________________
340
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
I incline to the view that it runs through nearly all the different forms of these peculiar modifications of speech, except in so far as it can be shown that they serve a purely utilitarian object or have grown up as a mere matter of habit. Dr. Lasch hardly gives sufficient place, in my opinion, to the sentiment of religious awe and fear.
I would also put in a caveat against the loose use (in which Dr. Lasch, with so many others, indulges) of the expression "Naturvölker." Error is inherent in such highly general terms. Apart from the fact, which I will not pedantically insist on, that no race or community is really in a state of nature (all having been humanised, more or less, by the influence of some amount of tradition), this term "Naturvölker" has often been much misused. It has been made to cover some scores of distinct stages of cultural development differing very profoundly from one another. As a matter of fact, it is not among the most really primitive of the so-called "Naturvölker" that the special jargons which form the subject of Dr. Lasch's paper tend, as a rule, to arise. On the contrary, it is amongst races that have already made a considerable advance in social and political organisation (the formation of a distinct class of chiefs and rulers), religious ideas (the establishment of professional sorcerers and priests, a definite cult of the souls of the departed and the spirits of natural objects), and even some differentiation into crafts and occupations (with technical jargons appropriated to them). So, too, Dr. Lasch's idea that, among the "Naturvölker" generally, there is a very strict separation of the sexes is a generalisation derived from particular stages of culture, and those not the most primitive. In fact, this separation is rather a charac-teristic of some of the relatively higher stages of development (especially, in Asia, those that have been affected by Hinduism or Islam). I can hardly imagine that he can be right in ascribing the custom (found amongst Zulus and elsewhere) of the avoidance by the wife of words resembling the names of her father-in-law, etc., to the idea that women are regarded by "Naturvölker" as being magicians "par excellence," Surely, it is simply an instance of the principle that the name is a part of, and gives a hold over, the person or thing named; such a hold as a woman (in that stage of social evolution) has no right to assume over the family of her husband, of which she is a subordinate, and not an original, member.
Dr. Lasch is not only inclined to assume that wilful caprice has been the leading factor in the creation of these special jargons, but seems even disposed to extend this principle to cover the differentiation of language generally. If that be so, then good-bye to anything like linguistic science: for there can be no science of a subjectmatter which varies irrespectively of any ascertainable laws. This appears to me to be going
[NOVEMBER, 1908.
too far. Language has its self-determining element, no doubt; but it is also largely a matter of habit. This is the case to a very great extent, even in these special highly artificial jargons; in ordinary speech it is so to an overwhelming extent. Analogy is the great unifying principle of language. I pass briefly over the obiter dictum that mixture of races and communities has had relatively little influence on the differentiation of languages: it is not much in point in a paper dealing with special jargons, and is certainly very far from the truth as applied to language in general. Even as regards special jargons, instances to the contrary can be adduced, e. g., the
high language" of Bali is based on Javanese, simply because in the 14th century the Javanese conquered and civilized Bali.
There is one notable lacuna in the materials on which Dr. Lasch's article is based: India receives very little mention; I can find only some halfa-dozen references to it. Whether such material has not been collected in India, or whether, if collected, it has escaped Dr. Lasch's conscientious scrutiny, I have no means of ascertaining at present. But surely the Indian Empire should be a rich field for such enquiries; and if the material has not yet been collected, the sooner it is done, the better.
I may, perhaps, be allowed to add a few remarks on details of which I happen to have some personal knowledge. The Camphor Language of the Johor Jakuns is primarily used by Jakuns, not Malays, and therefore the old Jakun words that occur in it must be classed as archaisms, not as foreign loan-words. As a matter of fact (as Dr. Lasch justly observes), foreign and archaic worde play but a very subordinate part, in practice, in most of these special jargons; and this fully applies to the Jakun Camphor Language. The Malay for "white beetle" is kumbang (not kambang) puteh, and, in the Malay war jargon this expression means "bullet," not "dagger." Dr. Lasch on several occasions attributes remarks of mine in Pagan Races of the Malay Peninsula to my collaborator Mr. W. W. Skeat, who must not, however, be held responsible for the linguistic chapters of that work. In particular he imputes to him the idea that a tendency to make up special jargons is a peculiar characteristic of the MalayoPolynesians. But if he had read a few pages further, he would have seen that I spoke of this tendency as being "perhaps inherent more or less in all races," a view which agrees entirely perusal of his article. In fact, just for this very with his own, and in which I am confirmed by the reason, the study of these jargons is a matter of world-wide interest and should appeal to all who Lasch has contributed a valuable piece of work are interested in the science of language. Dr. to this branch of research, and his paper should aid and stimulate other workers in this field. C. O. BLAGDEN.
