KTHNOLOaT GF THE IXDO-PACIPJC ISLANDS. 



19 



(tm, but t\m h proba^ily a variatirtn of tbe Scytliic ma), Ciiueasian 

 (na, Kasi Kurmik), ami S«>mitico-Llbyan (na, also no, mi, ne, tif, 

 that is, all the vocalic vanelie? of which instiinces occur in Chinese, 

 Dnivirian &c.) The Tibcto-Uhi-ainilian Snil prononulLis also the 

 broad farm nan, na (the West or proper Tibetan has a different 

 root), tbus direclljr connecting itself, not with the slender forms of 

 the afljaccnt Chinese and of Draviro- Austral tan, but wilh the 

 archaic Scythic nan, na (Ugi^an). The nnmerous Ugrian and 

 olher Scyihic and N. E. Asian affinities of the Tiheto-Ultraindian 

 vocabniarios render it probable that this form of the 2nd prononn 

 is of archaic Ugrian origin. The Dravirian slender i form and 

 the u form are also Ugrian, ny, ny, nynijt, nyn, nam. The affini- 

 ty between ibe Ostiak form nyn and the Bra viro- Australian nin is 

 obvious. The na?at second prononn is not the prevalent Scytbic, 

 Indo-European and Semitico-Lihyan, form, which is m (, * <fcc. 

 Jf ihe Scyihic m of the 1st pronoun was an archaic variety of n— 

 wbieh is fortnd in Scyilnc, but as a flexion of m — the demonstra- 

 tion of the affinity of proto-Scythic, with A merican on the one side 

 and with Draviro-Auslraban and Tibeto-Ultraindian on the other, 

 and of the dci ivation of the common roots of all frora the Chinese 

 formation, would he complete. Ahliough it is clear that the Dra- 

 viro- Australian jirononns are not derivatives from the Tibeto-Ultra- 

 iudian, but are to be considered as Slaving like them an independent 

 connection with an archaic Mid-Asiatic system — Chinese in rooti 

 and Scvthic in form — it necessarily happens that the forms of the 

 common root^ sometimes so closely resemble each other that it is 

 difficult to say what their I rue origin is in certain of those Indian 

 languages which are placed at the junction of the two fornnalions 

 and have other affinities with both. Tbetfibeto-UUraindian n/a 

 of the lat pronoun becomes iu different languages ngo, ngai, (corap. 

 Chinese ngd) ngi, nge, nye. It is distinguisht-d from the full and 

 more prevalent Dravirian form, not so much by the liquid nasal 

 (n"^ for n) which is also Malayalam, Kol and Auslialian, and 

 appears frotn Chinese to have been the primary form, as by the 

 absence of the definitive postfix. But the contracted an! slender 

 Dravirian vaiieties an, en, ej>g, ing are little distinguished from 

 Tihelo-Ultriiindian forms sucli as ngi, ngo, nye, and it thus becomes 

 ditHcult in all cases lo decide whether varieties likejhe Mikir ne, 



♦ 



