So little was the Zaza who supplied Dr. Sandwith with the list under notice able to conceive a hand or father, except so far as they were related to himself, or something else, and so essentially concrete rather than abstract were his notions, that he combined the pronoun with the substantive whenever he had a part of the human body or a degree of consanguinity to name. It is difficult to say how far this amalgamation is natural to the uncultivated understanding, i. e. it is difficult to say so on à priori grounds. That the condition of a person applied to for the purpose of making a glossary out of his communications is different from that under which we maintain our ordinary conversation, is evident. Ordinary conversation gives us a certain number of words, and a context as well. A glossary gives us words only, and disappoints the speaker who is familiar with contexts.
If this be true, imperfect contexts, like the combinations pie-min, &c. should be no uncommon occurrences. Nor are they so. They are pre-eminently common in the American languages. Thus in Mr. Wallace's vocabularies from River Uapes the list run thus:—
| English. | Uainambeu. | Juri. | Barrè. |
|---|---|---|---|
| head (my) | eri-bida | tcho-kereu | no-dusia |
| mouth (my) | eri-numa | tcho-ia | no-nunia. |
| &c. | &c. | &c. | &c. |
similar illustrations being found in almost every American glossary.
In his Appendix to Macgillivray's Voyage of the Rattlesnake, the present writer has pointed out instances of this amalgamation in the languages of the Louisiade. He now adds, that he has also found it in some of the samples of the ordinary Gipsy language of England, as he has taken it from the mouth of English Gipsies.
He considers it to be a personal rather than a philological characteristic, certain individuals having a minimum amount of abstracting power, and such individuals being inordinately common amongst the American Indians.
ON THE PERSONAL PRONOUNS AND NUMERALS OF THE MALLICOLLO AND ERROMANGO LANGUAGES.
BY THE REVEREND C. ABRAHAM.