Chapter XLII: Appendix: 1. Indian Language (1)

I.

_Observations on the Grammatical Structure and Flexibility of the Odjibwa Substantive._[270]

[270] Mr. Du Ponceau did me the honor, in 1834, to translate these
two inquiries on the substantive in full, for the prize paper on the
Algonquin, before the National Institute of France.

INQUIRY 1.

Observations on the Ojibwai substantive. 1. The provision of the
language for indicating gender--Its general and comprehensive
character--The division of words into animate and inanimate
classes. 2. Number--its recondite forms, arising from the terminal
vowel in the word. 3. The grammatical forms which indicate
possession, and enable the speaker to distinguish the objective
person.

Most of the researches which have been directed to the Indian languages, have resulted in elucidating the principles governing the use of the verb, which has been proved to be full and varied in its inflections. Either less attention has been paid to the other parts of speech, or results less suited to create high expectations of their flexibility and powers have been attained. The Indian verb has thus been made to stand out, as it were in bold relief, as a shield to defects in the substantive and its accessories, and as, in fact, compensating, by its multiform appendages of prefix and suffix--by its tensal, its pronominal, its substantive, its adjective, and its adverbial terminations, for barrenness and rigidity in all other parts of speech. Influenced by this reflection, I shall defer, in the present inquiry, the remarks I intend offering on the verb, until I have considered the substantive, and its more important adjuncts.

Palpable objects, to which the idea of sense strongly attaches, and the actions or condition, which determine the relation of one object to another, are perhaps the first points to demand attention in the invention of languages. And they have certainly imprinted themselves very strongly, with all their materiality, and with all their local, and exclusive, and personal peculiarities upon the Indian. The noun and the verb not only thus constitute the principal elements of speech, as in all languages; but they continue to perform their first offices, with less direct aid from the auxiliary parts of speech, than would appear to be reconcilable with a clear expression of the circumstances of time and place, number and person, quality and quantity, action and repose, and the other accidents, on which their definite employment depends. But to enable the substantives and attributives to perform these complex offices, they are provided with inflections, and undergo changes and modifications, by which words and phrases become very concrete in their meaning, and are lengthened out to appear formidable to the eye. Hence the polysyllabic, and the descriptive character of the language, so composite in its aspect and in its forms.

To utter succinctly, and in as few words as possible, the prominent ideas resting upon the mind of the speaker, appear to have been the paramount object with the inventors of the language. Hence, concentration became a leading feature. And the pronoun, the adjective, the adverb, and the preposition, however they may be disjunctively employed in certain cases, are chiefly useful as furnishing materials to the speaker, to be worked up into the complicated texture of the verb and the substantive. Nothing, in fact, can be more unlike, than the language, viewed in its original, elementary state--in a vocabulary, for instance, of its primitive words, so far as such a vocabulary can now be formed, and the same language as heard under its oral, amalgamated form. Its transpositions may be likened to a picture, in which the copal, the carmine, and the white lead, are no longer recognized as distinct substances, but each of which has contributed its share towards the effect. It is the painter only who possesses the principle, by which one element has been curtailed, another augmented, and all, however seemingly discordant, made to coalesce.

Such a language may be expected to abound in derivatives and compounds; to afford rules for giving verbs substantive, and substantives verbal qualities; to concentrate the meaning of words upon a few syllables, or upon a single letter, or alphabetical sign; and to supply modes of contraction and augmentation, and, if I may so say, _short cuts_, and _by-paths_ to meanings, which are equally novel and interesting. To arrive at its primitives, we must pursue an intricate thread, where analogy is often the only guide. We must divest words of those accumulated syllables, or particles, which, like the molecules of material matter, are clustered around the primitives. It is only after a process of this kind, that the _principle of combination_--that secret wire, which moves the whole machinery can be searched for, with a reasonable prospect of success. The labor of analysis is one of the most interesting and important, which the subject presents. And it is a labor which it will be expedient to keep constantly in view, until we have separately considered the several parts of speech, and the grammatical laws by which the language is held together; and thus established principles and provided materials wherewith we may the more successfully labor.

1. In a general survey of the language as it is spoken, and as it must be written, there is perhaps no feature which obtrudes itself so constantly to view, as the principle which separates all words, of whatever denomination, into animates and inanimates, as they are applied to objects in the animal, vegetable, or mineral kingdom. This principle has been grafted upon most words, and carries its distinctions throughout the syntax. It is the gender of the language; but a gender of so unbounded a scope, as to merge in it the common distinctions of a masculine and feminine, and to give a twofold character to the parts of speech. The concords which it requires, and the double inflections it provides, will be mentioned in their appropriate places. It will be sufficient here to observe, that animate nouns require animate verbs for their nominatives, animate adjectives to express their qualities, and animate demonstrative pronouns to mark the distinctions of person. Thus, if we say, "I see a man; I see a house," the termination of the verb must be changed. What was in the first instance _wâb imâ_, is altered to _wâb indân_. _Wâb_, is here the infinitive, but the root of this verb is still more remote. If the question occurs "Is it a good man, or a good house," the adjective, which, in the inanimate form is _onishish-í_, is, in the animate _onishish-i[n']_. If the question be put, "Is it this man, or this house," the pronoun _this_, which is _mâ bum_, in the animate, is changed to _mâ ndun_, in the inanimate.

Nouns animate embrace the tribes of quadrupeds, birds, fishes, insects, reptiles, crustacæ, the sun, and moon, and stars, thunder, and lightning, for these are personified; and whatever either possesses animal life, or is endowed, by the peculiar opinions and superstitions of the Indians, with it. In the vegetable kingdom, their number is comparatively limited, being chiefly confined to trees, and those only while they are referred to, as whole bodies, and to the various species of fruits, and seeds, and esculents. It is at the option of the speaker to employ nouns, either as animates or inanimates: but it is a choice seldom resorted to, except in conformity with stated exceptions. These conventional exceptions are not numerous, and the more prominent of them, may be recited. The cause of the exceptions it is not always easy to perceive. It may, however, generally be traced to a particular respect paid to certain inanimate bodies, either from their real or fancied properties--the uses to which they are applied, or the ceremonies to which they are dedicated. A stone, which is the altar of sacrifice to their Manitoes; a bow, formerly so necessary in the chase; a feather, the honored sign of martial prowess; a kettle, so valuable in the household; a pipe, by which friendships are sealed and treaties ratified; a drum, used in their sacred and festive dances; a medal, the mask of authority; vermilion, the appropriate paint of the warrior; wampum, by which messages are conveyed, and covenants remembered. These are among the objects, in themselves inanimates, which require the application of animate verbs, pronouns, and adjectives, and are thereby transferred to the animate class.

It is to be remarked, however, that the names for animals, are only employed as animates, while the objects are referred to as whole and complete species. But the gender must be changed, when it becomes necessary to speak of separate numbers. Man, woman, father, mother, are separate nouns, so long as the individuals are meant; but hand, foot, head, eye, ear, tongue, are inanimates. Buck, is an animate noun, while his entire carcass is referred to, whether living or dead; but neck, back, heart, windpipe, take the inanimate form. In like manner, eagle, swan, dove, are distinguished as animates; but beak, wing, tail, are arranged with inanimates. So oak, pine, ash, are animate; branch, leaf, root, inanimates.

Reciprocal exceptions, however, exist to this rule--the reasons for which, as in the former instance, may generally be sought, either in peculiar opinions of the Indians, or in the peculiar qualities or uses of the objects. Thus the talons of the eagle, and the claws of the bear, and of other animals, which furnish ornaments for the neck, are invariably spoken of, under the animate form. The hoofs and horns of all quadrupeds, which are applied to various economical and mystic purposes; the castorum of the beaver, and the nails of man, are similarly situated. The vegetable creation also furnishes some exceptions of this nature; such are the names for the outer bark of all trees (except the birch), and the branches, the roots, and the resin of the spruce, and its congeners.

In a language, which considers all nature as separated into two classes of bodies, characterized by the presence or absence of life; neuter nouns will scarcely be looked for, although such may exist without my knowledge. Neuters are found amongst the verbs and the adjectives, but it is doubtful whether they render the nouns to which they are applied neuters, in the sense we attach to that term. The subject in all its bearings is interesting, and a full and minute description of it would probably elicit new light respecting some doubtful points in the language, and contribute something towards a curious collateral topic--the history of Indian opinions. I have stated the principle broadly, without filling up the subject of exceptions as fully as it is in my power, and without following its bearings upon points which will more properly come under discussion at other stages of the inquiry. A sufficient outline, it is believed, has been given, and having thus met, at the threshold, a principle deeply laid at the foundation of the language, and one which will be perpetually recurring, I shall proceed to enumerate some other prominent features of the substantive.

2. No language is perhaps so defective, as to be totally without number. But there are, probably, few which furnish so many modes of indicating it, as the Odjibwa. There are as many modes of forming the plural, as there are vowel sounds, yet there is no distinction between a limited and unlimited plural; although there is, in the pronoun, an _inclusive_ and an _exclusive_ plural. Whether we say _man_ or _men_, _two men_ or _twenty men_, the singular _inin´i_, and the plural _nin´iwug_, remains the same. But if we say _we_, or _us_, or _our men_ (who are present), or _we_, or _us_, or _our Indians_ (in general), the plural _we_, and _us_, and _our_--for they are rendered by the same form--admit of a change to indicate whether the objective person be _included_ or _excluded_. This principle, of which full examples will be given under the appropriate head, forms a single and anomalous instance of the use of particular plurals. And it carries its distinctions, by means of the pronouns, separable and inseparable, into the verbs and substantives, creating the necessity of double conjugations and double declensions, in the plural forms of the first person. Thus, the term for "Our Father," which, in the inclusive form is _Kósinân_, is, in the exclusive, _Nósinân_.

The particular plural, which is thus, by the transforming power of the language, carried from the pronoun into the texture of the verb and substantive, is not limited to any fixed number of persons or objects, but arises from the operations of the verb. The general plural is variously made. But the plurals making inflections take upon themselves an additional power or sign, by which substantives are distinguished into animate and inanimate. Without this additional power, all nouns plural would end in the vowels _a_, _e_, _i_, _o_, _u_. But to mark the gender, the letter _g_ is added to animates, and the letter _n_ to inanimates, making the plurals of the first class terminate in _âg_, _eeg_, _ig_, _ôg_, _ug_, and of the second class in _ân_, _een_, _in_, _ôn_, _un_. Ten modes of forming the plural are thus provided, five of which are animate, and five inanimate plurals. A strong and clear line of distinction is thus drawn between the two classes of words; so unerring, indeed, in its application, that it is only necessary to inquire how the plural is formed, to determine whether it belonged to one or the other class. The distinctions which we have endeavored to convey will, perhaps, be more clearly perceived, by adding examples of the use of each of the plurals.

Animate Plural.

a. Odjibwâi, a Chippewa. Odjibwaig, Chippewas.
e. Ojee, a Fly. Oj-eeg, Flies.
i. Kosénan, Our father, (in.) Kosenân-ig, Our fathers, (in.)
o. Ahmô, a Bee. Ahm-ôg, Bees.
u. Ais, a Schell. Ais-ug, Shells.

Inanimate Plural.

a. Ishkôdai, Fire. Ishkôdain, Fires.
e. Wadôp, Alder. Wadôp-een, Alders.
i. Adetaig, Fruit. Adetaig-in, Fruits.
o. Nôdin, Wind. Nôdin-ôn, Winds.
u. Meen, Berry. Meen-un, Berries.

Where a noun terminates with a vowel in the singular, the addition of the _g_, or _n_, shows at once, both the plural and the gender. In other instances, as in _peenai_, a partridge--_seebi_, a river--it requires a consonant to precede the plural vowel, in conformity with a rule previously stated. Thus, _peenai_, is rendered _peenai-wug_--and _seebi_, _seebi-wun_. Where the noun singular terminates in the broad, instead of the long sound of _a_, as in _ogimâ_, a chief, _ishpatinâ_, a hill, the plural is _ogim-ag_, _ishpatinân_. But these are mere modifications of two of the above forms, and are by no means entitled to be considered as additional plurals.

Comparatively few substances are without number. The following may be enumerated:--

Missun´, Firewood. Ussáimâ, Tobacco.
Pinggwi, Ashes. Naigow, Sand.
Méjim, Food. Ahwun, Mist.
Kôn, Snow. Kimmiwun, Rain.
Mishk´wi, Blood. Ossâkumig, Moss.
Ukkukkuzhas, Coals. Unitshimin, Peas.

Others may be found, and indeed, a few others are known. But it is less an object, in this lecture, to pursue exceptions into their minutest ramifications, than to sketch broad rules, applicable, if not to every word, to at least a majority of words in the language.

There is, however, one exception from the general use of number, so peculiar in itself, that not to point it out would be an unpardonable remissness in giving the outlines of a language, in which it is an object neither to extenuate faults nor to overrate beauties. This exception consists in the want of number in the _third person_ of the declensions of animate nouns, and the conjugation of animate verbs. Not that such words are destitute of number, in their simple forms, or when used under circumstances requiring no change of these simple forms--no prefixes and no inflections. But it will be seen, at a glance, how very limited such an application of words must be, in a transpositive language.

Thus _mang_ and _kâg_ (loon and porcupine) take the plural inflection _wug_, becoming _mang wug_ and _kâg wug_ (loons and porcupines). So, in their pronominal declension:--

My loon Ni mang oom
Thy loon Ki mang oom
My porcupine Ni gâg oom
Thy porcupine Ki gâg oom
My loons Ni mang oom ug
Thy loons Ki mang oom ug
My porcupines Ni gâg oom ug
Thy porcupines Ki gâg oom ug

But his loon, or loons (_o many oom un_), his porcupine or porcupines (_o gâg oom un_), are without number. The rule applies equally to the class of words in which the pronouns are inseparable. Thus, my father and thy father, _nôs_ and _kôs_, become my fathers and thy fathers, by the numerical inflection _ug_, forming _nôsug_ and _kôsug_. But _ôsun_, his father or fathers, is vague, and does not indicate whether there be one father or twenty fathers. The inflection _un_, merely denotes the _object_. The rule also applies equally to sentences in which the noun is governed by or governs the verb. Whether we say, "I saw a bear," _ningi wâbumâ mukwah_, or "a bear saw me," _mukwah ningi wâbumig_, the noun, itself, undergoes no change, and its number is definite. But _ogi wâbumân muk-wun_, "he saw bear," is indefinite, although both the verb and the noun have changed their endings. And if the narrator does not subsequently determine the number, the hearer is either left in doubt, or must resolve it by a question. In fine, the whole acts of the third person are thus rendered questionable. This want of precision, which would seem to be fraught with so much confusion, appears to be obviated in practice, by the employment of adjectives, by numerical inflections in the relative words of the sentence, by the use of the indefinite article, _paizhik_, or by demonstrative pronouns. Thus, _paizhik mukwun ogi wâbumân_, conveys with certainty the information "he saw _a_ bear." But in this sentence both the noun and the verb retain the objective inflections, as in the former instances. These inflections are not uniformly _un_, but sometimes _een_, as in _ogeen_, his mother, and sometimes _ôn_, as in _odakeek-ôn_, his kettle, in all which instances, however, the number is left indeterminate. It may hence be observed, and it is a remark which we shall presently have occasion to corroborate, that the plural inflection to inanimate nouns (which have no objective form), forms the objective inflection to animate nouns, which have no number in the third person.

3. This leads us to the consideration of the mode of forming possessives, the existence of which, when it shall have been indicated by full examples, will present to the mind of the inquirer, one of those tautologies in grammatical forms, which, without imparting additional precision, serve to clothe the language with accumulated verbiage. The strong tendency to combination and amalgamation, existing in the language, renders it difficult, in fact, to discuss the principles of it in that elementary form which could be wished. In the analysis of words and forms we are constantly led from the central point of discussion. To recur, however, from these collateral unravellings to the main thread of inquiry, at as short and frequent intervals as possible, and thus to preserve the chain of conclusions and proofs, is so important, that, without keeping the object distinctly in view, I should despair of conveying any clear impressions of those grammatical features which impart to the language its peculiar character.

It has been remarked that the distinctions of number are founded upon a modification of the five vowel sounds. Possessives are likewise founded upon the basis of the vowel sounds. There are five declensions of the noun to mark the possessive, ending in the possessive in _âm_, _eem_, _im_, _ôm_, _um_, _oom_. Where the nominative ends with a vowel, the possessive is made by adding the letter _m_, as in _maimai_, a woodcock, _ni maimaim_, my woodcock, &c. Where the nominative ends in a consonant, as in _ais_, a shell, the full possessive inflection is required, making _nin daisim_, my shell. In the latter form, the consonant _d_ is interposed between the pronoun and noun, and sounded with the noun, in conformity with a general rule. Where the nominative ends in the broad in lieu of the long sound of _a_, as in _ogimâ_, a chief, the possessive is _âm_. The sound of _i_, in the third declension, is that of _i_ in pin, and the sound of _u_, in the fifth declension, is that of _u_ in bull. The latter will be uniformly represented by _oo_.

The possessive declensions run throughout both the animate and inanimate classes of nouns, with some exceptions in the latter, as knife, bowl, paddle, &c.

Inanimate nouns are thus declined.

Nominative.

Ishkôdai, Fire.

Possessive.

My, Nin Dishkod-aim.
Thy, Ki Dishkod-aim.
His, O Dishkod-aim.
Our, Ki Dishkod-aim-inân. (in.)
-- Ni Dishkod-aim-inân. (ex.)
Your, Ki Dishkod-aim-iwâ.
Their, O Dishko-aim-iwâ.

Those words which form exceptions from this declension, take the separable pronouns before them as follows:--

Môkoman, A Knife.
Ni môkoman, My Knife.
Ki môkoman, Thy Knife.
O môkoman, His Knife, &c.

Animate substantives are declined precisely in the same manner as inanimate, except in the third person, which takes to the possessive inflections, _aim_, _eem_, _im_, _ôm_, _oom_, the objective particle _un_, denoting the compound inflection of this person, both in the singular and plural, _aimun_, _eemun_, _imun_, _ômun_, _oomun_, and the variation of the first vowel sound, _âmun_. Thus, to furnish an example of the second declension, _bizhiki_, a bison, changes its forms to _nim_, _bizhik-im_, my bison--_ke bizhik-im_, thy bison, _O bizhik-imun_, his bison, or bisons.

The cause of this double inflection in the third person, may be left for future inquiry. But we may add further examples in aid of it. We cannot simply say, "The chief has killed a bear," or, to reverse the object upon which the energy of the verb is exerted, "The bear has killed a chief." But, _ogimâ ogi nissân muk-wun_, literally, "Chief he has has killed him bear," or, _mukwah ogi_ _nissân ogimân_, "Bear he has killed him chief." Here the verb and the noun are both objective in _un_, which is sounded _ân_, where it comes after the broad sound of _a_, as in _nissân_, objective of the verb to kill. If we confer the powers of the English possessive (_'s_), upon the inflections _aim_, _eem_, _im_, _ôm_, _oom_, and _âm_, respectively, and the meaning of _him_, and of course _he_, _her_, _his_, _hers_, _they_, _theirs_ (as there is no declension of the pronoun, and no number to the third person), upon the objective particle _un_, we shall then translate the above expression, _o bizhik-eemum_, his bison's hisn. If we reject this meaning, as I think we should, the sentence would read, "His bison," him, a mere tautology.

It is true, it may be remarked, that the noun possessed, has a corresponding termination, or pronominal correspondence, with the pronoun possessor, also a final termination indicative of its being the _object_ on which the verb exerts its influence--a mode of expression, which, so far as relates to the possessive, would be deemed superfluous, in modern languages; but may have some analogy in the Latin accusatives _am_, _um_, _em_.

It is a constant and unremitting aim in the Indian languages to distinguish the actor from the object, partly by prefixes, and partly by inseparable suffixes. That the termination _un_, is one of these inseparable particles, and that its office, while it confounds the number, is to designate the object, appears probable from the fact, that it retains its connection with the noun, whether the latter follow or precede the verb, or whatever its position in the sentence may be.

Thus we can, without any perplexity in the meaning say, _Waimittigôzhiwug ogi sagiân Pontiac-un_, "Frenchmen, they did love Pontiac him." Or to reverse it, _Pontiac-un Waimittigôzhiwug ogi sagiân_, "Pontiac, he did Frenchmen he loved." The termination _un_, in both instances, clearly determines the object beloved. So in the following instance, _Sagunoshug ogi sagiân Tecumseh-un_, "Englishmen, they did love Tecumseh," or _Tecumseh-un Sagunoshug oji sagiân_, "Tecumseh, he did Englishmen he loved."

In tracing the operation of this rule, through the doublings of the language, it is necessary to distinguish every modification of sound, whether it is accompanied or not accompanied by a modification of the sense. The particle _un_, which thus marks _the third person and persons_, is sometimes pronounced _wun_, and sometimes _yun_, as the harmony of the word to which it is suffixed may require. But not the slightest change is thereby made in its meaning.

Wâbojeeg ogi meegân-ân nâdowaisi-wun.

Wâbojeeg fought his enemies. L.[271] W. he did fight them, his
enemy, or enemies.

O sâgi-ân inini-wun.

He, or she, loves a man. L. He, or she, loves him-man, or men.

Kigo-yun waindji pimmâdizziwâd.

They subsist on fish. L. Fish or fishes, they upon them, they live.

Ontwa o sagiân odi-yun.

Ontwa loves his dog. L. O. he loves him, his dog, or dogs.

[271] L. for _literally_.

In these sentences, the letters _w_ and _y_ are introduced before the inflection _un_, merely for euphony's sake, and to enable the speaker to utter the final vowel of the substantive, and the inflective vowel, without placing both under the accent. It is to be remarked in these examples, that the verb has a corresponding inflection with the noun, indicated by the final consonant _n_, as in _sagiâ-n_, objective of the verb _to love_. This is merely a modification of _un_, where it is requisite to employ it after broad _a_ (_aw_), and it is applicable to nouns as well as verbs whenever they end in that sound. Thus, in the phrase, "He saw a chief," _O wâbumâ-n O gimâ-n_, both noun and verb terminate in _n_. It is immaterial to the sense, which precedes. And this leads to the conclusion, which we are in some measure compelled to state in anticipation of our remarks on the verb: That verbs must not only agree with their nominatives in number, person, and _gender_ (we use the latter term for want of a more appropriate one), but also with their objectives. Hence, the objective sign _n_ in the above examples. Sometimes this sign is removed from the ending of the verb, to make room for the plural of the nominative person, and is subjoined to the latter. Thus,

O sagiâ(wâ)n.
They love them (him or them).

In this phrase, the interposed syllable (_wâ_) is, apparently, the plural--it is a reflective plural--of _he_--the latter being indicated, as usual, by the sign _O_. It has been observed, above, that the deficiency in number, in the third person, is sometimes supplied "by numerical inflections in the relative words of the sentence," and this interposed particle (_wâ_) affords an instance in point.

The number of the nominative pronoun appears to be thus rendered precise, but the objective is still indefinite.

When two nouns are used without a verb in the sentence, or when two nouns compose the whole matter uttered, being in the third person, both have the full objective inflection. Thus,

Os-(un). Odi-(yun).
His father's dog. L. His father--his dog or dogs.

There are certain words, however, which will not admit the objective _un_, either in its simple or modified forms. These are rendered objective in _een_, or _ôn_.

O wâbumâ-(n), ossin-(een).
He sees the stone. L. He sees him--stone or stones.
O wâbumâ-(n) mittig o mizh-(een). L. He sees him, tree or trees.
He sees an oak tree.
O mittig wâb (een), gyai o bikwuk-(ôn).
His bow and his arrows. L. His bow him, and his arrows, him or them.
Odyâ | wâ | wâ (n), akkik-(ôn).
They possess a kettle. L. They own them, kettle or kettles.

The syllable _wâ_, in the verb of the last example included between bars (instead of parentheses), is the reflective plural _they_ pointed out in a preceding instance.

I shall conclude these remarks, with full examples of each pronominal declension.

_a._ First declension, forming the first and second persons in _aim_, and the third in _aimun_.

Nominative.

Pinâi, a partridge.
Pinâi-wug, partridges.

First and second person.

My, Nim Bin-aim.
Thy, Ki Bin-aim.
Our, Ki Bin-aim inân. Inclusive plural.
Our, Ni Bin-aiminân. Exclusive plural.
Your, Ki Bin-aim wâ.

Third person.

His, O Bin-aim (un).
Their, O Bin-aim iwâ (n).

_e._ Second declension forming the first and second persons in eem, and the third in _eemun_.

Nominative.

Ossin, a stone.
Ossineen, stones.

First and second persons.

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.