On the Evolution of Language | Page 8

is used as a predicant. In the passive voice also it is thus
used, and the participles are nouns or adjectives. In what is sometimes
called the progressive form of the active voice nouns and adjectives are
differentiated in the participles, and the verb "to be" is used as a
predicant. But in what is usually denominated the active voice of the
verb, the English language has undifferentiated parts of speech. An
examination of the history of the verb to be in the English language
exhibits the fact that it is coming more and more to be used as the
predicant; and what is usually called the common form of the active
voice is coming more and more to be limited in its use to special
significations.
The real active voice, indicative mode, present tense, first person,
singular number, of the verb to eat, is am eating. The expression I eat,
signifies I am accustomed to eat. So, if we consider the common form
of the active voice throughout its entire conjugation, we discover that
many of its forms are limited to special uses.
Throughout the conjugation of the verb the auxiliaries are predicants,
but these auxiliaries, to the extent that they are modified for mode,
tense, number, and person, contain adverbial and connective elements.
In like manner many of the lexical elements of the English language
contain more than one part of speech: To ascend is to go up; to descend
is to go down; and to depart is to go from.

Thus it is seen that the English language is also synthetic in that its
parts of speech are not completely differentiated. The English, then,
differs in this respect from an Indian language only in degree.
In most Indian tongues no pure predicant has been differentiated, but in
some the verb to be, or predicant, has been slightly developed, chiefly
to affirm, existence in a place.
It will thus be seen that by the criterion of organization Indian tongues
are of very low grade.
It need but to be affirmed that by the criterion of sematologic content
Indian languages are of a very low grade. Therefore the
frequently-expressed opinion that the languages of barbaric peoples
have a more highly organized grammatic structure than the languages
of civilized peoples has its complete refutation.
It is worthy of remark that all paradigmatic inflection in a civilized
tongue is a relic of its barbaric condition. When the parts of speech are
fully differentiated and the process of placement fully specialized, so
that the order of words in sentences has its full significance, no useful
purpose is subserved by inflection.
Economy in speech is the force by which its development has been
accomplished, and it divides itself properly into economy of utterance
and economy of thought. Economy of utterance has had to do with the
phonic constitution of words; economy of thought has developed the
sentence.
All paradigmatic inflection requires unnecessary thought. In the clause
if he was here, if fully expresses the subjunctive condition, and it is
quite unnecessary to express it a second time by using another form of
the verb to be. And so the people who are using the English language
are deciding, for the subjunctive form is rapidly becoming obsolete
with the long list of paradigmatic forms which have disappeared.
Every time the pronoun he, she, or it is used it is necessary to think of
the sex of its antecedent, though in its use there is no reason why sex

should be expressed, say, one time in ten thousand. If one pronoun
non-expressive of gender were used instead of the three, with three
gender adjectives, then in nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine
cases the speaker would be relieved of the necessity of an unnecessary
thought, and in the one case an adjective would fully express it. But
when these inflections are greatly multiplied, as they are in the Indian
languages, alike with the Greek and Latin, the speaker is compelled in
the choice of a word to express his idea to think of a multiplicity of
things which have no connection with that which he wishes to express.
A Ponka Indian, in saying that a man killed a rabbit, would have to say
the man, he, one, animate, standing, in the nominative case, purposely
killed, by shooting an arrow, the rabbit, he, the one, animate, sitting, in
the objective case; for the form of a verb to kill would have to be
selected, and the verb changes its form by inflection and incorporated
particles to denote person, number, and gender as animate or inanimate,
and gender as standing, sitting, or lying, and case; and the form of the
verb would also express whether the killing was done accidentally or
purposely, and whether it was by shooting or