animals and esculent plants, are common to all these idioms.
If to all these proofs we add the undoubted unity in grammatical
Structure and in the first principles of the formation of
words which M. de Humboldt has most fully demonstrated
to exist, there seems to be scarcely any room left for doubt
as to the conclusion which we must’ adopt.
The celebrated philologer last mentioned, in his great work,
on the “ Kawi-Sprache,” has critically examined the grounds
of Mr. Crawford's hypothesis. He'observes that the whole
foundation of his theory is merely the fact that a part of the
constituent words of each dialect is common to the speech of
the whole family of nations, while a certain proportion is
peculiar to the idiom of each particular tribe. Now it is
evident that the correctness of this distinction and the truth
of the negative part of it depends on the accuracy *of research
and the means of investigation within reach - of those who
have instituted the inquiry. __The fact that any particular word
has yet been recognised in the idiom of only one tribe does
not prove that it was originally wanting to the common, per-
haps the original language of the race. Languages have
often for one object many expressions, and some have many
roots of cognate or similar import; and the preservation of
particular words, or the propagation and spread of particular
roots in one language while the derivatives of a different
radical word have occupied the same place in a kindred dialect,
is often merely accidental. The difference of synonymous
words in two languages, says M. de Humboldt, can only foe
regarded as evidence of original distinctness, when: it has
been shown that there is something in the structure of such
words in one idiom which is incompatible with the laws which
govern the structure of words in other dialects. But this has
never been pretended. Mr. Crawford observes, indeed) with
good reason, that the extension of this common language over
maritime regions of so vast an extent is, in regard to the circumstances
under which it took place, a subject of great obscurity,
but the difficulties of explanation are not greater on one
hypothesis than on the other. In the insular regions of the Great
Ocean there is nothing, as the same writer observes, that gives
support or probability to the hypothesis adopted by Mr.
Crawford. Many islands appear to have been uninhabited
when. they were, first colonised -by Polynesian tribes; and
when .Negro hordes and Malayan people are found in the
same island or groupe, which is often the case in the islands of
the- Indian; Sfeas,;- no alliance or intercourse generally subsists
between the two races. The former are for the most part
found to have been driven into the interior) swhere they were
secluded in mountainous and inaccessible places. It is an
unquestionable'' faoth that ;all these; dialects: belong I to - one
original; stem, :th© unity <©f which Is not;less« demonstrable
than that of the different members of the Indo- European
family tof - languages. Tbia}is indeed; folly established both
by the; «Semblance o f words and o f roots, and by that of
grammatical formation. It is very rarely that a word is found
in one dialect that is peculiar to it and wanting in all others.
Most roots can be traced through several dialects, and many
are.Tech|*nisedin all either in worils/©futhe;same or of analogous
meaning ; f and when compounded words are wanting in
one dialect, the roots from which they are derived or composed
can often fbe discovered in another after a diligent research.
M. de Humboldt has illustrated and estabfahoflithis
general observation by many particular examples. For this
I must refer my readers to his work, and I shall merely observe
that many of these examples are selected from the most
distant members of the whole family of languages, as from
the idioms of Madagascar, from the Malayan, the Tagala,
and the dialects of the Tonga Islands. Of each of these
languages M. de Humboldt has instituted a careful exami-
nation) comprehending an analysis of it on critical principles,
and of the law s of formation * in aceordance with which
the common vocabulary is in each idiom changed and modified
in; such a manner as to give rise to the diversity and
variation between the dialects. The most obvious explanation
of such a phenomenon is, that a number of tribes of
kindred . origin peopled the different clusters of islands, and
afterwards kept up for a long time a .constant intercourse.
Undel* these circumstances the Malayo-Polynesian language
was formed and developed.*
Kawi-Sprache, B. 2, S. 218 et seqq.