Tho other Australian base-fomi of the first pronoun is ba, and this, in the forms of nia, me, mi, mo, is so common in all languages that I need scarcely quote more than Sanskrit mad (the base), 'I'; the Grjeco- Latin emou, mou; mihi, me; and the English, ' we.' This base, ba, gives us the Awabakal simple nomi- native bag (for ba-ag), -ag being one of the most common of Australian formatives. Then, of the possessive form, emmo-iig, which I would write emo-ug, I take the e to be merely enuncia- tive, the -ug being a possessive formation; the mo that remains is the same as in the Australian mo-to, wo-kok, ' I,' the Papuan, mOu, 'I.' The Awaliakal ba-li, 'we two '(both being present), is ba + li, where the -li is probably a dual form.
The Awabakal accusative of the fii'st pronoun is tia, or, as I would write it, tya or ca; cf. guca and unca. This tia appears again in the vocative ka-tio-u, and is, I think, only a phonetic form of the ta which I have already examined.
I think, also, that the Hebrew pronoun an-oki, ' I,' is connected with our root ak, at, ta; for it seems to be pretty well assured that the an- there is merely a demonstrative particle placed before the real root-form -ok-i; for the Egyptian pronouns of the first and second persons have it (-an, -ant, -ent) also. And this quite corresponds with our Awabakal pronouns of the first and second })ersons, ga-toa and gin-toa; for, in my view, they both begin with a demonstrative ga, which exists also in Polynesian as a pro- thetic nga, nge.* In Awabakal, I see it in ga-li, 'this,' ga-Ia, ' that,' and in the interrogative gan, ' who ' % for interrogatives come from a demonstrative or indefinite base (cf. the word minyug on page 3 of the Appendix). Here again, in the Awa- bakal word gan, ' who '? we are brought into contact with Aryan equivalents; for, if gan is for ka-an, as seems likely, then it leads us to the Sanskrit ka-s, ' who' % Zend, cvaht = Latin quan-tus % Latin, quod, ubi, itc, Gothic, livan = English, 'when? Lithua- nian, ka-s, 'who'? Irish, can, 'whence"? Kymric, pa, 'who'? Greek, pds, ' how '? po-then, ' whence '?
In the Australian plural forms geanni, geen, we have again the prefix demonstrative ga, but now softened into ge (r/!the Maori pre- fix nge) because of the short vowel that follows. The next syllable, an, is a liquid form of ad, ta, ' I,' and the ni may be apluralising addition — the same as in the Papuan ni-mo. It should here be remembered, howevei-, that the Australian languages seldom have special forms for the plural; for ta may mean either ' I ' or 'we'; to indicate the plural number some pluralising word must be added to ta; thus in Western Australia ' we' is gala-ta, literally 'all- I.' Some pronouns, however, seem to have absorbed these suffix
- In Maori, this nge is used as a prefix to the pronouns au and ona»
thus, nge-au is exactly equivalent to the Australian ngatoa.