438 



Bailing Vocabulary. 



[No. 



Gikko. be born. 

 Jito, be born. 

 Bokko, get up. 

 Bukko, be burst. 



Kikko, beget or give birth to. 

 Chito, tear. 



Pokko, raise, or make get up. 

 Pukko, burst. 



2nd, by dropping the intransitive sign whatever 

 transitive sign in " to," or " ndo" (do). 



be, and substituting the 



Piwo, come. 



Rawo, come. 



Diwo, go. 



],awo, go. 



Kuwo, come up. 



Yuwo, come down. 



Dwakko, be desirous or long. 



Tugno, drink. 



Wogno, issue. 



Glugno, enter. 



Chayinso, learn. 



Niso, sit. 



Khleuso, lie hid. 



Pi to, brir , 



Rato, bring. 



Dito, take aw^. 



Lato, take away. 



Kuto, bring up. 



Yuto, bring down. 



Dwakto, desire it, or long for it. 



Tundo, cause to drink. 



Wondo, extract. 



Glundo, insert. 



Chayindo, teach, i. e. cause to learn. 



Nito, set down. 



Khleundo, hide it. 



I need not point out what an important analogy with the Dravidian tongues the 

 first (nay, both) of these two processes presents, but I may add that this analogy 

 is in perfect keeping with the further habit of this Himalayan language of harden- 

 ing or doubling the indicative present sign by way of making a preterite, as 



Myelda, he is sleepy. 

 Sada, he kills. 

 Kwada, he puts on the fire. 

 Gramda, he hates. 

 Teuba, he strikes. 

 Breta, he summons. 

 Khleuta, he conceals. 

 Soda, he tells it. 



Myelta, he was sleepy. 

 Sata, he killed. 

 Kwata, be put on the fire. 

 Gramta, he hated. 

 Teupta, he struck. 

 Bretta, he summoned. 

 Klileutta, he concealed. 

 Sotta, he told it. 



Add to these analogies the common habit of Bahing and Tamil of annexing the 

 conjugational sign to the imperative and that that sign is indifferently applied to 

 intransitives and transitWes (leaving the style of the indicative to difference them) ; 

 and further that the conjunct pronomenalization of their verbs and nouns is by 

 prefixing in regard to the nouns and suffixing in regard to the verbs,* not to men- 

 tion several other analogies cited in the sequel, and Messrs. Muller and Caldwell will 

 find it difficult to maintain their assertion that there is nothing Dravidian in the 

 structure of the Himalayan tongues ! 



* Teub-u, I strike 

 Teub-i, Thou strikest 

 Teub-a, lie strikes 

 Pog-u, I raise 

 Pog-i, Thou raisest 

 Pog-a, He raises 

 Bret-u, I summon 

 Bret i, Tliou summon'st 

 Bret-a, He summons 



Wa popo, My uncle. 

 I popo, Thy uncle. 

 A popo, His uncle. 

 Wagu, My hand. 

 I gu, Thy hand. 

 A «u, His hand. 

 Wa daubo. Myself. 

 r daubo, Thyself. 

 A daubo, Hisself. 



[Remark. — Wa, i, a, the pro- 

 nominal adjuncts are perfect- 

 ly distinct from the separate 

 pronouns ; and, wa being = 



1 u, the adjuncts of verb and 

 noun tally to identity. Here, 

 then, is the alleged diagnosis 

 of Dravidianum more fully 



| developed than in any Diavi- 



l^ dian tongue. 



