ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

foreign system in which sa was the root and m a postfix. If it be a distinct definitive it is probably the labial possessive and qualitive postfix, still preserved in some Scythic languages, as in Bhotian and which was the distinctive postfix of one of the most archaic Mid and North Asian numeral systems. Remnants of the numerals of this system are found in several branches of Scythic and in the allied Caucasian systems. One of the Yeniseian dialects (Imbask) retains it throughout in the forms -em, -am, -m, -be. In the Scythic remnants it has generally a slender form (as in the Imbaski -em, -be), -me, -im. The pure sibilant, dental &c, occur as 3 in Korean sai (in 30 shi as in Thochu) Kamschatkan tzo, cho, Yeniseian to, tong. The Scythic terms have generally the double form of the unit as in the Scythic, Chinese and Tibetan 1; e. g. chudem, kujim, korom. In 7 the unit root occurs in the forms sisem, sim. In Koriak which has a nasal prefix and a guttural postfix the sibilant undergoes the common change to r and y,-ng-sho-kaw, nga-so-g, ne-ro-ka, ni-yo-ch, gi-u-ch. Aino has also r but with the archaic labial postfix ra-ph, re-ph, re-zb. Caucasian preserves a form still closer to the Chinese than the double ones of Ugrian. It has sami, semi, sumi. The postfix has here also the Scythic slender form, and one of the Tibetan dialects Manyak, which preserves the labial postfix throughout like Imbaski, has the same vowel,-bi. This is the more remarkable from Bhotian having the form -po, -bo, as its qualitive postfix. Chinese again has hu, di, ti &c postposed. Manyak itself has i, e poss. as in Burman and Bhotian (from ki, kyi &c) and de-, da- &c qualitive. It seems clear therefore that the numeral postfix -bi belongs to an archaic Scythic connection. Samoiede has a form similar to the Chinese in 5, sam, sum, sobo, saba &c.

4. CHIN. si, se, sz, ti (Gyami si); TIB. bzhi, zhyi, zhi, in 40 hi, in 8 br Bhot.; kadi, in 40 pli, in 8 or, Gyar.; gzhare, in 40 ghyi, in 8 khrare, Thochu; rebi, in 40 zyi, in 8 zi, Manyak; hla, in 40 le, in 8 rhi-éé, Horpa; the variations are thus si, zi, zyi, zhi, zhyi; se; sz; hi, hyi; ti, di; rhi, li, le, re; zha, ra, hla, or, r. This is the same sibilant definitive, (variable to the dental, liquid and aspirate) that is found in lower numbers. In the basis of most homogenous systems 4 is merely a variation of 2 or of the original full compound 2, 2. If si be 2 dual, as is proba

ble, it is referable to an obsolete sibilant form of li, ri, 2, or to a fuller form of 2 similar to the Samoiede &c, sil &c. The Tibetan liquid li &c occurring in all the dialects, preserves the form now obsolete in the Chinese 4 although preserved in 2, one of many illustrations of the great antiquity of the first diffusion of the Chino-Tibetan numerals. Yeniseian has the same 4, siem, siam, ziang, shega, shaga. Tungusian has it in the dental form digin, degen, dugun. Koriak has s and forms, n-sha-kaw, ng-ra-ka &c. Samojede has the double dental form teti &c which is but a variation of its siti, side, siri &c 2. Mongolian and Turkish have the same double def. in broader forms dur, der, dor, tir, dor-t tir-t &c.

The Thochu broad forms, zha, ra, may be from the current Chinese like the Bhotian, and probably also the Gyarung. But the initial def. distinct from the Bhotian b- g- and the forms of some of the other Thochu numerals are in favour of its being older. The Horpa hla is a similar broad form.

5. CHIN. ngu, ngo, go, wu, u, ng (Gyami wu); TIB. kungngo Gyar., nha, nga Bhot. nga Many.; gwe Hor., ware Thochu. The Gyarung preserves the Chinese vowel. Bhotian, Manyak and Horpa have a. In like manner where Bhotian has the Chinese o of the 1st pronoun, Gyarung, Horpa and Manyak have a. The Horpa and Thochu forms are probably local varieties but they may have an independent connection with Chinese through western varieties similar to the wu, u, of Kwan-hwa and go of Hok-kien. The Thochu wa may be merely a variation of gwe or of wu. It is possible that in it and even in wu we have a remnant of an archaic labial 5 (Sec 8). In the earlier numeral systems 5 was generally 1. In those binary systems which went beyond 4, it was 4, 1, that is 2, 2, 1. In the quinary or hand system 5 was 1 hand or full tale. The Chinese ngu is a distinct form from the def. used as 1 and from the varieties occurring in 2, 3 and 4 with the exception of no, 2. It probably belonged primarily to a system which used a similar form as 1, as is still the case in Koriak. Yukahiri has the nasal def. in 5.

6. CHIN. lyeu, luh, lo', luk, loh, la' (Gyami leu); TIB., druk, duk, tuk, the, Bhot., kutok Gyar.; trubi Many., kha-tare Thochu; chho Hor.

The full form of the Chinese is preserved in the Kwang-tung luk.

The Bhotian and Gyarung forms are evidently from a similar form. The Manyak tru is from the Bhotian druk. The Thochu ta and Horpa chho are probably variations of similar vocalic forms, to, &c.

This numeral like 5 preserves no distinct affinity with the lower numbers. In purely quinary systems 6 is a variety of the unit as 5 itself is. But in some of the Scythic systems the scale is ternary, 6 being 3 (for 3, 3), and 7 being 1 (for 6, 1). As the only term similar to the Chinese in the connected systems is the Kamschatkan roch, roka of ng-ro-ch, ng-ro-ka, 3, it was probably derived from a cognate N. E. Asian system. The Chinese luk is identical with this term, while it cannot be referred to the current terms for 3 or 1, nor to any def. current in the pronominal system. 7. CHIN. ts'hih, chhi, ch'hit, tsat, thet, ch'het, t'sih, sit (Gyami chhi) TIB.? skwibi Manyak, stare Thochu.

With this numeral the current Chinese system departs entirely from the proper Tibetan. The latter has a quinary term for 7, that is 7 is the numeral 2 (from 5, 2). The Chinese 7 is not a variety of 2 but of 1 (comp. the full forms chit 1, ch'hit, sit 7). It adheres therefore to the ternary scale and this confirms the conclusion that 6 was 3, 3. Japanese, Yukahiri and in N. America Athapas, can have a similar ternary 7, and in some of the Scythic systems the same double definitive is used as the unit in 7—Ugriau seitse-man, sis-im, si-m, sata &c. Turkish site, seti, siche, chedy &c.

TIBETAN. ku-sh-nes Gyar. (nes 2), z-ne Horpa.. This term is quinary, 2 for 5, 2. The etymology of the prefixed sh and z must remain for the present uncertain.

In the other Tibetan terms there is much irregularity. I have placed the Manyak and the Thochu with the Chinese, but the connection is doubtful, especially in the case of Manyak. In both the initial sibilant (s-ta-re s-kwi-bi), may have the same origin as that of Gyarung and Horpa, sh-, z-. This would confirm the Chinese affinity of the Thochu root, for ta is an archaic Tibetan form of the Chinese 1 (tabi Manyak). The guttural in the Manyak s-kwi may be from the initial guttural in some Tibeto-Ultraindian forms of 2 (gnyis Bhot., khi Karen).

The Bhotian 7, bdun, dun, appears to be a Mongolian engraft

ment (Sokpa tolo, Mong. dolon, &c). It is probable that it is later than the other Tibetan terms, and displaced a quinary one, for it is only found to the south in the Bhotian dialects of Lhopa, Serpa and Changlo, while the other Himalayan systems connected with the Bhotian have quinary terms similar to the Gyarung.

8. CHIN.-pat, pah, pe, boi, poi (Gyami pa). This root has no connection with any of the lower numerals. It cannot therefore be explained as a native binary (4, 4) or quinary (5, 3) term. Besides quinary terms, several of the Mid and North Asiatic system have terms formed subtractively from 10. In these the root for 2 is frequently alone preserved. Pat however has no connection with the Chinese 2. A similar root is 100, pe', be', pa' and the Bhotian 100 appears to be also related to the root for 8. Such a connection would most naturally happen through a labial root for 10, since 100 is very generally expressed like 10 by the unit. In the other systems of Mid and North Asia the labial is a definitive and unit, and it appears at some archaic period to have been a very important root in expressing higher numbers also, as it still is in some of the older systems of the S. E. provinces of the Old World,-Kol, Australian, African. In the Scythic and N. E. Asian system as in Chinese the t, s, r, k, &c. def. is now the chief numeral root, but most of them preserve remnants of labial numerals. Chinese has the labial as a def. (3rd pron. and demons.) under the form pi. In the Scythic and N.E. Asian systems it has still a considerable currency as 1, 5, 10 and 1000. For 1, Ugrian has vaike, va &c, Tungusian emu &c, Turkish bir, [bis, bit] per, Japan fito; for 5, Ugrian has vate, vis &c, Turkish bish, besh &c, Iroquois wish, wis &c; for 10, Samoiede has bet, bi, wi, bu, bun, Tungusian men; Turkish wona. In the Ugrian languages it has been superseded by the dental &c as 10, but it is preserved as an archaic 10 in 8 (2, 10) and 9 (1, 10) in the form mis. Aino has wam-bi &c 10. From the occurrence of the labial in the Chinese 100 and 10,000 (wan, ban), its presence in 8 is best explained as an archaic and obsolete unit applied to 10, and 100. The full term was probably similar to the Ugrian 8, kika-mis (2, 10), the Dravirian 9 om-bad (1, 10), and the analogous N. E. Asian and African terms. The Dravirian patta, bad &c 10, vodda 1 preserves a broad form of the labial unit similar to the Chinese

pat 8, and the Ugrian vate 5, vaike 1. The common Scythic form is the slender vit, vis, mis, bis, bir &c. [See the remarks on the labial definitive and numeral in the Draviro-Australian, Semitico-African and Scythic systems]

In some of the Tibeto-Ultraindian dialects a labial 10 and 5 are preserved. Undoubted instances of it are the 10 of Kasia shipon (shi 1, Chinese), Limbu thi-bong, Murmi chi-wai, Naga pan, ban, the Chinese form. In the higher numbers of Kasia and Limbu it is 10 (App. A p. 6), and Kumi also has it in the higher numbers apong. The Limbu and Kiranti 9 phangsh, phangya are probably remnants of 1, 10, as the Chinese 8 is of 2, 10 the numerals for 1 and 2 having been dropped. The labial occurs in 5 in several languages but in some at least it appears to be prefixual as in 4. In the Chepang pu-ma-zho, Shindu me pa the root is clearly ma, pa and it favours the opinion that the Thochu wa is also an archaic labial root. The Bodo pa may perhaps be placed with them, and not with the doubtful bonga Garo, phong Mikir, manga Singpho, banga, pungu, phanga &c Naga, pan Kumi, banga Magar, in some of which at least the root is the Chino-Tibetan nga (comp. Naga pha-li 4, pha-nga 5). The Murmi chi-wai 10 (i. e. 1, 10) is a compound similar to the Kasia and Limbu 10, but the labial has the form found in the Kambojan ma-pai 20 (i. e. 2, 10), Kumi wai-re 100, Sunwar s-wai-la 100. The form resembles the Kasia variety of the Kol-Ultraindian 1, wei. The 5 of that system being mon, mona, mun, mo in Kol although not in the allied Ultraindian systems, it must be considered doubtful whether the Ultraindo-Gangetic labial 10, 5 &c, are referable to that system or to archaic Chino-Tibetan or Chino-Ultraindian labial numerals. Ultimately the Dravirian, the Scythic and the Chinese labial numerals are connected through an archaic Mid or N. S. Asian system.

TIB. br-gyud, gye Bhot., or-yet Gyar., rh-iéé Hor., khrare Thochu; zibi Manyak. In the Appendix the presence of 2 in most of the Tibeto-Ultraindian terms for 8 is indicated and they are considered as binary. The Bhotian term is left unexplained. From the Gyarung or-yet, Takpa gyet, it appears that the root is yet, corresponding with ye of the Bhotian gye. In br-g-yud the root must also be yud. This analysis is confirmed by the Himala

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »