It is to be borne in mind here, that the question is not
vhether thought could not have embodied itself in other
oi-ms than it has, whether other languages could not
Jave arisen, but whether the existing forms possess ad-
iptedness to the thought they convey. Life is not com-
rjelled to manifest itself in one only form, or in one pEir-
Scnlar set of forms, in any of the kingdoms, but it is
^mpelled to make the form- in which it does appear,
I'ital like itself. The forms, for aught that we know,
[Qay be infinite in number, in which the invisible prlnci-
i\k naay become sensible, but the corpse is no one of
hom.
fi'hought as the substance of discourse is logical, ne-
^ssary, and immutable, in its nature, while language as
|ie form is variable. The language of a people is conti-
lually undei'going a change, so that those who speak it
a its later periods, (it very often happens,) would be
lu intelligible to those who spoke it in its earlier ages,
i^haucer cannot be read by Englishmen of the present
[ay without a glossary.* Again, the languages of dif-
erent nations differ from each other. There is great
iariety in the changes of the verb to express the passive
brra. The subject is sometimes included in the verb,
ometimes is prefixed, and sometimes is suffixed to it.
Che Malay language assumes the plural instead of. the

* Yet even in lliis case, m Wordsworth trulj rematks, " ths affecting
nrts are ftlmost always expressed in language pnre, and nniversally. intel-
^'Llile even to this i»,y."—Prefar.e lo Lyrical Ballads. The more iiilease
id mtat the thought, the nearer the form approaches the essence, the mora



H.,t.db, Google



190 RELATION OF LANGUAGE TO THOUGHT.
