156 THE SUBANU. 
beyond our comprehension. In these studies I have dwelt at some 
length upon the two limits of speech expression for each of the buccal 
organs, the employment of the least speech effort and of the maximum. 
At the minimum for the tongue lies S(h); at the maximum t. Consider 
now the case of the beginning speaker into whose intellectuality has 
come some faintly appreciated need of specifying his diffuse a yonder 
and particularizing that it is one object. He employs the minimum 
speech effort in the central lingual area and produces thereby sa; its 
sense is still general in particularity “‘a yonder.’”’ In like manner, when 
he wishes to distinguish which of several to each of which ‘‘a yonder”’ 
might apply, the effort of mind is followed by effort of speech; he 
employs the maximum, ta is particular and unmistakable “this yonder.”’ 
In like manner we find 1 with the same pair of coefficients producing the 
same result, sz ‘“‘a here,’’ ti ‘this here.’”’ The four forms are not merely 
theoretical and diagrammatic; they occur somewhere in. the Polynesian 
languages in exactly these senses and are readily discoverable. We 
thus see how our three elements of Polynesian words for one arise. 
Now we pass to the compaction of these established elements. I 
have said that a and i stand to the speaker in some relation of position. 
At the beginning of such speech it is sufficient to express a concept as 
away from the speaker, more as a, less asi. “This remoteness may be 
in place, it may equally be in time, and in time it may be equally 
time before or past, time to come or future; we shall find the need 
arising for particularity in this item also and by the like method of 
consonantal modulants. But at a certain stage of the speech develop- 
ment sa with s7 in one group and fa in another were applicable in many 
senses just beginning to particularize in use. ‘Then, as further need of 
precision arose, there developed the device of determinant composition. 
For the argument let us assume that ta has four significations including 
“this yonder,” sa has other four including ‘‘a yonder.’’ By employing 
in conjunction the two stems of several meanings we obtain a vocable in 
which the two stems agree upon the common significations; ta plus sa 
can mean only “this yonder,” for it has the force of double insistence. 
Thus we obtain taha in the sense of unity. In like manner we may 
trace the growth of tasz. 
As between the two forms we note in Polynesia that ‘aha is found 
in Tonga and Niué; it occurs more or less through Melanesia; its ele- 
ment sa is the most common in Indonesia. We may safely attribute 
this form to the Proto-Samoan migration, tasi to the Tongafiti swarm; 
yet the evidence of ja in the Punan and jz in the Kayan, both archetypal 
languages in north Borneo, warrants the belief that the elemental sa 
and sz may have existed concurrently at the earliest period. 
We shall now present the type forms of the word for unity in the 
three oceanic areas, listing in the three columns the occurrences of each 
type form as used absolutely, as prefix, as suffix. 
