Page:Language and the Study of Language.djvu/314

292 form; and also to refer to the morphological classifications of human languages which are founded upon them—classifications which mainly coincide with genetic, but also more or less combine and overlap them.

The main characteristic features of the structure of Indo-European language are readily enough deducible from the exposition given in the preceding lecture. It generates its forms by the intimate combination of elements originally independent; in this respect agreeing with nearly all other known tongues. In its combinations, moreover, the formative element is almost invariably added after the radical, forming a suffix; the only noteworthy exceptions are the augment of the primitive preterit tense of the verb, the negative prefix (our un, in, in unthankful, incapable, and the like), and the more separable elements which we call prepositions (in intend, pretend, extend, distend, and so forth): and here, too, its usage is paralleled by that of the majority of spoken languages throughout the world. A more distinctive characteristic of Indo-European language is the peculiar aptitude which it possesses for closely combining its radical and formal elements, for losing sight of their separate individuality, and applying their combination as independent conventional sign of the object indicated. It disembarrasses itself of useless reminiscences of the former status and quality of its elements, fuses them completely together, and exposes the result, as one whole, to the action of all the wearing and altering processes of linguistic life. In different constituents of the dialects of our family, in different dialects, and in different stages of their history, this tendency is seen exhibited in very different degree. In our own tongue, for instance, in such words as fully, thankfully, unthankfulness, the combined elements are held distinctly apart, and are present in their separate substance and office to the mind of any one who reflects a moment upon the words; on the other hand, in ken and can, in sit and set, in man and men, in lead and led, in sing, sang, sung, and song, in bind, bound, band, and bond, and other like cases, the fusion has gone to its utmost extent: various combinations of subordinate elements with the roots of these words have