An entirely similar instance occurs in the North Guaranay language, which also permits, besides the regular conjugation, a union of the root of the verb with a pronoun, the verb being omitted. The grammarians of that tongue say that this adds extension and emphasis to the sense of the verb. The real difference, however, is that this procedure treats the verb as a noun, and the extension comes from considering the action expressed by the verb to have become a permanent quality; _a poro iuca_, I kill men (ordinary conjugation); _xe poro iuca_, I (am) a man-killer (form with the possessive pronoun); I kill men as my business. In both these languages, therefore, what have been represented as peculiar and separated forms, tenses indicating habit, or forms of extension, are simply erroneous explanations of quite simple constructions. In Mexican the correctness of this explanation is confirmed by the forms of the vocative, which are identical with this supposed tense, _in ti tlatlacoani_, O thou sinner; literally, thou who (art) a sinner. In the above examples the verbal power lies in the pronouns. But the Mbaya language constructs verbal sentences by adding the sign of the future to any adjective without a pronoun. This sign is _de_, or before a vowel _d_: _de liidi_, it will be pleasant to the taste; _d otiya_, he will be fat. I do not find other examples, and am uncertain whether other tenses and modes are thus formed. In that case the pronouns would have to be added, and the expression would lose its peculiarity, which is that the tense sign alone carries with it the notion of Being. The Othomi language makes use in such expressions not only of the pronouns but of all the affixes of the verb, and conjugates a noun together with its article, treating it as a verbal radical: _qui-no-munti-maha_, Thou wert the enriched. Here _no-munti_ is “the enriched,” and all the remaining syllables are verbal inflections. Sandoval, who wrote a grammar of the language, explains _no_ as an auxiliary verb; but with the noun he calls it an article, as it is, and he evidently misunderstood the expression. It is wholly a verbal, but as this procedure can be applied to any noun whatever, such an expression is far removed from a real, well-defined verbal form. The same language has another peculiar form with the possessive, which can only be explained by supplying an omitted verb. _Na nuhti_ means “my property;” but if to this is added the abbreviated pronoun used as a verbal affix, _na-nuhti-gā_, the words mean, “this property belongs to me,” or, “my property is it, mine.” In the grammatically obscure consciousness of these people, the ideas of verbal and merely pronominal expression are confounded, as also in the Brazilian language, where “my father” and “I have a father” are expressed by the same word. The advantages which these languages derive from the formation of sentences with the verb omitted are two.