[14] Sa in Lushei means animal, and we see that the prefix te- (in tekē, tiger), thi- (in thi-jòk, deer), or thòk- (in thòk-vàm, bear) has the same meaning in Mikir. [↑]

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

1. A descriptive account of Asam, with a sketch of the local geography, and a concise history of the Tea-plant of Asam, to which is added a short account of the neighbouring tribes, exhibiting their history, manners and customs, by William Robinson, Gowhatti Government Seminary: Calcutta, 1841. Account of the Mikirs at pp. 308–312.

The facts stated agree generally with those recorded by Mr. Stack. The chief deity of the Mikirs is called Hempatin. This may be a mistranscription for Hemphu, but is more probably a mistake due to a confusion between Mikirs and Kukis; Pātīn (or a closely similar form) is the word for God in a number of the Kuki dialects (Khongzai, Thado, Lushei, Rangkhōl, Aimōl, Kōlrēn, etc.). Of course if the name Hempatin was ever actually used by the Mikirs for their chief tribal god, this would be an additional important evidence of a connexion between them and the Kukis.

2. Notes on the languages of the various tribes inhabiting the Valley of Asam and its mountain confines, by Wm. Robinson, Inspector of Government Schools in Asam. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, vol. xviii. (1849).

The Mikir language is treated at pp. 330–336. It is probable from certain indications that the Mikir words were written down for Mr. Robinson in Assamese characters, and transliterated by him into Roman. There are a great many misprints. The declension of nouns, the distinctions of gender, and the position of adjectives are in general correctly explained; but the important prefix ā- is not noticed, nor its original force understood. The omission of the plural affix -tum is remarkable. The numerals agree with those of the present day, save that ch is used (as in Assamese) to indicate s. The use of determinative class-words with numerals is mentioned. The personal pronouns are in part correctly, but often wrongly given; the demonstrative pronouns are wrongly stated, and so are the interrogatives. The absence of a relative pronoun, and the substitute for it, are noticed. In the verbal forms there are many errors, unless the particles used to indicate time have greatly changed since 1849, which is improbable. Thus, -ye is given as the future suffix instead of -jī, and -bō instead of -po. The participle in ke-, ki-, kā- is omitted, and the much-used conjunctive participle in -sī is misrepresented as the present participle. There is no mention of the past in tàng; āyok (possibly a mistranscription of the Assamese) is given instead of āpòt as the particle indicating purpose. The form of the negative verb is altogether misunderstood. There is no mention of the causative in pe-, pi-, pā-.

One interesting point in Mr. Robinson’s grammatical sketch is that words borrowed from Assamese, which now end in -i as a substitute for Assamese l, as hai for hāl, tāmoi for tāmol, pītoi for pītol, are all written with l; and in the following cases final l appears in Mikir words now written with final i:—

It seems possible that this represents a real change in pronunciation, since l was certainly the original ending in the borrowed words, and most probably (from the similar forms in the Kuki-Chin languages) was the original ending in the Mikir words. This vocalization of final l is quite common in the Kuki dialects, and is an additional argument for their connexion with Mikir.