Page:The American Cyclopædia (1879) Volume X.djvu/157

 LANGUAGE 151 for the reason that, according to him, they contain a living principle of development and growth, and alone possess, so to speak, an abundant vegetation ; in other words, they have the wonderful faculty of forming an end- less variety of words, and of marking the con- nection of ideas which these words denote by means of an inconsiderable number of sylla- bles, which separately considered have no sig- nification, but which precisely define the mean- ing of the word to which they are attached. Friedrich von Schlegel, in the second place, contends for two main genera of languages, di- viding them into those which express secon- dary ideas by an'internal change of the root or inflection, and those which effect the same object by an added word which already in itself expresses the additional idea, whether of plurality, of past or future, or other relation. Bopp again demands three classes : first, mono- syllabic languages, which are incapable of com- position, and consequently without grammar and organism, as the Chinese ; secondly, lan- guages with monosyllabic roots admitting of composition, which are almost exclusively in- debted to this power for their organic devel- opment or grammar; thirdly, languages with dissyllabic verbal roots, containing three es- sential consonants on which the fundamental meaning rests, as the Hebrew and Arabic. By many writers, Prichard for example, in his " Eastern Origin of the Keltic Nations " (Lon- don, 1831), and Duponceau to whom he refers, the idioms of the American tribes are call- ed polysynthetic or polysyllabic, implying a marked difference from the so-called monosyl- labic languages of S. E. Asia. Other writers define some languages as synthetic, as opposed to those which are analytic. Steinthal, in his CharakteristiJc der hauptsachlichsten- Typen des Sprachbaues (Berlin, 1860), divides lan- guages into two great classes, culture languages and uncultivated languages, each with the sub- divisions, the isolating and the inflecting. Hew- itt Key, after stating these distinctions, rightly remarks that all of them seem to be ground- less. The assertion that Chinese has a peculiar monosyllabic character, and is devoid of gram- matical formation, is founded on a gross error, as is shown in our article CHINA, LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE OF. The alleged distinction between word-building by addition of affixes, and word-building by means of inflection, does not exist. Domini, domino, dominum are thus said to be formed from dominus by an inflec- tion of us into i, o, um respectively; but all four forms have proceeded from agglutination of what was a significant syllable in the first place, followed by a compression. Polysyn- thetic or polysyllabic, applied to the native American languages and the Basque, is an error similar to that committed in the case of Chinese. (See AMERICAN INDIANS, LANGUA- GES OF THE.) To all appearance, groups of languages, though clearly and closely related, indicate more than a single type, and are not surely to be derived from a single primitive tongue, excepting perhaps the languages spoken by the Caffres and Malays, and, but less prob- ably, those of the Papuans and Australians. All other groups seem to be polyglottic, or de- rived from several root forms of speech in no manner related. It has therefore been at- tempted to attain a less objectionable classifi- cation by combining the results of linguistic and ethnological researches. "We have given under ETHNOLOGY (vol. vi., p. 756) the latest classification of racial distinctions, which is equally supported by the relations apparently existing among the various forms of speech. We shall therefore elaborate the same table, with special reference to the labors of the dis- tinguished linguist and ethnologist Friedrich Miiller, as given in part in the account of the travels of the Austrian frigate Novara around the world (Vienna, 1868), and in part in the independent work entitled Allgemeine Ethno- graphic (Vienna, 1873). Not in all cases, as will be seen on comparison with the ethnologi- cal table, are the linguistic groups entirely the same, and the various subdivisions may be considered as breaks in the line of connection. I. Papuan languages. The languages spoken in Papua, by the aborigines of the Sunda islands, and in the Philippines. II. Hottentot languages. 1. Nama, Kora, Cape dialect. 2. Bushman tongues. III. Caffre or Bantu languages. 1. Eastern group, a. Ka- fir languages: Kafir, Zulu. b. Zambesi languages, spoken by the Barotse, Bay eye, and Mashona. c. Zanzibar languages : Kisuaheli, Kikamba, Kinika, Ki- hiau. 2. Central group, a. Setchuana (Sesuto, Sero- long, Sehlapi). b. Tekeza, spoken by the Mankolosi, Matonga, and Mahloenga. 3. Western group, a. Bunda, Herero, Londa. b. Congo, Mpongwe, Dikele, Isubu, and Fernando Po. IV. Negro languages. 1. Mande languages: Mandingo, Bambara, Susu, Vei, Kono, Tere, Gbandi, Londoro, Mende, Gbese, Toma, and Mano. 2. Volof language. 8. Felup languages: Felup, Filham, Bola, Sarrar, Pa- pel, Biafada, Pajade, Bagd, Kallum, Temme, Bullom, Sherbro, and Kisi. 4. Bijogo. 5. Banyum. 6. Nalu. 7. Bulanda. 8. Limba. 9. Landoma. 10. Sonrhai. 11. Houssa. 12. Borneo languages: Kanori, Teda, Munio, Nguru, and Kanem. 13. Kru languages : Kru and Grebo. 14. Eva languages: Eva, Yoruba, Oji, and Akra. 15. Ibo languages: Ibo and Nupe. 16. Mbafu. 17. Mitchi. 18. Musgu languages: Batta, Musgu, and Logone. 19. Baghirmi. 20. Maba. 21. Nile languages : Bari, Dinka, Nuer, and Shilluk. Y. Australian languages. 1. Northern division. 2. South- ern division, a. Western group : languages spoken on the Swan river and King George's sound, b. Cen- tral group: the Parnkalla languages on the Murray river and Encounter bay. c. Eastern group: lan- guages near Lake Macquarie, Moreton bay, Kamilaroi, Viraturoi, Vailvun, Kokai, Pikumpul, Paiampa, King- ki, Turrupul, and Tippil. 3. Tasmanian languages. VI. Malayo - Polynesian languages. 1. Melanesian lan- guages: language of the Feeiee islands, Annatom, Erromango, Tana, Mallikolo, Lifu, Baladea, Bauro, Guadalcanar, &c. 2. Polynesian languages, a. Sa- moa, Tonga, Maori, Tahitian, and Earotonga. b. Lan- guage of the Marquesas islands, and Hawaiian. 3. Malayan languages, a. Tagala group: 1, languages spoken on the Philippines Tagala, Bisaya, Pampanga, Ilocana, and Bicol; 2, languages spoken on the La- drones ; 3, Malagas!. 4. Language of Formosa, b. Malayo- Javanese group: Malayan, with several dia- lects, Javanese, Sunda, Madurese, Bughis, Mankasar, Alfuric, Batak, and Dayak. VII. Turanian or Mongolian languages. 1. Uralo-Altaic languages, a. Samoyedic: Yurak, Tavgy, Ostiak- Samoyed, Yenisean, and Kamassin. b. Finnic: 1, Suomi and Laplandish; 2, Ostiak, Vogul, and Ma- gyar : 3, Sirian and Votiak ; 4, Tcheremiss and Mor- dvin. c. Tartaric: 1, Yakut; 2, Turkish and Tchtr