I need hardly point out that these examples are far from exhausting the

possibilities of linguistic structure. Nor that the fact that two

languages are similarly classified does not necessarily mean that they

present a great similarity on the surface. We are here concerned with

the most fundamental and generalized features of the spirit, the

technique, and the degree of elaboration of a given language.

Nevertheless, in numerous instances we may observe this highly

suggestive and remarkable fact, that languages that fall into the same

class have a way of paralleling each other in many details or in

structural features not envisaged by the scheme of classification. Thus,

a most interesting parallel could be drawn on structural lines between

Takelma and Greek,[116] languages that are as geographically remote from

each other and as unconnected in a historical sense as two languages

selected at random can well be. Their similarity goes beyond the

generalized facts registered in the table. It would almost seem that

linguistic features that are easily thinkable apart from each other,

that seem to have no necessary connection in theory, have nevertheless a

tendency to cluster or to follow together in the wake of some deep,

controlling impulse to form that dominates their drift. If, therefore,

we can only be sure of the intuitive similarity of two given languages,

of their possession of the same submerged form-feeling, we need not be

too much surprised to find that they seek and avoid certain linguistic

developments in common. We are at present very far from able to define

just what these fundamental form intuitions are. We can only feel them

rather vaguely at best and must content ourselves for the most part with

noting their symptoms. These symptoms are being garnered in our

descriptive and historical grammars of diverse languages. Some day, it

may be, we shall be able to read from them the great underlying

ground-plans.

[Footnote 116: Not Greek specifically, of course, but as a typical

representative of Indo-European.]

Such a purely technical classification of languages as the current one

Into "isolating," "agglutinative," and "inflective" (read "fusional")

cannot claim to have great value as an entering wedge into the discovery

of the intuitional forms of language. I do not know whether the

suggested classification into four conceptual groups is likely to drive

deeper or not. My own feeling is that it does, but classifications, neat

constructions of the speculative mind, are slippery things. They have to

be tested at every possible opportunity before they have the right to

cry for acceptance. Meanwhile we may take some encouragement from the

application of a rather curious, yet simple, historical test. Languages

are in constant process of change, but it is only reasonable to suppose

that they tend to preserve longest what is most fundamental in their

structure. Now if we take great groups of genetically related

languages,[117] we find that as we pass from one to another or trace the

course of their development we frequently encounter a gradual change of

morphological type. This is not surprising, for there is no reason why a

language should remain permanently true to its original form. It is