Language
Before commencing to describe the
more salient features of the Khasi language, its grammar,
and syntax, it seems to be of importance to show how
intimately connected Khasi is with some of the languages
of Further India. In the middle of the last century
Logan pointed out affinity between Khasi and these
languages, but it has been left to Professor Kuhn
to prove this connection to demonstration. The
examples of comparative vocabularies which follow
are taken from Kuhn’s “Beitraege zur
Sprachenkunde Hinterindiens,” Sir George
Scott’s “Upper Burma Gazetteer,”
and Sir George Campbell’s lists. It will
be seen from the collections of words that follow
how Khasi possesses many words in common with Mon
or Talaing, Khmer, Suk, Stieng, Bahnar, Annam, Khamen-Boram,
Xong, Samre, Khmu, Lemet, Palaung, and Wa. There
is some correspondence, although perhaps to a lesser
degree, between Khasi and the Ho-Munda languages and
those of Malacca and the Nancowry language of the
Nicobar Islands.
Let us now examine the table of numerals.
The Khasi word for 1 is wei, but in the Amwi
dialect of Khasi it is mi. In Khmu the
word is mui, also in Suk; in Mon mwoi
and in Xong moi. The word for 2 is identical
in Khasi and Lemet, viz., ar. The
word for 3, viz. lai, is identical in
Khasi and Wa: also compare Lemet lohe.
Khasi saw and Lakadong thaw for 4 are,
however, deviating forms. In the case of 5, if
we cut out the prefix m in the Mon word m’san,
we have fairly close agreement with the Khasi san.
In the numeral 6, if we cut out the prefix hin
of the Khasi (hin)_riw_, and the initial t
of Mon and Suk t’rou, trou, we have close
agreement. In the Khasi words for 7 and 8 the
syllable hin is but a prefix. This is
also probably the case in the Khasi word (khyn)_dai_
for 9, and the shi in the Khasi word shiphew,
10, merely means one.
It will be seen that there is considerable
similarity in the numerals of the different languages
up to six, the correspondence being most strongly
marked in the numerals 1, 2, 5, and 6. If we remember
that primitive people seldom can count higher than
the number of digits of one hand, the dissimilarity
in the numerals, as the end of the decade is approached,
is probably explained. As the different people
speaking these languages advanced in civilization they
learned to count further; but by this time they had
become in some cases like those of the Khasis, the
Palaungs, and Mons, widely separated from one another.
As they advanced in civilization, and found the necessity
of an improved notation, they manufactured numerals
which differed from one another, although they retained
the first few numerals they had made use of in their
days of savagery.