« PrécédentContinuer »
s. v. *păk-čo T. bag-čags; the T. roots are subject to Lepcha-formative rules; e. g. kyor from kor; năm-ảyin from dyin etc.; the L. and Tibetan languages though not immediately cognate are so closely connected in many roots that it seems impossible to define exactly, what is borrowed and what is cognate in origin e. g. s. v. yă and ši 1, nók 2 etc., fin (blue) etc. Certain incorrect words were removed from this portion of the work e. g. hum s. offering derived from hûm pat; many words identified with T were corrected e. g. *hra-mik acc. M. fr. T. Kra-ma and mik, should be T. dra-mig etc., den-zun the scales of justice fr. T. bde and rdsun “truth and falsehood". But I am sure that this difficult question has not been settled by me in all cases. For the Buddhistical terms I added fresh matter as above mentioned e. g. s. v. rum, mun, lyan, tsur, ta-še, sun-hlyo, myel, gyẵn etc.
The editor is responsible for the arrangement of the longer articles in the work e. g. ká, lut, mik, lóm, bu, nón, mat etc., and has added numerous quotations authenticating the derivation of the definition. Compare the original article mat as it is printed in M.'s Outline Grammar 128-130 and the articles mat 1 and 2 in the dictionary. It is clear, that two different roots are confounded apud M. if no more. In the same manner nón 1-4 formed one article, li 1 10 one article, lă (1-5 and -lă) ši one single article apud M. For la 1 the editor alone is responsible.
He has inserted all the postpositions mentioned in the grammar and all the prefixes e. g. -nũn; -ŭn; -a; -să; -lă; -ka; a-; ta- with the idea of rendering texts easier and enabling the reader to find in the dictionary grammatical matter if needed. I hope also that in certain cases the rules of L-derivation may be better defined than is the case in the grammar. The etymological method remained also the standard for shortness. All derived and compound words were as already mentioned incorporated under their respective roots, when at the same time the prefixes were inserted with quotations referring to the roots for the sake of convenience.
The following considerations may not be out of place.
I. Reduplication may be called a principal part of Lepcha-grammar. Roots are reduplicated:
A. by repeating the initial consonant of the root with inherent à; but k, g, n, hare represented in reduplication by k; fd by t, p f b by p, ny by n, č, č, j ts, tś z š by 8, v by f. See under kă-, tă-, på- etc.
B. by repeating the whole root with й vowel, the consonants of reduplication are treated as noted under A.
These forms are to be sought in the dictionary as follows: fă-vi-lă see under root vi; fu- refers to the root; kun-kón-là see under kón; kun- refers to the root kóй; på-plyu-lă see under plyu etc.
C. if other vowels are used to form the reduplicated or geminated root or different initial consonant is introduced into the second part, the word must be sought under the form which seemed to be the root e. g. yep-på yap-pă see under yap; yep referring to the root yap; šól-là mól-la see under sól; mól-là referring to šól II. There are in Lepcha certain prefixes of undefined etymology which however seem to correspond to the so-called mute consonants in Tibetan. By prefixing them
to the roots nouns are formed e. g. tă-fit from fi. They are treated as the reduplications in I, A. tă-tit should be sought s v. fi; tă-not s. v. no; ta- refers to the root fi, no etc.; să-tsuk see under tsuk; pă-fyam see under fyam.
III. A certain number of combined nouns are formed with prefixes the root of which is still intelligible. These roots are incorporated straight into the dictionary with reference to their derivations, though certain phonetic variations must be stated and the etymology is certainly not clear in all cases e. g. one prefix să- seems to be derived from so (atmosphere) see under să- and so; one la- must be understood as a negative prefix, see under là-zů as opposed to ma-ză; pur- is to be identified with pur (to excavate) in the compound pur-ảyam (talpa), but it is derived from por (mouldy) in pur-mo (mould); lun- is lăn (stone) in certain compounds, kur- could be identified with (să) hór (star), túr- (in words designating nomina propria of mushrooms, perhaps derived from dor; tŭk- in some cases i. q. túk (to cover over); luk- (in compounds which are nomina propria of plants i. q. (tă-) lük (frog); muk- as Mainwaring suggests i. q. mak (to die) in mŭk-nyam (Hades); šan (wood) seems to be corrupted into sun- in certain compounds, but in many cases it is of different origin. The prefixes tŭk- and tůn- seem to be interchangeable in many cases. It is impossible to settle the question in a satisfactory manner without fresh materials obtained from the cognate dialects or from the natives. I hope that the inserted quotations may enable the reader to find his way.
Nomina propria of plants and beasts are incorporated as complete words with but few exceptions, the etymological meaning of the single parts was not in all cases intelligible as in the case of tur-hlet dor fr. hlet (slippery) or pă-fón-bù from fón (green.). 1)
By false analogy taken from I, A, B the above described prefixes (I-III) are confounded in the modern orthography of the manuscripts; the confusion is stated by M. (see Gr. 123) but he gives no real explanation of the difficulties. Even the Biblical books printed at Darjeeling afford no means of settling the question; I hope that my method may be satisfactory, even if it does not contain "whole the truth". To enable the reader to discern what he wants in cases when pur-ayam and pă-àyam; pŭt-nyóm, pát-nyóm (sic!), pă-nyóm; tŭk-klak, tă-klak etc. are found even in the same page of a manuscript, I have inserted the various spellings of the confounded prefixes with quotations referring to the roots. See under tŭk-, tur-, kul-, put- etc. Under such circumstances the reader has a guide even if the
1) The so-called Tun-bor compounds are treated as complete words but they are also added to the respective general word To the scientific names of animals and minerals I have added references to Waddells list of birds (H. H. Risley, Gazetteer of Sikhim, Calc. 1894) and to Watt's great work (George W. a dictionary of the economic products of India Calc. 1889-1896). This undertaking was very difficult, many names given by Wtt. being Tibetan and nearly all in such terrible spelling that they could often only be identified by chance, e. g. siriokhtem (Wtt.) i. q. să-ryók ká-1yan (M.), skep-kyew (Wtt.) i. q. šap kyu (M.) Etymological analysis of these names would be very interesting, but it is impossible without the natives; only in a few cases could be found the "tertium comparationis" e. g. să-món (Yak-tail) and Caryota urens, the appellation being taken from the black fibres of the tree.
needed derivation is omitted in the dictionary, to enable him at once to define the meaning of a compound word from the root.
The variations of meaning which the prefixes effect in single roots are very interesting; see under gryón, sit etc.
Thus as far as shortness was concerned Mainwaring's huge volumes were reduced to half their extent, let alone that his method would have led the editor into enumerating every kind of spelling in order to construct certain forms, which he never could have detected in the printed or written texts.
Another interesting question which occurs in Lepcha grammar is the phonetic change of certain final consonants. It should be borne in mind.
1. that three suffixed letters form derivations of verbal roots, see under -t, -m, -n. The respective forms are to be sought under the roots e. g. tă-not see s. v. no; a-ryum see ryu, a-hrun see hru. Quotations not, hrun referring to no, hru are inserted. 2. that final consonants are modified. This modification not affecting the alphabetical order, may be briefly stated as regards the single cases.
A. Final n is modified into n, see Grammar; nón refers to nón etc.
B. Roots ending in k seem to be accompanied by parallel forms with final n, the former being transitive or causative, the latter intransitive or medial e. g. hlyak to break off as opposed to hlyan torn off; vák to avoid opp. to ván (ván) to be free; vyók to undulate ("to make gyrations") opp. ryón coil; tyúk to turn upside down opp. tyun etc. It seems to be a similar case with roots ending in -m which occur sometimes with final -p, but the supposed variation of meaning cannot be verified e. g. nup and num, hap and ham.
I have also noted certain instances in which final consonants assume a new and peculiar transformation, which cannot defined grammatically at present e. g. nyók and nyól to be tardy; nup and nul to be soft for further examples see the English-Lepcha part of the dictionary. To settle the question it is necessary to study the cognate languages and to balance the various spellings in the manuscripts, which have generally a tendency rather to suppress the diverging forms and to unify them preferring the final guttural nasal to final k or n mentioned under A and B or otherwise. It must be remembered that the abbreviated letters of final consonants are seldom correctly executed and are mistaken by the copyist of a manuscript himself.
Modified initial consonants can be traced only in forming the causative or transitive basis of the verbal roots. The most frequent mode of forming these consists in adding y to the initial consonant, e. g. kyor caus. of kor; nyón caus. of nón etc. I have inserted the causative forms but under the references to the respective roots.
Before we can proceed to the so-called Lepcha alphabet, it must be remembered that in adapting the rude idiom of the Lepcha's to writing some discrepancies arose, which are to be found occasionally under similar circumstances.
In studying the Lepcha spoken language the following considerations deserve fresh investigation. As certain words derived from the same root are adapted to different spellings, it was impossible to abandon the orthography now intro
duced. I shall give here a number of examples for the convenience of the reader of books and manuscripts.
I. The Vowels.
1. In Lepcha-orthography ă (á) and й are often interchangeable in the same root e. g. sùi-mặt (wind): mặt (to blow); pi-no (king): pin-di (queen); mũ-zu and mă-zů (body); tsám, a tsảm (place where people congregate) and tsằm (tsŭ) to meet together); jā, pă-jă: júm, pă-jům (sitting); a-hryă (mistake): hryů, (to be beside one's self); háp, hup (hup) (a sip); gyár (to be afraid): gyúr (shrinking fr. shame); hlăn, flăn, klũn (to slip down); ár: úr (c. obliq. of ár) (this); a and u are interchangeable: tul: pun-tal (short).
2. In modern spoken language o and u are confounded e. g. myup: mop, mok (to store up) sak-ryot or sak-ryut fr. ryu (to be good); tük-fyuk (a scoop) and fok (to scoop out). These examples are written with o instead of u. It is very embarassing in manuscripts, when un is written instead of on (horse), tsu (to cook) instead of tso, nut dak (thirst) instead of not dak. To settle the correct spelling is very difficult. In words borrowed from Tibetan I have reconstructed the T. vocalisation, I wrote therefore: čo-bo not co-pu (scholar); nor-bu (jewel) not nur-pu; om mani pe-me hum not um etc.
3. The vowels á and ó are often interchangeable e. g. tyót or tyát (to hack). This seems to be derived from roots ending in -k or -, which when the syllable has the ǎ (a) or a vowel are spoken like -ok, -on; so are found: rók (to sift; to be shaken) and hrăk (to shake); hyók, fyók (to cross) and ayak (to cross hands). In the so-called Lepcha-alphabet the syllable an if accentuated án is not distinct from on, the spelling răn and rón (a Lepcha), să-tăn and să-tón (tiger), -sẵn and -són (plur. postposition) sán and són (to be clear) are identical.
4. in certain roots ó or o interchange with e, but it does not seem in all cases a difference in writing because variation of meaning accrues e. g. glyót (to let down, glyet (to let fall) see under glo; flók (to be splintered): flek (splinter); hok (to shell, to husk) and hyek or fyek (id.) Can it be registered under that species of modified vowels which comparative grammarians design as Umlaut?1) dyóm and dem (time) seem to be alphabetic discrepancies.
5. In manuscripts the vowel i (yi) is written yu if the syllable ends in m, l or p. 6. In certain roots a is written e occasionally, see M. Gr. e. g. jen i. q. jăn etc. II. Consonants, exspecially initial consonants.
The spelling of a number of roots contains a certain variety of modified consonants, which seem to have originated in a stage of the language now too remote to be accurately defined. In this case the so-called Lepcha-alphabet seem to be insufficient to represent the real form which can be understood only by careful investigation of the spoken idiom.
zop and jop (to
1. simple consonants e. g. nop-pă and kop (kyop) (slowly); oppress); yak and jak (to tickle); cor and (să) tsór (sour); gol (to roll down) and ról (to roll round), one simple c. instead of a compound one, e. g. zán
1) Compare a-kup and a-kep and Tibetan rta and ríeu etc.
and dyan (striped); — (tük-) jer and dyer (side); — rók (shaken off) and hrak (to shake);
jól and lyól (wide); - jóp and lyóp (flat).
2. compound consonants e. g. (pur-) fyet (pincers) and p(y)it (to squeeze);
pyul and fyul (to stir up); brán and (să) mrán
fyok and dyók (transverse);
byan and fyon (parallel);
fyek and hyek krap and kyak (sticky); pyom and plyom (to be skinned); - kran flok, blok and flek (splintered);
flun. klun, hlán, plut
(to slip down).
r and y affixed to the initial consonant are interchangeable in certain roots e g. frót and fyót; bról and byól etc.1)
Tibetan words have no settled mode of orthography e. g. ša-'dsin is written šăn zún, šan-zún, čo-zůn; pyag: čók, čak, ýyók; sans-rgyas: són-gyó or san-gye; yidwags: yi-dó, wu-dó, wu-dù etc. Tibetan r affixed to aspirated initial consonants is invariably written with y e. g. pyen-bo T.' preń-ba; pyó T. pra-ba; hyám T. Kram-pa etc. Can there any hint enable one to define the above-mentioned affixed causal which corresponds in cognate languages to aspirated consonants?
When the manuscripts of the late General Mainwaring were entrusted to the editor it was desired by the British Government, that the type used should be Roman. "The so-called Lepcha alphabet used by General Mainwaring in his Grammar is a pure fiction. The language has properly speaking no written character, though it is possible that on a few occasions a debased variety of the Tibetan character may have been resorted to. There is however no necessity whatever and no real justification for incurring the expense of starting Lepcha type nor as a matter of fact can a complete fount of such type be constructed". In the "history of Sikhim and his rulers' (H. H. Risley, Gazetteer of Sikhim 15) it is stated, that the king Cha-dor (P'yag-rdor rnam-gyal, born 1686) has designed an alphabet for his Lepcha subjects) Çri-kali-kumâr-dâs (J. Buddh. T. Soc. IV, 1, 1898 App. II, 1) identifies the alphabet as it is used by the Baptist mission absolutely with that of king Cha-dor and gives a few very interesting notes from "Lepcha-books".
kǎ k'ă gă ǹå;
It clearly appears from the accompanying table of the alphabet that the derivation from a certain form of Tibetan U-met character is beyond doubt and that the type used in printing religions books by the Baptist mission differs in many points (compare letters ča, da etc.) from the type used by the Lepchas themselves in their manuscripts.
In the matter of transliteration the editor's aim has been to conform to the dictionary of Dr. Jäschke but with certain reservations which were founded on Mainwaring's method. The single words were arranged according the following order:
1) Compare the wellknown pecularity of Burmese, which confounds primitiver with y opp. to Aracanese.
2) Appendix II, q. see also Journ. of the Buddh. T. Soc. IV, 1, 1898.