Steinthal, Heymann: Grammatik, Logik und Psychologie. Ihre Principien und ihr Verhältniss zu einander. Berlin, 1855.

to get on in the world. As long as he was alone with his
family and children, he no doubt could make them understand
by some expressive accent when ngo.ta (moi battre) meant "I
beat" and when ngo-ta meant "my stick" (moi-baton). What
followed would generally remove all incertainty, if it existed;
for ngo.ta.ni, I-strike-thou (moi battre vous) could only mean
"I strike thee". All this may seem so natural, as far as con-
struction goes, that at first one hardly discovers any thing
peculiar in these different modes of expression. Still in the con-
struction of these two expressions, ngo.ta, I beat and ngo-ta
my stick there is something so individual and peculiar, that
neither Silim nor Irij could imitate it. This is the liberty of
putting the predicate first in one sentence and last in another.
Silim could say ngo.ta I beat (e'.qtol) but never ngo-ta my-
stick... Irij again, at least in his early youth, could say ngo.ta
my stick (mad-danda) but never ngo.ta I-striking. Instead of
this he had to say striking-I (tudami). Silim divided his
roots into simple nouns and fuller verbs; ... he had only one
difficulty, which, with all his acuteness, he could not overcome:
he could never think a predicate without first having thought
his subject ... The opportunity, however, which he had of
forming at least these two verbal compounds, beating (of) me,
and I-beating, was not lost by Silim; and as he found it essen-
tial to make his friends understand either that he had paid or
that he meant to pay, he took the first form, paying (of) me,
in the sense of the preterite, while the mere assertion of I-paying
was left to answer the purpose of a present or a future payment.
-- The mind of Irij was more comprehensive than that of
Silim ... How then could Irij express his preterite? ... Silim
when he found himself in the same dilemma etc. etc." Wir woll-
ten einen Mythos nicht mit profanen Fragezeichen und Bemer-
kungen unterbrechen. Wem dieser gefällt, der mag ihn weiter
lesen und ganz ausführlich a. a. O. In bestimmter dogmatischer
Form mag er dann noch lesen (das. S. 477): As in the forma-
tion of political societies, we do not require the admission of
any powerful individual mind to account for the presence of
governed and governing classes, or of laws against theft and

to get on in the world. As long as he was alone with his
family and children, he no doubt could make them understand
by some expressive accent when ngò.tà (moi battre) meant „I
beat“ and when ngò-tà meant „my stick“ (moi-bâton). What
followed would generally remove all incertainty, if it existed;
for ngo.ta.ni, I-strike-thou (moi battre vous) could only mean
„I strike thee“. All this may seem so natural, as far as con-
struction goes, that at first one hardly discovers any thing
peculiar in these different modes of expression. Still in the con-
struction of these two expressions, ngo.ta, I beat and ngo-ta
my stick there is something so individual and peculiar, that
neither Silim nor Irij could imitate it. This is the liberty of
putting the predicate first in one sentence and last in another.
Silim could say ngo.ta I beat (e’.qṭol) but never ngo-ta my-
stick… Irij again, at least in his early youth, could say ngo.ta
my stick (mad-danda) but never ngo.ta I-striking. Instead of
this he had to say striking-I (tudâmi). Silim divided his
roots into simple nouns and fuller verbs; … he had only one
difficulty, which, with all his acuteness, he could not overcome:
he could never think a predicate without first having thought
his subject … The opportunity, however, which he had of
forming at least these two verbal compounds, beating (of) me,
and I-beating, was not lost by Silim; and as he found it essen-
tial to make his friends understand either that he had paid or
that he meant to pay, he took the first form, paying (of) me,
in the sense of the preterite, while the mere assertion of I-paying
was left to answer the purpose of a present or a future payment.
— The mind of Irij was more comprehensive than that of
Silim … How then could Irij express his preterite? … Silim
when he found himself in the same dilemma etc. etc.“ Wir woll-
ten einen Mythos nicht mit profanen Fragezeichen und Bemer-
kungen unterbrechen. Wem dieser gefällt, der mag ihn weiter
lesen und ganz ausführlich a. a. O. In bestimmter dogmatischer
Form mag er dann noch lesen (das. S. 477): As in the forma-
tion of political societies, we do not require the admission of
any powerful individual mind to account for the presence of
governed and governing classes, or of laws against theft and