« PreviousContinue »
tribes, like the Khyeng, and Kámi, and Kúmi, and Mrú, and Sák of Arrakan, whose vocables constitute the greatest part of the first half of the vocabularies herewith forwarded.
In the course of recording in our Journal these numerous vocabularies, I have purposely avoided any remarks on the affinities they suggest or demonstrate, intending to take up that subject when they should be completed; but the high interest * excited by my Himalayan series, in connection with the bold and skilful researches which are now demonstrating the unparalleled diffusion over the earth of that branch of the human family to which the Himalayans belong, has induced me on the present occasion to deviate partially from that rule, and to at once compare Captain Phayre's Arrakanese vocables
my own Himalayan t and Tibetan ones. Having been so fortunate as lately to procure an ample Sifánese series, comprising the tongues of the several peoples bordering on China and Tibet between Konkonúr and Yúnán, and having, moreover, made some progress in a careful analysis of a normal and of an abnormal sample of the Himalayan tongues, with a view to determining the amounts of the Turánian and Arian elements, I shall ere long find occasion to recur to the general affinities of the Indian Mongolide. In the meanwhile, the subjoined comparison of several Arrakanese tongues with those of Tibet and of the Eastern Himalaya will be read with surprise and pleasure by many who, accustomed to regard the Himálayans as Hindus, and the Indo-Chinese, like the Chinese, as distinct from the people of Asie Centrale, and from the Tibetans, will be astonished to find one type of language prevailing from the Kali to the Koladân, and from Ladakh to Malacca, so as to bring the Himálayans, Indo-Chinese, and Tibetans into the same family.
That such, however, even in the rigid ethnological sense, is the fact will hardly be denied by him who carefully examines the subjoined table, or the documents from which it is taken, because not only are the roots of the nouns and verbs similar to identity, but the servile particles are so likewise, and that as well in themselves as in the uses made of them, and in the mutations * to which they are liable. It should be added that the resemblances cited are drawn not from “ransacked dictionaries,” but from vocabularies of less than 300 words for each tongue.
* Latham's History of Man and Ethnology of British Colonies.
+ My own Himalayan series will be found in the Journal, No. 185, for December 1847. The Arrakanese series is annexed hereto.
To those who, not content with this abstract, shall refer to the original documents, I may offer two remarks suggested by their study to myself. ist. The extraordinary extent to which the presently contemplated affinities hold good has been made out by the helps afforded by the series of cognate tongues, whereby the synonyma defective in one tongue are obtained from another, whilst the varying degrees and shades of deviation are a clue to the root or basis.t 2d. The other remark suggested by the comparison of the vocabularies is, that it is the nouns and verbs, and not the pronouns and numerals, which constitute the enduring part of these languages; and that consequently, whatever may be the case in regard to the Arian group of tongues, we must not always expect to find the best evidence of family connection in regard to the Turanian languages among the pronouns and numerals. Indeed the confused character of these parts of speech seems to be a conspicuous feature of the Mongolian tongues.
Comparison of Tibetan and Himálayan tongues on one hand,
and of the Indo-Chinese on the other. Blood.—Thak in Bhotia, Thyak in Lhópa, Vi in Lepcha. I
Thwe in Burmese, The in Sák, Ka-thí in Khyeng, A-ti
in Kámi, Wi in Mrú. Boat.—Thú in Serpa.
Thé in Burmese.
* In order to appreciate this remark and to trace the elements of the vocables, see analytic observations of the following paper on Caucasian and Mongolian Words, appended to the list of those words.
+ Take the radical word for dog, as a sample. We have khyi, khiá, khí, kí, khoé, kwé, kwí, kú, kí-chá, ku-chú, khó, kyo, cho-i. For the appended particles and their mutations I must refer to the original documents, and to the future confirmations to be supplied by my Sifánese series of words.
# The first line gives the Northern series, the second the Southern.
Cat.-Si-mi in Bhotia, Si-mi in Sokpa.
Min in Khyeng, Min in Kámi.
O’-á in Kúmi, Wá á in Kámi and in Mrú.
Né in Burmese, Ni in Mrú.
Ki-cha in Newári, Khia in Dhimali.
Khwé in Burmese, Ta-kwi in Mrú, Kú in Sák. Ear.-Ná in Bhotia, Na-vo in Lhópa.
Ná in Burmese, Ka-ná in Sák.
Phá é in Burmese, Ampa in Kúmi.
Mí, Má, Má i, in Burmese, Kámi, and Mrú.
Ngá in Burmese, Ngu in Khyeng, Nghó in Kami. Foot.—Káng in Bhotia, Káng in Lhópa, Khwe-li in Súnwár.
Khyé in Burmese, Ká-kó in Khyeng, Khou in Kúmi. Goat.— Rá in Bhotia.
Ta-rá in Mrú.
A-shám in Kámi, Shám in Mrú and Kúmi.
Ghóng in Burmese.
Ta-pak in Mrú and Vak in Sák.
A kyi in Khyeng, A-rúng in Sik.
Tá-phú (phú, male suffix in Kami, Sapú in Sák (puidem). House.—Khyim in Bhotia and Lepcha. Yúm in Magar.
Kyim in Sák, Kim in Mrú, Um in Kúmi.
Man.-Mi in Bhotia and most Himálayan tongues, Maro in
Lepcha, Múrú in Súnwar.
(Ka-mi in Newári means craftsman.) Moon.—Lá-va in Bhotia, Lhópa, Lepcha, &c., &c.
Lá in Burmese and Khyeng, Pú-lá in Mrú. Mountain.-Gún in Newári.
Ta-kún in Kámi. Name.—Ming in Bhotia and Lhópa and Limbú and Múrmi,
Nàng in Newari
A-mí in Burmese, A-min in Kámi, Na-mi in Khyeng. Night.—Sa-náp in Lepcha.
Nyá in Burmese. Oil.—Si-di in Magar.
Shi in Burmese and Kámi and Mrú, Si-dak in Sák, Road.—Lam in Bhotia, and all the Himalayan tongues.
Lam in Burmese, Khyeng, Kámi, and Sák. Salt.—Tshá in Bhotia and Lhôpa, Chhá in Himalayan tongues
(most) Súng in Bódó.*
Shá in Burmese, Tsi in Khyeng, Súng in Sák.
Pé in Kúmi, Pi in Mrú.
Mú in Mrú, Mó in Burmese.
Phúl in Khyeng, Pú-vi in Kúmi.
In the verbs, again, we have
Sá in Burmese, Tsá in Kámi, Tsá in Kúmi. Dram.—Tháng in Bhatia, Thóng in thópa, Thùng in Limbú
and Múrmi, &c.
Thouk in Burmese. * My Bódó and Dhimál vocabularies will be found in the Journal, as well as the Himálayan series. I take this occasion to intimate my now conviction that the Bódó, Dhimál, and Kócch tribes belong to the Tibetan and Himálayan stock rather than to the Tamilian; that is, with reference to India, to the more recent race of Tartar immigrants, not to the more ancient and more altered.
Sleep.—I'p in Súnwár, I'p in Limbú, Im in Kiránti.
I'p in Khyeng, I' in Kámi, l' in Kúmi.
Yé in Burmese, A-nwi in Khyeng, Am-nhwi in Kúmi. Weep.—Nú, ngó, in Bhotia, ngú in Lhópa and Sérpa, Khwó in
Ngó in Burmese, and Khá in Kami. Say, tell.—Shód in Bhotia.
Shó in Burmese. Come.- Wá in Newári.
Vá in Kámi.
Lá in Kámi and in Kúmi.
Tat in Kumi, Ngũn-gé in Khyeng.
Kyú in Burmese.
Chó-né in Khyeng, Lei in Kumi.
Pen in Gúrúng.
Yú in Burmese, Lá in Kámi, Ló in Kúmi. Kill.—Thód in Gúrúng, That in Bódó.
That in Burmese.
Remark, the materials for the above striking comparative view are derived from my own original vocabularies for the Northern tongues, as published in the Journal, No. 185, for December 1847, and from Captain Phayre's for the Southern tongues, hereto appended.
It is seldom that vocabularies so trustworthy can be had, and had in series, for comparison; and yet it is abundantly