not occur at all! There has been a mistake made somewhere. At present I can find no genuine instance where ki is used as a plural suffix. Feet is not kemaki, but ukema. It is quite true that Dobrotvorsky gives ima as “tooth” and imaki as “teeth”; but I very much doubt the truth of this definition. “Tooth” is nimak or nimaki as one pleases, while “teeth" is unimak or unimaki. Moreover, I find lower down in his work that Dobrotvorsky writes Нмакъ which he translates by зудъ, “tooth.” The final hard mute ъ may represent the i. Examples showing that ъ does sometimes represent i in Dobrotvorsky might easily be given were it necessary, but one clear instance only shall here be produced. It is за́нъ “you,” which is unmistakably eani in Ainu.
The case or relation of the noun to other words in a sentence, though generally left to be gathered from the context, may, when necessary, be expressed by certain particles; thus:—
| Nom: | by anak or anakne. As, Ainu anakne ek kor’an, “the man is coming.” |
| Obj: | by e preceding a v.i. or without any particle when the noun is followed by the passive voice of a verb. As, seta ainu emik, “the dog barked at the man.” Ainu araige, “the man was killed.” Before a v.t. the particle ko “to” is at times found to represent the objective case. Thus:—kik, “he strikes,” en kokik,” “he strikes me.” |
| Gen: | by koro, goro, kot following the pronoun or noun; as:—ku goro makiri, “my knife”; ainu kot chisei, “a man’s house”; a koro michi, “our father.” |
But although koro, expressed or understood, is often used as a possessive factor (koro really means to possess), yet this word is very often dropped and the case is expressed by the verb “to be” like the Aryan languages, but preceded in many instances by otta, “to.” The reason of this is evident. If
