Globus, 1868 and 1870, and Beiträge zur Kunde der Hottentoten, in Jahresbericht des Vereins für Erdkunde, Dresden, 1868; not to forget the chapter on the Hottentots in Friedr. Müller's excellent work "Allgemeine Ethnographie." It is enough meanwhile to say, that the Bushmen lead the life of a Pariah, and that they are hated and chased by all other nations of South Africa, having to suffer most, however, from the hands of their own nearest kith and kin, the Khoikhoi, whom I have, on more than one occasion, seen manifesting more charity for a dog than for a starving Bushman. The Khoikhoi are generally called, as I have already said, Hottentots, a term to which I would not object, were it not for the confusion it generally brings in its train, as far as ethnological, anthropological or linguistic terminology is concerned. Sometimes they are called the Hottentots proper in our Colonial language. But very often, again, our Khoikhoi in the Colony, or more particularly those remnants of the tribes formerly occupying the vicinity of Cape Town, are called Hottentots, Hottentots proper or Cape Hottentots, while on the other hand the inhabitants of Griqualand West, of the South Kalihari, of Great Namaqualand are called by their tribal names, Griquas, Namaquas, !Koras or Koranas, just as if they were not Hottentots as much as the Khoikhoi tribes of the Cape Colony. It would be as absurd for us to call only the Prussians, Germans, and apply to all the other tribes of Germany their tribal names, Bavarians, Suabians, Hessians, &c., denying to them the attribute German; or for Londoners to claim for themselves the title of Englishmen, while excluding the Northumberland and Sussex men from it. This is my reason for protesting emphatically against the indiscriminate and superficial use of the term Hottentot, and therefore I have taken the liberty of taxing the patience of my readers by dwelling at some length on this subject. While the Bushmen are hunters, the Khoikhoi are nomads, cattle and sheep farmers; and while the Bushman family has with the Khoikhoi, linguistically speaking, only the clicks and some harsh sounding faucals and a few roots of words in common, the various Bushman languages hitherto recorded, differ among themselves, as much as they differ from the Khoikhoi idioms. This difference and variety in speech is mainly due to their wandering habits and unsettled life. The wild inaccessible mountain strongholds and the arid deserts of South Africa, where nobody can follow them, are their abode; constantly on the alert, constantly on the move, constantly on the path of war, either with other tribes, or with the wild animals, no inducement is given to them for a settled life, the necessary condition of the development of a more articulate speech and a higher intellectual culture. The Khoikhoi, or Nomadic Hottentots, have all the same language, which branches off in as many idioms and dialects as there are tribes. The idiomatic peculiarities, however, are not very prominent, indeed not so striking, as to hinder a Gei||khau or ‡Auni or ||Habobe of Great Namaqualand, and the Nube of Ovambóland, or the Gei‡nam of the North Western Kalihari, conversing easily with the inhabitants of the Khamies Bergen (North Western Colony), and with the Koras and Griquas of Griqualand West and the Orange Free State. A prominent feature in all the Khoikhoi idioms is the strict monosyllabism of the root, ending in a vowel, and the use of pronominal elements as suffixes for the purpose of forming derivatives. The Khoikhoi language is entirely void of prefixes, nay, our prepositions are post positions. The pronominal elements have in the course of time crystallized, and sometimes melted together into one, and in this new shape accepted the office of classifiers and registrars of substantives or substantified expressions, so that some of our most eminent philologists did not hesitate to consider them homogeneous with the article of other sex-denoting languages, chiefly of the Semitic and Hamitic class. But I am convinced that a more careful investigation will lead to the result, that the Khoikhoi language is not sex-denoting in the sense of Aryan or Semitic grammar. The so-called "article" is not an article in the sense of grammar, because the root of the Khoikhoi article is not the same throughout the genders, nor throughout the numbers. The following Table will at once explain what I mean: In saying this I do not for a single moment deny that the so-called article was en route to develop into the meaning and sense of the Aryan article, when by the destructive contact with other races- -the Bantu from the North, and the European from the South-this development was suddenly checked. We may therefore safely, until a more appropriate term for this way of classifying is established, call those particles which serve as classifiers of the three classes of the substantives, Articles. The Bushman languages, as far as I had an opportunity of becoming acquainted with them, have no such derivative and formative elements; at least, if they had, such have now entirely disappeared, or are distorted to such a degree, that they defy every analysis. Sometimes one is tempted to believe that there are embryonic indications of such elements; sometimes again one is strongly inclined to take such would-be-suffixes, for dilapidated remnants of pronominal elements. The present Bushman languages bear nearly the same relationship to the Khoikhoi as, among the Indo-European languages, English holds to |