WEAK PRACTICAL AIM-SKILL. [SECT. XI. In the Melanesian languages generally there is less development of the article before the noun than in Polynesian; and this is in accordance with the principle of Book I., chap. iii., 11. For those languages bear the traces, like the people which speak them, of being in their origin connected with regions in which the production of things needful was less abundant, and in which somewhat more concentration of practical aim was needed that the race might flourish there (preceding section, 2). Still they do not think the applications of action and use close to their objects; and the parts of speech are as little distinguished as in the Polynesian. The article, however, though it involves less distinction of the object from other objects than it has in Polynesian, is more expressive of attention directed to the object as an object than in Polynesian; and this agrees with the features of the Melanesian languages which have been noted in preceding section, 2. It also agrees with the expression of plurality of the substantive. For, in accordance with the principle of Book I., chap. iii., 12, the stronger reference of action or use to its objects which is to be seen in Melanesian is accompanied by a higher sense of the plural. The plural is often expressed in Melanesian by a separate element involving a distinct act of attention to the noun, and generally preceding it (Gram. Sk., III. 21, 24, 28, 34, 37, 40). This, though greater expression of plurality than is in Polynesian, does not in general belong to every noun, except in Maré, which thinks substantive objects with more interest than the other languages (ibid. 37). In Maré, also, there is a definite and an indefinite article, and the Polynesian emphatic article ko, which is used in Maré with the indefinite as well as with the definite article; so that it does not bring with it particularisation as in Polynesian. Moreover, ko is found with the direct object also in Maré; which use, though it is exceptional, corresponds to the stronger sense of the object in the Melanesian languages (preceding section, 2). And there is a weaker emphatic article, ono, used with both subject and object, and also with the genitive and other cases, and a still weaker o used with the object, and exceptionally with the subject (Gram. Sk., III. 34). It appears, therefore, that there is in this language somewhat more particularisation than in the other Melanesian languages, though less than in Polynesian, the emphatic article of the object indicating also more interest than Polynesian has in the object. The separate plural corresponds to a want of close application of action, which leaves the plurality to be thought in a second act of attention to the plural object. But still it gives more expression of plurality than is in Polynesian, and there is also a partially developed dual; and this corresponds with the higher sense than in Polynesian of the applications of action and use to their objects, according to the principles of Book I., chap. iii., 12. 13. In Tagala, though there is an excessively weak sense of relation, there is a certain degree of attention in applying action and use to their objects (preceding section, 3); and there is a separate plural element, as in the Melanesian languages, preceding the noun and SECT. XI.] WEAK PRACTICAL AIM-SKILL. pronoun (Gram. Sk., III. 51). This application, however, is not thought in immediate connection with the noun, but generally through the mediation of pronominal elements. And the noun, in consequence, has so weak a substance that it needs an article which, without particularising it, expresses attention directed to it as an entire object of thought (Def. 4). 14. In Malay there is less combination of action and use with its objects, but more relation, though imperfectly connected, and less strength of practical aim, and in accordance with these features respectively there is somewhat less expression of plurality, less objectivity connected with the noun, no objective article to supply that element, and some particularisation (Gram. Sk., III. 72, 73). There is little difference between Malay and Polynesian in the sense of plurality, as there is little difference between them in the reference of action and use to their objects. Moreover, they both have a concrete fulness of thought (ibid. 8, 80). And in Malay, this causes the substantive idea to be too heavy for counting as a unit, and a portion of it is used instead. In Polynesian, substantive objects are thought with less strength of interest, because what the Polynesian needs he has more readily than the Malay. His substantive therefore is light enough to serve as a unit. Yet it is concrete enough to burden the act of counting so as to make this felt in Polynesian as an element of succession, and consequently to interpose between the noun and the number an element of verbal process (ibid. 6, 12). In Melanesian, the numeral is preceded by a heavier element of counting, and is most cumbrously expressed; as if there was little traffic, and therefore little expertness in numeration (ibid. 36, 1). It is probably due to the concreteness of the unit, that in Fijian there are different nouns for tens of things of different kinds, and others for hundreds (ibid. 17, 3). 15. The Australian carries his application of action or use close up to its objects, attaching postpositions close to his nouns (preceding section, 2), and he has not only a plural number, but also a dual (Gram. Sk., III. 85, 86). In Tamil, the action is not closely applied to its object by a pure element of relation closely attached to it; and there is little sense of number (ibid. 97, 100). In Australian, in Tamil, and in the languages of Northern Asia and Northern Europe, the radical part goes first in nouns and verbs because these races have to give strong attention to the nature of things and to the modes of action. 16. The conditions of life in Northern Asia and Northern Europe render necessary for the most part such an attention to the objects with which life is concerned, as causes action and use to be thought in closer application to their object than in Tamil. And there is in those languages more expression of the plural; while in the most northern of them, the Northern Samoiede dialects, in which the difficulties of life require action and use to be thought with closer application to their objects, and in which accordingly the element of WEAK PRACTICAL AIM-SKILL. [SECT. XI. case gets in between the stem of the noun and the element of number (preceding section, 6), the substantives and personal pronouns have a dual as well as a plural (Gram. Sk., IV. 8, 70, 83, 128, 139, 148, 157). The personal pronouns in Ostiak and Lapponic being of stronger individuality than the noun, have a dual and plural, and the nouns also in Surgut Ostiak (ibid. 103, 104, 159). In Mongolian, however, and Manju, the postpositions, which are few, have loose attachment to the noun (preceding section, 5), and the plural has corresponding weakness (Gram. Sk., IV. 36, 59). In Turkish also, the postpositions have loose attachment, but there are more of them, which shows a higher sense of relation. The noun in consequence of higher sense of relation is thought more distinctly as object; and accordingly there is a strong sense of plurality (ibid. 8, 19). 17. The Hungarian only has developed an article, and the use of this corresponds to the variety of resource which always characterised the race (this chap., III. 5), and to the consequently diminished concentration of practical aim which would be especially natural to them when they came to their present fertile region (Gram. Sk., IV. 112). It has no proper case ending, as if there was little need for skill; and its sense of plurality is proportionally weak (ibid. 113). 18. The Chinese and Siamese nouns have no plural, just as, according to the principle of Book I., chap. iii., 12, there is in Chinese and Siamese no sense of a close application of action or use to its objects (preceding section, 12), as is indicated by the absence of organic connection of the parts of the sentence and of pure elements of relation (Gram. Sk., V. 8, 16). The Chinese and Siamese, in accordance with their intense definiteness of practical aim, use no article. They think substantive objects with such concreteness that the substantive idea is too full for counting as a unit, and a part of it has to be taken for that purpose (ibid. 6, 16). This peculiarity belongs also to other races in this part of the world, the Japanese, the Burmese, and, as has been mentioned before, to the Malay. But it is in the Chinese that it may best be studied. For that concrete particularity of thought to which it seems to be due is manifested most strikingly in the Chinese. This tendency of thought is involved in their intensely realistic character, their want of analysis and abstraction, their unaptness to single out a cause or a condition and generalise its connection with a result, their consequent imitativeness in the concrete of what is found useful, their keenness in finding what may profit them. These all show an absorption of interest in concrete reality which is at the bottom of most of the peculiarities of Chinese thought, and of the Chinese language. For though the intermediate degree of quickness which belongs to the former gives singleness to the elements of expression in the latter (ibid. 13), yet that singleness is heightened by the concrete particularity of Chinese thought. The imitativeness which springs from this has been already connected with the absence from the Chinese verb of elements of person, succession, tense, mood, voice, and derivation SECT. XI.] WEAK PRACTICAL AIM-SKILL. (this chap. III. 3; IV. 5; V. 2; VI. 6; VII. 8, 17), and from the Chinese noun of elements of case, as well as from the language of pure elements of relation (ibid. X. 12), and now as a consequence of the want of that carrying on of the thought of action or use into close application to its objects which arises from the same cause (ibid. X. 12) has been noted the want of elements of number in the noun. Moreover, by the concrete particularity with which the substantive idea is thought, the singleness of the noun is increased, for the distinction between an attributive part as general, and a substance as particular (Def. 4), is thereby well-nigh abolished. And thus the intermediate quickness of thought is helped in giving absolute singleness to the Chinese verb and noun. Now the substantive thus thought has too much concrete fulness to serve as a unit in counting substantive objects, and a noun or particle expressing part of the idea is used, whose meaning is light enough for that purpose. The Siamese, Burmese, and Japanese races partake in different degrees of the peculiar nature of Chinese thought, probably owing to the action of similar influences, and the Malay also seems to share that concrete particularity of thought to which probably the use of the numeral particles or nouns in counting is due (Gram. Sk., III. 73, 80; V. 23, 44). All these races find what they want supplied by nature to them when they look for it with care. They have little need to study the properties of things and the efficiency of actions, so as to know the essential conditions of success in the use of means and in the conduct of operations to attain their ends. Such rudiments of natural law are needed for invention. But these races have not to invent, but to find. And the concrete particularity of sense is stamped upon their thought and language. The Mexican and Quichée also seem to have a strong particularity of substantive idea indicated by the pronominal endings of their nouns; and this, though perhaps different in its origin, yet leads to a similar result (Introd. to this chap., 2, 3; Gram. Sk., II. 87, 92). In Burmese, Japanese, and Tibetan, there are postpositions attached to the noun, and accordingly there is sufficient sense of the application of object and use to their objects to maintain a sense of plurality, though not sufficiently close to give a sense of it in the idea of the plural object. The plural element follows as a separate element, referring to the noun in a second thought of it, and is followed by the postposition. In Tibetan the adjective follows the noun, and is followed by the element of plurality (ibid. V. 22, 32, 33, 41). These constructions all agree with the principles of Book I., chap. iii., 12. The singling particles which follow the noun are a remarkable feature in Burmese, Japanese, and Tibetan (ibid. 24, 32, 41). They seem to be of a similar nature to the emphatic article in Polynesian, and, like it, to express an emphasis due to the position of the noun in the fact. Their use must be due to the want of distinctive expression of such function of the noun in the sentence, so that they may be WEAK PRACTICAL AIM-SKILL. [SECT. XI. compared in some respects to the use of a pronominal suffix to mark the subject (this chap., I. 1). They seem sometimes to be arthritic. Tibetan has also an article which follows the noun, and which, like one that precedes it in Melanesian, marks out the noun as such, directing attention to it as an entire object of thought (Gram. Sk., V. 32). 19. In the Syro-Arabian and Indo-European languages, the development of number and the use of the article follow the principles of Book L., chap. iii., 11, 12. The peculiar genius of the Syro-Arabian languages is to be seen most clearly in Arabic. For it is to the desert that it is due; and in the desert, therefore, it is to be found in its highest purity. The difficulties of the desert require a degree of skill and ingenuity in the treatment of substantive objects; and consequently Arabic has case endings which evidence a thought of relations in close application to the substantive idea. But, at the same time, the possibilities of production, acquisition, or use, are extremely limited in the desert, so that the practical application of action to object has a very restricted range. Substantive objects are consequently more the objects of thought, and less the objects of action and use, than in other regions. The substantive idea is thought more in the attributive part which designates it to the mind, and less in the objective part or substance in which it is apprehended in reference to action (Def. 4), than in any other Syro-Arabian or Indo-European language. In Hebrew, though there is less relation and less closeness of application to the noun, because the difficulties of the region being less there was less need for ingenuity and skill, yet, owing to the larger supply of useful objects, the substantive was thought more in reference to use and action, and the interest of the substantive idea was less concentrated in the attributive part, and it strengthened the substance. This change of thought which took place in Hebrew on the edge of the desert was carried still further in the regions outside the desert in Syriac and Ethiopic. In Arabic the substantive being thought principally in the attributive part of the idea, it is in that part that the manifold individuality of a plural is thought. And this being too heavy to be carried with distinctness through a large number, the plural idea changes rapidly from two to the higher numbers. A dual is developed, and in general the distinction of the individuals is impaired when the number exceeds ten, so that they merge in an aggregate with various alterations of the attributive part of the idea. Even in the lesser numbers, the plurality of feminine nouns is thought in some degree as a mere extension; and only in masculine nouns is it thought with a due sense of manifold individuality, this being apprehended in the individual differences of the attributive nature, and then referred to in a plural pronominal element. Even the dual is similarly thought with a subsequent pronominal act of attention. The attributive part being thought with such interest precedes the substance, and therefore also the element of number (Gram. Sk., V. 59, 62). In Hebrew the plurality is thought sufficiently in the attributive part of the idea to make a difference to be felt between the plurality |