About the Book
Table of Contents
Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V
Part VI
|
Part V: The Confusion of Languages
Chapter 3
The Confusion of Language:
Ancient and Modern
IT
HAS ALREADY been pointed out that while Indo-Europeans have tended
to develop their languages by a process of simplification, and
Semitic peoples have tended to preserve their languages more
or less unchanged, the Hamitic peoples have proliferated their
languages to an extraordinary degree. Some will object to the
first observation and argue that Indo-European languages have
diverged widely. This is true, but the divergence has been a
very orderly one -- orderly enough in fact that there is no longer
the slightest question as to their derivation from a single source
at the beginning. But so diverse are the languages of Ham that
even yet there are many who argue against the possibility of
ever convincingly demonstrating their essential relationship
as a family.
Loomis
Havemeyer has emphasized this diversity between languages of
the Indians north of Mexico, for example. He says they may be
divided into fifty-nine different groups -- and adds: (65)
Each one
of these groups is made up of numerous dialects, sometimes as
many as 20 in one stock, so that it is impossible for an Indian
from one part of the country to make himself understood in another
district by means of his spoken language. It even happens that
tribes only a short distance apart are not able to converse.
For
all this, he comments, "Yet some few things seem to indicate
that at one time far in antiquity these numerous families may
have had a common beginning."
Frequent reference is made by travellers
to the fact that Hamitic peoples separated in point of time by
only a few decades and geographically by as little as a single
river may nevertheless be quite unable any longer to understand
one another's speech. Cunningham Geikie notes that: (66)
65. Havermeyer Loomis, Ethnography,
Ginn and Co., New York, 1929, p.265 27
66. Geike, Cunningham, Hours and the Bible, Alden,
New York, 1886, pp.126-7
pg
1 of 11
Among
the one hundred islands occupied by the Melanesian race, there
are no less than two hundred languages, differing from each other
as much as Dutch and German. Among some races of Central Africa,
Barth tells us, the want of friendly intercourse between tribes
and families has caused so many dialects to spring up as to make
communication between them difficult. On the river Amazon, Mr.
Bates found several individuals in a single canoe speaking mutually
unintelligible languages. It is in fact impossible to fix an
approximate period for the rise of such new forms of speech.
If there is nothing like literature
or society to keep changes within limits, says Max Muller, two
villages separated for only a few generations will soon become
mutually unintelligible. This takes place in America as well
as on the borders of China and India, and in the north of Asia.
Messerschmidt relates that the Ostiaks, though really speaking
the same language everywhere, have produced so many words and
forms peculiar to each tribe that even within the limits of ten
or twelve miles, conversations between them become extremely
difficult.
Referring
to these same islands, the Melanesians, Bishop Selwyn remarked
upon their diversity of languages, saying that "nothing
but a special interposition of the Divine power could have produced
such a confusion of tongues as we have here! In Islands no larger
than the Isle of Wight, we find various dialects unknown to each
other!" (67)
Geikie speaks of the absence of
literature as being a cause of rapid change, and undoubtedly
this is true in part. However, it is not the whole answer, (68)
because it is found, for example, that a syllabary of ideographs
(i.e., the basis of written language) may in the course of time
come to be given entirely different sound values by two different
communities who nevertheless continue to use it. The written
form remains largely unchanged, but the interpretation may change
radically. In a very simple way this is true in English where,
for example, what is written as an L may be pronounced
as an R.
67. Quoted by D. M. Panton,
Dawn, Sept., 1945, p.1095. R. M. Ritland mentions that
in New Guinea several hundred languages may be found on
a single island (A Search for Meaning, Pacific Press,
Omaha, 1970, p.260, note 50). Theodora Kroeber, the wife of A.
L. Kroeber, the dean of American anthropologists, in her beautiful
account of the life of "the last wild Indian in North America,"
underscores the same phenomenon here too. She speaks of the six
great linguistic superfamilies each made up of numbers of separate
families of speech. "Five of these superfamilies were represented
in California, and contained among them twenty-one basic languages
which were for the most part mutually unintelligible. . . . But
this is not yet the whole of the story, since the twenty-one
languages further separated and elaborated themselves into a
hundred and thirteen known dialects." Some of these in turn
were as different as Swedish is from German, making their speakers
unable to communicate. There were then twice as many Indian languages
on record in California as there are counties in the state today!
(Ishi: in Two Worlds, University of California
Press, 1971, pp.1-16).
68. Hedderly Smith (The Missionary and Anthropology, Moody
Press, Chicago, 1945, p.53) quotes Bloomfield to the effect that
most languages were spoken throughout most of their history by
people who did not read or write, yet such languages are just
as stable as literary ones.
pg.2
of 11
Many
English people pronounce Psalm as "Psarm"; in
the New World the L may be left out entirely and the word
pronounced as "Psam." When the Chinese syllabary was
adopted by the Japanese, they attached entirely new sound values
to the ideographs. Thus the symbol (Fig. 1a) meaning "moon"
will be read as wuek in Peking, as nguok in Fukien,
and as goat in Amoy. In all three cases the meaning is
the same, namely, "moon," but the vocalization is altogether
different. As Miriam Chapin said: (69)
It follows
that an Amoy reader can get the full meaning out of a page of
Chinese without the remotest idea of how to pronounce it. If
he has to read it out loud, he will utter totally different sounds
from the man in Peking.
In
the case of the English pronunciation of the L as an R,
the underlying causes are subtle, though linguists have theories
to account for it. In the case of the Japanese adoption of Chinese
characters, it was merely a matter of convenience. When we go
back, however, to Sumerian, the most ancient written language
in Mesopotamia, a language which as we have already noted seems
to be in some way related to Chinese, we come up against evidence
of "confusion," the reasons for which are much more
difficult to discern.
Figure 1a, b.
The
kind of confusion I am referring to may be illustrated by considering
a representative Sumerian ideograph. For example, the sign (Fig. 1b) may
be vocalized as ut, ud, udu, umu, um, tam, par, hish, and a number
of other alternative sounds! One of the problems of learning cuneiform
is that the student not only has to memorize so many different sound values
for a single sign, but also has to determine which particular sound the
original scribe had in mind in any given instance. There are some rules
governing this which help, but one still wonders whether a text may not
have been exceedingly difficult to interpret correctly even by a well-educated
Sumerian.
Now, if we revert to the events that took place during the building
of the Tower of Babel -- in which the Sumerians were undoubtedly involved
-- it may very well have come to pass that a situation arose where contemporary
groups of people, who had joined in the undertaking and who shared a common
cuneiform syllabary for keeping written records, began to attribute to
the signs different sound values that were not shared by others in the
community. Hence would arise the kind of "confusion" which the
student of Sumerian finds in even the earlier cuneiform texts.
It is, of course, quite possible that God
could have brought
69. Chapin, Miriam, How
People Talk, Longmans Green, Toronto, 1947, p.73.
pg.3
of 11
about
this confusion of language instantaneously in a way which must
be accounted as nothing short of miraculous. He did virtually
the opposite instantaneously, as recorded in Acts 2. In the first
case it was to render futile the efforts of men to reach heaven
by their own means; in the second case it was to guarantee that
men might reach heaven by God's means, thus undoing the curse
of Babel and deliberately uniting men where they had formerly
been deliberately divided. But if the "confounding"
was not miraculous, the record certainly indicates something
unusual. I suggest that these builders abandoned the project
because their lines of communication broke down, for reasons
which are not so much miraculous as they are rather exceptional
-- and are actually still subject to examination. The natural
tendency of Hamitic peoples to diversify their languages almost
endlessly is exceptional enough in itself. What made the events
of Genesis 11 even more exceptional was that God somehow greatly
accelerated this natural tendency.
From the tenor of these remarks
it will be concluded that we are limiting our view almost entirely
to the Hamites, as though Semites and Japhethites took no part
in these events. As we have seen, there is evidence of the presence
of Japhethites and Semites in Mesopotamia in very early times,
so that these two must also have been there at that time. But
there is a tradition that the people who decided to build a city
and a tower to preserve themselves against too wide a scattering
were the children of Ham only and did not include either Semites
or Japhethites. In view of what has been said about the building
of cities, and the fact that the city-idea was not originally
native to either the Semites or Indo-Europeans, this tradition
seems more than reasonable. In an early edition of the Speaker's
Commentary there is an observation by Bishop Browne as follows:
(70)
It
has been thought, though perhaps on insufficient ground, that
"children of men," as in Gen. 6:2, designates the impious
portion of the human race as opposed to "children of God";
and possibly the rebellious offspring of Ham.
We may be on safer ground, perhaps,
when we find an extant version purporting to be the Book of
Jasher limiting the building of Babel to the Hamites, though
without actually saying why. (71) The observation
70. Quoted by W. S. Smith,
Lessons on Genesis, Church of England Sunday School lnstitute,
London, no date, p.42.
71. Referred to by D. Woods, The Bible Confirmed by Archaeology,
Covenant Publishing Company, London 1945, pp.8-9. On the
authenticity of the Book of Jasher see the article by
J. Kitto in his Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature, Black,
Edinburgh, 1845, vol. 2, pp.70ff., and the Schaff-Herzog Religious
Encyclopedia, Funk and Wagnalls, New York, 1883, vol. 2,
p.1194. The Talmud supports this tradition: see H. Polano, The
Talmud, Warne, London, no date, p.28.
pg.4
of 11
is presented
to the reader with as little comment as is appropriate to what
the original writer presumed to be a well-known fact. This interesting
record must be quite old, for it is referred to early in Scripture,
the first mention of it being in Joshua 10:13.
In support of the tradition that
only Hamites were involved in the project, two other facts may
be pointed out: (a) that neither Indo-European nor Semitic languages
actually suffered any judgment of confusion -- as the subsequent
course of development of these languages has indicated; and (b)
that those who were thereupon forcibly scattered abroad over
the face of the earth (Genesis 11:8) were Hamites only, for there
is evidence that the first pioneer settlers in every part of
the world were invariably of Hamitic stock. Indo-Europeans have
since been "enlarged" and in many parts of the world
have followed and displaced the original settlers (as in North
America, Australia, in very early times in India, and even in
Europe). Preceding the Aryans were the Basques, the Magyars,
and the Turks in Europe, and the Indus Valley cultures in India.
Although he knew nothing of the latter, Prichard speaks of these
aboriginal races as having spread (72)
. . . through all the remotest regions
of the Old World, to the northward, eastward, and westward of
the Iranian nations, whom they seem everywhere to have preceded,
so that they appear in comparison with the (Japhethite) colonies
in the light of aboriginal or native inhabitants, vanquished
and often driven into mountainous and remote tracts by more powerful
invading tribes.
The
spreading abroad of Semites is of even more recent date. It appears
in fact that "confusion" of language is associated
with the dispersion of the Hamitic people, but can hardly be
applied to either Japhethites or Semites at all.
As a method of frustrating a united
effort, the confusion of tongues seems almost perfectly suited.
When Genesis 11:1 speaks of man as having "one lip and one
words" (so the Hebrew), it suggests that the original unity
of language was very complete, involving both pronunciation and
vocabulary. Various interpretations have been placed upon these
phrases, and some alternative translations have been proposed.
I was rather interested recently to note in a Jewish commentary
of a century and a half ago, written by a Russian rabbi, M. L.
Malbim, that the phrase "of one speech" is rendered
"of few words," (73) indicating as Malbim suggests that
the people had but a small vocabulary. The idea is a novel one,
but what really amused
72. Prichard, J. C., Researches
into the Physical History of Mankind, Houlston and Stoneman
London, vol. 3, 1836, p.9.
73. See J. A Hertz, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs: Genesis,
Oxford University Press, 1929, p.97.
pg.5
of 11
me was
to find that Dr. T. J. Meek, who was responsible for translating
this portion of Scripture for the Revised Standard Version adopted
the same rendering! It would be difficult to justify it from
the original Hebrew itself, but if one believed that everything
has evolved, including language of course, then the rendering
fits very nicely into such a preconceived notion. Early man naturally
had to have a simple form of language. . . .
It might be difficult, on the other
hand, if man did have only a few words, to see how a judgment
taking the form of a confusion of language could be very meaningful.
Other commentators have rightly observed that the confusion must
have resulted in fact, not from the paucity of words, but from
their multiplicity; such a multiplicity implies a fairly complex
organization of society, the level of organization that would
be required for such an undertaking. Can one imagine, for example,
a tribe of Australian aborigines suddenly deciding to build a
tower of very great height? Does not the nature of the undertaking
indicate a high level of economic organization in the place and,
therefore, a sophisticated language?
Moreover, even if Meek's assumption
that this was a very simple society were justified, it would
still be a mistake to suppose that a people who were in one sense
"primitive" necessarily had a simple language, i.e.,
"few words." As a matter of fact, the opposite is often
the case. Kroeber attributes this common misconception to the
faulty understanding on the part of earlier investigators of
primitive societies. (74) The point has been emphasized many
times since, as by Kluckhohn, Coon, and Taylor. (75)
It is widely agreed today that
no language can be classed as "simple." Every language
is completely adequate for the culture which sustains it and
which it sustains. Nor do languages naturally decline -- unless
the culture declines. There is a tendency, it seems for cultures
to decline especially when dislocated by reason of forced migrations
or comparable factors; when this happens, the associated languages
suffer also. It is in this sense that the proliferation of early
Hamitic languages was both a cause and an effect of the forcible
scattering of these people. At the same time, Kroeber points
out, (76)
74. Kroeber, A. L., Anthropology,
Harcourt Brace, New York, 1948, p.233
75. Kluckhohn, Clyde, Mirror for Man, McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1949, p.148: "In contrast to the general course of
cultural evolution, languages move from the complex to the simple."
Also, C. S. Coon, A Reader in General Anthropology, Holt,
New York, 1948, p.148. 9, p.223; Griffith Taylor, Environment,
Race, and Migration, University of Toronto Press,
1945, p.427.
76. Kroeber, A. L., ref. 74, p.221.
pg.6
of 11
Speech
tends to be one of the most persistent populational characters;
and ethnic boundaries are most often speech boundaries.
God's method of scattering the Hamites
by dividing their speech forms was, therefore, a profoundly effective
and truly lasting one. Moreover, this lasting quality, according
to Bloomfield, may not depend merely upon literacy, but is much
more deeply rooted. Even in our own day we see the persistence
of native languages in spite of pressures tending toward their
disappearance. This is true in Ireland, of course, and it has
recently been demonstrated of the Basques, who were under considerable
coercion from the Franco regime to abandon their native tongue.
(77)
Returning to the circumstances
surrounding the initial confusion of languages, I was intrigued
to note in a quite ancient commentary by Harwood, dated 1789,
with reference to the words (Genesis 11:5), "the Lord came
down to see the city," the following observation, (78)
This is
delivered (i.e., spoken) after the manner of men and here suggests
to us, with what caution, as it were, God proceeds to judgment.
The same is intended in Gen. 18:21. It always signifies that
God takes particular notice of the actions of mankind and intimates
His design of performing something extraordinary.
God's
judgments are not the sudden impulsive reactions of an all-powerful
and angry deity. Rather they are the considered, just, and exceedingly
effective methods by which He takes the innate capacities of
men which could be used for good and sees to it, when they are
used for evil, that they will serve to make the punishment exactly
fit the crime. What is the nature of this capacity of the Hamitic
mind which God used? We have already observed that it was a capacity
to diversify speech. Diversification of speech is what results:
but why does it result? Why do people with this capacity tend
to multiply their languages in this way? In what way do their
minds operate differently from ours?
It
has been known for many years that Hamitic people have a peculiar
tendency towards concreteness of thought and are normally indifferent
to or disinclined to the making of generalizations. This is strongly
reflected in their linguistic forms. Let me illustrate what I
mean by this.
In the language of the Yaghans,
there are more than 10,000 words to indicate where one comes
from or is going to, either north,
77. See feature article by
Iris Johnson, "Basques: Historical Enigma," in the
Christian Science Monitor, Thursday, Aug. 11, 1960, p.9.
78. Harwood, Thomas, Annotations Upon Genesis, published
privately, London, 1789, p.58.
pg.7
of 11
south,
east, or west, and from above, below, outside, or inside. (79)
According to Bridges, other factors may require the use of an
even larger number of words when the circumstances surrounding
the coming or going of the individual referred to involve some
specific time of day. In other words, if a man is coming from
outside from the north, one verb would be used. If he is coming
from inside (for example, inside a house) from the east, an entirely
different word would be required. If the time of day of the event
is changed, then another and entirely unrelated verb is used.
And so it goes on with an almost infinite number of permutations
and combinations, new forms being readily invented when the situation
demands, each word unrelated in sound to the previous one, until
the list accumulates to over 10,000.
Again and again this observation
has been made of non-Indo-European languages. Every event is
unique. The common factors in events which, once observed, could
vastly simplify such vocabularies are evidently not noted. Livingstone
in Africa remarked that a score of words might be used to indicate
a variety of gaits. (80)
One might walk leaning
forward or backward, or swaying from side to side, lazily or
smartly, swinging the arms or only one arm, head up or down,
or some other way. For each of these modes of walking there is
a particular verb form, a clear indication that the people who
use these forms of speech have overlooked what is common to the
situation -- i.e., walking -- and are preoccupied with what is
distinctive in each.
The Lapps have a great many terms to
denote various kinds of reindeer, not merely according to their
species, but according to their age, whether sleek or mangy,
starved or fat, frisky or docile. (81) The word
reindeer as a generic term does not form any part of these
words as it would for us. There are 11 words for cold, depending
upon who is cold, how they are cold, and why they are cold; 20
words for ice; and 41 words for snow in its various forms --
yet no word for cold or ice or snow per se. They have
not classified objects nor categorized experiences. Everything
is known and felt as concrete, isolated, and uniquely individual.
Moreover, it is a general rule that the more intense their interest,
the more profuse their vocabulary. The Aymara Indians of Peru
have more than 209 words for potato;
79. Bridges, Thomas, "Notes
on the Structure of the Yahgan," in Journal of the Anthropology
Institute, vol.23, 1893, p.53-80
80. Livingstone, David, The Zambezi and Its Tributaries, Harper,
New York, 1865, p.537.
81. Keane, ____, "The Laps; Their Origin," in Journal
of the Anthropology Institute, vol.15, 1885, p. 235
pg.8
of 11
the Arabs
several thousand words relating to the camel. (82)
So different, in fact, is the mode
of expression in such languages that translation into an Indo-European
language in any exact sense becomes exceedingly difficult, and
in any case tends to occupy many more words. In the languages
of North America, a blow with the fist would not employ the same
verb as would be used to describe a blow with the open hand.
(83) The Indian's emphasis is not upon the blow as such
or the hand as such, but the whole event involving the attacker,
the victim, the circumstances, everything. In fact to him there
is virtually nothing common in the two events, and to repeat
the word blow or hand would, in his view, be to
mislead the reader. This is what makes translation look simple
enough superficially, but often be very difficult.
It follows from all this
that such a way of viewing things, of naming objects, or of describing
events invites the constant invention of new words and new modes
of expression. Instead of playing upon a basic form with suffixes
and prefixes, the creation of entirely new forms is the rule.
Consequently any new undertaking results very quickly in a large
addition to the vocabulary of the language. And the ease with
which such enlargement takes place soon renders a fair proportion
of the vocabulary of one group unintelligible to a neighbouring
community.
By greatly accelerating this
process, God could have easily seen to it that those who took
responsibility for carrying out different parts of the program
in the building of the city and the Tower of Babel very soon
found themselves unable to understand one another -- particularly
since it was an unusual undertaking. In this way, the very novelty
of the venture itself was the cause of its own abandonment.
Curiously
enough, although this reconstruction of events is based entirely
upon the much better understanding we now have of the form and
structure of non-Japhetic languages, the far-seeing Dante in
a way anticipated it. Here is what Dante wrote: (84)
Almost
the whole human race had come together to the work (of the tower
of Babel). Some were giving orders, some were acting as architects,
some were building the walls, some were adjusting the masonry
with rules, some were laying on the mortar with trowels, some
were quarrying stone, some engaged in bringing it by water, some
by land; and different companies
82. Tschopik, H., Jr., "The
Aymara; Handbook of South American Indians," Bulletin 143,
Bureau American Ethnology , no.2, 1946, p.501ff. As regards
camels,: actually 5,744 words, according to von Hammer: so Max
Muller, ref. 4, vol. 1, p.383.
83. Cassirer, Ernst, An Essay on Man, Yale University
Press, 1948, p.135.
84. Quoted by A. Gode, "The Case for Interlingua,"
Scientific Monthly, Aug. 1953, p.82, from Dante's De
Vulgari Eloquentia.
pg.9
of 11
were engaged in
different other occupations, when they were struck by such confusion
from Heaven that all those who were attending to the work, using
one and the same language, left the work on being estranged by
many different languages and never again came together in the
same intercourse.
For the same language remained
to those alone who were engaged in the same kind of work; for
instance, one language remained to all the architects, another
to those preparing the stone; and so it happened to each group
of workers. And the human race was then accordingly divided into
as many different languages as there were different branches
to the work.
What this amounts to in effect is
the accelerated formation of a number of technical jargons involving
in some instances the creation of highly specialized vocabularies,
quite unintelligible to all except those who were members of
the trade guild, and in other instances the attachment of entirely
new meanings to familiar words which thereby came to signify
something quite different to those who employed them.
It can hardly be doubted that mankind
is slowly strengthening his presumption today to take heaven
by storm in a somewhat analogous fashion. What is hindering --
increasingly -- the realization of this presumption is the rise
of a whole new series of technical jargons, once again involving
in some instances the creation of an entirely new terminology
and in others the attachment of specialized meanings to otherwise
familiar words. Thus it comes about that those trained in one
discipline have difficulty in communicating with those trained
in some other. For example, the electronics expert and the architect
may both speak of noise, but they are not talking about the same
thing. The problem of inter-communication between disciplines
has become one of the most acute and greatest hindrances to the
further advance of man's conquest of his world, a greater hindrance
indeed than even his lack of complete knowledge. It is as though
God were once again setting limits to his ambition by the multiplication
of languages.
William Temple had something like
this in mind when he wrote: (85)
The
supreme usurpation is spoken of as frustrated by the confusion
of men's speech. The ambition of Babel -- to build a tower by
which man should ascend to the throne of God -- led to that name
becoming a synonym for confusion. For man could achieve even
the semblance of success in his titanic self-assertion only if
he could prevent the outbreak of divisions and rivalries. The
multiplication of tongues, each representing a special tradition
and a peculiar hope, has effectively prevented man from achieving
a godless contentment. Thus from the selfish ambition which essays
the blasphemous task of establishing an independence of God and
usurpation of His throne springs
85. Temple, William, The
Church Looks Forward, Macmillan, London, 1944, p.175.
pg.10
of 11
also the selfish
rivalry which makes the effort ineffectual. Evil has at least
this much of good about it that its own nature renders it self-destructive.
No matter how we look at it, the "confusion
of tongues" seems to have been the most perfect means by
which God could achieve His purpose, not only of preventing man
from attempting what could only be to his own hurt in the end
-- namely, complete unanimity in any undertaking -- but also
of ensuring that the earth would be sufficiently settled that
man could in time have dominion over every part of it. Because
man is sinful, complete unanimity can only ever be achieved for
evil, and the only such unanimity that Scripture recognizes is
that which the Lord will destroy at His coming.
In conclusion, I should like to
re-state what I have said about the nature of the confusion of
language at the building of the Tower of Babel which made this
event so uniquely appropriate in the circumstances. Hamitic languages
have shown two lines of historical development which are in conflict:
on the one hand (as in China) (86) remaining virtually unchanged for
thousands of years; and on the other hand, changing almost beyond
recognition within a few generations. How are we to reconcile
these two tendencies?
The answer to both anomalies is
found in the special nature of the Hamitic mind. The divergent
tendency seems to find expression whenever Hamites move into
what is, for them, a new environment or whenever an entirely
new undertaking engages their energies. On the other hand, as
long as they remain stationary in one place, their languages
are marked by an extreme conservatism. Thus it comes about that
when migrations separate them, they readily invent new forms
and new vocabularies which thereafter persist and make any re-union
unlikely if not impossible. Thus boundaries between such separated
groups become highly persistent. The end result is that while
Hamitic languages do not seem to change by development, as
the Japhetic languages and Semitic languages do, change occurs
suddenly and such changes become exceedingly permanent -- and
divisive. The purpose of God to send forth the Hamitic people
with their very strong bent toward practical things, which made
them so peculiarly well suited as the world's first pioneers,
was thus beautifully served by a judgment which was, as many
of God's judgments are, in one sense actually a blessing in disguise.
86. Needham points out that
whereas the ordinary Englishman of today can hardly go back with
understanding further than three or four hundred years in his
own literature, to the literary Chinese the works of millennia
are open. See Joseph Needham, Science and Civilization in
China, Cambridge University Press, 1954, vol. I, p.40. This
applies, however, not to the spoken forms, but only to the literary
ones.
pg.11
of 11
Copyright © 1988 Evelyn White. All rights
reserved
Previous Chapter *
End of Part V * Next Chapter (Part VI)
|