Karo kilkil, “to gnaw” , Bis. baṅkil, “to bite” : root kil.
Karo deṅgal, “unchaste”, Bis. bogal, “adulterous”: root gal.
Karo bětat, “slow” , Bis. kotat, “slothfulness” : root tat.
Karo ěrdan, “stairs” , Bis. hagdan, “stairs” : root dan.
Karo kanam, “joyful” , Bis. hinam, “joyful” : root nam.
Karo hebas, “accustomed” , Bis. basbas, “to accustom” : root bas.
II. The roots exhibit phonetic discrepancies, which however resolve themselves without difficulty in accordance with the above-mentioned phonetic laws of Karo and Bis. :
Karo sělkut, Bis. dagkot, " to kindle (a fire) " : root kut: kot.
Karo api, “fire” , Bis. apuy, “erysipelas” : root pi: puy.
Karo gêbuk, “smoky”, Bis. dabok, “to burn straw” : root buk : bok.
Karo lěměs, “to dissolve in water” , Bis. damos, “to wet” : root mĕs : mos.
Karo ilar, “to shine”, Bis. dilag, “bright” : root lar : lag.
Karo běsur, Bis. bosog, “satiated” : root sur : sog.
Karo lawět, Bis. lawod: see § 20.
26. From these Karo-Bis. root-lists two conclusions follow :
I. It was remarked in § 24 that from Karo alone, without the assistance of a comparison with other languages, only a part of the Karo roots could be detected. This poirtion is at once considerably augmented when Karo is compared even with only one other IN language, as here with Bis. Thus the word bětat, “slow”, stands quite alone in Karo, but Bis. provides a pendant, kotat, “slothfulness”, and from the comparison of these two word-bases we get the root tat.
II. In § 25 it was shown that direct influence as between Karo and Bis. is inconceivable. How comes it then that they have roots in common? Surely, it can only come from the fact that those roots belonged to Original IN. The Karo-Bis. lists in § 25 are, therefore, also lists of Original IN roots.
27. The severe critic of § 22 might raise against the final sentence of the last paragraph the same objection that he
