90 STTIN'OLOOA^ OF THE IN DO-PA CIFIC ISLANDS, 



Tn tlie bhort ]ht of ffimilifir words contained in the appended 

 comparalivc vocabnlnry, several examples occur of Saiiskrit or 

 Arian teinia which have g.iincd equal currency with native ones 

 or replaced them. Parallel phenomena are found in all vocabu- 

 laries and are very prominent in those of nations which have had 

 much intercourse with othci-3 superiour to thenn in civilization, or 

 poliiicaily parnmount, Sanskrit has been received into the glos- 

 earics and literature of Southern India as freely as it wns into 

 those of the civilised western nations of Indoneaiu, or as Chinese 

 hm Ifeen into tho^e of Korea and Japan.* 



The Draviro- Australian languages have a con nee I ion with the 

 Sanskritic which huiungs to a iiiuclt uiore uiicient period of their 

 history than ibat which followed the entrance of the Arians iiito 

 India. This archaic connection is prohably itself susceptible of 

 reference lo more thflu one era and condition of the Draviro-Aua- 

 traliaa formation. Tbe glossarial affinities between Australian and 

 Sanskrit t must belong to tbe earliest stage of the relationship 

 between the two forinaiions, because the former represents thg 

 most primitive and least modified form of Dravirian* The Anstni* 

 lian form is archaic even wbL-n compared with Dravirtan, and it is 

 still more archaic when compared with Sanskrit. The glossarial 

 affinities may be considered as carrying buck the history of the 

 Indo-European foimation to its proto-Scyihio condition. The 

 archaic affinities of the BLingali-M;,rathi and proper Draviriaii 

 vocabularies with those of Sanskrit and other Indo-Europeaa 



Brahmtms and higher c'tws^a tli*?n» more easity fiill Inta the prevMUng pronuncfa- 

 tion ol' Simakrlt whcreatt in tilt! Soiitli,' the Samki it vtiOLblae, In-iiig ramW 



uaeil hv any exeeftt Hriilimiiiis or waW minctiU'il [nirsotu, tlic pi imiifve lonne rtMugfi 

 with diu notable fxcepiion of* dropiHiiyr ol" tlie propir marks of tin; gen iefa of 

 nouns, hme b en mihit carefutly pff-senett." (Joum. Horutiaj A». S >c. vol. iv p. 

 I'il). The San-iki'it voi ablfs tliut Imve hima adopted into liiciontrsiaii languages 

 have 11 »i nil tar com piirn live purity. 



■ Dr Prtciiacd tippKHrs to Imve adlipred to Klaprotti'a t>elief tliat there fa a 

 dasft of words of tlie firat nmbjsUy whidj are preserved lonj? aCti;r orhcr kind* of 

 wordei ire rep aceti, and thus fona ono of the testa of liri^uislic attihtitton, \V, Von 

 IluniWdt hus more ancumtelv n markei^ *' tt is generally belieiri'd that rJie affinfty 

 of two laiJKiiavtea id undtiniiiWy proved if words r hut are apMiied (o objct-tit wliich 

 fnuAt Ifave he^n known to ihc niittves ever since itu^ir existtnct;, exiiibit u di-grito of 

 resemblance, and to a certain extent thta id correct. But, nolwitiistuiidmjj this, auch 

 a methtHl of Judging of the iiffini'y of languagt^s seeraa to me by no means inliUiitdo. 

 It oftt n happens, that even the objects of our earlit-at pi rvepfiona or of the first 

 neceasitr, "re represflnted by wordd taken from tareijjn lajijfUiigen, audi whioti heiong 

 to ad'ffi^rent cla^iS-" 



^ Some examples of this will tte found in the appended Tocabulary. Olhen will 

 he given in ttie ^«Uciu un Austrutiaa. 



