Page:Observations on Man 1834.djvu/226

 Hebrew and Arabic (whose original plans agree), though the first colonies, which came by sea into Greece and Italy, came from Palestine and Egypt, i.e. from the neighbourhood of countries where Hebrew and Arabic were spoken.

Fifthly, The natural deviation of languages, since history has been clear and certain, does by no means correspond to a supposed natural derivation of all languages from one mother-tongue, especially in so short a time as the interval between the flood and the rise of many different ancient languages. Let the reader here only reflect upon the great difference of the Biblical Hebrew from the ancientest Greek extant, and the small difference of this from modern Greek, or of the Biblical Hebrew from the Rabbinical.

If now the confusion of tongues was miraculous, we may conjecture, from the agreements and disagreements of mother-languages from each other, that it was of the following kind.

First, That the original monosyllabic words of the antediluvian language were incorporated into each new language.

Secondly, That as these words included only few of the articulate sounds of which the human voice is capable, the several families were put upon making new articulations, some having one set, some another, imparted to them.

Thirdly, That each family had a new stock of words given them, consisting partly of old, partly of new articulations; and that this new stock far exceeded the old one in number and variety.

Fourthly, That a new and different etymology and syntax were also communicated to each family.

Fifthly, That there were as many new languages given as there are heads of families mentioned Gen. x.; the confusion of tongues, by which the division of the earth was effected, not happening till Joktan’s sons were old enough to be heads of families, though it had been determined and declared by God before. Those families, however, which were derived from the same stock, or had contiguous countries assigned to them, might be inspired with languages that had a proportionable affinity.

Whatever may become of these particular conjectures, I think it highly probable, that the new languages far exceeded the old common one in the number and variety of words; and that the confusion of tongues was by this means a beneficial gift and blessing to mankind, as all God’s other chastisements used to be.

We may also see reasons to make us judge, that a diversity of languages is suited to the other circumstances of mankind. For this must prevent the infection of vice from spreading with such rapidity, as it would otherwise have done, had mankind lived together in one large body, and had a free communication with each other by means of the same language.

Diversity of languages does also both help the invention, and correct false judgments. For we think in words, as appears by