AFRICAN PHILOLOGY.—(_Continued_).
Before stating the peculiarities of the Yao language, I shall illustrate
the subject by reference to the speech of children. This form of
illustration applies to unwritten languages generally; and although
not much alluded to in books on Philology, it is, I venture to think,
exceedingly important, not only for the theory of language, but for
the guidance of persons that are confronted with unwritten tongues.
While children are learning to speak, their slowness comes not entirely
from the intellect, but from want of command of the vocal organs. On
encountering a word that they cannot pronounce, they frame a word of
their own which they employ instead. In imitating the word _table_,
a child may say _dodo_, a sound which at first sight seems to have
no relation to the word “table”. Yet the child employs it uniformly,
and often for more than a year. Such imperfect imitations are not by
accident: they follow laws similar to those principles that operate in
changing the same original sound into the _quinque_ of Latin, the _pump_
of Welsh, and the _five_ of English.
_Form of Words._—The syllable easiest for a child is a single consonant
followed by a vowel. For _basket_ a child says _tase_; for _purse_, he
says _tuse_. Where two consonants come together, as the _sk_ and _rs_ of
these words, the child throws out one of them. He also drops the final
_t_ in _basket_, and obtains a syllable ending with a vowel; and where no
vowel exists he supplies one, as in _tuse_ for _purse_ (purs).
_Beginning of Syllables._—Some maintain that we cannot begin a syllable
without a consonant, or at least an aspirate like what the Greeks wrote.
Children seem to be exceptions as they leave out a difficult consonant
and begin with a vowel—_that_ becomes _at_ as well as _tat_ but even in
_at_ there exists the kind of aspirate contended for. In the Yao language
syllables almost always begin with a consonant. Here arises an important
principle of spelling. I should not like to decide whether we ought to
write _Ya-o_ or _Ya-wo_. The natives themselves had no writing till we
taught them, and on words like _Yao_, my best pupils were divided. Some
pronounced and spelt _Yao_, others _Yawo_. I believe that the sound at
first was _Yawo_, and etymology in many cases bears out my conclusion.
But in course of time the original _Yawo_ may be rendered _Yao_, as an
original h_onest_ has become _onest_.
_End of Syllables._—It is not so easy to end a syllable with a consonant.
The child’s earlier syllables end with vowels as _papa_. The difficulty
of pulling up the voice at once is seen in the utterance of certain words
like rock, especially by Scotchmen who often unconsciously pronounce as
if the word were _rocka_. All Yao syllables end with a vowel.
_Parts of Speech._—The language of childhood shows that man observes
things before he observes the relations between them. Nouns and verbs
come before the other parts of speech, but when first employed they
are more like interjections. The imperative of the verb, which is as
near to an interjection as may be, forms a large element in infantile
speech: thus adjectives when first used are in effect imperatives or
interjections. The expression _Doto dad_ (doctor bad) is synonymous
with _Doto, go-way_ (doctor, go away). Whether nouns or verbs come
first is hardly worth discussing, because it is misleading to apply the
distinction of parts of speech at a stage where speech has no parts. But
it may be noted that what we call nouns are used by the child like verbs:
thus, _No tair_ (chair) means “Do not put me on the chair”.
_The Meaning of Nouns._—Nouns at first denote individuals like _papa_,
_mamma_. But the child by and by sums up in these words a great deal of
meaning, and if he were placed in a world where he saw no white woman
but his mother, the next female that appeared he would call mamma. So if
the only animal he is acquainted with be a dog, he at first calls goats,
sheep, or rabbits all dogs.
_Inflexion of Nouns._—A child sees no need of inflexions, and forms his
first sentences accordingly. He says _more man_ for _more men_, _see
more camel_ for _see more camels_. After he feels the need of a plural,
his first impulse is to express it by old materials, and then _see more
camel_ is used where the meaning undoubtedly is _see the camels_ or _see
camels_. The possessive case is similarly dispensed with: for _John’s
book_ we get _John boop_. This has a strong relevancy in the explanation
of African tongues, where _Kumlomba brother_ is used for _Kumlomba’s
brother_.
_Adjectives_ are at first used exactly like nouns. We tell a child _it
is hot in there_, and he says _hot in ’ere_, and immediately adds _fire
in ’ere_, thus showing that he considers _hot_ as a substitute for the
corresponding noun. Moreover adjectives, on their first appearance, are
often used to make compound nouns in which the adjective meaning is lost.
The child says, _Dem dood-doy_ for _James is a good boy_. _Dood-doy_ is
really one word, and is rather a noun than an adjective. This explains
why it is that in African tongues simple adjectives are very few. In the
Yao language, adjectives being so unimportant, have no inflexion for
comparison. _Articles_ are entirely dispensed with by children. _Look at
the man_, _look at a man_, are both rendered _ook man_.
_Pronouns_ are not easily understood at first. A child hears the words,
_Come, and I will bathe you_: by and by he asks for his _bathe yow_,
_bathe-you_ being understood as a single word, which he construes as
a noun. It is long before he says _I did it_; he says _James did it_
instead. Also for _my boot_ he says _Dem toot_ (James’ boot). Indeed, the
interrogative pronoun _who_ seems to be understood before the personal
pronouns.
_Relative pronouns_ come very much later. Hence in African tongues they
are poorly represented. They resemble conjunctions, and are introduced
into the vocabulary of childhood, we believe, even later than they.
_Verbs._—Children are fond of viewing a complex phenomenon as an action.
When we tell a child to look at the men tying on a sail, we call forth
the expression _tat tying on_ for _that is a tying on_. The subject
and object are thus ignored in comparison with the action itself. So
in African tongues the verb is of overwhelming importance. Besides the
imperative, one part of the verb frequently used in childhood is the
participle: as _James eating food_ for _James is eating his food_. The
_eating_ is used as a noun or an infinitive. The infinitive is largely
used in Yao to express action in general, and the indicative mood is
formed from it.
_Adverbs_ are by children often used as imperatives, as _quick!_ (Adverbs
of place as well as demonstrative adjectives are soon used in company
with vocal gestures.) Negation is early expressed by putting _no_ before
verbs or nouns, as, _Doto no go_, for _the doctor did not go_, _no home_,
for _we will not go home_.
Often adverbs make but one idea with the adjective or verb that they
are attached to, as _go-away_. The same thing is seen in the case of
prepositions. _Put on your coat_ is rendered _tut on toat_ and even
_ton toat_, _pu_ falling out and _ton_ being used for a verb. So, _put
off your coat_ is _toff toat_. This principle illustrates what has been
called applied verbs and causative verbs. A neuter verb like _put_ is
made transitive by placing another word like _on_ after it, and this
other word is liable to become part of the verb, as if _put on_ was
the transitive form of _put_. The principle is of the greatest use
in explaining African derivative verbs. Again, children often omit
prepositions. _Look man_, is used for _look at a man_; _man ’os_ for _a
man on a horse_.
As regards _conjunctions_, simple people like children are often content
to express one idea or sentence at a time. When they have to join two
ideas or sentences they put them side by side without any connecting
word. _James and papa_ becomes in the infantile language _James, papa_.
In the same way, connecting words like the logical copula, are at first
omitted, as _Dem dad boy_, for _James is a bad boy_. The tendency to omit
the copula, throws light on the earlier use of adjectives. When the child
says _bad-boy_, the expression is to be taken as a single word, and we
may call it a noun. But often the child sooner understands, _boy bad_,
the equivalent to him, of _the boy is bad_; which thought is ultimately
developed as it is written, though at first the child views it as being
the equivalent of _boy, go away_.
Unwritten languages are marked by a peculiar _graphicness_, arising
partly from the omission of connecting words, and partly from other
causes. The expression, “if you be sufficiently warm, you will be
sufficiently braw (well-dressed),” is very weak, when compared with the
proverbial “warm enough, braw enough”. A savage, or a child, would feel
it very tame to say, “if you do not cover your well, some one will walk
into it”. He would say, “cover your well, a man will go into it, plump!”
Instead of an intangible, “one cannot say what one would think, if one
fell into a well,” the more natural language of childhood is, “I cannot
say what I would think, &c.,” or, “you cannot tell what you would think,
&c.” Instead of “he stabbed him very deeply,” we have, “he put the knife
into him that length!”
The above remarks on the imitation of sounds and speech by infants,
besides illustrating an unwritten language, will enable a reader, to
whom the subject really is new, to understand how languages that are of
the same family, may yet differ immensely. It is to be remembered that
different individuals imitate differently. While some find it easier to
throw out consonants, others put them in, as some men find it easy to say
_Amelia-r-an_ for _Amelia Ann_. Again, children often modify their vowels
to compensate for some consonant they cannot pronounce. When a child says
_tate_, for _blanket_, the _a_ is emphasised through an effort to embrace
the _n_. Some African races say Nyansa, others Nyasa, with the _a_ so
modified that we might write, Nyaasa, or Nyassa.
Like children beginning to speak, certain races have few consonants, and
are obliged to throw much work upon them. Thus one tribe had to call
Captain Cook, the first Englishman that they met, Taptain Toot, making
the _t_ do duty for the _c_ (_k_).
When we think of the various ways in which a language may be modified,
we are much struck by studying a work like Koelle’s _Polyglotta
Africana_, which points to striking affinities, traceable among African
tongues. Moreover, such works are liable to be at first obscured through
misleading data. Perplexity is caused by words from languages that had
not been perfectly studied at the time. Thus where there are two words
for “woman,” the philologist may hear only one, which instead of being
the proper instrument for tracing affinities, may be derived from another
word within the special dialect. Again in one language an old word for
“woman,” may have been superseded, although some derivatives from it yet
remain. As more languages are gradually reduced, a rich harvest awaits
the philologist in Africa.
These illustrations from the speech of children, include nearly all
that will be expected from one giving a general account of an African
language. We are aware of the danger of converting illustrations into
principles without stating their limitations: as did the man who wanted
to prove that all speech was but a development of the utterances of the
lower animals. After making observations on two of his children, he found
his theory much confirmed; but when he tried the third child, its first
utterance was, “Don’t tease, go away”. This wonderful sentence brought
his theory into discredit; but it is clear that I may claim this child in
confirmation of what I have adduced. Its first utterance is made up of
imperatives, and this on our principles, is just what it ought to be!
It remains only to give a short account of points not yet touched on.
_Sounds._ Vowels and consonants are much modified for euphony. The
consonant changes may be exemplified in connection with the letter _n_,
_e.g._, ku-n-lola becomes kundola; and in ku-n-sosa the _n_ is entirely
dropped, but the preceding vowel is lengthened, and the word might be
written kuusosa. In this way,
n-l becomes nd, n, l, or nil
n-f ” f
n-m ” m
n-n ” n
n-s ” s
n-u ” u
n-ng ” ng’
n-j ” ny
n-k ” ng
n-t ” nd
n-w ” mbw, &c., &c.
In African spelling, some advocate the disbanding of _j_ and _ch_ in
favour of _tsh_ and _dzh_, but the changes of _ch_ and _j_ after the
letter _n_ afford an argument against writing these letters _tsh_ and
_dzh_ in the Yao language. Thus, for kunchondelela (kuntshondelela) we
hear kunjondelela (kundzhondelela), and not kundshondelela. But such
questions turn greatly on expediency.
_Words._—An English word like _loved_, is found to consist of two
elements, a simpler word _love_, and the ending _d_. If the simpler word
_love_ be not traced farther back it is called a root. The other element
_d_ indicates the modification of the root. In order to give an account
of such a word we have to explain (1) the root, (2) the modification of
it. The modification of it by the addition of _d_ is well explained when
we have found that _d_ is for _did_.
But how do roots arise? A great many are imitations of sounds in nature,
others may be utterances which were at first accidentally associated with
certain objects.
Yao words we may explain in the following manner. In the case of kulemba
(to write, mark), we may suppose that the root _lemb_ or rather _lembe_
expresses the sound made by some scratching instrument. Hence we have
_lemba_ the shortest form of the verb. From this verbal root we may form
ten nouns which express different meanings and fall into ten classes.
Strangely enough these classes correspond to a great extent with the
classifications of the noun stated in some English grammars (see Bain’s
Grammar). They may be exemplified as follows:—
1 { Mlemba, a writer } (personal)
{ Ju-akulemba, one that writes }
2 Ulembe, writing, marking (abstract)
3 Ndembile (nembo), a writing
4 Chilembo, a great mark (ampliative)
5 Lilembo, a mark } names of natural objects
6 Lulembo, a mark }
7 Kalembo, a little mark (diminutive)
8 Kulemba, writing (verbal noun or infinitive)
9 Pakulembila, a place-for-writing-at, desk
10 Mukulembila, a-place-for-writing in, office
These ten classes of nouns may be formed in connection with every verb.
The 2nd class, besides embracing abstract nouns includes the names of all
trees that begin with _m_; while the third class embraces the names of
birds and animals, especially such as appear in flocks; as deer, sheep;
and the words in this class have now no plural though there is some
evidence that they had a plural formerly.
_Sentences._—A noun in a sentence demands the concord of adjectives,
pronouns, and verbs. This is the only important concord in the language.
The absence of gender is a great peculiarity. A native may make a long
speech about a person while his audience do not know whether it is a man
or a woman that is spoken of. Again, when a native speaks of persons
it may be impossible to tell whether he means one person, or several.
Originally, the singular of the third person was distinct from the
plural, but by the use of a plural of excellence one man is habitually
spoken of as _they_. This is a refinement of politeness.[15] In the same
way the English language employs _you_ instead of _thou_: these natives
go farther on the same lines, throwing away not only number, but person
also. In England, where the question is asked “where are you going” the
reply will be “I am going to _your_ house”. The African for the same
meaning would reply “I am going to _his_ house”. Traces of the same
refinement exist in England: thus, instead of “What do you want” we may
hear “What does _his_ Reverence want?”
The following will show the method of tense formation. The present
indicative, I love, may be analysed into I-a-loving or I-to-love (person,
preposition, and verb). The perfect tense, indicating completed action,
is made up of the root meaning love, and an affix which seems to be akin
to a demonstrative pronoun, and signifies that the action is _there_ or
_at a distance_ now. One future tense is formed from a participle with a
negative, so that I shall love = I-a-loving but-_not-yet_.
These are the three leading tenses, but the fertility of tense forms is
amazing—thus we have a tense for “Why should I neglect to love?” Yao has
a great wealth of participles, which seem to be wanting entirely in
Chinyasa.
Derived verbs are numerous. From a word leka, _to leave_, we have lechela
(for lekela) _leave for_; lechesya and lekasya (whose terminations remind
one of the Greek idso) with _causative_ meanings; lekana (= leka na;
na = with) _leave each other_, or _together_; lekanya, _separate_ with
causative lekanisya; as also lekwa and lecheka with passive and neuter
meanings.
In the study of these languages we are often reminded that what are
now to us familiar words, were really formed with much difficulty, and
we are not so ready to laugh at the Etymologist who derived the Latin
word _nihil_ for _nothing_ from a _bean_, as if it originally meant
“not a single pea”! In some African dialects there is great difficulty
in getting a word to translate “nothing”. Yet, after all, the English
language has not much to boast of here; some of these dialects can also
furnish a derivative word like no-thing.