n - University of Newcastle

Jlaring resicled for manr years in the island of Xaiatea, ancl
ha~ing been in the coilstailt habit of conversing with and preacllin;
to the 11atives in their o~rn tongue, I an1 enabled to trace the
bimilarity of languages 11sed in the South Seas. one with another,
roving they are hut diEerent dialects, aithough the natives themselves,
and me also, at tbe first interriex-, could not understalld
the people of neighbouriug islands, who speak radically the same
tongue !
In the Australian tongurs t11ei.e appears to exist; a very great
similarity of i:iiom, as respects the dual number and the use of
tlle form expressive of neqation; and yet it is observed by a
writer in the article on ' Greek language,' Xees's Cyelopmclia, that,
" The dzcal n~rnzbel- is Zy no qjzralzs necessalm.y in Zunyuage, though
it may enable the Greek to express the ilunlber 'two ' or 'pair' with
lllore emphasis and precibion." But this assertion is not at all
borne out by facts ; because, in this part of the hemisphere, all the
languages of the South Sear, in comnlon with Kew South JJTales,
possess a dual number, ailcl so esseiltial is it to the languages that
conrersrttion couldilot be carried on, if they bad it not. There is,
hoxr-ever, a peculiarity in the dual of the Australian tongue ~ hich
does not exist in the islands, namely, a conjoined case in the dual
pronouns, by which the nominative and accusative are tlencled, as
shown io the pronouns*, whilst the verb sustains ro change,
excepti~lg when reflexire, or reciprocal, or continu a t' we. But
in the Islands there are dual rerbs. The inodes of interrogation
and replication are very much alike in the idiom of both languages,
and so peculiar as hardly possible to be illustrated in the English
language; for they scarcely ever tire a direct ansv-er, but in such
a manner as leaves much to be implied. The aborigines of this
colony are far more definite in the use of the tenses than the
Tslanders, who ha1.e nothing peculiar in the use of the tenses.
The subject of teuses caused me much perplexity and diligent
examination. Nor did the observations of eminent miters on
the theory of language tend to elucidate the matter; because the
facts existing in the language of the aborigines of Ke~r Holland
are in direct coiltradictiou to a note to the article 'Grammar' in thc
Ene!/clopedia Bq-itannieaf, where certain tenses are rep~esented
as "peculiar to the Greek, and hare nothing cowesyo~zding to
them ilt other tongzces, me need not scrnple to overloolc them as
slr~~e?$zcous." Kom, our aborigiues use the tenses of the rerb and
the participle variously, to denote time past in general; or time past
in particular, as, ' this morning only;' or time past remote, that is,
at some former period, as, 'when I was in England,' or, 'when I tras
a bo?' The future tiwe of tlle verb and of the participle is also
mod~fied in a similar manner, specifically, either now, or to-morrow
# See page 17.-ED. + Of that day. -ED.
THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE. vii
morning, or generally as in fut~lrity ; and besides this, there is
another curious fact opposed to the co~lclusion of the writer's
note, which reacls thuri : " Of the paulo-post-futurum of the
Greeks, \re have taken no notice, because it is fouild only in the
passive ~oice ; to which if it were necessary, it is obrious that it
\rould be necessary in all voices, as n vzan. azcr!/ be nbolrt to act, as
well as to su,fe?-, i~iznzediafeTy." Sow, such is the rery idioul of this
language, as n-ill be seen in the conjugation of the participle; for
the pronolm, being used either objectirely or nomiuati\relp, will
,place the phrase either in the one sense or the other, such chanqe
in the pronoun constituting the equivalent t,) the passire roice
or the active voice. The most particular attelltio~l is necessarr
to the tense of the participle as well as that of the rerb, each
tense being confined to its o~vil 11articular period, as shoivn in the
conjugition of the rerbs. The various dialects of the bl~clis
map yet pro~e, as is already ascertained in the Islands, to be a
difliculty more apparent than real ; but nrhe11 one dialect becomes
knoIvn, it mill asslst materially in obtaining a speedier lino\rledge
of any other that may be attempted, timn if no such assistance
had been rendered.
Although tribes mithin 100 miles do not, at the first interrien-,
understand each other, yet I hare observed that after a T-er?
short space of time they are able to conrerse freely, which could
not be the case were the langaage, as man suppose it to be,
radically distinct. The number of d~fferent llanles for one substantive
may occasion t?lis idea. For instance, ' n-ater ' lins at
least fire names, and ' fire' has more ; the ' moon' has four names,
according to her phases, and the karigaroo has dizti~ict names
for either sex, or according to size, or different places of Iiaunt ;
so that two persons would seldom obtoin the same name for a
knngaroo, if met wild in the woods, unless every circumstalltial
was precisely alilre to both inquirers." The quality of a thing is
another source from xrhich a ~lalne is given, as ell as its habit
or manner of operation. Thus, one man ~vouId call a nlusket
' a thing that strikes fire ;' another would describe it as ' a thing
that strikes,' because it hits an object; whilst a third ~ould
name it ' a thing that rzakes a loud noise ;' and a fourth would
designate it ' a piercer,' if the bayonet was fixed. Eence arises
the difficulty to persons unaccluaiuted with the language in
obtaining the correct name of that which is desired. For
instance, a risitor one day requested the name of a .natire cat
from MLGill, my aboriginal, n-ho replied m in 11 a r i 11 g ; the
person was about to write down the word mi nn a r i n g, 'a
native cat,' tvheu I prere~~ted the naturslist, observing that the
word was not the name of the native cat, but a questioc, namelr,
* There are other reasons for this diversity of language.-ED.