________________
BOOK-NOTICES.
125
APRIL, 1892.]
Tibeto-Burman root lam. If it is considered the word for fowl' is given throughout as necessary in writing to distinguish this vowel arr, but primd facie it would seem somewhat from that in the word 'man' some simple diacri- doubtful whether there is any r sound in this tical mark such as would probably suffice, or word, which is obviously a corruption of the wideperhape Mr. Sweet's Anglo-Saxon æh might do. spread root wa, meaning a bird or fowl. In no
Again, is it correct to talk of t preceding or cognate language has this root a final r, nor is as an aspirate P The latter expression is usually there anything to show that the ra suffix which has applied to a breathing of some kind, and indeed been pointed out by Mr. Hodgson in Tibetan the sounds referred to are simply inchoate and other languages occurs in Baungehe Chin. palatals and not aspirated sibilants.
Without, therefore, presuming to lay down how It is doubtless through an oversight that such
these people pronounce the word, we would pre-Hunterian words as 'a-leen,' warm,' 'a
suggest that it is possibly a pronounced in the keek,' 'cool,' tlike,' 'to catch,' occur in the
'heavy tone,' as it is called in Burmese. The book. These should apparently be written alan,
fact also of its being a shortened or cut down akik, and tlaik.
form of the original root wa lends probability to On examining the vocabularies in the book, one
its being pronounced in this tone. of the first things to strike the eye is the pre- It may here be remarked that no mention is fixing of k'to all verbal roots, which seems at made of tones in this book, but this can hardly be first strange, as no known cognate language because they do not exist in Baungahê Chin. It possesses this peculiarity. A comparison, however, would, indeed, be scarcely credible that this lan. with Lushai, (which will be shown to be the guage, surrounded as it is on all sides by those language most nearly related to Baungshe using tones, should be destitute of these adjuncts, Chin), shows that this k' or ka is in reality the which are indeed universal amongst the Southshortened or reduplicated form of the first Eastern Mongoloids. At the same time the subject personal pronoun kèmi. This particle is, of course, of tones presents unusual difficulties to the Euroa distinct word, and has nothing to do with the pean, whose ear can frequently scarcely distinverbal root; and it is, therefore, unfortunate that guish between words in different tones, unless it should have been confused with the latter. The the fact of that difference is specially brought error has doubtless arisen from the difficulty, to his notice. Moreover, little has been done which has been pointed out by Professor Sayce, as yet towards solving the question of the in "getting a savage or barbarian to give the best method of rendering tones when using the name of an object without incorporating it into Hunterian system of spelling; so that in a handa sentence or bringing it into relation with some- book like the present one it was perhaps as well thing else." It is, indeed, demonstrable that Mr. to avoid the subject. At the same time we should Hodgson, though aware of a precisely similar have been glad to be informed positively as to construction existing in Gyarung and other the existence of tones in Baungshe Chin, and if languages, has, in the case of vocabularies of so, how many could be distinguished. Similarly, dialects cognate to Baungehê Chin, been it would be interesting to know whether these misled by this very particle ka, which he has Chins ever modify their vowels similarly to the mistaken for the well known ka prefis found German umlart. The use of modified vowels throughout the Tibeto-Burman family. In the is very common amongst the Mongoloid hill-men, present case the confusing of the pronoun ka not to speak of the Tibetans, and à priori it with the root has led to several mistakes in the would seem probable that they exist in the sentences; e. g., on page 6:"Have you ever met Baungshe dialect. In their case no difficulty me” should be kèmi na mii-bal-maw, and not exists in writing, since the forms ä, e, i, ö and i k'mů: and on page 22:4" You are lying" should are universally understood. Possibly the word be nangma na hlen or na hlen, and not na k'hlen. shert 'to build,' (a stockade), should be written in Burmese, and not the sound of o in upon.' The late of Andamanese, owing to this very cause. The savage Mr. A. J. Ellis in his report on the Andamanese Lan- will always say my leg,' your leg,' his leg' in preguage (Presidential Address, Philological Society, 1882) ference to 'leg.' and when he speake, as the Andamanese denoted o in upor' by è.-ED.)
do, of darchagda, ugarchagda, and archagds for the above [Mr. Ellis used ä in writing Andamanese. But expressions, and then proceeds to drop the final da in the Andamanese have five a sounds, and unless Chins composition, the unassisted learner is apt to be puzzled; ere blessed with an equal number I would suggest a more eepecially when, as in Andamanese, there are seven for a in 'man.'-ED.)
varieties of these prefixes, having but little in common & The Science of Language, Vol. I. (I can endorse this with each other and the ordinary words for 'I, you and from personal experience. It took Mr. Man and myself he.'-ED.] about a year to discover the poouliar pronominal prefixes Mongolian Affinities of the Circassians.
