In studying that dialects of Ainu several questions, such as the following present themselves; viz:—
(a). “Does the fact of the Ainu language having traces of tones in it point to China or Chinese Tartary as its place of origin?”
(b). Or, “if it did not take its rise there is it not possible—nay even probable—that it passed through those regions in prehistoric times and so has been made to feel Tartar influence?”
(c). Or, “can any affinity be found by way of comparative philology between Ainu and Tibetian, it being remembered that Tibetian has tones very distinctly developed?”
(d). Or, “is there any connection between Ainu and the languages of the Northern or Southern Turanian type, it being remembered that these are inflected?” These and other interesting questions have crossed my mind more than once, and they are, I am fully persuaded questions which should be closely studied by those who have the leisure, inclination, and competence for such a work. The results would, I believe, well repay the time, trouble and patience expended in the inquiry. Perhaps the grammar contained in this book will help to solve the riddle; it is at least hoped so.
Refering again to the resemblance of the Ainu language to those of the Chinese type in respect of tone, it is pertinent to remark that in the matter of agglutinazation also there is a strong family likeness, only that in Ainu it is much more developed than in Chinese. Chinese is a preëminently monosyllabic tongue, for each word may be used either as a noun, verb, adverb, adjective or particle according to desire; what part of speech is meant being left to the context and position in the sentence. Indeed, as my old teacher at Hongkong used to try to impress upon me—“every root is a word, and every word a root.” Max Muller in the 4th vol. of his work draws special
