Were we to refer to the test of facts as in the case of the Hebrew, we should find all these arguments corroborated thereby in the fullest manner. It is true, that we have not specimens of Sungskrit prose equally ancient with those of the Hebrew language extant in the Sacred Scriptures; but we have in the Ramayuna specimens of poetry which assume to themselves the merit of being the first poetry written in the Sungskrit language; and if we compare those with the Chinese collection of poems in the Shee, some of which will be found quite as ancient as the Ramayuna, (for I can not but deem certain of them at least two hundred years older than Homer or Hesiod,) in ten pages of the Ramayuna containing four hundred and fifty-nine words, we shall find no more than thirteen monosyllabic words, of which seven do not occur in the Shee, nor are two of them used to express the same idea in both languages. To refer to Dialects of the Sungskrit is superfluous; for who can say that any one of these is coeval with the Chinese colloquial medium? Were we however to refer to any one, the Bengalee might be the most proper, both as Bengal is most contiguous to China, and the language one of the purest descendants of the Sungskrit: in four pages of the translation of the Muhabharut, one of the most ancient Bengalee works we have, which contain two hundred and sixty-five words, there are only seven monosyllables to be found, of which three alone are found in the Chinese system. But the nation which, from colloquial intercourse with another, could form a colloquial medium by selecting one word out of eighty-eight, or even one out of sixty-five, deserves no common degree of praise.

The question, whether the Sungskrit system was derived from the Chi

nese, or whether the two systems originated independently of each other, I must leave to abler pens. On the certainty of the latter, however, those will not hastily decide, who consider that the Arabic, the Ethiopic, the Persian, the Greek, the Roman alphabets, and most of those in the western world, may be traced to one source, widely different as are the languages themselves: --and the formation of the Sungskrit alphabetic system from the initial and final powers contained in the Chinese colloquial system, has been already shewn to be at least possible. But to ascertain whether it was actually formed from this as an outline, or whether the Hindoos invented a totally new system, requires so thorough a research into the ancient history of both nations, that were I qualified for the task, I could not think of intruding far ther on the patience of the reader at the present time. It is probable, however, that in the future examination of the Chinese ancient writings, certain facts may occur, which may throw considerable light on this obscure subject.

It may not be deemed wholly foreign to our subject, if we examine what connection the alphabetic systems of certain of the neighbouring nations have either with the Sungskrit, or the Chinese system. For this purpose we may begin with the alphabetic system of Tibet, which lies to the north-west of China, and borders on the north of Bengal, and terminate with that of the kingdom of Laos, the last country contiguous to China which does not admit the Chinese written characters.

S2

:

The PREVALENCE of the CHINESE and the SUNGSKRIT SYSTEMS among the NEIGHBOURING NATIONS.

In the "Alphabetum Tangutanum sive Tibetanum," printed at Rome in 1773, the TIBET alphabet is detailed at large; and with it agree two copies of the Bootan alphabet, the one brought from that country by Dr. Carey, in 1798, and the other by a friend about four years ago. This alphabet is derived from the Nagree or Sungskrit system, and some of the letters resemble the corresponding ones in the Bengalee alphabet. It contains eight series; the last of which has only two powers.* The first four of these are the k, t, ch, and p series, common to both the Sungskrit and Chinese systems; but the alphabet is alike destitute of the f series of the Chinese system, and of the double modification of the t series found in the Sungskrit system. The fifth series of this alphabet, ts, t≈h, &c. is evidently the ts, ts'h series of the Chinese system; and amidst the sixth and seventh, vestiges of the other sibilant series may be traced. But the most singular feature in this descendant of the Sungskrit system is, that the four first series, instead of possessing five letters like the Nagree alphabet, have only four: the second aspirate in the series is wanting, as it is in the Chinese system; and like that system too, the first and third letters of each series have the same sound affixed to them. Hence the author of the Alphabetum Tibetanum, P. Georgius, says, that the Tibet alphabet is, among other letters, deficient in b, g, d, and ≈,† which are those we have already remarked as found in the Sungskrit system, but not in

Præceptores Tibetani has consonantes in octo ordines distribuunt. In unoquoque ordine litteras quatuor collocant, ultimo excepto, cui duas tantum tribuunt. Alphabetum Tibetanum, p. 13.

+ Litteræ deficientes in Tibetana lingua vii. numerantur, B D F G Q xz, Alphab. Tib. p. 587.

the Chinese. They also materially alter the meaning of their words by affixing to them the Chinese Intonations, which will be hereafter considered.

The BURMAN alphabet adheres closely to the Sungskrit alphabet, containing precisely the same number of letters. Still the pronunciation leans to the Chinese colloquial medium. They give to some of the letters, sounds scarcely known in the Sungskrit alphabet, and some they are quite unable to pronounce. This is the case with the letter r, respecting which a friend residing at Rangoon, who has a Burman grammar in the press, and is preparing a dictionary, thus writes: "The letter r is pronounced like y in the Burman language; and there are very few Burmans who can pronounce it at all when it immediately follows another consonant." The same friend, in his grammar of the Burman language, remarks, "that the Burman language is principally formed from certain roots: that all these roots are monosyllables consisting of one or two letters; and that these roots are both simple and compound. That the latter consist of two or more simple roots combined, which roots thus combined, suggest an idea that a stranger to the language would think impossible to be suggested by them. Thus a root signifying search, investigation, and another signifying to forget, form the word which denotes wedlock: but the adjective upright is formed by uniting a word that means straight, with another denoting direct." He further observes, "that the Burmans add two accents or Intonations to the sound properly belonging to the monosyllables, the long and soft, and the short and abrupt accent, by means of which they are enabled to form three distinct words from one monosyllable." The monosyllables, which forms these roots,

* Ex his enim toni statuuntur et, accentus ipsi etiam naturam, et vim significandi in Tibetanis litteris mutant Ibid, p. 14.

keen, hhun; kay; khoy; pun, phun; ping, p'hing, ming, and a multitude of others which might be adduced, sufficiently indicate the share which the Chinese language has in forming the colloquial medium, even under the adoption of the Sungskrit alphabet."

The ARRACAN, or BUKHING language, as Dr. Leyden terms it,* differs little from the Burman, either in the characters or the colloquial medium. Respecting it, Dr. Leyden, in his Dissertation, says: "The Rukheng is the first of that singular class of Indo-Chinese languages, which may be properly termed monosyllabic, from the mass of their radical words consisting of monosyllables like the spoken dialects of China."+ And in another part of his Dissertation he observes respecting the nation, that, "being, from their situation, more immediately connected with India, their language is by no means purely monosyllabic; but forms, as it were, the connecting link be tween the polysyllabic, and monosyllabic languages."

Relative to the alphabet of the SIAMESE, the nation farthest south of China toward the sea, a copy of which I have carefully examined, we find that the characters of it have been borrowed from the Nagree alphabet; and that it is arranged in the same order. The alphabet contains five series, and seven unconnected letters, but it is destitute of the two-fold t series of the Sungskrit alphabet, while it has the fseries of the Chinese colloquial System. Further, the third letter of each series, like the third in the Chinese system, differs little or nothing in pronunciation from the first; and the fourth in the series, or the second aspirate, is said to be scarcely ever used. They also vary the meaning of their words by the Chinese intonations, according to some, in a higher degree than even the Chinese themselves.

* See a valuable Dissertation on the Languages and Literature of the Indo-Chinese nations, by my highly steemed friend the late Dr. Leyden, + See p. 66.