his loon, or loons, (o mang oom un) his porcupine or porcupines, (o gâg oom un) are without number. The rule applies equally to the class of words, in which the pronouns are inseparable. Thus, my father and thy father, nôs and kôs, become my fathers and thy fathers, by the numerical inflection ug, forming nôsug and kôsug. But ôsun, his father or fathers is vague, and does not indicate whether there be one father or twenty fathers. The inflection un, merely denotes the object. The rule also applies equally to sentences, in which the noun is governed by, or governs the verb. Whether we say, I saw a bear—ningi wâbumâ mukwah, or a bear saw me—mukwah ningi wâbumig, the noun, itself, undergoes no change, and its number is definite. But ogi wâbum-ân muk-wun, he saw bear, is indefinite, although both the verb and the noun have changed their endings. And if the narrator does not subsequently determine the number, the hearer is either left in doubt, or must resolve it by a question. In fine, the whole acts of the third person are thus rendered questionable. This want of precision, which would seem to be fraught with so much confusion, appears to be obviated in practice, by the employment of adjectives, by numerical inflections in the relative words of the sentence, by the use of the indefinite article, paizhik, or by demonstrative pronouns. Thus, paizhik mukwun ogi wâbumân, conveys with certainty the information—he saw a bear. But in this sentence both the noun and the verb retain the objective inflections, as in the former instances. These inflections are not uniformly un, but sometimes een, as in ogeen, his mother, and sometimes ôn, as in odakeek-ôn, his kettle, in all which instances, however, the number is left indeterminate. It may hence be observed, and it is a remark which we shall presently have occasion to corroborate, that the plural inflection to inanimate nouns, (which have no objective form,) forms the objective inflection to animate nouns, which have no number in the third person.
3. This leads us to the consideration of the mode of forming possessives, the existence of which, when it shall have been indicated by full examples, will present to the mind of the inquirer, one of those tautologies in grammatical forms, which, without imparting additional precision, serve to clothe the language with accumulated verbiage. The strong tendency to combination and amalgamation, existing in the language, renders it difficult, in fact to discuss the principles of it, in that elementary form which, could be wished. In the analysis of words and forms we are constantly led from the central point of discussion. To recur, however, from these collateral unravelings, to the main thread of inquiry, at as short and frequent intervals as possible, and thus to preserve the chain of conclusions and proofs, is so important that without keeping the object distinctly in view, I should despair of conveying any clear impressions of those grammatical features, which impart to the language its peculiar character.
It has been remarked that the distinctions of number, are founded upon a modification of the five vowel sounds. Possessives are likewise founded upon the basis of the vowel sounds. There are five declensions of the noun to mark the possessive, ending in the possessive in âm, eem, im, ôm, um, oom. Where the nominative ends with a vowel, the possessive is made by adding the letter m, as in maimai, a woodcock, ni maimaim, my woodcock, &c. Where the nominative ends in a consonant, as in ais, a shell, the full possessive inflection is required, making nin dais-im, my shell. In the latter form the consonant d, is interposed between the pronoun and noun, and sounded with the noun, in conformity with a general rule. Where the nominative ends in the broad, in lieu of the long sound of a, as in ogimâ, a chief—the possessive is âm. The sound of i, in the third declension, is that of i in pin, and the sound of u, in the fifth declension, is that of u in bull. The latter will be uniformly represented by oo.
The possessive declensions run throughout both the animate and inanimate classes of nouns, with some exceptions in the latter—as knife, bowl, paddle, &c.
Inanimate nouns are thus declined.
Nominative, Ishkôdai, Fire.
| Possessive. | My, | Nin | Dishkod-aim. |
| Thy, | Ki | Dishkod-aim. | |
| His, | O | Dishkod-aim. | |
| Our, | Ki | Dishkod-aim-inân. (in.) | |
| — | Ni | Dishkod-aim-inân. (ex.) | |
| Your, | Ki | Dishkod-aim-iwâ. | |
| Their, | O | Dishkod-aim-iwâ. |
Those words which form exceptions from this declension, take the separable pronouns before them, as follows.
| Môkoman, | A Knife. |
| Ni môkoman, | My Knife. |
| Ki môkoman, | Thy Knife. |
| O môkoman, | His Knife, &c. |
Animate substantives are declined precisely in the same manner as inanimate, except in the third person, which takes to the possessive inflections, aim, eem, im, ôm, oom, the objective particle un, denoting the compound inflection of this person, both in the singular and plural, aimun, eemun, imun, ômun, oomun, and the variation of the first vowel sound, âmun. Thus, to furnish an example of the second declension, pizhik’i, a bison, changes its forms to nim, bizhik-im, my bison—ke bizhik-im, thy bison, O bizhik-imun, his bison, or bisons.
The cause of this double inflection in the third person, may be left for future inquiry. But we may add further examples in aid of it. We cannot simply say, The chief has killed a bear, or, to reverse the object upon which the energy of the verb is exerted, The bear has killed a chief. But, ogimâ ogi nissân mukwun, literally, Chief he has killed him bear, or, mukwah ogi nissân ogimân, Bear he has killed him chief. Here the verb and the noun are both objective in un, which is sounded ân, where it comes after the broad sound of a, as in nissân, objective of the verb to kill. If we confer the powers of the English possessive, (’s) upon the inflections aim, eem, im, ôm, oom, and âm respectively, and the meaning of him, and of course he, her, his, hers, they, theirs, (as there is no declension of the pronoun, and no number to the third person) upon the objective particle un, we shall then translate the above expression, o bizhik-eemum, his bison’s hisn. If we reject this meaning, as I think we should, the sentence would read, His bison—him—a mere tautology.
It is true, it may be remarked, that the noun possessed, has a corresponding termination, or pronominal correspondence, with the pronoun possessor, also a final termination indicative of its being the object on which the verb exerts its influence—a mode of expression, which, so far as relates to the possessive, would be deemed superfluous, in modern languages; but may have some analogy in the Latin accusatives am, um, em.
It is a constant and unremitting aim in the Indian languages to distinguish the actor from the object, partly by prefixes, and partly by inseparable suffixes. That the termination un, is one of these inseparable particles, and that its office, while it confounds the number, is to designate the object, appears probable from the fact, that it retains its connexion with the noun, whether the latter follow or precede the verb, or whatever its position in the sentence may be.
Thus we can, without any perplexity in the meaning say, Waimittigôzhiwug ogi sagiân Pontiac-un, Frenchmen they did love Pontiac him. Or to reverse it, Pontiac-un Waimittigôzhiwug ogi sagiân, Pontiac, he did Frenchmen he loved. The termination un in both instances, clearly determines the object beloved. So in the following instance, Sagunoshug ogi sagiân