342 APPENDIX. 



principle in respect to their structure separates tlie Austra- 

 lian from tlie languages of those two great classes. But 

 the details_, it may be said, differ undoubtedly ; and this is 

 what we expect. Plural numbers, signs of tense, and 

 other grammatical elements, are evolved by means of the 

 juxtaposition of similar but not identical elements, e. g. 

 one plural may be formed by the affix signifying many ; 

 another, by the affix signifying with or conjointly; one 

 preterite may be the root plus a word meaning then ; an- 

 other the root plus a word meaning there. Futures, too, 

 may be equally evolved by the incorporation or juxta- 

 position of the word meaning after, or the word meaning 

 to-morrow. All this makes the exact coincidence of the 

 details of inflection the exception rather than the rule. 



This doctrine goes farther than the mere breaking- down 

 of the lines of demarcation which separate classes of lan- 

 guages like the Australian from classes of languages like 

 the Malay o-Polynesian. It shews how both maybe evolved 

 from monosyllabic tongues like the Chinese or Siamese. 

 The proof that such is really the case lies in the similarity 

 of individual words, and consists in comparative tables. 

 It is too lengthy for the present paper, the chief object of 

 Avhicli is to bring down the inferences from the undoubt- 

 edly great superficial differences between the languages of 

 the parts in question to their proper level. 



In respect to the vocabularies, the extent to which the 

 analysis wliich applies to the grammar applies to the vo- 

 cables also may be seen in the following instance. The 

 word hand in Bijenelumbo and Limbapyu is hirgalh. 

 There is also in each language a second form — anhirgalk 

 — wherein the an is non-radical. Neither is the alh; since 

 we find that armpit = ingamh-alh, shoulder = mundy-alk, 

 and fingers = mong-alh. This brings the root = hand to 



