85 T R A N S A C 7’ I 0 N S OF THE P H I I, 0 L 0 G I C A L S 0 C 1 E T Y. 1855.-No. 7. April 27, Professor T. HEWITTKEY in the Chair. The following Papers were read :- 1. ‘‘ On certain Reccnt Additions to African Philology ;” hy R. G. LATIL~M,M.D. 11. “On the Derivation and Meaning of the Latin Verb USUBPARE ;” by T. HEWITTKEY, Esq. I. ‘‘ On certain Recent Additions to African Philology.” The chicf works that supply the basis for the forthcoming obscrvations are the follo\F ing :- (1.) Polyglotta Africans*, by the Rev. TV. S. Koclle; and (2.) Specimens of Dialects, sic. and Notcs of Countries and Customs in Africa?, by J. Clarke. Both the authors are Missionaries ; the chief field for the collections of thc former being Sierra Leone, for those of the latter the West Tndies. Both worked in the same way j i. e. availing themselves of the opportunities of their respective localities, they found out from the different Africans of the district wherein they wcre themselves settled, the name of their several native co untrics, the geographical relations of the same, and the namcs of the languages, of which they took specimens. It was in this manner the carlier collections of Oldendorp * London : Church Missonary House, 1854. t Berwick-upon-Tweed, 1848. H 8G wcre made. It has the advantage of generally gi\ing us the native namc, i. e. the name hy which a given tribc calls itself, rather than the name by which it is linomi to its neighbows. On tlie other hand, it givcs us particular districts ratlier tlian broad philological arcas, and dialccts and su1)dialects ratlicr tlian languages. Upon the whole, hoivcvcr, tlicrc is so much good in this plan, that tlic cvil with which it is accompanicd, (viz. the teiicleiicy to csaggcrate philological diffcrences) bciilg easily guarded against, is of comparatively slight importance. Ncrcrthcless, it rcquircs to bc ljornc in mind. IVc naturally expcct, in vocalmlarics this collcctcd, a great nunibcr of old lauguagcs unclcr new namcs, and this is nhat we find in each of thc works before us. The distribution, howet er, of tlicse and tlicir identification are l’oints of detail to nliich no great importance, in thc psmt noticc at least, is attachcd. T’lic broaclcr qucstion is tlie extent to iiliich wc have citlicr rcprcscntatircs of groups hitherto uriliiiown, or data for an improvcd classification. Koellc’s is the morc important work of thc ti\ o, both on account of thc grcatcr lcngtli of its vocabularics, and tlic fact of its attempting tlic most in the way of arrangement. Indccd his instructions from the Church Missioiiary Society n ere “to cultivate not oiily one particular lnnguagc, hut to giw information respecting the whole question of African philo- logy.” ‘(It was usually supposed,” he adds, “ that thcrc mere in Sierra Leone the reprcsentativcs of about forty ilif- fercrit tribcs ; bnt tlie searching examiliation amongst tlie pcople, which the collectkon of this vocabulary dcmandcd, iliscovercd individuals from morc than two hundred diffcrcnt trihcs arid countrics.” JIr. Clarlic’s li$t amounts to tlirec Iiundred and cighty-eight. With sucli high nurnbcrs as thcsr bcfore our cycs, wc may safely say tlpt tlic statcmciit so Ixtcly madc, coiiccriiiiig thc exaggeration of pliilological ilifti- cidtics cngcridcred by tlic methods uiidqr notice, Iias a stroii~ priitaa ,fa& appearance of 1)cirig accaratc. Of tlic txo primary groups of tlic Polyglotta Africaiia, tliosc of l’arts 1. aiitl II., tlic odcr inay convciiiciitly 1)c tr:tii\po\ed, at lcant for tlic. piir~)o~csof’ illuhtrntioii. ‘I’lik is 87 bccause, in order to understand the generic characteristic of the vcry first suhdivision of tlic first division, a certain amourit of iriforniatioii rcspccting tlie structure of the languages of Part 11. is necessary. Thus, Part 11. contains the “ South Africaii Languages distinguished by an initial inflrction,” whilst Ordcr I. in Class I. givcs us “North-west Atlantic Languagcs distinguishing thcmselves, like those of South Africa, by prefixal changes or an initial inflcction.” In tliis way tlic South African structure is taken as a sort of standard for tlic clavsification of the others. Of tlic South African the Kaffre tongues are the typc. Lct us consider, thcn, that South African means Kafre, and that, as the Kaffrc peculiarities, besides being otherwise known, liave forincd the sul1,jcct of a late contribution from Dr. Blcck, let us pass to Koellc’s- I. North-westcrn Atlantic Languages.-They fall into four groups, reprcseritcd by tlic (a) Felup, (b) Papel, (c) Biafada, and (d) Timmani languages, rcspectively, each falling into dialects and subdialects. Certain additions will have to be made to this group when me come to the Unclassified Lan- guagcs. The value of tlie class itsclf will bc considcred whcn tEirec other groups have been noticed, i. e. the Mandingo, the Woloff, and the Fdah. At present we may remember it as the North-western Atlantic division. II. TILe Nortli-western Hig7~ Sudan or Mandingo Lun- paps constitute thc second group. 111. The Qper Guinea or Micldle-coast Languages the third. This means, the forms of specch akin to (a) the Kru, (6) the Dahomey, (c) the Yorulm IV. The North-eastern High Sudan Lampages arc spolicn inland, at tlic back of tlic Ashanti country, and along the eastem rangc of the Kong mountains. They arc akin to the (a) Mosee, (6) Kouri, (c) Koama, and (d)Yula forms of speech. V. The Niger-delta group falls into the (a) Isoama, (b)Sobo, and (c) Okuloma divisions. VI. The Niger-Tshadda laiiguagcs arc those akin to the Nllfi. H2 88 VII. The Central African division contains the languages allied to (a) the Bornui, and (b) the Pika. In Part 11. we have the South African Lanpages distin- guished by an initial injection, as has been already stated. It escludes the Hottentot, arid includes the Old Calabar, Ca- meroon, and Gaboon languages. Doing this, it coincides with the so-called KaRre class of tongues, in its latest form, i. e. in the form it has talien since it \\as shown that tl~ Poongwe, tlic Isuliu, the Efik, and otlicr langnages exhibit a similar xrics of initial changes to those of tlie Kafre and Bichuana. Upon the dirisioiis and subdivisions of this class the present writer gives no opinion. Hc mrrcly remarks that the valnc of its chicf characteristic, the initial changes in question, is a point upon which he unwillingly differs with several excellcnt authorities ; but this hc 11 ill explain in the scqucl-passing, for the present, to Part III., containing up- wards of forty unclassed languages and clialccts. This is done simply with the view of asking how far they are really unsusccptible of classification? If they be riot so, it is aslied how many, and what, can be transferred to Parts I. and 11. ? Of these unclassed forms of speech, the exact number of which (plus a few subdialects) is forty-three, we may at once dispose of (the numbers not in parentheses are Koelle’s) the following :- (1.) A. a. 1. Which is Wolofl. (2. 3. 4.) B. 1. 2. 3. Asanti, Barba, and Boko, which are Ashdnti. (5.) C. 1. Kandin, which is Berber. (6.) C. 2. Which is Tim6uctu. (7.) C. 3. Which is Mandara. (8.) C. 4. Which is Begharmi. (9.) C. 5. Which is Hawsa. (10.) C. 6. Which is Fulah ;-all recognized divisions. (11.) A. 6. 5. The Landoma is the same class with the Tinimani. (12.) A. b. 4. Tbe Limba-probably is in the same category. (13.) A. a. 2. The Bissago is Felzip. 89 (14. 15. 16.) A. b. 1. 2. 3. The Banyun, Nalu, and Bu- landa are also Fel6p. (17.) A. a. 3. The Gadsaga is Xerawolli, or closely akin. (18.) A. a. 4. The Gum. (19.) The Yalo, which is Tapua or Nu$. All the rest (with the exception of thc Arabic of F.) are evidently either members of Part II., or transitional to it and Part I. Hence, laying out of the question the (1.)Bissago, (2.) the Banyun, and (3.) the Nalu, every one of the other forms of speech, either itself or in an allied dialect, has been consi- dered by previous investigators and classed. Whence, then, the present group of unclassificd languages. In somc cases we must say that there has been an absolnte oversight, e. g. in the case of the Landoma, which is transparently allicd to the languages of 1. d. Gcncrally, however, it seems that the reason has been different. The majority of the languages under notice, though they form classes, form classes without many divisions or subdivisions representcd in thc work before US. Some of them indecd are eminently simplc, e.g. the Begharmi and Mandara. The Ashanti, on the other hand, overflows with dialects and subdialccts. Of these, however, only three were reprcsented by individuals at Sierra Leone, between such and such days of such and such a ycar. Had this number been trebled or doubled, the result might have been differcnt, and tlic Ashanti might hwe taken a placc in Part I. A class is constitutcd by what it excludes, quite as much as by what it includes. This brings us to the most csccptionablc part of an otherwise valuable work. And even hcre, the exceptions lie less against the laborious miasionary liiniself than against the instructions with which he was furnished. These were (as has already been stated) to classify the languages of Africa as well as to collect samples of them.