« 이전계속 »
and the Manyak are evidently contractions and variations of the Gyarung. The great prevalence of the latter in Ultraindo-Gangetie vocabularies shows that they were spread to the southward as the regular Si-fan forms, before the exceptional Manyak and Bhotian were produced, or at least before they began to be disseminated abroad. The Gyarung plural particle appears to be also .Chinese and not Scythic like that of most of the Tibeto-Ultraindian dialects. The 3rd pron. wa is a variety of the Chinese labial 3rd pron., pi Kwan-hwa, still current in Hok-kien as a demonstrative, wa, that. The Chinese slender current form is found in Takpa pe, be, Dophla bi, Naga mi, me. This 3rd pron. is Scythie as well as Chinese. Scythic bi, wi, pu, bu, &c (Abor bu). It is also Draviro-Australian.
The Manyak pronouns, 1st a, 2d no, are varieties of the Gyarung and the same varieties are found in the TJltraindo-Ganeetic languages (Abor, Naga). The 3d pron. is not Bhotian but Chinese and the same variety of Chinese is found in Gurun<* and with slight modifications in Murmi and Naga. The plural postfix is archaic Tatar and it occurs slightly varied in Bodo. The poss. is Scythic (Mongol, Manchu) and Burman.
The Takpa 1st pron. is a rare form in its vowel but with Bhotian and Ultraindo-Gangetic affinities. The 2d is current Chinese in its vowel like Horpa. The Sd is also current Chinese. The possessive particle is current Chinese, and the same form is found in Ultraindo-Gangetic dialects. Takpa has thus distinct and direct Chinese affinities, and the existence of current Chinese vocables and particles in a dialect placed like it explains their occurrence in Burma-Gangetic vocabularies in those instances where they cannot be referred to Bhotian nor to the direct modern action of Chinese on the Ultraindian languages. The nonBhotian Chinese affinities of the Si-fan vocabularies are less striking and instructive with reference to the southern dissemination of Chinese forms, because they are actually conterminous with Chinese. It must be inferred that Takpa occupied the eastern portion of the Tsang-po basin, prior to the spread of the Bhotians in that direction, and that it was deeply acted on by Chinese. The forms do not appear to be entirely referable to the primary connection between Chinese and Tibetan, nor even to the earlier periods of the mutual influence of the two families after their separation, and occupation of distinct provinces.
The Tibetan system of pronouns and other definitives is ChinoScythic, and in its basis very archaic and, as a whole, not referable exclusively to any of the existing Chinese or Scythic languages as its parent. The roots are in general Chinese and Chino-Scythic and such as probably all existed in ancient Chinese dialects. Their forms are of an intermediate kind, the root sometimes appearing bare where in Scythic it would have a postfixed definitive, but in general the system presents compounds similar to those of the cruder and less agglutinative Scythic languages. "While some of the forms of the particles are similar to the most prevalent Chinese and Scythic, others are more archaic, resembling remote Ugrian and N. E. Asian varieties. The pronominal roots are current Chinese, with the exception of the Bhotian 2d pronoun which is a broad form, similar to the 3d and to the broad forms of the allied Scythic 2d and 3d. The Sokpa chha has not the current slender and sibilant Mongolian, Tatar or Ugrian form, but one more akin to the Yakuti and Samoiede, and closely connected through the corresponding forms of the 3d pronoun with the Chinese broad form of the 3d pronoun tha. It is probable that similar archaic Chinese forms were also common in the archaic 8cythic dialects and that they have been retained in some of the Tibetan ones. If Sokpa be an intrusive Mongolian dialect in a comparatively recent age it may have acquired rather than bestowed its broad 2d and 3d pronouns when it came in contact with the Tibetan languages. The 3d has the Gyami and Thochu broad form of the Chinese dental root, tha, the current Mongolian roots in other dialects being ede, ene. (Comp. the Quang-tung deng "that", Bhot. de, re). But one of them has egun and the BhotoHimalayan kho, khun* &c is the same form. If the Bhoto-Himalayan vocabularies had been much influenced by the Sokpa or other Mongolian it might have been inferred that these pronominal affinities were the result of the advance of the Mongolians into the Tibetan province. But as the general glossaries of the Bhoto-Himalayan tongues have few distinctively Mongolian affinities it may be concluded that the pronouns and definitives are archaic in Bhoto-Himalayan as in Scythic. The Bhotian system helps to connect the Cliino-Tibetan with the Scythic. The ChinoTibetan is non-Scythic in its 1st and 2d pronouns but Scythic in its 3d. Scythic again may be considered as Chinese in its 2d as well as 3d, for the 2d is radically the same definitive as the 3d. In Bhotian the 1st pron. is current Chinese, while the 2d and 3d are Chinese and Scythic. It cannot be concluded that the more prevalent of the existing forms are the most modern. With the exception of those referable (o the later emasculated phonology, all the current varieties and others also may have characterised different dialects and even become blended in the same dialect, in very remote periods.
Although the Chinese system differs from the Scythic in the common root of the 1st pron. it has also a labial root wu, wo, fu Kwan-hwa, wa, uo, u Tie-chu, which is connected with the Scythic through the N. E. Asian and American systems. Comp. wu, wan, wang, uonga Namollo and Eskimo; unguar, o-ang-kiah, be, veea, mii, vieh, mii Sioux; my, mu, bu Kamschatkan (the roots); Yukahiri ma-tak • Japan wa-taksf or wa-takusi, wa-ra, wa-^o ; Ost. matyot; Samoiede m&-t, bua-n, mo-di; Ugrian vn&-tyot, mo-n; Sokpa abu; and the slender Scythic and Indo-European mi, mi», bi, ben, men Ac. Indo-European in its retention both of the guttural and labial definitives in the 1st pron. adheres with Chinese to the primary habit more fully than the Scythic and N. E Asian
The Chinese 2nd pronoun like the 1st is connected with Scythic through the liquid element of the N. E. Asian and N. American. Samoiede pyd-yr, pud-ar Ac, Esk. il-wit, (pi. el-pech*»), Kodiak 1e-pyt, Namollo yei-pyk, the more Scythic N. American, as the Sioux ne, ni, de, di Ac; the Eams-chatkan roots tu, tche, se, s, r. Comp. the Japanese ana-fa sona-fa; Scythic ne (Ost.), se, si, sa, t e, ti, ta, ton, d, g, chi Ac; Indo-Europ. tu thu, su, si, s &c; mu-li, urh, Chinese ne, ni, nei, nae, ngi, lu, du, ju, jo, nyu. In all the systems tho connection between the 2d and 3d pronoun is more clearly maintained. In Scythic and Indo-European it is less obscured than in the modern Chinese being indeed as distinct as in Bhotian.
In tho various forms of the 3d pron. the relatives, interrogativea &c Chinese preserves examples of nearly all the Tibeto-Ultraindian terms, and of the allied Dravirian, Scythicand Indo-European. The result is that the Tibeto-TJltraindian roots present only some slight dialectic variations of the Chinese, and that as respect pronouns, definitives, and other particles the formation may be considered as a Chinese dialect, or rather as forming with Dravirian and Chinese dialects one mother tongue. Scytliic, N. E. Asian and Indo-European in respect to this class of roots, are also similar but more divergent dialects. Bhotian from the absence of the postfixed definitives found in the pronouns of some of tho other Tibeto-Ultraindian languages is less Scythic and more Chinese in form than these.
Sec. 4. NUMERALS.
The Tibetan, Himalayan and the aliied-UItraindian numerals are very remarkable in an ethnologic view. The earlier systems of numerals in S. E. Asia and its Islands were binary and ternary and these are still preserved in some portions of Asonesia. To these succeeded quinary and denary, radically based on binary and ternary systems. The two latest and most important are the Draviro-TJItraindian or Kol, still extant in a fragmentary state in various languages from the Vindyas to Tonkin, and the Malagaso-Polynesian. In the other Ultraindian and the connected Himalayan languages there are also traces of an ancient system of the same class, but the prevalent terms are of Chinese derivation. All this affords a striking illustration of the formations that have followed each other in this part of the world, and as improved systems of numerals and their wide extension are connected with the progress of particular nations is civilisation, it is reasonable to infer that the numerals of S. E. Asia and Asonesia indicate the advance into this region of a succession of races, each more civilised or at least more influential than the preceding ones.
Perhaps the most remarkable of all the curious phenomena of Asonesian and Indian ethnology is the absence of any evidence of the Chinese civilisation having, at an ancient period, exercised a powerful influence on the tribes of these two provinces. The reason must undoubtedly be sought in the fact of the Chinese nation having been originally a northern and inland one, entirely unconnected with the sea-board and insular tribes of the Indian Ocean and the China Sea. What is now southern China was probably included in the Indo-Pacific ethnic province. If the Turanian race had been its earliest occupants we should not find negroes in the Andaman?, Ultraindia, and the Philipines, and traces of them, linguistic or physical, in Formosa and Japan. Bur, putting the archaic negro element aside, it is evident that the non-Chinese Turanian tribes of Ynn-nan, the Gangetic basin, Ultraindia and Asonesia must have been ancient occupants of Ultraindia and the southern portions of China, at the period when the Chinese race first advanced into their territories. The difference in physical characters and in civilisation would alone establish this, 'when taken in connection with the manifest antiquity of the Chinese as a distinct and strongly marked nation. But it rests on still stronger linguistic evidence. The known non-Chinese tongues of Southern China, the Anam and Lau, are in the great bulk of their vocabularies, entirely distinct languages from any of the Chinese, and the difference between the Chinese vocabularies themselves is so great as to render it certain that when the proper Chinese nation was confined to the basin of the Yellow River, numerous other languages were spoken by the independent tribes to the southward. All the Turanian tribes of Eastern Asia, including the rudest Ultraindian and Asonesian, the Kamschatkans and the Chukchi, as well as the Chinese, have many ethnic traits in common, but these belong to formations or civilisations that preceded the Chinese. The Ultraindian and Chinese tribes have also a still more archaic and fundamental connection in their phonologies, ideologies and roots. But this connection reaches back to ages anterior not only to the pre-Chinese civilisations of Eastern Asia, but to the development of all the other linguistic formations that have been spread over the world, including the Indo-Pacific and the Semitico-African. From this fact and the peculiar physical geography of China, which has been instrumental in producing it we may safely infer that the Anam and Lau are only two of hundreds of distinct languages that were spoken by rude Turanian tribes between the Yellow River and the Ton-king, before the Chinese civilisation arose and began to spread itself beyond its original narrow district of Chin. And this brings us to the numerals. When Chir.a was only one of the small inland kin<>