The American Indians / Their History, Condition and Prospects, from Original Notes and Manuscripts

by Henry Rowe Schoolcraft

LECTURE IV.

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 connexion with the verb, substantive and adjective, it will facilitate analysis, to group them into preformative and subformative, which include the 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 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 also be added to the plural forms.

Keenowind suh.	It is we (in.)
Neenowind suh.	It is we (ex.)
Keenowa 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 ishkwandj,	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 min.
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 connexion, 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 ownest it.
O debaindaun,	He or she owns it.
N´ debaindaun-in,	We own it (ex.)
Ke debaindaun-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 effected 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-aú, is the abstract term for existing matter. It is in the animate form and declarative. Its inanimate correspondent is IE-EÉ. 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 connexion with the pronoun, in the production of a class of terms in very general use.

Animate Forms.
		Singular.		Plural.
Poss.	{	Nin dyë aum,	Mine.	Nin dyë auminaun,	Ours, (ex.)
				Ke dyë auminaun,	Ours, (in.)
		Ke dyë aum,	Thine.	Ke dyë aumewau,	Yours.
Obj.		O dyëaum-un,	His or Hers.	O dye aumewaun,	Theirs.
Inanimate Forms.
		Singular.		Plural.
Poss.	{	Nin dyë eem,	Mine.	Nin dyë eeminaun,	Ours, (ex.)
				Ke dyë eeminaun,	Ours, (in.)
		Ke dyë eem,	Thine.	Ke dyë eemewau,	Yours.
Obj.	x	O dyë eem-un,	His or Hers.	O dyë eemewaun,	Theirs. Poss. 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 animates, which have no number in the third person," [p. 30.] 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.

Pron. Sing.	Place of the Noun.	Possessive inflection.	Obj. inflec. to the noun sing.	Connect. vowel.	Plu. inflec. of the pronoun.	Obj. inflec. n. plu.	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 am, 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 mutation 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 forms 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 persons 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—has—had.
O gah,	He or she did—has—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 persons, 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 substantive, p. 43. and adjective, p. 81. Their application to the verb will be shown, as we proceed.

2. Relative Pronouns. In a language which provides for the distinctions 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 ween dumoak?
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 omau 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 tö dung,	He (who) did it, &c.

If we object that, 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, &c.
Iau e-mau,	He is there.
Ke geedo,	He (spoke.)
Kegeeweendumaug,	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 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. (inclusive.)
Mainwaindumëyaug,	He (who) makes us happy. (exclusive.)
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.—

Mainwaindumëyun,

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 connexion, 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 mainwaindumëyun. 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 dahwaubundamun?
What is this?	Waygonain ewinain maundun?
What will you have?	Waygonain kau 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 ewidde?
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?

[Transcriber's Note: See [note at end of text] re original typesetting for this section of the text.]

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 bukaukdoozo woh-ow annemoosh.
These dogs are very lean,	Gitshee bukauddoozowug o-goo annemooshug.
Those dogs are fat,	Ig-eu annemooshug ween-in-oawug.
That dog is fat,	Ah-ow annemoosh ween-in-ao.
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 word Ewaidde yonder.

CHRONOLOGY.

Columbus discovered the West Indies, Oct. 12, 1492.
Americo Vespucio, discovered the coast of South America, 1497.
Cabot discovered the North American coast, 1497.
De Leon discovered Florida, 1512.
Cortes, enters the city of Mexico, after a seige, Aug. 13, 1521.
Verrizani, is said to have entered the bay of New York, 1524.
Cartier discovered the St. Lawrence, 1534.
Jamestown, in Virginia, is founded, 1608.
Acknowledged date of the settlement of Canada, 1608.
Hudson discovers the river bearing his name, 1609.
The Dutch build a fort near Albany, 1614.
The Pilgrims land at Plymouth, Dec. 22, 1620.
New Amsterdam taken from the Dutch by the Duke of York and Albany and named New York, 1664.
La Salle discovers the Illinois in upper Louisiana, 1678; discovers Lower Louisiana, and is killed, 1685.

---