SUBANU PHONETICS AND COMPOSITION MEMBERS. 65 
disposition toward this character hold that we shall soon have occasion 
to note the somewhat frequent assumption of a final consonant by stems 
which the Subanu have taken on loan from languages of the open type. 
Premising that the data upon which we are working lack much in 
the matter of extent, and that final accuracy of form is too much to 
expect in the conditions in which this Philippine speech finds its intro- 
duction to science, we shall find an interest in examining some of the 
distinctive characters of these vocables. 
First we shall pay attention to the duplication phenomena. A 
characteristic of many languages of the primitive type, duplication so 
strongly marks the speech of Polynesia that it has been possible to 
study out its form varieties and to assign to the varying usage a value 
almost syntactical. For the fuller consideration of this mechanism of 
word-formation and word-employment I invite attention to my mono- 
graph upon “Duplication Mechanics in Samoan and their Functional 
Values” (1908) in ““The American Journal of Philology,” vol. xx1x, 
page 33. In the Subanu this mechanism is far less frequent than in 
Polynesian speech and its syntactical value less apparent. All the 
instances which are found in this vocabulary are here presented, together 
with the estimate of their functions in the scanty number of cases where 
that is deducible. 
Asexpressiveof the diminutive sense, Subanu duplication gives us the 
following batabata,gibasgibas,manocmanoc,sapasapa and sibulansibulan. 
To express a plural or general collective, duplication here gives us 
leenleen. ‘The cognate sense of plurality of action (verb) which inheres 
in reciprocal action, movement back and forth, is found in gocabgocab 
and poc-sindilsindil. 
The intensive sense, really a protraction of the idea of plurality, 
is found in the following: boangboang, cotecote, dayandayan, gonagona, 
libaliba, lingalinga, mog-langlaang. 
Owing to the paucity of our information, the remaining instances of 
duplication must remain unclassed as to theinner nature of their employ- 
ment. These are the following: conotconot, cotooto, dubdub, gwakgwak, 
gantingganting, gibusibus, limalima, lingulingu, maomao, niugniug, 
pondopondo, porongporong, so-ganagana. 
The foregoing instances are of the simplest type of duplication; the 
word as a whole is doubled. Inthe Polynesian languages, where this 
formation method reaches its highest development, the frequency of 
such simple duplication is so great as to establish a superficial character 
of the speech; in Subanu we have been able to discover, in so much of its 
vocabulary as is here contained, certainly a most considerable part, no 
more than the foregoing 28 instances, a percentage so small as not to be 
worth the arithmetic which it would require to determine it. 
In the Polynesian languages, again, a very beautiful and flexible 
system has developed in the duplication mechanics to form a specific 
