BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY


to the United States. If, on the other hand, we consider the date
given for the collection of the texts published at Epinal to be erronc.-
ous, we must argue in the face of one more inconsistency, and the
change of base does not help us much, since Spanish influence over
the whites of central Louisiana between 1764 and 1803 was little
enough and still less over the Indians. Before that period they were
always under French government, and it is not likely that a Pensa-
cola Spaniard, lay or clerical, would have been tolerated in the tribe
at that period.
 The writer has not attempted a minute analysis of the language
here presented, believing such an analysis not needed for a con-
demnation. Notwithstanding Adam's skillful reply, it must be
admitted that the force of Brinton's grammatical argument is but
slightly shaken. Take for instance the number nine. rat. This is a
simple syllable and differs not at all in form in the two dialects,
though smaller numbers such as three, five, and seven show such
variation. Constancy in the form of this particular number is pos-
sible but unlikely, but where in North America shall we look for a
word for nine composed of a simple syllable? In most of the lan-
guages with which the writer is familiar this numeral is indicated by
a form meaning ten less one," and in any case he does not recall a
single instance of a simple syllable presenting no resemblance to
the other numerals being used for nine. Brinton's objections to the
" three forms for the plural and the simplicity of the verbs ap-
pears to the writer not well taken, for, as (latschet points out, the
former might be only variations of one form while simplicity in verb
stems is not so uncommon as Brinton seems to suppose. The existence
of a pronominal form used like our relative is somewhat remarkable,
but far less wonderful than the entire morphological difference
between it and the forms for the interrogative and indefinite. This
distinctiveness is, indeed, hard to swallow." The existence of a dis-
tinctively grammatical gender, by which Brinton means a gram-
matical sex gender, is also singular, but the fact instead of being an
argument against the authenticity of the material has become
one of the strongest arguments in its favor through the discovery
by Doctor Gatschet of a sex gender in the Tunica language which
was spoken in the immediate neighborhood. More remarkable still,
and a coincidence strangely overlooked by Gatschet in arguing
for the genuineness of Tainsa, is the fact that the two agree in
distinguishing gender in the second persons as well as in the third.
When we consider that there is no evidence that the Tunica language
was recorded in any form until Gatschet visited the tribe in 1885,
three years after the appearance of the Tainsa Grammar, we must
admit that, if the latter is altogether a forgery, fate was very kind to
the perpetrators. Looking deeper, however, we find a marked con-


[BULL. 43