The Poignavi of Humboldt are said to speak a form of the Maypure; which is likely enough, and which is by no means incompatible with their affinities to the Baniwa. A full vocabulary however of their language is wanting. In place hereof we have but two words,—
| English. | Poignavi. |
|---|---|
| Water | Oueni. |
| Moon | Zenquerot. |
Of these oueni is Baniwa.
Further notice of the name will occur when we come to the Baniwa of Javita. That the Manivas of the maps are Baniwa is suggested by Mr. Wallace; and probably the E-quinabi are but little different.
The Juri.—The geographical relations of the Juri to the other languages of Mr. Wallace’s list may be seen on the map. The population which uses it lies south of the Japura, and probably on the water-system (we can scarcely apply the word valley to these vast levels) of the Iça or Putumayo. It is perhaps as far from the Uainambeu, as the Uainambeu is from the Isanna; and certainly farther from any other member of the class last under notice than any such members are from each other. Hence, the primâ facie view afforded by its geographical position is in favour of comparative isolation, at least as far as regards the tongues which delight in the use of the n- prefix.
Neither is it in any very close geographical contact with the Tucano and Coretu, the nearest of the other languages.
It is comparatively isolated, as far as the languages of the present tables are concerned.
Now if we go from these to the ordinary maps, we find the contiguous populations to bear the names Tapaxana, Cambeva, Ticuna, etc., etc. What are the relations of the Juri tongue in this direction? Unknown. We have no specimens of the Ticuna, no specimens of the Cambeva, no specimens of the Tapaxana. There may be anything or nothing in the way of likeness; anything or nothing in the way of difference.
The Baniwa of Javita.—The relation of this to the other Baniwas must be determined by the vocabulary itself: since (as has been already suggested) the identity of name goes for nothing either way. It proves nothing in favour of affinity; nothing in favour of difference.
The pronominal prefixes (wa-) are different; but this again is only primâ facie evidence of real difference. A pronoun of a different person (as has also been already suggested) may have been used.