2*28 ETnwoLOQV of the indd-pacific islands* 



pat 8, and the Ugnan vate 6, vaike 1, The common Scythic 

 form is the slender vit, vis, mis, bis, bir &c. [Seie the rtjmarks on 

 the labial definitive and numeral in the Draviro- Australian, Semi* 

 trco-African and Scjthic systems] 



In some of the Tibeto-Ultraindian dialects a labial 10 and 5 are 

 preserved. Undoubted instances of it are the 10 ofKasiashi- 

 pon (shi 1, Chinese), Limbu thi-bong, Murmi chi-wai, Nuga pan, 

 ban, the Chinese form. In the hit;her numbers ofKaslaand 

 Limbu it is 10 (App. A p. 6), and Kami also has it in the higher 

 ntimbers apong. The Limbu and Kii'anti 9 pbanp^*//, phnngya are 

 probably reninaiite of 1, 10, as the Chinese 8 is of 2, 10 the nurae- 

 rals for 1 and 2 Iiaving been dropped* The labial occurs in 5 in 

 several languages but in some at least it appears to be prefix ual aa 

 in 4. In the Chepaug pii-ma-a/^o, Shindu me pa the root is elear- 

 Jy ma, pa and it favoui-s the opinion that the Thochu wa is also an 

 archaic labial root. The Bodo pa may perhaps be placsd with 

 them, and not with the doubtful bonga Garo, phong Mlkir, manga 

 Singpho, banga, punga, phanga &e Naga, pan Kumi, banga Ma- 

 gar, in some of which at least the root is the CUino-Tibetan nga 

 (comp. Naga pha-li 4, pha-ngaG). The Murml ehl-wai 10 (i. e. 

 1, 10) is a eora pound similar to the Kusia and Limbu 10, but the 

 labial baa the form found in the Kambojan ma-pai 20 (i. c. 2, 10), 

 Kumi wai-re 100, Sunwar s-wai-^a 100. The form resembles the 

 Kasia variety of the Kol-Ultraindian 1, wei. The 5 of that 

 system being raon, mona, mun, mo in Kol although not in the 

 allied Ultraindian systems, it must be considered doubtful whether 

 the UUraindo-Gangotic labial 10, 5 <&c, are referable to that 

 system or to archaic Chino-Tibctan or Chino-UJtraindian labial 

 numerals. Ultimately the Dravirian, the Scythic and the Chinese 

 labial numerals are connected through an archaic Mid or N. S, 

 Asian system. 



TiB. &r-^ynd, gye Bhot,, or-yet Gyar., rh-U^ Hon, khvare 

 Thochu; zibt Manyak, In the Appendix the presence of 2 iu 

 roost of the Tibeto- Ultraindian terms for 8 is indicated and they 

 are considered aa binary. The Bhotian term is left unexplained. 

 From the Gyarung or-yet, Takpa gyat^ it appears that the root is 

 yet, corresponding with ye of the Bhotian gye. In br-g.yud the 

 root must also be yud. This analysis is confirmed by the Himala- 



