Philological Proofs

                                  of the

                     Original Unity and Recent Origin

                                  of the

                                Human Race

 Derived From a Comparison of the Languages of Asia, Europe, Africa, and
                                 America

Being an Inquiry How Far the Differences in the Languages of the Globe are
                  Referrible to Causes Now in Operation.

                                    By

                        Arthur James Johnes, Esq.

 _Eam linguam (primævam) Hebræi suam dicunt, Syri suam, Verius asseritur
primævam linguam nullibi puram extare, sed reliquias ejus esse in omnibus
                  linguis._  GROTIUS—_Annot. Genes_, XI.

                                 London:

                            John Russell Smith

                    4, Old Compton Street, Soho Square

                                   1846





CONTENTS


Dedication.
Introduction. On The Connexion Of The Conclusions Of This Work With
History, Sacred And Profane, And With The Results Of Science.
Plan Of This Investigation. Lord Bacon’s Principles Applicable To
Inquiries Into The Origin And Changes Of Human Languages.
Chapter I. On The Evidence Furnished By A Comparison Of Their Languages Of
The Original Unity Of The Various Nations Of The Continents Of Asia,
Europe, Africa, And America.
Chapter II. On The Differences Which Distinguish Individual Languages Of
The Four Continents.
Chapter III. On The Origin Of Synonymes.
Chapter IV. On The Original Identity Of The English, Welsh, Hindoos, And
Other Nations Classed As Indo-European With The Jews, Arabians, Etc.
Chapter V. Identity Of The Egyptians With The Indians, Jews, And Other
Branches Of The Human Race.
Chapter VI. On The Chinese Language.
Chapter VII. On The Origin Of The American Tribes.
Appendix A. Analytical Comparison Of Some Of The Most Important Words In
The African Languages With The Analogous Words In The Languages Of Asia,
Europe, And America.
Appendix B. Containing (Arranged According To The Tribes And Regions Of
Africa) The African Words Compared In Appendix A, With The Corresponding
Terms In The Languages Of Asia, Europe, And America.
Footnotes






DEDICATION.


TO

LADY HALL OF LLANOVER.

MY LADY,

This volume has been published in consequence of the following opinion
expressed by Dr. PRICHARD on an Essay written by the Author for a National
Society, in whose proceedings your Ladyship takes a lively interest:


    “This Essay contains very valuable matter, which I trust we shall
    hereafter see in print.”


Notwithstanding the deference which I consider due to the sentiments of so
eminent an authority, had I committed to the press, without revision, the
hastily-written Essay to which he was thus pleased to refer, I might have
conformed to the letter, but I should have violated the spirit of this
very flattering recommendation. Instead of so doing, I have availed myself
of such intervals of leisure as I have been able to command from more
imperative engagements in maturing the conclusions embodied in the present
volume, of which only a very trifling portion consists of the Essay in
which it originated.

Independent of the numerous claims to the respect and esteem of your
countrymen, which your Ladyship has earned by the warm attachment you have
ever evinced for the literature and institutions and for the welfare of
the Cymry, there is no other person to whom I could, with equal justice,
have dedicated a volume which has been written in accordance with your
Ladyship’s suggestion and request. For the same reason, in inscribing
these pages to your Ladyship, I have the satisfaction of feeling that they
will be received not only with the indulgence required by all works which
are the fruit of intervals of professional leisure—but also with that
patriotic sympathy which you never fail to extend to all investigations
prompted by national feelings and directed to subjects of national
interest.

I have the honour to remain,

Your Ladyship’s

Very faithful and obedient servant,

THE AUTHOR.





INTRODUCTION. ON THE CONNEXION OF THE CONCLUSIONS OF THIS WORK WITH
HISTORY, SACRED AND PROFANE, AND WITH THE RESULTS OF SCIENCE.


_Interpretation of the Passage commented on by Grotius. Mr. Lyell’s
Geological Proofs of the Recent Origin of Man. Grounds of Adelung’s
Opinion that Central Asia was the Birthplace of the Human Race. Its
Central Position and High Elevation. Its Climate. It is the native Country
of Domestic Animals. This View consistent with the Scriptural Narrative,
and supported by ancient Indian Accounts. __“__Ararat__”__ of Scripture
not in Armenia. Monosyllabic and Polysyllabic Languages. Dr. Prichard on
the Origin of different Races. The Dispersion of Mankind probably very
rapid. Routes of Diffusion. Basques and Celts. Connexion of the Welsh with
Negro Dialects. The Peopling of Islands. The Unity of the Human Species
deduced from the Uniformity of the Moral, Mental, and Social Features of
civilized and uncivilized Races. Egyptians and Negroes. Ancient Gauls and
Modern French. Tendencies to Progression among Races yet uncivilized. The
N. A. Indian Tribe the Mandans. Imperfection of Modern Civilization. The
Siege of Genoa. The Hottentot Race._

In commenting on a celebrated passage of Scripture, Grotius has adopted,
with regard to the primitive language of mankind, the conclusion expressed
on the title-page.

“That Language the Hebrews say is the same as theirs—the Syrians say it is
the same as theirs. It may be asserted, with more truth, that the
Primitive Language is not extant in a pure state anywhere, but that its
_remains exist in all languages_!”

Of the conclusion thus expressed by this celebrated writer—a conclusion
dictated by the intuitive sagacity of a great mind—the facts developed in
the following pages will be shown to be confirmatory. All existing
languages, when viewed separately, are _fragmentary and irregular_. But
when a wide and extensive comparison is instituted, the “disjecta membra”
are found to reunite, and the irregularities to disappear!

Assuming the various languages of the Globe to have been derived from one
Original Speech, it will be established that the formation of numerous
distinct languages from that one Primitive Tongue admits of a complete
explanation, by means of causes of which the agency can be traced within
the range of the Historical era. The influence of those causes will be
shown within a limited period of time to have produced dialects which
display—not a _destruction_—but a _dispersion_ of the elements of the
Parent languages from which _they are known to have arisen_. In other
words, these dialects manifest the _same relative features_ as are
exhibited by those languages which were formed _anterior to the period of
History_. The only distinction is, that in the latter case the differences
are more numerous and extensive—a result which is obviously a necessary
consequence of a longer period of time.

Agreeably to an interpretation which has received very high sanction, the
event described in the passage referred to in the title-page cannot be
pronounced to have had any considerable share in the production of Human
Languages, for, according to eminent authorities,(1) the changes thereby
caused probably consisted in mere Dialectic differences, not materially
affecting the Words or Structure of Language. Moreover (it is inferred)
the influence of that event did not extend to the whole Human Race, but
merely to that small portion of it who were the ancestors of the Semetic
or Syro-Phœnician nations.

In these pages are embodied proofs, from Language, of the two following
propositions:—1. That the various nations of our Globe are descended from
one Parent Tribe. 2. That the introduction of the Human Species into the
system to which it belongs, cannot be referred to an epoch more ancient
than the era indicated as the date of that event by our received systems
of chronology.

These propositions, of which the Philological evidence is developed in
this volume, are supported not only by the testimony of History, Sacred
and Profane, but also by the highest Scientific authorities.

In Cuvier’s theory of the Earth the date of the origin of our species is
discussed, not only on Geological but also on Historical grounds, in a
disquisition embracing an immense mass of learning on the subject of the
supposed antiquity of the Chinese, Egyptians, and other nations who have
laid claim to a very remote origin. These pretensions are rejected, and
the date usually assigned to the origin of Man is adopted in this
celebrated work.

The same views have been expressed by Mr. Lyell; views which he espouses,
not merely as the result of his own reasonings, but of the prevalent
conclusions of the highest geological authorities.

“I need not dwell,” he observes, “on the proofs of the low antiquity of
our species, for it is not controverted by any experienced geologist;
indeed the real difficulty consists in tracing back the signs of man’s
existence on the earth to that comparatively modern period when species,
now his contemporaries, began to predominate. If there be a difference of
opinion respecting the occurrence in certain deposits of the Remains of
Man, and his works, it is always in reference to strata confessedly of the
most modern order, and it is never pretended that our race co-existed with
assemblages of Animals and Plants, of which all or even a great part of
the species are extinct. From the concurrent testimony of history and
tradition we learn that parts of Europe now the most fertile, and most
completely subjected to the dominion of Man, were, less than three
thousand years ago, covered with forests, and the abode of wild beasts.
The archives of nature are in accordance with historical records, and when
we lay bare the most superficial covering of peat we sometimes find
therein the canoes of the savage, together with huge antlers of the wild
stag, or horns of the wild bull. In caves now open to the day, in various
parts of Europe, the bones of large beasts of prey occur in abundance, and
they indicate that at periods comparatively modern in the history of the
globe the ascendancy of man, if he existed at all, had scarcely been felt
by the brutes.”(2)

(See an analogous argument of Berkeley for the Recent Origin of Man,
quoted with approbation by Mr. Lyell, vol. iii. p. 203.)

In what part of the Globe was the Human species first introduced? On this
interesting question various opinions have existed, and very opposite
theories have been propounded. Sir Humphry Davy(3) surmised that this
locality must have been somewhere in or near the Tropics, in a climate
suited to the tender childhood of the Race. Sir William Jones fixed upon
Persia or Iran.(4) Adelung has concluded in favour of a contiguous
locality; viz., the regions of the Indus, the borders of Cashmire and
Tibet. It may be observed also that his grounds, in some respects,
coincide with those adopted by Sir William Jones, who, after alluding to
the extensive and, as he conceives, fundamental differences between the
Languages of—1, The Persians and Indians, Romans and Greeks, &c.; 2, The
Jews, Arabs, &c.; 3, The people of China and Japan; and 4, The
Tartars—nations whom, nevertheless, he conceives to have descended from
one pair—observes, “If, then, you consider the seats of all the migrating
nations as points in a surrounding figure, you will perceive that the
several rays, diverging from _Iran_, may be drawn to them without any
intersection; but this will not happen, if you assume as a centre,
_Arabia_ or _Egypt_; _India_, _Tartary_, or _China_: it follows that
_Iran_, or _Persia_ (I contend for the _meaning, not the name_,) was the
central country which we sought.”

Adelung’s(5) Dissertation on this subject, which, as he states, contains
“the only hypothesis in which he has permitted himself to indulge,” is
characterized by profound reasoning and graceful illustration. Considering
their variety and extent, his proofs seem to be conclusive, especially
when dissociated from the opinion which was entertained both by himself
and Sir William Jones, viz., that the languages of the nations forming the
diverging radii of migration are fundamentally different. Of these
languages the original unity will be apparent, from the facts embodied in
this work. Adelung’s grounds for selecting the Central Asiatic regions of
Cashmire and Tibet are—1. Their Geographical position and high elevation,
and the direction of their mountains and rivers, which render these
countries a natural source for the diffusion of Population over the Globe.
2. Their Climate and Natural productions. 3. The Ancient Indian accounts
which are corroborated by the Scriptural narrative. 4. In these regions is
the line which separates from other Asiatic races the nations who exhibit
the Mongol or Tartar Physiognomy. 5. The same line separates the
Monosyllabic and Polysyllabic Languages. 6. The Astronomical reasonings of
Bailly.




1. Geographically.


Central Asia forms a natural centre for the diffusion of population over
the Globe, as will appear from the following passages from an authority by
whom Adelung’s views have been adopted:(6)

“Asia, exhibiting such characteristics in its outline, is no less
remarkable for the form of its surface, on which the climate, and
consequently the vegetation and animal kingdom, of its different parts
must chiefly depend. In examining the other divisions of the globe, we
find that Australia exhibits level and comparatively low countries without
many high mountain-ranges, as far as we yet know. Africa is divided into
two nearly equal parts, the southern of which forms an almost uniform
table-land, whilst the northern, with the exception of the Atlas region,
may be considered as a lowland. Europe contains plains of small extent
lying between dispersed mountain-groups and ridges; but these plains are
not confined to any particular parts. In America the highest land lies on
one side, occupying its western coast from the extreme north to the south;
it forms the most extensive system of mountain-chains on the globe, which
inclose within their arms elevated plateaus, but of comparatively small
extent. _Asia exhibits different features. The whole mass of the interior
continent rises to a considerable __ elevation above the sea, and this
elevated mass, of which the high table-lands occupy by far the greatest
extent, is not placed at one of the extremities of the whole mass, but
occupies its centre._

“From these table-lands, which occupy the centre of Asia, the surface
descends in gradual and diversified terraces and slopes to the lowlands
which surround them.”

After stating that these table-lands consist of two terraces, (viz. an
Eastern system, composed of Tibet and the Great Desert, called Gobi, and a
Western terrace, including Iran or Persia,) which unite where the ranges
of the Himalaya, Hindu-Kuh, Thsungling, and Belur Tagh meet, the same
writer thus alludes to the regions which form the point of junction:

“Such a juxta-position of all the great features which nature exhibits on
the surface of the globe, on such a colossal scale, and in so limited a
space, makes this one of the most remarkable spots on the face of our
planet. This maximum of the contrasts of natural features, placed in the
centre of the continent, is the principal characteristic which
distinguishes Asia. By drawing a circle with a radius of a few hundred
miles round this common centre, we comprehend in it the countries of
Cashmere, Sogdiana, and Cabulistan, the ancient empires of Bactria, Delhi,
and Samarcand, the cold table-lands of Tibet, of Khotan, and of Kashgar,
up to the ancient Seres and Paropamisadæ.”

Further, the same writer, after describing the immense variety of climate
that occurs within this limited space, adds:

“From the extremity of these table-lands, especially on the _south-east
and north-east, south-west and north-west_, there issue several separate
mountain-chains, not connected with one another, but which form more or
less a part of the table-lands themselves.

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

“_The valleys, which are produced by this indentation on the borders of
the table-lands, offer peculiar advantages for the progress of
civilization._ For, as we have already observed, the highland of Asia does
not sink on _one side only_, but on _all sides_ and towards every point of
the compass; it also sinks towards _different_ oceans, which are separated
from the highland by extensive plains, varying greatly in magnitude and
form. This circumstance, added to the valleys formed by the indentations
in the exterior margins of the highlands, has given rise to numerous and
most extensive _river systems_, which, descending through the intervening
terraces, direct their winding course _towards the north, south, west, and
east_, and thus give to _the distant internal countries of this continent
the advantage of an easy communication with the ocean_.”



2. The Climate and Natural productions of Cashmire and Tibet.


Influenced solely by its high elevation, De Pauw, Zimmerman, and Pallas
concluded that Central Asia must have been the birthplace of the human
race. To this conclusion the rigorous climate of those parts of it which
were best known to them appeared to present an insuperable objection. But
as Adelung observes, those regions of Central Asia which border upon the
Indus have been shown by the accounts of travellers to fulfil all the
requisite conditions in this respect. Had these celebrated writers been
possessed of the information these accounts contain, they might have
discovered in Cashmire a suitable locality for the first abode of man, in
Tibet a fitting school of discipline to prepare him for the various climes
and countries he was destined to inhabit!

CASHMIRE. Adelung’s description of this enchanting country calls to mind
in many of its features the “Happy Valley” in Rasselas!

The faculties with which man has been endowed enable him to contend with
the most unfavorable climes: but not until these faculties have been
ripened by Time and experience! At his first creation he required an abode
where nature’s free bounty would supply all his wants; in fine he needed,
with reference even to his mere physical necessities, a Paradise! To this
appellation no country in Asia can assert a better claim than the lovely
land of Cashmire, which is, in fact, a mere Valley, separated by
inaccessible mountains from India, Persia, and Tibet! Owing to its high
elevation, the heat of the South is tempered into a perpetual Spring, and
nature here puts forth all her powers to bring all her works, Plants,
Animals, and Man, to the highest state of perfection! Cashmire is a region
of fruitful hills, countless fountains and streams, which unite in the
River Behut, that, like the Pison of Paradise, “compasseth the whole
land!”

Bernier found here all Asiatic and European fruits in perfection. The
Pisang, undoubtedly the same tree as the fig tree of the Book of
Genesis,(7) grows no where so large or so beautiful as in Cashmire!

Even the men of this country are distinguished among Asiatics by superior
natural endowments, mental and physical. They have none of the Tartar
physiognomy, but exhibit the finest features of the European race; while
in genius and intelligence they surpass most other Oriental nations!
Cashmire was at one time governed by kings of its own; it was afterwards
subject to the Moguls of India, who ruled it with gentleness on account of
its beauty! On their downfall it fell under the sway of the rude Affghans.

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

TIBET. This contiguous country unites within itself the temperatures and
products of the most opposite of those climes in which man was intended to
dwell, combining mountains crowned with perpetual snow and icebergs, with
valleys in which never-ending Summer blooms. Tibet also presents, in a
native or indigenous state, the various Plants and Animals which have been
domesticated by Man! Here are found in a wild state the Vine, the
Rice-plant, the Pea, the Ox, the Horse, the Ass, the Sheep, the Goat, the
Camel, the Pig, the Cat, and even the Reindeer, “his only friend and
companion in the polar wastes.”(8)



3. The Scriptural and Indian Accounts.


It is extremely remarkable that the Indian accounts, of which the
antiquity is believed to be equal to that of the Scriptural narrative,
(see p. 132,) actually fix the first abode of Man on Mount Meru, on the
borders of Tibet and Cashmire! Blended though they are with fable, it is
impossible to see how we can refuse to attach some weight to these
venerable remains, harmonising, so completely as they do, with the
conclusions formed on other grounds by some of the greatest men of modern
times, as regards the date and the locality of the first introduction of
our species; for if, on the one hand, the received date of the origin of
the human race be authentic according to the views of Cuvier, and if, on
the other, the date of the Indian Vedas be such as accords with the
opinions of Sir William Jones and other eminent authorities, the
intervening period must have been too brief to efface a traditionary
reminiscence of the early history of our species, (see p. 132.) The
correspondence of the Indian with the Scriptural narrative is in many
features very extraordinary. We have a similar account of the creation of
the world, of the early history of man, of a primitive state of virtue and
happiness, of the fall of man, of a tree of life and death.(9) We have
also a Serpent that poisons the water, which is the source of life!

Adelung notices a feature in which the locality fixed upon as the
birthplace of man by the Indian traditions corresponds with the Paradise
of Scripture. From Mount Meru spring four Rivers, the Ganges, the
Buramputur, the Indus, and another stream that flows into Tibet. “Now
Michaelis,” he observes, “translates Genesis, ii. 10, ‘Four rivers flowed
out of Eden, and they _separated continually more and more widely from
each other_!’ ”

Cashmire is considered by the Hindoos in the light of a Holy Land, the
cradle of their race, their civilization, and their religion!

The Scriptural narrative, in describing the Creation of our species, does
not define the first abode of man any further than by fixing it in “the
East,” (Genesis, ii. 8,) an expression corroborative, as Adelung observes,
of the Indian traditions, for in the time of Moses this expression was
applicable to the regions of the Indus. On the other hand, the common
interpretation of Genesis, viii. 4, which assumes that Ararat in Armenia
was the centre of diffusion of population after the Flood, is
irreconcilable with those accounts, this locality being not to the East
but to the North of all the Syro-Phœnician or Scriptural regions. But
according to Bohlen,(10) the impression that Ararat in this verse means
the mountain of that name in Armenia, which is inaccessible, crowned with
perpetual snow,(11) and _anciently had a different name_, is erroneous.
Ararat, he observes, does not mean a mountain but a country in this verse
and elsewhere in Scripture. Thus the sons of Sennacherib escaped into the
land of Ararat, (II. Kings, xix. 37,) and the Prophet Jeremiah calls upon
the kingdoms of Ararat, Minni, and Ashchenaz to rise up together with the
Medes against Babylon, (Jerem. li, 27-8) Ararat in these passages, it may
be suggested, may naturally be interpreted to apply generally to the
kingdoms and regions of the unexplored(12) table-land of Central Asia,
which commences on the Persian borders, immediately to the East of
Assyria. Moreover the supposition that the Ararat of Scripture was in
Armenia may be regarded as irreconcilable with another important passage,
Gen., xi. 2, which distinctly implies that the emigrants who reached the
plain of Shinar, and who, it may be inferred, were the first colonists of
South Western Asia, had journeyed thither from some region far to the
“East” of all the Semetic countries, of which Shinar or Mesopotamia forms
the Eastern border!

It is remarkable that the expressions of this passage—“And it came to
pass, as they journeyed from _the East_, that they found a plain in the
land of Shinar; and they dwelt there”—harmonise in the most perfect manner
not only with the Indian remains, but also with the passages first
referred to from the Scriptural narrative itself with respect to the first
abode of the human race, for it will be seen by the map that 1, Cashmire
lies in _a direct line_ to “the East” of Shinar or Mesopotamia! 2, The
whole intervening territory is occupied by the Central-Asiatic table-land
of Persia or Iran, which, as previously noticed, forms one _continual
descent_ from its highest elevation on the borders of Cashmire to its
termination near the plain of Shinar! Ar-ar-at may reasonably be inferred
to be nothing else than a term commonly applied in the East to “a country
of lofty mountains,” (see p. 83,) an expression highly appropriate to the
Persian table-land both at its centre, and at its junction with the
Semetic regions, near the banks of the Tigris and the Euphrates! (See
Ritter.)



4. Physiognomy.


As before observed, in these regions are found in juxtaposition nations
which exhibit the very opposite Physiological characteristics of the
Mongol and Western Asiatic races. The people of Tibet display the former,
those of Cashmire the latter.



5. Philology.


Here the Monosyllabic and Polysyllabic languages branch off from a common
centre. The former begin in Tibet, the latter in Cashmire.

The Monosyllabic languages which prevail in Tibet, China, Ava, Pegu, Siam,
Tonquin, and Cochin China, countries which contain a population of 180
millions, betray all the rudeness of human speech in its infancy. They
have no compound words and no grammar. “The same sound,” says Adelung,
“which means _Joy_, means also _Joyful_ and _To rejoice_ through all
persons, numbers, and tenses!”

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

“They form their plural like a child, either by repetition, as
‘_Tree-tree_’ (i.e. ‘Trees’), or by means of an additional word, as
‘_Tree-many! Tree-other!_’ When the great grown-up child is heard
stammering ‘_Be Heaven, I Other,_(13) _Father which_,’ who but another
child like him can guess that this means ‘_Our Father which art in
Heaven!_’ ”

The imperfection of the Monosyllabic languages does not arise solely from
their consisting of Monosyllables, but from the want of the more refined
grammatical forms which are found in all other Tongues, even those of the
wildest American Tribes. No nation, however uncivilized, that had once
acquired a knowledge of these would ever fall back “to the speech of
childhood!” Hence Adelung infers that the Chinese, &c. must have been
completely separated at an early period from the other races of men. But
it will be asked, Why is it that the Chinese have remained stationary in
this respect, while nations far inferior to them in every other point of
view have surpassed them in this one instance? There is, I conceive, no
other mode of solving this problem than by regarding these opposite
results in the light of vestiges, belonging to an early stage of society,
of the same variableness and inequality in the efforts of the human mind,
which are observable in the inventions of modern times! That this question
admits of no other solution will be manifest from Chapter VI, in which it
is shown that the Chinese is not fundamentally different from the tongues
of Europe and Western Asia, but the _same language in a different stage of
its growth_!



6. The Astronomical Theory of Bailly.


Bailly’s theory is that the various nations of the ancient world were
descendants of emigrants from a primæval community superior to them in
knowledge and civilization, of which he places the locality in Central
Asia. His views are founded on the fact that there existed a knowledge of
the results of some of the most recondite Scientific principles among the
Persians, Chaldeans, &c., (nations who were certainly unacquainted with
the principles themselves,) as, for example, of the moon’s course, of the
Solar year, of the Zodiac, of the Planets, of the retrogression of the
fixed Stars &c. Some of Bailly’s opinions have been impugned in Cuvier’s
Theory of the Earth.



The question whether the different branches of the Human Race are
descended from one Stock, has been discussed on Physiological grounds by
Dr. Prichard,(14) in a work equally remarkable for profound Philosophical
and extensive Literary research. After detailing a variety of facts with
respect to the distribution of Plants and Animals, he thus expresses his
conclusion: “The inference to be collected from the facts at present
known, seems to be as follows. The various tribes of organized beings,
were originally placed by the Creator in certain regions, for which they
are by their nature peculiarly adapted. Each species had only one
beginning in a single stock; probably a single pair, as Linnæus supposed,
was first called into being in a particular spot, and their progeny left
to disperse themselves to as great a distance as the locomotive powers,
bestowed on each species, or its capability of bearing changes of climate
and other physical circumstances may have enabled it to wander.”

According to this writer the varieties of colour, feature, &c. displayed
by different races of Men, are the results partly of climate and other
external agencies, and partly also of a natural tendency to the
manifestation of varieties which may be viewed in the light of a
characteristic quality of the Species. Of these propositions the numerous
and diversified facts collected by Dr. Prichard appear to furnish
perfectly conclusive evidence. Thus he has shown that the characteristic
physiognomy of the Negro is found to occur and disappear by nice
gradations in strict accordance with the differences of climate throughout
the African Continent.

The tendency to variety is very manifest, even from facts under our daily
observation. Individuals are common among European nations, who exhibit
some one or more of the traits of the Negro, as, for example, his woolly
hair, thick lips, &c. Among the Negro races have been born individuals of
a perfectly white colour. Many of these specimens, according to Dr.
Prichard, were not Albinos or diseased persons, but indisputable examples
of his principle.

It is probable that in the infancy of the race, this extraordinary
tendency may have served the important purpose of accelerating those
physiological changes by which the constitution of Man was adapted to the
different climates of the Globe, while, in subsequent ages, climate which
determines the physiology of the majority, may be said thereby to
neutralize the influence of these exceptions. Diversities of complexion,
&c. occur in our own and in neighbouring countries within a very limited
area. Thus the dark hair and features of the ancient Silures which were
ascribed by the Romans to a Spanish origin, are still observable among
their posterity, characteristics of which, I conceive, a satisfactory
explanation may be found in the warm and equable temperature of the
Southern counties of Wales, caused by the peculiar distribution of land
and water.(15) In these countries many productions, both animal and
vegetable, flourish, which are rarely found further North. The Nightingale
is common, and the Vine is cultivated frequently. The contrast between the
temperature of the coasts of South Wales and that of North Wales has not
escaped the attention of the Welsh Bards. Davyth ap Gwilym, a Bard of the
fourteenth Century, in a Poem of great beauty, in which he describes
himself as writing from the land of “wild,” Gwynedh (North Wales), calls
upon the Summer and the Sun to visit with their choicest blessings the
genial region of “Morganwg,” (Glamorganshire,) of which he was a native,
and alludes to its warm climate and its Vineyards, which seem to have been
a conspicuous feature! For some very valuable illustrations of the same
principle, I may refer to the account given by the Rev. Thomas Price in
his Tour in Brittany, published in the Cambrian Quarterly Magazine, of the
varieties of complexion and stature observable in Upper and Lower
Brittany.(16)

From the facts collected by Dr. Prichard, it appears to follow very
distinctly, not only that Human Physiology is extremely mutable, but also
that the transitions do not occupy a very long interval of time. Thus Jews
are resident in the African Kingdom of Kongo, whose complexions are as
black as those of the native Negro population. Again on the borders of
Negro-land, different sections of the same tribe, speaking the same
language, are, in many instances, found variously approaching to or
diverging from the Negro standard of colour and physiognomy, according to
the latitude or elevation, or other physical features of their respective
locations; instances in which the separation—and therefore the
physiological differences—must have been recent—for languages change too
rapidly to preserve the features of identity or even of a close affinity
for a period of long duration! The descendants of the Arabs who overran
the North of Africa in comparatively modern times furnish another example;
they do not differ in physiognomy from the Berbers, the original
inhabitants of the same regions.

From these and similar facts it must be inferred—not only that the
existing varieties of Human Physiology form no objection to the opinion
that the different populations of the Globe are descended from one
stock—the same facts lead also to the conclusion, that—with relation to
the earliest eras in the History of our species—Physiological
peculiarities must be entirely rejected as evidence, either of a specific
connexion or of a specific difference between individual races of men, a
principle admitting of many highly interesting applications, of which an
example will now be offered.

By what road did the first Colonists of Europe reach their final
destination? Adelung has inferred that Europe was peopled exclusively from
the Steppes of Northern Asia. But for this opinion, it does not seem that
any valid reason can be assigned. If we assume Central Asia to have been
the focus of migration, it will be observed that there are three routes by
which the forefathers of the European nations may have arrived in their
final abodes, viz. 1, The Steppes of Northern Asia; 2, Asia Minor and the
Hellespont; and 3, The Isthmus of Suez, the North of Africa, and the
Straits of Gibraltar. For concluding that either of these three routes was
used, to the exclusion of the other two, it would not be easy to point out
any strong argument based on Geographical grounds. Now if the third was
employed at all it may be inferred that some of the European nations may
be even more nearly allied to those of Africa than they are to the Asiatic
populations. To this conclusion, however, a formidable objection occurs in
the strikingly contrasted Physiology of Africa and Europe, for—even though
it should be conceded that these opposite features do not serve to prove
an aboriginal difference of race—the question still arises whether they do
not, nevertheless, furnish evidence that the nations of these two
continents are more remotely related than any other branches of the Human
Family; whether they do not point to the inference that the inhabitants of
the South and West of Asia—who certainly occupy an intermediate place
Physiologically—must not also be regarded as forming a connecting link
between those of Europe and Africa in a Genealogical and Historical sense?
To these inquiries it will be obvious that the facts just adverted to
furnish a very distinct answer, for from those facts it directly
follows—not only that climate and other existing causes are sufficient to
account for the different Physical peculiarities of the inhabitants of
Africa and Europe—but it also follows from the same evidence, that a
period of time far short of that during which the European and African
nations are known to have occupied their present abodes, would have
sufficed to superinduce the opposite characteristics they now display!
Perhaps it may be inferred, though probably the subject does not admit of
a precise conclusion on this head, that in a suitable climate the lapse of
500 or 600 years might be more than adequate to engraft on the physiognomy
of Southern Asia all the distinctive peculiarities of the Negro. That
these peculiarities had been fully developed in an early era of the
History of the World, is manifest from the Egyptian Paintings, in many of
which we have individuals of this ill-fated race very vividly depicted,
appearing sometimes as tributaries, and on other occasions as captives,
leashed together like hounds!

Infirm health, and final extirpation, have often attended colonies from
the North of Europe settled in tropical climes, incidents that seem to
have had great weight with Dr. Prichard himself, as constituting an
objection to his views. To this objection, however—independent of the
numerous facts of an opposite nature—the following consideration, I
conceive, suggests a satisfactory answer. Nature may have provided for
gradual transitions of climate such as must have been encountered by a
population progressively diffused over the Globe; and that she has done so
appears to be distinctly established. But it does not follow that she has
made any provision for abrupt changes. These are probably a violation of
her dictates, and may have the same tendency to produce disease and death
as we know to be incident to sudden and extensive variations of
temperature in the same climate and country.

The foregoing deductions will be found to have a highly interesting
application in relation to the origin of two ancient European races, the
Basques and the Celts. If Physiological grounds are dismissed from our
consideration, it will probably be found that the balance of evidence is
in favour of the conclusion that these races have sprung, not from Asiatic
colonists, but from emigrants from the coasts of the continent of Africa!

This conclusion is strongly favoured by the geographical position in which
we find these races placed at the dawn of History. In the earliest ages
the Celts and Basques were in possession of all the most western countries
of Europe. The Spanish Peninsula, the South of France, and the North of
Italy, were divided between them; the remainder of France, the whole of
Belgium, Switzerland, and the British Isles, were held by the Celts, while
of Sicily and Italy the Basques appear to have been the first inhabitants.
(See Dr. Prichard’s Works.) Now in connexion with these facts two
considerations deserve to be noticed, which, by a reference to the map
will be seen to acquire especial force. 1. It will be observed that the
original regions of the Celts and Basques are more closely contiguous to
Africa than the Eastern countries of Europe are; both Spain, and Sicily
(which may be considered a part of Italy,) approaching at certain points
very closely to the African coast. 2. If we assume Central Asia to have
been the original focus of migration—it will be evident—that nomade septs
issuing thence through the Syro-Phœnician countries, and along the North
of Africa—would have found a shorter route to the Italian and to the
Spanish Peninsulas—than those emigrants who may be supposed to have passed
over the Hellespont, or through Northern Asia! Further it may be added,
that the regions originally held by the Basques and Celts are precisely
those which would have been occupied by the descendants of Colonists who
had arrived in Europe from the South-west of Africa if opposed—as we may
infer them to have been—by rival Septs impeding their progress towards the
East. To the East of the Basque and Celtic regions we find the rest of
Europe possessed by the Teutons or Germans, the Finns, the Sclavonians,
and the Greeks, nations all located in countries closely contiguous to
Asia, to the inhabitants of which continent the evidence of language
indisputably proves them all to have been closely related.(17) That these
nations were also the primitive inhabitants of the territories which they
still occupy has been pointed out by Dr. Prichard.

The conclusion above suggested appears to be supported by the evidence of
history. With respect to the Basques, or Iberians, Dr. Prichard has
referred to the testimony of classical authorities, which distinctly
confirms the opinion that they were an African race. But with regard to
the Celts, the same learned writer assumes that they must originally have
come from the East. It is remarkable, however, that this conclusion is
directly at variance with the current opinions of the Ancients, to which
he has referred in the following passage:

“The earlier history of the Celtic people is a subject of great interest,
but of difficult investigation. Were they the aborigines of Gaul or
Germany? According to all the testimony of history, or rather of ancient
tradition collected by the writers of the Roman Empire, the _migrations of
the Gauls were_ always _from West to East_; the Celtic nations in _Germany
as well as in Italy_ and in _the East_, were supposed to have been
colonies _from Gaul_, and the Celtæ have been considered as the immemorial
inhabitants of _Western Europe_!” (Ethnography of the Celtic Race, in
Prichard on Man.)

In assuming that the Celts migrated to Europe direct from Asia, Dr.
Prichard’s views were very naturally influenced by the valuable evidence
he has himself adduced of the connexion of the Celtic dialects with the
Sanscrit, &c. This evidence, however, has been shown (see p. 19) to be
quite consistent with the conclusion suggested above, viz. that the Celts
may have sprung from emigrants who penetrated into Spain from the opposite
coast of Africa.

The interesting researches of Humboldt, which have served by the evidence
of local names to show that the language of the ancient Iberians was the
same as the Basque, have also established, by means of the same evidence,
that the Peninsula of Spain, at the time of its subjugation by the Romans,
was divided in a very irregular manner between Basque and Celtic tribes.
“The Celts,” observes Dr. Prichard, “possessed a considerable part of
Spain, comprehending not only the central provinces, but also extensive
territories in both of the western corners of the Peninsula, where a
population either wholly or partly of Celtic descent remained at the
period of the Roman Conquest.” The remainder of Spain was held by Basques
or by Celt-Iberian tribes, a mixture of both races.

This singular intermingling of the Basques and Celts in the Spanish
Peninsula has been a source of many conflicting opinions among the
learned, on the question which of these two races were the first
inhabitants, and which were the invaders of Spain? The enigma, I conceive,
will be most satisfactorily solved by the rejection of the opinion that
that country was in the first instance wholly occupied by either! Both may
have arrived almost simultaneously, too weak in numbers wholly to engross
the new territory on which they thus entered. Each may have thrown out
into the most distant provinces weak colonies, consisting of a few nomade
families, which afterwards became the foci of powerful Septs. This
explanation completely harmonises with the instructive facts which have
been developed relative to the North American Indian Tribes, who are still
in the “hunter state,” as the first colonists of Europe must have been.
The languages of a great portion of the North American Indian Tribes have
been shown to consist of mere dialects of a few Parent Tongues. But the
Septs thus proved to be nearly related are not always contiguous, but
often separated by tribes speaking dialects of a different class, a
necessary consequence of the roving habits and the imperfect occupation of
territory incident to the “hunter state.” An interesting example of the
influence of the causes which lead to these results occurs in Mr. Catlin’s
allusion to a North American Indian Tribe, the Assinneboins, of whom he
says: “The Assinneboins are a part of the Dahcotas, or Sioux, undoubtedly;
for their personal appearance, as well as their language, is very similar.

“At what time, or in what manner, these two parts of a nation got strayed
away from each other is a mystery; yet such cases have often occurred, of
which I shall say more in future. Large parties who are straying off in
pursuit of game, or in the occupation of war, are oftentimes intercepted
by their enemy, and being prevented from returning, are run off to a
distant region, where they take up their residence and establish
themselves as a nation.” (Catlin on the North American Indians, p. 53.)

The evidence furnished by their languages is not unfavorable to the
supposition that the Basques and Celts may have been of African origin.

Though by Humboldt, and some other eminent writers, the Basque has been
regarded as distinct from other languages, the examples which occur at the
close of this Introduction must, I conceive, serve to remove all doubt as
to the identity of the Basques or Iberians with the other branches of the
Human Race. Of these examples grammatical differences cannot serve to
diminish the force. (See p. 89 and the chapter on the Chinese Language.)
The Basque also shows some traces of a peculiar connexion with the African
tongues. Thus its numerals are nearly identical with those of the North
African nations, and the formative particle Er is used for similar
purposes in the Basque and Egyptian, and in both is placed before the
word, a characteristic which distinguishes the African from the European
languages. (See p. 142.) Thus we have Juan, “To go,” Er-uan, “To cause to
go,” (_Basque._) Ouini, “Light,” Er-ouini, “To cause Light,” or “To
enlighten,” (_Egyptian._) Instances of words formed in the same manner,
which are common to the Egyptian and the Celtic, will be found at p. 38,
Appendix A.

A striking example of the connexion of the Celtic languages with those of
Africa occurs in the region where the respective Physiological
peculiarities of North Africa and Negro-land meet. In the vicinity of the
river Senegal the line of separation may be said to divide the Iolofs, a
Negro nation, from the Fulahs and Phellatahs, whose physical
characteristics are of an intermediate nature. Now it is remarkable, that
by comparing and as it were uniting the dialects of the Iolofs, the
Fulahs, and the Phellatahs, some of the most common Welsh words are
obtained essentially unchanged, as in Le oure, “The Moon,” (_Fulahs_,)
Gour, and Gourgne, “A Man,” (_Iolofs_,) Gourko, “A Man,” (_Phellatahs_,)
Loho, “The Hand,” (_Iolofs_,) Bourou, “Bread,” (_Iolofs_,) Bouron,
“Bread,” (_Fulahs_.)

Consistently with the principles on which the origin of languages is
hereafter explained in this work, I cannot suggest that these
coincidences, striking as they are, afford any proof of a specific
connexion between the Celtic and African races. But they tend to prove,
nevertheless, that language furnishes no positive ground for inferring
that the Celts are more nearly allied to the Asiatic than they are to the
African races. Hence, since the evidence of Physiology on this subject is
also of a negative character, it may be affirmed, with regard both to this
race and the Basques, that the opinion that they are of Asiatic
descent—opposed as it is by the evidence of history in one, if not in both
cases—and by the inferences which Geographical considerations, in both
instances, appear to suggest—requires reconsideration.

In this place I may observe, that in the course of the following inquiries
it will be found true as a general principle, that in direct proportion as
the proofs of the General Unity of the different races of the Globe are
observed to become more distinct, the evidence which has frequently been
relied upon as demonstrative of a specific connexion between particular
races will also be observed to become more doubtful, for both the
affinities and differences which exist between the languages of
contiguous—and those of the most distant—nations, are for the most part so
nearly alike in character, and so nearly equal in degree, as to favour the
inference that the dispersion of the Human Race must have been exceedingly
rapid, and that many ancient nations, such as the Basques and Celts, who
in subsequent times were found closely contiguous, must, in the first eras
of the world, have been isolated from each other by incessant war and
nomade habits, almost as early as the most distant nations were! It is
certain that the language of the Welsh does not present either to the
Basque or to the Teutonic—dialects of nations located contiguously to
their Celtic forefathers—examples of affinity more striking than those
just adverted to. Nor are the examples above noticed of the connexion
between the Welsh and the African dialects by any means more remarkable
than the instances of resemblance between the former tongue and the
dialect of the Mandans, a North American Indian Tribe, which have been
pointed out by Mr. Catlin! In both cases the same observation applies—an
observation based on a principle that will be more fully understood
hereafter—viz., that these coincidences are unequivocal proofs of a
generic, but not of that kind of specific relation, which implies that
these nations were at one time united more intimately than the other
families of mankind.

Various miscellaneous considerations connected with the primitive
migrations of mankind may now he adverted to.

Neither the extent nor the physical features of our Globe are such as
imply that the spread of population over its surface must necessarily have
been the work of many ages. To traverse the habitable earth from the
Southern extremity of Africa to the North of Asia, and thence to the
extreme Southern point of the American continent, is a task which would
require only a small fraction of one man’s life! And in the first ages of
the Race, Man was probably a Nomade, a Wanderer! It may be inferred,
therefore, that in the early ages of the world the diffusion of population
was very rapid in the warmer latitudes, while towards the North it was
obstructed rather by climate than by any other cause. As population became
more dense in the more favoured regions, weaker tribes, it may be
surmised, were gradually driven into the steppes of Asia and the wilds of
Siberia, whence they may be supposed to have penetrated into Europe on the
one hand, and across Behring’s Straits into America on the other. With the
exception of America, all the great Continents are connected together by
districts easily traversed by Man; and Behring’s Strait, which is
interposed between America and the North-east of Asia, might be passed in
the canoes of some of the most barbarous tribes with which we are
acquainted.

The peopling of Islands is a subject that has been discussed very
satisfactorily by Dr. Prichard, and after him by Mr. Lyell. Their
conclusion is, that the occasional drifting of canoes by storms and
currents, is sufficient to account for the existence of Human population
in the most remote islands, as is proved by facts related by Kotzebue and
others. Several reasons have however been suggested in the following
pages, for the conclusion that Australia is a recently peopled country.

The geographical distribution of the various languages of the globe seems
to render Adelung’s arguments for regarding Central Asia as the
birth-place of our species eminently convincing. The languages of China
and the South-east of Asia are either Monosyllabic, or Tongues that
partake of that character; Languages having the same features are spoken
through the long chain of islands in the Pacific as far as New Zealand.
All the other Tongues of the Globe are Polysyllabic. Now if the
birth-place of Man and the focus of migration was in Central Asia, on the
borders of Cashmire and Tibet, this division of Languages would
necessarily have followed, for it will be observed that Tibet, which is
the source of the rivers of the regions to the South-east, would in that
case have given inhabitants to the countries of South-eastern Asia,
countries which are isolated from all others, for not only are they cut
off from Europe, Africa, and Western Asia, by the system of Table-lands
and its Mountains, they are also separated from Northern Asia and
therefore from America by the Great Desert of Gobi or Shamo. To the
Steppes of Northern Asia, and consequently to America as well as to Europe
and Africa, the territory of Persia or Iran, which, as has been seen,
forms the opposite slope of the system of Table-lands, is the natural
route.

The relations which the Parsian, the Pehlwi, and the Zend, the ancient
dialects of Persia, bear to those of the surrounding countries, seem to be
in a highly interesting manner confirmatory of Adelung’s views. The
Parsian, which was spoken in the South of Persia in the provinces near to
India, approaches so closely to the Sanscrit, the ancient language of that
country, that Sir William Jones considered the Parsian to have been the
parent of the Sanscrit. The Pehlwi, the language of the Parthians who
occupied the centre of Persia, a territory that adjoins the Semetic
countries, appears very decidedly to be a connecting link between the
Semetic languages on the one hand and the Parsian and Zend and the
Indo-European tongues, viewed as a class, on the other. The Zend, the
dialect of ancient Media, or North Persia, is supposed to be closely
allied to the Armenian. The Parsian, Pehlwi, and Zend, respectively
bearing these relations to the languages of the neighbouring countries,
are closely connected as sister dialects among themselves. These facts
tend to show—from the summit of the Western Table-land viewed as a centre,
through Persia viewed as a medium—a radiation of language from which a
radiation of population may reasonably be presumed.

The species of affinity which the ancient Persian dialects display to the
languages of the adjoining countries appears to point very distinctly to
another highly important conclusion in relation to the early history of
mankind, viz., that the diffusion of population over Persia and the
contiguous countries must have been a comparatively recent event with
reference to the earliest specimens of the Persian and Semetic dialects,
&c. After the lapse of a long interval the languages even of contiguous
countries lose the traces of original unity. But with regard to modern
dialects it can be distinctly shown that those of intermediate districts
are connecting links between those of the extremities. Thus the Savoyard
connects the French and Italian dialects of the Latin, and those of the
North of England are intermediate between the modern English and the
Lowland Scotch; Du Ponceau has made a similar remark with regard to the
North American Indian dialects spoken by kindred tribes. Septs placed in
the centre continue to maintain a certain degree of intercourse with all
the tribes by which they are surrounded, a consideration which will
account for these results, which probably cannot, in many cases, be
referred to different degrees of Genealogical affinity.

One of the most striking indications of the Original Unity of the
different Races of Men is derivable from the uniformity of the Moral,
Mental, and Social Features they display.

Though the mind in early infancy may be destitute of positive ideas, it
seems to be evident, nevertheless, that our Species has been gifted with
Intellectual Faculties, and with Moral Sentiments and Sympathies, which
are in the strictest sense innate.(18) Of this conclusion a striking
confirmation is derivable, from the extraordinary sameness which, on a
close examination, will be found to prevail in the characters, sentiments,
and sympathies of the various branches of the Human Species. Of this truth
a few examples will now be noticed.

The Negro tribes of Africa have frequently been supposed to belong to an
inferior race of Men, an opinion founded—partly on an inadequate
conception of the progressive character of the Human species—partly on
ignorance of the progress which many Negro nations have actually made. On
the one hand it would be difficult to show that the rudest of the African
tribes are in a more barbarous condition than the ancestors of some of the
most civilized European nations once were! On the other hand, the proofs
of a capacity for social improvement are as unequivocal in the former case
as they are in the latter! Large and important nations, as for example the
Mandingoes and the Iolofs, are found in the interior of Africa, professing
the Mahomedan religion, and as far advanced in the virtues and refinements
of civilization, as any other nations who are followers of the same creed.
In many of these nations the Men are distinguished by a grave and
reflective character, and the women are remarkable for their exemplary
discharge of the duties of domestic life. Sections of the Negro race have
also been converted to Christianity, including many individuals who have
been distinguished not only by a steady conformity to its precepts, but by
the zeal and success with which they have fulfilled the high duties of
Missionaries among their countrymen, and by the composition of Theological
treatises of no inconsiderable merit! (See Dr. Prichard on Man.)

It has been already observed that the physiognomy of the Egyptians
approaches closely to that of the Negro race, of which it may be regarded
as a modification. It has also been pointed out in another part of this
work, that the evidence of language favours the inference that Egypt was
the source of the various African populations. The discoveries of our
age—while they have rendered indisputable the extraordinary arts, high
civilization, and vast political power of ancient Egypt—have also served
to disclose, in the portraits of individuals of that country, forms of
grace and elegance, that serve to link together by the ties of a close and
pathetic association, the infancy with the later ages of the world! To
adopt the expression of Schlegel, (See Schlegel’s Translation of Dr.
Prichard’s Work on Eg. Mythol.,) the physiognomy of the ancient Egyptians
is that of a “very noble race” of men. But it differs very widely from the
characteristics of the European nations; in the dignified features of the
men, and also in the lineaments of female beauty, the approach to the
Negro Physiognomy is often very conspicuous!

I may instance the countenance of the Sphynx as affording a specimen of
the species of approximation to the Negro Physiognomy which is observable
in ancient Egyptian remains!

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

One of the most forcible examples of the susceptibility to
civilization(19) of nations once very barbarous may be found in a
comparison of the character of the ancient Gauls and modern French. When
Hannibal invaded Italy he confined his ravages to the possessions of the
Romans and spared those of the Gauls; a partial distinction which won the
favour of this simple people, who flocked in great numbers to his
standard. The Gauls who were in his army at the battle of Cannæ are
described as a fierce people, naked from the waist, carrying large round
shields, with swords of an enormous size blunted at the point. Yet there
cannot be a doubt that the French, one of the most refined and
distinguished of modern nations, are lineally descended from this
primitive race! (See p. 64.) The true answer to the reveries of Pinkerton,
with respect to the imputed incapacity of the Celts, is to be found in the
literature and science of the French, in whom, owing to the great extent
of their country, the original Celtic blood is most probably less
unmingled than it is in the Irish, the Welsh, or the Highland Scotch!

A comparison of the character of the ancient Gauls and modern French
involves also an instructive example of the mode in which the tendency to
progression in the Human species is often united with a stability of
national character in some features that forms a singular contrast to that
tendency. In comparing Cæsar’s Commentaries on his Wars in Gaul with the
volumes of General Napier, we are struck, in almost every page, with
proofs of a coincidence of mental features so minute, that but for the
opposite accompaniments on the one hand, of a primitive, and on the other
of a modern age, we might imagine we had before us, in these relations,
two narratives referring to the same wars, the same sieges, and the same
men! The mind is perplexed to conceive how a nation that has existed in
conditions so contrasted, as regards Civilization, could have continued
thus uniform in its social and moral features!

Striking as these and other proofs which may be adduced of the uniformity
of character which has often been maintained by the same nation in
different stages of society undoubtedly are, they must cease to excite
surprise—though they may be said to acquire even a higher interest—when
viewed through the medium of the closely analogous results which will be
found to flow from a comparison with the civilized nations of Europe of
contemporaneous Tribes still existing in the “Hunter State.”

The natives of Australia have generally been thought to occupy the lowest
place in the social scale. But from Col. Grey’s valuable work it may be
inferred that in their devices for catching game and other arts belonging
to their rude state, they give proofs of the same intelligence and
acuteness as are evinced by other races of men. They have also Songs of
War and Love which they sing in tunes most barbarous and discordant. The
more refined lays of the European excite mimicry and laughter. But, adds
Col. Grey, “Some of the natives are not insensible to the charms of our
music. Warrup, a native youth, who lived with me for several months as a
servant, once accompanied me to an amateur theatre at Perth, and when the
actors came forward and sang ‘God save the Queen,’ _he burst into tears_.
He _certainly could not have comprehended the words of the song, and,
therefore, must have been affected by the Music alone_.”

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

“Nothing can awaken in the breast more melancholy feelings than the
funeral chants of these people. They are sung by a whole chorus of females
of all ages, and the effect produced upon the bystanders by this wild
music is indescribable.”

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Many of the Australian words given by Colonel Grey will readily be
recognized among the terms collected from the languages of the other Four
Continents in Appendix A; as for example: Nganga, Ngon-ge, Tin-dee,
Tiendee, “The Sun” and “The Stars.” (See App. A, p. 26.) Yanna, “To go,”
and Tjênna, Tinna, “The Foot.” (74.) Tullun, Tdallung, Tadlanga, “The
Tongue.” (72.) Nago, “To see.” (42, 43.) Mena, “The Eye.” (14.) Poou,
Puiyu, Poito, Booyoo, “Smoke,” and Bobun, “To blow.” (21.)

In the construction of their canoes, the inhabitants of some of the most
barbarous islands of the Pacific, exhibit an originality and a variety of
conception of precisely the same nature as is displayed in those
mechanical inventions by which the sum of European civilization is
progressively extended!

But in relation to the subject more immediately under examination, far the
most valuable and instructive information occurs in Mr. Catlin’s account
of his residence among the North American Indian Tribes, a work, admirable
alike as a living picture of Indian manners and sentiments, and also as an
earnest and simple minded, and for that reason an eminently touching and
eloquent appeal, on behalf of one of the noblest, though one of the most
unfortunate families of the Human Race!

“I have roamed about from time to time during seven or eight years,” says
the writer, “visiting and associating with some three or four hundred
thousand of these people, under an almost infinite variety of
circumstances; and from the very many and decidedly voluntary acts of
their hospitality and kindness, I feel bound to pronounce them, by nature,
a kind and hospitable people. I have been welcomed generally in their
country, and treated to the best that they could give me, without any
charges made for my board; they have often escorted me through their
enemies’ country at some hazard to their own lives, and aided me in
passing mountains and rivers with my awkward baggage; and under all these
circumstances of exposure, no Indian ever betrayed me, struck me a blow,
or stole from me a shilling’s worth of my property that I am aware of.

“This is saying a great deal (and proving it too, if the reader will
believe me,) in favour of the virtues of these people; when it is borne in
mind, as it should be, that there is no law in the land to punish for
theft, that locks and keys are not known in their country, that the
commandments have never been divulged amongst them, nor can any human
retribution fall upon the head of a thief, save the disgrace which
attaches as a stigma to his character in the eyes of the people around
him.

“And thus in these little communities, strange as it may seem, in the
absence of all systems of jurisprudence, I have often beheld peace and
happiness, and quiet, reigning supreme, for which even kings and emperors
might envy them. I have seen rights and virtue protected, and wrongs
redressed; and I have seen conjugal, filial and paternal affection, in the
simplicity and contentedness of nature. I have unavoidably formed warm and
enduring attachments to some of these men, which I do not wish to forget,
who have brought me near to their hearts, and in our final separation have
embraced me in their arms, and commended me and my affairs to the keeping
of the Great Spirit.”

Among those tribes which have been placed in contact with the Whites,
individuals, generally Chiefs, have acquired all the advantages of a
European education, to which in most of these instances are united,
dignified and gentlemanlike feelings and manners, qualities which seem to
belong to the native American character. Some tribes have been nearly
extipated by the use of fermented liquors. But some sections of the Indian
population have been converted to Christianity, and adopted the habit of
total abstinence; others have become industrious cultivators of the soil.
Where this race has rejected the benefits of civilization, it seems almost
invariably to have arisen from the prejudices naturally excited in their
minds by the vices of the worst part of the white population, and the
calamities which they have caused by the introduction of ardent spirits!
Even those excellent men who have devoted their lives to the religious
instruction of the Indians, and by whose efforts it may be inferred that
some Tribes have been saved from extinction, have too often found in these
prejudices, an obstacle which might perhaps be removed were the
missionaries generally to commence by offering to teach some of the
simplest arts of civilized life—information of which the benefits would be
immediately appreciated—as a means of paving the way for obtaining that
confidence which, as religious instructors, they require.

The life of constant war and peril to which the Indians are exposed is
incompatible with _actual_ Social advancement. But proofs of a spontaneous
_tendency_ to civilization may be gleaned, as I conceive, from the grace
and tastefulness of their dresses—the beautiful lodges many of the Tribes
build—and other indications, &c. But of this truth, a still more decisive
example occurs, as I venture to think, in the account given by Mr. Catlin
of a very interesting tribe, the Mandans, whom, from the evidence of
language already noticed and other considerations, he has conjectured to
be descendants of Madoc’s Colony, and whose personal character and
appearance he thus describes:

“The Mandans are certainly a very interesting and pleasing people in their
personal appearance and manners; differing in many respects, both in
_looks_ and customs, from all other _tribes which I have ever seen_. They
are not a warlike people, for they seldom, if ever, carry war into their
enemies’ country; but when invaded, show their valour and courage to be
equal to that of any people on earth. Being a small tribe, and unable to
contend on the wide prairies with the Sioux and other roaming tribes, who
are ten times more numerous, they have very judiciously _located
themselves in a permanent village, which is strongly_ fortified, and
ensures their preservation. By this means they have _advanced further in
the arts of manufacture, and have supplied their lodges more abundantly
with the comforts and even luxuries of life than any Indian nation I know
of. The consequence of this is that the tribe have taken many steps ahead
of other tribes in manners and refinements_ (if I may be allowed to use
the word refinement to Indian life); and are, therefore, familiarly (and
correctly) denominated by the Traders and others, who have been amongst
them, the ‘polite and friendly Mandans.’

“There is certainly great justice in the remark, and so forcibly have I
been struck with the peculiar _ease and elegance_ of this people, together
with the _diversity of complexions_, the various colours of their hair and
eyes, the singularity of their language, and their peculiar and
unaccountable customs, that I am fully convinced that they have sprung
from some other origin than that of the other North American tribes, or
that they are an amalgam of natives with some civilized race.

“Here arises a question of very great interest and importance for
discussion; and after further familiarity with their character, customs,
and traditions, if I forget not, I will eventually give it further
consideration. Suffice it then for the present, that their _personal
appearance_ alone, independent of their modes and customs, pronounces them
at once as more or less than savage.

“A stranger in the Mandan village is first struck with the _different
shades of complexion_ and colours of hair which he sees in a crowd, and is
at once almost disposed to exclaim that ‘_these are not Indians!_’

“There are a great many of these people whose complexions appear as _light
as half-breeds_; and amongst the women particularly, there are many whose
_skins are almost white, with the most pleasing symmetry and proportion of
features; with hazel, with gray, and with blue eyes; with mildness and
sweetness of expression, and excessive modesty of demeanour, which render
them exceedingly pleasing and beautiful_!”

It has been shown in another part of this work that the language of the
Mandans does not prove them to be connected with the Welsh, and that their
dialect is of the same character as that of other Indian tribes. Further,
did space allow, I might produce some evidence that the Mandans are allied
in blood to their hereditary foes, the fierce and warlike Sioux! The
phenomena noticed by Mr. Catlin must be explained therefore by the aid of
different principles than those to which he has referred.(20)

I conceive then that these various peculiarities of colour, personal
appearance, and of manners and social habits, which he noticed amongst the
Mandans, may all be viewed as effects of one simple cause, viz. their
“judiciously selected location” in “a permanent village,” involving
protection from exposure to the seasons on the one hand, and the
abandonment of nomade habits on the other. To the former, the changes of
complexion—to the latter, the social advances—of the Mandan Tribe may be
ascribed!

There are numerous other data in Mr. Catlin’s work which seem to afford
illustrations of the mutability of Human Physiology. The Indians who live
among the Whites he describes as “Pale” Red. May not the change implied in
this expression be referred to an abandonment of their original life of
activity and exposure on the wild Prairie, quite as much as to misfortune
or a mixture of European blood? The variety of Physiognomy among the
different tribes, as shown by his admirable portraits of Chiefs, &c., is
very extraordinary. Some of these countenances are ugly and
unprepossessing; but in others the finest European features occur! The
traits exhibited by these portraits are contrary to the inference which
Humboldt’s description might suggest, viz., that all the N. A. Indian
Tribes resemble the Mongol Race in features as well as in the colour of
their skin and the absence of beard.

The Indian shows no want of acuteness in detecting the characteristic
vices, whether real or imaginary, of the civilized world.

“On one occasion, when I had interrogated a Sioux chief, on the Upper
Missouri, about their government, their punishments, and tortures of
prisoners, for which I had freely condemned them for the cruelty of
practice, he took occasion, when I had got through, to ask me some
questions relative to modes in the civilized world. He told me he had
often heard that white people hung their criminals by the neck and choked
them to death like dogs, and those their own people; to which I answered
‘Yes.’ He then told me he had learned that they shut each other up in
prisons, where they keep them a great part of their lives because they
can’t pay money! I replied in the affirmative to this, which occasioned
great surprise and excessive laughter even amongst the women! He told me
that he had been to our Fort at Council Bluffs, where we had a great many
warriors and braves, and he saw three of them taken out on the prairies
and tied to a post and whipped almost to death; and he had been told that
they submit to all this to get a little money!

“He put to me a chapter of other questions as to the trespasses (of the
Whites) on their lands, their continual corruption of the morals of their
women, and digging open the Indian’s graves to get their bones, &c. To all
of which I was compelled to reply in the affirmative, and quite glad to
close my note book, and quietly to escape from the throng that had
collected around me, and saying (though to myself and silently), that
these and a hundred others are vices that belong to the civilized world,
and are practised upon (but certainly in no instance reciprocated by) ‘the
cruel and relentless’ savage!”

It is probable that the finer features of the North American Indian
character may be ascribed in a great measure to the elevated nature of
their religious belief, which indisputably appears to be quite free from
the loathsome and debasing idolatry of the Hindoos and other pagan nations
of the Old World.

“I fearlessly assert to the world (and I defy contradiction), that the
North American Indian is everywhere in his native state a highly moral and
religious being, endowed by his Maker with an intuitive knowledge of some
great Author of his being and the universe, in dread of whose displeasure
he constantly lives, with the apprehension before him of a future state,
where he expects to be rewarded or punished according to the merits he has
gained or forfeited in this world.”

In their native state, in regions remote from the Whites, the Indians are
well clothed and fed, cleanly in their habits, cheerful, and healthy. The
opposite qualities have been considered to be characteristic of the race,
in consequence of the unhappy condition of most of those Tribes who are
found among or near the settlements of the Whites, a condition ascribable
to the use of ardent spirits, the destruction of the game on which they
originally subsisted, and the fraudulent manner in which they have often
been deprived of their lands!

“From what I have seen of these people I feel authorized to say, that
there is nothing very strange or unaccountable in their character; but
that it is a simple one, and easy to be understood if the right means be
taken to familiarize ourselves with it. Although it has dark spots, yet
there is much in it to be applauded, and much to recommend it to the
admiration of the enlightened world. And I trust that the reader who looks
through these volumes with care, will be disposed to join me in the
conclusion, that the North American Indian in his native state is an
honest, hospitable, faithful, brave, warlike, cruel, revengeful,
relentless, yet honorable, contemplative, and religious being.”

The tortures practised by the Indians on their prisoners of war are, it
seems, inflicted only on a portion of their captives by way of reprisal.
The prisoners are for the most part adopted into the conquering tribe. The
men are married to the wives of those who have fallen in battle; and those
outrages on the weaker sex which have disgraced the armies of civilized
Europe are unknown in the annals of Indian warfare!

The Indian is reckless of life, and the female sex among these tribes is
consigned to a life of servitude. But it must be asked, is the morality of
European nations uniformly founded on an earnest regard for the claims of
humanity—on a tender respect for the rights and for the sufferings of the
weak and defenceless! This is a momentous question, to which an answer at
once humiliating and complete may be drawn from one single historical
incident described in the following touching passage!

After noticing the defective state of the European law of nations in
certain respects, the author from whose work the following narrative has
been derived, thus proceeds: “The other case in which it seems to me that
the law of nations should either be amended, or declared more clearly and
enforced in practice, is that of the blockade of towns not defended by
their inhabitants, in order to force their surrender by starvation. And
here let us try to realize to ourselves what such a blockade is. We need
not, unhappily, draw a fancied picture; history, and no remote history
either, will supply us with the facts. Some of you, I doubt not, remember
Genoa; you have seen that queenly city, with its streets of palaces rising
tier above tier from the water, girdling with the long lines of its bright
white houses the vast sweep of its harbour, the mouth of which is marked
by a huge natural mole of rock, crowned by its magnificent
lighthouse-tower. You remember how its white houses rose out of a mass of
fig, and olive, and orange trees, the glory of its old patrician luxury;
you may have observed the mountains behind the town, spotted at intervals
by small circular low towers, one of which is distinctly conspicuous where
the ridge of the hills rises to its summit and hides from view all the
country behind it. Those towers are the forts of the famous lines; which,
curiously resembling in shape the later Syracusan walls inclosing
Epipolæ;, converge inland from the eastern and western extremities of the
city, looking down the western line of the valley of Pulcevera, the
eastern on that of the Bisagno, till they meet as I have said on the
summit of the mountains, where the hills cease to rise from the sea and
become more or less of a table-land, running off towards the interior at
the distance, as well as I remember, of between two and three miles from
the outside of the city. Thus a very large open space is inclosed within
the lines, and Genoa is capable therefore of becoming a vast entrenched
camp, holding not so much a garrison as an army. In the autumn of 1799,
the Austrians had driven the French out of Lombardy and Piedmont; their
last victory of Fossano or Genola, had won the fortress of Coni or Cuneo
close under the Alps, and at the very extremity of the plain of the Po.
The French clung to Italy only by their hold of the Riviera of Genoa, the
narrow strip of coast between the Apennines and the sea, which extends
from the frontiers of France almost to the mouth of the Arno. Hither the
remains of the French force were collected, commanded by General Massena,
and the point of chief importance to his defence was the city of Genoa.

“Napoleon had just returned from Egypt, and was become First Consul; but
he could not be expected to take the field till the following spring, and
till then Massena was hopeless of relief from without, everything was to
depend upon his own pertinacity. The strength of his army made it
impossible to force it in such a position as Genoa; but its very numbers,
added to the population of the city, held out to the enemy a hope of
reducing it by famine; and as Genoa derives most of its supplies by sea,
Lord Keith, the British naval Commander in Chief in the Mediterranean,
lent the assistance of his naval force to the Austrians, and by the
vigilance of his cruizers, the whole coasting trade right and left was
effectually cut off. It is not at once that the inhabitants of a great
city, accustomed to the daily sight of well-stored shops and an abundant
market, begin to realize the idea of scarcity; or that the wealthy classes
of society, who have never known any other state than one of abundance and
luxury, begin seriously to conceive of famine. But the shops were emptied,
and the storehouses began to be drawn upon; and no fresh supply or hope of
supply appeared. Winter passed away, and Spring returned, so early and so
beautiful on that garden-like coast, sheltered as it is from the north
winds by its belt of mountains, and open to the full rays of the Southern
Sun. Spring returned, and clothed the hill sides within the lines with its
fresh verdure. But that verdure was no more the delight of the careless
eye of luxury, refreshing the citizens by its loveliness and softness when
they rode or walked up thither from the city to enjoy the surpassing
beauty of the prospect! The green hill sides were now visited for a very
different object; ladies of the highest rank might be seen cutting up
every plant which it was possible to turn to food, and bearing home the
common weeds of our road sides as a most precious treasure! The French
general pitied the distress of the people; but the lives and the strength
of his garrison seemed to him more important than the lives of the
Genoese, and such provisions as remained were reserved in the first place
for the French army. Scarcity became utter want, and want became famine!
In the most gorgeous palaces of that gorgeous city, no less than in the
humblest tenements of the poor, death was busy; not the momentary death of
battle or massacre, nor the speedy death of pestilence, but the lingering
and most miserable death of famine! Infants died before their parents’
eyes, husbands and wives lay down to expire together! A man whom I saw at
Genoa in 1825 told me that his father and two of his brothers had been
starved to death in this fatal siege. So it went on, till in the month of
June, when Napoleon had already descended from the Alps into the plain of
Lombardy, the misery became unendurable, and Massena surrendered. But
before he did so, twenty thousand innocent persons, old and young, women
and children, had died by the most horrible of deaths which humanity can
endure! Other horrors which occurred besides during the blockade I pass
over; the agonizing death of twenty thousand innocent and helpless persons
requires nothing to be added to it!

“Now is it right that such a tragedy as this should take place, and that
the laws of war should be supposed to justify the authors of it? Conceive
having been a naval officer in Lord Keith’s squadron at that time, and
being employed in stopping the food which was being brought for the relief
of such misery! For the thing was done deliberately; the helplessness of
the Genoese was known, their distress was known; it was known that they
could not force Massena to surrender; it was known that they were dying
daily by hundreds; yet week after week, and month after month, did the
British ships of war keep their iron watch along all the coast: no vessel
nor boat laden with any article of provision could escape their vigilance!
One cannot but be thankful that Nelson was spared from commanding at this
horrible blockade of Genoa!

“Now on which side the law of Nations should throw the guilt of most
atrocious murder is of little comparative consequence or whether it should
attach to both sides equally: but that the deliberate starving to death of
twenty thousand helpless persons should be regarded as a crime in one or
in both of the parties concerned in it seems to me self-evident! The
simplest course would seem to be that all non-combatants should be allowed
to go out of a blockaded town, and that the general who should refuse to
let them pass should be regarded in the same light as one who were to
murder his prisoners or who were in the habit of butchering women and
children.”

It is not intended to be suggested that the morality of the more virtuous
and religious members of civilized communities is not superior to that of
uncivilized races. But that such superiority can be claimed by the mass of
the inhabitants of Europe is a proposition of which the evidence must be
allowed to be doubtful as regards some—must be allowed, alas! to fail
altogether as regards many—of those virtues of which our nature is
capable!

Yet, notwithstanding many melancholy facts that seem to be repugnant to
such a conclusion, there exist satisfactory grounds for inferring that
civilization has a direct tendency to promote the moral improvement of the
Human Race, and that our species is probably destined even in this state
of existence, to a course not only of social, but also of a moral
progression! Of this truth distinct indications may be recognized in the
altered sentiments of European nations on many momentous subjects, as
evinced in the increasing aversion to wars of aggression—in the general
condemnation of the principle—and the extensive abolition of the
practice—of slavery, and in the rapid growth of an earnest sympathy, at
once generous and humane, with the claims and the sufferings of the more
unprotected branches of mankind! Of the practical results of these changes
in the moral sentiments of Society—of which Christianity, which teaches
that all men are of one blood and of one family, has been the primary
source—and of which the English nation—influenced by the example of a few
men of extraordinary piety, wisdom, and humanity, to whom it gave birth in
the last generation, have been the most conspicuous instruments—one
example may be appropriately introduced in this place.

“The original proprietors of this fine soil, (the neighbourhood of the
Cape of Good Hope,) the poor Hottentots, the fabricated tales of whose
filthiness are known to every schoolboy, and have made them proverbial in
every nation of Europe, are probably the simplest and most inoffensive of
the human race. By open robbery and murder, and by a cruel and persevering
system of oppression on the part of the Dutch colonists, they have been
reduced to not much more than 15,000 souls. Under the protection of the
British government, by the careful instruction of the missionaries, and
their increased importance in the colony as labourers since the abolition
of the slave trade, their number is now considerably on the increase;
General Craig, after the capture of the Cape, brought forward,
experimentally, the physical and moral qualities of this most injured and
degraded people, by forming them into a military corps, which, in point of
discipline, obedience, instruction and cleanliness, were not at all behind
European troops. The truth is that the filthy appearance of the Hottentot
was never from choice, but necessity. The anxiety which he now shows to
get quit of his sheep-skin clothing for cotton, linen, or woollen, and to
keep his person clean, proves that he is far more sensible than the ‘Boor’
to the comforts of civilized life. ‘Whosoever,’ says the excellent Mr.
Latrobe, the father of the Moravians in this country, ‘charges the
Hottentots with being inferior to other people of the same class as to
education and the means of improvement, knows nothing about them. They are
in general more sensible, and possess better judgment than most Europeans,
equally destitute of the means of instruction.’ At Bavians Kloof, or the
Monkey’s Ravine, which General Jansens altered into Gandenthal, or the
Valley of Grace, 130 miles E. by N. of Cape Town, is an establishment of
these poor despised people under the care of missionaries, founded in
1737. It consists of a beautiful village containing 1400 Hottentot
inhabitants. Every cottage has a garden, a few of the poor class still
wear sheep skins, and their children go naked, but far the greater part of
them make a point of providing themselves with jackets and trousers, and
other articles of European dress which they already wear on Sundays. Both
before and after meals they sing grace in the sweetest tones imaginable.
The place externally, appears a little Paradise, and let it be remembered
it is only one of a great number of these missionary stations. The
Hottentots are of a deep brown or yellow brown colour, their eyes are pure
white, their head is small; the face very wide above, ends in a point;
their cheek-bones are prominent, their eyes sunk, the nose flat, the lips
thick, the teeth white, and the hand and foot rather small. They are well
made and tall, their hair is black, either curled or woolly, and they have
little or no beard. Barrow and Grandprè conceive them to be of a Chinese
origin, they call themselves Gkhui-gkhui, pronounced with a click of the
tongue or throat, and say they do not come from the interior, but from
over the Sea! The Hottentots are divided into several Tribes.”(21)

The nature of their language shows very clearly that the Hottentots are
not closely connected by descent with the Chinese; the tradition that they
came originally from a country beyond the sea might apply to the island of
Madagascar where a dialect kindred to theirs is spoken. There seems
however every reason for concluding, agreeably to Dr. Prichard’s views,
that the Hottentots are descendants of Colonists impelled by the ordinary
causes of migration from the North and Middle of Africa, who, as they
finally occupied the farthest extremity, were probably the earliest
inhabitants of that Continent. The evidence of language serves in a very
striking manner to confirm this conclusion. For proofs of the connexion of
the Hottentot dialects with the Egyptian and with the Negro languages, see
Appendix A. The Hottentot dialects abound also in words unequivocally
identical with the corresponding terms in ancient European and Asiatic
languages, as for instance Imine, “A Day,” and Ki, “The Earth,” with the
Greek. Surrie, Sore, “The Sun”, with the Sanscrit “Surya.” Mamma, “A
Mother,” with the Latin, &c. Bo Aboob, “A Father,” with “Abba,” Hebrew.
Tamma, “The Tongue.” (See p. 15, &c. &c.) Coincidences of this nature are
proofs of that species of generic connexion with all the other races of
mankind which might be expected as a consequence of a separation that,
judging from the Geographical position of the Hottentot tribes, we may
suppose to have occurred in the earliest ages of the world.



Proofs of the Identity of the Basque with other Languages.


The following specimens of the Basque, which have been introduced in
illustration of the previous statement, at p. XXXV, include nearly all
those words which are in most common use (with the exception of that class
of Words which is noticed in Appendix A). By referring to the passages in
this work, noticed below, the identity of the Basque words with those of
other nations will be readily seen.

“A Father.” Aita (_Basque_,) Atta (_Gothic_), p. 52, Eiōth
(_Egyptian_,)—“A Mother.” A.m.a. (_Basque_,) A.m. (_Hebrew_), see p. 106.

“Earth.” Erria (_Basque_), Erde (_German_), A.r.ts (_Hebrew_.)

“Water.” Ura (_Basque_), Ur (_Siberians_), see p. 84.

“A Stream.” Ibaya (_Basque_), see p. 71.

“Dog.” Potzoa (_Basque_), Psit (_Bohemian_), Pesia (_Russian_.)

Ora (_Basque_), Ouhor (_Egyptian_.)

“Cat.” Catua (_Basque_), see p. 122.

“Ox.” Idia (_Basque_), Ei di on (_Welsh_.)

“Cow.” Bihia (_Basque_), Bee ouch (_Welsh_.)

“Bull.” Cecena (_Basque_), Uxen, Ukshhan (_Sanscrit_), Ox, Oxen
(_English_.)

“Goat.” A qu erra (_Basque_), see p. 122.

“A Lamb.” A-churria, p. 121, Umerria (_Basque_), A.m.r (_Chaldæ_.)

“Swine.” Charria Cherria (_Basque_), Xoir-os (_Greek_), see p. 122.

“A Bear.” Artsa (_Basque_), Arth (_Welsh_), Arcturus (_Latin_), Arktos
(_Greek_.)

The identity of the following words with equivalent terms in the English,
&c. will be obvious.

“Bread of Maize.” Artoa (_Basque_), Artos “Bread; Food” (_Greek_.)

“An Arrow.” Istoa (_Basque_), Ios Oistos (_Greek_.)

“A Raven; Black.” Balcha Belcha (_Basque_.)

“End.” Ondoa (_Basque_.)

“To Go.” Gan (_Basque_), Gang (_Lowland Scotch_), Gehen (_German_.)

“To Sell.” Saldu (_Basque_.)

“Zeal.” Kharra (_Basque_), C’H.r.a (_Chaldoe_), C’H.r.e (_Hebrew_.)

“Morning.” Bora (_Welsh_), Biar (_Basque_.)

“To shine very brightly.” B.c.r (_Arabic_.)





PLAN OF THIS INVESTIGATION. LORD BACON’S PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE TO
INQUIRIES INTO THE ORIGIN AND CHANGES OF HUMAN LANGUAGES.


The fanciful theories in which even some of the most distinguished writers
have deemed themselves at liberty to indulge, when they have entered upon
the field of Philological research, have naturally tended to create, among
men of calm and dispassionate minds, a general distrust in the results of
all inquiries into the origin and early history of human languages. But it
must be obvious that the errors into which the first inquirers on this—as
on every other—subject have been betrayed is not a fair test of the
attention due to Philological investigations. In this, as in every branch
of human knowledge, the authenticity of the results must be tested solely
with reference to the principles appealed to, and the weight, amount, and
consistency of the evidence adduced. In this, as in every other branch of
knowledge, the value of those results must depend solely on the interest
and importance of the truths which such results may involve.

In the following pages are developed proofs of two leading propositions,
viz.:


    1. That the languages of the continents of Asia, Europe, Africa,
    and America, were originally the same.

    2. That the differences which exist between the individual
    languages of those continents may be explained consistently with
    the proofs of original unity, by causes still in operation.


In this place, the principles appealed to in elucidation of these
propositions may be explained with advantage.


    1. As regards the proofs adduced of the original unity of the
    languages of the four continents.


These proofs are in no instance founded upon speculation or surmise. They
consist in every instance, either of a comparison of terms absolutely
identical in sound and sense, or of terms, of which the mutual connexion
is equally certain, in accordance with those principles, with respect to
which philosophical writers on language are agreed. Terms belonging to two
different continents have been compared in those instances only, in which
the affinities are of the same nature, as those which have been shown to
be characteristic of words belonging to different dialects of the same
language, in the writings of Court Ghebelin, Horne Tooke, Adam Smith,
Dugald Stewart, Humboldt, and Du Ponceau. These great writers do not
belong to the class of Philological speculators, but to that of
authorities on the origin and mutations of human tongues.

Hence it follows that the leading doctrine laid down by Lord Bacon as
applicable to the investigations of Physical science applies equally in
this instance to the researches of the Philologist; I allude to the
following fundamental maxim: Experience is the only legitimate guide to
_Truth_; hence an accurate investigation of those facts which are _within_
the limits of our historical knowledge, forms the only admissible basis of
deduction, with respect to those facts which are _beyond_ the range of our
actual experience.


    2. Not less applicable is the same maxim in elucidation of the
    second proposition, viz.: “That the differences which exist
    between individual languages may be explained, consistently with
    the proofs of original unity, by causes still in operation.”


This principle may be applied in the following manner:

There are certain languages of which the original unity can be proved,
either by the extrinsic evidence of history, or by the gradual
approximation they display as we ascend from modern to earlier epochs, and
compare modern with _ancient_ specimens. We can show, by means of the like
evidence, the progressive changes they have undergone, and the nature of
the existing differences which have been the result of those changes.

There is another class of languages which came into existence during
periods with regard to which we do _not_ possess the light of history; and
the only source from which we can draw our conclusions, with respect to
the relations that originally existed between them, is the internal
evidence afforded by the composition and structure of those languages
themselves. History being silent, this is the only clue by which we can
determine whether they were originally distinct, or derived from a common
source.

But by what rules are we to be guided in the deductions we may form from
the mere texture of dialects of the second class?


    The answer is, that the rules to be pursued in forming our
    conclusions, with respect to the original relations of those
    languages which _can not_ be historically traced to their source,
    must be drawn from the experience furnished by that class of
    languages of which the transitions _can_ be traced by means of the
    independent evidence of history.


It will be shown that the _existing_ relations between these two different
classes of languages _are_, and therefore we may infer that the _original_
relations _were_, the same.

By the adoption of these principles of investigation as regards both: 1,
The Resemblances, and also 2, The Differences, which Human Tongues
display, the great maxim of Lord Bacon’s philosophy will become
legitimately applicable to language, and the researches of the Philologist
may be directed by the same criteria, and his conclusions vindicated by
the same tests as those which apply to the investigations of the inquirer
into Physical phenomena.

It is upon these principles that I propose to conduct the inquiry of which
the results are embodied in these pages.





CHAPTER I. ON THE EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY A COMPARISON OF THEIR LANGUAGES OF
THE ORIGINAL UNITY OF THE VARIOUS NATIONS OF THE CONTINENTS OF ASIA,
EUROPE, AFRICA, AND AMERICA.


    Absolute Identity of the Languages of the Four Continents when
    compared collectively.

    Illustrations from the Names of the Gods of Egypt, Greece, Italy,
    and India, showing the Origin of Idolatry.

    North American Indian Names for “The Great Spirit.”


The proposition which forms the subject of this Chapter will be supported
through the course of this work by the progressive development of a series
of various but mutually connected proofs, which—both by their individual
force, and by their harmonious combination,—will be found to be
conclusive.

But of these proofs there is only one branch which admits of being
conveniently adverted to in this place. I allude to the evidence collected
in Appendix A, in the form of a “Comparison of the most Common Terms in
the African, Asiatic, European and American languages.” This comparison,
though composing only a part of the proofs adduced, will be found to
involve in itself evidence sufficient to establish the suggested
conclusion, Moreover, the evidence therein embodied,—though copious in
details, and strictly conforming to the principles laid down by
philosophical writers on language, is simple in its nature and results,
which may readily be appreciated by inquirers totally unaccustomed to
philological investigations. For these reasons, the comparison instituted
in Appendix A forms an appropriate subject of examination at the
commencement of this work.

Here, however, it must be premised that it will be impossible, without a
complete perusal, to form a correct appreciation either of the facts or of
the consequences developed in that Appendix. The explanations I shall
present in this place must be viewed, therefore, in the light of a general
and imperfect outline only. These explanations will be directed to—

I. The Nature,

II. The Results of the Comparison contained in Appendix A.

I. _Of the Nature of the Comparison in Appendix A._

The languages of Africa have been chosen as the basis or _subject_ of
comparison with which the languages of the other three continents have
been collated.

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

This arrangement has been dictated by a consideration of the comparatively
slight attention which has hitherto been paid to the languages of the
Central and Southern Regions of Africa; and also by the peculiar
physiology of the Negro and Hottentot tribes, which has induced some
physiologists to refer the origin of these tribes to Races totally
distinct from the other Families of mankind.

The extensive researches of Dr. Prichard have satisfactorily shown that
the peculiarities of the Negroes and Hottentots are not permanent nor
abruptly marked, but local and evanescent, and that they melt away by nice
shades of gradation, corresponding with the minute progressive transitions
of climate that are traceable through the various regions of the African
continent. Hence the _possibility_ of the identity of the Negro and
Hottentot Tribes with the inhabitants of the other three great continents
may be clearly inferred. But no evidence has yet been produced calculated
to establish this conclusion as a positive truth. This desideratum the aid
of philology will be found satisfactorily to supply.

In the North of Africa the physiological difficulties which are
encountered in the Middle and South do not exist to the same extent in any
instance, and in most instances they can scarcely be said to exist at all.
The Berbers—the original population of Morocco and the adjoining
countries, the lineal descendants of the ancient Numidians—approach very
closely to the Spanish population of the opposite coasts of the
Mediterranean; and the Egyptians in the north-east of Africa are much more
alike to the contiguous Asiatic nations than they are to the Negro Tribes.
Hence it follows that the theory that the Negroes and Southern Africans
are distinct Races of men, may be as decisively tested by a comparison of
their languages with those of the Northern Africans, as by collating them
with the languages of the other continents of the globe.

The mode of comparison adopted in Appendix A, has been dictated by these
considerations. Accordingly, I have therein separated the languages of
Africa into three divisions, those of: 1, North Africa; 2, Negro-land; 3,
South Africa; allotting a separate column to each division; while on the
opposite page a separate column is devoted to each of the continents of
Asia, Europe, and America. This comparison will serve at once to show the
general connexion of the African languages with those of Asia, Europe, and
America, and at the same time to demonstrate another proposition of nearly
equal interest, viz. the close mutual affinity of the languages of
Northern, Tropical, and Southern Africa.

With respect to the particular words selected for comparison, I have
chosen the names for the following objects: “Fire, Sun, Day, Eye,(22)
Moon, Heaven, a Human Being, Man and Woman.” (Homo, Vir, Fœmina, _Latin_.)
The most important parts of the Human Frame, (viz. “The Hand, Arm, Foot,
Leg, Ear, Tongue, Head.”) “Water.”

These terms comprise nearly all the specimens of the languages of Africa,
which have been collected in “the Mithridates,” of Adelung and Vater. The
objects to which these terms have been applied are comparatively few. But
for reasons about to be explained, the evidence which may be deduced from
the terms themselves is neither scanty nor imperfect, but, on the
contrary, very extensive and complete.

The African names for the above-mentioned objects analysed in Appendix A,
amount to about 700. The corresponding and analogous terms introduced from
the other three Continents are about treble that number.

In determining the mutual relations of different languages, it is
obviously not necessary to compare the whole of their component parts. All
that is required is a comparison of such portions of each as may be justly
viewed in the light of a satisfactory test. That the selected specimens of
the languages of Africa are sufficiently _numerous_ for this end is plain.
It only remains to be shown that their _nature_ is such as to render them
eminently suitable and conclusive.

Now it will be clear from the following considerations, that these
specimens are peculiarly calculated to serve as a decisive test of the
general composition and structure of languages.

Terms for the Objects above enumerated will be found to include the
greatest portion of the primary elements of all languages.(23)

This proposition may be placed in the clearest light by means even of
comparatively modern languages, for both modern and ancient tongues will
be found principally to consist of the following elements:

1. The nouns above mentioned. Such nouns are in fact the names of the most
familiar and conspicuous objects; of those objects which are common to all
ages and countries.

Verbs descriptive of the functions of such objects.

2. Names of Animals and Birds.

3. Names of Rivers, the Ocean, Hills, and Mountains.

4. Words expressive of Mental Qualities and Emotions.

5. Pronouns and other Conventional Grammatical Forms.

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

1. Now, with the exception of the second, all these five classes of words
may be shown to be mere modifications of those of the 1st class.

2. Moreover, as regards even the Second Class, names of Animals and Birds,
terms of this description are also in a great number, perhaps in the
majority of instances compounds chiefly consisting of terms of the First
Class, viz., of the words for the “Members of the Body,” for “Water,
Fire,” &c., as in “Red-_breast_,” “_Water-wag_ tail” (_English_).
Sgyvarn-og “a Hare,” from Sgyvarn “an Ear” (_Welsh_).

There are, it is true, some terms of this class of a more primitive
origin, as they plainly consist of imitations of the characteristic cry or
note of the Animal or Bird named, as for example “Cuck-oo” (_English_);
“U-lu-la” (_Swedish_), “U-lu-l-aka” (_Sanscrit_), “An Owl.” But then it is
plain that words of this kind are for the most part confined in their
application to the objects designated and do not enter largely into the
composition of languages.

3. Words for “Rivers” and “The Ocean” consist of terms for “Water.”

For example: “The Esk” is from Eask (_Irish_), and Esseg (_Dongolan, North
Africa_), “Water.” “The Usk” or “Ou-isg,” as the word is pronounced by the
Welsh, from Uisge, “Water” (_Irish_), connected with Eask (_Irish_). “The
Ayr” is identical with A.r. “A River,” also “To flow” (_Hebrew_), “The
Yarrow” with Iaro (_Egyptian_), and the Hebrew words Ee.a.ou.r Ee.a.r
(modifications of A.r, _Hebrew_). Some able Celtic scholars have attempted
to explain the origin of such names as “Ayr and Yarrow,” which are very
common as names of rivers in Celtic countries, by means of a Celtic term
which means “Gentle,” an explanation very inapplicable in many instances.
The error of these writers arises from the assumption they are prone to
adopt, that the Celtic is an unchanged language, the truth being that the
changes which it can be shown to have undergone in more recent times, form
a distinct ground for the conclusion that, long prior to the earliest
period to which our most ancient Celtic specimens can be referred, the
Celts must have lost many words which their forefathers brought with them
from the East.

In the names above noticed, not only the general features, but the finer
shades of inflection of the Oriental words reappear.

Numerous examples may be pointed out, of words applied in some languages
to “Water” generally, appropriated exclusively, in others to the “Sea or
Ocean.” Thus we have Shui in Chinese, and Su in _Turkish_, “Water.” In the
_German_ See, the _Anglo Saxon_ Seo Sae, the _English_ “Sea,” and in other
analogous terms to be met with in all the Gothic tongues, we recognize the
same term as a word for a “Lake,” or for “The Sea.” Adelung has pointed
out the resemblance which in some other instances the Turkish bears to the
German. The ancestors of the Turks and Germans, it may be observed, are
both traceable to contiguous regions of Northern Asia, the great “High
Road of Nations” from China to Europe.

Again, in various dialects of the North American Indians we meet with
Oghnacauno, Oneekanoosh, &c. “Water.” In Latin and Greek we find the same
term “Ocean-os, Ocean-oio”, &c., applied exclusively to “The Ocean.” (See
for other examples Appendix A, p. 77.)

Words for Mountains and Hills are almost universally identical with words
for “The Head, The Back, The Breast,” &c. Thus even in the English, in
which the first meanings of words are often lost, we have “Ridge” (A Back
and A Hill), “Head-land,” “_Saddle-back_” (the name of a mountain.) In the
Principality of Wales, in which a less changed and a less conventional
language prevails, the common names for hills, “Cevn, Pen, Vron,” &c., are
words for “The Back, The Head, The Breast,” &c., appropriated according to
the particular _shapes_ of the hills. The same words, as will appear
hereafter, were used as names of mountains in ancient Gaul and Spain, &c.

Jugum, “_A Yoke_ and A Hill,” (_Latin_,) Cadair Idris, “The chair of
Idris,” A Fabulous Giant and Astronomer, (_Welsh_,) are instances of
metaphors of a different kind. But generally names of hills are traceable
as above described, and are therefore mere forms of terms belonging to the
first class.

4. That terms of this Class, viz.: Words descriptive of the Operations and
Emotions of the Mind, consist of metaphors derived from words originally
appropriated to physical objects and agencies, has been indisputably
proved by the celebrated French writer, Court Ghebelin, and by Horne
Tooke, whose researches were applied to the analysis of the English
language only. Words appropriated to the members of the Human Frame and
their Functions, and other terms of the First CIass, are the chief sources
of these metaphorical terms.

This philological maxim was supposed by some of the most eminent of those
writers by whom it was established, to furnish an argument in favour of
the doctrines of Materialism, as when, for example, the English word
“Spirit” was derived from the Latin word for “Breath,” Spiritus. But the
premises do not appear to furnish any solid support to the inferences they
were thought to favour. The same Consciousness which in this case, and in
other similar instances, perceives an analogy, perceives also that the
connexion is one of analogy only. The true explanation of the relations
which exist between these two classes of words may, I conceive, be derived
from the consideration, that though Man is endowed with moral and
intellectual, as well as with perceptive, faculties,—inasmuch as the
perceptive powers are earliest exercised,—the language of his higher
sentiments consists of metaphors thence borrowed. “The Hand,” in like
manner, as may be inferred from several examples which occur in the course
of this work, has, in many instances, metaphorically given names to some
of the less conspicuous bodily organs of perception. At the same time, the
soundness of the philological principle developed by Ghebelin and Horne
Tooke can not reasonably be disputed. In these pages will be found
numerous illustrations of its truth. Moreover it will appear that this
principle forms the basis of some of the most convincing proofs—that
languages afford—of the common origin of nations very remotely situated
from each other, as of the Welsh and English, for example, with the
Hebrew, and other ancient Syro-Phœnician nations.

5. As regards Pronouns and other Grammatical Forms.

Pronouns enter very largely into the composition of languages, not merely
in a separate form, but also as the source from which the most striking
peculiarities of other parts of grammar have been derived. It has been
shown by Dr. Prichard that the various inflections which distinguish the
different persons of the Verb in the Latin and Sanscrit, and other
highly-complicated languages of the same class, are identical with
pronouns.

In the works of Horne Tooke and others it has been abundantly shown that
Pronouns are merely Nouns, viz. Names of the Human Species, “Man, Woman,”
&c. In other words they belong to a section of the terms of the First
Class.

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Hence it will be manifest that an analysis, completely embracing numerous
specimens of nouns of the First Class, virtually embraces also numerous
specimens of words of the Four other Classes, which, together with the
First, compose the principal elements of Human Language. For it must be
observed that—


    Though the African nouns belonging to the First Class form the
    only basis or subject of inquiry, the inquiry itself will be found
    to embrace an extended comparison of those nouns with the kindred
    terms of the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Classes, which are
    discoverable in the languages of the other three continents.


Finally, a principle must here be stated and applied, which will be more
fully illustrated hereafter.


    The names of Objects can be shown in a great variety of instances
    to be identical with Verbs or terms descriptive of some dominant
    or conspicuous quality which those Objects display.


This remark applies even to the terms for the Members of the Human Frame,
and other Objects of which the names are included in the First Class of
Words,—as appears by abundant illustrations in works of authority and
research confined to an investigation of the European languages. But the
same truth may be much more clearly and unequivocally demonstrated even by
the most cursory examination of more ancient and therefore more primitive
tongues, such as the Hebrew and the Sanscrit. The application of this
principle will be found to unfold a wide range of facts serving to connect
the languages of Africa with those of the other Continents; the same
terms, which present themselves as Nouns or Conventional names in the
languages of Africa, occurring in a great variety of examples in those of
the other continents, unaltered or very slightly changed in sound,
fulfilling the functions of the corresponding _descriptive_ terms or
verbs. Here it may be remarked that the descriptive or metaphorical
character, which originally belonged to nouns, and the various modes in
which the same objects are susceptible of description, may be viewed as
the source of these numerous names for the same objects. But this is a
subject which will be more fully discussed in a subsequent part of this
work.

The following examples will serve to illustrate at once the principle last
stated, and also another principle before suggested, viz. that “The
Hand”(24) and its perceptions have metaphorically given names in many
instances—not only to the faculties of the Mind,—but also to the other
perceptive organs and their functions. For further illustrations, see
Appendix A, p. 65, and the subsequent pages.

Tom, (_Heb._) “To try,” “To try an experiment,” “To perceive.”
Tom, “The Hand,” (_Mexico_.)
Tedembeton, “The Hand,” (_Nubia_.)
Thumb (_Eng._), Daum, (_Ger._)
Teim-law, “To Feel,” (_Welsh_.)

“To taste,” “To eat.” Tamma, “The Tongue,” (_Hottentots_.)
“Mental Taste,” “Discernment,” “Judgment.” Tami-as, “A Judge,” (_Greek_.)
Doom, Doomsday, (_English_.)

G.sh. (_Heb._), “To feel for.” Guess, (_Eng_.) See below,
K.s.m, (_Heb._)

G.sh.sh. (_Heb._), “To feel for repeatedly,” Gus-to, “To taste, To
            listen,” (_Latin_.)
“To grope for,” Kchesi, “The Hand,” (_Finland_.)
Keez, “The Hand,” (_Hungarian_.)

K.s.m. (_Heb._), “To guess hidden things.” “To divine,” “To foretel.”
Keisio, “To seek, To attempt, Endeavour,” (_Welsh_.)

These examples instructively display the manner in which the Hebrew, which
is a language of high antiquity, combines within itself a variety of
meanings, which are found only partially preserved in more modern
languages. This venerable tongue may be said in these, as in numerous
other instances, to confirm, by means of its own intrinsic resources, the
results which are deducible from a wide comparison of other languages of
which our specimens are more modern.

II. _Of the Results of the Comparison, contained in Appendix A._

When the languages of Africa are compared collectively with those of the
other three Continents, it will be found:

1. That the names of the most Common Objects, occurring in the various
dialects of Africa, may be detected, and as it were _restored_, in the
same or in kindred senses in each of the other three Continents, when all
or a considerable portion of their languages are examined.

2. The exceptions to this principle are so insignificant, that the rule,
viewed in the light of a philological maxim, may be regarded as universal,
especially when it is borne in mind that the specimens we possess of the
various languages of Mankind are undoubtedly incomplete.

3. A further remarkable truth is established by Appendix A, viz.:

The resemblances which the African languages display to those of Asia,
&c., are as close as those which the Asiatic languages exhibit among
themselves; and they are as close as those which the languages termed
Indo-European mutually display.

4. What has been stated in the previous explanation of Result 3 applies to
the languages of the continent of America as well as to those of Africa.

5. Not only the same words but the same minute transitions which words
undergo may be recognized in the Four Continents, and the steps of
transition are much more completely traceable when the various Continents
form the subject of comparison than when the investigation is confined to
one Continent. Compare, for example, (See Appendix A, p. 13,) Ano, “A Day”
(_Caraibs_); Antu, Antú, “The Sun, A Day” (_Araucan, South America_);
Antu, Andru, “A Day” (_Madagascar, South Africa_); Indra, The Indian “God
of Day” (_Sanscrit, Asia_); Inti, Indi, “The Sun” (_South America_).

6. It will be seen that in this instance, and in numerous other examples,
finer shades of transition are restored by means of a comparison including
the Four Continents.

7. As regards the Continent of Africa, by this comparison all its
synonymes of the class selected for analysis have, with a few trifling
exceptions, been exhausted. As regards the other three Continents, so
large a portion, probably the great majority, of these synonymes have been
introduced from every region of those continents, that the evidence thus
obtained, combined as it is with a complete investigation of the African
terms, may be considered as equally conclusive with the proofs which would
have been furnished by an exhaustion of the synonymes of all the four
continents.

The examination of synonymous terms is the principle which has been
pursued by Humboldt, in his work on “The Basque,” and by Du Ponceau in his
Treatise on the “Algonquyn Dialects of the North American Indians.” It is
the most satisfactory mode of investigating languages, because it involves
an explanation of the differences as well as of the resemblances they
mutually display.

8. Hence it follows that when all the dialects of each continent are thus
compared in the aggregate with those of each of the other three, the very
same language is reproduced by the reunion of the “_disjecta membra_.”

With reference more especially to the third and fourth results above
stated, I may here advert to the researches of two philologists of the
highest eminence, whose conclusions will not, in the present state of
philological knowledge, be disputed,—the German writer Klaproth, and Dr.
Prichard: the former has treated of the proofs of affinity observable
among the Asiatic languages; the latter has discussed the proofs of mutual
resemblance displayed by certain languages usually classed under the term
“Indo-European.”

The affinities which present themselves among the different languages of
the single continent of Asia, in the following examples, have been
selected as evidence of the original connexion of those languages by
Klaproth.

WORDS FOR “THE SUN.”

_Asia._—Chor Churr (_Ossetian._)
Chor Chorschid (_Persian._)
Chorschid (_Pehlwi_), Huere (_Zend._)(25)

_America._—Coaracy, Curasi, Quarassi (_Brazil._)

_Africa._—Koara (_Bosjesmans._)

_South Africa._—Giro (_Kanga, Negro-land._)

Though the Zend, Pehlwi, and Persian are three kindred dialects of Persia,
it will be observed that the Pehlwi and Persian words in this example,
although clearly allied to the corresponding Zend word (_Huere_), resemble
that word less than they do the American and African terms. On the other
hand, the next example presents to us American and African words perfectly
identical with this term (Huere).

WORDS FOR “THE SUN” AND “DAY.”

_Asia._—Huere, “The Sun,” (_Zend._)

_S. America._—Huarassi, “The Sun” and “Day,” (_Omaguans._)

_Africa._—Hor, Horus, i.e. “The God of Day,” (_Egypt._)
Huer, “Day,” (_Iolofs, Negro-land._)

_Asia._—Eiere,(26) “Day,” (_Zend._)

_Africa._—Iirri, “The Sun,” (_Wawu_, _Negro-land._)

The connexion between the previous words for the Sun and the first of the
two following classes of terms for the Moon will be manifest. The origin
of the relation which is universally traceable between the names of the
two great Heavenly Luminaries will be found fully discussed in Appendix A.

WORDS FOR “THE MOON.”

_Asia._—“Wiri Yere Irri” (_Samoied_), Wurra (_Sumbava Island._)(27)
_Africa, Negro-land._—“Uhaaire Verr” (_Iolofs._)

_Asia._—“Sāra” (_Syrian_), “Sāra” (_Mongol and Calmuck._)
_Africa, Negro-land._—“Assara” (_Gold Coast._)

Dr. Prichard has clearly proved the connexion of the Welsh and other
Celtic dialects with the Sanscrit and other “Indo-European” tongues, a
class in which he considers that the Celtic dialects ought therefore to be
included. The Welsh and Sanscrit words which occur in Appendix A, p. 11,
have already been compared by him in his work on the Celtic Languages. The
mutual connexion of these words is clear. But it will be equally manifest
that the African terms which occur in the same passage, Appendix A, p. 11,
are quite as nearly allied to the Welsh words as are the Sanscrit terms
with which those words have been collated by Dr. Prichard. In some
instances they are even more so. Compare, for example, “Lloer,” The Moon,
(_Welsh_,) with the African word “Leoure,” The Moon, (from the dialect of
the “_Fulahs_.”)

An examination of the names of some of the principal gods of Egypt,
Greece, Italy, and India, by means of a comparison of the languages of all
the Four Continents, will be found in a very striking manner to illustrate
at once the foregoing philological results, and also the origin of those
names, and of the systems of Idolatry to which they belonged.

HOR. Hor-us, “The God of Day,” (_Egypt_,) already explained.

INDRA, The Indian “God of Day,” previously explained.

SURYA, The Indian “God of the Sun.” His Orb personified, (_Sanscrit_.)
OSIRA OSIRI, and SERAP-IS OR SOROP-IS, (believed to have been the same as
Osiri,) “Gods of the Sun,” (_Egypt._)

The same change of inflection which is observable when “Surya and Osira”
are compared with Sero-p-is, occurs in the following:

Surie, Sorrie, Sorré, Sore, “The Sun,” (_Hottentots_.)

Sor o h-b, “The Sun,” (_Corona Hottentots_.)

The same change occurs also in the following:

Z.e.r, “To shine brightly,” Sh. r.-ph, “To burn,” Sh.r-ph eem, “Seraphs,”
(_Hebrew_.)

AUROR-A, “The Goddess of The Dawn,” (_Latin_.)

A.ou.r, “Light, Day-light,” (_Hebrew_.)

Waōūr, “The Dawn,” (_Welsh_.)

Or, “Day,” Ar-pi, “The Sun,” (_Armenian_.)

Wurabe, “Day,” (_Nubia_.)

Ē-o-us, One of the Horses of the Sun, Ēō-s (Eō, EōA, Accusative,) “The
Sun, The Dawn, The Goddess” “of The Dawn,” (_Greek_.)

Eo o hu, Haou, “Day,” (_Egypt._) Uwya Ou, “The Sun,” (_Negroes_.) Huieiou,
“The Sun,” (_Caraibs, South America_.) A u-ō, “To shine,” (_Greek_.)

NET-PHE, “The Goddess of the Heaven or Firmament,” (_Egypt._)

Neth-phe Ne-phe ou, “The Heavens or Heaven,” (_Egypt._)

Nev, “Heaven,” (_Welsh_.) Nebo, “Heaven,” (_Selaronian_.)

ĒRĒ and AĒR (Greek), “The Goddess of The Heaven or Atmosphere,” “Juno.”

Iru, “Heaven,” (_Negroes_,) Awyr, “The Sky,” (_Welsh_,) Aër, (_Latin_),
“Air,” (_English_.)

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

JUNO (_Latin_), the same as the last. She was also regarded as “The Mother
of the Gods.” (See this name explained by means of Sanscrit and Negro
words combined, Appendix A, p. 62.)

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

KHEM, A God of “The Sun,” (_Egypt_.)

K au m-et, “The Sun,” K au m-ei, “The Moon,” (_Greenland_.)

C’h.m.n.-ee.n, “Sun Images,” (_Hebrew_.)

C’h.m, “Hot, Heat,” (_Hebrew_.)

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Ee ph-aist-os (_Greek_), “Vulcan,” “The God of Fire.”

Aifi, “Fire,” (_Sumbava_,) Fi (_Japan_), and Fei (_Siam_), “Fire,” Epee,
“Fire,” (_Katabans, North America_,) Peez Pioe, “Fire,” (_Moxians, South
America_,) Ee.ph.c’h, and Ph.ou.c’h, “To blow upon,” “Kindle,” “Inflame,”
(_Hebrew_.)

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

PHOI-B-OS (_Greek_), “The God of the Sun, Phœbus.”

“This word (‘Phoibos’) expresses the brightness and splendour of that
luminary.” (Lempriere.)

Pha-ō, “To Shine,” (_Greek_.)

Ee.ph.ō, “To shine forth,” (_Hebrew_,) “Brightness, Splendour,” (_Chald._)
Ee.ph.ph.e, “Very Beautiful,” (_Hebrew_.)

Phōs, “Light,” (_Greek_.)

Fosseye, “The Sun,” (_“__Sereres__”__ Negroes._)

Phōs, “A Star,” (_Japan_.)

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

The foregoing are merely examples of the mode in which the names of the
Heathen Deities are susceptible of explanation, by means of a general
comparison of languages. In the course of this work, the names of nearly
all the principal Gods of Egypt, Greece, Italy, and India, will be
explained in the same manner.

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

The North American Indians are not Idolaters. They worship a “Great” and
“Good Spirit.” They also believe in an “Evil Spirit.”

A large class of Indian dialects have been analysed by Du Ponceau, a
writer whose high philosophical reputation, great candour, and perfect
knowledge of the dialects he examined, render his researches eminently
deserving of attention. In early youth he was secretary to Court Ghebelin.
But though a native of France, he passed the principal part of his life in
the United States, in the employment of the Government of that country.
His essay on the “Algonquyn Dialects of North America,” was elicited from
him at a very advanced period of life by a prize offered in Paris, for
which he was the successful competitor. By means of his familiar
acquaintance with the languages of the Indian Tribes, it is related that
he proved a person, whose narrative at one time excited considerable
interest both in this country and in France to be an impostor; Hunter, the
author of a work professing to give an authentic account of his captivity
among the Indian Tribes. In his treatise on those languages, though for
the most part he declines to generalize and professes to wish rather to
furnish data for others, Du Ponceau expresses himself nevertheless,
decidedly adverse to the views of those writers who conceive the Indian
Tribes to be descendants of colonists from the Asiatic continent. The
Indians and their languages he views as indigenous products of the
American soil. After alluding in general terms of respect to the memory of
that celebrated writer, he assails with national vivacity Grotius’s
conclusion with respect to the primitive language, which forms the motto
of this work, quoting from Dante a passage in which it is intimated that
the primitive language of Man must have perished at the “General Deluge!”

More ample proofs of the connexion of the dialects examined by Du Ponceau
with those of the Old World, occur hereafter. In this place I must confine
myself to one remarkable example.

With reference to the names given by the Indians to the great object of
their worship, Du Ponceau states the result of his analysis to be that the
names of the Supreme Being in all the Indian dialects he has explored,
primarily mean “a Spirit.” But there is one instance, he adds, in which he
has not been able to verify this conclusion, viz. in that of the dialect
of the Abenaki tribe. It is true, he remarks, that “Father Raffles” had
made a statement tending to show that in this instance there was no
exception to the general rule he (Du Ponceau) had adopted, for, according
to Father Raffles, in the dialect of the Abenaki the name of the Supreme
Being was Ke tsi Niou esk ou, and these words K etsi “_Ni ou eskou_,” mean
the Great “_Spirit_ or Genius;” while the name of the Evil Being was Matsi
“_Nioueskou_,” and these terms mean the Evil “Spirit or Genius.”

But Du Ponceau intimates that he has not been able by means of his own
researches to satisfy himself of the accuracy of Father Raffles’s
statement, as to the origin of these words, and he adds, “I do not know
whence this word ‘Ni oueskou’ comes.” (“Je ne sais pas d’où vient ce mot
Nioueskou.”)

Among the specimens he has published of words used in the Iroquois
dialects, a class of Indian languages which he has not minutely analysed,
Du Ponceau gives _“__N’ iou__”_ as the name of “the Deity.”

Now the following comparison exhibits the remarkable fact that these words
“_N’iou_” and “Nioueskou” may be distinctly and extensively recognized in
the languages of the old world, in the very sense which, according to
Father Raffles, was the primitive meaning of “Nioueskou” among the Abenaki
tribe of Indians, viz., in that of “_a Spirit or Genius_.” They also
reappear in physical meanings, which, according to Horne Tooke’s
principles, may, à priori, be pronounced to be philologically analogous.

The resemblance of the Indian terms to the European and Asiatic words is
as close as the resemblance which exists between such words of the two
latter classes as belong to the same languages or to the same group of
languages. The variation of inflection between N’ioh and Niou-es kou, may
also be restored; compare No- (the root or unchangeable part of “Noos,”)
with “No-os Nous,” “The Mind,” (in the nominative case, _Greek_.) Compare
also “Nose,” (_English_,) with “Nas-ika,” (_Sanscrit_.)

_Hebrew, Indo-European, and American Words applied to the Physical
Senses._

Hebrew.                          Ind.-Europ. & American.
N.sh.-b, N.sh.-ph, “To blow.”    Nos (_Sclavonic_), Nase, &c.
                                 (_German and other Gothic
                                 tongues_), Nas-ika (_San._)
N.sh.-m, “To breathe out,”       Nas-us, Nas-um (_Latin._) “The
N.sh.-m.e, “The Breath,” “Man    Nose,” (_English._)
as a Breathing Animal”.(28)
N.ph.sh, “Breath.”
Ee-n.sh.ou.ph, “A species of
Water-fowl remarkable for its
Hard Breathing.”

_Applied to Mental and Physical Objects._

N.sh.-m.e “Breath,” (as above)   No-os, Nou-s, (No.e.No), “The
“Life,” “Soul,” “Spirit.”        Mind,” (_Greek._)
                                 N’ioh.Nioues-kou, “The Genius,
                                 Spirit, God,” (_North American
                                 Indian Dialects_, as above.)
N.ph.sh. “Breath,” “Life,”       N.ph.sh, or Nouvis, “Full of
“Mind,” “A Person or Man,”       _Life_ or _Spirits_,”
N.ph.sh-ce, The Pronoun “I.”     (_Welsh._)

These examples may be concluded with a very remarkable instance of an
important word which occurs in every one of the three great divisions of
the globe, except America, and is met with in every one of the three
regions of Africa.

WORDS FOR “BREAD.”

_Asia_.—Buro (_Savu Isle, a Malay dialect_.)

_Africa_.—Bouron (_Fulahs, North Africa_.)

Bourou (_Iolofs, Negro-land_.)

Bra Bre (_Hottentots, South Africa_.)

_Europe_.—Bara (_Welsh_.) Bro (_Norwegian_.) Bread (_English_.) Brod or
Brot (_German_.)

The source of these words seems to be, B.r.e, B.r.ou.th, “Food,”
(_Hebrew_.) In the same language, Lc’h.m, “Bread,” primarily means “Food,
To feed.”

Combined with the phenomenon of the absolute identity of the united
elements of the languages of the Four Continents, we encounter a wide, and
in many instances a total difference, when two individual languages are
compared. And this is true not merely of two languages taken from
different continents, but it is true also of languages spoken even in
contiguous regions of the same continent.

How then are these singular features of general unity combined with
individual diversity to be reconciled? Of this problem the investigation
will be found in the following pages.





CHAPTER II. ON THE DIFFERENCES WHICH DISTINGUISH INDIVIDUAL LANGUAGES OF
THE FOUR CONTINENTS.


SECTION I.

These differences may be explained by Causes now in Operation. The
principal causes are, The abandonment by different branches of the same
race:

1, Of different Synonymes;
2, Of different meanings of the same Synonyme.

This Section may be considered as confined to an affirmation of the
propositions above stated.

SECTION II.


    _On the Differences between the Celtic and Gothic Classes of
    Languages. The Celtic and Gothic differ almost totally in the most
    Common Words. Celtic and Gothic words identical with Persian
    Synonymes._


The Celtic and Gothic Races form the population of North-western and
Central Europe.

In those early ages in which the Celtic tribes first came into collision
with the Roman legionaries, the Celtic language and race occupied a wide
section of Europe, including the British islands, France, the Rhine, the
whole of Switzerland, a portion of South-western Germany, and the North of
Italy. The Celts were also in possession of some of the fairest regions of
the Spanish Peninsula, a country which they shared with Iberian tribes,
the ancestors of the Basque nation, of which a remnant still preserves
among the fastnesses of the Pyrenean mountains the language, character,
and institutions of their warlike forefathers. The existence in those ages
of a Celtic population, occupying territories thus extensive, and the
identity of their languages with the living tongues still spoken by the
Welsh and other Celtic nations, have been placed beyond all doubt by the
luminous investigations of Dr. Prichard and Humboldt.

In the present day, the Gothic nations and languages extend over a large
section of the area of Europe, including the greatest portion(29) of
Germany, the whole of Sweden, Norway, and Iceland, the German Cantons of
Switzerland, and the British Isles, with the exception of those districts
in which dialects of the Celtic are spoken.

Of the common origin of the Celtic and Gothic tongues we possess no direct
historical proof, for the sources of these languages reach far higher than
the records of history. Nor, as I conceive, is it possible, from a
comparison of these languages themselves, to elicit a satisfactory
demonstration of their original identity. Instances of partial
resemblances may no doubt be pointed out; but it will be found
nevertheless that in the most common corresponding terms, the Celtic and
Gothic differ almost totally.

The only satisfactory mode of proving the common origin of the Celtic and
Gothic seems to be by means of the affinity to the languages of India,
Persia, &c., which are displayed by both, even in those very features in
which they differ most widely from each other. The following are examples
of the union, in the form of Synonymes in the Persian, of corresponding
terms, in which the Celtic and Gothic differ totally from each other.

Persian.               Welsh.                 English.
Made, a maid, a                               Maid. Mädchen,
female.                                       _Germ._
Geneez, a girl.        Geneth.
D.ch.t.r., a girl, a                          Daughter. Töchter,
daughter.                                     _Germ._
Chonahr, a sister.     Idem.
Ch.d. a God.                                  God.
B.r.ee, God.           Beree or Peree, to
                       create, (spelt
                       Peri.) Beri|adur,
                       Creator. B.r.a. Heb.
                       Id.
Pechegan, infants.     Bechgyn.
Juvan, young.          Ieuange.               Juvenile, from
                                              _Lat._
Braud.|r.              Braud (Brathair,       Brother.
                       _Irish._)
Mam, mother.           Mam.
M.d.r. mother.                                Mother.
P.d.r. father.                                Pater, _Lat._;
                                              Fader, _Ang.-Sax._
                       Latin.                 Greek.
Aud.|n. the ear.       Aud|io, I hear.
Koush, the ear.                               A|kous|o, I will
                                              hear. Akoustics,
                                              _Eng._
F.m. the mouth.        (Fhuaim, a voice,      Feem|ee, I speak.
                       _Irish._) Fama,
                       Fame, _Latin_.

The Persian grammar also combines many European languages:

Persian.     Welsh.       English.     Latin.       German.
Men, I.      My.          Mine.        Meus.        Mein.
Tou, thou.                Thou.        Tu.          Du.
Av, he,      Idem,
she, or      spelt Ev.
it.
A een,       Hyn.; Hon.
this.
Bod|n|, to   Bod.
be; (n.
infinitive
affix.)
Am, I am.                 Idem.                     (Eim|i,
                                                    _Greek_.)

This tense is very like Latin:

Shou, be thou.
Shou d (sit), let him be.
Shou eem (simus), let us be.
Shou eet (sitis), be ye.
Shou nd, let them be.(30)

SECTION III.


    _On the Changes which have taken place in the English Language.
    Effect of the Norman Conquest, as a Cause of these Changes
    exaggerated. Dr. Johnson’s Opinion. Sir Walter Scott’s. Speech of
    __“__Wamba__”__ in Ivanhoe. Some of the most important Changes
    have occurred since the time of Chaucer. The modern English, the
    Provincial Dialects of Lancashire and other English Counties, and
    the Lowland Scotch, different Fragments of the Anglo-Saxon. The
    Provincial English Auxiliary Verb, __“__I Bin,__”__ &c._


That extensive changes have taken place in many Human languages, within a
comparatively limited period, is a truth of which the proofs are alike
abundant and indisputable. The various dialects that sprang from the Latin
after the downfall of the Roman Empire, the emanation of numerous dialects
in the Scandinavian Kingdoms from one ancient tongue, “The Danska Tunge”
or “Norse,” and finally the successive phases of transition through which
the English language itself has passed since the period of the Norman
conquest, conspire, with other examples of the same kind, at once to
establish the occurrence of such changes, and to exhibit in a striking
point of view their extraordinary variety and extent.

In order to account for differences, so characteristic and apparently so
fundamental, as many of the languages which are the offspring of these
changes display, it has generally been deemed necessary to ascribe them to
the agency of a _violent disturbing cause_. Hence the origin of an opinion
that may be regarded as the prevalent one, viz. that these varieties of
dialect have been mainly produced by the influence of Foreign invasions
and conquests, and the consequent admixture of the Languages of the
dominant, with those of vanquished, nations.

The grounds of this conclusion may be appropriately tested—and its
fallacy, as I conceive, satisfactorily established—in one single instance,
which I have been naturally led to select as involving considerations of
peculiar interest to English readers. I allude to the influence which the
Norman conquest of England is supposed to have exercised, in the
production of those peculiar features, which distinguish the modern
language of England from the original Anglo-Saxon tongue.

The share which the Norman conquest may have had in the formation of those
peculiarities may be best determined by investigating 1st the immediate,
and 2d the remote, consequences of that event.

On the subject of the immediate effects of the Norman conquest, it is
highly interesting to observe that Dr. Johnson thus expresses himself in
the following remarkable passage:

“About the year 1150 the Saxon began to take a form in which the beginning
of the present English may be plainly discovered; this change seems not to
have been the effect of the Norman conquest, for very _few French words_
are found to have been introduced in the first Hundred years after it; the
language must, therefore, have been altered by _causes like those which,
notwithstanding the care of writers and societies instituted to obviate
them, are even now daily making innovations in every living language_. I
have exhibited a specimen of the language of this age from the year 1135
to 1140 of the Saxon Chronicle, of which the latter part was apparently
written near the time to which it relates.”(31)

Yet Professor Rask of Copenhagen, a writer of great learning and ability,
in alluding to the changes that occurred at this period, attempts to
account for them by vaguely attributing them to an infusion of the speech
of the “old northern settlers,” (in other words—the Danes,) and to the
ascendancy of the Norman French as a court language.(32) But the facts are
singularly at variance with his conclusions! The sway of the Danish kings
had produced, as he admits, no material alteration in the English
language, even during its continuance; and how then could it have done so
a century after its termination? Nor can the ascendancy of the Norman
Court be accepted as a satisfactory explanation of these results, since
the changes to be accounted for did not consist in the adoption of Norman
words, but in an internal change in the structure and inflections of the
original Anglo-Saxon itself, unattended by the introduction of any Foreign
admixture.

It is obvious, then, that the conclusion of Professor Rask cannot be
regarded as a deduction naturally suggested by the phenomena, with which
he was so profoundly conversant, but must be viewed rather as a result of
the influence which the popular and generally received opinions on the
subject, must have exercised upon his mind. Highly instructive is it to
mark in this instance an example of the extent to which even erudite and
admirable philologists have frequently been betrayed into inconsistency
and error, by the supposed necessity of referring the revolutions which
languages have undergone, to some abrupt and violent social revolution,
with which, being connected in the order of events, they are also and not
unnaturally conceived to be equally connected by the relation of cause and
effect!

It may be assumed therefore, agreeably to the views of Dr. Johnson, that
the Norman conquest had no _immediate_ effect on the language of the
Anglo-Saxons. It remains then to inquire in what manner the influence of
that event was felt at a more distant period, viz.: about a century
afterwards, during the reigns of John and Richard Cœur de Lion, the period
during which the intermingling of the Norman and Saxon races and tongues
is believed to have been consummated. During this period also, we possess
the guidance of a great master, who has embodied all the philosophy of
this subject in a few pathetic words which he has put into the mouth of a
jester.(33)

“Truly,” said Wamba, without stirring from the spot, “I have consulted my
legs upon this matter, and they are altogether of opinion, that to carry
my gay garments through these sloughs would be an act of unfriendship to
my sovereign person and royal wardrobe; wherefore Gurth, I advise thee to
call off Fangs, and leave the herd to their destiny, which, whether they
meet with bands of travelling soldiers, or of outlaws, or of wandering
pilgrims, can be little else than to be converted into Normans before
morning to thy no small ease and comfort.”

“The swine turned Normans to my comfort,” quoth Gurth; “expound that to
me, Wamba, for my brain is too dull, and my mind too vexed, to read
riddles.”

“Why, how call you those grunting brutes running about on their four
legs?” demanded Wamba.

“Swine, fool, swine,” said the herd; “every fool knows that.”

“And swine is good Saxon,” said the Jester; “but how call you the sow when
she is flayed, and drawn, and quartered, and hung by the heels, like a
traitor?”

“Pork,” answered the swineherd.

“I am very glad every fool knows that too,” said Wamba, “and Pork, I
think, is good Norman-French; and so when the brute lives, and is in the
charge of a Saxon slave, she goes by her Saxon name; but becomes a Norman,
and is called Pork, when she is carried to the Castle-hall to feast among
the nobles. What dost thou think of this, friend Gurth, ha?”

“It is but too true doctrine, friend Wamba, however it got into thy fool’s
pate!”

“Nay, I can tell you more,” said Wamba, in the same tone. “There is old
Alderman Ox continues to hold his Saxon epithet, while he is under the
charge of serfs and bondmen such as thou, but becomes Beef, a fiery French
gallant, when he arrives before the worshipful jaws that are destined to
consume him. ‘Mynheer Calf,’ too, becomes ‘Monsieur de Veau,’ in the like
manner: he is Saxon when he requires tendance, and takes a Norman name
when he becomes matter of enjoyment.”

“By St. Dunstan,” answered Gurth, “thou speakest but sad truths; little is
left to us but the air we breathe, and that appears to have been reserved
with much hesitation, solely for the purpose of enabling us to endure the
tasks they lay upon our shoulders. The finest and the fattest is for their
board; the loveliest is for their couch; the best and bravest supply their
foreign masters with soldiers, and whiten distant lands with their bones,
leaving few here who have either the will or the power to protect the
unfortunate Saxon!”

The effect of the Norman Conquest was simply to introduce among the Saxon
population a certain class of new terms, which—though they were eventually
embodied in their language—are still readily distinguishable from the
Stock on which they were thus engrafted. But the general structure and
composition of the language remained unaffected by any Foreign alloy. The
most common verbs, nouns, and grammatical inflections and forms—Horne
Tooke’s “epea pteroenta” of the English language—remained, and have since
continued to be, pure, unadulterated Anglo-Saxon!

Such was the character of those modifications in the English Tongue that
flowed from the Norman Conquest. Partial and peculiar were those changes
in their nature—brief, also, was the interval of which they were the
result! A period can be fixed, at which it is certain that the dialect of
the Norman had ceased to encroach on that of the Anglo-Saxon people. In
the age of Chaucer, for example, the Norman and Saxon races had long
become undistinguishable, and the languages they spoke had blended into
one. Can the same age be fixed upon as an epoch at which the process of
transition in the English language had also been arrested? That
considerable changes have since occurred will not be disputed—for it is an
historical fact which does neither admit of doubt nor discussion. But had
all _important_ changes ceased at that time? Can it be said that—in the
time of Chaucer—that progressive revolution which has so widely separated
the modern English from the original Anglo-Saxon had gone through all its
stages? Can it be said that the innovations which have since occurred are
few in number, and trifling in point of character, compared to those which
belong to earlier periods of our History?

The answer to these inquiries involves a truth that I believe will be
found no less startling to the Philologist than to the general reader, in
whose mind the changes which the English language has undergone are
associated with the violent shock given by the Norman Conquest to
Anglo-Saxon institutions. The truth to which I allude—and it is one for
which I apprehend few inquirers will be prepared—is this: that the changes
which have occurred in the English language since the age of Chaucer are
at least equal in importance to those which took place in the antecedent
periods of our history. Novel as this conclusion may appear, the proofs
are so simple and so conclusive, as to place its accuracy beyond the
possibility of doubt.

The features which distinguish different languages from each other are
divisible into two classes—Words and Grammatical inflections. In both
these features marked differences have arisen between our modern English
and its parent Saxon, and to both these classes we must refer in forming
our conclusion as to the relative importance of the alterations which have
taken place in our language at two different epochs.

1st. The difference in words between the language of Chaucer and our
modern English will be sufficiently obvious, from a cursory glance at the
venerable remains of that poet. How many terms are there in the pages of
the father of English poetry that require the aid of a glossary to render
them intelligible even to an educated Englishman! These terms too, be it
observed—and it is a reflection highly deserving of the attention of those
who may still cling to the impression that the Norman Conquest has been
the sole agent of those phases through which the English Tongue has
passed—do not consist exclusively of Anglo-Saxon roots, but comprise also
a large number of Norman words which have shared the same fate!

2d. Still more striking have been those Changes in the Grammatical forms
of the English which may be referred to the last four centuries.

The ancient Saxon was a language of inflections—the modern English is a
language of simple forms. Thus, in the Anglo-Saxon the terminations of the
Verb were varied in different Persons, as they are in the Latin “Hab-_eo_,
Hab-_emus_, Hab-_ent_,” and in the German “Hab-_e_, Hab-_en_, Hab-_en_.”
These inflections have, for the most part, progressively disappeared from
the English, which expresses the changes of Persons by separate Pronouns,
in conjunction with a Root, in most instances unvarying, as “I _Have_, We
_Have_, They _Have_.” There is distinct evidence that this change has, in
a great measure, perhaps principally, taken place since the time of
Chaucer—whose writings, to a great extent, preserve the Anglo-Saxon
inflections, such as “They Hav-_en_,”(34) &c., corresponding with the
German “Sie Hab-_en_,” &c.

Slow and almost imperceptible have been the steps in this as in other
examples of that revolution of which the progress may be faintly traced in
the writings of Spenser, and Shakspeare, and Milton, and even in those of
the great modern Masters of the last century. In our _own_ generation it
has not been consummated! A striking instance occurs in the old inflection
of the third person singular “He Giv-_eth_,” still partially used in the
venerable forms of Scripture. This inflection, now fast passing into
oblivion, trifling as it may appear, forms a link which serves to
associate the English language not only with the German, but with the
Latin and the Sanscrit!(35)

The Auxiliary Verb may probably be regarded as the most important part of
Language. Now it is highly deserving of remark, that in the Anglo-Saxon
there existed an Auxiliary Verb, “Beo, or Beonne, To Be,” which has been
abandoned in the modern English. This Verb is interesting, not merely from
its important functions as a part of Language, but also from its forming a
link, as will hereafter appear, between the Anglo-Saxon, the German, the
dialects of the English Provinces, and of the Scottish Lowlands. From the
English of Literature it has been lost since the days of Chaucer, by whom
it is commonly used, as in the following example:

“These two sinnes _bin_ so nigh cosins.”—_Person’s Tale._

The peculiarities which distinguish the dialects of the English Counties
from the language of the higher classes of society are not, as is perhaps
generally supposed, the results of the capricious deviation of
uncultivated minds from an established standard. On the contrary, they
appear clearly for the most part to be various relics or Fragments of Old
English or Anglo-Saxon, which the more educated classes have lost. For
example, To “axe” (for To ask,) “I conne,” (I can,) expressions used by
the peasantry of Shropshire, are words of Saxon origin that occur in
Chaucer. In an able work on the peculiarities of the dialect of
Lancashire, by Mr. Collier,(36) it has been shown with much learning and
research that those peculiarities are to be recognized in Chaucer,
Spenser, Ben Jonson, and other old English writers. Obsolete Norman, as
well as Saxon, words occur in this dialect. Similar inferences with regard
to the Lowland Scotch may be drawn from Mr. Jamieson’s work on that branch
of the Anglo-Saxon.

Some very interesting results will be found to flow from a Comparison of
the “_Pronunciation_” of different English Counties, and of the Lowland
Scotch, with that of the educated classes of modern England. One of the
most marked differences between the modern English and the German consists
in the superior _breadth_ or _distinctness_ which is given in the German
to words which are uttered with a comparatively _narrow_ and _indistinct_
sound in Modern English. There is every reason to believe that the
Anglo-Saxon Pronunciation was similar to the German, and that the present
English mode has been the result of progressive innovation. Of the various
dialects of the Anglo-Saxon, the Lowland Scotch, in its pronunciation, as
well as in individual words, approaches nearest to the Continental
German.(37) But, as intimated above, many of the characteristics of German
articulation have been preserved also in the Provincial dialects of
England. Moreover, it is interesting to observe, that _different_
primitive peculiarities have been preserved in _different_ counties. For
example, the English of the educated classes differs from the Continental
German, and, as it is believed, from the Anglo-Saxon also,(38) in giving a
_narrow_ sound to the vowels A and U. Now the Shropshire dialect has
preserved the broad A; (“Hair,” for instance, is pronounced “_H-ā-r,_” as
it is by the Germans!) On the other hand, in Lancashire and Cheshire the
broad U forms the prominent feature in the dialect of the peasantry; (for
example, “Butter” and “Gutter” are pronounced “_Bootter_” and
“_Gootter_!”)

As already noticed, the Anglo-Saxon Auxiliary Verb forms in numerous
instances an important connecting link. Thus the modern English and the
modern German Auxiliary Verbs differ totally in the present tense.

English.                         German.
I am,                            Ich bin,
Thou art,                        Du bist,
He is.                           Er ist.

We are,                          Wir sind,
You are,                         Ihr seyd,
They are.                        Sie sind.

But both these Verbs co-exist in the present tense in the old Anglo-Saxon.

_Anglo-Saxon_(39) Verb the source of the English “I am,” and Anglo-Saxon
Verb corresponding with the German “Ich bin.”

Indicative Present.

_Singular._

1, Eom; 1, Beo,
2, Eort; 2, Byst,
3, Is.; 3, By & Byd.

_Plural._

1, 2, 3, Synd.; 1, 2, 3, Beod & Beo.

Subjunctive Present.

_Singular._

1, 2, 3, Sy (Seo); 1, 2, 3, Beo.

_Plural._

1, 2, 3, Sy’n; 1, 2, 3, Beon.

Indicative Imperfect.

_Singular._

1, Wæs; 1, 2, 3, Beo.
2, Wære,
3, Wæs.

_Plural._

1, 2, 3, Weron; 1, 2, 3, Beod.

Infinitive Present.

Wesanne; Beonne.

Participle Active.

Wesende; Beonde.

Participle Past.

Gewesen.

But though the present tense of the Verb “Beo” or “Beonne” does not exist
in modern English, it has been preserved in a remarkable manner in the
Shropshire and other dialects, in which it runs thus:

Provincial English.              German.
I Be, or I Bin,                  Ich Bin,
Thou Bist,                       Du Bist,
He Is.                           Er Ist.
We Bin,
Yō Bin,
They Bin.

The word “Bin” or “Ben” is used by Chaucer for the 1st, 2d, and 3d Persons
Plural,(40) as in the passage previously quoted: “These two sinnes _bin_
so nigh cosins.” (_Person’s Tales._)

These are singular but highly instructive examples of the caprices of “the
great Innovator!”

SECTION IV.


    _On the Scandinavian Languages. Resemblances between the Icelandic
    and Anglo-Saxon. Recent Origin and extensive Nature of the
    Differences among the Icelandic, Swedish, Danish, and Norwegian
    Tongues. Approximation of the Ancient Specimens of the
    Scandinavian and Teutonic Languages._


The Island of Iceland abounds in diversified features of interest; and its
Language, early History, and Institutions, will be found replete with
instruction, in connexion with the inquiry pursued in this volume.

As has been previously stated, the Gothic Class of languages are naturally
divisible into two great subordinate branches: the Teutonic or German,
including the dialects of Germany, the Low Countries, and of Great
Britain—and the Scandinavian, including those of the two Scandinavian
Peninsulas and Iceland. These two great Divisions of the Languages of the
Gothic race are radically the same, but they are supposed to display
certain specific differences by which they are distinguished from each
other.

Of the Teutonic—one of the most venerable specimens is the Anglo-Saxon,
the primitive tongue of the Ancestors of the modern English. More ancient
specimens of some of the other Gothic dialects have been preserved, but as
these are for the most part mere fragments—while of the Anglo-Saxon
literature and language we possess copious Remains—it has been inferred by
eminent Scholars that it is in these Remains—to Englishmen so interesting
for other reasons—that we may on the whole, perhaps, hope to find the
nearest approach to a transcript of the early language of the Teutonic
tribes.(41) Of all the Scandinavian Languages, on the other hand, the
Icelandic—by the general concurrence of the scholars of the North—appears
to be the most primitive.

Now in relation to these two Languages, a very interesting proposition has
been established by Scandinavian scholars—and though they widely differ as
to the cause of the results they discuss—they seem to be agreed with
respect to the proposition itself. The Icelandic, they have shown, closely
approaches to the Anglo-Saxon in numerous features in which it differs
from the languages of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. Moreover it has been
pointed out by the writers who first noticed these resemblances, that—in
their Literary and Bardic Institutions, as well as in their Language—the
Icelanders approach to the Anglo-Saxons. In explanation of these facts,
they propose the theory—that in the early ages of their history the
Icelanders must have benefited by direct communication and instruction
from the Anglo-Saxons.

These views have been fully discussed by Professor Rask, in a Preface
prefixed to his Anglo-Saxon Grammar, which contains a valuable body of
facts that serve to throw a new light on the history of the Scandinavian
Tongues.(42) He does not deny the existence of these important common
features in the Icelandic and Anglo-Saxon Languages and Remains; nor the
absence of the same features as regards the Modern specimens of the
Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian; but he maintains, nevertheless, that all
these characteristics may be retraced in detail, either in the Ancient or
in the Provincial specimens of those three Languages. In the present day
the Icelandic differs widely from the Languages of the Mainland of
Scandinavia, and those Languages also differ widely among themselves. But
originally, he maintains, one common Speech, the ancient Scandinavian,
(“Danska Tunge,”) was spoken from the coasts of Greenland to those of
Finland, from the Frozen Ocean to the Eider.(43) As we ascend into the
remoter periods of history we find the languages of Scandinavia gradually
approximate to each other, and finally blend into one.(44) During the
ninth century, and the period immediately succeeding, these tongues were
perfectly identical.

Professor Rask’s proofs of this proposition may be said to consist of a
reunion of the “Disjecta Membra” of the “Danska Tunge,” as found dispersed
in the various kingdoms and provinces of the Scandinavian Mainland. Of
these proofs I shall offer a few examples.

After observing that the Danish and Norwegian have from various causes
become very much alike, he adds that a comparison of the Danish with the
Swedish would, for that reason, be more instructive.

“The Swedish has almost from the introduction of Christianity, even during
the Calmar union, A.D. 1397, and in the time of Gustavus I., been a
distinct tongue; a comparison, therefore, with the Swedish is more to the
present purpose.”

He then gives a specimen of an ancient Danish MS. of a date prior to the
Reformation, which, “like all MSS. prior” to that event, “differs widely
from the present Danish.... It has many _inflections now obsolete_, but
which are to be found only in Old Swedish and _Icelandic_; many antiquated
_words_ and phrases, exempli gratia, then annin,” Icelandic “thann annan.”

He then mentions some words contained in this MS. which are still
preserved in “the _provinces_ of _Upland, Jutland, and Dalecarlia._”

He next notices an old Swedish document issued by King Magnus Smik, of
which he observes: “This, although about a century older, greatly
resembles the preceding specimen, and is scarcely distinguishable from the
Danish of the same period.... But if we go further back to the language of
the old Danish Laws, we there recognize nearly the _entire structure_ of
the earliest Swedish, and the Icelandic though not always strictly adhered
to, as the language in those unhappy and turbulent times which preceded
the Calmar Union, underwent in Denmark what may be termed its
_fermentation_, somewhat earlier than in the other states.”

He then gives a specimen from the Ecclesiastical Laws of Zealand, of which
he observes: “The few deviations from the Icelandic bear, for the most
part, _a strong resemblance to the Swedish_.

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

“But the oldest remains of the Danish language are to be found on our
Runic stone monuments, and here at length it perfectly coincides with the
earliest Swedish, Norwegian, and Icelandic.

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

“The Danish is closely allied to the Swedish, and both, in the earliest
times, lapse into the Icelandic, which, according to all ancient records,
was formerly universal over all the North, and must therefore be
considered as the parent of both the modern Scandinavian dialects.”(45)

On the subject of the differences of dialect in the different _provinces_
of the Northern Kingdoms he says that, “In Norway as well as in Denmark
one province terminates its verbs in _a_, another distinguishes all _the
three genders_, while a third has preserved a vast number of _old_ WORDS
_and inflections_ which to the others _are unintelligible_.”

We have thus a proof that even in the provinces of the same kingdom there
are differences of “_words_, grammar, _and inflections_.” The difference
_in the number_ of _genders_ is a very remarkable one.

The researches of Professor Rask will be found distinctly to warrant the
following conclusions. These conclusions are in the nature of results that
legitimately flow from his researches; they do not represent the
inferences which he himself has thence deduced. With regard both to the
languages of England and of his native Scandinavia, this learned writer
seems evidently to have been perplexed by the extent and variety of the
changes he has described. Hence, in both instances, he has shown an
inclination to ascribe to the influence of War and Social disturbance
changes which his own researches clearly prove to have been the effects
neither of transient nor of local influences, but of causes progressively
at work through a series of ages, and embracing large groups of nations
and languages in their action.

1. The differences which now exist between the various Scandinavian
Languages extend to all those features in which it is possible that one
Language, or one Class of Languages, can differ from another; viz. to
Words, Grammar, _Inflections,_(46) and to the _arrangement_ of Words in
sentences,(47) or _Idioms_.

2. Not only do differences of this nature present themselves in the
various Scandinavian _Kingdoms_—but also in the various Provinces of the
same _Kingdom_, which in many instances are distinguished by the most
marked differences in Words, Grammar, &c. Thus the Dialect of Dalecarlia
in Sweden is very ancient and distinct, and approaches to the Gothic.(48)

3. These characteristic features of the various languages and dialects of
Scandinavia have arisen progressively during the course of ages.

4. These differences principally consist in the abandonment in one Kingdom
or Province of a portion of the Words, Idioms, Grammar, &c. of the Parent
Speech—that part of the elements of the Original Tongue which have become
obsolete in one dialect having generally been preserved in the dialects of
other kingdoms and provinces—which have at the same time generally lost
other distinct portions of the Vocabulary, Grammar, &c. of their common
Original. In other words, the “Disjecta Membra” of the old Scandinavian,
or “_Danska Tunge,_” when not preserved in the Danish, have been retained
for the most part in the Swedish, Icelandic, and Norwegian, or in some of
the Provincial dialects of Scandinavia, and vice versâ. _In the various
provinces in which it was once spoken different portions of the Parent
speech have been abandoned or preserved._

5. Hence it follows that the Primitive Language of Scandinavia, or “Danska
Tunge,” does not exist in any one—but is dispersed in ALL its derivative
dialects. (Compare the motto from Grotius on the title-page.)

6. It is a necessary consequence of the third and fourth propositions that
the more ancient remains of the derivative dialects approach more nearly
to the Parent Speech, and—in the ratio of their superior antiquity—unite a
greater proportion of the distinctive peculiarities of all the
sister-dialects, which, as previously stated, have arisen in consequence
of certain portions of the Parent speech having been abandoned in some
provinces and retained in others, and vice versâ.

An interesting illustration of this maxim occurs in a passage from
Professor Rask’s preface already quoted, in which, after giving a specimen
of old Danish, which approaches closely to the Icelandic, he adds, “The
few deviations from the Icelandic bear for the most part _a strong
resemblance_ to the _Swedish_.” In other words, the older specimens of the
Danish _unite_ those peculiarities by which the modern collateral Tongues
of Iceland, Denmark, and Sweden are distinguished from each other.

Let it be borne in mind, that the lapse of one thousand years has produced
these changes, and the instructive nature of this example will be fully
apparent. Of the accuracy of the data on which the previous deductions
rest, all doubt must be removed by reference to one remarkable event. It
is historically certain that the Island of Iceland is inhabited by a
nation descended from emigrants from the opposite Norwegian coast. It is
historically certain, also, that previously to the Ninth Century these
warlike adventurers had not established themselves on the Icelandic soil.
Anterior to that period, therefore, it is self-evident that, inasmuch as
the Icelanders had no existence as a nation, the Icelandic Tongue could
not have had a separate existence as a language. Yet it is certain that in
the present day the Icelandic deviates at least as widely from the
language of the adjoining Norwegian Coasts as that language deviates from
the other Scandinavian Tongues.

The evidence furnished by Professor Rask and the writers whose views he
has combated, will be found, when fairly balanced, distinctly to support a
very important Conclusion, contemplated by neither. The facts adduced on
both sides conspire to show a rapid approximation of the Teutonic and
Scandinavian branches of the Gothic as we ascend into remote ages.

Of this approximation, the features of identity between the Anglo-Saxon
and the Icelandic, pointed out by the writers whose views Professor Rask
combats, furnish a reasonable presumption, which is converted into
positive proof by the evidence collected by Professor Rask himself, that
the same features occur in all the ancient, though they do not in the
modern, specimens of the Languages of the Scandinavian Peninsulas. It is
true, this learned writer, of whose researches I have chiefly availed
myself in this Section, maintains that there are some features in which
all the Scandinavian differ from the Anglo-Saxon and other Teutonic
Dialects, a conclusion, however, but feebly supported by the examples he
has adduced, and scarcely reconcilable in any way with the resemblance
which the primitive Swedish dialect of Dalecarlia is said to bear to the
Gothic. But, assuming the occurrence of some features of difference, even
in the earliest specimens we possess, this assumption leaves untouched the
proposition that these specimens show a rapid rate of approximation,
which, if equally rapid prior to their date, implies that at an era not
many ages anterior the identity of the languages of Germany and
Scandinavia must have been complete.

SECTION V.


    _The Origin of the Irish Nation. The original Language of the
    British Isles was a Union of Welsh and Irish. Union of the Irish,
    Welsh, &c. in the ancient Local Names in the Celtic Countries of
    Gaul, &c. These Names a connecting Link between the existing
    Celtic Dialects and the Oriental, Greek, and other Languages, &c._


The origin of the Irish nation, or Gael, forms—for numerous reasons—a
highly interesting and important subject of inquiry. Of this Nation the
very same theories have been maintained as those which have been adopted
in some quarters with respect to the North American Indians, the Negroes,
and other branches of the Human Family; viz., that they are of a stock
aboriginally inferior and distinct, by nature incapable of the virtues of
civilization. Let the views advocated by Pinkerton with respect to the
Gaelic race—views received with no slight degree of favour in his time—be
compared with the doctrines of many modern writers on the subject of the
native African and American Races, and an instructive lesson will be
learnt on the force of prejudice and the uniformity of error!

On the other hand, it must be allowed that the opinions which have been
generally espoused on the subject of the origin of the Gael by many of the
Historians and Scholars of Ireland and of the Highlands of Scotland, can
scarcely be said to possess a better claim to the approbation of a calm
and dispassionate judgment. Eminently distinguished as the Irish are by
Literary genius, there is probably no subject on which their native talent
has appeared to less advantage than in the investigation of the early
History of their own Country. Fictions the most extravagant, borrowed from
the Chronicles of the dark ages, have been credulously adopted by their
first Scholars in lieu of those solid truths to which a calm and sober
inquiry alone can lead. Thus we find Mr. Moore, at once the Poet and the
Historian of Ireland, lending the sanction of his name to the Fable that
the Irish are of Spanish origin; and citing, in answer to the more
reasonable hypothesis of a British origin, a variety of Irish writers of
no mean note, and some Welsh writers also, in favour of the assertions: 1,
that the Irish Language is almost totally unlike the Welsh or Ancient
British; and 2, that the Welsh is not a Celtic but a Gothic Tongue! There
is every reason to conclude that Mr. Moore—unacquainted, probably, with
any of the Celtic dialects himself—resorted to those authorities which he
might naturally have deemed most deserving of confidence. But this only
renders more lamentably conspicuous the credulity, carelessness, and
ignorance of those to whose labours he has appealed. The assertions, 1,
that the Welsh and Irish are unlike; and 2, that the Welsh is a Gothic
dialect, are contradictions of the plainest facts.

Influenced by national feelings Gaelic Scholars have also advanced various
other theories, calculated to exhibit the antiquity of their language and
race in a favorable point of view. The Gaelic has been maintained to be
the Parent, at least in part, of the Latin, the Welsh, &c.; while to the
first Colonists of Ireland a Carthaginian or Phœnician origin has been
assigned.

These conclusions cannot be sustained. But it is highly probable,
notwithstanding, that the proofs on which they have been based will be
found, in many instances, to contain the germs of important truths, though
blended with an admixture of error. The traces of affinity between the
Irish and other ancient languages which have been collected by Gaelic
Scholars, may be open in many cases to the same remark, which is clearly
applicable to the examples of affinity pointed out by Mr. Catlin between
the dialect of the North American Indian tribe the Mandans and the Welsh;
viz., these features may consist of clear and genuine traces of a generic,
though they may afford no proofs of a specific, affinity of race. There
can be no doubt that the Irish preserves many primitive forms which the
kindred Celtic of Wales has lost; there can be no doubt also that the
Irish approximates to the Latin, to the Greek, and to the Egyptian,(49)
&c. in many features which the Welsh no longer exhibits. The examples
adduced in Appendix A of the connexion of the Irish language with the
Hebrew, Egyptian, &c. are sufficient to show that the Irish are a nation
of Oriental origin. But on the other hand it must be borne in mind, that
inasmuch as the Welsh, Latin, &c., have also preserved primitive forms
which the Irish has lost, there is no ground for concluding that the
Gaelic is a Parent rather than a Sister of these venerable Tongues; and
inasmuch as the evidence of the Eastern origin of the Gael, however
unequivocal, is not clearer or closer than the accompanying(50) evidence
with respect to the Welsh, English, and other European nations, there are
no peculiar grounds for referring the first colonization of Ireland to a
direct migration from the shores of Palestine or Africa, rather than to
the gradual diffusion of population from a central point.

The following comparison presents examples of features in which the Irish
approximates to the Gothic and other Languages, at the same time that it
differs more or less from the Welsh.

_Words in which the Gaelic resembles the Gothic, and other European
Languages, more closely than it resembles the Cymraeg or Welsh._

English.    Gaelic.       Illustrations.                   Cymraeg.
1.          Ath-air,      Atta, (_Gothic._), Ayta,         Tad,
Father.     (_Ir._)       Aydia, (_Basque._), Attia,       (_W._)
                          (_Hung._), Otek, (_Russ._),
                          Fader, slightly varied in all
                          the Gothic dialects, except
                          the Gothic properly so called,
                          Pater, (_Greek & Latin._)
2.          Math-air,     Mater or Mutter (with some
Mother.     (_Ir._)       trifling variations) in Latin,
                          Greek, and all the
                          Teuto-Scandinavian dialects
                          except the Gothic—also in the
                          Sclavonic and Bohemian.
                          Ath-ei, (_Gothic._)
            Mymmog,       Mam, (_W._)
            (_Manx
            dialect._
3.          Brathair,     The Irish form, _Brathair,_      Brawd,
Brother.    (_Ir._)       occurs in the Latin and          (_W._),
                          Teuto-Scandinav. tongues; the    Bredar,
                          Welsh form, _Brawd,_ in the      (_Cornish._)
                          Sclavonian tongues.
Breur,                    Breur, (_Arm._)
(_Manx
dialect_
4.          |Siur,        The Irish form prevails in the   Chwaer,
Sister.     (_Ir._)       Latin, Teuto-Scand. and          (_W._)
                          Sclavonic.
            Piur,                                          Hor, Huyr,
            (_Scotch._)                                    (_Cornish._)
5. A        Drong,        Drang, a Throng, a Crowd,        Torv.
Company.    (_Ir._)       (_German._)
6. Mock.    Magom,        Mock, (_English._)               Gwatwor,
            (_Ir._)                                        (_W._)
7. Evil.    Neoid,        Naughty, (_Eng._)                Droug,
            (_Ir._)                                        (_W._)
            Olk,          Ill, (_Eng._)
            (_Ir._)
8. The      Rang,         Rand,(51) (_Germ._)              Glan, (_W._)
Bank of a   (_Ir._)
stream.
9. A        Beim,         Bēm-a, a Step, (_Greek._),       Cam.
Step.       (_Ir._)       Bain-o, to go, Bahn, a Path,
                          (_Germ._)
10. To      Beir-im,      Fero, (_Latin._) Ge-Bähr-en,     Dwyn.
bear.       (_Ir._)       (_Germ._)
11.         Fon-amhad     Fun, (_Eng._), Vonne, Delight,   Vynn, or
Jeering,    (_Ir._),      (_Germ._), Vunsch, a Wish,       Mynn, a
Delight,    Foun,         (_Germ._)                        Wish, (_W._)
A Desire.   (_Ir._)
12. A       Geon,         Cwen, (_Ang.-Sax. & Icel._)      Gen-eth, a
Woman.      (_Ir._)                                        Girl, (_W._)
13. To      Fis-ay-im,    Viss-en, (_Germ._), Vit-an,      Wys, or
know.       Fod-am,       (_Ang.-Sax._), “I wot,”          Gwys, Wyth,
            (_Ir._)       (_Eng._)                         or Gwyth,
                                                           Knowledge
                                                           (_W._)
14. To      Gorm,         Warm, (_Eng._)                   Gwresogi,
heat, or    (_Ir._)                                        (_W._)
warm.
15. A       Sgath,        Skia, Skiad-on, (_Greek._),      Cysgod,
Shadow.     (_Ir._)       Schatten, (_Germ._)              (_W._)
16. To      |Raid-him,    Read-en, (_Germ._)               Siarad,
speak.      (_Ir._)                                        (_W._)

Some of these examples would furnish a more plausible argument to show
that the Irish are a Gothic race than any which have been advanced to
prove that the Welsh are of Gothic origin! It is singular, for instance,
that the Irish terms expressive of the Domestic relations are so near the
English as to excite in the first instance a suspicion that they must have
been borrowed from the followers of Strongbow! But this impression must be
dispelled by the reflection that terms of this class are never borrowed
from its conquerors by a nation that continues to retain its primitive
language. Moreover, it will be observed, that the Irish, in the instance
of these words, approaches much more nearly to the Gothic, Hungarian, and
Russian, &c. than it does to the English. Again, the Irish word “Gorm,” To
heat or warm, is _like_ the English “Warm.” But, on the other hand, its
genuineness is rendered indisputable by its _absolute identity_ with the
word ’Gorm’ in Persian and Egyptian, (See Appendix A, p. 21.) Finally, the
resemblances manifested above by the Irish to the Greek are quite as close
as those which the former language displays to the English and other
Gothic Tongues. In these examples, therefore, we may recognize proofs not
of any partial results or specific connexions, but of the more complete
approximation of the European languages as we enlarge our range of
inquiry, and obtain more ample specimens of each Class.

But, notwithstanding the occurrence of some features of difference, it is
indisputable that there exists a close specific affinity between the Irish
and Welsh Languages, which renders the common origin of the nations who
speak them evident. The original identity of the Irish and Welsh Languages
was established as far back as the commencement of the eighteenth century,
by the investigations of the excellent Archæologist, Edward Lhuyd, who
spent five years in travelling through the various Celtic regions, and
whose comparison of the dialects of Wales, Cornwall, Armorica, the
Highlands of Scotland, and the Isle of Man, is not inferior either in
soundness of reasoning, or in patient, extensive, and honest research, to
the best German works of the present day. But although the writings of
Lhuyd may be said to have established the original unity of the Welsh and
Irish races, since the publication of his work, a peculiar opinion has
been adopted by some learned men with regard to the _time_ of their
original separation. Of this opinion, Edward Lhuyd was himself the first
advocate; his conclusion was that though the Irish and British Celts were
both descendants from one stock, they must have been separated into two
distinct Tribes before their arrival in the British Islands. The Gaelic or
Irish Tribe he supposes to have preceded the Welsh or British Tribe, by
whom he conceives them to have been gradually driven to the West, as the
Britons were by the Saxons in subsequent ages. Lhuyd’s grounds are as
follows:

The most ancient names of Rivers and Mountains in the Island of Britain
are very generally composed of terms still preserved in the Welsh or
Ancient British Tongue. But there are some remarkable exceptions, and in
these instances it frequently happens that the Names may be clearly
identified with Words still preserved in the Irish or Gaelic branch of the
Celtic. For example, the names of the British rivers, the Usk and the Esk,
are particularly noticed by Lhuyd; these names are identical with “Uisge,
Eask,” the Irish term for “Water.” This word, he observes, does not exist
in the Welsh, and he had looked for it in vain in the sister dialect of
Armorica; but, he adds, it is still retained by the Irish or Gaelic.
Hence, he suggests that the Irish or Gaelic branch of the Celts must have
colonized the Island of Britain before the arrival of the Cymry or Welsh
branch, by whom, as he conceives, they were expelled, after having
conferred names on the principal localities.

The evidence of language will be found sufficient to show not merely the
common origin of the Welsh and Irish, but also to fix a much more recent
date for their separation than that which has been assigned by Lhuyd. It
will thence appear that the Irish are descendants of Colonists of the
Welsh or British race, not of a distinct Celtic sept, and that the
commencement of the separate existence of the Irish nation must be
referred to a comparatively recent date, propositions of much interest, of
which the proofs about to be advanced will probably be deemed to be at
once clear and simple.

Lhuyd’s reasoning in favour of his theory, that the Irish or Gael existed
in Britain as a separate Tribe, prior to the arrival of the Britons who
fought against Cæsar, the ancestors of the modern Welsh, is founded on a
false analogy not unnatural to a first inquirer.

The proposition that the most important local names in every country for
the most part consist of terms belonging to the language of the very first
inhabitants, is one of which I conceive the truth will be evident. For a
proof of this principle, I may refer to Chalmers’(52) admirable analysis
of local names in the Lowlands of Scotland, where, in spite of a
succession of Conquests, and the utter extinction in that part of Britain
of the language of the original inhabitants, viewed as a vernacular
dialect, Welsh and other Celtic names are still preserved, after the lapse
of ages, for the most prominent features of the country. This result, it
may be observed, is one that flows from the very nature of things. Even
the most fierce and ruthless invaders are compelled to hold sufficient
intercourse with the first population to enable them to learn the proper
names of their localities, and these names, from obvious motives of
convenience, they almost universally adopt.

Now, had Lhuyd shown that the most ancient Local names in Britain are
_exclusively_ Irish, there can be no doubt that, consistently with the
principle just noticed, his theory would have been supported by the facts
to which he adverts. But the most ancient local names in Britain are not
_exclusively_ or _principally_ Irish; in an equal number, perhaps in a
majority, of cases they are Welsh.

Moreover, it may be observed that the names of localities in this Island
furnish highly instructive evidence, not merely with respect to the
different races by whom it has been successively peopled, but also of the
order in which they arrived. Thus the names of Rivers and Mountains, and
other natural objects, at least of the most conspicuous, are Celtic; the
names of the most ancient Towns are Latin, or Latin grafted on British
words; more modern Towns and Villages have Saxon appellations; those of
more recent origin have frequently Norman designations; and last of all
come those places which have names derived from our present English. These
various classes of names cannot be nicely distinguished in each particular
instance. Of the correctness of the general principle, however, there is
no doubt.

But the terms noticed by Lhuyd as significant in the Irish language do not
belong to a different class of appellations from those which are obviously
of British or Cymraeg origin. The Irish and Cymraeg terms are both found
to predominate most in the names of the most ancient Class, viz. in those
of Rivers, Mountains, &c., and to be thus applied in conjunction. Hence
the natural inference that flows from his facts is not that these names
were conferred by two distinct and successive races, but that they were
imposed _contemporaneously_ and by the same People!

Further it may be noticed, that if British Topography presents words
extant only in the Irish Tongue, Irish Topography also presents names
which cannot be explained by means of the Irish, though their meaning is
preserved in Welsh; for example: There is a place near the head of a
Stream in Roscommon, called “Glan a Modda,” (from Glan, “The bank of a
Stream,” _Welsh_.) There is a place in Wales, called “Glan a Mowdduy.”
There is a place called “Glan-gora,” in a Creek at the head of Bantry Bay;
and another place in Ireland called “Glan-gort.”

“Ben-heder,” the ancient Irish name for “The Hill of Howth,” interpreted
by Mr. Moore “The Hill of Birds.” (Adar, “Birds,” _Welsh_. The word does
not exist in Irish.)

Arran, A mountainous Island. (Arran, a Mountain, _Welsh_. This word does
not exist in Irish,) &c. &c.

Mr. Chalmers in his Caledonia states that the prevalent ancient names of
localities in Britain and Ireland are essentially the same.

The conclusions to which these facts legitimately and necessarily lead
are, that the British Islands were originally colonized by Settlers, who,
at the time of the first occupation of Great Britain and Ireland, spoke
one uniform language, in which the Welsh, Irish, and other living Celtic
Dialects were combined. We may infer, and I conceive most clearly, that
these dialects must be viewed in the light of “Disjecta Membra” of the
speech of the old British and Irish Celts, just as the Icelandic,
Norwegian, &c. are fragments of the ancient “Danska Tunge,” as noticed in
the previous section.

It has been shown by Dr. Prichard that the population of Islands has been
derived from the neighbouring Continents, and that the population of the
more distant Islands has been derived in like manner from those which are
nearer to the common source of migration. It is highly unreasonable to
assume that Ireland has formed an exception to this general rule,
considering that the common basis of the Irish and ancient British or
Welsh languages are confessedly the same, unless it can be proved that the
accompanying differences are such as to require the solution Lhuyd has
suggested. Here, then, the question arises, are the features of difference
between the Welsh and Irish languages more numerous or more fundamental,
in relation to the interval of time that has elapsed since the Roman
Invasion of Britain, than the varieties of dialect among the Scandinavian
nations are in relation to the period that has elapsed since the
colonization of Iceland? They are not! It will thence be seen that Lhuyd’s
theory, as to the remote date of the separation of the Gaelic or Irish
from the British or Cymraeg branch of the Celts, is founded on an
exaggerated conception of the stability of Human Tongues; and that the
abandonment by various septs of different synonymes used conjointly by
their common forefathers will satisfactorily account for the differences
between the Welsh and Irish, to which he attaches so much weight. It will
be perceived, for example, that in the Icelandic, of which the existence
commenced in the ninth century, and the Continental Scandinavian from
which it then sprang, totally different terms are used for “Water,” the
very instance to which Lhuyd especially adverts, as regards the languages
of the Welsh and Irish, whom we know to have existed as separate nations
in the time of Cæsar eighteen centuries ago!

Another highly instructive test of the correctness of his theory may be
derived from the investigations of Lhuyd himself, who, in his comparison
of the Welsh and Irish languages, uniformly distinguished the current
terms from the obsolete synonymous words that occur only in ancient MSS.
This comparison proves distinctly that the Irish and Welsh languages
approximate, as we ascend, at a rate which, if as rapid previously as we
know it to have been up to the date of the earliest MSS., would imply that
these languages must have been identical about the era of the Roman
invasion. As the changes which languages undergo in their infancy are more
rapid than those which occur at later stages of their growth, it is
possible that the unity of these Tongues may be ascribed even to a much
later period, an opinion which has been maintained by a very judicious and
excellent writer, Mr. Edward Davies, who in his “Claims of Ossian” has
published an early specimen of Irish Poetry, which in Language and Style
he regards as identical with the most ancient productions of the Welsh
Bards. Making every allowance for the irregularity of the changes which
occur in Languages, I do not conceive it possible that the Welsh and Irish
could have differed very essentially in the time of Cæsar. This leads
directly to another conclusion, viz. that the first colonization of
Ireland could not have taken place a great many centuries before the Roman
invasion. Had such been the case, the differences between the Welsh and
Irish Languages must have been proportionately more extensive. In the time
of the Romans we learn that an Irish traitor arrived in Britain, who
stated that Ireland might be kept in subjection by a single legion, an
incident which tends, however slightly, to favour the opinion that the
sister Island was at that period but thinly, perhaps because but recently,
peopled.

Of the extent of the changes which the Celtic languages have undergone
since the first arrival of the Celts in Europe, we possess proofs of far
more ancient date than the earliest literary specimens of the living
dialects of the Celtic in the Local names of Celtic regions, as preserved
in Roman Maps, and in the existing languages of the French, English, and
other nations, who occupy countries of which the Celts were the first
inhabitants. These names I shall show to consist of three elements: A
union of 1, Welsh, Cornish, &c.; 2, Irish, Highland Scotch, &c.; and 3,
Terms not extant in any Celtic Tongue, but preserved in the Oriental,
Greek, and other languages.

As regards the Names of the 1st and 2d Classes, it will abundantly appear
from the ensuing examples that, in the Topographical Nomenclature of Gaul,
Britain, and other Celtic regions of Europe,(53) words derived from all
the various Celtic dialects now extant, occur in a manner that leads
distinctly to the inference that these “Disjecta membra” must have
simultaneously belonged to the language of the old Celts. Dr. Prichard,
who has examined these vestiges of the ancient Celtic Populations of
Europe with much ability and success, leans to the opinion that the
Cymraeg or Welsh Dialects predominate in these names. But the following
examples, which comprise many names derived from the Irish or Gaelic that
have not been noticed by Dr. Prichard or by previous writers on this
subject, will serve to render it manifest that the ancient Names in
Europœa Celtica did, in fact, include all the various living Celtic
dialects very equally and harmoniously blended.

How luminous and distinct these proofs of the identity of the ancient with
the modern Celtic nations are, will be better understood by a preliminary
statement of certain rules, which will serve to give greater precision and
perspicuity to the illustrations selected:

1. There can be no doubt that the Romans, in the Celtic, as in other
countries conquered by them, modified the native terms by the addition of
their own peculiar grammatical inflections, as in “Judæ-i, Britann-i,
Sen-ones,” &c. Now it is obvious that in identifying the Celtic terms we
must reject these mere Roman inflections.(54)

2. In many cases the Roman Names cannot be supposed to involve complete
transcripts of the Celtic Names; frequently they were doubtless convenient
abbreviations of the original names—names consisting of descriptive terms
to them unintelligible. According to Mr. Reynolds, the Saxons generally
adopted the first syllable only of the Roman or British names they found
in this island. According to Bullet, “Vic,” a word of Roman origin for a
Village or Town, has, from similar causes, become common as a Proper name
in Dauphiné; in modern times we have numerous Villages called “Thorpe,”
the name for a Village in Anglo-Saxon and German. In instances of this
kind, there can be no doubt that originally the names were descriptive,
such as “Long-town,” “Old-town,” &c. Tre or Trev is the common Welsh word
for a Town, Village, or residence; it had the same meaning in Cornwall:


    “By Tre, Tres, and Tren,
    You shall know the Cornish men.”


A consequence of the names of the gentry of the county having been derived
from those of their residences, into which this word commonly entered!

In Wales we have numerous examples of “Tre,” as in “Tre-llwng,” “The Town”
of the “Pool,” (i.e. Welshpool,) from an adjoining “Llyn,” or Pool, near
Powis Castle; “Tre-lydan,” the Broad Village, or Residence near Welshpool;
“Trev-alyn,” near Chester, the Residence on the Stream; the “Alyn,” &c.
&c.

Now according to the Roman mode, such a term as Trev-alyn would have been
changed into Trev-iri, the designation actually given to the Celts of
“Treves,” &c.

The following are analogous examples:

There is a tribe of Brig-antes in Yorkshire, another in Ireland, and a
third in the North-east of Spain. Many unsuccessful attempts have been
made to show that these distant Celtic tribes must have been scions of the
same tribe. A much simpler explanation may be given.

By referring to the Roman maps the reader will find a word, “Briga,” in
such general use as part of the names of towns as to leave no reasonable
doubt that it must have been, like Tre, a Celtic name for a town—now
obsolete. Thus in Spain we have, Laco-briga, Meido-briga, Ara-briga,
Tala-brica, Augusto-briga, &c. Now the analogous instances already noticed
suffice to point out that the occurrence of Brig-antes as a Roman name of
Tribes in three Celtic countries, is a natural result of the frequent
occurrence of Briga as the first part of the names of Celtic places.

The “Allo-bryg-es.” The name of this warlike tribe, the Celtic inhabitants
of Savoy, has also been the source of perplexity, which may be removed in
the same manner. This tribe had a town, called by the Romans “Brig-icum,”
which was said to be “the only one they had.”(55) Now Allo-Bryga may
reasonably be identified with Alpo-Briga, the Town of the Alps (Briga
being clearly the common base of “Allo-bryg-es,” and “Brig-icum.”)

The names of Celtic communities, as they appear on the Roman Maps, may, I
conceive, be proved to have been descriptive of the most prominent natural
features of the regions they inhabited, and not of their lineage or
descent, as seems to have been often supposed. Thus we have the Mor-ini in
Belgium, and the Ar-mor-ici in Gaul on the Sea; we have the Sen-ones on
the Seine, the Tamar-ici on the Tamar-is, in Hispania, &c. In the
Mountainous regions it will be observed that the names of tribes are
derived from the Mountains. In the flat countries they take their names
from Rivers or the confluence of Rivers. In the same manner it is highly
deserving of remark, that the names of the different French Departments
have been derived from precisely the same natural features. Thus in the
Hilly countries we have the Departments of the High Alps, “Hautes Alpes;”
of the Low Alps, “Basses Alpes;” in the Champaign countries the
Departments are named from the Rivers; such as the Seine, the Marne, and
the Somme, &c. Many of these French names are literally equivalent to
translations of the ancient Gaulish names, as interpreted by means of the
Welsh and Irish languages. It is impossible to conceive a more perfect
verification of the accuracy of these interpretations!

I may here observe, that as far as we can perceive, the various
independent communities of Britain and Gaul mentioned by Cæsar, such as
the Edui, the Venetes, &c., did not consist of _one_ clan or sept, they
seem rather to have been a combination of several contiguous septs, to
whom no appropriate common name _could have been_ given, except one
derived from the natural features of the district they occupied.

The durability of local names has been already noticed. Of this truth we
possess remarkable proofs in those of localities in France, as preserved
by the modern French to the present day. I do not doubt that the present
French names are, in many instances, much more faithful transcripts of the
original Celtic appellations than those which occur in the Roman Maps are.
Thus, for example, Bonomia, a name conferred by the Romans upon Boulogne,
and of which the origin has perplexed Antiquarics, may easily be explained
as a Roman abbreviation of the word Boulogne itself, of which the Celtic
meaning will be shown hereafter to be appropriate and unequivocal. Here it
may be noticed, that the Celtic language did not become extinct in Gaul
until many centuries after the termination of the Roman sway and the
establishment of the Franks in that country. The use of the old Gaulish or
Celtic continued until the eighth century, nearly until the time of
Charlemagne.(56) Now we know that the modern Welsh and Irish, for the most
part, continue to use their own primitive names of localities in those
cases in which abbreviations or translations have been substituted by the
English. There can be no reasonable doubt that the ancient Gauls did the
same, and that these names were in use among the inhabitants of each
locality at the time of the final subjugation of Gaul by the Franks, by
whom, in many instances, these names are more likely to have been adopted
than those used by the Romans.

It will also be observed in the course of the following examples, that
names of the class about to be noticed, viz., Topographical names of which
the elements are not extant in the existing Celtic dialects, but occur in
Oriental words, &c., are remarkably well preserved by the modern French.
Thus the “Aube,” as pronounced by the French, is identical in sound with
the Asiatic terms for Water, and names of Rivers, to which it is allied.

3. By many, perhaps by all those Celtic scholars who have investigated
this subject, it has been assumed that the living Celtic dialects may be
expected to furnish a complete clue to all the Local Names of ancient
Celtic regions. This conclusion, like the theory of Lhuyd above discussed,
is founded on an exaggerated idea of the stability of Human Tongues!
Neither the Irish nor the Welsh, nor a combination of all the Celtic
dialects, will be found to afford a complete solution of the Topographical
nomenclature of the ancient Celtic regions of Europe. Names undoubtedly
occur in these countries which have been preserved in none of the Celtic
tongues, names which I shall indisputably show to be positive transcripts,
in many instances, of appropriate terms occurring in the Hebrew and other
languages, with which, in other parts of this work, the original Celtic
dialects will be proved to have been originally identical. These facts
lead to the conclusion that the ancient nomenclature of Celtic countries
forms in reality a connecting link between the existing dialects of the
Celts and the language of the Oriental stock from which they are
descended.

This conclusion, though at variance with the views of many estimable
writers, is nevertheless in unison with those anticipations which
historical facts legitimately suggest. It is only reasonable to infer that
since the period of their first arrival in Europe, the era at which many
of these names must have been conferred (see page 10), the Celtic tribes
must have lost many words which none of the modern Celtic nations have
preserved. The Celts were settled about the sources of the “Ister, and the
city,” (perhaps the mountains) “of Pyrene,” even in the time of Herodotus,
and how many ages had elapsed since their first arrival is unknown!(57)

There is a certain Class of terms of which the meaning can reasonably be
inferred from their extensive use in combination with other terms, of
which the meaning may be considered as ascertained. To this class may be
referred the terms immediately following.

Catti, Cassii, Casses, or Cad, seem to have meant a People, Tribe, &c., as
in the following examples of the names of Celtic Tribes:

The Abr-in-Catui, in Normandy. The Catti-euch-lani, the people of
Cambridgeshire and the adjoining counties. The Cassii, in Hertfordshire.
The Bidu-casses, in Normandy. The Tri-casses, a people in Champagne. The
Cad-ur-ci, on the Garonne.

The above words seem clearly derivable from the following Welsh words,
which are allied to the Hebrew:

Welsh.                           Hebrew.
From Kiw-dod (Kiw-dod-æ,         Gow, a Body of Men, a Society
_plur._) a Clan, a Nation.       or Association.
Kiw-ed, a Multitude, a Tribe.    Gowee, a Nation.
Kyf, a Body or Trunk, a          Gow, Gowe, Goweeth, the Body
Pedigree.                        of a Man or Animal.

Tre, Trev, a Village, Town, or Residence, (_Welsh_,) a Tribe,
(_Irish._)(58)

Trev-iri, the people of Treves. A-Treb-ates, the people about Arras. (For
further examples see Dr. Prichard’s work.) Trev is a common element in
names of places in Wales, as Tre-vecca, Tre-gynnon.

Trigo, to reside, dwell, (_Welsh._)

Duro-trig-es, the dwellers on the Water or Sea, the people of Dorsetshire.
(Camden.)

Catt uriges. (See Dour.)

Dun-um, a Hill, a Fort or Town, generally on a Hill, (occurs in _Welsh_
and _Irish_.)

Oxell-dunum, a Hill-fort in Gaul, described by Cæsar. (See numerous
instances in Dr. Prichard’s work.)

“Castell Din-as Bran,” on a lofty eminence in the Vale of Llangollen,
Wales.

Dur, Duvr, Awethur (_Welsh_), Dour (_Cornish_), Dur (_Armorican_), Dovar
(_Irish_, obsolete, but occurs in ancient MSS.) “Water.”

This word, and Ydōr or Hudōr (_Greek_), and Tschur (_Armenian_), “Water,”
have an obvious affinity. These forms may be traced in the names of Celtic
Localities.

“Dour” occurs in the following names of Rivers: Dur, (_Hibernia_,) Dur-ia
Major, “The Doria,” and Duria Minor, (_Gallia Cisalpina_,) Dur-ius, “The
Douro,” and “Dero,” (_Hispania_,) Dur-anius, “The Dordogne,” (_Gallia_).
In _Bucharian_ Deriâ means “The Sea.”

Ydōr or Hudōr (_Greek_), Awethur (_Welsh_), occur in the Rivers “The
Adour,”(59) Atur-is (_Gallia_), “The Adder” (_Britain_), “The Adare”
(_Ireland_.)

“Tschur” (_Armenian_), occurs in “Stura,” (_Gallia Cis._), “The Stour”
(_Britain_), “The Suir” (_Britain & Ireland_), “The Souro” (_Spain_, a
branch of the Tagus.)

From the frequent recurrence of all these different forms in several
Celtic countries thus widely separated, it is plain that they were used
conjointly by the early Celts, and represent various transitions of the
same word. Thus “Stura” (in _Gal. Cis._), flows between the neighbouring
streams Duria Major and Duria Minor, &c.

This word “Dour” enters very largely into the names of tribes; it forms
singly a natural clue to a great number of names that hitherto have been
referred to a complication of Roots. Thus the Roman name for the people of
Dorsetshire, Duro-trig-es, i.e. The dwellers on the Water or the Ocean,
has been noticed by Camden.

In the preceding, and in several of the following, it will be apparent
that the old Celts applied this term to the “Sea or Ocean,” as the
Bucharians do, and also to a “River.” At present the Welsh apply the term
to Water only, in a restricted sense.

In the South-east of England names abound (applied to places on Rivers or
the Sea) in which the two slight variations of Dur and Du-v-r (or Do-v-ar,
_Irish_), still preserved in Welsh, are apparent. Duro-vern-um,
“Canterbury,” from Duro, Water, and Vern or Veryn, a Hill. (Compare the
name of the “Ar-vern-i,” under Beryn, at p. 78.) The Town was on a Hill by
the Stour.

Portus Du-b-r-is or Dub-r-œ, i.e. “Sea Port,” the modern “Do-v-or,” a word
which is an echo of the Irish Dovar and the Welsh Du-v-r.

Duro-brivæ, Rochester on the Medway, (Briva or Brivis, the ancient Celtic
for a Town.) Duro-levum, Milton on the Thames.

Lan-du-b-r-is, a Portuguese Island. Lan, a Bank of a Stream, or the Sea:
also an inclosed Space, (_Welsh._)

Tur-ones, the inhabitants of the country at the junction of several
streams with the Loire, the neighbourhood of the modern Tours.

Bi-tur-ig-es, from Bi “Two,” Tur or Dour, Water, and trigo, to reside.

There are two tribes of this name in Gaul; the Bituriges Cubi, situated
between two of the branches of the Loire, and the Bi-turi-ges Vobisci,
between the Garonne and the Sea, at the junction of the Dordogne and the
Garonne.

Cat-ur-iges, from Catti, Tribes or People; Dour, Water, and Trigo, to
reside; on the Durentia, South-east of France, about Embrun or
Eburo-Dunum, which was their principal town. Cad-ur-ci, from Catti,
Tribes, and dur.

There is one tribe of this name on the Dordogne, and another contiguously
placed on the Garonne.

The mutual support that these interpretations give to each other will be
obvious.

The following Irish word for “Water,” which is not extant in the Welsh,
may be traced in Celtic regions in its various modifications: Uisge
(_Irish_), “The Usk” (_South Britain_)—Eask(60) (_Irish_, obsolete), “The
Esk” (_Scotland_), “The Escaut” (_North of France_), Isca, “The Exe”
(_South Britain_)—Easkong (_Irish_, obsolete), Axona (_Gallia_, _Belg._),
“The Aisne,” Axones, the neighbouring tribe.

Names Of Estuaries, Or Mouths Of Streams.

The terms of this class, which occur in ancient Gaul, &c., consist either
of terms still thus applied in the living Celtic dialects, or of compounds
of which the elements may be recognized, unchanged, in those dialects.
Moreover it will be highly interesting to observe that these terms, for
the most part, consist of Metaphors derived respectively from the same
sources as the two English words “Estuary” and “Mouth,” and the two Latin
words “Æstuarium” and “Os Fluminis.”

One of the principal arguments of those writers who maintain that the
separation of the Irish from the other Celtic tribes must have been of
remoter date than the first peopling of these islands, is founded on the
fact that the Irish use the word In-ver for the Mouth of a Stream, while
the Welsh use Ab-ber (spelt Aber); a feeble support for so wide a
conclusion, which a correct analysis of these terms, and a comparison of
some interesting coincidences in the local names of ancient Gaul will show
to be utterly futile! In-ver and Ab-ber are not simple but compound terms,
literally corresponding to the Latin expression “Fluminis Æstuarium.”
Æstuarium is from Æstuo, “To boil,” a metaphorical term, obviously derived
from the agitation of the Waters where two Streams meet, or where a River
enters the Sea.

In the first syllable “Inver” and “Ab-ber” differ, but they agree in the
last. Both “In” and “Ab,” the first syllables of these terms, occur so
often in Celtic regions that there can be no doubt they were both in use
among the ancient Celts as words for a River, or Water. The last syllable
of these words, Ber or Ver, I shall show to mean an “Estuary.”

“In” occurs in the name of “The Inn,” in the Tyrol, the “Æn-us” of the
Romans, and in other instances previously noticed. “An” is a Gaelic or
Irish term for “Water,” which is identical in sound and sense with terms
of frequent occurrence among the tribes of the American Continent, as in
Aouin (_Hurons, N. America_), Jin Jin (_Kolushians_, extreme North-west of
_N. America_), Ueni (_Maipurians, S. America_.)

“Ab” occurs in “The Aube,” in France, &c., a name of which the
pronunciation may be considered identical with Ab, “Water,” (_Persian._)
Ap in Sanscrit, and Ubu Obe in Affghan, mean “Water.” “Obe” occurs in
Siberia as the name of a well-known river. In India also the term has been
applied to “Rivers;” thus we have in that country the Punj-âb, (the
Province of “The Five Rivers,”) an appellation of which the corresponding
Celtic terms “Pump-ab” would be almost an echo!

Further it may here be noticed—as an example of the complete identity of
the Celtic and Oriental languages when all the “Disjecta Membra” are
compared—that this word does not exist in the modern Celtic in the simple
form of Ab, but in the derivative form of Avon, which is found in the
Roman maps spelt “Abon,” &c. Now this form also occurs in the East. Abinn,
“A River,” is given by Klaproth from the language of the inhabitants of
the Mountains to the North of Bhagalpur. Apem means “Water,” in Zend, an
ancient Persian dialect. Af is “Water,” in Kurdish.

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

“Berw” is the South Welsh name for the effervescence in the deep
receptacle in which a Cataract foams after its fall; it is applied also to
the Cataract itself, as “Berw Rhondda,” the fall of the River Rhondda.

Aber, in Cornish, means “a Confluence of Rivers,” also “_a Gulf_,” “_a
Whirlpool_.”(61)

In Breton or Armorican Aber means “a confluence of Rivers.” “Dans le
diocese de Vannes,” says Bullet, “le mot a encore une autre signification,
c’est _celle de torrent_.” “In the diocese of Vannes this word has still
another meaning, viz., that of ‘a Torrent!’ ” Compare Torr-ens (_Latin_),
“Torrent” (_English_), from Torreo (_Latin_), “To boil.” “Aber, in a
deflected sense,” he says, “has been applied to a Harbour; hence Havre de
Grace!”

“It is a curious fact,” says Chalmers, “which we learn from the Charters
of the twelfth century, that the Scoto-Irish people substituted Inver for
the previous Aber of the Britons. David I. granted to the Monastery of May
_Inver-In_ qui fuit _Aber-In_ in Chart May.”(62) This remarkable place is
at the “_Influx of a small stream_, called the _In_, on the coast of Fife.
Both appellations are now lost.”

Among the names of ancient Celtic regions we have Abrin-catui, that is
(_without any change in the word_) Aber-In-Catui; the name of a Tribe in
Normandy, about Avranches, which is at the mouth of a River now called the
See. (Another stream flows into the same Estuary.)

Aber—In—Cattui.

Literally,

“Estuary (of the) River—Tribes or People,” i.e. The Tribes living at the
Estuary of the River or Rivers.

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

The name of the same place will also furnish an example of a corresponding
term, primarily meaning “The Mouth,” in the modern Celtic.

Genœ (_Welsh_), Ganau (_Cornish_), Gion (_Irish_), Genu (_Armorican_),
mean “The Mouth.”

The original name of “Avranches,” when the country was first subdued by
the Romans, was In-“_gena_.” Here it is plain “Gena” was synonymous with
Aber! The Town was afterwards called Aber-in-Catui by the Romans, who very
generally gave the names of the Celtic tribes to their principal Towns.

In D’Anville’s Map we find, in the same part of Gaul, _Aræ-genu_-s given
to Bayeux, (the capital of the Bajocasses,) at the _mouth_ of a river now
called the “Ayr!”

The following are very striking examples of the occurrence of the same
word, Genœ or Ganau:

“Gano-durum” (Dur water) Constance, at the spot where the Rhine issues out
of Lake Constance.

“Geneva.” (The Rhone issues here from the Lake, and is immediately
afterwards joined by the Arve.)

“Genua” (Genoa). At the mouth of a stream.

“Albium In-gaun-um,” a town to the east of Genoa, where many streams from
the Maritime Alps unite in one mouth.

Beal or Bel (_Irish_), Buel (_Manx_), “A Mouth.” This is another word,
applied in Wales and Ireland, in topographical names, in nearly the same
sense as Aber, as in Bala, at the mouth of a lake, North Wales,
_Bally-shannon_, Ireland. This word does not occur either in vernacular
Welsh or in the Welsh of old MSS. But in Irish, _Beal_ or _Bel_ is still
the common word for “A Mouth.”

We shall find unequivocal proofs that this word also was used by the old
Celts of Gaul, as in “_Boulogne_,” i.e. Bala (Beal, or Buel) Liane, “The
mouth of the Liane.” The town is at the mouth of a small stream, of which
Bullet, who does not appear to have suspected the derivation, says “La
rivière qui passe à Boulogne s’appelle _Liane_.—The stream that runs by
Boulogne is called Liane!” “Liane, Lune,” &c. is a common proper name for
a stream in all countries of which the Celts formed the first population.
Lliant (Llian-au, _plur._) means a stream, a torrent, in Welsh; Llyn,
“Water,” in Welsh; and Lean, Irish. Hence “The Lune” in Herefordshire, &c.

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

A further example of words of this Class occurs in the Latin name of the
“Humber.”

This great receptacle of streams was generally called Ab-us; but Ptolomey,
in Greek, gives the name more fully, “Abontrus!”(63) This word means in
Welsh and Irish “The Outlet”, or literally “The Door” of the Rivers. Trus,
A Door, (Drous, _Welsh_, Doros, _Irish_,) occurs in the same sense in Tura
(_Sanscrit_), Der (_Persian_). Hence it appears that the Welsh word, which
is nearer to the term preserved in this name, has not been borrowed from
the English “Door!”

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

“Aber,” however, was the greatest favorite with the ancient Celts, as with
the modern Cymry! It would seem that this word “Aber” was as commonly
applied in ancient Gaul, &c. as it still is in Wales, not merely to the
mouths of large rivers, but to places situated at those of _very small
streams_!(64)

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

_Britain._—York, Ebor-acum (Caer Eboranch, _Welsh_; Ever-wick, _Saxon_.)
Is inclosed for the most part between the Ouse and the Foss, which unite
close to the Town! The river Foss separates _some parts of the Town_ from
the rest.

Eburo-cass-um (Alnewick), at the mouth of the River Alne, Northumberland.
Ever-wick is the name of an adjoining Village on the same river.

Eburo-nes (_Belgic. Gaul_). About the junction of the Saba and the Mosa.
Cæsar states in his account of them that this tribe had no Town.

There was a prince of the Œduans(65) in Cæsar’s time, named Eporo-dor-ix,
apparently from Aber-Dour “Water,” and Rex. The Gaulish chiefs, like those
of the Gaelic Scotch, seem to have frequently derived their names from
their peculiar territories or patrimonies; in the same manner, for
instance, as the chiefs “Lochiel, Glengarry,” &c.

As before intimated, it appears pretty clear that the little nations into
which Gaul was divided, such as the Ceno-mani, the Œdui, &c. consisted for
the most part of a combination of _several_ distinct septs or clans each
under their respective princes. The name of the chief (Eporo-dor-ix) just
mentioned may, therefore—and most probably must—have been derived from
that of some place no longer capable of being identified, though the
country of the Œdui, the source of many rivers, abounds in localities to
which it would apply very appropriately!

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

_Gaul._—Eburo-dunum (now Embrun in Dauphiné.) At the confluence of a small
stream with the Durance.

Since writing the above I find this town in Hornius’ map, marked “Epeb
r-o-durû,” i.e. “Mouth of the Water,” (_Welsh._)

Eburo-briga, a Town. At the junction of one of the streams that feed the
Seine above Sens.

Ebro-lacum. A Town near the source of the Loire; precise situation
apparently unknown. But the affinity of “Ebro” to the Celtic “Aber,” and
the identity of Lac (um) with Loch(66) or Lach, the Gaelic for a Lake or
Water, will be obvious.

Avar-icum (Bourges), at the junction of the L’Evrette with the Evre, one
of the branches of the Cher.

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

_Switzerland._—Ebro-dunum, “Yverdun,” at the mouth of the river Orbe, that
flows there into the Lake of Neuf-chatel.

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

_Spain and Portugal._—Eburo-britz-ium, the modern Alco-baza or Alco-baca,
on the Portuguese coast, between the Tagus and the Mondego, and not far
from Torres Vedras. This town is at the mouth of the Alcoa river. The
modern name, Alco-baca, (“The mouth of the Alcoa,”) is a guarantee of the
correctness of the above construction of the ancient name!(67)

In the North-east of Spain, on the Bay of Biscay, we meet with the word
Aber itself in an undisguised form, as we do in Gaul in the word
Abr-in-catui.

There is a town, Uxam-_aber_, on a river called in Roman Maps the
Uch-esia.(68) This is an unfortunate word for the advocates of the Spanish
origin of the Irish, for here we have the Welsh Aber, in lieu of the
Gaelic Inver, in the North of Spain—the very district from which the
Colony is supposed to have come! Indeed the Local names in the Celtic
regions of Spain generally approach much more nearly to the Welsh than to
the Irish! This will be seen in some of the following examples.

Glan or Lan, “a Sea shore or Margin,” (_Welsh_,) not extant in Irish.

Glan a tuia (Glandeves), at the junction of a small stream with the Varus,
that separates France and Italy.

Glan-um, on the Puech River, near Embrun.

Cat-a-laun-i. A tribe resident about Chalons on the Seine.

Cat-a-laun-i. “People (of) the river bank.” The name originally given to
this town by the Romans was Duro-Cat-a-laun-i, i.e. (The Town of) “the
Tribe on the Bank of the _River_ or _Water_.”

Llanes, a place on the coast of Asturia. (The aspirated _Ll_ of the
Spaniards is very like the Welsh _Ll_, and is most probably a relic of
Celtic pronunciation.) Lancia (Ciudad Rodrigo,) Lancia (Guarda.)

Lan-dubr-is. “The Shore or Margin of the Sea or Water,” or a spot inclosed
by the Sea.(69) An Island, in Latin Maps, on the coast of Portugal.

“The Lan-des,” The well-known arid sandy deserts forming the South-eastern
coast of France.

Medio-lan-um.(70) Medd, the middle, (_Celtic_,) and Lan. Towns thus
designated seem to have been situated either at the Curve or Winding of a
stream, or inclosed between two streams.

I may instance—in Cisalpine.

Gaul. Medio-lan-um, Milan.

Mediolanum (_Santones_), on the Loire.
(_Eburovices Aulerci_), Evreux, Normandy.
(_Bituriges Cubi_), inclosed between two winding streams, which are the
sources of the Loire. Bi-tur-iges is from a synonyme, Bi, two, and Dour,
Water.

Dôl, “A wind, a bow, a turn, a meander, a dale or mead, through which a
river runs,” (_Welsh_,)(71) as in Dol-Vorwyn and Dol-Vorgan,
Montgomeryshire, North Wales; “Dôle,” the ancient capital of Franche
Compté. (Compare the situation.)

Lut-ecia,(72) Paris, seems clearly to have derived its name from its
situation among marshes. “Située dans une isle de la Seine environnée de
marais profonds, difficiles à traverser, qui communiquent à ce fleuve.”
(Bullet, from Strabo.)

Llath-ach, “Mud, Dirt,” (Irish,) Llaith, Moist, (_Welsh._)

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Lug-dunum or Lau-dunum.(73) “Laon,” built on the Summit of a Rock divided
into two branches. Lug, from Llech, a Stone. Clog, a detached rock,
(_Welsh._) Liag, a great Stone. Leagan Kloiche, a Rock, (_Irish._)

In the following instances the identity of the Gaulish and other Celtic
names with the Welsh is remarkably clear, and will be vividly felt by
persons vernacularly familiar with the Welsh language, and the most common
local names in Wales.

The “Bretons,” Ar-mor-ici. Ar, “On,” Mor, “the Sea.”

The people of a Hilly Region in the South-east of France, Ar-e-com-ici.

Coum, “a Hollow Circular Valley, or Depression,” (_Welsh._) This word is
the source of the numerous names of places in England ending in Combe. The
Oriental origin of the word is clearly traceable. After describing the
great Table-land of Central Asia as extending over the whole of Persia,
Ritter adds: “Towards ‘Koom,’ (in Persia,) we find the greatest
depression, in the Table-land; here the surface sinks to 2046 feet!”(74)

There are also the “Com-oni,” above Toulon, and Com-us, “Como,” to which
the word is peculiarly appropriate. (Bullet.)

The People of Auvergne. Ar-vern-i, “On the Hills.” Veryn or Beryn is a
Hill in Welsh. Thus “Cevn y Beryn,” is the name of a Hill in
Montgomeryshire.

By Plutarch the Ar-vern-i are called Ar-ben-i. “This is a very interesting
addition to our information. ‘Veryn’ and ‘Ben’ are both synonymes extant
in Welsh for ‘a Hill.’ ”

We have the same words repeated in the following instances, joined with Um
(_Irish_), Am (_Welsh_), “About.” (Compare the Greek Amphi.)

Um-benn i, “The People (living) about the Hills.” A Swiss Tribe.

Um-bran-ici (from Beryn or Bron, _Welsh_,) a name of the Helvii
mountaineers to the South-east of the Cevennes.

In the following names, again, we have Pen or Ben, and Beryn or Bron,
alone.

Ben-ones, a Mountain Tribe in Switzerland.

Breun-i, on the borders of Bavaria and the Tyrol.

Bern-enses, the people of Berne, in Switzerland, and also those of Bearne,
in the South of France, adjoining the Pyrenees.

A-Pen-inus Mons. Alpes Pen-inæ, the Alps immediately to the South of
Geneva. Vallis Pen-ina, the Valley of the Rhone.

The primary sense of Pen, in Welsh, is “the Head.” As observed at page 11,
the names for Hills in that language are metaphors from “the Head, the
Breast,” &c. Now it is observable that in ancient Celtic Europe a
difference of application corresponding to the different primary meanings
of the terms is discoverable. Alpes is the general name for the Alps.
(Alpes) Pen-inæ, a term derived from the Head, are the lofty and abrupt
Alps, as distinguished from Alpes Maritimæ, &c.

In Spain and Portugal. Pena-s da Europa, (North of Spain.) Cape Pena-s,
(in the Asturias.) Pen-a Longa, a Town adjoining the long ridge called the
Sierra da St. Catherina in Portugal.

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Gebenn-a Mons, the Cevenn-es, “South of France.” Cevenn-es, (omitting
“es,” French plural,) is identical with Cevn, “a Back,” “a Hill,” as in
Cevn y Coed, the name of a hill in Montgomeryshire, (_Welsh._)

The Irish Gibhis, “a Valley,” is from the same source. Names of “Valleys
and Hills” are generally composed of the same roots. (Similiter the Latin
word “Altus” means both “High” and Deep!) A Valley is, in fact, formed by
Hills!

These various meanings and inflections are found united in the Hebrew.

Hebrew.                Hebrew.                Derivatives
Ga.e, to rise.
                       Gve, or Gou e, to be   Kub, a Mountain.(75)
                       high, gibbous, or      (_Persian._)
                       curved.
                                              Kof. (_Pehlwi._)
Goun, or Gav.n,        Gb, the Back. Gbn,     Gev.n, or Cev.n, the
Swelling.              Hunch backed.          Back, the Ridge of a
                                              Hill. (_Welsh._)
Gee a. Ga.oun, plur.   G.b.oe, G.h.o.th, a    Geib-his, Gibhis, a
A valley, or more      Mountain. G.b.o.the,   Valley. (_Irish._)
properly a lawn        the Slope of a         The Ghauts,
rising to the top of   Mountain.              Mountains in Asia.
the adjoining hill.                           Gibb-osus.
                                              (_Latin._)

Goupp en, a chain of Hills in Switzerland. (Bullet.)

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Alp. Dr. Owen Pughe quotes many classical authors to show that the word
meant in Gallish a lofty Mountain. In the mountains of Glamorganshire, he
adds, it is still used for a craggy summit.

Alp-es. Allo-bryges, from Alp- and (briga).(76) Brigi-cum was their only
town. To the South-east of the Allobryges were the Hel-v-ii, (_Alba_ their
capital.) To the North the Hel-v-etii, (Vod in Welsh, a Residence.) Both
names were probably from Al-p.

Nant, (Nan-au, _plural_,) a Mountain Valley, “a Mountain Stream,”
(_Welsh._) This word is still in use in Savoy. (See Dr. Prichard’s
remarks.)(77)

Nannet-es, a Tribe in Britany, and

Nant-uates, a Tribe occupying the valley of the Rhine below its source.

Nang-ates, the people of Connaught. This is one of numerous instances of
local names in Ireland, of which the sense has been lost in the Irish and
still preserved in the Welsh.

Cori, or Corrie, means a hollow between hills. A glen or “Cleugh,” a small
stream.(78) (A word of _Celtic origin_. Jamieson’s Etymological Dict. of
the Scottish Language.)

This word appears to be in use both in the Highlands and Lowlands of
Scotland; the first a Gaelic, the second originally a Cymraeg district.
(See Chalmers’s Caledonia.)

Sir Walter Scott has very gracefully introduced this ancient word in the
beautiful “Coronach,” or Funeral-song of the Clansman, in the “Lady of the
Lake:”


      “He is gone from the mountain,
        He is gone from the forest,
      Like a summer-dried fountain,
        When our need was the sorest.

      “Fleet foot on the _corrie_
        Sage counsel in cumber
      Red hand in the foray,
        How sound is thy slumber!”


To this passage Sir Walter Scott has added the following note:(79) “Corrie
or Cori.” The _hollow_ side of the hill where game usually lies!

I conceive a comparison of the following examples will serve to render it
indisputable that this term may be accepted as a clue to a great number of
the most important topographical names of Gaul and Britain, which have
hitherto eluded the researches of Celtic scholars.

Hebrew.                          Celtic.
C.r. To surround, go round.      Cor. A Circle, (_Welsh_.)
A pasture or Circuit for         Cor-lan. A Sheepfold,
Cattle.                          (_Welsh_.)
A Lamb.                          Ka ora, or Kyra. A Sheep,
                                 (_Irish_.)
A “Cor.” A measure so called
from its round form.
C.eee.ou.r. A Round Pot, or      “Cori,” or Corrie. “The
Caldron.                         _hollow side_ of the Hill
                                 where the game usually lies.”
                                 (Sir W. Scott.)
C.r.e. To dig, as a Well or      A _Hollow_ between Hills. A
Pit.                             Cleugh. (Jamieson.)

The Tri-Cori-i. From Tre and Cori. A tribe who inhabited the modern French
Department of the “High Alps,” an Alpine region, the source of numerous
streams which feed the Rhone and its branches.

The Petro-Cori-i.(80) The inhabitants of the Departments of Dordogne and
Correze. Dordogne is thus described by Malte Brun:

“We may pass from the Department of Lot to that of Dordogne by descending
the last river which traverses it on the South from East to West. It is
also watered by the Ille, the Dronne, the Vezere, and by more than
_fourteen hundred small rivers_ and streams. Hills extend along this
country in every direction, but with the exception of two vallies, those
watered by the Ille and the Dordogne, they bound only _narrow passes,
almost all of which are desolated by torrents!_”

Correze. From the same authority we learn that two thirds of this
department consists of a mountainous region, full of “ravines and
precipices,” and that its scenery progressively assumes more of this wild
and romantic character as you ascend the river Correze, which gives its
name to the Department, and to its principal town. Correze is plainly
derived from Cori.(81)

The Cori-tan-i. A British tribe in Derbyshire, &c., from Cori and Tania,
an addition frequently made by the Romans to the name of a province or
district, as in Aqui-tania, Mauri-tania. Camden expresses himself totally
unable to explain this term satisfactorily.

The following are partly composed of ancient Celtic Topographical Names,
of which the appropriate meanings have not been preserved(82) in the Welsh
and Irish, &c., but are found in the Oriental and other languages.

“Eryr-i,” the Welsh name of the Snowdon Mountains. This word has been
variously explained by Welsh scholars, as meaning the “Snowy Mountain”
(from Eira, “Snow”), the “Eagles’ Mountain,” &c. None of these
explanations are appropriate. Moreover “Eryr-i” is not the name of a
_single_ peak, but of the Snowdon _range_ of mountains! “E.r.r” is a pure
Hebrew word, signifying a very high mountain,(83) from which “Eryr-i,” the
name of the Snowdon range, the highest in South Britain, is a plural
regularly formed!

Cimas da Our-ar-as, are high Mountains to the North of Lisbon.

Ban-nau Brycheiniog, “the Brecon Beacons,” lofty hills in Brecknockshire.
Ban de la Roche, the celebrated Pastor Oberlin’s residence among the
Vosges Mountains, in the East of France. Ban, “Lofty,” (_Welsh_,) Bian, a
Hill, (_Irish_,) Boun-os, a Hill, (_Greek_,) Ban-k (_English_), a
diminutive.

Bal. “Applied in Wales to Mountains that terminate in a Peak. Balannu, to
shoot or spring forth.” (Dr. W. Owen Pughe.) Belan is also applied to
Hills, as “Nant y Belan,” near Wynnstay. Bala, Bulund (_Persian_), Beland
(_Pehlwi_), Bulund (_Zend_), “High.”

“The Don and the Dune,” Rivers in Scotland. Trev-i don, i.e. “the Town of,
or on the River,” a place on the river Tarn, in the South of France. Don,
Dun, “Water,” “a River,” (_Ossetians_, a people of the Caucasus). “The
Don” River, in the country of the “Don Cossacks,” who are also considered
to be a people of the Caucasus. “Donau” (_German_), the Danube.

From Ar, “a River, a Stream,” (_Hebrew._) “Ar-a,” now “the Ayr,” that
enters the sea at Bayeux, (see before, p. 73.) “The Ar-ar,” Gaul.  “The
Ayr,” Scotland.

From Ee.a.ou.r, “a River, a Stream,” (_Hebrew_,) a modification of A.r.
Wari, “Water,” (_Sanscrit._) “The Evre” and “Evrette,” France. “The
Wavre,” Belgium. “The Weaver” and “the Wear,” England.

From Ee.a.r (_Hebrew_), and Iaro, “a River,” (_Egyptian_,) “The Yarrow,”
Scotland. (See p. 10.)

From Ur, “Water,” (_Jeniseians_, in Siberia,) and Our-on (_Greek_), terms
connected with the previous Hebrew words; “Ur-us,” the Ouse, Britain.

Thus it will be seen that the various inflections of the Hebrew word A.r.
have been completely preserved in the names of the different rivers in
each of the Celtic countries of Britain and Gaul.

Lamu, “the Sea,” (_Tungusian._) Lam, “the Sea,” (_Lamutian._) Limnē, a
Lake, “Poetically, the Sea, the Ocean, which seems to be the most
primitive sense; also anciently, as it would appear, the Estuary of a
River,” Schneider (_Greek_). At the mouths of the rivers that flow into
the Black Sea lakes are formed, which are called “Limans.”(84) Hence
“Leman-us Lacus” in Switzerland.

Lim-ēn, a Haven, (_Greek_,) connected apparently with the last word, Limnē
(_Greek_). “Lemanæ” vel Portus “Leman-is.” Lyme, in Kent, where Cæsar
first landed.

Jura, a long Mountainous ridge in ancient Gaul. Jura, a long Mountainous
Island (Scotland). “Jur-jura,” an important chain of Mountains in the
North of Africa. Gora (_Russian_), Ghiri (_Sanscrit_), a Mountain.

In the foregoing examples Celtic words having an affinity to the Latin
frequently occur, employed in a manner that shows they could not have been
borrowed by the Celts from the Romans. Thus we have the names
Ar-_mor_-ici, Ebro-lacum, names in which terms like the Latin “Mare” and
“Lacus” are naturally blended with other Celtic words which are quite
unlike the Latin!

I conceive the evidence adduced in the previous pages must serve to place
beyond all doubt the truth of the propositions illustrated in this
Section, viz., that the language of the primitive Celts of Europe and the
British Isles originally consisted of a combination of the Welsh and
Irish, and other living Celtic dialects, united with many words and forms
preserved in none of those dialects, but traceable in the Hebrew, the
Greek, and the languages of other ancient and distant nations.

The uniformity that presents itself in the ancient local nomenclature of
all the Celtic countries is a very remarkable and instructive feature, of
which an adequate conception can be formed only by an examination of the
Roman Maps. The identity of names, for example, is found to be as complete
when the Roman Maps of Gaul and Britain are compared, as we meet with in
examining the Maps of two English Counties! To this rule Ireland, as far
as we can judge from the imperfect nature of the information transmitted
to us, formed no exception. These facts lead to the inference that the
Celts must have diffused themselves, within a comparatively short interval
of time, over all the regions of Europe of which the Romans found them in
possession! Had the process of diffusion occupied a great many ages, there
must have been a commensurate change in the Celtic language, which would
have displayed itself in the local names of the more distant regions. But
no such difference occurs, the local nomenclature of Britain, for
instance, being identical with that of Switzerland and Spain!

SECTION VI.


    _Summary of the Results deducible from the previous Sections. The
    Changes which have occurred in the English, Scandinavian, and
    Celtic Languages, sufficient to account for the Differences among
    all Human Tongues. Causes which give rise to the Abandonment and
    specific Appropriation of Synonymes. Total Differences of
    Grammatical Forms no Proof of a fundamental Difference of
    Language. The Relation which the Languages of one Continent,
    viewed in the aggregate, bear to the individual Languages of such
    Continent, the same as that which the ancient Scandinavian bears
    to its derivative Dialects, &c. Incipient Changes in the Language
    of Australia._


The facts developed in the previous Sections obviously present a
satisfactory solution of the problem suggested at page 25, viz., whence it
has come to pass that languages almost totally different in their present
composition could have sprung from one original Tongue? That existing
languages have sprung from one source is a proposition of which the proofs
have been explained in the same Chapter in which this problem has been
suggested. (See Chap. I.)

In the preceding Sections it has been shown, agreeably to the statement
contained in Section I., that Languages are exposed to two prominent
causes of change; viz., the abandonment by different branches of the same
race—1, of different Synonymes; 2, of different meanings of the same
Synonyme.

From the facts Historically proved in the previous Sections it will be
found to be an indisputable truth, that—assuming their operation to be
continued for an adequate period of time,—these two causes are calculated
to produce, from one parent Tongue, languages of which the differences are
apparently fundamental. For example, if the differences between the Gothic
and Celtic languages noticed at page 28,—languages which differ almost
totally,—are compared with those which have been proved to have arisen in
the last nine hundred years among the various branches of the Scandinavian
and the Celtic, it will be seen at once that the latter are of precisely
the same nature as the former. The only distinction is that they are fewer
in point of number! But on the other hand, it is certain that the same
causes of change—acting at the same rate during a previous period of
treble that length of time—might have produced between two branches of a
common original speech differences equally numerous with those which the
Gothic and Celtic exhibit; in other words, differences sufficiently
extensive almost entirely to exclude all vestiges of original unity!

But it must be added, that it would be highly erroneous to infer that the
rate of change previous to the commencement of the Historical period was
the same as it has been since; it must have been much more rapid! Changes
of this nature are prompted by the dictates of convenience, which suggest
the extinction of superfluous words, and the appropriation of the
remainder to distinct though kindred purposes; names for “Water, Rivers,
the Sea,” for example, were doubtless in the first instance applied
indifferently to all these objects. Now, inasmuch as languages are more
redundant in their earlier than they are in their later stages, it is
apparent that these changes, of which this redundant character is the
source, must be more rapid.

This explanation would fully account for the diversity of structure
evinced by the Gothic and Celtic Tongues, which probably differ as widely
as any languages of the globe, without referring the commencement of their
separation to a more remote date than would be quite consistent with
received systems of Chronology. That the Celtic and Gothic were originally
one speech, and that the differences which they now display have arisen in
this manner, will be evident from Section II. (page 26,) combined with the
facts developed in the other Sections of this Chapter.

Difference of Grammatical forms has been supposed to afford proof of a
fundamental difference of language. A comparison of those of the languages
previously noticed will show this to be a highly erroneous conclusion! The
Welsh and Irish differ most widely in their grammars, though the general
resemblance of these languages proves their original identity. The German
and English also differ very widely, the majority of the Pronouns being
unlike. Again, even the modern and the provincial English have different
Auxiliary Verbs, &c. &c. These are results of the same principle, viz.,
the tendency to abandon, or appropriate differently, the various elements
of a common parent speech.

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
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 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.

“If, then, we start from Perth, in Western Australia, following the coast
in a southerly direction, it will be found that between Perth and King
George’s Sound a common language is spoken, made up of several dialects,
scarcely differing from one another in any material points, and gradually
merging into the dialects of these two places, as the two points
considered are nearer to one or the other.

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

“The word for the Sun at Perth is _Nganga_, whilst at Adelaide it is
_Tin-dee_; but the word used by the natives at Encounter Bay, South
Australia, thirty-six miles from Adelaide, is _Ngon-ge_, and the word used
in the southern districts of Western Australia for the Stars is _Tiendee_;
thus, by extending the vocabularies of the two places, the identity of the
language is shown.”(86)

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

The reader who by a perusal of the previous Sections has learned how rapid
are the changes which languages undergo, will not merely conclude, with
Colonel Grey, that the population of Australia must be descendants of one
Sept, but he will conclude also that the first colonization of that
continent must be referred to a comparatively recent date. Australia is
nearly as large as the Continent of Europe, and yet we find one language
prevail over the whole of its extensive surface! It may be inferred with
certainty, from the changes which one thousand years have produced in the
European languages, that this fact makes it probable that the date of the
origin of the Australian tribes must have been comparatively recent,—makes
it impossible that it can have been remote!

In relation more immediately to the conclusions developed in this Section,
it remains to be noticed that the trifling incipient differences of
dialect in the language of Australia, as described by Colonel Grey, afford
a vivid picture of the first phases of that process which, during the
course of a series of ages, has given rise to the different languages of
the four great Continents of Asia, Europe, Africa, and America!

But how are we to account for the origin of these numerous synonymous
terms which abound in all, especially in ancient, languages?

This subject will be discussed in the next Chapter.





CHAPTER III. ON THE ORIGIN OF SYNONYMES.


SECTION I.


    _First Source of Synonymes the Metaphorical Character of Human
    Language in its Infancy. Even modern Languages metaphorical or
    descriptive, as regards the Names of Substances recently known to
    Man. Progressive Change from a metaphorical to a conventional
    Character displayed by more Modern compared to more Ancient
    Languages. Illustration from the Sanscrit Words for __“__The
    Sun.__”_


But not only may the dispersion of Synonymes be referred to influences of
which the active agency still continues; it will appear that the first
Origin of the numerous Synonymes which Human Language presents may also be
explained by means of causes still in operation!

Human Language, in its infancy, was descriptive or metaphorical. Nouns, or
names of objects, were expressive of some of their dominant or most
conspicuous qualities. Hence, inasmuch as in different individuals, and in
the same individual at different times, the faculty of Imagination is
affected by various characteristics, a great diversity of descriptive
terms were generally devised for the same objects, and these, as their
primitive metaphorical meanings were insensibly forgotten, gradually
lapsed into arbitrary or conventional Nouns. That this is a correct
explanation of the origin of a large portion of the Synonymes in which
Human Tongues abound, will be apparent from an examination of two
venerable Oriental Languages, the Hebrew and the Sanscrit, which
indisputably display through their whole structure a metaphorical or
pictorial character.

The same truth is confirmed by facts within the range of our actual
experience—facts that suggest reflections of high interest!

Several thousand years have passed away since man first became acquainted
with the most prominent and familiar of those objects with which he is
surrounded. For these objects he has inherited from his remote ancestors
names which he learns in infancy, and which relieve him from the task of
inventing anew appropriate designations. But though Nature presents no new
features, the progress of Science has in modern times revealed a few new
substances unknown to our forefathers, which have served at intervals to
call forth the exercise of the same inventive powers by which language was
originally constructed! Now if we examine the names that were originally
conferred on the various chemical substances which have been brought to
light in our own and in the last generation, we shall arrive at the
instructive result that these names almost wholly consist of descriptive
terms, representing either some of their most obvious properties, or the
various conclusions formed by different philosophers on the subject of
their nature and composition.(87) Further, we shall find that many of
these new substances gave rise, in the first instance, to numerous
descriptive terms! That these terms were for some time used concurrently!
That subsequently a portion of them fell into disuse! That finally the
remainder gradually lost the descriptive significations at first attached
to them, and acquired the character of mere arbitrary or conventional
names!

Hence it is evident, and most assuredly it is a result of the highest
interest, that the native and permanent tendencies of the Human mind
itself distinctly point to the conclusion that language must originally
have been descriptive or metaphorical! Hence, also, we derive a vivid
illustration of the sameness of those tendencies, as exhibited both in the
latest and in the earliest ages of the world, in the trains of thought
excited by new objects in the minds of the Philosophers of modern days,
and in those of the simple forefathers of the Human Race, whose


      “Souls proud Science never taught to stray
      Far as the solar walk or milky way!”


As we ascend from Modern into remote ages, Human Language gradually
reassumes its Metaphorical character. Moreover, it will appear that the
transition may be traced occurring in different classes of words at
different epochs: terms for newly-discovered substances or new inventions
being descriptive in all languages; terms for the most common and
conspicuous objects of nature, on the other hand, not exhibiting this
quality, except in the most ancient Tongues; while in specimens of
Language belonging to intermediate eras, an intermediate character is
observable; terms for less common and less conspicuous natural objects
being more generally descriptive than they are in modern Tongues, &c.

The nature and steps of this transition will be more distinctly perceived
if viewed retrospectively:

1. Modern Languages.

In such languages as the modern English, French, and German, probably the
great majority of terms are conventional, though we meet with numerous
names of animals, birds, &c. which are descriptive, as “Black-bird.” In
words applied to new inventions or discoveries, a descriptive character is
commonly displayed, as in “Rail-road” (_Eng._), “Eisen-bahn” (_Ger._),
“Chemin de fer” (_French_), i.e. “Iron-way.”

2. Ancient Specimens of the European Languages.

In the oldest written specimens of the Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, &c., the
vestiges of a descriptive origin rapidly increase. The names of Animals
and Birds are found to be nearly all either descriptive or imitative, and
Synonymes are much more numerous in certain classes of words.

The names for “The Sun, The Hand,” &c., and other objects enumerated at
page 8, as the first on which appellations must have been conferred by
Man, seem to have become purely conventional previously to the date of the
earliest Celtic or Saxon MSS. But, on the other hand, a comparison of
Languages serves to indicate that in this class of terms also these
Tongues were Metaphorical in remote ages prior to the era of History. Thus
“Grian,” The Sun, (_Irish_,) means “A Burner” in _Welsh_. Again, the
Celtic and Gothic races have been too long separated to use the same
conventional terms. But they frequently agree in the basis of the
descriptive terms, from which the conventional terms are derived. Thus
Llygad, “An Eye,” (_Welsh_,) is totally _unlike_ the English “Eye,”
(“Auge,” _German_;) but it is identical in its root with the English word
_Look_. “_Traed_,” The Feet, (_Celtic_,) is unlike “Foot,” but its root is
identical with “Tread” (_English_)! Celtic scholars have often derived the
English “Tread” from the Celtic or Welsh “Traed;” but the Verb “Tread”
(“Tret-en,” _German_) is used by all the Gothic nations from the Danube to
Iceland!

The Greek and Latin also conspicuously exhibit a more Metaphorical
character than the modern tongues of Europe.

3. The Sanscrit and the Hebrew.

It is agreed that in the entire structure of these languages a
metaphorical character is displayed; even such words as the names for “The
Sun,” &c. are for the most part metaphorical or descriptive.

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

The truth and extensive application of the principle under discussion will
be best understood by a perusal of Appendix A, which contains ample
illustrations of the rule that while the conventional significations of
words are preserved in one Language, the same words commonly occur in
others in kindred metaphorical meanings. In this place, however, may be
appropriately introduced one illustration derived from the various
Sanscrit words for the Sun. These words, which are all considered to be
descriptive or metaphorical, have obviously formed the source of the
following Conventional Terms for that Luminary, which occur in
Indo-Germanic languages of more modern form:

_Different Words for the Sun in Sanscrit, and their distribution in other
Indo-Germanic Languages_.

Sanscrit.   Persian.    Greek.      Latin.      German      Welsh.
                                                and
                                                English.
Hailih                              Sol. (S.                Hail.
                                    Hail-ih.)
Hail-is                 He-elios.
Sura                                                        Ser-en, A
                                                            Star.
Sunu                                            Sun,
                                                Sonne.
Mihira      Mihira.

SECTION II.


    _Second Source of Synonymes. Imitative Origin of the Elements of
    Human Language. Imitative Character of Ancient Languages.
    Imitative Origin of Language consistent with the Unity of the
    Human Race. Supported by Analogy. Adam Smith’s Opinion that the
    first Elements of Language were Nouns, considered. Progress of
    Language in Infancy. Illustration, from Campbell’s Hohenlinden, of
    the Influence of the Imitative Faculty on the Imagination.
    Progressive Growth of Language. Important Exception to the
    Principle of the Imitative Origin of Language. Origin of the Harsh
    and Open Sounds of Ancient Languages._


In its infancy, Language was metaphorical, but it was directly Imitative
of surrounding objects at its birth! Hence, as will now be explained,
another source of the synonymes in which Human Tongues abound!

Did man derive his language from the direct instruction of his Creator, or
from the natural exercise of those faculties with which he has been
endowed? For the former opinion no argument, either Scriptural or
Philosophical, has ever been advanced. In favour of the latter, proofs
deducible from Language, Analogy, and the actual features of the Human
Mind, conspire.

In the Hebrew, and other ancient languages, Man’s first imitative efforts
are distinctly traceable,(88) and as we ascend from modern to earlier eras
in the history of Human Tongues, and extend our comparison by including
within its range a greater number of kindred dialects, we shall find—not
only the features of a descriptive or metaphorical character, as already
noticed—but also the vestiges of an imitative origin progressively
increase. Thus, for example, the English words for two common birds, the
“Owl” and the “Crow,” have no other effect on the ear than that of mere
arbitrary or conventional terms; they have been too much abbreviated any
longer to suggest distinctly the source from which they have sprung. But
in the Swedish “Ul-u-la,” and the Sanscrit “Ul-u-ka,” the reiterated
screams of “the bird of night” are plainly mimicked, as is the harsh
guttural croak of the crow in the German “Krähe!”

Those writers who have espoused, and those who have impugned, the
conclusion that language is the natural fruit of the endowments which have
been conferred on our species, have, for the most part, mutually assumed
that conclusion to be irreconcilable with the common origin of the
different nations and languages of the globe. Each ancient sept, they take
for granted, must in that case be inferred to have had a distinct origin,
and to have invented a distinct language for itself. But there is no
necessary connexion between the premises and the conclusion. All nations
may have emanated from one parent sept, and all languages may have sprung
from one parent tongue, and yet the parent speech may, notwithstanding,
have been the product of Man’s own native energies in the earliest era of
his existence! Our species may have been invested with the faculty of
constructing a language adequate to meet all its first wants, and yet that
faculty may have been exercised only once!

The conclusion adopted above is supported by the dictates of Analogy, as
traceable in the instance of provisions made for wants analogous to those
which language is calculated to supply. Destined to pass successively
through various phases of civilization, and to push his colonies into
every clime and country, Man required and has received, both in his
physical and mental constitution, powers of adaptation that enable him to
conform to those marvellous changes which are incident to his condition as
a Progressive Being. His first infantine feelings are expressed by
imitations of surrounding objects, and as his higher moral and
intellectual faculties are developed, they find utterance in metaphors
derived from the organs of sensation. In those advances which he was
mysteriously intended to make from age to age, he would have been fettered
and not aided by the gift of an immutable language! His wants in this
respect have been more wisely provided for by the power which has
evidently been conferred upon him of framing in the first instance a
language calculated to express his earliest wants as they successively
arose, and of subsequently moulding it to suit the emergencies of his
condition.

It was the opinion of Adam Smith that the elements of language consist of
Nouns or Names of things. From this opinion, M. Du Ponceau dissents. Nor
is this conclusion confirmed by an analysis of languages, which serves to
show, on the contrary, that these elements or roots partake less of the
character of Nouns or Names of Objects than of that of Verbs or terms
descriptive of their actions and qualities. This result appears to be a
necessary consequence of the imitative origin of language, for it is only
their characteristic sounds or other salient qualities that admit of
imitation, it is impossible to copy by the voice the objects themselves!
The English word Cuc-koo furnishes an excellent example. This word is now
used as a Noun or Name. But it is quite manifest that originally it was a
mere imitation of the characteristic cry of the bird, in other words it
was descriptive of a single quality or action!

But though they partake of the character of Verbs rather than of that of
Nouns, it will, I conceive, appear that the roots or elements of language
do not in reality belong to any existing class of grammatical terms. In
the Hebrew and the Sanscrit the “Root” is neither a Noun nor a Verb, but
the common basis of both. Nor is the application of this maxim confined to
ancient languages; it may be shown to apply extensively to modern
languages also, as in the following examples, derived from the English:

Root.                  Noun.                  Verb.
Burst.                 Burst.                 I burst.
Thrust.                Thrust.                I thrust.
Crack.                 Crack. Crack-er.       I crack.
Wrench.                Wrench.
Hiss.                  Hiss.                  I hiss.
Rumble.                Rumbl-er.              It rumbles.
Break.                 Break. Break-er.       I break, &c.
Croak.                 Croak. Croak-er.       I croak.

The previous examples will serve to illustrate at once the proposition
they are intended to support, and also the imitative character of the
roots or elements of language. This character, it will be observed, does
not occur exclusively in terms primarily descriptive of sounds, it is
displayed in an equally unequivocal manner in terms descriptive of other
physical qualities, as in “Thrust, Burst, Wrest,” &c.

It is obvious that the human voice possesses the power of copying sounds
more perfectly than other external impressions. But the _attempt_ at
imitation is not more conspicuous than it is in other cases, in which the
imitation is necessarily more imperfect. Thus Kōōm, used in Persia and
Wales for “a hollow circular valley,” “Coop” (_English_), are attempts by
means of the motion of the lips, &c. to imitate the _shapes_ of the
subjects of description.

The evidence furnished by language in support of the proposition suggested
above, viz., that its roots or elements do not consist either of Nouns or
Verbs, but of sounds which constitute the common basis of both, will be
found, I conceive, to derive direct confirmation from an examination of
the faculties employed in the formation of language, and the order of
their development.

Man is endowed with two faculties of a very different nature, of which
language seems to be the joint product, viz., with powers of imitation and
powers of reflection. Now the elementary sounds, or roots of language, may
be viewed as exclusively the work of the imitative propensity; the steady
appropriation of these elements as recognized descriptions of actions and
objects seems, on the other hand, to be the result of the progressive
growth and of the reiterated subsequent exercise of the functions of
Memory and Abstraction. Thus we find infants mimic sounds long before we
can suppose their minds to be sufficiently developed permanently to
associate such sounds with particular objects; afterwards, as their
faculties are gradually unfolded, these imitations are appropriated as
names. Accordingly we find that almost all children are in the habit of
using a certain number of words thus formed, which are understood and
employed by the guardians and companions of their infancy.(89) An
instructive example of the natural activity of those mental qualities to
which language first owed its existence—an activity which is repressed by
no other cause than by the maturity of languages in use, which fully meet
all the exigencies of the social state!

The vehement gesticulations of uncivilized tribes is another manifestation
of the imitative propensity. Nor are the vestiges of its influence among
civilized nations altogether confined to the period of childhood. They may
be recognized in the marked, though generally unconscious, disposition we
feel to select words imitative of the ideas we seek to convey, and in the
pleasure we derive from works of imagination, in which the sound is
rendered “an echo of the sense,” in conformity to the critical rule of
classical antiquity. Of the sublime associations called forth by a happy
appeal to the imitative faculty, we possess a fine example in the lines of
the great living Poet, which, with a fastidiousness as marvellous as the
genius by which they were conceived, he proposed to cancel, as being “Drum
and Trumpet lines!”(90)


      “On Linden when the sun was low
      All bloodless lay the untrodden snow,
      And dark as winter was the flow
           Of Iser rolling rapidly.

      “But Linden saw another sight
      When the trump blew at dead of night,
      Commanding fires of death to light
          The darkness of her scenery!

      “By torch and trumpet fast array’d
      Each warrior drew his battle blade,
      And furious every courser neigh’d
          To join the dreadful revelry!”

    (Campbell’s “Hobenlinden.”)


The progressive appropriation of elementary sounds or Roots to the various
purposes of language, and the consequent development of grammatical forms,
remain to be explained.

In the first instance these Roots were, it would seem, employed alike both
as Verbs and Nouns, &c.; the requisite distinction, it may be inferred,
was made by Signs. In the course of time the Noun was distinguished by
characteristic additions identical, as may be proved, with terms for
“Man.”

This tendency to personify appears, as Du Ponceau observes, to be
“according to nature!” The English word Smith, and the German Schmidt, are
nouns of the primitive kind, being mere transcripts of the Root. On the
other hand, in the English “Join-er, Break-er,” we have examples of Nouns
distinguished as such by a grammatical suffix, “Er,” which, in German,
means “He,” and in Turkish means “A Man.” In the Pehlwi, an ancient
dialect of Persia, which is intimately connected with the English, and
other Gothic languages, we actually find the English word “Man,” used for
the same purpose as “Er,” in the above example. Thus we have Ruis-man, “A
Head,” (_Pehlwi_,) Ras (_Arabic_), and Rosh, “A Head,” (_Hebrew_,)
Lager-man, “The Foot,” (_Pehlwi_,) Lagyl (_Wogul_), Leg (_English_).

The Verb, and its different persons, were distinguished by pronouns,
annexed in various modes.(91)

Finally, it may be noticed, that since all other branches of Human
Language have been shown to be derivable from terms originally applied to
Material actions and objects, (see pages 11, 12, 13;) and since these have
been proved to be products of the imitative faculty, it follows that all
the elements of language are ultimately traceable to the same source.
There is, however, an important exception.

There is a class of terms, including many of those expressive of domestic
relations, which cannot be traced to imitation, but seem to consist of
those sounds which are most easy to pronounce. They may, in fact, be
viewed as the fruits of the first essays of the organs of
articulation.(92)

Hebrew.
A.m. A Mother. Also, the lower   Amee  A Father, (_Mangree_, a
arm (with the hand) by which a   Negro Dialect.)
child is supported.
                                 Mamma, Mother, a Teat, a
                                 Breast, (_Latin._)
A.m.e. A Maid Servant.           Mamma.(93) A Father,
                                 (_Georgian._)
A.m.n.  A Nurse, To support,     A.m.e. A Nurse, (_German._)
nurse.
A.m.ou.n. A Child, &c. &c.       Mam. A Mother, (_Welsh._)
                                 Mamma (_English_).

It will be perceived that the application of terms from this “Root” was
not confined to parents, but was extended to other objects familiar in
childhood.

Other examples of the principle just noticed occur in Abba, “Father,”
(_Hebrew_,) Ab-avus, Av-us, and Papa (_Latin_). These words are clearly
traceable to sounds which may be readily pronounced in infancy.

The Hebrew, and some other ancient Oriental tongues, are distinguished by
the frequent occurrence of harsh aspirates and gutturals, and of vehement
and discordant tones, which, in many instances, are utterly incapable of
representation by means of any sounds in use among the nations of modern
Europe. Now if language had an imitative origin, and if these ancient
Oriental tongues can be viewed as specimens of language near its source,
and the European tongues as specimens more altered by time, these features
of contrast will be satisfactorily explained. This will be evident from
the following considerations.

As Language in its incipient state must have been an imperfect medium of
communication, it may be concluded that the auxiliary aid of Signs was
commonly resorted to; violent motions of the hands and the feet were
probably combined with intonations of the voice, expressive, even to
exaggeration, of the ideas intended to be conveyed. Now the influence of
this cause was obviously calculated to give to language in its infancy the
very qualities which are ascribed to the Hebrew and some other ancient
languages, viz., fulness, distinctness, and in some respects extreme
harshness.

On the other hand, the natural progress of language will account also for
the opposite qualities displayed by the dialects of modern Europe. As
Society advanced, the severe features that belonged to Language at its
first commencement must have gradually softened down. Words originally
intelligible only as imitations of the qualities of objects, or by reason
of the signs with which they were accompanied, must have gradually
acquired conventional meanings, calculated to render the use of signs and
of rough and painful articulations unnecessary. Compare, as examples, the
words already noticed, viz., the English word “Crow,” and the German
guttural word “Krä-he,” the English “Owl,” and the Swedish and Sanscrit
“Ulula,” and “Ulu-ka.”

Many writers on subjects of this nature appear to fall into considerable
confusion of thought in the eulogies which they are prone to bestow on
those particular languages to which their studies have been chiefly
directed. In some instances we find a language extolled for the fulness
and clearness of its sounds, while another is eulogized for its softness.
These different qualities cannot with consistency be regarded as merits in
languages that belong to the same stage of society. A more judicious view
of the subject would involve the conclusion to which the previous
considerations must give rise, viz., that a full and distinct language is
the result of necessity in the infancy of society, and that a soft and
abbreviated language is the joint product of the dictates of convenience
and taste that influence its later stages.

It is probable that in the features under discussion the ancient Oriental
Tongues do not differ from the languages of Europe more widely than the
earliest differ from the latest specimens of the latter class of
languages. The difference in this respect between the Anglo-Saxon and the
modern English has already been noticed. The abbreviated pronunciation of
the French, compared to the parent Latin, is another instance of the same
kind. The following is an example of similar variations in three Celtic
dialects, showing a progressively contracted pronunciation:

             Welsh.       Irish.        Manx.
Arm.         Braich.      Brak          -Ri.
                          (obsolete).
                          Raigh.
Gold.        Ayr.         Or.           -Eer.
A Year.      Bluyddyn.    Bleadhain.    Blien.

The Isle of Man was not occupied by the Irish until the fourth century.
Yet the Manx differs from the Irish perhaps even more widely than the
Irish differs from the Welsh.

The desire to render language a more rapid and convenient medium of
thought may be regarded as the principal source of changes of this nature.

SECTION III.


    _Application of these Conclusions to the Question of the Unity of
    the Human Race._


It may be objected that if language were in its origin imitative, the
identity of the various languages of the globe shown in this work may be
accounted for on that principle, without ascribing that important fact to
an original unity of race. But an answer to this objection is involved in
the following passage from the Mithridates of Adelung and Vater:

“In those instances in which the sound imitated is very definite and
invariable, the imitation is so likewise (as in that of the name of the
Cuckoo, which is nearly the same in all languages). But this is seldom the
case. Generally the natural sound is very variable; hence one people
imitates one, and another a different change. A very striking example
occurs in the names for Thunder. Distinct as this natural sound is, the
impressions which it makes on the ear are very variable, and it has
accordingly given rise to a great number of different names, which all
betray, nevertheless, their origin in Nature. In my Ancient History of the
German Language I have adduced, in proof of this proposition, 353 of these
names from the European languages.”

It appears, then, that the principle that language was imitative in its
origin does not involve the inference that there is for that reason a
tendency in human language to Unity. On the contrary, this principle
leads, as has been shown, to the very opposite conclusion. Hence features
of affinity displayed by different Tongues must be referred to original
unity of race.

SECTION IV.


    _Recent Origin of the Human Race._


The Hebrew and Sanscrit, as pointed out in the previous Sections, display
certain features which cannot have long survived the infancy of language.
The caprices of custom, the progress of the human mind, and the dictates
of convenience, are calculated to efface these features within a limited
period of time. Hence it follows, that the existence of language, and of
the Species by which it is employed, could not have commenced at an era
very remotely anterior to the date of the earliest specimens of these
ancient Tongues; for it must be borne in mind that the identity of the
Hebrew and the Sanscrit with other Human Tongues having been proved (see
Appendix A), the vestiges of recent formation which these two languages
display furnish evidence of the recent origin, not only of the ancient
nations by whom they were spoken, but also of the Human Race. As
previously noticed, no difficulty is felt in accounting for the
descriptive character of the scientific names which occur at page 95, on
the ground that the substances named have only lately become known to man.
The existence in the Sanscrit of numerous descriptive Synonymes for the
“Sun” (see page 98), the most conspicuous object in nature, is an example
which, as already intimated, must suggest analogous reflections.

Viewed with reference to the lapse of a few centuries, the changes
language undergoes are too irregular to furnish a safe test of the date of
historical events. But adverting to the progress of the European languages
within the last thousand years, we may infer, nevertheless, that the
effect of a long interval in producing extensive changes is certain.

Judging from these data, I conceive it may reasonably be concluded that
the ancient Hebrew and Sanscrit remains could not have preserved the
descriptive or metaphorical character to the same extent as they have done
had the Human species been introduced at a period anterior to the date
assigned to that event by our received systems of chronology.





CHAPTER IV. ON THE ORIGINAL IDENTITY OF THE ENGLISH, WELSH, HINDOOS, AND
OTHER NATIONS CLASSED AS INDO-EUROPEAN WITH THE JEWS, ARABIANS, ETC.


SECTION I.


    _Sir William Jones’s Opinion that the Languages and Religions of
    these two Classes of Nations are quite distinct. The Names of the
    Gods of Greece, Italy, and India significant in the Hebrew. Arts
    brought by the Ancestors of the European Nations from the East.
    Names of Fermented Liquors. Arts of the Pastoral State. Words for
    Butter, &c. Close Connexion of the Hebrew with the English. No
    specific difference between the Semetic and Indo-European
    Tongues._


Among Orientalists, both in Germany and in this country, an opinion
prevails that there is a specific connexion among certain Asiatic and
European Nations, which they have accordingly classed together as members
of what they term the Indo-European race. The principal Nations included
in this class are the Hindoos, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Russians, and
other Sclavonic Nations; the English, Germans, and other Gothic Nations;
the Irish and Welsh, and other Celtic Nations, have more recently been
ranged under the same appellation, in consequence of the researches of Dr.
Prichard, M. Pictet, and Dr. Karl Meyer. The advocates of a distinct
Indo-European race assume either that there is no connexion, or a
comparatively slight one, between the various languages of that race and
those of the ancient inhabitants of Judea, Arabia, and other contiguous
nations. This theory may be viewed as a modification of a conclusion
expressed by Sir William Jones in his Discourse on the Origin and Families
of Nations.

“That the first race of _Persians_ and _Indians_, to whom we may add the
_Romans_ and _Greeks_, the Goths, and the old _Egyptians_ or _Ethiops_,
originally spoke the same language and professed the same popular faith,
is capable, in my humble opinion, of incontestible proof; that the _Jews_
and _Arabs_, the _Assyrians_ or second _Persian_ race, the people who
spoke _Syriack_, and a numerous tribe of _Abyssinians_, used one primitive
dialect wholly distinct from the idiom just mentioned, is, I believe,
undisputed, and, I am sure, indisputable.”(94)

While one class of writers have adopted the views of Sir William Jones,
another class have maintained a very opposite opinion, viz. that the
Hebrew is connected, not merely as a sister but as a parent, with all the
other languages of the globe. The unreasonableness of this opinion, which
is totally unsupported by authority, sacred or profane, has been forcibly
pointed out by Adelung, who observes, “Of all the Semetic languages the
Hebrew is the youngest; the Hebrew nation still slumbered in the loins of
their patriarch Abraham at a time when the whole south-west of Asia, even
including the eastern banks of the Tigris, was already filled with
Semetic(95) nations and tongues.”

The proofs of affinity between the Hebrew and other tongues which have
been adduced by the writers last referred to, are in many instances
perfectly sound and legitimate. But owing to the untenable nature of the
proposition with which they are associated, they have had no influence in
opposition to the opinions of those celebrated men who have denied the
existence of any such affinity between the Hebrew and the Indo-European
tongues.

Truth in this, as in many other inquiries, has been lost in the collision
of opposite errors! The Hebrew, it is true, is not the Parent Tongue, but
on the other hand, notwithstanding the weight that must necessarily be
attached to the memorable passage quoted above, and also to the views of
recent Orientalists, it can be shown, by evidence too clear and simple to
be neutralized by any authority however eminent, that the languages termed
Indo-European are as closely connected with the Hebrew as they are among
themselves. To these languages, the relation which it bears is that of an
ancient collateral, exhibiting many of the features of a parent in
consequence of the antiquity of its earliest remains, which contain
specimens of Language near to its source. This relation, except as regards
the Sanscrit, is strikingly analogous to that which specimens of the
Scandinavian dialects near to their common source have been shown to bear
to the modern languages of Denmark, Sweden, and Iceland. (See Proposition
6, p. 46.)

As the proofs contained in Appendix A and in other parts of this work, are
sufficient to establish that such is the nature of the connexion between
the Hebrew and the Indo-European languages, I shall here confine myself to
such illustrations as possess an independent interest by reason of the
light, they throw on the institutions and condition of ancient nations.

The identity of the Gods of three of the principal Indo-European nations
has been shown by Sir William Jones in his luminous and graceful
Dissertation on the Gods of Greece, Italy, and India. But in the passage
above quoted from the same great writer, the conclusion is conveyed that
these Indo-European nations, agreeing among themselves, fundamentally
differed with the Jews and other Syro-Phœnician nations in two important
points, viz. Religion and Language.

This conclusion will be found to involve many fallacies of a very obvious
nature. The Assyrians and other Syro-Phœnician nations were idolaters,
though the Jews were not; and even the Jews were constantly lapsing into
the idolatrous practices of the surrounding nations. We have no reason for
inferring with certainty that the superstitions of the land of Canaan and
of other Semetic countries were different from those of the Greeks,
Italians, and Indians; the evidence rather favours the contrary
supposition. Again, the ancient Egyptians, whom Sir William Jones classes
with the Indo-European nations, from Language and Geographical position
may reasonably be pronounced to have been more nearly related to the
Semetic nations of Palestine and Arabia. Such are the errors even of an
“all-accomplished” inquirer in exploring a new field!

That the Jews differed in religion from the nations of Greece, Italy, and
India is a proposition which, in a general sense, cannot be disputed. But
it will now be shown that this proposition must, nevertheless, be received
with two qualifications, which entirely destroy its application as a proof
of an aboriginal or remote difference of race, viz. 1. The same
conceptions of the Supreme Being as are unfolded in the Hebrew Scriptures
may be traced in the attributes of the principal Heathen Deities. 2. The
names of the inferior Gods are perfectly preserved in the Hebrew language
in appropriate senses, which distinctly indicate the recent origin of the
superstitions of which they were the objects. While these inferior
divinities appear to have been mere personifications of the powers of
nature or of the passions of Man,—in the conceptions of the Creator of all
things equally just and sublime,—which rise above this mass of error in
the character of the Greek Zeus, the Latin Jupiter, and the Indian
Brahma,(96) the barrier which is supposed so abruptly to have separated
the primitive faith of these nations from that of the patriarchs
disappears!

The following analysis of the names of Heathen divinities may be regarded
as a continuation of a similar analysis which occurs at page 20. As
regards the names and attributes of the Indian Gods, I have availed myself
of Sir W. Jones’s Dissertation on the Gods of Greece, Italy, and India:

The Gods Of Greece And Italy.

JUPITER, JOV-(IS), JOV-(EM), “The Supreme Being,” (_Latin_); Ee.e.v.e or
J.ee.v.e, “Jehovah, The Deity,” from E.v.e, “To Be,” (_Hebrew_.) This name
is believed to be expressive of eternal existence.(97)

ZEUS or ZĒN (_Greek_), “The Supreme Being,” the same as Jupiter; Zēn, To
Live, Zē, He Lives, Zŏŏs, Living, (_Greek_.) Esse, “To Be,” (_Latin._)
Ee.sh.e, “To Be,” A.ce.sh, “A Being,” Ee.sh.sh, “Very old Ancient,”
(_Heb._)

JUNO (_Latin_), ĒRĒ (_Greek_), “The Goddess of the Firmament and The Queen
and Mother of the Gods.”

MERCUR-IUS, “The God of Commerce,” (_Latin._) M.c.r, “Merchandise, To
Sell,” (_Heb._) Merx, Mercari (_Latin_). Market (_English._)

MIN-ERVA, The Goddess of Wisdom, (_Latin._)  Mēn, “The Mind.”

MIN-OS, “The Supreme Judge in the Infernal Regions,” (_Latin & Greek._)
M.n.e, “To ordain, adjust, number,” (_Heb._)

AURORA (_Latin_), ĒŌS (_Greek_), “The Goddess of the Dawn.” (See p. 20.)

PHAETON, “Son of Apollo, or The Sun,” (_Latin & Greek._) Phaethōn,
Shining, (_Greek._) Pha.o, To Shine, (_Greek._) Ee.ph.o (_Heb._) Phaethon
in Greek was an epithet applied to “The Sun,” a word for “The Day” and for
“The Star Jupiter.” (Compare Phoibos, Fos, &c. p. 21.)

PHOS-PHOR-US (_Latin_), PHS PHOR-OS, The Morning Star, (_Greek_,) from
Phero, “To Bear,” and Phōs, Light. The origin of this name will be plain
from the last example and from the analogous terms at p. 21. Phōs, “A
Star,” (_Japan_.) Fosseye, “The Sun,” (_Sereres_, _Negroes_,) &c. &c.

ARĒS, “The God of War,” (_Greek._) War (_English._) Or, “An Enemy;”
O.r.ee.ts, “Formidable, Violent;” O.r.ts, E.r.s, Ee.ou.r.ee.sh, “To break
in pieces, demolish,” (_Heb._) Eris, “Strife,” (_Greek._)

M-ARS, MART-IS, M-AVORS, “The God of War,” (_Latin._) M.Or.ts.e,
“Violence, Terror,” from O.r.ts with M. formative. (See “Ares,” above.)

BELL-ONA, “The Goddess of War.” Bellum, War, (_Latin._) Beli, Bela, War,
(_Welsh._) Beli, Bela, Havoc, Devastation, (Welsh.) B.l.ee, B.l.o
(_Hebrew._)

VESTA (_Latin_),(98) HESTIA (_Greek_), “The Goddess of Fire.” “Her power
was exercised about Altars and Houses.” Hestia also signifies a Hearth.
Ee.ts.th, “To Burn, Kindle, To be kindled as fuel,” (_Hebrew._)

CERES, “The Goddess of the Fruits of the Earth,” (_Latin._) G.r.sh, “Corn
trodden out,” “To spring forth,” Tender, Green, in full Verdure,
Vegetables, (_Hebrew._) Grass (_German & English._)

HARP-YÆ (_Greek & Latin_), “Winged Creatures, the fabulous
personifications of Hunger and _Rapacity_!” (See Æneid 3.)

C’H.r.b, “To Consume, waste.”

C’H.r.b.e, “Desolation,” (_Hebrew._)

Harpazo, “To Snatch,” (_Greek._)

MORPHEUS, “The God of Sleep,” (_Greek & Latin._) M.r.ph.e, “Slothful,”
(_Heb._)

An interesting consideration deserves especial notice in this place. On
referring to the doubtful and unsatisfactory explanations which have been
suggested for many of these names of the Gods of Greece and Italy, both by
Cicero and by modern writers, who have relied solely on the intrinsic
resources of the Classical languages, the superior clearness and
simplicity of the explanations afforded by the aid of the Hebrew will be
strikingly apparent.(99)

The Gods Of India.

BRAHMA, “The Creator,” (_Indian._) B.r.a, “To Create,” applied to the
creative act of the Deity in the First Chapter of Genesis, (_Hebrew._)
Beri or Peri, “To Cause,” Bâr, or Pâr, “A Cause,” (_Welsh._)

SIVA, “The Destroyer,” (_Indian._) Sh.v.a.e, “Desolate;” Sha-e, “To
Desolate,” (_Heb._)

VISH-NU, “The Preserver or Saviour,” (_Ind._) Ee.sh.v.o.e, “Safety,
Salvation.” (This root is applied to the Saviour with the prefix M. in
M|Ou.sh.oe,“The Messiah.”) Ee.sho, “To save,” (_Heb._)

RAMA, “A conquering Deity, a great Deliverer,” the same as the Greek
Hercules, (_Indian._) R.m, “To be lifted up, exalted.” R.m.e, “To throw,
cast down,” (_Hebrew._)

CAMA, “The Indian Cupid.” One of his titles is “Depaca, the Inflamer,”
“Love,” (_Indian._) Ee.ch.m, “To be lustful,” Ch.m, Ch.m.e, “Heat,”
Ch.m.s, “To ravish,” (_Hebrew._)

SUR-YA, “A God of the Sun,” (_Indian._) See p. 20.

SAT-YAVRATA, “Saturn” of the Latins. Sat.ya, means “Truth or Probity,”
(_Indian._) Sh.th, “To set, settle, fix,” (Hence “Sooth,” English, not
from “He saith,” as Horne Tooke conceived.) T.z.d.k, “Just,” T.z.d.k.e,
“Justice, righteousness,” (_Hebrew._)

I shall now advert to some features of considerable interest in the
condition of the primitive founders of the European nations, of which
language furnishes evidence.

The first emigrants must in many instances have brought with them from the
East a knowledge of fermented liquors, as is shown by the following
examples:

Wine (_English_), Vin-um (_Latin_), Oin-os (_Greek_), Ee.ee.n (_Hebrew_),
primarily “The expressed juice of the grape,” from Ee.n.e, “To press,
squeeze,” (_Hebrew_.)

Osai, “Cyder, sweet liquor,” (_Welsh_,) O.s.ee.s, “Wine,” (_Hebrew_,) from
O.s, O.s.s, “To trample”, applied to the Grapes.

M.th.k, “Sweet, sweetness,” (_Hebrew_.) Metheg-lyn (_Welsh_,) i.e. M.th.k,
“Sweet,” (_Hebrew_,) and-Lyn, “Liquor,” (_Welsh_.) Methu, “Wine,” (Greek.)
Methou, “Drunk,” (_Welsh_.) These terms may be regarded as primarily
derived from a word expressive “of Honey,” and of the wine made from that
particular substance, as in Madhu, “Honey,” (_Sanscrit_,) “Mead”
(_English_.)

Mêl (_Welsh_), Mel (_Latin_), Meli (_Greek_), “Honey.” Melissa, “A Bee,”
(_Greek._) Mel-ys, “Sweet,” (_Welsh._) Melitos, “Honeyed, placid,”
(_Greek._) M.l.ts, “To sweeten, to assuage,” (Hebrew.) Melith, “Honey,”
(_Gothic._)

Writers on subjects of this nature have inferred that in the earliest
stage of society the human species subsisted on the spontaneous fruits of
the earth or by the chase; the Pastoral state was the next step, and the
adoption of agricultural pursuits the last stage in the progress. The
Celtic and other European languages furnish very distinct evidence that
some of the European nations must have advanced as far as the Pastoral
state previously to their migration from the East.

The art of making “Butter” is expressed in the Celtic by a word of which
the Oriental origin is clear:

Im,(100) “Butter,” (_Gaelic_.)

c’H.m.a.e, “Butter,” from c’H.m.a, “To agitate, to churn,” (_Hebrew_.)

As this Celtic word is quite unlike the Latin, its Oriental origin is
clear. It also follows that the primitive art it describes could not have
been borrowed from the Romans.

The evidence with regard to “Cheese” is doubtful. Caseus (_Latin_) may be
viewed as allied to K.sh.e, “To harden, to stiffen,” (_Hebrew_.) But as
the Hebrew does not present the secondary sense, there is no ground to
infer that this art was brought from the east. Nor, considering the
resemblance of the Latin Caseus and the Welsh Caws, “Cheese,” can we infer
from language, as in the instance of “Butter,” that the Celts did not
borrow this process from the Romans, which most probably they did.

The following is a comparison, showing at the same time the identity of
the names for some of the most common animals in the Hebrew and the
Indo-European languages, and also the interesting fact, which is evident
from several of these examples, that many of the prevalent European names
for Chattels and Money are identical with Hebrew words for Cattle, Sheep,
&c., _which form the only wealth of the Pastoral state!_

B.k.r, “Cattle,” (_Heb._) Pecora, plural of Pec-us, “Cattle,” (_Lat._)
Hence, Pecunia, “Money,” (_Lat._) Buwch, “A cow,” (_Welsh._)

R.c.sh, “Cattle, Riches,” (_Hebrew._)  Reikis, “Riches,” (_Gothic._)
Riches (_English._)

A.l.ph, singular. A.l.ph-eem, plural, “Cattle,” (_Heb._) Alav, singular.
Alav-oedd, plural, “Cattle, Wealth,” (_Welsh._)

“Sheep” (_English._) Schaaf (_German._) C.sh.b, C.b.sh (_Heb._) Sh.e, “A
Lamb,” (_Heb._)

“Sheep,” Kaora, (_Irish._) Cor-lan, “A Sheep-fold,” (_Welsh._) C.r, “A
Lamb, also a pasture or circuit for cattle,” (_Heb._)

“A Horse,” Ashwah Eshuus (_Sanscrit._)  S.w.s, or S.ou.s,(101)
(Heb.)—Pferd (_German_,) Peerdt (_Belgian_,) in the Hebrew, Ph.r.sh-eem,
“Horsemen.”

“Cow” (_English._) Go (_Sanscrit._) G.o.e, “To low like an ox,”
(_Hebrew._)

“A Cat,” C’h.th.ou.l, (_Hebrew._) Cath (_Welsh._) Cat (_English._)

“A Monkey,” Kăpi, (_Sanscrit._) Kouph (_Heb._)

“Goat,” Aix Aig-os, (_Greek._) Aja (_Sans._) A.k.ou (_Heb._) “A name given
to the wild goat from its cry.”

“Hog, Swine,” &c., Sukarah (_Sans._) Khūk (_Persian._) Hog (_Eng._) Houch
(_Welsh._) Hus (_Greek._) C’H.z.ee.r (_Hebrew._)

“Serpent” (_English._)  Serpens (_Latin._)  Sarf (_Welsh._) Sh.r.ph
(_Hebrew._) Serpo, “To Creep,” (_Latin._)

“Reptile, Serpent,” &c., Neid-yr, “A Serpent,” (_Welsh._) Newt, “A small
Lizard,” (_English._) N.d.l, “A Reptile,” (_Chaldæ._)

“Turtle Dove” (_English._) Turtur (_Latin._) T.r, T.ou.r (_Hebrew._)

The connexion between the Hebrew and the English is remarkably complete,
the same words occurring in both languages unchanged in sound and sense! A
few examples are subjoined, consisting in many cases of words of pure
Anglo-Saxon origin, rarely or never used by the refined classes of
society.

N.k.m, To avenge, (_Hebrew,_) To nick (_English._)—N.g.o, To touch, To
draw nigh, (_Hebrew_,) Nudge, Nigh (_English._)—B.r, A Son, (_Hebrew_,)
Bairn (_L. Scotch_,) Brat (_English._)—Sh.c.l, To be wise, Wisdom,
Cunning, (_Hebrew_,) Skill (_English._)—B.k.sh, To seek, To petition,
(_Hebrew_,) Bhikshati, Beggeth, (_Sans._) Beg (_English._)—Sh.l.t, A
Shield, (_Hebrew_,) Shield (_English_,) Shalita, Covered, (_Sanscrit_,)
Shalitra, “Shelter,” (_Sanscrit_,) Shelter (_English_,) Shieling (_L.
Scotch._)—L.b, The Heart, Feeling, Will, (_Hebrew_,) Liebe, Love,
(_German_,) Lief, Dear, Willingly, (_English._)

Colonel Vans Kennedy, to whom we are indebted for a very able work
conclusively showing the original identity of the Sanscrit and English and
other languages termed Indo-European, is one of the most strenuous
opponents of the supposition that a connexion may be shown to exist
between these languages and the Hebrew, an idea which he treats as in the
highest degree visionary and delusive! In the following, as in some of the
previous examples, the instances of resemblance between the Sanscrit and
the English which this writer has himself selected are compared with
Hebrew words, identical with these terms in sound and sense! In many cases
it will be seen that the Hebrew terms are even nearer to the English than
the Sanscrit terms are!

Măhătwah (_Sans._) Might (_Eng._) M.a.d, “Might,” (_Heb._)—Rosha, Rāga
(_Sans._) Rage (_Eng._) R.g.z (_Heb._)—Kupam, A Receptacle, (_Sans._) Coop
(_Eng._) K.ph.ts, To shut, close up, contract, (_Heb._)—Duhitr (_Sans._)
Daughter (_Eng._) Dochter (_Scotch._) D.g, To multiply, (_Heb._) Tek-os,
Progeny; Tek-on, Bringing forth, (_Greek._)—Shringa (_Sans._) Horn
(_Eng._) Cornu (_Lat._) K.r.n (_Heb._)—Āpăt, A Calamity, (_Sans._)
Ab.ad.n, Destruction, (_Heb._)—Bălăwān, Powerful, (_Sans._) B.o.l, A
Master, to have power, (_Heb._) “Baal,” i.e. The Ruler, name of an
idol.—Shira, The Head, (_Sans._) Sh.r, A Prince, A Ruler,
(_Heb._)—Ghăshăti (_Sans._) Gusheth (_Eng._) G.sh.m, To rain, A violent
Shower, (_Heb._) “Geesers,” Fountains of Hot Water in Iceland.—Grŭshta
(_Sans._) Grist (_Eng._) G.r.s, To break, crush to pieces, Wheat beaten
out, (_Heb._)—Torati (_Sans._) Teareth, Tore, (_Eng._) T.r.ph, To tear
off, To tear to pieces, (_Heb._) Tori (_Welsh_.)—Diyati (_Sans._) Dieth
(_Eng._) Dee.e, Blackness of colour,(102) (_Heb._) Dee.ou.a, The Devil,
(_Syriac_.) Dee.ou.v, Ink, (_Heb._) Dee, Black, (_Welsh_.)—Pesati
(_Sans._) Paceth (_Eng._) Psh.o, To pass, a pace, (_Heb._)—Rănăti
(_Sans._) Runneth (_Eng._) R.n (_Heb._)—Shara (_Sans._) Gar. Arrow
(_Ang.-Sax._) Sh.r.ee.e, A Dart, (_Heb._)—Shatati (_Sans._) Shutteth;
Sheath, (_Eng._) S.th.m, To stop up, hide, conceal, S.th.ce.m.e, A Secret,
(_Heb._) Stum, Dumb, (_Ger._)

It must be quite evident that in these examples the affinity in _words_
between the Hebrew and the Indo-European languages is as close as that
which exists among those languages themselves. The difference of
grammatical forms has been much insisted upon. This ground, where it
occurs, has already been proved to afford no evidence of a remote
difference of race. (See p. 89.) But in treating of the North American
Indian dialects, I shall show that no such grammatical difference does
exist in this instance, the Hebrew pronouns, which are the basis of its
grammar, being identical with those of the Welsh,(103) now considered to
be a member of the Indo-European group of tongues.





CHAPTER V. IDENTITY OF THE EGYPTIANS WITH THE INDIANS, JEWS, AND OTHER
BRANCHES OF THE HUMAN RACE.


SECTION I.


    _Identity of the ancient Indian and Egyptian Mythology, &c. Names
    of the Egyptian Gods, significant in the Hebrew and Indo-European
    Tongues. Dr. Lepsius’s comments on Champollion’s opinion that the
    Modern Egyptian does not differ from the Egyptian of the oldest
    Monuments. Proofs of changes. Proofs from Language that the origin
    of the Egyptians cannot be referred to the very remote date fixed
    by some writers. Causes of the primitive features of the Hebrew
    and the Sanscrit. Identity of Sanscrit and Scriptural account of
    the Creation and of the Origin of the Human Race. Sir William
    Jones’s explanation of this coincidence. High antiquity of the
    Indian Vedas._


We are indebted to Dr. Prichard(104) for a comprehensive and satisfactory
demonstration of the resemblance in manners, mythology, and in social and
political institutions of the ancient Egyptians and Indians. These Nations
agreed in religious and philosophical dogmas, in a superstitious
veneration of animals and of the most conspicuous objects of nature, in
the system of Castes, and in other features. Dr. Prichard’s German
translator, the celebrated A. W. Schlegel, has attempted to account for
these points of coincidence by the ordinary tendencies of human nature
under similar circumstances, a theory which, though maintained with
distinguished ability, must be felt to be essentially paradoxical. As Dr.
Prichard observes: “No person who fully considers the intimate relation
and almost exact parallelism that has been traced between the Egyptians
and the Hindoos, will be perfectly satisfied with such a solution in that
particular example.”(105)

Dr. Prichard concludes that these features of resemblance must be ascribed
to a common origin. But in the adoption of this conclusion he encounters a
formidable difficulty, arising from the consideration that the Egyptian
Tongue cannot, according to his views, be identified with the other
languages of mankind.

This difficulty, like many others of the same nature, will be found to
receive a satisfactory solution from the comparison contained in Appendix
A, in which are embodied a greater number of words from the Egyptian than
from any other language of the African continent. It will thence be
evident that the failure which has attended the attempts of the writers
noticed by Dr. Prichard to identify the Egyptian with the Asiatic
languages, has arisen from the predominant error of Philological
writers,—viz. the expectation of finding in every respect a close and
peculiar affinity between the languages of nations, who, though
contiguous, must in all probability have been separated in the earliest
ages of the world. Hence the unsuccessful issue of those researches of
which the object has been to show that the Egyptian is a dialect of the
Hebrew. But, notwithstanding the unfavorable result which has necessarily
attended investigations conducted on a false basis, it will be seen,
nevertheless, that the adoption of a wider range of comparison, agreeably
to the principles explained at p. 16 and p. 87, and carried out in
Appendix A, serves to render unequivocally manifest the original unity of
the Egyptians not only with the Jews and other nations of Asia, but also
with those of all the four continents. In this place I shall introduce, in
illustration of this proposition, some additional examples, which possess
an independent interest in connexion with Dr. Prichard’s inquiry into the
mythology of the Egyptians, and with the analogous inquiries pursued in
the last Chapter of this work.

The Names of most, if not all, of the Egyptian Gods are susceptible of a
perfectly unequivocal explanation by means of the Hebrew and the
Indo-European languages.(106) This will be evident from the following
analysis, in which I have availed myself of the account of their names and
attributes given by a high authority—Mr. Wilkinson.(107)

“Neph, Phtah, and Khem,” the first three of the Egyptian Gods noticed
below, represent attributes of the Deity.

KNEPH, or, more properly, NEPH or NEF, “The Spirit of God which moved on
the face of the Waters.”(108) Nouf, “Spirit.” Nife, “To breathe, to blow.”
Nifi, “Inspiration,” (_Egypt._) This word, Neph, has been shown to exist
in the same and in analogous senses in the Hebrew and Indo-European
tongues. It has also been pointed out as occurring in a remarkable
instance as a word for a “Spirit,” and also as a name of the “Supreme
Being,” among the North American Indians. (See p. 24.(109))

PTHAH, “The Creative Power that made the World,” styled “The Father of the
Gods.”(110)

Pita, Pitre (_Sanscrit_,) “A Father.” Phu-o, “Gĭgnō, Produco.” Phu teuō,
“Machinor Semĭno.” Pat-er, “A Father,” (_Greek._)

KHEM, “The Sun.” (See p. 21.)

RAH, “Sun,” “The Material and Visible Orb.” (See App. pp. 2 and 3.)

_Ph-Rah_, “Ph,” “The,” and Rah, “Sun.” Hence the name “Pharaoh,” applied
to the Kings of Egypt.

AMUN-RA, “The splendour and beneficent property of the Sun,”
“Jupiter-Ammon” of the classical nations.

The word A.m.n, in Hebrew, implies “nurturing or fostering care, to
support, to sustain,” In Egypt there is a verb Amoni “To hold,” and Āmoni
“To feed.” Amoun in Hebrew, and Mone in Egypt, mean “A Nurse,” and in
Egypt “A Shepherd.”

Amoni, “Patience,” (_Egypt._) Amyn-edd “Patience,” Amoun “To defend,” M-ou
yn, “Kind,” (_Welsh._)

NEITH or MAUT, “Minerva, called the Mother of the Gods.” Mata
(_Sanscrit._) Mat-er (_Latin._) Maau (_Egypt._) A.m.a (_Heb._) “A Mother.”

The names of Osiris and Serapis have been explained at p. 20; that of Hor
(“Horus,”) in Appendix A, p. 2; that of Io, “The Visible Body of the
Moon,”(111) in Appendix A, pp. 24-25.

It will be observed that the Egyptian mythology, like that of the
Indo-European nations, as noticed in the last section, distinctly combines
with Personifications of the powers of nature, views of the attributes and
agencies of the Supreme Being which occur in the Hebrew Scriptures, as in
the instance of “Neph.” It is remarkable that the same allusion as this
name presents, occurs in the Hindoo mythology in Náráyana, one of the
names given to Vishnu, the Deity viewed as a preserver or Saviour. Sir
William Jones thus explains this term in a quotation from a passage in
which Menu, the son of Brahma, begins his address to the Sages who
consulted him on the formation of the Universe. “The waters are called
_nárà_, since they are the offspring of NERA, (or I’SWARA;) and thence was
Náráyana named, because his first _ayana_ or _moving_, was on them!”(112)

N-Eerooue means “Waters” in Egyptian, from Eiero, “Water,” the plural
being formed by N prefix.

Thus it is evident that a comparison of languages in those very instances
which are connected with the subject, so far from impugning the conclusion
that the mythology of the Hindoos and Egyptians had a common origin,
affords irresistible corroborative proofs of the correctness of that
opinion. Further, it is apparent in the instance of the Egyptian as of the
Indo-European race, that their religious system embodied, in combination
with an idolatrous superstructure, the same views of the Supreme Being as
are developed in the Pentateuch.

In some of the foregoing instances, the words of which the names of the
Egyptian gods are composed have been preserved in the Egyptian itself
conjointly with the Hebrew and other languages. But there are also several
instances in which these terms have been lost in the Egyptian, though
preserved in other tongues. This is a distinct proof that the origin of
the Egyptian language is mainly ascribable to the same cause, which has
been previously pointed out as the principal source of the gradual
divergence of the different dialects of the Celtic and Scandinavian, &c.
The Egyptian cannot be said to differ from the Hebrew or the Sanscrit more
widely than the Celtic and Gothic differ, though the common origin of the
two last may be shown indisputably. At what precise periods the different
changes in the Egyptian language took place, we have not as yet the means
of fully deciding. But we are not altogether without historical evidence
that this language has undergone mutations, analogous to those which have
occurred in other tongues. Champollion, to whose genius we are principally
indebted for a solution of the Egyptian system of hieroglyphics, was of
opinion that the Coptic or modern Egyptian is perfectly identical with the
language of the most ancient monuments. But this opinion has been combated
with ability and success by Dr. Lepsius, to whom we owe much information
with regard to the ancient Egyptian remains, especially the brilliant
discovery that the alphabet of Egyptian hieroglyphics, supposed by
Champollion to consist of 300, is reducible to thirty letters.(113) Dr.
Lepsius points out many striking instances of deviation. Thus he notices
that Plutarch, in explaining the name of Osiris, whose symbol was The Eye,
informs us that the Egyptians called the Eye “Iri,” a word not found in
the Coptic, in which “Bal” is the only term used for that organ.

Dr. Lepsius has also produced in illustration of his views several
examples, in which he infers from the mode of spelling, that the same
terms must have been pronounced in the age of hieroglyphics in a different
manner from what they were in the Coptic. The following are instances:

English.               Ancient Egyptian Of    Modern Egyptian Or
                       The Age Of             Coptic.
                       Hieroglyphics.
The Sun                R.ha.                  Ra.
Day                    H.rou.                 Hour.
The Sea                Imo.                   Iom.
A Swine                R.ri.                  Rir.

It has been previously shown by a comparison of tongues of which the
history can be traced, that language in its infancy appears to have
abounded in full and harsh tones and in rough aspirates, which were
gradually exchanged for softer and more abbreviated forms during more
advanced stages of society. The conformity of these examples to this
principle will be obvious, especially when they are compared with the
instances of similar changes in the Manx and Irish, &c. noticed at page
108, a comparison which must tend very strongly to confirm the soundness
of Dr. Lepsius’s conclusions. Since the recent origin of the Hebrew and
Sanscrit languages and of the Hebrew and Indian nations have been shown on
the one hand, while on the other the identity of the Egyptian with those
tongues has also been established, it follows that the origin of the
Egyptian nation cannot be referred to a period anterior to that which our
received systems of chronology would lead us to adopt as the era of the
separation of nations. The harsh and full pronunciation which seems to
have characterized the most ancient specimens of the Egyptian language
tends strongly to support the same conclusion.

In the previous pages a peculiarly primitive character has been attributed
to two ancient languages just adverted to, viz. the Hebrew and the
Sanscrit. Both these tongues, it has been observed, display in a higher
degree than any other the characteristic features of language near its
source. As regards the former of these tongues, the Hebrew, there is an
obvious reason for the primitive forms of language it involves in the high
antiquity of a portion of its remains, viz. the first Books of Scripture,
which are more ancient by many centuries than the poems of Homer, the most
venerable literary remains of Europe. It is a remarkable fact that there
is every reason to believe that the same explanation will be found to
apply in an equal degree to the Sanscrit. According to the opinions of
many of the most distinguished Orientalists, it would appear that the
earliest Vedas, the oldest mythological books of the Indians, are not less
ancient than the Pentateuch. Sir William Jones, whose candour and love of
truth were not inferior to his accomplishments, concluded the Vedas to
have been written about 1500 years B.C. The soundness of this opinion was
at one time much questioned; but it has been confirmed by the sanction of
some of the ablest of those who,—with the advantage of more recently
accumulated information, have in our time pursued the same path of
inquiry—in a manner that serves to place in a striking point of view the
vast knowledge and the bold and sagacious judgment of its great author.
Ritter, a distinguished German Orientalist, concludes the Vedas to have
been collected during the period from 1400 to 1600, B.C.; and Mr.
Colebrooke, whose researches are of the highest value, appears to have
shown finally that the earliest Vedas were probably written about 1400
years B.C.(114) It is highly deserving of notice that these various dates
all fall about the time of the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, 1490
B.C.

The account given in the Vedas of the early history of the world coincides
in its most important features with the Scriptural relation in a manner
not to be mistaken. Sir William Jones, struck with these features of
resemblance, has intimated an opinion that the Indian account of the
Creation, of the Deluge,(115) and other events may have been borrowed from
the Jewish nation.(116) It is remarkable that this opinion will be found
to involve a singular anachronism, if we adopt Sir William Jones’s own
views with respect to the date of the Vedas, viz. that they were written
1500 years B.C. This date is ten years prior to the Exodus of the
Israelites from Egypt, an event from which their national existence and
the composition of their earliest scriptures may be said to have
commenced.

It is highly improbable in every point of view that the Indians could have
borrowed from the Jews some of the most important doctrines of their
religious belief. But the coincidences noticed by Sir William Jones and
other writers, and the peculiarly vivid and distinct nature of the
accounts contained in the Vedas, admit of a more simple and consistent
explanation. If, agreeably to the opinions of Mr. Colebrooke, we assume
these books to have been compiled about 1400 years B.C., it would follow
that they embody a narrative much nearer in point of date to the events
they record than any other, with the exception of the Pentateuch.

From the Deluge to 1400 B.C. there was a lapse of 948 years only. Now we
have satisfactory evidence that traditions far less calculated to leave a
lasting impression have been preserved in many instances among separate
tribes with considerable uniformity for a much longer period. Thus we know
that the Fairy Tales of the English and Germans, and of the Welsh and
Armoricans, agree in their main features, though in both instances there
has been a separation for an interval of much greater duration.

Traditions similar to those embodied in the Vedas occur in the classical
fable of Deucalion and Pyrrha, in the remains of the Chaldeans, and of
other primitive nations. It is only in the Scriptural narrative that we
meet with a relation of the first incidents in the history of man
unmingled with fables derogatory to the attributes of his Creator. But
though clouded with mythological fictions, the remains of many ancient
nations impressively display a fresh and vivid reminiscence of the sublime
events they record.

SECTION II.


    _High Antiquity of the Egyptian Nation. Interesting Character of
    Egyptian Remains. Extent of Egyptian Conquests. Tartars,
    Parthians, Turks, &c. Figures of Jews on Egyptian Monuments.
    Egyptian and Semetic Languages and Races connecting links between
    the Asiatic and African Languages and Races._


The Egyptian annals of Manetho seem to convey the inference that there
must have been in Egypt a series of thirty dynasties, whose reigns
occupied a period of time reaching far beyond the commencement of our
received chronology. It appears, however, that in the present age the most
eminent writers on the antiquities of Egypt are agreed in rejecting this
conclusion. The long dynasties of these chronicles are referred by some
writers to repetition, by others to the coexistence of distinct dynasties
in different parts of Egypt.

But the same eminent writers who have agreed in repudiating the conclusion
that seems to be conveyed by Manetho may be said to be equally unanimous
in referring the origin of the Egyptians to a date which, tried by the
standard of received chronology, will be found to coincide with the very
first age in the history of nations.

“By a comparison of Manetho’s work with the Theban table of Eratosthenes,”
observes Dr. Prichard,(117) “we find satisfactory data for fixing the
origin of the Egyptian monarchy as deduced from these documents in the
24th century before our era.”

Other eminent writers on this subject do not perfectly coincide with Dr.
Prichard in adopting this precise date. But they all fix on pretty nearly
the same time, which, it will be observed, is about the era of the Flood
of Scripture, which immediately preceded the diffusion of the human race.
In the annexed Table I have introduced a compendious statement of the
views of these writers, more especially of the author of a work entitled
“A Monumental History of Egypt,” in a form that will exhibit concurrently
the principal Chronological facts and the progress of Writing in Egypt. I
may observe that Dr. Lepsius is of opinion that Hieroglyphics, which is a
mode of conveying ideas by representations of objects without reference to
their names, was the source,—(by means of a gradual transition,)—of
phonetic characters, which represented their names or words.

Egyptian Chronology.             Progress Of Hieroglyphics And
                                 Writing.
_Doubtful Period._
The accession of Menai or
Menes, and earlier Egyptian
Kings.(118)
First Pyramid built, it is       No hieroglyphics on this
supposed, B.C. 2123              Pyramid.
_Historical._
Abraham visits Egypt. 1920       Hieroglyphics invented, and
                                 gave rise to Phonetic writing,
                                 between 2123 and 1740.
Osirtasen united Egypt into      The name of Osirtasen, in this
one Monarchy. 1740               reign the first known specimen
                                 of Phonetic characters.
                                 (_Monumental Hist._)
Joseph in Egypt. 1706
18th Dynasty. 1576               Age of MSS. (_Dr. Lepsius._)

According to the author of the Monumental History, previously to the year
1740 B.C., the commencement of the reign of Osirtasen, who is believed to
have been the contemporary and patron of Joseph, “we have little to guide
us on the Monuments of ancient Egypt.” According to the same writer, he
was the first who united Egypt into one kingdom, that country, he
maintains, having previously been divided into little unimportant
kingdoms.

The arguments of this able writer, however, do not impugn the conclusion,
that though the precise date may be uncertain, the origin of the Egyptian
nation must be referred to the first ages of the human race. The condition
of the Egyptians in 1740 B.C. implies a prior existence for many ages, of
which we have a distinct proof in the visit of (the Patriarch) Abraham two
centuries previously.

The marvellous discoveries made in our day by Champollion, Belzoni, and
others, may be said to have thrown a new light on the early history not
only of Egypt but of the world! Proofs the most startling have been
brought to light of the vast political power and high civilization of the
Egyptian nation, combined with a knowledge of science in many branches
scarcely surpassed in the present and not equalled in the last generation
of European nations! In the Egyptian paintings we have the most distinct
portraits, representing not only Negroes, Jews, and other neighbouring
races, but also of nations whose light complexions, peculiar physiognomy,
and equipments, combined as they sometimes are with delineations of the
costumes or natural productions of the countries of which they were
natives, betoken the inhabitants of more northern latitudes, confirming
the account of Tacitus, who states “The Egyptians overran all Libya and
Ethiopia, and subdued the Medes and Persians, the Bactrians and Scythians,
with the extensive regions inhabited by the Syrians, the Armenians, and
the Cappadocians; and by this conquest a tract of country extending from
Bithynia on the Pontic Sea to the coast of Syria on the Mediterranean was
reduced to subjection.”

The evidence seems to be clear that some of the nations with whom the
Egyptian armies fought, may be identified with the principal Asiatic
nations still inhabiting the borders of the Caspian.

“On six of the Phonetic Ovals (published by Champollion) are the names of
the heads of the various countries conquered by Sesostris. On one appears
the generic name of the Scheti (spelt Sh.e.d.te); on the second, the
generic name of the sons of Mosech or the Muscovites, spelt precisely as
in the Hebrew (M.s.ek); thirdly, the people of Arakan, spelt very nearly
as that name is sounded (as, for example, Ar-rk-k-a-n); fourthly, the
people of Casan (spelt C-a-s-n); the fifth is probably Susa, but the
middle vowel is omitted, and it stands S-se.”(119)

Casan is a Tartar province, conquered by Russia in the 16th century.

The Scheti, according to Champollion’s opinion, were the Scythians of the
classical nations, the modern Tartars.(120)

A conflict between the Egyptians and the Scheti or Scheta forms the
subject of one of the most interesting Egyptian battle-pieces, which
displays in a striking point of view the high military discipline of the
Egyptians. Mr. Wilkinson describes the Scheti “as a nation who had made
considerable progress in military tactics, both with respect to manœuvres
in the field and the art of fortifying towns, some of which they
surrounded with a double fosse. It is worthy of remark, that in these
cases the approach to the place led over a bridge; and the sculptures
acquainting us with the fact are highly interesting, as they offer us the
earliest indication of its use, having been executed in the reign of the
great Ramesis, about 1350 years before our era.”

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

“Their arms were the bow, sword, and spear, and a wicker shield.”

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

“They had some cavalry, but large masses of infantry with a formidable
body of chariots, constituted the principal force of their numerous and
well-appointed army; and if from the manner in which they posted their
corps-de-reserve we may infer them to have been a people skilled in war,
some idea may also be formed of the strength of their army from the
numbers composing that division, which amounted to 24,000 men, drawn up in
three close phalanxes, consisting each of 8,000.”

Mr. Wilkinson notices three other nations among those who were connected
with the Egyptians either as enemies or allies, viz. “The Rebo,” “The
Shairetana,” and “The Tok-kari.”

The Rebo were among the most formidable enemies of the Egyptians. They
were distinguished by a light complexion, blue eyes, an aquiline nose, and
a costume very like that of Persia or Parthia, indicating a northern as
well as an Asiatic country; they wore earrings, and their chiefs sometimes
tattoed their arms and legs; they appear as the type of Asia in some of
the Egyptian drawings. Their chief weapons were a long straight sword,
with a sharp point, and a bow. Champollion concluded the Rebo to have been
the Parthians.

Mr. Wilkinson expresses himself unable to trace the Shairetana and the
Tok-kari; I conceive, however, that their names and other circumstances
serve to identify them with the Sogdians or Bucharians and the Turks,
whose territories are intermingled. The name of the Tok-kari obviously
resembles that of the Turks, and, according to Adelung, the Bucharians,
from their dwelling in Towns, &c., are called Sarti, a name resembling
that of the Shairetana. The Shairetana and Tok-kari revolted together
against the Egyptians, and were again subdued. The Tok-kari used waggons
with two solid wheels, and drawn by two oxen, which appear to have been
placed in the rear as in the Scythian or Tartar armies. Their women are
seen carrying off their children by drawing them into these waggons at the
moment of defeat. These are traits characteristic of the Tartar race, of
which the Turks are a branch. These nations were occasionally allied with
the Egyptians both against the Scheti and the Rebo, which implies that
their country was intermediate between that of the Parthians and the
Tartars.

The Egyptian illustrations of Scriptural incidents and localities are of
the highest interest:

Champollion found a portrait of a Hebrew, with all the features of the
race, in a group consisting of the chiefs of thirty conquered nations,
whom an Egyptian King is depicted dragging to the feet of the Theban
Trinity. The name of the Egyptian King was phonetically written “Shishak,”
the name of the Jewish captive was written “Joudaha Melek,” King of Judea
or the Jews. (See I. Kings, 14 chap. 25 and 26 v.) This picture, as Mr.
Tattam(121) observes, may be considered as a commentary on this chapter!

Portraits of Jews are frequent amongst the Egyptian remains. “The costume
of these Jews is always the same. They wear their black bushy hair
occasionally bound by a red fillet; but sometimes they wear hats not
unlike the hats dramatically assigned to the Jews of the dark ages. They
wear sandals, the military petticoat or philibeg, a baldric crossing one
shoulder, a girdle, to which is attached a short sword or dagger, and when
engaged in warlike operations, having the upper part of the body covered
with a defensive coat, either of leather or armour, and wearing above the
whole a tippet like the cape of a great coat. Independent of Phonetic
language a mere glance at their lineaments shows that they are Jews!”(122)

The early development of the vast political power and high civilization of
this extraordinary people corroborates the conclusion, that the origin of
the Egyptian nation must be referred to a period sufficiently remote to
render it extremely improbable that a close specific resemblance should
have continued to exist between their language and those of the countries
from which the first population of Egypt may have emigrated. This
inference does not militate against the supposition that Egypt may have
been first colonized from the contiguous Semetic or Syro-Phœnician regions
of Judæa and Arabia.(123)

The literature of ancient Egypt forms a treasure as yet but imperfectly
explored. “We possess,” says Dr. Lepsius, Hieratic MSS. as far back as the
flourishing epoch of the eighteenth dynasty, (which began to reign B.C.
1575, i.e. eighty years before the departure of the Israelites,) and it is
probable that this style was in use even earlier. We have MSS. on History,
Astrology, Magic, “_Registres de Comptabilities_,” and especially a great
quantity of MSS. on Funeral matters.

These remains are probably pregnant with information of the profoundest
interest with regard to the early history of mankind! Further inquiries
similar to those conducted by Dr. Lepsius with respect to the phases
through which the Egyptian Tongue has passed, will probably bring to light
numerous proofs of an increasing approximation in its most ancient
specimens to the languages of Asia and also to those of the other regions
of the continent of Africa. Even in the present state of our knowledge, I
may point out that indications are not altogether wanting that the Hebrew
and other Semetic Tongues in some respects appear to form a connecting
link between the Egyptian and other African languages, on the one hand,
and the Sanscrit and other languages, termed Indo-European, on the other.
These indications occur not in the words but in the structure of the
Semetic Tongues.

In explaining the origin of language, I have noticed that the basis or
Root of the Noun and Verb is the same, while the requisite distinction
between the different parts of speech is made by appropriate additions, as
in the instance of the syllable Er, in Build-er.

It may be inferred that all additions now employed grammatically as
prefixes or suffixes were in the first instance used indifferently either
before or after the Root. But we find, in this respect, a marked
difference between the Indo-European and the Egyptian Tongues. In the
former, these grammatical agents are almost invariably placed after, while
in the Egyptian they in some instances follow, and in others precede the
Root. It will be evident, however, that these grammatical forms themselves
are, in numerous important instances, the same in these two Classes of
Tongues, and that it is only the order in which they are placed that is
different. Thus, in forming the feminine from the masculine, the Egyptians
used a prefix, Th, which forms a suffix in the Welsh, as in Son,(124) “A
Brother,” Th-son, “A Sister,” (_Egypt._) Gen-eth, “A Girl,” (_Welsh._)
Again, the Egyptian plural is formed by prefixing N, as in Phe, Heaven,
singular; N Pheou, Heavens, plural, (_Egypt._,) while in many of the
Indo-European tongues plurals are often formed by subjoining N, as in Ox,
Ox-en (_Eng._), Ych, Ych-en (_Welsh_.), &c.

Now in the Hebrew, Chaldee, &c., though suffixes are employed in numerous
instances, formative prefixes are also used, though not so generally as in
the Egyptian, between which language and the Indo-European tongues the
Semetic languages therefore occupy, in this respect, an intermediate
place.

There is, I conceive, pretty distinct evidence that these characteristic
peculiarities of the three classes of Tongues just adverted to are results
of comparatively recent conventional changes. For a proof that the above
noticed formative of the plural was at one time prefixed, as well as
affixed, in the Indo-European Tongues,—see, as regards the Sanscrit, the
word Nara, corresponding with the Egyptian, p. 129;—as regards the Welsh,
see Appendix A, p. 38. On the other hand, Dr. Lepsius’s researches have
furnished me with a decisive example of an approximation in the ancient
Egyptian to the Indo-European method. “In the age of Hieroglyphics,” he
observes, “the feminine termination Th,” above noticed, “always follows,
while in Coptic it always precedes the Noun.”

Changes of this nature may be considered trifling in themselves; but they
will be found to afford an explanation, at once simple and comprehensive,
of the most striking of those features which separate, by differences
supposed to be fundamental, the languages of the Egyptian and
Syro-Phœnician races from those of the other families of mankind. In
grammatical arrangement the African languages are supposed for the most
part to agree with the Egyptian.(125)

In physiological characteristics it has been very distinctly established,
by the interesting researches of Dr. Prichard, that the Egyptian or Coptic
race forms a connecting link between the contiguous Asiatic nations and
the Negroes of the interior of Africa. It is worthy of remark, that
Vater(126) notices the projection of the nether jaw, “Unterkiefer,” as a
characteristic trait of the Jewish nation! It is observable that this is a
point of approximation to the African nations!

“If we may form an idea,” says Dr. Prichard, “of the complexion of the
Egyptians from the numerous paintings found in their temples, and in
splendidly decorated tombs, in some of which the colours are known to be
preserved in a very fresh state, we must conclude that this people were of
a red-copper, or light chocolate colour, and that they resembled the
reddest of the Fúlah and Kafir tribes now existing in Africa. This colour
may be seen in the numerous plates in the ‘Description de l’Egypte,’ and
in the coloured figures given by Belzoni. A similar complexion is
represented on the heads of the cases made of the sycamore-wood, which
answer the purpose of sarcophagi, and in almost all Egyptian figures. This
red colour is evidently intended to represent the complexion of the
people, and is not put on in the want of a lighter paint, or flesh-colour,
for when the limbs or bodies are represented as seen through a thin veil,
the tint used resembles the complexion of Europeans. The same shade might
have been generally adopted if a darker one had not been preferred, as
more truly representing the national complexion of the Egyptian race.(127)
Female figures are sometimes distinguished by a yellow or tawny colour.”

“Speaking of the Copts, Volney says that they have a yellowish, dusky
complexion, neither resembling the Grecian nor Arabian. He adds, that they
have a _puffed visage_, _swoln eyes_, _flat_ nose, and _thick lips_, _and
bear much resemblance to Mulattoes_.” I have already cited Baron Larrey’s
description of the Copts, the principal traits of which are, “a full
countenance, a long aperture of the eyelids—‘coupés en amand,’—projecting
cheek-bones, dilated nostrils, thick lips, and hair and beard black and
crisp. M. Pugnet, an intelligent physician and an ingenious and
discriminating writer, has made an attempt to distinguish the Copts, or
Qoubtes, as he terms them, into two divisions, those whose ancestry has
been intermixed, and partly of Greek and Latin descent, and a class of
purely Egyptian origin. He says that nothing is more striking than the
contrast between the small and meagre Arabs and the large and fine stature
of the Qoubtes. ‘A l’extérieur chêtif et misérable des premières, ceux-ci
opposent un air de majesté et de puissance; à la rudesse de leurs traits,
une affabilité soutenue; à leur abord inquiet et soucieux, une figure très
épanouie.’ ”(128)

A few further examples of the connexion of the Egyptian with other
languages are subjoined. O n h, “A Dwelling,” (_Egypt._,) Wohn-ung,
Wohn-en (_German_), Onh, “To live,” (_Eg._,) Ōn (_Greek._)—Shage, “A Word,
a Discourse,” (_Eg._,) Sage, Sag-en (_German_), Say (_English_). The
“Sagas” of the Gothic nations are venerable Oral traditions!—Hinim,
“Sleep,” (_Eg._,) Heen (_Welsh._)—Eshau, “A Sow, or Swine,” (_Eg._,) Hus
(_Greek_), Sow (_Eng._)—Iri, “To do,” (_Eg._,) a formative expressive of
Action; Aud-ire, “To hear,” Ire, “To go,” (_Lat._)—Ra.ma, “Lofty,”
(_Eg._,) R.ou.m (_Hebrew._)—Phath, “Foot,” (_Eg._,) Pes, Ped-is (_Lat._),
Path (_Eng._)—E h e, “An Ox,” Ehēou, “Oxen,” (_Eg._,) Ych, Ych-en
(_Welsh._)—Ma, “A Place,” (_Eg._,) Ma (_Welsh._)





CHAPTER VI. ON THE CHINESE LANGUAGE.


    _High Antiquity of the Chinese Empire and Remains discredited by
    Sir William Jones and Adelung. But the Differences between the
    Chinese Language and those of Western Asia more ancient than the
    peculiarities which distinguish the African Languages from those
    of Europe and Western Asia. These Differences not fundamental.
    Identity of the Chinese with the Hebrew and with the English and
    other European Languages, &c._


Adelung, like Sir William Jones before him, quite discredits the supposed
antiquity of the Chinese Empire and the claims set up by the Chinese to a
high and ancient civilization. The Great Wall, said by their historians to
have been built 240 years B.C., is not mentioned by early writers,
especially Marco Polo, who visited China from the West in 1270. He regards
the scientific knowledge of the Chinese as inferior to that of several
adjoining nations, and Confucius’s morality as nothing better than a
medley of sound opinions, such as any man of strong sense might have
compiled! The materials of their paper are so frail that it is impossible
any of their MSS. can be very ancient, and in the fidelity or knowledge of
their Transcribers he places no confidence! Finally, he views the
infantine character of their language, a feature in which the Chinese are
inferior to the wildest American tribes, as forming in itself a proof of
the absence of a high culture, to which, he maintains, it constitutes an
almost insuperable obstacle.

On the other hand, unfavorable as its characteristics are to the supposed
antiquity and extent of their civilization, he nevertheless considers
these very peculiarities of their language in the light of decisive proofs
of the high antiquity of the Chinese nation, viewed simply as a distinct
branch of the human race.

In the last chapter were discussed the peculiarities of structure which
distinguish the Egyptian and Semetic tongues from those of the
Indo-European class; peculiarities which were shown to consist, not in a
fundamental difference of elements, but simply in various conventional
arrangements of the same elements. This explanation will now be proved to
apply also to the characteristics which distinguish the Chinese from the
principal Asiatic and European languages, with this qualification however,
that these characteristics, as contrasted with those of other classes of
tongues, imply a separation from a parent stock at a much earlier era in
the history of the human species than those which have been noticed in the
last chapter, as distinguishing the Indo-European, Semetic, and Egyptian
languages respectively.

According to Adelung’s lucid analysis, the following are the principal
steps by which language is formed. 1. The first words are vowels, or
sounds produced simply by the opening of the mouth and the emission of the
breath. 2. Next in order are monosyllables, consisting of a vowel and a
consonant preceding, as in P-a. 3. Arise monosyllables, formed of a vowel
between two or more consonants, as in P-a-p. 4. Lastly are constructed
polysyllabic words, formed by a combination into one word of two or more
of the monosyllabic terms.

The African, American,(129) European, and all the Asiatic languages, with
the exception of those spoken in China and the contiguous countries of the
south-west of Asia, display a consummation of all these four stages. The
Chinese exhibits results of the first and second steps of the series only.
In other words, the Chinese may be described not simply as a language
_purely monosyllabic_, but as one in which the _monosyllables are of the
most elementary and infantine character, viz., those which consist of one
consonant and a vowel_ (_as in_ PA). They have no words which have a
second consonant, as in P-A-P.

Having no polysyllables, the Chinese supply their place by a minute
variety in their vowel sounds. They have no grammar:(130) the same word is
at once an adjective, a substantive, and a verb! Affixes and suffixes,
such as occur in give, giv-er, gif-t, are unknown. The modifications of
meaning these forms convey are expressed either by altering the position
of the words or by additional terms. The plural is the same as the
singular; though, to avoid obscurity, in extreme cases the clumsy
expedient of repetition is resorted to, as in Tschin-tschin, “Man-man”
(i.e. Men); or distinct words indicative of number are prefixed, such as
Muen, “Many,” Tschung, “All!”

It was the opinion of Adelung that the Chinese language differed not
merely in its structure, but in its elements, from the other languages of
the human race. He supposed this nation to have sprung from the same stock
as those of western Asia. But their speech he conceives to have been
constructed after the separation.

The peculiar monosyllabic structure of the Chinese seems to justify the
conclusion, that the nations of Europe and western Asia are more nearly
allied in descent to the Negro tribes of the interior of Africa and to the
Indian tribes of America than they are to the Chinese and the nations of
the contiguous countries of the south-west of Asia. But that Adelung’s
conclusion, that the Chinese is a radically distinct tongue is an
erroneous one will now be shown by examples, to which the _peculiar
structure of that language will only serve to give additional_(131)_
force_; for while in most of the following examples the words compared are
essentially the same, the Chinese monosyllables being identical with
Hebrew or European monosyllables, or with terms which partake of that
character, in other instances it will be found that the differences which
occur have been caused solely by the addition of the characteristic
suffixes and affixes of the polysyllabic languages, which are not used in
the Chinese! Thus we have Mu, “A Mouse,” (_Chin._,) Mū-s, Mu-os, Mu
(_Greek_), the root in the latter being the same as in the former; Fo and
Foo Tsin, “A Fa-ther,” (_Chin._,) Moo and Moo Tsin, “A Mo-ther,” (_Chin._)

I shall commence these examples with the Chinese pronouns, most of which
are absolutely identical with those of the polysyllabic languages. This
branch of the comparison will serve to place in a striking point of view
the erroneous nature of the opinion generally received among philologists,
that nations which agree are necessarily more nearly allied than those
which differ(132) in their grammatical forms, the Chinese being found in
this respect to agree in an unequivocal manner with the kindred English
and German, in some of those very points in which they mutually differ
widely!

_Pronouns of the First Person_, “I” and “We.”—Ngan, Ngoo Ngo, “I” and
“We,” (_Chinese._) Iōnga, Egōn, “I,” (_Greek._)

_Pronouns of the Second Person_, “Thou” and “Ye.”—Irr, “Thou” and “Ye,”
(_Chinese._) Ihr, “Ye,” (_German._) Yú, Yŏh, “Thou” and “Ye,” (_Chinese._)
You, “Ye,” (_English._) Yō (_Provincial English_). Eoh (_Anglo-Saxon_),
“Ye.” Nee, Nai, Nyú, “Thou” and “Ye,” (_Chinese._) Ne, “You,” (_Mandans, a
North American Tribe._)

In these instances the English “You” and the German “Ihr” differ totally.
Moreover, in each language separately considered the plural differs
altogether from the singular, which in German is expressed by “Du,” and in
the English by “Thou.” The Chinese, which uses these terms, “Ihr” and
“You,” conjointly and in both numbers, furnishes a satisfactory clue to
these anomalies!

_Pronouns of the Third Person._—E.e, “He,” “She,” “It,” (_Chinese._)
E.ee.a, E.v.e, (_Hebrew._) He, masculine, (_English._) He, feminine,
(_Welsh._)—Peé, “He,” “She,” “It,” also “That,” (_Chinese._) Phe, Ph,
“This,” “That,” (_Hebrew._) Pha or Pe, the article “The,” (_Egypt._)

_Specimens of Chinese Words, identical with equivalent Terms in the
Languages of Europe and Western Asia, &c._

Keuen, “A Dog,” (_Chinese_), Kuōn (_Greek_), Coun (Plural, _Welsh_),
Can-is (_Latin_).—Ma, “A Horse,” (_Chinese_), Morin Mantschu), Mä-hre
(_German_), Ma-re (_English_), Ma-rch (_Welsh_.)—Mu, “A Mouse,”
(_Chinese_), Mu-s, Mu-os Mu (_Greek_), Mu-s (_Latin._)—Lung,(133) “A
Wolf,” (_Chinese_), Lukon (_Greek_), Lloun-og, “A Fox,” (_Welsh._)—Ioanģ,
Iong, Io, “A Sheep,” (_Chinese_), Oin (_Greek_), Oen, “A Lamb,” (_Welsh_),
Oi, Ai, Yi (_Irish._)

Foò “A Father,” Moo “A Mother;” also Foò Tsin “A Father,” and Moó Tsin “A
Mother.” Tsin means “A Relation,” (_Chinese._) The equivalent terms in the
English and other Gothic dialects consist of the Chinese root, and a
distinct suffix (answering the purpose of the separate Chinese word Tsin.)
Fä-der (_Anglo-Saxon_), Fa-ther (_English_), Fa-ter (_German_), Mo-ther,
(English), Mua-ter (_Old high German._)(134)

Nan and Yin, “A Man,” (_Chinese._) Ninetz, “Men,” their national name,
(_Samoieds._) Ninnee Inin, “A Man,” (_Algonquyn Dialects of N. America._)

Nan “A Son,” (_Chinese_,) N.n [Parturio] (_Heb._)—Neang, “A young Lady,”
(_Chinese_,) Non (_Mantschu_,) Nonn-us (_Lat._,) Nun, “Tender,”
(_Chinese._)—Nyu, “A Daughter,” (_Chinese_,) Nea, Feminine, “Young,”
[Juvenis] (_Greek_,) New (_Eng._)—Chan, “To produce, bear,” (_Chinese_,)
Gen-i (_Welsh_,) Genn-ao (_Greek._)—Chuen, “A Boat, or Ship,” (_Chinese_,)
Kahn (_Ger._,) Cymba (_Latin_,) Kumbī (_Greek._)

Chuy, “To blow, The Breath,” (_Chinese_,) Chwa (_Welsh._)—Fe, “Fat,”
(_Chinese_), Fe-tt (_German_,) Fa-t (_English._)—Ho, “Fire,” (_Chinese_,)
Ho-t (_English._) These words Ho-t and Fe-tt seem to have been regularly
formed as past participles from Ho and Fe, the roots preserved in the
Chinese.—Hoo, “To escort,” (_Chinese_,) Hü-ten (_Ger._)—Fan, “To subvert,
Contrary,” (_Chinese_,) Ph.n.e, [To turn, turn out] (_Hebrew_,) Fun, “To
divide,” (_Chinese_,) Fun do, Fin do (_Latin_.)—Gan, “Favor,” (_Chinese_,)
Gönn-en, Gun-st (_German_,) Gynn a (_Swedish_,) c’H.n (_Hebrew_.)—Gaou,
“Proud,” (_Chinese_,) Ga, Ga.ou.e, Ga.ee.oun (_Hebrew_) Gang “Lofty,” Ge
“The Forehead,” Ke “To rise,” Ka.ou “High,” (_Chinese_,) Ga-e, “To rise,”
(_Heb._)—Kang, “More,” (_Chinese_,) Chwaneg (_Welsh_.)—Hae, “A large
River, The Sea,” (_Chinese_,) Aa (_Icelandic_,) Eia (_Ang.-Sax._,) Wy
(_Welsh_.)—Heuen, “To explain,” Heaou “To understand,” Heo “To learn,”
(_Chinese_,) c’Hou.e “To show, explain, declare,” (_Hebrew_,) He-ar
(_Eng._)—Hwō, “Living,” (_Chinese_) c’Hee.a, E.ou.e (_Hebrew_.)—Kwae,
“Prompt, active,” (_Chinese_,) Chwae (_Welsh_.)—Kia “A Family,” Kiwo “A
Nation,” (_Chinese_,) Kiw (_Welsh_,) Gou.e (_Heb._)—Keen, “To see,”(135)
(_Chinese_), Ken (_English_,) Kee, “And,” (_Chinese_,) Kai (_Greek and
Algonquyn Tribes of N. America_,) King “To respect,” (_Chinese_,) Kun-ēō
(_Greek_,) Kwăn, “Fatigued,” (_Chin._,) Gwan (_Welsh_.)—Laou, “Labour,”
(_Chinese_,) La.e (_Hebrew_), La-bor (_Latin_.)—Mae, “To buy,”
(_Chinese_,) Emo (_Latin_.)—Lo, “Green,” (_Chinese_,) L.c’he,
(_Hebrew_.)—Leo, “Small,” Lu, (_Irish_,) Low (_English_.)—Muen, “Many,”
(_Chinese_,) Many (_English_.)—Yaou Yo, “To will, desire,” (_Chinese_,)
Aeō (_Greek_,) Aveo (_Lat._)—Meen, “To dispose,” (_Chinese_,) M.n.e
(_Hebrew_.)—Mien, “The Face,” (_Chinese_,) Mine (_French_,) Mien
(_English_.)—Pew, “Spotted Tiger,” (_Chinese_,) Pie [Colour] (_English_,)
Pei, “To receive,” (_Chinese_,) Piai, “To possess,” (_Welsh_.)—Pin,
“Poor,” Penuria (_Latin_.)—Sae, “To agitate,” (_Chinese_,) Sway
(_English_.)—Saou, “A Brush,” (_Chinese_,) Shoue, “To rub,”
(_Hebrew_.)—Scun, “To inspect,” (_Chinese_,) Sehen (_German_.)—Sha, “To
kill,” (_Chinese_,) Sha.e (_Hebrew._)—Shen, “Good, Pious,” (_Chinese_,)
Sanctus (_Latin_,) Shin, “A Spirit, God,” (_Chinese._)—Shing, “To ascend,”
(_Chinese_,) Scan-deo (_Latin._)—Shwa, “To sport, Play,” (_Chinese_,) Sho
sho (_Hebrew_,) Soo, “To number,” (_Chinese_,) Shou e (_Hebrew._)—Sung,
“To present to,” (_Chinese_,) Schenk-en (_German._)—Sing, “A Star,”
(_Chinese_,) Schein-en, “To shine,” (_German_,) Sun (_English._)—Yun,
“Fog, Cloud,” Ying, “Shadow,” Wan, “Evening,” (_Chinese_,) On.n, “A Cloud,
To cloud over,” (_Hebrew._)—Wang, “To hope.” (_Chinese_,) Chwannawg,
“Desirous,” (_Welsh._)—We, “Taste,” (_Chinese_,) Chwae-th (_Welsh._)





CHAPTER VII. ON THE ORIGIN OF THE AMERICAN TRIBES.


    _Identity of the American Tribes with the Nations of the other
    Continents. High Mental and Moral qualities of the North American
    Indians. Views of Cooper, Du Ponceau, and Catlin. Clear nature of
    the proofs derivable from Language of the Identity of the N. A.
    Indians with the European and Asiatic Nations. Catlin’s views as
    to the Identity of the Mandans, a Tribe of N. A. Indians, with the
    Welsh. Union in the Dialects of the N. A. Indians, of Greek, and
    other Indo-European and Tartar Inflections, with the Pronouns of
    the Hebrew and the Welsh. Close Approximation of these Dialects to
    the Greek and other European Tongues, and to the Languages of the
    North of Europe and Asia._


That the Tribes of the American Continent are descended from the same
stock as the Asiatic and European nations is a proposition with respect to
which the evidence contained in Appendix A must, I conceive, be felt to be
conclusive when combined with Dr. Prichard’s proofs that the Physiology of
the Human race in different countries is the result of climate and other
external agencies. As regards the mental and moral qualities of the native
American nations, there seems to be no solid ground for the inference
maintained in some quarters that they are a different, because in these
respects an inferior, race. It is impossible to peruse Mr. Catlin’s living
picture of the manners and social habits of the North American Indians
without being deeply impressed with the conviction that these Tribes, both
intellectually and morally, are as highly gifted by nature as those
nations who have inherited the blessings of a refined civilization. That
the same remark applies to the more Southern American populations, such as
the Mexicans and Peruvians, may be shown by an appeal to numerous
considerations. In this place, however, I shall confine my observations to
the Septs generally termed North American Indians, the original
inhabitants of the United States and the regions in the same latitude.
This race of men has been thus described in a celebrated work of fiction,
which owes its chief interest to the vivid portraiture it exhibits of
Indian life and manners.(136)

“It is generally believed that the Aborigines of the American continent
have had an Asiatic origin. There are many physical as well as moral facts
which corroborate this opinion, and some few that would seem to weigh
against it.

“The colour of the Indian, the writer believes, is peculiar to himself,
and while his cheek-bones have a very striking indication of a Tartar
origin, his eyes have not. Climate may have had great influence on the
former, but it is difficult to see how it can have produced the
substantial difference which exists in the latter. The imagery of the
Indian, both in his poetry and his oratory, is Oriental, chastened, and
perhaps improved, by the limited range of his practical knowledge. He
draws his metaphors from the clouds, the seasons, the birds, the beasts,
and the vegetable world. In this, perhaps, he does no more than any other
energetic and imaginative race would do, being compelled to set bounds to
his fancy by experience; but the North American Indian clothes his ideas
in a dress that is so different from that of the African for instance, and
so Oriental in itself as to be remarked. His language, too, has the
richness and sententious fulness of the Chinese. He will express a phrase
in a word, and he will qualify the meaning of an entire sentence by a
syllable; he will even convey different significations by the simplest
inflections of the voice.

“Philologists who have devoted much time to the study, have said that
there were but two or three languages, properly speaking, among all the
numerous tribes which formerly occupied the country that now composes the
United States. They ascribe the known difficulty one people have in
understanding one another to corruptions and dialects.

“The writer remembers to have been present at an interview between two
chiefs of the Great Prairies west of the Mississippi, and when an
interpreter was in attendance who spoke both their languages. The warriors
appeared to be on the most friendly terms, and seemingly conversed much
together, yet, according to the account of the interpreter, each was
absolutely ignorant of what the other said. They were of hostile tribes,
brought together by the influence of the American Government; and it is
worthy of remark that a common policy led them both to adopt the same
subject. They mutually exhorted each other to be of use in the event of
the chance of war throwing either of the parties into the hands of his
enemies. Whatever may be the truth, as respects the root and the genius of
the Indian tongues, it is quite certain they are now so distinct in their
words as to possess most of the disadvantages of strange languages; hence
much of the embarrassment that has arisen in learning their histories, and
most of the uncertainty which exists in their traditions.”

The traits of character embodied in this passage are not those of an
inferior, but of a highly acute and imaginative race!

The Philological objections to the proposition that the North American
Tribes are of Asiatic origin have by many writers been regarded as
insuperable. Du Ponceau, who has given profound attention to the subject,
dwells, 1, On the differences in words among the American languages
themselves; 2, On the failure which he imputes to those writers who have
attempted to identify the Indians with some one individual Asiatic nation,
as the Chinese, the Tartars, or the Jews, &c.; and 3, On the differences
in the Grammars of the North American dialects and those of the languages
of the Old World, which he treats as a conclusive refutation of all
arguments in favour of original unity! Mr. Catlin also lays great stress
on the first of these considerations, viz. the great differences he found
in the words of the dialects of the Tribes he visited.

To every one of these objections the general principles developed in the
previous pages will be found to involve a complete answer. 1. The
differences apparently fundamental in the words of American languages may
be accounted for in the same manner as similar differences in the
languages of the old world (the Gothic and Celtic for example,) have
already been explained, viz. by the tendency to abandon different
synonymes. 2. That attempts to prove a close specific relation between the
North American dialects and any one Asiatic language, such as the Chinese
or the Hebrew, should have failed, was to be expected as a consequence of
the same tendency. 3. Finally, differences of Grammar have been shown to
be fallacious evidence viewed separately and without due regard to other
features of language.(137) Moreover, it will presently appear clearly
that, even as regards the Grammar of the Indian Dialects, Du Ponceau’s
impressions can be distinctly proved to be erroneous, an extended
comparison serving to render manifest the interesting fact that, as
respects the elements of Grammar, these dialects perfectly agree with the
Asiatic and European languages, while in the mode of combining those
elements, they do not differ from those languages more widely than the
latter differ among themselves.

If the ancestors of the American Indians emigrated at a remote period from
the opposite Asiatic Coasts, we have no right to anticipate in their
dialects a complete conformity to any one language of the old world, but
general and varying features of resemblance to several. The kindred
dialects of the same Continent after the lapse of a considerable time do
not exhibit any other kind of resemblance! Now this is the species of
relation which the North American Indian dialects actually display when
compared to the Languages of the Old World!

The chief examples which I have selected as illustrations of this
proposition have been taken from the Algonquyn dialects, the very class
examined by Du Ponceau himself, to which I have added a few corroborative
instances from those of the tribes of the regions to the west of the
Mississippi which have been lately described by Mr. Catlin. The dialects
termed Algonquyn by Du Ponceau were formerly spoken by numerous tribes
who, though not the sole inhabitants, were originally spread through the
whole of the present territory of the United States, including the “Lenni
Lenapé,” the “Chippeways,” and other powerful septs.

With regard to this class of Indian Dialects I propose to show: 1. That as
regards Words they bear a close resemblance to a great variety of Asiatic
and European languages. 2. That their grammatical peculiarities, in like
manner, combine those of various languages of the Old World, as in the
instance of their Verbs and Pronouns, in which the inflections of the
Greek and other Indo-European Tongues are found united with separate
Pronouns identical with those common to the Welsh on the one hand and the
Hebrew and its kindred Semetic dialects on the other.

_Words from the North American Indian Dialects of the Algonquyn Class
compared with analogous Terms in Asiatic and European Languages._

Man ittou, “The Deity, a Spirit,” (_Ind._,(138)) Mouno he ka, “Ghosts,”
(_Mandan_,(139)) Manes, “The Spirits of the Dead,” (_Latin_,) Manus, “The
Mind,” (_Sanscrit_,) Mēn, “The Mind,” (_Greek_,) Mens, Ment-is (_Latin_),
Pata-maw-os, “The Deity,” from Pata-maw-an, “To adore,” (_Ind._,)
Poth-ēmenai, “To seek, or pray to,” (_Doric_,) for Poth-ein (_Greek_),
Peton, “To worship,” Peta, “A Prayer,” (_Old High German_,) Bet-en, Bitte
(_German_); see, as to N’iou and Nioueskou, two remarkable words for “The
Deity,” (_Ind._,) pages 22, 23, 24. For names of the Heavenly Bodies, see
Appendix A.

“Father,” Ooch, Oss (_Ind._), Ozha (_Sclavon._), Otze (_Dalmatian_), Wosch
(_Lusatian_), Otzie (_Bohemian_), Nosa (_Ind._), Niza, Niesee
(_Samoieds_).

“Mother,” Anna (_Ind._), Ana (_Turkish_), Anya (_Hungarian_), Nanna
(_Ind._), Nain(140) (_Welsh_), Ningé (_Ind._), Naing (_Irish_), Nik,
Nêkaoui (_Ind._), N.k.be(141) (_Hebrew_).

“A Woman,” Panum, Phanem (_Ind._), Banen (_Cornish_), Been (_Welsh_), Pin,
“A Female,” applied to animals, (_Chinese_.)

“A Girl,” Kan-isswah (_Ind._), Gen eez (_Pers._), Nunk-shoué, Nunk(142)
(_Ind._), Neang (_Chin._), Non (_Mantschu_).

“Husband,” Nap-é, Nap eem (_Ind._), Nub-o, Nuptiæ (_Lat._), Nuptials
(_Eng._)—“Husband,” Weew-ehsa, Wasuk (_Ind._), “Wife,” Weewo, Weowika
(_Ind._), “Marriage,” Wiwaha (_Sanscrit_), Wife (_Eng._)

“A little Child,” Awusk, Awash ish (_Ind._), “A Child,” Watsah
(_Sanscrit_), “Young,” Wuski (_Ind._), “A Youth,” Was or Gwas (_Welsh_).

“High,” Hockunk (_Ind._), Hoch, Höhe, Hoheit (_German_), High, Height
(_Eng._), Hitké(143) (_Iroquois_).

“The Earth,” Hacki, Ki, Ackour (_Ind._), Ge (_Greek_), Ager (_Latin_),
Agr-os (_Greek_).

“Foot,” Sit (_Ind._), St.o, “I stand,” (_Latin_).

“Good,” Wuilit (_Ind._), Wohl (_Ger._), Weal, Well, Wealth (_Eng._),
Ee.o.l, “To profit, benefit,” (_Hebrew_).

“To fight,” Pachg-amen(144) (_Ind._), P.g.ee (_Heb._), Pug-no (_Latin_).

“To give,” Mekan (_Ind._), M.gn (_Hebrew_).

“Night,” Nukon (_Ind._), Nux (_Greek_), Nox (_Latin_), Noc (_Polish_), Noc
(_Hungarian_).

“Blood,” M’huk, Mokum (_Ind._), Mucum, Mucus (_Latin_).

“Cold,” Kisina (_Ind._), Kuisne, “Ice,” (_Irish_,) K.sh.a, “To harden,
stiffen,” “A Cucumber,(145) from its cooling properties,” (_Hebrew_).

“Sleep,” Nipu, Nip-awin, “To sleep,” Nupp (_Ind._), Nap (_Eng._), Hup-nos
(_Greek_), Nim pamino, “I sleep,” (_Ind._), N.m., N.ou.m.e (_Hebrew_).

“To touch,” Aman damaog-an (_Ind._), Man-us (_Latin_).

“Man,” Nin (_Ind._), Ninetz “Men,” (_Samoieds_,) a diminutive race in the
North-east of Asia. The national name they have given to themselves is the
above word, Ninetz “Men.”

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

I shall add a few further illustrations from the specimens of the
languages of the Indian Tribes to the West of the United States, which
have been published by Mr. Catlin.

“Spirits, Ghosts,” Mouno he ka (_Mandan_,)—and see above, Manitto, “A
Spirit,” (_Ind._)—Manes, “The Spirits of the Dead,” (_Latin_).

“Bad,” Khe cush (_Mandan_), Kakos (_Greek_).

“A Bear,” Mah to (_Mandan_), Matto (_Sioux_), Medve (_Hungarian_), Medvid
(_Sclavonian_), Metzwetz (_Lusatian_), Koonoghk (_Riccaree_), Chiung
(_Chinese_).

“Dog,” Shonka (_Riccaree_), Shunah (_Sanscrit_), Shun (_Armenian_), A
meeteh (_Blackfeet_), Meda (_Taraikai_, _North-east of Asia_), Madaidh
(_Irish_).

“A Raven,” Kaka (_Mandan_), To kah ka (_Riccaree_), Kaka (_Sanscrit_).

“River,” Pass ahah (_Mandan_). See Appendix A. p. 78.

“Ears,” Ookah nay(146) (_Tuskaroras_), Ucho (_Sclavonian_), Ochtowaga
(_Shawannos_), Ohto kiss (_Blackfeet_), Ōta (_Greek._) See p. 73, Appendix
A.

“Hand,” Onka (_Mandan._)  See Appendix, page 69. Ohahna (_Tuskaroras._)
See Appendix, p. 68.

“Head,” Otahra (_Tuskaroras_), Otri (_Ashantees Negroes_), Utieri (_Aminas
Negroes._)

“Nose,” Pahoo (_Mandan_), Pei Pi (_Chinese_), Pah.soo (_Sioux_), Ph.o.e,
“To Breathe,” (_Hebrew_), Phusa-o, “To Breathe,” (_Greek._)

Want of space, and the extensive nature of the evidence contained in
Appendix A, alone deter me from greatly multiplying these examples.

2. As regards Grammatical forms:

Nothing can be more erroneous than the inference that the North American
Indian dialects differ in this respect from those of Asia and Europe. In
the previous comparison numerous examples present themselves in which the
same words unequivocally exhibit at once both the roots and the
inflections of words belonging to the languages termed Indo-European, as
in _Patam-awan_, _Patam-awos_, _Kis-ina_, _M. huk_, _Mok-um_, _Khe-cush_,
_Nimp-amino_, &c.!

These are not isolated instances. I do not hesitate to affirm that it may
be shown by means of the very terms he has selected for examination, that
those North American Indian dialects which Du Ponceau has analyzed, abound
in similar examples! That the same remark is true with regard to the
dialects of the Western Tribes described by Mr. Catlin, is a proposition
which will now be illustrated in a remarkable instance!

Among the tribes with whom he resided this writer has especially noticed a
highly interesting sept, the Mandans, in whose dialect he has pointed out
a variety of instances of close resemblance to the Welsh, which he has
left to the judgment of those who are conversant with that language. On
this subject I conceive there cannot be any difference of opinion among
those who are vernacularly acquainted with the venerable tongue of the
Cymry. Of the Mandan terms selected by Mr. Catlin (which are subjoined
below), the majority must be admitted to present plain and unequivocal
features of resemblance, or rather of identity, to the equivalent Welsh
terms.

Now, it will be seen that of these(147) examples of affinity the greater
number consist of terms which belong exclusively to the province of
Grammar!

English.          Mandan.           Welsh.            Other Asiatic
                                                      And European
                                                      Languages.
I.                Me.               Me.               Me (_Latin_ and
                                                      _Eng._),  Eme
                                                      (_Greek._)
You.              Ne.               Chwe.             Nee,
                                                      (_Chinese._)
He.               E.                E.                E.ee.a, E.ou.e,
                                                      or E.v.e, “He,
                                                      She, It,”
                                                      (_Heb._)
She.              Ea.               E, Hee.           Ea, “She,”
                                                      (_Latin._)
It.               Ount.             Hooyant, “They”   Onuh, “It, Him,
                                    (Plural.)(148)    Her,”
                                                      (_Turkish._)
They.             Eonah, (Onúh      Nhou, “They,”     E.n.e,  “They,”
                  ha, Honúh ha,     Hyny, “Those.”    (_Hebrew_),
                  “They,”                             Oona, “They,”
                  _Iroquois                           also “He, She,
                  Dialects._                          It,” (_Mixed
                                                      Indian Dialects
                                                      of Asia_.)
                                                      Ainah, Ont,
                                                      Ent, (_Endings
                                                      of the third
                                                      person plural
                                                      of
                                                      Indo-European
                                                      Verbs._)(149)
We.               Noo.              Nee.              Nōi (_Greek_),
                                                      Nou, Nc’hnou
                                                      (_Hebrew._)
No, or, There     Megosh.(150)      Nagoes, Nage.
is not.
Head.             Pan.              Pen.
The Great         Maho peneta.      Mawr(151)
Spirit.                             Penaether
                                    Yysprid  Mawr.

By some of our countrymen it has been sanguinely maintained that the
descendants of a body of Welsh, who left their country under Prince Madoc
in the twelfth century, may be still traced by affinities of language
among the North American Indian Tribes. Struck by the resemblances he has
detected, Mr. Catlin has been led to favour the same conclusion, and to
suggest that the Mandans may probably be shown to be the descendants of
the lost Cambrian Colony!

But the examples selected by this writer, however creditable to his
accuracy and research, do not tend, as he suggests, to prove the existence
of a specific connexion between the Welsh and the Mandans! This will be
evident from the words contained in the right-hand column (which have been
added by the author of this work). An examination of the whole comparison
will serve to show clearly, that though in most of the instances he has
noticed the resemblance displayed by the Mandan to the Welsh is a close
one, in many of them it displays an equally close affinity to the Latin
and Greek, &c., while in some—this North American Indian dialect totally
differs from the Welsh tongue, and at the same time agrees with—other
languages of the Old World. Many of those examples which precede the
Comparison are also illustrations of the principle that the Mandan, like
other North American Indian dialects, exhibits a general resemblance to
all, and not a specific relation to any one of the Asiatic and European
tongues. Thus Khe cush, “Bad,” which is identical with the Greek, but is
totally unlike the Welsh, is a Mandan word!

The prevalent theory, that there exists a group of Indo-European languages
and nations—peculiarly connected among themselves—peculiarly isolated from
others—will, I conceive, be found to be fallacious; and what is highly
remarkable, distinct proofs of its fallacy, as will presently be seen, are
derivable from the dialects of the North American Tribes!

The writers by whom this theory has been maintained have overlooked, on
the one hand, the numerous points of resemblance which connect the
Indo-European languages with other Tongues; while, on the other hand, they
have also overlooked the numerous points of difference which they mutually
display. On a close investigation it will be evident that it is only in
the basis of their Grammars that any of the ancient languages of Asia and
Europe, even those which are very nearly related, agree; they do not
display an identity of Grammatical forms! Compare, for example, the
inflections of the Verbs in the Latin and the Greek, and the numerous
points of difference which they exhibit in almost every tense, combined
with mere partial coincidences. That these remarks are equally true of the
relation displayed by the North American Indian dialects compared to those
of the Old World will be apparent from the following examples, in which it
will be manifest that these dialects in their basis agree with, and in
their inflections and details only partially differ from, the Asiatic and
European languages!

_Present Tense of a Verb in two Dialects of the Algonquyn Class._

“Chippeway” Dialect.             “Lenni Lenape” Dialect.
(Root) NOND—“Understand.”        (Root) PEND—“Understand.”(152)
_Singular._                      _Singular._
N’-nond-OM.                      N’-pend-AMEN.
“I understand.”                  “I understand.”

K’-nond-OM.                      K’-pend-AMEN.
“Thou understand-est.”           “Thou understand-est.”

---- -Nond-om.                   ---- -Pend-amen.
“He understand-s.”               “He understand-s.”

_Plural._                        _Plural._

N’-nond-AM-IN.                   N’-pend-AMEN-EEN.
“We understand.”                 “We understand.”

K’-nond-AM.                      K’-pend-AM-OHUMO.
“Ye understand.”                 “Ye understand.”

---Nond-UM-ÔG.                   ---Pend-AMEN-OWO.
“They understand.”               “They understand.”

It will be observed that the inflections of the Algonquyn Verb, indicative
of persons (corresponding to those in Leg-o, Leg-is, Leg-it, _Latin_), are
“Om and Amen.” In another form of the Algonquyn Verb, “Amo” is also used.

These forms, “Om, Amo, Amen,” are the common inflections of the first
person in all the Indo-European languages. (See Dr. Prichard on the
Eastern Origin of the Celtic Nations, pp. 130, 136.) In the North American
Indian dialects it will be seen that they occur in all the three persons.
There are instances of the same kind in the Indo-European Tongues for the
Doric Greek Infinitive as in Poth-emen-ai, “To desire,” and the Greek
Passive Participle as in Tupt-omen-os, Tupt-omen-e, “Struck,” are examples
of the application of “Amen or Omen” to any individual of the Human Race,
in other words, _to all the three persons_!

This inflection “Amen” exists in the Tartar dialects in the first person,
as in Bol-amen, “I am,” Bol-asin, “Thou art,” &c.

The following are examples of its use for the first person in the Greek:

_Singular._                      _Plural._
_Amen_, used as an Inflection    _Amen_, used as an Inflection
for “I.”                         for “We.”
_E-tupt_-OMĒN, “I was struck.”   _Tupt_-OMEN, “We strike.”
_Tupt-oi_-MĒN, “Would that I
were struck.”
Ē-MĒN, “I had been.”             Ē-MEN, “We were.”

These examples will serve to illustrate the proposition that in
inflections and other grammatical details the North American Indian
dialects partially coincide with individual Indo-European languages in the
same manner as those languages partially agree among themselves! It
remains to be pointed out that where these two groups of tongues differ,
the differences are such as time might have produced, and that they have
the same basis in common.

“Om, Amo, Amen,” are according to Dr. Prichard, pronouns confused with the
verb. It is an interesting fact, that “Amo”(153) is actually used as the
separate pronoun of the third person “He” in the dialect of the
“Blackfeet,” one of the N. American Indian Tribes to the west of the
Mississippi visited by Mr. Catlin! Now, as all pronouns were
originally(154) nouns, names for a “Human Being,” (see p. 13,) words of
this class must have been in the first instance applied indifferently to
all the three Persons. But in the course of time—1, In some languages
different nouns were appropriated to different Persons,—the most common
noun being applied to the First; (this accounts for the occurrence of “Amo
Om Amen,” probably forms of the most primitive(155) noun—in the first
Person of the Indo-European languages!)—2, In other tongues supplementary
pronouns were used to mark the requisite distinction of Persons, the most
common nouns being still used agreeably to previous habit,—(though no
longer of practical service)—in combination with the verb; (this is the
case in the Algonquyn dialects in which the same inflection is repeated in
all the three persons, and the requisite distinction of persons is made by
means of pronoun prefixes or supplementary pronouns, a distinction which,
in the Greek, &c., is made by varying the final inflections or original
pronouns, as in “Tupt-oi-mēn, Tupt-oi-o,” &c.)(156)

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

The pronoun prefixes of these North American Indian dialects, which as
previously intimated, are common to the Welsh and the Hebrew, and other
Semetic tongues remain to be noticed.

ALGONQUYN PRONOUN PREFIXES.

(See previous specimens of Algonquyn Verbs.)

N’ “I” and “We.”

This is an abbreviated form used in conjunction with the verb as a prefix.
The pronoun in full is Ni Nin “I,” Ninou “We.” Both the pronoun itself and
the abbreviated form in which it is used as a prefix, occur in the Hebrew
in which the latter is used as a suffix!

This Algonquyn pronoun is identical with an Algonquyn word for “A Man,”
which, it will be observed, renders the proofs of affinity between the
Semetic and Algonquyn dialects in this instance complete.

Algonquyn.             Semetic.               Welsh.
“Man.”                 “I,” or “Me.”          “I,” or “Me.”
Anini.(157)            A.nee, (_Heb._)        Innai.
                       A.n.a, (_Arabic._)
Ini.                                          Innai.
N-nin.
“I,” or “Me.”
Nin.
Ni.(158)               Nee, (_Heb._)
N’.

“We.”                  “We.”                  “We.”
                       A.n.ou,                Ni.
                       A.n.c’h.n.ou.
Nin-ou.                N.c’h.n.ou, (_Heb._)   Nyni.
Nin-owin.              N.h.h.n, (_Arabic._)   Nyninnou.

K’, “Thou” and “Ye.”(159)

This is also an abbreviation, the Pronoun in full is Ki, K-in, K-il,
“Thou;” Kin-owa, and Kil-ou, “Ye.”

Algonquyn.             Semetic.               Welsh.
“Thou, Thine.”         “Thee, Thy.”
K’.                    C’. (_Heb._)
Kee.                   C’.ee. (_Heb._)
“Ye, Yours.”                                  “Ye.”
K’.
Ki.                                           Chwi.
Ki-nowa.               C-oun. C-n.
                       (_Chald._) C-m.
                       (_Heb._)
Kil-ou.

Du Ponceau notices another grammatical feature in which it is clear,
though he was unconscious of that fact, that these North American Indian
dialects form a connecting link between the Semetic and Indo-European
languages. “We find,” he observes, “many Nouns substantive with M prefixed
in such a way as to form an integral part of the words.”

This is a Semetic mode of forming a Noun from a Root! In Latin, Nouns are
formed from Roots by the same Letter placed at the end of words, as in
Regn-um, a mode of which we have also had an example in the Algonquyn
dialects, in the words M’-huk, Mok-um!

Where long intervals of time have elapsed, it is in all cases difficult to
discriminate between the proofs of a general and remote, and those of a
near and specific relation. Still I conceive the previous examples tend,
in some measure, to render it probable that there is a closer affinity
between the North American Indians and the inhabitants of Northern Asia
and of Europe, especially the Russians, Hungarians, and other nations
located in its Northern and Western Regions, than exists between these
American Septs and the inhabitants of Southern Asia. Should this
proposition be confirmed by further investigation, it will be found to be
in unison with Adelung’s conclusion, that the route by which the first
Colonists of Europe came from Central Asia lay through the Steppes which
separate the Chinese and Russian Empires. The Nomade Hordes of these vast
plains,—the great “Officina Gentium,”—were probably the parent Septs of
all or most of the European nations on the one hand, and of the
populations of the North-east of Asia and of the opposite American coasts
on the other!

Of the general proposition, that the American Tribes and the Nations of
the Old World are descended from the same Parent Stock, I conceive the
evidence adduced in the previous pages will be deemed to be conclusive.





APPENDIX A. ANALYTICAL COMPARISON OF SOME OF THE MOST IMPORTANT WORDS IN
THE AFRICAN LANGUAGES WITH THE ANALOGOUS WORDS IN THE LANGUAGES OF ASIA,
EUROPE, AND AMERICA.


_This Comparison will serve to show:_

1. The connexion between the Languages of the Negro population of the
Middle of AFRICA with those of the races in the North and South of AFRICA
who differ from the Negroes in Physiognomy, Colour, and other Physical
qualities.

2. The connexion between the Languages of every part of AFRICA with those
of ASIA, EUROPE, and AMERICA.

3. The fundamental identity of the Languages of the four great divisions
of the Globe.

NORTH                  MIDDLE                 SOUTH
AFRICA—_Egyptians,     AFRICA—_Negroes._      AFRICA—_Hottentots,
&c._                                          &c._
1. Oue ini and Ou
oini, Luminary
Effulgence.
[Probably connected
with “Ooh” Glory,
“Eoohu” Day.]
(_Egyptian._)
2. R. Ou oein, to      Roongeh, “Sun.”(160)
diffuse Light,
[Illuminare.]
(_Egypt._)
3.                                            I mine, “Day.”
4.
5. Ra, Re, Sun.
(_Egypt._)
6.
7. Hor, “Horus,” the   Huer, Day.
God of Day.
(_Egypt._)
8.                     Horambe, Moon.
9.
10.

Asia.                  Europe.                America.
1. O . een . n, Eye.   Wawn or Gwawn, “A
(_Heb._) Wang,         quick darting of
“Light emitted from    rays, (Dr. Owen
a body.”(_Chinese._)   Pughe’s Dict.) The
                       Dawn.” (_Welsh._)
2. Ee . ou . m
“Day,”(_Heb._)
[Probably from
“Eoohu” Day,
(_Egyptian,_) and
the suffix “M,”
which in Hebrew
forms nouns from
roots, like the
English suffix “er”
in Mak-er.(161)]
3.                     Emee . n
                       “Day.”(_Greek._)
4. Arou, Behold!       Ora-o, to see.
(_Chald._) R.a.e, to   (_Greek._)
see. (_Heb._)
5.                     Re, Moon, Re alt,
                       Star. (_Irish._)
6. Ur, Fire,           Ur-o. (_Latin._)       Uru, Day.
(_Kurd._) Hur, Fire,                          (_Aymarans, S. A._)
and Or, Day.
(_Armenian._)
7. Huere, Sun.                                Huarassi, Sun and
(_Zend._)                                     Day. (_Omaguans, S.
                                              A._)
8.                     Hora, Time,
                       (_Greek,_) an Hour,
                       (_Latin._)
9. A . ou . r,         Aurora, the Dawn.
Light, Daylight.       (_Latin._)
(_Heb. & Chaldæ._)
10. Arpi, Sun.
(_Armenian._)

NORTH                  MIDDLE                 SOUTH
AFRICA—_Egyptians,     AFRICA—_Negroes._      AFRICA—_Hottentots,
&c._                                          &c._
1. Wurabe, Day.
(_Nubia._)
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.                     Kammer, Ungmar,
                       Moon.
7. Re, the Sun, as
above.
8. Iri, “Eye.”(162)    Iirri, “Sun”
The symbol of
Osiris, the God of
Day.
9. Iris, the Dawn.
(_Egypt._)
10. Wurrhy, “Moon.”    Uhaaire, and Ver,
(_Abyss._) [Compare    “Moon.”
Wurabe, “Day,”
above.] (_Nubian._)
11.                    La, “Fire.”            Leaw, “Fire.”

Asia.                  Europe.                America.
1. Or, Day.            Wawr, or Gwawr, the    Ourhenha, Day.
(_Armenian._)          Dawn.  (_Welsh._)      (_Hurons, N. A._)
                       Awringo, Sun
                       (_Finnish._)
2. A.ou.r, Light,
&c., as above; Also
with m prefix—
3. M . A . ou. r, An
instrument or source
of Light, applied to
the Sun and Moon.
(_Heb._)
4. Mihira, Sun.
(_Sanscrit._)
5. Mar, Sun.
(_Abassian._)
6. N. Mar, Sun.
(_Affghan._)
7. Iru, Sun.
(_Korea._)
8. Eiere, Day.
(_Zend._) [Compare
Yere, Moon,
(_Samoied_) below.]
9.                     Iris, the Rainbow.
                       (_Latin._)
10. Wurra, Moon.       Wiri, Yere, and
(_Sumbava._)           Irri, Moon.
                       (_Samoied._)
11.                    Lohe, Flame.           Hello, Fire.
                       Lo-dern, “To Burn.”    (_Runsienes, N. A._)
                       (_German._)

NORTH                  MIDDLE                 SOUTH
AFRICA—_Egyptians,     AFRICA—_Negroes._      AFRICA—_Hottentots,
&c._                                          &c._
1.                     Lo, “Day.”
2.
3. Lp.s.h, “Flame.”                           Lelaffu, “Fire.”
4. Lopsh, “To Burn.”                          Leetshaatsi, “Sun.”
(_Egypt._)
5.                     Lataa, “Sun.” See
                       Lo, La, above.
6.                     La, “Fire.” Lo,        Leaw, Fire, as
                       “Day,” as above.       above. Also Lilo,
                                              Fire.(163)
7.                     Lelegh, Day.
8.                     Eluk wee, Heaven.
9.                     See Lelegh, “Day,”
                       as above.

Asia.                  Europe.                America.
1.                     Lo, and La, “Day.”     Olo, Sun and Day.
                       (_Irish._)             (_Vilellans, S. A._)
2. Hallo Allo, a
Day. (_Corea._)
3.
4. L.e.b.e, “Flame.”   Licht. (_German._)
L.e.b, “To burn.”      Light. (_English._)
(_Hebrew._) L.e.t,     Lo-dern, “To burn.”
“Flame,” “To flame,    (_German._) [See
burn.” (_Heb._)        Lohe, above.]
5. Hallo Alo, a Day.
(_Coriac._)
6.                                            Olo, Sun and Day.
                                              (_Vilellans, S. A._)
                                              Ele le dun, Flame.
                                              (_Arowacks._)
7.                                            Uolok, Day.
                                              (_Esquim._)
8.                     El eek, (_Nootka
                       Sound_,) and Hello,
                       Fire, (_Runsienes,
                       N. A_.) Ali-gega,
                       Sun. (_M. Baya_,
                       extreme south of S.
                       A.)
9.                     Lux, Light.
                       (_Latin._) Licht.
                       (_German._) Lluched,
                       Lightning.
                       (_Welsh._)

NORTH                  MIDDLE                 SOUTH
AFRICA—_Egyptians,     AFRICA—_Negroes._      AFRICA—_Hottentots,
&c._                                          &c._
1.
2.                                            Liklo, Ames-ligo,
                                              “An Eye.”
3.
4.                                            Eli-ang, the Sun.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.                                            Eli-ang, the Sun, as
                                              above.
10.
11.
12.                                           Lelangu, Sun.
13.                                           Lainch, and
                                              Lainghitsi, Heaven.

Asia.                  Europe.                America.
1. Lochatai, “He       Llygad, “An Eye.”
sees.” _Sanscrit._)    (_Welsh._)
2.                     Look-eth.
                       (_English._)
3. E.l. To shine.      Eel-ios, the Sun.
E.l.l. To shine        (_Greek._)
brightly.
4. E.ee.l.l.
Lucifer. (_Hebrew._)
5. Hailih, and         Hāil, the Sun.         Gra-_haulai_, Sun.
Hailihs, the Sun.      (_Welsh._) Hell,       (_Abipones._) Hello,
(_Sanscrit._)          Bright. (_German._)    Fire. (_Runsienes,
                                              N. A._)
6. Hallo, Alo, a                              Olo, Sun.
Day. (_Coriac._)
7. Ali, Day.                                  Allit, Moon.
(_Moluccan._)                                 (_Vilellans, S. A._)
8.                     Eel-ios, the Sun.
                       (_Greek._)
9.                                            Alank, a heavenly
                                              Luminary, or Star.
                                              (_Algonquyn
                                              dialects, N. A._)
10. Alak, a Star.
(_Assanskians._)
11. Alagon, a Star.
(_Kotowskians, N.
Asia._)
12. Lun, Day.          Lunus. Luna.
(_Sirjanian &          (_Latin._) Luan,
Permian._              Moon. (_Irish._)
13. Languin, Heaven.
(_Moluccan._) [Also,
in the same
language, Ali, Day.
Compare El-iang,
above.]

NORTH                  MIDDLE                 SOUTH
AFRICA—_Egyptians,     AFRICA—_Negroes._      AFRICA—_Hottentots,
&c._                                          &c._
1.
2.                     Kalla, Coll, Moon.
3. N jellauma(164),                           Woelau. Volan, Moon.
Day. _Phellata
dialect._
4. Leoure, Moon.
(_Fulah dialect._)
5.
6. Liulu, Moon.
(_Phellata._)
7.
8.
9. Hyalla, Heaven.     Ellu, Iulo, I ewel,
                       Heaven.

Asia.                  Europe.                America.
1. Gailgen, Moon.      Gealach, Moon.         Igaluk, Moon.
(_Coriac._) Glauh,     (_Irish._)             (_Kadjaks_, extreme
Moon. (_Sanscrit._)                           N.W. of _N.A._)
2.                                            Killa, Quilla, Moon.
                                              (_Quichuans, S.A._)
3. Jwala, Light,       Gwawl, or Wawl,
Flame. (_Sanscrit._)   Light. (_Welsh._)
4.                     Lloer, Moon.
                       (_Welsh._) Laor,
                       Moon. (_Armorican._)
5. Glauh-r, Moon.
[Formed from Glauh,
Moon, above, by
“Sandhi.”]
(_Sanscrit._)
6.                     Liu, Colour.
                       (_Welsh._) Llei-ad,
                       Moon. (_Welsh._)
                       [The double _Ll_
                       gives to the word a
                       sound nearly the
                       same as _Ch_leiad.]
7. Klaida, Klaidu,
Moon, (_Sanscrit._)
[This, and several
of the previous
Sanscrit words, have
been compared with
the Welsh by Dr.
Prichard.]
8. Koilak, Heaven.                            Killak.
(_Tchugassians_,                              (_Greenland._)
N.E. of _Asia_, and                           Killock, Heaven.
N.W. of _America_.)                           (_Kadjaks._)
9.                                            Igalack Moon, as
                                              above. (_Kadjaks._)

NORTH                  MIDDLE                 SOUTH
AFRICA—_Egyptians,     AFRICA—_Negroes._      AFRICA—_Hottentots,
&c._                                          &c._
1. Serapis, or         Sorohb, Sun.
Soropis, the God of
the Sun, the same as
Osiris. (_Egypt._)
2. Scharappa,(165)     Sorrie, Sun.
“Moon.” (_Berber &
Dongolan._)
3. Osiri, Osira,                              Surrie, Sore, Sun.
(Osiris), believed
to be the God of the
Sun (_Egypt._)
4.                                            Soroka,(166) Day.
5.                     Assara, Moon.
6.                     Osran, Osseram,
                       Osseramme, Moon.
7.                     A-un, Sun. [See this
                       word more fully
                       illustrated in
                       another part of this
                       Analysis.]
8.                                            Antu, a Day.
9.                                            Andru, Day.
10.                    Omma Ongma, “Moon.”
11.

Asia.                  Europe.                America.
1. Sh . r ph, to
burn, a
Conflagration. S . h
. r ph . e . m,
“Seraphs.” Sh.r.b,
to burn, scorch.
Ze.r, to shine
brightly.
2. Ts. e. r, a         Sêr, Stars.
Light, Noon.           (_Welsh._)
(_Hebrew._)
3. Surya, the Indian
God of the Sun. His
orb personified.
(_Sanscrit._)
4.                     Scorch. (_English._)
5. Sārā, “Moon.”       Sêr, Stars.
(_Syrian_, _Mongol_,   (_Welsh_, as above.)
& _Calmuck_.)
6.
7.                                            Ano, Day. (_Caraibs,
                                              S. A._)
8.                                            Antu Antú, Sun, Day.
                                              (_Araucan, S. A._)
9. “Indra,” the                               Inti, Indi, Sun. (In
Indian God of Day,                            several other
Diespater.                                    dialects of _S.A._)
(_Sanscrit._)
10.                    Omma, “Eye,” “Face,”
                       also applied to “Sun
                       and Moon.”
                       (_Greek._)
                       [Schneider.]
11. Mah, the Moon.
_Bucharian._)

NORTH                  MIDDLE                 SOUTH
AFRICA—_Egyptians,     AFRICA—_Negroes._      AFRICA—_Hottentots,
&c._                                          &c._
1.                                            Mo Moe.
2.                                            Muhta.
3.                                            Mum Muhm, “Eye.”
4.                                            Moomo, “Moon.”
5.
6. Manga, Eye.(167)
7.
8.
9.                     Mone, “Moon.”
10. Missigh, “Eye.”
11.                                           Massou, Massoo,
                                              Masso, Massorohi,
                                              “Eye.”
12.                                           Masso-androu, Sun,
                                              (i.e. “Eye of Day.”)
                                              [See Androu, Day,
                                              immediately before.]

Asia.                  Europe.                America.
1. Mi-en, “Face.”
(_Chinese &
Burman._)
2.
3.
4.
5. Ee m ee . n, “the
Eye,” or Finger,
(_Heb._) [Similiter
“Per-ception,” now
used for the “Eye,”
but applied
originally to the
hand.]
6.
7. M . n . ee. A
name under which the
idolatrous Jews
worshipped the
“Material Heavens.”
8. Mondy, “Sun.”                              Manoak, “Sun,” or
(_Permian._)                                  “Moon.” (_Algonquyn
                                              Dialects._)
9.                     “Moon.” (_English._)
                       Mēnē, “Month.”
                       (_Greek._) Mensis,
                       “Month.” (_Lat._)
                       Mana, “Moon.”
                       (_Lapld._)
10. Miezzi, “Eye.”
(_Burman._)
11.
12.                                           Musseete, “Day.”
                                              (_New England._)
                                              Metzli, “Moon.”
                                              (_Mexican._)

NORTH                  MIDDLE                 SOUTH
AFRICA—_Egyptians,     AFRICA—_Negroes._      AFRICA—_Hottentots,
&c._                                          &c._
1. Massch-ekka,        Masso-anru, “Sun.”     Masso-anro,
“Sun.” [Apparently     Massu, Mass-ge,        Masso-anru, “Sun.”
from Missigh,(168)     “Fire.”
“Eye,” and Ika, or
Ik, “Fire.” Compare
Massoandrou, “Sun.”
_South Africa._
(_Berbers &
Dongolans._)
2.                                            Masso-am, Sun.
3.                     Midding, “Moon.”       Majava, “Day.”
4.                     Wussuk, Fire.
5.                     Wis, Sun.
6.
7.                     Att-aschi, Sun.
8.
9. Sou Siou, Star.
(_Egypt._)
10.                    Zu, Sun.

Asia.                  Europe.                America.
1. Miaschta, “Moon.”   Mesaz, “Moon.”
(_Affghan._) Māsi,     (_Sclavonian._) Mis,
“Moon.”                “Month.” (_Welsh._)
(_Sanscrit._)
2. M.s.e(169), and
M.j, “Sun.”
(_Georgian._)
3.
4.                     Us-tus, burnt.         Usi Ussi, Fire.
                       (_Latin._)             (_California, N.
                                              A._) Is-chey, Fire.
                                              (_Black Feet
                                              Indians, N. A._)
                                              Neetak _Hasseh_,
                                              Sun. _Hasche_, Moon.
                                              (_Chikkasahs_, N.
                                              A.)
5.                                            Is-chey, Fire.
                                              (_Black Feet, N.A._,
                                              as above.)
6. Ash, Fire.          Ass-o, to roast.       Assista, Fire.
(_Heb._) Az-er, and    (_Latin._)             (_Hurons, N. A._)
At-emsch.              Azgo.(170)
(_Persian._)           (_Gothic._) Ash-es.
                       (_English._)
7.                     Aith-ein, to burn.
                       (_Greek._)
8. At-emsch.           Sah, the Sun and
(_Pehli._)             Moon. (_Chippeway._)
Ath-eresch, Fire.
(_Zend._)
9.                                            Soo, Moon.
                                              (_Penobscot, N. A._)
10.                                           Suâ, Sun.
                                              (_Muyscans, S.A._,
                                              near the Isthmus of
                                              Darien.)

NORTH                  MIDDLE                 SOUTH
AFRICA—_Egyptians,     AFRICA—_Negroes._      AFRICA—_Hottentots,
&c._                                          &c._
1.                     So, Heaven.
2.
3.
4. Shah, Flame.
5. Shah shah, Heat.
(_Egypt._)
6.
7.
8.
9.
10. Njite, “Fire.”     Nissiek, “Fire.”
(_Phellata._)
11.                    Ntzai, “Sun.”
12.                    Gimoihu, Fire.
13. Khem, God of the
Sun. (_Egypt._)
14.
15.                                           T’kaam.
16.                                           Gam, Moon.

Asia.                  Europe.                America.
1.                     Sua, Fire.
                       (_Basque._)
2. Zee ou, Beams,
Rays, Splendour.
3. Zee, to be          Zĕō, to be hot.
bright. (_Heb._)       (_Greek._)
4.                     Sua, Fire.
                       (_Basque_, as above.
5. Sch un, Sun.        Sun. (_English._)      Tscan-u, Sun.
(_Mantchu._)                                  Tschaan, Day.
6. Z.k. Flame.                                Tschan-e, Moon,
                                              (_Kinai Tribe_,
                                              extreme N.W. of _N.
                                              A._) Tcenoe, Moon.
                                              (_Cherokee._)
7. Ts.c’h.e, to                               Sacche, Sun.
shine.                                        (_Mossans, S.A._)
8. Ts.c’h, clear and                          Sekkinek, Sun.
parching.                                     (_Greenland, N. A._)
9. Ts.c’h.ts c’h,      Siccus, Dry.
violent Heat, or       (_Latin._) Sych,
Drought. (_Heb._)      Dry. (_Welsh._)
10. N.sh.k, to
kindle, to rise in
flame, to kindle a
fire. (_Heb._)
11.                    Nitidus, Shining.
                       (_Latin._)
12. C’h m, Hot,
Heat.
13. C’h.m m, to be
inflamed.
14. C’h.m.n.ee.n,                             Kaumet, Sun.
Sun Images. (_Heb._)
15.                                           Kaumei, Moon.
                                              (_Greenland._)
16.                                           Gomma, Moon.
                                              (_California._)
                                              Kyem, Moon.
                                              (_Araucan._)

NORTH                  MIDDLE                 SOUTH
AFRICA—_Egyptians,     AFRICA—_Negroes._      AFRICA—_Hottentots,
&c._                                          &c._
1.                     Giom, Heaven
2. Chrom.
3. Grom.               Giro, Sun
4. Krom, Fire.         Karree, Moon. Korro,   T’kaukarah, Moon.
(_Egypt._)             Moon.                  Kohri, “Moon.”
5. Grom, “Fire,”
(_Egyptian_, as
above.)
6.
7. Giro, “Sun,” as
above.
8.
9.
10.

Asia.                  Europe.                America.
1. Kümar, Heaven.
(_Permian._)
2. C’hr.a, Ch.r.e,
to kindle,  burn up.
(_Heb._)
3. Chor.               Quarassi, Sun.
(_Persian._)           (_Brazil._)
Coaracy, Cuarasi,
Chorschid.
(_Pehli._)
4. Chorschid, Sun.                            Chiriti, Moon.
(_Ossetian._)                                 (_Caraibs._)
5. G.r.m, Warm.        Gorm, to heat, or
(_Pers._)              warm. (_Irish._)
                       “Warm.”  (_Eng. &
                       Germ._) Gwr-ês,
                       Heat;
6. C’h.r.e, to burn.   Greiaw, to burn;       Grau-haulai, Sun.
(_Heb._ as above.)     Grei-an, i.e. “the     Grau-ek, Moon.
                       Burner,” the Sun.      (_Abipones, S. A._)
                       (_Welsh._)
7.                     Grian. (_Irish._)
8. Grag, Fire.         Gar-akou.
(_Armenian._)          (_Hurons._)
                       Garocqua, Sun.
                       (_Iroquois, N. A._)
9. Ee.ph.c’h,(171)                            Epee, Fire.
to breathe, to pant.                          (_Katabans, N. A._)
10. Ph.ou.c’h, to                             Pioc Peez, Fire.
blow upon, kindle,                            (_Moxians, S. A._)
inflame. (_Heb._)                             Paahteh, Fire.
                                              (_Nadowessians, N.
                                              A._) Futui, Fire.
                                              (_Betoans, S. A._)

NORTH                  MIDDLE                 SOUTH
AFRICA—_Egyptians,     AFRICA—_Negroes._      AFRICA—_Hottentots,
&c._                                          &c._
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.                     Bazu.                  Ibida.
9.                     Bazou, Fire.
10.                    Fosseye, the Sun.
11.
12.
13.
14.                    Aifi-am, Of-endi,
                       the Moon.
15.                                           T’aib, Fire.
16.
17. Teb re, Heaven.    Tubhia, Tubia, Fire.
18. Tuah hey, “the
Sun.”

Asia.                  Europe.                America.
1.                     Phōs, Fire, Flame.
2. Ee.ph.c’h. (As      Ee.ph-aistos,
above.)                Vulcan, the God of
                       Fire. (_Greek._)
3 Ph.ou.c’h. (As       Foc-us. (_Latin._)
above.)
4. Aifi, Fire.         Fire, Fei-er,
(_Sumbava._)           (_English &
                       German_,) formed
                       from the root by
                       adding -_er_, the
                       formative of nouns.
5. Fi. (_Japan._)
6. Fei. (_Siam._)
7. Vu-r.
(_Affghan._)
8. Bi. (_Siberian._)
9. B.sh.l, to ripen    Bask. (_English._)
in the Sun, to boil.
(_Heb._)
10. Phos, Star.        Phō-s, Fire, Light.
(_Japan._)             (_Greek._)
11. Ee p h o, to       Pha-o, to shine.
shine forth.           (_Greek._)
(_Heb._)
12. Ee p.h.o,          Phoi b-os, “Phœbus,”
Brightness,            the Sun. (_Greek._)
Splendour.
(_Chald._)
13. Ee p.ph.e, very
beautiful. (_Heb._)
14. Alf, the Moon.
(_Kurdish._)
15. Af, the Sun, and
T’eb, the Sun.
(_Sanscr._)
16. Af-teb, the Sun.
(_Persian._)
17. Tab, Heat.         Tep-or. (_Latin._)     Tash, a Day.
(_Persian._)                                  (_Pimans_, south of
                                              _N. A._)
18. Taw, “Sun.”        Tea-s, or Deas,        Tasi, Fire. (_The
(_Kurdish._)           Sunbeams. (_Welsh._)   Kinai_, extreme N.
                                              W. of _N. A._)
                                              Daazoa, Sun.
                                              (_Mokobis, S. A._)

NORTH                  MIDDLE                 SOUTH
AFRICA—_Egyptians,     AFRICA—_Negroes._      AFRICA—_Hottentots,
&c._                                          &c._
1.                     Tedi, “Moon.”
2.
3. To trig, “Moon.”
4.                     Ot u, and
5. Hauy, Fire.         Hu, Fire.
(_Nubia & Abyss._)
6.                                            Ei T.ei, and T’jih
                                              “Fire.”
7. Tuah’ hey, “Sun.”
(_Nubia & Abyss._)
8. Haou.               Uwya, Awia.
9. Eoohu, Day.         Ua, and Ou, “Sun.”
(_Egypt._)
10.                    Aou.eh, Moon.
11. “I.oh” Lunus,
the God of the Moon.
(_Egypt._)
12. Joh Ooh Oih Oou,
Glory. (_Egypt._)
13.                    Hu.n, Sun. [See Hu,
                       Fire, above.]
14.                    Au-n, and Uwi-n,
                       “Sun.” [See Awia,
                       and Ua, Sun, above.]

Asia.                  Europe.                America.
1. Tadi, “Hot.”                               Tata, Fire.
(_Affghan._)                                  (_Omaguans_, N. A.)
2. Tab-dar, Hot.       Tē k-ō, to melt,       To-atka, Fire.
(_Persian._)           consume. (_Greek._)    (_Musgohges_, _S.
                                              Carolina, N. A._)
3.                     Tœda, a Torch.
                       (_Latin._)
4. Ot m, to be burnt   Hot. (_English._)      Ouato, Fire.
up. (_Heb._)                                  (_Caribs, S. A._)
5. Ho, “Fire.”                                Otschichta, Fire.
(_Chinese._)                                  (_Onandagos, N. A._)
                                              Oua, (_Natchez_,)
                                              and You, Fire.
                                              (_Woccons, N. A._)
6.
7. Ha, Hai, Hen,                              Hueiou, Weyo, Veio,
Sun. (_Corea._)                               “Sun.” (_Caraibs, S.
                                              A._)
8.                     Ē-ōs, the Dawn.
                       (_Greek._)
9.                                            Auhe, Oweeh, Moon.
                                              (_Choctans, N. A._)
10.                                           Yehiha, Moon.
                                              (_Mobimans, S. A._)
11.                                           Yachquau, Moon.
                                              (_Senekas, N. A._)
12.
13. Hen, Sun (as       Hu an, Phœbus, the
above). (_Corea._)     Sun. (_Welsh._)
14.

NORTH                  MIDDLE                 SOUTH
AFRICA—_Egyptians,     AFRICA—_Negroes._      AFRICA—_Hottentots,
&c._                                          &c._
1. Tôn-ih, Fire.
2. Tô in Sun.
(_Nubia &
Abyssinia._)
3.                     Tan gu, Tan go, Tan
                       goa, Sun.
4.                                            Danghitsi, Heaven.
5.                     Deemwa, Fire.
                       Diambo, Sun.
6. Ik, Ika, Fire.      Ejia, Fire.            Ecy, Fire.
(_Berbers &
Dongolans._)
7.                     Ag ning, Engink,
                       Sun.
8. Nahangue, Nonge,                           Eanga, Inyanga,
Sun. (_Fulahs &                               Inganga, Moon.
Phellatahs._)
9. K o e, to burn.
10. K o.h th, Fire.
11. K o e, to burn.
(_Egypt._)

Asia.                  Europe.                America.
1.                     Ta-an, Fire.           Ta-ande, and Teinde.
                       (_Welsh._) Teine,      (_Algonquyn
                       “Fire,” also “The      Dialects._)
                       Sun.” (_Irish._)
2.                                            To-natiuh, Sun.
                                              (_Mexican._)
3. Tschingochok,                              Tschingukuk, Sun.
Sun, and T angeik.                            (_Kadjaks_, N. W. of
(_Tschugassians_, N.                          _A._)
E. of _Asia_ and N.
W. of _America_.)
4. Ten gri, Heaven.                           Toendi, Heaven.
(_Tagurian._)                                 (_Hurons, N. A._)
5.                     Tee me, or Tîme,
                       (_Irish_,) and Don y
                       m, or Tou y m, Heat,
                       Hot. (_Welsh._)
6.                                            Ioak, Fire.
                                              (_Choktahs, N. A._)
7. Ag nih, Fire.       Iigain, “I Burn.”      Ig nach, Ing nek,
(_Sanscrit._)          (_Russ._) Ignis,       Fire. (_Greenland._)
                       Ignem.  (_Latin._)
                       Okon, Fire.
                       (_Sclavonian._)
8. Ee.c.b, And Cou     Kaiō, to burn.
e, to burn.            (_Greek._)
(_Hebrew._)
9.                                            Co o h, Fire.
                                              (_Sussees, N. A._)
10.                                           K uthal, K tal,
                                              Fire. (_Araucan, S.
                                              A._)
11.                                           Chuk kut.
                                              (_Naragansetts._)

NORTH                  MIDDLE                 SOUTH
AFRICA—_Egyptians,     AFRICA—_Negroes._      AFRICA—_Hottentots,
&c._                                          &c._
1. K o h th, Fire.
2. Shah, Flame. Shah
shah Heat.
(_Egyptian._)
3.                     Ejia, “Fire.”          Ecy, Fire.
4.                     Edja, “Fire.”
5.                     Dio, “Fire.” Day,
                       “Sun.”
6.
7.                     Eju, Ejwyge, Sun.
8.                     Gajewoade, Fire.
9.                     Uk, Igodu, Moon.
10.                                           K a, and K cha,
                                              Moon.

Asia.                  Europe.                America.
1.                                            Kohteoue, Kotawa,
                                              (and used by the
                                              same tribe.)
2.                                            S cute, Fire.
                                              (_Miamis, N. A._)
3.
4. Djo, Djau,          Die-s, Day.
Heaven, Air.           (_Latin._)
(_Sanscrit._)
5. Divasi, Day.        Dio, Dios, (Jupiter,
                       Father of Day.
                       (_Greek._) |
6. Diwaspiti           Diespater.
(“Diespater”),         (_Latin._)
Jupiter, “Father of
Day.” (_Sanscrit._)
7.                     Equia, and             Kizho, Kes-us,
                       Igus-guia, Sun.        Kissessua, Gischi,
                       Goiza, Morning.        Geschu, Sun;
                       (_Basque._)            Kijigah, Day.
                                              (_Algonquyn
                                              dialects:_)
8.
9.                                            Hak,(172) Moon;
                                              Io-hakta, a Star.
                                              (_Algonquyn_
                                              dialects, N. A.)
10.                                           K’akh, Fire.
                                              (_Yucatan._) Kacha,
                                              Moon.
                                              (_Ugaljachnuti_,
                                              near _Behring’s
                                              Straits, N. A._)
                                              Cayacu, Moon.
                                              (_Brazil._)

NORTH                  MIDDLE                 SOUTH
AFRICA—_Egyptians,     AFRICA—_Negroes._      AFRICA—_Hottentots,
&c._                                          &c._
1. Onatejá, Moon.      T’ jo, Moon.           T’ ga, Moon.
(_Berber &
Dongolan._)
2.                                            T.jih, Fire.
3.
4.
5. Onatejá, Moon.      T’jo, “Moon.”          T’ ga, Moon.
(_Berber &
Dongolan._)
6.                     Teelee, “Sun.”
                       Duléh, “Sun.”
7.                     Dalkah, “Day.”
8.                     Dilko, “Heaven.”
                       Dalkah, a Day, (as
                       above.)
9.                     Genaa, “Sun.”
10.                    Guiante, “Sun.”
11.                    Gonde, Gonda,
                       “Moon.”

Asia.                  Europe.                America.
1.                                            Tacock, Moon.
                                              (_Esquimaux._)
2.                                            Taiki, Fire.
                                              (_Pimans, S.A._)
3. Tüiküt, Sun.                               Taiki, Sun.
(_Coriac._)                                   (_Tarahumaran._)
4. D’ge, “Day.”        Tag, “Day,”
(_Georgian._)          (_German._) Day.
                       (_English._)
5. Tagara, “Heaven.”
(_Jakutian._)
6. Tael, Tylys,        Taglich. (_German._)
Moon. (_Permian._)     Dai-ly. (_English._)
7. Tjel, “Day.”                               Tsele, Day.
Tsjel-emi, “Daily.”                           (_Tarahumaran_, S.
(_Ostiaks._)                                  of _N. A._)
8.                                            Talkon, a Day. (_The
                                              Kinai_, extreme N.
                                              W. of _N. A._)
9. Guin esch, Gunes,   Gunnei, or Cunnei,     Coun, Fire.
“Sun.”  (_Turk._)      “A great Fire.”        (_Chippeway._)
                                              Kes-is Kesus, “Sun.”
                                              (_Algonquyn._)
10. Gun, “Day.”        Gunnes, “Warm.”
(_Casanians._)         (_Welsh._)
11. Kun, Sun.
(_Tartar._)

NORTH                  MIDDLE                 SOUTH
AFRICA—_Egyptians,     AFRICA—_Negroes._      AFRICA—_Hottentots,
&c._                                          &c._
1.
2.                     Agonne, Moon.
3.

Asia.                  Europe.                America.
1. Kjun, Day.          Egun, Day.             Kize-kun,
(_Turk._)              (_Basque._)            Okené-gat,(173)
                                              “Day.” (_Algonquyn
                                              dialects._)
2.                                            Tes-Gessu, Sun.
                                              [Evidently a
                                              compound of Gischu
                                              or Kiz-ho, the Sun,
                                              with “Tesh.”(174)]
3. Tschi, Schi,                               Teshe-kow, “Day,”
“Day.” (_Morduins_,                           (_Algonquyn
N.E. of _Asia_.)                              Dialects._)

According to Du Ponceau the words for “Heaven” in the Algonquyn tongue are
derived from several sources. A numerous class consists of “Mots derivées
de _Kesuch_, Astre, Soleil,” i.e. words from _Kesuch_, “Sun, Star.”
Compare the names for the “Eye,” previously noticed; also traced by Du
Ponceau to Kesuch, or Kesus, “The Sun.”

NORTH                  MIDDLE                 SOUTH
AFRICA—_Egyptians,     AFRICA—_Negroes._      AFRICA—_Hottentots,
&c._                                          &c._
1.
2.                                            T’ gachu, “Heaven.”
3.
4.                     Tschukko, “Heaven.”
                       K’ tak.
5.                     Nghoi, “Heaven.”
                       [Also “Thunder in
                       the Air.”]
6.
7.                                            Homma, “Heaven.”
                                              [See Omma, Moomo,
                                              and other analogous
                                              words previously
                                              explained, applied
                                              to “Sun and Moon.”]

Asia.                  Europe.                America.
1. K jok,(175)         Kez-hik, Keg-ik,
“Heaven.” (_Turk._)    Heaven
2. Chok, “Heaven.”
(_Tart._) Kuk,
“Heaven.” (_Casan._)
3. Kh’igan,            Gezhegon, Heaven.
“Heaven.” (_Comac._)   (_Algonquyn._)
Ko’chan, “Heaven.”
(_Kamschatka._)
Kundschu, “Heaven.”
(_Jukadshires._)
4. Shkai, “Heaven.”    “Sky.” (_Eng &         Ta k, Tack,
(_Morduins._)          Dan._)                 “Heaven.”
                                              (_Esquimaux._)
                                              Keschékewé, Heaven.
                                              (_Algonquyn._)
5.
6. Kiusiu-luste.
(_Tscheremessian._)
7.

Another class of names for “heaven,” are words signifying “_On High_,” _En
Haut._

NORTH                  MIDDLE                 SOUTH
AFRICA—_Egyptians,     AFRICA—_Negroes._      AFRICA—_Hottentots,
&c._                                          &c._
1. Szemmèÿ, Heaven.
(_Nubia &
Abyssinia._)
2. Szèmma, Heaven.
(_Berbers &
Dongolans._)
3. Szemma, Heaven,
(_Phellata._)
4.                     Szemma.
5.                     Szemma.
6.                     Assaman. Sambiam
                       pungo. Assamane,
                       Heaven.
7.
8. Apĕ, Apē, Aphe,
“Head.”
9. A ph . o ph, a                             Ivaq.
Giant. (_Egypt._)
10.                    I banju

Asia.                  Europe.                America.
1.
2.
3.
4. Sema, Heaven.
(_Arabic._)
5. Shmia, Heaven.
(_Pehlwi._)
6. Asman, Heaven.                             A woso-gamé, Heaven.
(_Siberian Tartars_)                          [Literally “En
                                              Haut,” on high.]
                                              (_Algonquyn._)
7.                     Upo. (_Greek._) Up.    Apez, Heaven.
                       (_English._)           (_Moxian._)
                       Heavion, to rise,
                       Heafon, Heaven.
                       (_Ang. Sax._) Haupt.
                       (_German._)
8.                     Heafod, (_Ang.
                       Sax._) Huf-wud,
                       Head. (_Swedish._)
9.                                            I bag, I bâca.
                                              (_Brazil._)
10.                                           Oubecou,
                                              (_Caraibs_,) Ipigem,
                                              Heaven.
                                              (_Abipones._)

Another Class of names for “Heaven,” are words signifying “_On High_,” _En
Haut._

NORTH                  MIDDLE                 SOUTH
AFRICA—_Egyptians,     AFRICA—_Negroes._      AFRICA—_Hottentots,
&c._                                          &c._
1. Pe, and Phe,
Heaven.
2. N e th-Pe and
Ne-Pheou, Heaven-s
or Heaven.
3. Net-phe, an
Egyptian Goddess,
the consort of Seb
or Saturn. Her
emblem was “_The
Firmament_.”
4. Ne-Pheou,
Heaven-s or Heaven.
[Like the Greek
“Ouranoi.”]
(_Egypt._)
5.                     Sulu, “Heaven.”        I suhlu, Heaven.
                       [Compare preceding
                       words.]

Asia.                  Europe.                America.
1.
2.                                            Ibo, Ibunga, the
                                              Sun. (_California._)
3.                     Nebo, Heaven.
                       (_Sclavon._) Nev,
                       Heaven. (_Welsh._)
4.
5. S l, to raise,      Celsus, Cœlum.
elevate. (_Hebrew._)   (_Latin._)

Another Class of words for the “Sky” is derived, as is obvious in many
languages, from words primarily meaning “Air.”

NORTH                  MIDDLE                 SOUTH
AFRICA—_Egyptians,     AFRICA—_Negroes._      AFRICA—_Hottentots,
&c._                                          &c._
1.
2.                                            Maaro, Heaven.
                                              [Compare the
                                              formation of M—.’ A
                                              . ou . r, a
                                              Luminary, _Hebrew_,
                                              from A our,
                                              Light,(176) as
                                              previously
                                              explained.]
3.                     Iru, Heaven.
4.
5.                                            Atem co.
6. Aineha.
7. Aineha addela,
Eye. (_Nubia &
Abyss._)

Asia.                  Europe.                America.
1. A ou . ee . r,      A wyr, the Air, the
Air, Space,            Sky. (_Welsh._)
(_Chald._) from A r,
to flow.  (_Heb._)
2. A r w, Heaven.
(_Ossetian._)
3.                     A ē r and Ē r ē,
                       Juno, the Atmosphere
                       or Heavens
                       personified.
4. Auwa, Heaven.       A .ō, to blow,         Wahwi, “Heaven.”
(_Sib. Tartars._)      breathe. (_Greek._)    (_Algonquyn._)
                       A ha, Breath.          [According to Du
                       (_German._) A-them,    Ponceau, of unknown
                       Breath, Air.           origin, “origine
                       (_German._)            inconnue.” But see
                                              the adjoining
                                              column.]
5.                     At m-ē, At m-os,
                       Breath, Vapour.
                       Atmos-Sphaira,
                       Atmosphere.
                       (_Greek._)
                       Atmosphere.
                       (_English._) Chwa, a
                       gust of Wind.
                       (_Welsh._)
6.                                            Aino, Eye.
                                              (_Mossans, S. A._)
7. Oeen, Eye. Ene,     En, Behold.            En-ourou, Yen-ourou,
Behold. (_Heb._)       (_Latin._)             Eye. (_Caraibs, S.
Yen, Eye.                                     A._)
(_Chinese._)

NORTH                  MIDDLE                 SOUTH
AFRICA—_Egyptians,     AFRICA—_Negroes._      AFRICA—_Hottentots,
&c._                                          &c._
1.                     Ne ay. Hinma, Eye.
2.                     Neay (as above).
3.                     Nou kou, Onukou,
                       Eye.
4.
5.                     K hasso, Eye.
6.                     Guitte, Eye.
7. Egō at, Eye.
(_Nubia & Abyss._)

Asia.                  Europe.                America.
1.                                            Ñahui, Eye.
                                              (_Quichauns._)
                                              Nàgui, Eye.
                                              (_Quitenans, S. A._)
2. Ne, Eye.            Ne, Nege, Ge, “Eye.”
(_Circassian._)        (_Araucan, S. A._)
3.                                            Nigüecogue,
                                              Nigecogee, “Eye.”
                                              (_M. Bayan._)
                                              Natocle, “Eye.”
                                              (_Abipones_,
                                              inhabitants of the
                                              extreme S. of _S.
                                              America_.)
4. Achsi, Eye.                                Ishyik. K hescoué,
(_Sanscrit._)                                 the Eye, connected
                                              with Kesus, the Sun.
                                              (_Algonquyn,_(_177_)_
                                              N. A._)
5.                                            Kussee, Eye. (_Nootka
                                              Sound._)
6. Giosgus, Gus,
Eye. (_Turk._)
7.                     Eage, Eye. (_Ang.
                       Sax._) Oko, Eye.
                       (_Sclavonian._)
                       Oculus, Eye.
                       (_Latin._)

NORTH                  MIDDLE                 SOUTH
AFRICA—_Egyptians,     AFRICA—_Negroes._      AFRICA—_Hottentots,
&c._                                          &c._
1.
2.                     Zu, Sun (as before).   T’ saguh, Eye.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.                     Szan-ko, Eye.

Asia.                  Europe.                America.
1.                                            Sah, the Sun and
                                              Moon. (_Chippeway_,
                                              as before.)
2.                                            Zu, and Zuiakc, Eye.
                                              (_Lulians_, S. A.)
3.                     Sagax, Quick of
                       Sight. (_Latin_.)
                       Sight. (_English._)
4. Sai, Saiwa, Saie,   See. (_English._)
Eye. (_Samoied._)      Sehen. (_German._)
5. Schun, “Sun.”       Sun. (_English._)
(_Mantchu._)
6. Sem, Eye.           Szem, Eye.
(_Ostiaks._)           (_Hungarian._)
7.                                            Shenek, Eye.
                                              (_Alyon. dialects_,
                                              N. A.)

In the words next following we have an example of the principle that the
terms applied to the perceptive powers of the “Hand,” in the first
instance, form a source of many analogous words applied to the operations
of the other senses, and to those of the mind.

NORTH                  MIDDLE                 SOUTH
AFRICA—_Egyptians,     AFRICA—_Negroes._      AFRICA—_Hottentots,
&c._                                          &c._
1.
2.
3.                                            Tewho, Eye.
4.                     Batte, Eye.
5. Bal, an Eye, Bel,
Eyes. (_Egypt._)
6. Belle, Blind.
[Supposed by Dr.
Loewe to be from Bel
or Bal, and the
Hebrew negative
suffix “_l_.”]
(_Egypt._)
7.                     Rogue, Heaven.

Asia.                  Europe.                America.
1. E e d, the Hand.                           Yede, Eye.
                                              (_Zamucans, S. A._)
2. E ed o, to feel,    Eido, to _see_, to
to perceive, to        know. (_Greek._)
know.
3. Do-eth re, Eye.     Do-eth, Wise.
(_Zend._)              (_Welsh._)
4.                                            Toké, Eye.
                                              (_Villelans, S. A._)
5. B th, the Pupil     Ball, Eyeball.
of the Eye.            (_English._) Bli-ck.
(_Hebrew._)            (_German._)
6.                     Blink. (_English._)
                       [Compare this word
                       with the last.]
7.                     Blind, Black.
                       (_English._)

Remarks.

The proofs involved in the previous Analysis of the original unity of the
different languages of the globe are distinct and vivid. It will be
observed that those irregularities of structure, which are to be found
more or less in each individual language, viewed separately, disappear
when the whole mass of human tongues are thus surveyed in combination as
derivative branches of one original speech. Moreover, it will be seen that
the greater the number of languages, and the wider the geographical
surface of the globe comprised in the comparison, the more minutely may be
traced the steps of the transition by which the languages of mankind
branched off from their common Original. This evidence is in its nature
demonstrative of the truths developed in these pages.

It will be apparent that the Heavenly Bodies were originally designated by
numerous synonymes applied to the Sun, Moon, and Stars alike. In the
course of time, a portion of these terms fell into disuse among each
different branch of the human family; and as these various tribes did not,
except in individual instances, preserve the same terms, these changes
gave rise to differences, apparently fundamental. Moreover, in those
instances in which the _same_ terms were retained, time produced important
conventional differences of _application_. For example, in order to
distinguish the Sun, Moon, &c. from each other.

1. A portion of these synonymes, which were originally used for all the
Heavenly Bodies alike, were exclusively _appropriated_ to the Sun, while
other synonymes were appropriated in like manner to the Moon, &c.; among
different nations the same terms were frequently applied to _different_
luminaries. Thus, in conformity to this principle, the English words “Sun”
and “Moon” will be found to occur in the previous Analysis each applied,
in other languages, to _both_ those luminaries.

2. In some cases the different luminaries were distinguished from each
other in a different manner, viz. two or more synonymes were united into
one compound word, which was employed as the distinctive name of one of
the Heavenly Bodies, as of the Sun, for example, while the “Moon” and the
“Stars” continued to be known by their original names, consisting of
simple synonymes; or received new names, formed by means of _distinct_
compounds.

Examples of the second class abound in the dialects of the American
continent. One example may suffice in this place, by way of illustration:
“Tes-gessu” in some of these dialects means the Sun; in other dialects we
find each of its component elements, “_Tês_” and “_Gessu_,” used
_separately_ as names of the same luminary. In common with many other
important truths, the nature and origin of these compounds are, I
conceive, rendered clearly apparent by an extended range of comparison,
though they seem to have been a source of embarrassment to the
philosophical mind of Du Ponceau, whose valuable inquiries were confined
to a particular class of the dialects of North America.

When the results of the previous Analysis are compared with the previous
collection of African synonymes, used as names of the Heavenly Bodies,
&c., it will be found that _nearly every one_ of these synonymes has been
unequivocally connected with the languages of the other three great
divisions of the globe. The exceptions are too insignificant to be in any
respect deserving of attention, with reference to the objects of this
investigation. The completeness of this explanation of the African terms
may, in the first instance, form a subject of surprise. But, astonishing
as the results of the previous comparison in this respect undoubtedly are,
they are nevertheless precisely the same as we should be led _à priori_ to
expect, on the assumption that the African nations are descended from the
same stock as the inhabitants of the other three continents.(178)

Words For “Man, Woman, Human Being.”


    [In the following Analysis, the letter M. marks nouns masculine,
    (“Vir,” _Latin_, “Man,” _English_;) F. marks nouns feminine,
    (“Fœmina,” _Latin_, “Woman,” _English_;) H. marks terms applied to
    a “Human Being,” whether “male” or “female,” (“Homo,” _Latin_,
    “Mensch,” _German_;) there is no equivalent expression in the
    English language.]


From the following Analysis, it will be apparent that, originally, the
same words were in most instances applied to individuals of the human
race, whether male or female, indiscriminately. Subsequently, a portion of
the synonymes, thus indiscriminately applied in the first instance to the
_whole_ species, were _separately_ appropriated to each of the two sexes;
while another portion, as, for example, the Latin, “Homo,” and the German,
“Mensch,” continued to be used as general terms for an individual of the
species, _without reference to sex_.

As the appropriation of these words was purely conventional, the same
synonymes were very frequently appropriated, among different branches of
the human race, to different sexes: i.e. a word appropriated to “Man”
(Vir) by some tribes was appropriated to the “Female” sex (Fœmina) by
other tribes. It is also evident that the terms thus appropriated
consisted in some instances of simple, in others of compound, synonymes.

These principles, which are precisely analogous to the results which flow
from a comparison of the names of “The Heavenly Bodies” in the African
tongues and in the other languages of the globe, will be found to afford a
complete and consistent explanation of the phenomena displayed by the
following Analysis, viz.: As before suggested, we find the _words_ applied
to the _human race_ in the different tongues of the globe _the same_; it
is only in the _appropriation of those words_, as regards the two _sexes_,
that we find a wide diversity in the various languages of the human race.

_Words for __“__Man, Woman,__”__ &c._—CLASS I.

First Modification.

North                  Gour-ko, M., Gourk-o
Africa.—_Fulahs &      Mahodo, M.
Phellatahs_
_Negro-land_           Gourr, H., Garr, H.,
                       Core, H. Gour-gne,
                       M., Kerim, F.
Europe.—_Welsh_        Gour, M. (A mighty
                       man, a hero.)
                       Gour-on, M.
Asia.—_Taraikai_       Guru, H
_Kamschatka_           K ur, H.
_Pelu_                 K or, H.
_Negro-land_ (as       Core. H.
above)

Second Modification.

South                  Urun, H. Orrang,
Africa.—_Madagascar_   M.(179)
Europe.—_Welsh_.       Our, M., Ouron, M.
(Modifications of
“Gour and Gour-on,”
above.)
Asia.—_Malay_          Orang, M.
South                  Uar mi, F.
America.—_Quicuans_
_Negro-land_ (as       Ker im, F.
above)

There is a very obvious connexion between the above words for Man and a
word for “The Hand,” of which the extreme antiquity is apparent from its
occurring in the languages of races so widely separated as the following,
in whose tongues this word exists in the subjoined forms, which cannot be
said essentially to differ from each other: Gara (_Mongol_), Kara
(_Sanscrit_), Keir (_Greek_), “The Hand.” [Compare the relation shown in
the following examples between Manus, “The Hand” (_Latin_), and Manus-zia
(_Sanscrit_), and Men-sch (_German_), i.e. Homo, a “Human Being.”]

_Words for __“__Man, Woman,__”__ &c._—CLASS II.

Europe.—_English_      To _Be_.
_Welsh_ (Living, to    Biou.
live)
_Greek_ (To live)      Bio-ō.(180)
_Greek_ (Life)         Bi-os.
Asia.—_Koibals, N.     Biusé, M.
Asia_
_Negro-land_           Buas-ja, F.

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

_Words for __“__Man, Woman,__”__ &c._—CLASS III.

First Modification.

Europe.—_Latin_         Homo, H.
South                   Uhm-to, H. Uhm-fasi,
Africa.—_Koosas_        F.
(A Child)               Uhm-toano.
_Negro-land._ (A        Bi-ommo, H.
compound,
apparently, of Ommo
and the previous
word “Biou,” &c.)
South                   Humasoi, H. Umasoi,
America.—_Betoans_      H.
_Negro-land_            Um-ir, H. Mo, H.
Asia.—_Ossetians_       Mo, H.
South                   Me, M.
America.—_Guaramians_
_Negro-land_            Amme, H., Emme, H.
                        Meame, H. Mammoku,
                        M. Mangman, F.

The following are examples of words of this class applied to the Female
Sex:

South                  Ma, F.
America.—_Mobimans_
_Mossans_  (“A         Meme, F.
Mother”)
_Negro-land_           Ma, F.,  Mmi, F.
North                  Hime, F., Himi, F.
Africa.—_Egypt_
Europe.—_Basque_       Emea, F.
Asia.—_Karassians      Ima, F.,  Ime, F.
and Ostiaks_
Europe.—_Fin._         Waimo, F.

Second Modification.

Europe.—_Latin_        Ho-_min_-em, H.
(from Homo)
(Human)                Hu-“_man_”-ûs.
(The Hand)             “_man_”-us.
Asia,—_Sans._ (A       Manus-zia, H.
“Human Being”)
Europe.—_German_       Men-sch, H.
(The same)
(A Man, Vir)           Mann, M.
_English_              Man, M.
_Danish_               Mand, M.
_Negro-land_           Manee, H., Mond, H.,
                       Mundu, H.
South Africa.—_Lagoa   Monhee, H.
Bay_
_Beetjuanas_           Muhn-to, H.
Mon-una, M.
Asia.—_Kurd_           Manno, M.
_Ossetian_             Moine Mo, H.
South                  Mena, M.
America.—_Omaguans_

The following are examples in which the _Second Modification_ and the
transition from the first to the second form of these words are traceable
in words applied to the Female Sex.

Europe.—_Fin._         Waimo, F.
(Woman, as above)
Asia.—_Sanscrit_       Wa-_man_i, F.
Europe.—_English_      Wo-man, F.

The words of this Class may be distinctly traced, in both their previous
modifications, as Pronouns in common use in the principal languages of
Europe and Asia. The value of this evidence will be understood when Horne
Tooke’s principle, that Pronouns are identical with Nouns, is borne in
mind.

1. Pronouns identical with Amme, Emme, Meame, “Man,” above:

Aham, “I,” Mam, “Me,” (_Sanscrit._)
Eme, “Me,” (_Greek._)

2. Pronouns identical with Monhe, Mano, Manee, “Man,” above.

Mon, “I,” (_Ostiak._) Men, I, (_Persian._)
Menik, “I,” (_Belutchee._) Menya, “Me,” (_Russian._)
“Mein,” (_German and English._)

For other examples, see Observations on the Algonquyn Dialects of North
America.

There is another topic that calls for observation in this place.

The origin of the peculiar transition, observable in this class of words,
as, for example, in the instance of the Latin words “Homo, Ho-_minis_,
Hu-manus, Manus,” has been fully investigated in the Observations on the
Algonquyn Dialects of North America. Those observations are equally
applicable in this place, for the previous Analysis establishes the
remarkable fact that the African languages exhibit in this instance not
only the same _words_, but the principal subordinate modifications of
those words, which occur in the tongues of the other three continents.

Further, these modifications are _completely_ traceable in the Negro
dialects _separately_ considered. They are also completely traceable in
the dialects of South Africa _separately_ considered. Moreover, it may be
added, that these gradations of inflexion actually coexist in one _single
class_ of South African dialects: “Uhm-to, Muhn-to, Monuna,” are all found
in the languages of the kindred tribes, the Koossas and Beetjuanas.

_Words for __“__Man, Woman,__”__ &c._—CLASS IV.

First Modification.

South                  Joalé, H. Aalo, F.
America.—_Abipones
and Mokobis_
_Negro-land_           Alo, F.
Europe.—_Latin         Ille, Illa.
Pronouns_
South                  Lelay, M. Lahe, M.
Africa.—_Madagascar_

Second Modification.

North                  Lomi, H.
Africa.—_Egypt_
_Negro-land_           Olummi, M.(181)
South                  Olon, H. Oelun, H.
Africa.—_Madagascar_
Asia.—_Malays of       Aulon, H.
Formosa_
N.                     Ahlaniah, H.
America.—_Algonquyn    Illaniah, H.
dialects_              Illenni, H. Lenno,
                       M. Lennis, H.
_Negro-land_           Laniu, M. Lung, F.

_Words for __“__Man, Woman,__”__ &c._—CLASS V.

Europe.—_Welsh_,       Nouv us.
“Full of Spirits”
Asia.—_Hebrew._        N. ph. sh, H.
(Breath, Spirit, A
Man)
_Negro-land_           Nipa, H., Nippa, H.
                       Nebeju, M., Enipa,
                       H.
N.                     Népiou, H., Napiou,
America.—_Algonquyn    H. Nabou, H.,
dialects_              Len-nâpé, M.

Referring to the foregoing American words, Népio and Nabou, Du Ponceau
observes, “Ces deux derniers semblent avoir quelque rapport avec Len-âpé.”
“_The last two seem to have some connexion with Len-âpé._” Lenâpé is
plainly a compound of the two preceding roots, Lenno and Napiou. The
nature of these compounds, which, as above stated, may be said to have
escaped the observation of Du Ponceau, has been explained in the preceding
remarks on “The Heavenly Bodies.” Len-âpé is a compound formed to
distinguish the _Male_ sex.

_Words for __“__Man, Woman,__”__ &c._—CLASS VI.

First Modification.

North                  Anah.On.h.
Africa.—_Egypt_ (To
live)
Asia.—_Heb._ (To       A.n.c.h. A.n.sh, M.,
sigh, breathe)         N.sh.e, F.
_Kamschatka_           Ainu, M.
_Negro-land_           Nu, M., In, F.
South                  T’Na, M.
Africa.—_Bosjesmans_
N.                     Anini, H., Inin, M.,
America.—_Algonquyn    Ninnee, M.,
dialects_              Inishiti, H.
Asia.—_Hebrew_ (as     An.sh, M., N sh.e,
above)                 F.

Second Modification.

_Negro-land_           Ungi, M. Jankueh,
                       F., Nga, F.
North                  Nekdo, H.
Africa.—_Phellatahs_
North                  Ongué, H.
America.—_Iroquois_
_Greenland_            Innuk, H.

Agreeably to Horne Tooke’s principles, the following Pronouns in other
languages may be regarded as identical with the African Nouns in the
Analysis, viz.:

The Pronoun of the Second Person, Nyu, Nai, “Thou” (_Chinese_), may be
identified with Nu, and T’na. The Pronouns of the First Person, “I,” Anok
(_Egyptian_), An.c.ee (_Hebrew_), Iōn ga (_Greek_), Ngoo (_Chinese_), may
be viewed as identical with Ungi Jankueh and Nga.(182)

_Further examples of both the previous Modifications of Class VI._ _Being
words applied to the Female Sex._

Asia.—_Malay_           Ina, F.
_Turkish_ (A Mother)    Anna, F.
_Negro-land_            Anna, F.
South                   Anu, F.
America.—_Sapeboeans_
Europe.—_Hungarian_     Anya.
(A Mother)
_Negro-land_            Wan, F., Jankueh, F.
Asia.—_Japan_           Wonna, F., Wonago,
                        F.
_Lieu Kieu_             Einago, F.
Europe.—_English_       Wench
_Gothic_                Uen, F., Uens, F.
South Africa            Honnes, F.
Asia.—_Hebrew_ (as      A.n.sh, M., N.sh.e,
above)                  F.
_Koibal_                Niausa, F.

_Words for __“__Man, Woman,__”__ &c._—_Class_ VII.

First Modification.

South                  Kouh, M., Kauh, M.
Africa.—_Coronas_
Negroland              Cow, M., Kea, M.,
                       Kaikjai, M., Koa,
                       M., (_plural._)
South                  Chha, M.
America.—_Muyscans_
_Zamucans_             Cheké, F.
North                  Ochechee, M.
America.—_Shawannos_
Asia.—_Heb._ (A        Gou.e.
Body, A Person)
_Kamschatka_           Okkăijŭh, M.
_Taraikai_             Okkai, M.
_Lasian_               Akadju, M.
N. Africa.—_Berbers    Agikh, M.
& Dongolans_

_Words applied chiefly to Nouns Feminine._

Asia.—_Mantschu_       Chache, M., or
                       Haghe, M., Cheche,
                       F., or Heghe, F
S.                     Cheké, F.
America.—_Zamucans_
(as above)
North                  Huagin, F.
America.—_Cochimi_
Europe.—_English_      Hag, F.
_German_               Hexe, F.
_Latin Pronouns_       Hic, M., Hæc, F.

Second Modification.(183)

South                  Kouh, M., Kus, F.,
Africa.—_Hottentot     Kauh, M., Chai-sas,
Tribes_                F. K’quique, M.,
                       K’quiqis, F.
                       Quoique, M.,
                       Kyoiqui-s, F.
                       Quai-scha, F.
Europe.—_Latin         Qui, Quis, Quisque.
Pronouns_
South                  Cocco, M.
America.—_Salivians_
_Mobimans_             Coucya, F.
N.                     Hakke, H., Icquoi-s,
America.—_Algonquyn    F. Esqua, F.,
dialects_ (A Body,     “Squaw,” F.
or Person)

It will be observed that in the previous African words, as also in the
North American words introduced into the comparison, the Feminine is
formed by adding the letter “_s_,” (as in the English Prince-_ss_); a form
which prevails widely in the most ancient languages of Europe.

Asia.—_Taraikai_ (as   Okai, M.
above)
_Negro-land_           Okee-tu, F.,
                       Uk-assi, F.
Asia.—_Georgian_       Kasi, M.
_Samoied_ (Men)        Chosowo.
_Lasian_               Goz, H.
Europe.—_Welsh_        Gouas, M.
_Basque_               Giuzona, M.
_Negro-land_           Guiguienne, F.,
                       Guiacar, M.

Third Modification.

_Negro-land_           Jakkela, M., Ackala,
                       M.(184)
South                  Oukele, H.
America.—_Caraibs_
North                  Oquichetle, H.
America.—_Mexico_

_Names for __“__Man, Woman,__”__ &c._—CLASS VIII. [A Modification of CLASS
VII.]

Asia.—_Hebrew_         Gou. e, or G O V, H.
(“Man,” as above)
_Pehlwi_               Gebna, M.
_Samoied_              Chubb, M., Chyb, M.
South                  Chaib, M., Kupp, M.
Africa.—HOTTENTOTS

_Names for __“__Man, Woman,__”__ &c.—_CLASS IX.

North                  Hoout, H.
Africa.—_Egypt_
_Nubia & Abyssinia_    Odéÿ, H. Oták, M.
Negro-land.            Ot ga, M., Ot-jee,
                       F.

Conformably to Horne Tooke’s principle, A.th.c., “Thou” (_Hebrew,_) may be
regarded as identical with Otak, Ot ga, Ot-jee, the above names for “Man,
Woman,” &c.

Asia.—_Tribes on the   Had-kip, M.
__“__Jenisei__”__
River_
_in Siberia_           At-kub, M. Hutt, H.,
                       Hitt, H. Ket, H., K
                       hitt, H.

These words are composed of simple and of compound synonymes, both derived
from the last two classes of words.

_Names for __“__Man, Woman,__”__ &c._—CLASS X.

First Modification.

_Negro-land_           Mad, H., Made, H.,
                       Mutte, H.
Europe.—_Icelandic_    Mad-ur, M.
Asia.—_Kamschatka_     Māth, F.

Second Modification.

_Negro-land_           Messhuhu, M., Muhsa,
                       F. Musee, F.
Asia.—_Zend._          Meshio, M.
_Taraikai_             Mazy, F.
_Motorian_             Misem, F.
Europe.—_Sclavonian_   Mosh, M.
_Latin._               Mas, M.(185)
_Armorican_            Maues, F.
South                  Muysca, M.
America.—_Muyscans_
_Negro-land_           Mogee, H.
Europe.—_Dalmatian_    Muux, M.

_Words for __“__Man, Woman,__”__ &c._—CLASS XI.

_Negro-land_           Ibalu, M., Belb, M.,
                       Obellima, M.
South Africa           Am-pele, F.
South                  Pelé, H.
America.—_Vilellans_

_Words for __“__Man, Woman,__”__ &c._—CLASS XII.

Europe. (_Latin_ and   “Is,” “Os.”
_Greek_ Pronouns,
and terminations of
Nouns)
_Latin_ (To Be)        Esse.
Asia.—_Hebrew_ (“To    E c . sh. A . ee .
Be”)                   sh (Vir.) A . sh . e
                       (Fœmina.)(186)
_Negro-land_           Osse, H., See, H.
                       Uzu, M.(187)
South                  Zohee, M., Zohee-s,
Africa.—_Hottentots_   F.
Europe.—_Greek_        Zo-ē.
(Life)
(To live)              Zoō.

_Names for __“__Man, Woman,__”__ &c._—CLASS XIII.

First Modification.

Asia.—_Affghan_        Meru, M.
_Zend_                 Merete, M.
_Persian_              Mard, M.
_Sanscrit_             Mart-ja, M.
Europe.—_Latin_        Mari-tus, M.,
                       Mar-is.

Second Modification.

Asia.—_Georgian_       K-mari, M.
Africa.—_Negro-land_   Ka_mere_, M.

Third Modification.

_Negro-land_           Nu-_mero_, H.
North                  Né-_marough_, H.
America.—_Algon.
dialects._

_Words for __“__Man, Woman,__”__ &c._—CLASS XIV.

[Applied chiefly to the _Female_ Sex.]

First Modification.

Europe.—_Greek_ (A     Gun . ē, F.
Woman)
_Russian_              Jena, F.
_Latin_ (“The Mother   “Juno.”
of the Gods”)
Asia.—_Sanscrit_       Jani, F. (Janoni, A
                       Mother.)
_Negro-land_           Jonnu, F., Djonnu,
                       F., Junoo, F.(188)

The identity of the Negro word “Junoo” with the Latin “Juno,” is a
remarkable feature in this comparison.

“Janoni, a Mother, in Sanscrit,” it is observed in an able article in the
Edinburgh Review,(189) “is the manifest origin of the Latin appellation of
_the mother of the Gods_.”

Second Modification.

_Words for __“__Woman.__”_

South                  Coenac, F.
America.—_Mocobis_
_Omaguans_             Cunia, F.
South                  Aukona, F.
Africa.—_Hottentots_

_Words for __“__Man,__”_ (Vir and Homo.)

First Modification.

_Negro-land_           Gonee, M.
Asia.—_Mongol_         Kun, M.
_Jukadshires_          Kun sch, M.

Second Modification.

South Africa           T’kohn, H.(190)
N.                     Tchainan, H.
America.—_Algonquyn
dialects_
Asia.—_Corea_          Tchin, H.
Europe.—_Irish and     Duine, H., Dean, H.
Welsh_

Names Of “The Hand.”

The African words of this Class collected by Adelung are thirty-six in
number. Of these, twenty-nine belong to the languages of the region of
pure Negroes. In the following Analysis the whole of these words have been
shown to be related to analogous words used in the other great divisions
of the Globe.(191)

_Names of __“__The Hand.__”_—CLASS I.

First Modification.

North                  Tom.
America.—_Mexico_
North                  Tedembeton.
Africa.—_Nubia_
Europe.—_Welsh_ (“To   Teim-law.
feel”)
_English_              “Thumb.”
_German_ (The Thumb)   Daum.
Asia.—_Hebrew_ (To     Tom.
perceive, discern,
taste)
Africa.—_Hottentots_   Tamma, and T’inn.
(Tongue)
Europe.—_English_      Tongue.

There are numerous examples to show that the words for the Tongue and the
Taste of the _Palate_ are in many, if not in all cases, terms thus applied
in a _secondary_ sense, which, in their _primary_ meaning, were applied to
“_The Hand_,” and its Perceptive Functions. Compare the words which occur
hereafter (under “The Names for the Hand.—Class X.”) Tusso, “The Hand”
(_Negro_); Dāst, “The Hand” (_Persian_); Tast-en, “To _grope_” (_German_);
“Taste” (_English_).

The names for “The Hand,” and its Functions, have also given rise to
numerous words metaphorically expressive of mental operations, as in the
above examples: Tom, “The Hand” (_Mexican_); Tom, To Taste, To Discern,
Discernment, Judgment (_Hebrew_); Tam-ias, A Judge (_Greek_); Doom,
“Dooms-day” (_English_).

Second Modification.

_Negro-land_           Dinde, Ninde, Nindi.
South                  Tangh, Tangam,
Africa.—_Madagascar_   Tangan.
_Hottentots_           T’unka.
Asia.—_Malays_         Tangan, Tögon, Tono.
_Tribes on the
__“__Jenisei__”__
River, in Siberia_
_Kamschatka_           Tono.
North                  Tene-law.
America.—_Hudson’s
Bay._ “The Hand”
“The Tongue”           Tene-thoun.

In these American dialects “Tene” is a general prefix to the names of the
senses; “Law” is the _distinctive_ name of the Hand; “Toun” the
_distinctive_ name of the Tongue, &c.

Europe.—_English_      Tongue.
_Latin Verbs_          Tang-o, Teneo.

_Names of __“__The Hand.__”_—CLASS II.

South                  T’koam.
Africa.—_Coronas_
North                  Cam.
America.—_Poconchi_
Asia.—_Hebrew_ (A      K. m ts.
_Hand_-full)
(To grasp, To lay      K. m. t.
hold of)
Europe.—_Welsh_ (To    Kum-meryd.
take)

_Names of __“__The Hand.__”_—CLASS III.

_Negro-land_           Bulla.
(Hand and Arm)         Bulla.
Asia.—_Persian_ (The   B.
Arm)

_Names of __“__The Hand.__”_—CLASS IV.

_Negro-land_           Obaa.
Europe.—_Gothic &      Hab-an. Häb-ban.
Anglo-Saxon_ (To
have)
_Latin_                Hab-ere.

_Names of __“__The hand.__”_—CLASS V.

_Negro-land_           Ononuba.
South                  Nubou, Nuboupé.
America.—_Mossans_

_Names of __“__The Hand.__”_—CLASS VI.

North                  Koi.
Africa.—_Egypt._
(The Hand and Front
Arm)
(The Hand)             Gig.
_Negro-land_           Kook Coco. Kogo.
                       Okuh, Hukko.
Europe.—_Finland_      Kchesi.
_Lapland_              Chketsch. Chkatsch.
_Hungarian_            Keez.
Asia.—_Arabic_         Caa.
(Cubitus)
_Tamul_  (Hand)        Kei.
_Georgian_             Che.
_Persian_              Kef, or Gef.
_Quasi Quumuq_         Kujä.
_Ossetian_             Koch, Kuch.
N. America.—_Nootka    Kook-elixo.
Sound_
_Tschitketans_         Katchicou.
_Ugaljachmutzi_        Kajak-az.
_Senecas_              Kaschuchta.
_St. Barbara’s_        Huachajâ.
S.                     Cuu, Cuugh.
America.—_Araucans_
_Brazils_              Gepo.
_Yarurans_             Icchi-mo.

_Names of __“__The Hand.__”_-CLASS VII.

The following may be regarded as modifications of the foregoing Class of
words:

North                  Shig.
Africa.—_Egypt_
[Allied to Gig, “The
Hand,” (_Egypt_)
above mentioned]
South                  Sseak-ja.
Africa.—_Beetjuanas_
Asia.—[Language of     Zjâk.
the _Garrau
Mountains_, N.E. of
_Bengal_]
_Georgian_             Shi.
_Chinese_              Zjiu, Ziu.
N.                     Shou-shey.
America.—_Fitzhugh
Sound_
_Negro-land_           Aschi.
Europe.—_Basque_       Escua.

The words used in the last two Classes of examples as “_Names_” for “The
Hand,” may be identified in the most unequivocal manner in other
instances, as _Verbs_ descriptive of some distinctive Functions of the
Hand.

Compare Coco, Okuh, Hukko, _Negro_ names for “The Hand,” with the verbs
Kō, “To take,” Ek-ō, “To hold, have, act” (_Greek_); Ago (_Latin_).

Compare Aschi (_Negro_), Escua (_Basque_), with Esch-ŏn, Isch-ein,
Sch-ein, “To hold,” “To have” (_Greek_).

Compare Katchicou, _North American_, and Chkatsch, _Lapland_, names for
“The Hand,” with “Catch” (_English_).

Compare Kef, or Gef (_Persian_), and Gepo “The Hand” (_Brazilian_), with
Give (_English_), Geb-en (_German_).

Compare Kaschuchtah, _North American_, and Khesi, _Fin_, names for the
Hand, with the verbs Keisio, “To search for” (_Welsh_), Guess (_English_);
verbs derived from G.sh, “To feel, search for, with the Hand” (_Hebrew_).

_Names of __“__The Hand.__”_—CLASS VIII.

Asia.—_Hebrew_ (The     A.m.e.
Hand and Forearm)
_Hebrew_ (“A            Ee.m.ee.n. Ee.m.n.e.
Finger,” “The Right     Ee.m.ee.n.th.
Hand”)
North                   Mah, Mahe.
Africa.—_Egypt_. The
Hand and Forearm)
South                   Omma.
Africa.—_Hottentots_
(Hand)
South                   Eme.
America.—_Sapibocans_
[See A.m.e (_Hebrew_)   Yumanai.
above.] _Zamucans_
[See Ee.m.n.e           Immomo.
(_Hebrew_) above.]
_Salivians_

The following may be viewed as modifications of the previous words:(192)

South Africa.—_Lagoa   Mundha.
Bay_
Europe.—_Latin_        Manus.

_Names of __“__The hand.__”_—CLASS IX.

_Negro-land_           Ensah, Ensaa.
South                  Fansah.
Africa.—_Caffres_
Europe.—_Latin_        Ansa or Hansa.(193)
(“Handle”)
_Latin_ (To seize or   Pré-hendo.
hold)
_Danish, Icelandic,    Haand, Hond, Hand.
English, and German_
_Greek_ (To take)      Chandano.
Asia, North.—_Tribes   Kenar, Kenaran.
on the
__“__Jenisei__”__
River, Siberia_

_Names of __“__The Hand.__”_—CLASS X.

North                  Idd-egh.
Africa.—_Berber_
Asia.—_Hebrew and      Eed, Ied.
Arabic_
_Pehlwi_               Jede-man.(194)
_Sumoied, Koibal,      Uda, Oda, Udam.
and Motorian_

_Names of __“__The Hand.__”_—CLASS XI.

North                  Youngo.
Africa.—_Phellatahs_
_Negro-land_           Nakoa.
South                  Onekoa.
Africa.—_Hottentots
of Saldana Bay_
North                  Nagona.
America.—_Cochimi_
_Miamis_               Onexca. Enahkee.
_Iroquois_             Eniage.
_Algon. dialects_      Nachk. Naak.
Europe.—_English_      Knack.
(Adroitness in any
Handy-craft)
_English_ (Joints of   Knuck-les.
the Fingers)
South                  Nucápe.
America.—_Maipurans_

_Names of __“__The Hand.__”_—CLASS XII.

First Modification.

South                  T’aa.
Africa.—_Bosjesmans_
North                  Daha.
America.—_Mixtecans_
Europe.—_Welsh_ (The   Dahai.
Right hand)

Second Modification.

Asia.—_Persian and     Dā-st.
Kurd_
_Armenian_             Tzjern.
_Negro-land_           Tusso.
Europe.—_German_ (A    Tatze.
Claw, a Paw)
_German_ (To           Tast-en.
_grope_)
_English_ (applied     “Taste.”
to the Palate)

Third Modification.

Asia.—_Kamschatka_     Tegi.
Europe.—_English_ (A   “Take.”
Verb)
Asia.—_Taraikai_       Dēk.
Europe.—_Latin_ (The   Dex-tra.
Right Hand)
_Greek_ (To take)      Dekomai.

_Names of __“__The Hand.__”_—CLASS XIII.

_Negro-land_           Be.
Asia.—Tribes on the    Phjaga.
_Jenisei, Siberia_
_Siam_                 Pfan.
Europe.—_Welsh_        Pau-en.
_English_ (applied     Paw.
to animals)
South                  Poh, Po.
America.—_Brazils_
_Omaguans_             Pua.
North                  Peton.
America.—_Mic-Macs_

_Names of __“__The Hand.__”_—CLASS XIV.

First Modification.

_Negro-land_           Alo, Allo.
Asia.—_Turkish_        Ell, Elli.
Europe.—(An old        Ell, Elle.
Teutonic word
applied to the
Cubit, or Forearm)
_English_              El-bow.

Second Modification.

_Negro-land_              Loho.
Europe.—_Welsh_           La-o-u.
America.—_Chippewayans_   Lah.
_Hudson’s Bay_ (“The      Tene(195)-Law.
Hand”)
(“The Tongue”)            Tene-Thoun.

Third Modification.

_Negro-land_ (Allied   Loco.
to the Negro word
Loho, “The Hand,”
above)
North                  Oleechee.
America.—_Penobscot_
Asia.—_Tibet_          Lag.
_Georgian_             Cheli.
Europe.—_English_      Claw.
(Applied to animals)
_Irish_ (The Hand)     Glak.
Asia.—_Ingumian_       Kulku.

Fourth Modification.

Europe.—_Greek_ (The      Olē n . ē.
Hand and Front Arm,
the Cubit)
N.                        Olœnskam. Alœn-skam.
America.—_Pennsylvania_
New Sweden.               Olœnskan. Alœnskan.

Words For “The Tongue.”

In the following Analysis all the South African words, and also all the
Negro words of this class, with the exception of “Teckramme,” (probably a
compound,) have been shown to be unequivocally connected with important
analogous terms in the languages of the other great Continents.

(_South Africa_,—Tamma Tamme, T’inn.(196)) See these words illustrated
among the words for “The Hand.” See also, under the same head, for
examples of the principle that the words applied to “The Tongue,” and its
Perceptive Functions, are in many, if not in most cases, secondary or
Metaphorical applications of words originally applied to “The Hand,” and
its Perceptive Functions; as in Tasten, “To grope,” _German_; “Taste,”
applied to the “_Palate_,” _English_. The next words present additional
examples of the same principle.

_Negro-land_—Lamai, Lammegue, Lamin, Laming.

_Gaelic_—Lam, “The Hand;” _Greek_—Lam-bano, “To take;” _Latin_—Lam-bo, To
lick with _the Tongue_.

_Negro-land_—Dali;(197) _Malays_ of _Formosa_—Dadila; _Turkish_—Dil;
_North America_ (_Nagailers_)—Thoula.

_South Africa_ (_Madagascar, & Caffres_)—Lella, Leula, Lolemi; _North
America_ (_Penobscot_)—Wee-laulo; _Greek_—Laleo, “To speak;” Lalia,
“Speech.”

_Negro-land_—Ning; _Georgian_—Nina; _Lasian_—Nena, Nen; _South America_
(_Kiriri_)—Nunu.

_Egypt_—La sh; _Hebrew_—L. sh . on . n; _Armenian_—Ljesu; _South Africa_
(_Caffres_)—Loodjem.

_Negro-land_—Essiénkó; _Old German_—Zunka; _Modern German_—Zunge.(198)

_South Africa_ (_Koossas_)—Müme; _Chinese_—Mi; _Basque_—Mihia, Minni.

_North Africa_ (_Berbers_)—Narka; _South America_ (_Maupurian_)—Nuore;
_Caraibs_—Nourou.

_North Africa_ (_Dongolan_)—Nadka; _South America_ (_Betoan_)—Ineca.

Words For “The Ear.”

_Negro-land_—Szemman-kó; _Hebrew_—Sh.m.o, “To hear.”

_Negro-land_—Asse Asshabe;(199) _Abyssinia_—Ishenha Ashenha;
_Hebrew_—A.z.n.

_Negro-land_—Uwasso; _Bohemian_—Ussi; _Greek_—Ouas, Ous.

_Negro-land_—Otuh (Otto, “Ears”); _Greek_—Ōta (“Ears”); _North America_
(_Knistenaux_)—Otoweegie.

_South Africa_ (_Caffres_)—Gevea; _Kurd_—Guh; _Samoied_—Ko, Kuo.

_North Africa_ (_Berbers_)—Ukkegá; _Selavonian_—Ucho; _North America_
(_Shawannos_)—Ochtowaga; _Greek_—Akou-o (“To hear”).

_North Africa_ (_Dongolans_)—Ulûk; _Coriac_—Wilugi; _Chinese_—Uhl.

_South Africa_—T’no-eingtu, T’naum, T’nunka; _Bucharian_—Dehâu.

_Egypt_—Meeje; _Japan_—Mimi.

_Negro-land_—Toy; _Esquimaux_—Tehui; _Brazil_—Ty.

The majority of the words of the next two Classes (names of “The Foot” and
“The Head,”) will be found to admit of a satisfactory explanation. The
exceptions are more numerous than in the instance of the words for “The
Hand;” but it must be borne in mind that these exceptions do not at all
serve to invalidate the inferences that flow from numerous unequivocal
examples of a different nature. This combination of many features of
difference with numerous points of resemblance is the direct result of the
tendency of each race to abandon a portion of the synonymes originally
common to all the various races of mankind.

Words For “The Foot.”

_Negro-land_—(Foot and Leg) Sing; _German_—Schenkel; _English_—Shank.

_South Africa_ (_Hottentots_)—Coap and T’keib; _Affghan_—Ch pé;
_Abassian_—Sh pe; _South America_ (_Mokobis_)—Capiate.

_Negro-land_—Trippe; _German_-Tripp-en, “To go,” Treppen (“Steps”)
_English_—“Trip.”

_Negro-land_—Itta; _Latin_—It-er, “A Journey,” It-um, “Gone;” the
participle of the Latin verb Eo, “To go;” _Zend_—Jeieta, “He goes.”

_S. Africa_ (_Hottentots_)—Y and Yi; _Egypt_—I, “To go;” _Latin_—Eo, “I
go.”

_South Africa_ (_Hottentots_)—Ir-qua; _South America_ (_Zamucans_)—Irie;
_Latin_—Ire, “To go;” _Zend_—Harra, “I go.”

_Negro-land_—Gann; _Greenland_—Kannak; _German_—Gehen, “To go,” (Gegangen,
“Gone”); _Scotch_—Gang; _Negro-land_—It-genge; apparently a compound of
the last with a word previously explained.

_Negro-land_—Nugee; _Sclaronic_—Noga; _South America_
(_Maupurians_)—Nuchü, Nucsi.

_Egypt_—Rat; _Welsh_—Rodio, “To walk.”

_Negro-land_—Afo; _South America_ (_Vilellans_)—Apé; _Latin_—Pe, Pe-s.

_North Africa_ (_Fulahs and Phellatahs_)—Kússengál, Kavassongal;
_Jeniseians_—Kassa; _Mingrelian_—Kutchi; _Welsh_—Koes, “A Leg;” _North
America_ (_Shawannos_)—Kussie.

_Negro-land_—Akkau, Ugod; N. W. of _America_ and N. E. of _Asia_
(_Tschuktsches_)—Iguk; (_Kadjak_)—Igugu; _Turkish_—Ajak, Ajag.

_Negro-land_—Kulu, Kolo; _Mongol_—Kull, Koll.

_Negro-land_—Tangue; _North America_ (_Mixtecan_)—Tohuan “Feet;” _South
Africa_—Tóoh; _English_—Toe; _Saxon_—Da; _Dutch_—Deen.

_Nubia_—Regget; _Hebrew_—R . g . l.

_S. Africa_—Lefack; _English_—Leg; _Wogul_—Lagyl; _Pehlwi_—Lager-man.

_Negro-land_—E’ns-zih, and (_Caffre_) En-jau, appear to be allied to the
_Latin_—Eo, Eundo; _Italian_—And-are; _English_—Wend, Went;
_German_—Wenden.

_South Africa_—Hoots; _Armenian_—Oat, Woat; _Welsh_—Wad-n;
_German_—Wad-en, “To go;” _English_—“Wade;” _Latin_—“Vad-o.”

Words For “The Head.”

_Negro-land_—Kung, Koon, Ikkungee, Ukkoong; _Brazilian_—Acang, Yahange;
_Irish_—Ken; (_German_—König; _English_—King, i.e. “A Head.”)

_South Africa_—Olo, Loha; _Hebrew_—Ol, “Above,” “To ascend;”
_Motorian_—Ulu, “A Head.”

_South Africa_—Klogo; _Irish_—Kloigean; _Welsh_—Ben-glog, “A Skull;”
_Hebrew_—G. l. g. l. th, (The Human Skull, Golgotha); _Armenian_—Kluch;
_Jeniseians_—Kolkä;(200) _Sclavonian_—Golowa “A Head.”

_Egypt_—Kahi, Jo; _Negro-land_—Go, Ko, Kujuoo; _South Africa_—Kŏhho;
_Jeniseians_—Koïgo; _German_—Kopf.

_Negro-land_—Ta, Tu; _South Africa_—Dooha; _Georgian_—T’awi;
_Chinese_—T’eu; _North America_ (_Nagailers_)—Thie.

_Negro-land_—Tabu; _Persian_—Tab, (“Top;”) _German_—Topp; _North America_
(_Mohegans_)—Dup, Utup, (“Head.”)

_Fulahs_ and _Phellatahs_—Hore, Horde; _Hebrew_—Or, “To rise.”

_South Africa_ (_Hottentots_)—Biquäau; _South America_ (_Aymarans_)—Pegke;
_North America_ (_New England_)—Bequoquo; _English_—Peak, Beak.

_Hottentots_—Minung; _Chinese_—Mien, “The Face;” _English_—“Mien,” and
_French_—“Mine.”

_Negro-land_—Oitju, Ithu; _South America_ (_Zamucans_)—Yatoitac;
_Welsh_—Yaad; _English_—Head, Height.

_Negro-land_—Boppe, Bapp; _South America_ (_Yaoans_)—Boppe;
(_Caraibs_)—Opoupou; _North America_ (_Woccons_)—Poppe.

_South Africa_ (_Hottentots_)—T’naa; _Isle of Man_—Tchynn.

Words For “Water.”

CLASS I.

South                  Ouata.
Africa.—_Hottentots_
Europe—_Russian_       Ouade.
_Swedish_              Wat-n.
_English_              Wat-er, “Wet.”
_Latin_ (“Moist”)      Ud-us.
N.                     Wt-achsu.
America.—_Algonquyn
dialects_
_Cora_ (“The Sea”)     Vaat.(201)
_Mexico_ (“The Sea”)   Veyat-l.

It will be observed that the root or common base of all these words is the
same as that of “Wet, Wat-er,” (_English._) They differ only in those
grammatical inflexions in which various words of the same language differ.

_Words for __“__Water.__”_—CLASS II.

North                  Eiooue.
Africa.—_Egypt_
(“Aquæ”)
North                  Eau.(202)
America.—_Woccons_
_Cheerokees_           Auwa.
_Muskohges_            Wewa.
Europe.—_Welsh_        Wy, or Gwy.
[Hence the name of     “The Wye.”
the River]
_Icelandic_            Aa.
_Anglo-Saxon_          Ea, Eia.(203)
Asia.—_Kamschatka_     Ja, Ii.
_Samoied_              Ii, I.
_Negro-land_           Ji.
South                  Ī, I.
America.—_Guaranian_
_Brazilian_            Y.

_Words for __“__Water.__”_—CLASS III.

North                   O kah, Ookaw.
America.—_Chikkasahs_
Europe.—_Irish_         Oixe.
_Latin_                 Aqua.
South                   Yacu.
America.—_Quicuans_

_Words for __“__Water.__”_—CLASS IV.

South                   Unu.
America.—_Quicuans_
_Negro-land_            Nu.
N.                      Iin, Jin.
America.—_Kolushians_
_Negro-land_            Inssuo, Ensu.

_Words for __“__Water.__”_—CLASS V.

[The words of this Class appear to be compounds of words of the last two
Classes.]

Compare the previous words for Water, viz.:

Europe—_Irish_         _Oixe_,
North                  _Okah, Ookaw_.
America—_Chikkasahs_

with the following words:

North                  Oghnacauno.
America.—_Oneidas_
Europe.—_Greek and     Ō keano, or
Latin. (The Ocean)_    Ōkeano-s.
North                  Oneekanoosh.
America.—_Senecas_
_Muynckussar_          Oneegha.
Asia.—_Anam_           Nuock, Nak.
_Coriac_ (The Sea)     Anchon, Ancho.
_Negro-land_           Enchion.(204)

_Words for __“__Water.__”_—CLASS VI.

South                  Bischan.
Africa.—_Gallas_
Asia.—_Circassian_     Pishi.
_Kurilians_            Pi, Peh.
_Samoied_              Bi, Be.
North                  Beh.
America.—_Delawares_
_New Sweden_           Bij.
Europe.—_Greek_ (To    Pi-ō.
drink)
_Latin_ (To drink)     Bi-b-o.

_Words for __“__Water.__”_—CLASS VII.

_Negro-land_           Asioué.(205)
Asia.—_Jeso_           Azui.(206)
_Chinese_              Shui.
_Turkish_              Schuy, Su.
North                  Ziy.
America.—_Runsienes_

_Words for __“__Water.__”_—CLASS VIII.

North                  Esseg.
Africa.—_Dongolans_
Europe.—_Irish or      Eask, Uisge.
Gaelic_
_Welsh or Celtic of    The “Esk,” The
Britain_. [British     “Usk.”
Names of Streams]

These Celtic words are the chief basis of Edward Llwyd’s theory, that the
Britons were preceded by a Gaelic tribe, who gave names to these streams.
The extreme antiquity of these words is certain:

_Swedish_ (To wash)    Wase a.
_Old German_           Wask-en, Wasc-an.

The following five Classes of words, from VIII. to XIV., may be regarded
as mutually connected.

_Words for __“__Water.__”_—CLASS IX.

First Modification.

North                  Mi, Me.
Africa.—_Abyssinia_
_Egypt_                Mōou, Mau.
_Egypt_ (Seas)         Amaiou.
_Negro-land_ (Water)   Améh.
Asia.—_Chinese_        Moi, Mui.
_Pehlwi_               Mea.
_Hebrew_               Me, (Meem).
_Hebrew_ (The Sea)     Ee . am, or Jam.
_Japan_ (The Sea)      Umi.
_Arabic_ (Water)       Ma.
South                  Ma.
America.—_Vilellans_
_Aymarans_             Huma.
North                  Amma.
America.—_Cherokees_
[Compare the above
_Negro_ word Améh.]
Europe.—_Latin_        Hum-or.
_Adjective_, “Wet”     Hum-idus.
[Compare Huma,
“Water.” _South
American_, above;
and Umi, “The Sea,”
(_Japan_), above.]

_Words for __“__Water.__”_—CLASS X.

_Negro-land_           Mage.
North                  Imack.
America.—_Greenland_
_Tschuktsches_         Emak, Mok.
South                  Mouke.
America.—_Araucan_
Europe.—_Latin &       Muc-us.
English_
_English_              Muggy.
Asia.—_Hebrew_ (To     M. g.
flow, dissolve)

_Words for __“__Water.__”_—CLASS XI.

North                  Matsos.
Africa.—_Egypt_ (To
irrigate, To drink)
_Negro-land_, Water    Mazei. Mazia. Masa.
South Africa           Maasi, Meetsi.
                       Matee.
Asia.—_Japan_          Mizzu, Midz. Misi.
Europe.—_Latin_        Mad-idus.
(Wet)
_English_              “Mizzle”, Moist.
                       Mist.

_Words for __“__Water.__”_—CLASS XII.

North                     Amanga.
Africa.—_Berbers_
_Egypt_ (Ram) (A          Mounoshe. Mouns-ōr.
Torrent, A Stream)        em.
South                     Amaansi. Amaanzu.
Africa.—_Caffre
Tribes_
N.                        Ménâ. Meneh.
America.—_Nadowessians_
Asia.—_Koibal_ (A         Meanlai.
Stream)
_Chaldee_ (Waters)        Main.
Europe.—_Latin_ (To       Man-o.
flow)

_Names for __“__Water.__”_—CLASS XIII.

[Apparently connected with CLASS IX.]

Asia.—_Heb._ “The      Jam, or Ee . am.
Sea,” (as above)
_Tibet_ (“The Sea”)    Gjiamzo.
_Kurd_ (A Stream)      Tcham.
South                  Kam, Kamme, T’kamme.
Africa.—_Hottentot
Tribes_ (Water)

_Words for __“__Water.__”_—CLASS XIV.

_Negro-land_           Koro.
North Africa.—_Afnu_   Grua.
Asia.—_Pelu_           Chuura.
(“Rain”)
_Tuschi_ (“Rain”)      Kare.
_Kalmuck_ (Rain)       Chura.
_Armenian_ (Water)     Tschu r.(207)

_Words for __“__Water.__”_—CLASS XV.

N. Africa.—_Egypt_     Eïoor.
(A Stream)
(Water)                Erōn.
South                  Rano, Rana. Ranu.
Africa.—_Madagascar_
Europe.—_English_      Rain.
and _Anglo-Saxon_
“Pluvia”
_Greek_ “Flowing”      Rhĕōn.
(applied to Water)
_Celtic_ (The name     “The Rhône.”(208)
of a stream in Gaul)

_Words for __“__Water.__”_—CLASS XVI.

_Negro-land_           Doc, Dock, M’dock.
Asia.—_Tribes on the   Dok.
__“__Jenisei__”__
River, Siberia_
_Kamschatka_ (The      Adŭcka.
Sea)
Europe.—_English_      Duck.
(“To put under
water,” “A
water-fowl,”—_Dr.
Johnson_)
S.                     T’kohaa.
Africa.—_Hottentots_
(Water)

The following words for “Water” seem also to be unequivocally related
viz.: _Basque_—Itsassoa; _Negro-land_—Itchi; _Samoieds_—Ija, Ja; _South
America_ (_Cayubabans_)—Ikita; _North America_ (_Katahbans_)—Ejau.





APPENDIX B. CONTAINING (ARRANGED ACCORDING TO THE TRIBES AND REGIONS OF
AFRICA) THE AFRICAN WORDS COMPARED IN APPENDIX A, WITH THE CORRESPONDING
TERMS IN THE LANGUAGES OF ASIA, EUROPE, AND AMERICA.


AFRICAN WORDS GEOGRAPHICALLY ARRANGED.

Fire, Sun, Day, Eye, Moon, Heaven.

NORTH AFRICA.

_Egypt._—“Fire,” Chrom, Grom, Krom, Kōh-th, from Koe, “To burn.” “Sun,”
Ra, Re.  “Names of the Gods of the Sun,” Khem, Hor, Serapis, Osiri.
“Day,” Haou, Eoohu,—(connected with “Glory,” Joh, Ooh, Oih, and “Moon,”
Oou, “Lunus,” Joh.) “Eye,” Iri, Bal. “Moon,” Joh, Oou. “Heaven,” Pe, Phe,
_plural_ “Heaven-s,” Neth-phe,(209) Ne-pheou. “Name of the Goddess of the
Heavens, or Firmament,” Net-phe.

_Nubia and Abyssinia._—“Fire,” Haúÿ (_Abyss._); Ton-ih, (_Nub._) “Sun,”
Tuahhéy (_Abyss._); Tôin, (_Nub._)  “Day,” Máaltih (_Abyss._); Wúrabe,
(_Nub._) “Eye,” Aineha (_Abyss._); Aina addela, Egôat, (_Nub._) “Moon,”
Wúrrhÿ (_Abyss._); Totrig, (_Nub._) “Heaven,” Szemmeÿ (_Abyss._); Tébre,
(_Nub._)

_Berbers and Dongolans._—“Fire,” Îka (_Ber._); Îk, (_Don._) “Sun,”
Maschékka (_Ber._); Masilk, (_Don._) “Day,” Ogrêska (_Ber._); Ogrêska,
(_Don._) “Eye,” Manga (_Ber._); Missigh, (_Don._) “Moon,” O’natejá.
(_Ber._); Scharâppa, (_Don._) “Heaven,” Szèmma (_Ber._); Szémma, (_Don._)

_Phellatahs and Fulahs._—“Fire,” Njite (_Phel._); Gia-hingol, (_Ful._)
“Sun,” Nonge (_Phel._); Nahangue, (_Ful._)  “Day,” Njellauma, (_Phel._)
“Eye,” Gîteh (_Phel._); Hyterr, (_Ful._) “Moon,”  Liulú (_Phel._); Leoure,
(_Ful._) “Heaven,” Szemma (_Phel._); Hyalla, (_Ful._)

NEGRO-LAND.

_Jolofs and Sereres._—“Fire,” Safara, (_Jol._)  “Sun,” Ghiante-finkan,
Guiante, Burhum safara (_Jol._); Fosseye, (_Ser._) “Day,” Lelegh, Huer,
Beuhuli, (_Jol._)  “Eye,” Smabutt, Batte, Guitte, (_Jol._) “Moon,”
Uhaaire, Verr, Burhum safara lionn (_Jol._); Coll, (_Ser._) “Heaven,”
Assaman, Assamane (_Jol._); Rogue, (_Ser._)

_Mandingoes._—“Fire,” Deemwa.  “Sun,” and also “Day,” Teelee. “Day,”
Teelee.  “Eye,” Neay.  “Moon,” Korro, Pandintee. “Heaven,” Santo.

_Jalunkan and Sokko._—“Sun,” Telle (_Jal._); Tillee, (_Sok._)  “Moon,”
Karree (_Jal._); Kalla, (_Sok._)  “Heaven,” Margetangala (_Jal._); Bandee,
(_Sok._)

_Kanga, Mangree, and Gien._—“Sun,” Jiro (_Kan._); Lataa (_Man._); Jinaa,
(_Gien._) “Moon,” Tjo (_Kan._); Su, (_Gien._)

_Fetu, Fanti; and Gold Coast._—“Fire,” Edjà, (_Fetu._) “Sun,” Egwju
(_Fetu._); Uwia, (_G. Coast._) “Day,” Ada, (_Fetu._) “Eye,” Enniba,
(_Fetu._); Eniba, (_G. Coast._) “Moon,” Osran (_Fetu_); Assara (_G.
Coast._) “Heaven,”(210) Araiáni (_Fetu_); Njame, (_Fanti._)

_Amina, Akkim, and Akripon._—“Sun,” Eiwiaa (_Am._); Awia (_Ak._); Ou,
(_Akr._) “Moon,” Osseram (_Am._); Osseranni (_Ak._); Ofendi, (_Akr._)
“Heaven,” Jankombum (_Am._); Jahinee (_Ak._); Aduankam, (_Akr._)

_Akrai and Tambi._—“Fire,” La, (_Ak._) “Sun,” Hun (_Ak._); Pum, (_Tam._)
“Eye,” Hinma, (_Ak._) “Moon,” Dubliman (_Ak._); Horambi, (_Tam._)
“Heaven,” Jankombum (_Ak._); Nguai (_Ak._); Ngoi [which means also,
“Thunder in the Air,”] (_Ak._); Giom, (_Tam._)

_Widah, Papah, and Watje._—“Sun,” Wetaga (_Pap._); Uä, (_Wat._) “Eye,”
Noucou [_plural_], (_Wid._) “Moon,” Su-ede, (_Pap._) “Heaven,” Jiwel,
(_Pap._)

_Kongo and Angola._—“Fire,” Tubhia (_Kon._); Tubia (_Kon. & Ang._); Bazou,
(_Kon._) “Sun,” N’tzai, Tangu, (_Kon._) “Moon,” Gonde, Gonda, (_Kon._)
“Heaven,” Sullu (_Kon._); Ulu, (_Ang._)

_Loango, Mandongo, and Camba._—“Fire,” Bazu, (_Lo._) “Sun,” Tangoa
(_Lo._); Attaschi (_Man._); Tango, (_Cam._) “Moon,” Gonda (_Lo._); Agonne
(_Man._); Gonda, (_Cam._) “Heaven,” Iru (_Lo._); Sambiam-pungo (_Man._);
Julo, (_Cam._)

_Karabari, Ibo, and Mokko._—“Sun,” Anjam (_Ka._); A-un, Anjau (_Ibo_);
Eju, (_Mok._) “Moon,” Omma (_Ka._); Ongma, Aoueh (_Ibo_); Affiam, (_Mok._)
“Heaven,” Elukwee (_Ka._); Tschukko, Ellu (_Ibo_); Ibanju, (_Mok._)

_Wawu and Tembu._—“Sun,” Jirri (_Wa._); Wis, (_Tem._) “Moon,” Mone
(_Wa._); Igodu, (_Tem._) “Heaven,” Barriadad (_Wa._); So, (_Tem._)

_Krepeers, Ashantees, and Kassenti._—“Fire,” Dio (_Kre._); Egia, (_Ash._)
“Sun,” Uwin, (_Kas._)  “Eye,” Onuku (_Kre._); Wannua, (_Ash._) “Moon,”
Ungmar, (_Kas._) “Heaven,” Ktāk, (_Kas._)

_Affadeh._—“Fire,” Hu. “Sun,” Zú. “Day,” Phadeenszo. “Eye,” Szanko.
“Moon,” Tédi. “Heaven,” Dilko.

_Mobba and Schilluck._—“Fire,” Wussik (_Mob._); Mâssze, (_Sch._) “Sun,”
Engik (_Mob._); Róongéh, (_Sch._)  “Day,” Dalkáh, (_Mob._)  “Moon,” Ûk,
(_Mob._) “Heaven,” Szemma, (_Mob._)

_Dâr Fûr and Dâr Runga._—“Fire,” Otu (_Dâr F._); Nissiek, (_Dâr R._)
“Sun,” Duléh (_Dâr F._); Agñing, (_Dâr R._) “Day,” Lô (_Dâr F._) “Eye,”
Nûnjiéh (_Dâr F._); Khasso, (_Dâr R._) “Moon,” Kámmer (_Dâr F._); Medding,
(_Dâr R._) “Heaven,” Szémma, (_Dâr F._)

_Fire, Sun, Day, Eye, Moon, Heaven._

SOUTH AFRICA.

_Gallas._—“Fire,” Ibida. “Heaven,” Ivaq.

_Madagascar._—“Fire,” Lelaffu. “Sun,” Masso anro, Māssŏ andrōû. (Eye of
Day), Massoam, Massoanrü. “Day,” Arcik ando Majava, Antu, Andru. “Eye,”
Massou, Massoo, Masso, Massorohi. “Moon,” Woelau, Volān, Bo, Bolan, Volan.
“Heaven,” Atemco, Danghitsi, Langhitsi, Lainch, Langhits.

_Koossa_, _Beetjuanas_, _Lagoa Bay_, and _Caffres_.—“Fire,” Umlilo
(_Koos._); Mulélo (_Beet._); Lilo, Leaw, (_Caf._) “Sun,” Lélanga,
(_Koos._); Leetshaatsi (_Beet._); Diambo (_Lag. B._); Lelanga, Eliang,
(_Caf._) “Day,” Imine (_Koos._); Motsichari, (_Beet._) “Eye,” Amesligo
(_Koos._); Liklŏ (_Beet._); Tewho, (_Lag._ _B._) “Moon,” Injanga
(_Koos._); Köhri (_Beet._); Moomo (_Lag. B._); Janga, Inyango, (_Caf._)
“Heaven,” Isuhlu (_Koos._); Maaro, (_Beet._)

_Bosjemans_, _Coronas_, _Hottentots_, _and Saldannä Bay_.—“Fire,” Tjih
(_Bos._); T’aib (_Cor._); T’ei, T’ei eip, Nèip, Ecy, Ei, (_Hot._) “Sun,”
T’kòăra (_Bos._); Soröhb (_Cor._); Sore, Sorrie, Sorrè, Sorri, Surrie
(_Hot._); Sore, (_Sal. B._) “Day,” T’gaa, (_Bos._); Sorökŏa, (_Cor._)
“Eye,” T’saguh (_Bos._); Muhm (_Cor._); Mo, Mu, Mum, Moe, (_Hot._) “Moon,”
T’káukăruh (_Bos._); T’khaam (_Cor._); K’cha, T’ga, Tohâ, Kā (_Hot._);
Gam, (_Sal. B._) “Heaven,” T’gachuh (_Bos._); Homma, (_Sal. B._)

Man, Woman, Human Being.

[M. marks Nouns Masculine; F. Nouns Feminine; H. words for a Human Being,
whether Male or Female.]

NORTH AFRICA.

_Egypt._—Hoout, M. and H., Hime, F., Himi, F., Lomi, F. and H.(211)

_Abyssinia and Nubia._—Szebbat, H. (_Ab._); Odey, H. (_Nub._); Szebbey, M.
(_Ab._); Auadseh, M., Oták, M. (_Nub._); Szebbéitÿ, F. (_Ab._); “Indáki”,
F., Tétakkát, F. (_Nub._)

_Berbers and Dongolans._—Adémga, M. (_Ber._); Ogikh, M. (_Don._); Edinga,
F. (_Ber._); Enga, F. (_Don._)

_Phellatahs and Fulahs._—Nékdo, H., Gúrko, M. (_Phel._); Gorko mahodo, M.
(_Ful._); Debbo, F. (_Phel._); Debo, F. (_Ful._)

NEGRO-LAND.

_Iolofs and Sereres._—Gour, H., Garr, H. (_Iol._); Core, H. (_Ser._);
Goourgne, M., Guiacar, M., Guiaccar, M. (_Iol._); Cow, M. (_Ser._); Digin,
F., Guiguienne, F., Diguén, F. (_Iol._); Tewe, F. (_Ser._)

_Mandingos._—Mo, H., Kea, M., Fato, M., Musha, F.

_Jallunkans and Sokko._—Mogee, H. (_Jal._); Manni, H. (_Sok._); Kai, M.
(_Jal._); Kjä, M. (_Sok._); Musee, F. (_Jal._); Mussu, F. (_Sok._)

_Kanga, Mangree, and Gien._—Ngumbo, H. (_Kan._); Mia, H. (_Man._); Me, H.
(_Gien_); Nebeju, M. (_Kan._); Laniu, M. (_Man._); Unsoibe, M. (_Gien_);
Junoo, F. (_Kan._); Auwee, F. (_Man._); Lung, F. (_Gien_).

_Fetu, Fanti, and Gold Coast._—Enipa, H. (_Fanti_); Nipa, H., Baning, M.,
Bubasja, F. (_Fetu_); Hiro, F. (_G. Coast._)

_Amina, Akkim, and Akripon._—Ojippa, H. (_Am._); Nippa, H. (_Akkim_);
Osse, H. (_Akri._); Obaini, M. (_Am._); Obellima, M. (_Akkim_); Unji, M.
(_Akri._); Obbaa, F. (_Am._); Obia, F. (_Akkim_); Otjee, (_Akri._)

_Akrai and Tambi._—Biomo, H., Biommo, H. (_Ak._); Numero, H. (_Tam._); Nu,
M. (_Ak._); Njummu, M. (_Tam._); Nga, F., In, F. (_Ak._)

_Papah, and Watje._—Emme, H. (_Pap._); Ammee, H. (_Wat._); Messuhu, M.
(_Pap._); Uzu, M. (_Wat._); Djonnu, F. (_Pap._); Jonnu, F. (_Wat._)

_Kongo._—Eiecala-muntu, H., Mundu, H., Ackala, M., Jakkela, M., Bacala,
M., Kentu, F., Quinto, F.

_Loango, Mandongo, and Camba._—Mond, H. (_Lo._); Mutte, H. (_Man._);
Monami, H. (_Cam._); Bakala, M., Bakkara, M. (_Lo._); Najalaka, M.
(_Man._); Olummi, M. (_Cam._); Kento, F., Tjendo, F. (_Lo._); Okeetu, F.
(_Man._); Ukassi, F. (_Cam._)

_Karabari, Ibo, and Mokko._—Mad, H. (_Kar._); Made, H. (_Ibo._); Auwo, H.
(_Mok._); Mammoku, M. (_Kar._); Mook, M., Dikkom, M., Dim, M., (_Ibo_);
Iden, M. (_Mok._); Mangman, F. (_Kar._); Mai, F., Wei, _F._ (_Ibo_); Wan,
F. (_Mok._)

_Wawu and Tembu._—See, H. (_Wa._); Iraa, H. (_Tem._); Gonee, M. (_Wa._);
Ibalu, M. (_Tem._); Anna, F. (_Wa._); Alo, F. (_Tem._)

_Kassenti._—Umir, H., Otga, M., Uppi, F.

_Affadeh._—Mágu, H., Beló, M., Kerim, F.

_Schilluck._—Tabànje, M., Uréh, F.

_Dâr Fûr and Dâr Runga._—Koá, H., Duéh, M. (_D. Fur._); Kamére, M. (_D.
Run._); Jânkuèh, F. (_D. Fur._); Mmi, F. (_D. Run._)

SOUTH AFRICA.

_Madagascar._—Oelun, H., Olon, H., Urun, H., Lelay, M., Lăhē, M., Orrang,
M., Văiăve, F., Bayave, F., Ampele, F.

_Koossas, Beetjuanas, Lagoa Bay, and Caffres._—Uhmto, H. (_Koos._);
Muhnto, H. (_Beet._); Monhee, H. (_L. Bay_); Monúna, M. (_Beet._); Indóda,
M. (_Koos._); Doda, M., Abaandoo, M. (_Caf._); Umfási, F. (_Koos._);
Massári, _or_ Bassari, F. (_Beet._); Aduhast, F. (_L. Bay_); Omfaas, F.
(_Caf._)

_Bosjemans, Coronas, Hottentots, and Saldannä Bay._—T’kūi H. (_Bos._);
T’kohn, H. (_Cor._); T’na, M. (_Bos._); Köuh, M., Kauh, M., Chaib, M.
(_Cor._); Kùpp, M., K’quique, M., Zohee, M., Qûoique, M., Quaina, M.
(_Hot._); T’aifi, F. (_Bos._); Chaisas, F. (_Cor._); Ankona, F. (_Sal.
B._); Honnes, F., Kus, F., K’quiquis, Zohees, F., Kȳoiquis, F., Quaishha,
F. (_Hot._)

Parts Of The Body, Hand, Arm, &c.

NORTH AFRICA.

_Egypt._—“Hand,” Gig, Shig [The Hand and Fore-Arm], Koi, Mah, Mahe.
“Tongue,” Lash. “Ear,” Meeje.(212) “Nose,” Sha. “Foot,” Rat, [I, “To go.”]
“Head,” Kahi, Jo.

_Abyssinia and Nubia._—“Hand,” Tedémbetôn, (_Nub._) “Tongue,” Mülhassh
(_Abyss._); E’midáp, (_Nub._) “Ear,” A’shinhá (_Abyss._); Ishenáh,
Wongwil, (_Nub._) “Nose,” Affinkjáha (_Abyss._); A’ffinkjách, Ognûf,
(_Nub._)  “Foot,” Tarékkas (_Abyss._); Regget, (_Nub._) “Head,” Râassih
(_Abyss._); Dimmáha, O’gürmá, (_Nub._)

_Berbers and Dongolans._—“Hand,” Iddegh (_Ber._); Ihg, (_Don._) “Tongue,”
Nárka (_Ber._); Nádka, (_Don._) “Ear,” U’kkegá (_Ber._); Ulûk, (_Don._)
“Nose,” Szurringa, (_Ber. & Don._) “Foot,” Oèntúga (_Ber._); Ossentuge,
(_Don._)

_Phellatahs and Fulahs._—“Hand,” Néworéh (_Phel._); Youngo, (_Ful._)
“Tongue,” Démgal (_Phel._); D’heingall, (_Ful._) “Ear,” Nuppi (_Phel._)
Noppy, (_Ful._) “Nose,” Njelhinerát (_Phel._); Hener, (_Ful._) “Foot,”
Kússengál (_Phel._); Kavassongal, (_Ful._) “Head,” Hóre (_Phel._); Horde,
(_Ful._)

NEGRO-LAND.

_Iolofs and Sereres._—“Hand,” Loho, Loco [properly the Arm], Lokoo
(_Iol._); Bayie, (_Ser._) “Tongue,” Laming, Lamai, Lammegue, Lamin
(_Iol._); Delemme, (_Ser._) “Ear,” Smanoppe, Nope, Noppe (_Iol._); Noffe,
(_Ser._) “Nose,” Smak-bookan, Bacann, Boucanne, Baccané (_Iol._); Guisse,
(_Ser._) “Foot,” Simatank, Tangue (_Iol._); Guiaf, (_Ser._) “Head,”
Smababb, Boppe, Bappe, Bop (_Iol._); Coque, (_Ser._).

_Mandingos._—“Hand,” Bulla, Boula [Hand and Arm]. “Tongue,” Ning. “Ear,”
Toola. “Nose,” Noong. “Foot,” Sing. “Head,” Kung, Koon.

_Jallunkans and Sokko._—“Hand,” Ibolee (_Jal._); Bulla, Blu, (_Sok._)
“Foot,” Itgenge (_Jal._); Afo, (_Sok._) “Head,” Ikkunjee (_Jal._); Ukkung,
(_Sok._)

_Kanga, Mangree, and Gien._—“Hand,” Nakoa (_Kan._); Ikko, (_Gien._)
“Foot,” Namboo (_Kan._); Trippi (_Man._); Nugee, (_Gien._) “Head,” Nandewu
(_Kan._); Tri (_Man._); Ungo, (_Gien._)

_Fetu and Gold Coast._—“Hand,” Ensah, (_Fetu._) “Tongue,” Teckremà
(_Fetu_); Decrame, (_G. Coast._) “Ear,” Asschaba (_Fetu_); Asso, (_G.
Coast._) “Nose,” Engvvinni (_Fetu_); O-u-nom, (_G. Coast._) “Foot,” Anan,
(_Fetu._) “Head,” Etyr (_Fetu_); Eteri, (_G. Coast._)

_Amina, Akkim, and Akripon._—“Hand,” En-saa, Obaa (_Am. & Akkim_); Obaa,
(_Akri._) “Foot,” Onang (_Am. & Akkim_); Djabi, (_Akri._) “Head,” Utieri
(_Am._); Metih (_Akkim_); Nuntji, (_Akri._)

_Akrai and Tambi._—“Hand,” Nindeh, Dinde, Nindé (_Ak._); Nindi, (_Tam._)
“Arm,” Nindeh, (_Ak._) “Ear,” Toy, (_Ak._) “Foot,” Nanne, Nandé, (_Ak._);
Nandi, (_Tam._) “Head,” Ithu, Oitju (_Ak._); Ii, (_Tam._)

_Widah, Papah, and Watje._—“Hand,” Alo (_Wid._); Allo (_Pap._); Aschi,
(_Wat._) “Ears,” Otto, (_Wid._) “Nose,” Aonty, (_Wid._) “Foot,” Affo
(_Wid._); Afo, (_Pap. & Wat._) “Head,” Ta, (_Pap. & Wat._)

_Kongo and Angolan._—“Hand,” Moco [_pl._], Kook, Coco, (_Kon._) “Foot,”
Malu (_Kon._); Quirio, (_An._) “Head,” Ontu, (_Kon._)

_Loango, Mandongo, and Camba._—“Hand,” Kogo (_Lo._); Koko, (_Man. & Cam._)
“Foot,” Kulu (_Lo. & Cam._); Kolo, (_Man._) “Head,” Tu (_Lo._); Motu,
(_Man. & Cam._)

_Karabari, Ibo, and Mokko._—“Hand,” Okuh (_Kar._); Hukko (_Ibo_);
Ono-nuba, (_Mok._) “Foot,” Akkah (_Kar._); Akkau (_Ibo_); Ugod, (_Mok._)
“Head,” Issi (_Kar. & Ibo_); Iboil, (_Mok._)

_Wawu and Tembu._—“Hand,” Be (_Wa._); Nin, (_Tem._) “Foot,” Gann (_Wa._);
Navorre, (_Tem._) “Head,” Angoru (_Wa._); Kujuoo, (_Tem._)

_Krepeer, Ashantees, and Kassenti._—“Hand,” Inno, (_Kas._) “Arm,” Assij
(_Kre._); Osa, (_Ash._) “Ear,” Otuh (_Kre._); Uwasso, (_Ash._) “Nose,”
Amonthi (_Kre._); Ohüny, (_Ash._) “Foot,” Itta, (_Kas._) “Head,” Ota
(_Kre._); Otri (_Ash._); Dür, (_Kas._)

_Affadeh._—“Hand,” Blimszeh. “Tongue,” Essiénkó. “Ear,” Szémmankó. “Nose,”
Démulzungenkó. “Foot,” E’nszih. “Head,” Go, Ko.

_Dâr Fûr and Dâr Runga._—“Hand,” Enkeffy [Surface of the Hand], (_D.
Fur._) “Tongue,” Dali, (_D. Fur._) “Ear,” Dilá (_D. Fur._); Nesso, (_D.
Run._) “Nose,” Dürméh, (_D. Fur._) “Foot,” Tárinmúfsaly (_D. Fur._); Itar,
(_D. Run._) “Head,” Tabú, (_D. Fur._)

SOUTH AFRICA.

_Beetjuana-Caffres, Corona-Hottentots, and Madagascar._—“Hand,” T’koam
(_Cor.-Hot._); Tang’am, (_Mad._) “Tongue,” Lolemi (_Beet.-Kaf._); Lella,
Leula, (_Mad._) “Ears,” Zébe (_Beet.-Kaf._); Soffi, (_Mad._) “Nose,”
Ongko, (_Beet.-Kaf._); Orong, (_Mad._)

_Madagascar._—“Hand,” Tang’am, Tangan, Tangh. “Tongue,” Lella, Leula,
Lēlã, Lela. “Ear,” Souffy, Soofi. “Nose,” Orung, Urun, Oron. “Foot,”
Hoots, Lefack, Ungoor, Lafatungu, Tombut, “Head,” Loha, Dooha, Lua.

_Koosas, Beetjuanas, Lagoa Bay, and Caffres._—“Hand,” Mundha (_L. Bay_);
Fansa (_Caf._); Isanga (_Koos._); Sseaakja, (_Beet._) “Tongue,” Mume
(_Koos._); Lolémi (_Beet._); Loodjem, (_L. Bay._) “Ear,” Elébe (_Koos._);
Zébe (_Beet._); Gevea, (_L. Bay._) “Nose,” Poomlu (_Koos._); Ongkŏ
(_Beet._); Numpho, (_L. Bay._) “Foot,” Jénjăo (_Koos._); Lónao (_Beet._);
Chizenda (_L. Bay_); Enjau, (_Caf._) “Head,” Klogo (_Koos._); Kŏhho
(_Beet._); Lücko (_L. Bay_); Loko, (_Caf._)

_Bosjemans, Coronas, Hottentots, and Saldannä Bay._—“Hand,” T’aa (_Bos._);
T’kŏám (_Cor._); Onecoa (_Sal. B._); T’unka, Omma, (_Hot._) “Tongue,” T’in
(_Bos._); Tamma (_Cor. & Hot._); Tamme, (_Sal. B._) “Ear,” T’no-cingtu
(_Bos._); T’naum (_Cor._); Naho (_Sal. B._); Nouw [_pl._], (_Hot._)
“Nose,” T’nuhntu (_Bos._); T’geub (_Cor._); Tui, Zakui (_Sal. B._); T’koi,
Koyb, Qui, Ture, Thuké, Qûoi, (_Hot._) “Foot,” T’oóah (_Bos._); T’keib
(_Cor._); Coap (_Sal. B._); Y, Itqua, Yi, (_Hot._) “Head,” T’naa (_Bos._);
Minuong (_Cor._); Biquäau, Biqua, Bigûa, (_Hot._)

Water.

NORTH AFRICA.

_Egypt._—“Aquæ,” Eiooue, Mōou, Mau. “Seas,” Amaiou. “Rain,” Mou-noshe. “A
Torrent, A Stream,” Mouns-ōr. em. “To irrigate, To drink,” Matsos. “A
Stream,” Eioor, Erōn.

_Abyssinia and Arabia._—Mi (_Abyss._); Me, Ejern, (_Nub._)

_Berbers and Dongolans._—Amánga (_Ber._); Esseg, (_Don._)

NEGRO-LAND.

_Iolofs._—M’doch, Doc, Dock.

_Mandingos._—Ji, Gee,

_Fetu and Gold Coast._—Ensu (_Fetu_); Enchion, (_G. Coast._)

_Akrai._—Nuh.

_Widah._-Asioué.

_Kongo and Angola._—Masa (_Kon. & Ang._); Mazia, (_Ang._)

_Loango._—Mazei.

_Krepeer and Ashantees._—Itchi (_Kre._); Inssuo, (_Ash._)

_Affadeh._—Améh.

_Mobba and Schilluck._—E’ndschÿ (_Mob._); Mage [also Cold], (_Sch._)

_Dâr Fûr and Dâr Runga._—Kóro, (_D. Fûr_); Tta, (_D. Run._)

SOUTH AFRICA.

_Gallas._—Bischan.

_Madagascar._—Rano, Rana, Ranü.

_Koosas, Beetjuanas, Lagoa Bay, and Caffres._—Ammaansi (_Koos._); Meetsi
(_Beet._); Matce (_Lag. B._); Maasi, Ammanzu, (_Caf._)

_Huswanas._—T’kaē.

_Bosjemans, Coronas, Hottentots, and Saldannä Bay._—T’kohaa (_Bos._),
T’kamma (_Cor. & Hot._); Kamma, Kamme, Kām (_Hot._); Ouata, (_Sal. Bay._)






FOOTNOTES


    1 See notes to D’Oyly and Mant’s Bible. The differences, it is
      supposed, may have consisted in a different mode of pronouncing the
      same words, such as exists in various English counties, to a
      sufficient extent to make the speakers mutually unintelligible! See,
      also, Eichhorn’s view.

    2 Lyell’s Geology, vol. i. p. 230.

    3 Consolations in Travel.

    4 Discourse on the Origin and Families of Nations.

    5 Mithridates, vol. i.

    6 Asia, by Carl Ritter and others.

    7 Genesis, c. iii. v. 7, “And they sewed fig-leaves together, and made
      themselves aprons.”

    8 Adelung quotes Zimmerman to the effect that of the animals found in
      Europe all have been derived from Asia, with the exception of
      sixteen or seventeen kinds, and these are mostly Mice and Bats.

    9 “A Tree well known in India, called the Tschiampa. It fruit is like
      an Apple, and it is said to bear both good and evil fruit!”

   10 Bohlen (Prof. Theol. zu Königsberg) auf Genesis.

   11 Morier.

   12 “Unexplored” with reference to the Semetic nations.

   13 “I” (with “Other” added) means “We.”

   14 Prichard on Man.

   15 Lyell on Geology.

   16 See also the Rev. T. Price on the Physiology and Physiognomy of the
      British Isles.

   17 The Greek, Russian, and German, have all been shown to belong to
      what are called the Indo-European class of languages. The Finnish,
      Vater states to be in its roots identical with the German.

   18 See Dugald Stewart, on the Active and Moral Faculties.

   19 In connexion with this subject I may refer to an article
      distinguished by great genius and profound philosophical reasoning,
      which lately appeared in Chambers’s Journal, under the title of
      “Thoughts on Nations and Civilization.” (See Number for May 21st,
      1842.)

   20 This sept were also generally termed the “gentlemanly” Mandans. The
      recent destruction of this warm-hearted tribe by the smallpox is one
      of the most heart-rending tragedies in history!

   21 Bell’s Geography.

   22 The African names for “The Nose” do not occur in Appendix A, but
      they are noticed elsewhere in this work. The names for “The Eye” are
      explained among words for “The Sun,” &c. of which they are generally
      derivatives.

   23 The terms for the Domestic Relations are in some instances compound
      words—in others they seem to be identical with the Names of the
      Human Race.

   24 Probably the terms were not in all cases appropriated in the first
      instance to the Hand exclusively, but applied alike to all the
      perceptive organs.

   25 Klaproth’s Asia Polyglotta.

   26 Eiere (“Day,” _Zend_,) is obviously connected with Huere (“The Sun,”
      _Zend_.)

   27 Klaproth’s Asia Polyglotta, p. 36.

   28 Parkhurst’s Hebrew Lexicon.

   29 Bohemia is inhabited by a Sclavonic race, &c.

   30 This comparison has been extracted from the Cambrian Quarterly
      Magazine, vol. II., p. 183, in which it was originally published by
      the author of this work.

   31 History of the English language, prefixed to Dr. Johnson’s
      Dictionary.

   32 Rask’s Anglo-Saxon Grammar, by Thorpe. Preface, p. xlvii.

   33 Mr. Lockhart has given an interesting account of the origin of Sir
      Walter Scott’s views on this subject as expressed in the passages
      quoted above. They were first suggested by a friend whose attention
      had been much directed to subjects of this nature.

   34 This inflection, as in “They Hav-_en_,” is also preserved in the
      Dialects of the English Provinces.

   35 Giv-eth (_Eng._)
      Gieb-et (_Germ._)
      Don-at (_Lat._)
      Can-ati (_Sans._) i.e. Can-it (_Lat._)
      Diy-ati (_Sans._) i.e. Die-th (_Eng._)

   36 A work published by this gentleman under the quaint title of “Tim
      Bobbin,” and written entirely in the Lancashire Dialect, is well
      known. His writings, however, display the attainments of a scholar.

   37 “_Gang to the recht (right) hand_” was a reply which Dr. Lappenberg
      of Hamburgh has noticed to the author as one which struck his ear
      when he visited Scotland for the first time as a student. The
      approximation to the German is manifest.

   38 Rask, by Thorpe, pp. 8-9.

   39 This Verb also exhibits the German Plural “Sind,” which differs from
      the singular altogether, and belonged no doubt originally to a
      distinct Auxiliary Verb.

   40 See Glossary to Tyrwhitt’s Chaucer.

   41 Rask’s Anglo-Saxon Grammar.

   42 Rask’s Grammar, by Thorpe.

   43 Bosworth’s Scandinavian Literature.

   44 Ib. See Rask’s Anglo-Saxon Grammar, by Thorpe.

   45 The original identity of all these Languages may be said to be
      clearly proved; the Icelandic, also, seems to have deviated less
      than the rest from the parent tongue. But this opinion that the
      Icelandic has not changed at all is a highly unreasonable one. For
      example, the Danish and Swedish names for “Water”, of which the
      antiquity is certain from their general use among the Teutonic
      tribes, &c. must have been lost by the Icelanders.

   46 As to Grammar and Inflections, see especially pp. xvii. and xix.
      xxi. xxiii.—Rask.

   47 See Bosworth’s “Scandinavian Literature,” as to the difference in
      the arrangement of sentences, and the difference of Idioms between
      the ancient and modern Scandinavian dialects.

   48 Rask, pp. xvii. and xix. Bosworth’s Scandinavian Literature.

   49 See the Irish names for the Heavenly Bodies, in Append. A and C.

   50 See Appendix A.

   51 Possibly many of these words may be traced in the Greek, &c., but it
      would be foreign to the present subject to enter into too minute a
      discussion on that head.

   52 Chalmers’ Caledonia.

   53 In this part of the present work I have derived great assistance
      from Dr. Prichard’s sound and successful researches, and from the
      labours of M. Bullet, which are distinguished alike by genius and
      indefatigable industry.

   54 I find M. Bullet in many, and in some few instances Dr. Prichard,
      have, as I conceive, mistaken the Roman inflections for distinct
      Celtic words.

   55 Malte Brun.

   56 Kerdanet’s History of the Language of the Gauls and Armoricans,
      translated by David Lewis, Esq., in the Cumbrian Quarterly Magazine.

   57 Prichard on the Celtic Languages.

   58 Tribus (_Latin_.)

   59 As previously noticed, the French names handed down from the old
      Gauls are probably often nearer the Celtic than the Latin names.

   60 Esseg, “Water,” (_Dongolan, North Africa._)

   61 This word is marked thus, with a dagger, in the Cornish
      Vocabularies, as being extinct.

   62 Chalmers’s Caledonia.

   63 Ab-us, (Anton.) Ab-on-trus, Ab-ou-trus, Ab-ou, (Ptolomey.) Baxter
      suggests Abon trus t, “The Noise of the Rivers,” an allusion, as he
      supposes, to the noise of the currents. But this explanation
      involves a change in the second word, and a fanciful construction of
      the sense of the terms employed.

   64 It is only by a very minute and careful investigation of Maps,
      ancient and modern, that I have been enabled to verify the
      correctness of this and many other Celtic derivations.

   65 A powerful Gaulish Tribe in the East of Gaul.

   66 Lacus (_Latin._)

   67 This is one of the numerous instances in which, judging merely from
      ancient Maps, or from the less minute modern Maps, (_on which this
      stream is not marked_,) the situation of a place seems inconsistent
      with the derivation suggested.

   68 Hornius’s ancient Map. This place is very near to Bilboa.

   69 Lan means an inclosed spot in Welsh.

   70 Medius (_Latin._)

   71 Dr. W. O. Pughe’s Welsh Dictionary.

   72 Lutum (_Latin._)

   73 Dunum, a Hill Fort.

   74 Asia, by Carl Ritter and others.

   75 Hence the “Hindoo-Kuh.”

   76 A Town.

   77 Celtic Ethnography, in Dr. Prichard’s work on “Man.”

   78 The word, in the sense of a stream, seems to be confined to such
      streams as traverse the bottoms of narrow glens.

   79 This word occurs in a variety of mutually connected meanings in the
      Hebrew and Celtic.

   80 Petro is said to mean a Rock, in Gaulish names, by some French
      Celtic scholars.

   81 Hence, also, as may be inferred, the Curi-osilitæ in Brittany.

   82 In such instances, however, the Celtic generally presents words
      approaching in sound and sense to those occurring in the Local
      names, though not so near to then as the Oriental terms, &c.

   83 E.r, a Mountain; by reduplication E.r r, a very high Mountain
      (_Heb._)

   84 Kohl’s Russia.

   85 Here is an explanation, in the instance of the very same word, of
      Lhuyd’s difficulty noticed in the last Section.

   86 In Appendix A the original identity and subsequent specific
      appropriation of the names of the Heavenly Luminaries are especially
      noticed. See Appendix A, p. 48. These words occur in the same
      Appendix; as to “Tin-dee,” see p. 26, as to “Nganga,” see same page.

   87 For example: “Carbonic Acid Gas,” called also “Choke Damp” (by
      miners,) and “Fixed Air.”

      “Carburetted Hydrogen,” called also “Fire Damp” (by miners),
      “Inflammable Air,” “Coal Gas,” and “Gas.”

      “Iodine,” from Iōdēs, “Like a Violet,” (_Greek_,) a name suggested
      by its beautiful violet tint.

      “Nitrous Oxide,” or “Protoxide of Azote” (terms expressive of its
      component elements), a gas discovered by Dr. Priestley, called also
      “Laughing Gas” (from its peculiar property discovered by Sir
      Humphrey Davy).

      “Gas” is from a German word meaning “Breath, Air, Spirit,” &c. &c.

   88 See Remarks in Adelung’s Mithridates on the Hebrew.

   89 Some excellent observations on the subject of words thus formed by
      children occur in some late numbers of Chambers’s Journal.

   90 This did not apply to the first four lines quoted above.

   91 This is perfectly obvious in the Hebrew, and may be shown by
      Analysis in other Languages.

   92 See Dr. Darwin’s Zoonomia.

   93 The occurrence in the Georgian, as a word for a “Father,” of this
      term, which is generally used for a “Mother,” is specially noticed
      by Adelung. Compare the other example from the dialect of the
      Mangrees.

   94 Sir William Jones’s Works, vol. iii. p. 185.

   95 The term Semetic, i.e. descendants of Shem, for which Dr. Prichard
      has proposed to substitute Syro-Phœnician, is applied to the ancient
      nations of Judea, Syria, and Arabia. The common origin and specific
      connexion of most of these nations which may be inferred from the
      Scriptural account, are distinctly apparent from the close affinity
      of their languages. These Tongues by the highest authorities have
      been pronounced to be as nearly related as the Doric and Ionic
      dialects of the Greek.

   96 See a Treatise by Rammohun Roy, showing that the ancient faith of
      the Hindoos involved the unity of the Deity.

   97 Ju-piter is a compound of Pater, a Father, with “Jov,” which is the
      basis.

   98 Vesta is also used for Fire itself.

   99 Cicero de Natura Deorum.

  100 Ymenyn (_Welsh_).

  101 This name is supposed by Hebrew scholars to be expressive of
      swiftness, and to be derived from S.s, or Sh.sh, Active, Sprightly.

  102 From the change of hue the body undergoes in death.

  103 Other examples of the affinity of the Hebrew and the Welsh have been
      examined with great ability by Dr. William Owen Pughe, in the
      Cymrodorion Transactions. There is also a valuable old work on the
      connexion of the Hebrew with other languages, by Mr. Barker,
      schoolmaster, Carmarthen.

  104 Dr. Prichard on Egyptian Mythology.

  105 Dr. Prichard on Man.

  106 In some of these instances the Coptic or Egyptian has lost the
      original meaning of these appellations, in others it has preserved
      them in common with the Hebrew and Indo-European Tongues.

  107 Materia Hieroglyphica.

  108 Wilkinson.

  109 Among the Egyptian Deities is Anep, Anepo, the classical Anubis,
      “The Conductor of Souls.”

  110 Wilkinson, p. 11, note 4.

  111 Ibid.

  112 Sir William Jones on the Gods of Greece, Italy, and India.

  113 Lepsius Lettre à Rosselini.

  114 See a short summary of Mr. Colebrooke’s views in Dr. Prichard on
      Man, in his observations on the Egyptians.

  115 Sir William Jones on the Gods of Greece, Italy, and India.

  116 Ibid.

  117 Prichard on Man, vol. ii. p. 199.

  118 Mr. Wilkinson refers the reign of Menes to 2320 B.C.

  119 Foreign Quarterly, 1836. I conceive, however, that the conclusion of
      the ingenious reviewer as to the identity of M.s.e.k with the name
      of the Muscovites, may require reconsideration.  See Adelung on the
      Russians, and Vol. I, p. 314.

  120 Adelung.

  121 Tattam’s Egyptian Grammar.

  122 Foreign Quarterly Review.

  123 There is an able pamphlet by Dr. Löewe, in which he maintains the
      Hebrew to be the Parent of the Egyptian. Dr. Löewe’s examples appear
      to me to be equally conclusive _against_ the specific connexion he
      advocates, and _in support_ of the original unity of these tongues
      at a remote era.

  124 Compare Sohn (_German_), Son (_English_).

  125 See Dr. Prichard on Man.

  126 Mithridates, under Africa.

  127 See Belzoni’s Travels, p. 239.

  128 Prichard on Man.

  129 The The African languages (as far as they are known to us), and the
      American, according to Du Ponceau, are all polysyllabic.

  130 To this rule, however, pronouns are an exception.

  131 Numerous examples also occur in Appendix A.

  132 Cæteris paribus, this is a correct view; but not where grammatical
      resemblances are treated as more important evidence than other
      resemblances.

  133 The occurrence of nasal sounds at the end of words, as in this
      instance, form an apparent exception to the principle that Chinese
      words consist simply of one consonant followed by a vowel. But these
      nasals Adelung states to be mere evanescent intonations.

  134 Adelung, notwithstanding his opinion that the Chinese is a perfectly
      distinct language, was struck with the analogy between “Foo Tsin,”
      and “Moo Tsin,” and “Fa-ther” and “Mo-ther.”

  135 It is observable, that as in the above instances of Heuen and Keen,
      the Chinese verbs very commonly terminate in a nasal _n_, as do
      those of the Persian and Teutonic.

  136 Cooper’s Last of the Mohicans.

  137 See chapter on the Chinese.

_  138 Ind._ means, _N. A. Indian_. This term (_Ind._) is used here
      exclusively to distinguish words from the dialects of the Algonquyn
      class.

  139 A Western Tribe visited by Mr. Catlin.

  140 Nain (_Welsh_) Grandmother.

  141 “A Woman.” See Parkhurst’s Lex.

  142 Nunk (_Indian_) means “Young.”

  143 This word is from the dialects of the Iroquois, another class of
      Indian Tribes, who inhabited the present territory of the United
      States.

  144 “War,” Aguwarrie, in the Iroquois dialects, Gewehr (_German_),
      Guerre (_French_), War (_English_).

  145 Parkhurst.

  146 Nakoha (_Mandan_), Noh gee (_Sioux_).

  147 They are chiefly composed of Pronouns, terms which form the basis of
      Grammar.

  148 Hooynt does not mean “It” in Welsh. In that language it is a plural
      and not a singular, as Mr. Catlin supposes. This circumstance,
      however, does not render the example less relevant, “Hooynt”
      (_Welsh_) being clearly identical with the terms from the Mandan,
      Turkish, &c., with which it is compared above; for pronouns,
      singular and plural, were originally the same words as they still
      are in all cases in the Chinese, and in several instances in the
      above examples.

  149 Dr. Prichard, Eastern Origin of Celts, p. 134.

  150 This is an erroneous example, I conceive. “Megosh” is also a
      questionable one.

  151 Dr. Prichard, Eastern Origin of Celts.

  152 Compare Pend-o (_Latin_).

  153 Many of those differences displayed by the North American Indian
      languages among themselves, and as compared to those of Asia, which
      have been assumed by many writers to be fundamental, consist of mere
      transitions of application agreeably to Horne Tooke’s principles;
      terms which appear as pronoun inflections in one dialect, occurring
      as pronouns, or as words for “Man” in others, &c. Thus we have Rauha
      pronoun of the third person “He” (_Iroquois._) Rehoje, “Man Homo,”
      (_Tarahumaran._) R.ch.e, Rou.e, “Life, Soul, Spirit, Breath,”
      (_Hebrew and Arabic._)

  154 As to the identity of these inflections, “Om, Amo, Amen,” with
      pronouns and nouns. (See Appendix A, pp. 53-4.)

  155 These terms seem to consist of the first essays of the organs of
      articulation. (See p. 105.)

  156 Ki-nondonim-i, “I,” or “We understand you,” (_Algonquyn dialects._)
      Compare Eimi, Tupt-oi-mi, &c. (_Greek._) Bha va-mi (Sans.) &c.
      Compare “Amo,” with “I Am,” (_English_,) &c.

  157 See Appendix A, p. 56, for the origin of this word.

  158 Ni, “I,” (_Basque._)

  159 This Pronoun does not occur in any Indo-European language except the
      Welsh. The Pronoun of the first person occurs in a modified form in
      the Greek.

  160 The names for the Sun, Moon, and the Eye, are generally from the
      same roots.

  161 Compare the unsatisfactory Etymology of Ee . ou . m, usually adopted
      by Hebrew lexicographers, from E . m, Tumult, because there is “a
      tumultuous agitation of the celestial fluid,” at daybreak.

  162 This is an important word, as being one of the instances adduced by
      Dr. Leipsius, in opposition to Champollion’s opinion, that the
      modern Coptic is perfectly identical with the ancient Egyptian. This
      word, Iri, “an Eye,” and its signification, are only known to us
      through Plutarch. The term is obsolete in the Coptic.—Leipsius,
      “Lettre à Rossellini.”

  163 Mu lilo, Um lilo, also occur as words for fire, in the South of
      Africa.

  164 N’jellauma, and Liulu, both occur in the dialect of the Phellatas,
      and Leoure occurs in that of the Fulahs, who are a kindred race.

  165 Burhum-_Safara_, The Sun, which occurs in one of the Negro dialects,
      seems to be derivable from the same root.

  166 Mot-Sichari, Day, a word that occurs among the languages of the
      South of Africa, is probably from the same root.

  167 It may be inferred, however, that the simple word, Masso, was
      applied originally as we find it in the Georgian, to the Sun, before
      it was used for the Eye. It is an error to suppose that the names
      for such organs as the “Eye” belong to the first elements of
      language. The name for the Eye is generally a mere derivative of
      words for “Light,” “Sun,” &c.

  168 See Note in page 14.

  169 See Note in page 14.

  170 These words,—Aithein, “To burn,” Greek, and “Ashes,” English,
      &c.—are said by German scholars to be mutually connected. (Schwenk’s
      Wörterbuch.)

  171 It is observable that the Hebrew words, Ee.ph.c’h, and Ph.ou.c’h,
      are evidently imitations of the act of Breathing, or Puffing. They
      may, I conceive, be regarded as the roots of all the words for
      “Fire,” &c., which follow.

  172 Du Ponceau, whose principles are here adopted as probably applicable
      to all languages, states that in the Algonquyn Class of Dialects of
      North America the names for the Moon are derived from those for the
      Sun, with the addition of a word meaning night, &c. The word Hak, he
      says, is very generally thus used, for the Moon, with the requisite
      addition.

  173 According to Du Ponceau the words for “Day,” in the Algonquyn
      tongues, are modifications of the words for the “Sun.”

  174 Tash, “A Day,” (_Pimans_, south of _N.A._) This word, Teas, or Tesh,
      has already been traced through the various meanings of Fire, Sun,
      Day, &c.

  175 Words for Heaven, in the languages of the North of Asia, which are
      evidently connected with the North American Indian words for Heaven,
      and also with the North American Indian names for the “Sun,” from
      which they are derived.

  176 According to the views of many Hebrew scholars, A . ou . r, “Light,”
      and A ou . ee . r, “Air,” are probably from the same root—A r. “To
      flow,”—applied to Water, Air, Light, &c. (See p. 5, Appendix A.)

  177 The names for the Eye, in the _Algonquyn_ dialects of North America,
      are stated by Du Ponceau to be derivatives of names for the Sun.
      This is generally but not, it would seem, universally the case in
      all languages. Probably it would also be more correct, as a general
      rule, to say that the names for the Eye, and for the Sun, are from
      the same roots, than that the latter are the roots of the former.

  178 I need scarcely observe that the previous Analysis must necessarily
      be, in some respects, philologically incomplete. Agrêska, Ogrêska,
      (_Nubia_ and _Abyssinia_,) seem to be related to Agir, Fire,
      (_Kurd_.) We-taga, the Sun, (_Negro_,) seems to be a compound of the
      second class above noticed from Awia, Uwia, and Tjo, T’ga, African
      words for the Heavenly Bodies. Gjaubenje and Ma-undgage wodu, Fire,
      are plainly compounds from Gajewodu, Fire, (_Negro_.) The evidence
      derived from words, of which the origin is clearly traceable, is so
      complete, that all words of doubtful origin have been omitted from
      the previous and from the following Tables.

  179 Hence the name of the “Ourang Outang.”

  180 Obaini, M., Baning, M. (_Negro_), seem to be connected with Bio-ōn
      (_Greek_), “A Being,” (_English_.)

  181 Illum (Latin).

  182 Ng-ummi, and Ng-umbo, (Negro names for “Man,”) seem obviously to be
      compounds of the above words, “Ungi, Nga,” with Ommo, Uhm-to, &c.,
      another word for “Man, Woman,” &c., elsewhere noticed in this
      Analysis.

  183 There is not, in every case, a regular or broadly marked distinction
      between these “Modifications,” which have been adopted to facilitate
      comparison rather than as being based on strictly philological
      grounds.

  184 Najakala and Ba cala, M. (_Negro_), seem to be compounds derived
      from Ackala and other roots. Ack-ala, Jakk-ela themselves seem to be
      compounds of “Kai, Hakke,” &c. (the class of words analysed above,)
      with Alo, &c. terms for “Man,” noticed in other parts of this
      Analysis.

  185 Mass-ari, Bass-ari, F.—_South Africa_.

  186 She—_English_.

_  187 Turkish_—Uz, “Self,” Himself, Myself.

  188 Two dominant ideas pervade the words of this class, viz. those of 1,
      Birth; and 2, Existence in the abstract. As words expressive of
      ideas of the second class are regarded by philosophical writers as
      _derivatives_, the idea of Birth, as in the Greek words Genn-ao,
      Gun-ē, Genn-ētor, may be viewed as the _primary_ and _proper_ sense.

  189 Vol. XIII., p. 373, Review of Wilkins’s Sanscrit Grammar.

_  190 Negro-land_—Dikkom, Dim, M., Tewe, F.; _Irish_—Dae, M. & F.

  191 There are only two African words of this class, which have been left
      unnoticed in the analysis, viz. Blimozeh, “The Hand,” a Negro word,
      apparently related to “Bulla,” another Negro word for “The Hand,”
      probably allied also to “Pal-ma,” (_Latin_;) and Neworeh. “The
      Hand,” used by the _Phellatahs_, a tribe of North Africa, who
      inhabit a tract contiguous to Negro-land. These exceptions are too
      trifling to call for any qualification of the generality of the
      above statement.

  192 On this subject the analysis of Manee and other analogous African
      words for “Man.” See also Observations on the Algonguyn Dialects of
      North America

  193 “Ansa, for Hansa,” supine of Hendo, whence “Pre-hendo”
      (_Latin_).—Valpy’s Etym. Latin Dict.

  194 Apparently a compound of Eed or Ied, and Man-us.

  195 Tene in this dialect is prefixed to the names of the senses
      generally. Law, for instance, is the distinctive name of “The Hand,”
      Thoun is that of “The Tongue,” obviously connected with “Tongue,”
      (_English_).

  196 “Dem gall, Dein gall” (_Fulahs_ and _Phellatahs_, North Africa),
      seem to be compounds of these words, with another root.

  197 Del emme (_Negro-land_), “The Tongue,” seems to be a compound of the
      second and third classes.

_  198 Pehlwi_, “Hosuan.” The close connexion between the German and the
      Pehlwi, and the other dialects of Persia, is indisputable.

  199 South Africa, Zebé, &c.

  200 Hence, apparently, Lücko, Loko,—_South Africa_.

  201 “Water,” Ahti, Cora,—Atl, _Mexico_.

  202 Eau, “Water,” _French_.

  203 Iâ, “Ice,” _Welsh_.

  204 There are other analogous words,—Endschey, “Water,” _Negro-land_,
      Ente, “A Duck,” i.e. “A Water Fowl,” _German_.

_  205 Mongol_, Usu; _Tibet_, “Tschu.”

_  206 North America_ (_Azanax_), Eslenes.

  207 Dour, Water, (_Welsh_); Jura, “The Sea,” (_Lettish._) Ejern
      (_Abyssinian_), “Water,” seems also to be connected with “Tschur,”
      “Jura,” &c.

  208 Many examples serve to show that the names of Streams, &c., in Gaul,
      as preserved by the French, are in many instances more faithful
      transcripts of the original Celtic appellations than the names
      preserved by Latin writers.

  209 Like the Greek, Ouranoi, “A _singular-plural_.”

  210 Omitted in previous Analysis: Araiáni, “Heaven” (_Fetu_); Ouran-os,
      “Heaven” (_Greek_); Enniba, Eniba [above], “Eye.” [See Appendix A,
      pp. 42, 43.] Njame, see Djau, “Heaven,” “Air” (_Sanscrit_); Ada,
      “Day” (_Fetu_); from Edja, “Fire,” Egwju, “Sun” (_Fetu_).

  211 Also A.nah, “To live,” (Anok I.)—_Egypt._

  212 The great majority of the African words for the Nose (a class not
      included in Appendix A) have been explained in other parts of this
      work.