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 con- sideration. 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