I8t> KTHKOXOOT OFfTnE IlfBO-PACiriO ULAHHS, 



I have not thought it necessary to rewrito the whole of thi* 

 chapter. We may expect further information from Mr* Hodgsoa 

 respecting the Gangetic %nd Si-fan languages, and with the pre- 

 sent materials, it would still ha¥e remained fragmentary whatever 

 tihape had been given to it. It will be understood therefore that 

 much of the chapter remains as it stood before I reeeived the Si- 

 fan vocabularies, but wherever it appeared advisable in order to 

 save repetition I have embodied the new data. In other cases the 

 additionsi constitute separato sections or paragraphs. No great 

 inconvenience can arise from the Bhotiiin and Si-lan branches being 

 to some extent separately treated. Tliere are indeed reasons in 

 favour of such an arrangement. Bhotian is the only IHbetaii 

 dialect that has been Luvestigated in detail and its iafluence on the 

 Ultraiudo-Gaugetic languages is to a certain extent distinct from 

 that of the Si-fan dialects,] 



I. TflE TIBETO-BUHMAN FORMATION. 



Sec. h TUB GENBKAJ. CHAHACTBNS OF BUoriAII, AVB ITS RELATION 

 TO CHIxVESE ANU SCt rHIC. 



The phonetic and ideologic relation of the Bhotian to the 

 Gangetico-Ultraiodian languages in gcncnily and to the BurmaJi 

 in particular, as that of which the grammar is beat known, has 

 been already considered. The result of our enti^uiries may be 

 stated to have been that this relation is of two very different 

 kinds and belongs to \videly separated eras. A formation inter- 

 mediate between the Chinese and the Bhotian, and, it may be 

 added, having some Scythic afBnities of its own, spread into Upper 

 Ultraindia at a remote period, its native seat having been in oil 

 probability the adjacent province to the northward comprising 

 eastern Tibet and a portion of AV. China. Of this formation 

 the Burman branch of the Ultraindian languages is the beat 

 kno^\Ti represej^tative. But it is a comparatively recent or muck 

 modiSed form, ''lie older form was less emasculated, its vowels 

 were broader, and it used prefixes which gave it a dissyllabic rather 

 than a monosyllabic form. The archaic fomation spread down 

 ilio Irawadi and is liow beat repret^entcd by the Waga, Manipuri 

 and Tutna dialects. This form of Tibeto-Burman appears to have 

 preceded the Barman even in the valley of the Irawadi ; and thw 



