plural is one of the characteristics of these tongues, and one that prevails very generally from the Pacific to Caucasus. But how it can be said that in the Mantchú tongue this inclusive plural is formed regularly from the singular mou by means of the plural sign sé, I cannot conceive, since a regular pluralising particle would be uniformly applied and wear one shape, whereas there is here in the three persons of the pronouns no vestige of such attributes in the sé particle. The ordinary "we" (bé) has no trace of this or other pluralising suffix; the ordinary "ye" (sou wé) has quite a different augment (wé); and, lastly, the third person shows the sé particle indeed, but with a foreign element or suffixed t (sét). Now surely a grammatical rule must have some identity of character, what it includes must be similar in form and application. But that in the Mantchú pronouns the plurals cannot be said to be regularly formed by the addition of sé, is self-apparent; and if we turn to any collated list of the pronouns of the Altaic tongues generally, we shall immediately perceive the same anomalies prevailing throughout this group of languages, and affecting both the form and the application of all the particles; the áng suffix, for instance, being at once a genitive and a dative sign in a single tongue (sanggé, of thee; manggé, to me, in Ouigúr), and also changing its form entirely in the same case (meaning, of me; sanggé, of thee) in that single tongue. Look again beyond the Altaic group and you will see the same anomalies. Everybody had noticed them in this or that instance, and I have on this account myself demurred to the use of the pronouns at all as a test of ethnic affinity. I am now aware that I was misled by the authority of great names, looking at these particles from a too grammatical point of view. We first make the particles grammatical, and then we declare them to be utterly anomalous; the facts being, that they are not strictly or uniformly grammatical, generally speaking, nor perhaps anywhere so, except as the result of

This remarkable and arbitrary feature of a dual and two plurals I have already detected in the Kuswar, Hayu, and Kiranti tongues of the Himalaya, and in the Ho, Sontál, and Uraon tongues of Tamulian India. I need hardly add that the same peculiarity belongs to the Tagalan and Alforian languages, as well as the Altaic.

Arian influences (Tibetan, Newárese, cultivated Tamulian, and so in Caucasus); and that they obey their own law with perfect uniformity, and equally so when they attach to pronouns as to nouns and to verbs. That they are not strictly grammatical may be shown as well by their inconsistency with any intelligible conception of grammar,* as by the harmonious and simple elucidation they admit of according to their own norma loquendi or mechanism of speech.

Look, for instance, at the following explication of the Mantchú plurals above cited, or mouse, souwé, and tését. Mou-sé, we = I and thou; thus mou is the ma, mi, mo, root for I, obsolete as an ordinary nominative in this tongue, but found as such in most of the cognate series of tongues, and forthcoming even in Mantchú in all the oblique cases (mi-ni; mi-ninggé; mi-ndé); sé, again, is the sá, sé, sí, só root for thou, still extant as si in this tongue, as sé in Turki, as sú in Ouigúr, Finnic, and Esthonian, not to cite more instances from my ample store. Therefore mousé is beyond dispute a compound of two roots meaning I and thou. In like manner precisely is sou-wé, ye, a compound of the root above cited for thou, and of the o, ú, root for he; which latter, though obsolete in Mantchú, is extant in Turki and in Ouigúr as o; in Magyar as óé or wé; in Circassian as úí or wí; in Garo as ú; in Dhimali, in Gyárúng, and in Thunglhu, as wá; in Newári, as wó, &c. &c. Sou-wé, ye, is therefore palpably a compound of the roots expressing thou and he; só changing to sou, as mó to mou, and óé to wé; the é moreover being a synonym of ó, and a phase of the i root, found alike in this very Mantchú tongue and in Circassian; so that the Magyar óé, Circassian úí, and Mantchú í, with other instances just cited, lead irresistibly to

There should be, though there is not, a higher sort of grammar capable of reconciling Tartaric forms of speech with our own; that is, of showing the equiva lency of each to the other. In the meanwhile the use of our technical terms in discussing the Tartar tongues is natural, almost inevitable; and at all events I beg earnestly to disclaim all purpose of censure whilst attempting to elucidate. There is much grammar in these tongues, but, as I think, borrowed, and shown to be so as well by reference to the much larger and unchanged portion of the languages as by the unharmonising character which the grammatical element wears when it exists.

wé he in Mantchú.

=

Therefore souwé, ye, is literally thou and he; as mousé, wé, is literally I and thou. In like manner the third plural or they, tését, is undoubtedly a compound of té he, and sé thou. The sé root has the tá particle added as a conjunct servile (sé-t), according to a rule of universal operation in these tongues. Té is extant in Mantchú in the sense of he. It has the rá particle suffixed and harmonised in its vowel to the vowel of the root (téré), also according to a universal rule governing these particles; and sé, in the sense of thou, is likewise extant, as sí in Mantchú, as sé in Turki, as sá in some one of its phases, in short (sá, sé, sí, só, sú) in twenty of these tongues. Therefore té-sé-t, or they, is literally he and thou; and the whole of the three plurals are constructed upon precisely the same principle thus:

In like manner the Mongolian plurals, bi-dá, tá, and té-dé-t, might be analysed by means of the Tibetan demonstratives, dí and dé, with their analogues in allied tongues, and shown to be nothing more than reiterate pronouns of the singular number, and also that the dá, dé is no more a plural sign than the third phase of this particle or dou (dá, dé, dí, dó) is a dative sign, though widely as erroneously so regarded (just as De Cörös regards the equivalent ra* particle), witness t sé-do, to the earth; ko-dá, to the foot, &c., in the Caucasian group, according to Vater. In truth, the dá particle is in these latter instances a servile, not a radical, as is the sé before given; but apparently neither radical nor servile can be regarded in strictness as a declensional sign of case or of

De Cörös, pursuant to his view of the rá particle, as a dative case sign, translates namgar in one instance and another, to heaven. Now, nam is the sun, and kha vel gá is place; and that the ra suffix only emphasises the sense of khá vel gá may be shown by a familiar pair of examples. Gár vel gáro and takla-khár are the names of two well-known places in Nari, gár meaning the place or fort, or headquarters of its district; and takla-kbar, the place, or fort, or sadr, of Takla. Again, the thirteenth divisions of the spire of a chaitya are called chuksum-khár in Tibetan = trayodas bhuvan in Sanscrit, i.e., the thirteenth mansion.

number. Nor in the great majority of these tongues from Caucasus to Oceanica do these or the other particles* ordinarily fulfil the necessary conditions of such a sign, with the scant and obvious exceptions before noted. The sá radical and the dá servile are both alike particles, and as such subject to the laws regulating particles, according to which all their alleged anomalies in either character can be explained, including not only every vocalic change incident to them in both capacities alike, but also that substitution whereby they interchange functions and the root becomes a servile, or the servile a root. Thus, for example, the sé particle is undoubtedly a root in the instances cited above, and it is as undoubtedly a servile in the Magar tongue, wherein í-sé means this, and ó-sé, that; í and ó being the near and remote demonstratives, with sé as a servile affix, answering exactly to the Georgian s in í-s, he. Compare Circassian í with Georgian í-s, and the servile and equivalent character of the sa suffix in these instances drawn from the Magyar and Georgian tongues will be at once apparent, and it will be also perceived how the alleged plural sense is here neither admissible nor possible, though the particle be assuredly the identical one to which in the Mantchú tongue the plural quality is attributed.

In explaining the Mantchú pronouns I have included almost all that need be said of the Circassian third personal singular, or ú, í, with its change to t' conjunct, as in t-ab, his father.

If we consider the ú, the í, and the t as all radicals, we may yet find numerous equivalents for each in that sense; and if, again, we regard the t' as a servile superseding the radical úí or wí, we may find abundant instances of such supersession alike among the Caucasian and the Mongolian tongues, as má, ma-fa, fá, fire; bí, dí-bi, dí, skin; sá, bá-sá, bá, cow; and many more for which I must refer to the forthcoming analysed list of vocables.

With regard to Mongolian equivalents for the radicals ú, í,

• The chá suffix in ma-ch, we, Osetic, is called a plural sign. What is it in sa-ch, earth? Probably what it is in a-ch, one, Circassian; viz., a servile with the usual diferential function.

and ta, in the sense of he, the third personal, the subjoined enumeration must suffice at present.

U', Circassianú in Gáró; ú in Sontál; ó (óé) in Magyar; ó in Ouigúr and Turki; wó in Newári; wá in Gyárúng, in Dhimali, and in Thunglhu. I', Circassianí in Mantchú; í in Sontál; í in Burmese (this); é in Magyar (óé); é in Kalmak; é in Lazig; í-s in Georgian; í-sé in Magar; í-tu in Tagalan. Tá, Circassian té in Mongol; té in Mantchú; tá in Esthonian; tá in Chinese; thá in Gyámi; thí in Gúrúng; thé in Murmi; thú in Burmese.

=

If, again, we take the Circassian ú, í, as one root and word, we have parallels for it in the Magyar óé, similarly taken, and in all the wá roots should we read wí (w for ú).

With regard to the Gyárúng wa, tú, which I have compared with the Circassian ú, í, changing in composition to tá, it is very important to observe that if wa, tú, and ú, í, be considered as compounds of two synonymous roots, according to the above detailed exposition of roots, then that such reiterated pronouns are completely conformable to the genius of these tongues, and as such harmonise perfectly with the preceding exposition of the plurals. These tongues, in fact, revel in cumulation, pronominal and nominal, varying as to the exact applications of the emphasised or reiterated pronouns,

but

The perfect agreement of the Circassian and Dhimali in regard to the singu lar of the third personal, ú being he, in both tongues, renders the proximate agreement of the perplexing plural, ú-bert and ú-bal, very interesting. I have tried the analysis in several ways, but have not succeeded to my own satisfaction; but I submit the following.

U'-ba-rt = they he and he; one he being the ú above elucidated, and the other, a synonymous bá, bé, bí root, such as bí actually is in Bódó; rt, servile; the ra and ta suffixes conjunct.

U'-ba-l they = he and he, as before. The juxtaposition of the Bódó and Dhimal tribes renders the adoption of the bi root from Bódó likely in this instance. It is, however, a word and root widely diffused, and used as a noun and pronoun also. Final l', servile.—The Suanic al, he, and the Ouigúr and Turki ol, he, and ol-ar, they, are very suggestive, as also the Turkish and Ouigúr bí, and the Sokpo bú in abú, with all the numerous words for man having the bi root, as bi-shi, juvenis, alike in Turki and in Bódó. Nominal and pronominal roots are so apt to coincide that I have a long list of coincident roots for ego = homo: for instance, the mi root, and ta root, and sa root, and ba root.

+ See Mith. voce Turki, i. 467 et seq., and Essay on Koch, Bódó, and Dhimal, p. 120, and De Cörös' Grammar, p. 65, Crawfurd's Malayan Grammar, Phillips' Sontal Grammar, and Brown's'Asam Grammar.