_I_ = _nga-pi_.
_Thou_ = _noie_.
_He_, _she_, _it_ = _gianat_.
_We_ = _ngari_.
_We two_ = _arguri_.
_Ye_ = _noie_.
_They_ = _ngalmo_.
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