(«M«H*)atMMMM*tMMM#UMMM«MMM^^ ^mmmmmmmmmi^ li nx i. ■ '!'<■< .i.i< » .i.iii v ii. i)ii« I ■.< nV i i >i) 4 ii)) H i ) 1 1 I 'l l ■il'>i'»l "» » ii t . Sii | MlMT| i ; |l >>iW' l i l ^ ^ ill! M l ..■i.i.^ K .i.u... iaasijaw i M iiiii' avv >. >M irt « - v^s >»»ti HHtiriut i tiii)fi i H ' iit ' t( i . fc M I ■«» l ' ll ))h li U i l liili lM i i i | i | li|i|il 'I'l' i " .'.!!'! «M i fM *t if l, U t fU ,l it f l^^^'.:' • " > , ..,..ii..i..i.i.i. ji)i)i^)i;i)^r)|>i | ))jiiilt V >t hi iii M ii iii i iir inii ili i iii M iiii »in» »»»ii» .i^« »»«.---- ■ " ■ ' ' . ' " . '' ". ' V l'ft l ' .W lWtW t*****i»*»i»*i> >^A.>*i. < i w Hi I I n iiHi^t4»WNi »iip » >i' i iiii MU ipiii .' 1 1 II I » i) n Mt i M VM n i l i i I ii|i)iii i i i iiii 1 1 1 i r i I (ir i n i i i iiiiiii n ul i w i f ■ . . -- .■- ■ -.■.■.' - -.'. .■■ - . : '. ■ / . J J I . . . . . i.' ^; ■ ,:iwiftS)g^^^^^ '!>))>»» ' 1 1 M I ' I r. i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 iii) ' MM > 1 f I riiriij)); t^^tl^im^\ III f l i I > 'i 'l ll' l' l'i y* ' ^^^*' * ** '' * ! * ! * vn)) ' Ui!i:i!):i:)!i.i.i:i,i:i:i,':': i : !'! ' ,' ' !' i '' ^ ' 'M: ' .ii. i .llJ.li.'' " iiiiiijiiiliiij^ ^ 'I'MMii'i ^ -Ai ' JC/- 'i K ^' ' y COMPARATIVE PHILOLOGY OLD AND NEW WORLDS. COMPARATIVE PHILOLOGY OLD AND NEW WOELDS m RELATION TO ARCHAIC SPEECH. R. P. GREG, F.S.A., F.G.S., ETC. ACCOMPANIED BY COPIOUS VOCABULARIES, ETC. cTrea TTTepoevra, LOIfDON: KEGAN PATTL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & Co., Limtted, PATERNOSTER HOUSE, cnARINO CROSS ROAD. 1893. HERTFORD : PRINTED BY STEPHEN AUSTIN AND SONS. i ■^ \ ^ " The first speech -wliich was used, before the Delupie, remains now properly in no place, only the reliques thereof may be found still in all languages." — Giioirus. " "Words are the fossils of Speech."— A. H. Satce. "Language as the expression of thought, is also the treasure-house of worn-out metaphors." — Ihid. "Etymology has the charm of all Sciences which deal with the beginning and \ growth of all the great products of Speech." — Geo. Ctjetids. ^ " The most primitive language, say that of the American Palaeolithic man, must Ov^ii, have been more rudimentary than any language now known to us." — D. Bkinton, M.I). "Gesture language attained its most complete form in America." — Prof. Tylor. "Analogies are probably at the root of cognate forms." — Ibid. "The doctrine of cognate equivalents ov of ecjual pscychological values, is at ^ bottom of all root researches ; and the value of Grammar in the study of primitive language is of secondary value. The original single root may, however, not unfrequently have been lost or displaced." " It will not do, as is sometimes done, to confound race and language." Hyde Clarke. "Every inflectional language was once agglutinative and eveiy agglutination once monosyllabic." Also that "the Turanian despises every idiom that does not clearly show its radical and significant element." — Ihid. lv'284;J CONTENTS. Preface. [List of Authorities referred to ,sco End.] Inthoddction, pp. vii-lxxi. — Aniorican Language.s, vii-svi, liii-lv. (257-208). — African Languages, xvi-xx. — Turanian, xx-.^xiii. — Accadian, xxii-xxv. — Chinese and Aryan, Scldogel, etc., xxv-xxvii. — Chinese and Turanian, liii. — Quichuan and Aryan, xxvii.~xxx. — Comparative Accordances, radicals, etc. xx.x- xxxiii. Races; Craniology of Old and Is'ew Worlds, xxxiv-xxxvii and 1-liii. — Aryans and Cradle of the Aryan Race, xxxviii-xliv and Ivii. — Egyptian, xlv-1. — Australian, Papuan, Oceanic and Dravidian Languages and Races, Iv-xl. — Iberians, lix. — Celts, lii. — Supplementary, on Comparative T^anguage : Max MUller ; A. H. Sayce ; Dr. O. Schrader ; Robt. Brown, jun. : Topinard ; Canon Cook, lxi-lx.\i. — Semitic, Kremer and Schrader, Ixiv ; Hyde Clarke, xiv-xvi. Part L — Vocabularies. For Egyptian, Accadian, Chinese, African and American \vord.s. 1-48. Interchangeable Letters, 49-.50. Accado-Chinese Agreements, 51-52. Part II. — Aryan, Semitic, African and American, 55-116. — Chinese and English Verbal Analogies, 117-118- — Chinese and American Analogies, 118-119. — Basque and Gaelic Analogies, 129. — Ancient Mexican and Aryan ditto, 120. — Aryan and Egyptian ditto, 121 and 298. — Accadian, Chinese and Egyptian ha and /:»* Sounds, 122. — Egyptian anich words, 123. — General words for Horse, Ass, 123-124 ; 346. — Greek and Latin Accordances, with Chinese and Mongol (Edkins), 124. Addenda and Gorrigenda to Parts I. and II. 125-126. Part III. — Turanian, Ugro- Altaic, East Tartar (Mongol), African and American (Accadian and Egyptian, etc.), 129-156. — Analogies for Asiatic, Turanian and Egyptian, 157-159. — Esthonian and American Comparisons, 160. Part IV. — Libyan and Berber, Basque, Caucasian, American and Sundry, 169-197. Part V. — Indo-Chinese (E. Himalaic), Tibetan (W. Himalaic), Aboriginal Chinese, African and Sundry, 199-216. Part VI. — Dravidian, Malay, Oceanic, Polynesian, Papuan and Australian, African and American, 219-255. Appendices. — Comparative Tables, etc., for Special words and their Cognates, No. I. — Polynesian Grammar ; Examples of N. and C. American Grammar, No. II. — Algonkin Grammar, No. III.^(Tinneh ditto, and p. liii.) — Affinities between Othomi and Chinese, No. IV. (and p. 115). — Plural formations, New and Old Worlds, No. V. — Instances of Similar Words having Similar Meanings for North, Central and South America, No. VI. — A General List of American Word.s for Water, No. A^II.— Sundry Agreements for Aryan and Central America (Hyde Clarke), Nos. VIII. and LIII. — American Calendar and Zodiacal Signs, No. IX. -XIII. — Oceanic, American, African and Egyptian Analogies, No. XIV. — Caucasian African and American Analogies, No. XV. — African, Egyptian and American Analogies, No. XVI. — Special Linguistic Synonyms for Allied Primary Words or Ideas, Nos. XVII. and XVIII. — American General list of Words for Foot, No. XVIIIa. — Accordances for Liliyan and Berber, Basque, Caucasian, Celtic, American, and Semitic Words, No. XIX. — Additional English and Egyptian Analogies, No. XIX«. (and p. 121). — General Table of Selected Numerals, No. XX. — A General list of Words for Father and Mother, No. XXI. — Much great, etc., XXII. — Mouth, hole, etc., XXIII. — Tree, son, etc., No. XXIV. — Hou.se, hut, etc., No. XXV.— Bird, fly, shoot. No. XXVI.— Dog, cur, No. XXVII.— Good, yes ! bad, night, etc.. No. XXVIII. — Archaic or fundamental Water words. Old and New World, No. XXIX. — Life, cross, tie, phallus, mouth, navel, etc., No. XXX. — Primitive principal meanings of root sound J/a, No. XXXI. — War, death, etc.. No. XXXII. — Pronouns ; thou, he ; Nos. 1, 2, etc.. No. XXXIII. — Archaic, car, gar, Icar, gal, kal, etc. No. XXXIV. — Hand, foot, finger ; to go, etc., kd, ak, pa, sound. No. XXXV. — Archaic, kd, car=ioot, hand, go, etc.. No. XXXVI. — Karnac und Hermes, No. XXXVII. — Stone, to cut, etc. {ta, ka, te, kak, tak, etc.) No. XXXVIII. — The L sound in Roundness, No. XXXIX. — Words for Eye, sea, light, and Cognates, S and N sounds. No. XL. XLtr. — Fire, etc.. Cognates {ta, tak, hak'i) Sound.s, No. XLI. — Thunder, Noise, etc. No. XLb;. — Shining Metals, No. XLII.~ Sun, light, and Cognates, s, z, is soimd.s, No. XLIII ; Ditto, M, N and T sounds. No. XLIV ; Ditto, T or D, L, tan, kan sounds, Nos. XLV. and XLVI. — Food, etc. (S, M sounds ? /■), No. XLVII. — Son, and Cognates, s, z, ak ! No. XLVIII. — Blood-Relationship, N. na, ni, an sound, No. L. — Some Comparisons between Accadian, Dravidian and A.ssyrian, No. XLIX. — Personal Pronouns, ego, ngo ; na, an, ma, mi, i/u'n. No. LI. — Note on Male and Female Words, No. Lie/. — Man, Lib. — Hand (paw, take, cany and ma and ka sounds). No. Lie. — Some probable fundamental or Ai-chaic Phono-Consonantal and Vowel-sounds, No. LII.— Races of Mankind, No. Llla. — Some Costa Rican (Central American) Analogies, with African, etc.. No. LIII. — Comparisons of AVords and Roots, Aryan and An-Aryan, No. LIV. — Tongue and Leaf Words, No. LIVa. — Some Words common to most Language Families, No. LV. — Horse and Ass, No. LVa. (and p. 123). — Some Aryan and Tui-anian Word Analogies, etc., No. LVI. Supplementary Meiioranda, p. 348. Additional Australian and African Words to p. 220. Pure DraWdian Words and Roots (Part VI.) pp. 349, 350. Addenda et Corrigenda No. 2, pp. 351-353 [For Addenda et Corrigenda No. 1, see pp. 125-126]. vi PREFACE. Tliis racial and topographical bre^-ity may hare been earned too far ; and tlie precise locality of American and African words is generally omitted; Isut for the more special, as well as general, object I have had in view, greater detail would have been both cumbersome and possibly not absolutely essential. Lastly, I have ventured in the following Introduction to give a short epitome of the opinions of a considerable number of the pi-incipal writers and thinkers on the general subject of llace and Language ; hoping that such a procedure may not be without some interest, as well as be in unison with the general pui-port of this work, which has been a labour of love and the occupation of many years, earned out under the disadvantage of ill-health, and inability to consult as many books as I could have desired. Whatever its shortcomings may be, I can only trust that there will be much in it that may prove useful in the future Study of Philology in its widest sense. I have tried to offer the material for it, in a somewhat novel form, without having the abiUty or the time to fully unravel and digest it ; but I have given at the end of Part VI., more especially, a certain number of specially selected tables of comparison for cextain words and allied cognate ideas, to indicate what may be done on a more extensive scale (by those who are adepts in special languages), in the tracing of Archaic radicals, and to what extent apparently similar sounds may or may not be connected, or traceable through various or different families of language, and in what way such often widespread similarities or analogies may have originated. Quite indepen- dently, the general tendency inclines, I think, to confirm a good deal the lines upon which Mr. Hyde Clarke has worked. I have to acknowledge much indebtedness to the Eev. C. J. Ball for his revision of the Chinese, Accadian and Assyrian portion in Part I. Also to Mr. A. G. Ellis, Mr. C. Bendall, Mr. J. F. Blumhardt, and Mr. F. L. Griffith, of the British Museum, for a number of corrections and suggestions in Parts I. and II., more especially in Oriental and Semitic Languages ; as well as to Professor A. H. Sayce, Mr. Hyde Clarke and Mr. Eobert Brown, jun., and other gentlemen. The Egyptian is mainly taken from Pierret, but has been in part subsequently added to or corrected. In such a general work as this, absolute and precise accuracy and uniformity in spelling and meaning is naturally almost impossible, or to insure it would take up a life-time, but is probably of less importance than might be supposed. Different accentuation, pronunciation, and spelling occur for evidently the same word, in different parts of even the same language and coxmtry, and for different times. A considerable number of accents and diacritical points are given in Parts I. and II. ; but for the sake of simplicity are mostly omitted in subsequent references in the Parts III. to YI., as almost unnecessary in the case of words having to be compared with semi-savage languages. INTRODUCTION. AMEEICAN LANGUAGES. The few American writers on the subject have favoured the notion tliat the Red Man in America is more or less sui generis. Bancroft, in his " Races of the Pacific Coast of America," vol. iii. p. 561, et seq. says: "It is not improbable that the Malays, Chinese and Japanese, did at times arrive along the Pacific coast, in numbers sufficient to influence language, but hitherto no Asiatic or European language, unless tlio Eskimo, has been found in America, and tlie Eskimo are rather specially hjperhorean, than truly either Asiatic or American." Again, '^ verhal similarities, if frequent enough, tend merely to show that all languages were co-related, but in America they are evidently accidental, and the language distinct." To show how easy it would be to form from a list of words, iiseless hj-jjotheses, Bancroft gives a brief list of words analogous both in meaning and sound, from unrelated {sic) languages, e.g. : — "For the German ja we have the Shasta ya ; for komin, the Comanche him; ... for weinen, the Cora vyeine ; for thun, the Tepehuana duni. For the Latin hie, var,t\ic Tepehuana liic, vase; for lingua, the Moqui Unga ; . . . for toga, manus, the Kenai tngaai, man. . . . For the Sanskrit da, there is the Cora to (give) ; for ele, the Miztec ec (one) ; for md, the Tepe huana inai (not) and the JLiya ma (no) ; for masA (mouth), the Pima mahsa (moon) ; for tschandra (moon), the Kenai tschane (moon) ; for pada (foot), the Sekumne podo (leg) ; for Icdma (love), the Shoshone kamakh (to love) ; for pa the Kizh paa (to drink)." Inter se, Bancroft further adds in regard to American Native Languages, " they are wonderfully rich and full of delicate graduations remarkable in such uncultivated peoples. The few Philologists who have studied these languages find they contain common characteristics, that are themselves peculiar, and yet very different from the Cld World Languages, some, though perhaps more Turanian- like than others, yet occasionally have nothing in common with each other. All hypotheses to explain these peculiarities have so far been unsuccessful." " Whitney," says Bancroft, " considers the American languages are the most changeful of all human forms of speech, long words are common, except perhaps in the Otomi. The gesture language is very complete ; but the Eskimo a distinct language.* " Bancroft also, vol. iii. p. 556, says that, " the American languages generally possess much reduplication, or repetitions of the same syllabic to express plurals ; the use of frequeutatives and duals ; the application of gender to the third person of the verb ; the direct conversion of nouns, substantive and adjective, into verbs, and their eoujugations as such ; also peculiar generic distinctions arising from a separation of animate from inanimate beings" (see also Schoolcraft). Mallery says there are 58 linguistic stocks, and about 300 dialects in American Indian Languages ; but Nada'illac says that others have estimated them at fi'om 400 to 1300. These have, however, been more recently, according to Canon Cook, reduced to eleven families. Bancroft considers there are only three great language families in North America, viz. : 1. The Tinneh, or Athabascan (North West). 2. The Aztec ) r. <- i a r> an 11 r f Central America. 3. The Maya ) "The dialects of the Tinneh family show many words in common, but not in the mora grammatical form. In California the dialects are hopelessly mixed, and may contain, as before noticed, some Oceanic admixture. "The Pima (California) contains 15 per cent, of Malay or Polynesian words, but no Chinese or Japanese ones. The Aztec and Toltec are one, and the Nahua or Aztec the oldest language of Anahua. The Aztec is a very original and dominant language, and the large Central Mexican plateau of Anahua was probably the primal centre of it. The Aztec is the most perfect and finished of the American languages, though wanting in six consonants b, d, f, r, g, and s. * See Professor Tj-lor's " Early History of Mankind," as to Gesture Langnage, pp. 14-88. viii INTRODUCTION. " Teotl vas their god. Aztec -words are much agalutinatcd and compounded. The connexion between Otomi and Chinese, advocated by some, especially by Sefior Xiijera, an Otomi native, is very doubtful, for on comparing two monosyllabic languages like the Otomi and Chinese, which (especially the latter) may have so many meanings to the same sound or apparent root, distinguishable only by accent or pronounciation ; the actual resemblances may be but few. Aztec nouns have neither declension nor gender. Adjectives come before nouns. Plurals usually have ya or e prefixed. Tza or fe« prefixed mark the superlative. Yerbs are conjugated with the assistance of particles. The letters il are constantly added" (so far Bancroft). Professor Tylor in his "Early History of Mankind" (pp. 14-83) says Gcstui'e Language had attained its most perfect form in America. Professor Max Miiller divides Sanskrit root-forms into two classes, the predicative, as shine, extend, etc., and demonstrative ones, a small class of independent radicals, as here, this, thou, he, etc., which Professor Tylor thinks rather correspond to the two gi-eat classes of gesture-signs, which may again in part correspond with Chinese words that are neither one thing nor another ; as ta meaning great, to make gTeat, to bo gTeat. The reference of substantive to a verb-root in the Aryan languages is quite in harmony with gesture language ; e.g. water, is that which waves ; the oar, that which makes to go, etc. The syntax of gesture language best compares with Chinese, and perhaps with French and English, which have most thrown oft' inflection. Chinese and English hero agree ; both putting the attributes before the subject, as pe )/(«^white horse ; ngo ta ni, I strike thee. Professor Tylor well says, "Utterance includes not speech only, but all ways by which a man can express his thoughts." " Man is essentially not tlie speaker, but he who thinks and means." " Speech and thought go together." Analogies are probably at the root of " cognate forms," Professor Tylor considers, and he instances the use of loud, as applicable equally both to sound and colour ; surdiis means both deaf and stupid. Some savage tribes would have their language incomplete without gesture-signs, and which is a most important element Ethnologically, and proves it to have been part of the original utterance of mankind. [The order of human utterance would naturally appear to be, first, Speech ; second, Language, including grammar, reduplication and agglutination. May not accentuation be directly derivable from gesture-signs ? while inflection belongs only to the later and higher stage of Language ? In the proper study of Primitive Language, analogies and cognate forms must occupy an important place.] Professor Gamer, in the ]\'^ew Review, has given a curious paper on " Rudimentary Language in Apes," as ascertained with a considei-able degree of certainty by means of the phonograph! (see Spectator, June 6, 1891). Apparently distinct sounds, equivalent to words, are uttered, as to express desire for food, diink, and even possibly for special kinds of food, on which they are most accustomed to feed, and which uttered by the ape is readily understood by other apes of the same species ; and Professor Gamer himself, by repeated practice imitative of the phonogTaphie sounds, succeeded in correctly giving the proper word or sound of this rutlimentary speech, so as to be readily and intelligently understood by the apes themselves. If apes, then, have an elementary fonn of true speech, may it not reasonably follow that savage man, before language became developed or specialized, might originally have had a considerable number of expressive elementary archaic and even wide- spread words or roots in common, such as pa, ma, ka, ak, te, etc. ; pak, paka, mak, tej), tak, pat, etc., many of which may still be existent, with similar or with more or less meanings ? There is a long and valuable account of the Languages, (Justoms, etc., of the N.AV. Indian Tribes of Canada in their Sixth Report given by the Committee of the British Association (Leeds meeting, 1890), from which I briefly gather, that according to Mr. Horatio ILde and Dr. Boas, there are far more linguistic stocks along the N.W. coast of North America, than in the interior and ci'utral parts of N. America. The principal tribes are those comprised under the Tinneh, Salish and Kooteuay (not inclusive of the Nootka). These would appear to have been intruders, however, from Central North America (where the Alq(mkins and Blackfeet since predominated) and from the Eastern side' of the Rocky Mountains. Dr. Gibbs states that the Salish have made their way to the Pacific, and having absorbed the smaller local tribes have become much mixed both in blood and language. All the N.W. languages of British Columbia have a peculiar phonology, very harsh and guttural (almost clickish). The tl say of Mexico becomes ^txl ; but further south towards California the phonology becomes naturally perhaps through the influence of a wanner climate miich softer. These N.W. tribes with almost radical difl'erences of languages and even of origin, seem to have to some extent a common polity. The skulls are generally artificially flattened. Brothers and sisters, called younger or elder, etc. Different words often used by male and female for the same word. Animism and Shamanism common. Some tribes worship the sun, under the name li'ta. [The Tlingits of Queen Charlotte Island have many monosyllabic words much resembling Asiatic Turanian ones ; I am inclined to think they must have originally come from thence.] This Sixth Report of N.W. Canailian Tribes has a rather full epitome of the Indian Languages, Grammar and Vocabularies. INTRODUCTION. IX For tliosc di'siiYuis of stiulyiiig tlic iiiicivnt ilcxicui and Aztec Laiis'iias'i; I advise consultiiif? Sigiior Bernardini Biondelli's " Olossai'ium Aztcco-Latimim," etc., Jlilaii, 1819. In the Introduction lie states tliat " tlio Aztec is a liij^'bly inflexional language; e.g. Um-otlaz^V love, gives tlai;utlani, lover; tl(i(;otli, dear ; tla<;ulolo, I am loved ; tla(;oi.lacca, I have loved ; tlagotlaliztU, love ; Ua(;otlai/a, I loved ; tla^ofldcca, I liavc loved ; and flar^oUtz, I will love." The Aztcx- would say, mtxM-^iXvi hand ; tatUi^^xc father ; l)ut ])i-onounccd matzintU, when meaning to express tlie hand of a god ; and tazindi, when in relation to a father, etc. With both Aztec and Maya numerals, the system is very similar to the liascjue and (leorgian, viz. vigesimal. The old Slexicaus reckoned by five as unity ; e.g. w^one ; iiiiif^uilli^fiye ; but tor the second five, chicu ; ehicuace^.'b + l, etc. The Aztec cliicit being remarkably likc^ the Latin quin([Uo and Italian cinciue. The radical frequently carries both a suffix and a ])refi.K, with verbs as well as nouns. To express the masculine and feminine of animals, oquich and ciluia are prefixed, to some extent com'sponding in English to /w and a7/« (animals). The pronouns partly resemble tbt^ Indo-European, e.t/. ti for tu ; no for tni^ ; rjui/i for quis,- quem ? The final tie or flein, signifies something ; alle, a/leiii, nuthiug ; nel, diligence, solicitation ; anel, neglect, darkness ; qualli, good ; aqualU, e\'il ; quallotl, goodness. An example of a compound word, rt!j'M(y)««rt//«(/c/'/;^ water- wood-crossing (or bridge). I have added in the A])pendices of this work a sliort list of analogies between Aztec and Indo- European words. Eiondelli considers the Aztec offers great analogies to some of the chief Indo-European languages, as well as in civil, religious, and ancient monumental matters ; and with India especially. It is curious that Senor Lopez, of Monte Video, should likewise have supposed he had found so many analogies and roots, common to the Sanskrit or Greek and the S.A. Quicliua, and to which I have elsewhere alluded. The temples, ornamentation, and sculpture, and sitting attitudes of the gods and idols of ancient Jlexieo and Central America offer not unfrecpiently in my oj^inion also considerabh; resemblances to the Hindoo and Indo-Chinese architecture, and that has been noticed by others ; and in one or two cases the undoubted sculptured figure of an elephant's head, with tusks and trunk, have been found in Central American sculjiture. The Aztec for god was Teotl, very near the (Jreek Oewf, and Teutonic Tio. The old Mexicans had legends of a white man who had once arrived amongst them and taught them much, (Latham, p. 5, et seq.). With respect to the Native Languages of America, Canon Cook, in his " Origins of Religion and Langiuige," says : — " These languages are generally regarded by Ethnologists of the highest distinction as undoubtedly belonging to the Scythian or Turanian group. So far, Prichard, Berhaus, Primer Bey, M. de Qnatrefages, are unanimous. This opinion rests on scientific grounds both physiological and Etymological. The multituduious native languages of America, reduced after long and laborious research to eleven families, are what is termed polysynthetical, that is the a(/f/liifiiiative run to seed. In this respect bearing much resemblance to the Basque, as has been shown by Pott and Berhaus ('Ethnogi-aphical Atlas,' p. 23). Duponceau first ga^•e the name polysynthetical to the American tongue. Their unity and affinity to the Finno-Tartaric are maintained by Pritchard, Bimsen, and Berhaus. To this classification there is but one doubtful exception, that of the Peruvian language, for which an Aryan origin has been claimed by Lopez, a South American physician (see elsewhere). In his ' Eaces Aryennes de Peru,' 1871, he seems to establish a connexion with the Aryan, but at the same time to prove that if the Peru\-ian Quichuan was derived from the Aryan, it must have imdergone a process of disintegration which needs almost separate it from the Aryan group." Latham in his Comparative Philology, p. 431, considers the resemblances said to exist between Otomi and Chinese, " those of analogy only, and not of affinity ; that languages wdth the shortest words like Otomi and Chinese naturally must exhibit the greatest number of analogies,* in fact coincidences are often not of primaiy importance as regards mutual relationship of languages, nor even the grammatical structure ; one nation may prefer prefixes to postfixes. Languages genealogically allied may vary much in their stage of development."! Buschmann traces back the Aztec language 1500 miles north of Mexico. Dr. Daniel Wilson thinks that the Central American Ci\ilization was of Southern origin, and seemed to embrace all the highest phases of the civilization of both North and South America, and included probably a mixtiu'c of races, with even a strain of migration borne across the Atlantic. (See Prehistoric Man, p. 603.) Professor Tylor thinks that connexion between the Peruvians and Mexicans is not proved. There are myths common to Polynesia, Asia, and America, as the World-Tortoise ; the man swallowed • 13ufc at the same time may not those short words contain not improbably a certain number of the oldest or primary and widest-spread roots or sounds ? — R. P. G. t Latham also says that in North and South American Vocabularies the same root is often found for both, which may be a good philological argument in favour of the fundamental unity of the two classes (p. 522). I have found a number o£ words nearly identical in all parts of America. (See Tables and Vocabularies.) — " K. P. G.' X INTRODUCTIOX. by the fish ; the Sim-Catcher ; the Bridge of the Dead, etc. It is well known that the ilexican Calendar and Zodiacal signs have much in common with Asiatic men ; — also ornamentation and architecture. As regards the ancient Nahua and Aztec languages of Mexico, I have not found so much in common with simple words belonging to the Old World as is the case with the Califomian, Otomi, Athabascan, Quichua, and Guarani languages ; this I have also found applicable to the Eastern and Algonkin groups of languages in North America. With the Algonkin and N.E. American languages and dialects, Schoolcraft, vol. iii. p. 60, etc., considers there is more connexion as regards customs and manners than with language, between the North Americans and Asiatics, that betokens early communications ; e.g. cutting or marking of the arms and legs to denote sorrow for the dead ; immortality of the soul ; burials with implements, food, and funereal fire ; head-stones ; also in the duality of the Great Spirit, one good, the other evil. They are much given to dancing and hunting, and to magic, which may have had its origin in medicine. Sorcery is also prevalent in Eastern Asia. The near identity of the words for younger brotlier and sister is still a characteristic of all the American Eed Indian langnages except the Iroquois.* Their substantive is older than the verb, and comes as well as adjectives under the same rule as the verb. They employ a common gender for he and she, and use the same word for man or woman, perhaps an indication of the antiquity of the language. Numbers of syllables are often clustered togetlier as if on a polysyllabic stem. "It is a fixed theory of language built on radices, to have the singular property of retaining the meaning of their original incremental or voweHc meanings, under all aspects of the compounds. Syntax is a later development of language." The Indian languages Humboldt called ayyiutinatire ; Duponccau, poh/synthetic ; but Schoolcraft preferred the term holuphrnstic (fi-om it a remarkable i)eculiarity in this respect. The current statement is that the women have one language and the men another. The real fact is less extraordinary. Certain objects have two names ; one of which is ai'iilied by males, the other by females only.' " In our modern English language grammatical gender has to a great extent disappeared ; in the ancient Saxon, as in the Latin, it affected noun, pronoun, and adjective, and modified them through all their declensions ; in the linguistic feature thus found conuuon to certain Polynesian and South American languages, gender is carried to the utmost extent, and not only modifies the forms of speech applicable to the .sexes, but those in use by them. It is in this direction that the pcculiariti(!S analogous to true gender have been developed in widely different American languages. The general mode of expressing sex for the lower animals, alike among the northern Indians and in the languages of Mexico and Central America, is only by prefixing another noun to their names, equivalent to our use of ' male ' and ' feniale ' ; ' he ' and '.she.'" Again, Dr. Wilson proceeds to say : — That some other analogies may likewise favour the probability that a poi-tion of the North American stock may have entered the continent from Asia by Behring Straits or the Aleutian Lsles, antl diffused itself over the north-west, and ultimately reached the valleys of the Mississippi and penetrated to southern latitudes by a route to the east of the Kocky Mountains. Many centuries may have intervened between the first immigration, and its coming in contact with races of the southern continent ; and philological and other evidence indicates that if such a north-western immigration be really demonstrable, it is one of very ancient date. But so far as I have been able to study the evidence, much of that hitherto adduced appears to point the other way ; and while, theoretically, the northern passage seems so easy, yet so far as any direct proof goes, the Polynesian entrance into the southern continent, across the wide barrier of the Pacific, is the one most readily sustained. Mr. Lewis K. Daa, a learned Norwegian, has traced certain cm'ious affinities between the Samoyed languages of Northern Asia and some of those of America ; and through the other dialects of Siberia, and the relations of both to those of the Finnic and Altaic stock, completes, as he conceives, a chain of connexion, eastward from North Cape to Behring Straits, and thence to the related American stocks beyond the Pacific. But the comparison is chiefly based on a parallelism of vocabularies, and not on any reappearance of the peculiar constructive elements of the American languages. It does not, therefore, lead us very ftir ; for the determination of the true form of the radical, for the purpose of useful comparison, in the unwritten language of uomade tribes, is exceedingly difficult. But is does furnish some guidance, though not, as I conceive, in the direction its author imagines. He has demonstrated, as he believes, certain Asiatic affinities in the Athabaskan and Dakota tongues ; and has shown a series of suggestive similarities between words in the Asiatic and North American languages, relating to primitive arts, custom.s, and the rudimentary terms of religious belief. These include God, priest, slave, dog, fire, metal, copper, hiife, axe, aid, boat, house, tent, village, door, bag, spin : terms for the most part relating to arts, institutions, and opinions, common to the rudest tribes of Asia and America. The Central American civilization was the highest known in America at the time of the Spanish Conquest ; and the Central American Races are much intermixed and by no means pure. The typo of skull, too, is often mixed, neither purely dolicocepluilic nor brachyccphalic. Dr. "Wilson considers the Red Man in America very anciently planted there (Quatrefages says " Quaternary " man existed there) and were probably like the nomads of the Asiatic Steppes; that they exhibit almost greater diversity of language and dialect than the Old AVorld ; and include elaborate agglutinate languages as well as inflexional forms, requiring centuries for their development; whilst some like the Otomi and Heve are almost monosyllabic. The Rcil Indian language is that of the children of nature, says Duponceau, but the forms often rich and methodical and compound though not confused. The terminations of their verbs arc expressive of number and person, and afford many modifications of action and passion, whilst they are in extension richer than Latin or Greek, yet with a highly elaborate structure, theii' vocabulary is limited, but yields delicate shades of meaning. Humboldt says American dialects, the roots of which do not the least resemble each other, often show resemblances of structure like that in Greek, Sanskrit, or Persian : while some of the languages and dialects are very different in detail, yet they have some sort of similarity. Sqnier asserts that out of 400 South American words, 187 were common to foreign languages, riz. 104 A.siatio or Polynesian and Australian ; 43 European and 40 African; and likewise in his " Peru" considers the ancient Peruvian civilization to have been indigenous, and does not agree with D'Orbigny in considering the two great Peruvian stocks, viz. the Quichuan and Aymcra, one and the xiy INTRODUCTION. same, or rather merely dialects of one langriiagc, but tliey arc quite as distinct as Trench is from German, and both probably distinct from the North America Indian. The Quichuan, however, most resembles the language of the old Incas, who only wanted a written language to have made it the highest of all the American, and even equal to some of the Old World Oriental ones. The qui2)us was not a very efficient substitute for even hieroglyphical writing. Some of their stone monuments are certainly" very old, and compare favourably with similar buiklings in the Old World, as Stonehenge and Carnao in Brittany. The sun circles of Sillustani resemble those of England, Denmark, and Tartary. They specially worsliipped the sun and were great cultivators and irrigators. "The attempt, however, that has been made to make them Hindoos, because /«i!a is the Uuichuau name for sun, and indh means sun or fire in Sanskrit, is absurd." Senor Lopez and others have rather dubiously derived the word Peru itself from a presumable (iiiichuan root ^j/r^fire, as a derivative from the Gra?co-Aryan word ttS/j. Eespeoting the Malay and Polynesian, Edkins thinks they once must have come from Eastern Asia, just as the Chinese came from "Western Asia. The Polpiesian personal pronoun is like the Chinese. The third person he, common as i, to both Polynesia and China. (Miss Gordon Cimiming noticed a resemblance in some of the Polynesians to the Japanese.) In Polynesia the word expressing gender came after the noun, in Chinese before. Dravidian, according to Edkins, as well as others, is of Turanian origin, and along with Japanese once may have branched off from the Tartar ; there is also, Edkins thinks, much in common between Malay and Polynesian, and both with Himalaic and Chinese ; and also that the Mongol rests on the older Chinese. With most of these and the American there are, as I have shown in the body of this work, considerable verbal analogies, though not so much so with the Indo-Chinese. Mr. Hyde Clarke (Comparative Pliilology, 1874), says: "The further evidence of language in America means also a common origin with the Old World of many of its inhabitant races, thereby reducing the area of possible aborigines, and so bearing on the question of the unity and subsequent development of mankind." Parenthetically Mr. Hyde Clarke considered there is a connexion between the Magyar and Himalaic Languages, as als"o between the Finnic and Ugro-Altaic, and that some French scholars "have even shown an affinity between the Basque and American (see my Table of Basque, Celtic, Caucasian, Libyan, and American Verbal Affinities). He also thinks that the Carib resembles the Dahomeh and Whydah of Africa; and that the Amazon tribes of Eastern South America may linguistically connect with the coast of Guinea in West Africa, and with the Tujn or Guerani of Brazil, with the Agaw of Ethiopa, and through some of the Caucasian languages even with Accaihan and Sumerian. Mr. Hyde Clarke has drawn attention to a possible connexion between the languages of Australia and those of Mozambique and the Kaffirs of South-East Africa ; in fact he considers that Africa is a great centre of languages, mythology, and ci\-ilization. [In this matter Mr. Gerald Massey would also appear to be in agreement] ; and in a paper on " Serpent and Siva Worship " in Central America, ^Vfrica and Asia (Journal of the Anthropological Institute, 187G), he quotes from Professor Gabb's paper on Inihan Tribes and the Languages of Costa Eica, showing that quite a number of words and synonyms are analogous with African ones ; these words I have mostly inserted in my Comparative Lists of Words given in the body of this work. Professor Campbell and Mr. Hector McLean have given a considerable number of Peruvian words common to, or analogous to, Celtic ones ; and also have noticed further connexion with the Berber (Anthrop. Inst. August, 1887). Out of 95 words in his Peruvian Vocabulary, 70 well formed equivalents were obtained by Professor Campbell.* Mr. Hyde Clarke considers Celtic and Sanskrit to have been derived from a common prehistoric stock ; as also the South American Quichuan and Sumerian AccacUan. Also that the S.A. Aymcra and Canary Islanders or Guanche Berbers were closely connected. Their vocabulary is possibly fundamentally Celtic (see my Tables), and that the Berbers or Libyans came originally from Ethiopia. I venture here to append a number of memoranda extracts from letters to myself at various times - from Mr. Hyde Clarke, and with many of which I am more or less in agreement : — 1 . The bow-wow theoi-y of languages was not the origm of speech, which more probably arose by gradual dc;v(!lo])ment from gesture or iiiterjcctioiud language. 2. The doctrine of cognate equivalents, or of even psyidiological values, is at the bottom of root researches. 3. Adverbs, prepositions and numerals are not of much value comparatively in the study of primitive languages. 4. The languages of the world are all related and of a Mniform identical origin, but variously distributed. 5. Professor Abel, of Berlin, is bringmg out a work in relation to Egyptian, Cojitic, and tlic * In tliis way perhaps some of the Aryau elemeut iouud by Senor Lopez, of Moutc Video, may have been derived ; and whose work I shall notice presently. INTEODUCTIOX. xv Semitic and Aryan languages, which may tend not a little to challenge some of the cun-ent orthodox theories of the special Aryan school. [This work is now published (1890), and will be noticed in tliis Introduction.] 6. The Ethnographical Department of the United States Goverament arc bringing out an important work on the Indian Languages. 7. The value of Grammar in the study of primitive languages is of secondary value. 8. The affinities of some of the Eastern Central American are almost identical with the African vocabulary ; as also the affinities of the Yarra of Australia, and probably the Maori of Xew Zealand with East Africa. 9. The researches of Dr. Block and Kolbc in relation to liantii and JFi-rcro are valuable, but are too localized and special to be universally applicable. What makes the African languagcis so valuable is that they constitute a "preserve," as it were, of ancient culture left by the founders of speech less disturbed by the greater or more civilized and conquering nations like the Semitic and Aryan.* [Mr. Gerald Massey takes also much the same view of the importance of Egyjjtian and African languages as Mr. Hyde Clarke.] The African langimges are possibly mostly from white languages introduced from the North, as Semitic, Aryan, and Aecadian. The Libyan or Berber is not hero of much importance. 10. In an early state of language there are many pJiallic relations \\hich may depend on origiutd laws that govern the phonetic origin of the syllabic alphabet. IL A labial ideograph may have a dental application. Mouth is generally labial; but many words for mouth are dental, or have become so. The Cypriote syllabary is valuable, inasmuch as it retains some of the original and earlier phonetics. 12. As to America, its languages may have been influenced by intercourse with other countries, as Polynesia, etc., but that may have nothing necessarily to do with race. There may not have been any aboriginal American language. 13. Any relations which may exist between Quiohuan and African, Iberian or Celtic, etc., are probably in their origin due to the existence of a more primitive state of language and speech. 14. Berber and Basque are of little general value. Armenian is not a true Caucasian tongue, but rather Aryan ; nor is the Georgian of much value in primitive philology. Even in Celtic and Latin and other Aryan Languages, words occur which are direct descendants from an earlier period of language culture. Brian Hodgson is still the best authority on the Himalaic languages, f The writings of philologists sometimes have their practical value lessened because they may be too erudite. 15. One should be on one's guard as to roots. Primarily, the original single root has been often displaced. Thus, where the chief root was a labial (not necessarily M, B, P, etc. ?) it may bo replaced by a nasal, dental, etc., and representing possibly another physiological relation. The proper root for mouth would be a labial ; but when the idea is taken to include tooth, a dental might be introduced. [_Muiifh, however, merely correlates with hole, cave, hollow, etc., in R. P. G.]. 16. It is often fallacious comparing some highly developed language with savage or primary ones ; and possibly Professor Abel treats even Egyptian too much as a language in its primary condition.;]: In his "Eesearches into Prehistoric Comparative Philology" in connection with the Origin of Culture in America and the AecaiUan-Sumarian Families I gather that Mr. Hyde Clarke considers the Aymera and Quichuan of Peru, and the Maya, Otomi,§ and Aztec of Mexico are all, more or less, allied with the Indo-Chinese, and thereby with the Aecadian, as well as with the African, especially the Agaw. The Circassian seems allied to the Otomi of North America; also the Etruscan with the Altaic. [Mr. Ellis connects Etruscan with the Caucasian, and both these again with some of the South American languages ; and may not all the.se have a common Archaic-Turanian origin ?] Mr. Hyde Clarke remarks, p. 28, on the use of Determinatives with a distinctive power in pre- historic language as the be in Basque ; and that a single root often represents several ideas ; of the truth of which I think there can be no reasonable doubt. Mr. Hyde Clarke thinks the Georgian also connected with Aecadian and Thibetan. As Proto- histoi'ic langTiagcs ho also proposes to include EgyjDtian, Sumero-Peru'\'ian, Chinese, Thibetan, and Dravidian, and that it may have been through the Egyptian they affected N.E. Africa and Western Africa and did not reach Australia. "High Asia is a centre to which in ancient times the West, including Caucasia, the Nile, and W. Africa conformed as India did to the south. Caucasia seemed * The influence of the Aral) and Moslem is now making; a considerable disturbance in all Northern Africa down to the Congo or further, many new Arab words being constantly inta'oduced. See also Stanley's Etymological Notices of Ethiopic and Caucasian influence in S.E. Africa in " Darke.st Africa." t I do not find that the Himalaic and Indo-Chinese VocabuIarie.s are strongly reflected in the American ones. J This criticism might apply with still greater force with respect to Mr. Gerald Massey's central idea of his " Egyptian Origines." ^ May not the Otomi have received its decided Asiatic affinities through the Chinese or Aecadian rather than through the Indo-Chinese and other American linguistic connection, rather than through the Altaic? and are not the Eastern Himalaic languages very mixed ? xvl INTEODUCTTON. once to be a gi-eat language centre. [I cannot agree witli Mr. Hyde Clarke's theorv of the Accad- Sumerian connection or intercourse ivitli South America.] Words may he transmitted for thousands of years, as Sumerian with American in an unwritten form." Mr. Hyde Clarke gives an interesting list of cognate equivalents — e.g. ToxGUE^mouth, speech, knife, leaf, lance, TooiH=bone, horn, arrow, heai', elephant, SNAKE==fish, sun, god, horse, etc., to which might probably be added (see my own lists), navel, bowels. Many of Mr. Hyde Clarke's agree with my own prehistoric synonomous types.* For Field I find the equivalents land, country, enclosure, circle, garden, house, stone ? boundary ? place, wall, yai-d, ^tax^, marsh, earth (see Vocabularies). The study of these synonomous and cognate type-terms is of evident and great value in the study of prehistoric language. Mr. Chirke states that in Accadian L {la, hi) is an animal characteristic ; and the name for dog is often a mere general animal distinction. Mr. Hyde Clarke dwells a good deal on the importance of what he calls the " Negative Series" in prehistoric etymology ; e.g. no or not is the equivalent of night, black, bad, etc. "Woman, moon, and female, are mainly negative ; man, male, sun, positive. I have not attempted to follow Mr. Clarke in his comparative analogous lists of rivers and city names of the Old and New Worlds, e.g. Tarapca and Tauoa in Peru, as with Tarrago and Takki in Spain ; many of these names, especially in Soutli and Central America, may have been altered to suit Spanish and Portuguese maps and ideas. Mr. Clarke speaks of the "phenomena of man in America as representing an arrested development of civilization," and that there are strictly speaking "no aboriginal languages in America, of the higher and later forms " [this would hardly agree with Seiior Lopez as regards the Quichuan of South America ?], unless the Omagu, as possibly connected with the Caucasian. In the early prehistoric days a stream of emigration must have taken place from the Old to the New World, across Behiing Straits ; hardly so across the Atlanlic. [Why not from or via the Azores, following only 1200 miles, with favouring Trade Winds to N.E. coast of South America, or the Caribbean Isles ?— H. P. G.] Lastly, at the Cardiff Meeting of the British Association, 1891, Professor G. P. Wright read a paper on recent discoveries bearing on the relations of the glacial period in North America to the antiquity of man. He deduced from the discoveries the theory that, during the early period of post- Tertiary elevation of the continent, man made his way from Asia to America, bringing with him the rude arts of the Paloeolithie age. On the spread southwards of the glacial conditions which followed, he was more and more confined in the southern part of the United States and of northern Mexico, and shared in a fierce struggle for existence. In his opinion man succumbed and became extinct on the continent and was supplanted by the jiresent races at a much later date. APPJCAN LANGUAGES. Though Dr. Block in his " Comparative Grammar," and Mr. Hyde Clai-ke in various short papers, have drawn attention to the probable importance of Afiican languages in the Study of Language, it is impossible not to notice the recent work of the Eev. F. W. Kolbe, " A Language-Study based on Bantu." (Triibner & Co., 1888). This is a scientific attempt on natural grounds to arrive at the earliest and simplest form of radical sounds in language. Kolbe says in his Introduction : "It appears to me that there is good reason for believing that the African Bantu family, and especially Horero, which may be called the Sanskrit of Bantu (a S.E. Afiican language), has been preservi'd in such a primitive state as to make it possible to discover certain simple laws that mostly guided the first man in creating the stock of radicals from which unis-ersal language lias sprung. Let the stiudent first divest himself of pre-eonceived notions on the subj<>ct and carefully examine the facts that shall be laid before him. He will then be convinced that the continent of Africa supplies nc^w and wondrous forms, the examination of which will upset many old and ingenious theories based on too limited study of the very limited plien(jmena supplied by the Aryans aud Semitic families. (See R. N. Cust in " The Languages of Africa ; " also Stanley's " Darkest Africa," 1890.) Kolbe then advises caution as to tlie inti'liisic value of even such a monosyllabic language as that of China, wliere apparent true monosyllables may have been graded down from duo or from polysyllabic words ; of course this may ftpply with even greater force to numy of tlu; shorter Aryan words; and the longer word or even spelling is often nearer the original ])ronUn(iatis. 3rd. In all languages, by far the greater number of roots are combinations of two piimitive mono- syllables which have lost the terminal vowel as Chinese y-ik' ; English find', loo-k', which have in Bantu often been preserved in their complete forms as ra-nda, buy. ^'o true i)rimitive root ever exceeds two syllables. 4th. " The two first gi'and princijiles of language are motion, and the absi-nce of motion, viz., rest; the conmnants representing motion (and the absence of motion or rest), and the voiveh the various relations as to space (time) and locality. The primasval laws, which regulated in the beginning the use of the consonants (guttural, dental, and labial), and the primitive vowels {a, i, u) can still be observed in the Hcrero of Africa. 5th. " The dift'crences between the several families of speech are, on the whole, not radical or material, but merely grammatical, formal, and conventional, each family having moulded what it possessed of the original common stock in its composition. The vowel-method (see Chap. IV.) will enable the science of language to demonstrate the origin of the several families of speech from one common source." Kolbe says also, p. 21, Chap. III.: "The vowel sounds had in the beginning of language an inherent power to modify the whole sense of a root, forming in this way a wide cluster of indeiiendent root-words, with one prevailing idea, but differing as to space and locality. " As the consonants represent regulated diversity of motion, so the rotvcls were originally signs for the various positions and relations in space ; as at present represented by adverbs and prepositions of place, were represented by three primary vowels, a, e, u; and each of which equally had its own individuality and function. (See p. 49 Vocabularies. E,. P. Gr.) A:=on ; along, flat, extended. I=in ; out, tall, erect, stiff, between, over, up, hidden. U^above ; up, thi'ough, full, large. The vowel A has really no precedence over I or U. K, T, P, and M, are, or were, the primitive consonantal letter sounds. Ka ; Ta ; ;md Pa ; also Ma, were the earliest and most primitive vocal sounds expressive of certain meanings ; and are most clearly still shown in modern Bantu and Herei'o. In effect, Ka, means animate life, to breathe, live, etc. Ta, inanimate things ; death, lie down, repose. Pa, movement ; blow, fly, walk, wave, flow, run, etc. Ma, mother; female (also food, land, "E.P.G."). Ka (singular) ; life, living thing ; (plural) Kha (^ka-ka)?* Ma^mother. kha=;mothers. It is, of course, impossible here to do more than merely to allude very briefly to Kolbe's book ; the principal chapter-subjects are thus treated — Primitive Alphabet, and Primeval Laws of Consonants — Primeval Laws of the Vowels — The Vowel-Method in Universal Etymology — Notes on the Primitive Bantu Prepositions and Adverbs — Root-Formation ; its beginnings and successive stages — Development of Thought — The Herero Pronoim ; Primeval Law of the Plural — Sexual Dual — The Operation of Common Laws Traceable in the Bantu and Aryan Pronouns — Pronominal Tables ; the Primitive System liestored. Probably Kolbe has pushcd.the Bantu primitive formative diagnosis of language a little far, as to its being universal ; but, nevertheless, as far as the simple consonants K, T, P, and M go, in combinations with vowels, there would appear, I think, not a little in the comparative vocabularies contained in this book, a tendency to corroborative evidence. The root ^7», in connection to motion, flying, foot, bird, is nearly universal, or common to most branches of human language. Jia is also found m connection with animals and life in other than jVfrican languages, as may be seen in my tables of word-comparisons and quasi roots. In a general way I should be inclined to say nearly universally that the archaic radical Ka meant Life ; and Ak Action or Movement as well as Pa. Short words, as ki, te, ka, may or may not in a single language be primitive roots ; and sometimes merely graded dual or polysyllabic only ; but when found occurring in a number of difilerent languages having pretty much the same meaning, they may then be accepted as being a primitive root. * Latham (p. 558) says that the Kaffir generally has an inseparable prefix as (H-kaki^ stone ; i« -komo = ca/i/c ; and the plural is of ten determined by the prefix ; as in-komo =cattle ; imi-ti = trees ; Hia-kaki=siows. xviii • INTRODUCTTOX. In his concluding remarks (pp. 93-94), in referring to the pronominal forms of the Bantu* Aryan, Semitic and Hottentot families (whilst considering that he has sliewn that the pronominal system of the Bantu to be the " primitive prenominal system of universal language," there being 33 absolute, and at least 10 conditional forms, or 43 in all), Kolbe observes the foUovring distinctive features and peculiarities arise in their relation to the common original stock, viz. : — " In Bantu the primitive correspondence between singular and plural has been wonderfully well preserved, al.so the forms of the sexual dual, whilst the ii/ea of the dual, except in one case, has been lost, the originally dual forms being now used for the singular and plural. Some original femiuine forms are still extant, but they have assumed a common per.sonal and local meaning. Real grammatical gender is, therefore, wanting in the present state of the Bantu languages, no eiibrt having been made by the ancestors of the African nations to keep it alive by substituting conventional feminine forms derived from the common personal gender, as has been done in the Ajyan, Semitic, and other families. The j^ersonal, neuter, and local meaning are at present the chief features of the Bantu prefixes and pronouns. " The Aryan nations have, in all the three persons, retained the primitive natural plural, whilst few, if any, traces seem to be left of the sexual dual. For the Ai-yan dual is merely a modification of the plural : in Gothic and other idioms it is evidently, as Bopp has pointed out, a composite consisting of the plural pronoun and part of the numeral two, meaning literally we two, ye two, as Gothic ri-t (we two), Lith. i/u-du (ye two), etc. Also in Sauskiit the dual seems to be radically identical with the plural. The original feminine forms, sing, and plur., J/t'and IIHU, etc., have been presen-ed, as, e.g. in Ski', -mi, I, Engl, me, and plur. Skr. nns (us), Lat. nos (we, >is), but the original feminine meaning is lost. Later the feminine was formed from the mascidine (or common personal) by change of consonant, as Engl, she from he, or in other ways. (See Ap- pendix LI.) " In the Semitic languages the original correspondence between .singular and plural is, except in one or two cases, extinct, forms originally belonging to the sexual dual being in use now for the plm-al. A few primitive feminine forms have been preserved , but their signification as such has been lost. The feminine of the third person singular is formed from the masculine or personal gender by changing the vowel u to i. " The Hottentot family, too, has lost the iirimitive correspondence between singular and plural, but has made the most of a few retained forms of the sexual dual, which have been modified by aspiration, abbrevia- tion, or change of consonant and vowel, to serve as plural and dual pronouns. The femiuine is derived from the masculine or personal gender by consonantal and vowel changes." Kolbe commences with Ka= living thing, and developes it, say as in Table I. (Primitive .system restored). 1. Ka=living thing. ) 2. Ka-ma=living pair. ) 3. Kha = living things. f Ki. ku. J Ki-mi. ku-mn. j Khi. khu. Similarly, Ta= dead thing. Pa = moving thing. Ma=mother, etc. Table II. (Prenominal system restored). 1. Ka = he, she, it. 2. Ka-ma = he-she=pair. 3. Kha=they. Ta; ti ; tu = it. Pa; pi; pu = it. Tha; pha = they. Ma^mothcr ; female; she. Mha= mothers; females; they. This aiTangement is carried out very fully in reference also to the Herero prefixes and pronouns ; and to the system of the Herero, Nama, Hebrew and English pronoims, I may have gone further into Kolbe's book than may possibly be necessary ; but it is desirable in any modern work on comparative or structural philology, not to omit some notice of the grooving importance attached to the study of some of the more primitive African languages. It is more likely when African words and roots are seen to occur more or less in most other modern as well as dead languages, including Egyptian, as well as manj- of those of the New World, that there may be still existent the remains as it were of old primitive radicah and sounds, having a more or less common meaning, and which may assist ns not infrequently in explaining apparently very distant similaiities or analogies. Stanley states that there is a good deal of Caucaso-Semitic ancl Ethiopic blood and descent in many of the African tribes of Eastern-Central, Inner, and South Eastem Africa. (See "Darkest Africa," vol. ii. p. 354.) In my own selection of words I have generally been guided by this principle of the occurrence of likely or possible »-«(^/(;fflZ«. Roots, so Professor Max Miiller says, " arc abstract and not concrete, and the elements out of which all language has been constructed." * According to Stanley the Tvord Bantu means men, and tliat tlio sni-disant Bantu's probal)ly originally had some Semitic admixture, and in fact the Kalfirs of S.E. Africa generally. t Many African languages do not form their plural exactly in this way, but either by reduplication of some kind, or with a sufhx, or by change of the initial letters; as ngnml)e = cow, siugombe = cows ; bi = egg, mabi=egg9; goku = axe, heku=axes. Then, again, so simple a root as kit would hardly universally mean or refer to tivimj tilings. Tivon iu Africa ka also means stone, no ! take. And in America kaka = bad; ko = to give, etc. Gerald Massey says: "The Egyptian ka-ka means rejoicing; Ka is to cry, proclaim, a boundary, to boast, to be lifted up." I have shown in one of my compara- tive tables or vocabularies, that kha also means hole, cave, mouth, etc., so that there may be considerable diirerences iu meaning for a primitive (?«n«i radical sound. The root kar = kan has many cognate meanings connected with the idea of circle, round, enclosure, house, people, etc. (See Vocabularies and Appendices.) INTRODUCTION. xix In my selcotion of Modern African wonls 1 have cliiclly consulted Koellu's " Polyfi;lotta Africa" ; Latham's comparative Pliilology; Hyde Clarke's papers bearing on the subject; 11. Ellis' " Pcruvia Scythioa"; Stanley's Vocabularies of Central Africa, given in his " Dark Continent," as well as " Darkest Afi-ica" ; and .Tohne's " Philological Proofs of the Origin of the Human Race." In the consideration of African Languages in comparative Philology, it is well to remember that native African Languages arc not of one stock, and in numerous cases not purely negro, but rather negroid or even Ethiopic and Caucaso-Scmitic. Sfanhsy in his "Darkest Africa," vol. ii. pp. 354-3.59, has some interesting observations on the ethnology of Africa, in connection with the Pigmies and Wahumas of Central Inner and South Eastern Africa. In a general way Jlr. Stanley considers that the true negro races are only found in South and Western Africa, and that there is a large and probably very ancient admixture through Ethiopic Caucaso-Scmitic blood in Inner Central Afi'ica, as far south probably as Zanzibar, and extending from Abyssinia to Lake Tanganika, and (juite into Central Africa. Mr. Stanley says, " probably from Abyssinia and Ethiopia must have come more than one third of the present inhabitants of Inner Africa," that all Africans may have the negro woolly hair; but generally the " Caucasian face " may be distinguished ; and the Kaffir, Zulu, Matelebos, Bantus and Bechuanas, are different from the moi-c indigenous negroes of West Africa and the Guinea Coast, Congouese or Eaboncse, etc., and of the extreme South (Hottentots). " There is a kind of subtle amalgamation of the Hindu and West African types." As we advance from Zangemika towards Ujiji, we see the facial type constantly improve. The people of Semitic, or quasi Caucasian type of face, arc mostly herdsmen, and look down with contempt on the more agricultural tribes, and are not found very near the Eastern littoral of Africa to the cast of the great lakes and snowy mountains, so much as in or near the Nilotic basin. Mr. Stanley considers the Wahumas the truest descendants of the Galla, Abyssinian, and Ethiopic type ; " Of" those Ethiopians who for fifty centuries have been pouring over the continent of Africa East. and West of the Victoria Nyanza in search of pasture, and while so doing have formed superior tribes and nations along their course, from the Gulf of Aden, almost to the Cape of Good Hope ; a vast improvement in the old primitive races of Africa." In a note, page 359, Stanley says : " It is necessary when speaking of the coloured races of Inner Africa to boar in mind that they "are now developed into five distinct ty^jes, which maybe called. Pigmy, Negro, Semi-Ethiopic anil Berberine (Libyan), or Mauresque ; and that among these types there are a number modified by much amalgamation or crossing of one with another, such as Pigmies with Negroes ; producing tribes whose adult males have an average height of 5 feet 2 inches ; Negi-o with Omani Arabs, as on the Eastern sea-board ; Ethiopic with Arab, as along the littoral in the neighljourhood of Jub ; Berberine with Negro, as in Darfour, Kordofan, the herdsmen of the Upper Nile, and east of Sierra Leone." I do not pretend to judge of, or to enlarge upon it; but as far as my own vocabularies are concerned, there would appear to be a number of rather remarkable verbal analogies between the Caucasian, Basque, Celtic, and Libyan, and the American languages, especially for South American on the North-Eastern side, and even with the Quichuan, Caiib, and Eastern-Central America. This influence or connection may have taken place fi'om or via the Azores and Canaries, following the route of the trade winds and shortest ocean crossing. Some have connected the Libyans (and Berbers) with the ancient Egyjitians, others with the Amharic, and, I believe Professor Sayce has even suggested, with the Amorites. Mr. R. ElUs thought that before the Aryans arrived in Etruria and Italy, that Africans and Iberians were there.* In his Introduction, Mr. Ellis refers to the i'mportance of the primeval affinity of the languages of .Africa in comparing the languages of Europe and Asia ; and that Herr Europoeus (of St. Petersburg) had imited the Basque in one group with the African and Semitic languages, making the Caucasian lang-uages to form a second branch, and the Aryan and Finnish a third branch ; and Mr. Ellis goes on to speak of a Pre-Aryan population of Southern Europe as Ibero-Afilcan ; and that the Pemvians may have once been connected with or allied to the Basques, Lycians, and Etruscans. Mr. Ellis, apparently, does not admit of a connection between the Turanian, Siberian, and the Etruscan, but (dubiously) rather with the Caucasian and Iberian ; f and he looks to the Caucasus as the cradle of the Basques and Etruscans ; considering the Iberians, with the Turanians and Americans, as branches of one race, for which he adopts Rask's title of "Scythian"; and that it would be premature to determine the exact degree of affinity between the Scythians and Africans. _ On this subject, and on the characteristics of" the African languages and of the ancient Egyptians, "much more will no doubt be known when we possess the completion of Reinisch's gi-eat work, the fruit of fifty years labom- upon the original unity of the langaiages of the Old World." * Mr. Hyde Clarke, I believe, does not highly value the Berber and Iberian languages, and thinks Jlr. Ellis has rather confused the Armenian with the true Caucasian ; and so has been partly misled in respect to comparisons with the liasque and Iberian. I do not myself find the Berber languages of much philological value. t My own observations rather tend to show some connections between the Guerani and the east coast of South America with S.W. Europe and X.W. Africa, than with the Peruvian. (See Appendices VIII. XV. XVI.) xs IXTKODUCTION. Mr. Ellis has great faith in the niimcral system by Jires,* as connected with the hands and five fingers, both in the Old and 'New "Worlds, as being a very old one ; but that some of the possible coincidences in the names for hand, fire, may have either arisen fi'om a common ancestry or fi'om a common natm-al necessity. That the majority of the ancestors of the American Indians, when they crossed the sea from Asia, probably entered it by Alaska and the Xorth-West ilr. Ellis does not seem much to believe in ; but his opinions as a rule do not agree with those of the best authorities, nor yet with my own Vocabularies. The Quichuan numei'als he however considers "plainly connect the ancient Peruvians with the nations of the (.)ld World ; their nearest kindred there appearing to be the Turanians, especially those of the Yellow Eace ; and also with some of the Xorth American races." [Some of the tei-ms for man and woman are found nearly identical all over the world ; Quichuan words are also found in Africa and the Caucasus.] The matter of the numerals is one upon which volumes have been and may still be written ; it is a question which in its relation as to the Old World and the New AYorld, I have not largely attempted to enter into ; but the analogies as a rule are not strongly marked. Some of the Malay and Oceanic numerals would appear to agree better with Western American than even the Turanian and Asiatic ones. Generally the sounds or words for numei'als would appear to vary more considerably and be more graded down than ordinary words or roots ; and as the words for hand, finger, vary very much, so still more might it be expected that numerals based upon those conceptions would also vary. I have given some of the more striking analogies between the American numerals and Malay, Polynesian, Aocadian, Chinese, Sanskrit, Finn, Celtic, Caucasian, and Ugro-Altaic, etc., but it does not amount after all to very maich. f Eor the numeral fico there are perhaps most analogies. I have also given the Nos. 6 and 7 for a considerable number of languages and families of languages. Between the Papuan and Australian and the Polynesian, and both with the American, there would appear to be a good many words, as well as roots, in common ; and these again more or less apparently with Malay and African. Mr. Hyde Clarke and Mr. Gerald Massey (see his " Book of Beginnings ") have both referred to the apparently rather numerous analogies between Polynesian (Maori) and Afiican ; and my own Yocabularics and comparisons appear to lead to a similar result ; possibly the Malay may have in more recent times acted as a kind of go-between or link. It has been recently said that the present Polynesian Islanders have not occupied the Oceanic Archipelago more than 2000 years ; but judging by the ancient stone momiments in some of the islands, there may have existed previously an earlier population. (See Appendix XI Y.) I have given a number of Aryan words, that seem to agree with American as well as with Turanian ones; but in what way those do so I do not pretend to say. J Celto-Iberian words as noticed in one of my own special Comparative Tables may not improbably have crossed over from the 8.W. of Europe or N.E. of Africa, rid the Canaries and Azores, the direct distance being only some ll200 miles (trade winds favouring) to the nearest N.E. coast of South America. If we admit the Unity of the Human Race and the Natural Development of Language to a certain extent on similar lines as pai't of the conditions natural to the common instincts and physical aptitudes of humanity, much that appears common or accidentally coincident to both Old and New Worlds may be explained in respect to speech and language. As regards America, a certain number of both shorter words and' monosyllabic radicals, appear much in common with those of the Old World, having possibly come in originally at the time of the Quarternary period ; but more numerous verbal analogies (hardly coincidences) may have crept in by subsequent degrees, or through casual migrations. TURANIAN. But it is more with the so called Asiatic Turanian Family of languages there would appear to be most in common with the American ones ; and as occupying or covering the best accepted earliest seat or cradle of the human race itself, we might naturally expect to find there the largest number of old agglutinated words and possible roots ; whilst a fuller study and examination of tlu' Turanian languages in conjunction witli the African and American ones, may do more towards a fuller knowledge of com- parative Philology and of the origin of languages than any amount of learned and ingenious erudition expended on tlie Semitic' and Aryan more highly specialized later language-devehqinient, covering rather a limited area, and yet, in the first instance, not imjn-nhablv nearly connected with an earlier Turanian itself. * The number seven as .5 + 2 apptears to occur in tlie Soutli American, rateo;onian, and Quichuan ; in the Aztec and in parts of California, Texas, and Alaska; and in the Old World, iu Burmese, Sanskrit, Greek, and Lcsghian. Two of the Etruscan numerals Mr. Ellis would derive from North Africa. t The coincidences or analogies between the African and European, Asiatic and American words for the numerals, appear to me to be almost nil, or valueless, for the purposes of comjiarison ; but of course a smattering of the Inter Arabic numerals may not unfrcipiently be found in Africa. (No. 1 is often = 1 or ei;o ; and No. 2=thi)U.) X I'rofessor Skeat has, 1 believe, some 100 Aryan roots connected with the Finnic. May not this have in p.art arisen from the close proximity of the older Scandinavian Aryans with the Iji])S and Finns and Slaves during a fonner considerably remote period. Du Cliaillu thinks he can trace back the Scandinavian Aryans to the lilack Sea aud North Caucasus. Lap and Finn words are not, I think, the predominant forms of the North American Turanian element, (pp. ItiO, IGl.) INTRODUCTION. xxi In compnrmn; my own lists of Turanian and American words for the ratlier limited range of words selected or obtainable, it must bo, I think, aduutted that the nuiiilicr of more or less analogous words, if not of radicals, is really remarkable however it may have arisen, and making some allowance for interchangeable hstters. Edkins considca-s the Turanian type midway between tlie monosyllal)ic Chinese and the poly- syllabic European Languages ; that the Mangol comes nearest of all to' the three Turanian families of speech, and is very old ; and that there may, indexed, have been a time, 5000 years ago, possibly a primitive Turanian in Western Asia from Avhich the Japanese, Dravidian and Tartar spi'ang. It was not with the Altaic branch of the Turanian, but witli the Western Ugiic and Ostiac branch that the earlier Chinese language was most nearly connected, Edkins thinks.* The verb to he (buhu) in Sanskrit hhi'i, and the 1st personal pronoun in m or h, and the 2nd (?) in « or t, are as widely spreail in Tartary as in Europe ; the latter, jjcrhaps, being their borrower ; and the surest sign of kindred between the Tartar-Turanian in European llussia with the Indo-European. In America tlic 1st personal pronoun generally commences with n in j)reference to m, though both fonns occur, whilst h is not found. The transition from d to /, sometimes seen in Chinese as well as in Indo-European languages, probably took place before the separation of the Aryan and Turanian races. The interchange of the letters d and / is also Turanian and American. Edkins thinks the old Thibetan possibly allied to the Ilebrew ; and gives a number of coincident verhal agreements.! (See p. 164.) He also considers the Turanian may he connected with the Japhetic languages, as the Himalaic and Malayo-Polynesian with the Semitic ; and that the Polynesians retain traces of a lost ci%-ilization which comes rather prominently into .view on the American Continent ; also that both language and religious belief indicate Southern Asia as the source from which came the tribes that inhabit Australia, Polvnesia, and the more civilized of the American tribes ; likewise tliat the Tartar has a nearer relationshipto the Indo-European languages than other Turanian ones. He considers the Thibetan older even than either the Turanian or Indo-European. It is a law in all true Turanian languages that the vowel of the root repeats itself in both suffix and prefix ; and he probably correctly considers the Dravidian is of Turanian origin, though Prof. Pope, D.D., would I believe rather refer it to an early Aryan one. The verb and noun in Chinese and Turanian are specially identical, and the Turanian has "the verb at the end of the sentence. There was also a time in Turanian history when its long suffixes were separate roots, and that a considerable number of its words and radicals agree in Tamil, Sanskrit, and other Aryan Vocabularies. In Thibetan, auxiliaries are jirefixed, in Indo-Chinese suffixed. There are many words, naturally in the latter or Eastern Himalaic, found in the Chinese ; and Eilkins even considers the Eastern Himalaic older than the Chinese itself. The Rev. C. J. Ball tells me that the Malay Grammar greatly resembles the Chinese. Mr. Hyde Clarke finds words common to the American and Indo-Chinese (East Himalaic) ; it is not easy to trace how these could have had any direct connection, unless indirectly through the Malay and Polynesian to the south, and through China or Tartary to the north. (See my Vocabulary of the Indo-Chinese and American (pp. 200-2 14). J Mr. Edkins considers that it was after the Separation from the Chinese occurred that the Turanian placed the conjugated verb last, and thus originated the declension of nouns; and the Sanskrit then occupied an intermediate position between Europe and Turania. [The noun in American languages is sometimes declined and sometimes not ; any regular form of gender is extremely rare ; but the verb is conjugated to a remarkable extent]. The Sanskrit did not use prepositions in regard to nouns like most of the Aryan languages. Suffixes generally were of pronominal origin. Greek, Zend, and Sanskrit were evidently, Edkins considers, in near relation with the Semitic ; possibly in or from Armenia. The Turanian languages had formed cases of nouns before they were known in the Indo-European family. The best and leading types of the Turanian are more nearly allied to the Sanskrit than to other branches of the Aryan family. [This may be worth consideration in dealing with the connection between American languages and certain Turanian or Aiyan verbal or grammatical analogies.] The Sanskrit of Indo-European languages also alone employs case-suffixes, instead of the more ancient prepositions of the Chinese, Semitic, and Himalayic.§ Some of the American languages use prepositions to conjugate the verb; * This has been founcl to be partly true inasmuch as the Chinese is now shown to be intimately connected with the ancient Accadiau or Sunierian ; wliilst the Dravidian is now su])posed to be Turanian or Tartar. t I do not find many words in J.acouperie's work "Chinese before the Chinese," showing agreements with the American, nor yet with modern Chinese itself. + Examples, however, are found in Central America of temple architecture not unlike the Indo-Chinese. ^ In North American languages, the pronoun is sometimes used in a copulative and distinct form with the verb. In Otomi and Aztec the distinction for gender is made by adding certain separate words or syllables. In Quichuan there is no gender. Tolerably full details as to American languages will be foimd in Schoolcraft, Petitot and Bancroft. (See Appendices, Nos. II. III. IV.) xxii INTRODUCTION. in fact adverbs, pronouns, and prepositions are common ; only in one or two American languages ia there any dual forming the plural. The monosyllabic Utomi shows numerous resemblances to Chinese, as I have elsewhere noticed. (Appendix No. IV. and p. 118.) The following resume of a lecture given by Professor Douglas at University College, London, on the Chinese language, is taken from the Times of October 17, 1890 : — " The lecturer commenced hj giving a brief sketch of the geography of China, and passed on to refer to the trade of that comitry. Dealing with the Chinese language of to-day Professor Douglas said that in Chinese the subject pi-ecedes the verb, the adjective precedes the suV>stantive it modifies, and when two substantives come together the first is in the possessive case. The written- language is monosyllabic, but not so the colloquial, which has become diffuse in consequence of the necessity arising from the difficulty of making orally intelligible the single words which are sufficiently plain to the eye by aid of the ideographic characters. Like many other languages, Chinese has sufl'ered loss through phonetic decay, and it is poverty- stricken in a gi-ammatical sense. It is uninflected and only shows slight signs of agglutination. There is very Uttle, therefore, to mark the grammatical value of a word except its position in a sentence, since very few words belong absolutely to any one part of speech. The result is that the same word is often capable of playing the part of a substantive, an adjective, a verb, or an adverb. But when this is so, it sometimes happens that the transition from one part of speech to another is -indicated by a change of tone in tlie pronunciation. The tones are not fixed quantities. They vary considerably in different parts of the empu-e, from 16 in some of the southern dialects to five in the Mandarin; and words are fm-ther constantly being transferred from one tone to another in obedience to the laws of popular phoneticism. Whatever may have been the origin of these tones, they play a very important part in making Chinese colloquially intelligible. In the Mandarin dialect, which is the most generally spoken dialect in China, there are only about 632 syllables, which are represented by the 12,000 or 15,000 characters commonly found in the dictionaries. It is obvious that with so small a number of sounds to express vocally so large a iuiml>er of words confusion must inevitably arise. And so it often does, though the introduction of the tones has served to mitigate the evil by giving generally each syllable five different vocalizations. Being an uninflected language, the cases of noims and the tenses of verbs are either indicated by position in the sentence or by the addition of prefixes or suffixes to the original words, which do not undergo any inherent change whatever. As in the Accadian, there is an absence of any distinction between the mascuhne and feminine genders, and the plural is commonly only indirectly pointed out. On paper the language is represented by cliaracters which may be classed as hiero- glyi:)hics, ideograms, and phonetics. The hieroglyiihics are the primitive characters of the language, and were originally drawings of the objects which they were intended to represent, though now, through the changes which have taken place in the form of the characters, it is often difficult to recognise the originals. It will easily be understood that these hieroglyphic characters soon proved insufficient for the literary needs of the people, and hence the practice grew up of combining two or more hieroglyj^hics to express an idea. Thus, for example, the character representing the sun placed above a straight line stands for the dawn, and one repre- senting the sun shining through a tree for the east. Again, the characters for " a man " and " words," associated together, rejirescnt the word meaning " sincere," and the sun and moon, placed side by side, the word for " brightness. " But by far the largest number of characters are phonetics — that is to say, certain characters, about 1600 in all, are used as phonograms, with or without reference to their own particular meanings. According to Chinese records the original characters numbered about 540, the Accadians are said to have had about the same number of primitives. These characters would at first represent so many words, but as time went on it would become necessary to associate derived meanings with these words, and to indicate on paper the particular sense in which the writer intended them to be understood. This would be done by the addition of determinatives or classifiers as they are sometimes called. By means of their three classes of characters, the hieroglyphics, ideograms, and phonetics, the Chinese have been able to express and preserve the thoughts and sayings of their greatest and wisest writers, through a series of centuries which dwarfs into insignificance all Western ideas of antiquity. But by the fresh discoveries of Messrs. de Lacouperie and Ball, not only is a new interest added to the language, but it is brought into close and intimate relation with the tongues spoken by the great civihzing nations of the world." The Kcv. Canon Isaac Taylor in his work, " Etruscan Eosearchcs," page 357, specializes some of the peculiarities of the Ugrio or Altaic languages, and their evidently direct connection with the older Etruscan, etc. He considers there are five great branches of the TJgric, \'iz. : Finnic, Samoyedic, Turkic, Mogolio, Tungusic, and possibly Yeniseian ; that the Median contains a good deal of Finnic, also that thero may probably be both a Semitic and Turanian element in ancient EgAiitian ; that in Latin the Turanian clement is of considerable importance ; that any Prc-Aryan population of Greece must have hec^n Finnic or Euskaric or Caucasian ; and tliat the Etruscan shows more Tataric than iFinnic characteristics. Less probably Mr. EUis thinks the Basque, Etruscan, and Caucasian are of Iberian origin, and their origiiud locus the Caucasus.* [The Pro-Aryan element, referred to by Canon Taylor, may not unlikely be of considerable importance, as an early connecting link between what may appear to be Ai-yan in New World * Luricn L. Bonajjarti! (1880) writes nic "Tlint the Basque constitutes by itself nn isolated stem of the agglutinative division of lant'uages, hut still it is an agj^lutinativc one, as well [lerhaps all the other languafjes of the world, which are neither isolating (as Chinese, etc.) nor inflexional (as Aryan, Semitic, etc.). Celtic beiiis inflexional, and Aryanic is toto cwlo distinct from Basque, in spite of a few similar words to be found in it. 'Sound' Etymologies are not always nound." Some modern etymologists now, I believe, connect the Basque with Finn or Lap. Mr. Kllis, 1 believe, with Caucasian and Etruscan. Others, again, formerly with Libyan. INTRODUCTION. xxiii Etymologi(!R, mid tlie Turanian. Ciiptaui Condor say.s, that in tlie Efryptian Dictionary 170 word.s (?) are of Turanian origin, and 55 Semitic ones, going back as far as 1500 or 2000 years B.C.; but this statement must not be taken without further corroboration. Furthermore, it has been stat(ul that in Accado-Medic there are 109 phonetic, and 12 ideographic signs; and tliat out of 800 Accadian words about 200 are found in Turkish ; 60 to 70 in Medic ; 400 in the Tartar dialects ; also not a few in Mongolic, Ugric, Finnic, and Chinese. The llcv. C. J. Ball considers "it highly probable that Egyptian and Accadian (as well as Accadian and Chinese) are ultimately related." I'rof. Abel also finds a remarkable connection between the Indo-European and ancient Egyptian.] ACCADIAN. The oldest known branch of the Asiatic Turanian family is the Accado-Suracrian, respecting which Dr. T. de Lacouperic had previously argued in favour of the identity of the system of writing, and the Rev. C. J. Ball has only quite lately shown to be closely allied to the Chinese. In Part 1. of my Vocabularies I have given in parallel columns Egy])tian, Accadian, and Chinese for the same words and their cognates. The eonncctitm between Egyptian and Accadian is ])erhaps not very striking, though there would appear to be a decided Turanian clement in the Egyptian, and even jierhajis more so with Aryan ; this may arise either from an early direct immigration into Egv]it, or from a certain Archaic substratum more or less common to all langiuigcs; and this is a point requiring further elucidation. Common radicals like Pa, Ma, ka, ta, te, mat, pat, kak, kal, may be more or less universal, occurring both in the New World as well as Old, and in Africa. I have given elsewhere, p. 157, a separate list of words showing similarity between tlic Egyjitian and the Tartar languages ; and Prof. Carl Abel, of Berlin, has likewise done much to show analogies with the Indo-European languages. Take, e.g. ham^dfi;/ in Egyptian; in E. Tartar, harara=^o ««e ; hararat=:/'crt^ ; in Ugro-Altaic, harara^^ffy {aurora?). Egyptian, sel:=ster ; E. Tartar-, silui^if/htninff ; Ugro-Altaic, sil:=to shine; seilu:=f?/f ; in Accadian, z&l^^ahining ; and in S. American, sillo. Egyptian, tep=/(«'«rf; Ugro-Altaic, rep, tepe, top, etc. Egyptian, o.ah^moun; Accadian, a'i; Ugi'o- Altaic, ai, ay, ahi; E. Tartar, hara ; American, aihhai, uh, ari, auhe. On the whole, however, I am inclined to think that the Chinese, as a Turanian language, has more direct agreements with the American, and with the Otomi especially, than the Accadian has, and that the Accadian represents rather a special form of the Turanian Ugro-Altaic; whether more so with the Turko-Tartaric than with the Ugro-Finnish I do not pretend to say. The llcv. C. J. Ball, in his papers on the "New Accadian," in the Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, 1889-91, has given a series of valuable and original papers on the near connection between the ancient Accadian and the older Chinese, and drawn special attention to the interchanging value of certain letters found in those languages.* Professor de Lacouperic has given a scries of important papers also on the same subject in the "Babylonian and Oriental Record," 1886-1890. It is not yet clearly ascertained, according to Lacouperie, whether "the populations .speaking the Accado-Sumcrian dialect were themselves directly of Turanian origin or not." The Assyro- Babylonians may have been Kushites, " who used to inhabit the lands and sea-shores from Abyssinia to India, and of whom the Bisharo, Agaw, and Galla, of Abyssinia ; the Bagas of the Oman coast, the Brahin, Kolarians, and even Dravidians, are the later representatives possibly arising from the Semitic, Aryan, or Negric, all intermingling." Dr. de Lacouperie, I gather, appears to think that the Sumerian was less under the Assyro- Babylonian pressure or culture than the Accadian proper; but apjjcars in 1886 to have considered both the Accadians and Sumerians as of true Tui'anian origin, and belonging to the same stock as the Ugro-Finnish, Turko-Tartar, and Kuenlnmic groups of languages ; that they branched off in a southerly direction at a very early period, and became subsequently more or less influenced and modified by intermingling with the Kushites, Assyro-Babylonians, and Semites. It must be borne in mind always that race and language are not necessarily identically connected. Lenoi-mant in his " Chalda?an Magic" (Bagster & Son, 1877?) gives much veiy valuable and interesting information as to the Babylonian, Accadian, and Turanian systems of Religion and Language and some of its accordances I have given in my vocabularies of the Ugro-Altaic and Turanian Languages (Part III.). From Lenoi-mant's book, I gather that he considers the Accadians first introduced writing on a hieroglyphic system, and that in civilization they probably occupied a position between the more northern Turanians and tlie rather later Kushites ; that the Arabs were a purer Semitic race than the Kushites of Babylonia; and that these so-called Kushites had "some peculiar Ethnic characteristics somewhat resembling the older Egyptian " of the earliest dynasties. That the * I understand that the Rev. C. J. Ball considers that the Chinese is the last form assumed by the ancient Accadian, and he doubts any Elaraite connection, or that Prof. Lacouperie's " Bak tribes " were simply anything more than emigrants from Accad, who were driven out by the Semitic invaders, about 5000 years ago, and who wandered on till they settled in J^orth China. The Eev. C. J. Ball likewise considers Egyptian, contrary to the received opinion, younger than the primitive Accadian. xxlv INTEODUCTION. Accadian language coukl nevor liave beeii invented by pure Semites. Lcnormant gives an interesting number of simple words, apparently of radical, and not merely accidental origin, showing the intimate connection between the modern Ugro-Fiunio and Turco-Tartaric, " and the ancient Accadian languages," pp. 300-308. On the whole, Lenormant considers Accadian roots much more like the Ugric than Finnic, and nearest the Ostiac ; and that the Accadian language was formed at a very early stage of agglutination,* and the gi-ammar, also ancient, and even thousands of years ago, already showed signs of much phonetic decay. The final vowel of the root often tbopped as ut uttc=zs\m. In Tiu-anian languages generally the full or perfect form of the root often is not given except as a suffix of declension or conjugation. The particle prefixed to form the prccative of verbs exhibits the following scale of degeneration, e.g. ffan, ga, xYorld languages seems clear ; how or at what period it originated has not been well investigated, and little in fact has been done towards a proper comparison ; but it opens out a fresh field for the Tiu-anian philologist and for the study of comparative philology generally. The Tolyncsian, Papuan, and Malay linguistic element is well marked in America, but the races probably distinct.f The Semitic element is little noticeable in the New World languages. In comparing or selecting words for comparison with the New World languages I have, for the sake of convenience and bre^-ity, taken most of the Asiatic langiuiges as one great Turanian one, and called them Ugro-Altaic, including all the Turko-Finnish, Altaic, and Siberian languages, though they are not always very closely connected ; yet they appear to me to contain arcliaic elements and radicals, which appear to repeat themselves in the Afi'ican and American languages, as well as in the Egyptian and Indo-European ones. The African and American, and possibly the Papuan native languages, are certainly valuable to a study of Philology, as being less mixed with European and Asiatic influences, and more nearly representative 2>(>' «^ of earlier or simpler forms of speech ; and I have introduced them in such a form as to reathly admit of comparison with other families of languages ; and especially with the Turanian, which I conceive represents better than the Aryan an older form of language.:]: I may, in a slightly condensed form, quote from Professor Max Miiller's work, the "Origin of Language," Vol. I. pp. 361-379, in reference to a common origin of language, Professor Max MiiUer states, " that every inflectional language was once agglutinative ; and every agglutination once monosyllabic." .... "The Turanian despises every idiom that docs not clearly show its radical and significant element;" and likewise briefly that "the classification of races and languages should be treated quite independently of each other;" also that "the problem of the common origin of language has no necessary connection with the problem of the origin of mankind, or of its descent from one common pair ; for language miglit have made its proper beginning imder later or more favourable conditions." Prof. Max Miiller however, arguing for the possibiliti/, not necessity, of a common origin of language, says that " it is evidently possible from original materials nearly identical, or very similar, that two families or nations might, in course of time, produce two languages so different as Hebrew and Sanskrit." .... "The grammatical forms of the Aryan and Semitic families we have seen decaying in the historical period ; " also that much light may be thrown on those languages by the study of the Turanian agglutinative languages. Coincidences in the allied branches of the Turanian, as with Finnic, Turkic, Mongolic, Tunguslc, and Samoyedic, must be referred to tlie more radical materials of language and speech, and especially to pronouns, numerals, and prepositions. Tlie Finnic and Turkish are even now becoming more inflectional, as the Aryan once did. The different brandies of the so-called Turanian family, whicli may include even Tamil and Finnish, are ratlier radio or diverging from a common centre, than children of a common parent ; but liave still preserved traces of their actual grammatical structure. Prof. Max Miiller goes on to say, 1st, "That notliing necessitates the admission of ditl'erent independent beginnings for the material elements of the Turanian, Semitic, and Aryan branches of .speech ; it is even possible now to point * Mr. Robert Drowii, jun., writes me, as a fair instance of agglutination in modern Turanian dialects, the following examples from the Finnic: Talviltanaa="iiom his farms" = tah -^ i -\- Ita -\- nsa =farm — s — from — liis. t It woiilil appear lliat in many of the Oceanic Islands, notably, I think, in Melanesia, there i.s a not inconsiderable mixture of Papuan and Malay and I'olynesian. :f Some consider the African and Egyptian the oldest and most original language. INTRODUCTION. xxv out radicals, which under various tlisguiscs have been current in these branches, ever since their first separation. ' 2nly, I think, be found rathiT in i>outh and Central America than in North America. The letter r sound is rare both in China and North and Central AuKrica. INTRODUCTION. xxvli out to ynnn}; mon desirous of orif^inal rcsoarc!h, that if some of the many who are luarninK Sanskrit and K'^itiiig not one step beyond, will take up the language of a savage tribe, ample reward will be obtained." The Ilev. C. J. Ball, in a recent letter to myself, writes : " I quite agree with you about Sanskrit, at wliieh 1 Avorked some years ago. It is obvious that so elaborate, not to say artificial a stnicture cannot be made the standard of language generally, especially of the language of the earliest period. The roots of all tongues are prol)ubly (or were) the same, not merely because the organs of human speech are in every way similar, not because only a certain limited number of sounds is possible with human organs constituted as they are ; but because, as I more and more see reason to belieye, the human race is ultimately of one family. Even Darwin thought it improbable that man appeared originally in several ind(q)end(!nt centres, and unity is the goal of all science." . . . . " Your own comparisons of Otomi with Chinese are very striking." .... " I believe that Chinese is very closely related to the Accatlian ; and it is highly probable that Egyptian and Accadian are also intimately related. In Egyptian and Accadian the pronouns are the same, many words are common : e.g. Egyptian, sha-t; Accadian, sku; Chinese, «/«<=book, writing; Egyptian, mes-tcher; Accadian, mustriig = ear; Egyjitian, «;<-< = heaven ; Accadian, «« = heaven ; Egyptian, r«;^ = man ; Accadian, lilgk; Chinese, lung; Malay, orang, etc." Again, "I was looking over a Mexican vocabulary the other day, and was struck by many coincidences with the Accadian, e.g. A7j=mouth in both ; quilla Quiclnian for moon is like /i//('=star in Accadian. Pa is probably a primitive word; it is both Accadian and Chinese." .... "I am constantly coming across the most sm-prising coincidences, not merely in roots, but in compoimd words." * This "is especially what I have myself so constantly noticed, and may be so largely noticed in the lists published in the body of this work (see Tables). The Rev. C. J. Ball is also in agreement with Kolbe (as regard the S.E. African Bantu, viz. that a, i, u are the primary vowels, as probably also in Hebrew); «+/= gives «/, e; and a-\-H gives au, d. Until a more general and certain knowledge of what is more or less common to most languages, or to primeval language, so to speak, in the abstract, is anived at with more certainty, and parallel or cognate terms for certain leading ideas, better or more fully understood aiul agreed upon by comparative Pliilologists generally, specialists in one or two languages will be apt to arrive at too narrow or even false conclusions. And to effect this result satisfactorily more attention will have to be given to the study of languages in their more primitive and savage state. The Eev. C. J. Ball further says in one of his letters to me (1890), " Tou are unquestionably right in insisting upon the comparison of related terms, as expressive of related ideas. The growth of language depends upon the growth of thought. Modification of the notion demands a corresponding modification of the soimd which best embodies the notion. This is the history of human speech in general. I have tried to make this clear in my papers on Accadian and Chinese. In the latter language. Pa, Pah, Pao, Pan, Pang, Pang, Pei, Pieh, Ping, etc., is a remarkable instance of it. One of the first things to which I called Prof. Douglas's attention, was the way in which the same root-ideas re-appeared under each head of this remarkable ramification of the sound Pa (Ba). Probably the Accadian BAE=i)//%«, stronghold, may even be the same as the Maori, ^;«f/j = village. f (See p. 122) QUICHUA^^ AXD AETAN. The present Introduction would not be complete without notice of a work by Senor Vicente Fidel Lopez, entitled " Les Races Aryenncs du Perou" ; Montevideo 1871.| It is a work veiy Httle known, and containing besides an extensive comparative vocabulary in connexion with supposed probable Quichuan and Sanskrit roots, gives an immense amount of interesting detail in connexion with the history, legends, science, and religion of the old Peruvians and their more modem descendants. The book was briefly reviewed some seven or eight years ago by Mr. Andrew Lang, in Macmillan's Review, and from which I bon-ow the following extract : — The Aryan Races of Peett. "The title of a book published by Senor Vinoente Lopez, a Spanish gentleman of Monte Video, seems at first sight as absurd as any of these guesses. That an Aryan race, speaking an Aryan language, possessing a system of castes, worshipping in temples of Cyclopean architecture, should be found on the west coast of South America .seems a theory hardly worthy of serious atteution. It appears, indeed, to have met with no attention at all, and yet the work is a sober one, serieitse et de boime foi, as the author says, who deserves the credit, at * It would appear highly probable that analogous words in two or thi-ee distinct languages have arisen in two ways, viz. : words that are more or less prehistoric, universal, or primary ; or words that have casually been imported. t The Rev. C. J. Ball also writes me, "Your own conclusion that American roots agree with Chinese rather than with Accadi.an is only what I should have expected. The Chinese parted company with the Accadians thousands of years before Asiatic tribes beg.in their wanderings eastward, may have landed them in North-West America. X Also sold by A. Franck, 67, Rue Richlieu, Paris. xxvii'i IXTEODUCTIOX. least, of patient and untiring labour in a land where the works of Bopp, Max MiiUer, and others, are only with very great difficulty to be obtained. Seiior Lopez's view, that the Pei-uvians were Aryans who left the parent stock long before the Teutonic, or Hellenic, races entered Europe, is supported by arguments drawn from language, from the traces of institu- tions, from rehgious behcfs, from legendary records, and artistic remains. The evidence from language is treated scientifically, and not as a kind of ingenious guessing. Seuor Lopez first combats tlie idea that the living dialect of Peru is barbarous and fluctuating. It is not one of the casual and shifting forms of speech produced by nomad races, for the centralizing empire of the Incas imposed on all its provinces the language called Quichuan, which is still full of vitahty. To which of the stages of language does this belong — the Agglutinative, in which one root is fastened on to another, and a word is formed in which the constitutive elements are obviously distinct ; of the Inflexional, where the auxiliary roots get worn down and are only distinguishable by the philologist ? As all known Aryan tongues are inflexional, Seiior Lopez may appear to contradict himself when he says that Quichuan is an agghitinative Aryan languagt. But he quotes Sir. Max Miiller's opinion that there must have been a time when the germs of Aj'van tongues had not yet reached the inflexional stage, and shows that while tlie form of Quichuan is agglutinative, as in Turanian, the roots of words are Aryan. If this be so, Quichiiau may be a linguistic missing link. AVhen we first look at Quichuan, with its multitudes of words beginning with Hit, and its great prepon- derance of j's, it seems almost as odd as ilexicau. But many of these forms are due to a scanty alphabet, and really express familiar sounds ; and many, again, result from the casual spelling of the Spaniards. We may examine some of the forms which Aryan roots are supposed to take in Quichuan. In the first place, Quichuan abhors the shock of two consonants. Thus, a word like -nxia in Greek would be unpleasant to the Peruvian's ear, and he says jOi7/Mi', "I sail." The pZ« again, in p?i