Download to read offline
![If we compare a group of Latin words, such as opera virorum
omnium bonorum veterum, with a corresponding group in a few
other languages of a less flexional type: OE. ealra godra ealdra
manna weorc; Danish alle gode gamle mænds værker; Modern
English all good old men’s works, we perceive by analyzing the ideas
expressed by the several words that the Romans said really: ‘work,’
plural, nominative or accusative + ‘man,’ plural, masculine, genitive
+ ‘all,’ plural, genitive + ‘good,’ plural, masculine, genitive + ‘old,’
plural, masculine, genitive. Leaving opera out of consideration, we
find that plural number is expressed four times, genitive case also
four times, and masculine gender twice;[86] in Old English the signs
of number and case are found four times each, while there is no
indication of gender; in Danish the plural number is marked four
times and the case once. And finally, in Modern English, we find
each idea expressed once only; and as nothing is lost in clearness,
this method, as being the easiest and shortest, must be considered
the best. Mathematically the different ways of rendering the same
thing might be represented by the formulas: anx + bnx + cnx = (an
+ bn + cn)x = (a + b + c)nx.
This unusual faculty of ‘parenthesizing’ causes Danish, and to a still
greater degree English, to stand outside the definition of the Aryan
family of languages given by the earlier school of linguists, according
to which the Aryan substantive and adjective can never be without a
sign indicating case. Schleicher (NV 526) says: “The radical
difference between Magyar and Indo-Germanic (Aryan) words is
brought out distinctly by the fact that the postpositions belonging to
co-ordinated nouns can be dispensed with in all the nouns except
the last of the series, e.g. a jó embernek, ‘dem guten menschen’ (a
for az, demonstrative pronoun, article; jó, good; ember, man, -nek, -
nak, postposition with pretty much the same meaning as the dative
case), for az-nak (annak) jó-nak ember-nek, as if in Greek you
should say το ἀγαθο ἀνθρώπῳ. An attributive adjective preceding its
noun always has the form of the pure stem, the sign of plurality and
the postposition indicating case not being added to it. Magyars say,
for instance, Hunyady Mátyás magyar király-nak (to the Hungarian](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/40201-250410075923-8bd89199/75/Developer-s-Guide-to-Microsoft-Enterprise-Library-C-Edition-Alex-Homer-22-2048.jpg)
![never used by natives with this meaning without being determined
by some other expression” (Torrend, p. 7). The Zulu word for ‘man’
is umuntu; every word in the same or a following sentence having
any reference to that word must begin with something to remind
you of the beginning of umuntu. This will be, according to fixed
rules, either mu or u, or w or m. In the following sentence, the
meaning of which is ‘our handsome man (or woman) appears, we
love him (or her),’ these reminders (as I shall term them) are printed
in italics:
umuntuwetuomuchle uyabonakala,simtanda (1)
man ours handsome appears, we love.
If, instead of the singular, we take the corresponding plural abantu,
‘men, people’ (whence the generic name of Bantu), the sentence
looks quite different:
abantu betu abachle bayabonakala, sibatanda (2).
In the same way, if we successively take as our starting-point ilizwe,
‘country,’ the corresponding plural amazwe, ‘countries,’ isizwe,
‘nation,’ izizwe, ‘nations,’ intombi, ‘girl,’ izintombi, ‘girls,’ we get:
ilizwe letu elichle liyabonakala, silitanda (5)
amazwe etu amachle ayabonakala, siwatanda (6)
isizwe setu esichle siyabonakala, sisitanda (7)
izizwe zetu ezichle ziyabonakala, sizitanda (8)
intombi yetu enchle iyabonakala, siyitanda (9)
izintombizetu ezinchle ziyabonakala, sizitanda (10)
(girls) our handsome appear, we love.[87]
In other words, every substantive belongs to one of several classes,
of which some have a singular and others a plural meaning; each of
these classes has its own prefix, by means of which the concord of
the parts of a sentence is indicated. (An inhabitant of the country of
Uganda is called muganda, pl. baganda or waganda; the language
spoken there is luganda.)](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/40201-250410075923-8bd89199/75/Developer-s-Guide-to-Microsoft-Enterprise-Library-C-Edition-Alex-Homer-25-2048.jpg)
![produced il aime, etc., the same t was kept in Old French wherever a
consonant protected it,[88] and so gave the forms est, sont, fait
(from fact, for facit), font, chantent, etc. From est-il, fait-il, etc., the t
was then by analogy reintroduced in aime-t-il, instead of the earlier
aime il. Now, towards the end of the Middle Ages, French final
consonants were as a rule dropped in speech, except when followed
immediately by a word beginning with a vowel. Consequently, while t
is mute in sentences like ‘Ton frère dit | Tes frères disent,’ it is
sounded in the corresponding questions, ‘Ton frère dit-il? Tes frères
disent-ils?’ As the final consonants of il and ils are also generally
dropped, even by educated speakers, the difference between
interrogatory and declarative sentences in the spoken language
depends solely on the addition of ti to the verb: written phonetically,
the pairs will be:
[tɔ̃ frɛ·r di—tɔ̃ frɛ·r di ti]
[te frɛ·r di·z—te frɛ·r di·z ti].
Now, popular instinct seizes upon this ti as a convenient sign of
interrogative sentences, and, forgetting its origin, uses it even with a
feminine subject, turning ‘Ta sœur di(t)’ into the question ‘Ta sœur di
ti?’, and in the first person: ‘Je di ti?’ ‘Nous dison ti?’ ‘Je vous fais-ti
tort?’ (Maupassant). In novels this is often written as if it were the
adverb y: C’est-y pas vrai? | Je suis t’y bête! | C’est-y vous le
monsieur de l’Académie qui va avoir cent ans? (Daudet). I have
dwelt on this point because, besides showing the interest of many
problems of word order, it also throws some light on the sometimes
unexpected ways by which languages must often travel to arrive at
new expressions for grammatical categories.
It was mentioned above that the inverted order, Verb-Subject, is
used extensively, not only in questions, but also to express wishes
and invitations. Here, too, we find in English compromises with the
usual order, Subject-Verb. For, apart from such formulas as ‘Long live
the King!’ a wish is generally expressed by means of may, which is
placed first, while the real verb comes after the subject: ‘May she be
happy!’, and instead of the old ‘Go we!’ we have now ‘Let us go!’](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/40201-250410075923-8bd89199/75/Developer-s-Guide-to-Microsoft-Enterprise-Library-C-Edition-Alex-Homer-32-2048.jpg)
![In the beginning was the root. This is “the result of strict and careful
induction from the facts recorded in the dialects of the different
members of the family” (Whitney L 260). “The firm foundation of the
theory of roots lies in its logical necessity as an inference from the
doctrine of the historical growth of grammatical apparatus” (Whitney
G 200). “An instrumentality cannot but have had rude and simple
beginnings, such as, in language, the so-called roots ... such
imperfect hints of expression as we call roots” (Whitney, Views of L.
338). These are really three different statements: induction from the
facts, a logical inference from the doctrine about grammatical
apparatus (i.e. the usually accepted doctrine, but on what is that
built up except on the root theory?), and the a priori argument that
an ‘instrumentality’ must have simple beginnings. Even granted that
these three arguments given at different times, each of them in turn
as the sole argument, must be taken as supplementing each other,
the three-legged stool on which the root theory is thus made to sit is
a very shaky one, for none of the three legs is very solid, as we shall
soon have occasion to see.
XIX.—§ 2. Roots.
In the beginning was the root—but what was it like? Bopp took over
the conception of root from the Indian grammarians, and like them
was convinced that roots were all monosyllabic, and that view was
accepted by his followers. These latter at times attributed other
phonetic qualities to these roots, e.g. that they always had a short
vowel (Curtius C 22). I quote from a very recent treatise (Wood,
“Indo-European Root-formation,” Journal of Germ. Philol. 1. 291): “I
range myself with those who believe that IE. roots were
monosyllabic ... these roots began, for the most part, with a vowel.
The vowels certainly were the first utterances,[89] and though we
cannot make the beginning of IE. speech coeval with that of human
speech, we may at least assume that language, at that time, was in
a very primitive state.”](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/40201-250410075923-8bd89199/75/Developer-s-Guide-to-Microsoft-Enterprise-Library-C-Edition-Alex-Homer-44-2048.jpg)
![several ‘empty words’ serving for grammatical purposes, often in a
wonderfully clever and ingenious way. Thus či has besides other
functions that of indicating a genitive relation more distinctly than
would be indicated by the mere position of the words; min (people)
lik (power) is of itself sufficient to signify ‘the power of the people,’
but the same notion is expressed more explicitly by min či lik. The
same expedient is used to indicate different sorts of connexion: if či
is placed after the subject of a sentence it makes it a genitive,
thereby changing the sentence into a kind of subordinate clause:
wang pao min = ‘the king protects the people’; but if you say wang
či pao min yeu (is like) fu (father) či pao tsï, the whole may be
rendered, by means of the English verbal noun, ‘the king’s protecting
the people is like the father’s protecting his child.’ Further, it is
possible to change a whole sentence into a genitive; for instance,
wang pao min či tao (manner) k’o (can) kien (see, be seen), ‘the
manner in which the king protects (the manner of the king’s
protecting) his people is to be seen’; and in yet other positions či can
be used to join a word-group consisting of a subject and verb, or of
verb and object, as an adjunct (attribute) to a noun; we have
participles to express the same modification of the idea: wang pao či
min ‘the people protected by the king’; pao min či wang ‘a king
protecting the people.’ Observe here the ingenious method of
distinguishing the active and passive voices by strictly adhering to
the natural order and placing the subject before and the object after
the verb. If we put i before, and ku after, a single word, it means ‘on
account of, because of’ (cf. E. for ...’s sake); if we place a whole
sentence between these ‘brackets,’ as we might term them, they are
a sort of conjunction, and must be translated ‘because.’[90]
XIX.—§ 4. History of Chinese.
These few examples will give some faint idea of the Chinese
language, and—if the whole older generation of scholars is to be
trusted—at the same time of the primeval structure of our own
language in the root-stage. But is it absolutely certain that Chinese](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/40201-250410075923-8bd89199/75/Developer-s-Guide-to-Microsoft-Enterprise-Library-C-Edition-Alex-Homer-46-2048.jpg)
Developer s Guide to Microsoft Enterprise Library C Edition Alex Homer
- 1. Download the fullversion and explore a variety of ebooks or textbooks at https://ebookultra.com Developer s Guide to Microsoft Enterprise Library C Edition Alex Homer _____ Tap the link below to start your download _____ https://ebookultra.com/download/developer-s-guide-to- microsoft-enterprise-library-c-edition-alex-homer/ Find ebooks or textbooks at ebookultra.com today!
- 2. We believe theseproducts will be a great fit for you. Click the link to download now, or visit ebookultra.com to discover even more! C net Web Developer s Guide 1st Edition Saurabh Nandu https://ebookultra.com/download/c-net-web-developer-s-guide-1st- edition-saurabh-nandu/ The Little Book on CoffeeScript The JavaScript Developer s Guide to Building Better Web Apps 1st Edition Alex Maccaw https://ebookultra.com/download/the-little-book-on-coffeescript-the- javascript-developer-s-guide-to-building-better-web-apps-1st-edition- alex-maccaw/ Applications Code Markup A Guide to the Microsoft Windows Presentation Foundation Pro Developer 1st Edition Charles Petzold https://ebookultra.com/download/applications-code-markup-a-guide-to- the-microsoft-windows-presentation-foundation-pro-developer-1st- edition-charles-petzold/ Developer s Guide to Web Application Security 1st Edition Michael Cross https://ebookultra.com/download/developer-s-guide-to-web-application- security-1st-edition-michael-cross/
- 3. The NET Developers Guide to Windows Security 1st Edition Keith Brown https://ebookultra.com/download/the-net-developer-s-guide-to-windows- security-1st-edition-keith-brown/ The Ruby Developer s Guide 1st Edition Syngress https://ebookultra.com/download/the-ruby-developer-s-guide-1st- edition-syngress/ Professional Microsoft Robotics Developer Studio Wrox Programmer to Programmer 1st Edition Kyle Johns https://ebookultra.com/download/professional-microsoft-robotics- developer-studio-wrox-programmer-to-programmer-1st-edition-kyle-johns/ Sun Certification Training Guide 310 080 Java 2 Enterprise Edition J2EE Web Component Developer Alain Trottier https://ebookultra.com/download/sun-certification-training- guide-310-080-java-2-enterprise-edition-j2ee-web-component-developer- alain-trottier/ Microsoft SharePoint 2010 Developer Reference 1st Edition Paolo Pialorsi https://ebookultra.com/download/microsoft-sharepoint-2010-developer- reference-1st-edition-paolo-pialorsi/
- 5. Developer s Guideto Microsoft Enterprise Library C Edition Alex Homer Digital Instant Download Author(s): Alex Homer, Nicolas Botto ISBN(s): 9780735645233, 073564523X Edition: Kindle File Details: PDF, 3.35 MB Year: 2010 Language: english
- 6. D E VE LO P E R S ’ S GU I D E TO M I C R O S O F T ® EN T E R P R I S E LI B R A RY Alex Homer with Nicolas Botto Bob Brumfield Grigori Melnik Erik Renaud Fernando Simonazzi Chris Tavares Solutions for Enterprise Development C# Edition
- 7. developer’s guide tomicrosoft® enterprise library
- 9. developer’s guide to Microsoft® Enterprise Library Solutionsfor Enterprise Development Alex Homer with Nicolas Botto Bob Brumfield Grigori Melnik Erik Renaud Fernando Simonazzi Chris Tavares
- 10. Copyright and Termsof Use ISBN: 9780735645233 This document is provided “as-is.” Information and views expressed in this document, including URL and other Internet Web site references, may change without notice. You bear the risk of using it. Some examples depicted herein are provided for illustration only and are fictitious. No real association or connection is intended or should be inferred. This document does not provide you with any legal rights to any intellectual property in any Microsoft product. You may copy and use this document for your internal, reference purposes. © 2010 Microsoft. All rights reserved. Microsoft, Windows, Windows Server, Windows Vista, Visual C#, SQL Server, Active Directory, IntelliSense, Silverlight, MSDN, Internet Explorer, and Visual Studio are trademarks of the Microsoft group of companies. All other trademarks are property of their respective owners.
- 11. Contents preface xv About ThisGuide xv What Does This Guide Cover? xv What This Guide Does Not Cover xvi How Will This Guide Help You? xvii What Do You Need to Get Started? xvii the team who brought you this guide xix The Enterprise Library 5.0 Development Team xix 1 Welcome to the Library 1 Meet the Librarian 1 What You Get with Enterprise Library 1 Things You Can Do with Enterprise Library 3 Why You Should Use Enterprise Library 4 Some Fundamentals of Enterprise Library 6 Choosing Which Blocks To Install 6 Installing Enterprise Library 7 Assemblies And References 7 GAC or Bin, Signed or Unsigned? 8 Importing Namespaces 9 Configuring Enterprise Library 10 The Configuration Tools 10 Using The Configuration Tools 11 Encrypting Configuration Sections 14 Instantiating and Using Enterprise Library Objects 14 Enterprise Library Objects, Facades, and Factories 15 foreword Scott Guthrie ix
- 12. Creating Instances ofEnterprise Library Types 15 The Simple Approach — Using The Enterprise Library Service Locator 16 The Sophisticated Approach — Accessing The Container Directly 16 Pros and Cons of Object Instantiation 18 More Reasons to be Sophisticated 19 Getting Objects From Previous Versions Of Enterprise Library 21 The Example Applications 22 Summary 23 2 Much ADO about Data Access 25 Introduction 25 What Does the Data Access Application Block Do? 26 Data Operations Supported by the Data Access Block 26 How Do I Use the Data Access Block? 28 Configuring the Block and Referencing the Required Assemblies 28 Creating Database Instances 29 The Example Application 30 Reading Multiple Data Rows 31 Reading Rows Using a Query with No Parameters 31 Reading Rows Using an Array of Parameter Values 32 Reading Rows Using Queries with Named Parameters 33 Retrieving Data as Objects 35 About Accessors 35 Creating and Executing an Accessor 37 Creating and Using Mappers 38 Retrieving Xml Data 39 Retrieving Single Scalar Values 40 Retrieving Data Asynchronously 41 Preparing for Asynchronous Data Access 42 Retrieving Row Set Data Asynchronously 43 Retrieving Data as Objects Asynchronously 45 Updating Data 45 Executing an Update Query 46 Working with DataSets 47 Updating the Database from a DataSet 48 Managing Connections 52 Working with Connection-Based Transactions 53 Working with Distributed Transactions 55 Extending the Block to Use Other Databases 58 Summary 58
- 13. 3 Error ManagementMade Exceptionally Easy 61 Introduction 61 When Should I Use the Exception Handling Block? 62 How Do I Use the Exception Handling Block? 62 What Exception Policies Do I Need? 63 Allowing Exceptions to Propagate 63 About Exception Handling Policies 63 Choosing an Exception Handling Strategy 65 Process or Handle Exception? 66 Using the Process Method 67 Diving in with a Simple Example 68 Applying Exception Shielding 69 Wrapping an Exception 70 Configuring the Wrap Handler Policy 70 Initializing the Exception Handling Block 71 Editing the Application Code to Use the New Policy 71 Replacing an Exception 74 Logging an Exception 75 Shielding Exceptions at WCF Service Boundaries 78 Creating a Fault Contract 78 Configuring the Exception Handling Policy 78 Editing the Service Code to Use the New Policy 79 The Fault Contract Exception Handler 80 Handling Specific Exception Types 81 Executing Code around Exception Handling 82 Assisting Administrators 84 Extending Your Exception Handling 87 Summary 87 4 As Easy as Falling Off a Log 89 Introduction 89 What Does the Logging Block Do? 90 Logging Categories 92 Logging Overhead and Additional Context Information 93 How Do I Use the Logging Block? 93 Configuring the Logging Block 93 Initializing the Logging Block 94 Diving In with an Example 95 Creating and Writing Log Entries with a Logwriter 95 About Logging Categories 98 Filtering by Category 100 Writing Log Entries to Multiple Categories 100 Controlling Output Formatting 101
- 14. Non-Formatted Trace Listeners102 Filtering by Severity in a Trace Listener 103 Filtering All Log Entries by Priority 103 Creating and Using Logentry Objects 104 Capturing Unprocessed Events and Logging Errors 105 About Special Sources 105 An Example of Using Special Sources 106 Logging to a Database 108 Using the Database Trace Listener 109 Testing Logging Filter Status 110 Obtaining Information about Trace Sources and Trace Listeners 111 Checking if Filters Will Block a Log Entry 112 Adding Additional Context Information 114 Tracing and Correlating Activities 115 An Example of Tracing Activities 116 Creating Custom Trace Listeners, Filters, and Formatters 119 Summary 119 5 A Cache Advance for Your Applications 121 Introduction 121 What Does the Caching Block Do? 123 Flushed or Expired? 123 Which Expiration Policy? 124 How Do I Configure the Caching Block? 124 Persistent Caching 125 Encrypting Cached Items 126 Initializing the Caching Block 126 How Do I Use the Caching Block? 127 About the Example Application 127 Adding Items to and Retrieving Items from the Cache 127 What’s In My Cache? 130 Using the Isolated Storage Backing Store 131 Encrypting the Cached Data 133 Using the Database Backing Store 134 Removing Items From and Flushing the Cache 135 Using a File Dependency and Extended Time Expiration 136 Adding the Items to the Cache 137 Refreshing the Cache 139 Loading the Cache 141 Proactive Cache Loading 141 Reactive Cache Loading 142 Extending Your Cache Advance 143 Summary 144
- 15. 6 Banishing ValidationComplication 145 Introduction 145 Techniques for Validation 146 Where Should I Validate? 146 What Should I Validate? 146 How Should I Validate? 147 What Does the Validation Block Do? 147 The Range of Validators 149 Validating with Attributes 151 DataAnnotations Attributes 151 Self-Validation 152 Validation Rule Sets 154 Assigning Validation Rules to Rule Sets 154 Configuring Validation Block Rule Sets 154 Specifying Rule Sets When Validating 155 How Do I Use The Validation Block? 156 Preparing Your Application 156 Choosing a Validation Approach 157 Options for Creating Validators Programmatically 158 Performing Validation and Displaying Validation Errors 159 Understanding Message Template Tokens 160 Diving in With Some Simple Examples 161 Validating Objects and Collections of Objects 162 Creating a Type Validator using the ValidatorFactory 162 Delving Deeper into ValidationResults 163 Using the Object Validator 164 Differences Between the Object Validator and the Factory-Created Type Validators 165 Validating Collections of Objects 165 Using Validation Attributes 166 Using the Validation Block Attributes 166 Using Data Annotation Attributes 169 Defining Attributes in Metadata Classes 171 Specifying the Location of Validation Rules 172 Creating and Using Individual Validators 173 Validating Strings for Contained Characters 173 Validating Integers within a Domain 173 Validating with a Composite Validator 174 Validating Single Members of an Object 175 WCF Service Validation Integration 176 Defining Validation in the Service Contract 176 Editing the Service Configuration 177 Using the Product Service and Detecting Validation Errors 178 User Interface Validation Integration 180 ASP.NET User Interface Validation 180
- 16. Windows Forms UserInterface Validation 181 WPF User Interface Validation 181 Creating Custom Validators 182 Summary 182 7 Relieving Cryptography Complexity 183 Introduction 183 What Does the Cryptography Block Do? 183 A Secret Shared 184 Making a Hash of It 184 How Does the Cryptography Block Manage Encryption Keys? 184 How Does the Cryptography Block Integrate With Other Blocks? 185 How Do I Use the Cryptography Block? 185 Configuring Cryptographic Providers 186 Adding the Required References 187 Diving in with an Example 187 Encrypting and Decrypting Data Using A Symmetric Provider 188 Encrypting and Decrypting a Text String 188 Encrypting and Decrypting an Object Instance 189 Obtaining and Comparing Hash Values 191 Creating and Comparing Hash Values for Text Strings 191 Creating and Comparing Hash Values for Object Instances 193 Creating Custom Cryptography Providers 195 Summary 196 8 An Authentic Approach to Token Identity 197 Introduction 197 What Does the Security Block Do? 198 What are Authorization Rule Providers? 198 About Authorization Manager (AzMan) 198 Why Do I Need a Security Cache? 199 How Do I Configure the Security Block? 200 Configuring Authorization Rules 202 How Do I Use the Security Block? 202 Diving in With an Example 203 Caching a User Identity and Obtaining A Temporary Token 204 Displaying User Identity Details 205 Displaying Generic Principal Details 205 Authenticating a User Using a Token 206
- 17. Terminating a UserSession and Expiring the Token 207 Checking If a User is Authorized to Perform a Task 208 Using Security Block Configured Rules 208 Using AzMan Provider Rules 210 Creating Custom Authorization Providers 212 Summary 212 appendices a dependency injection with unity 213 What is Dependency Injection? 213 The Unity Dependency Injection and Interception Mechanism 214 Summary of Unity Features 215 Defining Dependencies with Unity 216 Constructor Injection 217 Automatic Constructor Injection 217 Design-Time Configuration 218 Run-Time Configuration 219 Configuration with Attributes 219 Property (Setter) Injection 220 Design-Time Configuration 220 Run-Time Configuration 221 Configuration with Attributes 221 Method Call Injection 222 Design-Time Configuration 222 Run-Time Configuration 223 Configuration with Attributes 223 More Dependency Injection Opportunities 224 Resolving Populated Instances of Your Classes 224 b dependency injection in enterprise library 225 Loading Configuration Information into a Unity Container 225 Viewing Registrations in the Container 226 Populating Entire Object Graphs at Application Startup 227 Maintaining a Container Reference in Request-Based Applications 228 Using an Alternative Service Locator or Container 229 c policy injection in enterprise library 231 d enterprise library configuration scenarios 233 About Enterprise Library Configuration 233 External Configuration 234 Programmatic Support 234 Using the Fluent Interfaces 234
- 18. Scenarios for AdvancedConfiguration 235 scenario 1: Using The Default Application Configuration File 235 scenario 2: Using A Non-Default Configuration Store 235 scenario 3: Sharing The Same Configuration Between Multiple Applications 236 scenario 4: Managing And Enforcing Configuration For Multiple Applications 236 scenario 5: Sharing Configuration Sections Across Multiple Applications 237 scenario 6: Applying a Common Configuration Structure for Applications 238 Deployment Environments 239 e encrypting configuration files 241 index 243
- 19. xiii Foreword You are holdingin your hands a book that will make your life as an enterprise developer a whole lot easier. It’s a guide on Microsoft Enterprise Library and it’s meant to guide you through how to apply .NET for enterprise development. Enterprise Library, developed by the patterns & practices group, is a collection of reusable components, each addressing a specific cross cutting concern—be it system logging, or data validation, or exception management. Many of these can be taken advantage of easily. These components are architecture agnostic and can be applied in a multitude of different contexts. The book walks you through functional blocks of the Enterprise Library, which include data access, caching, cryptography, exception handling, logging, security, and validation. It contains a large collection of exercises, tricks and tips. Developing robust, reusable, and maintainable application requires knowledge of design patterns, software architectures and solid coding skills. We can help you develop those skills with Enterprise Library since it encapsulates proven and recommended prac- tices of developing enterprise applications on the .NET platform. Though this guide does not go into the depth of discussions of architecture and patterns, it provides a solid basis for you to discover and implement these patterns from a reusable set of components. That’s why I also encourage you to check out the Enterprise Library source code and read it. This guide is not meant to be a complete reference on Enterprise Library. For that, you should go to MSDN. Instead, the guide covers most commonly used scenarios and illustrates how Enterprise Library can be applied in implementing those. The powerful message manifesting from the guide is the importance of code reuse. In today’s world of complex large software systems, high-quality pluggable components are a must. After all, who can afford to write and then maintain dozens of different frameworks in a system— all to accomplish the same thing? Enterprise Library allows you to take advantage of the proven code complements to manage a wide range of task and leaves you free to concen- trate on the core business logic and other “working parts” of your application. Another important emphasis that the guide makes is on software designs, which are easy to configure, testable and maintainable. Enterprise Library has a flexible configura- tion subsystem driven from either external config files, or programmatically, or both. Leading by example, Enterprise Library itself is designed in a loosely-coupled manner. It
- 20. promotes key designprinciples of the separation of concerns, single responsibility prin- ciple, principle of least knowledge and the DRY principle (Don’t Repeat Yourself). Having said this, don’t expect this particular guide to be a comprehensive reference on design patterns. It is not. It provides just enough to demonstrate how key patterns are used with Enterprise Library. Once you see and understand them, try to extrapolate them to other problems, contexts, scenarios. The authors succeeded in writing a book that is targeted at both those who are sea- soned Enterprise Library developers and who would like to learn about the improvements in version 5.0, and those, who are brand new to Enterprise Library. Hopefully, for the first group, it will help orientate you and also get a quick refresher of some of the key concepts. For the second group, the book may lower your learning curve and get you going with Enterprise Library quickly. Lastly, don’t just read this book. It is meant to be a practical tutorial. And learning comes only through practice. Experience Enterprise Library. Build something with it. Apply the concepts learnt in practice. And don’t forget to share your experience. In conclusion, I am excited about both the release of Enterprise Library 5.0 and this book. Especially, since they ship and support some of our great new releases—Visual Studio 2010, .NET Framework 4.0 and Silverlight 4, which together will make you, the developer, ever more productive. Scott Guthrie Corporate Vice-President Microsoft .NET Developer Platform Redmond, Washington
- 21. Exploring the Varietyof Random Documents with Different Content
- 22. If we comparea group of Latin words, such as opera virorum omnium bonorum veterum, with a corresponding group in a few other languages of a less flexional type: OE. ealra godra ealdra manna weorc; Danish alle gode gamle mænds værker; Modern English all good old men’s works, we perceive by analyzing the ideas expressed by the several words that the Romans said really: ‘work,’ plural, nominative or accusative + ‘man,’ plural, masculine, genitive + ‘all,’ plural, genitive + ‘good,’ plural, masculine, genitive + ‘old,’ plural, masculine, genitive. Leaving opera out of consideration, we find that plural number is expressed four times, genitive case also four times, and masculine gender twice;[86] in Old English the signs of number and case are found four times each, while there is no indication of gender; in Danish the plural number is marked four times and the case once. And finally, in Modern English, we find each idea expressed once only; and as nothing is lost in clearness, this method, as being the easiest and shortest, must be considered the best. Mathematically the different ways of rendering the same thing might be represented by the formulas: anx + bnx + cnx = (an + bn + cn)x = (a + b + c)nx. This unusual faculty of ‘parenthesizing’ causes Danish, and to a still greater degree English, to stand outside the definition of the Aryan family of languages given by the earlier school of linguists, according to which the Aryan substantive and adjective can never be without a sign indicating case. Schleicher (NV 526) says: “The radical difference between Magyar and Indo-Germanic (Aryan) words is brought out distinctly by the fact that the postpositions belonging to co-ordinated nouns can be dispensed with in all the nouns except the last of the series, e.g. a jó embernek, ‘dem guten menschen’ (a for az, demonstrative pronoun, article; jó, good; ember, man, -nek, - nak, postposition with pretty much the same meaning as the dative case), for az-nak (annak) jó-nak ember-nek, as if in Greek you should say το ἀγαθο ἀνθρώπῳ. An attributive adjective preceding its noun always has the form of the pure stem, the sign of plurality and the postposition indicating case not being added to it. Magyars say, for instance, Hunyady Mátyás magyar király-nak (to the Hungarian
- 23. king Mathew Hunyady),-nak belonging here to all the preceding words. Nearly the same thing takes place where several words are joined together by means of ‘and.’” Now, this is an exact parallel to the English group genitive in cases like ‘all good old men’s works,’ ‘the King of England’s power,’ ‘Beaumont and Fletcher’s plays,’ ‘somebody else’s turn,’ etc. The way in which this group genitive has developed in comparatively recent times may be summed up as follows (see the detailed exposition in my ChE ch. iii.): In the oldest English -s is a case-ending, like all others found in flexional languages; it forms together with the body of the noun one indivisible whole, in which it is sometimes impossible to tell where the kernel of the word ends and the ending begins (compare endes from ende and heriges from here); only some words have this ending, and in others the genitive is indicated in other ways. As to syntax, the meaning or function of the genitive is complicated and rather vague, and there are no fixed rules for the position of the genitive in the sentence. In course of time we witness a gradual development towards greater regularity and precision. The partitive, objective, descriptive and some other functions of the genitive become obsolete; the genitive is invariably put immediately before the word it belongs to; irregular forms disappear, the s ending alone surviving as the fittest, so that at last we have one definite ending with one definite function and one definite position. In Old English, when several words belonging together were to be put in the genitive, each of them had to take the genitive mark, though this was often different in different words, and thus we had combinations like anes reades mannes, ‘a red man’s’ | þære godlican lufe, ‘the godlike love’s’ | ealra godra ealdra manna weorc, etc. Now the s used everywhere is much more independent, and may be separated from the principal word by an adverb like else or by a prepositional group like of England, and one s is sufficient at the end even of a long group of words. Here, then, we see in the full light of comparatively recent history a giving up of the old flexion with its
- 24. inseparability of theconstituent elements of the word and with its strictness of concord; an easier and more regular system is developed, in which the ending leads a more independent existence and may be compared with the ‘agglutinated’ elements of such a language as Magyar or even with the ‘empty words’ of Chinese grammar. The direction of this development is the direct opposite of that assumed by most linguists for the development of languages in prehistoric times. XVIII.—§ 9. Bantu Concord. One of the most characteristic traits of the history of English is thus seen to be the gradual getting rid of concord as of something superfluous. Where concord is found in our family of languages, it certainly is an heirloom from a primitive age, and strikes us now as an outcome of a tendency to be more explicit than to more advanced people seems strictly necessary. It is on a par with the ‘concord of negatives,’ as we might term the emphasizing of the negative idea by seemingly redundant repetitions. In Old English it was the regular idiom to say: nan man nyste nan þing, ‘no man not- knew nothing’; so it was in Chaucer’s time: he neuere yet no vileynye ne sayde In all his lyf unto no manner wight; and it survives in the vulgar speech of our own days: there was niver nobody else gen (gave) me nothin’ (George Eliot); whereas standard Modern English is content with one negation: no man knew anything, etc. That concord is really a primitive trait (though not, of course, found equally distributed among all ‘primitive peoples’) will be seen also by a rapid glance at the structure of the South African group of languages called Bantu, for here we find not only repetition of negatives, but also other phenomena of concord in specially luxuriant growth. I take the following examples chiefly from W. H. I. Bleek’s excellent, though unfortunately unfinished, Comparative Grammar, though I am well aware that expressions like si-m-tanda (we love him) “are
- 25. never used bynatives with this meaning without being determined by some other expression” (Torrend, p. 7). The Zulu word for ‘man’ is umuntu; every word in the same or a following sentence having any reference to that word must begin with something to remind you of the beginning of umuntu. This will be, according to fixed rules, either mu or u, or w or m. In the following sentence, the meaning of which is ‘our handsome man (or woman) appears, we love him (or her),’ these reminders (as I shall term them) are printed in italics: umuntuwetuomuchle uyabonakala,simtanda (1) man ours handsome appears, we love. If, instead of the singular, we take the corresponding plural abantu, ‘men, people’ (whence the generic name of Bantu), the sentence looks quite different: abantu betu abachle bayabonakala, sibatanda (2). In the same way, if we successively take as our starting-point ilizwe, ‘country,’ the corresponding plural amazwe, ‘countries,’ isizwe, ‘nation,’ izizwe, ‘nations,’ intombi, ‘girl,’ izintombi, ‘girls,’ we get: ilizwe letu elichle liyabonakala, silitanda (5) amazwe etu amachle ayabonakala, siwatanda (6) isizwe setu esichle siyabonakala, sisitanda (7) izizwe zetu ezichle ziyabonakala, sizitanda (8) intombi yetu enchle iyabonakala, siyitanda (9) izintombizetu ezinchle ziyabonakala, sizitanda (10) (girls) our handsome appear, we love.[87] In other words, every substantive belongs to one of several classes, of which some have a singular and others a plural meaning; each of these classes has its own prefix, by means of which the concord of the parts of a sentence is indicated. (An inhabitant of the country of Uganda is called muganda, pl. baganda or waganda; the language spoken there is luganda.)
- 26. It will benoticed that adjectives such as ‘handsome’ or ‘ours’ take different shapes according to the word to which they refer; in the Zulu Lord’s Prayer ‘thy’ is found in the following forms: lako (referring to igama, ‘name,’ for iligama, 5), bako, (ubukumkani, ‘kingdom,’ 14), yako (intando, ‘will,’ 9). So also the genitive case of the same noun has a great many different forms, for the genitive relation is expressed by the reminder of the governing word + the ‘relative particle’ a (which is combined with the following sound); take, for instance, inkosi, ‘chief, king’: umuntu wenkosi, ‘the king’s man’ (1; we for w + a + i). abantu benkosi, ‘the king’s men’ (2). ilizwe lenkosi, ‘the king’s country’ (5). amazwe enkosi, ‘the king’s countries’ (6). isizwe senkosi, ‘the king’s nation’ (7). ukutanda kwenkosi, ‘the king’s love’ (15). Livingstone says that these apparently redundant repetitions “impart energy and perspicuity to each member of a proposition, and prevent the possibility of a mistake as to the antecedent.” These prefixes are necessary to the Bantu languages; still, Bleek is right as against Livingstone in speaking of the repetitions as cumbersome, just as the endings of Latin multorum virorum antiquorum are cumbersome, however indispensable they may have been to the contemporaries of Cicero. These African phenomena have been mentioned here chiefly to show to what lengths concord may go in the speech of some primitive peoples. The prevalent opinion is that each of these prefixes (umu, aba, ili, etc.) was originally an independent word, and that thus words like umuntu, ilizwe, were at first compounds like E. steamship, where it would evidently be possible to imagine a reference to this word by means of a repeated ship (our ship, which ship is a great ship, the ship appears, we love the ship); but at any rate the Zulus extend this principle to cases that would be parallel to an imagined repetition of friendship by means of the same ship, or to referring to steamer by means of the ending er (Bleek 107). Bleek
- 27. and others havetried to find out by an analysis of the words making up the different classes what may have been the original meaning of the class-prefix, but very often the connecting tie is extremely loose, and in many cases it seems that a word might with equal right have belonged to another class than the one to which it actually belongs. The connexion also frequently seems to be a derived rather than an original one, and much in this class-division is just as arbitrary as the reference of Aryan nouns to each of the three genders. In several of the classes the words have a definite numerical value, so that they go together in pairs as corresponding singular and plural nouns; but the existence of a certain number of exceptions shows that these numerical values cannot originally have been associated with the class prefixes, but must be due to an extension by analogy (Bleek 140 ff.). The starting-point may have been substantives standing to each other in the relation of ‘person’ to ‘people,’ ‘soldier’ to ‘army,’ ‘tree’ to ‘forest,’ etc. The prefixes of such words as the latter of each of these pairs will easily acquire a certain sense of plurality, no matter what they may have meant originally, and then they will lend themselves to forming a kind of plural in other nouns, being either put instead of the prefix belonging properly to the noun (amazwe, ‘countries,’ 6; ilizwe, ‘country,’ 5), or placed before it (ma-luto, ‘spoons,’ 6, luto, ‘spoon,’ 11). In some of the languages “the forms of some of the prefixes have been so strongly contracted as almost to defy identification.” (Bleek 234). All the prefixes probably at first had fuller forms than appear now. Bleek noticed that the ma- prefix never, except in some degraded languages, had a corresponding ma- as particle, but, on the contrary, is followed in the sentence by ga-, ya-, or a-, and mu- (3) generally has a corresponding particle gu-. Now, Sir Harry Johnston (The Uganda Protectorate, 1902, 2. 891) has found that on Mount Eldon and in Kavirondo there are some very archaic forms of Bantu languages, in which gumu- and gama- are the commonly used forms of the mu- and ma- prefixes, as well as baba- and bubu- for ordinary ba-, bu-; he infers that the original forms of mu-, ma- were ngumu-, ngama-. I am not so sure that he is right when he says that
- 28. these prefixes wereoriginally “words which had a separate meaning of their own, either as directives or demonstrative pronouns, as indications of sex, weakness, littleness or greatness, and so on”—for, as we shall see in a subsequent chapter, such grammatical instruments may have been at first inseparable parts of long words— parts which had no meaning of their own—and have acquired some more or less vague grammatical meaning through being extended gradually to other words with which they had originally nothing to do. The actual irregularity in their distribution certainly seems to point in that direction. XVIII.—§ 10. Word Order Again. Mention has already been made here and there of word order and its relation to the great question of simplification of grammatical structure; but it will be well in this place to return to the subject in a more comprehensive way. The theory of word order has long been the Cinderella of linguistic science: how many even of the best and fullest grammars are wholly, or almost wholly, silent about it! And yet it presents a great many problems of high importance and of the greatest interest, not only in those languages in which word order has been extensively utilized for grammatical purposes, such as English and Chinese, but in other languages as well. In historical times we see a gradual evolution of strict rules for word order, while our general impression of the older stages of our languages is that words were often placed more or less at random. This is what we should naturally expect from primitive man, whose thoughts and words are most likely to have come to him rushing helter-skelter, in wild confusion. One cannot, of course, apply so strong an expression to languages such as Sanskrit, Greek or Gothic; still, compared with our modern languages, it cannot be denied that there is in them much more of what from one point of view is disorder, and from another freedom.
- 29. This is especiallythe case with regard to the mutual position of the subject of a sentence and its verb. In the earliest times, sometimes one of them comes first, and sometimes the other. Then there is a growing tendency to place the subject first, and as this position is found not only in most European languages but also in Chinese and other languages of far-away, the phenomenon must be founded in the very nature of human thought, though its non-prevalence in most of the older Aryan languages goes far to show that this particular order is only natural to developed human thought. Survivals of the earlier state of things are found here and there; thus, in German ballad style: “Kam ein schlanker bursch gegangen.” But it is well worth noticing that such an arrangement is generally avoided, in German as well as in the other modern languages of Western Europe, and in those cases where there is some reason for placing the verb before the subject, the speaker still, as it were, satisfies his grammatical instinct by putting a kind of sham subject before the verb, as in E. there comes a time when ..., Dan. der kommer en tid da ..., G. es kommt eine zeit wo ..., Fr. il arrive un temps où.... In Keltic the habitual word order placed the verb first, but little by little the tendency prevailed to introduce most sentences by a periphrasis, as in ‘(it) is the man that comes,’ and as that came to mean merely ‘the man comes,’ the word order Subject-Verb was thus brought about circuitously. Before this particular word order, Subject-Verb, was firmly established in modern Gothonic languages, an exception obtained wherever the sentence began with some other word than the subject; this might be some important member of the proposition that was placed first for the sake of emphasis, or it might be some unimportant little adverb, but the rule was that the verb should at any rate have the second place, as being felt to be in some way the middle or central part of the whole, and the subject had then to be content to be placed after the verb. This was the rule in Middle English and in Old French, and it is still strictly followed in German
- 30. and Danish: Gesternkam das schiff | Pigen gav jeg kagen, ikke drengen. Traces of the practice are still found in English in parenthetic sentences to indicate who is the speaker (‘Oh, yes,’ said he), and after a somewhat long subjunct, if there is no object (‘About this time died the gentle Queen Elizabeth’), where this word order is little more than a stylistic trick to avoid the abrupt effect of ending the sentence with an isolated verb like died. Otherwise the order Subject-Verb is almost universal in English. XVIII.—§ 11. Compromises. The inverted order, Verb-Subject, is used extensively in many languages to express questions, wishes and invitations. But, as already stated, this order was not originally peculiar to such sentences. A question was expressed, no matter how the words were arranged, by pronouncing the whole sentence, or the most important part of it, in a peculiar rising tone. This manner of indicating questions is, of course, still kept up in modern speech, and is often the only thing to show that a question is meant (‘John?’ | ‘John is here?’). But although there was thus a natural manner of expressing questions, and although the inverted word order was used in other sorts of sentences as well, yet in course of time there came to be a connexion between the two things, so that putting the verb before the subject was felt as implying a question. The rising tone then came to be less necessary, and is much less marked in inverted sentences like ‘Is John here?’ than in sentences with the usual word order: ‘John is here?’ Now, after this method of indicating questions had become comparatively fixed, and after the habit of thinking of the subject first had become all but universal, these two principles entered into conflict, the result of which has been, in English, Danish and French, the establishment in some cases of various kinds of compromise, in which the interrogatory word order has formally carried the day, while really the verb, that is to say the verb which means something,
- 31. is placed afterits subject. In English, this is attained by means of the auxiliary do: instead of Shakespeare’s “Came he not home to-night?” (Ro. ii. 4. 2) we now say, “Did he not (or, Didn’t he) come home to- night?” and so in all cases where a similar arrangement is not already brought about by the presence of some other auxiliary, ‘Will he come?’, ‘Can he come?’, etc. Where we have an interrogatory pronoun as a subject, no auxiliary is required, because the natural front position of the pronoun maintains the order Subject-Verb (Who came? | What happened?). But if the pronoun is not the subject, do is required to establish the balance between the two principles (Who(m) did you see? | What does he say?). In Danish, the verb mon, used in the old language to indicate a weak necessity or a vague futurity, fulfils to a certain extent the same office as the English do; up to the eighteenth century mon was really an auxiliary verb, followed by the infinitive: ‘Mon han komme?’; but now the construction has changed, the indicative is used with mon: ‘Mon han kommer?’, and mon is no longer a verb, but an interrogatory adverb, which serves the purpose of placing the subject before the verb, besides making the question more indefinite and vague: ‘Kommer han?’ means ‘Does he come?’ or ‘Will he come?’ but ‘Mon han kommer?’ means ‘Does he come (Will he come), do you think?’ French, finally, has developed two distinct forms of compromise between the conflicting principles, for in ‘Est-ce que Pierre bat Jean?’ est-ce represents the interrogatory and Pierre bat the usual word order, and in ‘Pierre bat-il Jean?’ the real subject is placed before and the sham subject after the verb. Here also, as in Danish, the ultimate result is the creation of ‘empty words,’ or interrogatory adverbs: est-ce-que in every respect except in spelling is one word (note that it does not change with the tense of the main verb), and thus is a sentence prefix to introduce questions; and in popular speech we find another empty word, namely ti (see, among other scholars, G. Paris, Mélanges ling. 276). The origin of this ti is very curious. While the t of Latin amat, etc., coming after a vowel, disappeared at a very early period of the French language, and so
- 32. produced il aime,etc., the same t was kept in Old French wherever a consonant protected it,[88] and so gave the forms est, sont, fait (from fact, for facit), font, chantent, etc. From est-il, fait-il, etc., the t was then by analogy reintroduced in aime-t-il, instead of the earlier aime il. Now, towards the end of the Middle Ages, French final consonants were as a rule dropped in speech, except when followed immediately by a word beginning with a vowel. Consequently, while t is mute in sentences like ‘Ton frère dit | Tes frères disent,’ it is sounded in the corresponding questions, ‘Ton frère dit-il? Tes frères disent-ils?’ As the final consonants of il and ils are also generally dropped, even by educated speakers, the difference between interrogatory and declarative sentences in the spoken language depends solely on the addition of ti to the verb: written phonetically, the pairs will be: [tɔ̃ frɛ·r di—tɔ̃ frɛ·r di ti] [te frɛ·r di·z—te frɛ·r di·z ti]. Now, popular instinct seizes upon this ti as a convenient sign of interrogative sentences, and, forgetting its origin, uses it even with a feminine subject, turning ‘Ta sœur di(t)’ into the question ‘Ta sœur di ti?’, and in the first person: ‘Je di ti?’ ‘Nous dison ti?’ ‘Je vous fais-ti tort?’ (Maupassant). In novels this is often written as if it were the adverb y: C’est-y pas vrai? | Je suis t’y bête! | C’est-y vous le monsieur de l’Académie qui va avoir cent ans? (Daudet). I have dwelt on this point because, besides showing the interest of many problems of word order, it also throws some light on the sometimes unexpected ways by which languages must often travel to arrive at new expressions for grammatical categories. It was mentioned above that the inverted order, Verb-Subject, is used extensively, not only in questions, but also to express wishes and invitations. Here, too, we find in English compromises with the usual order, Subject-Verb. For, apart from such formulas as ‘Long live the King!’ a wish is generally expressed by means of may, which is placed first, while the real verb comes after the subject: ‘May she be happy!’, and instead of the old ‘Go we!’ we have now ‘Let us go!’
- 33. with us, thevirtual subject, placed before the real verb. When a pronoun is wanted with an imperative, it used to be placed after the verb, as in Shakespeare: ‘Stand thou forth’ and ‘Fear not thou,’ or in the Bible: ‘Turn ye unto him,’ but now the usual order has prevailed: ‘You try!’ ‘You take that seat, and somebody fetch a few more chairs!’ But if the auxiliary do is used, we have the compromise order: ‘Don’t you stir!’ XVIII.—§ 12. Order Beneficial? I have here selected one point, the place of the subject, to illustrate the growing regularity in word order; but the same tendency is manifested in other fields as well: the place of the object (or of two objects, if we have an indirect besides a direct object), the place of the adjunct adjective, the place of a subordinate adverb, which by coming regularly before a certain case may become a preposition ‘governing’ that case, etc. It cannot be denied that the tendency towards a more regular word order is universal, and in accordance with the general trend of this inquiry we must next ask the question: Is this tendency a beneficial one? Does the more regular word order found in recent stages of our languages constitute a progress in linguistic structure? Or should it be deplored because it hinders freedom of movement? In answering this question we must first of all beware of letting our judgment be run away with by the word ‘freedom.’ Because freedom is desirable elsewhere, it does not follow that it should be the best thing in this domain; just as above we did not allow ourselves to be imposed on by the phrase ‘wealth of forms,’ so here we must be on our guard against the word ‘free’: what if we turned the question in another way: Which is preferable, order or disorder? It may be true that, viewed exclusively from the standpoint of the speaker, freedom would seem to be a great advantage, as it is a restraint to him to be obliged to follow strict rules; but an orderly arrangement is decidedly in the interest of the hearer, as it very considerably facilitates his
- 34. understanding of whatis said; it is therefore, though indirectly, in the interest of the speaker too, because he naturally speaks for the purpose of being understood. Besides, he is soon in his turn to become the hearer: as no one is exclusively hearer or speaker, there can be no real conflict of interest between the two. If it be urged in favour of a free word order that we owe a certain regard to the interests of poets, it must be taken into consideration, first, that we cannot all of us be poets, and that a regard to all those of us who resemble Molière’s M. Jourdain in speaking prose without being aware of it is perhaps, after all, more important than a regard for those very few who are in the enviable position of writing readable verse; secondly, that a statistical investigation would, no doubt, give as its result that those poets who make the most extensive use of inversions are not among the greatest of their craft; and, finally, that so many methods are found of neutralizing the restraint of word order, in the shape of particles, passive voice, different constructions of sentences, etc., that no artist in language need despair. So far, we have scarcely done more than clear the ground before answering our question. And now we must recognize that there are some rules of word order which cannot be called beneficial in any way; they are like certain rules of etiquette, in so far as one can see no reason for their existence, and yet one is obliged to bow to them. Historians may, in some cases, be able to account for their origin and show that they had a raison d’être at some remote period; but the circumstances that called them into existence then have passed away, and they are now felt to be restraints with no concurrent advantage to reconcile us to their observance. Among rules of this class we may reckon those for placing the French pronouns now before, and now after, the verb, now with the dative and now with the accusative first, ‘elle me le donne | elle le lui donne | donnez-le moi | ne me le donnez pas.’ And, again, the rules for placing the verb, object, etc., in German subordinate clauses otherwise than in main sentences. That the latter rules are defective and are inferior to the English rules, which are the same for the two kinds of sentences,
- 35. was pointed outbefore, when we examined Johannson’s German sentences (p. 341), but here we may state that the real, innermost reason for condemning them is their inconsistency: the same rule does not apply in all cases. It seems possible to establish the important principle that the more consistent a rule for word order is, the more useful it is in the economy of speech, not only as facilitating the understanding of what is said, but also as rendering possible certain thoroughgoing changes in linguistic structure. XVIII.—§ 13. Word Order and Simplification. This, then, is the conclusion I arrive at, that as simplification of grammatical structure, abolition of case distinctions, and so forth, always go hand in hand with the development of a fixed word order, this cannot be accidental, but there must exist a relation of cause and effect between the two phenomena. Which, then, is the prius or cause? To my mind undoubtedly the fixed word order, so that the grammatical simplification is the posterius or effect. It is, however, by no means uncommon to find a half-latent conception in people’s minds that the flexional endings were first lost ‘by phonetic decay,’ or ‘through the blind operation of sound laws,’ and that then a fixed word order had to step in to make up for the loss of the previous forms of expression. But if this were true we should have to imagine an intervening period in which the mutual relations of words were indicated in neither way; a period, in fact, in which speech was unintelligible and consequently practically useless. The theory is therefore untenable. It follows that a fixed word order must have come in first: it would come quite gradually as a natural consequence of greater mental development and general maturity, when the speaker’s ideas no longer came into his mind helter-skelter, but in orderly sequence. If before the establishment of some sort of fixed word order any tendency to slur certain final consonants or vowels of grammatical importance had manifested itself, it could not have become universal, as it would have been constantly checked by the necessity that speech should be intelligible, and that therefore
- 36. those marks whichshowed the relation of different words should not be obliterated. But when once each word was placed at the exact spot where it properly belonged, then there was no longer anything to forbid the endings being weakened by assimilation, etc., or being finally dropped altogether. To bring out my view I have been obliged in the preceding paragraph to use expressions that should not be taken too literally; I have spoken as if the changes referred to were made ‘in the lump,’ that is, as if the word order was first settled in every respect, and after that the endings began to be dropped. The real facts are, of course, much more complicated, changes of one kind being interwoven with changes of the other in such a way as to render it difficult, if not impossible, in any particular case to discover which was the prius and which the posterius. We are not able to lay our finger on one spot and say: Here final m or n was dropped, because it was now rendered superfluous as a case-sign on account of the accusative being invariably placed after the verb, or for some other such reason. Nevertheless, the essential truth of my hypothesis seems to me unimpeachable. Look at Latin final s. Cicero (Orat. 48. 161) expressly tells us, what is corroborated by a good many inscriptions, that there existed a strong tendency to drop final s; but the tendency did not prevail. The reason seems obvious; take a page of Latin prose and try the effect of striking out all final s’s, and you will find that it will be extremely difficult to determine the meaning of many passages; a consonant playing so important a part in the endings of nouns and verbs could not be left out without loss in a language possessing so much freedom in regard to word position as Latin. Consequently it was kept, but in course of time word position became more and more subject to laws; and when, centuries later, after the splitting up of Latin into the Romanic languages, the tendency to slur over final s knocked once more at the door, it met no longer with the same resistance: final s disappeared, first in Italian and Rumanian, then in French, where it was kept till about the end of the Middle Ages, and it is now beginning to sound a
- 37. retreat in Spanish;see on Andalusian Fr. Wulff, Un Chapitre de Phonétique Andalouse, 1889. The main line of development in historical times has, I take it, been the following: first, a period in which words were placed somewhere or other according to the fancy of the moment, but many of them provided with signs that would show their mutual relations; next, a period with retention of these signs, combined with a growing regularity in word order, and at the same time in many connexions a more copious employment of prepositions; then an increasing indistinctness and finally complete dropping of the endings, word order (and prepositions) being now sufficient to indicate the relations at first shown by endings and similar means. Viewed in this light, the transition from freedom in word position to greater strictness must be considered a beneficial change, since it has enabled the speakers to do away with more circumstantial and clumsy linguistic means. Schiller says: Jeden anderen meister erkennt man an dem, was er ausspricht; Was er weise verschweigt, zeigt mir den meister des stils. (Every other master is known by what he says, but the master of style by what he is wisely silent on.) What style is to the individual, the general laws of language are to the nation, and we must award the palm to that language which makes it possible “to be wisely silent” about things which in other languages have to be expressed in a troublesome way, and which have often to be expressed over and over again (virorum omnium bonorum veterum, ealra godra ealdra manna). Could any linguistic expedient be more worthy of the genus homo sapiens than using for different purposes, with different significations, two sentences like ‘John beats Henry’ and ‘Henry beats John,’ or the four Danish ones, ‘Jens slaar Henrik—Henrik slaar Jens—slaar Jens Henrik?—slaar Henrik Jens?’ (John beats Henry—H. beats J.—does J. beat H.?—does H. beat J.?), or the Chinese use of či in different places (Ch. XIX § 3)? Cannot this be compared with
- 38. the ingenious Arabicsystem of numeration, in which 234 means something entirely different from 324, or 423, or 432, and the ideas of “tens” and “hundreds” are elegantly suggested by the order of the characters, not, as in the Roman system, ponderously expressed? Now, it should not be forgotten that this system, “where more is meant than meets the ear,” is not only more convenient, but also clearer than flexions, as actually found in existing languages, for word order in those languages which utilize it grammatically is used much more consistently than any endings have ever been in the old Aryan languages. It is not true, as Johannson would have us believe, that the dispensing with old flexional endings was too dearly bought, as it brought about increasing possibilities of misunderstandings; for in the evolution of languages the discarding of old flexions goes hand in hand with the development of simpler and more regular expedients that are rather less liable than the old ones to produce misunderstandings. Johannson writes: “In contrast to Jespersen I do not consider that the masterly expression is the one which is ‘wisely silent,’ and consequently leaves the meaning to be partly guessed at, but the one which is able to impart the meaning of the speaker or writer clearly and perfectly”—but here he seems rather wide of the mark. For, just as in reading the arithmetical symbol 234 we are perfectly sure that two hundred and thirty-four is meant, and not three hundred and forty-two, so in reading and hearing ‘The boy hates the girl’ we cannot have the least doubt who hates whom. After all, there is less guesswork in the grammatical understanding of English than of Latin; cf. the examples given above, Ch. XVIII § 4, p. 343. The tendency towards a fixed word order is therefore a progressive one, directly as well as indirectly. The substitution of word order for flexions means a victory of spiritual over material agencies. XVIII.—§ 14. Summary.
- 39. We may heresum up the results of our comparison of the main features of the grammatical structures of ancient and modern languages belonging to our family of speech. We have found certain traits common to the old stages and certain others characteristic of recent ones, and have thus been enabled to establish some definite tendencies of development and to find out the general direction of change; and we have shown reasons for the conviction that this development has on the whole and in the main been a beneficial one, thus justifying us in speaking about ‘progress in language.’ The points in which the superiority of the modern languages manifested itself were the following: (1) The forms are generally shorter, thus involving less muscular exertion and requiring less time for their enunciation. (2) There are not so many of them to burden the memory. (3) Their formation is much more regular. (4) Their syntactic use also presents fewer irregularities. (5) Their more analytic and abstract character facilitates expression by rendering possible a great many combinations and constructions which were formerly impossible or unidiomatic. (6) The clumsy repetitions known under the name of concord have become superfluous. (7) A clear and unambiguous understanding is secured through a regular word order. These several advantages have not been won all at once, and languages differ very much in the velocity with which they have been moving in the direction indicated; thus High German is in many respects behindhand as compared with Low German; European Dutch as compared with African Dutch; Swedish as compared with Danish; and all of them as compared with English; further, among the Romanic languages we see considerable variations in this respect. What is maintained is chiefly that there is a general tendency for languages to develop along the lines here indicated,
- 40. and that thisdevelopment may truly, from the anthropocentric point of view, which is the only justifiable one, be termed a progressive evolution. But is this tendency really general, or even universal, in the world of languages? It will easily be seen that my examples have in the main been taken from comparatively few languages, those with which I myself and presumably most of my readers are most familiar, all of them belonging to the Gothonic and Romanic branches of the Aryan family. Would the same theory hold good with regard to other languages? Without pretending to an intimate knowledge of the history of many languages, I yet dare assert that my conclusions are confirmed by all those languages whose history is accessible to us. Colloquial Irish and Gaelic have in many ways a simpler grammatical structure than the Oldest Irish. Russian has got rid of some of the complications of Old Slavonic, and the same is true, even in a much higher degree, of some of the other Slavonic languages; thus, Bulgarian has greatly simplified its nominal and Serbian its verbal flexions. The grammar of spoken Modern Greek is much less complicated than that of the language of Homer or of Demosthenes. The structure of Modern Persian is nearly as simple as English, though that of Old Persian was highly complicated. In India we witness a constant simplification of grammar from Sanskrit through Prakrit and Pali to the modern languages, Hindi, Hindostani (Urdu), Bengali, etc. Outside the Aryan world we see the same movement: Hebrew is simpler and more regular than Assyrian, and spoken Arabic than the old classical language, Koptic than Old Egyptian. Of most of the other languages we are not in possession of written records from very early times; still, we may affirm that in Turkish there has been an evolution, though rather a slow one, of a similar kind; and, as we shall see in a later chapter, Chinese seems to have moved in the same direction, though the nature of its writing makes the task of penetrating into its history a matter of extreme difficulty. A comparative study of the numerous Bantu languages spoken all over South Africa justifies us in thinking that their evolution has been along the same lines: in some of them the prefixes characterizing
- 41. various classes ofnouns have been reduced in number and in extent (cf. above, § 9). Of one of them we have a grammar two hundred years old, by Brusciotto à Vetralla (re-edited by H. Grattan Guinness, London, 1882). A comparison of his description with the language now spoken in the same region (Mpongwe) shows that the class signs have dwindled down considerably and the number of the classes has been reduced from 16 to 10. In short, though we can only prove it with regard to a minority of the multitudinous languages spoken on the globe, this minority embraces all the languages known to us for so long a period that we can talk of their history, and we may, therefore, confidently maintain that what may be briefly termed the tendency towards grammatical simplification is a universal fact of linguistic history. That this simplification is progressive, i.e. beneficial, was overlooked by the older generation of linguistic thinkers, because they saw a kosmos, a beautiful and well-arranged world, in the old languages, and missed in the modern ones several things that they had been accustomed to regard with veneration. To some extent they were right: every language, when studied in the right spirit, presents so many beautiful points in its systematic structure that it may be called a ‘kosmos.’ But it is not in every way a kosmos; like everything human, it presents fine and less fine features, and a comparative valuation, such as the one here attempted, should take both into consideration. There is undoubtedly an exquisite beauty in the old Greek language, and the ancient Hellenes, with their artistic temperament, knew how to turn that beauty to the best account in their literary productions; but there is no less beauty in many modern languages—though its appraisement is a matter of taste, and as such evades scientific inquiry. But the æsthetic point of view is not the decisive one: language is of the utmost importance to the whole practical and spiritual life of mankind, and therefore has to be estimated by such tests as those applied above; if that is done, we cannot be blind to the fact that modern languages as wholes are more practical than ancient ones, and that the latter present so many more anomalies and irregularities than our present-day
- 42. languages that wemay feel inclined, if not to apply to them Shakespeare’s line, “Misshapen chaos of well-seeming forms,” yet to think that the development has been from something nearer chaos to something nearer kosmos.
- 43. CHAPTER XIX ORIGIN OFGRAMMATICAL ELEMENTS § 1. The Old Theory. § 2. Roots. § 3. Structure of Chinese. § 4. History of Chinese. § 5. Recent Investigations. § 6. Roots Again. § 7. The Agglutination Theory. § 8. Coalescence. § 9. Flexional Endings. § 10. Validity of the Theory. § 11. Irregularity Original. § 12. Coalescence Theory dropped. § 13. Secretion. § 14. Extension of Suffixes. § 15. Tainting of Suffixes. § 16. The Classifying Instinct. § 17. Character of Suffixes. § 18. Brugmann’s Theory of Gender. § 19. Final Considerations. XIX.—§ 1. The Old Theory. What has been given in the last two chapters to clear up the problem “Decay or progress?” has been based, as will readily be noticed, exclusively on easily controllable facts of linguistic history. So far, then, it has been very smooth sailing. But now we must venture out into the open sea of prehistoric speculations. Our voyage will be the safer if we never lose sight of land and have a reliable compass tested in known waters. In our historical survey of linguistic science we have already seen that the prevalent theory concerning the prehistoric development of our speech is this: an originally isolating language, consisting of nothing but formless roots, passed through an agglutinating stage, in which formal elements had been developed, although these and the roots were mutually independent, to the third and highest stage found in flexional languages, in which formal elements penetrated the roots and made inseparable unities with them. We shall now examine the basis of this theory.
- 44. In the beginningwas the root. This is “the result of strict and careful induction from the facts recorded in the dialects of the different members of the family” (Whitney L 260). “The firm foundation of the theory of roots lies in its logical necessity as an inference from the doctrine of the historical growth of grammatical apparatus” (Whitney G 200). “An instrumentality cannot but have had rude and simple beginnings, such as, in language, the so-called roots ... such imperfect hints of expression as we call roots” (Whitney, Views of L. 338). These are really three different statements: induction from the facts, a logical inference from the doctrine about grammatical apparatus (i.e. the usually accepted doctrine, but on what is that built up except on the root theory?), and the a priori argument that an ‘instrumentality’ must have simple beginnings. Even granted that these three arguments given at different times, each of them in turn as the sole argument, must be taken as supplementing each other, the three-legged stool on which the root theory is thus made to sit is a very shaky one, for none of the three legs is very solid, as we shall soon have occasion to see. XIX.—§ 2. Roots. In the beginning was the root—but what was it like? Bopp took over the conception of root from the Indian grammarians, and like them was convinced that roots were all monosyllabic, and that view was accepted by his followers. These latter at times attributed other phonetic qualities to these roots, e.g. that they always had a short vowel (Curtius C 22). I quote from a very recent treatise (Wood, “Indo-European Root-formation,” Journal of Germ. Philol. 1. 291): “I range myself with those who believe that IE. roots were monosyllabic ... these roots began, for the most part, with a vowel. The vowels certainly were the first utterances,[89] and though we cannot make the beginning of IE. speech coeval with that of human speech, we may at least assume that language, at that time, was in a very primitive state.”
- 45. The number ofthese roots was not very great (Curtius, l.c.; Wood 294). This seems a natural enough conclusion when we picture the earliest speech as the most meagre thing possible. These few short monosyllabic roots were real words—this is a necessary assumption if we are to imagine a root stage as a real language, and it is often expressly stated; Curtius, for instance, insists that roots are real and independent words (C 22, K 132); cf. also Whitney, who says that the root VAK “had also once an independent status, that it was a word” (L 255). We shall see afterwards that there is another possible conception of what a ‘root’ is; but let us here grant that it is a real word. The question whether a language is possible which contains nothing but such root words was always answered affirmatively by a reference to Chinese—and it will therefore be well here to give a short sketch of the chief structural features of that language. XIX.—§ 3. Structure of Chinese. Each word consists of one syllable, neither more nor less. Each of these monosyllables has one of four or five distinct musical tones (not indicated here). The parts of speech are not distinguished: ta means, according to circumstances, great, much, magnitude, enlarge. Grammatical relations, such as number, person, tense, case, etc., are not expressed by endings and similar expedients; the word in itself is invariable. If a substantive is to be taken as plural, this as a rule must be gathered from the context; and it is only when there is any danger of misunderstanding, or when the notion of plurality is to be emphasized, that separate words are added, e.g. ki ‘some,’ šu ‘number.’ The most important part of Chinese grammar is that dealing with word order: ta kuok means ‘great state(s),’ but kuok ta ‘the state is great,’ or, if placed before some other word which can serve as a verb, ‘the greatness (size) of the state’; tsï niu ‘boys and girls,’ but niu tsï ‘girl (female child),’ etc. Besides words properly so called, or as Chinese grammarians call them ‘full words,’ there are
- 46. several ‘empty words’serving for grammatical purposes, often in a wonderfully clever and ingenious way. Thus či has besides other functions that of indicating a genitive relation more distinctly than would be indicated by the mere position of the words; min (people) lik (power) is of itself sufficient to signify ‘the power of the people,’ but the same notion is expressed more explicitly by min či lik. The same expedient is used to indicate different sorts of connexion: if či is placed after the subject of a sentence it makes it a genitive, thereby changing the sentence into a kind of subordinate clause: wang pao min = ‘the king protects the people’; but if you say wang či pao min yeu (is like) fu (father) či pao tsï, the whole may be rendered, by means of the English verbal noun, ‘the king’s protecting the people is like the father’s protecting his child.’ Further, it is possible to change a whole sentence into a genitive; for instance, wang pao min či tao (manner) k’o (can) kien (see, be seen), ‘the manner in which the king protects (the manner of the king’s protecting) his people is to be seen’; and in yet other positions či can be used to join a word-group consisting of a subject and verb, or of verb and object, as an adjunct (attribute) to a noun; we have participles to express the same modification of the idea: wang pao či min ‘the people protected by the king’; pao min či wang ‘a king protecting the people.’ Observe here the ingenious method of distinguishing the active and passive voices by strictly adhering to the natural order and placing the subject before and the object after the verb. If we put i before, and ku after, a single word, it means ‘on account of, because of’ (cf. E. for ...’s sake); if we place a whole sentence between these ‘brackets,’ as we might term them, they are a sort of conjunction, and must be translated ‘because.’[90] XIX.—§ 4. History of Chinese. These few examples will give some faint idea of the Chinese language, and—if the whole older generation of scholars is to be trusted—at the same time of the primeval structure of our own language in the root-stage. But is it absolutely certain that Chinese
- 47. Welcome to ourwebsite – the ideal destination for book lovers and knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to specialized publications, self-development books, and children's literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system, we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading. Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and personal growth! ebookultra.com