From the previous chapter we have seen that in the analysis of parallels we must be ready to meet with several difficulties due to the acceptation of a series of hypotheses. Yet, as has been shown, A. Sauvageot is not alone in accepting them. In fact, a large portion of parallels is taken by this author from previously published works. I will confine the analysis of these parallels to the Tungus language only. Yet since the problem of the aspiration and the bilabializaticn of vowels in Tungus is a phenomenon disconnected with that of the Ural-Altaic hypothetic language, I will not mix it with the hypothesis of the Tungus connexion with this hypothetic language. The specialists in Mongol and Turk will perhaps show some day what the relationship is between the process of aspiration and bilabialization, if they ever existed in these languages, and the hypothetic pra-language. So the problem which I have before me is this: How far do the evidences shown by A. Sauvageot and his predecessors prove the existence of a pra-language from which the Tungus language is supposed to have originated? I will use the evidences from other languages only in connexion with the Tungus parallels. So I will leave out of the discussion the problem, warmly discussed, as to the existence of a special Altaic group of languages. The latter is a point in which there is a serious discrepancy of opinions of different authors. As will be seen later, this controversy has no bearing upon the problem of relationship between the Tungus and other languages.
In the following analysis of the parallels I shall go according to the order of parallels given by A. Sauvageot, and I shall preserve his numeration of «cases.» He has classed his parallels into nine groups according to the initial and intervocalic consonants, as shown:
p initial.............. 41 cases
p intervocalic........... 22 cases
b initial............. 21 cases
t initial.............. 20 cases
t intervocalic........... 8
k initial.............. 53
k intervocalic........... 23
ng initial.............. 8
ng intervocalic........... 16
The initial and intervocalic consonants are practically understood as a series of actual and hypothetic sounds of labial, dental, glottal, and nasal types. Yet, since the series of f~p~h~x~0 is postulated, the parallels of the labial type are extended over the words with the initial glottal and vowels. The same extension is seen in the case of the nasal group, in which the words with the initial glottal and also n and m are included. This series is not yet complete, and A. Sauvageot promises to give another series with the initial and intervocalic frontal alveolar affricates and spirants, the parallels with which, according to him, are more complex and difficult than the one discussed here. I must agree with him, for the alternations of these consonants with dental, also labial and glottal, are very common.
Unfortunately, these two hundred and fourteen cases, as material good for comparison and conclusions, are not equal from the point of view of Tungus parallels. In fact, there are some cases of Tungus parallels lacking, and some cases lack all parallels except Samoyed and Tungus. Yet in some cases the Tungus words are misinterpreted, or wrongly used as Tungus ones. And lastly, in some cases the semantic limits are so wide that the Tungus words cannot be accepted as reliable material for comparative purposes. In analysing the Tungus parallels, I have found a certain number of them out of use, which may be clear for every one who is a little familiar with Tungus; a certain number of cases which cannot be admitted for comparison; and a certain number of cases which are worthy of analysis. I will here give only cases of the last group, for a discussion of all the cases would take too much space and is of no practical use for my present purpose. However, I feel that I must give the idea of how the cases have been rejected. For this purpose, I will analyse three cases of the first group and six cases of the second group in order of their appearance in A. Sauvageot's work.[98]
98. These cases are not the most striking ones in A. Sauvageot's work. I might have selected some cases of a really startling type, bnt I think they will not give the correct idea of the reasons of rejection. Therefore I will follow A. Sanvageot's order of cases mechanically.