1. Many adjectives begin with the letter g, to which a very short vowel is attached, so short indeed that in rapid speaking the vowel of the first syllable may not be heard at all, whilst in composition this first syllable is sometimes omitted altogether, as

2. In composition the adjective usually, though not invariably, follows the noun it qualifies, as

(a) The personal pronouns which undergo no change of form to indicate gender are:—

The possessive pronoun is expressed simply by putting the personal pronoun in the possessive case, as—

BÉ Áng ni no, this (is) my house. This me of house (is).

To nouns expressing close family relationship, pronominal prefixes of possession are commonly added, e.g.—

Interrogative pronouns in common use are—

• 1. Sur (sar)—who?
• 2. MÁ—what? Plural mÁ-fur.
• 3. BÅ-bÊ—which (of two or more)?

The demonstrative pronouns are:—

• 1. BÉ—this (near).
• 2. Boi—that (far).
• 3. BÍ—that (of remote distance).

Properly speaking, there are no relative pronouns, though a form zi, borrowed from Assamese, is sometimes heard. The place of the relative pronoun is usually supplied by a participle, e.g.—

1. The verb substantive is dang-a, is, dang-man, was, zÁ-gan, will be; this last being apparently formed from the root, zÁ-no, to become. The negative forms are

(1) goi-Á (emphatic goi-li-Á) and (2) nÚng-Á, it is not.

A very useful word is nÁng-go (Assamese lÁ-ge), to express necessity, the negative form is nÁng-Á, needless, in emphasis, nÁng-li-Á, altogether needless. This root nÁng is often appended to nouns to form adjectives, as

Very little need be said on this part of the subject, because the work of qualifying words (adverbs, &c.,) is very commonly done by means of infixes following the verbal stem which is in many cases, though not in all, monosyllabic. Thus the root hÀm (be) will, becomes (1) an adjective by prefixing g^a, g^a hÀm, good; and (2) an adverb, by affixing oi; g^ahÀm-oi in a good manner. So, hÀm-Á—bad; hÀm-Á-oi—bad-ly. Further the adjective thus formed may be duly conjugated as a verb by combining it with the different tenses, &c., of the substantive verb, thus:—

In the same way the passive participle in nai can be (1) declined as a noun, or (2) used as an adjective, or (3) take the place of a relative pronoun; e.g.—

The great and characteristic feature of the Syntax of the language is the remarkable way in which verbal roots, mostly monosyllabic, are combined together to form a very large and useful class of compound verbs. In this way the use of conjunctions &c. is very largely avoided, and the language becomes possessed of a vivid force and picturesqueness often wanting in more cultivated tongues. These compound verbs may perhaps be roughly classified under two groups, e.g.—

I.—Those in which each verbal root has a distinct meaning and may be used separately;—

II.—Those in which one or more of the verbal roots is never used separately but in combination only. As illustrations of class I. the following may be mentioned:—

The compound verbs of Class II. are very numerous and in frequent use. A few illustrations only can be given here, which may serve to show that the second and subsequent members of the agglutinative verb, while they have no independent existence, yet serve to enrich and expand the meaning of the primitive root in a very remarkable way.

In not a few cases several, sometimes as many as five or six, of these infixes are combined with the original verbal stem, each one materially contributing to enlarge and enrich its meaning. A few illustrations are here supplied.

From what little has been here stated it would seem to be fairly obvious that the language in its original form is strictly an agglutinative one. But a gradual process of deglutinisation has for some time been going on, no doubt originating through intercourse with neighbours speaking languages of quite another type, e.g. Assamese, Bengali, &c. Most KachÁris (BÅrÅ) in this district are quite familiar with Assamese; indeed, it is very rarely that the writer has met with men who did not know this form of Aryan speech. Now a KachÁri in the habit of speaking Assamese will, even when using his own mother tongue, to which he is strongly attached, not infrequently resort to a partially inflected form of expression instead of restricting himself to the use of infixes, &c. This gradual change in the language is especially brought out in the usage of the participial forms of the verb. It has been shown above, e.g. that the past participle (passive) can be declined like a noun. Again, in expressing a simple sentence like the following:—

an Assamese speaking KachÁri would probably make use of the active participle in nÁ-noi; whilst his more primitive brother, who might be less familiar with Assamese, would confine himself to the more idiomatic use of infixes. Thus the sentence given above might be expressed in two ways:

It would seem to be not improbable that the language may gradually lose its agglutinative character, and approximate to the inflected type, though the process most likely will be but a slow one, owing to the very clannish temperament of the people which makes them cling strongly to anything they regard as their very own, e.g. their language (cf., a somewhat similar state of things in Wales and the Scottish Highlands). But in its present stage the language is one of no small interest to the student of comparative philology, because it is an apt illustration of a form of speech which, once strictly agglutinative, is now in process of learning inflexion through the pressure of contact with the speakers of Aryan tongues.3