Page:An Ainu-English-Japanese dictionary (including a grammar of the Ainu language).djvu/573

Rh § IV. ROOT AFFINITIES BETWEEN ANCIENT JAPANESE AND AINU.

But although, as has thus been pointed out, the Ainu language differs so much in point of grammatical structure from present Japanese, is there not, it may be inquired, some resemblenceresemblance [sic] to be observed when, placing the accident of grammar on one side, ancient unexplained Japanese words are collated, examined, and compared with Ainu? The answer to this question must, in quite a number of cases, be in the affirmative, for there is certainly a root affinity in some of these relics, instances of which will be given later on.

As regards Japanese, in the year 1868 Mr. Edward Harper Parker of China wrote a paper on the relationship of Chinese with ancient Japanese, the object of which was to show “before Chinese was imported into Japanese, (1) directly, and (2) indirectly, through Corea—say before A. D. 1—the Japanese spoke a language the great majority of words in which came from the same language-stock as Chinese.” And from anything appearing to the contrary be seems to have pretty well established his point. We must, however, presume to take off a few years from his estimate, for the oldest written books of Japan can carry us back no nearer to the source of time than the year 712 A. D., it being in this year that the Kojiki was committed to writing, the NikongiNihongi [sic] following a few years later. Even linguistically speaking all before this time is pure oral tradition, and the only safe guides in such a matter as this are the written books.

That Chinese and therefore present Japanese are Turanian is, I believe, now admitted. In speaking of Chinese Prof. Max Muller says: —“Taking Chinese for what it can hardly any longer be doubted that it is, viz. the earliest representative of Turanian speech,” etc. And again: —“People wonder why