[Footnote 6: Endlicher, _Chinesische Grammatik_, § 122. Wade, _Progressive Course on the Parts of Speech_, p. 102. A different division of words adopted by Chinese grammarians is that into _dead_ and _live words_, _ssè-tsé_ and _sing-tsé_, the former comprising nouns, the latter verbs. The same classes are sometimes called _tsing-tsé_ and _ho-tsé_, unmoved and moved words. This shows how purposeless it would be to try to find out whether language began with noun or verb. In the earliest phase of speech the same word was both noun and verb, according to the use that was made of it, and it is so still to a great extent in Chinese. See Endlicher, _Chinesische Grammatik_, § 219.] [Footnote 7: _Agglutinative_ seems an unnecessarily uncouth word, and as implying a something which glues two words together, a kind of _Bindevocal_, it is objectionable as a technical term. _Combinatory_ is technically more correct, and less strange than agglutinative.] [Footnote 8: Professor Pott, in his article entitled “Max Müller und die Kennzeichen der Sprachverwandtschaft,” published in 1855, in the _Journal of the German Oriental Society_, vol. ix. p. 412, says, in confutation of Bunsen’s view of a real historical progress of language from the lowest to the highest stage: “So cautious an inquirer as W. von Humboldt declines expressly, in the last chapter of his work on the _Diversity of the Structure of Human Language_ (p. 414), any conclusions as to a real historical progress from one stage of language to another, or at least does not commit himself to any definite opinion. This is surely something very different from that gradual progress, and it would be a question whether, by admitting such an historical progress from stage to stage, we should not commit an absurdity hardly less palpable than by trying to raise infusoria into horses or still further into men. [What was an absurdity in 1855 does not seem to be so in 1875.] Mr. Bunsen, it is true, does not hesitate to call the monosyllabic idiom of the Chinese an inorganic formation. But how can we get from an inorganic to an organic language? In nature such a thing would be impossible. No stone becomes a plant, no plant a tree, by however wonderful a metamorphosis, except, in a different sense, by the process of nutrition, _i.e._, by regeneration. The former question, which Mr. Bunsen answers in the affirmative, is disposed of by him with the short dictum: ‘The question whether a language can be supposed to begin with inflections, appears to us simply an absurdity;’ but unfortunately he does not condescend, by a clear illustration, to make that absurdity palpable. Why, in inflectional languages, should the grammatical form always have added itself to the matter subsequently and _ab extra_? Why should it not partially from the