Chapter XI: Appendix: To Macgillivray's Voyage of the (1)

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:--

3.

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_.

2.

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_.

1.

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.