reason for believing
that its absence is referrible to non-development rather than to
displacement. For reasons too lengthy to exhibit, I believe that this
latter view is NOT applicable to Australian; the s, when wanting, being
undeveloped. In either case, however, the phonetic differences between
particular dialects are the measures of but slight differences.

Now--with these preliminary cautions against the over-valuation of
apparent differences--we may compare the new data for the structure of
the Kowrarega and Limbakarajia with the reccived opinions respecting the
Australian grammars in general.

These refer them to the class of agglutinate tongues, i.e. tongues
wherein the inflections can be shown to consist of separate words more or
legs incorporated or amalgamated with the roots which they modify. It may
be said that this view is confirmed rather than impugned.

Now, what applies to the Australian grammars applies also to Polynesian
and the more highly-developed Malay languages, such as the Tagala of the
Philippines, for instance; and, if such being the case, no difference of
principle in respect to tkeir structure separates the Australian from the
languages of those two great classes. But the details, it may be said,
differ undoubtedly; and this is what we expect. Plural numbers, signs of
tense, and other grammatical elements, are evolved by means of the
juxtaposition of similar but not identical elements, e.g. one plural may
be formed by the affix signifying many; another, by the affix signifying
with or conjointly; one preterite may be the root plus a word meaning
then; another the root plus a word meaning there. Futures, too, may be
equally evolved by the incorporation or juxtaposition of the word meaning
after, or the word meaning to-morrow. All this makes the exact
coincidence of the details of inflection the exception rather than the
rule.

This doctrine goes farther than the mere breaking-down of the lines of
demarcation which separate classes of languages like the Australian from
classes of languages like the Malayo-Polynesian. It shows how both may be
evolved from monosyllabic tongues like the Chinese or Siamese. The proof
that such is really the case lies in the similarity of individual words,
and consists in comparative tables. It is too lengthy for the present
paper, the chief object of which is to bring down the inferences from the
undoubtedly great superficial differences between the languages o