The Lotuko language as here set forth is spoken by about 40,000 people, all of whom, with the exception of a few hundreds in the Opari district of Mongalla Province and the Chua District of Uganda, live in the district of that name.

Among the manuscripts of the William Marsden Collection, to which Sir E. Denison Ross has called the attention of scholars, by reproducing the entries of William Marsden (see the Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, Vol. II, Pt. III, “The Manuscripts collected by William Marsden”), there are five with titles indicating their language as “Canari”, “Canarim”, or “Canarin” (p. 537), one as “Bramana Canarim” (p. 537), one as “Hindustani”, and two as “Mahratta” (p. 535).

The Yüeh-fu hung-shan is a Ming dynasty work which is generally thought to have been lost. What little is known of it is entirely dependent on one man's description. On the strength of this, however, the work has come to occupy a fairly important position in histories of Chinese oral literature. The purpose of this article is to call attention to a surviving copy of the Yüeh-fu hung-shan, and to show that the nature of its contents has been completely misunderstood.

Burrow and Emeneau (1961, p. xiii, n. 3) have observed that ‘Ta. and Ma. seem to have evidence for two phonemes [/n/, the dental and /ṉ/, the alveolar]a in PDr., but the matter is not yet clear’. This is mainly due to the non-availability of data about the distribution of these phonemes in those two languages and the allophonic distribution, if any, in other languages. With the help of increased material available now, an attempt is made in this paper to find out the history of the development of the two nasal phonemes in Ta. and Ma. and to establish their allophonic nature in PDr. Since definite information about the phonetic nature of the phoneme /n/ is not available for languages such as Kui, Parji, Nk. [Ch.] etc., this study is incomplete to some extent.

The recent publication of the complete translation of the Yogasūtrabhāṣyavivaraṇa (also known as Pātañjalayogaśastrabhāṣyavivaraṇa and Bhagavatpadīya; henceforth abbreviated as Vivaraṇa) into English by Trevor Leggett is the latest contribution to the study of this intriguing and significant Sanskrit philosophical text. Prior to this publication (whose first two chapters were separately published already in 1981 and 1983 respectively) only a few excerpts thereof have been translated by Hajime Nakamura, into Japanese. It is a measure of the growing interest in the original text that it has attracted several astute preliminary studies, notably by P. Hacker, T. Vetter, W. Halbfass and A. Wezler in the West, and H. Nakamura in Japan.

As it stands, the title of the printed English translation reads: ‘The complete commentary by Ṥaṅkara on the Yoga Sūtra-s-a full translation of the newly discovered text.’ This is regrettably likely to be misleading in more than one way.

In 1767 Sir William “borrowed from Dr. Russel and copied the keys of the Chinese language, which he wished to learn” (Life, p. 78). In 1770 he wrote to Count Reviczki, “I succeeded in comparing one of the Odes with the version of Couplet and analysed every word, or more properly every figure in it.” Couplet's version (in Latin) had appeared about a hundred years previously. This is presumably the Ode that Sir William subsequently turned into Latin verse (Works, vol. x, p. 317). Reviczki replied (possibly with slight irony), “Pray inform me when you learned the Chinese language. I did not suspect that this was one of your accomplishments; but there are no bounds to your acquisitions as a linguist.” In 1771 Sir William writes to a friend, “I am sorry the characters you sent me are not Persian but Chinese, which I cannot decipher without a book which I have not at present.” It does not appear that after this period Sir William was ever able to devote time to Chinese linguistic studies. But in a “memorandum on objects of inquiry during my residence in Asia” which he drew up when on his way to India in 1783, he included “The Shi-King or 300 Odes”. The list was a very varied one, and also included “Britain discovered, an Heroic Poem on the Constitution of England. Model, Homer”. In 1790 he undertook to give the second Anniversary Discourse to the Asiatic Society of Bengal. His subject was The Chinese. His sources dated chiefly from the end of the seventeenth century. He seems to have been unaware of the Mémoires concernant les Chinois, the bulk of which had already appeared. He told his audience (Works, vol. iii, p. 147), “Their philosophy seems yet in so rude a state as hardly to deserve the appellation,” and “of painting, sculpture, or architecture, as arts of the imagination, they seem (like other Asiatics) to have no idea”. He had probably not seen the essay, “Sur les beaux Arts de la Chine et principalement sur l'Architecture” that had appeared in Lettres d'un missionaire à Pekin, in 1782. Much of the rest of the discourse seems to be still founded on Couplet.

Jnānadeva's commentary on the Bhagavadgītā, completed in the year A.D. 1290 as recorded in the iti śrī in chapter xviii, shows, after making allowances for the errors and glosses of copyists, the state of the Marāthī language at the end of the thirteenth century A.D. The oldest known existent copy is dated by the poet Ekanātha in the Śaka year 1506, corresponding to A.D. 1584.

‘Shaman, Saiva and Sufi’ in 1925 urged R. 0. Winstedt, M.A., D.Litt. (Oxon.), Malayan Civil Service, to write ‘a study of the evolution of Malay magic’. Hoping that Sir Richard Winstedt, K.B.E., C.M.G., M.A., D.Litt., LL.D., F.B.A., might be interested in the non-brahmin bhujangga of Bali, these exorcist priests of the sĕngguhu cast

In 1904 Dr. H. Stönner published as an appendix to a paper on Zentralasiatische Sanskrittexte in Brāhmīschrift aus Idikutšahri, Chinesisch-Turkistān, i, a short description of a fragment of Turkish in Brāhmi script containing forty lines of text with a Chinese text on the recto side. Its interest and importance for Turkish is evident. We have here a fully vocalized fragment of Turkish. It is therefore somewhat unexpected not to find more use made of it, after the references of Professor F. W. K. Müller in Uigurica [i], 1908, in the many recent publications of Turfan texts. In a brief note, A Brāhmi Aksara, in the JRAS, 1936, 92–4, reference was made to this publication of Dr. Stönner owing to its interest for Iranian studies. Shortly after the publication of that note it was possible to reach clearer views. It had been, however, intended to await the complete publication of the fragment of forty lines. But, since inquiries have made it likely that the publication cannot be expected for a considerable time, and Iranian studies are affected, it has seemed profitable to publish a brief study of the fourteen lines (25–38) already available. They suffice to supplement and correct the earlier note.