Man and His Migrations

by R. G. Latham

II. The connexion between Oceanica and South-eastern Asia.—The physical conformation of the Malays is so truly that of the Indo-Chinese, that no difficulties lie in this department. The philological ones are a shade graver. They involve the doubt already suggested in respect to the relations between a monosyllabic tongue like the Siamese, and a tongue other than monosyllabic like the Malay.

This brings us to the great area of the monosyllabic tongues itself. Geographically, it means China, Tibet, the Transgangetic Peninsula, and the Sub-Himalayan parts of northern India, such as Nepal, Sikkim, Assam, the Garo country, and other similar localities.

Politically, it means the Chinese, Nepalese, Burmese and Siamese empires, along with several British-Indian and independent tribes.

The chief religion is Buddhism; the physical conformation unequivocally Mongolian.

The transition from mono-syllabic to poly-syllabic has never created much difficulty with myself: nor do I think it will do so with any writer who considers the greater difficulties involved in the denial of it. What these are will become apparent when we look at the map of Asia, and observe the tongues which come in contact with those of the class in question. Then it will become clear that unless we allow it to form a connecting link, it not only stands alone itself, but isolates other families. Thus, it is only through the Transgangetic Peninsula that the Oceanic family can be connected with the Indian; a connexion which rests on grounds sufficiently good to have induced careful writers[28] to believe the affiliation to be direct and immediate. It is only through this same Transgangetic Peninsula plus Tibet and China that the great Siberian families—Turanian and Japanese—can be similarly connected with the Oceanic. Yet such a connexion really exists, though, from its indirect character, it is but partially recognised. Nevertheless, it is recognised (often, perhaps, unconsciously) by every inquirer who hesitates about separating the Malay from the Mongol.

A difficulty of far greater magnitude arises from the following considerations:—There are two principles upon which languages may be classified. According to the first, we take two or more languages as we find them, ascertain certain of their characteristics, and then inquire how far these characteristics coincide. Two or more languages, thus taken, may agree in having a large per-centage of grammatical inflexions, in which case they would agree in certain positive characters. On the other hand, two or more languages may agree in the negative fact of having a small and scanty vocabulary, and an inflexional system equally limited.

The complication here suggested lies in a fact of which a little reflection will show the truth, viz. that negative points of similarity prove nothing in the way of ethnological connexion; whence, as far as the simplicity of their respective grammars is concerned, the Siamese, Burmese, Chinese and Tibetan may be as little related to each other, or to a common mother-tongue, as the most unlike languages of the whole world of Speech.

Again—it by no means follows that because all the tongues of the family in question are comparatively destitute of inflexion, they are all in the same class. A characteristic of the kind may arise from two reasons; non-development, or loss. There is a stage anterior to the evolution of inflexions, when each word has but one form, and when relation is expressed by mere juxtaposition, with or without the superaddition of a change of accent. The tendencies of this stage are to combine words in the way of composition, but not to go further. Every word retains, throughout, its separate substantive character, and has a meaning independent of its juxtaposition with the words with which it combines.