52 
PRESTON. 
IV.— Syntax. 
Relative Pronouns. —When we come to compare the Poly¬ 
nesian languages with the Indo-European from the point of 
view of syntax, many interesting peculiarities are developed. 
The fact that all their mental action follows special lines in¬ 
volves a radical modification of our methods of expression. 
Some of our constructions apparently necessary and certainly 
logical cannot be employed. 
No relative pronoun has ever been found in Hawaiian. 
This does not involve a lack of logical clearness. From their 
mode of thinking they find little use for relatives ; but the 
meaning is just as unequivocal as though the sentence were 
constructed after a Latin model. 
For example, 
0 ka'u poe Ice ilci lea poe nana ha laau , 
means literally, 
My children are those for them the timber; 
or, freely translated: 
My children are those who will own the timber. 
Absence of Verbs. —In this last sentence we see several pecu¬ 
liarities. In the first place, o is used simply for euphony. It 
cannot be translated into English. Then the word poe has 
no equivalent. In the next place, there is no verb. Some 
of the strongest and clearest affirmations are made in Ha¬ 
waiian without any kind of a verb; there is no verb in 
the language to express the idea of existence. The structure 
of the idiom does not require it. Neither is there any verb 
to express having or possessing, nor to express duty or obli¬ 
gation, nor to affirm any quality as belonging to any sub¬ 
stance ; but these ideas are necessary in the communication 
of thought. How, then, do the Hawaiians express them ? 
In various ways: 
1. By particles of affirmation, as : he alcamai kona , a skill 
his— i. e., he has skill. A construction similar to this is found 
in Hebrew and other Semitic languages. 
