1886. | Recent Literature. 447 
oh my children, when the correct sense is: you our children. On. 
pp. 176, 177 he omits in the translation the whole sentence: fo 
«bokotah chiqa el Qeche vinak ($ 145), because he could not. find 
in his dictionaries the original form of the verb xbokotah. Like- 
wise are omitted from the translation opposite the words rahpop ` 
achi Ig'ich, and the counselor lg‘tch. No gap or empty space was 
left in the translation to remind the reader of an omission, as 
fairness would have prompted every common-sense editor to do; 
neither do Brinton’s “ Notes” give notice of any omission havin 
been made consciously. Students confiding zz the translation 
alone might thus get cheated out of very important facts stated 
in the Indian original. It would be interesting to find out 
whether Brinton made any such “ omissions ” from the original 
also; in that case passages would be left out in the text as well as 
in the translation. 
. “n comparing the small compass of the vocabulary contained 
in pp. 209-227 with the bulky text, which holds not less than 
Sixty pages, our curiosity becomes aroused to some degree. For 
how could the large number of terms composing the texts 
become enclosed within so small limits, although there is a sepa- 
rate index for proper names? Further examination easily reveals 
the fact, that vuo-o, voo, five,a numeral often occurring in the 
text, is mot in the vocabulary; ahauh, rwer, is there, but the verb Ae: 
ło rule, of which xahauar (p. 87) is a conjugational form, is not i 
there; we fail to find there: petebal, navipe, onohel, g‘anel (the 
name of ‘a month) of the text; for fa the definition from is omit- 
ted, though referred to in the “ Notes.” Tok is probably the same 
as tak, though we get no information on this point; g‘ana (p. 68), 
though translated by glorious, is not recorded. The different 
botchy translation onl 
ey panay 
Phonetics, but 'i 
has for sale.” 
Contained in th 
4 
