How should any word be either _sweet-sounding_ or _not sweet-sounding_? Sound is a something which has no _taste_, and sweetness is a something which makes no _noise_. Now the very gist and crux of this whole question of Language consists in confounding or not confounding a case like this with _mere_ Onomatopoieia, or the direct and simple imitation of one sound by another. All that Professor Mueller says against the Origin of Language in this 'bow-wow' way is exceedingly well said; and it is important that it should be said. But unconsciously he is now confounding with the Bow-wow, something else and totally different; and something which is just as vital and profound in regard to the whole question of the origin and true basis of the reconstruction of Language, as the thing with which he confounds it is trivial and superficial. The point is so important that I beg the reader's best attention to it, in order that he may become fully seized of the idea. I can imitate very closely the buzz of a bee, by forcing the breath through my nearly-touching teeth. A mimic can imitate the natural sounds of many animals, and other sounds heard in Nature. This _mere imitation_ is what Lingual Scholars have dignified by the high-sounding and rather repulsive technicality, _Onomatopoieia_. In the early and simple period of Lingual Science much has been made, in striving to account for the Origin of Language, of this faculty of imitation, and of the fact that there are undoubtedly certain words in every language consisting of such imitations. It is against this simple and superficial theory that Professor Mueller has argued so well. But in these words _sucre_, _sucre_, incautiously included by him as instances of the same thing, we are in the presence of a very different problem. To imitate one sound by another sound is a mere simple, external, and trivial imitation; onomatopoieia, and nothing more than that. But to imitate a _sound_, by a _taste_, or to recognize that such an imitation has occurred, is a testimony to the existence of that recondite and all-important _echo of likeness_ through domains of Being themselves the most unlike, which we call ANALOGY.