« 이전계속 »
The Kol 2nd pronoun—which is much more persistent and widely spread in the Mon-Anam languages than the 1st—is very remarkable, and at first riew anomalous, in its form. It is a labial, occurring under the forms imma Gond (agentive), am, urn, unaf/e, me, m, be, pe Kol. In the Himalayas the Kiranti am of the possessive am-ko is the only example of this root or form. In Ultraindian it is Mon pueh, pi, bai; Kasia, me, pha; Anam, mei; Lau, mung, mau, mo; Chong bo; STmang, mo, bo; Trangganu mong. The form is rarely found in Asonesia in the agentive singular, which in the Niha-Polynesian languages, N, like the 1st pronoun, of Semitico-Libyan derivation through Malagasy. In the Timorian group,—which preserves the N. Dravirian 1st pronoun in some of its languages and has other N. Dravirian traits— we find in the singular mue Solor, nyu mu Sumba, (nyu definitive as in the 1st pron. wyw-ngga, which is also Dravirian). It is common in the Niha-Polynesian languages as a possessive under the forms mo, mu sometimes mi. It is found in the plural, either by itself or combined with another particle. It also enters into the exclusive or relative plural of the 1st pronoun. *
In the N. Ultraindian and Mon-Anam languages it is exceptional as a root for the 2nd pronoun, none of the pronominal systems of the formations with which they are connected, or which are found in Eastern Asia, using a labial root.f The nang, neng of the Chino-Tibetan and Ultraindian system is variable in Burman to mang, meng, but this mutation of the n of the root is confined to it, and its absence in the adjacent dialects of the same sub-formation, the forms of the pronoun in the conterminous Mon, and the recent Ultraindian spread of Burman even when compared
* But as the in element may in some cases be the so- called corapanionative or may be a direct engral'tnient from the Dravirian plural of the 1st pronoun in mi &c, it is enough at present to remark the prevalence of mu, mo, mi as a subsidiary root for the 2nd pronoun in Malayu-Polynesian. That as such, it is a Dravirian or Draviro- Uitruindian enuraftment on the Malagasy-Polynesian or Oceanic system is clear from its being absent not only in Malagasy but in the present SemiticoLibyan system.
t Although I consider the explanation in the text the correct one, it should be remarked that several of the Ultraindian forms of the Scythico-Australian labial
third pronoun and definitive have a close resemblance to varieties of the labial second pronoun, and that in some formations these two pronouns involve the same definitive. This is the case in Tibetan, Semitico-Libyan, Indo-European, Lesgian
with the Naga-Manipuri branch of the same family, shut out the supposition that this accidental form was the parent of the archaically diffused Mon-Anam, Vindyan and Asonesian pronoun. As the latter is neither Chinese, Tibeto-Ultraindian, Tatar, nor Malagasy, we are thrown back on the system to which the 1st pronoun belongs, and the widely prevalent plural power of the form in the Niha-Polynesian languages suggests that it is simply a Dravirian plural used for the singular, as happens in many other languages with the 2nd pronoun (e. g. the English "you" for "thou"). In Dravirian we find amongst current forms for "you" miru Telugu, (vaidi poss.) where the plural m displaces the re of the root, (ni, nivu) as in the plural of the 1st pronoun, e. g. Telugu nenu " I", metnu "we," Toda an "I", am " we". Tamil emadu; "ours", ximadu "yours". With these compare the Khond anu "I", amu "we"; inu "thou", mi "you", the last term being identical with the Telugi mi of miru. The nearest South Dravirian forms occur in Todava ni-ma PI. and Karnataka ni-m PI., (Anc), ni-vu (Mod.); ni-ma-rfu PI. poss. (Mod.) The Gond i-ma is evidently a contraction of ni-ma. In some of the southern forms also, the root of the second pronoun is represented by the vowel only. The Kol variations of the proper radical vowel i to u and a are found in some of the southern languages. In Kol the singular forms are um (as in the Tamil PI. poss. umadu) am, (as in Toda nama PI.), me, m, variable in the plural composite terms to bu (comp. S. Dravirian vu), be, pe. The connection between these and the Ultraindian mo, bo, pi, mong, mung &c. is obvious. The Telugu verbal postfix of the 2nd pronoun -vu exhibits the same substitution of the plural definitive for the pronoun. In the Semitico-Libyan system, jn which m has a plural power as in Dravirian, like examples occur of the replacement of the root by the plural particle. The Kol le "we" is another example.
Of the Kol forms um, bu-am, me, (be, pe)—corresponding with the South Dravirian um, vu, am, mi—the first is the most widely spread in Ultraindia and Asonesia in the forms mu, mo, bo, mung &c. In South Dravirian it is rare, but its occurrence in the possessive plural of Tamil (um) and in the plural of Karnataka (vu) places its Dravirian origin and antiquity beyond doubt. The distinctive vowel u is found in the Tamil singular also (un). * Dravirian pronouns and pronominal traits are also found in the Gangetic and North Ultraindian languages. But as the TibetoUltraindian pronouns are themselves radically the same as the Draviro-Australian, and as this radical agreement belongs to the most archaic pro-Indian affinities of Dravirian, it will be noticed in connection with these. For various examples of Dravirian traits in the Gangetico-Ultraindian systems I may refer tochap.IV. Here I shall only mention one, as it is illustrative of the archaic nse of m as a plural definitive.
The Naga pronominal system—which is a Tibeto-Burman superstructure on a Dravirian basis—preserves the Dravirian plural postfix in Namsangya ni-ma "we," ne -ma "you." The possessive of the 1st pron. sing, and pi. is i (from ni "I," originally possessive now replaced by the Tibeto-Burman nga as a separate agentive term) but that of the 2nd pron. sing, as well as pi. is ma (from ne-ma). In Tengsa Naga me occurs as the 2nd pronoun in the possessive mecki,—the separate form being the common East Tibetan nang. In Joboka Naga m is retained as the plural postfix although the roots are changed, 1st ku Sing, kem PI.; 2nd nang Sing, hanzam PI.; 3rd chua Sing, horn PI. It will be remarked that while Namsangya like the Dravirian languages in general restricts m to the proper pronouns, Joboka like Toda extends it to the 3rd also. The only other Gangetico-Ultraindian language in which this particle appears to be found is the Gurung which has it in all the three pronouns under the form -mo. The Newar -ping 18 probably another variety of it. The Mozome Angarai Naga -we of the 1st pronoun resembles Kol forms. In Angarai ma appears to be combined with the liquid plural particle of Dravirian in all the pronouns -ra -ma. In Garo mong (comp. Gurung mo) and ma occur as plural elements, and the Burmati labial plural may be the same particle.
* [Prof. Max Midler's table of pronouns supplies two additional examples of the use of this form. In the Malabar dialect of Malayalam, the oblique form of' the singular is um-(wlth postfixes), while the plural has both un and urn. In Brahui the nominative plural is nnm (oblique numa). It is abundantly evident that both ni and nu must hare been current as forms of the second pronoun from a very remote era of the Dravirian formation, anil that the Kol forms and their Ultraindian derivatives, so far from being really exceptional, are more distinctively and undoubtedly Dravirian than they might have been considered had they adhered to the common agentive forms of the South, and thus resembled the Tlbeto U Ifralndian forms with which they are intermixed in several Gangeric add Ultraindian languages.]
The second class of pronominal affinities appear to appertain to the more archaic or pre-Indianhistory of the Dravirian or Draviro-Australian formation. They are very numerous if those of each pronoun be [considered separately. But the formations which have both of the Dravirian pronouns are much more limited. The] simple rootsjare found best preserved in Chinese and in some of the more archaic or preScythic languages of America. The only other system in which both occur as the principal terms is the Tibeto-Ultraindian. Theso facts and the distribution of the different varieties of the roots in these and in other formations, lead us to the conclusion that the system is probably the most archaic and least mixed that is now extant. The Draviro-Australian forms [stand in the same rank as the American in relation to the Chinese. Like American and proto-Scythic they belong to a secondary, harmonic, and post- positional formation, and not to a primitive and generally preposi- tional one like Chinese. They have definitive postfixes like Amc- rican and Scythic and the full terms are in structure more imme- diately allied to the Scythic. The three formations stand on a similar footing in relation both to the primary Chinese formation and to the earliest harmonic development which it received. As regards the roots in particular, the Draviro-Australian na or iiga and ni or ngi have a more direct and complete affinity with the Chinese ngo and ni than the pronouns of any other system.
The adjacent Tibeto-Ultraindian* system is also Chinese and the 1st pronoun has the Draviro-Australian vowel a, which appears to have been early and widely prevalent, for it is found in some American languages (nai, nan &c), Korean (nai, na), Samoiede
• In chap. IV I considered the original or integral Gangetico-Ultraindian pronoun system to be fundamentally Dravirian and distinct from Tibetan, although different languages present modifications and intermixtures. Thus the Naga was held to be a compound of Burma-Tibetan, South Ultraindian and UanaeticoDravirian trails. The remarkable extent to which the roots and forms of different formations have been blended in the Ultraindian systems will appear when we examine the pronouns of the M on- A nam or prepositional alliance. The publication of Mr Hodgson's East Tibetan or Sifan vocabularies has not affected the general inference* at which I had arrived, but they have made an important modification in details. The 2nd pronoun in n I considered to be Dravirian in all the Gangetic and Ultraindian languages in which it occurs, the Tibetan root being totally diffe • rent. It now appears that the East Tibetan or sifan 2nd pronoun is also a form of the n root, similar to forms found in Ultraindian and Gangetic languages that have numerous other glossarial affinities with East Tibetan. In the text I have introduced the necessary modification of my former view.
(na, but this is probably a variation of the Scythic ma), Caucasian (na, -Kasi Kumuk), and Semitico-Libyan (na, also no, nu, ne, ni, that is, all the vocalic varieties of which instances occur in Chinese, Dravirian &c.) The Tibeto-Ultraindian 2nd pronoun has also the broad form nan, na (the West or proper Tibetan has a different root), thus directly connecting itself, not with the slender forms of the adjacent Chinese and of Draviro-Australian, but with the archaic Scythic nan, na (Ugrian). The numerous Ugrian and other Scythic and N. E. Asian affinities of the Tibeto-Ultraindian vocabularies render it probable that this form of the 2nd pronoun is of archaic Ugrian origin. The Dravirian slender i form and the H form are also Ugrian, ny, ny, nyn^j, nyn, num. The affinity between the Ostiak form nyn and the Draviro-Australian nin is obvious. The nasal second pronoun is not the prevalent Scythic, Indo-European and Semitico-Libyan, form, which is in t, s &c. If the Scythic m of the 1st pronoun was an archaic variety of n— which is found in Scythic, but as a flexion of m—the demonstration of the affinity of proto-Scythic, with American on the one side and with Draviro-Australian and Tibeto-Ultraindian on the other, and of the derivation of the common roots of all from the Chinese formation, would be complete. Although it is clear that the Draviro-Australian pronouns are not derivatives fromtheTibeto-Ultraindian, but are to be considered as having like them an independent connection with an archaic Mid-Asiatic system—Chinese in roots and Scythic in form—it necessarily happens that the forms of the common roots sometimes so closely resemble each other that it is difficult to say what their true origin is in certain of those Indian languages which are placed at the junction of the two formations and have other affinities with both. The Tibeto-Ultraindian nga of the 1st pronoun becomes in different languages ngo, ngai, (comp. Chinese ngei) ngi, nge, nye. It is distinguished from the full and more prevalent Dravirian form, not so much by the liquid nasal (ng for n) which is also Malayalam, Kol and Australian, and appears from Chinese to have been the primary form, as by the absence of the definitive postfix. But the contracted and slender Dravirian vaiieties an, en, eng, ing are little distinguished from Tibeto-Ultraindian forms such as ngi, nge, nye, and it thus becomes difficult in all cases to decide whether varieties like the Mikir ne,