Pronouns are buried, if we may so say, in the structure of the verb. In tracing them back to their primitive forms, through the almost infinite variety of modifications which they assume, in connection with the verb, substantive, and adjective, it will facilitate analysis to group them into preformative and subformative, which include the terms that have already been made use of—pronominal prefixes, and suffixes—and which admit of the further distinction of separable and inseparable. By separable, is intended those forms which have a meaning by themselves, and are thus distinguished from the inflective and subformative pronouns, and pronominal particles, significant only in connection with another word.

1. Of the first class, are the personal pronouns Neen (I), Keen (Thou), and Ween or O (He or She). They are declined, to form the plural persons, in the following manner:—

I,Neen.We,Keen owind. (in.)
We,Neen owind. (ex.)
Thou,Keen.Ye,Keen owau.
He or she,Ween or O.They,Ween owau.

Here the plural persons are formed by a numerical inflection of the singular. The double plural of the first person, of which both the rule and examples have been incidentally given in the remarks on the substantive, is one of those peculiarities of the language which may, perhaps, serve to aid in a comparison of it with other dialects, kindred and foreign. As a mere conventional agreement for denoting whether the person addressed be included or excluded, it may be regarded as an advantage to the language. It enables the speaker, by the change of a single consonant, to make a full and clear discrimination, and relieves the narration from doubts and ambiguity, where doubts and ambiguity would otherwise often exist. On the other hand, by accumulating distinctions, it loads the memory with grammatical forms, and opens a door for improprieties of speech. We are not aware of any inconveniences in the use of a general plural; but, in the Indian, it would produce confusion. And it is, perhaps, to that cautious desire of personal discrimination, which is so apparent in the structure of the language, that we should look for the reason of the duplicate forms of this word. Once established, however, and both the distinction, and the necessity of a constant and strict attention to it, are very obvious and striking. How shall he address the Deity? If he say, "Our Father who art in heaven," the inclusive form of our makes the Almighty one of the suppliants, or family. If he use the exclusive form, it throws him out of the family, and may embrace every living being but the Deity. Yet, neither of these forms can be used very well in prayer, as they cannot be applied directly to the object addressed. It is only when speaking of the Deity, under the name of father, to other persons, that the inclusive and exclusive forms of the word our can be used. The dilemma may be obviated by the use of a compound descriptive phrase, Wä ö se mig o yun, signifying, "Thou, who art the father of all," or "universal father." In practice, however, the question is cut short by those persons who have embraced Christianity. It has seemed to them that, by the use of either of the foregoing terms, the Deity would be thrown into too remote a relation to them; and I have observed that in prayer they invariably address Him by the term used by children for the father of a family—that is, nosa, "my father."

The other personal pronouns undergo some peculiar changes when employed as preformatives before nouns and verbs, which it is important to remark. Thus neen, is sometimes rendered ne, or nin, and sometimes nim. Keen, is rendered ke, or kin. In compound words, the mere signs of the first and second pronouns, N and K, are employed. The use of ween is limited; and the third person, singular and plural, is generally indicated by the sign O.

The particle suh, added to the complete forms of the disjunctive pronouns, imparts a verbal sense to them; and appears, in this instance, to be a succedaneum for the substantive verb. Thus Neen, I, becomes neensuh, it is I. Keen, thou, becomes keensuh, it is thou; and ween, he or she, weensuh, it is he or she. This particle may be also added to the plural forms.

Keenowind suh,It is we. (in.)
Neenowind suh,It is we. (ex.)
Keenowau suh,It is ye, or you.
Weenowau suh,It is they.

If the word aittah, be substituted for suh, a set of adverbial phrases are formed:—

Neen aittah, I only.Neen aittah wind, We, &c. (ex.)
Keen aittah wind, We, &c. (in.)
Keen aittah, Thou only.Keen aittah wau, You, &c.
Ween aittah, He or she only.Ween aittah wau, They, &c.