^{page 386 note 2} Previous sources on Khami:—

Phayre, Capt., “Account of Arakan”, JASB., 10 (1841), 679 ffGoogle Scholar. Vocabulary of Koladan Koomi (N. Khami) and Mee-Koomi (S. Khami), p. 712.

Latter, Lieut, T., “A Note on some Hill Tribes on the Kuladyne River, Arracan”, JASB., 15 (1846), 60 ff. Grammatical Sketch and Vocabulary, p. 66 ff. (S. Khami).Google Scholar

Hodgson, B. H., “On the Indo-Chinese Borderers and their Connection with the Himalayans and Tibetans”, JASB., 22 (1853), 1 ff. Kami (S. Khami) and Kûmi (N. Khami) vooabularies, pp. 8 ff.Google Scholar

Stilson, Rev. Lyman., “Brief Notice of the Kemī Language. Spoken by a Tribe in Arakan, Farther India”, JAOS., 8 (1866), 213ff. Grammatical sketch, short sentences, and Lord's prayer in Kemī (S. Khami).Google Scholar

Lewin, Capt. T. H.., The Hill Tracts of Chittagong and the Dwellers thħerein, with Comparative Vocabularies of the Hill Dialects, Calcutta, 1869. Vocabülaries Kumi, ect., pp. 146 ff. Mainly after Phayre and Hodgson.Google Scholar

Campbell, Sir George, Specimens of the Languages of India including those of the Aboriginal Tribes of Bengal, the Central Provinces, and the Eastern Frontier, Calcuta, 1874. Khumi of Chittagong Hills (N. Khami), pp. 199 ff.Google Scholar

Lewin, Capt. Hubert, Thomas, Progressive Colloquial Exercises in the Lushai Dialect of the Dzo' or Kúki Language, with Vocabularies and Popular Tales (notated), Calcutta, 1874. Short Kumi vocabulary (S. Khami), p. 2.Google Scholar

Hughes, Major W. Gwyne, The Hill Tracts of Arakan, Rangoon, 1881. Vocabulary of Kames (N. Khami) by Davis, appendix, pp. iii ff.Google Scholar

Bernard, Houghton, “Kami Vocabularies”, (S. Khami) by Zan and Bwin, annotated by Houghton, JRAS., n. s., 27 (1895), IIIff. (Large vocabularies, but not accurately recorded)Google Scholar

Grierson, Sir George, and Sten, Konow, “Khami” (S. Khami), Linguistic Survey of India, 3 (1904), pt. 3, pp. 347–377.Google Scholar

Ohn Pe, “The Awa Khamis, Ahraing Khamis, and Mros in the Ponnagyuna Chin Hills, Ponnagyun Township”, Census of India, 9. Burma, pt. 1; Report, appendix D, pt. 2, 1933.

Ba Myaing, “The Northern Hills of Ponnagynn Township”, JBRS., 24, pt. 3 (1935), 127–148. Vocabulary of Awa (S. Khami) and Ayaing (N. Khami).Google Scholar

^{page 386 note 3} The British and Foreign Bible Society, Rangoon, 1934.

^{page 386 note 4} Saptawka was a Lushei who learned Khimi. There is ā short account of his life in The Bible in the World, pp. 60–1, April, 1935. Despite the omissions and some garbled passages, to be expected in an initial work, Saptawka seems to have made a very idiomatic translation, marred chiefly by some typographical errors.

^{page 387 note 1} After Emminger had done some excellent preliminary work on the literal translation of the text, he became engaged in another field and the greater part of the literal translation and the compilation of the grammar and vocabulary was done by the author.

^{page 387 note 2} LISI., 3, pt. 3, p. 4. Also, idem, p. 6.

^{page 387 note 3} LISI., 1, p. 172, nos. 238, 239.

^{page 388 note 1} Numbers refer to chapter and verse of the English text. See introduction to Vocabulary.

^{page 388 note 2} It is not quite that. It is a sort of notice that is the end of the sentence or very close to it. And it retains its probably original function of a copulative.

^{page 389 note 1} Denoted in translation by a comma(,).

^{page 391 note 1} See below

^{page 399 note 1} Without distinction of time.

^{page 406 note 1} The prefix ä- drops when directly preceded by a noun used as an adjective as ämiħai “fruit”, but grep thai “grape” (lit. “grape fruit” 7: 16): thai-du-thai “fig” 7: 16 (thai-du “fig tree” 21: 21). ämiħ “eye”, but kangbäuzäai mih “brother's eye” 7: 5. äti “seed” but chaw-ti “wheat-seed” 13: 40. ähuh “bone”, but alu-huh “skull” (lit. “head-bone”) 27: 34. Yet there are many instances where this is not a factor, yet where ä- is dropped.

^{page 406 note 2} Perhaps due to the stencil-cutter and not to the translator.

^{page 407 note 1} Some instances of this may have escaped the writer's notice.

^{page 413 note 1} Inade beh, to reconcile, lit. to be at peace again.

^{page 419 note 1} Written kand-sui-pi, but the only possīble combination with final n is g.

^{page 420 note 1} pa- instead of ka- is a typographical error.

^{page 421 note 1} ħkā in 6: 19 appears to be a misprint.

^{page 423 note 1} mähkhawi, 5: 22, is a typographical error.

^{page 426 note 1} It also occurs after proper nouns where the names of the disciples are given in pairs, 10: 2, 3.

^{page 428 note 1} In khimi äkuh hai queh-teh nauħ lä awng bäu khä, man('s) hand with castrat-ed pl., have ⃛ing, “were made eunuchs by man”.

^{page 429 note 1} täbang hawih is probably a typographical error.

^{page 430 note 1} Probably lit. to the end (of the sea of G.), at the end (of Jesus' feet).

^{page 431 note 1} The English text reads “grass … cast into the oven”, but the Khimi text reads “grass … cast into the fire in order to (tih)”.

^{page 431 note 1} tu-kāh-teh-nih (7: 20)is possibly an error.

^{page 432 note 1} This word does not have both meanings as it occurs in the same parable, but there is an apparent error in the translation.

^{page 432 note 1} But it may also used with the future, particularly if reference is made to the finality of things as in 24: 7 ff.; 25: 31–33, vih is more likely to occur as the terminal verb if the participial ending khä precedes it in the sentence. A through study of the use and omission of vih has not been made, as it may be done much better in the field where the analysis may be checked.

^{page 434 note 1} Meaning not clear from the English text, but the Khimi means “willing to see, they still see not”, etc.