페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

Kol and Dravirian proper are more agglutinative, elliptic, and flexional, and their forms and particles are more confused and in dialects have wandered more from each other and from the original system. While Kol retains some forms that have disappeared in Dravirian proper, the pronouns have lost the primary agentive or separate forms which both the other branches preserve. In most respects the system is that of an impoverished dialect of Dravirian proper formed at an early stage of the latter, and since modified by separation, and by the influence of Ultraindian formations. The breaking up of the original system is so considerable that it was probably produced by the contact of the northern Dravirians with a race having a different pronominal ideology. It is a dialect that could not have arisen so long as the native Dravirian idiom remained strong and pure, and is of the kind that grows up when a race becomes closely connected and intermingled with a foreign one. The range of the Kol terms to the eastward renders it probable that this modified system was not formed until the earlier Ultraindian tribes occupied the lower basin of the Ganges, blended with the Dravirian aborigines and produced a mixed lower Gangetic race and language. The Kol system must have arisen in one community which ultimately became predominant in Bengal, spread over a portion of the proper Dravirian highlands on the right bank of the Ganges and carried its pronous with its numerals over Ultraindia.

Each of the purer North Dravirian languages—Male, Uraon and Gond—has also had its pronominal, its definitive or its numeral system slightly disturbed by the North Gangetic branch of the Tibeto-Ultraindian family or by the previously modified Lower Gangetic or Kol system. Thus some of the Kol numerals are found in Gond dialects. Gond has received a Tibeto-Gangetic possessive particle into its pronominal system, and like Kol it uses the plural labial in the singular of its 2nd pronoun, while the general irregularities of its pronominal system speak to the shock it has received from the presence of foreign systems or of a foreign element in the languages of adjacent and partially intermixed tribes. Uraon and Male have adopted a Tibeto-Gangetic possessive.

The annexed Tables show the glossarial affinities of the Dravirian pronominal roots, and of the possessive and plural particles. The other directives are so much interchanged and confused with possessives in Dravirian as in other formations that I do not give tables of them.

[table]
[ocr errors][ocr errors]
[table]

III. Tibetc-ultraindian.

uga Tibetan, Horpa, Gyarung, Naga (Namsang.),

Kasia, Burman, Murmi, Gurung, Magar,

Serpa.
riga-yo Gyarung (double form, yo is Chinese,)
na Tibetan

rigya „

rigat Burman (pots.), Singpho,Tengsa, Naga (post.

or pi. forms, Tengsa has a in pi., the Sing

pho pi. has i; a mixed system; the 2nd pron.

in Singpho has both nang and ni in sing., ni

in pi.) nyi Naugaung Naga (pi. annok, mixed system)

ni Khari Naga, (pi. akan, mixed system)

aiig Bodo, Garo, Naga (postf.), Kiranti (poss. ang

ho)
an Deoiia Chutia

mig-a Garo .

anka Kiranti (a modification of ariga or two roots

combined, see ka infra)
a Manyak, Naga (Angami), Mikir (pi.)

llge

nye

ne

net

eneshe

eneatung i

ni ani ainko

m-na

ligi

ning

ni-ma

n\-khala

yo

i

ngo ong ka

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
« 이전계속 »