222 



KTlINOr.OOT OF THP. IXDO-PACIFTC ISLANDS. 



Cljino-Tihelan. In gome of Oie (il^lier Scvtliic numerals llie unit 

 |>rescrvcr1 in broad fii-clmic forms similar to the N. E. Asian, 

 cliut, kat, knm &c while others have the sleii(]er Chinese and 

 Ugrian forms. Thus tn 2 Ug'Hfl n has k)'k, kit Ac, Samoiede sir, 

 side &e, Turkish iki (for gik as in 7). The Chinese unit may be 

 compared with lha 3i'iJ pron. and demonsti'ativeB ki or ij tJ, tsz, 

 che, chi, chit, and wiUi the segregative ehik. The broad form of 

 Manyak iti is probably an archaic Chinese form, a varying to i in 

 the pronominal system of Cljir*ese, Tibetan and Ullrarndian, Tlie 

 Ilailam ju' is a ciirreiit Chinese form in a. The IJorpa ra is an 

 exampfe of that common change of s to r in the Seythie and 

 Tihoto-Ukraindian phonologies on which I have liofore remark- 

 ed. A similiir vaiicUion takes place in some of the forms of 4. 

 The Thochii a ts a contraction of the Manyak-llorpa form. In 2 

 and 3 the Thochu forms also correspond with the Manyak and not 

 with the intermediate Gyur(tng, whieli* with the Bhotian forms 

 have a closer resemblance to the current Chinese in its oldest 

 forms. The Thochu and Manyuk are [)robahly representatives of 

 more archaic Chinese forms, the dialects wJiicli possessed them in 

 China being now obsolete* 



2. Chin, urh, ir, il, li, liang, ni*, ji, gi, no; (Gyami liang, ar), 

 Tib. <7nyis, nyi Bhot.» kancs Gyar., nge Hor., ngari Thoch.. 

 nail Many. There is little difference between the Kwan-hwa and 

 the other Chinesie forms, Tlie Bhotian nyi resembles the Shanghai 

 ni. Tlie Sirjuid definitive is current in Chinese as a demonstrative 

 na '* that", and is found in most Aso-African formations. It is a 

 very common element in the numeral 2, but it appears to be 

 archaically a wtere variety of t, s in the N. and Mid- Asiatic defi-* 

 nitive and numeral systems. In the Samorede si-ri, si-ti, si-t, 

 Mongolian ko-ir, cho-yur, Tungnsinn ju-r, dzu-r, Caucasian zit-r, 

 shi-ri, o-ri, ie-ra the final t, s, becomes r as in the Turkish bir for 

 bis. But the Chinese li is jMobably radically identical with the 

 the first element si and not with the second. The def. appears in 

 the same r foim in Dravirian, the archaic connection ol the pro- 

 nouns of which with the Chino-Tibctan has been elsewhere indica- 

 ted, Dravirian im^ndttf era-e/, ira-^ ficc, 2. It is also singly or iu 

 combination the prevaletit Semi tico- African root for 2, and a 

 common AsO'Afrtcan dual auil plural parliclc. Tlie Chinese 



