1. _The Classical method._--In a word like _homin-em_, there are two parts, _homin-_, radical; _-em_, inflectional. In the word _te-tig-i_, there are the same. The power of these parts is clear. The _tig-_ and _homin-_ denote the simple _action_, or the simple _object_. The _te-_ denotes the time in which it takes place; the _-i_ the agent. In the proposition _te-tig-i homin-em_, the _-em_ denotes the _relation_ between the object (_the man touched_) and the action (_of touching_). _Logically_, there are two ideas, _e.g._, that of the action or object, and that of the superadded conditions in respect to time, agency, and relation. In Latin and Greek, as in many other languages, these superadded conditions are expressed by altering the form of the original word. Sometimes this is done by the addition of some sound or sounds, sometimes by simple change--(_a_,) _homin-is_, _homin-em_; (_b_,) _speak_, _spoke_. Now this method of expressing the relation between the different words of a proposition by changes in the form of the words themselves is called the method of _inflection_, and languages which adopt it are called _inflectional_. 2. _The English method._--The English language possesses inflections. Words like _father-s_, _touch-ed_, _spoke_, are instances of it. Nevertheless it has such important non-inflectional methods, that it may fairly be put in contrast with the Latin and Greek. Where a Roman said _te-tig-i_, we say _I have touched_, or _I touched_; using _I_, a separate word, instead of the incorporated syllable _-i_. Where a Roman said _patr-i_, we say _to father_; where a Roman said _tang-am_, we say _I will_ (or _shall_) _touch_. In other words, we make auxiliary verbs and prepositions do the work of inflections, expressive of case and tense. 3. _The Chinese method._--The Chinese method agrees with the English in expressing the different conditions and relations of actions and objects by separate words rather than by inflections; and it carries this principle so far as to have even a less amount of inflection; according to some writers, none at all. Wherein, then, does it differ? Even thus. The English is non-inflectional because it has lost inflections which it once possessed. The Chinese is non-inflectional because inflections have never been developed. This involves a great difference between the nature of the words which, in the two languages (English and Chinese) do the work of the Greek and Latin inflections. In English they are, generally speaking, so abstract, as to have a meaning only when in the context with other words. In Chinese they are often the names of objects and actions, _i.e._ nouns and verbs. If, instead of saying, _I go_ to _London_, _figs come_ from _Turkey_, _the sun shines_ through _the air_, we said, _I go_, end _London_, _figs come_, origin _Turkey_, _the sun shines_, passage _air_, we should discourse after the manner of the Chinese.