In Hebrew, as in other Semitic languages, the verbal idea as such is expressed by three, less often by two or four, characteristic consonants.  Thus, the group sh-m-r expresses the idea of “guarding,” the group g-n-b that of “stealing,” n-t-n that of “giving.”  Naturally these consonantal sequences are merely abstracted from the actual forms.  The consonants are held together in different forms by characteristic vowels that vary according to the idea that it is desired to express.  Prefixed and suffixed elements are also frequently used.  The method of internal vocalic change is exemplified in shamar “he has guarded,” shomer “guarding,” shamur “being guarded,” shmor “(to) guard.”  Analogously, ganab “he has stolen,” goneb “stealing,” ganub “being stolen,” gnob “(to) steal.”  But not all infinitives are formed according to the type of shmor and gnob or of other types of internal vowel change.  Certain verbs suffix a t-element for the infinitive, e.g., ten-eth “to give,” heyo-th “to be.”  Again, the pronominal ideas may be expressed by independent words (e.g., anoki “I"), by prefixed elements (e.g., e-shmor “I shall guard"), or by suffixed elements (e.g., shamar-ti “I have guarded").  In Nass, an Indian language of British Columbia, plurals are formed by four distinct methods.  Most nouns (and verbs) are reduplicated in the plural, that is, part of the radical element is repeated, e.g., gyat “person,” gyigyat “people.”  A second method is the use of certain characteristic prefixes, e.g., an’on “hand,” ka-an’on “hands”; wai “one paddles,” lu-wai “several paddle.”  Still other plurals are formed by means of internal vowel change, e.g., gwula “cloak,” gwila “cloaks.”  Finally, a fourth class of plurals is constituted by such nouns as suffix a grammatical element, e.g., waky “brother,” wakykw “brothers.”

From such groups of examples as these—­and they might be multiplied ad nauseam—­we cannot but conclude that linguistic form may and should be studied as types of patterning, apart from the associated functions.  We are the more justified in this procedure as all languages evince a curious instinct for the development of one or more particular grammatical processes at the expense of others, tending always to lose sight of any explicit functional value that the process may have had in the first instance, delighting, it would seem, in the sheer play of its means of expression.  It does not matter that in such a case as the English goose—­geese, foul—­defile, sing—­sang—­sung we can prove that we are dealing with historically distinct processes, that the vocalic alternation of sing and sang, for instance, is centuries older as a specific type of grammatical process than