The third person singular of the indicative is taken as the root of the verb, and by changing its termination it may be used as a noun. The infinitive is formed by the postposition nek. The verb has numerous inflections.
'To be' or 'to have,' both possessing a similar signification, are expressed by gi or vi—as nunagiva, it is his land.
Richardson gives the following declension of a noun, transitively and intransitively (?):
TUPEK, A TENT.
| SINGULAR. | DUAL. | PLURAL. | ||
| Nom. | tr. | tupek } | ||
| intr. | turkib} | tuppak | turket | |
| Gen. | turkib | tuppak | turket | |
| Dat. | tr. | tuppek | tuppak | turket |
| intr. | tuppermut | tuppangnut | tuppernut | |
| Acc. | tr. | tuppak | tuppak | turkinut |
| intr. | tuppernik | tuppangnit | turkit | |
| Abl. | tr. | tuppermit | tuppangnit | tuppermit |
| intr. | tuppermut | tuppangnut | turkinnut[II'-8] | |
Some claim that the languages of Kadiak and the Aleutian Islands are cognate, others deny any relationship. Stephen Glottoff, one of the first to visit Kadiak Island, states positively that the inhabitants of Unalaska and particularly a boy from the western Aleutian Isles could not understand the people of Kadiak.[II'-9] Captain Cook thought there existed a phonetic similarity between the speech of the Unalaskas and the people of Norton Sound, which opinion appears to be correct.[II'-10] So disarranged have the aboriginal tongues in this vicinity become since the advent of the Russians that little dependence can be placed on latter-day investigations. Dall admits the speech of the two peoples to be dissimilar yet their language he believes to be one.[II'-11] Vater, more cautious, thinks that there is perhaps some Eskimo influence noticeable among the Koniagas.[II'-12] Baer gives Admiral von Wrangell's opinion, which also inclines towards such a connection, but he himself expresses the opposite belief, citing in support of this that the physical appearance of the Koniagas differs entirely from that of the Eskimo race.[II'-13] Buschmann gives, as the result of careful investigations and comparisons, the opinion that the language of Unalaska is distinct from that of Kadiak, and supports it by the statements of travelers, as for instance that of the mate Saikoff, given in the Neue Nordische Beiträge, tom. iii., p. 284, who says that the two are totally different.
ATKHA AND UNALASKA DIALECTS.
Throughout the whole Aleutian Archipelago there are but two dialects, one of which is spoken on the peninsula, on Unalaska, and a few islands contiguous, while the other—by Veniaminoff called the Atkha dialect—extends thence over all the other Aleutian Isles. In neither dialect is there any distinction of gender; but to make up for this deficiency, besides the plural, a dual is used. Substantives have three cases:—adakch, the father; adam or adaganilyak, of the father; adaman, to the father; adakik or adakin, both fathers; adan, the fathers; adanik, to the fathers. Verbs are conjugated by means of terminals. They are divided into three classes, active, medium, and passive. Negation is expressed by the syllable oljuk added to the root of the verb; sometimes also by ljaka, ljaga, or gana. Sjukong, I take; sjunakching, I took; sjuljakakching, I take not; sjunag´oljuting, I took not; sjuda, take; sjuljagada, or sjuganachtchin, take not.
The eastern Aleuts enunciate very rapidly, without dividing their words distinctly, making it very difficult for a stranger to understand them. In Unalaska their speech is more drawling, while on Atkha Island the natives pronounce each word very distinctly. The western Aleuts and the people on Umnak also speak rather slowly—drawling.[II'-14] Dall states that the chief difference between the Atkha and Unalaska dialects consists in the formation of the plural of nouns. The former for this purpose employ the terminal letters s, sh, or ng. For diminutives the Atkhas use the ending kutshak and the Unalaskas dak.[II'-15]
On the next page I insert a vocabulary of Eskimo, Kuskoquigmute, Malemute, Aleut, and Kadiak tongues.