The change in the adjective (like good-us, a, um) is cumbrous, and is seldom necessary. A boy trying Latin at school mistakes in saying _bonus arbor_, but he has little chance of being misunderstood. Yao gives ten concords of this kind with their plurals. This is a severe infliction, although we can generally tell by inspection what concord is required. (_b_). _Inflection for Government._—English nouns have one inflexion for case, Latin nouns have six. The Yao noun has no inflexion of the same kind, but it modifies the verb so as to indicate its relation to the noun. These modifications correspond in number (ten) with the concords. The advantage of many inflexions is that related words are marked so clearly that they may be separated from each other or have their order changed. The Yao could speak of ten nouns and say _that_ is hard, _that_ is soft, &c., without ambiguity, where our word _that_ (which never changes) is powerless. Again, in English we cannot say “the sire the son addressed”. In Latin, _sire_ and _son_ are so marked that the meaning is unmistakeable in any order. But such advantage is small. So great explicitness as inflected languages mark at every step, is seldom necessary. The Yao, then, as compared with English, takes too much trouble with the principal parts of speech. Its process of fitting out nouns and verbs (which affects also adjectives and particles), is too minute and cumbrous. 2. Coming now to the more abstract and _subordinate parts of speech_, we find that while the English language has many of these, the Yao language has not; and to make up for the want it throws more work on the principal parts of speech. In English we say, “to build a house for him”; the Yao modifies the verb “build” till it means “build-for,” and dismisses the preposition. In most of these cases the English language has an advantage like that which arises from the principle of division of labour in other matters. We shall now sum up these results, and add a few more in the following table:—