as very superciliousness will seek in vain to ignore; and still more so will the results of the analysis, empirical though that analysis must, to some extent, be admitted to be. It may be conceded at once that these vocabularies must necessarily contain a good deal of error, which could only be completely avoided by a perfect knowledge of each recorded tongue on the part of its recorder. But as the languages are counted by hundreds, and few of them ever were or ever will be cultivated, either by those who speak them or by others, it is obvious that such precision can never be reached. On the other hand, it is certain that practical results of great value have been reached by a much less superfine process than that insisted on; and that if we suppose some thousands of facts, so simple in their nature as the mere vocables of a language are, collected with ordinary care, their failing to subserve effectually some of the highest ends of ethnological science, more particularly if taken in connection with other available evidence, must result rather from the incompetency of him to whom they are submitted than from their own intrinsic deficiency. Vocabularies illustrate one another, and furnish to the skilful no small means of correction of palpable errors, if sufficiently numerous. They also furnish means of sound induction from analogy, as I hope to prove by and by beyond the possibility of cavil. In a word, vocabularies seem to me very much like the little instrument which Hamlet puts into the hands of Polonius; a mere bit of perforated wood, which yet in competent hands can be made to discourse sweet music. Nor can I avoid some emotions of surprise and pain (for to disparage vocabularies is to discourage their collection) when I see learned men citing with applause the inferences built upon a few doubtful words picked out of a classic writer, or perchance out of some old map, and which yet are supposed to furnish sufficient evidence of the affinity of a lost tribe, renowned in the history of past times, whilst these same learned and eminent men allow themselves to speak of vocabularies containing some hundreds of words, carefully selected and deliberately set down from the mouths of those to whom they are mother-tongues, as if these vocabularies could not furnish any legitimate basis for inference respecting ethnological affinities. But the objection adverted to is sufficiently answered by the valuable purposes which my series of vocabularies, long before completion, and with little or no resort to analysis, has been made actually to subserve; and therefore, I trust, it is no presumption in me to expect to be able to educe yet more ample and important results from their careful analysis* after completion. Fresh ones continue to flow in upon me still, and I have obtained not less than thirty, almost all new, since my analysis was nearly completed. This is the reason why it has been withheld-this, and the daily * I subjoin a sample or two of my method of dealing with the vocables, to demonstrate, Ist, identity of roots; 2d, identity of adjuncts; 3d, identity of constructive principles :— a child a son Ku-sú, Karnatak, a child Pá, passim, father Sa (vel chá) is the root. It means a non-adult. Ka vel ga is the indefinite article, and a, the definite, or its equivalent my, so that ku-sa is any child, and a-sa my child. Ta is ka, and both take the nasal appendage, n, ng, or m. Oraon iterates the prefix and elides the vowel of its root-ta-ka-sa = ta-ga-pa below The root speaks for itself. Gyarung has the ta and Kassia the ka prefix. They are commutable-ta vel da and ka vel ga-and the use of both is normal. Tamil exhibits both, and also the nasal Auffix. The ta vel ka, used as an indefinite article, is a contraction of the third pronoun, another form of which is ú vel ó vel w. Hence u-pá, o-pá, wá-b vel wá-p, ta-pá, and ka-pá = pater illius vel istius, pater cujusvis, a father, whilst á-pá my father, as above. Thulung iterates the root, and Kassia the articular prefix, like Tamil u-ka-pá = taga-pá.. Yá, yú, yi, the root, man, the species, or the male or female, or the emphatic female, viz., mother. Chinese, Burmese, and Tibetan have the suffixual definitive m = n, as in Chinese and Tamil supra; k suffix, the same as k vel g prefix supra, such transposition being normal and exemplified in ap-ó = u-pá wá-b, supra. Observe that the use of the prefixual a and ta, as respectively definite and indefinite articles, is common to Tamil, Lepcha, and Limbu. I might add Burmese, &c., &c. Malabar has ta prefix aspirated. increasing skill in the use of that most potent of instruments, extended comparative analysis. = Er Ré, Ouigur, man Ir Ri, Bhaskir and Nogay, ditto A-ir' A-rí, Armenian, ditto E-ré-1, Sontál, ditto E-ró-s, Hungarian, virilis Wi-ró, Scythic, man U-ri, Kasikumak, man G-rí, Kocch and Dhimál, Paterfamilias G-rá, Bódó, head of Pagus E-ri-n, Kasikumak, man T-ri-n, Shan, ditto Ta-n-d-ri, Telugu, father Ta-g-ri, Lepcha, man, father But I cannot now expect, and The rá, ré, rí root for mankind is palpable throughout, and the prefixes and suffixes, as well as the cumulation of the former, are normal, and therefore harmonise with the preceding samples; thus, t-rí, g-rí, ta-g-rí, respond precisely to ta-pá, ka-pá, tá-gá-pá, aforegone, while n suffix of the Shan tri-n = the Tamil n in ta-ga-pá-n not less than the Telugu n in ta-n-d-rí. A vel e and u vel w prefixes recur just as in a-sá, a-pa, a-yú, e-yá-n, u-pá, and o-pá; so also the nasal infix, whilst the suffixed labial and sibilant are as normal as the \other adjuncts. The above samples are selected out of thousands, whereby, collectively, perfect proof is afforded that Tartaric vocables are everywhere subject to identical laws of construction and built out of identical materials. In the absence of books of authority to cite, the demonstration must of necessity be par la voie du fait, and depend on the fitness and number of instances. I am prepared with thousands of instances whose applicability or fitness will, I think, be allowed to be irresist ibly convincing. Though we have good grammars, dictionaries, and books on some few of the many tongues I cite, I am not aware that the composition of vocables has at all engaged the attention of their authors. It is the rock I build on. Addenda.-Under the head "Sá," Burmese, a son, add— Sá-u, Thai, a son O-sú, U-sá, Lazic, a child The prefix da vel ta, by elision d', t', is as common a definitive as ka vel ga, with which it is constantly interchangeable; or both are given, as in ta-pá, kapá, ta-ga-pá; and a vel e prefix has often the indefinite-article sense, and thus also is used indifferently with ta and ka; thus Burmese a-yén vel ka-yén, an aborigine; and thus ta-vó vel ka-vó, a bird in Bugis. The most common of definitives, which are tantamount to articles usually indefinite, are t vel d, k vel g; n, ng, vel m; p, b, v, vel w; r Sá chá on one hand, and ká on vel 1, and the vowels i, e, a, u, o, which the other. The soft sa passes into za are all nearly commutable, as being in or zya (French j), and the hard cha origin ille, iste. And all are liable into ka, as in church=kirk. Thus Hó to transposition, and thus to become kó = Kocch chó as surely as the suffix suffixes, as well as to be repeated both = the prefix a, whether used as a de- prefixually and suffixually, as in Chinese finitely or indefinitely definitive article. t-sé-i and Mantchu d-chú-i, where sa vel A'-yú, Lepcha, a wife, shows it as quasi-cha= little, is the crude, and t-sé-i vel definite, whilst á-káp, a child, gives the d-chú-i precisely our English "a little a an indefinite sense rather; and a-nak one." That this is so, compare Chinese in Lepcha and Burmese, the black, tá great and sé = small with Newari or a black one, is used either way. tá and chi having the same senses, Newari takes the ka, ga suffix, like Mantchu; thus, chi-ki, small; and d-cha-ka, a thing, in those tongues \respectively. = hardly desire, any more new materials; and I hope, therefore, soon to be able to submit my examination of the whole. Under the head "Yu-n," mankind, after the word "You-k," add the word— K-yó-ga, Tibetan, a man, the male Tibetan k-yó-ga, from the yá, yú, yó crude, shows the ka vel ga definitive in both forms (soft and hard) and in both positions (prefix and suffix). The correspondent word for the female is ki-mi= ka-mi in Kassia, and not less = ka-mi and ku-mi in the tongues so named, after the name for our species, in them. The sexual distributive use of ka and u prefixes in Kassia is only of secondary value, like the prefixual or postfixual position of the definitives; thus ap-6 in Chourasi and o-pá in Rungchhen, = pater istius or ejus pater, viz., a father, any one's father, are from mere dialects of the same tongue, Kiránti. Thus also sá-u, Thai, filius ejus u-sá, o-sú, Lazic. Compare yo and k-yo with mari and k-mari, lu-n and k-lu-n, &c., apud Mongol Affin. of Caucasians, Journal for January 1853; or above, pp. 51 ff. |