1853.] On the Mongolian Affinities of the Caucasians. 



51 



Si-n-du in Grurung. 



Sa-ng in Anam. 

 Si-ma in Newari. 

 T-sing in Mm. 



Forest. — Dish-cha in Mingre- 



lian. 

 Din-cha in Dhimali. 



Bird. — Pu-r-ti in Andi. 



Pet-tang in. Avar. 



Pye in Gyarung. 

 Pya in Takpa. 

 Byii in Tibetan. 



Bii in Limbu. 

 Pho in Lepcha. 



Msh. — b Zheh in Circassian. 



g Zhah in Thocku. 



f Here is a Mongolian sample of the 

 du suffix, so frequent in the Cau- 

 «{ casian series. Ka-n-du, Ka-do-t, 

 &c, voce foot, are further sarn- 

 ie pies. 



Sa, Si, the. root, ut supra. Of ma 

 suffix we have had samples in 

 Nhi-ti-ma, voce day, Chi-m, voce 

 water, Cha-m, voce Hair, &c. 



(The Osetic Chi = tree is clearly 



< the basis of these two words for 

 ( forest. 



S Compare Ta-r-ti, a cap, Ti-r-mi a 

 man, Nyi-ti day, of the Mongo- 

 lian series, and the Pii root will 

 be easily apprehended. 



Tang, servile, is the ta particle with 

 the common nasal addition. How 

 common it is may be seen by 

 consulting my Himalayan Vocab. 

 Pe is the root, borrowing the t 

 from the servile suffix. 



f Pye = Pe. The frequent intercala- 



< tion of y, has been already noted 

 I in m, Nyi, Khi Khyi, &c. 



(Abstract the intercalate y, and the 

 < root re-produces that of the Andi 

 ( Pu-r-ti. 



= Andi Pu. 



( Turn to the word for flesh, and you 

 < will see the differential function 

 ( of the prefix b. 



''Initial g = b supra. These are 

 merely the conjunct forms of the 

 ba, ga prefixes. The conjunct 

 and disjunct system of prefixed, 

 as of infixed and postfixed ser- 

 viles, prevail alike in the Caucasian 

 and Mongolian tongues, as evi- 

 denced by this paper throughout ; 

 and the prevalence of both systems 

 is another striking feature of that 

 perfect analogy which pervades 



^ these tongues. 



h 2 



