are alleged to be the Tibetans proper of our day (Bodpas), or they and the Ugrians, formed the Turánian element of Indian population, from the Himálaya to the Carnatic, but successive swarms from the one and same great northern hive-whether Turkic, Mongolic, Mantchuric, Ugric,* or these and otherswho passed into Indo-China as well as India, and directly into the latter, as well as through the former into the latter, by all the hundred gates of the Himalaya and its southern offshoots. Simple as the Mongolic and Mantchuric languages are wont to be called, they seem to me to possess entirely the essential Turánian characteristics; that is, in like manner as they have endless noun-relational marks without any distinct declension, so they have a rich variety of sorts of verb (but all reduceable into the two great classes of action, or that of things and that of beings, equal neuter and transitive), and this peculiar richness united with great poverty of voice, mood, and tense, whilst the participles partake fully of this character of the noun and of the verb; that is, they are poor on one side but luxuriant on the other, and throughout the whole Turánian area perform the very same function or that of continuatives, being employed to supply the place of conjunctions and conjunctive (relative) pronouns.

The Central Himálayan languages, but perhaps more especially those of the pronomenalised type, all present these characteristics with perfect general fidelity and with some instances of minute accord, besides those cited above, among which may be mentioned the hyper-luxuriant participial growth of Kiránti and of Mantchu, both of which have ten or rather eleven forms of the gerund, and these obtained by the very same grammatical expedient!

There is another very noticeable peculiarity common to the Himalayan and Nilgirian tongues, which is the emphatic distinction of the first person in conjugation, thus, piuthtstini, Toda, I strike, stands apart from puithtsti, thou, he, she, or it strikes, which are all the same. So Newári has daya in the present and dayu in the past for I strike, I struck, as opposed

Are not Ugric, Uighur, or Igur, the same? and would not the identical name with the common characteristics (pronomenalised) of the tongues go far to identify the Ugriaus with the E. Turks !

to the common terminations yu and la respectively for all striking present and past of every other kind save by the first person, da-yu, da-la, any body or thing sure me strikes or struck. Hence these forms are used to constitute the passive, as in jita dála, of the sequel. Again, the hardening or doubling of the sign consonant of the intransitive verb in order to make it transitive, a principle supposed to be so peculiarly Dravidian, is quite familiar to the Hayu and Kiránti tongues. And again, the Báhing dialect of Kiránti is fully characterised by that indiscriminate use of the transitive and neuter signs for which the Tamil language is so remarkable. Another common characteristic of the Dravidian and Himálayan tongues is the double causal, e.g., bokko get up; pokko cause to get up; pongpato cause to cause to get up-in Báhing. Dun = become; thun to cause to become; thumpingko = cause to cause to become -in Váyu.

=

Another common and radical feature of the Dravidian and Himálayan tongues is the amorphous character of their vocables, which become distinct parts of speech, as noun or verb, by the suffixing of appropriate particles. Thus kan, the eye, and to see; so neu, goodness, to be good, good, whence neu-gna, I am good; neu-ba, the good one, &c.-of Báhing. I, however, at present forbear to touch on more of these common characteristics of the Dravidian and Himálayan tongues, because they are so apt to run into the common property of all the Turánian tongues. But I may just add that Hoisington's Tamulian traits (in the "American Or. Journal ") are nearly all found characterizing the northern languages.

The general absence of a passive, the partial or total absence of tense distinctions, and the combination of the present and future when there is such partial distinction, as well as the denoting of tense by annexed adverbs (to-day, yesterday, and to-morrow) when there is none, are Turánian traits common to the (not to go further) Altaic, Himálayan, Indo-Chinese, and Tamulian tongues. Thus the Toda and Kota verbs are always or generally aoristic, and the three tenses are expressed by the above adverbs of time, used prefixually. Precisely such is the case with the Bontáwa dialect of Kiránti and with the Hayu,

whilst the Bahing dialect of Kiránti discriminates the past tense from the other two by the use of an appropriate infix, which is at once the transitive and temporal sign. If such be not visibly the case with the Badaga, Kurumba, and Irula dialects, we may yet discern the cause, partly in the carelessness of barbarians, partly in that fusion of transitive and preterite signs which cultivated Dravidian also exhibits, and not less Ugrofinnic and Turkic. But in the tin-d-é of Badaga and Kurumba, and tid-d-é of Kota = I ate, as in the mad-id-é of Kurumba = I made, not to cite more instances, I perceive that identical preterite sign (t, vel, d) which marks it in Báhing (tib-á, he strikes; tib-d-á, or tip-t-á, he struck), as in endless other northern and north-western tongues.

I will add a few more words on these important points, for I conceive that the passive of the cultivated Dravidian tongues is clearly factitious, and suggested by contact with Arianism. There are still extant long works in Canarese, says Mr. Metz, in which hardly one instance of the use of the passive voice occurs, and the fact that the uncultivated Dravidian tongues have it not, is, I think, decisive as to its adopted character in the cultivated. Again, there can be no doubt that the negative conjugation of the cultivated Dravidian tongues presents the primitive form, and that form is aoristic; e.g., mad-en, I do, did, or will, not make. In Himálaya and Tibet and Sifán the passive is wanting. Its absence is wholly or partially supplied by the use of the instrumentive and objective cases of the pronouns for the active and passive forms respectively. Even Khas still adheres to this primitive and indigenous form, overlaid as that tongue is by Arian forms and vocables; and I have myself not the least doubt that the anomalous né of the preterite of Hindi and Urdu is nothing but the commutative equivalent of the Khas instrumental sign lé. A Khas of Népál invariably says, by me struck for I struck, and me struck for I was struck; and, inoreover, there is still the strongest presumptive proof, internal and external, that this, the present preterite, was a primitive aorist, and the only tense in Khas. Those who are fully conversant with the spoken Prákrits of the plains can testify that the same traits still cleave to the

vernaculars of the so-called Arian class of tongues in the plains-traces, I conceive, of primitive Turánianism as palpable as are to be found in the secondary terms (bhat-wat, mar-dal (vide infra), kapra-latta, &c.) of the Prákrits, and which their grammarians can only explain by calling them tautological sing-song. That all such terms are really genuine samples of the double words so common throughout the Turánian area, and that the latter member of each term is Turánian, I trust by and by to have time to show. Meanwhile, and with reference to the Tartar substitute for the voices, here are a few examples:

By me struck I struck, active voice.

=

Tibetan, ngági dúng; Newári, jing dáye; Háyu, g'ha toh'mi; Khas, mailè kútyo; Urdu, main nè kúta.

Me struck I was struck, passive voice.

=

Tibetan, ngála dúng; Newári, jita dála; Háyu, go toh'mi; Khas, manlai kútyo; Urdu, mujh ko kúta (subaudi, usnè).

=

The languages which employ conjunct suffix pronouns have a form precisely equivalent to the latter, e.g., Sontál dál-éng, and Hayu toh'-múm struck me. And observe that Sontál dál, to strike, reproduces not only the widespread dá vel tá root of the north, but also the 1 of Newári dála, as to which see remarks on the transitive and preterite sign aforegone, and Urdu már-dál, with its comment.

With regard to the personal endings or pronominal suffixes of the Nilgirian verbs, their obscurity is sufficiently conformable to the cultivated Dravirian models, with due allowance for mistakes on the part of the rude speakers of the former tongues. Something may also be ascribed with probability to decomposition and disuetude. But upon the whole we cannot doubt that these tongues belong to the pronomenalised class, and that, for example, the ni and mi of Toda tinsbi-ni, I eat;

Observe also that Jita dála reproduces the objective sign, ta vel da, above spoken of. Compare latada and Cicero t. As a transitive sign of verbs it is most widely diffused, and nearly as widely are ka vel ga, and pa, vel ba, vel va. Sa vel cha is a very widely diffused neuter sign which also can be traced indubitably to the third pronoun used to denote the object—in this case, the agent himself or itself. The French forms, Je lève and Je me lève, &c., very well serve to indicate the latter form, though not the former of Turánian verbs.

tinsbi-mi, we eat; with the an, al, ad of nidre-madut-an, madutal, maḍut-ad, he, she, it sleeps, of Kurumba, are instances of suffixed pronouns. And now, having already remarked- sufficiently upon the other peculiarities of the Nilgiri pronouns under the head of "pronoun," I shall here bring these remarks, suggested by the Nilgirian vocabularies, to a close.

P.S. Of the many resembling or identical words in the Himá layan and Dravidian tongues I say nothing at present. Those who meanwhile wish to see them, have only to consult the several vocabularies printed in the Journal.

But with reference to what I have stated above, that there exists an authentic tradition (reduced to writing some five hundred years back) identifying the people of the Malabar coast with those of Népál proper (or the Newár tribe), I may just point to such words as wá vel vá = come, and sumaka silent, as perfectly the same in form and meaning both in the Newár language and in that of the Nilgirians.

=