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.