The student should ever be mindful of the distinction between the preposition i and the particle by which the accusative, (as it would be called in Latin,) is denoted. This particle has, of itself, no specific meaning. In many instances its use is similar to that of êhth in Hebrew; e. g.,

It follows an active verb, whereas the preposition follows the neuter, and signifies by. The uses of the two words are totally opposite, as may be seen in the following example. A young teacher wishing to say, sin produces pain, thus expressed his sentiment: Ko te kino ka whanau i te mamae. Now, whanau is not an active verb. It is a participial adjective. It is used correctly in John iii. 8, Whanau i te Wairua, born of the Spirit. The sentence therefore that we have adduced, if strictly translated, would run thus, sin is born of, or produced by pain.

KI, with, (denotes the instrument); e. g.,

Note.—When used in this sense it very rarely follows neuter verbs; for example it would not be correct to say, Ka wera i a au ki te ahi, it will be burned up by me with fire. Some passive verb, as tahuna, &c. should, in this case precede instead of wera. The following form, however, is correct:

Many speakers confound the instrumental character (if we may so speak) of this preposition with another use of the word with, which, we believe, is seldom denoted by ki.

If, for example, we had to translate into Latin the following sentence, "to speak with fear;" (i. e. timidly,) how incorrect would it be to render fear into the ablative that is used for denoting an instrument! All would see that dicere metu does not express that meaning, and that cum metu dicere, or something to that effect, was the true rendering. So also here, wherever appendage, connexion and such like is intended, ki is, we believe, a preposition that is very seldom called into use. We therefore disapprove of such a sentence as the following: