SECT. XI.]

WEAK PRACTICAL AIM-SKILL.

of two and that of higher numbers, so that a dual is formed. But in the higher numbers it is thought in the substance, this being strong enough to take it up. And even in a plurality of two, the substance is apt to take up the twofold individuality, so that this is expressed in the general plural form, unless the objects be such as by nature or art exist in pairs so as to have duality associated as an element in the idea of their nature. The substance, however, in Hebrew nouns is not such as to furnish a very distinct sense of manifold individuality, so the plural form may be used to express merely extension or greatness (ibid. 82). And ideas being more objective than in Arabic, there is not sufficient strength in the sense of personality to support a dual form of personal pronouns, the second and third expressing a plurality of two objectively in their substance by the general form instead of having a dual form as in Arabic. The sense of self in Arabic overpowers that of a person associated with self, and makes it be thought weakly, as in plurality, so that there is no dual of the first person (ibid. 51).

Syriac and Ethiopic have only some traces of a dual. The strength of the substance is seen in Syriac in the feminine plural, which, instead of being a mere extension of the stem, as in Hebrew and Arabic, adds an element as if the thought of the individuals remained distinct in the plural, and that of the plurality was added to it. In Ethiopic, also, the plural element of feminine nouns is added to the singular stem (ibid. 106, 130).

In Amharic, Tamachek, and Haussa there is no dual. The plural is formed by a subjoined element in Amharic (ibid. 143). Tamachek shows African influence in using also prefixes in the formation of the plural (ibid. 152). Haussa forms the plural by subjoined elements, or by inserting a before the last syllable (ibid. 166).

The construct state of the noun which is so characteristic of Arabic and Hebrew is due to the weakness of the substance of the noun (ibid. 69, 83, 88, 89). And when the language came out of the desert and became more objective, the substance became stronger and the two correlative nouns more distinct in Syriac (ibid. 114), Ethiopic (ibid. 131), Amharic (ibid. 143), Tamachek (ibid. 153), and Haussa (ibid. 166). Arabic and Hebrew, which have less of an objective practical character than the other languages that belong to regions giving more scope to practical habits, use a definite article, in accordance with their want of definiteness of practical aim. The other languages have no article, except that the Syriac has an emphatic article, which follows the noun because it does not determine and limit the substantive idea as the Hebrew and Arabic article does (ibid. 112). It probably, like the Polynesian emphatic article or like that of Burmese, Tibetan, and Japanese, expresses sometimes an emphasis due to the position of the noun in the fact. Thus a cardinal number is emphatic after its noun but not before, being strengthened when it follows by the sense of the noun which it then involves. But when the emphatic form is used for a superlative it has a strength of its own not derived from its position in the fact (ibid. 110, 114).

WEAK PRACTICAL AIM-SKILL.

[SECT. XI.

20. In Sanskrit substantive objects were thought so strongly both in the attributive part of the idea and in the substance, that two of the same were thought with a fulness which could not be carried through a larger number, and it consequently developed a dual as well as a plural, not only in the noun but also in the personal pronoun. The nature of things was thought with such interest that it went through the whole idea so as to specialise the substance and cause the radical part to take the lead in the substantive.

Both Latin and Greek acquired more generality than Sanskrit (see next chapter). Both the attributive nature and the substance of the substantive were thought with less fulness of particularity. But the attributive part retained more strength in Greek, the substance in Latin. For the practical genius of the Latin led him to think substantive objects more as objects of action and use, than the Greek who was less immersed in utilities. The spirit of the Greek, more free from the particularities of practical application, had more interest for the nature of things. And the attributive part of the substantive idea being stronger with him than with the Latin, he thought objects so fully when there were only two of the same, that he retained the dual; which the Latin dropped, because the Latin thought a duality and a plurality alike in the substance or objective part.

As the Indo-European had a stronger sense than the Syro-Arabian of personal power in directing the life (this chap., I. 2), so he had more sense of the inner personality in the personal pronoun. And in consequence of this fulness of individual personality, the dual was carried throughout the personal pronouns in Sanskrit. As thought became less particular, it was weakened; and Latin, being so objective, lost it in the pronouns as in the nouns. Greek retained it except in the first person of the verb, in which it was lost, because the sense of self as subject overpowered that of the associated person and reduced it to the weakness of a plural element. When, however, self was thought more objectively as in the separate pronoun, and as a person of the middle or passive, in both which it is object as well as subject, it had not this effect; and the two were thought with the fulness of the dual.

Gothic seems more objective than Greek, and like Latin had no dual of the third person or of the noun. But it had such a sense of the person associated with self, and of the second person, that it had a dual of the first and second person in verb and pronoun (Gram. Sk., VI. 154, 158).

21. Latin shows much more sense of practical use of things than Greek (preceding section, 14). And the Latin genius was much more practical than the Greek. And hence it was that, according to the principle of Book I., chap. iii., 11, the Greek made such use of the article with the noun and of particles with the sentence as distinguish his language in so marked a manner from Latin. He had less concentration of practical aim and more tendency to general thought than the Latin.

22. Bask also has a definite article subjoined to the noun, as if the

SECT. XII.]
NEED FOR HELP.

race had not a strong definiteness of practical aim. It appears from the loose connection with the noun of elements of relation, that there is little closeness of application of action (preceding section, 15). And accordingly the noun has a plural only when affected with the definite article (Gram. Sk., Bask, 3), agreeably to the principles of Book I., chap. iii., 12).

So that the principles 11 and 12 of that chapter hold through all the languages, and harmonise all the facts to which they refer under general statements of correspondence with the life which is suited to the region.

XII.-Is the inclusive and exclusive first person dual and plural connected with need for help in the life of the race?

The Polynesian language is remarkable for the strong sense of personal individuality which it evinces. Thus proper names and personal pronouns are thought with such strength and independence that they need an arthritic element (Def. 7) to put them in a relation; but they do not need it as possessors nor do the personal pronouns as subjects, these being relations natural for persons (Gram. Sk., III. 3). The distinction also between active and passive possession indicates a strong sense of personal activity (ibid. 4). The personal pronouns have a dual as well as a plural, and in both dual and plural the first has forms inclusive and exclusive of the persons addressed (ibid. 5).

In Fijian the personal pronouns have four numbers, singular, dual, small plural, and large plural, and the first has inclusive and exclusive forms in the three last numbers (ibid. 17).

The Melanesian languages also have kindred features. The personal pronouns have the singular, dual, trial, and plural numbers, showing a sense of personal individuality stronger than the Polynesian, and in the three last numbers the first person has inclusive and exclusive forms, in Annatom (ibid. 21), Erromango (ibid. 24), Tana (ibid. 26), Sesake (ibid. 28), Ambrym (ibid. 31), and Vunmarama (ibid. 32). In Maré (ibid. 34), Lifu (ibid. 37), Bauro (ibid. 41), and Mahaga (42), they have the singular, dual, and plural, and the first has inclusive and exclusive forms. In Fijian and Ambrym there are three general nouns which denote respectively property, food, and drink; and these subjoin the personal possessive suffix, and are followed by the particular noun which denotes the particular possession. In Ambrym this noun is followed by the particle ge, as if to particularise the connection as that of possession. Nouns in Ambrym which do not come under these categories take themselves the possessive suffixes and are followed by ge. Nouns denoting members of the body take the suffixes and dispense with ge. Some nouns seem to take after the suffixes not ge but im (ibid. 31).

In Annatom, only personal nouns take a plural element before them (ibid. 21).

In Maré and Lifu proper nouns and personal pronouns are treated

differently from common nouns, apparently as if they had more definiteness (ibid. 34, 37). There is also in Tagala an apparently similar distinction between proper and common nouns (47). And the first person plural has inclusive and exclusive forms, but there is no dual personal pronoun except kita, I and thou (ibid. 51, 52).

In Malay of Sumatra the personal pronouns have no dual or plural forms, except the first, which has an inclusive and an exclusive plural. In Dayak the first has a dual and all of them plurals, the first an inclusive and an exclusive plural, the distinction, however, not being strictly observed (ibid. 74). There seems to be no distinction in nouns with reference to personality.

In Tamil there is strong distinction between personal nouns and non-personal, which appears most clearly in the demonstrative pronouns referring to them. The personal pronouns have a singular and a plural, and the first has inclusive and exclusive forms (ibid. 97, 98). In Hottentot personality is so universally imputed to substantive objects that all substantives and pronouns take the personal suffixes, and in the relations of action and fact are thought as persons. The personal pronouns have the singular, dual, and plural numbers, and the first has inclusive and exclusive forms, which are distinguished by different roots bearing the first plural and dual suffixes (ibid. I. 64, 67).

Some of the American languages also have inclusive and exclusive forms of the first personal pronoun plural.

In Cree these are found along with a distinction between the plural forms of nouns of the animate and of the inanimate, a more remarkable distinction of the verbs which have an animate object from those which have an inanimate and a sense of a stronger personality in the subject than in the object, in the second person than in the first, and in the first than in the third (ibid. II. 18, 26, 27, 37).

In Choctaw the first personal pronoun has the twofold plural, and the second has a plural, and there is no other plural except in the adjective or verb (ibid. 49, 54).

In Quichua not only has the first personal pronoun the twofold plural, but there is a great variety of plural elements which may be subjoined to nouns (ibid. 110, 112).

In Kiriri and Chikito, which have the same feature, the personal pronouns as possessors do not readily combine with certain classes of nouns as possessed, and take abstract nouns to facilitate the connection. In Kiriri personal nouns only form a plural, and in Chikito nouns of the animate are exempt from entering into compositions (ibid. 122, 123, 126, 131, 134, 136).

Of the other languages studied in this work, Guarani in South America, Pul in Africa, and Manju in Asia, have an inclusive and an exclusive plural of the first personal pronoun (ibid. 118; III. 185; IV. 60).

This double first plural which is thus strangely scattered through different languages is accompanied in them by different features, which, though they may seem to be connected with it in each separate

SECT. XII.]
NEED FOR HELP.

language, are yet shown by their not accompanying it in others to have no connection of causation with it.

In the Polynesian and in the Melanesian languages it is accompanied by a strong sense of personal individuality, stronger in the latter than the former. This seems to belong naturally to the inhabitants of these islands, in which there is so little life besides human life; and in which, therefore, the ordinary interest in human personality is heightened by the interest in almost exclusive life. The Polynesian was more active than the Melanesian, the Melanesian less bold than the Polynesian; and while to the latter there was more interest in possession for active use or inactive experience, to the former the individual person was a more potent influence. They both distinguished the individuals in the personal pronouns according to their sense of personal individuality, and to this corresponds the development of number in those pronouns.

In Malay there is no such special sense of personal individuality, and therefore not such a development of number in the personal pronoun. Yet to it and Polynesian belong in common the exclusive and inclusive plurals of the first person.

In Tamil the interest is not so much in the personal individual as in the personal nature, thought in contradistinction to the non-personal. And this seems to point to the great struggle in India between man and the beast; which would necessarily give a special interest to rational beings.

The indolent Hottentot lived on his herds without caring to subdue nature and bend it to his purposes; and to him, therefore, it retained the personality which man attributes to it till he finds it passive to his will.

To the hunting Cree the capture of the animal was the necessary labour of life. And this imparted a special interest to the animate and to energy expended on an animate object. It also gave a sense of lower vitality to the object of action, and a keen sense of present life which strengthened the thought of the second person.

Now to all these various races co-operation was most necessary in their various difficulties, to the islander navigating the ocean, to the Indian in his struggle with the beasts, to the Hottentot looking for help to spare himself, to the American hunter of large animals in herds.

With the industrious Choctaws, the laborious Peruvians, and the careful and timid Guarani, co-operation had similar value. And with all those races this might give vivid distinction to the persons associated with self, according to the principle of Book I., chap. iii., 13.

But as to the Kiriri, Chikito, Pul, and Manju, there is nothing known which gives support to the principle, and it cannot be regarded as more than a conjecture.