Читать книгу A Life on the American Frontiers: Collected Works of Henry Schoolcraft - Henry Rowe Schoolcraft - Страница 34

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 reconcileable 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 two-fold 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 occur, Is it a good man, or a good house, the adjective, which, in the inanimate form is onishish-í, is, in the animate onishish-in´. 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, crustaceæ, 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; vermillion, 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 Ojibwai. 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 inin´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 Kôsinân, is, in the exclusive, Nôsinân.

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 plural, 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 belong 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. Ojibwâi,	a Chippewa.	Ojibwaig,	Chippewas.
e. Ojee,	a Fly.	Ojeeg,	Flies.
i. Kosénân,	Our father, (in.)	Kosenân-ig,	Our fathers, (in.)
o. Ahmô,	a Bee.	Ahm-ôg,	Bees.
u. Ais,	a Shell.	Ais-ug,	Shells.

Inanimate Plural.

a. Ishkôdai,	Fire.	Ishkôdain,	Fires.
e. Waddôp,	Alder.	Waddôp-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 ôgimâ, 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 substantives, are without number. The following may be enumerated.

Missun´,	Fire wood.
Pinggwi,	Ashes.
Méjim,	Food.
Kôn,	Snow.
Mishk´wi,	Blood.
Ukkukkuzhas,	Coals.
Ussáimâ,	Tobacco.
Naigow,	Sand.
Ahioun,	Mist.
Kimmiwun,	Rain.
Ossâkumig,	Moss.
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 kag 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 mang 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 wâbum-ân 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 unravelings, 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 dais-im, 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	Dishkod-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, pizhik’i, 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 mukwun, literally, Chief he 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 connexion 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. 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.

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.
1 & 2d P.	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.
3rd P.	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.
1 & 2d P.	Thy Ki Dossin-eem.
Our Ki Dossin-eeminân. (in.)
My Nin Dossin-eem.
Our Ni Dossin-eeminân. (ex.)
Your Ke Dossin-eemewâ.
3rd P.	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.
Ais-ug, shells.
1 & 2d P.	My Nin Dais-im.
Thy Ki Dais-im.
Our Ki Dais-iminân. (in.)
Our Ni Dais-iminân. (ex.)
Your Ki Dais-imiwâ.
3rd P.	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.
1 & 2d P.	My Ni Monid-ôm.
Thy Ki Monid-ôm.
Our Ki Monid-ôminân. (in.)
Our Ni Monid-ôminân. (ex.)
Your Ki Monid-ômiwâ.
3rd P.	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.
1 & 2d P.	My Ni Môz-oom.
Thy Ki Môz-oom.
Our Ki Môz-oominân. (in.)
Our Ki Môz-oominân. (ex.)
Your Ki Môz-oominân. (in.)
3rd P.	His O Môz oom (un.)
Their O Môz oomiwa (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.
1 & 2d P.	My Ni Dôgim âm.
Thy Ki Dôgim âm.
Our Ki Dôgim âminân. (in.)
Our Ni Dôgim âminân. (ex.)
Your Ki Dôgim âmiwâ.
3rd P.	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 Indyiàm 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 deg. is both a beast of draught and of burden. He is compelled during the winter season to draw the odàban, 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 inflexions 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.