80 



ETHSrOLOOT OF TffB INDO PACIFtC ISLANDS. 



Horpa v~zih mfin »ml Manyak cliho' /w/in, wMch show the samp Tiiriatian 

 from the paktal And hroad to tjie purely sihiknt and Blrader fojTO that i» 

 Been m ehUj oheu, dii, &u^. iti the namea of tlie eaty iti rhangr, tnah, so, ehhc 

 in those for the {fifiiif ami in ziiiii, tyu, si in thosH* for the nwriketf. The 

 broad form of Manynk k Lhhak cho, choi, hut the norma] Scythic form of 

 cho is the g^ittural kii. 



IV. Tile ^ultunil and naenl rootjs do not appear to ^ave heim primfirr 

 ond |>rolitic, utdfSi* khi r% and ki fu/f/ be both native, and the former only 

 primitively connected with the Chiueae, 



From this genersil survey of the Tilietan nnme.'^ of the domestic luiimals, 

 we infer tliat laliial roots now having- the fonrij> hi, ini &;c.; phag, pha kc., 

 and ha, wo &e., — liquid, uvw hftvirfg- the formtt lung, la, lo, ra, rhu, td 

 Ink, — sihiliuit and dental, now in t!ie forms m, t-hi, cha, chen, fhhe, cha, 

 chang*, tsahj sOj— and dMitu], in tlie forms tatf or tiik, ta, ta, — were ajnoiig- 

 the primary rootn of the lamilv. Of theite the eadies^t to acc^uire a specitic 

 suhrttantive meaiiiM*j ssi>pear to have been the khinJ byt in its iipphcation 

 to the Cat, the labiiil |«hii^ in itH apphcfttion to the Ilo/f, the labial ho in it» 

 applieation to the JJf/r.sr, the sibilo-fmlatal in its ap|iUcation to tlie (Ufit and 

 <7w/?', thf OMpinite-n^uttoral in ite applictition to the Poff, aritl the dental and 

 aspirate in ita appliearion to the Duff, Horjie and 7'>f/ir. The labial in its 

 other applifationn, and the liquid, npiienr to have remahied servile to a 

 comparatively tat*' period, and thfv jtrttbably still retiuu their &ei fiiuction- 

 in most of the name.'^ in wliich they in"enr. 



The primitry roots ('onncrt the Tibetan or Ilimalaiu family with the 

 Scytbic as dialeetsi of one proto-Scythic monosvllabie jrlossary, distinct from 

 the Chinp^e, hnt having'- also affinitieM with it. The sepanition Uitvx een 

 the Chinese and iScytho-Tihetini viR'abuIariea must have tji ken place at a 

 anuch inure remote pt rind than that ol' the Beimration of TilwitiLiJ from 

 other proto-Hcythic vocalndarieji. At the latter period several forms uf 

 the comioon roots had oequired speeitic applications, whieh they have re- 

 tained in Tibetan and in .several of the widely diifused Scythic and Scy- 

 thoid vowibulariei* of the Old World. Othern iiyiiin are proper to Tibetan, 

 and indicate the }rreat antiquity of the ^eparatif^n- I'hiis is idm proved hy 

 sevenil of the common tbrms bein^;" best preaerveil hy lang'uages now widely 

 removed from Ttbet^ — ^as the Ostiak. In Hj*eakin^ of the period of Repara- 

 tion it is not intended to limit .the connection to one aere. There may 

 liave been aueecrii'ive contacts between ScytSiic and Tibetan vocabuJttriea 

 in archaic as in recent a^es*. 



The only mime that may indic-atean archftic connection with the Chinese 

 nomenclature is the frntturtil root in it.s application to the fh'tf. The other 

 nuliciil Chine.><e name^i tire different frown the Tibetjm. The namen for tiie 

 Ctivv, Hovse, Shee|i, ( 'at. Hog, Ti^fT and Monkey are iinite distinct. A Cld' 

 npfie root for the B/rr in the Kiune iii* the Tibetim for the Shtepi hut this m 

 one of those pritnordisil alhiiitiei* that iilijy rank with tho.He of the pronouns. 



The other Chitiefje names found in the Tibetan vwabularies ar*» evident- 

 ly intrusive and coujpntliveiy modern. Some have the fonns of the an- 

 cient Chinese phonology, and .some the ema-sculated Kwan-hwa, Like many 

 otb<'r C)iine--*e words in these vtKsibularie* they prove that the Chine:;e mce 

 id tlmt with whitrli the Tibetan tribes have b(!en bn^.^t and most iiitimate- 

 ly conncctetl in the latei^tera of their ethnic hint^rii'. Rroad Chinese names 

 i&t the Cu/i' tuc foLUid iu uH the vocabulmiea along' witii native ones, s«f e 



