ETHNOLOOT OF THE INBO-PACIFIC ISLANDS. 



223 



forms appear to be contieoted with tbo Scytliic. From the inters 

 change of k, ch^ j, t, and and of La the Scjthic nume- 



ral and definitive systems it is not probable that there is any radi- 

 cal distinction between the forms above given and ihe Ugrian and 

 Turkish kyk, kok^ kit, iki &c. The existence of the r form in the 

 S. E. branches of Tatar (Mont^olian, Tiingusian) nnd in the adja- 

 cent Chinese, indicates an archaic prevalence of the Samoiede 

 variety in Ibis region and the Chinese may posaibSy be a contrac- 

 tion of Bil, sir. The Tibeto-Uliraindian nyi, ni &c is evidently 

 from the Chinese ti, ni, and not a direct derivative of any of the 

 Scythic forms. The final s of Bhotian and Oynrun^ may have 

 been archaic Chinese, but it is more probably a Tibetan augment. 

 Thd Thochu and Manyak nga, na are probably archaic Chinese 

 forms, Chinese having na as a demonstrative and no as one of the 

 varieties of the numeral. 



3, Chin. san» sang, sam, sa, ta, (Gyami ean, sang). 



Tib. Aasam CJyar., ^sum, stim Bhot., su Hor, ; hBhlri Thochu, 

 Bibi Many* The root appears to be the sibilant def., and as in the 

 binary basis of other systems the same as that used for I. The 

 broad vowel now distinguishes the form from that used 

 for 1. tn the Chinese pronominal system the same definitive 

 occurs as a third pron, in the forms tha, ta " he &c,'* as a relative 

 in the form so and as an interrogative in the form shu, 

 shui. Similar forms with variations of the vowel (thi, tt, si 

 &c) are current in the Tibeto-Ultraindian pronominal systems. 

 Although the vowel is a in all the Chinese varieties it does not 

 follow that the Tibetan su and si, shi are merely local variations of 

 an original sa, for similar forms may have been current in the 

 archaic CbinesG numeral as in the pronominal system. The 

 Manyak and Thochu si, shi are probably obsolete Chinese forms. 

 From the occurrence of -m in one of the least emasculated 

 of the Chinese dialects (Kwang-tung) and in Gyarung and Bho- 

 tian it was probably the original form of the filial. If the voca- 

 ble be native, m must be considered radical, as in other Chinese 

 monosyllabic roots having final -m in (he ancient phonology. But 

 the analogies between tlie Chinese numerals and the archaic N. 

 and Mid. Asian and the irregular character of the Chinese system 

 suggest the enquiry whelhcr sam may not be a dcrivalive fi'om a 



