82 



EfHNOLuar OF TIIK I,ND0-PAC1FIC IfLAHDi. 



iv maiiituiii tUo archaic crudaicss or ilie type wtiileparUidljr tmn«« 

 forming it. But suuje of the couUUbts round hi otber fauiiliu^ aie 

 an graat or uearJy ug grmi in degree, as, for eXHm|j!e, ihni between 

 English or Celtic and Sanskrit, — Senjldu and E<*yjjLiyii, — Malay 

 and Tagalti — Polynesian and Malagasy,— Munclm and Fin &c. 

 or aiwii decrees of t]iet<iiniliiudu m that bcHveen iLe Kol und tliu 

 )>JOjicr DraviriiUi gt'^^'p mosi lur^e and [lai lially mixt^d iaiuiticii 

 present several exatujties. 



On the subject oi iha connection amongst ihe South Dravirian 

 laniruflges Mr EIIW ubetrvations may be oiled. " Xbti Tt-Iuj^u, 

 to vvbicii attentiow U httu more i|iecially directed, k fanned troni 

 iis ovvu rootH, v^'bicbj, in genera I, have no couuexiou vtitli ibu 

 tiant>knt, nor wrtfj lljose of any other iangua<^e, the cognate dialecoi 

 ot Southern India, thtj Tainil, Cannadi dkc. excepieti, with which, 

 allowing for the occusionaL vaiiaitun of oon-sindlar huundii, they 

 generally agree: the actual diit'erence in the three dialeetg here 

 mentioned is iu fact to be found ojdy in the affixes u^ed in llie 

 formation of words frooi the roots j the i outs themeclv'es are not 

 aimilar merely, but the same/- (>iote to the Iniroiluciiun to 

 Campbeirs Telugu Grammar, p. 3.) 



It must ai the same tiuia be remarkc'd that for maiiy ideas there 

 is more than one native or at least pre-Sanskritic root current, and 

 that the ditfcreul vocabularieB even of thu soutJiern group otlea 

 atfect different roots. This lealuie doe# not militate against the 

 ussertiou that the db pari ties are merely dialectic; for it ia 

 common to the Dravirian wkh every other ancient cluster 

 of dialects. As in other provinces, the eapHcity tor the cur- 

 rency of numeious roots was probably much greater in the 

 earlier agea of the family, when its tribes weie more barbar- 

 ous and more divided. The progress of the great civilised nation!* 

 and their mutual gloEisarial interpeneiraiion and uesimilation, must 

 have been allcjideil, as iu other catiesi, with the paitial obliteration 

 of the vocabularies of feubdued or abburbed tribes. In tiie primary 

 Draviro- Australian era, the number of distinct vocabnlaries and 

 independent synonimous roois was probably very great j and thu 

 difference between the Kol ai-d the Goudo-Tamulian vocabularies 

 eliowB that in India, even to the iateiil period of Dmvirian predo- 

 lulnarice, the A'orth-Jiasteiii dialects presented a considerable con- 



