but they have, on the other hand, made a few new ones on their own account, so that there is not much to choose between them. Comparison inter se and with other sources is generally sufficient to show which is in the right when they differ.
All these versions have been included in the Comparative Vocabulary, but in estimating their value as evidence it must be remembered that each group is only one source, and that their weight is therefore not in any way increased by the number of the versions, which have only been reproduced by reason of the variations which occur in them.
A letter written by the Rev. Father Pupier, dated Penang, the 2nd October 1825, and printed in the Annales de la Propagation de la Foi (1826), tom. ii. P- 303? contains a few Semang words and phrases also, apparently, from a district in or near Province Wellesley, but collected independently from the above materials and expressed in a French orthography. This source is of no great value, but has never been noticed hitherto, so I have thought it worth while to mention it. A diligent search in other missionary records may perhaps lead to the discovery of more such material.
P. J. Begbie, in his rather rare book the Malayan Peninsula (1834), pp* 14-18, gives a list of about 160 Semang words (including, of course, a few Malayan loan words) which was furnished him by an unnamed friend of his.1 It is not stated where the dialect was compiled, but it is undoubtedly a Semang dialect,2 and from a source quite independent of those already mentioned, but related more nearly to the Juru than to the Ian (or Kedah) Semang. The spelling appears to be rather good, but the list has been badly printed, so that in ten cases vowels are left out and represented by turned letters, thus This, however, is not due to Begbieas own printer, for Begbie apologises for it on p. xvii., at the end of the Errata, and explains that these blanks occurred in his original, which (having himself no knowledge of the aboriginal dialects) he was unable to correct. It appears, therefore, that Begbieas list is founded on a printed source, which I have been unable to trace.
The same list appears to have been reprinted in the Malacca Observer^ in an article on the missionary journey of the Rev. Jacob Tomlin, mentioned in J. S. Vateras Litteratur der Grammatiketi (2nd ed., by B. Jtilg, 1847), p. 537, and a copy of this reprint is preserved in the Royal Library, Berlin. I have not had access to it, but from the words extracted from it in GrunwedePs Glossary and Schmidtas work it is evident that it is identical with Begbieas list; one or two minor differences are noted in the Comparative Vocabulary, but otherwise this so-called aTomlinas SAmanga is not embodied in it.
The next list to be considered is Newboldas Vocabulary, headed aOrang Benua,a printed in his already mentioned work. This is a long list of about 450 forms (including some trifling variants) being the equivalents of about 250 English words. In some cases there are as many as five synonyms, generally there are two or three.
In point of fact this list is a heterogeneous agglomeration of at least three distinct dialects belonging to three quite different groups.
As Schmidt points out, one element in it is SAmang, of a type so closely allied to that of Begbieas list that it must be referred to the same or at least a neighbouring dialect; but the spelling differs from Begbieas, and is somewhat less accurate, so that perhaps Schmidt is right in concluding that the two do not go back to the same written source. On the other hand, in a few cases
1 Probably the Rev. C. Thomsen, a Aborigines,
missionary and scholar, of Malacca and 2 In No. 27 of the Straits Asiatic
Singapore, to whom Begbie in p. ix. of Journal I wrongly expressed a doubt
his Introduction makes his acknowledg- on this point. Probably the dialect
ments for a paper treating of the was recorded in Southern Kedah.ments for a paper treating of the was recorded in Southern Kedah.