22 



ETFNOLOGT OP THE INDO-PACIPIC ISLANDS. 



Tlie Blmtiiid are con t'.M*rai nous wifli the Ganfferic tribea of the Hima- 

 kvsis, from the TiJ>prkliad to the MishTiii, TlieTakpa appear to miirch 

 Witli the Dophla and Abor. They nre i*ucceetied aff«in hv the flhotifls ot 

 Kharn, v,]io pcjaao^rt the pmaeA at the haad uf the Ajw.a«i vsilley, descend ad 

 tr!i»h;r> iiit*» the ifirtlirai cotmtry, and probably march with t!ie eastern 

 Abor.-i. Tiif Uliutiiin rhjilKct apfjears tu march on th« N. E. with the Jlongo- 

 lian Bokjm, whicli, on the south, in jwparated by the Amdmn dialect of 

 JJhotian fVi'tt^ th<' Thwliu. Tt> the Muuth of the hml, the (jyarung 

 pppisiTft t(» '.^ai'ch with ilhotian throiij^hout the resit of ita eOstfim limit. 

 On thd wchtijm hijlf of tlie northern boundary, Dhotian is succeeded 1^ 

 thfi Uorpii, — wliich lius Bhotian on tlie tiouth, Mon^folian on the east, ond 

 Turki'^b on the north- wc»»t. It is thus, hkc Snkitii, widt'ly sepiiratf-d from 

 the Mmth HimalayriTj dl lects, but there are numerouj* weattered Horptia M 

 Vrcli as Sukpsi;!* in Tibet proper. 



Thii Thocku appe rs to have the Dhotiim on its north and. West, Gjrarang 

 on it,-^. :*«utli, imd Ciiine.*e on its eiu-^t. 



(rvaciiii^ lim •m the Thochu,^— W., Dhotian,-=-S., Mimyak, — and E., 

 CMiie^e. Whether it appn^aches any of the pi»5s<'s of the I rawady biisiii doM 

 notn|ipRar. Itprol.ally embnu^ea a iK)i*tion of the baf<La of the Me-nara asfl 

 YtuitC-t.se-kian^-', aiid nmn-hfa with the other dialects of eouth we.-*tx?ni 

 Jizt'-rluien. The ^fanyak ii^i profaiihly interposMsd beiWtfenit and the northern 

 diulects of thf Durmnn nnd Lau famLliefi. 



Tbi^ Mniiynk iijipcarrt to he to the southward of the line formed hj 

 routluTii ti varuiiijr, Kliam]>i'. llhotian r.nd Takpa. It Ls probably therefore 

 jiUiml on Hif Iratwaily ptu-'.^frf, and may be in contsiet with some of the 

 ujulest'ribed dijilei;t.-i t<> the north of the Sin^nho. On the eiint. aiid soutli 

 tlie Jltinyak are probably conterminous iMfh some of the trilj^s of S. W, 

 Bze-cliuen, and N . Yuu-mu, if i:ideed they are not themselvw the Mong- 

 fan of S/en huen. 



From thii^ dif-tribution of the Ti1>etim dialecta we ehould infer that the 

 iKisition of the Bhotian vor abnlarie;* would enable them to aftect the whole 

 line of thetjaugetic ones, — tbut the iutlufcnce of the Takpa would becoutined 

 to the Abor srroun,— and that the Manyak and peihaps the GjTirong might 

 affect the ] raw iKiy vonibnhirieii, 



We find, however, thilt m:my of the T(K?nb]ei:= that ore tlhjtincf ly Bhotiiaj, 

 i, e. both in form and meaning, httve, a very Hmited rtrnj^e, b^" no means 

 commensurate with the fjiipjient uifluential position of the dnilect, and 

 iri econcileable with r.n t'xchiaive jvos.'W'jirtionj for any long' j)eiiod, of such a 

 IKu*ition. 



Mony of the most wHdi ly difFu^ftl iTltmindo-Ganjgretic root" and forma 

 p^rc coiQiJion to Bhotian with Sifan voi.-abtdanes. Others are exelusively 

 Bhotiim, md others w^idxi are exchisivi-ly t?il';iii. The brond and frt^queittly 

 condonnntal Ibrms pre\'aile<l iji Tiliet when tlif Kouthem mip-ation:* comi- 

 jneneetl, lor rhey nre tli<; most eouinion in the wouthera vociibidaries. 

 Thesfi? .irehmii.' furnin fire fref|iinnily still retained in Bhotian, where the fll- 

 f:m foritis hiiYe lieeome blender or voeah'^ed. Manyak sometimes retains 

 bnwd vowelh where they have heenloat in the otljier Sifan vocal adiirieH and 

 especially in Gj:iniui;. The Situii vtH'abiihirie^ have* some non-B!iotian 

 Toots iti»d forms in rommou with ?i5 un-Anam, mie;ht hnve l»een antit-i- 

 piiUitl from thv nortlieni oripn of the latter fV>mi;ttion. Tlie slender and 

 atteimiited furi'-H of the i*iifau vmibulurieH, and pivrtiealarly of Gyaruui^^ 

 have spread tw tlie uoutli at a eomiwmtively late period. 



