1885.] • ' [Brinton 



the impliscity of a tongue whose simplest tenses he acknowl- 

 edges himself unable to analyze ? 



The futures of some verbs will reveal the difficulties of this 

 tense : — 



To burn, i-nyor-ka; future, i-nyor-wane-ka. 



To cook, i-lu' ; " i-lu'. 



To start, i-bete\- " i-bete. 



To want, i-ki-ana ; " i-kie. 



To count, ishtaung ; " nxia shta'we. 



In the last example mia, is the future of the verb, raw, to go, 

 and is used as an auxiliary. 



The explanation I have to suggest for these varying forms is, 

 either that they represent in fact that very "multiplicity of 

 tense-formations " which Humboldt alluded to, and which were 

 too subtle to be apprehended by Mr. Gabb within the time he 

 devoted to the study of the language ; or that they are in modern 

 Bri-Bri, which I have shown is noticeably corrupted, survivals 

 of these formations, but are now largely disregarded by the 

 natives themselves. 



Signs of the incorporative plan are not wanting in the tongue. 

 Thus in the objective conjugation not only is the object placed 

 between subject and verb, but the latter may undergo visible 

 synthetic changes. Thus : 

 Je be sueng. 

 I thee see. 



Ke je be wai su-na. 

 Not I thee (?) see-did. 



In the latter sentence na is the sign of the past aorist, and the 

 verb in synthesis with it drops its last syllable. The wai Gabb 

 could not explain. It will be noticed that the negative precedes 

 the whole verbal form, thus indicating that it is treated as a 

 collective idea (holophrastically). 



Prepositions always appear as suffixes to nouns, which, in com- 



