4t The definite article' is a, as a liga, ‘ the hand’. It forms th®
plural by adding log a, which is probably cognate with the Tonga loa,
meaning- ‘ large’, ‘ extensive’, as a Mg a- l i g ‘ the hands’. This
addition is analogous to man, which forms the plural in the, Tahitian.
Unlike the habit of ^h^ 'JE^pte^t^idia^cts, the a bocomesj na after
a proposition, as i-na-liga, ‘ in the hand’. _ Still more curious is the
fact that- some nouns produce a change in the preceding word,
causing it to end in i if it be an article or pronoun. Thus, ‘ the staff’
is a i jitoko, for d jUokffi—t^ ^ o a logoipuli, for a log a
ptiifoyBB in their purses’, i na odrai oro, for odra oro.
“ The adjectives follow the substantives in all these idioms,
“ The pronouns are:
Singular, I,
Thou,
He,
Dual, We exclusive",*
You,
They5,
Plural, We exclusive,"
_We inclusive,*
Ye,
They,
au
ko
koi, koya
ke\ pau
drau
~TC£U
kei tou, and kei mami
ta and tctfoit ;
dru
ra, and ratari
“ The possessives are a gou, * my’, or a gout, (before certain
words as. mentioned before;)—a oma, i ‘ thy’;—a ona, & bi&’;—
a odrau, ‘ their’ (dual);-—a weta, ‘ our’ (plur.);-»-a omodou, ‘ your’;-—
a odra, f their’. The possessive may also be m^de by an affix,
(unlike other Polynesian languages, as far as I know, but like some
African, Tartar, Finnish, and Semitic tongues,) as lig ay u, ‘ my hand’;
ligatna, | thy hand’; ligana, ‘ his hand’; ligadra, ‘ their hand’, &c.
There is also an honorific thou, as in the Javanese; i l ls kemumi
instead of ko, and in the possessive orhumi and munu instead of omu
and mu. All the pronouns -may be made more emphatic by adding
koi, which is the emphatic article in Tonga and some other dialects,
as koiau, ego ipse; koi ko, tu ipse, &c. The ordinary koi-koyu
seems to have it always, and even double, if, as I suspect, koyu is
koiu of New Zealand and other Polynesian languages. This koi-koyu
* We, exclusive of the person addressed; we, inclusive of the person
addressed. The possession, of this double we is characteristic of the Polynesian
languages;
and the others when compounded with koi are constructed with verbs
as if they were substantives.
The1 verbs are much as in the Maorian and Hawaiian. The
following examples, shew this resemblance. •'$»
“ Pronouns Cpme : before yerbs; substantives follow, pronouns
with koi being in this^ respect like Substantives: as ra a ia u r i,
‘they took’; e- ta ra ii P ife r a - ko ,Jisu'j1 or, ‘ Jesus takes Peter ;
ka ialtu-koi-koya, \\he commanded’. The present'tense takes e if a
noun is the nominative, and is1 put alone if a pronoun,- as, au k ila ii
ke munu, ‘ I know1 thee’. The past tense takes a with a pronoun,
and is put alone with a noun. The future takes na with a pronoun,
and ena with a noun. All this is very much like1 tvhat exists in other
Polynesian dialects; but now comes a characteristic which I have
found in no other language. Most verbs either^ end in a radically, or
take some syllable ending in a^; as ca, ma, vg , , ta , &c&/'or the word
takina, to make them verbs. When their verbs come before a pro-
1 noun erpropef name in the accusative base, the ca, ma^ takina,
he’come d, ■ dethmir '’dad ta becomes ji.^ An'example or two
will explain this^r-dYa tauvaikoi-kjaya h’tjca, (Mark v. 41.) ‘ he
took the hand’; ka ra a tau v i koi fypya, ^Mark xii. 8*) ‘ they'took
him’. j j4n the first example koi koya is he, and in 'the second him.
This change into i is not made when the accusative is a noun substantive,
as ka tauva a ligana, (Mark i. he took her hand,
unless it be a proper name, as .in Mark xvi. JIQ, ha targjv J isu ,
1 and askeff,Jesus;’. It is.evide»t,tbat this, adds much to perspicacity,;
fot example, the above expression, ka ta la koi-.koya—-h and he commanded’—
if written ka ta la ii koi-koya, would .be, ‘ and commanded
him’. The vaqa so common in the New Zealand, .and answering to
the f a a of Tahiti and the fa c c a of Tonga, is common in Fiji, as
bula, \M$i’,-rruam bula, ‘ to save’; rpv^ h'io^t’i^vaca reve, ‘ to
make afraid’. There is another syllable, not found in New
Zealand or Tahiti, hut like the f y of Tonga, as % a , ‘ speak.’;
veikayahi, ‘ to converse’ ;-^serau, ‘ to. see’ ueiserauyahi, ftp look-
round’ ;— tarogai ‘ ask’; veitaroga, f ask each, other’-.^ The doubling
of words and syllables is as common as in the Malay and other
languages of this family, as va la , ‘ to do’;< va la va la , ‘ habit of
doing’;—return, \ to he able’; remarawa, Apasy^ ‘ possible.’- The
first syllable also is repeated as in New Zealand, as cecegu, * rest’,
foucegu; loloma, ‘ pity’, for loma.” ^ ;.vf^:v.
These observations prove, as Mr. Norris concludes, that the Fijian
is really a Polynesian dialect, though offering peculiarities not found