KTlINOLOay OF THE IN DO-PACIFIC ISLANIW. 1231 



The prefixes and postfixes of the Tibetan sysJeinp, — Bhot, rj' 

 (1, % 3), ih ( 0), ft. (4, 7, 8, 10) ; G^rung ka-, hw, hun^-i 

 lik-t ^ha-f ha-t r-[^d- Bliot.] ; Manyak -fti, Thochti -re^'rit — are 

 not of Chinese origin. They belong to tlie Scylhic and proto- 

 Scylliic (Yeuiseian, N. E. Asian, Caucasian) connection of the 

 ibrrnation, and have been added to the Cliinese roots.. The 

 Manyak and Tliochii in the regvikr use of a qualitive postfix are 

 Tibcto-ScYthic, The Gyami -ku is the Chinese segregative. The 

 epgregativea vary witli the class of the substantives enumerated and 

 not with (he numeral. 



The Tibetan systems present some of those irregalarities which 

 evince the long prevalence and partial blendirifr of diflerent dialects, 

 but with the exception of the Bhotian 7, all ihe numerals are refer- 

 able to the Chinese system. Close representatives are current 

 most of the Chinese numerals, not in the modern diffusive forms of 

 the Kwan>lnva found in Gyami, but in the forms in which they are 

 sliil preserved in the least abraded Chinese dialects as the Kwang- 

 tung. It is probable, however, that some of the ranations fi'om 

 thciie forms are not purely local, but are archaic Chino-Tibetan, 

 and indicate the existence in China of more than one dialectic 

 system of numerals when they were first spread westward into the 

 Tibetan province. TJie Tibetan 7 and 8 must have been derived 

 from a dialect distinct from the single one wbtch now prevails 

 throughout all the Chinese provinces. They are pure Chinese in 

 roots, but the one is quinary 2 (for 5, 2), and the other binary 2, 

 4, whereas the current Chinese is ternary m 1 (1 for 6, 1), and 

 apparently denary (10 for 1, 10) in 8. Both Chinese and Tibetan 

 are denary in 9. 



As all llieso methods are found in the other numeral systems 

 of Eastern Asia, and as the union of all tribes of China into one 

 nation is a historical event, it is probable that in archaic times 

 several similar divergent systems existed in iho Chino-Tibclan 

 region. The firsP introduction of Chinese numerals inlo Tibet 

 may be equally ancient with that of the pronouns and definitives, 

 which also show some diuleciic variations of an archaic Scythic 

 kind. In other words, the tribes that gave a Chinese formation 

 to Tibet may not have separated from the cognate Chinese tribctf 

 till some at least of the numci als were in use. 



