103 i-TnN(jLriay of the in-do-pacific island?. 



ftoundj? may have gervrc! not oiity ns lire pitonetic bni as ihe gloa- 

 sjtiia! fotimlaiiou und mnterial ol' all knrrnage. A root for llcud 

 luay have not only become rci}lricl<!d to pnrts of the Lend, 

 tlicnce to other parts of the body nnd llieiico to ohjects and ideuB 

 named from an actual or Jaiicicd rcseiiiblance to any of these parts^ 

 hut may have bt'Cii liHusfcrreU to Scull, to Bone, lo particular 

 hones* lo things roum!, cavin-noui«, hard, prolubmiit, to the top of 

 arjjlhinj^ or of [>niticular thititrp, io rnfls^tei-e, chiefs, governors 

 rulera &c, Xo roote have iietn more prolLfie, and thci-e is hardly 

 any limit to their raniificationB. A (single inKta.iice \riU sufEce to 

 show how roott* that have becouio obsolete or been displaced iu 

 tfieir primary or older meaniuga are preserved in. their secondary 

 ones. In Malay Head m kapaln^ a comparatively recent acquiai^ 

 tion from Sanskrit. But the native or earlier root, ulu^ still cur- 

 rent in many of the cognate IiuUmeaiau languages, is Ibuud in 

 IVialay with several meaiiiuga. TJnacconipanied by any other 

 word, it was signifies " mland " and " interior." The history of 

 this word is clear. iVom the Head, it was apph'ed to the highest 

 part of a stream, and as streama are the Malay highways to the 

 interior and the euUivatod and inhabited tracts are iu general 

 liiuited to their borders, the uhi miKj^y tho head or upper part of 

 the Btreamf was synonimona with the interior of the country or 

 district. Wlieu nln was by de^ees supplanted by knpaia in its 

 principal meaning, it caine to signify the interior even without 

 the addition of the distinctive word for sstreiHu. Another oi* itti 

 secondary applica,tioiw is to the hilt or handle of a weapon or in- 

 strument, the blade beuig termed the eye^ matOf a root which, in 

 other languages, also signifies Eye, Face, Head Ac. 



AA^hafc is found on comparing the vocabularies of any single 

 family, is foimd also on comparing those of all the known families 

 of language. The same terms recur in them and it soon becomes 

 evident that in their primary roots and vocables, they are jdl inti- 

 mately related, and are in fact ultimately dialects of one language. 

 The glossarial resemblance is so close and unequivocal, and tho 

 transfer of roots from one part of the body to aiiother is so nni- 

 vei'Sid a phenomenon, that wo arrive at the conclusion that this 

 fundamental portion of the vocabulary was formed, to a greater or 

 less extent, when the diilercnt families of language hud not sepa- 

 rated fur fr(»ni each other. This remai'kable coimcetion has 



