On the Languages of Melanesia. Author(S): R

Home , Melanesian languages

On the Languages of Melanesia. Author(s): R. H. Codrington Source: The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 14 (1885), pp. 31-43 Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2841477 . Accessed: 15/06/2014 20:47

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:47:34 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions REhv.R. H. CODRINGTON.-Langtuagesof Metanesia. 31

Descriptionof Plates I and I. PLATE I. View of the Nanga, or Sacred Stone Enclosure,of Wainimala, Fiji. From a sketch by Mr. Leslie J. Walker, Civil Service,Fiji. PLATE II. Sketch-Map of Na Viti Levu, showing the boundariesof the Nanga Districts. Drawn by Mr. J. P. Thomson,C.E., M.I.S., GovernmentSurveyor, Fiji. The Nanga districts are shaded.

The followingpaper was read by the author:-

On theLANGUAGES of MELANESIA. By the REV. R. H. CODRINGTON,M.A. BY Melanesia is here meant the chain of groupsof islands of the West Pacific which stretchin a kind of curvefrom New Caledonia to New Guinea, west of Polynesia. The boundary eastwardsis verywell defined,Fiji being as plainly Melanesian as Tonga is Polynesian. New Guinea is not included in the present consideration,partly from want of knowledge of its languages, chieflyto keep away from the use of the term Papuan. I desirenot to name the languagesof Melanesia,with whichI am acquainted,after a people or a countryof whose languagesI know verylittle. The groupsof the Melanesian Islands are- 1. New Caledonia,with the LoyaltyIslands. 2. The New Hebrides. 3. The Banks' and TorresIslands. 4. Fiji. 5. Santa Cruz,and the Reef Islands. 6. The SolomonIslands. My own acquaintance with the languages (ofthese islands is limited,but it extends to each of these groups,and coversa good deal of the groundfrom the LoyaltyIslands to Ysabel in the Solomons. Beyond that I have the valuable additionof the laniguageof Duke of York Island, between New Britain and New Ireland, by the kindnessof Mr. Brown. From withinthe limits of Melanesia, as thus defined,certain places with their language have to be withdrawnfrom consideration. Theyare thosein whichthe languageis Polynesian, in factTongan; part of Three Hills, Fuituiiaand Aniwa, Fila,

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:47:34 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 32 PLEV.PR. H. CODRINGTON-Onthe

in the New Hebrides; Tikopia,some of the Reef Islands of Santa Cruz; Rennell Island and Bellona Island, south of the Solomon group,and OngtongJava to the north. The presence of these distinctPolynesian outliers in Melanesia presentsno difficulty,and is interesting. For the purpose of the present paper it is inmportantto observethat the Melanesian languages in immediateproximity to these Polynesian settlements,show no more Polynesian characterthan those that lie far away. The languageof Mae, in Three Hills, is in factTongan; that of Sesake,two miles oft,is knownto me, and certainlyin my view is no morePolynesian than thelanguages of the Banks' Islaiids; whichagain are verymuch more like Fijian, than that is like Tongan, its very much nearer neighbouron the Polynesian border. The object of the presentpaper is to set forththe view that the various tongues of Melanesia are hornogeneous,belong to one commonstock; and, secondly,that th.s stockis the same to whichthe otherocean languages belong: Malayan, Polynesian, the languages of the islands that connect Melanesia with the Indian Archipelago,and Malagasy. The view which is opposed is one accordingto which the originalMelanesian stock of language is distinctfrom that to which Malay and Polynesian belong; the theoryaccording to whichwhatever in Melanesian languagesis foundcommon with Malayan and Polynesian is said to be initroducedfrom, or due to influencefrom, either Polynesiaii or Malay, as the case may be. I am veryfar from denying that wordshave been introduced, and language influeinced,from the Polynesian or the Malayan side, thoughI do not thinkthe modernMalay of commercehas reachedMelanesia. What I believe is, that whateverhas been introduced,from the one side or the other,into the Melanesian tongues,has been introducednot froma foreignbut a kindred stock. I shall endeavour to give brieflymy reasons for this belief. The firstview of the Melanesian languages,as a whole,shows a surprisingassemblage of tongues differingso widelyamong themselves that within very short distances they become mutuallyunintelligible. In these are found,by those who are acquaintedwith Malay on the one hand,or Polynesianlanguages on the other,a numberof wordlsand formswhich they recognise as familiar,arnd natuirally take to have been introduced. It is not difficultto conceivehow the Melanesianlanguages may have becomeso very differelit,if the presentinhabitants are supposed to have arrived at their present seats at differenttimes by variousroutes, aind to have had littleintercourse between themn-

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:47:34 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Languagesof Melantesia. 33

selves. But the differencesin some cases are so verygreat that it is not easy at once to believe themall of one stock. Further acquaintanice,however, dimilnishesthe sense of difference; languages to the ear very unlike are seen on paper to be varying forms of the same. In this way, as the circle of acquaintancewidens, languiages are learnt nmoreand more to be alike. Finally,in my own case, I may say that of the more than thirtvMelanesian languagesI have examined,there is not morethan one (of which I know verylittle indeed) which still seems to me to stand much outsidethe groupsinto which the othershave arrangedthemselves. I may give as an example the languageof Santa Cruz. Any Melanesianlanguage seemed easy to BishlopPatteson, but he was neverable, for lack of sufficientintercourse, to make acquaintance with that of Santa Cruz. Within the last few years it has becomeaccessible; and t,houghvery strange at first,with a very differentvocabulary, and with curiousphonetic changes, it soon showeditself as familiarin its main structure,it arrangeditself on tlhelines of the otherMelanesian languages. The same has been the case with me in everyMelanesian language I have become acquainted with. There are groups,as Fijian, Banks' Islands, the nearerand furtherSolomon Islands, which, differing among themselves,come on the whole near together. But some,till theyare examined,seem strangeand widelydifferent, such as the Loyalty Island languages,Ambrym, Santa Cruz, Savo; and, when they are examined,show their familycon- nection. There is one characteristicof some of the Melanesian languageswhich again causes themto appear of a verydistinct family. If any one,for example, should approachthe Southern New Hebridesfrom New Zealand,he findsnot onlya vocabulary generallyvery different, but a veryrugged consonantal forin of words,strongly contrasting with the veryvocalic Maori he has left. The difference,therefore, between Melanesian and Poly- nesian languages seems extreme. But when the whole Melanesianlanguage field is surveyed,it is found that Fijian and the Solomon Island languages generallyrefuse to close a syflable,and thatsome of the Solomon Island languagesare as vocalic as the Polynesiarpoorest in consonants., More than this, in a littledistrict of the Banks' Islands there is one language, Motlav, which throws out every vowel it can; while its neighbourwithin three or fourmiles, Volow, substantiallythe same,is almostas vocalic as Fijian. It is impossible,therefore, to regardvocalic characteras a mark of difference. In the matterof vocabulary,the Melanesian lainguagesare seen to have a greatvariety among themselves, and also to have VOL. XIV. D

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:47:34 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 34 Rev. R. H. CODRINGTON.-OThthle words plainly the same as those belonging to Malay or Polynesian. Are these words necessarilyborrowed, or do they belongto the Melanesianspeech? By way of example I will take the words for "house" in Vanua Lava, an island fifteenmiles long in the Banks group. There are fourwords belonging to differentdialects, govuir, qeqek, im, and eng,at firstsight all verydifferent. Of these qeqekis quite local, govvris rathermore widelyused; but im and eng are the same,and are formsof a verywell knownword, which in Malay is rw,mah. This wordin Melanesia,to begin at the furthestextremity, appears in the LoyaltyIslands as 'rma; in Anaiteum,eomn; in Eromanga,imo; in Fate, surma;in Api,urr a; in NorthernNew Hebrides,ima; in the Banks' Islands, uma, ima, ema, im, em, eng; iln Santa Cruz,ma; in the SolomonIslands, ruma, luma, nu?me,ninma, nima; in Duke of York Island, ruama. Here are a considerablevariety of Melanesian forms. There are correspondingforms to all these in the Malay Archipelago- -rumah,Malay; umah,Javanese; lumna,lume, huma, urn, om, in various parts. What are we to suppose ? That rutmain S. Cristovalhas come fromMalay, timain Santa Maria fromJava, sitmain Fate fromhutma in Bouru,lima in Malanta fromTidore or Amboyna? Or,as it seemsto me,that it was an originalword belongingto a commonstock, assuming various forms according to phonetic laws, and carried about here and there by the currentsof population,which have streamedin distantor recent ages into the Melanesian and IndonesianArchipelagos alike ? In inquiringinto the relationshipof languages,one cannot refuse the aid of vocabularies. It is true that if one finds a wordin two or morelanguages, that is no proofof relationship at all. It may be accidental,or one may have borrowedfrom the other. But one language need not have borrowedfrom the other. No one now says that,when the same word appearsin Greek and Latin,the Latin has borrowedfrom the Greek. No one says we have borrowedthe word" house " fromthe German. So, also, a very great differencein the names of common thingsis no proofof differenceof familyof languages. A little vocabularyof mostcommon words in two laniguagesvery closely akin may make them appear widely different.Take English and Germanfor horse, dog, pig, woman, boy, girl. Why,then, if the same wordappears in Malay and Melanesia, must the Melanesian word be borrowed? Why, if namnesof somiiecommoni thinas are differentin this Melanesian and that Polynesianlanguage, must the two languagesneeds be distinct? No one denies that the presenceof commonwords in Greekand Latin,English and German,goes to provea commiionorigin. No

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:47:34 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Langnages of IVelanesici. O5 one doubtstheir common origin, because theydiffer so much in vocabulary. Mr. Wallace, in his book on the Malay Archipelago,has collectedvocabularies of 117 words in thirty-threelanguages of those islands. I have selectedseventy of his words,and have obtained, more or less accurately,the equivalents in forty Melanesian languages. By this means one can compare Melanesian vocabularies,among themselves,and with those of that Archipelago. It is impossibleto go into much detail here; but I must say that to my mind the comparisongoes far to show the Melanesian languages homogelleous,and agreeing verymuLch in vocabularywith the others. He has exceptional words,besides those which comimonlyagree, and so have 1; and his exceptions occuir often among,my words, and my exceptionsamong his words. I will give an example of the informationwhich may be thus derivedfrom the vocabularies. The wordfor " blood,"in Malay, is daralh. This has its representativesin varyinigforms through the Indian Archipelago,down to the extremityof Melanesia in the LoyaltyIslaiids, where it appears as dra. The root is no doubtra, whichis reduiplicatedto rara, and tala. By assuming d to strengthenr, the wordbecomes dra, dara, nara,and so dar, nar, tar. By another change ra becomes da and ta. In Madagascar alone I find ra; the other forms are scattered irregularlyfrom the Malay Peninisula to the Loyalty Islands. The saine word thus, in varying formsbut with the same meaning, is widely distributedalike in the Malayan alid Melanesianregions. But the Maori for" blood" is toto; which does not appear at all in Mr. Wallace's vocabularies,and only in one of mnine. I happened,however, to findout that the disease h6ematitriais called mimi totoin one part of the SolomonIslands, and that congealedblood is called totoin anotherpart of the same group. In the Banks' Islands, also, I have beenilong familiarwith toto as the name of a poisoned arrow,smeared withthe thickjuice of a tree whichis called totobecause of the abundance of totoai (sap) in it. In Fiji, also,dotoa is a wordfor the sap,which is the blood,of trees. The root idea in the word is evidentlyone equally belongingo,to blood and sap. If any one should thiink that dra or nara has been introducedto the Banks' Islands from Malay, meaning blood, it is impossible to think that Polynesian influenceshould have made their word for blood receivedin thoseislands forthe sap of trees. Examples of this kind could be multiplied. When the word, in whateverform, varies its meaniingin differentplaces, still representingthe originalidea, the evidelnceof commonkindred D 2

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:47:34 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 36 PRev.R. H. CODRINGTON.-Onthe is morecomplete, Thus langi is "sky " in Fiji, Malay,Malagasy, Maori; " wind" in the Banks Islands; " rain " in the Solomon Islands. So words disused and forgottenin their primary meaningsurvive in a secondary. Tasi is no longer" salt " or "sea" in the Banks Islands, but theytasig their food with salt; the lake in Santa Maria is the Tas, like Itasy in Madagascar; and the weatherside wherethe sea breaks is tasmaur(the live sea) in Mota, and Taimoroin Madagascar. Thus also no one can doubt the identityof the Maori whetqu, Banks' Islands vitu, Solomon Islands veitugu,Celebes bitny, Malay bintang,meaning " star." But in Dayak betltchanuh is the sun, the same word evidentlywith a differentapplication. And this is similar to the use of nmasoandro for "sun" in Malagasy,while masoeis a star in the Banks Islanids. The mouthis baba.in Sumatra,vava in Madagascar,waha in New Zealand, wawa in North New Hebrides,wa in Duke of York Islands. In the Banks' Islands the wordappears only as a verb,wawanga, to open the mouth. If pana is Sanscrit,the word in various formshas certainly reached Melanesia,both as "{bow,"and "arrow,"and "cshoot." But in the Malay Archipelagothere is another word, which pana may be supposed to have superseded,in Amblaw,Gilolo, Amboyna,Ceram, viz.: busu,pusi, husu; and thisis ofcourse the commonMelanesian wordusu, vUsu,vmen, of the Banks Islands, New Hebrides,and Fiji. But much as I thinkwe may learn fromvocabulary, we may certainly use grammarwith more security. Languages do borrowgrammatical forms, but not,surely, so easily as words. Here, however,are two considerationsthat I think it very desirableto advance. Languages which have no inflectionsnecessarily have little grammar,comparatively; and what they have in some points can hardlyfail to correspond. If, then,we find two languages which suffixa personal pronoun to make a possessive, we cannot argue fromthat alone that they belong to a common stock. But if,bringing in vocabulary,we findthat theysuffix the samneform of pronoun,we are mtuchmore secure in clainming relationship. Secondly,it will not do to take as a standarda late,simplified, or decayed formof language. It will not do to say, because you findin Greek characteristicforms which are not foundin Italian, thatthose are elementsof a foreignstock: it will not do to judge a languagewhich claims to be Gothicby itslikeness to English. Malay is the English of the fartherEast, knocked about and simiplifiedin the course of its use as a common medium; the Polynesian languages are the " Italian of the

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:47:34 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Languagesof Melanesia. 37 Pacific." You cannot,I say, pronounce anythinigfound in Melaniesiato be of a radicallydistinct stock, because it is not foundin Samoan or Malay. By way of grammaticalexample, I will take the suffixed pronounjust referredto, and the verb. In all Melanesian languages that I am acquainted with, except one,the personalpronouns which are suffixedto give a possessive in Malay, as k1u,mu na, are employed,more or less, in one formior another. The rootof the firstperson suffixed is k, which becomesnng, and ng,and g. That of the second is m, which,passing ough a modifiedand nasal m,becomes ng. That of the thirdis n, whichbecomes -n and d. There shows in Melanesia, here and there,a dispositionto varyin the use of the second person suffix:a variationwhich appears also in the kindredtongues. The table here added will give a conspectusof the varying Melanesian forms,for comparison among themselves,and with threeothers.

First. Second. Third.

Malay...... ku mu na Malagasy ...... ko nao ny Maori ...... ku u Duke of York Island...... ng ma na SolomonIslands- Bugotu ...... nggu mu na Florida ...... nggu mu na Ulawa ...... ku mu na Malanta ...... ku mu ne S. Cristoval...... gu mu na Santa Cruz ...... ke, nge mu de Nifilole ...... mu TorresIslands .. ., .. .. k ma na Banks' Islands- Motlav ...... k (m) n Volow ...... ngg (in) n V. Lava ...... k m n Santa Maria ...... k ng n Merlav ...... k ng na Mota ...... k Ma na New Hebrides- Aurora ...... k nga na Pentecost ...... nggu ma na EspirituSanto ...... ku mu na Lepers' Island ...... nggu mu na Sesake ...... nggu ma na Anaiteum ...... k m n Ambrym ...... ng m n LoyaltyIslands- Nengone ...... go .. ne

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:47:34 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 38 Rev. R. H. CODIINGTON.-Onbthe

It is evidentfromn vocabularies that these suffixesare found as comiionlyin the Indian Archipelagoas in Melanesia. But in the Polynesian languages they are only foundin what are called possessive pronouns,and indeed are not comrnonly recognisedas suffixedpronouns. In Melanesia the suffixis only made to a certainclass of nouns accordingto strictrule, besides its use with the nouns of possession. Nowhere in Melanesia is this rule more strictlyobserved than in Fiji, on the veryconfines of the Polynesian languages,which not only, like the Malay, have not this rule, but suffixonly to the possessive noun. But Melanesians,as soon as they begin to speak with foreigners,depart fromntheir strictrule,,and come dowinto the practiceof Polynesians: a modernFijian will say noqu liga, "my hand," instead of 1igaqu, as the N. Z. Maori will say, noku ringa,who knowsno better. This is significant, that the Melanesian uses, in strictrule, a formwhich has gone out of comnmonuse in Malay, and only is found in one con- nectionin Polynesia. With regardto the verb,it is, so faras I know,the universal practicein Melanesia to enploy a particlebefore a wordwhich marksit in use as a verb. In some languages the use is more extendedthan in others,and the particlesused varyvery much; but I know of no language whatever in which the verbal particlesare not used. In tlhePolynesian languages I believe, as in the Melanesian languagesgenerally, as in Malagasy,these particleschange to mark the tense. In Malay this is not so. This exception surely leaves a rule which binds the ocean languagestogether. Again, the Melanesian verb has, whereverI know it, the characteristicof assuming a definitetransitive termination; whethersuch as the rakca,taka, caka, of Fiji, or the simpler consonant added, as when tangi, to weep, becomes tangisi almost anywherein Melanesia. This the Maori has not, thoughit is easy to recognisethe same formsin theirpassive verbs,and verbal substantives. If, then, one is to be told that the Fijian has borrowedverbal particles from the P'olynesian,whence has it borrowedits transitiveterminations? If in the Solomon Islands theyhave borrowedtransitive terminatiQns froni the Malayan side,whence have theygot their verbal particlesmarking tense ? It appears to me that the verb has its particles,and transitiveterminations generally,in the oceanic familyof languag,esat large; though this or that nmeinberof the familymay lack thisor that member of the verbalform. Finally,if therebe an originaldistinct stock of the languages of the natives of Melanesia,where are we to findit? Has it

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:47:34 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Languagesof Melanesia. 39 whollydisappeared ? This is surelyextremely improbable; any such circumstancesas mighthave broughtit about seem to be inconceivable,in face of the factthat in Fiji, whichis closestto Polynesia,the characteristicsof Melanesianlanguage are particu- larly strong. I have already said of those Melanesian lalguages which seem exceptional,such as thoseof the LoyaltyIslands, Ambrym, Santa Cruz, Savo, which look so differentfrom many of the rest thatthey may well be thoughtto be representativesof an ancientand distinctstock, that when they are investigatedthey show the same grammaticalstructure as the rest. I at least findno distinctforeign forms presenting themselves. If therewere any such distinctelements, possibly we should expect to find them also in the Australian tongues. But whereas one who is acquainted with one or two Melanesiai languages finds himself at home with the vocabularies and grammarsof all the ocean languages,Melanesian, Polynesian, Indonesian, Malagasy, how very differentis the case when fromthe. hardest Melanesian language he transfershimself to an Australian! In no Australianvocabulary that I have seen have I recogniseda Melanesian word; in nothingthat I have seen of Australiangrammar have I foundmy Melanesian experienceat home. The informationI have received about the language of Erob, MurrayIsland in TorresStraits, shows gramlmlatical forms quite strange to me as Melanesian,and apparentlyAustralian. Of New Guinea languages my knowledgeis very slight; that of Motu, at any rate,is Melanesian. I am quite readyto believe in Australian language-formsas well as kangaroosin New Guinlea,and the islands close to Australia. But I am sure that from the Melanesian side one does not recognise Australian languagesas akin. The languagesspoken in Polynesia and in the Indian Archipelago seem to me plainly akin to the Melanesian; whateverinfluences have worked,or are working,on Melanesia, fromthe one side or the other,I believe to be the influencesof kindredlanguages on theirown kin,not of foreignlanguages on those of a distinctstock. The words of Logan, applied to the influenceof Asiatic languages on those of the IndianlArchi- pelago,seem to me quite trueif extendedto Melanesia:-" The languagesimported differed as did those of the natives,and the combinationsformed in differentplaces fromthe contactof the two familiesvaried in the proportionsof each which entered into them. But the structureof the nativetongues had strong affinitiesamong themselves, and predonminatedin all these new combinations."

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:47:34 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 40 Rev. R. H. CODRINGTON.-Melanesian Languages.

DIscussION. Dr. TYLORpointed out that whereas philologistssuch as W. von Humboldtand H. C. and G. von der Gabelentzhad dealt withthe Melanesianlanguages on merelyliterary information, we nowhave a theoryof their relations by one able to speakand writenot one butmany Melanesian dialects. A paper(of similar title, and bearing Mr. Coodrington'sname, had alreadybeen read beforethe Anthro. pologicalInstitute on November22, 188], but as thispaper, though pat intoshape from Mr. Codrington'siaaterials, was notactually writtenby him,and hardlyembodied his matureconclusions, the Councilhad wiselydelayed publication. Mr. Codringtonhad now revisedhis evidenceand put his conclusionsin a clearerlight. The problemof therelation of sucha languageas the Fijian to the ordinaryPolynesian dialects, such as Maorior Tongan,had long presenteditself. He himselfwell rememberedwhen a Fijian Grammmarand Dictionarywas givento himmany years ago by the lateHelry Christy,and it appearedto him,from the correspondence ofnumerals and of theremarkable causative prefix vaka, that Fijian was a Polynesianlanguage. Furtherexamination tended rather to countenancethe view of theelder Gabelentz, that Fijiarnand other Melanesiarnlanguages were not closelyconnected with Polynesian, but thattraces appeared of al deep-lyingcommon source of both languagegroups. Notwithstandingthe differentjudgment of the youngerGabelentz and of Meyer,this view seemed sound. But it was now absorbedin an altogethermore definite theory worked out by Mr. Codrington,whose argumentfrom common words, and especiallyfrom grammatical suffixes, &c., seemedto provebeyond doubtthat the Melanesianand Polynesianlanguages are of one family,but the Melanesian preserved earlier arnd more perfect forms, the Polynesianbeing a groupof much brokendown and compara- tivelymodern dialects spread recentlyby migrations.That great physicaldifferences should exist between races speaking languages of one familywas a stateof things not unfamiliar within the Aryan languagefamily, while even English was moreand morespoken by peopleracially different in theextreme. Professor KEANE remarked that Mr. Codrington's very able paperre-opened the whole questionof the mutualrelations of the dark and brown Polynesianraces, which involvedsome of the mostintricate problems in thewhole rangeof anthropology.His general conclusion,certainly urged with force,and with great, almostwider, knowledge of the subject than perhaps was at thecom- mandof any other living writer, seemed at onceto place anthropology and philologyin thesharpest antagonism. It mustbe obviousthat, if Mr. Codringtonis correctin assumingthe originalunity of Malayo-Polynesianand Melanesian speech, all our concluisions regardingthe relativevalue of physicaland linguistictypes will have to be reconsidered.Mr. Codringtonavoids the difficultyby restrictinghimself to the linguisticand overlookingthe physical

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:47:34 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Discussion. 41

aspectsof the question. But it is evidentthat no finalconclusions can be arrivedat unless all the factorsbearing on the pointsat issue be duly considered. Perhaps the greatestobstacle to the progressof anthropologicalstudies lies in these partialand one- sidedsurveys of ethnicaldomains, which should be examinedas a whole,and not as if made up of independentelements. In nature nothingis independentof its surroundings,and in the extremely complexsubject of ethnologyno safe generaldeduction can be drawnfrom the independentstudy of its separatebranches. Least of all can such deductionsbe acceptedwhen, as inthe present case, theyinvolve a directconflict between the severalbranches themselves. The anatomy,archoeology, and philologyof a givendivision of mankindcan point at oppositeconclusions only when all the conditionsof the problemfail to receive due attention. Hence, even if Mr. Codringtonhad establishedthe primordialunity of Oceanicspeech, it wouldbe rashto arguefor the primordial unity of the Oceanic races,in the face of the insuperabledifficulties opposedto thatconclusion by the considerationof theiranatomical differences.These differencesare too well knownand universally admittedto be here dwelt upon,and for us the questionis, How are theyto be reconciledwith the assumeduniformity of speech? No doubtMr. Codrington admits great diversity between the strictly Melanesianand Malayo-Polynesianlanguages. But le arguesthat the diversityis notfundamental, and thatit is morethan balanced bythe resemblances in vocabularyand structure,which are strong enoughto justifythe conclusionthat all theOceanic tongues derive froma commonstock. So far this view is not novel,for it was put forwardmany years ago by the elderVon der Gabelentz,and fora timegenerally accepted on his authority. But it has since beenpractically given up both by the younger(George) Von der Gabelentzand by Dr. A. B. Meyer,who in their" Beitragezur Kentniss der MelanesischenMikronesischen und Papuanischen Sprachen" (Leipzig,1882), recognisethe presenceof at least two organiclinguistic elements, a Melanesianor Papuan,and a Malayo- Polynesian,in the Oceanic world. But Mr. Codringtonnot only revivesthe old theoryin all its originalcrudity, but goes much further,and takesup the startlingposition that the commonstock is not Malayo-Polynesian,as had been taken for granted,but Melanesian,which for our present purpose may be takenas roughly synonymouswith Papuan. He arguesthat the mtlost primitive and archaicforms of the commonspeech are foundamonngst the black Melanesiansof Fiji, the Solomon,Saniita Cruz, and New Hebrides groups,not amongst the brown Polynesians of the Eastern Pacific, or theyellow Malays of .,heIndian Ocean. So greatare thedifficulties presentedby this view, that it may be fairlydescribed as paradoxical, or at least untenable,unless supported by overwhelming arguments drawwnfrom a comprehensivesurvey of the wholeground. As Mr. Codringtondoes notprofess to surveythe whole ground, expressly excludingthe strictlyPapuan languagesof New Guinea,as wellas all ethnicalconsiderations, it mightbe sufficientfor the presentto

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:47:34 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 42 Rev. R. H. CODIUNGTON.-MelanesianLangmages. suspendour judgmenta-nd await furtherevidence before accepting a conclusionrunning counter to all our preconceivednotions of the respectivevalue and relationsof physical and linguistictypes. For his theorywould requireus eitherto assume that in this instancethe Melanesian,that is, the lower a-ndunaggressive race, had imposedits speech on the Malayo-Polynesian,that is, the higherand more enterprisingraces, or else that the assumed commonlinguistic stock has remainedundifferentiated into distinct species throughoutcountless ages, during which the common ethnical stock has become differentiatedinto at least three well-markedphysical types. Neitherhypothesis seems credible. No conditionscan well be conceivedin which the confessedly inferiordark peoples of the Pacificand Indian Oceanscould have everywhereforced their speech on the superiorand enterprising lighterpopulations of thoseregions. The Melanesiansare not,and apparentlynever were, navigators; whereas both the Malays and the Eastern Polynesians (Samoans, Tongans, Tahitians,&c.) rank amongstthe mostdaring seafaringpeoples on the globe. In open praus or frailoutriggers they have at all times beenaccustomed to make voyagesof days and weeksfrom island to islandin that waterydomain, thus gradually spreadingtheir race and their speechround more than half the world,from Madagascar to Easter Island,from Hawaii to New Zealand. The PolynesianTongains, we know fromMariner, were in the habit of organisingregular warlikeexpeditions against the MelanesianFijians some300 miles distant. The same islanderswere oftenvisited by the still more remotePolynesian Samoa-ns, and numerousPolynesian settlements came thusto be plantedin Viti Levu, and the otherlarge islands especiallyin the west of the Fiji Archipelago. The whole local historyand traditionsof Polynesia are madeup of similarwarlike or pacificmigrations, in which the Polynesiansare always the aggressive,the Melanesians the passiveelement. The samerelative positionis takenfurther west by the Malaysalnd the darkPapuans and so-called"Alfuros " of the Eastern Archipelago. Hence it seemsimpossible to accept the firstalternative, that the Melanesians and Papuansimposed their speech on the Malaysand Polynesians. Still moredifficult is thesecond alternative of a primevallinguistic stock commonto the whole Oceanic domain,still everywhere persistingsufficiently to be recognisedas one familygroup substantiallythe same,while the primevalrace itselfhas becomeso profoundlymodified that it can no longerbe regardedas forming one physicalgroup. That language divergesfrom its prototype morerapidly than does the humanorganism, is almosta self-evident proposition,and manybe taken as universallyaccepted by anthro- pologists. Hence,even supposing that the primitiveOceanic stock startedwith a commonspeech, this speechcould not possibly have remainedfundamentally one, while the stockitself became differentiatedinto the Papuaan,Malay, and Polynesiantypes. Feelingthe full forceof this argument,the authors of the already quoted "Beitriae " cogentlyremark: " Gesetztnoch einmal der Erweis

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:47:34 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Discussion. 43 der Sprachverwandschaftwiirde voll erbracht,so ergabe sich unmittelbarein Widersprachzwischen Anthropologie und Lin- guistik. Zwei Sprachsippensind verwandt; von den Vblkergrup- pen welchensie ztigeh6ren,zahlt die eine zu dieserdie anderezu jenerMenschenra.e. Wie ist das moglich? " Beforeadmitting the possibilityof sucha " Widerspruch"it will be well to suspendour judgment, at all eventsuntil the wholefield has been thoroughlysurveyed. Meantimeit may be confidently anticipatedthat the results of sucha surveywill not tend to confirm Mr. Codrington'sconclusions. Almostenough is, in fact,already knownto warranttheir rejection. The Mafoor,and othertrue Papuan languagesnot studiedby Mr. Codrington,present a sur- prisingindividuality, a phoneticsystem, and principlesof inner structureessentially different from those of the Malayo-Polynesian group. Whilethe latterare almostflexionless, showing little trace even of agglutination,the formerhave developeda systemof internalroot modification a.nd a highlyintricate order of agglutination,which Meyer and Von der Gabelentzdescribe as ofa " quasi- flexional" character. In general,the so-called "Papuan " or "Melanesian" languagesdealt with by Mr. Codringtonwill pro- bablyprove to be mainlyPolynesian or Malayanlanguages imposed on or adoptedby Papuan and Melanesianpeoples. The morewe knowof the true Papuan formsof speech,the morethey will be foundto divergefrom the Malayo-Polynesian linguistic type. Mr. JOHNSTON,Mr. A. TYLOR, and Mr. BOUVERIE-PUSEY also joinedin the discussion. Mr. CODRINGTON replied that,with regard to Polynesian influence on theMlelanesian languages, it was impossiblethat the fullerand more complex formsof, for example,the Fiji verb, could have been learntfrom the Polynesians,whose languageis evidentlya late and simplifiedform. The Motuof New Guinea,said to be Polynesian,is not so, forits vocabularyshows grammaticalforms notknown in Polynesia. It is a Melanesianlanguage as muchas any language of the Solomon Islands. The extraordinary similarityof all the Polynesianlanguages shows them lately distributedinto their presentseats. The diversityof wordsin Fiji with the same signification,remarked on by Mr. Johnston, could be explainedthere, or elsewherein Melanesia,by separate and various settlementshaving little intercourse,or by the substitutionof new wordswhich for various reasons it had become in thenative view improper to employ.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:47:34 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions