Many supposed instances of etymological correspond- ence have been falsely based on the analytical tenets, but there still exists a considerable amount of radical identity which appears to be above suspicion. Under PiiiLor.OGV, Comparative, we have given a list of terms in which that identity is manifested. After de- ducting whatever may be due to fanciful or accidental agreement, there still remain many instances which cannot possibly be explained on the principle of ono- matopoeia, and which would therefore seem to be the common inheritance of the Indo-European and Shem- itic families. Whether this agreement is, as Kenan sug- gests, the result of a keen susceptibility of the onomato- poetic faculty in the original framers of the words {l/ist. Gen. i, 465) is a point that can neither be proved nor disproved. But even if it were so, it does not follow that the words were not framed before the separation of the families. Our list of comparative words might have been much enlarged if we had included compari- sons based on the reduction of Shemitic roots to a bi- syllabic form. A list of such words may be found in liaWtzsch, ./eshnrun, p. 177-180. In regard to pronouns and numerals, the identity is but partial. We may de- tect the t sound, which forms the distinctive sound of the second personal pronoun in the Indo-European lan- guages, in the Hebrew attdh, and in the personal ter- minations of the perfect tense; but the m, which is the prevailing sound of the first personal pronoun in the former, i< supplanted by an n in the latter. The numer- als shesh and sheba, for "six" and "seven," accord with the Indo-European forms: those representing the num- bers from "one" to "five" are possibly, though not evi- dently, identical. With regard to the other language- families, it will not be expected, after the observations already made, that we should attempt the proof of their radical identity. The Ural -Altaian languages have been extensively studied, but are hardly ripe for com-
TONGUES, CONFUSION OF 471. TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
parison. Occasional resemblances have been detected ill grammatical forms and in the vocabularies; but the value of these remains to be proved, and we must await the results of a more extended research into this and other regions of the world of language.
(B.) We pass on to the second point proposed for consideration, viz. the ethnological views expressed in the 'Bible, and more particularly in eh. x of Tirenesis, which records the dispersion of nations consequent on the confusion of tongues.
(I.) The Mosaic table docs not profess to describe the process of the dispersion; but, assuming that dispersion as a fait accompli, it records the ethnic relations exist- ing between the various nations affected by it. These relations are exjiressed under the guise of a genealogy, the ethnological character of the document is, however, clear both from the names, some of which are gentilic iu form, as Ludim, Jebusite, etc., others geographical or local, as Mizraim, Sidon, etc., and, again, from the for- mulary which concludes each section of the subject, "after their families, after their tongues, in their coun- tries, and In their nations" (ver. 5, 20, 31). Incidentally, the table is geographical as well as ethnological; but this arises out of the practice of designating nations b}' the countries they occupy. It has, indeed, been fre- quently surmised that the arrangement of the table is purely geographical, and this idea is, to a certain extent, favored by the possibility of explaining the names Shem, Ham, and Japheth on this principle, the first signifying the " high" lands, the second the " hot" or " low" lands, and the third the " broad," tmdetined regions of the north. The three families may have been so located, and such a circumstance could not have been unknown to the writer of the table. But neither Internal nor ex- ternal evidence satisfactorih' proves such to have been the leading idea or principle embodied in it, for the Japhethites are mainly assigned to the •' isles" or mari- time districts of the west and north-west, while the Shemites press down into the plain of Mesopotamia, and the Hamites, on the other hand, occupy the high lands of Canaan and Lebanon. We hold, therefore, the geographical as subordinate to the ethnograpliical ele- ment, and avail, ourselves of the former onh- as an in- strument for the discovery of the latter.
The general arrangement of the table is as follows* The whole human race is referred back to Noah's three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. The Shemites are de- scribed last, apparently that the continuity of the nar- rative may not be further disturbed; and the Hamites stand next to the Shemites, in order to show that these were more closely related to each other than to the Japhethites. The comparative degrees of affinity are expressed, partly by coupling the names together, as in the cases of Elishah and Tarshish. Kittim and Dodanim (ver. 4), and partly by representing a genealogical de- scent, as when tlie nations just mentioned are said to be "sons of Javan." An inequality maj' be observed in the length of the genealogical lines, which, in the case of Japheth, extends only to one, in Ham to two, in Shem to three, and even four degrees. This inequal- ity clearly arises out of tlie varying interest taken in the several lines by the author of the table, and by those for whose use it was designed. We may lastly observe that the occurrence of the same name in two of the lists, as in the cases of Lud (ver. 13. 22) and Sheba (ver. 7, 28), possiblj' indicates a fusion of the races.