Brinton.] ' " [Oct. 2, 



Let us now examine the Bri-Bri verb, said to be so singularly 

 simple. We are at once struck by Mr. Gabb's remark (just after 

 he has been speaking of their unparalleled simplicity) that the 

 inflections he gives " have been verified with as much care as the 

 difficulties of the case would admit." Evidently, then, there 

 were difficulties. What they are become apparent when we 

 attempt to analyze the forms of the eighteen brief paradigms 

 which he gives. 



The personal pronouns are 



je, I. sa, we. 



be, thou. ha, you. 



ye, he, etc. ye-pa, they. 



These are both nominative and objective, personal and, with 

 the suffix cha, possessives. 



The tenses are usually, not always, indicated by suffixes to the 

 theme ; but these vary, and no rule is given for them, nor is it 

 stated whether the same theme can be used with them all. Thus, 



To burn, v-norka. Present, i-nyor-ket-ke. 



To cook, i-lu'. " l-luk. 



To start, i-be-te. " i-bc-te. 



Here are three forms for the present, not explained. Are they 

 three conjugations, or do they express three shades of meaning, 

 like the three English presents ? I suspect the latter, for under 

 ikiana, to want, Gabb remarks that the form 'm-etke, means " he 

 wants you," i. e., is emphatic. 



The past aorist has two terminations, one in -na, and one in -e, 

 about the uses and meaning of which we are left equally in the 

 dark. 



The future is utterly inexplicable. Even Prof. Miiller, just 

 after his note calling attention to the " great simplicity " of the 

 tongue, is obliged to give up this tense with the observation, 

 " the structural laws regulating the formation of the future are 

 still in obscurity 1" Was it not somewhat premature to dwell on 



