A Brief History of the English Language and Literature, Vol. 2 — John Stuart Mill — John Shaqi
A Brief History of the English Language and Literature, Vol. 2
John Stuart Mill · en
1. +Dead and Living Languages.+-- A language is said to be dead when it
is no longer spoken. Such a language we know only in books. Thus, Latin
is a dead language, because no nation anywhere now speaks it. A dead
language can undergo no change; it remains, and must remain, as we find
it written in books. But a living language is always changing, just like
a tree or the human body. The human body has its periods or stages.
There is the period of infancy, the period of boyhood, the period of
manhood, and the period of old age. In the same way, a language has its
periods.
2. +No Sudden Changes-- a Caution.+-- We divide the English language
into periods, and then mark, with some approach to accuracy, certain
distinct changes in the habits of our language, in the inflexions of its
words, in the kind of words it preferred, or in the way it liked to put
its words together. But we must be carefully on our guard against
fancying that, at any given time or in any given year, the English
people threw aside one set of habits as regards language, and adopted
another set. It is not so, nor can it be so. The changes in language are
as gentle, gradual, and imperceptible as the changes in the growth of a
tree or in the skin of the human body. We renew our skin slowly and
gradually; but we are never conscious of the process, nor can we say at
any given time that we have got a completely new skin.
3. +The Periods of English.+-- Bearing this caution in mind, we can go
on to look at the chief periods in our English language. These are five
in number; and they are as follows:--
I. Ancient English or Anglo-Saxon, 449-1100
II. Early English, 1100-1250
III. Middle English, 1250-1485
IV. Tudor English, 1485-1603
V. Modern English, 1603-1900
These periods merge very slowly, or are shaded off, so to speak, into
each other in the most gradual way. If we take the English of 1250 and
compare it with that of 900, we shall find a great difference; but if we
compare it with the English of 1100 the difference is not so marked. The
difference between the English of the nineteenth and the English of the
fourteenth century is very great, but the difference between the English
of the fourteenth and that of the thirteenth century is very small.