BOAS] HANDBOOK OF AMERICAN INDIAN LANGUAGES 39 



and noun, form-classifications occur. Thus we do not say, a tree is 

 somewhere, but a tree stands; not, the river is in New York, but the 

 river jiows through New Yorlc. 



TENSE 



Tense classes of nouns are not rare in American languages. As we 

 may speak of a future hushand or of our late friend, thus many Indian 

 languages express in every noun its existence in presence, past, or 

 future, which they require as much for clearness of expression as we 

 require the distinction of singular and plural. 



Personal Pronouns 



The same lack of conformity in the principles of classification may 

 be found in the pronouns. We are accustomed to speak of three 

 persons of the pronoun, which occur both in the singular and in the 

 plural. Although we make a distinction of gender for the third per- 

 son of the pronoun, we do not carry out this principle of classification 

 consistently in the other persons. The first and second persons and 

 the third person plural have the same form for masculine, feminine, 

 and neuter. A more rigid application of the sex system is made, for 

 instance, in the language of the Hottentots of South Africa, in which 

 sex is distinguished, not only in the third person, but also in the first 

 and second persons. 



Logically, our three persons of the pronoun are based on the two 

 concepts of self and not-self, the second of which is subdivided, 

 according to the needs of speech, into the two concepts of person 

 addressed and person spoken of. When, therefore, we speak of a 

 first person plural, we mean logically either self and person addressed, 

 or self and person or persons spoken of, or, finally, self, person or per- 

 sons addressed, and person or persons spoken of. A true first person 

 plural is impossible, because there can never be more than one self. 

 This logical laxity is avoided by many languages, in wliich a sharp 

 distinction is made between the two combinations self and person or 

 persons spoken to, or self and person or persons spoken of. I do 

 not know of any language expressing in a separate form the com- 

 bination of the tln"ee persons, probably because this idea readily 

 coalesces with the idea of self and persons spoken to. These two 

 forms are generally designated by the rather inaccurate term of 



