The principal features; of this grammatical resemblance
may be Comprised under the following heads :—
1. Word's have in these languages no-inflexions which
can be so term é(#Éi the strictest sense; 'they admit mo
formative prefixes, allow no modification in tiro constituent
elements of roots, nor any change^ generally Speaking, in
their endings they express the relations of nouns only by
suffixed particles, of which they have a sufficient variety ;
the modifications of meaning in verbs are denoted likewise'
by suffixes ; all these'are joined for the most part to the
unaltered root; they rather become adherent *to it than
really compounded With i t . ; There is a juxtaposition or
aggregation of words, and no real cohesion.
Thuathe plural number of nouns is marked by additional
particles which do not form a part of the words, and may
sometimes be 'Written separately. ^Separate tvbMs%r’ syl-
1 ablesindicative of plurality ©rmultitude, are added itf Thé
Mongolian and Mandschu, as alscrirrthe Chirfeie#^ Among'
the separate words indicative of plurality One iSE;common,
as Dr. Schott has observed, to the three principal languages
of Tartary ; ckamuk, in Mongolian,
M Turkish ;' in Mandschu, gerrm. Compare- bpLov and' yèjxëi.
It is a peculiarity of the Mandschfi that ftfl' only UoutfS
which have plurals are significant of things which havê
life ; all other substantives are indefinite ;âs‘to number.*
In the Ouigour dialect of the Turkish, the. particle,' which
in other dialects denotes the plural, is never a^pendtexf to
nouns, which are therefore found in the same indefinite
state ; yet this particle exists .in. the Ouigour language,
and is used for forming a plural in pronouns.
The derivation of these pluralising particles is unknown ;
but it is apparent, as Dr. Schott has observed, that those
used in the different languages are of cognate origin. Thé
* An imperfect distinction of number or the use of nouns indefinite in this
respect is characteristic of a rude state of languages. In Welsh there are
nounswhieh in their primitive form are collective, as Sÿr, the stars. When itis
necessary to discriminate and mention a particular star a singular is formed by
an additional ending, as Seven,- a star. The Mandshû displays a similar
imperfection.
Mandschu and Mongolian particles have only what may be
termed a dialectic difference, and even the Turkish and
Finnish are plainly allied. Thus the Mandschu plural particles
sza, szë, szi, ta, te, ri, are analogous to the Mongolian
sz, d, od, nar, and the Mongolian nar to the lar or 1er,
which is the Turkish plural -ending, since n and Zare in these
guages interchangeable consonants, as it has -been abundantly
proved by Dr. Schott. In the Finnish dialects,
properly so termed, the ^plural is formed by adding t,
which in the Lapponic, as well as 4» the Magyar, is replaced
bÿcA or k.*
Cases are likewise formed exclusively in these languages
by appended syllables, or suffix particles, if they may be
so -/termed. These particles display unequivocal marks of
a common derivation in the several languages. Thus, the
signs of the genitive case, or of possession, are as follows :
MandseM—ni, i. Turkish—ning^nn. Mongol—un* ü,
yin.
,/rhefsign of the ablative is in Mandschu the particle m,
th,atjjif tSohi, postfixed ; in Mongolian-, etze : these, are,
as Schott remarks, nearly related and similar teethe,Finnish
sx or ST a . The Turkish has d e n , a form nearly resembling
the Greek Qev, and used precisely fifi. .the same manner.
The Turkish den is.a modification of the locative, and dative
particle de—compare 01. It is remarkable that da, de, or
du, is the particle answering to in in the Mandschu, Mongolian,
and Turkish.^
M. Abel-Rémusathas remarked that.the termination tschi
* Cnud Leem gives.A as the Lappish plural, Ganander, eh, Professor Rask,
ft.—See.Rasmus Rask, Ræsonneret Lappisk Sproglære.—Robenhavu, 183^.—
Dobrowsky, Literarische Nachrichlen.—-Adëlung, Mithridates, 1, s. 748.
t It has been, fully proved by Bopp and others that the cases: of nouns in the
Indo-European languages had the same origin.; the endings were at first prepositions,
as the abus of Latin datives and the abhyas of the same case in Sanskrit
from the preposition dbhi. The Greek <plv, % Oev, have been compared
with the Mongolian particles, and indééd they much resemble them. But in
the Indo-European languages the position of these particles, when used separately,
is in general before the nouns. It would appear probable that at the
time when cases were formed the laws of construction were more nearly those
which prevail in the Tartar idioms.
VoL. IV. " ' ^ A