12 SYSTEMS OF CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY 



distinct forms of consanguinity among the nations represented in the tables. One 

 of these is descriptive and the other classificatory. The first, which is that of the 

 Aryan, Semitic, and Uralian families, rejecting the classification of kindred, except 

 so far as it is in accordance with the numerical system, describes collateral consan- 

 guinei, for the most part, by an augmentation or combination of the primary 

 terms of relationship. These terms, which are those for husband and wife, father 

 and mother, brother and sister, and son and daughter, to which must be added, in 

 such languages as possess them, grandfather and grandmother, and grandson and 

 granddaughter, are thus restricted to the primary sense in which they are here 

 employed. All other terms are secondary. Each relationship is thus made inde- 

 pendent and distinct from every other. But the second, which is that of the 

 Turanian, American Indian, and Malayan families, rejecting descriptive phrases in 

 every instance, and reducing consanguine! to great classes by a series of apparently 

 arbitrary generalizations, applies the same terms to all the members of the same 

 class. It thus confounds relationships, which, under the descriptive system, are 

 distinct, and enlarges the signification both of the primary and secondary terms 

 \ beyond their seemingly appropriate sense. 



Although a limited number of generalizations have been developed in the system 

 of the first-named families, which are followed by the introduction of additional 

 special terms to express in the concrete the relationships thus specialized, yet the 

 system is properly characterized as descriptive, and was such originally. It will 

 be seen in the sequel that the partial classification of kindred which it now con- 

 tains is in harmony with the principles of the descriptive form, and arises from it 

 legitimately to the extent to which it is carried ; and that it is founded upon con- 

 ceptions entirely dissimilar from those which govern in the classificatory form. 

 These generalizations, in some cases, are imperfect when logically considered ; but 

 they were designed to realize in the concrete the precise relationships which the 

 descriptive phrases suggest by implication. In the Erse, for example, there are no 

 terms for uncle or aunt, nephew or niece, or cousin ; but they were described as 

 father's brother, mother's brother, brotJier's son, and so on. These forms of the 

 Celtic are, therefore, purely descriptive. In most of the Aryan languages terms 

 for these relationships exist. My father's brothers and my mother's brothers, in 

 English, are generalized into one class, and the term uncle is employed to express 

 the relationship. The relationships to Ego of the two classes of persons are equal 

 in their degree of nearness, but not the same in kind; wherefore, the Roman 

 method is preferable, which employed patruus to express the former, and avunculus 

 to indicate the latter. The phrase " father's brother" describes a person, but it 

 likewise implies a bond of connection which patruus expresses in the concrete. 

 In like manner, my father's brother's son, my father's sister's son, my mother's 

 brother's son, and my mother's sister's son are placed upon an equality by a similar 

 generalization, and the relationship is expressed by the term cousin. They stand 

 to me in the same degree of nearness, but they are related to me in four different 

 ways. The use of these terms, however, does not invade the principles of the 

 descriptive system, but attempts to realize the implied relationships in a simpler 

 manner. On the other hand, in the system of the last-named families, while cor- 



