« 이전계속 »
numbers that the Mon system used both the binary and quinary methods ol expressing tho«e iiumhers, a usage by no means singular, I have little hesitation in referring both the Vindyan and Kambojan terms to thi- single Mou-Anam system.
Although I can find nothing to warrant the opinion that the Vindyan and Kainbojau languages might have obtained separate terras from East Africa, for 1 have no doubt tliat all their African terms were received through the Mon, it should be remarked that analogous words are current in some African vocabularies. The true explanation, I conceive1, is, that the Alrican terms in question are formed from the same binary definitive roots, ma, ba &c; ru, la, na &c. A Suahiii dialect has manut, anil to the westward forms similar to the Indian and Ultraindian occur, — mun, Bulloin; mu, Km; num, Akin ; auin Amino.
The Vindyan terms, like some of the Ultraindian, appear to be Tibetan. Ind.—tur-ia, turu-^a, turui Kol.; turra, turume Gond. The Gond hus an exceptional term sa-rong (sa is a prefix in o also, »-aij-an; yaij Toda) ■which appears to be simply ru of the Kol dialects nasalised But it may be directly derived from the Naga form so-ru. In the Gawil form the ng becomes m. Ultr.—ka-rao Mon; the Bongju, Kasia, Burma, Sinjfphu, Chong and Ka ternn are all similar antique modifications of tha Tibetan. The Kairao is a derivative ol the Mou. The Chong Aa-dong is a nasalised form similar to the Gond sa-rong. In Bodo, Dhimal, Bongju and Naga, forms in /, d and r also occur.
The anomalous terms are tha-ful, tu-iul, ta-fad Nicobar; shauk Kyeng; iau' (abrupt accent for k) Anain. The Nicobar term may be composed of tha 5 (from thanin) and ful, fud, which should represent 1. A similar term for 1 does nut exist iu the Indian, Ultraindian or Asonesian province, save in the Egypto-African wotu, uotu, motu &c. but in the latter it is used for 10 (i. e. one tale). It is probable therefore that ful is a MouAn mi binary term formed fiexionally from pun, fun, 4. Tha may either be from the previous term on the repetitive principle, or it may be tlta Mon-Anam prefi<. Shauk, sau' has a deceptive appearance of affinity with a wide spread African, Iranian, Causasian and N. Asian term, tha final of which is generally t. African, shiu, sita, soda &c; Semitic stmt, hat; Ugr, chut, hat; Iranian shash. sechs, six. But it is merely one of the numerous variations which the Tibetan root undergoes The original may have been the sibilant thauk or thuk. The Hakhuing klirauk preserves n.e broad vowel.
Mon, &a-bok; Ka, pah; Anam, bei. This term is a flexion of 2 (tha word for 6 being omitted, as it is in most of the other formations). I have alrea Iv mentioned that most ol' the Ultraindian and Himalayan languages adhere to the Mon-Anam quinary principle in forming the term tor 7, and that a large number of them indicate the commencement of the higher series of numbers, or those above 5, by the prefii (generally ta, ka). Lcpclia preserves ka in all the terms from 6 to 10; and Kiranti, which, in its word for 2 (Aa-sat), retains an ancient root which . reappaars in other languages in terms lor 4 anil 8 (i-sat Nanisai g Natra), has another archaic term in bhag-ya, 7, which is evidently the Mon bok. The Nicobar sat might appear to be Hin li, but as the Nancowry dialect has Itu-kM, which resembles the Lau form of the Chinese term (caiat), eat is probably Chinese also. The Chinese root is very widely spread! (Ugrian, Iranian, Alrican &c.)
Ind. i-ya, e-ia, i-air Kol; a-ya, a-ieaA, Gond. (Pome Kol dielects have1 taken Hindi terms). This is the Dravirian e (t-zha, e-l, ye-da &c;
Ind. iral, irl-ia Kol; ilhar, elar-ta, Gond. This term appears to ba an archaic binary on1', a flexion or reduplication of the Dravirian 2, ir, and to be related to that for 9 and 10, as in the Dravirian system.
In some of ihe Ultraindian and Himalayan languages the term for 8 is a similar flexion of the ancient Mon- A nam root in r for 2 or 4. It is found in the Yuma group an I the Micobars,—rai-iar Bonggu; rae Kuki; prah Kasia; awcra, Car-Nicob.; Kiranti, re»ya; Murmi, Gurun» pre (comp 4, re, />li, &c.)
The other prevalent terms appear to have been adopted from the Chinese. The,Mon Jta-cham, Ka and Anam tarn, appears to be the Chino-Tibetan sum, turn, thnm 3 (5, 3) on the same principle that 7 is 8 (5, 2) in many of the Ultraindian and Himalayan languages. The Burmese shit, si, Chong ka-t\, Kyeng shat, Singpho ma-tsat, Naga clietb, chet, tbuth, chat, sat, sep, te, tha, Garo chet, probably involve a misapplication of the Chinese term for 7, ch'bit, ch'bet; sit, thet, tshih. The Abor-Miri pu-nit-ko, Miri jrinye, Daphla plag-nag ara 4, 2. Binary terms for 8 appear to have formed the limit or highest number of the s. ale at one time, for they have been applied to 10 and even 100 [See Ten.]
Mon, fta-chit; Ka, chin; Anam chin; Karen chi. Th!s is the Chinese 1, i. e. 1 short of 10, as in Dravirian and Mikir. The Chong *«•ar is peculiar. It is perhaps from ihe Chino-Tib. san 3.
Ind.—ar-ea, ar-e, ar-A«, ur-aiah. Although ar is apparently a flexion of the ir of 8. which is 2, it is probable that it represents 1, as in the Dravi. ian terms. In the Male or-f, 1, the Drav. on takes a vibratory form, and in Tuluva the common term for 9, om-bodo (i. e. 1, 10), takes or as a prtf. (oram-bo).
Ind.—^elea, gel Kol., gulpa, gil, Gond. The Angomi and MozomeAngami kerr, kurr resembles gel. Kerr is evidently a derivative irons the Naga thelu, taru &c. The only analogous foreign form appears to be the Phnkohi kulle, and both are connected with Alrican terms for 1 (kulle, Sokko &c.) Hissi, 20, is evidently the Hindi bis, the commutation of the labials and the aspirate bein<r easy and common.
In several ot the Ultraindian languages the African root for 2 in r, which enters both into the Dravirian and Mon-Anam systems, re-appears in higher numbers, as in African languages, a consequence of thet ultimate binary basis. Rae Bongzu rae, Kuki is 8, in Chong it is 10, in Lau and Kambojan it is 100 (roa, roe K., noi, hoe L ) In other languages also it is used for 10. It appears in the Anam mare, Naara raru, farah, thelu, kerr, turr, and Kumi Ao-rn 10. With these compare the Burmese (an. <aya, Karen foraya, Mikirp*ar 100. [The Nancowry lam 10, Ka dam, Anam tarn, Mon Worn, 100, appear to oe formed from 6, nam, lam, ram, or from 8, tarn, Anam, Ka.] As a connection between 8 and 10 or 100 exists in the case of rai, and is also remarked in the Tibetan and Chinese systems, the latter is probably the true