Opuscula - Essays chiefly Philological and Ethnographical

By Author	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Title	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Language

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: Opuscula - Essays chiefly Philological and Ethnographical
Author: Latham, R. G. (Robert Gordon)
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.

*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Opuscula - Essays chiefly Philological and Ethnographical" ***

Transcriber's Notes

Nineteenth century spellings and inconsistencies in spelling and
hyphenation are retained. Apparent inconsistencies in transliterations
from numerous languages are also retained.

Minor changes to punctuation or formatting have been made without
comment. Where "ditto" was used in lists and tables, these have been
replaced with explicit repeat of the word above. Where changes have
been made to the text to correct printer's errors, these are listed at
the end of the book.

In this Plain Text version of the e-book, unicode characters (UTF-8)
are used for special characters and diacritics in the numerous
languages in this e-book, including the following. These should appear
as described, but may depend on the software and fonts used to view the
e-book.

ć ǵ ś ́t acute accent (or stress mark)
ā ē ī ō ū ̄ macron
ă ĕ ĭ ŏ ŭ ̆ breve (short vowel)
ḋ ġ ṗ ṡ ṫ dot above
ḥ ḷ ̣c ̣x dot under
œ oe-ligature

The back tick (´) is used in Greek script to represent the "keraia"
which denotes numbers.

Italic typeface is represented by _underscores_; bold by
=equals signs=; gesperrt by ~tilde signs~; and small caps by UPPERCASE.

The original Table of Contents was presented at the end of the book. In
this version of the e-book the Table of Contents is presented following
the Preface.

* * * * *

OPUSCULA.

ESSAYS
CHIEFLY
PHILOLOGICAL AND ETHNOGRAPHICAL

ROBERT GORDON LATHAM,
M.A., M.D., F.R.S., ETC.
LATE FELLOW OF KINGS COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE, LATE PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH
IN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, LONDON, LATE ASSISTANT PHYSICIAN
AT THE MIDDLESEX HOSPITAL.

WILLIAMS & NORGATE,
14 HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON
AND
20 SOUTH FREDERICK STREET, EDINBURGH.

LEIPZIG, R. HARTMANN.
1860.

LEIPZIG PRINTED BY B. G. TEUBNER.

PREFACE.

The essays in the present volume are chiefly upon philological and
ethnographical subjects: though not exclusively. The earliest was
published in 1840, the latest in 1856. In some cases they have formed
separate treatises and in some Appendices to larger works. The greater
part, however, consists of papers read before the Philological Society
of London; a society which has materially promoted the growth of
Comparative Philology in Great Britain, and which, if it had merely
given to the world the valuable researches of the late Mr. Garnett,
would have done more than enough to justify its existence and to prove
its usefulness.

As a general rule these papers address themselves to some definite
and special question, which commanded the attention of the author
either because it was obscure, or because there was something in the
current opinions concerning it which, in his eyes, required correction.
Researches conducted on this principle can scarcely be invested with
any very general interest. Those who take them up are supposed to have
their general knowledge beforehand. A wide field and a clear view, they
have already taken. At the same time there are, in the distant horizon,
imperfect outlines, and in the parts nearer to the eye dim spots where
the light is uncertain, dark spots where it is wholly wanting, and,
oftener still, spots illumined by a false and artificial light. Some
of the details of the following investigations may be uninteresting
from their minuteness; some from their obscurity; the minuteness
however, and the obscurity which deprive them of general interest
make it all the more incumbent on some one to take them up: and it is
needless to add that for a full and complete system of ethnographical
or philological knowledge all the details that are discoverable should
be discovered. This is my excuse (if excuse be needed) for having
spent some valuable time upon obscure points of minute interest. Upon
the whole, they have not been superfluous. This means that I have
rarely, or never, found from any subsequent reading that they had
been anticipated. Where this has been the case, the article has been
omitted--being treated as a _non scriptum_. An elaborate train of
reasoning submitted to the Ethnographical Society has on this principle
been ignored. It was upon the line of migration by which the Polynesian
portion of the Pacific islands was peopled. It deduced Polynesia
from the Navigator's Islands; the Navigator's Islands, or Samoan
Archipelago, from the Ralik and Radak chains; the Ralik and Radak
chains from Micronesia; Micronesia from the Philippines, viâ Sonsoral
and the Pelews. Some time after the paper was read I found that Forster
has promulgated the same doctrine. I ought to have known it before.
Hence the paper is omitted: indeed it was (though read) never published.

In respect to the others the chief writers who have worked in the same
field are Dr. Scouler, Professor Turner, and Professor Buschmann,--not
to mention the bibliographical labours of Dr. Ludwig, and the second
paper of Gallatin. I have no hesitation in expressing my belief that
where they agree with me they do so as independent investigators;
claiming for myself, where I agree with them, the same consideration.

Of Hodgson and Logan, Windsor Earle, and other investigators I should
have much to say in the way of both acknowledgement and criticism,
had India and the Indian Archipelago taken as large a portion of the
present volume as is taken by North America. As it is, it is only in a
few points that I touch their domain.

The hypothesis that the Asteks (so-called) reached Mexico by sea I
retract. Again--the fundamental affinity of the Australian language
was a doctrine to which both Teichelmann and Sir G. Grey had committed
themselves when the paper on the Negrito languages was written. The
papers, however, stand as they stood: partly because they are worth
something in the way of independent evidence, and partly because they
illustrate allied subjects.

CONTENTS.

I. Pædeutica Page.

Inaugural Lecture 1
On the study of Medicine 15
On the study of Language 27

II. Logica

On the word _Distributed_ 39

III. Grammatica

On the reciprocal Pronouns, and the reflective Verb 45
On the connexion between the Ideas of Association and Plurality
as an influence in the Evolution of Inflection 57
On the word _cujum_ 60
On the Aorists in KA 64

IV. Metrica

On the Doctrine of the Cæsura in the Greek senarius 68
On the use of the signs of Accent and Quantity as guides
to the pronunciation of words derived from the classical
Languages 74

V. Chronologica

On the Meaning of the word ΣΑΡΟΣ 81

VI. Bibliographica

Notice of works on the Provincialisms of Holland 85

VII. Geographica

On the Existence of a nation bearing the name of _Seres_ 89
On the evidence of a connection between the Cimbri and
the Chersonesus Cimbrica 93
On the original extent of the Slavonic area 108
On the terms _Gothi_ and _Getae_ 129
On the Japodes and Gepidae 131

VIII. Ethnologica

On the subjectivity of certain classes in Ethnology 138
General principles of philological classification and the value
of groups, with particular reference to the Languages
of the Indo-European Class 143
Traces of a bilingual town in England 152
On the Ethnological position of certain tribes on the Garrow
hills 153
On the transition between the Tibetan and Indian Families
in respect to conformation 154
On the Affinities of the Languages of Caucasus with the
monosyllabic Languages 156
On the Tushi Language 168
On the Name and Nation of the Dacian king Decebalus,
with notices of the Agathyrsi and Alani 175
On the Language of Lancashire under the Romans 180
On the Negrito Languages 191
On the general affinities of the Languages of the oceanic
Blacks 216
Remarks on the Vocabularies of the Voyage of the Rattlesnake 223
On a Zaza Vocabulary 242
On the Personal Pronouns and Numerals of the Mallicollo
and Erromango Languages, by the Rev. C. Abraham 245
On the Languages of the Oregon Territory 249
On the Ethnography of Russian America 266
Miscellaneous contributions to the Ethnography of North
America 275
On a short Vocabulary of the Loucheux Language, by J.
A. Isbister 299
On the Languages of New California 300
On certain Additions to the ethnographical philology of
Central America, with remarks on the so-called Astek
Conquest of Mexico 317
Note upon a paper of the Hon. Captain Fitzroy on the Isthmus
of Panama 323
On the Languages of Northern, Western and Central America 326

PÆDEUTICA.

INAUGURAL LECTURE

DELIVERED AT
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, LONDON,
OCTOBER 14, 1839.

Instead of detaining you with a dissertation upon the claims and the
merits of our Language, it may perhaps be better to plunge at once into
the middle of my subject, and to lay before you, as succinctly as I am
able, the plan and substance of such Lectures as, within these walls, I
promise myself the honour of delivering. For I consider that the vast
importance of thoroughly understanding, of comprehending, in its whole
length, and breadth, and height, and depth, the language which we all
speak, we all read, and we all (in different degrees, but still each
in our degree) have occasion to write--the importance also of justly
and upon true grounds, valuing the magnificent literature of which we
are the inheritors--I consider, I say, that the vast importance of
all this is sufficiently implied by the simple single fact, that, in
this Institution, the English Language, with the English Literature,
is recognized as part and parcel of a liberal education. It may also
be assumed, without further preface, that every educated man is, at
once, ambitious of writing his own Language well; of criticizing those
who write it badly; and of taking up his admiration of our National
Literature, not upon Trust but upon Knowledge.

Thus having premised, I now proceed to the divisions and the
subdivisions of my subject. For certain practical purposes it is found
expedient to draw, between the consideration of the English Language,
and the consideration of the English Literature, a broad line of
demarcation. The knowledge of books is one thing; the knowledge of the
rules of good composition is another thing. It is one thing to know
what other men have written; it is another thing to know how you should
yourself write. The one is a point of Literary History, or of Literary
Biography; the other is a point of Rhetoric, or a point of Grammar.
I do not say that the two studies do not mutually assist each other.
All studies do so: these in a great degree. Familiarity with the works
of a Shakspeare or a Milton, is an accomplishment--an accomplishment
that depends upon our taste, and one which depends also upon our
leisure--an accomplishment which cannot be too highly valued, but still
an accomplishment. Familiarity, however, with the rules of good writing
is not a mere accomplishment. It is a necessary qualification which
comes home to us all. Now if I am convinced of one thing more than of
another, I am convinced of the truth of this assertion; _viz._: that
a good style comes not of itself; it comes not uncalled for; and it
comes neither by instinct nor by accident. It is the result of art, and
the result of practise. The Rules of good Composition are the rules of
Rhetoric; and it is very necessary that they be neither neglected nor
undervalued. Two classes of men, and two classes only, can pretend to
dispense with them--those that can write well, and those that cannot
write at all.

The English Language is pre-eminently a mixed Language. Its basis
indeed is Saxon, but upon this basis lies a very varied superstructure,
of Danish and of Norman-French, of Modern French and of Greek, of
Classical Latin and of the Latin of the Middle Ages imported at
different periods and upon different occasions. Words from these
languages are comprehended by the writer just in the proportion that
he comprehends their origin and their derivation. Hence it is that the
knowledge of isolated words is subordinate to the formation of a style;
and hence it is that the rules for their investigation are (their aim
and object being alone considered) akin to the rules of Rhetoric.

This however is but a small part of what may be our studies. It is well
to know how Time affects Languages, and in what way it modifies them.
It is well to know how one dialect grows out of another, and how its
older stages differ from its newer ones. It is well if we can perceive
that these variations are in no wise arbitrary; but it is better still
if we can discover the laws that regulate them. Yet all this is but a
knowledge of the changes that words undergo, a knowledge of the changes
in their form, and a knowledge of the changes in their meaning. Now
these points are points of Etymology, the word being used in its very
laxest and its largest sense; and points of Etymology must, in no wise,
be neglected or undervalued.

Lectures upon these questions will form the Etymological part of a
course; and Lectures upon Prose Composition the Rhetorical part of one;
whilst the two, taken together, will give a course upon the English
Language, in contradistinction to one upon the English Literature.

In respect to the latter, I shall, at regular intervals, fix upon
some new period, or some new subject, and, to the best of my power,
illustrate it.

Thus much for the divisions and subdivisions of the subject-matter.

The considerations that come next in order are the considerations of
the manner of exhibiting it, the considerations of the knowledge that
can be detailed, and the considerations of the trains of thought that
can be inculcated.

There are those who believe that a good style is not to be taught.
Many think that the habit of writing good Prose, is like the power
of creating good Poetry; a privilege that we are born to, and not a
possession that we can earn; and a wit once said that, in order to
write clearly, it was only necessary to understand what you would write
about. If this be true, then is composition an easy matter indeed; or,
to say the very least, a perspicuous style is as common as a clear
understanding. The experience of the world has, however, set aside
the decision of the wit, and the practice of inexperienced writers
has belied his dogma. To write well you must understand not only the
_matter_ but the _medium_. Thus then it is, that, with respect to the
use of books, and with respect to the use of rules, in our attempts at
the formation of a good style, some persons neglect them as unavailing,
and some despise them as superfluous.

Towards accurate writing Habit of some sort is indispensably essential.
Yet this indispensable habit is not necessarily a habit of _writing_.
A person who writes no more frequently than the common occasions of
life demand, shall eventually, provided that he will habitually write
his best, write accurately. Now the habit of criticism, and the habit
of attention essential to habits of writing our best, a second person
is, I think, able to inculcate. Such a second person should be familiar
with bad as well as with good writing; even, as the physician shall
grow conversant, not with health only, but with disease also. He should
know what are the more egregious errors in composition; he should
know also what are the more usual ones. He should be learned in the
inaccuracies of good authors, and deeply erudite in the absurdities of
bad ones; recognizing false taste under all its disguises, and holding
up, as a beacon to avoid, the pitiful ambition of mannerism and of
writing finely. The principles by which he tries these things, he can
lay before his hearers; and he can illustrate them with a prodigality
of commentary. And those who hearken shall thus grow critical. And,
mark--the reader that continually and habitually criticizes others,
soon comes to, continually and habitually, criticize himself. He grows
fastidious, as it were, perforce.

In this way two things may be done: our criticism may be sharpened,
and its edge may be turned upon ourselves. At this I aim, and not at
teaching Rhetoric systematically.

The father of Horace, as we learn from the testimony of his son, was
peculiar in his notions of education. In his eyes it was easier to
eschew Vice than to imitate Virtue. Too wise a man not to know that
an unapproachable model was no model at all, he let (for instance)
the modesty of Virgil (as modest virtues generally contrive to do)
speak for itself. But he counselled his son against the prodigality of
Barrus, and held up, with parental prudence, the detected peccadilloes
of Trebonius.

Now the system, that produces a negative excellence in morals, may
produce also a negative excellence in literature. More than this (for
the truth must be told) Art can not do. For Wit, and Vigour, and
Imagination we must be indebted to Nature.

_I know_ that the system of picking out, and holding up, either a
neighbour's foibles, or an author's inelegancies, is not a gracious
occupation; the question, however, is, not whether it be gracious or
ungracious but whether it be efficient or inefficient.

Whosoever is conversant with the writings of etymologists must be
well aware, that there are few subjects wherein men run wild to the
degree that they run wild in _Etymology_. A little learning, dangerous
everywhere, is preeminently dangerous in Etymology. There has been in
the world an excess of bad etymology for two reasons.

The discovery of remote analogies is not only mental exercise, but,
worse luck, it is a mental amusement as well. The imagination is
gratified, and Criticism thinks it harsh to interpose.

Again, there is no language that a man so willingly illustrates as he
illustrates his own. He knows it best, and he studies it with the
greatest ease. He loves it not wisely but too well. He finds in its
structure new and peculiar beauties; he overvalues its excellence, and
he exaggerates its antiquity. Such are the men who talk--in Wales, of
the ubiquity of the Celts; in Germany, of the Teutonic Origin of the
Romans; and in Ireland of the Phœnician extraction of the Milesians.

Thus then, two out of the Thousand and One causes of bad Etymology are
the reason psychological, and the reason patriotic. _Nemini credendum
de Patria sua._

I think that at the entrance upon an unsettled subject, a man should
boldly say, and say at the very onset of his career, upon whose
opinions he relies, and whose opinions he distrusts. He should profess
himself, not indeed the implicit follower of any School, but he should
name the School that he preferred. He should declare whose books he
could recommend, and whose he would eschew. Thus, if I were lecturing
upon Geology, I should say, at once, whether I were what is called
a Scriptural Geologist or a Latitudinarian one: And thus, in the
department in point, I name the writers I put faith in. In the works of
Grimm and Rask I place much trust; in those of Horne Tooke some; and in
those of Whiter and Vallancey (to name small men along with great) none
whatsoever.

In the study of the Languages that have ceased to be spoken we find,
in an Etymological view, one thing, and one thing only; words as they
_have_ been affected by previous processes of change; in other terms,
the _results_ of these processes. But in the Language that we hear
spoken around us, and, still more, in the Language that we ourselves
speak, we find something more than _results_; we find the _processes_
that give occasion to them; in other terms, we see the change _as
it takes place_. Within the lifetime of an individual, within even
a very few years, those that look may find, not only that certain
words are modified in respect to their meaning, and certain letters
modified, in respect to their pronunciation, but they may also see
_how_ these modifications are brought about, ascertaining--of words
the intermediate meanings, and of letters the intermediate sounds.
We may trace the gradations throughout. We can, of our own Language,
and in our own Times, see, with a certainty, what change our Language
more especially affects; we can observe its tendencies. And we can do
this because we can find towards what particular laxities (be they of
meaning or be they of pronunciation) ourselves and our neighbours more
especially have a bias. We can, as it were, _prophesy_. We cannot do
this with the Latin of Augustus; we cannot do it with the Greek of
Pericles.

Hence it is that what we will know, to a certainty, of Etymological
processes, must be collected from Cotemporary Languages. Those who look
for them elsewhere seek for the Living among the Dead; arguing from
things unknown (at least unknown to a certainty), and so speculating
laxly, and dogmatizing unphilosophically. Hence it is, that in
Cotemporary Languages, and of those Cotemporary Languages, in our own
most especially, we may lay deep and strong, and as the only true
substratum of accurate criticism, the foundations of our knowledge of
Etymological Processes. And, observe, we can find them in a sufficient
abundance provided that we sufficiently look out for them. For
Processes, the same in kind, though not the same in degree, are found
in all languages alike. No process is found in any one language that
is not also found (in some degree or other) in our own; and no process
can be found in our own language which does not (in some degree or
other) exist in all others beside. There are no such things as Peculiar
Processes: since Languages differ from each other, not in the nature
of their Processes, but in the degrees of their development. These are
bold, perhaps novel, assertions, but they are not hasty ones.[1]

Simply considered as an _Instrument_ of Etymology I imagine that the
study of Cotemporary Languages is, in its importance, of the very
first degree; while next in value to this (considered also, as an
_Instrument_ of Etymology,) is the study of Languages during what may
be called their breakings-up, or their transitions.

There are two stages in Language. Through these two stages all
Languages, sooner or later, make their way; some sooner than others,
but all sooner or later. Of this the Latin language may serve as an
illustration. In the time of Augustus it expressed the relations of
Time and Place, in other words, its Cases and Tenses, by Declension
and Conjugation, or, broadly speaking, by Inflexion. In the time of
Dante there was little or no Inflexion, but there was an abundance
of Auxiliary Verbs, and an abundance of Prepositions in its stead.
The expression of Time and Place by independent words superseded the
expression by Inflections. Now in all Languages the inflectional stage
comes first. This is a Law. There are Languages that stay for ever (at
least for an indefinite time) in their earlier stage. Others there are
again, that we never come in contact with before they have proceeded
to their later one. Languages of this latter kind are of subordinate
value to the Etymologist. Those that he values most are such as he sees
in the two stages: so being enabled to watch the breaking-up of one,
the constitution of the other, and the transition intermediate to the
two.

Now our own language (the Anglo Saxon being borne in mind) comes under
the conditions that constitute a good and sufficient language as a
disciplinal foundation in Etymology. _It can be studied in two stages._
When we come to the Times of the Conquest we must gird up our loins for
the acquisition of a new Language.

The Breaking-up of the Latin (I speak for the sake of illustration
and comparison) is a study in itself. It is a study complete and
sufficient; not, however, more so than is the study of the Breaking-up
of the Gothic. For in this stock of Tongues, not only did the Saxon
pass into the English, but the Mœso-Gothic, the Scandinavian, and
the Frisian, each gave origin to some new Tongue; the first to the
High German, the second to the Languages of Scandinavia, and the third
to the Modern Dutch. The study then of the Languages of the Gothic
stock is something more than a sufficient disciplinal foundation in
Etymology.[2]

In matters of pronunciation, living Languages have an exclusive
advantage. For dead Languages speak but to the eye; and it is not
through the eye that the ear is to be instructed.

It is well for the Geologist to classify rocks, and to arrange strata,
to distinguish minerals, and to determine fossils; but it is far
better if, anterior to this, he will study the Powers of Nature, and
the Processes that are their operations: and these he can only study
as he sees them in the times wherein he lives, or as he finds them
recorded in authentic and undisputed histories. With this knowledge he
can criticize, and construct; without it he may invent and imagine.
Novel and ingenious he may, perchance, become; but he can never be
philosophical, and he can never be Scientific. So it is with the
Etymologist. Whenever, in a dead Language, he presumes a Process, which
he has looked for in vain in a living one, he outruns his data. The
basis of Etymology is the study of existing Processes.

Our Language has had its share; I must hasten to the consideration of
our Literature.

The Early Literature of most modern Nations consists of the same
elements; of Legends concerning their Saints, of Chronicles, and of
Hymns and Romances. Too much of this fell into the hands of the Monks;
and these were, too often, the prosaic writers of barbarous Latinity;
for Prose (if not in language at least in idea) was, with them, the
rule; and Poetry the exception. Such is the general character of the
Early Modern Literature; in which, however, our Saxon ancestors were,
somewhat (indeed much) more fortunate than their neighbours. Monkish
writing was with them an important element; but it was not the only
one. They had an originality besides. And the Scandinavians were more
fortunate still. The worshippers of Odin and Thor had a _Mythology_;
and Mythologies are the Creators and Creations of Poetry. The Norse
Mythology is as poetical as the Grecian. I speak this advisedly. Now
this Mythology was common to all the Gothic Tribes. The Saxon and
the Norse Literatures dealt (each in their degree) with the same
materials; they breathed the same spirit; and they clothed it in an
allied Language. But the Saxon Mythology is fragmentary; while the
Norse Mythology is a whole. For this reason Scandinavian (or Norse)
Literature is not extraneous to my subject.

These, the primeval and Pagan times of our ancestors, must claim and
arrest our attention; since it is from these that our characteristic
modes of Thought (call them Gothic, or call them Romantic) are derived.
In the regions of Paganism lie the dark fountains of our Nationality.

Beside this, I consider that, even in the matter of Language, the
direct Scandinavian element of the English is much underrated;[3] and
still more underrated is the indirect Scandinavian element of the
Norman-French. And here, again, when we come to the Conquest, we must
grapple with new dialects, irregular imaginations, and mystical and
mysterious Mythologies; for the things that have a value in Language,
have a value in History also.

Now come, in due order, and in lineal succession, the formation of
our Early English Literature, and the days of Chaucer; and then those
of Spenser: periods necessary to be illustrated, but which may be
illustrated at a future time. And after these the Æra of Elizabeth,
fertile in great men, and fertile in great poets; so much so, that (the
full view being too extensive) it must be contemplated by instalments
and in sections.

There are many reasons for choosing as a subject for illustration the
Dramatic Poets of this Period. They stood as great men amid a race of
great men; so doing, they have a claim on our attention on the simple
solitary grounds of their own supereminent excellence. But, besides
this, they are, with the exception of their one great representative,
known but imperfectly. Too many of us consider the Age of Elizabeth
as the Age of Shakspeare exclusively. Too many of us have been misled
by the one-sided partiality of the Shakspearian commentators. These
men, in the monomania of their idolatry, not only elevate their author
into a Giant, but dwarve down his cotemporaries into pigmies. And who
knows not how (on the moral side of the question) their writings are
filled even to nauseousness, with the imputed malignity of Ben Jonson?
Themselves being most malignant.

This, however, has been, by the labor of a late editor, either wholly
done away with, or considerably diluted. Be it with us a duty, and
be it with us a labour of love, to seek those commentators who have
rescued great men from the neglect of Posterity; and be our sympathies
with the diligent antiquarian, who shows that obloquy has originated
unjustly; and be our approbation with those who have corrected the
errors of Fame, loosely adopted, and but lately laid aside.

Yet here we must guard against a reaction. Malone, and his compeers,
valued, or seemed to value, the Elizabethan Drama, just for the light
that it threw upon the text of their idol. Gifford, goaded into scorn
by injustice, fought the fight on the other side, with strength and
with spirit; but he fought it like a partizan; reserving (too much,
but as Editors are wont to do,) his admiration and his eulogy for
those whom he himself edited. Next came Hazlitt and Charles Lamb; who
found undiscovered beauties in poets still more neglected. I think,
however, that they discovered these beauties, or at any rate that they
exaggerated them, in a great degree on account of their being neglected.

Be there here a more Catholic criticism! be there here eulogies more
discriminate! be there here tastes less exclusive!

The Elizabethan Drama is pre-eminently independent, it is pre-eminently
characteristic, it is also pre-eminently English. It is deeply, very
deeply, imbued, with the colours and complexion of the age that gave it
origin. It has much Wisdom, and much Imagination. The last of our Early
Dramatists is Shirley. With him terminates the School of Shakspeare.
The transition hence is sudden and abrupt. Imagination decays; Wit
predominates. Amatory poets write as though they wore their hearts in
their heads. Wit is perfected. It had grown out of a degeneracy of
Imagination; it will soon be sobered into Sense; Sense the predominant
characteristic of the writers under Queen Anne. The school of Dryden
passes into that of Pope, Prior being, as it were, intermediate. The
Æra of the Charleses comprises two Schools; the School of Cowley,
falsely called Metaphysical, with an excess of Fancy, and a deficiency
of Taste, and the School of Dryden, whose masculine and fiery
intellectuality simulates, aye! and _is_, genius. Tragedy has run
retrograde; but Comedy is evolving itself towards a separate existence,
and towards its full perfection. The Spirit of Milton stands apart from
his cotemporaries; reflecting nothing of its age but its self-relying
energy, moral and intellectual.

Now, although, the Schools of Cowley and the Schools of Dryden, differ
essentially from that particular section of the Elizabethan Æra,
which we have just contemplated, they do not differ, essentially,
from another section of that same æra. Be this borne in mind. There
are in Literature, no precipitate transitions. The greatest men, the
most original thinkers, the most creative spirits stand less alone
than the world is inclined to imagine. Styles of composition, that
in one generation are rife and common, always exist in the age that
went before. They were not indeed its leading characteristics, but
still they were existent within it. The metrical Metaphysics of Cowley
were the metrical metaphysics of Donne: the versified Dialectics of
Dryden may be found, with equal condensation but less harmony, in the
Elizabethan writings of Sir John Davies. The section of one age is the
characteristic of the next. This line of criticism is a fair reason
(one out of many) for never overlooking and never underrating obscure
composers and obsolete literature.

The School of Pope, and the School of our own days, are too far in the
prospective to claim any immediate attention.

And here I feel myself obliged to take leave of a subject, that
continually tempts me to grow excursive.

There are two sorts of lecturers; those that absolutely teach, and
those that stimulate to learn; those that exhaust their subject, and
those that indicate its bearings; those that infuse into their hearers
their own ideas, and those that set them a-thinking for themselves.
For my own part, it is, I confess, my aim and ambition to succeed in
the latter rather than in the former object. To carry such as hear me
through a series of Authors, or through a course of Languages, in full
detail, is evidently, even if it were desirable, an impossibility;
but it is no impossibility to direct their attention to the prominent
features of a particular subject, and to instil into them the imperious
necessity of putting forth their own natural powers in an independent
manner, so as to read for themselves, and to judge for themselves.
Now as I would rather see a man's mind active than capacious; and, as
I love Self-reliance better than Learning, I have no more sanguine
expectation, than, that instead of exhausting my subject I may move
you to exhaust it for yourselves, may sharpen criticism, may indicate
original sources, and, above all, suggest trains of honest, earnest,
patient and persevering reflection.

NOTES.

NOTE 1, p. 6. l. 24.

To be heard with confidence we must prove that we have anticipated
objections. There are those who shew reason for believing that the
inflectional elements were once independent roots: in other words
(or rather in a formal expression) that a given case = the root+a
preposition, and that a given tense = the root+the substantive verb. Now
believing that, although two forms may be thus accounted for, the third
may have a very different origin, in other words, drawing a difference
between _a_ method of accounting for a given part of speech, and _the_
method of so doing, I find that the bearings of the objection are as
follows:--

The independent words, anterior to their amalgamation with the root,
and anterior to their power as elements in inflection were either, like
the present prepositions and the verb substantive, exponents of the
relations of Time and Place, or they were, like the present nouns and
verbs, names expressive of ideas: and presuming the former to have been
the case, the old inflected Languages may have grown out of Languages
like our own; and, _vice versa_, Languages uninflected (or at least
comparatively so), like our own, may give rise to inflected ones like
the Latin: in which case, a Cycle is established, and the assertion
concerning the sequence falls to the ground.

Now the assertion concerning the _two_ stages professes to be true only
as far as it goes. The fact that certain nations are even now evolving
a rudimentary inflection out of a vocabulary of independent roots,
gives us, as an etymological phenomenon, a _third_, and an earlier
stage of Language; a stage, however, of which cognizance, out of a
work on Etymology, would have been superfluous. The independent roots,
however, in these Languages coincide, not with the prepositions and the
verbs substantive of (comparatively) uninflected Languages, but with
their Nouns and Verbs.

To an objector of another sort who should inquire (for instance) where
was the Passive Voice in English, or the Definite Article in Latin,
the answer would be that the question shewed a misapprehension of the
statement in the text, which is virtually this: not that there is
either in English or Latin, respectively, Passive Voices, or Definite
Articles, but that there are in the two Languages the processes that
evolve them. It may also be added, that (an apparent truism) the
quantity of Processes depends upon the _capacity_ of the Language. A
dialect consisting (as some do) of about ten-score words can _bear_
but a proportionate number of Processes. The truth, however, of the
statements in question depends upon this: viz. that all the processes
there existing are the processes that exist elsewhere, and that all
processes which, with a given increase of Language may at any future
time be developed, shall coincide, in kind, with the processes of other
Languages.

It may be satisfactory to the Author of the Principles of Geology to
discover that his criticism affects other sciences besides his own.
Notwithstanding the industry, and acumen of continental critics, it may
be doubted whether the Principles of Etymology (as a _Science_) have
not yet to be exhibited. I use the word _exhibited_ intentionally. That
many Etymologists _apply_ them I am most certain; where, however, do we
find them detailed in system, or recognised as tests?

We draw too much upon the Philologists of Germany; and where men draw
indefinitely they trust implicitly. I believe that the foundations
of Etymology are to be laid upon the study of existing processes;
and I grow sanguine when I remember that by no one so well as by an
Englishman can these processes be collected. With the exception of the
Russian (a doubtful exception) we come in contact with more Languages
than any nation under the Sun. Here then we have an advantage in
externals. The details of Etymology I can willingly give up to the
scholars of the Continent; in these they have already reaped a harvest:
but for the _Principles_ of Etymology, I own to the hope that it may
be the English School that shall be the first to be referred to and
the last to be distrusted. In sketching the outline of a system of
Scientific Etymology, I again borrow my analogies from Geology. Its
primary divisions would be two: 1stly, The processes that change the
_form_ of words, or the _formal_ processes. 2ndly, The processes that
change their _meanings_, or the _Logical_ processes. The first of these
would be based upon the affinities and interchanges of _sounds_, the
second upon the affinities and interchanges of _ideas_: the sciences
(amongst others) which they were erected on being, respectively,
those of Acoustics and Metaphysics; and the degrees of Etymological
probability would then coincide with the correspondence of the two
sorts of processes.

Few Etymologists have any conception of the enormous influence of
small and common processes, provided that the extent of Language that
they affect be considerable. In the very generalizing classification
of Languages into Monosyllabic, Triliteral, and Polysynthetic, I
put no trust; for I can refer (to my own satisfaction at least) the
differences that are generally attributed to an original diversity of
composition, to a diversity in the development of processes: in other
words, I know of processes which with a given degree of development
render the three classes convertible each in the other. With these
notions I, of course, take exceptions to the _Principle_ of the
classification; for I deny that the _Form_ of a Language is, in any
degree, an essential characteristic. The axiom is not _Propter formam
Lingua est id quod est_, but _Propter elementa Lingua est id quod est_.
The question concerning the Classification in point is analogous to the
question concerning the Chemical and the Natural-History Classification
in Mineralogy.

NOTE 2, p. 7. l. 22.

Were it not for the admixture of other questions, the present Lecture
might have been entitled _The Sufficiency of the English Language as
a Disciplinal Study in Grammar and Etymology, irrespective of the
fact of its being the native Language of Englishmen_. The appended
qualification is in no wise a superfluity. Our native Language is the
best instrument in Disciplinal Study simply because it is our native
one; and a Pole, a Spaniard, or Hungarian can best lay in their ideas
of General Grammar from the special study of the Polish, Spanish, and
Hungarian Languages respectively. The very palpable reason for this
is that, before we can advantageously study the System of a Language,
we must have acquired a certain quantity of the detail of it. Now,
in the attempt to collect ideas of General Grammar from the study of
a Foreign Language, we shall find that the Theory will be swamped by
the Practice; in other words, that, by attempting to do two things at
once, we shall do one of them badly. Merely, then, to have predicated
in England, of the English Language, that it was a good and sufficient
Disciplinal Instrument would have been to have remained silent as to
its _abstract_ merits as such.

Of these abstract merits the degree depends upon the chronological
extent of Language that we make use of. To get them at their _maximum_
the Two Stages must be taken in: and the Two Stages being taken in, it
is more on a par with the Languages of Classical Antiquity, than it
has generally been considered to be. Still (considered thus far only)
it is inferior to them. For the Greek and Latin, exceeding it in the
quantity of original Inflection, have run through an equal quantity of
change. Considering, however, not the English only, but the whole range
of allied Languages forming the Gothic Stock, the question takes a
different shape. As a Magazine of Processes and Principles, the Gothic
Stock not only equals the Classical, but exceeds, by far, the Greek
Branch of it. The Hebrew from its _quasi_-symbolic form has Disciplinal
merits of its own.

Let the Languages of Greece and Italy be learned for their own sake;
and by those who have the privilege to appreciate them. One might think
that the works of Homer and Demosthenes, of Lucretius and Cæsar, were
a sufficient reason for turning with diurnal and nocturnal hands the
copies that exhibit them. But let us not (as we often are) be told
that it is necessary to study the Latin or the Greek Accidence for the
sake of learning grammar in general. The self-deception that in taking
up Latin and Greek we are studying a Grammar, instead of beginning a
Literature, is too often the excuse for concluding our studies just
where they might advantageously begin, and for looking with complacency
upon limited acquirements just where limited acquirements are
pre-eminently of little use.

NOTE 3, p. 8, l. 27.

I feel that the assertion here made requires modifying and explaining.
I should be sorry to be supposed to have made it, under the old notion
that in any written records of the Saxon Literature there is any
ostensible admixture of Danish (_i. e._ Scandinavian); still less do I
participate in the belief of the early Gothic Scholars in the existence
of their so-called Dano-Saxon Dialect. I recognize, moreover, the
criticism that refers the apparent Danish (Scandinavian) element of
the East-Anglian, and Northumbrian Glossaries to the original affinity
between the extreme Low German and the extreme Scandinavian Dialects:
thus making it _indirect_. It was once my opinion (one which I have
since modified but not given up) that in the present English, and
consequently in the Low Germanic Branch of the Gothic Stock, obscure
traces of the great Scandinavian characteristics (_viz._ the existence
of a Passive Middle or Reflective Voice, and the peculiar expression of
the sense of the Definite Article) could be discovered: but it was not
upon this idea that I founded the assertion in the text.

The question has its peculiar difficulties. Words that have long
passed for Scandinavian, are continually being detected in the Saxon;
so that the Philologist who should say _this word is Scandinavian
and not Saxon_ has the difficult task of proving a negative. Again,
the point is one upon which no single person's assertion should be
received. Hastiness of Induction, in favour of particular Languages,
when we know these Languages (as every Language, indeed as every kind
of Knowledge, must be known) at the expense of some other, comes upon
us unconsciously. The Languages of the Gothic Stock that I know best
are those of Scandinavia; the Provincial Dialect of England which
I have most studied is that of Lincolnshire, and the neighbouring
maritime Counties. Here the preeminence of the Danish (Scandinavian)
element being acknowledged, the question is whether it be _Direct_ or
_Indirect_. I am free to confess that this circumstance sharpens my
sight for the perception (true or false) of direct Danish elements.
As a counterbalance, however, the consciousness of it engenders a
proportionate self-distrust.

Upon the whole, I would rather that the sentence had run thus: _the
Direct Scandinavian element in the English is still to be determined,
and here (as in many other places) there is open ground for the
original investigator_.

INTRODUCTORY LECTURE,
DELIVERED
AT THE MIDDLESEX HOSPITAL,
OCTOBER 1, 1847.

There are certain facts of such paramount importance, that they not
only bear, but require, repetition. The common duties of every-day
life, and the common rules of social policy, are matters which no
moralist states once for all: on the contrary, they are reiterated as
often as occasion requires--and occasion requires them very often.

Now it is from the fact of certain medical duties, both on the part of
those who teach and those who learn, being of this nature, that, with
the great schools of this metropolis, every year brings along with it
the necessity of an address similar to the one which I have, on this
day, the honour of laying before you.

You that come here to learn, come under the pressure of a cogent
responsibility--in some cases of a material, in others of a moral
nature--in all, however, most urgent and most imperative.

To the public at large--to the vast mass of your fellow-creatures
around you--to the multitudinous body of human beings that sink under
illness, or suffer from pain--to the whole of that infinite family
which has bodily, not unmixed with mental affliction, for its heritage
upon earth--to all who live, and breathe, and feel, and share with
yourselves the common lot of suffering--here, in their whole height
and depth, and length and breadth, are your responsibilities of one
kind. You promise the palliation of human ailment: but you break that
high promise if you act unskilfully. You call to you all those that are
oppressed; but you may aggravate the misery that you should comfort
and relieve. You bear with you the outward and visible signs, if not
of the high wisdom that heals, at least of the sagacious care that
alleviates. Less than this is a stone in the place of bread; and less
than this is poison in the fountain-springs of hope.

Not at present, indeed, but within a few brief years it will be so.
Short as is human life, the period for the learning of your profession
is but a fraction of the time that must be spent in the practice of it.
A little while, and you may teach where you now learn. Within a less
period still, you will practise what you are now taught.

And practice must not be begun before you have the fitness that is
sufficient for it. Guard against some of the current commonplaces of
carelessness, and procrastination. Lawyers sometimes say "that no
man knows his profession when he begins it." And what lawyers say of
law, medical men repeat about physic. Men of that sort of standing in
medicine which, like the respectability of an old error, is measured by
time alone, are fondest of talking thus; and men of no standing of any
sort are fondest of being their echoes. It is the current paradox of
your practical men, _i. e._ of men who can be taught by practice alone.
Clear your heads of this nonsense. It will make you egotists, and it
will make you empirics: it will make you men of one idea: it will make
you, even when you fancy it would do you just the contrary, the wildest
of speculators. The practice of practical men, in the way I now use the
words, is a capital plan for making anything in the world, save and
except practitioners.

Well! this has seemed excursive, but it is not so: it is a reason
against the putting off of your learning-time. When your first case
comes, you must be as fit for it as you are ready for it.

A difference between old practitioners and beginners there always will
be--so long at least as there is value in experience, and a difference
between age and youth; but this difference, which is necessary,
must be limited as much as possible, must be cut down to its proper
dimensions, and must by no means whatever be permitted to exaggerate
itself into an artificial magnitude. If it do so, it is worse than a
simple speculative error,--it is a mischievous delusion: it engenders a
pernicious procrastination, justifies supineness, and creates an excuse
for the neglect of opportunities: it wastes time, which is bad, and
encourages self-deception, which is worse.

A difference between old practitioners and beginners there always will
be: but it should consist not so much in the quality of their work
as in the ease with which it is done. It should be the gain of the
practitioner, not the loss of the patient.

Now, if I did those whom I have the honour to address the injustice
of supposing that the moral reasons for disciplinal preparation,
during the course of study now about to be entered into, were thrown
away upon their minds and consciences, I should be at liberty to make
short work of this part of my argument, and to dispose of much of it
in a most brief and summary manner. I should be at liberty to say, in
language more plain and complimentary, and more cogent than persuasive,
that you _must_ be up to your work when you begin it. If you stumble
at the threshold, you have broken down for after-life. A blunder at
the commencement is failure for the time to come. Furthermore; mala
praxis is a misdemeanor in the eyes of the law, for which you may first
be mulcted by a jury, and afterwards be gibbeted by the press. This
fact, which there is no denying, ought to be conclusive against the
preposterous doctrine which I have exposed: conclusive, however, as it
is, it is one which I have not chosen to put prominent. Let a better
feeling stand instead of it. Honesty is the best policy; but he is not
honest who acts upon that policy only.

All this may be true; yet it may be said that the responsibility is
prospective. "'Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof.' We'll
think about this when we have got through the Halls and Colleges.
You must give us better reasons for sacrificing our inclinations to
our duty than those of a _paulo-post-futurum_ responsibility." Be it
so: you have still a duty, urgent and absolute--not prospective, but
immediate--not in the distance, with contingent patients, but close
at hand, with the realities of friend and family--not abroad with the
public, but at home with your private circle of parents, relatives, and
guardians. By them you are entrusted here with the special, definite,
unequivocal, undoubted object--an object which no ingenuity can refine
away, and no subtlety can demur to--of instruction, discipline,
preparation. You not only _come_ up here to learn, but you are _sent_
up to do so: and anxious wishes and reasonable hopes accompany you. You
are commissioned to avail yourself of a time which experience has shewn
to be sufficient, and of opportunities which are considered necessary:
and there is no excuse for neglect.

Great as are the opportunities, they are not numerous enough to be
wasted; and limited as is the time in the eyes of those who only know
it in its misapplication, it is the period that a considerable amount
of experience has sanctioned as a fair and average time for fair and
average abilities, and for fair and average industry:--not a _minimum_
period made for iron assiduity on the one hand, or for fiery talent
on the other, but a period adapted to the common capacities of the
common mass of mankind--a common-sense time,--a time too long or too
short only for the extremes of intellect--too short for the slowness of
confirmed dulness, too long for the rapid progress of extraordinary and
rarely-occurring genius.

Of this time you are bound to make the most. It is your interest to do
so for your own sakes; it is your duty to do so for the sake of your
friends.

You come to the hospital to _learn_--you come to the hospital to learn
in the strictest sense of the word. You come to learn medicine, as
you would go--if instead of physic your profession were the law--to
the chambers of a special pleader, a common lawyer, or an equity
draughtsman. In this strict sense does your presence here imply
study--study exclusive, and study without any loss of time, and without
any division of attention. You do not come here as a clergyman goes to
the University; but as artists go to Rome--not to keep terms, but to do
work.

I must here guard against the misinterpretation of an expression used a
few sentences back. I wish to let nothing drop that may encourage the
germs of an undue presumption. I expressed an opinion--which I meant to
be a decided one--that the time allowed for your medical studies was
full, fair, and sufficient,--so much so that if it prove _in_sufficient
the fault must lie in the neglect of it. _Sufficient_, however, as it
is, it gives no opportunity for any superfluous leisure. It must not
be presumed on. You have no odd months, or weeks, or days, or even
hours, to play with. It is a sufficient space for you to lay in that
knowledge of your profession which the experience and opinion of your
examining boards have thought proper to require. I believe the amount
thus required, to be, like the time granted for the acquisition of
it, a fair amount. But it is not a high one, and it is not right that
it should be so. Standards of fitness that are set up for the measure
of a body of students so numerous as those in medicine, rarely err
on the side of severity. They favour mediocrity; and they ought to
favour it. It is safe: and that is all they have a right to look to.
What they profess is never very formidable; and what they require is
generally less than what is professed. But the time that is sufficient
for this _modicum_ (or _minimum_) of professional learning is not the
time sufficient for the formation of a practitioner of that degree of
excellence which the competition of an open profession, like that of
medicine, requires as the guarantee of success. An examining board
has but one point to look to--it must see that you can practise
with safety to the public. It never ensures, or professes to ensure,
that you shall practise with success to yourself, or even that you
shall practise at all. In the eyes of an Examiner, as in those of a
commissioner of lunacy, there are but two sorts of individuals; those
that can be let loose upon the public, and those that cannot. In the
eyes of the public there is every degree of excellence, and every
variety of comparative merit or demerit.

Now as to the way of attaining these higher degrees of merit, and the
rewards, moral or material, which they ensure--which follow them as
truly as satisfaction follows right actions, and as penalties follow
wrong ones. The opportunity we have spoken of. It consists in the whole
range of means and appliances by which we here, and others elsewhere,
avail ourselves of those diseases that humanity has suffered, and
is suffering, for the sake of alleviating the misery that they seem
to ensure for the future. Disease with us is not only an object of
direct and immediate relief to the patient who endures it, but it is
an indirect means of relief to sufferers yet untouched. Out of evil
comes good. We make the sick helpful to the sound; the dead available
to the living. Out of pestilence comes healing, and out of the
corruption of death the laws and rule of life. Suffering we have, and
teaching we have, and neither must be lost upon you. It is too late
to find that these objects, and objects like them, are repugnant and
revolting. These things should have been thought of before. Your choice
is now taken, and it must be held to. The discovery that learning
is unpleasant is the discovery of a mistake in the choice of your
profession; and the sooner you remedy such a mistake the better--the
better for yourselves, the better for your friends, the better for the
public, and the better for the profession itself.

Steady work, with fair opportunities--this is what makes practitioners.
The one without the other is insufficient. There is an expenditure of
exertion where your industry outruns your materials, and there is a
loss of useful facts when occasions for observation are neglected.

See all you can, and hear all you can. It is not likely that cases will
multiply themselves for your special observations, and it is neither
the policy nor the practice of those who are commissioned with your
instruction to open their mouths at random.

See all you can. If the case be a common one, you get so much
familiarity with a phenomenon that it will be continually presenting
itself. If a rare one, you have seen what you may seldom see again.
There is every reason for taking the practice of the hospital exactly
as you find it. It represents the diseases of the largest class of
mankind--the poor; and, although in some of the details there may be a
difference, upon the whole the forms of disease that are the commonest
in hospitals are the commonest in the world at large; and _vice versâ_.
Hence, what you see here is the rule rather than the exception for
what you will see hereafter. The diseases are not only essentially the
same, but the proportion which they bear to one another is nearly so. I
mention this, because there is often a tendency to run after rare cases
to the neglect of common ones; whilst, on the other hand, remarkable
and instructive forms of disease are overlooked, simply because they
are thought the curiosities rather than the elements of practice. You
may carry your neglect of common cases, on the strength of their being
common, too far. You may know all about catalepsy and hydrophobia, and
nothing about itch or measles. You may find that, of the two parties
concerned, the patient and yourself, it is the former that knows the
most about his complaint. You may live to have your diagnosis corrected
by the porter, your prognosis criticised by the nurse. On the other
hand, by missing single instances of rare disease, you may miss the
opportunity of being able to refer to your memory rather than to your
library.

I have given you reasons against being afraid of over-observation, and
against the pernicious habit of neglecting this case because it is
common, and that because it is rare--a common excuse for neglecting
_all_ diseases, and a popular reason for doing so. _Medicus sum,
nihil in re medicâ a me alienum puto_, &c. Some minds, indeed, are so
constituted that they can make much, very much, out of single cases,
out of solitary specimens of diseases. The power of minute analysis is
the characteristic of this sort of observation. It is just possible so
to seize upon the true conditions of a disease, as to satisfy yourself,
once for all, of its real permanent attribute--of its essence, if I may
so express myself. And this being seen, you may, for certain purposes,
have seen enough; seen it at one glance; seen it at a single view as
well as others see it at a hundred. I say that certain minds are thus
constituted; but they are rarely the minds of many men in a single
generation, and never the minds of beginners. Before this power is
attained your observation must be disciplined into the accuracy and the
rapidity of an instinct; and to this power of observation--attainable
only by long practice, and after long practice--a high power of
reflection must be superadded.

No such power must be presumed on. If the student delude himself, the
disease will undeceive him. The best practitioners, in the long run,
are those whose memory is stored with the greatest number of individual
cases--individual cases well observed, and decently classified. It
is currently stated that the peculiar power of the late Sir Astley
Cooper was a power of memory of this sort, and I presume that no better
instance of its value need be adduced. Now the memory for cases implies
the existence of cases to remember; and before you arrange them in
the storehouse of your thoughts you must have seen and considered;
must have used both your senses and your understanding; must have
seen, touched, and handled with the one, and must have understood and
reflected with the other.

I am talking of these things as they exist in disciplined intellects,
and in retentive memories; and, perhaps, it may be objected that I
am talking of things that form the exception rather than the rule;
that I am measuring the power of common men by those of extraordinary
instances. I weigh my words, when I deliberately assert, that such,
although partially the case, is not so altogether; and that it is far
less the case than is commonly imagined. In most of those instances
where we lose the advantage of prior experience, by omitting the
application of our knowledge of a previous similar case, the fault
is less in the laxity of memory than in the original incompleteness
of the observation. Observe closely, and ponder well, and the memory
may take care of itself. Like a well-applied nick-name, a well-made
observation will stick to you--whether you look after it or neglect it.
The best way to learn to swim is to try to sink, and it is so because
floatation, like memory, is natural if you set about it rightly. Let
those who distrust their remembrance once observe closely, and then
forget if they can.

There are good reasons for cultivating this habit at all times, but
there are especial reasons why those who are on the threshold of their
profession should more particularly cultivate it. Not because you have
much to learn--we have all that--nor yet because you have the privilege
of great opportunities--we have all that also--must you watch, and
reflect, and arrange, and remember. Your time of life gives you an
advantage. The age of the generality of you is an age when fresh facts
are best seized: and best seized because they are fresh. Whether you
are prepared to understand their whole import, as you may do at some
future period, is doubtful. It is certain that the effect of their
novelty is to impress them more cogently on your recollection.

And this is practice--practice in the good sense of the term, and in
a sense which induces me to guard against the misconstruction of a
previous application of it. A few sentences back I used the phrases
_practical men_, adding that those so called were men who could be
taught by practice only. I confess that this mode of expression was
disparaging. For the purpose to which it was applied it was meant to
be so. It is a term you must be on your guard against. _Practice_ is
so good a thing of itself that its name and appellation are applied
to many bad things. Slovenliness is practice; if it suits the purpose
of any one to call it so; contempt for reading is practice; and
bleeding on all occasions when you omit to purge is practice;--and bad
practice too. Be on your guard against this: but do not be on your
guard against another sort of practice: the practice of men who first
observe, and then reflect, and then generalise, and then reduce to a
habit their results. This is the true light for you to follow, and in
this sense practice is not only _a_ safe guide but _the_ safe guide. It
is experience, or, if you choose a more philosophic term, induction.
Theoretical men can be taught by this, and the wisest theories _are_
taught by it. When I said that practical men were taught by practice
only, I never implied that they were the only men that practice could
teach. Experience makes fools wise; but fools are not the only persons
who can profit by experience.

See and hear--the senses must administer to the understanding. Eye, and
ear, and finger--exercise these that they may bring in learning.

See and hear--the senses must administer to their own improvement. Eye,
and ear, and finger--exercise these, that they may better themselves
as instruments. The knowledge is much, but the discipline is more. The
knowledge is the fruit that is stored, but the discipline is the tree
that yields. The one is the care that keeps, the other the cultivation
that supplies.

The habit of accurate observation is by no means so difficult as is
darkly signified by logicians, nor yet so easy as is vainly fancied by
empirics. It is the duty of those who teach you to indicate the medium.

The tenor of some of my observations runs a risk of misrepresentation.
It has been limited. It has spoken of cases, as if there was nothing
in the whole range of medical study but cases; and of observation,
as if the faculties of a medical man were to take a monomaniac form,
and to run upon observation only; of hospitals, as if they consisted
of beds and patients alone; and of clinical medicine and of clinical
surgery, as if there was no such a paramount subject as physiology,
and no such important subsidiary studies as chemistry and botany. It
is all hospital and no school--all wards and no museum--all sickness
and no health. This has been the line that I have run on; and I feel
that it may be imputed to me that I have run on it too long and too
exclusively. Whether I undervalue the acquisition of those branches
of knowledge which are collateral and subordinate to medicine, rather
than the elements of medicine itself--which are the approaches to the
temple rather than the innermost shrine--will be seen in the sequel.
At present I only vindicate the prominence which has been given to
clinical observation, by insisting upon the subordinate character of
everything that is taught away from the bed, and beyond the sensible
limits of disease. No single subject thus taught is the direct and
primary object of your learning. The art of healing is so. You learn
other things that you may understand this; and in hospitals at
least you learn them with that view exclusively. If you wish to be
a physiologist, chemist, or botanist, irrespectively of the medical
application of the sciences of physiology, chemistry, and botany,
there are better schools than the Middlesex Hospital, or, indeed, than
any hospital whatever. _There_ they may be studied as mathematics are
studied at Cambridge, or as classics at Eton--simply for their own
great and inherent values. But _here_ you study them differently, that
is, as mathematics are taught at a military college, or as classics
are taught at the College of Preceptors, for a specific purpose,
and with a limited view--with a view limited to the illustration of
disease, and with the specific purpose of rendering them indirect
agents in therapeutics. If you could contrive the cure of disease
without a knowledge of morbid processes, it would be a waste of time to
trouble yourself with pathology; or if you could bottom the phenomena
of diseased action without a knowledge of the actions of health,
physiology would be but a noble science for philosophers; or if you
could build up a system of physiology, determining the functions of
organs and the susceptibilities of tissues, independent of the anatomy
of those organs and those tissues, scalpels would be as irrelevant to
you as telescopes; and if these three sciences received no elucidation
from chemistry, and botany, and physics, then would chemistry, and
botany and physics, have the value--neither more nor less--of the art
of criticism or of the binomial theorem. What you are taught in the
schools is taught to you, not because it is worth knowing--for Latin,
and Greek, and Mathematics are worth knowing--but because, before
patients can be cured, they are necessary to be learned.

And, in order to be taught at all, they must be taught systematically.
It is an easy matter to ask for a certain amount of these two
collateral sciences--to pick and choose just the parts wanted for
use, to require just that _modicum_ of botany which illustrates the
Pharmacopœia, and just those fragments of chemistry that make
prescriptions safe, and urine intelligible. It is easy, I say, to ask
for all this; but the art of thus teaching _per saltum_ has yet to be
discovered. The whole is more manageable than the half. What it may
be with others is more than I can tell; but, for my own particular
teaching, I would sooner take the dullest boy from the worst school,
and start him in a subject at the right end, than begin at the wrong
end with the cleverest prizeman that ever flattered parent or gratified
instructor. Bits of botany and crumbs of chemistry are less digestible
than whole courses.

Thus much for those studies that make your therapeutics rational.
Some few have spoken slightly of them--as Sydenham, in the fulness
of his knowledge of symptoms, spoke slightingly of anatomy, or as a
Greek sculptor, familiar with the naked figure, might dispense with
dissection. They are necessary, nevertheless, for the groundwork of
your practice. They must serve to underpin your observations.

And now we may ask, whether, when a medical education has been gone
through, you have collected from it, over and above your professional
sufficiency, any secondary advantages of that kind which are attributed
to education itself taken in the abstract? Whether your knowledge is of
the sort that elevates, and whether your training is of the kind that
strengthens?

Upon the whole, you may be satisfied with the reflex action of
your professional on your general education--that is, if you take
a practical and not an ideal standard. It will do for you, in this
way, as much as legal studies do for the barrister, and as much as
theological reading does for the clergyman; and perhaps in those
points not common to the three professions medicine has the advantage.
Its chemistry, which I would willingly see more mixed with physics,
carries you to the threshold of the exact sciences. Its botany is
pre-eminently disciplinal to the faculty of classification; indeed,
for the natural-history sciences altogether, a medical education is
almost necessary. Clear ideas in physiology are got at only through an
exercised power of abstraction and generalization. The phenomena of
insanity can be appreciated only when the general phenomena of healthy
mental function are understood, and when the normal actions of the mind
are logically analyzed. Such is medical education as an instrument of
self-culture: and as education stands at present, a man who has made
the most of them may walk among the learned men of the world with a
bold and confiding front.

I insist upon thus much justice being done to the intellectual
character of my profession--viz. that it be measured by a practical,
and not an ideal, standard. Too much of the spirit of exaggeration
is abroad--of that sort of exaggeration which makes men see in the
requisites for their own profession the requisites for half-a-dozen
others--of that sort of exaggeration which made Vitruvius, himself an
architect, prove elaborately that before a man could take a trowel in
his hand he must have a knowledge of all the sciences and a habit of
all the virtues. Undoubtedly it would elevate medicine for every member
in the profession to know much more than is required of him--yet this
is no reason for our requiring much more than we do. Such a notion
can be entertained only through a confusion of duty on the part of
those who direct medicine. Their business is the public safety; and
the position of their profession is their business _only_ so far as it
affects this. Trusts are intended for the benefit of any one rather
than the trustee.

Two objections lie against the recommendation of extraneous branches
of learning in medicine: in the first place, by insisting upon them as
elements of a special course of instruction, they are, by implication,
excluded from a general one; in the second place, they are no part of a
three years' training.

Concentrate your attention on the essentials. I am quite satisfied
that as far as the merits or demerits of an education contribute to
the position of a profession, we may take ours as we find it, and yet
hold our own. Nevertheless, lest the position given to medicine by
its pre-eminent prominence, in conjunction with the church and bar,
as one of the so-called learned professions, should encourage the
idea that a multiplicity of accomplishments should be the character
of a full and perfect medical practitioner, one or two important
realities in respect to our position should be indicated. We are at
a disadvantage as compared with both the church and the bar. We have
nothing to set against such great political prizes as chancellorships
and archbishoprics. We are at this disadvantage; and, in a country like
England, it is a great one: so that what we gain by the connection, in
the eyes of the public, is more than what we give; and the connection
is itself artificial, and, as such, dissoluble. It is best to look the
truth in the face--we must stand or fall by our own utility.

Proud to be useful--scorning to be more

--must be the motto of him whose integrity should be on a level with
his skill, who should win a double confidence, and who, if he do his
duty well, is as sure of his proper influence in society, and on
society--and that influence a noble one--as if he were the member of a
profession ensured to respectability by all the favours that influence
can extort, and all the prerogatives that time can accumulate. As
compared with that of the church and bar, our hold upon the public is
by a thread--but it is the thread of life.

Such are the responsibilities, the opportunities, and the prospects,
of those who are now about to prepare themselves for their future
career. We who teach have our responsibilities also; we know them; we
are teaching where Bell taught before us; we are teaching where ground
has been lost; yet we are also teaching with good hopes, founded upon
improved auguries.

ON THE STUDY OF LANGUAGE AS A
BRANCH OF EDUCATION.

A LECTURE DELIVERED AT THE ROYAL INSTITUTION
OF GREAT BRITAIN.

MAY 13, 1854.

The subject I have the honour of illustrating is The Importance of the
Study of Language as a means of Education for all Classes.

I open it by drawing a distinction.

A little consideration will show that that difference between the
study of a given subject in its general and abstract, and the study
of one in its applied or concrete, form, which finds place in so many
departments of human knowledge, finds place in respect to Language
and Languages. It finds place in the subject before us as truly as it
does in that science, which one of my able successors will have the
honour of illustrating,--the science of the laws of Life--Physiology or
Biology. Just as there is, therein, a certain series of laws relating
to life and organization, which would command our attention, if the
whole animal and vegetable world consisted of but a single species,
so the study of Speech would find place in a well-devised system of
education, even if the tongues of the whole wide world were reduced
to a single language, and that language to a single dialect. This is
because the science of life is one thing, the science of the forms
under which the phenomena of life are manifested, another. And just as
Physiology, or Biology, is, more or less, anterior to and independent
of such departments of study as Botany and Zoology, so, in the subject
under notice, there is the double division of the study of _Language_
in respect to structure and development, and the study of _Languages_
as instances of the variety of form in which the phenomenon of human
speech exhibits, or has exhibited, itself. Thus--

When (as I believe once to have been the case) there was but a single
language on the face of the earth, the former of these divisions had
its subject-matter. And--

When (as is by no means improbable) one paramount and exclusive
tongue, developed, at first, rapidly and at the expense of the
smaller languages of the world, and, subsequently, slowly and at
that of the more widely-diffused ones, shall have replaced the still
numerous tongues of the nineteenth century; and when all the dialects
of the world shall be merged into one Universal Language, the same
subject-matter for the study of the structure of Language, its growth
and changes, will still exist.

So that the study of Language is one thing, the study of Languages,
another.

They are different; and the intellectual powers that they require and
exercise are different also. The greatest comparative philologists
have, generally, been but moderate linguists.

A certain familiarity with different languages they have, of course,
had; and as compared with that of the special scholar--the Classic or
the Orientalist, for instance--their range of language (so to say) has
been a wide one; but it has rarely been of that vast compass which is
found in men after the fashion of Mezzofanti, &c.--men who have spoken
languages by the dozen, or the score;--but who have left comparative
philology as little advanced as if their learning had been bounded by
the limits of their own mother tongue.

Now this difference, always of more or less importance in itself,
increases when we consider Language as an object of education; and it
is for the sake of illustrating it that the foregoing preliminaries
have been introduced. No opinion is given as to the comparative rank or
dignity of the two studies; no decision upon the nobility or ignobility
of the faculties involved in the attainment of excellence in either.
The illustration of a difference is all that has been aimed at. There
is a difference between the two classes of subjects, and a difference
between the two kinds of mental faculties. Let us make this difference
clear. Let us also give it prominence and importance.

One main distinction between the study of Language and the study of
Languages lies in the fact of the value of the former being _constant_,
that of the latter, _fluctuating_. The relative importance of any two
languages, as objects of special attention, scarcely ever remains
steady. The value, for instance, of the German--to look amongst the
cotemporary forms of speech--has notably risen within the present
century. And why? Because the literature in which it is embodied has
improved. Because the scientific knowledge which, to all who want the
key, is (so to say) locked up in it, has increased some hundred per
cent.

But it may go down again. Suppose, for instance, that new writers of
pre-eminent merit, ennoble some of the minor languages of Europe--the
Danish, Swedish, Dutch, &c. Such a fact would divide the attention of
_savans_--attention which can only be bestowed upon some second, at
the expense of some first, object. In such a case, the extent to which
the German language got studied would be affected much in the same way
as that of the French has been by the development of the literature of
Germany.

Or the area over which a language is spoken may increase; as it may,
also, diminish.

Or the number of individuals that speak it may multiply--the area being
the same.

Or the special application of the language, whether for the purposes of
commerce, literature, science, or politics, may become changed. In this
way, as well as in others, the English is becoming, day by day, more
important.

There are other influences.

High as is the value of the great classical languages of Greece and
Rome, we can easily conceive how that value might be enhanced. Let a
manuscript containing the works of some of the lost, or imperfectly
preserved, writers of antiquity be discovered. Let, for instance,
Gibbon's _desiderata_--the lost _Decads of Livy_, the _Orations of
Hyperides_, or the _Dramas of Menander_--be made good. The per-centage
of classical scholars would increase; little or much.

Some years back it was announced that the Armenian language contained
translations, made during the earlier centuries of our era, of certain
classical writings, of which the originals had been lost--lost in the
interval. This did not exactly make the Armenian, with its alphabet
of six-and-thirty letters, a popular tongue; but it made it, by a
fraction, more popular than it was in the days of Whiston and La Croze,
when those two alone, of all the learned men of Europe, could read it.

Translations tell in another way. Whatever is worth reading in the
Danish and Swedish is forthwith translated into German. _E. g._
Professor Retzius of Stockholm wrote a good Manual of Anatomy. He
had the satisfaction of seeing it translated into German. He had the
further satisfaction of hearing that the translation ran through five
editions in less time than the original did through one.

Now, if the Germans were to leave off translating the value of the
language in which Professor Retzius wrote his Anatomy would rise.

Upon the whole, the French is, perhaps, the most important language of
the nineteenth century; yet it is only where we take into consideration
the whole of its elements of value. To certain special _savans_, the
German is worth more; to the artist, the Italian; to the American, the
Spanish. It fell, too, in value when nations like our own insisted
upon the use of their native tongues in diplomacy. It fell in value
because it became less indispensable; and another cause, now in
operation, affects the same element of indispensability. The French
are beginning to learn the languages of other nations. Their own
literature will certainly be none the worse for their so doing. But it
by no means follows that that literature will be any the more studied.
On the contrary, Frenchmen will learn English more, and, _pro tanto_,
Englishmen learn French less.

If all this have illustrated a difference, it may also have done
something more. It may have given a rough sketch, in the way of
classification, of the kind of facts that regulate the value of special
languages as special objects of study. At any rate (and this is the
main point), the subject-matter of the present Address is narrowed. It
is narrowed (in the first instance at least) to the consideration of
that branch of study whereof the value is constant; for assuredly it is
this which will command more than a moiety of our consideration.

This may be said to imply a preference to the study of Language as
opposed to that of Languages--a _singular_ preference, as a grammarian
may, perhaps, be allowed to call it. It cannot be denied that, to
a certain extent, such is the case; but it is only so to a certain
extent. The one is not magnified at the expense of the other. When all
has been said that logic or mental philosophy can say about the high
value of comparative philology, general grammar, and the like, the
lowest value of the least important language will still stand high, and
pre-eminently high that of what may be called the _noble_ Languages.
No variations in the philological barometer, no fluctuations in the
Exchange of Language, will ever bring down the advantage of studying
one, two, or even more foreign languages to so low a level as to expel
such tongues as the Latin, the Greek, the French, or the German, one
and all, from an English _curriculum_--and _vice versâ_, English from a
foreign one.

Now, if this be the case, one of the elements in the value of the
_study of Language in general_ will be the extent to which it
facilitates the acquirement of any one language in particular, and
this element of value will be an important--though not the most
important--one.

The structure of the human body is worth knowing, even if the
investigator of it be neither a practitioner in medicine nor a teacher
of anatomy; and, in like manner, the structure of the human language
is an important study irrespective of the particular forms of speech
whereof it may facilitate the acquirement.

The words on the diagram-board will now be explained. They are meant to
illustrate the class of facts that comparative philology supplies.

The first runs--

_Klein_ : _Clean_ :: _Petit_ : _Petitus_.

It shows the extent to which certain ideas are associated. It shows,
too, something more; it shows that such an association is capable of
being demonstrated from the phenomena of language instead of being a
mere _à priori_ speculation on the part of the mental philosopher.

_Klein_ is the German for _little_; _clean_ is our own English
adjective, the English of the Latin word _mundus_. In German the word
is _rein_.

Now, notwithstanding the difference of meaning in the two tongues,
_clean_ and _klein_ are one and the same word. Yet, how are the ideas
of _cleanliness_ and _littleness_ connected? The Greek language has
the word _hypocorisma_, meaning a _term of endearment_, and the
adjective _hypocoristic_. Now, _clean-ness_, or _neat-ness_, is one of
the elements that make _hypocoristic_ terms (or terms of endearment)
applicable. And so is _smallness_. We talk of _pretty little dears_,
a thousand times, where we talk of _pretty big dears_ once. This,
then, explains the connexion; this tells us that _clean_ in English is
_klein_ in German, word for word.

You doubt it, perhaps. You shake your head, and say, that the connexion
seems somewhat indefinite; that it is just one of those points which
can neither be proved nor disproved. Be it so. The evidence can be
amended. Observe the words _petit_ and _petitus_. _Petit_ (in French)
is exactly what _klein_ is in German, _i. e._, _little_. _Petitus_ (in
Latin) is very nearly what _clean_ is in English, _i. e._, _desired_,
or _desirable_. That _petit_ comes from _petitus_ is undeniable.

Hence, where the German mode of thought connects the ideas of
_smallness_ and _cleanness_, the Latin connects those of _smallness_
and _desirability_; so that as _petit_ is to _petitus_, so is _klein_
to _clean_. In the diagram this is given in the formula of a sum in the
Rule of Three.

The words just noticed explain the connexion of ideas in the case
of separate words. The forthcoming help us in a much more difficult
investigation. What is the import of such sounds as that of the letter
_s_ in the word father-_s_? It is the sign of the plural number.

Such is the question--such the answer; question and answer connected in
the word _fathers_ solely for the sake of illustration. Any other word,
and any other sign of case, number, person, or tense, would have done
as well.

But _is_ the answer a real one? Is it an answer at all? How come such
things as plural numbers, and signs of plural numbers, into language?
How the particular plural before us came into being, I cannot say; but
I can show how some plurals have. Let us explain the following--

_Ngi_ = _I_. _Ngi-n-de_ = _we_.
_Ngo_ = _thou_. _Ngo-n-da_ = _ye_.
_Ngu_ = _he_. _Nge-n-da_ = _they_.
_Da_ = _with_.
_Me-cum_ = _me_.

The _da_ (or _de_) in the second column, is the sign of the plural
number in a language which shall at present be nameless. It is also
the preposition _with_. Now _with_ denotes _association_, association
_plurality_. Hence

_Ngi-n-de_ = _I_ + = _we_.
_Ngo-n-da_ = _thou_ + = _ye_.
_Nge-n-da_ = _he_ + = _they_.

This is just as if the Latins, instead of _nos_ and _vos_, said
_me-cum_ and _te-cum_.

Such is the history of one mode of expressing the idea of plurality;
we can scarcely say of a _plural number_. The words _plural
number_ suggest the idea of a single word, like _fathers_, where
the _s_ is inseparably connected with the root; at least so far
inseparably connected as to have no independent existence of its own.
_Ngi-n-de_, however, is no single word at all, but a pair of words in
juxta-position, each with a separate existence of its own. But what
if this juxta-position grow into _amalgamation_; What if the form in
_da_ change? What if it become _t_ or _z_, or _th_, or _s_? What if,
meanwhile, the separate preposition _da_ change in form also; in form
or meaning, or, perhaps, in both? In such a case a true plural form is
evolved, the history of its evolution being a mystery.

So much for one of the inflections of a _noun_. The remaining words
illustrate one of a _verb_.

Hundreds of grammarians have suggested that the signs of the _persons_
in the verb might be neither more nor less than the personal pronouns
_appended_; in the first instance, to the verb, but, afterwards
amalgamated or incorporated with it. If so, the _-m_ in _inqua-m_, is
the _m_ in _me_, &c. The late Mr. Garnett, a comparative philologist
whose reputation is far below his merits, saw that this was not exactly
the case. He observed that the appended pronoun was not so much the
_Personal_ as the _Possessive_ one: that the analysis of a word like
_inqua-m_ was not so much, _say_+_I_, as _saying_+_my_; in short, that
the verb was a noun, and the pronoun either an adjective (like _meus_)
or an oblique case (like _mei_), agreeing with, or governed by, it.

It is _certainly_ so in the words before you. In a language, which,
at present, shall be nameless, instead of saying _my apple_, _thy
apple_, they say what is equivalent to _apple-m_, _apple-th_, &c.; _i.
e._, they append the possessive pronoun to the substantive, and by
modifying its form, partially incorporate or amalgamate it. They do
more than this. They do (as the diagram shows us) precisely the same
with the verbs in their _personal_, as they do with the nouns in their
_possessive_, relations. Hence, _olvas-om_, &c., is less _I read_ than
_my-reading_; less _read_+_I_, than _reading_+_my_.

_Olvas_--_om_ = _I read_. = _reading-my_.
---- _od_ = _thou readest_. = _reading-thy_.
---- _uk_ = _we read_. = _reading-our_.
---- _atok_ = _ye read_. = _reading-your_.

_Almá_--_m_ = _my apple_. = _apple-my_.
---- _d_ = _thy apple_. = _apple-thy_.
---- _nk_ = _our apple_. = _apple-our_.
---- _tok_ = _your apple_. = _apple-your_.

I submit, that facts of this kind are of some value, great or small.
But the facts themselves are not all. How were they got at? They were
got at by dealing with the phenomena of language as we found them, by
an induction of no ordinary width and compass; for many forms of speech
had to be investigated before the facts came out in their best and most
satisfactory form.

The illustration of the verb (_olvasom_, and _almám_, &c.) is from
the Hungarian; that of the plural number (_nginde_, &c.), from the
Tumali--the Tumali being a language no nearer than the negro districts
to the south of Kordovan, between Sennaar and Darfur, and (as such) not
exactly in the highway of literature and philology.

Now I ask whether there be, or whether there be not, certain branches
of inquiry which are, at one and the same time, recognised to be of the
highest importance, and yet not very remarkable for either unanimity of
opinion, precision of language, or distinctness of idea on the part of
their professors. I ask whether what is called, with average clearness,
Mental Philosophy, and, with somewhat less clearness, Metaphysics,
be not in this predicament? I ask whether, in this branch of
investigation, the subject-matter do not eminently desiderate something
definite, palpable, and objective, and whether these same desiderated
tangibilities be not found in the wide field of Language to an extent
which no other field supplies? Let this field be a training-ground. The
facts it gives are of value. The method it requires is of value.

As the languages of the world, as the forms of speech mutually
unintelligible, are counted by the hundred, and the dialects by the
thousand, the field is a large one--one supplying much exercise, work,
and labour. But the applications of the results obtained are wide also;
for, as long as any form of mental philosophy remains susceptible of
improvement, as long as its improved form remains undiffused, so long
will a knowledge of the structure of language in general, a knowledge
of comparative philology, a knowledge of general grammar (for we may
choose our term), have its use and application. And, assuredly, this
will be for some time.

As to its special value in the particular department of the
ethnologist, high as it is, I say nothing, or next to nothing, about
it; concerning myself only with its more general applications.

Let it be said, then, that the study of language is eminently
disciplinal to those faculties that are tasked in the investigation
of the phenomena of the human mind; the value of a knowledge of these
being a matter foreign to the present dissertation, but being by no
means low. High or low, however, it measures that of the studies under
notice.

But how is this general philology to be taught? Are youths to seek
for roots and processes in such languages as the Hungarian and the
Tumali? No. The teaching must be by means of well-selected suggestive
examples, whereby the student may rise from particulars to generals,
and be taught to infer the uncertain from the certain. I do not say
that the _s_ in _fathers_ arose exactly after the fashion of the Tumali
plural; but, assuredly, its development was the same in kind, if not
in detail. At all events, language must be dealt with as a _growth_.

In the first stage of speech, there are no inflections at all,
separate words serving instead of them:--just as if, instead of saying
_fathers_, we said _father many_, or _father father_; reduplication
being one of the make-shifts (so to say) of this period. The languages
allied to the Chinese belong to this class.

In the second stage, the separate words coalesce, but not so perfectly
as to disfigure their originally separate character. The Hungarian
persons have illustrated this. Language now becomes what is called
_agglutinate_. The parts cohere, but the cohesion is imperfect. The
majority of languages are agglutinate.

The Latin and Greek tongues illustrate the third stage. The parts
originally separate, then agglutinate, now become so modified by
contact as to look like secondary parts of a single word; these
original separate substantive characters being a matter of inference
rather than a patent and transparent fact. The _s_ in _fathers_
(which is also the _s_ in _patre-s_ and πάτερε-ς) is in this
predicament.

Lastly, inflections are replaced by prepositions and auxiliary verbs,
as is the case in the Italian and French when compared with the Latin.

Truly, then, may we say that the phenomena of speech are the phenomena
of growth, evolution, or development; and as such must they be taught.
A cell that grows,--not a crystal that is built up,--such is language.

But these well-devised selections of suggestive examples, whereby the
student may rise from particulars to generals, &c., are not to be found
in the ordinary grammars. Indeed, it is the very reverse of the present
system; where there are twenty appeals to the memory in the shape of
what is called a _rule_, for one appeal to the understanding in the
shape of an illustrated process. So much the worse for the existing
methods.

Moulds applied to growing trees--cookery-book receipts for making
a natural juice--these are the parallels to the artificial systems
of grammar _in their worst forms_. The _better_ can be excused,
sometimes recommended; even as the Linnæan system of botanical teaching
can, in certain cases, be used with safety, _provided always that
its artificial character be explained beforehand, and insisted on
throughout_.

To stand on the level of the Linnæan system, an artificial grammar must
come under the following condition:--_It must leave the student nothing
to unlearn when he comes to a natural one_.

How can this be done? It can be done, if the grammarian will be content
to teach _forms_ only, leaving processes alone. Let him say (for
instance) that the Latin for--

_I call_ is _voc_-o.
_Thou callest_, _voc_-as.
_Calling_, _voc_-ans.
_I called_, _voc_-avi &c.

But do not let him say that active aorists are formed from futures, and
passive ones from the third person singular of the perfect. His forms,
his paradigms, will be right; his rules, in nine cases out of ten,
wrong. I am satisfied that languages can be taught without rules and by
paradigms only.

This recognition of what has been called _artificial_ grammar for the
teaching of special languages, as opposed to the general grammar of
the comparative philologist, should serve to anticipate an objection.
'Would you,' it may be asked, 'leave the details of languages like
the Latin, Greek, French, German, &c.--languages of eminent practical
utility--untaught until such time as the student shall have dipped into
Chinese, touched upon Hungarian, and taken a general idea of the third
stage of development from the Latin, and of the fourth from the French?
If so, the period of life when the memory for words is strongest will
have passed away before any language but his own mother-tongue has been
acquired.'

The recognition of such a thing as artificial grammar answers this
in the negative. If a special language be wanted, let it be taught
by-times: only, if it cannot be taught in the most scientific manner,
let it be taught in a manner as little unscientific as possible.

In this lies an argument against the ordinary teaching (I speak as an
Englishman) of English. What do we learn by it?

In the ordinary teaching of what is called the grammar of the English
language there are two elements. There is something professed to be
taught which is not taught, but which, if taught, would be worth
learning; and there is something which, from being already learned
better than any man can teach it, requires no lessons. The one (the
latter) is the use and practice of the English tongue. This the
Englishman has already. The other is the principles of grammar.
With existing text-books this is an impossibility. What then _is_
taught? Something (I am quoting from what I have written elsewhere)
undoubtedly. The facts, that language is more or less regular; that
there _is_ such a thing as grammar; that certain expressions should
be avoided, are all matters worth knowing. And they are all taught
even by the worst method of teaching. But are these the proper objects
of _systematic_ teaching? Is the importance of their acquisition
equivalent to the time, the trouble, and the displacement of more
valuable subjects, which are involved in their explanation? I think
not. Gross vulgarity of language is a fault to be prevented; but the
proper prevention is to be got from habit--not rules. The proprieties
of the English language are to be learned, like the proprieties of
English manners, by conversation and intercourse; and a proper school
for both, is the best society in which the learner is placed. If this
be good, systematic teaching is superfluous; if bad, insufficient.
There _are_ undoubted points where a young person may doubt as to
the grammatical propriety of a certain expression. In this case let
him ask some one older and more instructed. Grammar, as a _art_, is,
undoubtedly, _the art of speaking and writing correctly_--but then, as
an _art_, it is only required for _foreign_ languages. For our _own_ we
have the necessary practice and familiarity.

The true claim of English grammar to form part and parcel of an English
education stands or falls with the value of the philological knowledge
to which grammatical studies may serve as an introduction, and with the
value of scientific grammar as a _disciplinal_ study. I have no fear of
being supposed to undervalue its importance in this respect. Indeed, in
assuming that it is very great, I also assume that wherever grammar is
studied as grammar, the language which the grammar so studied should
represent, must be the mother-tongue of the student; _whatever that
mother-tongue may be_--English for Englishmen, Welsh for Welshmen,
French for Frenchmen, German for Germans, &c. The study is the study
of a theory; and for this reason it should be complicated as little as
possible by points of practice. For this reason a man's mother-tongue
is the best medium for the elements of scientific philology, simply
because it is the one which he knows best in practice.

Limit, then, the teaching of English, except so far as it is
preparatory to the study of language in general; with which view, teach
as scientifically as possible.

Go further. Except in special cases, limit the teaching of the
classical tongues to one out of the two. _One_, for all _disciplinal_
purposes, is enough. In this, go far. Dead though the tongue be, and
object of ridicule as the occupation is becoming, go to the length of
writing verses, though only in a few of the commoner metres. Go far,
and go in one direction only. There are reasons for this singleness
of path. I fear that there is almost a necessity. As long as men
believed that the ordinary Latin and Greek grammars were good things
of themselves, and that, even if they did not carry the student far
into the classics, they told him something of value respecting language
in general, a _little learning_ in the dead languages was a good
thing. But what if the grammars are _not_ good things? What if they
are absolutely bad? In such a case, the classical tongues cease to be
learnt except for themselves. Now, one of the few things that is more
useless than a little Latin is a little Greek.

Am I wrong in saying that, with nine out of ten who learn _both_ Latin
and Greek, the knowledge of the two tongues conjointly is not greater
than the knowledge of one of them singly ought to be?

Am I wrong in believing that the tendencies of the age are in favour
of decreasing rather than increasing the amount of time bestowed upon
classical scholarship?

Unless I be so, the necessity for a limitation is apparent.

To curtail English--to eliminate one of the classical tongues--possibly
that of Pericles, at any rate, either that of Pericles or of Cicero--to
substitute for the ordinary elements of a so-called classical education
illustrations from the Chinese, the Hungarian, or the Tumali--this is
what I have recommended.

I cannot but feel that in so doing I may seem to some to have been
false to my text, which was to eulogize things philological. They
may say, _Call you this backing your friends?_ I do. It is not by
glorifying one's own more peculiar studies that such studies gain
credit. To show the permanent, rather than the accidental, elements of
their value, is the best service that can be done for them. It is also
good service to show that they can be taught with a less expenditure of
time and labour than is usually bestowed on them. But the best service
of all is to indicate their disciplinal value; and to show that,
instead of displacing other branches of knowledge, they so exercise
certain faculties of the mind as to prepare the way to them.

II.

LOGICA.

ON THE WORD _DISTRIBUTED_, AS USED
IN LOGIC.

READ
BEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY.

DECEMBER THE 18TH 1857.

The present paper is an attempt to reconcile the logical and
etymological meanings of the word _Distributed_.

Speaking roughly, _distributed_ means _universal_: "a term is said
to be _distributed_ when it is taken universally, so as to stand for
everything it is capable of being applied to."--_Whately_, i. § 5.

Speaking more closely, it means _universal in one premiss_; it being a
rule in the ordinary logic that no conclusion is possible unless one
premiss be, either negatively or affirmatively, universal.

Assuredly there is no etymological connexion between the two words.
Hence De Morgan writes:--"By _distributed_ is here meant _universally
spoken of_. I do not use this term in the present work, because I do
not see why, in any deducible meaning of the word _distributed_, it can
be applied to universal as distinguished from particular."--_Formal
Logic_, chap. vii.

Neither can it be so applied. It is nevertheless an accurate term.

Let it mean _related to more than one class_, and the power of the
prefix _dis-_, at least, becomes intelligible.

For _all_ the purposes of logic this is not enough; inasmuch as the
particular character of the relation (all-important in the structure
of the syllogism) is not, at present, given. It is enough, however, to
give import to the syllable _dis-_.

In affirmative propositions this relation is connective on both sides,
_i. e._ the middle term forms part of _both_ the others. In negative
propositions this relation is connective on _one_ side, disjunctive on
the _other_.

In-- All men are mortal,
All heroes are men,

the middle term _men_ forms a part of the class called _mortal_, by
being connected with it in the way that certain contents are connected
with the case that contains them; whilst it also stands in connexion
with the class of _heroes_ in the way that cases are connected with
their contents. In--

No man is perfect,
Heroes are men,

the same double relation occurs. The class _man_, however, though part
of the class _hero_, is no part of the class _perfect_ but, on the
contrary, expressly excluded from it. Now this expression of exclusion
constitutes a relation--disjunctive indeed, but still a relation; and
this is all that is wanted to give an import to the prefix _dis-_ in
_distributed_.

Wherever there is distribution there is inference, no matter whether
the distributed term be universal or not. If the ordinary rules for
the structure of the syllogism tell us the contrary to this, they only
tell the truth, so far as certain assumptions on which they rest are
legitimate. These limit us to the use of three terms expressive of
quantity,--_all_, _none_, and _some_; and it is quite true that, with
this limitation, universality and distribution coincide.

Say that Some Y is X,
Some Z is Y,

and the question will arise whether the Y that is X is also the Y that
is Z. That _some_ Y belongs to both classes is clear; whether, however,
it be the same Y is doubtful. Yet unless it be so, no conclusion can
be drawn. And it may easily be different. Hence, as long as we use the
word _some_, we have no assurance that there is any distribution of the
middle term.

Instead, however, of _some_ write _all_, and it is obvious that some Y
must be both X and Z; and when such is the case--

Some X must be Z, and
Some Z must be X.

Universality, then, of the middle term in one premiss is, by no
means, the _direct_ condition that gives us an inference, but only a
_secondary_ one. The direct condition is the distribution. Of this,
the universality of the middle term is only a _sign_, and it is the
only sign we have, because _all_ and _some_ are the only words we have
to choose from. If others were allowed, the appearance which the two
words (_distributed_ and _universal_) have of being synonymous would
disappear. And so they do when we abandon the limitations imposed
upon us by the words _all_ and _some_. So they do in the numerically
definite syllogism, exemplified in--

More than half Y is X,
More than half Y is Z,
Some Z is X.

So, also, they do when it is assumed that the Y's which are X and the
Y's which are Z are identical.

Y is X,
The same Y is Z,
Some Z is X.

In each of these formulæ there is distribution without universality,
_i. e._ there is distribution with a quality other than that of
universality as its criterion. The following extract not only explains
this, but gives a fresh proof, if fresh proof be needed, that
_distributed_ and _universal_ are used synonymously. The "comparison
of each of the two terms must be equally with the whole, or with the
same part of the third term; and to secure this, (1) either the middle
term must be distributed in one premiss at least, or (2) the two terms
must be compared with the same specified part of the middle, or (3), in
the two premises taken together, the middle must be distributed, and
something more, though not distributed in either singly."--_Thompson,
Outline of the Laws of Thought_, § 39.

Here _distributed_ means _universal_; Mr. Thompson's being the ordinary
terminology. In the eyes of the present writer "distributed in one
premiss" is a contradiction in terms.

Of the two terms, _distributed_ is the more general; yet it is not the
usual one. That it has been avoided by De Morgan has been shown. It may
be added, that from the Port Royal Logic it is wholly excluded.

The statement that, in negative propositions, the relation is
connective on _one_ side, and disjunctive on the _other_, requires
further notice. It is by no means a matter of indifference on which
side the connexion or disjunction lies.

(_a._) It is the class denoted by the major, of which the middle term
of a negative syllogism is expressly stated to form _no_ part, or from
which it is disjoined. (_b._) It is the class denoted by the minor, of
which the same middle term is expressly stated to form part, or with
which it is connected.

No man is perfect--

here the proposition is a major, and the middle term _man_ is expressly
separated from the class _perfect_.

All heroes are men--

here it is a minor, and the middle term _man_ is expressly connected
with class _hero_.

A connective relation to the major, and a disjunctive relation to the
minor are impossible in negative syllogisms. The exceptions to this
are only apparent. The two most prominent are the formulæ _Camestres_
and _Camenes_, in both of which it is the minor premiss wherein the
relation is disjunctive. But this is an accident; an accident arising
out of the fact of the major and minor being convertible.

_Bokardo_ is in a different predicament. _Bokardo_, along with
_Baroko_, is the only formula containing a particular negative as a
premiss. Now the particular negatives are, for so many of the purposes
of logic, particular affirmatives, that they may be neglected for the
present; the object at present being to ascertain the rules for the
structure of truly and unquestionably negative syllogisms. Of these we
may predicate that--their minor proposition is always either actually
affirmative or capable of becoming so by transposition.

To go further into the relations between the middle term and the minor,
would be to travel beyond the field under present notice; the immediate
object of the present paper being to explain the import of the word
_distributed_. That it may, both logically and etymologically, mean
_related to two classes_ is clear--clear as a matter of fact. Whether,
however, _related to two classes_ be the meaning that the history of
logic gives us, is a point upon which I abstain from giving an opinion.
I only suggest that, in elementary treatises, the terms _universal_ and
_distributed_ should be separated more widely than they are; one series
of remarks upon--

_a._ Distribution as a condition of inference, being followed by
another on--

_b._ Universality of the middle term in one premiss as a sign of
distribution.

So much for the extent to which the present remarks suggest the purely
practical question as to how the teaching of Aristotelian logic may
be improved. There is another, however, beyond it; one of a more
theoretical, indeed of an eminently theoretical, nature. It raises
doubts as to the propriety of the word _all_ itself; doubts as to the
propriety of the term _universal_.

The existence of such a word as _all_ in the premiss, although existing
therein merely as a contrivance for reconciling the evidence of the
distribution of the middle term with a certain amount of simplicity in
the way of terminology, could scarcely fail, in conjunction with some
of its other properties, to give it what is here considered an undue
amount of importance. It made it look like the opposite to _none_.
Yet this is what it is not. The opposite to _none_ is _not-none_, or
_some_; the opposite to _all_ is _one_. In _one_ and _all_ we have
the highest and lowest numbers of the individuals that constitute a
class. In _none_ and _some_ we have the difference between existence
and non-existence. That _all_ is a mere mode of _some_, has been
insisted on by many logicians, denied by few or none. Between _all_
and _some_, there is, at best, but a difference of degree. Between
_some_ and _none_, the difference is a difference of kind. _Some_
may, by strengthening, be converted into _all_. No strengthening may
obliterate the difference between _all_ and _not-all_. From this it
follows that the logic of _none_ and _some_, the logic of connexion and
disjunction (the logic of _two_ signs), is much more widely different
from the logic of _part_ and _whole_ (the logic of _three_ signs) than
is usually admitted; the former being a logic of pure _quality_, the
latter a logic of _quality_ and _quantity_ as well.

Has the admixture done good? I doubt whether it has. The logic of pure
and simple Quality would, undoubtedly, have given but little; nothing
but negative conclusions on one side, and possible particulars on the
other. Nevertheless it would have given a logic of the Possible and
Impossible.

Again, as at present constituted, the Quantitative logic, the logic of
_all_ and _some_, embraces either too much or too little. _All_ is, as
aforesaid, only a particular form of _more than none_. So is _most_.
Now such syllogisms as--

Most men are fallible,
Most men are rational,
Some men are both frail and fallible;

_or_,

Some frail things are fallible,

are inadmissible in the Aristotelian paradigms. A claim, however,
is set up for their admission. Grant it, and you may say instead of
_most_--

Fifty-one per cent., &c.;

but this is only a particular instance. You may combine any two numbers
in any way you like, provided only that the sum be greater than unity.
Now this may be arithmetic, and it may be fact; but it is scarcely
formal logic; at any rate it is anything but general.

It is the logic of _some_ and its modifications _one_, _all_, and
_anything between one and all_, as opposed to the logic of the
simple absolute _some_ (_some_ the opposite to _none_), and a little
consideration will show that it is also the logic of the _probable_,
with its modification the _proven_, (_proven_ is _probable_, as
_all_ is _some_,) as opposed to the logic of the _possible_ and
_impossible_. Let, in such a pair of propositions as--

Some of the men of the brigade were brave,
Some of the men of the brigade were killed,

the number expressed by _some_, as well as the number of the men of the
_brigade_, be known, and the question as to whether

Some brave men were killed,

is a problem in the doctrine of chances. One per cent. of each will
make it very unlikely that the single brave man was also the single
killed one. Forty-nine per cent. of each will make it highly probable
that more than one good soldier met his fate. With fifty on one side,
and fifty-one on the other, we have _one_ at least. With _all_ (either
_killed_ or _brave_), we have the same; and that without knowing any
numbers at all.

III.

GRAMMATICA.

ON THE RECIPROCAL PRONOUNS,
AND
ON THE RECIPROCAL POWER OF THE
REFLECTIVE VERB.

READ
BEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY,
MARCH 22. 1844.

The present paper is upon the reciprocal pronouns, and upon certain
forms of the verb used in a reciprocal sense. It is considered
that these points of language have not been put forwards with that
prominence and care which their value in the solution of certain
problems in philology requires. Too often the terms Reciprocal and
Reflective have been made synonymous. How far this is true may be
determined by the fact that the middle verbs in the Icelandic language
have been called by so great a philologist as Rask _reciprocal_ instead
of _reflective_. This is equivalent to treating sentences like _we
strike ourselves_, and _we strike each other_, as identical. Yet the
language with which Rask was dealing (the Icelandic) was the one of all
others wherein the difference in question required to be accurately
drawn, and fully pointed out. (See Anvisning till Isländskan, pp. 281,
283.)

In all sentences containing the statement of a reciprocal or mutual
action there are in reality two assertions, viz. the assertion that
A _strikes_ (or _loves_) B, and the assertion that B _strikes_ (or
_loves_) A; the action forming one, the reaction another. Hence,
if the expression exactly coincided with the fact signified, there
would always be two propositions. This, however, is not the habit of
language. Hence arises a more compendious form of expression, giving
origin to an ellipsis of a peculiar kind. Phrases like _Eteocles and
Polynices killed each other_ are elliptical for _Eteocles and Polynices
killed_--_each the other_. Here the second proposition expands and
explains the first, whilst the first supplies the verb to the second.
Each, however, is elliptic. The first is without the object, the second
without the verb. That the verb must be in the plural (or dual) number,
that one of the nouns must be in the nominative case, and that the
other must be objective, is self-evident from the structure of the
sentence; such being the conditions of the expression of the idea. An
aposiopesis takes place after a plural verb, and then there follows a
clause wherein the verb is supplied from what went before.

When words equivalent to _each other_ coalesce, and become compound;
it is evident that the composition is of a very peculiar kind. Less,
however, for these matters than for its value in elucidating the origin
of certain deponent verbs does the expression of reciprocal action
merit the notice of the philologist. In the latter part of the paper
it will appear that for one branch of languages, at least, there is
satisfactory evidence of a reflective form having become reciprocal,
and of a reciprocal form having become deponent; this latter word being
the term for those verbs whereof the meaning is active, and the form
passive.

Beginning with those methods of denoting mutual action where the
expression is the least explicit and unequivocal, it appears that in
certain languages the reciprocal character of the verb is implied
rather than expressed. _Each man looked at his brother_--or some
equivalent clause, is the general phraseology of the Semitic languages.

More explicit than this is the use of a single pronoun (personal,
possessive, or reflective) and of some adverb equivalent to the
words _mutually_, _interchangeably_, &c. This is the habit of the
Latin language,--_Eteocles et Polynices invicem se trucidaverunt_:
also of the French, although not invariably, e. g. _s'entr'aimer_,
_s'entredire_, _s'entrebattre_: also of the Mœso-Gothic--galeikái
sind barnam tháim vôpjandam seina _missô_ = ὅμοιοί εἰσι παιδίοις
τοῖς προσφωνούσιν ἀλλήλοις = loquentibus ad invicem.--Luc. vii. 32.
Deutsche Grammatik, iv. 322, and iii. 13. The Welsh expressions are
of this kind; the only difference being that the adverb coalesces
with the verb, as an inseparable particle, and so forms a compound.
These particles are _dym_, _cym_, or _cy_ and _ym_. The former is
compounded of _dy_, signifying _iteration_, and _ym_ denoting _mutual
action_; the latter is the Latin _cum_. Hence the reciprocal power of
these particles is secondary: e. g. _dymborthi_, to aid mutually;
_dymddadlu_, to dispute; _dymgaru_, to love one another; _dymgoddi_,
to vex one another; _dymgredu_, to trust one another, or confide;
_dymguraw_, to strike one another, or fight; _çyçwennys_, to desire
mutually; _cydadnabod_, to know one another; _cydaddawiad_, to promise
mutually; _cydwystlaw_, to pledge; _cydymadrawn_, to converse;
_cydymdaith_, to accompany; _ymadroddi_, to discourse; _ymaddaw_, to
promise; _ymavael_, to struggle; _ymdaeru_, to dispute, &c.

The form, which is at once current, full, and unequivocal, is the one
that occurs in our own, and in the generality of languages. Herein
there are two nouns (generally pronouns), and the construction is of
the kind exhibited above--ἀλλήλους, _each other_, _einander_, _l'un
l'autre_, &c.

Sometimes the two nouns remain separate, each preserving its
independent form. This is the case in most of the languages derived
from the Latin, in several of the Slavonic and Lithuanic dialects, and
in (amongst others) the Old Norse, the Swedish, and the Danish,--l'un
l'autre, French; uno otro, Span.; geden druheho, Bohemian; ieden
drugiego, Polish; wiens wienâ, Lith.; weens ohtru, Lettish; hvert annan
(masc.), hvert annat (neut.) Old Norse. See D. G. iii. 84.

Sometimes the two nouns coalesce, and form words to which it would be
a mere refinement to deny the name of compounds: this is the case with
the Greek--ἀλλήλων, ἀλλήλοις, ἀλλήλους.

Sometimes it is doubtful whether the phrase consist of a compound word
or a pair of words. This occurs where, from the want of inflection,
the form of the first word is the same in composition as it would have
been out of it. Such is the case with our own language: _each-other_,
_one-another_.

Throughout the mass of languages in general the details of the
expression in question coincide; both subject and object are almost
always expressed by pronouns, and these pronouns are much the same
throughout. _One_, or some word equivalent, generally denotes the
subject. _Other_, or some word equivalent, generally denotes the
object, _e. g._ they struck _one another_. The varieties of expression
may be collected from the following sketch:--

1. _a._ The subject is expressed by _one_, or some word equivalent,
in most of the languages derived from the Latin, in several of the
Slavonic dialects, in Lithuanic and Lettish, in Armenian, in German,
in English, and doubtlessly in many other languages--_l'un_ l'autre,
Fr.; _uno_ otro, Sp.; _ieden_ drugiego, Polish; _wiens_ wienâ, Lith.;
_weens_ ohtru, Lett.; _me_ mæants, Armenian; _einander_, Germ.; _one_
another, Engl.

_b._ By _each_, or some equivalent term, in English, Dutch, and the
Scandinavian languages--_each_ other, English; _elkander_, Dutch;
_hver_andre, Icelandic, Danish, Swedish.

_c._ By _this_, or some equivalent term, in Swedish and Danish
(_hin_anden); in Lithuanic (_kitts_ kittâ), and in Lettish (_zitts_
zittu).

_d._ By _other_, or some equivalent term, in Greek and Armenian;
ἁλλήλους, _ir_ærats.

_e._ By _man_, used in an indefinite sense and compounded with _lik_ in
Dutch, _malk_ander (mal-lik manlik).

_f._ By a term equivalent to _mate_ or _fellow_ in Laplandic--_gòim_
gòimeme.--Rask, 'Lappisk Sproglære,' p. 102. Stockfleth, 'Grammatik,'
p. 109.

2. _a._ In the expression of the object the current term is _other_ or
some equivalent word. Of this the use is even more constant than that
of _one_ expressive of the subject--l'un l'_autre_, French; uno _otro_,
Spanish; ἁλλήλους, Greek; geden _druheho_, Bohemian; ieden _drugiego_,
Polish; weens _ohtru_, Lettish; iræ_rats_, Armenian; ein_ander_,
German; each _other_, one an_other_, English.

_b._ In Lithuanic the term in use is _one_; as, wiens _wienâ_. The same
is the case for a second form in the Armenian mi_mœa_n.

_c._ In Laplandic it is denoted in the same as the subject; as gòim
_gòimeme_.

Undoubtedly there are other varieties of this general method of
expression. Upon those already exhibited a few remarks, however, may be
made.

1. In respect to languages like the French, Spanish, &c., where the
two nouns, instead of coalescing, remain separate, each retaining
its inflection, it is clear that they possess a greater amount of
perspicuity; inasmuch as (to say nothing of the distinction of gender)
the subject can be used in the singular number when the mutual action
of two persons (_i. e._ of _one_ upon _another_) is spoken of, and in
the plural when we signify that of more than two; e. g. _ils_ (_i.
e._ A and B) _se battaient_--_l'un l'autre_: but _ils_ (A, B, C and
D,) _se battaient_--_les uns les autres_. This degree of perspicuity
might be attained in English and other allied languages by reducing to
practice the difference between the words _each_ and _one_; in which
case we might say _A and B struck one another_, but _A, B and C struck_
each _other_. In the Scandinavian languages this distinction is real;
where _hin_anden is equivalent to _l'un l'autre_, French; _uno otro_,
Spanish: whilst _hver_andre expresses _les uns les autres_, French;
_unos otros_, Spanish. The same is the case in the Laplandic.--See
Rask's Lappisk Sproglære, p. 102.

2. An analysis of such an expression as _they praise one another's_
(or _each other's_) _conduct_, will show the lax character of certain
forms in the Swedish. Of the two pronouns it is only the latter that
appears in an oblique case, and this necessarily; hence the Swedish
form _hvarsannars_ is illogical. It is precisely what _one's another's_
would be in English, or ἄλλων ἄλλων for ἁλλήλων in Greek. The same
applies to the M. H. G. _einen anderen_. D. G. iii. 83.

3. The term expressive of the object appears in three forms, viz.
preceded by the definite article (l'un _l_'autre), by the indefinite
article (one _an_other), and finally, standing alone (each other,
einander). Of these three forms the first is best suited for expressing
the reciprocal action of two persons (one out of two struck the other);
whilst the second or third is fittest for signifying the reciprocal
action of more than two (one out of many struck, and was struck by,
some other).

The third general method of expressing mutual or reciprocal action is
by the use of some particular form of the verb. In two, and probably
more, of the African languages (the Woloff and Bechuana) this takes
place. In the Turkish there is also a reciprocal form: as _sui-mek_,
to love; _baki-mek_, to look; _sui-sh-mek_, to love one another;
_baki-sh-mek_, to look at one another; _su-il-mek_, to be loved;
_sui-sh-il-mek_, to be loved mutually.--_David's Turkish Grammar._

The fourth form of expression gives the fact alluded to at the
beginning of the paper: viz. an instrument of criticism in
investigating the origin of certain deponent verbs. In all languages
there is a certain number of verbs denoting actions, reciprocal or
mutual to the agents. Such are the words _embrace_, _converse_, _strive
against_, _wrestle_, _fight_, _rival_, _meet_, and several more. There
are also other words where the existence of two parties is essential
to the idea conveyed, and where the notion, if not that of reciprocal
action, is akin to it; viz. _reproach_, _compromise_, _approach_, &c.
Now in certain languages (the Latin and Greek) some of these verbs have
a passive form; _i. e._ they are deponents,--_loquor_, _colloquor_,
_luctor_, _reluctor_, _amplector_, _suavior_, _osculor_, _suspicor_,
Latin: φιλοτιμέομαι, φιλοφρονέομαι, μάχομαι, διαλέγομαι, ἁλέομαι,
διαλύομαι, ἁμείβομαι &c., Greek. Hence arises the hypothesis, that it
is to their reciprocal power on the one hand, and to the connexion
between the passive, reflective and reciprocal forms on the other, that
these verbs owe their deponent character. The fact essential to the
probability of this hypothesis is the connexion between the reflective
forms and the reciprocal ones.

Now for one branch of languages this can be shown most satisfactorily.
In Icelandic the middle voice is formed from the active by the addition
of the reflective pronoun, _mik_, me, _sik_, him or self. Hence it is
known by the terminations _mc_ and _sc_, and by certain modifications
of these affixes, viz. _st_, _s_, _z_, _mz_, _ms_. In the oldest
stage of the language the reflective power of the middle voice, to
the exclusion of a passive sense, is most constant: _e. g. hann var
nafnadr_ = he had the name given him; _hann nefnist_ = he gave as his name,
or named himself. It was only when the origin of the middle form became
indistinct that its sense became either passive or deponent; as it
generally is in the modern tongues of Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Now
in the modern Scandinavian languages we have, on the one hand, certain
deponent forms expressive of reciprocal action; whilst on the other
we have, even in the very earliest stages of the Old Norse, middle or
reflective forms used in a reciprocal sense. Of some of these, examples
will be given: but the proof of their sense being reciprocal will
not be equally conclusive in all. Some may perhaps be looked on as
deponents (_ættust_, _beriast_, _skiliast_, _mödast_); whilst others
may be explained away by the assumption of a passive construction
(_fundoz_ = they were found, not they found each other). Whatever may be
the case with the words taken from the middle and modern stages of the
language, this cannot be entertained in regard to the examples drawn
from the oldest Norse composition, the Edda of Sæmund. For this reason
the extracts from thence are marked _Edd. Sæm._, and of these (and
these alone) the writer has attempted to make the list exhaustive. The
translations in Latin and Danish are those of the different editors.

1. Ættust, _fought each other_.

2. Beriaz, _strike each other_.

brödur muno _beriaz_.
fratres invicem pugnabunt.

Voluspa, 41. Edd. Sæm.

This word is used in almost every page of the Sagas as a deponent
signifying _to fight_: also in the Feroic dialect.

3. Bregþaz, _interchange_.

orþom at _bregþaz_.
verba commutare.

Helga-Qviþa Hundlingsbana, i. 41. ii. 26. Edd. Sæm.

4. Drepiz, _kill one another_.

finnuz þeir báder daudir---- en ecki vapn höfþu þeir nema bitlana af
hestinum, ok þat hygia menn at þeir (Alrek and Eirek) hafi _drepiz_
þar med. Sva segir Ðiodolfr.; "_Drepaz_ kvádu."--Heimskringla.
Ynglinga-Saga, p. 23.

The brothers were found dead--and no weapons had they except the bits
of their horses, and men think they (Alrek and Eirek) had _killed each
other_ therewith. So says Thiodolf.: "They said that they _killed each
other_."

5. Um-faþmaz, _embrace each other_. See Atla-Quiþa hin Grænslenzko,
42.--_Edd. Sæm._

6. Földes, _fell in with each other_.--Om morgonet effter _földes_ wy
in Kobenhaffn.--Norwegian Letters in 1531, A. D. See Samlingar til det
Norske Folks Sprog og Historie, I. 2. 70. The morning after we _fell in
with each other_ in Copenhagen.

7. Funduz, _found each other_, _met_. See Vafþrudnis-mal
17.--Sigurd-Quiþ. i. 6. Edd. Sæm.--Fareyingar-Saga, p. 44. _Ðeir
funduz_ is rendered _de fandt hverandre_ = _they found each other_, in
Haldorsen's Lexic. Island.

ef iþ Gymer _finniz_.
if you and Gymer meet.
Harbards-l: 24. Edd. Sæm.

8. Gættuz, _consult each other_. See Voluspa, 6. 9. 21. 23. _Edd. Sæm._

9. Glediaz, _rejoice each other_.

vapnom ok vádom
skulo vinir _glediaz_,
þæt er á sialfom sæmst:
vidr-géfendr ok endi gefendr
_erost_ lengst vinir
ef þat biþr at verþa vel. Rigsmal. 41.

armis ac vestibus
amici _mutuo se delectent_,
queîs in ipso (datore) forent conspicua:
pretium renumerantes et remunerantes
_inter se diutissime sunt_ amici
si negotium feliciter se dat.

The middle form and reciprocal sense of _erost_ is remarkable in this
passage.

10. Hauggvaz, _hack each other_, _fight_.

allir Einheriar
Oþins túnom i
_hauggvaz_ hverian dag.

all the Einheriar
in Odin's towns
_hack each other_ every day.
Vafþrudnis-Mal. 41. Edd. Sæm.

ef þeir _högvaz_ orþom á.
si se maledictis invicem insectentur.
Sig-Qvið. ii. 1. Edd. Sæm.

11. Hættaz, _cease_.

_hættomc_ hættingi.
_cessemus utrinque_ a minaciis.
Harbardslióð, 51. Edd. Sæm.

Such is the translation of the editors, although the reciprocal power
is not unequivocal.

12. Hittaz, _hit upon each other_, _meet_. Hittoz, Voluspa, 7. Hittomk,
Hadding-skata, 22. Hittaz, Solar-l: 82. Edd. Sæm. Hittust, Ol. Trygv.
Sag. p. 90. Hittuz oc beriaz, Heimskringla, Saga Halfd. Svart. p. 4.
Hittuz, Yngl. Sag. p. 42. _alibi passim þeir hittu_ is rendered, in
Bjorn Haldorsen's Islandic Lexicon, _de traf hinanden_, _they hit upon
each other_.

13. Kiempis, _fight each other_,

gaar udi gaarden oc _kiempis_, oc nelegger hver hinanden, goes out in
the house and _fight each the other_, and each knocks down the other.

Such is the translation by Resenius, in modern Danish, of the following
extract from Snorro's _Edda_, p. 34.--Ganga ut i gardinn og _beriast_,
og fellar huor annar. Here the construction is not, _they fell_ (or
knock down) _each the other_, but _each fells the other_; since
_fellar_ and _nelegger_ are singular forms.

14. Mælast, _talk to each other_, _converse_. Talast, _ditto_.

_Mæliz_ þu. Vafþrudnismal, 9.

_melomc_ i sessi saman = colloquamur sedentes. ib. 19. Edd. Sæm.

_mælast_ þeir _vid_, ádr þeir _skiliast_, at þeir mundi þar _finnast_
þa,--Fóstbrædra-Saga, p. 7.

they _said to each other_ before they _parted from each other_ that
they should _meet each other_ there.

Yngvi ok Bera satu ok _töluduz_ vidr.--Heimskr. Yngl. S. p. 24.

Griss mælti; hverír ero þessir menn er sva _tulast vid_ bliðliga?
Avàldi svarar; þa er Hallfreydr Ottarson ok Kolfinna dóthir min. Ol.
Trygyv. Saga, p. 152. Griss said, who are these persons who _talk
together_ so blithely? Avaldi answers, they are Halfrid Ottarson and
Kolfinna my daughter. _Talast_ is similarly used in Feroic. _Kvödust_,
bespoke each other, occurs in the same sense--þat var einn dag at Brand
ok Finbogi _fundust_ ok _kvödust_ blídliga.--Vatnsdæla-Sag. p. 16.

15. Mettæst, _meet each other_, _meet_.

Kungen aff Ffranchriche, kungen aff England, oc kungen aff Schottland
skule _motes_ til Chalis.--Letter from Bergen in 1531, from Samlinger
til det Norske Folks Sprog og Historie, i. 2. p. 53. The king of
France, the king of England, and the king of Scotland should _meet each
other_ at Calais.

Throughout the Danish, Swedish and Feroic, this verb is used as a
deponent.

16. Rekaz, _vex each other_.

gumnar margir
_erosc_ gagn-hollir,
enn at virþi _rekaz_. Rigsmal. 32. Edd. Sæm.

multi homines
_sunt inter se_ admodum benevoli,
sed tamen _mutuo se_ (vel) in convivio _exagitant_.

17. Sakaz, _accuse each other_, _recriminate_.

at vit mynim siafrum _sacaz_,
ut nos ipsi mutuo insectemur. Hamdis-Mal. 28.

ef viþ einir scolom
sáryrþom _sacaz_.
si nobis duobus usu veniat
amarulentis dicteriis invicem
nos lacessere. Ægis-drecka, 5.

sculoþ inni her
sáryrþom _sacaz_. Ibid. 19. Edd. Sæm.

18. Saz, _looked at each other_.

_saz_ i augv
fadir ok módir. Rigsmal. 24.

they looked at each other in the eyes,
father and mother.

19. Sættaz, _settle between each other_, _reconcile_.--Atla-Mal. 45.
Edd. Sæm.

Komu vinir þveggia þvi vid, at þeir _sættuz_, ok lögdu konungar stefnu
med _sér_, ok _hittuz_ ok gérdo frit mellum sin.--Heimsk. Yngling-S. 42.

There came friends of both in order that they should be _reconciled_,
and the kings sent messages between them, and _met_ and made peace
between them.--Also Vatnsd. S. p. 16.

20. Seljas, _to give to each other_.

_seldz_ eiþa. Sig. Qv. iii. 1. Edd. Sæm.

juramenta dederunt inter se.

21. Sendaz, _send, or let pass between each other_.

sato samtýnis,
_senduz_ fár-hugi,
_henduz_ heipt-yrþi
hvarki _sér_ undi. Atla-Mal. 85.

They sat in the same town (dwelling),
They _sent between each other_ danger-thoughts,
They _fetched between each other_ hate-words,
Not _either way_ did they love _each other_.

Here, over and above the use of _senduz_ and _henduz_, _ser_ is
equivalent to _hinanden_.

22. Skiliaz, _part from each other_.

_Skiliumz._ Solar-Lioð. 82.
_Skiliaz._ Sigurd-Qviþ. i. 24.
_Skiliomc._ Ibid. 53. Edd. Sæm.
Vit _sjiljiast, we two part_--

Occurs in the poem Brinilda (st. 109) in the Feroic dialect. In Danish
and Swedish the word is deponent.

23. Skiptust, _interchange_.

Ðeir _skiptust_ mörgum giöfum _vid_ um vetrinn--Vatns-dæla-S. 10. they
_made interchanges with each other_ with many gifts for the winter.

Also in the Feroic.

24. Strujast, _strike one another_, _fight_. Feroic.

og _mötast_ tair, og _strujast_ avlaji lanji.--Fareying-Sag. 18. Feroic
text.

ok _mætast_ þeir, ok berjast mjök leingi.--Icelandish text.

de _mödtes_ og strede meget længe imod hinanden.--Danish text.

they _met_ and _fought_ long against _each other_.

at e vilde vid _gjordust_ stålbröir, og _strujast_ ikkji
longur.--Feroic text, p. 21.

at við _gerðimst_ fèlagar, en _berjumst_ eigi leingr.--Icelandic text.

at vi skulle blive Stalbröde og ikke _slaaes_ længer--Danish text.

that we should become comrades and not _fight_ longer.

The active form occurs in the same dialect:

_tajr struija nú langji._ 18.

25. Truasc, _trust each other_.

vel mættern þæir _truazc_. För Skirnis. Edd. Sæm.

26. Unnaz. _See_ Veittaz.

27. Vegiz, _attack_ each _other_.

vilcat ec at iþ reiþir _vegiz_. Ægisdrecka 18. Edd. Sæm.
I will not that ye two angry _attack each other_.

28. Veittaz, _contract mutually_.

þav Helgi ok Svava _veittuz_ varar, ok _unnoz_ forþo mikit = Helgius et
Svava pactum sponsalitium _inter se contraxerunt_, et _alter alterum_
mirifice _amarunt_.--Haddingia-Sk. between 29 and 30.

29. Verpaz, _throw between each other_.

_urpuz_ á orþom. Atl.-M. 39. Edd. Sæm.

verba inter se jaciebant.

Such is a portion of the examples that prove the reciprocal power of
the reflective or middle verb in the language of Scandinavia; and
that, during all its stages and in each of its derived dialects. It
cannot be doubted that to this circumstance certain verbs in Danish and
Swedish owe their deponent form: viz. _vi slåss_, we fight (strike one
another); _vi brottas_, we wrestle; _vi omgass_, we have intercourse
with; _vi mötas_, we meet, Swedish; _vi slaaes_, we fight; _vi
skilles_, we part; _vi mödes_, we meet, Danish. In the latest Swedish
grammar, by C. L. Daae, this reciprocal (vekselvirkende) power is
recognized and exhibited. See Udsigt over det Svenske Sprogs Grammatik.
Christiana, 1837. The same is the Molbech's Danske Ordbog in vv.
_skilles_, _slaaes_, _mödes_.

Next to the Norse languages the French affords the best instances of
the reciprocal power of the reflective verb; as _se battre_, _s'aimer_,
_s'entendre_, _se quéreller_, _se reconcilier_, _se disputer_, and
other words of less frequent occurrence.

Ces enfans _s'aimaient_, _s'adoraient_, se sont jetés à mes pieds en
pleurant.--Les Inséparables, A. 1. S. 1.

Les Républics Italiens acharnés à _se détruire_.--Pardessus II. 65.

This has been recognized by an old grammarian, Restaut, who insists
upon the use of the adverb _entre_, in order to avoid the ambiguity of
such phrases as "vous _vous_ dites des injures;" "nous _nous_ écrivons
souvent;" "Pierre et Antoine _se_ louent à tout moment."

By a writer in the Museum Criticum the reciprocal power of the Greek
middle has been indicated. For the classical languages the question has
not met with the proper investigation. Passages where the sense is at
least as reciprocal as in the line

Χεῖρος τ' ἁλλήλων λαβήτην καὶ μιστώσαντο.--Il. vi. 233,

must be numerous.

In the Dutch language the use of _zich_ for _elkander_ is a peculiarity
of the Guelderland and Overyssel dialects; as "zij hebt _zich_
eslagen," for "zij hebben _elkander_ geslagen." See Opmerkingen omtrent
den Gelderschen Tongval, in Taalkundig Magazijn ii. 14. p. 403.

Of the use of _ser_ for _hinanden_ or _hverandre_, when uncombined
with the verb, we have, amongst other, the following example in the
Icelandic version of the Paradise Lost:--

Ef frá tilsyndar-
punkti hleyptu _ser_
planetur fram,
ok _mættust_ miklum gny
ó midjum himni. B. 6.

Similar to this are the phrases _vi se os igjen_, we see us (each
other) again, in Danish, and _wir sehen uns wieder_, in German.
Examples from the M. H. G. are given in the D. G. iv. The Turkish sign
of the reciprocal verb is identical with the demonstrative pronoun, _i.
e._ [Turkish: şin]. This may possibly indicate a connection between
the two forms.

Other points upon the subject in hand may be collected from the
Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 13. 82; iv. 454. Here the adverbial character
of the M. H. G. _einander_ for _einandern_, the omission of _ein_, as
in _anander_ for _an einander_, and the omission (real or supposed) of
_ander_ in "_wider ein_ = _wider einander_," are measures of the laxity
of language caused by the peculiarity of the combination in question.
At present it is sufficient to repeat the statement, that for one
group of languages at least there is satisfactory proof of certain
deponents having originally been reciprocal, and of certain reciprocal
expressions having originally been reflective.

ON THE CONNEXION BETWEEN THE
IDEAS OF ASSOCIATION AND PLURALITY
AS AN INFLUENCE IN THE EVOLUTION
OF INFLECTION.

READ
BEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY.
MARCH 9, 1849.

It is well-known that by referring to that part of the Deutsche
Grammatik which explains those participial forms which (like _y-cleped_
in English, and like _ge-sprochen_ and the participles in general in
German) begin with _ge_ or _y_, the following doctrines respecting this
same prefix may be collected:--

1. That it has certainly grown out of the fuller forms _ka_ or _ga_.

2. That it has, probably, grown out of a still fuller form _kam_ or
_gam_.

3. That this fuller form is the Gothic equivalent of the Latin
_cum_ = _with_.

Such are the views respecting the _form_ of the word in question.
Respecting its _meaning_, the following points seem to be made out:--

1. That when prefixed to nouns (as is, not rarely, the case), it
carries with it the idea of _association_ or _collection_:--M. G.
_sinþs_ = _a journey_, _ga-sinþa_ = _a companion_; O. M. G. _perc_ =
_hill_; _ki-pirki_ = (_ge-birge_) _a range of hills_.

2. That it has also a _frequentative_ power. Things which recur
frequently recur with a tendency to collection or association:--M. H.
G. _ge-rassel_ = _rustling_; _ge-rumpel_ = _crumpling_.

3. That it has also the power of expressing the possession of a
quality:--

A.-S. Eng. A.S. Latin.
feax _hair_, _ge_-feax _comatus_.
heorte _heart_, _ge_-heort _cordatus_.

This is because every object is associated with the object that
possesses it--_a sea with waves_ = _a wavy sea_.

The present writer has little doubt that the Tumali grammar of Dr.
Tutshek supplies a similar (and at the same time a very intelligible)
application of a particle equivalent to the Latin _cum_.

He believes that the Tumali word = _with_ is what would commonly be
called the sign of the plural number of the personal pronouns; just
as _me-cum_ and _te-cum_ would become equivalents to _nos_ and _vos_,
if the first syllables were nominative instead of oblique, and if the
preposition denoted indefinite conjunction. In such a case

_mecum_ would mean _I conjointly_ = _we_,
_tecum_ would mean _thou conjointly_ = _ye_.

Such is the illustration of the possible power of a possible
combination. The reasons for thinking it to have a reality in one
language at least lie in the following forms:--

1. The Tumali word for _with_ is _da_.

2. The Tumali words for _I_, _thou_, and _he_ respectively are _ngi_,
_ngo_, _ngu_.

3. The Tumali words for _we_, _ye_, _they_ are _ngin-de_, _ngon-da_,
_ngen-da_ respectively.

4. The Tumali substantives have no such plural. With them it is formed
on a totally different principle.

5. The Tumali adjectives have no plural at all.

6. The Tumali numerals (even those which express more than unity and
are, therefore, _naturally_ plural) _have_ a plural. When, however, it
occurs, it is formed on the same principle as that of the plurals of
the substantive.

7. The word _da_ = _with_ is, in Tumali, of a more varied application
than any other particle; and that both as a _pre_-position and
a _post_-position:--_daura_ = _soon_ (_da_ = _in_, _aura_ =
_neighbourhood_); _datom_ = _in_ (_with_) _front_ (_face_); _d-ondul_ =
_roundabout_ (_ondul_ = _circle_); _dale_ = _near_ (_le_ = _side_), &c.

8. Prepositions, which there is every reason to believe are already
compounded with _da_, allow even a second _da_, to precede the word
which they govern:--_daber deling_ = _over the earth_ (_ber_ = _earth_).

9. The ideas _with me_, _with thee_, _with him_, are expressed by
_ngi-dan_, _ngo-dan_, and _ngu-dan_ respectively; but the ideas of
_with us_, _with you_, _with them_ are _not_ expressed by _nginde-dan_,
_ngonda-dan_, _ngenda-dan_; but by peculiar words--_tinem_ = _with us_;
_toman_ = _with you_; _tenan_ = _with them_.

On the other hand, the following fact is, as far as it goes, against
this view, a fact upon which others may lay more stress than the
present writer. "_Da_ admits of a very varied application. Respecting
its form the following should be observed: (_a._) That _a_ may be
elided when it happens to stand as a preposition before words which
begin with a vowel: for instance, _ardgen_, 'the valley'; _dardgen_,
'in the valley'; _ondul_, 'the circle'; _dondul_, 'round about in
the circle'. (_b._) It changes its _a_ into _ê_, _e_, _i_, _o_, _u_,
according to the vowel of the syllable before which the _da_ is
placed, or even without any regard to it. Instances of this are found
in _diring_, _dorong_, &c.; further instances are, _doromko_, 'into
the hut' (_rom_); _dètum_ or _dotum_, 'in the grave.' (_c._) As a
postposition it appends an _n_: _adgdan_, 'on the head'; _aneredan_,
'on the day.'" Taking the third of these rules literally, the plural
pronouns should end in _dan_ rather than in _da_ and _de_.

It is considered that over and above the light that this particular
formation (if real) may throw upon the various methods by which an
inflection like that of the plural number may be evolved, and more
especially upon the important but neglected phænomena of the so-called
_inclusive_ and _exclusive_ plurals, many other points of general
grammar may be illustrated.

ON THE WORD _CUJUM_.

READ
BEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY,
MARCH 9, 1849.

The writer wishes to make the word _cujum_, as found in a well-known
quotation from the third eclogue of Virgil,--

Dic mihi Damæta _cujum_ pecus?

the basis of some remarks which are meant to be suggestions rather than
doctrines.

In the second edition of a work upon the English language, he devoted
an additional chapter to the consideration of the grammatical position
of the words _mine_ and _thine_, respecting which he then considered
(and still considers) himself correct in assuming that the current
doctrine concerning them was, that they were, in origin, genitive or
possessive cases, and that they were adjectives only in a secondary
sense. Now whatever was then written upon this subject was written
with the view of recording an opinion in favour of exactly the
opposite doctrine, viz. that they were originally adjectives, but that
afterwards they took the appearance of oblique cases. Hence for words
like _mine_ and _thine_ there are two views:--

1. That they were originally _cases_, and _adjectives_ only in a
secondary manner.

2. That they were originally _adjectives_, and _cases_ only in a
secondary manner.

In which predicament is the word _cujum_? If in the first, it supplies
a remarkable instance of an unequivocally adjectival form, as tested by
an inflection in the way of gender, having grown out of a case. If in
the second, it shows how truly the converse may take place, since it
cannot be doubted that whatever in this respect can be predicated of
_cujus_ can be predicated of _ejus_ and _hujus_ as well.

Assuming this last position, it follows that if _cujus_ be originally a
case, we have a proof how thoroughly it may _take_ a gender; whereas if
it be originally an adjective, _ejus_ and _hujus_ (for by a previous
assumption they are in the same category) are samples of the extent to
which words like it may _lose_ one.

Now the termination _-us_ is the termination of an adjective, and is
_not_ the termination of a genitive case; a fact that fixes the _onus
probandi_ with those who insist upon the genitival character of the
words in question. But as it is not likely that every one lays so
much value upon this argument as is laid by the present writer, it is
necessary to refer to two facts taken from the Greek:--

1. That the class of words itself is not a class which (as is often
the case) naturally leads us to expect a variation from the usual
inflections. The forms οὗ, οἷ, ἕ, and ὅς, οὗ, ὧ, are perfectly usual.

2. That the adjectives ὃς = ἑὸς,[1] κοῖος = ποῖος, and ὁῖος, are not
only real forms, but forms of a common kind. Hence, if we consider the
termination _-jus_ as a case-ending, we have a phænomenon in Latin
for which we miss a Greek equivalent; whilst on the other hand, if
we do not consider it as adjectival, we have the Greek forms ὁῖος,
κοῖος = ποῖος and ὃς = ἑὸς, without any Latin ones. I do not say that
this argument is, when taken alone, of any great weight. In doubtful
cases, however, it is of value. In the present case it enables us to
get rid of an inexplicable genitival form, at the expense of a slight
deflection from the usual power of an adjective. And here it should be
remembered that many of the arguments in favour of a case becoming an
adjective are (to a certain extent) in favour of an adjective becoming
a case--_to a certain extent_ and _to a certain extent_ only, because a
change in one direction by no means necessarily implies a change in the
reverse one, although it is something in favour of its probability.

[Footnote 1: hora for wora, κοῖος = _cujus_; ὁῖος = _hujus_; ἑὸς =
_ejus_ (1859).]

Probably _unius_, _ullius_, _illius_, and _alterius_, are equally,
as respects their origin, adjectival forms with _ejus_, _cujus_, and
_hujus_.

Now it must not be concealed that one of the arguments which apply to
words like _mine_ and _thine_ being adjectives rather than genitives,
does not apply to words like _ejus_, _cujus_, and _hujus_. The reason
is as follows; and it is exhibited in nearly the same words which
have been used in the work already mentioned.--The idea of partition
is one of the ideas expressed by the genitive case. The necessity for
expressing this idea is an element in the necessity for evolving a
genitive case. With personal pronouns of the singular number the idea
of partition is of less frequent occurrence than with most other
words, since a personal pronoun of the _singular_ number is the name
of a unity, and, as such, the name of an object far less likely to be
separated into parts than the name of a collection. Phrases like _some
of them_, _one of you_, _many of us_, _any of them_, _few of us_, &c.,
have no analogues in the singular number, such as _one of me_, _a
few of thee_, &c. The partitive words that can combine with singular
pronouns are comparatively few, viz. _half_, _quarter_, _part_, &c.;
and they can all combine equally with plurals--_half of us_, _a quarter
of them_, _a portion of us_. The partition of a singular object with a
pronominal name is of rare occurrence in language. This last statement
proves something more than appears at first sight. It proves that no
argument in favour of the so-called _singular_ genitives, like _mine_
and _thine_, can be drawn from the admission (if made) of the existence
of the true plural genitives _ou-r_, _you-r_, _the-ir_. The two ideas
are not in the same predicament.

Again, the convenience of expressing the difference between _suus_
and _ejus_, is, to a certain extent, a reason for the evolution of
a genitive case to words like _is_; but it is a reason to a certain
extent only, and that extent a small one, since an equally convenient
method of expressing the difference is to be found in the fact of there
being two roots for the pronouns in question, the root from which we
get _ea_, _id_, _eum_, _ejus_, &c., and the root from which we get
_sui_, _sibi_, _suus_, &c.

Here the paper should end, for here ends the particular suggestion
supplied by the word in question. Two questions however present
themselves too forcibly to be wholly passed over:--

I. The great extent to which those who look in Latin for the same
inflections that occur in Greek, must look for them under new names.
That two tenses in Greek (the aorist like ἔ-τυπ-σα, and the perfect
like τέ-τυφ-α) must be looked for in the so-called _double_ form of a
_single_ tense in Latin (_vic-si_, _mo-mordi_) is one of the oldest
facts of this sort. That the Greek participle in -μενος (τυπτόμενος)
must be sought for in the passive persons in _-mini_ is a newer notice.

II. The fact that the character of the deflection that takes place
between case and adjective is not _single_ but _double_. It goes both
ways. The change from case to adjective is one process in philology;
the change from adjective to case another; and both should be
recognized. This is mentioned for the sake of stating, that except in a
few details, there is nothing in the present remarks that is meant to
be at variance with the facts and arguments of five papers already laid
before this Society, viz. those of Mr. Garnett on the Formation of
Words from Inflected Cases, and on the Analysis of the Verb.

The papers alluded to really deal with two series of facts:--(A.)
_Deflection with identity of form._--In this the inflection is still
considered an inflection, but is dealt with as one different from what
it really is, _i. e._ as a nominative instead of an oblique one. Some
years back the structure of the Finlandic suggested to the present
writer:--

1. A series of changes in meaning whereby such a term as _with waves_
might equal _wavy_.

2. The existence of a class of words of which _sestertium_ was the
type, where an oblique case, _with a convertible termination_, becomes
a nominative.

3. The possible evolution of forms like _fluctuba_,
_fluctubum_ = _fluctuosa_, _fluctuosum_, from forms like _fluctubus_.

Mr. Garnett has multiplied cases of this kind; his illustrations
from the Basque being pre-eminently typical, _i. e._ like the form
_sestertium_. If the modern vehicle called an _omnibus_ had been
invented in ancient Rome, if it had had the same name as it has now,
and if its plural form had been _omnibi_, it would also have been a
typical instance.

Words of the hypothetical form _fluctuba_, _fluctubum_, have not
been discovered. They would have existed if the word just quoted had
been (if used in ancient Rome at all) used as an adjective, _omnibus
currus_, _omniba esseda_, _omnibum plaustrum_.

(B.) _Deflection with superaddition._--Here the inflection is dealt
with as if it were not inflectional but radical. This is the case with
ἴφιος. Words like _it-_, as proved by the genitive _i-t-s_, and the
so-called _petrified_ (_versteinerte_) nominative cases of the German
grammarians, are of this class.

ON THE AORISTS IN -KA.

READ
BEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY,
MARCH 11, 1853.

A well-known rule in the Eton Greek Grammar may serve to introduce the
subject of the present remarks:--"Quinque sunt aoristi primi qui futuri
primi characteristicam non assumunt: ἔθηκα _posui_, ἔδωκα _dedi_, ἥκα
_misi_, εἴπα _dixi_, ἥνεγκα _tuli_." The absolute accuracy of this
sentence is no part of our considerations: it has merely been quoted
for the sake of illustration.

What is the import of this abnormal κ? or, changing the expression,
what is the explanation of the aorist in -κα? Is it certain that it
_is_ an aorist? or, granting this, is it certain that its relations to
the future are exceptional?

The present writer was at one time inclined to the doubts implied by
the first of these alternatives, and gave some reasons[2] for making
the form a _perfect_ rather than an aorist. He finds, however, that
this is only shifting the difficulty. How do _perfects_ come to end in
-κα? The typical and unequivocal perfects are formed by a reduplication
at the beginning, and a modification of the final radical consonant at
the end of words, τύπ(τ)ω, τέ-τυφ-α; and this is the origin of the χ
in λέλεχα, &c., which represents the γ of the root. Hence, even if we
allow ourselves to put the κ in ἔθηκα in the same category with the κ
in ὀμώμοκα, &c., we are as far as ever from the true origin of the form.

[Footnote 2: English Language, p. 489.]

In this same category, however, the two words--and the classes they
represent--_can_ be placed, notwithstanding some small difficulties of
detail. At any rate, it is easier to refer ὀμώμοκα and ἔθηκα to the
same tense than it is to do so with ὀμώμοκα and τέτυφα.

The next step is to be sought in Bopp's Comparative Grammar. Here we
find the following extract:--"The old Slavonic _dakh_ 'I gave,' and
analogous formations remind us, through their guttural, which _takes
the place of a sibilant_, of the Greek aorists ἔθηκα, ἔδωκα, ἧκα. That
which in the old Slavonic has become a rule in the first person of
the three numbers, viz. the _gutturalization of an original s_, may
have occasionally taken place in the Greek, but carried throughout all
numbers. No conjecture lies closer at hand than that of regarding ἔδωκα
_as a corruption of_ ἔδωσα," &c.... "The Lithuanian also presents a
form which is akin to the Greek and Sanscrit aorist, in which, as it
appears to me, _k assumes the place of an original s_." (vol. ii. p.
791, Eastwick's and Wilson's translation.) The italics indicate the
words that most demand attention.

The old Slavonic inflection alluded to is as follows:--

SINGULAR. DUAL. PLURAL.
1. Nes-_och_ Nes-_ochowa_ Nes-_ochom_.
2. Nes-_e_ Nes-_osta_ Nes-_oste_.
3. Nes-_e_ Nes-_osta_ Nes-_osza_.

Now it is clear that the doctrine to which these extracts commit the
author is that of the secondary or derivative character of the form
of κ and the primary or fundamental character of the forms
in σ. The former is deduced from the latter. And this is the
doctrine which the present writer would reverse. He would just reverse
it, agreeing with the distinguished scholar whom he quotes in the
identification of the Greek form with the Slavonic. So much more
common is the change from _k_, _g_ and the allied sounds, to _s_, _z_,
&c., than that from _s_, _z_, &c. to _k_, _g_, that the _à priori_
probabilities are strongly against Bopp's view. Again, the languages
that preeminently encourage the change are the Slavonic; yet it is just
in these languages that the form in _k_ is assumed to be secondary. For
_s_ to become _h_, and for _h_ to become _k_ (or _g_), is no improbable
change: still, as compared with the transition from _k_ to _s_, it is
exceedingly rare.

As few writers are better aware of the phænomena connected with the
direction of letter-changes than the philologist before us, it may be
worth while to ask, why he has ignored them in the present instances.
He has probably done so because the Sanscrit forms were in _s_; the
habit of considering whatever is the more Sanscrit of two forms to
be the older being well-nigh universal. Nevertheless, the difference
between a language which is old because it is represented by old
samples of its literature, and a language which is old because it
contains primary forms, is manifest upon a very little reflection.
The positive argument, however, in favour of the _k_ being the older
form, lies in the well-known phænomenon connected with the vowels _e_
and _i_, as opposed to _a_, _o_, and _u_. All the world over, _e_ and
_i_ have a tendency to convert a _k_ or _g_, when it precedes them,
into _s_, _z_, _sh_, _zh_, _ksh_, _gzh_, _tsh_, and _dzh_, or some
similar sibilant. Hence, as often as a sign of tense consisting of
_k_, is followed by a sign of person beginning with _e_ or _i_, an
_s_ has chance of being evolved. In this case such a form as ἐφίλησα,
ἐφίλησας, ἐφίλησε, may have originally run ἐφίληκα, ἐφίληκας, ἐφίληκε.
The modified form in σ afterwards extends itself to the other persons
and numbers. Such is the illustration of the hypothesis. An objection
against it lies in the fact of the person which ends in a small vowel,
being only one out of seven. On the other hand, however the third
person singular is used more than all the others put together. With
this influence of the small vowel other causes may have cooperated.
Thus, when the root ended in κ or γ, the combination κ _radical_, and κ
_inflexional_ would be awkward. It would give us such words as ἔλεκ-κα,
&c.; words like τέτυπ-κα, ἔγραπ-κα, being but little better, at least
in a language like the Greek.

The suggestions that now follow lead into a wide field of inquiry; and
they may be considered, either on their merits as part of a separate
question, or as part of the proof of the present doctrine. In this
latter respect they are not altogether essential, _i. e._ they are more
confirmatory if admitted than derogatory if denied. What if the future
be derived from the aorist, instead of the aorist from the future?
In this case we should increase what may be called our _dynamics_,
by increasing the points of contact between a _k_ and a small vowel;
this being the influence that determines the evolution of an _s_. All
the persons of the future, except the first, have ε for one (at
least) of these vowels--

τύψ-σ-ω, τύψ-σ-εις, τύψ-σ-ει, τύψ-ε-τον, &c.

The moods are equally efficient in the supply of small vowels.

The doctrine, then, now stands that _k_ is the older form, but that,
through the influence of third persons singular, future forms, and
conjunctive forms, so many _s_-es became developed, as to supersede
it except in a few instances. The Latin language favours this view.
There, the old future like _cap-s-o_, and the preterites like _vixi_
(_vic-si_) exhibit a small vowel in _all_ their persons, _e. g._
_vic-s-i_, _vic-s-isti_, _vic-s-it_, &c. Still the doctrine respecting
this influence of the small vowel in the way of the developement of
sibilants out of gutturals is defective until we find a real instance
of the change assumed. As if, for the very purpose of illustrating
the occasional value of obscure dialects, the interesting language of
the Serbs of Lusatia and Cotbus supplies one. Here the form of the
preterite is as follows; the Serb of Illyria and the Lithuanic being
placed in juxtaposition and contrast with the Serb of Lusatia. Where a
small vowel follows the characteristic of the tense the sound is that
of _sz_; in other cases it is that of _ch_ (_kh_)

LUSATIAN. ILLYRIAN. LITHUANIC. LETTISH.
Sing. 1. nos_zach_ _do_neso, donije nesziau nessu.
2. nosz_esze_ _do_nese, donije nesziei nessi.
3. nosz_esze_ _do_nese, donije nesziei nesse.
Dual 1. nosz_achwe_ nesziewa
2. nosz_estaj_ neszieta
3. nosz_estaj_ neszie
Plur. 1. nosz_achmy_ _do_nesosmo, donijesmo neszieme nessam.
2. nosz_eśće_ _do_nesoste, donijeste nesziete nessat.
3. nosz_achu_ _do_nesosze, donijesze neszie nesse.

IV.

METRICA.

ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE CAESURA IN
THE GREEK SENARIUS.

FROM THE
TRANSACTIONS OF THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY,
JUNE 23, 1843.

In respect to the cæsura of the Greek tragic senarius, the rules, as
laid down by Porson in the Supplement to his Preface to the Hecuba, and
as recognised, more or less, by the English school of critics, seem
capable of a more general expression, and, at the same time, liable to
certain limitations in regard to fact. This becomes apparent when we
investigate the principle that serves as the foundation to these rules;
in other words, when we exhibit the _rationale_, or doctrine, of the
cæsura in question. At this we can arrive by taking cognizance of a
second element of metre beyond that of quantity.

It is assumed that the element in metre which goes, in works of
different writers, under the name of ictus metricus, or of arsis,
is the same as accent _in the sense of that word in English_. It is
this that constitutes the difference between words like _týrant_
and _resúme_, or _súrvey_ and _survéy_; or (to take more convenient
examples) between the word _Aúgust_, used as the name of a month, and
_augúst_ used as an adjective. Without inquiring how far this coincides
with the accent and accentuation of the classical grammarians, it may
be stated that, in the forthcoming pages, arsis, ictus metricus, and
accent (_in the English sense of the word_), mean one and the same
thing. With this view of the arsis, or ictus, we may ask how far, in
each particular foot of the senarius, it coincides with the quantity.

_First Foot._--In the first place of a tragic senarius it is a matter
of indifference whether the arsis fall on the first or second syllable,
that is, it is a matter of indifference whether the foot be sounded as
_týrant_ or as _resúme_, as _Aúgust_ or as _augúst_. In the following
lines the words ἡκω, παλαι, εἰπερ, τινας, may be pronounced either as
ἥκω, πάλαι, εἴπερ, τίνας, or as ἡκώ, παλαί, εἰπέρ, τινάς, without any
detriment to the character of the line wherein they occur.

Ἥκω νεκρον κευθμωνα και σκοτου ρυλας.
Πάλαι κυνηγετουντα και μετρουμενον.
Είπερ δικαιος εστ' εμος τα πατροθεν.
Τίνας ποθ' ἑδρας τασδε μοι θοαζετε.

or,

Ἡκώ νεκρον κευθμωνα και σκοτου ρυλας.
Παλαί κυνηγετουντα και μετρουμενον.
Ειπέρ δικαιος εστ' εμος τα πατροθεν.
Τινάς ποθ' ἑδρας τασδε μοι θοαζετε.

_Second Foot._--In the second place, it is also matter of indifference
whether the foot be sounded as _Aúgust_ or as _augúst_. In the first of
the four lines quoted above we may say either νέκρων or νεκρών, without
violating rhythm of the verse.

_Third Foot._--In this part of the senarius it is no longer a matter of
indifference whether the foot be sounded as _Aúgust_ or as _augúst_;
that is, it is no longer a matter of indifference whether the arsis and
the quantity coincide. In the circumstance that the last syllable of
the third foot _must_ be accented (in the English sense of the word),
taken along with a second fact, soon about to be exhibited, lies the
doctrine of the penthimimer and hephthimimer cæsuras.

The proof of the coincidence between the arsis and the quantity in
the third foot is derived partly from _à posteriori_, partly from _à
priori_ evidence.

1. In the Supplices of Æschylus, the Persæ, and the Bacchæ, three
dramas where licences in regard to metre are pre-eminently common,
the number of lines wherein the sixth syllable (_i. e._ the last half
of the third foot) is without an arsis, is at the highest sixteen,
at the lowest five; whilst in the remainder of the extant dramas the
proportion is undoubtedly smaller.

2. In all lines where the sixth syllable is destitute of ictus, the
iambic character is violated: as--

Θρηκην περαράντες μογις πολλῳ πονῳ.
Δυοιν γεροντοίν δε στρατηγειται φυγη.

These are facts which may be verified either by referring to the
tragedians, or by constructing senarii like the lines last quoted. The
only difficulty that occurs arises in determining, in a dead language
like the Greek, the absence or presence of the arsis. In this matter
the writer has satisfied himself of the truth of the two following
propositions:--1. That the accentuation of the grammarians denotes some
modification of pronunciation other than that which constitutes the
difference between _Aúgust_ and _augúst_; since, if it were not so,
the word ἅγγελον would be sounded like _mérrily_, and the word ἁγγέλων
like _disáble_; which is improbable. 2. That the arsis lies upon
radical rather than inflectional syllables, and out of two inflectional
syllables upon the first rather than the second; as βλέπ-ω, βλεψ-άσ-α,
not βλεπ-ώ, βλεψ-ασ-ά. The evidence upon these points is derived from
the structure of language in general. The _onus probandi_ lies with
the author who presumes an arsis (accent in the English sense) on a
_non_-radical syllable.

Doubts, however, as to the pronunciation of certain words, leave the
precise number of lines violating the rule given above undetermined. It
is considered sufficient to show that, wherever they occur, the iambic
character is violated.

The circumstance, however, of the last half of the third foot
requiring an arsis, brings us only half way towards the doctrine of
the cæsura. With this must be combined a second fact arising out of
the constitution of the Greek language in respect to its accent. In
accordance with the views just exhibited, the author conceives that no
Greek word has an arsis upon the last syllable, except in the three
following cases:--

1. Monosyllables, not enclitic; as σφών, πάς, χθών, δμώς, νών, νύν, &c.

2. Circumflex futures; as νεμώ, τεμώ, &c.

3. Words abbreviated by apocope; in which case the penultimate is
converted into a final syllable; δώμ', φειδέσθ', κεντείτ', εγώγ', &c.

Now the fact of a syllable with an arsis being, in Greek, rarely
final, taken along with that of the sixth syllable requiring an arsis,
gives, as a matter of necessity, the circumstance that, in the Greek
drama, the sixth syllable shall occur anywhere rather than at the end
of a word; and this is only another way of saying, that, in a tragic
senarius, the syllable in question shall generally be followed by other
syllables in the same word. All this the author considers as so truly a
matter of necessity, that the objection to his view of the Greek cæsura
must lie either against his idea of the nature of the accents, or
nowhere; since, that being admitted, the rest follows of course.

As the sixth syllable must not be final, it must be followed in the
same word by one syllable, or by more than one.

1. _The sixth syllable followed by one syllable in the same
word._--This is only another name for the seventh syllable occurring at
the end of a word, and it gives at once the hephthimimer cæsura: as--

Ἡκω νεκρων κευθμώνα και σκοτου πυλας.
Ἱκτηριοις κλαδοίσιν εξεστεμμενοι.
Ὁμου τε παιανών τε και στεναγματων.

2. _The sixth syllable followed by two (or more) syllables in the same
word._--This is only another name for the eighth (or some syllable
after the eighth) syllable occurring at the end of a word; as--

Οδμη βροτειων ἅιματων με προσγελα.
Λαμπρους δυναστας έμπρεποντας αιθερι.

Now this arrangement of syllables, taken by itself, gives anything
rather than a hephthimimer; so that if it were at this point that our
investigations terminated, little would be done towards the evolution
of the _rationale_ of the cæsura. It will appear, however, that in
those cases where the circumstance of the sixth syllable being followed
by two others in the same words, causes the eighth (or some syllable
after the eighth) to be final, either a penthimimer cæsura, or an
equivalent, will, with but few exceptions, be the result. This we may
prove by taking the eighth syllable and counting back from it. What
_follows_ this syllable is immaterial: it is the number of syllables in
the same word that _precedes_ it that demands attention.

1. _The eighth syllable preceded in the same word by nothing._--This is
equivalent to the seventh syllable at the end of the preceding word: a
state of things which, as noticed above, gives the hephthimimer cæsura.

Ανηριθμον γελάσμα παμ|μητορ δε γη.

2. _The eighth syllable preceded in the same word by one
syllable._--This is equivalent to the sixth syllable at the end of
the word preceding; a state of things which, as noticed above, rarely
occurs. When, however, it does occur, one of the three conditions under
which a final syllable can take an arsis must accompany it. Each of
these conditions requires notice.

α). With a non-enclitic _mono_-syllable the result is a penthimimer
cæsura; since the syllable preceding a monosyllable is necessarily
final.

Ἡκω σεβίζων σόν Κλύται|μνηστρα κρατος.

No remark has been made by critics upon lines constructed in this
manner, since the cæsura is a penthimimer, and consequently their rules
are undisturbed.

β). With _poly_-syllabic circumflex futures constituting the third
foot, there would be a violation of the current rules respecting
the cæsura. Notwithstanding this, if the views of the present paper
be true, there would be no violation of the iambic character of the
senarius. Against such a line as

Κα'γω το σον νεμώ ποθει|νον αυλιον

there is no argument _à priori_ on the score of the iambic character
being violated; whilst, in respect to objections derived from evidence
_à posteriori_, there is sufficient reason for such lines being rare.

γ). With _poly_-syllables abbreviated by apocope, we have the state
of things which the metrists have recognised under the name of
quasi-cæsura; as--

Κεντειτε μη φειδέσθ' εγω | 'τεκον Παριν.

3.--_The eighth syllable preceded in the same word by two
syllables._--This is equivalent to the fifth syllable occurring at
the end of the word preceding: a state of things which gives the
penthimimer cæsura; as--

Οδμη βροτειων αἵματῶν | με προσγελα.
Λαμπρους δυναστας εμ'πρεπον|τας αιθερι.
Απσυχον εικω πρόσγελω|σα σωματος.

4. _The eighth syllable preceded in the same word by three or more than
three syllables._--This is equivalent to the fourth (or some syllable
preceding the fourth) syllable occurring at the end of the word
preceding; a state of things which would include the third and fourth
feet in one and the same word. This concurrence is denounced in the
Supplement to the Preface to the Hecuba, where, however, the rule, as
in the case of the quasi-cæsura, from being based upon merely empirical
evidence, requires limitation. In lines like--

Και τἁλλα πολλ' επέικασαι | δικαιον ην,

or (an imaginary example),

Τοις σοισιν ασπιδήστροφοισ|ιν ανδρασι,

there is no violation of the iambic character, and consequently no
reason against similar lines having been written; although from the
average proportion of Greek words like επεικασαι and ασπιδηστροποισιν,
there is every reason for their being rare.

After the details just given the recapitulation is brief.

1. It was essential to the character of the senarius that the sixth
syllable, or latter half of the third foot, should have an arsis,
ictus metricus, or accent in the English sense. To this condition
of the iambic rhythm the Greek tragedians, either consciously or
unconsciously, adhered.

2. It was the character of the Greek language to admit an arsis on the
last syllable of a word only under circumstances comparatively rare.

3. These two facts, taken together, caused the sixth syllable of a line
to be anywhere rather than at the end of a word.

4. If followed by a single syllable in the same word, the result was a
hephthimimer cæsura.

5. If followed by more syllables than one, some syllable in an earlier
part of the line ended the word preceding, and so caused either a
penthimìmer, a quasi-cæsura, or the occurrence of the third and fourth
foot in the same word.

6. As these two last-mentioned circumstances were rare, the general
phenomenon presented in the Greek senarius was the occurrence of either
the penthimimer or hephthimimer.

7. Respecting these two sorts of cæsura, the rules, instead of being
exhibited in detail, may be replaced by the simple assertion that there
should be an arsis on the sixth syllable. From this the rest follows.

8. Respecting the non-occurrence of the third and fourth feet in the
same word, the assertion may be withdrawn entirely.

9. Respecting the quasi-cæsura, the rules, if not altogether withdrawn,
may be extended to the admission of the last syllable of circumflex
futures (or to any other polysyllables with an equal claim to be
considered accented on the last syllable) in the latter half of the
third foot.

REMARKS ON THE USE OF THE SIGNS OF
ACCENT AND QUANTITY AS GUIDES TO
THE PRONUNCIATION OF WORDS DERIVED
FROM THE CLASSICAL LANGUAGES,
WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO
ZOOLOGICAL AND BOTANICAL
TERMS.

FROM THE
ANNALS AND MAGAZINE OF NATURAL HISTORY,
JUNE, 1859.

The text upon which the following remarks have suggested themselves
is the Accentuated List of the British Lepidoptera, with Hints on the
Derivation of the Names, published by the Entomological Societies
of Oxford and Cambridge; a useful contribution to scientific
terminology--useful, and satisfied with being so. It admits that
naturalists may be unlearned, and provides for those who, with a
love for botany or zoology, may have been denied the advantage of a
classical education. That there are many such is well known; and it is
also well known that they have no love for committing themselves to the
utterance of Latin and Greek names in the presence of investigators who
are more erudite (though, perhaps, less scientific) than themselves.
As a rule, their pronunciation is inaccurate. It is inaccurate without
being uniform--- for the ways of going wrong are many. Meanwhile, any
directions toward the right are welcome.

In the realities of educational life there is no such thing as a
book for unlearned men--at least no such thing as a good one. There
are make-shifts and make-believes _ad_ _infinitum_; but there is
no such an entity as an actual book. Some are written down to the
supposed level of the reader--all that are so written being useless
and offensive. Others are encumbered with extraneous matter, and, so
encumbered, err on the side of bulk and superfluity. Very rarely is
there anything like consistency in the supply of information.

The work under notice supposes a certain amount of ignorance--ignorance
of certain accents and certain quantities. It meets this; and it meets
it well. That the work is both a safe and reliable guide, is neither
more nor less than what we expect from the places and persons whence it
has proceeded.

It is likely, from its very merits, to be the model on which a long
line of successors may be formed. For this reason the principles of its
notation (for thus we may generalize our expression of the principle
upon which we use the signs of accent and quantity as guides to
pronunciation) may be criticised.

In the mind of the present writer, the distinction between accent and
quantity has neither been sufficiently attended to nor sufficiently
neglected. This is because, in many respects, they are decidedly
contrasted with, and opposed to, each other; whilst, at the same
time--paradoxical as it may appear--they are, for the majority of
practical purposes, convertible. That inadvertence on these points
should occur, is not to be wondered at. Professional grammarians--men
who deal with the purely philological questions of metre and
syllabification--with few exceptions, confound them.

In English Latin (by which I mean Latin as pronounced by Englishmen)
there is, in practice, no such a thing as quantity; so that the sign by
which it is denoted is, in nine cases out of ten, superfluous. _Mark
the accent, and the quantity will take care of itself._

I say that there is no such a thing in English Latin as quantity. I
ought rather to have said that

_English quantities are not Latin quantities._

In Latin, the length of the syllable is determined by the length of
the _vowels and consonants combined_. A long vowel, if followed in the
same word by another (_i. e._ if followed by no consonant), is short.
A short vowel, if followed by two consonants, is long. In English, on
the other hand, long vowels make long, whilst short vowels make short,
syllables; so that the quantity of a syllable in English is determined
by the quantity of the vowel. The _i_ in _pius_ is short in Latin. In
English it is long. The _e_ in _mend_ is short in English, long in
Latin.

This, however, is not all. There is, besides, the following metrical
paradox. A syllable may be made long by the very fact of its being
short. It is the practice of the English language to signify the
shortness of a vowel by doubling the consonant that follows. Hence we
get such words as _pitted_, _knotty_, _massive_, &c.--words in which
no one considers that the consonant is actually doubled. For do we not
pronounce _pitted_ and _pitied_ alike? Consonants that appear double to
the _eye_ are common enough. Really double consonants--consonants that
sound double to the ear--are rarities, occurring in one class of words
only--viz. in compounds whereof the first element ends with the same
sound with which the second begins, as _soul-less_, _book-case_, &c.

The doubling, then, of the consonant is a conventional mode of
expressing the shortness of the vowel that precedes, and it addresses
itself to the eye rather than the ear.

But does it address itself to the _eye_ only? If it did, _pitied_ and
_pitted_, being sounded alike, would also be of the same quantity. We
know, however, that to the English writer of Latin verses they are
not so. We know that the first is short (_pĭtied_), the latter
long (_pītted_). For all this, they are sounded alike: so that the
difference in quantity (which, as a metrical fact, really exists) is,
to a great degree, conventional. At any rate, we arrive at it by a
secondary process. We know how the word is spelt; and we know that
certain modes of spelling give certain rules of metre. Our senses here
are regulated by our experience.

Let a classical scholar hear the first line of the Eclogues read--

Patulæ tu Tityre, &c.,

and he will be shocked. He will also believe that the shock fell on his
ear. Yet his ear was unhurt. No sense was offended. The thing which
was shocked was his knowledge of the rules of prosody--nothing more.
To English ears there is no such a thing as quantity--not even in
hexameters and pentameters. There is no such thing as quantity except
so far as it is accentual also. Hence come the following phænomena--no
less true than strange,--viz. (1) that any classical metre written
according to the rules of quantity gives (within certain narrow
limits) a regular recurrence of accents; and (2) that, setting aside
such shocks as affect our knowledge of the rules of prosody, verses
written according to their accents only give metrical results. English
hexameters (such as they are) are thus written.

In the inferences from these remarks there are two assumptions: 1st,
that the old-fashioned mode of pronunciation be adhered to; 2nd, that
when we pronounce Greek and Latin words as they are pronounced in the
recitation of Greek and Latin poetry, we are as accurate as we need be.
It is by means of these two assumptions that we pronounce _Tityre_ and
_patulæ_ alike; and I argue that we are free to do so. As far as the
ear is concerned, the _a_ is as long as the _i_, on the strength of the
double _t_ which is supposed to come after it. It _does_ not indeed
so come; but if it did, the sound would be the same, the quantity
different (for is not _patulæ_ pronounced _pattule_?). It would be a
quantity, however, to the eye only.

This pronunciation, however, may be said to be exploded; for do not
most men under fifty draw the distinction which is here said to be
neglected? Do not the majority make, or fancy they make, a distinction
between the two words just quoted? They may or they may not. It is only
certain that, subject to the test just indicated, it is immaterial what
they do. Nine-tenths of the best modern Latin verses were written under
the old system--a system based not upon our ear, but on our knowledge
of certain rules.

Now it is assumed that the accuracy sufficient for English Latin is
all the accuracy required. Ask for more, and you get into complex and
difficult questions respecting the pronunciation of a dead language.
Do what we will, we cannot, on one side, pronounce the Latin like the
ancient Romans. Do what we will, so long as we keep our accents right,
we cannot (speaking Latin after the fashion of Englishmen) err in the
way of quantity--at least, not to the ear. A short vowel still gives
a long syllable; for the consonant which follows it is supposed to be
doubled.

Let it be admitted, then, that, for practical purposes, _Tityre_ and
_patulæ_ may be pronounced alike, and the necessity of a large class of
marks is avoided. Why write, as the first word in the book is written,
_Papiliō´nidæ_? Whether the initial syllable be sounded _papp-_ or
_pape-_ is indifferent. So it is whether the fourth be uttered as
_-own-_, or _-onn-_. _As far as the ear is concerned_, they are both
long, because the consonant is doubled. In Greek,πᾰππιλλιόννιδαι is as
long as πᾱππιλλιόννιδαι.

Then comes _Machā´on_, where the sign of quantity is again useless,
the accent alone being sufficient to prevent us saying either _Mákkaon_
or _Makaón_. The _a_ is the _a_ in _fate_. We could not sound it as the
_a_ in _fat_ if we would.

_Pīeridæ._--What does the quantity tell us here? That the _i_ is
pronounced as the _i_ in the Greek πίονος, rather than as the
_i_ in the Latin _pius_. But, in English Latin, we pronounce both
alike. Surely _Pī´eris_ and _Pie´ridæ_ tell us all that is needed.

_Cratæ´gī._--Whether long or short, the _i_ is pronounced the same.

_Sinā´pis_, _Rā´pæ_, and _Nā´pi_.--The (̄) here prevents us from
saying _Ráppæ_ and _Náppi_. It would certainly be inelegant and
unusual to do so. Tested, however, by the ear, the words _ráppæ_
and _náppi_ take just the same place in an English Latin verse as
_rápe-æ_ and _nápe-i_. Is any one likely to say _sináppis_? Perhaps.
There are those who say _Dianna_ for _Diana_. It is very wrong to do
so--wrong, not to say vulgar. For the purposes of metre, however, one
is as good as the other; and herein (as aforesaid) lies the test. The
real false quantities would be _Diana_ and _sinnapis_; but against
these the accent protects us. Nor is the danger of saying _sináppis_
considerable. Those who say _Diánna_ are those who connect it with
_Anna_ and would, probably, spell it with two _n's_.

_Cardamī´nēs._--All that the first (̄) does here is to prevent us
saying _cardami´nnes_. The real false quantity would be _carda´mmines_.
The accent, however, guards against this.

The second (̄) is useful. It is certainly better to say _cardamín-ees_
than _cardamín-ess_, because the _e_ is from the Greek η. And this
gives us a rule. Let the (̄) be used to distinguish η from ε, and ω
from ο, and in no other case. I would not say that it is necessary
to use it even here. It is better, however, to say _Macháōn_ than
_Macháŏn_. By a parity of reasoning, the (̆), rejected in the work
before us, is sometimes useful. Let it be used in those derivatives
where ε replaces η, and ο replaces ω; _e. g._ having written _Machaōn_,
write, as its derivative, _Machaŏnidæ_--_i. e._ if the word be wanted.

This is the utmost for which the signs of quantity are wanted for
English Latin. I do not say that they are wanted even for this.

One of the mechanical inconveniences arising from the use of the signs
of quantity is this--when a long syllable is accented, two signs fall
upon it. To remedy this, the work before us considers that the stress
is to be laid on the syllable _preceding the accent_. Yet, if an accent
mean anything, it means that the stress fall on the syllable which it
stands _over_.

A few remarks upon words like _Pīeridæ_, where the accent was
omitted.--Here two short syllables come between two long ones. No
accent, however, is placed over either. Evidently, quantity and accent
are so far supposed to coincide, that the accentuation of a short vowel
is supposed to make it look like a long one. It is a matter of fact,
that if, on a word like _Cassiŏpe_, we lay an accent on the last
syllable but one, we shock the ears of scholars, especially metrical
ones. Does it, however, lengthen the vowel? The editors of the work in
question seem to think that it does, and, much more consistent than
scholars in general, hesitate to throw it back upon the preceding
syllable, which is short also. Metrists have no such objection; their
practice being to say _Cassíope_ without detriment to the vowel. The
entomologists, then, are the more consistent.

They are, however, more consistent than they need be. If an accent
is wanted, it may fall on the shortest of all possible syllables.
Granting, however, that _Cassiópe_ (whether the _o_ be sounded as
in _nōte_ or _nŏt)_ is repugnant to metre, and _Cassíope_ to
theory, what is their remedy? It is certainly true that _Cássiope_ is
pronounceable. Pope writes--

"Like twinkling stars the _miscellanies_ o'er."

No man reads this _miscéllanies_; few read it _míscellánies_. The mass
say _mis´cellanies_. Doing this, they make the word a quadrisyllable;
for less than this would fall short of the demands of the metre. They
also utter a word which makes _Cas´siope_ possible. Is _Cássiope_,
however, the sound? Probably not. And here authors must speak for
themselves:--

"Take, _e. g._, _Cassiope_ and _Corticea_: in words like the former
of these, in which the last syllable is long, there is no greater
difficulty of pronunciation in laying the stress upon the first
syllable than upon the second."

True! but this implies that we say _Cássiopé_. Is _-e_, however, one
bit the longer for being accented, or can it bear one iota more of
accent for being long? No. Take _-at_ from _peat_, and _-t_ from _pet_,
and the result is _pe_--just as long or just as short in one case as
the other.

The same power of accenting the first syllable is "particularly the
case in those words in which the vowel _i_ can assume the power of _y_.
Latin scholars are divided as to the proper accentuation of _mulieres_,
_Tulliola_, and others: though custom is in favour of _mulíeres_,
_mul´ieres_ appears to be more correct." Be it so. Let _mulieres_ be
_múlyeres_. What becomes, however, of the fourth syllable? The word
is no quadrisyllable at all. What is meant is this:--not that certain
quadrisyllables with two short vowels in the middle are difficult to
accentuate, but that they are certain words of which it is difficult to
say whether they are trisyllables or quadrisyllables.

For all practical purposes, however, words like _Cassiope_ are
quadrisyllables. They are, in the way of metre, choriambics; and a
choriambic is a quadrisyllable foot. They were pronounced _Cassíope_,
&c., by English writers of Latin verses--when Latin verses were written
well.

Let the pronunciation which was good enough for Vincent Bourne
and the contributors to the Musæ Etonenses be good enough for the
entomologists, and all that they will then have to do is not to
pronounce _cratægum_ like _stratagem_, _cardamines_ like _Theramenes_,
and _vice versâ_. Against this, accent will ensure them--accent
single-handed and without any sign of quantity--_Cardamínes_,
_Therámenes_, _cratæ´gum_, _strátagem_.

CHRONOLOGICA.

ON THE MEANING OF THE WORD ΣΑΡΟΣ.

READ
BEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY.
APRIL 11, 1845.

The words σάρος and _sarus_ are the Greek and Latin forms of a certain
term used in the oldest Babylonian chronology, the meaning of which
is hitherto undetermined. In the opinion of the present writer, the
_sarus_ is a period of 4 years and 340 days.

In the way of direct external evidence as to the value of the epoch in
question, we have, with the exception of an unsatisfactory passage in
Suidas, at the hands of the ancient historians and according to the
current interpretations, only the two following statements:--

1. That each _sarus_ consisted of 3600 years (ἔτη).

2. That the first ten kings of Babylon reigned 120 _sari_, equal to
432,000 years; or on an average 43,200 years apiece.

With _data_ of this sort, we must either abandon the chronology
altogether, or else change the power of the word _year_. The first
of these alternatives was adopted by Cicero and Pliny, and doubtless
other of the ancients--_contemnamus etiam Babylonios et eos qui e
Caucaso cœli signa observantes numeris et motubus stellarum cursus
persequuntur; condemnemus inquam hos aut stultitiæ aut vanitatis aut
impudentiæ qui_ CCCCLXX _millia annorum, ut ipsi dicunt, monumentis
comprehensa continent_.--_Cic. de Divinat._, from Cory's _Ancient
Fragments_. Again--_e diverso Epigenes apud Babylonios_ DCCXX _annorum
observationes siderum coctilibus laterculis inscriptas docet, gravis
auctor in primis: qui minimum Berosus et Critodemus_ CCCCLXXX
_annorum_.--Pliny, vii. 56. On the other hand, to alter the value of
the word ἔτος or _annus_ has been the resource of at least one
modern philologist.

Now if we treat the question by what may be called the _tentative_
method, the first step in our inquiry will be to find some division
of time which shall, at once, be _natural_ in itself, and also short
enough to make 10 _sari_ possible parts of an average human life. For
this, even a _day_ will be too long. _Twelve hours_, however, or half a
νυχθήμερον, will give us possible results.

Taking this view therefore, and leaving out of the account the 29th of
February, the words ἔτος and _annus_ mean, not a year, but the 730th
part of one; 3600 of which make a _sarus_. In other words, a _sarus_
= 1800 day-times and 1800 night-times, or 3600 half νυχθήμερα, or 4
years+340 days.

The texts to which the present hypothesis applies are certain passages
in Eusebius and Syncellus. These are founded upon the writings of
Alexander Polyhistor, Apollodorus, Berosus, and Abydenus. From hence we
learn the length of the ten reigns alluded to above, viz. 120 _sari_ or
591 years and odd days. _Reigns_ of this period are just possible. It
is suggested, however, that the _reign_ and _life_ are dealt with as
synonymous; or at any rate, that some period beyond that during which
each king sat singly on his throne has been recorded.

The method in question led the late Professor Rask to a different power
for the word _sarus_. In his _Ældste Hebraiske Tidregnung_ he writes as
follows: "The meaning of the so-called _sari_ has been impossible for
me to discover. The ancients explain it differently. Dr. Ludw. Ideler,
in his _Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie_, i.
207, considers it to mean some lunar period; without however defining
it, and without sufficient closeness to enable us to reduce the 120
_sari_, attributed to the ten ancient kings, to any probable number of
real years. I should almost believe that the _sarus_ was a year of 23
months, so that the 120 _sari_ meant 240 natural years." _p._ 32. Now
Rask's hypothesis has the advantage of leaving the meaning of the word
_reign_ as we find it. On the other hand, it blinks the question of ἔτη
or _anni_ as the parts of a _sarus_. Each doctrine, however, is equally
hypothetical; the value of the _sarus_, in the present state of our
inquiry, resting solely upon the circumstance of its giving a plausible
result from plausible assumptions. The _data_ through which the present
writer asserts for his explanation the proper amount of probability are
contained in two passages hitherto unapplied.

1. From Eusebius--_is_ (Berosus) sarum _ex annis 3600 conflat. Addit
etiam nescio quem_ nerum _ac_ sosum: nerum _ait 600 annis constare,
sosum annis 60. Sic ille de veterum more annos computat._--Translation
of the Armenian Eusebius, p. 5, from _Fragmenta Historicorum Græcorum_,
p. 439: Paris, 1841.

2. Berosus--σάρος δέ ἐστιν ἕξακόσια καὶ τρισχίλια ἔτη, νῖ ρος δὲ
ἕξακόσια, σώσσος ἑξήκοντα.--From Cory's _Ancient Fragments_.

Now the assumed value of the word translated _year_ (viz. 12 hours), in
its application to the passages just quoted, gives for the powers of
the three terms three divisions of time as natural as could be expected
under the circumstances.

1. Σώσσος.--The _sosus_ = 30 days and 30 nights, or 12 hours × 60, or a
month of 30 days, μὴν τριακονθήμερος. Aristotle writes--ἡ μὴν Λακωνικὴ
ἕκτον μέρος τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ, τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν ἡμέραι ἑξήκοντα.--From
Scaliger, _De Emendatione Temporum_, p. 23. Other evidence occurs in
the same page.

2. Νῆρος.--The _nerus_ = 10 _sosi_ or months=the old Roman year of that
duration.

3. Σάρος.--The _sarus_ = 6 _neri_ or 60 months of 30 days each; that
is, five proper years within 25 days. This would be a cycle or _annus
magnus_.

All these divisions are probable. Against that of 12 hours no objection
lies except its inconvenient shortness. The month of 30 days is
pre-eminently natural. The year of 10 months was common in early times.
In favour of the _sarus_ of five years (or nearly so) there are two
facts:--

1. It is the multiple of the _sosus_ by 10, and of the _nerus_ by 6.

2. It represents the period when the natural year of 12 months
coincides for the first time with the artificial one of 10; since 60
months = 6 years of 10 months and 5 of 12.

The historical application of these numbers is considered to lie beyond
the pale of the present inquiry.

In Suidas we meet an application of the principle recognised by Rask,
viz. the assumption of some period of which the _sarus_ is a fraction.
Such at least is the probable view of the following interpretation:
ΣΆΡΟΙ--μέτρον καὶ ἁριθμὸς παρὰ Χαλδαίοις, οἳ γὰρ ρκ´ σάροι ποιοῦσιν
ἐνιαυτοὺς βσκβ´, οἳ γίγνονται ιε´ ἔνιαυτοὶ καὶ μῆνες ἕξ.--From Cory's
_Ancient Fragments_[3].

[Footnote 3: This gloss in some MSS. is filled up thus:--

Σάροι. μέτρον καὶ ἀριθμος παρὰ Χαλδαίοις. ὁι γὰρ ρκ´ σάροι ποιοῦσιν
ἐνιαυτοὺς βσκβ´, κατὰ τὴν τῶν Χαλδαίων ψῆφον, εἴπερ ὁ σάρος ποιεῖ μῆνας
σεληνιακῶν σκβ´, ὁὶ γίνονται ιε´ ἐνιαυτοὶ καὶ μῆνες ἥξ.]

In Josephus we find the recognition of an _annus magnus_ containing as
many ἔτη as the _nerus_ did: ἔπειτα καὶ δι' ἀρετὴν καὶ τὴν εὐχρηστίαν
ὧν ἐπενόουν ἀστρολόγιας καὶ γεωμὲτριας πλέον ζῇν τὸν Θεὸν αὐτοῖς
παρασχεῖν ἅπερ οὐκ ἧν ἀσφαλῶς αὐτοῖς προειπεῖν ζήσασιν ἑξακοσίους
ἐνιαυτούς· διὰ τοσοῦτον γὰρ ὁμέγας ἐνιαυτὸς πληροῦται.--_Antiq._ i. 3.

The following doctrine is a suggestion, viz. that in the word _sosus_
we have the Hebrew שֵש = six. If this be true, it is
probable that the _sosus_ itself was only a secondary division, or some
other period multiplied by six. Such would be a period of five days, or
ten ἔׁτη (so-called). With this view we get two probabilities,
viz. a subdivision of the month, and the alternation of the numbers 6
and 10 throughout; _i. e._ from the ἔτος[4] (or 12 hours) to
the _sarus_ (or five years).

[Footnote 4: In the course of the evening it was stated, that even
by writers quoted by Syncellus ἔτος had been translated _day_; and a
reference was made to an article in the Cambridge Philological Museum
_On the Days of the Week_, for the opinion of Bailly in modern, and of
Annianus and Panodorus in ancient times: ταῦτα ἔτη ἡμέρας ἐλογίσαντο
στοχαστικῶς.--p. 40, vol. i. See also p. 42.]

* * * * *

After the reading of this paper, a long discussion followed on the
question, how far the _sarus_ could be considered as belonging to
historical chronology. The Chairman (Professor Wilson) thought there
could be no doubt that the same principles which regulated the
mythological periods of the Hindoos prevailed also in the Babylonian
computations, although there might be some variety in their application.

1. A _mahayuga_ or great age of the Hindoos, comprising the four
successive _yugas_ or ages, consists of 4,320,000 years.

2. These years being divided by 360, the number of days in the Indian
lunar year, give 12,000 periods.

3. By casting off two additional cyphers, these numbers are reduced
respectively to 432,000 and 120, the numbers of the years of the
_saroi_ of the ten Babylonian kings, whilst in the numbers 12,360 and
3600 we have the coincidence of other elements of the computation.

VI.

BIBLIOGRAPHICA.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF THE
WORKS ON THE PROVINCIALISMS OF
HOLLAND FROM PAPERS BY VAN DEN
BERGH AND HETTEMA IN THE
_TAALKUNDIG MAGAZIJN_.

READ
BEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY.

Van den Bergh, _Taal. Mag._ ii. 2. 193-210.

GRONINGEN.--Laurman, _Proeve van kleine taalkundige bijdragen tot beter
kennis van den tongval in de Provincie Groningen_.--Groningen 1822.

J. Sonius Swaagman, _Comment: de dialecto Groningana, etc.: una cum
serie vocabulorum, Groninganis propriorum_.--Groning. 1827.

_Zaamenspraak tusschen Pijter en Jaap dij malkáár op de weg ontmuiten
boeten St ntilpoorte._--Groninger Maandscrift, No. 1. Also in Laurman's
_Proeve_.

_Nieuwe Schuitpraatjes._--By the same author, 1836.

_List van Groningsche Woorden._--By A. Complementary to the works of
Laurman and Swaagman. With notes by A. de Jager.--Taalkundig Magazijn,
second part, third number, pp. 331--334.

_Groninsch Taaleigen door._--J. A. (the author of the preceding list).
Taalkundig Magazijn, iv. 4. pp. 657--690.

_Raize na Do de Cock._--Known to Van den Bergh only through the
newspapers.

Subdialects indicated by J. A. as existing, (_a_) on the Friesland
frontier, (_b_) in the Fens.

L. Van Bolhuis.--Collection of Groningen and Ommeland words not found
in Halma's Lexicon; with notes by Clignett, Steenwinkel, and Malnoe.
MS. In the library of the Maatschappij van Nederlandsche Letterkunde.

OVER-IJSEL.--J. H. Halbertsma, _Proeve van een Woorden boekje van het
Overijselsch_.--Overijsselschen Almanak voor Oudheid en Letteren, 1836.

M. Winhoff, _Landrecht var Auerissel, tweeee druk, met veele_
(philological as well as other) _aanteckeningen door J. A.
Chalmot_.--Campen, 1782.

T. W. Van Marle, _Samensprôke tusschen en snaak zoo as as der gelukkig
néèt in te menigte zint en en heeren-krecht déè gien boe of ba zê, op
de markt te Dêventer van vergange vrijdag_.--Overijselschen Almanak,
&c. _ut supra_.

_Over de Twenthsche Vocalen en Klankwijzigingen, door J. H.
Behrens._--Taalkundig Magazijn, iii. 3. pp. 332-390. 1839.

_Twenther Brutfteleed._--Overijsselschen Almanak.

Dumbar the Younger (?).--Three lists of words and phrases used
principally at Deventer. MS. In the library of the Maatschappij van
Nederlandsche Letterkunde.

Drawings of twelve Overijssel Towns. Above and beneath each a copy of
verses in the respective dialects. MS. of the seventeenth century.
Library of the Maatschappij van Nederlandsche Letterkunde.

GELDERLAND.--H. I. Swaving, _Opgave van eenige in Gelderland
gebruikelijke woorden_.--Taalkundig Magazijn, i. 4. pp. 305.

_Ibid._--_Ibid._ ii. 1. pp. 76-80.

_Opmerkingen omtrent den Gelderschen Tongval._--_Ibid._ ii. 4. pp.
398-426. The fourth section is devoted to some peculiarities from the
neighbourhood of Zutphen.

N. C. Kist, _Over de ver wisslingvan zedetijke en zinnelijke
Hoedanigheden in sommige Betuwsche Idiotismen_.--Nieuwe Werken der
Maatsch. van Nederl. Letterkund. iii. 2. 1834.

_Staaltje van Graafschapsche landtal.--Proeve van Taalkundipe
Opmerkingen en Bedenkingen, door_ T. G. C. Kalckhoff.--Vaderlandsche
Letteroefeningen for June 1826.

Appendix to the above.--_Ibid._ October 1826.

_Het Zeumerroaisel_: a poem. 1834?--Known to Van den Bergh only through
the newspapers. Believed to have been published in 1834.

_Et Schaassen-riejen, en praotparticken tussen Harmen en
Barteld._--Geldersche Volks-Almanak, 1835. Zutphen Dialect.

_De Öskeskermios._--Geldersche Volks-Almanak, 1836. Dialect of Over
Veluwe.

_Hoe Meister Maorten baordman baos Joosten en schat
deevinden._--Geldersche Volks-Almanak, 1836. Dialect of Lijm.

_Opgave van eenige in Gelderland gebruikelijke woorden ae._--H. I.
Swaving.--Taalk. Mag. iv. 4. pp. 307-330.

_Aanteekeningen ter verbetering en uitbreiding der opmerkingen omtrent
den Geldersehen Tongval._--Taal. Mag. iii. 1. pp. 39-80.

A. Van den Bergh.--Words from the provincial dialects of the Veluwen;
with additions by H. T. Folmer.--MS. Library of the Maatschappij van
Nederlandsche Letterkunde.

Handbook, containing the explanation and etymology of several obscure
and antiquated words, &c. occurring in the Gelderland and other
neighbouring Law-books.--By J. C. C. V. H[asselt].--MS. Library of the
Maatschappij van Nederlandsche Letterkunde.

HOLLAND.--_Scheeps-praat, ten overlijden van Prins Maurits van
Orange._--Huygens Korenbloemem, B. viii. Also in Lulofs Nederlandsche
Spraakkunst, p. 351; in the Vaderlandsche Spreekwoorden door Sprenger
van Eyk, p. 17, and (with three superadded couplets) in the Mnemosyne,
part x. p. 76.

_Brederoos Kluchten._--Chiefly in the Low Amsterdam (_plat
Amsterdamsch_) dialect.

Hooft, _Warenar met den pot_.

Suffr. Sixtinus.--_Gerard van Velsen._ Amst. 1687.

Bilderdijk, _Over een oud Amsterdamsch Volksdeuntjen_.--Vaderlandsche
Letteroefeningen, 1808. Reprinted, with an appendix, at Leyden 1824.

Bilderdijk, _Rowbeklag; in gemeen Zamen Amsterdamschen
tongval_.--Najaarsbladen, part i.

Gebel, _Scheviningsch Visscherslied_.--Almanak voor Blijgeestigen.

1. _Boertige Samenspraak, ter heilgroete bij een huwelijk._

2. _Samenspraak over de harddraverij te Valkenburg en aan heet Haagsche
Schouw._

3. _Boertige Samenspraak tusschen Heeip en Jan-buur._--These three
last-named poems occur in Gedichten van J. Le Francq van Berkhey, in
parts i. 221, ii. 180, ii. 257 respectively.

_Tuist tusschen Achilles en Agamemnon. Schiutpraatje van eenen boer;
of luimige vertaling van het 1^{e} Boek der Ilias_, by J. E. Van
Varelen.--Mnemosyne, part iv. Dordrecht, 1824.

The same by H. W. and B. F. Tydeman in the Mnemosyne, part iv.
Dordrecht, 1824.

_Noordhollandsch Taaleigen, door_ Nicolas Beets.--Taalk. Magaz. iii. 4.
pp. 510--516, and iv. 3. pp. 365-372.

List of words and phrases used by the Katwijk Fishermen.--MS. Library
of the Maatschappij van Nederlandsche Letterkunde.

Dictionary of the North-Holland Dialect; chiefly collected by Agge
Roskan Kool.--MS. _Ibid._

ZEALAND.--_Gedicht op't innemen van sommige schansen en de sterke stad
Hulst, &c._ 1642. Le Jeune; Volkszangen, p. 190.

_Brief van eene Zuidbevelandsche Boerin, aan haren Zoon, dienende bij
de Zeeuwsche landelijke Schutterij._ Zeeuwsche Volks-Almanak, 1836.

_Over het Zeeuwsche Taaleigen_, door Mr. A. F. Sifflé,--Taalkundig
Magazijn i. 2. 169--171.

Notes upon the same, by Van A. D, J[ager].--_Ibid._ p. 175--177.

_Taalkundige Aanteekeningen_, door Mr. J. H. Hoefft.--Ibid. 1. 3.
248--256.

Collection of words used in Walcheren.--MS. Library of Maatschappij van
Nederlandsche Letterkunde.

Collection of words used in States-Flanders.--MS. _Ibid._

NORTH BRABANT.--J. H. Hoefft, _Proeve van Bredaasch taaleigen,
&c._--Breda 1836.

J. L. Verster, Words used in the Mayoralty of Bosch.--MS. Library of
Maatschappij van Nederlandsche Letterkunde.

JEWISH.--_Khootje, Waar binje? hof Conferensje hop de vertrekkie van de
Colleesje hin de Poortoegeesche Koffy' uyssie, hover de gemasqwerde bal
ontmaskert._--Amsterd.

_Lehrrhede hower de vrauwen_, door Raphael Noenes Karwalje, Hopper
Rhabbijn te Presburg; in Wibmer, de Onpartijdige.--Amst. 1820, p. 244.

NEGRO[5].--_New Testament._--Copenhagen, 1781, and Barby, 1802.

_The Psalms._--Barby, 1802.

[Footnote 5: From _Taal. Mag._ iii. 4. 500. In the 86th number of the
Quarterly Review we find extracts from a New Testament for the use
of the Negroes of Guiana, in the Talkee-takee dialect. In this there
is a large infusion of Dutch, although the basis of the language is
English.]

VII.

GEOGRAPHICA.

ON THE EXISTENCE OF A NATION
BEARING THE NAME OF _SERES_ OR A
COUNTRY CALLED _SERICA_ OR
_TERRA SERICA_.

FROM
THE CLASSICAL MUSEUM OF 1846. VOL. 3.

The following train of thought presented itself to the writer upon the
perusal of Mr. James Yates's learned and interesting work entitled
Textrinum Antiquorum or an account of the art of weaving among the
ancients. With scarcely a single exception the facts and references
are supplied from that work so that to the author of the present paper
nothing belongs beyond the reasoning that he has applied to them.

This statement is made once for all for the sake of saving a
multiplicity of recurring references.

The negative assertions as well as the positive ones are also made upon
the full faith in the exhaustive learning of the writer in question.

Now the conviction that is come to is this, that no tribe, nation or
country ever existed which can be shewn to have borne, either in the
vernacular or in any neighbouring language, the name Seres, Serica, or
Terra Serica or any equivalent term, a conclusion that may save some
trouble to the inquirers into ancient geography.

The nation called Seres has never had a specific existence under that
name. Whence then originated the frequent indications of such a nation
recurring in the writings of the ancients? The doctrine, founded upon
the facts of Mr. Yates and laid down as a proposition; is as follows.--

That the name under which the article _silk_ was introduced to the
Greeks and Romans wore the appearance of a Gentile adjective and
that the imaginary root of the accredited adjective passed for the
substantive name of a nation. Thus, in the original form _seric_, the
_-ic_ had the appearance of being an adjectival termination, as in
_Medic-us Persic-us_ &c.; whilst _ser-_ was treated as the substantive
name of a nation or people from whence the article in question (i.
e. the _seric_ article) was derived. The _Seres_ therefore were the
hypothetical producers of the article that bore their name (_seric_).
Whether this view involves more improbabilities than the current one
will be seen from the forthcoming observations.--

1. In the first place the crude form _seric_ was neither Latin nor
Greek, so that the _-ic_ could not be adjectival.

2. Neither was it in the simpler form _ser-_ that the term was
introduced into the classical languages so that the adjectival _-ic_
might be appended afterwards.--

3. The name in question whatever might have been its remote origin
was introduced into Greece from the Semitic tongues (probably the
Phoenician) and was the word שריק in Isaiah XIX. 9. where the יק (the
_-ic_) is not an adjectival appendage but a radical part of the word.
And here it may be well to indicate that, except under the improbable
supposition that the Hebrew name was borrowed from the Greek or Latin,
it is a matter of indifference whether the word in question was
indigenous to the Semitic Languages or introduced from abroad, and also
that is a matter of indifference whether silk was known in the time of
the Old Testament or not. It is sufficient if a term afterwards applied
to that article was Hebrew at the time of Isaiah. Of any connection
between the substance called שריק and a nation called Seres there is in
the Semitic tongues no trace. The foundation of the present scepticism
originated in the observation that the supposed national existence of
the Seres coincided with the introduction of the term _seric_ into
languages where _ic-_ was an adjectival affix.--

As early as the Augustan age the substantive _Seres_ appears by the
side of the adjective _Sericus_. In Virgil, Horace and Ovid the words
may be found and from this time downwards the express notice of a
nation so called is found through a long series of writers.--

Notwithstanding this it is as late as the time of Mela before we
find any author mentioning with detail and precision a geographical
nationality for the Seres. "He (Mela) describes them as a very honest
people who brought what they had to sell, laid it down and went away
and then returned for the price of it" (Yates p. 184). Now this
notice is anything rather than definite. Its accuracy moreover may
be suspected, since it belongs to the ambiguous class of what may be
called convertible descriptions. The same story is told of an African
nation in Herodotus IV. 169.

To the statement of Mela we may add a notice from Ammianus Marcellinus
of the quiet and peaceable character of the Seres (XXIII. 6.) and
a statement from the novelist Heliodorus that at the nuptials of
Theagenes and Chariclea the ambassadors of the Seres came bringing the
thread and webs of their spiders (Aethiop. X. p. 494. Commelini).

Now notices more definite than the above of the national existence
of the Seres anterior to the time of Justinian we have none whilst
subsequently to the reign of that emperor there is an equal silence
on the part both of historians and geographers. Neither have modern
ethnographers found unequivocal traces of tribes bearing that name.

The probability of a confusion like the one indicated at the
commencement of the paper is increased by the facts stated in p. 222.
of the Textrinum. Here we see that besides Pausanias, Hesychius,
Photius and other writers give two senses to the root _ser-_ which
they say is (1.) a worm (2.) the name of a nation. Probably Clemens
Alexandrinus does the same νῆμα χρυσοῦ καὶ σῆρας Ἰνδικοὺς καὶ τοὺς
περιέργους βόμβυκας χαίρειν ἐῶντας. A passage from Ulpian (Textrinum p.
192) leads to the belief that σῆρας here means silk-worm. Vestimentorum
sunt omnia lanea lineaque, vel _serica_ vel bombycina.

Finally the probability of the assumed confusion is verified by the
statement of Procopius αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ μέταξα ἐξ ἧς εἰώθασι τὴν ἐσθῆτα
ἐργάζεσθαι, ἣν πάλαι μὲν Ἥλληνες Μηδικὴν ἐκάλουν, τανῦν δὲ σηρικὴν
ὀνομάζουσιν. (De Bell. Persic. I. 20.).

Militating against these views I find little unsusceptible of
explanation.--

1. The expression σηρικα δερματα of the author of the Periplus Maris
Erythraei means skins from the silk country.

2. The intricacy introduced into the question by a passage of Procopius
is greater. In the account of the first introduction of the silk worm
into Europe in the reign of Justinian the monks who introduced it
having arrived from India stated that they had long resided in the
country called Serinda inhabited by Indian nations where they had
learned how raw silk might be produced in the country of the Romans
(Textrinum p. 231). This is so much in favor of the root Ser-being
gentile, but at the same time so much against the Seres being Chinese.
Sanskrit scholars may perhaps adjust this matter. The Serinda is
probably the fabulous Serendib.

In the countries around the original localities of the silk-worm the
name for silk is as follows--

In Corean _Sir_.
Chinese _se_.
Mongolian _sirkek_.
Mandchoo _sirghe_.

It is the conviction of the present writer that a nation called Seres
had no geographical existence.

ON THE EVIDENCE OF A CONNECTION
BETWEEN THE CIMBRI AND THE
CHERSONESUS CIMBRICA.

READ
BEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY.

FEBRUARY 9, 1844.

It is considered that the evidence of any local connection between
the Cimbri conquered by Marius, and the Chersonesus Cimbrica, is
insufficient to counterbalance the natural improbability of a long
and difficult national migration. Of such a connection, however, the
identity of name and the concurrent belief of respectable writers
are _primâ facie_ evidence. This, however, is disposed of if such a
theory as the following can be established, viz. that, for certain
reasons, the knowledge of the precise origin and locality of the
nations conquered by Marius was, at an early period, confused and
indefinite; that new countries were made known without giving any
further information; that, hence, the locality of the Cimbri was always
pushed forwards beyond the limits of the geographical areas accurately
ascertained; and finally, that thus their supposed locality retrograded
continually northwards until it fixed itself in the districts of
Sleswick and Jutland, where the barrier of the sea and the increase of
geographical knowledge (with one exception) prevented it from getting
farther. Now this view arises out of the examination of the language of
the historians and geographers as examined in order, from Sallust to
Ptolemy.

Of Sallust and Cicero, the language points to Gaul as the home of
the nation in question; and that without the least intimation of its
being any particularly distant portion of that country. "Per idem
tempus adversus Gallos ab ducibus nostris, Q. Cæpione et M. Manlio,
malè pugnatum--Marius Consul absens factus, et ei decreta Provincia
Gallia." _Bell._ _Jugurth._ 114. "Ipse ille Marius--influentes in
Italiam Gallorum maximas copias repressit." _Cicero de Prov. Consul._
13. And here an objection may be anticipated. It is undoubtedly true
that even if the Cimbri had originated in a locality so distant as the
Chersonese, it would have been almost impossible to have made such a
fact accurately understood. Yet it is also true, that if any material
difference had existed between the Cimbri and the Gauls of Gaul, such
must have been familiarly known in Rome, since slaves of both sorts
must there have been common.

Cæsar, whose evidence ought to be conclusive (inasmuch as he knew of
Germany as well as of Gaul), fixes them to the south of the Marne and
Seine. This we learn, not from the direct text, but from inference:
"Gallos--a Belgis Matrona et Sequana dividit." _Bell. Gall._ i.
"Belgas--solos esse qui, patrum nostrûm memoria, omni Galliâ vexatâ,
Teutones Cimbrosque intra fines suos ingredi prohibuerunt." _Bell.
Gall._ ii. 4. Now if the Teutones and Cimbri had moved from north to
south, they would have clashed with the Belgæ first and with the other
Gauls afterwards. The converse, however, was the fact. It is right here
to state, that the last observation may be explained away by supposing,
either that the Teutones and Cimbri here meant may be a _remnant_ of
the confederation on their _return_, or else a portion that settled
down in Gaul upon their way; or finally, a division that made a circle
towards the place of their destination in a south-east direction. None
of these however seem the plain and natural construction; and I would
rather, if reduced to the alternative, read "_Germania_" instead of
"_Gallia_" than acquiesce in the most probable of them.

Diodorus Siculus, without defining their locality, deals throughout
with the Cimbri as a Gaulish tribe. Besides this, he gives us one of
the elements of the assumed indistinctness of ideas in regard to their
origin, viz. their hypothetical connexion with the Cimmerii. In this
recognition of what might have been called the _Cimmerian theory_, he
is followed by Strabo and Plutarch.--_Diod. Sicul._ v. 32. _Strabo_
vii. _Plutarch. Vit. Marii._

The next writer who mentions them is Strabo. In confirmation of the
view taken above, this author places the Cimbri on the northernmost
limit of the area geographically known to him, viz. _beyond_ Gaul
and _in_ Germany, between the Rhine and the Elbe: τῶν δὲ Γερμάνων ὡς
εἶπον, ὁὶ μὲν προσάρκτιοι παρηκοῦσι τῷ Ὠκεανῷ. Γνωρίζονται δ' ἀπὸ τῶν
ἐκβολῶν τοῦ Ῥήνου λαβόντες τὴν ἀρχὴν μέχρι τοῦ Ἄλβιος. Τούτων δὲ εἰσὶ
γνωριμώτατοι Σούγαμβροί τε καὶ Κίμβροι. Τὰ δὲ πέραν τοῦ Ἄλβιος τὰ
πρὸς τῷ Ὠκεανῷ ἄγνωστα ἡμῖν ἐστιν.. (B. iv.) Further proof that this
was the frontier of the Roman world we get from the statement which
soon follows, viz. that "thus much was known to the Romans from their
successful wars, and that more would have been known had it not been
for the injunction of Augustus forbidding his generals to cross the
Elbe." (B. iv.)

Velleius Paterculus agrees with his contemporary Strabo. He places
them beyond the Rhine and deals with them as Germans:--"tum Cimbri
et Teutoni transcendere Rhenum, multis mox nostris suisque cladibus
nobiles." (ii. 9.) "Effusa--immanis vis Germanarum gentium quibus nomen
Cimbris et Teutonis erat." (_Ibid._ 12.)

From the _Germania_ of Tacitus a well-known passage will be considered
in the sequel. Tacitus' locality coincides with that of Strabo.

_Ptolemy._--Now the author who most mentions in detail the tribes
beyond the Elbe is also the author who most pushes back the Cimbri
towards the north. Coincident with his improved information as to the
parts southward, he places them at the extremity of the area known to
him: Καῦχοι οἱ μείζονες μέχρι τού Ἀλβίου ποταμοῦ· ἐφεξῆς δὲ ἐπὶ αὔχενα
τῆς Κιμβρικῆς Χερσονήσου Σάξονες, αὐτὴν δὲ τὴν Χερσόνησον· ὑπερ μὲν
τοὺς Σάξονας, Σιγουλώνες ἀπὸ δυσμῶν· εἶτα Σαβαλίγγιοι εἶτα Κόβανδοι,
ὑπὲρ οὓς Χάλοι· καὶ ἔτι ὑπερτάτους δυσμικώτεροι μὲν Φουνδούσιοι,
ἀνατολικώτεροι δὲ Χαροῦδες, πάντων δὲ ἀρτικώτεροι Κύμβροι--_Ptolemæi
Germania._

Such is the evidence of those writers, Greek or Roman, who deal with
the local habitation of the Cimbri rather than with the general history
of that tribe. As a measure of the indefinitude of their ideas, we have
the confusion, already noticed, between the Cimbri and Cimmerii, on
the parts of Diodorus, Strabo, and Plutarch. A better measure occurs
in the following extract from Pliny, who not only fixes the Cimbri
in three places at once, but also (as far as we can find any meaning
in his language) removes them so far northward as Norway: "Alterum
genus Ingævones, quorum pars Cimbri Teutoni ac Chaucorum gentes.
Proximi Rheno Istævones, quorum pars Cimbri mediterranei." (iv. 14.)
"Promontorium Cimbrorum excurrens in maria longe Peninsulam efficit quæ
Carthis appellatur." _Ibid._ "Sevo Mons (the mountain-chains of Norway)
immanem ad Cimbrorum usque promontorium efficit sinum, qui Codanus
vocatur, refertus insulis, quarum clarissima Scandinavia, incompertæ
magnitudinis." (iv. 13.) Upon confusion like this it is not considered
necessary to expend further evidence. So few statements coincide, that
under all views there must be a misconception somewhere; and of such
misconception great must the amount be, to become more improbable than
a national migration from Jutland to Italy.

Over and above, however, this particular question of evidence, there
stands a second one; viz. the determination of the Ethnographical
relations of the nations under consideration. This is the point as to
whether the Cimbri conquered by Marius were Celts or Goths, akin to the
Gauls, or akin to the Germans; a disputed point, and one which, for its
own sake only, were worth discussing, even at the expense of raising a
wholly independent question. Such however it is not. If the Cimbri were
Celts, the improbability of their originating in the Cimbric Chersonese
would be increased, and with it the amount of evidence required; since,
laying aside other considerations, the natural unlikelihood of a large
area being traversed by a mass of emigrants is greatly enhanced by
the fact of any intermediate portion of that area being possessed by
tribes as alien to each other as the Gauls and Germans. Hence therefore
the fact of the Cimbri being Celts will (if proved) be considered
as making against the probability of their origin in the Cimbric
Chersonese; whilst if they be shown to be Goths, the difficulties of
the supposition will be in some degree diminished. Whichever way this
latter point is settled, something will be gained for the historian;
since the supposed presence of Celts in the Cimbric Chersonese has
complicated more than one question in ethnography.

Previous to proceeding in the inquiry it may be well to lay down once
for all as a postulate, that whatever, in the way of ethnography, is
proved concerning any one tribe of the Cimbro-Teutonic league, must be
considered as proved concerning the remainder; since all explanations
grounded upon the idea that one part was Gothic and another part Celtic
have a certain amount of _primâ facie_ improbability to set aside. The
same conditions as to the burden of proof apply also to any hypotheses
founded on the notion of _retiring_ Cimbri _posterior_ to the attempted
invasion of Italy. On this point the list of authors quoted will not
be brought below the time of Ptolemy. With the testimonies anterior to
that writer, bearing upon the question of the ethnography, the attempt
however will be made to be exhaustive. Furthermore, as the question in
hand is not so much the absolute fact as to whether the Cimbri were
Celts or Goths, but one as to the amount of evidence upon which we
believe them to be either the one or the other, statements will be
noticed under the head of evidence, not because they are really proofs,
but simply because they have ever been looked upon as such. Beginning
then with the Germanic origin of the Cimbro-Teutonic confederation, and
dealing separately with such tribes as are separately mentioned, we
first find the

_Ambrones._--In the Anglo-Saxon poem called the Traveller's Song, there
is a notice of a tribe called _Ymbre_, _Ymbras_, or _Ymbran_. Suhm,
the historian of Denmark, has allowed himself to imagine that these
represent the _Ambrones_, and that their name still exists in that of
the island _Amron_ of the coast of Sleswick, and perhaps in _Amerland_,
a part of Oldenburg.--Thorpe's note on the Traveller's Song in the
_Codex Exoniensis_.

_Teutones._--In the way of evidence of there being Teutones amongst the
Germans, over and above the associate mention of their names with that
of the Cimbri, there is but little. They are not so mentioned either by
Tacitus or Strabo. Ptolemy, however, mentions _a_) the Teutonarii, _b_)
the Teutones: Τευτονοάριοι καὶ Ουίρουνοι--Φαραδεινῶν δὲ καὶ Συήβων,
Τεύτονες καὶ Ἄμαρποι. Besides this, however, arguments have been taken
from _a_) the meaning of the root _teut_ = _people_ (_þiuda_, M. G.;
_þeód_, A. S.; _diot_, O. H. G.): _b_) the _Saltus Teutobergius_: _c_)
the supposed connection of the present word _Deut-sch_ = _German_ with
the classical word _Teutones_. These may briefly be disposed of.

_a._) It is not unlikely for an invading nation to call themselves _the
nation_, _the nations_, _the people_, &c. Neither, if the tribe in
question had done so (presuming them to have been Germans or Goths),
would the word employed be very unlike _Teuton-es_. Although the word
_þiud-a_ = _nation_ or _people_, is generally strong in its declension
(so making the plural _þiud-ôs_), it is found also in a weak form with
its plural _thiot-ûn_ = _Teuton-_. See _Deutsche Grammatik_, i. 630.

_b._) The _Saltus Teutobergius_ mentioned by Tacitus (_Ann._ i.
60) can scarcely have taken its name from a tribe, or, on the
other hand, have given it to one. It means either _the hill of the
people_, or _the city of the people_; according as the syllable
_-berg-_ is derived from _báirgs_ = _a hill_, or from _baúrgs_ = _a
city_. In either case the compound is allowable, _e. g._ diot-_wëc_,
_public way_, O. H. G.; thiod-_scatho_, _robber of the people_, O.
S.; þëód-_cyning_, þeod-_mearc_, _boundary of the nation_, A. S.;
þiód-_land_, þiód-_vëgr_, _people's way_, Icelandic;--Theud-_e-mirus_,
Theud-_e-linda_, Theud-_i-gotha_, proper names (from _þiud-_):
_himil_-bërac, _velt_-përac; _friðu_-përac, O. H. G.; _himin_biörg,
_val_biörg, Icelandic (from _báirgs_ = _hill_)--_asci_purc, _hasal_purc,
_saltz_purc, &c., O. H. G. (from _baúrgs_ = _city_). The particular
word _diot-puruc_ = _civitas magna_ occurs in O. H. G.--See _Deutsche
Grammatik_, iii. p. 478.

_c._ Akin to this is the reasoning founded upon the connection (real or
supposed) between the root _Teut-_ in _Teuton-_, and the root _deut-_
in _Deut-sch_. It runs thus. The syllable in question is common to
the word _Teut-ones_, _Teut-onicus_, _Theod-iscus_, _teud-iscus_,
_teut-iscus_, _tût-iske_, _dût-iske_, _tiut-sche_, _deut-sch_;
whilst the word _Deut-sch_ means _German_. As the _Teut-ones_ were
Germans, so were the Cimbri also. Now this line of argument is set
aside by the circumstance that the syllable _Teut-_ in _Teut-ones_
and _Teut-onicus_, as the names of the confederates of the Cimbri, is
wholly unconnected with the _Teut-_ in _theod-iscus_, and _Deut-sch_.
This is fully shown by Grimm in his dissertation on the words _German_
and _Dutch_. In its oldest form the latter word meant _popular_,
_national_, _vernacular_; it was an adjective applied to the _vulgar
tongue_, or the vernacular German, in opposition to the Latin. In the
tenth century the secondary form _Teut-onicus_ came in vogue even with
German writers. Whether this arose out of imitation of the Latin form
_Romanice_, or out of the idea of an historical connection with the
Teutones of the classics, is immaterial. It is clear that the present
word _deut-sch_ proves nothing respecting the _Teutones_. Perhaps,
however, as early as the time of Martial the word _Teutonicus_ was used
in a general sense, denoting the Germans in general. Certain it is that
before his time it meant the particular people conquered by Marius,
irrespective of origin or locality.--See Grimm's _Deutsche Grammatik_,
i. p. 17, 3rd edit. Martial, xiv. 26, _Teutonici capilli_. Claudian. in
Eutrop. i. 406, _Teutonicum hostem_.

The _Cimbri_.--Evidence to the Gothic origin of the Cimbri (treated
separately) begins with the writers under Augustus and Tiberius.

_Vell. Paterculus._--The testimony of this writer as to the affinities
of the nations in question is involved in his testimony as to their
locality, and, consequently, subject to the same criticism. His mention
of them (as Germans) is incidental.

_Strabo._--Over and above the references already made, Strabo has
certain specific statements concerning the Cimbri: _a._) That according
to a tradition (which he does not believe) they left their country on
account of an inundation of the sea. This is applicable to Germany
rather than to Gaul. This liability to inundations must not, however,
be supposed to indicate a locality in the Cimbric Chersonese as well
as a German origin, since the coast between the Scheldt and Elbe is as
obnoxious to the ocean as the coasts of Holstein, Sleswick and Jutland.
_b._) That against the German Cimbri and Teutones the Belgæ alone kept
their ground--ὥστε μόνους (Βέλγας) ἀντέχειν πρὸς τὴν τῶν Γερμάνων
ἔφοδον, Κίμβρων καὶ Τευτόνων (iv. 3.) This is merely a translation of
Cæsar (see above) with the interpolation Γερμάνων. _c._) That they
inhabited their original country, and that they sent ambassadors to
Augustus--καὶ γὰρ νῦν ἔχουσι τὴν χώραν ἣν εἶχον πρότερον καὶ ἕπεμπσαν
τῷ Σεβαστῷ ιἑρώτατον παρ' αὐτοῖς, λέβητα, αἰτούμενοι φιλίαν καὶ
ἀμνηστίαν τῶν ὑπουργμένων· τυχόντες δὲ ὧν ἠξίουν ἀφῇραν. (B. i.) Full
weight must be given to the definite character of this statement.

_Tacitus._--Tacitus coincides with Strabo, in giving to the Cimbri
a specific locality, and in stating special circumstances of their
history. Let full weight be given to the words of a writer like
Tacitus; but let it also be remembered that he wrote from hearsay
evidence, that he is anything rather than an independent witness, that
his statement is scarcely reconcileable with those of Ptolemy and
Cæsar, and that above all the locality which both he and Strabo give
the _Cimbri_ is also the locality of the _Sicambri_, of which latter
tribe no mention is made by Tacitus, although their wars with the
Romans were matters of comparatively recent history. For my own part,
I think, that between a confusion of the _Cimbri_ with the _Cimmerii_
on the one hand, and of the _Cimbri_ with the _Sicambri_ on the other,
we have the clue to the misconceptions assumed at the commencement of
the paper. There is no proof that in the eyes of the writers under
the Republic, the origin of the Cimbri was a matter of either doubt
or speculation. Catulus, in the History of his Consulship, commended
by Cicero (_Brutus_, xxxv.), and Sylla in his Commentaries, must have
spoken of them in a straightforward manner as Gauls, otherwise Cicero
and Sallust would have spoken of them less decidedly. (See Plutarch's
_Life of Marius_, and _note_.) Confusion arose when Greek readers of
Homer and Herodotus began to theorize, and this grew greater when
formidable enemies under the name of _Sicambri_ were found in Germany.
It is highly probable that in both Strabo and Tacitus we have a
commentary on the lines of Horace--

Te cæde gaudentes Sicambri
Compositis venerantur armis.

"Eumdem (with the Chauci, Catti, and Cherusci) Germaniæ sinum proximi
Oceano Cimbri tenent, parva nunc civitas, sed gloria ingens:
veterisque famæ lata vestigia manent, utrâque ripâ castra ac spatia,
quorum ambitu nunc quoque metiaris molem manusque gentis, et tam
magni exitus fidem--occasione discordiæ nostræ et civilium armorum,
expugnatis legionum hibernis, etiam Gallias affectavêre; ac rursus
pulsi, inde proximis temporibus triumphati magis quam victi sunt."
(_German._ 38.)

_Justin._--Justin writes--"Simul e _Germaniâ_ Cimbros--inundâsse
Italiam." Now this extract would be valuable if we were sure that the
word _Germania_ came from Justin's original, Trogus Pompeius; who was a
Vocontian Gaul, living soon after the Cimbric defeat. To him, however,
the term _Germania_ must have been wholly unknown; since, besides
general reasons, Tacitus says--"Germaniæ vocabulum recens et nuper
additum: quoniam, qui primum Rhenum transgressi Gallos expulerint,
ac nunc Tungri, tunc Germani vocati sint: ita nationis nomen, non
gentis evaluisse paullatim, ut omnes, primum a victore ob metum, mox a
seipsis invento nomine _Germani_ vocarentur." Justin's interpolation of
_Germania_ corresponds with the similar one on the part of Strabo.

Such is the evidence for the Germanic origin of the Cimbri and
Teutones, against which may now be set the following testimonies as to
their affinity with the Celts, each tribe being dealt with separately.

_The Ambrones._--Strabo mentions them along with the Tigurini, an
undoubted Celtic tribe--Κατὰ τὸν πρὸς Ἄμβρωνας καὶ Τωϋγενοὺς πόλεμον.

Suetonius places them with the Transpadani--"per Ambronas et
Transpadanos." (_Cæsar_, § 9.)

Plutarch mentions that their war-cries were understood and answered by
the Ligurians. Now it is possible that the Ligurians were Celts, whilst
it is certain that they were not Goths.

_The Teutones._--Appian speaks of the Teutones having invaded Noricum,
and this under the head Κέλτικα.

Florus calls one of the kings of the Teutones Teutobocchus, a name
Celtic rather than Gothic.

Virgil has the following lines:--

... late jam tum ditione premebat
Sarrastes populos, et quæ rigat æquora Sarnus;
Quique Rufas, Batulumque tenent, atque arva Celennæ;
Et quos maliferæ despectant mœnia Abellæ:
_Teutonico_ ritu soliti torquere _cateias_.
Tegmina queis capitum raptus de subere cortex,
Æratæque micant peltæ, micat æreus ensis.--_Æn._ vii. 737-743.

Now this word _cateia_ may be a provincialism from the neighbourhood of
Sarraste. It may also (amongst other things) be a true Teutonic word.
From what follows it will appear that this latter view is at least as
likely as any other. The commentators state that it is _vox Celtica_.
That this is true may be seen from the following forms--Irish: _ga_,
_spear_, _javelin_; _gaoth_, _ditto_, _a dart_; _goth_, _a spear_
(O'Reilly); _gaothadh_, _a javelin_; _gadh_, _spear_; _gai_, _ditto_;
_crann gaidh_, _spear-shaft_ (Begly)--Cornish: _geu_, _gew_, _gu_,
_gui_ = _lance_, _spear_, _javelin_, _shaft_ (Pryce)--Breton: _goas_,
_goaff_ (Rostremer).

_The Cimbri_--_The Teutones._--Of either the Cimbri separately or of
the Cimbri and Teutones collectively, being of Gallic origin, we have,
in the way of direct evidence, the testimonies exhibited above, viz.
of Sallust, Cicero, Cæsar, Diodorus. To this may be added that of Dion
Cassius, who not only had access to the contemporary accounts which
spoke of them as Gauls, but also was enabled to use them critically,
being possessed of information concerning Germany as well as France.

Of Appian the whole evidence goes one way, viz. that the tribes
in question were Gauls. His expressions are: πλεῖστον τι καὶ
μαχιμώτατον--χρῆμα Κελτῶν εἰς τὴν Ἰταλίαν καὶ τὴν Γαλατίαν εἰσέβαλε.
(iv. 2.) In his book on Illyria he states that the Celts and Cimbri,
along with the Illyrian tribe of the Autariæ, had, previous to the
battle against Marius, attacked Delphi and suffered for their impiety.
(Ἰλλυρ. δ. 4.)

Quintilian may be considered to give us upon the subject the notions
of two writers--Virgil, and either Cæsar or Crassus. In dealing,
however, with the words of Quintilian, it will be seen that there are
two assumptions. That either Cæsar or Crassus considered the Cimbri
to be Gauls we infer from the following passage:--"Rarum est autem,
ut oculis subjicere contingat (_sc._ vituperationem), ut fecit C.
Julius, qui cum Helvio Manciæ sæpius obstrepenti sibi diceret, _jam
ostendam, qualis sis_: isque plane instaret interrogatione, qualem se
tandem ostensurus esset, digito demonstravit imaginem Galli in scuto
Mariano Cimbrico pictam, cui Mancia tum simillimus est visus. Tabernæ
autem erant circum Forum, ac scutum illud signi gratiâ positum." _Inst.
Orat._ vi. 3. 38. Pliny tells the story of Crassus (39. 4.). Although
in this passage the word upon which the argument turns has been written
_galli_, and translated _cock_, the current interpretation is the one
given above.--_Vid. not._ ed. Gesner.

In the same author is preserved the epigram of Virgil's called
Catalecta, and commented on by Ausonius of Bordeaux. Here we learn
that T. Annius _Cimber_ was a Gaul; whilst it is assumed that there was
no other reason to believe that he was called _Cimber_ than that of
his being descended from some slave or freedman of that nation:--"Non
appareat affectatio, in quam mirifice Virgilius,

Corinthiorum amator iste verborum,
Ille iste rhetor: namque quatenus totus
Thucydides Britannus, Atticæ febres,
_Tau_-Gallicum, _min-_, _al-_ spinæ male illisit.
Ita omnia ista verba miscuit fratri.

Cimber hic fuit a quo fratrem necatum hoc Ciceronis dictum notatum est;
_Germanum Cimber occidit_."--_Inst. Orat._ viii. 3. _cum not_.

Dic, quid significent Catalecta Maronis? in his _al-_
Celtarum posuit, sequitur non lucidius _tau-_,
Et quod germano mistum male letiferum _min-_.--_Auson._

Undoubtedly the pronunciation here ridiculed is that of the Gauls,
and it is just possible that in it is foreshadowed the curtailed
form that the Latin tongue in general puts on in the present French.
Again, the slave whose courage failed him when ordered to slay Caius
Marius is called both a Gaul and a Cimbrian by Plutarch, as well as by
Lucan. In the latter writer we have probably but a piece of rhetoric
(_Pharsalia._ lib. ii.)

Amongst tribes undoubtedly Gallic the Nervii claimed descent from
the Teutones and Cimbri. The passage of Tacitus that connects the
Nervii with the _Germans_ connects them also with the Treveri. Now
a well-known passage in St. Jerome tells us that the Treveri were
Gauls:--Νέρβιοι ἠσαν δὲ Κίμβρων καὶ Τευτόνων ἀπόγονοι.--_Appian_, iv.
1. 4. "Treveri et Nervii circa adfectationem Germanicæ originis ultrò
ambitiosi sunt, tamquam, per hanc gloriam sanguinis, a similitudine et
inertiâ Gallorum separentur." _German._ 28. Finally, in the Life of
Marius by Plutarch we have dialogues between the Cimbri and the Romans.
Now a Gallic interpreter was probable, but not so a German one.

Such are the notices bearing upon the ethnography of the Cimbri.
Others occur, especially amongst the poets; of these little or no use
can be made, for a reason indicated above. Justin speaks of embassies
between Mithridates and the Cimbri. Suetonius connects the Cimbri with
the Gallic Senones; he is writing however about Germany, so that his
evidence, slight as it is, is neutralized. Theories grounded upon the
national name may be raised on both sides; _Cimbri_ may coincide with
either the Germanic _kempa_ = _a warrior_ or _champion_, or with the
Celtic _Cymry_ = _Cambrians_. Equally equivocal seem the arguments drawn
from the descriptions either of their physical conformation or their
manners. The silence of the Gothic traditions as to the Cimbri being
Germanic, proves more in the way of negative evidence than the similar
silence of the Celtic ones, since the Gothic legends are the most
numerous and the most ancient. Besides this, they deal very especially
with genealogies, national and individual. The name of Bojorix, a
Cimbric king mentioned in _Epitome Liviana_ (lxvii.), is Celtic rather
than Gothic, although in the latter dialects proper names ending in
_-ric_, (_Alaric_, _Genseric_) frequently occur.

Measuring the evidence, which is in its character essentially
cumulative, consisting of a number of details unimportant in
themselves, but of value when taken in the mass, the balance seems to
be in favour of the Cimbri, Teutones and Ambrones being Gauls rather
than Germans, Celts rather than Goths.

An argument now forthcoming stands alone, inasmuch as it seems to prove
two things at once, viz. not only the Celtic origin of the Cimbri,
but, at the same time, their locality in the Chersonese. It is brought
forward by Dr. Pritchard in his 'Physical History of Mankind,' and runs
as follows:--(_a._) It is a statement of Pliny that the sea in their
neighbourhood was called by the Cimbri _Morimarusa_, or the _dead sea_
= _mare mortuum_. (_b._) It is a fact that in Celtic Welsh _mor marwth_
= _mare mortuum_, _morimarusa_, _dead sea_. Hence the language of the
Cimbric coast is to be considered as Celtic. Now the following facts
invalidate this conclusion:--(1.) Putting aside the contradictions in
Pliny's statement, the epithet _dead_ is inapplicable to either the
German Ocean or the Baltic. (2.) Pliny's authority was a writer named
Philemon: out of the numerous Philemons enumerated by Fabricius, it
is likely that the one here adduced was a contemporary of Alexander
the Great; and it is not probable that at that time glosses from the
Baltic were known in the Mediterranean. (3.) The subject upon which
this Philemon wrote was the Homeric Poems. This, taken along with the
geography of the time, makes it highly probable that the original Greek
was not Κίμβροι, but Κιμμέριοι; indeed we are not absolutely sure of
Pliny having written _Cimbri_. (4.) As applied to Cimmerian sea the
epithet _dead_ was applicable. (5.) The term _Morimarusa_ = _mare
mortuum_, although good Celtic, is better Slavonic, since throughout
that stock of languages, as in many other of the Indo-European tongues
(the Celtic and Latin included), the roots _mor_ and _mori_ mean _sea_
and _dead_ respectively:--"Septemtrionalis Oceanus, Amalchium eum
Hecatæus appellat, a Paropamiso amne, qua Scythiam alluit, quod nomen
ejus gentis linguâ significat congelatum, Philemon _Morimarusam_ a
Cimbris (qu. _Cimmeriis_) vocari scribit: hoc est _mare mortuum_ usque
ad promontorium Rubeas, ultra deinde Cronium." (13.)

One point, however, still remains: it may be dealt with briefly, but
it should not be wholly overlooked, viz. the question, whether over
and above the theories as to the location of the Cimbri in the Cimbric
Chersonese, there is reason to believe, on independent grounds, that
Celtic tribes were the early inhabitants of the peninsula in question?
If such were actually the case, all that has preceded would, up to
a certain point, be invalidated. Now I know no sufficient reasons
for believing such to be the case, although there are current in
ethnography many insufficient ones.

1. In the way of Philology, it is undoubtedly true that words common
to the Celtic tribes occur in the Danish of Jutland, and in the
Frisian and Low German of Sleswick and Holstein; but there is no
reason to consider that they belong to an aboriginal Celtic tribe. The
_à priori_ probability of Celts in the peninsula involves hypotheses
in ethnography which are, to say the least, far from being generally
recognized. The evidence as to the language of aborigines derived from
the significance of the names of old geographical localities is wanting
for the Cimbric Chersonese.

2. No traditions, either Scandinavian or German, point towards an
aboriginal Celtic population for the localities in question.

3. There are no satisfactory proofs of such in either Archæology
or Natural History. A paper noticed by Dr. Pritchard of Professor
Eschricht's upon certain Tumuli in Jutland states, that the earliest
specimens of art (anterior to the discovery of metals), as well as
the character of the tumuli themselves, have a Celtic character. He
adds, however, that the character of the tumuli is as much Siberian
as Celtic. The early specimens of art are undoubtedly like similar
specimens found in England. It happens, however, that such things are
in _all_ countries more or less alike. In Professor Siebold's museum
at Leyden, stone-axes from tumuli in Japan and Jutland are laid side
by side, for the sake of comparison, and between them there is no
perceptible difference. The oldest skulls in these tumuli are said to
be other than Gothic. They are, however, Finnic rather than Celtic.

4. The statement in Tacitus (_German._ 44.), that a nation on the
Baltic called the Æstii spoke a language somewhat akin to the British,
cannot be considered as conclusive to the existence of Celts in the
North of Germany. Any language, not German, would probably so be
denoted. Such might exist in the mother-tongue of either the Lithuanic
or the Esthonian.

It is considered that in the foregoing pages the following propositions
are either proved or involved:--1. That the Cimbri conquered by Marius
came from either Gaul or Switzerland, and that they were Celts. 2.
That the Teutones and Ambrones were equally Celtic with the Cimbri.
3. That no nation north of the Elbe was known to Republican Rome. 4.
That there is no evidence of Celtic tribes ever having existed north
of the Elbe. 5. That the epithet _Cimbrica_ applied to the Chersonesus
proves nothing more in respect to the inhabitants of that locality
than is proved by words like _West Indian_ and _North-American
Indian_. 6. That in the word _cateia_ we are in possession of a new
Celtic gloss. 7. That in the term _Morimarusa_ we are in possession
of a gloss at once Cimmerian and Slavonic. 8. That for any positive
theory as to the Cimbro-Teutonic league we have at present no data,
but that the hypothesis that would reconcile the greatest variety of
statements would run thus: viz. that an organized Celtic confederation
conterminous with the Belgæ, the Ligurians, and the Helvetians
descended with its eastern divisions upon Noricum, and with its western
ones upon Provence.

ADDENDA.

JANUARY 1859.

(1)

In this paper the notice of the Monumentum Ancyranum is omitted. It is
CIMBRIQVE ET CHRIIDES ET SEMNONES ET EJVSDEM TRACTVS ALII GERMANORVM
POPVLI PER LEGATOS AMICITIAM MEAM ET POPVLI ROMANI PETIERVNT. This
seems to connect itself with Strabo's notice. It may also connect
itself with that of Tacitus. Assuming the CHARIIDES to be the Harudes,
and the Harudes to be the Cherusci (a doctrine for which I have given
reasons in my edition of the Germania) the position of the Cimbri in
the text of Tacitus is very nearly that of them in the Inscription. In
the inscription, the order is Cimbri, Harudes, Semnones; in Tacitus,
Cherusci, Cimbri, Semnones. In both cases the 3 names are associated.

(2)

I would now modify the proposition with which the preceding
dissertation concludes, continuing, however, to hold the main doctrine
of the text, viz. the fact of the Cimbri having been unknown in respect
to their name and locality and, so, having been pushed northwards, and
more northwards still, as fresh areas were explored without supplying
an undoubted and unequivocal origin for them.

I think that the Ambrones, the Tigurini, and the Teutones were Gauls of
Helvetia, and South Eastern Gallia, and that the alliance between them
and the Cimbri (assuming it to be real) is _primâ facie_ evidence of
the latter being Galli also. But it is no more.

That the Cimbri were the Eastern members of the confederation seems
certain. More than one notice connects them with Noricum. _Here_ they
may have been native. They may also have been intrusive.

Holding that the greater part of Noricum was Slavonic, and that almost
all the country along its northern and eastern frontier was the same,
I see my way to the Cimbri having been Slavonic also. That they were
Germans is out of the question. Gauls could hardly have been so unknown
and mysterious to the Romans. Gaul they knew well, and Germany
sufficiently--yet no where did they find Cimbri.

The evidence of Posidonius favours this view. "He" writes Strabo
"does not unreasonably conceive that these Cimbri being predatory and
wandering might carry their expeditions as far as the Mæotis, and
that the Bosporus might, from them, take its name of _Cimmerian_, i.
e. _Cimbrian_, the Greeks calling the _Cimbri Cimmerii_. He says that
the Boii originally inhabited the Hercynian Forest, that the Cimbri
attacked them, that they were repulsed, that they then descended on
the Danube, and the country of the Scordisci who are Galatæ; thence
upon the Taurisci," who "are also Galatæ, then upon the Helvetians
&c."--_Strabo._ 7, p. 293.

For a fuller explanation of the doctrine which makes the Cimbri
possible Slavonians see my Edition of Prichard's origin of the Celtic
nations--_Supplementary Chapter--Ambrones, Tigurini, Teutones, Boii,
Slavonic hypothesis_ &c.

ON THE ORIGINAL EXTENT OF THE
SLAVONIC AREA.

READ
BEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY,
FEBRUARY 8, 1850.

The current opinion, that a great portion of the area now occupied
by Slavonians, and a still greater portion so occupied in the ninth
and tenth centuries, were, in the times of Cæsar and Tacitus, either
German, or something other than what it is found to be at the beginning
of the period of authentic and contemporary history, has appeared
so unsatisfactory to the present writer, that he has been induced
to consider the evidence on which it rests. What (for instance) are
the grounds for believing that, in the _first_ century, Bohemia was
not just as Slavonic as it is now? What the arguments in favour of a
Germanic population between the Elbe and Vistula in the _second_?

The fact that, at the very earliest period when any definite and
detailed knowledge of either of the parts in question commences, both
are as little German as the Ukraine is at the present moment, is one
which no one denies. How many, however, will agree with the present
writer in the value to be attributed to it, is another question. For
his own part, he takes the existence of a given division of the human
race (whether Celtic, Slavonic, Gothic or aught else) on a given area,
as a sufficient reason for considering it to have been indigenous or
aboriginal to that area, _until reasons be shown to the contrary_.
Gratuitous as this postulate may seem in the first instance, it is
nothing more than the legitimate deduction from the rule in reasoning
which forbids us to multiply causes unnecessarily. Displacements
therefore, conquests, migrations, and the other disturbing causes
are not to be assumed, merely for the sake of accounting for assumed
changes, but to be supported by specific evidence; which evidence, in
its turn, must have a ratio to the probability or the improbability of
the disturbing causes alleged. These positions seem so self-evident,
that it is only by comparing the amount of improbabilities which are
accepted with the insufficiency of the testimony on which they rest,
that we ascertain, from the extent to which they have been neglected,
the necessity of insisting upon them.

The ethnological condition of a given population at a certain time
is _primâ facie_ evidence of a similar ethnological condition at
a previous one. The testimony of a writer as to the ethnological
condition of a given population at a certain time is also _primâ facie_
evidence of such a condition being a real one; since even the worst
authorities are to be considered correct until reasons are shown for
doubting them.

It now remains to see how far these two methods are concordant or
antagonistic for the area in question; all that is assumed being, that
when we find even a good writer asserting that at one period (say the
third century) a certain locality was German, whereas we know that
at a subsequent one (say the tenth) it was other than German, it is
no improper scepticism to ask, whether it is more likely that the
writer was mistaken, or that changes have occurred in the interval; in
other words, if error on the one side is not to be lightly assumed,
neither are migrations, &c. on the other. Both are likely, or unlikely,
according to the particular case in point. It is more probable that
an habitually conquering nation should have displaced an habitually
conquered one, than that a bad writer should be wrong. It is more
likely that a good writer should be wrong than that an habitually
conquered nation should have displaced an habitually conquering one.

The application of criticism of this sort materially alters the
relations of the Celtic, Gothic, Roman and Slavonic populations, giving
to the latter a prominence in the ancient world much more proportionate
to their present preponderance as a European population than is usually
admitted.

Beginning with the south-western frontier of the present Slavonians,
let us ask what are the reasons against supposing the population of
Bohemia to have been in the time of Cæsar other than what it is now,
_i. e._ Slavonic.

In the first place, if it were not so, it must have changed within the
historical period. If so, when? No writer has ever grappled with the
details of the question. It could scarcely have been subsequent to the
development of the Germanic power on the Danube, since this would be
within the period of annalists and historians, who would have mentioned
it. As little is it likely to have been during the time when the Goths
and Germans, victorious everywhere, were displacing others rather than
being displaced themselves.

The evidence of the language is in the same direction. Whence could
it have been introduced? Not from the Saxon frontier, since there the
Slavonic is Polish rather than Bohemian. Still less from the Silesian,
and least of all from the Bavarian. To have developed its differential
characteristics, it must have had either Bohemia itself as an original
locality, or else the parts south and east of it.

We will now take what is either an undoubted Slavonic locality, or
a locality in the neighbourhood of Slavonians, _i. e._ the country
between the rivers Danube and Theiss and that range of hills which
connect the Bakonyer-wald with the Carpathians, the country of the
_Jazyges_. Now as _Jazyg_ is a Slavonic word, meaning _speech_ or
_language_, we have, over and above the external evidence which makes
the Jazyges Sarmatian, internal evidence as well; evidence subject only
to one exception, viz. that perhaps the name in question was not native
to the population which it designated, but only a term applied by some
Slavonic tribe to some of their neighbours who might or might not be
Slavonic. I admit that this is possible, although the name is not of
the kind that would be given by one tribe to another different from
itself. Admitting, however, this, it still leaves a Slavonic population
in the contiguous districts; since, whether borne by the people to whom
it was applied or not, _Jazyg_ is a Slavonic gloss from the Valley of
the Tibiscus.

Next comes the question as to the _date_ of this population. To put
this in the form least favourable to the views of the present writer,
is to state that the first author who mentions a population in these
parts, either called by others or calling itself _Jazyges_, is a writer
so late as Ptolemy, and that he adds to it the qualifying epithet
_Metanastæ_ (Μετανάσται), a term suggestive of their removal from some
other area, and of the recent character of their arrival on the Danube.
Giving full value to all this, there still remains the fact of primary
importance in all our investigations on the subject in question, viz.
that in the time of Ptolemy (at least) there were Slavonians on (or
near) the river Theiss.

At present it is sufficient to say that there are no _à priori_ reasons
for considering these Jazyges as the most western of the branch to
which they belonged, since the whole of the Pannonians may as easily be
considered Slavonic as aught else. They were not Germans. They were not
Celts; in which case the common rules of ethnological criticism induce
us to consider them as belonging to the same class with the population
conterminous to them; since unless we do this, we must assume a new
division of the human species altogether; a fact, which, though
possible, and even probable, is not lightly to be taken up.

So much for the _à priori_ probabilities: the known facts by no means
traverse them. The Pannonians, we learn from Dio, were of the same
class with the Illyrians, _i. e._ the northern tribes of that nation.
These must have belonged to one of three divisions; the Slavonic, the
Albanian, or some division now lost. Of these, the latter is not to be
assumed, and the first is more probable than the second. Indeed, the
more we make the Pannonians and Illyrians other than Slavonic, the more
do we isolate the _Jazyges_; and the more we isolate these, the more
difficulties we create in a question otherwise simple.

That the portion of Pannonia to the north of the Danube (_i. e._ the
north-west portion of Hungary, or the valley of the Waag and Gran)
was different from the country around the lake Peiso (Pelso), is a
position, which can only be upheld by considering it to be the country
of the Quadi, and the Quadi to have been Germanic;--a view, against
which there are numerous objections.

Now, here re-appears the term Daci; so that we must recognise the
important fact, that east of the _Jazyges_ there are the Dacians (and
Getæ) of the Lower, and west of the _Jazyges_ the Daci of the Upper
Danube. These must be placed in the same category, both being equally
either Slavonic or non-Slavonic.

_a._ Of these alternatives, the first involves the following real or
apparent difficulty, _i. e._ that, if the Getæ are what the Daci are,
the Thracians are what the Getæ are. Hence, if all three be Slavonic,
we magnify the area immensely, and bring the Slavonians of Thrace
in contact with the Greeks of Macedonia. Granted. But are there any
reasons against this? So far from there being any such in the nature of
the thing itself, it is no more than what is actually the case at the
present moment.

_b._ The latter alternative isolates the _Jazyges_, and adds to
the difficulties created by their ethnological position, under the
supposition that they are the only Slavonians of the parts in question;
since if out-lyers to the area (_exceptional_, so to say), they must
be either invaders from without, or else relics of an earlier and
more extended population. If they be the former, we can only bring
them from the north of the Carpathian mountains (a fact not in itself
improbable, but not to be assumed, except for the sake of avoiding
greater difficulties); if the latter, they prove the original Slavonic
character of the area.

The present writer considers the Daci then (western and eastern) as
Slavonic, and the following passage brings them as far west as the
_Maros_ or _Morawe_, which gives the name to the present Moravians, a
population at once Slavonic and Bohemian:--"Campos et plana Jazyges
Sarmatæ, montes vero et saltus pulsi ab his Daci ad Pathissum amnem a
Maro sive Duria ... tenent."--_Plin._ iv. 12.

The evidence as to the population of Moravia and North-eastern Hungary
being Dacian, is Strabo's Γέγονε ... τῆς χόρας μερισμὸς συμμένων
παλαιοῦ· τοὺς μὲν γὰρ Δάκους προσαγορεύουσι, τοὺς δὲ Γέτας, Γέτας
μὲν πρὸς τὸν Πόντον κεκλιμένους, καὶ πρὸς τὲν ἕω, Δάκους δὲ τοὺς εἰς
τἀνάντια πρὸς Γερμανίαν καὶ τὰς τοῦ Ἴστρου πήγας.--From Zeuss, in _vv.
Getæ, Daci_.

In Moravia we have as the basis of argument, an _existing_ Slavonic
population, speaking a language identical with the Bohemian, but
different from the other Slavonic languages, and (as such) requiring a
considerable period for the evolution of its differential characters.
This brings us to Bohemia. At present it is Slavonic. When did it
begin to be otherwise? No one informs us on this point. Why should
it not have been so _ab initio_, or at least at the beginning of the
historical period for these parts? The necessity of an answer to this
question is admitted; and it consists chiefly (if not wholly) in the
following arguments;--_a._ those connected with the term _Marcomanni_;
_b._ those connected with the term _Boiohemum_.

_a._ _Marcomanni._--This word is so truly Germanic, and so truly
capable of being translated into English, that those who believe
in no other etymology whatever may believe that _Marc-o-manni_, or
_Marchmen_, means the _men of the (boundaries) marches_; and without
overlooking either the remarks of Mr. Kemble on the limited nature of
the word _mearc_, when applied to the smaller divisions of land, or
the doctrine of Grimm, that its primary signification is _wood_ or
_forest_, it would be an over-refinement to adopt any other meaning
for it in the present question than that which it has in its undoubted
combinations, _Markgrave_, _Altmark_, _Mittelmark_, _Ukermark_, and the
_Marches of Wales and Scotland_. If so, it was the name of a line of
_enclosing frontier_ rather than of an _area enclosed_; so that to call
a country like the _whole_ of Bohemia, _Marcomannic_, would be like
calling _all_ Scotland or _all_ Wales _the Marches_.

Again, as the name arose on the western, Germanic or Gallic side of the
_March_, it must have been the name of an _eastern_ frontier in respect
to Gaul and Germany; so that to suppose that there were Germans on the
Bohemian line of the _Marcomanni_, is to suppose that the _march_ was
no _mark_ (or boundary) at all, at least in an _ethnological_ sense.
This qualification involves a difficulty which the writer has no wish
to conceal; a _march_ may be other than an _ethnological_ division. It
may be a _political_ one. In other words, it may be like the Scottish
Border, rather than like the Welsh and the Slavono-Germanic marches
of Altmark, Mittelmark and Ukermark. At any rate, the necessity for a
_march_ being a line of frontier rather than a large compact kingdom,
is conclusive against the whole of Bohemia having been Germanic
_because it was Marcomannic_.

_b._ The arguments founded on the name _Boiohemum_ are best met by
showing that the so-called _country (home) of the Boii_ was not
_Bohemia_ but _Bavaria_. This will be better done in the sequel than
now. At present, however, it may be as well to state that so strong are
the facts in favour of _Boiohemum_ and _Baiovarii_ meaning, not the one
Bohemia and the other Bavaria, but _one of the two countries_, that
Zeuss, one of the strongest supporters of the doctrine of an originally
Germanic population in Bohemia, applies both of them to the firstnamed
kingdom; a circumstance which prepares us for expecting, that if the
names fit the countries to which they apply thus loosely, _Boiohemum_
may as easily be _Bavaria_, as the country of the _Baiovarii_ be
_Bohemia_; in other words, that we have a _convertible form_ of
argument.

ADDENDA (1859).

(1)

Too much stress is, perhaps, laid on the name Jazyges. The fact of
the word Jaszag in Magyar meaning a _bowman_ complicates it. The
probability, too, of the word for _Language_ being the name of a nation
is less than it is ought to be, considering the great extent to which
it is admitted.

(2)

The statements respecting Bohemia are over-strong. _Some_
portion of it was, probably, Marcomannic and German. The greater
part, however, of the original Boio-_hem_-um, or _home_ of the
_Boii_, I still continue to give to the country of the _Boian
occupants_--Baio-_var_-ii = _Bavaria_; the word itself being a compound
of the same kind as Cant-_wære_ = _inhabitants of Kent_. (See Zeuss in
_v. Baiovarii_).

ON THE ORIGINAL EXTENT OF THE
SLAVONIC AREA.

READ
BEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY.

MARCH 8, 1850.

The portion of the Slavonic frontier which will be considered this
evening is the north-western, beginning with the parts about the
Cimbric peninsula, and ending at the point of contact between the
present kingdoms of Saxony and Bohemia; the leading physical link
between the two extreme populations being the Elbe.

For this tract, the historical period begins in the ninth century. The
classification which best shows the really westerly disposition of the
Slavonians of this period, and which gives us the fullest measure of
the extent to which, _at that time at least_, they limited the easterly
extension of the Germans, is to divide them into--_a._ the Slavonians
of the Cimbric peninsula; _b._ the Slavonians of the right bank of the
Elbe; _c._ the Slavonians of the _left_ bank of the Elbe; the first and
last being the most important, as best showing the amount of what may
be called the _Slavonic protrusion into the accredited Germanic area_.

_a._ _The Slavonians of the Cimbric Peninsula._--Like the Slavonians
that constitute the next section, these are on the right bank of the
Elbe; but as they are _north_ of that river rather than east of it, the
division is natural.

_The Wagrians._--Occupants of the country between the Trave and the
upper portion of the southern branch of the Eyder.

_The Polabi._--Conterminous with the Wagrians and the Saxons of
Sturmar, from whom they were separated by the river Bille.

_b._ _Slavonians of the right bank of the Elbe._--_The Obodriti._--This
is a generic rather than a specific term; so that it is probable
that several of the Slavonic populations about to be noticed may
be but subdivisions of the great Obotrit section. The same applies
to the divisions already noticed--the Wagri and Polabi: indeed the
classification is so uncertain, that we have, for these parts and
times, no accurate means of ascertaining whether we are dealing with
_sub_-divisions or _cross_-divisions of the Slavonians. At any rate
the word _Obotriti_ was one of the best-known of the whole list;
so much so, that it is likely, in some cases, to have equalled in
import the more general term _Wend_. The varieties of orthography
and pronunciation may be collected from Zeuss (_in voce_), where we
find _Obotriti_, _Obotritæ_, _Abotriti_, _Abotridi_, _Apodritæ_,
_Abatareni_, _Apdrede_, _Abdrede_, _Abtrezi_. Furthermore, as evidence
of the generic character of the word, we find certain _East-Obotrits_
(_Oster-Abtrezi_), conterminous with the Bulgarians, as well as the
_North-Obotrits_ (_Nort-Abtrezi_), for the parts in question. These are
the northern districts of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, from the Trave to the
Warnow, chiefly along the coast. Zeuss makes Schwerin their most inland
locality. The _Descriptio Civitatum_ gives them fifty-three towns.

In the more limited sense of the term, the Obotrits are not
conterminous with any German tribe, being separated by the Wagri and
Polabi. Hence when Alfred writes _Norðan Eald-Seaxum is Apdrede_, he
probably merges the two sections last-named in the Obotritic.

Although not a frontier population, the Obotrits find place in the
present paper. They show that the Wagri and Polabi were not mere
isolated and outlying portions of the great family to which they
belonged, but that they were in due continuity with the main branches
of it.

_Varnahi._--This is the form which the name takes in Adam of Bremen. It
is also that of the Varni, Varini, and Viruni of the classical writers;
as well as of the Werini of the Introduction to the _Leges Angliorum et
Werinorum, hoc est Thuringorum_. Now whatever the Varini of Tacitus may
have been, and however much the affinities of the Werini were with the
Angli, the Varnahi of Adam of Bremen are Slavonic.

_c._ _Cis-Albian Slavonians._--Beyond the boundaries of the Duchies of
Holstein and Lauenburg, the existence of Germans on the right bank of
the Elbe is _nil_.

With Altmark the evidence of a Slavonic population changes, and takes
strength. The present Altmark is not German, as Kent is Saxon, but only
as Cornwall is, _i. e._ the traces of the previous Slavonic population
are like the traces of the Celtic occupants of Cornwall, the rule
rather than the exception. Most of the geographical names in Altmark
are Slavonic, the remarkable exception being the name of the _Old
March_ itself.

The Slavono-German frontier for the parts south of Altmark becomes
so complex as to require to stand over for future consideration. All
that will be done at present is to indicate the train of reasoning
applicable here, and applicable along the line of frontier. If such was
the state of things in the eighth and ninth centuries, what reason is
there for believing it to have been otherwise in the previous ones? The
answer is the testimony of Tacitus and others in the way of external,
and certain etymologies, &c. in the way of internal, evidence. Without
at present saying anything in the way of disparagement to either of
these series of proofs, the present writer, who considers that the
inferences which have generally been drawn from them are illegitimate,
is satisfied with exhibiting the amount of _à priori_ improbability
which they have to neutralize. If, when Tacitus wrote, the area between
the Elbe and Vistula was not Slavonic, but Gothic, the Slavonians
of the time of Charlemagne must have immigrated between the second
and eighth centuries; must have done so, not in parts, but for the
whole frontier; must have, for the first and last time, displaced a
population which has generally been the conqueror rather than the
conquered; must have displaced it during one of the strongest periods
of its history; must have displaced it everywhere, and wholly; and
(what is stranger still) that not permanently--since from the time in
question, those same Germans, who between A.D. 200 and A.D. 800 are
supposed to have always retreated before the Slavonians, have from A.D.
800 to A.D. 1800 always reversed the process and encroached upon their
former dispossessors.

ADDENDA (1859).

(1)

The details of the Slavonic area to the south of Altmark are as follows.

_Brandenburg_, at the beginning of the historical period, was Slavonic,
and one portion of it, the Circle of Cotbus, is so at the present
moment. It is full of geographical names significant in the Slavonic
languages. Of Germans to the East of the Elbe there are no signs until
after the time of Charlemagne. But the Elbe is not even their eastern
boundary. The Saale is the river which divides the Slavonians from the
Thuringians--not only at the time when its drainage first comes to be
known, but long afterwards. More than this, there were, in the 11th and
12th centuries, Slavonians in Thuringia, Slavonians in Franconia--facts
which can be found in full in Zeuss _vv. Fränkische und Thüringische
Slawen_--(_Die Deutschen und die Nachbarstämme_).

_Saxony_ brings us down to the point with which the preceding paper
concluded viz: the frontier of Bohemia. This was in the same category
with Brandenburg. In Leipzig Slavonic was spoken A. D. 1327. In Lusatia
it is spoken at the present moment. When were the hypothetical Germans
of all these parts eliminated, or (if not eliminated) amalgamated with
a population of intruders who displaced their language, not on one spot
or on two, but every where?

If the Slavonians of the time of Charlemagne were indigenous to the
western portion of their area, they were, _a fortiori_, indigenous to
the eastern. At any rate, few who hold that the German populations of
Bohemia, Mecklenburg, Luneburg, Altmark, Brandenburg, Saxony, Silesia,
and Lusatia are recent, will doubt their being so in Pomerania.

In his Edition of the Germania of Tacitus the only Germans east of the
Elbe, Saale and the Fichtel Gebirge, recognised by the present writer
are certain intrusive Marcomanni; who (by hypothesis) derived from
Thuringia, reached the Danube by way of the valley of Naab, and pressed
eastward to some point unknown--but beyond the southern frontier of
Moravia. Here they skirted the Slavonic populations of the north, and
formed to their several areas the several Marches from which they took
their name.

As far as we have gone hitherto we have gone in the direction of the
doctrine that the Slavonians of Franconia, Thuringia, Saxony, Altmark,
Luneburg, Mecklenburg, Holstein, and Brandenburg &c. were all old
occupants of the districts in which they were found in the 8th, 9th,
10th, and 11th centuries; also that the present Czekhs of Bohemia and
Moravia, the present Serbs of Lusatia and Brandenburg, the present
Kassubs of Pomerania, and the present Slovaks of Hungary represent
aboriginal populations. We now ask how far this was the case with the
frontagers of North-eastern Italy, and the Slavonians of Carinthia and
Carniola. The conclusion to which we arrive in respect to these will
apply to those of Bosnia, Servia, and Dalmatia.

That the Carinthians and Carniolans were the descendants of the
Carni of the Alpes Carnicæ would never have been doubted but for the
following statements--"The Krobati who now occupy the parts in the
direction of Delmatia are derived from the Unbaptized Krobati, the
Krovati Aspri so-called; who dwelt on the otherside of Turkey, and near
France, conterminous with the Unbaptized Slaves--_i. e._ the Serbi. The
word Krobati is explained by the dialect of the Slaves. It means the
possessors of a large country"--_Constantinus Porphyrogeneta_--_De Adm.
Imp._ 31. _ed. Par._ _p._ 97.

Again--"But the Krobati dwelt then in the direction of Bagivareia"
(Bavaria) "where the Belokrobati are now. One tribe (γενεὰ) separated.
Five brothers led them. Clukas, and Lobelos, and Kosentes, and Muklô,
and Krobatos, and two sisters, Tuga and Buga. These with their people
came to Delmatia--The other Krobati stayed about France, and are called
Belokrobati, _i. e._ Aspri Krobati, having their own leader. They are
subject to Otho the great king of France and Saxony. They continue
Unbaptized, intermarrying" (συμπενθερίας καὶ ἀγάπας ἔχοντες) "with the
Turks"--_c._ 30. _p._ 95.--The statement that the Kroatians of Dalmatia
came from the Asprocroatians is repeated. The evidence, however,
lies in the preceding passages; upon which it is scarcely necessary
to remark that _bel_ = _white_ in Slavonic, and _aspro_ = _white_ in
Romaic.

So much for the Croatians. The evidence that the Servians were in the
same category, is also Constantine's.--"It must be understood that the
Servians are from the Unbaptized Servians, called also Aspri, beyond
Turkey, near a place called Boiki, near France--just like the Great
Crobatia, also Unbaptized and White. Thence, originally, came the
Servians"--_c._ 32. _p._ 99.

In the following passages the evidence improves--"The same Krobati came
as suppliants to the Emperor Heraclius, before the Servians did the
same, at the time of the inroads of the Avars--By his order these same
Krobati having conquered the Avars, expelled them, occupied the country
they occupied, and do so now"--_c._ 31. _p._ 97.

Their country extended from the River Zentina to the frontier of Istria
and, thence, to Tzentina and Chlebena in Servia. Their towns were
Nona, Belogradon, Belitzein, Scordona, Chlebena, Stolpon, Tenen, Kori,
Klaboca--(_c._ 31. _p._ 97. 98). Their country was divided into 11.
_Supan-rics_ (Ζουπανιας).

They extended themselves. From the Krobati "who came into Dalmatia a
portion detached themselves, and conquered the Illyrian country and
Pannonia" (_c._ 30 _p._ 95).

The further notices of the Servians are of the same kind. Two brothers
succeeded to the kingdom, of which one offered his men and services to
Heraclius, who placed them at first in the Theme Thessalonica, where
they grew homesick, crossed the Danube about Belgrade, repented, turned
back, were placed in Servia, in the parts occupied by the Avars, and,
finally, were baptized. (_c._ 32. _p._ 99.)

It is clear that all this applies to the Slavonians of Croatia, Bosnia,
Servia, and Slavonia--_i. e._ the triangle at the junction of the Save
and Danube. It has no application to Istria, Carniola, Carinthia, and
Styria. Have any writers so applied it? Some have, some have not. More
than this, many who have never applied it argue just as if they had.
Zeuss, especially stating that the Slavonic population of the parts in
question was earlier than that of Croatia, still, makes it recent. Why?
This will soon be seen. At present, it is enough to state that it is
not by the _direct_ application of the passage in Porphyrogeneta that
the antiquity of the Slavonic character of the Carinthians, Carniolans,
and Istrians is impugned.

The real reason lies in the fact of the two populations being alike in
other respects. What is this worth? Something--perhaps, much. Which
way, however, does it tell? That depends on circumstances. If the
Croatians be recent, the Carinthians should be so too. But what if the
evidence make the Carinthians old? Then, the recency of the Croatians
is impugned. Now Zeuss (_vv. Alpenslawen, Carantani, and Creinarii_)
distinctly shews that there were Slavonians in the present districts
before the time of Heraclius--not much before, but still before. Why
not much? "They came only a little before", inasmuch as Procopius
"gives us nothing but the old names Carni, and Norici". But what if
these were Slavonic?

The present meaning of the root _Carn-_ is _March_, just as it is in
U-_krain_. In a notice of the year A. D. 974 we find "quod _Carn_-iola
vocatur, et quod vulgo vocatur _Creina marcha_", the Slavonic word
being translated into German. Such a fact, under ordinary circumstances
would make the _Carn-_ in Alpes _Carn_-icæ, a Slavonic gloss; as it
almost certainly is. I do not, however, know the etymologist who has
claimed it. Zeuss does not--though it is from his pages that I get the
chief evidence of its being one.

Croatia, Bosnia, and Servia now come under the application of the
Constantine text.

Let it pass for historical; notwithstanding the length of time between
its author and the events which it records.

Let it pass for historical, notwithstanding the high probability of
_Crobyzi_, a word used in Servia before the Christian æra, being the
same as _Krobati_.

Let it pass for historical, notwithstanding the chances that it is only
an inference from the presence of an allied population on both sides of
Pannonia.

Let it pass for historical, notwithstanding the leadership of the five
brothers (one the eponymus _Krobatos_) and the two sisters.

Let it do this, and then let us ask how it is to be interpreted.
Widely or strictly? We see what stands against it viz: the existing
conditions of three mountainous regions exhibiting the signs of being
the occupancies of an aboriginal population as much as any countries on
the face of the earth.

What then is the strict interpretation? Even this--that Heraclius
introduced certain Croatians from the north into the occupancies of the
dispossessed Avars apparently as military colonies. Does this mean that
they were the first of their lineage? By no means. The late emperor of
Russian planted Slavonic colonies of Servians in Slavonic Russia. Metal
upon metal is false heraldry; but it does not follow that Slave upon
Slave is bad ethnology.

With such a full realization of the insufficiency of the evidence
which makes Bohemia, Carinthia, Servia &c. other than Slavonic _ab
initio_, we may proceed to the ethnology of the parts to the west,
and southwest--the Tyrol, Northern Italy, Switzerland, Bavaria, and
Wurtemberg. In respect to these, we may either distribute them among
the populations of the frontier, or imagine for them some fresh
division of the population of Europe, once existent, but now extinct.
We shall not, however, choose this latter alternative unless we forget
the wholesome rule which forbids us to multiply causes unnecessarily.

Let us say, then, that the southern frontier of the division
represented by the Slavonians of Carniola was originally prolonged
until it touched that of the northernmost Italians. In like manner,
let the Styrian and Bohemian Slaves extend till they meet the Kelts
of Gaul. With this general expression I take leave of this part of
the subject--a subject worked out in detail elsewhere (_Edition of
Prichard's Eastern origin of the Celtic Nation, and The Germania of
Tacitus with Ethnological Notes_,--_Native Races of the Russian Empire_
&c.).

The _northern_ and _eastern_ frontiers of the Slavonians involve those
of (1) Ugrians, (2) the Lithuanians.

In respect to the former, I think a case can be made out for continuing
the _earliest_ occupancy of the populations represented by the Liefs
of Courland, and the Rahwas of Estonia to the Oder at least; perhaps
further. This means along the coast. Their extent inland is a more
complex question. The so called Fin hypothesis in its full form is
regarded, by the present writer, as untenable. But between this and
a vast extension of the Fin area beyond its present bounds there is
a great difference. It is one thing to connect the Basks of Spain
with the Khonds of India; another to bring the Estonians as far west
as the Oder, or even as the Elbe. It is one thing to make an allied
population occupant of Sweden, Spain, and Ireland; another to refer
the oldest population of western Russia to the stock to which the
eastern undeniably belongs. This latter is a mere question of more
or less. The other is a difference, not of kind, but of degree. With
this distinction we may start from the most southern portion of the
present Ugrian area; which is that of the Morduins in the Government
of Penza. Or we may start from the most western which is that of the
Liefs of Courland. What are the traces of Fin occupancy between these
and the Vistula and Danube--the Vistula westward, the Danube on the
South. How distinct are they? And of what kind? We cannot expect them
to be either obvious or numerous. Say that they are the vestiges of
a state of things that has passed away a thousand years, and we only
come to the time of Nestor. Say that they are doubly so old, and we
have only reached the days of Herodotus; in whose time there had been a
sufficient amount of encroachment and displacement to fill the southern
Governments of Russia with Scythians of Asiatic origin. The Britons
were the occupants of Kent at the beginning of our æra. How faint are
the traces of them. We must regulate, then, our expectations according
to the conditions of the question. We must expect to find things just a
little more Ugrian than aught else.

From that part of Russia which could, even a thousand years ago,
exhibit an indigenous population we must subtract all those districts
which were occupied by the Scythians. We do not know how much
comes under this category. We only know that the Agathyrsi were in
Hungary, and that they were, probably, intruders. We must substract
the Governments of Kherson, Ekaterinoslav, and Taurida at the very
least--much of each if not all. That this is not too much is evident
from the expressed opinions of competent investigators. Francis
Newman carries the Scythia of Herodotus as far as Volhynia, and, in
Volhynia, there were Cumanian Turks as late as the 11th century. Say,
however that the aborigines were not Fins. At any rate they were not
the ancestors of the present Russians--and it is the original area of
these that we are now considering. In the North there were Fins when
Novorogod, and in the East Fins when Moscow, was founded. In Koursk,
writes Haxthausen, there is a notable difference in the physiognomy of
the inhabitants; the features being Fin rather than Slavonic.

I now notice the name of Roxolani. Prichard and, doubtless, others
besides see in this a Fin gloss, the termination _-lani_ being the
termination _-lainen_ in Suome_lainen_, Hame_lainen_ and several other
Fin words, _i. e._ a gentile termination. It does not follow from this
that the people themselves were Fins. It only follows that they were in
a Fin neigbourhood. Some one who spoke a language in which the form in
_-lain-_ was used to denote the name of a people was on their frontier,
and this frontier must have been South of that of the Roxolani
themselves--else how did it come to the ears of the Greeks and Romans?
If this were not the case, then was the name native, and the Roxolani
were Ugrian. In either case we have a Fin gloss, and a Fin locality
suggested by it. Now the country of the Roxolani either reached, or
approached, the Danube.

In the account of Herodotus a population named _Neuri_ occupied a
marshy district at the back of the Scythian area; probably the marshes
of Pinsk. This is, perhaps, a Fin gloss. The town of _Narym_ in the
Ostiak country takes its name from the marshes round it.

The Lithuanian language avoids the letter _f._--using _p._ instead;
sometimes _m._ The Greek φιλεω is _m_ylu in Lithuanic. The name, then,
that a Fin locality would take in the mouth of a Lithuanian would not
be _F_insk but _M_insk, or _P_insk, and these are the names we find on
what I think was, at one time, the Finno-Lithuanic frontier.

I should add that the _Kour-_ in _Kour_-sk seems to be the _Kour-_ in
_Kour_-land, the _Kor-_ in _Kor_-alli (a Fin population of the Middle
Ages), and the _Car-_ in the eminently, and almost typically, Fin
_Kar_elians.

This is not much in the way of evidence. Much or little, however, it
is more than can be got for any other population. Much or little it
is got at by a very cursory investigation. No special research has
been instituted. No tumulus has been appealed to. No local dialect
has been analysed. No ordnance map has been pored over. All this
will, doubtless, be done in time, and if, when it has been done, no
confirmation of the present doctrine be found, the propounder will
reconsider it. If the evidence point elsewhere he will abandon it. At
present he brings the early Fin frontier to Minsk and Pinsk:

There it touched that of the Lithuanians. To make these the most
eastern members of the Sarmatian stock is, at the first view, to fly
in the face of the testimony of their present position. They are, in
one sense, the most western. The Germans of Prussia touch them on the
side of Europe. Between them and the Fins of Asia, the vast Russian
area of the Governments of Smolensko, Novogorod &c. intervene. Speaking
laxly, one may say that all Russia lies beyond them. Nevertheless,
it is with the Fins of Estonia that they are also in contact; whilst
the explanation of the German and Russian contact is transparently
clear. The Germans (as a matter of history) cut their way through
whole masses of Slavonians in Pomerania, before they reached them; so
displacing the Slavonians to the west of them. The Russians (again a
matter of history) pressed up to them by a circuit from the south and
west. The Lithuanians have kept their position--but one population has
stretched beyond, and another has pressed up to them. Their language
is eminently akin to the Sanskrit. Their physiognomy is the most Fin of
any thoroughly European population.

There were no Slavonians, _in situ_, to the East of the Lithuanic area;
none originally. By encroachment and change of place there are, in
later times, many. There are, as aforesaid, all the Russians of the
present moment. The question, however, before us is the original area,
the primordial _situs_.

The westward extension of the Lithuanians is a matter upon which I do
not press the details. I think that the Vistula may have been to them
and the Slavonians what the Rhine was to the Gauls and Germans. The
main question is how far can we bring them south? What justifies us in
making them reach the Carpathians? At present we find them in Livonia,
Courland, East Prussia, Vilna, and Grodno; but further south than
Grodno nowhere; nowhere, at least, with the definite characteristics of
name and language. Every inch that is given them south of Grodno must
have its proper evidence to support it.

The Gothini of Tacitus are the first population that we may make
Lithuanic. What says Tacitus? They were not Germans; their language
proved this. They were not Sarmatians. The Sarmatians imposed a tribute
upon, as on men of another stock--_tributa ut alienigenis imponunt_.
The Quadi did the same. If neither Germans nor Sarmatians what were
they? Members of a stock now extinct? The rule against the unnecessary
multiplication of causes forbids us to resort to this supposition.
Do so once and we may always be doing it. Were they Fins? Say that
they were, and what do we gain by it? We may as well prolong the
Lithuania area from Grodno as the Fin from Pinsk. Nay, better. That
Grodno is Lithuanian we _know_. That Pinsk was Fin we _infer_. Were
they Scythians? We know of no Scythians beyond the Maros; so that the
reasoning which told against the Fin hypothesis tells equally against
the Turk. Beyond the Germans, the Slavonians, the Fins, the [6]Turks,
and the Lithuanians we have nothing to choose from; and I submit that
the _minimum_ amount of assumption lies with the population last named.

[Footnote 6: The term _Turk_ is used in its wide Ethnological sense,
and includes the _Scythæ_.]

Now comes the name of their Language. The Language of the Gothini was
_Gallica_--Osos Pannonica, Gothinos _Gallica_ arguit non esse Romanos.
I have given reasons elsewhere (Germania of Tacitus with Ethnological
notes) for translating Gallica Gallician,--not Gallic. Say, however,
that the latter is the better translation; Gothini would still be the
name of the people.

There is a country, then, of the Gothini sufficiently far south to be
in contact with the Quadi and Sarmatæ--the Quadi in Moravia and Upper
Hungary, the Sarmatæ in the parts between the Theiss and the Danube.
Gallicia meets these conditions. It was a mining country. Gallicia
is this. It was on the Upper Vistula--probably at its head-waters.
At the _mouth_ of the same river the name re-appears, in that of the
_Goth_ones, _Gutt_ones, _Gyth_ones &c. of the Amber country. These were
either the nearest neighbours of the Aestyii, or the Aestyii themselves
under a name other than German--for Aestyii is an undoubted German
gloss, just like _Est-_ in _Est-_ onia.

Are we justified in identifying these two populations on the strength
of the name? No. What we _are_ justified in doing, however, is this. We
are justified in placing on the frontier of both a language in which
the root _Goth-_ was part of a national name.

At the beginning of the historical period these Gothones were the
Lithaunians of East Prussia, and their neighbours called them _Guddon_.
They were the congeners of those Lithuanians whose area, even now,
extents as far south as Grodno.

It is easy to connect the Gothones with Grodno; but what connects
Grodno with Gothinian Gallicia? What _can_ connect it now? All is
Polish or Russian. What are the proofs that it was not so from the
beginning? The following--the populations between Grodno and the
frontier of Gallicia, appear, for the first time in history in
the 13th century; but not as Poles, nor yet as Russians, but as
Lithuanians--"cum _Pruthenica_ et _Lithuanica_ lingua habens magna ex
parte similitudinem et intelligentiam"--"lingua, ritu, religione, et
moribus magnam habebat cum _Lithuanis_, _Pruthenis_ et _Samogitis_"
(the present Lithuanians of East Prussia) "conformitatem".

We cannot bring these quite down to Gallicia; and this is not to be
wondered at. The first notice we have of them is very nearly the last
as well. The narrative which gives us the preceding texts is the
narrative of their subjugation and extinction.

What was the name of this people? I premise that we get it through a
double medium, the Latin, and the Slavonic--the latter language always
being greatly disguised in its adaptation to the former. The commonest
form is Jaczwingi (Lat.) Jatwyazi (Slavonic); then (in documents)
_Getuin_-zitæ, a word giving the root _Gothon-_. Finally, we have
"Pollexiani _Getharum_ seu Prussorum gens".

Such are the reasons for connecting the Gothini of the Marcomannic
frontier with the Gothini of the Baltic, and also for making both
(along with the connecting Jaczwingi) Lithuanians. This latter
point, however, is unessential to the present investigation; which
simply considers the area of the Slavonians. For the parts north of
the Carpathians, it was limited by a continuous line of _Gothini_,
_Getuinzitæ_, and _Gothones_. Whatever those were they were not
Slavonic.

Such is the sketch of the chief reasons for believing that originally
the Vistula (there or thereabouts) was the boundary of the Slavonians
on the North East; a belief confirmed by the phenomena of the
languages spoken, at the present moment, beyond that river. They
fall into few dialects; a fact which is _prima facie_ evidence of
recent introduction. The Polish branch shews itself in varieties and
subvarieties on its western frontier; the Russian on its southern and
south-eastern. The further they are found East and North, the newer
they are.

I may add that I find no facts in the special ethnology of the early
Poles, that complicate this view. On the contrary, the special
facts, such as they are, are confirmatory rather than aught else of
the western _origin_ and the eastern _direction_, of a Polish line
of encroachment, migration, occupancy, displacement, invasion, or
conquest. Under the early kings of the blood of Piast (an individual
wholly unhistoric), the locality for their exploits and occupancies
is no part of the country about the present capital, Warsaw; but the
district round Posen and Gnesen; this being the area to which the
earliest legends attach themselves.

Where this is not the case, where the Duchy of Posen or Prussian Poland
does not give us the earliest signs of Polish occupancy, the parts
about Cracow do. At any rate, the legends lie in the west and south
rather than in the east; on the Saxon or the Bohemian frontier rather
than the Lithuanic.

The Slavonic area south of the Carpathians gives us a much more complex
question--one, indeed, too complex to investigate it in all its
bearings.

That there were both Slavonians and Lithuanians in Dacia, Lower
Mœsia, Thrace, and, even, Macedon is nearly certain--and that early.
Say that they were this at the beginning of the historical period. It
will, by no means, make them aboriginal.

Such being the case I limit myself to the statement that, at the
beginning of the historical period, the evidence and reasoning that
connects the Thracians with the Getæ, the Getæ with the Daci, and the
Daci with the Sarmatian stock in general is sufficient. Whether it
makes them indigenous to their several areas is another question. It
is also another question whether the relationship between them was so
close as the current statements make it. These identify the Getæ and
Daci. I imagine that they were (there or thereabouts) as different
as the Bohemians and the Lithuanians--the Getic Lithuanians, and the
Dacian (Daci = Τζαχοι) Czekhs; both, however being Sarmatian.

I also abstain from the details of a question of still greater
importance and interest viz: the extent to which a _third_ language
of the class which contains the Slavonian and Lithuanic may or may
not have been spoken in the parts under notice. There was room for it
in the parts to the South of the Fin, and the east of the Lithuanic,
areas. There was room for it in the present Governments of Podolia,
and Volhynia, to say nothing of large portions of the drainage of the
Lower Danube. The language of such an area, if its structure coincided
with its geographical position would be liker the Lithuanic and the
most eastern branch of the Slavonic than any other Languages of the
so-called Indo-European Stock. It would also be more Sarmatian than
either German or Classical. Yet it would be both Classical and German
also, on the strength of the term Indo-European. It would be the most
Asiatic of the tongues so denominated; with some Ugrian affinities,
and others with the languages in the direction of Armenia, and Persia.
It would be a language, however, which would soon be obliterated; in
as much as the parts upon which we place it were, at an early date,
overrun by Scythians from the East, and Slavonians from the West. When
we know Volhynia, it is Turk, and Polish,--anything but aboriginal.
Such a language, however, might, in case the populations who spoke it
had made early conquests elsewhere, be, still, preserved to our own
times. Or it might have been, at a similarly early period, committed
to writings; the works in which it was embodied having come down to
us. If so, its relations to its congeners would be remarkable. _They_
would only be known in a modern, _it_ only in an ancient, form. Such
being the case the original affinity might be disguised; especially if
the transfer of the earlier language had been to some very distant and
unlikely point.

I will now apply this hypothetical series of arguments. It has long
been known that the ancient, sacred, and literary language of Northern
India has its closest grammatical affinities in Europe. With none of
the tongues of the neighbouring countries, with no form of the Tibetan
of the Himalayas or the Burmese dialects of the north-east, with no
Tamul dialect of the southern part of the Peninsula itself has it half
such close resemblances as it has with the distant and disconnected
Lithuanian.

As to the Lithuanian, it has, of course, its closest affinities with
the Slavonic tongues of Russia, Bohemia, Poland, and Servia, as
aforesaid. And when we go beyond the Sarmatian stock, and bring into
the field of comparison the other tongues of Europe, the Latin, the
Greek, the German, and the Keltic, we find that the Lithuanic is more
or less connected with them.

Now, the botanist who, found in Asia, extended over a comparatively
small area, a single species, belonging to a genus which covered
two-thirds of Europe (except so far as he might urge that everything
came from the east, and so convert the specific question into an
hypothesis as to the origin of vegetation in general) would pronounce
the _genus_ to be European. The zoologist, in a case of zoology, would
do the same.

_Mutatis mutandis_, the logic of the philologue should be that of the
naturalist. Yet it is not.

1. The area of Asiatic languages in Asia allied to the ancient Language
of India, is smaller than the area of European languages allied to the
Lithuanic; and--

2. The class or genus to which the two tongues equally belong, is
represented in Asia by the Indian division only; whereas in Europe it
falls into three divisions, each of, at least, equal value with the
single Asiatic one.

Nevertheless, the so-called Indo-European languages are deduced from
Asia.

I do not ask whether, as a matter of fact, this deduction is right or
wrong. I only state, as a matter of philological history, that it is
made, adding that the hypothesis which makes it is illegitimate. It
rests on the assumption that it is easier to bring a population from
India to Russia than to take one from Russia to India. In the case of
the more extreme language of which it takes cognisance this postulate
becomes still more inadmissible. It assumes, in the matter of the
Keltic (for instance), that it is easier to bring the people of Galway
from the Punjab, than the tribes of the Punjab from Eastern Europe. In
short, it seems to be a generally received rule amongst investigators,
that so long as we bring our migration from east to west we may let a
very little evidence go a very long way; whereas, so soon as we reverse
the process, and suppose a line from west to east, the converse becomes
requisite, and a great deal of evidence is to go but a little way. The
effect of this has been to create innumerable Asiatic hypotheses and
few or no European ones. Russia may have been peopled from Persia,
or Lithuania from Hindostan, or Greece from Asia, or any place west
of a given meridian from any place east of it--but the converse,
never. No one asks for proofs in the former case; or if he do, he is
satisfied with a very scanty modicum: whereas, in the latter, the
best authenticated statements undergo stringent scrutiny. Inferences
fare worse. They are hardly allowed at all. It is all "theory and
hypothesis" if we resort to them in cases from west to east; but it
is no "theory" and no "hypothesis" when we follow the sun and move
westwards.

Let the two lines be put on a level, and let ethnographical philology
cease to be so one-sided as it is. Let the possibility of a Western
origin of the Sanskrit language take its natural place as the member of
an alternative hitherto ignored. I do not say what will follow in the
way of historical detail. I only say (in the present paper at least)
that the logic of an important class of philological questions will be
improved. As it stands at present, it is little more than a remarkable
phenomenon in the pathology of the philological mind, a symptom of the
morbid condition of the scientific imagination of learned men.

Turning westwards we now take up the Slovenians of Carinthia and Styria
on their western frontier, not forgetting the southermost of the Czekhs
of Bohemia. How far did the Slavonic area extend in the direction of
Switzerland, Gaul, and Italy?

In the Tyrol we have such geographical names as Scharn-_itz_,
Gsh_nitz_-thal, and _Vintsh_-gau; in the Vorarlberg, Ked-_nitz_ and
Windisch-_matrei_. Even where the names are less definitely Slavonic,
the compound sibilant _tsh_, so predominant in Slavonic, so exceptional
in German, is of frequent occurrence. This, perhaps, is little, yet is
more than can be found in any country _known_ to have been other than
Slavonic.

Again--a Slavonic population in the Vorarlberg and Southern Bavaria
best accounts for the name _Vind_-elicia.

If the Slavonians are aboriginal, and if the Czekhs are the same, the
decisive evidence that, within the historical period, they have both
receded is in favor of their respective areas having originally been
greater than they are at present. Such being the case, we may bring
them both further south and further west. How far? This is a question
of minute detail, not to be answered off-hand. The rule of parsimony,
however, by which we are forbidden to multiply stocks unnecessarily,
carries them to the frontier of the Gauls in one direction, and the
Italians on the other.

If so, there may have been Slavonians on the frontier of Liguria. More
than this the Rhæti may have been Slavonic also. But many make the
Etruscans Rhætian. Is it possible however, that even the Etruscans were
Slavonic?

I know of numerous _opinions_ against their being so. I know of no
_facts_.

ON THE TERMS OF _GOTHI_ AND _GETÆ_.

OBSERVATIONS LAID BEFORE THE ETHNOLOGICAL
SECTION, AT THE MEETING OF THE BRITISH
ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF
SCIENCE, HELD AT BIRMINGHAM 1849.

So far from the Gothi and Getæ being identical there is no reason to
believe that any nation of Germany ever bore the former of these two
names until it reached the country of the population designated by the
latter. If so, the Goths were Gothic, just as certain Spaniards are
Mexican and Peruvian; and just as certain Englishmen are Britons _i.e._
not at all.

The Goths of the Danube, etc. leave Germany as Grutungs and Thervings,
become Marcomanni along the Bohemian and Moravian frontiers, Ostrogoths
and Visigoths, on the Lower Danube (or the land of the Getæ), and
Mœsogoths (from the locality in which they become Christian) in
Mœsia.

What were the Goths of Scandinavia? _It is not I who am the_ first by
many scores of investigators to place all the numerous populations to
which the possible modifications of the root _G--t_ apply in the same
category. I only deny that that category is German. Few separate the
Jutes of Jutland, from the Goths of Gothland. Then there is the word
_Vitæ_; which is to _Gut-_, as _Will_-iam is to _Gul_-ielmus, a form
that was probably Lithuanic.

If _J_+_t_, as it occurs in the word _Jute_, be, really, the same as
the _G_+_t_ in _Got_ or _Goth_, we have a reason in favour of _one_ of
the earlier Danish populations having been Lithuanic.

The four islands of Sealand, Laaland, Moen, and Falster formed the
ancient _Vithesleth_. This division is of considerable import; since
the true country of _Dan_, the eponymus of the _Danes_, was not
Jutland, nor yet Skaane, nor yet Fyen. It was the Four Islands of the
Vithesleth:--"Dan--rex primo super Sialandiam, Monam, Falstriam, et
Lalandiam, cujus regnum dicebatur _Vithesleth_. Deinde super alias
provincias et insulas et totum regnum."--Petri Olai Chron. Regum
Daniæ. Also, "Vidit autem Dan regionem suam, super quam regnavit,
Jutiam, Fioniam, _Withesleth_, Scaniam quod esset bona."--Annal. Esrom.
p. 224.

That the Swedes and Norwegians are the newest Scandinavians and that
certain Ugrians were the oldest, is undoubted. But it by no means
follows that the succession was simple. Between the first and last
there may have been any amount of intercalations. Was this the case?
My own opinion is, that the first encroachments upon the originally
Ugrian area of Scandinavia were not from the south-west, but from the
south-east, not from Hanover but from Prussia and Courland, not German
but Lithuanic, and (as a practical proof of the inconvenience of the
present nomenclature) although not German, _Gothic_.

Whether these encroachments were wholly Lithuanic, rather than Slavonic
as well, is doubtful. When the archæology of Scandinavia is read
aright, _i. e._ without a German prepossession, the evidence of a
second population will become clear. This however, is a detail.

The Gothic historian Jornandes, deduces the Goths of the Danube
first from the southern coasts of the Baltic, and ultimately from
Scandinavia. I think, however, that whoever reads his notices will be
satisfied that he has fallen into the same confusion in respect to the
Germans of the Lower Danube and the Getæ whose country they settled in,
as an English writer would do who should adapt the legends of Geoffrey
of Monmouth respecting the British kings to the genealogies of Ecbert
and Alfred or to the origin of the warriors under Hengist. The legends
of the soil and the legends of its invaders have been mixed together.

Nor is such confusion unnatural. The real facts before the historian
were remarkable. There were Goths on the Lower Danube, Germanic in
blood, and known by the same name as the older inhabitants of the
country. There were Gothones, or Guttones, in the Baltic, the essential
part of whose name was _Goth-_; the _-n-_ being, probably, and almost
certainly, an inflexion.

Thirdly, there were Goths in Scandinavia, and Goths in an intermediate
island of the Baltic. With such a series of _Goth_-lands, the single
error of mistaking the old _Getic_ legends for those of the more recent
Germans (now called _Goths_), would easily engender others; and the
most distant of the three Gothic areas would naturally pass for being
the oldest also. Hence, the deduction of the Goths of the Danube from
the Scandinavian Gothland.

ON THE JAPODES AND GEPIDÆ

READ
BEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY,
JANUARY 15TH 1857.

Of the nations whose movements are connected with the decline and
fall of the Roman empire, though several are more important than the
_Gepidæ_, few are of a greater interest. This is because the question
of their ethnological relations is more obscure than that of any
other similar population of equal historical prominence. How far they
were Goths rather than Vandals, or Vandals rather than Goths, how far
they were neither one nor the other, has scarcely been investigated.
Neither has their origin been determined. Nor have the details of their
movements been ascertained. That the current account, as it stands in
the pages of Jornandes Diaconus, is anything but unexceptionable, will
be shown in the present paper. It is this account, however, which has
been adopted by the majority of inquirers.

The results to which the present writer commits himself are widely
different from those of his predecessors; he believes them, however, to
be of the most ordinary and commonplace character. Why, then, have they
not been attained long ago? Because certain statements, to a contrary
effect, being taken up without a due amount of preliminary criticism,
have directed the views of historians and ethnologists towards a wrong
point.

These, however, for the present will be ignored, and nothing, in the
first instance, will be attended to but the primary facts upon which
the argument, in its simplest form, depends. These being adduced, the
ordinary interpretation of them will be suggested; after which, the
extent to which it is modified by the statements upon which the current
doctrines are founded will be investigated.

If we turn to Strabo's account of the parts on the north-eastern side
of the Adriatic, the occupancies of the numerous tribes of the Roman
province of Illyricum, we shall find that no slight prominence is
given to the population called Ἰάποδες. They join the Carni. The Culpa
(Κολαπις) flows through their land. They stretch along the coast to the
river Tedanius; Senia is their chief town. The Moentini, the Avendeatæ,
the Auripini, are their chief tribes. Vendos (Avendo) is one of their
occupancies. Such are the notices of Strabo, Ptolemy, Appian, and
Pliny; Pliny's form of the word being Japydes.

The Iapodes, then, or Japydes, of the authors in question, are neither
an obscure nor an inconsiderable nation. They extend along the
sea-coast of the Adriatic. They occupy the valley of the Culpa. They
are Illyrian, but conterminous with Pannonia.

As Pliny seems to have taken his name from Strabo, the authors just
quoted may all be called Greek. With the latest of them we lose the
forms Ἰάποδες or Japydes.

As the Roman empire declines and its writers become less and less
classical, their geographical records become less systematic and more
fragmentary; and it is not till we get to the times of Probus and
Maximian that we find any name approaching Ἰάποδες. Probus, however,
plants a colony of _Gepidæ_ within the empire (_Vopiscus, Vit. Pub._
c. 18). The Tervings also fight against the Vandals and Gipedes
(_Mamertinus in Genethl. Max._ c. 17). Sidonius makes the fierce Gepida
(_Gepida trux_) a portion of the army of Attila. Finally, we have
the Gepidæ, the Lombards, and the Avars, as the three most prominent
populations of the sixth century.

The Gepid locality in the fifth century is the parts about Sirmium and
Singidunum--Alt Schabacz and Belgrade--within the limits of Pannonia,
and beyond those of Illyricum, _i. e._ a little to the north of the
occupancy of the Iapodes and Japydes of Strabo and Pliny.

There is, then, a little difference in name between Japydes and Gepidæ,
and a little difference in locality between the Gepids and Iapodes.
I ask, however, whether this is sufficient to raise any doubt as to
the identity of the two words? Whether the populations they denoted
were the same is another matter. I only submit that, word for word,
_Japyd_ and _Gepid_ are one. Yet they have never been considered so.
On the contrary, the obscure history of the Japydes is generally made
to end with Ptolemy; the more brilliant one of the Gepidæ to begin
with Vopiscus. This may be seen in Gibbon, in Zeuss, or in any author
whatever who notices either, or both, of the two populations.

There is a reason for this; it does not, however, lie in the
difference of name. Wider ones than this are overlooked by even the
most cautious of investigators. Indeed, the acknowledged and known
varieties of the word Gepidæ itself, are far more divergent from
each other than _Gepidæ_ is from _Japydes_. Thus Gypides, Γήπαιδες,
Γετίπαιδες, are all admitted varieties,--varieties that no one has
objected to.

Nor yet does the reason for thus ignoring the connexion between
_Gepidæ_ and _Japydes_ lie in the difference of their respective
localities. For a period of conquests and invasions, the intrusion
of a population from the north of Illyricum to the south of Pannonia
is a mere trifle in the eye of the ordinary historian, who generally
moves large nations from one extremity of Europe to another as freely
as a chess-player moves a queen or castle on a chess-board. In fact,
some change, both of name and place, is to be expected. The name that
Strabo, for instance, would get through an Illyrian, Vopiscus or
Sidonius would get through a Gothic, and Procopius through (probably)
an Avar, authority--directly or indirectly.

The true reason for the agreement in question having been ignored, lies
in the great change which had taken place in the political relations of
the populations, not only of Illyricum and Pannonia, but of all parts
of the Roman empire. The Japydes are merely details in the conquest
of Illyricum and Dalmatia; the Gepid history, on the contrary, is
connected with that of two populations eminently foreign and intrusive
on the soil of Pannonia,--the Avars and the Lombards. How easy, then,
to make the Gepidæ foreign and intrusive also. Rarely mentioned, except
in connexion with the exotic Goth, the exotic Vandal, the exotic Avar,
and the still more exotic Lombard, the Gepid becomes, in the eyes of
the historian, exotic also.

This error is by no means modern. It dates from the reign of Justinian;
and occurs in the writings of such seeming authorities as Procopius and
Jornandes. With many scholars this may appear conclusive against our
doctrine; since Procopius and Jornandes may reasonably be considered as
competent and sufficient witnesses, not only of their foreign origin,
but also of their Gothic affinities. Let us, however, examine their
statements. Procopius writes, that "the Gothic nations are many, the
greatest being the Goths, Vandals, Visigoths, and Gepaides. They were
originally called the Sauromatæ and Melanchlæni. Some call them the
Getic nations. They differ in name, but in nothing else. They are all
whiteskinned and yellow-haired, tall and good-looking, of the same
creed, for they are all Arians. Their language is one, called Gothic."
This, though clear, is far from unexceptionable (_B. Vand._ i. 2).
Their common language may have been no older than their common Arianism.

Again, the Sciri and Alani are especially stated to be Goths, which
neither of them were,--the Alans, not even in the eyes of such
claimants for Germany as Grimm and Zeuss.

Jornandes writes: "Quomodo vero Getæ Gepidæque sint parentes si
quæris, paucis absolvam. Meminisse debes, me initio de Scanziæ insulæ
gremio Gothos dixisse egressos cum Berich suo rege, tribus tantum
navibus vectos ad citerioris Oceani ripam; quarum trium una navis, ut
assolet, tardius vecta, nomen genti fertur dedisse; nam lingua eorum
pigra _Gepanta_ dicitur. Hinc factum est, ut paullatim et corrupte
nomen eis ex convitio nasceretur. Gepidæ namque sine dubio ex Gothorum
prosapia ducunt originem: sed quia, ut dixi, _Gepanta_ pigrum aliquid
tardumque signat, pro gratuito convitio Gepidarum nomen exortum est,
quod nec ipsum, credo, falsissinum. Sunt enim tardioris ingenii,
graviores corporum velocitate. Hi ergo Gepidæ tacti invidia, dudum
spreta provincia, commanebant in insula Visclæ amnis vadis circumacta,
quam pro patrio sermone dicebant Gepidojos. Nunc eam, ut fertur,
insulam gens Vividaria incolit, ipsis ad meliores terras meantibus. Qui
Vividarii ex diversis nationibus acsi in unum asylum collecti sunt, et
gentem fecisse noscuntur."

I submit that this account is anything but historical. Be it so. It
may, however, be the expression of a real Gothic affinity on the part
of the Gepids, though wrong in its details. Even this is doubtful. That
it may indicate a political alliance, that it may indicate a partial
assumption of a Gothic nationality, I, by no means, deny. I only
deny that it vitiates the doctrine that _Japydes_ and _Gepidæ_ are,
according to the common-sense interpretation of them, the same word.

The present is no place for exhibiting in full the reasons for
considering Jornandes to be a very worthless writer, a writer whose
legends (if we may call them so) concerning the Goths, are only Gothic
in the way that the fables of Geoffrey of Monmouth are English, _i. e._
tales belonging to a country which the Goths took possession of, rather
than tales concerning the invaders themselves.

It is suggested then, that the statements of Procopius and Jornandes
being ignored, the common-sense interpretation of the geographical and
etymological relations of the _Iapodes_ and _Gepidæ_--word for word,
and place for place--be allowed to take its course; the Gepidæ being
looked upon as Illyrians, whatever may be the import of that word;
occupants, at least, of the country of the Iapodes, and probably their
descendants.

Thus far the criticism of the present paper goes towards separating the
Gepidæ from the stock with which they are generally connected, viz. the
German,--also from any emigrants from the parts north of the Danube,
_e. g._ Poland, Prussia, Scandinavia, and the like. So far from doing
anything of this kind, it makes them indigenous to the parts to the
north-east of the head of the Adriatic. As such, what were they? Strabo
makes them a mixed nation--Kelt and Illyrian.

What is Illyrian? Either Albanian or Slavonic; it being Illyria where
the populations represented by the Dalmatians of Dalmatia come in
contact with the populations represented by the Skipetar of Albania.

The remaining object of the present paper is to raise two fresh
questions:--

1. The first connects itself with the early history of Italy, and asks
how far migrations from the eastern side of the Adriatic may have
modified the original population of Italy. Something--perhaps much--in
this way is suggested by Niebuhr; suggested, if not absolutely stated.
The Chaonian name, as well as other geographical and ethnological
relations, is shown to be common to both sides of the Gulf. Can the
class of facts indicated hereby be enlarged? The name, which is,
perhaps, the most important, is that of the _Galabri_. These are,
writes Strabo, a "people of the Dardaniatæ, in whose land is an
ancient city" (p. 316). Word for word this is _Calabri_--whatever the
geographical and ethnological relations may be. Without being exactly
Iapodes, these Calabri are in the Iapod neighbourhood.

Without being identical, the name of the Italian Iapyges (which was to
all intents and purposes another name for Calabri) is closely akin to
Iapodes; so that, in Italy, we have Calabri called also Iapyges, and,
in Illyria, Iapodes near a population called Galabri.

More than this, Niebuhr (see Dict. of Greek and Roman Geography, v.
_Japygia_) suggests that Apulia may be Iapygia, word for word. The
writer of the article just quoted demurs to his. At the same time the
change from _l_ to _d_ is, at the present moment, a South Italian
characteristic. The Sicilian for _bello_ was _beddo_. On the other
hand, this is a change in the wrong direction; still it is a change of
the kind required.

The evidence that there was a foreign population in Calabria is
satisfactory--the most definite fact being the statement that the
Sallentines were partly Cretans, associated with Locrians and
_Illyrians_. (See _Calabria_.)

Again, this district, wherein the legends concerning Diomed prevailed,
was also the district of the Daunii, whom Festus (v. _Daunia_) connects
with _Illyria_.

I suggest that, if the Calabri were Galabri, the Iapyges were Iapodes.
Without enlarging upon the views that the definite recognition of
Illyrian elements in Southern Italy suggests, we proceed to the next
division of our subject.

2. Is there any connexion between the names _Iapod-es_ and _Iapet-us_?
The answer to this is to be found in the exposition of the criticism
requisite for such problems. Special evidence there is none.

The first doctrine that presents itself to either the ethnologist or
the historian of fiction, in connexion with the name Iapetus, is that
it is the name of some _eponymus_--a name like Hellen, or Æolus, Ion,
or Dorus. But this is opposed by the fact that no nation of any great
historical prominence bears such a designation. Doubtless, if the
Thracians, the Indians, the Ægyptians, &c. had been named _Iapeti_, the
doctrine in question would have taken firm root, and that at once. But
such is not the case.

May it not, however, have been borne by an obscure population? The name
_Greek_ was so born. So, at first, was the name _Hellen_. So, probably,
the names to which we owe the wide and comprehensive terms _Europe_,
_Asia_, _Africa_, and others. Admit then that it may have belonged to
an obscure population;--next, admitting this, what name so like as that
of the Iapodes? Of all known names (unless an exception be made in
favour of the _-gypt_ in _Æ-gypt_) it must be this or none. No other
has any resemblance at all.

Who were on the confines of the non-Hellenic area? Iapyges on the west;
Iapodes on the north-west. The suggested area was not beyond the limits
of the Greek mythos. It was the area of the tales about Diomed. It was
the area of the tales about Antenor. It was but a little to the north
of the land of the _Lapithæ_, whose name, in its latter two-thirds, is
_I-apod_. It ran in the direction of Orphic and Bacchic Thrace to the
north. It ran in the direction of Cyclopæan and Lestrygonian Sicily
to the west. It was on the borders of that _terra incognita_ which so
often supplies eponymi to unknown and mysterious generations.

Say that this suggestion prove true, and we have the first of the term
_Iapodes_ in Homer and Hesiod, the last in the German genealogies
of the geography of Jornandes and in the Traveller's Song--unless,
indeed, the modern name _Schabacz_ be word for word, _Gepid_. In the
Traveller's Song we get the word in a German form, _Gifþe_ or _Gifþas_.
The _Gifþas_ are mentioned in conjunction with the _Wends_.

In Jornandes we get _Gapt_ as the head of the Gothic
genealogies:--Horum ergo (ut ipsi suis fabulis ferunt) primus fuit
_Gapt_, qui genuit Halmal; Halmal vero genuit Augis, &c. Now _Gapt_
here may stand for the eponymus of the _Gepidæ_, or it may stand for
_Japhet_, the son of Noah. More than one of the old German pedigrees
begins with what is called a Gothic legend, and ends with the book of
Genesis.

To conclude: the bearing of the criticism upon the ethnology of the
populations which took part in the destruction of the Roman empire, is
suggestive. There are several of them in the same category with the
Gepidæ.

_Mutatis mutandis_: every point in the previous criticism, which
applies to the Gepidæ and Iapydes, applies to the _Rugi_ and _Rhæti_.
Up to a certain period we have, in writers more or less classical,
notices of a country called _Rhætia_, and a population called _Rhæti_.
For a shorter period subsequent to this, we hear nothing, or next to
nothing, of any one.

Thirdly, in the writers of the 5th and 6th centuries, when the creed
begins to be Christian and the authorities German, we find the _Rugi_
of a _Rugi-land_,--_Rugi-land_, or the land of the _Rugi_, being
neither more nor less than the ancient province of _Rhætia_.

Name, then, for name, and place for place, the agreement is
sufficiently close to engender the expectation that the _Rhæti_ will be
treated as the _Rugi_, under a classical, the _Rugi_ as the _Rhæti_,
under a German, designation. Yet this is not the case. And why? Because
when the Rugi become prominent in history, it is the recent, foreign,
and intrusive Goths and Huns with whom they are chiefly associated. Add
to this, that there existed in Northern Germany a population actually
called _Rugii_.

For all this, however, _Rugiland_ is _Rhætia_, and _Rhætia_ is
_Rugiland_,--name for name and place for place. So, probably, is the
modern Slavonic term _Raczy_.

VIII.

ETHNOLOGICA.

ON THE SUBJECTIVITY OF CERTAIN
CLASSES IN ETHNOLOGY.

FROM
THE PHILOSOPHICAL MAGAZINE FOR MAY 1853.

To the investigator who believes in the unity of the human species,
whether he be a proper ethnologist, or a zoologist in the more current
signification of the term, the phænomena exhibited by the numerous
families of mankind supply ninetenths of the _data_ for that part
of natural history which deals with _varieties_ as subordinate to,
and as different from, _species_. The history of domestic animals
in comprehensiveness and complexity yields to the history of the
domesticator. Compare upon this point such a work as G. Cuvier's on the
Races of Dogs, with Dr. Prichard's Natural History of Man. The mere
difference in bulk of volume is a rough measure of the difference in
the magnitude of the subjects. Even if the dog were as ubiquitous as
man, and consequently as much exposed to the influence of latitude,
and altitude, there would still be wanting to the evolution of canine
varieties the manifold and multiform influences of civilization. The
name of these is _legion_; whilst the extent to which they rival the
more material agencies of climate and nutrition is getting, day by
day, more generally admitted by the best and most competent inquirers.
Forms as extreme as any that can be found within the pale of the same
species are to be found within that of the species _Homo_. Transitions
as gradual as those between any varieties elsewhere are also to be
found. In summing up the value of the _data_ supplied by man towards
the _natural history of varieties_, it may be said that they are those
of a species which has its geographical distribution everywhere and a
moral as well as a physical series of characteristics. Surely, if the
question under notice be a question that must be studied inductively,
Man gives us the field for our induction.

Before I come to the special point of the present notice and to the
explanation of its somewhat enigmatical heading, I must further define
the sort of doctrine embodied in what I have called the belief of the
unity of our species. I do not call the upholder of the developmental
doctrine a believer of this kind. His views--whether right or
wrong--are at variance with the current ideas attached to the word
species. Neither do I identify with the recognition of single species
the hypothesis of a multiplicity of protoplasts, _so long as they are
distributed over several geographical centres_. The essential element
to the idea of a single species is a single geographical centre. For
this, the simplest form of the protoplast community is a single pair.

All this is mere definition and illustration. The doctrine itself may
be either right or wrong. I pass no opinion upon it. I assume it for
the present; since I wish to criticize certain terms and doctrines
which have grown up under the belief in it, and to show, that, from one
point of view, they are faulty, from another, legitimate.

It will simplify the question if we lay out of our account altogether
the _islands_ of the earth's surface, limiting ourselves to the
populations of the continent. Here the area is _continuous_, and we
cannot but suppose the stream of population by which its several
portions were occupied to have been _continuous_ also. In this case
a population spreads from a centre like circles on a still piece
of water. Now, if so, _all changes must have been gradual, and all
extreme forms must have passed into each other by means of a series of
transitional ones_.

It is clear that such forms, when submitted to arrangement and
classification, will not come out in any definite and wellmarked
groups, like the groups that constitute what is currently called
species. On the contrary, they will run into each other, with
equivocal points of contact, and indistinct lines of demarcation;
so that discrimination will be difficult, if not impracticable. If
practicable, however, it will be effected by having recourse to certain
typical forms, around which such as approximate most closely can most
accurately and conveniently be grouped. When this is done, the more
distant outliers will be distributed over the debateable ground of an
equivocal frontier. To recapitulate: varieties as opposed to species
imply transitional forms, whilst transitional forms preclude definite
lines of demarcation.

Yet what is the actual classification of the varieties of mankind, and
what is the current nomenclature? To say the least, it is very like
that of the species of a genus. Blumenbach's Mongolians, Blumenbach's
Caucasians, Blumenbach's Æthiopians,--where do we find the patent
evidence that these are the names of varieties rather than species?
Nowhere. The practical proof of a clear consciousness on the part of
a writer that he is classifying _varieties_ rather than _species_, is
the care he takes to guard his reader against mistaking the one for the
other, and the attention he bestows on the transition from one type to
another. Who has ever spent much ethnology on this? So far from learned
men having done so, they have introduced a new and lax term--_race_.
This means something which is neither a variety nor yet a species--a
_tertium quid_. In what way it differs from the other denomination has
yet to be shown.

Now if it be believed (and this belief is assumed) that the varieties
of mankind are _varieties of a species_ only, and if it cannot be
denied that the nomenclature and classification of ethnologists is
the nomenclature and classification of men investigating the _species
of a genus_, what is to be done? Are species to be admitted, or is
the nomenclature to be abandoned? The present remarks are made with
the view of showing that the adoption of either alternative would be
inconsiderate, and that the existing nomenclature, even when founded
upon the assumption of broad and trenchant lines of demarcation between
varieties which (_ex vi termini_) ought to graduate into each other, is
far from being indefensible.

Man conquers man, and occupant displaces occupant on the earth's
surface. By this means forms and varieties which once existed become
extinct. The more this extinction takes place, the greater is the
obliteration of those transitional and intermediate forms which connect
extreme types; and the greater this obliteration, the stronger the
lines of demarcation between geographically contiguous families. Hence
a variational modification of a group of individuals simulates a
difference of species; forms which were once wide apart being brought
into juxtaposition by means of the annihilation of the intervening
transitions. Hence what we of the nineteenth century,--ethnologists,
politicians, naturalists, and the like--behold in the way of groups,
classes, tribes, families, or what not, is beholden to a great extent
under the guise of _species_; although it may not be so in reality,
and although it might not have been so had we been witnesses to that
earlier condition of things when one variety graduated into another
and the integrity of the chain of likeness was intact. This explains
the term _subjectivity_. A group is sharply defined simply because we
know it in its state of definitude; a state of definitude which has
been brought about by the displacement and obliteration of transitional
forms.

The geographical distribution of the different ethnological divisions
supplies a full and sufficient confirmation of this view. I say "full
and sufficient," because it cannot be said that _all_ our groups are
subjective, _all_ brought about by displacement and obliteration. Some
are due to simple isolation; and this is the reason why the question
was simplified by the omission of all the _insular_ populations. As
a general rule, however, the _more definite the class, the greater
the displacement_; displacement which we sometimes know to have taken
place on historical evidence, and displacement which we sometimes
have to infer. In thus inferring it, the language is the chief test.
The greater the area over which it is spoken with but little or no
variation of dialect, the more recent the extension of the population
that speaks it. Such, at least, is the _primâ facie_ view.

A brief sketch of the chief details that thus verify the position of
the text is all that can now be given.

1. The populations of South-eastern Asia, Mongol in physiognomy and
monosyllabic in speech, have always been considered to form a large
and natural, though not always a primary, group. Two-thirds of its
area, and the whole of its frontier north of the Himalayas, is formed
by the Chinese and Tibetans alone. These differ considerably from each
other, but more from the Turks, Mongols, and Tongusians around. In the
mountainous parts of the Assam frontier and the Burmese empire, each
valley has its separate dialect. Yet these graduate into each other.

2. Central Asia and Siberia are occupied by four great groups, the
populations allied to the Turk, the populations allied to the Mongol,
the populations allied to the Mantshu, and the populations allied to
the Finns. These are pretty definitely distinguished from each other,
as well as from the Chinese and Tibetans. They cover a vast area, an
area, which, either from history or inference, we are certain is far
wider at present than it was originally. They have encroached on each
and all of the populations around, till they meet with families equally
encroaching in the direction of China and Tibet. This it is that makes
the families which are called _Turanian_ and _Monosyllabic_ natural
groups. They are cut off, more or less, from each other and from other
populations by the displacement of groups originally more or less
transitional. The typical populations of the centre spread themselves
at the expense of the sub-typicals of the periphery until the extremes
meet.

3. The circumpolar populations supply similar illustrations. Beginning
with Scandinavia, the Lap stands in remarkable contrast with the
Norwegian of Norway, and the Swede of Sweden. Why is this? Because
the Northman represents a population originally German,--a population
which, however much it may have graduated into the type of the most
southern congeners of the Lap, is now brought into contact with a very
different member of that stock.

4. This phænomenon repeats itself in the arctic portions of America,
where the Algonkin and Loucheux Indians (Indians of the true American
type) come in geographical contact, and in physiological contrast, with
the Eskimo. Consequently along the Loucheux and Algonkin frontiers the
line of demarcation between the Eskimo and the Red Indian (currently
so-called) is abrupt and trenchant. Elsewhere, as along the coast of
the Pacific, the two classes of population graduate into each other.

5. The African family is eminently isolated. It is, however, just along
the point of contact between Africa and Asia that the displacements
have been at a _maximum_. The three vast families of the Berbers, the
Arabs and the Persians, cannot but have obliterated something (perhaps
_much_) in the way of transition.

6. The Bushmen and Hottentots are other instances of extreme contrast,
_i. e._ when compared with the Amakosah Caffres. Yet the contrast
is only at its height in those parts where the proof of Caffre
encroachment is clearest. In the parts east of Wallfisch Bay--traversed
by Mr. Galton--the lines of difference are much less striking.

Such are some of the instances that illustrate what may be called the
"subjectivity of ethnological groups,"--a term which greatly helps to
reconcile two apparently conflicting habits, viz. that of thinking with
the advocates of the unity of the human species, and employing the
nomenclature of their opponents.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF PHILOLOGICAL
CLASSIFICATION AND THE VALUE
OF GROUPS,

WITH
PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO THE LANGUAGES OF
THE INDO-EUROPEAN CLASS.

READ BEFORE THE ETHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY,
28TH FEBRUARY 1849.

In respect to the languages of the Indo-European class, it is
considered that the most important questions connected with their
systematic arrangement, and viewed with reference to the extent to
which they engage the attention of the present writers of philology,
are the three following:--

1. _The question of the Fundamental Elements of certain
Languages._--The particular example of an investigation of this kind is
to be found in the discussion concerning the extent to which it is a
language akin to the Sanskrit, or a language akin to the Tamul, which
forms the basis of certain dialects of _middle_ and even _northern_
India. In this is involved the question as to the relative value of
grammatical and glossarial coincidences.

2. _The question of the Independent or Subordinate Character of certain
Groups._--Under this head comes the investigation, as to whether the
Slavonic and Lithuanic tongues form separate groups, in the way that
the Slavonic and Gothic tongues form separate groups, or whether they
are each members of some higher group. The same inquiry applies to the
languages (real or supposed) derived from the Zend, and the languages
(real or supposed) derived from the Sanskrit.

3. _The question of Extension and Addition._--It is to this that the
forthcoming observations are limited.

Taking as the centre of a group, those forms of speech which have
been recognised as Indo-European (or Indo-Germanic), from the first
recognition of the group itself, we find the languages derived from the
ancient Sanskrit, the languages derived from the ancient Persian, the
languages of Greece and Rome, the Slavonic and Lithuanic languages, and
the languages of the Gothic stock; Scandinavian, as well as Germanic.
The affinity between any two of these groups has currently been
considered to represent the affinity between them all at large.

The way in which the class under which these divisions were contained,
as subordinate groups, has received either _addition_ or _extension_,
is a point of philological history, which can only be briefly noticed;
previous to which a difference of meaning between the words _addition_
and _extension_ should be explained.

To draw an illustration from the common ties of relationship, as
between man and man, it is clear that a family may be enlarged in two
ways.

_a._ A brother, or a cousin, may be discovered, of which the existence
was previously unknown. Herein the family is enlarged, or increased,
by the _real_ addition of a new member, in a recognised degree of
relationship.

_b._ A degree of relationship previously unrecognised may be
recognised, _i. e._, a family wherein it was previously considered that
a second-cousinship was as much as could be admitted within its pale,
may incorporate third, fourth, or fifth cousins. Here the family is
enlarged, or increased, by a _verbal_ extension of the term.

Now it is believed that the distinction between increase by the way of
real addition, and increase by the way of verbal extension, has not
been sufficiently attended to. Yet, that it should be more closely
attended to, is evident; since, in mistaking a verbal increase for a
real one, the whole end and aim of classification is overlooked.

I. _The Celtic._--The publication of Dr. Prichard's Eastern Origin
of the Celtic Nations, in 1831, supplied philologists with the most
definite addition that has, perhaps, yet been made to ethnographical
philology.

Ever since then, the Celtic has been considered to be Indo-European.
Indeed its position in the same group with the Iranian, Classical,
Slavono-Lithuanic, and Gothic tongues, supplied the reason for
substituting the term Indo-_European_ for the previous one
Indo-_Germanic_.

2. Since the fixation of the Celtic, it has been considered that the
Armenian is Indo-European. Perhaps the wellknown affinity between the
Armenian and Phrygian languages directed philologists to a comparison
between the Armenian and Greek. Müller, in his Dorians, points out the
inflexion of the Armenian verb-substantive.

3. Since the fixation of the Celtic, it has been considered that the
old Etruscan is Indo-European.

4. Since the fixation of the Celtic, it has been considered that the
Albanian is Indo-European.

5. Since the fixation of the Celtic, Indo-European elements have been
indicated in the Malay.

6. Since the fixation of the Celtic, Indo-European elements have been
indicated in the Laplandic.

7. Since the fixation of the Celtic, it has been considered that the
Ossetic is Indo-European.

8. Since the consideration of the Ossetic as Indo-European, the
Georgian has been considered as Indo-European likewise.

Now the criticism of the theory which makes the Georgian to be
Indo-European, is closely connected with the criticism of the theory
which makes the Ossetic and the Malay to be Polynesian; and this the
writer reserves for a separate paper. All that he does at present is to
express his opinion, that if any of the seven last-named languages are
Indo-European, they are Indo-European not by real addition, in the way
of recognised relationship, but by a verbal extension of the power of
the term Indo-European. He also believes that this is the view which
is taken, more or less consciously or unconsciously, by the different
authors of the different classifications themselves. If he be wrong in
this notion, he is at issue with them as to a matter of fact; since,
admitting _some_ affinity on the part of the languages in question, he
denies that it is that affinity which connects the Greek and German,
the Latin and Lithuanian.

On the other hand, if he rightly imagine that they are considered as
Indo-European on the strength of some other affinity, wider and more
distant than that which connects the Greek with the German, or the
Latin with the Lithuanic, he regrets that such an extension of a term
should have been made without an exposition of the principles that
suggested it, or the facts by which it is supported; principles and
facts which, when examined by himself, have convinced him that most of
the later movements in this department of ethnographical philology,
have been movements in the wrong direction.

There are two principles upon which languages may be classified.

According to the first, we take two or more languages as we find them,
ascertain certain of their characteristics, and then inquire how far
these characteristics coincide.

Two or more languages thus taken agree in having a large per-centage
of words in common, or a large per-centage of grammatical inflexions;
in which case they would agree in certain _positive_ characters. On
the other hand, two or more such languages agree in the _negative_
fact of having a small and scanty vocabulary, and an inflexional
system equally limited; whilst, again, the scantiness of inflexion
may arise from one of two causes. It may arise from the fact of
inflexions having never been developed at all, or it may arise from
inflexions having been lost subsequent to a full development of the
same. In all such cases as these, the principle of classification would
be founded upon the extent to which languages agreed or differed in
certain external characteristics; and it would be the principle upon
which the mineralogist classifies minerals. It is not worth while to
recommend the adoption of the particular term _mineralogical_, although
mineralogy is the science that best illustrates the distinction. It is
sufficient to state, that in the principle here indicated, there is no
notion of _descent_.

It is well known that in ethnographical philology (indeed in ethnology
at large) the mineralogical principle is not recognised; and that the
principle that _is_ recognised is what may be called the _historical_
principle. Languages are arranged in the same class, not because they
agree in having a copious grammar or scanty grammar, but because they
are descended (or are supposed to be descended) from some common
stock; whilst similarity of grammatical structure, and glossarial
identity are recognised as elements of classification only so far as
they are _evidence_ of such community of origin. Just as two brothers
will always be two brothers, notwithstanding differences of stature,
feature, and disposition, so will two languages which have parted
from the common stock within the same decennium, be more closely
allied to each other, at any time and at all times, than two languages
separated within the same century; and two languages separated within
the same century, will always be more cognate than two within the
same millennium. This will be the case irrespective of any amount of
subsequent similarity or dissimilarity.

Indeed, for the purposes of ethnology, the phenomena of subsequent
similarity or dissimilarity are of subordinate importance. Why they are
so, is involved in the question as to the rate of change in language.
Of two tongues separated at the same time from a common stock, one may
change rapidly, the other slowly; and, hence, a dissimilar physiognomy
at the end of a given period. If the English of Australia were to
change rapidly in one direction, and the English of America in another,
great as would be the difference resulting from such changes, their
ethnological relation would be the same. They would still have the same
affiliation with the same mother-tongue, dating from nearly the same
epoch.

In ethnological philology, as in natural history, _descent_ is the
paramount fact; and without asking how far the value thus given to it
is liable to be refined on, we leave it, in each science, as we find
it, until some future investigator shall have shewn that either for
a pair of animals _not_ descended from a common stock, or for a pair
of languages _not_ originating from the same mother-tongue, a greater
number of general propositions can be predicated than is the case with
the two most dissimilar instances of either an animal or a language
derived from a common origin.

_Languages are allied just in proportion as they were separated from
the same language at the same epoch._

_The same epoch._--The word _epoch_ is an equivocal word, and it is
used designedly because it is so. Its two meanings require to be
indicated, and, then, it will be necessary to ask which of them is to
be adopted here.

The _epoch_, as a period in the duration of a language, may be simply
_chronological_, or it may be _philological_, properly so called.

The space of ten, twenty, a hundred, or a thousand years, is a strictly
chronological epoch. The first fifty years after the Norman conquest
is an epoch in the history of the English language; so is the reign of
Henry the Third, or the Protectorship of Oliver Cromwell. A definite
period of this sort is an epoch in language, just as the term of twenty
or thirty years is an epoch in the life of a man.

On the other hand, a period that, chronologically speaking, is
indefinite, may be an epoch. The interval between one change and an
other, whether long or short, is an epoch. The duration of English
like the English of Chaucer, is an epoch in the history of the English
language; and so is the duration of English like the English of the
Bible translation. For such epochs there are no fixed periods. With
a language that changes rapidly they are short; with a language that
changes slowly they are long.

Now, in which of these two meanings should the word be used in
ethnographical philology? The answer to the question is supplied by
the circumstances of the case, rather than by any abstract propriety.
We cannot give it the first meaning, even if we wish to do so. To
say in what year of the duration of a common mother-tongue the Greek
separated from the stock that was common to it and to the Latin is an
impossibility; indeed, if it could be answered at once, it would be
a question of simple history, not an inference from ethnology: since
ethnology, with its palæontological reasoning from effect to cause,
speaks only where history, with its direct testimony, is silent.

We cannot, then, in ethnological reasoning, get at the precise year in
which any one or two languages separated from a common stock, so as to
say that _this separated so long before the other_.

The _order_, however, of separation we _can_ get at; since we can
_infer_ it from the condition of the mother-tongue at the time of
such separation; this condition being denoted by the condition of the
derived language.

Hence the philological epoch is an approximation to the chronological
epoch, and as it is the nearest approximation that can possibly be
attained, it is practically identical with it, so that the enunciation
of the principle at which we wish to arrive may change its wording, and
now stand as follows,--_Languages are allied, just in proportion as
they were separated from the same language in the same stage_.

Now, if there be a certain number of well-marked forms (say _three_)
of development, and if the one of these coincide with an early period
in the history of language, another with a later one, and the third
with a period later still, we have three epochs wherein we may fix the
date of the separation of the different languages from their different
parent-stocks; and these epochs are natural, just in proportion as the
forms that characterise them are natural.

Again, if each epoch fall into minor and subordinate periods,
characterised by the changes and modifications of the then generally
characteristic forms, we have the basis for subordinate groups and a
more minute classification.

It is not saying too much to say that all this is no hypothesis, but
a reality. There _are_ real distinctions of characteristic forms
corresponding with real stages of development; and the number of these
is three; besides which, one, at least, of the three great stages falls
into divisions and subdivisions.

1. The stage anterior to the evolution of inflexion.--Here each word
has but one form, and relation is expressed by mere juxtaposition, with
or without the superaddition of a change of accent. The tendencies of
this stage are to combine words in the way of composition, but not to
go further. Every word retains, throughout, its separate substantive
character, and has a meaning independent of its juxtaposition with the
words with which it combines.

2. The stage wherein inflexions are developed.--Here, words originally
separate, and afterwards placed in juxtaposition with others, as
elements of a compound term, so far change in form, or so far lose
their separate signification, as to pass for adjuncts, either prefixed
or postfixed to the main word. What was once a word is now the part of
a word, and what was once Composition is now Derivation, certain sorts
of Derivation being called Inflexions, and certain Inflexions being
called Declensions or Conjugations, as the case may be.

3. The stage wherein inflexions become lost, and are replaced by
separate words.--Here case-endings, like the _i_ in _patr-i_, are
replaced by prepositions (in some cases by postpositions), like the
_to_ in _to father_; and personal endings, like the _o_ in _voc-o_, are
replaced by pronouns, like the _I_ in _I call_.

Of the _first_ of these stages, the Chinese is the language which
affords the most typical specimen that can be found in the present
_late_ date of languages--_late_, considering that we are looking for a
sample of its earliest forms.

Of the _last_ of these stages the English of the year 1849 affords the
most typical specimen that can be found in the present _early_ date of
language--_early_, considering that we are looking for a sample of its
latest forms.

Of the second of these stages we must take two languages as the samples.

1. _The Greek._--Here we have the inflexional character in its most
perfect form; _i. e._, the existence, as separate words, of those
sounds and syllables that form inflexions is at its maximum of
concealment; _i. e._, their amalgamation with the primary word (the
essence of inflexion) is most perfect.

2. _The Circassian, Coptic, or Turkish._--In one of these (it is
difficult to say which) the existence as separate words of those
sounds and syllables which form inflexions, is at its _minimum_ of
concealment; _i. e._, their amalgamation with the primary word (the
essence of inflexion) being most imperfect.

This classification is, necessarily, liable to an element of confusion
common to all classifications where the evidence is not exactly of the
sort required by the nature of the question. The nature of the question
here dealt with requires the evidence of the historical kind, _i. e._,
direct testimony. The only evidence, however, we can get at is indirect
and inferential. This engenders the following difficulty. The newest
language of (say) the languages of the secondary formation may be
nearer in chronology, to the oldest language of the third, than to the
first formed language of its own class. Indeed, unless we assume the
suspension of all change for long epochs, and that those coincide with
the periods at which certain languages are given off from their parent
stocks, such _must_ be the case.

Now, although this is a difficulty, it is no greater difficulty than
the geologists must put up with. With them also there are the phenomena
of transition, and such phenomena engender unavoidable complications.
They do so, however, without overthrowing the principles of their
classification.

The position of a language in respect to its stage of development is
one thing,--the position in respect to its allied tongues another.

Two languages may be in the same stage (and, _as such_, agree), yet be
very distant from each other in respect to affiliation or affinity.
Stage for stage the French is more closely connected with the English,
than the English with the Mœso-Gothic. In the way of affiliation,
the converse is the case.

Languages are allied (or, what is the same thing, bear evidence of
their alliance), according to the number of forms that they have in
common; since (subject to one exception) these common forms must have
been taken from the common mother-tongue.

Two languages separated from the common mother-tongue, subsequent to
the evolution of (_say_) a form for the dative case, are more allied
than two languages similarly separated anterior to such an evolution.

_Subject to one exception._ This means, that it is possible that two
languages may appear under certain circumstances more allied than they
really are, and _vice versâ_.

They may appear more allied than they really are, when, after
separating from the common mother-tongue during the ante-inflexional
stage, they develop their inflexions on the same principle, although
_independently_. This case is more possible than proved.

They may appear less allied than they really are, when, although
separated from the common mother-tongue after the evolution of a
considerable amount of inflexion, each taking with it those inflexions,
the one may retain them, whilst the other loses them _in toto_. This
case also is more possible than proved.

Each of these cases involves a complex question in philology:--the
one the phenomena connected with the _rate of change_; the other the
_uniformity of independent processes_.

These questions are likely to affect future researches more than they
have affected the researches hitherto established. Another question has
affected the researches hitherto established more than it is likely to
affect future ones. This is the question as to the _fundamental unity,
or non-unity of language_. Upon this the present writer has expressed
an opinion elsewhere. At present he suggests that the more the general
unity of the human language is admitted, the clearer will be the way
for those who work at the details of the different affiliations.
As long as it is an open question, whether one class of languages
be _wholly_ unconnected with others, _any_ connection engenders an
inclination to arrange it under the group previously recognised.
I believe that this determined the position of the Celtic in the
Indo-European group. I have great doubts whether if _some_ affinity had
been recognised from the beginning, it would even have stood where it
now does. The question, when Dr. Prichard undertook his investigations,
was not so much whether the Celtic was in the exact ratio to any or all
of the then recognised European languages in which they were to each
other, but whether it was in any relation at all. This being proved, it
fell into the class at once.

The present writer believes that the Celtic tongues were separated
from their mother-tongue at a comparatively early period of the second
stage; _i. e._, when but few inflexions had been evolved; whilst the
Classic, Gothic, Lithuano-Slavonic (Sarmatian), and Indo-Persian
(Iranian) were separated at comparatively late periods of the same
stage, _i. e._, when many inflexions had been evolved.

Hence he believes that, in order to admit the Celtic, the meaning of
the term Indo-European was extended.

Regretting this (at the same time admitting that the Celtic tongue is
more Indo-European than any thing else), he believes that it is too
late to go back to the older and more restricted use of the term; and
suggests (as the next best change), the propriety of considering the
Indo-European class as divided into two divisions, the older containing
the Celtic, the newer containing the Iranian, Classical, Sarmatian,
and Gothic tongues. All further extensions of the term he believes to
be prejudicial to future philology; believing also that all supposed
additions to the Indo-European class _have_ (with the exception,
perhaps, of the Armenian) involved such farther extension.

TRACES OF A BILINGUAL TOWN IN
ENGLAND.

READ AT THE
MEETING OF THE BRITISH ASSOCIATION FOR THE
ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE 1853.

It is well-known that the termination _-by_ as the name of a village
or town is a sign of Danish occupancy. At the present time it means
_town_ in Scandinavia; and Christiania or Copenhagen is called _By_,
or _Byen_, = _the town_, _capital_, or metropolis. The English
form is _-ton_. When an Angle said New_ton_, a Dane said New_by_.
The distribution of the forms in _-by_ has already commanded much
attention; so that it is not the intention of the present writer to say
much about it.

Along, however, with this form go others: _e. g._

The English _Ship_ becomes in Danish _Skip_ as in _Skipton_
---- _Fish_ ---- _Fisk_ ---- _Fiskerton_
---- _Worm_ ---- _Orm_ ---- _Ormsby_
---- _Church_ ---- _Kirk_ ---- _Ormskirk_

&c. &c.

In like manner the Roman _castra_ becomes--

In English _chester_ or _cester_, in Danish _caster_ and _caistor_.
Contrast the forms Tad_caster_, Lan_caster_ &c. with _Chester_, or
Bi_cester_ and this difference becomes apparent.

Now the river Ouse in the parts about Wansford separates the counties
of Huntingdon and Northampton--in the former of which no place ending
in _-by_ is to be found, and all the _castra_ are _chester_; as
Godman_chester_. In Northamptonshire, on the other hand, the Danish
forms in _-by_ are common, and the _castra_ are _caistor_, or _caster_.
All the Danish is on one side. Nothing is Danish on the other. The
river has every appearance of having formed a frontier. On it lay the
Roman station of Durobrivis--with, probably, _castra_ on each side. At
any rate, there are, at the present moment, two villages wherein that
term appears. On the Huntingdon side is the village of _Chester_ton
(English). On the Northampton side is that of _Caistor_ (Danish).

ON THE ETHNOLOGICAL POSITION OF
CERTAIN TRIBES ON THE GARROW
HILLS.

READ AT THE

MEETING OF THE BRITISH ASSOCIATION FOR
THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE HELD
AT YORK 1844.

The affinities of the Garrow language, a language which Klaproth in his
Asia Polyglotta leaves unplaced, are with the Tibetan.

The bearings of this will be found in the next notice.

NOTE (1859).

This was written before I had seen Brown's Tables--wherein the affinity
is virtually, though not directly affirmed.

ON THE TRANSITION BETWEEN THE
TIBETAN AND INDIAN FAMILIES IN
RESPECT TO CONFORMATION.

BRITISH ASSOCIATION--BIRMINGHAM 1849.

The remarks of Mr. Hodgson on the Kooch, Bodo, and Dhimal, along with
some of Dr. Bird's on the monosyllabic affinities of the Tamulian
languages have an important bearing on this question. So have the
accounts of the Chepang and Garo tribes. The phenomena are those of
transition.

We have a practical instance of this in the doctrine laid down by
Mr. Hodgson in his valuable monograph. In this, he makes the Bodo a
Tamulian _i. e._ a member of the same family with the hill-tribes
of India and the Dekhan; meaning thereby the aborigines of India,
contrasted with the populations to which he ascribes the Sanskrit
language and the Hindu physiognomy. In the Tamulian form there is "a
somewhat lozenge contour, caused by the large cheek-bones"--"a broader
flatter face"--"eyes less evenly crossing the face in their line of
picture"--"beard deficient"--"with regard to the peculiar races of the
latter" (_i. e._ the Tamulians) "it can only be safely said that the
mountaineers exhibit the Mongolian type of mankind more distinctly than
the lowlanders, and that they have, in general, a paler yellower hue
than the latter, amongst whom there are some (individuals at least)
who are nearly as black as negroes.--The Bodo are scarcely darker than
the mountaineers above them--whom they resemble--only with all the
physiognomical characteristics softened down.--The Kols have a similar
cast of face."

This is the evidence of a competent observer to the fact of the Bodo
&c. being, more or less, what is called Mongol; all the more valuable
because he had not, then, recognized their language as monosyllabic.
Meanwhile he never separates them from the Kols &c. but always
connects the two. In other words, he gives us so much evidence to the
fact of the Kols &c. being, more or less, Mongol also. But the Kols are
the aborigines of India; whilst the Bodo are Tibetan.

NOTE (1859).

Recent researches have a tendency to make the Kols less Tamul and more
Tibetan than they were held to be in 1849.

ON THE AFFINITIES OF THE LANGUAGES
OF CAUCASUS WITH THE MONOSYLLABIC
LANGUAGES.

READ AT THE

MEETING OF THE BRITISH ASSOCIATION AT
CAMBRIDGE 1845.

Taking the samples of the Georgian, Lesgian, Mizhdzhedzhi, and
Circassian classes as we find them in the Asia Polyglotta and comparing
them with the specimens of the monosyllabic languages in the same work,
in Brown's Tables, and in Leyden's paper on the Indo-Chinese Languages,
we find the following coincidences.[7]

[Footnote 7: In the Asiatic Transactions of Bengal and the Asiatic
Researches.--Figure 1. denotes the Caucasian, Figure 2. monosyllabic
forms of speech. This list was first _published_ in 1850, in my
Varieties of Man--_pp_ 123-128.]

_English_, sky
1. Circassian, _whapeh_, _wuafe_
2. Aka, _aupa_
Khamti, _fa_

_English_, sky
1. Absné, _kaukh_
Altekesek, _hak_
2. Akush, _kaka_
Burmese, _kydukkhe_

_English_, sky
1. Tshetshentsh, _tulak_
2. Koreng, _talo_
Khoibu, _thullung_

_English_, sun
1. Georgian, _mse_
Mingrelian, _bsha_
Suanic, _mizh_
2. Kuan-chua, _zhi_
Sianlo, _suu_

_English_, fire
1. Absné, _mza_
Circassian, _mafa_
2. Khamti, _fai_
Siam, _fai_
Aka, _umma_
Aber, _eme_
Burmese, _mi_
Karyen, _me_
Manipur, _mai_
Songphu, _mai_
Kapwi, &c., _mai_

_English_, day
1. Tshetshentsh, _dini_
Ingúsh, _den_
Kasikumuk, _kini_
2. Koreng, _nin_
Jili, _tana_
Singpho, _sini_

_English_, day
1. Andi, _thyal_
2. Garo, _salo_

_English_, moon
1. Georgian, _twai_ = _month_
Suanic, _twai_
2. Moitay, _ta_

_English_, star
1. Kasikumuk, _zuka_
2. Garo, _asake_
Jili, _sakan_
Singpho, _sagan_

_English_, hill
1. Kasikumuk, _suntu_
2. Chinese, _shan_

_English_, earth
1. Absné, _tshullah_
Altekesek, _tzula_
2. Kapwi, _talai_
Khoibu, _thalai_

_English_, earth
1. Andi, _zkhur_
2. Mishimi, _tari_

_English_, earth
1. Dido, _tshedo_
2. Koreng, _kadi_

_English_, snow
1. Lesgian, _asu_
Circassian, _uas_
Abassian, _asse_
2. Chinese, _siwe_

_English_, salt
1. Lesgian [8](3), _zam_
2. Chinese, _yan_

_English_, salt
1. Kabutsh, _tshea_
Dido, _zio_
Kasikumuk, _psu_
Akush, _dze_
2. Tibetan, _tsha_

_English_, dust
1. Tshetshentsh, _tshen_
2. Chinese, _tshin_

_English_, sand
1. Avar, _tshimig_
2. Tibetan, _bydzoma_

_English_, sand
1. Circassian, _pshakhoh_
2. Chinese, _sha_

_English_, leaf
1. Tshetshentsh, _ga_
Ingush, _ga_
2. Chinese, _ye_

_English_, tree
1. Mizjeji, _che_
Circassian, _dzeg_
2. Chinese, _shu_

_English_, stone
1. Andi, _hinzo_
2. Siamese, _hin_

_English_, sea
1. Georgian, _sgwa_
2. Chinese, _shuy_ = _water_
Tibet, _çi_ = _do_
Môn, _zhe_ = _do_
Ava, _te_ = _do_

_English_, river
1. Anzukh, _or kyare_
Avar, _hor_, _khor_
2. Champhung, _urai_

_English_, river
1. Abassian, _aji_
2. Tibetan, _tshavo_

_English_, river
1. Altekesek, _sedu_
Absné, _dzedu_
2. Songphu, _duidai_

_English_, water
1. Kasikumuk, _sin_
Akush, _shen_
Kubitsh, _tzun_, _sin_
2. Singpho, _ntsin_
Jili, _mchin_
Manipur, _ising_

_English_, water
1. Absné, _dzeh_
2. Songphu, _dui_
Kapwi, _tui_
Tankhul, _tu_

_English_, water
1. Mizjeji, _chi_
2. Garo, _chi_

_English_, rain
1. Andi, _za_
Ingush, _du_
Abassian, _kua_
2. Chinese, _yu_

_English_, summer
1. Tushi, _chko_
Mizjeji, _achke_
2. Chinese, _chia_

_English_, winter
1. Anzukh, _tlin_
Andi, _klinu_
Kasikumuk, _kintul_
Akush, _chani_
Absné, _gene_
2. Tibetan, _r gun_
Chinese, _tung_

_English_, cow
1. Circassian, _bsa_
2. Tibetan, _r shu_

_English_, dog
1. Avar, _choi_
Andi, _choi_
Dido, _gwai_
Kubitsh, _koy_
Circassian, _khhah_
2. Chinese, _keu_
Tibetan, _kyi_

_English_, horse
1. Lesgian, _tshu_
Circassian, _tshe_, _shu_
2. Tibetan, _r dda_

_English_, bird
1. Avar, _hedo_
2. Tankhul, _ata_

_English_, bird
1. Andi, _purtie_
2. Abor, _pettang_
Aka, _pútah_

_English_, fish
1. Avar, _tshua_
Circassian, _bbzheh_
2. Khamti, _pa_
Siamese, _pla_
Aka, _ngay_
Abor, _engo_
Burmese, _nga_
Karyen, _nga_
Singpho, _nga_
Songphu, _kha_
Mishimi, _ta_
Maram, _khai_
Luhuppa, _khai_
Tankhul, _khi_
Anam, _khi_

_English_, flesh
1. Kabutsh, _kho_
Abassian, _zheh_
2. Chinese, _shou_
Tibetan, _zhsha_

_English_, egg
1. Tshetshentsh, _khua_
2. Khamti, _khai_
Siamese, _khai_

_English_, egg
1. Kabutsh, _tshemuza_
2. Mishimi, _mtiumaie_

_English_, egg
1. Akush, _dukhi_
2. Garo, _to`ka_

_English_, son
1. Mizjeji, _ua_, _woe_
2. Tibetan, _bu_

_English_, hair
1. Kasikumuk, _tshara_
2. Jili, _kara_
Singpho, _kara_

_English_, hair
1. Avar, _sab_
Anzukh, _sab_
Tshari, _sab_
2. Burmese, _shaben_
Manipur, _sam_
Songpho (6), _sam_

_English_, hair
1. Tshetshentsh, _kazeresh_
2. Karyen, _khosu_
Tankhul, _kosen_

_English_, head
1. Georgian, _tawi_
Lazic, _ti_
Suanic, _tchum_
2. Chinese, _teu_, _seu_
Anam, _tu ḋ u_
Ava, _kang_ (5)

_English_, head
1. Andi, _mier_, _maœr_
2. Assam, _mur_

_English_, head
1. Absné, _kah_, _aka_
Altekesek, _zeka_
2. Karen, _kho_
Manipur, _kok_
Taukhul, _akao_

_English_, mouth
1. Lesgian, _kall_
2. Chinese, _keu_
Anamese, _kau_
Tibetan, _ka_

_English_, mouth
1. Tushi, _bak_
2. Teina, _pak_

_English_, mouth
1. Georgian, _piri_
Mingrelian, _pidehi_
Suanic, _pil_
2. Ava, _parat_ (4)

_English_, mouth
1. Kubitsh, _mole_
2. Khoibu, _mur_
Maring, _mur_

_English_, mouth
1. Andi, _kol_, _tkol_
Lesgian (3), _kaal_
2. Manipur, _chil_

_English_, eye
1. Andi, _puni_
2. Chinese, _yan_

_English_, ear
1. Avar, _een_, _ain_, _en_
Anzukh, _in_
Tshari, _een_, _ein_
Andi, _kanka_, _andika_
2. Burmese, _na_
Karen, _naku_
Singpho, _na_
Songphu, _anhukon_
Kapwi, _kana_
Koreng, _kon_
Maram, _inkon_
Champhung, _khunu_
Luhuppa, _khana_
Tankhul, _akhana_
Koibu, _khana_

_English_, tooth
1. Lesgian (3), _sibi_
Avar, _zavi_
Circassian, _dzeh_
2. Tibetan, _so_
Chinese, _tshi_

_English_, tongue
1. Circassian, _bbse_
Absné, _ibs_
2. Tibetan, _rdzhe_
Chinese, _shi_

_English_, foot
1. Kasikumuk, _dzhan_
2. Khamti, _tin_

_English_, foot
1. Mizjeji (3), _kog_, _koeg_
2. Manipur, _khong_
Tankhul, _akho_

_English_, foot
1. Andi, _tsheka_
Kubitsh, _tag_
Jili, _takkhyai_
2. Garo, _jachok_

_English_, foot
1. Georgian, _pechi_
2. Maplu, _pokâ_ = _leg_

_English_, finger
1. Mingrelian, _kiti_
Moitay, _khoit_ = _hand_
2. Play, _kozu_ = _do_

_English_, hand
1. Georgian, _chéli_
Lazic, _ieh_
Mingrelian, _ché_
Suanic, _shi_
2. Chinese, _sheu_

_English_, hand
1. Andi, _katshu_
Kabutsh, _koda_
2. Khoibu, _khut_
Manipur, _khut_

_English_, blood
1. Absné, _tsha_, _sha_
Tshetshentsh, _zi_
Ingús, _zi_
2. Singpho, _sai_
Songpho, _zyai_
Kapwi, _the_
Maram, _azyi_
Champhung, _azi_
Luhuppa, _ashi_
Tankhul, _asu_

_English_, blood
1. Dido, _é_
2. Manipur, _i_
Koibu, _hi_
Maring, _hi_

_English_, blood
1. Tshetshentsh, _yioh_
Circassian, _tlih_
2. Chinese, _chine_

_English_, skin
1. Circassian, _ffeh_
2. Chinese, _pi_

_English_, skin
1. Dido, _bik_
2. Tibetan, _shbagsbba_

_English_, bone
1. Tshetshentsh, _dyackt_
Ingúsh, _tekhh_
Akúsh, _likka_
Tshari, _rekka_
2. Khamti, _nuk_
Siamese, _kraduk_

_English_, great
1. Georgian, _didi_
Mingrelian, _didi_
2. Canton, _ta_
Kuan-chua, _ta_, _da_
Tonkin, _drai_
Cochin-chinese, _dai_
Tibet, _çe_
Ava, _kyi_ (5)
Play, _du_
Teina, _to_

_English_, bad
1. Mingrelian, _moglach_
Suanic, _choya_
2. Chinese, _go gok_
Môn, _kah_
Ava, _makaung_ (4)
---- _gye_ (2)

_English_, warm
1. Ingush, _tau_
2. Tibetan, _dzho_

_English_, blue
1. Mizjeji (3), _siene_
2. Chinese, _zing_
Tibetan, _swongbba_

_English_, yellow
1. Circassian, _khozh_
2. Abassian, _kha_
Chinese, _chuang_

_English_, green
1. Avar, _ursheria_
Anzukh, _ordjin_
Ingush, _send_
2. Tibetan, _shjanggu_

_English_, below
1. Georgian, _kwewrt_, _kwerno_
2. Ava, _haukma_
Yo, _auk_
Passuko, _hoko_
Kolaun, _akoa_

_English_, one
1. Lesgian, _zo_
Akush, _za_
Andi, _sew_
Dido, _zis_
Kasikumuk, _zabá_
Mizjeji, _tza_
Abassian, _seka_
2. Tibetan, _dzig_

_English_, three
1. Georgian, _sami_
Lazic, _jum_
Mingrelian, _sami_
Suanic, _semi_
2. Canton Chinese, _sam_
Kuanchua, _san_
Tonkin, _tam_
Tibetan, _sum_
Môn, _sum_
Ava, _thaum_
Siam, _sum_

_English_, four
1. Abassian, _pshi ba_
2. Tibetan, _bshi_
Chinese, _szu_

_English_, five
1. Georgian, _chuthi_
Lazic, _chut_
Mingrelian, _chuthi_
Suanic, _wochu'si_
2. Ava, _yadu_

_English_, six
1. Tshetshentsh, _yatsh_
Ingush, _yatsh_
Tushi, _itsh_
2. Tibetan, _dzhug_

_English_, nine
1. Circassian, _bgu_
2. Tibetan, _rgu_
Chinese, _kieu_

_English_, ten
1. Circassian, _pshe_
Abassian, _zheba_
2. Tibetan, _bdzhu_
Chinese, _shi_

[Footnote 8: This means in three dialects.]

ADDENDA (1859).

The limited amount of the _data_ must be borne in mind. As has been
stated, no vocabularies beyond those of the four works enumerated
were used. Had the comparison been more extended, the evidence of
the Tibetan affinities of the languages under notice would have been
stronger. That this would have been the case has since been proved.

In 1849, just before the publication of my Varieties of Man, I found
from my friend Mr. Norris that, upon _grammatical_ grounds, he had
come to the same conclusion. A reference to the, then, recently
published contributions of Rosen satisfied me that this was the case.
The following is an abstract of his exposition of the structure of (1)
the Iron, and (2) the Circassian.

(1)

IRON.

The Declension of Substantives is as follows;

_Singular._ _Plural._
_Nom._ fid (_father_) fid-t`-a
_Gen._ fid-i fid-t`-i
_Dat._ fid-én fid-t`-am
_Abl._ fid-éi fid-t`-éi

_Nom._ moi (_husband_) moi-t`-a
_Gen._ moi-i moi-t`-i
_Dat._ moi-én moi-t`-am
_Abl._ moi-éi moi-t`-éi.

The Comparative Degree is formed by the addition of _-dar_; as
_chorz_ = _good_, _chorz-dar_ = _better_.

The pronouns of the two first persons are as follows;

1. _Az_ = _I_. Defective in the oblique cases. _Man_ or ma, defective.

2. _Di_ = _Thou_. Defective in the nominative singular.

_Sing._ _Plural._
_Nom._ -- mach
_Gen._ man-i mach-i
_Dat._ man-an mach-én
_Accus._ man mach
_Abl._ man-éi mach-éi.

_Nom._ di si-mach
_Gen._ daw-i[9] si-mach-i
_Dat._ daw-on si-mach-én
_Accus._ daw si-mach
_Abl._ daw-éi si-mach-éi.

[Footnote 9: _Or_ dachi.]

The signs of the persons of the verbs are _-in_, _-is_, _-i_; _-am_
_-ut`_, _-inc`_; _e. g._

qus-_in_ = aud-_io_ qus-_am_ = aud-_imus_
qus-_is_ = aud-_is_ qus-_ut`_ = aud-_itis_
qus-_i_ = aud-_it_ qus-_inc`_ = aud-_iunt_.

The addition of the sound of _t_ _helps_ to form the Irôn preterite. I
say _helps_, because if we compare the form _s_-_ko_-t-_on_ = _I made_,
with the root _kan_, or the form _fé_-_qus_-t-_on_ = _I heard_, with the
root _qus_, we see, at once, that the addition of _t_ is only a _part_
of an inflection.

Beyond this, the tenses become complicated; and that because they are
evidently formed by the agglutination of separate words; the so-called
imperfect being undoubtedly formed by affixing the preterite form of
the word _to make_. The perfect and future seem to be similarly formed,
dele from the auxiliary = _be_; as may be collected from the following
paradigms.

_Plural--Present_, st-am, st-ut, i-st-i = _sumus_, _estis_, _sunt_.
_Singular--Preterite_, u-t-an, u-t-as, u-d-i = _fui_, _fuisti_, _fuit_.
_Singular--Future_, u-gín-an, u-gín-as, u-gén-i
= _ero_, _eris_, _erit_.
_Imperative_ fau = _esto_.

_Root_, k`an = _make_.
_Preterite_, = s-k`o-t-on,[10] s-k`o-t-ai, s-k`o-t-a
= _feci_, _fecisti_, _fecit_.

[Footnote 10: Or fa-ko-t-on, &c.]

_Root_, kus = _hear_.

INDICATIVE.

_Sing._ _Plural._
_Present_, 1. qus-_in_ qus-_am_.
2. qus-_is_ qus-_ut`_
3. qus-_i_ qus-_inc`_.
_Imperfect_, 1. qus-_ga_-_k`o_-t-_on_ qus-_ga_-_k`o_-t-_am_
2. qus-_ga_-_k`o_-t-_ai_ qus-_ga_-_k`o_-t-_al`_
3. qus-_ga_-_k`o_-t-_a_ qus-_ga_-_k`o_-t-_oi_
_Perfect_, 1. fé-_qus_-t-_on_ fé-_qus_-t-_am_
2. fé-_qus_-t-_ai_ fé-_qus_-t-_al`_
3. fé-_qus_-t-_a_ fé-_qus_-t-_oi_
_Future_, 1. bai-_qus_-_g'in_-_an_ bai-_qus_-_g'i_-_s_t_am_
2. bai-_qus_-_g'in_-_as_ bai-_qus_-_g'i_-_s_t_ut`_
3. bai-_qus_-_g'én_-_i_ bai-_qus_-_g'i_-_s_t_i_

CONJUNCTIVE.

_Sing._ _Plural._

_Present_, 1. qus-_on_ qus-_am_
2. qus-_ai_ qus-_at`_
3. qus-_ai_ qus-_oi_
_Imperfect_, 1. qus-_ga_-_k`an_-_on_ qus-_ga_-_k`an_-_am_
2. qus-_ga_-_k`an_-_ai_ qus-_ga_-_k`an_-_ai`_
3. qus-_ga_-_k`an_-_a_ qus-_ga_-_k`an_-_oi_

IMPERATIVE.

1. ---- bai-_qus_-_am_
2. bai-_qus_ bai-_qus_-_ut`_
3. bai-_qus_-_a_ bai-_qus_-_oi_

INFINITIVE, qus-_in_.

_Participles_, qus-_ag_, qus-_gond_, qus-_in_-_ag_.

(2)

CIRCASSIAN.

In the Absné dialect _ab_ = _father_, _ácĕ_ = _horse_; _ab
ácĕ_ = _father's horse_, (verbally, _father horse_). Here position
does the work of an inflection.

The use of prepositions is as limited as that of inflections, _sara
s-ab ácĕ ist`ap_ _I my-father horse give_, or _giving am_; _abna amus`w
izbt_ = _wood bear see-did_ = _I saw a bear in the wood_; _awinĕ wi
as`wkĕ_ = (in) _house two doors_; _ácĕ sis`lit_ = (on) _horse mount
I-did_.

Hence, declension begins with the formation of the plural number. This
consists in the addition of the syllable _k`wa_.

_Acĕ_ = _horse_; _ácĕ_-_k`wa_ = _horses_.
_Atsla_ = _tree_; _astla_-_k`wa_ = _trees_.
_Awinĕ_ = _house_; _awinĕ_-_k`wa_ = _houses_.

In the pronouns there is as little inflection as in the substantives
and adjectives, _i. e._ there are no forms corresponding to _mihi_,
_nobis_, &c.

1. When the pronoun signifies possession, it takes an inseparable form,
is incorporated with the substantive that agrees with it, and is _s-_
for the first, _w-_ for the second, and _i-_ for the third, person
singular. Then for the plural it is _h-_ for the first person, _s`-_
for the second, _r-_ for the third: _ab_ = father;

_S-ab_ = _my father_; _h-ab_ = _our father_.
_W-ab_ = _thy father_; _s`-ab_ = _your father_.
_T-ab_ = _his (her) father_; _r-ab_ = _their father_.

2. When the pronoun is governed by a verb, it is similarly incorporated.

3. Hence, the only inseparable form of the personal pronoun is to be
found when it governs the verb. In this case the forms are:

_Sa-ra_ = I _Ha-ra_ = we
_Wa-ra_ = thou _S`a-ru_ = ye
_Ui_ = he _U-bart`_ = they.

In _sa-ra_, _wa-ra_, _ha-ra_, _s`a-ra_, the _-ra_ is non radical. The
word _u-bart`_ is a compound.

The ordinal = _first_ is _achani_. This seems formed from _aka_ = _one_.

The ordinal = _second_ is _agi_. This seems unconnected with the
word _wi-_ = _two_; just as in English, _second_ has no etymological
connection with _two_.

The remaining ordinals are formed, by affixing _-nto_, and (in some
case) prefixing _-a_; as

_Cardinals._ _Ordinals._

3, Chi-_ba_[11] _A_-chi-_nto_
4, P`s`i-_ba_ _A_-p`s`i-_nto_
5, Chu-_ba_ _A_-chu-_nto_
6, F-_ba_ F-_into_
7, Bis`-_ba_ Bs-_into_
8, Aa-_ba_ _A_-a-_nto_
9, S`-_ba_ S`b-_into_
10, S`wa-_ba_ Sw-_ento_.

[Footnote 11: Non-radical.]

In the Absné verbs the distinction of time is the only distinction
denoted by any approach to the character of an inflection; and here
the change has so thoroughly the appearance of having been effected
by the addition of some separate and independent words, that it is
doubtful whether any of the following forms can be considered as true
inflections.

_Root_, C'wis`l = _ride_

1. _Present_, C'wis`l-_ap_ = _I ride_[12] = _equito_.
2. _Present_, C'wis`l-_oit_ = _I am riding_.
_Imperfect_, C'wis`l-_an_ = _equitabam_.
_Perfect_, C'wis`l-_it_ = _equitavi_.
_Plusquamperfect_, C'wis`l-_chén_ = _equitaveram_.
_Future_, C'wis`l-_as`t_ = _equitabo_.

[Footnote 12: Or, _am in the habit of riding_.]

The person and number is shown by the pronoun. And here must be noticed
a complication. The pronoun appears in two forms:--

1st. In full, _sara_, _wara_ &c.

2nd. As an inseparable prefix; the radical letter being prefixed and
incorporated with the verb. It cannot, however, be said that this is a
true inflexion.

_Sing._ 1. _sara s_-c'wisl-_oit_ = _I ride_
2. _wara u_-c'wisl-_oit_ = _thou ridest_
3. _ui i_-c'wisl-_oit_ = _he rides_.

_Plur._ 1. _hara ha_-c'wisl-_oit_ = _we ride_
2. _s`ara s`_-c'wisl-_oit_ = _ye ride_
3. _ubart r_-c'wisl-_oit_ = _they ride_

In respect to the name of the class under notice I suggested in 1850
the term Dioscurian from the ancient Dioscurias. There it was that
the chief commerce between the Greeks and Romans, and the natives of
the Caucasian range took place. According to Pliny, it was carried
on by thirty interpreters, so numerous were the languages. The great
multiplicity of mutually unintelligible tongues is still one of the
characteristics of the parts in question. To have used the word
_Caucasian_ would have been correct, but inconvenient. It is already
_mis_-applied in another sense, _i. e._, for the sake of denoting the
so-called Caucasian race, consisting, or said to consist, of Jews,
Greeks, Circassians, Scotchmen, ancient Romans, and other heterogeneous
elements.

In his paper on the Mongolian Affinities of the Caucasians, published
in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal (1853) Mr. Hodgson has
both confirmed and developed the doctrine here indicated--his _data_
on the side of Caucasus being those of the Asia Polyglotta, but those
on the side of Tibet and China being vastly augmented; and that, to a
great extent, through his own efforts and researches.

Upon the evidence of Mr. Hodgson I lay more than ordinary value; not
merely on the strength of his acumen and acquirements in general, but
from the fact of his _ex-professo_ studies as a naturalist leading him
to over-value rather than under-value those differences of physical
conformation that (to take extreme forms) contrast the Georgian and
Circassian noble with the Chinese; or Tibetan labourer. Nevertheless,
his evidence is decided.

ON THE TUSHI LANGUAGE.

READ
BEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY,
FEBRUARY THE 15TH. 1858.

So little light has been thrown upon the languages of Caucasus,
that a publication of the year 1856, entitled _Versuch über die
Thusch-Sprache_, by A. Schieffner, may be allowed to stand as a text
for a short commentary.

The Tushi is a language belonging to the least known of the five
classes into which Klaproth, in his _Asia Polyglotta_, distributes the
languages of Caucasus: viz. (1.) the Georgian. (2.) the Osset or Iron.
(3.) the Lesgian. (4.) the Mizhdzhedzhi. And (5.) the Tsherkess or
Circassian. It is to the fourth of these that the Tushi belongs; the
particular district in which it is spoken being that of Tzowa, where it
is in contact with the Georgian of Georgia; from which, as well as from
the Russian, it has adopted several words.

The _data_ consist in communications from a native of the district,
Georg Ziskorow, with whom the author came in contact at St. Petersburg.
They have supplied a grammatical sketch, a short lexicon, and some
specimens in the way of composition, consisting of translations of
portions of the Gospels, and two short tales of an Arabic or Persian
rather than a truly native character. They are accompanied by a German
translation.

Taking the groups as we find them in Klaproth, we may ask what amount
of illustration each has received in respect to its _grammar_. In
respect to the vocabularies, the _Asia Polyglotta_ gives us specimens
of them all.

The Georgian has long been known through the grammar of Maggi,
published upwards of two centuries ago. The researches of Rosen on
its several dialects are quite recent. Of the Iron there is a copious
dictionary by Sjögren, and a short sketch of its grammar by Rosen. The
alphabet is Russian, with additions. Rosen has also given a grammatical
sketch of the Circassian: This, however, as well as his notice of the
Osset, is exceedingly brief. Of the Lesgian we have no grammar at all;
and of the Mizhdzhedzhi, or Tshetshent group, the first grammatical
sketch is the one before us.

The alphabet is the ordinary Roman modified; the work being addressed
to the Russians rather than the natives, and to the European _savans_
in general rather than to the Russians. Otherwise the Georgian alphabet
might have been used with advantage; for it is especially stated that
the Georgian and Tushi sound-systems are alike. The modifications to
which our own alphabet has been subjected, are those that Castrèn has
made in his Samoyed grammar and lexicon. So that we may say that it is
in Castrèn's Samoyed mode of writing that Schieffner's Tushi grammar
and lexicon are exhibited.

In respect to the general relations of the language, the evidence of
the work under notice is confirmatory (though not absolutely) of the
views to which the present writer has committed himself, viz.--(1.)
that the languages of Caucasus in general are so nearly _mono_-syllabic
as to be with fitness designated _pauro_-syllabic; (2.) that the
distinction drawn by Klaproth between the Mizhdzhedzhi and Lesgian
groups is untenable; both belonging to the same class, a fact by which
the philologic ethnography of Caucasus is, _pro tanto_, simplified.
Upon the first of these points Schieffner writes, that the avoidance of
polysyllabic forms has introduced all manner of abbreviations in the
language; upon the second, that the little he has seen of the Lesgian
grammar induces him to connect it with the Tshetshents. It should be
added, however, that in respect to its monosyllabic character, he
maintains that the shortness of many of its words is due to a secondary
process; so that the older form of the language was more polysyllabic
than the present.

Of the chief details, the formation of the cases of the nouns comes
first. The declension of the personal pronouns is as follows. With a
slight modification it is that of the ordinary substantive as well.

SINGULAR. I. THOU. HE.

_Nominative_ so ḥo o.
_Genitive_ sai ḥai ox̣u.
---- ---- ---- oụx.
---- ---- ---- ọxuin.
_Dative_ son ḥon ọxun.
---- sona ---- oụxna.
_Instructive_ as aḥ ọxus.
---- asa aḥa oxuse.
---- ---- ---- oụxse.
_Affective_ sox ḥox ọxux.
_Allative_ sogo ḥogo ọxugo.
---- ---- ---- oụxgo.
_Elative_ soxi ḥoxi oụxxi.
---- ---- ---- ọxxi (?).
_Comitative_ soci ḥoci ọxuci.
---- ---- ---- oụxci.
---- ---- ---- ọxci (?).
_Terminative_ sogomci ḥogomci oụxgomci.
_Adessive_ sogoh ḥogoḥ oụxgoḥ.
_Ablative_ sogredah ḥogredah oụxgore.
---- ---- ---- oụxgoredah.

PLURAL. WE. YE. THEY.
______^________
| |
_Nominative_ wai 'txo su obi.
_Genitive_ wai 'txai ṡui ọxri.
_Dative_ wain 'txon ṡun ọxarn.
---- ---- ---- suna ----
_Instructive_ wai a'txo aiṡ ọxar.
---- ---- ---- aṡi ọxra.
_Affective_ waix 'txox ṡux ọxarx.
_Allative_ waigo 'txogo ṡugo ọxargo.
_Illative_ wailo 'txolo ṡulo ọxarlo.
_Elative_ waixi 'tzoxi ṡuxi ọxarxi.
_Comitative_ waici 'txoci ṡuci ọxarci.
_Adessive_ waigoh 'txogoh ṡugoḥ ọxargoḥ.
_Inessive(c.)_ wailoh 'txoloḥ ṡuloḥ ọxarloḥ.
_Ablative(c.)_ waigre 'txogre ṡugre ọxargore.
---- ---- ---- ---- ọxardah.
_Elative(c.)_ wailre 'txolre ṡulre oḥarlore.
_Conversive_ waigoih 'txogoih ṡugoih oḥargoih.

That some of these forms are no true inflexions, but appended
prepositions; is speedily stated in the text. If so, it is probable
that, in another author or in a different dialect, the number of cases
will vary. At any rate, the agglutinate character of the language is
indicated. The numerals are--

CARDINAL. ORDINAL.

1. cha duihre.
2. ṡi silǵe.
3. ̣xo ̣xalǵe.
4. ahew dhewloǵe.
5. ṗxi pxilǵe.
6. jeṫx jeixloǵe.
7. worl worloǵe.
8. barl barloġe.
9. iss issloġe.
10. itt ittloġe.
11. cha-itt cha-ittloġe.
12. si-itt si-ittloġe.
19. tqeexç iqeẹxcloġe.
20. tqa tqalġe.

This as a word the author connects with the word _tqo_ = _also_,
_overagain_ (_auch_, _wiederum_), as if it were 10 doubled,
which it most likely is. In like manner _tqeexç_ is _one from
twenty_ = _undeviginti_:--

100 = ṗxauztqa = 5 × 20.
200 = içatatq = 10 × 20.
300 = ṗxiiæatq = 12 × 20.
400 = tqauziq = 20 × 20.
500 = tqauziġ ṗxauztqa = 20 × 20 + 100.
1000 = sac tqauziqa icaiqa = 2 × 400 + 200.

The commonest signs of the plural number are _-i_ and _-si_, the
latter = _is_ in Tshetshents. The suffixes _-ne_ and _-bi_, the latter
of which is found in Lesgian, is stated to be Georgian in origin. No
reason, however, against its being native is given.

In verbs, the simplest form is (as usual) the imperative. Add to this
_-a_, and you have the infinitive. The sign of the conditional is
_ḥe_ or _ḥ_; that of the conjunctive _ḷe_ or _ḷ_.

The tenses are--

(1.) Present, formed by adding _-a_ or _-u_ to the root: _i. e._ to the
imperative form, and changing the vowel.

(2.) Imperfect, by adding _-r_ to the present.

(3.) Aorist, formed by the addition of _-r_ to the

(4.) Perfect; the formation of which is not expressly given, but
which is said to differ from the present in not changing the vowel.
However, we have the forms _xet_ = _find_, _xeṫi_ = _found_; (perf.)
_xetin_ = _found_ (aorist). From the participle of the perfect is formed
the

(5.) Pluperfect by adding _-r_.

(6.) The future is either the same as the present, or a modification of
it.

I give the names of those moods and tenses as I find them. The language
of the Latin grammar has, probably, been too closely imitated.

The first and second persons are formed by appending the pronouns
either in the nominative or the instructive form. That an oblique form
of the pronoun should appear in the personal inflexion of verbs is no
more than what the researches of the late Mr. Garnett, with which we
are all so familiar, have taught us to expect. At the same time, the
extent to which the instructive and nominative forms are alike must be
borne in mind. Let either be appended; and, when so appended, undergo
(under certain conditions) certain modifications, and a double origin
is simulated. That this is the case in the instances of the work under
notice is by no means asserted. The possibility of its being so is
suggested.

The participle of the present tense is formed in _-in_; as
_dago_ = _eat_, _dagu-in_ = _eating_.

The participle of the preterite ends in _-no_; as _xa[c.]e_ = _hear_,
_xa[c.]-no_ = _heard_.

There are auxiliary verbs, and no small amount of euphonic changes; of
which one, more especially, deserves notice. It is connected with the
gender of nouns. When certain words (adjectives or the so-called verb
substantive) follow certain substantives, they change their initial.
Thus ḥaṫxleen _w_a = _the prophet is_, ḥaṫxleensi _b_a = _the
prophets are_, waṡo _w_a = _the brother is_, waṡar _b_a = _the brothers
are_.

Again--naw _j_a = _the ship is_, nawr _j_a = _the ships are_; bstiuno
_j_a = _the wife is_, bstee _d_a = _the wives are_.

This is said to indicate gender, but how do we know what gender is? The
words themselves have neither form nor inflexion which indicates it.
Say that instead of gender it means sex, _i. e._ that the changes in
question are regulated by natural rather than grammatical characters.
We still find that the word _naw_ is considered feminine--feminine and
inanimate. This, however, is grammatical rather than natural, sex--"das
weibliche Geschlecht wird bey _unbelebten_ Gegenständen auch im Plural
durch _j-_, bei _belebten_ durch _a_ ausgedrückt." Then follow the
examples just given. How, however, do we know that these words are
feminine? It is submitted that the explanation of this very interesting
initial change has yet to be given. It recalls, however, to our memory
the practice of more languages than one, the Keltic, the Woloff,
the Kafre, and several other African tongues, wherein the change is
initial, though not always on the same principle.

So, also, the division of objects into animate and inanimate recalls to
our mind some African, and numerous American, tongues.

Such is the notice of the first of the Mizhdzhedzhi or Tshetshents (we
may say Lesgian) forms of speech of which the grammatical structure has
been investigated; a notice which suggests the question concerning its
affinities and classification.

The declension points to the Ugrian, or Fin, class of languages;
with which not only the Tshetshents, but all the other languages of
Caucasus have long been known to have miscellaneous affinities. The
resemblance, however, may be more apparent than real. The so-called
cases may be combinations of substantives and prepositions rather than
true inflexions, and the terminology may be more Ugrian in form than in
reality. Even if the powers of the cases be the same, it will not prove
much. Two languages expressing a given number of the relations that
two nouns may bear to each other will, generally, express the same.
Cases are genitive, dative and the like all the world over--and that
independent of any philological affinity between the languages in which
they occur. The extent to which they are also Caritive, Adessive and
the like has yet to be investigated.

The Ugrian affinities, then, of the Tshetshents are indirect; it being
the languages of its immediate neighbourhood with which it is more
immediately connected. In the way of vocabularies the lists of the
_Asia Polyglotta_ have long been competent to show this. In the way of
grammar the evidence is, still, far from complete. The Georgian, to
which Maggi gives no more than six cases, has a far scantier declension
than the Tushi, at least as it appears here. The Circassian, according
to Rosen, is still poorer.

In the verbs the general likeness is greater.

In the pronouns, however, the most definite similarity is to be found;
as may be seen from the following forms in the Circassian:--

Ab = _father_.

1. S-ab = _my father_. 2. H-ab = _our father_.
W-ab = _thy father_. S'-ab = _your father_.
L-ab = _his father_. S-ab = _their father_.

To which add--

_Sa_-ra = _I_. _Ha_-ra = _we_.
_Wa_-ra = _thou_. _S'a_-ra = _ye_.
_Ui_ = _he_. _U_-bart = _they_.

The amount of likeness here is considerable. Over and above the use
of _s_ for the first person singular, the _s'_ in the second person
plural should be noticed. So should the _b_ and _r_ in the Circassian
u-_b_a_rt_; both of which are plural elements in the Tushi also.

Finally (as a point of general philology), the double forms of the
Tushi plurals _wai_ and _ṭxo_ suggest the likelihood of their being
exclusive and inclusive; one denoting the speaker but not the person
spoken to, the other both the person spoken to and the person who
speaks; plurals of this kind being well known to be common in many of
the ruder languages.

ON THE NAME AND NATION OF THE DACIAN
KING DECEBALUS, WITH NOTICES
OF THE AGATHYRSI AND ALANI.

READ
BEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY,
APRIL 17TH 1854.

The text of Herodotus places the Agathyrsi in Transylvania (there
or thereabouts). (See F. W. Newman On Scythia and the surrounding
Countries, according to Herodotus, Philological Society's Proceedings,
vol. i. p. 77.)

The subsequent authors speak of them as a people who painted
(tattooed?) their bodies; the usual epithet being _picti_.

The same epithet is applied to the _Geloni_; also a population of the
Scythia of Herodotus.

For accurate knowledge the locality of the Agathyrsans was too
remote--too remote until, at least, the date of the Dacian wars; but
the Dacian wars are, themselves, eminently imperfect in their details,
and unsatisfactory in respect to the authorities for them.

There is every reason, then, for a nation in the locality of the
Agathyrsi remaining obscure--in the same predicament (say) with the
Hyperborei, or with the occupants of Thule.

But there is no reason for supposing the obliteration of the people so
called; nor yet for supposing a loss of its name, whether native or
otherwise.

Hence, when we get the details of Dacia we may reasonably look out for
Agathyrsi.

How far must we expect to find their name unmodified? This depends
upon the population through whom the classical writers, whether Latin
or Greek, derived it. Now it is submitted, that if we find a notice
of them in the fifth century A. D., and that in an account relating
to Dacia and Pannonia, the _medium_ has, probably, been different
from that through which Herodotus, amongst the Greek colonies of the
Black Sea, obtained _his_ accounts. The details of this difference
of _medium_ are not very important, and the discussion of them would
be episodical to the present paper, if not irrelevant. It is enough
to remark, that a difference of _medium_ is probable; and, as a
consequence thereof, a difference in the form of the name.

This is preliminary and introductory to the notice of the following
passage of Priscus, to whom we owe the account of one of the embassies
to Attila--Ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἧρχε τῶν Ἀκατζίρων καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἐθνῶν
νεμομένων τὴν πρὸς τὸν Πόντον Σκυθικέν. They are specially called
_Akatiri Hunni_. Jornandes' form is _Acatziri_.

Place for place, this gives us the Agathyrsi of Herodotus as near as
can be expected; and, name for name it does the same: the inference
being that the _Akatziri_ of Priscus are the descendants of the
_Agathyrsi_ of Herodotus. Of course, evidence of any kind to the
migration, extinction, or change of name on the part of the population
in question would invalidate this view. Such evidence, however, has not
been produced, nor has the present writer succeeded in finding, though
he has sought for it.

Descendants then of the _Agathyrsi_, and ancestors of the _Akatziri_
may have formed part of the population of Dacia when Domitian and
Trajan fought against Decebalus; a part that may have been large
or small, weak or powerful, homogeneous with the rest of Dacia or
different from it. Assuming it to have been different, it may still
have supplied soldiers--even leaders. Decebalus himself may as easily
have belonged to the Agathyrsan part of Dacia as to any other. A very
little evidence will turn the balance in so obscure a point as the
present.

Now, no German and no Slavonic dialects give us either the meaning of
the name Decebalus or any name like it. It stands alone in _European_
history. Where does it appear? In the history of the _Turks_. The first
known king of the Turks bears the same name as the last of the Dacians.
_Dizabulus_ (Διζαβούλος) was that khan of the Turks of Tartary to whom
Justinian sent an embassy when the Avars invaded the Eastern empire.

This (as is freely admitted) is a small fact, if taken alone; but
this should not be done. The _cumulative_ character of the evidence
in all matters of this kind should be borne in mind, and the value of
small facts measured by the extent to which they stand alone, or are
strengthened by the coincidence of others. In the latter case they
assume importance in proportion to the mutual support they give each
other; the value of any two being always more than double that of
either taken singly.

On the other hand, each must rest on some separate substantive evidence
of its own. To say that _Decebalus was an Agathyrsan because the
Agathyrsans were Turks_, and that the _Agathyrsans were Turks because
Decebalus was one of them_, is illegitimate. There must be some special
evidence in each case, little or much.

Now the evidence that the _Agathyrsi_ were Turks lies in the extent to
which (_a_) they were Scythians (_Skoloti_), and (_b_) the Scythians
(_Skoloti_) were Turks;--neither of which facts is either universally
admitted or universally denied. The present writer, however, holds
the Turk character of the Agathyrsi on grounds wholly independent
of anything in the present paper; indeed, the suggestion that the
_Acatziri_ are _Agathyrsi_ is, not his, but Zeuss'.--(See _Die
Deutschen and die Nachbarstämme, v. Bulgari_, p. 714.)

If _Agathyrs-_ be _Akatzir-_ in some older, what is the latter word
in any newer form?--for such there probably is. Word for word, it is
probably the same as _Khazar_, a denomination for an undoubtedly Turk
tribe which occurs for the first time in Theophanes:--Τοῦρκοι ἀπὸ τῆς
ἐώας οὓς Χαζάρους ὀνομάζουσιν. This is A. D. 626. Whether, however,
the same populations were denoted is uncertain. There are certain
difficulties in the supposition that they were absolutely identical.

It is not, however, necessary that they should be so. There might
be more than one division of a great stock, like the Turk so
called. Nay, they might have been populations other than Turk so
designated, provided only that there were some Turk population in
their neighbourhood so to call them. More than this. The word may be
current at the present moment, though, of course, in a modified form.
Suppose it to have been the Turk translation of _pictus_; or rather,
suppose the word _pictus_ to be the Latin translation of _Agathyrs-_
(_Akatzir-_): what would the probable consequence be? Even this,
that wherever there was a _painted_ (or _tattooed_) population in
the neighbourhood of any member of the great Turk stock, the name,
or something like it, might arise. Be it so. If the members of the
same Turk stock lay wide apart, the corresponding painted or tattooed
populations lying wide apart also might take the same name.

The details suggested by this line of criticism may form the
subject of another paper. In the present, the author hazards a fresh
observation--an observation on a population often associated with
the Agathyrsi, viz. the _Geloni_. Seeing that we have such forms as
_Unni_ (the Greek form is Οὖννοι, not Οὗννοι) and _Chuni_ ( = _Huns_);
_Arpi_ and _Carpi_; _Attuarii_ and _Chattuari_, &c.; and seeing the
affinity between the sounds of _g_ and _k_; he believes that the
word _Geloni_ may take another form and begin with a vowel (_Elôni_,
_Alôni_). Seeing that their locality is nearly that of the _Alani_
of a latter period; seeing that the middle syllable in Alani (in one
writer at least) is long--ἀλκήεντες Ἀλαῦνοι; seeing that Herodotus,
who mentions the _Geloni_, knows no Alani, whereas the authors who
describe the Alani make (with one exception about to be noticed) no
mention of the Geloni, he identifies the two populations, Geloni and
Alani, or _vice versâ_. He deduces something more from this root _l--n_
(λ--ν). Let the name for the Alans have reached the Greeks of the
Euxine through two different dialects of some interjacent language; let
the form it took in Greek have been parisyllabic in one case, whereas
it was imparisyllabic in the other, and we have two plurals, one in
-οι, as Γέλωνοι, Ἄλαυνοι, Ἄλανοι, and another in -ες, as Γέλωνες,
Ἄλαυνες, Ἄλανες,--possible, and even probable, modifications of the
original name, whatever that was. Now, name for name, Αλανες comes very
near Ελληνες; and in this similarity may lie the explanation of the
statement of Herodotus as to the existence of certain _Scythian Greeks_
(ἑλληνες Σκυθαι)--iv. 17. 108.

If so these _Scythian Greeks_ were _Alans_.

The exception, indicated a few lines above, to the fact of only one
author mentioning both _Geloni_ and _Alani_, is to be found in Ammianus
Marcellinus (xxxi. 2. 13. 14). The passage is too long to quote. It
is clear, however, that whilst his _Alani_ are spoken of from his own
knowledge, his _Geloni_ are brought in from his book-learning, _i. e._
from Herodotus.

NOTES.

NOTE 1.

_Evidence of any kind to the migration, extinction or change of name
on the part of the populations in question would invalidate this view.
Such evidence has not been produced &c._--The fuller consideration
of the question involved in this statement is to be found in Dr.
W. Smith's _Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography vv. ~Hunni~,
~Scythia~, and ~Sarmatia~_.

NOTE 2.

_The details suggested by this line of criticism &c._--These are to
the effect that in the word _Agathyrsi_ we get an early Turk gloss, of
which the history is somewhat curious. It exists, at the present moment
in England, having come _via_ Hungary. It exists in Siberia, on the
very frontier of the America.

It is the English word _Hussar_ = _Khazar_. Here we have it in its
abbreviated form.

It is the Siberian word Yukahir, Yukazhir, or Yukadzhir.

The "_native_ name of the Yukahiri of Siberia is _Andon Domni_. The
Koriaks call them _Atal_. Their other neighbours are the Turk Yakuts.
Hence it is probable that it is to the Yakut language that the term
Yukahir (also _Yukadzhir_) is referrible. If so, its probable meaning
is the same as the Koriak _Atal_, which means _spotted_. It applies to
the Yukahiri from their spotted deerskin dresses.

Now, south of these same Yakuts, who are supposed to call the Andon
Domni by the name Yukahiri (or Yukadzhiri), live a tribe of Tungusians.
These are called _Tshapodzhir_--but _not_ by themselves. By whom? By no
one so probably as by the Yakuts. Why? Because they tattoo themselves.
If so, it is probable that _Yukadzhir_ and _Tshapodzhir_ are one and
the same word; at any rate, a likely meaning in a likely language has
been claimed for it.

Let it, then, be considered as a Turk word, meaning _spotted_,
_tattooed_, _painted_,--provisionally. It may appear in any part of the
Turk area, provided only, that some nation to which one of the three
preceding adjectives applies be found in its neighbourhood. It may
appear, too, in any state of any Turk form of speech. But there are
Turk forms of speech as far distant from the Lena and Tunguska as Syria
or Constantinople; and there are Turk glosses as old as Herodotus. One
of these the present writer believes to be the word _Agathyrsi_, being
provided with special evidence to shew that the nation so called were
either themselves Turks or on a Turk frontier. Now, the Agathyrsi are
called the _picti_ Agathyrsi; and it is submitted to the reader that
the one term is the translation of the other--the words _Agathyrs_
(also _Akatzir_), _Yukadzhir_, and _Tshapodzhir_, being one and the
same."--From the author's _Native Races of the Russian Empire_.

ON THE LANGUAGE OF LANCASHIRE,
UNDER THE ROMANS.

READ
BEFORE THE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF
LANCASHIRE AND CHESHIRE.

8TH JANUARY, 1857.

In the present paper, advantage is taken of the local character of the
Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, to make the name of the
county serve as a special text for a general subject. What applies to
Lancashire applies to any county in Roman England.

The doctrine is as follows--that in Lancashire particularly, and
in England in general, the predominant language for the first five
centuries of our era was not Latin but British.

The writer is so far from laying this down as a novelty, that he is
by no means certain, that it may not be almost a truism. He is by no
means certain, that there is a single one of those to whom he addresses
himself, who may now hold, or even have held, the opposite opinion. He
is fully aware that excellent authorities have maintained both sides
of the question. He is only doubtful as to the extent to which the one
doctrine may preponderate over the other.

If the question were to be settled by an appeal to the history of the
more influential opinions concerning it, we should find that, in a
reference to the earliest and the latest of our recent investigators,
Dr. Prichard would maintain one side of the question, Mr. Wright
another. The paper of the latter, having been printed in the
Transactions of the Society, is only alluded to. The opinion of Dr.
Prichard is conveyed in the following extract--"The use of languages
really cognate must be allowed to furnish a proof, or at least a
strong presumption, of kindred race. Exceptions may indeed, under
very peculiar circumstances, occur to the inference founded on this
ground. For example, the French language is likely to be the permanent
idiom of the negro people of St. Domingo, though the latter are
principally of African descent. Slaves imported from various districts
in Africa, having no common idiom, have adopted that of their masters.
But conquest, or even captivity, under different circumstances, has
scarcely ever exterminated the native idiom of any people, unless after
many ages of subjection; and even then, vestiges have perhaps always
remained of its existence. In Britain, the native idiom was nowhere
superseded by the Roman, though the island was held in subjection
upwards of three centuries. In Spain and in Gaul, several centuries of
Latin domination, and fifteen under German and other modern dynasties,
have proved insufficient entirely to obliterate the ancient dialects,
which were spoken by the native people before the Roman conquest. Even
the Gypsies, who have wandered in small companies over Europe for some
ages, still preserve their original language in a form that can be
everywhere recognised."[13]

[Footnote 13: Eastern Origin of the Celtic Languages, p. 8.]

Upon the whole, I think that the current opinion is in favour of the
language of Roman Britain having been Latin; at any rate I am sure
that, before I went very closely into the subject, my own views were,
at least, in that direction. "What the present language of England
would have been, had the Norman conquest never taken place, the analogy
of Holland, Denmark, and many other countries enables us to determine.
It would have been as it is at present. What it would have been had
the _Saxon_ conquest never taken place, is a question wherein there is
far more speculation. Of France, of Italy, of Wallachia, and of the
Spanish Peninsula, the analogies all point the same way. They indicate
that the original Celtic would have been superseded by the Latin of the
Conquerors, and consequently that our language, in its later stages,
would have been neither British nor Gaelic, but Roman. Upon these
analogies, however, we may refine. Italy was from the beginning, Roman;
the Spanish Peninsula was invaded full early; no ocean divided Gaul
from Rome; and the war against the ancestors of the Wallachians was a
war of extermination."[14]

[Footnote 14: English Language, First Edition, p. 68.]

In these preliminary remarks we find a sufficient reason for going
specially into the question; not, however, as discoverers of any new
truth, nor as those who would correct some general error, but rather,
in a judicial frame of mind, and with the intention of asking, first,
how far the actual evidence is (either way) conclusive; next, which way
(supposing it to be inconclusive) the presumption lies; and thirdly,
what follows in the way of inference from each of the opposing views.

What are the statements of the classical writers, _subsequent to
the reduction of Britain_, to the effect that the Romans, when they
conquered a Province, established their language? I know of none. I
know of none, indeed, _anterior_ to the Britannic conquest. I insert,
however, the limitation, because in case such exist, it is necessary
to remember that they would not be conclusive. The practice may have
changed in the interval.

Is there anything approaching such a statement? There is a passage in
Seneca to the effect "that where the Roman conquers there he settles."

But he conquered Britain. Therefore he established his language. Add
to this that where he established his own language, there the native
tongue became obliterated. Therefore the British died off.

If so, the Angles--when they effected _their_ conquest--must have
displaced, by their own English, a Latin rather than a British, form of
speech.

But is this the legitimate inference from the passage in question?
No. On the contrary, it is a conclusion by no means warranted by the
premises. Nevertheless, as far as external testimony is concerned,
there are no better premises to be found.

But there is another element in our reasoning. In four large districts
at least,--in the Spanish Peninsula, in France, in the Grisons, and in
the Danubian Principalities--the present language is a derivative from
the Latin, which was, undoubtedly and undeniably, introduced by the
Roman conquest. From such clear and known instances, the reasoning to
the obscure and unknown is a legitimate analogy, and the inference is
that Britain was what Gallia, Rhætia, Hispania, and Dacia were.

In this we have a second reason for the fact that there are many who,
with Arnold, hold, that except in the particular case of Greece, the
Roman world, in general, at the date of the break-up of the Empire, was
Latin in respect to its language. At any rate, Britannia is reasonably
supposed to be in the same category with Dacia--a country conquered
later.

On the other hand, however, there are the following considerations.

I. In the first place the Angle conquest was gradual; so gradual as
to give us an insight into the character of the population that was
conquered. Was this (in language) Latin? There is no evidence of its
having been so. But is there evidence of its having been British? A
little. How much, will be considered in the sequel.

II. In the next place the Angle conquest was (and is) incomplete;
inasmuch as certain remains of the earlier and non-Angle population
still exist. Are these Latin? Decidedly not; but on the contrary
British,--witness the present Britons of Wales, and the all but British
Cornish-men, who are now British in blood, and until the last century
were, more or less, British in language as well.

But this is not all. There was a third district which was slow to
become Angle, viz.: part of the mountain district of Cumberland and
Westmoreland. What was this before it was Angle? Not Roman but British.

Again--there was a time when Monmouthshire, with (no doubt) some
portion of the adjoining counties, was in the same category in respect
to its _non_-Angle character with Wales. What was it in respect to
language? Not Roman but British.

Again--_mutatis mutandis_. Devonshire was to Cornwall as Monmouth to
Wales. Was it Roman? No--but, on the contrary, British.

Now say, for the sake of argument, that Cornwall, Wales, and Cumberland
were never Roman at all, and consequently, that they prove nothing in
the question as to the introduction of the Latin language. But can we
say, for even the sake of argument, that Devon and Monmouth were never
Roman? Was not, on the contrary, Devon at least, exceedingly Roman, as
is shewn by the importance of Isca Danmoniorum, or Exeter.

Or, say that the present population of Wales is no representative of
the ancient occupants of that part of Britain, but, on the contrary,
descended from certain immigrants from the more eastern and less
mountainous parts of England. I do not hold this doctrine. Admitting
it, however, for the sake of argument--whence came the present Welsh,
if it came not from a part of England where British, rather than Latin,
was spoken? There must have been British somewhere; and probably
British to the exclusion of Latin.

The story of St. Guthlac of Croyland is well-known. It runs to the
effect that being disturbed, one night, by a horrid howling, he was
seriously alarmed, thinking that the howlers might be _Britons_. Upon
looking-out, however, he discovered that they were only devils--whereby
he was comforted, the Briton being the worse of the two. Now the later
we make this apocryphal story, the more it tells in favor of there
having been Britons in Lincolnshire, long after the Angle conquest.
Yet Lincolnshire (except so far as it was Dane,) must have been one of
the most Angle portions of England. In France, Spain, Portugal, the
Grisons, Wallachia or Moldavia, such devils as those of St. Guthlac
would have been Romans.

As the argument, then, stands at present, we have traces of the
British as opposed to the Angle, but no traces of the Latin in similar
opposition.

Let us now look at the _analogies_, viz: Spain, (including Portugal,)
France, Switzerland and the Danubian Principalities; in all of which
we have had an aboriginal population and a Roman conquest, in all
of which, too, we have had a third conquest subsequent to that by
Rome--even as in Britain we have had the triple series of (A) native
Britains, (B) Roman conquerors, (C) Angles.

What do we find? In all but Switzerland, remains of the original
tongue; in all, without exception, remains of the language of the
population that conquered the Romans; in all, without exception,
something Roman.

In Britain we find nothing Roman; but, on the contrary, only the
original tongue and the language of the third population.

I submit that this is strong _primâ facie_ evidence in favour of the
Latin having never been the general language of Britain. If it were
so, the area of the Angle conquest must have exactly coincided with
the area of the Latin language. Is this probable? I admit that it is
anything but highly improbable. The same practicable character of
the English parts of Britain (as opposed to the Welsh, Cornish, and
Cumbrian) which made the conquest of a certain portion of the Island
easy to the Romans as against the Britons, may have made it easy for
the Angles as against the Romans; and _vice versa_, the impracticable
character of Wales, Cornwall, and Cumberland, that protected the
Britons against their first invaders, may have done the same for them
against the second. If so, the two areas of foreign conquest would
coincide. I by no means undervalue this argument.

It is almost unnecessary to say that the exact conditions under which
Britain was reduced were not those of any other Roman Province.

In respect to Spain, the Roman occupancy was _early_, having begun long
before that of Northern and Central Gaul, having begun during the Punic
wars, and having become sufficiently settled by the time of Augustus to
command the attention of Strabo on the strength of the civilization it
had developed. In Spain, then, there was priority in point of time to
account for any extraordinary amount of Roman influences.

Gaul, with the exception of the earlier acquisitions in the
Narbonensis, was the conquest of one of the most thorough-going of
conquerors. The number of enemies that Cæsar slaughtered has been put
at 1,000,000. Without knowing the grounds of this calculation, we may
safely say that his campaigns were eminently of a destructive character.

The conquerors of the Breuni, Genauni, and similar occupants of those
parts of Switzerland where the Rumonsch Language (of Latin origin) is
now spoken, were men of similar energy. Neither Drusus nor Tiberius
spared an enemy who opposed. Both were men who would "make a solitude
and call it peace."

That Trajan's conquest of Dacia was of a similar radical and
thorough-going character is nearly certain.

Now, the evidence that the conquests of the remaining provinces were
like those of the provinces just noted, is by no means strong. At
the same time, it must be admitted that the analogy established by
four such countries as Gaul, Spain, Switzerland, and Moldo-Wallachia
is cogent. What was the extent to which Africa, Pannonia, Illyricum,
Thrace, and the Mœsias were Romanized? Of Asia? I say nothing. It
was sufficiently Greek to have been in the same category with Greece
itself, and in Greece itself we know that no attempts were made upon
the language.

Africa was Latin in its literature; and, at a later period,
pre-eminently Latin in its Christianity. But the evidence that
the vernacular language was Latin is _nil_, and the presumptions
unfavourable. The Berber tongue of the present native tribes of the
whole district between Egypt and the Atlantic is certainly of high
antiquity; it being a well-known fact, that in it, several of the
names in the geography of classical Africa are significant. Now this
is spread over the country indifferently. Neither does it show any
notable signs of Latin intermixture. Neither is there trace, or shadow
of trace, of any form of speech of Latin origin throughout the whole of
Tunis, Tripoli, Algiers or Morocco.

In Pannonia and Illyricum, the same absence of any language of Latin
origin is manifest. Pannonia and Illyricum have had more than an
average amount of subsequent conquerors and occupants--Goths, Huns,
Avars, Bulgarians, Slavonians, Hungarians, Germans. That the Slovak,
however, in the north, and the Dalmatian forms of the Servian in the
south, represent the native languages is generally admitted--now, if
not long ago. These, then, have survived. Why not, then, the Latin if
it ever took root?

In respect to Thrace, it is just possible that it may have been, in its
towns at least, sufficiently Greek to have been in the same category
with Greece proper. I say that this is just possible. In reality,
however, it was more likely to be contrasted with Greece than to be
classed with it. One thing, however, is certain, viz.:--that the
country district round Constantinople was never a district in which
Latin was vernacular. Had it been so, the fact could hardly have been
unnoticed, or without influence on the unequivocally Greek Metropolis
of the Eastern Empire.

If the doctrine that Thrace may have been sufficiently Greek to
forbid the introduction of the Latin be doubtful, the notion that the
Mœsias were so is untenable. Yet the Latin never seems to have been
vernacular in either of them. Had it been so, it would probably have
held its ground, especially in the impracticable mountains and forests
of Upper Mœsia or the modern Servia. Yet where is there a trace of
it? Of all the Roman Provinces, Servia or Upper Mœsia seems to be
the one wherein the evidence of a displacement of the native, and a
development of a Latin form of speech, is at its _minimum_, and the
instance of Servia is the one upon which the analogous case of Britain
best rests.

The insufficiency of the current reasons in favour of the modern
Servian being of recent introduction have been considered by me
elsewhere.

Now comes the notice of a text which always commands the attention of
the ethnological philologue, when he is engaged upon the Angle period
of our island's history. It refers to the middle of the eighth century,
the era of the Venerable Beda, from whose writings it is taken. I give
it _in extenso_. It runs "Hæc in presenti, juxta numerum librorum
quibus lex divina scripta est, quinque gentium linguis, unam eandemque
summæ veritatis et veræ sublimitatis scientiam scrutatur et confitetur;
Anglorum, videlicet, Brittonum, Scottorum, Pictorum et Latinorum quæ
meditatione scripturarum, cæteris omnibus est facta communis".[15]

[Footnote 15: _Hist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 1._]

That the Latin here is the Latin of Ecclesiastical, rather than
Imperial, Rome, the Latin of the Scriptures rather than classical
writers, the Latin of a written book rather than a Lingua Rustica, is
implied by the context.

Should this, however, be doubted, the following passage, which makes
the languages of Britain only _four_, is conclusive--"Omnes nationes
et provincias Brittanniæ, quæ in _quatuor_ linguas, id est Brittonum,
Pictorum, Scottorum et Anglorum divisæ sunt, in ditione accepit."[16]

[Footnote 16: _Eccl. Hist._ iii, 6.]

It is the first of these two statements of Beda's that the following
extract from Wintoun is founded on.

_Cronykil_, I. xiii, 39.

Of Langagis in Bretayne sere
I fynd that sum tym fyf thare were:
Of Brettys fyrst, and Inglis syne,
Peycht, and Scot, and syne Latyne.
Bot, of the Peychtis, is ferly,
That ar wndon sá hályly,
That nowthir remanande ar Language,
Næ' succession of Lynage:
Swá of thare antiqwytè
Is lyk bot fabyl for to be.

But the Latin of the scriptures may have been the Latin of common life
as well. Scarcely. The change from the written to the spoken language
was too great for this. What the latter would have been we can infer.
It would have been something like the following "Pro Deo amur et pro
Xristian poblo et nostro commun salvament d'ist di en avant, in quant
Deus savir et poder me dunat, si salvarai eo cist meon fradre Karlo,
et in ajudha et in cadhuna cosa, si com om per dreit son fradre salvar
dist, in o quid il me altresi fazet: et ab Ludher nul plaid nunquam
prindrai uni, meon vol, cist meon fradre Karle in damno sit."

This is the oath of the Emperors Karl and Ludwig, sons of Charlemagne,
as it was sworn by the former in A. D. 842. It is later in date than
the time of Beda by about a century; being in the Lingua Rustica
of France. Nevertheless, it is a fair specimen of the difference
between the spoken languages of the countries that had once been Roman
Provinces and the written Latin. Indeed, it was not Latin, but Romance;
and, in like manner, any vernacular form of speech, used in Britain but
of Roman origin, would have been Romance also.

The conclusion which the present notice suggests is--

That the testimony of authors tells neither way.

That the presumptions in favour of the Latin which are raised by the
cases of Gaul, Spain, Rhætia, and Dacia, are anything but conclusive.

That the inferences from the earliest as well as the latest data as
to the condition of _English_ Britain, the inferences from the Angle
conquest, and the inferences from the present language of Wales, are
decidedly against the Latin.

I may, perhaps, be allowed to conclude by a reference to a paper
already alluded to, as having been laid before the present Society, by
Mr. Wright. This is to the effect, that the Latin reigned paramount
not only in England, but in Wales also, under the Roman dominion; the
present Welsh being of recent introduction from Armorica.

That the population was heterogeneous is certain, the Roman Legionaries
being, to a great extent, other than Roman. It is also certain that
there was, within the island, at an early period, no inconsiderable
amount of Teutonic blood. It is certain, too, that the name _Briton_
had different applications at different times.

If so, the difference between Mr. Wright and myself, in respect to the
homogeneousness or heterogeneousness of the Britannic population, is
only a matter of degree.

In respect to the particular fact, as to whether the British or Latin
language was the vernacular form of speech, we differ more decidedly.
That the British was unwritten and uncultivated is true; so that the
exclusive use of the Latin for inscriptions is only what we expect. The
negative fact that no British name has been found inscribed, I by no
means undervalue.

The _preponderance_, however, of a Non-British population, and the use
of the Latin as the _vernacular_ language, are doctrines, which the few
undoubted facts of our early history impugn rather than verify.

The main difficulty which Mr. Wright's hypothesis meets--and it _does_
meet it--lies in the fact of the similarity between the Welsh and
Armorican being too great for anything but a comparatively recent
separation to account for. Nevertheless, even this portion of what
may be called the Armorican hypothesis, is by no means incompatible
with the doctrine of the present paper. The Celtic of Armorica may as
easily have displaced the _older_ Celtic of Britain (from which, by
hypothesis, it notably differed) as it is supposed to have displaced
the Latin.

I do not imagine this to have been the case; indeed I can see reasons
against it, arising out of the application of Mr. Wright's own line of
criticism.

I think it by no means unlikely that the argument which gives us the
annihilation of the British of the British Isles, may also give us that
of the Gallic of Gaul. Why should Armorica have been more Celtic than
Wales? Yet, if it were not so, whence came the Armorican of Wales?
I throw out these objections for the sake of stimulating criticism,
rather than with the view of settling a by no means easy question.

KELÆNONESIA.

The dates of the four papers on this part of the world shew that
the first preceded the earliest of the other three by as much as
four years; a fact that must be borne in mind when the philological
ethnography of New Guinea and the islands to the south and east of it
is under notice. The vocabularies of each of the authors illustrated
in papers 2 and. 3, more than doubled our previous data--Jukes'
illustrating the language of islands between New Guinea and Australia,
Macgillivray's those of the Louisiade Archipelago.

That there was a hypothesis at the bottom of No. 1 is evident. Neither
is there much doubt as to the fact of that hypothesis being wrong.

I held in 1843 that, all over Oceania, there was an older population
of ruder manners, and darker colour than the Malays, the proper
Polynesians, and the populations allied to them; that, in proportion as
these latter overspread the several islands of their present occupancy
the aborigines were driven towards the interior; that in Australia,
Tasmania, New Guinea &c. the original black race remained unmolested.

This view led to two presumptions;--both inaccurate;

1. That the ruder tribes were, _as such_, likely to be Negrito;

2. That the Negrito tongues would be allied to each other.

The view, held by me now, will be given in a future notice.

ON THE NEGRITO LANGUAGES.

READ
BEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY.

FEBRUARY 10, 1843.

By the term Negrito is meant those tribes of the Asiatic and Australian
islands, who, in one or more of their physical characters, depart from
the type of the nations in their neighbourhood and approach that of
the African. The word is more comprehensive than Arafura, Andaman, or
Papuan, and less comprehensive than Negro.

Of the Negrito localities the most western are--

_The Andaman Islands._--A Vocabulary, collected by Lieutenant R. H.
Colebrooke, appears in the Asiatic Researches, vol. iv. p. 410. The
native name is Mineopie. An historical notice of them appears as early
as the ninth century, in the Travels of the Two Arabians, translated by
Renaudot.

_The Nicobar and Carnicobar Islands._--In the largest of these it is
stated that, in the interior, blacks are to be found. The current
assertion concerning the language of the rest of these islands is, that
the Carnicobar is Peguan, and the Nicobar Malay.--Asiatic Researches,
iii. 303.

_Malacca._--The Samangs of the interior are Negrito. For the single
Vocabulary of their language, see Crawfurd's Indian Archipelago, or
Klaproth's Nouveau Journal Asiatique, xii. 239, where Crawfurd's
Vocabulary is reprinted without acknowledgement. The Orang Benua are
_not_ Negrito; neither are the Jokong Negrito. For thirty words in the
latter language, see Thomas Raffles in Asiatic Researches, xii. 109. In
this list twelve words are shown by Raffles to be Malay, and Humboldt
states the same of two more. The other sixteen may or may not be of
Negrito origin. The Samangs are the Orang Udai.--Humboldt, _Über die
Kawi-Sprache_.

_Sumatra._--The Battas of Sumatra are Malay, not Negrito (Marsden's
Sumatra, p. 203, and Rienzi's Oceanie, vol. i.). The Sumatran of
Parkinson's Journal (p. 198) is the Arabic of Acheen. The true Negritos
of Sumatra seem to be,

1. The _Orang Cooboo_.--These are stated to be pretty numerous between
Palembang and Jambee.--Marsden's Sumatra, p. 35.

2. _The Orang Googoo_,--who are described by the Sumatrans of Laboon
as being more Orang Utang than man.--Marsden's Sumatra, p. 35.
Specimens of the Orang Googoo (Gougon) Rienzi states to have seen. He
says that they come from Palembang and Menangcaboo, and he calls them
Pithecomorphi.

For an historical notice as early as 960 A. D., probably referring to
the Blacks of Sumatra, see Klaproth in Nouveau Journal Asiatique, xii.
239.

_Borneo._--The Biajuk of Borneo is not Negrito but Malay (Crawfurd's
Indian Archipelago); neither are the Dyacks Negrito. The statement of
Marsden and Leyden is, that the Dyacks are _whiter_ than the rest of
the natives of Borneo; and the remark of more than one voyager is,
that the Dyacks of Borneo look like South Sea Islanders in the midst
of a darker population. Are the Marut, Idongs, Tidongs, or Tirungs of
the north of Borneo Negrito? In Rienzi's Oceanie there is a Borneo
Vocabulary which is headed Dyack, Marut and Idaan, the three terms
being treated as synonyms. Of this Vocabulary all the words are Malay.
That there are Negritos in Borneo is most probable, but of their
language we possess but one word, _apün_, father[17] (and that more
than doubtful); whilst of their name we know nothing; and in respect
to their locality, we have only the statement of Kollf, that in the
north of Borneo Blacks are to be found on the Keeneebaloo mountain; a
statement, however, slightly modified by the fact of his calling them
Idaans or Maruts (see Earl's translation of the Voyage of the Doorga,
p. 417). Compare the name Idaan in Borneo, with the name Orang Udai,
applied to certain rude tribes in Malacca.

[Footnote 17: Mithr. i. 598.]

_The Sooloo Islands._--There are positive statements that the Sooloos
contain Negritos. They also contain Malays; as may be seen in a Sooloo
vocabulary in Rienzi's Oceanie, vol. i.

_The Manillas._--The Isola de Negros testifies its population by
its name. Hervas calls it the Papua of the Philippines. In Panay
are the blackest of the Philippine Negritos. Rienzi would term them
Melanopygmæi. In Bohol, Leyté and Samar, there are Negritos (Lafond
Lurcy, ii. 182.); also in Cayagan (Lafond Lurcy, ii. 182.); also in
Capul or Abac (Hervas). For the two main islands there are,--1st. In
Mindanao, two wild tribes inhabiting the interior, the Bantschilen
and the Hillunas. The proof of these two tribes being Negrito is
the strongest for the Hillunas. They are the Negros del Monte of
the Spaniards (Hervas, Catalogo delle Lingue; Adelung, i. 601).
Near Marivèles are the Igorots or Ætas (Agtas of Hervas); and of
these we have late and positive evidence, first to the fact of their
being Negrito, and next to the difference of their language from the
Tagal.--(Lafond Lurcy.) Secondly, in Luçon, the Zambalen of Adelung
are Negrito. These are the Blacks of Pampango. The Blacks inhabiting
the other parts of the island are called Ygelots; and Mount St.
Mathew, near Manilla, is one of their well-known localities, and the
Illoco mountains another. Here they were visited by Lafond Lurcy.
They were all alike, and all under four feet six (French measure).
Italonen, Calingas, and Maitim are the names under which the Philippine
Blacks have been generally described. Agta and Maitim are said to be
indigenous appellations.--Hervas.

_Formosa._--The Formosan language is Malay. In the interior, however,
are, according to the Chinese accounts,--1, the Thoufan; 2, the
Kia-lao; 3, the Chan tchaó chan; 4, the Lang Khiao,--aboriginal tribes
with Negrito characters, each speaking a peculiar dialect.--Klaproth,
Recherches Asiatiques.

_The Loochoo Islands._--The current Loochoo language is Japanese
(Klaproth, Rech. Asiat.). But besides this, Adelung mentions from
Père Gaubil and Gosier, that three other languages are spoken in the
interior, neither Japanese nor Chinese; and we are now, perhaps,
justified in considering that, in these quarters, the fact of a
language being aboriginal, is _primâ facie_ evidence of its being
Negrito.

_Java._--Here the evidence of an aboriginal population at all is
equivocal, and that of Negrito aborigines wholly absent. For the
Kalangs, see Raffles's History of Java. The dark complexions on the
island Bali show the darkness, not of the Negrito, but of the Hindoo;
such at least is the view of Raffles opposed to that of Adelung (Mith.
i.). There is no notice of Blacks in Ende (otherwise Floris), in
Sumbawa, or in Sandalwood Island.

_Savoo._--If the Savoo of modern geographers be the Pulo Sabatu of
Dampier, then there were, in Dampier's time, Blacks in Savoo. The Savoo
of Parkinson's Journal is Malay.

_Timor._--In this island Negritos were indicated by Peron. Freycinet
describes them. Lafond Lurcy had a Timor black as a slave. Of their
language he gives four words:--_manouc_, bird; _vavi_, woman; _lima_,
five; _ampou_, ten. All these are Malay.

_Ombay._--In Freycinet's Voyage the natives of Ombay are described
as having olive-black complexions, flattened noses, thick lips, and
long black hair. In Arago[18] we find a short vocabulary, of which a
few words are Malay, whilst the rest are unlike anything either in
the neighbouring language of Timor (at least as known by Raffles's
specimens), or in any other language known to the author. Upon what
grounds, unless it be their cannibalism, the Ombaians have been classed
with the New Zealanders, is unknown. The evidence is certainly not
taken from their language.

[Footnote 18: Vide Note A.]

Between Timor and New Guinea we collect, either from positive
statements or by inference, that, pure or mixed, there are Negritos in
at least the following islands:--1, Wetta; 2, Kissa?; 3, Serwatty?; 4,
Lette?; 5, Moa?; 6, Roma?; 7, Damma; 8, Lakor?; 9, Luan; 10, Sermatta;
11, Baba; 12, Daai; 13, Serua; 14, the Eastern Arroos; 15, Borassi.
(Kollf's Voy.; Earl's Translation.)

The language of the important island of Timor-Laut is Malay. From a
conversation with the sailor Forbes, who was on the island for sixteen
years, the author learned that there are in Timor-Laut plenty of black
slaves, but no black aborigines.

_Celebes._--In the centre of Celebes and in the north there are
Negritos: the inhabitants call them Turajas, and also Arafuras: they
speak a simple dialect and pass for aborigines. (Raffles, History of
Java.) Of this language we have no specimen. Gaimard's Menada is the
Menadu of Sir Stamford Raffles, and Raffles's Menadu is Malay. (Voyage
de l'Astrolabe, Philologie, ii. 191.) The remark made by the collector
of this Menadu Vocabulary was, that those who spoke it were _whiter_
than the true Bugis, and that they looked like South-Sea Islanders,
a fact of value in a theory of the Dyacks, but of no value in the
enumeration of the Negritos.

_Bourou_, _Gammen_, _Salawatty_, _Battenta_.--For each of these islands
we have positive statements as to the existence of Negritos.

_Gilolo._--In Lesson's Natural History the inhabitants of Gilolo are
classed with those of Gammen, Battenta, &c., as Negritos. The same is
the case in the Mithridates, where the inference is, that in all the
Moluccas, with the exception of Amboyna and Ternati, Negritos are to
be found in the interior. For Guebé see the sequel.

_The Teetees._--The Teetee Islands of Meares, the Jauts or Aeauw of the
Mithridates, sixteen in number, are Negrito. (Meares, Voyage, Adelung.)

_Oby._--According to Adelung this island is Negrito.

The object of what has gone before is less to state where Negritos are
to be found than where they are to be looked for. Hence many of the
above notices indicate the probable rather than the actual presence of
them; and those statements concerning the Molucca localities that are
taken from systematic books (and as such at secondhand) are all subject
to one exception, viz. the fact that the tribes described as Arafura,
although in current language Negrito, are not necessarily so. An
instance of this has been seen in the so-called Arafura of Menadu. The
same applies to the so-called Arafura of Ceram, (Handboek der Land-en
Volkenkunde van Nederlandsch Indië. P. P. Roorda van Eysinga. Amsterdam
1841; indicated by Mr. Garnett,) which is Malay. In the quarters about
to be given in detail the evidence is less exceptionable.

_New Guinea._--Here there is little except Negritos; and here we meet
with the name _Papua_. What is said of the Papuas must be said with
caution. Physical conformation being the evidence, there are in New
Guinea two nations, if not more than two:--1. Those of the North, with
curly hair, which are subdivided into the pure Papuas, and the Papuas
that are looked upon as a cross with the Malay (Quoy, Gaimard and
Lesson in the French Voyages). 2. Those of the South, with lank hair,
called by the French naturalists Arafuras. The author was unable to
determine who were meant by the Alfakis of Quoy (Durville's Voyage,
iv. 746). To the language of these Alfakis are possibly referable the
ten words of Lesson. These are the numerals, and, they are as might be
expected, Malay. For the South of New Guinea we have not so much as a
single vocabulary or a single word.

_Waigioo._--The Waigioo and New Guinea have been frequently confounded;
we have therefore deferred speaking of the latter until we could also
deal with the former. Without going into the conflicting evidence, we
may state that there are two Vocabularies wherein _arm_ is _kapiani_,
and three wherein _arm_ is _bramine_. Of the first division we
have--1st, the Vocabularies of the Uranie and Physicienne Corvettes,
under Freycinet, in 1817, 1818, 1819, as given in Arago's (the
draughtsman's) Narrative, p. 275, English translation; and 2ndly,
the Undetermined Vocabulary of Dentrecasteaux. Dentrecasteaux,
whilst at Boni in Waigioo, saw some strangers who spoke a language
very different from the inhabitants of that island; he considered
that they came from New Guinea. Now this language is the Waigioo of
Arago[19]; whilst the Waigioo of Dentrecasteaux is the Papua of Arago.
Among the Vocabularies of the second class we have Gaimard's Rawak
Vocabulary, stated especially (Voyage de l'Astrolabe, Philologie, vol.
ii. p. 153.) to have been collected at Rawak in Waigioo in 1818: here
_arm_ is _bramine_. Now a vocabulary (that will soon be mentioned)
of the New Guinea Papuan of Port Dorey was collected during the
expedition of the Astrolabe by the same naturalist, M. Gaimard. With
this vocabulary Gaimard's Rawak coincides, rather than with Arago's
Waigioo and Dentrecasteaux's Undetermined Vocabulary. This makes the
third vocabulary for these islands. The fourth is Gaimard's Port
Dorey Vocabulary (Voyage de l'Astrolabe, Philologie, ii. 146.). The
fifth, Dentrecasteaux's (or La Billardière) Waigioo Vocabulary. This
represents the same language as those last-mentioned, inasmuch as in it
_arm_ is _bramine_ not _kapiani_. The sixth vocabulary is the Utanata,
from Dutch authorities (vide Trans. Geogr. Soc). This akin to the
Lobo Vocabulary.--Ibid. The next is Forest's Vocabulary. See Forest's
Voyage to New Guinea. Such are the data for New Guinea and Waigioo.
Dalrymple's Vocabulary will be noticed in the sequel.

[Footnote 19: See Note B.]

_Guebé._--The Guebé Vocabulary of the Astrolabe (Philologie, ii. 157)
is the Guebé of Freycinet's Voyage in 1818, when it was collected by
Gaimard, The Guebé of Arago (under Freycinet) also approaches the Guebé
of Gaimard. According to D. Durville the Guebé is Papuan. The author
however considers it Malay, though there was some resemblance to the
Papuan, inasmuch as many Malay terms were common to both these dialects.

From New Guinea westward and southward the Negritos are no longer
isolated. The following are Negrito Islands, or Negrito Archipelagos:--

1. New Britain; 2. New Hanover; 3. New Ireland; 4. Solomon's Islands;
5. Queen Charlotte's Archipelago; 6. Louisiade Archipelago; 7. Isles of
Bougainville; 8. Bouka; 9. New Georgia; 10. Admirality Isles,--York,
Sandwich, Portland; 11. Santa Cruz Archipelago; 12. Arsacides; 13.
Espiritu Santo, or New Hebrides,--Mallicollo, Erromango, Tanna,
Erronan, Annatom; 14. New Caledonia; 15. Warouka, Bligh's and Banks's
Island.--Astrolabe. The Ticopian is not Negrito but Polynesian.--Voyage
de l'Astrolabe.

_Fiji Islands._--In the Fiji Islands the physical character of the
natives is half Negrito and half Polynesian. Here is the Negrito limit
to the east; that is, of Negrito tribes as existing at the present
moment.

The languages of the list just given are known to us through the
following Vocabularies.

_New Ireland_ &c.--Gaimard's Carteret Harbour Vocabulary.--Voyage de
l'Astrolabe, Philologie, ii. 143.

Durville's Port Praslin Vocabulary, incorporated with Gaimard's
Carteret Bay Vocabulary.--Ibid.

Dalrymple's so-called New Guinea Vocabulary. The word _so-called_ was
used because, unless there were natives of New Ireland on the coast of
New Guinea, Dalrymple's Vocabulary is a representative of the Papuan.
It coincides with those of Durville and Gaimard from New Ireland: it
was collected by Schouten and Le Maire. It is also the New Guinea of De
Brosses.

Vocabularies of four small islands are given by Dalrymple and De
Brosses, viz. of Moses Island, Moa, Hoorn Island, and Cocos Island.
These are the vocabularies of Reland (Diss. xi.), referred to by
Adelung.

_Manicolo._--In Queen Charlotte's Archipelago, or perhaps among the
Solomon Islands, lies an island in name resembling one of the New
Hebrides. Durville called it Vanikoro, but Captain Dillon assures me
that the true name is Manicolo. Of the language spoken here we have a
vocabulary collected by Gaimard in three dialects; the Vanikoro, the
Tanema, and the Taneanou. Voyage de l'Astrolabe, Philologie, ii. 164.

_Mallicollo._--Cook's Island is Mallicollo. A glossary occurs in Cook's
Voyages.

_Tanna._--A single vocabulary in Cook's Voyages.

_New Caledonia._--A short vocabulary in Cook. A longer one in
Dentrecasteaux and La Billardière.

Of the Fiji we have a few words by Cook, a long vocabulary by
Gaimard (Astrol. Phil. ii. 136), Port regulations, and MS. Scripture
translations, which afford us full and sufficient samples of the
language. To deal with this as Negrito the Polynesian element must be
eliminated.

In the way of Ethnography Madagascar is Asiatic; since its language,
as has been known since the time of Reland, is Malay. For this island
the evidence of physical character gives two or more races, but the
evidence of language only one.

_Australia._--In this island we have vocabularies for the following
localities: (1.) Murray Island; (2.) Caledon Bay; (3. 4.) Endeavour
River; (5.) the Burrah Burrah tribe; (6.) Limestone Creek; (7.) Port
Macquarie; (8.) Port Jackson; (9.) Menero Downs; (10.) Jervis Bay;
(11.) Hunter's River, _vide_ Threlkeld's Grammar; (12, 13, 14, 15.)
Adelaide,--one of these being Teichelmanns and Schürmann's Grammar;
(16.) Gulf St. Vincent; (17, 18, 19, 20.) King George's Sound; (22.)
Grey's Vocabulary; and a few others.

_Van Diemen's Land._--Here, as in Australia, everything is Negrito.
In the way of Vocabularies, we have for the North,--(1.) Gaimard's
Port Dalrymple Vocabulary, taken down from the mouth of a Van
Diemen's Land woman at King George's Sound, with an Englishman as
an interpreter.--Voy. Astr. Phil. ii. 9. In the South we have (2.)
Cook's Vocabulary, collected in Adventure Bay, S. E. of Van Diemen's
Land,--nine words. (3.) Dentrecasteaux's, or La Billardière's
Vocabulary. (4.) Allan Cunningham's Vocabulary, collected in 1819
at Entrance Island. (5.) Dr. Lhotsky's Vocabulary, derived from Mr.
M'Geary, and representing the language of Hobart's Town.--Journ.
Geo. Soc. ix. Besides these, there is a Vocabulary procured by Mr.
Robert Brown when in Australia. It nearly represents the same state of
language as Dentrecasteaux's Vocabulary.

Besides these remarks, another class of facts should be indicated. In
the south of Japan, and in the Marianne Isles, there are statements
that Blacks _have been_:--Père Cantova (in Duperrey and Freycinet), and
Adelung (Mithr. i.). From Rienzi also we learn a statement of Lütke's,
viz. that in Pounipet, one of the Carolines, there are abundance of
Blacks at this moment. These _may_ be indigenous. The hypothetical
presence of Negritos may account also for certain peculiarities of
the Polynesian of the Tonga Islands. There are traces of them in the
Navigator's Archipelago. Crozet (see Pritchard's Phys. Hist.) mentions
Negritos in New Zealand, and Cook speaks to a tradition of aboriginal
Negritos in Tahiti.

Such are the notices of the Oceanic Negritos in respect to their
distribution and the amount of evidence afforded by the specimens of
their language. The current opinion is, that over a certain area Blacks
of a certain race or races were aborigines. This opinion there is no
reason to disturb or to refine upon; the general question is as to the
unity or the multiplicity of these races; but the more specific object
of the present paper is to ascertain how far that question is decided
by the comparison of their languages. The safe way is to _ascend_ in
the classification, and to begin with determining the uniformity of
speech over limited areas, and within natural boundaries. The most
convenient locality to begin with is--

_New Guinea._--That four out of the seven New Guinea Vocabularies
(supposing them to have been collected independently of each other)
represent either dialects of one language, or else languages closely
allied, appears on the first comparison. These vocabularies are,--_a_)
Gaimard's Rawak; _b_) Gaimard's Port Dorey; _c_) Arago's Papua; and
_d_) Dentrecasteaux's Waigioo. To these Forest's Vocabulary (supposing
always that his words have not been incorporated in the vocabularies
that came after him) approaches more closely than to the other two.

ENGLISH. FOREST. DENTRECASTEAUX, &c.

_fish_ een iené, _Malay_?
_bird_ moorsankeen mazaukéhéné.
_man_ sononman snoné, _Malay_?
_woman_ binn biéné, _Malay_?
_fire_ for afor.
_water_ war ouar, _Malay_?
_sand_ yean iené.
_house_ rome rouma, _Malay_?
_hook_ sofydine sarfedinne.
_sun_ rass riass.

Of the two remaining vocabularies the Lobo comes nearer to Forest than
the Utanata does. Neither, however, coincide with Forest, as Forest
coincides with the first four: nor yet do they coincide so closely with
each other.

ENGLISH. FOREST. LOBO.

_arrow_ ekay larakai.
_bird_ moorsankeen manoc.
_hog_ ben booi, _Malay_?
_island_ meossy nusu.
_sun_ rass orak.
_tree_ kaibus akajuakar.
_woman_ binn mawinna, _Malay_?
_water_ war malar.
_yes_ io oro.

ENGLISH. FOREST. UTANATA.

_bow_ myay amuré.
_I_ iya area.
_slave_ omini manoki.
_tree_ kaibus kai, _wood_.
_water_ war warani, _Malay_?
_yes_ io aroa.

Again:

ENGLISH. UTANATA. LOBO.

_basin_ pigani bingau.
_cheeks_ awamu wafiwiriongo.
_death_ namata namata, _Malay_?
_drink (to)_ nemuka makinu, and also _eat_.
_evening_ jauw aroă urwawa.
_eyes_ mamé matatongo, _Malay_?
_feathers_ wiegu wo eru, _Malay_?
_great_ napitteki nabitteki.
_hands_ toe mare nimango uta, _Malay_?
_hog_ oe booi, _Malay_?
_handsome_ nata nangewie.
_here_ aré inairi.
_head_ oepauw umun.
_iron_ puruti wurusesi.
_knife_ tai toeri, _for chopping_.
_lemons_ munda munda.
_little_ mimiti netie.
_long_ marawas marawas.
_lay (to)_ aïkai koekeimanse.
_man_ marowane marowane.
_mouth_ irie oriengo.
_noon_ kameti aroa oertoto, _evening_.
_plate_ pigani piring.
_rain_ komak komak.
_river_ warari napeteki walar nabetik, _water great_.
_rope_ warauw waras.
_sago_ kinani kakana.
_slave_ manoki mooi.
_seek_ matigati namitik.
_speak (to)_ iwari iwar.
_take away (to)_ namatorani motara.

_New Ireland._--As far as we have vocabularies for evidence, the
language of New Ireland is one.

ENGLISH. PORT PRASLIN. CARTERET BAY. DALRYMPLE.

_beard_ katissendi kambissek incambesser, _M._
_arms_ limak pongliman, _M._
_bananas_ ounn tachouner, _M._
_belly_ balang bala.
_fish_ siss hissou.
_fire_ bia eef.
_forehead_ poussou nourou posson arong.
_buttocks_ kambali kabalik
_back_ ptarou tarouk
_eye_ matal matak _M._
_ear_ pala tignai pralenhek
_foot_ pekendi balankeki kekeign.
_finger_ lima oulimak cateling liman.
_hair_ epiou iouk _M._
_iron_ siner siner
_neck_ kindouroua kondarouak
_nose_ mboussou kamboussouk nisson.
_shoulder_ kamliman kamlima
_tooth_ ninissai insik ysangh, _M._
_water_ moloum maloum _M._
_moon_ calaug kalan.

For the affinities of the dialects of Moa, Moses Island, Cocos Island,
Hoorn Island, to those of New Ireland, see Dalrymple's Island Voyages,
_ad fin._ That the differences in Manicolo are those of dialect, may be
seen from Gaimard's Vocabulary.

_Australia._--That the Australian languages are one, at least in
the way that the Indo-European languages are one, is likely from
hence-forward to be admitted. Captain Grey's statement upon the subject
is to be found in his work upon Australia. His special proof of the
unity of the Australian language is amongst the imprinted papers of the
Geographical Society. The opinions of Threlkeld and Teichelmann go the
same way. The author's own statements are as follows:--

(1.) For the whole round of the coast there is, generally speaking,
no vocabulary of sufficient length that, in some word or other, does
not coincide with the vocabulary of the nearest point, the language
of which is known to us. If it fail to do this it agrees with some of
the remoter dialects. Flinder's Carpentarian, compared with the two
vocabularies of the Endeavour River, has seventeen words in common. Of
these, three (perhaps) four coincide. Eye, _meal_, C.; _meul_, E. R.:
hair, _marra_, C.; _morye_, E. R.: fingers, _mingel_, C.; _mungal bah_,
E. R.: breast, _gummur_, C.: _coyor_, E. R.

_Endeavour River._--Two vocabularies.--Compared with the vocabularies
generally of Port Jackson, and the parts south and east of Port
Jackson:--Eye, _meul_, E. R.; _milla_, L. C.: nose, _emurda_, E. R.;
_morro_, L. C.: ears, _mulkah_, E. R.; _moko_, P. Macquarie: hair,
_morye_, E. R.; _mundah_, B. B.: breast, _coyor_, E. R.; _kowul_, P.
J.: fingers, _mungal bah_, E. R.; _maranga_, B. B.: elbow, _yeerwe_, E.
R.; _yongra_, Menero Downs: nails, _kotke_, E. R.; _karungun?_ P. J.:
beard, _wollar_, E. R.; _wato_, Jervis's Bay; _wollak_, Port Maquarie.
The number of words submitted to comparison was twenty-two.

Menero Downs (Lhotsky), and Adelaide (G. W. Earl).--Thirteen words in
common, whereof two coincide.

_hand_ morangan, M. D. murra, Adel.
_tongue_ talang, taling.

Adelaide (G. W. Earl) and Gulf St. Vincent (Astrolabe).

_beard_ mutta, A. molda, G. S. V.
_ear_ iri, ioure,
_foot_ tinna, tenna,
_hair_ yuka, iouka,
_hand_ murrah, malla,
_leg_ irako, ierko,
_nose_ mula, mudla,
_teeth_ tial, ta.

Gulf St. Vincent (Astrolabe) and King George's Sound (Nind and
Astrolabe); fifty words in common.

_wood_ kalla, G. S. V. kokol, K. G. S.
_mouth_ ta, taa,
_hair_ iouka, tchao,
_neck_ mannouolt, wolt,
_finger_ malla, mal,
_water_ kawe, kepe,
_tongue_ talein, talen,
_foot_ tenna, tchen,
_stone_ poure, pore,
_laugh_ kanghin, kaoner.

(2.) The vocabularies of distant points coincide; out of sixty words in
common we have eight coincident.

ENGLISH. JERVIS'S BAY. GULF ST. VINCENT.

_forehead_ holo ioullo.
_man_ mika meio.
_milk_ awanham ammenhalo.
_tongue_ talen talein.
_hand_ maramale malla.
_nipple_ amgnann amma.
_black_ mourak pouilloul.
_nails_ berenou pere.

(3.) The most isolated of the vocabularies; e. g. the Carpentarian, if
compared with the remaining vocabularies, taken as a whole, has certain
words to be found in different and distant parts of the island.

ENGLISH. CARPENTARIAN.
_eye_ mail milla, L. C.
_nose_ hurroo morro, L. C.

The following is a notice of certain words coinciding, though taken
from dialects far separated:

_lips_ tambamba, Men. D. tamande, G. S. V.
_star_ jingi, ditto tchindai, K. G. S.
_forehead_ ullo, ditto ioullo, G. S. V.
_beard_ yernka, Adel {arnga, }
{nanga, } K. G. S.
_bite_ paiandi, ditto badjeen, ditto.
_fire_ gaadla, ditto kaal, ditto.
_heart_ karlto, ditto koort, ditto.
_sun_ tindo, ditto djaat, ditto.
_tooth_} tia, ditto dowal, ditto.
_edge_ }
_water_ kauwe, ditto kowwin, ditto.
_stone_ pure, ditto boye, ditto.

In the way of grammatical inflection we find indications of the same
unity. We find also differences upon which we should be careful against
laying too much stress. The inflection of the number is an instance of
the difference. In South Australian--_tinyara_, a boy; _tinyarurla_,
two boys; _tinyar-anna_, boys. In Western Australia--_yago_, a woman;
_yago-mun_, women; _goolang_, a child; _goolang-gurrah_, children
(_gurra_, many); _doorda_, a dog; _doorda-goodjal_, two dogs; _doorda
boula_, many dogs (_boula_, many). Here there is a difference
where we generally find agreement, viz. in the inflectional (or
quasi-inflectional) expression of the numbers. The difference, however,
is less real than apparent. The Australian is one of those languages
(so valuable in general philology) where we find inflections in the act
of forming, and that from the agglutination not of affixes, suffixes
and prefixes, but of words. In other terms, inflection is evolving
itself out of composition. The true view then of different forms for
the same idea is not that the inflections are unlike, but that the
quasi-inflectional circumlocutions differ from each other in different
dialects. There is no inflectional parallel between _two men_ in
English and ἀνθρώπω in Greek.

_Van Diemen's Land, South._--For the south of Van Diemen's Land the
language seems radically one. The following is what Cook has in common
with Dentrecasteaux (or La Billardière) and Allan Cunningham.

ENGLISH. COOK. 1803. D. C. A. C.

_woman_ quadne cuani quani
_eye_ evera nubere nubere nammurruck.
_nose_ muidje mugid muigui meoun.
{cuegnilia}
_ear_ koidgi cuengi-lia {vaigui } gounreek.
{ouagui }

Lhotsky's Vocabulary stands more alone. With the Vocabulary of
1803 and Dentrecasteaux's Vocabulary, it has but three (or two)
coincidences:--tongue, _mina_ Lh.; _mene_, Voc. of 1803: water,
_lugana_, Lh.; _lia_, Voc. 1803: drink, _lugana_, Lh.; _laina_, Voc.
1803. With Allan Cunningham's Vocabulary it has fourteen words in
common and three coincident:--nose, _minerana_, Lh.; _meoun_, A. C.:
tongue, _mina_, Lh.; _mim_, A. C.: fire, _lope_, Lh.; _lope_. A.
C.. Brown and Cunningham coincide a little more than Cunningham and
Lhotsky. It is perhaps safe to say, that for the South of Van Diemen's
Land the language, as represented by its vocabularies, is radically one.

_Van Diemen's Land, North._--In Lhotsky's Vocabulary seven words are
marked W, four E, and one S, as being peculiar to the western, eastern
and southern parts of the island. One of the four words marked E is
found in the Port Dalrymple Vocabulary, being the only word common to
the two, _e. g._ wood, _mumanara_, E.; _moumra_, Port Dalrymple. The
coincidence of the North and South is as follows:--

ENGLISH. PORT DALRYMPLE. LHOTSKY.

_ear_ tiberatie pitserata.
_eye_ elpina lepina.
_leg_ langna langana, _foot_.
_hawk_ gan henen henen ingenana.
_posteriors_ wabrede wabrede.
_man_ lusuina looudouenne.
_night_ livore levira.
_sea_ legana lugana, _fresh water_.
_tooth_ iane yana.

ENGLISH. PORT DALRYMPLE. BROWN & D. C.

_belly_ magueleni lomongui.
_bird_ iola oille.
_kangaroo_ taramei tara.
_lips_ mona mogudilia.
_nose_ medouer mugid.
_stone_ lenn parene loine.
_tooth_ iane canan.
_arms_ regoula rilia.

About thirty-five words are common to Lhotsky and the Vocabularies
of Brown and Dentrecasteaux. From the foregoing observations we may
conclude that for the whole of Van Diemen's Land (as far as represented
by the Vocabularies) the language is radically one.

Such are the groups as spread over limited areas and confined within
natural boundaries. The affinity of speech between different islands is
another question.

Preliminary to this we must eliminate the Malay from the Negrito. The
full knowledge that this has been done imperfectly invalidates all that
we have arrived at; so that, once for all, it may be stated, that what
is asserted respecting the amount of words common to two localities is
asserted subject to the condition of their being true Negrito and not
Malay.

_Andaman and Samang._--Few words in common; one coincident, and that
borrowed in all probability from a third language.

_New Guinea and Waigioo._ By Waigioo is meant the Waigioo of Arago, and
the Undetermined Vocabulary of Dentrecasteaux. They have about forty
words in common, and the following are coincident:--

ENGLISH. WAIGIOO? NEW GUINEA?

_hand_ cocani, D. konef.
_belly_ sgnani, A. sneouar.
_cheek_ ganga foni, A. gaiafoe.
_breast_ mansou, A. soussou.
_eyes_ tagueni, D. tadeni.
_eyelids_ inekarnei, A. karneou.
_foot_ courgnai, A. oekourae, _heel_.
_fire_ clap, A. ap, afor.
_hair_ senoumebouran, A. sonebrahene.
_knee_ capugi, A. one-pouer.
_rain_ mei, D. meker.
_sand_ saine, D. iene, _Malay_.
_nose_ {sauny, D.} soidon, _mouth_.
{soun, A. }
_stuff_ made }
(of bark }male, D. maran, _Malay_.
of tree), }

_New Guinea and New Ireland._--Forest and Dalrymple:--fish, _een_, F.;
_hissou_, D. Mal.: fire, _for_, F.; _eeff_, D. Mal.: sand, _yean_, F.,
_coon_, D.: sun, _ras_, F.; _nass_, D: star, _mak_, F.; _maemetia_, D.
Dalrymple and Utanata.--Upwards of twenty-five words in common:--Earth,
_taar_, D.; _tiri_ Mal.; Ut.: eat, _nam nam_, D.; _nemuka_, Ut.:
tongue, _hermangh_, D.; _mare_, Ut. _Dalrymple and Lobo_.--About thirty
words in common:--arms, _pongliman_, D.; _nimango_, Ut., Mal: belly,
_balang_, D.; _kanborongo_, Ut.: tongue, _hermangh_, D.; _kariongo_, Ut.

_Port Praslin and Carteret Bay_ (taken together), and _Utanata and
Lobo_ (taken together).--For the sake of comparison, the whole of the
words that the two (or four) Vocabularies have in common are exhibited,
and by their side the equivalents in Latin and in Greek.

ENGLISH. UTAN. LOB. P. P. AND LATIN. GREEK.
C. B.
_arm_ nimango limak brachium ὠλἐνη.
_back_ tergum νῶτον.
_belly_ kan-borongo bala venter γαστήρ.
_beard_ barba πώγον.
_bud_ manok mani avis ὃρνις.
_breast_ pectus στῆθος.
_black_ ikoko guiam niger μέλας.
_cough_ wouru lou-koro tussis βήξ.
_dog_ wure poul canis κύων.
_dance_ salio χορεύομαι..
_eyes_ matatongo mata oculus ὃφθαλμος.
-- _brows_ wura pouli matandi supercilium ὀφρύς.
_ear_ auris ὀῦς.
_eat_ edo ἐσθίω.
_fish_ piscis ἰχθύς.
_foot_ kaingo balan keke pes πούς.
_finger_ nimango sori lima digitus δάκτυλος.
_fire_ ignis πῦρ.
_great_ magnus μέγας.
_hair_ crinis θριξ.
_hand_ manus χεῖρ.
_hog_ booi bouri porcus χοῖρος.
_head_ oepauw pouklouk caput κεφάλη.
_knee_ kairigo-woko {tangoulou }
{kekendi }genu γόνυ.
{pougaigi }
_mouth_ os στόμα.
_moon_ luna σελήνη.
_neck_ collum τράχηλος.
_nose_ nasus ρίς.
_no_ non οὐ.
_red_ napetiaro tara ruber ἐρυθρός.
_run_ curro τρέχω.
_sugar-cane_
_tongue_ kariongo kermea lingua γλῶσσα.
_thigh_ femur μηρός.
_teeth_ dens ὀδόυς.
_water_ {malar} moloum aqua ὕδωρ.
{waran}
_yes_ oro io imo ναιχί.

With thirty-seven words in common, the two Negrito languages have
seventeen coincident; with thirty-seven words in common; the two
classical languages have nine coincident. The evidence, therefore, of
the affinity of the Papua and New Ireland is stronger than of the Latin
and Greek, as determined from identical _data_.

_New Ireland and Manicolo._--The Port-Praslin and Carteret Bay
Vocabularies being dealt with as one for New Ireland, and the
three dialects being treated as one for Manicolo, we have, out of
twenty-eight words in common, the following coinciding:--yes, _io_,
P. P.; _io_, C. B.; _io_, Manic.: eye, _mata_, P. P.; _matak_, C.
B.; _mala_, _maleo_, _mataeo_, Man., _Mal._: banana, _ounn_ C. B.;
_pounha_, _ounra_, _ounro_, Man., _Mal._: canoe, _kouan_, C. B.;
_naoure_, _goia_, _koure_, Manic, _Mal._: tooth, _ninissai_, P.
P.; _insik_, C. B.; _indje_, Tanean: testes, _puen_, P. P.; _boua
bouinini_, _boua ini_, Man.: beard, _kam-bissek_, C. B. (_incam
besser_, Dalr.); _oungoumie_, _vingoumie_, Man., _Mal._: breast,
_boroick_, C. B.; _berenhenham_, Man.; ear, _palalignai_, P. P.;
_pralen_, C. B.; _manbalenhi_, Manic.; hair, _nihouge_, D.; _anaoko_,
Man.

_Manicolo and Mallicollo._--Eighteen words in common, the following
coincident:--Bread-fruit, _baloe_, Man.; _barabe_, Mall.: cocoa-nut,
_venoure_, Man.; _naroo_, Mall.: eye, _mataeo_, Man.; _maitang_,
Mall., _Mal._: ear, _tagnaini_, Man.: _talingan_, Mall., _Mal._:
bird, _menouka_, Man.; _moero_, Mall., _Mal._: head, _batcha_, Man.;
_basaine_, Mall.: hog, _boi boi_, Man.; _brrooas_, Mall., _Mal._: no,
_tae_, Man.; _taep_, Mall.: water, _ouine_, Man.; _ergour_, Mall.:
drink, _kanou_, _nanou_, Man.; _nooae_, Mall.

_Mallicollo and Tanna._--Sixteen words in common:--cocoa-nuts, _naroo_,
Mall.; _nabooy_, Tann.: drink, _noaee_, Mall.; _nooee_, Tann., _Mal._:
eye, _maitang_, Mall.; _manee maiuk_, Tann., _Mal._: ears, _talingan_,
Mall.; _feeneenguk_, Tann., _Mal._: bird, _möeroo_, Mall.; _manoo_,
Tann., _Mal._: hog, _brrooas_, Mall.; _boogas_, Tann., Mal.: navel,
nemprtong, Mall.; _napeerainguk_, Tann.: teeth, _reebohn_, _warrewuk_,
Mall.; _raibuk_, Tann.; water, _ergour_, Mall.; _namawarain_, Tann.:
woman, _rabin_, Mall.; _naibraan_, Tann., _Mal._

_Tanna and Mallicollo_ (taken together) _and New Caledonia_.--Neither
with Mallicollo or Tanna alone, nor with Mallicollo and Tanna taken
together, as compared with New Caledonia, do we find more words
coincident than the following:--Cocoa-nut, _naroo_, M.; _nabooy_, T.;
_neeoo_, N. Cal., _Mal._: drink, _noaee_, M.; _nooee_, T.; _oondoo_, N.
Cal.: head, _noogwanaium_, T.; _garmoin_ (Cook), _vangue_, (L. B.), N.
Cal.: yams, _oofe_, Tann.; _oobe_, N. Cal., Mal.: yes, _eeo_, Tann.;
_elo_, N. Cal.: no, _taep_, Mall.; _nda_, N. Cal.

Next in order comes the comparison between the Vocabularies of Van
Diemen's Land and South Australia.

_Port Dalrymple and King Georges Sound_ (_Nind and Astrol._):--Wound,
_barana_, P. D.; _bareuk_, N.: wood, _moumbra_, P. D.; _pourn_, N.:
hair, _kide_, P. D.; _kaat_, N.: thigh, _degagla_, P. D.; _tawal_, N.:
kangaroo, _taramei_, P. D.; _taamour_, N.: lips, _mona_, P. D.; _mele_,
K. G. S.: no, _poutie_, P. D.; _poualt_, _poort_, K. G. S.: egg,
_komeka_, P. D.; _kierkee_, K. G. S.: bone, _pnale_, P. D.; _nouil_, K.
G. S. (bone of bird used to suck up water) N.: skin, _kidna_, P. D.;
_kiao?_ K. G. S.: two _kateboueve_, P. D.; _kadjen_, K. G. S. (N.).
Fifty-six words in common.

_Port Dalrymple and Gulf St. Vincent._--Mouth, _mona_, P. D.;
_tamonde_, G. S. V. (a compound word, since _taa_ is mouth, in K.
G. S.): drink, _kible_, P. D.; _kawe_, G. S. V.: arm, _anme_, P.
D.; _aondo_ (also shoulder), G. S. V.: hawk, _gan henen henen_, P.
D.; _nanno_, G. S. V.: hunger, _tigate_, P. D.; _takiou_, G. S. V.:
head, _eloura_: P. D.; _ioullo_, G. S. V.: nose, _medouer_[20], P.
D., _modla_, G. S. V.: bird, _iola_, _pallo_, G. S. V.: stone, _lenn
parenne_, P. D.; _poure?_ G. S. V.: foot, _dogna_, P. D.; _tenna_, G.
S. V.: sun, _tegoura_[21], P. D.; _tendo_, G. S. V. Seventy words in
common.

[Footnote 20: Mula.]

[Footnote 21: Also Moon.]

_Port Dalrymple and Jervis's Bay._--Wound, _barana_, P. D.; _karanra_,
J. B.: tooth, _iane_, P. D.; _ira_, J. B.: skin, _kidna_, P. D.;
_bagano_, J. B.: foot, _dogna_, P. D.; _tona_[22], J. B.: head,
_eloura_, P. D.; _hollo_, J. B. Fifty-four words in common. What
follows is a notice of some miscellaneous coincidences between the Van
Diemen's Land and the Australian.

[Footnote 22: Tjenne, tidna, jeena.]

ENGLISH. VAN DIEMEN'S LAND. AUSTRALIA.

_ears_ cuengilia, 1803 gundugeli, Men. D.
_thigh_ tula, Lh. dara, Men. D.
{pure, Adel. }
_stone_ {voye, K. G. S.} lenn parene, P. D.
_breast_ pinenana, Lh. voyene, Men. D.
_skin_ kidna, P. D. makundo, Teichelman.
_day_ megra, Lh. nangeri, Men. D.
_run_ mella, Lh. monri, Men. D.
_feet_ perre, D. C. birre[23].
_little_ bodenevoued, P. D. baddoeen, Grey.
_lip_ mona, P. D. tameno (_upper lip_), ditto.
_egg_ komeka, P. D. muka, _egg_, _anything round_,
Teichel.
_tree_ moumra, P. D. worra (_forest_), Teichel.
_mouth_ }
_tongue_ }kamy, Cook.} {_speak._}
_tooth_ }kane, P. D.} kame {_mouth._} J. B.
_speak_ } {_cry._ }
_leg_ darra, P. J. lerai.
_knee_ gorook, ditto. ronga, D. C.
_moon_ tegoura, P. D. kakirra, Teichelman.
_nose_ medouer, P. D. {mudla, ditto.
{moolya, Grey.
_hawk_ gan henen henen, P. D. gargyre, ditto.
_hunger_ tegate, P. D. taityo, Teichelman.
_laugh_ pigne, P. D. mengk, Grey.
_moon_ vena, 1835. yennadah, P. J.
_day_ megra, 1835. karmarroo, ditto.
_fire_ une, 1803. yong, ditto.
_dew_ manghelena, _rain_ menniemoolong.
{neylucka, Murray, P. D.
_water_ boue lakade {bado, ditto.
{lucka, Carpentarian.

[Footnote 23: Generally toe-nail.]

Such is the similarity amongst the Negrito languages, as taken in their
geographical sequence, and as divided into three groups. Between the
Andaman and Samang there is no visible similarity or coincidence. From
New Guinea to New Caledonia there is a series of coincidences; and
there is also similarity between the Australian and Van Diemen's Land.
But it is far from following that, because languages will form groups
when taken in geographical succession, they will also form groups when
the sequence or succession shall be interrupted. Tested by another
method there is an affinity as follows:

ENGLISH. MANICOLO. NEW GUINEA.

_arms_ me, menini, maini nimango, L., _Mal._
_belly_ tchan-hane, tchaene {kanborongo, L.
{sgnani, W.
_bow_ ore amure, Ut.
_drink_ canou {makinu, L. }_Mal._
{quinenne, A.}
_eye_ mala, mateo mame, U.; matatongo, U., _Mal._
_sun_ ouioia jauw, U.
_tongue_ mia, mimeaeo mare, Ut.
_woman_ venime, vignivi {mawina. L.} _Mal._
{viene, A. }
_yes_ io aroa, U., oro, L.
_ear_ tagnaini, ragnengo {kanik, kananie, A.} _Mal._
{tantougni, W. }
_fish_ ane, gniene iene, A., _Mal._
_nose_ n-hele nony, A.
_water_ ouire {ouara, A., _Mal._
{war, F.
_teeth_ ongne oualini, analini, W.
_shoulders_ outalen-buien-hane poupouni, _Waig._

ENGLISH. NEW CALEDONIA. NEW IRELAND.

_ant_ kinki akan, P. P.
_tooth_ inouan insik, C. B., _Mal._
_birth_ manou mane, C. B., Mal.
_cheeks_ poangue paring, D.
_eyebrows_ poutchie-banghie pouli-matandi, P. P.
_fire_ afi, hiepp bia.
_foot_ bakatiengue {kekeign, D.
{balankeke, C. P.
_knees_ bangueligha pougaigi, P. P.
_tongue_ coubmeigha, coumean kermea.
_moon_ ndan kalan, P. P.
_walk_ ouanem inan.
_rain_ oda ous, D., _Mal._
_nose_ mandee mboussou, P. P.
_sleep_ kingo heim, D.
_black_ ganne guiam.
_sun_ niangat naas, D.
_navel_ padan-bourigne, pamboran pouta, P. P., _Mal._
_sea_ dene dan (_water_), D., _Mal._
_weep_ ngot ignek, C. B.

ENGLISH. NEW CALEDONIA. MANICOLO.

_back_ donnha dienhane diene.
_ear_ guening ragnengo.
_good_ kapareick kapai.
_head_ bangue batcha.
_moon_ manoc mele.
_no_ nda taie.
_testes_ {quienbeigha bona.
{yabingue bouenini.
_water_ oe ouire, _Mal._

ENGLISH. NEW CALEDONIA, D. C. WAIGIOO, D. C., &C.

_ear_ guening guenani.
_fish_ ica icanne, _Mal._
_teeth_ inouan analiné, Undetermined, D. C.

* * * * *

Notwithstanding doubtful words certain, it seems that there is evidence
of the most unlike of the languages between Waigioo and New Caledonia
(inclusive) being not more unlike than the most dissimilar of the
Indo-European tongues. That this statement may be enlarged seems
probable by the following parallels:--

_feet_ {perre, V. D. L. }petiran, C. B.
{perelia (_nails_), do. }
_beard_ kongine, V. D. L. {gangapouni, _Waig._
{yenga, _Mal._
_bird_ mouta, V. D. L. manouk, _Mal._
_chin_ kamnena, V. D. L. gambape, _Waig._
_eye_ menl, Austr matta, _Pap._ and _Mal._
{canan} {gani, _mouth_, _Waig._, D.
_tooth_ {iane } V. D. L. {insik, _teeth_, P. P., _Mal._
{yane }
_forehead_ caberra, Port Jackson kabrani, _Waig._
_sand_ gune, V. D. L. coon, yean.
_wood_ }gui, V. D. L. kaibus, _Pap._ and _Mal._
_tree_ }
_hair_ {yoka } Australia nihouge, New Ir.
{rouka}
_sun_ jinji } Australia niangat, N. C.
_star_ tchindai}
_ear_ koyge, V. D. L. gaaineng, N. C.

VAN DIEMEN'S LAND,
ENGLISH. D. C. L. B. NEW CALEDONIA, D.C., L.B.

_mouth_ mougui wangue and mouanguia.
_arm_ houana, gouna pingue.
_shoulders_ {bagny} bouheigha.
{baguy}
_fire_ nuba afi, hiepp, nap, _Mal._
_knees_ {rangalia} banguiligha.
{rouga }
_dead_ mata mackie.
_no_ neudi nola.
_ears_ cuegni-lia guening.
_nails_ pereloigni pihingui.
_hair_ pelilogueni bouling, poun ingue.
_teeth_ pegui {penoungha.
{paou wangue.
_fingers_ beguia badouheigha.
_nose_ mongui mandec, vanding.
_sleep_ makunya kingo.

ENGLISH. ANDAMAN. MISCELLANEOUS.

_ear_ quaka {cuengi, V. D. L.
{gueening, N. C.
_hand_ gonie gong, Aust., or V. D. L.
_mouth_ morna mona, V. D. L.
_nose_ mellee {mudla } V. D. L.
{medouer}
_sun_ ahay jauw, Utan.
_thighs_ poye pengue paan, N. C.
_wood_ kiante tanghee, N. C.

The author concluded his paper with the following observations:--

1. For all that is known to the contrary, the Negrito tongues of
Sumatra, Borneo, Timor, the Moluccas, Formosa and several smaller
islands of whose languages we have no specimens; may be in any relation
whatever to any other language, and to each other.

2. The Andamanee and Samang may be in any relation to any other Negrito
tongue, or to each other, beyond that of mere dialect.

3. The languages hitherto known of New Guinea, New Ireland, the
Solomon's Isles, New Caledonia, Tanna, and Mallicollo, are related
to each other, _at least_ as the most different languages of the
Indo-European tribe are related.

4. The known languages of Australian are related to each other, _at
least_ in the same degree.

5. The Van Diemen's Land and Australian are similarly related.

6. Classified in divisions equally general with the Indo-European,
the Negrito dialects (as far as they are known by their vocabularies)
cannot fall into more than four, and may possibly be reducible to one;
the data being up to a certain point sufficient to determine radical
affinities, but nowhere sufficient to determine radical differences.

7. The ethnographical division, according to physical conformation,
coincides with the ethnographical division according to language, only
so far as the former avoids the details of classification. With the
minute subdivisions of the French naturalists the latter coincides
least.

8. The distinction between the Negritos and the Malays seems less broad
when determined by the test of language, than it does when measured by
physical conformation.

9. The notion of the hybridism of the Papuas, arising from the view of
their physical conformation, is in a degree confirmed by the nature of
their language; although even the physical evidence is not absolute,
_i. e._ on a par with that respecting the hybridism of the Griquas and
Confusos.

10. With two[24] (if not more) Negrito tribes, whereof the evidence
of language is wholly wanting, physiological differences indicate a
probability of difference of language, equal to the difference between
any two Negrito languages of which we have specimens.

11. Even in the physiological classifications we are far from being
sure that the whole number of Negrito tribes has been described.

[Footnote 24: The Blacks of the Philippines and the Blacks of the South
of New Guinea.]

NOTE A.

[PART I]

ENGLISH. OMBAY. NEW ZEALAND. MALAY.
_Arago._ _Astrolabe._ _Astrolabe._

_nose_ imouni hihiou idong
_eyes_ inirko kanohi mata
_head_ imocila kadou, oupoko kapala
_mouth_ ibirka mangai moulout
_teeth_ vessi niho guiguit
_chin_ irakata kouai djengot
_hair_ inibatalaga oudou rambout
_ear_ iverlaka taringa kouping
_neck_ tameni ?kaki tengkok
_breast_ tercod ouma dada
_belly_ [25]tekapana kopore prout
_posteriors_ tissoukou ---- ----
_pudendum_ glessi ---- ----
_bosom_ ami ou pankou
_shoulders_ iklessine poko iwi bahou
_arm_ ibarana ---- ----
_hand_ ouine dinga tanghan
_finger_ tetenkilei ---- ----
_thumb_ setenkoubassi koro-matoua djempol
_thigh_ itêna owha paha
_leg_ irnka wae wae vetis
_knee_ icieibouka touri loukout
_foot_ makalata ---- kaki
_tail_ imbilitaka ikou bountot
_bow_ mossa ---- ----
_arrow_ dota ---- pana
_knife_ pisso koti koti pissau

[PART II]

ENGLISH. TICOPIA. TIMOR. SAVOO.
_Astrolabe._ _Raffles._ _Parkinson._

_nose_ issou enur swanga.
_eyes_ mata mata madda.
_head_ ordou ulu katow.
_mouth_ nhoutou ---- lara voulou.
_teeth_ nifo nehan ----
_chin_ kaoue ---- pagave.
_hair_ raoulou ---- row.
_ear_ tarinha ---- coodelou.
_neck_ teoua ---- lacoco.
_breast_ ou ---- ----
_belly_ mimi, laha kabon duloo.
_posteriors_ ---- ---- voorai.
_pudendum_ ---- ---- ----
_bosom_ fata fata ---- sousou.
_shoulders_ touaga oupoko ---- kooloogoono.
_arm_ ---- ---- ----
_hand_ rima ---- wulaba.
_finger_ ---- ---- ----
_thumb_ maikao ---- ----
_thigh_ faci ---- tooga.
_leg_ vae ---- aen-vaibo.
_knee_ poko touri ---- routou.
_foot_ vai ---- dureala.
_tail_ ---- ---- ----
_bow_ ten hassaou ---- ----
_arrow_ fana ---- ----
_knife_ koffe ---- bussee, _iron_.

[Footnote 25: Kibou, Mad., opou, Owhywhee.]

NOTE B.

_arm_ kapiani, A.; capiani, D.
_buttock_ seni and senidokaouri, A.; tiaugapoui, D.
_belly_ sgnani, A.; iani, D.
_back_ kouaneteni, A.; cateni, D.
_chin_ gambapi, A.; capapi, D.
_dugs_ mansou, A.; sou (_bosom_), D.
_eyes_ jadjiemouri, A.; taguini, D.
_fingers_ cantoulili, D.
-- _fore_ konkant-ili, A.
-- _middle_ kouanti-poulo, A.
-- _ring_ kouanti-ripali, A.
-- _little_ kouanti-lminki, A.
_foot_ kourgnai, A.; caloani, D.
_hair_ sénoumébouran, A.; pia, D.
_hand_ konk afaleni, A.; cocani, D.
_heel_ konk abiouli, A.
_knee_ konk-apoki, A.; capougui, D.
_leg_ konkanfai, A.; anga fuini, D.
_nose_ soun, A.; sauny, D.
_nails_ cambrene, A.; cabrene, D.
_teeth_ oualini, A.; analini, D.
_toe_, _great_ kouanti-hel, A.
--, _second and fourth_ kouanti-bipali, A.
--, _third_ kouanti-poulo, A.
--, _little_ kouanti-lminki, A.
_thigh_ affoloni, A.; enfoloni, or anfoloni, D.

ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA (1859).

_Andaman_--The _Andaman_ Language is monosyllabic, and allied to the
Burmese of the opposite continent.

_Nicoaar_ &c.--The statement that there are Blacks in the _Nicobar
Islands_ is 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 marked _N_, and those from Cariecobar _C. 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 Indian
Archipelago; 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 to _Borneo_; where there is plenty of barbarism but
nothing Negrito.

The same to the _Sulu_ Archipelago.

The _Manillas_.--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.

For _Timor_, _Ombay_ &c. see the next paper.

The language of the _Arru_ islanders 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 five _Tasmanian_ forms 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 the _Micronesian_ Islanders (natives of the _Marianne_ and
_Caroline_ Archipelagos) 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.

ON THE GENERAL AFFINITIES
OF THE
LANGUAGES OF THE OCEANIC BLACKS.

APPENDIX TO JUKES'S VOYAGE OF HMS FLY.

1847.

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 class
of 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.

[Footnote 26: This is the preceding paper. (1859).]

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 other _papua_ or 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 the _data_ as we _now_ have 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. In the Timboran dialect of the Sumbawan.
2. In the Mangerei dialect of Flores.
3. In the Ombayan of Ombay.

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 of _foot_.

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 exhibit _in
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 ran _round_ Australia rather than
_across_ it.

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 called _cumulative_; and it is the only
evidence that our present _data_ will 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 of _future_
philologists.

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.

ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA (1859).

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.

REMARKS ON THE VOCABULARIES
OF THE
VOYAGE OF THE RATTLESNAKE.

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 of _m_ runs 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 of _t_, _s_, or _th_, appears in such words as _tu_,
συ, _thou_, &c.! Now this _constancy_ of 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 say _you_ for _thou_ in English,
one _number_ is substituted for another; and sometimes, as when the
German says _sie_ for _thou_, 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 used
in a personal sense, two languages may be, in reality, very closely
allied, though their personal pronouns of the third person differ.
Thus the Latin _ego_ = εγω; but the Latin _hic_ and _ille_ by no means
correspond in form with ὁς, αὐτος, and ἐχεινος. 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:--

Singular, masculine _nu-du_ = _he_, _him_.
-- feminine _na-du_ = _she_, _her_.
Dual, common _pale_ = _they two_, _them two_.
Plural, -- _tana_ = _they_, _them_.

In the two first of these forms the _du_ is no part of the root, but
an affix, since the Gudang gives us the simpler forms _nue_ and _na_.
_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_.

Singular _ngi-du_ = _thou_, _thee_.
Dual _ngi-pel_ = _ye two_, _you two_.
Plural _ngi-tana_ = _ye_, _you_.

Here the root is limited to the syllable _ngi_, as shewn not less by
the forms _ngi-pel_, and _ngi-tana_, than by the simple Gudang _ngi_ =
_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-pel_ is probably _thou_ + _pair_. _A priori_ this is a likely way
of forming a dual. As to the reasons _a posteriori_ they are not to be
drawn wholly from the Kowrarega tongue itself. Here the word for two
is not _pel_ but _quassur_. But let us look further. The root _p-l_,
or a modification of it, = _two_ in 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 language _purla_ = _ye two_.
Finally, its appearance amongst the pronouns, and its absence amongst
the numerals, occurs in the Western Australian. The numeral _two_ is
_kardura_; but the dual pronoun is _boala_. The same phenomenon would
occur in the present English if two circumstances had taken place,
viz., if the Anglo-Saxon dual _wi-t_ = _we two_ had been retained up to
the present time amongst the pronouns, and the word _pair_, _brace_, or
_couple_, had superseded _two_ amongst the numerals.

Lastly, the Western Australian and the Kowrarega so closely agree in
the use of the numeral _two_ for the dual pronoun, that each applies
it in the same manner. In the _third_ person it stands alone, so that
in W. Australian _boala_, and in Kowrarega _pale_ = _they two_, just
as if in English we said _pair_ or _both_, instead of _they 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 Greek σφωι
by _thou pair_ or _thou both_.

Singular _nga-tu_ = _I_, _me_.
Dual _albei_ = _we two_, _us two_.
Plural _arri_ = _we_, _us_.

Here the plural and dual are represented, not by a modification of
the singular, but by a new word; as different from _nga_ as _nos_ is
from _ego_. The _tu_, of course, is non-radical, the Gudang form being
_ngai_.

_Nga_, expressive of the first person, is as common as _ngi_,
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 the _third_ person 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 that _i-na_ = _this_, _che-na_
= _that_, and _nga-du_ (_nga_ in Gudang) = _who_. _Ina_ and _chena_
also means _here_ and _there_, respectively.

The dual form _albei_ reappears in the Yak-kumban dialect of the River
Darling where _allewa_ = _we two_. _Arri_ = _us_, is also the first
syllable in the Western Australian form _arlingul_ = _we_; or, rather
it is _ar-lingul_ in a simpler and less compounded form. In a short
specimen of Mr. Eyre's from the head of the Great Australian Bight,
the form in _a_ appears in the singular number, _ajjo_ = _I_ and _me_.
The root _tana_ = _they_, is not illustrated without going as far as
the Western Australian of Mr. Eyre. Here, however, we find it in the
compound word _par-tanna_ = _many_. Its original power is probably
_others_; and it is most likely a widely diffused Australian root.

The pronouns in question are compound rather than simple; _i. e._
instead of _nga_ = _me_, and _ngi_ = _thee_, we have _nga-tu_ and
_ngi-du_. What is the import and explanation of this? It may safely be
said, that the termination in the Australian is _not_ a termination
like the Latin _met_ in _ego-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_, and _ngi-du_). I hazard the conjecture that the two forms
correspond with the adverbs _here_ and _there_; so that _nga-tu_ = _I
here_, and _ngi-du_ = _thou_ there, and _nu-du_ = he there. In respect
to the juxta-position of the _simple_ forms (_ngai_, _ngi_, and _nue_)
of the Gudang with the compound ones (_nga-tu_, _ngi-du_, and _nu-du_)
of the Kowrarega, it can be shewn that the same occurs in the Parnkalla
of Port Lincoln; where Mr. Eyre gives the double form _ngai_ and
_nga-ppo_ each = _I_ or _me_.

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 the _brace_,
another by the _pair_, and a third by the _couple_. Nevertheless, if we
bear in mind the Greek forms θαλασσα and θαλαττα, we may fairly suppose
that the Kowrarega word for _two_, or _quassur_, is the same word with
the Head of Australian Bight _kootera_, the Parnkalla _kuttara_, and
the W. Australian _kardura_, having the same meaning.

The difference, then, between the _numerals_ of 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.

The _extent to which the numeration is carried_ is a matter of more
importance. Possibly a numeration limited to the first three, four,
or five numbers is the _effect of_ intellectual 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 as _five_
are generally independent of the fingers _in toto_. Then as to the
names of particular numbers. Two nations may each take the name of
the number _two_ from some natural dualism; but they may not take it
from the same. For instance, one American Indian may take it from a
pair of _skates_, another from a pair of _shoes_. If so, the word
for _two_ will differ in the two languages, even when the names for
_skate_ and _shoe_ agree. All this is supported by real facts, and is
no hypothetical illustration; so that the inference from it is, that,
in languages where a _numeral system_ is 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:--

English one two three
Moreton Bay kamarah bulla mudyan
-- Island karawo ngargark 2 + 1
Limbakarajia erat ngargark do.
Terrutong roka oryalk do.
Limbapyu immuta lawidperra 2 + 1
Kowrarega warapune quassur do.
Gudang epiamana elabaio do.
Darnley Island netat nes do.
Raffles Bay loca orica orongarie
Lake Macquarie wakol buloara ngoro
Peel River peer pular purla
Wellington ngungbai bula bula-ngungbai
Corio koimoil ---- ----
Jhongworong kap ---- ----
Pinegorine youa ---- ----
Gnurellean lua ---- ----
King George's Sound keyen cuetrel murben
Karaula mal bular culeba
Lachlan, Regent Lake nyoonbi bulia bulongonbi
Wollondilly River medung pulla colluerr

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. The _possessive_ pronoun. 3. A particle
of _time_--often originally one of _place_.

A rough illustration of this is the statement that such a word as
_dormivi_ = _sleep_--_my_--_then_ (or _there_). To apply this doctrine
to the Kowrarega with our present _data_, is unsafe. Still, I am
inclined (notwithstanding some difficulties) to identify the _pa_ of
the Present tense with the _bu_ in _kai-bu_ = _now_, and the _n_ of the
preterite with the _n_ of _che-na_ = _there_.

The double forms of the Past tense (one in _n_, and another in _m_) are
at present inexplicable. So are the double forms of the Imperative,
viz. the one in _r_, and the one in _e_. It may, however, be remarked,
that wherever the Imperative ends in _e_, the Preterite has the form in
_m_; thus, _pid-e_ = _dig_, _pid-ema_ = _dug_. The only exception is
the anomalous form _peneingodgi_ = _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 of
_le_, 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
naturally _plural_ objects ending in _li_, _la_, or _l_.

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 forms
_kar-ga_, from the Head of the Great Australian Bight, and _ma-kar-ta_,
from Adelaide, that the _l_ is foreign to the root.

4. Hands--_marrow-la_ in the Molonglo dialect; and contrasted with
_marra_ in the Adelaide.

This, however, is merely a conjecture; a conjecture, however, which
has a practical bearing. It suggests caution in the comparison _of_
vocabularies; 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 same _principles_ as Mr. Macgillivray's Kowrarega; indeed, some of
the details coincide.

[Footnote 27: Given to Mr. Macgillivray by Mr. James Macarthur, and
prefixed to the MS. Port Essington Vocabulary, alluded to at p. 157 of
Vol. I.]

Thus, the Limbakarajia personal pronouns are--

_I_ = _nga-pi_.
_Thou_ = _noie_.
_He_, _she_, _it_ = _gianat_.
_We_ = _ngari_.
_We two_ = _arguri_.
_Ye_ = _noie_.
_They_ = _ngalmo_.

Here the _pi_ in _nga-pi_ is the _po_ in the Aiawong _nga-ppo_; the
_gian_ in _gian-at_ being, probably, the _in_ in the Kowrarega _ina_ =
_that_, _this_. _Ngalmo_, also, is expressly stated to mean _many_ as
well as _they_, a fact which confirms the view taken of _tana_.

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 element _precedes_ the 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 article _before_ the noun, and keep it separate: whereas the
Scandinavian 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 be _hin sol_, becomes, in Scandinavian,
_solen_ = _the sun_. And this is but one instance out of many. Finally,
I may add that the prefix _apa_, in the present tense of the verb =
_cut_, is, _perhaps_, the same affix _eipa_ in 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 of _f_ and _s_
are 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 of _s_--the remarks on the
sound systems of the Kowrarega and Gudang are important. The statement
is, the _s_ of the one dialect becomes _ty_ or _tsh_ (and _ch_) in the
other. Thus the English word _breast_ = _susu_, Kowrarega; _tyu-tyu_,
Gudang, and the English _outrigger float_ = _sarima_, Kowrarega;
_charima_, Gudang,--which of these two forms is the older? Probably
the Gudang, or the form in _ty_. 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 for _breast_ be _tutu_. The first change
which takes place is the insertion of the sound of _y_, making
_tyu-tyu_; upon the same principle which makes certain Englishmen say
_gyarden_, _kyind_, and _skyey_, for _garden_, _kind_, and _sky_. The
next change is for _ty_ to become _tsh_. This we find also in English,
where _picture_ or _pictyoor_ is pronounced _pictshur_, &c. This being
the change exhibited in the Gudang form _tyutyu_ (pr. _choochoo_,
or nearly so), we have a remarkable phonetic phenomenon, viz. the
existence of a compound sound (_tsh_) wherein _s_ is an element, in a
language where _s_, otherwise than as the element of a compound, is
wanting. In other words, we have a _sound formed out of s_, but not
_s_ itself; or (changing the expression still further) we have _s_ in
certain combinations, but not uncombined. Let, however, the change
proceed, and the initial sound of _t_ be lost. In this case _tsh_
becomes _sh_. A further change reduces _sh_ to _s_.

When all this has taken place--and there are many languages wherein
the whole process is exhibited--the sound of a hitherto unknown
articulation becomes _evolved_ or _developed_ by 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 such facts
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 of _s_.

The comparative absence, however, of the sound of _s_, 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 the
_s_ of words like _arbos_ changed into _r_ (_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 original _s_ being 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 wanting _in 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 is _not_ applicable to
Australian; the _s_, 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 new _data_ for the structure
of the Kowrarega and Limbakarajia with the received opinions respecting
the Australian grammars in general.

These refer them to the class of _agglutinate_ tongues, _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 of _principle in respect to their structure_ separates
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 of _similar_ but
not _identical_ elements, _e. g._ one plural may be formed by the
affix signifying _many_; another, by the affix signifying _with_ or
_conjointly_; one preterite may be the root _plus_ a word meaning
_then_; another the root _plus_ a word meaning _there_. Futures, too,
may be equally evolved by the incorporation or juxtaposition of the
word meaning _after_, or the word meaning _to-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 the _vocabularies_, the extent to which the analysis
which applies to the grammar applies to the vocables also may be
seen in the following instance. The word _hand_ Bijenelumbo and
Limbapyu is _birgalk_. There is also in each language a second
form--_anbirgalk_--wherein the _an_ is _non-radical_. So, also, is
the _alk_; since we find that _armpit_ = _ingamb-alk_, _shoulder_
= _mundy-alk_, and _fingers_ = _mong alk_. This brings the root =
_hand_ to _birg_. 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, = _hand_ in the Australian
dialects, is _m-r_, _e. g._

Moreton Bay _murrah_
Karaula _marra_
Sydney _da-mora_
Mudje _mara_
Wellington _murra_
Liverpool _ta-mura_
Corio _far-onggnetok_
Jhongworong _far-okgnata_
Murrumbidje _mur-rugan_
Molonglo _mar-rowla_
Head of Bight _merrer_
Parnkalla _marra_

All this differs from the Port Essington terms. _Elbow_, however, in
the dialects there spoken, = _waare_; and _forearm_ = _am-ma-woor_;
_wier_, too, = _palm_ in Kowrarega.

To complete the evidence for this latter word being the same as the
_m-r_ of the other dialects and languages, it would be necessary to
shew, by examples, how the sounds of _m_ and _w_ interchange; and
also to shew (by examples, also) how the ideas of _elbow_, _forearm_,
and _hand_ do so. But as the present remarks are made for the sake of
illustrating a method, rather than establishing any particular point,
this is not necessary here; a few instances taken from the names of
the parts of the human body being sufficient to shew the general
distribution of some of the commoner Australian roots, and the more
special fact of their existence in the northern dialects:

English _hand_
Terrutong _manawiye_
Peel River _ma_
Raffles Bay _maneiya_

English _foot_
Moreton Island _tenang_
Peel River _tina_
Mudje _dina_
Wellington _dinnung_
Liverpool _dana_
Bathurst _dina_
Boraipar _tchin-nang-y_
Lake Hindmarsh _jin-nerr_
Murrumbidje _tjin-nuk_
Molonglo _tjin-y-gy_
Pinegorine _gena_
Gnurellean _gen-ong-be-gnen-a_
Moreton Bay _chidna_
Karaula _tinna_
Lake Macquarie _tina_
Jhongworong _gnen-ong-gnat-a_
Corio _gen-ong-gnet-ok_
Colack _ken-ong-gnet-ok_
Bight Head _jinna_
Parnkalla _idna_
Aiawong _dtun_
K. George's Sound _tian_
Goold Island _pinyun_ and _pinkan_

English _hair, beard_
Moreton Island _yerreng_
Bijenelumbo _yirka_
Regent's Lake _ooran_
Lake Macquarie _wurung_
Goold Island _kiaram_
Wellington _uran_
Karaula _yerry_
Sydney _yaren_
Peel River _ierai_
Mudge _yarai_

English _eye_
Moreton Island _mel_
Moreton Bay _mill_
Gudang _emeri_ = _eyebrow_
Bijenelumbo _merde_ = _eyelid_
Regent's Lake _mil_
Karaula _mil_
Mudje _mir_
Corio _mer-gnet-ok_
Colack _mer-gnen-ok_
Dautgart _mer-gna-nen_
Jhongworong _mer-ing-gna-ta_
Pinegorine _ma_
Gnurellean _mer-e-gnen-a_
Boraipar _mer-ring-y_
Lake Hindmarsh _mer_
Lake Mundy _meer-rang_
Murrumbidje _mit_
Bight Head _mail_
K. George's Sound _mial_

English _tooth_
Moreton Island _tiya_
Moreton Bay _deer_
Lake Macquarie _tina_
Sydney _yera_
Wellington _irang_
Murrumbidje _yeeran_
Goold Island _eera_

English _tongue_
Moreton Bay _dalan_
Regent's Lake _talleng_
Karaula _talley_
Goold Island _talit_
Lake Macquarie _talan_
Sydney _dalan_
Peel River _tale_
K. George's Sound _talien_

English _ear_
Kowrarega _kowra_
Sydney _kure_
Liverpool _kure_
Lake Macquarie _ngureong_
Moreton Bay _bidna_
Karaula _binna_
Peel River _bine_
Bathurst _benang-arei_
Goold Island _pinna_

The Miriam Vocabulary belongs to a different class, viz. the Papuan. It
is a dialect of language first made known to us through the Voyage of
the Fly, as spoken in the islands Erroob, Maer, and Massied. Admitting
this, we collate it with the North Australian tongues, and that, for
the sake of _contrast_ rather than _comparison_. Here, the philologist,
from the extent to which the Australian tongues differ from each other,
notwithstanding their real affinity, is prepared to find greater
differences between an _Australian_ and a _Papuan_ language than, at
the first glance, exists. Let us verify this by reference to some words
which relate to the human body, and its parts.

ENGLISH. ERROOB. MASSIED. KOWRAREGA. GUDANG.
_Nose_ _pit_ _pichi_ _piti_ ----
_Lips_ ---- _anka_ ---- _angka_
_Cheek_ _baag_ ---- _baga_ _baga_
_Chin_, _jaw_ _iba_ _ibu_ _ibu_ _ebu_
_Navel_ _kopor_, _kupor_ _kupor_ _kupar_ _kopurra_
_Eye_ ---- _dana_ _dana_ _dana_
_Skin_ _egur_ ---- ---- _equora_
_Vein_ _kerer_ _kirer_ _kerur_ _kerur_
_Bone_ _lid_ ---- _rida_ ----
_Sore_ _bada_ ---- _bada_ ----

Few Australian vocabularies are thus similar--a fact which may be said
to prove too much; since it may lead to inference that the so-called
Papuan tongue of Torres Strait is really Australian. Nevertheless,
although I do not absolutely deny that such is the case, the evidence
of the whole body of ethnological facts--_e. g._ those connected
with the moral, intellectual, and physical conformation of the two
populations--is against it.

And so is the philology itself, if we go further. The Erroob pronouns
are,

_Me_ = _ka_ _you_ = _ma_ _his_ = _ela_
_Mine_ = _ka-ra_ _your_ = _ma ra_

all of which are un-Australian.

Are we then to say that all the words of the table just given are
borrowed from the Australian by the Papuans, or _vice versâ_? No. Some
belong to the common source of the two tongues, _pit_ = _nose_ being,
probably, such a word; whilst others are the result of subsequent
intercourse.

Still, it cannot absolutely be said that the Erroob or Miriam tongue
is not Australian also, or _vice versâ_. Still less, is it absolutely
certain that the former is not transitional between the New Guinea
language and the Australian. I believe, however, that it is not so.

The doubts as to the philological position of the Miriam are by no
means diminished by reference to the nearest unequivocally Papuan
vocabulary, viz. that of Redscar Bay. Here the difference exceeds
rather than falls short of our expectations. The most important of the
few words which coincide are

ENGLISH. REDSCAR BAY. ERROOB.

_Head_ _quara_ _herem_
_Mouth_ _mao_ _mit_ = _lips_
_Testicles_ _abu_ _eba_ = _penis_
_Shoulder_ _paga_ _pagas_ = _upper arm_

On the other hand, the Redscar Bay word for _throat_, _kato_, coincides
with the Australian _karta_ of the Gudang of Cape York. Again, a
complication is introduced by the word _buni-mata_ = _eyebrow_. Here
_mata_ = _eye_, and, consequently, _buni_ = brow. This root re-appears
in the Erroob; but there it means the _eyeball_, as shewn by the
following words from Jukes' Vocabulary.

_Eye_ _irkeep_
_Eyebrow_ _irkeep moos_ = _eye-hair_
_Eye ball_ _poni_
_Eyelid_ _poni-pow_ = _eyeball-hair_

Probably the truer meaning of the Redscar Bay word is _eyeball_.

No inference is safer than that which brings the population of the
Louisiade Archipelago, so far, at least, as it is represented by the
Vocabularies of Brierly Island and Duchateau Island, from the eastern
coast of New Guinea. What points beyond were peopled from Louisiade is
another question.

For the islands between New Ireland and New Caledonia our _data_ are
lamentably scanty; the list consisting of--

1. A short vocabulary from the Solomon Isles.
2. Short ones from Mallicollo.
3. The same from Tanna.
4. Shorter ones still from Erromanga and
5. Annatom.
6. Cook's New Caledonian Vocabulary.
7. La Billardiere's ditto.

The collation of these with the Louisiade has led me to a fact which
I little expected. As far as the very scanty _data_ go, they supply
the closest resemblance to the Louisiade dialects, from the two New
Caledonian vocabularies. Now New Caledonia was noticed in the Appendix
to the Voyage of the Fly (vol. ii. p. 318) as _apparently_ having
closer philological affinities with _Van Diemen's Land_, than that
country had with Australia; an apparent fact which induced me to write
as follows: "A 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 Diemen's Land ran _round_ Australia,
rather than across it." Be this as it may, the remark, with our present
scanty materials, is, at best, but a suggestion--a suggestion, however,
which would account for the physical appearance of the Tasmanian being
more New Caledonian than Australian.

The chief point of resemblance between the Louisiade and the New
Caledonian is taken from the numerals. In each system there is a
_prefix_, and in each that prefix begins with a labral letter--indeed
the _wa_ of New Caledonia and the _pahi_ of Louisiade seem to be the
same roots.

1. 2.
Brierly Island paihe-tia pahi-wo
Cook's New Caledonia wa-geeaing wa-roo
La Billardiere's do. oua-nait oua-dou

3. 4.
Brierly Island paihe-tuan paihe-pak
Cook's New Caledonia wa-teen wa-mbaeek
La Billardiere's do. oua-tguien oua-tbait

5. 6.
Brierly Island paihe-lima paihe-won
Cook's New Caledonia wa-nnim wa-nnim-geeek
La Billardiere's do. oua-nnaim ou-naim-guik

7. 8.
Brierly Island pahe-pik paihe-wan
Cook's New Caledonia wa-nnim-noo wa-nnim-gain
La Billardiere's do. oua-naim-dou ou-naim-guein

9. 10.
Brierly Island paihe-siwo paihe-awata
Cook's New Caledonia wa-nnim-baeek wa-nnoon-aiuk
La Billardiere's do. oua-naim-bait oua-doun-hic

The Redscar Bay numerals are equally instructive. They take two
forms: one with, one without, the prefix in _ow_, as recorded by Mr.
Macgillivray.

This system of prefix is not peculiar. The Tanna and Mallicollo
numerals of Cook are--

ENGLISH. TANNA. MALLICOLLO.
One r-eedee tsee-kaee
Two ka-roo e-ry
Three ka-har e-rei
Four kai-phar e-bats
Five k-reerum e-reeum
Six ma-r-eedee tsookaeee
Seven ma-k-roo gooy
Eight ma-ka-har hoo-rey
Nine ma-kai-phar good-bats
Ten ma-k-reerum senearn

Here, although the formations are not exactly regular, the prefixion
of an initial syllable is evident. So is the quinary character of the
numeration. The prefix itself, however, in the Tanna and Mallicollo is
no _labial_, as in the Louisiade and New Caledonian, but either _k_ or
a vowel.

The next fact connected with the Louisiade vocabularies is one of
greater interest. Most of the names of the different _parts of the
body_ end in _da_. In the list in question they were marked in italics;
so that the proportion they bear to the words not so ending was easily
seen. Now it is only the words belonging to this class that thus
terminate. Elsewhere the ending _da_ is no commoner than any other.

What does this mean? If we look to such words as _mata-da_ = eyes,
_sopa-da_ = lips, _maka-da_ = teeth, and some other naturally _plural_
names, we should infer that it was a sign of _number_. That this,
however, is not the case is shewn by the equivalents to _tongue_,
_nose_, and other _single_ members where the affix is equally common.
What then is its import? The _American_ tongues help us here.

ENGLISH MBAYA ABIPONI MOKOBI

Head na-guilo ne-maiat ----
Eye ni-gecoge na-toele ni-cote
Ear na-pagate ---- ----
Nose ni-onige ---- ----
Tongue no-gueligi ---- ----
Hair na-modi ne-etiguic na-ecuta
Hand ni-baagadi na-pakeni na-poguena
Foot no-gonagi ---- ----

ENGLISH MOXA(1)[28] MOXA(2) MOXA(3)

Head nu-ciuti nu-chuti nu-chiuti
Eye nu-chi ---- nu-ki
Ear nu-cioca ---- ----
Nose nu-siri nu-siri ----
Tongue nu-nene nu-nene nu-nene
Hand nu-bore nu-boupe nu-bore
Foot ni-bope ---- ni-bope

[Footnote 28: These are three different dialects.]

Now in these, and in numerous other American tongues, the prefix is
the _possessive pronoun_; in other words, there is a great number
of American languages where the capacity for abstracting the thing
possessed from the possessor is so slight as to make it almost
impossible to disconnect the noun from its pronoun. I believe, then,
the affixes in question have a _possessive_ power; and am not aware
that _possessive_ adjuncts thus incorporated have been recognised
in any of the languages for these parts; indeed, they are generally
considered as American characteristics.

How far does their presence extend? In the New Caledonian vocabulary of
La Billardiere we find it. The names of the parts of the body all take
an affix, which no other class of words does. This is _gha_, _guai_,
or _ghai_, or other similar combination of _g_ with a vowel. In Van
Diemen's Land, an important locality, we find the following series of
words, which are submitted to the judgment of the reader.

ENGLISH. WESTERN TASMANIAN.

_Foot_ lula
_Leg_ peea = piya = posteriors, Brumer I.
_Thigh_ tula = turi = knee, Brumer I.
_Belly_ cawara-ny
_Neck_ denia
_Ears_ lewli-na
_Nose_ me-na
_Eyes_ pollatoola = matara-pulupulura = eyelashes, Brierly I.
_Hair_ pareata
---- palani-na
_Face_ manrable
_Mouth_ ca-nia
_Teeth_ yannalople = yinge-da, Brierly I.
_Tongue_ tulla-na
_Arm_ alree
_Fist_ reannema-na
_Head_ pulbea-ny

Here the termination _na_ appears elsewhere, as in _memana_ = fight,
_nabagee-na_ = sun; but by no means so frequently; nor yet with such an
approach to regularity.

ENGLISH. CIRCULAR HEAD.

_Hair_ parba
_Hand_ rabal-ga
_Foot_ rabuc-ka
_Head_ ewuc-ka
_Eye_ mameric-ca
_Nose_ rowari-ga
_Tongue_ mamana = mimena, Brumer I.
_Teeth_ cawna
_Ear_ cowanrig-ga

Here however, it must not be concealed that the termination ka, or
ga, occurs in other words, such as tenal-ga = laugh, tar-ga = cry,
teiri-ga = walk, lamunika = see. These, however, are verbs; and it is
possible (indeed probable) that the _k_ or _g_ is the same as in the
preceding substantives, just as the _m_ in _su-m_ and εἰ-μι is the _m_
in _meus_, _me_, and ἐμι. Still, this will not apply throughout; _e.
g._ the words like lalli-ga = kangaroo, para-ka = flower, and others.

ENGLISH. EASTERN TASMANIAN.

_Eye_ lepe-na
_Ear_ pelverata
_Elbow_ rowella
_Foot_ langa-na
_Fist_ trew
_Head_ pathe-na-naddi
_Hair_ cetha-na
_Hand_ anama-na = nema-da, Brumer I.
_Knee_ nannabena-na
_Leg_ lathana-ma
_Teeth_ yan-na = yinge-da, Brierly I.
_Tongue_ me-na = mime-na, Brumer I.
_Chin_ came-na
_Neck_ lepera
_Breast_ wagley

Here, the number of other words ending in _na_ is very considerable;
so considerable that, if it were not for the cumulative evidence
derived from other quarters, it would be doubtful whether the =na=
could legitimately be considered as a possessive affix at all. It may,
however, be so even in the present instance.

To these we may add two lists from the Lobo and Utanata dialects of the
south-western coast of New Guinea.

ENGLISH UTANATA LOBO

_Arms_ too nima-ngo
_Back_ urimi rusuko-ngo
_Beard_ minooro
_Belly_ imauw kamboro-ngo
_Breast-female_ auw } gingo-ngo
_Breast-male_ paiety}
_Cheeks_ awamu wafiwirio-ngo
_Ears_ ianie
_Eyebrows_ matata-ngo-waru
_Eyes_ mame matatoto-ngo
_Fingers_ nima-nga-sori
_Foot_ mouw kai-ngo
_Hands_ toe-mare nima-ngo-uta
_Hair_ oeirie mono-ng-furu
_Head_ oepauw mono-ngo or umum
_Knee_ iripu kai-ngo-woko
_Mouth_ irie orie-ngo
_Nose_ birimboe sikaio-ngo
_Neck_ ema gara-ng
_Tongue_ mare kario-ngo
_Thigh_ ai willanima
_Teeth_ titi riwoto-ngo
_Toes_ nisora

Finally, we have the long, and evidently compound forms of the Corio,
Colack, and other Australian dialects; long and evidently compound
forms which no hypothesis so readily explains as that of the possessive
adjunct; a phenomenon which future investigation may shew to be equally
Oceanic and American.

NOTES AND ADDENDA.

The vocabularies of the Rattlesnake are (1) Australian, (2) Papuan.

The former were for the parts about Cape York, _i. e._ the Northernmost
part of Australia, and also the part nearest the Papuan area. The
Kowrarega was the form of speech best illustrated.

The Papuan vocabularies were for the Louisiade Archipelago; wholly new
as _data_ for a very important and interesting area.

The following paper, connected with the remarks on the incorporation of
the possessive pronoun with certain substantives, though on an Asiatic
language may find place here.

ON A ZAZA VOCABULARY.

READ
BEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY.

MAY THE 23RD.

The following vocabulary is one taken by Dr. H. Sandwith from a Kurd of
the Zaza tribe, one of the rudest of the whole Kurd family, and one for
which we have no philological specimens.

ENGLISH. ZAZA.

_head_ sèrè-_min_.
_eyes_ tchim-_emin_.
_eyebrows_ buruè-_min_.
_nose_ zinjè-_min_.
_moustache_ simile-_min_.
_beard_ ardishè-_min_.
_tongue_ zoanè-_min_.
_teeth_ dildonè-_min_.
_ears_ gushè-_min_.
_fingers_ ingishtè-_min_.
_arm_ paziè-_min_.
_legs_ híngè-_min_.
_father_ pie-_min_.
_mother_ mai-_min_.
_sister_ wai-_min_.
_brother_ brai _min_.
_the back_ pashtiai-_min_.
_hair_ porè-_min_.
_cold_ serdo.
_hot_ auroghermo.
_sun_ rojshwesho.
_moon_ hashmè.
_star_ sterrai.
_mountain_ khoo.
_sea_ aho.
_valley_ derèi.
_eggs_ hoiki.
_a fowl_ kerghi.
_welcome_ tebèxairomè.
_come_ bèiri.
_stay_ rōshè.
_bread_ noan.
_water_ āwè.
_child_ katchimo.
_virgin_ keinima.
_orphan_ lajekima.
_morning_ shaurow.
_tree_ dori.
_iron_ asin.
_hare_ aurish.
_greyhound_ taji.
_pig_ khooz.
_earth_ ert.
_fire_ adir.
_stone_ see.
_silver_ sém.
_strength_ kote.
_sword_ shimshir.
_a fox_ krèvesh.
_stag_ kivè.
_partridge_ zaraj.
_milk_ shut.
_horse_ istor.
_mare_ mahinè.
_grapes_ eshkijshi.
_a house_ kè.
_green_ kesk.
_crimson_ soor.
_black_ siah.
_white_ supèo.
_sleep_ rausume.
_go_ shoori.

The meaning of the termination-_min_ has been explained by Pott and
Rödiger in their _Kurdische Studien_. It is the possessive pronoun of
the first person = _my_ = _meus_ = ἐμὸς, &c.; so that sèrè-_min_ =
caput-_meum_ (or _mei_), and pie-_min_ = pater-_meus_ (or _mei_).

So little was the Zaza who supplied Dr. Sandwith with the list under
notice able to conceive a _hand_ or _father_, except so far as they
were related to himself, or something else, and so essentially concrete
rather than abstract were his notions, that he combined the pronoun
with the substantive whenever he had a _part of the human body_ or a
_degree of consanguinity_ to name. It is difficult to say how far this
amalgamation is natural to the uncultivated understanding, _i. e._
it is difficult to say so on _à priori_ grounds. That the condition
of a person applied to for the purpose of making a glossary out of
his communications is different from that under which we maintain our
ordinary conversation, is evident. Ordinary conversation gives us a
certain number of words, and a context as well. A glossary gives us
words only, and disappoints the speaker who is familiar with contexts.

If this be true, imperfect contexts, like the combinations _pie-min_,
&c. should be no uncommon occurrences. Nor are they so. They are
pre-eminently common in the American languages. Thus in Mr. Wallace's
vocabularies from River Uapes the list run thus:--

ENGLISH. UAINAMBEU. JURI. BARRÈ.
_head_ (_my_) _eri_-bida _tcho_-kereu _no_-dusia
_mouth_ (_my_) _eri_-numa _tcho_-ia _no_-nunia.
&c. &c. &c. &c.

similar illustrations being found in almost every American glossary.

In his Appendix to Macgillivray's Voyage of the Rattlesnake, the
present writer has pointed out instances of this amalgamation in the
languages of the Louisiade. He now adds, that he has also found it in
some of the samples of the ordinary Gipsy language of England, as he
has taken it from the mouth of English Gipsies.

He considers it to be a personal rather than a philological
characteristic, certain individuals having a _minimum_ amount of
abstracting power, and such individuals being inordinately common
amongst the American Indians.

ON THE PERSONAL PRONOUNS AND
NUMERALS OF THE MALLICOLLO AND
ERROMANGO LANGUAGES.

BY THE REVEREND C. ABRAHAM.

COMMUNICATED WITH REMARKS
TO THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY
BY DR. R. G. LATHAM.

April 22. 1853.

MALLICOLO OR SESOK?

MALLICOLO. ENGLISH.

_Inau_, I.
_khai-im_, you.
_na-ü_, he.
_na-mühl_,} we two. exclus.
_drivan_ } inclus.
_kha-mühl_, you two.
_na-taroi_, you three.
_na-tavatz_, you four.

_dra-tin_, we three.
_dra-tovatz_. we four.
_si-kat_, one.
_e-ua_, two.
_e-roi_, three.
_e-vatz_, four.
_e-rima_, five.
_su-kai_, six.
_whi-u_, seven.
_o-roi_, eight.
_whi-vatz_, nine.
_singeap_, ten.
_urare_, child.
_aramomau_, father.
_nebök_, a man.
_bauenunk_, a male.
_rambaiük_, a female.
{ the sun, also
_marīu_, { their name for
{ God.
_tepe_, worship.
_nakambu_, fire.
_ewoi_, yes.
_emwe_, not.
_nelumbai_,} know.
_tatanini_,}
_dratiban_, go.
_utoi_, language.
_ampreusi_, see.
_tipen agene_, shoot arrows.
_to perito na_} throw stones.
_bara_, }
_no kani wangas_} I eat good food.
_isank_, }

ERROMANGO.

ERROMANGO. ENGLISH.

_I au_, I.
_kik_, you.
_iyi_, he.
_enn-iau_, my.
_ennun-kik_, thy.
_enn-ii_, his.
_ennun-kos_, our.
_ennun-kimi_, your.
_enn-irara_, their.
_sai-imou_, this.
_sai-nempe_, that.
_aramai_, good.
_tagraubuki_, bad.

_saitavan_, one.
_du-ru_, two.
_tesal_, three.
_menda-vat_, four.
_suku-ring_, five.
_sikai_, six.
_suku-rimnaro_, seven.
_suku-rimtesal_, eight.
_suku-rimendarat_, nine.
_kosengu_, we.
_kimingu_, ye.
_irara_, they.
_ngaraodlem_, ten.

_nobu_, God.
_natamas_, spirit.
_etemen_, father.
_tan niteni_, son.
_tinema_, mother.
_etemetallari_, man.
_tiamesu_, thing.
_ei_, yes.
_taui_, no.
_navang_, eat.
_hamonuki_, drink.
_akasè_, see.
_nimint_, eyes.
_lebetanlop_, finger.
_warakelang_, nose.
_telangunt_, ear.
_lampunt_, hair.
_kikome_, name.

REMARKS.

Since these vocabularies were laid before the Society, a "Journal of
a Cruise among the Islands of the Western Pacific," by Capt. J. E.
Erskine, R, N., has been published. This shows the sources of the
preceding lists; since the bishop of New Zealand accompanied the
expedition, and succeeded in taking back with him, on his return; some
youths for the purposes of education.

The class to which these vocabularies belong has never been,
sufficiently for the purposes of publication, reduced to writing, nor
is any member of it known to scholars in general, in respect to its
grammatical structure. This, however, will probably not be the case
much longer, since Capt. Erskine has placed the materials for the study
of the Aneitum (Annatom) language in the hands of Mr. Norriss, who
is prepared for its investigation. Neither has the class been wholly
neglected. A grammar of the Tanna (an allied language) was drawn up by
Mr. Heath, but it has not been published, and is probably lost. Dr.
Pritchard, who had seen extracts from it, writes, that it contained a
_trinal_ as well as a _singular_, a _dual_, and a _plural_ number. The
present list elucidates this. The _trinal_ number (so-called) of the
Mallicolo is merely the personal pronoun _plus_ the numeral 3; each
element being so modified as to give the appearance of an inflection.

The following tables exhibit the numerals of certain other islands
in the neighbourhood. They are taken from Captain Erskine's work, in
which reference is made to a "Description of the Islands in the Western
Pacific Ocean, by A. Cheyne." This has not been examined by the present
writer.

ISLE OF
ENG. TANA. FOTUNA[29]. PINES. UEA.

_one_ li-ti ta-si ta tahi
_two_ ka-ru rua vo lua
_three_ ka-har lo:u ve-ti lolu
_four_ ke-fa fa beu fa
_five_ ka-rirum rima ta-hue lima
_six_ liti (?) ono no-ta tahi
_seven_ ka-ru (?) fitu no-bo lua
_eight_ ka-han (?) varu no-beti tolu
_nine_ ke-fa (?) iva no-beu fa
_ten_ ka-rirum? tanga-fieru de-kau lima

ENG. UEA. YENGEN. BALAD. LIFU.

_one_ pacha hets par-ai chas.
_two_ lo he-luk par-roo lu-ete.
_three_ kuu he-yen par gen kun-ete.
_four_ thack po-bits par-bai ek-ete.
_five_ thabumb nim pa-nim tibi.
_six_ lo-acha nim-wet par-ai chb-lemen.
_seven_ lo-alo nim-weluk par-roo luen-gemen.
_eight_ lo-kunn nim-weyen par-gen kun-engemen.
_nine_ lo-thack nim-pobit par-bai ske-ngemen.
_ten_ te-bennete pain-duk pa-nim lue-ipe.

[Footnote 29: Or Erronan. The Nuia or Immer numerals are the same.]

Mr. Abraham's Mallicolo represents the same language with the Mallicolo
vocabulary of Captain Cook's Voyages, with which it pretty closely
agrees.

His Erromango is more peculiar. _Sikai_ = six = the Mallicolo _sukai_,
which is, itself, nearly the _sikai_ = one. The -_ring_ in suku-_ring_,
too, is the Mallicolo _rima_. This we know, from the analogies of
almost all the languages of Polynesia and the Indian Archipelago, to
be the word _lima_ = _hand_. Hence e-_rima_ (Mallicolo), _hand_, and
suku-_ring_ (Erromango) = _one hand_. The _vat_ in menda-_vat_ is the
Mallicolo -_bats_ in e-_bats_, the Malay am-_pat_ = _four_. Du-_ru_ is
the Mallicolo e-_ry_, there being in each case a prefixed syllable. The
analysis of _tesal_ and _saitavan_ is less clear. Neither is it certain
how _ngaraodlen_ = _ten_. The other numerals are compounds. This,
perhaps, is sufficient to show that the difference between the numerals
of the Mallicolo and Erromango is a difference of a very superficial
kind. So it is with the Tana, Fotuna, and the first Uea specimens. We
must always remember that the first syllable is generally a non-radical
prefix.

In the Tana of the preceding table, the words for 6, 7, 8, 9, and
10, seem to be merely the words for 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 repeated, and
something of the same kind appears in the first Uea. Perhaps the
representation may be imperfect. At any rate the Tanna of Cook's Voyage
runs--

ENG. TANNA.

_one_ r-eedee.
_two_ ka-roo.
_three_ ka-har.
_four_ kai-phar.
_five_ k-reerum.
_six_ _ma_-r-eedee.
_seven_ _ma_-ka-roo.
_eight_ _ma_-ka-har.
_nine_ _ma_-kai-phar.
_ten_ _ma_-k-reerum.

The same appears in the Balad of New Caledonia. Now Cooks New
Caledonian runs--

ENG. NEW CALEDONIAN.

_one_ _wa_-geeaing.
_two_ _wa_-roo.
_three_ _wa_-teen.
_four_ _wa_-mbaeek.
_five_ _wa_-nnim.
_six_ _wa_-nnim-geeek.
_seven_ _wa_-nnim-noo.
_eight_ _wa_-nnim-gain.
_nine_ _wa_-nnim-baeek.
_ten_ _wa_-nnim-aiuk.

The Yengen and Lifu vocabularies are not so different but that the _lu_
and _kun_ of the one = the _luk_ and _yen_ of the other, as well as the
_lo_ and _kiuu_ of the second Uea, and the _roo_ and _gen_ of the Balad.

The importance of these non-radical syllables in the numerals has been
indicated by the present writer in the appendix to Mr. M'Gillivray's
'Voyage of the Rattlesnake.' There we find several well-selected
specimens of the languages of the Louisiade archipelago. The fact
of certain affinities between these and the New Caledonian is there
indicated. Each has its prefix. In each the prefix is a _labial_.

ENGLISH. TWO.

Louisiade _paihe_-tuan.
New Caledonia _wa_-teen &c.

Now the Tana and Mallicolo tongues have a prefix also, but this is not
a labial. It is rather a vowel or _k_ (guttural or palatal). Here lies
a difference--a difference of detail. Yet the same change can now be
shown to be within the pale of the New Caledonian itself, as may be
seen by comparing _par_-roo and _par_-gen (_pah_-gen?) with _he_-luk
and _he_-yen.

The change from _r_ to _l_ creates no difficulty. In one of the Tana
vocabularies _one_ = _li_-ti, in another _r_-eedee.

These points have been gone into for the sake of guarding against such
exaggeration of the differences between the languages of the parts in
question as the _apparent_ differences in the numerals have a tendency
to engender.

AMERICA
(NORTH).

ON THE LANGUAGES OF THE OREGON
TERRITORY.

READ
BEFORE THE ETHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY
ON THE 11TH DECEMBER 1844.

The languages dealt with are those that lie between Russian America
and New California. It is only, however, such as are spoken on the
sea-coast and on the American frontier that are fairly known to us.
Concerning some of the latter, such as the Blackfoot, the notices
are deferred. Little, in the present state of our knowledge, can be
attempted beyond the mere verification of vocabularies. In his list,
however, of these, the writer has attempted to be exhaustive.

It is convenient to enumerate these vocabularies separately and to
proceed from North to South.

_Queen Charlotte's Island._--The two chief vocabularies are Mr Tolmie's
and Messrs Sturgin and Bryant's, in the Journal of the Geographical
Society and the Archæologia Americana respectively. They represent
different dialects.

ENGLISH. STURGIN & BRYANT. HAIDAHOF, TOLMIE.

_Man_ keeset kleilhatsta
_Woman_ kna, ana tsata
_Canoe_ cloo kloo
_Tobacco_ qull quil
_Water_ huntle huntle
_Sun_ tzue shandlain
_Moon_ kuhn khough
_Rain_ tull tull
_Snow_ tull hatter dhanw
_Dog_ hah hootch
_Bear_ tunn tann
_T._ cagen teea
_Thou_ tinkyah tungha

With these, the few words in the Mithridates coincide

MITHRIDATES. TOLMIE.

_One_ sounchou squansung
_Two_ stonk stung
_Three_ sloonis klughunnil

_Chimmesyan._--Mr Tolmie's vocabulary--Journal of Geographical Society.
Spoken between 53° 30´ and 55° 30´ N. L.

_Billechoola._--Mr Tolmies vocabulary; _ibid._ Spoken on the Salmon
River.

_Friendly Village._--In Mackenzie's Travels, we find a few words from
a tribe on the Salmon River. Their locality is called by Mackenzie the
_Friendly Village_. By the aid of Mr Tolmie's vocabularies, we can now
place this hitherto unfixed dialect. It belongs to the Billechoola
tongue.

ENGLISH. FRIENDLY VILLAGE. BILLECHOOLA.

_Salmon_ zimilk shimilk
_Dog_ watts watz
_House_ zlaachle shmool'
_Bark-mat_ zemnez
_Cedar-bark-blanket_ tzummi
_Beaver_ couloun couloun
_Stone_ dichts quilstolomick
_Water_ ulkan kullah
_Mat_ gistcom stuchom
_Bonnet_ ilcaette kayeete

_Fitz-Hugh Sound._--For these parts we possess only the numerals. They
coincide most with the Haeltzuk, a language that will next be noticed.
The termination in _skum_ is common to the Fitz-Hugh Sound and the
Blackfoot numerals.

English, _two._
_F. Sound,_ malscum.
_Haeltzuk_, malook.

English, _three._
_F. Sound_, utascum.
_Haeltzuk_, yootook.

English, _four._
_F. Sound_, moozcum.
_Haeltzuk_, moak.
_Billechoola_, moash.

English, _five._
_F. Sound_, thekaescum.
_Haeltzuk_, skeowk.
_Billechoola_, tzeiuch.

English, _six._
_F. Sound_, kitliscum.
_Haeltzuk_, katlowk.

nglish, _seven._
_F. Sound_, atloopooskum.
_Haeltzuk_, malthlowsk.

English, _ten._
_F. Sound_, highioo.
_Haeltzuk_, aikas.

_Haeltzuk._--Mr Tolmie's vocabulary. Spoken from 50° 30´ to 53° 30´ N.
L.--_Journal of Geograph. Soc._

_Quadra and Vancouver's Island_--_Nootka Sound_.--For these parts we
have several vocabularies.

1. The Numerals.--From Dixon--_Mithridates_, iii., 2, 115.

2. King George's Sound.--The Numerals, _Mith._, iii., 2; 115.

3. _Mozino's_ MS. _Vocabulary_.--See _Mith._, iii., 2.

4. _Captain Cook's Vocabulary._--This is comparatively copious. It
represents the same language with the three preceding.

5. The Tlaoquatch vocabulary of Mr Tolmie. _Journ. of Geog. Soc._--This
certainly represents, as is truly stated by Dr. Scouler, the same
language as the Nootka-Sound vocabulary of Cook.

ENGLISH. COOK'S NOOTKA. TOLMIE'S TLAOQUATCH.

_Sky_ naas naase
_Mountain_ noohchai notcheh
_House_ mahtai maas
_Paddle_ oowhabbie oowhapie
_Canoe_ shapats tshappits
_Water_ chauk tchaak
_Go_ cho tcha-alche
_Run_ kummiitchchut kumitkok
_Bow_ moostatte moastatit
_Arrow_ tseehatte tzehatite
_Knife_ kotyok tzokquaeek
_Man_ tanass tanais

6. Straits of Fuca.--A short vocabulary taken during the voyage of the
_Sutil y Mexicana_--_Archæol. Amer._, ii., 306. Is not this Mozino's?

7. The Wakash vocabulary of Jewitt.--_Archæol. Amer._, ii. 306.

ENGLISH. FUCA. TLAOQUATCH. WAKASH.

_Water_ ihaac tchaak chahak
_Sky_ tacuihamach naase sieyah
_Stars_ uliusac taastass tartoose
_Moon_ ilajudshashitle hopulh oophelth
_Sun_ dagina tlopil oophetlh
_Ear_ pipi parpee

_Kawitchen._--Spoken at the entrance of Trading River opposite
Vancouver's Island. Mr Tolmie's vocabulary.--See _Journal of Geograph.
Societ_.

_Noosdalum._--Spoken in Hood's Channel.--_Ibid._

_The Atna of Mackenzie._--This we may now place. It resembles the
Noosdalum, with dialectal differences.

ENGLISH. ATNAH. NOOSDALUM.

_Man_ scuynlouch sohwieken
_Woman_ smosledgensk sheeakatso
_Beaver_ schugh skyauw
_Dog_ scacah skacha
_Water_ shaweliquoih kah
_Plains_ spilela spilchun
_Here_ thlaelych lilkaa
_Iron_ soucoumang halaitan
_Bow_ isquoinah schomotun
_Arrow_ squaili ytsh tzimaan

In Baer's _Statistische und Ethnographische Nachrichten über die
Russischen Besitzungen an der Nordwestküste von Amerika_, we find a
second vocabulary named _Atna_. This is spoken on the Copper River in
Russian America, and represents a different language from the Atna of
Mackenzie. Both, however, belong to the same[30] group. The plausible
mode of accounting for this coincidence, is to suppose that two tribes
named themselves _men_, which throughout the Athabascar languages is
expressed by the root _t-n_, as _dinnie_, _tenni_, _tnain_, &c.

[Footnote 30: This is inaccurate--See following papers.]

_Squallyamish._--Spoken at Puget's Sound. Mr Tolmie in T. G. S.

_Chenook._--For the important languages of the Chenook or Flathead
Indians on the river Columbia, we have the following _data_:

1. Franchere's vocabulary; _Archæol. Americana_, ii., 379.

2. Parker's vocabulary; communicated in M. S., by A. Gallatin to Dr
Prichard.

3. Cathlascou of Tolmie, J. G. S.

4. Chenook of Tolmie, _ibid._

Of these vocabularies the Chenook of Parker and Franchere coincide
closely. Parker's Chenook, compared with the two vocabularies of
Tolmie, agrees most with the Cathlascou.

_Kalapooiah._--This tribe is placed by Parker on the Multomah river.
According to Tolmie, their language is spoken on the Wallamat Plains.

1. Tolmie's vocabulary. J. G. S.

2. Parker's vocabulary. M. S. from Gallatin to Dr Prichard.

The two vocabularies represent one and the same language.

_Okanagan._--Spoken on Fraser's River. Mr Tolmie's vocabulary. The
Okanagan vocabulary enables us to fix the following one:

_The Salish._--This is an anonymous vocabulary from Duponceau's
collection. _Archæolog. Americ._, ii, 306. It is evidently closely akin
to the Okanagan.

ENGLISH. SALISH. OKANAGAN.

_Man_ ekeltamaiuh
_Woman_ tukulthlimeilooch
_Canoe_ 'tleagh slalthleim
_Stars_ ko'kusmh hohooos
_Rain_ steepais tepais
_Snow_ amaikut smakoot
_Water_ saioolkh sauwulh
_Mountain_ aitzumkummok atzimmok
_Deer_ atsooleea
_Roebuck_ klatzeenim
_Bear_ c'summaitshui skummachist
_Wolf_ n'tsseetsan nutzetzim
_One_ neo nuchs
_Two_ essel uskul
_Three_ tsailhis kaalthleis
_Four_ mos moas
_Five_ tseel koheil
_Seven_ seespil sheespil
_Ten_ opan opuniet

_Kliketat._ Spoken between Fort Nez Perce's, Mount Rainier, and the
Columbia Falls.

1. Mr Tolmie's vocabulary.

2. Mr Parker's vocabulary M. S. from Gallatin to Dr Prichard.

These represent allied dialects of the same language.

_Shahaptan, Nez Perce's._--It is truly stated by Gallatin that the
Shahaptan and Kliketat languages are allied.

1. Mr Tolmie's vocabulary.

2. Mr Parker's vocabulary M. S. from Gallatin to Dr Prichard.

_Jamkallie._ Spoken near the sources of the Wallamat, Mr Tolmie's
vocabulary.

_Umpqua._--On the river so called. Mr Tolmie's vocabulary.

This is the most southern point for which we possess Oregon
vocabularies.

Four more vocabularies complete the enumeration of our _data_ for the
parts in question.

1. _Shoshonie_ or _Snake Indians_.--The first is a southern or
central one, the Shoshonie or Snake vocabulary, collected by Say, and
representing a language south of that of the Nez Perces. _Archæol.
Americ._, ii. 306.

2. _Sussee._--The Sussee of Umfreville, is either spoken within the
Oregon Territory, or within the districts immediately to the north of
it.

3. _The Nagail_--See _Mackenzie's Travels_.

4. _The Taculli_--See _Archæol. Americ._, ii. 305.

Such are the vocabularies for the Oregon Territory of North America. In
number they amount to forty-one. Dealing with speech as the instrument
of intercourse, it is highly probable that these vocabularies may
represent as many as nineteen different languages, that is, modes of
speech, mutually unintelligible. Dealt with, however, ethnologically,
their number is evidently capable of being reduced.

In the present state of our knowledge, it is convenient to leave the
Shoshonie language[31] unplaced. All that we possess of it is the
vocabulary noticed above. It consists of only twenty-four words. Their
affinities (such as they are) are miscellaneous

[Footnote 31: Since this statement was read, the author has been
enabled, through the means of a Cumanche vocabulary, with which he was
favoured by Mr Bollaert, to determine that these two languages are
allied. (This was written in 1845. Since, then, the evidence that the
Shoshoni and Cumanch belong to the same family has become conclusive.)]

English, _beaver_.
_Shoshonie_, hanish.
_Chenook_, eena.
_Haidah_, tzing.
_Cathlascou_, kanook.

English, _salmon_.
_Shoshonie_, augi.
_Haidah_, swaggan.

English, _horse_.
_Shoshonie_, bunko.
_Blackfoot_, pinnechometar.
pennakomet.

English, _woman_.
_Shoshonie_, wepee.
_Souriquois_, meboujou.
_Penobscot_, m'phenim.
_Micmac_, epit.
_Echemin_, apet.
_Pima_, uba.
_Calapooiah_, apomeik.

English, _friend_.
_Shoshonie_, hauts.
_Chetimacha_, keta.
_Onondago_, ottie.

English, _water_.
_Shoshonie_, pa.
_New Sweden_, bij.
_Algonkin_, ne-pi, passim.

English, _good_.
_Shoshonie_, saut.
_Shahaptan_, tautz.
_Pima_, tiuot.
_Chocta_, chito = _great_.
_Crow_, esah = _great_.
bassats = _many_.

English, _go_.
_Shoshonie_, numeraro.
_Kawitchen_, namilthla.

English, _come_.
_Shoshonie_, keemak.
_Nez Perces_, come.

English, _awl_.
_Shoshonie_, weeu.
_Ahnenin_, bay.

English, _no_.
_Shoshonie_, kayhee.
_Ahnenin_, chieu.
_Potowotami_, cho.
_Ojibbeway_, kaw.
_Ottawa_, kaween.
_Old Algonkin_, kah.
_Chetimacha_, kahie.

It is also advisable to deal cautiously with the Sussee language.
Umfreville's vocabulary is short, and consisting almost exclusively of
the names of articles of commerce. Lists of this sort are of little
value in ethnography. Still, upon the whole, it confirms the current
opinion as to the place of the Sussee language, viz. that it is[32]
Athabascan. At any rate, it has certain miscellaneous affinities.

[Footnote 32: The evidence of this being the case has since become
conclusive.--1859.]

English, _eye_.
_Sussee_, senouwoh.
_Kenay_, snaga.
_Taculli_, onow.
_Chipewyan_, nackhay.

English, _five_.
_Sussee_, coo.
_Chipewyan_, coun.

English, _kettle_.
_Sussee_, usaw.
_Taculli_, osa.

English, _axe_.
_Sussee_, chilthe.
_Taculli_, chachil.

English, _knife_.
_Sussee_, marsh.
_Illinois_, mariesa.
_Minitari_, matse.

English, _shoes_.
_Sussee_, siscau.
_Taculli_, kiscot.

English, _one_.
_Sussee_, uttegar.
_Eskimo_, attowseak.
adaitsuk.
adoajak.
atamek.

English, _three_.
_Sussee_, tauky.
_Kenai_, tohchke.
_Taculli_, toy.
_Chipewyan_, taghy.

English, _four_.
_Sussee_, tachey.
_Kenai_, tenki.
_Taculli_, tingkay.
_Chipewyan_, dengky.

English, _seven_.
_Sussee_, checheta.
_Mohawk_, chahtahk.
_Onondago_, tschoatak.
_Seneca_, jawdock.
_Oneida_, tziadak.
_Nottoway_, ohatay.

English, _ten_.
_Sussee_, cuneesenunnee.
_Chipewyan_, canothna.

Laying these two languages aside, and reserving the Blackfoot
for future inquiries, the other vocabularies are referrible to
two recognized groups. The Nagail and Taculli are what Gallatin
calls _Athabascan_. All the[33] rest are what Prichard calls
_Nootka-Columbian_. Respecting the former class, the evidence is
unequivocal, and the fact generally admitted. Respecting the latter,
the statement requires consideration.

[Footnote 33: The Umqua has since been shewn to be the
Athabaskan--1859.]

At first glance, Mr Tolmie's vocabularies differ materially from each
other; and only a few seem less unlike each other than the rest. Such
are the Kliketat and Shahaptan, the Calapooiah and Yamkallie, the
Kawitchen and Tlaoquatch, the Chenook and Cathlascou. Besides this, the
general difference between even the allied vocabularies is far more
visible than the general resemblance. Finally, the numerals and the
fundamental terms vary in a degree beyond what we are prepared for, by
the study of the Indo-European tongues.

Recollecting, however, the compound character of the most fundamental
words, characteristic of all the American language; recognising, also,
as a rule of criticism, that in the same class of tongues the evidence
of the numerals is unimportant in the determination of _differences_,
and comparing the sixteen Oregon vocabularies of Mr Tolmie with each
other, we may satisfy ourselves as to the radical unity of the group.
To these lists, and to the accompanying paper of Dr. Scouler, reference
is accordingly made. The _value_ of these groups (the Athabascan and
the Nootka-Columbian) is a different and a more difficult question. The
_maximum_ difference between any two known languages of the Athabascan
group is that between English and German. The _maximum_ difference
between the most unlike languages of the Nootka-Columbian group is
that between the modern Greek and Portuguese, _i. e._ the most distant
tongues of the classical stock of the Indo-European tribe. Hence, the
terms in question are equivalent to the more familiar terms, _Gothic_,
_Celtic_, _Slavonic_, &c. All this, however, is illustration, rather
than absolute arrangement; yet it serves to give definitude to the
current opinions upon the subject.

To the current views, however, the writer takes exception. He considers
that the groups in question have too high a value; and that they are
only equivalent to the primary subdivisions of _stocks_ like the
Gothic, Celtic, and Classical, rather than to the stocks themselves.
Still less can they have a higher and more exaggerated value, and be
dealt with as equivalent to groups like the _Indo-European_.

Hence, the differences between the Athabascan languages of the Oregon
and the Nootka-Columbian languages of the Oregon, are the differences
between the Latin and Greek, the Welsh and Gaelic, the German and
Icelandic, rather than those between the German and Russian, the Latin
and Persian, the Greek and Lithuanic, &c.

In determining the higher and more comprehensive class, we must take in
a third group of languages. These are those of Russian America. They
have generally been referred to two groups of uncertain value, viz.
the Kolooch and the Eskimo; the former, for the part about Sitca, or
Norfolk Sound, the latter for the parts about the Island of Cadiack,
and the Peninsula of Aliaska.

Now, the Athabascan languages are undoubtedly Eskimo; a fact stated
by the writer, at the meeting of the British Association at York, and
founded upon the comparison of the Athabascan vocabularies of Mackenzie
and Dobbs, on the one side, with the Western Eskimo ones, on the other.

And the Kolooch languages are equally Eskimo with the Athabascan. This
may be seen by reference to Lisiansky's vocabularies, and a comparison
between the Sitca and Cadiack.

ENGLISH. SITCA. CADIACK.

_Cry_ kaáh keyya
_Drink_ itanna tanha
_Hail_ katelst koudat
_Knee_ kakeek chiskoohka
_Lake_ aaka nanoak
_Lips_ kahaka hlukha
_Man_ chakleyh shook
_Spark_ heeklya chatalahi
_Wind_ keelhcha kyaeek

Now, by taking in the Eskimo of the Aleutian Islands, this list might
be doubled; and by dealing with the Kenay as Eskimo, it might be
trebled.

Again, by attempting to fix the points whereat the Eskimo language
ceases, and the Kolooch tongue begins, we may get further evidence that
the difference between them is exaggerated; since the languages passed
by gradual transitions into each other.

What follows, moreover, is cumulative evidence towards the same
conclusion.

Over and above the vocabularies collected by Mr Tolmie that have
already been dealt with, there is a seventeenth, viz. the _Tunghaas_.
This is stated in Dr Scouler's accompanying paper to be the most
northern dialect with which the Hudson's Bay traders come in contact.
It is also stated to be Sitcan; and that truly.

ENGLISH. TUNGHAAS. SITCA.

_Sea-otter_ youchtz youtch
_River-otter_ coostah kooshta
_Bear_ hooctch hoots
_Whale_ yioagh yaaga
_Woman_ shewat shavvot
_Summer_ kootaan kootaan
_He_ yout youta
_Good_ ahkeh tooake

On the other hand, the Tonghaas has affinities with the Haidah of Queen
Charlotte's Island, and through it with the so-called Nootka-Columbian
languages in general.

Cumulative, in the way of evidence to this, is the statement, with
the verification of which we shall conclude, viz., that, besides the
Athabascan, the other languages of the Oregon Territory have affinities
with the Eskimo. With the Oonalashkan and Cadiack on the one side, and
with Mr Tolmie's vocabularies (with Cook's occasionally) _en masse_
on the other, we have at least the following words common to the two
groups.

English, _sky_.
_Cook's Nootka_, eenaeel nas.
_Tlaoquatch_, naase.
_Oonalashka_, anneliak = _day_.

English, _sky_.
_Haidah_, shing.
_Billechoola_, skoonook = _day_.
_Haidah_, yen = _clouds_.
_Haeeltzuk_, unnowie.
_Oonalashka_, youyan = _sky_.
innyak = _sky_.

English, _moon_.
_Billechoola_, tlooki.
_Cadiack_, yaalock.

English, _snow_.
_Haeeltz_, naie.
_Calapooah_, anoopeik.
_Yamkallie_, kanopeik.
_Cadiack_, annue.
_Oonalashka_, kannue.

English, _hail_.
_Haidah_, dhanw = _snow_.
_Oonalashka_, tahenem dahskeeto.

English, _water_.
_Cook's Nootka_, chauk.
_Tlaoquatch_, tchaak.
_Cadiack_, kooyk = _river_.

English, _river_.
_Tloaquatch_, aook.
_Cadiack_, alaook = _sea_.

English, _rain_.
_Calapooiah_, tochtocha.
_Cadiack_, kedoh.
_Oonalashka_, chetak.

English, _sand_.
_Haidah_, il kaik.
_Oonalashka_, choohok.

English, _mountain_.
_Kliketat_, pannateet
_Cadiack_, poonhokanlie.

English, _house_.
_Kliketat_, needh.
_Shahaptan_, eneedh.
_Cadiack_, naa.

English, _song_.
_Cook's Nootka_, oonook.
_Oonalashka_, oonoohada = _sing_.

English, _go_.
_Cook's Nootka_, cho.
_Oonalashka_, icha.

English, _cleave_, _cut_.
_Cook's Nootka_, tsook.
_Cadiack_, chaggidzu.
_Oonalashka_, toohoda.

English, _crow_.
_Cook's Nootka_, kaenne.
_Cadiack_, kalnhak.

English, _fire_.
_Cook's Nootka_, eeneek.
_Cadiack_, knok.
_Oonalashka_, keynak.

English, _skull_.
_Cook's Nootka_, koometz.
_Oonalashka_, kamhek.

English, _teeth_.
_Cook's Nootka_, cheecheetsh.
_Cadiack_, hoodeit.

English, _middle finger_.
_Cook's Nootka_, taeeai.
_Cadiack_, teekha.

English, _how much_.
_Haeeltzuck_, kinshook.
_Kawitchen_, quien.
_Noosdalum_, quien.
_Oonalashka_, kannahen.
_Cadiack_, kouhcheen.

English, _mat_.
_Chenook_, swussak.
_Shahaptan_, tooko.
_Oonalashka_, sootok.

English, _bow_.
_Okanagan_, tsukquenuk.
_Oonalashka_, saeheek.

English, _house_.
_Squallyamish_, aalall.
_Oonalashka_, oolon.

English, _iron_.
_Squallyamish_, kumnuttin.
_Cadiack_, komlyahook.

English, _sea-otter_.
_Billechoola_, qunnee.
_Oonalashka_, cheenatok.

English, _bear_.
_Haidah_, tan.
_Oonalashka_, tanhak.

To this list a previous statement applies more especially. By treating
the Sitca and Kenay vocabularies as Eskimo, the number of coincidences
might have been doubled.

Besides this, it must be remembered that, in Tolmie's vocabularies,
no terms expressive of the different parts of human body are given;
and that several names of the commonest objects are wanting, _e. g._
_fire_, &c.

Neither have the vocabularies of Wrangell for the varied dialects of
Russian America been made use of.

As the lists, however, stand, the author considers that he has
shewn reason for believing that the Athabascan, the Kolooch, the
Nootka-Columbian, and the Cadiack groups are subordinate members of
one large and important class--the Eskimo; a fact which, coinciding
with all his other inquiries in American Ethnology, breaks down,
further than has hitherto been done, the broad and trenchant line
of demarcation between the circumpolar and the other Indians of the
Western Continent.

NOTES.

NOTE 1.

In a valuable paper On the Tribes inhabiting the N. W. Coast of America
read a few weeks afterwards by Dr. J. Scouler the following-tables
shewed--

1. The fact that the Nutka forms of speech were to be found on the
Continent;

2. That the Wallawalla was Sahaptin.

ENGLISH. TLAOQ. & NOOTKA. COLUMBIA.

_Plenty_ Aya, Haya
_No_ Wik, Wake
_Water_ Tehaak, Chuck
_Good_ Hooleish, Closh
_Bad_ Peishakeis, Peshak
_Man_ Tehuckoop, Tillieham
_Woman_ Tlootsemin, Clootchamen
_Child_ Tanassis, Tanass
_Now_ Tlahowieh, Clahowiah
_Come_ Tchooqua, Sacko
_Slave_ Mischemas, Mischemas
_What are you doing?_ Akoots-ka-mamok, Ekta-mammok
_What are you saying?_ Au-kaak-wawa, Ekta-wawa?
_Let me see_ Nannanitch, Nannanitch
_Sun_ Opeth, Ootlach
_Sky_ Sieya, Saya
_Fruit_ Chamas, Camas
_To sell_ Makok, Makok
_Understand_ Commatax, Commatax

ENGLISH. SHAHAPTAN. WALLAWALLA. KLIKETAT.

_Man_ Nama Winsh Wins
_Boy_ Naswae Tahnutshint Aswan
_Woman_ Aiat Tilahi Aiat
_Girl_ Piten Tohauat Pitiniks
_Wife_ Swapna Asham Asham
_Child_ Miahs Isht Mianash
_Father_ Pishd Pshit Pshit
_Mother_ Pika Ptsha Ptsha
_Friend_ Likstiwa Hhai Hhai
_Fire_ Ala Sluksh Sluks
_Water_ Tkush Tshush Tshaush
_Wood_ Hatsin Slukas Slukuas
_Stone_ Pishwa Pshwa Pshwa
_Ground_ Watsash Titsham Titsham
_Sun_ Wishamtuksh Au An
_Moon_ ---- Ailhai Ailhai
_Stars_ Witsein Haslu Haslo
_Clouds_ Spalikt Pashst ----
_Rain_ Wakit Sshhauit Tohtoha
_Snow_ Maka Poi Maka
_Ice_ Tahask Tahauk Toh
_Horse_ Shikam Kusi Kusi
_Dog_ Shikamkan Kusi Kusi Kusi Kusi
_Buffalo_ Kokulli Musmussin Musmussin
_Male Elk_ Wawakia Wawakia Winat
_Female Elk_ Taship Tashipka Winat
_Grey Bear_ Pahas Wapantle ----
_Black Bear_ Jaka Saka Analmi
_House_ Snit Snit Snit
_Gun_ Timuni Tainpas Tuilpas
_Body_ Silaks Waunokshash ----
_Head_ Hushus Tilpi Palka
_Arm_ Atim Kamkas ----
_Eyes_ Shilhu Atshash Atshash
_Nose_ Nathnu Nathnu Nosnu
_Ears_ Matsaia Matsiu ----
_Mouth_ Him Em Am
_Teeth_ Tit Tit ----
_Hands_ Spshus Spap Alla
_Feet_ Ahwa Waha Waha
_Legs_ Wainsh Tama ----
_Mocassens_ Ileapkat Shkam Shkam
_Good_ Tahr Skeh Shoeah
_Bad_ Kapshish Milla Tshailwit
_Hot_ Sakas Sahwaih Sahweah
_Cold_ Kenis Kasat Tewisha Kasat
_Far_ Waiat Wiat Wiat
_Near_ Keintam Tsiwas Tsa
_High_ Tashti Hwaiam Hweami
_Low_ Ahat Smite Niti
_White_ Naihaih Koik Olash
_Black_ Sunuhsimuh Tshimuk Tsimuk
_Red_ Sepilp Sutsha Sutsa
_Here_ Kina Tshna Stshiuak
_There_ Kuna Kuna Skone
_Where?_ Minu? Mina? Mam
_When?_ Mana? Mun? Mun?
_What?_ Mish? Mish? Mish?
_Why?_ Manama? Maui? ----
_Who?_ Ishi? Skiu? Skiu?
_Which?_ Ma? Mam? ----
_How much?_ Mas? Milh? Milh?
_So much_ Kala Kulk Skulk
_How far?_ Miwail? Maal? ----
_So far_ Kewail Kwal ----
_How long?_ Mahae? Maalh ----
_To long_ Kohae Kwalk ----
_This_ Ki Tshi Tshi
_That_ Joh Kwa Skwa
_I_ Su Su Suk
_You_ Sui Sui Suik
_He, she, it_ Ipi Ipin Pink
_We_ Nun Nama Nemak
_Ye_ Ima Ena Imak
_They_ Ema Ema Pamak
_To go_ Kusha Winasha Winasha
_To see_ Hakesha Hoksha ----
_To say_ Heisha Nu Nu
_To talk_ Tseksa Siniwasa Sinawasa
_To walk_ Wenasa Winashash ----
_To read_ Wasasha Wasasha Wasasha
_To eat_ Wipisha Kwatashak ----
_To drink_ Makosha Matshushask ----
_To sleep_ Pinimiksha Pinusha ----
_To wake_ Waksa Tahshisask Tahshasha
_To love_ Watanisha Tkeshask Tkehsha
_To take_ Paalsa Apalashask ----
_To know_ Lukuasa Ashakuashash Shukuasha
_To forget_ Titolasha Slakshash ----
_To give_ Inisha Nishamash ----
_To seize_ Inpisha Shutshash Wanapsha
_To be cold_ Iswaisa Sweashash Iswaiska
_To be sick_ Komaisa Painshash Painsha
_To hunt_ Tukuliksa Salaitisas Nistewasa
_To lie_ Mishamisha Tshishkshash Tshiska
_To steal_ Pakwasha Pakwashash Pakwasha

NOTE 2.

This, along with the paper on the Ethnology of Russian America, was the
development of a communication laid before the Meeting of the British
Association for the Advancement of Science at York in the previous
September, to the effect that the "line of demarcation drawn between
the Eskimo and the Indian races of America was far too broad and
trenchant"; wherein it was stated.--

1. That the true affinities of the Chipewyan were with the Kadiak,
Unalashka, Kenay and Sitka forms of speech.--

2. That the Ugalents (Ugyalyachmutsi of Resanoff), although separated
from the neigbouring Eskimo tongues so as to cause the appearance of a
discontinuity in the Eskimo area could, when we dealt with the Kadiak,
Unalashka, Kenay, and Sitka vocabularies as the representatives of a
single language be shown to be Eskimo.--

3. That affinities of a more general kind were to be found even further
southward.

4. 5. That the Atna of Mackenzie was the Noosdalum, and the Friendly
Village vocabulary the Billechoola, of Mr Tolmie.

(_Transactions of the Sections p. 78._--_On the Southern Limits of the
Eskimo race in America._)

ON THE ETHNOGRAPHY OF RUSSIAN
AMERICA.

READ
BEFORE THE ETHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY

19TH FEBRUARY 1845.

The paper submitted to the Society is upon the Ethnography of Russian
America. For a variety of reasons, the tribes in these parts are of
paramount importance. Inhabiting the most north-western extremity of
America on the coast of Behring's Straits, they are divided from Asia
only by that channel, so that of all the nations of the New World they
are most in contact with those of the Old. This circumstance alone puts
them prominently forward in ethnology; since the _primâ facie_ theory,
as to the population of America, must certainly be in favour of the
passage having taken place through Behring's Straits.

The limits of the Russian possessions in America, or of the
geographical area which we are considering, are not very definitely
determined: at least, the line of demarcation is, in a great degree,
a political rather than a natural one. From Mount St Elias to the
southernmost extremity of Prince of Wales Island, the territory in
question consists of a strip of sea-coast, and islands, with the
British possessions of New Norfolk and New Hanover at the back;
whilst from Mount St Elias northward, as far as the Arctic Sea, the
line of division is imaginary, coinciding with the 141° W. long. It
can scarcely be expected, that a frontier so determined can coincide
with any important divisions, either in physical or ethnographical
geography. Still the area in question is a convenient one.

Considering the remote situation of these extensive and inhospitable
tracts, the knowledge we possess of them is creditable to the
government of Russia. From the time of Behring downward, the coasts
have been accurately described; whilst the communications of the
officials of the Russian American Company exhibit far more than an
average amount of intelligence. For such portions of the present paper
as are not purely philological, the author has drawn upon Baer's
_Statistische und Ethnographische Nachrichten_, &c. Of a Russian
settlement in New California, although American, no notice is taken.
On the other hand, a nation inhabiting the extreme promontory of Asia
(the Tshuktshi) are, for reasons that will make themselves apparent,
dealt with as American. On the southern extremity of Russian America,
the native tribes are known to their neighbours of New Caledonia,
the Oregon country, and to the Hudson's Bay Company, under the names
of Colooches, Tunghaases, Atnas, Coltshanies, Ugalentses, Konagis,
Cadiacks, Tchugatches, and Kenays. For the north, and the shores of
the Arctic Sea, they are dealt with (and that truly) as members of
the great Esquimaux family. Further investigation multiplies the
names of these tribes, so that we hear of Inkalites, Inkulukhlaites,
Kiyataigmutis, Agolegmutes, Pashtolegmutis, Magmutis, &c. &c. To these
divisions may be added the different varieties of the natives of the
Aleutian islands. In the classification of these numerous tribes, it is
considered that much remains to be done.

For the tribes on the shore of the Northern Ocean, and for the parts
immediately south of Behring's Straits, the general character, both
physical and moral, seems to be Esquimaux. The enormous line of coast
over which this nation is extended has long been known. The language
and manners of Greenland have been known to us since the times of the
earliest Danish missionaries; so that details, both physical and moral,
of no savages are better understood than those of the Greenlanders.
With this knowledge, it is easy to trace the extension of the race.
The shores of Hudson's Bay are inhabited by the same stock. So also
is the coast of Labrador. The three forms of speech are but dialects
of one language: a fact that has long been known. Hence the Esquimaux
and Greenlanders have long been recognised as identical. From Hudson's
Bay, northward and westward, the whole line of seacoast, as far as
Mackenzie's River, is Esquimaux; and that with but little variety
of type; either in physical conformation, manners, or language. The
interpreter to Captain Franklin was an Esquimaux from Hudson's Bay, yet
he had no difficulty in understanding the dialects west of Mackenzie's
River, 137° W. Long. (See _Archœologica Americana_, ii. 11.) Three
degrees westward, however, a change in the Esquimaux characteristics
takes place; although the inhabitants of the quarters in question
by no means cease to be Esquimaux. The tribes already noticed may be
called the Eastern, those about to be mentioned the Western Esquimaux.
The dividing line is fixed by Captain Franklin at 140° W. long. The
tribes on each side of this line have _at first a great difficulty in
understanding each other_. Now the line between the subdivisions of
the Esquimaux language coincides very nearly with the boundary line of
Russian America. Hence the ethnography of that territory begins with
the Western Esquimaux.

It is no refinement to state, that, with the Western Esquimaux, we
find a change in the social and moral type, exhibiting itself in a
greater appreciation of the articles of civilized life, both as means
of home use, and as instruments of commercial barter. They resort
annually to the eastern boundary, and exchange articles of Russian
manufacture of seals-skins, oil, and furs. This intercourse is of late
date.--_Archæologia Americana_, ii., 11.

To Kotzebue's Sound and Behring's Straits the same race, with similar
characters, is continued. Of Behring's Straits it occupies _both_
sides, the Asiatic as well as the American. From Behring's Straits
to the Peninsula of Aliaska, and from thence to Cook's Inlet (or
Kenay Bay), every thing is unequivocally Esquimaux, and has long been
recognized as such.

That a statement lately made was no refinement, may be proved from the
third chapter of Baer's work, where he determines the character of the
Esquimaux trade, and gives it as a measure of the intercourse between
Asia and America. It seems referable to two centres, viz., the parts
about Behring's Straits, and the parts about Cook's Inlet. For the
first, the market extends from Icy Cape to the Promontory of Aliaska,
and has for its stations the islands of Behring's Straits. The second
district comprises the Aleutian islands, Cadiack, and the line of the
sea-coast as far south as Queen Charlotte's Island. Now, whatever may
be the amount of Russian civilization, in determining some of the
characteristics of the Western Esquimaux, it is certain that the tribes
of that race now inhabiting Asia, were occupants of their present
localities, anterior to the Russian Conquest of Kamshatka.

A second deviation from the Esquimaux type, we find in the island
Cadiack, and the coast of the continent opposite. The early Russian
discoverers speak of a continual warfare between opposing tribes of
the same stock; whilst another tribe, the Inkalite, is said to uphold
itself bravely against the more numerous nation of the Kuskokwims.
As a general rule, warfare, except as a defence against tribes of a
different race, is as foreign to the typical Esquimaux of Greenland as
to the Laplander of Europe.

Measured by another test, and that of the psychological sort (viz., the
capacity for religious instruction), the Western Esquimaux coincides
with the Esquimaux of Greenland. With the exception, perhaps, of the
Negro, the race, in general, is the most docile in respect to the
influences of Christianity. The religious history of extreme points of
the Aleutian Islands and Greenland verifies this statement.

The extent to which a mixed breed has been propagated under the
government of Russia, may be collected from the following tables. In
New Archangel the population is as follows:--

Europeans, 406
Creoles or half-breeds, 307
Aleutians, 134

In the remaining part of the territory it is as follows:--

Europeans, 246
Half-breeds, 684
Natives, 8882

Of places of trust in New Archangel, a very large proportion is held
by Half-breeds. We find them as overseers, police-officers, clerks,
watchmakers, medical students.

Such seem the most remarkable points connected with the Russian
Esquimaux in general. They are few in number, because it is the plan
of the writer not so much to exhibit the whole details of the race to
which they belong, as to put forward prominently such characteristics
as are differential to them and the Esquimaux of Greenland and Labrador.

It is now proper to give a brief notice of the more important tribes,
these being mentioned separately.

1. _The Tshuktshi._--This is the name of the Esquimaux of Asia. It is
generally accompanied by the epithet _sedentary_, so that we speak
of these people as the _sedentary_ or _settled_ Tshuktshi. This
distinguishes them from the so-called _Reindeer Tshuktshi_, a tribe
of the Koriak family. For either one or the other of these tribes the
name of Tshuktshi should be abolished. It is my impression that the
differences between the Esquimo of Asia and America do not represent
more than a few centuries of separation.

2. _The Kuskokwim._--This tribe, which occupies the banks of the
river from which it takes its name, may stand as the representative
for the tribes between Cape Rodney and the Peninsula of Aliaska. Its
numbers are estimated at upwards of 7000. Transitional in character to
the tribes of the coast and interior, its manners coincide with its
geographical position. In the use of certain so-called ornaments, it
agrees with the other Esquimaux tribes; as it agrees with the Esquimaux
and Finn tribes in the use of the sweating-bath. The Kuskoquimers
count distance by the number of _nights_ requisite for the journey.
Of the constellation they have a detailed knowledge, founded upon
observations. The most prominent of their institutions is the _Kahim_;
a building found in every village; erected like an amphitheatre,
capable of containing all the males of the place, and which, over and
above many peculiar domestic purposes connected with its erection,
serves as a council-hall for the males of the population.

3. _The Tshugatsh._--Natives of Prince William's Sound, and closely
allied to the islanders of Cadiack, with whom they agree in language.
Their historical traditions are, that they came from the coast, and
from the north; their mythological ones, that they are descended from
the Dog.

These three divisions are not only indubitably Esquimaux, but have also
been recognised as such.

Those that follow are generally referred to another ethnological group.
In the parts about Cook's Inlet (Bay of Kenay) and Mount St Elias,
a second race is said to make its appearance, and this is generally
separated from the Esquimaux by a broad line of demarcation. It is
called the Kolooch race or family, and is generally placed in contrast
with the Esquimaux. Isolated tribes akin to the Kolooches, and worthy
of special notice, are the following:--

1. _The Ugalyachmusti_ or Ugalentses, consisting of about 38
families.--They change their localities with the season, and are
Kolooch in manners and conformation. Living around Mount St. Elias they
are frontier tribes to the Tshugatshes.

2. _The Kenays_, inhabiting the coast of Cook's Inlet, 460 families
strong.--Historically, they assert that their origin is from the
hills of the interior, from whence they descended coastward. Their
mythological and ultimate origin is from the _raven_, connected with
which they have a complex cosmogony. Descent from the _raven_, or
descent from the _dog_, is considered, for these tribes we are speaking
of, as an instrument in ethnological criticism. Like the Ugalentses,
they are in contact with Tshugatsh Esquimaux.

3. _The Atnahs_, dwelling on the Copper River, 60 families strong,
hunters of rein-deer, and workers in iron as well as copper.--They
coincide with the typical Kolooches in burning their dead, in ascribing
the origin of their race to the _raven_, and in most other particulars.

These three tribes are unequivocally connected closely with each other,
and with the other members of the Kolooch group. The position of the
following is less definite:--

1. _The Kolshani._--These represent the natives of the interior.
They fall into two divisions, whereof the nearer can make itself
intelligible to the Atnas and Kenays. The more distant one is savage,
inhospitable, unintelligible. Cannibalism is one of their real or
accredited characteristics.

2. _The Inchulukhlaites_, dwelling on the Chulitna River.--They are
stated to be akin to the Magimuts, who are allied with,

3. _The Inkalites._--In one village alone they are 700 strong. Their
language is said to be a mixture of the Kenay, Unalashkan, and Atna.

It is hoped that the true character of the ethnological difficulty
involved in the classifications of the tribes enumerated, along with
several others in the same territory, has suggested itself to the mind
of the reader: viz. the position of the undetermined tribes, and the
relations of the Esquimaux and the Kolooch groups to each other. These
problems seem capable of being solved by means of the evidence of
languages. Previous, however, to the enumeration of our data upon this
point, it must be observed, that members of a _third_ ethnographical
division, in all probability, form part of the native population of
Russian America. From the Lake Athabasca, as a centre, to the Atlantic
on one hand, and to the Pacific on the other, languages of this group
are spoken; so that the Athabascan area in its extension from east
to west, is second only to the Esquimaux. Now both the Kolooch and
Esquimaux languages have fundamental affinities with the Athabascan,
and _vice versa_; whilst it is generally the case in Ethnology, that
two languages radically connected with a third, are also radically
connected with each other. With this premise, we may enumerate in
detail, our data in the way of philology. This method will introduce
new names and new localities, since we have often vocabularies where we
have nothing else besides.

1. _Beechey's Esquimaux._--The most northern specimen of the western
Esquimaux. Spoken in Kotzebue's Sound.

2. The Aglimut vocabulary of the Altas Ethnographique.

3. The Esquimaux of the Island of St Lawrence.--_Ibid._

4. The Asiatic Esquimaux of the Tshuktshi of Tshuktshi-Noss. Klaproth's
Asia Polyglotta.

5. The Asiatic Esquimaux of the Tshuktshi of the mouth of the river
Anadyr.--_Ibid._

6. The Esquimo of Norton Sound.--Cook's Voyages.

7. The Kuskokwimer vocabulary of Baer's Beiträge.

8. A vocabulary of the Island of Nuniwock in the Atlas Ethnographique,
is unequivocally Esquimo. So also are the dialects of the Peninsula
of Aliaska. Having seen, however, no vocabulary, I am unable to
state whether they most resemble those of the Aleutian Islands, (a
prolongation of its western extremity), or of those of the Island
Cadiack on its south-eastern side. At any rate, the languages akin to
the Cadiack, and the languages of the Aleutian group, form separate
divisions of sub-dialects. Beginning with the Aleutian class, we have
the following materials:--

9. Unalashkan vocabularies by Lisiansky, Wrangell, Resanoff, and others.

10. The Andreanowsky Isles.--Robeck's vocabulary.--See Mithridates.

There is external evidence that the language for the whole Aleutian
group is radically one, the differences, however, being, as dialectal
differences, remarkable. The natives of Atchu and Unalashka have
difficulty in understanding each other.--Mithridates.

11. Cadiack vocabularies by Resanoff, Lisiansky, and Wrangell.

12. Tshugatshi vocabularies by Resanoff and Wrangell.

13. The Lord's Prayer in Jakutat, by Baranoff.--Mithridates.

Notwithstanding the statement that only 19 words out of 1100 are common
to the Unalashkan and Cadjak, the affinity of these languages to each
other, and their undoubted place in the Esquimaux class, has long been
recognised.

14. _The Inkuluklaities._--This tribe is akin to the Magimut and the
Inkalaite. We possess a few words of the language, which are sufficient
to prove that although its definite place is undetermined, it has
miscellaneous affinities to the Atna, Kenay, and Esquimaux.

15. The Ugalyachmutsi of the Mithridates.

16. The Ugalents of Wrangell.--See Baer's Beiträge. These two
vocabularies represent the same language. The Ugalyachmutsi, although
left by Resanoff as an isolated language, is unequivocally stated by
Baer to be Kolooch. Its contrast with the Esquimaux of the Tshugatshes,
has always been insisted on.

17. Kenay vocabularies by Davidoff, Resanoff, Lisiansky, and Wrangell;
also an anonymous one from a native. Gallatin, in the Archæologia
Americana, goes so far as to separate the Kenay even from the Kolooch
language.

18. The Atna of Wrangell.--See Baer's Beiträge. Now, another American
language, spoken some hundred miles south of the Copper River, of
which we find a vocabulary in Sir Alexander Mackenzie's Travels, is
called _Atna_. It has no direct affinity with the present tongue. A
hypothetical solution of this coincidence lies in the fact, that in the
Athabascan languages the root _d-n_, or _t-n_ = _man_. That the Kenay
call themselves _Tnai_, or _Tnaina_ = _men_, is specially stated by
Baer, p. 103.

19. The Koltshany vocabulary of Wrangell.--See Baer's Beiträge. The
tables of the work in question shew the language to be undoubted
Kolooch.

20. The Sitca vocabularies--numerous. Cook's Norfolk Sound; the Sitca
of Lisiansky; the Sitca of Davidoff (see Archæologia Americana); the
Sitca of Wrangell. According to Captain Bryant, it is spoken from N.
lat. 59° to 5° S. by twenty tribes. The number of individuals who
speak it reckoned by Mr Green, an American missionary, at 6500--see
Archæologia Americana. The standard Kolooch is that of Sitca or Norfolk
Sound.

21. The Tunghaase of Mr Tolmie. Of this, the most southern dialect of
Russian America, we find a short vocabulary in the Transactions of the
Royal Geographical Society. It is truly stated to be closely allied to
the Sitca.

That there are no more than two groups required for the classification
of the above-mentioned languages, and that these are the Esquimaux and
the Kolooch, seems evident. That these groups are of no high value may
be shewn. It is undoubtedly true, that if we only compare isolated
vocabularies with each other we shall find little but points of
contrast. And we find less than might be expected even when we compare
groups of vocabularies.

1. The tables of Baer, exhibiting three languages for the Esquimaux and
five for the Kolooch group, give scarcely half a dozen words common to
the two.

2. The table of Lisiansky, with the Unalashkan and Cadiack on the one
side, and the Kenay and Sitca on the other, presents but little more.

3. The earliest language with which the Ugalyatmutsi was compared were
Esquimaux, and the contrast was insisted upon from the first.

It is only when we apply what may be called the _indirect_ method that
the true value of the Esquimaux group becomes recognised.

1. Each has affinities with the Athabascan tongues, and perhaps equal
affinities.

2. Each has affinities with the Oregon languages, and each perhaps
equally.

3. Each has definite affinities with the languages of New California,
and each perhaps equal ones.

4. Each has miscellaneous affinities with all the other tongues both of
North and South America.

These facts that connect the Esquimaux languages with those spoken
to the south of them involve, as may be easily seen, a theory of
much higher importance than the position of groups like the Kolooch.
They are taken along with the geographical position of the Esquimaux
race in respect to Asia, and point to the parts in question as the
starting-points for the population of the New World. Upon this latter I
can only say at present, that I find Esquimaux words in the following
languages:--

1. The Koriack.

2. The Kamskadale.

3. The Aino of the Curulian Isles. In respect to this last group, it
is remarkable that whilst I only find two words (the names for _house_
and _eye_) common to the _Western_ Esquimaux vocabularies of Lisiansky
and the Aino ones of Langgsdorf, I find between the latter and the
_Eastern_ Esquimaux of Parry a considerable number.

4. The Corean.

5. The Japanese.

This is in the way of direct evidence. The Oregon and Kolooch languages
have similar and equal affinities; whilst the Asiatic languages
enumerated have themselves affinities in the Old World known and
recognised.

From what has been laid before the Society, it may be seen of how great
importance it is to determine, whether the languages of Russian America
pass into each other gradually, or are divided by trenchant lines of
demarcation.

MISCELLANEOUS CONTRIBUTIONS TO
THE ETHNOGRAPHY OF NORTH
AMERICA.

READ
BEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY,

JANUARY 24, 1845.

The present state of American Ethnography is the excuse for the
miscellaneous character of the following notices. What remains just now
to be done consists chiefly in the addition of details to an outline
already made out. Such communications, however, are mainly intended
to serve as isolated points of evidence towards the two following
statements:--

1. That no American language has an isolated position when compared
with the other tongues _en masse_, rather than with the languages of
any particular class.

2. That the affinity between the languages of the New World, as
determined by their _vocabularies_, is not less real than that inferred
from the analogies of their _grammatical structure_.

Modifications of the current doctrines, as to the value of certain
philological groups and classifications, are involved in the positions
given above.

_The Sitca and Kenay Languages._--That these languages are Esquimaux
may be seen by reference to the comparative vocabularies in Lisiansky's
Voyages and Baer's Statistische und Ethnographische Nachrichten, &c.

_The Ugalyachmutsi._--In the work last quoted this language is shown
to be akin to the Kenay. It is termed _Ugalenz_, and is spoken in
Russian America, near Mount St. Elias. It has hitherto been too much
disconnected from the Esquimaux group.

_The Chipewyan and Nagail._--That these were Esquimaux was stated by
the author in the Ethnological subsection of the British Association
at York. The Taculli is also Esquimaux. The Sussee, in the present
state of our knowledge, is best left without any absolute place. It has
several miscellaneous affinities.

The bearing of these notices is to merge the groups called _Athabascan_
and _Kolooch_ in the Esquimaux.

It has been communicated to the Ethnological Society, that a majority
of the languages of Oregon and New Caledonia are akin to each other
and to the Esquimaux; a statement applying to about forty-five
vocabularies, amongst which are the three following, hitherto
considered as isolated:--

1. _The Friendly Village vocabulary of Mackenzie._ See Travels.--This
is a dialect of the Billechoola.

2. _The Atna of Mackenzie._--This is a dialect of the Noosdalum.

3. _The Salish of Duponceau._ See Archæologia Americana.--This is the
Okanagan of Mr Tolmie. See Journal of Geographical Society.

_The Ahnenin._--In this language, as well as in two others hereafter to
be noticed (the Blackfoot and Crow), I have had, through the courtesy
of Dr. Prichard, an opportunity of using valuable vocabularies of
Gallatin's, collected by Mr Mackenzie, an agent for the American
fur-company on the Yellow-stone river; by whom also were drawn up the
shorter vocabularies, in Mr. Catlin's work on the American Indians,
of the Mandan, Riccaree and other languages. The table also of the
Natchez language is chiefly drawn from the comparative catalogues of
Mr. Gallatin. That the MS. vocabulary of the Ahnenin represents the
language of the Fall Indians of Umfreville, and one different from that
of the true Minetares (with which it has been confounded), may be seen
from the following comparison.

ENGLISH. FALL-INDIAN OF UMFREVILLE. AHNENIN. MINETARE.

_eye_ nunnecsoon araythya ishtah.
_knife_ warth wahata matzee.
_pipe_ pechouon einpssah eekeepee.
_tobacco_ cheesouon kitchtawan owpai.
_dog_ hudther ahttah matshuga.
_fire_ usitter ---- beerais.
_bow_ bart ---- beerahhah.
_arrow_ utcee ---- eetan.
_one_ karci ---- lemoisso.
_two_ neece nethiyau noopah.
_three_ narce ---- namee.
_four_ nean yahnayau topah.
_five_ yautune ---- cheehoh.
_six_ neteartuce ---- acamai.
_seven_ nesartuce ---- chappo.
_eight_ narswartuce ---- nopuppee.
_nine_ anharbetwartuce ---- nowassappai.
_ten_ mettartuce netassa peeraga.

The Ahnenin language, without being at present referable to any
recognized group, has numerous miscellaneous affinities.

English _God_.
_Ahnenin_ esis--_sun_.
_Sheshatapoosh_ shayshoursh.
_Passamaquoddy_ saisos.

English _hair_.
_Ahnenin_ betamnita.
_Caddo_ baat.
_Taculli_ pitsa--_head_.
_Uche_ pseotan--_head_.

English _ear_.
_Ahnenin_ etah.
_Esquimaux_ heutinga.
---- tsheeutik.
---- shudik.
_Knistenaux_ otowegu.
_Ojibbeway_ ottowug.
_Micmac_ hadowugan.
_Massachusetts_ wehtoughh.
_Narragansets_ wuttowwog.
_Delaware_ wittauk.
_Miami_ tawakeh.
_Shawnoe_ towakah.
_Omohaw_ neetah.
_Osage_ naughta.
_Quappa_ nottah.

English _nose_.
_Ahnenin_ husi.
_Old Algonkin_ yash.
_Massachusetts_ wutch.

English _mouth_.
_Ahnenin_ ockya.
_Osage_ ehaugh.
_Natchez_ heche.

English _fingers_.
_Ahnenin_ naha.
_Onondagos_ eniage.

English _blood_.
_Ahnenin_ barts.
_Caddo_ baaho.

English _hand_.
_Ahnenin_ ikickan.
_Pawnee_ iksheeree.
_Muskoge_ innkke.
_Catawba_ eeksapeeah.
_Mohawk_ oochsoochta.

English. _leg_.
_Ahnenin_ nunaha.
_Sack and Fox_ nenanah.
_Caddo_ danuna--_foot_.

English _man_.
_Ahnenin_ neehato--_white man_.
---- watamahat--_black? man_.
_Tuscarora_ aineehau.
_Nottoway_ eniha.
_Seneca_ ungouh.
_Wyandot_ aingahon.
_Mohawk_ oonguich.
_Dacota_ weetschahskta.

English _girl_.
_Ahnenin_ wahtah.
_Dacota_ weetsheeahnah.
_Yancton_ weetchinchano.
_Yancton_ weetachnong--_daughter_.
_Osage_ wetongah--_sister_.

English _wife_.
_Ahnenin_ etha.
_Kenay_ ssióo.

English _water_.
_Ahnenin_ nitsa.
_Quappa_ nih.
_Uche_ tsach.

English _sun_.
_Ahnenin_ esis.
_Algonkin_ kesis.
_Choctaw_ hashe.
_Ohikkasaw_ husha.
_Muskoge_ hahsie.

English _rock_.
_Ahnenin_ hannike.
_Winebago_ eenee.
_Dacota_ eeang.
_Yancton_ eeyong.
_Mohawk_ oonoyah.
_Onondago_ onaja.

English _wood_.
_Ahnenin_ bess.
_Passamaquoddy_ apass--_tree_.
_Abenaki_ abassi--_tree_.

English _bear_.
_Ahnenin_ wussa.
_Quappa_ wassah.
_Osage_ wasauba.
_Omahaw_ wassabai.

English _dog_.
_Ahnenin_ ahttah.
---- hudther.
_Sheshatapoosh_ attung.
_Abenaki_ attie.
_Tuscarora_ tcheer.
_Nottoway_ cheer.

English _elk_.
_Ahnenin_ wussea.
_Miami_ musuoh--_deer_.
_Illinois_ mousoah--_deer_.

English _bad_.
_Ahnenin_ wahnatta.
_Mohawk_ wahpateku.
_Onondagos_ wahethe.
_Oneida_ wahetka.

English _good_.
_Ahnenin_ etah.
_Caddo_ hahut--_handsome_.

English _me_, _mine_.
_Ahnenin_ nistow.
_Blackfoot_ niste--_I_.

English _you_.
_Ahnenin_ ahnan.
_Kenay_ nan.

English _to-day_.
_Ahnenin_ wananaki.
_Mohawk_ kuhhwanteh.
_Onondagos_ neucke.

English _to-morrow_.
_Ahnenin_ nacah.
_Tchuktchi_ unako.
---- unniok.
_Choctaw_ onaha.

English _many_.
_Ahnenin_ ukaka.
_Mohawk_ awquayakoo.
_Seneca_ kawkuago.

English _drink_.
_Ahnenin_ nahbin.
_Osage_ nebnatoh.

English _sleep_.
_Ahnenin_ nuckcoots.
_Abenaki_ nekasi.
_Mohawk_ yihkootos.
_Onondagos_ agotawi.
_Seneca_ wanuhgoteh.

English _two_.
_Ahnenin_ neece.
_Passamaquoddy_ nes.
_Abenaki_ niss.
_Massachusetts_ neese.
_Narragansets_ neesse.
_Mohican_ neesoh.
_Montaug_ nees.
---- neeze.
_Adaize_ nass.

English _three_.
_Ahnenin_ narce.
_Abenaki_ nash.
_Narragansets_ nish.

English _four_.
_Ahnenin_ nean.
---- yahnayau.
_Ojibbeway_ newin.
_Ottawa_ niwin.
_Knistenaux_ nayo.
_Old Algonkin_ neyoo.
_Sheshatapoosh_ naou.
_Massachusetts_ yaw.
_Narragansets_ yoh.

English _six_.
_Ahnenin_ nekitukujan.
_Knistenaux_ negotoahsik.
_Ojibbeway_ gotoasso.
---- nigouta waswois.
_Ottawa_ ningotowaswi.
_Abenaki_ negudaus.
_Montaug_ nacuttah.

_The Blackfoot._--Of this language we have three vocabularies; a
short one by Umfreville, a short one in Mr. Catlin's work, and the
longer and more important one in Mr. Gallatin's manuscripts. The
three vocabularies represent the same language. Its affinities are
miscellaneous; more however with the Algonkin tongues than with those
of the other recognized groups.

English _woman_.
_Blackfoot_ ahkeya.
_Old Algonkin_ ickweh.
_Ottawa_ uque.
_Delaware_ okhqueh.
---- khqeu.
_Nanticoke_ acquahique.
_Illinois_ ickoe.
_Shawnoe_ equiwa.
_Sauki_ kwoyikih.
_Cherokee_ ageyung.
_Woccoon_ yecauau.

English _boy_.
_Blackfoot_ sacoomahpa.
_Upsaroka_ skakkatte.

English. _girl_.
_Blackfoot_ ahkaquoin.
_Catawba_ yahwachahu.

English _child_.
_Blackfoot_ pokah.
_Upsaroka_ bakkatte.

English _father_.
_Blackfoot_ onwa.
_Seneca_ hanee.

English _husband_.
_Blackfoot_ ohmah.
_Esquimaux_ oemah.

English _daughter_.
_Blackfoot_ netan.
_Knistenaux_ netannis.
_Ojibbeway_ nindanis.
---- nedannis.
_Ottawa_ tanis.
_Massachusetts_ nutannis.
_Narragansets_ nittannis.
_Illinois_ tahana.
_Sack and Fox_ tanes.
_Uche_ teyunung.

English _brother_.
_Blackfoot_ nausah.
_Passamaquoddy_ nesiwas.
_Abenaki_ nitsie.

English _head_.
_Blackfoot_ otoquoin.
_Old Algonkin_ oostiquan.
_Sheshatapoosh_ stoukoan.
_Ojibbeway_ oostegwon.
_Knistenaux_ istegwen.
---- ustequoin.

English _nose_.
_Blackfoot_ okissis.
_Menomeni_ oocheeush.

English _neck_.
_Blackfoot_ ohkokin.
_Miami_ kwaikaneh.
_Sack and Fox_ nekwaikaneh.

English _hand_.
_Blackfoot_ okittakis.
_Esquimaux_ iyuteeka.
---- tikkiek--_fingers_.

English _leg_.
_Blackfoot_ ohcat.
_Ojibbeway_ okat.
_Knistenaux_ miskate.
_Sheshatapoosh_ neescatch.
_Massachusetts_ muhkout.
_Menomeni_ oakauut.

English _feet_.
_Blackfoot_ oaksakah.
_Wyandot_ ochsheetau.
_Mohawk_ oochsheeta.
_Onondago_ ochsita.
_Seneca_ oochsheeta.
_Oneyda_ ochsheecht.
_Nottoway_ seeke--_toes_.

English _bone_.
_Blackfoot_ ohkinnah.
_Knistenaux_ oskann.
_Ojibbeway_ okun.
_Ottawa_ okunnum.
_Miami_ kanih.
_Massachusetts_ uskon.
_Narragansets_ wuskan.
_Shawnoe_ ochcunne.
_Sack and Fox_ okaneh.
_Menomeni_ okunum.

English _kettle_.
_Blackfoot_ eske.
_Knistenaux_ askick.
_Ojibbeway_ akkeek.

English _shoes_.
_Blackfoot_ atsakin.
_Mohawk_ ohtaquah.
_Seneca_ auhtoyuawohya.
_Nottoway_ otawgwag.

English _bread_.
_Blackfoot_ ksaquonats.
_Mohican_ tauquauh.
_Shawnoe_ taquanah.

English _spring_.
_Blackfoot_ motoe.
_Osage_ paton.

English _summer_.
_Blackfoot_ napoos.
_Knistenaux_ nepin.
_Ojibbeway_ neebin.
---- nipin.
_Ottawa_ nipin.
_Sheshatapoosh_ neepun.
_Micmac_ nipk.
_Abenaki_ nipéné.
_Massachusetts_ nepun.
_Narragansets_ neepun.
_Mohican_ nepoon.
_Delaware_ nipen.
_Miami_ nipeenueh.
_Shawnoe_ nepeneh.
_Sack and Fox_ neepenweh.
_Menomeni_ neeaypeenaywaywah.

English _hail_.
_Blackfoot_ sahco.
_Knistenaux_ sasagun.
_Ojibbeway_ sasaigan.
_Sheshatapoosh_ shashaygan.

English _fire_.
_Blackfoot_ esteu.
_Mohican_ stauw.

English _water_.
_Blackfoot_ ohhkeah.
_Chikkasaw_ uckah.
_Attacapa_ ak.

English _ice_.
_Blackfoot_ sacoocootah.
_Esquimaux_ sikkoo.
_Tchuktchi_ tshikuta.

English _earth_.
_Blackfoot_ ksahcoom.
_Knistenaux_ askee.
_Ojibbeway_ ahkee.
_Ottawa_ aki.
_Old Algonkin_ ackey.
---- ackwin.

English _lake_.
_Blackfoot_ omah sekame.
_Knistenaux_ sakiegun.
_Ojibbeway_ sahgiegun.
_Shawnoe_ mskaque.

English _island_.
_Blackfoot_ mane.
_Upsaroka_ minne--_water_.
---- minneteekah--_lake_.
---- minnepeshu--_island_.
_Knistenaux_ ministick.
_Ojibbeway_ minnis.
_Old Algonkin_ minis.
_Passamaquoddy_ muniqu.
_Abenaki_ menahan.
_Mohican_ mnauhan.
_Delaware_ menokhtey.
---- menatey.
_Miami_ menahanweh.
_Menomeni_ meenayish.

English _rock, stone_.
_Blackfoot_ ohcootoke.
_Nottoway_ ohhoutahk.

English _tree_.
_Blackfoot_ masetis.
_Ojibbeway_ metik.
_Old Algonkin_ metiih.
_Sheshatapoosh_ mistookooah.
_Massachusetts_ mehtug.

English _grass_.
_Blackfoot_ mahtooyaase.
_Miami_ metahkotuck.
_Quappa_ montih.

English _leaf_.
_Blackfoot_ soyapoko.
_Massachusetts_ wunnepog.
_Narragansets_ wunnepog.
_Mohican_ wunnepok.
_Miami_ metshipakwa.
_Sack and Fox_ tatapacoan.
_Menomeni_ ahneepeeoakunah.

English _beaver_.
_Blackfoot_ kakestake.
_Esquimaux_ keeyeeak.

English _wolf_.
_Blackfoot_ mahcooya.
_Esquimaux_ amaok.
_Knistenaux_ myegun.
_Ojibbeway_ mieengun.
---- maygan.
_Old Algonkin_ mahingan.
_Massachusetts_ muckquoshin.
_Narragansets_ muckquashin.
_Miami_ muhkwaiauch.

English _bird_.
_Blackfoot_ pakesa.
_Massachusetts_ psukses.
_Narragansets_ peasis.

English _egg_.
_Blackfoot_ ohwas.
_Taculli_ ogaze.
_Kenay_ kquasa.
_Cherokee_ oowatse.
_Salish_ ooseh.

English _goose_.
_Blackfoot_ emahkiya.
_Menomeni_ mckawk.

English _partridge_.
_Blackfoot_ katokin.
_Nanticoke_ kitteawndipqua.

English _red_.
_Blackfoot_ mohisenum.
_Massachusetts_ misqueh.

English _yellow_.
_Blackfoot_ ohtahko.
_Esquimaux_ toongook.
---- tshongak.
_Knistenaux_ asawwow.
_Ojibbeway_ ozawa.
---- ojawa.
_Old Algonkin_ oozao.
_Sack and Fox_ ossawah.
_Menomeni_ oashahweeyah.

English _great_.
_Blackfoot_ ohmohcoo.
_Micmac_ mechkilk.
_Mohican_ makauk.

English _small_.
_Blackfoot_ enahcootse.
_Upsaroka_ ecat.

English _strong_.
_Blackfoot_ miskappe.
_Knistenaux_ mascawa.
_Ojibbeway_ machecawa.
_Old Algonkin_ masshkawa.
_Nanticoke_ miskiu.

English _warm_.
_Blackfoot_ kazetotzu.
_Knistenaux_ kichatai.
---- kisopayo.
_Ojibbeway_ kezhoyah.
_Ottawa_ keshautta.
_Old Algonkin_ akishattey.
_Passamaquoddy_ kesipetai.
_Massachusetts_ kussutan.
_Narragansets_ kssetauwou.

English _I_.
_Blackfoot_ nisto.
_Chipewyan_ ne.
_Knistenaux_ nitha.
---- neya.
_Ojibbeway_ neen, nin.
_Old Algonkin_ nir.
_Sheshatapoosh_ neele.
_Micmac_ nil.
_Illinois_ nira.
_Ahnenin_ nistow.

English _thou_.
_Blackfoot_ christo.
_Knistenaux_ kitha.
_Ojibbeway_ keen, kin.
_Old Algonkin_ kir.
_Micmac_ kil.
_Illinois_ kira.

English _this_, _that_.
_Blackfoot_ kanakha.
_Upsaroka_ kinna.
_Nanticoke_ youkanna.

English _to-day_.
_Blackfoot_ anookchusiquoix.
_Knistenaux_ anoutch.
_Onondago_ neuchke.

English _yesterday_.
_Blackfoot_ mahtone.
_Dacota_ tanneehah.

English _drink_.
_Blackfoot_ semate.
_Upsaroka_ smimmik.

English _speak_.
_Blackfoot_ apooyatz.
_Upsaroka_ bidow.

English _sing_.
_Blackfoot_ anihkit.
_Knistenaux_ necummoon.
_Ojibbeway_ nugamoo.
_Sheshatapoosh_ nekahmoo.
_Illinois_ nacamohok.
_Menomeni_ neekaumeenoon.

English _sleep_.
_Blackfoot_ okat.
_Mohawk_ yihkootos.
_Onondago_ agotawi.
_Seneca_ wanuhgoteh.

English _kill_.
_Blackfoot_ enikke.
_Abenaki_ nenirke.

The Blackfoot numerals, as given by Mackenzie and Umfreville, slightly
differ. The termination in-_um_ runs through the numerals of Fitz-Hugh
Sound, an Oregon language.

ENGLISH. BLACKFOOT OF BLACKFOOT OF FITZ-HUGH
UMFREVILLE. MACKENZIE. SOUND.

_one_ tokescum sa nimscum.
_two_ nartokescum nahtoka malscum
_three_ nohokescum nahhoka utascum.
_four_ nesweum nasowe moozcum.
_five_ nesittwi nesitto thikaescum.
_six_ nay nowwe kitliscum.
_seven_ kitsic akitsecum atloopooscum.
_eight_ narnesweum nahnissowe malknaskum.
_nine_ picksee pakeso nanooskim.
_ten_ keepey kepo highio.

2. nekty, _Tuscarora_; tiknee, _Seneca_; teghia, _Oneida_; dekanee,
_Nottoway_; tekini, _Otto_.

3. noghoh, _Mohican_; nakha, _Delaware_.

5. nthsysta, _Mohawk_; sattou, _Quappa_; satta, _Osage_, _Omahaw_;
sata, _Otto_; sahtsha, _Minetare_.

7. tzauks, _Kawitchen_, _Noosdalum_.

10. kippio, _Chimmesyan_.

_The Crow and Mandan Languages._--Of the important language of the
Upsarokas or Crows the Archæologia Americana contains only thirty
words. Of the Mandan we have, in the same work, nothing beyond the
names of ten chiefs. In Gallatin's classification these tribes are
dealt with as subdivisions of the Minetare nation. Now the Minetare are
of the Sioux or Dacota family.

Between the Mandan vocabulary of Mr. Catlin and the Crow vocabulary of
Gallatin's MSS. there are the following words in common. The affinity
seems less close than it is generally stated to be: still the two
languages appear to be Sioux. This latter point may be seen in the
second table.

ENGLISH. MANDAN. CROW.

_God_ mahhopeneta sakahbooatta.
_sun_ menakha a'hhhiza.
_moon_ esto menakha minnatatche.
_stars_ h'kaka ekieu.
_rain_ h'kahoost hannah.
_snow_ copcaze makkoupah--_hail_.
_river_ passahah ahesu.
_day_ hampah maupah.
_night_ estogr oche.
_dark_ hampaheriskah chippusheka.
_light_ edayhush thieshe.
_woman_ meha meyakatte.
_wife_ moorse moah.
_child_ sookhomaha bakkatte.
_girl_ sookmeha meyakatte.
_boy_ sooknumohk shakkatte.
_head_ pan marshaa.
_legs_ doka buchoope.
_eyes_ estume meishta.
_mouth_ ea ea.
_nose_ pahoo buppa.
_face_ estah esa.
_ears_ nakoha uppa.
_hand_ onka buschie.
_fingers_ onkaha buschie.
_foot_ shee busche.
_hair_ hahhee masbeah.
_canoe_ menanko maheshe.
_fish_ poh booah.
_bear_ mahto duhpitsa.
_wolf_ haratta chata.
_dog_ mones waroota biska.
_buffalo_ ptemday bisha.
_elk_ omepah eitchericazzse.
_deer_ mahmanacoo ohha.
_beaver_ warrappa biruppe.
_shoe_ hoompah hoompe.
_bow_ warraenoopah bistuheeah.
_arrow_ mahha ahnailz.
_pipe_ ehudka ompsa.
_tobacco_ mannasha hopa.
_good_ shushu itsicka.
_bad_ k'hecush kubbeek.
_hot_ dsasosh ahre.
_cold_ shincehush hootshere.
_I_ me be.
_thou_ ne de.
_he_ e na.
_we_ noo bero.
_they_ eonah mihah.
1 mahhannah amutcat.
2 nompah noomcat.
3 namary namenacat.
4 tohha shopecat.
5 kakhoo chihhocat.
6 kemah ahcamacat.
7 koopah sappoah.
8 tatucka noompape.
9 mahpa ahmuttappe.
10 perug perakuk.

English _God_.
_Mandan_ mahhoppeneta.
_Winebago_ mahahnah.
_Minetare_ manhopa.
_Algonkin_ marutoo.

English _sun_.
_Mandan_ menahka.
_Omahaw_ meencajai.
_Caddo_ manoh--_light_.

English _star_.
_Mandan_ h'kaka.
_Quappa_ mihcacheh.
_Otto_ peekahhai.
_Omahaw_ meecaai.
_Minetare_ eekah.

English _day_.
_Mandan_ hampah eriskah.
_Winebago_ haunip.
---- haumpeehah.
_Dacota_ anipa.
_Yancton_ aungpa.
_Osage_ hompaye.
_Otto_ hangwai.
_Omahaw_ ombah.
_Minetare_ mahpaih.

English _woman_.
_Mandan_ meha.
_Yancton_ weeah.
_Omahaw_ waoo.
_Minetare_ meeyai.
_Ioway_ mega.

English _child_.
_Mandan_ sookhomaha.
_Quappa_ schehjinka.
_Otto_ cheechingai.
_Omahaw_ shingashinga.

English _head_.
_Mandan_ pan.
_Dacota_ pah.
_Yancton_ pah.
_Quappa_ pahhih.
_Omahaw_ pah.

English _arms_.
_Mandan_ arda.
_Minetare_ arrough.
_Pawnee_ heeeeru.

English _leg_.
_Mandan_ doka.
_Quappa_ jaccah.
_Osage_ sagaugh.

English _eyes_.
_Mandan_ estume.
_Dacota_ ishta.
_Yancton_ ishtah.
_Quappa_ inschta.
_Otto &c._ ishta.

English _mouth_.
_Mandan_ ea.
_Sioux passim_ ea.

English _nose_.
_Mandan_ pahoo.
_Sioux passim_ pah.

English _face_.
_Mandan_ estah.
_Dacota_ eetai.
_Yancton_ eetai.
_Minetare_ etah.

English _ears_.
_Mandan_ nakoha.
_Winebago_ nahchahwahhah.
_Yancton_ nougkopa.
_Osage_ naughta.

English _hands_.
_Mandan_ onka.
_Nottoway_ nunke.
_Tuscarora_ ohehneh.
_Menomeni_ oanah.
_Miami_ enahkee.

English _fingers_.
_Mandan_ onkahah.
_Onondago_ eniage.
_Wyandot_ eyingia.
_Tchuktchi_ ainhanka.

English _foot_.
_Mandan_ shee.
_Sioux_ sih.
_Pawnee_ ashoo.
_Tuscarora_ uhseh.

English _hair_.
_Mandan_ pahhee.
_Sioux_ pahee.

English _fish_.
_Mandan_ poh.
_Minetare_ boa.
_Sioux_ ho, hough.

English _beaver_.
_Mandan_ warappah.
_Minetare_ meerapa.
_Otto_ rawaiy.

English _deer_.
_Mandan_ mahmanaco.
_Yancton_ tamindoca.

English _house_.
_Mandan_ ote.
_Ioway_ tshe.

English _bow_.
_Mandan_ warraenoopah.
_Minetare_ beerahhah.
_Tuscarora_ awraw.

English _arrow_.
_Mandan_ mahha.
_Sioux_ mong, ma.

English _shoe_.
_Mandan_ hoompah.
_Dacota_ hanipa.
_Quappa_ honpeh.
_Minetare_ opah.

English _bad_.
_Mandan_ k'hecush.
_Dacota_ sheecha.

English _cold_.
_Mandan_ shineekush.
_Winebago_ seeneehee.
_Sioux_ snee.

English _no_.
_Mandan_ megosh.
_Tuscarora_ gwush.

English _I_.
_Mandan_ me.
_Dacota_ meeah.
_Minetare_ meeee.
_Quappa_ vieh.
_Osage_ veca.

English _thou_.
_Mandan_ ne.
_Winebago_ ney.
_Dacota_ neeah.
_Minetare_ nehe.

English _he_.
_Mandan_ e.
_Dacota_ eeah.

English _we_.
_Mandan_ noo.
_Winebago_. neehwahkiaweeno.
_Onondago_ ni.
_Knistenaux_ neou.

English _one_.
_Mandan_ mahhannah.
_Osage_ minche.
_Omahaw_ meeachchee.

English _two_.
_Mandan_ nompah.
_Sioux_ nompa, noopa.
_Uche_ nowah.

English _three_.
_Mandan_ namary.
_Minetare_ namee.

English _four_.
_Mandan_ tohha.
_Sioux_ topah, tuah.

English _five_.
_Mandan_ kakhoo.
_Minetare_ cheehoh.
_Muskoge_ chahgkie.

English _six_.
_Mandan_ kemah.
_Minetare_ acamai.

English _seven_.
_Mandan_ koopah.
_Minetare_ chappo.

English _eight_.
_Mandan_ tatucka.
_Seneca_ tikkeugh.
_Mohawk_ sohtayhhko.

English _ten_.
_Mandan_ perug.
_Minetare_ peragas.

_The Riccaree Language._--In Balbi and in the Mithridates, the Riccaree
is stated to be a dialect of the Pawnee; but no words are given of
it: hence the evidence is inconclusive. Again, the term Pawnee is
equivocal. There are tribes called Pawnees on the river Platte, and
tribes called Pawnees on the Red river of Texas. Of the last nation we
have no vocabulary; they appear however to be different from the first,
and are Pawnees _falsely so called_.

Of the Riccaree we have but one vocabulary (Catlin's North American
Indians, vol. ii.); it has the following words common with the _true_
Pawnee list of Say in the Archæologia Americana, vol. ii.

ENGLISH. PAWNEE. RICAREE.

_God_ thouwahat tewaroohteh.
_devil_ tsaheekshkakooraiwah kakewaroohteh.
_sun_ shakoroo shakoona.
_fire_ tateetoo tekieeht.
_moon_ pa wetah.
_stars_ opeereet saca.
_rain_ tatsooroo tassou.
_snow_ toosha tahhau.
_day_ shakoorooeeshairet shacona.
_night_ ceraishnaitee eenahgt.
_light_ shusheegat shakoonah.
_dark_ eeraishuaite tekatistat.
_hot_ toueetstoo towarist.
_cold_ taipeechee teepse.
_yes_ nawa neecoola.
_no_ kakee kaka.
_bear_ koorooksh keahya.
_dog_ ashakish hohtch.
_bow_ teeragish nache.
_arrow_ leekshoo neeche.
_hut_ akkaroo acare.
_woman_ tsapat sapat.
_boy_ peeshkee weenatch.
_girl_ tchoraksh soonahtch.
_child_ peeron pera.
_head_ pakshu pahgh.
_ears_ atkaroo tickokite.
_eyes_ keereekoo cheereecoo.
_hair_ oshu pahi.
_hand_ iksheeree tehonare.
_fingers_ haspeet parick.
_foot_ ashoo ahgh.
_canoe_ lakohoroo lahkeehoon.
_river_ kattoosh sahonnee.
_I_ ta nanto.
1 askoo asco.
2 peetkoo pitco.
3 touweet towwit.
4 shkeetish tcheetish.
5 sheeooksh tcheetishoo.
6 sheekshabish tcheetishpis.
7 peetkoosheeshabish totchapis.
8 touweetshabish tochapiswon.
9 looksheereewa totchapisnahhenewon.
10 looksheeree nahen.
20 petouoo wetah.
30 luksheereewetouoo sahwee.
100 sheekookshtaroo shontan.

The special affinities of the Riccaree are not very decided. It is
anything rather than an isolated language; and will, probably, be
definitely placed when we obtain vocabularies of the Indian languages
of Texas.

English _evil spirit_.
_Riccaree_ kakewaroohteh.
_Catawba_ yahwerejeh.

English _sun_.
_Riccaree_ shakoona.
_Caddo_ sako.
_Salish_ skokoleel.
_Delaware_ gishukh.
_Mohican_ kesogh.
_Esquimaux_ sukkenuk.
_Tchuktchi_ shekenak.

English _stars_.
_Riccaree_ aca.
_Caddo_ tsokas.

English _night_.
_Riccaree_ enaght.
_Esquimaux_ oonooak.
---- unjuk.
_Massachusetts_ nukon.

English _dark_.
_Riccaree_ tekatistat.
_Attacapa_ tegg--_night_.
_Natchez_ toowa--_night_.
_Mohawk_ tewhgarlars.
_Oneida_ tetincalas.

English _snow_.
_Riccaree_ tahhau.
_Adaize_ towat.
_Natchez_ kowa.
_Uche_ stahae.

English _fire_.
_Riccaree_ tekieeht.
_Onondagos_ yotecka.
_Ioway_ tako.
_Ugalenz_ takgak.
_Kenay_ taze.

English _cold_.
_Riccaree_ teepse.
_Attacapa_ tsamps.

English _bad_.
_Riccaree_ kah.
_Mandan_ k'hecush.
_Sioux_ sheecha.

English _boy_.
_Riccaree_ weenatch.
_Nottoway_ aqueianha.
_Esquimaux_ einyook.
_Winebago_ eeneek--_son_.
_Oneida_ yungh.

English _head_, _hair_.
_Riccaree_ pahgh, pahi.
_Sioux_ pah, pan.
_Massachusetts_ puhkuk.
_Choctaw_ eebuk.
_Chiccasaw_ skoboch.

English _eye_.
_Riccaree_ cheereeco.
_Tuscarora_ ookawreh.
_Esquimaux_ eerruka.

English _foot_.
_Riccaree_ ahgh.
_Choctaw_ iya.
_Chiccasaw_ eaya.

English _arms_.
_Riccaree_ arrai.
_Mandan_ arda.
_Tuscarora_ orungjai.

English _bear_.
_Riccaree_ keahya.
_Seneca_ yucwy.
_Tchuktchi_ kainga.

English _shoes_.
_Riccaree_ hooche.
_Sioux_ hongha.

English _arrow_.
_Riccaree_ neeche.
_Choctaw_ oski noki.
_Chiccasaw_ nucka.

English _hut_.
_Riccaree_ acane.
_Mohawk_ canuchsha.
_Onondago_ ganschsaje.
_Oneida_ kaunoughsau.
_Tuscarora_ yaukuhnugh.

English _canoe_.
_Riccaree_ lahkeehoon.
_Taculli_ allachee.
_Salish_ 'tlea'yh.

English _yes_.
_Riccaree_ neecoola.
_Adaize_ cola.

English _no_.
_Riccaree_ kaka.
_Chetimacha_ kahie.
_Algonkin_ kah.
_Kenay_ kukol.

English _I_.
_Riccaree_ nanto.
_Algonkin_ neen.

English _you_.
_Riccaree_ kaghon.
_Algonkin_ keen.

English _one_.
_Riccaree_ asco.
_Wyandot_ scat.
_Mohawk_ huskat.
_Onondayo_ skata.
_Seneca_ skaut.

English _two_.
_Riccaree_ pitco.
_Caddo_ behit.

English _four_.
_Riccaree_ tcheetish.
_Attacapa_ tsets.

English _thirty_.
_Riccaree_ sahwee.
_Cherokee_ tsawaskaw.

_The Creek and Choctaw Languages._--That the question as to the
affinity between the Creek and the Choctaw languages is a question of
classification rather than of fact, may be seen from the Archæologia
Americana, vol. ii. p. 405; where it is shown that out of six hundred
words, ninety-seven are common to the two languages.

_The Caddo._--That this language has affinities with the Mohawk,
Seneca, and the Iroquois tongues in general, and that it has words
common to the Muskoge, the Catawba, the Pawnee, and the Cherokee
languages may be seen from the tables of the Archæologia Americana.
The illustrations however of these languages are to be drawn from a
knowledge of the dialects of Texas and the Oregon districts, tracts of
country whereon our information is preeminently insufficient.

_The Natchez._--This language has the following miscellaneous
affinities, insufficient to give it a place in any definite group, but
sufficient to show that it is anything rather than an isolated language.

English _man_.
_Natchez_ tomkuhpena.
_Cochimi_ tamma.
_St. Xavier_ tamma.
_Loretto_ tamma.
_St. Borgia_ tama.
_Othomi_ dame.
_Shahaptan_ hama.

English _woman_.
_Natchez_ tamahl.
_Huasteca_ tomol.

English _girl_.
_Natchez_ hohlenoo.
_Noosdalum_ islanie.
_Squallyamish_ islanie.
_Kawitchen_ islanie.

English _head_.
_Natchez_ tomme apoo.
_Dacota_ pah.
_Yancton_ pah.
_Quappa_ pahih.
_Omahaw_ pah.

English _hair_.
_Natchez_ etene.
_Mixteca_ dzini.

English _eye_.
_Natchez_ oktool.
_Mexican_ ikhtelolotli.

English _nose_.
_Natchez_ shamats.
_Huasteca_ zam.

English _mouth_.
_Natchez_ heche.
_Poconchi_ chi.
_Maya_ chi.

English _tooth_.
_Natchez_ int.
_Calapooiah_ tinti.
_Mexican_ tentli--_lip_.
_Cora_ tenita.

English _moon_.
_Natchez_ kwasip.
_St. Antonio_ tatsoopai.
_Kawitchen_ quassin--_stars_.
_Noosdalum_ quassin--_stars_.

English _star_.
_Natchez_ tookul.
_St. Antonio_ tatchhuanilh.
_Cathlascou_ tukycha napucha.
_Caddo_ tsokas.

English _river_.
_Natchez_ wol.
_Pima_ vo--_lake_.
_Cathlascou_ emalh.

English _hill_.
_Natchez_ kweyakoopsel.
_St. Juan Capistrano_ kahui.
_Kliketat_ keh.
_Dacota_ khyaykah.
_Yancton_ haiaca.

English _maize_.
_Natchez_ hokko.
_Adaize_ ocasuck.

English _tree_.
_Natchez_ tshoo.
_Choctaw_ itte.
_Chikkasaw_ itta.
_Muskoge_ ittah.

English _flesh_.
_Natchez_ wintse.
_Algonkin_ wioss.

English _deer_.
_Natchez_ tza.
_Winebago_ tcha.
_Quappa_ tah.
_Muskoge_ itzo.
_Caddo_ dah.

English _buffalo_.
_Natchez_ wastanem.
_Uche_ wetenenvuenekah.

English _fish_.
_Natchez_ henn.
_Chimmesyan_ hone kustamoane--_salmon_.
_Kliketat_ tkinnat.
_Shahaptan_ tkinnat.
_Mohawk_ keyunk.
_Seneca_ kenyuck.
_Oneida_ kunjoon.
_Nottoway_ kaintu.
_Yancton_ hohung.

English _white_.
_Natchez_ hahap.
_Shahaptan_ hipi.
_Attacapa_ cobb.
_Old Algonkin_ wabi.
_Delaware_ wape.
_Shawnoe_ opee.

English _black_.
_Natchez_ tsokokop.
_Narragansets_ suckesu.
_Long Island_ shickayo.

English _bad_.
_Natchez_ wattaks.
_Mohawk_ wahhatekuh.
_Onondago_ wahethe.
_Oneida_ wahetka.

English _cold_.
_Natchez_ tzitakopana.
_Kliketat_ tsoisah.
_Shahaptan_ tsoisah.

English _hot_.
_Natchez_ wahiloohie.
_Muskoge_ hahiye.
_Attacapa_ alliu.

English _I_.
_Natchez_ tukehah.
_Adaize_ hicatuck.
_Chetimacha_ uticheca.

English _thou_.
_Natchez_ ukkehah.
_Kliketat_ yuke.

English _arm_.
_Natchez_ ish.
_Dacota_ ishto.
_Yancton_ isto.

English _blood_.
_Natchez_ itsh.
_Choctaw_ issish.
_Chikkasaw_ issish.

English _town_.
_Natchez_ walt.
_Pawnee_ kwat.

English _house_.
_Natchez_ hahit.
_Dacota_ tea.
_Yancton_ teepee.
_Quappa_ tih.
_Osage_ tiah.
_Omahaw_ tee.
_Minetare_ attee.

English _friend_.
_Natchez_ ketanesuh--_my_.
_Chetimacha_ keta.

English _boat_.
_Natchez_ kwagtolt.
_Chimmesyan_ waigh--_paddle_.
_Caddo_ haugh.

English _sky_.
_Natchez_ nasookta.
_Chimmesyan_ suchah.
_Tlaoquatch_ naase.
_Muskoge_ sootah.
_Choctaw_ shutik.

English _sun_.
_Natchez_ wah.
_Noosdalum_ kokweh.
_Squallyamish_ thlokwahl.
_Poconchi_ quih.
_Yancton_ oouee.

English _night_.
_Natchez_ toowa.
_Chetimacha_ timan.
_Attacapa_ tegg.

English _summer_.
_Natchez_ amehika.
_Billechoola_ awmilk.

English _winter_.
_Natchez_ kwishitshetakop.
_Mohawk_ koosilkhuhhuggheh.
_Oneida_ koashlakke.
_Tuscarora_. koosehhea.
_Nottoway_ goshera.

English _thunder_.
_Natchez_ pooloopooloolunluh.
_Chimmesyan_ killapilleip.

English _snow_.
_Natchez_ kowa.
_Billechoola_ kai.

English _sea_.
_Natchez_ kootshel.
_St. Diego_ khasilk.
_Choctaw_ okhuttah.

English _bear_.
_Natchez_ tsokohp.
_Uche_ ptsaka.

English _snake_.
_Natchez_ wollah.
_Esquimaux_ malligooak.

English _bird_.
_Natchez_ shankolt.
_Uchee_ psenna.
_Tascarora_ tshenu.

English _eat_.
_Natchez_ kimposko.
_Muskoge_ humbiischa.

English _run_.
_Natchez_ kwalneskook.
_Shahaptan_ willnikit.

English _kill_.
_Natchez_ appawe.
_Choctaw_ uhbe.

English _walk_.
_Natchez_ naktik.
_Adaize_ enacoot.

_The Uche_, _Adaize_, &c.--See Archæologia Americana, vol. ii. p. 306.
For these languages, tables similar to those of the Natchez have been
drawn up, which indicate similar affinities. The same can be done for
the Chetimacha and Attacapa.

_New Californian Languages._--The dialects of this district form no
exception to the statements as to the unity of the American languages.
In the Journal of the Geographical Society (part 2. vol. ii.) we
find seven vocabularies for these parts. Between the language of the
diocese of San Juan Capistrano and that of San Gabriel, the affinity
is palpable, and traces of a regular letter change are exhibited, viz.
from _l_ to r:

ENGLISH. SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO. SAN GABRIEL.

_moon_ mioil muarr.
_water_ pal paara.
_salt_ engel ungurr.

Between the remaining vocabularies, the resemblance by no means lies
on the surface; still it is unquestionable. To these _data_ for New
California may be added the Severnow and Bodega vocabularies in Baer's
_Beiträge_ &c. These two last, to carry our comparison no further,
have, amongst others, the following terms in common with the Esquimaux
tongues:

English _white_.
_Severnow_ kalle.
_Esquimaux_ kowdlook, kowlook.

English _hand_.
_Bodega_ talu.
_Esquimaux_ tadleek, dallek--_arm_.

English _beard_.
_Bodega_ ymmy.
_Esquimaux_ oomich.

English _sky_.
_Severnow_ kalu.
_Cadeack_ kilik.

English _moon_.
_Severnow_ kalazha.
_Kenay_ golshagi.

English _water_.
_Severnow_ aka.
_Bodega_ duka.
_Ugalyachmutsc_ kai.

English _ice_.
_Severnow_ tnlash.
_Ugalyachmutsc_ thlesh.
_Bodega_ kulla.
_Fox Island_ klakh.

English _day_.
_Severnow_ madzhu.
_Cadeack_ matsiak--_sun_.

English _night_.
_Bodega_ kayl.
_Ugalyachmutsc_ khatl.

English _star_.
_Severnow_ karnau.
_Greenland_ kaumeh--_moon_.

English _head_.
_St. Barbara_ nucchu.
_Greenland_ niackoa.

English _winter_.
_Severnow_ komua.
_Tchuktchi_ ukiumi.

The concluding notices are upon languages which have already been
placed, but concerning which fresh evidence is neither superfluous nor
misplaced.

_Sacks and Foxes._--Cumulative to evidence already current as to the
tribes of the Sacks and Foxes belonging to the Algonkin stock, it may
be stated that a few words collected by the author from the Sack chief
lately in London were Algonkin.

_The Ojibbeways._--A fuller vocabulary, taken from the mouth of the
interpreters of the Ojibbeway Indians lately exhibited, identifies
their language with that represented by the vocabularies of Long,
Carver, and Mackenzie.

_The Ioway._--Of the Ioway Indians, Mr. Gallatin, in 1836, writes as
follows:--"They are said, _though the fact is not fully ascertained_,
to speak the same dialect," _i. e._ with the Ottoes. Again, he writes,
"We have not that [the vocabulary] of the Ioways, but nineteen words
supplied by Governor Cass seem to leave no doubt of its identity with
the Ottoes."--_Archæolog. Amer._ ii. 127, 128. Cass's vocabulary is
printed in p. 377.

In 1843, however, a book was published in the Ioway language, bearing
the following title page, "An Elementary Book of the Ioway Language,
with an English Translation, by Wm. Hamilton and S. M. Irvine, under
the direction of the B. F. Miss; of the Presbyterian Church: J. B
Roy, Interpreter; Ioway and Sac Mission Press, Indian Territory,
1843." In this book the orthographical principles are by no means
unexceptionable; they have the merit however of expressing simple
single sounds by simple single letters; thus _v_ = the _a_ in _fall_;
_x_ = the _u_ in _tub_; _c_ = the _ch_ in _chest_; _f = th_; _g_ =
_ng_; _j_ = _sh_. _Q_ however is preserved as a double sound = _qu_.
From this alphabet it is inferred that the Ioway language possesses
the rare sound of the English _th_. With the work in question I was
favoured by Mr. Catlin.

Now it is only necessary to pick out from this little work the words
selected by Balbi in his Atlas Ethnographique, and to compare them with
the corresponding terms as given by the same author for the Sioux,
the Winebago, the Otto, the Konza, the Omahaw, the Minetare, and the
Osage languages, to be convinced the Ioway language belongs to the same
class, coinciding more especially with the Otto.

English _head_.
_Ioway_ nanthu.
_Winebago_ nahsso.
_Otto_ naso.
_Minetare_ antu.

English _nose_.
_Ioway_ pa.
_Sioux_ paso.
_Winebago_ pah.
_Otto_ peso.
_Konza_ pah.
_Omahaw_ pah.
_Minetare_ apah.
_Sioux_ pah--_head_.
_Omahaw_ pah--_head_.

English _mouth_.
_Ioway_ e.
_Sioux_ ei.
_Winebago_ i.
_Otto_ i.
_Konza_ yih, ih.
_Minetare_ iiiptshappah.
_Omahaw_ ihah.
_Osage_ ehaugh.

English _hand_.
_Ioway_ nawæ.
_Sioux_ nape.
_Winebago_ nahpön.
_Otto_ naue.
_Omahaw_ nombe.
_Osage_ nomba.

English _feet_.
_Ioway_ the.
_Sioux_ siha.
_Winebago_ si.
_Otto_ si.
_Konza_ sih.
_Omahaw_ si.
_Minetare_ itsi.
_Osage_ see.

English _tongue_.
_Ioway_ ræthæ.
_Otto_ reze.
_Sioux_ tshedzhi.
_Konza_ yeezah.
_Minetare_ theysi.

English _teeth_.
_Ioway_ he.
_Sioux_ hi.
_Winebago_ hi.
_Otto_ hi.
_Konza_ hih.
_Omahaw_ ei.
_Minetare_ ii.

English _fire_.
_Ioway_ pæchæ.
_Sioux_ peta.
_Winebago_ pytshi.
_Otto_ pede.
_Omahaw_ pede.
_Osage_ pajah.

English _water_.
_Ioway_ ne.
_Sioux_ mini.
_Winebago_ ninah, nih.
_Otto_ ni.
_Omahaw_ ni.
_Minetare_ mini.
_Osage_ neah.

English _one._
_Ioway_ eyungkæ.
_Otto_ yonke.
_Sioux_ wonchaw,
---- ouonnchaou.

English _two._
_Ioway_ nowæ.
_Sioux_ nopa.
---- nonpa.
_Winebago_ nopi.
_Otto_ noue.
_Konza_ nompah.
_Minetare_ noopah.
_Osage_ nombaugh.

English _three._
_Ioway_ tanye.
_Winebago_ tahni.
_Otto_ tana.

English _four._
_Ioway_ towæ.
_Sioux_ topah.
_Winebago_ tshopi.
_Otto_ toua.
_Konza_ tohpah.
_Omahaw_ toba.
_Minetare_ topah.
_Osage_ tobah.

English _five._
_Ioway_ thata.
_Sioux_ zapta.
_Winebago_ satsch.
_Otto_ sata.
_Konza_ sahtah.
_Omahaw_ satta.
_Osage_ sattah.

English _six._
_Ioway_ shaqæ.
_Sioux_ shakpe.
_Winebago_ kohui.
_Otto_ shaque.
_Konza_ shappeh.
_Omahaw_ shappe.
_Osage_ shappah.

English _seven._
_Ioway_ shahma.
_Otto_ shahemo.
_Minetare_ tshappo.

English _eight._
_Ioway_ krærapane.
_Otto_ krærabene.
_Omahaw_ perabini.

English _nine._
_Ioway_ ksangkæ.
_Otto_ shanke.
_Konza_ shankkoh.
_Omahaw_ shonka.
_Osage_ shankah.

English _ten._
_Ioway_ kræpana.
_Winebago_ kherapon.
_Otto_ krebenoh.
_Konza_ kerebrah.
_Omahaw_ krebera.
_Osage_ krabrah.

With the book in question Cass's vocabulary coincides.

HAMILTON AND IRVINE. CASS.

_fire_ pæchæ pedge.
_water_ ne ni.
_one_ eyungkæ iengki.
_two_ nowæ noe.
_three_ tanye tahni.
_four_ towæ toe.
_five_ thata satahng.
_six_ shagæ shangwe.
_seven_ shahma shahmong.
_eight_ kræræpane krehebni.
_nine_ ksangkæ shange.
_ten_ kræpanæ krebnah.

ON A SHORT VOCABULARY OF THE
LOUCHEUX LANGUAGE.

BY J. A. ISBISTER.

READ
BEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY,
JANUARY 25TH 1850.

This notice, being communicated by myself, and making part of the
subject illustrated by both the papers that precede and the papers that
follow, is here inserted.

The Digothe, or Loucheux, is the language of the North American Indians
of the lower part of the river Mackenzie, a locality round which
languages belonging to three different classes are spoken--the Eskimo,
the Athabaskan, and the Koluch (Kolosh) of Russian America.

To which of these classes the Loucheux belongs, has hitherto been
unascertained. It is learned with equal ease by both the Eskimo and
Athabascan interpreters; at the same time an interpreter is necessary.

The following short vocabulary, however, shows that its more probable
affinities are in another direction, _i. e._ with the languages of
Russian America, especially with the Kenay of Cook's Inlet; with which,
whilst the pronouns agree, the remaining words differ no more than
is usual with lists equally imperfect, even in languages where the
connexion is undoubted.

ENGLISH. LOUCHEUX. KENAY.

_white man_ manah-gool-ait.
_Indian_ tenghie[34] teena = _man_.
_Eskimo_ nak-high.
_wind_ etsee.
_head wind_ newatsee.
_fair wind_ jeatsee.
_water_ tchon[35] thun-agalgus.
_sun_ shethie channoo.
_moon_ shet-sill tlakannoo.
_stars_ kumshaet ssin.
_meat_ beh kutskonna.
_deer_ et-han.
_head_ umitz aissagge.
_arm_ tchiegen skona.
_leg_ tsethan.
_coat_ chiegee.
_blanket_ tsthee.
_knife_ tlay kissaki.
_fort_ jetz.
_yes_ eh.
_no_ illuck-wha.
_far_ nee-jah.
_near_ neak-wha.
_strong_ nehaintah.
_cold_ kateitlee ktckchuz.
_long_ kawa.
_enough_ ekcho, ekatarainyo.
_eat_ beha.
_drink_ chidet-leh.
_come_ chatchoo.
_go away_ eenio.
_I_ see su.
_thou_ nin nan.
(_my_) _father_ (se) tsay stukta.
(_my_) _son_ (se) jay _ssi_-ja.

[Footnote 34: The _g_ is sounded _hard_.]

[Footnote 35: As the French _n_ in _bon_.]

NOTES.

The notices upon the American languages at the British Association
between the date of the last paper but one and the next were:

That the Bethuk of Newfoundland was American rather than
Eskimo--_Report for 1847_. _Transactions of the Section p. 115._

That the Shyenne numerals were Algonkin--Report for 1847. _Transactions
of Sections p. 123._

That neither
The Moskito, nor
The Botocudo language were isolated.--_Ibid._

ON THE LANGUAGES OF NEW
CALIFORNIA.

READ
BEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY,
MAY 13TH 1853.

The languages of the south-western districts of the Oregon territory
are conveniently studied in the admirable volume upon the Philology of
the United States Exploring Expedition, by Mr Hale. Herein we find that
the frontier between that territory and California is most probably
formed by the Saintskla, Umkwa, and Lutuami languages, the Saintskla
being spoken on the sea-coast, the Umkwa lying to the east of it,
and the Lutuami east of the Umkwa. All three, in the present state
of our knowledge, belong to different philological divisions. It is
unnecessary to add, that each tongue covers but a small geographical
area.

The Paduca area extends in a south-eastern direction in such a manner
as to lap round the greater part of California and New Mexico, to
enclose both of those areas, and to prolong itself into Texas; and
that so far southwards as almost to reach the Gulf of Mexico. Hence,
except at the south and the north-west, the Californian languages (and
indeed the New Mexican as well) are cut off and isolated from the
other tongues of America by means of this remarkable extension of the
Paducas. The Paduca tongues dip into each of these countries as well as
lap round them. It is convenient to begin with a Paduca language.

The _Wihinast_ is, perhaps, an Oregon rather than a Californian
language; though at the same time it is probably common to the two
countries. It can be shown to be Paduca by its vocabulary in Mr. Hale's
work, the Shoshoni being the language to which it comes nearest; indeed
Mr. Gallatin calls the Wihinast the Western Shoshoni. Due east of the
Wihinast come the Bonak Indians, currently believed to be Paduca, but
still requiring the evidence of a vocabulary to prove them so.

The true Shoshoni succeed; and these are, probably, Oregon rather
than Californian. At any rate, their language falls within the study
of the former country. But the Uta Lake is truly a part of the
great Californian basin, and the Uta language is known to us from a
vocabulary, and known to be Paduca:

ENGLISH. UTA[36] COMANCH[37]

_sun_ tap taharp.
_moon_ mahtots mush.
_star_ quahlantz táarch.
_man_ tooonpayah tooavishchee.
_woman_ naijah wyapee.
_boy_ ahpats tooanickpee.
_girl_ mahmats wyapeechee.
_head_ tuts páaph.
_forehead_ muttock ----
_face_ kooelp koveh.
_eye_ puttyshoe nachich.
_nose_ mahvetah moopee.
_mouth_ timp teppa.
_teeth_ tong tahnee.
_tongue_ ahoh ahako.
_chin_ hannockquell ----
_ear_ nink nahark.
_hair_ suooh parpee.
_neck_ kolph toyock.
_arm_ pooir mowa.
_hand_ masseer mowa.
_breast_ pay toko.
_foot_ namp nahap.
_horse_ kahvah teheyar.
_serpent_ toeweroe noheer.
_dog_ sahreets shardee.
_cat_ moosah ----
_fire_ coon koona.
_food_ oof ----
_water_ pah pahar.

[Footnote 36: Reports of the Secretary of War, with Reconnaissances of
route from San Antonio to El Paso. Washington, 1850. (Appendix B.)]

[Footnote 37: From a Nauni Vocabulary, by R. S. Neighbour;
Schoolcraft's History, &c., Pt. ii.]

The Uta being thus shown to be Paduca, the evidence in favour of other
tribes in their neighbourhood being Paduca also is improved. Thus--

The Diggers are generally placed in the same category with the Bonaks,
and sometimes considered as Bonaks under another name.

The Sampiches, lying south of the Uta, are similarly considered Uta.
Special vocabularies, however, are wanting.

The Uta carry us from the circumference of the great basin to an angle
formed by the western watershed of the Rio Grande and the rivers
Colorado and Gila; and the language that comes next is that of the
Navahos. Of these, the Jecorillas of New Mexico are a branch. We have
vocabularies of each of these dialects tabulated with that of the Uta
and collected by the same inquirer.

Mr. Hale, in the "Philology" of the United States Exploring Expedition,
showed that the Tlatskanai and Umkwa were outlying languages of the
great Athabaskan family.

It has since been shown by Professor Turner that certain Apatch
languages are in the same interesting and important class, of which
Apatch languages the Navaho and Jecorilla are two.

Now follows a population which has stimulated the attention and
excited the wonder of ethnologists--the Moqui. The Moqui are they who,
occupants of some of the more favoured parts of the country between the
Gila and Colorado, have so often been contrasted with the ruder tribes
around them--the Navaho and Uta in particular. The Moqui, too, are they
whose ethnological relations have been looked for in the direction
of Mexico and the semi-civilized Indians of Central America. Large
towns, regular streets, stone buildings, white skins, and European
beards have all been attributed to these mysterious Moqui. They seem,
however, to be simply Indians whose civilization is that of the Pueblo
Indians of New Mexico. The same table that gives us the Uta and Navaho
vocabularies, gives us a Moqui one also. In this, about eight words in
twenty-one are Uta.

Languages allied to the Uta, the Navaho, and the Moqui, may or may
not fill up nine-tenths of what an Indian would call the Doab, or a
Portuguese the Entre Rios, _i. e._ the parts between the two rivers
Gila and Colorado. Great as has been the activity of the American
surveyors, the exploration is still incomplete. This makes it
convenient to pass at once to the head of the Gulf of California. A
fresh language now presents itself, spoken at the head of the peninsula
(or Acte) of _Old_ California. The vocabulary that has longest
represented this tongue is that of the Mission of Saint Diego on the
Pacific; but the language itself, extended across the head of the
_Acte_, reaches the mouth of the Colorado, and is prolonged, to some
distance at least, beyond the junction of the Gila.

Of the Dieguno language--for such seems to be the Spanish name for
it--Dr. Coulter has given one vocabulary, and Lieut. Whipple (U. S. A.)
another. The first is to be found in the Journal of the Geographical
Society, the second is the second part of Schoolcraft's "History, &c.
of Indian Tribes." A short but unique vocabulary of Lieutenant Emory,
of the language of the Cocomaricopas Indians, was known to Gallatin.
This is closely allied to the Dieguno.

A Paternoster in Mofras belongs to the Mission of San Diego. It has not
been collated with the vocabularies, which are, probably, too scanty
to give definite results; there is no reason, however, to doubt its
accuracy:--

Nagua anall amai tacaguach naguanetuuxp mamamulpo cayuca amaibo,
mamatam meyayam canaao amat amaibo quexuic echasau naguagui
ñañacachon ñaguin ñipil meñeque pachís echeyuchap oñagua quexuíc
ñaguaich ñacaquaihpo ñamechamec anipuchuch-guelichcuíapo.
Nacuíuch-pambo-cuchlich-cuíatpo-ñamat. Napuija.

A _third_ branch, however, of this division, constituted by a language
called the Cuchañ, of which a specimen is given by Lieut. Whipple
(_vide supra_), is still nearer to the latter of those two forms of
speech.

There can be but little doubt that a combination of sounds expressed
by the letters _t'hl_ in the Dieguno tongue, represents the sound of
the Mexican _tl_; a sound of which the distribution has long drawn the
attention of investigators. Common in the languages of Mexican, common
in the languages of the northern parts of Oregon, sought for amongst
the languages of Siberia, it here appears--whatever may be its value
as a characteristic--as Californian. The names of the Indians whose
language is represented by the specimens just given are not ascertained
with absolute exactitude. Mofras mentions the Yumas and Amaquaquas.

The Mission of San Luis _Rey de Francia_ (to be distinguished from that
of San Luis _Obispo_) comes next as we proceed northwards.

Between 33-1/2° and 34°, a new language makes its appearance. This is
represented by four vocabularies, two of which take the designation
from the name of the tribe, and two from the Mission in which it is
spoken. Thus, the Netela language of the United States Exploring
Expedition is the same as the San Juan Capistrano of Dr. Coulter, and
the San Gabriel of Dr. Coulter the same as the Kij of the United States
Exploring Expedition.

The exact relation of these two languages to each other is somewhat
uncertain. They are certainly languages of the same group, if not
dialects of the same language. In the case of _r_ and _l_, a regular
letter-change exists between them. Thus Dr. Coulter's tables give us

ENGLISH. SAN GABRIEL. SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO.

_moon_ muarr mioil.
_water_ paara pal.
_earth_ ungkhur ekhel.
_salt_ ungurr engel.
_hot_ oro khalek.

whilst in the United States Exploring Expedition we find--

ENGLISH. KIJ. NETELA.

_moon_ moar moil.
_star_ suot suol.
_water_ bar pal.
_bear_ humar hunot.

Of these forms of speech the San Gabriel or Kij is the more northern;
the San Juan Capistrano or Netela being the nearest to the Dieguno
localities. The difference between the two groups is pretty palpable.
The San Gabriel and San Juan numerals of Mofras represent the
Netela-Kij language.

It is remarked in Gallatin's paper that there were certain coincidences
between the Netela and the Shoshoni. There is no doubt as to the
existence of a _certain amount_ of likeness between the two languages.

Jujubit, Caqullas, and Sibapot are the names of San Gabriel tribes
mentioned by Mofras. The Paternoster of the three last-named missions
are as follows:--

_Langue de la Mission de San Gabriel._--Y Yonac y yogin tucu pugnaisa
sujucoy motuanian masarmí magin tucupra maīmanó muísme milléosar y
ya tucupar jiman bxi y yoné masaxmí mitema coy aboxmi y yo mamaínatar
momojaích milli y yakma abonac y yo no y yo ocaihuc coy jaxmea main
itan momosaích coy jama juexme huememes aích. Amen. Jesus.

_Langue de la Mission de San Juan Capistrano._--Chana ech tupana ave
onench, otune a cuachin, chame om reino, libi yb chosonec esna tupana
cham nechetepe, micate tom cha chaom, pepsum yg cai caychame y i
julugcalme cai ech. Depupnn opco chame chum oyote. Amen. Jesus.

_Langue de la Mission de San Luiz Rey de Francia._--Cham na cham meg
tu panga auc onan mo quiz cham to qai ha cua che nag omreina h vi hiche
ca noc ybá heg gá y vi an qui gá topanga. Cham na cholane mim cha pan
pitu mag ma jan pohi cala cai qui cha me holloto gai tom chama o gui
chag cay ne che cal me tus so lli olo calme alla linoc chame cham cho
sivo. Amen. Jésus.

The following is the Paternoster of the Mission of San Fernando. It is
taken from Mofras:--

Y yorac yona taray tucúpuma sagoucó motoanian majarmi moin main monó
muismi miojor y iactucupar. Pan yyogin gimiarnerin majarmi mi fema coyó
ogorná yio mamarimy mii, yiarmá ogonug y yoná, y yo ocaynen coijarmea
main ytomo mojay coiyamá huermí. Parima.

The Mission of San Fernando lies between that of San Gabriel and Santa
Barbara. Santa Barbara's channel (between 34° and 34-1/2° N. L.) runs
between the mainland and some small islands. From these parts we have
two vocabularies, Revely's and Dr. Coulter's. The former is known to
me only through the Mithridates, and has only three words that can be
compared with the other:--

ENGLISH. REVELY'S. COULTER'S.

_one_ pacà paka.
_two_ excò shko_ho_.
_three_ mapja _ma_sekh.

The Mission of Santa Ines lies between that of Santa Barbara and that
of San Luis Obispo, in 35-2/3 N. L.; which last supplies a vocabulary,
one of Dr. Coulter's:--

ENGLISH. SAN LUIS OBISPO. SANTA BARBARA.

_water_ to oh.
_stone_ tkeup kheup.
_three_ misha masekh.
_bow_ takha akha.
_salt_ tepu tipi.

This is the amount of likeness between the two forms of speech--greater
than that between the Netela and Dieguno, but less than that between
the Netela and Kij.

Dr. Coulter gives us a vocabulary for the Mission of San Antonio, and
the United States Exploring Expedition one from San Miguel, the latter
being very short:

ENGLISH. SAN MIGUEL.

_man_ luai, loai, logua.
_woman_ tlene.
_father_ tata.
_mother_ apai.
_son_ paser, pasel.
_daughter_ paser, pasel.
_head_ to-buko.
_hair_ te-asakho.
_ears_ te-n-tkhito.
_nose_ te-n-ento.
_eyes_ t-r-ugento.
_mouth_ t-r-eliko (lak-um, _St. Raph._)

With the San Antonio it has six words in common, of which two coincide:
_e. g._ in San Antonio _man_ = _luah_, _mother_ = _epjo_. Besides
which, the combination _tr_, and the preponderance of initials in _t_,
are common to the two vocabularies. San Antonio is spoken about 36-1/2°
N. L. The numerals, too, are very similar, since the _ki_-and _ka_-in
the San Antonio numeration for _one_, _two_, seems non-radical:--

ENGLISH. SAN MIGUEL. SAN ANTONIO.

_one_ tohi ki-tol.
_two_ kugsu ka-kishe.
_three_ tlubahi klap'hai.
_four_ kesa kisha.
_five_ oldrato ultraoh.
_six_ paiate painel.
_seven_ tepa te'h.
_eight_ sratel shaanel.
_nine_ tedi-trup teta-tsoi.
_ten_ trupa tsoeh.

It is safe to say that these two vocabularies represent one and the
same language.

About fifty miles to the north-west of St. Miguel lies La Soledad, for
which we have a short vocabulary of Mr. Hale's:--

ENGLISH. LA SOLEDAD.

_man_ mue.
_woman_ shurishme.
_father_ ni-ka-pa.
_mother_ ni-ka-na.
_son_ ni-ki-nish.
_daughter_ ni-ka
_head_ tsop.
_hair_ worokh.
_ears_ otsho.
_nose_ us (oos, _Castano_).
_eyes_ hiin (hin, _Talatui_).
_mouth_ hai.

The word _nika_, which alone denotes _daughter_, makes the power of
the syllabic _ka_ doubtful. Nevertheless, it is probably non-radical.
In ni-k_i_-n_i_sh, as opposed to ni-k_a_-n_a_, we have an apparent
accommodation (_umlaut_); a phenomenon not wholly strange to the
American form of speech.

Is this the only language of these parts? Probably not. The numerals
of language from this Mission are given by Mofras, and the difference
between them and those of Mr. Hale is as follows:--

ENGLISH. MOFRAS SOL. HALE'S SOL.

_one_ enkala himitna.
_two_ oultes utshe.
_three_ kappes kap-kha.
_four_ oultezim utjit.
_five_ haliizon paruash.
_six_ hali-skakem iminuksha.
_seven_ kapka-mai uduksha.
_eight_ oulton-mai taitemi.
_nine_ pakke watso.
_ten_ tam-chakt matsoso.

There is some affinity, but it is not so close as one in another
quarter; _i. e._ one with the Achastli and Ruslen.

Between 36° and 37° N. L. lies the town of Monterey. For this
neighbourhood we have the Ruslen east, and the Eslen west, the latter
being called also Ecclemachs. Bourgoing and De La Manon are the
authorities for the scanty vocabularies of these two forms of speech,
to which is added one of the Achastli. The Achastli, the Ruslen, and
the Soledad of Mofras seem to represent one and the same language. The
converse, however, does not hold good, _i. e._ the Soledad of Hale is
not the Eslenes of Bourgoing and the Ecclemachs of De La Manon. This
gives us four languages for these parts:--

1. The one represented by the San Miguel and San Antonio vocabulary.

2. The one represented by the Soledad of Hale.

3. The one represented by the Soledad of Mofras, the Achastli of De La
Manon, and the Ruslen of Bourgoing.

4. The one represented by the Eslen of Bourgoing and the Ecclemachs of
De La Manon, and also by a vocabulary yet to be noticed, viz. that of
the Mission of Carmel of Mofras.

ENGLISH. CARMEL. ESLEN. SOLEDAD RUSLEN.
(_of Mofras_).

_one_ pek pek enkala enjala.
_two_ oulhaj ulhaj oultes ultis.
_three_ koulep julep kappes kappes.
_four_ kamakous jamajus oultizim ultizim.
_five_ pemakala pemajala haliizon hali-izu.
_six_ pegualanai peguatanoi halishakem hali-shakem.
_seven_ kulukulanai julajualanei kapkamai kapkamai-shakem.
_eight_ kounailepla julep jualanei oultonmai ultumai-shakem.
_nine_ kakouslanai jamajas jualanei pakke packe.
_ten_ tomoila tomoila tamchakt tamchait.

We now approach the parts of California which are best known--the Bay
of San Francisco in 38° N. L. For these parts the Mission of Dolores
gives us the names of the following populations:--1. Ahwastes. 2.
Olhones (Costanos or Coastmen). 3. Altahmos. 4. Romonans. 5. Tulomos.

For the same parts we have vocabularies of four languages which
are almost certainly mutually unintelligible. Two are from Baer's
_Beiträge_; they were collected during the time of the Russian
settlement at Ross. One represents the language of certain Indians
called _Olamentke_, the other that of certain Indians called
_Khwakhlamayu_. The other two are from the second part of Schoolcraft.
One is headed Costano = the language of the Indians of the coast; the
other Cushna. The language represented by the Cushna vocabulary can
be traced as far inland as the Lower Sacramiento. Here we find the
Bush_umni_ (or Pujuni), the Sec_umni_, the Yas_umni_, the Yale_sumni_,
the Nemshaw, the Kiski, the Huk, and the Yukae tribes, whose languages,
or dialects, are represented by three short vocabularies, collected by
Mr. Dana, viz. the Pujuni, the Sekumne, and the Tsamak.

The following extract shows the extent to which these three forms of
speech agree and differ:--

ENGLISH. PUJUNI. SEKUMNE. TSAMAK.

_man_ çune mailik mailik.
_woman_ kele kele kule.
_child_ ---- maidumonai ----
_daughter_ ---- eti ----
_head_ tçutçúl tsol tçultçul.
_hair_ oi ono oi.
_ear_ onó bono orro.
_eye_ watça il hil.
_nose_ henka suma ----
_mouth_ moló sim ----
_neck_ tokotók kui kulut.
_arm_ ma wah kalut.
_hand_ tçapai ma tamsult _or_ tamtçut.
_fingers_ tçikikup biti tcikikup.
_leg_ pai podo bimpi.
_foot_ kat_u_p pai pai.
_toe_ ta_p_ biti ----
_house_ hē hē ----
_bow_ ōlumni ---- ----
_arrow_ huiā ---- ----
_shoes_ ---- sol_u_m ----
_beads_ ---- haw_ū_t ----
_sky_ hibi ---- ----
_sun_ oko oko ----
_day_ oko eki ----
_night_ ---- po ----
_fire_ ça sa ça.
_water_ momi, mop mop momi.
_river_ lókolók mumdi munti.
_stone_ o o ----
_tree_ tça tsa ----
_grapes_ ---- muti ----
_deer_ wil kut kut.
_bird_ ---- tsit ----
_fish_ ---- pala ----
_salmon_ mai mai ----
_name_ ---- ianó ----
_good_ huk wenne huk.
_bad_ ---- tçoç maidik.
_old_ ---- hawil ----
_new_ ---- be ----
_sweet_ ---- sudúk ----
_sour_ ---- oho ----
_hasten_ ---- iewa ----
_run_ tshel gewa ----
_walk_ iye wiye ----
_swim_ pi ---- ----
_talk_ wiwina enun ----
_sing_ ---- tsol ----
_dance_ ---- paio ----
_one_ ti wikte ----
_two_ teene pen ----
_three_ shupui sapui ----
_four_ pehel tsi ----
_five_ mustic mauk ----
_six_ tini, o (_sic_) tini, a (_sic_) ----
_seven_ tapui pensi (?) _sic_. ----
_eight_ petshei tapau (?) _sic_. ----
_nine_ matshum mutsum ----
_ten_ tshapanaka aduk ----

On the Kassima River, a tributary of the Sacramiento, about eighty
miles from its mouth lives a tribe whose language is called the
Talatui, and is represented by a vocabulary of Mr. Dana's. It belongs,
as Gallatin has suggested, to the same class with the language of San
Raphael, as given in a vocabulary of Mr. Hale's:--

ENGLISH. TALATUI. SAN RAPHAEL.

_man_ sawe lamantiya.
_woman_ esuu kulaish.
_father_ tata api.
_daughter_ tele ai.
_head_ tikit molu.
_ear_ _alok_ _alokh_.
_eye_ wilai shuta.
_nose_ _uk_ _huke_.
_mouth_ hube lakum.
_hand_ _iku_ _akue_.
_foot_ subei koio.
_sun_ _hi_ _hi_.
_day_ _hi_ umu _hi_.
_night_ ka-_wil_ _wal_ay uta.
_fire_ _wike_ _waik_.
_water_ _kik_ _kiik_.
_stone_ sawa lupoii.
_bird_ lune, ti kakalis.
_house_ _kodja_ _koitaya_.
_one_ _kenate_ _kenai_.
_two_ _oyo_-ko _oza_.
_three_ _teli_-ko _tula_-ka.
_four_ oiçu-ko wiag.
_five_ kassa-ko kenekus.
_six_ temebo patirak.
_seven_ kanikuk (?) _sic_ semlawi.
_eight_ kauinda wusuya.
_nine_ ooi umarask.
_ten_ ekuye kitshish.

North of San Francisco, at least along the coast, we have no
vocabularies of any language undoubtedly and exclusively Californian.
Thus, the Lutuami, the Shasti and Palaik are, in all probability,
common to California and Oregon. Of each of these languages Mr. Hale
has given us a vocabulary. The Lutuami live on the headwaters of the
river and lake Tlamatl, or Clamet, conterminous on the south-east
with the Palaiks, and on the south-west with the Shasti. The affinity
between the Palaik and Lutuami seems to be somewhat greater than that
between the Lutuami and Shasti.

And now we have gone _round_ California; for, conterminous, on the
east, with the Lutuami and Shasti are the Wihinast and Paduca with whom
we began, and it is only by the comparatively narrow strip of country
occupied by the three tribes just enumerated that the great Paduca
area is separated from the Pacific. How far the Shasti and Palaik
areas extend in the direction of the head-waters of the Sacramiento
is uncertain. A separate language, however, seems to be represented
by a vocabulary, collected by Mr. Dana from the Indians who lie about
250 miles from its mouth. From the Lutuami, the Shasti, the Palaik,
and Jakon, northwards, and from the Pujuni, Talatui and other dialects
lower down the river, it seems distinct. It is just more like the Jakon
than any other form of speech equally distant. Neither is it Shoshoni:--

ENGL. U. SACR.

_sun_ sas.
_fire_ po.
_water_ meim. momi _Puj._ _Tsam._ mop _Sek._
_hair_ to-moi.
_eye_ tu-mut.
_arm_ keole.
_finger_ tsemut. tamtçut = hand _Tsam._
_leg_ tole. kolo _Talat._
_foot_ ktamoso.
_knee_ huiuk.
_deer_ nop.
_salmon_ monok.
_nose_ tsono. tusina _Jakon_. suma _Sek._
_mouth_ kal. khai _Jakon_. hai _Soledad_.
_chin_ kentikut.
_forehead_ tei.
_knife_ kelekele.
_iron_ kelekele.
_grape_ uyulu.
_rush_ tso.
_eat_ ba, bas.
_see_ wila.
_go_ hara.

Slight as is this preponderance of affinity with the Jakon, it is not
to be ignored altogether. The displacements between the two areas have
been considerable and though the names of as many as five intermediate
tribes are known, we have no specimens of their languages. These tribes
are--

1. The Kaus, between the rivers Umkwa and Clamet, and consequently not
far from the head-waters of the Sacramiento.

2. 3. The Tsalel and Killiwashat, on the Umkwa.

4. The Saintskla between these and the Jakon, the Jakon being between
the Tlatskanai and Umkwa.

Now as these last are Athabaskan, there must have been displacement.
But there are further proofs. North of the isolated and apparently
intrusive Tlatskanai lie the Nsietshawus--isolated and apparently
intrusive also; since they belong to the great Atna stock of Frazer's
River.

The Jakon, then, and the Indians of the Upper Sacramiento may belong to
the same stock--a stock which will be continuous in its area in case
intermediate tribes prove referable to it, and interrupted in its area
if they do not. At any rate, the _direction_ of the Jakons is important.

The following Paternosters from Mofras, referable to the parts about
San Francisco, require fixing. They can probably be distributed among
the languages ascribed to that district--not, however, by the present
writer:--

_Langue de la Mission de Santa Clara._--Appa macréne mé saura
saraahtiga elecpuhmem imragat, sacan macréne mensaraah assuevy nouman
ourun macari pireca numa ban saraahiga poluma macréne souhaii naltis
anat macréne neéna, ia annanet macréne meena, ia annanet macréne macrec
équetr maccari noumbasi macro annan, non maroté jessember macréne
in eckoué tamouniri innam tattahné, icatrarca oniet macréne equets
naccaritkoun och á Jésus.

_Langue de la Mission de Santa Ines._--Dios caquicoco upalequen alapa,
quiaenicho opte; paquininigug quique eccuet upalacs huatahuc itimisshup
caneche alapa. Ulamuhu ilahulalisahue. Picsiyug equepe ginsucutaniyug
uquiyagmagin, canechequique quisagin sucutanagun utiyagmayiyug peux
hoyug quie utie lex ulechop santequiyung ilautechop. Amen. Jesus.

_Langue de la Vallée de Los Tulares._--Appa macquen erignimo, tasunimac
emracat, jinnin eccey macquen unisínmac macquen quitti éné soteyma
erinigmo: sumimac macquen hamjamú jinnan guara ayei; sunnun maquen quit
ti enesunumac ayacma; aquectsem unisimtac nininti equetmini: junná
macquen equetmini em men.

_Langue Giuluco de la Mission de San Francisco._--Allá-igamé mutryocusé
mi zahuá on mi yahuatail cha usqui etra shon mur tzecali Ziam pac
onjinta mul zhaiíge Nasoyate chelegua mul znatzoitze tzecali zicmatan
zchütülaa chalehua mesqui pihuatzite yteima omahuá. Emqui. Jesus.

_Langue Chocouyem du Rio del Sacramento._--Api maco su lileco ma nénas
mi aués omai mácono mi taucuchs oyópa mi tauco chaquenit opú neyatto
chequenit opu liletto. Tu maco muye genum ji naya macono sucuji sulia
mácono mácocte, chaue mat opu ma suli mayaco. Macoi yangia ume omutto,
ulémi mácono omu incapo. Nette esa Jesus.

_Langue Joukiousmé de la Mission de San Raphael._--Api maco sa líleto
manénas mi dues onía mácono michauka oiopa mitauka chakenit opu negata
chàkenit opu lilèto, tumako muye quenunje naya macono sucuji snlia
macóno masojte chake mat opu ma suli mayaco maco yangìa ume omut ulemi
macono omu in capo. Netenti Jesus.

The numerals given by Mofras are as follows:--

SAN LUIS SAN JUAN
ENGL. (OBISPO). CAPISTRANO. SAN GABRIEL.
_one_ tchoumou soupouhe poukou.
_two_ eschiou houah guèpé.
_three_ micha paai pagi.
_four_ paksi houasah quatcha.
_five_ tizeoui maha makai.
_six_ ksoukouia pomkalilo pabai.
_seven_ ksouamiche chouchoui quachacabia.
_eight_ scomo ouasa-kabia quequacha.
_nine_ scoumo-tchi ouasa-maha majai-cayia.
_ten_ touymile ouikinmaha quejemajai.

ADDENDUM.--(Oct. 14, 1853.)

Since the previous paper was read, "Observations on some of the Indian
dialects of Northern California, by G. Gibbs," have appeared in the 3rd
Part of Schoolcraft (published 1853) (_vide_ pp. 420-445).

The vocabularies, which are given in a tabulated form, are for the
following twelve languages:--

1. Tchokoyem. 2. Copeh. 3. Kulanapo. 4. Yukai. 5. Choweshak. 6.
Batemdakaiee. 7. Weeyot. 8. Wishok. 9. Weitspek. 10. Hoopah. 11.
Tahlewah. 12. Ehnek.

Besides which three others have been collected, but do not appear in
print, viz.:--

1. The Watsa-he-wa,--spoken by one of the bands of the Shasti family.

2. The Howteteoh.

3. The Nabittse.

Of these the Tchokoyem = the _Chocouyem_ of the Sacramiento, and the
_Joukiousme_ or San Raphael of Mofras; also Gallatin's San Raphael, and
(more or less) the Talatui.

The Copeh is something (though less) like the short Upper Sacramiento
specimen of the preceding paper.

The Yukai is, perhaps, less like the Pujuni, Sekume, and Tsamak
vocabularies than the Copeh is to the Upper Sacramiento. Still, it
probably belongs to the same class, since it will be seen that the Huk
and Yukai languages are members of the group that Mr. Dana's lists
represent. The Kulanapo has a clear preponderance of affinities with
the Yukae.

The Choweshak and Batemdakaiee are allied. So are--

The Weeyot and the Wishok; in each of which the sound expressed by
_tl'_ occurs. These along with the Weitspek take _m_ as the possessive
prefix to the parts of the human body, and have other points of
similarity.

ENGLISH. WEEYOT. WISHOK.

_hair_ pah'tl paht'l.
_foot_ welhh'tl wehlihl.

The Hoopah is more interesting than any. The names of the parts of
the human body, when compared with the Navaho and Jecorilla, are as
follows:--

ENGLISH. HOOPAH. NAVAHO. JECORILLA.

_head_ okheh hut-se it-se.
_forehead_ hotsintah hut-tah pin-nay.
_face_ haunith hun-ne ----
_eye_ huanah hunnah pindah.
_nose_ huntchu hutchin witchess.
_teeth_ howwa howgo egho.
_tongue_ sastha hotso ezahte.
_ear_ hotcheweh hutchah wickyah.
_hair_ tsewok hotse itse.
_neck_ hosewatl huckquoss wickcost.
_arm_ hoithlani hutcon witse.
_hand_ hollah hullah wislah.

Here the initial combination of _h_ and some other letter is (after
the manner of so many American tongues) the possessive pronoun--alike
in both the Navaho and Hoopah; many of the roots being also alike. Now
the Navaho and Jecorilla are Athabaskan, and the Hoopah is probably
Athabaskan also.

The Tahlewah and Ehnek are but little like each other, and little like
any other language.

Although not connected with the languages of California, there is a
specimen in the volume before us of a form of speech which has been
already noticed in these Transactions, and which is by no means clearly
defined. In the 28th Number, a vocabulary of the _Ahnenin_ language is
shown to be the same as that of the _Fall-Indians_ of Umfreville. In
Gallatin this _Ahnenin_ vocabulary is quoted as _Arapaho_, or _Atsina_.
Now it is specially stated that these _Arapaho_ or _Atsina_ Indians
are those who are also (though inconveniently or erroneously) called
the _Gros Ventres_, the _Big Bellies_ and the _Minitares_ of the
Prairie--all names for the Indians about the Falls of the Saskachewan,
and consequently of Indians far north.

But this was only one of the populations named Arapaho. Other
Arapahos are found on the head-waters of the Platte and Arkansas.
Who were these? Gallatin connected them at once with those of the
Saskachewan--but it is doubtful whether he went on better grounds than
the name. A vocabulary was wanted.

The volume in question supplies one--collected by Mr. J. S. Smith. It
shows that the two Arapahos are really members of one and the same
class--in language as well as in name.

Upon the name itself more light requires to be thrown. In an
alphabetical list of Indian populations in the same volume with the
vocabulary, from which we learn that the new specimen is one of the
_southern_ (and not the _northern_) Arapaho, it is stated that the word
means "_pricked_" or "_tattooed_." In what language? Perhaps in that
of the Arapaho themselves; perhaps in that of the Sioux--since it is
a population of the Sioux class which is in contact with _both_ the
Arapahos.

Again--if the name be native, which of the two divisions uses it?
the northern or the southern? or both? If both use it, how comes
the synonym Ahnenin? How, too, comes the form _Atsina_? Is it a
typographical error? The present writer used the same MS. with Gallatin
and found the name to be _Ahnenin_.

To throw the two Arapahos into one and the same class is only one step
in our classification. Can they be referred to any wider and more
general division? A Shyenne vocabulary is to be found in the same
table; and Schoolcraft remarks that the two languages are allied.
So they are. Now reasons have been given for placing the Shyenne in
the great Algonkin class (_Philolog. Trans., and Transactions of the
American Ethnological Society_, vol. ii. p. cxi.).

There are similar affinities with the _Blackfoot_. Now, in the paper
of these Transactions already referred to, it is stated that the
affinities of the Blackfoot "are miscellaneous; more, however, with the
Algonkin tongues than with those of any recognized group[38]." Gallatin
takes the same view (_Transactions of American Ethnol. Soc._ vol. ii.
p. cxiii.).

[Footnote 38: No. 28. vol. ii. p. 34. Jan. 24, 1845.]

This gives as recent additions to the class in question, the
Blackfoot--the Shyenne--the Arapaho.

The southern Arapaho are immigrants, rather than _indigenæ_, in
their present localities. So are the Shyennes, with whom they are
conterminous.

The original locality of the southern Arapahos was on the Saskachewan;
that of the Shyennes on the Red River. Hence, the affinity between
their tongues represents an affinity arising out of their relations
anterior to their migration southward.

ON CERTAIN ADDITIONS TO THE ETHNOGRAPHICAL
PHILOLOGY OF CENTRAL
AMERICA, WITH REMARKS UPON THE
SO-CALLED ASTEK CONQUEST
OF MEXICO.

READ
BEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY.

MAY 12, 1854.

In Central America we have two points for which our philological _data_
have lately received additions, viz. the parts about the Lake Nicaragua
and the Isthmus of Darien.

For the parts about the Lake of Nicaragua, the chief authority is
Mr. Squier; a writer with whom we differ in certain points, but,
nevertheless, a writer who has given us both materials and results of
great value. The languages represented, for the first time, by his
vocabularies are four in number, of which three are wholly new, whilst
one gives us a phenomenon scarcely less important than an absolutely
fresh form of speech; viz. the proof of the occurrence of a known
language in a new, though not unsuspected, locality.

To these four a fifth may be added; but; as that is one already
illustrated by the researches of Henderson, Cotheal and others, it does
not come under the category of new material. This language is that of
the

_Indians of the Mosquito coast._--Respecting these Mr. Squier commits
himself to the doctrine that they are more or less Carib. They may
be this in physiognomy. They may also be so in respect to their
civilization, or want of civilization; and perhaps this is all that is
meant, the words of our author being, that "upon the low alluvions,
and amongst the dense dank forests of the Atlantic coast, there exist
a few scanty, wandering tribes, maintaining a precarious existence by
hunting and fishing, with little or no agriculture, destitute of civil
organization, with a debased religion, and generally corresponding with
the Caribs of the islands, to whom they sustain close affinities. A
portion of their descendants, still further debased by the introduction
of negro blood, may still be found in the wretched Moscos or Mosquitos.
The few and scattered Melchoras, on the river St. Juan, are certainly
of Carib stock, and it is more than probable that the same is true of
the Woolwas, Ramas, Toacas, and Poyas, and also of the other tribes on
the Atlantic coast, further to the southward, towards Chiriqui Lagoon,
and collectively denominated Bravos."--_Central America and Nicaragua_,
ii. pp. 308-309.

Nevertheless, as has been already stated, the language is other than
Carib. It is other than Carib, whether we look to the Moskito or the
Woolwa vocabularies. It is other than Carib, and admitted by Mr.
Squier to be so. The previous extract has given us his opinion; what
follows supports it by his reasons. "I have said that the Indians of
the Atlantic coast of Nicaragua, the Moscos and others, were probably
of Carib stock. This opinion is founded not only upon the express
statements of Herrara, who says that 'the Carib tongue was much spoken
in Nicaragua,' but also upon their general appearance, habits and modes
of life. Their language does not appear to have any direct relationship
with that of the Southern Caribs, but is, probably, the same, or a
dialect of the same with that spoken around what is now called Chiriqui
Lagoon, near the Isthmus of Panama, and which was originally called
Chiribiri or Chraibici, from which comes Gomera's Caribici, or Carib."
In a note we learn that "thirteen leagues from the Gulf of Nicoya,
Oviedo speaks of a village called Carabizi, where the same language was
spoken as at Chiriqui," &c.

Of the Melchora we have no specimens. For each and every tribe, extant
or extinct, of the Indians about the Chiriqui Lagoon we want them also.
The known vocabularies, however, for the parts nearest that locality
are other than Carib.

Let us, however, look further, and we shall find good reasons for
believing that certain populations of the parts in question are
called, by the Spaniards of their neighbourhood, Caribs, much in the
same way that they, along with nine-tenths of the other aborigines
of America, are called _Indians_ by us. "The region of Chantales,"
writes Mr. Squier, "was visited by my friend Mr. Julius Froebel, in the
summer of this year (1851). He penetrated to the head-waters of the
Rio Mico, Escondido, or Blue-fields, where he found the Indians to
be agriculturalists, partially civilized, and generally speaking the
Spanish language. They are called Caribs by their Spanish neighbours,"
&c. But their language, of which Mr. Froebel collected a vocabulary,
published by Mr. Squier, is, like the rest, _other than Carib_.

It may, then, safely be said, that the Carib character of the Moskito
Indians, &c. wants confirmation.

_Nicaragua._ A real addition to our knowledge is supplied by M. Squier
concerning the Nicaraguans. The statement of Oviedo as to the tribes
between the Lake of Nicaragua and the Pacific, along with the occupants
of the islands in the lake itself, being _Mexican_ rather than
indigenous, he confirms. He may be said to prove it; since he brings
specimens of the language (_Niquiran_, as he calls it), which is as
truly Mexican as the language of Sydney or New York is English.

The Mexican character of the Nicaraguan language is a definite addition
to ethnographical philology. It may now be considered as settled,
that one of the languages of the parts under notice is intrusive, and
foreign to its present locality.

The remaining vocabularies represent four indigenous forms of speech;
these (three of them of Mr. Squier's own earliest publication, and one
known before) being--

1. The Chorotegan or Dirian of Squier--This was collected by the author
from the Indians of Masaya, on the northern frontier of the Niquiran,
Nicaraguan, Mexican or Astek area.

2. The Nagrandan of Squier--This was collected by the author from
the Indians of Subtiaba, in the plain of Leon, to the _north_ of the
Niquiran or Mexican area.

3. The Chontales, or Woolwa, of Froebel; Chontal being the name of the
district, Woolwa, of the tribe.

4. The Mosquito (or Waikna) of the coast.

To these four indigenous tongues (the Mexican of Nicaragua being
dealt with as a foreign tongue), what have we to say in the way of
classification?

It is safe to say that the Nagrandan, Dirian, and Woolwa, are more like
each other than they are to the Mosca, Mosquito, or Waikna. And this
is important, since, when Froebel collected the Woolwa vocabulary, he
found a tradition of their having come originally from the shores of
Lake Managua; this being a portion of the Dirian and Nagrandan area. If
so; the classification would be,--

_a._ Dirian, Nagrandan, and Chontal, or Woolwa (Wúlwa)

_b._ Mosquito, or Waikna.

The value of these two divisions is, of course, uncertain; and, in the
present state of our knowledge, it would be premature to define it.
Equally uncertain is the value of the subdivisions of the first class.
All that can be said is, that out of four mutually unintelligible
tongues, three seem rather more allied to each other than the fourth.

Besides the vocabulary of the Nagrandan of Mr. Squier, there is a
grammatical sketch by Col. Francesco Diaz Zapata.

_Veragua_--We pass now from the researches of Mr. Squier in Nicaragua
to those of Mr. B. Seemann, Naturalist to the Herald, for the Isthmus
of Panama. The statement of Colonel Galindo, in the Journal of the
Geographical Society, that the native Indian languages of Honduras,
Nicaragua, San Salvador, and Costarica, had been replaced by the
Spanish, has too implicitly been adopted; by no one, however, more so
than the present writer. The same applies to Veragua.

Here, Dr. Seemann has supplied:--

1. The Savaneric, from the northernmost part of Veragua.

2. The Bayano, from the river Chepo.

3. The Cholo, widely spread in New Grenada. This is the same as Dr.
Cullen's Yule.

Specimens of the San Blas, or Manzanillo Indians, are still
desiderated, it being specially stated that the number of tribes is not
less than four, and the four languages belonging to them as different.

All that can at present be said of the specimens before us is, that
they have miscellaneous, but no exact and definite affinities.

_Mexicans of Nicaragua._ From the notice of these additions to our
_data_ for Central America in the way of raw material, we proceed to
certain speculations suggested by the presence of the Mexicans of
Nicaragua in a locality so far south of the city of Mexico as the banks
and islands of the lake of that name.

First as to their designation. It is not _Astek_ (or _Asteca_), as was
that of the allied tribes of Mexico. Was it native, or was it only the
name which their neighbours gave them? Was it a word like _Deutsch_
(applied to the population of Westphalia, Oldenburg, the Rhine
districts, &c.), or a word like _German_ and _Allemand_? Upon this
point no opinion is hazarded.

Respecting, however, the word _Astek_ (_Asteca_) itself, the present
writer commits himself to the doctrine that it was _no_ native name at
all, and that it was a word belonging to the _Maya_, and foreign to
the Mexican, class of languages. It was as foreign to the latter as
_Welsh_ is to the language of the British Principality; as _German_ or
_Allemagne_ to the High and Low Dutch forms of speech; as _barbarus_ to
the languages in contact with the Latin and Greek, but not themselves
either one or the other.

On the other hand, it was a Maya word, in the way that _Welsh_ and
_German_ are English, and in the way that _Allemand_ is a French one.

It was a word belonging to the country into which the Mexicans
intruded, and to the populations upon which they encroached. These
called their invaders _Asteca_, just as the Scotch Gael calls an
Englishman, a _Saxon_.

_a._ The form is Maya, the termination-_eca_ being common whereever any
form of the Maya speech is to be found.

_b._ It is too like the word _Huasteca_ to be accidental. Now,
_Huasteca_ is the name of a language spoken in the parts about Tampico;
a language separated in respect to its geographical position from the
other branches of the Maya family, (for which Guatemala and Yucatan
are the chief localities) but not separated (as is indicated in the
_Mithridates_) from these same Maya tongues philologically. Hence
_Huasteca_ is a Maya word; and what _Huasteca_ is, _Asteca_ is likely
to be.

The isolation of the _Huasteca_ branch of the Maya family indicates
invasion, encroachment, conquest, displacement; the invaders, &c. being
the Mexicans, called by themselves by some name hitherto undetermined,
but by the older occupants of the country, _Astek_.

It is believed, too, though this is more or less of an _obiter dictum_,
that nine-tenths of the so-called Mexican civilization, as indicated
by its architecture, &c., was Maya, _i. e._ was referable to the
old occupants rather than to the new invaders; standing in the same
relation to that of the Mexicans, strictly speaking, as that of Italy
did to that of the Goths and Lombards.

Whence came these invaders? The evidence of the _phonetic_ part of the
language points to the parts about Quadra and Vancouver's Island, and
to the populations of the Upper Oregon--populations like the Chinuk,
the Salish, the Atna, &c. Here, for the first time, we meet with
languages where the peculiar phonesis of the Mexican language, the
preponderance of the sound expressed by _tl_, reappears. For all the
intermediate parts, with one or two exceptions, the character of the
phonesis is Maya, _i. e._ soft, vocalic, and marked by the absence of
those harsh elements that characterize the Mexican, the Chinuk, and the
Atna equally. The extent to which the glossarial evidence agrees with
the phonetic has yet to be investigated, the doctrine here indicated
being a suggestion rather than aught else.

So is the doctrine that both the Nicaraguan and Mexican invasions
were _maritime_. Strange as this may sound in the case of an ordinary
American population, it should not do so in the case of a population
deduced from the Chinuk and Salish areas and from the archipelago to
the north of Quadra's and Vancouver's Island. However, it is not the
fact itself that is of so much value. The principle involved in its
investigation is weightier. This is, that the distribution of an allied
population, _along a coast_, _and at intervals_, is _primâ facie_
evidence of the ocean having been the path along which they moved.

NOTE (1859).

For exceptions to the doctrine here suggested see Notes on the last
paper.

NOTE UPON A PAPER OF THE
HONOURABLE CAPTAIN FITZROY'S ON
THE ISTHMUS OF PANAMA,

PUBLISHED
IN THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL
GEOGRAPHICAL SOCIETY.

NOVEMBER 25. 1850.

_On the Language of Central America._

In Yucatan the structure and details of the language are sufficiently
known, and so are the ethnological affinities of the tribes who speak
it. This language is the Maya tongue, and its immediate relations are
with the dialects of Guatemala. It is also allied to the Huasteca
spoken so far N. as the Texian frontier, and separated from the other
Maya tongues by dialects of the Totonaca and Mexican. This remarkable
relationship was known to the writers of the Mithridates.

In South America the language begins to be known when we reach the
equator; _e. g._ at Quito the Inca language of the Peruvian begins, and
extends as far south as the frontier of Chili.

So much for the extreme points; between which the whole, intermediate
space is very nearly a _terra incognita_.

In Honduras, according to Colonel Galindo, the Indians are extinct; and
as no specimen of their language has been preserved from the time of
their existence as a people, that state is a blank in philology.

So also are San Salvador, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica; in all of which
there are native Indians, but native Indians who speak Spanish. Whether
this implies the absolute extinction of the native tongue is uncertain:
it is only certain that no specimens of it are known.

The Indian of the Moskito coast _is_ known; and that through
both vocabularies and grammars. It is a remarkably unaffiliated
language--more so than any one that I have ever compared. Still, it has
a few miscellaneous affinities; just enough to save it from absolute
isolation. When we remember that the dialects with which it was
conterminous are lost, this is not remarkable. Probably it represents
a large class, _i. e._ that which comprised the languages of Central
America _not_ allied to the Maya, and the languages of New Grenada.

Between the Moskito country and Quito there are only two vocabularies
in the Mithridates, neither of which extends far beyond the numerals.
One is that of the dialects of Veragua called Darien, and collected
by Wafer; the other the numerals of the famous Muysca language of
the plateau of Santa Fé de Bogota. With these exceptions, the whole
philology of New Grenada is unknown, although the old missionaries
counted the mutually unintelligible tongues by the dozen or score. More
than one modern author--the present writer amongst others--has gone
so far as to state that all the Indian languages of New Grenada are
extinct.

Such is not the case. The following vocabulary, which in any other
part of the world would be a scanty one, is for the parts in question
of more than average value. It is one with which I have been kindly
favoured by Dr. Cullen, and which represents the language of the Cholo
Indians inhabiting part of the Isthmus of Darien, east of the river
Chuquanaqua, which is watered by the river Paya and its branches in and
about lat. 8° 15´ N., and long. 77° 20´ W.:--

ENGLISH. CHOLO.

Water _payto_
Fire _tŭboor_
Sun _pesea_
Moon _hedecho_
Tree _pachru_
Leaves _chītŭha_
House _dhē_
Man _mochĭna_
Woman _wuēna_
Child _wōrdŏchē_
Thunder _pā_
Canoe, or } _habodrooma_
Chingo }
Tiger, _i.e._ jaguar _imāmă_
Leon, _i.e._ large tiger _imāmă pooroo_
River _thō_
River Tuyra _tŏgŭrooma_
Large man _mochĭnā dĕăsīra_
Little man _mochĭnā zache_
An iguana _ipŏga_
Lizard _horhe_
Snake _tamā_
Turkey, wild _zāmo_
Parrot _carre_
Guacharaca bird _bulleebullee_
Guaca bird _pavŏra_
Lazimba _toosee_

The tide is rising _tobiroooor_
The tide is falling _eribudo_
Where are you going _amonya_
Whence do you come _zamabima zebuloo_
Let us go _wonda_
Let us go bathe _wondo cuide_

The extent to which they differ from the languages of Venezuela and
Colombia may be seen from the following tables of the words common to
Dr. Cullen's list, and the equally short ones of the languages of the
Orinoco:--

English _water_
Cholo _payto_
Quichua _unu_
Omagua _uni_
Salivi _cagua_
Maypure _ueru_
Ottomaca _ia_
Betoi _ocudù_
Yarura _uvi_
Darien _dulah_
Carib _touna_

English _fire_
Cholo _tŭboor_
Quichua _nina_
Omagua _tata_
Salivi _egustà_
Maypure _calti_
Ottomaca _nùa_
Betoi _fului_
Yarura _coride_
Carib _onato_

English _sun_
Cholo _pesea_
Quichua _inti_
Omagua _huarassi_
Salivi _numesechecoco_
Maypure _chiè_
Betoi _teo-umasoi_
Yarura _do_
Muysca _suâ_
Carib _veiou_

English _moon_
Cholo _hedecho_
Quichua _quilla_
Omagua _yase_
Arawak _cattehee_
Yarura _goppe_
Betoi _teo-ro_
Maypure _chejapi_
Salivi _vexio_
Darien _nie_
Zamuca _ketokhi_

English _man_
Cholo _mohina_
Quichua _ccari_
---- _runa_
Salivi _cocco_
Maypure _cajarrachini_
---- _mo_
Ottomaca _andera_
Yatura _pumè_
Muysca _muysca_
---- _cha_
Carib _oquiri_

English _woman_
Cholo _wuēna_
Quichua _huarmi_
Maypure _tinioki_
Yarura _ibi_
---- _ain_
Betoi _ro_
Ottomaca _ondua_

NOTE.

Exceptions to the statement concerning the New Grenada, the San
Salvador, and the Moskito languages will be found in the Notes upon the
next paper.

ON THE LANGUAGES OF NORTHERN,
WESTERN, AND CENTRAL
AMERICA.

READ MAY 9TH. 1856.

The present paper is a supplement to two well-known contributions to
America philology by the late A. Gallatin. The first was published
in the second volume of the Archæologia Americana, and gives a
systematic view of the languages spoken within the _then_ boundaries
of the United States; these being the River Sabine and the Rocky
Mountains, Texas being then Mexican, and, _à fortiori_, New Mexico and
California; Oregon, also, being common property between the Americans
and ourselves. The second is a commentary, in the second volume of
the Transactions of the American Ethnological Society, upon the
multifarious mass of philological _data_ collected by Mr. Hale, during
the United States Exploring Expedition, to which he acted as official
and professional philologue; only, however, so far as they applied to
the American parts of Oregon. The groups of this latter paper--the
paper of the Transactions as opposed to that of the Archæologia--so far
as they are separate from those of the former, are--

1. The Kitunaha.
2. The Tsihaili-Selish.
3. The Sahaptin.
4. The Waiilatpu.
5. The Tsinuk or Chinook.
6. The Kalapuya.
7. The Jakon.
8. The Lutuami.
9. The Shasti.
10. The Palaik.
11. The Shoshoni or Snake Indians.

To which add the Arrapaho, a language of Kansas, concerning which
information had been obtained since 1828, the date of the first paper.
Of course, some of these families extended beyond the frontiers of the
United States, so that any notice of them as American carried with
it so much information respecting them to the investigators of the
philology of the Canadas, the Hudson's Bay Territory, or Mexico.

Again--three languages, the Eskimo, and Kenai, and Takulli, though
not spoken within the limits of the United States, were illustrated.
Hence, upon more than one of the groups of the papers in question there
still remains something to be said; however much the special and proper
subject of the present dissertation may be the languages that lay
beyond the pale of Gallatin's researches.

The first groups of tongues thus noticed for the second time are--

I. THE IROQUOIS, and

II. _The Sioux._--I have little to say respecting these families
except that they appear to belong to some higher class,--a class
which, without being raised to any inordinate value, may eventually
include not only these two now distinct families, but also the Catawba,
Woccoon, Cherokee, Choctah, and (perhaps) Caddo groups,--perhaps also
the Pawni and its ally the Riccaree.

III. THE ALGONKIN GROUP.--The present form of this group differs
from that which appears in the Archæologia Americana, by exhibiting
larger dimensions. Nothing that was then placed within has since been
subtracted from it; indeed, subtractions from any class of Gallatin's
making are well-nigh impossible. In respect to additions, the case
stands differently.

Addition of no slight importance have been made to the Algonkin group.
The earliest was that of--

_The Bethuck._--The Bethuck is the native language of Newfoundland. In
1846, the collation of a Bethuck vocabulary enabled me to state that
the language of the extinct, or doubtfully extant, aborigines of that
island was akin to those of the ordinary American Indians rather than
to the Eskimo; further investigation showing that, of the ordinary
American languages, it was Algonkin rather than aught else.

A sample of the evidence of this is to be found in the following table;
a table formed, not upon the collation of the whole MS., but only upon
the more important words contained in it.

_English_, son.
Bethuck, _mageraguis_.
Cree, _equssis_.
Ojibbeway, _ninqwisis_}
---- _negwis_ } = my son.
Ottawa, _kwis_.
Micmac, _unquece_.
Passamaquoddy, _n'hos_.
Narragansetts, _nummuckiese_ = myson.
Delaware, _quissau_ = his son.
Miami, _akwissima_.
----, _ungwissah_.
Shawnoe, _koisso_.
Sack & Fox, _neckwessa_.
Menomeni, _nekeesh_.

_English_, girl.
Bethuck, _woaseesh_.
Cree, _squaisis_.
Ojibbeway, _ekwaizais_.
Ottawa, _aquesens_.
Old Algonkin, _ickwessen_.
Sheshatapoosh, _squashish_.
Passamaquoddy, _pelsquasis_.
Narragansetts, _squasese_.
Montaug, _squasses_.
Sack & Fox, _skwessah_.
Cree, _awâsis_ = child.
Sheshatapoosh, _awash_ = child.

_English_, mouth.
Bethuck, _mamadthun_.
Nanticoke, _mettoon_.
Massachusetts, _muttoon_.
Narragansetts, _wuttoon_.
Penobscot, _madoon_.
Acadcan, _meton_.
Micmac, _toon_.
Abenaki, _ootoon_.

_English_, nose.
Bethuck, _gheen_.
Miami, _keouane_.

_English_, teeth.
Bethuck, _bocbodza_.
Micmac, _neebeet_.
Abenaki, _neebeet_.

_English_, hand.
Bethuck, _maemed_.
Micmac, _paeteen_.
Abenaki, _mpateen_.

_English_, ear.
Bethuck, _mootchiman_.
Micmac, _mootooween_.
Abenaki, _nootawee_.

_English_, smoke.
Bethuck, _bassdik_.
Abenaki, _ettoodake_.

_English_, oil.
Bethuck, _emet_.
Micmac, _memaye_.
Abenaki, _pemmee_.

_English_, sun.
Bethuck, _keuse_.
Cree, &c., _kisis_.
Abenaki, _kesus_.
Mohican, _kesogh_.
Delaware, _gishukh_.
Illinois, _kisipol_.
Shawnoe, _kesathwa_.
Sack & Fox, _kejessoah_.
Menomeni, _kaysho_.
Passamaquoddy, _kisos_ = moon.
Abenaki, _kisus_ = moon.
Illinois, _kisis_ = moon.
Cree, _kesecow_ = day.
Ojibbeway, _kijik_ = day and light.
Ottawa, _kijik_ = ditto.
Abenaki, _kiseoukou_ = ditto,
Delaware, _gieshku_ = ditto.
Illinois, _kisik_ = ditto.
Shawnoe, _keeshqua_ = ditto.
Sack & Fox, _keeshekeh_ = ditto.

_English_, fire.
Bethuck, _boobeeshawt_.
Cree, _esquitti_, _scoutay_.
Ojibbeway, _ishkodai_, _skootae_.
Ottawa, _ashkote_.
Old Algonkin, _skootay_.
Sheshatapoosh, _schootay_.
Passamaquoddy, _skeet_.
Abenaki, _skoutai_.
Massachusetts, _squitta_.
Narragansetts, _squtta_.

_English_, white.
Bethuck, _wobee_.
Cree, _wabisca_.
----, _wapishkawo_.
Ojibbeway, _wawbishkaw_.
----, _wawbizze_.
Old Algonkin, _wabi_.
Sheshatapoosh, _wahpou_.
Micmac, _ouabeg_, _wabeck_.
Mountaineer, _wapsiou_.
Passamaquoddy, _wapiyo_.
Abenaki, _wanbighenour_.
----, _wanbegan_.
Massachusetts, _wompi_.
Narragansetts, _wompesu_.
Mohican, _waupaaeek_.
Montaug, _wampayo_.
Delaware, _wape_, _wapsu_, _wapsit_.
Nanticoke, _wauppauyu_.
Miami, _wapekinggek_.
Shawnoe, _opee_.
Sack & Fox, _wapeskayah_.
Menomeni, _waubish keewah_.

_English_, black.
Bethuck, _mandzey_.
Ojibbeway, _mukkudaiwa_.
Ottawa, _mackateh_.
Narragansetts, _mowesu_.
Massachusetts, _mooi_.

_English_, house.
Bethuck, _meeootik_.
Narragansetts, _wetu_.

_English_, shoe.
Bethuck, _mosen_.
Abenaki, _mkessen_.

_English_, snow.
Bethuck, _kaasussabook_.
Cree, _sasagun_ = hail.
Ojibbeway, _saisaigan_.
Sheshatapoosh, _shashaygan_.

_English_, speak.
Bethuck, _ieroothack_.
Taculli, _yaltuck_.
Cree, _alhemetakcouse_.
Wyandot, _atakea_.

_English_, yes.
Bethuck, _yeathun_.
Cree, _ahhah_.
Passamaquoddy, _netek_.

_English_, no.
Bethuck, _newin_.
Cree, _namaw_.
Ojibbeway, _kawine_.
Ottawa, _kauween_.

_English_, hatchet.
Bethuck, _dthoonanyen_.
Taculli, _thynle_.

_English_, knife.
Bethuck, _eewaeen_.
Micmac, _uagan_.

_English_, bad.
Bethuck, _muddy_.
Cree, _myaton_.
Ojibbeway, _monadud_.
----, _mudji_.
Ottawa, _matche_.
Micmac, _matoualkr_.
Massachusetts, _matche_.
Narragansetts, _matchit_.
Mohican, _matchit_.
Montaug, _mattateayah_.
Montaug, _muttadeeaco_.
Delaware, _makhtitsu_.
Nanticoke, _mattik_.
Sack & Fox, _motchie_.
----, _matchathie_.

_The Shyenne._--A second addition of the Algonkin class was that of
the Shyenne language--a language suspected to be Algonkin at the
publication of the Archæologia Americana. In a treaty made between the
United States and the Shyenne Indians in 1825, the names of the chiefs
who signed were Sioux, or significant in the Sioux language. It was not
unreasonable to consider this a _primâ-facie_ evidence of the Shyenne
tongue itself being Sioux. Nevertheless, there were some decided
statements in the way of external evidence in another direction. There
was the special evidence of a gentleman well-acquainted with the fact,
that the names of the treaty, so significant in the Sioux language,
were only translations from the proper Shyenne, there having been
no Shyenne interpreter at the drawing-up of the document. What then
was the true Shyenne? A vocabulary of Lieut. Abert's settled this.
The numerals of this were published earlier than the other words,
and on these the present writer remarked that they were Algonkin
(Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science,
1847,--Transactions of the Sections, p. 123). Meanwhile, the full
vocabulary, which was in the hands of Gallatin, and collated by him,
gave the contemplated result:--"Out of forty-seven Shyenne words for
which we have equivalents in other languages, there are thirteen which
are indubitably Algonkin, and twenty-five which have affinities more or
less remote with some of the languages of that family." (Transactions
of the American Ethnological Society, vol. ii. p. cxi. 1848.)

_The Blackfoot._--In the same volume (p. cxiii), and by the same
author, we find a table showing the Blackfoot to be Algonkin; a fact
that must now be generally recognized, having been confirmed by later
_data_. The probability of this affinity was surmised in a paper in the
28th Number of the Proceedings of the present Society.

_The Arrapaho._--This is the name of a tribe in Kansas; occupant of a
district in immediate contact with the Shyenne country.

But the Shyennes are no _indigenæ_ to Kansas. Neither are the
Arrapahos. The so-called Fall Indians, of whose language we have
long had a very short trader's vocabulary in Umfreville, are named
from their occupancy which is on the Falls of the Saskatshewan. The
Nehethewa, or Crees, of their neighbourhood call them so; so that it
is a Cree term of which the English is a translation. Another name
(English also) is _Big-belly_, in French _Gros-ventre_. This has given
rise to some confusion. _Gros-ventre_ is a name also given to the
Minetari of the Yellow-stone River; whence the name Minetari itself
has, most improperly, been applied (though not, perhaps, very often or
by good authorities) to the Fall Indians.

The Minetari _Gros-ventres_ belong to the Sioux family. Not so
the _Gros-ventres_ of the Falls. Adelung remarked that some of
their words had an affinity with the Algonkin, or as he called it,
Chippeway-Delaware, family, _e. g._ the names for _tobacco_, _arrow_,
_four_, and _ten_.

Umfreville's vocabulary was too short for anything but the most general
purposes and the most cautious of suggestions. It was, however, for a
long time the only one known. The next to it, in the order of time,
was one in MS., belonging to Gallatin, but which was seen by Dr.
Prichard and collated by the present writer, his remarks upon it being
published in the 134th Number of the Proceedings of this Society. They
were simply to the effect that the language had certain miscellaneous
affinities. An Arrapaho vocabulary in Schoolcraft tells us something
more than this; viz. not only that it is, decidedly, the same language
as the Fall Indian of Umfreville, but that it has definite and
preponderating affinities with the Shyenne, and, through it, with the
great Algonkin class in general.

ENGLISH. ARRAPAHO. SHYENNE.

_scalp_ mithash matake.
_tongue_ nathun vetunno.
_tooth_ veathtah veisike.
_beard_ vasesanon meatsa.
_hand_ mahchetun maharts.
_blood_ bahe mahe.
_sinew_ anita antikah.
_heart_ battah estah.
_mouth_ nettee marthe.
_girl_ issaha xsa.
_husband_ nash nah.
_son_ naah nah.
_daughter_ nahtahnah nahteh.
_one_ chassa nuke.
_two_ neis neguth.
_three_ nas nahe.
_four_ yeane nave.
_five_ yorthun noane.
_six_ nitahter nahsato.
_seven_ nisorter nisoto.
_eight_ nahsorter nahnoto.
_nine_ siautah soto.
_ten_ mahtahtah mahtoto.

ENGLISH. ARRAPAHO. OTHER ALGONKIN LANGUAGES.

_man_ enanetah enainneew, _Menom_. &c.
_father, my_ nasonnah nosaw, _Miami_.
_mother, my_ nanah nekeah, _Menom_.
_husband, my_ nash nah, _Shyenne_.
_son, my_ naah nah, _Shyenne_.
---- ---- nikwithah, _Shawnee_.
_daughter, my_ nahtahnah netawnah, _Miami_.
_brother, my_ nasisthsah nesawsah, _Miami_.
_sister, my_ naecahtaiah nekoshaymank, _Menom_.
_Indian_ enenitah ah wainhukai, Delaware.
_eye_ mishishi maishkayshaik, _Menom_.
_mouth_ netti may tone, _Menom_.
_tongue_ nathun wilano, _Delaware_.
_tooth_ veathtah wi pit, _Delaware_.
_beard_ vasesanon witonahi, _Delaware_.
_back_ nerkorbah pawkawmema, _Miami_.
_hand_ machetun olatshi, _Shawnee_.
_foot_ nauthauitah ozit, _Delaware_.
_bone_ hahunnah ohkonne, _Menom_.
_heart_ battah maytah, _Menom_.
_blood_ bahe mainhki, _Menom_.
_sinew_ anita ohtah, _Menom_.
_flesh_ wonnunyah weensama, _Miami_.
_skin_ tahyatch xais, _Delaware_.
_town_ haitan otainahe, _Delaware_.
_door_ tichunwa kwawntame, _Miami_.
_sun_ nishi-ish kayshoh, _Menom_.
_star_ ahthah allangwh, _Delaware_.
_day_ ishi kishko, _Delaware_.
_autumn_ tahuni tahkoxko, _Delaware_.
_wind_ assissi kaishxing, _Delaware_.
_fire_ ishshitta ishkotawi, _Menom_.
_water_ nutch nape, _Miami_.
_ice_ wahhu mainquom, _Menom_.
_mountain_ ahhi wahchiwi, _Shawnee_.
_hot_ hastah ksita, _Shawnee_.
_he_ enun enaw, _Miami_.
---- ---- waynanh, _Menom_.
_that_ (_in_) hinnah aynaih, _Menom_.
_who_ unnahah ahwahnay, _Menom_.
_no_ chinnani kawn, _Menom_.
_eat_ mennisi mitishin, _Menom_.
_drink_ bannah maynaan, _Menom_.
_kill_ nauaiut _osh_-nainhnay, _Menom_.

_Fitzhugh Sound forms in_-SKUM.--There is still a possible addition
to the Algonkin group; though it is probable that it cannot be added
to it without raising the value of the class. The exact value and
interpretation of the following fact has yet to be made out. I lay it,
however, before the reader. The language for the parts about Fitzhugh
Sound seems to belong to a class which will appear in the sequel
under the name Hailtsa or Haeetsuk. The numerals, however, have this
peculiarity, viz. they end in the syllable -_kum_. And this is what, in
one specimen, at least, two of the Black foot terms do,

_English_, two.
Fitzhugh Sound, _mal-skum_.
Hailtsuk, _maluk_.
Blackfoot, _nartoke-skum_.

_English_, three.
Fitzhugh Sound, _uta-skum_.
Hailtsuk, _yutuk_.
Blackfoot, _nahoke-skum_.

What, however, if this syllable-_skum_ be other than true Blackfoot;
_i. e._ what if the numerals were taken from the mouth of a _Hailtsa_
Indian? The possibility of this must be borne in mind. With this remark
upon the similarity of ending between _one specimen_ of Blackfoot
numerals and the Hailtsa dialect of Fitzhugh Sound, we may take leave
of the Algonkin class of tongues and pass on to--

IV. THE ATHABASKAN GROUP.--The vast size of the area over which the
Athabaskan tongues have spread themselves, has commanded less attention
than it deserves. It should command attention if it were only for the
fact of its touching both the Oceans--the Atlantic on the one side, the
Pacific on the other. But this is not all. With the exception of the
Eskimo, the Athabaskan forms of speech are the most northern of the New
World; nay, as the Eskimos are, by no means, universally recognized
as American, the Athabaskan area is, in the eyes of many, absolutely
and actually the most northern portion of America--the most northern
portion of America considered ethnologically or philologically, the
Eskimo country being considered Asiatic. To say that the Athabaskan
area extends from ocean to ocean, is to say that, as a matter of
course, it extends to both sides of the Rocky Mountains. It is also to
say that the Athabaskan family is common to both British and Russian
America.

For the northern Athabaskans, the main body of the family, the
philological details were, until lately, eminently scanty and
insufficient. There was, indeed, an imperfect substitute for them in
the statements of several highly trustworthy authors as to certain
tribes who spoke a language allied to the Chepewyan, and as to others
who did not;--statements which, on the whole, have been shown to be
correct; statements, however, which required the confirmation of
vocabularies. These have now been procured; if not to the full extent
of all the details of the family, to an extent quite sufficient for the
purposes of the philologue. They show that the most western branch of
the stock, the Chepewyan proper, or the language of what Dobbs called
the Northern Indians, is closely akin to that of the Dog-ribs, the Hare
(or Slave) and the Beaver Indians, and that the Dahodinni, called from
their warlike habits the Mauvais Monde, are but slightly separated
from them. Farther west a change takes place, but not one of much
importance. Interpreters are understood with greater difficulty, but
still understood.

The Sikani and Sussi tongues are known by specimens of considerable
length and value, and these languages, lying as far south as the
drainage of the Saskatshewan, and as far west as the Rocky Mountains,
are, and have been for some years, known as Athabaskan.

Then came the Takulli of New Caledonia, of whose language there was
an old sample procured by Harmon. This was the Nagail, or Chin Indian
of Mackenzie, or nearly so. Now, _Nagail_ I hold to be the same word
as _Takull-i_, whilst _Chin_ is _Tshin_ = _Dinne_ = _Tnai_ = _Atna_ =
_Knai_ = _Man_. The Takulli division falls into no less than eleven (?)
minor sections; all of which but one end in this root, viz.-_tin_.

1. The Tau-_tin_, or Talko-_tin_.
(?) 2. The Tsilko-_tin_ or Chilko-_tin_, perhaps the same word
in a different dialect.
3. The Nasko-_tin_.
4. The Thetlio-_tin_.
5. The Tsatsno-_tin_.
6. The Nulaau-_tin_.
7. The Ntaauo-_tin_.
8. The Natliau-_tin_.
9. The Nikozliau-_tin_.
10. The Tatshiau-_tin_, and
11. The Babin Indians.

Sir John Richardson, from vocabularies procured by him during his last
expedition, the value of which is greatly enhanced by his ethnological
chapter on the characteristics of the populations which supplied them,
has shown, what was before but suspected, that the Loucheux Indians
of Mackenzie River are Athabaskan; a most important addition to our
knowledge. Now, the Loucheux are a tribe known under many names; under
that of the Quarrellers, under that of the Squinters, under that of
the Thycothe and Digothi. Sir John Richardson calls them Kutshin, a
name which we shall find in several compounds, just as we found the
root-_tin_ in the several sections of the Takulli, and as we shall
find its modified form _dinni_ among the eastern Athabascans. The
particular tribes of the Kutshin division, occupants of either the
eastern frontier of Russian America, or the north-western parts of
the Hudson's Bay Territory, are (according to the same authority) as
follows:

1. The Artez-_kutshi_ = Hard people.

2. The Tshu-_kutshi_ = Water people.

3. The Tatzei-_kutshi_ = Rampart people; falling into four bands.

4. The Teystse-_kutshi_ = People of the shelter.

5. The Vanta-_kutshi_ = People of the lakes.

6. The Neyetse-_kutshi_ = People of the open country.

7. The Tlagga-silla = Little dogs.

This brings us to the _Kenay_. Word for word _Kenay_ is _Knai_ =
_Tnai_, a modified form of the now familiar root _t-n_ = _man_, a root
which has yet to appear and reappear under various new, and sometimes
unfamiliar and unexpected, forms. A Kenay vocabulary has long been
known. It appears in Lisiansky tabulated with the Kadiak, Sitkan, and
Unalaskan of the Aleutian Islands. It was supplied by the occupants
of Cook's Inlet. Were these Athabaskan? The present writer owes to
Mr. Isbister the suggestion that they were Loucheux, and to the
same authority he was indebted for the use of a very short Loucheux
vocabulary. Having compared this with Lisiansky's, he placed both
languages in the same category--rightly in respect to the main point,
wrongly in respect to a subordinate. He determined the place of the
_Loucheux_ (_Kutshin_ as he would now call them) by that of the Kenay,
and made both Kolush. He would now reverse the process and make both
Athabaskan, as Sir John Richardson has also suggested.

To proceed--three vocabularies in Baer's _Beiträge_ are in the same
category with the Kenay, viz.--

1. The _Atna_.--This is our old friend _t-n_ again, the form _Tnai_
and others occurring. It deserves notice, because, unless noticed, it
may create confusion. As more populations than one may call themselves
_man_, a word like _Atna_ may appear and re-appear as often as there is
a dialect which so renders the Latin word _homo_. Hence, there may not
only be more _Atnas_ than one, but there actually are more than one.
This is a point to which we shall again revert. At present it is enough
that the Atnas under notice are occupants of the mouth of the Copper
River, Indians of Russian America and Athabaskan.

2. The _Koltshani_.--As _t-n_ = _man_, so does _k-ltsh_ = _stranger_,
_guest_, _enemy_, _friend_; and _mûtatis mutandis_, the criticism
that applied to _Atna_ applies to words like _Koltshan_, _Golzan_, and
_Kolush_. There may be more than one population so called.

3. The _Ugalents_ or _Ugalyackh-mutsi_.--This is the name of few
families near Mount St. Elias. Now--

The _Atna_ at the mouth of the Copper River, the _Koltshani_ higher up
the stream, and the _Ugalents_, are all held by the present writer to
be Athabaskan--not, indeed, so decidedly as the Beaver Indians, the
Dog-ribs, or the Proper Chepewyans, but still Athabaskan. They are
not Eskimo, though they have Eskimo affinities. They are not Kolush,
though they have Kolush affinities. They are by no means isolated, and
as little are they to be made into a class by themselves. At the same
time, it should be added that by including these _we raise the value of
the class_.

For all the languages hitherto mentioned we have specimens. For some,
however, of the populations whose names appear in the maps, within the
Athabaskan area, we have yet to satisfy ourselves with the testimony
of writers, or to rely on inference. In some cases, too, we have the
same population under different names. This is the case when we have
a native designation as well as a French or English one--_e. g._
Loucheux, Squinters, Kutshin. This, too, is the case when we have,
besides the native name (or instead of it), the name by which a tribe
is called by its neighbours. Without giving any minute criticism, I
will briefly state that all the Indians of the Athabaskan area whose
names end in-_dinni_ are Athabaskan; viz.--

1. The See-issaw-_dinni_ = Rising-sun-_men_.

2. The Tau-tsawot-_dinni_ = Birch-rind-_men_.

3. The Thlingeha-_dinni_ = Dog-rib-_men_.

4. The Etsh-tawút-_dinni_ = Thickwood-_men_.

5. The Ambah tawút-_dinni_ = Mountain-sheep-_men_.

6. The Tsillaw-awdút-_dinni_ = Bushwood-_men_.

Lastly--Carries, Slave-Indians, Yellow-knives, Copper-Indians, and
Strong-bows are synonyms for some of the tribes already mentioned.
The _Hare_-Indians are called _Kancho_. The Nehanni and some other
populations of less importance are also, to almost a certainty,
Athabaskan. With the tongues in its neighbourhood, we shall find that
it is broadly and definitely separated from them in proportion as we
move from west to east. In Russian America, the Eskimo, Sitkan, and
Athabaskan tongues graduate into each other. In the same parts the
Athabaskan forms of speech differ most from each other. On the other
hand, to the east of the Rocky Mountains, the Dog-ribs, the Hares, and
the Chepewyans are cut off by lines equally trenchant from the Eskimos
to the north, and from the Algonkins to the south. I infer from this
that the diffusion of the language over those parts is comparatively
recent; in other words, that the Athabaskan family has moved from west
to east rather than from east to west.

Of the proper Athabaskan, _i. e._ of the Athabaskan in the original
sense of the word, the southern boundary, beginning at Fort Churchill,
on Hudson's Bay, follows (there or thereabouts) the course of
the Missinippi; to the north of which lie the Chepewyans who are
Athabaskan, to the south of which lie the Crees, or Knistenaux, who
are Algonkin. Westward come the Blackfeet (Algonkin) and the Sussees
(Athabaskan), the former to the north, the latter to the south, until
the Rocky Mountains are reached. The Takulli succeed--occupants of New
Caledonia; to the south of whom lie Kutani and Atnas. The Takulli area
nowhere touches the ocean, from which its western frontier is separated
to the south of 55° north latitude by some unplaced languages; to
the north of 55°, by the Sitkeen--but only as far as the Rocky
Mountains; unless, indeed, some faint Algonkin characteristics lead
future inquirers to extend the Algonkin area westwards, which is not
improbable. The value of the class, however, if this be done, will have
to be raised.

The most southern of the Athabaskans are the Sussees, in north latitude
51°--there or thereabouts. But the Sussees, far south as they lie, are
only the most southern Athabaskans _en masse_. There are outliers of
the stock as far south as the southern parts of Oregon. More than this,
there are Athabaskans in California, New Mexico, and Sonora.

Few discoveries respecting the distribution of languages are more
interesting than one made by Mr. Hale, to the effect that the Umkwa,
Kwaliokwa, and Tlatskanai dialects of a district so far south as the
River Columbia, and the upper portion of the Umkwa river (further
south still) were outlying members of the Athabaskan stock, a stock
preeminently northern--not to say Arctic--in its main area.

Yet the dialects just named were shown by a subsequent discovery
of Professor Turner's, to be only penultimate ramifications of
their stock; inasmuch as further south and further south still, in
California, New Mexico, Sonora, and even Chihuhua, as far south as 30°
north latitude, Athabaskan forms of speech were to be found; the Navaho
of Uta and New Mexico, the Jecorilla of New Mexico, and the Apatch of
New Mexico, California, and Sonora, being Athabaskan. The Hoopah of
California is also Athabaskan.

The first of the populations to the south of the Athabaskan area,
who, lying on, or to the west of, the Rocky Mountains, are other than
Algonkin, are--

V. THE KITUNAHA.--The Kitunaha, Cutani, Cootanie or Flatbow area is
long rather than broad, and it follows the line of the Rocky Mountains
between 52° and 48° north latitude. How definitely it is divided by
the main ridge from that of the Blackfoots I am unable to say, but as
a general rule, the Kutani lie west, the Blackfoots east; the former
being Indians of New Caledonia and Oregon, the latter of the Hudson's
Bay Territory and the United States. On the west the Kutani country is
bounded by that of the Shushwap and Selish Atnas, on the north by the
Sussee, Sikanni, and Nagail Athabaskans, on the south (I think) by some
of the Upsaroka or Crow tribes. All these relations are remarkable, and
so is the geographical position of the area. It is in a mountain-range;
and, as such, in a district likely to be an ancient occupancy. The
languages with which the Kutani lies in contact are referable to four
different families--the Athabaskan, the Atna, the Algonkin, and the
Sioux; the last two of which, the Blackfoot (Algonkin) and the Crow
(Sioux), are both extreme forms, _i. e._ forms sufficiently unlike
the other members of these respective groups to have had their true
position long overlooked; forms, too, sufficiently peculiar to justify
the philologue in raising them to the rank of separate divisions. It
suffices, however, for the present to say, that the Kutani language is
bounded by four tongues differing in respect to the class to which they
belong and from each other, and different from the Kutani itself.

The Kutani, then, differs notably from the tongues with which it is in
geographical contact; though, like all the languages of America, it
has numerous miscellaneous affinities. In respect to its phonesis it
agrees with the North Oregon languages. The similarity in name to the
Loucheux, whom Richardson calls _Kutshin_, deserves notice. Upon the
whole, few languages deserve attention more than the one under notice.

VI. THE ATNA GROUP.--West of the Kutanis and south of the Takulli
Athabaskans lie the northernmost members of a great family which
extends as far south as the Sahaptin frontier, the Sahaptin being a
family of Southern, or American, Oregon. Such being the case, the great
group now under notice came under the cognizance of the two American
philologues, whose important labours have already been noticed, by whom
it has been denominated Tsihaili-Selish. It contains the Shushwap,
Selish, Skitsnish (or Cœur d'Alene) Piskwans, Nusdalum, Kawitchen,
Skwali, Chechili, Kowelits, and Nsietshawus forms of speech.

In regard to the Atna I have a statement of my own to correct, or at
any rate to modify. In a paper, read before the Ethnological Society,
on the Languages of the Oregon Territory (Dec. 11, 1844), I pronounced
that an Atna vocabulary found in Mackenzie's Travels, though different
from the Atna of the Copper River, belonged to the same group. The
_group_, however, to which the Atna of the Copper River belongs is the
Athabaskan.

The Tsihaili-Selish languages reach the sea in the parts to the south
of the mouth of Frazer's River, _i. e._ the parts opposite Vancouver's
Island; perhaps they touch it further to the north also; perhaps, too,
some of the Takulli forms of the speech further north still reach
the sea. The current statements, however, are to the effect, that to
the south of the parts opposite Sitka, and to the north of the parts
opposite Vancouver's Island, the two families in question are separated
from the Pacific by a narrow strip of separate languages--separate and
but imperfectly known. These are, beginning from the north--

VII. THE HAIDAH GROUP OF LANGUAGES.--Spoken by the Skittegats,
Massetts, Kumshahas, and Kyganie of Queen Charlotte's Islands and the
Prince of Wales Archipelago. Its area lies immediately to that of the
south of the so-called Kolush languages.

VIII. THE CHEMMESYAN.--Spoken along the sea-coast and islands of north
latitude 55°.

IX. THE BILLECHULA.--Spoken at the mouth of Salmon River; a language
to which I have shown, elsewhere, that a vocabulary from Mackenzie's
Travels of the dialect spoken at Friendly Village was referable.

X. THE HAILTSA.--The Hailtsa contains the dialects of the sea-coast
between Hawkesbury Island and Broughton's Archipelago, also those of
the northern part of Vancouver's Island.

In Gallatin, the Chemmesyan, Billechula, and Hailtsa are all thrown
in a group called _Naas_. The Billechula numerals are, certainly, the
same as the Hailtsa; the remainder of the vocabulary being unlike,
though not altogether destitute of coincidences. The Chemmesyan is
more outlying still. I do not, however, in thus separating these
three languages, absolutely deny the validity of the _Naas_ family.
I only imagine that if it really contain languages so different as
the Chemmesyan and Hailtsa, it may also contain the Haidah and other
groups, _e. g._ the one that comes next, or--

XI. THE WAKASH of Quadra and Vancouver's Island.

South of the Wakash area come, over and above the southern members
of the Atna family and the Oregon outliers of the Athabaskan, the
following groups, of value hitherto unascertained.

A. The Tshinuk, or Chinuk;

B. The Kalapuya;

C. The Jakon;--all agreeing in the harshness of their phonesis, and (so
doing) contrasted with--

D. The Sahaptin, and

E. The Shoshoni.

The Sahaptin is separated by Gallatin from the Waiilatpu containing
the Cayús or Molelé form of speech. The present writer throws them
both into the same group. The numerals, the words wherein it must be
admitted that the two languages agree the most closely, are in--

ENGLISH. SAHAPTIN. CAYÚS.

_one_ naks ná.
_two_ lapit lepl-in.
_three_ mitat mat-nin.
_six_ oi-lak noi-na.
_seven_ oi-napt noi-lip.
_eight_ oi-matat noi-mat.

The meaning of the _oi_ and _noi_ in these words requires
investigation. It is not _five_; the Sahaptin and Cayús for _five_
being _pakhat_ (S.) and _tawit_ (C.). Nor yet is it _hand_ (as the word
for _five_ often is), the word for _hand_ being _epih_ and _apah_. It
ought, however, theoretically to be something of the kind, inasmuch as

_Oi_-lak and _noi_-na = ? + 1.
_Oi_-napt and _noi_-lip = ? + 2.
_Oi_-matat and _noi_-mat = ? + 3.

Of the Shoshoni more will be said in the sequel. At present it is
enough to state that the Shoshoni and Sahaptin languages are as
remarkable for the apparent ease and simplicity of their phonesis as
the Jakon, Kalapuya, and Tshinúk are for the opposite qualities. It may
also be added that the Shoshoni tongues will often be called by the
more general name of Paduca.

South of the Cayús, Waiilatpu, and Wihinast, or Western Shoshonis, come
the languages which are common to Oregon and

CALIFORNIA.

For three of these we have vocabularies (Mr. Hale's):--

I. (_a._) THE LUTUAMI; (_b._) THE PALAIK; (_c._) THE SHASTI.--There may
be other forms of speech common to the two countries, but these three
are the only ones known to us by specimens. The Lutuami, Shasti, and
Palaik are thrown by Gallatin into three separate classes. They are,
without doubt, mutually unintelligible. Nevertheless they cannot be
very widely separated.

_Man_ = in Lutuami _hishu-atsus_, in Palaik = _yatui_. Qu. _atsus_ =
_yatui_.

_Woman_ = Lutuami _tar-itsi_, Palaik = _umtew-itsen_. Qu. _itsi_ =
_itsen_. In Palaik, _Son_ = _yau-itsa_, _Daughter_ = _lumau-itsa_.

_Head_ = Palaik _lah_. In Lutuami _lak_ = _hair_. Qu. _mak_ = _head_ in
Shasti, _makh_ = _hair_, Shasti.

_Ear_ = Lutuami _mumoutsh_, Palaik _ku-mumuats_.

_Mouth_ = _au_ Shasti, _ap_ Palaik.

_Tooth_ = _itsau_ Shasti, _itsi_ Palaik.

_Sun_ = _tsoare_ Shasti, _tsul_ Palaik = _sun_ and _moon_. In Lutuami
_tsol_ = _star_.

_Fire_ = Shasti _ima_ = Palaik _malis_. The termination-_l_-common in
Palaik,--_ipili_ = _tongue_, _kelala_ = _shoes_, _usehela_ = _sky_, &c.

_Water_ = Shasti _atsa_, Palaik _as_.

_Snow_ = Lutuami _kais_, Shasti _kae_.

_Earth_ = Lutuami _kaela_, Palaik _kela_, Shasti _tarak_. This is the
second time we have had a Shasti _r_ for a Palaik _l_--_tsoare_ =
_tsul_.

_Bear_ = _tokunks_ Lutuami, _lokhoa_, Palaik.

_Bird_ = Lutuami _lalak_, Shasti _tararakh_.

_I_ = Lutuami _no_. Qu. is this the _n_ in _n-as_ = _head_ and _n-ap_ =
for which latter word the Shasti is ap-ka?

NUMERALS.

ENGLISH. SHASTI. PALAIK.

_one_ tshiamu umis.
_two_ hoka kaki.

Neither are there wanting affinities to the Sahaptin and Cayús
languages, allied to each other. Thus--

_Ear_ = _mumutsh_ Lutuami = _ku-mumuats_ Palaik = _mutsaui_ Sahaptin.
_tsack_ Shasti = _taksh_ Cayús.

_Mouth_ = _shum_ Lutuami = _shum-kaksh_ Cayús = _him_ Sahaptin.

_Tongue_ = _pawus_ Lutuami = _pawish_ Sahaptin = _push_ Cayús.

_Tooth_ = _tut_ Lutuami = _til_ Sahaptin.

_Foot_ = _akwes_ Shasti = _akhua_ Sahaptin.

_Blood_ = _ahati_ Palaik = _kiket_ Sahaptin.

_Fire_ = _loloks_ Lutuami = _ihiksha_ Sahaptin.

_One_ = _natshik_ Lutuami = _naks_ Sahaptin = _na_ Cayús.

_Two_ = _lapit_ Lutuami = _lapit_ Sahaptin = _leptin_ Cayús.

The Lutuami seems somewhat the most Sahaptin of the three, and
this is what we expect from its geographical position, it being
conterminous with the Molelé (or Cayús) and the allied Waiilatpu. It
is also conterminous with the Wihinast Shoshoni, or Paduca, as is the
Palaik. Both Palaik and Lutuami (along with the Shasti) have Shoshoni
affinities.

ENGLISH. SHOSHONI.

_nose_ moui = iami, _Palaik_.
_mouth_ timpa = shum, _Lutuami_.
_ear_ inaka = isak, _Shasti_.
_sun_ tava = sapas, _Lutuami_.
_water_ pa = ampo, _Lutuami_.
_I_ ni = no, _Lutuami_.
_thou_ i = i, _Lutuami_.
_he_ oo = hot, _Lutuami_.
_one_ shimutsi = _tshiamuu_, Shasti; _umis_, Palaik.

The chief language in contact with the Shasti is the intrusive
Athabaskan of the Umkwa and Tlatskanai tribes. Hence the nearest
languages with which it should be compared are the Jakon and Kalapuya,
from which it is geographically separated. For this reason we do not
expect any great amount of coincidence. We find however the following--

ENGLISH. JAKON.

_head_ tkhlokia = lah, _Palaik_.
_star_ tkhlalt = tshol, _Lutuami_.
_night_ kaehe = apkha, _Shasti_.
_blood_ pouts = poits, _Lutuami_.
_one_ khum = tshiamu, _Palaik_.

Of three languages spoken in the north of California and mentioned
in Schoolcraft, by name, though not given in specimens,--(1) the
Watsahewa, (2) the Howtetech, and (3) the Nabiltse,--the first is said
to be that of the Shasti bands;

Of the Howtetech I can say nothing;

The Nabiltse is, probably, the language of the Tototune; at least
Rogue's River is its locality, and the Rascal Indians is an English
name for the Tototune.

South of the Shasti and Lutuami areas we find--

II. THE EHNIK.

III. THE TAHLEWAH.

The latter vocabulary is short, and taken from a _Seragoin_ Indian,
_i. e._ from an Indian to whom it was not the native tongue. We are
warned of this--the inference being that the Tahlewah vocabulary is
less trustworthy than the others.

ENGLISH. EHNEK. TAHLEWAH.

_man_ ahwunsh pohlusan'h.
_boy_ anak'hocha kerrhn.
_girl_ yehnipahoitch kerníhl.
_Indian_ ahrah astowah.
_head_ akhoutshhoutsh astintah.
_beard_ merruhw semerrhperrh.
_neck_ sihn schoniti.
_face_ ahve wetawaluh.
_tongue_ upri so'h.
_teeth_ wu'h shtí.
_foot_ fissi stah.
_one_ issah titskoh.
_two_ achhok kitchnik.
_three_ keurakh kltchnah.
_four_ peehs tshahanik.
_five_ tirahho schwallah.
_ten_ trah swellah.

The junction of the Rivers Klamatl and Trinity gives us the locality
for--

IV. THE LANGUAGES AKIN TO THE WEITSPEK.--The Weitspek itself is spoken
at the junction, but its dialects of the Weyot and Wishosk extend far
into Humboldt County, where they are, probably, the prevailing forms of
speech, being used on the Mad River, and the parts about Cape Mendocino.

The Weyot and Wishosk are mere dialects of the same language. From the
Weitspek they differ much more than they do from each other. It is in
the names of the parts of the body where the chief resemblances lie.

V. THE MENDOCINO (?) GROUP.--This is the name suggested for the
_Choweshak_, _Batemdaikai_, _Kulanapo_, _Yukai_, and _Khwaklamayu_
forms of speech collectively.

1, 2. The Choweshak and Batemdaikai are spoken on Eel River, and in the
direction of the southern branches of the Weitspek group, with which
they have affinities.

3, 4, 5. The _Kulanapo_ is spoken about Clear Lake, the _Yukai_ on
Russian River. These forms of speech, closely allied to each other,
are also allied to the so-called Northern Indians of Baer's Beiträge,
Northern meaning to the north of the settlement of Ross. The particular
tribe of which we have a vocabulary called themselves _Khwakhlamayu_.

ENGLISH. KHWAKHLAMAYU. KULANAPO.

_head_ khommo kaiyah.
_hair_ shuka musuh.
_eye_ iiu ui.
_ear_ shuma shimah.
_nose_ pla labahbo.
_mouth_ aa katsideh.
_tooth_ oo yaoh.
_tongue_ aba bal.
_hand_ psba biyah.
_foot_ sakki kahmah.
_sun_ ada lah.

ENGLISH. WEITSPEK. KULANAPO.

_moon_ kalazha luelah.
_star_ kamoi uiyahhoh.
_fire_ okho k'hoh.
_water_ aka k'hah.
_one_ ku khahlih.
_two_ koo kots.
_three_ subo homeka.
_four_ mura dol.
_five_ tysha lehmah.
_six_ lara tsadi.

The following shows the difference between the Weitspek and Kulanapo;
one belonging to the northern, the other to the southern division of
their respective groups.

ENGLISH. WEITSPEK. KULANAPO.

_man_ pagehk kaah.
_woman_ wintsuk dah.
_boy_ hohksh kahwih.
_girl_ wai inuksh dahhats.
_head_ tegueh kaiyah.
_hair_ leptaitl musuh.
_ear_ spèhguh shímah.
_eye_ mylih ni.
_nose_ metpí labahbo.
_mouth_ mihlutl katsédeh.
_tongue_ mehpl'h bal.
_teeth_ merpetl yaóh.
_beard_ mehperch katsutsu.
_arm_ mehsheh' tsuah.
_hand_ tsewush biyyah.
_foot_ metské kahmah.
_blood_ happ'l bahlaik.
_sun_ wánoushleh lah.
_moon_ ketnewahr luëlah.
_star_ haugets uiyahoh.
_day_ tehnep dahmul.
_dark_ ketutski petih.
_fire_ mets k'hoh.
_water_ paha k'hah.
_I_ nek hah.
_thou_ kehl ma.
_one_ spinekoh k'hahlih.
_two_ nuehr kots.
_three_ naksa homeka.
_four_ tohhunne dol.
_five_ mahrotum lehmah.
_six_ hohtcho tsadi.
_seven_ tchewurr kulahots.
_eight_ k'hehwuh kokodohl.
_nine_ kerr hadarolshum.
_ten_ wert'hlehwerh hadorutlek.

In the _Kulanapo_ language _yacal ma napo_ = _all the cities_. Here
_napo_ = _Napa_, the name of one of the counties to the north of the
Bay of San Francisco and to the south of Clear Lake.

We may now turn to the drainage of the Sacramento and the parts south
of the Shasti area. Here we shall find three vocabularies, of which the
chief is called--

VI. THE COPEH.--How far this will eventually turn out to be a
convenient name for the group (or how far the group itself will
be real), is uncertain. A vocabulary in Gallatin from the Upper
Sacramento, and one from Mag Readings (in the south of Shasti county)
in Schoolcraft, belong to the group.

Mag Readings is on the upper third of the Sacramento--there or
thereabouts.

ENGLISH. COPEH. M. R. INDIAN. U. SACR.

_man_ pehtluk winnoke ----
_woman_ muhlteh dokke ----
_head_ buhk pok ----
_hair_ tiih tomi tomoi.
_eye_ sah chuti tumut.
_nose_ kiunik ---- tsono.
_mouth_ kohl ---- kal.
_teeth_ siih shi ----
_beard_ chehsaki khetcheki ----
_arm_ sahlah ---- keole.
_hand_ semh shim tsemut (_fingers_).
_foot_ mai'h mat ktamoso.
_blood_ sahk chedik ----
_sun_ sunh tuku sas.
_wind_ toudi kleyhi ----
_rain_ yohro luhollo ----
_snow_ yohl yola ----
_fire_ poh pau po.
_water_ mehm mem mem.
_earth_ kirrh kosh ----

In the paper of No. 134 the import of a slight amount of likeness
between the Upper Sacramento vocabulary and the Jakon is overvalued.
The real preponderance of the affinities of the group taken in mass is
that which its geographical position induces us to expect _à priori_.
With the Shasti, &c. the Copeh has the following words in common:--

ENGLISH. COPEH. SHASTI, ETC.

_head_ buhk uiak, S.
_hair_ teih tiyi, P.
_teeth_ siih itsa, P.
_ear_ maht _mu_-mutsh, L.
_eye_ sah asu, P.
_foot_ mat pats, L.
_sun_ sunh tsul, P.
_thou_ mih mai, S.

and, probably, others.

The Copeh is spoken at the head of Putos Creek.

Observe that the Copeh for _water_ is _mem_, as it is in the languages
of the next group, which we may provisionally call--

VII. THE PUJUNI.--Concerning this we have a notice in Hale, based
upon information given by Captain Suter to Mr. Dana. It was to the
effect that, about eighty or a hundred miles from its mouth, the river
Sacramento formed a division between two languages, one using _momi_,
the other _kik_ = _water_.

The Pujuni, &c. say _momi_; as did the speakers of the Copeh.

For the group we have the (_a_) Pujuni, (_b_) Secumne, and (_c_) Tsamak
specimens of Hale, as also the Cushna vocabulary, from the county Yuba,
of Schoolcraft; the Cushna numerals, as well as other words, being
nearly the same as the Secumne, _e. g._

ENGLISH. SECUMNE. CUSHNA.

_one_ wikte wikte-_m_.
_two_ pen pani-_m_.
_three_ sapui sapui-_m_.
_four_ tsi tsui-_m_.
_five_ mauk marku-_m_ (mahkum?).

So are several other words besides; as--

_head_ tsol chole.
_hair_ ono ono.
_ear_ bono' bono.
_eye_ il hin.
_sun_ oko okpi.

VIII. THE MOQUELUMNE GROUP.--Hale's vocabulary of the Talatui
belongs to the group for which the name _Moquelumne_ is proposed, a
Moquelumne Hill (in Calaveras county) and a Moquelumne River being
found within the area over which the languages belonging to it are
spoken. Again, the names of the tribes that speak them end largely
in-_mne_,--_Chupumne_, &c. As far south as Tuol-_umne_ county the
language belongs to this division, as may be seen from the following
table; the Talatui being from Hale, the Tuolumne from Schoolcraft; the
Tuolumne Indians being on the Tuolumne River, and Cornelius being their
great chief, with six subordinates under him, each at the head of a
different ranchora containing from fifty to two hundred individuals.
Of these six members of what we may call the Cornelian captaincy, five
speak the language represented by the vocabulary: viz.

1. The Mumaltachi.

2. The Mullateco.

3. The Apangasi.

4. The Lapappu.

5. The Siyante or Typoxi.

The sixth band is that of the Aplaches (? Apaches), under Hawhaw,
residing further in the mountains.

ENGLISH. TUOLUMNE. TALATUI.

_head_ hownah tiket.
_hair_ esok munu.
_ear_ tolko alok.
_eye_ húnteh wilai
_nose_ níto uk (?).
_mouth_ ahwúk hube (?).
_sky_ wutsha witçuk.
_sun_ heamhah hi.
_day_ hemaah hiúmu.
_night_ kowwillah kawil.
_darkness_ pozattah hunaba.
_fire_ wúkah wike.
_water_ kíkah kík.
_stone_ lowwak sawa.

As far west as the sea-coast languages of the Moquelumne group are
spoken. Thus--

A short vocabulary of the San Rafael is Moquelumne.

So are the Sonoma dialects, as represented by the Tshokoyem vocabulary
and the Chocouyem and Yonkiousme Paternosters.

So is the _Olamentke_ of Kostromitonov in Baer's Beiträge.

So much for the forms of speech to the north of the Gulf of San
Francisco. On the south the philology is somewhat more obscure. The
Paternosters for the _Mission de Santa Clara_ and the _Vallee de los
Tulares_ of Mofras seem to belong to the same language. Then there
is, in the same author, one of the _Langue Guiloco de la Mission de
San Francisco_. These I make Moquelumne provisionally. I also make a
provisional division for a vocabulary called--

IX. THE COSTANO.--The tribes under the supervision of the Mission of
Dolores were five in number; the Ahwastes, the Olhones, or Costanos of
the coast, the Romonans, the Tulomos, and the Altatmos. The vocabulary
of which the following is an extract was taken from Pedro Alcantara,
who was a boy when the Mission was founded, A. D. 1776. He was of the
Romonan tribe.

ENGLISH. COSTANO. TSHOKOYEM.

_man_ imhen tai-_esse_.
_woman_ ratichma kuleh-_esse_.
_boy_ shínísmuk yokeh (_small_).
_girl_ katra koyah.
_head_ úle moloh.
_ear_ tuorus ahlohk.
_eye_ rehin shut.
_nose_ ús huk.
_mouth_ werper lapgup.
_tongue_ tassek lehntip.
_tooth_ síít kuht.
_neck_ lani helekke.
_foot_ kolo koyok.
_blood_ payan kichawh.
_sky_ reneme lihlih.
_sun_ ishmen hih.
_moon_ kolma pululuk.
_star_ agweh hittish.
_day_ puhe (_light_) hiahnah.
_night_ moor (_dark_) kawul.
_fire_ roretaon wikih.
_water_ sii kihk.
_river_ orush polah.
_stone_ erek lepeh.
_I_ kahnah kahni.
_thou_ mene mih.
_he_ wahche ikkoh.
_they_ nekumsah mukkam.
_all_ kete mukkam.
_who_ mato mahnti.
_eat_ ahmush yohlomusih.
_drink_ owahto ushu.
_run_ akamtoha hihchiah.
_see_ atempimah ellih.

This shows that it differs notably from the Tshokoyem; the personal
pronouns, however, being alike. Again, the word for _man_ =
_l-aman-tiya_ in the San Rafael. On the other hand, it has certain
Cushna affinities.

Upon the whole, however, the affinities seem to run in the direction of
the languages of the next group, especially in that of the Ruslen:--

_I_ = _kah-nah_, Cost. = _ka_ = _mine_, Ruslen.
_Thou_ = _me-ne_, Cost. = _mé_ = _thine_, Ruslen.
_Sun_ = _ishmen_, Cost. = _ishmen_ = _light_, Ruslen.
_Water_ = _sii_, Cost. = _ziy_, Ruslen.
(?) _Boy_ = _shinishmuk_, Cost. = _enshinsh_, Ruslen.
(?) _Girl_ = _katra_, Cost. = _kaana_, Ruslen.

Lest these last three coincidences seem far-fetched, it should be
remembered that the phonesis in these languages is very difficult, and
that the Ruslen orthography is Spanish, the Costano being English.
Add to this, there is every appearance, in the San Miguel and other
vocabularies, of the _r_ being something more than the _r_ in _brand_,
&c. every appearance of its being some guttural or palatal, which may,
by a variation of orthography, be spelt by _l_.

Finally, I remark that the-_ma_ in the Costano _ratich-ma_ = _woman_,
is, probably, the-_me_ in the Soledad _mue_ (= _man_) and _shurish-me_
(= _woman_), and the _amk_ (_ank_) of the Ruslen _muguy-amk_ (= _man_)
and _latrayam-ank_ (= _woman_); (?) _latraya_ = _ratich_. Nevertheless,
for the present I place the Costano by itself, as a transitional form
of speech to the languages spoken north, east, and south of the Bay of
San Francisco.

X. THE MARIPOSA LANGUAGES.--In the north of Mariposa county, and not
far south of the Tuolumne area, the language seems changed, and the
_Coconoons_ is spoken by some bands on the Mercede River, under a chief
named Nuella. They are said to be the remnants of three distinct bands
each, with its own distinct language.

ENGLISH. COCONOONS. TULARE.

_head_ oto utno.
_hair_ tolus celis.
_ear_ took took.
_nose_ thedick tuneck.
_mouth_ sammack shemmak.
_tongue_ talcotch talkat.
_tooth_ talee talee.
_sun_ suyou oop.
_moon_ offaum taahmemna.
_star_ tchietas sahel.
_day_ hial tahoh[39].
_fire_ sottol ossel.
_water_ illeck illick.

[Footnote 39: Same word as _taech_ = _light_ in Coconoons; in Pima
_tai_.]

XI. THE SALINAS GROUP.--This is a name which I propose for a group of
considerable compass; and one which contains more than one mutually
unintelligible form of speech. It is taken from the river Salinas, the
drainage of which lies in the counties of Monterey and San Luis Obispo.
The southern boundary of Santa Cruz lies but a little to the north of
its mouth.

The Gioloco may possibly belong to this group, notwithstanding its
reference to the Mission of San Francisco. The _alla_, and _mut_-(in
_mut_-ryocusé), may = the _ahay_ and _i-mit-a_ (_sky_) of the Eslen.

The Ruslen has already been mentioned, and that in respect to its
relations to the Costano. It belongs to this group.

So does the Soledad of _Mofras_; which, though it differs from that
of Hale in the last half of the numerals, seems to represent the same
language.

So do the Eslen and Carmel forms of speech; allied to one another
somewhat more closely than to the Ruslen and Soledad.

So do the San Antonio and San Miguel forms of speech.

The Ruslen; Eslen; San Antonio and San Miguel are, probably, four
mutually unintelligible languages.

The Salinas languages are succeeded to the south by the forms of speech
of--

XII. THE SANTA BARBARA GROUP.--containing the Santa Barbara, Santa
Inez, and San Luis _Obispo_ languages.

XIII. THE CAPISTRANO GROUP.--Capistrano is a name suggested by that of
the Mission of San Juan Capistrano. The group, I think, falls into two
divisions:--

1. _The Proper Capistrano, or Netela_ of San Luis _Rey_ and San Juan
Capistrano.

2. _The San Gabriel, or Kij_, of San Gabriel and San Fernando.

XIV. THE YUMA LANGUAGES.--At the junction of the Gila and Colorado
stands Fort Yuma, in the district of the Yuma Indians. They occupy
each side of the Colorado, both above and below its junction with the
Gila. How far they extend northwards is unknown, probably more than
100 miles. They are also called _Cuchans_, and are a fierce predatory
nation, encroaching equally on tribes of their own language and on
aliens.

From these _Yuma_ Indians I take the name for the group now under
notice. It contains, besides the Yuma Proper, the Dieguno of San Diego
and the Coco-maricopa.

The Coco-maricopa Indians are joint-occupants of certain villages on
the Gila; the population with which they are associated being _Pima_.
Alike in other respects, the Pima and Coco-maricopa Indians differ in
language, as may be seen from the following table, confirmatory of the
testimony of numerous trustworthy authorities to the same effect.

ENGLISH. PIMA. CUCHAN. COCOMARICOPA. DIEGUNO.

_man_ huth epatsh apatch {àycutcht.
{epatch.
_woman_ hahri sinyak seniact sun.
_Indian_ huup metepaie ---- ----
{ecoutsucherowo}
_head_ mouk { and } ---- estar.
{umwelthoocouo }
_hair_ ptmuk eetche ---- hiletar.
_ear_ ptnahauk smythl ---- ----
_nose_ tahnk ---- ---- hu.
_mouth_ chinits ---- ---- ah.
_tongue_ neuen epulche ---- ----
_tooth_ ptahan aredoche ---- ----
_beard_ chinyo yahboineh ---- ----
_hand_ mahahtk eesalche issalis selh.
_foot_ tetaght emetchslipaslapya ametche hamulyay.
_sky_ ptchuwik amma ---- ----
_sun_ tahs nyatch ---- ----
_moon_ mahsa huthlya ---- ----
_star_ uon klupwalaie ---- ----
_snow_ chiah halup ---- ----
_fire_ tahi aawoh house ----
_water_ suntik aha haache kha.
_I_ ahan nyat ---- nyah.
_he_ yeutah habritzk ---- ----
_one_ yumako sin sandek hina.
_two_ kuak havick haveka hawue.
_three_ vaik hamuk hamoka hamuk.
_four_ kiik chapop champapa chapop.
_five_ puitas serap sarap suap.

San Diego lies in 32-1/2° north latitude, a point at which the
philology diverges--in one direction into Old California, in another
into Sonora. I first follow it in the direction of

OLD CALIFORNIA.

San Diego, as has just been stated, lies in 32-1/2° north latitude. Now
it is stated in the Mithridates that the most northern of the Proper
_Old_ Californian tongues, the _Cochimi_, is spoken as far north as
33°. If so, the Dieguno may be _Old_ Californian as well as _New_;
which I think it is; believing, at the same time, that _Cochimi_ and
_Cuchan_ are the same words. Again, in the following Paternoster the
word for _sky_ = _ammai_ in the Cuchan vocabulary.

COCHIMI OF SAN XAVIER.

_father sky_
Pennayu make,nambà yaa ambayujui miyà mo;

_name men confess and love all_
Buhu mombojua tamma gkomendà hi nogodoño demuejueg gkajim;

_and sky earth_
Pennayùla bogodoño gkajim, gui hi ambayujup maba yaa ke,amete

_favour_
decuinyi mo puegiñ;

_sky earth_
Yaa m blihula mujua ambayup mo dedahijua, amet ê nò guìlugui hi pagkajim;

_this day day_
Tamadà yaa ibo tejueg quiluguiqui pe,mijich ê mòu ibo yanno puegiñ;

_and man evil_
Guihi tamma yaa gambuegjula ke,pujui ambinyijua pennayala dedaudugùjua,
giulugui pagkajim;

_and although and_
Guihi yaa tagamuegla hui ambinyijua hi doomo puhuegjua, he doomo
pogonunyim;

_and earth bless evil_
Tagamuegjua guihi usimahel ke,ammet è decuinyimo, guihi yaa hui ambinyi
yaa gambuegpea pagkaudugum.

Lastly, in 33° north latitude; the language of[40] San Luis El _Rey_,
which is Yuma; is succeeded by that of San Luis _Obispo_, which is
Capistrano.

[Footnote 40: For an exception to this statement see the Remarks at the
end of the Volume. (1859.)]

I conclude, then, that the Yuma language belongs to the southern parts
of _New_ and the northern part of _Old_ California.

Of recent notices of any of the languages of Old California,
_eo nomine_, I know none. In the Mithridates the information is
pre-eminently scanty.

According to the only work which I have examined at first-hand, the
_Nachrichten von der Americanischen Halbinsel Californien_ (Mannheim,
1772; in the Mithridates, 1773), the anonymous author of which was a
Jesuit missionary in the middle parts of the Peninsula, the languages
of Old California were--

1. The _Waikur_, spoken in several dialects.

2. The _Ushiti_.

3. The _Layamon_.

4. The _Cochimi_, north, and

5. The _Pericu_; at the southern extremity of the peninsula.

6. A probably new form of speech used by some tribes visited by Linck.

This is what we learn from what we call the Mannheim account; the way
in which the author expresses himself being not exactly in the form
just exhibited, but to the effect that, besides the Waikur with its
dialects, there were five others.

The Waikur Proper, the language which the author under notice was most
especially engaged on, and which he says that he knew sufficiently for
his purposes as a missionary, is the language of the middle part of
the peninsula. How far the Utshiti, and Layamon were dialects of it,
how far they were separate substantive languages, is not very clearly
expressed. The writer had Utshis, and Utshipujes, and Atschimes in his
mission, "thoroughly distinct tribes--_lauter verschiedene Völcklein_."
Nevertheless he always speaks as if the Waikur tongue was sufficient
for his purposes. On the other hand, the Utshiti is especially
mentioned as a separate language. Adelung makes it a form of the
Waikur; as he does the Layamon, and also the Cora and Aripe. Then there
comes a population called _Ika_, probably the Picos or Ficos of Bagert,
another authority for these parts. Are these, the sixth population of
the Mannheim account, the unknown tribes visited by Linck? I think not.
They are mentioned in another part of the book as _known_.

To the names already mentioned

1. Ika,
2. Utshi,
3. Utshipuje,
4. Atschime,

add

5. Paurus,
6. Teakwas,
7. Teengúabebes,
8. Angukwares,
9. Mitsheriku-tamais,
10. Mitsheriku-tearus,
11. Mitsheriku-ruanajeres,

and you have a list of the tribes with which a missionary for those
parts of California where the Waikur languages prevailed, came in
contact. Altogether they gave no more than some 500 individuals, so
miserably scanty was the population.

The occupancies of these lay chiefly within the Cochimi area, which
reached as far south as the parts about Loretto in 26° north latitude;
the Loretto language being the Layamon. This at least is the inference
from the very short table of the Mithridates, which, however little it
may tell us in other respects, at least informs us that the San Xavier,
San Borgia, and Loretto forms of speech were nearer akin to each other
than to the Waikur.

ENGLISH. ST. XAVIER. S. BORGIA. LORETTO. WAIKUR.

_sky_ ambayujub ambeink ---- terereka-datemba.
_earth_ amet amate-guang ---- datemba.
_fire_ ---- usi ussi ----
_man_ tämma tama tamma ti.
_father_ käkka iham keneda ----
_son_ ---- uisaham ---- tshanu.

The short compositions of Hervas (given in the Mithridates) show the
same.

THE WAIKUR.--This is the language of what I have called the Mannheim
account, namely the anonymous work of a Jesuit missionary of the Waikur
country published at Mannheim.

It gives us the following specimens--Waikur and German:

Kepè-dáre tekerekádatembi dai;
_unser Vater gebogene Erd du bist;_

ei-rì akatuikè-pu-me;
_dich o das erkennen alle werden;_

tshakárrake-pu-me ti tschie;
_loben alle werden Leut und;_

ecùn gracia-ri acúme carè tekerekadatembi tschie;
_dein gratia o dass haben werden wir gebogene Erd und;_

eiri jebarrakemi ti pu jaupe datemba
_dir o dass gehorsamen werden Menschen alle heer Erd,_

pae ei jebarrakere aëna kéa;
_wie dir gehorsamen droben seynd;_

kepecun bu. kepe ken jatúpe untairi;
_unser Speis uns gebe dieser tag;_

catè kuitscharakè tei tschie kepecun atacamara
_uns verzehe du und unser Böses;_

paè kuitscharrakère catè tschie cavape atukiàra keperujake;
_wie verzehen wir auch die Böses uns thun;_

catè tikakambà têi tschie;
_uns helfe du und;_

cuvumerà catè uè atukiàra;
_wollen werden Nicht wir etwas Böses;_

kepe kakunja pe atacara tschie. Amen.
_uns beschutze von Bösen und. Amen._

The compound _tekereka-datembi = bent land = sky = heaven_.

To this very periphrastic Paternoster we may add the following
fragments of the Waikur conjugation:--

Bè } {_ego ludo._
Ei } {_tu ludis._
Tutâu } amukirere = {_ille ludit._
Catè } {_nos ludimus._
Petè } {_vos luditis._
Tucáva} {_illi ludunt._

Bè } {_ego lusi_.
Ei } {_tu lusisti_.
Tutâu } amukiririkeri = {_ille lusit_.
Catè } {_nos lusimus_.
Petè } {_vos lusistis_.
Tucáva} {_illi luserunt_.
Amukirimè = _ludere_.

Amukiri tei = _lude_.
Amukiri tu = _ludite_.

Bè-ri } {_I wish I had not played._
Ei-ri } {_Thou &c._
Tutâu-ri } amukiririkarikara = {_He &c._
Catè-ri } {_We &c._
Petè-ri } {_Ye &c._
Tucáva-ri} {_They &c._

Of the _Pericu_ spoken at the south extremity of the peninsula, I know
no specimens.

We now turn to that part of the Yuma area which lies along the course
of the Gila, and more especially the parts along the Cocomaricopa
villages, of which one portion of the occupants speak a language
belonging to the Yuma, the other one belonging to the Pima class.

This latter leads us to the languages of the northern provinces of
Mexico--

SONORA AND SINALOA.

For these two provinces, the languages for which we have specimens fall
into five divisions:-

1. THE PIMA.
2. THE HIAQUI.
3. THE TUBAR.
4. THE TARAHUMARA.
5. THE CORA.

That the Pima group contains the Pima Proper, the Opata, and the
Eudeve, may be seen from the Mithridates. That the language of the
Papagos, or Papago-cotam, is also Pima, rests upon good external
evidence. Whether the speech of the Ciris, and population of the
island of Tiburon and the parts opposite, be also Pima, is at present
uncertain; though not likely to be so long, inasmuch as I believe that
Mr. Bartlett, the Boundary Commissioner, is about to publish samples,
not only of this, but of the other languages of Sonora.

West of the Pima lies the Tarahumara, and south of it the Hiaqui,
succeeded by the Tubar and Cora of Sinaloa.

The following Paternosters of these four languages may be compared with
the Opata dialect of the Pima. The words that, by appearing in more
than one of them, command our attention and suggest the likelihood of
a closer relationship than is indicated in the Mithridates, or[41]
elsewhere, are in italics.

[Footnote 41: This conveys an inadequate notion. Buschmann has thrown
the Cora and Tarahumara (connected by Adelung) into the same class with
the Tepeguana and Yaque, represented by the Cahia.--_See Note_ (1859).]

OPATA.

_Tamo_ mas _tegui_acachigua _cacame_;
_Amo_ tegua santo à;
_Amo_ reino _tame_ macte;
Hinadeia iguati _terepa ania_ teguiacachivèri;
Chiama _tamo_ guaco veu _tamo mac_;
Guatame neavere _tamo_ cai naideni acà api tame neavere _tomo_opagua;
Gua cai _tame_ taotitudare;
Cai naideni chiguadu--Apita cachià.

HIAQUI.

_Itom_-achai _teve_-capo _catecame_;
Che-chevasu yoyorvva;
Itou piepsana _em_ yaorahua;
_Em harepo_ in buyapo _annua_ amante (_tevecapo?_) vecapo _annua_ beni;
Machuvei_tom_-buareu yem _itom_ a_mi_ca-i_tom_;
Esoc alulutiria ca-aljiton-anecau itepo soc alulutiria ebeni _itom_
veherim;
Cai_tom_ butia huenacuchi cativiri betana;
Aman _itom_-yeretua.

TUBAR.

_Ite_-cañar _teg_muicarichua _catemat_;
_Imit teg_muarac milituraba teochiqualac;
_Imit_ huegmica carinite bacachin assifaguin;
_Imit_ avamunarir echu nañagualac imo cuigan amo nachic
_teg_muecaricheri;
_Ite_ cokuatarit, essemer taniguarit, iabbe _mi_cam;
_Ite_ tatacoli ikiri atzomua ikirirain _ite_ bacachin cale kuegma
naĩ egua cantem;
Caisa _ite_ nosam bacatatacoli;
Bacachin ackiro muetzerac _ite_.

TARAHUMARA.

_Tami_ nonò, mamù reguì guamí gatiki;
_Tami_ noinéruje mu regua;
Telimea rekijena;
_Tami_ neguaruje mu jelaliki henná, guetshiki, mapu hatschibe reguega
guami;
Tami nututuge hipeba;
_Tami_ guecanje _tami_ guikeliki, matamé hatschibe reguega tami
guecanje putse tami guikejameke;
Ke ta _tami_ satuje;
Telegatigemeke mechka hulà. _Amen._

CORA.

_Ta_ yaoppe _tap_ahoa pethebe;
Cherihuaca eiia teaguarira;
Chemeahuabeni _tahemi_ (to us) eiia chianaca;
Cheaquasteni eiia jevira iye (as) chianacatapoan tup up _tap_ahoa;
Eii ta hamuit (_bread_) eu te huima tahetze rej rujeve ihic (_to-day_)
ta taa;
Huatauniraca ta xanacan tetup itcahmo tatahuatauni titaxanacante;
Ta vaehre teatcai havobereni xanacat hetze huabachreaca tecai tahemi
rutahuaga teh eu ene.
Che-enhuatahua.

With these end our _data_[42], but not our lists of dialects; the
names Maya, Guazave, Heria, Sicuraba, Xixime, Topia, Tepeguana, and
Acaxee all being, either in Hervas, or elsewhere, as applied to the
different forms of speech of Sonora and Sinaloa; to which may be added
the Tahu, the Tacasca, and the Acasca, which is probably the same word
as Acaxee, as Huimi is the same as Yuma, and Zaque as Hiaqui. Of the
Guazave a particular dialect is named as the Ahome. Add also the Zoe
and Huitcole, probably the same as the Huite.

[Footnote 42: For a notice of _Matlacinga_ see Ludwig: who mentions an
_Arte_ and Dictionary. I have seen no specimens of it. (1859).]

That some of these unrepresented forms of speech belong to the same
class with the Pima, Hiaqui, &c., is nearly certain. How many, however,
do so is another question; it may be that _all_ are in the same
predicament; it may be only a few.

The languages of

MECHOACAN.

These are--

1. THE PIRINDA.
2. THE TARASCA.
3. THE OTOMI.

The last will be considered at once, and dismissed. More has been
written on the Otomi than any other language of these parts; the
proper Mexican not excepted. It was observed by Naxera that it was
_monosyllabic_ rather than _polysynthetic_, as so many of the American
languages are, with somewhat doubtful propriety, denominated. A Mexican
language, with a Chinese characteristic, could scarcely fail to suggest
comparisons. Hence, the first operation on the Otomi was to disconnect
it from the languages of the New, and to connect it with those of the
Old World. With his accustomed caution, Gallatin satisfies himself with
stating what others have said, his own opinion evidently being that the
relation to the Chinese was one of analogy rather than affinity.

Doubtless this is the sounder view; and one confirmed by three series
of comparisons made by the present writer.

The first shows that the Otomi, as compared with the monosyllabic
languages of Asia, _en masse_, has several words in common. But the
second qualifies our inferences, by showing that the Maya, a language
more distant from China than the Otomi, and, by means inordinately
monosyllabic in its structure, has, there or thereabouts, as many. The
third forbids any separation of the Otomi from the other languages of
America, by showing that it has the ordinary amount of miscellaneous
affinities.

In respect to the Chinese, &c., the real question is not whether it
has _so many affinities with the Otomi_, but whether it has _more
affinities with the Otomi than with the Maya or any other American
language_; a matter which we must not investigate without remembering
that _some_ difference in favour of the Otomi is to be expected,
inasmuch as two languages with short or monosyllabic words will, from
the very fact of the shortness and simplicity of their constituent
elements, have more words alike than two polysyllabic forms of speech.

The fact, however, which most affects the place of the Otomi language
is the monosyllabic character of other American languages, _e. g._ the
Athabaskan and the Attacapa.

As these are likely to be the subject of some future investigation, I
lay the Otomi, for the present, out of consideration; limiting myself
to the expression of an opinion, to the effect that its philological
affinities are not very different from what its geographical position
suggests.

Of the[43] Pirinda and Tarasca we have grammars, or rather grammatical
sketches; abstracts of which, by Gallatin, may be found in his Notes
on the Semi-civilized Nations of Mexico, Yucatan, and Central America,
in the first volume of the Transactions of the American Ethnological
Society. The following are from the Mithridates.

[Footnote 43: Only of the Tarasca (1859).]

PIRINDA PATERNOSTER.

Cabutumtaki ke exjechori pininte;
Niboteachatii tucathi nitubuteallu;
Tantoki hacacovi nitubutea pininte;
Tarejoki nirihonta manicatii ninujami propininte;
Boturimegui dammuce tupacovi chii;
Exgemundicovi boturichochii, kicatii pracavovi kue,entumundijo
boturichochijo;
Niantexechichovi rumkue,entuvi innivochochii;
Moripachitovi cuinenzimo tegui.
Tucatii.

TARASCA PATERNOSTER.

Tata uchàveri tukire hacahini avàndaro;
Santo arikeve tucheveti hacangurikua;
Wetzin andarenoni tucheveti irecheekua;
Ukuareve tucheveti wekua iskire avandaro, na humengaca istu umengave
ixu excherendo.
Huchaeveri curinda hanganari pakua intzcutzini yaru;
Santzin wepovacheras huchaeveri hatzingakuareta, izki huchanac
wepocacuvanita haca huchàveri hatzingakuaechani;
Ca hastzin teruhtazema teruniguta perakua himbo. Isevengua.

It now becomes convenient to turn to the parts to the east of
California, viz.

UTAH AND NEW MEXICO.

In Utah the philology is simple, all its forms of speech being

1. Athabaskan;
2. Paduca; or
3. Pueblo.

1. The Navaho, along with the Jecorilla of New Mexico, the Hoopah
of California, and Apatch of California, New Mexico and Sonora, is
Athabaskan.

ENGLISH. NAVAHO. APATCH.

_man_ tennai ailee.
_woman_ estsonnee eetzan.
_head_ (_my_) _hu_tzeetsin _see_zee.
_hair_ (_my_) _hu_tzee _see_sga.
_face_ (_my_) _hu_nnee streenee.
_ear_ (_my_) _hu_tjah _see_tza.
_eye_ (_my_) _hu_nnah sleeda.
_nose_ (_my_) _hu_tchih _see_tzee.
_mouth_ (_my_) _huz_zai _shee_da.
_tongue_ (_my_) _hut_tso _shee_dare.
_tooth_ (_my_) _hur_go _shee_go.
_sky_ eeyah eah.
_sun_ chokonoi skeemai.
_moon_ klaihonoi clanai.
_star_ sonh suns.
_day_ cheen-_go_ eeska.
_night_ klai-_go_ cla.
_light_ hoascen-_go_ skee.
_rain_ naheltinh nagostee.
_snow_ yas zahs.
_hail_ neelo heeloah.
_fire_ konh kou.
_water_ tonh toah.
_stone_ tsai zeyzay.
_one_ tlahee tahse.
_two_ nahkee nahkee.
_three_ tanh tau.

The Utah with its allied dialects is Paduca, _i. e._ a member of the
class to which the Shoshoni, Wihinast, and Cumanch languages belong.

3. The Moqui is one of the languages of

THE PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO.

The comparative civilization of the Pueblo Indians has always attracted
the attention of the ethnologist. Until lately, however, he had but a
_minimum_ amount of trustworthy information concerning either their
habits or their language. He has now a fair amount of _data_ for both.
For philological purposes he has vocabularies for six (probably for
all) of them.

Of the Pueblo languages two belong to the drainage of the Rio Colorado
and four to that of the Rio Grande. Of these two divisions the former
lies the farthest west, and, of the two Colorado Pueblos, the most
western is that of

_The Moqui._--The Moqui vocabulary was procured by Lieut. Simpson from
a Moqui Indian who happened to be at Chelly.

_The Zuni_ country lies in 35° north latitude, to the south and east of
the Moqui, and is probably divided by the Sierra de Zuni from

_The Acoma, or Laguna_, the most southern of the Pueblos of the Rio
Grande. North of the Acoma area lies that of

_The Jemez_, on the San Josef.

The two that still stand over lie on the main stream of the Rio Grande
itself. They are--

_The Tesuque_; and

_The Taos or Picuri._--The northern boundaries of the Tesuque seem to
be the southern ones of Taos. Connect these _Pueblos_ with the town of
Taos, and the Tesuque with Santa Fé, and the ordinary maps give us the
geography.

The philological affinities of the Pueblo languages scarcely coincide
with the geographical relations. The Moqui lies far west. Laying this
then out of the question, the three that, in their outward signs, most
strike the eye in tables, as agreeing with each other, are the Laguna,
the Jemez, and the Tesuque. The other two that thus outwardly agree
are the Taos and the Zuni,--two that are not in the most immediate
geographical juxtaposition.

What is meant by the "outward signs that most strike the eye on
tables"? This is shown in the following tables:--

ENGLISH. ZUNI. TESUQUE.

_head_ oshoqui_nnee_ pto.
_hair_ tiya_hwee_ po.
_ear_ lahjo_tinnee_ oyez.
_eye_ tona_hwee_ tzie.
_nose_ nohah_hunee_ heu.
_mouth_ ahwah_tinnee_ so.
_tongue_ honi_nnee_ hae.
_tooth_ oahna_hwee_ muai.

The following are some of the most patent miscellaneous affinities:--

_English_, sun.
Tesuque, _pah_.
Jemez, _pah_.

_English_, moon.
Tesuque, _poyye_.
Jemez, _pahah_.
Taos, _pannah_.
Moqui, _muyah_.

_English_, man.
Tesuque, _sayen_.
Jemez, _tahhanenah_.

_English_, woman.
Tesuque, _ker_.
Zuni, _ocare_.

_English_, wife.
Tesuque, _naveso_.
Jemez, _neohoy_.

_English_, boy.
Tesuque, _onne_.
Jemez, _annoh_.

_English_, forehead.
Tesuque, _siccovah_.
Laguna, _cophay_.

_English_, face.
Tesuque, _chaay_.
Laguna, _kowah_.

_English_, eye.
Tesuque, _chay_.
Jemez, _saech_.

_English_, teeth.
Tesuque, _muah_.
Taos, _moen-nahenhay_.
Moqui, _moah_ = mouth.

_English_, chin.
Tesuque, _shabbok_.
Taos, _claybonhai_.

_English_, hand.
Tesuque, _mah_.
Jemez, _mahtish_.
Moqui, _moktay_.
Moqui, _mahlatz_ = finger.

_English_, breast.
Tesuque, _peah_.
Laguna, _quaist-pay_.
Taos, _pahahkaynaynemay_.
Jemez, _pay-lu_.
Utah, _pay_.

_English_, deer.
Tesuque, _pahye_.
Jemez, _pahah_.

_English_, rattlesnake.
Tesuque, _payyoh_.
Taos, _pihoown_.

_English_, cat.
Tesuque, _musah_.
Laguna, _mus_.
Taos, _museenah_.
Jemez, _moonsah_.
Zuni, _musah_.

_English_, fire.
Tesuque, _tah_.
Jemez, _twaah_.

The Moqui, which is not to be separated from the other Pueblo
languages, has, out of twenty-one words compared, eight coinciding with
the Utah.

Neither are there wanting words common to the Pueblo languages and
those of the Athabaskan Navahos, Jecorillas and Apatches.

_English_, deer.
Navaho, _payer_.
Jecorilla, _payah_.
Jemez, _pahah_.

_English_, cat.
Navaho, _muse_.
Jecorilla, _mussah_.
Tesuque, _musah_.
Laguna, &c.[44], _mus_.

_English_, earth.
Navaho, _ne_.
Jecorilla, _nay_.
Tesuque, _nah_.

_English_, man.
Navaho, _tennay_.
Jecorilla, _tinlay_.
Tesuque, _sayen_.
Jemez, _tahhanenah_.

_English_, mouth.
Navaho, _hu-zzay_.
Jecorilla, _hu-zzy_.
Tesuque, _sho_.

[Footnote 44: The Utah is _musah_.]

Of these the first two may be borrowed. In

KANZAS

the languages are _Arapaho_, and _Shyenne_, already noticed; and
_Cumanch_, which is Paduca.

For the _Kioway_ we want specimens. In

NEBRASKA

they are _Sioux_, already noticed, and _Pawni_, allied to the
_Riccaree_. Kanzas leads us to

TEXAS.

It is convenient in a notice of the languages of the State of Texas
to bear in mind its early, as well as its present relations to the
United States. In a country where the spread of the population from the
other portions of the Union has been so rapid, and where the occupancy
is so complete, we are prepared to expect but a small proportion of
aborigines. And such, upon the whole, is the case. The displacement of
the Indian tribes of Texas has been great. Even, however, when Mexican,
Texas was not in the category of the older and more original portions
of Mexico. It was not brought under the _régime_ of the missionaries,
as we may see by turning to that portion of the Mithridates which
treats of the parts west of the Mississippi. The references here
are to Dupratz, to Lewis and Clarke, to Charlevoix, to French and
English writers rather than to the great authority for the other
parts of Spanish America--Hervas. And the information is less precise
and complete. All this is because Texas in the earlier part of its
history was, in respect to its exploration and description, a part of
Louisiana, (and, as such, French) rather than a part of Mexico, and (as
such) Spanish.

The notices of Texas, in the Mithridates, taken along with our
subsequent _data_, are to the effect that (_a_) the _Caddo_, (_b_) the
_Adaize_ or _Adahi_, (_c_) the _Attakapa_, and (_d_) the _Choktah_ are
the prevailing languages; to which may be added a few others of minor
importance.

The details as to the distribution of the subordinate forms of speech
over these four leading languages are as follows:--

_a._ The Nandakoes, Nabadaches, Alich (or Eyish), and Ini or Tachi are
expressly stated to be _Caddo_; and, as it is from the name of the last
of these that the word Texas is derived, we have satisfactory evidence
that _some_ members, at least, of the Caddo family are _truly and
originally_ Texian.

_b._ The Yatassi, Natchitoches, _Adaize_ (or _Adaye_), Nacogdoches, and
Keyes, belong to the Caddo confederacy, but without speaking the Caddo
language.

_c._ The Carancouas, the _Attacapas_, the Apelusas, the Mayes speak
dialects of the same language.

_d._ The Tunicas speak the same language as the Choctahs.

Concerning the philology of the Washas, the Bedies, the Acossesaws, and
the Cances, no statements are made.

It is obvious that the information supplied by the Mithridates is
measured by the extent of our knowledge of the four languages to which
it refers.

Of these, the Choktah, which Adelung calls the Mobilian, is the only
one for which the Mithridates itself supplies, or could supply,
specimens; the other three being unrepresented by any sample whatever.
Hence, to say that the Tachi was Caddo, that the Yatassi was Adahi, or
that the Carancoua was Attacapa, was to give an instance, in the way
of explanation, of the _obscurum per obscurius_. Since the publication
of the Mithridates, however, we have got samples of all three--Caddo,
Adahi, and Attacapa--so that our standards of comparison are improved.
They are to be found in a tabulated form, and in a form convenient for
collation and comparison in both of Gallatin's papers. They were all
collected before the annexation of Texas, and they appear in the papers
just referred to as Louisiana, rather than truly Texian, languages;
being common to the two areas.

Of the works and papers written upon Texas since it became a field of
observation for English and American, as opposed to French and Spanish
observers, the two on which the present writer, when he treated of the
subject in his work on the Varieties of Mankind, most especially, and
perhaps exclusively relied, were the well-known work of Kennedy on
Texas, and a MS. with which he was favoured by Mr. Bollaert, specially
limited to the ethnology of the State. Of this MS. a short abstract
is to be found in the Report of the British Association for the
Advancement of Science for the year 1846, made by Mr. Bollaert himself.

The later the notice of Texas the greater the prominence given to a
tribe of which nothing is said in the Mithridates; viz. the _Cumanch_.
As late as 1844 we had nothing beyond the numerals and a most scanty
MS. list of words to tell us what the Cumanch language really was.
These, however, were sufficient to show that its affinities were of a
somewhat remarkable kind, viz. with the Shoshoni, or Snake, tongues
of the southern parts of Oregon[45]. In Mr. Bollaert's notice the
Cumanches are divided into three sections: (1) the Cumanch or Jetan,
(2) the Lemparack, and (3) the Tenuha, and a list of no less than
thirty-five other tribes follows this division, some of these being
said to be wholly extinct, some partially so; some to be more or less
Cumanch, some to be other than Cumanch.

[Footnote 45: "On the Languages of the Oregon Territory." By R. G.
Latham. M. D. Read before the Ethnological Society, Dec. 1844.--_Note._]

The tendency of the Mithridates is to give prominence to the Caddo,
Attacapa, and Adahi tongues, and to incline the investigator, when
dealing with the other forms of speech, to ask how far they are
connected with one of these three. The tendency of the writers
last-named is to give prominence to the Cumanch, and to suggest the
question: How far is this (or that) form of speech Cumanch or other
than Cumanch?

Working with the Mithridates, the MS. of Mr. Bollaert, and Mr.
Kennedy's volume on Texas before me, I find that the list of Texian
Indians which these authorities justified me in publishing in 1848,
contained (1) Coshattas, (2) Towiachs, Towakenos, Towecas, and
Wacos, (3) Lipans or Sipans, (4) Aliche or Eyish, (5) Acossesaws,
(6) Navaosos, (7) Mayes, (8) Cances, (9) Toncahuas, (10) Tuhuktukis,
(11) Unataquas or Anadarcos, (12) Mascovie, (13) Tawanis or Ionis,
(14) Wico,? Waco, (15) Avoyelles, (16) Washitas, (17) Ketchi, (18)
Xaramenes, (19) Caicaches, (20) Bidias, (21) Caddo, (22) Attacapa,
(23) Adahi; besides the Carankahuas (of which the Cokes are made a
branch) classed with the Attacapa, and not including certain Cherokees,
Choctahs, Chikkasahs, and Sioux.

A _Washita_ vocabulary, which will be referred to in the sequel,
concludes the list of Texian languages known by specimens.

At present, then, the chief question respecting the philology of Texas
is one of distribution. Given as centres to certain groups

1. The Choctah,
2. The Caddo,
3. The Adahi,
4. The Attakapa,
5. The Cumanch, and
6. The Washita languages,

how do we arrange the tribes just enumerated? Two works help us
here:--1. A letter from the Ex-president Burnett to Schoolcraft on the
Indians of Texas. Date 1847. 2. A Statistical Notice of the same by
Jesse Stem. Date 1851.

Stem's statistics run thus:--

TRIBES. NUMBERS.
Towacarros 141 }
Wacos 114 } 293
Ketchies 38 }
Caddos 161 }
Andarcos 202 } 476
Ioni 113 }
Tonkaways 1152
Wichitas 100
Lipans 500
Comanches 20,000

giving us several of the names that have already appeared; giving also
great prominence to the Cumanches--numerally at least.

In Mr. Burnett's Letter the term _Caddo_ is prominent; but whether it
denote the Caddo _language_, or merely the Caddo _confederation_, is
uncertain. Neither can I find from the context whether the statements
respecting the Indians of the Caddo connexion (for this is what we must
call it at present) are made on the personal authority of the writer,
or whether they are taken, either directly or indirectly, from the
Mithridates. The term that Burnett uses is _stock_, his statement being
that the Waco, the Tawacani, the Towiash, the Aynic, the San Pedro
Indians, the Nabaducho, and the Nacodocheets are all both Texian in
origin and Caddo in _stock_.

His other tribes are--

1. The _Ketchi_: a small tribe on Trinity River, hated by the Cumanches
as sorcerers, and, perhaps, the same as--

2. The _Hitchi_, once a distinct tribe, now assimilated with their
neighbours.

3. The _Tonkaways_, a separate tribe, of which, however, the
distinctive characters are not stated.

Whatever may be the exact details of the languages, dialects, and
subdialects of Texas, the general outline is simple.

The _Choctah_ forms of speech are anything but native.

They are of foreign origin and recent introduction. So are certain
Sioux and other dialects spoken within the Texian area.

The _Cumanch_ is in the same predicament; though not, perhaps, so
decidedly. It belongs to the Paduca class, and its affinities are with
the Shoshoni and Wihinast of Oregon.

The _Caddo_ Proper is said to be intrusive, having been introduced so
late as 1819 from the parts between the great Raft and the Natchitoches
or Red River. I hold, however, that _some_ Caddo forms of speech must
be indigenous.

The _Witchita_ is probably one of these:--

ENGLISH. CADDO. WITCHITA.

_head_ cundo etskase.
_hair_ beunno deodske.
_eye_ nockkochun kidahkuck.
_nose_ sol dutstistoe.
_mouth_ nowoese hawkoo.
_tongue_ ockkotunna hutskee.
_tooth_ ockkodeta awk.
_one_ whiste cherche.
_two_ bit mitch.
_three_ dowoh daub.
_four_ peaweh dawquats.
_five_ dissickka esquats.
_six_ dunkkee kehass.
_seven_ bissickka keopits.
_eight_ dowsickka keotope.
_nine_ pewesickka sherchekeeite.
_ten_ binnah skedorash.

The _Adahi_ has already been noticed as being a comparatively isolated
language, but, nevertheless, a language with numerous miscellaneous
affinities.

The _Attacapa_ is one of the pauro-syllabic languages of America, by
which I mean languages that, if not monosyllabic after the fashion of
the languages of south-eastern Asia, have the appearance of being so.
They form a remarkable class, but it is doubtful whether they form a
natural one, _i. e._ whether they are more closely connected with each
other in the other elements of philological affinity than they are with
the tongues not so characterized. They deserve, however, what cannot be
given in the present paper, a special consideration.

For the north-eastern districts of Mexico, New Leon, Tamaulipas, &c.,
_i. e._ for the ports between the Rio Grande and Tampico, no language
is known to us by specimens. It is only known that the Cumanch dips
deeply into Mexico. So does the Apatch.

A tribe, lately mentioned, that of the Lipans, is, _perhaps_, Apatsh.
Burnett states that they agree with the Mescalero and Seratics of the
parts about the Paso del Norte. For these, however, we still want
vocabularies _iis nominibus_.

Be the Lipan affinities what they may, it is clear that both the
Cumanch and Apatsh languages belong to a class foreign to a great
part of the areas over which they are spread--foreign, and (as such)
intrusive--intrusive, and (as such) developed at the expense of some
native language.

That the original area of the latter is that of the Navahos,
Jecorillas, Hoopahs, Umkwas, Tlatskanai, and that these occupy the
parts between the Algonkin and Eskimo frontiers--parts as far north as
the Arctic circle--has already been stated. No repetition, however,
is superfluous that gives definitude and familiarity to the very
remarkable phænomena connected with the geographical distribution of
the Athabaskans.

Neither are the details of the Paduca area--the area of the Wihinast,
Shoshoni, Utah, and Cumanch forms of speech--without interest. To the
north of California, the Wihinast, or Western Shoshonis, are separated
from the Pacific by a thin strip of Jacon and Kalapuya country, being
succeeded in the direction of Utah by the Shoshonis Proper. Then follow
the Bonaks and Sampiches; the Shoshoni affinities of which need not be
doubted, though the evidence of them is still capable of improvement.
The Utah of the parts about Lake Utah is known to us by a vocabulary;
and known to be Cumanch or Shoshoni--call it which you will. I call
them all _Paduca_, from a population so named by Pike.

Now, out of twenty-one words common to the Utah and Moqui, eight are
alike.

Again, the Shoshoni and Sahaptin have several words in common, and
those out of short vocabularies.

Thirdly, the Shoshoni and Wihinast, though spoken within
(comparatively) narrow limits, differ from each other more than the
several forms of the Cumanch, though spread over a vast tract of land.

The inference from this is, that the Paduca forms of South Oregon and
Utah are _in situ_; those of New Mexico, Texas, and New Leon, &c.
being intrusive. In respect to these, I imagine that a line drawn from
the south-eastern corner of the Utah Lake to the source of the Red or
Salt Fork branch of the River Arkansas, would pass through a country
nearly, if not wholly, Paduca; a country which would lie partly in
Utah, partly in New Mexico, and partly in Kansas. It would cross the
Rocky Mountains, or the watershed between the drainages of the Colorado
and the Missouri. It would lie along a high and barren country. It
would have on its west the Navaho, Moqui, and Apatsh areas; on its east
certain Sioux tribes, and (further south) the Arapahos and Shyennes. It
would begin in California and end in the parts about Tampico[46].

[Footnote 46: For a full notice of Texas see Buschmann's Supplementary
Volume; first published within the present year (1859).]

MEXICO.--GUATIMALA.

The Cumanches, on the very verge, or within the tropics, vex by their
predatory inroads the Mexican states of Zacatecas and Durango. Along
with the Lipans they are the sparse occupants of the Bolson de Mapimi.
Along with the Apaches they plunder the traders and travellers of
Chihuhua.

For the parts about Tampico the language belongs to the Huasteca branch
of

THE MAYA.--The Maya succeeds the language just enumerated on the
_east_. On the _west_, the Otomi, Pirinda, and Tarasca are succeeded by

THE MEXICAN PROPER.--But the Maya and Mexican Proper are languages
of such importance, that the present paper will merely notify their
presence in Mexico and Central America.

The languages that, from their comparative obscurity, claim the
attention of the investigator, are those which are _other than_ Maya
and _other than_ Mexican Proper.

Of these, the first succeeds the Huasteca of Huastecapan, or the parts
about Tampico; which it separates, or helps to separate, from the
northern branches of the Maya Proper, being

THE TOTONACA of Vera Cruz, of which the following is the Paternoster;
the German being that of the Mithridates.

TOTONACA.

_Unser Vater o im Himmel steht_
Quintlatcané nac tiayan huil;

_gemacht hoch werde dein Nahme_
Tacollalihuacahuanli ò mi maocxot;

_komme dein_ (_reich?_)
Niquiminanin ò mintacacchi

_gethan werde dein Wille_
Tacholahuanla ò min pahuat

_wie wie im Himmel_
Cholei ix cacnitiet chalchix nac tiayan;

_unser Brot,_
O quin chouhcan lacalliya

_uns gib heute_
niquilaixquiuh yanohue;

_uns vergib unsre Sünde_
Caquilamatzancaniuh quintacallitcan

_wie wir vergeben_
Chonlei ò quitnan lamatzancaniyauh

_unsern Schuldigern_
ò quintalac allaniyan;

_Und nicht uns lasse_
Ca ala quilamactaxtoyauh

_damit wir stehen in Versuchung_
Nali yojauh naca liyogni

_gethan werde_
Chontacholacahuanla.

_The same from Hervas._

Kintaccan ò natiayan huill;
Tacotllali huacahuanla o min paxca maocxot
Camill omintagchi,
Tacholaca huanla ixcagnitiet ot
skiniau chon cholacan ocnatiayan;
Alyanohue nikila ixkiu ki lacali chaocan;
Kilamatzancaniau kintacagllitcan
Kintalacatlanian ochonkinan iclamatzan--
Caniau kintalacatlanian;
Nikilamapotaxtou ala nicliyolau
lacotlanacatalit nikilamapotexto
lamatzon lacacoltana.
Chontacholacahuanla.

Cross the watershed from Vera Paz to Oaxaca, and you come to the area of

THE MIXTECA.--In the ordinary maps, Tepezcolula, on the boundaries of
Oaxaca and Puebla, is the locality for its chief dialect, of which
there are several.

MIXTECA PATERNOSTER.

Dzutundoo, zo dzicani andihui;
Naca cuneihuando sasanine;
Nakisi santoniisini;
Nacahui ñuuñaihui saha yocuhui inini dzahuatnaha yocuhni andihui;
Dzitandoo yutnaa tasinisindo hiutni;
Dzandooni cuachisindo dzaguatnaha yodzandoondoondi hindo suhani sindoo;
Huasi kihui ñahani nucuctandodzondo kuachi;
Tahui ñahani ndihindo sahañavvhuaka dzahua;
Nacuhui.

The Mixteca succeeds the Mexican Proper, itself being other than
Mexican, just as the Totonaca suceeded the Huasteca, which was Maya,
the Totonaca being other than Maya.

The Mixteca is the language of Northern,

The ZAPOTECA that of Southern, Oaxaca.

Hervas writes, that the Zapoteca, Mazateca, Chinanteca, and Mixe were
allied. The Mixe locality is the district around Tehuantepec.

South of the areas of the three languages just enumerated comes the
main division of the Maya--the Maya of Guatemala and Yucatan, as
opposed to the Huasteca of the parts about Tampico. This, however, we
pass over _sicco pede_, for

HONDURAS AND SAN SALVADOR.

Limiting ourselves to the districts that undeniably belong to those two
States, we have samples of four dialects of

The LENCA language; these being from the four Pueblos of Guajiquiro,
Opatoro, Intibucá, and Sirmlaton, those of the last being shorter and
less complete than the others. They are quite recent, and are to be
found only in the Spanish edition of Mr. Squier's Notes on Central
America. The English is without them.

ENGLISH. GUAJIQUIRO. OPATORO. INTIBUCA.

_man_ ---- taho amashe.
_woman_ ---- move napu.
_boy_ ---- guagua hua.
_head_ toco tohoro cagasi.
_ear_ yang yan yangaga.
_eye_ saing saringla saring.
_nose_ napse napseh nepton.
_mouth_ ingh ambeingh ingori.
_tongue_ nafel navel napel.
_teeth_ nagha neas nigh.
_neck_ ampsh ampshala cange.
_arm_ kenin kenin kening.
_fingers_ lasel gualalasel ----
_foot_ guagi quagi guaskaring.
_blood_ uahug uah quch.
_sun_ gasi gashi gashi.
_star_ siri siri ----
_fire_ uga 'ua yuga.
_water_ guass uash guash.
_stone_ ca cah tupan.
_tree_ ili ili ili.
_one_ ita ita itaska.
_two_ naa ---- ----
_three_ lagua ---- ----
_four_ aria ---- ----
_five_ saihe saihe ----
_six_ huie hue ----
_seven_ huis-ca ---- ----
_eight_ teef-ca ---- ----
_nine_ kaiapa ---- ----
_ten_ isis issis ----

As Mr. Squier is the sole authority for the Lenca of San Salvador and
Honduras, so he is for

NICARAGUA.

Limiting ourselves to the undoubtedly Nicaraguan area, and taking
no note of the Mexican Proper of more than one interesting Mexican
settlement, the three forms of speech for which we have specimens are--

1. THE CHORETEGA;
2. THE NAGRANDA; and
3. THE WULWA, of the Chontal district.

And now we pass to the Debateable Ground. The language of

THE MOSKITO COUNTRY

gives us a fourth form of speech; at least (I think) as different from
the Choretega, Nagranda, Wulwa and Lenca, as they are from each other.
This is--

THE WAIKNA of the Indians of the coast, and, probably, of several
allied tribes inland.

Of the Waikna, Wulwa, Nagranda, and Choretega, samples may be found
either in Squier's Nicaragua, or vol. iii. of the Transactions of the
American Ethnological Society.

ENGLISH. NAGRANDA. CHORETEGA.

_man_ rahpa _n_uho.
_woman_ rapa-ku _n_-ahseyomo.
_boy_ sai-ka _n_-asome.
_girl_ sai-kee _n_-aheyum.
_child_ chichi _n_-aneyame.
_father_ ana goo-ha.
_mother_ autu goo-mo.
_husband_ a'mbin 'mhohue.
_wife_ a'guyu _n_ume.
_son_ sacul-e _n_-asomeyamo.
_daughter_ saicul-a _n_-asayme.
_head_ {a'cu goochemo.
{edi ----
_hair_ tu'su membe.
_face_ enu grote.
_forehead_ guitu goola.
_ear_ nau nuhme.
_eye_ setu nahte.
_nose_ ta'co mungoo.
_mouth_ dahnu nunsu.
_tongue_ duhu greuhe.
_tooth_ semu nahe.
_foot_ naku graho.
_sky_ dehmalu nekupe.
_sun_ ahca numbu.
_star_ ucu nuete.
_fire_ ahku nahu.
_water_ eeia nimbu.
_stone_ {esee nugo.
{esenu ----
_I_ ic-u saho.
_thou_ ic-a sumusheta.
_he_ ic-a ----
_we_ hechel-u semehmu.
_ye_ hechel-a ----
_they_ icanu ----
_this_ ca-la ----

For the Waikna there are other materials. The Wulwa specimens are few.
Hence it may be doubtful whether the real difference between it and the
Waikna be so great as the following table suggests.

ENGLISH. WULWA. WAIKNA.

_man_ all waikna.
_woman_ y-all mairen.
_son_ pau-ni-ma lupia-waikna.
_daughter_ pau-co-ma lupia-mairen.
_head_ tunni let.
_eye_ minik-taka nakro.
_nose_ magni-tak kamka.
_mouth_ dinibas bila.
_blood_ anassca tala.
_all_ duwawa semehmu.
_drink_ mahuia bo-prima.
_run_ dagalnu bo-tupu.
_leap_ masiga bo-ora.
_go_ {aiyu pa-ya.
{icu ----
_sing_ nagamo pa-coondamu.
_sleep_ ami pa-yacope.

COSTA RICA.

The following is from a vocabulary of Dr. Karl Scherzers of the
languages of the _Blanco_, _Valiente_, and _Talamenca_ Indians of Costa
Rica, occupants of the parts between the River Zent and the Boca del
Toro. We may call it a specimen of

THE TALAMENCA.--It seems to be, there or thereabouts, as different from
the preceding languages as they are from each other.

ENGLISH. TALAMENCA.

_ear_ _su_-kuke.
_eye_ _su_-wuaketei.
_nose_ _su_-tshukoto.
_mouth_ _su_-'kuwu.
_tongue_ _es_-kuptu.
_tooth_ _sa_-ka.
_beard_ _sa_-karku mezili.
_neck-joint?_ tzin.
_arm_ _sa_-fra.
_hand_ _sa-fra-tzin_-sek.
_finger_ _fra_-wuata.
_nail_ sa-krasku.
_sun_ kanhue.
_moon_ tulu.
_star_ bewue.
_fire_ tshuko.
_water_ ditzita.
_one_ e-_tawa_.
_two_ bo-_tewa_.
_three_ magna-_tewa_.
_four_ ske-_tewa_.
_five_ _si-tawa_.
_six_ _si-wo-ske_-le.
_seven_ _si-wo_-wora.
_eight_ _si-wo_-magnana.
_nine_ _si-wo-ske-tewa_.
_ten_ _sa_-flat-ka.

The same volume of the Transactions of the American Ethnological
Society that supplies us with Mr. Squier's vocabularies for Nicaragua
supplies us with Dr. Seeman's for

VERAGUA.

These being for

THE BAYANO;
THE SAVANERIC; and
THE CHOLO.

The Cholo is the same as Dr. Cullen's Yule, and also the same as
Cunacuna and Darien of Balbi and the Mithridates.

ENGLISH. CUNACUNA. DARIEN.

_one_ quensa-cua conjungo.
_two_ vo-cua poquah.
_three_ paa-cua pauquah.
_four_ paque-cua pake-quah.
_five_ atale eterrah.
_six_ ner-cua indricah.
_seven_ cugle coogolah.
_eight_ vau-agua paukopah.
_nine_ paque-haguc pakekopah.
_ten_ ambegui anivego.

It is also the same as some short specimens of the Mithridates; where

_water_ = dulah.
_moon_ = nu.
_father_ = tautah.
_mother_ = naunah.
_brother_ = rupah.
_sister_ = ninah.
_wife_ (_woman_) = poonah.

The Cholo leads us into South America, where for the present; we leave
it.

ADDENDA.

I will now add two notes, which may possibly save some future
investigator an unremunerative search.

First, concerning a language called _Mocorosi_.--In Jülg, this is made
a language of Mexico. It is really the _Moxa_ of South America under an
altered name.

ENGLISH. MOKOROSI. MOXA.

_I_ nùti nuti.
_thou_ pìti piti.
_he_ ema ema.
_this_ màca maca.
_that_ màena maena.
_that you_ màro maro.
_she_ esu esu.
_my_ nuyee nuyee.
_thy_ piyee piyee.
_his_ mayee mayee.
_one_ eto eto.
_two_ api api.
_three_ mopo mopo.

This is from an _Arte y vocabulario de la Lengua Mocorosi, compuesto
por un padre de la compañia de Jesus missionero de la Provincias de los
Moxos dedicado a la Serenissima Reyna de los Angeles siempre Virgen
Maria, Patrona de estas Missiones_; _en Madrid, año de 1699_.

A Lima edition A.D. 1701 differs from this in omitting the name
_Mokorosi_, and being dedicated to a different patron. In other
respects the two works agree _verbatim et literatim_.

Secondly, in respect to a language called _Timuacuana_--For this we
have a _Catechismo y examen para los que comulgan ex lengua Castellana
y Timuquana, por el Padre Fr. Francisco Pareja_; and _y Padre de la
Provincia de Santa Elena de la Florida_, &c. _Mexico_, 1627.

Also, the following numerals in Balbi, perhaps, taken from the above:--

ENGLISH. TIMUACUANA.

_one_ minecotamano.
_two_ nauchamima.
_three_ nahapumina.
_four_ nacheketamima.
_five_ namaruama.
_six_ napikichama.
_seven_ napikinahuma.
_eight_ napekechetama.
_nine_ natumama.

ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA

(1859).

=P.= 252.--"_Is not this Mozino's?_"--No. For a further notice see _p._
388.

=P.= 258.--"_Kawichen and Tlaoquatch._"--The Kawichen is nearer to the
Nusdalum, Squallyamish, and Cathlascou than it is to the Tlaoquatch.
This may be seen in Buschmann p. 649. At the same time it is more
Tlaoquatch than Buschmann makes it.

=P.= 259.--"_The Athabascan languages are undoubtedly
Eskimo._"--Between the notice contained in p. 299 and the paper which
precedes it there is an interval of no less than five years. There is
also one of three years between it and the paper which follows.

Now up to 1850 I gave the term _Eskimo_ a power which I afterwards
found reason to abandon. I gave it the power of a generic name for a
class containing not only the Eskimo Proper, but the Athabascan, and
the Kolooch. The _genus_, though in a modified form, I still believe
to exist; I have ceased, however, to think that _Eskimo_ is the best
name for it. Hence, expressions like "the Athabascan languages are,
undoubtedly, Eskimo--and the Kolooch languages are equally Eskimo with
the Athabascan" must be read in the sense of the author as expressed
in _p._ 265--"that the line of demarcation between the Eskimo and the
Indian races of America was far too broad and trenchant."

Whether certain forms of speech were not connected with the
Eskimo Proper--the Eskimo in the limited and _specific_ meaning
of the term--is another question. The Ugalents was so treated.
The Kenay--until the publication of Sir T. Richardson's Loucheux
specimens--was made both too Eskimo and too Kolooch. On the other hand,
however, both the Eskimo and the Koluch were divisions of the same
order. The actual value of the term _Kolooch_ is even now uncertain.

=P.= 276.--"_The Ahnenin etc._"--A reference to the word ARRAPAHOES in
Ludwig's Bibliotheca Glottica (both in the body of the work and the
Addenda) suggests a doubt as to the accuracy of the form _Ahnenin_.
Should it not be _Atsina_?

Turner remarks that "there is no evidence that Dr. Latham collated"
Mackenzie's vocabulary--which, as far as the text of Ludwig goes, is
true enough. I had, however, _vivâ voce_, informed Ludwig's Editor
that I had done so. As Turner knew nothing of this his remark was a
proper one. The main question, however, touches the form of the word.
Is _Ahnenin_ or _Atsina_ right? I can not make out the later history
of the MS. In my own part, I copied, collated, and returned it; and
I imagine that it still be amongst either Prichard's or Gallatin's
papers. I have the transcript before me at this moment; which runs
thus. "The vocabularies of the Blackfeet, of the Crows or Upsarokas,
and of the Grosventre, Rapid, or Fall Indians who call themselves
Ahnenin; by D. M. M'Kenzie of the St Louis American Furr Comp. They
appear to belong to three distinct families. But the Crows speak a
dialect clearly belonging to the same language as that of the sedentary
Minitares and Mandans, which is Sioux."

ENGLISH. AHNENIN.

_ax_ hanarse.
_awl_ bay.
_American_ basseway.
_Assineboin_ attinene.
_blue_ wahtaniyo.
_blanket_ nehatiyo.
_brandy_ kinatlyo.
_balls_ kutchemutche.
_buttons_ hahkeatta.
_berries_ bin.
_blood_ barts.
_bull buffalo_ nican.
_cow buffalo_ etanun.
_bear_ wussa.
_bad_ wahnattha.
_Blackfoot Indian_ wahtanetas.
_Blood Indian_ cowwenine.
_comb_ ehattiya.
_cord_ ahthauatz.
_cup_ anah.
_coat_ beethintun.
_calf_ wo.
_cheat_ chahhawdo.
_Crow Indian_ owwenin.
_coming_, _I am_ kitowats.
_dog_ ahttah.
_deer_ nosik.
_drink_ nahbin.
_ear-rings_ iyand.
_ears_ etah.
_eyes_ araithya.
_elk_ wussea.
_eat_ ahbeetse.
_foot_ nahatta.
_friend_, _my_ beneche.
_gun_ kutcheum.
_good_ etah.
_Gros Ventres Indian_ ahnenin.
_girl_ (_young_) wahtha.
_god_ (_sun_) esis.
_going_ (_I am_) nehichauch.
---- (_where are you_) takahah.
_going away_ nehahtha.
_give me_ tsikit.
---- _him_ binenah.
_horse_ wasahhun.
_hair_ betaninita.
_hand_ ikickan.
_hungry_ asinun.
_iron_ bachit.
_key_ tanaga.
_knife_ wahata.
_kettle_ busetanah.
_kill_ paahun.
_leg_ nanaha.
_leggings_ nattah.
_lodge_ neahnun.
---- _poles_ ahearsum.
_love_ abathatta.
_lice_ bettabin.
_meat_, _fresh_ ahhan.
----, _dry_ ahhthan.
----, _fat_ netun.
_mouth_ ochya.
_me_ }nistow.
_mine_ }
_man_, _white_ nehato.
----, _black_ awtamahat.
_many_ akaka.
_nose_ huse.
_now_ wahne.
_no_ chieu.
_none, I have_ ichscho.
_gun-powder_ keatah.
_pan_ basiana.
_pipe_ einpssah.
_poor_ ahtabinou.
_quit_ nannan.
_scarletcloth_ benatiyo.
_spoon_ abiyon.
_salt_ ekiowa.
_sugar_ nahattobin.
_sleep_ nuckcoote.
_strike_ towwonah.
_sun_ esis.
_still be_ owwahtatz.
_tobacco_ kichtahwan.
_teeth_ etchit.
_thigh_ neteto.
_to-day_ wanaki.
_to-morrow_ nacah.
_take it_ etanah.
_vermillion_ nehatto noven.
_understand, do you!_ ahnetan.
----, _I do not_ hachinetou.
_wood_ bess.
_rock_ hannike.
_ribs_ netzsun.
_robe_ tovau.
_run_ nunahho.
_roast_ estan.
_river_ natcha.
_wolf_ kiadah.
_water_ nitsa.
_whisky_ nahattonuche.
_wife_ etha.
_fingers_ naha.
---- _nails_ hussa.
_you_ ahnan.
_yes_ aha.
_I don't want it_ natah.
_sit down_ kannutz.
_get up_ kayhatz.
_where is it_ tahto.
_there it is_ nayyo.
_two_ nethiyau.
_four_ yahnayau.
_six_ nekitukiyau.
_ten_ netassa.

As the MS. was written with unusual clearness and distinctness I have
no doubt as to _Ahnenin_ having been the word. That Prichard read it so
is evident; for the foregoing explanation has made it clear that he and
I are independent witnesses. If error, then, exists it is in the MS.

The Blackfoot and Crow (which having also transcribed, I have by me)
are as follows:--

English. Blackfeet. Crow.

_sun_ nawtoas
_little old foot_ sakahbooatta.
_spirit_ eishtom
_bad spirit_ appanahhe.
_man_ (_vir_) nayshetappe bettse.
_Indian_ nayshetappe absarroka[47].
_woman_ ahkeya meyakatte.
_boy_ sacoomahpa _skak_katte.
_girl_ ahkaquoin meyakatte.
_child_ _po`_kah _bak_katte.
_father_ onwa menoomphe.
_mother_ ochrist ekien.
_husband_ ohmah batchene.
_wife_ ohtoohka_mah_ _mooah_.
_son_ _noh_coah me_nark_hatte.
_daughter_ netan me_nark_mea.
_brother_ nausah _booc_ouppa, see _child_.
_sister_ niskan _booc_oupmea.
_head_ otoquoin marshun.
_hair_ otoquoin mishiah.
---- _of animal_ ohqueiz
_face_ ostokais sa
_forehead_ ohnez hhea.
_ear_ ohtokeis uppa.
_eye_ ohwappispe meishta.
_nose_ ohkissis buppa.
_mouth_ mau_ihhe_ _e'a_--teeth.
_tongue_ matzsinne dayszske.
_teeth_ ohpaykin _ea_--mouth.
_beard_ emoooye eshaesha.
_neck_ ohkokin shuah.
_arm_ ohtsis barre.
_hand_ ohkittakes buschie.
_nail_ owatanokitz muhhpe.
_body_ ostome boohhooah.
_belly_ ohkoin ba're.
_leg_ oheat buchoope.
_feet_ oaksakah busche.
_toes_ oakkitteaks itshearababi.
_bone_ ohkinnah hoore.
_heart_ ohhskitzpohpe nasse.
_blood_ ahhahpanna eda.
_town_ ahkawkimne ashchen.
_chief_ nenah bettsetsa--see next
_warrior_ n_assa_battsats.
_war-party_ _soohah_
_friend_ netakka skeah.
_house_ nappenweeze assua.
_kettle_ eske baruhhea.
_arrow_ apse ahnaitz.
_bow_ espickanawmi bistuheah.
_hatchet_ anahcokaksakkin matchepa--knife.
_knife_ estowine mitsa--hatchet.
_canoe_ ahkeosakis maheshe.
_shoes_ ahtsakin hoompe.
_bread_ ksahquonats hohhazzsu.
_pipe_ ahcooiweman impsa.
_tobacco_ pistahkaw hopa.
_sky_ espoht ahmahho.
_sun_ nawt_oas_ ahhhizu.
_moon_ naut_oas_ minnatatche.
_star_ cakat_ous_ _ekieie_.
_day_ christo_cooe_ maupa.
_night_ _coocooe_ oche.
_light_ christecoonatz thieshe,
_darkness_ eskenutz chippusheka,
_morning_ eskanattame chinnakshea.
_evening_ ahtakkote appah.
_spring_ motse meamukshe.
_summer_ napoos meamukshe.
_autumn_ motose bisse.
_winter_ stooya mannees.
_wind_ supooa hootsee.
_thunder_ christecoom soo.
_lightening_ christecoom thaheshe.
_rain_ soatah hannah.
_snow_ ohpootah biah.
_hail_ sahco makkoopah.
_fire_ esteu bidah.
_water_ ohhkeah _minne_.
_ice_ sacoocootah beroohke.
_earth_ ksahcoom amma.
_river_ neekkittiz ahesu.
_lake_ omahsekame _minnee_teekah.
_island_ mane _minne_peshu.
_valley_ kinekime ahrachuke.
_hill_ natoom mahpo.
_mountain_ mastake ahmahabbe.
_stone_ ohcootoke mi.
_copper_ [48]ohtaquinnakeskin ommattishe.
_iron_ nakeshin omatte.
_sea_ motohkin minneetskishah.
_tree_ masetis bahcoo.
_bark_ ohtokeskissase _eshe_.
_grass_ mahtoyasc beka.
_maize_ eskatah hohhartzhee.
_oak_ cahpokesa dachpitseesmoney.
_pine_ pahtoke _bartehe_.
_wood_ masetis money.
_fire-wood_ mamase ----
_leaf_ soyapoko moneyahpe.
_meat_ akesequoiu arookka.
_beaver_ kakestake beruppe.
_elk_ poonahkah eitchericazzse.
_deer_ ahnakkas ohha.
_bullbuffalo_ estumeek ----
_cowbuffalo_ skain ----
_buffalo_ ---- bisha.
_herd of buffaloes_ enaho ----
_bear_ keiyo duhpitsa.
_wolf_ mahcooya chata.
_dog_ emittah biska.
_squirrel_ omahcookahte ishtadaze--rabbit.
_rabbit_ } ahtetah ishta.
_hare_ }
_fox_ ohtahtooya cheesuptedahha.
_snake_ patrakesema eanhassa.
_bird_ pakesa dickkappe.
_egg_ ohwas eikkieu.
_goose_ emahkiya mena.
_pigeon_ pispistsa main_pituse_.
_partridge_ katokin chitchkekah.
_turkey_ ---- dickkekskocke.
_duck_ siakes mehhaka.
_fish_ mamea booah.
_white_ ksiksenum chose.
_black_ sikksenum shupitkat.
_red_ mohesenum hishekat.
_blue_ comona shuakat.
_yellow_ ohtahko shirekat.
_great_ ohmohcoo esah.
_small_ enahcootse _ecat_.
_strong_ miskappe bassats.
_old_ nahpe carraharra.
_good_ ahse itsicka.
_bad_ pahcaps kubbeek.
_handsome_ mahtsoapse esissa.
_ugly_ pahcapse eishkubbeek.
_alive_ sakatappe itchasa.
_dead_ aadne carrashe.
_cold_ stooyah hootshere.
_warm_ kasetotzu ahre.
_I_ nisto bé.
_thou_ christo de.
_he_ ootowe na.
_we_ nistonan bero.
_you_ christo dero.
_they_ ostowawah mihah.
_this_ kanahka _kinna_.
_that_ kanahka ahcooka.
_all_ atesinekah hooahcasse.
_many_ akkiom ahhook.
_who_ sakayitz sippe.
_what_ sappah.
_to-day_ ahnookchusequoix hinnemaupa.
_yesterday_ mahtone hooriz.
_to-morrow_ ahpenacose shinnakshare.
_yes_ ah hotah.
_no_ sah barretkah.
_to eat_ oyeatz bahbooshmeka.
_to drink_ semate _smimmik_.
_to run_ ohmahkoit akharoosh.
_to dance_ pascah dishshe.
_to go_ eestappote dah.
_to sing_ anihkit munnohe.
_to sleep_ okat mugghumme.
_to speak_ apooyatz _bidow_.
_to see_ ahsappatz ahmukkah.
_to love_ tahcoomatzeman ahmutcheshe.
_to kill_ enikke bahpake.
_to walk_ ahwahocat nene.
1 sa ahmutcat.
2 nahtoka noomcat.
3 nahhoka namenacat.
4 nasowe shopecat.
5 nesitto chihhocat.
6 nowwe ahcamacat.
7 akitsekum sappoah.
8 nahnissowe noompape.
9 pakeso ahmuttappe.
10 kepo perakuk.
11 makesikepoto ehpemut.
12 nahsikepoto ehpenoomp.
20 nahsikpo noompaperruka.
30 nehapepo namenaperruka.
100 kapippooe peereeksah.
1000 kapippippooe peereeksahperaka.

[Footnote 47: Or _Upsaroka_, name of nation.]

[Footnote 48: See _yellow_.]

The Italics are the present author's. They draw attention to either a
coincidence between the two languages, or the compound character of the
word.

II.--_The Sioux group._--For a remark on the affinities between the
Pawni and Caddo, see _p._ 400.

The following coincidences are the result of a very limited collation.

(1).

CHEROKEE AND CADDO.

_English_ man.
Cherokee _askaya._
Caddo _shoeh._

_English_ woman.
Cherokee _anigeyung._
Seneca _wenneau._

_English_ skin.
Cherokee _kanega._
Mohawk _kernayhoo._

_English_ ox.
Cherokee _wakakanali._
Caddo _wakusyeasa._

_English_ cow.
Cherokee _wakaagisi._
Caddo _wakus._

_English_ thief.
Cherokee _kanawskiski._
Caddo _kana._

_English_ day.
Cherokee _kata._
Caddo _kaadeh._

_English_ great.
Cherokee _equa._
Caddo _hiki._

_English_ eagle.
Cherokee _awawhali._
Caddo _eeweh._

_English_ thick.
Cherokee _uhaketiyu._
Caddo _hiakase._

(2).

CHEROKEE AND IROQUOIS.

_English_ enemy.
Cherokee _agiskaji._
Seneka _ungkishwauish._

_English_ mouth.
Cherokee _sinungtaw._
Seneka _swanetaut._

_English_ something.
Cherokee _kawhusti._
Seneka _gwustah._

_English_ nothing.
Cherokee _tlakawhusti._
Seneka _tataqwhista._

_English_ far.
Cherokee _inung._
Mohawk _eenore._

_English_ conjurer.
Cherokee _atawniski._
Mohawk _ahtoonitz._

_English_ aunt.
Cherokee _etsi._
Seneka _ahhi._

_English_ my right hand.
Cherokee _tsikatesixquoyeni._
Mohawk _gowweeintlataquoh._

_English_ a corn.
Cherokee _kuli._
Seneka _uhkuah._

_English_ walnut.
Cherokee _sawhi._
Mohawk _oosoquah._

_English_ horn.
Cherokee _uyawnung._
Seneka _konnongguh._

IV. _The Athabaskan group._--I find that the affinity between the
Loucheux and the Kenay languages is given by Prichard, who, at the same
time, separates both from the Athabaskan. "Mr. Gallatin says that the
similarity of languages amongst all these" (_i. e._ the Athabaskan)
"tribes is well-established. The Loucheux are excepted. This language
does not appear to have any distinctly marked affinities except with
that of the Kenay."--_Vol. V._ _p._ 377.

I believe that Dr. Prichard's informant on this point was the same as
my own _i. e._ Mr. Isbister.

Scouler also suggests the same relationship.

That Buschmann has arrived at the results of his _Athabaskische
Sprachstamm_ through a series of independent researches I readily
believe. Whether, after taking so little trouble to know what had been
done by his predecessors, he is right is saying so much about his
_discoveries_ is another question.

That the Pinaleno is in the same category with the Navaho is shewn by
Turner, who gives a vocabulary of the dialect.

ENGLISH. NAVAHO. PINALENO.

_man_ husttkin payyahnah.
_woman_ estsanni etsunni.
_head_ betsi
_hair_ tchlit setzezil.
_ear_ tshar sitzchar.
_eye_ ninnar tshindar.
_nose_ nitchi chinchi.
_hand_ shilattaete chicon.
_feet_ t'ki sitzkay.
_sun_ dacos yaheye.
_moon_ 'tsadi ílsonsayed.
_star_ olcheec ailsonsatyou.
_fire_ 'tchou
_water_ 'thu to.
_earth_ klish tlia.
_stone_ tseek tshaier.

V. _The Kitunaha language._--The Kitunaha, Kútani, or Cootanie
vocabulary of Mr. Hall was obtained from a Cree Indian, and is not to
be depended on. This being the case it is fortunate that it is not the
only specimen of the language. There is an earlier one of Mr. Howse's,
published in the Transactions of the Philological Society. It is as
follows.

ENGLISH. KÚTANI.

_one_ hook cain.
_two_ ass.
_three_ calle sah.
_four_ had sah.
_five_ yea co.
_six_ in ne me sah.
_seven_ whist taw lah.
_eight_ waw ah sah.
_nine_ ky yie kit to.
_ten_ aye to vow.
_an Indian_ ah quels mah kin nic.
_a man_ te te calt.
_a woman_ balle key.
_a shoe_ cath lend.
_a gun_ tah vow.
_I_ cah min.
_thou_ lin coo.
_he_ nin co is.
_we_ (_thou and I_) cah min nah lah.
_this Indian_ in nai ah quels mah kin nic.
_that Indian_ co ah quels mah kin nic.
_these Indians_ wai nai ah quels mah
kin nic nin tie.
_which man?_ cath lah te te calt?
_which Indians?_ cah lah ah quels mah
kin nic nin tie.
_which gun?_ cah lah tah vow?
_who_ cath lah.
_my son_ cah mah hat lay.
_his son_ hot lay is.
_he is good_ sook say.
_it is good_ sook kin nai.
_he is arrived_ swan hah.
_I love him_ hones sclah kilt.
_he loves me_ sclah kilt nai.
_I see him_ hones ze caught.
_I see his son_ hones ze caught ah calttis.
_he sees me_ ze caught tene.
_he steals_ i in ney.
_I love him_ hones sclah kilt ney.
_I do not love him_ cah sclah kilt nai.
_my husband_ can no claw kin nah.
_he is asleep_ come ney ney.
_I am a man_ te te calt ne ne.
_I am a woman_ balle key ne ne.
_where?_ cass kin?
_where is my gun?_ cass kin cah tah vow?
_where is his gun?_ cass kin tah vow is?
_a lake_ ah co co nook.
_how much?_ cack sah?
_it is cold weather_ kis caw tit late.
_a tent_ ah caw slah co hoke.
_my tent_ cah ah kit lah.
_thy tent_ ah kit lah nis.
_his tent_ ah kit lah is.
_our (thy and my) tent_ cah ah kit lah nam.
_yes_ ah ah.
_no_ waw.
_men_ te te calt nin tie.
_women_ balle key nin tie.
_girl_ (_in her teens_) nah oh tit.
_girls_ (_in their teens_) nah oh tit nin tie.
_boy_ stalt.
_boys_ stalt nin tie.
_little boy_ stalt nah nah.
_child_ cah mo.
_children_ cah mo nin tie.
_father_ (_by the sons_) cah de doo.
_father_ (_by the daughters_) cah sous.
_mother_ cah mah.
_brother, eldest_ cah tat.
_brother, youngest_ (_by brothers_) cats zah.
_brother, youngest_ (_by sisters_) cah ze ah.
_sister, eldest_ cats sous.
_sister, youngest_ cah nah nah.
_uncle_ cath ah.
_aunt_ cah tilt tilt.
_grandfather_ cah papa.
_grandmother_ cah de de.
_thy husband_ in claw kin nah nis.
_my wife_ cah tilt nah mo.
_thy wife_ tilt nah mo nis.
_son_ can nah hot lay _or_ ah calt.
_daughter_ cass win.
_come here_ clan nah.
_go away_ cloon no.
_take care_ ill kilt we ín.
_get out of the way_ you vaw.
_come in_ tie cath ah min.
_go out_ sclah nah ah min.
_stop_ mae kaek.
_run_ sin nack kin.
_slowly_ ah nis cah zin.
_miserly_ o per tin.
_beggarly_ coke co mae kah kan.
_I give_ hone silt ah mah tie sis ney.
_thou givest_ kin nah mah tie zey.
_he gives_ selah mah tie zey.
_he gave_ cah mah tie cates.
_I beat_ hone cah slah tea.
_thou beatest_ kin cah slah leat.
_he beats_ kis kilt cone slah leat.
_give me_ ah mah tie kit sous.
_he gave me_ nah mah tie kit sap pe ney.
_I love you_ hone selah kilt ney.
_he loves_ selah kilt.
_do you love me?_ kin selah slap?
_I hate you_ hone cah selah kilt ney.
_thou hatest_ kin cah selah kilt.
_he hates_ cah selah kilt.
_I speak_ hones ah ney.
_thou speakest_ kins ah.
_he speaks_ kates ah.
_we speak_ hones ah nah slah.
_you speak_ talk e tea leat.
_they speak_ seals ah.
_I steal_ hone i he ne.
_I sleep_ hone come ney ney.
_we sleep_ hone come ney nah lah ney.
_I die_ hones alt hip pe ney.
_thou diest_ kins alt hip.
_we die_ hone ah o co noak nah slah ney.
_give me to eat_ he shoe.
_eat_ he ken.
_my gun_ cah tah vow.
_thy gun_ tah vow nis.
_his gun_ tah vow is.
_mountain_ ac co vo _cle it_.
_rocky mountain_ ac co vo _cle it_ nook key.
_snowy mountain_ ac co vo _cle it_ ac clo.
_road or track_ ac que mah nam.
_large river_ cath le man me took.
_small river_ hah cack.
_creek_ nis cah took.
_large lake_ will caw ac co co nook.
_small lake_ ac co co nook nah nah.
_rapid_ ah cah hop _cle it_.
_fall_ wheat taw hop _cle it_.
_shoals_ ah coke you coo nook.
_channel_ hah cath slaw o weak.
_wood or trees_ ah kits slah in.
_red pine_ he mos.
_cedar_ heats ze natt.
_poplar_ ac cle mack.
_aspin_ ac co co zle mack.
_fire_ ah kin ne co co.
_ice_ ah co wheat.
_charcoal_ ah kits cah kilt.
_ashes_ ah co que me co.
_kettle_ yeats skime.
_mat tent_ tah lalt ah kit lah nam.
_head_ ac clam.
_eyes_ ac cack leat.
_nose_ ac conn.
_mouth_ ac cait le mah.
_chin_ ac cah me zin ne cack.
_cheeks_ ac que ma malt.
_hair_ ac coke _que slam_.
_body_ ac co no cack.
_arms_ ac sglat.
_legs_ ac sack.
_belly_ ac co womb.
_back_ ac cove cah slack.
_side_ ac kin no cack.
_ears_ ac coke co what.
_animals_ yah mo.
_horse_ kilt calt law ah shin.
_stallion_ cass co.
_mare_ st_ou_galt.
_bull_ neel seek.
_cow_ slouke copo.
_calf_ ah kin co malt.
_tiger_ s'vie.
_bears of all kinds_ cap pe tie.
_black or brown bears_ nip pe co.
_grizzle bear_ kit slaw o slaw.
_rein deer_ neats snap pie co.
_red deer_ kilt caw sley.
_moose deer_ snap pe co.
_woolvereen_ ats po.
_wolf_ cack kin.
_beaver_ sin nah.
_otter_ ah cow oh alt.
_mink_ in new yah.
_martin_ nac suck.
_musquash_ an co.
_small grey plain wolf_ skin koots.
_birds_ to coots cah min nah.
_blue jay_ co quis kay.
_crow_ coke kin.
_raven_ nah nah key.
_snakes_ (_rattlesnake_) wilt le malt.
_garter snake_ ah co new slam.
_roots_ (_camass_) hap pey.
_bitter root_ nah cam me shou.
_tobacco root_ mass mass.
_sweet potatoes_ ah whis sea.
_moose berry_ ac co mo.
_strawberry_ ac co co.
_pipe_ couse.
_pipe stem_ ac coot lah.
_axe_ ah coot talt.
_tobacco_ yac ket.
_flesh_ ah coot lack.

VI. _The Atna group._--The numerous vocabularies that represent the
dialects and sub-dialects of this large class are the following--Atna
Proper or Shushwap, Kullelspelm (Pend d'oreilles), Spokan, Kettlefall
dialects of the Selish; Okanagan; Skitsuish (Cœur d'alène);
Piskwaus; Nusdalum; Squallyamish; Kawichen; Cathlascou; Cheeheeli;
Tsihaili; Kwaintl; Kwenaiwitl; Kowelitz; Nsietshawus or Killamuk. To
this, the present writer adds the Billechúla.

XI. The query as the likelihood of the Straits of Fuca vocabulary
having been Mozino's finds place here. The two are different: though
both may have been collected by Mozino. Each is to be found in
Buschmann, who, exaggerating the isolation of Wakash, Nútka, and
Tlaoquatch forms of speech, separates them too decidedly. Out of
nineteen words compared nine are not only alike but admitted by him to
be so.

_The Billechula._--This lies intermediate to the Hailtsa and Atna
groups; being (apparently) more akin to the latter than the former. Of
the Atna dialects, it seems most to approach the Piskwaus.

_The Chinuk._--The Chinuk of which the Watlala of Hale is variety is
more like the Nsietashawus or Killamuk than aught else.

_The Kalapuya._--The harshness of the Kalapuya is an inference from its
orthography. It is said, however, to be soft and flowing _i. e._ more
like the Sahaptin and Shoshoni in sound than the Chinuk, and Atna.

_The Jakon._--This has affinities with the Chinuk on one side, and the
Lutuami on the other; _i. e._ it is more like these two languages than
any other. The likeness, however, is of the slightest.

MISCELLANEOUS AFFINITIES.

_English_ man.
Jakon _kalt._
Selish _skalt-amekho._
Skitsuish _skailt-emukh._
Piscous _skaltamikho._

_English_ woman.
Jakon _tklaks._
Wallawalla _tilaki._
Watlala _tklkakilak._
Chinook _tklakel._
Cayoose _pin-tkhlaiu._
Molele _longi-tklai._
Killamuk _sui-tklats._
Shushwap _somo-tklitçk._
Cootanie _pe-tklki._

_English_ boy.
Jakon _tklom-kato._
Kizh _kwiti._
Cowelitz _kwaiitkl._

_English_ girl.
Jakon _tklaaksawa._
Kizh _takhai._
Satsikaa _kokwa._
Watlala _tklaleq._
Chinook _waleq._
Chickaili _khaaq._
Skwale _stkllatkl-adai._
Muskoghe _okulosoha._

_English_ child.
Jakon _mohaite._
Shahaptin _miaots._

_English_ mother.
Jakon _tkhla._
Chinook _tkhlianaa._

_English_ husband.
Jakon _sonsit._
Chikaili _çineis._
Cowelitz _skhon._
Killamuck _ntsuon._
Umpqua _skhon._
-- do. _çhanga._

_English_ wife.
Jakon _sintkhlaks._
Cayuse _intkhlkaio._
Molele _longitkhlai._

_The Sahaptin._--The Sahaptin, Shoshoni and Lutuami groups are more
closely connected than the text makes them.

_The Shoshoni (Paduca) group._--The best general name for this class
is, in the mind of the present writer, Paduca; a name which was
proposed by him soon after his notification of the affinity between the
Shoshoni and the Comanch, in A.D. 1845. Until then, the two languages
stood alone; _i. e._ there was no class at all. The Wihinast was shewn
to be akin to the Shoshoni by Mr. Hale; the Wihinast vocabulary having
been collected by that indefatigable philologue during the United
States Exploring Expedition. In Gallatin's Report this affinity is
put forward with due prominence; the Wihinast being spoken of as the
Western Shoshoni.

In '50 the Report of the Secretary at War on the route from San Antonio
to El Paso supplied an Utah vocabulary; which the paper of May '53
shews to be Paduca.

In the Report upon the Indian Tribes &c. of '55, we find the
Chemehuevi, or the language of one of the _Pah-utah_ bands "for the
first time made public. It agrees" (writes Professor Turner) "with
Simpson's Utah and Hale's East Shoshoni."

Carvalho (I quote from Buschmann) gives the numerals of the Piede
(Pa-uta) of the Muddy River. They are nearly those of the Chemehuevi.

ENGLISH. PIEDE.

_one_ soos.
_two_ weïoone.
_three_ pioone.
_four_ wolsooing.
_five_ shoomin.
_six_ navi.
_seven_ navikavah.
_eight_ nanneëtsooïn.
_nine_ shookootspenkermi.
_ten_ tomshooïn.

For the Cahuillo see below.

Is the Kioway Paduca? The only known Kioway vocabulary is one published
by Professor Turner in the Report just alluded to. It is followed by
the remark that "a comparison of this vocabulary with those of the
Shoshoni stock does, it is true, show a greater degree of resemblance
than is to be found in any other direction. _The resemblance, however,
is not sufficient to establish a radical affinity, but rather appears
to be the consequence of long intercommunication._"

For my own part I look upon the Kioway as Paduca--_the value of the
class being raised_.

ENGLISH. KIOWAY.

_man_ kiani.
_woman_ mayi.
_head_ kiaku.
_hair_ ooto.
_face_ caupa.
_forehead_ taupa.
_ear_ taati.
_eye_ taati.
_nose_ maucon.
_mouth_ surol.
_tongue_ den.
_tooth_ zun.
_hand_ mortay.
_foot_ onsut.
_blood_ um.
_bone_ tonsip.
_sky_ kiacoh.
_sun_ pai
_moon_ pa.
_star_ tah.
_fire_ pia.
_water_ tu.
_I_ no.
_thou_ am.
_he_ kin.
_we_ kime.
_ye_ tusa.
_they_ cuta.
_one_ pahco.
_two_ gia.
_three_ pao.
_four_ iaki.
_five_ onto.
_six_ mosso.
_seven_ pantsa.
_eight_ iatsa.
_nine_ cohtsu.
_ten_ cokhi.

XIII. _The Capistrano group._--Buschmann in his paper on the Netela
and Kizh states, after Mofras, that the Juyubit, the Caguilla, and the
Sibapot tribes belong to the Mission of St. Gabriel. Turner gives a
Cahuillo, or Cawio, vocabulary. The district from which it was taken
belonged to the St. Gabriel district. The Indian, however, who supplied
it had lived with the priests of San Luis Rey, until the break-up of
the Mission. Whether the form of speech he has given us be that of
the Mission in which he lived or that of the true Cahuillo district is
uncertain. Turner treats it as Cahuillo; at the same time he remarks,
and shews, that it is more akin to the San Luis Rey dialect than to any
other.

But it is also akin to the Chemeuevi, which with it is tabulated; a
fact which favours the views of Hale respecting its San Capistrano
affinities rather than those of Buschmann--Hale making them Paduca.

A vocabulary, however, of the unreclaimed Cahuillo tribes--the tribes
of the mountains as opposed to the missions--is still wanted.

ENGLISH. CHEMUHUEVI. CAHUILLO.

_man_ tawatz nahanes.
_woman_ maruqua nikil.
_head_ mutacowa niyuluka.
_hair_ torpip piiki.
_face_ cobanim nepush.
_ear_ nancaba nanocka.
_eye_ puoui napush.
_nose_ muvi nemu.
_mouth_ timpouo netama.
_tongue_ ago nenun.
_tooth_ towwa netama.
_hand_ masiwanim nemohemosh.
_foot_ nampan neik.
_bone_ maiigan neta.
_blood_ paipi neo.
_sky_ tuup tuquashanica.
_sun_ tabaputz tamit.
_moon_ meagoropitz menyil.
_star_ putsih chehiam.
_fire_ cun cut.
_water_ pah pal.
_one_ shuish supli.
_two_ waii mewi.
_three_ paii mepai.
_four_ watchu mewitchu.
_five_ manu nomequadnun.
_six_ nabai quadnunsupli.
_seven_ moquist quanmunwi.
_eight_ natch quanmunpa.
_nine_ uwip quanmunwichu.
_ten_ mashu nomachumi.

P. 353. Now comes the correction of a statement in p. 353--"_the
language of San Luis El Rey which is Yuma, is succeeded by that of San
Luis Obispo, which is Capistrano_."--This is an inaccuracy; apparently
from inadversion. A reference to the Paternosters of _pp._ 304-305
shews that the San Luis Rey, and the San Juan Capistrano forms of
speech are closely allied. Meanwhile, the San Fernando approaches the
San Gabriel, _i. e._ the Kizh.

See also Turner, _p._ 77--where the name _Kechi_ seems, word for word,
to be _Kizh_. The _Kizh_, however is a _San Gabriel_ form of speech.

XIV. _The Yuma group._--Turner gives a Mojave, or Mohavi vocabulary;
the first ever published. It is stated and shewn to be Yuma. The
Yabipai, in the same paper, is inferred to be Yuma; containing, as it
does, the word

_hanna_ = _good_ = _hanna_, _Dieguno_.
_n'yatz_ = _I_ = _nyat_, _do_.
_pook_ = _beads_ = _pook_, _Cuchan_.

The Mohave vocabulary gives the following extracts,

ENGLISH. MOHAVE. CUCHAN. DIEGUNO. COCOMANCOPA.

_man_ ipah ipatsh aykutshet ipatshe.
_woman_ sinyax sinyak sín sinchayaixhutsh.
_head_ cawawa umwhelthe estar ----
_hair_ imi ocono ---- ----
_face_ ihalimi edotshe wa ----
_forehead_ yamapul iyucoloque ---- ----
_ear_ esmailk smythl hamatl ----
_eye_ idotz edotshii awuc ayedotsh.
_nose_ ihu ehotshi hu yayyayooche.
_mouth_ ia iyuquaofe ah izatsh.
_tongue_ ipailya epulche ---- ----
_tooth_ ido aredoche ---- ----
_hand_ ---- isalche sithl ----
_arm_ isail ---- ---- ----
_foot_ imilapilap imetshshpaslapyah hamilyah ----
_blood_ niawhut awhut ---- ----
_sky_ amaiiga ammai ---- ----
_sun_ nyatz nyatsh nyatz ----
_moon_ hullya huthlya hullash ----
_star_ hamuse klupwataie hummashish ----
hutshar
_fire_ awa aawo ---- ahúch.
_water_ aha aha aha ----
_I_ nyatz nyat nyat inyatz.
_thou_ mantz mantz ---- mantz.
_he_ pepa habuisk pu ----
_one_ setto sin hini ----
_two_ havika havik hawuk ----
_three_ hamoko hamok hamuk ----
_four_ pinepapa chapop chapop ----
_five_ serapa serap serap ----
_six_ sinta humhúk ---- ----
_seven_ vika pathkaie ---- ----
_eight_ muka chiphuk ---- ----
_nine_ pai hummamuk ---- ----
_ten_ arapa sahhuk ---- ----

We leave California with the remark that in Ludwig's Literature of
the American Aboriginal Languages Mr. Bartlett's vocabularies for
California bear the following titles.

1. Dieguno or Comeyei,
2. Kechi,
3. San Luis Obispo,
4. H'hana }
5. Tehama }
6. Coluz } from the drainage of the Sacrament,
7. Noana }
8. Diggers }
9. Diggers of Napa Valley.
10. Makaw of Upper California.

See _Californians_.

There is also a Piros vocabulary for the parts about El Paso: also a
notice (under the word) that the MUTSUNES Indians speak a dialect of
the Soledad.

_Old California._--As a general rule, translations of the Pater Noster
shew difference rather than likeness: in other words, as a general
rule, rude languages are more alike than then Pater Nosters make them.
The reasons for this lie in the abstract nature of many of the ideas
which it is necessary to express; but for the expression whereof the
more barbarous forms of speech are insufficient.

This creates the necessity for circumlocutions and other expedients. In
no part of the world is this more manifest than in Old California; a
district for which our _data_ are of the scantiest. I think, however,
that they are sufficient to shew that the Northern forms of speech, at
least, are Yuma.

ENGLISH. O. CALIFORNIAN. YUMA.

_man_ (_homo_) tama epatsh.
_man_ (_vir_) uami ----
_woman_ wuctu seenyack.
---- wakoe sinyax.
---- huagin seen.
_child_ whanu hailpit.
---- wakna ----
_father_ iham lothmocul.
---- kakka niquioche.
---- keneda nile.
---- kanamba ----
_mother_ nada tile.
_son_ uisaiham homaie.
_sister_ kenassa amyuck.
_head_ agoppi estar.
_eye_ aribika ayon.
_tongue_ _mabela_ _ipailya--Mohave._
_hand_ nagana sith'l
_foot_ agannapa hameelyay.
_sky_ _ambeink_ _ammaya--Mohave._
_earth_ _amet_ _omut--Cuchan._
---- ---- _ammartar--Mohave._
_water_ _kahal_ _aha--Dieguno._
---- ---- _ahha--Mohave._
_fire_ _usi_ _house--Cocomaricopa._
_sun_ ibo nyatz.
_day_ ibo nomasup.
_moon_ gomma hullya.
---- ganehmajeie ----

_The Pima group._--One of Mr. Bartlett's vocabularies is of the Opata
form of speech. (_Ludwig._)

_Tequima_, according to the same authority is another name for the same
language: in which there is a vocabulary by Natal Lombardo; Mexico.
1702, as well as an _Arte de la Lengua Tequima, vulgarmente llamada
Opata_.

A _Vocabulario de las Lenguas Pima, Eudeve, y Seris_ is said, by De
Souza, to have been written by Fr. Adamo Gilo a Jesuit missionary in
California.--DITTO--_v._ PIMA.

Exceptions, which the present writer overlooked, are taken in the
Mithridates to the statement that the Opata and Eudeve Pater-nosters
represent the Pima Proper. They agree with a third language from the
Pima country--but this is not, necessarily, the Pima. Hence, what
applies to the _Pimerian_ may or may not apply to the Pima Proper.

Nevertheless, the Pima belongs to the same class--being, apparently,
more especially akin to the Tarahumara. I have only before me the
following Tarahumara words (_i. e._ the specimens in the Mithridates)
through which the comparison can be made. They give, however, thus much
in way of likeness and difference.

ENGLISH. TARAHUMARA. PIMA.

_man_ rehoje orter.
---- tehoje cheeort.
---- ---- huth.
_woman_ muki oo-oove.
---- ---- hahri.
_wife_ _upi_ _oo-if._
_head_ _moóla_ _mouk._
_eye_ pusiki oupewe.
_tongue_ tenila neuen.
_hair_ quitshila moh.
---- ---- ptmuk.
_foot_ tala tetaght.
_fire_ naiki tahi.
_sun_ _taiea_ _tahs._
---- ---- _tasch._
_moon_ _maitsaca_ _mahsa._
---- ---- _massar._
_I_ nepe ahan.
_two_ _guoca_ _coka._
---- _oca_ _kuak._

Buschmann connects the Pima with the Tepeguana.

Another complication.--In Turner's Extract from a MS. account of the
Indians of the Northern Provinces of New Spain I find that Opa (Opata?)
is another name for the Cocomaricopas _whose language is that of the
Yuma_. This is true enough--but is the Opata more Yuma than the text
(which connects it with the Hiaqui &c.) makes it?

_The Pima, Hiaqui, Tubar, Tarahumara, and Cora as a class._--An
exception to the text is indicated by the footnote of page 357. The
Mithridates connects the Cora and Tarahumara with the Astek and with
each other. The Astek elements of the Hiaqui, as indicated by Ribas are
especially alluded to. So are the Tarahumara affinities of the Opata.
All this is doing as much in the way of classification as is done by
the present author--as much or more.

As much, or more, too is done by Buschmann; who out of the Cora,
Tarahumara, Tepeguana and Cahita (the latter a representation
of the section to which the Yaqui belongs) makes his _Sonora
Class--Sonorischer Sprachstamm_. As a somewhat abnormal member of this
he admits the Pima.

Of the Guazave there is a MS. _Arte_ by P. Fernando Villapane--_Ludwig_.

That the _data_ for the Tepeguana are better than the text makes them
has already been suggested. Buschmann has used materials unknown to the
present writer.

See Ludwig _in voc. Tepeguana_.

_Pirinda and Tarasca._--The statement that there is a Pirinda grammar
is inaccurate. There is one of the Tarasca; to which the reader is
referred.

But this is not all. Under the title PIRINDA in Ludwig we find that
De Souza says of Fr. Juan Bravo, the author of a grammar of the
Lengua Tarasca "_fue maestro peritissimo de la lengua Pirinda llamada
Tarasca_." This makes the two languages much more alike than the
present paper makes them. The present paper, however, rests on the
Pater-nosters. How inconclusive they are has already been indicated.

¶ The following table, the result of a very limited collation gives
some miscellaneous affinities for the Otomi.

_English_ man.
Otomi _nanyehe._
Maya &c. _uinic._
Paduca _wensh._

_English_ woman.
Otomi _danxu._
Maya _atan = wife._

_English_ woman.
Otomi _nsu._
Talatui _essee._

_English_ hand.
Otomi _ye._
Talatui _iku._

_English_ foot.
Otomi _qua._
Maya &c. _oc._

_English_ blood.
Otomi _qhi._
Maya &c. _kik._

_English_ hair.
Otomi _si._
S. Miguel _te-asa-kho._

_English_ ear.
Otomi _gu._
S. Miguel _tent-khi-to._

_English_ tooth.
Otomi _tsi._
Attacapa _ods_.

_English_ head.
Otomi _na._
Sekumne _ono = hair._

_English_ fire.
Otomi _tzibi._
Pujune _ça._

_English_ moon.
Otomi _tzona._
Kenay _ssin = star._

_English_ stone.
Otomi _do._
Cumanch _too-mepee._

_English_ winter.
Otomi _tzaa._
Cumanch _otsa-inte._
S. Gabriel _otso._

_English_ fish.
Otomi _hua._
Maya &c. _cay._

_English_ bird.
Otomi _ttzintzy._
Maya &c. _tchitch._

_English_ egg.
Otomi _mado._
Poconchi _molo._

_English_ lake.
Otomi _mohe._
Pima _vo._

_English_ sea.
Otomi _munthe._
U. Sac. &c. _muni = water._

_English_ son.
Otomi _tsi._
---- _ti._
---- _batsi._
---- _iso._
Natchez _tsitsce = child._

_English_ meat.
Otomi _nhihuni._
---- _ngoe = flesh._
Mexican _nacatl = flesh._

_English_ eat.
Otomi _tsa._
Talatui _tsamak._

_English_ good.
Otomi _manho._
Sekumne _wenne._

_English_ rabbit.
Otomi _qhua._
Huasteca _coy._

_English_ snake.
Otomi _qqena._
Maya _can._

_English_ yes.
Otomi _ha._
Cumanch _haa._

_English_ three.
Otomi _hiu._
Mexican _yey._
Huasteca _okh._

The other two are as follows.

(2.)

_The Otomi with the languages akin to the Chinese en masse._

_English_ man.
Otomi _nanyche._
Kuanchua _nan._
Canton _nam._
Tonkin _nam._

_English_ woman.
Otomi _nitsu._
---- _nsu._
Kuanchua _niu._
Canton _niu._
Tonkin _nu._

_English_ son.
Otomi _batsi._
---- _iso._
Kuanchua _dsu._
Canton _dzi._
Mian _sa._
Maplu _possa._
Play _aposo._
---- _naputhœ._
Passuko _posaho._

_English_ hand.
Otomi _ye._
Siuanlo _he._
Cochin China _ua = arm._

_English_ foot.
Otomi _gua._
Pey _ha = leg._
Pape _ha, ho = do._
Kuanchua _kio._
Canton _koh._
Moitay _kcho._

_English_ bird.
Otomi _ttzintey._
Maya _chechetch._
Tonkin _tcheni._
Cochin China _tching._

_English_ sun.
Otomi _hiadi._
Canton _yat._

_English_ moon.
Otomi _rzana._
Siuanlo _dzan._
Teina _son._

_English_ star.
Otomi _tze._
Tonkin _sao._
Cochin China _sao._
Maplu _shia._
Play _shâ._
---- _sha._
Passuko _za._
Colaun _assa._

_English_ water.
Otomi _dehe._
Tibet _tchi._
Mian _zhe._
Maplu _ti._
Colaun _tui._

_English_ stone.
Otomi _do._
Cochin China _ta._
Tibet _rto._

_English_ rain.
Otomi _ye._
Chuanchua _yu._
Canton _yu._
Colaun _yu._

_English_ fish.
Otomi _hua._
Chuanchua _yu._
Canton _yu._
Tonkin _ka._
Cochin China _ka._
Play _ya._
Moan _ka._

_English_ good.
Otomi _manho._
Teilung _wanu._

_English_ bad.
Otomi _hing._
---- _hio._
Chuanchua _o._
Tonkin _hu._
Play _gyia._

_English_ great.
Otomi _nah._
---- _nde._
---- _nohoc._
Chinese _ta, da._
Anam _dai._
Play _do, uddo._
Pey _nio._

_English_ small.
Otomi _ttygi._
Passuko _tcheka._

_English_ eat.
Otomi _tze tza._
Chinese _shi._
Tibet _shie._
Mian _tsha._
Myamma _sa._

_English_ sleep.
Otomi _aha._
Chuanchua _wo, uo._

(2.)

_The Maya, with the languages akin to the Chinese en masse._

_English_ son.
Maya _lakpal._
---- _palal = children._
Myamma _lugala._
Teilung _lukwun._

_English_ head.
Maya _pol, hool._
Kalaun _mollu._

_English_ mouth.
Maya _chi._
Chuanchua _keu._
Canton _hou._
Tonkin _kau._
Cochin China _kau._
Tibet _ka._

_English_ hand.
Maya _cab._
Huasteca _cubac._
Maplu _tchoobah = arm._
Play _tchoobah = do._
Passuko _tchoobawh = do._

_English_ foot.
Maya _uoc, oc._
Chuanchua _kio._
Canton _kon._
Moitay _cho._

_English_ sun.
Maya _kin._
Colaun _koni._
Moan _knua._
Teiya _kawan._
Teilung _kangun._
Pey _kanguan._

_English_ moon.
Maya _u._
Chuanchua _yue._

_English_ star.
Maya _ek._
Mean _kie._
Miamma _kyi._

_English_ water.
Maya _ha._
Miamma _ya._

_English_ rain.
Maya _chaac._
Maplu _tchatchang._
Passuko _tatchu._

_English_ small.
Maya _mehen._
Tonkin _mon._

_English_ eat.
Maya _hanal._
Tonkin _an._
Play _ang._

_English_ bird.
Maya _chechitch._
Tonkin _tchim._

_English_ fish.
Maya _ca._
Tonkin _ka._

_English_ great.
Maya _noh._
Pey _nio._

_The Acoma._--Two vocabularies from a tribe from the Pueblo of San
Domingo, calling themselves Kiwomi, and a third of the Cochitemi
dialect, collected by Whipple, are compared, by Turner, with the Acoma,
of which they are dialects. Turner proposes the names Keres for the
group. Buschmann, writing after him, says, "I name this form of speech
_Quera_"--"_ich nenne dies Idiom Quera_."

The notice of the "outward signs" is not so clear as it should be.
It means that two of the languages, the Taos and Zuni, run into
polysyllabic forms--probably (indeed almost certainly) from composition
or inflexion; whereas the Tesuque (which is placed in _contrast_ with
the Zuni) has almost a monosyllabic appearance. This phenomenon appears
elsewhere; _e. g._ in the Attacapa, as compared with the tongues of
its neighbourhood. Upon the whole, the Zuni seems to be most aberrant
of the group--saving the Moqui, which has decided Paduca affinities.
They are all, however, mutually unintelligible; though the differences
between them may easily be over-valued.

ENGLISH. ACOMA. COCHETIME. KIWOMI.

_man_ hahtratse hachthe hatshthe.
_woman_ cuhu coyoni cuyauwi.
_hair_ hahtratni ---- hatre.
_head_ nushkaine ---- nashke.
_face_ howawinni ---- skeeowa.
_eye_ hoonaine ---- shanna.
_nose_ ouisuine ---- wieshin.
_mouth_ ouicani ---- chiaca.
_tongue_ watchhuntni ---- watshin.
_one_ ---- ishka isk.
_two_ ---- kuomi 'tuomi.
_three_ ---- chami tshabi.
_four_ ---- kiana kiana.
_five_ ---- tama taoma.
_six_ ---- chisa chisth.
_seven_ ---- maicana maichana.
_eight_ ---- cocomishia cocumshi.
_nine_ ---- maeco maieco.
_ten_ ---- 'tkatz cahtz.

_Texas._--_p._ 101.--"Ini and Tachi are expressly stated to be Caddo,
&c. as it is from the name of the last that the word _Texas_ is derived
&c."--The name _Teguas_ is a name (other than native) of the population
which calls itself Kiwomi. Word for word, this may (or may not) be
Taos. It is only necessary to remember the complication here indicated.
The exact tribe which gave the name to Texas has yet to be determined.

_The Witshita._--Allied to one another the Kechis and Wacos (Huecos)
are, also, allied to the Witshita.--_See Turner, p. 68._

ENGLISH. KICHAI. HUECO.

_man_ caiuquanoquts todekitz.
_woman_ chequoike cahheie.
_head_ quitatso atskiestacat.
_hair_ itscoso ishkesteatz.
_face_ itscot ichcoh.
_ear_ atikoroso ortz.
_eye_ quideeco kidik.
_nose_ chuscarao tisk.
_mouth_ hokinnik ahcok.
_tongue_ hahtok hotz.
_tooth_ athnesho ahtk.
_hand_ ichshene ishk'ti.
_foot_ usinic os.
_fire_ yecenieto hatz.
_water_ kiokoh kitsah.
_one_ arishco cheos.
_two_ chosho witz.
_three_ tahwithco tow.
_four_ kithnucote tahquitz.
_five_ xs'toweo ishquitz.
_six_ nahitow kiash.
_seven_ tsowetate kiowhitz.
_eight_ naikinukate kiatou.
_nine_ taniorokat choskitte.
_ten_ x'skani skittewas.

Turner makes these three languages Pawni. In the present text
the Witshita is made Caddo. It is made so on the strength of the
numerals--perhaps overhastily.

That a language may be Pawni without ceasing to be Caddo, and Caddo
without losing its place in the Pawni group is suggested in the
beginning of the paper. Turner's table (p. 70), short as it is,
encourages this view.

The truth is that the importance of the Caddos and Pawnis, from
an ethnological point of view, is inordinately greater than their
importance in any other respect. They are, however, but imperfectly
known.

In Gallatin's first paper--the paper of the Archæologia
Americana--there is a Caddo vocabulary and a Pawni vocabulary; and all
that be said of them is that they are a little more like each other,
than they are to the remaining specimens.

When the paper under notice was published the Riccaree was wholly
unknown. But the Riccaree, when known, was shewn to be more Pawni than
aught else. This made the Pawni a kind of nucleus for a class.

¶ Somewhat later the Caddo confederacy in Texas took prominence, and
the Caddo became a nucleus also.

The true explanation of this lies in the highly probable fact that both
the Caddo and Pawni are members of one and the same class. At the same
time I am quite prepared to find that the Witshita (though compared
with the Caddo by myself) is more particularly Pawni.

That the nearest congeners of the Caddo and Pawni class were the
members of the Iroquois, Woccoon, Cherokee, and Chocta group I
believed at an early period of my investigations; at a time (so to
say) before the Riccarees, and the Californian populations were
invented. If this doctrine were true, the Caddo (Pawni) affinities
would run eastwards. They may do this, and run westwards also. That
they run eastwards I still believe. But I have also seen Caddo and
Pawni affinities in California. The Caddo numeral _one_ = _whiste_; in
Secumne and Cushna _wikte_, _wiktem_. Again the Caddo and Kichie for
_water_ = _koko_, _kioksh_. Meanwhile kik is a true Moquelumne form.
This I get from a most cursory inspection; or rather from memory.

Upon the principle that truth comes out of error more easily than
confusion I give the following notice of the distribution or want of
distribution of the numerous Texian tribes.

1. *Coshattas--Unknown.

2. Towiach--Pawni (?).

3. Lipan--Athabaskan (?).

4. *Alish, or Eyish--Caddo (?).

5. *Acossesaw--Unknown.

6. Navaosos--Navahos (?).

7. *Mayes--Attacapa (?).

8. *Cances--Unknown.

9. Toncahuas--Are these the Tonkaways, amounting, according to Stem,
to 1152 souls? If so, a specimen of their language should be obtained.
Again--are they the Tancards? Are they the Tunicas? If so, they may
speak Choctah.

10. Tuhuktukis--Are these the Topofkis, amounting to 200 souls? If so a
specimen of their language, _eo nomine_, is attainable.

11. Unataquas, or Andarcos--They amount, according to Stem, to 202
souls. No vocabulary, _eo nomine_, known. Capable of being obtained.

12. Mascovie--Unknown.

13. Iawani or Ioni--Caddo? Amount to 113 souls. Specimen of language,
_eo nomine_, capable of being obtained.

14. Waco--Wico?--Pawni.

15. *Avoyelle--Unknown.

16. 17. Washita--Kiche--Pawni.

18. *Xaramene--Unknown.

19. *Caicache--Unknown.

20. *Bidias--Unknown.

21. Caddo--Caddo.

22. Attacapa--Attacapa.

23. Adahi--Adahi.

24. Coke--Carackahua.

25. Carankahua--Attacapa (?).

26. Towacano--Numbering 141 souls. Is this Towiach?

27. Hitchi--Kichi (?).

28. *Nandako. }
} Caddo (?).
29. *Nabadaches. }

30. *Yatassi.

31. *Natchitoches. }
}
32. *Nacogdoches. } Adahi (?).
}
33. Keyes. }

These last may belong as much to Louisiana as to Texas--as, indeed, may
some of the others. Those marked * are apparently extinct. At any rate,
they are not found in any of the recent notices.

Finally, Mr Burnett mentions the San Pedro Indians.

The previous list shews that the obliteration of the original tribes of
Texas has been very great. It shews us this at the first view. But a
little reflection tells us something more.

Like Kanzas and Nebraska, Texas seems to have scarcely any language
that is peculiar to itself; in this respect standing in strong contrast
to California. The Caddo belongs to the frontier. The Pawni forms of
speech occur elsewhere. The Adahi is probably as much the property of
Louisiana as of Texas. The Cumanch, Chocta &c. are decidedly intrusive.
The nearest approach to a true Texian form of speech is the Attacapa.
No wonder it is isolated.

The Adahi, is has, at least the following affinities.

_English_ man.
Adahi _haasing_.
Otto _wahsheegae_.
Onondago _etschinak_.
Abenaki _seenanbe_ = _vir_.
Abenaki _arenanbe_ = _homo_.

_English_ woman.
Adahi _quaechuke_.
Muskoge _hoktie_.
Choctah _hottokohyo_.
Osage _wako_.
Sack and Fox _kwyokih_.
Ilinois _ickoe_.
Nanticoke _aequahique_.
Delaware _okhqueh_.
Algonkin. &c. _squaw_.
Taculli _chaca_.

_English_ girl.
Adahi _quoâtwistuck_.
Chikkasaw _take_.
Choctah _villa tak_.
Caddo _nuttaitesseh_.
Oneida _caidazai_.
Micmac _epidek_.

_English_ child.
Adahi _tallahening_.
Adahi _tallahache_ = _boy_.
Omahaw _shinga shinga_.
Otto _cheechinga_.
Quappa _shetyïnka_.

_English_ father.
Adahi _kewanick_.
Chetimacha _kineghie_.
Chikkasaw _unky_.
Choctah _aunkke_.

_English_ mother.
Adahi _amanic_.
Caddo _ehneh_.
Sioux _enah_, _eehong_.
Tuscarora _ena_.
Wyandot _aneheh_.
Kency _anna_.
Eskimo _amama_.

_English_ husband.
Adahi _hasekino_.
Chetimacha _hichehase_.
Winebago _eekunah_.
Taculli _eki_.
Tchuktchi _uika_.

_English_ wife.
Adahi _quochekinok_.
Adahi _quaechuke_ = _woman_.
Tuscarora _ekening_ = _do_.
Cherokee _ageyung_ = _woman_.
Chetimacha _hichekithia_.
Chetimacha _hichehase_ = _man_.

_English_ son.
Adahi _tallehennie_.
Caddo _hininshatrseh_.
Omahaw _eeingyai_.
Minetare _eejinggai_.
Winebago _eeneek_.
Oneida _yung_.

_English_ brother.
Adahi _gasing_.
Salish _asintzah_
Ottawa _sayin_ = _elder_.
Ojibbeway _osy aiema_.

_English_ head.
Adahi _tochake_.
Caddo _dachunkea_ = _face_.
Caddo _dokundsa_.

_English_ hair.
Adahi _calatuck_.
Chippewyan _thiegah_.
Kenay _szugo_.
Miami _keelingeh_ = _face_.

_English_ face.
Adahi _annack_.
Chetimacha _kaneketa_.
Attacapa _iune_.
Eskimo _keniak_.

_English_ ear.
Adahi _calat_.
Cherokee _gule_.
Passamaquoddy _chalksee_.

_English_ nose.
Adahi _wecoocal_.
Montaug _cochoy_.
Micmac _uchichun_.

_English_ beard.
Adahi _tosocat_.
Attacapa _taesh_ = _hair_.
Natchez _ptsasong_ = _hair_.
Chetimacha _chattie_.

_English_ arm.
Adahi _walcat_.
Taculli _olâ_.
Chippewyan _law_.

_English_ nails.
Adahi _sicksapusca_.
Catawba _ecksapeeah_ = _hand_.
Natchez _ispehse_ = _hand_.

_English_ belly.
Adahi _noeyack_.
Winebago _neehahhah_.
Eskimo _neiyuk_.

_English_ leg.
Adahi _ahasuck_ = _leg_.
Chetimacha _sauknuthe_ = _feet_.
Chetimacha _saukatie_ = _toes_.
Chetimacha _sau_ = _leg_.
Osage _sagaugh_.
Yancton _hoo_.
Otto _hoo_.
Pawnee _ashoo_ = _foot_.
Sioux _see, seehuh_ = _do_.
Nottoway _saseeke_ = _do_.
Dacota _seehukasa_ = _toes_.
Nottoway _seeke_ = _do_.

_English_ mouth.
Adahi _wacatcholak_.
Chetimacha _cha_.
Attacapa _katt_.
Caddo _dunehwatcha_.
Natchez _heche_.
Mohawk _wachsacarlunt_.
Seneca _wachsagaint_.
Sack and Fox _wektoneh_.
Mohican _otoun_.

_English_ tongue.
Adahi _tenanat_.
Chetimacha _huene_.
Uché _cootincah_.
Choctah _issoonlush_.
Knistenaux _otayenee_.
Ojibbeway _otainani_.
Ottawa _tenanian_.

_English_ hand.
Adahi _secut_.
Adahi _sicksapasca_ = _nails_.
Choctah _shukba_ = _his arm_.
Chikkasaw _shukbah_ = _do_.
Muskoge _sakpa_ = _do_.
Kenay _skona_.
Attacapa _nishagg_ = _fingers_.
Omahaw _shagai_.
Osage _shagah_.
Mohawk _shake_.
Yancton _shakai_ = _nails_.
Otto _shagai_ = _do_.

_English_ blood.
Adahi _pchack_.
Caddo _baaho_.
Passamaquoddy _pocagun_.
Abenaki _bagakkaan_.
Mohican _pocaghkan_.
Nanticoke _puckcuckque_.
Miami _nihpeekanueh_.

_English_ red.
Adahi _pechasat_.
Natchez _pahkop_.

_English_ feet.
Adahi _nocat_.
Micmac _ukkuat_.
Miami _katah_.
Taculli _oca_.
Chippewyan _cuh_.
Ilinois _nickahta_ = _leg_.
Delaware _wikhaat_ = _do_.
Massachusetts _muhkout_ = _do_.
Ojibbeway _okat_ = _do_.

_English_ bone.
Adahi _wahacut_.
Otto _wahoo_.
Yancton _hoo_.
Dacota _hoohoo_.
Ojibbeway _okun_.
Miami _kaanih_.
Eskimo _heownik_.
Eskimo _oaecyak_.

_English_ house.
Adahi _coochut_.
Nachez _hahit_.
Muskoge _chookgaw_.
Choctah _chukka_.
Catawba _sook_.
Taculli _yock_.

_English_ bread.
Adahi _okhapin_.
Chetimacha _heichepat chepa_.

_English_ sky.
Adahi _ganick_.
Seneca _kiunyage_.

_English_ summer.
Adahi _weetsuck_.
Uché _waitee_.

_English_ fire.
Adahi _nang_.
Caddo _nako_.
Eskimo _ignuck_.
Eskimo _eknok_.
Eskimo _annak_.

_English_ mountain.
Adahi _tolola_.
Taculli _chell_.

_English_ stone, rock.
Adahi _ekseka_.
Caddo _seeeeko_.
Nachez _ohk_.

_English_ maize.
Adahi _ocasuck_.
Nachez _hokko_.

_English_ day.
Adahi _nestach_.
Muskoge _nittah_.
Chikkasaw _nittuck_.
Choctah _nittok_.

_English_ autumn.
Adahi _hustalneetsuck_.
Choctah _hushtolape_.
Chikkasaw _hustillomona_.
Chikkasaw _hustola_ = _winter_.

_English_ bird.
Adahi _washang_.
Choctah _hushe_.
Sack and Fox _wishkamon_.
Shawnoe _wiskiluthi_.

_English_ goose.
Adahi _nickkuicka_.
Chetimacha _napiche_.
Ilinois _nicak_.
Ojibbeway _nickak_.
Delaware _kaak_.
Shawnoe _neeake_.

_English_ duck.
Adahi _ahuck_.
Eskimo _ewuck_.

_English_ fish.
Adahi _aesut_.
Cherokee _atsatih_.

_English_ tree.
Adahi _tanack_.
Dacota _tschang_.
Ilinois _toauane_.
Miami _tauaneh_ = _wood_.

_English_ grass.
Adahi _hasack_.
Chikkasaw _hasook_.
Choctah _hushehuck_.
Uché _yahsuh_ = _leaf_.
Chikkasaw _hishe_ = _do_.

_English_ deer.
Adahi _wakhine_.
Uché _wayung_.

_English_ squirrel.
Adahi _enack_.
Sack and Fox _aneekwah_.
Nanticoke _nowekkey_.
Abenaki _anikesses_.
Knistenaux _annickochas_.

_English_ old.
Adahi _hansnaie_.
Caddo _hunaisteteh_.
Nottoway _onahahe_.

_English_ good.
Adahi _awiste_.
Dacota _haywashta_.
Yancton _washtai_.

_English_ I.
Adahi _nassicon_.
Cherokee _naski_.

_English_ kill.
Adahi _yoeick_.
Caddo _yokay_.
Catawba _eekway_.

_English_ two.
Adahi _nass_.
Algonkin, &c. _nis_, _ness_, _nees_.

_Mexico-Guatemala._--The details of the languages of Mexico and
Guatemala that are neither Mexican Proper (Astek) or Maya are
difficult. Availing myself of the information afforded by my friend Mr.
Squier, and the bibliographical learning of Ludwig, I am inclined to
believe

1. That all the following forms of speech are Maya; viz. Chiapa,
Tzendal (Celdal), Chorti, Mam, Pocoman (Poconchi), Populuca, Quiche,
Kachiquel, Zutugil (Yutukil), Huasteca.

2. That the Zoque, Utlateca, and Lacondona may or may not be Maya.

3. That the Totanaca; and

4. The Mixteca are other than Maya.

5. That, if the statement of Hervas be correct, the Zapoteca, the
Mazateca, the Chinansteca, and the Mixe are in the same category.

The Tlapaneka according to Humboldt is a peculiar language.--_Ludwig in
voc._

I have done, however, little or nothing, in the way of first hand work
with the languages to the South of Sinaloa and the West of Texas. I
therefore leave them--leave them with a reference to Ludwig's valuable
Bibliotheca Glottica, for a correction of my statement respecting the
non-existence of any Indian forms of speech in New Grenada. The notices
under _v. v._ ANDAQUIES, COCONUCOS, CORREQUAJES, GUAQUES, INGANOS,
will shew that this is far from being the case.

The present paper has gone over so large a portion of North America
that it is a pity not to go over the remainder. The ethnology of the
Canada, and the British possessions akin to Canada contains little
which is neither Eskimo or Algonkin, Iroquois or Athabaskan. Of new
forms of speech like those of which Oregon and California have given
so many instances it exhibits none. Everything belongs to one of the
four above-named classes. The Bethuck of Newfoundland was Algonkin,
and so were the Blackfoot, the Shyenne and Arrapaho. Indeed, as has
been already stated, the Eskimo and Athabaskan stretch across the
Continent. The Blackfoot touches the Rocky Mountains. Of the Sioux
class the British possessions shew a sample. The Red River district is
Assineboin; the Assineboins being Sioux. So are a few other British
tribes.

Upon the whole, however, five well-known families give us all that
belong to British America to the East of the Rocky Mountains. As the
present paper is less upon the Algonkin, Sioux and like classes than
upon the distribution of languages over the different areas of North
America this is as much as need be said upon the subject.

For the Northern two-thirds of the United States, _East of the
Mississippi_, the same rule applies. The Sioux area begins in the
West. The Algonkin class, of which the most Northern branch belongs to
Labrador, where it is conterminous with the Eskimo, and which on the
west contains the Blackfoot reaches as far south as South Carolina--the
Nottoways being Algonkin. The enormous extent of this area has been
sufficiently enlarged on. Meanwhile, like islands in an Ocean, two
Iroquois district shew themselves. To the north the Iroquois, Hurons
and others touch the Lakes and the Canadians frontier, entirely
separated from the Tuscaroras who give a separate and isolated area
in California. Whether the Iroquois area, once continuous, has been
broken-up by Algonkin encroachments, or whether the Iroquois &c. have
been projected into the Algonkin area from the South, or, whether _vice
versa_, the Tuscaroras are to be considered as offsets from the North
is a matter for investigation. The present writer believes that south
of N. L. 45. (there or there about) the Algonkins are intrusive.

N. L. 35. cuts the Cherokee, the Woccoon, the Catawba, and the Chocta
area--to the west of which lies of the Mississippi.

Between the frontier of Texas, the aforesaid parallel, and the Ocean we
have Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana.

Now here the displacement has been considerable. The part played by the
Algonkins, Iroquois, and (it may be added) the Sioux is here played
by the Cherokees, the Choctahs, and the Creeks. Whatever is other than
Creek, Choctah, and Cherokee is in a fragmentary form. The details of
what we know through vocabularies are as follows:--

1. _The Woccon_--extinct, and allied to----

2. _The Catawba_--also extinct. These belonged to the Carolinas. The
Woccon and Catawba vocabularies are mentioned in the Mithridates.

3. _The Tinqua_--see Ludwig.

4. _The Timuacuana_--see p. 377.

5. _The Uche_--of this we find a specimen in the Archæologia Americana.
The tribe belongs to the Creek confederacy and must be in a very
fragmentary state.

6. _The Natchez_--on the Mississippi, facing the Caddos, Adahi.

7. _The Chetimacha._--In Louisiana. Vocabulary in _Archæologia
Americana_.

In the way of internal evidence (_i.e._ the evidence of specimens of
language) this is all we have what may be called the _fragmentary_
languages of the South Eastern portion of the United States. Of the
Choctah, Creek, Chikkasah, and Cherokee we have an abundance, just as
we have of the Algonkin and Eskimo. It is, however, the fragmentary
tribes, the probable representatives of the aboriginal population,
which we more especially seek.

As may be expected the fragmentary languages are (comparatively
speaking) isolated. The Woccon and Catawba, indeed, are thrown into
the same class in the Mithridates: but the Natchez and Uche are, by no
means, closely akin. Why should they be? Such transitional forms as
may once have existed have been obliterated. Nevertheless, both have
miscellaneous affinities.

So much for the languages represented by specimens. In the way of
external evidence I go no further than the Mithridates, and the
Archæologia.

With the exception of the Woccons the Catawba and a few words from the
Timuacana, the Mithridates, gives no specimens--save and except those
of the Choctah, Cherokees, and Chikkasah. These two last it looks upon
as the representative languages and calls them _Mobilian_ from Mobile.
Hence, the question which was put in Texas is, _mutatis mutandis_, put
in Florida. What languages are Mobilian? What other than Mobilian?

The Woccons are either only or chiefly known through a work of
Lawson's. They were conterminous with the Algonkin Pamticoughs
(intrusive?), and the Cherokees.

The Catawba lay to the south of the Woccon. Their congeners are said to
be

1. The Wataree;

2. The Eeno--Compare this name with the Texian Ini;

3. The Chowah, or Chowan;

4. The Congaree;

5. The Nachee--Compare with Natchez; word for word;

6. The Yamassee;

7. The Coosah--Compare (word for word) Coosada, and Coshatta.

In the South lay the Timuacana--of which a few words beyond the
numerals are given.

In West Florida and Alabama, the evidence (I still follow the
Mithridates) of Dr. Pratz scarcely coincides with that of the account
of Alvaz Nuñez de Vaca. This runs thus.

In the island of Malhado were spoken languages of

1. The Caoques;
2. The Han.

On the coast--

3. The Choruico--Cherokee?
4. The Doguenes.
5. The Mendica.
6. The Quevenes.
7. The Mariames.
8. The Gualciones.
9. The Yguaces.
10. The Atayos--Adahi? This seems to have been a native name--"_die
sich Atayos nennen_."
11. The Acubadaos.
12. The Quitoles.
13. The Avavares--Avoyelles?
14. The Muliacone.
15. The Cutalchiche.
16. The Susola.
17. The Como.
18. The Camole.

Of migrants from the East to the West side of the Mississippi, the
Mithridates gives--

1. The Pacana, conterminous with the Attacapas.
2. The Pascagula.
3. The Biluxi.
4. The Appalache.

The Taensa are stated to be a branch of the Natchez.

The Caouitas are, perhaps, word for word the Conchattas; also the
Coosa, Coosada, Coshatta.

The _Stincards_ are, word for word, the Tancards = _Tuncas_ = _Tunicas_.

Dr. Sibley gives us _Chetimacha_ as a name; along with specimens of
the Chetimacha, Uche, Natchez, Adahi, and Attacapa as languages.

Word for word, _Chetimacha_ seems to _Checimeca_; _Appelusa_,
_Apalach_; _Biluxi_ (perhaps the same); _Pascagoula_, _Muscogulge_.
How, however, did _Chichimeca_ get so far westwards?

We are scarcely, in the condition to speculate much concerning
details of the kind. It is sufficient to repeat the notice that
the native languages of the parts in question are in a fragmentary
condition; the Uche being the chief representative of them. Whether
it were _Savaneric_[49], or not, is uncertain. It is, certainly,
_not_ Shawanno, or Shawno, _i. e._ Algonkin. On the contrary it is,
as is to be expected, from the encroachments and displacements of
its neighbourhood a very isolated language--not, however without
miscellaneous affinities--_inter alia_ the following.

[Footnote 49: More languages than one are thus named. See _p._ 375 for
a Savaneric in Veragua.]

_English_ sky.
Uche _haipoung_.
Chiccasaw _abbah_.
Catawba _wahpeeh_.

_English_ day.
Uche _uckkah_.
Attacapa _iggl_.
Cherokee _ikah_.
Muskoje _hiyiaguy_ = _light_.
Cherokee _egah_ = _do_.
Catawba _heakuh_ = _do_.
Delaware _wakheu_ = _do_.
Narrag _wequai_ = _do_.
Mapach _do_ = _do_.

_English_ summer.
Uche _waitee_.
Adaize _weetsuck_.

_English_ winter.
Uche _wishtuh_.
Natchez _kwishitsetakop_.
Chiccasaw _hustolah_.
Seneca _oushat_.

_English_ wind.
Uche _ahwitauh_.
Caddo _houeto_.
Muskoje _hotalleye_.

_English_ rain.
Uche _chaah_.
Chetimacha _kaya_.
Attacapa _caucau_.
Caddo _cawiohe_.

_English_ river.
Uche _tauh_.
Salish _saiulk_.
Catawba _eesauh_.

_English_ tree.
Uche _yah_.
Caddo _yako_.
Attacapa _kagg_.
Catawba _yup_.
Quappa _yon_.
Esquimaux _keiyu_ = _wood_.
Yancton _cha_ = _wood_.
Catawba _yay_ = _oak_.

_English_ leaf.
Uche _yahsuh_.
Muskoghe _ittohise_ = _hair of tree_ = _itta tree_.
Chiccasaw _hoshsha_.
Choctah _itte hishe_.

_English_ deer.
Uche _wayung_.
Adahi _wakhine_.
Cherokee _ahwhih_.

_English_ bear.
Uche _ptsaka_.
Natchez _tsokohp_.

_English_ bird.
Uche _psenna_.
Caddo _bunnit_.
Tuscar _tcheenuh_.
Ilinois _pineusen_.
Ottawa _bennaisewug_.
Ojibbwa _pinaisi_.

_English_ fish.
Uche _potshoo_.
Caddo _batta_.
Minetari _boa_.

Such our sketch of the details. They give us more affinities than the
current statements concerning the _glossarial_ differences between
the languages of the New World suggest. It is also to be added that
they scarcely confirm the equally common doctrine respecting their
_grammatical_ likeness. Doing this, they encourage criticism, and
invite research.

There is a considerable amount of affinity: but it is often of
that miscellaneous character which baffles rather than promotes
classification.

There is a considerable amount of affinity; but it does not, always,
shew itself on the surface. I will give an instance.

One of the first series of words to which philologues who have only
vocabularies to deal with have recourse, contains the numerals;
which are, in many cases, the first of words that the philological
collector makes it his business to bring home with him from rude
countries. So generally is this case that it may safely be said that
if we are without the numerals of a language we are, in nine cases
out of ten, without any sample at all of it. Their value as samples
for philological purposes has been noticed in more than one paper of
the present writer's here and elsewhere; their value in the way of
materials for a history of Arithmetic being evident--evidently high.

But the ordinary way in which the comparisons are made between the
numerals gives us, very often, little or nothing but broad differences
and strong contrasts. Take for instance the following tables.

ENGLISH. ESKIMO. ALEUTIAN. KAMSKADALE.

_one_ atamek attakon kemmis.
_two_ malgok alluk nittanu.
_three_ pinajut kankun tshushquat.
_four_ istamat thitshin tshashcha.
_five_ tatlimat sshang koomdas.

No wonder that the tongues thus represented seem unlike.

But let us go farther--in the first place remembering that, in most
cases, it is only as far as _five_ that the ruder languages have
distinct numerals; in other words that from _six_ onwards they count
upon the same principle as _we_ do after ten, _i. e._ they join
together some two, or more, of the previous numerals; even as we, by
adding _seven_ and _ten_, make _seven-teen_. The exact details, of
course, differ; the general principle, however, is the same viz.: that
after _five_ the numerals become, more or less, compound, just as, with
us, they become so after _ten_.

With this preliminary observation let us ask what will be the
Kamskadale for _seven_ when _nittanu_ = _two_, and _kumdas_ = _five_.
The answer is either _nittanu-kumdas_ or _kumdas-nittanu_. But
the Kamskadale happens to have a separate word for _six_, viz.
_kiekoas_. What then? The word for _seven_ may be one of two things:
it may be either = 6 + 1, or 5 + 2. The former being the case,
and _kemmis_ = _one_, the Kamskadale for _seven_ should be either
_kemmis-kilkoas_ or _kilkoas-kemmis_. But it is neither one nor the
other. It is _ittakh-tenu_. Now as _eight_ = _tshok-tenu_ we know this
word to be compound. But what are its elements? We fail to find
them amongst the simpler words expressive of _one_, _two_, _three_,
_four_, _five_. We fail to find them amongst these if we look to the
Kamskadale only--not, however, if we go farther. The Aleutian for
_one_ = _attak-on_; the Aleutian for _six_ = _attu-on_. And what might be
the Aleutian for _seven_? Even _attakh-attun_, little more than _ittakh
tenu_ in a broader form.

The Jukahiri gives a similar phenomenon.

Such is the notice of the care with which certain comparisons should be
made before we venture to commit ourselves to negative statements.

There is an affinity amongst the American languages, and (there being
this) there are also the elements of a classification. The majority,
however, of the American languages must be classified according to
_types_ rather than _definitions_. Upon the nature of this difference,
as well as upon the cause I have written more fully elsewhere. It is
sufficient for present purposes to say that it applies to the languages
of North America in general, and (of these) to those of the parts
beyond the Rocky Mountains more especially. Eskimo characteristics
appear in the Athabaskan, Athabaskan in the Koluch forms of speech.
From these the Haidah leads to the Chimmesyan (which is, nevertheless,
a very outlying form of speech) and the Hailtsa, akin to the
Billechula, which, itself, leads to the Atna. By slightly raising the
value of the class we bring in the Kutani, the Nutkan and the Chinuk.

In the Chinuk neighbourhood we move _via_ the Jakon, Kalapuya,
Sahaptin, Shoshoni, and Lutuami to the languages of California and the
Pueblos; and thence southwards.

In American languages simple comparison does but little. We may test
this in two ways. We may place, side by side, two languages known to be
undoubtedly, but also known to be not very closely, allied. Such, for
instance, are the German and Greek, the Latin and Russian, the English
and Lithuanic, all of which are Indo-European, and all of which, when
placed in simple juxta-position, by no means show themselves in any
very palpable manner as such. This may be seen from the following
table, which is far from being the first which the present writer has
compiled; and that with the special view of ascertaining by induction
(and not _a priori_) the value of comparisons of the kind in question.

ENGLISH. LATIN. CAYUSE. WILLAMET.

man homo yúant atshánggo.
woman mulier pintkhlkaiu pummaike.
father _pater_ píntet sima.
mother _mater_ penín sinni.
son filius wái tawakhai.
daughter filia wái tshitapinna.
head _caput_ talsh tamutkhl.
hair crinis tkhlokomot amutkhl.
ear _auris_ taksh pokta.
eye _oculus_ hăkamush kwalakkh.
nose _nasus_ pitkhloken unan.
mouth os sumkhaksh mandi.
tongue _lingua_ push mamtshutkhl.
tooth _dens_ tenif púti.
hand manus epip tlakwa.
fingers digiti épip alakwa.
feet _pedes_ tish puüf.
blood sanguis tiweush méëuu.
house domus nisht hammeih (--fire).
axe securis yengthokinsh khueshtan.
knife culter shekt hekemistāh.
shoes calcei taitkhlo ulumóf.
sky cœlum adjalawaia amiank.
sun _sol_ huewish ampiun.
moon _luna_ katkhltóp utap.
star _stella_ tkhlikhlish atuininank.
day _dies_ eweiu umpium.
night _nox_ ftalp atitshikim.
fire ignis tetsh hamméih.
water aqua iskkainish mampuka.
rain pluvia tishtkitkhlmiting ukwíï.
snow _nix_ poi nukpeik.
earth terra lingsh hunkhalop.
river _rivus_ lushmi mantsal.
stone lapis ápit andi.
tree arbor lauik huntawatkhl.
meat caro pithuli umhók.
dog canis náapang mantal.
beaver castor pieka akaipi.
bear ursa limeaksh alotufan.
bird avis tianiyiwa pōkalfuna.
great magnus yaúmua pul.
cold frigidus shunga pángkafiti.
white albus tkhlaktkhláko kommóu.
black niger shkupshkúpu maieum.
red ruber lakaitlakaitu tshal.
I _ego_ ining tshii.
thou _tu_ niki máha.
he ille nip kak.
one _unus_ na wáän.
two _duo_ leplin kéën.
three _tres_ matnin upshin.
four _quatuor_ piping táope.
five _quinque_ táwit húwan.
six _sex_ nóiná taf.
seven _septem_ nóilip pshinimua.
eight _octo_ nōimát kēëmúa.
nine _novem_ tanáuiaishimshin wanwaha.
ten _decem_ ningitelp tínifia.

Again--the process may be modified by taking two languages known to be
_closely_ allied, and asking how far a _simple_ comparison of their
vocabularies exhibits that alliance on the surface, _e. g._:--

ENGLISH. BEAVER INDIAN. CHIPPEWYAN.

one it la day ittla hē.
two onk shay day nank hay.
three ta day ta he.
four dini day dunk he.
five tlat zoon e de ay sa soot la he.
six int zud ha l'goot ha hé.
seven ta e wayt zay tluz ud dunk he.
eight etzud een tay l'goot dung he.
nine kala gay ne ad ay itla ud ha.
ten kay nay day hona.
a man taz eu dinnay you.
a woman iay quay tzay quay.
a girl id az oo ed dinna gay.
a boy taz yuz é dinnay yoo azay.
interpreter nao day ay dinnay tee ghaltay.
trader meeoo tay ma kad ray.
moose-deer tlay tchin tay tunnehee hee.
rein-deer may tzee ed hun.
beaver tza tza.
dog tlee tlee.
rabbit kagh kagh.
bear zus zus.
wolf tshee o nay noo nee yay.
fox e yay thay nag hee dthay.

The difference is great: but the two forms of speech are mutually
intelligible. On the other hand, the Cayuse and Willamet are more alike
than the English and Latin.

Next to the details of our method, and the principles of our
classification, the more important of the special questions command
attention. Upon the relations of the Eskimo to the other languages of
America I have long ago expressed my opinion. I now add the following
remarks upon the prevalence of the doctrine which separated them.

Let us imagine an American or British ethnologist speculating on the
origin and unity of the European populations and arriving, in the
course of his investigations, at Finmark, or any of those northern
parts of Scandinavia where the Norwegian and Laplander come in
immediate geographical contact. What would be first? Even this--close
geographical contact accompanied by a remarkable contrast in the way
of the ethnology: difference in habits, difference in aptitudes,
difference in civilisation, difference of creed, difference of physical
form, difference of language.

But the different manner in which the southern tribes of Lapland
comport themselves in respect to their nearest neighbours, according as
they lie west or east, illustrates this view. On the side of Norway few
contrasts are more definite and striking than that between the nomad
Lap with his reindeer, and reindeer-skin habiliments and the industrial
and highly civilized Norwegian. No similarity of habits is here; no
affinity of language; little on intermixture, in the way of marriage.
Their physical frames are as different as their moral dispositions no
and social habits. Nor is this difficult to explain. The Norwegian is
not only a member of another stock, but his original home was in a
southern, or comparatively southern, climate. It was Germany rather
Scandinavia; for Scandinavia was, originally, exclusively Lap or Fin.
But the German family encroached northwards; and by displacement after
displacement obliterated those members of the Lap stock whose occupancy
was Southern and Central Scandinavia, until nothing was left but
its extreme northern representatives in the most northern and least
favored parts of the peninsula. By these means two strongly contrasted
populations were brought in close geographical contact--this being the
present condition all along the South Eastern, or Norwegian, boundary
of Lapland.

But it is by no means the present condition of those parts of Russian
Lapland where the Lap population touches that of Finland Proper.

Here, although the Lap and Fin differ, the difference lies within a
far narrower limit than that which divides the Lap from the Norwegian
or the Swede. The stature of the Lap is less than that of the Fin;
though the Fin is more short than tall, and the Lap is far from being
so stunted as books and pictures make him. The habits, too, differ. The
reindeer goes with the Lap; the cow with the Fin. Other points differ
also. On the whole, however, the Fin physiognomy is Lap, and the Lap
Fin; and the languages are allied.

Furthermore--the Fin graduates into the Wotiak, the Zirianean, the
Permian; the Permian into the Tsheremiss, the Mordvin &c. In other
words, if we follow the Lap eastwards we come into a whole fancy of
congeners. On the west, however, the further we went, the less Lap was
everything. Instead of being Lap it was Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, or
German. The last of those, however, would lead us into the Sarmatian
family, and this would bring us round to the Fins of South Finland. The
time, however, may come when Russia will have so encroached upon the
Fin populations to the south of the Arctic Circle as for the Lap and
Slave to come in immediate contact; and when this contact is effected
there will be contrast also--contrast less strong, perhaps, than that
between the Lap and Swede, but still contrast.

_Mutatis mutandis_--this seems to have been the case with the Eskimo
and the North American Indians as they are popularly called--popularly
but inaccurately; inasmuch as the present writer considers the
Eskimo to be as truly American as any other occupants of the soil of
America. On the East there has been encroachment, displacement, and,
as an effect thereof, two strongly contrasted populations in close
geographical contact--viz.: the Eskimos and the northern members of
the Algonkin family. On the west, where the change has been less,
the Athabaskans, the Kolutshes, and the Eskimos graduate to each
other, coming under the same category, and forming part of one and
the same class; that class being by no means a narrow, though not an
inordinately, wide one.

Another special question is that concerning the origin of the Nahuatl,
Astecs, or Mexicans. The maritime hypothesis I have abandoned. The
doctrine that their civilisation was Maya I retain. I doubt, however,
whether they originated anywhere. By this I mean that they are, though
not quite _in situ_, nearly so. In the northermost parts of their area
they may so entirely. When I refined on this--the common sense--view of
them I was, like many others, misled by the peculiar phonesis. What it
is may be better seen by an example than explained. Contrast the two
following columns. How smoothly the words on the right run, how harshly
sound (when they can be sounded) those of the left. Not, however, that
they give us the actual sounds of the combination _khl_ &c. All that
this means is that there is some extraordinary sound to be expressed
that no simple sign or no common combination will represent. In Mr.
Hale's vocabularies it is represented by a single special sign.

ENGLISH. SELISH. CHINUK. SHOSHONI.

_man_ skaltamekho tkhlekala taka.
_woman_ s_u_maăm tkhlākél kw_uu_.
_boy_ skokosea tklkask_u_s natsi.
_girl_ shaut_u_m tklalekh naints_u_ts.
_child_ akt_u_lt etshanúks wa.
_father_ l_u_áus tkhliamáma ápui.
_mother_ skúis tkhlianáa pia.
_wife_ makhonakh iuakhékal wépui.
_son_ skokosea etsokha natsi.
_daughter_ st_u_mtshäălt okw_u_kha nanai.
_brother_ katshki (elder) kapkhu tamye.
_sister_ tklkikee tkhliau namei.

Now if the Astec phonesis be more akin to the Selish and its congeners
than to the Shoshoni and other interjacent forms of speech, we get an
element of affinity which connects the more distant whilst it separates
the nearer languages. Overvalue this, and you may be misled.

Now, not to mention the fact of this phonesis being an overvalued
character, there is clear proof in the recent additions to the
comparative philology of California that its distribution is, by no
means, what it was, originally, supposed to be. This may be seen from
the following lists.

_From the North of California._

(1.)

ENGLISH. WISH-OSK. WIYOT.

_boy_ ligeritl kushama.
_married_ wehowut'l haqueh.
_head_ wutwetl metwet.
_hair_ pah'tl paht'l.
_face_ kahtsouetl sulatek.
_beard_ tseh'pl cheh'pl.
_body_ tah hit'l.
_foot_ wehlihl wellih'tl.
_village_ mohl katswah'tl.
_chief_ kowquéh'tl kaiowuh.
_axe_ mahtl mehtl.
_pipe_ maht'letl mahtlel.
_wind_ rahtegut'l ruktagun.
_duck_ hahalitl hahahlih.

(2.)

ENGLISH. HUPAH. TAHLEWAH.

_neck_ hosewatl ----
_village_ ---- wah'tlki.
_chief_ ---- howinnequutl.
_bow_ ---- chetlta.
_axe_ mehlcohlewatl ----

_In the South of California._

ENGLISH. DUGUNO. CUCHAN.

_leg_ ewith'l misith'l.
_to-day_ enyat'l ----
_to-morrow_ matinyat'l ----
_bread_ meyut'l ----
_ear_ hamat'l smyth'l.
_neck_ ---- n'yeth'l.
_arm_ } selh iseth'l.
_hand_ }
_friend_ ---- nyet'l.
_feather_ ---- sahwith'l.

I cannot conclude without an expression of regret that the great work
of Adelung is still only in the condition of a second, or (at best) but
a third edition. There is Vater's Supplement, and Jülg's Supplement to
Vater. But there is nothing that brings it up to the present time.

Much might be done by Buschmann and perhaps others. But this is not
enough. It requires translation. The few French writers who treat on
Ethnological Philology know nothing about it. The Italians and Spanish
are, _a fortiori_, in outer darkness as to its contents. The Russians
and Scandinavians know all about it--but the Russians and Scandinavians
are not the scholars in whose hands the first hand information falls
first. The Americans know it but imperfectly. If Turner has had easy
access to it, Gallatin had not: whilst Hales, with great powers, has
been (with the exception of his discovery of the Athabaskan affinities
of the Umkwa and Tlatskanai, out of which Turner's fixation of the
Apatch, Navaho, and Jecorilla, and, afterwards, my own of the Hoopah,
seems to have been developed,) little more than a collector--a
preeminent great collector--of raw materials. Nevertheless, the Atna
class is his.

However, the Mithridates, for America at least, wants translation as
well as revision. It is a work in which many weak points may be (and
have been) discovered. Klaproth, himself a man who (though he has saved
many an enquirer much trouble) has but few friends, has virulently
attacked it. Its higher classifications are, undoubtedly, but low.
Nevertheless, it is not only a great work, but the basis of all others.
Should any one doubt its acumen let him read the part which, treating
on the Chikkasah, demurrs to the identification of the Natchez with
that and other forms of speech. Since it was written a specimen of the
Natchez language has shewn its validity.

I think that the Natchez has yet to take its full importance. If the
language of the _Taensas_ it was, probably, the chief language of
_Tennessee_. But the Creek, or Muscogulge, broke it up. Meanwhile the
fragmentary Catawba, with which I believe that the Caddo was connected
had its congeners far to westward.

I also think that the Uche represents the old language of Florida--the
Cherokee being conterminous with the Catawba. If so, the doctrine
of the fundamental affinity between the Pawni, Caddo, Catawba, and
Cherokee gains ground.

The Uche demands special investigation. The Tinquin and Timuacana
should be compared with it. Then why are they not? Few works are more
inaccessible than a Spanish _Arte_, _Diccionario_, or _Catecismo_. The
_data_ for these enquiries, little known, are still less attainable.
Without these, and without a minute study, of the first-hand
authorities we can do but little but suggest. All that is suggested
here is that the details of Florida (in its widest sense) and Louisiana
must be treated under the doctrine that the aborigines are represented
by the congeners of the Woccon, Catawba, Uche, Natchez, Tinquin, and
Timuacana, inordinately displaced by the Cherokees and Creeks; who (for
a great extent of their present area) must be considered as intrusive.

* * * * *

Transcriber's Notes

Nineteenth century spellings and inconsistencies in spelling and
hyphenation are retained. Minor changes to punctuation or formatting
have been made without comment. Where changes have been made to the
text (limited to typographical errors) these are listed as follows:

Page iv: changed "aknowledgement" to "acknowledgement" (both
acknowledgement and criticism)

Page 19: changed "too" to "to" (An examining board has but one point to
look to)

Page 31: changed "smallnes" to "smallness" (the Latin connects those of
_smallness_ and _desirability_)

Page 47: changed "anothes" to "another" (_cydadnabod_, to know one
another)

Page 56: changed "wee" to "we" (we see us (each other) again)

Page 64: changed acute accent to circumflex (ἐῖπα _dixi_)

Page 70: added missing comma in list (φειδέσθ', κεντείτ')

Page 77: changed "is is" to "is" (because the consonant is doubled.)

Page 78: changed "sayig" to "saying" (prevents us from saying)

Page 91: added missing period ( ... the price of it" (Yates p. 184).)

Page 99: added missing smooth breathing (φιλίαν καὶ ἀμνηστίαν)

Page 99: changed "ων" to "ὧν" (τυχόντες δὲ ὧν ἠξίουν ἀφῇραν)

Page 107: added missing closing quotation marks (two instances) (upon
the Taurisci," who "are also Galatæ, then upon the Helvetians &c.")

Page 111: changed "probabilites" to "probabilities" (So much for the _à
priori_ probabilities)

Page 112: added acute accent to τοὺς (τοὺς δὲ Γἐτας)

Page 116: changed "A." to "A.D." (who between A.D. 200 and ...)

Page 118: changed "thal" to "that" (it is scarcely necessary to remark
that)

Page 118: removed unnecessary doubled opening quote mark ("It must be
understood that the Servians ...)

Page 118: added missing close quote marks (Thence, originally, came the
Servians")

Page 119: added missing close quote mark ("They came only a little
before")

Page 124: changed "neigbours" to "neighbours" (and their neighbours
called them _Guddon_.)

Page 130: changed "Geoffroy" to "Geoffrey" (the legends of Geoffrey of
Monmouth)

Page 134: added missing period ( ... tales concerning the invaders
themselves.)

Page 139: changed "indructively" to "inductively" (a question that must
be studied inductively)

Page 142: corrected paragraph number "2" to "3" (3. The circumpolar
populations ...)

Page 144: changed "speach" to "speech" (those forms of speech which
have been recognised)

Page 145: changed "consciousy" to "consciously" (more or less
consciously or unconsciously)

Page 146: changed "percentage" to "per-centage" (a large per-centage of
grammatical inflexions)

Page 154: removed closing quotation mark (who are nearly as black as
negroes.)

Page 158: the Aka word for English "bird" rendered "putáh" originally
showed the acute accent over the "t"

Page 161: changed "foer" to "four" (the four works enumerated)

Page 161: changed "moru" to "more" (Had the comparison been more
extended, ...)

Page 162: changed postposition "tu" to "-ut`" (_-am_ _-ut`_, _-inc`_;)

Page 164: changed "correspondding" to "corresponding" (there are no
forms corresponding to _mihi_)

Page 164: changed "s" to "is" (Then for the plural it is _h-_)

Page 165: changed postposition "-_tno_" to "-_nto_" (5, Chu-_ba_
_A_-chu-_nto_)

Page 165: removed unnecessary open parenthesis before "and" ( ...
affixing _-nt o_, and (in some case) prefixing ...)

Page 168: added missing period after "3" ((3.) the Lesgian.)

Page 171: changed "_tqeexc_" to "_tqeexç_" (In like manner _tqeexç_ is
_one from twenty_)

Page 172: changed "Gegenständeu" to "Gegenständen" (das weibliche
Geschlecht wird bey _unbelebten_ Gegenständen)

Page 177: changed "whereever" to "wherever" (wherever there was a
_painted_ ... population)

Page 179: changted "There" to "These" (These are to the effect that ...)

Page 181: changed "languape" to "language" (still preserve their
original language)

Page 181: changed "dermine" to "determine" (enables us to determine.)

Page 184: changed "eonquest" to "conquest" (the area of the Angle
conquest)

Page 185: removed comma after "Cæsar" (The number of enemies that Cæsar
slaughtered)

Page 186: changed "constrasted" to "contrasted" (more likely to be
contrasted with Greece)

Page 186: changed "indroduction" to "introduction" (sufficiently Greek
to forbid the introduction of the Latin)

Page 186: added missing close quotation mark ( ... cæteris omnibus est
facta communis".)

Page 190: changed "preceeded" to "preceded" (the first preceded
the earliest of the other three) Note that while "preceed(e)" is a
plausible but non-standard 18th century form, all other occurences in
this book are spelled "precede".

Page 191: changed "Vocabularly" to "Vocabulary" (Crawfurd's Vocabulary
is reprinted without acknowledgement)

Page 194: changed "inhabitans" to "inhabitants" (the inhabitants of
Gilolo are classed with those of Gammen) Note that according to the
OED, "inhabitans" is not an accepted spelling after the 16th century.

Page 195: added "have" (For the South of New Guinea we have not so much
as a single vocabulary)

Page 198: changed "by" to "be" (These _may_ be indigenous.)

Page 204: added sentence final period (fire, _lope_, Lh.; _lope_. A.
C..)

Page 211: changed "Undeterminded" to "Undetermined" (analiné,
Undetermined, D. C.)

Page 213: changed "discribed" to "described" (the whole number of
Negrito tribes has been described.)

Page 220: changed "Sy ney" to "Sydney" (11.... _tamira_, Sydney.)

Page 220: changed "Timboro" to "Timbora" (13. Stars = _kingkong_,
Timbora;)

Page 221: changed "upong" to "upon" (I venture upon the following
statements)

Page 221: changed semicolon to comma (3. Face = _awop aup_, Murray
Islands;)

Page 221: changed "Islane" to "Island" (7. Hand = _tag_, Darnley
Island;)

Page 243: changed "barrè" to "Barrè" in table column heading.

Page 248: added hyphen to change "_wa_ nnim-gain" to "_wa_-nnim-gain"
(_eight_ _wa_-nnim-gain.)

Page 249/250: column header "Haidahof" was originally repeated on the
following page as "Haldahof".

Page 251: changed "Tloaquatch" to "Tlaoquatch" (The Tlaoquatch
vocabulary of Mr Tolmie)

Page 265: changed "So" to "To" (_To say_ Heisha)

Page 265: changed "Eskimot ongues" to "Eskimo tongues".

Page 265: deleted unnecessary closing quotation mark after "southward"
(found even further southward.)

Page 265: added missing closing parenthesis in "_Transactions ... the
Eskimo race in America._)"

Page 266: changed "THR" to "THE" (BEFORE THE ETHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY)

Page 275: changed "subection" to "subsection" (the Ethnological
subsection of the British Association)

Page 279: changed "ohild" to "child" (English _child_.)

Page 282: changed "Elackfoot" to "Blackfoot" (_Blackfoot_ katokin.)

Page 291: changed "Natchev" to "Natchez" (_Natchez_ wastanem.)

Page 291: changed "Angonkin" to "Algonkin" (_Old Algonkin_ wabi.)

Page 295: changed "Omakaw" to "Omahaw" (_Omahaw_ ni.)

Page 296: changed "Konaz" to "Konza" (_Konza_ shappeh.)

Page 306: changed "similiar" to "similar" (The numerals, too, are very
similar)

Page 309: changed "mutsnm" to "mutsum" (_nine_ matshum mutsum)

Page 311: changed "Nsietshawas" to "Nsietshawus" (North of the isolated
and apparently intrusive Tlatskanai lie the Nsietshawus)

Page 312: changed "macrene" to "macréne" (non maroté jessember macréne)

Page 314 table heading: changed "Wishosk" to "Wishok".

Page 328: changed "Cre" to "Cree" (Cree, _awâsis_ = child.)

Page 335: changed "Lhis" to "This" (This brings us to the _Kenay_.)

Page 336: changed "Thlingeha-_âinni_" to "Thlingeha-_dinni_" (3. The
Thlingeha-_dinni_ = Dog-rib-_men_)

Page 336: changed "certainly" to "certainty" (are also, to almost a
certainty, Athabaskan)

Page 336: added period and capilatised "With" for new sentence
(Athabaskan. With the tongues in its neighbourhood)

Page 337: changed "Chepewy ans" to "Chepewyans" (Chepewyans are cut off
by lines equally trenchant)

Page 338: changed "devided" to "divided" (it is divided by the main
ridge)

Page 338: changed "Shushap" to "Shushwap" (bounded by that of the
Shushwap and Selish Atnas)

Page 339: changed "language" to "languages" (a narrow strip of separate
languages)

Page 339: changed "certein" to "contain" (it may also contain the
Haidah)

Page 340: changed "vocahularies" to "vocabularies" (For three of these
we have vocabularies)

Page 341: changed "Lutumani" to "Lutuami" (I. (_a._) THE LUTUAMI;
(_b._) THE PALAIK;)

Page 341: changed "Lutuomi" to "Lutuami" (In Lutuami _lak_ = _hair_.)

Page 343: not changed suspected typo "kltchnah" should probably read
"kitchnah"

Page 343: not changed suspected error "Klamatl" should read "Klamath"
(Rivers Klamatl and Trinity); Klamatl Indians but Klamath River

Page 343: changed "neme" to "name" (This is the name suggested for the
_Choweshak_, ...)

Page 343: not changed suspect "Khwaklamayu" should read "Khwakhlamayu"
(_Khwaklamayu_ forms of speech)

Page 346: changed "likenes" to "likeness" (a slight amount of likeness
between ...)

Page 353: changed "lauguages" to "languages" (the languages of Old
California)

Page 354: changed "farthey" to "far they" (how far they were separate)

Page 360: changed "Athaqaskan" to "Athabaskan" (The Navaho, ... is
Athabaskan.)

Page 362: changed "weman" to "woman" (_English_, woman.)

Page 362: changed "Lapuna" to "Laguna" (Laguna, _kowah_.)

Page 368: changed "Te" to "The" (The _Adahi_ has already been noticed)

Page 368: changed "Apatsh" to "Apatch" (So does the Apatch.)

Page 369: changed "speeh" to "speech" (Cumanch forms of speech)

Page 378: changed "seem" to "seen" (This may be seen in Buschmann p.
649.)

Page 378: changed "for" to "far" ( ... was far too broad and trenchant.)

Page 378: changed "Loncheux" to "Loucheux" (Sir T. Richardson's
Loucheux specimens)

Page 379: changed "is" to "his" (As Turner knew nothing of this his
remark was a proper one.)

Page 379: changed "Crowsspeak" to "Crows speak" (the Crows speak a
dialect clearly belonging to the same language)

Page 379: "aw" was printed inverted (----, _black_ awtamahat.)

Page 380: changed "witnessess" to "witnesses" (he and I are independent
witnesses.)

Page 380: changed "his" to "is" (If error, then, exists it is in the
MS.)

Page 385: added missing "is" (it is not the only specimen of the
language)

Page 391: interpreted very long dash "----" as an em-dash "--" (a
statement in p. 353--"_the language of San Luis El Rey..._)

Page 399: changed "e. q." to "e. g." (_e. g._ in the Attacapa)

Page 400: changed "probably" to "probable" (the highly probable fact)

Page 402: changed "probaly" to "probably" (The Adahi is probably as
much the property of)

Page 402: "The Adahi, is has, at least the following affinities." The
intended meaning of this sentence is not clear.

Page 403: changed "Nachez" to "Natchez" (Natchez _ptsasong_ = _hair_.)

Page 406: changed "whethen" to "whether" (or, whether _vice versa_)

Page 409: changed "Attacape" to "Attacapa" (Attacapa _kagg_.)

Page 410: added missing "to" (It is also to be added)

Page 411: added missing colon and missing "be" (one of two things: it
may be either ...)

Page 411: changed "Americain" to "America in" (the languages of North
America in general)

Page 414: suspect erroneous word "no" (their moral dispositions no and
social habits)

Page 417: changed "has has" to "has" (If Turner has had easy access to
it, Gallatin had not)

*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Opuscula - Essays chiefly Philological and Ethnographical" ***

Home