the action. As the passing of the action, from the agent to the object in which it terminates, is thus expressed by a single word, the Spanish authors of Indian grammars have designated that species of conjugation by the name of transition. It is common to all the Indian languages, which have been investigated. But, although the character is common to all, the principle does not belong exclusively to them. That, which in that respect characterizes them, is the manner in which the principle has been applied, and which, varying greatly in the different languages, has in some of them been the cause of those countless inflections, which at first excited the wonder of European philologists. Every Hebrew student knows that these transitions exist in that language, and in a form so simple, as not to cause him any great embarrassment. They are founded on the same principle as in the Indian languages. Abbreviations of the inseparable pronouns become respectively, pronouns possessive by being added as terminations to the noun, and the objective case of the personal pronoun by being in the same manner added to the verb. Other distinct abbreviations represent the nominative case of the same pronoun; and as, in the compound conjugation, the abbreviated form of the pronoun in the objective case always follows that in the nominative case, and there are also distinctive variations between the singular and the plural of each, the whole process unites precision with simplicity. It differs no otherwise from the conjugation in the English language, so far as pronouns are concerned, than in the collocation of the pronoun, and in the pronunciation in one word instead of three. They say, lovlthee, in one word, instead of I love thee in three words; and the number of inflections, or combinations of inflections, required for the purpose, is the same with that of the words, which we use in order to attain the same object, (1, thou, me, thee, we, us, &c.)

The system is nearly the same in the Choctaw. The following table exhibits the pronouns, personal separable in the first column; united with verbs in the nominative case in the second; possessive united with the nouns designating the parts of the body, and used also (as in Hebrew) as the objective case, when united with verbs.

All the pronouns, in the nominative case, precede the verb, excepting ille, which is a termination. The rule applies equally to the simple conjugation and to the transitions. All the pronouns, in the objective case, are placed, in the transitions, immediately before the verb and therefore immediately after the pronoun in the nominative, with the exception always of the first person in the nominative, which is still a termination: tokch, he ties'; tokchill, 'I tie'; ishtokch, thou tiest,' &c. Suttokch, he ties me'; chittokchill, 'I tie thee'; ishpittokch, 'thou tiest us'; (exc. pl.), &c.

Those two rules constitute the whole system of the Choctaw transitions in the paradigm of the verb tokche, 'to tie,' and equally apply to all the tenses and moods, passive voice, and negative form; all these being each distinguished by the insertion of its characteristic particle, but without interfering, otherwise than by their respective collocation, with the pronominal inflections. It is not stated, whether there is more than one conjugation; and, where this depends solely on the inflections of the pronoun, it may well happen that, with some anomalies, there is but one. Such is found to be the case in the language of Chili, where the system of transitions, though somewhat more complex, is governed by uniform rules and attains a precision nearly equal to that of the Choctaw. The pronouns, in the nominative and objective cases, are placed in the Choctaw in the same order as in the French. The English say, thou tiest me; the French and the Choctaw, tu me lies, thou me tiest.

A peculiarity in that language deserves notice. An inserted particle, ull, denotes the passive voice; but the personal pronoun, instead of being as in our languages in the nominative, is in the Choctaw in the objective case. Instead of saying, 'I (am) tied,' 'tullokchille,' they say, 'me (am) tied,' suttullokche.' The same rule applies to all those intransitive verbs which we

express by 'I am,' and to all those, such as, 'I sleep,' 'sunnusse'; 'I die,'' sulle'; in which the person appears to be the object of the action, rather than an active agent.* But when action is implied in the intransitive verb, the pronoun is put in the nominative case: 'I sing,' ' taloalle;' I came,'' mintilletokok.'

*

If we now turn to the numerous paradigms of the simple conjugations in Zeisberger's Grammar of the Delaware, amongst those anomalies, which compelled him to class the verb into eight conjugations, and many other even in verbs of the same conjugation, we find upon the whole a great uniformity and regularity, and also sufficient evidence that the inflections belong to the pronoun. The initial characteristics of the three persons, which precede the root of the verb, are generally preserved in the indicative mood; the principal exception being found in the frequent omission of the characteristic of the third person, sometimes accompanied by a change of the termination into u, or eu. The plural termination of the first person eneen, or hena, is derived from that of the possessive pronoun ena, or of the separable una, both allied to the Chippeway termination inan. The plural termination of the third person, wak, or ewo, is likewise derived from that of the separable pronoun wa. But the connexion between the separable pronoun and its termination when united with the verb is lost in the second person plural, which in the last case ends always in himo, or humo. Referring to the tables in the Appendix for details, the following examples of the present tense of the indicative will be sufficient to explain what precedes.

But, if we pass to the transitions, we find a multitude of varied terminations, for which it appears extremely difficult to find any general rules. There is however one respecting the initial characteristic, which at once strikes the eye. It has

* The same principle is found in the passive form of Latin deponent (neuter) verbs.

been seen, that, in the Hebrew, in our modern languages, and in the Choctaw, the pronoun, in the nominative, is always distinguished from that in the objective case by their relative position. That fundamental and essential principle has been entirely neglected in the Delaware, and probably in all the other languages of the same family. Instead of this, it will be found, that a preference has been given, in the first place, to the second, and in the next to the first person. When the second person occurs in the transition, whether in the nominative, or in the objective case, we find its characteristic k placed before the verb. Whenever the transition is from the first to the third, or from the third to the first person, the n, characteristic of the first is, in like manner, placed before the verb, whether that person be the agent, or the object of the action. When the action passes from one third to another third person, its initial characteristic w is placed before the verb, or is omitted altogether. It thence follows, that the termination, placed after the root of the verb, must perform the various offices of distinguishing, which of the two pronouns is in the nominative or objective case; whether both, or, if only one, which of the two is in the plural; and, whenever the second is one of the persons concerned, that is to say in sixteen cases out of twentyeight, whether the other pronoun is of the first or third person. To distinguish with precision all the various combinations, resulting from those several offices, requires twenty-eight distinct, different terminations for each tense. The Choctaw requires but twelve, in the same manner as, in English, twelve words are sufficient in order to effect the same purpose; and these run regularly through all the tenses and moods of the verb, whilst numerous discrepancies are found in that respect in the Delaware.

The comparative simplicity of the Hebrew, of the English, and of the Choctaw rests on three principles, neither of which has been observed in the Delaware; the regular relative position assigned to the pronouns in the nominative and objective. case; the distinct designation by which the objective is always distinguished from the nominative case of the pronoun; and a

* There are a few anomalies, some only in appearance, such as k'milgneen, they give to us,' in which the k designates the indefinite plural. But the rule may be considered as general. No exception to it is found in the paradigms of the Massachusetts conjugations in Eliot's Grammar.

similar distinction for the plural. And the Delaware conjugations are rendered still more complex, by the transfer of tie plural termination of the pronoun, which has separated it from its initial characteristic.

This example shows how men, though setting off upon the same principle, may, by pursuing different routes in its application, impress a different character on their respective languages. Yet the preference given by the Algonkin nations to the second and, next to it, to the first person, though unfortunate in its consequences was very natural. In an oral language, there are always two parties, the person who speaks, and the person or persons whom he addresses. When speaking of the person spoken to in connexion either with himself or with a third person, the person thus addressed is generally the most prominent in the mind of the speaker; and on that account, or from courtesy, he will be named first, without regarding the distinction, whether he be the agent or the object of the action. The Delaware may very naturally have said, 'thee I love,'' thee he has insulted.' When speaking of himself in connexion with a third person, he becomes the most important party.

May we not also trace to an exclusively oral language, combined with the habit of public speaking, the special plural of the Indians, as well as the different manner in which it appears to be applied? According to Mr. Heckewelder, the Delawares deliberating in council, on a question of war or peace, say' we,' meaning all of us here present, our nation, as contradistinguished from any other body of men, or nation. According to Mr. Schoolcraft, the Chippeway, addressing another person in behalf of himself and some others, will, in saying, we,' exclude the person to whom he speaks. And thus gradually the special plural may have been modified, and have received a different signification in the two languages.

Notwithstanding the great number of varied inflections in the transitions of the Algonkin conjugations, and the numerous apparent anomalies in the several tenses and moods, they still exhibit a degree of uniformity which had its origin in analogy; and there can be no doubt that the rules of their formation, though not very obvious, may be deduced from the paradigms collected by Zeisberger and others. It is not intended to intimate, that the language was formed according to any such preconcerted rules; but only that analogy has necessarily produced that uniformity, which renders it practicable to deduce the rules from the language.