resemble the Dravidian as also the Turkish, the Mongolian, and other Scythian languages; and in the same particulars, with one or two exceptions, they differ essentially from the dialects which are called Polynesian; The vocabularies of the Australian dialects which have been compiled do not appear to furnish additional confirmation to the resemblances pointed out above; but it is difficult to suppose these resemblances to be unreal or merely accidental, and it is obvious that the Australian dialects demand (and probably reward) further examination.

     It is also, still more difficult to be accounted for, that some resemblances may be traced between the Dravidian languages and the Bornu, or rather the Kanuri, one of the languages spoken in the Bornu country, in Central Africa. Most of the resemblances are, it is true, of a general nature-e.g., the Kanuri is agglutinative in structure, it uses postpositions instead of prepositions,it adds to nouns and sentences syllables expressive of doubt, interrogation and emphasis, in a peculiarly Dravidian manner, and its verb has a negative voice. It has an objective verb as well as subjective, like the Hungarian. The most distinctive resemblance to the Dravidian languages I notice is in the pronoun of the second person, which is ni, as in each of the Dravidian dialects. Even this, however, as has been shown, is common to the Dravidian with Brahui, Chinese the language of the second Behistun tablets, and the Australian dialects. The Kanuri language differs so remakably from the rest of the African tongues, that it is very desirable that its relationship should be fully investigated.”¹

     Dr. Caldwell, not being aware of the dignity, originality, anteriority and superiority of Tamil, endeavoured in vain to affiliate the Dravidian family of languages to the Scythian group, resting his hypothesis on some correspondences, chiefly on the principal points of resemblance between the Dravidian dialects and the language of the Behustan tablets. As the term ‘affiliation’