Summary Narrative of an Exploratory Expedition to the Sources of the Mississippi River, in 1820 / Resumed and Completed, by the Discovery of its Origin in Itasca Lake, in 1832

by Henry Rowe Schoolcraft

INDIAN LANGUAGES

I.
Observations on the Grammatical Structure and Flexibility of the Odjibwa Substantive.[ [270]

Inquiry 1.

Observations on the Ojibwai substantive. 1. The provision of the language for indicating gender—Its general and comprehensive character—The division of words into animate and inanimate classes. 2. Number—its recondite forms, arising from the terminal vowel in the word. 3. The grammatical forms which indicate possession, and enable the speaker to distinguish the objective person.

Most of the researches which have been directed to the Indian languages, have resulted in elucidating the principles governing the use of the verb, which has been proved to be full and varied in its inflections. Either less attention has been paid to the other parts of speech, or results less suited to create high expectations of their flexibility and powers have been attained. The Indian verb has thus been made to stand out, as it were in bold relief, as a shield to defects in the substantive and its accessories, and as, in fact, compensating, by its multiform appendages of prefix and suffix—by its tensal, its pronominal, its substantive, its adjective, and its adverbial terminations, for barrenness and rigidity in all other parts of speech. Influenced by this reflection, I shall defer, in the present inquiry, the remarks I intend offering on the verb, until I have considered the substantive, and its more important adjuncts.

Palpable objects, to which the idea of sense strongly attaches, and the actions or condition, which determine the relation of one object to another, are perhaps the first points to demand attention in the invention of languages. And they have certainly imprinted themselves very strongly, with all their materiality, and with all their local, and exclusive, and personal peculiarities upon the Indian. The noun and the verb not only thus constitute the principal elements of speech, as in all languages; but they continue to perform their first offices, with less direct aid from the auxiliary parts of speech, than would appear to be reconcilable with a clear expression of the circumstances of time and place, number and person, quality and quantity, action and repose, and the other accidents, on which their definite employment depends. But to enable the substantives and attributives to perform these complex offices, they are provided with inflections, and undergo changes and modifications, by which words and phrases become very concrete in their meaning, and are lengthened out to appear formidable to the eye. Hence the polysyllabic, and the descriptive character of the language, so composite in its aspect and in its forms.

To utter succinctly, and in as few words as possible, the prominent ideas resting upon the mind of the speaker, appear to have been the paramount object with the inventors of the language. Hence, concentration became a leading feature. And the pronoun, the adjective, the adverb, and the preposition, however they may be disjunctively employed in certain cases, are chiefly useful as furnishing materials to the speaker, to be worked up into the complicated texture of the verb and the substantive. Nothing, in fact, can be more unlike, than the language, viewed in its original, elementary state—in a vocabulary, for instance, of its primitive words, so far as such a vocabulary can now be formed, and the same language as heard under its oral, amalgamated form. Its transpositions may be likened to a picture, in which the copal, the carmine, and the white lead, are no longer recognized as distinct substances, but each of which has contributed its share towards the effect. It is the painter only who possesses the principle, by which one element has been curtailed, another augmented, and all, however seemingly discordant, made to coalesce.

Such a language may be expected to abound in derivatives and compounds; to afford rules for giving verbs substantive, and substantives verbal qualities; to concentrate the meaning of words upon a few syllables, or upon a single letter, or alphabetical sign; and to supply modes of contraction and augmentation, and, if I may so say, short cuts, and by-paths to meanings, which are equally novel and interesting. To arrive at its primitives, we must pursue an intricate thread, where analogy is often the only guide. We must divest words of those accumulated syllables, or particles, which, like the molecules of material matter, are clustered around the primitives. It is only after a process of this kind, that the principle of combination—that secret wire, which moves the whole machinery can be searched for, with a reasonable prospect of success. The labor of analysis is one of the most interesting and important, which the subject presents. And it is a labor which it will be expedient to keep constantly in view, until we have separately considered the several parts of speech, and the grammatical laws by which the language is held together; and thus established principles and provided materials wherewith we may the more successfully labor.

1. In a general survey of the language as it is spoken, and as it must be written, there is perhaps no feature which obtrudes itself so constantly to view, as the principle which separates all words, of whatever denomination, into animates and inanimates, as they are applied to objects in the animal, vegetable, or mineral kingdom. This principle has been grafted upon most words, and carries its distinctions throughout the syntax. It is the gender of the language; but a gender of so unbounded a scope, as to merge in it the common distinctions of a masculine and feminine, and to give a twofold character to the parts of speech. The concords which it requires, and the double inflections it provides, will be mentioned in their appropriate places. It will be sufficient here to observe, that animate nouns require animate verbs for their nominatives, animate adjectives to express their qualities, and animate demonstrative pronouns to mark the distinctions of person. Thus, if we say, "I see a man; I see a house," the termination of the verb must be changed. What was in the first instance wâb imâ, is altered to wâb indân. Wâb, is here the infinitive, but the root of this verb is still more remote. If the question occurs "Is it a good man, or a good house," the adjective, which, in the inanimate form is onishish-í, is, in the animate onishish-i[n']. If the question be put, "Is it this man, or this house," the pronoun this, which is mâ bum, in the animate, is changed to mâ ndun, in the inanimate.

Nouns animate embrace the tribes of quadrupeds, birds, fishes, insects, reptiles, crustacæ, the sun, and moon, and stars, thunder, and lightning, for these are personified; and whatever either possesses animal life, or is endowed, by the peculiar opinions and superstitions of the Indians, with it. In the vegetable kingdom, their number is comparatively limited, being chiefly confined to trees, and those only while they are referred to, as whole bodies, and to the various species of fruits, and seeds, and esculents. It is at the option of the speaker to employ nouns, either as animates or inanimates: but it is a choice seldom resorted to, except in conformity with stated exceptions. These conventional exceptions are not numerous, and the more prominent of them, may be recited. The cause of the exceptions it is not always easy to perceive. It may, however, generally be traced to a particular respect paid to certain inanimate bodies, either from their real or fancied properties—the uses to which they are applied, or the ceremonies to which they are dedicated. A stone, which is the altar of sacrifice to their Manitoes; a bow, formerly so necessary in the chase; a feather, the honored sign of martial prowess; a kettle, so valuable in the household; a pipe, by which friendships are sealed and treaties ratified; a drum, used in their sacred and festive dances; a medal, the mask of authority; vermilion, the appropriate paint of the warrior; wampum, by which messages are conveyed, and covenants remembered. These are among the objects, in themselves inanimates, which require the application of animate verbs, pronouns, and adjectives, and are thereby transferred to the animate class.

It is to be remarked, however, that the names for animals, are only employed as animates, while the objects are referred to as whole and complete species. But the gender must be changed, when it becomes necessary to speak of separate numbers. Man, woman, father, mother, are separate nouns, so long as the individuals are meant; but hand, foot, head, eye, ear, tongue, are inanimates. Buck, is an animate noun, while his entire carcass is referred to, whether living or dead; but neck, back, heart, windpipe, take the inanimate form. In like manner, eagle, swan, dove, are distinguished as animates; but beak, wing, tail, are arranged with inanimates. So oak, pine, ash, are animate; branch, leaf, root, inanimates.

Reciprocal exceptions, however, exist to this rule—the reasons for which, as in the former instance, may generally be sought, either in peculiar opinions of the Indians, or in the peculiar qualities or uses of the objects. Thus the talons of the eagle, and the claws of the bear, and of other animals, which furnish ornaments for the neck, are invariably spoken of, under the animate form. The hoofs and horns of all quadrupeds, which are applied to various economical and mystic purposes; the castorum of the beaver, and the nails of man, are similarly situated. The vegetable creation also furnishes some exceptions of this nature; such are the names for the outer bark of all trees (except the birch), and the branches, the roots, and the resin of the spruce, and its congeners.

In a language, which considers all nature as separated into two classes of bodies, characterized by the presence or absence of life; neuter nouns will scarcely be looked for, although such may exist without my knowledge. Neuters are found amongst the verbs and the adjectives, but it is doubtful whether they render the nouns to which they are applied neuters, in the sense we attach to that term. The subject in all its bearings is interesting, and a full and minute description of it would probably elicit new light respecting some doubtful points in the language, and contribute something towards a curious collateral topic—the history of Indian opinions. I have stated the principle broadly, without filling up the subject of exceptions as fully as it is in my power, and without following its bearings upon points which will more properly come under discussion at other stages of the inquiry. A sufficient outline, it is believed, has been given, and having thus met, at the threshold, a principle deeply laid at the foundation of the language, and one which will be perpetually recurring, I shall proceed to enumerate some other prominent features of the substantive.

2. No language is perhaps so defective, as to be totally without number. But there are, probably, few which furnish so many modes of indicating it, as the Odjibwa. There are as many modes of forming the plural, as there are vowel sounds, yet there is no distinction between a limited and unlimited plural; although there is, in the pronoun, an inclusive and an exclusive plural. Whether we say man or men, two men or twenty men, the singular inin´i, and the plural nin´iwug, remains the same. But if we say we, or us, or our men (who are present), or we, or us, or our Indians (in general), the plural we, and us, and our—for they are rendered by the same form—admit of a change to indicate whether the objective person be included or excluded. This principle, of which full examples will be given under the appropriate head, forms a single and anomalous instance of the use of particular plurals. And it carries its distinctions, by means of the pronouns, separable and inseparable, into the verbs and substantives, creating the necessity of double conjugations and double declensions, in the plural forms of the first person. Thus, the term for "Our Father," which, in the inclusive form is Kósinân, is, in the exclusive, Nósinân.

The particular plural, which is thus, by the transforming power of the language, carried from the pronoun into the texture of the verb and substantive, is not limited to any fixed number of persons or objects, but arises from the operations of the verb. The general plural is variously made. But the plurals making inflections take upon themselves an additional power or sign, by which substantives are distinguished into animate and inanimate. Without this additional power, all nouns plural would end in the vowels a, e, i, o, u. But to mark the gender, the letter g is added to animates, and the letter n to inanimates, making the plurals of the first class terminate in _âg_, eeg, ig, _ôg_, ug, and of the second class in _ân_, een, in, _ôn_, un. Ten modes of forming the plural are thus provided, five of which are animate, and five inanimate plurals. A strong and clear line of distinction is thus drawn between the two classes of words; so unerring, indeed, in its application, that it is only necessary to inquire how the plural is formed, to determine whether it belonged to one or the other class. The distinctions which we have endeavored to convey will, perhaps, be more clearly perceived, by adding examples of the use of each of the plurals.

Animate Plural.
a. Odjibwâi,	a Chippewa.	Odjibwaig,	Chippewas.
e. Ojee,	a Fly.	Oj-eeg,	Flies.
i. Kosénan,	Our father, (in.)	Kosenân-ig,	Our fathers, (in.)
o. Ahmô,	a Bee.	Ahm-ôg,	Bees.
u. Ais,	a Schell.	Ais-ug,	Shells.
Inanimate Plural.
a. Ishkôdai,	Fire.	Ishkôdain,	Fires.
e. Wadôp,	Alder.	Wadôp-een,	Alders.
i. Adetaig,	Fruit.	Adetaig-in,	Fruits.
o. Nôdin,	Wind.	Nôdin-ôn,	Winds.
u. Meen,	Berry.	Meen-un,	Berries.

Where a noun terminates with a vowel in the singular, the addition of the g, or n,shows at once, both the plural and the gender. In other instances, as in peenai, a partridge—seebi, a river—it requires a consonant to precede the plural vowel, in conformity with a rule previously stated. Thus, peenai, is rendered peenai-wug—and seebi, seebi-wun. Where the noun singular terminates in the broad, instead of the long sound of a, as in ogimâ, a chief, ishpatinâ, a hill, the plural is ogim-ag, ishpatinân. But these are mere modifications of two of the above forms, and are by no means entitled to be considered as additional plurals.

Comparatively few substances are without number. The following may be enumerated:—

Missun´,	Firewood.	Ussáimâ,	Tobacco.
Pinggwi,	Ashes.	Naigow,	Sand.
Méjim,	Food.	Ahwun,	Mist.
Kôn,	Snow.	Kimmiwun,	Rain.
Mishk´wi,	Blood.	Ossâkumig,	Moss.
Ukkukkuzhas,	Coals.	Unitshimin,	Peas.

Others may be found, and indeed, a few others are known. But it is less an object, in this lecture, to pursue exceptions into their minutest ramifications, than to sketch broad rules, applicable, if not to every word, to at least a majority of words in the language.

There is, however, one exception from the general use of number, so peculiar in itself, that not to point it out would be an unpardonable remissness in giving the outlines of a language, in which it is an object neither to extenuate faults nor to overrate beauties. This exception consists in the want of number in the third person of the declensions of animate nouns, and the conjugation of animate verbs. Not that such words are destitute of number, in their simple forms, or when used under circumstances requiring no change of these simple forms—no prefixes and no inflections. But it will be seen, at a glance, how very limited such an application of words must be, in a transpositive language.

Thus mang and kâg (loon and porcupine) take the plural inflection wug, becoming mang wug and kâg wug (loons and porcupines). So, in their pronominal declension:—

My loon	Ni mang	oom
Thy loon	Ki mang	oom
My porcupine	Ni gâg	oom
Thy porcupine	Ki gâg	oom
My loons	Ni mang	oom	ug
Thy loons	Ki mang	oom	ug
My porcupines	Ni gâg	oom	ug
Thy porcupines	Ki gâg	oom	ug

But his loon, or loons (o many oom un), his porcupine or porcupines (o gâg oom un), are without number. The rule applies equally to the class of words in which the pronouns are inseparable. Thus, my father and thy father, nôs and kôs, become my fathers and thy fathers, by the numerical inflection ug, forming nôsug and kôsug. But _ôsun_, his father or fathers, is vague, and does not indicate whether there be one father or twenty fathers. The inflection un, merely denotes the object. The rule also applies equally to sentences in which the noun is governed by or governs the verb. Whether we say, "I saw a bear," ningi wâbumâ mukwah, or "a bear saw me," mukwah ningi wâbumig, the noun, itself, undergoes no change, and its number is definite. But ogi wâbumân muk-wun, "he saw bear," is indefinite, although both the verb and the noun have changed their endings. And if the narrator does not subsequently determine the number, the hearer is either left in doubt, or must resolve it by a question. In fine, the whole acts of the third person are thus rendered questionable. This want of precision, which would seem to be fraught with so much confusion, appears to be obviated in practice, by the employment of adjectives, by numerical inflections in the relative words of the sentence, by the use of the indefinite article, paizhik, or by demonstrative pronouns. Thus, paizhik mukwun ogi wâbumân, conveys with certainty the information "he saw a bear." But in this sentence both the noun and the verb retain the objective inflections, as in the former instances. These inflections are not uniformly un, but sometimes een, as in ogeen, his mother, and sometimes _ôn_, as in odakeek-ôn, his kettle, in all which instances, however, the number is left indeterminate. It may hence be observed, and it is a remark which we shall presently have occasion to corroborate, that the plural inflection to inanimate nouns (which have no objective form), forms the objective inflection to animate nouns, which have no number in the third person.

3. This leads us to the consideration of the mode of forming possessives, the existence of which, when it shall have been indicated by full examples, will present to the mind of the inquirer, one of those tautologies in grammatical forms, which, without imparting additional precision, serve to clothe the language with accumulated verbiage. The strong tendency to combination and amalgamation, existing in the language, renders it difficult, in fact, to discuss the principles of it in that elementary form which could be wished. In the analysis of words and forms we are constantly led from the central point of discussion. To recur, however, from these collateral unravellings to the main thread of inquiry, at as short and frequent intervals as possible, and thus to preserve the chain of conclusions and proofs, is so important, that, without keeping the object distinctly in view, I should despair of conveying any clear impressions of those grammatical features which impart to the language its peculiar character.

It has been remarked that the distinctions of number are founded upon a modification of the five vowel sounds. Possessives are likewise founded upon the basis of the vowel sounds. There are five declensions of the noun to mark the possessive, ending in the possessive in _âm_, eem, im, _ôm_, um, oom. Where the nominative ends with a vowel, the possessive is made by adding the letter m, as in maimai, a woodcock, ni maimaim, my woodcock, &c. Where the nominative ends in a consonant, as in ais, a shell, the full possessive inflection is required, making nin daisim, my shell. In the latter form, the consonant d is interposed between the pronoun and noun, and sounded with the noun, in conformity with a general rule. Where the nominative ends in the broad in lieu of the long sound of a, as in ogimâ, a chief, the possessive is _âm_. The sound of i, in the third declension, is that of i in pin, and the sound of u, in the fifth declension, is that of u in bull. The latter will be uniformly represented by oo.

The possessive declensions run throughout both the animate and inanimate classes of nouns, with some exceptions in the latter, as knife, bowl, paddle, &c.

Inanimate nouns are thus declined.

Nominative.
Ishkôdai,	Fire.

Possessive.
My,	Nin	Dishkod-aim.
Thy,	Ki	Dishkod-aim.
His,	O	Dishkod-aim.
Our,	Ki	Dishkod-aim-inân. (in.)
—	Ni	Dishkod-aim-inân. (ex.)
Your,	Ki	Dishkod-aim-iwâ.
Their,	O	Dishko-aim-iwâ.

Those words which form exceptions from this declension, take the separable pronouns before them as follows:—

Môkoman,	A Knife.
Ni môkoman,	My Knife.
Ki môkoman,	Thy Knife.
O môkoman,	His Knife, &c.

Animate substantives are declined precisely in the same manner as inanimate, except in the third person, which takes to the possessive inflections, aim, eem, im, _ôm_, oom, the objective particle un, denoting the compound inflection of this person, both in the singular and plural, aimun, eemun, imun, _ômun_, oomun, and the variation of the first vowel sound, _âmun_. Thus, to furnish an example of the second declension, bizhiki, a bison, changes its forms to nim, bizhik-im, my bison—ke bizhik-im, thy bison, O bizhik-imun, his bison, or bisons.

The cause of this double inflection in the third person, may be left for future inquiry. But we may add further examples in aid of it. We cannot simply say, "The chief has killed a bear," or, to reverse the object upon which the energy of the verb is exerted, "The bear has killed a chief." But, ogimâ ogi nissân muk-wun, literally, "Chief he has has killed him bear," or, mukwah ogi nissân ogimân, "Bear he has killed him chief." Here the verb and the noun are both objective in un, which is sounded _ân_, where it comes after the broad sound of a, as in nissân, objective of the verb to kill. If we confer the powers of the English possessive (_'s_), upon the inflections aim, eem, im, _ôm_, oom, and _âm_, respectively, and the meaning of him, and of course he, her, his, hers, they, theirs (as there is no declension of the pronoun, and no number to the third person), upon the objective particle un, we shall then translate the above expression, o bizhik-eemum, his bison's hisn. If we reject this meaning, as I think we should, the sentence would read, "His bison," him, a mere tautology.

It is true, it may be remarked, that the noun possessed, has a corresponding termination, or pronominal correspondence, with the pronoun possessor, also a final termination indicative of its being the object on which the verb exerts its influence—a mode of expression, which, so far as relates to the possessive, would be deemed superfluous, in modern languages; but may have some analogy in the Latin accusatives am, um, em.

It is a constant and unremitting aim in the Indian languages to distinguish the actor from the object, partly by prefixes, and partly by inseparable suffixes. That the termination un, is one of these inseparable particles, and that its office, while it confounds the number, is to designate the object, appears probable from the fact, that it retains its connection with the noun, whether the latter follow or precede the verb, or whatever its position in the sentence may be.

Thus we can, without any perplexity in the meaning say, Waimittigôzhiwug ogi sagiân Pontiac-un, "Frenchmen, they did love Pontiac him." Or to reverse it, Pontiac-un Waimittigôzhiwug ogi sagiân, "Pontiac, he did Frenchmen he loved." The termination un, in both instances, clearly determines the object beloved. So in the following instance, Sagunoshug ogi sagiân Tecumseh-un, "Englishmen, they did love Tecumseh," or Tecumseh-un Sagunoshug oji sagiân, "Tecumseh, he did Englishmen he loved."

In tracing the operation of this rule, through the doublings of the language, it is necessary to distinguish every modification of sound, whether it is accompanied or not accompanied by a modification of the sense. The particle un, which thus marks the third person and persons, is sometimes pronounced wun, and sometimes yun, as the harmony of the word to which it is suffixed may require. But not the slightest change is thereby made in its meaning.

• Wâbojeeg ogi meegân-ân nâdowaisi-wun.
• Wâbojeeg fought his enemies. L.[ [271] W. he did fight them, his enemy, or enemies.
• O sâgi-ân inini-wun.
• He, or she, loves a man. L. He, or she, loves him-man, or men.
• Kigo-yun waindji pimmâdizziwâd.
• They subsist on fish. L. Fish or fishes, they upon them, they live.
• Ontwa o sagiân odi-yun.
• Ontwa loves his dog. L. O. he loves him, his dog, or dogs.

In these sentences, the letters w and y are introduced before the inflection un, merely for euphony's sake, and to enable the speaker to utter the final vowel of the substantive, and the inflective vowel, without placing both under the accent. It is to be remarked in these examples, that the verb has a corresponding inflection with the noun, indicated by the final consonant n, as in sagiâ-n, objective of the verb to love. This is merely a modification of un, where it is requisite to employ it after broad a (aw), and it is applicable to nouns as well as verbs whenever they end in that sound. Thus, in the phrase, "He saw a chief," O wâbumâ-n O gimâ-n, both noun and verb terminate in n. It is immaterial to the sense, which precedes. And this leads to the conclusion, which we are in some measure compelled to state in anticipation of our remarks on the verb: That verbs must not only agree with their nominatives in number, person, and gender (we use the latter term for want of a more appropriate one), but also with their objectives. Hence, the objective sign n in the above examples. Sometimes this sign is removed from the ending of the verb, to make room for the plural of the nominative person, and is subjoined to the latter. Thus,

• O sagiâ(wâ)n.
• They love them (him or them).

In this phrase, the interposed syllable (wâ) is, apparently, the plural—it is a reflective plural—of he—the latter being indicated, as usual, by the sign O. It has been observed, above, that the deficiency in number, in the third person, is sometimes supplied "by numerical inflections in the relative words of the sentence," and this interposed particle (wâ) affords an instance in point. The number of the nominative pronoun appears to be thus rendered precise, but the objective is still indefinite.

When two nouns are used without a verb in the sentence, or when two nouns compose the whole matter uttered, being in the third person, both have the full objective inflection. Thus,

• Os-(un). Odi-(yun).
• His father's dog. L. His father—his dog or dogs.

There are certain words, however, which will not admit the objective un, either in its simple or modified forms. These are rendered objective in een, or _ôn_.

• O wâbumâ-(n), ossin-(een).
• He sees the stone. L. He sees him—stone or stones.
• O wâbumâ-(n) mittig o mizh-(een). L. He sees him, tree or trees.
• He sees an oak tree.
• O mittig wâb (een), gyai o bikwuk-(ôn).
• His bow and his arrows. L. His bow him, and his arrows, him or them.
• Odyâ | wâ | wâ (n), akkik-(ôn).
• They possess a kettle. L. They own them, kettle or kettles.

The syllable wâ, in the verb of the last example included between bars (instead of parentheses), is the reflective plural they pointed out in a preceding instance.

I shall conclude these remarks, with full examples of each pronominal declension.

a. First declension, forming the first and second persons in aim, and the third in aimun.

Nominative.
Pinâi,	a partridge.
Pinâi-wug,	partridges.
First and second person.
My,	Nim Bin-aim.
Thy,	Ki Bin-aim.
Our,	Ki Bin-aim inân.	Inclusive plural.
Our,	Ni Bin-aiminân.	Exclusive plural.
Your,	Ki Bin-aim wâ.
Third person.
His,	O Bin-aim (un).
Their,	O Bin-aim iwâ (n).

e. Second declension forming the first and second persons in eem, and the third in eemun.

Nominative.
Ossin,	a stone.
Ossineen,	stones.
First and second persons.
My,	Nin Dossin-eem.
Thy,	Ki Dossin-eem.
Our,	Ki Dossin-eeminân. (in.)
Our,	Ni Dossin-eeminân. (ex.)
Your,	Ke Dossin-eemewâ.
Third person.
His,	O Dossin-eem(un).
Their,	O Dossin-eemewâ (n).

i. Third declension forming the first and second persons in im, and the third in imun.

Nominative.
Ais,	a shell.
Aisug,	shells.
First and second persons.
My,	Nin Dais-im.
Thy,	Ki Dais-im.
Our,	Ki Dais-iminân. (in.)
Our,	Ni Dais-iminân. (ex.)
Your,	Ki Dais-imiwâ.
Third person.
His,	O Dais-im (un).
Their,	O Dais-imewâ (n).

o. Fourth declension forming the first and second persons in _ôm_, and the third in _ômun_.

Nominative.
Monidô,	a Spirit.
Monidôg,	Spirits.
First and second persons.
My,	Ni Monid-ôm.
Thy,	Ki Monid-ôm.
Our,	Ki Monid-ôminân. (in.)
Our,	Ni Monid-ôminân. (ex.)
Your,	Ki Monid-ômiwâ.
Third person.
His,	O Monid-ôm (un).
Their,	O Monid-ômewâ (n).

u. (oo) Fifth declension forming the first and second persons in oom, and the third in oomun.

Nominative.
Môz,	a Moose.
Môzôg,	Moose.
First and second persons.
My,	Ni Môz-oom.
Thy,	Ki Môz-oom.
Our,	Ki Môz-oominân. (in.)
Our,	Ni Môz-oominân. (ex.)
Your,	Ki Môz-oomiwu.
Third person.
His,	O Môz oom (un).
Their,	O Môz oomiwâ (n).

aw. Additional declension, required when the noun ends in the broad, instead of the long sound of a, forming the possessive in _âm_, and the objective in _âmun_.

Nominative.
Ogimâ,	a Chief.
Ogimâg,	Chiefs.
First and second persons.
My,	Ni Dôgim âm.
Thy,	Ki Dôgim âm.
Our,	Ki Dôgim âminân. (in.)
Our,	Ni Dôgim âminân. (ex.)
Your,	Ki Dôgim âmiwâ.
Third person.
His,	O Dôgim âm (un).
Their,	O Dôgim âmiwâ (n).

The abbreviations, in., and ex., in these declensions, mark the inclusive and exclusive forms of the pronoun plural. The inflection of the third person, as it is superadded to the first and second, is included between parentheses, that the eye, unaccustomed to these extended forms, may readily detect it.

Where the inseparable, instead of the separable pronoun is employed, the possessive inflection of the first and second person is dispensed with, although the inflection of the third is still retained.

Os: Father.
S. singular.
Nos.	My father.
Kos.	Thy father.
Os-un.	His father.	Sing. and plural.
Nos-inân.	Our father.	(ex.)
Kos-inân.	Our father.	(in.)
Kos-iwâ.	Your father.
Os-iwân.	Their father.	Sing. and plural.
S. plural.
Nos-ug.	My fathers.
Kos-ug.	Thy fathers.
Os-un.	His fathers.	Sing. and plural.
Nos.-inân ig.	Our fathers.	(ex.)
Kos.-inân ig.	Our fathers.	(in.)
Kos-iwâg.	Your fathers.
Os-iwân.	Their fathers.	Sing. and plural.

The word dog, and this word alone, is declined in the following manner.

Annimoosh: a Dog.
S. singular.
Nin	Dy (or Di)	My dog.
Ki	Dy	Thy dog.
O	Dy-un	His dog or dogs.
Ki	Dy-inân	Our dog. (in.)
Ni	Dy-inân	Our dog. (ex.)
Ki	Dy-iwâ	Your dog.
O	Dy-iwân	Their dog, &c.
S. plural.
Nin	Dy-ug	My dogs.
Ki	Dy-ug	Thy dogs.
O	Dy-un	His dogs, &c.
Ki	Dy-inânig	Our dogs. (in.)
Ni	Dy-inânig	Our dogs. (ex.)
Ki	Dy-iwâg	Your dogs.
O	Dy-iwân	His dogs, &c.

The word Dy, which supplies this declension, is derived from Indyiâm mine. pron. an.—a derivative form of the word, which is, however, exclusively restricted, in its meaning, to the dog. If the expression Nin Dy or N' Dy, is sometimes applied to the horse, it is because it is thereby intended to call him, my dog, from his being in a state of servitude similar to that of the dog. It must be borne in mind, as connected with this subject, that the dog, in high northern latitudes, and even as far south as 42 degrees, is both a beast of draught and of burden. He is compelled during the winter season to draw the odâban, or Indian sleigh; and sometimes to support the burden upon his back, by means of a kind of drag constructed of slender poles.

A review of the facts which have been brought together respecting the substantive, will show that the separable or inseparable pronouns under the form of prefixes, are throughout required. It will also indicate, that the inflections of the first and second persons which occupy the place of possessives, and those of the third person, resembling objectives, pertain to words, which are either primitives, or denote but a single object, as moose, fire. There is, however, another class of substantives, or substantive expressions, and an extensive class—for it embraces a great portion of the compound descriptive terms—in the use of which no pronominal prefixes are required. The distinctions of person are, exclusively, supplied by pronominal suffixes. Of this character are the words descriptive of country, place of dwelling, field of battle, place of employment, &c. The following example will furnish the inflections applicable to this entire class of words:—

Aindâd: Home, or place of dwelling.
S. singular.
Aindâ-yân.	My home.
Aindâ-yun.	Thy home.
Aindâ-d.	His home.
Aindâ-yâng.	Our home.	(ex.)
Aindâ-yung.	Our home.	(in.)
Aindâ-yaig.	Your home.
Aindâ-wâd.	Their home.
S. plural.
Aindâ-yân-in.	My homes.
Aindâ-yun-in.	Thy homes.
Aindâ-jin.	His homes.
Aindâ-yâng-in.	Our homes.	(ex.)
Aindâ-yung-in.	Our homes.	(in.)
Aindâ-yaig-in.	Your homes.
Aindâ-wâdjin.	Their homes.

By these examples, it is perceived that the final d in aindâd is not essential to its primitive meaning; and that the place of the pronoun is, in respect to this word, invariably a suffix. Aindâd means, truly, not home, but his home. The plural is formed by the inflection in, except in the third person, where the sound of d sinks in j.

Inquiry 2.

Further remarks on the substantive—Local, diminutive, derogative, and tensal inflections—Mode in which the latter are employed to denote the disease of individuals, and to indicate the past and future seasons—Restricted or sexual terms—Conversion of the substantive into a verb, and the reciprocal character of the verb by which it is converted into a substantive—Derivative and compound substantives—Summary of the properties of this part of speech.

In the view which has been taken of the substantive in the preceding Inquiry, it has been deemed proper to exclude several topics, which, from their peculiarities, it was believed could be more satisfactorily discussed in a separate form. Of this character are those modifications of the substantive by which locality, diminution, a defective quality, and the past tense are expressed; by which various adjective and adverbial significations are given; and, finally, the substantives themselves converted into verbs. Such are also the mode of indicating the masculine and feminine (both merged, as we have shown, in the animate class), and those words which are of a strictly sexual character, or are restricted in their use either to males or females. Not less interesting is the manner of forming derivatives, and of conferring upon the derivatives so formed a personality, distinguished as either animate or inanimate, at the option of the speaker.

Much of the flexibility of the substantive is derived from these properties, and they undoubtedly add much to the figurative character of the language. Some of them have been thought analogous to case, particularly that inflection of the noun which indicates the locality of the object. But if so, then there would be equally strong reasons for establishing an adjective, and an adverbial, as well as a local case, and a plurality of forms in each. But it is believed that no such necessity exists. There is no regular declension of these forms, and they are all used under limitations and restrictions incompatible with the true principles of case.

It is under this view of the subject, that the discussion of these forms has been transferred, together with the other accidents of the substantive just adverted to, and reserved as the subject-matter of a separate inquiry. And in now proceeding to express the conclusions at which we have arrived touching these points, it will be an object so to compress and arrange the materials before us, as to present within a small compass the leading facts and examples upon which each separate position depends.

1. That quality of the noun which, in the shape of an inflection, denotes the relative situation of the object, by the contiguous position of some accessory object, is expressed in the English language by the prepositions in, into, at, or on. In the Indian, they are denoted by an inflection. Thus, the phrase "In the box," is rendered in the Indian by one word, mukukoong. Of this word, mukuk, simply, is box. The termination, oong, denoting the locality, not of the box, but of the object sought after. The expression appears to be precise, although there is no definite article in the language.

The substantive takes this form, most commonly, after a question has been put, as Anindi ni môkoman-ais? "Where is my penknife?" Mukukoong (in the box), addôpowin-ing (on the table), are definite replies to this question. But the form is not restricted to this relation. Chimân-ing n'guh pôz, "I shall embark in the canoe;" wakyigum n'ghu izhâ, "I shall go into the house," are perfectly correct, though somewhat formal expressions, when the canoe or the house are present to the speaker's view.

The meaning of these inflections has been restricted to in, into, at, and on, but they are the more appropriate forms of expressing the first three senses, there being other modes besides these of expressing the preposition on. These modes consist in the use of prepositions, and will be explained under that head. The choice of the one or the other is, however, with the speaker. Generally, the inflection is employed when there is some circumstance or condition of the noun either concealed or not fully apparent. Thus, Muzzinyigun-ing, is the appropriate term for "In the book," and may also be used to signify "On the book." But if it is meant only to signify on the book, something visible being referred to, the preposition ogidj would be used, that word indicating with certainty on, and never in. Wakyigun-ing indicates with clearness "In the house;" but if it is necessary to say "On the house," and it be meant at the same time to exclude any reference to the interior, the expression would be changed to ogidj wakyigun.

It will be proper further to remark in this place, in the way of limitation, that there is also a separate preposition signifying in. It is pinj. But the use of this word does not, in all cases, supersede the necessity of inflecting the noun. Thus, the expression pindigain, is literally walk in, or enter. But if it is intended to say, "Walk in the house," the local, and not the simple form of house must be used; and the expression is, Pindigain waky'igun-ing, "Enter in the house," the verbal form which this preposition pinj puts on, having no allusion to the act of walking, but merely implying position.

The local inflection, which, in the above examples, is ing and oong, is further changed to aing and eeng, as the ear may direct—changes which are governed chiefly by the terminal vowel of the noun. Examples will best supply the rule, as well as the exceptions to it.

SIMPLE FORM.		LOCAL FORM.
a. First inflection in aing.
Ishkodai	Fire	Ishkod-aing	In, &c. the fire.
Muskodai	Prairie	Muskod-aing	In, &c. the prairie.
Mukkuddai	Powder	Mukkud-aing	In, &c. the powder.
Pimmedai	Grease	Pimmid-aing	In, &c. the grease.
e. Second inflection in eeng.[ [272]
Seebi	River	Seeb-eeng	In, &c. the river.
Neebi	Water	Neeb-eeng	In, &c. the water.
Miskwi	Blood	Miskw-eeng	In, &c. the blood.
Unneeb	Elm	Unneeb-eeng	In, &c. the elm.
i. Third inflection in ing.
Kôn	Snow	Kôn-ing	In, &c. the snow.
Min	Berry	Meen-ing	In, &c. the berry.
Chimân	Canoe	Chimân-ing	In, &c. the canoe.
Muzziny´egun	Book	Muzziny´egun-ing	In, &c. the book.
o. Fourth inflection in oong.
Azhibik	Rock	Azhibik-oong	In, &c. the rock.
Gizhig	Sky	Gizhig-oong	In, &c. the sky.
Kimmiwun	Rain	Kimmiwun-oong	In, &c. the rain.
Akkik	Kettle	Akkik-oong	In, &c. the kettle.

	Throw it in the fire.
1.	Puggidôn ishkod-aing.
	Go into the prairie.
2.	Muskôdaing izhân.
	He is in the elm.
3.	Unnib-eeng iâ.
	It is on the water.
4.	Nib-eeng attai.
	Put it on the table.
5.	Addôpôwin-ing attôn.
	Look in the book.
6.	Enâbin muzziny´igun-ing.
	You stand in the rain.
7.	Kimmiwun-oong ki nibow.
	What have you in that box?
8.	Waigonain aitaig mukuk-oong?
	Put it in the kettle.
9.	Akkik-oong attôn, or Pôdawain.
	My bow is not in the lodge; neither is it in the canoe, nor on the rock.
10.	Kâwin pindiq iâsi ni mittigwâb; kâwiuh gyai chimân-ing; kâwin gyai âzhibik-oong.

An attentive inspection of these examples will show that the local form pertains either to such nouns of the animate class as are in their nature inanimate, or at most possessed of vegetable life. And here another conclusion presses upon us; that where these local terminations, in all their variety, are added to the names of animated beings, when such names are the nominatives of adjectives or adjective-nouns, these words are converted into terms of qualification, indicating like, resembling, equal. Thus, if we wish to say to a boy, "He is like a man," the expression is, Inin-ing izzhinâgozzi; or, if to a man, "He is like a bear," Mukk-oong izzhinâgozzi; or, to a bear, "He is like a horse, Pabaizhikogâzh-ing izzhinâgozzi. In all these expressions, the word izzhi is combined with the pronominal inflection _â_ (or nâ) and the animate termination gozzi. And the inflection of the nominative is merely an adjective corresponding with izzhi—a term indicative of the general qualities of persons or animated beings. Where a comparison is instituted, or a resemblance pointed out, between inanimate instead of animate objects, the inflection gozzi is changed to gwud, rendering the expression, which was, in the animate form, izzhinâgozzi, in the inanimate form izzhinâzgwud.

There is another variation of the local form of the noun, in addition to those above instanced, indicative of locality in a more general sense. It is formed by ong or nong—frequent terminations in geographical names. Thus, from Ojibwai, Chippewa, is formed Ojibwainong, "Place of the Chippewas." From Wamattigozhiwug, Frenchmen, is formed Wamittigozhinong, "Place of Frenchmen." From Ishpatinâ, Hill, Ishpatinong, "Place of the hill," &c. The termination ing, is also sometimes employed in this more general sense, as in the following names of places:—

• Monomonikâning. In the place of wild rice.
• Moninggwunikâning. In the place of sparrows.
• Ongwashagooshing. In the place of the fallen tree, &c.

2. The diminutive forms of the noun are indicated by ais, eas, _ôs_, and aus, as the final vowel of the word may require. Thus, Ojibwai, a Chippewa, becomes Ojibw-ais, a little Chippewa: Inin´i, a man, inin-ees, a little man: Amik, a beaver, amik-ôs, a young beaver: Ogimâ, a chief, ogim-âs, a little chief, or a chief of little authority. Further examples may be added.

SIMPLE FORM.		DIMINUTIVE FORM.
—ais.
A woman	Eekwâ	Eekwâz-ais.
A partridge	Pinâ	Pin-ais.
A woodcock	Mâimâi	Mâim-ais.
An island	Minnis	Minnis-ais.
A grape	Shômin	Shômin-ais.
A knife	Môkoman	Môkoman-ais.
—ees.
A stone	Ossin	Ossin-ees.
A river	Seebi	Seeb-ees.
A pigeon	Omimi	Omim-ees.
A bison	Pizhiki	Pizhik-ees.
A potato	Opin	Opin-ees.
A bird	Pinâisi	Pinâish-ees.
—ôs.
A moose	Môz	Môz-ôs.
An otter	Nigik	Nigik-ôs.
A reindeer	Addik	Addik-ôs.
An elk	Mushkôs	Mushkôs-ôs.
A hare	Wâbôs	Wâbôs-ôs.
A box	Mukuk	Mukuk-ôs.
—aus.
A bass	Ogâ	Og-âs.
A medal	Shôniâ	Shôni-âs.
A bowl	Onâgun	Onâg-âns.
A bed	Nibâgun	Nibâg-aûns.
A gun	Pâshkizzigun	Pâshkizzig-âns.
A house	Wakyigun	Wakyig-âns.

In the last four examples, the letter n, of the diminutive, retains its full sound.

The use of diminutives has a tendency to give conciseness to the language. As far as they can be employed they supersede the use of adjectives, or prevent the repetition of them. And they enable the speaker to give a turn to the expression, which is often very successfully employed in producing ridicule or contempt. When applied to the tribes of animals, or to inorganic objects, their meaning, however, is, very nearly, limited to an inferiority in size or age. Thus, in the above examples, pizhik-ees, signifies a calf; omim-ees, a young pigeon; and ossin-ees, a pebble, &c. But inin-ees, and ogim-âs, are connected with the idea of mental or conventional as well as bodily inferiority.

• 1. I saw a little chief, standing upon a small island, with an inferior medal about his neck.
• Ogimâs n'gi wâbumâ nibowid minnisainsing onâbikowân shoniâsun.
• 2. Yamoyden threw at a young pigeon.
• Ogi pukkitaiwun omimeesun Yamoyden.
• 3. A buffalo calf stood in a small stream.
• Pizhikees ki nibowi sibeesing.
• 4. The little man fired at a young moose.
• Ininees ogi pâshkizwân môzôsun.
• 5. Several diminutive-looking bass were lying in a small bowl, upon a small table.
• Addôpowinaising attai onâgâns abbiwâd ogâsug.

Some of these sentences afford instances of the use, at the same time, of both the local and diminutive inflections. Thus, the word minnisainsing, signifies literally, "in the little island;" seebees-ing, "in the little stream;" addôpowinais ing, "on the small table."

3. The preceding forms are not the only ones by which adjective qualities are conferred upon the substantive. The syllable ish, when added to a noun, indicates a bad or dreaded quality, or conveys the idea of imperfection or decay. The sound of this inflection is sometimes changed to eesh, oosh, or aush. Thus, Chimân, a canoe, becomes Chimânish, a bad canoe; Ekwai, a woman, Ekwaiwish, a bad woman; nibi, water, becomes nibeesh, turbid or strong water; mittig, a tree, becomes mittigoosh, a decayed tree; akkik, a kettle, akkikoosh, a worn-out kettle. By a further change, wibid, a tooth, becomes wibidâsh, a decayed or aching tooth, &c. Throughout these changes the final sound of sh is retained, so that this sound alone, at the end of a word, is indicative of a faulty quality.

In a language in which the expressions bad-dog and faint-heart are the superlative terms of reproach, and in which there are few words to indicate the modifications between positively good and positively bad, it must appear evident that adjective inflections of this kind must be convenient, and sometimes necessary modes of expression. They furnish a means of conveying censure and dislike, which, though often mild, is sometimes severe. Thus, if one person has had occasion to refuse the offered hand of another—for it must be borne in mind that the Indians are a hand-shaking people as well as the Europeans—the implacable party has it at his option, in referring to the circumstance, to use the adjective form of hand, not onindj, but oninjeesh, which would be deemed contemptuous in a high degree. So, also, instead of odâwai winini, a trader, or man who sells, the word may be changed to odâwai wininiwish, implying a bad or dishonest trader. It is seldom that a more pointed or positive mode of expressing personal disapprobation or dislike is required; for, generally speaking, more is implied by these modes than is actually expressed.

The following examples are drawn from the inorganic as well as organic creation, embracing the two classes of nouns, that the operation of these forms may be fully perceived.

	SIMPLE FORM.	ADJECTIVE FORM.
—ish.
A bowl	Onâgun	Onâgun-ish.
A house	Wakyigun	Wakyigun-ish.
A pipe	Opwâgun	Opwâgun-ish.
A boy	Kweewizais	Kweewizais-ish.
A man	Inini	Ininiw-ish.
—eesh.
Water	Neebi	Neeb-ish.
A stone	Ossin	Ossin-eesh.
A potato	Opin	Opin-eesh.
A fly	Ojee	Oj-eesh.
A bow	Mittigwâb	Mittigwâb-eesh.
—oosh.
An otter	Neegik	Neegik-oosh.
A beaver	Ahmik	Ahmik-oosh.
A reindeer	Addik	Addik-oosh.
A kettle	Akkeek	Akkeek-oosh.
An axe	Wagâkwut	Wagâkwut-oosh.
—aush.
A foot	Ozid	Ozid-âsh.
An arm	Onik	Onik-âsh.
An ear	Otowug	Otowug-âsh.
A hoof	Wunnussid	Wunnussid-âsh.
A rush mat	Appukwa	Appukw-âsh.

These forms cannot be said, strictly, to be without analogy in the English, in which the limited number of words terminating in ish, as saltish, blackish, furnish a correspondence in sound with the first adjective form.

It may subserve the purposes of generalization to add, as the result of the foregoing inquiries, that substantives have a diminutive form, made in ais, ees, _ôs_, or _âs_; a derogative form, made in ish, eesh, oosh, or _âsh_; and a local form, made in aing, eeng, ing, or oong. By a principle of accretion, the second or third may be added to the first form, and the third to the second.

EXAMPLE.
Serpent, s.	Kinai´bik.
—— s. diminutive.	——ôns,	implying Little serpent.
—— s. derogative.	——ish,	"Bad serpent.
—— s. local.	——ing,	"In (the) serpent.
—— s. dim. and der.	——ônsish,	"Little bad serpent.
—— s. dim. and lo.	——ônsing,	"In (the) little serpent.
—— s. dim. der. and lo.	——ônsishing,	"In (the) little bad serpent.

4. More attention has, perhaps, been bestowed upon these points than their importance demanded; but, in giving anything like a comprehensive sketch of the substantive, they could not be omitted; and, if mentioned at all, it became necessary to pursue them through their various changes and limitations. Another reason has presented itself. In treating of an unwritten language, of which others are to judge chiefly from examples, it appeared desirable that the positions advanced should be accompanied by the data upon which they respectively rest—at least, by so much of the data employed as to enable philologists to appreciate the justice or detect the fallacy of our conclusions. To the few who take any interest in the subject at all, minuteness will not seem tedious, and the examples will be regarded with deep interest.

As much of our time as we have already devoted to these lesser points of inquiry, it will be necessary, at this place, to point out other inflections and modifications of the substantive, to clear it from obscurities, that we may go into the discussion of the other parts of speech unincumbered.

Of these remaining forms, none is more interesting than that which enables the speaker, by a simple inflection, to denote that the individual named has ceased to exist. This delicate mode of conveying melancholy intelligence, or alluding to the dead, is effected by placing the object in the past tense.

Aiekid-ôpun aieko Garrangula-bun.
So the deceased Garrangula spoke.

The syllable bun, in this sentence, added to the noun, and _ôpun_ added to the verb, place both in the past tense. And, although the death of the Indian orator is not mentioned, that fact would be invariably inferred.

Names which do not terminate in a vowel sound, require a vowel prefixed to the tensal inflection, rendering it _ôbun_ or ebun. Inanimate as well as animate nouns take these inflections.

PRESENT.	PAST FORM.
Tecumseh,	Tecumsi-bun.
Tammany,	Tamani-bun.
Skenandoah,	Skenandoa-bun.
Nôs (my father),	Nos-êbun.
Pontiac,	Pontiac-ibun.
Waub Ojeeg,	Waub Ojeeg-ibun.
Tarhe,	Tarhi-bun.
Mittig (a tree),	Mittig-ôbun.
Akkik (a kettle),	Akkik-ôbun.
Môz (a moose),	Môz-ôbun.

By prefixing the particle Tah to these words, and changing the inflection of the animate nouns to iwi, and the inanimates to iwun, they are rendered future. Thus, Tah Pontiac-iwi; Tah Mittig-iwun, &c.

The names for the seasons only come under the operation of these rules, when the year before the last, or the year after the next, is referred to. The last and the ensuing season are indicated as follows:—

	PRESENT.	LAST.	NEXT.
Spring,	Seegwun,	Seegwun-oong,	Seegwung.
Summer,	Neebin,	Neebin-oong,	Neebing.
Autumn,	Tahgwâgi,	Tahgwâg-oong,	Tahgwâgig.
Winter,	Peebôn,	Peebôn-oong,	Peebông.
	I spent last winter in hunting.
	Ning´i nunda-wainjigai peebônoong.
	I shall go to Detroit next spring.
	Ninjah izhâ Wâwiâ´tunong seegwung.

5. Sexual Nouns.—The mode of indicating the masculine and feminine having been omitted in the preceding Inquiry, as not being essential to any concordance with the verb or adjective, is, nevertheless, connected with a striking peculiarity of the language—the exclusive use of certain words by one or the other sex. After having appeared to the founders of the language a distinction not necessary to be engrafted in the syntax, there are yet a limited number of words to which the idea of sex so strongly attaches, that it would be deemed the height of impropriety in a female to use the masculine, and in a male to use the feminine expressions.

Of this nature are the words Neeji and Nindongwai, both signifying my friend, but the former is appropriated to males and the latter to females. A Chippewa cannot, therefore, say to a female, my friend; nor a Chippewa woman to a male, my friend. Such an interchange of the terms would imply arrogance or indelicacy. Nearly the whole of their interjections—and they are numerous—are also thus exclusively appropriated; and no greater breach of propriety in speech could be committed, than a woman's uttering the masculine exclamation of surprise, Tyâ! or a man's descending to the corresponding female interjection, N'yâ!

The word Neenimoshai, my cousin, on the contrary, can only be applied, like husband and wife, by a male to a female, or a female to a male. If a male wishes to express this relation of a male, the term is Neetowis; and the corresponding female term Neendongwooshai.

The terms for uncle and aunt are also of a twofold character, though not restricted like the preceding in their use. Neemishomai, is my uncle by the father's side; Neezhishai, my uncle by the mother's side. Neezigwoos, is my paternal aunt; Neewishai, my maternal aunt.

There are also exclusive words to designate elder brother and younger brother; but, what would not be expected after the fore going examples, they are indiscriminately applied to younger brothers and sisters. Neesgai, is my elder brother, and neemissai, my elder sister. Neeshemai, my younger brother or younger sister, and may be applied to any brother or sister except the eldest.

The number of words to which the idea of sex is attached, in the usual acceptation, is limited. The following may be enumerated.

MASCULINE.		FEMININE.
Inin´i,	A man.	Ekwai´,	A woman.
Kwee´wizais,	A boy.	Ekwa´zais,	A girl.
Oskinahwai,	A young man.	Oskineegakwai,	A young woman.
Akiwaizi,	An old man.	Mindimô´ed,	An old woman.
Nôsai,	My father.	Nin Gah,	My mother.
Ningwisis,	My son.	Nin dânis,	My daughter.
Ni ningwun,	My son-in-law.	Nis sim,	My daughter-in-law.
Ni nâbaim,	My husband.	Nimindimôimish,	My wife.
Nimieshomiss,	My grandfather.	Nôkômiss,	My grandmother.
Ogimâ,	A chief.	Ogemâkwâ,	A chiefess.
Addik,	A reindeer.	Neetshâni,	A doe.
Annimoosh,	A dog.	Kiskisshâi,	A bitch.

The sex of the brute creation is most commonly denoted by prefixing the words Iâbai, male, and Nôzhai, female.

6. Reciprocal Changes of the Noun.—The pronominal particles with which verbs as well as substantives are generally encumbered, and the habit of using them in particular and restricted senses, leave but little occasion for the employment of either the present or past infinitive. Most verbs are transitives. A Chippewa does not say I love, without indicating, by an inflection of the verb, the object beloved: and thus the expression is constantly, I love him, or her, &c. Neither does the infinitive appear to be generally the ultimate form of the verb.

In changing their nouns into verbs, it will not, therefore, be expected that the change should uniformly result in the infinitive, for which there is so little use, but in such of the personal forms of the various moods as circumstances may require. Most commonly, the third person singular of the indicative, and the second person singular of the imperative, are the simplest aspects under which the verb appears; and hence these forms have been sometimes mistaken for, and reported as the present infinitive. There are some instances in which the infinitive is employed. Thus, although an Indian cannot say I love, thou lovest, &c., without employing the objective forms of the verb to love, yet he can say I laugh, I cry, &c.; expressions in which, the action being confined to the speaker himself, there is no transition demanded. And in all similar instances the present infinitive, with the proper pronoun prefixed, is employed.

There are several modes of transforming a substantive into a verb. The following examples will supply the rules, so far as known, which govern these changes:—

	INDICATIVE.	IMPERATIVE.
Chimân, a canoe.	Chimai, he paddles.	Chimain, paddle thou.
Pashkizzigun, a gun.	Pashkizzigai, he fires.	Pashkizzigain, fire thou.
Jeesidyigun, a broom.	Jeesidyigai, he sweeps.	Jeesidyigain, sweep thou.
Weedjeeagun, a helper.	Weedôkagai, he helps.	Weedjeei-wain, help thou.
Ojibwâi, a Chippewa.	Ojibwâmoo, he speaks	Ojibwâmoon, speak thou
	Chippewa.	Chippewa.

Another class of nouns is converted into the first person, indicative, of a pseudo-declarative verb, in the following manner:—

Monido,	A spirit.	Ne Monidôw,	I (am) a spirit.
Wassaiâ,	Light.	Ne Wassaiâw,	I (am) light.
Ishkodai,	Fire.	Nin Dishkodaiw,	I (am) fire.
Weendigô,	A monster.	Ni Weendigôw,	I (am) a monster.
Addik,	A deer.	Nin Daddikoow,	I (am) a deer.
Wakyigun,	A house.	Ni Wakyiguniw,	I (am) a house.
Pinggwi,	Dust, ashes.	Nim Binggwiw,	I (am) dust, &c.

The word am, included in parenthesis, is not in the original, unless we may suppose the terminals ow, aw, iw, oow, to be derivatives from Iaw. These changes are reciprocated by the verb, which, as often as occasion requires, is made to put on a substantive form. The particle win, added to the indicative of the verb, converts it into a substantive. Thus—

Keegido,	He speaks.	Keegidowin,	Speech.
Pâshkizzigai,	He fires.	Pashkizzigaiwin,	Ammunition.
Agindasoo,	He counts.	Agindasoowin,	Numbers.
Wahyiâzhinggai,	He cheats.	Wahyiâzhinggaiwin,	Fraud.
Minnikwâi,	He drinks.	Minnikwâiwin,	Drink.
Kubbâshi,	He encamps.	Kubbâishiwin,	An encampment.
Meegâzoo,	He fights.	Meegâzoowin,	A fight.
Ojeengai,	He kisses.	Ojeendiwin,	A kiss.
Annôki,	He works.	Annôkiwta,	Work.
Pâpi,	He laughs.	Pâpiwin,	Laughter.
Pimâdizzi,	He lives.	Pimâdoiziwin,	Life.
Onwâibi,	He rests.	Onwâibiwin,	Rest.
Annamiâ,	He prays.	Annamiâwin,	Prayer.
Nibâ,	He sleeps.	Nibâwin,	Sleep.
Odâwai,	He trades.	Odâwaiwin,	Trade.

Adjectives are likewise thus turned into substantives:—

Keezhaiwâdizzi,	He generous.	Keezhaiwâdizziwin,	Generosity.
Minwaindum,	He happy.	Minwaindumowin,	Happiness.
Keezhaizeâwizzi,	He industrious.	Keezhaizhâwizziwin,	Industry.
Kittimâgizzi,	He poor.	Kittimâgizziwin,	Poverty.
Aukkoossi,	He sick.	Aukkoossiwin,	Sickness.
Kittimishki,	He lazy.	Kittimishkiwin,	Laziness.
Nishkâdizzi,	He angry.	Nishkâdizziwin,	Anger.
Baikâdizzi,	She chaste.	Baikâdizziwin,	Chastity.

span class="pagenum">[483] In order to place the substantives thus formed in the third person, corresponding with the indicative from which they were changed, it is necessary only to prefix the proper pronoun. Thus, Ogeezhaiwâdizziwin, his generosity, &c.

7. Compound Substantives.—The preceding examples have been given promiscuously from the various classes of words, primitive and derivative, simple and compound. Some of these words express but a single idea, as, _ôs_, father—gah, mother—môz, a moose—kâg, a porcupine—mang, a loon—and appear to be incapable of further division. All such words may be considered as primitives, although some of them may be contractions of dissyllabic words. There are also a number of dissyllables, and possibly some trisyllables, which, in the present state of our analytical knowledge of the language, may be deemed both simple and primitive. Such are neebi, water; ossin, a stone; geezis, the sun; nodin, wind. But it may be premised, as a principle which our investigations have rendered probable, that all polysyllabic words, all words of three syllables, so far as examined, and most words of two syllables, are compounds.

The application of a syntax, formed with a view to facilitate the rapid conveyance of ideas by consolidation, may, it is presumable, have early led to the coalescence of words, by which all the relations of object and action, time and person, were expressed. And in a language which is only spoken, and not written, the primitives would soon become obscured and lost in the multiform appendages of time and person, and the recondite connection of actor and object. And this process of amalgamation would be a progressive one. The terms that sufficed in the condition of the simplest state of nature, or in a given latitude, would vary with their varying habits, institutions, and migrations. The introduction of new objects and new ideas would require the invention of new words, or what is much more probable, existing terms would be modified or compounded to suit the occasion. No one who has paid much attention to the subject, can have escaped noticing a confirmation of this opinion, in the extreme readiness of our western Indians to bestow, on the instant, names, and appropriate names—to any new object presented to them. A readiness not attributable to their having at command a stock of generic polysyllables—for these it would be very awkward to wield—but, as appears more probable, to the powers of the syntax, which permits the resolution of new compounds from existing roots, and often concentrates, as remarked in another place, the entire sense of the parent words, upon a single syllable, and sometimes upon a single letter.

Thus it is evident that the Chippewas possessed names for a living tree, mittig, and a string, aiâb, before they named the bow mittigwâb—the latter being compounded under one of the simplest rules from the two former. It is further manifest that they had named earth akki, and (any solid, stony, or metallic mass) _âbik_, before they bestowed an appellation upon the kettle, akkeek, or akkik, the latter being derivatives from the former. In process of time these compounds became the bases of other compounds, and thus the language became loaded with double, and triple, and quadruple compounds, concrete in their meaning and formal in their utterance.

When the introduction of metals took place, it became necessary to distinguish the clay from the iron pot, and the iron from the copper kettle. The original compound, akkeek, retained its first meaning, admitting the adjective noun piwâbik (itself a compound) iron, when applied to a vessel of that kind, piwâbik akkeek, iron kettle. But a new combination took place to designate the copper kettle, mishwâkeek, red metal kettle; and another expression to denote the brass kettle, ozawâbik akkeek, yellow metal kettle. The former is made up from miskôwâbik, copper (literally red-metal—from miskwâ, red, and _âbik_, the generic above mentioned), and akkeek, kettle. Ozawâbik, brass, is from ozawâ, yellow, and the generic âbik—the term akkeek being added in its separate form. It may, however, be used in its connected form of wukkeek, making the compound expression ozawâbik wukkeek.

In naming the horse paibâizhikôgazhi, i. e. the animal with solid hoofs, they have seized upon the feature which most strikingly distinguished the horse from the cleft-footed animals, which were the only species known to them at the period of the discovery. And the word itself affords an example, at once, both of their powers of concentration, and brief, yet accurate description, which it may be worth while to analyze. Paizhik is one, and is also used as the indefinite article—the only article the language possesses. This word is further used in an adjective sense, figura-tively indicating, united, solid, undivided. And it acquires a plural signification by doubling, or repeating the first syllable, with a slight variation of the second. Thus, Pai-baizhik denotes not one, or an, but several; and when thus used in the context, renders the noun governed plural. Oskuzh is the nail, claw, or horny part of the foot of beasts, and supplies the first substantive member of the compound gauzh. The final vowel is from ahwaisi, a beast; and the marked o, an inseparable connective, the office of which is to make the two members coalesce, and harmonize. The expression thus formed becomes a substantive, specific in its application. It may be rendered plural like the primitive nouns, may be converted into a verb, has its diminutive, derogative, and local form, and, in short, is subject to all the modifications of other substantives.

Most of the modern nouns are of this complex character. And they appear to have been invented to designate objects, many of which were necessarily unknown to the Indians in the primitive ages of their existence. Others, like their names for a copper-kettle and a horse, above mentioned, can date their origin further back than the period of the discovery. Of this number of nascent words, are most of their names for those distilled or artificial liquors, for which they are indebted to Europeans. Their name for water, neebi, for the fat of animals, weenin, for oil or grease, pimmidai, for broth, nâbôb, and for blood, miskwi, belong to a very remote era, although all but the first appear to be compounds. Their names for the tinctures or extracts derived from the forest, and used as dyes, or medicines, or merely as agreeable drinks, are mostly founded upon the basis of the word _âbo_, a liquid, although this word is never used alone. Thus—

Shomin-âbo,	Wine,	From Shomin, a grape, âbo, a liquor.
Ishkôdâi-wâbo,	Spirits,	From Ishkôdâi, fire, &c.
Mishimin-âbo,	Cider,	From Mishimin, an apple, &c.
Tôtôsh-âbo,	Milk,	From Tôtôsh, the female breast, &c.
Sheew-âbo,	Vinegar,	From Sheewun, sour, &c.
Annibeesh-âbo,		From Annibeeshun, leaves, &c.
Ozhibiegun-aubo,		From Ozhibiêgai, he writes, &c.

In like manner their names for the various implements and utensils of civilized life, are based upon the word Jeegun, one of those primitives, which, although never disjunctively used, denotes, in its modified forms, the various senses implied by our words instrument, contrivance, machine, &c. And by prefixing to this generic a substantive, verb, or adjective, or parts of one or each, an entire new class of words is formed. In these combinations, the vowels e and o are sometimes used as connectives.

Keeshkeebô-jeegun,	A saw,	From Keeshkeezhun, v. a. to cut.
Seeseebô-jeegun,	A file,	From Seesee, to rub off, &c.
Wassakoonen-jeegun,	A candle,	From Wassakooda, bright, biskoona, flame, &c.
Beeseebô-jeegun,	A coffee-mill,	From Beesâ, fine grains, &c.
Minnikwâd-jeegun,	A drinking-vessel,	From Minnekwâi, he drinks, &c.
Tâshkeebôd-jeegun,	A saw-mill,	From Taushkâ, to split, &c.
Mudwâiabeed-jeegun,	A violin,	From Mudwâwâi, sound, âiâb, a string, &c.

Sometimes this termination is shortened into gun, as in the following instances:—

Onâ-gun,	A dish.
Tikkina-gun,	A cradle.
Neeba-gun,	A bed.
Puddukkyi-gun,	A fork.
Puggimmâ-gun,	A war-club.
Opwâ-gun,	A pipe.
Wassâitshie-gun,	A window.
Wakkyi-gun,	A house.
Pôdahwâ-gun,	A fire-place.
Sheema-gun,	A lance.

Another class of derivatives is formed from wyân, indicating, generally, an undressed skin. Thus—

Muk-wyân,	A bear skin,	From Mukwah, a bear, and wyaun, a skin.
Wazhusk-wyân,	A muskrat skin,	From Wazhusk, a muskrat, &c.
Wabôs-wyân,	A rabbit skin,	From Wabôs, a rabbit, &c.
Neegik-wyân,	An otter skin,	From Neegih, an otter, &c.
Ojeegi-wyân,	A fisher skin,	From Ojeeg, a fisher, &c.
Wabizhais-ewyân,	a martin skin,	from wabizhais, a martin, &c.

Wâbiwyân, a blanket, and bubbuggiwyân, a shirt, are also formed from this root. As the termination wyân, is chiefly restricted to undressed skins, or peltries, that of waigin is, in like manner, generally applied to dressed skins or to cloths. Thus—

Monido-waigin,	Blue cloth, shrouds,	From Monido, spirits, &c.
Misk-waigin,	Red cloth,	From Miskwâ, red, &c.
Nondâ-waigin,	Scarlet.
Peezhiki-waigin,	A buffalo robe,	From Peezhiki, a buffalo, &c.
Addik-waigin,	A cariboo skin,	From Addik, a cariboo, &c.
Ozhauwushk-waigin,	Green cloth,	From Ozhâwushkwâ, green.

An interesting class of substantives is derived from the third person singular of the present indicative of the verb, by changing the vowel sound of the first syllable, and adding the letter d to that of the last, making the terminations in aid, _âd_, eed, id, ood. Thus, Pimmoossâ, he walks, becomes pâmmoossâd, a walker.

aid.
Munnissai,	He chops.	Mânissaid,	A chopper.
Ozhibeigai,	He writes.	Wâzhibeigaid,	A writer.
Nundowainjeegai,	He hunts.	Nândowainjeegaid,	A hunter.
âd.
Neebâ,	He sleeps.	Nâbâd,	A sleeper.
Kwâbahwâ,	He fishes (with scoop net).	Kwyâbahwâd,	A fisher (with scoop net).
Puggidowâ,	He fishes (with seine).	Pâgidowâd,	A fisher (with seine).
eed.
Annokee,	He works.	Anokeed,	A worker.
Jeessakea,	He juggles.	Jossakeed,	A juggler.
Munnigobee,	He pulls bark.	Mainigobeed,	A bark puller.
id.
Neemi,	He dances.	Nâmid,	A dancer.
Weesinni,	He eats.	Wâssinid,	An eater.
Pimâdizzi,	He lives.	Paimaudizzid,	A living being.
ood.
Nugamoo,	He sings.	Naigumood,	A singer.
Keegido,	He speaks.	Kâgidood,	A speaker.
Keewonimoo,	He lies.	Kâwunimood,	A liar.

This class of words is rendered plural in ig—a termination, which, after d final in the singular, has a soft pronunciation, as if written jig. Thus, Nâmid, a dancer, nâmidjig, dancers.

The derogative form is given to these generic substantives by introducing ish, or simply sh, in place of the d, and changing the latter to kid, making the terminations in ai, aishkid, in _â_, _âshkid_, in e, eeshkid, in i, ishkid, and in oo, ooshkid. Thus, naindowainjeegaid, a hunter, is changed to naindowainjeegaishkid, a bad or unprofitable hunter. Naibâd, a sleeper, is changed to naibâshkid, a sluggard. Jossakeed, a juggler, to jossakeeshkid, a vicious juggler. Wâsinnid, an eater, to wâssinishkid, a gormandizer. Kâgidood, a speaker, kâgidooshkid, a babbler. And in these cases the plural is added to the last educed form, making kâgidooshkidjig, babblers, &c.

The word nittâ, on the contrary, prefixed to those expressions, renders them complimentary. For instance, nittâ naigumood, is a fine singer, nittâ kâgidood, a ready speaker, &c.

Flexible as the substantive has been shown to be, there are other forms of combination that have not been adverted to—forms, by which it is made to coalesce with the verb, the adjective, and the preposition, producing a numerous class of compound expressions. But it is deemed most proper to defer the discussion of these forms to their several appropriate heads.

Enough has been exhibited to demonstrate its prominent grammatical rules. It is not only apparent that the substantive possesses number and gender, but it also undergoes peculiar modifications to express locality and diminution, to denote adjective qualities and to indicate tense. It exhibits some curious traits connected with the mode of denoting the masculine and feminine. It is modified to express person and to distinguish living from inanimate masses. It is rendered possessive by a peculiar inflection, and provides particles, under the shape either of prefixes or suffixes, separable or inseparable, by which the actor is distinguished from the object—and all this, without changing its proper substantive character, without putting on the aspect of a pseudo adjective, or a pseudo verb. Its changes to produce compounds are, however, its most interesting, its most characteristic trait. Syllable is heaped upon syllable, word upon word, and derivative upon derivative, until its vocabulary is crowded with long and pompous phrases, most formidable to the eye.

So completely transpositive do the words appear, that like chessmen on a board, their elementary syllables can be changed at the will of the player, to form new combinations to meet new contingencies, so long as they are changed in accordance with certain general principles and conventional rules; in the application of which, however, much depends upon the will or the skill of the player. What is most surprising, all these changes and combinations, all these qualifications of the object, and distinctions of the person, the time, and the place, do not supersede the use of adjectives, and pronouns, and verbs, and other parts of speech woven into the texture of the noun, in their elementary and conjunctive forms.

III.
Principles Governing the Use of the Odjibwa Noun-Adjective.

Inquiry 3.

Observations on the adjective—Its distinction into two classes denoted by the presence or absence of vitality—Examples of the animates and inanimates—Mode of their conversion into substantives—How pronouns are applied to these derivatives, and the manner of forming compound terms from adjective bases to describe the various natural phenomena—The application of these principles in common conversation, and in the description of natural and artificial objects—Adjectives always preserve the distinction of number—Numerals—Arithmetical capacity of the language—The unit exists in duplicate.

1. It has been remarked that the distinction of words into animates and inanimates, is a principle intimately interwoven throughout the structure of the language. It is, in fact, so deeply imprinted upon its grammatical forms, and is so perpetually recurring, that it may be looked upon, not only as forming a striking peculiarity of the language, but as constituting the fundamental principle of its structure, from which all other rules have derived their limits, and to which they have been made to conform. No class of words appears to have escaped its impress. Whatever concords other laws impose, they all agree, and are made subservient in the establishment of this.

It might appear to be a useless distinction in the adjective, when the substantive is thus marked; but it will be recollected that it is in the plural of the substantive only that the distinction is marked; and we shall, presently have occasion to show that redundancy of forms is, to considerable extent, obviated in practice.

For the origin of the principle itself, we need look only to nature, which endows animate bodies with animate properties and qualities, and vice versâ. But it is due to the tribes who speak this language, to have invented one set of adjective symbols to express the ideas peculiarly appropriate to the former, and another set applicable exclusively to the latter; and to have given the words good and bad, black and white, great and small, handsome and ugly, such modifications as are practically competent to indicate the general nature of the objects referred to, whether provided with, or destitute of, the vital principle. And not only so, but, by the figurative use of these forms, to exalt inanimate masses into the class of living beings, or to strip the latter of its properties of life—a principle of much importance to their public speakers.

This distinction is shown in the following examples, in which it will be observed that the inflection izzi generally denotes the personal, and au, un, or wud, the impersonal forms.

	ADJ. INANIMATE.	ADJ. ANIMATE.
Bad,	Monaudud,	Monaudizzi.
Ugly,	Gushkoonaugwud,	Gushkoonaugoozzi.
Beautiful,	Bishegaindaugwud,	Bisheguindaugoozzi.
Strong,	Söngun,	Söngizzi.
Soft,	Nökun,	Nökizzi.
Hard,	Mushkowau,	Mushkowizzi.
Smooth,	Shoiskwau,	Shoiskoozzi.
Black,	Mukkuddäwau,	Mukkuddäwizzi.
White,	Waubishkau,	Waubishkizzi.
Yellow,	Ozahwau,	Ozahwizzi.
Red,	Miskwau,	Miskwizzi.
Blue,	Ozhahwushkwau,	Ozhahwushkwizzi.
Sour,	Sheewun,	Sheewizzi.
Sweet,	Weeshköbun,	Weeshköbizzi.
Light,	Naugun,	Naungizzi.

It is not, however, in all cases, by mere modifications of the adjective that these distinctions are expressed. Words totally different in sound, and evidently derived from radically different roots, are, in some few instances, employed; as in the following examples:—

	ADJ. INANIMATE.	ADJ. ANIMATE.
Good,	Onisheshin,	Minno.
Bad,	Monaudud,	Mudjee.
Large,	Mitshau,	Mindiddo.
Small,	Pungee,	Uggaushe.
Old,	Geekau,	Gitizzi.

It may be remarked of these forms, that, although the impersonal will, in some instances, take the personal inflections, the rule is not reciprocated, and minno, and mindiddo, and gitizzi, and all words similarly situated, remain unchangeably animates. The word pungee is limited to the expression of quantity, and its correspondent, uggaushi, to size or quality. Kishedä (hot) is restricted to the heat of a fire; keezhautä, to the heat of the sun. There is still a third term to indicate the natural heat of the body; kizzizoo. Mitshau (large) is generally applied to countries, lakes, rivers, &c.; mindiddo, to the body; and gitshee, indiscriminately. Onishishin, and its correspondent, onishishshä, signify handsome or fair, as well as good. Kwonaudy, a. a., and kwonaudyewun, a. i., mean, strictly, handsome, and imply nothing further. Minno is the appropriate personal form for good. Mudjee and monaudud may reciprocally change genders, the first by the addition of iee, and the second by altering ud to izzi.

Distinctions of this kind are of considerable importance in a practical point of view, and their observance or neglect is noticed with scrupulous exactness by the Indians. The want of inanimate forms to such words as happy, sorrowful, brave, sick, &c., creates no confusion, as inanimate nouns cannot, strictly speaking, take upon themselves such qualities; and when they do—as they sometimes do—by one of those extravagant figures of speech which are used in their tales of transformations, the animate form answers all purposes; for in these tales the whole material creation may be clothed with animation. The rule, as exhibited in practice, is limited, with sufficient accuracy, to the boundaries prescribed by nature.

To avoid a repetition of forms, were the noun and the adjective both to be employed in their usual relation, the latter is endowed with a pronominal or substantive inflection; and the use of the noun in its separate form is thus wholly superseded. Thus, onishishin, a. i., and onishishsha, a. a., become wänishishing, "That which is good or fair," and wänishishid, "He who is good or fair." The following examples will exhibit this rule under each of its forms:—

COMPOUND OR NOUN-ADJECTIVE ANIMATE.
Black,	Mukkuddawizzi,	Mäkuddäwizzid.
White,	Waubishkizzi,	Wyaubishkizzid.
Yellow,	Ozahwizzi,	Wäzauwizzid.
Red,	Miskwizzi,	Mäskoozzid.
Strong,	Söngizzi,	Swöngizzid.
NOUN-ADJECTIVE INANIMATE.
Black,	Mukkuddäwau,	Mäkuddäwaug.
White,	Waubishkau,	Wyaubishkaug.
Yellow,	Ozahwau,	Wäzhauwaug.
Red,	Miskwau,	Maiskwaug.

The animate forms, in these examples, will be recognized as exhibiting a further extension of the rule, mentioned in the preceding Inquiry, by which substantives are formed from the indicative of the verb by a permutation of the vowels; and these forms are likewise rendered plural in the manner there mentioned. They also undergo changes to indicate the various persons. For instance, onishisha is thus declined to mark the person:—

Wänishish-eyaun,	I (am) good or fair.
Wänishish-eyun,	Thou (art) good or fair.
Wänishish-id,	He (is) good or fair.
Wänishish-eyaung,	We (are) good or fair. (ex.)
Wänishish-eyung,	We (are) good or fair. (in.)
Wänishish-eyaig,	Ye (are) good or fair.
Wänishish-idjig,	They (are) good or fair.

The inanimate forms, being without person, are simply rendered plural by in, changing maiskwaug to maiskwaug-in, &c. &c. The verbal signification which these forms assume, as indicated in the words am, art, is, are, is to be sought in the permutative change of the first syllable. Thus, o is changed to wä, muk to mäk, waub to wy-aub, ozau to wäzau, misk to maisk, &c. The pronoun, as is usual in the double compounds, is formed wholly by the inflections eyaun, eyun, &c.

The strong tendency of the adjective to assume a personal or pronomico-substantive form, leads to the employment of many words in a particular or exclusive sense; and, in any future practical attempts with the language, it will be found greatly to facilitate its acquisition, if the adjectives are arranged in distinct classes, separated by this characteristic principle of their application. The examples we have given are chiefly those which may be considered strictly animate or inanimate, admit of double forms, and are of general use. Many of the examples recorded in the original manuscripts employed in these inquiries, are of a more concrete character, and, at the same time, a more limited use. Thus, shaugwewe is a weak person; nökaugumme, a weak drink; nökaugwud, a weak or soft piece of wood. Sussägau is fine, but can only be applied to personal appearance; beesau, indicates fine grains. Keewushkwä is giddy, and keewushkwäbee, giddy with drink—both being restricted to the third person. Söngun and songizzi are the personal and impersonal forms of strong, as given above, but mushkowaugumme is strong drink. In like manner, the two words for hard, as above, are restricted to solid substances. Sunnuhgud is hard (to endure). Waindud is easy (to perform). Söngodää is brave; shaugedää, cowardly; keezhinghowizzi, active; kizheekau, swift; onaunegoozzi, lively; minwaindum, happy; gushkaindum, sorrowful; but all these forms are confined to the third person of the indicative, singular. Pibbigwun is a rough or knotted substance; pubbiggozzi, a rough person. Keenwau is long or tall (any solid mass). Kaynozid is a tall person. Tahkozid a short person. Wassayau is light; wassaubizzoo, the light of the eye; wasshauzhä, the light of a star or any luminous body. Keenau is sharp; keenaubikud, a sharp knife or stone. Keezhaubikeday is hot metal, a hot stove, &c. Keezhaugummeday is hot water. Uubudgeetön is useful, a useful thing. Wauweeug is frivolous, anything frivolous in word or deed. Tubbushish appears to be a general term for low. Ishpimming is high in the air. Ishpau is applied to any high fixture, as a house, &c. Ishpaubikau is a high rock. Taushkaubikau, a split rock.

These combinations and limitations meet the inquirer at every step; they are the current phrases of the language; they present short, ready, and often beautiful modes of expression; and, as they shed light both upon the idiom and genius of the language, I shall not scruple to add further examples and illustrations. Ask a Chippewa the name for a rock, and he will answer awzhebik. The generic import of awbik has been explained. Ask him the name for red rock, and he will answer miskwaubik; for white rock, and he will answer waubaubik; for black rock, mukkuddäwaubik; for yellow rock, ozahwaubik; for green rock, ozhahwushkwaubik; for bright rock, wassayaubik; for smooth rock, shoishkwaubik, &c.—compounds in which the words red, white, black, yellow, &c., unite with aubik. Pursue this inquiry, and the following forms will be elicited:

—

Impersonal.
Miskwaubik-ud,	It (is) a red rock.
Waububik-ud,	It (is) a white rock.
Mukkudäwaubik-ud,	It (is) a black rock.
Ozahwaubik-ud,	It (is) a yellow rock.
Wassayaubik-ud,	It (is) a bright rock.
Shoiskwaubik-ud,	It (is) a smooth rock.
Personal.
Miskwaubik-izzi,	He (is) a red rock.
Waububik-izzi,	He (is) a white rock.
Mukkudäwaubik-izzi,	He (is) a black rock.
Ozahwaubik-izzi,	He (is) a yellow rock.
Wassayaubik-izzi,	He (is) a bright rock.
Shoiskwaubik-izzi,	He (is) a smooth rock.

Add bun to these terms, and they are made to have passed away; prefix tah to them, and their future appearance is indicated. The word "is" in the translations, although marked with parentheses, is not deemed wholly gratuitous. There is, strictly speaking, an idea of existence given to these compounds, by the particle au, in aubic, which seems to be indirectly a derivative from that great and fundamental root of the language Iau. Bik is apparently the radix of the expression for "rock."

Let this mode of interrogation be continued, and extended to other adjectives, or the same adjectives applied to other objects, and results equally regular and numerous will be obtained. Minnis, we shall be told is an island; miskominnis, a red island; mukkuddäminnis, a black island; waubeminnis, a white island, &c. Annokwut, is a cloud; miskwaunakwut, a red cloud; mukkuddawukwut, a black cloud; waubahnokwut, a white cloud; ozahwushkwahnakwut, a blue cloud, &c. Neebe is the specific term for water; but is not generally used in combination with the adjective. The word guma, like aubo, appears to be a generic term for water, or potable liquids. Hence, the following terms:—

Gitshee,	Great.	Gitshiguma,	Great water.
Nokun,	Weak.	Nökauguma,	Weak drink.
Mushkowau,	Strong.	Mushkowauguma,	Strong drink.
Weeshkobun,	Sweet.	Weeshkobauguma,	Sweet drink.
Sheewun,	Sour.	Sheewauguma,	Sour drink.
Weesugun,	Bitter.	Weesugauguma,	Bitter drink.
Minno,	Good.	Minwauguma,	Good drink.
Monaudud,	Bad.	Mahnauguma,	Bad drink.
Miskwau,	Red.	Miskwauguma,	Red drink.
Ozahwau,	Yellow.	Ozahwauguma,	Yellow drink.
Weenun,	Dirty.	Weenauguma,	Dirty water.
Peenud,	Clean.	Peenauguma,	Clean water.

From minno, and from monaudud, good and bad, are derived the following terms: Minnopogwud, it tastes well; minnopogoozzi, he tastes well; mawzhepogwud, it tastes bad; mawzhepogoozzi, he tastes bad. Minnomaugwud, it smells good; minnomaugoozzi, he smells good;_ mauzhemaugud_, it smells bad; mauzhemaugoozzi, he smells bad. The inflections gwud, and izzi, here employed, are clearly indicative, as in other combinations, of the words it and him.

Baimwa, is sound; baimwäwa, the passing sound; minwäwa, a pleasant sound; maunwäwa, a disagreeable sound; mudwayaushkau, the sound of waves dashing on the shore; mudwayaunnemud, the sound of winds; mudwayaukooshkau, the sound of falling trees; mudwäkumigishin, the sound of a person falling upon the earth; mudwaysin, the sound of any inanimate mass falling on the earth. These examples might be continued ad infinitum. Every modification of circumstances, almost every peculiarity of thought, is expressed by some modification of the orthography. Enough has been given to prove that the adjective combines itself with the substantive, the verb, and the pronoun, that the combinations thus produced are numerous, afford concentrated modes of conveying ideas, and oftentimes, happy turns of expression. Numerous and prevalent as these forms are, they do not, however, preclude the use of adjectives in their simple forms. The use of the one or the other appears to be generally at the option of the speaker. In most cases brevity or euphony dictates the choice. Usage results from these applications of the principles. There may be rules resting upon a broader basis; but if so, they do not appear to be very obvious. Perhaps the simple adjectives are often employed before verbs and nouns, in the first and second persons singular.

Ningee minno neebau-nabun,	I have slept well.
Ningee minno weesin,	I have eaten a good meal.
Ningee minno pimmoossay,	I have walked well, or a good distance.
Kägät minno geezhigud,	It (is) a very pleasant day.
Kwanaudy ningödahs,	I have a handsome garment.
Ke minno iau nuh,	Are you well?
Auneende ain deyun,	What ails you?
Keezhamonedo aupädush shäwainemik,	God prosper you.
Aupädush shäwaindaugoozzegun,	Good luck attend you.
Aupädush nau kinwainzh pimmaudizziyun,	May you live long.
Onauneegoozzin,	Be (thou) cheerful.
Ne minwaindum waubumenaun,	I (am) glad to see you.
Kwanaudj kweeweezains,	A pretty boy.
Kägät söngedää,	He (is) a brave man.
Kägät onishishsha,	She (is) handsome.
Gitshee kinözee,	He (is) very tall.
Uggausau bäwizzi,	She (is) slender.
Gitshee sussaigau,	He (is) fine dressed.
Bishegaindaugoozzi-wug meegwunug,	They (are) beautiful feathers.
Ke daukoozzinuh,	Are you sick?
Monaudud muundun muskeekee,	This (is) bad medicine.
Monaudud aindauyun,	My place of dwelling (is) bad.
Aindauyaun mitshau,	My place of dwelling (is) large.
Ne mittigwaub onishishsha,	My bow (is) good.
Ne bikwukön monaududön,	But my arrows (are) bad.
Ne minwaindaun appaukoozzegun,	I love mild or mixed tobacco.
Kauweekau neezhikay ussämau ne suggus-wannausee,	But I never smoke pure tobacco.
Monaudud maishkowaugumig,	Strong drink (is) bad.
Keeguhgee budjeëgonaun,	It makes us foolish.
Gitshee Monedo neebe ogee özhetön,	The Great Spirit made water.
mIninewug dush ween ishködäwaubo ogee oz-hetönahwau,	But man made whiskey.

These expressions are put down promiscuously, embracing verbs and nouns as they presented themselves, and without any effort to support the opinion, which may or may not be correct, that the elementary forms of the adjectives are most commonly required before verbs and nouns in the first and second persons. The English expression is thrown into Indian in the most natural manner, and, of course, without always giving adjective for adjective or noun for noun. Thus, God is rendered, not monedo, but Geezha monedo, merciful spirit. Good luck is rendered by the compound phrase, shäwaindaugoozzegun, indicating in a very general sense, the influence of kindness or benevolence on success in life. Söngedää is, alone, a brave man, and the word kägät prefixed, is an adverb. In the expression "mild tobacco," the adjective is entirely dispensed with in the Indian, the sense being sufficiently rendered by the compound noun appaukoozzegun, which always means the Indian weed or smoking mixture. Ussämau, on the contrary, without the adjective, signifies pure tobacco. Bikwukön, signifies blunt or lumpy-headed arrows; assowaun, is the barbed arrow. Kwonaudj kweeweezains means, not simply "pretty boy," but pretty little boy; and there is no mode of using the word boy but in this diminutive form, the word itself being a derivative kewewe coryugal, with the regular diminutive in ains. Onauneegoozzin, embraces the pronoun, verb, and adjective, be thou cheerful. In the last phrase of the examples, "man" is rendered men (inineewuy) in the translation, as the term man cannot be employed in the general plural sense it conveys in this connection in the original. The word "whiskey" is rendered by the compound phrase, ishködawaubo, literally fire-liquor, a generic for all kinds of ardent spirits.

These aberrations from the literal terms will convey some conceptions of the difference of the two idioms, although, from the limited nature and object of the examples, they will not indicate the full extent of the difference. In giving anything like the spirit of the original, much greater deviations in the written forms must appear. And in fact, not only the structure of the language, but the mode and order of thought of the Indians is so essentially different, that any attempts to preserve the English idiom, to give letter for letter, and word for word, must go far to render the translation pure nonsense.

2. Varied as the adjective is in its changes, it has no comparative inflection. A Chippewa cannot say that one substance is hotter or colder than another, or of two or more substances unequally heated, that this or that is the hottest or coldest, without employing adverbs or accessory adjectives; and it is accordingly by adverbs and accessory adjectives that the degrees of comparison are expressed.

Pimmaudizziwin, is a very general substantive expression, indicating the tenor of being or life. Izzhewäbizziwin, is a term near akin to it, but more appropriately applied to the acts, conduct, manner, or personal deportment of life. Hence the expressions—

Nem bimmaudizziwin,	My tenor of life.
Ke bimmaudizziwin,	Thy tenor of life.
O pimmaudizziwin,	His tenor of life, &c.
Nin dizhewäbizziwin,	My personal deportment.
Ke dizhewäbizziwin,	Thy personal deportment.
O Izzhewäbizziwin,	His personal deportment, &c.

To form the positive degree of comparison from these terms, minno, good, and mudjee, bad, are introduced between the pronoun and verb, giving rise to some permutations of the vowels and consonants, which affect the sound only. Thus—

Ne minno pimmaudizziwin,	My good tenor of life.
Ke minno pimmaudizziwin,	Thy good tenor of life.
Minno pimmaudizziwin,	His good tenor of life.
Ne mudjee pimmaudizziwin,	My bad tenor of life.
Ke mudjee pimmaudizziwin,	Thy bad tenor of life.
Mudjee pimmaudizziwin,	His bad tenor of life.

To place these forms in the comparative degree, nahwudj, more, is prefixed to the adjective; and the superlative is denoted by mahmowee, an adverb or an adjective as it is variously applied, but the meaning of which is, in this connection, most. The degrees of comparison may be, therefore, set down as follows:—

Positive,	Kishedä.	Hot (restricted to the heat of a fire),
Comparative,	Nahwudj kishedä.	More hot,
Superlative,	Mahmowee kishedä.	Most hot.
Your manner of life is good,		Ke dizzhewäbizziwin onishishin.
Your manner of life is better,		Ke dizzhewäbizziwin nahwudj onishishin.
Your manner of life is best,		Ke dizzhewäbizziwin mahwoweé onishishin.
His manner of life is best,		Odizzhewäbizziwin mahmowee onishishinine.
Little Turtle was brave,		Mikkenoköns söngedääbun.
Tecumseh was braver,		Tecumseh nahwudj söngedääbun.
Pontiac was bravest,		Pontiac mahmowee söngedääbun.

3. The adjective assumes a negative form when it is preceded by the adverb. Thus, the phrase songedää, he is brave, is changed to kahween söngedääsee, he is not brave.

POSITIVE.
Neebwaukah,	He is wise.
Kwonaudjewe,	She is handsome.
Oskineegee,	He is young.
Shaugweewee,	He is feeble.
Geekkau,	He is old.
Mushkowizzi,	He is strong.
NEGATIVE.
Kahween neebwaukah-see,	He is not wise.
Kahween kwonaudjewee-see,	She is not handsome.
Kahween oskineegee-see,	He is not young.
Kahween Shaugweewee-see,	He is not feeble.
Kahween Geekkau-see,	He is not old.
Kahween Mushkowizzi-see,	He is not strong.

From this rule the indeclinable adjectives, by which is meant those adjectives which do not put on the personal and impersonal forms by inflection, but consist of radically different roots, form exceptions.

Are you sick?	Ke dahkoozzi nuh?
You are not sick!	Kahween ke dahkoozzi-see.
I am happy,	Ne minwaindum.
I am unhappy,	Kahween ne minwainduz-see.
His manner of life is bad,	Mudjee izzhewabizzi.
His manner of life is not bad,	Kahween mudjee izzhewabizzi-see.
It is large,	Mitshau muggud.
It is not large,	Kahween mitshau-seenön.

In these examples, the declinable adjectives are rendered negative in see; the indeclinable, remain as simple adjuncts to the verbs; and the latter put on the negative form.

4. In the hints and remarks which have now been furnished respecting the Chippewa adjective, its powers and inflections have been shown to run parallel with those of the substantive, in its separation into animates and inanimates; in having the pronominal inflections; in taking an inflection for tense—a topic which, by the way, has been very cursorily passed over—and in the numerous modifications to form the compounds. This parallelism has also been intimated to hold good with respect to number—a subject deeply interesting in itself, as it has its analogy only in the ancient languages—and it was therefore deemed best to defer giving examples, till they could be introduced without abstracting the attention from other points of discussion.

Minno and mudjee, good and bad, being of the limited number of personal adjectives which modern usage permits being applied, although often improperly applied to inanimate objects, they, as well as a few other adjectives, form exceptions to the use of number. Whether we say "a good man" or "a bad man," "good men" or "bad men," the words minno and mudjee remain the same. But all the declinable and coalescing adjectives—adjectives which join on, and, as it were, melt into the body of the substantive—take the usual plural inflections, and are governed by the same rules in regard to their use, as the substantive; personal adjectives requiring personal plurals, &c.

Adjectives Animate.
Singular.
Onishishewe mishemin,	Good apple.
Kwonaudjewe eekwä,	Handsome woman.
Songedää inine,	Brave man.
Bishegaindaugoozzi peenasee,	Beautiful bird.
Ozahwizzi ahmo,	Yellow bee.
Plural.
Onishishewe-wug mishemin-ug,	Good apples.
Kwonaudjewe-wug eekwä-wug,	Handsome women.
Songedää-wug inine-wug,	Brave men.
Bishegaindaugoozzi-wug peenasee-wug,	Beautiful birds.
Ozahwizzi-wug ahm-ög,	Yellow bees.
Adjectives Inanimate.
Singular.
Onishishin mittig,	Good tree.
Kwonaudj tshemaun,	Handsome canoe.
Monaudud ishkoda,	Bad fire.
Weeshkobun aidetaig,	Sweet fruit.
Plural.
Onishishin-ön mittig-ön,	Good trees.
Kwonaudjewun-ön tshemaun-un,	Handsome canoes.
Monaudud-ön ishkod-än,	Bad fires.
Weeshkobun-ön aidetaig-in,	Sweet fruits.

Peculiar circumstances are supposed to exist in order to render the use of the adjective, in this connection with the noun, necessary and proper. But, in ordinary instances, as the narration of events, the noun would precede the adjective; and oftentimes, particularly where a second allusion to objects previously named became necessary, the compound expressions would be used. Thus, instead of saying "the yellow bee," wazzahwizzid would distinctly convey the idea of that insect, had the species been before named. Under similar circumstances, kain-waukoozzid, agausheid, söngaunemud, mushkowaunemud, would respectively signify, "a tall tree," "a small fly," "a strong wind," "a hard wind." And these terms would become plural in jig, which, as before mentioned, is a mere modification of ig, one of the five general animate plural inflections of the language.

Kägät wahwinaudj abbenöjeeug, is an expression indicating they are very handsome children. But beeweezheewug monetösug denotes small insects. Minno neewugizzi, is "good tempered," "he is good tempered." Mawshininewugizzi, is "bad tempered," both having their plural in wug. Nin nuneenahwaindum, "I am lonesome." Nin nuneenahwaindaumin, "we (excluding you) are lonesome." Waweea, is a term generally used to express the adjective sense of round. Kwy, is the scalp; weewikwy, his scalp. Hence, weewukwon, "hat," wayweewukwonid, "a wearer of the hat;" and its plural, wayweewukwonidjig, "wearers of the hats"—the usual term applied to Europeans, or white men generally. These examples go to prove that under every form in which the adjective can be traced, whether in its simplest or most compound state, it is susceptible of number.

The numerals of the language are converted into adverbs by the inflection ing, making one, once, &c. The unit exists in duplicate.

Päzhik,	One, general unit.	Aubeding,	Once.
Ingoot,	One, numerical unit.
Neesh,	Two.	Neeshing,	Twice.
Niswee,	Three.	Nissing,	Thrice.
Neewin,	Four.	Neewing,	Four times.
Naunun,	Five.	Nauning,	Five times.
N'goodwaswä,	Six.	N'goodwautsking,	Six times.
Neeshwauswä,	Seven.	Neeshwautshing,	Seven times.
Shwauswe,	Eight.	Shwautshing,	Eight times.
Shongusswe,	Nine.	Shongutshing,	Nine times.
Metauswe,	Ten.	Meetaushing,	Ten times.

These inflections can be carried as high as they can compute numbers. They count decimally. After reaching ten, they repeat, ten and one, ten and two, &c. to twenty. Twenty is a compound signifying two tens; thirty, three tens, &c.; a mode which is carried up to one hundred—n'goodwak. Wak then becomes the word of denomination, combining with the names of the digits until they reach a thousand, meetauswauk, literally ten hundred. Here a new compound term is introduced, made by prefixing twenty to the last denominator, neeshtonnah duswak, which doubles the last term, thirty triples it, forty quadruples it, &c. till the computation reaches to ten thousand, n'goodwak dushing n'goodwak, one hundred times one hundred. This is the probable extent of all certain computation. The term gitshee (great), prefixed to the last denomination, leaves the number indefinite.

There is no form of the numerals corresponding to second, third, fourth, &c. They can only further say, nittum, first, and ishkwaudj, last.

IV.
Some Remarks respecting the Agglutinative Position and Properties of the Pronoun.

Inquiry 4.

Nature and principles of the pronoun—Its distinction into preformative and subformative classes—Personal pronouns—The distinction of an inclusive and exclusive form in the number of the first person plural—Modifications of the personal pronouns to imply existence, individuality, possession, ownership, position, and other accidents—Declension of pronouns to answer the purpose of the auxiliary verbs—Subformatives, how employed to mark the persons—Relative pronouns considered—Their application to the causative verbs—Demonstrative pronouns—Their separation into two classes, animates and inanimates—Example of their use.

Pronouns are buried, if we may so say, in the structure of the verb. In tracing them back to their primitive forms, through the almost infinite variety of modifications which they assume, in connection with the verb, substantive, and adjective, it will facilitate analysis to group them into preformative and subformative, which include the terms that have already been made use of—pronominal prefixes, and suffixes—and which admit of the further distinction of separable and inseparable. By separable, is intended those forms which have a meaning by themselves, and are thus distinguished from the inflective and subformative pronouns, and pronominal particles, significant only in connection with another word.

1. Of the first class, are the personal pronouns Neen (I), Keen (Thou), and Ween or O (He or She). They are declined, to form the plural persons, in the following manner:—

I,	Neen.	We,	Keen owind. (in.)
		We,	Neen owind. (ex.)
Thou,	Keen.	Ye,	Keen owau.
He or she,	Ween or O.	They,	Ween owau.

Here the plural persons are formed by a numerical inflection of the singular. The double plural of the first person, of which both the rule and examples have been incidentally given in the remarks on the substantive, is one of those peculiarities of the language which may, perhaps, serve to aid in a comparison of it with other dialects, kindred and foreign. As a mere conventional agreement for denoting whether the person addressed be included or excluded, it may be regarded as an advantage to the language. It enables the speaker, by the change of a single consonant, to make a full and clear discrimination, and relieves the narration from doubts and ambiguity, where doubts and ambiguity would otherwise often exist. On the other hand, by accumulating distinctions, it loads the memory with grammatical forms, and opens a door for improprieties of speech. We are not aware of any inconveniences in the use of a general plural; but, in the Indian, it would produce confusion. And it is, perhaps, to that cautious desire of personal discrimination, which is so apparent in the structure of the language, that we should look for the reason of the duplicate forms of this word. Once established, however, and both the distinction, and the necessity of a constant and strict attention to it, are very obvious and striking. How shall he address the Deity? If he say, "Our Father who art in heaven," the inclusive form of our makes the Almighty one of the suppliants, or family. If he use the exclusive form, it throws him out of the family, and may embrace every living being but the Deity. Yet, neither of these forms can be used very well in prayer, as they cannot be applied directly to the object addressed. It is only when speaking of the Deity, under the name of father, to other persons, that the inclusive and exclusive forms of the word our can be used. The dilemma may be obviated by the use of a compound descriptive phrase, Wä ö se mig o yun, signifying, "Thou, who art the father of all," or "universal father." In practice, however, the question is cut short by those persons who have embraced Christianity. It has seemed to them that, by the use of either of the foregoing terms, the Deity would be thrown into too remote a relation to them; and I have observed that in prayer they invariably address Him by the term used by children for the father of a family—that is, nosa, "my father."

The other personal pronouns undergo some peculiar changes when employed as preformatives before nouns and verbs, which it is important to remark. Thus neen, is sometimes rendered ne, or nin, and sometimes nim. Keen, is rendered ke, or kin. In compound words, the mere signs of the first and second pronouns, N and K, are employed. The use of ween is limited; and the third person, singular and plural, is generally indicated by the sign O.

The particle suh, added to the complete forms of the disjunctive pronouns, imparts a verbal sense to them; and appears, in this instance, to be a succedaneum for the substantive verb. Thus Neen, I, becomes neensuh, it is I. Keen, thou, becomes keensuh, it is thou; and ween, he or she, weensuh, it is he or she. This particle may be also added to the plural forms.

Keenowind suh,	It is we. (in.)
Neenowind suh,	It is we. (ex.)
Keenowau suh,	It is ye, or you.
Weenowau suh,	It is they.

If the word aittah, be substituted for suh, a set of adverbial phrases are formed:—

Neen aittah, I only.	Neen aittah wind, We, &c. (ex.)
	Keen aittah wind, We, &c. (in.)
Keen aittah, Thou only.	Keen aittah wau, You, &c.
Ween aittah, He or she only.	Ween aittah wau, They, &c.

In like manner, nittum, first, and ishkwaudj, last, give rise to the following arrangement of the pronoun:—

Neen nittum,	I first.
Keen nittum,	You or thou first.
Ween nittum,	He or she first.
Keen nittum ewind,	We first. (in.)
Neen nittum ewind,	We first. (ex.)
Keen nittum ewau,	Ye or you first.
Ween nittum ewau,	They first.
Ishkwaudj.
Neen ishkwaudj,	I last.
Keen ishkwaudj,	Thou last.
Ween ishkwaudj,	He or she last.
Keenowind ishkwaudj,	We last. (in.)
Neenowind ishkwaudj,	We last. (ex.)
Keenowau ishkwaudj,	Ye or you last.
Weenowau ishkwaudj,	They last.

The disjunctive forms of the pronoun are also sometimes preserved before verbs and adjectives.

Neezhika. Alone, (an.)
Neen neezhika,	I alone.
Keen neezhika,	Thou alone.
Ween neezhika,	He or she alone.
Keenowind neezhika,	We alone. (in.)
Neenowind neezhika,	We alone. (ex.)
Keenowau neezhika,	Ye or you alone.
Weenowau neezhika,	They alone.

To give these expressions a verbal form, the substantive verb, with its pronominal modifications, must be superadded. For instance, I am alone, &c. is thus rendered:—

Neen neezhika nindyau,	I am alone + aumin.
Keen neezhika keedyau,	Thou art alone + aum.
Ween neezhika iyau,	He or she is alone, &c. + wug.

In the subjoined examples, the noun OW, body, is changed to a verb, by the permutation of the vowel, changing OW, to AUW; which last takes the letter d before it when the pronoun is prefixed:—

I am a man,	Neen nin dauw.
Thou art a man,	Keen ke dauw.
He is a man,	Ween ah weeh.
We are men, (in.)	Ke dauw we min.
We are men, (ex.)	Ne dauw we min.
Ye are men,	Ke dauw mim.
They are men,	Weenowau ah weeh wug.

In the translation of these expressions, "man" is used as synonymous with "person." If the specific term inine had been introduced, in the original, the meaning thereby conveyed would be, in this particular connection, "I am a man," with respect to courage, &c. in opposition to effeminacy. It would not be simply declarative of corporeal existence, but of existence in a particular state or condition.

In the following phrases, the modified forms, or the signs only, of the pronouns are used:

N'debaindaun,	I own it.
Ke debaindaun,	Thou ownst it.
O debaindaun,	He or she owns it.
N'debaindaum-in,	We own it. (ex.)
Ke debaindaum-in,	We own it. (in.)
Ke debaindaun-ewau,	Ye own it.
O debaindaun-ewau,	They own it.

These examples are cited as exhibiting the manner in which the prefixed and preformative pronouns are employed, both in their full and contracted forms. To denote possession, nouns specifying the things possessed are required; and, what would not be anticipated had not full examples of this species of declension been given in another place, the purposes of distinction are not affected by a simple change of the pronoun, as I to mine, &c., but by a subformative inflection of the noun, which is thus made to have a reflective operation upon the pronoun speaker. It is believed that sufficient examples of this rule, in all the modifications of inflection, have been given under the head of the substantive. But as the substantives employed to elicit these modifications were exclusively specific in their meaning, it, may be proper here, in further illustration of an important principle, to present a generic substantive under their compound forms.

I have selected for this purpose one of the primitives. IE-AU´, is the abstract term for matter. It is in the animate form. Its inanimate correspondent is IE-EE´. These are two important roots. And they are found in combination, in a very great number of derivative words. It will be sufficient here, to show their connection with the pronoun, in the production of a class of terms in very general use.

Animate Forms.
Possessive.
SINGULAR.		PLURAL.
Nin dyë aum,	Mine.	Nin dyë auminaun,	Ours. (ex.)
		Ke dyë auminaun,	Ours. (in.)
Ke dyë aum,	Thine.	Ke dyë aumewau,	Yours.
Objective.
O dyë aum-un,	His or Hers.	O dyë aumewaun,	Theirs.
Inanimate Forms.
Possessive.
SINGULAR.		PLURAL.
Nin dyë eem,	Mine.	Nin dyë eeminaun,	Ours. (ex.)
		Ke dyë eeminaun,	Ours. (in.)
Ke dyë eem,	Thine.	Ke dyë eemewau,	Yours.
Objective.
O dyë eem.	His or Hers.	O dyë eemewau,	Theirs. (pos. in.)

In these forms the noun is singular throughout. To render it plural, as well as the pronoun, the appropriate general plurals ug and un, or ig and in, must be superadded. But it must be borne in mind, in making these additions, "that the plural inflection to inanimate nouns (which have no objective case), forms the objective case to animate, which have no number in the third person." (p. 461.) The particle un, therefore, which is the appropriate plural for the inanimate nouns in these examples, is only the objective mark of the animate.

The plural of I, is naun, the plural of thou and he, wau. But as these inflections would not coalesce smoothly with the possessive inflections, the connective vowels i and e are prefixed, making the plural of I, inaun, and of thou, &c., ewau.

If we strike from these declensions the root IE, leaving its animate and inanimate forms AU and EE, and adding the plural of the noun, we shall then, taking the animate declension as an instance, have the following formula of the pronominal declensions:

Pronoun singular.	Place of the noun.	Possessive inflection.	Objective inflection to the noun singular.	Connective vowel.	Plural inflection of the pronoun.	Objective inflection, noun plural.	Plural of the noun.
Ne		aum		i	naun		ig
Ke		aum		e	wau		g
O		aum	un
O		aum		e	wau	n

To render this formula of general use, six variations (five in addition to the above) of the possessive inflection are required, corresponding to the six classes of substantives, whereby aum would be changed to _äm_, eem, im, _öm_, and oom, conformably to the examples heretofore given in treating of the substantive. The objective inflection would also be sometimes changed to een, and sometimes to oan.

Having thus indicated the mode of distinguishing the person, number, relation, and gender, or what is deemed its technical equivalent, the mutations words undergo, not to mark the distinctions of sex, but the presence or absence of vitality, I shall now advert to the inflections which the pronouns take for tense, or rather to form the auxiliary verbs, have, had, shall, will, may, &c.; a very curious and important principle, and one which clearly demonstrates that no part of speech has escaped the transforming genius of the language. Not only are the three great modifications of time accurately marked in the verbal form of the Chippewas, but, by the inflection of the pronoun, they are enabled to indicate some of the oblique tenses, and thereby to conjugate their verbs with accuracy and precision.

The particle gee added to the first, second, and third person singular, of the present tense, changes them to the perfect past, rendering I, thou, he, I did, have, or had; thou didst, hast, or hadst; he or she did, have, or had. If gah be substituted for gee, the first future tense is formed, and the perfect past added to the first future, forms the conditional future. As the eye may prove an auxiliary in the comprehension of forms which are not familiar, the following tabular arrangement of them is presented.

First person, I.
Nin gee,	I did, have, had.
Nin gah,	I shall, will.
Nin gah gee,	I shall have, will have.
Second person, Thou.
Ke gee,	Thou didst, hast, hadst.
Ke gah,	Thou shalt, wilt.
Ke gah gee,	Thou shalt have, wilt have.
Third person, He or She.
O gee,	He or she did, have, had.
O gah,	He or she did, have, had.
O gah gee,	He or she shall have, will have.

The present and imperfect tense of the potential mood is formed by dau, and the perfect by gee suffixed, as in other instances.

First person, I.
Nin dau,	I may, can, &c.
Nin dau gee,	I may have, can have, &c.
Second person, Thou.
Ke dau,	Thou mayst, canst, &c.
Ke dau gee,	Thou mayst have, canst have, &c.
Third person, He or She.
O dau,	He or she may, can, &c.
O dau gee,	He or she may have, can have, &c.

In conjugating the verbs through the plural person, the singular terms for the pronoun remain, and they are rendered plural by a retrospective action of the pronominal inflections of the verb. In this manner the pronoun-verb auxiliary has a general application, and the necessity of double forms is avoided.

The preceding observations are confined to the formative or prefixed pronouns. The inseparable suffixed or subformative are as follows:—

Yaun,	My.
Yun,	Thy.
Id or d,	His or hers.
Yaung,	Our. (ex.)
Yung,	Our. (in.)
Yaig,	Your.
Waud,	Their.

These pronouns are exclusively employed as suffixes, and as suffixes to the descriptive compound substantives, adjectives, and verbs. Both the rule and examples have been stated under the head of the substantives, p. 463, and adjectives, p. 492. Their application to the verb will be shown as we proceed.

2. Relative Pronouns.—In a language which provides for the distinction of person by particles prefixed or suffixed to the verb, it will scarcely be expected that separate and independent relative pronouns should exist, or if such are to be found, their use, as separate parts of speech, must, it will have been anticipated, be quite limited; limited to simple interrogatory forms of expression, and not applicable to the indicative or declaratory. Such will be found to be the fact in the language under review; and it will be perceived from the subjoined examples, that in all instances requiring the relative pronoun who, other than the simple interrogatory forms, this relation is indicated by the inflections of the verb, or adjective, &c. Nor does there appear to be any declension of the separate pronoun corresponding to whose and whom.

The word Ahwaynain, may be said to be uniformly employed in the sense of who, under the limitations we have mentioned. For instance—

Who is there?	Ahwaynain e-mah ai-aud?
Who spoke?	Ahwaynain kau keegœdood?
Who told you?	Ahwaynain kau weendumoak?
Who are you?	Ahwaynain iau we yun?
Who sent you?	Ahwaynain waynönik?
Who is your father?	Ahwaynain kös?
Who did it?	Ahwaynain kau tödung?
Whose dog is it?	Ahwaynain way dyid?
Whose pipe is that?	Ahwaynain döpwaugunid en-eu?
Whose lodge is it?	Ahwaynain way weegewomid?
Whom do you seek?	Ahwaynain nain dau wau bumud?
Whom have you here?	Ahwaynain oh-amau ai auwaud?

Not the slightest variation is made in these phrases between who, whose, and whom.

Should we wish to change the interrogative, and to say he who is there, he who spoke, he who told you, &c., the separable personal pronoun ween (he) must be used in lieu of the relative; and the following forms will be elicited:—

Ween, kau unnönik,	He (who) sent you.
Ween, kau geedood,	He (who) spoke.
Ween, ai-aud e-mah,	He (who) is there.
Ween, kau weendumoak,	He (who) told you.
Ween, kau tödung,	He (who) did it, &c.

If we object that, in these forms, there is no longer the relative pronoun who, the sense being simply he sent you, he spoke, &c., it is replied that, if it be intended only to say he sent you, &c., and not he who sent you, &c., the following forms are used:—

Ke gee unnönig,	He (sent) you.
Ainnözhid,	He (sent) me.
Ainnönaud,	He (sent) him.
Iau e-mau,	He is there.
Ke geedo,	He (spoke).
Ke gee weendumaug,	He (told) you.
Ke to dum,	He did it.

We reply to this answer of the native speaker, that the particle kau prefixed to a verb, denotes the past tense; that in the former series of terms in which this particle appears, the verbs are in the perfect indicative, and in the latter, they are in the present indicative, marking the difference only between sent and send, spoke and speak, &c.; and that there is absolutely no relative pronoun in either series of terms. We further observe, that the personal pronoun ween, prefixed to the first set of terms, may be prefixed, with equal propriety, to the second set, and that its use or disuse is perfectly optional with the speaker, as he may wish to give additional energy or emphasis to the expression. To these positions, after reflection, discussion, and examination, we receive an assent, and thus the uncertainty is terminated.

We now wish to apply the principle thus elicited to verbs causative, and to other compound terms—to the adjective verbs, for instance—and to the other verbal compound expressions, in which the objective and the nominative persons are incorporated as a part of the verb, and are not prefixes to it. This may be shown in the causative verb—

TO MAKE HAPPY.
Mainwaindumëid,	He (who) makes me happy.
Mainwaindumëik,	He (who) makes thee happy.
Mainwaindumëaud,	He (who) makes him happy.
Mainwaindumëinung,	He (who) makes us happy. (in.)
Mainwaindumëyaug,	He (who) makes us happy. (ex.)
Mainwaindumëinnaig,	He (who) makes ye or you happy.
Mainwaindumëigowaud,	He (who) makes them happy.

And so the forms might be continued throughout all the objective persons—

Mainwaindum ë yun,

Thou (who) makest me happy, &c.

The basis of these compounds is minno, "good," and aindum, "the mind." Hence, minwaindum, "he happy." The adjective, in this connection, cannot be translated "good," but its effect upon the noun is to denote that state of the mind which is at rest with itself. The first change from this simple compound, is to give the adjective a verbal form; and this is effected by a permutation of the vowels of the first syllable—a rule of very extensive application—and by which, in the present instance, the phrase "he happy," is changed to "he makes happy," (mainwaindum.) The next step is to add the suffix personal pronouns, id, ik, aud, &c., rendering the expressions, "he makes me happy," &c. But, in adding these increments, the vowel e is thrown between the adjective-verb and the pronoun suffixed, making the expression, not mainwaindum-yun, but mainwaindum ëyun. Generally, the vowel e, in this situation, is a connective, or introduced merely for the sake of euphony. And those who maintain that it is here employed as a personal pronoun, and that the relative who is implied by the final inflection, overlook the inevitable inference, that if the marked e stands for me in the first phrase, it must stand for thee in the second, he in the third, us in the fourth, &c. As to the meaning and office of the final inflections id, ik, &c., whatever they may, in an involuted sense, imply, it is quite clear, by turning to the list of suffixed personal pronouns, and animate plurals, that they mark the persons, I, thou, he, &c., we, ye, they, &c.

Take, for example, minwaindumëigowaud, "he (who) makes them happy." Of this compound, minwaindum, as before shown, signifies "he makes happy." But as the verb is in the singular number, it implies that but one person is made happy; and the suffixed personal pronouns singular, mark the distinctions between me, thee, and he, or him.

Minwaindum-e-ig is the verb plural, and implies that several persons are made happy; and, in like manner, the suffixed personal pronouns plural, mark the distinctions between we, ye, they, &c.; for it is a rule of the language, that a strict concordance must exist between the number of the verb and the number of the pronoun. The termination of the verb consequently always indicates whether there be one or many objects to which its energy is directed. And as animate verbs can be applied only to animate objects, the numerical inflections of the verb are understood to mark the number of persons. But this number is indiscriminate, and leaves the sense vague until the pronominal suffixes are superadded. Those who, therefore, contend for the sense of the relative pronoun "who" being given in the last-mentioned phrase, and all phrases similarly formed by a succedaneum, contend for something like the following form of translation: "He makes them happy—him!" or "Him—he (meaning 'who') makes them happy."

The equivalent for what, is waygonain.

What do you want?	Waygonain wau iauyun?
What have you lost?	Waygonain kau wonetöyun?
What do you look for?	Waygonain nain dahwau bundahmun?
What is this?	Waygonain ewinain maundun?
What will you have?	Waygonain kad iauyun?
What detained you?	Waygonain kau oon dahme egöyun?
What are you making?	Waygonain wayzhetöyun?
What have you there?	Waygonain e-mau iauyun?

The use of this pronoun, like the preceding, appears to be confined to simple interrogative forms. The word auneen, which sometimes supplies its place, or is used for want of the pronoun which, is an adverb, and has considerable latitude of meaning. Most commonly, it may be considered as the equivalent for how, in what manner, or at what time.

What do you say?	Auneen akeedöyun?
What do you call this?	Auneen aizheneekaudahmun maundun?(i.)
What ails you?	Auneen aindeeyun?
What is your name?	Auneen aizheekauzoyun?
Which do you mean, this or that? (an.)	Auneen ah-ow ainud, woh-ow gämau ewaidde?
Which do you mean, this or that? (in.)	Auneen eh-eu ewaidumun oh-oo gämau ewaidde?
Which boy do you mean?	Auneen ah-ow-ainud?

By adding to this word the particle de, it is converted into an adverb of place, and may be rendered where.

Where do you dwell?	Auneende aindauyun?
Where is your son?	Auneende ke gwiss?
Where did you see him?	Auneende ke waubumud?
Where did you see it?	Auneende ke waubundumun?
Where are you going?	Auneende azhauyun?
Where did you come from?	Auneende ka oonjeebauyun?
Where is your pipe?	Auneende ke döpwaugun?
Where is your gun?	Auneende ke baushkizzigun?

By a still further modification, it is rendered an adverb of inquiry of the cause or motive.

Why do you do so?	Auneeshween eh eu todumun?
Why do you say so?	Auneeshween eh eu ekeedoyun?
Why are you angry?	Auneeshween nishkaudizzeyun?
Why will you depart?	Auneeshween wee matyauyun?
Why will you not depart?	Auneeshween matyauseewun?
Why have you come?	Auneeshween ke peëzhauyun?
Tell me why?	Weendumowishin auneeshween?
Wherefore is it so?	Auneeshween eh-eu izzhewaibuk? (in.)
Wherefore did you strike him?	Auneeshween ke pukketaywud?

3. Demonstrative pronouns are either animate or inanimate, and may be arranged as follows:—

ANIMATE.		INANIMATE.
Mau-bum (impersonal),	This.	Maun-dun (inanimate proper).
Woh-ow (personal),		Oh-oo (inanimate conventional).
Ah-ow,	That.	Eh-eu.
Mau-mig,	These.	Mau-min.
Ig-eu (personal),	Those.	In-eu (inanimate proper).
I-goo (impersonal),		O-noo (inanimate conventional).

These words are not always used merely to ascertain the object, but often, perhaps always, when the object is present to the sight, have a substantive meaning, and are used without the noun. It creates no uncertainty, if a man be standing at some distance to say, Ah-ow; or if a canoe be lying at some distance, to say, Eh-eu; the meaning is clearly, that person, or that canoe, whether the noun be added or not. Or, if there be two animate objects standing together, or two inanimate objects lying together, the words maumig (a.), or maumin (i.), if they be near, or ig-eu, (a.), or in-eu (i.), if they be distant, are equally expressive of the materiality of the objects, as well as their relative position. Under other circumstances the noun would be required, as where two animate objects of diverse character—a man and a horse for instance—were standing near each other; or a canoe and a package of goods were lying near each other—and, in fact, under all circumstances—the noun may be used after the demonstrative pronoun, without violating any rule of grammar, although not without the imputation, in many instances, of being over-formal and unnecessarily minute. What is deemed redundant, however, in oral use, and amongst a people who supply much by sight and gesticulation, becomes quite necessary in writing the language; and, in the following sentences, the substantive is properly employed after the pronoun:—

This dog is very lean,	Gitshee bukaukuddoozo woh-ow annemoosh.
These dogs are very lean,	Gitshee bukaukuddoozowug o-goo annemooshug.
Those dogs are fat,	Ig-eu annemooshug ween-in-oowug.
That dog is fat,	Ah-ow annemoosh ween-in-oo.
This is a handsome knife,	Gagait onishishin maundun mokomahn.
These are handsome knives,	Gagait wahwinaudj o-noo mokomahnun.
Those are bad knives,	Monaududön in-euwaidde mokomahnun.
Give me that spear,	Meezhishin eh-eu ahnitt.
Give me those spears,	Meezhishin in-eu unnewaidde ahnitteen.
That is a fine boy,	Gagait kwonaudj ah-ow kweewezains.
Those are fine boys,	Gagait wahwinaudj ig-euwaidde kweewezainsug.
This boy is larger than that,	Nahwudj mindiddo woh-ow kweewezains ewaidde dush.
That is what I wanted,	Meeh-eu wau iauyaumbaun.
This is the very thing I wanted,	Mee-suh oh-oo wau iauyaumbaun.

In some of these expressions, the pronoun combines with an adjective, as in the compound words ineuwaidde and igeuwaidde, those yonder (in.), and those yonder (an.). Compounds which exhibit the full pronoun in coalescence with the adverb ewaidde, yonder.