Possessive.
My,NinDishkod-aim.
Thy,KiDishkod-aim.
His,ODishkod-aim.
Our,KiDishkod-aim-inân. (in.)
—NiDishkod-aim-inân. (ex.)
Your,KiDishkod-aim-iwâ.
Their,ODishko-aim-iwâ.

Those words which form exceptions from this declension, take the separable pronouns before them as follows:—

Môkoman,A Knife.
Ni môkoman,My Knife.
Ki môkoman,Thy Knife.
O môkoman,His Knife, &c.

Animate substantives are declined precisely in the same manner as inanimate, except in the third person, which takes to the possessive inflections, aim, eem, im, _ôm_, oom, the objective particle un, denoting the compound inflection of this person, both in the singular and plural, aimun, eemun, imun, _ômun_, oomun, and the variation of the first vowel sound, _âmun_. Thus, to furnish an example of the second declension, bizhiki, a bison, changes its forms to nim, bizhik-im, my bison—ke bizhik-im, thy bison, O bizhik-imun, his bison, or bisons.

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 muk-wun, literally, "Chief he has 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 connection 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.