THE WOMBAT. 75 



Frauds Tucktield, the missionary who laboured for teu years (1838 to 

 1848) auiong the aborigines of the Geeloug district, states that both dual 

 and triual forms could be expressed without using the numeral adjective. 

 Indeed, numerals above two we find expressed in Woddowro by addition. 

 So if a Geelong aborigine came up to a camp lire, around which sat three of 

 his fellows who had just picked the bones of three gray geese — a mere snack 

 for the natives — he could ask with brevity and precision, Wiuyer kolik 

 kudjo, what have you (trinal) been eating ; while they would have to fall 

 back on a childlike method in replying, Bullaid-barp-koimoil karol, two-and- 

 one gray geese. 



But that the dual and triual forms contain, in bul and kol, an appearance 

 of the Australian numeral for two and three is the view to which Professor 

 Tucker (Professor of Philology of the University of Melbourne), and Dr. 

 John Fraser (editor of Threlkeld's Australian Grammar) incline. The 

 element bul is found signifying two in Woddowro compouuds, showing a 

 synthetic kinship with the pronouns. Kol has not been similarly 

 identified. 



An Opinion by Dr. Fraser. 



(i) " There ought to be no difficulty in accepting Prof. 

 Tucker's suggestion that these dual and ternal (i.e., triple or 

 trinal) examples contain the Australian numerals bul-a, two, 

 and gul-i-ba, three, for several islands of the New Hebrides 

 occupied by Melanesians akin to our Australian blacks have 

 the numbers ' two ' and ' three ' incorporated in the dual and 

 ternal forms of their personal pronouns, and the Samoan of 

 Polynesia and the natives of the south coast of New Guinea 

 have also their word for ' two ' in their dual pronouns. 



(2) " If we admit bula and guliba, then your examples 

 should read — -Dual : bang-(b)ul, bang-bul-ok, bang-a-bul-ong ; 

 bang-go-de-(b)ul, bang-go-de-bul-ok, bang-go-de-bulok. (I 

 think this last example must be wrong, for ' yours ' and 

 ' theirs ' cannot be expressed by the same form). Ternal : 

 bang-etuk-gul-ik, &c. 



(3) " I do not think that bang-ik of your examples can be 

 the same word as bang, 'I,' of Lake Macquarie, for your 

 bang occurs in all the forms quoted, and it seems to me 

 impossible that a word meaning ' I ' should be part of a 

 pronoun ' thou ' or 'he ' or ' you ' (plural). In human speech, 

 ' he,' for instance, is a simple demonstrative meaning ' that ' 

 or 'this one,' i.e., someone distinct from the speaker, and so 

 the word for ' I ' could not be a part of it. 



(4) " But I think it probable that in the sentence from 

 which you quote, the bang is a verb or a verbal noun 



(perhaps meaning ' be,' or ' strike,' or ?), and that the 



terminations which follow the bang in your examples are the 

 pronouns and the numerals. I would therefore write your 

 singular thus : — 



Bang-ik. Bang-ong-ik. 



Bang-ngin. Bang-ngo-di-ngin. 



Bang-nduk. Bang-ngo-di-duk. 



