used for different types of soldiers. Compare also other groups, such as Aluminiumsoldat, 'Armierungssoldat,' Bleisoldat, 'Schipper'; Rollwagen, 'schwere Granaten,' Frachtwagen, 'schweres Artilleriegeschoss,' Leichenwagen, Knalldroschke, id.; Gamaschenknöpfe, Manschettenknöpfe, 'grosse Graupen'; Handgranaten, Schrapnell, 'Kartoffeln,' etc. For the French: en avoir dans le buffet, 'avoir du cœur au ventre,' en avoir dans le coffre, le tube, le bide, id.; mandoline, 'vase pour le malade alité,' violon, id.; jardin sur le nombril (un petit), 'une tombeau cimetière, ou au bord d'une route,' petit jardin sur le ventre, id.; parc aux os, 'cimetière,' parc des refroidis, id.; (mettre en) boîte, 'berner, tourner en dérision,' mettre en caisse, mettre dedans, id. cf. NE. Can (the Kaiser); boîte à frommage, 'avion au formes peu élégantes,' caisse à savon, caisse à biscuits, caisse d'emballage, id., etc.

The other general type of semantic analogy, namely that due to extraneous influence, has to do with the borrowing of meanings. This may be of two types depending on whether the source of the borrowed word, or loan-meaning, is a foreign language or a related dialect.22 This also has been a neglected field of semantics, probably mainly because of the difficulty of proving loan-meanings as such. Many loanmeanings are very old, and even where every superficial evidence points to a borrowing from another language, proof is lacking, because the earliest uses of the meaning or the possibilities of influence of one form upon the other are obscure. And yet the possibility of loan-meanings cannot be overlooked in any thorough semantic investigation. Furthermore, while a loan-word is traceable by its form, which usually is easily identified with the parent stem, the loan-meaning has no distinct earmarks except in the few cases where a singularly idiomatic turn stamps it as exotic. In the European languages, for instance, the close contact of the various races, subjected for centuries to the same cultural influences, all made for uniformity in the psychic content of the languages. This fact makes the recognition of a loan-meaning the more difficult, because so often this meaning could have developed in the borrowing

22 Cf. Singer, ZƒdW 3. 220ff.; 4. 125ff.; Sandfeld Jensen, Notes sur les calques linguistiques, Festschrift für V. Thomsen, 166ff. (Leipzig 1912). Singer gives a long list of words representing possible loan-meanings, translation-words, i.e., native word translations from foreign languages, such as Fr. découvrir Ger. entdecken, etc. Sandfeld Jensen gives a good classification of the various types of these loans; but the best and most comprehensive discussion of these loan-meanings from a semantic standpoint is found in Chap. IV of Wellander's Studien zum Bedeutungswandel im Deutschen I, Uppsala Universitets Årsskrift, Uppsala 1917. The writer acknowledges his indebtedness to this study for a number of points in the following discussion.

language itself. But even where proof is lacking, it is more reasonable, from what we know of the readiness of the mind to take up new ideas, to suppose that where we have an idea carried by a number of unrelated words in many dialects, there has been semantic transference rather than independent origin. Which is more likely, to hold that Skt. lábhate (Gk. λaμßávw); Lat. prehendo, capio; Goth. fāhan (gafāhan); OHG. grifan; ON. taka; NHG. fassen; NE. grasp, etc., all developed the meaning 'comprehend' spontaneously from 'grasp'; or that the idea 'grasp: comprehend,' once established in one IE. dialect, spread through borrowing to the neighboring dialects?

Now this borrowing of meanings from the outside is psychologically identical with the procedure explained above, viz, semantic analogy of synonyms. A word with a certain meaning in the foreign language is associated with a synonym in the native tongue. The foreign word, however, has developed a new meaning, which is taken over analogically into the native language. For example, Lat. ala, Fr. aile meant originally 'wing of a bird,' and developed from this 'flank (wing) of an army.' In like manner, NHG. Flügel and NE. wing also developed the latter meaning by analogy with the Lat. or its descendant, the French. So also, Lat. lingua, Fr. langue 'tongue: language'; NHG. Zunge, NE. tongue, etc. The only difference between these cases and those discussed under synonymic analogy is that the meaning taken over analogically is here foreign and there was native.

What is true of the foreign languages is true also of different dialects of the same language; they all influence each other semantically just as they influence one another phonetically. And this semantic influence, though subtler because of its psychic nature, is greater even than the phonetic influence. Abundant evidence of this can be gathered from any semantic study having for its object the determination of the sources of a particular meaning in a large number of related dialects. Let us take at random from the writer's study on Words for 'Deceive' the group burn: deceive in which in a comparatively limited number of words the meaning 'deceive' develops from 'burn, scald', etc.23 This particular semantic change probably first took place in the late middle ages, the earliest record being the MLG. besoren, 'betrügen,' soren being related to OE. sear, NE. sear, 'scorch,' etc. From the Middle Low German it is quite likely that the new meaning was borrowed by other Low German as well as High German dialects, for we find the same development in Swab. brennen, flämmen, Swiss bransen, bränsen; 23 Op. cit. group VI.

flämmen, Sax. ausdampfen; ausräuchern, beschmocken; schweissen; schwebeln, Styr. abselchen; absieden, and Edial. burn. Now the meaning 'deceive' certainly did not develop in each individual case spontaneously, but through borrowing, either from another dialect or from another word of the same dialect. For once the association 'burn, scorch: deceive' became general in one case, other words meaning 'burn', etc. were used to express the idea 'deceive.' Thus even foreign loan-words will have grafted on them through analogy a development of meaning that is current in the native tongue, as is the case with Swiss flambieren from Fr. flamber, 'singe, flame,' which developed the meaning 'deceive' in the Swiss because native words like flämmen, etc., had already preprepared the way, even though at an earlier period flämmen itself probably developed its meanings analogically from some other dialect. In the words listed above, therefore, probably the majority have developed the meaning 'deceive' analogically, and this is true of many other groups. This accounts also for the fact that the larger semantic groups representing a certain development of a particular meaning include such a variety of dialects and of words. Wherever a particular semantic development in a word is known to have occurred before, until proof to the contrary is furnished, there is always the possibility, nay, rather, the probability that the development is analogical.24 In the large majority of cases in which a particular semantic development goes back to an historical period, the ultimate source of the development will in all liklihood remain undiscovered. Whether the sequence 'grasp: comprehend' first developed in the Skt. lábhate, lámbhate, 'fasst; erfährt; nimmt wahr, erkennt, weiss' or in the related Gk. λaμßávw, ‘seize, grasp: understand' or in some earlier form will never be known, but the particular semantic sequence illustrated in these, and especially in the Lat. capio, concipio, percipio and prehendo, has undoubtedly given rise to many analogies in words in many modern European dialects showing this same development.

The importance of analogy as a factor in semantic change can scarcely be overestimated. The possibilities of semantic change are, theoretically, limitless; but thanks to the workings of analogy, they are in reality decidedly limited, for just as the action of analogy in the phonetic form tends towards the unification of the grammatical system and the simplification of the mechanism of speech, so a similar tendency of group association of meanings through analogy makes for a simplification of the infinite number of possible semantic changes.

24 Cf. Wellander, op. cit. 133.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFIXES IN A GROUP
OF MONOSYLLABIC LANGUAGES OF OAXACA

JAIME DE ANGULO

The languages considered1 are: ZAPOTEK, MIXTEK, CHINANTEK, MAZATEK, CUICATEK, CHATINO, CHOCHO.

The thesis of this paper is that all these languages are essentially monosyllabic, that they are undergoing an evolution toward the development of a system of pronominal suffixes, that these suffixes can be traced through a series of dialectical variations all the way from a mere repetition of the pronoun after the verb, through agglutination, to fused. "inflection" of verbal endings.

It is, however, necessary to bear in mind that in the primary isolating stage of such languages, the burden of the relational is carried by the grammatical process of order. A consequence of this is the clustering around the semantema expressing the main act of the predication, of the other semantemas, the names of the actors. These are of course the subjects and objects of the action. In this type of language they are all straight, bare, monosyllables, and their relation to each other and to the action is indicated by their position, by order.

These objects and subjects of the action are all the objects and animals of creation, including "I" and "thou." These two pronouns are semantemas like all the rest. And there can be no mistake about their content. But when it comes to the third person which is often invisible to both speakers, there arises soon an impulse towards classification. It is not absolutely necessary to do so, since one can mention the very semantic name of the subject or object. For instance one may say to relate what one's father has said about his mare having eaten some apples: "father I father speak past father say horse female horse father horse eat past apple plural." This may sound funny and exaggerated but it is singularly close to the facts of actual speech in monosyllabic isolating languages.

1 The material for this study was collected in various parts of the State of Oaxaca in the course of a linguistic survey of that region for the Department of Anthropology of Mexico under the Direction of Manuel Gamio.

Soon, however, the awkwardness of such a construction drives the speakers of a language to classify the world into categories. And the choice of these categories is the result of an intuitional apprehension of the world, not of a logical sifting. Thus you may classify the world into male and female; or far and near; or animate and inanimate; or as in Tewa into the three classes of plants, animated beings, and things; or as in this group of Mexican languages into persons, animals, and things.

This is of course "grammatical gender," and when used to fix the relations of the actors of the drama inter se and to the action, it is a mixed relational concept (in Sapir's classification). This is exactly what we have at one end of this series of languages, while at the other end the relational is treated in a pure fashion. Compare in Zapotek the dialect of the Southern Mountains with the dialect of the Little Valley. The derivational concepts are also present, in the form of temporal prefixes (almost detachable in some dialects) which indicate aspect rather than tense, but are in no way mixed up with relation. The evolution of this system of temporal prefixes will be considered in a subsequent paper. Now, as to pitch tone, in the primary stage of this type of monosyllabic languages, it is used semantically to distinguish the different words of the language, that is to say that a certain tone, high, low, rising, etc., is an essential part of the phonetic reality of that word. But tone has also a functional value. It may be used to express, by variations of the fundamental tone proper to the particular semantema, any sort of linguistical concept; negation, interrogation, gender, tense, mode, case, etc. In particular it may be used to express person, as it does in all these languages. Of course it cannot express everything, any more than internal modification of the vowel of the radical can express everything in a language. Nor must one imagine that such functional changes would interfere with the semantic identity of words, any more than the change from foot to feet in English causes any confusion with the word feat. And in the case of functional tone as in the case of any

2 It must be clearly understood that I do not mean for a minute that the language of primitive peoples is monosyllabic and isolating, and then evolves towards structural complexity. This is what happens to any language, at whatever may be the cultural stage of the people speaking it, when such a language has been reduced to monosyllabic isolatism through the meaninglessness of old and too complex forms. And it must also be remembered that such a tendency or state may very well not apply to a whole language but only to a part of it. In other words one part of a language may be traveling towards a certain point while another part of the same language is traveling away from it, presumably because it has already passed it.