480 Vdyu Vocabulary. [No. 6. 



- ("Hagnom, gives to me thou or lie any single person. 



' \Hakem, gives to us any one in all numbers. 

 , f To' mum, beats me thou or he any one in singular number. 



' \To'pem, beats us any one in all numbers. 

 „ JHanum, gives to thee I only. Hami, for any other giver. 



" j^Hanem, gives to you all any save I. Hanonem, for me as the giver. 

 9 f Topnum, beats thee I only. To'mi, for any other beater or beaters, 

 " \Topnem, beat you all, any save I, in all numbers, 

 rHatum, gives to him thou or he or any single person except me. Hatungmi, 

 J for me. 

 3. / Hamem. No such word. 



Hatomem, gives to them any person or persons except me : Hatungmen, 

 I for me. 



frp , /struck him any single person but me. Topungmi, for me. 



3. \ " ' \strikes him, the present tense is to'mi. 

 l/To'mem, strikes them all any person whatever. 



Hato, to give, being aoristic hatum, is equally present and preterite. But top, 

 to strike, has for the present tomi, which moreover serves for all 3 persons alike in 

 the singular number. 



Thus it appears that num and nem alone offer the appearance of uniformly 

 inflected personal suffixes, and that even in regard to these, the singular and plural 

 senses are diametrically opposite. 



But there are other complications resulting from the plurality of agents or of 

 patients which account at once for the specialities of the above explanations and 

 of those which follow. Thus — 



1. Hagnom, gives to me any single person. 



2. Hagnochhem, give to me any two persons. 



3. Hagnonem, give to me ye all only. 



4. Hagnomem, give to me they all only. 



In the preterite hasung takes the place of hagnom ; and with the verb top', to 

 beat, we have only the euphouic change of gnom to mum, the residue being alike 

 for both verbs ; thus we have — 



Present. Preterite. 



1. To'mum. 1. Topsungmi. 



2. To'mochh.em. 2. Topsungchhem. 



3. To'monem. 3. Topsungnem. 



4. To'momem. 4. Topsungmem. 



If to the above crowding of agents and patients round the action, we add the 

 fact that the distinction of activity and passivity in the action itself is almost lost 

 at the very corner stone of the whole structure of conjugation — because the si^n 

 of action kat' hexokin, viz., its having an object, is precisely that which denotes 

 at once the transitive verb and the passive voice ; e. g. ha-to, give to him ; 

 ha-tu-m, he is given and he gives — we shall at the same time perceive how difficult 

 it is to make these languages conform to our notions of conjugation (see and 

 compare Tickell and Philipps, voce Sontal) and shall also be prepared to hear that 

 a system at once so complex and so. incomplete has been very generally cast aside 

 either wholly (Newari, Lepcha, Bodpa, Malayaiim, Burmah, Malay) ; or in part 

 (other Dravinan, Dhimali, Namsangnaga, &c.) ; and in this or that particular 

 mode, one group of tongues rejecting the dual (Dravirian cultivated) ; another, 

 the sex signs (Himalayan complex) j* a third, the whole system of conjunct pro- 



* The complex Himalayan tongues are Limbu, Kiranti, Hayu, Kuswar, Sunwar, 

 Dhimali, Bhramu, Chepang, Kusunda, &c. 





