20 EFitsoLoar of the tndo-pacific iblanb*. 



Naga nt, Bodo and Garo an^, anga &c, are Tibeto-tJltraindian or 

 Dravirian.* 



Tlie chief distinction between the Tibeto-Ultpaindian and the 

 Bravii'O-Augtralian systems consists in tiie combinations, aggluti- 

 nattons and flexions ^vliich are found in the latter. But thiro k 

 also a real difference in the forms of the roo^s. The pro|»er ibrm 

 of the 1st person in Tibeto-lJllraintlian is still i%a. This was no 

 doubt tbe original Indian form also^ but from a remote period in 

 the bistory of Dravirian as an agglutinative formation^ modificti- 

 liona of this form bave prevailed, tbe principal being nn, ne or en, 

 ing and the contractions e and i. When East Tibetan languages 

 batoe under the influence of Dravirian phonologj' similar forma 

 blight be produced in tbem, but in f^eneral such forms appear to 

 be of true Bravirian origin. It is not at all probable that so great 

 a transformation as that of nga into i took place in any purely 

 Tibetan langnage, wbile tbe arcbaic prevalence of e in Dmviritm 

 and its original identity with the e of en, eng are certified hy 

 numerous facts in difl<3rent languages. When therefore we find 

 in the obTiObslj compound Naga system, with ite flexfonal Dra* 

 Tirian traits, not only the true Tibetan forme nga "1" and nang 

 "thou" [Gyarung let nga, 2nd nan-] but in the plural Ist ni and 

 2nd ne, and in the possessive Ist i and 2nd ma, there can be no 

 doubt that ni and i are remnants of a Dravirian form of the Ist 

 pronoun similar to the oblique South Dravirian^ to tbe Kof and 

 Limbu, and to ibe allied forme found in the older or prepositional 

 Junguages of Ultraindia. Other Gangetico-Ukraindian examples 



• The comparative; tflibfe of tfiR Dravirian promuins wlIT s\iow the great difliculiy 

 bf ilistiiijjuisliii lM;tw*;(Tn tJiR Dniviriwii antt tins Tilieto UUruindian terms. I am 

 tty nu iiiGtttiB fifttisfed tbat the c lass ificaf ion h correct in all cajiea. Sonus of the 

 llimalayan and Ultm Indian forms Bre, in mere phonetic form, as mucli al- 

 lied to the eoothtci-n as t» the niirthern group. Tlie jiTincipal facta tliar have 

 untied TTie ar« tbc-se. Ttie aoutliera fonns of llie 1st pronoun in i, e have bten 

 prrt tiU-ed hy tlic iiicorporatinn of the »(w*f<v* "» e purtide i &e. with tlie prommn. 

 Tlmy are ctmftequently tontid reirnlari.Y in thf .sin^idar. TIih T)h+-tti-Ullrairidiftn 

 forms tn i", have been produced bytlie iiii-'(jr]wrii«ion a ^cylhican'i East Tih«ti n 

 plmnt particle, nt, f, (sw Jtorpa) with ttie prongiin. as iscvidt'U" from thiii par- 

 t\c\ii remaining as a postfix in Bftvcral Iane:nii|r<i9. The Himalayan and the allied 

 Ultmindian forms in i am consequently fnuiid repnlarlv in the jilvirHl oniy. Hunca 

 I conniilfr ihe aingiUar rlnfja Jlilclianang, inaaMilcli., IJinhii, to be allf&l to the 

 Dravirian in^, diitr, ena, en kc, and not to the plural Garo ning ; and Ifie plural 

 ni Serpa, ani Umbu, ain Kiranti, In Murmi to he disinct from tlie sinjfutar iiing 

 Ho, Bin BTnna &c. A few lorms in e. ohniously Tihtto-Ultraindiati (Takpa, 

 KitiHiwari Tibetfin, MiUir) an' atlrihutab'e tor lie pure v phonetic tendenoy to re- 

 pliica ft by e, found in some of t he Tlbeto-Ultiaindian languages, as in more fully 

 notittcd hi the next chapter. 



