Page images
PDF
EPUB

tending along the northern coast of Africa, and the Hottentot, embracing the dialects of tribes at the southern extremity of the continent. This family of languages present many analogies with the Semitic. Both the Egyptian and Babylonian, says Müller, "though clearly marked with a Semitic stamp, represent two scions of the Semitic stem, which branched off at a period of history so early, or rather so long before the beginning of all history, that they may be considered as independent colonies, rather than as constituent parts of the kingdom of Shem. The same remark applies to Semitic tribes in the north of Africa, the number and extent of which is almost daily increased by the researches of African travelers and missionaries.” *

NIAN.

III. The third family of languages is the TURAThe name is derived from Tur, who, in an old Persian legend, was one of the three brothers from whom, it is said, the races of mankind are descended. Irej, another brother, was the founder of the race of Iran, i. e., the native Persians; Tur, of the Turans, their neighbors on the north-east, between which two races was an incessant warfare. † It comprises all the languages of Asia and Europe not included in the two preceding. families, except,

* Languages spoken at the Seat of War, p. 23.

† Whitney, Language, etc., p. 325.

These are

perhaps, the Chinese and its dialects. divided into two classes-the northern and southern. The first comprises the Tungusic, Mongolic, Turkic, Samoyedic, and Finnic, and occupies the regions to the north and west of China, as far as the Euxine and Mediterranean. To this division belong also the dialects of the Lapps and the Finns of Northern Europe, and the Magyars of Hungary. Its limits have been greatly extended in modern times by the conquests of the Turks, thus encroaching on the original territories of the Semites and the Aryans. The southern division comprises the Gangetic, i. e., the Thibetian and other dialects called Trans-Himmalayan and Sub-Himmalayan; the Taic, or the dialects of Siam; the Lohitic, i. e., dialects of Assam, Arakan, Burmah, and some others; the Malayic, comprising the languages of the Malayan peninsula and the Polynesian Islands; and the Tamulic, or the languages of Southern India, as the Canarese, Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, and other minor dialects.*

* Müller, Sci. of Lang. vol. i. p. 398. For the last mentioned group, see likewise Caldwell's Comp. Grammar of the Dravidian Languages. But Professor Müller is the authority for the general classification and arrangement of this southern group, as well as for that of the northern. In regard to the last-mentioned group, the Tamulic, faithfulness to the subject requires me to add particularly, that the affiliation of those dialects with the Scythian or

Such is the classification of languages made by the masters in philology, as indicated in the tripartite division just named. In this the Chinese and the body of languages in Central Africa and in America the speech of more than one third of mankind are confessedly not included. Those also which are placed in the third family — the Turanian are not grouped there, certainly not all of them, because of internal resemblances or affinities, but because they do not belong to either of the others. (Müller, p. 86.) These facts show how exceedingly imperfect the science of comparative philology still is, and ought to abate some of the confidence with which conclusions are drawn from it contrary to the teachings of the Scriptures. As it now stands, this classification, so far as respects the third family, is little more than a confession of ignorance as to the real character of the languages themselves. Some groups under it are, perhaps,

Turanian languages is doubted by some of our first linguists. Such affiliation can not, indeed, be positively denied, but the evidence is not regarded as conclusive. See some very judicious remarks on this point by Professor W. D. Whitney, Journ. Am. Or. Soc. vol. vii. p. 296, seq., appended to a valuable résumé of Caldwell's work above named, by Rev. E. Webb.

After all, we have here only another striking illustration of the indefiniteness of the classification of languages under the third division the Turanian.

sufficiently defined to be set by themselves, others by themselves; yet the vast majority of the dialects are too little known or studied to have their true linguistic characteristics fully defined.*

There is still another classification of languages, founded upon their internal structure, which ought to be mentioned here. It divides them into three primary families, distinguished by the characteristics of their leading words. These are stated by Professor Müller as follows:

"1. Roots may be used as words, each root preserving its full independence.

"2. Two roots may be joined together to form

*Since the above was written, the admirable work of Professor W. D. Whitney, "Languuge, and the Study of Language,” has appeared, and I am pleased at finding my own opinions on many important points so much in accord with those he has expressed in this volume. He speaks rather disparagingly of the results of comparative philology, as much so, perhaps, as I

have myself.

He of course accords a proper value to what has been settled by linguistic study respecting the Semitic and European families of languages, but is not satisfied with the classification of philologists in regard to the other languages. He prefers the term Scythian to Turanian for designating the third family (so called), and thinks the evidence on which dialects have been grouped together often unsatisfactory. He is eminently conservative. I approve of his use of Scythian for Turanian, and can not but wish he had done more to solve the problem of relationship between that vast number of dialects ranked in this family.

words, and in these compounds one root may lose its independence.

"3. Two roots may be joined together to form words, and in these compounds both roots may lose their independence.”

The first class gives rise to monosyllabic languages. These are "wholly unsusceptible of grammatical mutations; there is no formal distinction between verb and noun, substantive and adjective, preposition and conjunction; there are no inflections, no case- or person-terminations of any kind; the bare root forms the sole and whole substance of the language." The following specimen of a Chinese sentence will illustrate this: "King speak: Sage! not far thousand mile and come; also will have use gain me realm, hey?" That is, "The king spoke, O Sage, since thou dost not count a thousand miles far to come, wilt thou not too have brought something for the weal of my realm?” ‡

The second class characterizes what are called

agglutinative languages. Of the two or more roots of which its words are composed, one expressing the substantive idea is not liable to variation, and the others are somewhat loosely attached

* Lectures, first series, eighth lecture.

+ Smith's Bib. Dict. art. Confusion of Tongues.

Schleicher's Lang. of Europe, quoted by Whitney, p. 331.

« PreviousContinue »