Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 March 2011
The original inhabitants of Mount Atlas, and of nearly all the provinces of Maghrib-ul-Aksa, or the present empire of Marocco, are usually divided into two tribes — namely, the Berebbers and the Shelluhhs, both descended from the ancient Mauritanians and Gætulians; perhaps even from the Libyes of Sallust. These two tribes differ essentially from each other; and it is not without reason, that those travellers and geographers, to whom we are indebted for the best information with respect to Marocco, have asserted that the Shelluhhs are not Berebbers. The Moors, or Arabian inhabitants of the country, consider them as two nations of a different origin; as well on account of their manners and the diversity of their natural dispositions, as from the entirely distinct profile of the face, and from their dialects, which differ so much, that they cannot converse together without the aid of an interpreter. Mr. James Grey Jackson, in his Account of the Empire of Marocco, and of the District of Sus, confirms this assertion by a list of words of common use in both languages; and, most certainly, they prove nothing less than a common origin. But such differences, radical or accidental, may be met with in almost all the sister languages. It is, for instance, a curious fact, that the very leading Shelluhh words, which Mr. Jackson quotes as altogether differing from the Berebber, as woman, wife, boy, girl, &c. differ just as much, if not more, in the Swedish, Danish, German, and Dutch languages, which, most undoubtedly, are of one and the same origin. This observation holds good even with respect to the Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian languages. What is more certain, and beyond all doubt, is, that the pretended Berebbers and Shelluhhs live separately and that they bear very little, if any, relation to each other. Although their habitations are sometimes very near, they never have any social intercourse; nor does an instance exist of individuals of one tribe having intermarried with the other.
page 113 note 1 The method here adopted of writing foreign woi ds in Italic characters, may, perhaps, best be ascertained by a comparison of th Arabic words with their originals.—Ed.
page 114 note 1 The words here brought into comparison by the learned author will be found in the Rev. Mr. Renouard's report, third and fifth column; and the want of Maghribín types compels us, though with much regret, to refer only to that transcript, though, in the form of some letters, and in the corrupt accent, differing from the original.—Ed.
page 115 note 1 See the preceding note; and the second and sixth columns of the report.
* or plural of
† from
* Vide Leonis Africæ Descript., p. 412. The Latin translator mistaking tettêguin for an accusative case, has coined the puzzling nominative tetteguis.
†
* or and being interchangeable letters among the Berbers.
* Tom. i. fol. 33, lib. i. cap. 25.
† Lib. i. cap. 34, tom. i. fol. 44.
‡ Lib. i. cap. 26, tom. i. fol. 34.
* plural of
† Lib. i. cap. 33; tom. i. fol. 43.
‡
page 153 note 1 See Africanus, Leo, p. 10.Google Scholar Elzevir ed. Lugd. Bat. 1632.
page 153 note 2 Ib. p. 58.
page 154 note 1 Leo. Afric. p. 10.Google Scholar
page 155 note 1 Leo. Afric. p. 18.Google Scholar