________________
SEPTEMBER, 1899.]
A THEORY OF UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR.
No such alterations take place in Puchikwar and Aukau-Juwoi, except to differentiate thy' from your.' Thus: in Puchikwar, aute, sing., is autel, plu.; and in Aukau-Juwoi antau, sing., is autel, plu.; and so on.
To the differentiating plu. radical prefixes are added, where necessary, functional prefixes, thus :English.
Aka-Beada, m'otot
Pachikwar. m'aute
our
your
ng'otot
ng'autel
Another noteworthy fact, again due to anthropomorphism, is that usually the Andamanese languages conceive every word, when possible, as referred to the 3rd person,' e. g., ot-cheta-da is strictly not head,' but his head.' So otot-cheta-da is strictly their heads.' And so, in order to express a clear reference to a 3rd person,' where the context renders such necessary, they do so by means of a referent prefix evolved for the purpose, thus:
English.
-'s, its, his (their
Akar-Bale.
m'autot
ng'autot
Aka-Beada.
Sing. Pl.
P. 1
Akar-Bale.
Sing, Plu P-P
Pachikwar. Sing. Ph.
231.
l'- le n'
Aukan-Juwoi. Bing. Ph. l'- le n'
Aukau-Juwoi. m'autau
ng'autel
Kol. Sing. Plu. l'- le n'
}
The last three forms seem to explain the origin of this curious habit, for in them we find a special referent prefix for their,' and so, when it is necessary to make their' clearly referent, we find a second prefix le superadded. We can therefore also say that the referent prefix - seems to indicate one of the signs of growth in the languages, as we now have them.
Lastly, when the natural conditions require that an Andamanese should throw into a single expression more than one idea, he does so by direct and simple combination, with the aid of his referent prefix for its,' as may be seen from the proper names and some of the compound words in the texts of the Legend. Thus: Taul-l'-okotima, Tanl-tree-its-corner, i. e., (the village at) the corner (among) the Taul-trees; Keri-l'-ongtauwer, Keri-tree-its-sand, i. e., (the village on) the sand (among) the Keri-trees.
So here, again, it appears to me that the languages, even in the complicated forms and usage of the prefixes, show themselves to be purely and directly the expression of savage' thought, affording yet another measure of the Theory as a working hypothesis.
Now, of course, the Andamanese go far beyond this skeleton in the details of their speech, but everything else to be found in it seems to me to be a development of these fundamental laws, arising out of a mere following up to a further expansion the ideas contained in them, or out of the necessities of speech itself. There are no more further principles' to explain, so far as I can at present see, and I would refer the reader to Mr. Portman's careful and laborious pages for a proof of the present assertions. I would also take leave to refer him to those pages and to the foregoing observations, should he desire to judge for himself how far the Theory may be called a successful attempt to meet the conditions.
I will now proceed to state the Theory in skeleton form, believing that its bones can be clothed with the necessary flesh for every possible language by the process of direct natural development of detail, that a clear and fair explanation of all the phenomena of speech can be logically deduced from the general principles enunciated therein.
It seems to me to be necessary to say very little at present by way of preface. The Theory is based on the one phenomenon, which must of necessity be constant in every variety of speech, viz., the expression of a complete meaning, or, technically, the sentence. Words are then considered as components of the sentence, firstly as to the functions performed by them, and next as to the means whereby they can be made to fulfil their functions. Lastly, languages are considered according to their methods of composing sentences and words. This course of reasoning commends itself to my mind as logically correct, and if it be so, must, when properly worked out, explain every phenomenon of speech.
