페이지 이미지

participate (p. 66). In some of the other languages to which Mr Hodgson refers, it appears to me to be not a distinct reflexive particle representing the 1st pronoun, but merely a variety of the 1st pronoun itself, which is the same nasal root in Chinese, TibctoUltraindian and Draviro-Australian. In the Naga thien-ang, 4thien-o, thien-a, I put, thou puttest, Jieputs,ang is as evidently the 1st pronoun nga in a postfixed euphonic form, as o is the 2nd and a the 3rd. In Bodo ang is the separate form (see other examples ante, p.p. 37,38). It would therefore seem that in such Gyarung uses as hazang [=#« zo + ang] " I cat" (radically " the-eatingmy"), -anp; is identical with the Naga -ang, that is, the 1st pronoun itself. Gyarung may have lost the postfixed pronoun in the 2nd and 3rd persons. That it once possessed them and (hat they were emphatic repetitions of the proposed pronouns is rendered highly probable by the existing usage of the closely related Dhimal which retains them in the 1st and 2nd persons, but wants them in the 3rd. Bodo again wants them in all the persons while Namsangya Naga preserves them in all.* The usage in Gyarung must be of Scythic origin like the other Scythic traits which the Tibetan formation acquired from its contact with Scythic in its native province and retained in variable degrees in its Ultraindian dialects.

A few examples will serve to illustrate the Gyarung system of composition. From the crude root zo, eat, (or rather eating) are formed with the prefixed definitives ta-, da-, ha-, ya-, na- the substantive or participial to-zo, ha-zo &c. From ha-zo, by the postfixing of nga in its euphonic form is obtained kaz-wag, my eating, [primarily doubtless nga ha-zo nga, like the Dhimal ka hade khika and llio analogous Scythio forms]. With -ti or -si, which Mi Hodgson trrms "the participial attributive suffix" and which is evident])' the common definitive demonstrative &c, found in the same form as a prefix and occurring in chi-di"this," ha-dt"that"* (Bhotia Ttv. ha-dfy de, sp. di. phi-</»), the compound becomes definitive or substantival ha-z-ang-ti " the I eating," "I who eat," "I the eater." With the causative particle sa prefixed to zo it becomes sa-zo or definitively ta-sa-zo "feeding," ta-sa-z-ang-ti "I who feed;" and with the negative definitive ma-sa-z-ang-ti" I who fend not." Ta-sa-ze-si according to the context is " he (or thou) who fccde.?<," the pronoun not being postfixed. From the root ma or man, sleep (nan in Thoehu) are formed Ica-r-man " sleep," k-r-uiinig " I sleep," mn-r-ma-ng " I sleep not." The repetition of the definitive in the form ta forming the past or completive we obtain 7<a-ta-r-ma-ng or ta-ta-r-ma-vg " I slept," ma-ta.-r-ma.-ng "I slept not," ta-ta-r-ma-ng-ti " I who slept," ma-ta-r-ma-ng-ti, "I who slept not," ta-ta-r-me-ti, ma-ta-r-mc-tl "thou (or he) who slept" or " slept not." As an example of the comulative definitive prefix I may give da-na-r.i-sa-gyu-ng-ti " I who cause to run," i. e.-gyuk run, or running, sa-gyuk, »ia£e-rnnning, da-na-ra-sagyuk (triple def.) emphatic "the," " this," " am," rcaking-running, t\g-ti, " I-rvho" or " I-the."

* At the conclusion of chap, iv. I remarked with reference to the emphatic ami euphonic postfixing of the pronoun. "It. is not a trait that we should expect to find spontaneously shewing itself in many lanpniages, and it is more likely to have been derived by tlie Gangelieo-Ultraindian tongues from a highly harmonic group like tlie Dmvirian or Fino Japanese, than to have originated close to the monosyllabic boundaries in such a language as the Naga, and been thence transmitted to more remote and harmonic members of tlie postpositional alliance." I added that, if the trait were a native Indian one it probably arose in the Dravirian family mid was communicated by it to theGangetieo-Ultraindian. It may now be considered that ibis habit, with much of the harmonic and agglutinative tendency which I had attributed to Draviriuu influences, was imported by the Gaiyetico-Ultraindian family from its native location in Eastern Tibet, where it was adopted from Scythic.

The following additional example shews that in Gyarun"1 as in Bhotian the object precedes the assertive. Ngare nga-pe boroh dovo-ng, " I my-father horse give-I."

The pronoun when used objectively in the imperative has the same form as when used agentivcly in the indicative, davo-nc "I give" or " give me." (Hodgson GG).

Horpa has also the postfixed 1st pron. in the same objective form ta-khye " give" tu-kh-ong " givc-me." Thoehu prefixes the pronoun da-goh " give,'* kwu-goh " give me."

Save in those points in which the Scythio inversive collocation departs from the Chinese tbx-re are few traits in Gyarung or in Bhotian which may not he considered as fundamentally Chinese.

• See Sec. 3 for tbe various forms and use9 of this definitive. It varies from ti, tili, si, di, de to ri, re, ra &c. As the relative it lias the following forms shu, sliui, si siti, cki chui, <itiang&c, Chinese;thi-ndti Bhotia ; *toi-n Serpa; ka-di Lhopa; sa-n' I.epcha; a.-tl Liuibu; sa Kiranti; fe-kwe bunwar; su Gurung, Jfewar.

The habit of treating words as crudes, of placing a series of crudes together and indicating the common relation by a single postposed particle is Chinese as well as Scythic. Even the compounding of particles is but a remnant of the crude Chinese stage when the formatives and flexions did not exist, and when complex relations were indicated by several unconnected crudes or particles. Some of the ordinary Chinese definitives and prepositions are double, and repetition and cumulation are much used in the general structure of the language. The Tibetan languages generally may be described as sister dialects of the Chinese, in some traits standing between Chinese and the Mon-Anam family, but in their general structure Scythico-Chinese, the distinctive Scythic traits being probably secondary or acquired. If the pronouns and particles had been Scythic more than Chinese we might have recognised in Tibetan the genealogical link between the former and the latter. But as the reverse is the case, the glossarial basis of Scythic must be considered as representing that archaic dialect—allied to the Chine-Tibetan but distinct from it—in which the inversive structure was developed, and from which it was transmitted to the western or outlying branch of the Chino-Tibetan family.

1 Bhotian.

The 1st pronoun of Bhotian, nga, na is Chinese, ngo, ngai &c, and although not now a prevalent Turanian form its wide diffusion in archaic eras is proved by our finding it in the Draviro-Australian, Caucasian and Semitico-Libyan formations, and in N. E. Asian, and American formations. Other formations are also used. The honorific nged, is distinguished by the slender vowel and the dental postfix found also in the 2d pron. The form nge occurs in the Lhopa oblique forms nge-yt, in the adjacent Takpa as the regular form nge, also softened to nye, and in the oblique form of Singpho, nge-na. It is not probable that in the Tibeto-Ultraindian province the e form originated in Bhotian and in Tibet was confined to that dialect. It appears to have been an archaic Tibetan form current with nga and ngo. Ngo itself, the current Chinese form, is no longer found in Tibet, but its former existence there and its antiquity are attested by the Abor-Miri ngo, Lepcha and Sunwar go, Tiberkliad gco, Milchanang and Sumcbu gu, which cannot have been directly derived from the Chinese ngo, ngu, ngoi, gu fee. In like manner the prevalence of e and i forms in the eastern Takpa, in Mikir, in some of the Naga dialects, in Tunglhu, in some of the Nipal dialects and in Tiberkhad shows that they were widely diffused at an ancient period, and that they cannot be referred to the modern spread of Bhotian across the Himalayas. In a previous page, while adverting to the difficulty of distinguishing between the Dravirian and Tibetan forms in e, i, I observed that in Dravirian the slender forms had been produced by the incorporation of a. possessive i, e, with the pronoun, while the Tibeto-Ultraindian appeared to have incorporated a plural i, and were hence regularly or most commonly found in the plural only. The Takpa, Kinawari, Tibetan and Mikir e forms I attributed to a purely phonetic substitution of e for a. It is hardly possible to decide to what extent the variations may be simply phonetic as in the Chinese ngoi, ngai, ngei, but it certainly appeal's probable that in Tibetan the variation of nga to nge, ngi was originally an assimilative or incorporative plural form analogous to the Scythic. As Tibetan has also a ni, i, possessive postfix a similar variation may have been also possessive as in Scythic and Dravirian. The Kinawari Bhotian nga singular, net pi. suggests that ne was an archaic pi. form, and its honorific use in the Tibetan Bhotian nged might be explained in accordance with this, the use of "we" for "I" being the most prevalent honorific idiom in the 1st pronoun. The Serpa nga s. ni-rangpl., Gurung nga *., ngi-mo pi., Dhimal ka «., ky-el, pos., ki-ng pi., (2d pron. na *., ni pi.), Garo ang «., ning pi., Naga nga *., xn-ma pi. and some of the other forms given in the Table (chap. v. sec. 11) are strongly in favour of the archaic Tibeto-Ultraindian having possessed an incorporative or assimilative plural in t, e. The Lhopa nga nom, nge-yi peu (2d pron. chhu «, chhe-gi p.), shows how possessives might be formed in the same way by the euphonic assimilation of the radical vowel to that of the postfix.

Mr Robinson gives rang, dag, and kho as other forms of the 1st pron. Tho 1st is the reflexive affix (" self"), the 2d is the plural particle, and the 3rd is the 3rd pronoun used for the 1st.

The 2nd pron. kliyod wr., khe sp. is not the prevalent Chinese ni, na &c. like the Si-fan and common Ultraindo-Gangetic terms. It appears to be an archaic Chinese or Chino-Scylhic form, and a variety of the same Chino-Scythic definitive that is used in Bhotian as the 3rd pron. The Chinese ju, jo, may be a variety of the same archaic form. The Sokpa broad form of the Scythic 2d pronoun chha is identical with the Newari chha and the Kiranti kana preserves the same vowel.* The Bhotian khe has the common slender vowel of Scythic (i, e) and the same vowel is found in the N. £. Tibetan dialect of Thochu kwe, in Limbu khene and in Gurung ken which preserve the Scythic pronominal postfix (comp. Yakuti -ghen, -gen, -ken and the current Scythic sen, tin, sina &c.) The Thochu has also a form in a, kwa, corresponding with the Sokpa, Newar and Kiranti. In the Bhotian khyod the root is khyo or klio. T being a common Bhotian augment Kinawari has keot, kherung in which the root is keo, khe. Serpa has khyo, khye. The -d, -t, of Bhotian and Kinawari is a postfix not found in the 2d pron. of other languages of the alliance, and only occurring in the 1st pron. in the exceptional Bhotian honorific nyed, Ladak and Kinawari Bhotian pi. net, in both of which it may be a form of the plural dental and sibilant postfix (comp. en-eshe Tiberkhad). In khyod it may be merely a Tibetan augment or postfixed definitive, corresponding with the -«, -t, -d, -h found in some of the Tibeto-Ultraindian varieties of the Chinese numerals. If not a mere phonetic augment, it would appear to be a Scythic trait and to correspond with the nasal postfix of the Scythic pronominal system which occurs in Limbu klic-we, Kiranti kha-««, and Gurung ke-n. A similar postfix was probably current in the Tibetan dialect from which this form of the 2d pron. was derived. The Bhotian d, t may be merely a variation of n. In one of the Samoiede dialects a similar replacement of the Scythic -» by -d takes place, to-rft (comp. the Ugrian to-n &c).f

• In a later, page the connection of the Sokpa pronoun with the Scythic on the one side and the ribeto-Hiinalayan on the other is examined.

t The current Chino-Tibetan numeral 2 is the same liquid def. that forms the 2nd pron., li, ni, urh &c. But in the Tibetan 8 (4, 3) a form of 2 occurs which has a considerable resemblance to the Tibetan 2nd pron. gyud, gyet, gye, in Lepcba keu. It may however be merely the current 2 nyis, Lepcha nyet, Burman nhit with the g- "pref. and n elided. If gyu, gye, keu be a Chinese def. it Is similar to tbe unit preserved in 0 kiu, kyeu Sec. The existence of an archaic Chinese dialect in which the same def. slightly varied or doubled entered into 2 as well as 1, would be in accordance with Scythic and N. E. Asian anology.

« 이전계속 »