The word Ahwaynain, may be said to be uniformly employed in the sense of who, under the limitations we have mentioned. For instance—
| Who is there? | Ahwaynain e-mah ai-aud? |
| Who spoke? | Ahwaynain kau keegœdood? |
| Who told you? | Ahwaynain kau weendumoak? |
| Who are you? | Ahwaynain iau we yun? |
| Who sent you? | Ahwaynain waynönik? |
| Who is your father? | Ahwaynain kös? |
| Who did it? | Ahwaynain kau tödung? |
| Whose dog is it? | Ahwaynain way dyid? |
| Whose pipe is that? | Ahwaynain döpwaugunid en-eu? |
| Whose lodge is it? | Ahwaynain way weegewomid? |
| Whom do you seek? | Ahwaynain nain dau wau bumud? |
| Whom have you here? | Ahwaynain oh-amau ai auwaud? |
Not the slightest variation is made in these phrases between who, whose, and whom.
Should we wish to change the interrogative, and to say he who is there, he who spoke, he who told you, &c., the separable personal pronoun ween (he) must be used in lieu of the relative; and the following forms will be elicited:—
| Ween, kau unnönik, | He (who) sent you. |
| Ween, kau geedood, | He (who) spoke. |
| Ween, ai-aud e-mah, | He (who) is there. |
| Ween, kau weendumoak, | He (who) told you. |
| Ween, kau tödung, | He (who) did it, &c. |
If we object that, in these forms, there is no longer the relative pronoun who, the sense being simply he sent you, he spoke, &c., it is replied that, if it be intended only to say he sent you, &c., and not he who sent you, &c., the following forms are used:—
| Ke gee unnönig, | He (sent) you. |
| Ainnözhid, | He (sent) me. |
| Ainnönaud, | He (sent) him. |
| Iau e-mau, | He is there. |
| Ke geedo, | He (spoke). |
| Ke gee weendumaug, | He (told) you. |
| Ke to dum, | He did it. |
We reply to this answer of the native speaker, that the particle kau prefixed to a verb, denotes the past tense; that in the former series of terms in which this particle appears, the verbs are in the perfect indicative, and in the latter, they are in the present indicative, marking the difference only between sent and send, spoke and speak, &c.; and that there is absolutely no relative pronoun in either series of terms. We further observe, that the personal pronoun ween, prefixed to the first set of terms, may be prefixed, with equal propriety, to the second set, and that its use or disuse is perfectly optional with the speaker, as he may wish to give additional energy or emphasis to the expression. To these positions, after reflection, discussion, and examination, we receive an assent, and thus the uncertainty is terminated.
We now wish to apply the principle thus elicited to verbs causative, and to other compound terms—to the adjective verbs, for instance—and to the other verbal compound expressions, in which the objective and the nominative persons are incorporated as a part of the verb, and are not prefixes to it. This may be shown in the causative verb—
| TO MAKE HAPPY. | |
| Mainwaindumëid, | He (who) makes me happy. |
| Mainwaindumëik, | He (who) makes thee happy. |
| Mainwaindumëaud, | He (who) makes him happy. |
| Mainwaindumëinung, | He (who) makes us happy. (in.) |
| Mainwaindumëyaug, | He (who) makes us happy. (ex.) |
| Mainwaindumëinnaig, | He (who) makes ye or you happy. |
| Mainwaindumëigowaud, | He (who) makes them happy. |