tional importance from its great affinity with the Ottawa, the Potowotami, the Knistinau, and the Algonkin proper.
It may, however, be observed, that the origin of w' in the Delaware, and of Oo in the Massachusetts, substituted, in the conjugations, for neka, and nagoh, the inseparable pronouns of the third person, may be traced to the Chippeway ween and o-oon (James), o-un (Schoolcraft). The same w, with various modifications, (we, wi, two, &c.) is found for that person, not only in the old Algonkin, the Knistinau, and Potowotami, but also in the Mountanee, Penobscot, Narraganset, Mohican, Miami, and Shawnee. (Comparative Vocabulary, which see also for various corresponding plural terminations of the Pronouns.)
The objective case of the third person deserves particular consideration, since, in the Algonkin family at least, the operation of the verb on the object, being expressed by a pronominal termination, the inflection which designates that operation, or what we call the case, is transferred (or extended) to the verbal form or transition. The Indians of that family say, 'I fear him God,' n' quitalaya; 'I love him God,' n' dahoala. A small inaccuracy of Mr. Heckewelder must be noticed : it is not alaya or ala which designates the objective case of the pronoun (him); it is only the final a. Ahoal belongs entire to the verb proper and remains unchanged through all the varied pronominal combinations and inflections. But the a clearly designates him, in every conjugation, as may be seen by reference to the tables H. and H. 7., and to Zeisberger's paradigms; and is preserved in the plural (them), adding to it the proper plural termination. It has been suggested that this a is derived from the termination of the inseparable pronoun neka. In the Chippeway, the termination un, an, wun, of the same pronoun (ween, o-un) is likewise preserved for the same purpose in the transitions. O sagian, 'he loves him.'
But in the Chippeway, and it seems also in the Massachusetts, the same inflection is extended to the noun, if animate, which is the object of the action, when the verb is in the third person (he — him, he — them). Mukwa means ' a bear ' : ' he saw a bear,' ' he has killed a bear,' are Ogiwabuman mukwun, and Oginissan mukwun: ' he saw him', 'he has killed him?' ''a bear him.' This inflection of mukiva into mukwun corresponds with the Latin accusative. It seems also that it supersedes the plural termination of the noun (ag); so that, in that case, it is uncertain whether the man saw or killed a bear or several bears. (Schoolcraft).
This observation is quoted here, principally for the purpose of pointing out what seems to me the principal deficiency in Zeisberger's Grammar. The omission of the inclusive, or general plural, may be easily supplied. But since it is certain that the terminations of verbs, or of the pronouns connected with them, (which of the two I cannot say,) are altered, according to the nature of the object of the action, whether animate or inanimate, (Heckewelder's Correspondence, page 438,) it seems to follow that there must be another set of transitions terminating in the third person, so as to distinguish when the object is animate or inanimate. A single additional pronominal inflection, discriminating it from him, might be sufficient for the purpose. But we are left ignorant of the process. The two instances (of transitive verbs) given by Mr. Heckewelder are, Nolhalla, 'I possess'; Newau,
