This has,
probably, led philologists to observe that the verb declarative of
existence, was wanting, and discouraged them in the search of it. But is
it so? When it becomes necessary for the Indian to describe the abstract
truth of existence--as that God _is_--the appropriate pronominal form of
the verb _iau_ or _I-e-au_ is used, and apparently with great force and
propriety. It is a rule of this grammar, not to apply it to emotions.
When nouns inanimate proper are used, or objects of a non-vital
character, the corresponding verb is _atta_. The present tense,
indicative of these two parallel verbs, for material and for god-like
existence, are as follows:--
Iau (animate) _To be_. Atta (inanimate)--_To be_.
Nin, Diau--_I am_, or _my spirit is_. Atta--_It is_.
Ki, Diau--_Thou art_, &c. Atta-aun--_They are_.
Iau--_He (or she) is_. Atta-bun--_it was_.
Nin, Diau-min (ex.)--_We_ (excluding you) _are_. Atta-aubun--_They have been_.
Ki, Diau-min (in.)--_We_ (including you) _are_. Iah atta--_It shall be_.
Pages:
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980