OF THE HUMAN FAMILY. 



51 



and Uralian families to a common point of unity, tlic evidence of wliieh is still 

 preserved (if it can be said to amount to e\idence) in their several modes of indi- 

 cating the domestic relationships. 



I. Arabic Branch. 1. Arabic. 2. Druse and Maronite. 



1. Arabic Nation. — There are original terms in this language for grandfather 

 and grandmother, which is the more singular as there are none in Hebrew. 

 Ascendants above these degrees are described by a combination of these terms 

 with those for father and mother, hi which respect the Arabic is variant from the 

 Aryan form. • While we would say grandfather's father or great-grandfather, an 

 Arab would say, father of grandfather. It is a slight difference, and yet it reveals 

 a usage Avith respect to the manner of expressing this relationship. There arc no 

 terms in Arabic for grandson or granddaughter, nephew or niece, or cousin. These 

 persons are described by the Celtic method. 



The following is the series in the first collateral line, male : hrother, son of my 

 hrotUer, .son of son of my hrother, and son of son of son of my hrother. It is in 

 literal agreement with the Roman and Erse. 



It is a noticeable feature of the Arabic system that it has separate terms in \imm 

 'ammet for paternal uncle and aunt, and in Iclidl 'khdlct for maternal uncle and 

 aunt. By means of these terms the manner of describing the four branches of the 

 second collateral line was carried up fully to the Eoman standard in convenience 

 and precision, and became identical Avith it in form. It also tends to show that 

 the development of a system originally descriptive has a predetermined lo'j-ical 

 direction. With the exception of the discrimination of the relationships named, 

 and the changes thereby introduced in the method of indicating consanguinei, the 

 Arabic form is identical with the Erse. 



In the second collateral line, male branch, the series gives paternal uncle, son 

 of paternal wide, and son of son of paternal uncle. The third, which is variant 

 from the Roman, is as follows : paternal uncle of father, son of paternal uncle of 

 father, and son of son of paternal uncle of father. This line is described as a series 

 of relatives of the father of Ego. In like -manner the fourth collateral line is 

 described as a series of relatives of the grandftither of E(jo, e. g., paternal uncle 

 of yr and father, son of paternal uncle of grandfather, and so downward as far as 

 the line was traceable. For a further knowledge of the details of the Arabic system 

 reference is made to the Table. 



No attempt is made in this system to classify kindred by the generalization of 

 those who stand in the same degree of nearness to Ego into one class, with the use 

 of a special term to express the relationship. On the contrary, the four special 

 terms for collateral kindred, above named, are each applied to a single class of per- 

 sons who are brothers and sisters to each other, which is the lowest form of gene- 

 ralization in any system of consanguinity. It is the same as the generalization of 

 the relationship of hrother or son, each of which terms is applied to several persons 

 who stand in an identical relationship. Nephew, in our sense, on the contrary, 

 involves the generalization of two classes of persons into one class, and cousin that 

 of four into one. Neither does the Arabic employ the Sanskritic or Grecian method 

 of compounding terms by contraction to express specific relationship ; but it adheres 



