Part 22

III. For New Guinea, and the islands Waigioo, and Guebé, I have found only ten short vocabularies, and these only for the north-western districts. One of these, the Guebé, of the voyage of the Astrolabe, although dealt with by Mr. Durville as Papuan, is Malay. The rest, without any exception, have a sufficient portion of Malay words to preclude any argument in favour of their belonging to a fresh class of languages. On the other hand, the commercial intercourse between the Papuans and Malays precludes any positive statements as to the existence of a true philological affinity.

From New Guinea, westward and southward, we have for the localities inhabited by the black tribes with curly hair, the following vocabularies.

1. For New Ireland.

A. Gaimard's Carteret Harbour Vocabulary--Voyage de l'Astrolabe, Philologie, ii. 143.

B. Durville's Port Praslin Vocabulary. Ibid.

C. Dalrymple's, so called, New Guinea Vocabulary, collected by Schouten and Le Maire, given also by De Brosses.

2. For Vanikoro--Gaimard's Vocabulary in three dialects, the Vanikoro, the Tanema, and the Taneanou--Voyage de l'Astrolabe, Philologie, ii. 164.

3. Mallicollo--Cook's Vocabulary.

4. Tanna--Ditto. Also a few words marked G. Bennet, in Marsden's Miscellaneous Works.

5. Erromango--a few words by Bennet, in Marsden.

6. Annatom--Ditto.

7. New Caledonia--A short Vocabulary in Cook. A longer one in Dentrecasteaux and La Billardiere.

All these languages, although mutually unintelligible, exhibit words common to one another, common to themselves and the New Guinea, and common to themselves and the Malay. See Transactions of the Philological Society, vol. i. no.[26] 4.

[Footnote 26: This is the preceding paper. (1859).]

IV. The Blacks of Australia are generally separated by strong lines of demarcation from the Blacks of New Guinea, and from the Malays. Even on the philological side of the question, Marsden has written as follows--"We have rarely met with any negrito language in which many corrupt Polynesian words might not be detected. In those of New Holland or Australia, such a mixture is not found. Among them no foreign terms that connect them with the languages even of other _papua_ or negrito countries can be discovered; with regard to the physical qualities of the natives it is nearly superfluous to state, that they are negritos of the more decided class."--_p._ 71.

In respect to this statement, I am not aware that any recent philologist has gone over the _data_ as we _now_ have them, with sufficient care to enable him either to verify or to refute it. Nevertheless, the isolation of the Australian languages is a current doctrine.

I believe this doctrine to be incorrect; and I am sure that, in many cases, it is founded on incorrect principles.

Grammatical differences are valued too high; glossarial affinities too low. The relative value of the grammatical and glossarial tests is not constant. It is different for different languages.

In 1844, I stated, at York, that from three true Malay localities, and in three true Malay vocabularies, I had found Australian and Tasmanian and Papuan words, viz:--

1. In the Timboran dialect of the Sumbawan. 2. In the Mangerei dialect of Flores. 3. In the Ombayan of Ombay.

1. Arm = _ibarana_, Ombay; _porene_, Pine Gorine dialect of Australia.

2. Hand = _ouiue_, Ombay; _hingue_, New Caledonia.

3. Nose = _imouni_, Ombay; _maninya_, _mandeg_, _mandeinne_, New Caledonia; _mena_, Van Diemen's Land, western dialect; _mini_, Mangerei: _meoun_, _muidge_, _mugui_, Macquarie Harbour.

4. Head = _imocila_, Ombay; _moos_, (= hair) Darnley Island; _moochi_, (= hair) Massied; _immoos_, (= beard) Darnley Islands; _eeta moochi_, (= beard) Massied.

5. Knee = _icici-bouka_, Ombay; _bowka_, _boulkay_ (= forefinger) Darnley Islands.

6. Leg = _iraka_, Ombay; _horag-nata_, Jhongworong dialect of the Australian.

7. Bosom = _ami_, Ombay; _naem_, Darnley Island.

8. Thigh = _itena_, Ombay; _tinna-mook_ (= foot) Witouro dialect of Australian. The root, _tin_, is very general throughout Australia in the sense of _foot_.

9. Belly = _te-kap-ana_, Ombay; _coopoi_, (= navel) Darnley Island.

10. Stars = _ipi-berre_, Mangarei; _bering_, _birrong_, Sydney.

11. Hand = _tanaraga_, Mangarei; _taintu_, Timbora; _tamira_, Sydney.

12. Head = _jahé_, Mangarei; _chow_, King George's Sound.

13. Stars = _kingkong_, Timbora; _chindy_, King George's Sound, Australia.

14. Moon = _mang'ong_, Timbora; _meuc_, King George's Sound.

15. Sun = _ingkong_, Timbora; _coing_, Sydney.

16. Blood = _kero_, Timbora; _gnoorong_, Cowagary dialect of Australia.

17. Head = _kokore_, Timbora; _gogorrah_, Cowagary.

18. Fish = _appi_, Mangarei; _wapi_, Darnley Island.

Now as the three dialects have all undoubted Malay affinities, the statement of Marsden must be received with qualifications.

V. Concerning the language of Van Diemen's Land; I venture upon the following statements, the proofs which I hope, ere long, to exhibit _in extenso_.

α. The Language is fundamentally the same for the whole island; although spoken in not less than four dialects mutually unintelligible.

β. It has affinities with the Australian.

γ. It has affinities with the New Caledonian.

A fourth 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 Diemens ran _round_ Australia rather than _across_ it.

The following affinities occur between the vocabularies published in the present volume and the Malay and Monosyllabic dialects; and they are the result of a very partial collation.

1. Blood = _mam_, Darnley Island; _muhum_, South Jooroo dialect of Malacca; _mau_, Anamitic of Cochin China.

2. Nose = _peet_, Darnley Island; _peechi_, Massied; _pih_, Chinese; _pi_, Kong Chinese.

3. Face = _awop aup_, Murray Islands; _eebu_ = (head) Cape York, Massied; _oopoo_ = (head) Tahiti; _epoo_, Sandwich Islands; _aopo_, Easter Island.

4. Hair = _moos_, Darnley Island; _mooche_, Massied; _maow_, Chinese.

5. Country = _gaed_; Darnley Island; _kaha_, Ternati.

6. Black = _gooli_, Darnley Island; _houli_, Tongataboo.

7. Hand = _tag_, Darnley Island; _tangh_, Madagascar; _tong_, Jooro; _tay_, Anamitic. A current Malay root.

8. Fish = _wapi_, Darnley Island; _iba_, Poggy Isles off Sumatra. Also in other Malay dialects.

9. Flame, fire = _bae_, Darnley Island; _api_, Flores, or Ende; _fai_, Siamese; _ffoo_, Kong Chinese.

10. Hair = _yal_, Massied; _eeal_, Cape York; _yal_, Port Lihou; _houlou_, Tongataboo.

11. Teeth = _dang_, Massied; _danga_, Cape York; _dang_, Port Lihou; _dang'eta_, Gunong-talu of Celebes; _wahang_, Menadu; _rang_, Anamitic.

The evidence upon which I rest my belief of the fundamental unity of the three philological groups of the Malay, Papua, and Australian languages, is, of the sort called _cumulative_; and it is the only evidence that our present _data_ will afford us.

Believing, however, in such a fundamental unity, the problem to be solved by further researches on the vocabularies from either Torres Strait or the South of New Guinea, is the problem as to the particular quarter from which New Holland was peopled--whether from New Guinea, or from Timor. Such a problem is not beyond the reach of _future_ philologists.

In the fifth volume of Dr. Prichard's valuable work, I find that Mr. Norris has indicated points of likeness between the Australian dialects, and the Tamul languages of Southern India.

Such may be the case. If, however, the statements of those philologists who connect on one side the Tamul, and on the other the Malay, with the Monosyllabic languages, be correct, the two affinities are compatible.

ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA (1859).

The error of presuming the ruder tribes to be Negrito is apparent in the notice of the Sumatra, and Borneo tribes. They should have no place in a list of Negritos at all.

The gist of the paper lies in the suggestions to break down (1) the lines of demarcation between the Australians, Tasmanians, and Papuans on one side, and the Malays &c. on the other, and (2) those between the Malay and Monosyllabic tongues.

REMARKS ON THE VOCABULARIES OF THE VOYAGE OF THE RATTLESNAKE.

APPENDIX TO MACGILLIVRAY'S VOYAGE OF THE 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_.