Euskarian in the Scythic, Caucasian and Semitico-Libyan characters of its pronominal system has necessarily DraviroAustralian affinities also. The transition tendency is archaic Semitico-Libyan, Georgian, Zimbian, Australian, and American. The roots are varied and n is found in both the 1st and 2nd pronouns, but without indicating any special connection with Draviro-Australian.

The Zimbian pronominal system is in many respects even richer than the Australian, but the roots are Scythic and Caucaso-Yeniseian combined with Semitico-Libyan and numerous as the general affinities are, there are no special ones with Draviro-Australian.

It is only in American that we find examples at once of a free and multiform combination of pronominal elements similar to the earlier Draviro-Asonesian, and of systems which, with this archaic richness of terms, preserve the Chino-Dravirian roots. In some American languages the extent to which pronouns combine with each other and with different definitives is still greater than in the outlying or insular members of the Draviro-Australian formation. As traces of a similar primitive freedom of combination, are found in most of the harmonic Aso-African systems, it is probable that a pronominal development analogous to the American was the ultimate source of the Scythico-Iranian, Semitico-African &c. and that the remotest and most sequestered branch of the Indo-Asonesian formatiou has remained more faithful to it than the exposed continental systems.

The close connection between the general structure and ideology of the Dravirian and Scythic formations and the large glossarial affinity give additional importance to the fact that the Dravirian pronouns are not the predominant Scythic ones. The prevalent Scythic 1st person is a labial, ma, mi, bi, &c, and the 2nd a dental, sa, si, ti. These are Iranian and Caucasian, the 1st being also found in Zimbian and the 2nd in Semitico-Libyan, N. E. Asiatic, and American languages. Both are evidently very archaic, but their diffusion over the Iranian, Scythic, and connected African area must have been later than the spread of the Draviro-Australian and allied American terms which centre in the Chinese. The fact of the latter being found in widely separated and outlying ethnic provinces-America, N. E. Asia, Africa, S. India, AustraliaD

combined with that of the Scythic and Iranian being the latest of the great migratory races, establish a high antiquity for the movements which dispersed the Dravirian pronouns on all sides from their probable centre in S. W. Asia.

The Chinese is probably the most ancient integral formation to which they can be referred. They appear to have been diffused over a large portion of Asia and Africa as well as over America prior to the rise of the dominant historical races, and their spread over India, Ultraindia and Asonesia in the era of Draviro-Australian civilization, now represented by the Australians, throws light on the ethnic condition of S. W. Asia at the period when a civilization of this character was connected with the most influential and diffusive formation. The roots only are Chinese. The Dravirian and Asonesian forms of the pronouns shew that the languages of this formation had already acquired a harmonic and postfixual character. The preservation of the same roots in American, N. E. Asiatic, Scythic and African languages and the generally Scythic structure of Dravirian, lead to the inference that they were associated in Upper Asia with an ideology of the Scythic kind before they spread to India and the farther east.

The general conclusion is that the Draviro-Australian pronominal system is not an offshoot from Scythic proper or from any of the other Aso-African systems, but is a remnant of the proto-Scythic era of the harmonic development, and a link between the Scythic and American ideologies and between Chinese and American. In American the crude and pleonastic ideology of the early monosyllabic stage is preserved under a harmonic and agglomerative phonology. In the Australian condition of DraviroAustralian the pronoun system retains the same combination to a large extent. Traces of a similar crude and elaborate system are found in the other Aso-African formations, and they all present evidences in flexions, contractions and irregularities of different kinds, of having fallen away from a condition more elaborate and consistent in terms and forms. Although Scythic is amongst the most decayed and simple of these systems, some of its members which retain other American traits also, are possessed of vestiges of such a condition, while its affinities to Indo-European and other systems which preserve similar and more numerous vestiges,

and the highly agglomerative character of the formation, leave no doubt that in one of its early stages the proto-Scythic pronominal combinations were as crude and numerous as the American or Australian. The Draviro-Australian system may be considered as proto-Scythic in its general structure and character, for even in Upper Asia that type is not limited to languages which possess the proper Scythic pronouns.

B. Definitives, (including 3rd Pronouns, Possessives and

Directives.)

The possessives and directives are merely definitives, and as most formations possess nearly the whole range of archaic definitives, the comparison of isolated applications of them can seldom lead to specific ethnic results.*

The Dravirian and Australian labial definitive pa, wa &c is Tibeto-Ultraindian, Scythic, N. E. Asian (Kamschatkan), Caucasian, African, Celtic (Welsh ve, ro &c); and it passes into ba, rá, ma, am, um &c &c. + In Tibeto-Himalayan languages it has a qualitive power, which is not found in Dravirian. I

Ta, da (with vocalic variations) is almost universal as a definitive, and it passes through the surd form into ka, ga on the one side and through the sonant into la, ra, na on the other.§

In the form ni, in, &c it is the principal Dravirian possessive, and this is probably identical with the Tibeto-Ultraindian and Scythic poss. ni. The nasal possessive in, yin, n, i &c is also Semitico-Libyan and Indo-European. The Turkish reduplicated forms nin, nun, nen, ning are found in Asonesia as well as the simple form ni. The same particle occurs in some of the IranoEuropean languages as an archaic possessive, as in the 2nd personal pronoun in Zend ma-na (in Sanskrit euphonically ma-ma), Gothic mei-na, &c. In Guzerati both the simple and reduplicated

See the remarks on this subject in various preceding passages, and in particular those on the Scythic definitives &c (ante viii, 60 to 64). The reader may also refer to the same place for examples of the wide prevalence of most of the definitives found in Dravirian, and for indications of Scythic affinities.

See vol. viii, p. 63.

But Gond exceptionally has wa, 1st pron. no- wa sing., mo-wa-n pl., 2nd pron. ni-wa sing., mi-wa-n pl. This form is Tibetan through Gangetic. Magar 1st pron. ngo-u, (root vowel of nga modified by that of postf.); 2nd nu-wo (ib) 3rd, hoch (nom. hos.) In the plural the full form um is used, corresponding with the Gurung mo, the latter however being plural not simply poss.

Ante vol. viii, p. 62.

forms are found, ni, no, nun. The same possessive is found in several of the Gangetic languages including Limbu, (in) and Bodo (ni). Of the other Himalayan possessives, the most common, found also in Male and Uraon, ko, ke, gi, &c is Tibetan and Chinese and the rarer ti, chi, so, sei, sa &c is Chinese (ti, chi &c), (see the Table).

The transitive use of ka, ku, tu, du is very general (Iranian, Irano-Gangetic, (Hindi &c), Siamese, Chinese, Scythic, African, Asonesian &c, including Australian). But nearly all the definitives are so used.

The Dravirian na, an, nu &c used as a definitive with pronouns &c, is applied in the same mode, and also as a def. prefix, in Semitico-African and Asonesian languages. As a def.- separate, prefixed or postfixed-it is found also in Iranian, Semitic, Scythic and American languages. The form in r, l, is also common, and in some African, Asiatic and American languages it assumes peculiar forms such as tl (S. African, Caucasian, N. E. Asian, American). The common masculine and inanimate or neuter 3rd pronoun is the dental definitive da, du, thu &c.

The absence of the widely prevalent sibilant or aspirate definitive might be considered as a peculiarity of the Dravirian formation, but it is frequently only a modification of the dental as in the Scythic and Semitic 3rd pronoun in ta, sa &c.

The Toda athu, Male ath, shews the dental becoming aspirated or half sibilant. In the Uraon as-an (an is a postf.) the change is complete. The Magar hos is the same particle, and in the Sunwar hari it appears to be combined with a different one. The Burman thu, su and the Murmi the, Gurung and Manyak thi, Naga ate are variations of the same particle, probably of Chinese derivation. The root is so widely spread that it is hardly safe to draw any conclusions as to the relations which its various forms may indicate. The resemblance between the Dravirian and Chinese pronominal roots is completed by the Chinese 3rd pr. tha, thi which however has representatives in most of the formations of the old world.

The Dravirian va, we, wu, of the 3rd pronoun (Australian ba, pa), is the same as the common pa, bu, wa, u &c. of the Tibeto-Ultraindian languages, and in both formations is directly connected Ante, vol. viii, p, 61. See the Table.

with the N. E. Asian and Scythic labial definitive and assertive. It is also Caucasian, Semitico-African &c. In Dravirian it has a generic personal application, the postfix n rendering it masc. and the postf. fem., but it also occurs as a common def. element. The labial as a postf. is usually neuter and sometimes fem. and in Tuluva it is the 3rd pron. neuter. The primitive form was probably the feminine flexion of the labial which also came to include neuter. [See Tibetan, Anam &c.]

The objective use of the neuter m is common to Dravirian with Indo-European. It is also objective in Caucasian and Scythic.

Besides the dental and labial 3rd pronoun, Dravirian has a vocalic one i, ye, yi, found also in Kol. The more common Kol 3rd pronoun ni is also demonstrative and it is found with both functions and as a generic definitive element in many other formations, Scythic, Africo-Semitic, Malagasy, Asonesian. As a demonstrative it is Scythic, Tibeto-Ultraindian,

The vowels are used as definitives in Dravirian, chiefly prefix. ed to other particles. All the 3rd pronouns above referred to take them (a-va, a-van, a-du, a-ye, a-i, i-ni &c. &c). In some Dravirian demonstratives and locatives i has a proximate and a a remote force. Similar applications of the vowels are found in Scythic, Indo-European, Semitico-African, Malagasy, Asonesian &c.

The affinities of the Dravirian possessive and directive system are too numerous and complicated to be referred to the influence of any other existing formation. They support its claim to an independent place amongst the most archaic of the harmonic formations. The general character both in roots and structure is Scythic but with a leaning in some points to Semitico-Libyan and Caucasian-which again are Scythic in many fundamental traits. The Tibeto-Ultraindian affinities in roots are in general coincident with the Scythic or with Chinese.

The indeterminate and variable functions of several of the definitives have been adverted to in connection with the pronouns. A similar confusion takes place in all agglutinative languages in proportion to the number of well separated dialects that exist or to the force of those causes that evolve dialectic changes in each

• Traces of a similar archaie application of these postfixes are found in Caucasian.