SECTION I : METHOD AND SOURCES.
1. I have observed that comparative philologists, whether they happen to operate in the Indo-European, Indonesian, or any other branch of the subject, seem, for the most part, to diverge along two different lines. The one school delves deeply into the texts of the several literatures that bear upon the subject, the other is inclined to depend more on manuals and vocabularies. The second method, though it may not give perfect satisfaction, certainly has the advantage of greater facility and rapidity; but as the special character of the present IN ( = Indonesian) monograph compels me to follow in the footsteps of the first school, I will endeavour to justify my procedure in the eyes of those who pursue other methods.
2. There are, to be sure, a large number of IN grammars and vocabularies, and amongst them we meet with not a few that deserve to be styled “exemplary”. Still, numerous as these are, there are quite as many languages that are represented only by inadequate manuals, or none at all. — Moreover, the point of view of the grammarian dealing with a single language is not the same as that of the comparative philologist. The grammarian will fail to observe some things which are of interest to the comparative philologist, or even if he does observe them, he may perhaps omit to include them in his delineation. For example: we shall have to deal later on with a causative formative paka- which occurs e.g. in Bugis (in Southern Celebes), in which language we find e.g. the form pakatanre, “to heighten”, derived from the WB (= word-base) tanre, “high”. In the language of Nias (an island at the back of Sumatra), in conformity with its phonetic laws, as to which more will be said hereafter, this paka - has to become faqa -. Now the formative faqa - is not mentioned in the Nias grammar, but we find it in the texts.
