armkapiani, A.; capiani, D.buttockseni and senidokaouri, A.; tiaugapoui, D.bellysgnani, A.; iani, D.backkouaneteni, A.; cateni, D.chingambapi, A.; capapi, D.dugsmansou, A.; sou (bosom), D.eyesjadjiemouri, A.; taguini, D.fingerscantoulili, D.—forekonkant-ili, A.—middlekouanti-poulo, A.—ringkouanti-ripali, A.—littlekouanti-lminki, A.footkourgnai, A.; caloani, D.hairsénoumébouran, A.; pia, D.handkonk afaleni, A.; cocani, D.heelkonk abiouli, A.kneekonk-apoki, A.; capougui, D.legkonkanfai, A.; anga fuini, D.nosesoun, A.; sauny, D.nailscambrene, A.; cabrene, D.teethoualini, A.; analini, D.toe,greatkouanti-hel, A.—,second and fourthkouanti-bipali, A.—,thirdkouanti-poulo, A.—,littlekouanti-lminki, A.thighaffoloni, A.; enfoloni, or anfoloni, D.
Andaman—TheAndamanLanguage is monosyllabic, and allied to the Burmese of the opposite continent.
Nicoaar&c.—The statement that there are Blacks in theNicobar Islandsis inaccurate. The tribes further from the coast are the rudest. In the Nicobar vocabulary of the Voyage of the Galathea (Steen Bille—Galathea's Reise omkring Jorden), the language most especially represented is that of the island Terressa; the words from Nancovry being markedN, and those from CariecobarC. N.No difference, beyond that of dialect, is recognized as existing between them. At the same time it is, by no means, certain, that every form of speech belonging to the Archipelago is known to us.
Samang &c.—The statement that these are the Orang Udai is inaccurate. For further notice of the Samang see Newbold's IndianArchipelago; a work not known to me when my paper was written. The ethnology of the Orang Benua is fully illustrated in the Journal of the Indian Archipelago. They are all Malay.
Sumatra.—This island gives us certain tribes ruder than others—not blacker; at any rate no Negritos.
The same applies toBorneo; where there is plenty of barbarism but nothing Negrito.
The same to theSuluArchipelago.
TheManillas.—Specimens of four of the so-called Negrito languages are to be found in Steen Bille's Voyage of the Galathea (Vol. III.); headed, (1) Umiray, (2) St. Miguel; (3) St. Matheo and (4) Dumagat. They evidently belong to the same group as the Tagal.
Formosa and Loocho.—The criticism that applies to Borneo and the Sulu Archipelago applies here.
ForTimor,Ombay&c. see the next paper.
The language of theArruislanders is not mentioned; indeed in 1843 no specimens of their language had been published. Since, however, a good account of them has been given by Windsor Earl. Their language contains much in common with the languages of the islands to the west of them, whilst in physical appearance they approach the Papuans. They present, in short, transitional characters—Journal of Indian Archipelago, and The Papua Races.
New Britain&c.—For Louisiade forms of speech see the next paper but one; for those of New Caledonia &c. see the fourth.
The Fijis.—The language of the Fijis is Polynesian.
Cocos Island.—The vocabulary of the island so-named seems to me to be that of Ticopia; and, as such, anything but Negrito.
In Braim's Australia we find specimens of fiveTasmanianforms of speech. The additions to the philology of Australia since 1843 are too numerous to find place in a notice like the present. The fundamental unity of all the languages of that continent is, now, generally recognized.
Of theMicronesianIslanders (natives of theMarianneandCarolineArchipelagos) some tribes are darker than others. They chiefly occupy the coral, as opposed to the volcanic, formations. The same is the case with the supposed Negritos of Polynesia.
For philological purposes it is convenient to arrange the Blacks of the Asiatic and Oceanic Islands under five divisions.
I. The Blacks of the Andaman Islands.—These are, comparatively speaking, isolated in their geographical position; whilst the portion of the continent nearest to them is inhabited by races speaking a monosyllabic language.
II. The Blacks of the Malay area.—With the exception of Java, all the larger, and many of the smaller Malay Islands, as well as the Peninsula of Malacca, are described as containing, in different proportions, a population which departs from the Malay type, which approaches that of the Negro, which possesses a lower civilization, which generally inhabits the more inaccessible parts of the respective countries, and which wears the appearance of being aboriginal to the true Malay population. These tribes may be called the Blacks of the Malay area.
III. The Papuan Blacks of New Guinea.—Under this head may be arranged the tribes of New Guinea, New Ireland, the New Hebrides, Tanna, Erromango, Annatom, New Caledonia, &c.
IV. The Blacks of Australia.
V. The Tasmanian Blacks or the Blacks of Van Diemen's Land.
I. The Andaman Blacks will not be considered in the present note.
II. With respect to the languages of the Blacks of the Malay area, it may be stated unequivocally, that the dialects of each and every tribe for which a vocabulary has been examined, are Malay.
A. Such is the case with the Samang, Jooroo, and Jokong vocabularies of the Peninsula of Malacca.—See Craufurd's Indian Archipelago, Asiatic Researches, xii. 109, Newbold's British Settlements in Malacca.
B. Such is the case with every vocabulary that has been brought from Sumatra. The particular tribe sufficiently different from the Malay to speak a different language has yet to be found.
C. Such is the case with the eight vocabularies furnished by Mr. Brooke from Borneo; notwithstanding the fact that both the Dyacks and the Biajuks have been described as tribes wilder and more degraded than the Malay: in other words, as tribes on the Negro side of the dominant population.
D. Such is the case with every vocabulary brought from any of the Molucca, Key, Arru, or Timorian Islands whatsoever; no matter how dark may be the complexion, or how abnormal the hair, of the natives who have supplied it.
E. Such is the case with the so-called Arafura vocabularies of Dumont Durville from Celebes, and of Roorda van Eysinga from Amboyna and Ceram.
F. Such is the case with the languages of the Philippine Islands. In no part of the great Malay area has the difference between the higher and lower varieties of the population, been more strongly insisted on, and more accurately explained than here. Yet the testimony of the early Spanish Missionaries, as to the fundamental identity of the Black with the other languages is unanimous; and, to put the matter further beyond doubt, the few words of the Igorot negroes, near Marivèles, which are supplied by Lafond Luray, who visited them, are Malay also.
Now, on these grounds, and laying the Andaman Islands out of the question, it may be safely predicated, that, until we reach either New Guinea, or Australia, we have no proofs of the existence of any language fundamentally different from the Malay; whatever may be the difference in physical appearance of those who speak it.
III. For New Guinea, and the islands Waigioo, and Guebé, I have found only ten short vocabularies, and these only for the north-western districts. One of these, the Guebé, of the voyage of the Astrolabe, although dealt with by Mr. Durville as Papuan, is Malay. The rest, without any exception, have a sufficient portion of Malay words to preclude any argument in favour of their belonging to a fresh classof languages. On the other hand, the commercial intercourse between the Papuans and Malays precludes any positive statements as to the existence of a true philological affinity.
From New Guinea, westward and southward, we have for the localities inhabited by the black tribes with curly hair, the following vocabularies.
1. For New Ireland.
A. Gaimard's Carteret Harbour Vocabulary—Voyage de l'Astrolabe, Philologie, ii. 143.
B. Durville's Port Praslin Vocabulary. Ibid.
C. Dalrymple's, so called, New Guinea Vocabulary, collected by Schouten and Le Maire, given also by De Brosses.
2. For Vanikoro—Gaimard's Vocabulary in three dialects, the Vanikoro, the Tanema, and the Taneanou—Voyage de l'Astrolabe, Philologie, ii. 164.
3. Mallicollo—Cook's Vocabulary.
4. Tanna—Ditto. Also a few words marked G. Bennet, in Marsden's Miscellaneous Works.
5. Erromango—a few words by Bennet, in Marsden.
6. Annatom—Ditto.
7. New Caledonia—A short Vocabulary in Cook. A longer one in Dentrecasteaux and La Billardiere.
All these languages, although mutually unintelligible, exhibit words common to one another, common to themselves and the New Guinea, and common to themselves and the Malay. See Transactions of the Philological Society, vol. i. no.[26]4.
IV. The Blacks of Australia are generally separated by strong lines of demarcation from the Blacks of New Guinea, and from the Malays. Even on the philological side of the question, Marsden has written as follows—"We have rarely met with any negrito language in which many corrupt Polynesian words might not be detected. In those of New Holland or Australia, such a mixture is not found. Among them no foreign terms that connect them with the languages even of otherpapuaor negrito countries can be discovered; with regard to the physical qualities of the natives it is nearly superfluous to state, that they are negritos of the more decided class."—p.71.
In respect to this statement, I am not aware that any recent philologist has gone over thedataas wenowhave them, with sufficient care to enable him either to verify or to refute it. Nevertheless, the isolation of the Australian languages is a current doctrine.
I believe this doctrine to be incorrect; and I am sure that, in many cases, it is founded on incorrect principles.
Grammatical differences are valued too high; glossarial affinities too low. The relative value of the grammatical and glossarial tests is not constant. It is different for different languages.
In 1844, I stated, at York, that from three true Malay localities, and in three true Malay vocabularies, I had found Australian and Tasmanian and Papuan words, viz:—
1. Arm =ibarana, Ombay;porene, Pine Gorine dialect of Australia.
2. Hand =ouiue, Ombay;hingue, New Caledonia.
3. Nose =imouni, Ombay;maninya,mandeg,mandeinne, New Caledonia;mena, Van Diemen's Land, western dialect;mini, Mangerei:meoun,muidge,mugui, Macquarie Harbour.
4. Head =imocila, Ombay;moos, (= hair) Darnley Island;moochi, (= hair) Massied;immoos, (= beard) Darnley Islands;eeta moochi, (= beard) Massied.
5. Knee =icici-bouka, Ombay;bowka,boulkay(= forefinger) Darnley Islands.
6. Leg =iraka, Ombay;horag-nata, Jhongworong dialect of the Australian.
7. Bosom =ami, Ombay;naem, Darnley Island.
8. Thigh =itena, Ombay;tinna-mook(= foot) Witouro dialect of Australian. The root,tin, is very general throughout Australia in the sense offoot.
9. Belly =te-kap-ana, Ombay;coopoi, (= navel) Darnley Island.
10. Stars =ipi-berre, Mangarei;bering,birrong, Sydney.
11. Hand =tanaraga, Mangarei;taintu, Timbora;tamira, Sydney.
12. Head =jahé, Mangarei;chow, King George's Sound.
13. Stars =kingkong, Timbora;chindy, King George's Sound, Australia.
14. Moon =mang'ong, Timbora;meuc, King George's Sound.
15. Sun =ingkong, Timbora;coing, Sydney.
16. Blood =kero, Timbora;gnoorong, Cowagary dialect of Australia.
17. Head =kokore, Timbora;gogorrah, Cowagary.
18. Fish =appi, Mangarei;wapi, Darnley Island.
Now as the three dialects have all undoubted Malay affinities, the statement of Marsden must be received with qualifications.
V. Concerning the language of Van Diemen's Land; I venture upon the following statements, the proofs which I hope, ere long, to exhibitin extenso.
α. The Language is fundamentally the same for the whole island; although spoken in not less than four dialects mutually unintelligible.
β. It has affinities with the Australian.
γ. It has affinities with the New Caledonian.
A fourth proposition concerning the Tasmanian language exhibits an impression, rather than a deliberate opinion. Should it, however, be confirmed by future researches it will at once explain the points of physical contrast between the Tasmanian tribes and those of Australia that have so often been insisted on. It is this—that the affinities of language between the Tasmanian and the New Caledonian are stronger than those between the Australian and Tasmanian. This indicates that the stream of population for Van Diemens ranroundAustralia rather thanacrossit.
The following affinities occur between the vocabularies published in the present volume and the Malay and Monosyllabic dialects; and they are the result of a very partial collation.
1. Blood =mam, Darnley Island;muhum, South Jooroo dialect of Malacca;mau, Anamitic of Cochin China.
2. Nose =peet, Darnley Island;peechi, Massied;pih, Chinese;pi, Kong Chinese.
3. Face =awop aup, Murray Islands;eebu= (head) Cape York, Massied;oopoo= (head) Tahiti;epoo, Sandwich Islands;aopo, Easter Island.
4. Hair =moos, Darnley Island;mooche, Massied;maow, Chinese.
5. Country =gaed; Darnley Island;kaha, Ternati.
6. Black =gooli, Darnley Island;houli, Tongataboo.
7. Hand =tag, Darnley Island;tangh, Madagascar;tong, Jooro;tay, Anamitic. A current Malay root.
8. Fish =wapi, Darnley Island;iba, Poggy Isles off Sumatra. Also in other Malay dialects.
9. Flame, fire =bae, Darnley Island;api, Flores, or Ende;fai, Siamese;ffoo, Kong Chinese.
10. Hair =yal, Massied;eeal, Cape York;yal, Port Lihou;houlou, Tongataboo.
11. Teeth =dang, Massied;danga, Cape York;dang, Port Lihou;dang'eta, Gunong-talu of Celebes;wahang, Menadu;rang, Anamitic.
The evidence upon which I rest my belief of the fundamental unity of the three philological groups of the Malay, Papua, and Australian languages, is, of the sort calledcumulative; and it is the only evidence that our presentdatawill afford us.
Believing, however, in such a fundamental unity, the problem to be solved by further researches on the vocabularies from either Torres Strait or the South of New Guinea, is the problem as to the particular quarter from which New Holland was peopled—whether from New Guinea, or from Timor. Such a problem is not beyond the reach offuturephilologists.
In the fifth volume of Dr. Prichard's valuable work, I find that Mr. Norris has indicated points of likeness between the Australian dialects, and the Tamul languages of Southern India.
Such may be the case. If, however, the statements of those philologists who connect on one side the Tamul, and on the other the Malay, with the Monosyllabic languages, be correct, the two affinities are compatible.
The error of presuming the ruder tribes to be Negrito is apparent in the notice of the Sumatra, and Borneo tribes. They should have no place in a list of Negritos at all.
The gist of the paper lies in the suggestions to break down (1) the lines of demarcation between the Australians, Tasmanians, and Papuans on one side, and the Malays &c. on the other, and (2) those between the Malay and Monosyllabic tongues.
APPENDIX TO MACGILLIVRAY'S VOYAGE OF THE HMS RATTLESNAKE. 1852.
In the way of comparative philology the most important part of the Grammar of the Australian languages is, generally, the Pronoun. That of the Kowrarega language will, therefore, be the first point investigated.
In the tongues of the Indo-European class the personal pronouns are pre-eminently constant.i. e., they agree in languages which, in many other points, differ. How thoroughly the sound ofmruns through the Gothic, Slavonic, and Iranian tongues as the sign of the pronoun of the first person singular, in the oblique cases; how regularly a modification oft,s, orth, appears in such words astu,συ,thou, &c.! Now thisconstancyof the Pronoun exists in most languages; but not in an equally palpable and manifest form. It is disguised in several ways. Sometimes, as in the Indo-European tongues, there is one root for the nominative and one for the oblique cases; sometimes the same form, as in the Finlandic, runs through the whole declension; sometimes, as when we sayyouforthouin English, onenumberis substituted for another; and sometimes, as when the German sayssieforthou, a change of the person is made as well. When languages are known in detail, these complications can be guarded against; but where the tongue is but imperfectly exhibited a special analysis becomes requisite.
Generally, the first person is more constant than the second, and the second than the third; indeed, the third is frequently no true personal pronoun at all, but a demonstrative employed to express the person or thing spoken of as the agent or object to a verb. Now, as there are frequently more demonstratives than one which can be usedin a personal sense, two languages may be, in reality, very closely allied, though their personal pronouns of the third person differ. Thus the Latinego=εγω; but the Latinhicandilleby no means correspond in form withὁς,αὐτος, andἐχεινος. This must prepare us for not expecting a greater amount of resemblance between the Australian personal pronouns than really exists.
Beginning with the most inconstant of the three pronouns, viz., that of the third person, we find in the Kowrarega the following forms:—
3.
Singular, masculinenu-du=he,him.Singular, femininena-du=she,her.Dual, commonpale=they two,them two.Plural, commontana=they,them.
In the two first of these forms theduis no part of the root, but an affix, since the Gudang gives us the simpler formsnueandna.Pale, the dual form, occurs in the Western Australian, the New South Wales, the South Australian, and the Parnkalla as follows:boola,bulo-ara,purl-a,pud-lanbi=they two.
2.
Singularngi-du=thou,thee.Dualngi-pel=ye two,you two.Pluralngi-tana=ye,you.
Here the root is limited to the syllablengi, as shewn not less by the formsngi-pel, andngi-tana, than by the simple Gudangngi=thou.
Ngi, expressive of the second person, is common in Australia:ngi-nnee,ngi-ntoa,ni-nna,ngi-nte=thou,thee, in the W. Australian, N. S. Wales, Parnkalla, and Encounter Bay dialects.
Ngi-pelis probablythou+pair.A priorithis is a likely way of forming a dual. As to the reasonsa posteriorithey are not to be drawn wholly from the Kowrarega tongue itself. Here the word for two is notpelbutquassur. But let us look further. The rootp-l, or a modification of it, =twoin the following dialects; as well as in the Parnkalla and others—pur-laitye,poolette,par-kooloo,bull-a, in the Adelaide, Boraipar, Yak-kumban, and Murrumbidge. That it may stand too for the dual personal pronoun is shewn in the first of these tongues; since in the Adelaide languagepurla=ye two. Finally, its appearance amongst the pronouns, and its absence amongst the numerals, occurs in the Western Australian. The numeraltwoiskardura; but the dual pronoun isboala. The same phenomenon would occur in the present English if two circumstances had taken place, viz., if the Anglo-Saxon dualwi-t=we twohad been retained up to the present time amongst the pronouns, and the wordpair,brace, orcouple, had supersededtwoamongst the numerals.
Lastly, the Western Australian and the Kowrarega so closely agree in the use of the numeraltwofor the dual pronoun, that each applies it in the same manner. In thethirdperson it stands alone, so that in W. Australianboala, and in Kowraregapale=they two, just as if in English we saidpairorboth, instead ofthey both(he pair); whilst in the second person, the pronoun precedes it, and a compound is formed; just as if in English we translated the Greekσφωιbythou pairorthou both.
1.
Singularnga-tu=I,me.Dualalbei=we two,us two.Pluralarri=we,us.
Here the plural and dual are represented, not by a modification of the singular, but by a new word; as different fromngaasnosis fromego. Thetu, of course, is non-radical, the Gudang form beingngai.
Nga, expressive of the first person, is as common asngi, equivalent to the second. Thus, nga-nya, nga-toa, nga-i, nga-pe=I,me, in the W. Australian, N. S. Wales, Parnkalla, and Encounter Bay dialects.
Now, the difference between the first and second persons being expressed by different modifications (nga,ngi,) of the same root (ng), rather than by separate words, suggests the inquiry as to the original power of that root. It has already been said that, in many languages, the pronoun of thethirdperson is, in origin, a demonstrative. In the Kowrarega it seems as if even the basis of the first and second was the root of the demonstrative also; since, by looking lower down in the list, we find thati-na=this,che-na=that, andnga-du(ngain Gudang) =who.Inaandchenaalso meanshereandthere, respectively.
The dual formalbeireappears in the Yak-kumban dialect of the River Darling whereallewa=we two.Arri=us, is also the first syllable in the Western Australian formarlingul=we; or, rather it isar-lingulin a simpler and less compounded form. In a short specimen of Mr. Eyre's from the head of the Great Australian Bight, the form inaappears in the singular number,ajjo=Iandme. The roottana=they, is not illustrated without going as far as the Western Australian of Mr. Eyre. Here, however, we find it in the compound wordpar-tanna=many. Its original power is probablyothers; and it is most likely a widely diffused Australian root.
The pronouns in question are compound rather than simple;i. e.instead ofnga=me, andngi=thee, we havenga-tuandngi-du. What is the import and explanation of this? It may safely be said, that the termination in the Australian isnota termination like the Latinmetinego-met, inasmuch as this last is constant throughout the three persons (ego-met,tute-met,se-met), whereas, the former varies with the pronoun to which it is appended (nga-tu, andngi-du). I hazard the conjecture that the two forms correspond with the adverbshereandthere; so thatnga-tu=I here, andngi-du=thouthere, andnu-du= he there. In respect to the juxta-position of thesimpleforms (ngai,ngi, andnue) of the Gudang with the compound ones (nga-tu,ngi-du, andnu-du) of the Kowrarega, it can be shewn that the same occurs in the Parnkalla of Port Lincoln; where Mr. Eyre gives the double formngaiandnga-ppoeach =Iorme.
Now, this analysis of the Kowrarega personals has exhibited the evolution of one sort of pronoun out of another, with the addition of certain words expressive of number, the result being no true inflexion but an agglutination or combination of separate words. It has also shewn how the separate elements of such combinations may appear in different forms and with different powers in different dialects of the same language, and different languages of the same class, even where, in the primary and normal signification, they may be wanting in others. The first of these facts is a contribution to the laws of language in general; the second shews that a great amount of apparent difference may be exhibited on the surface of a language which disappears as the analysis proceeds.
In rude languages the Numerals vary with the dialect more than most other words. We can understand this by imagining what the case would be in English if one of our dialects counted things by thebrace, another by thepair, and a third by thecouple. Nevertheless, if we bear in mind the Greek formsθαλασσαandθαλαττα, we may fairly suppose that the Kowrarega word fortwo, orquassur, is the sameword with the Head of Australian Bightkootera, the Parnkallakuttara, and the W. Australiankardura, having the same meaning.
The difference, then, between thenumeralsof the Australian languages—and it is undoubtedly great—is no proof of any fundamental difference of structure or origin. It is just what occurs in the languages of Africa, and, in a still greater degree, in those of America.
Theextent to which the numeration is carriedis a matter of more importance. Possibly a numeration limited to the first three, four, or five numbers is theeffect ofintellectual inferiority. It is certainly a cause that continues it. As a measure of ethnological affinity it is unimportant. In America we have, within a limited range of languages, vigesimal systems like the Mexican, and systems limited to the three first units like the Caribb. The difference between a vigesimal and decimal system arises simply from the practice of counting by the fingers and toes collectively, or the fingers alone, being prevalent; whereas the decimal system as opposed to the quinary is referrible to the numeration being extended to both hands, instead of limited to one. Numerations not extending as far asfiveare generally independent of the fingersin toto. Then as to the names of particular numbers. Two nations may each take the name of the numbertwofrom some natural dualism; but they may not take it from the same. For instance, one American Indian may take it from a pair ofskates, another from a pair ofshoes. If so, the word fortwowill differ in the two languages, even when the names forskateandshoeagree. All this is supported by real facts, and is no hypothetical illustration; so that the inference from it is, that, in languages where anumeral systemis in the process of formation, difference in the names of the numbers is comparatively unimportant.
The extent to which the numerals vary, the extent to which they agree, and the extent to which this variation and agreement are anything but coincident with geographical proximity or distance, may be seen in the following table:—
EnglishonetwothreeMoreton Baykamarahbullamudyan— Islandkarawongargark2 + 1Limbakarajiaeratngargark2 + 1Terrutongrokaoryalk2 + 1Limbapyuimmutalawidperra2 + 1Kowraregawarapunequassur2 + 1Gudangepiamanaelabaio2 + 1Darnley Islandnetatnes2 + 1Raffles BaylocaoricaorongarieLake MacquariewakolbuloarangoroPeel RiverpeerpularpurlaWellingtonngungbaibulabula-ngungbaiCoriokoimoil————Jhongworongkap————Pinegorineyoua————Gnurelleanlua————King George's SoundkeyencuetrelmurbenKaraulamalbularculebaLachlan, Regent LakenyoonbibuliabulongonbiWollondilly Rivermedungpullacolluerr
The Verb now requires notice. In languages in the same stage of development with the Australian the usual analysis, as shewn by the late Mr. Garnett in his masterly papers on the structure of the verb, is as follows: 1. The root. 2. Thepossessivepronoun. 3. A particle oftime—often originally one ofplace.
A rough illustration of this is the statement that such a word asdormivi=sleep—my—then(orthere). To apply this doctrine to the Kowrarega with our presentdata, is unsafe. Still, I am inclined (notwithstanding some difficulties) to identify thepaof the Present tense with thebuinkai-bu=now, and thenof the preterite with thenofche-na=there.
The double forms of the Past tense (one inn, and another inm) are at present inexplicable. So are the double forms of the Imperative, viz. the one inr, and the one ine. It may, however, be remarked, that wherever the Imperative ends ine, the Preterite has the form inm; thus,pid-e=dig,pid-ema=dug. The only exception is the anomalous formpeneingodgi=dived. This prepares the future grammarian for a division of the Kowrarega Verbs into Conjugations.
The last class of words that supply the materials of comment are the Substantives. Herein, the formation of the plural by the addition ofle, probably occurs in several of the Australian tongues. I infer this from many of those words which we find in the vocabularies of languages whereof the grammar is unknown, and which are expressive of naturallypluralobjects ending inli,la, orl.
1. Star (stars)—pur-le,pi-lle,poo-lle, in Parnkalla, Aiawong, and Yak-kumban.
2. Fire (flames)—ka-lla,gad-la, in W. Australian and Parnkalla.
3. Head (hair)—kur-le, Encounter Bay. Here we learn from the formskar-ga, from the Head of the Great Australian Bight, andma-kar-ta, from Adelaide, that thelis foreign to the root.
4. Hands—marrow-lain the Molonglo dialect; and contrasted withmarrain the Adelaide.
This, however, is merely a conjecture; a conjecture, however, which has a practical bearing. It suggests caution in the comparisonofvocabularies; since, by mistaking an inflexion or an affix for a part of the root, we may overlook really existing similarities.
Father Anjello's very brief grammatical sketch of the Limbakarajia language of Port Essington[27]exhibits, as far as it goes, precisely the sameprinciplesas Mr. Macgillivray's Kowrarega; indeed, some of the details coincide.
Thus, the Limbakarajia personal pronouns are—
Here thepiinnga-piis thepoin the Aiawongnga-ppo; thegianingian-atbeing, probably, theinin the Kowraregaina=that,this.Ngalmo, also, is expressly stated to meanmanyas well asthey, a fact which confirms the view taken oftana.
As for the tenses of the verbs, they are evidently no true tenses at all, but merely combinations of the verbal root, and an adverb of time. In Limbakarajia, however, the adverbial elementprecedesthe verbal one. In Kowrarega, however, the equivalent to this adverbial element (probably a simple adverb modified in form so as to amalgamate with its verb, and take the appearance of an inflexion) follows it—a difference of order, sequence, or position, upon which some philologists will, perhaps, lay considerable stress. On the contrary, however, languages exceedingly similar in other respects, may differ in the order of the parts of a term;e. g.the German dialects, throughout, place the articlebeforethe noun, and keep it separate: whereas theScandinavian tongues not only make it follow, but incorporate it with the substantive with which it agrees. Hence, a term which, if modelled on the German fashion, should behin sol, becomes, in Scandinavian,solen=the sun. And this is but one instance out of many. Finally, I may add that the prefixapa, in the present tense of the verb =cut, is,perhaps, the same affixeipain the present tense of the Kowrarega verbs.
Another point connected with the comparative philology of Australia is the peculiarity of its phonetic system. The sounds offandsare frequently wanting. Hence, the presence of either of them in one dialect has been considered as evidence of a wide ethnological difference. Upon this point—in the case ofs—the remarks on the sound systems of the Kowrarega and Gudang are important. The statement is, thesof the one dialect becomestyortsh(andch) in the other. Thus the English wordbreast=susu, Kowrarega;tyu-tyu, Gudang, and the Englishoutrigger float=sarima, Kowrarega;charima, Gudang,—which of these two forms is the older? Probably the Gudang, or the form inty. If so, the series of changes is remarkable, and by attending to it we may see how sounds previously non-existent may become evolved.
Thus—let the original form forbreastbetutu. The first change which takes place is the insertion of the sound ofy, makingtyu-tyu; upon the same principle which makes certain Englishmen saygyarden,kyind, andskyey, forgarden,kind, andsky. The next change is fortyto becometsh. This we find also in English, wherepictureorpictyooris pronouncedpictshur, &c. This being the change exhibited in the Gudang formtyutyu(pr.choochoo, or nearly so), we have a remarkable phonetic phenomenon, viz. the existence of a compound sound (tsh) whereinsis an element, in a language wheres, otherwise than as the element of a compound, is wanting. In other words, we have asound formed out of s, but notsitself; or (changing the expression still further) we havesin certain combinations, but not uncombined. Let, however, the change proceed, and the initial sound oftbe lost. In this casetshbecomessh. A further change reducesshtos.
When all this has taken place—and there are many languages wherein the whole process is exhibited—the sound of a hitherto unknown articulation becomesevolvedordevelopedby a natural process of growth, and that in a language where it was previously wanting. The phenomenon, then, of the evolution of new simple sounds should caution us against over-valuing phonetic differences. So should suchfacts as that of the closely allied dialects of the Gudang and Kowrarega differing from each other by the absence or presence of so important a sound as that ofs.
The comparative absence, however, of the sound ofs, in Australian, may be further refined on in another way; and it may be urged that it is absent, not because it has never been developed, or called into existence, but because it has ceased to exist. In the Latin of the Augustan age as compared with that of the early Republic, we find thesof words likearboschanged intor(arbor). The old High German, also, and the Icelandic, as compared with the Meso-Gothic, does the same. Still the change only affects certain inflectional syllables, so that the originalsbeing only partially displaced, retains its place in the language, although it occurs in fewer words. In Australian, where it is wanting at all, it is wantingin toto: and this is a reason for believing that its absence is referrible to non-development rather than to displacement. For reasons too lengthy too exhibit, I believe that this latter view isnotapplicable to Australian; thes, when wanting, being undeveloped. In either case, however, the phonetic differences between particular dialects are the measures of but slight differences.
Now—with these preliminary cautions against the overvaluation of apparent differences—we may compare the newdatafor the structure of the Kowrarega and Limbakarajia with the received opinions respecting the Australian grammars in general.
These refer them to the class ofagglutinatetongues,i. e.tongues wherein the inflections can be shewn to consist of separate words more or less incorporated or amalgamated with the roots which they modify. It may be said that this view is confirmed rather than impugned.
Now, what applies to the Australian grammars applies also to Polynesian and the more highly-developed Malay languages,—such as the Tagala of the Philippines, for instance; and, if such being the case, no difference ofprinciple in respect to their structureseparates the Australian from the languages of those two great classes. But the details, it may be said, differ undoubtedly; and this is what we expect. Plural numbers, signs of tense, and other grammatical elements, are evolved by means of the juxtaposition ofsimilarbut notidenticalelements,e. g.one plural may be formed by the affix signifyingmany; another, by the affix signifyingwithorconjointly; one preterite may be the rootplusa word meaningthen; another the rootplusa word meaningthere. Futures, too, may be equally evolved by theincorporation or juxtaposition of the word meaningafter, or the word meaningto-morrow. All this makes the exact coincidence of the details of inflection the exception rather than the rule.
This doctrine goes farther than the mere breaking-down of the lines of demarcation which separate classes of languages like the Australian from classes of languages like the Malayo-Polynesian. It shews how both may be evolved from monosyllabic tongues like the Chinese or Siamese. The proof that such is really the case lies in the similarity of individual words, and consists in comparative tables. It is too lengthy for the present paper, the chief object of which is to bring down the inferences from the undoubtedly great superficial differences between the languages of the parts in question to their proper level.
In respect to thevocabularies, the extent to which the analysis which applies to the grammar applies to the vocables also may be seen in the following instance. The wordhandBijenelumbo and Limbapyu isbirgalk. There is also in each language a second form—anbirgalk—wherein theanisnon-radical. So, also, is thealk; since we find thatarmpit=ingamb-alk,shoulder=mundy-alk, andfingers=mong alk. This brings the root =handtobirg. Now this we can find elsewhere by looking for. In the Liverpool dialect,bir-il=hand, and at King George's Sound,peer=nails. The commonest root, =handin the Australian dialects, ism-r,e. g.