Part 23

Here the _pi_ in _nga-pi_ is the _po_ in the Aiawong _nga-ppo_; the _gian_ in _gian-at_ being, probably, the _in_ in the Kowrarega _ina_ = _that_, _this_. _Ngalmo_, also, is expressly stated to mean _many_ as well as _they_, a fact which confirms the view taken of _tana_.

As for the tenses of the verbs, they are evidently no true tenses at all, but merely combinations of the verbal root, and an adverb of time. In Limbakarajia, however, the adverbial element _precedes_ the verbal one. In Kowrarega, however, the equivalent to this adverbial element (probably a simple adverb modified in form so as to amalgamate with its verb, and take the appearance of an inflexion) follows it--a difference of order, sequence, or position, upon which some philologists will, perhaps, lay considerable stress. On the contrary, however, languages exceedingly similar in other respects, may differ in the order of the parts of a term; _e. g._ the German dialects, throughout, place the article _before_ the noun, and keep it separate: whereas the Scandinavian tongues not only make it follow, but incorporate it with the substantive with which it agrees. Hence, a term which, if modelled on the German fashion, should be _hin sol_, becomes, in Scandinavian, _solen_ = _the sun_. And this is but one instance out of many. Finally, I may add that the prefix _apa_, in the present tense of the verb = _cut_, is, _perhaps_, the same affix _eipa_ in the present tense of the Kowrarega verbs.

Another point connected with the comparative philology of Australia is the peculiarity of its phonetic system. The sounds of _f_ and _s_ are frequently wanting. Hence, the presence of either of them in one dialect has been considered as evidence of a wide ethnological difference. Upon this point--in the case of _s_--the remarks on the sound systems of the Kowrarega and Gudang are important. The statement is, the _s_ of the one dialect becomes _ty_ or _tsh_ (and _ch_) in the other. Thus the English word _breast_ = _susu_, Kowrarega; _tyu-tyu_, Gudang, and the English _outrigger float_ = _sarima_, Kowrarega; _charima_, Gudang,--which of these two forms is the older? Probably the Gudang, or the form in _ty_. If so, the series of changes is remarkable, and by attending to it we may see how sounds previously non-existent may become evolved.

Thus--let the original form for _breast_ be _tutu_. The first change which takes place is the insertion of the sound of _y_, making _tyu-tyu_; upon the same principle which makes certain Englishmen say _gyarden_, _kyind_, and _skyey_, for _garden_, _kind_, and _sky_. The next change is for _ty_ to become _tsh_. This we find also in English, where _picture_ or _pictyoor_ is pronounced _pictshur_, &c. This being the change exhibited in the Gudang form _tyutyu_ (pr. _choochoo_, or nearly so), we have a remarkable phonetic phenomenon, viz. the existence of a compound sound (_tsh_) wherein _s_ is an element, in a language where _s_, otherwise than as the element of a compound, is wanting. In other words, we have a _sound formed out of s_, but not _s_ itself; or (changing the expression still further) we have _s_ in certain combinations, but not uncombined. Let, however, the change proceed, and the initial sound of _t_ be lost. In this case _tsh_ becomes _sh_. A further change reduces _sh_ to _s_.

When all this has taken place--and there are many languages wherein the whole process is exhibited--the sound of a hitherto unknown articulation becomes _evolved_ or _developed_ by a natural process of growth, and that in a language where it was previously wanting. The phenomenon, then, of the evolution of new simple sounds should caution us against over-valuing phonetic differences. So should such facts as that of the closely allied dialects of the Gudang and Kowrarega differing from each other by the absence or presence of so important a sound as that of _s_.

The comparative absence, however, of the sound of _s_, in Australian, may be further refined on in another way; and it may be urged that it is absent, not because it has never been developed, or called into existence, but because it has ceased to exist. In the Latin of the Augustan age as compared with that of the early Republic, we find the _s_ of words like _arbos_ changed into _r_ (_arbor_). The old High German, also, and the Icelandic, as compared with the Meso-Gothic, does the same. Still the change only affects certain inflectional syllables, so that the original _s_ being only partially displaced, retains its place in the language, although it occurs in fewer words. In Australian, where it is wanting at all, it is wanting _in toto_: and this is a reason for believing that its absence is referrible to non-development rather than to displacement. For reasons too lengthy too exhibit, I believe that this latter view is _not_ applicable to Australian; the _s_, when wanting, being undeveloped. In either case, however, the phonetic differences between particular dialects are the measures of but slight differences.

Now--with these preliminary cautions against the overvaluation of apparent differences--we may compare the new _data_ for the structure of the Kowrarega and Limbakarajia with the received opinions respecting the Australian grammars in general.

These refer them to the class of _agglutinate_ tongues, _i. e._ tongues wherein the inflections can be shewn to consist of separate words more or less incorporated or amalgamated with the roots which they modify. It may be said that this view is confirmed rather than impugned.

Now, what applies to the Australian grammars applies also to Polynesian and the more highly-developed Malay languages,--such as the Tagala of the Philippines, for instance; and, if such being the case, no difference of _principle in respect to their structure_ separates the Australian from the languages of those two great classes. But the details, it may be said, differ undoubtedly; and this is what we expect. Plural numbers, signs of tense, and other grammatical elements, are evolved by means of the juxtaposition of _similar_ but not _identical_ elements, _e. g._ one plural may be formed by the affix signifying _many_; another, by the affix signifying _with_ or _conjointly_; one preterite may be the root _plus_ a word meaning _then_; another the root _plus_ a word meaning _there_. Futures, too, may be equally evolved by the incorporation or juxtaposition of the word meaning _after_, or the word meaning _to-morrow_. All this makes the exact coincidence of the details of inflection the exception rather than the rule.

This doctrine goes farther than the mere breaking-down of the lines of demarcation which separate classes of languages like the Australian from classes of languages like the Malayo-Polynesian. It shews how both may be evolved from monosyllabic tongues like the Chinese or Siamese. The proof that such is really the case lies in the similarity of individual words, and consists in comparative tables. It is too lengthy for the present paper, the chief object of which is to bring down the inferences from the undoubtedly great superficial differences between the languages of the parts in question to their proper level.

In respect to the _vocabularies_, the extent to which the analysis which applies to the grammar applies to the vocables also may be seen in the following instance. The word _hand_ Bijenelumbo and Limbapyu is _birgalk_. There is also in each language a second form--_anbirgalk_--wherein the _an_ is _non-radical_. So, also, is the _alk_; since we find that _armpit_ = _ingamb-alk_, _shoulder_ = _mundy-alk_, and _fingers_ = _mong alk_. This brings the root = _hand_ to _birg_. Now this we can find elsewhere by looking for. In the Liverpool dialect, _bir-il_ = _hand_, and at King George's Sound, _peer_ = _nails_. The commonest root, = _hand_ in the Australian dialects, is _m-r_, _e. g._

Moreton Bay _murrah_ Karaula _marra_ Sydney _da-mora_ Mudje _mara_ Wellington _murra_ Liverpool _ta-mura_ Corio _far-onggnetok_ Jhongworong _far-okgnata_ Murrumbidje _mur-rugan_ Molonglo _mar-rowla_ Head of Bight _merrer_ Parnkalla _marra_

All this differs from the Port Essington terms. _Elbow_, however, in the dialects there spoken, = _waare_; and _forearm_ = _am-ma-woor_; _wier_, too, = _palm_ in Kowrarega.

To complete the evidence for this latter word being the same as the _m-r_ of the other dialects and languages, it would be necessary to shew, by examples, how the sounds of _m_ and _w_ interchange; and also to shew (by examples, also) how the ideas of _elbow_, _forearm_, and _hand_ do so. But as the present remarks are made for the sake of illustrating a method, rather than establishing any particular point, this is not necessary here; a few instances taken from the names of the parts of the human body being sufficient to shew the general distribution of some of the commoner Australian roots, and the more special fact of their existence in the northern dialects:

English _hand_ Terrutong _manawiye_ Peel River _ma_ Raffles Bay _maneiya_

English _foot_ Moreton Island _tenang_ Peel River _tina_ Mudje _dina_ Wellington _dinnung_ Liverpool _dana_ Bathurst _dina_ Boraipar _tchin-nang-y_ Lake Hindmarsh _jin-nerr_ Murrumbidje _tjin-nuk_ Molonglo _tjin-y-gy_ Pinegorine _gena_ Gnurellean _gen-ong-be-gnen-a_ Moreton Bay _chidna_ Karaula _tinna_ Lake Macquarie _tina_ Jhongworong _gnen-ong-gnat-a_ Corio _gen-ong-gnet-ok_ Colack _ken-ong-gnet-ok_ Bight Head _jinna_ Parnkalla _idna_ Aiawong _dtun_ K. George's Sound _tian_ Goold Island _pinyun_ and _pinkan_

English _hair, beard_ Moreton Island _yerreng_ Bijenelumbo _yirka_ Regent's Lake _ooran_ Lake Macquarie _wurung_ Goold Island _kiaram_ Wellington _uran_ Karaula _yerry_ Sydney _yaren_ Peel River _ierai_ Mudge _yarai_

English _eye_ Moreton Island _mel_ Moreton Bay _mill_ Gudang _emeri_ = _eyebrow_ Bijenelumbo _merde_ = _eyelid_ Regent's Lake _mil_ Karaula _mil_ Mudje _mir_ Corio _mer-gnet-ok_ Colack _mer-gnen-ok_ Dautgart _mer-gna-nen_ Jhongworong _mer-ing-gna-ta_ Pinegorine _ma_ Gnurellean _mer-e-gnen-a_ Boraipar _mer-ring-y_ Lake Hindmarsh _mer_ Lake Mundy _meer-rang_ Murrumbidje _mit_ Bight Head _mail_ K. George's Sound _mial_

English _tooth_ Moreton Island _tiya_ Moreton Bay _deer_ Lake Macquarie _tina_ Sydney _yera_ Wellington _irang_ Murrumbidje _yeeran_ Goold Island _eera_

English _tongue_ Moreton Bay _dalan_ Regent's Lake _talleng_ Karaula _talley_ Goold Island _talit_ Lake Macquarie _talan_ Sydney _dalan_ Peel River _tale_ K. George's Sound _talien_

English _ear_ Kowrarega _kowra_ Sydney _kure_ Liverpool _kure_ Lake Macquarie _ngureong_ Moreton Bay _bidna_ Karaula _binna_ Peel River _bine_ Bathurst _benang-arei_ Goold Island _pinna_

The Miriam Vocabulary belongs to a different class, viz. the Papuan. It is a dialect of language first made known to us through the Voyage of the Fly, as spoken in the islands Erroob, Maer, and Massied. Admitting this, we collate it with the North Australian tongues, and that, for the sake of _contrast_ rather than _comparison_. Here, the philologist, from the extent to which the Australian tongues differ from each other, notwithstanding their real affinity, is prepared to find greater differences between an _Australian_ and a _Papuan_ language than, at the first glance, exists. Let us verify this by reference to some words which relate to the human body, and its parts.

ENGLISH. ERROOB. MASSIED. KOWRAREGA. GUDANG. _Nose_ _pit_ _pichi_ _piti_ ---- _Lips_ ---- _anka_ ---- _angka_ _Cheek_ _baag_ ---- _baga_ _baga_ _Chin_, _jaw_ _iba_ _ibu_ _ibu_ _ebu_ _Navel_ _kopor_, _kupor_ _kupor_ _kupar_ _kopurra_ _Eye_ ---- _dana_ _dana_ _dana_ _Skin_ _egur_ ---- ---- _equora_ _Vein_ _kerer_ _kirer_ _kerur_ _kerur_ _Bone_ _lid_ ---- _rida_ ---- _Sore_ _bada_ ---- _bada_ ----

Few Australian vocabularies are thus similar--a fact which may be said to prove too much; since it may lead to inference that the so-called Papuan tongue of Torres Strait is really Australian. Nevertheless, although I do not absolutely deny that such is the case, the evidence of the whole body of ethnological facts--_e. g._ those connected with the moral, intellectual, and physical conformation of the two populations--is against it.

And so is the philology itself, if we go further. The Erroob pronouns are,

_Me_ = _ka_ _you_ = _ma_ _his_ = _ela_ _Mine_ = _ka-ra_ _your_ = _ma ra_

all of which are un-Australian.

Are we then to say that all the words of the table just given are borrowed from the Australian by the Papuans, or _vice versâ_? No. Some belong to the common source of the two tongues, _pit_ = _nose_ being, probably, such a word; whilst others are the result of subsequent intercourse.

Still, it cannot absolutely be said that the Erroob or Miriam tongue is not Australian also, or _vice versâ_. Still less, is it absolutely certain that the former is not transitional between the New Guinea language and the Australian. I believe, however, that it is not so.

The doubts as to the philological position of the Miriam are by no means diminished by reference to the nearest unequivocally Papuan vocabulary, viz. that of Redscar Bay. Here the difference exceeds rather than falls short of our expectations. The most important of the few words which coincide are

ENGLISH. REDSCAR BAY. ERROOB.

_Head_ _quara_ _herem_ _Mouth_ _mao_ _mit_ = _lips_ _Testicles_ _abu_ _eba_ = _penis_ _Shoulder_ _paga_ _pagas_ = _upper arm_

On the other hand, the Redscar Bay word for _throat_, _kato_, coincides with the Australian _karta_ of the Gudang of Cape York. Again, a complication is introduced by the word _buni-mata_ = _eyebrow_. Here _mata_ = _eye_, and, consequently, _buni_ = brow. This root re-appears in the Erroob; but there it means the _eyeball_, as shewn by the following words from Jukes' Vocabulary.

_Eye_ _irkeep_ _Eyebrow_ _irkeep moos_ = _eye-hair_ _Eye ball_ _poni_ _Eyelid_ _poni-pow_ = _eyeball-hair_

Probably the truer meaning of the Redscar Bay word is _eyeball_.

No inference is safer than that which brings the population of the Louisiade Archipelago, so far, at least, as it is represented by the Vocabularies of Brierly Island and Duchateau Island, from the eastern coast of New Guinea. What points beyond were peopled from Louisiade is another question.

For the islands between New Ireland and New Caledonia our _data_ are lamentably scanty; the list consisting of--

1. A short vocabulary from the Solomon Isles. 2. Short ones from Mallicollo. 3. The same from Tanna. 4. Shorter ones still from Erromanga and 5. Annatom. 6. Cook's New Caledonian Vocabulary. 7. La Billardiere's ditto.

The collation of these with the Louisiade has led me to a fact which I little expected. As far as the very scanty _data_ go, they supply the closest resemblance to the Louisiade dialects, from the two New Caledonian vocabularies. Now New Caledonia was noticed in the Appendix to the Voyage of the Fly (vol. ii. p. 318) as _apparently_ having closer philological affinities with _Van Diemen's Land_, than that country had with Australia; an apparent fact which induced me to write as follows: "A proposition concerning the Tasmanian language exhibits an impression, rather than a deliberate opinion. Should it, however, be confirmed by future researches, it will at once explain the points of physical contrast between the Tasmanian tribes and those of Australia that have so often been insisted on. It is this--that the affinities of language between the Tasmanian and the New Caledonian are stronger than those between the Australian and Tasmanian. This indicates that the stream of population for Van Diemen's Land ran _round_ Australia, rather than across it." Be this as it may, the remark, with our present scanty materials, is, at best, but a suggestion--a suggestion, however, which would account for the physical appearance of the Tasmanian being more New Caledonian than Australian.

The chief point of resemblance between the Louisiade and the New Caledonian is taken from the numerals. In each system there is a _prefix_, and in each that prefix begins with a labral letter--indeed the _wa_ of New Caledonia and the _pahi_ of Louisiade seem to be the same roots.

1. 2. Brierly Island paihe-tia pahi-wo Cook's New Caledonia wa-geeaing wa-roo La Billardiere's do. oua-nait oua-dou

3. 4. Brierly Island paihe-tuan paihe-pak Cook's New Caledonia wa-teen wa-mbaeek La Billardiere's do. oua-tguien oua-tbait

5. 6. Brierly Island paihe-lima paihe-won Cook's New Caledonia wa-nnim wa-nnim-geeek La Billardiere's do. oua-nnaim ou-naim-guik

7. 8. Brierly Island pahe-pik paihe-wan Cook's New Caledonia wa-nnim-noo wa-nnim-gain La Billardiere's do. oua-naim-dou ou-naim-guein

9. 10. Brierly Island paihe-siwo paihe-awata Cook's New Caledonia wa-nnim-baeek wa-nnoon-aiuk La Billardiere's do. oua-naim-bait oua-doun-hic

The Redscar Bay numerals are equally instructive. They take two forms: one with, one without, the prefix in _ow_, as recorded by Mr. Macgillivray.

This system of prefix is not peculiar. The Tanna and Mallicollo numerals of Cook are--

ENGLISH. TANNA. MALLICOLLO. One r-eedee tsee-kaee Two ka-roo e-ry Three ka-har e-rei Four kai-phar e-bats Five k-reerum e-reeum Six ma-r-eedee tsookaeee Seven ma-k-roo gooy Eight ma-ka-har hoo-rey Nine ma-kai-phar good-bats Ten ma-k-reerum senearn

Here, although the formations are not exactly regular, the prefixion of an initial syllable is evident. So is the quinary character of the numeration. The prefix itself, however, in the Tanna and Mallicollo is no _labial_, as in the Louisiade and New Caledonian, but either _k_ or a vowel.

The next fact connected with the Louisiade vocabularies is one of greater interest. Most of the names of the different _parts of the body_ end in _da_. In the list in question they were marked in italics; so that the proportion they bear to the words not so ending was easily seen. Now it is only the words belonging to this class that thus terminate. Elsewhere the ending _da_ is no commoner than any other.

What does this mean? If we look to such words as _mata-da_ = eyes, _sopa-da_ = lips, _maka-da_ = teeth, and some other naturally _plural_ names, we should infer that it was a sign of _number_. That this, however, is not the case is shewn by the equivalents to _tongue_, _nose_, and other _single_ members where the affix is equally common. What then is its import? The _American_ tongues help us here.

ENGLISH MBAYA ABIPONI MOKOBI

Head na-guilo ne-maiat ---- Eye ni-gecoge na-toele ni-cote Ear na-pagate ---- ---- Nose ni-onige ---- ---- Tongue no-gueligi ---- ---- Hair na-modi ne-etiguic na-ecuta Hand ni-baagadi na-pakeni na-poguena Foot no-gonagi ---- ----

ENGLISH MOXA(1)[28] MOXA(2) MOXA(3)

Head nu-ciuti nu-chuti nu-chiuti Eye nu-chi ---- nu-ki Ear nu-cioca ---- ---- Nose nu-siri nu-siri ---- Tongue nu-nene nu-nene nu-nene Hand nu-bore nu-boupe nu-bore Foot ni-bope ---- ni-bope

[Footnote 28: These are three different dialects.]

Now in these, and in numerous other American tongues, the prefix is the _possessive pronoun_; in other words, there is a great number of American languages where the capacity for abstracting the thing possessed from the possessor is so slight as to make it almost impossible to disconnect the noun from its pronoun. I believe, then, the affixes in question have a _possessive_ power; and am not aware that _possessive_ adjuncts thus incorporated have been recognised in any of the languages for these parts; indeed, they are generally considered as American characteristics.

How far does their presence extend? In the New Caledonian vocabulary of La Billardiere we find it. The names of the parts of the body all take an affix, which no other class of words does. This is _gha_, _guai_, or _ghai_, or other similar combination of _g_ with a vowel. In Van Diemen's Land, an important locality, we find the following series of words, which are submitted to the judgment of the reader.

ENGLISH. WESTERN TASMANIAN.

_Foot_ lula _Leg_ peea = piya = posteriors, Brumer I. _Thigh_ tula = turi = knee, Brumer I. _Belly_ cawara-ny _Neck_ denia _Ears_ lewli-na _Nose_ me-na _Eyes_ pollatoola = matara-pulupulura = eyelashes, Brierly I. _Hair_ pareata ---- palani-na _Face_ manrable _Mouth_ ca-nia _Teeth_ yannalople = yinge-da, Brierly I. _Tongue_ tulla-na _Arm_ alree _Fist_ reannema-na _Head_ pulbea-ny

Here the termination _na_ appears elsewhere, as in _memana_ = fight, _nabagee-na_ = sun; but by no means so frequently; nor yet with such an approach to regularity.

ENGLISH. CIRCULAR HEAD.

_Hair_ parba _Hand_ rabal-ga _Foot_ rabuc-ka _Head_ ewuc-ka _Eye_ mameric-ca _Nose_ rowari-ga _Tongue_ mamana = mimena, Brumer I. _Teeth_ cawna _Ear_ cowanrig-ga

Here however, it must not be concealed that the termination ka, or ga, occurs in other words, such as tenal-ga = laugh, tar-ga = cry, teiri-ga = walk, lamunika = see. These, however, are verbs; and it is possible (indeed probable) that the _k_ or _g_ is the same as in the preceding substantives, just as the _m_ in _su-m_ and εἰ-μι is the _m_ in _meus_, _me_, and ἐμι. Still, this will not apply throughout; _e. g._ the words like lalli-ga = kangaroo, para-ka = flower, and others.

ENGLISH. EASTERN TASMANIAN.

_Eye_ lepe-na _Ear_ pelverata _Elbow_ rowella _Foot_ langa-na _Fist_ trew _Head_ pathe-na-naddi _Hair_ cetha-na _Hand_ anama-na = nema-da, Brumer I. _Knee_ nannabena-na _Leg_ lathana-ma _Teeth_ yan-na = yinge-da, Brierly I. _Tongue_ me-na = mime-na, Brumer I. _Chin_ came-na _Neck_ lepera _Breast_ wagley