71 



1885.J * x LBrinton. 



and theme ; while in the pluperfect, the second sign of past time 

 hma is a suffix to the collective expression. 



The future third person is given by Neve as da, but by Perez 

 as di, which latter is apparently from the future particle ni given 

 by Neve. In the second future, the distinctive particle gua pre- 

 cedes the whole verbal, thus inclosing the subject with the theme 

 in the tense-sign, strictly according to the principles of the in- 

 corporative conjugation. 



This incorporative character is still more marked in the objec- 

 tive conjugations, or "transitions." The object, indeed, follows 

 the verb, but is not only incorporated with it, but in the com- 

 pound tense is included within the double tense signs. 



Thus, I find in Perez's Catechism, 



di un-ba magetzi, 



He will give-theni heaven. 



In this sentence, di is the personal pronoun combined with the 

 future sign ; and the verb is un-nl, to give to another, which is 

 compounded with the personal ba, them, drops its final syllable, 

 forming a true synthesis. 



In the phrase, 



ocpi un-ba hma magetzi, 

 he had given-thein (had) heaven, 

 both subject and object, the latter inclosed in a synthesis with 

 the radical of the theme, the former phonetically altered and co- 

 alesced with a tense particle, are included in the double tense- 

 sign, x-hma. This is as real an example of incorporation as can 

 be found in any American language. 



Ordinary synthesis of words, other than verbs, is by no means 

 rare in Othomi. Simple juxtaposition, which Naxera states to 

 be the rule, is not all universal. Such a statement by him leads 

 us to suspect that he had only that elementary knowledge of the 

 tongue which Neve refers to in a forcible passage in his Reglas. 

 He writes ; — " A good share of the difficulty of this tongue lies 

 in its custom of syncope; and because the tyros who make use 



