OF LANGUAGES. 



63 



in many expressions of daily life. The natural properties 

 displayed by individual persons or objects, the characteristic 

 discrepancies apparent in similar actions or conditions are 

 keenly grasped and appreciated by the unsophisticated child 

 of nature ; but the common bond whieh links together the 

 kindred members to the parent body is, if not overlooked, 

 at all events not appreciated. The individual overshadows 

 the species. Each single object impresses the mind of the 

 beholder at first with its individuality. If this impression 

 becomes overpowerful, the mind can no more distinguish 

 between the kindred and the kind, and this difference is in 

 consequence not expressed in speech. There exist tribes who 

 have bestowed a name on all the animals they know, but who 

 have never thought it necessary to use a word for " animal." 85 

 Some go so far as to describe by special terms the tails of all 

 animals, yet do not know how to express " tail" 86 pure and 

 simple ; others point out each separate plant or tree by an 

 appropriate name, and are unable to speak in general of a plant 

 or a tree; 87 or they will distinctly define each bird, fish, 87 



Tribes of the U. S., by H. R. Schoolcraft, Part II, pages 405, 467, and 479. 

 Compare besides the Chinook dialect, where " we two''' incl. is Tkhaika and excl. 

 Ndaika; the " we plur." incl. is Olkhaika and excl. JYtfaika, and the Tegua 

 (one of the Pueblo languages) we incl. Tahquireh and excl. Nihyeuboh. 

 See " The Native Races of the Pacific States," by H. H. Bancroft, Vol. Ill, 

 pages 628 and 682. Compare also Morgan, page 137 N. 1 on the Cherokee 

 pronoun. 



(85) E.g., theCoroados in Brazil ; see: The Origin of Civilisation, by Sir 

 John Lubbock, second edition, page 332. 



(86) As the Society Islanders. 



(87) A term for tree is wanting in many American languages. The 

 Philippine islanders, the Tasmanians, the Australian aborigines and others 

 do not possess it. " The blacks (of Australia) have no word to express ' tree.' 

 In just the same way they have no word for ' fish' or ' bird.' The 

 aborigines (of Tasmania) possessed no words representing abstract ideas ; 

 for each variety of gum-tree and wattle-tree, &c, &c, they had a name, but 

 they had no equivalent for the expression ' a tree ;' neither could they 

 express abstract qualities, such as hard, soft, warm, cold, long, short, round, 

 &c." See Crawfurd, Vol. I, page cxxvi ; Mr. R. Brough Smyth : The 

 Aborigines of Victoria, Vol. II, pages 27 and 413. 



