Opuscula: Essays chiefly Philological and Ethnographical

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:

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.

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,

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

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.

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.

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—

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:—

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?

Erromango.