Every mental phenomenon has its history, which can only be discovered
by tracing it to its source; and as speech has undergone many phases,
of which the earlier must have been very different from those now in
existence, it is pardonable in the greatest philosophers of antiquity
not to have known the intricacies of the human mind, which this
changeable speech could alone interpret. The ancients knew their
own times, but were ignorant of the preceding ones, in the same way
they knew their own language only, and of this language only its
contemporary form; and in the case of a word whose meaning was lost or
of a foreign word, they sought its origin in an idiom with which they
were familiar; in other words, not where it could be found.
For a long time man only knew one kind of being, his own; and possessed
one language only, that which expressed his own acts and his own
states; the primitive men were sufficiently advanced to say: “let us
dig,” “grind,” “they weave”; but if, at the beginning, concepts and
speech arose from the consciousness of their own activity, how was the
advance made when men desired to speak of the external objects of the
world which they saw around them, and were conscious of not having
made, and which consequently remained outside the sphere of their wills
and of their experience? It is clear that these outward objects to be
grasped and named, must have their part in the human activities for
which names had already been found. When he saw the lightning tearing
a hole in the field, or splitting the trunk of a tree, man could no
longer say, “_We_ have dug this hole, _you_ have split the tree.” It
was no longer _someone_, but _something_ that had dug and struck.
Nothing seems more simple to us than after saying “_I dig_” to say
also “_it digs_,” and yet it was a passing to a new world of thought,
from the conscious feeling of our own activity to the intuition of the
activity of an outward object; this mental act, though inevitable,
was by no means an easy one; men realised that the world around was a
reflex of themselves, the only light was the light from within. If men
could measure, so could the moon; hence he was called the measurer of
the sky, from the root _Mâ_, to measure; the moon was called _Mâs_,
that which measures, its actual name in Sanscrit; in Latin, _mensis_;
in Greek, _mêné_; English, _moon_; German, _Monat_; in Russian,
_miésets_. Men who ran called themselves runners; also the rivers
they named _sar_, running; and to designate the position of the river
they added the suffix _it_, _sar-it_; literally, running here. Thus
_sarit_ is river in Sanscrit; _Mâs_ and _sarit_ thus become complete,
intelligible sentences. What we call lightning was originally, tearing,
digging, bursting, sparkling; what we call storm and tempest were,
grinding, smashing, bursting, blowing; if man could smash, so could the
thunderbolt, hence it was called the smasher; and tempest and storm and
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account