30 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY ’ [BULL 68 
covering, a coat. We also find kéxpa, to surround, to enclose, and 
kaxpa, to collect, to gather, as if the element pa were essential to the 
thought in each. Lahi and laxpa both mean to burn, and the latter 
seems to consist of lahi plus a syllable pa, but the difference in use 
between the two is not apparent. Again, taka means to run after, to 
pursue; tapd, to catch, to grasp; and téxpa,totouch. Kantik utetkant 
means I am sucking something; tctixpakani, I am sucking out. This 
last refers to a doctor sucking blood from a wound, and the word 
may signify in reality ““I am causing blood to be drawn out.’’ Per- 
haps the syllables pi and pw in the following examples may belong in 
this class: tcoha ptnikaxtca, I shall be chief; tedha pi, be chief!; winima 
icoha prwiti, be chiefs!; lixpi, to enclose, to shut in; lixpu, a button, 
a blister (cf. léxki, to pour); kdxpu, to nip, to cut (with scissors), 
also the stem of the word meaning tongs (cf. kdzxtc, to bite); sopu, 
to wither or dry up (cf. sthi, dry) ; cizpu, to prick, to point (cf. cikur, 
knife; civkal, rock, flint). 
Paralleling the use of —pi in many ways Chitimacha has an auxiliary 
suffix -ti, signifying ‘‘to do,” and with this may be compared the 
Tunica causative auxiliary —ta or -ti. In Atakapa it may be repre- 
sented by the perfect suffix -t, which is used in such a way as to sug- 
gest at times the possibility that it was originally an auxilary. The 
Tunica perfect is —ki, which appears to be identical in significance 
and function with the Chitimacha perfect -—k2. The Tunica continu- 
ative is —ka, which finds its exact counterpart in Chitimacha —ka and 
agrees in position in the verb and in meaning with Atakapa —hv. 
The more common Chitimacha continuative, however, is —ci, which 
is placed much nearer the end of the verb complex and may probably 
be referred for its origin to the infinitive suffix —c. On the other hand, 
as we have seen, the Atakapa perfect must also be referred to a differ- 
ent origin. These facts point back, I believe, to a differentiation of 
one stem in Tunica and Chitimacha into a continuative —ka and per- 
fect —ki, the first of which, in form —/i, has been retained in Atakapa, 
while the perfect has been supplied from another source. The Chiti- 
macha volitional suffix —mi is closely paralleled in Atakapa by the 
volitional suffix —ni or —ne, and while m—n shifts are not common 
we seem to have here an assured case. It is to-day wanting in 
Tunica, but there is reason to think that in the noun-forming suffix 
—ni or —ne we have the vestige of this suffix combined with the noun- 
forming suffix —n employed in the other two languages. Thus, many 
nouns eee from verbs end in Chitimacha in mon, moa, or m@, in 
Atakapa in —nen or —ndn, and in Tunica in ~ne or —ni. In the first of 
these they are not often names of Basie aka but in the others 
such names are common. 
In Tunica the future suffix is -te, —xtc, or —xtca; in Chitimacha it is 
-tcu; and in Atakapa -fi or -ta. The first two may very well be 
