Narrative of the Voyage of H.M.S. Rattlesnake Volume Ii Part 34

Sing : - : pediri (D) : -.

Sit down : - : k.u.mturi : -.

Sleep : mahuta : - : -.

Sneeze : - : tatino (D) : -.

Strike (with fist) : hela : - : -.

Swim : nahu : - : -.

Whistle : - : ino : -.

11. MlSCELLANEOUS.

Expressing friendship : - : magasugo (b) : -.

This is called : - : taina esana : -.

12. NAMES OF PERSONS.

Males, Number 1 : Woro : Ihara : Wadai.

Males, Number 2 : Iripa : Nubaida : Maho.

Males, Number 3 : Kari (father and son) : Tubuda : Hewawo.

Males, Number 4 : Baguya : Eratao : Mao.

Females, Number 1 : - : Lataoma, Konaia (D) : -.

Females, Number 2 : - : Narumai, Tatarai (D) : -.

Females, Number 3 : - : Haraobi, Bonarua (D) : -.

Females, Number 4 : - : Perodi : -.

Females, Number 5 : - : Gubetta : -.

APPENDIX 3.

REMARKS ON THE VOCABULARIES OF THE VOYAGE OF THE RATTLESNAKE, BY R.G.

LATHAM, M.D.

In the way of comparative philology the most important part of the Grammar of the Australian languages is, generally, the p.r.o.noun. That of the Kowrarega language will, therefore, be the first point investigated.

In the tongues of the Indo-European cla.s.s the personal p.r.o.nouns are pre-eminently constant, i.e., they agree in languages which, in many other points, differ. How thoroughly the sound of m runs through the Gothic, Slavonic, and Iranian tongues as the sign of the p.r.o.noun of the first person singular, in the oblique cases; how regularly a modification of t, s, or th, appears in such words as tu, su, thou, etc! Now this constancy of the p.r.o.noun exists in most languages; but not in an equally palpable and manifest form. It is disguised in several ways. Sometimes, as in the Indo-European tongues, there is one root for the nominative and one for the oblique cases; sometimes the same form, as in the Finlandic, runs through the whole declension; sometimes, as when we say you for thou in English, one number is subst.i.tuted for another; and sometimes, as when the German says sie for thou, a change of the person is made as well.

When languages are known in detail, these complications can be guarded against; but where the tongue is but imperfectly exhibited a special a.n.a.lysis becomes requisite.

Generally, the first person is more constant than the second, and the second than the third; indeed, the third is frequently no true personal p.r.o.noun at all, but a demonstrative employed to express the person or thing spoken of as the agent or object to a verb. Now, as there are frequently more demonstratives than one which can be used in a personal sense, two languages may be, in reality, very closely allied, though their personal p.r.o.nouns of the third person differ. Thus the Latin ego = Greek ego; but the Latin hic and ille by no means correspond in form with os, auto, and ekeinos. This must prepare us for not expecting a greater amount of resemblance between the Australian personal p.r.o.nouns than really exists.

Beginning with the most inconstant of the three p.r.o.nouns, namely, that of the third person, we find in the Kowrarega the following forms:

3.

Singular, masculine : nu-du = he, him.

Singular, feminine : na-du = she, her.

Dual, common : pale = they two, them two.

Plural, common : tana = they, them.

In the two first of these forms the du is no part of the root, but an affix, since the Gudang gives us the simpler forms nue and na. Pale, the dual form, occurs in the Western Australian, the New South Wales, the South Australian, and the Parnkalla as foIlows: boola, bulo-ara, purl-a, pudlanbi = they two.

2.

Singular : ngi-du = thou, thee.

Dual : ngi-pel = ye two, you two.

Plural : ngi-tana = ye, you.

Here the root is limited to the syllable ngi, as shown not less by the forms ngi-pel, and ngi-tana, than by the simple Gudang ngi = thou.

Ngi, expressive of the second person, is common in Australia: ngi-nnee, ngi-ntoa, ni-nna, ngi-nte = thou, thee, in the Western Australian, New South Wales, Parnkalla, and Encounter Bay dialects.

Ngi-pel is probably thou + pair; a priori this is a likely way of forming a dual. As to the reasons a posteriori they are not to be drawn wholly from the Kowrarega tongue itself. Here the word for two is not pel but qua.s.sur. But let us look further. The root p-l, or a modification of it, = two in the following dialects; as well as in the Parnkalla and others: pur-laitye, poolette, par-koolo, bull-a, in the Adelaide, Boraipar, Yak-k.u.mban, and Murrumbidge. That it may stand too for the dual personal p.r.o.noun is shown in the first of these tongues; since in the Adelaide language purla = ye two. Finally, its appearance amongst the p.r.o.nouns, and its absence amongst the numerals, occurs in the Western Australian.

The numeral two is kardura; but the dual p.r.o.noun is boala. The same phenomenon would occur in the present English if two circ.u.mstances had taken place, namely, if the Anglo-Saxon dual wi-t = we two had been retained up to the present time amongst the p.r.o.nouns, and the word pair, brace, or couple, had superseded two amongst the numerals.

Lastly, the Western Australian and the Kowrarega so closely agree in the use of the numeral two for the dual p.r.o.noun, that each applies it in the same manner. In the third person it stands alone, so that in Western Australian boala, and in Kowrarega pale = they two, just as if in English we said pair or both, instead of they both (he pair); whilst in the second person, the p.r.o.noun precedes it, and a compound is formed; just as if, in English, we translated the Greek sphoi by thou pair or thou both.

1.

Singular : nga-tu = I, me.

Dual : albei = we two, us two.

Plural : arri = we, us.

Here the plural and dual are represented not by a modification of the singular but by a new word; as different from nga as nos is from ego. The tu, of course, is non-radical, the Gudang form being ngai.

Nga, expressive of the first person, is as common as ngi, equivalent to the second. Thus, nga-nya, nga-toa, nga-i, nga-pe = I, me, in the Western Australian, New South Wales, Parnkalla, and Encounter Bay dialects.

Now, the difference between the first and second persons being expressed by different modifications (nga, ngi) of the same root (ng), rather than by separate words, suggests the inquiry as to the original power of that root. It has already been said that, in many languages, the p.r.o.noun of the third person is, in origin, a demonstrative. In the Kowrarega it seems as if even the basis of the first and second was the root of the demonstrative also; since, by looking lower down in the list, we find that i-na = this, che-na = that, and nga-du (nga in Gudang) = who. Ina and chena also means here and there, respectively.

The dual form albei reappears in the Yak-k.u.mban dialect of the River Darling where allewa = we two. Arri = us, is also the first syllable in the Western Australian form ar-lingul = we; or, rather it is ar-lingul in a simpler and less compounded form. In a short specimen of Mr.

Eyre's from the head of the Great Australian Bight, the form in a appears in the singular number, ajjo = I and me. The root tana = they, is not ill.u.s.trated without going as far as the Western Australian of Mr. Eyre.

Here, however, we find it in the compound word par-tanna = many. Its original power is probably others; and it is most likely a widely diffused Australian root.

The p.r.o.nouns in question are compound rather than simple; i.e. instead of nga = me, and ngi = thee, we have nga-tu and ngi-du. What is the import and explanation of this? It may safely be said, that the termination in the Australian is NOT a termination like the Latin met in ego- met, inasmuch as this last is constant throughout the three persons (ego-met, tute-met, se-met), whereas, the former varies with the p.r.o.noun to which it is appended (nga-tu, and ngi-du). I hazard the conjecture that the two forms correspond with the adverbs here and there; so that nga-tu = I here, and ngi-du = thou there, and nu-du = he there. In respect to the juxtaposition of the simple forms (ngai, ngi, and nue) of the Gudang with the compound ones (nga-tu, ngi-du, and nu-du) of the Kowrarega, it can be shown that the same occurs in the Parnkalla of Port Lincoln; where Mr.

Eyre gives the double form ngai and nga-ppo each = I or me.

Now, this a.n.a.lysis of the Kowrarega personals has exhibited the evolution of one sort of p.r.o.noun out of another, with the addition of certain words expressive of number, the result being no true inflexion but an agglutination or combination of separate words. It has also shown how the separate elements of such combinations may appear in different forms and with different powers in different dialects of the same language, and different languages of the same cla.s.s, even where, in the primary and normal signification, they may be wanting in others. The first of these facts is a contribution to the laws of language in general; the second shows that a great amount of apparent difference may be exhibited on the surface of a language which disappears as the a.n.a.lysis proceeds.

In rude languages the Numerals vary with the dialect more than most other words. We can understand this by imagining what the case would be in English if one of our dialects counted things by the brace, another by the pair, and a third by the couple. Nevertheless, if we bear in mind the Greek forms Thala.s.sa and Thalatta, we may fairly suppose that the Kowrarega word for two, or qua.s.sur, is the same word with the Head of Australian Bight kootera, the Parnkalla kuttara, and the Western Australian kardura, having the same meaning.

The difference, then, between the numerals of the Australian languages--and it is undoubtedly great--is no proof of any fundamental difference of structure or origin. It is just what occurs in the languages of Africa, and, in a still greater degree, in those of America.

The extent to which the numeration is carried, is a matter of more importance. Possibly a numeration limited to the first three, four, or five numbers is the effect of intellectual inferiority. It is certainly a cause that continues it. As a measure of ethnological affinity it is unimportant. In America we have, within a limited range of languages, vigesimal systems like the Mexican, and systems limited to the three first units like the Caribb. The difference between a vigesimal and decimal system arises simply from the practice of counting by the fingers and toes collectively, or the fingers alone, being prevalent; whereas the decimal system as opposed to the quinary is referrible to the numeration being extended to both hands, instead of limited to one. Numerations not extending as far as five are generally independent of the fingers in toto. Then as to the names of particular numbers. Two nations may each take the name of the number two from some natural dualism; but they may not take it from the name. For instance, one American Indian may take it from a pair of skates, another from a pair of shoes. If so, the word for two will differ in the two languages, even when the names for skate and shoe agree. All this is supported by real facts, and is no hypothetical ill.u.s.tration; so that the inference from it is, that, in languages where a numeral system is in the process of formation, difference in the names of the numbers is comparatively unimportant.

The extent to which the numerals vary, the extent to which they agree, and the extent to which this variation and agreement are anything but coincident with geographical proximity or distance, may be seen in the following table:

English : one two three.

Moreton Bay : kamarah bulla mudyan.

Moreton Island : karawo poonlah madan.

Bijenelumbo : warat ngargark 2 + 1.

Limbakarajia : erat ngargark 2 + 1.

Terrutong : roka oryalk 2 + 1.