Since I published my first Note on the Sinhalese Language, I have heard that two eminent Orientalists dispute the truth of my conclusions, and still hold to the old view, originating with Rask, that Sinhalese belongs to the Dravidian group of languages. It is true that in my paper I dealt in any detail only with one grammatical form: but if, as I venture to think, I have proved beyond doubt that the Sinhalese neuter plural is formed by compounding the noun with a vocable val, which is the Sanskrit vana used in the sense of multitude, I have gone far to demonstrate the Sanskritic origin of Sinhalese. But in addition to this I have adduced a great number of Sinhalese nouns, all of which I have traced direct to their Sanskrit equivalents. And it gives me great pleasure to find that so eminent a scholar as Dr. Max Müller has recently expressed himself clearly and unmistakably in favour of my Aryan theory. I am, however, perfectly willing to make allowance for scholars who decline to accept my theory without evidence of a more extended character than I have yet given in its favour, and I propose to continue the publication of these Notes until I have overcome the scepticism of my opponents, and established on the widest grammatical basis the Sanskritic origin of the Sinhalese language. Instead of dealing in detail with a single grammatical form, I propose in the present Note to touch briefly upon several different points, and I may as well say at once that it is not part of my plan in these Notes to show that Sinhalese is not Dravidian. This has been already done by Mr. James D'Alwis, who, in his paper “On the Origin of the Sinhalese Language” (Journal Ceylon Br. E.A.S. 1867–70), has shown that, whether we compare the vocabulary or the grammar, we find absolutely no resemblance between Sinhalese and the Dravidian languages. To me this course appears superfluous, and my own plan will be to let alone the Dravidian languages, and show that Sinhalese is Sanskritic. Of course, however, the proof of the Sanskritic theory carries with it necessarily the disproof of the Dravidian theory.