The Polynesian Origin

What a Study of Languages Suggests

FROM the outset, the European mind has tried to trace a Polynesian trail from somewhere in Asia to somewhere in Polynesia. It is submitted that the col lective efforts, in this direction, have failed. The literature upon the subject is most unconvincing.

Many people appear to overlook or avoid the fact that evidence of contact between Polynesian and Asiatic peoples is just as cogent evidence that Polynesians penetrated into Asia as that Asiatics penetrated into Polynesia. If anything, the evidence is more favorable to the pro position that Polynesian expeditions reached Asia than to the proposition that the Polynesians migrated out of Asia. It will be as well to determine the facts first.

The Hawaiian Islands, Easter Island and New Zealand are three points of an oceanic triangle. The populations, orig inal to all the islands within this triangle including the points, are fundamentally Polynesian. This area is not exclusive.

There are Polynesians elsewhere in the Pacific land areas. The first point that distinguishes Polynesian people from others is that of language. Practically all the different communities of the race speak tongues which are derived from a common origin.

The phonetics of the different dialects are much more similar than the European written interpretations would lead us to

believe. The European ear missed some of the distinctions in both vowel and consonant sounds. In some cases, it was particularly difficult, in fact, impossible, to find established European symbols to fit the case. In other cases, different sym bols were used to record identical sounds —such as “g” for some dialects, and “ng” for others. The word “tagata” is pro nounced “tangata.” The true sound is the “ng” sound in “hanging,” and not that in “anger” or “angel.”

Apart from these, more or less, avoid able disparities, the Polynesians them selves have not treated their original language with any greater cbnformity than have Englishmen in England and elsewhere. Different communities have transposed, changed, or elided certain sounds; more particularly with regard to consonants than with regard to vowels.

It is no difficult matter to bring all the different Polynesian dialects into har mony with a common base.

But it is unfortunate that the evidence of language is still being misread. For example, in a recent book upon the sub ject of Easter Island, there appears this statement: “It has been known for many years that the language of Tahiti was basically similar to that of the Maoris of New Zea land and the natives of the Hawaiian Islands and Samoa. But not until Mr.

Stimson had completed his analysis was

the nature of their relationship suspected . . . It demonstrated that the oldest language in the Pacific as proved by its elisions of consonants and its prodigal use of vowel sounds was that spoken in the Society Islands, including Tahiti. The newest one found in Hawaii, New Zea land and Easter Island.”

The first sentence in the above quota tion is accurate but the remainder is not.

The true relationship has been known for many years and Mr. Stimson is wrong in his deductions, that is to say, if they are as stated above.

It is difficult to understand how a dia lect which elides sounds which are pre sent in a language can be older than the language from which it makes elisions.

In fact, the elisions themselves, apart from accounting for an apparent “pro digal use of vowel sounds” in the Tahitian dialect, establish the fact that the Maoris of New Zealand speak an older form of the language than those of any other Poly nesian group, although they are closely followed by the Rarotongans, Mangarev ans and Easter Islanders.

All these latter people, it would seem, had lost touch with those groups which make elision at a period antecedent to the development of the habit of elision.

But, so far as age is concerned, it would further seem that each dialect is as old, in its fundamentals, as any other dialect derived from the basic source.

The consonants which are elided—one or more in different communities —are “k,” “ng,” “wh,” the “g” of "ng,” and, sometimes, the “w”, and sometimes the “h” of “wh.”

The Tahitians elide both “k” and “ng.”

That the sounds were originally present is proved by the “break.” Thus, “tang ata” becomes ta’ata, “ika” becomes i'a,

“maunga” becomes mau’a, and “pikopiko” becomes pi’opi’o, and so on. This accounts for an apparent “prodigal use of vowel sounds.” In point, of fact, the Tahitians use no more vowels than do the Maoris.

The Hawaiians, Samoans and others elide “k.” The Hawaiians also elide the “g” from “ng.” Yet, strangely enough, having elided the original “k,” the Ha waiians regain a “k” sound by substi tuting it for the “t” sound. The modern Samoans are showing a tendency to copy this idiosyncrasy, much to the annoy ance of conservative high chiefs. Conse quently, we find that the Hawaiians say “kanaka” instead of “tangata,” “uka” and “kai” instead of “uta” and “tai,” and so on.

The Mangarevans elide “wh.” “Whenua” becomes “enua,” “whitu” becomes “itu,”

“wheke” becomes “eke,” and so on. The Easter Islanders elide the “w” from the ‘“wh” sound.

The Maoris retain all these sounds, which obviously were present in the orig inal tongue—obviously, because of the “break” and because a comparison of vocabularies reveals a consensus of clues which determine what was the sound elided.

Now, all this may be quite interesting; but where does it lead us?

It establishes the point that all the Polynesian people speak dialects, much more alike than is thought, of an ancient language, and that the more remote islands, which themselves are separated

by great distances, are inhabited by Poly nesian communities which speak an older form of the tongue than do those com munities which are located upon more favorable bases for outside intercourse.

If the Polynesians came out of Asia, it must be assumed that they brought an Asiatic tongue with them. How, then, can we account for the fact that the grammatical construction, idiom, and, with very minor qualifications, the vocabulary of the ancient Polynesian language presents no affinities, of any import, with any Asiatic language, ancient or modern.

Attempts have been made to show affinities between the Malayan and Poly nesian tongues. The writer is more or less conversant with the salient points of the various Polynesian dialects and of the Malayan tongue. Apart from a very limited number of words acquired either way, the Polynesian and Malayan tongues are utterly different —in construction, idiom, and vocabulary.

True enough, there have been contacts —many contacts —between Polynesian and Malayan, in many places. There has been fusion between the two races, in many places. The tongues have fused, in many places. But the two peoples and their tongues are separate and clean-cut in their differences and characteristics.

The Polynesian, beyond dispute, was a great adventurer and a great navigator.

He compassed great distances. From Samoa and Tonga, the whole of the East Indies, Papua, the New Hebrides, the Philippines, Formosa, and Japan were accessible to him.

That he made use of his powers and opportunities seems clear. He went to these places and put his mark upon them.

Why not?

But the evidence of language is only part of the story. In a concluding article, the writer will endeavor to carry the issue a little further.

P. B. Fitzherbert.

Wellington, N.Z. 18th December, 1934.