42 THE POLYNESIAN WANDERINGS. 



Comparing this with the similar diagram Efate-Parent-Viti (page 

 37) we note the following differences: 



1 . That Samoan ' has to do duty for parent g and k. 



2. That Efate" and Samoan t alike are called upon to do duty 



for parent d and t. 



3. That Samoan p does duty for parent b and p. 



4. That Efate" b does duty for parent b and p. 



5. That Efate bw does duty for parent v. 



In yet broader comparison we observe that all but one of these 

 differences is found among the mutes in their three series; that 

 Efate" possesses both sonant and surd of the palatal mutes; that 

 it accords with Samoan in the loss of the sonant lingual mute, and 

 that in the labial mutes it has lost, or has not yet acquired, the 

 surd, while Samoan has lost the sonant. 



When we add to this latter item the consideration that Ef ate" has 

 difficulty in compassing the sonant spirant of this same series and 

 has to render it by the muted semivowel bw, we are led to the 

 conclusion that while the Efate" folk have a richer endowment of 

 palatals their lips are not sufficiently under nice control to do justice 

 to the wealth of the Proto-Samoan labials, a determination which 

 naturally arises from inspection of what we may deem a mouthing 

 process in pronunciation. We are, therefore, not at all surprised 

 that in the instances where Efate is comparable with Viti and 

 Samoan, and they are not in concord, this ruder speech of the west- 

 ern seas agrees with the rougher Viti in 40 per cent of such cases. 



We shall next pass to the consideration of the width of these 

 Efate identifications with Polynesian, and we shall reckon the tale 

 of those that are found only in Nuclear Polynesia, the proximate 

 islands ; and those which have reached to the most distant verge of 

 Sawaiori migration. We shall be narrowly particular in specializ- 

 ing geographically the identifications in Nuclear Polynesia, except 

 for a certain important subdivision more general in regard of the 

 classification of identifications in the eastward Polynesia of the 

 later swarming. In each case we treat Nukuoro* as practically 

 Samoa, and the few instances drawn from Polynesian inclusions in 

 Melanesia or islands of the Polynesian verge t we class with Nuclear 

 Polynesia. Furthermore we segregate the data as involving or 

 omitting the Viti, a major subdivision in scope, yet one which more 

 complete scrutiny of distal Polynesia may quite as probably show 

 to be devoid of existence; it is accordingly maintained as no more 

 than provisional. 



♦17 Journal of the Polynesian Society, 152. ^27 Amer. Journal of Philology, 370. 



