No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
It is proposed in the present essay to give a brief outline, based on linguistic evidence only, of the state of civilization attained by the Tibeto-Burman race previous to the migration of the great Southern branch, and also to throw some light on the probable time of that migration. Of course, in all such inquiries anthropological evidence is now, and rightly, held to be a much more trustworthy guide than facts derived from the comparison of two or more languages, but results obtained from philological data alone are by no means to be altogether contemned. In the present case the geological exploration of the two countries is practically in its infancy, whilst even in Burma physical measurements of the population have not yet been systematically undertaken. It is clear, therefore, that we shall have to wait a quite indefinite time before any anthropological data are forthcoming. So far as is known, however, both the physical type and the idiosyncrasy of the two peoples are remarkably similar, and thus there is little fear that in comparing their languages we shall be trespassing against the canons of ethnology, for language and race are here, I think, nearly coterminous. All Tibetan or Burmese speaking people are not, of course, ethnically Tibetans or Burmans, but there can be no doubt that the bulk of them are, and that formerly they constituted but one race on the high plateau north of the Himalaya. The anthropological evidence, so far as it goes, points that way, whilst the linguistic evidence is overwhelming.
page 25 note 1 Final p is now pronounced as tor k.
page 25 note 2 Especially when this is a nasal.
page 26 note 1 In modern Burmese the old palatals have now become sibilants, whilst k'y, k'y are becoming palatals.
page 26 note 2 The tendency to soften kr, etc., to sr still continues, in W. Tibet at least.
page 27 note 1 It is, of course, open to doubt whether chā here is chā=‘writing,’ or chā (T. ch'a) ‘a thing.’
page 27 note 2 This is also probably the case with ‘plaster’ (T. ''arka, B. aṅga-te).
page 29 note 1 The slight difference in the meaning of these two words is reproduced exactly in the Burmese, showing acha or cha in the first signification to be a coalescence of two roots.
page 30 note 1 When immediately preceded by k' or k'.
page 31 note 1 It is difficult to know the reason why the two meanings are given separately as if from two different words. Both in S. Chin and in Kachin the words for ‘body’ and ‘self’ are the same, and I have no doubt many other instances could be given from allied languages.
page 31 note 2 This word does not occur in B. H. Hodgson's lists, the only information we have concerning many of the Tibeto-Burman dialects.
page 32 note 1 Pronounced amë-lē:. Le: is the Tibetan lē.
page 32 note 2 “Professor Sayce and the Burmese Language,” J.R.A.S. 1893, p. 149.
page 33 note 1 In reality it has almost become a merely euphonical affix, since the sense is complete in the two words ma swē.
page 34 note 1 Tibetan shows that this uniform aspirate is really a coalescing or weakening of several different consonants.
page 34 note 2 The burial-grounds in Burma are placed on the west side of the villages, the original idea being doubtless to give the spirits of the departed a clear way to the home of their forefathers, without passing through the village and thus disturbing the living.
page 35 note 1 Cf. Forbes, “Languages of Further India.” The words for ‘liquid’ generally (T. rlan, B. arañ) are the same.
page 36 note 1 In point of fact the water-hen is still called in Burmese re-krak, as is natural, its appearance in both countries being the same.
page 36 note 2 The Burmese, it may be noted, have, apparently, called the peacock (doṅ) after its tail feather (T. mdoṅ), leaving aside the regular word (rmā) for it.
page 37 note 1 A word of very rare occurrence.
page 38 note 1 The probable (Tibetan) derivations are—sa=‘earth’+sñi=‘soft,’ and sa= ‘earth’+rul=‘rotten’ (cf. B. k'e-ma-pup).
page 38 note 2 Campbell, “Spirit Baais of Belief and Custom.”
page 39 note 1 Dr. Waddell's “Demonolatry in Sikhim Lamaism.”
page 39 note 3 Burmese lē ‘bow’ is probably corrupted from the Tibetan ru, but this is the respectful and not the ordinary term.
page 40 note 1 This word, as well as ‘spear,’ ‘sword,’ ‘shield,’ does not occur in most of Hodgson's lists.
page 41 note 1 Connected with amok=‘crest’ and mok=‘elevated in the centre,’ probably the original meaning of the word.
page 42 note 1 Spelling doubtful, as the word is not found in the dictionary. It usually occurs in the phrase lay-k'yoṅ lup-chā-sañ=‘I am a worker of the fields’ (i.e. an agriculturist).
page 43 note 1 Lū:-nat-kōk is “the classic name for wheat.”
page 44 note 1 This word has suffered considerably from phonetic decay. Its connection with the Tibetan is easily traced through Manipuri, Lunbu, etc.
page 44 note 2 Further, the Tibetan rdzoṅ=‘castle’ probably reappears in the Burman tan-ch'oṅ:=‘a kind of tower,’ and ach'oṅ=‘a building.’
page 44 note 3 Taṇ, tan, or tan: simply means anything long and straight, and is a common prefix in Burmese (cf. T. ytan).
page 45 note 1 I doubt whether ch'ōk in this signification is from the root ch'ok ‘to build.’
page 45 note 8 T. oben is probably merely another form of this word.
page 46 note 1 The Tibetan zwa ‘a hat’ is possibly the same as the Burmese sü:.
page 46 note 2 The existence of a common word for ‘needle’ (T. k'ab, B. ap) proves nothing, since needles are employed by all races who consider expedient garments of any kind whatever. Similarly as regards ‘thread’ (T. dran-bu, B. k'rañ), and ‘to sew’ (T. odrub, B. k'yup).
page 47 note 1 This properly means ‘matted hair,’ a significant distinction.
page 48 note 1 Probably a reduplicated word (cf. Chinese kō).
page 48 note 2 Fairy-land.
page 48 note 3 Means ‘to conquer.’
page 49 note 1 The Burmese düṅ ‘a petty chief’ is probably connected with T. mt'on ‘high in rank.’
page 49 note 2 Central.
page 49 note 3 Note also the Central Tibetan ojags ‘to make a present,’ and B. ch'ak ‘to present to a superior.’
page 49 note 4 Ta o is the royal affix.
page 50 note 1 The Tibetans are not alone in giving it this designation. See Tylor, “Early History of Mankind.”
page 51 note 1 Possibly also T. dmyal ‘to cut up’ and B. mywā ‘to gash obliquely’ are the same.
page 52 note 1 The Burmese here is the same as the Gyarung, and is possibly a relic of counting on the hands.
page 52 note 2 T'son ‘to trade’ is a closely allied root. Cf. t'soṅ-sa ‘a market.’
page 52 note 3 If the Burmese chaṇ and Tibetan ts'ad ‘a standard’ are the same, some considerable advance in the arts must be assumed.
page 53 note 1 Yig=‘writing,’ hmat=‘mark.’
page 53 note 2 Cf. also T. ot'san=‘error,’ and B. ach'ā ‘faulty.’
page 54 note 1 The Burmese pū-pū ‘tootingly’ is, however, obviously allied to the Tibetan bud, pf. p'u ‘to blow a trumpet.’