VOCABULARIES OF THE GEELONG AND COLAC TRIBES. 843 
the three numbers he was able to speak with brevity as well as pre- 
cision. The syllabitication of the first sentence is according to Tuck- 
field’s entry ; ik is a contraction of bangik, and the presence of d in 
the last syllable may be accepted as an example of the fusion of 
words by the natives, comme le Francais faire la liaison. 
The use of ka-ard in the first and kod in the third sentence no 
doubt indicates the inflection of verbs for number. That the 
above forms of number once existed in widely separated districts 
of Australia seems indeed highly probable. <A strong affinity is 
found in the singular dual and particular duals of eastern dialects, 
and in this connection one may mention the use of pronouns in 
common by such tribes: thus winyer, what, of the Geelong district, 
is winyar at Lake Hindmarsh (Vic.), minya at the Brisbane River 
(Queensland), and minya on the Liverpool Plains (N.S.W.) ; 
bangik, I, becomes bangeek, bangak, bangak, bangak in four 
dialects* of north-west Victoria, and bang in the Lake Macquarie 
district (N.S.W.); but it may be safe to affirm that, like the 
Geelong and Colac natives, one south-eastern tribe retained the 
third number. What certainly seems to be an example—naiowing, 
we three—is found in the language of the Twofold Bay faboriginies. 
Was triple number once commonly spoken by the Australians ? 
Ts it a relic of their ancient progenitors, or must we seek its origin 
on this continent? These questions may now be left to conjecture, 
and in the absence of aboriginal literature or writing, perhaps it 
may not be too bold to say that it is doubtful if conclusive answers 
to them will be found even in the comparative study of the 
Australian family of languages—a field of research still awaiting 
the scientific investigator. 
My thanks are due to the Professor of Philology of the 
Melbourne University for kindly considering the foregoing, and 
who writes as follows :— 
“T have carefully considered your paper; but as I am _ not 
personally acquainted with the Australian tongues, I do not feel 
any right to express an opinion upon the special functions 
illustrated therein. 
“The pify is that more example is not supplied, and that some 
authority beyond Tuckfield’s is not forthcoming. Even if we 
assume that the triple number is really expressed, there remain 
the questions—(1) Whether the elements expressing that notion 
are really affixed or merely juxtaposed? (2) Whether the said 
elements have any independent existence as words in any sense 
whatever ? 
* Eyre’s Journals of Diseovery, vol. ii, p. 401. 
+ Rev. W. Ridley’s Languages of the Aborigines of Australia, p.115: (Sydney, 1875.)— 
5 Naiadha. - land thou, Naiawung. 
Thou, Indiga, We three, Naiowing. 
