50 THE SAKAI AND SEMANG DIALECTS} 
After discussing the sources, Professor Schmidt gives a 
comparative vocabulary of words of all the aboriginal dialects 
represented in them, reduced as far as possible to a uniform 
system of spelling and arranged according to the apparent re- 
lationships of the individual words. This has been very well 
done and must have been a difficult and troublesome task, but it 
is needless to say that such an arrangement (the only one possible 
for comparative stady) is necessarily, in the present imperfect 
state of our knowledge of the subject, to some extent tentative 
and provisional. In many cases the author’s assumption of an 
underlying affinity seems somewhat unconvincing. It is difficult, 
for instance, to believe that Jog” is the Same word as jéhu: true 
they both mean “tree” or “wood” (though I believe log” = “tree,” 
Mal. pohon and jéhu = ‘“‘wood” Mal. kayu), and there are, it 
must be admitted, forms in existence which seem to be almost 
intermediate between them, e. @., delok", jelop, jéhup and the like, 
but the evidence of identity does not seem to be quite con- 
clusive, the more so as, apparently, the two variant forms appear 
on occasions together in one dialect.* 
Sometimes, too, in his natural desire to arrive at identifica- 
tions, the author is inclined to take liberties with his authorities : 
e. g., he will have it that ge, “to eat” (in Sémang) is to be pro- 
nounced je, so as to bring it into line with the other and more 
common word for ‘“‘to eat,” viz: cha (Sakai), chi (Séman). But 
the q in ge is hard, and the word appears to be quite distinct 
from cha and chi. 
In compiling his comparative vocabulary, the author has 
designedly omitted words of Malayan origin." This is some- 
what regrettable as the forms assumed by these words in the 
aborizinal dialects throw an interesting light on their phonology. 
Moreover the omission seems to involve the assumption that all 
such wordsare of comparatively modern importation from Malay, 
whereas in fact there are in these dialects words of undoubted 
Malayan affinity which cannot possibly have come into them in 
that way. Certainly such words as to’ot “knee”, asu “dog” awe 
s. See Dr. Luering’s Ulu Kampar Sakai in No. 35 of this 
Journal. ; 
t. The process has not been quite completely carried out, some. 
40 words being left in, besides these noticed by the author. 
Jour. Straits Branch 
