Abstract
That na belongs together with nanc the interior is so obvious that it would hardly seem necessary to make this statement. But the question arises as to how we have to account for the relationship between the two words. Is na a shortened form of nan' which owes the loss of its final to the enclitical character of suffixes, or is nan a nasalized derivative of na which then, as I pointed out elsewhere,2 must have likewise originally ended in a guttural? 3 A first argument which would speak in favour of the latter alternative may be found in the orthography nah which we meet in Old Tibetan texts.4 But it would seem impossible to settle this question without adducing additional material.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callSimilar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
