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. |