222 
REPORT- 1847. 
tion of a system of exclusive numerals, there w change, and there « rocc 
for some variety of expression. We can choose between the words pr, 
couple, brace, leash', and hence four ditTereiit languages, closely allt^i 
other respects, may each adopt a difi’erencc in the numerals. 
This, and much similar preliminary criticism, should be borne in niiidi 
often OH tlie African languages are studied fur the purposes of etboogiwk*: 
since the difference of opinion amongst competent judges is not so uiocii t 
respect to the facte, as in respect to the approciatioti of them. Wilhontd* 
caution, tho lines of separation arc likely to be drawn too broadly. 
Now it in not the object of the present paper to establish anygeDtai 
assertion by full and irrefragable evidence. Such an undertaking wouW re¬ 
quire both more epaeo und more opportunities than the writer can illi* 
himself. All that he undertakes is to clear the way for future researcte 
This h« attempts in two ways:_ 
1. By arranging the bibliographical part of the subject, and by classifthf 
in a rough and provisional manner, a mass of numerous and fragmeiiwt! 
materialt. 
iS. iJy submitting to the learned w'orld a curtain amount of prtmij^ 
evidence it) favour of tho fundamental unity of the African laiiguagr* u 
general, I’or this theorem he professes only to prepare tho prool; not n 
supply it in full. 
TJie languages upon the isolation whereof the most has been wid, V 
the Fulah, the Berber, tho Coptic, anil the Caffre. That of the HotltuW 
has, perhaps, boon tacitly assumed, ratJirr than insisted on. 
1. This I'lilah 1ms to be studied carefully. Its siipposeti isolation hss be- 
M little sufiporteil by mpmjoiit as its ooniiexion with any other languagu^ 
een proved. It has undoubted miscellanrous alfinitios. 
ii. iVliBcclIancous Africau nlliiiities for the Berber have already 
terred to, vit/. mp. Bosidos which, iho i-ewarches of Mr. Newman wd ^ 
I'reuch uclmlars are likely to throw much now light upon this languMe. 
.3. iltti Coptic IS also under study. Nevertheless, its mUcollaneou* 
can affinilma that have already been dlscoverea are sufficient to show tU « 
camiot properly bo iaolatod. For every itep that can l.e taken to pro« 
cx/ra Alncao relations of the Coptic, it is believed that a similar one 
I opposite direction, leading towards its position amongit.JJ 
^oguages. ^ The following short table is the result of a very h®' 
and unsystematic investigation. 
Snfflish 
Coptic 
Bogharmi 
Faiglish 
Coptic 
Moko 
Fulah 
Wolotf 
English 
Coptic 
Naraba 
slave. 
bdh 
bakcc. 
stone. 
aU 
ah. 
airi. 
hear. 
English 
Coptic 
Mandingo 
Kissi 
grass. 
enteakh. 
ndoh. 
sheep, 
csoou. 
suio. 
sa. 
English 
Coptic 
Mandingo 
Ulioho 
English 
Coptic 
Ibu 
English 
Coptic 
Howssa 
Kossa 
Pessa 
Bambarra 
English 
Coptic 
hog. 
eshau. 
sen. 
essi> 
cow. 
ehhe. 
ehi. 
head. 
kahhi. 
kai 
ngui 
nkufiff- 
hung- 
fish. 
saak> 
