5. Emphasis.—Stress is laid on particular words in sentences to which the speaker designs to impart force, and the whole tone of the entire sentiment and passages is often adapted to convey particular impressions. This trait more frequently comes out in the private narrative of real or imaginary scenes, in which the narrator assumes the very voice and tone of the real or supposed actor. Generally, in their dealings and colloquial intercourse, there is a significant stress laid on the terms, meenungaika, certainly; kaigait, truly; kaugaigo, nothing at all; tiau, behold; woh-ow, who; auwanain, were; and other familiar terms of inquiry, denial, or affirmation in daily use.
6. Conjugation.—The simplest form in which their verbs are heard, is in the third person singular of the indicative, as he speaks, he says, he loves, he dances, or in the first person present of the imperative. The want of a distinction between the pronouns he and she, is a defect which the language shares, I believe, with other very ancient and rude tongues. Conjugations are effected for persons, tenses, and number, very much as they are in other rude languages, particularly those of the transpositive class. The verb is often a single root, or syllable, as saug, love; but owing to the tendency of adding qualifying particles, their verbs are cluttered up with other meanings. The word saug is therefore never heard as an element by itself. In the first place, it takes before it the pronoun, and in the second place, the object of action; so that nesaugeau, I love him, or her, or a person, is one of the simplest of their colloquial phrases. And of this term, the e, being the fourth syllable, is mere verbiage, means nothing by itself, and is thrown in for euphony.
Tenses are formed by adding gee to the pronoun for the perfect, and gah for the future, and gahgee for the second future. These terms play the part, and supply the want of, auxiliary verbs. The imperative is made in gah, and the potential in dau where the second future is daugee. The subjunctive is made by prefixing the word kishpin, meaning if. The inflection nuh, asks a question, and as it can be put to all the forms of the conjugation, it establishes an interrogative mood. The particle see, negatives the verb, and thus all verbs can be conjugated positively and negatively.
To constitute the plural, the letter g is added to the conjugations; thus, nesaugeaug means, I love them. But this is an animate plural, and can only be added to words of the vital class. Besides, if the verb or noun to be made plural does not end in a vowel, but in a consonant, the g cannot be added without interposing a vowel. It results, therefore, that the vowel class of words have their plurals in _äg_, eeg, ig, og, or ug. But, if the class of words be non-vital and numerical, the plural is made in the letter n. But this letter cannot, as in the other form, be added, unless the word terminate in a vowel, when the regular plurals are _än_, een, in, on, or un. This simple principle clears up one cause of perplexity in the conjugations, and denotes a philosophical method, which divides the whole vocabulary into two classes; while this provision supersedes, it answers the purpose of gender. There is, in fact, no gender required by the conjugations, it being sufficient to denote the vitality or non-vitality of the class. Nothing can be clearer. This is one of the leading traits of the grammar of the language, upon the observance of which the best speakers pride themselves.
It does not, however, result that, because there is no gender required in the conjugations, the idea of sexuality is unknown to the nomenclature. Quite the contrary. The tenses for male and female, in the chief orders of creation, are iaba and nozha. These words prefixed to the proper names of animals, produce expressions of precisely the same meaning, and also the same inelegance; as if we should say, male goose, female goose, male horse, and female horse, male man and female man. The term for man (inini) is masculine, and that for woman (equa) feminine in its construction. It is only in the conjugations that the principle of gender becomes lost in that of vitality.
7. Active and passive voices.—The distinction between these two classes of verbs is made by the inflection ego. By adding this form to the active verb, its action is reversed, and thrown back on the nominative. Thus, the verb to carry is nim bemön, I carry; nim bemön-ego, I am carried. Adowawa is the act of thumping, as a log by the waves on the shore._ Adowawa-ego_ is a log that is thumped by the waves on shore. Nesaugeah, I love; Nesaugeigo, I am loved. In the latter phrase, the personal term au is dropped, and the long sound of e slips into i, which converts the inflection into igo instead of ego.
8. Participles.—My impression is, that the Indians are in the habit of using participles, often to the exclusion of other proper forms of the verb. The vocabulary contains abundantly the indicative forms of the verb. To run, to rise, to see, to eat, to tie, to burn, to strike, to sing, to cry, to dance, are the common terms of parlance; but as soon as these terms come to be connected with the action of particular persons, this action appears to be spoken of as if existing—both the past and future tenses being thrown away; and the senses appear to be, I, you, he, or they; running, rising, seeing, eating, tying, burning, striking, singing, crying, dancing. At least, I have not been able to convince myself that the action is not referred to as existing. When the participles should be used, they, on the contrary, employ the indicative forms, by which such sentences are made as, he run, he walk, for running, walking.
The general want of the substantive verb, in their colloquial phrases, constantly leads to imperfect forms of syntax. Thus, nëbä is the indicative, first person of the verb to sleep; but if the term, I am sleeping, be required, the phrase is ne nëbä, simply, I sleep. So, too, tshägiz is the first person indicative to burn; but the colloquial phrase, I am burned, or burning, is nen tshägiz—the verb remaining in the indicative, and not taking the participle form.
It is not common to address persons by their familiar names, as with us—as John, or James. The very contrary is the usage of Indian society, the object being to conceal all personal names, unless they be forced out. If it be required to express this sentence, namely: Adario has gone out (or temporarily departed), but will soon return; the equivalent is Ogima, ke mahjaun, panema, ke takooshin. This sentence literally retranslated is, Chief, he gone; by and by, he (will) return—the noun chief being put for the personal noun Adario. It will be perceived that the pronoun ke is repeated after the noun, making, chief, he gone. Panema is an adverb which is undeclinable under all circumstances, and tahkooshin, the future tense of the verb to arrive, or come (by land). The phraseology is perfectly loaded with local or other particulars, which constantly limit the action of verbs to places, persons, and things.