68 SYSTEMS OF CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY 



their way up to civilization by the slow process of internal groAvth, as each of the 

 Aryan nations has done independently of each other, they attempted to seize it 

 ready-formed at the point of the scimitar. .It cannot be won in this manner ; neither 

 can it be acquired by formal attempts to practise its arts and usages. It has an 

 older and deeper foundation in the mental constitution of the people. These 

 suggestions have a direct bearing upon systems of relationship, which are under the 

 same law as to their development, and share the same elements of permanence which 

 inhere in domestic institutions. 



The Osmanli-Turkish system, having borrowed a portion of the Arabic nomen- 

 clature, is not the best type of the system of this branch of the family. That of 

 the Kirgiz or Bashkirs would have been much better had it been procured. It is 

 inferior to the Kuzulbashi which follows. 



There are terms in this language for grandfather and grandmother, and a term 

 in common gender for grandchild. Ascendants and descendants beyond these are 

 described by a combination of terms. 



I call my brother's son and daughter >/ei/enim, Avhich is a term in common gender 

 for nephew and niece. The children of the latter are described. 



The term for paternal uncle, dmmim or dmujdm, and paternal aunt, Jiuldm, appear 

 to be from the Arabic. It has terms also for maternal uncle, ddyem, and for pater- 

 nal aunt, didzdm. These terms determine the form for the designation of kindred 

 in the second collateral line, at least in part. The series, in the male branch used 

 for illustration, is as follows : j)ofe?72aZ uncle, son of paternal uncle, and son of son 

 of jjaternal xmcle. Of the next degree below this. Dr. Pratt remarks in a note 

 that " the same form of description, if any, is employed." This is a novel feature 

 in the system, since it appears that all the descendants of an uncle, near and remote, 

 are designated as uncle's sons and uncle's daughters, and all the descendants of an 

 aunt as an aunt's sons and daughters. 



Of the third collateral line Dr. Pratt remarks, " that no account is made of these 

 degrees," which is repeated as to each of its branches. This is a significant state- 

 ment, as it shows that they are not classified, and thus brought within the near 

 degrees of relationship, as in the Turanian system ; but are left without the sys- 

 tem, and to the descriptive method for their designation. 



It would seem from the present features of the Osmanli-Turkish system, barren 

 as it is in its details, that it must have been originally purely descriptive. The 

 changes that have occurred are limited to the same generalizations which have 

 been found in those of the Aryan and Semitic families. On the other hand, the 

 Turanian form docs not admit of the description of a solitary kinsman, however 

 remote in degree he may stand from Erjo. Each and all, so far as the connection 

 can be traced, are brought into one of the recognized relationships for the indica- 

 tion of which a special term exists. It will be found in the sequel that the 

 Osmanli-Turkish form separates itself, by a clearly-defined line, from the Turanian 

 in its fundamental characteristics. The degree of importance which rightfully 

 attaches to this radical difference will be hereafter considered. 



2. Kuztdhaslii. — Our knowledge of this people, and of their proper linguistic 

 position, is not altogether definite, if they are identical with the Tajicks referred 



