No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
page 145 note 1 JRAS. 1929, pp. 851–3, 869–70.
page 145 note 2 Linguistic Survey of India, vol. iii, pt. ii, p. 1.
page 145 note 3 Op. cit., p. 36.
page 145 note 4 Hodgson, , Miscellaneous Essays relating to Indian Subjects, vol. i, p. 72Google Scholar, note, writes “Mécch”, i.e. Mêch, with long vowel quantity.
page 145 note 5 For ma here as representing an original mi, compare Rûngchhênbûng ma-nâ “man” for a probable original mâ(-nâ) in agreement with Rai mîn (< mî-n), Thâmi mî, Tibetan mî, etc. See JRAS. 1933, p. 850, n. 1.
page 145 note 6 Hodgson, , op. cit., vol. i, p. 181Google Scholar. The writer also has been given this form as against Khambu (= Kūlung) mîs-sî of the Linguistic Survey (vol. iii, pt. i, p. 411), in which the first s is doubtless due merely to the use of a conjunct consonant in the Nepâli spelling ( for ).