‘Persia – especially Seistan’ [‎202v] (403/949)

THE
The Bodo Problem. —A recent copy of the
Jlthenceura contained a three-column review . of
the volumes of the Linguistic Survey dealing
with Bihari, Oriya, and the Tibeto-Burmese
languages. And the first glance shows us one
of the standing difficulties of Indian trans-liter-
ation. The reviewer (or the printer) tells us of
the “ Bara, or Bodo, languages.” Now a is
the symbol commonly used to represent the
Italian a, and it is plain that a word could not
well be Bira and Bodo, unless the phonetic
changes of Eastern India are different from
those with which we are more familiar. As a
matter of fact, Dr. Grierson uses the symbol a
^misprinted a in the Athencewin) to represent
a sound approaching the au in “ pauper, and
it was this sound which Brian Hodgson repre
sented by o in the word, first written in Euro
pean characters by him as Bodo. Perhaps it
would have been better to have retained the
familiar “ Bodo ” till M. Passy or some
other professor of phonetics had evolved a
fairly complete phonetic alphabet. What
the reviewer says about Bihari and Oriya
is sound enough, being for the most part a
rapid summary of Dr. Grierson’s conclusions.
What Dr. Grierson does not know about
Bihari, if there is anything he does not know,
is not worth knowing. What he says or
Oriya script is described by the reviewer
as a way of ingeniously accounting for
the fact that the character appears at first
sight to be entirely composed of curves.
Dr. Grierson would be the first to say that an
ancient and obvious explanation of a well-
known peculiarity is neither ingenious nor his
ewn. For the rest the archaic features of
the Oriya grammar are attributed, in ac< ord-
ance with Dr. Grierson’s views, to the
historical and geographical isolation of
Orissa. Let us cheerfully admit that Oriya
has primitive features, and that Orissa, to
some extent, was and is isolated. It is
possible-that the two facts are related as
cause and effect. The alleged absence of
dialects in Oriya may be due, to suggest an
even more plausible explanation, to the fact
that the language is not fully known. Oar
impression is that when an Oriya bearer
comes from Puri, his tongue betrays him
to one who hails from Balasore. But
it is when we come to the critic’s account
of the Tibeto-Burman volume that we feel
that he has missed a real opportunity. He
says indeed that “ to the philosophical student
of human speech these languages will probably
ha more interesting than those of more ad
vanced and cultivated races.” That is putting
a problem of singular interest in a very vague
and shapeless form, and almost implies that all
primitive languages, as such, are more inter
esting than the developed and articulate
speech of civilised races, which is demon
strably untrue. We shall presently attempt
to show wherein the true interest of the
Tibeto-Burmese language consists. But it
must be noted in passing that the manner
in which the Tibeto-Burmese volume has
been compiled is not very happily des-
-cribed. The reviewer says that “ in dealing
with this part of his task Dr. Grierson has
had to rely” (dura egestas !) “ on books
written and data supplied by local officers
and missionaries, to whom he most fully and
particularly acknowledges his obligations.” As
a matter of fact Dr. Grierkon edited, and (so
far as was possible) collated, contributions
which were, in every sense, a labour of love.
Under the circumstances, acknowledgment
of such contributions could hardly be too
hearty or too full. The solitary example
of such contributions which is quoted is not a
very happy one or very interesting. In Mikir,
it seems, the Biblical phrase “ a certain man
had two sons ” runs “ one person child-male
persons-two were.” This is given as part of
Sir Charles Lyall’s contribution. It reminds
one of the familiar jokes about “ English
as she is spoke.” Literal translations have
their dangers. They do not adequately
represent idioms, they may when applied
to languages so close to our own as
French and German give a false and absurd
impression that the idioms are childish and
illogical. Accent, tone, vocal gesture disap
pear, and these are often more important than
the inflexions to which we Europeans attach
an exaggerated importance because we were
nurtured on Greek and Latin.
But what is the importance and the interest
®f Dr. Grieison s volume on the Tibeto-Burman
languages ? The AtTienceum says that these lang
uages “ are principally spoken in the east of
India.” Now some at least of them are prin
cipally spoken in. Burma, and their interest
lies in the fact that no one yet has solved the
question how much further languages of the
same type extend into the Further East.
Ethnologically, as Logan pointed out fifty
years ago, the people who speak these lang
uages in Assam are akin to the Dyaks and
Malays. They resemble them in appearance,
in costume, and in many customs, such as the
habit of taking heads in warfare, which are
not Indian customs. In Assam the tribes in
question are becoming rapidly Indianised and
Hinduised, are losing their national costume
(which in many cases consists in a total
disuse of dress properly so-caled), their W-
their religion, if religion it ca°n
nacre.
b<
T
b(
sc
tt
be
vc
tii
co
an
int
mb
kne
are
moi
En<
the
and,
The
spec
ning
hanc
But
first
be *
misle
of h ;
the g
But 1
their
The}
East
pion
and
Dr. '
thes 1
man
here
has,
osit)
assis
most
his
Fron
full
the t
mese
An
Lhas
com;:
what
that, i
are bt
and E
not In
possible
are reh
India ar
Even
question
Khasias
off-hand
the phe:
served b
mind our
discussed
throwing
ism in
been Hir
complete
thing bn
Grierson
spirit w
magnifici
Europea
prodigal
iptneagre
Dr. Grie
they are
which ]
shown
inquiry
that he
his Indi
mantle
fall (as
navian
much <
has a lev
dian m:
from tl
But thi
man la
per eh
ship 1
himsell
days, is
trative
planne
which
been c
as Dai
why w
lumps
equabL
and Oi
and cu
rnsnts
deeply
beyone
crude e
equipp.
been i
philolo
regions
by ger
is the
Davis,
names
the sc
,e
L y
3r
a
le
er
m
id
.£ 2 , 827 , 000 , Allowing for the contiguity
of frontiers this disparity is remarkable,
and prepares us for the preponderance of
•Russian interests also in the import trade.
Out of a total under this head of <£7,000,000
fm the year, Russia did <£3,359,000 and
Great Britain only <£2,334,000. There
is, however, a melancholy satisfaction *in
the reflection that other nations are miles
bihind us. Thus the total value of Persian
bo
at
r n
d,
T
d
»e
!
e
J-
u
foi
are
, ' i
l W
° 91
iT J
oj&m
* 9C
1SJT)
)urq
omu
oods
‘pUB
9 Td
rotu
0 JB
urn
^ui
ub
00
m
0A
dd
OS
lE
>q
4
o
JH.
trade with Turkey was <£840,000 ; with Prance,
£746,000 ; with Austria-Hungary, £220,000 ;
with Afghanistan, £186,000 ; with Italy;
£146,000 ; with the United States, £128,000 ;
with Germany, £111,000 ; and with other
countries, £352,000. Prom these results we
would appear to be a very good second. Some
explanation of the success of Russia is afforded
by the report of the British Consul-General at
Ispahan who, dealing with the trade of his
own district for the last three years, says that
cotton goods form the main staple of the im
port trade and the market in them has been
much disturbed by reason of an influx of
Russian cottons, which had been imported
to Bushire from Odessa and, failing to find
a market on the coast, were sent inland
and sold for what they would fetch to
save re-shipment home. Apart from this, how
ever, the trade of the district in Russian cot
tons is increasing ; and quite recently a firm
of soda manufacturers has established an
agency An office of the East India Company and, later, of the British Raj, headed by an agent. in Ispahan and another Russian
firm has done the same. “ Owing to the
assistance they get from the Russian Gov
ernment,” adds the Consul-General “ in
drawbacks, special railway steamer rates, and
money facilities from the Russian Bank, these
firms are able to sell their goods here at Mos
cow prices, and it is not to be wondered at
that in light printed cotton and fancy goods
they are able to compete with our goods. In
the last two years, as far as I can gather
from very imperfect information, the Russian
imports have increased some eight to ten
fold. The advent of the representatives of
the se two Russian houses has practically
stamped out the small Armenian trader as an
importer of Russian cotton goods.” Yet our
autlmrity is not despondent as to the British
trade in Manchester goods, for he states that
“ Russia competes to an appreciable extent in
Turkeyred twills and general printed goods,
yet with all the assistance given to them,
they cannot touch Manchester in heavy
white and grey goods, and if we could
but develop a quicker and cheaper trans
port service we should be placed in a position
to fight the opposition with fair prospects of
success here, and even with hopes of regain
ing some of our lost trade in the . northern
markets.”