The language of Thibet shows the same use of monosyllabism, hut at the same time an effort toward a firmer connection of the words; it is rich in inseparable suffixes or suffixed words, for from the fact that all attributes (for which signs of cases, articles, plurals, etc. serve) follow the substantive, even dependent ones, such as signs of cases, plurals, etc., the substantive becomes often very long. The same is true of the verbal roots and their affixes.
Prefixes also are not rare. If the attribute stands before, it will fre quently receive a particle, which is the sign of the genitive case; thus, for our " the good man" it would be "good—relating to—man," or " the man of goodness." The subject in the case of verbs of doing has fre quently an instrumental suffix, so that the sentence " the king does this" would be expressed in the Thibetan, " this—king-by—do. . . ." The position of the words here is also quite constant, the verbal root having always the last place. The different conceptions are much more sharply divided into substantives, adjectives, and verbs.
In studying the polysyllabic Mongolian tongues the Japanese will first demand our attention. Here also there is no inflection: sex, plurality, declension, and conjugation are formed by independent words, which mostly follow the leading idea, or by suffixes blend with it. The first vowel sound of these suffixes often assimilates to the vowel sound of the stein-word, so that there are traces of a kind of vocal harmony. Sonic of these suffixes deserve closer attention. They have a predicate suffix .ci (Hoffmann, Japansche Spraakleer) and various attribute suffixes, which are employed for the more precise defining of the subject. So also the genitive suffix ga, which, where there is an accented predicate, is applied to the (apparent) subject.
If it be asked, there money at hand? (literally, 'Money, =what belongs to, 'to be present, 'to he at hand, `interrogative word), the answer will be, "' hate //MS// is at hand (literally, genitive sign); therefore "the being-here of money" (Hoffmann). The rya of the first example is an isolating par tide; it marks out the word immediately preceding it as important, and is attached mostly to the subject, sometimes to the object, sometimes to the predicate. The object has also its own suffix, which serves as the accusative sign in the grammars. The subject stands (if it does not
attract one of these particles) without other definition than its position, for neither the Japanese nor any other Mongolian tongue has nominative suffixes.
The position of words is of the highest importance: the predicate follows the subject, and all the more definitive expressions stand before the word to be defined; thus, the attribute (genitive, adjective) is placed before the word to which it belongs, the adverb and all objects before the verb being understood as its limiting terms. Thus we have two apparently opposite principles of phraseology: independent limiting ideas precede, and depend ent ones (suffixes, particles) follow.
This is of the more importance because by this means the language distinguishes very sharply between ideas which are expressed in the words and the relations of these ideas to each other. The subject serves as a particular definition to the predicate only where it has the genitive suffix, not where it is isolated by zc'a or stands without something to denote it. All these denoting signs are very properly wanting to the subject, for it refers to nothing, while all else in the sentence refers back to it. The pred icate group, no matter how extended, refers back to the subject.
In the language of courtesy there is even a sort of agreement (con gruence), so that where there is a subject to be honored a prefix with an honorable meaning comes before the verb. Still more exactly is this rela tion expressed by the predicate-suffix which means "to be," esse. It is not rare in Japanese to find prefixes: they were originally independent attributive words, but have gradually been so closely attracted by the chief idea to which they belong that they have lost their independent quality.
Thus, the Japanese is seen to be a speech which, though differing widely from our own, is a vehicle for keen and consecutive thinking. Granting that this is of ethnologic importance, we shall have to look at it more closely for another reason: we find in it the proof that the celebrated Ainos, who are now generally treated as a separate race, are closely related to the Japanese. Their language is built upon the same model as the Japanese (according to Pfizmayer's works), and many of the suffixes, as well of substantives as of verbs, are either quite alike or have differed only by change in sound.