ple, the final vowel has, in many cases, been dropped, just as the final e of the Saxon or Teutonic language has become mute in modern English. Thus the word tong, which in Chinese signifies east, is in the language of New Zealand tonga, which I apprehend is its more ancient form.* 2. In both languages words are susceptible of no change whatever to denote diversity of gender, number, case, or what is understood in European languages by declension and conjugation. Every possible increment of thought must be expressed by a separate word-in no instance by a mere change of termination. Thus nyan, a man (Chinese, Canton dialect); nu nyan, a woman: to hunga, a priest (New Zealand); e tane to hunga, a male priest; e wahine to hunga, a female priest or priestess. The plural in the New Zea * Mr. Marsden uniformly represents the Polynesian dialects as being radically polysyllabic. A slight inspection of any of their vocabularies will be sufficient to convince the intelligent reader, that a large proportion of the words of these dialects consists either of monosyllables, or of polysyllables, each of the component parts of which forms a distinct word. The Chinese language itself by no means abhors such compounds. land dialect is formed by prefixing nga; as ika, a fish; nga ika, fishes: in Chinese it is formed by adding men, (probably mena originally,) as ta, he; ta men, they. Nay, in both languages, the same word is either a noun or a verb, according to the particles it has conjoined with it; as, ngo siang, I think (Chinese); ngo ti siang, my thought. 3. Relationship is expressed, and compound words or ideas are formed, in both languages, by the mere juxta-position of primitive words. 4. Particles are used in both languages in a similar way; and these particles are in many instances not merely similar, but absolutely identical. The particle e or y (which in Chinese signifies one) is prefixed to nouns both in the Chinese and Polynesian languages: so also is the particle ko or ka; thus :- It is not allowable, however, either in the language of China or in that of the South Sea Islands, to use the same particle in conjunction with any noun. On the contrary, the particle is varied according to the signification of the noun with which it is conjoined. Thus it would be improper to say, although in apparent accordance with the examples already given, y ko tao, a sword; y ko ma, a horse; y ko hoa, a flower. He who would speak the language of the celestial empire with the requisite propriety, and acquire a Chinese style classical without pedantry, and copious without redundance, must say, y pa tao; y pi ma; y to hoa. All these three particles, however, (viz. pa, pe or pi, to,) are used in exactly the same manner in the Polynesian dialects; as, for instance, e pa di (New Zealand dialect), a precipice; e pa kéha,* a white man or European; e po or pe tiki, a younger brother; e pe pe, a butterfly; e to ki, an axe; e to hunga, a priest. Such coincidences cannot possibly be accidental: they are far less equivocal than coincidences in the meaning of particular words in the two languages. In both languages, also, the same particles are used in the formation of what may be termed the moods and tenses of the verb; such as, pa, pe, te. Hoei, which in Chinese forms the future tense, appears in the form of good in the dialect of the Friendly Islands, of hoi in that of the Society Islands, and of koa in that of New Zealand. The very aspect of the Chinese and Polynesian verbs is sufficient of itself to afford a presumption of the affinity of the languages: thus ; CHINESE. Pa pou te ngo O that I might POLYNESIAN (NEW ZEALAND). eaten. Thou eatest. The New Zealanders allege that the flea, which, it seems, is not an indigenous inhabitant of their island, but a sort of freeemigrant intruder, was introduced by the English, and they consequently designate it e pa keha nohi nohi, the little European. 5. Similar, and these remarkably peculiar, sounds abound in both languages. Consonantal sounds are much less numerous in the Chinese and Polynesian languages than in those of Europe and Western Asia; and the number of vowel sounds is consequently much greater. Words, which in Roman characters would be represented by the very same combinations of letters, are found to have the most opposite significations; the accentuation, and the depth, strength, or weakness of the intonation of the vowel-sound, rendering what appears to a European the same word, susceptible of a variety of meanings, or rather originating a whole series of different words. This peculiarity, the reader will doubtless perceive, is much more likely to originate endless varieties of dialect than the consonantal languages of Europe, in which the landmarks or consonants are not so easily got over or worn down. Hence it has actually happened, that while the written language of China is universally intelligible, not only in China Proper and in the provinces of Chinese Tartary, but also in Japan and in Cochin-China,— |