No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
Notwithstanding that the position of Burmese philologically has been fixed with some precision, that it possesses a literature, and that several Anglo-Vernacular works on it are in existence, the references to it in scientific and other works are generally marred by errors and misconceptions of detail. The absence of any grammar (in the proper sense of the word) of this language, has probably much to do with these mistakes. Dr. Judson's book is a mere skeleton grammar devoid of examples or exercises to show the manner in which the various rules are worked in practice, whilst it is deficient in syntax, and in information about poetical Burmese. As yet the annexation of Upper Burma, although it has given a great impulse to almost everything connected with the province, has failed to produce anything noteworthy in the way of helps to the study of Burmese, if we except a few crude elementary works which are no improvement on those already in existence.
page 150 note 1 This would seem improbable. Twē is probably derived from twë, ‘to hang together.’
page 152 note 1 As a matter of fact the identical root khan ‘to suffer,’ is found in Chinese, but it is not apparently used there to form a passive.
page 155 note 1 The change of ṅ into k and vice versâ is not uncommon in this family of tongues, and several examples could easily be given.
page 156 note 1 Cf. also hṅak ṅa nwā ‘the bird like a bullock,’ i.e. the Imperial pigeon which makes a noise like a bullock. This is, however, a local and not a general term for the bird.
page 156 note 2 Both hiē and lē(lū-kalē) have the heavy tone.