^{page 629 note 1} JARB., vol. xxvi (1857), pp. 333 et seqqGoogle Scholar. Reprinted in Miscellaneous Essays Relating to Indian Subjects, vol. i, pp. 176–193. Both these are vocabularies only.

^{page 629 note 2} Vol. iii, pt. i, pp. 368–9.

^{page 629 note 3} The material was obtained under the same circumstances as that of Rūngchhēnbūng previously reported in this Journal—see JRAS., 1933, pp. 845–856. For comparative purposes see also the description of Sāngpāng in the Acta Orientalia, vol. xii (1933), pp. 71–9Google Scholar, and of Kūlung, id., vol. xiii (1934), pp. 35–43.

^{page 630 note 1} N. ṭāṛo.

^{page 630 note 2} N. des.

^{page 630 note 3} N. ǰuwā.

^{page 630 note 4} N. sāro.

^{page 630 note 5} N. pāp.

^{page 630 note 6} N. B'agwān.

^{page 631 note 1} N. yogya.

^{page 631 note 2} N. čūmā.

^{page 631 note 3} N. pāp.

^{page 631 note 4} N. B'agwān.

^{page 631 note 5} N. yogya.

^{page 631 note 6} N. ǰuttā.

^{page 631 note 7} N. bāčā.

^{page 631 note 8} N. kuśi.

^{page 632 note 1} N. belā.

^{page 632 note 2} syō-nī-pā and syō-nyū-pā both correct.

^{page 632 note 3} N. bāčā.

^{page 632 note 4} Fr. N. P'ālnu throw away, reject.

^{page 633 note 1} N. lāgi.

^{page 633 note 2} syō-nī-pā and syō-nyū-pā both correct.

^{page 633 note 3} N. bāčā.

^{page 633 note 4} N. c.

^{page 633 note 5} This interchange of final p, b, and m, also occurs within Thālung itself in, for instance, něp-ḍa “in the house”, from něm “house”, něp-sum “sun”, Hodgson nep-sūḥ, or nem.

^{page 636 note 1} Vol. iii, pt. i, p. 368.

^{page 637 note 1} See LSI., iii, 1, p. 327.

^{page 638 note 1} pā-p “father” and mā-m “mother” are probably abbreviated from pā-pā and mā-mā. Compare Bāhing pa-pā and ma-mā respectively, the note below under the genitive, and the infinitive of Kūlung, (Acta Orientalia, vol. xiii, p. 43)Google Scholar.

^{page 638 note 2} Hodgson, , Miscellaneous Essays, etc., vol. i, pp. 179 and 181Google Scholar, lists forms in ū- also for “father” and “mother” where no pronominal prefix could be present.

^{page 639 note 1} See note 1 on p. 638.

^{page 639 note 3} -p almost certainly represents a formerly vocalized syllable. Compare Bāhing kī-kī.

^{page 639 note 3} See last footnote, and compare Bāhing pī-pī.

^{page 639 note 4} There was probably a once-vocalized suffix here. See the note under the genitive below.

^{page 639 note 5} See previous footnote.

^{page 640 note 1} Both the abbreviated form -m and the fuller -mī are found within Bālāli (v. LSI., iii, 1, p. 350). Abbreviation of suffixes in this manner is quite common in these languages. Kūlung thus reduces its infinitive element to -m from an almost certainly original -mā, as in Limbu, Sāngpāng, Rūngchhēnbūng, etc. See Acta Orientalia, vol. xiii (1934), p. 43Google Scholar. For a different interpretation of this suffix -kā-m, v. LSI., iii, 1, p. 368.

^{page 640 note 2} N. bāčā.

^{page 641 note 1} Compare Hodgson's koṅ-dyū-m.

^{page 641 note 2} This is almost certainly a lineal descendant of Tibetan k'o(-bo, -mo). For the sonant g corresponding to an aspirate k' in Tibetan, cf. the writer's Outlines of Tibeto-Burman Linguistic Morphology, pp. 109–110. The compound forms of related languages also in very many cases contain this same element compounded with another representing Tibetan ṅa, as in e.g. Bālāli, Sāngpāng (LSI.), Lōhōrōng, Lāmbichhōng kā-ṅā, and other similar forms. Consequently the writer's transcriptions hāṅ in Sāngpāng (Acta Orientalia, xii, pp. 76, etc.) and kōṅ in Kūlung (id., xiii, pp. 41, etc.) should be corrected to kā-ṅ and kō-ṅ respectively. When standing in this order the two elements reproduce the Tibetan pleonastic k'o-bo ṅa. In reversed position, which is also quite common, ṅā becomes āṅ-, aṅ-, ĭṅ-, or ū-, as in e.g. Dūmi āṅ-ṅū, Rūngchhēnbūngaṅ-kā, Limba ĭṅ-gā, Chouraśya ūṅ-gū.

^{page 643 note 1} What follows here is drawn from material on verb conjugations separate from the story. The forms offered by this latter will be considered in a subsequent section.

^{page 643 note 2} The -m here appears to be a suffix. Compare Tibetan ạgyur-ba, the auxiliary of the future tense in the classical language. In the past we find the simple root dyū: (saṅ-sa-wā) dyū-stā (a famine) occurred, (čōk-čō) byū-dyū he became (angry).

^{page 644 note 1} In the story this element appears as -yē. See below.

^{page 644 note 2} It is notable here that the dual suffix drops the final -p of -čĭ-p as used with substantives. We shall later find the same behaviour of the plural -mĭ-m, which becomes -mī with verbs.

^{page 645 note 1} This suffix may not be pronominal. See below.

^{page 645 note 2} Unfortunately I have but little information as to a special verb form corresponding to the exclusive first person pronoun gō-kū. The speaker moved out of reach before this point could be established.

^{page 645 note 3} Compare Kachin -ma- with plural verbs. See the writer's, Outlines of Tibeto-Burman Linguistic Morphology, pp. 86–91Google Scholar. The Thūlung element seems to be the plural suffix.

^{page 645 note 4} For this as a locative suffix, see below.

^{page 646 note 1} See a previous note on this element.

^{page 646 note 2} See Morphology as above quoted.

^{page 647 note 1} It is possible that a vocalic element has merged with the root here (lō < la-ū or la-ō?). We have already met with a third personal root ū- used as a prefix. The LSI. (iii, 1, p. 368) also gives a form ō-kā-m “his”, which contains an element ō-.

^{page 647 note 2} This element is said to sometimes assume a cheeked final: lak°. I have not, however, been able to establish this as the normal pronunciation.

^{page 648 note 1} Compare the Limbu duals in čī-gē.

^{page 648 note 2} See Acta Orientalia, vol. xii (1933), p. 77Google Scholar.

^{page 649 note 1} Probably the plural suffix. See the verb substantive above.

^{page 649 note 2} As already stated, full material on some aspects of this dialect is not yet to hand, the speaker from whom the present notes were gathered leaving the district before my investigations were complete. Since with most of these languages, however, “subjective” forms of transitive verbs nearly always contain objective elements—without which, in fact, the verb cannot function—we probably have in the present materials at least a majority of all the elements of the truly “objective” verb forms. Of this I feel moderately certain from having dealt at full length with both the subjective and objective aspects of the verbs of other related languages, notably Limbu, where a consideration of the objective forms brought out practically nothing that an investigation of its “subjective” aspects had not already disclosed.

^{page 650 note 1} See Acta Orientalia, vol. xii (1933), p. 79Google Scholar. At other times the Thūlung verb is treated in similar wise as a locative concept, being thus directly linked to the object. See again below under the imperative. For -ū following transitive verbs in Bāhing, , cf. LSI., iii, 1, p. 331Google Scholar.

^{page 652 note 1} -yē- here for -ī- of the conjugations.

^{page 652 note 2} Compare the locative suffix usage below where the verb is a “stationary” act so far as the object is concerned.

^{page 652 note 3} See the writer's, Outlines of Tibeto-Burman Linguistic Morphology, pp. 57–8Google Scholar (§ 49).