Dear Charles

If I understand the argument in favour of an early civilisation from the complex nature of the rudest languages of the rudest people it is that people in a barbarous state could never have formed such a complex language.²

Perhaps the best answer to this assertion would be to point out that language was never formed designedly³   It grew spontaneously out of the efforts made by the speaker to make his hearer understand, and so every modification of it would arise from the slurring over of what was once more fully expressed. Every change would be an instinctive, not a meditated operation and therefore there is no reason why it should not have been carried to any extent by those who had no thought of their modes of expression at all   Practically we see that people in the rudest stage do understand these complex modes of speech. Therefore as it appears to me there can be nothing in the uncivilised condition of life that could have hindered speech from gradually growing to such a stage

But if you suppose speech to have actually grown from the beginning the supposition of an originally civilised condition seems wholly cut away as it is impossible to conceive a civilised state antecedent to the acquisition of speech

HW.