Viewing page 7 of 23

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

to know them only by looks & so well that you can say on seeing a new one he looks most like this crowd than this crowd. 

When a word comes into a language in a very round about way like your espiègle it will adapt itself to a root [[strikethrough]] at [[/strikethrough]] in the language & as not one hundredth or even one thousandth of the people could know [[strikethrough]] where it came from [[/strikethrough]] its history in a few years, it is felt by [[strikethrough]] even the most ignorant persons to belong there [[/strikethrough]] everyone to belong to it. Even the most ignorant person who never in his life heard of a root will have this feeling as strong as the most learned. If it [[strikethrough]] will [[/strikethrough]] is a long word or in other words a weak one or does not adapt itself [[strikethrough]] to [[/strikethrough]] immediately to a word in the language it dies right away, and such histories and searchings after where words come from are perhaps interesting for a moment like a light very light novel but will be forgotten as soon but [[strikethrough]] a relation between two was [[/strikethrough]] the big familys & resemblances in words are never lost to the mind.

I would not have a high opinion of the sense of any one who advanced that the Latin terminations were conventional artificial inventions & not words in themselves. The Latins had an ugly way of not separating words in writing. I think it was only in late times that they put in periods between the words. If the French did the same thing I can easily conceive a fool like John S. Hart LLD writing something like this [[strikethrough]] . The French [[/strikethrough]] in centuries to come for the benefit of the poor little schoolboys.

The French language was the most remarkable perhaps of all tongues for the number of its terminations which shut up in themselves a delicacy of