« 이전계속 »
yan and Ultraindo-Gangetic forms g-ya, g-ye, yct-sh (Lirabn), yofi, sh-yit (Biirm.) ri-yat Mru. &c. In all these forms the constant root is evidently yet &c, and yet itself is a variation of 2 (comp. in Limbu nyet 2, yet 8, Burman nhit 2, sh-yit 8; Horpa nge 2, *rhiee 8; Thochu nga-ri 2, M-ra-e 8). In the Abor-Miri pn-nittfo, pi-nye the 2 retains its fnll nasal form nit, nye. In Appendices •A and C, I have considered this as 4 dual or 2d 4. From the analogy of the Chinese, Scythic and Dravirian terms it might be inferred that in all the Tibeto-UJtraindran words for 8 in which 2 is the root or an element, the primary form was 2,10. Prof. Muller has pointed out that the Mikir nir-kep, 8, and chir-kep, 9, are formed from Aitii, 2,-tchi 1, and kep 10. Bat the initial elements or, rh, or, re, ri in some of the preced ing forms and the pre, pra, pla, pi, pu &c of other Ultraindo-Gangetic languages are evidently the re Manyak, hla Horpa, p\\ Takpa (Azhi Bhot., di Gyar.) of 4.* Similar forms are common in the Ultraindo-Gangetic vocabularies (App. Four). The Bhotian br-gy\xi, Gyar. or-yet and all the cognate terms are thus 4, 2, (i. e. 4 the 2nd time).
The Manyak z\bi appears to preserve the root for 4 only, in its primary Bhotian and Chinese form zhi, si. But for the analogy of the other languages and the occurrence of zyi in 40, it might be explained as a native quinary term (5, 3), 3 being si&t while 2 is nabi.
The formation of 8 from 4 is found in Yukahiri, Japanese and
• If the Bhotian br stood alone it would he considered as a mere def. prefix, similar double prefixes being wed with some other words. It is noticeable that it is not the current Bhotian fezhi; but that the numeral was at one time current in Tibet as bri, frre &c is evident from the Takpa and Gurunspli, Bodo, ore, Garo bri, Murmi Mi, (in 8 pre) Magar iuli, Newarpi, Lepcha phali, Chepang pioi-zlio, Kiranti laya (re-ya in 8), Mikir phiii, Dophla «-pli, Singpho with, Naga beii, pih, phaYi, Kami ma\i, Kumi palu, Shindupuli,Sakpri, and the radical lila Horpa, re Manyak, le Sunwar, lisA Limbu, iika Kuki, Ihi Khyeng, WTunghlu, pi Wewar, phi Changlo, a-pi-Ao Miri. It is probable from this wide prevalence of the form in Si-ian-Ultraindian vocabularies that it was current for 4 and entered into the compound for 8 in the system of one of the more dominant and dispersive Si-fan tribes. It may have been communicated by it to Bhotian, but it is quite possible that both Ir.'hi and 2>ri forms were current as 4 in Bhotian dialects. The form oyud, gyet for 2 appears to be also a Bhotian dialectic variation. Bhotian is very prone to liquid augments, and in the current 2gnyis w. nyi o. the Chinesen of ni becomes ny. In the Manyak and Gyarung forms na, lies, the augment is absent. Gyet is evidently from a dialectic variation of miyis, contracted by the suppression of the nasal and the conversion of the final sibilant into a dental. The Lepcha full form nyet, probably an immediate derivative from the Bhotian dialect in question, and the Takpu gyet 8, and Gyarung or-yet 8, are also referable to it and not to the native forms of 2 (nai Takpa, fames Gyar.) The spoken Bhotian gye preserves the same form contracted. The written pyud is a secondary dialectic variation, the original vowel being i gayis, nyi as iu Chinese.
some of the Ugrian and Samoiede systems (e. g. Sam. sin-det, from side, 2, and tet, 4).
9. Chin, kyeu, kieti, kiu, kau (Gyam. cliyu); Tib. dgu, guli, gu Bhot.; kung-ga Gyar., gubi Many., go Hor., rgure Thochu.
The root is probably the unit in the guttural form found in the Mid and N. Asian systems as a variation of ch, t, s &c. It occurs in these systems in 9 by itself or with a root for 10 (i. e. 1,10 j or 1 with 10 elided). Ugrian has ok-mys (1,10), aktse (akt 1), &c, Japan ko-konoz, Koriak, Yukahiri, chona, chonai, (Kamsch. koni 1, Namollo kule 1). The first vowel of the Chinese is the same as that of chit 1, of the pronouns and demonstratives ki, ti, chi &c, and of the cognate Ugrian unit ik, it &c. But Chinese has also broad forms. The def. ku is used as a 3rd pron. in Kwan-hwa, and under the amplified form khui in Kwang-tung, in Shanghai it is "tliat", in Kwantung under the form koi, "this."
10. Chin, shi', shih, ship, sip, chap, tap, chap, zeh, (Gyami ish). Tib. sih Gyar., che-chi-6t Manyak (che, 1, a Chinese form, i. e. 1,10) Jehu, chub Bhot.
The shi, si, ta, cha, chi, che, of this term is the def. nsed for 1. The labial final may be a mere phonetic augment, but some of the Ultraindo-Gangetic forms are suggestive of its being a remnant of the labial unit used as 10. Kasia thi-pon, Liinbu thi-bon. The final labial has been lost in the Tibetan terms, but it is found in Mikir kep, Kiranti kip, and Chepang gyib-zAo. If the labial be neither a mere augment nor a separate root in Chinese, it may be a remnant of the def. postf. like m in sain 3, and thus be indirectly connected with the Manyak ch'i-bi.
The Horpa sga (ska in higher numbers) appears to be a broad form of cha. The s appears to be prefixual as in z-ne 7, (Gyar. *7t-nes) in 9 of Bodo cAku, and Garo *Aku, and in the other Ultraindo-Gangetic higher numbers which have ta-, cha-, tha-, sa- &c. The Garo s-kang 10 has the Horpa form.
The Thochu hadure is probably a corresponding form hada with the pref. aspirated as in the Kami /iasub, and the root with the Bhotian vowel (elm, in the Changlo 1, thu,).
The prefixes and postfixes of the Tibetan systems,—Bhot. q(1, 2, 3), d- (9 ), 6- (4, 7, 8,10); Gyarung Ita-, ku-, hung-; k-, Jih-, hha-, Jut-, r-[=d- Bhot.]; Manyak -bi, Thochu -r»,-ri,— arc not of Chinese origin. They belong to the Soythic and protoScythic (Yeniseian,, N. E. Asian, Caucasian) connection of the formation, and have been added to the Chinese roots. The Manyak and Thochu in the regular use of a qualitive postfix are Tibeto-Scythic. The Gyami -ku is the Chinese segregative. The segregatives vary with the class of the substantives enumerated and not with the numeral.
The Tibetan systems present some of those irregalarities which evince the long prevalence and partial blending of different dialects, but with the exception of the Bhotian 7, all the numerals are referable to the Chinese system. Close representatives are current o' most of the Chinese numerals, not in the modern diffusive forms of the Kwan-hwa found in Gyami, but in the forms in which they are still preserved in the least abraded Chinese dialects as the Kwangtung. It is probable, however, that some of the variations from these forms are not purely local, but are archaic Chino-Tibetan, and indicate the existence in China of more than one dialectic system of numerals when they were first spread westward into the Tibetan province. The Tibetan 7 and 8 must have been derived from a dialect distinct from the single one which now prevails throughout ail the Chinese provinces. They are pure Chinese in roots, but the one is quinary 2 (for 5, 2), and the other binary 2, 4, whereas the current Chinese is ternary in 7 (1 for 6, 1), and apparently denary (10 for I, 10) in 8. Both Chinese and Tibetan are denary in 9.
As all these methods arc found in the other numeral systems of Eastern Asia, and as the union of all tribes of China into one nation is a historical event, it is probable that in archaic times several similar divergent systems existed in the Chino-Tibetan region. The first introduction of Chinese numerals into Tibet may be equally ancient with that of the pronouns and definitives, which also show some dialectic variations of an archaic Scythic kind. In other words, the tribes that gave a Chinese formation to Tibet may not have separated from the cognate Chinese tribes till some at least of the numerals were in use.
When we test the Chino-Tibetan numerals by their relationship amongst themselves and to the current definitives, they are found to be less regular and homogenous than many of the other systems of Asia, Africa and Asonesia. Many of the Scythic and N. E. Asian systems are less disorganised. Bui in these, irregularities of the same kind occur, and the Chino-Tibetan system, if considered as only the last remnant of several dialects that existed from a very remote era and borrowed from each other, will take its place with those Scythic ones which have been most changed by a similar cause. The liability of numerals to be displaced by the roots and forms of other dialects is fully illustrated in the sections on the Draviro-Australian, Semitico-African, Indo-European and N. E. Asian numerals, and even in the limited Tibetan field we have found some examples. Thus inGyarung 2 has one Bhotian form, nes, in 2, and another, yet, in 8; while 4 has a native variation ili, in 4, the Takpa form p\i in 40, and a third variation, or, in 8. Manyak has one var iation of the Chinese 4 in 4 re, but preserves the common Chino-Bhotian form in 8 zi, and 40, zyi; it has a peculiar form of the Chinese 1 in 1 ta, but possesses the Chino-Tibetan in 10, chi.
The archaic Chinese numeral systems were evidently closely related to the archaic Scythic or proto-Scythic. They were not mere derivatives of the Scythic nor the converse. They go back to the period when the Asiatic systems were little dispersed geographically, and some of the extant forms resemble those of the remoter Scythoid languages—as those of N. E. Asia,—and those found in formations of which the connection with Scythic is very archaic,—as the Caucasian and Dravirian.
The roots are all or nearly all current as definitives, and both the definitive and numeral systems of Chinese proper are remarkable for the secondary rank which the labial holds. But there are strong grounds for believing that in the primary eras of the Chinese glossaries, as in those of the more advanced formations, it held at least an equal place with the dental &c. The Australo-Kol, the African, the Dravirian, the Scythic and N. E. Asian, and the Chinese, illustrate various stages in the decadence of the labial. The monosyllabic dialects that have been transmitted in the basis of the Indo-Australian and African glossaries probably separated from the Mid-Asiatic linguistic province before the dental began to predominate as a definitive and unit. It may be remarked that languages and formations that have lost the labial as a 3d pronoun preserve it as a demonstrative, and even when it is no longer current as a demonstrative, it sometimes lingers as an interrogative, relative &c.
The existing Chinese has doubtless suffered great changes during the period in which the various harmonic formations have been developed and dispersed, and these changes must have been chiefly glossarial. It is consistent with the history of all formations that primary or archaic vocables and forms should sometimes be found best preserved in those languages and families that were earliest removed from the primitive ethnic location. In the continued mutual linguistic influence of the East Asiatic tribes, Chinese and Scythic, changes have probably taken place in the glossaries of all the less secluded nations, from which the Dravirian, Asonesian, African and American remain free.
Sec. 5. THE MISCELLANEOUS GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES OF THE TIBETAN DIALECTS AMONGST THEMSELVES AND WITH CHINESE AND SCYTHIC.
A glance at Mr Hodgson's tables shows that the Tibetan vocabularies are all intimately connected. Comparing the western or Bhotian with the eastern or Si-fan we find that in the list of 60 or rather 58 miscellaneous vocables,* Bhotian has about 34 in common with Thochu, 33 with Gyarung, and 26 with Manyak. The agreement is thus from 30 to 60 per cent. The adjacent Horpa has 36 of the 58 words Bhotian.
Of 59 Bhotian vocables only 7 are not found in any of the other Tibetan vocabularies (8, 24, 30, 41, 45, 46, 50). Of the remainder, 7 are found in all the other vocabularies (2, 7, 20, 26, 42, 48, 51); 3 in Horpa, Thochu and Gyarung (15,27, 56); 1 in Horpa, Thochu and Manyak (3) ; 2 in Horpa and Thochu (1, 25); 7 in Horpa, Gyarung and Manyak (6, 14, 19, 29, 37, 38, 54); 6 in Horpa and Gyarung (12, 17, 21, 36, 40, 60); 5 in Horpa and Manyak, (22, 28, 32, 33, 52); 5 in Horpa (16, 23, 39, 44, 55); 2 in Thochu, Gyarung and Manyak (31, 47);
• For the words corresponding with the numbers see Vocabulary ante, p. 183. In some of the Tibetan lists two and even more words are deficient,