Gats bet.] 4o4 [ Feb 20, 



sobae to eat meat; lit. to meal-eat (soba-he). 



ibine-ichicosa to pul or throw into cold water; lit. to cold-water (some- 

 thing). It is not probable that cosa forms here a word for itself, hut ihine 

 ichi, a noun with its attribute, becomes verbified by the suffixation of -cosa. 

 cf. afatacosi to gather chestnuts. If the relation existing between the suf- 

 fixes -co and -ma was clearly established, we could decide whether -co is 

 here the sign of the objective case or perhaps the radix of the verb coso 

 to make, produce. 



cuyuhanta one who eats no fish, lit. missing, deprived offish. 



atimoqua lord, master ; lit. servants attend (on him). 



As well as the direct and indirect object of the verb, other portions of 

 the sentence can become incorporated into one single term in this idiom. 

 If the constituent parts of the sentence, the subject, object, predicate, at- 

 tribute, etc., were morphologically as well defined here as they are in the 

 Indoeuropean and Semitic languages, this would be an impossibility. 

 The grammatic affixes of Timucua do not bear the imprint of sharp logi- 

 cal distinction and segregation, but embody too many relations at once, 

 material and purely relational ones, as we clearly perceive in the example 

 of -ma and -mate. 



Diosi hebuano nemoquamima emoqua, lit. God-law-against-his-against 

 (did you proffer curses?). In this sentence -mima, which is the possessive 

 pronoun his, could stand just as well after the possessor (Diosimima 

 hebuano), but the simple fact that it can stand elsewhere also, shows us the 

 true character of the language. 



Soba sobaebi (for: soba-hebi) cho? did you eat meat? lit. "meat did 

 you meat-eat?" Here the first soba is the object of the verb sobaebi cho, 

 the second soba is the incorporated object of hebi cho only. This sentence 

 seems to tis to contain an unnecessary repetition, but the Timucua certainly 

 did not consider it in this light. 



Chuqualehaue chuquosa cho? how often did you do this? chuqua, how 

 often, is here verbified in both instances, chuquosa standing for chuqua- 

 cosa. This seems to be more than a mere ellipse of a syllable. 



Cuyuma ubuata qibenco melasonolehabetele mosobi cho? did you order 

 tlitft the first fish (pi.) caught be not thrown into hot water? In the direct 

 object, cuyuma ubuata qibenco, the last term only contains the sign of the 

 objective case, -co, hence the two terms standing before qibenco must, in 

 the mind of the Timucua, have formed one word only with qibenco through 

 incorporation. 



Ano pequataye inosobotequa : your subordinates who are put to work. 

 Here the sign of the plural number, -qua, is appended to the last term 

 only, though plurality extends to pequataye as well as to ano. 



Paha pononomate, lit. "after-home-returning." After paha a post- 

 position of a locative character is expected : its lack seems to prove that the 

 Timucua regarded both terms as one compound word formed by incorpora- 

 tion of the indirect object into the ver'oal form. 



