compensated　by　the　credit　we　may　claim　for　having　advanced　ourselves
  to　such　a　high　pitch　of　civilisation；　this　bids　us　expect　still
  further　progress；　and　glorifies　our　descendants　more　than　it　abases
  our　ancestors。　　But　to　whichever　view　we　may　incline　on　sentimental
  grounds　the　fact　remains　that；　while　Charles　Darwin　declared
  language　to　form　no　impassable　barrier　between　man　and　the　lower
  animals；　Professor　Max　Muller　calls　it　the　Rubicon　which　no　brute
  dare　cross；　and　deduces　hence　the　conclusion　that　man　cannot　have
  descended　from　an　unknown　but　certainly　speechless　ape。
  It　may　perhaps　be　expected　that　I　should　begin　a　lecture　on　the
  relations　between　thought　and　language　with　some　definition　of　both
  these　things；　but　thought；　as　Sir　William　Grove　said　of　motion；　is　a
  phenomenon　〃so　obvious　to　simple　apprehension；　that　to　define　it
  would　make　it　more　obscure。〃　｛17｝　　Definitions　are　useful　where
  things　are　new　to　us；　but　they　are　superfluous　about　those　that　are
  already　familiar；　and　mischievous；　so　far　as　they　are　possible　at
  all；　in　respect　of　all　those　things　that　enter　so　profoundly　and
  intimately　into　our　being　that　in　them　we　must　either　live　or　bear
  no　life。　　To　vivisect　the　more　vital　processes　of　thought　is　to
  suspend；　if　not　to　destroy　them；　for　thought　can　think　about
  everything　more　healthily　and　easily　than　about　itself。　　It　is　like
  its　instrument　the　brain；　which　knows　nothing　of　any　injuries
  inflicted　upon　itself。　　As　regards　what　is　new　to　us；　a　definition
  will　sometimes　dilute　a　difficulty；　and　help　us　to　swallow　that
  which　might　choke　us　undiluted；　but　to　define　when　we　have　once　well
  swallowed　is　to　unsettle；　rather　than　settle；　our　digestion。
  Definitions；　again；　are　like　steps　cut　in　a　steep　slope　of　ice；　or
  shells　thrown　on　to　a　greasy　pavement；　they　give　us　foothold；　and
  enable　us　to　advance；　but　when　we　are　at　our　journey's　end　we　want
  them　no　longer。　　Again；　they　are　useful　as　mental　fluxes；　and　as
  helping　us　to　fuse　new　ideas　with　our　older　ones。　　They　present　us
  with　some　tags　and　ends　of　ideas　that　we　have　already　mastered；　on
  to　which　we　can　hitch　our　new　ones；　but　to　multiply　them　in　respect
  of　such　a　matter　as　thought；　is　like　scratching　the　bite　of　a　gnat；
  the　more　we　scratch　the　more　we　want　to　scratch；　the　more　we　define
  the　more　we　shall　have　to　go　on　defining　the　words　we　have　used　in
  our　definitions；　and　shall　end　by　setting　up　a　serious　mental　raw　in
  the　place　of　a　small　uneasiness　that　was　after　all　quite　endurable。
  We　know　too　well　what　thought　is；　to　be　able　to　know　that　we　know
  it；　and　I　am　persuaded　there　is　no　one　in　this　room　but　understands
  what　is　meant　by　thought　and　thinking　well　enough　for　all　the
  purposes　of　this　discussion。　　Whoever　does　not　know　this　without
  words　will　not　learn　it　for　all　the　words　and　definitions　that　are
  laid　before　him。　　The　more；　indeed；　he　hears；　the　more　confused　he
  will　become。　　I　shall；　therefore；　merely　premise　that　I　use　the　word
  〃thought〃　in　the　same　sense　as　that　in　which　it　is　generally　used　by
  people　who　say　that　they　think　this　or　that。　　At　any　rate；　it　will
  be　enough　if　I　take　Professor　Max　Muller's　own　definition；　and　say
  that　its　essence　consists　in　a　bringing　together　of　mental　images
  and　ideas　with　deductions　therefrom；　and　with　a　corresponding　power
  of　detaching　them　from　one　another。　　Hobbes；　the　Professor　tells　us；
  maintained　this　long　ago；　when　he　said　that　all　our　thinking
  consists　of　addition　and　subtractionthat　is　to　say；　in　bringing
  ideas　together；　and　in　detaching　them　from　one　another。
  Turning　from　thought　to　language；　we　observe　that　the　word　is
  derived　from　the　French　langue；　or　tongue。　　Strictly；　therefore；　it
  means　tonguage。　　This；　however；　takes　account　of　but　a　very　small
  part　of　the　ideas　that　underlie　the　word。　　It　does；　indeed；　seize　a
  familiar　and　important　detail　of　everyday　speech；　though　it　may　be
  doubted　whether　the　tongue　has　more　to　do　with　speaking　than　lips；
  teeth　and　throat　have；　but　it　makes　no　attempt　at　grasping　and
  expressing　the　essential　characteristic　of　speech。　　Anything　done
  with　the　tongue；　even　though　it　involve　no　speaking　at　all；　is
  tonguage；　eating　oranges　is　as　much　tonguage　as　speech　is。　　The
  word；　therefore；　though　it　tells　us　in　part　how　speech　is　effected；
  reveals　nothing　of　that　ulterior　meaning　which　is　nevertheless
  inseparable　from　any　right　use　of　the　words　either　〃speech〃　or
  〃language。〃　　It　presents　us　with　what　is　indeed　a　very　frequent
  adjunct　of　conversation；　but　the　use　of　written　characters；　or　the
  finger…speech　of　deaf　mutes；　is　enough　to　show　that　the　word
  〃language〃　omits　all　reference　to　the　most　essential　characteristics
  of　the　idea；　which　in　practice　it　nevertheless　very　sufficiently
  presents　to　us。　　I　hope　presently　to　make　it　clear　to　you　how　and
  why　it　should　do　so。　　The　word　is　incomplete　in　the　first　place；
  because　it　omits　all　reference　to　the　ideas　which　words；　speech　or
  language　are　intended　to　convey；　and　there　can　be　no　true　word
  without　its　actually　or　potentially　conveying　an　idea。　　Secondly；　it
  makes　no　allusion　to　the　person　or　persons　to　whom　the　ideas　are　to
  be　conveyed。　　Language　is　not　language　unless　it　not　only　expresses
  fairly　definite　and　coherent　ideas；　but　unless　it　also　conveys　these
  ideas　to　some　other　living　intelligent　being；　either　man　or　brute；
  that　can　understand　them。　　We　may　speak　to　a　dog　or　horse；　but　not
  to　a　stone。　　If　we　make　pretence　of　doing　so　we　are　in　reality　only
  talking　to　ourselves。　　The　person　or　animal　spoken　to　is　half　the
  battlea　half；　moreover；　which　is　essential　to　there　being　any
  battle　at　all。　　It　takes　two　people　to　say　a　thinga　sayee　as　well
  as　a　sayer。　　The　one　is　as　essential　to　any　true　saying　as　the
  other。　　A。　may　have　spoken；　but　if　B。　has　not　heard；　there　has　been
  nothing　said；　and　he　must　speak　again。　　True；　the　belief　on　A。's
  part　that　he　had　a　bona　fide　sayee　in　B。；　saves　his　speech　qua　him；
  but　it　has　been　barren　and　left　no　fertile　issue。　　It　has　failed　to
  fulfil　the　conditions　of　true　speech；　which　involve　not　only　that　A。
  should　speak；　but　also　that　B。　should　hear。　　True；　again；　we　often
  speak　of　loose；　incoherent；　indefinite　language；　but　by　doing　so　we
  imply；　and　rightly；　that　we　are　calling　that　language　which　is　not
  true　language　at　all。　　People；　again；　sometimes　talk　to　themselves
  without　intending　that　any　other　person　should　hear　them；　but　this
  is　not　well　done；　and　does　harm　to　those　who　practise　it。　　It　is
  abnormal；　whereas　our　concern　is　with　normal　and　essential
  characteristics；　we　may；　therefore；　neglect　both　delirious
  babblings；　and　the　cases　in　which　a　person　is　regarding　him　or
  herself；　as　it　were；　from　outside；　and　treating　himself　as　though　he
  were　some　one　else。
  Inquiring；　then；　what　are　the　essentials；　the　presence　of　which
  constitutes　language；　while　their　absence　negatives　it　altogether；
  we　find　that　Professor　Max　Muller　restricts　them　to　the　use　of
  grammatical　articulate　words　that　we　can　write　or　speak；　and　denies
  that　anything　can　be　called　language　unless　it　can　be　written　or
  spoken　in　articulate　words　and　sentences。　　He　also　denies　that　we
  can　think　at　all　unless　we　do　so　in　words；　that　is　to　say；　in
  sentences　with　verbs　and　nouns。　　Indeed　he　goes　so　far　as　to　say
  upon　his　title…page　that　there　can　be　no　reasonwhich　I　imagine
  comes　to　much　the　same　thing　as　thoughtwithout　language；　and　no
  language　without　reason。
  Against　the　assertion　that　there　can　be　no　true　language　without
  reason　I　have　nothing　to　say。　　But　when　the　Professor　says　that
  there　can　be　no　reason；　or　thought；　without　language；　his　opponents
  contend；　as　it　seems　to　me；　with　greater　force；　that　thought；　though
  infinitely　aided；　extended　and　rendered　definite　through　the
  invention　of　words；　nevertheless　existed　so　fully　as　to　deserve　no
  other　name　thousands；　if　not　millions　of　years　before　words　had
  entered　into　it　at　all。　　Words；　they　say；　are　a　comparatively　recent
  invention；　for　the　fuller　expression　of　something　that　was　already
  in　existence。
  Children；　they　urge；　are　often　evidently　thinking　and　reasoning；
  though　they　can　neither　think　nor　speak　in　words。　　If　you　ask　me　to
  define　reason；　I　answer　as　before　that　this　can　no　more　be　done　than
  thought；　truth　or　motion　can　be　defined。　　Who　has　answered　the
  question；　〃What　is　truth？〃　　Man　cannot　see　God　and　live。　　We　cannot
  go　so　far　back　upon　ourselves　as　to　undermine　our　own　foundations；
  if　we　try　to　do　we　topple　over；　and　lose　that　very　reason　about
  which　we　vainly　try　to　reason。　　If　we　let　the　foundations　be；　we
  know　well　enough　that　they　are　there；　and　we　can　build　upon　them　in
  all　security。　　We　cannot；　then；　define　reason　nor　crib；　cabin　and
  confine　it　within　a　thus…far…shalt…thou…go…and…no…further。　　Who　can
  define　heat　or　cold；　or　night　or　day？　　Yet；　so　long　as　we　hold　fast
  by　current　consent；　our　chances　of　error　for　want　of　better
  definition　are　so　small　that　no　sensible　person　will　consider　them。
  In　like　manner；　if　we　hold　by　current　consent　or　common　sense；　which
  is　the　same　thing；　about　reason；　we　shall　not　find　the　want　of　an
  academic　definition　hinder　us　from　a　reasonable　conclusion。　　What
  nurse　or　mother　will　doubt