he conscious effort of reflection in
man contributed in an appreciable degree to the formation of language.
'Which of us by taking thought' can make new words or constructions?
Reflection is the least of the causes by which language is affected,
and is likely to have the least power, when the linguistic instinct is
greatest, as in young children and in the infancy of nations.

A kindred error is the separation of the phonetic from the mental
element of language; they are really inseparable--no definite line can
be drawn between them, any more than in any other common act of mind
and body. It is true that within certain limits we possess the power of
varying sounds by opening and closing the mouth, by touching the palate
or the teeth with the tongue, by lengthening or shortening the vocal
instrument, by greater or less stress, by a higher or lower pitch of the
voice, and we can substitute one note or accent for another. But behind
the organs of speech and their action there remains the informing mind,
which sets them in motion and works together with them. And behind the
great structure of human speech and the lesser varieties of language
which arise out of the many degrees and kinds of human intercourse,
there is also the unknown or over-ruling law of God or nature which
gives order to it in its infinite greatness, and variety in its
infinitesimal minuteness--both equally inscrutable to us. We need no
longer discuss whether philology is to be classed with the Natural or
the Mental sciences, if we frankly recognize that, like all the sciences
which are concerned with man, it has a double aspect,--inward and
outward; and that the inward can only be known through the outward.
Neither need we raise the question whether the laws of language, like
the other laws of human action, admit of exceptions. The answer in
all cases is the same--that the laws of nature are uniform, though the
consistency or continuity of them is not always perceptible to us. The
superficial appearances of language, as of nature, are irregular, but
we do not therefore deny their deeper uniformity. The comparison of the
growth of language in the individual and in the nation cannot be wholly
discarded, for nations are made up of individuals. But in this, as in
the other political sciences, we must distinguish between collective
and individual actions or processes, and not attribute to the one
what belongs to the other. Again, when we speak of the hereditar