Narrative of the Voyage of H.M.S. Rattlesnake Volume Ii Part 35

Limbapyu : immuta lawidperra 2 + 1.

Kowrarega : warapune qua.s.sur 2 + 1.

Gudang : epiamana elabaio 2 + 1.

Darnley Island : netat nes 2 + 1.

Raffles Bay : loca orica orongarie.

Lake Macquarie : wakol buloara ngoro.

Peel River : peer pular purla.

Wellington : ngungbai bula bula-ngungbai.

Corio : koimoil.

Jhongworong : kap.

Pinegorine : youa.

Gnurellean : lua.

King George Sound : keyen cuetrel murben.

Karaula : mal bular culeba.

Lachlan, Regent Lake : nyoonbi bulia bulongonbi.

Wollondilly River : medung pulla colluerr.

The Verb now requires notice. In languages in the same stage of development with the Australian the usual a.n.a.lysis, as shown by the late Mr. Garnett in his masterly papers on the structure of the verb, is as follows: 1. The root. 2. The possessive p.r.o.noun. 3. A particle of time--often originally one of place.

A rough ill.u.s.tration of this is the statement that such a word as dormur == sleep-my-then (or there). To apply this doctrine to the Kowrarega with our present data, is unsafe. Still, I am inclined (notwithstanding some difficulties) to identify the pa of the Present tense with the bu in kai-bu = now, and the n of the preterite with the n of che-na = there.

The double forms of the Past tense (one in n, and another in m) are at present inexplicable. So are the double forms of the Imperative, namely the one in r, and the one in e. It may, however, be remarked, that wherever the Imperative ends in e, the Preterite has the form in m; thus, pid-e = dig, pid-ema = dug. The only exception is the anomalous form peneinG.o.dgi = dived. This prepares the future grammarian for a division of the Kowrarega Verbs into Conjugations.

The last cla.s.s of words that supply the materials of comment are the Substantives. Herein, the formation of the plural by the addition of le, probably occurs in several of the Australian tongues. I infer this from many of those words which we find in the vocabularies of languages whereof the grammar is unknown, and which are expressive of naturally plural objects ending in li, la, or l.

1. Star (stars)--pur-le, pi-lle, poo-lle, in Parnkalla, Aiawong, and Yak-k.u.mban.

2. Fire (flames)--ka-lla, gad-la, in Western Australian and Parnkalla.

3. Head (hair)--kur-le, Encounter Bay. Here we learn from the forms kar-ga, from the Head of the Great Australian Bight, and ma-kar-ta, from Adelaide, that the l is foreign to the root.

4. Hands--marrow-la in the Molonglo dialect; as contrasted with marra in the Adelaide.

This, however, is merely a conjecture, a conjecture, however, which has a practical bearing. It suggests caution in the comparison of vocabularies; since, by mistaking an inflexion or an affix for a part of the root, we may overlook really existing similarities.

Father Anjello's very brief grammatical sketch of the Limbakarajia language of Port Essington* exhibits, as far as it goes, precisely the same principles as Mr. Macgillivray's Kowrarega; indeed, some of the details coincide.

(*Footnote. Given to Mr. Macgillivray by Mr. James Macarthur, and prefixed to the ma.n.u.script Port Essington Vocabulary, alluded to in Volume 1.)

Thus, the Limbakarajia personal p.r.o.nouns are:

I = nga-pi.

We = ngari.

Thou = noie.

We two = arguri.

He, she, it = gianat.

Ye = noie.

They = ngalmo.

Here the pi in nga-pi is the po in the Aiawong nga-ppo; the gian in gian-at being, probably, the in in the Kowrarega ina = that, this.

Ngalmo, also, is expressly stated to mean many as well as they, a fact which confirms the view taken of tana.

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

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

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

A further change reduces sh to s.

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

The comparative absence, however, of the sound of s, in Australian, may be further refined on in another way; and it may be urged that it is absent, not because it has never been developed, or called into existence, but because it has ceased to exist. In the Latin of the Augustan age as compared with that of the early Republic, we find the s of words like arbos changed into r (arbor). The old High German, also, and the Icelandic, as compared with the Meso-Gothic, does the same. Still the change only affects certain inflectional sy1lables, so that the original s being only partially displaced, retains its place in the language, although it occurs in fewer words. In Australian, where it is wanting at all, it is wanting in toto: and this is a reason for believing that its absence is referrible to non-development rather than to displacement. For reasons too lengthy to exhibit, I believe that this latter view is NOT applicable to Australian; the s, when wanting, being undeveloped. In either case, however, the phonetic differences between particular dialects are the measures of but slight differences.

Now--with these preliminary cautions against the over-valuation of apparent differences--we may compare the new data for the structure of the Kowrarega and Limbakarajia with the reccived opinions respecting the Australian grammars in general.

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

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

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

In respect to the vocabularies, the extent to which the a.n.a.lysis which applies to the grammar applies to the vocables also may be seen in the following instance. The word hand in Bijenelumbo and Limbapyu is birgalk.

There is also in each language a second form--anbirgalk--wherein the an is non-radical. Neither is the alk; since we find that armpit = ingamb-alk, shoulder = mundy-alk, and fingers = mong-alk. This brings the root = hand to birg. Now this we can find elsewhere by looking for. In the Liverpool dialect, bir-il = hand, and at King George Sound, peer = nails. The commonest root, = hand in the Australian dialects, is m-r, e.g.:

Moreton Bay : murrah.

Corio : far-onggnetok.

Karaula : marra.

Jhongworong : far-okgnata.

Sydney : da-mora.

Murrumbidje : mur-rugan.

Mudje : mara.

Molonglo : mar-rowla.

Wellington : murra.

Head of Bight : merrer.

Liverpool : ta-mura.

Parnkalla : marra.

All this differs from the Port Essington terms. Elbow, however, in the dialects there spoken, = waare; and forearm = am-ma-woor; wier, tao, = palm in Kowrarega.

To complete the evidence for this latter word being the same as the m-r of the other dialects and languages, it would be necessary to show, by examples, how the sounds of m and w interchange; and also to show (by example also) how the ideas of elbow, forearm, and hand do so. But as the present remarks are made for the sake of ill.u.s.trating a method, rather than establis.h.i.+ng any particular point, this is not necessary here; a few instances taken from the names of the parts of the human body being sufficient to show the general distribution of some of the commoner Australian roots; and the more special fact of their existence in the northern dialects:

English : hand.

Peel River : ma.

Terrutong : manawiye.

Raffles Bay : maneiya.

English : foot.

Moreton Bay : chidna.