368 EEV. .lOHX MATHEW. 



with those of Australia and Tasmania. Pliysical , 

 alone would suffice to obtain acceptance for Mr. Huxley's view 

 that of all races the Papuan is most nearly related to the African. 

 And besides physiological considerations, certain practices and 

 superstitions common to the Australians Tasmanians and Africans, 

 point to identity of ancestry at some far distant past date, but 

 the verbal analogies adduced are rather shaky props on which to 

 rest the relationship argument. Mr. Clarke avowedly discards as 

 JNIr. Curr does tacitly the testimony from grammatical structure, 

 and they both present merely phonetic resemblances which may 

 be very misleading as the following considerations will show. 



In the first place there is a number of vocables which may be 

 looked upon as universal whether they be of ononiatoposic origm 

 or no does not affect the present ai-gument, but the words are as 

 much European or A.siatic as they are African and Australian. 

 They occur as equivalents for father, mother, breasts, milk, teeth. 



Further, tlie possibilities of speech are limited, all races have 

 virtually the same vocal instrument, and there is I believe in 

 mankind generally an inherent capacity to name things according 

 to the subjective effect which the observation of them produces, 

 giving good grounds for recognizing the ding-dong theory as parti- 

 ally (and in large part) accounting for the origin of language. 

 And therefore, if phonetic likeness alone were to be taken into 



' " ■ " - ■ - ■ ^gf^^ especially if 



it be regarded as one family. The .subjoined short 1 

 ' the feasibility of proving the descent of Australian 1 

 English. 



