Chapter VII: Preface (7)

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.

1.

_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_.

2.

_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.]

3.

_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.

1.

_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_.

2.

_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_