Part 17

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_

In respect to the name of the class under notice I suggested in 1850 the term Dioscurian from the ancient Dioscurias. There it was that the chief commerce between the Greeks and Romans, and the natives of the Caucasian range took place. According to Pliny, it was carried on by thirty interpreters, so numerous were the languages. The great multiplicity of mutually unintelligible tongues is still one of the characteristics of the parts in question. To have used the word _Caucasian_ would have been correct, but inconvenient. It is already _mis_-applied in another sense, _i. e._, for the sake of denoting the so-called Caucasian race, consisting, or said to consist, of Jews, Greeks, Circassians, Scotchmen, ancient Romans, and other heterogeneous elements.

In his paper on the Mongolian Affinities of the Caucasians, published in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal (1853) Mr. Hodgson has both confirmed and developed the doctrine here indicated--his _data_ on the side of Caucasus being those of the Asia Polyglotta, but those on the side of Tibet and China being vastly augmented; and that, to a great extent, through his own efforts and researches.

Upon the evidence of Mr. Hodgson I lay more than ordinary value; not merely on the strength of his acumen and acquirements in general, but from the fact of his _ex-professo_ studies as a naturalist leading him to over-value rather than under-value those differences of physical conformation that (to take extreme forms) contrast the Georgian and Circassian noble with the Chinese; or Tibetan labourer. Nevertheless, his evidence is decided.

ON THE TUSHI LANGUAGE.

READ BEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY, FEBRUARY THE 15TH. 1858.

So little light has been thrown upon the languages of Caucasus, that a publication of the year 1856, entitled _Versuch über die Thusch-Sprache_, by A. Schieffner, may be allowed to stand as a text for a short commentary.

The Tushi is a language belonging to the least known of the five classes into which Klaproth, in his _Asia Polyglotta_, distributes the languages of Caucasus: viz. (1.) the Georgian. (2.) the Osset or Iron. (3.) the Lesgian. (4.) the Mizhdzhedzhi. And (5.) the Tsherkess or Circassian. It is to the fourth of these that the Tushi belongs; the particular district in which it is spoken being that of Tzowa, where it is in contact with the Georgian of Georgia; from which, as well as from the Russian, it has adopted several words.

The _data_ consist in communications from a native of the district, Georg Ziskorow, with whom the author came in contact at St. Petersburg. They have supplied a grammatical sketch, a short lexicon, and some specimens in the way of composition, consisting of translations of portions of the Gospels, and two short tales of an Arabic or Persian rather than a truly native character. They are accompanied by a German translation.

Taking the groups as we find them in Klaproth, we may ask what amount of illustration each has received in respect to its _grammar_. In respect to the vocabularies, the _Asia Polyglotta_ gives us specimens of them all.

The Georgian has long been known through the grammar of Maggi, published upwards of two centuries ago. The researches of Rosen on its several dialects are quite recent. Of the Iron there is a copious dictionary by Sjögren, and a short sketch of its grammar by Rosen. The alphabet is Russian, with additions. Rosen has also given a grammatical sketch of the Circassian: This, however, as well as his notice of the Osset, is exceedingly brief. Of the Lesgian we have no grammar at all; and of the Mizhdzhedzhi, or Tshetshent group, the first grammatical sketch is the one before us.

The alphabet is the ordinary Roman modified; the work being addressed to the Russians rather than the natives, and to the European _savans_ in general rather than to the Russians. Otherwise the Georgian alphabet might have been used with advantage; for it is especially stated that the Georgian and Tushi sound-systems are alike. The modifications to which our own alphabet has been subjected, are those that Castrèn has made in his Samoyed grammar and lexicon. So that we may say that it is in Castrèn's Samoyed mode of writing that Schieffner's Tushi grammar and lexicon are exhibited.

In respect to the general relations of the language, the evidence of the work under notice is confirmatory (though not absolutely) of the views to which the present writer has committed himself, viz.--(1.) that the languages of Caucasus in general are so nearly _mono_-syllabic as to be with fitness designated _pauro_-syllabic; (2.) that the distinction drawn by Klaproth between the Mizhdzhedzhi and Lesgian groups is untenable; both belonging to the same class, a fact by which the philologic ethnography of Caucasus is, _pro tanto_, simplified. Upon the first of these points Schieffner writes, that the avoidance of polysyllabic forms has introduced all manner of abbreviations in the language; upon the second, that the little he has seen of the Lesgian grammar induces him to connect it with the Tshetshents. It should be added, however, that in respect to its monosyllabic character, he maintains that the shortness of many of its words is due to a secondary process; so that the older form of the language was more polysyllabic than the present.

Of the chief details, the formation of the cases of the nouns comes first. The declension of the personal pronouns is as follows. With a slight modification it is that of the ordinary substantive as well.

SINGULAR. I. THOU. HE.

_Nominative_ so ḥo o. _Genitive_ sai ḥai ox̣u. ---- ---- ---- oụx. ---- ---- ---- ọxuin. _Dative_ son ḥon ọxun. ---- sona ---- oụxna. _Instructive_ as aḥ ọxus. ---- asa aḥa oxuse. ---- ---- ---- oụxse. _Affective_ sox ḥox ọxux. _Allative_ sogo ḥogo ọxugo. ---- ---- ---- oụxgo. _Elative_ soxi ḥoxi oụxxi. ---- ---- ---- ọxxi (?). _Comitative_ soci ḥoci ọxuci. ---- ---- ---- oụxci. ---- ---- ---- ọxci (?). _Terminative_ sogomci ḥogomci oụxgomci. _Adessive_ sogoh ḥogoḥ oụxgoḥ. _Ablative_ sogredah ḥogredah oụxgore. ---- ---- ---- oụxgoredah.

PLURAL. WE. YE. THEY. ______^________ | | _Nominative_ wai 'txo su obi. _Genitive_ wai 'txai ṡui ọxri. _Dative_ wain 'txon ṡun ọxarn. ---- ---- ---- suna ---- _Instructive_ wai a'txo aiṡ ọxar. ---- ---- ---- aṡi ọxra. _Affective_ waix 'txox ṡux ọxarx. _Allative_ waigo 'txogo ṡugo ọxargo. _Illative_ wailo 'txolo ṡulo ọxarlo. _Elative_ waixi 'tzoxi ṡuxi ọxarxi. _Comitative_ waici 'txoci ṡuci ọxarci. _Adessive_ waigoh 'txogoh ṡugoḥ ọxargoḥ. _Inessive(c.)_ wailoh 'txoloḥ ṡuloḥ ọxarloḥ. _Ablative(c.)_ waigre 'txogre ṡugre ọxargore. ---- ---- ---- ---- ọxardah. _Elative(c.)_ wailre 'txolre ṡulre oḥarlore. _Conversive_ waigoih 'txogoih ṡugoih oḥargoih.

That some of these forms are no true inflexions, but appended prepositions; is speedily stated in the text. If so, it is probable that, in another author or in a different dialect, the number of cases will vary. At any rate, the agglutinate character of the language is indicated. The numerals are--

CARDINAL. ORDINAL.

1. cha duihre. 2. ṡi silǵe. 3. ̣xo ̣xalǵe. 4. ahew dhewloǵe. 5. ṗxi pxilǵe. 6. jeṫx jeixloǵe. 7. worl worloǵe. 8. barl barloġe. 9. iss issloġe. 10. itt ittloġe. 11. cha-itt cha-ittloġe. 12. si-itt si-ittloġe. 19. tqeexç iqeẹxcloġe. 20. tqa tqalġe.

This as a word the author connects with the word _tqo_ = _also_, _overagain_ (_auch_, _wiederum_), as if it were 10 doubled, which it most likely is. In like manner _tqeexç_ is _one from twenty_ = _undeviginti_:--

100 = ṗxauztqa = 5 × 20. 200 = içatatq = 10 × 20. 300 = ṗxiiæatq = 12 × 20. 400 = tqauziq = 20 × 20. 500 = tqauziġ ṗxauztqa = 20 × 20 + 100. 1000 = sac tqauziqa icaiqa = 2 × 400 + 200.

The commonest signs of the plural number are _-i_ and _-si_, the latter = _is_ in Tshetshents. The suffixes _-ne_ and _-bi_, the latter of which is found in Lesgian, is stated to be Georgian in origin. No reason, however, against its being native is given.

In verbs, the simplest form is (as usual) the imperative. Add to this _-a_, and you have the infinitive. The sign of the conditional is _ḥe_ or _ḥ_; that of the conjunctive _ḷe_ or _ḷ_.

The tenses are--

(1.) Present, formed by adding _-a_ or _-u_ to the root: _i. e._ to the imperative form, and changing the vowel.

(2.) Imperfect, by adding _-r_ to the present.

(3.) Aorist, formed by the addition of _-r_ to the

(4.) Perfect; the formation of which is not expressly given, but which is said to differ from the present in not changing the vowel. However, we have the forms _xet_ = _find_, _xeṫi_ = _found_; (perf.) _xetin_ = _found_ (aorist). From the participle of the perfect is formed the

(5.) Pluperfect by adding _-r_.

(6.) The future is either the same as the present, or a modification of it.

I give the names of those moods and tenses as I find them. The language of the Latin grammar has, probably, been too closely imitated.

The first and second persons are formed by appending the pronouns either in the nominative or the instructive form. That an oblique form of the pronoun should appear in the personal inflexion of verbs is no more than what the researches of the late Mr. Garnett, with which we are all so familiar, have taught us to expect. At the same time, the extent to which the instructive and nominative forms are alike must be borne in mind. Let either be appended; and, when so appended, undergo (under certain conditions) certain modifications, and a double origin is simulated. That this is the case in the instances of the work under notice is by no means asserted. The possibility of its being so is suggested.

The participle of the present tense is formed in _-in_; as _dago_ = _eat_, _dagu-in_ = _eating_.

The participle of the preterite ends in _-no_; as _xa[c.]e_ = _hear_, _xa[c.]-no_ = _heard_.

There are auxiliary verbs, and no small amount of euphonic changes; of which one, more especially, deserves notice. It is connected with the gender of nouns. When certain words (adjectives or the so-called verb substantive) follow certain substantives, they change their initial. Thus ḥaṫxleen _w_a = _the prophet is_, ḥaṫxleensi _b_a = _the prophets are_, waṡo _w_a = _the brother is_, waṡar _b_a = _the brothers are_.

Again--naw _j_a = _the ship is_, nawr _j_a = _the ships are_; bstiuno _j_a = _the wife is_, bstee _d_a = _the wives are_.

This is said to indicate gender, but how do we know what gender is? The words themselves have neither form nor inflexion which indicates it. Say that instead of gender it means sex, _i. e._ that the changes in question are regulated by natural rather than grammatical characters. We still find that the word _naw_ is considered feminine--feminine and inanimate. This, however, is grammatical rather than natural, sex--"das weibliche Geschlecht wird bey _unbelebten_ Gegenständen auch im Plural durch _j-_, bei _belebten_ durch _a_ ausgedrückt." Then follow the examples just given. How, however, do we know that these words are feminine? It is submitted that the explanation of this very interesting initial change has yet to be given. It recalls, however, to our memory the practice of more languages than one, the Keltic, the Woloff, the Kafre, and several other African tongues, wherein the change is initial, though not always on the same principle.

So, also, the division of objects into animate and inanimate recalls to our mind some African, and numerous American, tongues.

Such is the notice of the first of the Mizhdzhedzhi or Tshetshents (we may say Lesgian) forms of speech of which the grammatical structure has been investigated; a notice which suggests the question concerning its affinities and classification.

The declension points to the Ugrian, or Fin, class of languages; with which not only the Tshetshents, but all the other languages of Caucasus have long been known to have miscellaneous affinities. The resemblance, however, may be more apparent than real. The so-called cases may be combinations of substantives and prepositions rather than true inflexions, and the terminology may be more Ugrian in form than in reality. Even if the powers of the cases be the same, it will not prove much. Two languages expressing a given number of the relations that two nouns may bear to each other will, generally, express the same. Cases are genitive, dative and the like all the world over--and that independent of any philological affinity between the languages in which they occur. The extent to which they are also Caritive, Adessive and the like has yet to be investigated.

The Ugrian affinities, then, of the Tshetshents are indirect; it being the languages of its immediate neighbourhood with which it is more immediately connected. In the way of vocabularies the lists of the _Asia Polyglotta_ have long been competent to show this. In the way of grammar the evidence is, still, far from complete. The Georgian, to which Maggi gives no more than six cases, has a far scantier declension than the Tushi, at least as it appears here. The Circassian, according to Rosen, is still poorer.

In the verbs the general likeness is greater.

In the pronouns, however, the most definite similarity is to be found; as may be seen from the following forms in the Circassian:--

Ab = _father_.

1. S-ab = _my father_. 2. H-ab = _our father_. W-ab = _thy father_. S'-ab = _your father_. L-ab = _his father_. S-ab = _their father_.

To which add--

_Sa_-ra = _I_. _Ha_-ra = _we_. _Wa_-ra = _thou_. _S'a_-ra = _ye_. _Ui_ = _he_. _U_-bart = _they_.

The amount of likeness here is considerable. Over and above the use of _s_ for the first person singular, the _s'_ in the second person plural should be noticed. So should the _b_ and _r_ in the Circassian u-_b_a_rt_; both of which are plural elements in the Tushi also.

Finally (as a point of general philology), the double forms of the Tushi plurals _wai_ and _ṭxo_ suggest the likelihood of their being exclusive and inclusive; one denoting the speaker but not the person spoken to, the other both the person spoken to and the person who speaks; plurals of this kind being well known to be common in many of the ruder languages.

ON THE NAME AND NATION OF THE DACIAN KING DECEBALUS, WITH NOTICES OF THE AGATHYRSI AND ALANI.

READ BEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY, APRIL 17TH 1854.

The text of Herodotus places the Agathyrsi in Transylvania (there or thereabouts). (See F. W. Newman On Scythia and the surrounding Countries, according to Herodotus, Philological Society's Proceedings, vol. i. p. 77.)

The subsequent authors speak of them as a people who painted (tattooed?) their bodies; the usual epithet being _picti_.

The same epithet is applied to the _Geloni_; also a population of the Scythia of Herodotus.

For accurate knowledge the locality of the Agathyrsans was too remote--too remote until, at least, the date of the Dacian wars; but the Dacian wars are, themselves, eminently imperfect in their details, and unsatisfactory in respect to the authorities for them.

There is every reason, then, for a nation in the locality of the Agathyrsi remaining obscure--in the same predicament (say) with the Hyperborei, or with the occupants of Thule.

But there is no reason for supposing the obliteration of the people so called; nor yet for supposing a loss of its name, whether native or otherwise.

Hence, when we get the details of Dacia we may reasonably look out for Agathyrsi.

How far must we expect to find their name unmodified? This depends upon the population through whom the classical writers, whether Latin or Greek, derived it. Now it is submitted, that if we find a notice of them in the fifth century A. D., and that in an account relating to Dacia and Pannonia, the _medium_ has, probably, been different from that through which Herodotus, amongst the Greek colonies of the Black Sea, obtained _his_ accounts. The details of this difference of _medium_ are not very important, and the discussion of them would be episodical to the present paper, if not irrelevant. It is enough to remark, that a difference of _medium_ is probable; and, as a consequence thereof, a difference in the form of the name.

This is preliminary and introductory to the notice of the following passage of Priscus, to whom we owe the account of one of the embassies to Attila--Ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἧρχε τῶν Ἀκατζίρων καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἐθνῶν νεμομένων τὴν πρὸς τὸν Πόντον Σκυθικέν. They are specially called _Akatiri Hunni_. Jornandes' form is _Acatziri_.

Place for place, this gives us the Agathyrsi of Herodotus as near as can be expected; and, name for name it does the same: the inference being that the _Akatziri_ of Priscus are the descendants of the _Agathyrsi_ of Herodotus. Of course, evidence of any kind to the migration, extinction, or change of name on the part of the population in question would invalidate this view. Such evidence, however, has not been produced, nor has the present writer succeeded in finding, though he has sought for it.

Descendants then of the _Agathyrsi_, and ancestors of the _Akatziri_ may have formed part of the population of Dacia when Domitian and Trajan fought against Decebalus; a part that may have been large or small, weak or powerful, homogeneous with the rest of Dacia or different from it. Assuming it to have been different, it may still have supplied soldiers--even leaders. Decebalus himself may as easily have belonged to the Agathyrsan part of Dacia as to any other. A very little evidence will turn the balance in so obscure a point as the present.