s.s. Why emphasize both a technique and a particular content at one and the same time? Surely we should be clear in our minds as to whether we set more store by one or the other.

"Fusional" and "symbolic" contrast with "agglutinative," which is not on a par with "inflective" at all. What are we to do with the fusional and symbolic languages that do not express relational concepts in the word but leave them to the sentence? And are we not to distinguish between agglutinative languages that express these same concepts in the word--in so far inflective-like--and those that do not? We dismissed the scale: a.n.a.lytic, synthetic, polysynthetic, as too merely quant.i.tative for our purpose. Isolating, affixing, symbolic--this also seemed insufficient for the reason that it laid too much stress on technical externals.

Isolating, agglutinative, fusional, and symbolic is a preferable scheme, but still skirts the external. We shall do best, it seems to me, to hold to "inflective" as a valuable suggestion for a broader and more consistently developed scheme, as a hint for a cla.s.sification based on the nature of the concepts expressed by the language. The other two cla.s.sifications, the first based on degree of synthesis, the second on degree of fusion, may be retained as intercrossing schemes that give us the opportunity to subdivide our main conceptual types.

It is well to recall that all languages must needs express radical concepts (group I) and relational ideas (group IV). Of the two other large groups of concepts--derivational (group II) and mixed relational (group III)--both may be absent, both present, or only one present. This gives us at once a simple, incisive, and absolutely inclusive method of cla.s.sifying all known languages. They are:

A. Such as express only concepts of groups I and IV; in other words, languages that keep the syntactic relations pure and that do not possess the power to modify the significance of their radical elements by means of affixes or internal changes.[110] We may call these _Pure-relational non-deriving languages_ or, more tersely, _Simple Pure-relational languages_. These are the languages that cut most to the bone of linguistic expression.

B. Such as express concepts of groups I, II, and IV; in other words, languages that keep the syntactic relations pure and that also possess the power to modify the significance of their radical elements by means of affixes or internal changes. These are the _Pure-relational deriving languages_ or _Complex Pure-relational languages_.

C. Such as express concepts of groups I and III;[111] in other words, languages in which the syntactic relations are expressed in necessary connection with concepts that are not utterly devoid of concrete significance but that do not, apart from such mixture, possess the power to modify the significance of their radical elements by means of affixes or internal changes.[112] These are the _Mixed-relational non-deriving languages_ or _Simple Mixed-relational languages_.

D. Such as express concepts of groups I, II, and III; in other words, languages in which the syntactic relations are expressed in mixed form, as in C, and that also possess the power to modify the significance of their radical elements by means of affixes or internal changes. These are the _Mixed-relational deriving languages_ or _Complex Mixed-relational languages_. Here belong the "inflective" languages that we are most familiar with as well as a great many "agglutinative"

languages, some "polysynthetic," others merely synthetic.

[Footnote 110: I am eliminating entirely the possibility of compounding two or more radical elements into single words or word-like phrases (see pages 67-70). To expressly consider compounding in the present survey of types would be to complicate our problem unduly. Most languages that possess no derivational affixes of any sort may nevertheless freely compound radical elements (independent words). Such compounds often have a fixity that simulates the unity of single words.]

[Transcriber's note: Footnote 110 refers to the three paragraphs beginning on line 2066.]

[Footnote 111: We may a.s.sume that in these languages and in those of type D all or most of the relational concepts are expressed in "mixed"

form, that such a concept as that of subjectivity, for instance, cannot be expressed without simultaneously involving number or gender or that an active verb form must be possessed of a definite tense. Hence group III will be understood to include, or rather absorb, group IV.

Theoretically, of course, certain relational concepts may be expressed pure, others mixed, but in practice it will not be found easy to make the distinction.]

[Footnote 112: The line between types C and D cannot be very sharply drawn. It is a matter largely of degree. A language of markedly mixed-relational type, but of little power of derivation pure and simple, such as Bantu or French, may be conveniently put into type C, even though it is not devoid of a number of derivational affixes.

Roughly speaking, languages of type C may be considered as highly a.n.a.lytic ("purified") forms of type D.]

This conceptual cla.s.sification of languages, I must repeat, does not attempt to take account of the technical externals of language. It answers, in effect, two fundamental questions concerning the translation of concepts into linguistic symbols. Does the language, in the first place, keep its radical concepts pure or does it build up its concrete ideas by an aggregation of inseparable elements (types A and C _versus_ types B and D)? And, in the second place, does it keep the basic relational concepts, such as are absolutely unavoidable in the ordering of a proposition, free of an admixture of the concrete or not (types A and B _versus_ types C and D)? The second question, it seems to me, is the more fundamental of the two. We can therefore simplify our cla.s.sification and present it in the following form: _ I. Pure-relational _/ A. Simple Languages _ B. Complex _ II. Mixed-relational _/ C. Simple Languages _ D. Complex

The cla.s.sification is too sweeping and too broad for an easy, descriptive survey of the many varieties of human speech. It needs to be amplified. Each of the types A, B, C, D may be subdivided into an agglutinative, a fusional, and a symbolic sub-type, according to the prevailing method of modification of the radical element. In type A we distinguish in addition an isolating sub-type, characterized by the absence of all affixes and modifications of the radical element. In the isolating languages the syntactic relations are expressed by the position of the words in the sentence. This is also true of many languages of type B, the terms "agglutinative," "fusional," and "symbolic" applying in their case merely to the treatment of the derivational, not the relational, concepts. Such languages could be termed "agglutinative-isolating," "fusional-isolating" and "symbolic-isolating."

This brings up the important general consideration that the method of handling one group of concepts need not in the least be identical with that used for another. Compound terms could be used to indicate this difference, if desired, the first element of the compound referring to the treatment of the concepts of group II, the second to that of the concepts of groups III and IV. An "agglutinative" language would normally be taken to mean one that agglutinates all of its affixed elements or that does so to a preponderating extent. In an "agglutinative-fusional" language the derivational elements are agglutinated, perhaps in the form of prefixes, while the relational elements (pure or mixed) are fused with the radical element, possibly as another set of prefixes following the first set or in the form of suffixes or as part prefixes and part suffixes. By a "fusional-agglutinative" language we would understand one that fuses its derivational elements but allows a greater independence to those that indicate relations. All these and similar distinctions are not merely theoretical possibilities, they can be abundantly ill.u.s.trated from the descriptive facts of linguistic morphology. Further, should it prove desirable to insist on the degree of elaboration of the word, the terms "a.n.a.lytic," "synthetic," and "polysynthetic" can be added as descriptive terms. It goes without saying that languages of type A are necessarily a.n.a.lytic and that languages of type C also are prevailingly a.n.a.lytic and are not likely to develop beyond the synthetic stage.

But we must not make too much of terminology. Much depends on the relative emphasis laid on this or that feature or point of view. The method of cla.s.sifying languages here developed has this great advantage, that it can be refined or simplified according to the needs of a particular discussion. The degree of synthesis may be entirely ignored; "fusion" and "symbolism" may often be combined with advantage under the head of "fusion"; even the difference between agglutination and fusion may, if desired, be set aside as either too difficult to draw or as irrelevant to the issue. Languages, after all, are exceedingly complex historical structures. It is of less importance to put each language in a neat pigeon-hole than to have evolved a flexible method which enables us to place it, from two or three independent standpoints, relatively to another language. All this is not to deny that certain linguistic types are more stable and frequently represented than others that are just as possible from a theoretical standpoint. But we are too ill-informed as yet of the structural spirit of great numbers of languages to have the right to frame a cla.s.sification that is other than flexible and experimental.

The reader will gain a somewhat livelier idea of the possibilities of linguistic morphology by glancing down the subjoined a.n.a.lytical table of selected types. The columns II, III, IV refer to the groups of concepts so numbered in the preceding chapter. The letters _a_, _b_, _c_, _d_ refer respectively to the processes of isolation (position in the sentence), agglutination, fusion, and symbolism. Where more than one technique is employed, they are put in the order of their importance.[113]

[Footnote 113: In defining the type to which a language belongs one must be careful not to be misled by structural features which are mere survivals of an older stage, which have no productive life and do not enter into the unconscious patterning of the language. All languages are littered with such petrified bodies. The English _-ster_ of _spinster_ and _Webster_ is an old agentive suffix, but, as far as the feeling of the present English-speaking generation is concerned, it cannot be said to really exist at all; _spinster_ and _Webster_ have been completely disconnected from the etymological group of _spin_ and of _weave (web)_.

Similarly, there are hosts of related words in Chinese which differ in the initial consonant, the vowel, the tone, or in the presence or absence of a final consonant. Even where the Chinaman feels the etymological relations.h.i.+p, as in certain cases he can hardly help doing, he can a.s.sign no particular function to the phonetic variation as such.

Hence it forms no live feature of the language-mechanism and must be ignored in defining the general form of the language. The caution is all the more necessary, as it is precisely the foreigner, who approaches a new language with a certain prying inquisitiveness, that is most apt to see life in vestigial features which the native is either completely unaware of or feels merely as dead form.]

Note.--Parentheses indicate a weak development of the process in question.

+----------------+---+----+---+--------------+----------+--------------+ |Fundamental Type"II |III |IV |Technique "Synthesis "Examples | +----------------+---+----+---+--------------+----------+--------------+ | A " | | | " " | |(Simple Pure- "-- |-- |a |Isolating "a.n.a.lytic "Chinese; | | relational) " | | | " "Annamite | | " | | | " " | | "(d)|-- |a,b|Isolating "a.n.a.lytic "Ewe | | " | | |(weakly " "(Guinea Coast)| | " | | |agglutinative)" " | | " | | | " " | | "(b)|-- |a, |Agglutinative "a.n.a.lytic "Modern Tibetan| | " | |b,c|(mildly " " | | " | | |agglutinative-" " | | " | | |fusional) " " | | " | | | " " | | B " | | | " " | |(Complex Pure- "b, |-- |a |Agglutinative-"a.n.a.lytic "Polynesian | | relational) "(d)| | |isolating " " | | " | | | " " | | "b |-- |a, |Agglutinative-"Polysyn- "Haida | | " | |(b)|isolating "thetic " | | " | | | " " | | "c |-- |a |Fusional- "a.n.a.lytic "Cambodgian | | " | | |isolating " " | | " | | | " " | | "b |-- |b |Agglutinative "Synthetic "Turkish | | " | | | " " | | "b,d|(b) |b |Agglutinative "Polysyn- "Yana (N. | | " | | |(symbolic "thetic "California) | | " | | |tinge) " " | | " | | | " " | | "c, |-- |a,b|Fusional- "Synthetic "Cla.s.sical | | "d, | | |agglutinative "(mildly) "Tibetan | | "(b)| | |(symbolic " " | | " | | |tinge) " " | | " | | | " " | | "b |-- |c |Agglutinative-"Synthetic "Sioux | | " | | |fusional "(mildly " | | " | | | "polysyn- " | | " | | | "thetic) " | | " | | | " " | | "c |-- |c |Fusional "Synthetic "Salinan (S.W. | | " | | | " "California) | | " | | | " " | | "d,c|(d) |d, |Symbolic "a.n.a.lytic "s.h.i.+lluk | | " | |c,a| " "(Upper Nile) | | " | | | " " | | C " | | | " " | |(Simple Mixed- "(b)|b |-- |Agglutinative "Synthetic "Bantu | | relational) " | | | " " | | "(c)|c, |a |Fusional "a.n.a.lytic "French[114] | | " |(d) | | "(mildly " | | " | | | "synthetic)" | | " | | | " " | | D " | | | " " | |(Complex Mixed- "b, |b |b |Agglutinative "Polysyn- "Nootka | | relational) "c,d| | | "thetic "(Vancouver | | " | | | "(symbolic "Island)[115] | | " | | | "tinge) " | | " | | | " " | | "c, |b |-- |Fusional- "Polysyn- "Chinook (lower| | "(d)| | |agglutinative "thetic "Columbia R.) | | " | | | "(mildly) " | | " | | | " " | | "c, |c, |-- |Fusional "Polysyn- "Algonkin | | "(d)|(d),| | "thetic " | | " |(b) | | " " | | " | | | " " | | "c |c,d |a |Fusional "a.n.a.lytic "English | | " | | | " " | | "c,d|c,d |-- |Fusional "Synthetic "Latin, Greek, | | " | | |(symbolic " "Sanskrit | | " | | |tinge) " " | | " | | | " " | | "c, |c,d |(a)|Fusional "Synthetic "Takelma | | "b,d| | |(strongly " "(S.W. Oregon) | | " | | |symbolic) " " | | " | | | " " | | "d,c|c,d |(a)|Symbolic- "Synthetic "Semitic | | " | | |fusional " "(Arabic, | | " | | | " "Hebrew) | +----------------+---+----+---+--------------+----------+--------------+

[Footnote 114: Might nearly as well have come under D.]

[Footnote 115: Very nearly complex pure-relational.]

I need hardly point out that these examples are far from exhausting the possibilities of linguistic structure. Nor that the fact that two languages are similarly cla.s.sified does not necessarily mean that they present a great similarity on the surface. We are here concerned with the most fundamental and generalized features of the spirit, the technique, and the degree of elaboration of a given language.

Nevertheless, in numerous instances we may observe this highly suggestive and remarkable fact, that languages that fall into the same cla.s.s have a way of paralleling each other in many details or in structural features not envisaged by the scheme of cla.s.sification. Thus, a most interesting parallel could be drawn on structural lines between Takelma and Greek,[116] languages that are as geographically remote from each other and as unconnected in a historical sense as two languages selected at random can well be. Their similarity goes beyond the generalized facts registered in the table. It would almost seem that linguistic features that are easily thinkable apart from each other, that seem to have no necessary connection in theory, have nevertheless a tendency to cl.u.s.ter or to follow together in the wake of some deep, controlling impulse to form that dominates their drift. If, therefore, we can only be sure of the intuitive similarity of two given languages, of their possession of the same submerged form-feeling, we need not be too much surprised to find that they seek and avoid certain linguistic developments in common. We are at present very far from able to define just what these fundamental form intuitions are. We can only feel them rather vaguely at best and must content ourselves for the most part with noting their symptoms. These symptoms are being garnered in our descriptive and historical grammars of diverse languages. Some day, it may be, we shall be able to read from them the great underlying ground-plans.

[Footnote 116: Not Greek specifically, of course, but as a typical representative of Indo-European.]

Such a purely technical cla.s.sification of languages as the current one into "isolating," "agglutinative," and "inflective" (read "fusional") cannot claim to have great value as an entering wedge into the discovery of the intuitional forms of language. I do not know whether the suggested cla.s.sification into four conceptual groups is likely to drive deeper or not. My own feeling is that it does, but cla.s.sifications, neat constructions of the speculative mind, are slippery things. They have to be tested at every possible opportunity before they have the right to cry for acceptance. Meanwhile we may take some encouragement from the application of a rather curious, yet simple, historical test. Languages are in constant process of change, but it is only reasonable to suppose that they tend to preserve longest what is most fundamental in their structure. Now if we take great groups of genetically related languages,[117] we find that as we pa.s.s from one to another or trace the course of their development we frequently encounter a gradual change of morphological type. This is not surprising, for there is no reason why a language should remain permanently true to its original form. It is interesting, however, to note that of the three intercrossing cla.s.sifications represented in our table (conceptual type, technique, and degree of synthesis), it is the degree of synthesis that seems to change most readily, that the technique is modifiable but far less readily so, and that the conceptual type tends to persist the longest of all.

[Footnote 117: Such, in other words, as can be shown by doc.u.mentary or comparative evidence to have been derived from a common source. See Chapter VII.]

The ill.u.s.trative material gathered in the table is far too scanty to serve as a real basis of proof, but it is highly suggestive as far as it goes. The only changes of conceptual type within groups of related languages that are to be gleaned from the table are of B to A (s.h.i.+lluk as contrasted with Ewe;[118] Cla.s.sical Tibetan as contrasted with Modern Tibetan and Chinese) and of D to C (French as contrasted with Latin[119]). But types A : B and C : D are respectively related to each other as a simple and a complex form of a still more fundamental type (pure-relational, mixed-relational). Of a pa.s.sage from a pure-relational to a mixed-relational type or _vice versa_ I can give no convincing examples.

[Footnote 118: These are far-eastern and far-western representatives of the "Soudan" group recently proposed by D. Westermann. The genetic relations.h.i.+p between Ewe and s.h.i.+lluk is exceedingly remote at best.]

[Footnote 119: This case is doubtful at that. I have put French in C rather than in D with considerable misgivings. Everything depends on how one evaluates elements like _-al_ in _national_, _-te_ in _bonte_, or _re-_ in _retourner_. They are common enough, but are they as alive, as little petrified or bookish, as our English _-ness_ and _-ful_ and _un-_?]

The table shows clearly enough how little relative permanence there is in the technical features of language. That highly synthetic languages (Latin; Sanskrit) have frequently broken down into a.n.a.lytic forms (French; Bengali) or that agglutinative languages (Finnish) have in many instances gradually taken on "inflective" features are well-known facts, but the natural inference does not seem to have been often drawn that possibly the contrast between synthetic and a.n.a.lytic or agglutinative and "inflective" (fusional) is not so fundamental after all. Turning to the Indo-Chinese languages, we find that Chinese is as near to being a perfectly isolating language as any example we are likely to find, while Cla.s.sical Tibetan has not only fusional but strong symbolic features (e.g., _g-tong-ba_ "to give," past _b-tang_, future _gtang_, imperative _thong_); but both are pure-relational languages.

Ewe is either isolating or only barely agglutinative, while s.h.i.+lluk, though soberly a.n.a.lytic, is one of the most definitely symbolic languages I know; both of these Soudanese languages are pure-relational.

The relations.h.i.+p between Polynesian and Cambodgian is remote, though practically certain; while the latter has more markedly fusional features than the former,[120] both conform to the complex pure-relational type. Yana and Salinan are superficially very dissimilar languages. Yana is highly polysynthetic and quite typically agglutinative, Salinan is no more synthetic than and as irregularly and compactly fusional ("inflective") as Latin; both are pure-relational, Chinook and Takelma, remotely related languages of Oregon, have diverged very far from each other, not only as regards technique and synthesis in general but in almost all the details of their structure; both are complex mixed-relational languages, though in very different ways. Facts such as these seem to lend color to the suspicion that in the contrast of pure-relational and mixed-relational (or concrete-relational) we are confronted by something deeper, more far-reaching, than the contrast of isolating, agglutinative, and fusional.[121]

[Footnote 120: In spite of its more isolating cast.]

[Footnote 121: In a book of this sort it is naturally impossible to give an adequate idea of linguistic structure in its varying forms. Only a few schematic indications are possible. A separate volume would be needed to breathe life into the scheme. Such a volume would point out the salient structural characteristics of a number of languages, so selected as to give the reader an insight into the formal economy of strikingly divergent types.]

VII