Philological Proofs of the Original Unity and Recent Origin of the Human Race

by Arthur James Johnes

Moreover since Pronouns, which are the principal basis of Grammar, are merely different Synonymes for “Man,” or a “Human Being” (see page [13]), appropriated to different Persons, the supposition that kindred nations may be expected in all cases to use the same grammatical forms is founded on the gratuitous and highly unreasonable assumption, that the process of appropriating these various Nouns to different Persons must have been complete at a very early period, before the separation of the Human Race into distinct Tribes!

But though the rejection of superfluous Synonymes, and the specific appropriation of the remainder are results of the dictates of convenience, the selection of the particular synonymes which are retained, and the particular mode of application, are results dependent on individual caprice and idiosyncracy. Hence we find, as has been shown in previous [pg 090] Sections, the various branches of the same race adopt and abandon different terms. This feature, which has been traced in the Historical progress of languages, completely explains the phenomenon especially noticed at the close of the First Chapter, viz., the positive identity which we find on the one hand, when the languages of the different Continents are compared in the aggregate, combined on the other with a difference nearly total among individual languages, occurring, in many cases, among the languages of contiguous nations of the same Continent. In each separate tribe there is a tendency to abandon part of the parent speech, but as different tribes generally abandon different parts, probably no portion of the original tongue is lost! Its component parts are dispersed, and not destroyed! There is a complete and perfect analogy between the relation which will be found to prevail between the languages of each continent viewed in the aggregate as one original Tongue—compared with the individual existing languages of the same continent—and the relation shown in the previous Sections to prevail between the ancient “Danska Tunge” and its derivative Scandinavian Tongues—between the Anglo-Saxon and the modern English Dialects—between the ancient Celtic and the modern Welsh and Irish!

A recent work on Australia, by Colonel Grey, furnishes an account of the language of that country, so strikingly corroborative of the views developed above with respect to the origin of the various languages of the other four great Divisions of the Globe, that I have been induced especially to advert to Colonel Grey's statement in this Section.

“The arguments which prove that all the Australian dialects have a common root, are:

“1st. A general similarity of sound, and structure of words, in the different portions of Australia, as far as yet ascertained.

“2d. The recurrence of the same word with the same signification; to be traced, in many instances, round the entire continent, but undergoing, of course, in so vast an extent of country, various modifications.

“3d. The same names of natives occurring frequently at totally opposite portions of the continent. Now, in all parts of it which are known to Europeans, it is ascertained that the natives name their children from any remarkable circumstance which may occur soon after their birth; such being the case, an accordance of the names of natives is a proof of a similarity of dialect.

“The chief cause of the misapprehension which has so long existed with regard to the point under consideration is that the language of the aborigines of Australia abounds in synonymes, many of which are, for a time, altogether local; so that, for instance, the inhabitants of a particular district will use one word for water,[85] while those of a neighbouring district will apply another, which appears to be a totally different one. But when I found out that in such instances as these both tribes understood the words which either made use of, and merely employed another one, from temporary fashion and caprice, I felt convinced that the language generally spoken to Europeans by the natives of any one small district could not be considered as a fair specimen of the general language of that part of Australia, and therefore in the vocabulary which I compiled in Western Australia, I introduced words collected from a very extensive tract of country.

“Again, in getting the names of the parts of the body, &c. from the natives, many causes of error arise, for they have [pg 092] names for almost every minute portion of the human frame: thus, in asking the name for the arm, one stranger would get the name for the upper arm, another for the lower arm, another for the right arm, another for the left arm, &c.; and it therefore seems most probable that in the earlier stages of the inquiry into the nature of the language of this people, these circumstances contributed mainly to the erroneous conclusion, that languages radically different were spoken in remote parts of the continent.

“One singularity in the dialects spoken by the aborigines in different portions of Australia is, that those of districts widely removed from one another sometimes assimilate very closely, whilst the dialects spoken in the intermediate ones differ considerably from either of them. The same circumstances take place with regard to their rites and customs; but as this appears rather to belong to the question of the means by which this race was distributed over so extensive a tract of country, I will not now enter into it, but merely adduce sufficient evidence to prove that a language radically the same is spoken over the whole continent.