inapplicable to the conditions of those tribes which have only
individual marriage, and yet make use of the equivalents of terms
which denote marriage of the pirrauru type.
[Gery written in the left hamd margin]
Mr Lang says in the course of his adverse argument (op.cit.p.43)
"Whatever the original sense of the names, they all now denote
seniority and customary legal status in the tribe with the recipro
-cal duties, rights and avoidances ...". In these Dieri terms we
certainly have "the original sense", in so far that they exactly
define the conditions to which they are applied.
Mr Lang also takes exception to the use of our terms to explain
the application of the native words for relation
-ships. he says (op.cit.p.43) "Manifestly there lurks a fallacy
in alternately using "sons", for example, in our sense and then in
the tribal sense, which includes both fatherhood, or sonship, in
sense, and also tribal status and duties. "The terms, in addition to
their usual and generally accepted signification of relationship
by blood, express a class or group relation quite independent of it."
The reference for this quotation is given in a foot note as "Roth
N.W.C. Queensland Aborigines p.56".
Would Mr Lang prefer that I should endeavour to explain to him
the relationship of "son" by using only the Dieri words?
For instance! "In this case the ngatani and the ngatani-waka are
both in the same relation to their ngatamura, yet the ngatani-waka
is not so near in the relationship as is his neyi the ngatani.
This is because, although both are neyi and ngatata, they are murdu-mara
and not buyulu-mara to eachother/&c. [sic]"
Perhaps on further consideration Mr Lang may prefer my usual
method of explanation, and also think it advisable to master the
theory and practise of native relationships.
In these matters we are now down to bedrock, on the firm foun
-dation of fact, and not upon an insecure stratum of guesswork.
Hitherto a student of the classificatory system, working at
first hand among savage tribes, or in the study, with information at
second hand, supplied by others has been obliges to rely upon
inferences drawn from the terms of relationship alone. But fortu
nitely [sic] many tribes in Australia, over an area [greater - crossed out] larger than Great
Britain and Ireland, have, or had, before we occupied their country,
Nobody has written a note for this page yet
Please sign in to write a note for this page