ETHN'OLoar or tub INDO-PACIKIC tSLANDS. 



77 



libHant acquired its pr<»3eni prominencn. Boili ivrmB may hnvn 

 co-cxit^ted as definiiive^ and units in (lie oldest, pronominal 

 and immernl system?, altbont^h their relative impoi tance varied in 

 (tiffcrent eras. The acquired sexual appJicaiion of the tvTo defini- 

 livi'iJ, and ihc proncncss at one time to extend the ap[jIicalion oft he 

 roascuHne and at anolhcr that of the feminine to innnimato mh- 

 ftiinces, wouhi account for thiss. The later tcii(!i'nt*y to throw off 

 the difttiuetion of gfiidt r, and to retain only tS»e ftn'm in most com- 

 mon use, ends in a still greater impoverishment of the original 

 variety of forms and terms* The Deaviro-Aui-lralian, like the 

 Tibetdn and some other Asiatic ay stems, liaa no trace of gender 

 in iis labial defiuilive. In the Semiiico*Libyan the labial atul 

 eibilanl appear to have been also originally common, but at an 

 early period ihoTormer became masculine and the latter feminine. 



The system may be considered as of equal antiquity with a very 

 ortdfiiic formation which was difTussed on the one side as iar m 

 Africa, and on the other over Central and Easlem Asia, Although 

 the system, ftoth in its terms and in the principle of its forma- 

 tion, has atliniiies with other languages, it cannot be derived 

 an a whole, or even in the bulk of its materials or in the model 

 of its consrruclion, from any other now extant. The affini- 

 tieii, however, point distinctly to S. W. A«ia more immediately, 

 and to an epoch anteiiour to the diffusion nototdy of the Semitieo- 

 Lihyan and Iranian but of the Caucasian syslemft. It appears to 

 be of the same archaic oiiyln as the basis of these systems them- 

 yt^al flud of the oiher systems which were dispers^ed over Asia 

 before the fomer begati to predoraiuaie. The Ugro- African 

 affinities of fhe Dravirism establish this. There is another test «f 

 its relative ethnic position. The remotest and least advanced 

 Astatic and American uystems have only terujs for I and 2, for I, 

 2 and 3, or fur 1, 2, 3 and 4. This may be siiid to be the ease with 

 «h;Uof the Anstrahan formation, the gciieral Dravirian aflinities of 

 which are sironj;. The Australian proves that the primary Ugro- 

 Dravirian formation prevailed in 8. W. Asi<i, including India, at 

 a barbarous epoch, prior to ihi* expansion of the simple numerals 

 1,2, 3, into higher binary and ten*ary terms by combination and 

 acquired flexion, a process which preceded the adoption of the 

 quinarv and dennry (jcales tu S. W. Asia, as h testified by the 



