Panipawa wanu waniwhena kunyitu kulumbata, waniwhena kukodya ihato ilele. Pawakomwele wala wanu palele ihato, aniwakamula kuwamila. Wawele kukaya wanilolela nanga pawaheleke ndulu. Uliamba waniuka kuwila wanu wanji mpaka ukula, kukodya kuwila ihato ilele, ikawakamula wanu wala kuwamila wohewohe, pakaya pao wanihila na kuwamila ihato. Bahi, ihiyalile mkongwe umo, mkongwe yula awele na chitumbo. Bahi mkongwe yula aniweleka mwana mnume. Mwana yula na mkuhuma m'chiturabo aniudya kuchi “Mjomba awele kwachi?” Kuuka anyokwe kuchi “Akapali, aniliwa”. Aniudya kuwila kuchi “aliwidye kwachi?” Kuchi “Kunyitu”. Bahi mwana yula aniwahaulila anyokwe kuchi “Nembele munu awhene kunyitu akawalala changa aide nacho”. Anyokwe waniwhena kunembela munu, wakamwona waninyaulila kuchi “Whena ukalembela changa wide nacho”. Munu yula aniwhena panyitu anilembela changa anichoona aniwalala mpaka kukaya kuwhena nacho. Kunamupa mwana yula. Mwana atedono “Wino wawula mapatila wake nguwike kumutwe”. Waniwawula wakamika kumutwe. Pawamikile kumutwe mwana atongwedono “Wino ndembela chipula chikulungwa mning'e”. Wanilembela kumupa. Atwete mpatila wa changa kuwala kumutwe na chipula makono, aniwahaulila anyokwe kuchi “Ngupapata, tuwhene ngulangule indila iwapite wanu”. Waniuka anyokwe na wanji wanu kunangula indila. Waniwhena munyitu maduwa matatu, liduwa lya mcheche wawhena kadiki uwino wawene muyo mele nyongo mkulungwa, ihato ilele. Wanu kuchi watile, aniwalimbidya kuchi “Mnatukute” Wann wala wanikala pahi. Apite mwene mwana yula kulongolela. Aniwhena kuimila ihato nainang'o kula iniimila. Mwana yula kutwala chipula chake kuyakula makono. Wino apilikene ihato kuchi “Wepo mwana, we lapa kachi, mwawene kwachi chinu panyitu kudiuka mwa liyanga ngungungungu?” Kuka mwana nawing'e kuchi “Wepo ihato, lapa, kachi rawawene kwachi mwana namkuwelekwa dihuli mutwe mbee?”. Kuka ihato kuchi “Wepo mwana'we lapa! kachi mwawene kwachi chinu panyitu kudiuka mwa liyanga ngungungungu?”. Kuka mwana kuchi “Wepo ihato lapa! kachi mwawene kwachi mwana namkuwelekwa dihuli mutwe mbee?” Bahi wanitahukana akauka mwana kumkamula ihato yula kutwala chipula chake akanjinja ihato. Ihato upala inihwa. Akatumbula munda, bahi, wohe wanu wachimila wala wakahuma wohewohe pia wakahuma. Kuleka wauya mpaka kukaya wanu wohe wakalinowela pakuholoka alongawao. Wakatwala bola munu mtumwa kumupa mwana yula kuleka wakadenga luwungo.

This little Sanskrit play belongs to the ancient repertory of Travancore. Having recently obtained from Pandit V. Venkaṭarāma Śarmā of Chenganur a Nāgarī transcript of one MS., which may be called A, and a collation of another MS., which I designate as B, I now publish the text in transliteration, with such corrections and emendations as seem to be necessary, but without attempting to enforce uniformity of spelling. I have added numbers to the verses.

The material upon which this paper is based is in the first instance taken from the Relationship systems and customs of a Sudan Arab tribe (the Kababish) and of the Beni Amer, a Hamitic tribe whom I have been able to study myself in the Sudan by means of the genealogical method. Miss Moss kindly collected a list of relationship terms in Malta for me, which I have used. The rest of the material has been taken from dictionaries, and although I am fully aware of the inadequacy of material culled from dictionaries, yet in this case the method is inevitable. Full investigation into the relationship system and social organizations of the Amharic-speaking Abyssinians would be of the greatest value, and a complete examination of the Maltese terms would also be of interest. I have had much help from friends, though they are in no case responsible for my conclusions. Chief among these is Professor S. Langdon, who has given me much information. I am also indebted to Dr. Hall, Professor Zammit, Dr. Czermak, and Mr. S. H. Ray for references.

The story of Suto and Tato is in no way fiction, it is a lively reality, and anyone even slightly acquainted with these far-distant, but beautiful and picturesque countries and their inhabitants, will confirm my statement. The principal actors, Shaikh Muhammad Sadiq, the Shaikh of Barzan, Tato, Osman—Suto's elder son, are no longer alive. I am not certain about Suto himself. This old man, a perfect type of a Kurdish chief ruling over the most impregnable region of Central Kurdistan, may yet be alive. At any rate, in 1918 he was. Mulla Said, the narrator, was murdered in Urumia in July, 1918, by his countrymen. Peace be on him!

In the Trivandrum Sanskrit Series are included thirteen dramas which the learned editor, Mahāmahōpādhyāya T. Gaṇapati Śāstri, has assigned to Bhāsa, the predecessor of Kālidāsa. The various arguments advanced by him in support of his theory may be summed up thus:—

The thirteen dramas, which we shall hereafter term the T.B. dramas, display a similarity of structure as regards the prologue and poetic merit, and have some common passages. It is, therefore, assumed that they are the works of one and the same author. Rājaśēkhara says that Bhāsa has written many dramas, one of which is Svapna-vāsavadatta; and Bāṇa says that Bhāsa's dramas open with a speech by the Sūtradhāra. Since one of the T.B. plays is named Svapna-vāsavadatta, and since they all open with a speech by the Sūtradhāra, it is inferred that Bhāsa is the author of all of them. The question whether their language is antique enough to justify their ascription to a predecessor of Kālidāsa is also discussed. The presence of archaisms, the simplicity of the Sanskrit, and the ‘freshness” of the Prakrit are urged as arguments for an answer in the affirmative. It is also claimed they have such poetic merits as to offer even Kālidāsa a model. This position is apparently substantiated by pointing out various ideas common to both these dramas and the works of Kālidāsa.

It has hitherto been assumed that the Tone system of the Yoruba language comprised four tones, viz.—a high tone, a middle tone, a low tone, and a so-called compound tone. An examination of the phonetic structure of the language has led to the conclusion that there are other significant tónes which must be understood. The purpose of this article is to explain the Tone system of the language as viewed in the light of recent investigations. The observations and transcriptions are based upon the pronunciation of Mr. A. Baptist, a native Yoruba, to whom I am considerably indebted for his patience and his zealous interest in the subject.

In 1910 I published in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, August number, pp. 437–61, under the title of “The Marsden MSS. in the British Museum”, some notes by W. Rees Philipps and H. Beveridge on some remarkable treasures once in the Jesuit Archives of Goa and now in the British Museum. These MSS., comprising ten volumes (Add. MSS. 9852–61), contain original letters by the Jesuit Missionaries in India and the farther East, addressed mostly to the Provincial of Goa, before the suppression of the Society of Jesus in 1757 by the Marquess de Pombal. Some of the documents refer, however, to Cochin and Southern India, these portions of the mission field having belonged to Goa till the beginning of the sixteenth century.

It is well known that the oldest existing complete literary work of a Mussulman Turk, the Qudatqu Bilik or Qutadghu Bilik, was composed in 462 H. (a.d. 1069–70) by Yūsuf Khāṣṣ Ḥājib, a native from Bālāsāghūn, on the River Chu, for a Khān residing in Kāshghar who is called “Mashriq Maliki Tabghach Khani Malik Bughra Khan” (King of the East, Khan of China, the King Bughra Khan), “Tabghach Qara Bughra Khanlar Khani” (the Chinese Qara Bughra, the Khan of Khans), “Tabghach Ulugh Bughra Khan” (the Chinese, the great Bughra Khan), even more simply “Ordukent Khani Beg” (the Khan of the court-town, that is Kashghar, the prince). The statements concerning the chronology of the Kashghar kings of the eleventh century are very vague and scanty, and are not supplied by numismatic evidence; therefore it is not an easy task to ascertain who was the king mentioned by Yūsuf. There can be no doubt that he belonged to the dynasty of the Ilek Khāns. The chief authority on the history of that dynasty has been for all Muhammedan and European scholars the great work of Ibn al-Athīr, especially the statements given under the year 408 H. We are told by Ibn al-Athīr that Arslān Khān, son of Qādir Khān Yūsuf, King of Kāshghar, Khotan, and Bālāsāghūn, was deposed by his brother Bughra Khān and taken prisoner; Bughrā Khān was some time later poisoned by his wife, who put to death Arslān Khān also, in 439 H. Bughrā Khān ruled only fifteen months and was succeeded by Ṭoghrul Khān, son of Yūsuf Qadir Khāan (that is, by his brother), who ruled sixteen years (until 456 or 457). His son, Ṭoghrul-tagīn, was deposed after two months by “Hārūn Bughrā Khān, brother of Yūsuf Ṭoghrul Khān and son of Ṭafghāch Boghrā Khān” (?); Hārūn Bughrā Khān passed (‘abara) Kāshghar, made Hārūn (? mistake for Ṭoghrul-tagīn) prisoner; the army of the latter submitted to him, and he took possession of Kāshghar, Khotan, and the neighbouring districts to Bālāsāghūn, where he reigned twenty-nine years and died in 496. These statements can, of course, not be quite correct; if Bughrā Khān Hārūn was the brother of Ṭoghrul Khān, he must have been a son of Yūsuf Qadír Khān, and is, in fact, called so by Ibn al-Athīr himself on the previous page. The reigns mentioned by Ibn al-Athīr, and said to have extended from 439 to 496 (fifty-seven years), do not cover all that time, but nearly ten years less. We know, indeed, from an earlier author, Abu-I-Faḍl Baihaqī, that the first Bughrā Khān (called by Ibn al-Athīr Maḥmud) died not in 439 but in 449. Bughrā Khān Hārūn must have reigned in this case from 467 to 496, Ṭoghrul Khān from 451 to 467; the Qudatqu Bilik, composed in 462, was therefore written in the reign of Ṭoghrul Khān, but Bughrā Khān seems to have been a co-regent of his brother; Ibn al-Athīr speaks of the war made by the two brothers against Shams al-Mulk, Khān of Samarqand. Therefore it was quite natural to come to the conclusion that the Bughrā Khān mentioned by Yūsuf Khāṣṣ Ḥājib was Bughrā Khān Hārūn ibn Yūsuf, and such an opinion has been expressed in my article “Bughrā Khān” in the Encyclopædia of Islām.

Among the manuscripts of the William Marsden Collection, to which Sir E. Denison Ross has called the attention of scholars, by reproducing the entries of William Marsden (see the Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, Vol. II, Pt. III, “The Manuscripts collected by William Marsden”), there are five with titles indicating their language as “Canari”, “Canarim”, or “Canarin” (p. 537), one as “Bramana Canarim” (p. 537), one as “Hindustani”, and two as “Mahratta” (p. 535).