| 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 tö dung, | He (who) did it, &c. |
If we object that, 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, &c. |
| Iau e-mau, | He is there. |
| Ke geedo, | He (spoke.) |
| Kegeeweendumaug, | 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 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, (inclusive.) |
| Mainwaindumëyaug, | He (who) makes us happy, (exclusive.) |
| Mainwaindumëinnaig, | He (who) makes ye or you happy. |
| Mainwaindumëigowaud, | He (who) makes them happy. |
And so the forms might be continued, throughout all the objective persons.—
| Mainwaindumëyun, | Thou (who) makest me happy, &c. |
The basis of these compounds is minno, good, and aindum, the mind. Hence minwaindum, he happy. The adjective in this connexion, cannot be translated “good,” but its effect upon the noun, is to denote that state of the mind, which is at rest with itself. The first change from this simple compound, is to give the adjective a verbal form; and this is effected by a permutation of the vowels of the first syllable—a rule of very extensive application—and by which, in the present instance, the phrase he happy, is changed to he makes happy, (mainwaindum.) The next step is to add the suffix personal pronouns, id, ik, aud, &c., rendering the expressions, he makes me happy, &c. But in adding these increments, the vowel e, is thrown between the adjective-verb, and the pronoun suffixed, making the expression, not mainwaindum-yun, but mainwaindumëyun. Generally the vowel e in this situation, is a connective, or introduced merely for the sake of euphony. And those who maintain that it is here employed as a personal pronoun, and that the relative who, is implied by the final inflection; overlook the inevitable inference, that if the marked e, stands for me in the first phrase, it must stand for thee in the second, he in the third, us in the fourth, &c. As to the meaning and office of the final inflections id, ik, &c.—whatever they may, in an involuted sense imply, it is quite clear, by turning to the list of suffixed personal pronouns and animate plurals, that they mark the persons, I, thou, he, &c., we, ye, they, &c.