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. |
| Singular, feminine | na-du = she, her. |
| Dual, common | pale = they two, them two. |
| Plural, common | 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 | 2 + 1 |
| Terrutong | roka | oryalk | 2 + 1 |
| Limbapyu | immuta | lawidperra | 2 + 1 |
| Kowrarega | warapune | quassur | 2 + 1 |
| Gudang | epiamana | elabaio | 2 + 1 |
| Darnley Island | netat | nes | 2 + 1 |
| 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.
2. Fire (flames)—ka-lla, gad-la, in W. Australian and Parnkalla.
3. Head (hair)—kur-le, Encounter Bay. Here we learn from the forms kar-ga, from the Head of the Great Australian Bight, and ma-kar-ta, from Adelaide, that the l is foreign to the root.
4. Hands—marrow-la in the Molonglo dialect; and contrasted with marra in the Adelaide.
This, however, is merely a conjecture; a conjecture, however, which has a practical bearing. It suggests caution in the comparison of vocabularies; since, by mistaking an inflexion or an affix for a part of the root, we may overlook really existing similarities.
Father Anjello’s very brief grammatical sketch of the Limbakarajia language of Port Essington27 exhibits, as far as it goes, precisely the same principles as Mr. Macgillivray’s Kowrarega; indeed, some of the details coincide.
Thus, the Limbakarajia personal pronouns are—
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 | |
| 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
| English. | Redscar Bay. | Erroob. |
|---|---|---|
| Head | quara | herem |
| Mouth | mao | mit = lips |
| Testicles | abu | eba = penis |
| Shoulder | paga | pagas = upper arm |
On the other hand, the Redscar Bay word for throat, kato, coincides with the Australian karta of the Gudang of Cape York. Again, a complication is introduced by the word buni-mata = eyebrow. Here mata = eye, and, consequently, buni = brow. This root re-appears in the Erroob; but there it means the eyeball, as shewn by the following words from Jukes’ Vocabulary.
| Eye | irkeep |
| Eyebrow | irkeep moos = eye-hair |
| Eye ball | poni |
| Eyelid | poni-pow = eyeball-hair |
Probably the truer meaning of the Redscar Bay word is eyeball.
No inference is safer than that which brings the population of the Louisiade Archipelago, so far, at least, as it is represented by the Vocabularies of Brierly Island and Duchateau Island, from the eastern coast of New Guinea. What points beyond were peopled from Louisiade is another question.
For the islands between New Ireland and New Caledonia our data are lamentably scanty; the list consisting of—
A short vocabulary from the Solomon Isles.
Short ones from Mallicollo.
The same from Tanna.
Shorter ones still from Erromanga and
Annatom.
Cook’s New Caledonian Vocabulary.
La Billardiere’s ditto.
The collation of these with the Louisiade has led me to a fact which I little expected. As far as the very scanty data go, they supply the closest resemblance to the Louisiade dialects, from the two New Caledonian vocabularies. Now New Caledonia was noticed in the Appendix to the Voyage of the Fly (vol. ii. p. 318) as apparently having closer philological affinities with Van Diemen’s Land, than that country had with Australia; an apparent fact which induced me to write as follows: “A proposition concerning the Tasmanian language exhibits an impression, rather than a deliberate opinion. Should it, however, be confirmed by future researches, it will at once explain the points of physical contrast between the Tasmanian tribes and those of Australia that have so often been insisted on. It is this—that the affinities of language between the Tasmanian and the New Caledonian are stronger than those between the Australian and Tasmanian. This indicates that the stream of population for Van Diemen’s Land ran round Australia, rather than across it.” Be this as it may, the remark, with our present scanty materials, is, at best, but a suggestion—a suggestion, however, which would account for the physical appearance of the Tasmanian being more New Caledonian than Australian.
The chief point of resemblance between the Louisiade and the New Caledonian is taken from the numerals. In each system there is a prefix, and in each that prefix begins with a labral letter—indeed the wa of New Caledonia and the pahi of Louisiade seem to be the same roots.
| 1. | 2. | |
| Brierly Island | paihe-tia | pahi-wo |
| Cook’s New Caledonia | wa-geeaing | wa-roo |
| La Billardiere’s do. | oua-nait | oua-dou |
| 3. | 4. | |
| Brierly Island | paihe-tuan | paihe-pak |
| Cook’s New Caledonia | wa-teen | wa-mbaeek |
| La Billardiere’s do. | oua-tguien | oua-tbait |
| 5. | 6. | |
| Brierly Island | paihe-lima | paihe-won |
| Cook’s New Caledonia | wa-nnim | wa-nnim-geeek |
| La Billardiere’s do. | oua-nnaim | ou-naim-guik |
| 7. | 8. | |
| Brierly Island | pahe-pik | paihe-wan |
| Cook’s New Caledonia | wa-nnim-noo | wa-nnim-gain |
| La Billardiere’s do. | oua-naim-dou | ou-naim-guein |
| 9. | 10. | |
| Brierly Island | paihe-siwo | paihe-awata |
| Cook’s New Caledonia | wa-nnim-baeek | wa-nnoon-aiuk |
| La Billardiere’s do. | oua-naim-bait | oua-doun-hic |
The Redscar Bay numerals are equally instructive. They take two forms: one with, one without, the prefix in ow, as recorded by Mr. Macgillivray.
This system of prefix is not peculiar. The Tanna and Mallicollo numerals of Cook are—
| English. | Tanna. | Mallicollo. |
|---|---|---|
| One | r-eedee | tsee-kaee |
| Two | ka-roo | e-ry |
| Three | ka-har | e-rei |
| Four | kai-phar | e-bats |
| Five | k-reerum | e-reeum |
| Six | ma-r-eedee | tsookaeee |
| Seven | ma-k-roo | gooy |
| Eight | ma-ka-har | hoo-rey |
| Nine | ma-kai-phar | good-bats |
| Ten | ma-k-reerum | senearn |
Here, although the formations are not exactly regular, the prefixion of an initial syllable is evident. So is the quinary character of the numeration. The prefix itself, however, in the Tanna and Mallicollo is no labial, as in the Louisiade and New Caledonian, but either k or a vowel.
The next fact connected with the Louisiade vocabularies is one of greater interest. Most of the names of the different parts of the body end in da. In the list in question they were marked in italics; so that the proportion they bear to the words not so ending was easily seen. Now it is only the words belonging to this class that thus terminate. Elsewhere the ending da is no commoner than any other.
What does this mean? If we look to such words as mata-da = eyes, sopa-da = lips, maka-da = teeth, and some other naturally plural names, we should infer that it was a sign of number. That this, however, is not the case is shewn by the equivalents to tongue, nose, and other single members where the affix is equally common. What then is its import? The American tongues help us here.
| English | Mbaya | Abiponi | Mokobi |
|---|---|---|---|
| Head | na-guilo | ne-maiat | —— |
| Eye | ni-gecoge | na-toele | ni-cote |
| Ear | na-pagate | —— | —— |
| Nose | ni-onige | —— | —— |
| Tongue | no-gueligi | —— | —— |
| Hair | na-modi | ne-etiguic | na-ecuta |
| Hand | ni-baagadi | na-pakeni | na-poguena |
| Foot | no-gonagi | —— | —— |
| English | Moxa(1)28 | Moxa(2) | Moxa(3) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Head | nu-ciuti | nu-chuti | nu-chiuti |
| Eye | nu-chi | —— | nu-ki |
| Ear | nu-cioca | —— | —— |
| Nose | nu-siri | nu-siri | —— |
| Tongue | nu-nene | nu-nene | nu-nene |
| Hand | nu-bore | nu-boupe | nu-bore |
| Foot | ni-bope | —— | ni-bope |
Now in these, and in numerous other American tongues, the prefix is the possessive pronoun; in other words, there is a great number of American languages where the capacity for abstracting the thing possessed from the possessor is so slight as to make it almost impossible to disconnect the noun from its pronoun. I believe, then, the affixes in question have a possessive power; and am not aware that possessive adjuncts thus incorporated have been recognised in any of the languages for these parts; indeed, they are generally considered as American characteristics.
How far does their presence extend? In the New Caledonian vocabulary of La Billardiere we find it. The names of the parts of the body all take an affix, which no other class of words does. This is gha, guai, or ghai, or other similar combination of g with a vowel. In Van Diemen’s Land, an important locality, we find the following series of words, which are submitted to the judgment of the reader.
| English. | Western Tasmanian. |
|---|---|
| Foot | lula |
| Leg | peea = piya = posteriors, Brumer I. |
| Thigh | tula = turi = knee, Brumer I. |
| Belly | cawara-ny |
| Neck | denia |
| Ears | lewli-na |
| Nose | me-na |
| Eyes | pollatoola = matara-pulupulura = eyelashes, Brierly I. |
| Hair | pareata |
| —— | palani-na |
| Face | manrable |
| Mouth | ca-nia |
| Teeth | yannalople = yinge-da, Brierly I. |
| Tongue | tulla-na |
| Arm | alree |
| Fist | reannema-na |
| Head | pulbea-ny |
Here the termination na appears elsewhere, as in memana = fight, nabagee-na = sun; but by no means so frequently; nor yet with such an approach to regularity.
| English. | Circular Head. |
|---|---|
| Hair | parba |
| Hand | rabal-ga |
| Foot | rabuc-ka |
| Head | ewuc-ka |
| Eye | mameric-ca |
| Nose | rowari-ga |
| Tongue | mamana = mimena, Brumer I. |
| Teeth | cawna |
| Ear | cowanrig-ga |
Here however, it must not be concealed that the termination ka, or ga, occurs in other words, such as tenal-ga = laugh, tar-ga = cry, teiri-ga = walk, lamunika = see. These, however, are verbs; and it is possible (indeed probable) that the k or g is the same as in the preceding substantives, just as the m in su-m and εἰ-μι is the m in meus, me, and ἐμι. Still, this will not apply throughout; e. g. the words like lalli-ga = kangaroo, para-ka = flower, and others.
| English. | Eastern Tasmanian. |
|---|---|
| Eye | lepe-na |
| Ear | pelverata |
| Elbow | rowella |
| Foot | langa-na |
| Fist | trew |
| Head | pathe-na-naddi |
| Hair | cetha-na |
| Hand | anama-na = nema-da, Brumer I. |
| Knee | nannabena-na |
| Leg | lathana-ma |
| Teeth | yan-na = yinge-da, Brierly I. |
| Tongue | me-na = mime-na, Brumer I. |
| Chin | came-na |
| Neck | lepera |
| Breast | wagley |
Here, the number of other words ending in na is very considerable; so considerable that, if it were not for the cumulative evidence derived from other quarters, it would be doubtful whether the na could legitimately be considered as a possessive affix at all. It may, however, be so even in the present instance.
To these we may add two lists from the Lobo and Utanata dialects of the south-western coast of New Guinea.
| English | Utanata | Lobo | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arms | too | nima-ngo | |
| Back | urimi | rusuko-ngo | |
| Beard | —— | minooro | |
| Belly | imauw | kamboro-ngo | |
| Breast-female | auw | } | gingo-ngo |
| Breast-male | paiety | ||
| Cheeks | awamu | wafiwirio-ngo | |
| Ears | ianie | —— | |
| Eyebrows | —— | matata-ngo-waru | |
| Eyes | mame | matatoto-ngo | |
| Fingers | —— | nima-nga-sori | |
| Foot | mouw | kai-ngo | |
| Hands | toe-mare | nima-ngo-uta | |
| Hair | oeirie | mono-ng-furu | |
| Head | oepauw | mono-ngo or umum | |
| Knee | iripu | kai-ngo-woko | |
| Mouth | irie | orie-ngo | |
| Nose | birimboe | sikaio-ngo | |
| Neck | ema | gara-ng | |
| Tongue | mare | kario-ngo | |
| Thigh | ai | willanima | |
| Teeth | titi | riwoto-ngo | |
| Toes | —— | nisora | |
Finally, we have the long, and evidently compound forms of the Corio, Colack, and other Australian dialects; long and evidently compound forms which no hypothesis so readily explains as that of the possessive adjunct; a phenomenon which future investigation may shew to be equally Oceanic and American.
Notes and Addenda
The vocabularies of the Rattlesnake are (1) Australian, (2) Papuan.
The former were for the parts about Cape York, i. e. the Northernmost part of Australia, and also the part nearest the Papuan area. The Kowrarega was the form of speech best illustrated.
The Papuan vocabularies were for the Louisiade Archipelago; wholly new as data for a very important and interesting area.
The following paper, connected with the remarks on the incorporation of the possessive pronoun with certain substantives, though on an Asiatic language may find place here.