acquisition as in the Turkish b-iz-ler "we," s-iz-ler "you". The Dravirian -kǎl, gal, -ngal, -kulu, Dhimal-galai; Naga -khala, kara combine two of the roots. L,r without the k is Dravirian as well as Scythic, and common in Ultraindo-Gangetic languages e. g. Takpa -ra, Abor -lu, Dhimal -al, -el, Mikir -li, Garo, Miri, Serpa -rang, Bengali -era. These forms and those in n are varia

tions of the same root.

There are two possessives -chi and -k. Chi is Chinese -ti, Serpa -ti, Tengsa Naga -chi, Dravirian -di, -ti &c. The possessive k,which may be radically the same as that in ch, t—is Chinese ko, ku, keu &c, Bhotian -kye, -gi, hi, &c, Takpa -ku. It is very common in the Ultraindo-Gangetic vocabularies ko, ku, ke, ki, ka &c. Ex. of the Thochu possessives, ka-k-chi "mine," kwe -k-chi "thine" tha-k-chi, kwana-k-chi "his," chi-ku-k "ours," kwa-niku-k "yours," tha-ku-k" theirs."

4. Gyarung.

The Gyarung pronouns are

1st nga, nga-yo. Horpa, Bhotian, Namsang Naga Kasia, Burman; Murmi, Gurung, Magar, Serpa. The Chinese form is ngo found in Abor-Miri and with the consonant gutturalised in Lepcha, Sunwar and Milchanang (go, gu).

2d, nan-re, na‡. This pronoun like the Manyak no, differs from the Bhotian and Thochu. It is a variety of the Chinese ni (also Horpa) found in the Shanghai dialect na, nong and in the ancient Kwan-hwa nai, nei. It is also Ugrian in different Chinese forms, (nan, nei, num, nyn), and in the slender Chinese and Ugrian forms ni, ni-n it is Dravirian and Australian. The varieties na and nu are also found in Draviro-Australian. The Gyarung forms nan, na are the common Ultraindo-Gangetic ones, nan, (more frequently nang), ngar, nga, na. From the great and wide prevalence of the forms in a, an, they appear to have preceded the dissemination of the Manyak variety no.

This merely mechanical heaping of particles is a Scythic habit and not merely Tatar and Tibetan. Thus in the Hungarian m-i-e-n-k "our" the pronominal root occurs twice, m and n, and each time with a different plural postfix, -i, -k, the two being connected by the possessive particle, e.

Ni is given in the Voc. as the poss. prefixual form, but this appears to be a misprint as Mr Hodgson elsewhere (p. 33) speaks of na as the poss.

The 3d pronoun is wa-tu sep., wa pref.* Wa is the labial def. 3d pron. &c, of Bhotian, Scythic and N. E. Asian and of Draviro-Australian (also Caucasian, Semitico-African &c.) The Gyarung form and varieties of it are common in the UltraindoGangetic vocabularies (wa Dhimal, Garo &c). The UltraindoGangetic forms in u (bu &c) are probably from the Tibetan mo, vo &c. The postfix tu is the universal dental def. Varieties of it occur also in thu "anything," Gyar. and su "anybody" "which", "who" Gyarung, Tib., Thochu, Horpa, Takpa, Manyak; Takpa and Horpa have also slender forms achin, si. It is common in various forms in the Ultraindo-Gangetic languages. In the plural ya-pos the root is not a variation of wa but of the Horpaja; jya.

The plural particle appears to be -pos, nga-pos "we," we," ya-pos "they," is probably a variety of the labial Chino-Ultraindian mun, me &c., Gurung -mo. The Magar -hos is probably a modification

of -pos..

The possessives are simply the roots nga-, na-, wa-, prefixed. A further pronominal element yo occurs, but from the transposition of some of the words in the printed Voc. its real power is somewhat uncertain. The forms given are nga-yo" I," yo" we", nyo "you." It might be thought from the last two that yo was a plural particle, and from the first two that it was a root for the 1st pron. corresponding with the Chinese yu. It occurs in the Horpa su-yo, (Manyak su-ye) " anybody" (Gyar. su, Takpa si-rang, Thochu song-wan.) If these forms stood alone the -yo of nga-yo might be considered as a singular or common definitive used to emphasise the pronoun. But in Lepcha it is a plural postf. (-yu). The spoken Bhotian plural postfix of the pronouns -njo appears to be the same particle and it is also found in the Manyak dual -ju. Lastly, in Bodo which has special glossarial affinities with Gyarung and Manyak, it occurs in the nasalised form jong as the plural pronoun, corresponding with the Gyarung yo and Manyak a-ju. If we have correctly traced the etymology of the Manyak ju and dur, all these plural forms are variations of the archaic Tatar numeral 2.

The Voc. gives nga-pos, wa-tu, but the former is obviously the plural of nga "I" transposed.

5. Manyak.

The Manyak pronouns are :—

1st, a; a contraction of the Tibeto-Ultraindian nga, ang, ak &c found also in Naga (Angami and Mozome Angami) and (in the pl.) in Mikir.

2d, no; a variation of the more prevalent Sifan-Ultraindian na (Chinese) such as occurs in Chinese (nong) and Dravirian dialects (nu, un). The same variety is found in Abor, Deoria Chutia, and Naga (Angami and M. Angami). The 3d pron. thi is Chinese (Gyami has the broad form of Chinese, tha). The same variety is possessed by Gurung, and a slight modification of it by Murmi the; Naga ate.

The plural postfixes -dur (whence Bodo -chur). The root is the same as in the Mongolian -od &c (Chinese tu Burman to, do, euphonic) with final -r as in the Mongol, Turkish and Thochu na-r la-r, k-la-r. But it is directly referable to an archaic Scythic form of the numeral 2, current in Tungusian, djur, dsur, juo and Caucasian zur (Lazian), and preserved also in 4, that is 2 dual, in Turkish dor-t, tuor-t, Mongolian dur-ban (Sokpa tir-ba), and IndoEuropean ka-tvar-as, ke-tur-i, pe-dwar &c. In the current Mongolian 2 it exists under the form yur, yor (ko-yor, in Sokpa hoyur). Manyak has also a dual form of the 1st pronoun, a-ju. The postfix ju is evidently a variation of the same numeral as in the Manchu juo. The use of the Tatar numeral root 2 as a dual and plural postfix cannot be referred to any recent era of that formation. It points at an archaic connection between it and the Tibetan. The use of a dual form distinct from the plural is itself a piece of concurrent evidence, for the dual is wanting in the Tatar languages in their present form although preserved in some languages of the Ugro-Fin branch of Scythic (Lap, Kamass, Ostiak, Samoiede, ante p. 22). The origin of some of the most widely prevalent plural particles in the numeral 2 has been noticed in other portions of this enquiry.

The possessive is -i or -e which is Scythic -i, -e, (Mongolian and Manchu -i) Tibetan -i &c, Burman -i, Dravirian -i, -e.

6. Takpa.

It is not quite clear whether this dialect is spoken in any portion of the northern side of the Himalayas. The Towung raj is on

the upper habitable portion of the southern to the east of Bhutan. But as it has Bhotian dialects on at least two sides, and is politically and ethnically connected with Tibet and not with Asam, I will give its pronouns and particles here. In its general character it is more Sifan than Bhotian, but it has many purely Bhotian vocables and even some Bhotian particles, the presence of which is explained by the long predominance of the Bhotians in this portion of Tibet, their extension to the southward over Bhutan, their conquest of the Takpa province, and the retention of it by the Tibetan Bhot after their relinquishment of Bhutan.

&c.

1st pron. nge, nye. See the remarks on the e forms of Bhotian

2nd ni, Chinese like Horpa.

3rd pe, be, a current Chinese form, the Gyarung wa being a variation of the same root. The plural postf. -ra is an element in the Horpa -ri-gi. The poss. -ku is one of the Chinese forms.

7. Sok-pa

I notice this vocabulary because it is the only Scythic one with which any of the known Tibetan dialects are now in contact. It is important also as the modern and existing illustration of one of the great standing facts of the ethnology of Upper Asia, the mutual influence of Scythic and Tibeto-Chinese, and it acquires a still greater interest when it is found that the partially Scythic structure, phonology and glossary of the Tibetan dialects cannot be ascribed to it and consequently indicate an archaic connection with a different branch of Scythic.

The Sok-pa vocabulary is Mongolian. The 1st pron. mi, bi, abu, is the common Scythic labial and none of the Tibeto-Ultraindian roots are related to it. The 2nd pron. chha, appears to be connected with the guttural of Thochu, Bhotian and the Nipal dialects. Newar has the same form chha, while Lhopa has chhu. As the Sokpa poss. has the form chhi-ni it is probable that it is a variation of the Scythic si (comp. Buriate s'i, c'i &c in poss. s'in, s'ini &c.) In Samoiede the prevalent vowel, i, becomes a, o, (tan, todi &c) and some of the Ugrian dialects have a or o in the pl. The variation of s and t to k takes place in Scythic languages in the 2nd pron. as in other vocables. It is found in some of the Ugrian, Samoiede and Yakuti forms.

The plur. -ni is Horpa, Scythic &c (ante p. 47.)

The Sok-pa 3rd pron. tha' is Chinese, Gyami, and Thochu. A def. postfixed to some substantives in the forms -kwe, -kle, -gwe, ⚫ge is identical with the Thochu 2nd and 3rd pronouns kwe, kwa, and with the Bhoto-Himalayan 2nd pronoun khe, ke, ka.

The miscellaneous Sokpa vocabulary abounds in Mongolian words. It has received a few Tibeto-Ultraindian, and communicated some to Bhoto-Himalayan, but the latter are so few as to show that the two races have not been long and intimately connected. A few Sokpa words appear to have been carried across the Himalayas, e. g. the Sunwar khweli "foot," Sokpa khoil; ne "name," Sokpa nér. The Bhotian 7 is Mongolian.

8. The mutual connection of the Tibetan pronominal systems, and their relation to the Chinese and Scythic.

The Bhotian 1st pron. is Chinese, the vowel however being not the current Chinese o, but a which was probably archaic Chinese also, as it is N. E. Asian and Draviro-Australian. The 2nd and 3rd deviate much more widely from the current Chinese forms, and appear to be archaic Chinese and Scythic. They are both applications of the same primary definitive.

The Horpa 1st pron. is the same as the Bhotian. The 2nd is a current Chinese variety and evidently not connected with the Bhotian. The 3rd is peculiar and Scythic or Chino-Scythic.

The Thochu pronouns, the most northerly of the East Tibetan, are much less closely connected than the Gyarung with the prevalent Ultraindo-Gangetic. They are akin to the less diffusive Bhotian, and like the Bhotian depart considerably from the forms common, with little variation, to Chinese, Si-fan, Ultraindo-Gangetic and Draviro-Australian. The plural and possessive particles are Chinese and Scythic and some of them appear to be of comparatively recent Tatar introduction.

The Gyarung pronouns are varieties of the Chinese, the 1st being the same as the Horpa and Bhotian, but the 2nd being distinct from the Bhotian and identical with Shanghai forms as the Horpa is with the Kwan-hwa. The Gyarung forms of the Chinese pronouns are entitled to be considered as constituting the normal or distinctive and predominant Si-fan and even Tibetan system, as the Thochu and Bhotian 2nd pron. is very abnormal,