The class of animate beings is not in the Algonkin languages. confined to animals. In the Massachusetts, it embraces certainly the stars and probably several other personified objects; but, according to Eliot, all vegetables belong to the inanimate, whilst forest trees, both in the Delaware and the Chippeway, are included in the animate class. Various other objects, not probably always the same in every dialect, are also considered as belonging to it, on account of peculiar properties belonging or ascribed to them. Such are, at least in the Chippeway, a stone, a bow, a kettle, a pipe, &c.* It was probably in reference to this, that the French Missionaries have designated the two classes by the names noble and ignoble.

It will be easily perceived, that, if this distinction constitutes an essential character of the Algonkin-Lenape languages, it is not on account of the principle itself, but of its extensive application, which pervades the whole language, and affects the termination of every part of speech without excepting the adverbs. The existence of the neuter gender, in the classical languages, renders it almost certain, that it had its origin in the same distinction. But, by a deviation, much more extensive than any found in the Indian tongues, the greater number of inanimate objects came to be designated by the masculine and feminine genders. In the French, the neuter has been altogether excluded; and the arbitrary distinction of masculine and feminine is one of the great difficulties of the language, one also, of which the application is very extensive, on account of the change of termination to which not only the pronouns but the adjectives are subject. In the English, the natural distinction between inanimate and animate, and the subdivision of the last class, according to sex, have been preserved or adopted: but adjectives are indeclinable; and the distinction appears only in the third person singular of the personal and possessive pronouns and in the relative; so that, if the words her, it, hers, its, who, whom, and whose were expunged from the language, it might be said of it, as of the Eskimau, that it had no genders. But the distinction has been preserved, in the English, in the case where it was most needed, for the purpose of correcting the ambiguity inherent in the third person of the pronoun; whilst, in the Algonkin, this is the very case which appears not to be provided for, the characteristic sign of the third person being *Mr. Schoolcraft.

either omitted altogether, or the same for the animate and inanimate genders.

Nice distinctions may, in a purely oral language, escape the notice of the inquirer, if their application should happen to be limited to a few particular cases; and of this at least one instance in point may be given.

We have, in order to institute a useful comparison, inserted, amongst the grammatical notices, an extract of Father Febre's Grammar of the language of Chili.* The distinction between animate and inanimate, which was not adverted to by Molina, is there pointed out, but incidentally and only in a single case. The particle pu, prefixed to nouns, is the common sign of the plural, and is properly applicable to animate, though sometimes used for inanimate objects. But the proper designation of the plural for the inanimate class, is the termination ica, substituted for the pu prefixed.

The plural number of the nouns is in most Indian languages designated by the addition of a particle prefixed, inserted, or affixed. It is affixed, or an inflection of the termination in the following:

Eskimau, et, it, ut; innuk, 'man'; innuit, 'men'; iglo, 'a house'; iglut, 'houses.'

Sioux, pee; weetshashtah, 'man'; weetshashtahpee, ‘men'; wahtah, ' a canoe'; wahtapee, 'canoes.'

Algonkin, as already stated, g, k for the animate; sh, n, Il for the inanimate:

Massachusetts; nunksqau, 'a girl'; nunsqauog, 'girls'; hussun, a stone'; hussunash, 'stones':

Delaware; okhqua, a woman'; okhquewak, 'women'; akhsin, ' a stone'; akhsinall, 'stones':

Chippeway; pinai,' a partridge'; pinaiwug, 'partridges'; ossin, ' a stone'; ossineen, ' stones.'

Cheppeyan (Athapasca), thlang; dinné, 'a man'; dinnéthlang, 'men'; tsakhulley, a hat'; tsakhulleythlang, hats.'

In the Cherokee the plural is designated by the prefixed particles t, ts, generally though not universally used for inanimate, and ni for animate nouns.

In the language of Chili, by pu prefixed, or ica affixed, as above stated.

In the Iroquois languages by particles generally affixed,

* I am indebted to Judge Davis of Massachusetts for having pointed out that excellent grammar, and loaned to me the only copy, I believe, in the United States.

sometimes inserted, varying in the several dialects, and even in the same, according to the termination of the noun. The particles shoh, nie, ogu are used in the Onondago; dah, suh, shoeh in the Seneca.

Seneca;* hahjenah, ' a man'; hahdahjenah, 'men'; hudagoohonch, 'a chief'; hudagoohonehsuh, 'chiefs.'

The Choctaw, the Muskhogee, and the Caddo nouns have, with few special exceptions, no inflection designating the plural. That deficiency is respectively supplied by the words okla, ulgy, or homulgy, and wia, all of which mean, 'several,' 'many,' 'a multitude.'

When adjectives are connected (not incorporated) with nouns substantive, the sign of the plural may, in most languages, be transferred to the adjective; and, in the Sioux, the plural sign pee, added to the last word of the sentence, be it noun, verb, or even adverb, makes the whole sentence plural.

The plural of pronouns, personal and possessive, is almost universally designated by particular terminations or inflections, distinct from those assigned to the plural of nouns, and which will be adverted to, when treating of conjugations.

In all the languages which have been investigated, with the exception of those of the Sioux family, concerning which the information is not sufficient, there is, besides the singular and general or indefinite plural, a third number, which is sometimes a dual, more generally a definite or special plural, occasionally assuming both forms.

It is represented as a pure dual by the grammarians of the Eskimau, and of the language of Chili; and it appears to be such in the Athapasca. In the various dialects of the Algonkin-Lenape, and in the Choctaw, it is a definite plural; but, although including always, in every such dialect, a definite number of persons, it is not applied precisely in the same manner in all.

In the Delaware, according to Mr. Heckewelder, it embraces our family, nation, select body, us who are here assembled, in this room; and including therefore, at least when he, or they belong to the nation or select body, the person or persons spoken to. But in the Chippeway, as we are informed by Mr. Schoolcraft, it always excludes the person or persons thus spoken to; and it is used in the same manner in the Micmac.

Seneca Spelling-Book. London, 1818. This was not seen till after the appended vocabularies had been prepared for the press,

6

The following examples given by Father Maynard appear conclusive in that respect; "Rik tan kinoo aunka moolk,' & There is somebody who sees us,' is the indefinite plural; " Ninenoo-en oolanook najamooloktau," One of us will go this evening to see you,' is the special or definite form; and it is obvious that, 'one of us' contrasted with you,' excludes the person spoken to. The k', characteristic of the second person, is always prefixed in the general, and the n', characteristic of the first person, in the special or definite plural, in both the Chippeway and the Delaware languages. It will be seen hereafter, that it is a constant rule in both, that whenever the second person, whether in the nominative or objective case, is one of the pronouns connected with the verb, k' is prefixed. Therefore, the n' prefixed to the special plural shows that the second person was intended to be excluded, that the Chippeways have preserved the original meaning of that plural, and that the Delawares have departed from it. And this seems to corroborate the opinion, that the Chippeway, or Algonkin, is the primary language, and the Delaware one of those derived from it.

In the Choctaw, where pishno is the pronoun of the first person for the definite, and hupishno that for the indefinite; according to Mr. Wright, "hupishno is used, when speaking of an action in which all the hearers are concerned. But if all the hearers are not concerned in it, but only the speaker and some other persons (understood or designated), pishno is used."

It is not practicable, from the specimens we have of the Caddo, to decide whether the third number is a dual, or a definite plural. It appears to be a dual in the Muskhogee.

In the Cherokee, the distinctions connected with number are more minute than in the Algonkin and Choctaw. There are in that language distinct words or inflections for each of the following combinations of pronouns either personal or possessive, viz. he and I; they and I; thou and I; you and I; you two; you all; they. Of these combinations, the two last are the indefinite plural for the second and third persons; the first, third, and fifth are three distinct forms of the dual; the second and fourth, two distinct forms of a special plural; but none is given for a general plural we which might include you and they with the speaker.

Zeisberger's Grammar of the Onondago throws no light on the subject. But the examples given by Father Brebeuf of the Huron (in the letter already quoted) show, that, though probably differing in the details, the distinctions that relate to the

number, are, in the Iroquois languages, founded on the same principle as in the Cherokee. 'We set off, thou and I,' kiarascsa; 'he and I,' aiarascsa; 'we, several of us' (nous autres) we along with you,' esarascsa.

asarascsa;

In the Eskimau, the dual applies not only to pronouns, but also to nouns which, in that number have a distinct inflection from the plural, viz. k: iglo, a house'; dual, igluk ; plural, iglut. In all the other languages, the inflection of nouns is the same for dual, definite, or indefinite plural. The pronouns are alone affected by the distinction, and generally only in the first person; in all the three persons in the language of Chili; in the Cherokee and Iroquois, in the manner already stated. In some languages, the distinction applies only to the nominative, and, in others, embraces also the objective case; but the information is in that respect as yet incomplete.

There is a vocative case in some at least of the AlgonkinLenape languages, terminating, in the singular of the Delaware, in an, and of the Massachusetts in in; in the plural Delaware in enk, "when coupled with the pronoun our." (Zeisberger, page 99). The same termination eunk is used generally for the second person plural in the Massachusetts. Woi kenaau Jerusalem wuttaunzunk, ‘O ye daughters of Jerusalem.' (Du Ponceau on Eliot). The only instance of an inflection of the noun, in what may be called the direct regimen, corresponding in some degree with the Latin accusative, has been pointed out.* The genitive is designated in the Eskimau by an inflection of the noun; in other languages occasionally by an abbreviated form of the possessive pronoun, generally by the relative position of the two nouns. With respect to the other oblique cases, the offices performed by inflections in the classical languages, and by separable prepositions in most of those of Europe, are, in those of America, generally performed by affixed or prefixed inseparable prepositions. Delaware; uteny, 'a town'; utenink, 'in, from, the town'; menuppeque, 'the lake'; awossenuppeque, 'over the lake.' In the Eskimau, there are but five such prepositions; mik, 'with, through '; mit, 'from '; mut, 'to'; me, 'in, upon'; kut, 'around.' They are more numerous in other languages; † and it might be inferred, from the general

The objective cases of the pronouns, or the manner in which they are supplied, will be adverted to in the conjugations.

In the Onondago, Zeisberger gives fourteen inseparable affixed prepositions, meaning, in, on, at, to, under, along, through, &c.; but some may be added in the separable form.