4 



•ETHNOLOuT OF THE iJUKi-PACIFIC ISLANDS. 227 



ment (Sokpa tolo, Mong, ilolon, &c). It Ts probable that it h 

 later than the other Tibetan terms, ami displaced a cjiiinary one, 

 for it 19 only found to the south in tlie Bhotian dialects of Lhopa, 

 Serpa and Changlo, while the other Himfilayan systems connect- 

 ed with tho Bhotian have quinary terms similar to the Gyarung. 



8. Chi». — pat, pah, pe, boi, poi (Gyami pa). ThU root has 

 no connection with any of the lower numerals- It cannot there- 

 fore be explained as a native binary (4, 4) or quinary (5, 3) term. 

 Besides quinary terms, severa! of the Mid and North Asiatic 

 system have terms formed subtractively from 10. In these the 

 root for 2 is frequently alone preserved. Pat iioweper has no 

 connection with the Chinese S2. A similar root is 100, pe', be', pa' 

 and the Bhotian 100 appears to be also related to the root for 8. 

 Such a connection would most naturally happen through a 

 labial root for 10, since 100 is very generally expressed tike 10 by 

 the unit. In the other systems of Mid and North Asia the labial 

 is a definitive and unit, and it appears at some archaic period to 

 have been a very important root in expressing higher numbers 

 also, as it still is in somo of the older systems of ibeS.E. provinces 

 of the Old World, — Kol, Australian, African. In the Scythic and 

 N, E» Asian system as in Chinese the t, s, r, k, &c, def is now 

 the chief numeral root, but most of them preserve remnants of labial 

 numerals. Chinese has the labial as a def. (3rd pron. and demons.) 

 under the form pi. In the Scythic and N.E. Asian systems it has 

 still a considerable currency as 1, 10 and 1000. For 1, Ugriani 

 has vaike, va &c, Tungusian emu &Cf Turkish bir, f=bi!?, bit] 

 per, Japan fito ; for 5, Ugrtan has vate, vis &c, Turkish Wish, besh 

 &c, Iroquois wish, wis &c j for 10, Samoiede has bef, bi, wi, bu, 

 bun, Tungusian men ; Turkish wona. In the Ugrian languages 

 it has been superseded by the dental &e as 10, but it U preserved 

 as an archaic 10 in 8 (2, 10) and 9 (1, 10) iu the form mi*. 

 Aino has wam-bi kc 10. From the occurrence of the labial in 

 the Chinese 100 and 10,000 (wan, ban), its presence in 8 is best 

 explained as an archaic and obsolete unit ap[di(id to 10, und 100. 

 The full term was probably similar to the Ugrian 8, kika-mis (2, 

 10), the Dravirian 9 om-bad (1, 10), and the analogous N. E. 

 Asian and African terms. Thu Dravirian paita, bad &c 10, vodda 



1 preser?e9 a broad form of the labial unit similar to the Chinese 



r 



