In the Sanscrit we find the verb _kan_ to see, and the later word _gna_, to know, as the result of seeing. The words are practically spelled alike, each beginning with a guttural sound. The latter could only have, at first, the idea of acquiring or possessing knowledge by sight. It is evident that the Greek [Greek: gignoscho] and the Latin _gnosco_ came directly from the Sanscrit _gna_, after the vowel between the guttural _g_, or _k_ and _n_, had been eliminated; and it is also evident that the _g_, or guttural sound, with which _gna_ and its Greek and Latin children began, was vocalized. The other branch of the Aryan family retained the vowel between the guttural sound and the terminal _n_. Hence we have the Gothic _kunnan, kaenna_, Anglo-Saxon _cunnan_, German _kennen_, to examine, to know. Hence, also, our _can_, to know, to be able; _cunning_, knowing, skilful; and _know_, to perceive, to have knowledge of. While we pronounce _know_ without the guttural sound, the word itself and the significance it embodies necessitate the continued use of the _k_. The sound of _know_, as we use it, gives no idea of sight or of knowledge or of ability. When we hear it articulated, and we understand that _know_ is the word meant, we then recognize the sense intended to be conveyed. We are able to do this because of our ability to construct and give arbitrary significance to new words, and to transfer the sense of an old word to one newly formed. When any word is used in speech of which the pronunciation does not correspond with the letters with which the word is written, we instinctively image the written or printed word in the mind, and others apprehend the sense intended. I am aware of a certain answer that may be made to this--namely, that illiterate persons are able to understand a word only from its sound as it falls on their ears; but I am speaking now of a civilized language as used by a civilized people, and illiterates and their language do not come under this purview.