64 SYSTEMS OP CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY 



furtlicr necessary inference that it still exhibits the system of the original stock 

 froiu which both were derived; thus tending to confirm, by an independent argu- 

 ment, a conclusion previously formed, that the system of the Finns was originally 

 purely descriptive. The two forms are identical in their radical conceptions, the 

 difierence consisting in the limited amount of classification of kindred which is 

 found in the latter. In like manner, the absence from the Esthouian dialect 'of 

 several of the terms of relationship now existing in the Finnish, tends to show that 

 the latter have been developed in the Finnish, or introduced from external sources, 

 with the modifications of form thereby produced, since the separation of these 

 nations from each other, or from the parent stem. The same system of consan- 

 guinity being thus found in two parallel streams of descent, carries back its exist- 

 ence, as a distinct system, to the time when the Finns and Esthonians, or their 

 common ancestors, were one peoi^le. It can therefore claim an antiquity in the 

 Uralian family of many centuries. 



It will not be necessary to take up the Esthonian system in detail after this gene- 

 ral explanation of its character. For a further knowledge of its form reference is 

 made to the Table. Although not fully extended, the remainder, from what is 

 given, can be readily inferred. 



3. Magyars. — The ethnic connection of the Magyars with the Ugrian nations is 

 well established. Since their irruption into Hungary they have been surrounded 

 by Slavonic populations, of Avhose progress they have, to some extent, partaken ; 

 but their system of consanguinity appears to have remained uninfluenced from this 

 source. The schedule in the Table, by some misconception, was filled out as far 

 only as special terms are used, leaving all the remaining questions unanswered. 

 Of this omission the following explanation was given in a note. " The degrees of 

 relationship left unfilled, or marked with [a Avave line] have no popular nouns 

 [terms] in the Hungarian or Magyar language, and are circumscribed [described] 

 as in English." It would have been more satisfactory to have had the full details 

 of the system, since the method of description is material ; but yet it Avill be sufii- 

 cient for general purposes to know that it is descriptive in all cases where special 

 terms are not used. 



Grandfather is expressed by prefixing oreg, old, to the term for father, and 

 great-grandfather by prefixing ded, the signification of which is not given. A 

 grandson is described as " son of my son." 



The relationships of brother and sister are concieved in the twofold form of elder 

 and younger, and not in the abstract. It is one of the remarkable features of the 

 Magyar system, and one which may be expected to reappear in the forms of other 

 nations belonging to this branch of the family. The four terms are radically dis- 

 tract from each other, and as follows: latyam, "my elder brother;" ocsem, "my 

 younger brother;" nenem, "my elder sister;" and hugom, "my younger sister." 

 This IS the first, and the only Turanian characteristic in the Magyar system. 



I call my brother's son, his ocsem., kis = little, literally, " my little younger brother ;" 

 and my brother's daughter, his hugom, " my little younger sister." My brother's 

 grandson and great-grandson are described, but the form of description is not given. 



