페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

4 in Thochu and Gyarung (11, 13,57,59); 1 in Thochu and Manyak (34); 3 in Thoolm (9, 43, 49); 1 in Gyarung and Manyak (4); 3 in Gyarung (18, 35, 53); and 2 in Manyak (5,10).

The Chinese affinities with the Tibetan vocabularies collectively are considerable. About 31 of the Chinese vocables in the list are found in one or more of the Tibetan vocabularies {3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12,13, 15, 10,17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 33, 35, 39, 40, 44, 47, 52, 55). With single vocabularies the agreement is much smaller. Bhotian has about 14 Chinese words, Horpa 10, Thochu 8, Gyarung 12 and Manyak 6. The extent to which the same Chinese vocable has been diffused or preserved in several of the Tibetan dialects may be seen from the subjoined statement which, like those that follow it, is not to be considered as minutely accurate, the object and the value of comparisons on so limited a scale not rendering rigid precision worth the labour of attaining it. Several of the Chinese words are obviously of modern importation, a consequence of the great political and social influence the Chinese have long enjoyed in Tibet and their constant intercourse with the Tibetans. The proportion of vocables archaically common to the two families cannot be ascertained, without larger and more exact comparisons, but many of the common words in the list are certainly archaic. Some are found as roots with variable forms and meanings in all the S. E. Asian vocabularies.

Of the 60 words Chinese has 1 in common with Bhotian, Hcrpa, Thochu, Gyarung and Manyak (20); 1 with B., G. and M. (47); 1 with B., H. and G. (17); 1 with B , H. and M. (4); 1 with B., T. and G. (13); 4 with B. and H. (23, 25, 39, 40); 2 with B. and G. (37, 59); 3 with B. (6, 33, 49); 1 with H., T. and M. (10); 1 with H., T. and G. (18); 1 with H. (5); 3 with T. and G. (15,18, 55); 3 with T. (22, 35, 44); 5 with G. (5, 12, 16, 26, 52); and 2 with M. (21, 55);—being 25 vocables in all.'

The Scythic ingredient is much larger and more important than the Chinese. Bhotian has at least 29 or 30 Scythic roots in 78, that is about 40 per cent (1, 5, 7, 10,12, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 23,— two root«, three if one common to Chinese be included—26, 27, 29, 33, 35, 37, 38,39—two roots,— 43,46,48,50,52,53,54,50). Horpa in about GO words has 20 of these Scythtco-Bhotian vocables and 9 other Scythic roots (30, 34, 35, 43, 46, 50, 53, 57, 59) making about 50 per cent. Thochu is much more independent of Bhotian and Horpa in the range of its Scytbic affinitives than these are of each other. It has only about 9 of the Bhoto-Scy thic roots, but it has 10 others, some of which occur in other Si-fan vocabularies or in Horpa, although most are peculiar. Gyarung has 6 nonBhotian Scythic vocables (1, 23, 39, 43, 49, 52) and most of them are Turkish. The connection thus indicated must be modern compared with that in which the Tibetan affinities with Samoiede, Fin and other remote Scythic languages originated. The special influence of Turkish on the Gyarung is further shown by the Turkish forms found in those Ultraindian vocabularies that are most allied to Gyarung. The Turkish words have frequently slender vowels, e. g. il wind, Gyar., Burman &c li, le air; tin, night, G. to-d\; diri, tire, sUn, G. <i-dri. Manyak has 4 Turkish words, 8 Mongolian and about 9 more remote and non-Bhotian Scythic.

All the vocabularies have a few Turkish and Mongolian terms, the close accordance of which with forms current in these groups, indicates that they have been communicated to the Tibetan tribes by their Tartar neighbours during the latest era of Scythic history or that in which the Turks and Mongols have marched with the Tibetans and spread themselves into their province. The Turkish words are more numerous than the Mongolian and this is probably to be ascribed to the fact of Turkish predominance in the northern borders of Tibet having preceded the Mongolian and endured for a much longer period. The numerous Turkish forms in Ultraindian and Asonesian vocabularies corroborate this inference. There are a few Tungusian terms but it is doubtful if they are to be distinguished from the general mass of Scythic words, which form a large and essential ingredient in all the Tibetan vocabularies. These Scythic roots are archaic and they are in general found in remote N. and N. E. Asian vocabularies. They are chiefly Ugrian (Yeniseian, Samoiede, Ugrian proper, Fin), but some are also Yukahiri, Aino-Kurilian and Kamschatkan.

This class of affinities may embrace eras as long as all the later ones (Chinese, Mongolian, Turkish) down to the present time, but we must in the actual state of ethnology be content to refer all these remote affinities to one nebulous archaic period which we may term the Ugro-Kurilian or simply the Ugrian. Further research will probably distinguish the Samoiede, the Yeniseian &o from more ancient affinities. A considerable portion of these archaic affinities embrace also Iranian, Caucasian, Semitic and African languages. From their forming so high a percentage, and being the most important of all the ingredients of the Tibetan vocabularies, they clearly connect the history of the Tibetans with that of the ancient Ugrian race, which prior to the predominance of the Tatar branch appears to have spread not only over the whole breadth of Asia and Europe from Kamschatka and Korea to Lapland, but to India, Irania, the Caucaso-Semitic province and N. Africa, for their vocables are abundantly dispersed over this wide region in languages belonging to various formations. So great must be tha antiquity of this cardinal ethnic movement that the origin of the Iranian formation itself in its Scythic basis, may be referred with probability to it. The Mid-Asian affinities of Iranian are Ugrian much more than Tatar.

The large Scythic ingredient in the Tibetan vocabularies when taken in connection with the Scythic character of the ideology, reduces the enquiry into the more archaic history of the formation to this,—were the Tibetan languages originally Scythic or were they crude monosyllabic tongues akin to Chinese? To answer this question we must take the position and character of the Burman branch of the alliance into account, and it leads us to the conclusion that the archaic or pre-Ugrian languages of the Tibeto-Chinese province were closely allied to the Chinese and the crude proto-Scythic j and that they were partially transformed by Scythic uomades advancing into the province and blending with the native tribes, after Scythic had acquired its harmonic and inversive character. At the same time many of the common roots must be considered as of equal antiquity in Tibeto-Burman and Scythic. The MonAnam race was probably identical with the ancient Tibeto-Burman, for there was hardly room for another between them, and the languages have soicc non-Chinese traits in common, as the position of the qualitivc after the substantive, the use of prefixed or preposed definitives, besides possessing many common roots. It is probable that the Mon-Anam was at a comparatively early period pushed to the southward, although not before it had received a considerable portion of Scythic vocables. The Tibetan miscellaneous vocabulary, like the pronouns, and the general ideologic character of the formation, show that it is Chino-Scythic

An examination of the vocabularies separately gives the following results.

In the Bhotian list we find about 14 vocables with Chinese affinities; 6 with Turkish; 3 with Tungusian; 20 with more remote Scythic and N. E. Asian languages which may be termed Ugro-Kurilian; and 18 which I class as peculiar, simply because I have not ascertained any foreign affinities, but many of which will probably prove to be Ugro-Kurilian.

The Horpa vocabulary d iffers little from the Bhotian, at least 36 of the 58 words are Bhotian, and 4 of the others are also Bhotian in root; 4 are Chinese (besides 6 which are Bhotian also, making 10); and 18 are neither Bhotian nor Chinese, although 4 of them have Bhotian affinities. Several of the others are Scythic. The Bhotian vocables have, in general, the same form as in Bhotian, but they are softer. Thus rog ant, phag hog, melog flower, lag hand, discard the fina' g. In some cases the Horpa form is broader, e. q. rum horn, man fire. Most of the Horpa forms are found in the Si-fan or Ultraindo-Gangetic vocabularies. S-gre star, is a slender form found in Burman kre, the Bhotian and Manyak being s-kar-ma, kra/i. Phri snake is a similar slender form of the Bhotian s-brul, Manyak bru, Takpa mrui. It is also Thochu bri-<jri and Gyar. kha-bri. Where the Horpa form differs from the Bhotian and has special Si-fan or southern affinities, these are indicated in the subjoined list.

Thochu has 24 or 26 words in common with Bhotian, and 3 with Chinese in addition to 5 Bhoto-Chinese. Of the 35 remaining vocables at least 13 (4, 19, 21,23, 25, a and b, 23, 27, 30, 37, 38, 40, 40) are Scythic. They arc nearly all archaic, that is they are not derivatives from the adjacent Mongolian or Turkish, but belong to the primary Scythico-Tibetan stock. Some preserve forms now found in the more remote or sequestered^branches of the Scythic and N. E. Asian family, Samoiede, Yeniseian, Aino &c. When to these we add the Scythie affinities of the BhotoThochu words it will be seen how slight the Chinese glossarial ingredient is when compared with the Scythic. The Thochu forms of the common roots differ considerably from the Bhotian. They are frequently slender and curt, e. g. 7 ri, B. rus, ru; 15 zi, B. sa; 26 pi, B. phag; 31 ki', B. khyim; 47 ri, B. lam; 48 che', B. chha; 49 pi, B. pag; 51 bri, B. brul. In some cases the Thochu forms resemble the Manyak and not the intermediate Gyarung. Sky, mah-to, ma'; Stone, ghol-opi, wobi; Blood sa', sha'; Goat, tsah, tsah; Light uik, wu'; Salt, che', che; ISkin- ra-pi, g-ra. The vocabulary has numerous Southern affinities, but fewer than Gyarung and Manyak.

The Gyarung list has 33 words in common with Bhotian, including Bhoto-Chinese words. 5 with Chinese not found in Bhotian (besides 7 Bhoto-Chinese) 4 with Turkish, only 2 apparently with Ugro-Kurilian which are not Bhotian also, and 16 peculiar in the above sense.

The Manyak list has 26 Bhotian words, 3 Chinese (besides 3 Bhoto-Chinese) 4 Turkish, 3 Mongolian, 9 Ugro-Kurilian and 14 peculiar.

I proceed to illustrate the preceding statements by some details.

The Bhotian words in the list of 60 miscellaneous terms, which as some have synonyms and others differ in the old or written and the current or spoken dialects, amount to 78, may be arranged under five classes. First,—Words that are apparently peculiar to Bhotian. These amount to about 18 or 23 per cent of the whole, but as there must be many Mid and North Asiatic vocabularies, not collected or not accessible to me, and as even Klaproth's want some of the terms in the list, it is probable that this proportion would be much reduced by a more ample collation of vocabularies. Second, —Words having affinities with Chinese, mostly archaic, but one or two appear to have been received from it since the Chinese spread into Tibet. These amount to about 14 (18 percent). Third,—Turkish words, probably derived from the Turkish hordes during their 2000 years of contiguity and partial intermixture with thcBhotians and only amounting to 5, one being Mongolian as well as Turkish.

« 이전계속 »