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.