= aṅkana piira uw inuṅ pabura. — “I have bought a house (and now I have not got enough money to pay for it)” = House I buy = bola uw ĕlli. — In the first case the idea of completion is emphasized, hence the use of pura; in the second case that notion is not present, so the word is not used. — In the sentence from the second executioner's story in the Injilai : “Scarcely had it taken (the poison, when it died)” = “pura” it takes = pura na ĕmmĕ, the word pura indicates the plu- perfect.
102. In the languages which form the past by means of genuine formatives, the formative may either simply indicate past time, or completion, or the pluperfect, as well. Should it, however, be desired to throw special emphasis on the fact of completion or the pluperfect, then these languages, besides using the formative, also add words of form meaning “finished, complete”, like those mentioned above. Thus Hova uses efa, which is identical with the Nias efa in aefa, “finished”. — Illustration from the Testament of Umbiasa: “When knowledge has entered into our mind (it cannot be taken away from us again)” — The k., when “efa” entered into m. = ni fahendrena, raha efa tafiditra an tsaina.
103. Those languages which possess genuine formatives for expressing the past employ them in a very consistent manner. So in the Hova sentence from the Fable of the Cuckoo : “They would not receive him” , both verbs, “would” and “receive”, are in the past tense: Not would have + received him = tsi neti nandray azi. — In this respect Nias is an exception; it does not use its past formative no- very frequently. In the Story of Buruti — 46 hnes of print — no- only occurs about half a dozen times. That, however, is without counting the phrase no-mege, “above mentioned”, as its meaning has faded and it almost does duty as an article.
104. The languages which express the past by means of words of form employ them, as already stated, almost exclusively in cases where it is desired to express completion or
