UC BERKELEY MASTER NEGATIVE STORAGE NUMBER 04-63.4 (National version of master negative storage number: CU SN04063.4) MICROFILMED 2004 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY LIBRARY PHOTOGRAPHIC SERVICE REPRODUCTION AVAILABLE THROUGH INTERLIBRARY LOAN OFFICE MAIN LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY, CA 94720-6000 COPYRIGHT The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted materials including foreign works under certain conditions. In addition, the United States extends protection to foreign works by means of various international conventions, bilateral agreements, and proclamations. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be "used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research." If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of "fair use," that user may be liable for copyright infringement. University of California at Berkeley reserves the right to refuse to accept a copying order if, in its judgment, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of copyright law. Muller, F. Max The languages of the seat of war in the East 2d ed. London : Williams and Norgate, 1855 BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORD TARGET University of California at Berkeley Library Master negative storage number: 04-63.4 GLADIS NUMBER: 100903381J FORMAT : BK AD:940308/0CL LEVEL:r BLT:am DCF: CSC:u MOD: EL:TI UD:040725/MO CP:xxX L:eng INT: GPC: BIO: FIC:0 CON: ARCV: PC:s PD:1855/ REP: CPI:0 FSI:0 ILC: IT:0 19940218 TAPE OCLC5168: 2115 11011027 ocm00782034 ScHUCSdACUY P205Sb.M8 P381.E3$bM8 1855 M#fuller, F. MaxSqg(Friedrich Max) ,b $d1823-1900. The languages of the seat of war in the East.$bWith a survey of the three families of language, Semitic, Arian and Turanian.$cBy Max M#uller. 2d ed.,Sbwith an appendix on the missionary alphabet, and an ethnographical map, drawn by Augustus Petermann. London, $SbWilliams and Norgate, $cl1855. xcvi,1l50 p.$bfold. col. map, fold. tab.$c23 cm. Semitic languages. Indo-European languages. Altaic languages. Transliteration. Crimean War, 1853-1856. Microfilmed by University of California Library Photographic Service, Berkeley, CA FILMED AND PROCESSED BY LIBRARY PHOTOGRAPHIC SERVICE, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY, 94720 | DATE: 7/04 REDUCTION: 9 X A & <> Qt FS 4 Fav ro % ry Ae Yo 7, v, No To Yo Z, \ 4 ? 4 a) 5 JN > 4 vs, \ \? Vs i RR % «oC 7 9 7S PM-1 3%"x4" PHOTOGRAPHIC MICROCOPY TARGET - NBS 1010a ANSI/ISO #2 EQUIVALENT =z fl ls 29 Lz ew fl LE l= l= le em ll Sam I% On REIL Il a 2 le 3] lg a le 5 ol, HL elt alt, 11 01, [6 a EAN IN d> 2 AN Oo’ LS QR 4 3° SP JY o° Ng DEPARTMENT OF SANSKRIT GIFT OF FITZEDWARD HALL MARLESFORD, SUFFOLK, ENGLAND (H. C. 1846) Received July 17, 1899 THE LANGUAGES OF THE SEAT OF WAR IN THE EAST. WITH A SURVEY OF THE THREE FAMILIES OF LANGUAGE, SEMITIC, ARIAN, AND TURANIAN. \ BY Sadie y _ MAX MULLER, M.A., Pu.D. TAYLORIAN PROFLSSOR OF EUROPEAN LANGUAGES AND LITERATURE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD. SECOND EDITION, WITH AN APPENDIX ON THE MISSIONARY ALPHABET, AND AN ETHNOGRAPHICAL MAP, DRAWN BY AUGUSTUS PETERMANN. LONDON: WILLIAMS AND NORGATE, 14, HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN. 1855. SARPENTIER OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. “Tus little work, written at the suggestion of Sir Charles Trevelyan, forms an admirable introduction to the increasingly popular study of Comparative Philology, beyond its specific object of aiding the officers of the Commissariat and the Army in their arduous services among people of almost unknown tongues. The whole ground of the study is clearly mapped out; its leading divisions are distinctly characterised, and their most marked features indicated. | By the assistance of an ethnological map constructed by Mr. Petermann, which accom- panies the volume, the practical student will be prepared for the dialect of the particular region in which he is employed, and such an excellent general view of the connexion between the various families and tribes of languages is furnished, that his path, though still beset with difficulties, is materially aided. It is a great thing to know what to look for, to have leading marks pointed out beforehand ; and this could hardly be done more effectively in a short compass than Professor Miiller has done it. Besides this, the book, though a manual of the most compendious order, is written by a thoroughly scientific Linguist, an enthusiast in his pursuit ; and the various sources of interest connected with the study of cognate languages are touched with the hand of a master, who has experienced for himself the pleasures to be reaped from it. We should especially commend the Turkish portion of the treatise as a preliminary to a regular Turkish grammar, and the learner cannot do better than bear in mind an admirable maxim of the Professor. Soldiers know best that in storming a fortress it does not answer to leave the detached works untaken ; though at first they may seem to offer no resistance to advance, they are sure to open fire when least expected. He who would learn a language well and quickly, must remember that festina lente is the only speed that pays in the long run. A full list of grammars and dictionaries is appended to the work, which greatly increases its practical usefulness.” Spectator, July Sth, 1854. a 2 «“ A very useful little book has been compiled by Professor Max Miiller at the suggestion of Sir Charles Trevelyan, called Suggestions for the Assistance of Officers in learning the Lan- guages of the Seat of War in the East. It does not profess to be complete or elaborate, but it gives in a plain and succinct way all that the author knows (and few men know more) of the nature of the Eastern languages, and their philological and geographical connection. Some short and sensible suggestions and directions as to the method and the best books to be employed in acquiring the various languages are added, which we should think would be found very useful. Mr. Petermann’s map to illustrate the essay is like all he does in this way, clear and valuable.” — Guardian, July 26th, 1854. “We quote from the fourth chapter of Chevalier Bunsen’s work, which contains the report on the Sanscrit researches by Professor Max Miiller, of Oxford, who has lately treated the whole subject of Comparative Philology in a more popular form, and for more practical purposes, in his book ¢ On the Languages of the Seat of War in the East.” ” Times, April 9th, 1855. “— And in our own country Max Miiller, of Oxford, has responded to the invitation of Sir Charles Trevelyan by drawing up an elaborate essay on the ¢ Languages of the Seat of War in the East.” This, though hurriedly written, will prove of more than temporary service ; it brings together and into a small compass much valuable philological information beyond the reach of the generality of students.” Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, No. 5, 1854. « A work which we can strongly recommend to scholars, and to all who take an interest in the study of language, has just been published in London, under the title “Suggestions, &e. by Max Miiller, with an ethnological map, drawn by Augustus Petermann.” Although this book is chiefly intended for Englishmen, employed in the civil or military services of the East, as a guide through the labyrinth of the various races and languages with which they are brought in contact, yet it will be highly welcome to the philologist by profession and to oriental scholars, particularly to those who are occu- pied in the study of Comparative Philology. A most inte- 3 resting addition to this work consists in an ethnological and linguistic Map, by the well known geographer, Augustus Petermann.”—Blitter fiir literarische Unterhaltung, Leipzig, Felbr. 22nd, 1855. ‘ This work, which owes its origin to the present war, con- tains in a short and concise form so much instruction conveyed with so much accuracy and ingenuity that it will not only serve the purpose for which it was originally intended, but prove an agreeable and instructive handbook for those who take an interest in linguistic and ethnological results and explanations.” Prof. Benfey, in the Journal of the University of Gottingen (Gottinger gelehrte Anzeiger.) “ A very interesting little work lies before us, ‘ Suggestions for the Assistance of Officers in learning the Languages of the Seat of War in the East,” by Dr. Max Miiller, the well known Sanskrit scholar and Professor of Modern European Languages at Oxford. It contains a characteristic survey of the Asiatic and European languages, according to the three great families, Semitic, Arian (Indo-European) and Turanian, in their branches and ramifications, written with special reference to the dialects now spoken in the seat of war in the East and the Baltic pro- vinces, and with the practical object of putting before the officers of the British military and naval services, the etymological and grammatical connexion of the languages and to facilitate their acquirement. Added to this is an ethnological and linguistic map by Augustus Petermann, executed with Anglo-Teutonic ability and accuracy. Max Miiller, the son of the poet of the ¢ Greek Songs,” Wilhelm Miiller, has been engaged in England for some time, under the auspices of the East India Company, with an edition of the Rigveda, the most important of all the Vedas—an undertaking which had been interrupted by the premature death of Frederick Rosen. “The most attractive part of this work seems to us that which treats on the third and least known family of languages, the Turanian, ete.” —dugsburger Allg. Zeitung, Oct. 15th, 1854. “To combine with the name of Professor Wilson that of the editor of the text and commentary of the Rig-Veda would be but justice to Professor Max Miiller’s invaluable labour ; but we should have otherwise felt the duty of making mention of 4 him, since we are aware that a second edition of his able and learned work, ¢ The Languages of the Seat of War in the East, will soon be ready for publication, etc.” — Westminster Review, April, 1855. “ Although this book was written for a special purpose and under great pressure of time, we cannot but recommend it as useful and instructive to those readers also, who, without being driven to this study by practical considerations, like the officers of the army, wish to obtain a quick and trustworthy survey of the linguistic and ethnological relations of Eastern Europe and Western Asia, as far as these regions have now been conquered by philological science. Inquiring readers of this kind—besides the philologists by profession, who will likewise find in the author’s stable plenty of food which otherwise they would have had to collect for themselves—form, we may hope, no longer a small minority.”’— Professor Pott, in the Journal of the German Oriental Society. MAX MULLER’S SURVEY OF LANGUAGES. OT RE TAA eps prea eo PREF ACE. TO SIR CHARLES TREVELYAN, K. C. B. My DEAR SIR, Conscious as I feel of the many defects of this Essay on the languages of the seat of war, I wish to plead no other excuse for its publication than the kind encouragement you gave the writer, and the hope held out to him that others would make allowance for the circumstances in which it was written. These pages were conmmenced in answer to a communication from yourself; but they have expanded into what is too long to be called a letter, and too short and superficial to deserve the name of a book. Indeed, had you not given me leave to print your letter, I should not know how to defend myself against the charges of precipitancy and presumption. This, which gave the first impulse to my undertaking, will serve as the best introduction; and, at the same time, will explain the objects which I have kept in view. “My Dear Sir, “20 March, 1854. “I have informed all our young Commissariat Officers under orders for the East that, besides perfecting themselves in French and Italian, they will be expected a¥ MB08716 Iv to learn at least one Fustern language, so that there may be among them men who will be able to communicate freely with the inhabitants of each province in their own language; and I have supplied them, as far as I have been able, with elementary books in these languages, and, with your help, with a few brief instructions to give the first direction to their efforts. “But something more than this ought to be attempted. We cannot tell how far and how long this remarkable intervention of the Western nations in Eastern affairs may lead us; and I know, from my Indian experience, that a knowledge of the native languages is an indispensable preliminary to understanding and taking an interest in native races, as well as to acquiring their good will and gaining influence over them. Without it, officers charged with important public affairs, feeling themselves at the mercy of a class of interpreters whose moral character is often of a very questionable kind, live in a state of chronic irritation with the natives, which is extremely ad- verse both to the satisfactory transaction of business, and to the still more important object of giving to the people of the country a just impression of the character and in- tentions of our nation. “It is, therefore, extremely desirable that the atten- tion of all our young officers who are, or are likely to be, employed in the East, not only in the Commissariat, but also in the military and naval services, should be directed to the study of the languages which are spoken in the northern division of the Turkish empire, and the adjoining provinces of Russia. “If you agree with me in this, you will at once feel that there is a call upon you to help in this good work. What I would suggest is, that you should prepare a treatise showing, “1st. What are the languages spoken in that part of the world, giving a general idea of their territorial limits, and of the classes of people by whom they are spoken; “2ndly. The family to which they belong, and their general character and structure, and the alphabets by which they are expressed; and “3rdly. The best elementary and other books in the respective languages, and where they are to be procured as far as you are aware. “I find some interesting notices in your article in the ‘Edinburgh’ on Comparative Philology, of the differences between ancient and modern Greek. An expansion or even a reprint of these would be an obvious aid to our young men fresh from school or college who would be disposed to apply themselves to the study of modern Greek. “The Russian language should be included in your sketch; and you should show, as far as you are able, what is the extent and nature of the difference between it and the Bulgarian, Servian, and other neighbouring Slavonian dialects. “You will, no doubt, be able to tell us what is the language of the Tatar population of the Crimea, and of the leading tribes of the Circassians, including that of the redoubtable Shamil. “I have only two further suggestions to make — “1st. That whatever you do should be done quickly. Every part of this great effort, including this important literary adjunct, is under war pressure; and “2ndly. That you should tell us at once what you now know, leaving the rest to be perfected hereafter as you have opportunity. “You might conclude the Treatise with an admission of the incompleteness of the sketch, and an invitation VI to those who will have an opportunity of investigating the different languages on the spot to communicate the result of their researches for the purpose of enriching a second edition of the Treatise. “Yours sincerely, “C. E. TREVELYAN. “To Professor Max Miller.” To this I need here add but few remarks. It will be seen that on many of the languages spoken at the seat of war our information is very scanty, and that some of the most important problems of Comparative Philology, in connection with these languages, must wait for their solution until new and trustworthy materials have been collected to illustrate the grammar of the dialects spoken along the Black and the Caspian Seas. Here, then, is a field open where an officer with taste and talent for languages, may do great service, and employ his leisure hours in a manner that will be of practical use to him- self, while advancing also the science of ethnology. Some of the greatest discoveries in Comparative Philology have been made by English officers; and the names of Sir A. Burnes, Colonel Rawlinson, and many others, show that these scientific pursuits are not incompatible with a conscientious discharge of the highest political and mili- tary functions. If attended by a native servant, a Circas- sian, an Albanian, or a Kurd, the officer should endea- vour to master his language. He might ask him first for a number of words, afterwards for the paradigms of declension and conjugation, and attempt to write them down. It is by no means an easy task to collect the grammar and dictionary of a language from the mouth of a native. Yet it has not unfrequently been effected, and he who would make himself the author of a good vii Circassian or Kurdian grammar would leave his name on a monument even more lasting, perhaps, than military achievements. In writing down an Oriental language by ear, it will be essential, however, that a certain system should be observed in representing foreign sounds by Roman letters. Eastern dialects contain certain sounds that have in Eng- lish no corresponding letters. These must receive alpha- betical expression. Again, in English the same sound is frequently written in two different modes, as in ravine, been; boat and note; date and gait; while many vowels and consonants have more than one power, as in ravine and pine; date and hat; through and cough. Now, without some agreement that, in transcribing foreign languages, every letter shall always represent but one sound, it will be impossible to say what power, for instance, an i; might have when used in a list of foreign words. A traveller again, who would allow himself to express the sound of i, as heard in ravine, promiscuously by. i, ee, ea, or y, would soon find himself unable to pronounce the words thus written down from oral com- munication. This inconvenience has been long felt, and chiefly by missionaries, to whom the reduction to writing of the languages spoken by savage tribes has been always an essential duty. An English missionary would be inclined, if he heard the sound of i (as in ravine), to express it by ee; a French missionary by i; and translations of the Bible, printed according to the English and French systems of spelling, would take an appearance so different that a native who had learned to read the one would not be able to understand the other. Many attempts have been made to remedy this defect, and to settle a uniform system of expressing the pro- VIII nunciation of foreign dialects. All that is required is to fix on certain letters to express sounds which do not exist in English, and to restrict all other letters to but one phonetical value. This may seem a comparatively easy task, yet uniformity, without which all other results are nugatory, is so difficult to attain between different nations, societies, or individuals that the realization of a common alphabet is still far distant. I give in an appendix (page XV) an abstract of an alphabet, lately the subject of several con- ferences in London, which the chief Societies have since resolved to submit to not less than five hundred of their missionaries, who will test it in the course of the next few years, and then report on its merits and defects. It is based on the principle of analogy, so ably advocated by Sir William Jones, and adopted by Professor Wil- son in his Glossary of Indian Terms. The differences between Sir William Jones and Professor Wilson, and between both and the Missionary Alphabet arise from the dif- ferent application of this principle. The chief cause of dif- ference has been the difficulty of agreeing upon certain new types, whether accented or otherwise modified, or again of procuring these novel types even when agreed upon. It has therefore been the leading principle in framing this Missionary Alphabet to avoid altogether the necessity of new types, and thus to remove the greatest, if not the only obstacle in the way of uniformity. It may be remarked that most of the grammars and dictionaries recommended in this Essay, as likely to afford assistance to the student of languages, are written by Ger- mans, Frenchmen, Danes, or Russians. This is not owing to any national predilections on my part. On the contrary, I believe that where grammars written by Englishmen can be procured, they will generally be found the most useful and practical. But their number is at present com- IX paratively small from the paucity of Oriental scholars in this country. It is undoubtedly high time that something should be done to encourage the study of Oriental languages in England. At the very outset of this war, it has been felt how much this branch of studies —— in emergencies like the present so requisite — has been neglected in the system of our education. A man-of-war is built in less time than an Oriental scholar can be launched ready to converse with natives, and capable of procuring supplies, gathering information, trans- lating proclamations, writing circulars, carrying on par- leys, assisting at conferences, and, finally, of wording the conditions of a treaty of peace. In all other coun- tries which have any political, commercial, or religious connections with the East, provision has been made by government or otherwise to encourage young men to devote themselves to this branch of studies. Russia has always been the most liberal patron of Oriental Philology. In the Academy of Petersburg there is a chair for every branch of Oriental literature; and there are schools in that city, at Kasan and elsewhere, where the chief lan- guages of the East are taught. Scientific expeditions are sent out to different parts of the world, travellers supported and encouraged, and their works, grammars or dictionaries, printed at the expense of Government. This no doubt is done in the interest of science, but at the same time other interests are served. If Philology owes much to Russia, ever since the days of the Empress Catherine, Russia knows that she owes something to her linguists for her diplomatic successes, and this more especially in the East. Other countries also, less immediately connected with the East, find it expedient to encourage Oriental learning. X The French Academy has always counted among its mem- bers the chief representatives of every department of Oriental Philology; and for more practical purposes, the Government has founded a school, “L’école pour les lan- gues Orientales vivantes®, where Hindustani, Persian, Arabic, Armenian, Chinese, and Turkish are taught by the most eminent professors. At Vienna there is an Oriental seminary; and the Imperial Press possesses the richest collection of Oriental types in the world. More Oriental works are brought out there than at any other press in Europe, and, as the Government makes no profit, the expense of printing is about one fourth of what it is in England. Denmark sends regular scientific missions to the East, with a view to encourage the study of Oriental languages; while Prussia finds it expedient to give similar encouragement to young Oriental scholars employed after- wards with advantage, as consuls and interpreters in her service. In England alone, where the most vital interests of the country are involved in a free intercourse with the East, hardly anything is done to foster Oriental studies. The College of Haileybury, hitherto most liberally sup- ported by the East India Company, is the one exception. It is felt, however, particularly at the present moment, that the country requires a larger supply of men than can be accommodated at Haileybury; and those possessing a thorough knowledge not only of Sanskrit, Hindustani, and Telugu, but of Persian, Arabic, Turkish, Armenian, and even Chinese. But it is unnecessary to found aca- demies, schools, seminaries, or imperial printing offices, in order to encourage the study of Oriental languages in this country. All that is required is to remove the dis- abilities under which Oriental scholars have hitherto la- boured. I speak only of the two Universities, Oxford in par- XI ticular. For here a classical scholar, a student of modern history and law, a mathematician, and a lover of physical science, may gain honours, exhibitions, fellowships, and preferment. Why not a student of Oriental languages? If a man, after passing his Moderations, is now allowed to devote his last year at College to more special sub- jects — the classics, astronomy, geology , or French history, and can thus obtain his degree and the highest honours, why should the Schools be closed to one who has made Hebrew, or Arabic, or Sanskrit, or Persian, the subjects of special study? A knowledge of these languages will be useful to the clergyman whether at home or abroad. A knowledge of Sanskrit — the basis of Comparative Philology — will be an advantage to the classical scholar, and even a judge who is sent to India will not find occasion for regret if he has read the laws of Manu in the original language, and acclimatized his mind to that intellectual atmosphere in which he is hence- forth to live and to act. But even from a merely edu- cational point of view, a knowledge of Oriental languages is not less beneficial to the mind than French history or than botany. A new language is the key to a new lite- rature, to a new system of thought, to a new world of feeling. It widens our views of the powers and destinies of the human race, and allows us an insight into the govern- ment of the world universal. Nay, there is hardly any branch of classical, mathematical, or physical studies so rich in lessons of morality, of history, and of religion. The foundation of a fifth school, a School of Lan- guages (excluding Greek and Latin) at the University would, it is my belief, give a sufficient stimulus to this branch of studies. We have large endowments for Oriental Professorships, and their number might easily be increased. If a few exhibitions were added; if honours could be XII gained in Hebrew, Arabic, Sanskrit, or Persian; if fel- lowships were awarded to distinguished linguists, and tra- velling fellowships founded for those who desire to gain a practical knowledge of Oriental languages; if Oxford men were enabled to compete for Indian appointments — fellowships, which, after twenty years of useful activity, yield a pension of a thousand a year — if some con- sular and diplomatic appointments in the East were given to the University; and if the Press would procure Oriental types sufficient, and afford the opportunity of publishing works in all the chief Eastern languages — these changes effected, and I believe we should soon see England take in Oriental Philology the lead to which she is at present indifferent. These are suggestions thrown out in a very hurried manner; but I may be permitted the hope they will be taken up by men conversant with the resources and re- quirements of the University, and careful for the interests of the country at large. I remain, my dear Sir, Yours sincerely, Max MULLER. Sik RoBERT TAYLOR'S INSTITUTION, Oxrorp, May 16, 1854. In publishing the second edition I have little to add beyond the expression of my thanks for the kind re- ception which these pages have met with. It will be seen that I have availed myself of some valuable remarks con- tained in the reviews with which this little Essay has been honoured in England, France, Germany, Sweden, and India. Errors have been here and there set right; al- XIII though in a work so discursive I am sensible, that others may probably yet remain undetected; and a few additions have been made. A statement by Professor Pott on the origin of the Albanian Language (kindly sent me by that eminent scholar), has been inserted, with some remarks for which I have to thank the Hon. H. Stanley, H. M. Secretary of Legation at Athens. And for some correc- tions in phraseology I am indebted to my friend Mr. Palgrave of Exeter College. It was impossible in this second edition to change the original plan of my essay, or make it a complete survey of the three great families of language. But I have lear- ned with much pleasure that, beyond its immediate ob- ject, it has been found useful as an introduction to Eth- nological study, and has gained the approbation of many of the highest authorities in Comparative Philology. Oxrorp, March, 4855, MM. PROPOSALS A MISSIONARY ALPHABET 9 SUBMITTED TO THE ALPHABETICAL CONFERENCES HELD AT THE RESIDENCE OF CHEVALIER BUNSEN IN JANUARY 1854. PROPOSALS FOR A MISSIONARY ALPHABET. THE signs which we use to express the sounds of our own language, were originally invented in the East. They were adopted by the Greeks and Romans, and have now become, under various forms, the alphabet of the civi- lized nations of Europe. The twenty-two signs which originally constituted this ancient Alphabet, were not suffi- cient to express the numerous sounds which can be for- med by the organs of the human voice, and which the different nations of Asia and Europe have, in various proportions, allowed to enter into the formation of their languages and dialects. Two ways were open to remedy this defect. New signs could be invented to represent new sounds, or one and the same letter might be allowed to represent different sounds. The first plan has been adopted with great re- serve, and the number of new signs, whether entirely new, ‘or formed by modification and composition, which the Greeks, the Romans, the Slavonic and Teutonic nations have added to the so-called Phenician Alphabet, is com- paratively small, while, if we look to the modern lan- guages of Europe, we shall find that in them there are b moi I a I og RR RG i XVIII but few letters which are restricted to but one pronun- ct which in no language is felt more pain- Here one can hardly say that let- ters, which were originally intended to represent the sound of language, still answer this their original pur- pose. In pronouncing “thigh”, we do not pronounce any f the five letters according to their proper and ori- The spelling of words is no longer pho- To call it etymological, would be is neither scientific nor as in all ciation, a fa fully than in English. one 0 ginal power. netic, but traditional. a false compliment, since it systematic. The spelling which in English, other languages, corresponded at some time or other, to the sound of words, has become stationary at various s in the history of the English language, and it e form, fixed preserved more of the etymo- period entirely a matter of chance whether th was upon by literary tradition, logy or of the pronunciation. A reform is needed for the spelling of most mo- dern European languages, and it is extraordinary, that the art of writing, though belonging to the arts in which our times have achieved the greatest improvements, should have been allowed to remain in the same state in which it was three thousand years ago, with no altera- tions except for the worse. Whatever may be done in course of time by the different nations of Europe to ameliorate their own sys- tems of writing, it is clear that, with the defects pe- culiar to each, none could claim in its present state to be used as a standard system; and it would be wrong to smuggle any one of these imperfect systems of wri- ting into those languages of Africa, Australia or America which have not yet been reduced to alphabetical writing. The Missionary who brings the notion of an alphabet, together with more exalted ideas of religion, of law, of arts and sciences to the savage tribes of Africa, will be to them what Cecrops or Cadmus were to Greece. Ile must therefore not think of the present only, but of the future; he must see in his helpless converts the ancestors perhaps of mighty nations. He ought to remember that . XIX the seed which he . . Sows in the mi bear fruit a thousand fold: that NG of these beside that of religion. Whate Wd of people will will yield many harvests. ver objections may be urged ational and scientific alphabet or urope do not apply t i s of the new world of Africa or Australis Ne on . own case be hopeless, theirs is not ease. 88, » and what wi y on in the Setentific alphabet of the gi with fs mon Shee ° carried Inte general practice. Nothin Apher on 2 an what Mr. Ellis has well called the fine ot ues nothing more complicated than the oe of pacition. The following is an abstract of 2 ten ld - et which was framed with a particular the angus op onaries in translating the Bible into be. canals eae Savage and illiterate tribes; but it may colloning. fo ere to the traveller and the philologist in hich ae or Kane PurBoses the dialects of people ” ve not yet had thei i gned to them In the classification of Languages. ho ge an foment types, all diacritical marks ay = : ¢ printer and dazzle the reader have on ave ns the chief principle in arranging it has the greatest once by i") — ot n a Oban re nallest means. Practi - perience Le shown that this Missionary phat, ment may purpose for which it was intended, its employ- ment x ns ore be recommended till it is superseded by or stork n more convenient system. A fuller account very aon P 0 on of alphabetical writing may be found in ary able say by Mr. Ellis, The Alphabet of Nature: oF Dey Socom volume of Chevalier Bunsen’s Outlines ppentia go ory, applied to Language and Religion Cedi D. he Universal Alphabet and the ot ores Bunge Sarding it held at the Residence nsen, anuary 1854. posals for a Mission ary Alphabet are there oriuied afior the interestin g account h fessor Lepoie. unt of the Standard Alphabet by Pro- XX For the practical solution of the problem, ‘How to establish one uniform system of notation which shall be acceptable to the scholar, convenient to the missionary, and easy for the prinler, » we must consider three points: — I. Which are the principal sounds that can be formed with our organs of speech, and therefore may be ex— pected to occur in any of the dead or living dialects of mankind ? This is a physiological question. II. How can these principal sounds, after proper clas— sification, be expressed by us in wriling and printing without obscuring their physiological value, and without creating mew typographical difficulties? This is a practical question. IIL. How can this physiological alphabet be applied to existing languages, and III. a. to unwritlen dialects; Here the chief point is to catch the proper sound of the language as we hear it spoken by different individuals, to determine the character of every vowel and consonant, and to distinguish most carefully between accidental va- r in the language of rieties of pronunciation, such as occu different individuals, and the general and permanent pro- nunciation of words. Much depends here on a good ear, and this can be acquired by practice. In expres- sing the sounds of a new language by the signs of the physiological alphabet, the missionary should be guided entirely by ear, without paying any regard to etymo- logical considerations, which are too apt to mislead even the most accomplished scholar. IIL. b. to wrilten languages; In transcribing languages possessed of an orthography, and where, for reasons best known to the archaeologist, one sign may represent different sounds, and one sound be expressed by different signs, new and entirely distinct questions are involved, and capable of solu- tion by archaeological and philological research alone. We shall, therefore, discuss this part (IIL. b.) separately, historical XXI and hl gion it by the name of Transliteration rom the usual method of transcribing as applied unwritten tongues. Pitta L Which fe the principal Sounds that can be formed with our Organs of Speech, and therefore may be ex- pected to occur in am th RT of Mankind ? y of the dead or living Dialects 0 : ‘ i. on the first point, which must form the basis of the ho © we have the immense advantage that all scholars 0 have written on it have arri rrived at results almo st identically the same.* We are here still in the sphere s+ I . brite fe yon able prticte J Professor Heise, in Hoefer’s Zeit chaft der S he, i 5: ine authorities are quoted: — proche, 1. 4353, the following Ch . [7 . . he Haas Uber die Hervorbringung der menschlichen Sprach em ilbert’s Annalen der Physik. vol. Ixxvi 182} AT . a i . . Zh. ” . Fihadk, ha die Bildung der Sprachlaute. Berlin, 1848 . M. Rapp ersuch ei i i S ‘ dards, 1836. ’ einer Physiologie der Sprache. Stutt- H. E. Bindseil, Abh } , andlungen z i i Sprachlehre. Hambang. oon. gen zur Allgemeinen Vergleichenden J. Miiller, Element si oo, ) ements of Physiology. London, 1842. vol. ii. er the earliest and best works on this subjectis - Holder, Elements of Speech: an E wt Speech : ssay of i 8 natural Production of Letters. London, 1669 ot fnaniey futo th An excellent ae Sr fbsinl of the researches of the most distinguished gists on the human voice, and the formati i Poo om the , ormation of letters, is iis, e Alphabet of Nature;” 7 d rate observations and original thought. oe vork full of acen ul apne very important essays have lately been published on the Thee , one by Professor R. Lepsius, “Das allgemeine linguistische 3 ets Berlin 1855; the other by Professor Wilson in his ” ne Introdustion to his “Glossary of Indian Terms,” Lon- po 1855 and a third by Wallin, «On the sounds of Ara- J heir representation,” printed after the death of this ne rientalist, in the Journal of the German Oriental Society . » P- 1 —69. Wallin was one of the few, if not the only XXII of physical science, where facts are arranged by obser- vation, and observation may be checked by facts so as to exclude individual impressions and national prejudice. The classification of vowels and consonants proposed by modern physiologists is, so far as general principles are concerned, exactly the same as that contained in Sanskrit grammars composed in the fifth century before Christ, and appended to the different collections of the sacred writings of the Brahmans, — the four Vedas. These grammatical treatises, called Pratisikhyas, exist in manuscript, and have not hitherto been published. The classification established by physiologists, as the re- sult of independent research, will receive the most striking confirmation by a translation of these writings, now more than two thousand years old. But, on their own account also, these phonetic treatises deserve to be published. Their observations are derived from a lan- guage (the Vaidik Sanskrit) which at that time was stu- died by means of oral tradition only, and where, in the absence of a written alphabet, the most minute differences of pronunciation had to be watched by the ear, and to be explained and described to the pupil. The language itself, the Sanskrit of that early period, had suffered less from the influence of phonetic corruption than any tongue from which we can derive our observations; nay, the science of phonetics (Sikshd), essential to the young theological student (who was not allowed to learn the Veda from MSS.), had been reduced to a more perfect system in the schools of the Brahmans, in the fifth cen- tury before Christ, than has since been anywhere effected. Our notions on the early civilisation of the East are of so abstract a nature that we must expect to be startled occasionally by facts like these. But we now pass on to the general question. European, who spoke Arabic so well that he was taken for an Arab by the Beduins. His account of the Arabic alphabet is therefore in- valuable, aud will necessitate many alterations in the systems of Arabic transliteration hitherto proposed. CoNsONANTS AND VOWELS. If we regard the human voice as a continuous stream of air, emitted as breath from the lungs and changed by the vibration of the chordae vocales into vocal sound as it leaves the larynx, this stream itself, as modified by certain positions of the mouth, would represent the vo- wels. “The vowels,” as Professor Wheatstone says, “are formed by the voice modified, but not interrupted, by the various positions of the tongue and the lips.” In the consonants, on the contrary, we should have to re- cognise a number of stops opposing for a moment the free passage of this vocal stream. Hence the vowel is called by the Arabs motion (x57 ), while the conso- nants are called barriers or edges (soa). * The consonants must again be divided into Mutae, full stops, and Semi-vocales, half-stops; the latter including the liquids, sibilants, and nasals. The Mutae prevent for a moment all emission of either voice or breath (k,g, t, d, Pp; b). The Semi-vocales allow a mere breathing to be heard in its various non-vocal modifications (h, y, I, r, w; h, s, s, sh, f; n, m). This distinction which the Greeks expressed by dowvo and fulowve, is easily tested, for we find that we can breathe while pronouncing h, y, 1, r, w, s, sh, f, n, m; but a continued attempt to pro- nounce k, g, t, d, p, b, would end in suffocation. The consonantal stops, against which the waves of the vowels break themselves more or less distinctly, are produced by barriers formed by the contact of the tongue, the soft palate, the palate, the teeth, and the lips with each other. While English grammarians maintain that consonants can- not be pronounced without vowels, Arabic grammarians declare that vowels cannot be pronounced without a con- sonant. The former view is true if by vowel is meant not only vocal sounds, such as a, e, i, 0, u, but also the Semi-vowels, including liquids, sibilants, and na- * Wallin, On the Arabic Alphabet, in the Journal of the German Oriental Society, vol. IX, p. 2. XXIV sals. The latter opinion may be defended, if we extend the name of consonant to what the Greeks call spiritus asper and lenis, for no vowel can be pronounced without at least that initial, slightly consonantal, element which we have in hear and ear. CONSONANTS. Gutturals, Dentals, and Labials. According to an observation which we find already in Vaidik grammars, the principal consonantal stops in any language are: — the guttural (k), the dental (t), the labial (p). The pure guttural sound, without any regard as yet to its modifications (whether tenuis, media, aspirata, na- salis, liquida, flatus), is produced by stopping the stream of sound by means of a contact between the root of the tongue and the throat, or, more usually, the soft palate, or the velum pendulum. The throat is called the passive, the root of the tongue the active organ, of the guttural. The pure dental sound is produced by contact between tongue and teeth. Here the teeth are called the passive, and the tip of the tongue the active organ. The pure labial sound is produced by contact between the upper and lower lip; the upper lip being the passive, the lower the active organ. All consonants, excluding liquids and sibilants or fla- tus, are formed by a complete contact between the active and passive organ. As the removal of this complete contact causes the voice to burst out with greater force, these consonants have sometimes been called explosive. Formation of the Temws. If the voice is stopped sharp by the contact of the organs, so as to allow for the moment no breath or sound to escape, the consonant is called fenuis (DAY), XXV or hard (k, t, p). Arab grammarians remark very justly that the articulation of these consonants cannot be pro- longed, but is instantaneous. They compare them with the point in geometry. (Wallin, p. 11.) Formation of the Media. If the voice is stopped less abruptly, so as to allow a kind of breathing to continue after the first contact has taken place, the consonant is called soft, or according to classical terminology, media (péoov) or middle (g, d, b). The soft consonant does not arrest the sound at once, but allows it to be heard during a moment of resistance. The difference between a hard and soft consonant is best illustrated by a speaking-machine. “The sound p,’ as Professor Wheatstone says, “was produced by sud- denly removing the left hand from the front of the mouth, which it had previously completely stopped; the sound b, by the same action; but instead of closing the mouth completely, a very minute aperture was left, so that the sound of the reed might not be entirely stifled.” This coincides fully with the description given by Mr. Ellis. “In pronouncing ba,” he says, “the vowel is uttered simultaneously with the act of relieving the lips from con- tact, or rather before they are quite released. If we se- parate them before the vowel is uttered, allowing the breath to be condensed during a very brief space of time, the sound pa is heard. There is a similar distinction between ab and ap: in the former the effect of the voice remains throughout the consonant, and we may feel a slight tremor of the lips while it is being produced; in the latter the vowel, properly so called, entirely ceases before the contact is completed.” Formation of Liquids. * If there is only an approach or a very slight contact “ Although it is usual to call these letters semi - vowels, vet it seems better to keep that name as a general title of all non- mute between the organs, and the breathing is slightly stopped or compressed as it reaches the point of contact, the consonants are called liquid half-consonants or semi- vowels. They are soft like the mediae, owing to the process of their formation here described Ch, y, 1, b vs the end of words and before a tenuis the liquid semi-vowels are frequently pronounced as a flatus, or they become evanescent. In the Dutch dag, we have the nearest approach to a guttural liquid, though in truth a gut- tural liquid is not to be distinguished from a guttural flatus lenis except in theory. If a Saxon pronounces the same word, he changes the d into t, and the guttural liquid into the guttural flatus asper, like ch in loch. In other parts of Germany, the final guttural is sounded as media or as tenuis, while in the English day the guttural liquid semi-vowel has become evanescent. The same process ex- plains the French sou instead of sol, and vaut instead of valet. In Sanskrit no liquid semi-vowel is tolerated at the end of words or before a tenuis. In Arabic the guttural liquid g ’hain, if final, is frequently changed into the guttural flatus asper _ , or followed by a slight vocal breathing. (See Wallin,” p. 46, p. 50, N. 2, and 54, N. 1.) Professor Wheatstone’s researches prove that a distin- guishing mark of the liquid semi-vowels consists in their having no corresponding mutes. This applies not only to y, r, 1, but also to w and ’h. Formation of Sibilants (flatus). If there is no contact at all, and the breath passes between the two organs without being stopped, still not without giving rise to a certain friction on passing that point of contact where guttural, dental, and labial con- consonants. In this sense yui{pwva was used by the Greeks, and it comprised liquids (Uypa), nasals, and sibilants. sonants are formed, we get the sibilants, or the “winds,” as they are more properly called by Hindu grammarians. These are, the pure breathing, without even a guttural modification, commonly called Spiritus asper and lenis; the deep guttural flatus, sharp, as in loch, mild as in the German tage; the original palatal flatus, sharp as in the German ich, mild as in the German taglich; the assibilated palatal flatus, sharp as in sharp, mild as in pleasure; the sharp and soft s for the dentals; and the sharp and soft f for the labials. The sibilants or flatus are distinguished from all other consonants by this, that with them a breathing is freely emitted, while all other consonants offer more or less impediment to the emission of sound or breath. A candle applied to the mouth will at once show the difference between the labial flatus asper, as in find, and the consonantal stops, such as p, b, or even the liquid semi-vowel, as heard in wind. The b will produce no disturbance in the flame; the p shows its explosive nature by displacing the flame for a moment; the w affects the flame considerably, and the f generally extinguishes it. As we distinguished between tenuis and media in the consonants, we must admit a twofold intonation for the flatus or the sibilants also. A flatus or sibilant cannot be modified exactly in the same manner as a consonant produced by contact; but, by an analogous process, it may become either asper or lenis, sharp or soft. We are best acquainted with this distinction in the primitive and unmodified breathing which necessarily precedes an initial vowel. The spiritus asper and lenis in Greek are modifications of that initial breathing which is inherent in every vowel sound at the beginning of a word or of a syllable. It comes out freely as the spiritus asper in Homer and Zpoc, frontier, while it is tempered and to our ears hardly audible in ’Aristotle and Spog, hill. We can more easily perceive what is meant by the Spiritus lenis inherent in every unaspirated initial vowel, if we pronounce blacking and black ink. In blacking, the vowel i is introduced by the second half of the XXVIII preceding k, in black ink, the i is ushered in by the spiritus lenis. This spiritus lenis is the Hamzeh of the Arabs, which stands to the spiritus asper y in the same relation as g to C g to & 5 to ws 9 to 3. The Hamzeh cannot be called an explosive letter. Its sound is produced by the opening of the larynx, but there is no previous effort of closing the larynx which alone could be said to give in an explosive character. It has well been compared with the more involuntary nictus oculi, which is perhaps the original meaning of Hamzeh. (Wallin, p. 64.) In ancient languages the spiritus asper is frequently represented by the flatus of another class, such as s and f, and the spiritus lenis by a liquid semi-vowel, as, for-instance, the Digamma olicum w, or the y. If, instead of allowing the pure pectoral breathing to be heard as in hand, we cause it to assume a harsher sound, by elevating the root of the tongue against the uvula and thus narrowing the passage of the breath, we have what may be called a guttural flatus asper, as heard in loch. The corresponding sonant or mild flatus is of rare occurrence, but it may be heard in some parts of Germany in words like tage. The Arabs do not form their guttural flatus so high in the throat as the German ch in loch, at least not regularly (see Wallin, p. 35); but they admit between the pure and almost uninterrupted breathing of x, h, and the point of guttural contact where k is formed, two inter- mediate stations, where by compressing the passage of the throat, two guttural flatus are formed, the Cc and c with their corresponding sonant representatives, £ and &. The is formed so low in the throat, that here a contact and explosion would be impossible; hence there is no tenuis corresponding to Cc as little as to 8. The is formed higher in the throat, and occasions, it is said, a friction between the root of the tongue and the lowest part of the palate. It is not, however, the Ger- XXIX man ch, and according to Mr. Eli Smith should be defined as a breathing whose sound is modified by a tremulous motion of the epiglottis, and not by its striking against the palate as in the German ch in loch. In none of these there stages, that of the &, the .., and =, is it possible to distinguish between the flatus lenis and the corresponding liquid, unless we ad- mit the opinion of some Arabic grammarians who look upon the | as a liquid semi-vowel, distinct from the | (see Wallin, p. 3, N. 1, 22, 24); a view which may be true in theory, but is of no practical importance. The fourth degree of flatus, after the spiritus asper and the two Semitic guttural breathings and ~, would be the European guttural ch as in loch. Next to it would follow the palatal flatus as heard in ich; and after this the assibilated palatal flatus as heard in sharp, corresponding in place with the palatal tenuis and liquid; as heard in church and yea. The dental flatus, as a tenuis, or rather as a flatus asper, is heard in sin and seal; while the media or flatus lenis is rendered by the English z, as in zeal and breeze. The sharp labial flatus is the pure f, which the Greeks could not pronounce, and which we hear in find and life. The flat corresponding sound is heard in vine and live. This also is a difficult letter to pronounce, and is therefore avoided by many people, or changed into b, as Scaliger said, “Haud temere antiquas mutat Vasconia voces, Cui nihil est aliud vivere quam bibere.” Strictly speaking, and in accordance with our own definitions, every consonant at the end of a word, unless followed by a slight exhalation such as is heard in drug, loud, sob, must become a tenuis. Now, if we take words where the final consonant is a flatus asper but where, by the addition of a derivative syllable, the flatus ceases to be really final, we shall see distinctly how the XXX flatus asper and lenis interchange. The sharp dental fla- tus is heard in grass and grease. Here the sis really final, although an e is put at the end of grease. If we form the two verbs, to graze and to grease, we have the corresponding flat s, the common German s. Exactly the same grammatical process applied to the labial flatus changes life into live, i. e. the sharp labial flatus into the flat, and it accounts for the Arabic el dngah and xz bi'ht being pronounced - £30, ingah and s, bi'ht. (Wallin, p. 46.) Some languages, as, for instance, Sanskrit, acknow- ledge none but sharp sibilants; and even a media, if followed by a flatus is changed in Sanskrit into a tenuis. Formation of Nasals. If, in the three organs, a full contact takes place and the vocal breathing is stopped, not abruptly, but in the same manner as with the sonant letters, and if after- wards the breathing be emitted, not through the mouth, but through the nose, we get the three full nasal con- sonants ng, n, and m, for the guttural, dental, and la- bial series. A speaking-machine leaves no doubt as to the manner in which a tenuis may be changed into a narisonant letter. “M,” as Professor Wheatstone says, “was heard on opening two small tubes representing the nostrils, placed between the wind-chest and the mouth, while the front of the mouth was stopped as for p.” In most cases the peculiar character of the nasal is determined by the consonant immediately following, In ink, the n is necessarily guttural; and if we try to pro- nounce it as a dental or labial, we have to stop after the n, and the transition to the guttural k becomes so awkward that, even in words like to in-cur, most people pronounce the n like a guttural. No language, as far as I know, is fond of such incongruities as a guttural n XXXI followed by any but guttural consonants, and they ge- nerally sacrifice etymology to euphony. In English we cannot pronounce em-ty, and therefore we pronounce and write emp-ty. In the Uraon-Kol language, which is a Tamulian dialect, enan is I, and the possessive prefix is in, my. But in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal we find im-bas, my father; but ing-kos, my child. Cicero alludes to the same where he speaks of the n adulterinum. He says, that cum nobis was pronounced like cun nobis. At the end of words and syllables, however, the three nasal sounds, guttural, dental, or labial, may occur in- dependently; and as it is necessary to distinguish a final m from a final n (&ya3dy, bonum), it will be advisable also to do the same for a final guttural nasal, as the French bon, Lundi, or the English to sing. It is true that in most languages the final guttural nasal becomes really a double consonant, i. e. n + g, as in sing; still, as the pronunciation on this point varies, it will be necessary to provide a distinct category, and after- wards a distinct sign, for the guttural nasal. In some languages we meet even with an initial gut- tural nasal, as in Tibetan nga-rang, I myself. Whether here the initial sound is really so evanescent as to require a different sign from that which we have as the final letter in “rang”, is a question which a native alone could answer. Certain it is that in the Tibetan alphabet itself both are written by the same sign, while Csoma de Koros writes the initial guttural n by 1, the final by ng; as lia-rang. We have now, on physiological grounds, established the following system of consonants: Murak. SEMIVOCALES. "Temues. Modi, Liquide. Flatus sibilantes: Nasales. asperi. lenes. Gutturales: k (kirk) g (80) °h (dag) ‘h (loch) ’h (tage) n (sing). Dentales: t (town) d (do) I (low) s (seal) =z (zeal) n (sin). Labiales: p (pint) b (bring) w (win) f (life) v (live) m (sum). Spiritus asper: © or h (hear). Spiritus lenis: ’ (ear). TR A 0 CHIT MIA YRN T0. U Formation of Aspirates. According to Sanskrit grammarians, if we begin to pronounce the tenuis, but, in place of stopping it abruptly, allow it to come out with what they call the correspon- ding “wind” (flatus, wrongly called sibilans), we produce the aspirate, as a modified tenuis, not as a double eon- sonant. This however, is admissible for the tenuis aspi- rata only, and not for the media aspirata. Other gram- marians, therefore, maintain that all medie aspirate are formed by pronouncing the medie with a final h, the flatus lenis being considered identical with the spiritus: and they insist on this principally because the aspirated medi could not be said to merge into, or terminate by, a hard sibilant. Accepting this view of the formation of these aspirates, to which we have no corresponding sounds in English, we may now represent the complete table of the chief consonantal sounds possible in any dialect, as follows: — Tenuis. Tenuis Media. Media Liquide. Flatus Nasales. aspir. aspir. sibilantes. Guttural : k kh g gh ’h ‘h ’h ng Dental: t th d dh 1 s z n Labial : p ph b bh w f v m Spiritus: h ’— It should be remarked that in the course of time the fine distinctions between kh, gh, and “h, between ph, bh, and f, become frequently merged in one common sound. In Sanskrit only, and in some of the southern languages of India, through the influence of Sanskrit, the distinction has been maintained. Instead of Sanskrit th we find in Latin the simple t; instead of dh, the simple d, or, as a nearer approach, the f (diuma = fumus, &c.). The etymological distinction maintained in Sanskrit between dha, to put, lo create, and da, to give, is lost in Per- sian, because there the two initial sounds d and d/ have become one, and the root da has taken to itself the meaning both of creating and giving. Whatever objections, XXXHI therefore, might be raised against the anticipated represen- tation of the tenuis and media aspirata by means of an additional h or h, they would practically apply only to a very limited sphere of languages. In Sanskrit no scho- lar could ever take kh for k + h, because the latter combination of sounds is grammatically impossible. Ip the Tamulic languages the fine distinctions introduced into their orthography have hardly found their way into the spoken dialects of the people at large. Modifications of Gutturals and Dentals. From what has been said before on the formation of the guttural and dental sounds, it must be clear that the exact place of contact by which they are produced can never be fixed with geometrical precision, and that by shifting this point forward or backward certain modifica- tions will arise in the pronunciation of individuals, tribes, or nations. The point of contact between the lips is not liable to the same changes, and the labials are, therefore, the most constant sounds in all dialects. A. Dialectic Modifications of Gutturals and Dentals. Where this variety of pronunciation exists only in degree, without affecting the nature and real character of a guttural or dental consonant, we need not notice it. Gutturals from a Semitic throat have a deeper sound than our own, and some grammarians have made a new class for them by calling them pectoral letters. The guttural flatus asper, as heard in the Swiss ach is deeper, and as it were more pectoral, than the usual German ch: but this is owing to a peculiarity of the organs of speech; and whatever letter might be chosen to represent this Swiss ch in a phonetic alphabet, it is certain no European. but a Swiss could ever pronounce it. This Swiss ch is, according to Wallin, pag. 21, the same as the Arabic c’ for none of the Arabic gut- turals, neither ¥, cr co corresponds to the German ch. Cc But although there is a distinction between the ch as heard in loch, and the 5 and _ of the Arabs, as described above, yet it is not necessary to admit more than one type of the gut- tural flatus asper. In a European throat this flatus asper will sound like the German ch. In a Semitic throat both — and will differ from this ch, but it will be sufficient to have one sign for the simple guttural flatus of a Semitic organ, the —; and to mark the . diacritically as in the Arabic alphabet. Sanskrit grammarians sometimes regard h as formed in the chest (urasya), while they distinguish the other gutturals by the name of tongue-root letters (gihvamuliya). These refinements, however, are of no practical use; because, in dialects where the guttural sound is affected and diverted from its purer intonation, we generally find that the pure sound is lost altogether; so that the two hardly ever co-exist in the same lan- guage. The Swiss who pronounces his ch avoids the common German ch in loch. The Arab who pronounces Cc and c entirely ignores the German ch. The same applies to the so-called Linguals of the Sanskrit and the Arabic alphabets. It is true that there is a difference between the Sanskrit € and the Arabic lo. In the former the tongue is more contracted than in the latter, but both are produced by contact between the tongue, more or less contracted, and the palate. Their difference is so slight that here again an organ which is able to form the Sanskrit lingual is generally unsuccessful in the formation of the Arabic lingual. In Hindustani there- fore where owing to the mixture of Arabic and Sanskrit words, both letters occur, no difference is made between the two. (Wilson, Indian terms, p. XVI.) It will be seen that native Arabic grammarians, though admitting 17 places of articulation, assign the same place or passive organ tow, O,and . The distinction between Arabic dentals and linguals has therefore been avoided altogether in our system of transliteration, and we have preferred to re- gard the superlative degree of explosiveness in the b, XXXV as well as in the low guttural (3, and the Ethiopic pait, as the characteristic peculiarity of these letters, and endeavoured to indicate it in our transcription. B. Specific Modifications of Gutturuls and Dentals. A. Palatals as Modifications of Gutturals. But the place of contact of the gutturals may be pushed forward so far as to lie no longer in the throat, but in the palate. This change has taken place in almost all languages. Latin cantus is still canto in Italian, but in English chant. In the same manner, the guttural tenuis in the Latin vocs (vox) has been softened in Sanskrit into the sound of the English ch, at least where it is followed by certain letters. Thus we have: vach 4 mi, I speak, but vak + shi, thou speakest, vak + ti, he speaks. The same applies to the media. Latin largus is Italian largo, but English large. The Latin guttural media g in jungo is softened in Sanskrit into the sound of the English j. We have Sanskrit yuga, Latin jugum; but in the verb we have: yunaj + mi, I join. yunak + shi, thou joinest. yunak + ti, he joins. Wallin in his paper “On the pronunciation of Ara- bic”, gives the following description of an analogous change of k into £. “Certain tribes particularly among the most genuine Beduins in Negd and ‘Irik, among the more southern ‘Eneré-Nomads, and in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, pronounce k (¢)) like ksh, a peculiarity which in ancient times was pointed out as belonging to the tribe of Rabi”. Another pronunciation, though of indi- viduals rather than of tribes, is that which gives to k the sound of ks, and this also is mentioned by ancient authors as a distinguishing feature of the tribe of Bakr. *» AF A SE TST XXXVI Again by changing the k to t, the sound of k lapses into tsh and ts. The sound of sh and s, however, is so slight and coalesces so entirely with the k and t, that the ear perceives but a single sound, nay that it is difficult to say whether we hear tsh, ts, or ty.” — Likewise the guttural media varies in different Semitic dialects between the sound of g and j. It is only in Egypt, Hejaz, and in Southern Arabia that it retains its pure guttural sound; elsewhere it has become palatal. The identity of many words in Latin and Sanskrit be- comes palpable at once, if, instead of writing this modi- fied guttural, or, as we may now call it, palatal sound, by a new type, we write it by a modified k. Sanskrit chatvar, or as some write tschatwar, does not look like quatuor; but Lithuanian keturi and Sanskrit katvar speak for themselves. Sanskrit cha or tscha does not look like Latin que; but Greek xe and Sanskrit ka assert their relationship without disguise. Although, therefore, we are forced to admit the palatals, as a separate class, side by side with the gutturals, because most languages retain both sets and use them for distinct etymological and grammatical purposes, still it will be well to remem- ber that the palatals are more nearly related to the gut- turals than to any other class, and that in most languages the two are still interchangeable. That the pronunciation of the palatals may vary again, like that of the gutturals, hardly requires to be stated. Some people imagine they perceive a difference between the English palatal in church, and the Italian palatal in cielo, and they maintain that no Englishman can pro- perly pronounce the Italian palatal. If so, it only proves what was said before, that slight modifications like these do never co-exist in the same language; that English has but one, and Italian but one palatal, though the two may slightly differ. Thus even if we invented a special letter to represent the Italian palatal, no one except an Italian would be able to pronounce it, not even for his life, as the French failed in “ceci” and “ciceri” at the time of the Sicilian Vespers. All consonants, therefore, between XXXVI gutturals and dentals, should be called palatals. That palatals have again a tendency to become dentals, may be seen from words like téooapec instead of Sanskrit katvaras or Lithuanian keturi. Frequently the pronunciation of the palatals becomes so broad that they seem, and in some cases really are, double consonants. Some people pronounce church” (kirk) as if it were written ‘“tchurtch.” If this pronun- ciation becomes sanctioned, and we have to deal with a language which has as yet no historical orthography, it must be left to the ear of the missionary to determine whether he hears distinctly two consonants, or one only though pronounced rather fully and broadly. If he hears distinctly the two sounds t 4 ch, as in pitching, or t + sh, as in the German rutschen, he should write both, particularly if in the same language there exists another series of letters with the simple palatal sound. This is the case, for instance, in Tibetan and its nume- rous dialects. If, therefore, the missionary has to deal with a Bhotiya dialect, which has not yet been fixed by the Tibetan alphabet, the simple palatals should be kept distinct from the compound palatals, tsh, dsh, &ec. In the literary language of Tibet, where the Sanskrit alpha- bet has been adopted, an artificial distinction has been introduced, and the compound sounds, usually transcribed as tsh, tshh, and dsh, are distinguished by a diacritical mark at the top from the simple palatals, the sound of which is described as like the English ch in church, and j in join. How this artificial distinction should be ren- dered in transliteration, will have to be considered under IIL. 5. If we have once the palatal tenuis, the same mo- difications as those described above give us the palatal media, the two aspirates, the nasal, the liquid, and the sibilant. The sound of the tenuis is given in the English church; of the media, in join. The liquid we have in the pronunciation of yea. The nasal again hardly exists by itself, but only if followed by palatals. We have it in inch and injure. Where the Spaniards use an ii, they write a double by a simple sound; for the XXXVI sound is the nasal followed by the corresponding semi- vowel, ny. The French express the same sound in a different manner. The French besogne, if it occurred in an African language, would have to be expressed by the missionary as bezonye. As to the palatal flatus or sibilant, we must distin- guish again between its sharp and mild sound. The sharp sound is heard in sharp, or French chose. The mild sound is less known in English, but of frequent occurrence in French; such as je, and joli, very different from the English jolly. It is a sound of frequent occurrence in African languages.* The difference between the sharp and mild palatal flatus may best be illustrated by a re- ference to the modern languages of Europe. A guttural tenuis in Latin becomes a palatal tenuis in English, and a palatal sibilant in French; cantus, the chant, le chant. Here, the palatal being originally a tenuis, the initial sibilant in French is asper or sharp like the Eng- lish sh in she. A guttural media in Latin becomes a palatal media in English, and a palatal sibilant in F rench; elegia, the elegy, I’élégie. Here the sibilant sound of the French g is the same as in genou or je; it is the mild palatal sibilant, sometimes expressed in English by s, as in pleasure. It should be remarked, however, that the proper, and not yet assibilated sound of the palatal flatus asper is not the French ch as heard in Chine, but rather the Ger- man ch in China, midchen, ich, or gin konig. Both sounds are palatal according to our definition of this term; but the German might be called the simple, the French the assibilated palatal flatus. Ellis calls the former the “whispered guttural sibilant,” aud remarks that it is ge- nerally preceded by a vowel of the i class. The correspon- ding “spoken consonant” also, or the flatus lenis, was discovered by Ellis in such words as the German kon’ge. “ See the Rev. Dr. Krapf's “Outline of the Elements of the Kisuaheli Language: ” 'Tiibingen, 1850, page 23. XXXIX 2. Linguals as Modifications of Denials. While the pure dental is produced by bringing the tip of the tongue straight against the teeth, a peculiarly mo- dified and rather obtuse consonantal sound is formed if the tongue is curled back till its tip is at the root, and the roof of the mouth then struck with its back or under- surface. The consonants produced by this peculiar pro- cess differ from the dentals, both by their place and by their instrument, and it has been common in languages where these peculiar consonants occur to call them “lin- guals.” Although this name is not quite distinct, the tongue being the agent in the palatals and dentals as well as in these linguals, still it is preferable to another name which has also been applied to them, Cerebrals — a mere mistranslation of the Sanskrit name “Murddhanya.”* These linguals vary again in the degree of obtuseness imparted to them in different dialects, a difference which evades graphical representation. All letters that cease to be pure dentals by shifting the point of contact backward from the teeth, must be considered as linguals; and many languages, Semitic as well as Arian, use them for distinct etymo- logical purposes. As with the palatals, we have with the linguals also a complete set of modified consonants. The lingual teuuis, tenuis aspirata, media, media aspirata, and nasal have no corresponding sounds in English, because, * «“Murddhanya,” being derived from “murddhan,” head or top, was a technical name given to these letters, because their place was the top or highest point in the dome of the palate, the olpavog of the Greeks. The proper translation would have been ¢Cacuminals.” “Cerebrals” is wrong in every respect; for no letter is pronounced by means of the brain, nor does “myrddhan” mean brain. It is not advisable to retain this name, even as a technical term, after it has been proved to owe its origin to a mere mistranslation. It is a word which has given rise to confused ideas on the nature of the lingual letters, and it ought therefore to be discarded from philological treatises, though the mistranslation and its cause have hitherto failed to attract the observation of either Sanskrit or comparative grammarians. Even native grammarians in India have been imposed upon by this name, and the author of one of the best Bengali Grammars says, “the letters of the third division, though called cerebral in Sanskrit, are in Bengali expressed from the middle or hinder part of the palate.” XL as we shall see, the English organ has modified the dental sounds by a forward and not by a backward movement. The liquid is the lingual r, produced by a vibration of the curled tongue in which the Italians and Scotch excel, and which we find it difficult to imitate. The English and the German r become mostly guttural, while, on the other hand, the Semitic guttural flatus lenis fricatus the “hain, takes frequently the sound of a guttural r. It might be advisable to distinguish between a guttural and a lingual r; but most organs can only pronounce either the one or the other, and the two therefore seldom co-exist in the same dialect. The lingual sibilant is a sound peculiar to the Sanskrit; and as, particularly in modern Indian dialects, it inter- changes with the guttural tenuis aspirata, its pronuncia- tion seems to have partaken of a certain guttural flatus. There is a peculiarity in the pronunciation of the dental tenuis aspirata and media aspirata, which, though it exists but in few languages, deserves to be noticed here. In most of the spoken idioms of Europe, although a distinction is made in writing, there is hardly any difference in the pronunciation of t aud th, or d and dh. The German thun, to do, the French théologie, are pronounced as if they were written tun, téologie. In the Low German and Scandinavian dialects, however, the aspiration of the t and d (according to Grimm’s law, an organic aspiration) has been preserved to a certain extent, only the consonantal contact by which they are produced takes place no longer between the tongue and the inside of the teeth, but is pushed forward so as to lie really between the tongue and the edge of the teeth. This po- sition of the organs produces the two well-known con- tinuous sounds of th, in think and though. There is a distinct Runic letter to express them, p; and in later MSS. a graphical distinction is introduced between p and 3, tenuis and media. The difference between the tenuis and media is brought out most distinctly by the same experi- ment which was tried for s and z, for f and v. (page 27.). We have the tenuis in breath, but it is changed into media in to breathe. XLI We may consider these two sounds as dialectical va- rieties of the real th and dh, which existed in Sanskrit, but which, like most aspirated sonant and surd conso- nants, have since become extinct. To many people the pronunciation of the English th is an impossibility; and in no dialect, except perhaps the Irish, does the English pronunciation of the th coexist with the pure and simple pronunciation of th and dh. Still, as their sound is very characteristic, approaching almost to a sibilant flatus, it might be desirable to mark it in writing, so that even those who do not know the peculiar accent and pronun- ciation of a language, should be able to distinguish by the eye the English sound of the th from the original th and dh. The principal consonantal sounds, without any regard as yet to their graphic representation, may now be clas- sified and defined as follows. Where possible, the approxi- mate sound is indicated by English words. b. L d. e. f. g. Tenuis Media | Nasalis.| Liquida. Flatus aspi- aspirata. (sibilans). rata. asper. lenis. } hear ear. 1. Gutturals| kite - = - - |sing dag (Dutch) loch, Germ. tage. 2. Palatals [church] -- - - - |Frsigne| yet sun aghich. 3. Dentals | tan (breath) (breathe) | not let grass, graze. 4 Linguals | - - | - - - = - = run - - 5. Labials | pan - = ~ = |mill will life, live. VOWELS. The Physiological Scale of Vowels. If we recall the process by which the liquids were formed in the three principal classes, and if, instead of stopping the vocal sound by means of that slight remnant of consonantal contact or convergence which characterized the formation of the liquid semi - vowels, we allow XLII the full volume of breath to pass over the point of con- tact and there to vibrate and sound, we get three pure vowel sounds, guttural, palatal, and labial, which can best be expressed by the Italian A, I, U, as heard in psalm, ravine, flute. Formation of the Labial Vowel. Let us attempt to pronounce the labial liquid, the English w in win, and, instead of stopping or compres- sing the breathing as it approaches the labial point of contact, emit it vibrating and vocalised, through the rounded aperture of the lips, and we have the vowel u. Formation of the Palatal Vowel. The same process which changes w into u, changes the palatal liquid y into i. Let us pronounce the y in yea without any vowel after it, and it will be seen that it requires only the removal of that stoppage of sound which takes place between tongue and palate, before the vowel i, as in ravine, can be heard distinctly. Formation of the Guitural Vowel. Let us pronounce the spiritus lenis as in arm, or the guttural liquid as heard in the Dutch dag or the Hebrew ’hain, and, if we try to replace this liquid gradually by the vowel a, we feel that what we effect is merely the removal of that stoppage which in the formation of the liquid takes place at the very point of guttural contact. The vowels, as was said before, are formed by the voice modified, but not interrupted, by the various posi- tions of the tongue and the lips. “Their differences de- pend,” as Professor Wheatstone adds, “on the proportions between the aperture of the lips and the internal cavity of the mouth, which is altered by the different elevations of the tongue.” Succession of Vowels, natural and artificial, The organic succession of vowel sounds is the same as for consonants, — guttural, palatal, labial. a, i, u. Professor Willis*, has described an interesting experiment as to the scale of vowels in the abstract. The gradual lengthening of a cylindrical tube joined to a reed organ- pipe was found to produce the following series of sounds: i, e, a, aw, o, u. beat, bait, bath, bought, boat, boot. But as these pipes are round and regular, while the con- struction of the pipe formed by larynx, throat, palate, jaws, and lips is not, the succession of vowels given by these pipes cannot be expected to correspond with the local succession of vowels as formed by the organs of speech. Kempelen states that if we pay attention to the succes- sive contraction of the throat only, we shall find, that the aperture of the throat is smallest if we pronounce i, and that it gradually increases as we go on to e, a, 0, u; while if we pay attention to the successive contraction of the lips, which is quite as essential to the formation of the vowels as the contraction of the throat, the scale of vowels is a different one. Here the aperture of the lips is largest if we pronounce the a; and it gra- dually decreases as we go on to the e, i, 0, and u. Hence, if we represent the opening of the lips by Roman, and the opening of the throat by English figures, taking the smallest aperture as our unit, we may, accord- ing to Kempelen, represent the five vowels in a mathe- matical progression: i=IIL 1. e=IV.2. a=V.3. o=IL 4. u=L 5. It has been remarked by Professor Purkinje, that the conditions for the formation of some of the vowels, par- * Transactions of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, vol. iil. paper 10. 1828 — 29. XLIV ticularly of a and e, as heard in far and name, have not been quite correctly stated by Kempelen. The pro- duction of both these sounds depends principally on the form of the cavity of the throat between the root of the tongue and the larynx; in both cases this space is large, but largest in the pronunciation of e. The size of the opening of the mouth is the same in the two cases; not different, as Kempelen states. The position which he ascribes to the lips in pronouncing o is unnecessary. * As to the experiments of Professor Willis, they show that, if we look on the instrument by which the vowels are formed as a vibrating membranous tongue, with one tube pre- fixed, and another added below the tongue, the shortest length of the tube gives i; the longest, u; and an inter- mediate one, a. But as the human organ of speech is not a regular tube, we must insist on this, that in the mouth the greatest length of the tube is indicated by the point of guttural contact, the smallest by the point of labial, and the intermediate by the point of guttural contact; and that it is by the simultaneous operation of the guttural and labial apertures that the vowels a, i, and u are formed. Whether there may not be at the same time in the human organ a cooperating difference of pitch in the chord vocales, is a question which can only be deter- mined by anatomical experiments. The Lingual and Dental Vowels. Besides the three vowels struck at the guttural, pala- tal, and labial points of contact, the Sanskrit, in strict analogy, forms two peculiar vowels as modifications of the lingual and dental semi-vowels. R and L, subjected to the same process whieh changes or ’h into a, y into i, and w into u, become ri, li, or r& and 18. At least these sounds ri and li, approach as near to the origi- nal value of the Indian vowels as with our alphabet we can express it. According to their origin, they may be described as r and 1 opened and vocalised. * See J. Miller, Elements of Physiology, p. 1047. Unmodified Vowels. If we attempt in singing to pronounce no particular vowel, we still hear for a time the vowel-sound of the Italian a. This vowel expresses the quality of the mu- sical vibrations emitted from the human larynx and na- turally modified by a reverberation of the palate. But if we arrest the vibrations before they pass the guttural point of contact — if, either in a whispered or a voca- lised shape, we emit the voice without allowing it to strike against any part of the throat or mouth — we hear the unmodified and primitive sound as in but, bird, lull. It is the sound which, in Professor Willis’s ex- periments, “seems to be the natural vowel of the reed,” or, according to Mr. Ellis, “the voice in its least modi- fied form.” We hear it also if we take the larynx of a dead body, and blow through it while compressing the chorde vocales. In these experiments it is impossible to distinguish more than one sound; and most people admit but one unmodified vowel in English. According to Sir John Herschel, there is no difference in the vowels of the words spurt, assert, dirt, virtue, dove, double, blood. Mr. Ellis considers the u in cur as the cor- responding long vowel. Other writers, however, as She- ridan and Smart, distinguish between the sounds of bird and work, of whirl’d and world; and in some lan- guages this difference requires to be expressed. It is a very delicate difference, but may be accounted for by a slight palatal and labial pressure through which this obscure sound is affected after having escaped the guttural re- verberation. In English every vowel is liable to be absorbed by this obscure sound; as beggar, offer, bird, work, but. It is sometimes pronounced between two conso- nants, though not expressed in writing; as in el-m, mar-sh, schis-m, ryth-m. Here it is really the breath inherent in all continuous consonants. In French it is the e muet, as in entendre, Londres. In German it is XLVI doubtful whether the same sound exists at all, though I think it may be heard occasionally in such words as leber, leben. Quantity of Vowels. All vowels may be short or long, with the exception of the unmodified breathing (Rapp’s “Urlaut”), which, at least according to some authorities, is always short. The sound of the long a we have in psalm, messa (It.); short, in Sam, ’ ” i ss neat, Italia; ’ knit. 2 5 u ’s fool, usarono (It.); ,, full.* The sound of & we have in bird. v » 0 ” work. Long vowels naturally terminate in their correspon- ding liquids. This is heard most distinctly in pronouncing the long i, where the liquid element of the y is almost unavoidable at the end. Arab grammarians therefore consider that a long a consists of the short a + the pectoral semi- vowel (1); the i of the short i + the palatal liquid ((g); the u of the short u + the labial liquid (s). See Wal- lin, p. 2, 24.). DrputHONGS. From the organic local succession of the three simple vowels a, i, u, it follows that real compound vowels can only be formed with A, as the first and most independent vowel, for their basis. The a, on its onward passage from the throat to the aperture of the mouth, may be followed or modified by i or u. It may embrace the palatal and labial vowels, and carry them along with it without having to retrace its steps, or occasioning any stoppage, which of course would at once change the vowel into a semi-vowel. In Sanskrit, therefore, the palatal and labial vowels, if brought in immediate contact with a following a, relapse naturally into their correspon- * The examples are mostly taken from Ellis, who distinguishes between the short a in messa and the stopped a in Sam; a distinc- tion which, though essential in a theoretical analysis, does not re- quire to be expressed in alphabetical notation. | | [ | voice. height. aisle. sailor. ding liquids, y and w, and never form the base of diphthongs. The vowels i 4 a, or u + a, if pronounced in quick succession, become ya and wa, but they will never coalesce into one vocal sound, because the intona- tion of the a lies behind that of i and u; the vocal flatus has to be inverted, and this inversion amounts in fact to a consonantal stoppage sufficient to change the vowels i and u into the breathed liquids y and w. The four Buses of Diphthongs. According to our definition of diphthongs, their basis can only be guttural; but as the guttural a may be short or long, and as the two unmodified vowels (&, 6) lie even behind the guttural point of contact, we get really a four-fold basis for diphthong sounds. Each of the four vowels (&, a, &, 0) being liable to a palatal or labial modification, we may on physiological grounds expect eight different compound vowels. This will best be represented by a diagram: Guttural. © Work 0 A D \ \ \ J BD / \ : \ ’ \ / e \ bird ’ / /- /- . ol ei i i (0) home, found. Europa. bought. XLVIII Diphthongs with X as base. If the short a is quickly followed by i and u, so that, as the Hindus say, the guttural is mixed with the palatal and labial vowels like milk and water, we get the diphthongs ai and au, pronounced as in French. T hey cor- respond in sound to the Italian e and o, and to the English sounds in sailor and home. Diphthongs with & as Base. If the a, as the first element, retains more of its in- dependent nature, or is long, then 4 + i pronounced to- gether give the German diphthong ai, as in aisle and buy; a 4 u give the German diphthong au, as in found. Diphthongs with % as Base. If, instead of the short or long a, the base of the diphthong becomes &, we get the combinations ei and eu, both of rare occurrence except in German, where the sound of ei (English height), is thinner than that of ai (English ire). In eu, the two vowels are still heard very distinctly in the Italian Europa. In German they co- alesce more, and almost take the sound of oy in boy. Diphthongs with 6 as Base. In the diphthong oi also, the pronunciation may vary according to ‘the degree of speed with which the i follows the 6. In 6 + u, on the contrary, the two vowels co- alesce easily, and form the well-known deep sound of ou in bought, or of a in fall. Different Kinds of Diphthongs. Although the sounds of the Italian e and o are here classed together, as diphthongs, with the English sounds ofiand ouin ire and stout, this is not meant to deny a dif- XLIX ference in degree between the two. The former might be called monophthongs, because the ear receives but one impres- sion, as when two notes are struck simultaneously. It is only by theoretical analysis that we can detect the two component parts of e and o — a fact well known to every Sanskrit scholar. The 4i and du, on the contrary, are real diphthongs; and an attentive ear will perceive ah + ee in the English “I,” ah + 00 in the English “out.” Sir John Herschel compares these sounds to quick arpeggios, where two chords are struck almost, but not quite, simultaneously. In African dialects, as, for instance, in Zulu, some Missionaries say that two vowels combine for the form- ation of one sound, as in hai (no), Umecopai (a pro- per name); others, that there are no diphthongs, but that, whenever two vowels meet, the separate power of each is distinctly marked and preserved in pronunciation.* This may depend on a peculiar disposition in the organ of hearing as well as in the organ of speech. Objections are likely to be raised against treating the vowel in “bought” and “fall” as a diphthong. There is, however, a diphthong sound which stands to au (proud) in the same relation as oi (voice) to ai (vice). I ima- gine I hear it in the English broad, which has the same vowel as all, bawl, Paul, nor, war; and we certainly have it in the Swedish 8. The sound of the English “to call” is almost identical with the Arabic qaul ( Jus), > and here the derivation of the sound ou (as in bought or call), from an original diphthong cannot be doubted. ** Perhaps the same sound was intended by the Old German ou in boum. The labial element, no doubt, is very slight; still, let anybody pronounce & and ou (far and bought), and a looking-glass will tell him that he adds a distinct labial pressure in order to change the 4 into ou. * An Essay on the Phonology and Orthography of the Zulu and kindred Dialects in Southern Africa, by L. Grout, p. 44d. ** See Wallin, On pronunciation of Arabic, in the Journal of the German Oriental Society, IX, p. ki. d Vowels broken by & or I. In some languages we find that certain vowels are modified by an inherent &, or, as some say, by i. The vowels most liable to this modification are a, o, u. The a, with an inherent e, becomes German &, as in viter, very nearly the same sound as in the English substantive bear. O, Dy the same influence, takes the German sound of © in Konig, or that of the French eu in peu. U, in German, becomes u, the French u in jurer. To many organs these sounds are so troublesome that they are sometimes avoided altogether, as in English. Their pronunciation varies in different dialects; and the German i sounds in some places like e, the u like u. If we remember how the simple vowel sounds were represented by Kempelen in a mathematical progression according to the amount of aperture of the throat and lips required for their formation, we shall see that what takes place, if an a is changed to ae, an o to oe, and an u to ue, is in each case a diminution of the guttural aperture. While the pure a is formed by 5 degrees of labial and 3 degrees of guttural aperture, the ae is pro- duced by 5 degrees of labial, but only 1 degree of gut- tural aperture. Thus, in the pronunciation of oe, the labial aperture remains at 2 degrees, and in the pronun- ciation of ue at 1 degree; but in either case the guttural aperture is respectively reduced from 4 degrees and § degrees to 1 degree. We may, therefore, represent the broken vowels (Grimm's Umlaut) in the following manner : — ae=—=V.1; oe = IL. 1; ue = I. 1. There is one class of languages, the Tataric, where these broken sounds are of frequent occurrence, and of great importance. The ‘harmony of vowels” which per- vades these dialects would be lost altogether (as itis, to a great extent, if Tataric languages are written with Arabic letters), unless to these broken vowels a distinct category LI were assigned. Besides the broken or softened a ? and u, the Tatarie languages hay softening of the i, py o, e a fourth vowel, a which is said to be li sof e like the ' iin will. Thus we have, in Yakut: round of Hard vowels a, 0, i, u. Heavy v a 0 A owels Soft vowels i, &, I, u { Pied Light vowels i, i, u, i. i A [he vowels In a Yakut word depend on the first ” rst 1s hard, all following vowels must be Py li ’ a pecans soft. Again, if the vowel of oe Syla S eavy, that of the next can only be the same . 4 vowel, or its corresponding light vowel. If it is ght, that of the next syllable must be the same Ij vowel, or its corresponding heavy vowel oy if the first syllable of a word has a have a or i; wr For instance, lable ) the next can only - if 4, & or 1; if 0, 0 ur u; if 0, 0 or u. ol he vowels would, therefore, come under the owing physiological categories: — Guttural a, short, as in Sam; long, as in psalm; » lo » » work | \ ny sd ” bir J ” cur (?) Eh 1 » knit; neat. Gutturo-pal y vf fool palatal ai (e) debt; date a aisle. height. voice. note. ” proud. Ital. Europa. bought. » fiery; ss reach. » friendly; leach. ate I broken, as in Diener. ’ Konig. u Griite. ei 2 39 oi Gutturo-labial au (0) 2 2 au tp ”» eu ”» 9 ou Lingual ré Dental 18 A broken, as in Viiter. 0 It has frequently been remarked that the short vowels in Engli . corrode debt, knit, not, full) differ from their Sponding long vowels, not merely in quantity, but d* LII in quality also. As they mostly occur in unaccented syllables, they have lost that vocal “timbre” which the short vowels in German and Italian have preserved. Yet it is not necessary to invent new signs for these surd vowels, because in origin they correspond exactly to the short vowels in other languages, only that they are uni- formly modified by a peculiarity of pronunciation inherent in the English tongue. It is not by the eye, but by the ear only, that foreigners can learn this peculiar pronun- ciation of the short vowels in English. II. How can these principal Sounds, after proper Classifica— tion, be expressed by us in writing and printing, without obscuring their physiological Value, and wi- thout creating new typographical Difficulties? The results at which we have arrived in the first part of our inquiry are those on which, with very slight and unimportant exceptions, all may be said to agree, who, whether in India or Europe, have attempted to analyse scientifically the elements of human speech. There are, no doubt, some refinements, and some more accurate subdivisions , as will be seen in the extracts from the Pratisakhyas, which it will be necessary to attend to in exceptional cases, and particularly in philological re- searches. But, as far as the general physiological outlines of our phonetic system are concerned, we hardly expect any serious difference of opinion. Widely different opinions, however, start up as soon as we approach the second and apparently less impor- tant question, how these sounds are to be expressed in writing. Omitting the different propositions to adopt an Oriental alphabet, such as Sanskrit or Arabic, or the Greek alphabet, or newly invented letters, whether short- hand or otherwise, we shall take it for granted that the LIII Latin alphabet, which, though of Semitic origin, has so long been the armour of thought in the struggles and conquests of civilisation, has really the greatest and most natural claims on our consideration. There are two principles regulating the application of the Latin alphabet to our physiological sounds on which there has been a general agreement since the days of Halhed and Wilkins: 1. That the sound of every physiological category shall have but one representative letter, and that therefore each letter shall always express the same sound. 2. That simple sounds shall be expressed by simple letters, and compound sounds by compound letters. If with these two principles we try to write the forty- four consonants of our physiological alphabet by means of the twenty-four consonants of the Latin, it follows that we must raise their number by the addition of dia- critical signs, in order to make them answer our purpose. Now in the invention of new diacritical signs, two ways seem at first to be open. Every nation might ex- press the sounds for which the Latin alphabet does mot supply a simple letter, in the same manner in which these sounds are expressed in its own language, only that by this method the two principles of expressing the same sound by the same letter, and simple sounds by simple letters would at once be placed in jeopardy. The Latin has no letter for the diphthong ai in aisle. An English Missionary, hearing the sound of ai in the dialect of an African tribe, might therefore feel inclined, if he took it as a diphthong, to write it either ai, as in aisle, or ei as in height, or uy as in buy; or if he took it for a simple vowel, iasinire. The confusion arising from this would be endless, for though in English we know what sound is meant by ai, ei, uy, and i, in certain words like aisle, height, buy, and ire, it would be impossible to guess what sounds they were meant to stand for in a foreign dialect. But suppose that English Missionaries LIV fixed upon the i to express the sound of i in ire: the consequence would be that no Missionary belonging to any other country would be able to avail himself of their translations of the Bible, because no German, no French- man, no Italian, no Spaniard, would admit that i was the fittest sign to express the diphthong ai, as heard in ire. Again, an English Missionary might naturally write the palatal tenuis, as heard in church, by ch; but a French Missionary would write tch, a German tsch, an Italian cia. Uniformity, therefore, would be impossible, and a translation of the Bible for instance, into the Galla lan- guage, published in England, would have to be rewritten before a Missionary of any other country could avail himself of it. The practical inconveniences of such a system, if system it can be called, are so great and so glaring, that it would hardly find an advocate at present, though it has been, and is still, adopted to a great ex- tent in geographical and historical works. In order to avoid this uncertainty which must arise if every nation adopted its own system of spelling in writing foreign languages, it has been proposed by an opposite party, that no characters which have a different value in the principal European alphabets, should be ad- mitted into a general alphabet. This extreme view, however, would deprive us of half of the alphabet, and like most general principles, it requires considerable qua- lification, before it can be made available for practical purposes. If then we exclude all national and exclusive systems of spelling, and retain as much as possible the three general principles, of expressing a simple sound by a simple letter, a compound sound by a compound letter, and the same sound by the same letter, — if besides we bear in mind that none but Latin let- ters are to be admitted into the Universal al- phabet, it will be seen that there remain only two ways in which our problem can be solved. We must first of all find out certain physiological analogies which exist between those sounds for which the Latin alpha- bet supplies simple letters, and others for which it does not. Thus we should find that there is analogy between the Linguals and the Dentals, between the Palatals and the Gutturals, between different nasals, such as n, ng, ny, and between different sibilants, such as s in please and pleasure. If then we retained t and d, as we naturally should, for the usual dental sounds, expressed by these letters in Latin, we might use the same, with some dia- critical marks, to express the lingual sound of t and d, wherever it occurs in a foreign tongue. Again, as we know that the palatal sound of ch and j, arises most frequently from an original guttural, we should naturally use k and g, with 'a diacritical mark, to express these modified sounds which in English are usually expressed by ch and j, in Italian by ci and gi, in German by tsch and dsch. In the same manner we should retain the general base of n, where we had to express the guttural n as in-cur, the palatal n as in inch, or the lingual n as in some Indian dialects. After the analogies of certain classes of letters have been established, — and this has in fact been done by the physiolo- gical explanation of the alphabet, given in the first part — the only dilemma which has still to be solved is this: Shall we in- vent a peculiar diacritical mark for every modification? Shall we have one mark to express palatality, another to express linguality, a third to express cerebrality and so on — or shall we be content with indicating by one uniform pro- cess the fact of any letter being modified? The former plan would be more perfect in theory, but practically hopeless; the latter is practically more convenient, but not exempt from theoretical objections. If every letter, which is used as a base was liable to but one modification, two sets of letters, say simple, and dotted, would be sufficient for our purpose. The simple letters would express the original, the dotted the modified sound of a letter, and our new alphabet would be per- fect and unobjectionable. A guttural k can only become a palatal a dental t can only become a lingual. Hence LVI if we fixed upon a dot as the general sign of modifica- tion, k and t, would be perfectly intelligible, and perhaps more than if we took the dot as the peculiar ex- ponent of linguality, and a line as the peculiar ex- ponent of palatality, writing k and t, instead of k and t. It ought to be stated, however, that there are a few letters, h, n, and 1, which are liable to more than one modification, and where therefore, more than one sign of modification would be required. Here the most natural plan seems to be that adopted by Professor Wilson. He marks the first modification of any letter by one dot, the second by two, the third by three. Thus he expresses the dental n by n; the lingual n by n, the Tamil n by n; the guttural n by n, and the palatal n by n- This is by far the most systematic plan that has as yet been proposed, because it is far easier to remember the diffe- rent degrees of modification, the first, the second, the third &c., according to the number of dots, than to recall the hidden powers of accents, lines, hooks, crooks, and half-moons &ec., which have no meaning in themselves, and which different people would adopt for different purposes. If Professor Wilson had carried out his plan consistently, his system might have become the standard of a universal alphabet. He deviates, however, in some most essential points from his own principles. He writes the simple palatal tenuis by a compound letter ch, instead of k, the corresponding media by j, instead of g, and he thus places himself in opposition with his own theory by giving up the prin- ciple of analogy and adopting the common system of English spelling against which no one has brought for- ward more powerful arguments than he himself. This has rendered his system of transcription more convenient perhaps for English readers, but has deprived it of that character of universality which it might otherwise have claimed. What, however, is most essential to determine in every system is not so much how certain modifications of a Latin base should be expressed typographically, but rather that there LVII should be a uniform arrangement of these modifications. If all scholars could be brought to agree on what is to be treated as the first, the second, or the third modification of a base-letter, it would be of less consequence which sign was fixed upon to indicate the first, the second, or third de- gree of modification. Professor Wilson’s points would answer, and so would mathematical types n, n,, n,, nj, as pointed out by Professor Newman;* so would Latin letters mixed with Greek types, to express modifications of the first, and with Russian types, to express modifi- cations of the second degree. Supposing our letters have been arranged in such a manner that those which can be expressed by Latin types form the first class; we should then have a second class consisting of modified letters which can be traced back physiologically to one of the letters of the first class, * Mathematical types would be particularly useful for translite- rating Inscriptions containing letters the power of which is not yet sufficiently determined to enable us to refer each sign to its proper physiological category, or where the same sound is expressed by different signs as in the Babylonian and Egyptian Inscriptions. The following remarks are taken from a letter of Professor Newman, to whom I am indebted for several useful remarks on the problem of transcribing and transliterating Oriental languages: “But beside these, he writes, we have the mathematical types. The objection to n ”r letters with double or triple accent, as cy ¢, c... is that it wastes room and looks ugly in printing; but this does not equally apply to k, ky, k;, k; ... It seems to me that such types would be of great value as applied to the Cuneiform inscriptions, and I beg leave to call your attention to this. Colonel Rawlinson, some years back, told me that he had ascertained that certain letters in the Scythian inscriptions of Behistun were of the T class, but he did not know whether they were T, D, Th, Dh, etc. I tried to convince him that he would do a vast service to the knowledge of the language by printing transcriptions into a European type, by aid of ar- bitrary conventions. Let T, T,, T;, T,, T;, T,, T; represent six characters, each of which he has good reason to believe to be some kind of dental, and so of all other characters. Thus we might have a line such as the following, K, AT, L, LRK;O, ..... which by means of the key would at pleasure be reconvertible into the original. LVI and which therefore would have to be expressed by mo- dified types of the first degree. A few letters only would then remain requiring to be represented by modified types of the second degree. Now if the first class was represented by simple types, the second might consist of types with one, the third of types with two dots. There is, however, a grave objection against this and any other plan which requires types, not supplied by a common English fount. It is useless for a Missionary who in a re- mote station has to print translations, or tracts and prayers, and has nothing but a small fount at his dispo- sal. For him it is necessary that an alphabet should be devised, capable of expressing all the categories of the physiological scale of letters, and yet not requiring one single new or artificial type. This can be done in the following way: Let the first class of letters be printed in Roman characters; the second, comprising the modified letters of the first degree, in Italics; the third, comprising the modified letters of the second degree, in Small Capitals. We shall now examine each class in particular. Guttural,, Dental, and Labial Tenuis. The- guttural, dental, and labial tenues are naturally expressed by k, t, p. Gultural, Dental, and Labial Media. The modification which changes these tenues into medi should consistently be expressed by a uniform diacritical sign attached to k, t, p. For more than one reason, however, we prefer the Latin letters, g, d, b. It is understood that g, after once being chosen as the representative of the guttural media, like g in gun, whatever vowel may follow, can never be used pro- miscuously both for the guttural and the palatal media, as the English g in gun and gin. How to express Aspirated Letters? The aspirated tenues and medi in the guttural, den- tal, and labial series which, according to the description given above, are not compound, but simple though mo- dified sounds, should be written by simple consonants with a diacritical mark of aspiration. This would give us: XK, t, P, g, d, b. These types have been cut many times since Count Volney founded his prize at the French Academy for transcribing Oriental alphabets, and even before his time. They exist at Berlin, Paris, Leipzig, Darmstadt, Peters- burg, and several other places. They have been cut in different sizes and on different bodies. Still the difficulty of having them at hand when required, making them range properly, and keeping always a sufficient stock, has been so great even in places like London, Paris, and Berlin, that their adoption would defeat the very object of our alphabet, which is to be used in Green- land as well as in Borneo, and is to be handled by inex- perienced printers even in the most distant stations, where nothing but an ordinary English fount can be expected to exist. In our Missionary alphabet we must therefore have no dots, no hooks, no accents, no Greek letters, no new types, no diacritical appendages whatsoever. No doubt, Missionary Societies might have all these letters cut and cast on as many sizes and bodies as necessary. Punches or founts might be sent to the principal Missio- nary stations. But how long would this last? If a few psalms or catechisms had to be printed at Bangkok, and if there were no hooked letters to represent the aspirated palatal sound by a single type (K'), is it likely that they would send to Calcutta or London for this type, which, after it arrived, might perhaps be found not to range with the rest? It is much more likely that, in the ab- sence of the type prescribed by the Missionary Societies at home, each missionary would find himself thrown on his own resources, and different alphabets would again LX spring up in different places. Besides, our alphabet is not only to be an alphabet of missionaries. In time it is to become the alphabet of the tribes and nations whose first acquaintance with writing will be through the Bible translated into their language and transcribed in a rational alphabet. Fifty or a hundred years hence, it may be the alphabet of civilised nations in Africa, Austra- lia, and the greater part of Asia. Must all the printers of Australian advertisements, the editors of African news- papers, the publishers of Malay novels or Papua pri- mers, write to Mr. Watts, Crown Court, Temple Bar, for new sorts of dotted and hooked letters? I do not say it is impossible; but many things are possible, and still not practical; and this is exactly what I fear with regard to these new hooked and dotted types. Surely, if the problem of a uniform Missionary Alphabet could have been solved by the trifling outlay of a few new punches, it would have been solved long ago. In questions of this kind, no harm is done if prin- ciples are sacrificed to expediency; and I therefore pro- pose to write the aspirate letters, as all English and most French and German scholars have written them hitherto, by kh, th, ph, gh, dh, dh. What do we lose by this? The spiritus asper (*) is after all but a faintly disguised H, changed into F and 1, for asper and lenis, and then abbreviated into © and’.* Besides, the languages where these simple aspirates occur are not many; and in India, where they are of most frequent use, the phonetic system is so carefully arranged that no ambiguity can arise whether kh be meant for an aspirated guttural tenuis or for k followed by the semi- vowel h. If the liquid h comes in immediate contact with k, k + h is always changed into g 4 gh, or a stop (virama) has to be put after the k. This might be done where, as in discussing grammatical niceties, it is desirable to distinguish between kh and k-h. The missionary, except * A different but fanciful explanation of these signs is given by Wallin, p. 63. LXI in India, will hardly ever suffer from this ambiguity; and if the scholar should insist on its being removed, we shall see immediately how even the most delicate scruples on this point could be satisfied. There is still, if we examine the alphabets hitherto proposed or adopted, a whole array of dots and hooks, which must be eliminated, or at least be reduced, as far as possible; and though we might, after gaining our point with regard to the h, get through gutturals, dentals, and labials, we still have new and more formidable enemies to encounter in the palatals and linguals. How to express Palatals? Palatals are modifications of gutturals, and therefore the most natural course would be to express them by the guttural series, adding only a line or an accent or a dot, or any other uniform diacritical sign to indicate their modified value. So great, however, has been the disinclination to use diacritical signs, that in common usage, where the palatal tenuis had to be expressed, the most anomalous expedients have been resorted to in order to avoid hooks or dots. In English, to represent the Sanskrit palatal tenuis, ch has been used; and as the h seemed to be too much in the teeth of all analogy, the simple ¢ even has been adopted, leaving ch for the aspi- rated palatal. On the same ground, the Germans write tsch for the palatal tenuis, and tschh for the aspirate. The French write tch and tchh. The Italians do not he- sitate to use ci for the tenuis, though I do not see how they could express the corresponding aspirate. The Rus- sians recommend their 4; and the Brahmans would pro- bably recommend a Sanskrit type. Still all, even the German tsch, are meant to represent simple consonants, which, with the exception of the tenuis aspirata in Sanskrit, would not make a preceding short vowel long. That in English the ch, in Italian ci, and in German tsch, have a sound very like the palatal tenuis, is of course a mere accident. In English the ch is not always sounded alike; and its pronunciation in the different dialects of Europe varies more than that of most letters. Besides, our al- phabetic representative of the palatal sound is to be pro- nounced and comprehended, not by a few people in Ger- many or Italy, but by all the nations of Africa and Australia. Now to them the ch would prove deceptive; first, because we never use the simple ¢ (by this we make up for the primary alphabetical divorce introduced by the libertus of Spurius Carvilius Ruga), and, secondly, be- cause the h would seem to indicate the modification of the aspirate. The natural way of writing the palatals, so as not to obscure their close relationship to the gutturals, would be, k, kh, g, gh. But here the same difficulty arises as before. If the dots or marks are printed separately, the lines where these dots occur become more distant than the rest. For one such dotted letter the compositor has to compose a whole line of blanks. These will shift, particularly when there are corrections, and the misprints are endless. In Turnour’s edition of the Mahavansa, which is printed with dotted letters, we get thirty-five pages quarto of errata to about a hundred pages of text. But they might be cast on one body. True, they might be — perhaps they will be. At all events they have been; and Volney offered such types to anybody that would ask for them. Still, when I inquire at a press like the University press of Oxford, they are not forthcoming. We must not ex- pect that what is impossible in the nineteenth century at Oxford, will be possible in the twentieth century at Timbuktu. Now the difficulty, so far as I can see, was solved by a compositor to whom I sent some manuscript, where each palatal letter was marked by a line under it. The compositor, not knowing what these lines meant, took them for the usual marks of italics, and I was surprised to see that this answered the purpose, saved much trouble and much expense, and, on the whole, did not look badly. As every English fount includes italic letters, the LX usefulness of these modified types for our Missionary alphabet ‘springs to the eyes,” as we say in German. They are sufficiently startling to remind the reader of their modified pronunciation, and at the same time they indicate, as in most cases they ought, their original gut- tural character to the reflecting philologist. As in an or- dinary book italics are used to attract attention, so also in our alphabet. Even to those who have never heard the names of guttural and palatal letters, they will show that the £ is not the usual k. Persons in the slightest degree acquainted with phonetics will be made aware that the & is, in shape and sound, a modification of the k. All who admit that palatals are modifications of gut- turals would see that the modification intended by #£ could only be the palatal. And as to the proper pro- nunciation of the k, as palatal tenuis, in different dialects, people who read their own language expressed in this alphabet will never hesitate over its pronunciation. Others must learn it, as they now learn the pronunciation of Italian ci and chi, or rest satisfied to know that k stands for the palatal tenuis, and for nothing else. Sooner or later this expedient is certain to be adopted. Thus we get, as the representatives of the palatals, k, kh, g, gh. Now, also, it will appear how we can avoid the am- biguity before alluded to, whether the h of aspirated consonants expresses their aspirated nature or an inde- pendent guttural semi-vowel or flatus. Let the h, where it is not meant as a letter, but as a diacritical sign, be printed as an italic i, and the last ground for complaint will vanish. Still this is only needful for philologi- cal objects; for practical purposes the common h may remain. In writing, the dots or lines under the palatals will have to be retained. This has been considered as a grievous inconsistency, because, it is said, people could never be taught that an italic letter in printing corresponded to a dotted letter in writing. I do not take so low a view of the human intellect, and I find that wherever the art of printing has been introduced, the current handwriting has always diverged, and sometimes very considerably, from the form of printed types. Hence I do not despair that a well educated Missionary will succeed in making his converts understand that, unless they can imitate italics in writing, they may indicate these modified letters by a uniform sign of modification, a line or a dot. At all events the natives will find less difficulty in learning this, than in piling up a quantity of mysterious signs at the top of every modified letter. Even the mere dots un- der these letters take too much time to allow us to suppose that the Africans will retain them for any length of time when they come to write for themselves. They will find some more current marks, as, for instance, by drawing the last stroke of the letter below the line. In writing, however, anybody may please himself, so long as the printer knows what is intended when he has to bring it before the public. As a hint to German mission- aries, I beg to say that, for writing quickly in this new alphabet, they will find it useful in manuscript notes to employ German letters instead of italics. An accidental, though by no means undesirable, ad- vantage is gained by using italics to express the palatals, If we read that Sanskrit vich (or vatch, or vitsch) is the same as Latin vox, but that sometimes vAch in Sanskrit is vdk or vic, the eye imagines that it has three different words to deal with. By means of italics, vik and vik are almost identical to the sight, as kirk and Aurk (church), would be if English were ever to be transcribed into the missionary alphabet. The same applies to the verb, where the phonetic distinction between vakmi, vakshi, vakti, can thus be expressed without in any way disguising the etymological identity of the root. It would be wrong if we allowed the physiological prin- ciples of our alphabet to be modified for the sake of Comparative Philology; but where the phonetic changes of physiological sounds and the historical changes of words happen to run parallel, an alphabet, if well arranged, should be capable of giving this fact clear expression. LXV If the pronunciation of the palatals is deteriorated, they sometimes take the sound of tch, ts, s, sh, or even th. Coelum (xoilov) becomes Italian cielo; where the initial sound is the same as in church (kirk). In old Friesic we have tzaka instead of English check. In French, ciel is pronounced with an initial sharp dental s; chose, with an initial sharp palatal s. In Spanish, the pronunciation of c¢ before e and i is that of the Eng- lish th. In these cases when we have to deal with unwritten languages, the sounds, whether simple or double, should be traced to their proper phonetic category, and be written accordingly. It will be well, however, to bear in mind that pronunciation may change with time and vary in different places, and that the most gene- ral representation of these sounds by palatals or ita- licized gutturals will generally prove the best in the long run. It must be clear that, with the principles followed hitherto, it would be impossible to make an exception in favour of the English j as representative of the palatal media. It would be a schism in the whole system, and would besides deprive us of those advantages which Com- parative Philology derives from a consistent representation of modified sounds. That Sanskrit yuga ({iyov) is derived from yug, to join, would be intelligible to everybody; while neither the German, to whom j is y, nor the Frenchman nor the Spaniard would see the connexion between j and g. How to express Linguals? The linguals, as modifications of the dentals, have been hitherto written by common consent as dentals with dots or lines. In writing, this method must be retained, though no doubt a more current form will soon grow up if the alphabet is used by natives. They will pro- bably draw the last stroke of the t and d below the line, and connect the body of the letter with the perpendicular line below. The linguals, therefore, will be, t, th, d, dh; e only here also the printer will step in and convert the dotted or underlined letters into italics, ¢, th, d, dh, I am at a loss how to mark that peculiar pronuncia- tion of the dental aspirate, whether tenuis or media, which we write in English simply by th. It is not of frequent occurrence; still it occurs not only in European, but in Oriental languages, — for instance, in Burmese. If it occurs in a language where no trace of the pure dental aspirate remains, we might safely write th (and dh) or th (and dh), as we do in English. The Anglo-Saxon letters P and & would be very convenient; but how few founts, even in England, possess these forms. Again, 3h and zh, and even 3° and &’, have been proposed; but they are liable to still stronger objections. Where it is necessary to distinguish the aspirated th and dh from the assibilated, I propose for the latter a dot uuder the h (th and dh). But I think th and dh will, on the whole, be found to answer all practical purposes, if we only look to people who have to write and read their own language. Philologists, whatever we attempt, cannot be informed of every nicety and shade in pronunciation by the eye. They must learn from grammars or from per- sonal intercourse in what manner each tribe pronounces its dental aspirate; and Comparative Philology will find all its ends answered if th represents the organic dental aspirate, until its pronunciation deteriorates so far as to make it a mere flatus or a double consonant. In this case the Missionary also will have to write it ts, or ss, or whatever sound he may happen to hear. Adopting therefore italics to express modifications of the first degree, we should have to write the five prin- cipal classes of physiological sounds, by the following typographic exponents: — Tenuis. Tenuis asp. Media. Media asp. Guttural k kh g Palatal k kh qg Dental t th (th) d Lingual l th d Labial p ph b How to express the Nasals? In each of these five classes we have now to look for an exponent of the nasal. Where the nasal is modified by the following conso- nant, it requires no modificatory sign, for reasons explained in the first part of our essay. The nasal in sink and sing is guttural; in inch and injure, palatal; in hint and bind, dental; in imp and dumb, labial. But where these nasals occur at the beginning of words or at the end of syllables, each must have its own mark, and we must therefore introduce here for the first time our second class of modified letters, the Small Capitals. They were suggested to me by Professor Newman and they are recommended also by Mr. Ellis. They are henceforth to mark all modifications of the second degree. Let then the dental nasal be n, the la- bial nasal m, the lingual nasal n. Where the guttural nasal is really so evanescent as not to bear expression by ng, we must write N, instead of n' as originally proposed in the Missionary alphabet. What we call the palatal n is generally not a simple but a compound nasal, and should be written ny. For transliterating, however, we want a distinct sign, because the palatal nasal exists as a simple type in Sanskrit, and every single type must be transliterated by a single letter. Here I should propose the Spanish fi, because it causes the least diffi- culty to the printer. The lingual n occurs in Sanskrit only. Its character is generally determined by lingual letters either following or preceding. Still, where it must be marked in Sanskrit transliterations, let it be represented by the italic n. How to express lhe liquid Semi-vowels? The Latin letters which naturally offer themselves as the counterparts of the semi-vowels, are ’h, y, r, 1, and w. e® LXVIII The delicate sound of the guttural liquid semi-vowel is in reality the same as the guttural flatus lenis, and both categories may therefore be represented by one sign. In Semitic dialects the » hain, has usually been considered as the primitive guttural liquid semi-vowel, but the more pectoral and less modified &, has perhaps a better right to this place, where, at the beginning of words and syl- lables, it is used with the same intention as the Greek spiritus lenis. Where the Arabic |, is used for this purpose, £ = 2 it is marked by the Hamzeh, f, f, I. If in these cases, we look upon the elif hamzatum as the spiritus lenis, we might indeed distinguish this, as spiritus lenis, from the Elif, as a liquid semi-vowel, heard at the end of a long a, as y and w are heard at the end of a long i and u. Thus Wallin says that 1, if used as a long initial a, consists of the Hamzeh, or spiritus lenis, the vowel-mo- tion of the throat, a, and the guttural liquid semi-vowel. The long initial i and uw, would likewise consist of the Hamzeh, the palatal or labial vowel-motions, and the palatal and labial liquid semi-vowels, y and w. This is intelligible as a theory, but practically it seems impos- sible to make a distinction between the liquid semi- vowels and the spiritus lenis on any point of articulation, anterior to the palatal. Here there is for the first time a slightly perceptible distinction between the liquid, as heard in ja, and the flatus lenis, as heard in tiglich, and the same applies to the dental and labial classes. It is therefore in these classes only that we require diffe- rent representative types for the liquid and the flatus lenis, while in the guttural series, and in three series which precede it in the Semitic alphabet, the same type may be used to express liquid and flatus lenis; sounds, differing in definition, but identical in pronun- ciation. The palatal liquid is transcribed in Germany by j, which, as far as archzological arguments go, would cer- tainly be the most appropriate sign to represent the semi- LXIX vowel corresponding to the palatal vowel i. As, however, the j is one of the most variously pronounced letters in Europe, and as in England it has been usual to employ it as a palatal media, it is better to discard it altogether from our alphabet, and to write y. The lingual liquid is r; if in some dialects the r is pronounced very near to the throat, this might be marked by an italic r, or rh. The dental liquid is written 1. The mowillé sound of I may be expressed by an italic [. Where the labial liquid is formed by the lips, let it be written w. More usually it is formed by the lower lip and the edge of the upper teeth. It then be- comes what the Hindus call a labio-dental semi- vowel, but is hardly to be distinguished from the labial flatus lenis. How to express the Flatus (Sibilants)? As the unmodified flatus, or, as it should more pro- perly be called, the spiritus asper and lenis, can only occur before a vowel, the printer would find no difficulty in representing these two sounds bv the usual signs and’ placed before or over the vowel. At the beginning of words there could be no reasonable objection to this mode of representing the very slight and hardly conso- nantal sound of the spiritus asper and lenis. But it is objectionable in the middle of words. In such cases the Greeks did not mark it. They wrote pp, chariot, but 0apUaLTOS with beautiful chariots; they wrote arp, man; but edavdplo, manliness. As to the spiritus asper, which we have in vehement, vehicle, I fear that ve'ement, ve‘icle, will be objected to by the printer, and it will therefore be preferable to express the spiritus asper in every case by an h. The guttural flatus asper, as heard in loch, must then be expressed by ‘h. The flatus lenis cannot be distin- guished in pronunciation from the guttural liquid, and LXX there can be no objection to marking both by the same sign, h. The Semitic dialects which are very fond of guttural sounds, have divided the guttural flatus into two as for in- stance in Arabic, where we have C (asper), ¢ (lenis), and . (asper), é (lenis). The most accurate description of these sounds is given by Wallin, and it is evident that the difference between and . E and és arises from the higher or lower position of the point of con- tact by which these consonants are produced in a Se- mitic throat. In transcribing Arabic we can distinguish the »~ and ¢ by Italics, "/ and "h, from their correspon- ding letters » and g, ‘h and ’h. At all events 'h and h must remain as basis modified by a uniform diacritical mark. The dental flatus sibilans, pronounced sharp as in sin or grass, has, of course, the best claims on the letter s as its representative. Its corresponding soft sound, as heard in please or zeal, is best expressed by z; only we must take care not to pronounce it like the German z. The more consistent way of expressing the sonant flatus would be to put a spiritus lenis over the s. This, however, would hardly be tolerated, and would be against the Third Resolution of our alphabetical con- ferences, where it was agreed that only after the Roman types, and the modifications of Roman types as supplied by common founts (capitals, italics &c.), had been exhaust- ed, diacritical signs should be admitted into the standard alphabet. As all palatals are represented by italics, the palatal sibilant will naturally be written with an italic s. This would represent the sharp sound as heard in sharp or chose. The soft palatal sibilant will have the same exponent as the soft dental sibilant, only changed into italics (3). This would be the proper sign for the French sound in je, genou, and for the African soft palatal sibilant, which, as Dr. Krapf, Dr. Tutschek, and Mr. LXXI Boyce remark, will never be properly pronounced by an adult European. Where it is necessary to express the original, not yet assibilated, palatal flatus, which is heard in konig and kon’ge, an Italic y, with the spiritus asper and lenis, would answer the purpose (“y and ’y). The labial flatus should be written by f. This is the sharp flatus, as heard in life and find. The soft labial flatus ought consistently to be written as f with a spiritus lenis. But here again I fear we must sacrifice consistency to expediency, and adopt that sign with which we are familiar, the Latin v. As we express the labial semi- vowel by w, the v is still at our disposal, and will pro- bably be preferred to ’f by the unanimous votes of mis- sionaries and printers. The lingual flatus is a sound peculiar to Sanskrit, and, owing to its hollow guttural pronunciation, it may be expressed there, as it has been hitherto, by s followed by the guttnral h (sh). The Sanskrit knows of no soft sibilants; hence we require but one representative for the lingual sh. Rask in his essay “De pleno systemate sibilantium in linguis montanis, item De methodo Ibericam et Armenicam linguam literis Europaeis exprimendi,” Havnie 1832, ad- mits ten distinct sibilants. The old Scandinavian language and Danish, he says, have but one sibilant, the hard s; so has Latin, because the z is a Greek, not a Latin, sound. Bohemian and Russian have six, Servian and Italian seven, Polish eight. In order to express these numerous sounds Rasks adopts the Bohemian orthography, adding two new signs which Grimm had adopted for similar purposes in his German Grammar. Thus he establishes the following system : Non-aspirated. Aspirated. . ¢, like Ttal. pezzi (M.A. z or 3). ¢, like Ital. cibo (M.A. A). . s, like Ital. cosa (M.A. s). s, like Ital. scimia (M.A. s). z, like Ital. rosa (M.A. z). z, like Engl. pleasure (M.A. z). . 3, like Ital. mezzi (M.A. ds). 3, like Ital. magi (MLA. g). LXXII To these he adds two more sibilants which occur in Lapponian and the pronunciation of which he describes by &z and dzh, while he transcribes them by 3 and 3. Rask admits, however, that four only are simple si- bilants, while the remaining six are mixtae or crypto- compositae : Purae. Mixtac. Nudae s, z. c, 3, 3. Adspir. §, 4. é, 3, 3 The different categories of consonantal sounds which we represented at the end of the first chapter by means of English words may now be filled out by the following graphic exponents: — Murak. SEMIVOCALES. A —— ————. east EE a. b. c. d. e. f. g. Tenuis. Talis Media. Media Nasalis. Liquida. sibifaes. . Guttur. k kh gh N (ng) ’h ‘hh . Pal. E kh gh ii (ny) y sz . Dent. ¢t th dh n I{()y s Ling. t th dh n r(r) sh . Labial. p ph bh m w f Spiritus asper : ‘h. Spiritus lenis: ’ Although these exponents of the physiological cate- gories of articulated sound have not been chosen because their present pronunciation in English, or French, or German is nearest to that physiological category which each has to represent, still, as we have avoided letters of which the pronunciation fluctuates very much (such as ¢, j, X, q), it will be found, on the whole, that little violence is done by this alphabet to the genius of any of these languages, and that neither an Englishman, nor a German, nor a Frenchman will ever feel much hesita- tion as to how any one of our letters should be pro- nounced. Objections have been raised against Italics, because it is said they look ugly. Now this objection I must con- LXX1II fess, fails to convince me. Letters are intended for a distinct purpose, and if they answer that purpose, we have no right to expect that they should at the same time pro- duce an artistic effect upon our senses. Hieroglyphic letters might be called beautiful or ugly, but all other alphabets withdraw themselves from ,,aesthetic” criticism, and must be judged by their utility alone. If we allow ourselves to be influenced by similar considerations, we shall soon find that some critics will object to dots over the i, others to capitals, as is the case in some German publications, others to a t because it towers above, or to a p because it falls below the other letters, and thus disturbs the harmony of a line. How much can be done, however, to remove even this fanciful objection, will be seen by the new Italic types which have been dcvised for the Missionary Alphabet by Mr. Auer, the distin- guished Director of the Imperial Press at Vienna. But while I decline to listen to these aesthetic ob- jections, I feel the weight of another argument brought for- ward by Mr. Ellis. “The common fount, he says, con- sists of large and small capitals, lower-case, numerals and points. Most founts are furnished with Italics, but as these are sloping letters and the others upright, the union of the two in one word is dazzling to the eye. As also the Roman and Italic founts are kept in cases laid side by side, the intermingling of letters from the two founts would become exceedingly laborious to the compositor. Accented letters are often not supplied at all to founts, especially to such as are found in country- places, colonies, and missionary stations, where a Latinic alphabet is a great desideratum. Even where found, they only exist in very small quantities. They are also dazzling to the eye, and very troublesome to the com- positor. On the other hand, small capitals are so nearly of the same size and cut as lowercase letters, that they - “work” very respectably side by side. They lie, too, in the “upper-case,” just under the hand of the com- positor, and are furnished in tolerably large quantities to all founts.” £ SEE A a Cl LXXIV As to the dazzling effect of Italics, I have only to say that Italics are dazzling till the eye gets accustomed to them, and that all new and unusual types will at first be dazzling. What can be more dazzling than such let- ters as t, 1; n, m, u; placed in juxta position? Yet every child masters them, and nobody complains. Now Italics have lately been used to a considerable extent in transcribing foreign languages, and the effect has been very satisfactory. Dr. Sprenger in his valuable and vo- luminous works on Arabic literature employs Italics for diacritical purposes; so does Dr. Weber in his Sanskrit publications. Even in political works, such as the Coorg Memoirs, published in 1855, Italics are used with very great effect. Mr. Ellis himself employs Italics, and their use is decidedly spreading. But if the other objections which Mr. Ellis starts against Italics, are founded, there is no reason why Ita- lics should not be replaced by more convenient types. All I insist on is this, that there should be one class of simple or base-letters; and that there should be a se- cond and third class of modified letters, expressive of the first and second degrees of modification as explained in the physiological alphabet. If anybody prefers to use red letters for the first, and blue for the second class, I see no greater objection to this than if small Capitals, or even inverted types or mutilated types are used instead of Ita- lics. Only the three classes of simple and modified let- ters must be kept distinct. An interesting illustration of this is given in the Tamil Grammar and Reading book, just published by Dr. Graul. In the first portion of this work he expresses the linguals by dots underneath, the palatals by accents above, the aspirated letters by a spi- ritus asper &ec.; but in the second portion, in his Tamil grammar, he avoids dotted and accented letters, and uses instead, not Italics, but very broad or fat types. Thus he expresses the linguals no longer byt, n, r, but by t, n, r If anybody likes these types better, their substitu- tion for Italics does not interfere at all with the univer- sal character of the Missionary Alphabet, for it is easy LXXV to discover by the frequency of some and the scarcity of other modified types, which are meant to express the modifications of the first and of the second degree. As to myself, I retain Italics for the first, and I adopt Small Capitals for the second degree of modification, be- cause I believe that on the whole these two classes of letters are more easily to be procured in any part of the world, than any other two classes of modified types. Vowels. The pronunciation of the vowels is more liable to change than that of the consonants. Hence we find that literary languages, which retain their orthography in spite of changes in pronunciation, have no scruple in expres- sing different sounds by the same sign. Again, where two originally different vowels have sunk down to one and the same intermediate sound, we see this same sound expressed often by two different vowels. In the selection, therefore, of letters to express the general vowel sounds of our physiological alphabet, we can pay less attention to the present value of each vowel sign in the spoken languages of Europe than we did with the consonants. And as there it was impossible, without creating an un- wieldy mass of consonantal signs, to express all the slight shades of pronunciation by distinct letters, we shall have to make still greater allowance for dialectical va- rieties in the representation of vowels, where it would be hopeless should we attempt to depict in writing every minute degree in the sliding scale of native or foreign pronunciation. The reason why, in most systems of phonetic tran- scription, the Italian pronunciation of vowels has been taken as normal, is, no doubt, that in Italian most vowel signs have but one sound, and the same sound is gene- rally expressed by one and the same vowel. We pro- pose, therefore, as in Italian, to represent the pure gut- tural vowel by a, the pure palatal vowel by i, and the pure labial vowel by u. LXXVI Besides the short a, we want one, or according to others, two graphic signs to represent the neutral sound of the vocal breathing, which may be modi- fied by a slight and almost imperceptible palatal or labial pressure. This produces the sounds which we have in birch and work, and which, where they must be distinguished, we propose to write & and §. As we do not want the signs of and ~ to mark the quantity of vowels, we may here be allowed to use this sign ~ to indicate indistinctness rather than brevity. In most languages, however, one sign will be suffi- cient to express this primitive vowel; and in this case the figure O has been recommended as a fit representa- tive of this undetermined vowel. Among the languages which have an alphabet of their own, some, as, for instance, Sanskrit, do not express these sounds by any peculiar sign, but use the short a instead. Other languages express both sounds by one sign; for instance, the Hebrew Shéwa, the pronunciation of which would naturally be influenced, or, so to say, coloured either by the preceding or the following letter. Other idioms again, like Latin, seem to express this indistinct sound by e, i, or u. Thus besides the long e in res and the short e in celer, we have in Latin the indistinct & in words like adversum and advorsum, septimus and septumus, where the Hindus write uniformly saptama, but pronounced it probably with vowels varying as in Greek and Latin. Besides the long o in odi, and the short o as in moneo, we have the instinct 0 or u in orbs or urbs, in bonom or bonum. In Wallachian, every vowel that has been reduced to this obscure, in- definite sound, is marked by an accent, a, ¢&, i, ¢, u; but if Wallachian is written with Cyrillic letters, the Yerr (B) is used as the uniform representative of all these vowels. In living languages one sign, the figure 0, will be found sufficient, and in some cases it may be dispen- sed with altogether, as a slight Shéwa sound is necessa- rily pronounced, whether written or not, in words such as mil-k, mar-sh, el-m, &c. The marks of quantity, LXXVII “ and 7, are superfluous in our alphabet; not that it is not always desirable to mark the quantity of vowels, but because here again, as with the dotted consonants, a long syllable can be marked by the vowel in Italics, while every other vowel is to be taken as short. Thus we should write in English bath, bar, but above, bank; ravine, and pin; but (i. e. boot), and butcher. We should know at once that a in bath is long, while in above it is short, though I admit that a line over the vowel (a,1, 4) would not cause any serious inconvenience. All compound vowel sounds should be written accor- ding to the process of their formation. Two only, which are of most frequent occurrence, the guttural short a, absorbed by either i or u, might perhaps be allowed to retain their usual signs, and be written e and 0, instead of ai and au. The only reason, however, which can be given for writing e and o, instead of ai and au, is that we save a letter in writing; and this, considering how many millions of people may in the course of time have to use this alphabet, may be a saving of millions and millions of precious seconds. The more consistent way would be to express the gutturo - palatal sound of the Italian e by ai, the a being short. The French do the same in aimer, while in English this sound is expressed by ey in prey, by a in gate, and by ai in sailor. The gutturo-labial sound of the Italian o should consistently be written au, which the French pronounce o. For etymo- logical purposes this plan would be preferable, as it frequently happens that an o (au), if followed by a vowel, has to be pronounced av. Thus in Sanskrit bh, to be, becomes bhau (pronounced bho), and if followed by ami, it becomes bhav-ami, I am. The diphthongs, where the full or long guttural « is followed by i and u, must be written ai and qu. To buy would have to be written bai; to bow, bau. Whether au coalesce entirely, as in German, or less so, as in Italian, is a point which in each language must be learned by ear, not by eye. Most people would not be able to distinguish between SG STARING rb A, Sat LXXVIIl ai and ei. Still some maintain that there is a difference; as, for instance, in German kaiser and eis. Even in English the sound of ie in he lies is said to be dif- ferent from that of he lies. Where it is necessary to mark this distinction, our diagram readily supplies «i and ei. The diphthong eu is generally pronounced so that the two vowels are heard in succession, as in Italian Eu- ropa. Pronounced more quickly, as, for instance, in German, it approaches to the English sound of oy in boy. According to our diagram, we should have to write €i and &u; but ei and eu will be preferable for practical purposes. } The same applies to the dipthong &i. Here, also, both vowels can still be heard more or less distinctly. This more or less cannot be expressed in writing, but must be learned by practice. The last diphthong, on the contrary, is generally pro- nounced like one sound, and the deep guttural 0 seems to be followed, not by the vowel u, but only by an attempt to pronounce this vowel, which attempt ends, as it were, with the semi-vowel w, instead of the vowel. In English we have this sound in bought, aught, saw; and also in fall and all. The proper representation of these diphthongs would be 6i and Gu; but oi and ou will be found to answer the purpose as well, except in philological works. For representing the broken sounds of a, 0, u, which we have in German viter, hohe, giite, in the French prétre, peu, and une but which the English avoids as sounds requiring too great an effort, no better signs offer themselves than a, 6, a. They are objectionable because they are not found in every English fount. For the Tataric languages a fourth sound is required, a bro- ken or soft i. This, too, we must write i. The Sanskrit vowels, commonly called lingual and dental, are best expressed by ri and [i, where, by wri- ting the » and [ as italics, no ambiguity can arise be- tween the vowels ri and [/i, and the semi-vowels r and I, LXXIX followed by i. Instead of i, & also or the figure 0 may be used. Thus have all the principal consonantal and vowel sounds been classified physiologically and represented gra- phically. All the distinctions which jt can ever be im- portant to express have been expressed by means of the Roman alphabet without the introduction of foreign letters, and without using dots, hooks, lines, accents, or any other cumbersome signs. I do not deny that for more minute points, particularly in philological treatises, new sounds and new signs will be required. In Sanskrit we have Visarga and the Anusvgra (the Nasikya), which will require distinct signs (h, m) in transliteration. In some African languages, clicks, unless they can be abolished in speaking, will have to be represented in writing. On points like these an agreement will be diffi- cult, nor would it be possible to provide for all emer- gencies. It is an advantage, however, that we still have the c, j, and x at our disposal to express the dental, palatal, and lateral clicks. Further particulars on this and similar points I must reserve for a future occasion, and refer the reader, in the mean time, to the very able article of the Rev. L. Grout, alluded to before. But I cannot leave this subject without expressing at least a strong hope that, by the influence of the Missio- naries, these brutal sounds will be in time abolished, at least among the Kaffirs, though it may be impossible to eradicate them in the degraded Hottentot dialects. It is clear that they are not essential in the Kaffir languages, for they never occur in Sechuana and other branches of the great Kaffir family. If uniformity can be obtained with regard to the forty - four consonantal and the twenty -four vocal sounds, which are the principal modulations of the human voice fixed and sanctioned in the history of language, so far as it is known at present; if these sounds are accepted, as defined above, solely on physiological grounds, and henceforth expressed by those letters alone which have been allotted to them solely for practical reasons, a great step will have been made towards facilitating the intel- lectual intercourse of mankind and spreading the truths of Christianity. But the realisation of this plan will mainly depend, not on ingenious arguments, but on good-will and candid co - operation. III. How can this Physiological Alphabet be applied to existing Languages? » a. To unwritten Languages. After the explanations contained in the first and se- cond parts, there-is little more to be said on this point. The missionary who attempts to write down for the first time a spoken language, should have a thorough knowledge of the physiological alphabet, and have prac- tised it beforehand on his own language or on other dia- lects the pronunciation of which he knows. He should put from recollection, as much as possible, the historical orthography of German, English, French, or whatever his own language may be, and accustom himself to write down every spoken sound under the nearest physiological category to which it seems to belong. He should first of all endeavour to recognise the principal sounds, guttural, dental, and labial, in the language he desires to dissect and to delineate; and where doubtful whether he hears a simple or a modified secondary sound, such as have been described in our alphabet, he should always incline to the simple as the more original and general. He should never be guided by etymological impres- sions. This is a great temptation, but it should be re- sisted. If we had to write the French word for knee, we should feel inclined, knowing that it sounds ginokyo in Italian and genu in Latin, to write it génu. But in French the initial palatal sound is no longer produced by contact, but by a sibilant flatus, and we should LXXXI therefore have to write z&nu. If we had to write down the English sound of knee, we should probably, for the same reason, be willing to persuade ourselves that we still perceived, in the pronunciation of the pn the former presence of the initial k. Still no one but an etymolo- gist could detect it, and its sound should be represented in the Missionary alphabet by ni. Those who know the difficulty of determining the spel- ling of words according to their etymology, even in French or English, although we can follow the history of these languages for centuries, and although the most eminent grammarians have been engaged in analysing their structure, will feel how essential it is, in a first attempt to fix a spoken language, that the writer should not be swayed by any hasty etymological theories. The Missionary should give a true transcript of a spoken language, and leave it to others to decipher it. He who, instead of doing this, attempts, according to his own theories, to improve upon the irregular utterance of sa- vages, would deprive us of authentic documents the loss of which is irreparable. He would act like a traveller who, after copying an inscription according to what he thought ought to have been its meaning, destroyed the original; nay, he may falsify unawares the ethnic history of the human race. Several sentences having been once written down, the Missionary should put them by for a time, and then read them aloud to the natives. If they understand what he reads, and if they understand it even if read by somebody else, his work has been successful, and a trans- lation of the Bible carried out on these principles among Papuas or Khyengs will assuredly one day become the basis for the literature of the future. Although the basis of our Standard Alphabet is purely physiological, still no letter has been admitted into it, which does not actually occur in one of the well known languages of Asia or Europe. The number of letters might easily have been increased if we had attempted to represent all the slight shades of pronunciation, which f LXXXII affect certain letters in different languages, dialects, pa- tois, or in the mouth of individuals. But to increase the 9 number of letters is tantamount to diminishing the use- fulness of an alphabet. It may happen, indeed, as we become acquainted, through the persevering labours of Missionaries, with the numerous tongues of Africa, Polynesia, and Asia, that new sounds will have to be acknowledged, and will have an independent place allotted to them in our system. But here it should be a principle, as binding as any of the principles which have guided us in the composition of our alphabet, that «No new sound should ever be acknowledged as such, until we are able to give a clear and scientific definition of it on physiological grounds.” We are too prone perhaps to imagine, particularly where we have to deal with languages gathered from the mouth of a single interpreter, or in the intercourse with a few travellers, that we hear sounds of an entirely new character, and apparently requiring a new sign. But if we heard the same language spoken for a number of years and by a thousand speakers, the natural variety of pronunciation would make our ears less sensitive, and more capable of appreciating the general rule, in spite of individual exceptions. We are not accustomed to pay attention to each consonant and vowel, as they are pro- nounced in our own language; but if we try for the first time to analyse each word as we hear it, and to write down every vowel and consonant in a language we do not understand, say Russian or Welsh, we shall be able to appreciate the difficulties which a Missionary has to overcome, if he tries to fix a language alphabetically, before he himself can converse in it freely. It has hap- pened, that travellers collecting the dialects of tribes in the Caucasus or on the frontiers of India, have brought home and published lists of words gathered on the same spot and from the same people, and yet so different in LXXXII their alphabetical appearances, that the same dialect has figured in ethnological works, under two different names. Much must be left to the discretion of Missionaries; for in most cases it is impossible to control the observations which they have made in countries hitherto unexplored, and in dialects known to themselves alone. But it will be found that Missionaries who know their language best, and have used it for the greatest number of years, fami- liar thus with all its sounds and accents, are least cla- morous for new types, and most willing to indicate in a general manner, what they know can never be repre- sented with perfect accuracy. Too much distinction leads to confusion, and it shows a spirit of wise economy in the Phenician, the Greek, the Roman, and Teutonic na- tions, that they have contrived to express the endless variety of their pronunciation by so small a number of letters, rather than invent new signs and establish new distinctions. Attempts have been made occasionally, at Rome and elsewhere, to introduce new letters; but they have failed; and though we may feel no scruple to in- troduce new signs, and marks and accents into the Afri- can alphabets; though we, with our resources, may suc- ceed for a time in framing an alphabet of our own where each letter, besides its simple value, has two or three additional values expressed by one, two, or three accents piled one upon the other, — common sense, without appealing to history, should teach us, that Africa will never bear what Europe has found insupportable. The following alphabet, taken out of the general system of sounds, defined physiologically and represented gra- phically in the preceding pages, will be found to supply all that is necessary for the ordinary purposes of the Missionary, in his relation with tribes whom he has to teach the writing and reading of their own spoken language, pronounced inevitably by them with shades of sound that no alphabet can render. In philological works intended for a European public, the case will be different. Here it will be necessary to represent the accents of words, the quantities of vowels, and other features essential for f* LXXXIV grammatical purposes. Here the larger alphabet will come in; and it will always prove a reserve-fund to the scho- lar and Missionary, from which they can draw, after their usual supply of letters has been exhausted. It should be borne in mind, that although in this smaller alphabet it would be easy to suggest improve- ments, no partial alteration can be made with any single letter, without disturbing at once the whole system of which it is but a segment. Missionary Alphabet. Sam, psalm. 21. yet. bed. 22. z zeal. dock. debt, date. fat. gate, hand. knit, neat. kite. let. man. not. not, note. 2. 0 (8 0) but, birch, work. pan. 3. ai ire. run. k. au proud. sun. . oi voice. tan. . bought. full, fool. . Vater. vail. . 0 Konig. will. 39. i Gite. IS] 23. join, gin. church. English. Espana, new. loch. she. pleasure. thin. 1 the. CER RO oo Ay) —- TN ~ A. 2. 3. ke. 5. 6. 1. 8. 9. 10. 11. - A [3 ee a Se Se ae Se PRISER ro e If we compare this list of letters with the Anglo- Hindustdni alphabet, so ably advocated by Sir Charles Trevelyan, the differences between the two are indeed but small; aud if we had only to agree upon a small alphabet sufficient to express the sounds of the spoken Hindustani, there is no reason why the Anglo-Hindustani alphabet should not be adopted. It expresses the general sounds which occur in Oriental dialects, and it employs LXXXV but five dotted letters, for which new types would be required. The defects of this system become apparent, however, as soon as we try to expand it; and we are obliged to do this even in order to write Hindustani, unless we are ready to sacrifice the etymological distinction of words by expressing $ and C by h, ~, &, and oe by s, w and b by t, and y, 3, 6, and bb byz As itis necessary that distinct types should be selected to distin- guish these letters, the array of dotted letters will be considerably increased. Even in Hindustani we should have to use different diacritical marks where we have to express two, three, or four modifications of the same type; and it would become extremely perplexing to re- member the meaning of all these marks. Our difficulties would be considerably increased if we tried to adapt the same letters to more developed alphabets, like Sanskrit and Arabic; and if we went on adding hooks and crooks, crosses and half-moons, dots and accents, &c., we should in the end have more modified than simple types. These modified types might, no doubt, be reduced to a certain system; and, after determining the possible modifications of guttural and dental consonants, each diacritical mark might be used as the exponent of but one modification. A glance at the comparative table® of the different systems of transliteration will show how this has been achieved by different scholars more or less successfully. But it is only after this has been done, after all letters have been classified, after their possible modifica- tions have been determined, after each modification has been provisionally marked by a certain exponent — such as the accent for expressing the palatal, dots for expres- sing the lingual modification, — it is then only that the real problem presents itself: ‘How can all these sounds be expressed by us in writing and printing, without sa- * See Chevalier Bunsen’s Outlines of the Philosophy of Uni- versal History, vol. II, Appendix D. LXXXVI crificing all chance of arriving in the end at one uniform and universal alphabet?‘ It is clear that every type that has to be compounded or cast afresh is an impediment in the progress of uniformity, because those who have once provided themselves with diacritical types will not change them for others, and those who have but a com- mon English fount at their disposal will express the ne- cessary modifications as best they can. The question, then, that must be solved, is not whether we should take dots or hooks, which in itself is perfectly in- different, but whether it is possible to express all essen- tial modifications in such a manner as to take away all excuse for individual crotchets, by proposing an expedient accessible to every one. This can be done if we avail ourselves of the resources of our founts, which invariably contain a supply of two classes of modified letters — Italics and Small Capitals. Many scholars, from Halhed down to Ellis, have seen the use to which these letters can be put in transliterating Oriental languages; but they have not hitherto been em- ployed systematically. The principle by which we have heen guided in making use of italics is this: As in each language most letters are liable to but one moaification, let that first modification, whatever it be, be expressed by italics. In the few cases where a letter is liable to more than one modification, let the second mo- dification, whatever it be, be expressed by Small Capitals, or by any other set of letters, sufficiently distinct from Roman and Italic types. b. To written Languages. Though this is a question which for the present hardly falls within the compass of Missionary labours, still it may be useful to show that, if required, our alphabet would also be found applicable to the transliteration of LXXXVII written languages. Besides, wherever Missionary influence is powerful enough, it should certainly be exerted to- wards breaking down those barriers which, in the shape of different alphabets, prevent the free intercourse of the nations of the East. The philologist and the archaeologist must, indeed, acquire a knowledge of these alphabets, as in the case when their study is a language extinct, and existing, per- haps, in the form of inscriptions alone. But where there is no important national literature clinging to a national alphabet, where there are but incipient traces of a revi- ving civilisation, the multiplicity of alphabets — the worthless remnant of a bygone civilisation bequeathed, for instance, to the natives of India — should be attacked as zealously by the Missionary as the multiplicity of castes and of divinities. In the Dekhan alone, with hardly any literature of either national or general importance, we have six different alphabets — the Telugu, Tamil, Cana- rese, Malabar, Tuluva, and Singhalese — all extremely difficult and inconvenient for practical purposes. Likewise, in the northern dialects of India almost every one has its own corruption of the Sanskrit alphabet, sufficiently distinct to make it impossible for a Bengalese to read Guzerati, and for a Mahratta to read Kashmirian letters. Why has no attempt been made to interfere, and recog- nise at least but one Sanskritic alphabet for all the nor- thern, and one Tamulian alphabet for all the southern languages of India? In the present state of the country, it would be bold and wise to go even beyond this; for there is very little that deserves the name of a national literature in the modern dialects of the Hindus. The sa- cred, legal, and poetical literature of India is either Ara- bic, Persian, or Sanskrit. Little has grown up since, in the spoken languages of the day. Now it would be hope- less, should it ever be attempted, to eradicate the spoken dialects of India, snd to supplant them by Per- sian or English. In a country so little concentrated, so thinly governed, so slightly educated, we cannot even touch at present what we wish to eradicate. If India LXXXVIII were laid open by highroads', reduced by railways, and colonised by officials, the attempt might be conceivable, though’, as to anything like success, a trip through Wales, and a glance at the history of England, would be a sufficient answer. But what might be done in India, perhaps even now, is to supplant the various native al- phabets by Roman letters. The people in India who can write are just the men most open to Government influence. If the Roman alphabet were taught in the village schools — of late much encouraged by the Government, particularly in the north-western provinces — if all official documents, in whatever language, had to be transcribed into Roman letters to obtain legal value; if the Government would issue all laws and proclamations transcribed in Roman characters, and Missionaries do the same with their trans- lations of the Bible and other works published in any dialect of India, I think we might live to see one alpha- bet used from the “snows” to Ceylon. Let us see, then, how our physiological Missionary alphabet could be applied to languages which have not only an alphabet of their own, but also an established system of orthography. We have here to admit two leading principles: — First, that in transhterating written languages, every letter, however much its pronunciation may vary, should always be represented by the same Roman type , and that every Roman (ype should always represent the same foreign letter, whatever its phonetic value may be in diffe- rent combinations. Secondly, that every double letter, though in pronun— ciation it may be simple, should be transliterated by a double letter, and that a single letter, although its pro- nunciation be that of a double letter, should be translite— rated by a single letter. If these two principles be strictly observed, everyone will be able to translate in his mind a Canarese book, written with Roman letters, back into Canarese letters, LXXXIX without losing a tittle of the peculiar orthography of Can- arese. If we attempted to represent the sounds in transcribing literary languages, we should be unable to tell how, in the original, sounds admitting of several graphic representations were represented. In written lan- guages, therefore, we must rest satisfied with translitera- ting letters, and not attempt to transcribe sounds. This will cause certain difficulties, particularly in lan- guages where pronunciation and spelling differ considerably. In Arabic we must write al rahman, though we pro- nounce arrahman; and even in Greek, if we had to transliterate Zyyu¢, we should, no doubt, have to write eggus, though none but a Greek scholar would know how to pronounce this correctly (engiis). In Armenian e and o are now pronounced ye, we, or ie, ue; but in transliterating Armenian texts we must write e and o, and leave the pronunciation to be learned from grammars.* If, instead of imitating the letters, we attempted to re- present their proper pronunciation at a certain period of history, how should it be known, for instance, in tran- scribing the French of the nineteenth century, whether “su” stood for “sou,” halfpenny, or “sous,” under, or “soul,” tipsy. In historical languages the system of orthography is too important a point to be lost in transcribing, though it is a mistake to imagine that in living languages all etymological understanding would be lost if phonetic re- forms were introduced. The change in the pronunciation of words, though it may seem capricious, is more uni- form and regular than we imagine; and if all words were written alike according to a certain system of phonetics, we should lose very little more of etymology than we have already lost. Nay, in some cases, the etymology would be re-established by a more consistent phonetic spelling. If we wrote foreign fordn, and sovereign, soveré&n, we should not be led to imagine that either was derived from reign, regnum, and the analogy of such words as Africén would point out foranus or * See Rask 1. ec. p. 13. XC foraneus as the proper etymon of for&n. But although every nation has the right to reform the orthography of its language, with all things else, where usage has too far receded from original intention, still, so long as a literary language maintains its historical spelling, the prin- ciple of transliteration must be to represent letter by letter, not sound by sound. Which letter in our physiological alphabet should be fixed upon as the fittest representative of another letter in Arabic or Sanskrit, in Hindustdni or Canarese, must in each case depend on special agreement. If we found that § in Sanskrit had in most words the nature of the guttural spiritus, we should have to write it © or h, even though in some respects it may represent the guttural liquid. If ¥ in Hebrew can be proved to have been ori- ginally the simple guttural liquid, it will have to be writ- ten ’h, even though it was pronounced as semi-vocalis fricata h, as guttural media aspirata (gh), or not pro- nounced at all. Likewise, if English were to be trans- literated with our alphabet, we should not adopt any of the principles of the Fonetic Nus; but here also, if the letter h had once been fixed upon as on the whole the fittest representative of the English letter h, we should have to write it even where it was not pronounced, as in honest. It will be the duty of Academies and scientific socie- ties to settle, for the principal languages, which letters in the Missionary alphabet will best express their cor- responding alphabetical signs. The first question, taking a type, for instance, of the Sanskrit alphabet, would be, “What is its most usual and most original value?” If this be fixed, then, “Is there another type which has a better claim to this value?” If so, their claims must be weighed and adjusted. When this question is settled, and the physiological category is found under which the Sanskrit type has its proper place, we have then to look for the exponent of this physio- logical category in the Missionary alphabet, and hence- forth always to transliterate the one by the other. XCI The following lists will show how some of the Arian, Semitic, and Turanian languages can be transliterated; we have purposely selected those which have the most com- plete and difficult alphabets. Objections, I am aware, can hardly fail to be raised on several points, because the original character of several Hebrew, Arabic, and Sanskrit letters has been so frequently controverted. If the disputed value of these letters can be clearly settled by argument, be it so; and it will then never be difficult to find the exponent of that physiological category to which it has been referred. Failing this, the question should be decided by authority or agreement; for, of two views which are equally plausible, we must, for practical purposes, manifestly confine ourselves to one. | i { ; 4 | “fa (To page xc.) MISSIONARY ALPHABET. o El i Physiological Definition. NO —— . Co = S g £ g z = = ” i ri A t unciation, = = 7 = = £ Cavsonants, Later. |The tral” Suchen] El Z| 2 | 2 |f|8)|3| é . degree. degree. = Gutturales A Tenuis k cove]. ve. Kite Hh J J ¢ | > ) & 2 ,, aspirata |- kh |... 1... |inkhorn | . <5 §|>y| & 3 Media Log |e]. gate NIC ¢ | & || & © k ,, aspirata gh cee, springhead q & q J 2 5 Tenuissima q «+ ..| orx [cur 3 3 S |R|P |e 6 Nasalis «+ «+l... |N (ng)|sing & O & $3 ml 7 Liquida Ch) [....|....|f, Arabic (1) (N) 8 Spiritus asper ‘ho... ].... hear ® | 3 3 8 in| » . ’, = os rs 9 ss lenis evel... |ear ce | | f 10 Flatus asper . [loch A1 ,, lenis . |tage, German oN» QN Ha 8m Dm Jax 1 Z% oo 0 C : | é 12 ,, asper fricatus coos RL oo Cc’ Arabic c 13 ,, lenis fricatus vie. ’h Cee é> Arabic é v Palatales , 14 Tenuis Ce sarah s+ + |church = 2 16 Media rr 9 ee [jelly | C C H ¥ 17 ,, aspirata : -, «+ 9h |....|bridge-house R | > } 18 ,, Nasalis | i . . |signe, French Aq & 5 Ww | ©b 19 Liquida Yee yet Als] ss | ss |g] |+]| w 20 Flatus asper cee LOD | ++» ich, German MR . 21 ,, lenis Cee @ |. 3 - [taglich, German 22 ,, asper assibilatus seen $ : 3 : sharp ow | uv oq >» E> re 23 53 lenis assibilatug z “+ - | pleasure J J K | % Dentales 24k Tenuis t «eee. tan Tw on) wy a Nn I) 5 25 ,, aspirata th «++.+|+ +. .|lanthorn q ZS q nN 3 26 ,, assibilata th |....|orrH [thin oe SR] 2 27 Media d |....]..L. dock T o o 0 2 7 © 28 ,, aspirata dh . + + |landholder Y 20 Yq g 29 ,, assibilata db |... | orpu though > | ob S q 30 Tenuissima 1 |b, Arabic Ll bb | b |g , assibilata ~~ 1. |... |... 1 |}, Arabic b| b Lb q 32 Nasalis F n | - [not = © o O aq 3 / B 33 Liquida Lo [let SJ] J J |@|5 a 34 ,, mollis EE ! + + + « |moglie, Italian > ar 35 ’ diacritica Core eee IL Tamil, Welsh, &ec. .. D 36 Flatus asper 1 8 A . - | grass Hq or lov (&) uv (&) Hq ig w 37 ,, asper 2 Cees (f) |Hebrew po ..| B 38 ,, lenis z © + |graze 5 1) (5) ) (3) Sq : ky 39 ,, asperrimus cele] gz > cats ue we | we (8) q 3 k0 ,, diacriticus oo “ee cee . ¥ 3) Arabic uo wo ue we (2) Hq Linguales | a 41 Tenuis ME t “oko |Z, Sanskrit 2 | < 2 L k2 ,, aspirata “Sy th |.... 3 » 3 | 5 3 43 Media Cee d la, T | 33) T k% ,, aspirata Cae dh & a e|- DS c 45 Nasalis “oe . n lw» T o W i 3 MISSIONARY ALPHABET. Physiological Definition. Modif f Modifi- Approximate pronunciation, £ 5 £ : £ 5 T Consonaxes. (Ruse. | cations af cations of E(E| BE | 2 (£]|2|=] ¢ degree. degree. = Linguales 46 Liquida r correre, Italian T |) ) ) T | n N o vi ss fricata . r cur ce ee. se 48 2 diacritica . 4 Lp 49 Flatus asper sh . q Sanskrit q oo q oy 50 ,, lenis (zh) |... |e Labiales 51 Tenuis p - - |pan q < < q| 5 J Li 52 ,, aspirata ph . |top - heavy WH «© | D 53 Media b . |bed Jo © © J 2 EK 54 ,, aspirata bh . |club-house J & qT! 2 55 Tenuissima p . | pait, Ethiopic 56 Nasalis m . [mill H ¢ H a) ¢ LD 57 Liquida w . will q ) 3 ) J y 3 58 Flatus asper f . [life » eo | Wb | a f ~ 13 longa i (u) . |fool HR 52 2 : SN ; | oa 14 Gutturo - palatalis brevis e . [debt . 2. . = | ¢ or 15 " longa & (aD) | (o) fiate T A lg|=]|5| a 16 Diphthongus gutturo -palatalis Ai (ai) |aisle o- o- " ie B&F of T wl & 17 ” laryngo - palatalis | ei (&i) . {48 Yacrman . 18 ” laryngo - palatalis |oi (6u)|. . . . . | voice 19 Gutturo-labialis brevis 0 not LoL =) @ T 20 » longa 6 (au) e . |note = f =i § % ® 21 Diphth tturo - labiali a . Yr = z iphthongus gutturo - labialis iu (an) proud Hl 5 \ Ell we | ar 22 ys laryngo -labialis |eu ul. ... . |Freude, German cee]. 23 ’ laryngo -labialis |ou (Su)|. . . . . |bought, all 24 Gutturalis fracta 25 Palatalis fracta 26 Labialis fracta 27 Gutturo - labialis fracta . | Vater, German eo eo eo eo es eo es + e ® s a + eo 8 so . |Gite, German; une, French . | Konig, German; peur, French| . . Physiological Definition. CONSONANTS. MISSIONARY ALPHABET. ——— Modifl- Modifi- Base- cations of| cations - of Letters. | the first |the second | degree. degree. Approximate pronunciation, Sanskrit. Hindustani. Gutturales {4 Tenuis 2 , aspirata Media 5» aspirata > Tenuissima Nasalis Liquida Spiritus asper 2 lenis Flatus asper » lenis 5» asper fricatus »» lenis fricatus Palatales 1% Tenuis 15 aspirata 16 Media 17 aspirata 18 Nasalis 19 Liquida 20 Flatus asper 21 ,, lenis 22 ,, asper assibilatus “53 lenis assibilatus® Dentales 24 Tenuis 25 ,, aspirata 26 ,, assibilata 27 Media 28 ,, aspirata 29 ,, assibilata 30 Tenuissima 31 ” 32 Nasalis 33 Liquida 34 ’s mollis 3 36 Flatus asper 1 assibilata diacritica 37 ,, asper 2 38 ,, lenis 39 ,, asperrimus k0 ,, diacriticus Linguales 41 Tenuis 2 ,, aspirata 43 Media ks ,, aspirata 5 Nasalis . . C ‘ é> Arabic . | kite . |inkhorn . | gate - . |springhead cur sing f, Arabic . « |hear . |ear . |loch . |[tage, German >, Arabic + | church church - history - |jolly - |bridge ~house signe, French - |yet - lich, German - |taglich, German . sharp - | pleasure . [tan . |lanthorn thin dock t« « |landholder though b, Arabic I, Arabic + [not . |let - |moglie, Italian Tamil, Welsh, &c. grass Hebrew D graze cats Arabic uo + |» Sanskrit 13s |S, || yu in yule. Ie ’ yea. IA ’ ien in French bien. ’s ’ ion in French nation. These compound letters were invented because the Greek alphabet offered no consonant for the simple sound of y. It would have been far better, however, to have added one simple new sign instead of introducing a num- ber of compound vowels. As it is, not every vowel has received its own type to represent it when preceded by vy. The sound of yi (yee) has no sign of its own, and the simple H must stand for both i and yi, even in Old- Slavonic. To the (€) also the double power of & and yé (ay and yea) was assigned. Still greater confusion arose where, as in Russian, the pronounciation of these liquid, or as they are called pre-iotized, vowels, chan- 48 ged in the course of time, and became simple again, while the original orthography remained, so that f in Russian is now pronounced not only as ya (in yard), but also like a simple e (in bed). Besides the fl, the E, b, and H also vary in Russian between the sounds ye, ye, yi and e, e, i (the vowels pronounced as in Italian). The letters 'b and b were intended by Cyrillus to express the shortest sounds of u and i. In modern Bul- garian 'b has still preserved the sound of u, and it is used for the same purpose in Wallachian. In Russian, however, these two final letters are no longer pronounced as vowels; yet the letters have been retained in order to indicate the peculiar pronunciation of the preceding, and now final, consonant. Where the final "hb ceases to be pronounced, the preceding consonant, becoming final, takes a harsh and strong sound as though the letter was double, and a soft or sonant consonant becomes hard or mute. For instance, the masculine termination of the nominative singular was originally in all Arian languages an s, preceded by a short vowel, as, os, us. This final s was frequently dropped in modern languages. Thus bonus became in Italian bono; sunus, son, which still exists in Lithuanian, became sunu. Now this short vowel at the end would in Slavonic be written by ’b; and originally this was intended for pronunciation. But as we find that, for instance, in French, bonus and bono became bon, so in Russian also the final vowel was sup- pressed in speaking. Yet the sign was retained in writing in order to indicate that the last consonant was to be pronounced harshly or, in some cases, like a double consonant. Syn, son, therefore, with "hb at the end, was no longer to be sounded sunu but sunn; gladu, hunger, where u is written by 'b, is pronounced glatt. The b, on the contrary, was originally a short i, and as the i exercises in Slavonic a mollifying influence on a pre- ceding consonant, the letter b, where it is no longer pronounced as a vowel, causes the preceding, and now final, consonant to take a mouillé or slender sound. (To page 49.) Corre- 5 ai . |Safarik’s| Schlei- Hlyrian or Servian. Wallachian. letters | Pronuncia- | “iran. cher's : ne of the Hen 1h Vipe scrip- | transcrip- Russian Pronunciation. rT Te. coal Polish. Bohemian. Hungarian, | mm——\ omm_— Mission. 24. tion. tion. : Gaj & Berlic. old. New. phab. Cyrillic Alphabet. Numerical Value 14 a psalm a in psalm; or e in debt, A : or o in note 2 F .. |b bring : Bb B by . v veil | vy ole 3g go d do gq gin i tse ind wn win g) (dj) like gi in Italian dz vias frovr does endes ss «ra dz (cz) only in Turkish words; like dy trae doer fans vd ee . gy, like di in dieu yea, & a in date; or yo,|. . . , like yea, & o in note 3 5 pleasure | z s in pleasure z like z z like zy zeal zeal z in zeal i in ravine & i in knit, or |i yea in year 1 in ravine & i in knit short final i ravine ravine yet kite let MC Ee Ee NARS Nw °c E:= SN No mE 0 like ou P ’ p r rz, like rsh — = »; S s, like sy i ] . : ! jp 1 ; | 8] Pronuncia- [Safarik’s ‘Schlei- ‘ Bulga- Tllyrian or Servian. | ‘ Wallachian. Seuers tion in Eng-| tran- | “cher’s Russian. Russian Pronunciation. rian, | ——— A m— Polish. Bohotuian. Hungarian. | ~ A i scrip- | transcrip- : 3 Mission. lish. ip tion. p Cankof. : Gaj & Berlic. Alphab. ! i 35 T t tan t TT : t t T 36 KR |..|ty tune deest |... .. ee) tj, or ¢(like ci | ty like ti in : 4 in Italian) Corre- Adin Cyrillic Alphabet. Numerical Value 37 Ov |.. ful - - |w 38 9 a full ot 2 hid 4 39 ® fat ph" | ¢@ |f in fat, or ph 40 x loch : X X [ch in loch : iA ve hand | ...|....|.... |... [X, (if final, not :s . CL prohounced) 42 Ww |.. note 43 ® . « .|not’ In |] its : c iy |. church ch in church, or sh ¢, like tch 6 lela. deere oils ieee ede rcs ies cman]. ¢, or tj, like co] - Ital. ¢ in cio 47 I CC. whic sh in she: : 8:3 4 48 ji Noes shch, ght sh, tsh, or sh 9b I|.. favor | .. .l( not pronounced: hardens | & 1 | eee “Te the preceding letter 50 "Bl {.. 51 BI 52 b J mother |... . | not pronounced: softens the| . preceding letter yea; or a in date, or ein j je (é, ie) é, like yeast| é, like ie in bed, or-yo e in end e(e,ea), ase in end, or e in father yu in yule, or u yard j j ya in yard, or ye in yet,or e| . . yea j clin ee ee « oo . - * on cee . oon dh (8, ui), yu| . . ‘rien \ nation ks ps th ravine? C. | V,ioryv J like ung 49 Thus the old form esmi, which is still used in Sanskrit and Lithuanian, became in Russian yesmi, where the final is written by b, but no longer felt as a vowel, except so far as it imparts an expiring vibration to the prece- ding consonant m. The Russians used the Cyrillic alphabet to the time of Peter the Great. This great reformer struck off nine letters of the ancient alphabet as useless, gave the rest a more rounded form, had his new types cast in Hol- land, and printed the first Russian periodical with them at Moscow in 4704. It has been the policy of Russia to support the in- troduction of her alphabet among the nations which in the course of time she expects to absorb. Still it is a curious fact that the whole Western branch of the Sla- vonic family, and some even of the Eastern Slaves (Bul- garians and Illyrians) have preferred the Roman or Ger- man alphabet, and have introduced it even where the Cyrillic letters had formerly been used. While Latin, in its ancient history standing almost alone as the language of Italy, bursts out in this vast growth of dialects, Wallachian and Italian, Provencal and French, Spanish and Portuguese, the Hellenic languages, on the contrary, so rich in dialectic formations in an- cient times, have come down to us only in one narrow stream, as the modern Greek. In Provencal, French, Italian, Wallachian, Spanish, and Portuguese we have as it were the diaries of several travellers, who all set out on the same journey, but, according to their individual tastes and characters, received different impressions, and noted down the various events in their passage from place to place in a different style and spirit. But in - attempting to account for the new grammatical forms of the Greek language, we look in vain for that kind of collateral evidence which the six parallel dialects of the language of Rome offer in such abundance; so that if we cannot explain the new modes of expression by reference to the old common stock (¥ Kowx), we are left without further help. Happily, the changes which k Modern Greek. Albanian. 50 the language of Athens suffered in its transition from the ancient to the modern Greek, are less considerable by far than those experienced by the Latin during the vicissitu- des of its historical and national development. Most of the new grammatical forms can still be recognised by a classical scholar. The declension of the ancient grammar has been almost entirely preserved. The conjugation, also, hardly contains any new elements. Some forms have gone out of use, as, for instance, the Dative in the declensions, the Dual in declension and conjugation, the Optative, and also to a great extent the old Infinitive. There are also some few periphrastic tenses which have found their way into the modern Greek; but they are by no means so perplexing as similar forms in the Romance dialects. Any one acquainted with the character of se- condary formations in language, will understand at once the process by which compound tenses, such as FEN vedibet, I shall write, deka ypopst I should write, Exo yeast I have written, ely ypapet, I had written, have been formed. O&\w in ancient Greek means I will, and though it is incorrect to say I will, instead of I shall, write, yet a foreigner is understood if he uses will, in- stead of shall. As to &yw, I have, and glya, I had, these are the same auxiliaries which we find in our own and in most modern languages. The Albanian language, spoken within the limits of the ancient Illyricum in the north, and of Epirus in the South, offers one of the most difficult problems with regard to its origin and its relationship with other lan- guages. Xylander gives an account of the various opinions that have been proposed on this point, and their con- tradictory character will at least show the difficulty of the problem that has still to be solved. Leibnitz supposed that the Albanians were of Celtic origin, and that their language was connected with that of Germany and Gaul. Thunmann after remarking that the Albanians had been 51 derived by others from the Caucasus, from the Caspian Sea, and from Calabria; that they had been taken for Slaves, whether Chorwatians, Serbians, or Bulgarians, or for des- cendants of the ancient Illyrians and Macedonians, expresses his belief that the Albanians are the remnants of the an- cient Illyrians, so long the neighbours of the Greeks, and the subjects of Rome. In the same manner he recognises in the Wallachians the descendants of the Thracians and Macedonians, and he ventures an opinion that these two languages, the Albanian and Wallachian, are mutually related. Herder takes a similar view in declaring both the Albanians and Wallachians the remnants of one of the chief nations of ancient Europe. The Illyrian origin of the Albanians is likewise sup- ported by Ange Masci in his Essay “Sur l'origine de la nation albanaise”, in Malte-Brun’s Annales des Voyages. Malte-Brun himself remarks that Greek and Teutonic ele- ments preponderate in Albanian, and that the traces of a Slavonic influence are small. He states it as his opinion that Albanian cannot be derived from any other known language, and that it must be considered as an indepen- dent idiom, the origin of which goes back to that ante- historical period in which the Greek, the Celtic, the Sla- vonic, and Teutonic branched off as independent national languages. Adelung on the contrary imagines that, after separa- ting the German, Slavonic, Roman, Greek, and Turkish ingredients, the remaining portion of Albanian is Tataric, and he derives the Albanians either from the Bulgarians, an originally Tataric race, or from a tribe, settled East of the Black-Sea, between the Caucasus and the river Cyrus, a tribe that had been identified with the Alanes of Southern Russia (see page 35), particularly because these Alanes had made inroads into Bulgaria and Thracia as late as 1308. In other places, however, he hints at a Thraciau or Illyrian origin for the Albanians. Pouque- ville admits the immigration of the Albanians from the country East of the Black Sea. 4 ¥ Vater again seems inclined to take Albanian as the modern form of a language as ancient as Latin, and con- nected with it by community of origin. The following remarks are taken from Leake’s Resear- ches in Greece, London 181%. “The Albanian”, he says in his preface, “must be consi- dered as holding a distinct character in the midst of the languages by which it is surrounded, being in all proba- bility the ancient Illyric, with some alterations of the same kind as Latin and Greek have undergone from the Teutonic and Slavonian conquerors of Southern Europe.” In his Chapter on the Albanian Language, he writes, “Through the whole course of Grecian History, from its earliest records to the fall of the Constantinopolitan Empire, we find a people, distinct from the Greeks in race and language, inhabiting the North-Western side of the country, and extending along the ridges which border the sea-coast, or run parallel to it. They appear to have reached as far South as the Bay of Ambracia, for Scylax deems this gulf the northern boundary of Greece upon the West-side, and Thucydides calls the Amphilochi, who in- habited the hills at the head of it, barbarians; by this word implying’ that they spoke a language different from the Greek. The same historian also applies the word Barbarians to the people on the coast of Epirus, oppo- site to the island of Sybota, and Strabo informs us, that the Epirotic tribes were mixed with the Illyrian, and spoke two languages: meaning either that, like the greater part of the present Albanians, they used both the Greek and their own vernacular language, or that the Epirotic was distinct from the Illyrian tongue, and perhaps an- other dialect of the language, which was spoken through- out Macedonia and the neighbouring countries, before the letters and civilization of Greece had spread over these provinces. It would appear, that in Epirus, and that part of Illyricum, afterwards called New-Epirus, this change never took effect to so great a degree as it did in Thessaly and Macedonia; and that the lofty moun- tains and extreme ruggedness of this part of the country, 53 have in all ages afforded to the remains of the Aborigi- nes a security against intruders. This supposition is in a great measure confirmed by those remnants of a dis- tinct language, which forms the basis of the modern Al- banian dialect: and it is observable, that all the words, which resemble those of the same import in other mo- dern languages, may be accounted for by the revolutions which brought so many foreign nations into Albania, or its vicinity; and that these extraneous words will be found to exist in the same proportion as the impression made upon the country by the several races of foreigners.” “Of the Greek words which occur in Albanian, a few have internal marks of having been adopted before the corruption of the language; a larger proportion afford the same evidence of having been taken from the Romaic Greek; and there are many also, whose forms, being the same both in the ancient and modern Greek dialect, are of uncertain date.” “Latin words are two or three times as numerous as Greek, but still much below the proportion in which they are found in the other modern languages of Europe. This may partly be accounted for by the secluded posi- tion and warlike habits of the mountaineers of Albania, which, defending them from being ever completely sub- jugated by the Romans, preserved their language like that of the Pyrinean and Cantabrian mountains, from ever receiving so large an admixture of Latin; and partly by the study of the Latin language, which has prevailed to so great an extent in civilized Europe since the revival of letters.” “The few words of Gothic origin, which exist in Al- banian, must have come into use in the fifth century, when the Goths of Alaric became complete masters of the greater part of the two Epirus provinces, especially the Northern, where we afterwards find some of their descen- dants settled in quiet possession of a part of the country. One of these, named Sidismund, was in alliance with Theodoric the Great, when in his compaign against the Romans of the Eastern Empire, he entered Macedonia, and they procured for him, by stratagem, the city of Dyrrhachium. It also appears that the Goths were in great force in Dalmatia at the time when the Emperor Justinian the First made war upon them, and reannexed that province to the empire.” “About the same period, another tribe of strangers, who proved to be the most numerous, and the most formi- dable of any to the Greek emperors, began to make their appearance in the same part of the country. The Scla- vonians, chiefly under the name of Bulgarians, continued their irruptions into the European provinces of the Em- pire during the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries; and about the year 870, Achris, the ancient Lychnidus, was the residence of a King of Bulgaria, and the see of an Archbishop, whose spiritual authority extended to Kanina and lerikhé, the ancient Orichus. In the tenth century the same race was settled at Nicopolis, the chief place of a Theme, which comprehended all old Epirus; and it appears, that about this time all the more accessible parts of Epirus, were occupied by strangers of Sclavonian origin. Until the last periods of the Greek empire, the Kings of Bulgaria and Servia continued to make occasio- nal conquests and settlements in Greece, and even in the Morea: and they have, to this day, left traces of their long residence, by the numerous names of places of Scla- vonian derivation to be found in every part of the country. It was in these ages of Bulgarian prowess, that the re- mains of the Illyrian and Epirotic nations became finally included within the boundaries, which they have ever since held. Many Sclavonian words then found their way into the Albanian language, and have been increased in number by the intercourse between Albania and the extensive regions of Servia and Bulgaria, which surround it on the North and East, and throughout which the Bul- garian dialect of Sclavonic is spoken. It may be thought surprising, perhaps, that under these circumstances, the proportion of the Sclavonian words is not larger, and it may be considered as a proof, that the strength of the Epirotic and Illyrian mountains, and the spirit of their inhabitants, were still equal, as in the time of the Ro- mans, to protect them from being completely subdued.” “In 41079 the army of Nicephorus Basilaees, who was defeated by Alexius Comnenus, consisted of Franks, Bul- garians, Greeks (‘Popaiot) and Albanians (’ApRavitar), all distinguished by their languages.” “The Franks had been invited from Italy by the Bis- hop of Deabolis. These were the first swarm of those Nor- mans, who soon afterwards gave so much trouble to the Greek emperors. About the year 1185 the Norman Kings of Sicily occupied with their troops Thessaly, and a great part of Macedonia, and these monarchs obtained perma- nent possessions on the Western coast of Greece. In these operations, as well as throughout the whole course of the crusades, during 150 years, the coast of the pre- sent Albania was the frequent resort of the Franks, and Durazzo was very often their depot and place of retreat and safety. It is not surprising, therefore, that many words of French origin should have become indigenous in the Albanian language.” “The words derived from Italian, Turkish and the Romaic, will be sufficiently accounted for by the vicinity and the intercourse between the Albanians and these nations.” Arndt in his work on ‘the Origin of the European Languages”, gives it as his opinion that Albanian might properly be considered as the aboriginal language of the country, because there is no evidence of an earlier lan- guage, except perhaps the Iberian. If Iberian was spoken there at a very early period, he thinks we might account for the similarity of many Albanian words with the Bask language. Again he finds coincidences between Albanian and Celtic, and he accounts for Greek, Roman, Slavonian and German admixtures either by later contact or by a community of origin between the Celtic and Indo-european languages. Xylander himself begins by pointing out coincidences between Albanian words and Greek, ancient and modern, Latin, ancient and modern, German, Swedish, Danish, co A Territorial limits of Albanian and Modern Greek. 56 English, the Slavonic dialects, Turkish, Bask, Celtic, Wallachian and Bulgarian, and Sanskrit. He states that Slavonic words form V,,, the Turkish Y1s> the Greek 1g, the Teutonic 1/,, the Latin Ys» of the Albanian dictionary which he was able to analyse. This would make more than one half of the Albanian dictionary of foreign origin, and there would still be subtracted other words which Arndt considers to be Celtic, Bask, and Tchudic. By an examination of the grammatical forms of Albanian, Xylander arrives at the following conclusions, 1) that the Albanian is not a mere jargon compounded of elements derived from the Romance languages; 2) that the Albanian is not a branch of the Tataric or Turanian family; 3) that the Albanian language does not contain a resi- duum of words of unknown origin, but that the greater portion of its words is Indo-Germanic or Arian. He, therefore, inclines to a belief, first expressed by Thunmann, that the modern Albanian is the represen- tative of the ancient Illyrian (or Thracian) language, and he places the Illyrian in the same category as Greek, Latin, Slavonic, and Celtic, as an independent branch of the great Indo-European family. The Albanians call themselves Skipetars (from Gx{re mountain), while the Turks know them by the name of Arnauts, which is a corruption of Arbanites instead of Albanites. The province of Albania is surrounded on the North by Montenegro, Bosnia, and Servia; on the East by Macedonia and Thessaly; on the South by the Kingdom of Greece; on the West by the Ionic and Adriatic Seas. The limits of these dialects, the Modern Greek, the Albanian, the Turkish, Bulgarian and Wal- lachian, may be stated here according to Safarik and Griesebach, though subject to correction, from further researches. West of Saloniki the Greek language is no longer heard; and Bulgarians inhabit the country thence to the frontier mountains of Albania. Greek is spoken very 57 nearly in the same regions where it lived in ancient times, in the peninsula of Epirus and Macedonia, and in the Archipelago, whether on European or Asiatic soil. South of Janina, Greek is spoken in Albania, and its northern frontier proceeds thence across the chain of mountains between Thessalonia and Macedonia. Pouque- ville heard Greek spoken along the Pindus. In Ana- setitza, he says, they speak Greek; near Kastoria, Bul- garian. From the Olympus range the frontier line of Greek takes in a small portion of the coast as far as Saloniki, then turns towards Seres, and follows the sou- thern branch of Rhodope till it reaches the meridian of Adrianople. All the country south and south-east of Adrianople as far as Marmora and the Straits, is Greek. The same line which reaches the Kgwxan Sea near Sa- loniki, forms, with the exception of the Albanian, the southern frontier of the Slavonic languages, which extend northward towards the Danube — the Bulgarian in the east, the Servian in the west. The Albanian extends from Janina, or rather, as in the town itself the principal language is Greek, and this very pure, from Conidsha in the valley of the Upper Viosa to the White Drin, somewhat beyond 42°. Its eastern frontier is the Pindus, extending in an almost uninterrupted line to 42°. Albanian villages, however, are found on the eastern declivity of the Pindus, and particularly in the north. Albanian here oversteps its natural frontier and encroaches on Bulgarian ground. Emigration has brought some Albanian colonies to the coast of Calabria and Sicily, where they fled from the persecutions of the Turks. Besides the Albanian, Bulgarian, and Servian, which are the chief languages of Rumelia, Turkish is under- stood to a certain extent in almost all the towns and villages north of 40°; but it cannot be called the lan- guage of the country. Where, as in Rumelia, different dialects are mingled together, a necessity is felt for some means of communication intelligible to all. In Rumelia this is naturally the language of the conqueror, Turkish. Professor Pott’s opi- nion on Al- banian. But the knowledge which an Albanian or Bulgarian ac- quires of this language, seldom goes beyond the number of words and phrases indispensable for commercial trans- actions and the carrying on of a scanty social inter- course. Villages purely Turkish are scarce in Epirus and Macedonia; and in many cases the people have adop- ted the Mahommedan religion, but maintained their national speech. The great towns are generally divided into quar- ters, according to language and religion. In Saloniki there is a considerable Jewish population, and Spanish ‘is spoken there as much as Turkish. In the higher ranks of Greek society, Italian is learnt more usually than French. Some Greek merchants who have connections at Vienna, speak German; English is hardly ever studied, and natives conversing in it are more scarce in Greece than in any other part of Europe. The following remarks on the Albanian Language have been sent to me by Professor Pott, the celebrated author of the “Etymological Researches”. Although the Albanian language occupies here perhaps more space than its practical or literary importance might seem to war- rant, yet I believe that the opinion of one of the foun- ders and highest authorities in Comparative Philology on the quaestio vexata of the origin of the Albanian, will be read with interest by many to whom his article on Dr. Hahn’s work in the “Blatter fur literarische Unterhal- tung” is less accessible. The language of the Albanians, the Arnauts, or, as they call themselves, the Shkipetars, is divided into two principal dialects, the Northern or Geghian, spo- ken in the ancient Illyria, and the Southern or Tos- kian, in Epirus. After the time of Skanderberg’s heroic exploits, Albanian colonies took refuge in Southern Italy and Sicily, where Albanian is still spoken by their des- cendants. These Albanians in Italy possess even some- thing like a literature, as may be seen in a work by Vicenzo Dorsa, Su gli Albanesi, Ricerche e Pen- siere; and in an article by G. Stier in the “Kieler Mo- natsschrift”, 4854. Girolamo di Rada, himself a poet, is likely to become the M’pherson of his nation, and has published several poems in Albanian. The New-Testa- ment, published at Corfu, in 1827, is a translation in the Toskian dialect, while several works, printed by the Pro- paganda in the interest of the Roman -Catholic Alba- nians (see Leake, p. 268), are written in the Northern or Geghian idiom. The chief authority at present is Joh. George von Hahn, “Albanesische Studien”, Vienna, 1853, 4°. With regard to the Albanians the two principal ques- tions that can be asked, are 1) Are they ancient aboriginal inhabitants of Europe, or do they belong to those numerous tribes who pene- trated at a later period into the Byzantine Empire? 2) Is their language Arian (Indo-germanic) or not? The second question is at present generally answered in the affirmative, for instance by G. Stier in the ¢Kieler Monatsschrift”, 1854, p. 860—872, chiefly on account of the Numerals, the auxiliary verb, and the personal pronouns. The language, however, shows much that is foreign and strange, particularly in its dictionary, and in words which it cannot be suspected of having borrowed from other nations. Hence its right to be counted one of the Indo-germanic languages cannot be admitted with- out limitation and condition. With regard to the first question, no doubt can re- main at present, that the Albanian, together with the Moldavian and Wallachian, descends in a straight line from the ancient Illyrian. In the Wallachian language, the Illyrian element breaks through now and then, although it is smothered by the weight of the Latin language. The name, Illyrian, is no longer borne by these nations who have a right to it, while the Southern Slaves, the Kroa- tians, and Slavonians have assumed it with a kind of learned conceit, having no claim to it, by nationality or language, but only, perhaps, by their geographical position. The old Illyrian is one of the most comprehensive and most ancient stocks of Europe, though at present it exists only as a ruin. In this respect it is like the 60 Iberian, represented by the small remnant of the Basks, and the Rhaetian, probably closely allied with the Etrus- can.* The interest of this Illyrian stock is greatly in- creased because, from the most ancient times, it occupied the same seats as the Hellenic nations. Nay it probably preceded the Hellenes in its occupation of the Greek peninsula, and was afterwards broken by the Hellenic tribes pressing onward from the North, and partly displaced. If the famous name of Pelasgoi had really an ethnic mea- ning, and were not an unsubstantial and merely chronolo- gical designation of early Aborigines in general, the Illy- rians would best answer to this name. The Dacians and Getae (wrongly identified by J. Grimm, in his history of the German Language with the Goths); the Thracians, perhaps even the Macedonians, with their decidedly non- Hellenic speech; the Panonians, and even the Veneti and other Illyrian settlers in Italy, belonged to the Illyrian stock, and with all of these the Albanians must be con- sidered as more or less related. This gives a vast im- portance to this small remnant of an ancient European nationality. They were recognised as Illyrians by Thunmann and others; by Kopitar in his well-known article on the Al- banian, Wallachian and Bulgarian (Wiener Jahrbucher, 1829, p. 59—106); by Xylander, by Hahn, and lastly by myself. Little is known of the ancient Illyrian lan- guage; but Dioscorides, for instance (IV, 37) mentions wavtelo as the Dacian name of the bramble. In Alba- nian bramble is pdve ¢éppe (Hahn, p. 140) from man (morus), and ferra (sentis), given by Bianchi. Mandé, mulbery -iree, a cognate word, approaches still more closely to the name given by Dioscorides. Again the * See on this subject the important work of L. Steub, “On Rhae- tian Ethnology”, Stuttgardt, 1854, 8°. The author has thrown considerable light on names of places in the Tyrol, Vorarlberg and the neighbouring Alpine countries. Besides the German and the strangely disfigured Romance names, he separates a third class of names, inexplicable in themselves, but showing a startling si- milarity with Etruscan forms. 61 uniform post-position of the article in Alban; Ww. lachian, and Bulgarian is rightly pointed out ho i as a proof of a most energetic and primitive > x oo article in the Danubian countries. If in your no the Classification of the Turanian Langua ” ou explain domnul in Wallachian as Latin A , this is right in itself , but we must still ask, how Wallachians, alone among all the Rouimoes lan rn fo place the article in so peculiar a manner, ne Sg pest sy this by supposing that like the Slavonie or of the Bulgarians, it followed the example of the yrian or Albanian syntax with which it came in tact. A ‘good parallel to this is found in Jutland here against the genius of the Danish language, a sitive article is used, evidently through the influence ah German. Thus 4 Mand, the man, & Barn, th ie instead of Danish manden, barnet. I have i i RS ngs proves elsewhere in the following es . achians, Moldavian i side, and Albanians on the other, ants al stock, as far as their blood, not as far as their Ion ee is concerned, “the Old Illyrian.” Whether this bei longed originally to the Indo-germanic family or ne t W was certainly unconnected with the Greek o an pe th 3 Indo-germanic stock, and claims an independent i ” IL. All these nations are neither Gothic nor Slaven Nor, like the Magyars, of Finnic origin, nor Turk > (ae for instances the Kumani were, if we ma olan b oe vocabulary, originally in the possession of Petrars i published by Klaproth in his Mem. Asiat.) nor B be rians, pushed forward by the Great Migrations of fifth Century A.p., nor anything in fact, but Autochth i in the same sense in which the Greek inhabitants of * What Mr. Latham, according to the Athenaeum” 1854, Ja 2 | 22, ngs forward with regard to an identity of Dacians ho! urks, does not hold good. Turkish tribes in those parts of Eu rope are of later date, as m , , ay be seen from Klaproth’s Asia 62 that Eastern peninsula of Europe may be called so, al- though of course mixed to a greater extent. III. The Wallachian, as we know it, is decidedly a Romanic language, like Italian, and the other more We- stern daughters of Latin. It owes its origin chiefly to Roman colonies, sent into Dacia by Trajan, though there were earlier Roman conquests which may not have been without effect on the language of Dacia. The Provin- ciales' of Gaul (Celtic by origin, or, as Holzmann endea- vours to prove, Germanic) and of Spain (originally Ibe- rian), were deprived of their ancient languages, while their bodies, with the exception of a small infusion of Roman blood remained Celtic and Iberian, haunted, as it were, by a Roman ghost. The Wallachians and Al- banians offer an exact parallel to the French together with the Bas Bretons, or to the Romanising Spaniard together with the Basks. In the French and Spanish Languages the ancient Celtic and Iberian words have melted away almost entirely, while the Bask is still Ibe- rian, and the Bas-Breton Celtic. The same applies to the romanised Wallachian side by-side with the more pri- mitive Albanian. Yet both the Wallachians and Alba- niaris are in blood descendants of the ancient Illyrians. IV. Albanian and Wallachian contain, besides some few syntactic coincidences, nearly the same elements in their dictionaries, only in different proportions. In Al- banian the original Illyrian element preponderates, in Wallachian it is represented by a very small percentage. The Latin preponderates in Wallachian, but it exercised the same influence on the Albanian, different only in de- gree, but not in kind. Whether the Latin influenced the Albanian directly, or indirectly through the Wallachian, is still uncertain. Of the Turkish the Albanian contains much, the Wallachian little; the latter has instead a small ingredient of Magyar words. Greek is found in both: in Wallachian, chiefly through ecclesiastical influences, in Albanian through commercial and political intercourse, and then generally Modern or Romaic. Some medieval and Byzantine terms will find their explanation by a refe- rence to Du Cange. Whether the ancient Illyrian bor- rowed from the ancient Greek and vice versd, is doubt- ful, but of great importance in settling the question of the origin and ethnological position of the Albanians. Finally the Wallachian has admitted many, the Albanian a few Slavonic words.” Besides the Celtic, and the two classial languages, Greek and Latin (sometimes comprised under the common title of Pelasgic), we have in Europe two other mighty branches, the Teutonic and Slavonic, both belonging to the Arian stem. The Teutonic is divided into three dialects, the Low-German, the High-German, and Scandi- navian. The oldest documents of the Low-German exist in Gothic. The Gothic translation ‘of the New Testament by Ulphilas belongs to the 4th century. The Saxon, “which equally belongs to the Low-German class, is re- presented on the continent by the Old Saxon, formerly spoken in the north of Germany, the only important document of which is the Heljand, a poem of the 9th cen- tury. After the 5th century, Saxon was transplanted to the British Isles, and produced a literature of which the earliest documents are referred to the 7th century. Other dialects belonging to the Low-German class are Friesic, rapidly dying out, but once spoken on the Elbe and along the northern coast of Germany; Dutch, the language of Holland, and Flemish, now nearly absorbed by French in Belgium. Several Low- German dialects (Platt-deutsch) are still spoken in diffe- rent parts of Germany, but since Luther, Low-German has gradually ceased to be used as a literary language, and it is only in the lower ranks that it maintains its existence. Most of the sailors along the coast of the Baltic Sea speak Low-German, which is more intelligible to an Eng- lishman than the literary language of Germany. At Ham- burg, Lubeck, on the island of Rigen, and along the Pommeranian coast, at Dantzig, and as far as Konigs- berg, the whole class with which the English sailors are Teutonic languages. Low-Ger- man Branch. TN a CE High-Ger- man Brauch. 6k likely to mix, speaks a language which a German edu- cated at Berlin or Vienna would hardly find easier to understand than an Englishman. The High-German class comprises the Old High- German from the 7th to the 11th century; the Middle High-German from the 412th century to Luther, and the New High-German, since Luther, the literary language of Germany. The Scandinavian branch is represented in ancient times by the Old Norse, the language of Norway, and (by colonization in the ninth century) of Iceland. In that island the old language has suffered less from alterations than in its original locality, and is spoken to the present day. On the Coutinent the Old Norse expanded into three different dialects, Norwegian, Swedish, and Danish, of which the first has now become a mere patois, leaving Danish and Swedish the two literary representatives of the Scandinavian tongue. No language has sent so many colonies throughout the world as Teutonic. Germans are to be met with in Algiers, on the coast of Guinea, and on the Cape of Good Hope; German colonies are settled in Australia and New Zealand, in Java and Sumatra, in the interior of Russia, in the Crimea, in the Valleys of the Caucasus, in North and South America. But the mightiest branch of the Teu- tonic stem has been the Anglo-Saxon. It has stretched its boughs from England across the Atlantic to over- shadow the new Continent of America. It is the language of civilisation in India, it preaches the gospel on all the coasts of Africa, and Australia is receiving in it her first laws. On all the five Continents it is the language that grows and conquers, the language of the future, the lan- guage of the world. Grimm speaks thus:—“None of the modern languages has through the very loss and decay of all phonetic laws, and through the dropping of nearly all inflections, acquired greater force and vigour than English, and from the fulness of those vague and inde- finite sounds, which may be learned, but can never be taught, it has derived a power of expression such as has 65 never been at the command of any human tongue. Begotten by a surprising union of the two noblest languages of Europe, the one Teutonic, the other Romanic, it received that wonderfully happy temper and thorough bréeding, where the Teutonic supplied the material strength, the Romanic the suppleness and freedom of expression. Nay the English language, which has borne, not as it were by mere chance, the greatest Poet of modern times, great in his very contrast with ancient classical poetry, — I speak of course of Shakespeare—this English language may truly be called a world-language, and seems, like England herself, but in a still higher degree, destined to rule over all the corners of the earth. In wealth, wisdom, and strict eco- nomy, none of the living languages can vie with it.* We shall now consider the last branch of the Arian family, commonly called Slavonic —a language spoken over vast tracts of country, on the confines of Asia and Europe, on the threshold between barbarism and civilisation, and as yet without a national literature in any of its numerous branches, though not without its counterfeits of Voltaire and Byron, of Wieland and Gothe:—with powerful re- sources, and flexible as Greek and Latin; yet all, as it were, without self-respect and self-dependence, always looking abroad and vainly decking itself with the tinsel of foreign countries, instead of gathering strength from within and putting forth without shame the genuine fruits of its own not barren soil. This applies particularly to the modern Russian, for Bohemian and Polish may boast in a certain sense of an ancient national literature and of an advanced civilisation which was crushed by political misfortunes. There are signs also in Bohemia and in parts of Russia, of an awakening national feeling in literature and of a healthy reaction against foreign influences. It would be better to use Windic as the general name of what is now called the Slavonic branch, Winidae being one of the most ancient and most comprehensive names by which these tribes were known to the early historians of Europe. We have to distinguish again 5 Windic lan- guages. es ——— i Lettic Divi- sion. Prussian. Lettish. 66 between the Lettic and the Slavonic divisions, and it would be preferable not to use Slavonic in two different senses. I. The Lettic division comprises the Lithuanian, the Old Prussian, and the Lettish. The Lithunian, as we had occasion to point out before, is one of the most interesting languages to the comparative philologist, because, though poor in literature—(for the Lithuanian popular songs are all that can be called such in a national sense) — it has retained to the present day some of the most primitive features of Arian grammar. It was once spoken, according to Mielcke, within the limits of East Prussia, in the districts of Memel, Tilsit, Ragnit, Labiau, and Insterburg; and through the division of Poland, more Lithuanian subjects were added to the kingdom of Prus- sia, so that the number of Prussians, who speak Li- thuanian, is now stated at 200,000. But this amount, is diminishing steadily, and in one or two generations Li- thuanian will probably have to be counted among the dead languages, like Cornish in England. In Russia, the number of Lithuanians is estimated at 1,282,000. The Old Prussian has been an extinct language since the end of the 17th century. Formerly spoken on the Northern coast, East of the Vistula, it has left no litera- ture behind, except a translation of a catechism. Lettish is the language of Kurland and Livonia, more modern in its grammar than Lithuanian, and standing towards it, not in the relation of daughter to mother, but rather of niece to aunt. The entire number of persons who speak Lithuanian and Lettish, in Prussia and Russia, is estimated by Sa- farik at 2,000,000. North of Memel the English fleet will hear Lithuanian and Lettish spoken at Liebau, in the Gulf of Riga. On the northern side of the Gulf, the Lettish is bounded by the Esthonian, a Finnic dialect, which occupies all the rest of the coast as far as Kron- stadt and Petersburg. The Lettic as well as the Esthonic population supply a considerable contingent to the Rus- sian navy. eS ss : a es 67 The Slavonic branch is divided again into two great dialects, each represented by a number of national idioms. These are the South-Eastern and Western dialects, and may be distinguished by certain phonetic peculiarities. I. The South-Eastern dialect comprises: 1. The Russian, divided again into Great-Rus- sian, Little-Russian, and White-Russian. 2. Bulgarian, represented under its most ancient form in the Ecclesiastical Slavonic, and spoken at present in the province of Bulgaria, one seat of the war. The Ecclesiastical Slavonic is the language of the translation of the Bible by Cyrillus in the 9th century, which we have in Mss. of the eleventh. It was formerly con- sidered as the root of all Slavonic dialects, but it is really the parent of the Bulgarian only. This is Safarik’s opinion. Micklosich calls the Ecclesiastical Slavonic “lingua Palao-Slovenica, and Kopitar also considers it as a Carinthian dialect; but neither of these scholars has brought proofs convincing as those by which Safarik establishes the close connection between the pre- sent Bulgarian and the language of Cyrillus. 3. The Illyrian, which is a general name for the Servian, Kroatian, and Slovenian. The Servian is written either with Roman or with Cyrillic letters. The former is patronised by the Roman, the latter by the Greek Church. The Slovenian comprises the Windian, Car- niolian, Carinthian and Styrian idioms. The Kroatian, according to Safarik, should not be reckoned as a separate language; the pro- vincial Kroatian being but a continuation of the Slovenian, while the language of the Kroats, as - spoken on the military frontier, is simply Servian. II. The Western dialect comprises: 1. Polish. 2. Bohemian or Tchechian, spoken in Bohemia, os 0 Slavonic Branch. Relation of the South- Moravia and Hungary, and of which the Slova- kian, found in Hungary, is but a less developed remnant. 3. Wendian or Sorbian. as spoken in Upper and Lower Lusatia. . Polabian, an extinct language, formerly in existence on the Elbe. Although it is possible to point out characteristic marks Eastern and by which these two great dialects can be kept separate, Western Slavonic languages. still in their grammar and words they differ much less than English and German. People who speak languages belonging to the Western or South-Eastern division, are to a certain extent mutually intelligible. A Bohemian, according to Safarik, understands a Slovak of Hungary, a Slovak understands the Polish, a Pole the language of Lusatia. The same applies to Russians and Illyrians: less to the Bulgarians. But even the Russian and the Pole, though belonging to different divisions, have so many words and grammatical forms in common that they do not find much more difficulty in conversing together than Italians and Spaniards. Panslavistic writers maintain that the va- rious Slavonic dialects do not differ more widely than the four principal dialects of the ancient Greek — Attic, Ionic, Doric, and Zolic. As we go back into antiquity, the differences between the Slavonic languages become even less: yet from the ninth century, when we have the first literary documents, the fundamental distinction between South-Eastern and Western dialects is clearly established. A Russian, however, at the present day, can, with some attention, understand the Bulgarian of the ninth century, as fixed in the translation of the Bible, still used in all Russian churches. I shall here give some of these characte- ristic differences as laid down by Safarik. It will be seen that they can be of real importance only for the minutest researches of the philologist, yet as “pitces justificatives” they may find a place here. I. In the South-Eastern dialects d and t before 1 are dropped; they are retained in the Western branch. 69 Fx. Eccles. Slav. opg-10, ora-15, a plough; Bohem. ora-dfo. (cf. &go-tpov, aratrum.) Eccl. Slav. AAD, palo fallen, participle of the root pad, to fall, with the termination 15; Bohemian padt. II. In the South-Eastern dialects d and t are dropped before nj they are retained in the Western branch. Ex. Russian, BIHY IF, Bohemian vadnouti, from the root BA], vad, and Hyun , nuté. HI. In the South-Eastern dialects an 1 is put before every palatal semi-vowel (y), if preceded by a labial; this 1s not the case in the Western branch (1 epentheticum). Ex. Eccl. Slav. zemly (3em.amy), earth; Polish ziemia. Eccl. SL korablyd, (kopa6an); Pol. and Boh. korab’, ship. Other words by which the difference between an Eastern and Western dialect can be recognized are, according to Dobrowsky, (Bohemian Grammar, iv. and Institutiones, §1), SOUTH-EASTERN. WESTERN . raz, razum. roz, rozum. . iz, izdati. wy, wydati. . pe¢, moc, noc. . pec, moe, noc. . zwiezda. hwiezda, gwiazda. 5. toj. ten. . Genitive, ago. ego, eho- Dative, omu. emu. 7. ptika. ptak. The area at present occupied by the Slavonic race, extends from Asia into Europe, from the Dwina in the East to the frontiers of Germany in the West, from the Sea in the North to the Sea in the South of Europe. Sla- vonic names of cities and rivers in the interior of Ger- many, show that these races once were in occupation as far west as the Elbe; and Slavonic dialects are still spoken, though by small and disconnected tribes, in Lusatia, not far from Berlin and Leipzig. But while the Slavonic race has been repulsed in the West, it has extended itself in the East towards Asia, and is now the language of law Area occu- ied by Slavonic languages. 70 and civilization in the North of Asia, whence it stretches over to America. The language, politically most important among the . Slavonic races, is the Russian. It is hemmed in on the West by the Polish, Hungarian, and Wallachian lan- guages. In the North and South it reaches as far as the sea, and in the East it encroaches upon Finnic and Ta- taric populations. We shall give the geographical limits of the three Russian dialects, that of the Great-Russians, the Little-Russians, and White-Russians, as deter- mined by Safarik, on grammatical grounds: because these three originally different races, can at present be dis- tinguished by the pecularities of their dialects only. The Great-Russians inhabit the governments of Mos- cow, Petersburg, Novgorod, Vologda, Pskov, Tver, Ya- roslav, Kostroma, Vladimir, Nizhni Novgorod, Smolensk, Kaluga, Tula, Riazan, Penza, Simbirsk, Orel, Kursk, Voronezh, Tambov, Saratov, and the country of the Cossacks of the Don. The greatest part of the governments of Orenburg, Viatka, Perm, and Kasan, is inhabited by the same race, which daily absorbs more and more the remnants of the Finnic nations, and of the Tatars yet extant in those provinces. A line drawn from Lake Pei- pus to the mouth of the Don, would very nearly mark the frontier of the Great-Russian towards the Little and White-Russian dialects. Great-Russians are, further, spread over all Siberia, Kamchatka, and the Russian colonies on the north-western coast of America. There are many settlements of the Great-Russians in various parts of an- cient Poland, formed under the Polish dominion by the Raskolniks or Russian sectarians, who fled from their country on account of religious persecution. A few of the same kind exist beyond the Danube in the Turkish dominions. The Great-Russian idiom is now the literary and official language of Russia. The Little Russians or Russines resemble, in their physical and moral qualities other Slavonic nations more than their namesakes. Their language differs from the Muscovite idiom, and forms, in some measure, a transition 71 between that and Polish. Nestor calls them Polanes, which signifies inhabitants of the fields (Campani), and asserts they are of the same nation as the Lekhs of the Vistula, i.e. the Poles. Their language is said to be one of the finest Slavonic tongues, few equalling its power in the expression of tender feelings, and their literature, though limited to popular songs and ballads, replete with poetical beauties. The Russines inhabit the Russian go- vernments of Poltava, Kharkov, Tchernigov, Kiev, Vol- hynia, Podolia, and parts of those of Ekaterinoslav, Voro- nezh, Kherson, Taurida, and Bessarabia, as well as the country of the Cossacks of the Black Sea. In the kingdom of Poland, they occupy parts of the provinces of Lublin and Padlachia. In Gallicia, or Austrian Poland, the circles of Lemberg, Przemysl, Zloczov, Zolkiev, Tarnopol, Brze- zany, Sambor, Sanok, Stry, Stanislawow, Kolomea, Czort- kow, and in part those of Rzeszow, Novysandec, and Tchernowitz. In Hungary, the greater part of the comi- tats of Beregh, Unghvar, Ugocza, and Marmaros, and a small portion of those of Zemplin and Szaros. It is the dialect of the South of Russia from Gallicia to the Don. The Rusniaks or Ruthenians in Gallicia, Hungary, and Bukovina speak the Little-Russian dialect: though with some peculiarities. The White-Russians occupy the whole of the Rus- sian Governments of Mohilev and Minsk, and the greatest part of those of Vitepsk and Grodno, extending even over a part of those of Vilna and Bialystok. Their dia- lect was formerly the official language of Lithuanian, and is full of Polish expressions. They are called White- Russians in opposition to the original Russian race, in- habiting the central provinces of Russia which are still called Black-Russia (Czernaja Rusj). Although the Cossack repudiates the idea of being des- cended from either the Great or the Little-Russians, he has been proved to be Great-Russian by blood, though conside- rably mixed with Little-Russian. Képpen (p. 152) accounts for this mixture by the war against the Turks in 1569. The Turks had invested Astrachan, and Czar Johann IV, called Bulgarians. 72 on Prince Michajlo Wishnewezkij to assist him. The army of Prince Michajlo was chiefly collected at Tcherkassy in the Government of Kiev, whence the name of Tcherkassian or Tcherkaskian for the Little-Russian peasants on the Don; hence also the name of the chief city in the country of the Don-Cossacks, Tcherkask, founded in 1570, and rebuilt, as Novo Tcherkask in 1805. Antiquities which are found in the neighbourhood attest the former presence of various tribes in this part of Russia. Inscriptions were found here belonging to the Bosporian Kings Rhoemetalkes (132 — 154 A. D.) and Ininthimaeos (237 A. D.). They were published by Graefe in the Memoires de I’Académie des Sciences de St. Petersbourg; VI. Série; Sciences politiques, T. VII (1844, 8), p. 2k. Ancient stone images have been also found in the steppes, and now serve the inhabitants as scarecrows. The races to which these idols belonged, the nations ruled by the Bosporian kings, and in more modern times, tribes even from the Caucasus, have all contributed their share toward the formation of the Cossack, and hence the conflicting opinions as to his real nationality. The territory on which Bulgarian is spoken at the present day lies almost entirely within the Turkish domi- nions; only a small area to the North of the arms of the Danube being under Russian sovereignty. Eastward the Bulgarian is bounded by the Black Sea; from the mouth of the southern arm of the Danube this river forms the northern frontier towards the Wallachians as far as Widin and Florentin, with the exception of the tract between the towns of Tultch and Reni, where the Bulgarian ex- tends across the river towards Russia. The frontier is here indicated by the towns of Ismail, Kalpak, Faltchi, and thence southwards along the river Pruth, which here forms the frontier between Russia and Moldavia, and between the Wallachians and the Bulgarians down to the Danube. From Widin the frontier extends along the Servian territory as far as Prizren (Perserin), and hence southward past the towns of Tettovo, Ochrida, Drenovo, Bilista (or Bichlista) as far as St. Marina; hence the Southern frontier line forms a slight bend round the Gulf of Thessalonica, and thence continues in the direction of the towns of Rupa, Arda, Tchermenti, Adrianople, Tir- novo, and Vasiliko to the Black Sea again. Thus the Bulgarians occupy the greater part of the ancient Moesia, Thracia, and Macedonia, or the present province of Rumelia. The name Bulgarian was transferred to the original Slavonic inhabitants of that country after they were conquered by the Bulgars, an Uralic race, towards the end of the 7th Century. The Slavonic element, however, began soon to prevail over that of the foreign conquerors, and after two hundred years, nothing but the name indi- cated the barbarous origin of the prospering Bulgarian Kingdom. In the middle of the ninth Century Christianity began to spread over the country and the translation of the Bible by Methodius and Cyrillus was the forerunner of other literary works. This incipient civilisation, however, was destroyed by the inroads of the Magyars in the beginning of the eleventh Century. Before the arrival of the Ma- gyars, the Plawzi and Pechenegs, that is during the as- cendancy of the Bulgarian kingdom, the Bulgarian lan- guage was spoken beyond its present limits in the coun- tries along the Danube, now inhabited by Magyars and Wallachians. It extended from the Danube to the Pruth and Jager, and beyond to the Karpathian mountains and the sources of the Theiss. When these countries lying North of the Danube were inundated by the Magyars and similar Finnic tribes, the original inhabitants retired below it. The Bulgarian of the 9th Century, the language of the translation of the Bible by Cyrillus, remained the literary language of Russia to the 14th Century, and is still the ecclesiastical language of the Greek-Russian church in Russia, Servia and Bulgaria. It holds the same place in Slavonic philology which Gothic occupies in the history of the German idioms. The spoken Bulgarian, on the contrary, so far as grammatical forms are concer- ned, is the most reduced among the Slavonic dialects. Illyrian is used as a general name to comprehend the Servian, Kroatian and Slovenian dialects. The name Illyria was revived by Napoleon in 1809. Illyrian im- Illyrian. Area occu- ied by the Illyrian” dia- lects. 7k plies sometimes the Slovenian and Kroatian, as opposed to the Servian. Religious and political agitation has made “Illyrian” the watchword for the Roman Catholic popu- lation of these South-Slavonic countries; “Servian“ that of the Greek church; the former using the Roman, the latter the Cyrillic alphabet. Another party, the Pansla- vistic, allows no difference between Illyrians and Servians, whether in nationality or language. These South-Sla- vonic dialects are spoken West of Bulgaria, occupying the western half of the peninsula to the Adriatic, while the Bulgarian occupies the eastern part towards the Black Sea. A rough outline of the whole Illyrian territory would be formed by a line drawn from the Adriatic Sea, near the mouth of the Bojana River, to Perserin (Prizren) in Albania, this line being somewhat inclined towards the North. A line from Perserin to Widin on the Danube would separate the Illyrian (here Servian) from the Bul- garian. A line from Widin to Temesvar would divide the Illyrian from the Wallachian; and a line from Te- mesvar to Klagenfurt from Magyar and German neighbours. A line from Klagenfurt back to Trieste would close the circle within which Ilyrian dialects are to be met with. The Adriatic coast is partly occupied by Italian dialects, which encroach upon the Slavonic in the north, but di- minish gradually in breadth as we proceed southward. These frontiers, however, are far too narrow for the national aspirations of what may be called the Young- Hlyrian party. The founder of this party is Dr. Ludewit Gaj, the editor of a newspaper which has become the standard of the literary Illyrian language. In Illyria, in Styria, in Dalmatia, in Croatia, Slavonia, and Servia, there existed not long ago about twenty different dialects, and each had in certain localities assumed the dignity of a literary language with its own peculiar orthography. It was in 1835 that Gaj began the publication of his Croa- tian Newspaper, which originally addressed itself to the provincial Croatians only. In 1836, however, this assumed the title of a National Illyrian Newspaper, appealing no longer to the provincial Croatians alone, but to all who 75 in Dalmatia, Istria, Croatia, Slavonia, Servia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Carniola, Carinthia and Styria spoke the common Illyrian language. “The poorer and less culti- vated provincial Croatian, he says, must make room for the rich and harmonious Illyrian language, as spoken by the people and fixed by early writers, and at the same time a more rational orthography must be introduced.” This attempt has been successful, and instead of many Croatian and Windian dialects, the Southern Slaves have gained a common national and cultivated language. Gaj has found many followers, and Agram has become the literary capital of Illyria. Hungarian intolerance has strengthened the unity of his party, which has further a certain political importance. His enthusiastic follo- wers speak of an “Illyria”, of which the frontiers are the Adriatic, the Aegaean, and the Black Sea, and which comprises Carinthia, Carniola, Styria, Gorz, Istria, the Litorale, Dalmatia, Ragusa, Montenegro, Herzegovina, Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia, Slavonia, the Banat with the South of Hungary, part of Albania, Bulgaria, and even the northern districts of Macedonia. This Illyria, however does not yet exist; in fact the unbounded enthusiasm of its advocates has provoked a natural reaction from the very nations which it meant to embrace. The Servians, particularly, object to the name of Illyrians, and main- tain their own nationality, which is supported by a diffe- rence of religion (the Servians belonging to the Greek church), and by a difference of alphabet (the Servians adhering to the Cyrillic letters). This natural division between the Illyrians, i. e. the Croatians and Sloventzi on the one side, and the Servians on the other, will prove a strong impediment to the realisation of the Great-Illyrian nationality. If we make this distinction between Illyrians and Ser- vians, the Illyrians will be separated by a line beginning from the town Monoschtur, at the mouth of the river Lobnitza (Lafnitz) which falls into the Raab, in the Comitat Eisen- burg in Hungary. This line extends along that river while it forms the limit between Hungary and Styria, Frontier between the Servians and the Ilyrians. Kroatian. Slovenian. Servian. then turns into Styria and Illyria, passing the towns of Radkersburg, Volkermarkt, Klagenfurt, Villach, to Pox- tafel; thence southward, along the small towns of Resciutta, and Bardo, towards Udine, and then, following pretty closely the course of the Isonzo to the Adriatic Sea, it extends along the sea-coast until below Capo d’Istria. Here it takes an eastern direction, passing the towns of Materia, Laas, and the German colony of Gotschze (Hoczewje) to Neustidtel, Motting, Petrinia, and the mouth ot the Unna, which falls into the Save on the Turkish frontier. Hence it recedes northwards past the towns of Novka, Chasma, and Belovar, until it reaches Verocze on the Drave, behind which river it touches the Magyar frontier at Gross- Scigeth. Here it runs west again, past the towns of Breznits, Kanisa, Lindava (Lendva) and Csesztreg, until it rejoins Monoschtur. The smaller or eastern portion of this ter- ritory is inhabited by Kroats or Chorwats, and the lar- ger and western portion by the Sloventsi. The Kroatian or Chorvatian dialect 1s chiefly spoken in the Comitats of Agram, Kreuz, and Warasdin, and numerous colonies exist in the western parts of Hun- gary. The language stands between Slovenian and Ser- vian, more closely allied to the latter, and at present, particularly at Agram, influenced by a small literary party, who endeavour to introduce Slovenian and Cyrillic ex- pressions into the spoken language of the people. Thus the Dual, which according to Berli¢ is unknown in the spoken language of Kroatia, and exists only in Slovenian, has been introduced into literary works, and terminations are used in the declensions which have a warrant only in the Cyrillic translation of the Bible. oo Slovenian, also called Corutanian or Windian, is spoken in the country surrounded by the Adriatic, the Upper Drave and Kroatia. It is the language of a great part of Styria, Carinthia, and Carniola, and reaches Inte the west of Hungary, the Illyrian coast and part of Istria. The territory occupied by the Servians is bordered on the west by the Adriatic from Capo Istria to the river Bojana. The southern frontier separating the Ser- 17 vians from the Albanians, extends from the lake of Scu- tari towards the towns of Rosalia, Ipek, and Jakova, as far as Prizren (Perserin). Here begins the eastern frontier towards the Bulgarians, passing the towns of Mo- rava, Nova Berda, and Nissa, as far as Gurguchevatz, and following thence the Timok, the boundary until it falls into the Danube. The Danube then forms the limit towards the Wallachians > as far as Golubatch, where the line crossing that river extends past the towns of Szaszka, Weisskirchen, Denta, Ritberg, and Temesvar, as far as Arad: then westward along the small towns of Lak, Marienfeld, Kaniza, Topolya, and Mohacz to Scigeth, and along the Illyrian frontier to Capo d’Istria. This extensive area comprises within the Austrian do- minions the southern Comitats of Hungary, the whole of Slavonia, a great part of Kroatia and Carniola, Istria, the Littoral, Dalmatia and the military frontier of Kroatia, Slavonia, and Hungary, —and within the Turkish domj- nions, the principalities of Servia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Montenegro, and the ancient Rascia (the territory between Novi Bazar and Nova Berda). The Servian population belongs partly to the Roman Catholic and Greek per- suasions, partly to the Mohammedan. There is a sprink- ling of Magyars, Germans, Italians, Albanians, Turks, Wallachians, and Rusnyaks over the whole of Servia. On the other hand there are considerable Servian colonies in Hungary and Russia. The most important is that of “New Servia” on the Dniepr, founded between 1 751—53. It consists of about 100,000 inhabitants. According to Vuk Stephanowitch the Servian is di- vided into three dialects: 1. The dialect of Herzegovina, Bosnia, Montenegro, Dalmatia , Kroatia, and the upper part of Servia, in the district of Matchwa, as far as Maljewo and Karano- watz. 2. The Ressawian dialect, spoken in the district of Branitshevo, on the Resava, in the district of Levatsh, on the Upper Morava, and along the Schwarzbach, as far as Negotin. Western languages. 78 3. The Syrmian, spoken in Syrmia, Slavonia, in the Batchka, in the Banat of Temesvar, and in Servia, between the Save, the Danube, and the Morava. The Magyars and Slovaks call the Servians of the Greek persuasion, Razes, from Rass, the former capital of Servia, now Novi Bazar. We now come to the Western branch. The frontier-line of the territory inhabited by the Poles in the north is the coast of the Baltic, from the pro- montory of Hela, in the gulf of Putzig, along the sea as far as the Lake of Schmolsin; then westward, toward the German nation: at first along the Pommeranian fron- tier to the neighbourhood of Butow, in the direction of the towns of Jastrow, Wirsitz, Chodzies, Filehne, Mese- ritz, Lissa, Bojawono, Rawicz, Wartenberg, and Rosen- berg; next westward, as far as the mouth of the Neisse, which falls into the Oder below Brieg, and along the river Biala toward Zuckmantel, on the Austrian frontier. Here, after a bend in an easterly direction, it falls in with the frontier of the Bohemo-Moravian dialect, in the neighbour- hood of Troppau. The Polish language comes into con- tact with this dialect from Oderberg along the course of the Oder, down to the Carpathian ridge. Hence the southern frontier extends toward the Slovaks, along the foot of the Carpathians as far as Piwniczna, where the Poprad forms the limit between the three populations of the Poles, the Slovaks, and the Russines. The southern frontier towards the Russines runs through Gallicia, past the towns of Sandec, Biecz, Krosno, Brozozow:—hence the eastern frontier extends straight northwards, past the towns of Przeworzk Lezaisk, Krzeszow, Goray, Turobin, Krasnoslav, Radzyn, Miedzyryc; along the river Zna, to- wards Biala and Sarnaki; and thence also eastwards along the boundary of the White Russians, in the direction of the towns of Bransk, Tykoczyn, Knyszyn, Stabin, Lipsk, and as far as Grodno. The Niemen forms in part the north-western frontier toward the Lithuanians. From this river it follows the Hansze as far as Seyny, then west- ward towards Oletzko, near which place it returns to the 79 Prussian territory, descending by the town of Goldapp to Darkehmen. Hence it takes a westerly course, through the ancient kingdom of Prussia, touched by the German frontier near the towns of Rastenburg, Bischofsburg, and Seeburg; then to the mouth of the Welle, which disem- bogues into the Drewenz above Neumark. It reaches nearly to the Vistula, but turns south, past the town of Culm, to Thorn. Here it crosses the Vistula, and turns towards the Netze till il reaches Nakel, when, taking a northern course, it accompanies the western side of the Vistula to the point where that river divides. After fol- lowing the river for several miles, it bends off, below Derschau and before it reaches Dantzig, and ends in the Bay of Putzig. Besides the inhabitants of this territory, all the upper classes in the ancient provinces of Poland are composed of Poles by origin, and of others who became Polonized during the Polish dominion in those parts. The language of Gallicia is Polish. The old name of the Polish language was Lekhian, spoken in ancient times beyond its present limit, in parts of Pommerania and Silesia now occupied by Germans. At present it exists in two dialects, Polish and Kashubian, —the latter spoken in a small district between Leba and Lauenburg by about 100,000 people. Here the English fleet may hear it on the Baltic coast. The limits of the Bohemian population may be mark- ed by a line beginning between the towns of Josephstadt and Konigshof, which are on the Bohemian side, and Turnau and Semile, on the German. This line runs from the last-named place in a northwestern direction along the towns of Aupa, Bohmisch-Aicha, Leitmeritz, Theresien- stadt, Laun, Pilsen, Mies, Bischofteinitz, as far as Klenz; thence it turns in a south-eastern direction along the towns of Winterberg, Krummau, Gratzen, Neuhaus, Moravian-Bud- weis (Budwitz), Znaym, Lundenburg, as far as Rabens- burg, on the river March. Hence to the north-east, touching the Slovaks, in an almost straight line, along the towns Holitsch, Strasnitz, and Wessely, to the Carpathian ridge, where it comes into contact with the Poles of Galicia. Bohemian. a 2. ———— Rs: op vats ns FY Slovakian. 80 From this point the river Oder forms the frontier as far as Oderberg. Bohemian is spoken in the whole of the district of Troppau. Passing then from Sternberg, along the Sudet mountains, through Moravian-Neustadt, it returns to Konigshof. The territory within this line comprehends a space of about 850 German square miles, which, with the exception of few German colonies, is inhabited by a pure Slavonic population. Another name for the language of Bohemia and Mo- ravia is Tchechian. Some literary monuments of the ancient Tchech language exist, as the song of Libussa of the ninth century, and poems of the thirteenth, exhibiting a much richer grammatical system than the spoken Bohemian. This is divided again into dialects, Horakian, Hanakian, Mo- ravo-Slovakian, Wallachian, and others. Since the beginning of this century a new impulse has been given to the na- tional literature of Bohemia, chiefly by the exertions of Dobrowsky, Safarik, and Palacky. Safarik’s works on Slavonic antiquities have acquired a European reputation: they are the chief authority for all that is known of the ethnology, history and language of Bohemia and of the whole Slavonic race. The language of the Slovaks has retained in its gram- mar certain original forms which the Bohemian has lost. It is spoken by the Slovaks, who are separated from the Bohemians on the north-west by a line already mentioned. Thence the boundary continues along the Carpathian ridge to the town of Piwniczna, separating the Slovaks from the Poles in Gallicia. From that place it runs through the towns Bordijow, and Humené (Homona), and follows the course of the river Ondava, which parts off the Rus- sines in Gallicia and Hungary. On the south the Slovaks are divided from the Magyars by a line running through the towns Kaschau, Tornala (Torna), Filekovo (Fulek), from the river Eipel as far as Hont; — thence along the towns of Zeviza, Neuhidusel, nearly to Comorn and Pressburg; then following the course of the Danube to the mouth of the river March. The same river, separates them on the West from the Germans. The territory inhabited by the Slovaks extends over fifteen Comitats, of which five are entirely, and the rest prin- cipally, occupied by them. There are besides several large settlements of Slovaks scattered over different parts of Hungary. The last Slavonic dialect is the Wendian, spoken by the Wends of Lusatia, whose number though variously stated, probably does not exceed 150,000. They are the remnants of those Slavonians by whom all that country was formerly inhabited, and whose settlements extended beyond the Elbe to the river Saale. They are called by a general name the Polabes (from po, near, and Labe, the Elbe). The Wends inhabit the region around the towns of Lobau, Neusalz, Budissin, Camenz, Spremberg, Lubben, Lieberosa, Cottbus and Muskav, forming a kind of Slavonian island in a German sea. Their language is also called Sorbian, and divided into two dialects, each possessing, besides popular songs, translations of the Bible, and other sacred works. Though German is taught now in every school, yet the common people cling to their national dialect and prefer to speak “serski.” The following is an estimate of the Slavonic popu- lation : . Great-Russians (Welikoruski) . . 35,000,000 . Little-Russians (Maloruski). . . . 13,000,000 White-Russians (Beloruski) . . . 2,700,000 . Bulgarians (Bolgari) 3,600,000 . Kroatians (Horwati) 800,000 . Slovenians (Slovenzi) 1,150,000 . Servians 9,300,000 . Poles (Polaki) 9,300,000 . Bohemians (Czechi) 7,200,000 . Wends (Syrbi) 150,000 78,200,000 62,000,000 17,000,000 No UTE Wo = SS © This gives for the Eastern branch for the Western branch 2 79,000,000 Wendian or Lusatian. Slavonic statistics. According to their religion the Slavonic races were arranged by Safarik (in 1842) in the following table: — * Greek Gres OF | united | Roman | Protes- |Moham- Cou 5 a with, |[Catholics.| tants. |medans. wreh. | gUbe Russians, or Muscovites ps Russians, or Malorusses 2,990,000 White Russians 2,376,000 Bulgarians. . ........ Servians or Illyrians Kroats : 1, 38, | : Carynthians 8.923.000 | 442,000 Poles 2 Bohemians and Moravians. . 4,270,000 | Slovaks (in the North of Hun- 144,000 1 88, Lower .| 44,000 |skom.000| 2.990.000 | 19.30.00 1,531,000 | 800.00) According to the States to which they belong, the Slavonic races were arranged by Safarik (in 1842) in the following table: — Repub- Russia. | Austria. |Prussia. | Turkey.| lic of Cracow. -3 © £ 2 Great Russians . ...... I3 Littl White Russians . . ..... 92726.,000 Bulgarians ; Servians and Illyrians . . . Carynthians 1,151,000 Poles 912 2,3%1,000(1,982,000 Bohemians and Moravians 4,370,000 44,000 C.. Slovaks in North Hungary 2,753,000 ‘2s Lusatians or Wends. Upper 38, 60,000 Political 233 000 000] 3 5,314, e Russians 10,370. NFO = reds Lower| ” [302.000 6.794 O00[219800] 6.10000) 130,000 |60.000|78.601.000 Numerically as well as politically, the Russians stand position of at present in the van of the Slavonic races, while for- the Great Russians. merly the Poles held a place much more important in the political system of Europe. In the sixteenth century the Russian eagle began to try his wings, after shaking * Safarik’s figures of population, according to a letter from the Hon. H. Stanley, H. M. Secretary cf Legation at Athens, are less correct than those of Ubicini in his Lettres sur la Turquie. May not Safarik have been guided by linguistic and ethnological evidence, while Ubicini’s figures are based on political statistics? = ooo 5S SEBAET 2 8 EERE off the yoke of the Mongolians, who for nearly two hundred years had held Russia in the most cruel vassa- lage. The first conquests of the Russians were near the Volga: In 1552, they conquer the countries along the middle course of the Volga. 1554, the Lower Volga. 1577, the Lower Don. 1581, they cross the Ural. 1584, they occupy the middle course of the Ob. 1594—96, they take the countries watered by the Irtis. 1608, the Lower Ob. 1620—30, the Yenisei. After thus conquering the north, the Russian arms turned to the South and the Caucasus. In 1630—40 they take the Baikal lake and the Lena- country. 1646, the Behring Straits. 1658, they cross the Southern Siberian mountains, and advance into Mongolia, along the Chinese river Amur. They found Nyerfinsk. 1690, they take Kamkatka, and push along the Aleute islands into America; while in Europe they advance to the Don and Dniepr. 1721, they take the coast of the Finnie Bay and the Gulf of Riga, thus securing the ground on which now stands the capital of the Russian empire, Petersburg. 1743, Karelia taken. 1783, Krimea taken. 1774, Country to the north of the Krimea annexed. 1791, they advance against Tataric tribes as far as the Dniestr. 1802, Georgia is annexed. 1812, Bessarabia conquered. 1813, Daghestan and Sirwan taken. 6% 84 1828, Abhasia, Mingrelia, and Araxes- countries taken. 1809, Sweden taken as far as the Bothnian Gulf. 1812, Advance to the Pruth in Wallachia. 1828, the mouth of the Danube secured. 1848, Principalities occupied against revolutionary tendencies. 1853, Principalities occupied as a material gua- rantee. 1854, Declaration, that Russia does not aim at conquest. Arian Famny. EEE. ST Southern Division. Northern Division. CLASSES. ‘ast Slavonic Windic { West-Sla- / oe erman erman ‘ Tr \ 1 vonie High-( BRANCHES. Scandinavian South-E Low-( Sanesiogical We have thus completed our survey of the second Arian Fo- family of languages, and the following table will give a © general view of all the members which can be proved to belong to it. Each column begins with the languages now spoken. These are traced back to their previous stages, wherever literary monuments have been preserved, and are then referred to the different classes, branches, and divisions, which all took their origin from one central language, the language of the Arian ancestors. Since their first separation took place, in times previous to Homer, Zoroaster, and the poets of the Veda, no new roots have been added to the common inheritance of these dialects, no new elements have been created in the formation of their grammar. They have experienced various losses, and compensated them by a skilful application of what they carried away as their common heirloom. All, from Sanskrit to English, are but various forms of the same type, modifications of a language, once formed in Asia we know not and can hardly imagine how, yet a lan- guage the existence and reality of which has the full cer- tainty of matters resting on inductive evidence, although it goes back to times when historical chronology borders on the geological eras. Osean. . ..... cou... Latin ............. ... Umbrian . . . . . ......... ons—Ze m Inscript DEAD LANGUAGES. | Lingua Vulgaris ) "Doric —Aeol 3 Kow $ Attic—lonic Old Bohemian . . . Prakrit and Pali— Classical Sanskrit.—Vaidi Parsi—Pehlevi—Cune (Alanian—Sarmatian) . Old Armenian’ Co i... L1vING LANGUAGES. hanistan Danemark . . elanc rovence France . . Italy... ... Wallachia . . Albania Lithuania +... «vv v on Sweden Norway pain . . . Ossethi. Scotland Ireland Portugal . le Armenia Man. ... Persia . .. . Afgl Kurdistan Bokhara S Pp Dialects of India . . .. . Turanian Family. Character of ‘Turanian or Nomade Languages. The third family is the Turanian. It comprises all languages spoken in Asia or Europe not included under the Arian and Semitic families, with the exception per- haps of the Chinese and its dialects. This is, indeed, a very wide range; and the characteristic marks of union, ascertained for this immense variety of languages, are as yet very vague and general, if compared with the definite ties of relationship which severally urite the Semitic and the Arian. The common origin of some of these wide-spread idioms has indeed been proved with the same accuracy as that of Sanskrit and Greek, of Hebrew and Arabic:—and languages as widely distant as Hungarian and Finnish, have been traced back conclusively to one common source. Large divisions have thus been esta- blished, and five linguistic districts, the Tungusic, Mon- golic, Turkic, Samoiedic and Finnic, have been surveyed and laid down definitely as portions of one vast kingdom of speech. And after the convergence of these five divisions towards one central point has once been established, it will be difficult to exclude from the same system the other provinces of speech which lie scattered throughout on the map of Asia and Europe. The absence of that close family likeness which holds the Arian and Semitic languages together, becomes it- self one of the distinguishing features of the Turanian dialects. They are Nomadic languages as contrasted with the Arian and Semitic dialects, which may be called State or political languages. In the grammatical features of the latter class, we can discover the stamp of one powerful mind, once impressed on the floating materials of speech at the very beginning of their growth, and never to be obliterated again in the course of cen- turies. Like mighty empires founded by the genius of one man, in which his will is perpetuated as law through generations to come, the Semitic and Arian languages exhibit in all ages and countries a strict historical con- tinuity which makes the idioms of Moses and Mohammed, of Homer and Shakspeare, appear but slightly altered im- pressions of one original type. Most words and gram- matical forms in these two families seem to have been thrown out but once by the creative power of an indi- vidual mind; and the differences of the various Semitic and Arian languages, whether ancient or modern, were produced, not so much by losses and new creations, as by changes and corruptions which defaced in various ways the original design of these most primitive works of human art. This process of handing down a lan- guage through centuries without break or loss, is possible only among people whose history runs on in one main stream; and where religion, law, and poetry supply well defined borders which hem in on every side the current of language. Thus only can it be explained how, at the present day, the Lithuanian peasant expresses, “I am, esmi,” with exactly the same root and the same termi- nation which the poet of the Veda used in India four thousand years ago; and how the numerals which we employ, are the same tokens which passed current among the common ancestors of the Teutons, Greeks, Romans, and Hindus. The case is widely different with the Turanian lan- guages. Firstly, the area over which they are spo- ken is much larger than that of the Arian and Semitic dialects. The latter occupy only what may be called the four Western Peninsulas of the great continent of the old world—India with Persia, Arabia, Asia-Minor, and Europe; and we have reason to suppose that even these countries were held by Turanian tribes previous to the immigration of the Arian and Semitic races. To our own times, by far the greater part of the primeval continent re- mains in possession of the descendants of Tur. But secondly, so far as history can reach back, no lasting nucleus of society or civilization has ever been formed in these vast Turanian wildernesses. Empires were no sooner founded there than they were scattered again like the sand-clouds of the desert; no laws, no songs, no stories outlived the age of their authors. How quickly language can change if thus left to itself without any standard, and kept up only by the daily wants of a savage life, may be seen 88 from the endless variety of idioms in America, or on the borders of India, Tibet, and China. There it has hap- pened that colonies from the same village, settled in neighbouring valleys, became mutually unintelligible after one or two generations. If then we bear in mind that thousands of years must have elapsed since the first se- paration of the Finnic and Mongolic races, that for a long time these races possessed nothing like a national or sacred literature, such as the Veda in India, or Homer in Greece, but that the scanty conversation of scattered tribes was the only safeguard for words once fixed to a certain meaning, and forms once coined with a certain value, we may understand why among the descendants of Tur we do not find the same clear traces of linguistic consanguinity as in the Arian and Semitic families. A different method must, therefore, be adopted to bring out the few remaining features that all Turanian dialects share in common, and which, though seemingly vague and general, it would be impossible to consider as the result of mere accident. The most necessary substan- tives, such as father, mother, daughter, son, have fre- quently been lost and replaced by synonymes in the dif- ferent branches of this family; yet common words are found, though not with the same consistency and regu- larity as in Semitic and Arian dialects. The Turanian numerals and pronouns point to a single original source, yet here again the tenacity of these Nomadic dialects cannot be compared with the tenacity -of the political languages of Asia and Europe:—and common roots, dis- covered in the most distant Nomadic idioms, are mostly of a much more general form and character than the ra- dicals of the Arian and Semitic treasuries. But although we do not find, and cannot expect to find, in Nomadic languages those striking material coinci- dences by which the common origin of the Arian branches of speech has been proved, we are struck in them by a similarity of form such as it would be difficult to explain without the admission of common blood running in the veins of all Turanian dialects. This requires some explanation. 89 A reference to the latter stages of the Arian language, M orphologi- cal coinci- may serve to illustrate what is meant by a similarity in dences of Turanian form between Turanian languages. The grammatical forms Languages. of the Arian languages were fixed but once. Each lan- guage, whether Greek or Sanskrit, received them ready made, and preserved them without feeling conscious of the manner in which originally they had been formed. No Roman probably was aware that in amamus, we love, mus was the remnant of a pronoun once attached to the root ama; as little as we suspect that the d in «I loved” was originally an auxiliary verb (to do), added to a root for the purpose of giving it a past sense (I love-did). Most, if not all, of these grammatical forms had become typical before the common Arian speech was broken up into Sanskrit, Greek, and the rest. Now, if in place of adopting these grammatical forms, each lan- guage had produced them anew from its own materials, it is clear that the material parts of these new forms might have differed, while the principle on which they were composed might still have been the same. Let us take, for instance, the Future of the Romance languages, the formation of which was explained before. We can- not say that this Future j’aimer-ai, I-to-love-have, had become fixed and typical previous to the separation of the Romance dialects, that is to say, at the time when Latin was no longer classical Latin, but not resolved as yet into Italian, French, or Spanish. If this had been the case, the similarity between the Future in the six Romance languages, would probably be much greater than it is. Besides, we know for certain that in Provencal at least the component parts of this new Future had not yet coalesced, but were understood as meaning “I have to love.” Here then we find in the later remodelling of the Latin grammar, a coincidence in form analogous to the coincidences which unite the Turanian languages. Each Romance dialect took its own auxiliary verb ‘to have,” under that peculiar form which it had reached after ceasing to be the Latin “habeo.” Hence the mate- rials of which these Futures are formed cannot be said The system of Aggluti- nation. to be the same, nor can they be treated as mere corrup- tions of one original type. Cantero was never chan- terai, nor canterei, a modification of canteraggio. Each Romance dialect formed its Future for itself, but all according to the same principle. And this applies to the Turanian languages. The materials employed by each for the production of grammatical forms are generally taken from its own resources; but the manner of the com- bination shows a character common to all. To use a homely illustration, the uniforms of the Arian languages are actually made of one and the same piece of cloth and by the same hands, while the uniformity of the Tu- ranian dialects lies not so much in the stuff, as in the cut and make of their dress. The most characteristic feature of the Nomadic or Turanian languages has been called ‘Agglutination.’ This means not only that in their grammars pronouns are glued to the verbs in order to form the conjugation, or prepositions to substantives in order to form declensions. That would not be characteristic of the Turanian lan- guages; for in Hebrew as well as in Sanskrit, conjuga- tions and declensions were originally formed on the same principle. What distinguishes the Turanian languages is, that in them the conjugation and declension can still be taken to pieces, and although the terminations have by no means retained their significative power as indepen- dent words, they are felt as modificatory syllables, and distinct from the words to which they are added. In the Arian languages the modifications of words, com- prised under declension and conjugation, were likewise originally expressed by agglutination. But the two com- ponent parts began soon to coalesce, so as to form but one word, liable in its turn to phonetic corruption, ren- dering it impossible after a time to decide which was the root and which the modificatory termination. The diffe- rence between a Turanian and an Arian language is some- what the same as between composing and reading. The compositor puts the s to the end of a word, and looks on the type s in his hand as producing the change of pound into pounds; to the reader the s has no separate existence (except on scientific reflection); the whole word expresses to him the modified idea, and in his perception the same change is produced in penny and pence as in pound and pounds. The reason why, in the Turanian languages, the ter- mination appears but slightly united to the body of a word is this, — it was felt essential tbat the radical por- tion of each word should stand out in distinct relief, and never be obscured or absorbed, as happens so frequently in the later stages of political languages. The French dge, for instance, has lost its whole material body, and is nothing but termination. Age, in Old French, was eage and edage. Edage is a corruption of aetaticum; aetaticum is a derivative of aetas; aetas an abbreviation of aevitas, and in aevum, ae only is the radical portion (the Sanskrit Ay-us), containing the germ from which these various words derive their life and meaning. What trace of ae, ar aevum, or aevitas, remains in age? Tu- ranian languages cannot afford to retain such words as age in their living dictionaries. It is’ an indispensable requirement in every Nomadic language that it should be intelligible to many, though their intercourse be but scanty. It requires tradition, society, and literature to maintain forms which can no longer be analyzed at once, nor their formal elements separated from the base. The Arian verb, for instance, contains many forms in which the personal pronoun is no longer felt distinctly. And yet tradition, custom, and law, preserve the com- prehensibility of these veterans, and make us feel un- willing to part with them. But in the evershifting state of a Nomadic society no debased coin can be tolerated in language, "no obscure legend accepted on trust. The metal must be pure, and the legend distinct; that the one may be weighed, and the other, if not deciphered, at least recognized as a well-known guarantee. Integrity of Turanian roots. Divergence of Turanian Dialects. 99 ~ A Turanian might tolerate the Sanskrit, as-mi, a-si, as-ti, ’s-mas, s-tha, ’s-anti, I am, thou art, he is, we are, you are, they are; or even the Latin, ’s-um, e-s, es-t, ’su-mus, es-tis, ‘sunt. In these instances, with a few exceptions, root and affix are as distinguishable as for instance in Turkish: bakar-im, bakar-sin, bakar, I regard, thou regardest, he regards, bakar-iz, bakaai-siniz, bakar-lar. we regard, you regard, they regard. But a conjugation like the Hindustani, which is a modern Arian dialect, hun, hai, hai, hain, ho, hain, would not be compatible with the genius of the Turanian languages, because it would not answer the requirements of a Nomadic life. Turanian dialects exhibit either no terminational distinctions at all, as in Mangu, which is a Tungusic dialect; or a complete and intelligible system of affixes, as in the spoken dialect of Nyerkinsk, equally of Tungusic descent. But a state of conjugation in which, through phonetic corruption, the suffix of the first person singular and plural, and of the third person plural are the same, where is no distinction between the second and third persons singular, and between the first and third persons plural, would necessarily lead in a Turanian dia- lect to the adoption of new and more expressive forms. New pronouns would have to be used to mark the per- sons, or some other expedient be resorted to for the same purpose. * But we must not dwell much longer on these general features of the Turanian languages. All we desire to show is the fact that dialects whose grammar has not yet “ For further particulars see the author’s Letter to Chevalier Bunsen, On the Classification of the Turanian Languages, London, 185%, in the first volume of Chev. Bunsen’s Outlines of the Phi- losophy of Universal History. 93 settled down into a solid system, are liable to perpetual changes, and likely to diverge most rapidly if separated for any length of time. A Turanian retains, as it were, the consciousness of his grammar. The idea, for in- stance, which he connects with a plural is that of a noun followed by a syllable indicative of plurality; a passive is a verb followed by a syllable expressive of suffering. Now these determinative ideas may be expressed in various ways. But in one and the same clan, and during one period of time, one suffix would generally become popular, and be assigned to the expression of a single grammatical category, such as the plural, the passive, or the genitive. Thus, out of large mass of possible for- mations, a small number only would become customary and technical, leading finally to a scheme of declension and conjugation such as we find in Turkish and Finnish. Different hordes, however, as they separated, would still feel themselves at liberty to repeat the same process; thus forming in their different idioms different phases of grammatical life, which, if confined to a single tribe, would naturally have disappeared without leaving any traces. In Nomadic languages, therefore, the sudden rise of a family or of a small association may produce an effect which, in political languages, can only be produced by the ascendency of a town or a province, a race or a religious sect. Where so little is fixed, the peculiarities of a rising family may change the .whole surface of a language, and the accent of a successful Khan may leave its stamp on the grammar of all the tribes that follow him. When one of the great Tatar chiefs proceeds on an expedition, he, as Marco Polo tells us in the fourteenth century, puts himself at the head of an army of a hun- dred thousand horse, and organizes them in the follo- wing manner. One officer he appoints to the command of every ten men, and others to command a hundred, a thousand, and ten thousand men respectively. Thus, ten of the officers commanding ten men take their orders from him who commands a hundred; of these, each ten Turanian Languages approaching to an Arian type. 94 from him who commands a thousand; and each ten of these latter from him who commands ten thousand. By this arrangement each officer has only to attend to the management of ten men, or ten bodies of men, and the word of command is spread from the Khan to the hun- dred thousand common soldiers, after passing through not more than four mouths. This is characteristic lin- guistically as well as politically. If a language is once fixed by literary works of a national character, change becomes difficult, nay, impos- sible without political convulsions. Where Nomadic na- tions rise to this stage of civilization and political or- ganization, their language, though Turanian in its gram- mar, may approach to the system of political languages, such as Sanskrit or Hebrew. This is indeed the case with the most advanced members of the Turanian fa- mily, the Hungarian and Finnish. Here some termina- tions have been so much worn out by continual use, and yet not replaced by new syllables, that on this point, the distinction between Turanian and Arian grammar ap- pears to vanish. Yet some characteristic Turian features are always retained: the root is never obscured; the determinative syllables are placed at the end; and the vowels never become so absolutely fixed for each syl- lable as in Sanskrit or Hebrew. On the contrary, there is a law of harmony, according to which the vowels of each word may be changed and modulated so as to har- monise with the key-note struck by its chief vowel. The vowels in Turkish, for instance, are divided into two classes, sharp and flat. If a verb contains a sharp vowel in its radical portion, the vowels of the termina- tions are all sharp, while the same terminations, if follo- wing a root with a flat vowel, modulate their own vo- wels into the flat key. Thus we have sev-mek, to love, but bak-mak, to regard, mek and mak being the termi- nation of the infinitive. Thus we say, ev-ler, the houses, but at-lar, the horses, ler and lar, being the termination of the plural. No Arian or Semitic language has preserved a simi- 95 lar freedom in the harmonic arrangement of its vowels, while traces of it have been found among the most dis- tant members of the Turanian family, as in Hungarian, Mongolian, Turkish, the Yakut, spoken in the North of Siberia, and in dialects spoken on the eastern frontiers of India. A number of words and roots, common to all Tura- nian languages, has been collected by Professor Schott in his Essay “On the Tataric Languages.” It would carry us too far were we to attempt to pass in review all the languages of the Turanian family. We shall only mention those with which the English Army is likely to be brought into more immediate contact. Hence we may dismiss the whole Tungusic branch, which extends from China northward to Siberia and west- ward to 113°, where the river Tunguska partly marks its frontier. Though Tungusic tribes in Siberia are under Russian sway, they are not likely to appear on the theatre of war. The other Tungusic tribes belonging to the Chinese empire, are known by the name of Mangu or Mandshu, a name taken after they had conquered China in 164%, and founded the present Imperial Dynasty. The name Tungus is derived from Donki, * which in their own language means “men,” and by this the Tungusic tribes in Siberia call themselves. Other Tungusic tribes speak of themselves as Boye, which likewise has the original meaning of “people.” The Mongolic branch also might be passed over for the present, as far as the original seats of the people who speak Mongolic dialects are concerned. These lie near the Lake Baikal and in the eastern parts of Siberia, where we find them as early as the ninth century after Christ. They were divided into three classes, the Mon- * Another explanation of this name has been suggested by the Hon. H. Stanley, H. M. Secretary of Legation at Athens. He derives it from tungus (5 fe) a pig, the tribe of the pig, and remarks that this word is pronounced Domuz at Constantinople, but Don- guz or Tunguz in Anadol and Persia. Tungusic Languages. Mongolic Branch. Origin of the name Tataric. gols proper, the Buriats, and the 016t or Kalmiks. Kingis-khén (1227) united them into a nation and foun- ded the Mongolian Empire, which included however, not only Mongolic, but Tungusic and Turkic tribes. The name of Tatar soon became the terror of Asia and Europe, and it was applied promiscuously to all the Nomadic warriors, whom Asia then poured forth over Europe. Originally Tatar was a name that belonged to the Mongolic races, but through their political ascendency in Asia after Kingis-khdn, it became usual to call all the tribes which stood under Mongolian sovereigns by the name of Tatar. In linguistic works Tataric is now used in two several senses. Following the example of writers of the middle ages, Tataric, like Scythian in Greek, has been fixed upon as the general term comprising «ll lan- guages spoken by the Nomadic tribes of Asia. Hence it is used sometimes in the same sense in which we use Turanian. Secondly, Tataric has become the name of that class of Turanian languages of which the Turkish is the most prominent member. While the Mongolic class — that which in fact has the greatest claims on the name of Tataric — is never thus called, it has become an almost universal custom to apply it to the third or Turkic branch of the Ural-Altaic division, and the races be- longing to this branch have in many instances themselves adopted this name. These Turkic, or as they were after- wards called, Tataric races, were settled on the northern side of the Caspian Sea, and on the Black Sea, and were known as Komanes, Pelenegs, and Bulgars, when conquered by the Mongolic army of the son of Kingis- khén, who founded the Kapkakian Empire, extending from the Dniestr to the Yemba, and the Kirgisian steppes. Russia for two centuries was under the sway of these Khans, known as the Khans of the Golden Horde. This empire was dissolved towards the end of the 15th cen- tury, and several smaller royalties rose out of its ruins. Among these Krim, Kasan, and Astrachan, were the most important. The princes of these empires still gloried in their descent from Kingiskhan, and had hence a right to 97 the name of Mongols or Tatars. But their armies or subjects also, who were of Turkish blood, received the name of their princes; and their dialects continued to be called Tataric, even after the tribes by whom they were spoken had been brought under the Russian sceptre, and were no longer governed by Khéns of Mongolic or Ta- taric origin. It would perhaps be desirable to use Turkic or Hunnic, instead of Tataric, when speaking of the third branch of the northern division of the Turanian family, though a change of terminology generally produces as much confusion as it remedies. The recollection of their non-Tataric, i. e. non-Mongolic origin, remains, it appears, among the so called Tatars of Kasan and Astrachan. If asked whether they are Tatars, they reply no; and they call their language Turki or Turuk, but not Tatari. Nay, they consider Tatar as a term of abuse, synonymous with robber, evidently from a recollection that their ancestors had once been conquered and enslaved by Mongolic, that is, Tataric tribes. All this rests on the authority of Klap- roth, who during his stay in Russia, had great oppor- tunities of studying the languages spoken on all the fron- tiers of this half-Asiatic Empire. The conquests of the Mongols or the descendants of Kingis-khén, were not confined however, to these Turkic tribes. They conquered China in the east, where they founded the Mongolic dynasty of Yuan, and in the west, after subduing the Khalifs of Bagdad, and the Sultans of Iconium , they conquered Moscow, and devastated the greater part of Russia. In 1240 they invaded Poland, in 1241 Silesia. Here they recoiled before the united armies of Germany, Poland, and Silesia. They retired into Moravia, and having exhausted this country, occupied Hungary. At that time they had to choose a new Khan, which could only be done at Karakorum, the old capital of their empire. Thither they withdrew to elect an em- peror to govern an empire which then extended from China to Poland, from India to Siberia. But a realm of such vast proportions could not be long held together, and towards the end of the 13th century, it broke up i The Mon- golic con- quests. Mongolic Dialects. into several independent states, all still under Mongolian princes, but no longer under one Khan of Khans. Thus, new independent Mongolic empires arose in China, Tur- kestan, Siberia, Southern Russia, and Persia. In 1360, the Mongolian dynasty was driven out of China; in the 15th century they lost their hold on Russia. In Central Asia they rallied once more under Timur (1369), whose sway was again acknowledged from Karakorum to Persia and Anatolia. But in 1468, this empire also fell by its own weight, and for want of a powerful ruler like Kingis- khan or Timur. In Gagatai alone, the country extending from the Aral Lake to the Hindukush, between the rivers Oxus and Yaxartes, (Gihon and Sihon), and once governed by Gagatai, the son of Kingis-khan — the Mongolian dynasty maintained itself, and thence it was that Baber, a descendant of Timur, conquered India, and founded there a Mongolian dynasty, surviving up to our own times as the Great-Moguls of Delhi. Most Mogolic tribes are now under the sway of the nations whom they once had conquered, the Tungusic or Mangu sovereigns of China, the Russian Czars, and the Turkish Sultans. The Mongolic language, although spoken (but not con tinuously) from China as far as the Volga, has given rise to but few dialects. Next to Tungusic, the Mongolic is the poorest language of the Turanian family, and the scan- tiness of grammatical terminations accounts for the fact that, as a language, it has remained very much unchanged. There is, however, a distinction between the language as spoken by the Eastern, Western, and Northern tribes, and incipient traces of grammatical life have lately been discovered by Castrén, the great Swedish traveller and Turanian philologist, in the spoken dialect of the Buriats. In it the persons of the verb are distinguished by affixes, while according to the rules of Mongolic grammar, no other dialect distinguishes in the verb between amo, amas, amat. The Mongols who live in Europe have fixed their tents on each side of the Volga and along the coast of the Caspian Sea near Astrachan. Another colony is found 99 south-east of Sembirsk. They belong to the Western branch, and are Olot or Kalmiks, who left their seats on the Koko-nur, and entered Europe in 1662. They proceeded from the clans Diirbet and Torgod, but most of the Tor- gods returned again in 1770, and their descendants are now scattered over the Kirgisian steppes. According to Képpen, in his Statistical journey in the country of the Don Cossacks (or Kosaks) (Peters- burg), 1852, the Kalmyks form two per cent of the inhabi- tants of that country, and nearly four per cent of the Cossack army. They are divided into Chutun’s, Sotni’s (Hundreds), and Uluss’s; a Chutun consisting of 10 to 25 Kibitkas or tents. In 1850 there were 3 Uluss’s, with 13 Sotni’s and 5007 Kibitkas. Bronewsky, in his history of the Don army, says that the number of the Kalmyks in the country of the Don Cossacks, began to increase about 1699, and that in 1710 the Khan Ajuki undertook to send 10,000 Kal- myks, of the Diirbet clan, to the Don. According to Koppen, however, Ajuki only agreed to allow 10,000 Kal- myks to pass the winter of 1740 —11, near the Manytsh and Ssal-rivers, as a safeguard against the inroads of the Don Cossacks who under Nekrassow, had escaped to the Kuban. They probably remained afterwards, and those who were baptized, have been allowed, since 1729, to enter the army on the same footing as the Cossacks. In 1771 a great emigration took place, and many of the Kalmyks went back into their Trans-Uralian steppes; but as late as 1800, the Emperor Paul gave to the Kalmyk’s of the Great and Little clans of Durbet, who had remained or returned, all the land which they had occupied before 1771. It is here, between the Volga, the Sarpa, the Ssal, the Manytsh, the Kuma and the Caspian Sea, that they still lead their nomadic life. Much more important at the present moment are the Turkic Lan- languages belonging to the third branch of the Turanian family, most prominent among which is the Turkish or Osmanli of Constantinople. The number of the Turkish inhabitants of European Turkey is indeed small. It is wa 1 guages. Turkish or Osmanli. generally stated at 2,000,000; but Safarik estimates the number of genuine Turks in Europe at not more than 700,000, who rule over fifteen millions of people. The different Turkic dialects of which the Osmanli is one, occupy one of the largest linguistic areas, extending from the Lena and the Polar Sea down to the Adriatic. The three principal dialects of Turkish are, according to Béresin: 1. the Kagataic or Eastern dialect, spoken in Turkestan and known by some books printed at Kasan; 9. the Northern dialect generally called Tataric and spoken in the Kipkak and Siberia; 3. the Western dialect, best known as the Osmanli, and spoken in the South-East of Europe and Asia minor. To these should be added, however, as independent branches the dialect of the Yakuts and that of the Ku- vashians. The Turkish of Constantinople is so full of Persian and Arabic words, that a Turk from the country finds difficulty in understanding his master in town. Yet the real stock of the language has changed so little, that a Turk from Tomsk and Yeniseisk in Siberia is said to be able to understand the Turkish of Constantinople if spoken slowly and distinctly; and without admixture of Persian or Arabic words. A well-educated Turk may speak a whole sentence containing no one word of Turkic origin, and even particles and grammatical terminations, ever the last importations from one language into another, betray frequently a Persian or Arabic origin. Arabic as the language of Mahommed and the Koran would naturally find its way into the language of the people who adopted that religion. As to Persian, this was long the language of the most civilized and most advanced nation in Asia. In the first centuries of the Islam, Persians were the teachers of Arabs, and among the early Arabic authors, many names are found of Persian origin. Persian literature again was the only source whence, in the East, a taste for the more refined branches of poetry could be satisfied, whether through originals or by the medium of translations. In 101 fact, Persian was for a long time the French of Asia, and it is still used there as the language of diplomatic correspondence. Hence many terms connected with literary subjects, or referring to other occupations of a society more advanced in civilization, are of Persian, i. e. of Arian origin. A knowledge of Persian and Arabic is therefore invaluable to the student of Turkish. A list of all Turkic dialects, arranged under three divisions, South-eastern, Northern, and Western, is given at the end of this chapter according to Beresin. The most ancient name by which the Turkic tribes of Central Asia were known to the Chinese, was Hiung-nu. These Hiung-nu founded an empire (206 B. c.) comprising a large portion of Asia, west of China. Engaged in fre- quent wars with the Chinese, they were defeated at last in the middle of the first century after Christ. Thereupon they divided into a northern and southern empire; and after the southern Hiung-nu had become subjects of China, they attacked the northern Hiung-nu together with the Chinese, and, driving them out of their seats between the rivers Amur and Selenga, and the Altai-mountains, west- ward, they gave the first impulse to the inroads of the Barbarians into Europe. In the beginning of the third century, Mongolic and Tungusic tribes, who had filled the seats of the Northern Hiung-nu, had grown so powerful as to attack the Southern Hiung-nu and drive them from their territories. This occasioned a second migration of Asiatic tribes towards the west. Another name by which the Chinese designate these Hiung-nu or Turkish tribes, is Tukiu. Tukiu is supposed to be identical with Turk, and although the tribe to which this name was given was originally but small, it began to spread in the sixth century from the Altai to the Caspian . Sea, and it was probably to them that in 569 the Emperor Justinian sent an ambassador in the person of Semarchos. The empire of the Tu-kiu was destroyed in the eighth century, by the “Hui-he (Chinese Kao-ke). This tribe, equally of Turkic origin, maintained itself for about a century, and was then conquered by the Chinese and driven Ancient Seat of Turkic Tribes. Turkmans. Nogais. 102 back from the northern borders of China. Part of the ‘Hui-‘he occupied Tangut, and after a second defeat by the Mongolians in 1257, the remnant proceeded still further west, and joined the Uigurs, whose tents were pitched near the towns of Turfan, Kasgar, ‘Hamil, and Aksu. These facts, gleaned chiefly from Chinese historians, show from the very earliest times the westward tendency of the Turkish nations. In 568 Turkic tribes occupied the country between the Volga and the sea of Azov, and numerous reinforcements have since strengthened their po- sition in those parts. The northern part of Persia, west of the Caspian Sea, Armenia, the south of Georgia, Sirwan, and Dagestan, harbour a Turkic population, known by the general name of Turkman or Kisil-bas (Red-caps). They are No- madic robbers, and their arrival in these countries dates from the eleventh and twelfth centuries. East of the Caspian Sea the Turkman tribes are under command of the Usbek-Khans of Khiva, Fergana and Bukhara. They call themselves, however, not subjects but guests of these Khans. Still more to the East the Turkmans are under Chinese sovereignty, and in the south- west they reach as far as Khorasan and the adjoining provinces of Persia. The Usbeks, descendants of the ‘Huy-‘he and Uigurs, and originally settled in the neighbourhood of the towns of ‘Hoten, Kasgar, Turfan, and ‘Hamil, crossed the Yaxartes in the sixteenth century, and after several successful cam- paigns gained possession of Balkh, Kharism (Khiva), Bukhara, and Ferganah. In the latter country and in Balkh, they have become agricultural; but generally their life is nomadic, and too warlike to be called pastoral. Another Turkic tribe are the Nogai, west of the Caspian, and also north of the Black Sea. To the be- ginning of the seventeenth century they lived northeast of the Caspian, and the steppes on the left of the Irtis bore their name. Pressed by the Kalmuks, a Mongolic tribe, the Nogais advanced westward as far as Astrachan. Pe- ter I. transferred them thence to the north of the Cau- 103 casian mountains, where they still graze their flocks on the shores of the Kuban and the Kuma. Their chief clans are the Kasbulat, Kipkak, Mangut, Yedisan, Gambulat, Yedikul and Naurus; between the rivers ‘Hots and Laba, the Mansur-ogli, and between the Terek and Kuma, the Kara-Nogai, Yedikul, Yedisan, and Gambulat. One horde, that of Kundur, remained on the Volga, subject to the Kalmuks. Another tribe of Turkic origin in the Caucasus are the Bazianes. They now live near the sources of the Kuban, but before the fifteenth century within the town Magari, on the Kuma. A third Turkish tribe in the Caucasus are the Kumiiks on the rivers Sunga, Aksai, and Koisu: now subjects of Russia though under native princes. A grammar of the Turkic or as they are more commonly called, Tataric dialects, as spoken in the Caucasns, was published at Tiflis in 1848 by Makarow. It is written in Russian. An account of it is given by Professor Boeht- lingk in the Mélanges Asiatiques, i., p. 127. It comprises the dialects of the Nogdis, the Kumiks of Aderbigan, with others: —showing where they deviate in pronunciation or grammatical peculiarities from the general rules of Tur- kish or Tataric grammar. The southern portion of the Altaic mountains has long been inhabited by the Baskirs, a race considerably mixed with Mongolic blood, savage and ignorant, subjects of Russia, and Mahommedans by faith. Their land is divided into four Roads, called the Roads of Siberia, that of Kasan, of Nogai, and of Osa, a place on the Kama. Among the Baskirs, and in villages near Ufa, is now sett- led a Turkic tribe, the Meskeriks who formerly lived near the Volga. The tribes near the Lake of Aral are called Kara- Kalpak. They are subject partly to Russia, partly to the Khans of Khiva. The Turks of Siberia, commonly celled Tatars, are partly original settlers, who crossed the Ural, and founded the Khanat of Sibir, partly later colonists. Their chief Baziaues Kumiiks. Baskirs. Turks of Siberia. Yakuts. Kirgis. towns are Tobolsk, Yeniseisk, and Tomsk. Separate tribes are the Uranhat on the Kulym, and the Barabas in the steppes between the Irtis and the Ob. The dialects of these Siberian Turks are considerably intermingled with foreign words, taken from Mongolic, Samoiedic or Russian sources. Still they resemble one another closely in all that belongs to the original stock of the language. In the north-east of Asia, on both sides of the river Lena, the Yakuts form the most remote link in the Turkic chain of languages. Their male population has lately risen to 100,000, while in 1793 it amounted only to 50,066. The Russians became first acquainted with them in 1620. They call themselves Sakha, and are mostly heathen, though Christianity is gaining ground among them. Ac- cording to their traditions, their ancestors lived for a long time in company with Mongolic tribes, and traces of this can still be discovered in their language. Attacked by their neighbours, they built rafts and floated down the river Lena, where they settled in the neighbourhood of what is now Yakutzk. Their original seats seem to have been north-west of Lake Baikal. Their language has pre- served the Turkic type more completely than any other dialect of this third Turanian class. Separated from the common stock at an early time, and removed from the disturbing influences to which the other dialects were ex- posed, whether in war or in peace, the Yakutian has pre- served so many primitive features of Turkic grammar, that even now it may be used as a key to the grammatical forms of the Osmanli and other more cultivated dialects. Southern Siberia is the mother-country of the Kirgis, one of the most numerous tribes of Turkic origin. The Kirgis lived originally between the Ob and Yenisei, where Mongolic tribes settled among them. At the beginning of the seventeenth century the Russians became acquainted with the Eastern Kirgis, then living along the Yenisei. In 1606 they had become tributary to Russia, and after several wars with two neighbouring tribes, were driven more and more south-westward, till they left Siberia al- 105 together at the beginning of the eighteenth century. They now live at Burut, in Chinese Turkestan, together with the Kirgis of the “Great Horde”, near the town of Kas- gar, north as far as the Irtis. Another tribe is that of the Western Kirgis, or Kirgis-Kasak, who are partly independent, partly tri- butary to Russia and China. Of what are called the three Kirgis Hordes, trom the Caspian Sea East as far as Lake Tenghiz, the Small Horde is fixed in the West, between the rivers Yemba and Ural: the Great Horde in the East; while the most poeta occupies the centre between the Sarasu and Yemba, and is called the Middle Horde. Since 1819 the Great Horde has been subject to Russia. Other Kirgis tribes, though nominally subject to Russia, are really her most dangerous enemies. The Turks of Asia Minor and Syria came from Kho- Turks of rasan and Eastern Persia, and are Turkman, or remnants Aan of the Selguks, the rulers of Persia during the Middle Ag®&. The Osmanli, whom we are accustomed to call Turks par excellence, and who form the ruling por- tion of the Turkish empire, must be traced to the same source. They are now scattered over the whole Turkish empire in Europe, Asia and Africa, and their number amounts to between eleven and twelve millions. They form the landed gentry, the aristocracy, and bureaucracy of Turkey, and their language, the Osmanli, is spoken by persons of rank and education, and by all government authorities in Syria, in Egypt, at Tunis, and at Tripoli. In the southern provinces of Asiatic Russia, along the borders of the Caspian, and through the whole of Tur- kestan, it is the language of the people. It is heard even at the Court of Teheran, and understood by official per- sonages in Persia. The rise of this powerful tribe of Osman, and the Rise of the spreading of that Turkish dialect which is now empha- tically called the Turkish, are matters of historical no- toriety. We need not search for evidence in Chinese annals, or try to discover analogies between names that a Osmanlis. 106 Greek or an Arabic writer may by chance have heard and handed down to us, and which some of these tribes have preserved to the present day. The ancestors of the Osman Turks are men as well known to European histo- rians as Charlemagne or Alfred. It was in the year 4224 that Soliman-shah and his tribe, pressed by Mongo- lians, left Khorasan and pushed westward into Syria, Ar- menia, and Asia Minor. Soliman’s son, Ertoghrul, took service under Aladdin, the Selguk-Snltan of Iconium (Ni- caea), and after several successful campaigns against Greeks and Mongolians, received part of Phrygia as his own, and there founded what was afterwards to become the basis of the Osmanic empire. During the last years of the thirteenth century the Sultans of Iconium lost their power, and their former vassals became independent so- vereigns. Osman, after taking his share of the spoil in Asia, advanced through the Olympic passes into Bithynia and was successful against the armies of the Emperors of Byzantium:—and Osman became henceforth the national name of his people. His son, Orkhan, whose capital was Prusa (Bursa), after conquering Nicomedia (1327), and Nicaea (1330), threatened the Hellespont. He took the title of Padishah, and his court was called the “High Porte.” His son, Soliman, crossed the Hellespont (1357), and took possession of Gallipoli and Sestos. He thus became master of the Dardanelles. Murad I. took Adrian- ople in 1362, made it his capital, conquered Macedonia, and after a severe struggle, overthrew the united forces of the Slavonic races, south of the Danube, the Bulga- rians, Servians, and Kroatians, in the battle of Kossova- polye (1389). He fell himself, but his successor Baya- zeth, followed his course, took Thessaly, passed Ther- mopylae, and devastated the Peloponnesus. The Emperor of Germany, Sigismund, who advanced at the head of an army, composed of French, German and Slavonic soldiers, was defeated by Bayazeth on the Danube in the battle of Nicopolis, 1399. Bayazeth took Bosnia, and would have taken Constantinople, had not the same Mongolians, who' in 1244 drove the first Turkish tribes westward into 107 Persia, threatened again their newly acquired possessions. Timur had grasped the reins, fallen from the hands of Kingis-khan: Bayazeth was compelled to meet him, and suffered defeat (1402) in the battle of Angora (An- kyra) in Galatia. Europa now had respite, but not long; Timur died, and with him his empire fell to pieces, while the Osmanic army rallied again under Mahomet I (1413), and re-at- tained its former power under Murad II. (1421). Suc- cessful in Asia, Murad sent his armies back to the Danube, and after long continued campaigns, and powerful resistance from the Hungarians and Slaves under Hunyad, he at last gained two decisive victories; Varna in 1444, and Kossova in 1418. Constantinople could no longer be held, and the Pope endeavoured in vain to rouse the chivalry of Western Europe to a crusade against the Turks. Ma- homet II, succeeded in 1451, and on the 29th of May, 1453, Constantinople, after a valiant resistance, fell and became the capital of the Turkish empire. Four hundred years have since elapsed, and it is now no longer the power, but the weakness of the Turks, which forms the terror of Europe. The vacuum which was created by the decay of the Byzantine empire, in the political system of Europe, filled for a time by the Turks, begins to make itself felt again, and concomitant pressure from all sides has brought on the events we are called to witness. It is no easy matter to acquire a perfect knowledge of Turkish. In order to speak, to read, and to write it with ease, elegance, and correctness, we must in reality learn three languages, Arabic, Persian, and Turkish, each built on a different system of grammar, the Arabic be- longing to the Semitic, the Persian to the Arian, and the Turkish to the Turanian family of speech. But few, even of the most learned Turks, command this full knowledge of their language, no more perhaps than in England pos- sess a knowledge of Latin, Anglo-Saxon, and Norman- French. Divested of its foreign elements, few languages Turkish Grammar. Turkish conjugation. are so easy, so intelligible, and I might almost say, so amusing as Turkish. It is a real pleasure to-read the Tnrkish grammar, even without the wish to acquire it practically. The ingenious manner in which the nu- merous grammatical forms are brought out, the regula- rity which pervades the system of declension and con- jugation, the transparency and intelligibility of the whole structure must strike all who have a sense for that won- derful power of the human mind which has displayed itself in language. Given so small a number of graphic and demonstrative roots as would not suffice to express the commonest wants of human beings: — to produce an instrument that shall render the faintest shades of feeling and thought; — given a vague infinitive or a stern im- perative: — to derive from it such moods as an optative or subjunctive, and such tenses as an Aorist or Paulo- post Future; — given incoherent utterances: — to arrange them into a system where all is uniform and regular, all combined and harmonious — such is the work of the human mind which we see realized in ‘“language.” But in most languages nothing of this early process remains visible, and we hardly know whether to call them the work of nature or of art. They stand before us like so- lid rocks, and the microscope of the philologist alone can reveal the remains of organic life of which they are com- posed. But in the grammar of the Turkic languages we have before us a language of perfectly transparent structure, and a grammar whose inner workings we can study, as if watching the building of cells in a crystal beehive. An eminent Orientalist remarked “we might imagine Turkish to be the result of the deliberations of some eminent so- ciety of learned men;” but no such society could have devised what the mind of man produced, left to itself in the steppes of Tatary, and guided by its innate laws, or by an instinctive power as wonderful as any within the realm of nature. Let us examine a few forms. “To love”, in the most general sense of the word, or love, as a root, is in 109 Turkish sev. This does not as yet mean “to love”, which is sevmek, or “love” as a substantive, which is sevgu, or sevi; but it only expresses the general quality of loving in the abstract. This root, as we remarked be- fore, can never be touched. Whatever syllables may be added for the modification of its meaning, the root itself must stand out in full prominence like a pearl set in dia- monds. It must never be changed or broken, assimilated or modified, as in the English I fall, I fell, I take, I took, I think, I thought, and many similar. With this one re- striction, however, we are free to treat it at pleasure. Let us suppose we possessed nothing like our conjuga- tion, but had to express such ideas as I love, thou lovest, and the rest, for the first time arising in the mind. No- thing would seem more natural now than to form an ad- jective or a participle, meaning “loving”, and then add the different pronouns, as I loving, thou loving, &c. Exactly this the Turks have done. We need not inquire at present how they produced what we call a participle. It was a task by no means facile as we now conceive it, nor is it possible in every case to trace a process essen- tially complicated. In Turkish, one participle, correspon- ding to ours in ing, is formed by er. Sever, would, therefore, mean lov4-er or lov4ing. Thou in Turkish is sen, and as all modificatory syllables are placed at the end of the root, we get sev-er-sen, thou lovest. You in Turkish is siz; hence sev-er-siz, you love. In these cases the pronouns and the terminations of the verb coincide exactly. In other persons the coincidences are less complete, because the pronominal terminations have sometimes been modified, or, as in the third person sin- gular, sever, dropped altogether as unnecessary. A re- ference to other cognate languages, however, where either the terminations or the pronouns themselves have main- tained a more primitive form, enables us to say that in the original Turkic verb, all persons of the present were formed by means of pronouns appended to this participle sever. Instead of “I love, thou lovest, he loves”, the Tataric grammarian says, “lover-I, lover-thou, lover.” 110 But these personal terminations are not the same in the imperfect as in the present. PRESENT. IMPERFECT. Sev-er-im I love sev-di-m, I loved. Sev-er-sen sev-di-n’. Sev-er sev-di. Sev-er-iz sev-di-k (miz). Sev-er-siz sev-di-niz. Sev-er-ler sev-di-ler. We need not inquire as yet into the origin of the di, added to form the imperfect; but it should be stated that in the first person plural of the imperfect, a various reading occurs in other Turkic dialects, and that miz is used there instead of k. Now, looking at these terminations m, n°, i, miz, nz, and ler, we find that they are exactly the same as the possessive pronouns used after nouns. As in some Italian dialects we have fratel-mio, my brother, and as in Hebrew we can say El-i, God (of) I, i. e. my God, the Turkic languages form the phrases “my house, thy house, his house”, by possessive pronouns appended to substantives. A Turk says, — Baba, father, baba-m, my father. Agha, lord, agha-n-, thy lord. El, hand, el-i, his hand. O’hlu, son, o’hlu-muz, our son. Ani, mother, ana-n-iz, your mother. Kitab, book, kitab-leri, their book. We may hence infer that in the imperfect these pro- nominal terminations were originally taken in a possessive sense, and that, therefore, what remains after the personal terminations are removed, sev-di, was never an adjective or a participle, like sev-er, but must have been originally a substantive capable of receiving terminal possessive pro- nouns; that is, the idea originally expressed by the imperfect could not have been “loving-I”, but “love of me.” How then, could this convey the idea of a past tense as contrasted with the present? Let us look to our own 11 language. If desirous to express the perfect, we say, 1 have loved, j'ai aimé. This “I have”, meant originally, I possess, and in Latin “amicus quem amatum habeo “, signified in fact a friend whom I hold dear, — not as yet, whom I have loved. In the course of time, however, these phrases, “I have said, I have loved”, took the sense of the perfect, and of time past — and not unnaturally, inasmuch as what I hold, or have done, ts done; — done, as we say, and past. (In place of an auxiliary possessive verb, the Turkic language uses an auxiliary possessive pronoun to the same effect.) “Paying belonging to me”, equals “I have paid”; in either case a phrase originally possessive, took a temporal signification, and became a past or perfect tense. This, however, is the very ana- tomy of grammar, and when a Turk says “sevdim” he is, of course, as unconscious of its literal force, “loving belonging to me”, as of the circulation of his blood. Leaving, therefore, these analytical niceties, and the earlier stage of the Turanian speech, we proceed to a rapid glance at some of its further developments. The most ingenious part of Turkish is undoubtedly the verb. Like Greek and Sanskrit, it exhibits a variety of moods and tenses, sufficient to express the nicest sha- des of doubt, of surmise, of hope, and supposition. In all these forms the root remains intact, and sounds like a key-note through all the various modulations produced by the changes of person, number, mood, and time. But there is one feature so peculiar to the Turkish verb, that no analogy can be found in any of the Arian languages — the power of producing new roots by the mere addition of certain letters, which give to every verb a negative, or causative, or reflexive, or reciprocal meaning. Sev-mek, for instance, as a simple root, means to love. By adding in, we obtain a reflexive verb, sev-in- mek, which means to love oneself, or rather, to rejoice, to be happy. This may now be conjugated through all moods and tenses, sevin being in every respect equal to a new root. By adding ish we form a reciprocal verb, sev-ish-mek, to love one another. 112 To each of these three forms a causative sense may be imparted by the addition of the syllable dir. Thus, I. sev-mek, to love, becomes 1v, sev-dir-mek, to cause to love. II. sev-in-mek, to rejoice, becomes v, sev-in-dir- mek, to cause to rejoice. ur. sev-ish-mek, to love one another, becomes vi, sev- ish-dir-mek, to cause ourselves to love one an- other. Each of these six forms may again be turned into a passive by the addition of il. Thus, I. sev-mek, to love, becomes vi, sev-il-mek, to be loved. . sev-in-mek, to rejoice, becomes vii, sev-in-il- mek, to be rejoiced at. . sev-ish-mek, to love one another, becomes 1x, sev- ish-il-mek, not translatable. . sev-dir-mek, to cause one to love, becomes 1X, sev- dir-il-mek, to be brought to love. . sev-in-dir-mek, to cause to rejoice, becomes xi, sev-in-dir-il-mek, to be made to rejoice. . sev-ish-dir-mek, to cause to love one another, becomes x11, sev-ish-dir-il-mek, to be brought to love one another. This, however, is by no means the whole verbal con- tingent at the command of a Turkish grammarian. Every one of these twelve secondary or tertiary roots may again be turned into a negative by the mere addition of me. Thus, sev-mek, to love, becomes sev-me-mek, not to love. And if it is necessary to express the impossi- bility of loving, the Turk has a new root at hand to convey even that idea. Thus while sev-me-mek denies only the fact of loving, sev-eme-mek, denies its pos- sibility , and means not to be able to love. By the ad- dition of these two modificatory syllables, the number of derivative roots is at once raised to thirty-six. Thus, I. sev-mek, to love, becomes XII, sev-me-mek, not to love. 113 . sev-in-mek, to rejoice, becomes XIv, sev-in-me- mek, not to rejoice. . sev-ish-mek, to love one another, becomes Xv, sev-ish-me-mek, not to love one another. . sev-dir-mek, to cause to love, becomes XVI, sev- dir-me-mek, not to cause one to love. . sev-in-dir-mek, to cause to rejoice, becomes XVII, sev-in-dir-me-mek, not to cause one to rejoice. . sev-ish-dir-mek, to cause ourselves to love one another, becomes xvii, sev-ish-dir-me-mek, not to cause ourselves to love one another. .sev-il-mek, to be loved, becomes XIX, sev-il-me- mek, not to be loved. .sev-in-il-mek, to be rejoiced at, becomes XX, sev- in-il-me-mek, not to be the objeet of rejoicing. sev-ish-il-mek, if it was used, would become XXI, sev-is-il-me-mek; neither form being translatable. sev-dir-il-mek, to be brought to love, becomes xxI1I, scv-dir-il-me-mek, not to be brought to love. . sev-in-dir-mek, to be made to rejoice, becomes XXIII, sev-in-dir-il-me-mek, not to be made to rejoice. . sev-ish-dir-il-mek, to be brought to lovc one another, becomes xx1v, sev-ish-dir-il-me-mek, not to be brought to love one another. Some of these forms are of course of rare occurrence, and with many verbs these derivative roots, though pos- sible grammatically, would be logically impossible. Even a verb like ‘to love’, perhaps the most pliant of all, resists some of the modifications to which a Turkish gram- marian is fain to subject it. It is clear, however, that wherever a negation can be formed, the idea of impos- sibility also can be superadded, so that by substituting eme for me, we should raise the number of derivative roots to thirty-six. The very last of these, XXXVI, sev- ish-dir-il-eme-mek would be perfectly intelligible, and might be used, for instance, at the present moment if, in 8 Finnic Branch. speaking of the Sultan and the Czar, we wished to say, that it was impossible that they should be brought to love one another. Our review of the languages of the seat of war in the East might here be closed, because the next branch of the Turanian family, the Finnic, carries us up so far to the north of Europe and Asia, that we may hope no European army will have to march there. But while the army in the South will probably never exchange words with a Finn, many of the inhabitants of the Baltic coast, with whom the fleets will have probably to make acquain- tance belong to this division of the Turanian race. And indeed so wide and wayward have been the migrations of this family, that its scattered members — Magyars or Hungarians on the Middle Danube, and Finns and Lapps on the Northern Gulf, touch either extreme on the vast line of the allied operations. We shall therefore add a few words on these nations and their early wanderings. It is generally supposed that the original seat of the Finnic tribes was in the Ural mountains, and their lan- guages have been therefore called Uralic. From this centre they spread east and west: and southward in an- ~ cient times, even to the Black Sea, where Finnic tribes, together with Mongolic and Turkic, were probably known to the Greeks under the comprehensive and convenient name of Scythians. As we possess no literary documents of any of these Nomadic nations, it is impossible to say, even where Greek writers have preserved their barbarous names, to what branch of the vast Turanian family they belonged. Their habits were probably identical before the Christian era, during the Middle Ages, and at the present day. One tribe takes possession of a tract and retains it perhaps for several generations, giving its name to the meadows where it tends its flocks, and to the rivers where the horses are watered. If the country be fertile, it will attract the eye of other tribes; wars begin, and if resistance be hopeless, hundreds of families fly from their paternal pastures, to migrate perhaps for 115 generations, — for migration they find a more natural life than permanent habitation, — and after a time we may rediscover their names a thousand miles distant. Or two tribes will carry on their warfare for ages, till with re- duced numbers both have perhaps to make common cause against some new enemy. During these continued struggles their languages lose as many words, perhaps, as men are killed on the field of battle. Some words (we might say) go over like deserters — others are made prisoners, and exchanged again during times of peace. Besides, there are parleys and challenges, and at last a dialect is produced which may very properly be called a language of the camp, — (Urdu-zeban, camp- language, is the proper name of Hindustani, formed in the armies of the Mogol-emperors) — but where it is difficult for. the philologist to arrange the living and to number the slain, unless some salient points of grammar have been preserved throughout the mélée. We saw how a number of tribes may be at times suddenly gathered by the command of a Kingis-khan or Timur, like billows heaving and swelling at the call of a thunderstorm. One such wave rolling on from Karakorum to Liegnitz may sweep away all the sheepfolds and landmarks of centuries, and when the storm is over, a thin crust will, as after a flood, remain, concealing the underlying stratum of people and languages. Geologists tell us that beneath a layer of gravel, granite rocks are often concealed. And thus when we set aside the family name of Tatar, conferred by the princes of the house of Kingis-khan on the tribes of the Black Sea and Siberia, we recognize the tribes themselves as indubitably and purely Turkic. On the evidence of language, the Finnic stock is di- vided into four branches, The Kudic, The Bulgaric, The Permic, The Ugric. Four Divi- sions of the Finnic Branch. The Kudic Branch. The Finns. 116 The Kudic branch comprises the Finnic of the Baltic coasts. The name is derived from Kud (Tchud) originally applied by the Russians to the Finnic nations in the north-west of Russia. Afterwards it took a more general sense, and was used almost synonymously with Scythian for all the tribes of Central and Northern Asia. The Finns, properly so called, or as they call themselves Suomalainen, 7. e., inhabitants of fens, are settled in the provinces of Finland (formerly belonging to Sweden, but since 1809 annexed to Russia), and in parts of the go- vernments of Archangel and Olonetz. Their number is 1,521,515. The Finns are governed by Russia with some moderation, and their country, though apparently more swamp than soil, yields an annual surplus of revenue. The Finns are the most advanced of their whole family, and are, the Magyars excepted, the only Finnic race that can claim a station among the civilized and civilizing na- tions of the world. Their literature and, above all, their popular poetry bears witness to a high intellectual deve- lopment in times which we may call mythical, and in places more favourable to the glow of poetical feelings than their present abode, the last refuge that Europe could afford them. These songs still live among the poorest, recorded by oral tradition alone, and preserving all the features of a perfect metre and of a more ancient lan- guage. A national feeling has lately arisen amongst the Finns, in spite of Russian supremacy, and the labours of Sjogren, Lonnrot, Castrén, and Kellgren, receiving hence a powerful impulse, have produced results truly sur- prising. From the mouths of the aged an epic poem has been collected equalling the Iliad in length and completeness, nay, if we can forget for a moment all that we in our youth learned to call beautiful, of a beauty essentially similar. A Finn is not a Greek, and Wainamoinen was not a Homer. But if the poet may take his colours from that nature by which he is surrounded, if he may depict the men with whom he lives, “Kalewala” possesses merits not dissi- milar from the Iliad, and will claim its place as the fifth national epic of the world, side by side with the Ionian oll? songs, with the Mahabharata, the Shah-nameh, and the Nibelunge. This early literary cultivation has not been without a powerful influence on the language. It has imparted permanency to its form and a traditional character to its words, so that at first sight we might almost doubt whether the grammar of this language had not left the agglutinative stage, and entered into the current of in- flection, with Greek or Sanskrit. The agglutinative type, however, yet remains, and its grammar shows a luxuriance of grammatical combination second only to Turkish and Hungarian. Like Turkish it observes the “harmony of vowels”, a feature peculiar to Turanian languages, as explained before. Karelian and Tavastian are dialectical varieties of Finnish. The present civilization of Finnland, its schools and university (Helsingfors), its literature and government, are rather of Teutonic than of indigenous growth. But traces of the Finnic character are visible amongst the existing race. A tone of sad resignation, broken by fantastic wildness, runs through their literature, and meditativeness has almost become their national character. The Esths or Esthonians, neighbouring on the Finns speak a language closely allied to the Finnish. It is di- vided into the dialects of Dorpat (in Livonia) and Reval. Except some popular songs it is almost without literature. Esthonia together with Livonia and Kurland form the three Baltic provinces of Russia. The population on the islands of the Gulf of Finland is mostly Esthonian. In the higher ranks of society, however, the national language is hardly understood, and never spoken. The Estho- nians. Besides the Finns and Esthonians, the Livonians and The Livo- the Laps must be reckoned also amongst the same family. Their number, however, is small. The population of Livonia consists chiefly of Esths, Letts, Russians and Ger- mans. The number of Livonians speaking their own dia- lect is not more than $000. nians. The Laps or Laplanders inhabit the most Northern The Lap- part of Europe. They belong to Sweden and to Russia. landers The Bulgaric Branch. The Permic Branch. 118 Their number is estimated at 28,000. Their language has lately received much attention, and Castrén’s travels give a description of their manners most interesting from its simplicity and faithfulness. We need not dwell on the Bulgaric branch. This com- prises the Keremissians and Mordvinians, scattered in dis- connected colonies along the Volga, and surrounded by Russian and Turkic dialects. Both languages are ex- tremely artificial in their grammar, and allow an accumu- lation of pronominal affixes at the end of verbs, surpassed only by the Bask, the Caucasian, and those American dialects that have been called Polysynthetic. The general name given to these tribes, Bulgaric, is not borrowed from Bulgaria, the present seat of war; Bulgaria, on the contrary, received its name (replacing that of Moesia) from the Finnic armies by whom it was conquered in the séventh century. Bulgarian tribes ad- vanced from the Volga to the Don, and after a period, passed under the sovereignty of the Avars, on the Don and Dniepr, advancing to the Danube in 635, they founded the Bulgarian kingdom. This has retained its name to the present day, though the Finnic Bulgarians have long been absorbed by Slavonic inhabitants, and both brought under Turkish sway since 1392. The third branch also, Permic, concerns us little. It comprises the idioms of the Votiakes, the Sirianes, and the Permians, three dialects of one language. Perm was the ancient name for the country between 61°—76° E. L., and 55°—65° N. L. The Permic tribes were driven westward by their eastern neighbours, the Voguls, and thus pressed upon their western neighbours, the Bulgars of the Volga. The Votiakes are found between the rivers Vyatka and Kama. Northwards follow the Sirianes, in- habiting the country on the Upper Kama, while the Eastern portion is held by the Permians. These are surrounded on the south by the Tatars of Orenburg and the Baskirs; on the north by the Samoiedes, and on the east by Vo- guls, who pressed ou them from the Ural. 119 These Voguls together with Hungarians and Ostiakes The Ugric form the fourth and last branch of the Finnie family, the Ugric. It was in 462, after the dismemberment of At- tila’s Hunnic empire that these Ugric tribes approached Europe. They were then called Onagurs, Saragurs and Urogs; and in later times they occur in Russian Chro- nicles as Ugry. They are the ancestors of the Hungarians, and should not be confounded with the Uigurs, an ancient Turkic tribe mentioned before. The similarity between the Hungarian language and dialects of Finnic origin, spoken east of the Volga, is not a new discovery. In 1253, Wilhelm Ruysbroeck, a priest who travelled beyond the Volga, remarked that a race called Pascatir, who live on the Yaik, spoke the same language as the Hungarians. * They were then settled east of the old Bulgarian kingdom, the capital of which, the ancient Bolgari, on the left of the Volga, may still be traced in the ruins of Spask. If these Pascatir — the portion of the Ugric tribes that remained east of the Volga — are identical with the Baskir, as Klaproth sup- poses, it would follow that, in later times, they gave up their language, for the present Baskir no longer speak a Hungarian, but a Turkic language. The affinity of the Hungarian and the Ugro-Finnic dialects was first proved philologically by Gyarmathi in 1799. A few instances may suffice to show this connection: — Hungarian. Keremissian. English. Atya-m, atya-m, Atya-d, atya-t, Attya, atya-se, Atya-nk, atya-ne, Atya-tok, atya-da, Atty-ok. atya-st, my father. thy father. his father. our father. your father. their father. Branch. ZOUd[IY zojolu 1ey £8ou woaey © © uewsSunyg ‘ouSn Suofre epIu yo epolu wopnyp I © oc ueneyso ‘ond s{uryo skure(yoy JIBAY I ffofu unt (ny ®t uRlUBLIG ‘Orme J asyIeA osyaRY 030 au ourjoy UBIUIAPIOIN ‘onreSing aXopud axepuey wis ny mu wny I * uerssimole) ‘oueSmg awumny eS9IN Bsa)ey as)108 snny [ou n © + +c uBIUOYYSH ‘orpny uoUOWWAY ~~ uBsYopyd UBSYOpUEY UBWOSIES Isuny eljou © oystauryg ‘orpny 1] 6 8 L 9 ¥ ‘diysuonyeaa [enjnw a1oyy jo oaafep oY} Moys [IA SSB[) OUUL] AY} JO SAYIUBIQ INOJ OY} JO YO Jo s[eIOWNN oY} Jo [qe], 2Aneiedwod Vy English. = 3 = — = g 3 & thou findest DECLENSION, Esthonian. werre werrele CONJUGATION. Esthonian. Hungarian. vérestol Hungarian. Abl. Ascending scale of the Tungusic, Mongolic, Turkic, an Finnic Branches. The North- ern and Southern Divisions of the Turanian Family. -~ 1 We have thus examined the four chief classes of the Turanian family, the Tungusic, Mongolic, Turkic, and a Finnic. The Tungusic branch stands lowest; its grammar is not much richer than Chinese, and in its structure there is an absence of that architectonic order which in Chinese makes the Cyclopean stones of language hold together without grammatical cement. This applies, however, prin- cipally to the Mangu; other Tungusic dialects spoken, not in China, but in the original seats of the Mangus, are even now beginning to develop grammatical forms. The Mongolic dialects excel the Tungusic, but in their grammar can hardly distinguish between the different parts of speech. The spoken idioms of the Mongolians, as of the Tungusians, are evidently struggling towards a more organic life, and Castrén has brought home evidence of incipient verbal growth in the language of the Buriiits and a Tungusic dialect spoken near Nyerkinsk. This is, however, only a small beginning, if compared with the profusion of grammatical resources displayed by the Turkic languages. In their system of conjugation, the Turkic dialects can hardly be surpassed. Their verbs are like branches which break down under the heavy burden of fruits and blossoms. The excellence of the Finnic languages consists rather in a diminution than in- crease of verbal forms; but in declension, Finnish is even more overburdened than Turkish. These four branches, together with the Samoiedic, constitute the Northern or Ural-Altaic Division of the Turanian family. The Southern division consists of the Tamulic, the Bhotiya, comprising the Gangetic and Lobhitic, the Taic, and the Malaic branches. These two divisions comprehend very nearly all the languages of Asia, with the exception of Chinese. A few, such as Japanese, the language of Korea, of the Koriakes, the Kamkadales, &c. remain unclassed, but in them also some traces of common origin with the Turanian languages have, it is probable, survived, and await the discovery of philological re- search. Genealogical Table of the Turanian Family of Speech. Living LANGUAGES. Orotongs (Lower Tun- guska) . People of Nyerkinsk . . Lamutes (Coast of hg otsk Mangu (China) Sarra - Mongols (South, of Gobi) Khalkhas = (North of Gobi Saraigol (Tibet and Tan ul Kevot (Koko-nur) ) | Dsungar Olot or Torgod Kalmiks Diirbet Aimaks (i. e. tribes of Persia Tokpas (Tibet) Buridts (Lake Baikal) Uigurs , Komans Kagatais Usbeks Dialects of the Kapogires (Upper Tun-3 uska Karakalpaks Meskeryak's People of Siberia Yakuts People of Derbend " Aderbigan " Krimea Anatolia .. Rumelia . . . . Ostiako-Samoiedes . . Kamas Hungarians Voguls Ugro-Ostiakes Keremissians Mordvins Permians Sirianes DEAD LANGUAGES. > Permic BRANCHES. CLASSES. Western Tungusic Eastern Proper Mongolic Western-Mongols Eastern or | Northern-Mongols Kagataic, S. E. Turkic, N. Turkic Turkic, W. Northern Co { Samoiedic Eastern ¢ Ugric Bulgaric V *UOISIAIQ WIOYIION — [oon \ (Cralic) J . Kudic ! AIRY] NVINVHA, Scattered Lan es of the Turanian Family. 124 Dialects which have become separated from the com- mon stock at an early time, and have grown up without further intercourse, are sometimes carried away by cer- tain individual peculiarities to an extent that effaces every sign of their common and original character. Intercourse with other nations, and a national literature preserve lan- guages from dialectic schisms and the perpetuation of the fancies of individual expression. Language, and particu- larly Turanian language, is so pliant, that it lends itself to endless combinations and complexities. Even in Tur- kish, so long under the influence of a literary cultivation, the number of possible forms is endless: and some are actually used in the dialects of Tataric tribes, which the literary Osmanli has discarded. Tribes that have no idea of literature or other intellectual occupations, seem occa- sionally to take a delight in working their language to the utmost limits of grammatical expansion. The Ame- rican dialects are a wellknown instance: and the greater the seclusion of a tribe, the more amazing this rank ve- getation of their grammar. Probably we can form no cor- rect idea with what feeling a savage nation looks upon its language; perhaps, it may be, as a plaything, a kind of intellectual amusement, a maze in which the mind likes to lose and to find itself. But the result is the same everywhere. If the work of agglutination has once com- menced, and if there is nothing like literature or society to keep it within limits, two villages, separated only for a few generations, will become mutually unintelligible. This takes place in America, as well as on the borders of India and China; and in the North of Asia, Messer- schmidt relates that the Ostiakes, though really speaking the same language everywhere, have produced so many words and forms peculiar to each tribe, that even within the limits of twelve or twenty German miles, conversation between them becomes extremely difficult. It must be remembered also that the dictionary of these languages is small if compared with a Latin or Greek Thesaurus. The conversation of Nomadic tribes moves within a nar- row circle, and with the great facility of forming new 128 words, and the great inducement that a solitary life holds out to invent, for the objects which form the world of a shepherd or a huntsman, new appellations, half-poe- tical perhaps or satirical, we can understand how, after a few generations, the dictionary of a Nomadic tribe may have gone, as it were, through more than one edition. These few hints I give to show from what point of view we should look upon the relationship between Nomadic dialects: prepared to find but scanty remains of their ori- ginal vocabulary among tribes who after being severed from the rest, have continued for centuries without lite- rature and without tradition, in the fastnesses of the Py- renees, the unapproachable valleys of Mount Caucasus, or the solitary Tundras of Northern Europe. After these preliminary remarks, we proceed at once to a consideration of the Caucasian dialects, one of the outstanding and degenerated colonies of the Turanian family of speech. The first scholar who supplied information on the lan- guages spoken in the Caucasus, was Klaproth. His tra- vels, undertaken under the auspices of the Russian govern- ment, fall in the years 1807 and 1808, and their results were published in several works, as “Travels in the Cau- casus and Georgia”; ‘Archives for Asiatic Literature, History and Languages”, and “Asia Polyglotta.” We begin with the first class. He drew a distinction between the Caucasian tribes, properly so called, who have lived in their present seats from time immemorial; — other tribes now settled there, but known to be later immigrants, the Ossetes, and the Georgians; — and Turkish tribes, the Bazianes and others. The Georgians occupy the larger portion of the Caucasian territory. Their frontiers are the river Alazani in the east; the Black Sea on the west; the Caucasian mountains on the north; and the river Kur, the moun- tains of Karabagh, Pambaki, and Kildir in the south. They immigrated from the south-east; and their traditions, framed on Christian models, assign the country south of the Kur, to Karthlos, son of Thargamos, and great-grand- son of Japhet, the reputed ancestor of the Georgians. Caucasian Languages. Georgic Branch. Georgian. Mingrelian. Suanian. Lazian. The Georgians are divided into four branches. 1. The Georgians proper, called also Grusians or Karthu¢hli, inhabit Karthli, Kha‘hethi and Imerethi, and extend westward to the river Ts‘henis-tskali. The Psawi and Gudamakari in the high Caucasian mountains, east of the river Aragwa, belong to the same branch. 9. The inhabitants of Min grelia, Odisi, and Guria. Their country is the old Colchis, and their language most closely allied with the Lazian. 3. The Suans, or, as they call themselves, Swan (not Shnau), inhabit the southern slopes of the Caucasian Alps, where they rise from the Black Sea and cross the Isth- mus from west to east. Their country lies west of the Mount Guman-taw, along the rivers Ts‘henis-tskali, Enguri, and Egrisi. Part of the Suans are independent; others are under the rule of Mingrelian princes: none as yet subject to Russia. The district of Lekkum, on the Ts‘henis- tskali, is inhabited by Georgians; also the district of Raga, in the Rion-basin. Both are governed by Russia. These Georgians are called Imerians, and all the country west of the Mes‘hian mountains, goes by the name Imerethi. The eastern tribes of ihe Suans are mixed with Os; and those further east, the Psawi, ‘Hevsurs, and Thusi, along the sources of the Eastern Aragva, the Alazan, and the Andian Koisu, are mixed with Kek tribes, and have lost almost all sign of Georgian descent. Ptolemy knew the Suans as Suano-Kolchi. Their language is peculiar on many points, if compared with Mingrelian and Lazian: but the coincidences in roots, words, and grammatical forms are sufficiently numerous to give it a place in the Georgian family. 4. The Lazes, in the Sangakat of Lazistan, belonging to the Pashalik of Trebizond. Their language is spoken along the coast of the Black Sea from the Promontory of Kyemer Burnu to the mouth of the Korok. In the south it extends only a few leagues from the coast into the interior, while in the north the Lazian is spoken as far east as the watershed of the Korok, and even beyond. At Batum, which belongs to the Sangakat of Lazistan, the Grusian dialect of Guria is spoken; at Trebizond — Turkish, Greek, and Armenian: but there is no distinct Lazian dialect for Trebizond, as Klaproth asserts, though Lazes from all parts of Lazistan are gathered within that city. In the Middle Ages there was a powerful Lazian kingdom, comprehending the whole of Imerethi. The Lazes afterwards became subordinate to the princes of Grusia: but when these were conquered by the Turks in 1580, every valley of Lazistan declared itself independent under small princes, who were continually engaged in warfare and mutual depredation. Not quite twenty years ago Lazistan was conquered by Osman Pasha and incorporated with Turkey. The inhabitants are Mohammedans; their alphabet is Turkish; and Turkish is frequently spoken in their valleys. These four branches speak dialects different, but deci- dedly cognate, with many varieties in each valley. The dialects differ more in their dictionary than in their gram- mar. Their grammatical system is throughout identical, and connects the language east and west of the Cauca- sian watershed, into one family. The mountains that form the Isthmus between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, are no barrier between the languages they geographically divide. And on the east the chain rises gently, and opens many passes towards the western coast. It is difficult to say whether Georgic dialects were ever spoken on the coast of the Caspian Sea, but from the river Alazani westward they form an uninterrupted chain across the entire Isthmus. Among them, two, the Lazian and Mingrelian, agree so much both in words and gram- mar, that they may formerly have been but one lan- guage, as French and Italian. The people themselves are fully aware of the great similarity of their idioms, but they would deny all connection with the Suanian, Their relation with this dialect is indeed more distant; not so much, however, as not to disclose the traces of a common family type, when more carefully examined and compared. Aboriginal Languages. Lesghic Branch. Avarian Language. Kasiku- miikian Language. 128 The second class oflanguages, spoken by the aboriginal inha- bitants of the Caucasian territory is divided into three branches, 1. Eastern, or Lesghi. 2. Middle, or Mitsgeghi. 3. Western, or Kerkessian and Abasian tribes. Lesghistan, or the country of the Lesghi, also cal- led Daghestan, or the mountain-country, lies between the rivers Koisu, Alazani, and the Caspian Sea. The Lesghi or Leski, are called Lekhi by the Georgians, Leksi by the Armenians, and Leki by the Ossetes, and may there- fore be the same as the ‘“Legae” mentioned by Strabo. The inhabitants of Lesghistan do not call or esteem themselves one people, and according to Klaproth, not less than four different languages are spoken in this small country. These are: — 1. Avarian, spoken in the districts of ‘Hundsag, or Avar, Kaseruk, Hidatle, Mukratle, Ansokul, Kara‘hle, Gumbet, Arrakan, Burtuna, Anzu‘h, Tebel, Tumurga, A‘hti, Ruthul, Kari and Belakan, amongst the Andi, and at Kabuk. It is subdivided into various dialects. The frontiers of the Avarian are, the river Aksai on the west; the mountains south of the Aksai, Endery and Tilbak in the north; the rivers Koisu in the east; and the Upper Samur and Mount Sadagh in the south. The language of the districts Dido and Unso on the Upper Samur, though mixed with other Caucasian words, belongs to the Avarian division. 2. The language of the Kasikumuks, spoken in various dialects in Kara-kaitak end Tabaseran. Its western frontiers are the river Koisu; southern, the river Gurieni; the promontories of Tabaseran and North Daghestan on . the east; and the sources of the Osen to the north. On the coast of the Caspian Sea Tatar tribes have settled in considerable numbers, and north of Derbend we find not less than twelve Turkman villages, the Kaitak. Again in the north and east of the Caucasian Isthmus, numerous Tatar settlements exists: dating perhaps from the time of Kingis-khan, They belong to the Nogai-Tatar, and in some places preserve that name. 129 3. The language of Akuska, spoken also in Tsuda- kara and Kubifi, and in the Alps between the Koisu, the Upper Manas-rivers and the sources of the Buam. 4. The language of Kura in south Daghestan. The Lesghians are Mohammedans, and like most Cau- casians, belong to the orthodox sect of the Sunites. The Islam made little progress in the Caucasus in early times, except on the Eastern coast, which is open to Persian influence, particularly the portion known under the name of Daghestan. It was only when compelled to surrender the Krimea to Russia, and after the fall of Kuban (now Kernomoria) before the Czar, that the Porte found it ex- pedient to strengthen its political and religious hold on the people of the Caucasus as a barrier against Russian influence. Since that time several prophets, Mursids or teachers, have risen in the Caucasus and inflamed their flocks against the Giaour and the Muscovite. Their chief object is to establish a feeling of common interest, and of national and religious unity among tribes kept asunder unfortunately by mutual feuds, difference of lan- guage, and national prejudices. The name of Mahomet Mansur, taken prisoner in 4791, and never heard of since his confinement in the fortress of Schlisselburg, the name of Kasi-Mollah, who fell with the fortress of Himri in 1832; of Hamsad Beg, murdered in 1834, and Shamyl, the living hero, rouse dreadful recollections in the minds of Russian officers. Very little is known of the Lesghic language, and the lists of words given by Klaproth convey hardly any in- formation on the grammatical character of this class of Caucasian dialects. Brosset has lately paid attention to this branch of philology, and collected Avarian songs during his stay at Tiflis. There is reason to suppose that another distinguished member of the Petersburg Aca- demy, M. Schiefner, will take up this subject and prepare a grammar of the Avarian dialect. II. The language of the Mitsgeghi, a race some- times called Kistian, is spoken west and north-west of the Lesghian. Its frontiers are, — in the west, the Upper 9 Akuskian Language. Kurian Language. Mitsgeghic Branch. Karabulak. 130 Terek; north, the Little Kabardah and the river Sunga; south, the snowy heights of the Caucasus which sepa- rates the Mitsgeghi Proper from the ‘Hevsurs, Psawi, Gudamakaris, and from Kha‘hethi; eastward, the Upper Ya‘hsai and Endery. Some mixed Mitsgeghian tribes, as the Thusi, live south of the mountains near the sources of the Alazani. The Mitsgeghi, or as the Russians pronounce it, Mitshik, are again divided into three branches. The first comprises the Galgai, Halha or Ingus, who call themselves Lamur, i. e., mountaineers. They inhabit the country on the rivers Kumbalei, Sunga and Salgir or Asai. The second comprises the Karabulak, or Aristoyai, as they are called by the Kekentsi: but in their own language named Ars‘hte. They live in the valley of the Martan-river. The third consists of the Kek, or as the Russians name them Kekentsi, extending from the Karabulaks east- ward to the river Ya‘hsai. The name Kel, with the Russian termination, Kekentsi, is said to be derived from a village where one of the first battles between this race and the Russians took place, and is sometimes, at least by Russians, used as a general name for all Mitsgeghian tribes. The languages of these three tribes have a common type, different from the other Caucasian idioms, but ap- proximating in grammar most to the Lesghian dialects, particularly the Kasi-Kumukian and Avarian. This applies, however, more particularly to the grammatical system of the Lesghic and Mitsgeghic dialects, while their vocabu- laries offer but few coincidences. On the Sunga the Mits- geghi are considerably mixed with Tatars, and several tribes, such as the Borahan, Topli, and Istissu, speak Tataric. Ingus is a name given to some Aek clans, east of the Terek, who border on the Karabulaks in the plains. The Ingus were formerly Christians, but are now little removed from heathenism. The rest are Mohammedans, and all have acted a prominent part in the war against Russia. One of the Mitsgeghic or Kistian dialects has lately 131 been analysed by Professor Schiefner of Petersburg, in his article on the Thusch language, published in the Bulle- tin Historico-Philologique de I’Académie des sciences. He identifies the Thus with the Toboxot, mentioned by Ptolemy (V, 9.), together with the A{dovgot, in whom M. Schiefner very ingeniously recognises the neighbouring tribe of the Didos. Some of his remarks on the phonetic and gram- matical features of this dialect are of interest. No word in Thus begins with r, a remark which applies equally to the Samoiedian, Mongolic and Tataric languages. If the letter r occurs in the body of a word, any r, occur- ring in terminations, is changed to 1. This feature also is shared by the Mongolic. The final i and u of termi- nations are frequently placed before the consonant or con- sonants which they originally followed. For instance, nax, people, Gen. nax-i, or naix; khorth, head, Gen. khorthi or khoirth. Similar changes occur in several branches of the Arian family. The declension of nouns is carried out by means of postpositions, and the great variety of cases, coupled with the absence of a pure accusative, reminds us strongly of the character of some of the most developed Turanian languages. The pronouns show traces of similarity with the Ab- chasian and Tcherkessian,. while the vocabulary is said to contain many words borrowed from Georgian. Some words which are described as taken from Greek are pro- bably of later origin, and may have been introduced by the Georgian priests. Professor Schiefner denies any close grammatical resemblance between the Thus and the Georgic dialects, and he is inclined to admit a closer relationship between Mitsgeghic and Lesghic, than between either and Georgic. He throws doubt on Klaproth’s opinion that there is a connexion between the Caucasic and Samoiedic languages, but he has not yet arrived himself at any con- clusion as to the real relationship between this interesting language and any other class of the great Turanian family. IIL. The Western Caucasians are best known to us by the name of Circassians, Kerkessians or Abas- Q * Kerkessic Branch. Kerkessians. sians. They call themselves Adighé or Addi-ghé, which Dr. Loewe derives from the Circassian Attaghagh, height, and explains it therefore in the sense of Mountaineer. In ancient times their seats were not only in the Western Caucasus but extended within the Krimea; and Arrian, at the beginning of the second century after Christ, men- tions Zvyot, supposed to be the Kerkessians on the coast of the Black Sea. According to their own traditions, one of their tribes, the Kabardah, emigrated in the thir- teenth century from the Kuban to the Don, and thence to the Krimea: traces of them still exist there in the plains between the rivers Kaka and Belbik. They after- wards returned to the Kuban, and became a powerful tribe under Kabardah princes. The Kerkessians are by the Ossetes and Mingrelians called Kasa‘h, said to have been their name before the Kabardas returned from the Krimea. Kasachia was known to Konstantinus Porphyrogeneta, as the country between Zychia on the Black Sea and the Alanes. At the beginning of the sixteenth century Kerkes- sians inhabited the coast of the Lacus Maeotis, from the Don to the Kimmerian Bosphorus. Thence they were driven back by Russian and Tatar conquests; and the present Cossacks, who are Slavonic, are supposed by Klaproth to be of mingled Kerkessian and Russian blood. The name of the Kerkessians or Circassians on the coast of the Black Sea, by the north-western extremity of the Caucasian mountains, has been known in Europe particularly since 1836, after the capture of the English ship Vixen, and through their resistance against Russia, whose previous operations had been mainly directed against the east of the Caucasian isthmus. Greek writers, how- ever, recognized the Kerkessians, settled on their present territory, and their name is a corruption of the ancient “Kerketoi.” In later times the Greeks place the Zy choi on the coast, and the Kerketoi further inland. At pre- sent the Kerkessians on the sea-coast, and south of the Kuban, distinguish themselves by the name of « Adighé,” while those of the interior, in the Kabardah, south of 335 the Malka and along the Terek, are properly called Ker- kessian. The Karbardah was one of the first districts in the Caucasus conquered by Russia. The inhabitants are Mohammedans, and the Adighé also belong mostly to the Islam, though traces of their former Christian and heathen practices still remain among them. The Ka- bardah, east of the Elburs, south of the Malka, and extending west beyond the Terek as far as the sources of the Sunga, is divided into Great or Western, and Little or Eastern Kabardah. The northern frontier of the Adighé is the Kuban. They inhabit the mountains from the sea to 58° east longitude, and on the northern side of the range, here called the Black or Ahmed Moun- tains, they extend even to 59° east longitude. The tribes which have maintained their independence are the Nato‘huag, Sapsu‘h, Abadse‘h, and part of the Mo‘hos and Besle. Subject to Russia are the Bsedu‘h, Hattukai, Te- mirgoi, and Yegorokoi; all tribes considerably reduced in number. The Abassians have occupied their present seats on the Black Sea at least since the Christian era. Arrian calls them Abasci, the Georgians Ab‘hasi and their country Ab‘hasethi: the Russians Ab‘has, or Gigeth. They name themselves Absne. They are divided from the Kerkes- sians, on the north, by the river Kapoeti; from the Min- grelians, in the south, by the river Enguri, or, according to Rosen, by the small river Erthi-tskali. Eastward they are conterminous with the Suanes. Some Abassians live between the Upper Kuban, the Kuma, and the Malka. The chief Abassian tribes in the northern parts of the Caucasus, and south of the Kuban, lie from east to west; the Besilbai, Midawi, Barrakai, Kasilbeg, Kegreh, Ba‘h, Tubi, Ubu‘h, Bsubbeh, Abase‘h, and Nekkuaga. The Abassians on the right of the Kuban, as far as Podkumok, are Russian subjects; on the left, near the Little Ingik, they are still independent. Named by them- selves Tapanta, they are called Baske‘h by Kerkessians, Alti-Kesek Abasi by the Tatars. Although Russian troops occupy numerous forts on Abassians, 134 the coast, and have there succeeded in subduing some tribes as the Zibeld, yet no stranger, least of all a Rus- sian, can venture many miles away from the coast, for the Abassian tribes are the fiercest of the Caucasus. The Russians hold what they call the Little Abadsa; Abadsa being the Russian name of the country north of the mountain ridge, of which the Little Abadsa is the eastern portion. The Uby‘h, a clan of highlanders in the north- west, who have made themselves formidable to the Rus- sians, are probably the same as the Ubih or Ubu‘h, of Abassian origin. The Abassians are darker than the Kerkessians. Some call themselves Christian, others Mo- hammedan. The following is an approximate statement of the Caucasian population: | Kerkessians 280,000 Abassians 140,000 Ossetes 60,000 Georgians 50,000 Mitsgeghians 110,000 Lesghians £00,000 80,000 1,120,000 The following statements with regard to the Circas- sians are taken from Dr. Loewe’s introduction to his Dictionary. Dr. Loewe speaks as an eye-witness, and his accounts therefore deserve attention even where they differ from Klaproth and other authorities. «The Circassians occupy the territory of the Caucasus situated between the rivers Sotsha and Laba, the lower Kuban and the Black Sea. To this territory belong the following provinces: — “The province of the Bestiné, situated between the Urup and Khods. “The province of the Makhot-hi between the Laba and Kars. “The provinces of the Yegerukal, the Ademi, and the Temirgoi, situated on the coasts of the rivers Ng 5 TF pli 7 A St: Laba and the Kuban, on the north-western boundaries of the province of the Nagai. “The provinces of the S-hane, the Gatyukoi, and the Bs-hedukh, between the Sha.o.ugwasha and the Afips. “The province of the Abasekh is bounded west by the district inhabited by the Shapsukh; south by the district of the Shapsukh and the Ubykh; east by the Sha.o.ugwasha; north by the provinces of the Gatyukoi and that of the Bs-hedukh. “The province of the Ubykh, situated between the Shapsukh and the Ds-hig-het-hi. “The province of the Shapsukh, which is bounded east by the province of Ubykh, west by the province of Natkho-kudash, north by the Kuban, and south by the Pontus. “The province of the Natko-kuadsh, situated be- tween the Taman, the Kuban, the province of the Shap- sukh and the Pontus. “The province of the Karatshai, near the sources of the Kuban and the province of the Nagai. “The province of the Nagai, between the Kuban and the Laba.” Since the appearance of Sheikh Manzur (?), the prin- ces and nobles profess the Mohammedan religion, and belong to the sect of the Sunites; but the mass of the people adhere faithfully to their former idolatrous wor- ship. Their principal deities are: — I. Shiblé, the god of thunder, war, and justice. II. Tleps, the god of fire. III. Seostseres, the god of the waters, rivers, and winds. IV. Sekutkha, the god of travellers, and rewarder of hospitality. V. Mesitkha, the god of forests. How then, it may be asked, should a man learn all these languages? Cardinal Mezzofanti, at the time of his recent death, spoke not less than fifty-eight; but even gyagesofihe this number would not suffice to carry a man throug Historical recollections connected with the lan- h seat of war. 136 all the dialects spoken along the Danube, the Black Sea, the Caspian Sea, and in the Russian Empire at large. And most of these cannot be learned from Grammars, either because none exist; or because they are written in a language which would have to be learned first, as Russian, German, or Armenian. The Caucasus is called by the Persians “the Mountain of Languages,” and the diversity of dialects spoken there in every valley has been the chief obstacle to a united resistance on the part of the Caucasian tribes against Russia. The southeast of Europe has indeed long been notorious as a Babel of tongues. Herodotus *¢(iv. 24) tells us that caravans of Greek merchants, following the course of the Volga upward to the Ural Mountains, were accompanied by seven inter- preters, speaking seven different languages. These must have comprised Slavonic, Tataric, and Finnic dialects, spoken in those countries in the time of Herodotus as at the present day. In yet earlier times the South-east of Europe was the first resting-place for the nations who transplanted the seeds of Asia to European soil. Three roads were open to their North-westward migrations. One, east of the Caspian Sea and West of the Ural Mountains, leading to the North of Asia and Europe. Another, on the Caucasian Isthmus, whence they would advance along the northern coast of the Black Sea, and following the course of the Dniepr, Dniestr, or Danube, be led into Russia and Germany. A third road was defined by the Taurus through Asia Minor, to the point where the Hellespont marks the “path of the Hellenes” into Greece and Italy. While the main stream of the Arian nations passed on, carrying its waves to the northern and western shores of Europe, it formed a kind of eddy in the Car- pathian Peninsula, and we may still discover in the stag- nating dialects North and South of the Danube, the traces of the flux and reflux of those tribes who have since * An interesting and lucid account of the early inhabitants of Russia founded on the researches of Safarik and others, is found in a pamphlet by Kurd de Schloezer, “Les premiers Habitants de la Russie,” Paris, 1846. become the ruling nations of Europe. The barbarian in- roads, which from the 7th century after Christ, infested the regions of civilization and led to the destruction of the Greek and Roman Empires, followed all the same direction. The country near the Danube and the Black Sea has been for ages the battle field of Asia and Europe. Each language settled there on the confines of civilization and barbarism, recalls a chapter of history. The Ossetian in the Caucasus reminds us of the Scythian Empire in the 7th century before Christ, and of the Median colony of the Sauromatae, then trans- planted to the Tanais. The Greek names of cities on the coast of the Black Sea remind us of their foundation at the same period; when the terror of the Cimmerians had subsided, and their conquerors, the Scythians, had in turn been anni- hilated by the Medians; 606 B.c. It was then that the name Axine — ‘the Inhospitable Sea,” passed into the Euxine — “the Hospitable.” Sinope, destroyed by the Cimmerians, was rebuilt in 632: Odessa was founded in 572, B.C. Modern Greek, still spoken in Asia Minor and Hellas, recalls the whole history of Greece, the decline of Byzantium, and the latter war of independence. Wallachian, again, speaks of the Roman Empire, its wide-spread colonies, and its final annihilation by Teutonic and Slavonic armies. Hungarian transports us to the murderous forays of Attila and his Huns in the 5th century, when it struck roots in soil covered with German, Roman, and Mon- golic blood. The Bulgarian brings back, at least by name, the period when Finnic races founded the Bulgarian King- dom in the ancient Moesia (635 A. D.). Their name remained; though by the year 800 their language and nationality had been fully absorbed by the Slavonic in- habitants of the country. At the end of the 12th century the Bulgarian King- dom was involved in long protracted wars with the Hun- List of grammars, dictionaries, dialogues, Cc. * garians; and when these two nations, both of Turanian origin, had weakened themselves by successive victories and defeats, a third Turanian race knocked at the gates of Europe, and defeated nations that, united, might have repulsed the Turks of Osman. The Turkish language, now spoken in all the important cities of Turkey, and Asia, regions where its sound was unheard before the 15th century, teaches an historical lesson Which should make us pause before we deny to the Turanian race the energy of conquest and the power of organization. While the Turkish memorializes these latest conquests of Tataric tribes in Europe, the Tatar dialects spoken on the-Black Sea, in the Dobrudsha, the Krimea, and along the Volga, remind us of the earlier achievements of the armies of Kingiskhan and his successors, of the “Golden Horde,” and the Mongolian yoke which Russia bore through cen- turies. Finally, the Slavonic languages, spoken over so large an area, and in dialects so closely allied, excite an interest not confined to their past alone. The nations that speak them, on the confines of Asia and Europe, may have great destinies to fulfil in the long future; they have means at their command vast as any European nation, and if they can throw out of their system the bastard blood of a Mongolian nobility, and resist the poison of a premature civilization, their history and lite- rature may rise high on the horizon of Europe, and restore to “Slava” its original meaning of ‘good report and glory”. The best introduction to a knowledge of the Slavonic languages is Russian. For practical purposes this will be most desirable to officers, and more available than an acquaintance with the minor Slavonic dialects. The following books will be found useful for studying Russian: — Reiff’s Russian Grammar, or Principles of the Rus- sian language for the use of Englishmen, with synop- * The books here mentioned may be obtained from Williams and Norgate, Hen- rietla Street, Covent-Garden, from whose catalogues the titles have been taken. 139 tical tables for the declensions and conjugations, gradu- ated themes or exercises for the application of the gram- matical rules, the correct construction of these exercises, and the accentuation of all the Russian words. 8vo., 1853. 4s. Reiff’s Dictionary of the Russian, French, German, and English Languages. Square 8vo., 1853. 8s. Dictionary of the Russian and English Languages. 16mo. Leipzig. 3s. Heym (J.), Dictionnaire des Langages Russe, Fran- caise, et Allemande, 3 vols. 8vo., Leipzig. 1844. 18s. Hamoniere (G.), Dialogues Russes et Francais. 8vo. 1816. 3s. 6d. It is essential that those who wish to learn Russian should begin by familiarizing themselves with the pecu- liar system of the Slavonic alphabet as laid down origi- nally by Cyrillus. An account of it has been given in an earlier portion of this work. This alphabet has been one of the greatest barriers between Russia and the in- tellectual world of Europe, but there is no hope of its being given up at present. On the contrary, it has been the policy of Petersburgh to maintain and to extend it as much as possible. For Bulgarian, the only available grammar is Kyriak Cankof, Grammar of the Bulgarian Language. Royal 8vo., Vienna, 1852. 5s. 6d. The grammar is written in German, the Bulgarian words translated in Roman let- ters. It contains useful exercises and dialogues. There is no modern Bulgarian literature, except a few religious books imported from Russia. In 1840, a Bulgarian trans- lation of the New Testament was printed by the British and Foreign Bible Society. Translations of the Old or New Testament, which exist in almost all languages, will indeed in all cases be found very useful for a first attempt in reading. A Bulgarian grammar in English was published by E. Riggs, an American Missionary at Smyrna; but whe- ther it is obtainable I cannot say. For Illyrian, we have Berlic’s Grammar of the 140 Illyrian Languages, as spoken in the Southern Slavonic countries, in Servia, Bosnia, Dalmatia, Kroatia, and by the Illyrians and Servians in Hungary and in the Vojvo- dina. Agram, 1849. 6s. It is written in German, printed in Roman characters, and contains useful dialogues. The Illyrian Grammar of Babukié was translated into German by Frohlich. 8vo., Vienna, 1839. 6s. Berli¢ (A. T.), Grammar of the Illyrian Language as spoken by the Serbians and Kroats. Vienna, 1854. 6s. Richter and Bellmann, Dictionary of the Illyrian and German, and German and Illyrian Languages, for the use of Germans and Illyrians in Croatia, Slavonia, Syrmia, Dalmatia, Bosnia, Servia, Albania, Ragusa, Mon- tenegro, the Herzegovina, the Banat, and Hungary. Vienna, 1839. 13s. Voltiggi (I), Illyrian, Italian, and German Dic- tionary and Grammar. Thick 8vo. (610 pp.) Vienna. 6s. 6d. Principj Elementari della Grammatica Illirica, premessi al dizionario Italiano, Latino, Illirico, del P. Ardelia - della Bella, ed ora di nuovo pubblicati. Ragusa, 1827. Frohlich. Dictionary of the Illyrian and German languages. 2 vols. 1854. 10s. 6d. Frohlich. Theoretic and practical Grammar of the Illyrian language. Vienna, 1850. 6s. Illyrian, as we saw, was used as a general name to comprehend all the dialects of the South Slavonians, with the exception of Bulgarian, and, according to some, of Servian. Of the dialects spoken in Servia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Slavonia, and Dalmatia, the Kroatian is per- haps the most independent, yet it is only one dialect of the language common to all Illyrians. Russians learn these dialects with great ease, inasmuch as they resemble Russian more than any other Slavonic language. Servian. Wuk Stepbanowitsch, Small Servian Grammar, translated into German by Jacob Grimm. 8vo. Berlin, 1824. 2s. 6d. Wuk Stephanowitsch, Servian, German, and Latin Dictionary. 8vo. Vienna, 1818. 22s. New Testament in Servian translated by S. Wuk. 8vo. 1848. 9s. 6d. Wuk, Servian Proverbs in Servian. Alphabetically arranged. 8vo. 1850. 6s. Milutinovitsch. Songs of the Montenegrians, in Servian. 8vo. 5s. Kroatian. Gyurkovechky (S.), Kroatian Grammar. 8vo. Ofen, 1825. Slovenian. Murko (A. J.), German-Slovenian, and Slovenian- " German Dictionary, according to the dialects of the Slo- venes in Styria, Carinthia, Carniolia, and the West of Hungary. 2 vols. 8vo. Gratz, 1833. 10s. 6d. Kopitar, Grammar of the Slavonic Language in Carniolia, Carinthia, and Styria. 8vo. Laibach, 1808. 5s. Murko, Slovenian Grammar. 8vo. Gratz, 1843. 2s. 6d. Weissenthurn (Fr.V.), Saggio Grammaticale Italiano- Cragnolano. 8vo. Trieste, 1811. 6s. The Western Slavonic dialects will be of less prac- tical importance, with the exception perhaps of Polish. Frings (M. T.), Polish, French, and German Dia- logues. 8vo. Lemberg, 1847. 3s. There is a complete and scientific Polish Dictionary with explanations in German, and a comparison of thirteen other Slavonic dialects by Linde. 6 vols. to. Warsaw, 1707—A4%. £ 6, 16s. 6d. Though it could hardly obtain a place in the Library of an officer, it deserves to be men- tioned here as a classical work in Slavonic philology. Mongrovius, Polish-English, and English-Polish Dictionary. 2 vols. Royal 8vo. Berlin, 1851. 20s. Schmidt (M.), Dictionnaire portatif. Polonais et Fran- cais. A6mo. Leipzig, 1847. 3s. Bohemian. Cebusky (A.), Grammar of the Bohemian Language. 8vo. Vienna, 1854. 2s. Bible in Bohemian. 8vo. 1833. fis. Dictionary, Bohemian and German. 16mo. Leipzig. 3s. Slovakian. Dianiska (K.), Slovakian Grammar (with Dialogues and Selections). 8vo. Vienna, 1850. 4s. There is another Slovakian Grammar by Bernolak, 1790; a dictionary, 1825, and a translation of the Bible, 1829. A tabular arrangement of the four principal Slavonic dialects was published by Frohlich, comprehending Bo- hemian and Polish, Illyrian and Russian. Vienna, 1847. 8vo. ks. Classical works on the Slavonic languages in general, are — Safarik (P. J.), Slavonic Antiquities, translated into German. 2 vols. 8vo. 1853. 15s 6d. Safarik, History of the Slavonic Language and Lite- rature. 8vo. Ofen, 1826. 10s. 6d. Safarik, Slovansky Narodopis (Slavonic Ethnology). Praze, 1849. 8vo. It is hardly necessary to give a list of grammars and dictionaries for acquiring a knowledge of German, Danish, and Swedish; as any foreign bookseller will supply them. In the case of the Romance languages also, it will be sufficient to mention the grammars and dictionaries for Wallachian. These are — Alexi (J.), Grammatica Daco-Romana sive Valachica. 8vo. Vienna, 1826. 3s. 6d. Blacewicz (T.), Grammar of the Daco-Romanic, Moldavian or Wallachian Language. 8vo. Lemberg, 1844. ks. In German, with modern Cyrillic types. Both gram- mars contain dialogues. Theoklist Schoimul. Theoretic and practical Pocket- Grammar of the Romaic or Wallachian language, written A143 in German, and printed with modern Cyrillic types. Vienna, 1855. 2s. Lesicon, Romanescu, Latinescu, Ungarescu, Nem- tescu; 7. e., Wallachian, Latin, Hungarian, and German. kto. Budae, 1825. Scarce. Vaillant (J. A.), Vocabulaire Francais-Roumain et Roumain-Fran¢ais. 8. Boucoureshti, 1840. 6s. Vaillant (J. A.), Grammaire Roumane & 1'usage des Frangais. 8. Boucourest, 1840. For Modern Greek, a grammar that can be recom- mended is — Corpe (IH.), An Introduction to Neo-Hellenic, or Modern Greek, containing a guide to its pronunciation and an epitome of its grammar. 8vo. London, 1851. 5s. A Translation of the Bible into Modern Greek has lately been issued from the University Press at Oxford. Deheque (F. D.), Dictionnaire Grec-Moderne et Fran- cais. 12mo. London, 1825. 5s. Lowndes. Modern-Greek and English Dictionary royal 8vo. Corfu. 21s. For a study of Albanian, little assistance can be derived from books. The latest and most comprehensive work on Albania is — Hahn (J. G. von), Albanian Studies. Thick Ato. Jena, 1854. £ 1. 10s. The first part contains geographical and ethnogra- phical notices, travels in Albania, description of customs and manners, researches on the origin of the Albanians, an account of the Albanian alphabet, and a history of the the country. The second part gives a grammar of the Toskian dialect, Toskian and Geghan poems, proverbs, phrases, stories; and lastly, a dictionary, Albanian-Ger- man, and German-Albanian. An extract of this work might be useful. The best grammatical compilation is to be found in — Xylander (I. v.), The Language of the Albanians or Skipetars. 8vo. Frankfort, 1835. 4s. 6d. (In German.) An excellent account of Albania is given by — Leake (W.M.), Researches in Greece. London, 4to. 1814. hk And Hobhouse (J. C.), Journey through Albania, &c. 4to. London, 1813. The great desideratum during the present war will no doubt, be a knowledge of Turkish. Most officers will probably be satisfied if they are able to speak by inter- jections and gestures, and succeed in making a Turk understand that they want a horse, or provisions, or directions for the road in a country not advanced to signposts. This can be learned from dialogues, and even without a knowledge of the Turkish alphabet. By far the best book for this purpose is — Bianchi (C. X.), Le nouveau Guide de la Conver- sation en Frangais et en Ture. It is so arranged, that in learning the dialogues by heart, students acquire the grammar without being aware of it. An abridgment of this book, in English, would be invaluable. The Turkish should be transcribed, however, so as to suit English pronunciation. Another work which will answer this purpose is — Le Dragoman Turc. — Regime sanitaire, Monnaies, Vocabulaire, Grammaire. 412mo. Paris, 1854. 2s. 6d. brds. A pocket Dictionary of the English and Turkish lan- guages (the Turkish being expressed in English characters, with guide to the correct pronunciation), by W. G. Sauer- wein is now in the press and will be very shortly published. Those, however, who have taste and leisure to study Turkish should make themselves, first of all, acquainted with the Turkish alphabet, whatever has been said to the contrary by our “special correspondents”. It is true, no doubt, that by means of transcription in Roman cha- racters the grammar can be learned, without a previous knowledge of the alphabet; but in the long run more time is lost than saved by this. The Roman alphabet is no doubt better adapted to express the sounds of the Turkish language than the Arabic alphabet now used by the Turks, in which even when the vowels are written, Tr To on 145 as they invariably are in the Kagataic dialect, three signs must suffice to express eight different vowel-sounds. But until this great alphabetical revolution is accom- plished — until the Turks condescend to write their lan- guage in those signs which in time must and will be the alphabet of the whole world, any one who wishes to acquire a competent knowledge of Turkish should begin with the alphabet, and impress the declensions and con- jugations on his memory, in their Turkish dress. Else he will find that when he comes to read, his Romanized verbs will not answer to their Turkish originals. Then the whole must be learned again; with the discovery that by this double proceeding the learner has weakened and confused what ought to be the most distinct in his memory, “les premitres impressions de la grammaire Turque.” Soldiers know best that in storming a fortress it does not answer to leave the detached works untaken; though at first they may seem to offer no resistance to advance, they are sure to open fire when least expected. When the alphabet is once mastered, the pronuncia- tion of Turkish is comparatively easy. It is true that vowels are generally omitted in writing, but they are frequently in- dicated at the beginning of words, and in open syllables. Besides there are certain rules which make up for this omission of vowel-signs and which are of great assistance to the student of Turkish. There are two classes of vowels, called sharp and flat. A (in psalm), O (in note), U (in flute), I (in ravine) are sharp. A (n date or Viter), O (in Konig, peu), U (in Giite, une), | (in yield) are flat. As the vowels of every word must be either all sharp or all flat, the knowledge of the vowel of one syllable is generally sufficient to in- dicate the vocalisation of the whole word. There are certain consonants which only admit of sharp or flat vowels, and hence in many words there is one consonant which indicates whether the word is to be pronounced so to say, in a sharp or flat key. This law of the harmony of vowels which pervades the Turkish and other Turanian languages, and which was first fully explained 10 { i mmiieinil ] hem SEA SBR SRREE 146 by Viguier, would in most instances render all vowel- signs except ome superfluous. Intercourse with natives however, is the only means to acquire the proper pro- nunciation of Turkish, of which neither transcription in Roman, nor in the still more difficult Armenian or Greek characters can give an adequate idea. In the Turkish grammar of D. Alexandrides and in his Modern - Greek and Turkish Glossary the accent of Turkish is marked according to the Greek system; the Armenians mark the accent in their transcriptions only where it seems to be irregular. Some scholars maintain that there is no accent at all in Turkish, others that it is always on the last syllable as in French. The distinction between long and short vowels also is of little consequence in Turkish. — Redhouse (J.W.), Grammaire raisonnée de la Langue Ottomane. Royal 8vo. Paris, 1846. 13s. 6d. (Best; but why not repeated in English?) Boyd (Charles), The Turkish Interpreter, or a New Grammar of the Turkish Language. Paris, 1842. 8s. 6d. Pfizmaier (A), Grammaire Turque, ou developpe- ment de trois genres de style, ’Arabe, le Persan, et le Tartare. 8vo. Vienna, 1848. 15s. 6d. A very useful book is: Dieterici. Chrestomathie Ottomane, précedée de ta- bleaux grammaticaux et suivie d'un glossaire Turc-Fran- gais. 8vo. Berlin, 1814. 4s. It contains an easy ex- planation of the grammatical principles of Turkish, and extracts chosen with a view to exhibit the genuine Tur- kish style of literature. Mirza A. Kazem Beg, Derbend-Nameh, or the History of Derbend; Turkish and English. ito. St. Pe- tersburg, 1851. 10s. 4d. By the same author we have the only grammar of the different Tataric dialects which deviate from the Turkish standard. It is written in Russian, but a Ger- man translation has made it more accessible. The trans- lation is not, however, altogether satisfactory. General Grammar of the Turco-Tataric Language, ry by Mirza A. Kazem Beg; translated by Dr. Julius Th. Zenker. Leipzic, 1848. 8vo. 12s. The same author has a complete Chrestomathy of the Turco -Tataric Dialects ready for the press. Among his published works “the history of the Khans of the Crimea” Kasan 1832, printed from a unique MS. might at the pre- sent moment prove of more general interest. The dialect of the Tatars of Kasan can be studied in an elementary book, published by Wakhabof, one of the masters of the Military School of Kasan. It con- tains specimens, dialogues and songs in the Tatari of Kasan, with Russian translations. Of still greater im- portance is a similar small book, containing proverbs, dialogues and fables in the dialect of the Tatars of the Crimea, published at Kasan by Krym-Khowadja, teacher at Simpheropol. A few specimens of the Turkish as spoken in the Caucasus, are given by Bodenstedt in the Journal of the German Oriental Society. Vol. V. page 245. A Tataric translation of the New Testament has been printed at Astrachan. Specimens of Eastern Tataric dialects are to be found in Quatremeére’s Chrestomathies Orientales. For a thorough knowledge of Turkish, a previous acquaintance with Persian and Arabic is invaluable. A useful Persian Grammar is Meerza Mohammad Ibra- heem’s Grammar of the Persian language. 8vo. London, 1844. 21s. On Persian dialects there is an Essay by Beresin Recherches sur les dialectes persans, the second part of his Recherches sur les dialectes Musulmans. The Persian dialects which he examines and of which he gives spe- cimens, are the Gilek, Tati, Talyshi, Mazandarani, Gebri and the Kurdian of Chorasan and Mosul. For the spoken Arabic, there is Mouhammad Ayyad el Tantavy, Sheikh. Traité de la langue Arabe vulgaire. 8vo. Leipzic, 1850. 6s. The most scientific grammar is still Sylvestre de Sacy’s Grammaire Arabe a l'usage des éleves de I’école spéciale 10 * des langues Orientales vivantes. 2 vols. 8vo. Paris, 1831. £ 2. 10s. The following may also be recommended, Schier, Grammaire Arabe. 8vo. Dresden, 1849. 12s. Caspari, Grammatica Arabica in usum Academicorum: accedit brevis Chrestomathia. 8vo. Leipzig, 1848. 6s. Of Tungusic, Mongolic, Samoiedic, and Finnic lan- guages, it would be superfluous to recommend grammars and dictionaries, as none of them, I suppose, will be chosen for practical study. Perhaps an exception might be made in favour of Hungarian, which has lately at- tracted more attention, and of which English grammars and dictionaries may be procured. Frereych (E.), Hungarian and English Dialogues, for the use of Travellers and Students. 8vo. Pesth, 1851. 2s. Csink, Complete Practical Grammar of the Hungarian Language, with Exercises, Selections from the best Au- thors, and Vocabularies; to which is added a Historical Sketch of Hungarian Literature. 8vo. boards. 1834. 8s. We now come to the last cluster of languages, the dialects spoken in the Caucasian Babel. Here the diffi- culties are greatest, and the means of acquiring a know- ledge of the languages proportionably small. Not one of these numerous dialects has found as yet an English gram- marian, and few have been reduced to a grammatical system by any grammarian. Klaproth’s ¢“Asia Polyglotta” gives considerable lists of words which, as a beginning, would be found useful; but in the few cases where his collections have been checked by later travellers, they have not always proved accurate and satisfactory. This applies particularly to the Georgian, and its cognate dia- lects, Lazian and Mingrelian. Here we have since Klap- roth, the works of Brosset and Rosen — Brosset, L’art liberal, ou grammaire Géorgienne. 8vo. Paris, 1834. 10s. Brosset, Eléments de la langue Géorgienne. 8vo. Paris, 1837. 12s. Klaproth (J.), Vocabulaire et grammaire de la langue 149 Géorgienne. 8vo. Paris, 1827. 16s. Other works on the Caucasus by Klaproth are, “Travels in the Caucasus ;” “Description of the Russian Provinces between the Cas- pian and Black Sea,” Berlin, 1814, 12s; and “Asia Po- lyglotta,” ito, and atlas folio. 24s. Tschubinof, Dictionnaire Géorgien-Russe-Francais, ito. Petersburg, 1840. 34s. Of the Lazian, Mingrelian, and Suanian, gram- matical outlines were published by Rosen in the Trans- actions of the Berlin Academy, 1846. Ato. 2s. The same author has given a grammar of the Os- setian (kto. 1846, 5s.), the only Arian dialect spoken in the centre of the Caucasus; and one more complete has since been published by Sjogren, Ossetian Grammar, with a short Ossetian- German and German - Ossetian Vocabulary. Petersburg, 1844. Thick ito. 12s. Of the remaining dialects spoken between the Caspian and the Black Sea no grammars can be procured, as the Russian Government, so liberal in other respects in its support of linguistic studies, has not thought fit to en- courage a study of these mountain idioms. Military inter- preters and translators of the Caucasian army are edu- cated at Novo-Tcherkask, in the country of the Don Cos- sacks, where Arabic, Tataric, Avarian and Tcherkessian dialects are taught at the Imperial Gymnasium. At the gymnasium of Stawropol also, Tataric and Tscherkessian form part of the educational system. (Koppen, p. 253.) Grammatical notices and short lists of words may indeed be found scattered through the Transactions of different Academies, in Klaproth’s works, in Adelung’s Mithridates, 4 vols, 8vo., 35s; in Balbi’s Atlas Ethnographique, in Bell’s Journal of a Residence in Circassia, £ 1, 12s, and similar publications; but ail that could be extracted thence, as of practical use, might be brought into a very small volume. Rosen's grammatical notices of the Ab- ‘hasian dialect are found in the Transactions of the Ber- Ir Academy, and give an idea of the Kerkessian, of which tae Ab‘hasian fs but a variety. A grammar and dictio- 150 nary of Kerkessian were published by L’Huilier, Odessa, 1846; written in Russian. A Circassian Dictionary has lately been published by Dr. Loewe. 8vo. 21s. It consists of two parts, English- Circassian-Turkish, and Circassian-English-Turkish. The words were collected by Dr. Loewe from the mouth of the natives. Chora-Beg-Mursin-Nogma in St. Petersburg is said to have composed a Grammar and Dictionary of the Ka- bardian language; see Loewe’s Circassian Dictionary, p. 4. Another work which deserves to be mentioned here is F. Bodenstedt, Die Volker des Kaukasus, of which a second edition has just been published. It contains much useful information on the history, the geography and the social state of the Caucasian countries, and is written in a pleasant style. The southern neighbour of these Caucasian languages, the Armenian, of Arian extraction, has met with a bet- ter fate. Besides grammars and dictionaries in other lan- guages we have here, both in English — Aucher (P.), A Grammar, Armenian and English. 8vo. Venice, 1832. 6s. Aucher (P.), Dictionary, English and Armenian, with the assistance of J. Brand. 2 vols. 4to. Venice, 1821. 1821. 24s. . Of the Kurdian language neither grammar nor dic- tionary can be procured without difficulty. There is Maurizio Garzoni, Grammatica e vocabulario della lingua Kurda. Rome, 1787. Some interesting articles on Kurdian were published by Rodiger and Pott, in the «Zeitschrift fur die Kunde des Morgenlandes. Vol. III & IV. The works here specified may be had by applying to WiLLiaMs and NORGATE, 14, Henrietta-street, Covent Garden, London. The prices, as marked above, have been taken from their Catalogues. THE END. - PRINTED BY F. A. BROCKHAUS, LEIPZIG. 4 Aros 44 C. AN Seintee | V NR ° Spy ~~ C ) } Cybrtar VRS : Golubatech LD WampaoWN lr; § rina Moyes Mos Bh.” BPM XS Osh a6) Mos ternati) Philips LT cliir pian Ra ” 5 Teesilikeo f~_" =] thoy arator, enova oN | Pe *\hepenti 2 ~~ — NC a? Struma 7) Rd dri; ’ CONSTANTINOPLE 5 «See of Marmora a NW Mond Novon frome s E R Olviopol iggorod RA AN Dansig R Liifengor QNekolayey +fo. S Karkov RK AG R n, hd yaki A Joscphsth Alexandria { Jekatorinoshow K A bx Jerhsalem Revehenbery,, Kaanigjnk | nf y 0 Neiienty PA o Mlexandro | JRosenthal 0 \ x Bima ° €e Nagaryoal < Rh © vA Na ~ a jit hat fg) Y < Bergetans “§R7 > ereon Balka EXPLANATION oF tie COLOURS. Kefy),,, [a i Arian Languages | Turanian Languages c= Teutonic co) Wallachian |e Mongolic whic, including | Osmuenle or Turkish , + dlbernian Lusatian ) wnd Iyrian) 3 Modern Greek ! e231 West Stavonieirotish Bohemian, Slovakian, Russian, Bulgarian, | | | Languages spoken ) South East Slavonic |i Georgie, (Great Little and White | [C2 Lesyhic, including Averian., | Nogai, Kirgis Lc. = Finnie including Hungarian 9 < in the Caucasus. including Grusiar , « Migrelian , Suanian , an Lazian . Kaschwmakian , Akuskian Political Boundaries Linguistic Boundaries Names of’ Languages are writen thas: TURKISH il us. « “ let, &i1 elt 3! RL EL ulin } THI] or dys Totti God © Myra Tt Tine | | | Zee eo «© @ ri o> 480 {lc drmenian and Kurian Ya @ f ora >" © |=) Kurdian = Mitsjeghic, including the Br | ) dic HN of the Galgar, Karabulal: o Milo D ~ <@ a [j= Ossetian | and Chechentsi. ’ - } | . . Cerig ! o -. (E Cherkessic, ctuding the ( po | 2 A) * | | Abchusian (to bngtand | = 9 i N | _— S | r ( ra | : Rhodes LY Hy gl He tht olt 6 8 2 9 | NuLIW SEO dS hd Eh EE dB ptm ; Nikaria g | a od ” Samos Naxos > lu 0 inopel | Worp craks ° “ ) fvacha Tage, NWI, u, La Sara \\ 8 $ \ Q ie Ji J Re of" SU 2H NAAN a + 2 STE x BU er aL L ~ KH po S— Ty ‘ , RiibensdoPy ’ 3 \ - U RSS (K e i rs / J dé _ ( ) SET i A | fl mys ti ) vor ey, 1 “Fey < A [kamy 3 Wialetiki 9, _ o RDA wool WW ce N CN 7. WT yn Zap to lustrate™ for the assistance of Officers in learning the LANGUAGES OF THE SEAT OF WAR IN THE EAST. Drawn by Augustus Petermaunn. 1854. PROFESSOR MAX MULLER'S "SUGCCESTIONS jeer pee i" 1 v1] Steed E Arian Langu | i Teutonic Wallachian Modern Greek: Mbanian West Steavonie rotish shermicon, Slovakian It South East Slavonic ned Mvrian Armenian = Kurdian Tr WN Fe Prarinid Cred Ladle nd White | fiuassicenn, Bulgarian, | 7 “arpa ir % 9 Dir sy, Wonmor,, hay \ >» o bur, 3 Brey ui Hits, —- o ? ort - t Mongolie Nogad, Kirgis Le. % | Fannie inca. {ing Hungarian 2 Languages spoken in the Caucasus Georgi C, including Grusian, Muwgielian , Swanian wud Lazian . 1 Le. ghic aneluding trian, Ketsthumeadioon, Aliushico and Kurvan | Mits hic, including the dicededts of the G alaar, Karabulil, Ossetean and Chechentsi to her neluding the Ach : BV Political Bowndarios linguistic Boundaries Names of Langeages are writen ue: TURKISH 20 /schiin Poti ® [8 kl br EXPLANATION oF tie COLOURS. Ke 1a A Turaman Languages open N Erste, ’, o> x artes EL ped LT . © osm 1. ’ ee rein & C a ! Yn ik # TDontit (:OLembren, ow A “hen bys, nen ile) (Phan - f By oiler, itp ~lliskor, * 1 74 “ o> 20 Aha ~ 4 Keud Rane ’ / rte, Vtreapy, ty Jampot Szathnyg, di Debragj,, Ys! Aisling. | Serr. * of ls / hind, £ esc / in 2 te /G, Han appoy & Ze, S Siam 7 2. A fe Lipp, 7 / oo Wh Mie bp CEYN 3 Hert sty, oe 5 yo 4 ire, 1 on on ry “orn Yo “leds laity 4 aleshi 2 Nhppor “td F # Sota] = 71087, i Fettarie , y Ps {C3 Turkic. victiting . linte Osmicnle or Tau ter i" - ede ¢ R Qy Vee Ne SH) Reongry, he N Biirlaatt Rithery J Gwin” Rie = X rsa Rimn ise te. K "SOV ! \ by Le) Colubateh A oN z Hrejova), “ oN, Nr iting “ Hidetind alae = dg 8) 0 3 7) z 3 x \ | N 9 | - 3 - Detri bra YA, % . k n ten 3 & id : Z,, Ap By, ’ ir ay, Xp Ni “wy Sits Larry ll Shinn are - Seddon i oo) rom asnbl V o Dost sf “ 0 i ” ars Yeesso wey | Rr RA L emnog/ S a (Stalime,; ¥ - ‘ st Real! 4 try WE | %. Ue 7, | Mityleni Mh, Cay Krol ~ Py Sapling ens cg 0 Teer Ahdros Nibario » Ga NO Ne Ye, 8, “aly "EB, TN <0 Siva, 9+ pa reas Nero Q - > Y .%, & of Co J. no MRNA a Mity DE f - , 7 a IY TL Cito bngtana ) - Rhodes ‘i o WR wr (e . { a4 di i to a) cceryrern Lear sole de CL 1 \ [Uman Dubos 3:0 any \| { ewe ho pot. \ | re / a Mouth lina pun RETAKE OF PRECEDING FRAME okidonisi Ls Ovovan — Jo ge tihensa Revel owilz Sumn A KU R/ SK } ' Wieleer ki . / 8 {— | SE = =r Y VA Karkov i aN {To VT N ux ! N Roni © / / v OR OCeN ¥ > be _ . 3 Vo, { Paltawa Graddishy | N \ L- Sa} 0 (Kobi Lye hi = / » bh \N » ( : . . Novem. iggorod \ A | PN av, yansk 1, s E R! NX prevandria Nosohsthd / & i ou CF TL Tl is LA Vv Kamenshay a Danzig N { Jeizrterinos w or R I ON OQ 3 \ Olviopol ¢ a L wi Te = re ~~ veopo Kani he | Sh) o “< ) / Neiientnirg? i llewand rok erate y 2 py pret oVolngvacha p R{ 8 [o\¥ NL sates [tg Cordgukly akon, Fs heolayer . Wii hau svi Betgele Otchifekov o EC heron Baka QE Gop oh % : Pegekop 8 ) TY dria i Perekop Gulf CTarkan ca of \zoY Eu pater Balaklavdt 4 ", per Like Sered ~ Jos Kepnikot © _ Kir Shehr LakeTuzf {ta Hissed RA (Salt, Arjish Fe 35 Ech es . Se > pret CC a nl gra A Ay / RY Ww o® (Kastamun &° ( ; » ¢ Dn Saturn bali . oo : ~ om Cu " 3 ae Rg ol \ Vo] WN " SG Aiki, i Kay vr > : eS ! es fe mas EE r Teer) RMEN! 2 £7 x | Redo AnaklioQ \ Andaye TT fom k GY \ wte lialel Poti § 2 $t Nikol ad 8 = pBation Cutreioy n.gfigris AND Sm TN Z Nap to tllustrate’ vhea Finer —dfratigorsk aula vs litt [Kean N Soljanay® J ETA y LR Ri ¥ \ n pjurk pmutachg™ ak jlt soharniht i patk atin sk Alabu, © Ai WPA 25h © oWsSK ug PROFESSOR MAX MULLER'S "SUGGESTIONS" for the assistance LANGUAGES ro Drawn bv Officers Augustus 1854. Peterman. in lea rung the OF THE STAY OF aR IN THE EAS Powe on x ot — ~~ a Qs Qo ame WE Lake Urm J y- 20 WHITE ps jo 35 : + . ( ~~ utind ee \ / ( Jw Orava J $ —~ 3 Sa , » ( i, / ; Lz Arasnosty, | # po J \ ) rz " ’ / Reveelowilz Sum p57 Ko 1 1% my, ~~ ~~ J ! er” { Straten, RN ! ; : NX ~ } . ” r { x ) , ; / y Derytiter 9 Lembo per "~ RK vin | {Hn | 3 F 1 / \ herby, vy R AL odin) CN 3 Klean vet mi Rs — Lin, S , / 4 ent shi, y, L vl 3 3 ~~ be La, oy ~ ~ awe Bette, ENT ( SI Car sk ! A) 2 ” Loren ‘ Stavyans 1 Cd » Co : ety, J 7 oY eli, uy iat Novem iggored \ A \_ Thorny” rR at Ciel, TT tude Uman Alexandria ~\ R110, \ oe AV N - Peery, \ } ) . Sy Ld \ a tery rong ry - Danzig Seles n I N 2 0 So v ] aveSK “ ‘ ue st), “ Oh \ vo Lo - K\ SR pas rahdinope OQ yout 7 cone op Op h } \ Pv) y _ en lace Debye 2 , Olviopol { / he . nk ° } dts, You rf) ir Sty dy resin Vitis bi. ~ ¥ TremraS Balta veep (Mami Neiientmrg”\ Mes i we N an oki nm Sid, “Dg Hom 2s “hy. ren Retetuarer so OSer & 4 NN \ , i2onsertives Wl pplnpeach /) © an. Sa Bren ; liter, trary, Lr ” Wr Bosra / I { . Oy. » NSE TN Raechenbiry Sep frik!r i Le] Vm na wi 2 a H ) uv nN CL Seren (4 S $y Ny - nll Yager, or T / Lo R tty. {fe v - / = \ s Zl . orod © dag) N 403 (Ve . i , Bistrity NOY oo \ e-% / ~ Meigs, A > |®0 rk ; 2 , = “Rage, Wr ying Fits, WVK A Zileet, I NU § ~— Neagergha Helbatacte © “lm Fo tzov x vevka : 1. jr ~~ . .[ & : Fo of ° Linde oa " ; Kigpiryy, Po Stn “ NS ~ ~~ Ce Rma ing Ng sh (if “rie, Ws gy, HH, Yo 5 J Fyne i veh)’ AN br Bea hs ir ts keset a br Hla, hi ° tre N leans ¢ y fag Nfld» qo , Sr Beanittachy + y nth, Lo 3 . $ ~ = + [2 heirs, ira ’ Komndey i A Q - i » sehr! i igor? ik) Nadu, a R’ \ - ti 3 ky . ork; © ) SE Set arom 5S Mo, a > The, np, J Strong 3 A HS jing LS 4 paki Sh Vers i RL, SV p ~Yy ) hereon Balke tabu { TN \ A pe 2 ’ “A = / < 7 Jn PN NE, Ege iris, We MaesBR 5, me «< : ) q . A . \ 81° ? - i South East Slavonic Georgie. ududing Grusian re © E ,o Dinars { ~~ = £5 - oe » drat sats | gn Sa edly] VEN Pam Se ’ \ ’ rR PROFESSOR MAX MULLER'S "SUGGESTIONS 4 Kuvssivtns, Belgorian Navaromd N her : Lesghuc, cludia vor . ] ] o “ - Hein in Fein ) 5 MW, 5 for the assistance of Officers in learning the Armencan ol 1 oo lf m2, n om mg Rurdian Wiles ! ( 1 4 oe PL - 3 iY 0 Ossetean od neon SNe —_~—~-XKe | LANGUAGES OF THE STAT OF VaR se and Ir \ Cir, § pire . hE I Bestemt £ THE EAST. 2% “ Selind? ‘ fr 8 ~~ et iatrin : . 1 \ stus t BA Political Bown id ares J / "a . p Draw v Augusta riiann “nod S “- Listagurstic Bownderios | « d iit ! i} A ¢ | 1851. : Gor ppl Vee 7 qetlo he 0k N $ \ Neemios of Laanrgeeaeges are written hue- TURKISH ees = WR dy , Jf ow \ ] . g / “en 2 CovopRl o LS . . fran, 30 A NEES 3a 20 Lo {uu 7 A \ Ta 5 ~ RETAKE OF PRECEDING FRAME be =o = 353 10 " Orava ite Ne) hy cre Li S Hy = vVoo0 . c P I VON a RE I Ce " AN Lily, : Saito, '¢ KoUoR detecting, s eo, Sd a : " - Lend, : - or Sy r K ! Rar lon AN yt s. 1 ’ ~ hry, LR W lio, Yo vor T T L 4 om» Htistisnry . « i» E lrg by B \ : . tits, Cetin sy, i 4 NN opted Stay an sh V Nuvo wg ored A ¥ \ fran /s E R Nv vii \ 3 Dern zie) Sehvercriastoy \ por KN \ LL» ’ Zier 4) a i ”" \ hamsters QD ' ; \ 4 S LA & Fearsteind tice! & lig 11s ny 3g , 0 Glviopol 3 0 Aecmicduloo Newerniry Q © NL Laid Weer re foprrserdemn Wl ptupreeddin hh a Rerehenbiry pa © ano Rr v : w rt LA san! ) i i; LS W y rottmage Ne fo ® VL 0, on : on rag Vagrlp Heatlystersy, “ry, Steet f (vs 7 pirik ens ony g 0) Veerew \ Speyer wt xn, td lion rigripiim Kivnt,, 0 ‘ : Ce ‘5 Nove taper Yur rixtashe Is R MAN - Lo Ngekfy trained . Vig es } No lorven ~ Co Resenfila G Yee » chien Sh in : hoki » : . Strang | YoY = f A he . ~- Bans 4 3 . gl Ha, ot eligikeov a Noting } - 23 sharper? °. -— i Vanda de ? J J (ilies “ . selasr . n ng US NA, A trervon ne = : int oh . beri, 0, ert > 2 L seepthoat litt z 7 . Er strtatinn, Tens SE Fg el vets “th, XQ Ierekop < Vi — irri, . \ 2 g ‘ T drt Perekop Gulf CT earhon 2 . SA (roaine om, I ! J Lung opt or pad nthal a . hepid en Kerth ny « mii 22 — “Las ok 8 ba ne farahat!lt ss ‘, iputsct)! Q ai od ny Bukhar | [HO “NY ‘ ar \ al Th > OSlempen No wapar liar enka © ad Po bunt A (8 K neste - a - vw por, Crt = eon 1 WZ r. ar : BS 3 / S \ . Hosalur PE ® 1 Setst ger fy f 3 neil ie RN ho RY JS Wn / : octunete iol o Ter ; ) | | v 0 Nill oC, TTR CN } ORE ane RY PS ; {atin 4 Voiveed ae? Novant lraari ate Alvin le A Rovstrmanny,”~ (heal? { Seliren bul Gem fy ET TNS Senta < ; Rar . Koma, Hr ari Vita.” CONSTANTINOPLE ST 3 ~\ ge ‘ ~~ . har ‘ [ ir, wo cu Nes - » \ ~~ ® - La 25 MNO : A I “ Ne y Sea of Marmaora he er, Kenya 3 :, pe TE REG Ne NX NL sires, 5 , ; Sitheeseed sh \ Biber pe tn . ” co ” ) el chang yen \ ! : . nme Wg MiTeth apg, yo ENN “Eee ™ : . - WN ae [I "i \ YS AliRchiy, , , 4 Latw — _ l . . i wr oY i / Kul, Fe ts 3 ~~ . # — Rrzerugn — rir Kg Lem — a > | J \. } — Lv 7 ) { ¢ J os pardat / Brussa ~ Anetra \, Q.11dsp A nN . 4 c A “ i ~ Angry \ / an ~ ~~ - J Tiki \ 0 FANT ye \ ! cnn Frain - = v No = Fo Nerd . * Lasgerd, hd liwzasy ih 0 Mlas)TA - - = ~ hs of \ ! riko — = — s Kutavah Vir Hissak Acari iS = Mitvleni™O 0 N \ ? ' N > Kir Shah ; a EXPLANATION Or ri COLOURS Kory Ais No lewd, Ron ' : ie — - x ym - Fran Lonrennaoes Tucan Loni > } A fan ero forvgor/ie Ishak, b R Lake Tz Kod sh Hiss? , . Ss . - Alin Karahis sar ils { © Kaisarich C - : Wirllad lian Tore , . NEL A Ue v ' Hes NOV Arjish Dagh Vik { 3 Lah J Vodern Greek. Vogt Air } x \ 8 = | { » L. Hintiiion Fisrmrie on ’ Y rd AN Vit <| West Steven, Loar spol \ ) ! vor v Lian } “Konich ~ VR Co zg: ~ Nap to lustrale / 1h in : A \ ” Cg PR 0 FE .. } \ ,