1877.] 
of Eastern Turtcistdn. 
315 
Or else by “ to whom or to which (so and so does or did)—,” e. g. 
lash urghan nima = the thing to which (so and so) hows the head ; &c., &c. 
As in the first case the object may be expressed with its proper sign 
before the verbal adjective (e. g. at-hi satlmn tcishi “ the person who sells 
the horse”) thus forming a subordinate clause in the sentence ; so also, in 
the latter cases, the subject may be and is generally, prefixed to the verbal 
adjective for clearness’ sake, except when otherwise indicated sufficiently 
plainly. Thus : biz -gelglian ish “ the deed which we do” (or “ the deed 
done by us”) ; san tcorgan tcishi “ the person whom thou sawest” [san-ni 
tcorgan tcishi would he “ the person who saw thee.”] 
But in tush-um-da tcorgan sher ” the possessive affix um sufficiently in¬ 
dicates that it was I that saw the lion, so that it is unnecessary to add the 
subject and say “ ma ...tcorgan.. .” On the other hand if the lion were the 
seer we should say : man-m tcorgan sher “ the lion which saw me.” 
(5). If the subordinate clause merely predicates the existence of its 
subject in a certain relation, so that it has no verb except “ to be,” the 
Turki language omits the verbal adjective or participle of this verb, and 
supplies its place with the particle ‘ gd or i ted to connect the clause with 
its subject, which comes last in order.* 
Ex. : “ Turkistan-tarae-i-da-gi tchalg .” Lit. “ Turkistan direction- 
in-(being) people.” 
viz. “ The people that are in the direction of Turkistan.” 
(c). To express a simile, the word or the whole subordinate sentence 
is connected with its subject by the particle ‘ dik? — like. 
Ex. : “ Dozakh-nistg-daewaza-si-ni ACHQAH- diq aghz .” 
Lit. Hell of door its (acc.) Laving opened like mouth.. 
viz., “ a mouth as if opening the door of Hell.” 
Likelihood is similarly expressed : 
* This syllable gi or hi takes the place (in sentences where the subordinate verb 
is “to be”) of the indefinite Participle or verbal adjective of that verb. For if the 
translation of: “ the lion which appeared in my dream” is tush-um-da, kordngan sher, then 
the translation of “ the lion which is in the jungle” would naturally be “ jangal-da ikan 
sher.” But instead of that they say : u jangal-da-gi sher.” Thus gi takes the place 
of ikan, and the idea is suggested that it may be a contraction of the same. For the 
Yarkandis often say iJcin for ikan, and I have found one example of this being further 
contracted to ’hi. [Ex. bu qa'i-si pa'ighambar-ning ruh-i 'ki “what prophet’s soul may 
this be r” where the full expression would be “ qa'i-si paighambar-ning ruh-i ikan .”] 
The quasi-Pronoun ki (see Pronouns) points to the same derivation. Thus maning-lci 
is the idiomatic expression for “ that which is mine but it may be taken as a con¬ 
traction of maning ikin, which would mean the same. See also “ Derivation of Adjec¬ 
tives ( b )” kin-gi , yetkan-gi, &c., p. 279. 
Take the following : Turkistdn-da-gi khalq Musalman boldi; At maning-ki, eshak 
saning-ki; Kin-gi ddam yetmadi ; in each of these cases the word ikin or ikan might be 
