





94 Note on the Pronunciation of the Tibetan Language. [No. 2, i 
But all this would leave the linguist hopeless as to the question of — 
the historical periods when these changes took place, as it only adds 
the a posteriort proof, that the pronunciation has once agreed with 
the spelling, to the é priori conclusion which everybody may infer from 
the mere fact of the present discrepancy. A step towards the solution — 
of this question may perhaps be possible by the study of the languages — 
of some frontier districts. An instance of peculiar interest in this 
respect is found in the Boo-nan language, spoken in a small district 
of Lahoul, and in part of Kunawur, where it is called Tibar-skad, — 
Tibar-language. It is the familiar tongue of the Lahoul villages in the 
Bhaga valley, just above the junction of the Bhagaand Chundra rivers, § 
over an extent of about 10 miles on both sides, whereas Tibetan is 
understood and spoken fluently enough in intercourse with genuine 4 } 
Tibetans by the adult men, but more or less imperfectly by women 
and children, and many Tibetan words, very common in books, and i 
generally known in Ladak, are not understood by any one in this 
district. The fact of this language existing in two different provinces, 7 
like two islands separated from each other by the pure Tibetan 
population of Spiti and the pure Hindu nationality of Kooloo, renders 
the theory of a wider diffusion, of the Tibarskad language in former 
times probable, and agrees with the assertion of the Lahoul people, — 
that even within the remembrance of the present generation, its dis-_ 
trict was greater that it is now, and has been more and more encroach- 
ed upon by the Tibetan. Now in this language a great many Tibetan _ 
words are to be met with, which may have induced General Cunningham 
to class this Tibarskad under the head of dialects of the Tibetan - 
but I think the great difference of the grammatical structure of both 
languages (the Boo-nan being at least as elaborate as the Hindi, the 
Tibetan nearly devoid of inflections at all) and even a closer. examina- 
of the lexical stock of the language, must lead to a different opinion. 
Nearly all the words of primary necessity (an inference against which 
Latham objects, Ido not see exactly with how much reason), and 
many others are not borrowed from the Tibetan, any more than from 
Sanscrit, but have an original character. Here is a small list of words 
all of which seem to be original, or at least I know not from what 
other language they might be derived. 
