The Hebrew, and some other ancient Oriental tongues, are distinguished by the frequent occurrence of harsh aspirates and gutturals, and of vehement and discordant tones, which, in many instances, are utterly incapable of representation by means of any sounds in use among the nations of modern Europe. Now if language had an imitative origin, and if these ancient Oriental tongues can be viewed as specimens of language near its source, and the European tongues as specimens more altered by time, these features of contrast will be satisfactorily explained. This will be evident from the following considerations. As Language in its incipient state must have been an imperfect medium of communication, it may be concluded that the auxiliary aid of Signs was commonly resorted to; violent motions of the hands and the feet were probably combined with intonations of the voice, expressive, even to exaggeration, of the ideas intended to be conveyed. Now the influence of this cause was obviously calculated to give to language in its infancy the very qualities which are ascribed to the Hebrew and some other ancient languages, viz., fulness, distinctness, and in some respects extreme harshness. On the other hand, the natural progress of language will account also for the opposite qualities displayed by the dialects of modern Europe. As Society advanced, the severe features that belonged to Language at its first commencement must have gradually softened down. Words originally intelligible only as imitations of the qualities of objects, or by reason of the signs with which they were accompanied, must have gradually acquired conventional meanings, calculated to render the use of signs and of rough and painful articulations unnecessary. Compare, as examples, the words already noticed, viz., the English word “Crow,” and the German guttural word “Krä-he,” the English “Owl,” and the Swedish and Sanscrit “Ulula,” and “Ulu-ka.” Many writers on subjects of this nature appear to fall into considerable confusion of thought in the eulogies which they are prone to bestow on those particular languages to which their studies have been chiefly directed. In some instances we find a language extolled for the fulness and clearness of its sounds, while another is eulogized for its softness. These different qualities cannot with consistency be regarded as merits in languages that belong to the same stage of society. A more judicious view of the subject would involve the conclusion to which the previous considerations must give rise, viz., that a full and distinct language is the result of necessity in the infancy of society, and that a soft and abbreviated language is the joint product of the dictates of convenience and taste that influence its later stages.