RADICAL UNITY OF THE AUSTRALIAN LANGUAGE THROUGHOUT THE CONTINENT.
In the preceding narrative of my Expeditions I have occasionally
introduced some casual incidents relating to the manners and social
condition of the natives of Australia, a race generally considered to
occupy too low a position in the scale of humanity to be worthy of any
peculiar regard. In the following pages I shall bring together such
observations as my intercourse with them enabled me to collect; arranging
my remarks under the heads of Language, traditional or customary Laws,
and social Habits and Manners; and to these I shall add some desultory
anecdotes illustrative of their superstitions, and of some other
peculiarities of thought and action; and shall conclude with a short
review of the influence that the settlement of Europeans among them has,
or is likely to have, on their condition.
CAUSES OF A CONTRARY OPINION.
It has hitherto been very generally believed that the languages spoken in
different portions of the continent of Australia are radically distinct;
and as such a circumstance, were it really the case, would tend to prove
that its inhabitants originated from several separate races, it becomes
rather an important matter to set this question at rest, and to endeavour
to show from what cause so erroneous an opinion originated.
The arguments which prove that all the Australian dialects have a common
root are:
1. A general similarity of sound and structure of words in the different
portions of Australia, as far as yet ascertained
2. The recurrence of the same word with the same signification, to be
traced, in many instances, round the entire continent, but undergoing, of
course, in so vast an extent of country, various modifications;
3. The same names of natives occurring frequently at totally opposite
portions of the continent. Now, in all parts of it which are known to
Europeans, it is ascertained that the natives name their children from
any remarkable circumstance which may occur soon after their birth; such
being the case, an accordance of the names of natives is a proof of a
similarity of dialect.
CAUSES OF ERROR IN ENQUIRERS.
The chief cause of the misapprehension which has so long existed with
regard to the point under consideration is that the language of the
aborigines of Australia abounds in synonymes, many of which are, for a
time, altogether local; so that, for instance, the inhabitants of a
particular district will use one word for water, whilst those of a
neighbouring district will apply another, which appears to be a totally
different one. But when I found out that in such instances as these both
tribes understood the words which either made use of, and merely employed
another one, from temporary fashion and caprice, I felt convinced that
the language generally spoken to Europeans by the natives of any one
small district could not be considered as a fair specimen of the general
language of that part of Australia, and therefore in the vocabulary which
I compiled in Western Australia I introduced words collected from a very
extensive tract of country.
Again, in getting the names of the parts of the body, etc., from the
natives, many causes of error arise; for they have names for almost every
minute portion of the human frame: thus, in asking the name for the arm,
one stranger would get the name for the upper arm, another for the lower
arm, another for the right arm, another for the left arm, etc.; and it
therefore seems most probable that in the earlier stages of the inquiry
into the nature of the language of this people these circumstances
contributed mainly to the erroneous conclusion that languages radically
different were spoken in remote parts of the continent.
PROOFS OF IDENTITY OF THE LANGUAGE THROUGHOUT THE CONTINENT.
One singularity in the dialects spoken by the aborigines in different
portions of Australia is that those of districts widely removed from one
another sometimes assimilate very closely, whilst the dialects spoken in
the intermediate ones differ considerably from either of them. The same
circumstances take place with regard to their rites and customs; but as
this appears rather to belong to the question of the means by which this
race was distributed over so extensive a tract of country, I will not now
enter into it, but merely adduce sufficient evidence to prove that a
language radically the same is spoken over the whole continent.
If then we start from Perth in Western Australia, following the coast in
a southerly direction, it will be found that between Perth and King
George's Sound a common language is spoken, made up of several dialects,
scarcely differing from one another in any material points and gradually
merging into the dialects of these two places, as the points considered
are nearer to one or the other.
The principal causes of difference between the dialects of these two
places are, 1st, that at King George's Sound the terminating syllable of
all names is dropped; and 2nd, that all verbs, with a very few
exceptions, end in gur, instead of the varying termination which is given
to them at Perth. Any person who can speak the Perth dialect will, by
observing these two rules, be able to converse freely with the natives of
King George's Sound.
(TABLE OF EXAMPLES TO ILLUSTRATE THIS DIFFERENCE OF DIALECTS.)
From these examples it will be seen that the King George's Sound dialect
is the simplest of the two; and indeed I am inclined to believe that the
dialect there spoken is more simple than that in use at any other portion
of the continent.
If we now proceed to Adelaide in South Australia we still find the same
language spoken, but the dialect here is considerably softened; the hard
g of Perth is exchanged for k, and b becomes p and w. Many of the nouns
take -anga as a termination, and the verbs take -andi and -endi. This
addition of soft terminations and a general sweetness of sound appear to
be the peculiar characteristics of the Adelaide dialect. No large
vocabulary of this language has yet been published, but one-eighth of the
words known as belonging to the Perth dialect have been found also in
that of Adelaide; we may therefore fairly conclude that when the latter
language is better known a still greater degree of identity will be found
to exist.
Natives from several parts of the Murray and Murrumbidgee and from Port
Phillip have been brought into communication with natives from King
George's Sound, scanty vocabularies from some of these points are also
extant, and the amount of evidence thus gained clearly establishes that
the several dialects are all derived from a common root.
The labours of Mr. Threlkeld in the vicinity of Hunter's River and Lake
Macquarie enable us to compare the language of that portion of Australia
with those of the other points which we have just considered, and the
result of this comparison also shows that the languages are radically the
same.
TABLES OF EXAMPLES.
The following Tables will give a sufficient number of words common to
those four dialects to show the degree of similarity which exists among
them.
(TABLE OF SUBSTANTIVES.
TABLE OF VERBS.)
VARIATIONS OF DIALECT.
Now before proceeding farther and thus entering upon ground which is very
little known, there are several important circumstances worthy of
consideration. In the vast extent of country which is comprised between
the points embraced in these tables it was to have been expected that
very great variations of dialect would have been found. If we only
reflect upon the differences of dialect existing between the several
counties of England, so limited in extent, how much greater were the
variations to have been reasonably anticipated in a country between two
and three thousand miles across, where an unwritten language is in use,
and where no communication whatever takes place between the inhabitants
of distant portions: moreover in this great extent the vegetation becomes
totally different; birds, reptiles, and quadrupeds inhabit one portion of
the continent which are unknown in another, and external nature
altogether changes. Under these circumstances many new words must have
been invented, and new terms must constantly have been introduced as the
population spread across the country, and as those who were constantly
pushing on from the outskirts of the inhabited parts ceased to
communicate with the districts which had been first peopled, these
changes must have been unknown to the original inhabitants of the
continent and to those of their descendants who successively inhabited
their territory.
If for instance this country was first peopled from the north or the
tropical parts, the most remote inhabitants of the southern portions must
have invented terms for snow, ice, hail, intense cold, etc., as well as
for every tree and bird, for every fish and reptile, and for every
insect; all the compound and comparative terms derived from these, as
well as the original words, we ought therefore to expect to find totally
different in the languages of the north and south, of the east and west;
and from whatever portion of the continent we imagine the first
inhabitants to have proceeded the same reasoning holds good.
RADICAL IDENTITY OF THE PRONOUNS.
But personal terms, such as the parts of the body, the pronouns, etc.,
and also verbs describing ordinary actions, ought not to be expected to
vary in the same degree; and we shall accordingly find that it is chiefly
in words of these and similar classes that the greatest degree of
resemblance is found to exist. With regard to the pronouns this is very
remarkable. In the singular, plural, and dual numbers they almost
coincide in Western Australia, South Australia, and Sydney. The following
table of the pronouns as used in those places will show this:
(TABLE OF PRONOUNS.)
DIFFERENCES OF DIALECT EXPLAINED. EXAMPLES.
To those who have not considered this circumstance languages have
frequently appeared to be quite different which in reality are closely
assimilated. Two instances will explain my meaning. The natives in the
vicinity of Perth generally use the word gab-by, or kuyp-e, for water,
but those inhabiting a district only twelve or fourteen miles distant
from Perth adopt the word kow-win; the word used by the natives in the
vicinity of Adelaide in South Australia for water is kauw-ee. Now, on
comparing these words it might have been hastily concluded that the
languages of West and South Australia were without affinity; but in fact
the variation does not constitute any essential difference, for,
considering the interchangeable nature of the consonants b, p, and w, and
of g and k, which affect different dialects, we shall find the words
gab-by, kuyp-e, kow-win and kauw-ee to be only different forms from one
root. One instance of another kind may be given. The word for the sun at
Perth is nganga, whilst at Adelaide it is tin-dee; but the word used by
the natives at Encounter Bay, South Australia, thirty-six miles from
Adelaide, is ngon-ge, and the word used in the southern districts of
Western Australia for the stars is tiendee: thus by extending the
vocabularies of the two places the identity of the language is shown.
CAUSES OF ERROR IN FORMER ENQUIRERS.
Up to the present time we have had only very meagre vocabularies,
collected by passing strangers, each of whom adopted his own system of
orthography, and the comparisons formed from such compilations must
necessarily have been erroneous in the highest degree. Moreover in many
instances these strangers were grossly imposed upon. One gentleman
published a vocabulary of the King George's Sound dialect which has been
largely quoted from by other writers; in this the numerals as high as ten
are given, although the natives only count to four; and the translations
of some words which he has put down as numbers are very humorous, such
as: What do you mean? Get out, etc.
COMMON ORIGIN OF NATIVE POPULATION.
Many words spoken by the natives at Shark Bay are the same as those used
by the natives at Perth, and the dialect in use in the Province of
Victoria appears very nearly to assimilate to the latter, as is shown in
the extracts from Mr. Moore's journal at page 120. Having thus traced the
entire of the coastline of the continent of Australia, it appears that a
language the same in root is spoken throughout this vast extent of
country; and from the general agreement in this as well as in personal
appearance, rites, and ceremonies, we may fairly infer a community of
origin for the aborigines. This being admitted, two other questions will
arise.
How were they disseminated over the continent?
and
At what period, and from what quarter, did they arrive upon it?