It is well known that a large number of the accounts in the Kuo yü have matching counterparts in the Tso chuan. By my count there are at least 73 Kuo yü accounts with Tso chuan parallels; this out of a total of 241 separate Kuo yü accounts altogether. This means that by percentage of accounts (vs. percentage of text) 30% of the Kuo yü bears some textual relation to the Tso chuan, a proportion surely large enough to justify looking into the question of what that relation is. The degree to which each of these 73 Kuo yü accounts matches its Tso chuan parallel varies considerably. At one extreme there are cases where only a very few lines, names, or words signal the fact of an underlying textual relation. At the other extreme virtually the whole Kuo yü passage may appear with only slight variations in the Tso chuan. Most of the 73 fall somewhere in between these two extremes.

The languages belonging to the South-Dravidian sub-group of the Dravidian languages exhibit various degrees of genetic relationship. Though the common retentions and the later innovations have led to an indisputable consensus on broad issues, details regarding the finer genetic relationship remain to be worked out. This paper tries to analyse the genetic relationship between Tamil and Malayalam in the light of some sound changes, and also discusses the problems involved in the interpretation of the linguistic material.

All the comparative evidence points to a closer relationship between Tamil and Malayalam. They preserve alike some of the Proto-South-Dravidian features such as *ḻ, *ṛṛ besides innovating sound changes such as *k– > c–. On the basis of a number of common phonological and morphological features, scholars concluded that at the stage known as late Old and early Middle Tamil, Tamil and Malayalam were most probably basically one language with pre- Malayalam as a diverging western dialect of the spoken form of that common language. The innovations which appeared in the ninth- and tenth-century West Coast inscriptions were linked with the similar tendencies observed in colloquial Tamil. The oldest Malayalam inscriptions and literary texts are not earlier than about the ninth century A.D. Since this period is contemporaneous with Middle Tamil, it was argued that the development of a separate language had to be dated to that period.

This paper is a contribution to the study of the relations between science and technology in seventeenth-century China. I hope that its unusual perspective may help to illuminate the problem of how these two areas of human activity relate to each other in a more general context. Outside the small group of interested scholars the relations between science and technology are not seen as problematical. In the popular stereotype, scientists are trie people who make discoveries, while technologists simply find out how to use what they have discovered. This crude view has some support from historical fact. Over the last hundred years there has undoubtedly been a steady flow of useful ideas from (for instance) the physicist to the engineer and from the biochemist to the agronomist.

South-East Asia forty five years ago, with more than a hundred languages of six distinct stocks, only a handful of which had been even passably described, offered an unparalleled opportunity to linguistic inquiry. In opening up this field Eugénie Henderson, who died aged 74 on 27 July 1989, was the acknowledged leader in this country and widely respected outside it.

In my review of John Burton's edition of the work on abrogation (naskh) in the Qur'ān and the sunna by Abu ‘Ubaid (d. 224/839) in BSOAS, LII, 2, 1989, 346–7, I mentioned the existence of a fragment of this text found in the Türk ve Islâm Eserleri Müzesi, Istanbul; neither Burton nor Fuat Sezgin in his facsimile edition of the Topkapi Ahmet III manuscript of the text (Frankfurt am Main, 1985), mention this fragment or clarify its status.

The fragment appears to have been discovered and identified by Janine Sourdel-Thomine and Dominique Sourdel; it is mentioned in their article, ‘Nouveaux documents sur l'histoire religieuse et sociale de Damas au moyen age’, Revue des études islamiques, 32, 1964, 16. Sezgin cites this article and the existence of the fragment of the text in GAS, vm, 85, item V.

The aims of this paper are: (i) to report new dialect data for a vowel contrast in Acehnese which was not recorded in earlier descriptive work, (ii) to show that this contrast is cognate with a contrast reconstructed for Proto–Chamic, and (iii) to reconstruct this part of the vowel system of Proto–Aceh–Chamic.

A close genetic relationship between Acehnese and Chamic was first suggested by Nieman (1891). Although a contrary view was expressed by Blagden (1929), the issue has been conclusively put to rest by the work of Cowan (1933, 1948, 1974, 1981, 1983, 1988), Shorto (1975, 1977) and Collins (1975) who all agree on the existence of a distinct Aceh–Chamic sub–group within Austronesian.

Unfortunately, comparative work on Aceh-Chamic (Cowan: Chamo- Achehic, Shorto: Achino-Cham) has been hampered by problems of access to the data. In Lee's (1966) and Burnham's (1976) reconstructions of Proto-Chamic no mention is made of Acehnese. On the other hand, Cowan and Shorto, the two scholars who have furthered Aceh-Chamic studies the most, have not had access to Lee (1966), nor, in more recent works, to Burnham (1976). Another problem has been that Acehnese source materials have been restricted to just one dialect, as reflected by Djajadiningrat's (1934) and Kreemer's (1931) Acehnese-Dutch dictionaries.

This paper represents one step towards addressing some of these problems, by comparing new Acehnese dialect data with the comparative Chamic wordlist compiled by Lee and augmented by Burnham. I focus here upon a specific

In my critical edition of the Yuga Purāṇa chapter of the Gārgīya Jyotiṣa—a text most noted for its mention of the Yavanas and Śakas in India—I mentioned that there were four known manuscripts of the Gārgīya Jyotiṣa which I had been unable to consult at that time. I was recently able to rectify this situation and discovered as a result that two of those manuscripts do indeed contain the Yuga Purāṇa chapter (together with the entire Gārgīya Jyotiṣa) while the other two do not. The first of the complete manuscripts of the work is in the library of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute in Pune, catalogued as No. 345 of 1879–80; I have called this manuscript E, and its readings are very similar to those of manuscript H (currently in BHU, Varanasi). The second is No. 1433 in the Itccharam Suryaram Desai collection of Bombay University Library; this I have called manuscript M, and it is closly linked with manuscript B (in Banaras Sanskrit University), even omitting with B some three lines of the work (71a–d and 72a–b).

Georgian and Caucasian historical studies have recently received a stimulus through the publication of Professor Ronald Grigor Suny's important work, The making of the Georgian nation. Professor Suny draws attention to the seminal importance of the first half-century of Russian rule in Georgia, following the 1801 annexation. The old picturesque norms of Georgian social life were increasingly under pressure, as the Russian autocratic military bureaucracy sought to absorb the intransigent Caucasian peoples into their own larger administrative entity. (Dr. Stephen Jones and Professor Laurens Hamilton Rhinelander have done useful work on this phase of Georgian history).2 As we know from recent events in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, these efforts at assimilation met with mixed results, and serious nationality problems continue today