r culeba.
Lachlan, Regent Lake : nyoonbi bulia bulongonbi.
Wollondilly River : medung pulla colluerr.

The Verb now requires notice. In languages in the same stage of
development with the Australian the usual analysis, as shown by the late
Mr. Garnett in his masterly papers on the structure of the verb, is as
follows: 1. The root. 2. The possessive pronoun. 3. A particle of
time--often originally one of place.

A rough illustration of this is the statement that such a word as dormur
== sleep-my-then (or there). To apply this doctrine to the Kowrarega with
our present data, is unsafe. Still, I am inclined (notwithstanding some
difficulties) to identify the pa of the Present tense with the bu in
kai-bu = now, and the n of the preterite with the n of che-na = there.

The double forms of the Past tense (one in n, and another in m) are at
present inexplicable. So are the double forms of the Imperative, namely
the one in r, and the one in e. It may, however, be remarked, that
wherever the Imperative ends in e, the Preterite has the form in m; thus,
pid-e = dig, pid-ema = dug. The only exception is the anomalous form
peneingodgi = dived. This prepares the future grammarian for a division
of the Kowrarega Verbs into Conjugations.

The last class of words that supply the materials of comment are the
Substantives. Herein, the formation of the plural by the addition of le,
probably occurs in several of the Australian tongues. I infer this from
many of those words which we find in the vocabularies of languages
whereof the grammar is unknown, and which are expressive of naturally
plural objects ending in li, la, or l.

1. Star (stars)--pur-le, pi-lle, poo-lle, in Parnkalla, Aiawong, and
Yak-kumban.

2. Fire (flames)--ka-lla, gad-la, in Western Australian and Parnkalla.

3. Head (hair)--kur-le, Encounter Bay. Here we learn from the forms
kar-ga, from the Head of the Great Australian Bight, and ma-kar-ta, from
Adelaide, that the l is foreign to the root.

4. Hands--marrow-la in the Molonglo dialect; as contrasted with marra in
the Adelaide.

This, however, is merely a conjecture, a conjecture, however, which has a
practical bearing. It suggests caution in the comparison of vocabularies;
since, by mistaking an inflexion or an affix for a part of the root, we
may overlook really existing similarities.

Father Anjello's very brief grammatical sketch of the Limbakarajia
language of Port Essington* exhibits, as far as it goes,