CAAP. HI RELATIONS OF MON-ANNAM FAMILY
Malayo-Polynesian family on the other; and yet more strangely they have a certain number of points contact with the northern languages of the great Indo-Chinese conglomeration which includes the Tibeto-Burman, Kareng, Chinese, and Tai families.1
How much of all this is genuine original relation-sh*p, how much is due to mere historic contact or borrowings from some common source, it is, however, as yet impossible to say. So far as the connection ^ith Nicobarese and Khasi is concerned, it would feem that the relationship is vital, entering as it does *Ato the very structure of the languages. In the case the Munda dialects this has not been proved; and ^eir structure (especially their syntax) presents ^ny marked differences from the Mon-Annam.2
i As to the connection with Nico-*rese, see especially the grammar of lcAbarese by Temple, annexed to his
on the Census of 1901.
a Aiv, v/i,iiaua ui
. best authority for Nicobarese .^f is Man, Dictionary of the Central Hobarese Language, 1889. The con-ection with Khasi is dealt with by Shmidt in his Grundziige einer Laut-a* re der Khasi-Sprache, 1904, where is also shown that the Palaung, u*nai, Wa, and Riang dialects of Ur*aa and the Shan States are a t??necting link between Mon and Amer on the one side, and Khasi on A other. For the connection with u9da, see Grierson, Linguistic Survey Ljndia vol. iv. pt. i. (by Konow), v lch by the courtesy of the editor I been permitted to use in proof. Mention was called by the present nter in J, A. S., S. B., No. 38, p ^be analogies with the Malayo-. Alynesian group. The relation to the ^Arthern Indo-Chinese languages has Aever been worked out, but see Forch-/tmner, aIndo-Chinese Languagesa Indian Antiquary, 1882). That there
1 ^Ame common element in the vocabu-*ies was perceived by Haswell, who
in his Grammatical Notes and Vocabulary of the Peguan Language, p. 6, compares the Mon cha pung (pronounced chi2 pong), ato eat rice,a with the Amoy Chinese tsiah png. See also that learned but not always quite accurate work, Terrien de Lacouperieas Languages of China before the Chinese, 1887. It must, however, be borne in mind that in the case of languages which are monosyllabic or quasi-monosyllabic, the chances of accidental coincidence are much increased ; and, until careful investigations have established the existence of regular laws of phonetic correspondence, no individual identification based on mere resemblance in sound and meaning can be safely accepted.
2 The sketch map here given indicates the relative position, in modern times, of the language-groups most clearly connected with the Mon-Annam family, and illustrates the importance of the Mon-Annam races as links in a broken chain that extends from the district of Nimar in the extreme west corner of the Central Provinces of India all the way to Johor, or from lat. 220 long. 77A, to lat. 2A3o' long. 103A, approximately.2 The sketch map here given indicates the relative position, in modern times, of the language-groups most clearly connected with the Mon-Annam family, and illustrates the importance of the Mon-Annam races as links in a broken chain that extends from the district of Nimar in the extreme west corner of the Central Provinces of India all the way to Johor, or from lat. 220 long. 77A , to lat. 2A 3o' long. 103A , approximately.