페이지 이미지

pears isolated in the Chinese systpra, and is not even a Chinese definitive, »t Whs probably borrowed by the original Chinese tribe, directly or inrerme lialely, from a formation in which the two definitive-* "this", "that" had become the foundation of a binary numeral system,—ir. ra &c. "that." The best representatives ol this primitive As i-Aiiiean system must be sought in those languages in which rn, ir &c. still exists as a definitive au I mav be traced in tlie numeral 2 and in higher terms formed from it The particle is so freely varied in other alliances by the consonant changing to n, d, t &c that there is no reason to suppose that the ribeto-Uitiaiudian forms nyi, ni &c have not been borrowed from the Chinese But closer forms are found in Xeuiseian, iw, inj/a, hineung (Kasiu hint), and other languages.


Ch. san, sam, sa, taf Tib gsum, sum; Him. sum, sum, son/}, sam &c, Miri a-om-ko, auma; Dlniii. su;n-loug, Hod mmt-tham, Garo gatham, Htluim, Kur the, sa, Mik kath/tm. Nag nsiim, aziun, she, sit; lent, van-rum, Burin sung, thonj,soitij, Ivliyeng \i\xtlwmj, Bo.igj tumkar, Kiiki tumkii. I.mi sam.*

The peculiar Na«a lorm ran. lem, is found in the Milchanang 13, torum, allhuugh 3 itself has the I'lhetan form sum, and ia also preserved in tba Tibberkad tm-hun, chop.sum. [See Ap. A J

The closest foreign atfiuiues are Kirian and Caucasian. Kur. sai, Geor. gian siimi, sumiHic, Le*gi nhamha. The same c nnbination has been car. tied to Afnca saba, sauwa Sec, Maiilmui) group. In the Can una systems the numeral i-riim are regularly formed from a few definitives

"by flexion and the coincidence of the II tun ori 2, sumi 3, with tha

Chinese ir 2, sam 3, Tib. sum 3, ran hardly be accidental.


Ch. se, si, ti; Liu si; Tib. hthi, zhyt, zhi, Lhnp. zhi, Se rp. zhyi. This term, in irs di-ntal and sibilant forms, baa made little prngrens in U|. traindia. Naugaung Naga haa paz, Angami Naga da, M Angami ilh, Kuki In. U nl" ilia, which appear to be all modifications of the Tibetaa forma of Chino Tibetan.t

Si, ti, is a veiy common definitive, and much used at a numeral element. It is found as such in Scythic and African languages (a. g. teti, Samnide). But as the Chinese 2 and 3 are must closely connected with Caucasian, and chi, thi, se &c. is the principal element ia its fl '\inual series of numeials, it is probable that the Chinese ia related to the (in(in nth-chi, nt-chi &c., to which also may be traced the African ata-chi (Timbuktu )

The most common term in the Tibeto-Ultraindian languages requires, from it peculiar form, to be separately discussed. It has been carried by the N inn Ultraindiin tribes to the Himalayas, where it has Naga, Giro and Burman firms. Burm, le, B Tgj. leAar, Khyeng Ihi, Kar. li Naga pAali, pAole, 6eli, Dili, all- Singphu meli, Mikir pftili, Garo 6ri, Undo ore ; Himalayan,—ap\\ Daphla.pb-i Chepang ; le Sunw. (Burm.).li sh Limb. phaU, plw'.ut Lepch , bu\i Mag., 6li Murmi; pli, Our; laya Kirinli.

• [ Thnchu kshiri, (iyumi san/fku, *■>», Gyaruns Aisam, Hi, pa tu (T- Nacn), Talipa sum, Manvakn'ii (Thoehu *Ai, Nag. *Ae, Kar. t «) ]. ... t [ l hiichu giAflrc, Gyami si, siWa, Gyuaag kidi (.liuilo), liurpa Ala, Takpa pit, Manyak rehi (it arm. Him.)]

Th»»f ire all North Ulirain Jian form*- Pi. Newar, Tiberkad, i> Mpntiral with the Abor-Miri a\)iko, apie, which is a contraction of apWlio, as appears trom the Daphla form ap\\, atid 1'roiu Abor-Miri itself preserving the full Naga form iu/iili-ngo-Ao, 6. The Milchanaug pu, puA is probably a mollification of pi, corresponding with bu in the Magar On i. This is more probable than that it is a direct derivative from the JMmi-Anaiii and Viadyan pun. But pun may itself be related to the Burma-Himalayan terms. The latter, in some of their form?, ate identical with certain forms of the African numeral which appears to have bi'i'ii the original of the Mon-Anam, Malagasi and Asonesian terms. As that numeral is itself founded on a root for 2,—li, ni, lu, nu &c* which is common to Chinese with many Asiatic and African languages, and as the term for 4 so formed had a very archaic and extensive prevalence in Asia and Africa, tbeie are several possible sources of the BurmaHimalayan term. The staple forma le, li &c .are identical with the Chinese It, ■>, of which the Tibetan and Ultraindian oyi, ni &c is a alight modification. Li may therefore be a derivative from an east Tibetan dialed, or it tii-iv have beeen formed in Ultraindia from the Chinese li of the Tibrt« Uliraindian ni- But it is improbable that such a term for 4, or ni' de of forming 4, prevailed IB eastern Tibet, when the Cnino-Tibetan system baa a distinct term for 4. It is equally improbable that lb* principle of constructing such a term was acquired in Ultraindia after the Cbino-Tibetan system was introduced, and was then applied to the invention of a new term for 4 which displaced the proper one of that system. The simplest conclusion is that li is a modification of the Chinese ti, si, through the sonant form, of which we have an example in the Uodo dia, whence the Angami-Noga da &c. The Tibetan sonant Jzlii is probably the immediate parent both of the sonant dental forms and of the labial prefix (bazi, badi, ball &c).


Ch. ngu, u, ing, ngO, gO; Tib hna, gna; Him. gna, gua; Mirl Bn^oku, ungo, pilinjruko {pin, 4, Naga); Dbim. na, Mik. \>\iong; Naga nga, nga; Umtga, pliun^w, \>artgu, phan^a, \>engu, \>,\ngu (the Bodo ba, blia is probably a contraction of the Nauisang banga); Singph. manga, Burin, nga, na, Kar. yai, ye, Khy. nhan, [Nic. tunhie, turn']*; Kuki nya, B"tig. rain^/akar.f The Karen yai is exceptional. It appears to be Craviriiin (yai, Toda, ayi-du Telug ai/i-ua Tul &c)

The Chino-Tibetau nasal root itself", ngu, ing, nga, na &c. is allied to the Draviriau an.


Cn to', la', lu', (i, e. equivalent to lok, lak, luk); Tib w. druk, s. thu W. Tib. dux, tuk; dim Lliop., tuk Serp.; Him.—dhu, tu, khu, tttk; Lep. larok, tiok, Sunw. mi; Chep kruk, Bodo da, ro, Dbim. tu, Garo krok, dok (Chepang), Mikir thoro*-, Naga t&rok, tbclo', arok, trok, tortt, azo/r, vok, Singph. km, Burui. khrauk, khyoh, khyauk, Bongj. r/tukar, Mon karate, Ka rrau. Changl. khung, Abor-Miri a*ye, akengko, Kuki, Kar. ku.% The distribution of these terms is peculiar. The wide

• Pr.bobly Mon-Anam. See App. A.

t [T""cho ware. Gyami Kj«, wuVa, (t hm. «) Ovar. tuvggni, Horpa gm (Chin. g»), I'aKps 'Xh.gne ( i 4, as in M ri), Manyak g'mbi.]

J ('.v«mi (en, leojeu, Gfv, A«tok (lib), Takps. kro (Singphe, Gar*, Chep.), Manyak tntbi.]

spread khrauk, kruk, tarau, trau &c is evidently an archaic East Tibetan form of the Chinese lu' or luk, allied to the Written Tibetan druk. Its diffusion amongst languages of the Mon-Anan formation is probablyattributable to the numeral system of the latter having been purely quinary, or without any substantive term above that for 5. It is tound in Kof and Gond also. The Naga tarok might be thought to be an immeiliate derivative from the 'iibetan druk, if (a did noi occur frequently as a prefix with other numerals and words, and the numeral root, ruk, rote, Ink, occur bare and with distinct prefixes in other Naga dialects. The Garo kro£ and Chepang krwi are obviously deiivtrtives from the Burman khrauA- and although the Lepcha tarok, trok, resembles -the Tibetan druk, 1 have no doubt—looking to the cumulative evidence of the influence of (Jltraindiaii forms of numerals and oilier words on the Himalayan—that it is a derivative of the Ultniindian tarot (Naugaung Naga.)

The Karen and Kvtki hu, Dhimal tu, Bodo do, to, Natra so-ru, Bongjur^w-kar appear to be contrucleil lorms, which in Changlo and AborMii'i take a nasal final hhung, heng. The Abor n-ht/e aird Dopbla aA-pIe present it in a very curt form, and the latter curiously preserves the Karen postfix pie.


Ch. chhi, ch'hii, eh'het, tliet, sit; Lau ehet, chiat, tset, Singph. Stnit, Kyen shi.

The allied Ultraindian and Himalayan terms are remarkable. Th6 Hon-Anam or earlier Ultraindian system wsis quinary, and a like system is still seen in the.Burma-Himalayan terms tor 7, which are simply the term for 2 sometimes slightly modified. It was doubtless formed on the model of an ancient quinary term, 5—2, the term for 5 having been lost The circumstance of the root for 6 not being found accompanying that lor 2 in any of the languages, is a strong prool that the prevalent Burma-Himalayan numerals were derived from one language which had dropped the term ior 5 before it became diffusive. The Tibetan term is bdun, dun. It has made hardly any progress on this side of the Himalayas, the only examples I find being the Lhopa dun, Serpa dyun and Changlo turn, a modification of the Lhopa dum. The Tibetan term is not Chinese, but it is Tungusian nadan, Mong do/on,* Korea Yitun, and it enters into the Kamchatkan nytonok &c.

The following are some of the Burma-Himalavan terms. Burm. khwan naeh or nak, khiinkit, kunt, Abor, kunft-ko Miri kiiiiiV/c, Nag. timet, ruth, tmath, ingit &c. Singph. s'mit, Garo sining. suit, Bndo chint. em, Dili in aid: Kar nut, nwi. nis, chant, nhe, noshi, Kuki s. sri [Garo snt], Bongj. sre-kar, Kasia hintan (hint is 2 in Mikir). The AborMiri ku-»ir-ko, ku-nid-e, is directly connected with the Burman, khun-nAif.t The Dophla ka-nng is the same word with the final f of - 2 converted into a guttural, as in the ancient Burman nah, nach &c. The Kiranti bhag-ya. alone preserves the proper term of the Mnn-Anam system. Com p. Mon ka-bok (from bo, 2). The prefix ka is found in Lepcha from 7 to 10, but the term for 7, kyok, is peculiar.

• [Sokpo tolo].

f [Gyarung kusk-nw, Takpa nu}.

Eight. ''" *

Ch. pat, pe't boF, poi'. This term ha* not been borrowed by the Tiheto-Ultrnindian languages, It is found in Lati, pet.

The Tibetan term is brgyudw. gyea.* The ancient form (pro'inbly still prevalent in E. Tibet) requires to be compared with t'ie Ultraiuiiian and Himalayan lerms in which r is the eonsnnant. The Kasia prah, if it stood alone, might seem to he a contraction of an ancient Tibet j-Uitr lindian form which preserved the Tibetan prefixual br.~ But as the Kasia term for 2 is ar (Mon, Kol, Chong, mar, bar &c.) it is more probable that praA is formed from it. In many svstems primarily based on a binary scale, 4 and 8 are modifications of 2. From the Kasia form comes the Nicobari awera. The other allied forms lose the p. They are rach Burm. w., rat-kar Bongju, roe Kuki, rai,rhai Milchanang, But some doubt is thrown on rai by the Tibherkad ghai, the I'ibetau form ghoh being also found in Tibberkad. Final tis affected by these extreme Western langnages of the Gangetie formation as well as bf some of the extreme Eastern (e- g. Bodo) which have received it from Ultraimlia (Karen &c.) Thus 6 is gnai (Tib gna), 6 is tuhi (Tib w. rut), 9 is gui (Tib gu). Final i being common to Milchanang and Boda, the Bongju and Kuki rai, roe are in lavour of rai having been the form of the Kasia a?; ra, 2, that prevailed in Bodo and the other Gangetie languages and was spread as far west as Kanawar. The common interchange of r and g or gh would of course explain the conversion ot the Tibetan ghe into re a» well as the Ultraindian ra into gha, the vowel being a small element in favour of Ultraindian origin. 'I he point however is, I think, settled, 1st, by the evidence in tavuur of an early diffusion of Ultraindian words up the Gangetie basin and across the watershed into that of the Sutledge, and against any early diffusion of Tibetan words from the Sutledge down the Gangetie basin; and 2nd by the Kasian form prah being found in the Chepaog prap, Guruug pre, Wurmi preh, pre. The Kiraivti reya gives us the root again. The forms in pr are connected not only with the Mon-Ananj term for 2, but with -the prevalent Burmnh-Hiuialnyan terms tor 4, paii, pffi. In several of the languages 8 appears as a n>ere flexion ol 4 (i. e. 4 dual). Gurung 4pli, &pr*. In the Abor-Miri pu-nit-V.o, Abor pi-nye, the labial is the term tor 4, (a-pi-ko, pu, bu, Nrpal, Milchanang, combined with that for 2 (i. e. 4 the 2nd time or twice) In the Bapbla piagnag the same combination is found (See 2, 4 and 7).

The common N. Ultraindian term is a similar binary remnant. Burnt., ihit.shyit, si', Khyeng shat, Naga isat, acheth, achat, sachet, te, ihesep, thuth, ihetha; Singph. maW, makat, Garo chet, hoilojat.f All these appear to be modifications of a term preserved in the Kiranti haiat, 2, and having affinities with some N. Asiatic binary terms lor 8, i. e. Samoiede shit'Sedi, sif t-wieta, Tungusian dscha/i-kun, The root is primarily 2,—Samoiede shit, site, side &<;., Ugrian hit, ket, hat, kuk &c. &c. and may be recognised in the Chiuo-Tibetau si, ti, zhi &c. 4 (i. e. 2 dual).

The Liinbu yet, Sunw. yoh, Dhimal ye, are probably Tibetan (gye). The Lepcha ka-keu, kuAu is probably an ancient term formed from the

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

W. Tibetan gyd &c. The Karen hkgo, kho, is allied to it.

i Aline.

Ch. kiu, lau; Tib. Agu, guh, qu, Him. gu &c.; Ultrarndian *k, ko, kho (with prefixes &e. in some dialects), Singpho. tse*u, Hinial. ku, kuh, Changlotaiw (Naga), Bodo chku, Gar. jiu, shAu Milcbanang agoi; Lai kau', Karen kui (Chinese).*

'- Ten.

Ch. shV, ship,chap, tap ; Tib. bchu, chuh,chu; Him.chuh,chui(Tiberk); tJltraindian,—thi, chi, che, si, tsi, se Kurinan, Karen. Naga &c , Garo chi, Bod, ji. The Ultrarndian is closer to the Chinese than to the Tibetan form, and it has been carried westward into the Himalayan dialects, cii-mai, sa nho, thi bong, se. The term is evidently the ChinoTibetan root lor 1, chit, chik, chi &c. a mode of naming 10 (1 tale) found in many other languages. That the Ultraindian and Himalayan forms have been derived Irom Chinese, or Irom an eastern Tibetan vocabulary, is further shewn by the Mikir krp, Kiranti kip, which is the Chinese chip. The Burman /»-che, Kakhoing ta se, prefix the term lor 1 without its guttural final, f

In the Chinese system the numbers between 10 and 20 are formed by placing the lower numbers after the word (or 10, while the articulate tenns or tens are lormed by placing the lower numbers before the word for In,, which precisely accords in principle with the Hindu, Arabic and European notation, although not with the nomenclature in the series between 10 and 20 (e. g. 13 corresponds with the Chinese naming, but not with ours which places the digit before the ten, thir-Uen; but thr-ty, thirty-one &c. correspond with the notation, 30,31). The following examples will show the cori&istency of the Chinese notation with the collocation of the words, chap 10, chap it 11, chapji 12, chap tee 13 ; ji chap 90 (2,10), sa chap 30 (3,10) \

• [Gyarung kungjru, Takpa dugu, (Tib)- Manyak^ubi, Horpa go, Thochu rgure.]

t [Gyarung si', Manyak checfa'bi, Takpa pchi].

X Note on the Chinese and Indo-Arahic numeral symbols. Names of numbers must have preceded symbols, and the Indian symbols must have been invented by a nation which followed tha Chinese system ot naming, that is such a term as thir-teen, trayo-dushon, te-rah could not have been used by it. The Dravirian and Mon-Anam system * agiee with the Chinese in placing the decimal in its natural place, e. cr U, putt n umt (10,1) in Tamil; g-e/ mend (10.1) in Kol ; moi mot (in I1) in Mon; kad wei (10,1) in Kasia That this system is the natural one is proved by its prevalence in other languages, American, Asiatic (Scythic, Georgian, Euskarian &c), and African. The

-J Imlo-European and Semitic collocation is exceptional.

The perfecting of the decimal notation must have been a slow process, and may have been the work ot the civilised Dravirians or other pre

'Ariao nations of India. But the Chinese had advanced far in this direction, and there are son e grounds for attributing the rudiments not onlv ol the system, but of the symbols also, to them. The Chinese symbols for the three lowest numbers are respectively 1, 2 and 3 strokes,

« 이전계속 »