Being the English substantive verb AM.
37. Such is the condition of this part of speech: yonder is a man,
anát sei dor _eni_, and if he live there, or is there standing, anát
catzí, etc., which catzí is used only for persons. Yonder is water,
anát, or aguát bat _maní_, yonder is grass, anát dósa _habí_, and also
may be said, bat eni, dosa eni, but bat habí, dosa mani would not be
correct. Further than this the substantive verb am appears not to show
itself clearly: thus that utterance of God, I am that I am, has no
corresponding words in the tongue: it could seemingly be made somewhat
intelligible in this wise: Nee uehva nee, which word for word means,
I greatly I, and am is not expressed though understood. So in asking,
Who is it, the answer is, Nee, and not I with the verb. This method of
speaking should be regarded: to say the house of Pedro was my house,
it should be, Pevroque qui no quiru, of which qui means house, and
Pevroque qui, house of Pedro. The verb was, does not now exist in it
apart, but in expression it appears, or nearly so, in the substantive
qui, which is put in the imperfect by the termination of that tense,
ru being added, as, quiru, was house; no quiru, was my house. The same
is otherwise said: Pevroque qui no guaguaru, the house of Pedro was
mine; the guagua, if alone, signifies, is mine.