10 UTiiNOi-ony ok the indo-pacific islands. 



Bingular being ni-na-dtt. If any inference may bo tliawn fjoni 

 this, it is tliat it is possessive and [irobably phiral. In Mod. Taiiu 

 it occurs in the possessive butli of sing, and u-na-da, 8, u-tna- 

 du P. In the Kol dialects it h nUo found will) a plural force 

 under lite form bu if my analyisis of abu be correct. Tiie ab:j<'nce 

 of e oj' i in the possessive of the 2nil |ironouii i;* accoantod for by 

 i being the root vowel of the pronoan itself. In CliajK IV, it was 

 slated that *Hhc objective appears to be radicjilly nti or un wbieJi 

 is probably a variation of tbo pos^scssive" ("la, ru &c). Maiaya- 

 1am has tit-de as well as t«-ic as composite possessives. The arcliaic 

 jjossessivo fanction of w in the former attested by m of the lattijr, 

 I would ihercfore explain the pronominal i.un and ua as oon trac- 

 tions of nl-uu. 



In the ort^iaal system the roots and ]JOStfi.Tres were free, and 

 hence the same root admitted dilFerent postHxed or postplaced 

 dcfiailives. With the deeay of this freedom^ the variety in the 

 definitives and the existence of double plurals, gave rise in llie 

 concretionary stage to eoasideraUIc dialcctive diver^^i-eney and some 

 confusion, as in all other pronominal systems uAit^ oj-iginally 

 several elemoats for the expression of distinctions in each person. 

 In the closely connected Southern dialects these variations are 

 very marked, and in the Northern they lake a still more irre^jular 

 and seemingly capriciotis chai-acter. In the Tamil 1st pei'son wo 

 tind the concreted forms yan, nan in the singular agontive, but in 

 the singular possessive cna or cn with the corresponding plurals 

 possessive ema and nama, (I omit the poss. postfixes -dttt'de,-di 

 Sec.) In the 2nd pci-son wo have ni both in the agentive and pos- 

 sessive of the " Ancient" dialect, but in the Modern*' u« or una 

 in the possessive, convsponding with the plural posse&sives in 

 both nu7Jia Anc. (the full form), and nma Mod. In disintegrated 

 and concreted systems, the original force of the secoutlary cJetiients 

 passes away, and hence serviles come to replice roots, one form 

 to be substituted for another, generic dchnitivcs to receive asiwciul 

 restricted use, special dcfiailives to be generalised or to be clothed 

 with a new special power &c. Thus in Telugu in the singular 

 the definitive ~?iu has become concreted with the 1st pron. and 

 -vti with the 2nd, while in Karnataka -nu rftaina its position in 

 the singulnra of both and is plural in both. Hence nii^i^ is 

 ** thou" in Tchigu but " you" in Karn. The Telugu plurals are 



