BOAS] HANDBOOK OF INDIAN LANGUAGES — TAKELMA 169 



da-k!os'd^¥wa they bit him 74.5 (aorist stem -klos'og-) 

 he^^-lleme' ^^Ic' wa he destroyed them (50.2) ; cf. Jie^^-ileme'JcH^n I 



destroyed them (110.2) 

 mul'il^^Tc'wa he swallowed him 72.16; cf. mMu'Jda^n I swallowed 



him (73.1) 



Verbs that have a suffixed comitative -{a)gwa- show, in combina- 

 tion with the objective -¥wa-, a probably dissimilated suffix -gi¥wa 

 i-gigwa), the connecting a preceding this compound suffix being of 

 course umlauted to i: 



xebeyigi'Ywa he hurt him (cf. xebeyagwa'^n I hurt him [136.23]) 

 uyu'^^sgigwa he laughed at him 27.5 (cf. uyu'^sgwa^n I laugh at 

 him [71.7]) 



It is rather interesting to observe how the objective -¥wa- may serve 

 to remove some of the ambiguities that are apt to arise in Takelma 

 in the use of the third person, he gave it to him is expressed in the 

 inferential by the forms o'¥i¥ and o'¥igwa¥, the latter of which 

 necessarDy refers to a human indirect object. If a noun or inde- 

 pendent pronoun be put before these apparently synonymous forms, 

 sentences are framed of quite divergent signification. In the first 

 sentence (noun + o'^'i^"') the prefixed noun would naturally be taken 

 as the object (direct or indirect) of the verb (e. g., ne'¥di o'¥ik^ 

 HE WHO-GAVE IT? [ =To WHOM DID HE GIVE IT?]); in the sccond 

 (noun +o'¥igwa¥), as subject, a doubly expressed object being inad- 

 missible (e. g., ne'¥di o'¥igwa¥ who gave it to him?), to whom 

 DID HE BRING IT? with incorporated object ne'¥di reads ne'¥di 

 me^-wd¥ literally, he-who-hither-brought-it? who brought it 

 TO HIM? with subject ne'¥di reads (as inferential form) ne'¥di 

 waga'Wo'¥wa¥ {-0- unexplained), he found the ants is expressed 

 by t.'ihis'l^ t!aya'¥, but the ants found him by tUMs'P t!ayd¥wa. 

 The usage illustrated may be stated thus: whenever the third personal 

 object refers to a human being and the subject is expressed as a 

 noun, suffixed -¥wa must be used to indicate the object; if it is not 

 used, the expressed noun will most naturally be construed as the 

 object of the verb. An effective means is thus present in Takelma 

 for the distinction of a personal subject and object. 



§ 62 



