The American Indians Part 31

Monaudud-on ishkod-an, Bad fires.

Weeshkobun-on aidetaig-in, Sweet fruits.

Peculiar circ.u.mstances are supposed to exist, in order to render the use of the adjective, in this connexion with the noun, necessary and proper.

But in ordinary instances, as the narration of events, the noun would precede the adjective, and oftentimes, particularly where a second allusion to objects previously named became necessary, the compound expressions would be used. Thus instead of saying the yellow bee, wayzahwizzid, would distinctly convey the idea of that insect, _had the species been before named_. Under similar circ.u.mstances kainwaukoozzid, agausheid songaunemud, mushkowaunemud, would respectively signify, a tall tree, a small fly, a strong wind, a hard wind. And these terms would become plural in _jig_, which, as before mentioned, is a mere modification of _ig_, one of the five general animate plural inflections of the language.

Kagat wahwinaudj abbenojeeug, is an expression indicating _they are very handsome children_. Bubbeeweezheewug monetosug, denotes _small insects_.

Minno neewugizzi, is good tempered, he is good tempered.

Maws.h.i.+ninewugizzi, is bad tempered, both having their plural in _wug_.

Nin nuneenahwaindum, I am lonesome. Nin nuneenahwaindaumin, we (excluding you) are lonesome. Waweea, is a term generally used to express the adjective sense of _round_. Kwy, is the scalp. (_Weenikwy_ his scalp.) Hence Weewukwon, hat; Wayweewukwonid, a wearer of the hat; and its plural Wayeewukwonidjig, wearers of the hats--the usual term applied to Europeans, or white men generally. These examples go to prove, that under every form in which the adjective can be traced, whether in its simplest or most compound state, it is susceptible of number.

The numerals of the language are converted into adverbs, by the inflection _ing_, making _one_, _once_, &c. The unit exists in duplicate.

Pazhik, One, general unit } Aubeding, Once.

Ingoot, One, numerical unit} Neesh, Two. Nees.h.i.+ng, Twice.

Niswee, Three. Nissing, Thrice.

Neewin, Four. Neewing, Four-times.

Naunun, Five. Nauning, Five-times.

N'goodwaswa, Six. N'goodwauts.h.i.+ng, Six-times.

Neeshwauswa, Seven. Neeshwauts.h.i.+ng, Seven-times.

Shwauswe, Eight. Shwauts.h.i.+ng, Eight-times.

Shongusswe, Nine. Shonguts.h.i.+ng, Nine-times.

Meetauswee, Ten. Meetaus.h.i.+ng, Ten-times.

These inflections can be carried as high as they can compute numbers.

They count decimally. After reaching ten, they repeat, ten and one, ten and two, &c., to twenty. Twenty is a compound signifying two tens, thirty, three tens, &c., a mode which is carried up to one hundred, _n'goodwak_. Wak, then becomes the word of denomination, combining with the names of the digits, until they reach a thousand, _meetauswauk_, literally, _ten hundred_. Here a new compound term is introduced made by prefixing twenty to the last denomination, neshtonnah duswak, which doubles the last term, thirty triples it, forty quadruples it, &e., till the computation reaches to ten thousand, n'goodwak dus.h.i.+ng n'goodwak, _one hundred times one hundred_. This is the probable extent of all certain computation. The term _Gitshee_, (great,) prefixed to the last denomination, leaves the number indefinite.

There is no form of the numerals corresponding to second, third, fourth, &c. They can only further say, _nittum_ first, and _ishkwaudj_, last.

LECTURE IV.

Nature and principles of the p.r.o.noun--Its distinction into preformative and subformative cla.s.ses--Personal p.r.o.nouns--The distinction of an inclusive and exclusive form in the number of the first person plural--Modifications of the personal p.r.o.nouns to imply existence, individuality, possession, owners.h.i.+p, position and other accidents--Declension of p.r.o.nouns to answer the purpose of the auxiliary verbs--Subformatives, how employed, to mark the persons--Relative p.r.o.nouns considered--Their application to the causative verbs--Demonstrative p.r.o.nouns--their separation into two cla.s.ses, animates and inanimates--Example of their use.

p.r.o.nouns are buried, if we may so say, in the structure of the verb. In tracing them back to their primitive forms, through the almost infinite variety of modifications which they a.s.sume, in connexion with the verb, substantive and adjective, it will facilitate a.n.a.lysis, to group them into preformative and subformative, which include the p.r.o.nominal prefixes and suffixes, and which admit of the further distinction of separable and inseparable. By separable is intended those forms, which have a meaning by themselves, and are thus distinguished from the inflective and subformative p.r.o.nouns, and p.r.o.nominal particles significant only, in connection with another word.

1. Of the first cla.s.s, are the personal p.r.o.nouns Neen (I,) Keen (thou,) and Ween or O (he or she.) They are declined to form the plural persons in the following manner:

I, Neen. We Keen owind (in.) We Neen owind (ex.) Thou, Keen. Ye Keen owau.

He or She, Ween or O. They Ween owau.

Here the plural persons are formed by a numerical inflection of the singular. The double plural of the first person, of which both the rule and examples have been incidentally given in the remarks on the substantive, is one of those peculiarities of the language, which may, perhaps, serve to aid in a comparison of it, with other dialects, kindred and foreign. As a mere conventional agreement, for denoting whether the person addressed, be included, or excluded, it may be regarded as an advantage to the language. It enables the speaker, by the change of a single consonant, to make a full and clear discrimination, and relieves the narration from doubts and ambiguity, where doubts and ambiguity would otherwise often exist. On the other hand, by acc.u.mulating distinctions, it loads the memory with grammatical forms, and opens a door for improprieties of speech. We are not aware of any inconveniences in the use of a general plural. But in the Indian it would produce confusion. And it is perhaps to that cautious desire of personal discrimination, which is so apparent in the structure of the language, that we should look for the reason of the duplicate forms of this word. Once established, however, and both the distinction, and the necessity of a constant and strict attention to it, are very obvious and striking. How shall he address the Deity? If he say--"_Our father who art in heaven_" the inclusive form of "our" makes the Almighty one of the suppliants, or family. If he use the exclusive form, it throws him out of the family, and may embrace every living being but the Deity.

Yet, neither of these forms can be used well in prayer, as they cannot be applied directly _to_ the object addressed. It is only when speaking _of_ the Deity, under the name of father, to other persons, that the inclusive and exclusive forms of the word "our" can be used. The dilemma may be obviated, by the use of a compound descriptive phrase--Wa o se mig o yun, signifying--THOU WHO ART THE FATHER OF ALL. Or, universal father.

In practice, however, the question is cut short, by those persons who have embraced Christianity. It has seemed to them, that by the use of either of the foregoing terms, the Deity would be thrown into too remote a relation to them, and I have observed, that, in prayer, they invariably address Him, by the term used by children for the father of a family, that is, NOSA, my father.

The other personal p.r.o.nouns undergo some peculiar changes, when employed as preformatives before nouns and verbs, which it is important to remark. Thus neen, is sometimes rendered ne or _nin_, and sometimes _nim_. Keen, is rendered ke or _kin_. In compound words the mere signs of the first and second p.r.o.nouns, N and K, are employed. The use of _ween_ is limited; and the third person, singular and plural, is generally indicated by the sign, O.

The particle _suh_ added to the complete forms of the disjunctive p.r.o.nouns, imparts a verbal sense to them; and appears in this instance, to be a succedaneum for the substantive verb. Thus Neen, I, becomes Neensuh, it is I. Keen, thou, becomes Keensuh, it is thou, and Ween, he or she, Weensuh, it is he or she. This particle may also be added to the plural forms.

Keenowind suh. It is we (in.) Neenowind suh. It is we (ex.) Keenowa suh. It is ye, or you.

Weenowau suh. It is they.

If the word _aittah_ be subst.i.tuted for _suh_, a set of adverbial phrases are formed.

Neen aittah. I only. Neen aittah wind. We &c. (ex.) Keen aittah wind, We &c. (in.) Keen aittah, Thou only. Keen aittah wau, You &c.

Ween aittah, He or she only. Ween aittah wau, They &c.

In like manner _nittum_ first, and _ishkwaudj_ last, give rise to the following arrangement of the p.r.o.noun:

Neen nittum, I first.

Keen nittum, You or thou first.

Ween nittum, He or she first.

Keen nittum ewind, We first, (in.) Neen nittum ewind, We first, (ex.) Keen nittum ewau, Ye or you first.

Ween nittum ewau, They first.

ISHKWAUDJ.

Neen ishkwaudj, I last, Keen ishkwaudj, Thou last.

Ween ishkwandj, He or she last.

Keenowind ishkwaudj, We last (in.) Neenowind ishkwaudj, We last (ex.) Keenowau ishkwaudj, Ye or you last.

Weenowau ishkwaudj, They last.

The disjunctive forms of the p.r.o.noun are also sometimes preserved before verbs and adjectives.

NEEZHIKA. Alone, (_an_.) Neen neezhika, I alone.

Keen neezhika, Thou alone.

Ween neezhika, He or she alone.

Keenowind neezhika, We alone (in.) Neenowind neezhika, We alone (ex.) Keenowau neezhika, Ye or you alone.

Weenowau neezhika, They alone.

To give these expressions a verbal form, the substantive verb, with its p.r.o.nominal modifications, must be superadded. For instance, _I am_ alone, &c., is thus rendered:

Neen neezhika nindyau, I am alone, aumin.

Keen neezhika keedyau, Thou art alone, aum.

Ween neezhika Iyau, He or she is alone, &c., wug.

In the subjoined examples the noun ow, body, is changed to a verb, by the permutation of the vowel, changing ow to auw, which last takes the letter d before it, when the p.r.o.noun is prefixed.

I am a man, Neen nin dauw.

Thou art a man, Keen ke dauw.

He is a man, Ween ah weeh.

We are men, (in.) Ke dauw we min.

We are men, (ex.) Ne dauw we min.

Ye are men, Ke dauw min.

They are men, Weenowau ah weeh wug.

In the translation of these expressions "man" is used as synonymous with person. If the specific term _inine_, had been introduced in the original, the meaning thereby conveyed would be, in this particular connexion, I am a man with respect to _courage_ &c., in opposition to effeminacy. It would not be simply declarative of _corporeal existence_, but of existence in a _particular state or condition_.

In the following phrases, the modified forms, or the signs only, of the p.r.o.nouns are used: