4 



IITHNOLOOV OF THE iNOO-rACIFlC I6LAND£». 



pronominal eletnentB may be considered as fleslonally related, and 

 this gives to tlic Draviriao system a marked character. In addi- 

 lion to this the root is reduplicated, with a change in the second 

 vowel, or it is combined with a definitive particle, 

 A. I^ronowis. * 



Before altera p ling to trace the range and the afBnilies of the 

 Dravirian pronouns, it ia necessary to determine their proper forms, 

 and mark their variations as accurately as possible. 



The root of the Fii'st Pronoun occurs under the ftdl forms na 

 (Tamil, Kurgi, Karnataka, Gond, in pi. Malayalam, Male), nga 

 ( Malay alam) and ne (Telugu). The vowel becomes o in some 

 forms. The definitive -nu is poelfixed in Karnataka, Telugu and 

 Khond. The Gond agentive nii-na appears to invert the relative 

 position of the root and the definiiive. The common Gond form, 

 na/i, preserves the true vowel of the root and postfixes the preval- 

 ent defiiisitive of that dialect. Tamil, Malayalara and Kurgi post- 

 fix the contracted form of the definitive, The root, as fre- 

 quently happens in Dravirian glossology, losers its initial consonattt 

 in some forms, e. g. awet, an, a. ' The form en may be an inversion 

 of ne, but it is better explained as a contraction in which e is the 

 radical element (e« from ncn or nmn like m, a from nanv, a7iw).t 



• On. tlie general subject of the Dravirian pronouns I may refer the rcmler to the 

 valimlile papers by tliii Rwv. Dr Sfevmson in flie Journtil oi tlio Horabay .Vs/atic 

 Bktciety, iind in particular to lils ftrticlc in thu miiuber inr January IHoH, My invn 

 clo3»a*rial conipftrlaons liad been in(io|ieiulcntly made before ueeins xh'a piipcV, hut 

 it is due to Dr StevGniian to remark lliat an*ot tlie ntfinitfea whicli lias considtirtib e 

 weight in my dftiuctions fiaa been noted iiy Dr S. altUougli only as an 

 iaoliifed fact, — tfint of tfie Ist pronaun to the Chinese ngo. His ireneral iiderence 

 that the Dnivfrian pronouns are of a pecuiJar type mare allitd to tlus Turanian 

 liiaii to the Sanskrit — unless it refer to ifie htmctuni and not fn tlie roots — i-< open 

 to I he muiirk that the tjanakrit roota are Turanian or .Srytliie while tht Dravirian 

 arii not. Tlw 1st pronoun, Dr Stevenson remarks, ** is* alIU<d to thti laii>?ua^t-8 ul" 

 Ar.ildii and Syria on the one hand, and on the ulher with the Chine.^K family," aiul 

 alsti with " the Tibetan." The foreign ai&iities of the 2nd pronoun are not adverted 

 to hy Dr S. The niain scojus of his pajwrs h to di.HtinKtiiHh the Dravirian trom the 

 iJanskritic el«:ment4 in the GuKaraliii-JJenjjuli class uf ianguagca. 'i'he honorific 

 apun, rt/wH, of these languna:™ he identiJiea with tlie Dravirian avntt, 

 hv&y »tiid«iit uf the languages of India will Hnd jniich nmtter of tlie highest value 

 and tnturest in Dr Stevenson's papers. Uia com paraUve vocahulaiy of the non- 

 Sanskrit vocablea in the vernacular languitge* of India promii~ei! to he a work of 

 fiotid erudition, and ita comjdeiion wilt l>e an important service to Indian and 

 AfKinesian ethnology. 



Tim rt'sembianqe betvpeen the Chinese, tJie Tibeto-UItraindiati and the Draviro- 

 Australian pronouns was shown in tfie glost^arfal Inbles in my paper on the "Traeea 

 of an etlmio connection between the basin of the (jnngeri and the Indian Ardn- 

 p«lago hcfcire tlie advance of the Hindus into India" read before the Royal Society 

 of Ediniun'};)) in January 18SI, vkfr unte vol. \i, p. ti.'j4. 



t In cliap. IV sec. ti, I Imvo considered en. ue as gfleininffly the radical form, 

 nod in aomc cas«s assumed as porUi>ns of the root elenionti Ibat I now refer lo 



