mate upon phonetic change ever be demonstrated, a natural influence upon the formation of sounds would thereby be proved, which would then have to be distinguished from a social or historical one. I am not able to give a satisfactory answer to this question, which has thus been agitated anew by OSTHOFF, and will accordingly pass on to the theory of GEORG CURTIUS.

CURTIUS, as we remarked above (page 103), regards as the chief cause of phonetic change the attempt to make the task easier, the love of convenience which is characteristic of the human race, and WHITNEY agrees with him in the main. The latter scholar says in his Language and the Study of Language, page 70:

"All articulate sounds are produced by an effort, by expenditure of muscular energy, in the lungs, throat and mouth. This effort, like every other which man makes, he has an instinctive disposition to seek relief from, to avoid we may call it laziness, or we may call it economy;

• .

It is the result of this love of convenience, or this carelessness, that no generation speaks words precisely as they were spoken by the preceding one; only the fact that language is destined to be a medium of communication, and regard for its intelligibleness (says WHITNEY), keep this carelessness within bounds.

The following considerations have especial weight against this theory.) It seems to me very doubtful whether we have the right to assume that love of ease plays so predominant a part in human society. Would it not be possible to assert, on the other hand, that most men will exert themselves to imitate as accurately as possible what they have heard spoken, because they are afraid of making themselves ridiculous by deviating from the rest of mankind? — and further, that in speaking, not only what is convenient is aimed at, but quite as much what is pleasing? (cf. BENFEY, Göttinger Nachrichten, 1877, No. 21, page 550) and that the impulse to consult convenience is opposed in a very effective and thorough man

1) See also LESKIEN in the Jenaer Literaturzeitung, 1875, No. 6.'

ner by these and other conceivable motives? Perhaps still more weight must be given to an objection derived from practical experience; it was raised by ASCOLI, one of the most prominent masters of empiricism. ASCOLI asserts that in the languages which come under our observation, innumerable cases of phonetic transfer are found which cannot be explained from the principle of "weakening" or "making easier", as CURTIUS expresses it; and CURTIUS himself is by no means disposed to regard this objection as wholly unjustified (cf. Grundzüge, page 410), indeed, in one important point he now assumes with ASCOLI a phonetic change opposed to the general principle to which be usually adheres, i. e. the change of os into TT in Greek.

Under these circumstances it would be desirable to find a more general theory, in which, in addition to the desire for convenience, the other imaginable motives of change might find their place. This theory will be easily formed if we first ask the question, whether the changes which are here mentioned make their appearance all at once, among all the members of a community using a common language, or whether they start from an individual, or several individuals, and spread in different directions. It is only necessary to ask this question to answer it. If here, as well as in the whole of the following discussion, we disregard the possible influence of the climate, about which I can assert nothing definite, it is then clear that changes in pronunciation begin with the single individual, and are propagated by imitation throughout groups and masses. The final cause of all linguistic change, therefore, can only lie in the fact that the single individual does not circulate the language imparted to him precisely as he received it, but always individualizes what was transmitted to him, whether from love of convenience, or from an aesthetic impulse, or because his ear, in spite of every effort, could not accurately enough grasp it, and his mouth reproduce it, or from some other cause. Now the equalizing tendency of universal linguistic custom continually exercises a counter-check upon these innovations, so that change in the phonetic form of language is a result of these individualizing and equalizing forces. (Cf. especially BENFEY, as quoted above.)

The following will serve as further illustration of these general statements. We must be on our guard not to magnify the sphere of action of the individual (even leaving out of consideration the counter-influence of society). In the first place, we must consider that in the transfer of sounds practical interests hardly ever come into play, as may be the case in the transfer of words. It may happen that the chief of a warlike race suddenly issues the command that the appellations corresponding to certain ideas shall be changed, in order that the spies of the enemy may not understand the conversation of the warriors; or a prominent statesman or poet may for some reason bring forward a forgotten word and suddenly reïnstate it in favor, but in the field of sounds there seems to be no occasion for such a violent and arbitrary encroachment of the individual. Then we must not forget that the sounds of language (or a part of them) are arranged in series in the mind of the speaker, and that the change of one sound must inevitably induce a corresponding change of the remaining members of its series. If the pronunciation of k is changed in a certain way, the corresponding change of the remaining gutturals occurs spontaneously, and thus a considerable portion of the sounds are excluded from the possibility of an individualizing change. It would perhaps be advantageous if more weight were given to this idea, in our observations of phonetic change, than has hitherto been the case.

Finally, we must regard it as certain that all (or nearly all) these acts take place unconsciously. How true this assertion is with regard to our language of today we can easily convince ourselves by experiment. Most people do not know how they speak, and it often requires the greatest pains to convince them that they really possess certain fine shades of pronunciation which an experienced observer detects in their speech.

After the above remarks, we can comprehend the derivation of various languages from one, as well as the relative uniformity within the bounds of one language.

The first point, the derivation of various languages from one, demands no detailed consideration. If we imagine a little

community of men, say a hundred souls, who live together within a small territory, the impulses, proceeding from single individuals, to introduce innovations, will be readily and quickly counterbalanced by the habit and inclination of the remainder, and the process of leveling will take place without difficulty. If, now, we suppose a larger mass of men in a wider domain, still forming a community united for purposes of intercourse, the process will be a different one. The leveling will occur, but in each individual instance it will require more time than in the case of the smaller community, and there will always be marked differences between the separate natural groups of speakers, since some will still speak in the old way, while others employ the new. The leveling process will not come to a stand-still until there is a cessation of intercourse; the boundary of speech will then be formed in connection with the boundary of intercourse. Various historical complications may naturally occur in the formation of this boundary of intercourse. The following is a simple case. A tribe settles on the shore of a large stream, and subsequently a portion wanders over to the opposite shore. The intercourse naturally continues for a number of years, but gradually the ties which bind the wanderers to their old kinsmen become loosened, meetings take place only on rare occasions, and the linguistic impulses no longer cross the boundaries. Thus there is opportunity on both sides for the formation of a new language, which can develop more or less quickly according to circumstances. The case is more complicated if we assume that a portion of the emigrating party returns after a number of years; their language, if it has not yet gained a strong independent development, will perhaps be wholly absorbed by the old language; or it will retain its individuality by means of one or more peculiarities; or if the difference is already too great, a linguistic island will be formed, which may remain for centuries, until at length intercourse produces uniformity.1) But it is neither practicable nor necessary to bring forward in detail the endless variety of historical possibilities. In all

1) This would be the place to mention the mixed languages [Mischsprachen], if a thorough treatment of them were in existence.

cases the principle will evidently be found true that no unity of speech can exist where there is no unity of intercourse.

It is more difficult to answer the question, how great the uniformity will be within the bounds of a homogeneous language. In the first place, it is clear that the different individuals of a linguistic community can never speak exactly alike; we must therefore confess at the outset that a homogeneous language in its strictest sense can only exist in the individual, or among a limited number of individuals, and the question which occupies us will accordingly be more accurately worded as follows: can it be expected, in the case of the single individual, that phonetic change will take place in a perfectly uniform and regular manner?

I

see,

As we should expect, it is precisely in answering this question that the difference of stand-point becomes manifest. But in one respect perfect harmony seems to reign. So far as it is universally admitted (or should be admitted) that in the passage from one pronunciation of a sound to another a state of fluctuation can arise, in which the same individual speaks now in one way, now in another. SIEVERS, for example (Lautphysiologie, page 127), says in regard to this point:

"The spontaneous construction of new phonetic forms naturally has its starting-point in the single individual, or a series of individuals, and it is only by subsequent imitation that these innovations are gradually transferred to the whole linguistic community to which these individuals belong. The complete adjustment between the colliding forms, the old and the new, may in some cases require a long time. For a certain space both forms will be used interchangeably; they will also be differently employed according to the position of the sound, until finally the new phonetic form wholly supplants the older." At the same time, SIEVERS mentions some instances of such fluctuation derived from practical observation: "Examples of fluctuation between two forms are found in many North German dialects, which use sonant and surd mediae1) without

1) The reader must bear in mind that SIEVERS' classification of the "Geräuschlaute” (i. e. all except the vowels, liquids and nasals) is as follows: