466 PROCEEDINGS OF SECTION F. 



not only in its favour what he has pointed out, but the traditions of 

 the human race from the earhest times. Arabia is at the apex of a 

 triangle, one of whose legs reaches along the east coast of Africa to 

 Madagascar, the other along the south coast of Asia to the Malay 

 Archipelago, both being known lines of Arabian ship-borae commerce 

 in the southern seas from times so ancient as before the Phoenician 

 keels ploughed the Mediterranean. It was in Arabia, the mother- 

 land of all the Semitic langaiages, and the seat of one of the earliest 

 civilisations, that sea-going commerce, and that in these southern 

 seas, was first developed by mankind. (Compare O^j. cit., pp. 490-7.) 



But to come to the real point, to establish the Indo-Chinese hypo- 

 thesis it is necessary to prove that the Oceanic languages belong to 

 some known family of South-eastern Asia. But this has never been 

 done. Bopp tried to prove they belonged to the Indo-European 

 through the Sanscrit, Mas Mliller that tliey belonged to the Turanian 

 through the Thai of Siam. Both, as Friedlich Mliller has said, hope- 

 lessly failed. Yet down to the present day there are those who cling 

 to some form of Bopp's view, and others to some form of Max Mtiller's, 

 but it is scarcely necessaiy to say that where their distinguished 

 leaders failed none of these have succeeded : and it may now be held 

 as certain that this hypothesis, whatever may be the case with the 

 other, must ever remain unproved. 



To establish the Arabian view it is, of course, necessary, and all 

 that is necessary, to prove that the Oceanic languages belong to the 

 Semitic family. This can only be done by duly comparing the two 

 groups (this is done in the present writei-'s work on " The Oceanic 

 Languages: Their Grammatical Structure, Vocabulaiy, and Origin," 

 Trowde, London, 1907), as to their phonology and letter changes, their 

 triliteral stem-words with their internal vowel changes and external 

 ^formative additions, and their pronouns and particles. To this work 

 !reference may be made for the full proof for the Arabian view. In 

 what here follows all that is attempted is to give a number of little 

 •changed words of the one group compared with the same in the other, 

 as the readiest way of setting forth a part of the evidence for the 

 Arabian view, such as can be easily appreciated, not only by those 

 having special knowledge of the Semitic and Oceanic languages, but 

 also by those not ha^'ing such special knowledge. On both sides each 

 word is given in only one dialect. To give each in several dialects 

 would be easy and interesting, but, while taking up too much space, 

 would in no way add to the value of the evidence, it being the case 

 that every word in the first column is a purely Semitic word, and 

 -every word in the second column a pui'ely Oceanic word. 



Note. — Efatese h=^h and p,f^f and v, and h and /' interchange- 

 able ; s ■=■ ts, s' ^ th in "this," nearly, t' = th in "with," s' = sh, 

 Jc and t are modified k and t ; A is a stronger //, and h' a stronger li ; 

 ' is the Semitic ayin, and " a stronger '. 



Arabic mizar' Efate mis^eri, part of a woman's 



dress 

 „ 'azzara „ seri, to put on the miseri 



Hebrew ey (pronounced e) ,, e, where ? 



Arabic 'alefu Malagasy arivu, a thousand 



