OF THE HUMAN FAMILY. 57 



CHAPTER VI. 



SYSTEM OP RELATIONSHIP OF THE TJRALIAN FAMILY. 



Reasons for Detaching Ugrian and Turk Nations frorff 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 Osmanli-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 Classificatory 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 without 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. 1 The latter respectively agree with each other in their minute as 

 well 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 unite 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 



1 Science of Language, p. 289. 



8 January, 1869, 



