22 SISSANO. 
arm, thy foot. Each of these relations is expressed by compaction 
with the word of a post-positive modifier, which may be more or less 
denuded in form after the rule which obtains in the languages of 
agglutination. Postponing for the present the argument of this 
theme, more particularly its value in the determination of wider rela- 
tions, we note that in the Sissano we have no difficulty in recognizing 
the modifiers of this function as —k and -n, indicative of possession in 
the first and third persons respectively. By interpolation from other 
languages of this type we may assume that —-m is indicative of posses- 
sion in the second person; this material affords but 3 vocables with 
final m (awem hand, vum plantation, yaim spear), and on this scanty 
showing we hesitate to establish this possessive modifier, except that 
it may be present in awem as thy hand. 
Of the 15 vocables with final k there appear but 2 in which that 
letter is integral to the stem, kaluk wok. ‘Those in which it is prob- 
ably the possessive mark are beluk, eliak, ewerk, japeok, labok, nibuk, 
nirepok, omuterok, suk, tawelukug, weliak, wepernuk, wepok. I have 
included in this list one instance of a final g, namely tawelukug, as 
very likely associable. It will be seen that excision of the k terminal 
leaves an open stem, except in the case of ewerk. 
Of 35 vocables with final n we find the ratio inverted, for there are 
but 12 in which it is at all possible to regard that letter as a possessive 
mark. ‘These are dewun, kagrepin, labon, lewen, mason, olen, opon, 
rebin, siin, tin, turien, vopun. These also yield absolute stems ending 
in a vowel. 
This examination of possessive marks is essential to the comprehen- 
sion of the case in the matter of two interesting entries in Dr. Neu- 
hauss’s vocabulary: 
labok | belly labon friend. 
In the former of this pair we now find no difficulty in seeing the 
possessive rather than the absolute; the philological index finger has 
come to point somewhere below the bust measure of the bare addressee; 
he replies “‘my belly,’ which itis. We can reconstruct the scene out of 
which comes the sense of labon. Again the forefinger is brought into 
play; the collector of the speech points to a bystander and inquires 
in the Beach-la-Mar, which has not yet largely penetrated so far into 
the wilds, ‘‘that fellow friend belonga you?” ‘To the same communi- 
cative addressee the words are naught, the finger everything. Accord- 
ing to his geometry a straight line may be produced indefinitely in 
any direction; he produces the index line and discovers it to impinge 
upon his friend and fellow citizen at or near the umbilicus. He replies 
labon his belly; the recorder enters it in his note book as “‘friend,”’ and 
once more we are reminded of the Tower of Babel. Verily the pitfalls 
in the newly acquired vocabulary are many. In this instance we 
