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 mukwun, literally, Chief he 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 connexion 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. 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.