Opuscula: Essays chiefly Philological and Ethnographical

by R. G. Latham

As for the tenses of the verbs, they are evidently no true tenses at all, but merely combinations of the verbal root, and an adverb of time. In Limbakarajia, however, the adverbial element precedes the verbal one. In Kowrarega, however, the equivalent to this adverbial element (probably a simple adverb modified in form so as to amalgamate with its verb, and take the appearance of an inflexion) follows it—a difference of order, sequence, or position, upon which some philologists will, perhaps, lay considerable stress. On the contrary, however, languages exceedingly similar in other respects, may differ in the order of the parts of a term; e. g. the German dialects, throughout, place the article before the noun, and keep it separate: whereas the Scandinavian tongues not only make it follow, but incorporate it with the substantive with which it agrees. Hence, a term which, if modelled on the German fashion, should be hin sol, becomes, in Scandinavian, solen = the sun. And this is but one instance out of many. Finally, I may add that the prefix apa, in the present tense of the verb = cut, is, perhaps, the same affix eipa in the present tense of the Kowrarega verbs.

Another point connected with the comparative philology of Australia is the peculiarity of its phonetic system. The sounds of f and s are frequently wanting. Hence, the presence of either of them in one dialect has been considered as evidence of a wide ethnological difference. Upon this point—in the case of s—the remarks on the sound systems of the Kowrarega and Gudang are important. The statement is, the s of the one dialect becomes ty or tsh (and ch) in the other. Thus the English word breast = susu, Kowrarega; tyu-tyu, Gudang, and the English outrigger float = sarima, Kowrarega; charima, Gudang,—which of these two forms is the older? Probably the Gudang, or the form in ty. If so, the series of changes is remarkable, and by attending to it we may see how sounds previously non-existent may become evolved.

Thus—let the original form for breast be tutu. The first change which takes place is the insertion of the sound of y, making tyu-tyu; upon the same principle which makes certain Englishmen say gyarden, kyind, and skyey, for garden, kind, and sky. The next change is for ty to become tsh. This we find also in English, where picture or pictyoor is pronounced pictshur, &c. This being the change exhibited in the Gudang form tyutyu (pr. choochoo, or nearly so), we have a remarkable phonetic phenomenon, viz. the existence of a compound sound (tsh) wherein s is an element, in a language where s, otherwise than as the element of a compound, is wanting. In other words, we have a sound formed out of s, but not s itself; or (changing the expression still further) we have s in certain combinations, but not uncombined. Let, however, the change proceed, and the initial sound of t be lost. In this case tsh becomes sh. A further change reduces sh to s.

When all this has taken place—and there are many languages wherein the whole process is exhibited—the sound of a hitherto unknown articulation becomes evolved or developed by a natural process of growth, and that in a language where it was previously wanting. The phenomenon, then, of the evolution of new simple sounds should caution us against over-valuing phonetic differences. So should such facts as that of the closely allied dialects of the Gudang and Kowrarega differing from each other by the absence or presence of so important a sound as that of s.

The comparative absence, however, of the sound of s, in Australian, may be further refined on in another way; and it may be urged that it is absent, not because it has never been developed, or called into existence, but because it has ceased to exist. In the Latin of the Augustan age as compared with that of the early Republic, we find the s of words like arbos changed into r (arbor). The old High German, also, and the Icelandic, as compared with the Meso-Gothic, does the same. Still the change only affects certain inflectional syllables, so that the original s being only partially displaced, retains its place in the language, although it occurs in fewer words. In Australian, where it is wanting at all, it is wanting in toto: and this is a reason for believing that its absence is referrible to non-development rather than to displacement. For reasons too lengthy too exhibit, I believe that this latter view is not applicable to Australian; the s, when wanting, being undeveloped. In either case, however, the phonetic differences between particular dialects are the measures of but slight differences.

Now—with these preliminary cautions against the overvaluation of apparent differences—we may compare the new data for the structure of the Kowrarega and Limbakarajia with the received opinions respecting the Australian grammars in general.

These refer them to the class of agglutinate tongues, i. e. tongues wherein the inflections can be shewn to consist of separate words more or less incorporated or amalgamated with the roots which they modify. It may be said that this view is confirmed rather than impugned.

Now, what applies to the Australian grammars applies also to Polynesian and the more highly-developed Malay languages,—such as the Tagala of the Philippines, for instance; and, if such being the case, no difference of principle in respect to their structure separates the Australian from the languages of those two great classes. But the details, it may be said, differ undoubtedly; and this is what we expect. Plural numbers, signs of tense, and other grammatical elements, are evolved by means of the juxtaposition of similar but not identical elements, e. g. one plural may be formed by the affix signifying many; another, by the affix signifying with or conjointly; one preterite may be the root plus a word meaning then; another the root plus a word meaning there. Futures, too, may be equally evolved by the incorporation or juxtaposition of the word meaning after, or the word meaning to-morrow. All this makes the exact coincidence of the details of inflection the exception rather than the rule.

This doctrine goes farther than the mere breaking-down of the lines of demarcation which separate classes of languages like the Australian from classes of languages like the Malayo-Polynesian. It shews how both may be evolved from monosyllabic tongues like the Chinese or Siamese. The proof that such is really the case lies in the similarity of individual words, and consists in comparative tables. It is too lengthy for the present paper, the chief object of which is to bring down the inferences from the undoubtedly great superficial differences between the languages of the parts in question to their proper level.

In respect to the vocabularies, the extent to which the analysis which applies to the grammar applies to the vocables also may be seen in the following instance. The word hand Bijenelumbo and Limbapyu is birgalk. There is also in each language a second form—anbirgalk—wherein the an is non-radical. So, also, is the alk; since we find that armpit = ingamb-alk, shoulder = mundy-alk, and fingers = mong alk. This brings the root = hand to birg. Now this we can find elsewhere by looking for. In the Liverpool dialect, bir-il = hand, and at King George's Sound, peer = nails. The commonest root, = hand in the Australian dialects, is m-r, e. g.