AFRICAN PHILOLOGY.
“There is a notion that African languages are rude and
imperfect. They are no such thing.”—BISHOP STEERE.
What makes one language more perfect than another? What is a
philosophical language? We judge a language by the way in which it
fulfils its purpose: its great purpose being to express thought.
Every language is a means of expressing thought by words. In
one tongue we express certain thoughts easily and conveniently,
which in another we have to express in a cumbrous manner. Thus
instead of saying “inapplicabilities,” we might have to say
“the-plural-condition-of-not-being-able-to-fold-one-thing-into-another”.
To express thought words must be used in a particular way: the words
themselves are the vocabulary, the particular way in which they are
used is the grammar. In estimating a language, we must consider (A) its
vocabulary, (B) its grammar.
A. THE VOCABULARY.
1. _The Number of Words._—(_a_) A language may have too many words. In
English, multitudes of words have been taken from other tongues. Thus
we have the numeral _one_, and also _unit_ (Latin) and _monad_ (Greek).
Unless such words are necessary, there is a loss of simplicity, which is
felt by a foreigner trying to learn the language; and which we could make
apparent to ourselves by introducing from three other languages three
additional words for _one_, with all their derivatives. So long as such
new words indicate different shades of meaning, their presence shows
fertility in thought; but where they do not each indicate a separate
and necessary meaning, they encumber the language. As writing is the
chief means of giving permanency to unnecessary words, we find that an
unwritten language like Yao is not thus burdened, and seldom uses two or
three words where one might do. There are, however, cases of apparent
excess. We have a word for _his elder brother_, and quite a distinct word
for _his younger brother_. Many such cases, however, arise really from
deficiency—there is no word in the language for _brother_. Again, we have
words for _my younger brother_, _your younger brother_, &c., but no word
for _younger brother_.
(_b_) A language may have too few words. I have never seen Africans of
the same tribe trying to talk with each other and breaking down for want
of vocables. They have always language enough to express their ideas. But
they have often to use circumlocutions. Instead of saying a _pen_ they
speak of a (thing) with which to write or mark. It would be unfair to
expect the Yao to have a name for _ice_, any more than the English have
a name for anything they don’t know of, but every language should have
easy methods of forming new words where they are wanted.
While sufficient for ordinary purposes, the words of a language may be
too few for exact translation. The English vocabulary enables us to
speak of: (1) Objects (and actions) in the material world. (2) Relations
between these objects; such relations are numerous. (3) Things and
relations in the mental world, which are named through analogies in the
material world, for material things are more readily named than mental.
(4) Besides there are the names of Science. In names of the 1st kind, Yao
is as full as English. In names of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th kinds, where a
greater abstraction is implied, it falls short. An African, while able
to perceive all such relations, &c., does not find it necessary to name
many of them. Even though he named all that he observed, his names would
be lost, for in the absence of writing, few words acquire fixity except
those in general use. Take the word _grey_; present a grey object to a
Yao, and he calls it black or white, but as a matter of fact, he knows
perfectly that it is different from either of these colours. In English
we speak of a man as being good, upright, straightforward, true, honest,
honourable, just, strict, religious, pious, holy, pleasant, courteous,
&c.; but in Yao there are not names for so many shades of character, and
one or two words must do service for the whole list. We shall not wonder
at this if we consider how many of the above epithets have been taken
into the English language from other tongues. A modern mission to our
Saxon ancestors would have found their vocabulary as poor as we find the
African.
2. _The Nature of the Words._—Where one language has an easy word,
another may express the same idea (_a_) by a word dreadful to
pronounce—“a vocable sufficient to splinter the teeth of a crocodile”; or
(_b_) by a cumbrous combination of words.
(_a_) The Yao words are easy to pronounce, the rule being that every
consonant is followed by a vowel. But they are longer than English
words. If a Yao had to say _transubstantiations_, he would say
_tiransubisitantiation(i)si_. Again, where we say “You believed him,” he
prefers to say “You-him-believed,” in one word.
(_b_) A language may have a cumbrous combination of words. When the
Romans had to work with their numerical notation of IX. and XI., we can
excuse them for not making much of simple multiplication and division. So
when the Yao express 99 by _makumi msanu ni makumi mcheche kwisa msanu ni
mcheche_,[14] we may expect that their numerical system will not care to
go any farther!
B. GRAMMAR.
What parts of speech are first used? Interjections like _ah!_ and
imitations of sounds like “crow” come very soon. Now, when children utter
the word “crow” what is its nature? Is it a noun meaning the sound, or
is it a verb in reference to the production of the sound, or is it too
indefinite to be classed? When it does become definite, it is certainly
more like a noun or a verb than anything else. The only other part of
speech that might come into competition is the adjective; but if we look
at what the adjective does in Grammar, we see that it already implies the
noun.
The noun and the verb are the parts of speech that are most readily
obtained,—that lie nearest to hand in nature. But the nouns and verbs
that we meet with generally go far beyond the individual. Such a word
as house, though denoting a single object, could not have been formed
without abstraction. This position is illustrated in any text-book on
Logic under the Logical notion. The word “house,” while denoting a
special object, implies that this object has certain characteristics. Yet
the degree of abstraction is greater for other parts of speech. To take
an illustration. We know that “John built houses,” and that “John did not
enter these houses”. Now, we might state these two ideas without anything
farther; but most languages bring in another idea, thus, “John built
houses _but_ he never entered them”. The new idea marked by _but_ arises
from contrasting the other two ideas, and could not exist till both of
them existed. So we cannot speak of a good house till we know of a house,
neither can we speak of “building well,” or “building for a friend” till
we first know about “building”.
Thus, the more concrete words are the nouns and verbs; adjectives and
pronouns are less so, while adverbs, prepositions, and conjunctions
are very abstract, and are often so few in many languages as to be
classed together as particles. The concrete words describe the easier
thoughts, the primary modifications of thought, the abstract words
describe secondary or more abstract modifications of thought. Hence, as
we might anticipate, we find the Yao language well supplied with nouns,
verbs, and even pronouns, but as we go beyond these to adjectives, the
supply is less, and still less as we pass on to adverbs, prepositions,
and conjunctions. The scarcity of prepositions and conjunctions often
discourages the European who studies the language. It is a great shock to
discover that the English words _to_ and _from_ are represented by one
and the same native word!
We shall now show how the Yao language deals (1) with the principal parts
of speech, (2) with the subordinate.
1. The chief thing to note regarding the _principal parts of speech_ is
their inflexion. The fewer the inflexions, the greater is the simplicity.
(_a_) _Inflexion for Concord._—We have
IN ENGLISH. IN LATIN.
good hill bon_us_ mons
good tree bon_a_ arbor
good field bon_um_ arvum
The change in the adjective (like good-us, a, um) is cumbrous, and is
seldom necessary. A boy trying Latin at school mistakes in saying _bonus
arbor_, but he has little chance of being misunderstood. Yao gives ten
concords of this kind with their plurals. This is a severe infliction,
although we can generally tell by inspection what concord is required.
(_b_). _Inflection for Government._—English nouns have one inflexion for
case, Latin nouns have six. The Yao noun has no inflexion of the same
kind, but it modifies the verb so as to indicate its relation to the
noun. These modifications correspond in number (ten) with the concords.
The advantage of many inflexions is that related words are marked so
clearly that they may be separated from each other or have their order
changed. The Yao could speak of ten nouns and say _that_ is hard,
_that_ is soft, &c., without ambiguity, where our word _that_ (which
never changes) is powerless. Again, in English we cannot say “the sire
the son addressed”. In Latin, _sire_ and _son_ are so marked that the
meaning is unmistakeable in any order. But such advantage is small. So
great explicitness as inflected languages mark at every step, is seldom
necessary. The Yao, then, as compared with English, takes too much
trouble with the principal parts of speech. Its process of fitting out
nouns and verbs (which affects also adjectives and particles), is too
minute and cumbrous.
2. Coming now to the more abstract and _subordinate parts of speech_, we
find that while the English language has many of these, the Yao language
has not; and to make up for the want it throws more work on the principal
parts of speech. In English we say, “to build a house for him”; the Yao
modifies the verb “build” till it means “build-for,” and dismisses the
preposition. In most of these cases the English language has an advantage
like that which arises from the principle of division of labour in other
matters.
We shall now sum up these results, and add a few more in the following
table:—
-------------------+----------------------------+--------------------+
| ENGLISH. | LATIN. |
-------------------+----------------------------+--------------------+
SYLLABLES | May end with consonant | May end with |
| | consonant |
| | |
PLACE OF ACCENT | Not uniform | |
| | |
VOWEL SOUNDS | Numerous | |
| | |
INFLEXIONS FOR | At end (of words) | At end |
NUMBER IN | | |
NOUNS | | |
| | |
DUAL NUMBER | Traces of (_both_) | Traces of (_ambo_).|
| | Common in Greek |
| | |
CASE INFLEXION | Only in pronouns | Highly developed |
(Nouns or Prons.) | | |
| | |
CONCORD INFLEX. | Only in pronouns | Much used |
| | |
CHARACTER OF | Pronouns are masc., | Masc., fem., and |
THE CONCORD | fem., or neut.; but | neuter |
| the distinction disappears| |
| in the plural | |
| | |
RULES FOR APPLYING | According to sex | Faintly indicated |
THIS | | by the termination|
CONCORD | | of the noun |
| | |
NUMBER INFLEXION | At end; rare | At end, almost |
IN VERB | | superseded by |
| | the inflexion |
| | for person |
| | |
CONCORD INFLEXION | None | None (exc. when |
IN VERB | | a verb is made |
| | up of participle |
| | and auxiliary) |
| | |
INFLEXION FOR | Rare; at end | General; at end |
PERSON | | |
| | |
INFLEXION OF | None | None |
VERB TO INDICATE | | |
ITS OBJECT | | |
| | |
INFLEXION FOR | At end. When words | At end |
MOODS AND | are put at the beginning | |
TENSES | they retain their | |
| independent character, | |
| and are called | |
| auxiliaries | |
| | |
MODIFICATIONS OF | Few | Many |
ACTION GENERALLY | | |
| | |
USE OF ADVERBS, | Large | Fewer prepositions |
PREPOSITIONS, | | than in |
& OTHER | | English owing to |
PARTICLES | | case inflexions |
| | |
COMPOUND WORDS | Numerous | Numerous |
-------------------+----------------------------+--------------------+
-------------------+------------------+----------------------------------
| HEBREW. | YAO.
-------------------+------------------+----------------------------------
SYLLABLES | Preference for | Natives find difficulty in
| open syllables | pronouncing syllables ending
| except where | with a consonant: theirs all
| accented | end with a vowel.
| |
PLACE OF ACCENT | | Great uniformity (nearly always
| | on the penult in Chinyasa).
VOWEL SOUNDS | | Few.
| |
INFLEXIONS FOR | At end | At beginning.
NUMBER IN | |
NOUNS | |
| |
DUAL NUMBER | Used | No trace: _e.g._, a word like
| | _both_ is translated by _all_
| | (all the two).
| |
CASE INFLEXION | Traces found | Entirely absent.
(Nouns or Prons.) | |
| |
CONCORD INFLEX. | Used | Exceedingly numerous.
| |
CHARACTER OF | Masc. and fem. | No trace of masculine or feminine
THE CONCORD | | inflexion even in pronouns: but
| | distinctions like (1) personal
| | or personified, (2) impersonal;
| | the latter being subdivided into
| | names of objects in nature,
| | collective, abstract,
| | ampliative, diminutive, &c.
| |
RULES FOR APPLYING | Faintly indicated| Almost infallibly indicated by
THIS | by the termin- | the beginning of the noun.
CONCORD | ation of the noun|
| |
NUMBER INFLEXION | At end and at | At beginning.
IN VERB | beginning |
| |
CONCORD INFLEXION | Used | Used.
IN VERB | |
| |
INFLEXION FOR |Gen.; at beginning| General; at beginning.
PERSON | and end |
| |
INFLEXION OF |Pronomenal | General, and used to distinguish
VERB TO INDICATE | suffixes | definite and indefinite objects.
ITS OBJECT. | |
| |
INFLEXION FOR |At beginning and | At beginning (and end).
MOODS AND | end |
TENSES | |
| |
MODIFICATIONS OF |Not so many for | Numerous. instead of an adverb
ACTION GENERALLY | moods & tenses, | _not_, there is a complicated
| but modifications| negative inflexion.
| of action |
| are expressed |
| often by modific-|
| ations of verb |
| instead of adv. |
| |
USE OF ADVERBS, | | More work is thrown on the
PREPOSITIONS, | | principal parts of speech, and
& OTHER | | particles are not much used.
PARTICLES | |
| |
COMPOUND WORDS | | Hardly any except in names; but
| | derivative nouns can be formed
| | very readily.
-------------------+------------------+----------------------------------
We select Latin and Hebrew, because the one is of the Aryan family of
languages and the other of the Semitic.
What is a family—and when are languages said to belong to the same family?
Languages, like everything else, are classed with reference to
similarity. The similarity may be in grammar, or in vocabulary, the
former kind of agreement being the more decisive. Let us take an example
of agreement in vocabulary. In the Aryan group of languages the word
for five is _pantshan_ in Sanscrit, _pente_ in Greek, _quinque_ in
Latin, _pump_ in Welsh, _funf_ in German, and _fif_ in Anglo-Saxon.
Agreements of this kind go to prove that the languages belong to one
great family. Next we reach the conclusion that the races that used
them had a common ancestry who dwelt in an old “Aryan home”. But can we
prove that the Semitic languages have any kinship to the Aryan? Some
try to do so by looking for coincidences in certain words, as in the
numerals. For instance, the Hebrew for five is _chimasha_. Has this any
relation to _pantshan_? In looking at the Yao language we often find
certain coincidences. If the Yao had ever derived a word for five from
_pantshan_, they would have put a vowel at the end, and further, they
would have treated the beginning of the word as being less important
(just as the Greeks treat the end of the words as of less importance).
Now, it is singular that the Yao word for five is _msano_, the Swahili
_tano_, the Chinyasa _sanu_, and the Nyamwesi _nhanu_!
Resemblances of this kind, if numerous and not accidental, would point
us towards a time when all “the earth was of one language and one speech”.
As we have already hinted, the Bantu family of languages, to which the
Yao belongs, fills nearly the whole of Southern Africa. Besides the
Bantu people there are the Hottentots. As early as 1850 we find Dr. W.
H. J. Bleek writing, “The Hottentot language is to me at this moment of
greater interest than any other. The facts have now so increased upon me
and offer such strong analogies, that there is no further doubt in my
own mind, that not only the Coptic but also the Semitic and all other
languages of Africa (as Berber, the Galla dialect, &c., &c.), in which
the distinction of the masculine and feminine gender pervades the whole
grammar are of common origin”. Although the Yao is a genderless language,
much of its folk lore resembles the Hottentot. Dr. Bleek has published 42
Hottentot tales. I have heard amongst the Yao, tales corresponding to 16
or 18 of these.