04-01-021

INTRODUCTION.

which proves the existence of a connexion between the two groups of languages, or which even makes it probable.

　It is, of course, possible that further researches may adduce new facts which will prove Professor Thomsen to have been right. In that case the explanation will probably be found to be that given by him, that the analogy must be due to the influence of the language of immigrants from India or Australonesia to Australia.

　The Mu family comprises several dialects. The table which follows shows their names and the estimated number of speakers. Revised figures, based on the returns of the last Census, have been added in a third column:-

Name of dialect.	Estimated number of speakers.	Census of 1901.
Santl...	1,614,822	1,7958 113
Mur...	406,524	460,744
Bhumij...	79,078	111,304
Brh...	1,234	526
K...	8,949	23,873
H...	383,126	371,860
Tr...	3,727	3,880
Asur...	19,641	4,894
Korw...	20,227	16,442
Krk...	111,684	87,675
Khai...	72,172	82,506
Jung...	15,697	10,853
Savara...	102,039	157,136
Gadab...	35,833	37,230
TOTAL.	2,874,753	3,164,036

　Santl, Mur, Bhumij, Brh, K, H, Tr, Asur, and Korw are only slightly differing forms of one and the same language. All those tribes are, according to Santl traditions, descended from the same stock, and were once known as Kherwrs or Kharwrs. The Kherwrs of the present day, a cultivating and landholding tribe of Chota Nagpur and Southern Behar, have probably the same origin. The dialects spoken by the tribes just mentioned will in this Survey be collected under the head of Kherwr. Kherwr is the principal Mu language, its dialects having been returned by full 88 per cent. Of all the speakers of Mu tongues. Kherwr is also the only Mu form of speech which has remained comparatively free from the influence of neighbour- ing languages. The vocabulary is to some extent Aryan, and some of the usual suffixes

　 I cannot in this place enter into the question of the relationship between our Mu-Mu-Khmr family and the lan- guages of Australonesia (Indonesian, Melanesian, Polynesian). I am convinced that Pater W. Schmidt is right in classing all these forms of speech together into one great family, but I am not as yet in a position to prove the connexion.