48 SYSTEMS OF CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY 



VIII. Armenian. The great antiquity of the Armenians as a people, anc? their 

 intimate connection, at different periods, with members of the three great families 

 of mankind, which have held dominion in Asia Minor, invests their system of consan- 

 guinity with some degree of interest. It is a simple and yet complete system. In 

 its radical features, and in its minute details, it is substantially identical with the 

 Erse and Gaelic forms. One more-term is found in its nomenclature than the Erse 

 contains, namely, tor, grandson ; but this was probably borrowed either from the 

 Osmanli-Turkish, or the Nestorian, in both of which it is found. The Armenian 

 system is purely descriptive, the description of kindred being eflected by a combi- 

 nation of the primary terms. 



In the first collateral line, male, the following is the series : IrotJwr, son of my 

 brotliei; and so7i of son of my hrother ; in the second collateral: brotJwr of my fatlier, 

 son of brother of my fatlier, and son of son of brotlver of my father ; and in the thirci 

 collateral : brother of my oU-fatlier, son of brother of my old-father ; and soil of son 

 of brother of my old-father. These illustrations are sufficient to exhibit the cha- 

 racter of the system, and also to show its identity of form with the Erse and 

 Gaelic. There is also a seeming identity of some of the terms in their nomencla- 

 tures of relationship. With the Armenian the series of Aryan nations represented 

 in the Table is closed. 



Very little reference has been made to the marriage relationships as they exist 

 in the several nations of this family. They are not material in the descriptive sys- 

 tem, except for comparison of the terms as vocables. They will be found in the 

 Table to which the reader is referred for further information. 



From this brief review of the more prominent features of the system of relation- 

 ship of the Aryan nations it has been rendered apparent that the original form of each 

 nation, with the possible exception of the Slavonic nations, was purely descriptive. 

 It is also evident that it is a natural system, following the streams of the blood, and 

 maintaining the several collateral lines distinct from each other, and divergent from 

 the lineal line. In several of the subdivisions of this great family it is still exclu- 

 sively descriptive as in the Armenian, the Erse, and the Icelandic, while in others, 

 as the Eoman, the German, and the English, it is a mixture of the descriptive, 

 with a limited amount of classification of kindred by means of common terms. 

 These terms embrace but a fraction of our kindred. Their use, in describing more 

 distant relations, in combination with the primary terms is but a further expansion 

 of the orio-inal system. The origin of these secondary terms, which represent the 

 extent of the modification made, must be found in the constantly recurring desire 

 to avoid the inconvenience of descriptive phrases. Such modifications as have been 

 made are neither inconsistent with the inference that the original form of each 

 nation was descriptive, nor such a departure from it as to render it other than a 

 descriptive system at the present time. This general conclusion, I think, must be 

 considered established. 



It may be farther remarked that certain persons who stand in the same degree 

 of nearness to Ego were classed together, and a common term invented to express 

 the relationship ; but some of these terms, as olieim and ^mcle, vedder and cousin, 

 are radically distinct, and are yet applied to the same persons. At the same time 



