^{page 34 note 1} This principle has been, to my knowledge, first systematically adopted and thoroughly carried out by A. C. Haddon, W. H. Rivers, C. G. Seligman, and their collaborators in the research done amongst the Torres Straits Islanders. The extensive and excellent linguistic contribution of S. H. Ray (vol. iii of the Reports, Cambridge, 1907) marks this work also as the first practical recognition of the principle that a scientific study of language is essential to a full ethnographic description. There exist, however, other standard works of ethnology, where the linguistics are simply not given, although the authors claim a thorough acquaintance with the language.

^{page 34 note 2} Marett, R. R, Anthropology, in “Home University Library”, pp. 136–7. Every word of this, I am sure, will be endorsed by anyone, who has tried to do ethnolinguistic field-work.Google Scholar

^{page 34 note 3} I use the word “native” for want of a better one. By “native languages” I mean those spoken by uncivilized races. “Savage” or “primitive” are equivalent words, but they seem still clumsier and more equivocal than “native”.

^{page 35 note 1} Wundt, W., Volkerpsychologie, first two volumes; Die Sprache, Leipzig, 1900;Google ScholarPaul, H., Principles of the History of Language, English translation, London, 1888;Google ScholarTucker, T. G., Introduction to the Natural History of Language, London, 1908;Google ScholarOertel, H., Lectures on the Study of Language, New York, 1901.Google Scholar

^{page 35 note 2} Breal's work Semantics, English translation, London, 1900, though interesting and stimulating, in my judgment does not face the real problems of the subject.

^{page 36 note 1} Humboldt, W. V., Ueber die Kawi Sprache auf der Insel Java, 3 vols., Berlin, 1836;Google Scholar esp, Einleitung, in vol. i. Müller, Friedrieh, Grundriss der Sprachwissenschaft, 3 vols., Wien, 1896. H. C. v. d. Gabelentz, “Die Melanesischen Sprachen”: Abhandl. d. k. Sächs. Gesellsehaft, viii.Google Scholar

^{page 37 note 1} Compare Brugmann-Delbrück, Grundriss, 1906, vol. ii, pt. i, p. 4, pars. 3 sqq. In that work also endless examples of roots and formatives can be found. For kinship nouns see pp. 331 sqq., pars. 243–9; also p. 602, par. 474. I must add that I myself am not acquainted with the technicalities of Indo-European comparative linguistics. Of Brugmann-Delbrüek's treatise I tried to understand only the main outlines and the general theoretical parts.

^{page 37 note 2} See Brugmann-Delbrück, chapters on “Bedeutung der Nominalstämme (Bedeutungsgruppen)”, pp. 582–681. For a few concise and clear examples: Oertel, op. cit., p. 160; Wundt, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 15 sqq.

^{page 38 note 1} Cf. Delbrück's conclusion: “Unsere Aufstellung hat also ergeben class esbisher nicht gelungen ist, gewisse allgemeine Anschauungen oder Begriffe aufzufinden, von denen man annehmen könnte, dass sie die Sprechenden zu der Geschlechtsbezeichnung bei den Substantiven geführt hätten,” op. cit., Band iii, p. 98. Compare the analysis of Indo-European gender in nouns, loc. cit., Kap. i, pp. 89–133.

^{page 38 note 2} Torrend, , A Comparative Grammar of the South African Bantu Languages, p. 63,Google Scholar par. 313; quoted after Oertel, op. cit., p. 158. For a fuller and a most illuminating description of the Bantu classifiers the reader is referred to MissWerner's, A.Introductory Sketch of the Bantu Languages, London, 1919. Unfortunately I was able to consult this excellent book only after this article had been written.Google Scholar

^{page 39 note 1} Hoffman, J. J., Japanese Grammar, Leiden, 1868.Google Scholar

^{page 39 note 2} Yule, Colonel, J.A.I., 1880.Google Scholar

^{page 39 note 3} For these examples I am indebted to Mr. C. O. Blagden, Reader in Malay at ths Oriental School of London. In the Malay Grammar of R. O. Winstedt, 1913, § 80, pp. 129 sqq., there is an (incomplete) list of classifiers, which can be looked up in Wilkinson's, R. J.Malay-English Dictionary, 1901, 1902, for further identification.Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 1} Personal communication from Mr. Blagden, who also kindly read the MS. of this paper and improved it by many valuable suggestions.

^{page 40 note 2} Callistus, P., Capuc, O.., Chamorro Wörterbuch, Hong-Kong, 1910. Spoken in the Marianne Islands.Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 3} Islands, Gilbert, Vocabulaire Arorai, by P. A. C., Paris, 1888. For more Micronesian examples see Ray, op. cit., p. 475, footnote.Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 4} Codrington, R. H., Melanesian Languages, 1885, p. 242. For the Fijian Language compare Fijian Dictionary and Grammar, by D. Hazelwood, 1872, p. 18 of Gramma and Table of Numerals; also v. d. Gabelentz, op. cit., p. 25.Google Scholar

^{page 41 note 1} Ray, S. H., op. cit., p. 475.Google Scholar

^{page 41 note 2} See below in par. VI.

^{page 42 note 1} Tau'a'u, men, plural to ta'u, man. It is one of the very few plurals extant in Kiriwinian.

^{page 46 note 1} I cannot, for reasons of space, trace the etymological connexions of these words through other Oceanic languages. W7ith the help of Tregear's comparative data in his dictionary of the Maori language (The Maori-Polynesian Comparative Dictionary, Wellington, New Zealand, 1891)Google Scholar and of Codrington's and Ray's Comparative Melanesian Vocabularies (op. cit.), it would be easy to follow the etymologies

^{page 49 note 1} -tana is an archaic form of -tala, see below.

^{page 63 note 1} Codrington, op. cit., Chapter on Numeration and Numerals, pp. 220–51; Ray, op. cit, “Numeration and Numerals in the Melanesian Languages of British New Guinea,” pp. 463–78. N.B.-Following the information of the Rev. S. B. Fellows, Mr. Ray presents the Kiriwinian data about numeration in an incorrect manner.

^{page 65 note 1} Ray, Compare, op. cit., p. 426.Google Scholar

^{page 65 note 2} It is interesting to compare these facts with the previous information of Kiriwinian demonstratives. Mr. Ray gives in his work on Papuan languages (op. cit.) an excellent digest of all the information available about the Melanesian languages of New Guinea, in which the Kiriwinian is included. There he summarizes the information given by the Rev. S. B. Fellowes by enumerating Kiriwinian demonstratives thus: “ 1. ma, baise, sina. 2. ma, baise, siwena”(loc. cit., p. 426). No. 1 refers to what we call nearer, No. 2 to the further demonstratives.

It is easy to see, in the light of the above data, that this information is quite incorrect: ma, sina, siwena are debris of words and not complete words. Moreover, the dual arrangement is incorrect, in so far as it is made to embrace baise. But what must strike us most forcibly in this connexion is the omission on the part of Fellowes to make any mention of the role played by the classifiers in the formation of demonstratives. What has happened is obviously this: he identified the first part of the root ma with the “demonstrative”, treated the suffix ma as “of no account” (except in the plural endings sina, siwena), and neglected the classificatory infixes as “having been spoken about elsewhere”. In fact, reading his grammar, it is easy to see that it is so, though it would be too cumbersome to prove it point for point. I preferred to quote Ray rather than Fellowes, as it is more telling to show directly that even the most competent expert cannot help being misled by information badly presented, in fact misrepresented.

^{page 68 note 1} This has been clearly recognized and stated by the Rev. S. B. Fellowes.

^{page 70 note 1} Thus: NA- refers not only to animals. KAI- or QAI- (?) cannot be possibly defined as representing “things”; TAIua(?) does not mean “two baskets”; the expression UVAI-tala was unknown to my informants. All these details are, moreover, very important ones.

^{page 70 note 2} Compare above in V, where Ray's summary on demonstratives is quoted. And op. cit., p. 458, § 20, “Adjectives.”

^{page 71 note 1} Op. cit., vol. v (3rd vol. of the Syntax), pp. 1–22: “Wir werden über diese Dinge erst sicherer urtheilen können, wenn vollständigere Saramlungen aus lebenden Sprachen vorliegen werden.” p. 135: “Die feinere psychologische Analyse dieser Verhältnisse lässt sieh aber nur an dem Material aus lebenden Sprachen vornehmen.” And passim in other places. Compare also Max Müller, F., Lectures on the Science of Language, 8th ed., 1875, p. 268,Google Scholar where a good exposition is given of the reasons why modern languages are bound to give us better insight into linguistic phenomena than dead ones.

^{page 72 note 1} Besides the older works previoush' quoted of Humboldt, F. Müller, and others, there may be mentioned the two periodicals, Z. f. Volkerpsychologic u. Sprachwissenschaft and the Z. f. Kolonialsprachen, the latter s pecially devoted to the study of native languages. Meinhof, C., Introduct1ion into the Study of African Languages (English translation, London, 1915), gives a summary of the work done in the field. There has been much, and as it seems excellent, work recently done on the American native languages, but with that I am completely unacquainted.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 1} When I wrote this and the following paragraphs, I had not seen Sir Richard Temple's most interesting attempts at a semantic theory adapted to the study of primitive languages. His outlines of a Universal Grammar and their application, although very condensed and carried out only in very broad outlines, seem to me of extreme importance: the problems are set forth in an excellent manner, and the solutions offered are undoubtedly correct in all essentials. Any future attempt at a semantic theory, based on ethnology, will have to proceed on the lines indicated by Sir Richard Temple. Cf. “A brief exposition of a Theory of Universal Grammar”, privately printed 1683; “The Skeleton of a Theory of Universal Grammar,” JBAS., 1899, pp. 597–604;Google Scholar“A Theory of Universal Grammar, as applied to a Group of Savage Languages,” in The Indian Antiquary, vol. xxviii, 1899, pp. 197, 225;Google Scholar“A Plan for a Uniform Scientific Record of Languages of Savages, applied to the Languages of the Andamanese and Nicobarese,” in The Indian Antiquary, vol. xxxvi, 1907, pp. 18, 217, 317, 353.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 1} “In den meisten Sprachen haben sich auf diese Weise vier … deutlich unterschiedene Wortformen entwickelt, die jenen Begriffskategorien genau entsprechen: den Gegenstandsbegriffen das Substantivum, den Eigenschaftsbegriffen das Adjectivum, den Zustandsbegrifien das Verbum, endlich den Beziehungsbegriffen die Partikel” (Die Sprache, ii, p. 7 and passim through the 6th chapter on Parts of Speech, ii. pp. 1–207).

“The logical category of each name is definitely fixed; it stands either for a thing or for a quality, or for an action, or for a state, and these categories have no inherent connection with the grammatical or syntactical categories of ‘substantive’, ‘adjective’, or ‘verb’ ” … (op. cit., p. 284). It is needless to add that my point of view is much nearer to that of Wundt than to that of Oertel.

^{page 75 note 2} Op. cit., Introduction, p. xiii.Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 1} Op. cit, p. 129.Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 2} What the author probably had in his mind was that the Formative Particle in question originally must have been a noun. The non-linguistic reader must be cautioned against a confusion of ideas. Discussing the grammatical function of Kiriwinian Formatives above (in IV, 3) we asserted that certain expressions formed with these Particles are nouns. But it must be realized that a Formative Particle itself can never be anything but the part of a word, and can thus never be ranged under any of the independent parts of speech.

^{page 77 note 1} Op. cit., p. 458, § 20, “Adjectives.” The italics are mine.Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 2} Loc. cit.