VI. LANGUAGE.

Outline of Mikir grammar—The original text of the three stories translated in Section V., analysed and elucidated.

The language spoken by the Mikirs belongs to the great family of Indo-Chinese speech called Tibeto-Burman, the general characteristics of which have been fully set forth in The Linguistic Survey of India, vol. iii. Mikir itself is treated on pp. 380 ff. of Part II. of that volume, and is described by Dr. Grierson as a member of the Nāgā-Boḍo sub-group, in which it is classed together with Ēmpēo or Kachchā Nāgā, Kabui, and Khoirāo. It is unnecessary here to occupy space with any demonstration of the fact that Mikir is a Tibeto-Burman language, or to cite lists of words in it agreeing with those of other languages of the same great class. In the next section an attempt will be made to examine its affinities with other varieties of Tibeto-Burman speech, and to define more clearly its place in the family; in this the language will be dealt with in its internal structure only, and, as specimens, the original text of the three stories translated in Section V. will be given, with an interlinear rendering and a running commentary.

A grammatical sketch of Mikir was printed at pp. 381–391 of Part II. vol. iii. of the Linguistic Survey. What follows is mainly borrowed from that source, which was the first published attempt to explain systematically the facts and mechanism of the language.

Sounds.

Mikir has no written character of its own. The first publication printed in it, a short catechism issued by a missionary press at Sibsagar in 1875, used the Assamese character; since then, so far as is known, the Roman alphabet has always been employed to express the sounds of the language. Mr. Stack, from whose materials this monograph has been compiled, distinguished the following vowel sounds:—

ā, long a as in father (chiefly in open syllables);

à, the same shortened and pronounced abruptly, as in the German Mann, always in closed syllables;

(N.B. The language does not possess the short Hindī a, representing the u in but.)

ē, the long e in the French scène;

e, the same sound shortened, as in belief;

è, the sharp e in the English men (always in closed syllables);

ī, the long i in machine;

i, the short i in it;

ō, the long o in bone;

o, the same shortened, as in obey;

ò, the sharp abrupt sound in pot (always in closed syllables);

ū, the long u in June;

u, the short u in full.

The diphthongs are—

ai, as in aisle;

ei, almost as in feign, with the i audible;

oi, as in boil;

ui, long ū with i added: no English equivalent.

The consonants used in Mikir are b, ch, d, h, j, k, l, m, n, ng, p, r, s, t, v (all with their value as in English), and the aspirates kh, ph, th (pronounced as in cookhouse, haphazard, anthill). Bh, dh, and g occur only in a few borrowed words, and bh and dh are commonly resolved, as bahār (for Hindī bhār), “a load,” and dohòn (for Ass. dhon), “money.” F, sh, w, y, and z are not used. Ng is never initial, and the g is not separately heard (always as in singer, never as in younger).

Monosyllabic Roots.

The root words of the language, whether nouns, adjectives, pronouns, verbs, or adverbs, are generally monosyllabic; where simple roots have more than one syllable, the additions are formative prefixes, once probably separate words, which have become incorporated. Such are the prefix ke-, ki-, kā-, used to form adjectives, present participles, and verbal nouns; and the prefixes ār- (in ārnī, “sun,” ārlòng, “stone,” ārlèng, “man,” etc.), ing- (in inglòng, “mountain”; inghòn, “pity,” etc.), and te-, ti-, to- (in teràm, “call,” tekàng, “abandon,” tikup, “house-yard,” tovār, “road,” etc.), of which the precise significance is not now traceable. In compound roots, formed by combining monosyllabic elements, the force of each individual syllable is still fully felt; such compounds are exceedingly common.

Words are not inflected, but are located in sense by their position in the sentence or by the addition of particles. These particles may often be omitted where ambiguity is not likely to occur; such omission is particularly frequent as regards the postpositions indicating case, and the tense-affixes of the verb.

Gender.

Gender is not distinguished except for animated beings, and in them either (1) by added words indicating sex (as sō-pō, “boy,” sō-pī, “girl”; āsō-pinsō, “male child”; āsō-pī, “daughter”; chainòng-ālō, “bull”; chainòng-āpī, “cow”), or (2) by the use of different terms (pō, “father,” pē or pei, “mother,” phū, “grandfather,” phī, “grandmother,” etc.).

Number.

The ordinary suffix for the plural is -tum (which is originally a separate word meaning “company,” “followers”); but other words are occasionally employed, as mār, a “mass, quantity, or company”; òng, “many”; and lī, a respectful form used in addressing a number of persons. When -tum is suffixed to a noun, it takes the prefixed ā- of relation, as ārlèng-ātum, “men”; when added to a personal pronoun it does not require this adjunct, as will be explained below (nē, “I,” nē-tum, “we”; nàng, “thou,” nàng-tum, “ye”; lā, “he, she, it,” lā-tum, “they”).

Case.

Case is indicated by position, or by postpositions. The nominative, and, generally speaking, the accusative, have no postpositions, but are ascertained by their position in the sentence, the nominative at the beginning, the accusative following it before the verb. Both, when necessary, can be emphasised by the addition of the particles -kē and -sī, which in some sort play the part of the definite article; but these are not case-postpositions. There is no device (as in Tibetan) for distinguishing the case of the agent with transitive verbs.

The genitive always precedes the noun on which it is dependent. When the word in the genitive is a pronoun of the first or second person, nothing intervenes between them: nē-mèn, “my name”; nàng-pē, “thy clothes.” But when, the pronoun is in the third person, or a noun is in the genitive case, the following noun has ā- prefixed: e.g. lā ā-pō, “his father”; Ārnàm ā-hèm, “God’s house”; hijai-ātum ā-kàm, “the jackals’ work”; ārnī-kàngsàm ā-pòr, “day-becoming-cool time.” This prefixed ā- is really the pronoun of the third person, and means his, her, its, their; the full meaning of the combinations given above is therefore “he, his father”: “God, his house”: “the jackals, their work”: “day becoming cool, its time.” As in many other languages of the Tibeto-Burman family, nouns (especially those denoting personal relations, parts of the body, etc.) are seldom conceived as abstract and self-contained; they most often occur in relation to some other noun, and thus the syllable ā- is more often prefixed to them than not. Especially is this the case with adjectives; these ordinarily follow the noun which they qualify, and almost always have ā- prefixed; e.g. Ārnàm ā-kethē, “God Almighty”: lā ā-kibī ā-bàng, “that younger one.” Sometimes this prefixed ā- is thinned down to ē-, as in hèm-ē-pī, hèm-ē-pō, “widow, widower,” literally “female or male owner of the house”: hijai ē-hur, “a pack of jackals.” Most postpositions (originally nouns joined to the genitive of the qualified word) similarly require ā- before them; and the suffix -tum of the plural, since it means “a company,” also in this manner assumes the form ā-tum. Before ing- the prefix ā- is absorbed, and the result is àng.

The other cases are formed by postpositions. The instrumental is generally indicated by pèn (sometimes with prefixed ā- or ē-, as āpèn, ēpèn, but more often without), or pèn-sī. The dative takes ā-phàn, “to or for,” which is also occasionally used for the accusative. The sign of the dative of purpose is āpòt: pī-āpòt, “what for, why?” kopī-āpòtsī, id. The ablative is formed with pèn or pènsī: nòn-pèn, “from now”; dàk-pèn, “from here”; āpārā (Ass. parā) is also used, generally with pèn as well. The locative has a number of postpositions, according to the position required: -sī is used for “in,” as hèm-sī, “in the house,” ādèt-sī, “in his country”; ārlō is also used for “in, inside.” Lē (properly the conjunctive participle of a verb meaning “arrive, reach to a place”) is often used as a postposition for “at, in.” Other common locative postpositions are ā-thàk, “upon, on,” àngsòng, “above, upon,” ārum, “below,” ābēr, “below,” ālòng “together with” (lòng means “place”), ādun, ādung, “beside, next to” (dun is a verb meaning “to be with, accompany”), ādàk, “between,” àngbòng, “in the middle of,” āphī, “after.”

Adjectives.

Adjectives are regularly formed by prefixing ke-, ki-, or kā- to the root, and do not change for gender, number, or case. Thus, from the root mē, “to be good,” we have kemē, “good”; hēlō, “distance,” kāhēlō, “far off”; dòk, “to have savour,” kedòk, “savoury”; hō, “to be bitter,” kehō, “bitter”; lòk, “to be white,” kelòk, “white”; rī, “to be rich,” kirī, “rich.” Ke- and ki- are generally used with monosyllables, kā- with longer words; kā- with ing- forms kàng.

The form of the adjective is precisely the, same as that of the present participle of the verbal root, used to form the present tense, and also as that of the infinitive or abstract of that root, and the collocation of the sentence alone determines the meaning of the word used. When particles of comparison or other modifying elements are added to the adjective, the prefix kē- etc. is often dropped as unnecessary; thus—

kelòk, “white”; lòk-hik, “whitish.”

kemē, “good”; mē-mū, “better”; mē-nē, “best.”

keding, “tall”; ding-mū, “taller.”

But kàngtui, “high”; kàngtui-mū, “higher”; kàngtui-nē, “highest.”

Comparison is effected by means of the postpositions āpār and āphàn; “his brother is taller than his sister,” ā-tē āpār (or āphàn) ā-kòr ding-mū.

Adjectives commonly follow the noun qualified; when they precede, the construction corresponds to what in Aryan languages would be indicated by the relative pronoun (see below, p. 80).

Numerals.

The cardinal numerals are īsī, one; hīnī, two; kethòm, three; philī, four; phòngō, five; theròk, six; theròk-sī, seven; nērkèp, eight; sirkèp, nine; kèp, ten. It will be seen that seven is six plus one, eight ten minus two, nine ten minus one. From eleven to nineteen krē takes the place of kèp: krē-īsī, eleven; krē-hīnī, twelve; krē-kethòm, thirteen, etc. A score is ingkoi, and from this point onwards the syllable rā is inserted between the multiple of ten and the added units: ingkoi-rā-īsī, twenty-one; ingkoi-rā-hīnī, twenty-two, etc. Thirty, forty, etc. are formed by adding kèp to the multiplier unit: thòm-kèp, philī-kèp, etc. Eighty is theròk-nērkèp, ninety theròk-sērkèp. A hundred is phārō or pārō, a thousand surī.

The numeral follows the noun. In composition hīnī (except with bàng, “person”) is reduced to nī, and kethòm to thòm, as jō-nī jō-thòm, “two or three nights.” Philī and theròk are often contracted to phlī and thròk.

Generic determinatives, as in many other Tibeto-Burman languages, are commonly used with numbers:—

with persons, bàng, as ā-òng-mār kòrtē bàng-theròk, “his uncles, the six brothers”;

with animals, jòn (perhaps an Assamese loan-word), as chelòng jòn-philī, “four buffaloes”;

with trees and things standing up, ròng: thèngpī ròng-theròk “six trees”;

with houses, hum, as hèm hum-theròk-kèp, “sixty houses”;

with flat things, as a mat, a leaf, a knife, pàk: as tār pàk-phòngō, “five mats”; lō pàk-philī, “four leaves”; nōkē pàk-thòm, “three knives”;

with globular things, as an egg, a gourd, a vessel, pum: as vo-tī pum-nī, “two eggs”; bòng pum-theròksī, “seven gourds”;

with parts of the body, and also with rings, bracelets, and other ornaments, hòng: as kèng ē-hòng, “one leg”; roi hòng-nī, “two bracelets.”

One of anything is not formed with īsī, but, if a person is spoken of, īnut (a Khasi loan-word) is used: if anything else, ē- is prefixed to the generic determinative; “one cow,” chainòng ē-jòn; “one tree,” thèngpī ē-ròng; “one book,” puthī ē-pàk; “one egg,” vo-tī ē-pum. This ē- appears to be borrowed from Assamese, where it is shortened from èk.

Ordinals are formed by prefixing bātai to the cardinal, as bātai-kethòm, “third,” bātai philī, “fourth.” They seem to be little used: in the story of Harata Kunwar it will be seen that clumsy periphrases are employed to designate the second, third, fourth, and fifth brother of the family to which the hero belonged. Distributive numeral adverbs are formed by prefixing pur or phòng to the cardinal: pur-thòm or phòng-thòm, “thrice.”

Pronouns.

The following are the personal pronouns:—

1st Person: nē, I; nē-tum, nē-lī, nē-lī-tum, we, excluding the person addressed: ī-tum, ī-lī, we, including the person addressed;

2nd Person: nàng, thou; nàng-tum, nàng-lī, nàng-lī-tum, ye;

3rd Person lā, he, she, it; lā-tum, they;

ālàng, he, she; ālàng-lī, ālàng-ātum, ālàng-lī-tum, they.

(The pronoun lā is really a demonstrative, = this, that: it is probable that the original pronoun of the third person was ā.)

These pronouns take the postpositions like nouns. The possessive or genitive prefixes are nē, my, our, excluding the person addressed; ē- or ī-, our, including the person addressed; nàng-, thy, your; ā-, his, her, its, their.

The demonstrative pronouns are—lā, lābàngsō, bàngsō, this; pl. lābàngsō-ātum, these: hālā, hālābàngsō, that; pl. hālā-tum, hālābàngsō-ātum, those. The syllable hā- connotes distance, as dàksī, lādàk, here; hā-dàk, there; hā āhèm che-voi-lo, “he returned home from a distance.”

(There appears once to have been another demonstrative pronoun, pi, pe, pā, still preserved in the compound words pi-nī, “to-day,” penàp, “to-morrow,” pedàp, “this morning,” pāningvē, “to-night.” Instead of pi and pe we also find mi, me, as mi-nī, me-nàp. This survival is important for the purpose of comparison with other Tibeto-Burman languages.)

As in other Tibeto-Burman languages, there is no relative pronoun; its place is taken by descriptive adjectival phrases. Thus “those six brothers who had gone to sell cow’s flesh” is—

lā

Those

chainòng

cow

ā-òk

’s flesh

kejòr-dàm-ā-tum

to sell going (plural)

kòrtē

brothers

bàng-theròk.

persons-six;

“The man whom Tenton had tied with an iron chain” is—

Tèntòn

Tenton

ingchin

iron

ā-nī-pèn

chain-with

ke-kòk

tied-up

ārlèng.

man.

In these constructions, it will be seen, the adjective or qualifying participle precedes the noun.

The interrogative syllable, used to form interrogative pronouns, is ko-: komàt, komàt-sī, who? kopī, pī, what? ko-pu, ko-pu-sī, kolopu, kolopu-sòn, how? ko-àn, ko-ànsī, how many? konàt, konàthu, where? konàm-tu, nàm-tu, nàm-tu-sī, when? Always when the sentence does not contain an interrogative pronoun, and sometimes when it does, the syllable mā at the end marks a question: “Are you afraid,” nàng pherē-dèt mā? Nē (probably an Assamese loan-word) is also used instead of mā: “Will you marry him or not?” do-jī-nē do-dē-nē?

The reflexive pronoun is āmethàng, self; binòng, own; but the most usual way of indicating that the action affects oneself is to prefix the particle che- (chi-, ching-, chēng-, and rarely cho-) to the verbal root: lā hèm che-voi-lo, “he returned home,” i.e. to his own house; ā-òng-mār-ātum che-pu-lo, “his uncles said to one another”; che-hàng-jō, “they asked for themselves.” With initial ing-, che- coalesces to ching: with ār- it unites to form chēr.

Verbs.

The simple, or indeterminate present is expressed by the participle with ke-, kā-, without any suffix: konàtsī nàng kedo, “where do you live?”; vo kàngjār, “the bird flies”; sārbūrā thī-lòt-sī nē kā-chirū, “the old man having died, I am weeping”; nē-phū ke-sō-kòn, “my head is aching badly.” This tense, as in other languages, is often used historically for the past.

The definite or determinate present is expressed by the same participle with -lo added: lā kopī kànghoi-lo? “What is he doing (now)?”

The habitual present is expressed by the verbal root with -lo: as vo-ātum-kē nē-phū-āthàk ingjār-lo, “the birds fly above our heads.”

The simple or narrative past is formed by the verbal root with -lo or -dèt added: lā pu-lo or pu-dèt, “he said”; nē-phū sō-dèt, “my head was aching”; lā kerī-āphī-sī lòng-lo, “he, after searching, found it.” Sometimes dèt and lo are used together: lā nē ingtòn-dèt-lo, “he abused me.” Dèt may also be used for the present when the state indicated by the verb is one that began in the past and still continues: e.g. “Why are you afraid?” may be rendered kopī āpòtsī nang pherē-dèt, or kopī āpòtsī nàng kāpherē?

The complete past is indicated by the root with tànglo added: lā-āpòtsī ne dām-tànglo, “I went, or had gone, on his account”; telòng lònglē phō-tànglo, “the boat has touched ground.” Tang is a verb meaning “to finish.” There are besides a great number of other particles indicating past time used with particular verbs. Thus, with verbs meaning “to fall,” bup and buk are common: hālā che-koi-bup, “he fell down”; hèm ru-bup, “the house collapsed”; lòng-chòng klī-bup, “the upright memorial stone fell down”; lòng-pàk klō-buk, “the flat memorial stone fell down”; thèng-pī àngsòng-pèn nàng-klō-buk, “he fell down from the top of the tree.” Such particles generally indicate not only past time but abruptness.

A periphrastic past, with the root followed by inghoi-lo, “did,” frequently occurs; this is probably an imitation of Assamese idiom.

Here may be noticed the prefix nàng, used, as the specimens show, with great frequency in narrative. It has the effect of fixing the occurrence to a known place, and may generally be rendered “there.” It is probable that this particle is originally the pronoun of the second person, and that it refers to the knowledge of the person addressed: “as you know,” “as you see.”

The future is represented in two ways: (1) by -po added to the root, to indicate an action beginning now and continuing in the future; as ītum nònkē lābàngsō ākàm āpòtsī pu-po, “we will talk about this affair now;” and (2) by -jī added, for an action which commences later on; as bādu ārlèng-tā thī-jī, “all men will die” (i.e. at some future time). As -po includes the present in the case of continuing action, it may be, and often is, used in a present sense; -jī is restricted to future time.

A compound future may be formed by adding to the root with -jī the words dòkdòk-lo: lā thī-jī dòkdòk-lo, “he is just about to die”; àn chō-jī dòkdòk-lo, “it is near breakfast-time” (rice-eating); àn īk-jī dòkdòk-lo, “the rice is nearly all done.” A doubtful future may be expressed by -jī added to the present participle: konàt chainòng ā-òk-sī dàk-sī kedo-jī, “where should cow’s flesh be here?”

From the above it will be seen that there is much indefiniteness in the indications of time afforded by the Mikir verb: except tàng for the past complete, and -jī for the future, the other suffixes may, according to circumstances, be rendered by the past, present, or future; they may also on occasion be omitted altogether. But the context generally removes all ambiguity.

Conditional phrases are formed by putting -tē or -lē, “if,” at the end of the first member, and the second generally in the future with -jī or -po. Of the conditional future an example is nàng dàm-tē, nàng lā thèk-dàm-jī, “if you go, you will see him.” The conditional past inserts āsòn (“like, supposing that,”) before -tē: dohòn do-āsòn-tē, nē lā nàm-jī, “if I had money, I would buy it.” The conditional pluperfect modifies the second member thus: nàng dàm āsòn-tē, nàng lā lòng-lòk āpòtlo, “if you had gone, you would have got it”; nàng nē thàn āsòn-tē, nē lā klèm tàng-lo, “if you had explained to me, I would have done it.”

The imperative is, for the second person, the bare root, or more usually the root strengthened by the addition of nòn or thā, and dialectically of noi; nòn (= “now”) is the strongest form. The other persons are formed by the addition of nàng (a verb meaning “to be necessary”) to the future in -po or present in -lo: “let us go” is ī-tum dàm-po-nàng; “let us go to the field and plough,” rīt hai-bai dàm-lo-nàng. We may, for the third person, use the causative form of the verb: lā-kē pedàm-nòn, “let him go.”

Participles. The present participle has the form of the adjective, with the prefixed ke- (ki-) or kā-; as kedàm, “going,” kā-chirū, “weeping.” The past participle is the root or the present participle with tàng added: dàm-tàng, “gone,” thèk-tàng, “having seen,” kā-pàngtu-tàng, “fattened.”

Perhaps the most used form of the verb, especially in narrative, is the conjunctive participle, which is either the bare root, or the root with -sī; hèm che-voi-sī thèk-lo, “having returned home, he saw.” When the past is indicated, dèt is used, either with or without -sī, as chō-dèt jun-dèt, sārburā, tòn-ārlo kaibòng pātu-joi-sī, ī-lo, “having finished eating and drinking, the old man, having quietly hidden his club in a basket, lay down”; Tèntòn, dohòn-ālàngbòng lòng-sī, rīt dàm-dē-dèt-sī, kàt-jui-lo, “Tenton, having got the bamboo-joint with the money, without returning to the field, ran away.”

When the phrase in which the conjunctive participle occurs is terminated by an imperative, the suffix is not -sī but -rā: “having eaten your rice, go,” is àn chō-rā dàm-nòn; but “having eaten his rice, he went,” is ān chōdèt-sī dàm-lo. While -sī links together parts of a narrative, -rā links together a string of imperatives.

The infinitive or verbal noun is identical in form with the present participle; kum-kiròt tàngtē kekàn ārkī nàng ārju-lònglo, “he heard (got to hear) there (nàng) the sound (ārkī) of fiddle (kum) scraping (ki-ròt) and dancing (ke-kàn).” All words beginning with ke-, ki-, and kā- may therefore be regarded as (1) adjectives, (2) participles forming tenses of the verb, or (3) verbal nouns; and it will be seen from the analysis of the specimens how clearly this at first sight strange allocation of forms can be made to express the required sense.

In all Tibeto-Burman languages the passive voice is either non-existent or little used; a sentence which in English would be stated passively is turned the other way, and appears in an active form. Thus—“Four trees were uprooted by the wind” would be rendered tomòn thèngpī ròng-philī pi-pur-koi-lo, “the wind uprooted four trees”; “this house has been thrown down by an earthquake” is chiklī-sī lābàngsō āhèm pi-ru-hup-lo, “an earthquake has thrown down this house.” Sometimes a passive may be expressed by a periphrasis, as “I was beaten,” nē kechòk èn-tàng, lit. “I received a beating.” The only unquestionable example of a passive is in the case of past participles, and here the passive is expressed by the simple expedient of putting the participle before instead of after the noun: bàng kevàn āhòr, “the drink brought by people”; mājā kelòng ārlèng, “a man bewitched”; nē ke-pī ā-àn āhòr, “the to-me-given rice and beer.” This construction is exactly parallel to the method (explained above) of expressing the relative phrase by putting the adjective first, instead of after the noun, and is in fact another case of the same idiom. The participle, which may also (as just explained) be regarded as a verbal noun, comes before the subject of the sentence, because the action passes on to the subject, instead of emanating from it, as in an active construction. We are tempted to think that languages which lack what seems to European modes of thought such essential elements as a relative pronoun and a passive voice cannot be capable of any subtlety of expression; yet this phenomenon is common to forms of speech like Tibetan, Burmese, and Chinese, which possess vast literatures dealing with all kinds of subjects, and in which it is possible to render ideas of the greatest complexity and variety. Even in Europe, the clearest and most logical of languages, French, prefers to use the active form of phrase (with on) rather than the passive.

The negative verb is a very interesting and remarkable feature of the language. A separate negative root, formed by prefixing or suffixing a negative particle, and conjugated in the same way as the positive, is indeed a common property of Tibeto-Burman speech; but in Mikir this secondary root is formed in a peculiar manner. The negating syllable -ē is added to the primitive, as un, “can,” un-ē, “cannot”; òng, “be much,” òng-e, “be not much”; ī, “lie down,” ī-ē, “not lie down.” But when the root begins with a consonant or a nexus of consonants, and is monosyllabic, the consonant or nexus is repeated before the added vowel: thèk, “see, be able”; thèk-thē, “not see, be unable”; dàm, “go,” dàm-dē, “not go”; kroi, “believe, obey,” kroi-krē, “disbelieve, disobey”; mèk-pràng, “eye-open, awake,” mèk-pràng-prē, “not awake.” When the verb is of two or more syllables, the last is chosen for reduplication: inghoi, “do,” inghoi-hē, “not do”; ingjinsō, “show mercy,” ingjinsō-sē, “not show mercy”; chini (Ass. loan-word), “recognise,” chini-nē, “not recognise.”

The secondary root thus obtained is treated in construction just like the positive root, and takes the tense-suffixes: pàk-tā pī-vàng-vē-dèt-lo, “anybody to give him (anything) came not.” The time-index is, however, with negative verbs more often dropped as unnecessary, owing to the context showing what the time-relation is.

In the imperative the reduplication is not used; the particle -rī is added to the positive root, with or without nòn as well: thèk-nòn, “see!”; thèk-rī, or thèk-rī-nòn, “see not!”

It may be added that this method of forming the negative by reduplication is also applied to verbal adjectives in ke-, ki-, kā-, which thereupon usually drop the prefix: kesō, “in pain, sick”; sō-sē, “not sick, well”; but kàngjinsō, “merciful”; kàng-jinso-sē, “merciless.”

Besides this organic negative, there is a periphrastic negative formed by adding the word āvē, “is not”: Ārnàm ābàng āvē, kechèng āvē, kāpetàng āvē, “God has no body, no beginning, no end” (lit. “God his body is not, beginning is not, end is not”). The ā in āvē is the usual ā of relation, and may be dropped: ālàm-āvē “without a word”; làm-vē, “word-less, dumb.” Kā- may be prefixed, forming kāvē, used as an adjectival negative: kopai (Ass. kopāl), “fortune,” kopai-kāvē, “unfortunate.” Another negative used separately, in emphatic assertions, is kālī: tovār nàng kepèk-jī kālī, “the way I will by no means yield to you”; nē-thibuk kālī, “it is not my water-jar.”

Compound verbs meet us at every step in Mikir. Roots are heaped together, and the compound is closed by the tense-suffix. Ordinarily the first root determines the general meaning of the compound, the rest being adverbial supplements of modifying force:—chirū-pī-lèm-lo, “he pretended to weep” (chirū, “weep,” lèm, “seem, appear,” pī-lèm, “cause to seem, pretend”); ke-phlòng-dàm ābàng, “somebody who will go and set fire (to the funeral pile)” (phlòng, “kindle,” dàm, “go”); kroi-dun-lo, “she consented” (kroi, “agree, obey,” dun, “go or be with another”); nē do-dun-jī-mā, “will you stay with me?” (do, “stay,” dun, as above). The texts which follow supply a multitude of other examples.

These adverbial supplements to verbs, inserted between the principal verb and the tense-suffixes, are a very characteristic feature of the language, and their proper use is one of the most difficult things for a learner to master. Certain roots take constant supplements of this kind, and are scarcely ever found without them; thus the verbs thī, “die,” ī, “lie down to sleep,” and jàng, “close the eyes,” are almost invariably followed by lòt; rèng, “to live,” takes èt before verbal suffixes; lòng, “to get,” takes lòk; chingbār, “to be equal (in size, weight, height),” and chingdòn, “to be equal in length,” take chit; inghòn, “to love,” and ingjinsō, “to pity,” both take duk; jòk and thèt, both meaning “to escape, get loose,” take phlòt. The complements for verbs meaning “to fall” have been mentioned above (p. 82). These supplements frequently cause the tense-endings to be dispensed with, in which case the action is understood to be in the narrative past or historic present. No doubt most of them were originally separate verbal roots, but are not now capable of being used separately.

The brief outline given above will, it is hoped, enable the reader to apprehend the general construction of the narratives which follow, and display the language in action; for further analysis reference should be made to the notes appended to the texts.

I.

CHÒNGHŌLOSŌ

FROG

ĀTOMŌ.

STORY.

Ārnī-sī

Day-one

mīsō-ròngpō

a big black ant

ā-òng

(to) his uncle

àn

rice

che-thòn-dàmlo.

to carry went.

Chònghōlosō

a frog

tovār

the way

ingnī-thīp.

sat down and blocked.

Ànsī

Then

mīsō

the ant

pulo:

said:

“Tovār

“The way

nē

for me

pèk-thā,

leave free,

chònghōlosō;

frog;

nē

I

nē-òng

my-uncle

àn

rice

chethòn-dàm-jī.”

carry-go-will.”

Chònghōlosō

The frog

pudèt:

answered:

“Nē-rum

“Under me

nē-lut-thòt-rā

entering (creeping)|

dàm-tē:

go your way:

pàktā

every one

nē-rum-sī

under me

dàm-hòr-lē.”

passes.”

Mīsō

The ant

pudèt:

said:

“Ne-òng

“My uncle’s

ā-àn

rice

bòr

leaf-bundle

do-kòk-lē,

being tied up,

pusī

how

nàng-rum-lē

you-underneath

nàng-kelut-thèk-jī?”

enter, creep, shall I be able?”

Ànsī

So

chònghō-tā

the frog

pèk-pē,

would not give way,

mīsō-tā

the ant

dàm-dē.

could no go.

Ànsī

So

nērlo

day

chitīm-lo.

became middle.

Ànsī

So

mīsō—“Ai,

the ant— “Oh,

nē-òng

my uncle

àn-ingchīr-sī

rice-hunger-in

āning-nē-thī-po”

angry with me will be”

pulo;

said;

chònghōlosō-ārum

the frog-under

lut-thòt-lo.

he entered, crept.

Àn-lo

Then

chònghōlosō

the frog

mīsō-āthàk

the ant-upon

ingnī-dun-chèt-lo.

sat-down-flat.

Lāsī

Thereupon

mīsō-ròngpō

the big black ant

chònghōlosō

the frog’s

ā-mī

loins

kòr-ràk.

bit-severely.

Ànsī

Then

chònghō

the frog

āning-thī-ning-thī

becoming very angry

kārlē-sārpō-ā-dòn

squirrel-big-old’s ladder

chòn-rai.

(on) jumped and broke.

Kārlē-sārpō

The big old squirrel

āningthī-ningthī

becoming very angry

hànthār-ā-kòk

gourd’s stem

ròt-pèt.

cut in two.

Hànthār

The gourd

āningthī-ningthī

becoming very angry

phàk-belèngpī ā-moi

a wild boar’s back (on)

klō-dup.

fell plump.

Phàk-belèngpī

The wild boar

āningthī-ningthī

becoming very angry

lō-bòng

a plantain-tree

thīmur-phàk.

rooted up.

Lōbòng

The plantain-tree

āningthī-ningthī

becoming very angry

vo-ārbīpī

a sparrow

ā-tār

’s nest

sàp-rai.

struck and broke.

Vo-ārbīpī

The sparrow

āningthī-ningthī

becoming very angry

ingnār

an elephant

nō-thòng-pō

deaf-big

ā-nō

’s ear

lut-thòt.

entered.

Ingnār

The elephant

nō-thòng-pō

deaf-big

āningthī-ningthī

becoming very angry

arlòng

a rock

hēlàng-phlut.

tore up suddenly.

Ārlòng

The rock

āningthī-ningthī

becoming very angry

Rēchō-

the King

ā-sō

’s son

kònglòng-pī-bup.

rolling-down killed.

Ànsī

Then

Rēchō

the King

nàng-bisār-lo:

made an enquiry:

“Màt-sī

“Who

nē-pō

my son

pithī-lòtlo?”

has killed?”

“Ai,

“Oh,

arlòng-sī

the rock

kònglòng-bup,”

rolled down on him,”

pulo.

they said.

Ànsī

Then

ārlòng

the rock

ārju-dàmlo:

he summoned to answer:

“O ārlòng,

“O rock,

ārlòng!

rock!

pī-āpòt

for what reason

nàng

you

nē-sō

my son

kònglòng-bup?”

did roll down upon?”

Ārlòng

The rock

pudèt:

said:

“Chē!

“Oh!

Hèmphū-ārnàm-rēchō,

Lord-God-King,

pī

how

nē

I

kònglòng-bup-bē-jī?

to roll down-not was I?

Ingnār

The elephant

nō-thòngpō-sī

big-deaf

nē

me

hēlàng-phlut-lē

torn up suddenly having,

nē

me

doi-phit-lo;

pushed out;

nē-kē

as for me,

nē-rī āvē,

(to) me hands are not,

nē-kèng āvē,

(to) me legs are not,

kolo-pu-sī

how then

chēr-chàk-thèk-jī?

withstand could I?

Nàng-sōpō

Your honourable son

nē

my

kekònglòng ā-tovār

rolling down-path

dokòksī,

being-in,

nē

I

kònglòng-bup-lo-tē.”

rolled down upon him accordingly.”

Ànsī

Then

Rēchō

the king

pulo:

said:

“Mai!

“Oh!

lā

that

ingnār

elephant

nō-thòng-pō

deaf-big

lā-ànsèt bòn-hē”—

that so much (trouble) caused”—

pusi,

saying,

ingnār

elephant

nō-thòng-pō

deaf-big

ārju-dàm-lo.

summoned.

“O ingnār

“O elephant,

ingnār!

elephant!

kopi-āpòt

for what reason

nàng

you

ārlòng

the rock

hēlàng-phlut?”

tore up suddenly?”

Ingnār

The elephant

pudèt:

answered:

“Chē!

“Oh,

pī

how

nē

I

hēlàng-phlut-phlē-jī,

was to help tearing it up,

Hèmphū ārnàm?

Lord God?

Vo-ārbīpī

The sparrow

nē-nō

my ear

nē-kelut-thòt-sī,

having entered into,

nē ā-bīdī

my wits

thèk-thē-dèt-lo-lē,

having lost control of me,

lā-hēlo

therefore

nē

I

ārlòng

the rock

hēlàng-phlut.”

tore up suddenly.”

Ànsī

Then

Rēchō

the King

pudèt—“Mai!

said—“Oh!

lā

that

vo-ārbīpī

sparrow

lā-ànpin

that so much

bòn-hē”

(trouble) caused”

pu,

saying,

ārju-dàmlo.

summoned.

“O vo-ārbīpī

“O sparrow,

voārbīpī!

sparrow!

ingnār ā-nō

elephant’s ear

kopi-āpòt

for what reason

nàng lut-thòt?”

did you enter?”

Voārbīpī

The sparrow

thàkdèt—

answered—

“Chē!

“Oh!

Hèmphū!

Lord!

pī

how

nē

I

lut-lē-jī?

was I not to enter?

lōbòng

the plantain-stalk

nē-tār

my nest

kesàp-rai-lē,

falling on having broken,

lā-hēlo

therefore

nē-ning

my mind

oi-òng,

being very disturbed,

nē

I

ingnār ā-nō

elephant’s ear

lut-thòt.”

entered.”

Ànsī

Then

Rēchō

the King

pu—“Mai!

said—“Oh!

lā lōbòng

that plantain-stalk,

lāpu

it seems;

ànpin bòn-hē”—

so much (trouble) caused”—

pusi

saying

ārju-dàm-lo.

he summoned.

“O lōbòng

“O plantain,

lōbòng!

plantain!

nàng

you

kopi-āpòt

for what reason

vo-ārbīpī

the sparrow’s

ā-tār

nest

sàp-rai?”

fell upon and broke?”

Lōbòng

The plantain

pudèt—“Chē!

said—“Oh!

pī

how

nē

I

sàp-rai-rē-jī,

was not to fall and break,

Hèmphū

Lord|

ārnàm?

God?

Phàk-belèng-pī-sī

The wild boar

nē

me

kāthīmur-phàk-le:

rooted me up suddenly:

nē

I

thīmur-phàk-lo-tē

having been rooted up,

nē

I

ingkur

root

kāve-dèt-lo-lē:

none had at all:

kopu-si

how

nē

I

kārjàp thèk-jī-làng?

standing-up was to be able to continue?

Thàngbàk

Any

nē-rī

to me-hand

nē-kèng

to me-leg being,

lē-kedo

existing,

kālī-dèt-lē.”

not-at-all there is.”

“Mai!

“Oh!

lā phàk

that pig,

pu

it seems,

àn-pin bon-hē,”

all the (trouble) caused,”

pu

saying

Rēchō pulo.

the King said.

Ànsī phāk-āphàn

So the pig (accus.)

ārju-dàm-lo.

he summoned.

“O phàk phàk!

“O pig, pig!

pī-āpòt nàng

for what reason you

lōbòng

the plantain

thīmur-phàk”?

rooted up”?

Phàk

The pig

pudèt

answered

“Pī

“How

nē

I

thīmur-phàk-phē-jī?

could help rooting it up?

Nē

(as) I

chōpàn-vèk,

was feeding, grazing,

mamàtsī

suddenly,

hànthār

the gourd

nē-moi

my back (on)

keklō-dàp-lē:

came tumbling down:

lā-hēlo

therefore

kesō-òng

being in great pain

nē

I

lōbòng thīmur-phàk.”

the plantain rooted up.”

Ànsī

So

Rēchō—

the king—

“Mai!

“Oh!

hànthār

the gourd,

pu

then,

àn-pin bòn-hē”

all this (trouble) caused,”

pusi

saying

hànthār

the gourd

ārju-dàm-lo.

summoned.

“O hànthār hànthār!

“O gourd, gourd!

pī-āpòt

for what

phàk-belèng-pī

reason the wild boar

ā-moi

’s back (on)

nàng

you

klō-dup?”

fell-plump?”

“Pī

“How

nē

I

klō-dup-dē-jī,

could help falling?

Hèmphū

Lord

Ārnàm?

God?

Kārlē-sī

The squirrel

nē-kòk

my stem (to me)

nē-keròt-pèt-lē,

having cut through,

nē-kē

I

thàngbàk

at all

nē-rī, nē-kèng

to me hand, to me foot

lē-kedo kālī-dèt,

there-not-existing,

nē-kòk

my stem,

īsī-pèt

one-only,

àn-hēlo,

so much having,

lā-lē

that if

nē ròt-pèt-lo-tē,

to me is cut through,

nē

I

klō-nàng-po.

must necessarily fall.

Phàk-belèng-pī

The wild boar

ā-moi

’s back (on)

keklō-nàng-dup.”

falling became necessary.”

Ànsī

So

Rēchō

the King

pu-lē-lo—“Mai!

said again—“Oh!

lā kārlē

that squirrel

pu

then

àn-pin

so much

bònhē”

(trouble) caused”

pusi

saying

kārlē

the squirrel

ārju-dàm-lo.

summoned.

“O kārlē

“O squirrel,

kārlē!

squirrel!

kopī-āpòt

for what reason

nàng

did you

hànthār

the gourd

ā-kòk

’s stem

ròt-pèt?”

cut through?”

Kārlē

The squirrel

pudèt—

said—

“Chē!

“Oh,

pī nē

how I was

ròt-rē-jī,

not to cut it,

Hèmphū

Lord

Ārnàm?

God?

Chònghōlosō-sī

The frog

nē-dòn

my ladder

chòn-rai-lē.

(on) jumping broke.

Lāsī

Therefore

nē

to me

tovār

a road

āvē-dèt-lo:

did not remain:

nē

I

hànthār

the gourd ‘s

ā-kòk

stem

ròt-pèt.”

had to cut.”

Rēchō

The King

pudèt—

said—

“Mai!

“Oh!

lā chònghō

that frog,

lā-pu

it seems,

àn-pin

so much (trouble)

bòn-hē”

caused”

pusi

saying

ārju-dàm-lo.

he summoned.

“O chònghōlosō

“O frog,

chònghōlosō!

frog!

kopī-āpòt

for what reason

nàng

you

kārlē ā-dòn

the squirrel’s ladder

chòn-rai?”

jumping on broke?”

Chònghō

The frog

thàkdèt—

answered—

“Pī

“How

nē

I

chòn-rai-rē-jī?

was to help jumping on and breaking?

Mīsō-ròng-pō-sī

The big black ant

nē-mī

my loins,

nē-kē

even me,

kòr-ràk-lē:

bit hard:

lā kesō-òng-sī

that pain-great-from

nē

I

kārlē-ādòn-bō-pō

squirrel’s ladder (honorific)

nē

I

chini-nē-dèt-si chòn-rai-tē.”

not knowingly jumped upon and broke.”

Rēchō

The King

pu-lē-lo—

said again—

“Mai!

“Oh!

mīsō

the ant,

pu

then,

àn-pin

caused all the

bòn-hē”

trouble”

pusi

saying

ārju-dàm-lo.

summoned.

“O mīsō

“O ant,

mīsō!

ant!

pī-āpòt

what-for

nàng

did you

chònghōlosō-ā-mī

the frog’s loins

kòr-ràk?”

bite severely?”

Mīsō

The ant

pudèt—

said—

“Pī

“How

nē

I

kòr-ràk-rē-jī?

was to help biting him?

Ādàp

In the morning

nē-òng

to my uncle

àn

rice

che-thòn-dàm-lo:

I was going along carrying:

Chònghō

the frog

tovār

the road

ingnī-thīp.

sitting down blocked.

Lā-lo

Thereupon

nē

I

‘tovār

‘road

nē

to me

pèk-thā’

free-leave’

pulo:

said:

‘nē-rum-lē lut-nòn’

‘me underneath creep’

pu.

he said.

Nē

I

lut-thòt-lo:

crept under him:

chònghō

the frog

nē-thàk nē ingnī-thīp;

on the top of me sat down tight;

lāsī

therefore

nē

I

ā-mī

his loins

kòr-ràk.”

bit-severely.”

Ànsī

Then

Rēchō

the King

pulo—“Nàng

said—“You

bàng-hīnī

persons-two

kelèt-dèt.”

guilty-are.”

Mīsō-kē

The ant

chujèng-pèn

hair of head-with

kòk-chèk-lo:

they tied-firmly:

nòn

now

ā-vàm chèng-jàn.

his-waist is very slender.

Chònghō-ke

The frog

tārmē-làng-bòng-pèn

a blistering creeper-with

sàp-phràt-phràt;

they soundly thrashed;

lāsī

therefore

nòn

now

phròk-se-nòk-tòk.

he is speckled all over.

NOTES.

This simple and direct narrative, easy of analysis, affords an excellent illustration of the mechanism of Mikir speech. First, we observe that the indication of time is put at the beginning of the sentence: ārnī-sī, “one day”; ādàp, “in the morning.” Then follows the subject, then the object, and last the verb, with all its qualifications. The most frequent conjunction is ànsī, “and, so,” which appears to be made up of àn, the particle indicating quantity, and sī, the particle indicating locality, used also for the conjunctive participle; the meaning would then be—“so much having passed (what follows comes next).” Àn-kē, àn-lē and àn-lo have the same force.

For the tenses we find the usual suffixes, -lo, -dèt, for the narrative past, -po for the present-future, and -jī for the future. In the narrative a much-used auxiliary is -lē, which means “having arrived.” The passage is remarkable for the number of cases in which, no ambiguity being possible, the tense-particle is omitted, and the past is expressed by the bare root, without, or more commonly with, an adverbial supplement. Thus, we have pulo, pudèt, and pu for “said”; ingnī-thīp, “he sat down and blocked,” kòr-ràk, “bit severely,” chòn-rai, “jumped upon and broke,” ròt-pèt, “cut in two,” klō-dup, “fell plump,” thīmur-phàk, “rooted up,” sàp-rai, “struck and broke,” lut-thòt, “entered,” hēlàng-phlut, “tore up suddenly,” pī-bup, “killed by tumbling on him,” chò-pàn-vèk, “was feeding, grazing,” sàp-phràt-phràt, “beat soundly.” Then, we notice that the great majority of these cases are examples of roots qualified by the addition of a particle which, while not used separately by itself, gives energy and definiteness to the verbal root; this method of heightening the force of verbs is a great characteristic of Mikir diction, and is at once the chief beauty and the chief difficulty (to a foreigner) of the language. The adverbial particles so used are very numerous, but they are appropriated to particular verbal roots, and if they were wrongly applied the result would be nonsense. Thus, the particle lòt is used with three verbs only, thī, “die,” ī, “lie down,” and jàng “close the eyes,” and always precedes the verbal suffixes with these roots: it cannot be used with any other. Thòt, again, always occurs with lut, “to enter,” jòk and vār, “to throw.” Bup conveys the idea of a sudden blow or fall, and is used with verbs of falling or striking. Dàp and dup seem to have much the same force. Pèt, koi, klip are particles used to indicate completeness; lut-pèt-lo, “all have gone in,” ròt-pèt-lo, “he cut through,” chō-koi-lo, “he ate up,” thū-koi-lo, “he killed them all,” chō-klip-lo, “he devoured them.” Several of these auxiliary particles seem to be onomatopoetic.

Much resembling the use of these particles are the cases in which verbal roots are combined together to form a single expression. Thus, in our story, thòn-dàm-lo “he carrying went”; do-kòk-lē “remaining tied-up”; ingnī-dun-chèt-lo “he sat down suddenly (chèt) when the ant was passing (dun)” (dun means “to be with,” and is constantly used as an auxiliary, but can also be employed alone in the sense “to go with”); ārju-dàm-lo “he summoned to answer”; nē klō-nàng-po “I must necessarily fall” (nàng, verb of necessity).

The story gives a number of examples of the remarkable Mikir negative verb: pèk-pē, “did not give way (pèk)”; dàm-dē, “did not go”; pī nē kònglòng-bup-bē-jī, “how was I not to roll down upon him and smash him?” where the negative syllable bē borrows the initial consonant of the qualifying particle bup; similarly, hēlàng-phlut-phlē “not suddenly root up”; sàp-raī-rē “not strike and break”; chòn-rai-rē “not jump upon and break”; chini-nē-dèt-sī “not knowing” (where chini is a loan-word from Assamese).

As regards vocabulary, thā in nē-pèk-thā is the imperative particle: another such particle (rarely occurring) is tē in nē lut-thòt-rā dàm-tē; rā is used as the suffix of the conjunctive participle in a string of imperatives. Hòr in dàm-hòr-lē indicates plurality: “every one has to pass under me”; other such particles are jō and jàm. Tā in chònghō-tā and mīsō-tā gives definiteness and emphasis; so also kē in nē-kē, &c. Sārpō in kārlē sārpō means “big chief”: pō is a syllable added to give honour and dignity. Notice intensiveness indicated by reduplication in āningthī-ningthī, “very angry”; ning-thī, angry, is made up of ning, mind, and thī to be vexed (also to die). Hànthār: see note on p. 46. Ròt-pèt means to cut down a slender stem or twig by drawing a knife across it: pī-pèt to cut down a thick trunk of a tree; ròt is used for drawing a bow across a fiddle in kum-kiròt “fiddle-scraping.” Belèng means a shovel or tray for winnowing rice; phàk-belèng-pī is a wild pig, because he roots about in the earth with his snout like a shovel; -pī is a syllable used to form augmentatives, as -sō indicates a diminutive. Bisār, to hold a judicial inquiry, is Assamese. Hèmphū, “owner,” the God Mikirs belong to. Vo-ārbīpī, “a small bird, the size of a sparrow” (not the sparrow itself, which in Mikir is vo-puru). Nē chōpàn-vèk, “I was grazing”; chōpàn is used of feeding for animals only; vèk (or vèk-vèk) is a particle indicating continuance. Mamàtsī is used of some sudden and unpleasant interruption: klèm-vèk-vèk mamàtsī thī-lo, “he died suddenly as he was working”; nē àn chō-vèk mamàtsī nē chòk-dèt, “he beat me while I was eating.” Notice, finally, nòn, the particle most often used to indicate a strong imperative, here in its original sense of “now”; in this meaning it is usually emphasised by adding kē or lē, nònkē, nònlē.

II.

JÀNGRĒSŌ

THE ORPHAN

PÈN

AND

Ā-ÒNG-ĀTUM

HIS UNCLES

ATOMŌ.

’ STORY.

Hākō

Once on a time

inut

one

āhèm-ēpī

widow

āsōpō

a son

inut-pèt

only one

do;

had;

lā

she

āchèklē-mār

(woman’s) brothers (plural)

kòrtē

brothers

bàng-theròk

persons-six

do.

had.

Ànsī

Now

ārnī-sī

one day

ārnī-kàngsàm

in the cool of the day (evening)

ā-òngmār-ātum

his maternal uncles

vàng-sī

having come

jàngrēsō-āphàn

the orphan (accus.)

nàng-hànglo—

called-to—

“Osā́!

“Nephew!

rū

fish-trap

cho-dū-dàm-nàng.”

set up-go-let-us.”

Ànsī

So

jàngrēsō-tā

the orphan

dun-lo.

went with them.

Ànsī

Then

āòng-mār

his uncles,

kòrtē bàng-theròk-kē

the brothers persons-six,

làng-thàk-sī

up-stream

pàt

a dam

mē-sèn-sī

having well built

rū

the trap

dū-lo.

set up.

Jàngrēsō-kē

The orphan

ā-òngmār-ātum

his uncles

ā-rū-pàt

’ trap-dam

ā-bēr-sī

below

ārlòng

stones

dū-ī

having set up

phàng-ō-phàng-ā-sī

carelessly, disorderly,

rū

trap

dū-lo,

set up,

ànsī

and

hèm

home

nàng-che-voi-lo.

returned.

Ànsī

Then

lātum

they

ādàp

in the morning

rū

the trap-their

che-vàt-dàm-lo.

went to inspect.

Ā-òngmār-ātum

His uncles

ā-rū-pàt

’ trap-dam

àn

so very

kepàt-pemē-tā,

well-built though,

chikung-chikàng-tā

one cray-fish even

che-vār-thòt-thē;

had not thrown itself into it;

jàngrēsō ā-rū

the orphan’s trap

pukē,

as for,

òk

fish

kejàng

holding, entering

ā-rū

his trap

tèngsèt.

was quite full

Ànsī

Then

ā-òngmār-ātum

his uncles

pulo—

said—

“Osā́!

“Nephew!

nētum

we

dàk

here

rū

trap

pàt-po,

will build,

nànglī-kē

do you

làng-bēr-lē

down-stream

pàt-dàm-thu-nòn.”

go and set your dam again.”

Ànsī

So

jàngrēsō

the orphan’s

ā-rū-pàt

trap-dam (in)

ā-òng-mār-ātum

his uncles

ā-rū

their trap

dū-sī,

having set up,

jàngrēsō-kē

the orphan

làngbērsī

down stream

pàt-dàm-thu-lo;

again built his dam;

bònta

but

òk

the fish

kejàng

holding

lāpu-thàk-thàk,

just that same way,

ā-òngmār-ātum

the uncles

ā-rū-kē

’ trap

òk-ējòn-nàt-tā

one single fish even

jàng-thòt-thē,

did not hold,

jàngrēsō

the orphan’s

ā-rū-kē

trap

òk

fish

kejàng

holding

plèngsèt-plèngsèt.

was quite full.

Ànsī

So

ādàp-vàng-tā

morning-every

jàngrēsō

the orphan’s

ā-rū-pàt

trap-dam

ā-òng-ātum

his uncles

che-rai-vēr-lo.

took for themselves continually.

Lāsī

Therefore

ādàp-vàng

every morning

ālòng

a place

kāprèk

different (in)

rū-pàt

trap-set-up

selèt-òng-sī,

becoming very weary,

ādàp-īsī-kē

morning one

rū

the trap

dū-tekàng-kē-dètsī,

not setting up at all,

bàp

grass

ā-phàng-āthàk

clump upon

bī

placing

tekàng-kòk.

he left it.

Ànsī

So

ādàp

morning

lē-lō,

arrived,

ā-òngmār-ātum

his uncles

vàng-sī

having come

jàngrēsō-āphàn

to the orphan

nàng-hàng-lo:

called out:

“Osā́,

“Nephew!

rū chevàt-dàm-lē-lo-nàng.”

our traps let us go again and visit.”

Ànsī

Then

jàngrēsō

the orphan

pulo:

said:

“Nēlī-kē

“As for me,

rū-tā

a trap

dū-tekàng-kē;

I have not even set up;

dā

come,

bòntā,

nevertheless,

nànglītum-ārī

(as) your companion

nàng-dun-jī,”

I will go with you,”

pusī dun-lo.

so saying he went with them.

Ànsī

Then

ā-rū

his trap

che-làng-dàmlo.

he went to look at.

Vo-thung

A wood-pigeon

lut-thòt

having entered

thèk-dàm-lo.

he found.

Ànsī

So

lābàngsō

that

ā-vo-thung

wood pigeon

ārī

his cord (with)

chekòksī

having tied up

hèm

home

che-vàn-lo.

he bought.

Lābàngsō

That

ā-jàngrēsō

orphan

chainòng-āsō-tā

a cow’s child (a calf)

ē-jòn do,

also one had,

lā

it

kàngtu

fat

pukē

so very,

māthā-thèk-thē jādi-thèk-thē,

as could not be imagined (doublet)

nei-bòt àn-pin.

very sleek so greatly.

Ànkē

Now

ā-òngmār-ātum

his uncles

làng-un-ē-sī

to look at-being unable (through envy)

lābàngsō

that

ā-chainòng-āsō

calf

thū-pèt-lo.

killed (entirely).

Ànsī

Then

jàngrēsō

the orphan

lābàngsō

that

ā-chainòng-āsō

calf’s

ā-rèng

skin

lumsī

having taken off,

ākèng-ēhòng

leg one

hā

to a distance

bāmòn

a brahman

kirī-pō

rich-big’s

ā-hèm

house (to)

pòn-sī

taking,

pātu-dàm-joi-lo.

hid it quietly.

Ànsī

Then

jàngrēsō:

the orphan (said):

“Mai!

“Oh!

hèm-tā

the house

chainòng-ā-òk

cow’s flesh (of)

āngnim-hai-òng-hē!”

smells strongly!”

Ànkē

Then

bāmòn-pō

the big brahman,

āningthī-sī

becoming angry,

pulo:

said:

“Tèkē nàng-kòrdut-pī ā-osṓ!

“Tiger-bitten boy!

konàt

where

āchainòng-ā-òksī

cow’s flesh

dàk-lē

here

ke-do-jī?

should be?

Nē-kē

I

bāmòn-lē.

am a brahman.

Nàng

You

peklàng

produce, show,

thèk-sēr-mā-sī:

must be able to:

thèkthē-lē

you cannot-if,

nàng-pràn

your life

nàng-èn-jī.”

I will take here.”

Ànsī

Then

jàngrēsō

the orphan

pulo—

said—

“Dei,

“Very well,

tàngtē

then

nē

I

ri-po,”

will search,”

pu-sī

saying

ri-lo.

he searched:

Ri-phàng-ō-phàng-ā-sī,

searching carelessly,

ālàng

he

kāpātu-ālòng

hiding-place (to)

dàm-si

going

chainòng-āsō

the calf’s

ā-kèng

leg

vung-dàm-phlut

pull out suddenly

inghoi-lo:

did:

“Làng-nòn,

“See-now,

chainòng

cow’s

ā-òk

flesh

do,”

there is,”

pu—

saying—

“nē

“I

nàng pu-lo-hē!”

told you so!”

Ànsī

Then

bāmòn pō—

the big brahman—

“Bàng-kāprèk-ātum

“people other (plur.)

vàng-thèk-dun-tē,

come-see-together-if,

nē-jàt

my-caste

vīrdèt-jī”

will be destroyed”

pu,

saying,

pherē-sī

fearing

jàngrēsō-āphàn

the orphan-to

pulo:

said:

“Jàngrēsō,

“Orphan,

pō-ārnàm-pō!

my good sir!

pàk-tà

any one

thàn-ri-nòn!

do not tell!

dohòn

money

màntung-īsī

a cloth-full-one

nàng

you

pī-po”—

I will give,”

pusī

saying

dohòn

money

màntung-īsī

a cloth-full

pīlo.

gave.

Ànsī

Then

jàngrēsō

the orphan

lābàngsō

that

ādohòn

money

pòn-sī

taking with him

hèm

home

che-voi-lo.

returned.

Hèm

House

che-lē-lo,

his he arrived,

ànsī

and

ā-pei

his mother (to)

che-pu-lo:

said:

“nē-òng-ātum

“my uncles’

ā-tòn

basket

hàng-dàm-thā.”

go-ask-for.”

Ànsī

So

ā-pei

his mother

dàm-sī

going

hàng-dàm-lo:

asked for it:

“Īk-mār-lī!

“Brothers!

nànglī

your

osā́

nephew

kipu,

says,

‘tòn tànghō.’”

‘a basket I want’”

Ànsī

So

tòn nàng-lō-lo.

a basket they sent.

Ànsī

Then

hèm-ēpi

the widow’s

ā-īk-mār-ātum

brothers

tòn pīsī

the basket having given

che-pu-lo—

said among themselves—

“Tòn

“The basket

pī

what

kànghoi-ī-jī-nē?

is to do with?

làng-dun-tòn-thā—

go and peep (imper.)—

pusi

saying

ākībī-abàng

their youngest one

toi-dun-lo;

they sent

ànsī

and

lā

he

nàng-làng-dun-tòn-lo,

there went and watched,

ànkē

and

hotòn-pèn

the basket-with

dohòn

money

ketèng

measuring

nàng-thèk-dun-lo.

there he saw.

Ànsī

Then

nàng-kelàng-dun-tòn-ābàng

there-the-one-who-had-watched-person

hèm

house

che-voi-sī,

his having returned to,

ā-īk-mār

his brothers

thàn-dàm-lo—

informed—

“Lā

“That

e-osā́

our-nephew

konàt-tòng

wherever

kelòng-dàm-lo-nē?

get-did he (all this money)?

hotòn-pèn

with a basket

dohòn

money

ketèng

measure

chinàm

really

sai-sē.”

he has to.”

Ànsī

So

dohòn

the money

tèng-tàng-dèt

measuring-finished-having

jàngrēsō

the orphans

ā-pei-tā

mother

tòn

the basket

thòn-dàm-lo,

returned,

ànkē

and

āchèklē-mār

her brothers

nàng-pu-dun-lo

there said to her

“Osā́

“Nephew

nàng-toi-thā.”

here send.”

Ànsī

So

hèm-ēpī

the widow

hèm

home

nàng-che-lē-sī

having arrived

āsōpō-āphàn che-pulo—

her son to said—

“Nàng òng-ātum kipu

“Your uncles say

‘Vàng-thā-tu tànghō

‘Come here, we want you,

pō.’”

father.’”

Ànsī

So

jàngrēsō-tā

the orphan

dàmlo.

went.

Ànkē

And

ā-òng-ātum

his uncles

nàng

there

ārju-lo—

asked—

“Konàt

“Where

ādohòn-sī

all this money

nànglī

you

kelòng-dàm?”

obtained?”

Ànsī

And

jàngrēsō

the orphan

pulo:

said:

“Chainòng-ā-òk

“Cow’s flesh (of)

ā-nàm:

price (it is):

nànglī-tum-nē-kithū-pī-pèt

(by) you my killed-entirely

ā-chainòng

cow’s

ā-òk-sī

flesh

nēlī kejòr-dàm;

I went a-selling;

chetàngtē

it not being sufficient,

chehàng-jō

together they asked

‘àn-pin làng?’”

‘is there only so much?’”

Ànsī

Then

āòng-mār

his uncles

ārju-thu-lē-lo:

asked again:

“Tàngtē

“Then

chainòng-ā-òk

cow’s flesh

jòr-dàm-tē

go a-selling if (we),

lā-tum

they

ènjī-làng-mā?”

will taking-go on?”

Ànsī

And

jàngrēsō

the orphan

pulo—

said—

“En-jī làng-tē;

“They will go on taking certainly;

nànglī-tum-kē

you

chainòng-do-ō-pārā

cows having many because,

lālē thū-koi-rā

therefore killing them all

ā-òk

their flesh

jòr-dàm-tē,

if you go selling

ko-ànsī

how much

dohòn

money

kevàn-jī?”

you will bring?”

Ànsī

So

ā-òngmār

his uncles

kòrtē-bāng-theròk

brothers the six

ābàng-phu

each one

ējòn

one

chainòng

cow

thū-sī

having killed,

ā-òk

its flesh

bahār

load

pòn-sī

having taken,

jòr-dàm-lo,

went to sell it,

ànsī

and

jàngrēsō

the orphan

thàn-dun-lo—

explained to them—

“Nànglī-tum

“You

hālā

that (distant)

bāmòn

brahman

kirī-pō

rich-big’s

ā-ròng-lē

village in

jòr-dàm-nòn:

go and sell:

lā-ròng

that village (at) when

lē-lo-tē

you arrive,

‘chainòng ā-òk

‘cow’s flesh

èn-jī-làng-mā’

will (any one) go on taking?’

pu-rā

saying

ārju-nòn.”

ask.”

Ànsī

So

lātum

these

kòrtē-bàng-theròk

brothers six

chainòng

cow’s

ā-òk

flesh

pònsī dàmlo,

taking went,

hā

that

bāmòn-āròng

Brahman’s village

lē-sī,

having arrived,

“Chainòng-ā-òk

“Cow’s flesh

èn-jī làng mā?”

will (any one) take more?”

pu

saying

ārju-lo.

asked.

Ànsī

And

“èn-jī-làng,

“we will take more,

vàn-nòn,”

bring it here,”

pu

saying

nàng-hàng-lo.

they called out.

Ànsī

So

bāmòn-pō

the big brahman’s

ā-hèm

house

lē-lo.

they reached.

Ànsī

Then

bāmòn-pō

the big brahman’s

ròng-īsī

village-whole

āsànghō

inhabitants,

che-pàngrum-pèt-sī,

having collected all together,

lā

those

chainòng-ā-òk

cow’s flesh

kejòr-dàm-ātum

bringing to sell-people,

kòrtē

the

bàng-theròk,

six brothers,

nèp-sī,

having seized,

ā-rī

their hands

kòk-krei-sī,

tied firmly having,

jāsemèt

severely

chòk-sī

having beaten,

pulo:

said:

“Nētum

“We

bāmòn-lē:

brahmans are:

‘chainòng-āòk

‘cow’s flesh

èn-jī mā?’

will any one take?’

pu

saying,

nàng

you

nàng-kātirvā-hai?”

here-solicit a customer dare?”

pu-sī

saying

lō-lo.

let them go.

Lā

These

chainòng-ā-òk

cow’s-flesh

kevàn-ātum-tā

bringing persons

hèm

home

che-voi-lo,

their own went,

ànsī

and

tovār

on the way

chingvai-pòn-lo:

took counsel together:

“Mai!

“Oh!

àn-lē ālàng

how much that

jangrēsō

orphan

ē-kechōbei!

us has cheated!

ē-chainòng ē-haidi

our cattle (doublet)

ē-pā-chi-thū-koi-làng;

he has caused us to kill all;

āphu-thàk-tā

over and above that

ē-rèng ē-hu

our skin (doublet)

ē-kā-pesō.

to us he has caused to smart.

Āpòt-kē

Therefore

kelē-pèn

immediately on arriving

ā-hèm

his house

mē-kei-dàm-po-nàng.”

fire-set-to let-us-go.”

Ànsī

So

hèm

home

che-lē-lo

they arrived,

ànkē

and

jàng-rēsō

the orphan’s

ā-hèm

house

mē-kei-dàm-dut

fire-setting

inghoi-lo.

did.

Ànsī

Then

jàngrēsō

the orphan

ātum

baskets-two

hīnī

having woven,

chibū-sī hèm mē-kechō

house-fire-eaten, devoured (of)

āphēlō

ashes

hum-sī

having collected

bahār

a load

pòn-lo,

took,

ànsī

and

hā

that (distant)

mèk-kesō

sore-eyed

āròng

(people’s) village

lē-lo.

went to.

Lābàngsō

That

āròng

village (of)

ārlèng

men,

ābàng-phu-tā

each one of them,

āmèk-kesō-ābàng

sore-eyed folk

àngsē.

were only.

Ànkē

So

phēlō

ashes (of)

ā-bahār-pèn

a load-with

jàngrēsō

the orphan

lātum nàng-thèksī

they having seen,

nàng-ārju-lo—

called out to him—

“Nàng

“Thou

kopī

what for

kevàng lādāk?”

comest thou hither?”

Jàngrēsō

The orphan

thàk-dèt—

answered—

“Ai

“Oh!

nàngtum

your

āròng

village

mèk-kesō

sore eyes

ā-vur

disease

do-tàng-pu

has finished getting, thus

ārju-lòngsī

having got to hear,

nē

I

mèk-kesō

(for) sore-eyed people

ā-bàp

medicine

nàng-kejòr.”

here am selling.”

Ànsī

Then

lātum

they

pulo—

said—

“Ai! tàngtē

“Oh! then (that)

mē-òng-chòt-lo,

is very good indeed,

pō-ārnàm-pō!”

my good sir!”

pusi

so saying

ròng-īsī

the whole village

āsànghō

inhabitants

dohòn

money

chi-rung-sī

having collected,

dohòn-bahār-īsī

of money load one

jàngrēsō

to the orphan

nàng-pīlo.

there-gave.

Ànsī

Then

jàngrēsō

the orphan

pulo:

said:

“Lābàngso

“That

ā-bàp

medicine

nònkē

immediately

chi-hī-rī-thā:

do not apply (rub) to yourselves:

mō

afterwards

nē

I

tovār

the road

ēbèng

a piece

lēlo-tē,

have gone when,

‘chi-hī-nòn’

‘apply (rub) it’

pu

saying

nē

I

nàng-pupo,

will tell you,

àn-lē

then (and not before)

chi-hī-nòn.”

apply it.”

Ànsī

Then