ON THE COMPARISON OF ASIATIC LANGUAGES. aie 
that we owe the early attempts at pictorial representation, 
whence proceeded picture-writing, and from it hieroglyphics, 
syllabaries, and alphabets; each stage rendered necessary 
by the growing power, volume, and complexity of speech. 
It is not here proposed to enter into the question of the 
origin of these simple sounds. It is clear that many of them 
suggest the imitation of natural sounds, and not improbable 
that this is the true origin, wherever such an explanation is 
possible. The names of many animals are clearly imitative 
of their cries, and when we find mn Hey ae the words Ba, 
for “sheep”; Mau, for “cat”; fufu, for “dog” (the old 
historic bow-wow) ; we are surely approaching very near to 
the origin of language. The word Shu, for “wind,” is very 
suggestive of what we call the soughing or sighing of the 
breeze. And when we turn to Chinese and discover Maau to 
be also the cat in that language, we see that it is quite as 
possible that it arose independently, as that it marks a con- 
nection of language at such a great distance in Asia. But 
this ‘‘ bow-wow theory,” though it is indisputably the explana- 
tion of many roots, encounters a difficulty when we come to 
consider certain ideas, like those of light, height, &c., which 
are unconnected with sound. Nor does the recent suggestion 
that certain acts were accompanied by certain sounds appear 
to recommend itself as a natural explanation. 
To return to the Aryans: although the simplicity of the 
roots of their speech is so great, its advance had also been 
great in the earliest times to which we can trace them; and 
we shall find that they share not only the first and the second 
category of their roots with other Asiatics, but even in many 
cases the third. Before attempting to consider this important 
question, we must, however, turn to other groups of 
languages. 
MonGoLic LANGUAGES. 
The Mongolic races are often depreciated as stolid and 
unimprovable. ‘The civilisation of China and Japan is for- 
gotten; and the adaptability of the Turkish race, as shown 
by the inclusion of many foreign words in their language, 
which in this respect resembles our own. The advance of 
knowledge shows that this conservative character is due, not 
to original barbarism whence the race has never emerged, but 
rather to the fact that the Mongolic peoples were the first ie 
attain to civilisation of a very advanced type. They wer 
the rulers of Asia, while the Hebrews were still she eee 
