OF THE UU MAN FAMILY. 67 



CHAPTER VI. 



SYSTEM OFRELATIONSnir OF THE URALIAN FAMILY. 



Reasons for Detaching Ugrian and Turk Nations frour the Turanian Connection— Their System of Relationship 

 Descriptive — Uralian proposed as a Name for the New Family — I. Ugrian Nations- Their Subdivisions — 

 System of the Finns— Illustrations of its Method— Marriage Relationships— Limited Amount of Classification 

 — System of the Esthonians— Purely Descriptive- System of the Magyars— Illustrations of its Method — 

 Peculiar Features— Chiefly Descriptive— II. Turk Nations- Closely Allied to the .Ugrian- Their Subdivisions 

 —Area of Uralian Family— Osmanli-Turks— An Extreme Representative of the Turkic Class of Nations- 

 Relative Positions of the Aryan, Semitic, and Uralian Families— Osmauli-Turkish System of Relationship- 

 Illustrations of its Form — Kuzulbashi— A Turkic People— System of Relationship — Illustrations of its 

 Form— Descriptive in Character— Identity of System in the Branches of this Family— Its Agreement with that 

 of the Aryan and Semitic Families — Objects gained by Comparisons— Ascertainment of the Nature and Prin- 

 ciples of the Descriptive System— Ethnic Boundaries of its Distribution— Concurrence of these Families in 

 its Possession— Subordinate in Importance to the Classiflcatory— Exposition of the Classificatory System the 

 Main Object of this Work. 



It is proposed to detach from the assemblage of nations, distinguished as the 

 Turanian family, the Ugrian and Turk branches, and to erect them into an inde- 

 pendent family under the name of the Uralian. All of the Asiatic dialects which 

 fell Avithout the Aryan and Semitic connections, have been gathered into the Tura- 

 nian family of languages, with the exception of the Chinese and its cognates. 

 This classification, however, philologists have regarded as provisional. These 

 dialects are not parts of a family speech in the same sense as are the Aryan and 

 Semitic dialects.^ The latter respectively agree with each other in their minute as 

 Avell as general grammatical forms, and this, in turn, is corroborated by the iden- 

 tity of a large number of vocables in the several branches of each. On the other 

 hand, in the Turanian dialects, in addition to morphological similarities, which are 

 inconclusive, there is a partial identity of grammatical forms, and also of vocables 

 which serve to connect particular groups, but fail to imite the several groups as 

 a whole. In other words, the Turanian family of languages, as now constituted, 

 cannot hold together if subjected to the same tests upon which the Aryan and 

 Semitic were established ; or upon which a new dialect would now be admitted 

 into either. 



The introduction of this new family does not contravene any established philo- 

 logical conclusion. In the formation of a family of languages the method of the 

 philologists was rigidly scientific. Such dialects as were derived from the same 

 immediate source, the evidence of which was preserved in the vocables, were first 

 brought together in a stock-language, such as the Slavonic. A further comparison 



' Science of Language, p. 289. 

 8 January, 1869. 



