liTII?fOLOr.t Of THE l\00 t».^CU'lC ISLANDS. 



41 



Vik^ !.iffftt,is m archaic broad form not found in other dialects. , but 

 tlilfrriii^ little frotrt tlie ilaiiyak form. 

 Mehf _/irf\ u the common Tikitttn fttrni. 



TJiis (iialecE appears from some of theise word;* to lie archaic and pecu-* 

 liiir like Miwiyak with which it hoA some special afEnitie^, and tlm accjorda 

 with our preYioua inferences. 



4. Gyaning'. 



The Gynruii^ taAi, air, didtin^tii:ihcd from nil the other Tibetan formSf 

 if distinctive of the Bununn group in Ultraindia. 



i jt-nueuiij s%, (mun sa;i, Horpa), Abor, Burmamc, MurELii 



Ki-ni suji^ U Yuma (//.i-ni) ami — with variations of the prefisL, mah us 

 «. ;<.tir in Gyaraug-, — comtuon iu L'Jtraindju^ some Ultraindiau forms hdng 

 Aaii iV'ipal. 



^y e, (lay u Burman, ue, 



Ti-mi^pre huis the common Ultmindo-Gaiigetic form of the root. 



Thn Ciyaraitg' iWiibi art connected with this L'ltniindo-C jangctic ffcae- 

 rdlyj but tlity have a close and decided agrettaiaut with thoiie of the 

 Burmun brimch of Ultruindian. 



5. Manyak, 



Jif-r-'lii', appears to be connw-ted wiih the Na«:a forms*. The 

 labial prciiji isi a conimou N^jy^a-Mampuri one, and the compound with t 

 also occurs— wi-r-thi air Maring". The rnot da' reseraWe-i primarily the 

 Bhotian lhak, and secondarily the Xaga, Maaipuri rang' &c., of rang-ehc: 

 h;m-re, tlii-ranLr, kbi-rang' ice, 



JIa, gkM (Thochn raali-fw) in a link between the Sifiin u f:^^Jl 

 and the Lm, Luji^'-ke, ^fanipuri and Dravirian u form>i, ban, wsm kt\ 

 Taken with the similar farms for Uf/hi it iadicatesi nn archai*.- comiection 

 between the Sifan and Mon-Anam vocahulariesj and between tlie latter 

 aui the Dravirian, but no spread of the Manyak fonu specially. 



?fyi-i»ff, mn, is Bhotian. 



Xasb-ehah, dntf^ appears to be an archiaic broad fonn of the njot, a3 ia 

 Jili, Chtm<rlo «"d Sunwar. 



Wn', Uf//tt, has no close southern affinity. 



S i-iuti* hu-< the Thociiu and Tafcpa form of the root. 



The Mimyak forma appear, on the whole, to be archaic, and not closely 

 Ciinnect^id witli thoiie ot any of the Lltrauido-Gaiigetic dialects. 



6. Takpa. 



Tlie Takpa rliot, air, is fotmd in Maram «-hlat. 



T]w dun*? of nam-dun^, sk^, ia RagHj raugr-tung^ and Anam tunj-tien 

 (a sinsjJur torn pound). 



jP-laii<| ^'^n ocean* a."? tfffy in Maram lan-k, Kafraran^; as liiffU m 

 Ka«ra raiij? Bur man lauf^ &c.; and as ski/ in Chon^^ y^-Ienar, _ 



"^iym-iif dtti/i has no special aouthern affinity, save with Limb a and. Ki- 

 rajitii. 



Wot, lif/ht, is Na^ and Limbu, 



M*?h, fire , w the common Tibeto-Burman form. 



Thfide wowia show a cIosq agreement with i\'aga-Manipuri. 



Night. 



The Tibetan immea and th^ir southern forms (nir/ki^ hlackj Uuet ffran. 



