226 ETHNOLOUY THE INDO-PAClFlC lULAUDi, 



The Bhotian and G^apung forms are evidently from a similar form. 

 The Mttnyak ivn ia from the Bhotian druk. The Thochu Va and 

 Horpa chho arc probably variationa of Biinilar vocalic forms, 

 to, &c. " 



This numeral like 5 preserves no distinct affinity with the lower 

 numbers. In purely quinary systems 6 la a variety of the unit ae 

 5 itself i^. But tn some of the Scy thic fsystems the scale is terna- 

 ry, 6 being 3 (for 3, 3), and 7 being 1 (for 6, 1). As the only 

 term similar to the Chinese in the connected systems is the Kams- 

 chalkan rocli, roka of n^-ro-cA, ng~ro-kaj 3, it was probably deriv- 

 ed trom a cognate N. E. Asian system. The Chinese luk is 

 identical with this term, while it cannot be referred to the ctirrent 

 termg for 3 or 1, nor to any def. current in the pronominal system . 



7- Chin, ta'hih, chhi, chliit, tsat, ibet, ch'het, Vsih, sit 

 (Gyami chhi) TiB. ? skwifti Manyak, stare Thochu. 



With this numeral the current Chinese system departs entirely 

 from the proper Tibetan. The latter has a quinary terra for 7, 

 that is 7 is the numeral 2 (from 6, 2). The Chinese 7 is not a 

 variety of 2 but of 1 (comp. the full forms chit 1, ch*hit, sit 7). It 

 adheres therefore to the ternary scale and this confirms the conclu- 

 sion that 6 was 3, 3. Japanese, Yukahiri and in N. America 

 Athapas, can have a similar ternary 7, and in some of the Scy thic 

 systems the same double definitive is used as the unit in 7 — ^Ugrian 

 seitse-ntflrt, sis-tm, si-m, aata &c. Turkish site, seti, siche, chc- 

 dy &c. 



Tibetan'. hu-sh-xicB Gyar. (nes2), 2?-ne Horpa.. This term is 

 quinary, 2 for 5, 2. The ety mology of the prefixed sk and s muut 

 remain for the present uncertain. 



In the other Tibetan terras there is much irregularity. 1 have 

 placed the Manyak and the Thochu with the Chinese, but the con- 

 nection is doubtful, especially in the case of Manyak, In both the 

 initial sibilant (s-ta-7'e s-kwi-frt), may have the same origin as that 

 of Gyarung and Horpa, zr. This would confirm the Chinese 

 affinity of the Thochu root, for ta is an archaic Tibetan fom of the 

 Chinese 1 {i^hi Manyak). The guttural in the Manyak *-kwi 

 may be from the initial guttural in some Tibeto-Ultraindian forms 

 ol^2 (gnyis Bhot., khi Karen). 



The Bhotian 7, Mun, dun, appears to Ijc a Mongolian engraft* 



