260 R. B. Shaw— A Grammar of the Language [No. 3, 
places (when present) after the Noun, is as follows : 1st, N.oun ; 2nd, Plu¬ 
ral Affix ; 3rd, Possessive Affix ; 4th, Post-position. 
Ex. : iii— lar - i - ning — of his houses. 
(Noun) (PL AfF.) Poss. (Post-pos.) 
qiz— lar - ingiz - ga = to your daughters. 
(Noun) (PI. AfF.) (Poss. AfF.) (Post-pos.). • 
Sometimes the Genitive post-position ning is omitted, and only the 
Possessive affix of the other noun retained, i. e., two nouns are placed 
in apposition, the latter of them in the g>°ssessed form of the 3rd person ; 
this is done when the compound is a common one in frequent use, as 
in English “ house-door”, door-key”, “ sun-light.” 
Ex. nas Jcutu-si = “ a snuff-box” (for nas-ning 7cukc-si)i 
Qol Jcap-i = “ a hand-cover” (i. e. glove). 
Yuz-hash-i = a centurion, lit. “ the head of a hundred.” 
Note .— Derivation of the declensional Affixes of the Genitive 
and Accusative. The affix of the Genitive may he represented (as has 
been seen above) by the formula n'ng, which becomes ning, nung , &c., accor¬ 
ding to the vowels of the word that it is affixed to. Now I imagine that 
this may be originally the same as the substantive neng, which in the 
ancient form of Turki called Uighur means “ thing” or “property.” [See 
Vambery’s “ Uigurische Sprachmonumente”, Vocabulary, p. 208.] In order 
to express the idea of the genitive, e. g., to say “ the Chief’s horse”, the 
Turkis would find the mere apposition of the word Beg “ Chief”, by the 
side of the word ati, “ the horse (his horse)”, insufficient to discriminate 
between possessor and possessed ; so they would label off the owner by the 
affixing of the word “ neng ”, meaning “ property”. 
Thus they would say “ Beg neng dti ”, which would mean “ Chief 
property the horse”. Here “ Chief -property” or “Chief’s property” would 
be the general description of the class of things to be denoted, amongst 
which one thing is afterwards more particularly designated by saying 
“ the horse”. Thus we first get the genus (genitive), and then the 
particular individual in that genus. [See Max Muller’s “ Lectures on 
Language,” Yol. I, p. 114, Fifth Edition “. casus generalis , the 
general case, or rather the case which expresses the genus or kind. This is 
the real power of the genitive.”] 
A more uncertain derivation is that of the Accusative affix ni. The 
same syllable also forms the Turki word for “ that” or “ what (that which)”. 
Thus at-ni mindi may perhaps be really “ horse that-which he rode” ; nan - 
ni yedur , “ bread that-which he is eating”, i. e., “ he rode a horse”, “ he is 
eating bread”. The affix ni thus would point out the object of the verb ; 
its subject being left undistinguished, as it is indicated by the affix of the 
verb itself. 
