•29t) A SYNOPSIS OF THE INDIAN TRIBES. [iNTROD. case, arc compound respectively of ge, 'they,' and of neen, 'we,' 'us'; and himo, ' ye, 1 ' you ': and hena, contracted from hum-ena (ye, we), de- signates that the pronouns of the two first persons are both in the plu- ral Dumber, the preceding characteristic /, or i, showing which of the two is in the objective case. Tims, notwithstanding the original defect and the consequent com- plcxness of the Delaware transitions, they answer the purpose intended, and express distinctly, and with great precision, every combination of the verb with the pronouns. But the rules given for the plural termina- tions, though general, are subject to many exceptions, as may be partly soon by the table H. 7. It would indeed be a most extraordinary phe- nomenon, to find a purely oral language, highly inflected, exempt of those anomalies and exceptions, which exist in languages regulated by the art of writing and the influence of great writers. We cannot investigate any branch of our Indian languages, without discovering evidences of the power of analogy in creating that uniformity which renders them proper vehicles for the communication of ideas, and new proofs of their gradual progress, the result of the application of the natural faculties of man to that object, but not of any preconcerted philosophical system. There does not appear to be any very evident connexion between the usual pronouns and those inserted and variously modified particles, (a, g or k, I, i,) inserted immediately after the verb proper, which I have designated as the "inserted characteristics of the Pronoun."* But both the initial characteristics and, with the exception of himo, (you), all the plural terminations are derived from the separable, and of the same character as the possessive Pronouns. Why himo was sub- stituted to uwa, the termination of the second person plural of the separable pronoun, and preserved, as well as una, in the transitions he — you, he — us, does not appear. Table I. is a comparative view of the Delaware transitions, in the Indicative present, Avitli Eliot's Massachusetts paradigm of the verb wadchan — unumat, 'to keep,' and with that of the Chippeway verb ta- kop — chegawing, ' to tie,' as given by Dr. James in the Appendix to Tanner's Narrative. They exhibit many correspondences and several differences. If we were to judge from those specimens alone, it might be inferred that the Delaware was, in that respect, more uniform, com- plete, and precise than the two other kindred dialects. But the infer- ence may be premature. A laborious investigation of Eliot's transla- tion of the Bible would be necessary, in order to form a correct estimate of the Massachusetts. It is not worth while to attempt, with the mate- rials on hand, any further researches into the Chippeway ; and we must wait for the expected elucidations from Mr. Schoolcraft and other in- telligent men, who are engaged in that pursuit. That language is spoken by the most numerous tribe of that family, and acquires addi- " The third person perhaps excepted. JVeka, plural nekamawa, is the separable pronoun, and the particles a and k (or g) may have been derived from it. The origin of awa, una, uwa is obvious. Mluna, Kiluna, are the plural of the two first persons. Quere, as to I and i i
