Page:Language and the Study of Language.djvu/358

336 meaning by which in our own language we have formed so many relational words and phrases; but there is no fusion, no close combination, even, of elements; these are simply placed side by side, without losing their separate individuality. There is no reason assignable why a truly agglutinative stage might not possibly grow out of a condition of things like this; and it is claimed by some that, in certain of the popular dialects (which differ notably from the kwan-hwa, the common dialect of the lettered classes), agglutination, to a limited extent, is actually reached.

While thus the Chinese is, in certain respects of fundamental importance, the most rudimentary and scanty of all known languages, the one least fitted to become a satisfactory means of expression of human thought, it is not without its compensations. The power which the human mind has over its instruments, and independent of their imperfections, is strikingly illustrated by the history of this form of speech, which has successfully answered all the purposes of a cultivated, reflecting, studious, and ingenious people throughout a career of unequalled duration; which has been put to far higher and more varied uses than most of the multitude of highly organized dialects spoken among men—dialects rich in flexibility, adaptiveness, and power of expansion, but poor in the mental poverty and weakness of those who should wield them. In the domain of language, as in some departments of art and industry, no race has been comparable with the Chinese for capacity to accomplish wonderful things with rude and uncouth instruments.

The principal nations of Farther India are the Annamese or Cochin-Chinese, the Siamese, and the Burmese; tribes of inferior numbers, civilization, and importance are the Kwanto, Cambodians, Peguans, Karens, and others. Annamese culture is of Chinese origin; the races of Siam and Burmah emerge from obscurity as they receive knowledge, letters, and religion (Buddhism) together from India. Their languages are, like the Chinese, monosyllabic and isolating; but they are as much inferior to that tongue in distinctness of construction and precision of expression as the people that speak them have shown themselves to be inferior to the