Page images

wé=he in Mantchú. Therefore souwé, ye, is literally thou and he; as mouse, wé, is literally I and thou. In like manner the third plural or they, tését, is undoubtedly a compound of té = he, and sé = thou. The sé root has the tá particle added as a conjunct servile (sé-t), according to a rule of universal operation in these tongues. Té is extant in Mantchú in the sense of he. It has the rá particle suffixed and harmonised in its vowel to the vowel of the root (téré), also according to a universal rule governing these particles; and sé, in the sense of thou, is likewise extant, as si in Mantchú, as sé in Turki, as sá in some one of its phases, in short (sá, sé, sí, só, sú) in twenty of these tongues. Therefore té-sé-t, or they, is literally he and thou; and the whole of the three plurals are constructed upon precisely the same principle thus :

Mou-sé = we = I and thou.

thou and he.
Té-sé-t they he and thou.


In like manner the Mongolian plurals, bi-dá, tá, and té-dé-t, might be analysed by means of the Tibetan demonstratives, dí and dé, with their analogues in allied tongues, and shown to be nothing more than reiterate pronouns of the singular number, and also that the dá, dé is no more a plural sigu than the third phase of this particle or dou (dá, dé, di, dó) is a dative sign, though widely as erroneously so regarded (just as De Cörös regards the equivalent ra * particle), witness t sé-do, to the earth; ko-dá, to the foot, &c., in the Caucasian group, according to Vater. In truth, the dá particle is in these latter instances a servile, not a radical, as is the sé before given; but apparently neither radical nor servile can be regarded in strictness as a declensional sign of case or of

• De Cörös, pursuant to bis view of the rá particle, us a dative case siga, translater damgar in one instanco and another, to boaven. Now, nam is the sun, and kha vel gå is place; and that the ra suffis only emphasises the sense of kbá vel sá may bo shown by a familiar pair of examples. Går vel gáro and takla-khar are the names of two well-known places in Nari, gár neaping the place or fort, or headquarters of its district ; and takla-kbár, the place, or fort, or sadr, of Takla. Again, the thirteenth divisions of the spire of a chaitga are called chuksum-kbar in Tibetan = trayodas bhuren in Sunscrit, i.e., the thirteenth mansion.

number. Nor in the great majority of these tongues from Caucasus to Oceanica do these or the other particles * ordinarily fulfil the necessary conditions of such a sign, with the scant and obvious exceptions before noted. The sá radical and the dá servile are both alike particles, and as such subject to the laws regulating particles, according to which all their alleged anomalies in either character can be explained, including not only every vocalic change incident to them in both capacities alike, but also that substitution whereby they interchange functions and the root becomes a servile, or the servile a root. Thus, for example, the sé particle is undoubtedly a root in the instances cited above, and it is as undoubtedly a servile in the Magar tongue, wherein í-sé means this, and ó-sé, that; í and ó being the near and remote demonstratives, with sé as a servile affix, answering exactly to the Georgian s in í-s, he. Compare Circassian 1 with Georgian 1-s, and the servile and equivalent character of the sa suffix in these instances drawn from the Magyar and Georgian tongues will be at once apparent, and it will be also perceived how the alleged plural sense is here neither admissible nor possible, though the particle be assuredly the identical one to which in the Mantchú tongue the plural quality is attributed.

In explaining the Mantchú pronouns I have included almost all that need be said of the Circassian third personal singular, or ú, í, with its change to t' conjunct, as in t-ab, his father.

If we consider the in, the i, and the t as all radicals, we may yet find numerous equivalents for each in that sense; and if, again, we regard the t' as a servile superseding the radical úí or wi, we may find abundant instances of such supersession alike among the Caucasian and the Mongolian tongues, as má, ma-fa, fá, fire; bí, di-bi, di, skin; sá, bá-sá, bá, cow; and many more for which I must refer to the forthcoming analysed list of vocables.

With regard to Mongolian equivalents for the radicals ú, i,

The chá şuffis in ma-ch, we, Osetic, is called a plural sign. What is it in u-cb, earth? Probably wbat it is in a-ch, one, Circassian ; viz., a servile with the usual di Terential function.

and ta, in the sense of he, the third personal, the subjoined enumeration must suffice at present.

U', Circassian =ú in Gáró; ú in Sontál; ó (6é) in Magyar; ó in Ouigúr and Turki; wó in Newári; wá in Gyárúng, in Dhimali,* and in Thunglhu. I', Circassian=í in Mantchú ; í in Sontál; í in Burinese (this); é in Magyar (óé); é in Kalmak; é in Lazig; i-s in Georgian; 1-sé in Magar; í-tu in Tagalan. Tá, Circassian=té in Mongol ; té in Mantchú; tá in Estonian; tá in Chinese; thá in Gyumi; thí in Gurúng; thé in Murmi; thú in Burmese.

If, again, we take the Circassian ú, í, as one root and word, we have parallels for it in the Magyar óé, similarly taken, and in all the wá roots should we read wí (w for ú).

With regard to the Gyárúng wa, tú, which I have compared with the Circassian ú, í, changing in composition to tá, it is very important to observe that if wa, tú, and ú, í, be considered as compounds of two synonymous roots, according to the above detailed exposition of roots, then that such reiterated pronouns are completely conformable to the genius of these tongues, and as such harmonise perfectly with the preceding exposition of the plurals. These tongues, in fact, revel in cumulation, pronominal and nominal, varying as to the exact applications of the emphasised or reiterated pronouns, but

• The perfect agreement of the Circassian and Dhimali in regard to the singular of the third personal, ú being be, in both tongues, renders the proximate agreement of the perplexing plural, u-bert and u-bal, very interesting. I bave tried the analysis in several ways, but bavo not succeeded to my own satisfaction ; but I submit the following.

U'-ba-rt = they = be and be ; one he being the ú above elucidated, and the other, a synonymous bá, bé, bi root, such as I actually is in B6u6; rt, servile ; tho ra and ta suffixes conjunct.

U'.ba-l = they = he and he, as before. The juxtaposition of the Bodó and Dhimal tribes renders the adoption of the bi root from Bódó likely in this instance.

It is, however, a word and root widely diffused, and used as a noun and pronoun also. Final l', servile. — The Suadic al, be, and the Ouigúr and Turki ol, be, and ol-ar, they, are very suggestive, us also the Turkish and Ouigúr bl, and the Sokpo bú in abú, with all the numerous words for man baring the bi root, u bi-shi, juvenis, alike in Turki and in Bodó. Nominal and propominal roots are so apt to coincide that I have a long list of coincident roots for ego = bomo : fur instance, the mi root, and to root, and a root, and ba root.

+ See Mith. voce Turki, i. 467 a seq., and Ensay on Koch, Bodo, and Dbimal, p. 120, and Do Cörös' Grammar, p. 65, Crawfurd's Malayan Grammar, Phillips' Sootal Grammar, and Brown's Asam Grammar.

preserving a general overruling similitude, of which the following instance from a Himalayan and a Caucasian tongue is too singular to be omitted. In Georgian the í root for the third personal singular, or he, becomes, by such accretion gradually augmenting, first 1-s, and then í-ti-ná; and in Magar the same root with the same sense (ille iste) becomes i-sé and i-sé-ná, according as more or less of emphasis and discrimination is needed. Again, the Georgian ti in iti na is the Burmese thí in 1-thi, a word compounded of two synonyms, both meaning this (ille), and conjointly equivalent precisely to iséná as well as itina in Magar and Georgian respectively. Thú, again, means he, the third personal, in Burmese, and this word, which is merely another phase of the thá particle (thá, tí, thú, thó—which last signifies that, and is Tibetan), brings us back to the Tagalan 1-tú and the Gyárúng wa-tú, every particle, whether used in a primary or secondary sense, taking the aspirate indifferently (mé, mhé, fire; ni, nhi, day; ká, khá, sky, et cet., ad libitum).

Now, if we look again at the Gyárúng wa tú through the medium of the Malayan and Tagalan í tú and the Circassian rí í and tá, all but the last equally involving a double pronominal root and single sense, we shall see in this identical composition and identical idiomatic use of the third personal pronoun, illustrated on all sides as they are by Altaic, Himálayan, and Indo-Chinese equivalents, reproducing every form and phase of the roots, a marvellous proof of the affinity of all the tongues. But this is not all, for the Circassian ú and i, commutable to t, derives the highest and complete illustration from another and most interesting quarter, to wit, the uncultivated Tamulian tongues of India, amongst which the Sontál exhibits both ú and í for the third personal pronoun, as well as their commutation into t,* whilst the Gondi has ú (w) similarly commutable. For the proof of these most remark

• The transposableness of the particles in these tongues has been already stated and abundantly proved. With this bint, look at the following wonderful sample of analogous structure : t-ab, bis father, in Circassian ; apa-t, his father, in Suntál. It is noodlon alunost to add that the word for father is ab in the former tongue, apa in the lattor. Not one of Bopp's celebratod Ariun affinities surpasses the above in beauty and interest.

alle coincidences I refer the student to the works of Phillips and Driberg, merely observing in conclusion that it is but a sample of those analogies derivable from the same interesting quarter which I have already made good progress in the development of, and which when fully exhibited will go far to confirm the conviction that the Tartaric family is one and indivisible from the Caucasus to the Pacific.

The prospect of a reunion of all the Tartars suggests the consideration of a fitting designation for the whole; and, whatever my leaning towards the term Scythian,* from veneration for the father of history who first introduced this mighty herd to our view, I prefer upon the whole the more familiar appellation Tartar; first, because it has a sense as ample as our present requirement, in which respect it has no advantage over Scythian ; second, because it has an etymological significance thoroughly indigenous and in the highest degree appropriate, as well with reference to the structure of those tongues by the dissection of which we have come at a knowledge of the whole scope of Tartar affinities, as with regard to that characteristic idiom according to which the name of a tribe is the name of our species. Tá means man in a score of extant tongues ; and tá designates numerous extant tribes stretching from the Altai to the Gulf of Siam, whilst the same or equivalent names prevail throughout the Mongolian countries and in Caucasus ;t and, lastly, the reitera

• Essay on Koch, Bódó, and Dhimal, preface, pages 8, 9, where the reader may see that seven years ago I had a strong presentiment of what I now bope to demonstrate.

+ Tshá-ri, tshé-tsh6-nah, &c., come from the tá and rá mots for man, and are been in similar combination, being synonyms, in the Chinese and Georgian tsé meaning man, whereof tsó-s is a diminutive. The Chinese call the Tartars indifferently thá-tha and thá-isé, and so do the Newárs of Népal, whilst ta.i, ta: i-mó, ta-i-lúng, ta-i-né, ta-i-sé, names of tribes from A sam to the Ocean, are all not only tá but tu-tá, since the second syllable is in all a synonym, and therefore as equivalent as tsh6-tshé and tá-tá, which are reiterations. As instances, familiar to us in lodia, of a tribe-name signifying also man in the language of that tribe, I may mention A-nam, mru, k lun, ka mi, ku-mi, kong, lau, m6.0, mo.i, bar-ma. These are simple. Mi-sbi-mi, mú-r-mi, &c., are compound. Occasion. alls, as in Burmese, the root may be obsoleto in tho human sense; but it will always be found in its deriratives or in the proximato tongues, leaving the priuciple of gentile nomenclature indisputablo. Io Mishimi we have the mi and

« PreviousContinue »