Page images
PDF
EPUB

mean perhaps (Yes, this may be true), or of course (Yes, I know it), or really (Yes? is it true?) or truly (Yes, I will). But in Chinese, in Annamitic (and likewise in Siamese and Burmese), these modulations have a much wider application. Thus in Annamitic, ba pronounced with the grave accent means a lady, an ancestor; pronounced with the sharp accent it means the favorite of a prince; pronounced with the semi-grave accent, it means what has been thrown away; pronounced with the grave circumflex, it means what is left of a fruit after it has been squeezed out; pronounced with no accent, it means three; pronounced with the ascending or interrogative accent, it means a box on the ear. Thus Ba, bà, bân, bán

is said to mean, if properly pronounced, "Three ladies gave a box on the ear to the favorite of the prince." How much these accents must be exposed to fluctuation in different dialects is easy to perceive. Though they are fixed by grammatical rules, and though their neglect causes the most absurd mistakes, they were clearly in the beginning the mere expression of individual feeling, and therefore liable to much greater dialectic variation than grammatical forms, properly so called. But let us take what we might call grammatical forms in Chinese, in order to see how differently they too fare in dialectic dispersion, as compared with the terminations of inflectional languages. Though the grammatical organization of Latin has been wellnigh used up in French, we still see in the s of the plural a remnant of the Latin paradigm. We can trace the one back to the other. But in Chinese, where the plural is

formed by the addition of some word meaning "multitude, heap, flock, class," what trace of original relationship remains when one dialect uses one, another another word? The plural in Cochin-Chinese is formed by placing fo before the substantive. This fo means many, or a certain number. It may exist in Chinese, but it is certainly not used there to form the plural. Another word employed for forming plurals is nung, several, and this again is wanting in Chinese. It fortunately happens, however, that a few words expressive of plurality have been preserved both in Chinese and Cochin-Chinese; as, for instance, choung, clearly the Chinese tchoung,1 meaning conflux, vulgus, all, and used as an exponent of the plural; and kak, which has been identified with the Chinese ko. The last identification may seem doubtful; and if we suppose that choung, too, had been given up in Cochin-Chinese as a term of plurality, how would the tests which we apply for discovering the original identity of the Aryan languages have helped us in determining the real and close relationship between Chinese and CochinChinese?

The present indicative is formed in Cochin-Chinese by simply putting the personal pronoun before the root. Thus,

[blocks in formation]

The past tense is formed by the addition of da

[blocks in formation]

The future is formed by the addition of chè.

[blocks in formation]

Now, have we any right, however convinced we may be of the close relationship between Chinese and Cochin-Chinese, to expect the same forms in the language of the Mandarins? Not at all. The pronoun of the first person in Cochin-Chinese is not a pronoun, but means "servant." "I love" is expressed in that civil language by "servant loves." 1 In Chinese the same polite phraseology is constantly observed, but the words used are not the same, and do not include toy, servant. Instead of ngo, I, the Chinese would use kua ğin, little man; tcin, subject; tšie, thief; iu, blockhead. Nothing can be more polite; but we cannot expect that different nations should hit on exactly the same polite speeches, though they may agree in the common sense of grammar. The past tense is indicated in Chinese by particles meaning" already" or "formerly," but we do not find among them the Annamitic da. The same applies to the future. The system is throughout the same, but the materials are different. Shall we say, therefore, that these languages cannot be proved to be related, because they do not display the same criteria of relationship as French and English, Latin and Greek, Celtic and Sanskrit?

I tried in one of my former lectures to explain some of the causes which in nomadic dialects pro2 Endlicher, § 206.

1 Léon de Rosny, l. c. 302.

duce a much more rapid shedding of words than in literary languages, and I have since received ample evidence to confirm the views which I then expressed. My excellent friend, the Bishop of Melanesia, of whom it is difficult to say whether we should admire him most as a missionary, or as a scholar, or as a bold mariner, meets in every small island with a new language, which none but a scholar could trace back to the Melanesian type. "What an indication," he writes, " of the jealousy and suspicion of their lives, the extraordinary multiplicity of these languages affords! In each generation, for aught I know, they diverge more and more; provincialisms and local words, &c. perpetually introduce new causes for perplexity."

I shall mention to-day but one new, though insignificant cause of change in the Polynesian languages, in order to show that it is difficult to overestimate the multifarious influences which are at work in nomadic dialects, constantly changing their aspect and multiplying their number; and in order to convince even the most incredulous how little we know of all the secret springs of language if we confine our researches to a comparison of the classical tongues of India, Greece, Italy, and Germany.

The Tahitians,1 besides their mataphorical expressions, have another and a more singular mode of displaying their reverence towards their king, by a custom which they term Te pi. They cease to employ, in the common language, those words which form a part or the whole of the sovereign's name, or that of one of his near relatives, and invent new terms to 1 Dale, l. c. p. 288.

supply their place. As all names in Polynesian are significant, and as a chief usually has several, it will be seen that this custom must produce a considerable change in the language. It is true that this

change is only temporary, as at the death of the king or chief the new word is dropped, and the original term resumed. But it is hardly to be supposed that after one or two generations the old words should still be remembered and be reinstated. Anyhow, it is a fact that the missionaries, by employing many of the new terms, give them a permanency which will defy the ceremonial loyalty of the natives. Vancouver observes (Voyage, vol. i. p. 135) that at the accession of Otu, which took place between the visit of Cook and his own, no less than forty or fifty of the most common words, which occur in conversation, had been entirely changed. It is not necessary that all the simple words which go to make up a compound name should be changed. The alteration of one is esteemed sufficient. Thus in Po-mare, signifying "the night (po) of coughing (mare),” only the first word, po, has been dropped, mi being used in its place. So in Ai-mata (eye-eater), the name of the present queen, the ai (eat) has been altered to amu, and the mata (eye) retained. In Te-arii-naraha-roa (the chief with the large mouth), roa alone has been changed to maoro. It is the same as if, with the accession of Queen Victoria, either the word victory had been tabooed together, or only part of it, for instance tori, so as to make it high treason to speak during her reign of Tories, this word being always supplied by another; such, for instance, as Liberal-Conservative. The object was

« PreviousContinue »