TME WOMBAT. 7 
_the bang in your examples are the pronouns and the numerals. I 
would therefore write your singular thus :— 
Bang-ik. Bang-ong-ik. 
Bang-ngin. Bang-ngo-di-ngin. 
Bang-nduk. Bang-ngo-di-duk. 
If this supposition were true, then the suffixed pronouns 7k, 
ngin and duk would be an interesting parallel to the Melanesian 
(New Hebrides) pronoun-forms used as suffixes to the verb, and 
also to the usage of the classic language, as Latin ama-bam, 
ama-bas, ama-bat, &c. In fact, in Aneityumese and other New 
Hebrides dialects Z is the suffix-pronoun ‘1.’ And ngin (which IL 
have written) is the Lake Macquarie prononn ‘thou’ ; elsewhere 
itis in, ‘The duk of the third person may be a local demonstrative 
used by the Geelong tribe. ‘here is always great variety in these 
demonstratives. 
(5) “ Against taking ik for‘ I’ lies the fact that this same 
th or dik occurs in your examples of the triple Ist, 2nd and 8rd 
persons, all through. Unless these examples are wrong, it cannot 
there mean ‘I.’ But when I examined ‘laplin’s Narrinyeri 
examples I found similar inconsistencies, which I took to be errors 
made by the compiler. 
(6) “ Although your dual and ternal examples seem’ to 
contain the numbers 2 and 3, yet the difficulties in explaining your 
whole paradigm of these pronouns on that footing are so great 
that I would not lightly venture an opinion, until I have an 
opportunity of examining the sentences from which these examples 
are taken. 
(7) “LT have omitted to say that in the possessive forms, in 
paragraph 2 of this opinion, I write ngo-di because ka, that is, ngo, 
is a well-known Australian genitive form (as in Lake Macquarie 
dialect), and ong (1st person) may be forngo. ‘The Geelong ngo-di 
wonld then correspond with the Awabakal genitive in ko-ba. 
In the Dravidian languages of India ko, ku, kei are the 
common dative forms, but they are also used for the 
genitive.” 
It is to be understood that the foregoing is merely a preliminary 
opinion formed on a hasty perusal of my MS. (A Discovery in the 
Australian Language), at a time when Dr, Fraser was fully occupied with 
preparations for the work of his section (Anthropology) of the Science 
Congress at Sydney (1898).” 
While giving this opinion, I also advised Mr. Cary to write 
out the facts of his discovery and to send them to me as a paper 
