By A.D. 1616 Nurhachu had become the acknowledged leader of the Tartar tribes which he had overcome one by one. In this year, at the request of the chiefs, he assumed the title of Emperor, with T'ien Ming as reign-title. T'ai Tsu to give him his dynastic name, captured Moukden in 1621 and transferred his capital thither in 1625. He died in 1626.

T'ai Tsu's son, whose Ch'ing dynastic title is T'ai Tsung , succeeded in 1627 and took the reign-title T'ien Ts'ung which he retained until 1635. He continued his father's conquests and his influence increased. In that year the time seemed to have come for the assumption of a new dignity so he took to himself a dynasty, naming it Ta Ch'ing .

It is generally agreed that the nominatives ov and oy are formations from the demonstrative stem u which appears in most of the modern Indo-Aryan languages, e.g. Nepali: direct u, oblique us.

In the oblique formsles, la and lenMiklosich {ber die Mundarten und Wanderungen der Zigeuner Europa's xi, p. 15) saw the stem of Skt. ta, which forms the oblique cases to the nominative s and s. Professor A. C. Woolner (Journ. Gypsy Lore Soc., New Series ix, p. 128) opposes this view for the very cogent reason that there seems to be no other instance in which an initial IndoAryan t has become lin European Romani: it becomes I regularly only in the intervocalic position. He derives it instead from a Prakrit pronominal stem na. This however presents nearly as great a phonetic difficulty, for the regular representation of initial n is by n : there are a few exceptions only in some cases of metathesis or dissimilation, such as len river (if from nodi), lilai and linai beside nilai summer (nid;ghh).

Svetadvipa, “The White Island,” is the name of an island, situated in the far North, inhabited by Nārāyana and by pious White Men, who worship him. The description of their worship, which can be read in that part of the Śāntiparvan, the twelfth of the Mahābhārata books, devoted to Nārāyana is distinguishable to an obvious degree from the stories of other cults found in the Brahminical literature, and has led researchers of both earlier and more recent date to try certain more or less successful interpretations. The attempt at solving the problem of Śvetadvīpa, which has, during more recent times, attracted the greatest attention, is that of Garbe.

A Mong many mythological beings mentioned in Zoroastrian literature and enumerated by the late Professor Louis Casartelli in his La Philosophie religieuse du Mazdéisme, Paris, 1884, p. 120, Gõpatšōh deserves our special mention. He is the man-bull of the ancient Babylonians, adopted into the mythology of the later Zoroastrian period most probably through the intermediary of the Elamites saturated with Babylonian culture. Gōpatšōh is the name given to him in Pahlavi literature, and is said to be another name for Aγēraθ, son of Pašang and brother of Afrāsiāb, king of Turan. He resides in the country called Sōkapastān or Saukavastān, which is situated between Chinistan and Turkistan (Bundahišn, 29, 5; for the legend of Aγrēraθ, cf. Darmesteter, Zend–Avesta, ii, p. 436, No. 23). Dātistān-i-Dēnīk 90, 4, explains the name Gōpatšāh by “ king of Gōpat”, and says that Gōpat is a country coterminous with Ērān–Vej on the bank of the river Dāitīk.

The latest work published in the Balamanoramā Series is Vāsudeva's Rāma-kathā.

The editor has rightly pointed out that the author cannot be the famous Nārāyana Bhaṭṭatiri, the famous poet-grammarian-devotee of Kerala, as was suggested by the late lamented Mm. T. Gaṇapati Sāstri. One may not subscribe to all that he has said about Kulaśekhara, but it must be conceded that he has laid proper emphasis on the fact that our author cannot be identified with the famous Yamakapoet who wrote the Yudhiṣṭhira-vijaya. It may also be admitted with the editor that he cannot be the same as the author of Śāurikathodaya and Tripura-dahana, for their parentage differs, and the styles of the two are different. Similarly, it may well be accepted that our author is identical with the writer of Saṃkṣepa-rāmāyanṇa and Sº-bhārata. So far I agree with him; but I am not so sure that the authors of Rāma-kathā and of Vāsudeva-vijaya, the grammatical treatise to which Nārāyana wrote his supplement, cannot be identical. I cannot also agree in assigning this Vāsudeva to the seventeenth century, a view that has been induced by an incorrect reading and a wrong interpretation.

The following beautiful poem was found in a MS. notebook dated 1748. The date of the poem is unknown, but it must be older than the MS. We may put it provisionally at 1650–1700. The author's name occurs in the last couplet. Nothing is known about him, and there are many poets of the name.

DivÂkara PrakĀŚa BhaṬṬ is said to have been alive during the eight years of the reign of the Hindū king Sukhajīvana Siṁha, of Kashmīr, who came to the throne in A.D. 1786, and to have lived in the Gōjawar (Skt. Gulikāvāṭikā) quarter of the city of Srīnagar. He was the author of a Kāshmīrī version of the Rāmâyana, entitled the Rāmâvtāra-carita. This is a long epic poem of about 1800 verses in various metres, and is divided into two parts. The first part corresponds to the first six cantos of Vālmīki's poem, and ends with the return of Rāma in triumph to Ayōdhyā, after the conquest of Laṅkā.

The authors of these notes had an opportunity of observing the pronunciation of Naqibullah, son of Nairullah, a Bumba Khel Pathan from the village Dhudiyal, north of Mansehra in the Hazara district, during some eight sittings at the School of Oriental Studies in May, 1927.

Naqibullah, who was for several years a sailor, has settled down in London, where he keeps a boarding-house for Asiatic sailors. Being married to an Englishwoman he does not speak Pashto with his family; but his boarding-house is very much frequented by Pathan sailors, Peshawaris, Chhachhis, and Bangashes. The Peshawar and Chhachh dialects may have influenced his pronunciation slightly; but he is an intelligent.person, and appeared to be quite conscious of the difference between Peshawari forms and those belonging to his own dialect, even in cases where he would generally be inclined to employ the former ones. He reads and writes Hindostani, and to some extent English, but not Pashto.

It has been stated many times that the principal idea in the repetition of words is that of emphasis or intensity. My observation has led me to conclude that this is incorrect, and that the true sense in almost every case is one of the following:—

distribution (over time, space, or a number of objects), pleasantness, no meaning at all.

In order to make the inquiry practical, it is better to confine it to cases of words repeated without alteration. If anyone will in the course of his reading take 1,000 consecutive instances of repetition, he will find that (i) short words are repeated far oftener than long,(ii) repetition of adjj. or advv. with a pleasant meaning is much commoner than of those with a nasty meaning, and when the meaning may be either good or bad, the good is intended,(iii) nearly every instance comes under either distribution or pleasantness.

(a) (1) The intensive compound is of commoner use than the simple verb. Practically every verb is made intensive by prefixing the root of the simple transitive or intransitive verb, or the causal form, to one of the following serviles :Len to take ; den to give ; dln to hurl, drop, pour, etc.; mrn to strike, kill, destroy ; jn to go ; parn to fall (gently or metaphorically), to be in a lying position ; uthn to rise, stand up ; baithn to sit . The prefixed root remains unchanged, but the suffixed servile is regularly conjugated. The prefixed root gives the general meaning, but the suffixed servile modifies or intensifies this meaning. The shade of meaning may often be expressed in English by an adverb or by the tone of voice, as baithn to sit, be seated , but baith-jn to sit down , thagn to cheat , thaglen to cheat out of .

(2) While the simple and intensive forms are not identical in meaning, the simple form can often, but not always, be substituted with no more than some loss of force. It is sometimes no easy matter to render the exact shade of meaning given by a particular intensive.

Dans les sociétés les plus diverses, le regard de l'homme est considéré comme omineux. Il exerce une influence qui, suivant les circonstances, peut être faste ou néfaste. La croyance au “ mauvais œil” a entraîné l'emploi de mesures prophylactiques. Puisque l'œil est le siège d'une force redoutable, il faut neutraliser le maléfice et diriger la force du regard vers des conséquences heureuses'. Ce résultat est souvent obtenu au moyen d'une formule qui peut se réduire à, une simple exclamation. Tel est sans doute le Sanskrit bhadramukha, pali bhaddamukha, dont on se servait pour aborder les personnes. Ce composé signifie “ celui dont le visage (ou la vue) porte bonheur ”. Employé au vocatif, il était destiné à provoquer le fait énoncé, ou du moins à empêcher que le contraire ne se produisît.

Qutb MushtarĪ is a MS. poem in the India Office Library. The Catalogue of Hindustani MSS. states (p. 64, No. 122) that the name and author are unknown; but Mohyeddin Qadri in his recently published Urdū Shahpāre gives the name of the poem, points out that twice in the course of it Vajhī is mentioned as the author, and adduces convincing reasons for concluding that this Vajhī and the author of the prose work Sab Ras, which was twenty-five years later, are the same person. The date of Qutb Mushtarī is A.H. 1018 ═ A.D. 1609.

Urdū Shahādre is a work of great value. It discusses Urdu authors from the earliest times down to the death of Valī and to illustrate their writings gives well-chosen extracts, many of which are taken from MSS.

The Buddhist Birth-Stories have spread widely among the Mongols chiefly in two collections: the liger-n Dalai (The Ocean of Parables) and the Altan Gerel (Golden Gleam). The former, according to Professor Berthold Laufer, is an adaptation of the mDzans-blun, the Tibetan translation contained in the Kandzur of the Chinese S M M, which has been edited and translated into German by I. J. Schmidt under the title Dzanglun oder Der Weise und der Tor. In the preface of his work Schmidt points out that while the two versions, Tibetan and Mongolian, agree in the main, the tales in the Mongolian text have been amplified and paraphrased, often with supplementary matter not found in the Tibetan version, although in the latter are found in places short passages which the Mongolian version has not.

Professor J. Takakusu, on the other hand, is inclined to doubt the Tibetan origin of the Mongolian text on the ground that in the second chapter of the liger-n Dalai the phrase thousand princes is erroneously given as ten princes , and that such a mistake can only arise from a mis-reading of the Chinese character =f- as -J-.

The editions of Sanskrit dramas based entirely on manuscripts written in the local vernacular script, called Ārya Euttu, present interesting subjects for linguistic study. The Prakrit of many of these dramas, and especially the dramas wrongly assigned to Bhāsa, has been examined by various scholars, and the general conclusions derived thence have been utilized as one of the arguments in support of the Bhāsa-theory. But careful study of the original texts and the printed edition of them shows that in transforming the original Malayali script into Devanagari print some liberties have been taken by the local editors, including Mm. Dr. T. Ganapati Sastri, the late lamented editor of the Trivandrum Sanskrit Series. The first thing that arrests the attention of the student who examines the manuscripts is the presence of small circles written by the side of the letters, as for instance in: MUHUoTÅ, EoVĀ, etc. The general principle that has guided the editors has been to double the consonant following the small circle, when it stands by the side of the letter, and to treat it as an anusvāra when it stands above the letter. This procedure of giving two different values to the same symbol is, however, very much open to question.

In olden time there lived a paladin called Ching Timur Vatu, and he had a sister. One day Ching Timur Vatu charged his sister thus, saying, “Oh, my little sister, if a hen should happen to come in, don't say ‘Takh’ (i.e. Shoo) to it, or if a cat should come in, don't say ‘Pash’ to it.” And again he added, “If, in sweeping the room, you come on a grain of maize, give it to the hen, or if you come on a bit of dried apricot, chew it a little and give it to the cat.” And when he had given these instructions he went off to his hunting.

In the teaching of Indian languages much confusion is caused by the invention of names for ideas which either have well known names already, or do not require any name. This makes otherwise useful grammatical notes very obscure, and causes actual unfairness in examinations because candidates are often unfamiliar with the terms employed. We should avoid attaching labels to the words, constructions, and phrases of the language we are teaching, and when a name is necessary it should be one already known from English or Latin.

I take a few illustrations at random from Platts's Grammar. Under verbs we find acquisitives, potentials, inceptives, permissives, completives, desideratives, continuatives, frequentatives, staticals, and reiteratives. It will hardly be believed that most of these names have been coined to indicate one or, at the most, two words. Thus acquisitives means pānā alone; potential means saknā; inceptive, lagnā; permissive, denā; completive, cuknā; desiderative, cāhnā (and magna !); continuative, jānā and rahnā; so far we have had seven unnecesary and, for the most part, uncouth names to indicate eight or nine words, nearly one special name per word.

In the preceding survey of Arabic literature during the nineteenth century, special emphasis was deliberately laid on two aspects of the subject, the struggle between the old and the new conceptions and ideals, and the gradual emergence of a. simplified Arabic prose style. If it is asked why a point of view apparently so narrow and exclusive should have been adopted, to the prejudice of a more detailed investigation of the personal and literary characteristics of the individual writers, the answer is twofold.

To the north-east of the Solomon Islands lies a ring of coral islands surrounding a lagoon about 100 miles in circumference. The nearest land is the northern tip of the island of Ysabel, which is some 200 miles to the south-west. This group of islands has been variously called Ongtong Java, Lord Howe's Group, Leueneuwa, Leua Niua, and Lua Niua. The three latter are more or less unsatisfactory attempts at writing the native name of the largest island, Luaniua. There is no native name for the whole atoll and it is not only misleading but also wrong to use Luaniua for the purpose. Lord Howe has already given his name to three other Pacific Islands, so that it seems best to take the name which Tasman gave and call the atoll Ongtong Java.

These islands are populated by natives with undoubted Polynesian affinities. In physical type they show a resemblance to the Samoans and their language is a Polynesian dialect, but in other respects the culture shows some marked differences from those of the central Pacific. The social organization is closely parallelled by that of Sikiana, in the south, and by that of the Tasman Islands, the Mortlocks and Fead Island (Nuguria) to the north. This organization is not characterized by rank, which is so important in Polynesia.

The causal of an intransitive verb means to cause someone or something to perform the action which the intr. verb indicates: calnā “ function ”, calānā “ cause something to function ”. About this there is no debate. The question of causals of tr. verbs is not so easy. It is important to be entirely practical, and if we cannot get universal rules we must try to make general rules helpful to both students and scholars. To this end we must, as far as possible, use well-known words, and use them in their ordinary sense. New grammatical terms or old ones with new meanings are, worse than useless. A student says: “ How am I to express ‘; make him sleep, make him do it ’ ? May I say usko sulāo, usko karāo ? If not, tell me what to say, and give me a rule for it which I can easily follow.” He is entitled to a reply; more than that, he is entitled to a reply which will be. of real use to him.