Графични страници
PDF файл

to the above) of the possessive inflection, are required, corresponding to the six classes of substantives, whereby aum would be changed to am, eem, im, om, and oom, conformably to the examples heretofore given in treating of the substantive. The objective inflection, would also be sometimes changed to een and sometimes to oan.

Having thus indicated the mode of distinguishing the person, number, relation, and gender—or what is deemed its technical equivalent, the mutation words undergo, not to mark the distinctions of sex, but the presence or absence of vitality, I shall now advert to the inflections which the pronouns take for tense, or rather, to form the auxiliary verbs, have, had, shall, will, may, &c. A very curious and important principle, and one, which clearly demonstrates that no part of speech has escaped the transforming genius of the language. Not only are the three great modifications of time accurately marked in the verbal forms of the Chippewas, but by the inflection of the pronoun they are enabled to indicate some of the oblique tenses, and thereby to conjugate their verbs with accuracy and precision.

The particle gee added to the first, second, and third persons singular of the present tense, changes them to the perfect past, rendering I, thou, He, I did—have—or had. Thou didst,—hast—or hadst, He, or she did— have, or had. If gah, be substituted for gee, the first future tense k formed, and the perfect past added to the first future, forms the conditional future. As the eye may prove an auxiliary in the comprehension of forms, which are not familiar, the following tabular arrangement of them, is presented.

First Person, I.
Nin gee, I did—have—had.

Nin gah, I shall—will.

Nin gah gee, I shall have—will have.

Second Person, Thou.
Ke gee, Thou didst—hast—hadst

Ke gah, Thou shalt—wilt.

Ke gah gee, Thou shalt have—wilt have.

Third Person, He, or She.
O gee, He or she did—has—had.

O gah, He or she did—has—haa.

O gah gee, He or she shall have—will have.

The present and imperfect tense of the potential mood, is formed by dau, and the perfect by gee, suffixed as in other instances.

First Person, I.
Nin dau, I may—can, &c.

Nin dau gee, I may have—can have, &c.


Second Person, Thou.
Ke dau, Thou mayst—canst, &.c.

Ke dau gee, Thou mayst have—canst have, &c.

Third Person, He, or She.
O dau, He or she may—can, &c.

O dau gee, He or she may have—can have, &c.

In conjugating the verbs through the plural persons, the singular terms for the pronoun remain, and they are rendered plural by a retrospective action of the pronominal inflections of the verb. In this manner the pronoun-verb auxiliary, has a general application, and the necessity of double forms is avoided.

The preceding observations are confined to the formative or prefixed pronouns. The inseparable suffixed or subformative are as follows—


These pronouns are exclusively employed as suffixes,—and as suffixes to the descriptive compound substantives, adjectives and verbs. Both the rule and examples have been stated under the head of the substantive, p. 43. and adjective, p. 81. Their application to the verb will be shown, as we proceed.

2. Relative Pronouns. In a language which provides for the distinctions of person by particles prefixed or suffixed to the verb, it will scarcely be expected, that separate and independent relative pronouns should exist, or if such are to be found, their use, as separate parts of speech, must, it will have been anticipated, be quite limited—limited to simple interrogatory forms of expression, and not applicable to the indicative, or declaratory. Such will be found to be the fact in the language under review; and it will be perceived, from the subjoined examples, that in all instances, requiring the relative pronoun who, other than the simple interrogatory forms, this relation is indicated by the inflections of the verb, or adjective, &c. Nor does there appear to be any declension of the separate pronoun, corresponding to whose, and whom.

The word Ahwaynain, may be said to be uniformly employed in the sense of who, under the limitations we have mentioned. For instance. Who is there I Ahwaynain e-mah ai-aud?

Who spoke? Ahwaynain kau keegcedood?

Who tcld you I Ahwaynain kau ween dumoak?

Who are you? Ahwaynain iau we yun?

Who sent you? Ahwaynain waynonik?

Who is your father? Ahwaynain kds?
Who did it? Ahwaynain kau tddung?

Whose dog is it? Ahwaynain way dyid?

Whose pipe is that? Ahwaynain dopwaugunid en-eu?

Whose lodge is it? Ahwaynain way weegewomid?

Whom do you seek? Ahwaynain nain dau wau bumud? Whom have you here? Ahwaynain oh omau ai auwaud? Not the slightest variation is made in these phrases, between who, whose, &«d whom.

Should we wish to change the interrogative, and to say, he who is there; hs who spoke; he who told you, &C., the separable personal pronoun ween (he) must be used in lieu of the relative, and the following forms will be elicited.

Ween, kau unnonik, He (who) sent you.

Ween, kau geedood, He (who) spoke.

Ween, Maud e-mah, He (who) is there.

Ween, kau weendumoak, He (who) told you.

Ween, kau to dung, He (who) did it, &c.

If we object that, that in these forms, there is no longer the relative pronoun who, the sense being simply, he sent you, he spoke, &C., it is replied that if it be intended only to say, he sent you, &C., and not he who sent you, &C., the following forms are used.

Ke gee unndnig. He (sent) you.

Ainnozhid, He (sent) me.

Ainndnaud, He (sent) him, &c.

Iau e-mau, He is there.

Ke geedo, He (spoke.)

Kegeeweendumaug, He (told) you

Ke to dum, He did it.

We reply, to this answer of the native speaker, that the particle kau prefixed to a verb denotes the past tense,—that in the former series of terms, in which this particle appears, the verbs are in the perfect indicative,— and in the latter, they are in the present indicative, marking the difference only between sent and send, spoke and speak, &c. And that there is absolutely no relative pronoun, in either series of terms. We further observe, that the personal pronoun ween, prefixed to the first set of terms, may be prefixed with equal propriety, to the second set, and that its use or disuse, is perfectly optional with the speaker, as he may wish to give additional energy or emphasis to the expression. To these positions, after reflection, discussion and examination, we receive an assent, and thus the uncertainty is terminated.

sons are made happy, and, in like manner, the suffixed personal pronouns plural, mark the distinctions between we, ye, they, &c. For it is a rule of the language, that a strict concordance must exist between the number of the verb, and the number of the pronoun. The termination of the verb consequently always indicates, whether there be one or many objects, to which its energy is directed. And as animate verbs can be applied only to animate objects, the numerical inflections of the verb, are understood to mark the number of persons. But this number is indiscriminate, and leaves the sense vague, until the pronominal suffixes are superadded. Those who, therefore, contend for the sense of the relative pronoun "who," being given in the last mentioned phrase, and all phrases similarly formed, by a succedaneum, contend for something like the following form of translation:—He makes them happy—him I or Him—he (meaning who) makes them happy.

The equivalent for what, is Waygonain.

What do you want? Waygonain wau iauyun?

What have you lost? Waygonain kau wonetoyun?

What do you look for? Waygonain nain dahwaubundamun 1

What is this? Waygonain ewinain maundun?

What will you have? Waygonain kau iauyun?

What detained you? Waygonain kau oon dahme egdyun?

What are you making? Waygonain wayzhet&yun?

What have you there? Waygonain e-mau iauyun?

The use of this pronoun, like the preceding, appears to be confined to simple interrogative forms. The word auncm, which sometimes supplies its place, or is used for want of the pronoun which, is an adverb, and has considerable latitude of meaning. Most commonly it may be considered as the equivalent for how, in what manner, or at what time. What do you say? Auneen akeeddyun?

What do you call this? Auneen aizheneekaudahmun maun

dun? (i.) What ails you? Auneen aindeeyun?

What is vour name? Auneen aizheekauzoyun?

Which do you mean; this or that? (an.) Auneen ah-o w ainud, woh-ow gamau

ewidde 1 Which do you mean; this or that? (in.) Auneen eh eu ewaidumun oh-oo

gamau ewaidde? Which boy do you mean? Auneen ah-ow-ainud?

By adding to this word, the particle de, it is converted into an adverb of place, and may be rendered wltere.

Where do you dwell? Auneende aindauyun? ^

Where is your son? Auneende ke gwiss?

Where did you see him? Auneende ke waubumud?


We now wish to apply the principle thus elicited to verbs causative, and other compound terms—to the adjective verbs, for instance—and to the other verbal compound expressions, in which the objective and the nominative persons, are incorporated as a part of the verb, and are not prefixes to it. This may be shown in the causative verb, To make Happy.

Mainwaindumeid, He (who) makes me happy.

Mainwaindumeik, He (who) makes Ihee happy.

Mainwaindumeaud, He (who) makes him happy.

Mainwaindumeinung, He (who) makes us happy, (inclusive.)

M&inwaindumeyaug, He (who) makes us happy, (exclusive.)

Mainwaindumeinnaig, He (who) makes ye or you happy. Mainwaindumeigowaud, He (who) makes them happy. And so the forms might be continued, throughout all the objective persons.—

Mainwaindumeyun, Thou (who) makest me happy, &c.

The basis of these compounds is minno, good, and aindum, the mind. Hence minwaindum, he happy. The adjective in this connexion, cannot be translated "good," but its effect upon the noun, is to denote that state of the mind, which is at rest with itself. The first change from this simple compound, is to give the adjective a verbal form; and this is effected by a permutation of the vowels of the first syllable—a rule of very extensive application—and by which, in the present instance, the phrase he happy, is changed to he makes happy, (mainwaindum.) The next step is to add the suffix personal pronouns, id, ik, aud, &C., rendering the expressions, he makes me happy, &c. But in adding these increments, the vowel e, is thrown between the adjective-verb, and the pronoun suffixed, making the expression, not mainwaindum-yun, but mainwaindumeyun. Generally the vowel e in this situation, is a connective, or introduced merely for the sake of euphony. And those who maintain that it is here employed as a personal pronoun, and that the relative who, is implied by the final inflection; overlook the inevitable inference, that if the marked e, stands for me in the first phrase, it must stand for thee in the second, he in the third, as in the fourth, &c. As to the meaning and office of the final mflections id, ik, &c.—whatever they may, in an involuted sense imply, it is quite clear, by turning to the list of suffixes personal pronouns and animate plurals, that they mark the persons, I, thou, he, &c., we, ye, they, &c.

Take for example, minwaindumeigewaud. He (who) makes them happy. Of this compound, minwaindum, as before shown, signifies he makes happy. But as the verb is in the singular number, it implies that but one person is made happy, and the suffixed personal pronouns singular, mark the distinctions between me, thee, and he, or him.

Mmwaindum-e-ig is the vem plural, and implies that several per

« ПредишнаНапред »