18 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY Tbull. 43 



to the United States. If, on the other hand, we consider the dale 

 given for the collection of the texts published at Epinal to be errone 

 ous, we must argue in the face of one more inconsistency, and the 

 change of base does not help us much, since Spanish influence over 

 the whites of central Louisiana between 1704 and 1803 was little 

 enough and still less over the Indians. Before that period they were 

 always under French government, and it is not likely that a Pensa- 

 cola Spaniard, lay or clerical, would have been tolerated in the tribe 

 at that period. 



The writer has not attempted a minute analysis of the language 

 here presented, believing such an analysis not needed for a con- 

 demnation. Notwithstanding Adam's skillful reply, it must be 

 admitted that the force of Brinton's grammatical argument is but 

 slightly shaken. Take for instance the number nine, vat. This is a 

 simple syllable and differs not at all in form in the two dialects, 

 though smaller numbers such as three, five, and seven show such 

 variation. Constancy in the form of this particular number is pos- 

 sible but unlikely, but where in North America shall we look for a 

 word for nine composed of a simple syllable? In most of the lan- 

 guages with which the writer is familiar this numeral is indicated by 

 a form meaning " ten less one," and in any case he does not recall a 

 single instance of a simple syllable presenting no resemblance to 

 the other numerals being used for nine. Brinton's objections to the 

 " three forms for the plural " and the simplicity of the verbs ap- 

 pears to the writer not well taken, for, as Gatschet points out, the 

 former might be only variations of one form while simplicity in verb 

 stems is not so uncommon as Brinton seems to suppose. The existence 

 of a jDronominal form used like our relative is somewhat remarkable, 

 but far less Avonderful than the entire morphological difference 

 between it and the forms for the interrogative and indefinite. This 

 distinctiveness is, indeed, " hard to swallow." The existence of a dis- 

 tinctively grammatical gender, by which Brinton means a gram- 

 matical sex gender, is also singular, but the fact instead of being an 

 argument against the authenticity of the material has become 

 one of the strongest arguments in its favor through the discovery 

 by Doctor Gatschet of a sex gender in the Tunica language which 

 was spoken in the immediate neighborhood. INIore remarkable still, 

 and a coincidence strangely overlooked b}^ Gatschet in arguing 

 for the genuineness of Taensa, is the fact that the tAvo agree in 

 distinguishing gender in the second persons as well as in the third. 

 When we consider that there is no evidence that the Tunica language 

 was recorded in any form until Gatschet visited the tribe in 1885, 

 three years after the appearance of the Taensa Grammar, we must 

 admit that, if the latter is altogether a forgery, fate was very kind to 

 the joerpetrators. Looking deeper, however, Ave find a marked con- 



