[70] Wah-o-tos-hi-ah-wik? is pronounced by the Menomonies as one word; it is probable that the interrogative pronoun wah should be considered separate. Of the remaining syllables, the prefix o seems used to indicate the third person; the next syllable, to, pronounced toe, is the word oos, meaning canoe; and iahwik implies possession. The whole sentence is similar in form and signification to what we often hear from Canadians, or persons very imperfectly acquainted with the English language. “Who belongs that canoe?” The word neen-di-ah, which has by some been thought to afford an affirmative answer to the question, whether these languages have the verb substantive, to me appears to correspond very accurately with the Latin habeo, Iche iah’t, habere, and like that verb, it may be used for the true verb substantive.
[71] Gitche-gitche-gum-me, (far, far across.) This seems to be the only word the western Indians have for the ocean, a circumstance which would induce one to believe, (could any reliance be placed upon a language preserved only by the memories, and consequently depending on the external circumstances of a few rude men,) that these tribes are not the remains of those formerly driven west, but have long occupied their present position. The manner of expressing the superlative degree appears similar to that in the Hebrew, where we are informed the degrees of comparison are made sometimes by prefixing certain syllables, or by repeating the word expressing quality, whether substantive or adjective. By some the word Gitche-gum-me is considered a compound of Gitche, (great,) and gum-maig, (water.)
[72] Lemattachpin, Del. Zeisb. 51, second edition. Pom-mis-so-wak, (they walk), Ib. 62. All these words here given as infinitives, have not a form and termination analogous to those of the Delaware infinitives, as given in Zeisberger’s Grammar, but they resemble very closely those of the Massachusetts language, as represented by Mr. Elliot. Infinitives appear not to be used with great frequency by the Chippeways; some examples, however, occur, in which we can scarce suppose ourselves mistaken respecting the mood of the verb; such as this, n’noan-do-waw a-ne-moose-me-gid. (I hear a dog bark.) The preposition to appears to have no other signification that our to, with infinitives, their local case, as it has been called, affording a substitute for it, in all cases where we should prefix to to a substantive, as, to the house, to the town, to the substantive, etc. if they had any such words.
[73] The final t in many of these words would, to many, appear more closely to resemble our consonant sound d; but so unsteady is the practice of the Indians themselves in this particular, that the ear must be far nicer than ordinary, that can distinguish, in the language of the best speakers, any steady and invariable usage in pronouncing the same word. It is allowable, in attempting to give a written form to any language, to decide a little arbitrarily in such cases. We may, perhaps, have been influenced to give preference, in some instances, to the sound of t, as the termination for this mood, by the example of Mr. Elliot, who steadily gives it in the infinitive forms of the Massachusetts dialect; and we are convinced that no Chippeway will ever mistake any word, on account of its having the final sound t, instead of d. They are, in the main, perfectly interchangeable.
[74] Neither i-ah nor goo-sah, are thought to be the verb substantive in these examples. The former seems to approach, in signification, very closely to the Latin habeo.
[75] Gemilelen, Del. Zeib. 2d ed. p. 46.
[76] Tah-ko-bitche-gum, (prisoner string,) Tah-ko-bitche-gun-un, (prisoner strings.) These cords are made of the bark of the elm tree, by boiling, and then immersing it in cold water; they are from twenty-five to fifty feet in length, and though less than half an inch in diameter, strong enough to hold the stoutest man. They are commonly ornamented with porcupine quills; and se-bas-kwi-a-gun-un, or rattles are attached at each end, not only for ornament, but to give notice of any attempt the prisoner may make to escape. The leader of a war-party commonly carries several Tah-ko-bitche-gun-un’s fastened about his waist, and, if in the course of the fight any one of his young men takes a prisoner, it is his duty to bring him immediately to the chief, to be tied, and the latter is responsible for his safe keeping.
[77] Mr. Elliot seems to have used oh-ke-oo-ook as a verb, as if he had said, while the earth earth’s, or, “is the earth,” which is perfectly in accordance with the principles of these dialects.
[78] These two examples will be found, in almost every respect, entirely similar, and they afford striking instances of the tendency of these dialects to crowd together, and to change all words to verbs. Wun-au-mon, in Elliot’s Bible, means a son.
[79] Many instances might be adduced, to show the close affinity between the language of Mr. Elliot’s version of the Bible, and several of the dialects of the present day. The termination in wug is found among the Crees, and, as in that translation, it is used in speaking of animate objects. We-at-ehim-me-nash (corn,) in the plural number, is the same in both, and the same forms of expression: as, No-wad-cha-num-un-neek, (I keep my house,) No-wad-cha-num-un-ash-noo-we-at-chim-ne-nash, (I keep my corn). Gram. p. 10, precisely analagous to n’ko-noan-dun new-ke-wam, (I keep my house,) n’ko-no-wa-ne-maug ne-man-dah-min-e-wug, (I keep my corn of the harvest day.)