My, Nin Dossin-eem.

Thy, Ki Dossin-eem.

Our, Ki Dossin-eeminân. (in.)

Our, Ni Dossin-eeminân. (ex.)

Your, Ke Dossin-eemewâ.

Third person.

His, O Dossin-eem(un).

Their, O Dossin-eemewâ (n).

_i._ Third declension forming the first and second persons in _im_, and

the third in _imun_.

Nominative.

Ais, a shell.

Aisug, shells.

First and second persons.

My, Nin Dais-im.

Thy, Ki Dais-im.

Our, Ki Dais-iminân. (in.)

Our, Ni Dais-iminân. (ex.)

Your, Ki Dais-imiwâ.

Third person.

His, O Dais-im (un).

Their, O Dais-imewâ (n).

_o._ Fourth declension forming the first and second persons in _ôm_, and

the third in _ômun_.

Nominative.

Monidô, a Spirit.

Monidôg, Spirits.

First and second persons.

My, Ni Monid-ôm.

Thy, Ki Monid-ôm.

Our, Ki Monid-ôminân. (in.)

Our, Ni Monid-ôminân. (ex.)

Your, Ki Monid-ômiwâ.

Third person.

His, O Monid-ôm (un).

Their, O Monid-ômewâ (n).

_u._ (_oo_) Fifth declension forming the first and second persons in

_oom_, and the third in _oomun_.

Nominative.

Môz, a Moose.

Môzôg, Moose.

First and second persons.

My, Ni Môz-oom.

Thy, Ki Môz-oom.

Our, Ki Môz-oominân. (in.)

Our, Ni Môz-oominân. (ex.)

Your, Ki Môz-oomiwu.

Third person.

His, O Môz oom (un).

Their, O Môz oomiwâ (n).

_aw._ Additional declension, required when the noun ends in the broad,

instead of the long sound of a, forming the possessive in _âm_, and the

objective in _âmun_.

Nominative.

Ogimâ, a Chief.

Ogimâg, Chiefs.

First and second persons.

My, Ni Dôgim âm.

Thy, Ki Dôgim âm.

Our, Ki Dôgim âminân. (in.)

Our, Ni Dôgim âminân. (ex.)

Your, Ki Dôgim âmiwâ.

Third person.

His, O Dôgim âm (un).

Their, O Dôgim âmiwâ (n).

The abbreviations, _in._, and _ex._, in these declensions, mark the

inclusive and exclusive forms of the pronoun plural. The inflection of

the third person, as it is superadded to the first and second, is

included between parentheses, that the eye, unaccustomed to these

extended forms, may readily detect it.

Where the inseparable, instead of the separable pronoun is employed, the

possessive inflection of the first and second person is dispensed with,

although the inflection of the third is still retained.

Os: Father.

_S. singular._

Nos. My father.

Kos. Thy father.

Os-un. His father. _Sing. and plural._

Nos-inân. Our father. (ex.)

Kos-inân. Our father. (in.)

Kos-iwâ. Your father.

Os-iwân. Their father. _Sing. and plural._

_S. plural._

Nos-ug. My fathers.

Kos-ug. Thy fathers.

Os-un. His fathers. _Sing. and plural._

Nos.-inân ig. Our fathers. (ex.)

Kos.-inân ig. Our fathers. (in.)

Kos-iwâg. Your fathers.

Os-iwân. Their fathers. _Sing. and plural._

The word dog, and this word alone, is declined in the following manner.

Annimoosh: a Dog.

_S. singular._

Nin Dy (or Di) My dog.

Ki Dy Thy dog.

O Dy-un His dog or dogs.

Ki Dy-inân Our dog. (in.)

Ni Dy-inân Our dog. (ex.)

Ki Dy-iwâ Your dog.

O Dy-iwân Their dog, &c.

_S. plural._

Nin Dy-ug My dogs.

Ki Dy-ug Thy dogs.

O Dy-un His dogs, &c.

Ki Dy-inânig Our dogs. (in.)

Ni Dy-inânig Our dogs. (ex.)

Ki Dy-iwâg Your dogs.

O Dy-iwân His dogs, &c.

The word _Dy_, which supplies this declension, is derived from _Indyiâm_

mine. _pron. an._--a derivative form of the word, which is, however,

exclusively restricted, in its meaning, to the dog. If the expression

_Nin Dy_ or _N' Dy_, is sometimes applied to the horse, it is because it

is thereby intended to call him, my dog, from his being in a state of

servitude similar to that of the dog. It must be borne in mind, as

connected with this subject, that the dog, in high northern latitudes,

and even as far south as 42 degrees, is both a beast of draught and of

burden. He is compelled during the winter season to draw the _odâban_,

or Indian sleigh; and sometimes to support the burden upon his back, by

means of a kind of drag constructed of slender poles.

A review of the facts which have been brought together respecting the

substantive, will show that the separable or inseparable pronouns under

the form of prefixes, are throughout required. It will also indicate,

that the inflections of the first and second persons which occupy the

place of possessives, and those of the third person, resembling

objectives, pertain to words, which are either primitives, or denote but

a single object, as _moose_, _fire_. There is, however, another class of

substantives, or substantive expressions, and an extensive class--for it

embraces a great portion of the compound descriptive terms--in the use

of which no pronominal prefixes are required. The distinctions of person

are, exclusively, supplied by pronominal suffixes. Of this character are

the words descriptive of country, place of dwelling, field of battle,

place of employment, &c. The following example will furnish the

inflections applicable to this entire class of words:--

Aindâd: Home, or place of dwelling.

_S. singular._

Aindâ-yân. My home.

Aindâ-yun. Thy home.

Aindâ-d. His home.

Aindâ-yâng. Our home. (ex.)

Aindâ-yung. Our home. (in.)

Aindâ-yaig. Your home.

Aindâ-wâd. Their home.

_S. plural._

Aindâ-yân-in. My homes.

Aindâ-yun-in. Thy homes.

Aindâ-jin. His homes.

Aindâ-yâng-in. Our homes. (ex.)

Aindâ-yung-in. Our homes. (in.)

Aindâ-yaig-in. Your homes.

Aindâ-wâdjin. Their homes.

By these examples, it is perceived that the final _d_ in _aindâd_ is not

essential to its primitive meaning; and that the place of the pronoun

is, in respect to this word, invariably a suffix. _Aindâd_ means, truly,

not home, but his home. The plural is formed by the inflection _in_,

except in the third person, where the sound of _d_ sinks in _j_.

INQUIRY 2.

Further remarks on the substantive--Local, diminutive, derogative, and

tensal inflections--Mode in which the latter are employed to

denote the disease of individuals, and to indicate the past and

future seasons--Restricted or sexual terms--Conversion of the

substantive into a verb, and the reciprocal character of the verb

by which it is converted into a substantive--Derivative and

compound substantives--Summary of the properties of this part of

speech.

In the view which has been taken of the substantive in the preceding

Inquiry, it has been deemed proper to exclude several topics, which,

from their peculiarities, it was believed could be more satisfactorily

discussed in a separate form. Of this character are those modifications

of the substantive by which locality, diminution, a defective quality,

and the past tense are expressed; by which various adjective and

adverbial significations are given; and, finally, the substantives

themselves converted into verbs. Such are also the mode of indicating

the masculine and feminine (both merged, as we have shown, in the

animate class), and those words which are of a strictly _sexual_

character, or are restricted in their _use_ either to males or females.

Not less interesting is the manner of forming derivatives, and of

conferring upon the derivatives so formed a _personality_, distinguished

as either animate or inanimate, at the option of the speaker.

Much of the flexibility of the substantive is derived from these

properties, and they undoubtedly add much to the figurative character of

the language. Some of them have been thought analogous to case,

particularly that inflection of the noun which indicates the locality of

the object. But if so, then there would be equally strong reasons for

establishing an _adjective_, and an _adverbial_, as well as a _local_

case, and a plurality of forms in each. But it is believed that no such

necessity exists. There is no regular declension of these forms, and

they are all used under limitations and restrictions incompatible with

the true principles of case.

It is under this view of the subject, that the discussion of these forms

has been transferred, together with the other accidents of the

substantive just adverted to, and reserved as the subject-matter of a

separate inquiry. And in now proceeding to express the conclusions at

which we have arrived touching these points, it will be an object so to

compress and arrange the materials before us, as to present within a

small compass the leading facts and examples upon which each separate

position depends.

1. That quality of the noun which, in the shape of an inflection,

denotes the relative situation of the object, by the contiguous position

of some accessory object, is expressed in the English language by the

prepositions _in_, _into_, _at_, or _on_. In the Indian, they are

denoted by an inflection. Thus, the phrase "In the box," is rendered in

the Indian by one word, _mukukoong_. Of this word, _mukuk_, simply, is

box. The termination, _oong_, denoting the locality, not of the box, but

of the object sought after. The expression appears to be precise,

although there is no definite article in the language.

The substantive takes this form, most commonly, after a question has

been put, as _Anindi ni môkoman-ais?_ "Where is my penknife?"

_Mukukoong_ (in the box), _addôpowin-ing_ (on the table), are definite

replies to this question. But the form is not restricted to this

relation. _Chimân-ing n'guh pôz_, "I shall embark in the canoe;"

_wakyigum n'ghu izhâ_, "I shall go into the house," are perfectly

correct, though somewhat formal expressions, when the canoe or the house

are present to the speaker's view.

The meaning of these inflections has been restricted to _in_, _into_,

_at_, and _on_, but they are the more appropriate forms of expressing

the first three senses, there being other modes besides these of

expressing the preposition _on_. These modes consist in the use of

prepositions, and will be explained under that head. The choice of the

one or the other is, however, with the speaker. Generally, the

inflection is employed when there is some circumstance or condition

of the noun either concealed or not fully apparent. Thus,

_Muzzinyigun-ing_, is the appropriate term for "In the book," and _may_

also be used to signify "On the book." But if it is meant only to

signify _on_ the book, something visible being referred to, the

preposition _ogidj_ would be used, that word indicating with certainty

_on_, and never _in_. _Wakyigun-ing_ indicates with clearness "In the

house;" but if it is necessary to say "On the house," and it be meant at

the same time to exclude any reference to the interior, the expression

would be changed to _ogidj wakyigun_.

It will be proper further to remark in this place, in the way of

limitation, that there is also a separate preposition signifying _in_.

It is _pinj_. But the use of this word does not, in all cases, supersede

the necessity of inflecting the noun. Thus, the expression _pindigain_,

is literally walk in, or enter. But if it is intended to say, "Walk in

the house," the local, and not the simple form of house must be used;

and the expression is, _Pindigain waky'igun-ing_, "Enter in the house,"

the verbal form which this preposition _pinj_ puts on, having no

allusion to the act of _walking_, but merely implying position.

The local inflection, which, in the above examples, is _ing_ and _oong_,

is further changed to _aing_ and _eeng_, as the ear may direct--changes

which are governed chiefly by the terminal vowel of the noun. Examples

will best supply the rule, as well as the exceptions to it.

SIMPLE FORM. LOCAL FORM.

a. First inflection in _aing_.

Ishkodai Fire Ishkod-aing In, &c. the fire.

Muskodai Prairie Muskod-aing In, &c. the prairie.

Mukkuddai Powder Mukkud-aing In, &c. the powder.

Pimmedai Grease Pimmid-aing In, &c. the grease.

e. Second inflection in _eeng_.[272]

[272] The double vowel is here employed to indicate the long sound of

_i_, as _i_ in machine.

Seebi River Seeb-eeng In, &c. the river.

Neebi Water Neeb-eeng In, &c. the water.

Miskwi Blood Miskw-eeng In, &c. the blood.

Unneeb Elm Unneeb-eeng In, &c. the elm.

i. Third inflection in _ing_.

Kôn Snow Kôn-ing In, &c. the snow.

Min Berry Meen-ing In, &c. the berry.

Chimân Canoe Chimân-ing In, &c. the canoe.

Muzziny´egun Book Muzziny´egun-ing In, &c. the book.

o. Fourth inflection in _oong_.

Azhibik Rock Azhibik-oong In, &c. the rock.

Gizhig Sky Gizhig-oong In, &c. the sky.

Kimmiwun Rain Kimmiwun-oong In, &c. the rain.

Akkik Kettle Akkik-oong In, &c. the kettle.

Throw it in the fire.

1. Puggidôn ishkod-aing.

Go into the prairie.

2. Muskôdaing izhân.

He is in the elm.

3. Unnib-eeng iâ.

It is on the water.

4. Nib-eeng attai.

Put it on the table.

5. Addôpôwin-ing attôn.

Look in the book.

6. Enâbin muzziny´igun-ing.

You stand in the rain.

7. Kimmiwun-oong ki nibow.

What have you in that box?

8. Waigonain aitaig mukuk-oong?

Put it in the kettle.

9. Akkik-oong attôn, or Pôdawain.

My bow is not in the lodge; neither is it in the canoe, nor on

the rock.

10. Kâwin _pindiq_ iâsi ni mittigwâb; kâwiuh gyai chimân-_ing_;

kâwin gyai âzhibik-_oong_.

An attentive inspection of these examples will show that the local form

pertains either to such nouns of the animate class as are in their

nature inanimate, or at most possessed of vegetable life. And here

another conclusion presses upon us; that where these local terminations,

in all their variety, are added to the names of animated beings, when

such names are the nominatives of adjectives or adjective-nouns, these

words are converted into terms of qualification, indicating _like_,

_resembling_, _equal_. Thus, if we wish to say to a boy, "He is like a

man," the expression is, _Inin-ing izzhinâgozzi_; or, if to a man, "He

is like a bear," _Mukk-oong izzhinâgozzi_; or, to a bear, "He is like a

horse, _Pabaizhikogâzh-ing izzhinâgozzi_. In all these expressions, the

word _izzhi_ is combined with the pronominal inflection _â_ (or _nâ_)

and the animate termination _gozzi_. And the inflection of the

nominative is merely an adjective corresponding with _izzhi_--a term

indicative of the general qualities of persons or animated beings. Where

a comparison is instituted, or a resemblance pointed out, between

inanimate instead of animate objects, the inflection _gozzi_ is changed

to _gwud_, rendering the expression, which was, in the animate form,

_izzhinâ_gozzi, in the inanimate form _izzhinâ_zgwud.

There is another variation of the local form of the noun, in addition to

those above instanced, indicative of locality in a more general sense.

It is formed by _ong_ or _nong_--frequent terminations in geographical

names. Thus, from _Ojibwai_, Chippewa, is formed _Ojibwai_nong, "Place

of the Chippewas." From _Wamattigozhiwug_, Frenchmen, is formed

_Wamittigozhi_nong, "Place of Frenchmen." From _Ishpatinâ_, Hill,

_Ishpatinong_, "Place of the hill," &c. The termination _ing_, is also

sometimes employed in this more general sense, as in the following names

of places:--

Monomonikâ_ning_. In the place of wild rice.

Moninggwunikâ_ning_. In the place of sparrows.

Ongwashagoosh_ing_. In the place of the fallen tree, &c.

2. The diminutive forms of the noun are indicated by _ais_, _eas_, _ôs_,

and _aus_, as the final vowel of the word may require. Thus, _Ojibwai_,

a Chippewa, becomes _Ojibw-ais_, a little Chippewa: _Inin´i_, a man,

_inin-ees_, a little man: _Amik_, a beaver, _amik-ôs_, a young beaver:

_Ogimâ_, a chief, _ogim-âs_, a little chief, or a chief of little

authority. Further examples may be added.

SIMPLE FORM. DIMINUTIVE FORM.

--ais.

A woman Eekwâ Eekwâz-ais.

A partridge Pinâ Pin-ais.

A woodcock Mâimâi Mâim-ais.

An island Minnis Minnis-ais.

A grape Shômin Shômin-ais.

A knife Môkoman Môkoman-ais.

--ees.

A stone Ossin Ossin-ees.

A river Seebi Seeb-ees.

A pigeon Omimi Omim-ees.

A bison Pizhiki Pizhik-ees.

A potato Opin Opin-ees.

A bird Pinâisi Pinâish-ees.

--ôs.

A moose Môz Môz-ôs.

An otter Nigik Nigik-ôs.

A reindeer Addik Addik-ôs.

An elk Mushkôs Mushkôs-ôs.

A hare Wâbôs Wâbôs-ôs.

A box Mukuk Mukuk-ôs.

--aus.

A bass Ogâ Og-âs.

A medal Shôniâ Shôni-âs.

A bowl Onâgun Onâg-âns.

A bed Nibâgun Nibâg-aûns.

A gun Pâshkizzigun Pâshkizzig-âns.

A house Wakyigun Wakyig-âns.

In the last four examples, the letter _n_, of the diminutive, retains

its full sound.

The use of diminutives has a tendency to give conciseness to the

language. As far as they can be employed they supersede the use of

adjectives, or prevent the repetition of them. And they enable the

speaker to give a turn to the expression, which is often very

successfully employed in producing ridicule or contempt. When applied to

the tribes of animals, or to inorganic objects, their meaning, however,

is, very nearly, limited to an inferiority in size or age. Thus, in the

above examples, _pizhik-ees_, signifies a calf; _omim-ees_, a young

pigeon; and _ossin-ees_, a pebble, &c. But _inin-ees_, and _ogim-âs_,

are connected with the idea of mental or conventional as well as bodily

inferiority.

1. I saw a little chief, standing upon a small island, with an inferior

medal abouthis neck.

Ogimâs n'gi wâbumâ nibowid minnisainsing onâbikowân shoniâsun.

2. Yamoyden threw at a young pigeon.

Ogi pukkitaiwun omimeesun Yamoyden.

3. A buffalo calf stood in a small stream.

Pizhikees ki nibowi sibeesing.

4. The little man fired at a young moose.

Ininees ogi pâshkizwân môzôsun.

5. Several diminutive-looking bass were lying in a small bowl, upon

a small table.

Addôpowinaising attai onâgâns abbiwâd ogâsug.

Some of these sentences afford instances of the use, at the same time,

of both the local and diminutive inflections. Thus, the word

_minnisainsing_, signifies literally, "in the little island;"

_seebees-ing_, "in the little stream;" _addôpowinais ing_, "on the small

table."

3. The preceding forms are not the only ones by which adjective

qualities are conferred upon the substantive. The syllable _ish_, when

added to a noun, indicates a bad or dreaded quality, or conveys the idea

of imperfection or decay. The sound of this inflection is sometimes

changed to _eesh_, _oosh_, or _aush_. Thus, _Chimân_, a canoe, becomes

_Chimânish_, a bad canoe; _Ekwai_, a woman, _Ekwaiwish_, a bad woman;

_nibi_, water, becomes _nibeesh_, turbid or strong water; _mittig_, a

tree, becomes _mittigoosh_, a decayed tree; _akkik_, a kettle,

_akkikoosh_, a worn-out kettle. By a further change, _wibid_, a tooth,

becomes _wibidâsh_, a decayed or aching tooth, &c. Throughout these

changes the final sound of _sh_ is retained, so that this sound alone,

at the end of a word, is indicative of a faulty quality.

In a language in which the expressions _bad-dog_ and _faint-heart_ are

the superlative terms of reproach, and in which there are few words to

indicate the modifications between positively good and positively bad,

it must appear evident that adjective inflections of this kind must be

convenient, and sometimes necessary modes of expression. They furnish a

means of conveying censure and dislike, which, though often mild, is

sometimes severe. Thus, if one person has had occasion to refuse the

offered hand of another--for it must be borne in mind that the Indians

are a hand-shaking people as well as the Europeans--the implacable party

has it at his option, in referring to the circumstance, to use the

adjective form of hand, not _onindj_, but _oninjeesh_, which would be

deemed contemptuous in a high degree. So, also, instead of _odâwai

winini_, a trader, or man who sells, the word may be changed to _odâwai

winini_wish, implying a bad or dishonest trader. It is seldom that a

more pointed or positive mode of expressing personal disapprobation or

dislike is required; for, generally speaking, more is implied by these

modes than is actually expressed.

The following examples are drawn from the inorganic as well as organic

creation, embracing the two classes of nouns, that the operation of

these forms may be fully perceived.

SIMPLE FORM. ADJECTIVE FORM.

--ish.

A bowl Onâgun Onâgun-ish.

A house Wakyigun Wakyigun-ish.

A pipe Opwâgun Opwâgun-ish.

A boy Kweewizais Kweewizais-ish.

A man Inini Ininiw-ish.

--eesh.

Water Neebi Neeb-ish.

A stone Ossin Ossin-eesh.

A potato Opin Opin-eesh.

A fly Ojee Oj-eesh.

A bow Mittigwâb Mittigwâb-eesh.

--oosh.

An otter Neegik Neegik-oosh.

A beaver Ahmik Ahmik-oosh.

A reindeer Addik Addik-oosh.

A kettle Akkeek Akkeek-oosh.

An axe Wagâkwut Wagâkwut-oosh.

--aush.

A foot Ozid Ozid-âsh.

An arm Onik Onik-âsh.

An ear Otowug Otowug-âsh.

A hoof Wunnussid Wunnussid-âsh.

A rush mat Appukwa Appukw-âsh.

These forms cannot be said, strictly, to be without analogy in the

English, in which the limited number of words terminating in _ish_, as

saltish, blackish, furnish a correspondence in sound with the first

adjective form.

It may subserve the purposes of generalization to add, as the result of

the foregoing inquiries, that substantives have a diminutive form, made

in _ais_, _ees_, _ôs_, or _âs_; a derogative form, made in _ish_,

_eesh_, _oosh_, or _âsh_; and a local form, made in _aing_, _eeng_,

_ing_, or _oong_. By a principle of accretion, the second or third may

be added to the first form, and the third to the second.

EXAMPLE.

Serpent, s. Kinai´bik.

---- s. diminutive. ----ôns, implying Little serpent.

---- s. derogative. ----ish, " Bad serpent.

---- s. local. ----ing, " In (the) serpent.

---- s. dim. and der. ----ônsish, " Little bad serpent.

---- s. dim. and lo. ----ônsing, " In (the) little

serpent.

---- s. dim. der. and lo. ----ônsishing, " In (the) little bad

serpent.

4. More attention has, perhaps, been bestowed upon these points than

their importance demanded; but, in giving anything like a comprehensive

sketch of the substantive, they could not be omitted; and, if mentioned

at all, it became necessary to pursue them through their various changes

and limitations. Another reason has presented itself. In treating of an

unwritten language, of which others are to judge chiefly from examples,

it appeared desirable that the positions advanced should be accompanied

by the data upon which they respectively rest--at least, by so much of

the data employed as to enable philologists to appreciate the justice or

detect the fallacy of our conclusions. To the few who take any interest

in the subject at all, minuteness will not seem tedious, and the

examples will be regarded with deep interest.

As much of our time as we have already devoted to these lesser points of

inquiry, it will be necessary, at this place, to point out other

inflections and modifications of the substantive, to clear it from

obscurities, that we may go into the discussion of the other parts of

speech unincumbered.

Of these remaining forms, none is more interesting than that which

enables the speaker, by a simple inflection, to denote that the

individual named has ceased to exist. This delicate mode of conveying

melancholy intelligence, or alluding to the dead, is effected by placing

the object in the past tense.

Aiekid-ôpun aieko Garrangula-bun.

So the deceased Garrangula spoke.

The syllable _bun_, in this sentence, added to the noun, and _ôpun_

added to the verb, place both in the past tense. And, although the

death of the Indian orator is not mentioned, that fact would be

invariably inferred.

Names which do not terminate in a vowel sound, require a vowel prefixed

to the tensal inflection, rendering it _ôbun_ or _ebun_. Inanimate as

well as animate nouns take these inflections.

PRESENT. PAST FORM.

Tecumseh, Tecumsi-bun.

Tammany, Tamani-bun.

Skenandoah, Skenandoa-bun.

Nôs (my father), Nos-êbun.

Pontiac, Pontiac-ibun.

Waub Ojeeg, Waub Ojeeg-ibun.

Tarhe, Tarhi-bun.

Mittig (a tree), Mittig-ôbun.

Akkik (a kettle), Akkik-ôbun.

Môz (a moose), Môz-ôbun.

By prefixing the particle _Tah_ to these words, and changing the

inflection of the animate nouns to _iwi_, and the inanimates to _iwun_,

they are rendered future. Thus, _Tah Pontiac-iwi_; _Tah Mittig-iwun_,

&c.

The names for the seasons only come under the operation of these rules,

when the year before the last, or the year after the next, is referred

to. The last and the ensuing season are indicated as follows:--

PRESENT. LAST. NEXT.

Spring, Seegwun, Seegwun-oong, Seegwung.

Summer, Neebin, Neebin-oong, Neebing.

Autumn, Tahgwâgi, Tahgwâg-oong, Tahgwâgig.

Winter, Peebôn, Peebôn-oong, Peebông.

I spent last winter in hunting.

Ning´i nunda-wainjigai peebônoong.

I shall go to Detroit next spring.

Ninjah izhâ Wâwiâ´tunong seegwung.

5. _Sexual Nouns.--_The mode of indicating the masculine and feminine

having been omitted in the preceding Inquiry, as not being essential to

any concordance with the verb or adjective, is, nevertheless, connected

with a striking peculiarity of the language--the exclusive use of

certain words by one or the other sex. After having appeared to the

founders of the language a distinction not necessary to be engrafted in

the syntax, there are yet a limited number of words to which the idea of

sex so strongly attaches, that it would be deemed the height of

impropriety in a female to use the masculine, and in a male to use the

feminine expressions.

Of this nature are the words _Neeji_ and _Nindongwai_, both signifying

my friend, but the former is appropriated to males and the latter to

females. A Chippewa cannot, therefore, say to a female, my friend; nor a

Chippewa woman to a male, my friend. Such an interchange of the terms

would imply arrogance or indelicacy. Nearly the whole of their

interjections--and they are numerous--are also thus exclusively

appropriated; and no greater breach of propriety in speech could be

committed, than a woman's uttering the masculine exclamation of

surprise, _Tyâ!_ or a man's descending to the corresponding female

interjection, _N'yâ!_

The word _Neenimoshai_, my cousin, on the contrary, can only be applied,

like husband and wife, by a male to a female, or a female to a male. If

a male wishes to express this relation of a male, the term is

_Neetowis_; and the corresponding female term _Neendongwooshai_.

The terms for uncle and aunt are also of a twofold character, though not

restricted like the preceding in their use. _Neemishomai_, is my uncle

by the father's side; _Neezhishai_, my uncle by the mother's side.

_Neezigwoos_, is my paternal aunt; _Neewishai_, my maternal aunt.

There are also exclusive words to designate elder brother and younger

brother; but, what would not be expected after the fore going examples,

they are indiscriminately applied to younger brothers and sisters.

_Neesgai_, is my elder brother, and _neemissai_, my elder sister.

_Neeshemai_, my younger brother or younger sister, and may be applied to

any brother or sister except the eldest.

The number of words to which the idea of sex is attached, in the usual

acceptation, is limited. The following may be enumerated.

MASCULINE. FEMININE.

Inin´i, A man. Ekwai´, A woman.

Kwee´wizais, A boy. Ekwa´zais, A girl.

Oskinahwai, A young man. Oskineegakwai, A young woman.

Akiwaizi, An old man. Mindimô´ed, An old woman.

Nôsai, My father. Nin Gah, My mother.

Ningwisis, My son. Nin dânis, My daughter.

Ni ningwun, My son-in-law. Nis sim, My daughter-in-law.

MASCULINE. FEMININE.

Ni nâbaim, My husband. Nimindimôimish, My wife.

Nimieshomiss, My grandfather. Nôkômiss, My grandmother.

Ogimâ, A chief. Ogemâkwâ, A chiefess.

Addik, A reindeer. Neetshâni, A doe.

Annimoosh, A dog. Kiskisshâi, A bitch.

The sex of the brute creation is most commonly denoted by prefixing the

words _Iâbai_, male, and _Nôzhai_, female.

6. _Reciprocal Changes of the Noun._--The pronominal particles with

which verbs as well as substantives are generally encumbered, and the

habit of using them in particular and restricted senses, leave but

little occasion for the employment of either the present or past

infinitive. Most verbs are transitives. A Chippewa does not say I love,

without indicating, by an inflection of the verb, the object beloved:

and thus the expression is constantly, I love him, or her, &c. Neither

does the infinitive appear to be generally the ultimate form of the

verb.

In changing their nouns into verbs, it will not, therefore, be expected

that the change should uniformly result in the infinitive, for which

there is so little use, but in such of the personal forms of the various

moods as circumstances may require. Most commonly, the third person

singular of the indicative, and the second person singular of the

imperative, are the simplest aspects under which the verb appears; and

hence these forms have been sometimes mistaken for, and reported as the

present infinitive. There are some instances in which the infinitive is

employed. Thus, although an Indian cannot say I love, thou lovest, &c.,

without employing the objective forms of the verb to love, yet he can

say I laugh, I cry, &c.; expressions in which, the action being confined

to the speaker himself, there is no transition demanded. And in all

similar instances the present infinitive, with the proper pronoun

prefixed, is employed.

There are several modes of transforming a substantive into a verb. The

following examples will supply the rules, so far as known, which govern

these changes:--

INDICATIVE. IMPERATIVE.

Chimân, a canoe. Chimai, he paddles. Chimain, paddle thou.

Pashkizzigun, a gun. Pashkizzigai, he fires. Pashkizzigain, fire

thou.

Jeesidyigun, a broom. Jeesidyigai, he sweeps. Jeesidyigain, sweep

thou.

Weedjeeagun, a helper. Weedôkagai, he helps. Weedjeei-wain, help

thou.

Ojibwâi, a Chippewa. Ojibwâmoo, he speaks Ojibwâmoon, speak thou

Chippewa. Chippewa.

Another class of nouns is converted into the first person, indicative,

of a pseudo-declarative verb, in the following manner:--

Monido, A spirit. Ne Monidôw, I (am) a spirit.

Wassaiâ, Light. Ne Wassaiâw, I (am) light.

Ishkodai, Fire. Nin Dishkodaiw, I (am) fire.

Weendigô, A monster. Ni Weendigôw, I (am) a monster.

Addik, A deer. Nin Daddikoow, I (am) a deer.

Wakyigun, A house. Ni Wakyiguniw, I (am) a house.

Pinggwi, Dust, ashes. Nim Binggwiw, I (am) dust, &c.

The word _am_, included in parenthesis, is not in the original, unless

we may suppose the terminals _ow_, _aw_, _iw_, _oow_, to be derivatives

from _Iaw_. These changes are reciprocated by the verb, which, as often

as occasion requires, is made to put on a substantive form. The particle

_win_, added to the indicative of the verb, converts it into a

substantive. Thus--

Keegido, He speaks. Keegidowin, Speech.

Pâshkizzigai, He fires. Pashkizzigaiwin, Ammunition.

Agindasoo, He counts. Agindasoowin, Numbers.

Wahyiâzhinggai, He cheats. Wahyiâzhinggaiwin, Fraud.

Minnikwâi, He drinks. Minnikwâiwin, Drink.

Kubbâshi, He encamps. Kubbâishiwin, An encampment.

Meegâzoo, He fights. Meegâzoowin, A fight.

Ojeengai, He kisses. Ojeendiwin, A kiss.

Annôki, He works. Annôkiwta, Work.

Pâpi, He laughs. Pâpiwin, Laughter.

Pimâdizzi, He lives. Pimâdoiziwin, Life.

Onwâibi, He rests. Onwâibiwin, Rest.

Annamiâ, He prays. Annamiâwin, Prayer.

Nibâ, He sleeps. Nibâwin, Sleep.

Odâwai, He trades. Odâwaiwin, Trade.

Adjectives are likewise thus turned into substantives:--

Keezhaiwâdizzi, He generous. Keezhaiwâdizziwin, Generosity.

Minwaindum, He happy. Minwaindumowin, Happiness.

Keezhaizeâwizzi, He industrious. Keezhaizhâwizziwin, Industry.

Kittimâgizzi, He poor. Kittimâgizziwin, Poverty.

Aukkoossi, He sick. Aukkoossiwin, Sickness.

Kittimishki, He lazy. Kittimishkiwin, Laziness.

Nishkâdizzi, He angry. Nishkâdizziwin, Anger.

Baikâdizzi, She chaste. Baikâdizziwin, Chastity.

In order to place the substantives thus formed in the third person,

corresponding with the indicative from which they were changed, it is

necessary only to prefix the proper pronoun. Thus, _Ogeezhaiwâdizziwin_,

his generosity, &c.

7. _Compound Substantives._--The preceding examples have been given

promiscuously from the various classes of words, primitive and

derivative, simple and compound. Some of these words express but a

single idea, as, _ôs_, father--_gah_, mother--_môz_, a moose--_kâg_, a

porcupine--_mang_, a loon--and appear to be incapable of further

division. All such words may be considered as primitives, although some

of them may be contractions of dissyllabic words. There are also a

number of dissyllables, and _possibly_ some trisyllables, which, in the

present state of our analytical knowledge of the language, may be deemed

both simple and primitive. Such are _neebi_, water; _ossin_, a stone;

_geezis_, the sun; _nodin_, wind. But it may be premised, as a principle

which our investigations have rendered probable, that all polysyllabic

words, all words of three syllables, _so far as examined_, and most

words of two syllables, are compounds.

The application of a syntax, formed with a view to facilitate the rapid

conveyance of ideas by consolidation, may, it is presumable, have early

led to the coalescence of words, by which all the relations of object

and action, time and person, were expressed. And in a language which is

only spoken, and not written, the primitives would soon become obscured

and lost in the multiform appendages of time and person, and the

recondite connection of actor and object. And this process of

amalgamation would be a progressive one. The terms that sufficed in the

condition of the simplest state of nature, or in a given latitude, would

vary with their varying habits, institutions, and migrations. The

introduction of new objects and new ideas would require the invention of

new words, or what is much more probable, existing terms would be

modified or compounded to suit the occasion. No one who has paid much

attention to the subject, can have escaped noticing a confirmation of

this opinion, in the extreme readiness of our western Indians to bestow,

on the instant, names, and appropriate names--to any new object

presented to them. A readiness not attributable to their having at

command a stock of generic polysyllables--for these it would be very

awkward to wield--but, as appears more probable, to the powers of the

syntax, which permits the resolution of new compounds from existing

roots, and often concentrates, as remarked in another place, the entire

sense of the parent words, upon a single syllable, and sometimes upon a

single letter.

Thus it is evident that the Chippewas possessed names for a living tree,

_mittig_, and a string, _aiâb_, before they named the bow

_mittigwâb_--the latter being compounded under one of the simplest rules

from the two former. It is further manifest that they had named earth

_akki_, and (any solid, stony, or metallic mass) _âbik_, before they

bestowed an appellation upon the kettle, _akkeek_, or _akkik_, the

latter being derivatives from the former. In process of time these

compounds became the bases of other compounds, and thus the language

became loaded with double, and triple, and quadruple compounds, concrete

in their meaning and formal in their utterance.

When the introduction of metals took place, it became necessary to

distinguish the clay from the iron pot, and the iron from the copper

kettle. The original compound, _akkeek_, retained its first meaning,

admitting the adjective noun _piwâbik_ (itself a compound) iron, when

applied to a vessel of that kind, _piwâbik akkeek_, iron kettle. But a

new combination took place to designate the copper kettle, _mishwâkeek_,

red metal kettle; and another expression to denote the brass kettle,

_ozawâbik akkeek_, yellow metal kettle. The former is made up from

_miskôwâbik_, copper (literally _red-metal_--from _miskwâ_, red, and

_âbik_, the generic above mentioned), and _akkeek_, kettle. _Ozawâbik_,

brass, is from _ozawâ_, yellow, and the generic _âbik_--the term

_akkeek_ being added in its separate form. It may, however, be used in

its connected form of _wukkeek_, making the compound expression

_ozawâbik wukkeek_.

In naming the horse _paibâizhikôgazhi, i. e._ the animal with solid

hoofs, they have seized upon the feature which most strikingly

distinguished the horse from the cleft-footed animals, which were the

only species known to them at the period of the discovery. And the word

itself affords an example, at once, both of their powers of

concentration, and brief, yet accurate description, which it may be

worth while to analyze. _Paizhik_ is one, and is also used as the

indefinite article--the only article the language possesses. This word

is further used in an adjective sense, figura-tively indicating, united,

solid, undivided. And it acquires a plural signification by doubling, or

repeating the first syllable, with a slight variation of the second.

Thus, _Pai-baizhik_ denotes not _one_, or _an_, but several; and when

thus used in the context, renders the noun governed plural. _Oskuzh_ is

the nail, claw, or horny part of the foot of beasts, and supplies the

first substantive member of the compound _gauzh_. The final vowel is

from _ahwaisi_, a beast; and the marked _o_, an inseparable connective,

the office of which is to make the two members coalesce, and harmonize.

The expression thus formed becomes a substantive, specific in its

application. It may be rendered plural like the primitive nouns, may be

converted into a verb, has its diminutive, derogative, and local form,

and, in short, is subject to all the modifications of other

substantives.

Most of the modern nouns are of this complex character. And they appear

to have been invented to designate objects, many of which were

necessarily unknown to the Indians in the primitive ages of their

existence. Others, like their names for a copper-kettle and a horse,

above mentioned, can date their origin further back than the period of

the discovery. Of this number of nascent words, are most of their names

for those distilled or artificial liquors, for which they are indebted

to Europeans. Their name for water, _neebi_, for the fat of animals,

_weenin_, for oil or grease, _pimmidai_, for broth, _nâbôb_, and for

blood, _miskwi_, belong to a very remote era, although all but the first

appear to be compounds. Their names for the tinctures or extracts

derived from the forest, and used as dyes, or medicines, or merely as

agreeable drinks, are mostly founded upon the basis of the word _âbo_, a

liquid, although this word is never used alone. Thus--

Shomin-âbo, Wine, From Shomin, a grape, âbo, a liquor.

Ishkôdâi-wâbo, Spirits, From Ishkôdâi, fire, &c.

Mishimin-âbo, Cider, From Mishimin, an apple, &c.

Tôtôsh-âbo, Milk, From Tôtôsh, the female breast, &c.

Sheew-âbo, Vinegar, From Sheewun, sour, &c.

Annibeesh-âbo, From Annibeeshun, leaves, &c.

Ozhibiegun-aubo, From Ozhibiêgai, he writes, &c.

In like manner their names for the various implements and utensils of

civilized life, are based upon the word _Jeegun_, one of those

primitives, which, although never disjunctively used, denotes, in its

modified forms, the various senses implied by our words instrument,

contrivance, machine, &c. And by prefixing to this generic a

substantive, verb, or adjective, or parts of one or each, an entire new

class of words is formed. In these combinations, the vowels e and o are

sometimes used as connectives.

Keeshkeebô-jeegun, A saw, From Keeshkeezhun, v. a. to

cut.

Seeseebô-jeegun, A file, From Seesee, to rub off, &c.

Wassakoonen-jeegun, A candle, From Wassakooda, bright,

biskoona, flame, &c.

Beeseebô-jeegun, A coffee-mill, From Beesâ, fine grains, &c.

Minnikwâd-jeegun, A drinking-vessel, From Minnekwâi, he drinks,

&c.

Tâshkeebôd-jeegun, A saw-mill, From Taushkâ, to split, &c.

Mudwâiabeed-jeegun, A violin, From Mudwâwâi, sound, âiâb, a

string, &c.

Sometimes this termination is shortened into _gun_, as in the following

instances:--

Onâ-gun, A dish.

Tikkina-gun, A cradle.

Neeba-gun, A bed.

Puddukkyi-gun, A fork.

Puggimmâ-gun, A war-club.

Opwâ-gun, A pipe.

Wassâitshie-gun, A window.

Wakkyi-gun, A house.

Pôdahwâ-gun, A fire-place.

Sheema-gun, A lance.

Another class of derivatives is formed from _wyân_, indicating,

generally, an undressed skin. Thus--

Muk-wyân, A bear skin, From Mukwah, a bear, and wyaun, a

skin.

Wazhusk-wyân, A muskrat skin, From Wazhusk, a muskrat, &c.

Wabôs-wyân, A rabbit skin, From Wabôs, a rabbit, &c.

Neegik-wyân, An otter skin, From Neegih, an otter, &c.

Ojeegi-wyân, A fisher skin, From Ojeeg, a fisher, &c.

Wabizhais-ewyân, a martin skin, from wabizhais, a martin, &c.

_Wâbiwyân_, a blanket, and _bubbuggiwyân_, a shirt, are also formed from

this root. As the termination _wyân_, is chiefly restricted to undressed

skins, or peltries, that of _waigin_ is, in like manner, generally

applied to dressed skins or to cloths. Thus--

Monido-waigin, Blue cloth, shrouds, From Monido, spirits, &c.

Misk-waigin, Red cloth, From Miskwâ, red, &c.

Nondâ-waigin, Scarlet.

Peezhiki-waigin, A buffalo robe, From Peezhiki, a buffalo,

&c.

Addik-waigin, A cariboo skin, From Addik, a cariboo, &c.

Ozhauwushk-waigin, Green cloth, From Ozhâwushkwâ, green.

An interesting class of substantives is derived from the third person

singular of the present indicative of the verb, by changing the vowel

sound of the first syllable, and adding the letter d to that of the

last, making the terminations in _aid_, _âd_, _eed_, _id_, _ood_. Thus,

_Pimmoossâ_, he walks, becomes _pâmmoossâd_, a walker.

aid.

Munnissai, He chops. Mânissaid, A chopper.

Ozhibeigai, He writes. Wâzhibeigaid, A writer.

Nundowainjeegai, He hunts. Nândowainjeegaid, A hunter.

âd.

Neebâ, He sleeps. Nâbâd, A sleeper.

Kwâbahwâ, He fishes (with Kwyâbahwâd, A fisher (with

scoop net). scoop net).

Puggidowâ, He fishes (with Pâgidowâd, A fisher (with

seine). seine).

eed.

Annokee, He works. Anokeed, A worker.

Jeessakea, He juggles. Jossakeed, A juggler.

Munnigobee, He pulls bark. Mainigobeed, A bark puller.

id.

Neemi, He dances. Nâmid, A dancer.

Weesinni, He eats. Wâssinid, An eater.

Pimâdizzi, He lives. Paimaudizzid, A living being.

ood.

Nugamoo, He sings. Naigumood, A singer.

Keegido, He speaks. Kâgidood, A speaker.

Keewonimoo, He lies. Kâwunimood, A liar.

This class of words is rendered plural in _ig_--a termination, which,

after _d_ final in the singular, has a soft pronunciation, as if written

_jig_. Thus, _Nâmid_, a dancer, _nâmidjig_, dancers.

The derogative form is given to these generic substantives by

introducing _ish_, or simply _sh_, in place of the _d_, and changing

the latter to _kid_, making the terminations in _ai_, _aishkid_,

in _â_, _âshkid_, in _e_, _eeshkid_, in _i_, _ishkid_, and in _oo_,

_ooshkid_. Thus, _naindowainjeegaid_, a hunter, is changed to

_naindowainjeegaishkid_, a bad or unprofitable hunter. _Naibâd_, a

sleeper, is changed to _naibâshkid_, a sluggard. _Jossakeed_, a juggler,

to _jossakeeshkid_, a vicious juggler. _Wâsinnid_, an eater, to

_wâssinishkid_, a gormandizer. _Kâgidood_, a speaker, _kâgidooshkid_, a

babbler. And in these cases the plural is added to the last educed form,

making _kâgidooshkidjig_, babblers, &c.

The word _nittâ_, on the contrary, prefixed to those expressions,

renders them complimentary. For instance, _nittâ naigumood_, is a fine

singer, _nittâ kâgidood_, a ready speaker, &c.

Flexible as the substantive has been shown to be, there are other forms

of combination that have not been adverted to--forms, by which it is

made to coalesce with the verb, the adjective, and the preposition,

producing a numerous class of compound expressions. But it is deemed

most proper to defer the discussion of these forms to their several

appropriate heads.

Enough has been exhibited to demonstrate its prominent grammatical

rules. It is not only apparent that the substantive possesses number and

gender, but it also undergoes peculiar modifications to express locality

and diminution, to denote adjective qualities and to indicate tense. It

exhibits some curious traits connected with the mode of denoting the

masculine and feminine. It is modified to express person and to

distinguish living from inanimate masses. It is rendered possessive by a

peculiar inflection, and provides particles, under the shape either of

prefixes or suffixes, separable or inseparable, by which the actor is

distinguished from the object--and all this, without changing its proper

substantive character, without putting on the aspect of a pseudo

adjective, or a pseudo verb. Its changes to produce compounds are,

however, its most interesting, its most characteristic trait. Syllable

is heaped upon syllable, word upon word, and derivative upon derivative,

until its vocabulary is crowded with long and pompous phrases, most

formidable to the eye.

So completely transpositive do the words appear, that like chessmen on a

board, their elementary syllables can be changed at the will of the

player, to form new combinations to meet new contingencies, so long as

they are changed in accordance with certain general principles and

conventional rules; in the application of which, however, much depends

upon the will or the skill of the player. What is most surprising, all

these changes and combinations, all these qualifications of the object,

and distinctions of the person, the time, and the place, do not

supersede the use of adjectives, and pronouns, and verbs, and other

parts of speech woven into the texture of the noun, in their elementary

and conjunctive forms.

III.

_Principles Governing the Use of the Odjibwa Noun-Adjective._

INQUIRY 3.

Observations on the adjective--Its distinction into two classes

denoted by the presence or absence of vitality--Examples of the

animates and inanimates--Mode of their conversion into

substantives--How pronouns are applied to these derivatives, and

the manner of forming compound terms from adjective bases to

describe the various natural phenomena--The application of these

principles in common conversation, and in the description of

natural and artificial objects--Adjectives always preserve the

distinction of number--Numerals--Arithmetical capacity of the

language--The unit exists in duplicate.

1. It has been remarked that the distinction of words into animates and

inanimates, is a principle intimately interwoven throughout the

structure of the language. It is, in fact, so deeply imprinted upon its

grammatical forms, and is so perpetually recurring, that it may be

looked upon, not only as forming a striking peculiarity of the language,

but as constituting the fundamental principle of its structure, from

which all other rules have derived their limits, and to which they have

been made to conform. No class of words appears to have escaped its

impress. Whatever concords other laws impose, they all agree, and are

made subservient in the establishment of this.

It might appear to be a useless distinction in the adjective, when the

substantive is thus marked; but it will be recollected that it is in the

plural of the substantive only that the distinction is marked; and we

shall, presently have occasion to show that redundancy of forms is, to

considerable extent, obviated in practice.

For the origin of the principle itself, we need look only to nature,

which endows animate bodies with animate properties and qualities, and

_vice versâ_. But it is due to the tribes who speak this language, to

have invented one set of adjective symbols to express the ideas

peculiarly appropriate to the former, and another set applicable

exclusively to the latter; and to have given the words good and bad,

black and white, great and small, handsome and ugly, such modifications

as are practically competent to indicate the general nature of the

objects referred to, whether provided with, or destitute of, the vital

principle. And not only so, but, by the figurative use of these forms,

to exalt inanimate masses into the class of living beings, or to strip

the latter of its properties of life--a principle of much importance to

their public speakers.

This distinction is shown in the following examples, in which it will be

observed that the inflection _izzi_ generally denotes the personal, and

_au_, _un_, or _wud_, the impersonal forms.

ADJ. INANIMATE. ADJ. ANIMATE.

Bad, Monaudud, Monaudizzi.

Ugly, Gushkoonaugwud, Gushkoonaugoozzi.

Beautiful, Bishegaindaugwud, Bisheguindaugoozzi.

Strong, Söngun, Söngizzi.

Soft, Nökun, Nökizzi.

Hard, Mushkowau, Mushkowizzi.

Smooth, Shoiskwau, Shoiskoozzi.

Black, Mukkuddäwau, Mukkuddäwizzi.

White, Waubishkau, Waubishkizzi.

Yellow, Ozahwau, Ozahwizzi.

Red, Miskwau, Miskwizzi.

Blue, Ozhahwushkwau, Ozhahwushkwizzi.

Sour, Sheewun, Sheewizzi.

Sweet, Weeshköbun, Weeshköbizzi.

Light, Naugun, Naungizzi.

It is not, however, in all cases, by mere modifications of the adjective

that these distinctions are expressed. Words totally different in sound,

and evidently derived from radically different roots, are, in some few

instances, employed; as in the following examples:--

ADJ. INANIMATE. ADJ. ANIMATE.

Good, Onisheshin, Minno.

Bad, Monaudud, Mudjee.

Large, Mitshau, Mindiddo.

Small, Pungee, Uggaushe.

Old, Geekau, Gitizzi.

It may be remarked of these forms, that, although the impersonal will,

in some instances, take the personal inflections, the rule is not

reciprocated, and _minno_, and _mindiddo_, and _gitizzi_, and all words

similarly situated, remain unchangeably animates. The word _pungee_ is

limited to the expression of quantity, and its correspondent,

_uggaushi_, to size or quality. _Kishedä_ (hot) is restricted to the

heat of a fire; _keezhautä_, to the heat of the sun. There is still a

third term to indicate the natural heat of the body; _kizzizoo_.

_Mitshau_ (large) is generally applied to countries, lakes, rivers, &c.;

_mindiddo_, to the body; and _gitshee_, indiscriminately. _Onishishin_,

and its correspondent, _onishishshä_, signify handsome or fair, as well

as good. _Kwonaudy_, a. a., and _kwonaudyewun_, a. i., mean, strictly,

handsome, and imply nothing further. _Minno_ is the appropriate personal

form for good. _Mudjee_ and _monaudud_ may reciprocally change genders,

the first by the addition of _iee_, and the second by altering _ud_ to

_izzi_.

Distinctions of this kind are of considerable importance in a practical

point of view, and their observance or neglect is noticed with

scrupulous exactness by the Indians. The want of inanimate forms to such

words as happy, sorrowful, brave, sick, &c., creates no confusion, as

inanimate nouns cannot, strictly speaking, take upon themselves such

qualities; and when they do--as they sometimes do--by one of those

extravagant figures of speech which are used in their tales of

transformations, the animate form answers all purposes; for in these

tales the whole material creation may be clothed with animation. The

rule, as exhibited in practice, is limited, with sufficient accuracy, to

the boundaries prescribed by nature.

To avoid a repetition of forms, were the noun and the adjective both to

be employed in their usual relation, the latter is endowed with a

pronominal or substantive inflection; and the use of the noun in its

separate form is thus wholly superseded. Thus, _onishishin_, a. i., and

_onishishsha_, a. a., become _wänishishing_, "That which is good or

fair," and _wänishishid_, "He who is good or fair." The following

examples will exhibit this rule under each of its forms:--

COMPOUND OR NOUN-ADJECTIVE ANIMATE.

Black, Mukkuddawizzi, Mäkuddäwizzid.

White, Waubishkizzi, Wyaubishkizzid.

Yellow, Ozahwizzi, Wäzauwizzid.

Red, Miskwizzi, Mäskoozzid.

Strong, Söngizzi, Swöngizzid.

NOUN-ADJECTIVE INANIMATE.

Black, Mukkuddäwau, Mäkuddäwaug.

White, Waubishkau, Wyaubishkaug.

Yellow, Ozahwau, Wäzhauwaug.

Red, Miskwau, Maiskwaug.

The animate forms, in these examples, will be recognized as exhibiting a

further extension of the rule, mentioned in the preceding Inquiry, by

which substantives are formed from the indicative of the verb by a

permutation of the vowels; and these forms are likewise rendered plural

in the manner there mentioned. They also undergo changes to indicate the

various persons. For instance, _onishisha_ is thus declined to mark the

person:--

Wänishish-eyaun, I (am) good or fair.

Wänishish-eyun, Thou (art) good or fair.

Wänishish-id, He (is) good or fair.

Wänishish-eyaung, We (are) good or fair. (ex.)

Wänishish-eyung, We (are) good or fair. (in.)

Wänishish-eyaig, Ye (are) good or fair.

Wänishish-idjig, They (are) good or fair.

The inanimate forms, being without person, are simply rendered plural by

_in_, changing _maiskwaug_ to _maiskwaug-in_, &c. &c. The verbal

signification which these forms assume, as indicated in the words am,

art, is, are, is to be sought in the permutative change of the first

syllable. Thus, _o_ is changed to _wä_, _muk_ to _mäk_, _waub_ to

_wy-aub_, _ozau_ to _wäzau_, _misk_ to _maisk_, &c. The pronoun, as is

usual in the double compounds, is formed wholly by the inflections

_eyaun_, _eyun_, &c.

The strong tendency of the adjective to assume a personal or

pronomico-substantive form, leads to the employment of many words in a

particular or exclusive sense; and, in any future practical attempts

with the language, it will be found greatly to facilitate its

acquisition, if the adjectives are arranged in distinct classes,

separated by this characteristic principle of their application. The

examples we have given are chiefly those which may be considered

strictly animate or inanimate, admit of double forms, and are of general

use. Many of the examples recorded in the original manuscripts employed

in these inquiries, are of a more concrete character, and, at the same

time, a more limited use. Thus, _shaugwewe_ is a weak person;

_nökaugumme_, a weak drink; _nökaugwud_, a weak or soft piece of wood.

_Sussägau_ is fine, but can only be applied to personal appearance;

_beesau_, indicates fine grains. _Keewushkwä_ is giddy, and

_keewushkwäbee_, giddy with drink--both being restricted to the third

person. _Söngun_ and _songizzi_ are the personal and impersonal forms of

strong, as given above, but _mushkowaugumme_ is strong drink. In like

manner, the two words for hard, as above, are restricted to solid

substances. _Sunnuhgud_ is hard (to endure). _Waindud_ is easy (to

perform). _Söngodää_ is brave; _shaugedää_, cowardly; _keezhinghowizzi_,

active; _kizheekau_, swift; _onaunegoozzi_, lively; _minwaindum_, happy;

_gushkaindum_, sorrowful; but all these forms are confined to the third

person of the indicative, singular. _Pibbigwun_ is a rough or knotted

substance; _pubbiggozzi_, a rough person. _Keenwau_ is long or tall (any

solid mass). _Kaynozid_ is a tall person. _Tahkozid_ a short person.

_Wassayau_ is light; _wassaubizzoo_, the light of the eye; _wasshauzhä_,

the light of a star or any luminous body. _Keenau_ is sharp;

_keenaubikud_, a sharp knife or stone. _Keezhaubikeday_ is hot metal, a

hot stove, &c. _Keezhaugummeday_ is hot water. _Uubudgeetön_ is useful,

a useful thing. _Wauweeug_ is frivolous, anything frivolous in word or

deed. _Tubbushish_ appears to be a general term for low. _Ishpimming_ is

high in the air. _Ishpau_ is applied to any high fixture, as a house,

&c. _Ishpaubikau_ is a high rock. _Taushkaubikau_, a split rock.

These combinations and limitations meet the inquirer at every step; they

are the current phrases of the language; they present short, ready, and

often beautiful modes of expression; and, as they shed light both upon

the idiom and genius of the language, I shall not scruple to add further

examples and illustrations. Ask a Chippewa the name for a rock, and he

will answer _awzhebik_. The generic import of _awbik_ has been

explained. Ask him the name for red rock, and he will answer

_miskwaubik_; for white rock, and he will answer _waubaubik_; for black

rock, _mukkuddäwaubik_; for yellow rock, _ozahwaubik_; for green rock,

_ozhahwushkwaubik_; for bright rock, _wassayaubik_; for smooth rock,

_shoishkwaubik_, &c.--compounds in which the words red, white, black,

yellow, &c., unite with _aubik_. Pursue this inquiry, and the following

forms will be elicited:--

Impersonal.

Miskwaubik-ud, It (is) a red rock.

Waububik-ud, It (is) a white rock.

Mukkudäwaubik-ud, It (is) a black rock.

Ozahwaubik-ud, It (is) a yellow rock.

Wassayaubik-ud, It (is) a bright rock.

Shoiskwaubik-ud, It (is) a smooth rock.

Personal.

Miskwaubik-izzi, He (is) a red rock.

Waububik-izzi, He (is) a white rock.

Mukkudäwaubik-izzi, He (is) a black rock.

Ozahwaubik-izzi, He (is) a yellow rock.

Wassayaubik-izzi, He (is) a bright rock.

Shoiskwaubik-izzi, He (is) a smooth rock.

Add _bun_ to these terms, and they are made to have passed away; prefix

_tah_ to them, and their future appearance is indicated. The word "is"

in the translations, although marked with parentheses, is not deemed

wholly gratuitous. There is, strictly speaking, an idea of existence

given to these compounds, by the particle _au_, in _aubic_, which seems

to be indirectly a derivative from that great and fundamental root of

the language _Iau_. _Bik_ is apparently the radix of the expression for

"rock."

Let this mode of interrogation be continued, and extended to other

adjectives, or the same adjectives applied to other objects, and results

equally regular and numerous will be obtained. _Minnis_, we shall be

told is an island; _miskominnis_, a red island; _mukkuddäminnis_, a

black island; _waubeminnis_, a white island, &c. _Annokwut_, is a cloud;

_miskwaunakwut_, a red cloud; _mukkuddawukwut_, a black cloud;

_waubahnokwut_, a white cloud; _ozahwushkwahnakwut_, a blue cloud, &c.

_Neebe_ is the specific term for water; but is not generally used in

combination with the adjective. The word _guma_, like _aubo_, appears to

be a generic term for water, or potable liquids. Hence, the following

terms:--

Gitshee, Great. Gitshiguma, Great water.

Nokun, Weak. Nökauguma, Weak drink.

Mushkowau, Strong. Mushkowauguma, Strong drink.

Weeshkobun, Sweet. Weeshkobauguma, Sweet drink.

Sheewun, Sour. Sheewauguma, Sour drink.

Weesugun, Bitter. Weesugauguma, Bitter drink.

Minno, Good. Minwauguma, Good drink.

Monaudud, Bad. Mahnauguma, Bad drink.

Miskwau, Red. Miskwauguma, Red drink.

Ozahwau, Yellow. Ozahwauguma, Yellow drink.

Weenun, Dirty. Weenauguma, Dirty water.

Peenud, Clean. Peenauguma, Clean water.

From _minno_, and from _monaudud_, good and bad, are derived the

following terms: _Minnopogwud_, it tastes well; _minnopogoozzi_, he

tastes well; _mawzhepogwud_, it tastes bad; _mawzhepogoozzi_, he tastes

bad. _Minnomaugwud_, it smells good; _minnomaugoozzi_, he smells good;_

mauzhemaugud_, it smells bad; _mauzhemaugoozzi_, he smells bad. The

inflections _gwud_, and _izzi_, here employed, are clearly indicative,

as in other combinations, of the words _it_ and _him_.

_Baimwa_, is sound; _baimwäwa_, the passing sound; _minwäwa_, a pleasant

sound; _maunwäwa_, a disagreeable sound; _mudwayaushkau_, the sound of

waves dashing on the shore; _mudwayaunnemud_, the sound of winds;

_mudwayaukooshkau_, the sound of falling trees; _mudwäkumigishin_, the

sound of a person falling upon the earth; _mudwaysin_, the sound of any

inanimate mass falling on the earth. These examples might be continued

_ad infinitum_. Every modification of circumstances, almost every

peculiarity of thought, is expressed by some modification of the

orthography. Enough has been given to prove that the adjective combines

itself with the substantive, the verb, and the pronoun, that the

combinations thus produced are numerous, afford concentrated modes of

conveying ideas, and oftentimes, happy turns of expression. Numerous and

prevalent as these forms are, they do not, however, preclude the use of

adjectives in their simple forms. The use of the one or the other

appears to be generally at the option of the speaker. In most cases

brevity or euphony dictates the choice. Usage results from these

applications of the principles. There may be rules resting upon a

broader basis; but if so, they do not appear to be very obvious. Perhaps

the simple adjectives are often employed before verbs and nouns, in the

first and second persons singular.

Ningee minno neebau-nabun, I have slept well.

Ningee minno weesin, I have eaten a good meal.

Ningee minno pimmoossay, I have walked well, or a good

distance.

Kägät minno geezhigud, It (is) a very pleasant day.

Kwanaudy ningödahs, I have a handsome garment.

Ke minno iau nuh, Are you well?

Auneende ain deyun, What ails you?

Keezhamonedo aupädush shäwainemik, God prosper you.

Aupädush shäwaindaugoozzegun, Good luck attend you.

Aupädush nau kinwainzh pimmaudizziyun, May you live long.

Onauneegoozzin, Be (thou) cheerful.

Ne minwaindum waubumenaun, I (am) glad to see you.

Kwanaudj kweeweezains, A pretty boy.

Kägät söngedää, He (is) a brave man.

Kägät onishishsha, She (is) handsome.

Gitshee kinözee, He (is) very tall.

Uggausau bäwizzi, She (is) slender.

Gitshee sussaigau, He (is) fine dressed.

Bishegaindaugoozzi-wug meegwunug, They (are) beautiful feathers.

Ke daukoozzinuh, Are you sick?

Monaudud muundun muskeekee, This (is) bad medicine.

Monaudud aindauyun, My place of dwelling (is) bad.

Aindauyaun mitshau, My place of dwelling (is) large.

Ne mittigwaub onishishsha, My bow (is) good.

Ne bikwukön monaududön, But my arrows (are) bad.

Ne minwaindaun appaukoozzegun, I love mild or mixed tobacco.

Kauweekau neezhikay ussämau ne But I never smoke pure tobacco.

suggus-wannausee,

Monaudud maishkowaugumig, Strong drink (is) bad.

Keeguhgee budjeëgonaun, It makes us foolish.

Gitshee Monedo neebe ogee özhetön, The Great Spirit made water.

Ininewug dush ween ishködäwaubo ogee But man made whiskey.

oz-hetönahwau,

These expressions are put down promiscuously, embracing verbs and nouns

as they presented themselves, and without any effort to support the

opinion, which may or may not be correct, that the elementary forms of

the adjectives are most commonly required before verbs and nouns in the

first and second persons. The English expression is thrown into Indian

in the most natural manner, and, of course, without always giving

adjective for adjective or noun for noun. Thus, God is rendered, not

_monedo_, but _Geezha monedo, merciful spirit_. Good luck is rendered by

the compound phrase, _shäwaindaugoozzegun_, indicating in a very general

sense, the influence of kindness or benevolence on _success in life_.

_Söngedää_ is, alone, _a brave man_, and the word _kägät_ prefixed, is

an adverb. In the expression "mild tobacco," the adjective is entirely

dispensed with in the Indian, the sense being sufficiently rendered by

the compound noun _appaukoozzegun_, which always means the Indian weed

or smoking mixture. _Ussämau_, on the contrary, without the adjective,

signifies pure tobacco. _Bikwukön_, signifies blunt or lumpy-headed

arrows; _assowaun_, is the barbed arrow. _Kwonaudj kweeweezains_ means,

not simply "pretty boy," but _pretty little boy_; and there is no mode

of using the word boy but in this diminutive form, the word itself being

a derivative _kewewe coryugal_, with the regular diminutive in _ains_.

_Onauneegoozzin_, embraces the pronoun, verb, and adjective, _be thou

cheerful_. In the last phrase of the examples, "man" is rendered men

(_inineewuy_) in the translation, as the term _man_ cannot be employed

in the general plural sense it conveys in this connection in the

original. The word "whiskey" is rendered by the compound phrase,

_ishködawaubo_, literally _fire-liquor_, a generic for all kinds of

ardent spirits.

These aberrations from the literal terms will convey some conceptions of

the difference of the two idioms, although, from the limited nature and

object of the examples, they will not indicate the full extent of the

difference. In giving anything like the spirit of the original, much

greater deviations in the written forms must appear. And in fact, not

only the structure of the language, but the mode and _order of thought_

of the Indians is so essentially different, that any attempts to

preserve the English idiom, to give letter for letter, and word for

word, must go far to render the translation pure nonsense.

2. Varied as the adjective is in its changes, it has no comparative

inflection. A Chippewa cannot say that one substance is hotter or colder

than another, or of two or more substances unequally heated, that this

or that is the hottest or coldest, without employing adverbs or

accessory adjectives; and it is accordingly by adverbs and accessory

adjectives that the degrees of comparison are expressed.

_Pimmaudizziwin_, is a very general substantive expression, indicating

the _tenor of being or life_. _Izzhewäbizziwin_, is a term near akin to

it, but more appropriately applied to the _acts_, _conduct_, _manner_,

or _personal deportment_ of life. Hence the expressions--

Nem bimmaudizziwin, My tenor of life.

Ke bimmaudizziwin, Thy tenor of life.

O pimmaudizziwin, His tenor of life, &c.

Nin dizhewäbizziwin, My personal deportment.

Ke dizhewäbizziwin, Thy personal deportment.

O Izzhewäbizziwin, His personal deportment, &c.

To form the positive degree of comparison from these terms, _minno_,

good, and _mudjee_, bad, are introduced between the pronoun and verb,

giving rise to some permutations of the vowels and consonants, which

affect the sound only. Thus--

Ne minno pimmaudizziwin, My good tenor of life.

Ke minno pimmaudizziwin, Thy good tenor of life.

Minno pimmaudizziwin, His good tenor of life.

Ne mudjee pimmaudizziwin, My bad tenor of life.

Ke mudjee pimmaudizziwin, Thy bad tenor of life.

Mudjee pimmaudizziwin, His bad tenor of life.

To place these forms in the comparative degree, _nahwudj_, _more_, is

prefixed to the adjective; and the superlative is denoted by _mahmowee_,

an adverb or an adjective as it is variously applied, but the meaning of

which is, in this connection, _most_. The degrees of comparison may be,

therefore, set down as follows:--

Positive, Kishedä. Hot (restricted to the heat of a fire),

Comparative, Nahwudj kishedä. More hot,

Superlative, Mahmowee kishedä. Most hot.

Your manner of life is good, Ke dizzhewäbizziwin onishishin.

Your manner of life is better, Ke dizzhewäbizziwin nahwudj onishishin.

Your manner of life is best, Ke dizzhewäbizziwin mahwoweé onishishin.

His manner of life is best, Odizzhewäbizziwin mahmowee onishishinine.

Little Turtle was brave, Mikkenoköns söngedääbun.

Tecumseh was braver, Tecumseh nahwudj söngedääbun.

Pontiac was bravest, Pontiac mahmowee söngedääbun.

3. The adjective assumes a negative form when it is preceded by the

adverb. Thus, the phrase _songedää_, he is brave, is changed to _kahween

söngedääsee_, he is not brave.

POSITIVE.

Neebwaukah, He is wise.

Kwonaudjewe, She is handsome.

Oskineegee, He is young.

Shaugweewee, He is feeble.

Geekkau, He is old.

Mushkowizzi, He is strong.

NEGATIVE.

Kahween neebwaukah-see, He is not wise.

Kahween kwonaudjewee-see, She is not handsome.

Kahween oskineegee-see, He is not young.

Kahween Shaugweewee-see, He is not feeble.

Kahween Geekkau-see, He is not old.

Kahween Mushkowizzi-see, He is not strong.

From this rule the indeclinable adjectives, by which is meant those

adjectives which do not put on the personal and impersonal forms by

inflection, but consist of radically different roots, form exceptions.

Are you sick? Ke dahkoozzi nuh?

You are not sick! Kahween ke dahkoozzi-see.

I am happy, Ne minwaindum.

I am unhappy, Kahween ne minwainduz-see.

His manner of life is bad, Mudjee izzhewabizzi.

His manner of life is not bad, Kahween mudjee izzhewabizzi-see.

It is large, Mitshau muggud.

It is not large, Kahween mitshau-seenön.

In these examples, the declinable adjectives are rendered negative in

_see_; the indeclinable, remain as simple adjuncts to the verbs; and the

_latter_ put on the negative form.

4. In the hints and remarks which have now been furnished respecting the

Chippewa adjective, its powers and inflections have been shown to run

parallel with those of the substantive, in its separation into animates

and inanimates; in having the pronominal inflections; in taking an

inflection for tense--a topic which, by the way, has been very cursorily

passed over--and in the numerous modifications to form the compounds.

This parallelism has also been intimated to hold good with respect to

number--a subject deeply interesting in itself, as it has its analogy

only in the ancient languages--and it was therefore deemed best to defer

giving examples, till they could be introduced without abstracting the

attention from other points of discussion.

_Minno_ and _mudjee_, good and bad, being of the limited number of

personal adjectives which modern usage permits being applied, although

often improperly applied to inanimate objects, they, as well as a few

other adjectives, form exceptions to the use of number. Whether we say

"a good man" or "a bad man," "good men" or "bad men," the words _minno_

and _mudjee_ remain the same. But all the declinable and coalescing

adjectives--adjectives which join on, and, as it were, _melt into_ the

body of the substantive--take the usual plural inflections, and are

governed by the same rules in regard to their use, as the substantive;

personal adjectives requiring personal plurals, &c.

ADJECTIVES ANIMATE.

Singular.

Onishishewe mishemin, Good apple.

Kwonaudjewe eekwä, Handsome woman.

Songedää inine, Brave man.

Bishegaindaugoozzi peenasee, Beautiful bird.

Ozahwizzi ahmo, Yellow bee.

Plural.

Onishishewe-wug mishemin-ug, Good apples.

Kwonaudjewe-wug eekwä-wug, Handsome women.

Songedää-wug inine-wug, Brave men.

Bishegaindaugoozzi-wug peenasee-wug, Beautiful birds.

Ozahwizzi-wug ahm-ög, Yellow bees.

ADJECTIVES INANIMATE.

Singular.

Onishishin mittig, Good tree.

Kwonaudj tshemaun, Handsome canoe.

Monaudud ishkoda, Bad fire.

Weeshkobun aidetaig, Sweet fruit.

Plural.

Onishishin-ön mittig-ön, Good trees.

Kwonaudjewun-ön tshemaun-un, Handsome canoes.

Monaudud-ön ishkod-än, Bad fires.

Weeshkobun-ön aidetaig-in, Sweet fruits.

Peculiar circumstances are supposed to exist in order to render the use

of the adjective, in this connection with the noun, necessary and

proper. But, in ordinary instances, as the narration of events, the noun

would precede the adjective; and oftentimes, particularly where a second

allusion to objects previously named became necessary, the compound

expressions would be used. Thus, instead of saying "the yellow bee,"

_wazzahwizzid_ would distinctly convey the idea of that insect, _had the

species been before named_. Under similar circumstances,

_kain-waukoozzid_, _agausheid_, _söngaunemud_, _mushkowaunemud_, would

respectively signify, "a tall tree," "a small fly," "a strong wind," "a

hard wind." And these terms would become plural in _jig_, which, as

before mentioned, is a mere modification of _ig_, one of the five

general animate plural inflections of the language.

_Kägät wahwinaudj abbenöjeeug_, is an expression indicating they are

_very handsome children_. But _beeweezheewug monetösug_ denotes _small

insects_. _Minno neewugizzi_, is "good tempered," "he is good tempered."

_Mawshininewugizzi_, is "bad tempered," both having their plural in

_wug_. _Nin nuneenahwaindum_, "I am lonesome." _Nin nuneenahwaindaumin_,

"we (excluding you) are lonesome." _Waweea_, is a term generally used to

express the adjective sense of round. _Kwy_, is the scalp; _weewikwy_,

his scalp. Hence, _weewukwon_, "hat," _wayweewukwonid_, "a wearer of the

hat;" and its plural, _wayweewukwonidjig_, "wearers of the hats"--the

usual term applied to Europeans, or white men generally. These examples

go to prove that under every form in which the adjective can be traced,

whether in its simplest or most compound state, it is susceptible of

number.

The numerals of the language are converted into adverbs by the

inflection _ing_, making one, _once_, &c. The unit exists in duplicate.

Päzhik, One, _general unit_. } Aubeding, Once.

Ingoot, One, _numerical unit_. }

Neesh, Two. Neeshing, Twice.

Niswee, Three. Nissing, Thrice.

Neewin, Four. Neewing, Four times.

Naunun, Five. Nauning, Five times.

N'goodwaswä, Six. N'goodwautsking, Six times.

Neeshwauswä, Seven. Neeshwautshing, Seven times.

Shwauswe, Eight. Shwautshing, Eight times.

Shongusswe, Nine. Shongutshing, Nine times.

Metauswe, Ten. Meetaushing, Ten times.

These inflections can be carried as high as they can compute numbers.

They count decimally. After reaching ten, they repeat, ten and one, ten

and two, &c. to twenty. Twenty is a compound signifying two tens;

thirty, three tens, &c.; a mode which is carried up to one

hundred--_n'goodwak_. _Wak_ then becomes the word of denomination,

combining with the names of the digits until they reach a thousand,

_meetauswauk_, literally _ten hundred_. Here a new compound term is

introduced, made by prefixing twenty to the last denominator,

_neeshtonnah duswak_, which doubles the last term, thirty triples it,

forty quadruples it, &c. till the computation reaches to ten thousand,

_n'goodwak dushing n'goodwak_, one hundred times one hundred. This is

the probable extent of all certain computation. The term _gitshee_

(great), prefixed to the last denomination, leaves the number

indefinite.

There is no form of the numerals corresponding to second, third, fourth,

&c. They can only further say, _nittum_, first, and _ishkwaudj_, last.

IV.

_Some Remarks respecting the Agglutinative Position and Properties of

the Pronoun._

INQUIRY 4.

Nature and principles of the pronoun--Its distinction into

preformative and subformative classes--Personal pronouns--The

distinction of an inclusive and exclusive form in the number of

the first person plural--Modifications of the personal pronouns to

imply existence, individuality, possession, ownership, position,

and other accidents--Declension of pronouns to answer the purpose

of the auxiliary verbs--Subformatives, how employed to mark the

persons--Relative pronouns considered--Their application to the

causative verbs--Demonstrative pronouns--Their separation into two

classes, animates and inanimates--Example of their use.

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.

In like manner, _nittum_, first, and _ishkwaudj_, last, give rise to the

following arrangement of the pronoun:--

Neen nittum, I first.

Keen nittum, You or thou first.

Ween nittum, He or she first.

Keen nittum ewind, We first. (in.)

Neen nittum ewind, We first. (ex.)

Keen nittum ewau, Ye or you first.

Ween nittum ewau, They first.

ISHKWAUDJ.

Neen ishkwaudj, I last.

Keen ishkwaudj, Thou last.

Ween ishkwaudj, He or she last.

Keenowind ishkwaudj, We last. (in.)

Neenowind ishkwaudj, We last. (ex.)

Keenowau ishkwaudj, Ye or you last.

Weenowau ishkwaudj, They last.

The disjunctive forms of the pronoun are also sometimes preserved before

verbs and adjectives.

NEEZHIKA. Alone, (_an._)

Neen neezhika, I alone.

Keen neezhika, Thou alone.

Ween neezhika, He or she alone.

Keenowind neezhika, We alone. (in.)

Neenowind neezhika, We alone. (ex.)

Keenowau neezhika, Ye or you alone.

Weenowau neezhika, They alone.

To give these expressions a verbal form, the substantive verb, with its

pronominal modifications, must be superadded. For instance, _I am_

alone, &c. is thus rendered:--

Neen neezhika nindyau, I am alone + aumin.

Keen neezhika keedyau, Thou art alone + aum.

Ween neezhika iyau, He or she is alone, &c. + wug.

In the subjoined examples, the noun OW, body, is changed to a verb, by

the permutation of the vowel, changing OW, to AUW; which last takes the

letter _d_ before it when the pronoun is prefixed:--

I am a man, Neen nin dauw.

Thou art a man, Keen ke dauw.

He is a man, Ween ah weeh.

We are men, (in.) Ke dauw we min.

We are men, (ex.) Ne dauw we min.

Ye are men, Ke dauw mim.

They are men, Weenowau ah weeh wug.

In the translation of these expressions, "man" is used as synonymous

with "person." If the specific term _inine_ had been introduced, in the

original, the meaning thereby conveyed would be, in this particular

connection, "I am a man," with respect to _courage_, &c. in opposition

to effeminacy. It would not be simply declarative of _corporeal

existence_, but of existence in a _particular state or condition_.

In the following phrases, the modified forms, or the signs only, of the

pronouns are used:

N'debaindaun, I own it.

Ke debaindaun, Thou ownst it.

O debaindaun, He or she owns it.

N'debaindaum-in, We own it. (ex.)

Ke debaindaum-in, We own it. (in.)

Ke debaindaun-ewau, Ye own it.

O debaindaun-ewau, They own it.

These examples are cited as exhibiting the manner in which the

_prefixed_ and preformative pronouns are employed, both in their full

and contracted forms. To denote possession, nouns specifying the things

possessed are required; and, what would not be anticipated had not full

examples of this species of declension been given in another place, the

purposes of distinction are not affected by a simple change of the

pronoun, as _I_ to _mine_, &c., but by a subformative inflection of the

_noun_, which is thus made to have a reflective operation upon the

pronoun speaker. It is believed that sufficient examples of this rule,

in all the modifications of inflection, have been given under the head

of the substantive. But as the substantives employed to elicit these

modifications were exclusively _specific_ in their meaning, it, may be

proper here, in further illustration of an important principle, to

present a generic substantive under their compound forms.

I have selected for this purpose one of the primitives. IE-AU´, is the

abstract term for matter. It is in the animate form. Its inanimate

correspondent is IE-EE´. These are two important roots. And they are

found in combination, in a very great number of derivative words. It

will be sufficient here, to show their connection with the pronoun, in

the production of a class of terms in very general use.

Animate Forms.

Possessive.

SINGULAR. PLURAL.

Nin dyë aum, Mine. Nin dyë auminaun, Ours. (ex.)

Ke dyë auminaun, Ours. (in.)

Ke dyë aum, Thine. Ke dyë aumewau, Yours.

Objective.

O dyë aum-un, His

or Hers. O dyë aumewaun, Theirs.

Inanimate Forms.

Possessive.

SINGULAR. PLURAL.

Nin dyë eem, Mine. Nin dyë eeminaun, Ours. (ex.)

Ke dyë eeminaun, Ours. (in.)

Ke dyë eem, Thine. Ke dyë eemewau, Yours.

Objective.

O dyë eem. His

or Hers. O dyë eemewau, Theirs. (pos. in.)

In these forms the noun is singular throughout. To render it plural, as

well as the pronoun, the appropriate general plurals _ug_ and _un_, or

_ig_ and _in_, must be superadded. But it must be borne in mind, in

making these additions, "that the plural inflection to inanimate nouns

(which have no objective case), forms the objective case to animate,

which have no number in the third person." (p. 461.) The particle _un_,

therefore, which is the appropriate plural for the inanimate nouns in

these examples, is only the objective mark of the animate.

The plural of I, is _naun_, the plural of thou and he, _wau_. But as

these inflections would not coalesce smoothly with the possessive

inflections, the connective vowels _i_ and _e_ are prefixed, making the

plural of I, _inaun_, and of thou, &c., _ewau_.

If we strike from these declensions the root IE, leaving its animate and

inanimate forms AU and EE, and adding the plural of the noun, we shall

then, taking the _animate_ declension as an instance, have the following

formula of the pronominal declensions:

---+---+-----+----+---+------+---+----

Pronoun singular.

| Place of the noun.

| | Possessive inflection.

| | | Objective inflection to the noun singular.

| | | | Connective vowel.

| | | | | Plural inflection of the

| | | | | pronoun.

| | | | | | Objective inflection,

| | | | | | noun plural.

| | | | | | | Plural of the noun.

---+---+-----+----+---+------+---+----

Ne | | aum | | i | naun | | ig

Ke | | aum | | e | wau | | g

O | | aum | un | | | |

O | | aum | | e | wau | n |

---+---+-----+----+---+------+---+----

To render this formula of general use, six variations (five in addition

to the above) of the possessive inflection are required, corresponding

to the six classes of substantives, whereby _aum_ would be changed to

_äm_, _eem_, _im_, _öm_, and _oom_, conformably to the examples

heretofore given in treating of the substantive. The objective

inflection would also be sometimes changed to _een_, and sometimes to

_oan_.

Having thus indicated the mode of distinguishing the person, number,

relation, and gender, or what is deemed its technical equivalent, the

mutations words undergo, not to mark the distinctions of _sex_, but the

presence or absence of _vitality_, I shall now advert to the inflections

which the pronouns take for _tense_, or rather to form the auxiliary

verbs, have, had, shall, will, may, &c.; a very curious and important

principle, and one which clearly demonstrates that no part of speech has

escaped the transforming genius of the language. Not only are the three

great modifications of time accurately marked in the verbal form of the

Chippewas, but, by the inflection of the pronoun, they are enabled to

indicate some of the oblique tenses, and thereby to conjugate their

verbs with accuracy and precision.

The particle _gee_ added to the first, second, and third person

singular, of the present tense, changes them to the perfect past,

rendering I, thou, he, I did, have, or had; thou didst, hast, or hadst;

he or she did, have, or had. If _gah_ be substituted for _gee_, the

first future tense is formed, and the perfect past added to the first

future, forms the conditional future. As the eye may prove an auxiliary

in the comprehension of forms which are not familiar, the following

tabular arrangement of them is presented.

First person, I.

Nin gee, I did, have, had.

Nin gah, I shall, will.

Nin gah gee, I shall have, will have.

Second person, Thou.

Ke gee, Thou didst, hast, hadst.

Ke gah, Thou shalt, wilt.

Ke gah gee, Thou shalt have, wilt have.

Third person, He or She.

O gee, He or she did, have, had.

O gah, He or she did, have, had.

O gah gee, He or she shall have, will have.

The present and imperfect tense of the potential mood is formed by

_dau_, and the perfect by _gee_ suffixed, as in other instances.

First person, I.

Nin dau, I may, can, &c.

Nin dau gee, I may have, can have, &c.

Second person, Thou.

Ke dau, Thou mayst, canst, &c.

Ke dau gee, Thou mayst have, canst have, &c.

Third person, He or She.

O dau, He or she may, can, &c.

O dau gee, He or she may have, can have, &c.

In conjugating the verbs through the plural person, the singular terms

for the pronoun remain, and they are rendered plural by a retrospective

action of the pronominal inflections of the verb. In this manner the

pronoun-verb auxiliary has a general application, and the necessity of

double forms is avoided.

The preceding observations are confined to the formative or _prefixed_

pronouns. The inseparable suffixed or subformative are as follows:--

Yaun, My.

Yun, Thy.

Id or d, His or hers.

Yaung, Our. (ex.)

Yung, Our. (in.)

Yaig, Your.

Waud, Their.

These pronouns are exclusively employed as suffixes, and as suffixes to

the descriptive compound substantives, adjectives, and verbs. Both the

rule and examples have been stated under the head of the substantives,

p. 463, and adjectives, p. 492. Their application to the verb will be

shown as we proceed.

2. _Relative Pronouns._--In a language which provides for the

distinction of person by particles prefixed or suffixed to the verb, it

will scarcely be expected that separate and independent relative

pronouns should exist, or if such are to be found, their use, as

separate parts of speech, must, it will have been anticipated, be quite

limited; limited to simple interrogatory forms of expression, and not

applicable to the indicative or declaratory. Such will be found to be

the fact in the language under review; and it will be perceived from the

subjoined examples, that in all instances requiring the relative pronoun

_who_, other than the simple interrogatory forms, this relation is

indicated by the inflections of the verb, or adjective, &c. Nor does

there appear to be any declension of the separate pronoun corresponding

to _whose_ and _whom_.

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 keegoedood?

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.

And so the forms might be continued throughout all the objective

persons--

Mainwaindum ë yun, _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

connection, 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 _mainwaindum ëyun_. 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.

Take, for example, _minwaindumëigowaud_, "he (who) makes them happy." Of

this compound, _minwaindum_, as before shown, signifies "he makes

happy." But as the verb is in the singular number, it implies that but

_one person_ is made happy; and the suffixed personal pronouns

_singular_, mark the distinctions between _me_, _thee_, and _he_, or

_him_.