Irv tlie true Bhofians of upper Kmawnr. Gerard state* tlint in the \orth- 



^Af^esit of Ladak Bliotimi otcomeH iijbermi.xed, with Tuikieh, and if 

 be current ijj Latkk it i:* jiroUiblj ufTorkisli derivatitm. Thefrue (reneriil 

 course ofito urchuio tlilfiipioij nnpears to he clear. It is a iiriiiuiry Sct» 

 tMc teiin cof.nwte probnbly with the Tihetim, but diatitTgui?<hM from !he 

 current Tibetan by thv ^ibiKmt invsiriiibly follou ing the hibiai, iiiid in it* 

 luofit common form takinjr u g-utrunil fiiml Mongol hiis mi-choi and the 

 probiibJy ciontnicted niii. The Tuiif^ii4iin terms are not jriven bv Klo- 

 proth. U},'nan li.is ini-nakj aii-^hfik, inti-t.'^ka, mfi-t^ichik ■ and Turkii^h 

 J^u-^llak, me-!*huk, mi-whik, ]ii-.4iik, atii-i*-abik, ata-nia-chi, atft-|i-fii ^c. 

 (?n(iusi} sluk-an kt\). With these r^ro-Turkixh forms me connwtfil, otl 

 one dde, the (Jiiucasiau j>i':<hik (Chnri) and riemito-Afritan hi-.-*, *i-'H>-na, 

 mu-si, Tuu-Ku &.t'. (tlie Turkinh atsi is nlm AlVican), and, wnthe other side, 

 the Putihtu pi-shikj pi-abi, I^indJtu [m-si, and TiberkUad-Draviriau pi-ship 

 |iu-sij pu-s-ei &.C, 



The Chine-*e miau, mau^ bin &c. is found in Annm, I-au, nnd Kfbiia in 

 the oriigiuai form miau, and the MoD-Anjam f>tream haii wirried it to 

 Tengiift nseyan, rfwiifrpu und K(ir<'n«r niyau-na, Kunii miynunjr arul Guro 

 niyou. Tim Limbu and Kir.iiitt myon<r, ^lanisancj^ mmug, Muthun tniah 

 art probably iiUo Cliine^je throug-h Mou-Auam. The Kambojati cki-mm 

 may be the Hame mut. 



I'iie Chinese niau, (Ifok-kien, nni-lam), ngio (Teo-chn), is found in 

 Siii|fphu ngyaa, Jili fr-ngau, and Champhunir Aw-nii^nu-A^ The 

 Toung--tlin iijj; wiii-/wi, ujjd Mon /*w-k\vai, are pMmhly relatt-tl to it, 



Odh. Th** Bhotian root byi, pi with tlie liquid st-ri-'ilr, oidy otturs in 0 

 ftw of the Manipuri-Vuma dialects, and the jm-tixual pot^ttitin of the ser- 

 vile shows* iliat (he 1 Itniiiidiaii utiineA are not dcnvjitivps? trom the later 

 conrretwl Hhi*tiiin imd Llu'pa bvi-hi, pi-li, but were received when the 

 root WHS fu'jjurate. This is niiule still more n>imifest by the pievdenee of 

 the labial root in ilie Vunia dialtTts, eitlier separate, with a (lef- prefix, or 

 followed liy u distinct root. If the prevalent urrhaie Indian name be uf 

 Bhotian origin, it must be very anrient anti deiived from a plosaanul cur- 

 rent dibtinct from thn^e that L-anied Bhotian woids into iJUraiiKiia. li 

 was nrolwibiy preceded in the Dravirian family by the Scythic jti ahi Acc. 

 'vi^hicn m found in I It.atndia and Asonesiu, wiLdle no extimple^ of pi-li, 

 li are found out of Ijjdm. 



The sibilant is not found in the ITorpa mid Thoeliu masc. forma, but tho 

 fern* form enrrent in Jliinyak iA ttiminon. The form of the root is not 

 JJimyak, whence it nmy be inferred that the conneerion belonfrs to the era 

 when similar feiu. forms were current in the f^ihui lan^uajic.'-, or Tibrtun 

 |-enfra!ly. The form an, ju, da Mishmi Dojthla, Abor, Joboka— ia not 

 found in Tibft. The llorpfi chu npneara to be conniHjtcd with the Miijrar 

 thu, Kumi choj Karen yo. The alt'ituer Bhoto-Thoehu si, chi, is Bodo ji, 

 Muliuifj chi, Lun>;ke »ii. Thfse viirions forms and their di&tsibution at- 

 test ao iujcient atju genenil irarjeifer and diffusion of the Tibetau mimea to 

 tlie southward. 



The Buraian A-roun^is evidently one of the lateat Sifan aoijuisitioiii^ 

 and belon^is to the modem Gyai un-i-Manyak current. 



The niinese names, which do not occur in Til>et, appear to have eorly 

 ■praid into the L Itraijidn-f iangetit: province. As they iire liecit ])refervea 

 til Mon-Atnim vocubuliiries, ii is prob:ible that thf*y were receivetl l»y tJi« 

 otJber diaiecu Uom thvia. Tiiu jutuioi, Ivoreuj^i K»ongjju/Ieuif«.ij iiiiuuti aikii J 



