70 



ETHNOLOGY OF THE INDO-PACIFIG I8LAVDS. 



«y Stems. In the original crude form of the system it must have 

 been preceded by the term for 2- The inverted Kol form op mny 

 indicate that a partial accommodation had taken ptacc between the 

 labial and the prefixed term for 2 (bar-op-m, har-p-ia, forbar-rao- 

 iOf bar-po-i<x Sec). The Australian terms coincide so closely with 

 the South Dravirian that it might be supposed !hey preserve the 

 South Dravirian possessive postfix, but it is probable that the final 

 r, ru, ra, &c. is the numeral element, as in the lower numbers and 

 in the Kol 2. The Wiradurei bula-ngunbai (2, 1) preserves both 

 terms. The Kamilaiai ugoro has rejected the term for 2 like the 

 Dravirian words. The Peel River jnir-Ia preserves the word for 

 2 (pul-ar), varied by a slight inveEsion,and rejects that for 1. The 

 Erub like the Wiradurei 13 2, 1, 



The South Dravirian 4 is binary, 2, 2. The KoI-tTltraindian 

 is probably also binary. In Australia some of the langtinge?, 

 with Erub, have 2, 2, and olhers 3, 1, The Knmilarai ran of 

 jrn-ran is a fiexional reduplication of the ara of bulo-ara, 2, as the 

 Dravirian nal, non is of ra, no 2. The two modes of expre^ing 

 4 probably prevailed in India prior to the Asonesian migration. 



The Australian numeral system is identical with the basis of 

 rhe Dravirian. The full Kol terms shew this identity more clear- 

 ly than the S, Dravirian. The first five numerals are repetitions 

 of the same labial-liquid root, and the Australian system explains 

 how this arose. 2 was 1, 1 ; 3 was 2, 1 ; 4 was 2, 2 ; and 5 was 



1. By the dropping of some of the terras in the comjJoundu, and 

 by variations in those that were retained, each numeral ultijnatelv 

 acquired more or fess peculiarity in its form. The Kol series re- 

 sembles the simph-r Australian, such as the Peel Riv. peer 1, pular 



2, purlft 3. But most of the Australian have 2 elements, and thus 

 resemble the S. Dravirian more 1 ban the Koh 



The forms of the numeral roots, and their relation to the forms 

 of the parent definitives in the d liferent dialects of Dravirian, 

 fihow that l!iere has been some disphiceraent in most of these. 

 An assimilative process has been in oimration n:ore than once, 

 with relation to the 3rd pronouns as well as to the numerals, to 

 the possess! ves and other particlcp, and to mtmy substantive 

 words. It may be possible to trace fi om what dialect va, and 

 not ma, vo, wti See., became the prevalent .3rd pronoun,— du, ru, 

 1u, the most prevalent possessive and qualilive both in pronouns 



