Often adverbs make but one idea with the adjective or verb that they are attached to, as _go-away_. The same thing is seen in the case of prepositions. _Put on your coat_ is rendered _tut on toat_ and even _ton toat_, _pu_ falling out and _ton_ being used for a verb. So, _put off your coat_ is _toff toat_. This principle illustrates what has been called applied verbs and causative verbs. A neuter verb like _put_ is made transitive by placing another word like _on_ after it, and this other word is liable to become part of the verb, as if _put on_ was the transitive form of _put_. The principle is of the greatest use in explaining African derivative verbs. Again, children often omit prepositions. _Look man_, is used for _look at a man_; _man ’os_ for _a man on a horse_. As regards _conjunctions_, simple people like children are often content to express one idea or sentence at a time. When they have to join two ideas or sentences they put them side by side without any connecting word. _James and papa_ becomes in the infantile language _James, papa_. In the same way, connecting words like the logical copula, are at first omitted, as _Dem dad boy_, for _James is a bad boy_. The tendency to omit the copula, throws light on the earlier use of adjectives. When the child says _bad-boy_, the expression is to be taken as a single word, and we may call it a noun. But often the child sooner understands, _boy bad_, the equivalent to him, of _the boy is bad_; which thought is ultimately developed as it is written, though at first the child views it as being the equivalent of _boy, go away_. Unwritten languages are marked by a peculiar _graphicness_, arising partly from the omission of connecting words, and partly from other causes. The expression, “if you be sufficiently warm, you will be sufficiently braw (well-dressed),” is very weak, when compared with the proverbial “warm enough, braw enough”. A savage, or a child, would feel it very tame to say, “if you do not cover your well, some one will walk into it”. He would say, “cover your well, a man will go into it, plump!” Instead of an intangible, “one cannot say what one would think, if one fell into a well,” the more natural language of childhood is, “I cannot say what I would think, &c.,” or, “you cannot tell what you would think, &c.” Instead of “he stabbed him very deeply,” we have, “he put the knife into him that length!”