KTllNOLOOY OF TllK INDO-PACIFIO ISLANDS. 



3 



comimritig ilittcrunt farmatious, anJ even the various iHaJeets of 

 tlic triime formal ioijj coiHouatits mid vowels frequently exliibit gi-eat. 

 ius^labilii y» so great in<k*yJ tlmt it can be asstiHed witli perfc;et truth 

 that each vowel is capahle of being, by successive gradatioiis, 

 transmuted iulo atl the others. The same icmark applies to the 

 consonants. In Polynesian tliere cannot be said to be more than 

 10 (in Rarutongan and Mangarevan 8 ) consonanlS| the sonants 

 having generally become confounded with the surds. The denials 

 are transmuted into the liquids with great faeiHty. They pasa into 

 ihe gutturals through ibe eti'ong mutual affinity of tlie surda /* and 



and into the labials through the liqutds. Thus, to alart with 

 /, It may pass into g through A-, on the one side, and through 

 f/, r, If n into //, y,/, on the other. lis direct afEnity to the 

 sibiliijit and aspirate i/t, z &c. is so great that it frequcnlty 

 pasws into them in many languages. Particles, whuther separate, 

 formative or fiexional^ are generally mouoiiyllabic, and even to a 

 lur**'e extent unilifcral iji all formations. In the Burmah-Tiboian, 

 the pre-Ai'iiin Indian, the African, the Turanian, and, it may be 

 added, in ihe Iranian, words of all classes are radicalfy monosylla- 

 bles. It is evident, therefore, that the phonetic Identity of a par- 

 ticle in two or even more languages has luirdly any value at all 

 as an isolated fact, for com |mrative and ethnic purposes. It hap- 

 pens, al>0, that a number of identical particles are so widely S[U*ead 

 throughout most of the formations of the world that nothing can 

 be learned frotn them per se, respectiug the specific affinities of 

 dilTorent formations. We arrive at this ruh*, that it is only by 

 colli paling particles in grouj>s^ and in comiection with the entire 

 phonetic and Ideologic character of each language, that positive 

 ethnic conciusiuns can he attained. 



Ill the Burma h-Chinese languages there is little connection be- 

 tween ihe parlicilcs. They arc in general as isolated and indc[)end- 

 ent of each other as substantive words. In the Draviriau forma- 

 tion, on the contrai-y, they are intimately connected both phoneti- 

 cally and idiomaiicidly, and thi^j greatly facilitates ihch* comparison 

 with tliose of other tbrnuitious. In Draviriau we find a number 

 of pai tides lurmcd into a well muiked system, presenting even 

 flcxional ir.iil?. For fVLiniple the principal jnoiiomtnal tcrins^, as ex- 

 hibitud by the purer languages, or those of the South, are, 7ia, "1," 

 and ni "thou," n in the plural becoming m. Thiis the three main 



