54 SYSTEMS OF CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY 



same root as the corresponding Arabic words, were without any correlatives except 

 in the form of descriptive phrases. Notwithstanding the slight deviations between 

 the Nestorian and the Arabic forms, after an independent and separate existence 

 of many centuries, they are still identical in their radical characteristics. 



Terms for the marriage relationships are less numerous in the Semitic than in the 

 Aryan language. From their limited number and the manner of their use they 

 are of but little importance as a part of the general system of relationship, except 

 for comparison as vocables. In the systems of the Turanian and American Indian 

 families they enter more essentially into their framework, and are of much greater 

 significance from the manner of their use. 



The system of relationship of the Semitic family luis a much wider range than 

 is indicated m the Table. It wiU. doubtless be found wherever the blood and lan- 

 guage of this family have spread. Among the Abyssinians, who speak a Semitic 

 dialect, it probably prevails ; and most likely among the people who speak the Ber- 

 ber dialects of North Africa, which are said to be Semitic. Traces of it exist in 

 the system of the Zulus or Kafirs of South Africa, which, Malayan in form, has 

 adopted Semitic words into its nomenclature. The Himyaritic dialect, if investi- 

 gated with reference to this question, would probably disclose some portion of the 

 primitive form. 



A comparison of tlie systems of relationship of the Semitic and Aryan families 

 suggests a number of interesting questions. It must have become sufficiently obvi- 

 ous that in their radical characteristics they are identical. Any remaining doubt 

 iipon that point is removed by the near approach of the Arabic and Nestorian to 

 the Erse and Icelandic. It is rendered manifest by the comparison that the sys- 

 tem of the two families Avas originally purely descriptive, the description being 

 effected by the primary terms ; and that the further development of each respec- 

 tively, by the same generalizations, limited to the same relationships, was, in each 

 case, the work of civilians and scholars to provide for a new want incident to 

 changes of condition. The rise of these modifications can be definitely traced. 

 Whether the system in its present form is of natural origin, and the two families came 

 by it through the necessary constitution of things ; or whether it started at some 

 epoch in a common family and was transmitted to such families as now possess it 

 by the streams of the blood, are the alternative questions. Their solution involves 

 two principal considerations : first, how far the descriptive system is affirmative, 

 and as such is a product of human intelligence ; and secondly, how far its radical 

 forms are stable and self-perpetuating. It is not my piu-pose to do more than make 

 a general reference to the elements of those propositions which wiU require a full 

 discussion in another connection. 



The descriptive system is simple rather than complex, and has a natural basis in 

 the nature of descents, Avhere marriage subsists between single pairs. For these 

 reasons it miglit have been framed independently by different families, starting 

 witli an antecedent system either differing or agreeing ; and its perpetuation in 

 such a case might be in virtue of its foundation upon the nature of descents. And 

 yet these conclusions are not free from doubt. With the fact established that the 



