the words in the sentence. In both Khasi and Mon that
order is subject, verb, object. Taking this fact in conjunction with
the similarities of the Khasi and Mon vocabularies, we may conclude
that it is proof positive of the connection between Khasi and Mon, or
Talaing. In Munda, however, this order is subject, object, verb. Tiffs
is a very important difference, for, as Dr. Grierson points out,
"the order of words in a sentence follows the order of thought of the
speaker; it follows therefore that the Mundas think in an order of
ideas different from those of the Khasis and the Mons." Dr. Grierson
comes to the stone conclusion with respect to these languages as
Professor Kuhn, which is as follows:--"Owing to the existence of these
differences we should not be justified in assuming a common origin for
the Mon-Khmer languages on the one hand, and for the Munda, Nancowry,
and Malacca languages on the other. We may, however, safely assume
that there is at the bottom of all these tongues a common substratum,
over which there have settled layers of the speeches of other peoples,
differing in different localities. Nevertheless, this substratum
was so firmly, established as to prevent its being entirely hidden
by them, and frequent undeniable traces of it are still discernible
in languages spoken in widely distant tracts of Nearer and Further
India. Of what language this original substratum consisted we are not
yet in a position to say. Whatever it was, it covered a wide area,
larger than the area covered by many families of languages in India at
the present day. Languages With this common substratum are now spoken,
not only in the modern Province of Assam, in Burma, Siam, Cambodia,
and Anam, but also over the whole of Central India, as far west as the
Berars." Grierson, having agreed regarding the existence of this common
substratum, does not finally determine whether the ancient substratum
was the parent of the present Munda language, or of the Mon-Khmer
language. He says, "It cannot have been the parent of both, but it
is possible that it was the parent of neither." We are thus still in
a state of uncertainty as to what was the origin of these languages.

The brief description which follows of some of the more prominent
characteristics of the Khasi language is based chiefly on Sir Charles
Lyall's skeleton Grammar contained in Vol. II. of Dr. Grierson's
"Linguistic Survey of India." It does not pretend to be an exhaustive
trea