________________
JONE, 1895.]
THE LOLO WRITTEN CHARACTER.
175
I have, however, reserved one more symbol to the last. This is 22, the Lolo symbol for the sound ku 34, which occurs twice in MS. No. 1. Now, in MS. No. 2, this exact symbol is written for the idea "nine,” and, turning to Mr. Baber's comparative list of Tibetan and Lolo words, I find that the Lolo word for "nine" is gu. Therefore we are enabled to say at least one thing with absolute certainty of the Lolo language and literature, and that is that 22 (the vulgar Chinese symbol for Vie" a pair") is pronounced, in Lolo, ku, and means “ nine." This circumstance, however, is somewhat robbed of its interest by the reflection that ko, kao, ku, kiu, etc., are also Burmese, Siamese, Shan, and Chinese for "nine," . so that no startling novelty has been discovered.
Of the other Lolo characters written down for Mr. Baber in MS. No. 2, W “seven" is one. Referring to MS. No. 1, we find that this symbol is pronounced ts'ao. Referring to Mr. Baber's comparative list, we find the Lolo word for "seven" is shih (also practically a Chinese word); so that result is eminently unsatisfactory. Another of the Lolo written characters is which might, in spite of inherent defects already described, do daty for syllable tu of MS. No. 1, did it not also unfortunately there figure as syllable kung
I. Mr. Baber's Vocabulary gives mu-to as "fire"; but as many other Lolo words begin with mu, that syllable may be rejected as an article, enclitic, or particle ; and we may, perhaps, therefore accept , pronounced tu or to, as Lolo for,"fire." None of the other words in MS. No. 2 occur in MS. No. 1.
In MS. No. 3, I observe the following words, also written (with meanings attached) in MS. No. 2: -
Zz "four"
"water" "one"
"six"
E
" three"
" horse"
the sound "ah' Also two or three of the symbols found in the MS. No. 1. Three of the numerals are manifestly the Chinese 2
Turning now to MS. No. 4, I find that it is written in a style very superior to all the others, and, with the exception of the numerals, contains amongst thousands of characters, hardly any of those contained in any one of the other three. In fact, I am disposed to think that it is not the same written language at all: if it is, it is an improved or modified form. There are a good many Chinese characters (all containing very few strokes), and, judging by the large number of separate symbols, I think it is clearly not syllabic or alphabetical.
The missionaries in Yunnan ought really to do something to clear up the mystery of the Lolo written language.
