________________
194
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
BOOK-NOTICE.
THE BURMA CENSUS REPORT, 1892; CHAPTER VII, "Languages."
Perhaps in no part of the Burma Census Report is that thoroughness and minute attention to detail, which is so conspicuous a feature of it as a whole, more clearly displayed than in the Chap. ter devoted to the Languages of Burma. De minimis non est disputandum is certainly not a maxim, which has commended itself to Mr. Eales in any part of his work, and the result is that, while the proportions of the latter are perhaps somewhat larger than was necessary for it, viewed merely as a Report, its value as a work of reference, which, after all, is one of the chief uses of a Census Report, has been much enhanced. To philologists this is especially advantageous, since the relative importance of languages and dialects is by no means measured by the numbers of those speaking them, and the tongue of a few obscure hill-men may not infrequently supply the key to puzzles, which the most careful study of more civilised and widely extended languages has failed to elucidate. The absence of written records of any great antiquity, together with the extraordinarily rapid ebb and flow, evolution and decay, - which are marked characteristics of the TibetoBurman family, have contributed to render the exact relationships of its languages and dialects obscure; and, although progress is being made in this branch of philology, it is very far indeed as yet from approaching finality. Mr. Eales has, however, taken great pains to bring the subject up to date, and the present chapter may be taken as a very fair résumé of the facts, so far as they are known, and should certainly be studied by all who wish to be up to date' in the languages of Burma proper. It would have been well indeed if Mr. Eales had confined himself solely to facts, but of this more hereafter.
One of the first points, which is noticeable in the results now set forth, is the marked increase in the numbers of those speaking many of the non-Burman languages, an increase which Mr. Eales has very rightly ascribed to better enumeration. The Burman language possesses a great power of superseding others, and it is certain that, had the previous censuses been as accurate as is the present one as regards the wilder parts of the country, the percentages of increase, now shewn, would have been very different. Even now it is more than probable that in some
1 See ante, Vol. XXII. p. 129 ff." The Kudos of Katha and their Vocabulary."
2 Mr. Eales has kindly forwarded me some words
[JULY, 1894.
cases a large percentage of the people living in these parts escaped enumeration. At least this is the only inference that can be drawn from the very peculiar figures in the present Report for the Arakan Hill Tracts, where the population is shewn as almost stationary instead of increasing, as it must have done in the past ten years, according to the normal ratio.
To turn to the grouping of the various languages and dialects. As regards the six which have been grouped as dialects of the Burmese, besides objecting to the inclusion in this group Kudo,' I would also object to the inclusion of Dana in the absence of further evidence as regards this tongue. At any rate it should only be grouped provisionally under Burmese. I may add here that, from inquiries lately made as to Yaw, it would appear to be merely a slightly archaic form of Burmese; and no evidence is forthcoming to support the assertion of Maung Bà Tá as to its relationship to the Palaung.
the present, it is to be observed that he has Putting aside Mr. Eales' theory of tones for classified the languages of Burma under four main heads:-(1) the Mon-Khmer or MonAnnam, the latter is Capt. Forbes' designation, and I think, the better one; (2) the Taic-Shan, (so does de la Couperie, but is not "Taic" sufficient ?); (3) the Karen; and (4) the Tibeto. Burman. The three languages under the first assertion of Maung Bå Ta that Talaing, the prinhead are declared to have tones, mainly on the however, as well a missionary, Mr. Haswell, who cipal one, possesses these adjuncts. Capt. Forbes, has written a Talaing Grammar and Vocabulary, least possible, even if any such now exist, that deny that tones exist in Talaing, and it is at their introduction may have been due to Burman influence, and that they are only now in process of establishing themselves. A good grammar and vocabulary of Palaung are much wanted for purposes of comparison, and the need is the more urgent, as these people are being fast obliterated by the flowing wave of the Kachins.
Much new information is given for the first time as regards the Taic family in Burma, mainly from the pen of Dr. Cushing, with whose theory as to the connection of the Chinese, Shân and Karen languages I cannot, however, agree. The inferences to be drawn from a study of the languages of Burma, so far, support the classification
quoted by Maung BA Tú in support of his assertion, but these differ very much from those in this vocabulary. They are apparently corrupted.
