Having  already  explained  the  elements  of  this  Yo-he-ho
theory,  it  will  here  be  enough  to  repeat  that  I  think  there  is
probably  some  measure  of  truth  in  it ;  although  I  likewise
think  it  self-evident  that  this  cannot  have  been  the  only  source
of  aboriginal  speech.  In  what  proportion  this  branch  of  ono-
matopoeia was  concerned  in  the  genesis  of  aboriginal  words —
supposing  it  to  have  been  concerned  at  all — we  have  now  no
means  of  even  conjecturing.  But  seeing  that  there  are  so  many
other  sources  of  onornatopoeia  supplied  by  Nature,  and  that
these  other  sources  are  so  apparent  in  all  existing  languages,
while  the  one  suggested  by  Noire  has  not  left  a  record  of  its
occurrence  in  any  language, — seeing  these  things,  I  conclude,
as  before  stated,  that  at  best  the  Yo-he-ho  principle  can  be
accredited  with  but  a  small  proportional  part  in  the  aboriginal
genesis  of  language.f  Therefore,  with  respect  to  this  hypo-
thesis I  have   only  three  remarks   to   make;    (i)  that  it  is

*  This  is  likewise  the  view  that  was  ably  supported  by  Geiger  on  philological
grounds,  Ursprung  der  Sprache,  1 869 ;  and  by  Haeckel  on  grounds  of  general
reasoning,  History  of  Creation,  English  trans.,  1876.
t  "  How  many  of  the  roots  of  language  were  formed  in  this  way  it  is  impossible
to  say ;  but  when  we  consider  that  there  is  no  modem  word  which  we  can  derive
from  such  cries  as  the  sailor  makes  when  he  hauls  a  rope,  or  the  groom  when  he
cleans  a  horse,  it  does  not  seem  likely  that  they  can  have  been  very  numerous  "
(Sayce,  Introdmtion,  (Sr^r.,  i.,  p.  no).
