pitiate him--a manner appropriate to one who may be the other self
of the dead ancestor, or one of the kindred, and therefore a friend.

That a misunderstanding of this kind is likely to grow up, becomes
obvious when we bear in mind the great indefiniteness of
primitive language. As Prof. Max Mueller says, respecting certain
misinterpretations of an opposite kind: "These metaphors ... would
become mere names handed down in the conversation of a family,
understood perhaps by the grandfather, familiar to the father, but
strange to the son, and misunderstood by the grandson." We have ample
reason, then, for supposing such misinterpretations. Nay, we may go
further. We are justified in saying that they are certain to occur. For
undeveloped languages contain no words capable of indicating the
distinction to be kept in view. In the tongues of existing inferior
races, only concrete objects and acts are expressible. The Australians
have a name for each kind of tree, but no name for tree irrespective of
kind. And though some witnesses allege that their vocabulary is not
absolutely destitute of generic names, its extreme poverty in such is
unquestionable. Similarly with the Tasmanians. Dr. Milligan says they
"had acquired very limited powers of abstraction or generalization. They
possessed no words representing abstract ideas; for each variety of
gum-tree and wattle-tree, etc., etc., they had a name, but they had no
equivalent for the expression, 'a tree;' neither could they express
abstract qualities, such as hard, soft, warm, cold, long, short, round,
etc.; for 'hard,' they would say 'like a stone;' for 'tall,' they would
say 'long legs,' etc.; and for 'round,' they said 'like a ball,' 'like
the moon,' and so on, usually suiting the action to the word, and
confirming, by some sign, the meaning to be understood."[31] Now, even
making allowance for over-statement here (which seems needful, since the
word "long," said to be inexpressible in the abstract, subsequently
occurs as qualifying a concrete in the expression, "long legs"), it is
manifest that so imperfect a language must fail to convey the idea of a
name, as something separate from a thing; and that still less can it be
capable of indicating the act of naming. Familiar use of such
partially-abstract words as are applicable to all objects of a class, is
needful before there can be reached the conception of a name--a word
symbolizing the symbolic character of other words; and