As indicated on the section, the surface of the precretaceous rocks is remarkably even, and probably had a similar contour to the present surface.

The difficulty that has been felt in any attempt to assign a definite horizon to the nummulitic and the cretaceous deposits is attributable not only to the general similarity of composition and of arrangement, but to the fact that between the two known fossiliferous rocks in each there is a band of 200 feet in thickness, in which no fossils have been found, save some vague stem-like impressions which might belong to either formation.

The bottom rock of the cretaceous series is a coarse conglomerate, superimposed on several sandstones.

Dr. Stoliczka reports having found in the highest band of the series, Pelecypoda, Cellepora, and Astrocænia; middle series, Nautili, Ammonites, Anicoceras indicum, Forbes; Anis subcompressum, Forbes; Alaria, Rostellaria, Tritonidea Requieniana, d'Orb., Exogyra Matheroniana, d'Orb., Inoceramus, Rhynconella, Pecten, and many well-known types.

The Silhet Trap is extensively shown all along the southern scarp of the Khasi Hills. Nothing can be said of its age, except that it is certainly pre-cretaceous. It is stratified, and of various composition in different localities. A formation of such great thickness must have had a wide horizontal range; it would seem that we have its northern limit indicated on the section. How far it may stretch away to the south beneath the present delta of the Bay of Bengal, being buried beneath the remains of the newer deposits, we cannot even surmise. It is equally concealed in the east and in the west, in the one direction by the continuous overlapping of cretaceous rocks, and in the other, as far as is known, by similar deposits. The trap appears to have had a northern flow of 10° to 15°, and its estimated depth here is 300 feet.

Its area may be said to be coextensive with the vast area of disturbance in which it is found, and all the indications observed are in favour of the bypothesis that this area was also one of subsidence.

The Shillong series consists of quartzites, slates, and schists. The series has been very little explored. The quartzites are the best known, being conspicuously weathered out in many of the ridges. There still remains to be noticed

The Granite: It contains pale pink orthoclase in large crystals, also oligoclase, and an abundance of hyaline quartz, and mica. In no instance has it been found to penetrate into the sedimentary rocks, or to produce dykes. It disintegrates very rapidly, and for a depth of many feet from the surface is soft and incoherent. Iron, in crystalline forms, is abundant, but is not found in veins. Mr. Medlicott is of opinion that the granite is younger than the trap. The line of greatest elevation caused by the granite, or rather by the forces of which it is the index, had a direction east and west.

This review of the geology of the region leads to the inference that the general basis of the series of formations is granitic, and that each subsequent deposit has been extensively denuded. There would appear to have been a gradual and continuous depression of the surface during the deposition of the entire series, which have subsequently been elevated to their present position. The main line of disturbance is thought by Dr. Oldham to be synchronous with that observed in other parts of Bengal and Central India.

The enormous rainfall of the southern portion of the plateau is accounted for by the sudden resistance offered by

the wall-like escarpment to the rain clouds which pass over the plains of Sylhet, laden with moisture derived from the Bay of Bengal, and which, consequently, at once precipitate their accumulated vapour in deluges of rain. As we travel northwards, the rainfall rapidly decreases in amount.

In the paper by Dr. Oldham, the coal-bearing strata are referred to at considerable length, and he anticipates the time when they will be profitably worked, and when modern civilisation shall penetrate this interesting region.

Such is a brief sketch of the Khasi people and the territory they inhabit; and both present so many interesting points for study, that it is to be hoped, as attention is more and more directed to them, it will not be long before we receive from other observers additional contributions to our knowledge concerning them.

ON REPETITION AND REDUPLICATION IN

LANGUAGE.

By J. NEWBY HETHERINGTON.

IF, as Plato says in his Theatetus, wonder is the source of all philosophy, then we need not be surprised that the great problem of human speech has engaged the attention of so many of the wisest of men. From the first dawn of intelligence men have wondered at this marvellous gift, and even amongst the most barbarous tribes legends have been found which attempted to explain its origin. But for long ages men were content with wonder, and the philosophy which it gave rise to was of so vague and uncertain a character that it was but of little practical use. Here, as elsewhere in scientific enquiry, the old deductive system was all-powerful, and men first formed theories and then tried to make the facts agree with those theories; much in the same way, I imagine, as the Frenchman in the story, who, on being told that the facts of a case did not agree with a certain ingenious theory of his, answered, "So much the worse for the facts." But a brighter era has now dawned, students of the science of language, as of every other science, have found that they must master the facts before they build up theories; they must investigate details before they proceed to deductions; they can afford to neglect no detail, however trifling it may seem at first sight; and it is only after years of patient toil, in the valleys and on the plains, that they dare to ascend to the hill-tops, and overlook the whole boundary of their science. Such a survey is granted only to a chosen few, and even to them much remains doubtful. As they speak to us of the origin, growth, and development of

language, the mystery seems almost as mysterious as ever; many perplexing problems remain still unsolved, and the wisest and most learned have to confess that "one question leads to another, until all things end in a mystery."

But whilst these loftier problems are so abstruse, and can be attempted by so few, there are many minor points which are open to any careful student, and which cannot fail to interest all who have ever felt that enquiring wonder which is the parent of all philosophy. It is to one of these minor problems that I wish to call your attention in this Paper, and in doing so I cannot lay claim to any great amount of originality; the facts and instances I shall bring forward have been noticed by others, but have not, I think, been grouped together in the same way. Either a portion only of the subject has been treated of, or the whole matter has been too lightly passed over.

I have long thought that repetition, reduplication, tautology, or cumulation - call it by what name we will — is a most important element in language, and that its importance has not been sufficiently recognised. It has been alluded to by most philologists, and in some instances short treatises have been devoted to the subject, as, for example, The Glossary of Reduplicated Words in the English Language, by Mr. Wheatley, published in the Transactions of the Philological Society, and a remarkably interesting paper by the Rev. J. Earle, published in Macmillan's Magazine for November, 1874. Still, most writers have only taken one class of reduplications or repetitions, and have scarcely as much as suggested a plausible reason for them. I propose to give some examples of repetition, not merely as we recognise it in the form of tautology in writing and speaking, but also as a formative element in language, forming words themselves, and more especially adding to their inflections