ISO A SYNOPSIS OF THE INDIAN TRIBES. [iNTROD. occasionally dispensed with ; but, whether at the option of the speaker, or according to some fixed rule, is not explained. i Moz, a moose. Os, a father. Os-ug, fathe '»!/,
- ni moz-oom,
nos, nos-ug, %, ki moz-oom, kos, kos-ug, our, (excl.) ni moz-oominan, nos-inan, nos-inan-ig, our, (iitcl.) ki moz-oominan, kos-inan, kos-inan-ig, your, ki moz-oomiwu, kos-iwa, kos-iwa-g, his. 1 o moz-oomnn, os-un, os-un, their j I o moz-oomivvan, os-iwan, os-iwan. It is obvious, that the termination ug, or ig, which desig- nates the plural of the noun, is the only inflection of that part of speech, and that all the other variations are the inflections of the pronoun and not of the noun. It could hardly at first have been otherwise in the formation of languages. When we say, ' my house,' ' thy house,' ' his house,' ' our house,' &c, the object which we designate by the name, house, remains unchanged ; and the variations refer only to the person, or to the number of persons, who own the house. The same observation applies to the combinations of the verb with the pronoun. The variations of number or of person (first, second, or third), either as agent, or as object of the action, belong also in reality to the pronoun and not to the verb. This is at once seen in those languages where the amalgamation has not taken place, or has been but partially adopted. When, in English, we say, ' my house,' ' our house,' or, ' I love,' ' we love,' it is evident that our and we, are the plural of my and I; no one will presume to say that they are inflections respectively of the noun house, and of the verb love. In those languages where, from reasons or accidental causes unknown to us, the principle of combination has been adopted, it would seem, that an amalgamation of the entire pronoun with the noun or verb, so as to concentrate both in one single word, must have been the first process, at least so far as relates to the first and second persons of the pronoun. An abbreviation of the pronoun would afterwards be substituted. The last process must have been the substitution of an arbitrary letter, or syllable, in which there was no longer any trace of affinity with the original pronoun. It might indeed be supposed, that, inasmuch as such nouns as father are relative and have no real existence without their correlative, and as the verbs, such as love, are also independent
