THE RELATIVE VALUE OF CEMENTS. 663 



a good meal." This, however, is mere conjecture, for the word 

 papa in the same song, if not French, is the Tshi adjective 

 "good," and not Ewe at all; while the words Heron mande defy 

 solution. Maignan, or magnan, an epithet of the vodu, may be a 

 corruption of amdga, " the old, the venerated," or even of Danli- 

 gbi itself. I have seen a corruption nearly as bad; that of the 

 Tshi nyan-kupon, to accompong, in Jamaica, for instance. These 

 are, however, evidently words belonging to other languages now 

 mixed up with the vodu cult in Louisiana. One such is ivongah, 

 used in Louisiana to mean a vodu charm, and which is most 

 probably the Ga term ivong, " a charm." The words in the song 

 De-zab, at page 827, appear to be Tshi, but I should never have 

 been able to identify them without the translation, " Out from 

 under the trees our boat moves into the open water." By its 

 means, however, " Day zab, day zab, day koo-noo wi wi. Koonoo 

 wi wi momzah," may be taken to be really Des arbres, des arbres, 

 de canoe wiwi. Canoe iviwi miombah " From the trees, from 

 the trees, the canoe, stealthily. (In the) canoe, stealthily, let us 

 come." The word rozah is unintelligible ; in the Tshi language 

 there are no words commencing with r, or with that letter with 

 which r is so frequently interchangeable, Z. It would be, how- 

 ever, mere waste of time to look further into this jargon, in which 

 French, Ewe, Effon, Tshi, and Ga words are certainly and Yomba, 

 Ibo, and Congoese words most probably indiscriminately mixed 

 together, and so distorted as to render positive recognition almost 

 hopeless. 







THE RELATIVE VALUE OF CEMENTS. 



By CHARLES D. JAMESON, 



PROFESSOR OF ENGINEERING, STATE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA, 



AND 



HUBERT REMLEY, 



CLASS OF 1890. 



IN The Popular Science Monthly of June, 1890, page 253, there 

 appeared an article entitled Natural and Artificial Cements, 

 by Prof. La Roy F. Griffin, in which theories were advanced 

 in regard to the setting of cement which are at variance with 

 the chemical reactions that are known to take place. There were 

 also given the results of some cement tests, with deductions 

 from the same, that not only are contrary to the results obtained 

 by other experimenters, but are also contrary to the results ob- 

 tained from the use of cements in works of construction. That 

 there are so many points in Prof. Griffin's article to which excep- 

 tion must be taken, and the exceedingly false impression his 

 article would leave upon the public as to the relative value of 



