KTimoLOGY OF THK ISDO-PACtFIO ISLANDS, 



'23 



-kara Naga, eorobuiations resembling the Snmoiode, X. li. Asian 

 ami Ainericaii gada, gandii &c. The tScythic systems in their 

 vocalic flexional plurals and some other traits, are rather Indo- 

 Kuropean, Semitico-Libyan and Ziuibian than Dravirian in their 

 ofllnities. But we have seen that DraWriau has aonie traces of 

 vocalic flexion in the change of the agcntive a, o of tlie lat pro- 

 noun to 0 in the possessive, and in that of i to u in the 2niL* 



The two sy^tcma cannot he referred to the same formati^uti, and 

 the affinitiea, great as they are, must be considered aa ctillateral, 

 Thev point to a common source, to an archaic postpositional 

 formation at once more crude and more redundant in forma and 

 combinations than Ugrian, Dravirian or even Austrahan. 



Tho Indo-European system in its possession of a dual numher 

 and of sexual definitive postfixes and flexions which extend t« the 

 ftrd pronoun, but not to the Ist and 2ad, resembles Draviro- 

 AustraVian in some of the characters in which it ia richer than 

 Scythie. Dravirian in its retention of the sex distinction in tho 

 3rd person of verbs is less abraded than Indo-Earopean, In other 

 respects the latter system ia, in its basis form, analogous in roots 

 and structure to the Scythie, although somewhat richer, and haa 

 no general afflnitiea with Draviro-Australian save what are 

 observahle in Scythic- It is moi-e concreted and flexional tlma 

 either, although siinihir iloxiona and irregularities occur in all three. 



The Semitico-Libyan system like tho Indo-European, lias dual 

 and Bcxua\ elements, and in the latter it is richer than either, for 

 it use^ them with the 2nd pronoun, and there aro even traces of 

 them in the first. Tho union between the pronominal elements 

 and words used assertively, is more complex than in Indo-European 

 or Seythic, as it has objectivQ or transition forms like Draviro- 

 Australian, The root of tho 1st pronoun is Dnvviro-Australian, 

 but that of the 2nd ia not. The postfixed deflnitive k of the Ist 

 person assimilates the term to the Gond forms in k (nak &c.) 

 Tho C4ond -k although now used in the singukr is properly plurftl 

 and Seythic, whilo the Semitico-Libyan is generally shigular and 

 probably masculine, hut in Hottentot it ia plural both in the Ist 



• Th« Ucro-Fiti definitive of the singular chati^ea vowel ta a in tlic oWjqa 

 r^'J lt a mi-mi, mJ-««). This mny be r^lntej lo tfte Dmviriau c mip af the 

 ?S1^voweU l^H in i>me pom^s^uei And ph.roU. In many ot tlie S^^mitico- 



