Читать книгу A Life on the American Frontiers: Collected Works of Henry Schoolcraft - Henry Rowe Schoolcraft - Страница 36

Monomonikâning. In the place of wild rice. Moninggwunikâning. In the place of Sparrows Ongwashagooshing. 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: Iniṅ´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	Pizhik´i	Pizhik-ees.
A potatoe	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	Mushkos-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-àns.

In the four last 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 about his neck.

Ogimâs n’gi wâbumâ nibowid minnisainsing onâbikowân shoniâsun.

2. Yamoyden threw at a young pigeon.

Ogi pukkitalwun 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 preceeding 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.
	Water	Neebi	Neeb-ish.
—eesh—	A stone	Ossin	Ossin-eesh.
	A potatoe	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. & der.	——ônsish “ Little bad serpent.
——s. dim. & lo.	——ônsing “ In (the) little serpent.
——s. dim. der. & 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, unencumbered.

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,	Segwun.
Summer,	Neebin,	Neebin-oong,	Neebing.
Autumn,	Tahgwâgi,	Tahgwâg-oong,	Tahgwâgig.
Winter,	Peebôn,	Peebônoong,	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 lecture, 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 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 two-fold 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 foregoing 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.
Irin´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.
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, leaves 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 Chippewa.	Ojibwâmoon, speak thou 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 Pinggwiw,	I (am) dust, &c.

The word am, included in parentheses, 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.	Wahyiazhinggaiwin,	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.	Annôkiwin,	Work.
Pâpi,	He laughs.	Pâpiwin,	Laughter.
Pimâdizzi,	He lives.	Pimâdizziwin,	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 connexion 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 the 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, miskwâkeek, 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 âbek—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 analyse. 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, figuratively 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 akwaisi, 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 no farther 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.
Ishkodai-âbo	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.

Wâbiwyan, a blanket, and bubbuggiwyan, 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, strouds	From Monido, spirit, &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 pâmoossâd, 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 scoop net)	Kwyâbahwâd	A fisher, (with scoop net.)
	Puggidowâ	He fishes (with sein)	Pâgidowâd	A fisher, (with sein.)
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 these 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 disjunctive forms.