An interesting class of substantives is derived from the third person singular of the present indicative of the verb, by changing the vowel sound of the first syllable, and adding the letter d to that of the last, making the terminations in aid, âd, eed, id, ood. Thus, Pimmoossâ, he walks, becomes pâmmoossâd, a walker.

This class of words is rendered plural in ig-a termination, which, after d final in the singular, has a soft pronunciation, as if written jig. Thus, Nâmid, a dancer, nâmidjig, dancers.

The derogative form is given to these generic substantives by introducing ish, or simply sh, in place of the d, and changing the latter to kid, making the terminations in ai, aishkid, in a, áshkid, in e, eeshkid, in i, ishkid, and in oo, ooshkid. Thus, naindowainjeegaid, a hunter, is changed to naindowainjeegaishkid, a bad or unprofitable hunter. Naibad, a sleeper, is changed to naibashkid, a sluggard. Jossakeed, a juggler, to jossakeeshkid, a vicious juggler.

Wásinnid, an eater, to wâssinishkid, a gormandizer. Kâgidood, a speaker, kagidooshkid, a babbler. And in these cases the plural is added to the last educed form, making kagidooshkidjig, babblers, &c.

The word nitta, on the contrary, prefixed to those expressions, renders them complimentary. For instance, nittâ naigumood, is a fine singer, nittâ kâgidood, a ready speaker, &c.

Flexible as the substantive has been shown to be, there are other forms of combination that have not been adverted toforms, by which it is made to coalesce with the verb, the adjective, and the preposition, producing a numerous class of compound expressions. But it is deemed most proper to defer the discussion of these forms to their several appropriate heads.

Enough has been exhibited to demonstrate its prominent grammatical rules. It is not only apparent that the substantive possesses number and gender, but it also undergoes peculiar modifications to express locality and diminution, to denote adjective qualities and to indicate tense. It exhibits some curious traits connected with the mode of denoting the masculine and feminine. It is modified to express person and to distinguish, living from inanimate masses. It is rendered possessive by a peculiar inflection, and provides particles, under the shape either of prefixes or suffixes, separable or inseparable, by which the actor is distinguished from the object—and all this, without changing its proper substantive character, without putting on the aspect of a pseudo adjective, or a pseudo verb. Its changes to produce compounds are, however, its most interesting, its most characteristic trait. Syllable is heaped upon syllable, word upon word, and derivative upon derivative, until its vocabulary is crowded with long and pompous phrases, most formidable to the eye.

So completely transpositive do the words appear, that like chessmen on a board, their elementary syllables can be changed at the will of the player, to form new combinations to meet new contingencies, so long as they are changed in accordance with certain general principles and conventional rules; in the application of which, however, much depends upon the will or the skill of the player. What is most surprising, all these changes and combina tions, all these qualifications of the object, and distinctions of the person, the time, and the place, do not supersede the use of ad

jectives, and pronouns, and verbs, and other parts of speech woven into the texture of the noun, in their elementary and conjunctive forms.

III.

Principles Governing the Use of the Odjibwa Noun-Adjective.

INQUIRY 3.

Observations on the adjective—Its distinction into two classes denoted by the presence or absence of vitality-Examples of the animates and inanimates-Mode of their conversion into substantives-How pronouns are applied to these derivatives, and the manner of forming compound terms from adjective bases to describe the various natural phenomena-The application of these principles in common conversation, and in the description of natural and artificial objects-Adjectives always preserve the distinction of number-Numerals-Arithmetical capacity of the language-The unit exists in duplicate.

1. IT has been remarked that the distinction of words into animates and inanimates, is a principle intimately interwoven throughout the structure of the language. It is, in fact, so deeply imprinted upon its grammatical forms, and is so perpetually recurring, that it may be looked upon, not only as forming a striking peculiarity of the language, but as constituting the fundamental principle of its structure, from which all other rules have derived their limits, and to which they have been made to conform. No class of words appears to have escaped its impress. Whatever concords other laws impose, they all agree, and are made subservient in the establishment of this.

It might appear to be a useless distinction in the adjective, when the substantive is thus marked; but it will be recollected that it is in the plural of the substantive only that the distinction is marked; and we shall presently have occasion to show that redundancy of forms is, to considerable extent, obviated in practice.

For the origin of the principle itself, we need look only to nature, which endows animate bodies with animate properties and qualities, and vice versa. But it is due to the tribes who speak this language, to have invented one set of adjective symbols to express the ideas peculiarly appropriate to the former, and another

set applicable exclusively to the latter; and to have given the words good and bad, black and white, great and small, handsome and ugly, such modifications as are practically competent to indicate the general nature of the objects referred to, whether provided with, or destitute of, the vital principle. And not only so, but, by the figurative use of these forms, to exalt inanimate masses into the class of living beings, or to strip the latter of its properties of life-a principle of much importance to their public speakers.

This distinction is shown in the following examples, in which it will be observed that the inflection izzi generally denotes the personal, and au, un, or wud, the impersonal forms.

It is not, however, in all cases, by mere modifications of the adjective that these distinctions are expressed. Words totally different in sound, and evidently derived from radically different roots, are, in some few instances, employed; as in the following examples:

It may be remarked of these forms, that, although the impersonal will, in some instances, take the personal inflections, the

rule is not reciprocated, and minno, and mindiddo, and gitizzi, and all words similarly situated, remain unchangeably animates. The word pungee is limited to the expression of quantity, and its correspondent, uggaushi, to size or quality. Kishedä (hot) is restricted to the heat of a fire; keezhautä, to the heat of the sun. There is

still a third term to indicate the natural heat of the body; kizzizoo. Mitshau (large) is generally applied to countries, lakes, rivers, &c.; mindiddo, to the body; and gitshee, indiscriminately. Onishishin, and its correspondent, onishishshä, signify handsome or fair, as well as good. Kwonaudy, a. a., and kwonaudyewun, a. i., mean, strictly, handsome, and imply nothing further. Minno is the appropriate personal form for good. Mudjee and monaudud may reciprocally change genders, the first by the addition of ice, and the second by altering ud to izzi.

Distinctions of this kind are of considerable importance in a practical point of view, and their observance or neglect is noticed with scrupulous exactness by the Indians. The want of inanimate forms to such words as happy, sorrowful, brave, sick, &c., creates no confusion, as inanimate nouns cannot, strictly speaking, take upon themselves such qualities; and when they do-as they sometimes do-by one of those extravagant figures of speech which are used in their tales of transformations, the animate form answers all purposes; for in these tales the whole material creation may be clothed with animation. The rule, as exhibited in practice, is limited, with sufficient accuracy, to the boundaries prescribed by nature.

To avoid a repetition of forms, were the noun and the adjective both to be employed in their usual relation, the latter is endowed with a pronominal or substantive inflection; and the use of the noun in its separate form is thus wholly superseded. Thus, onishishin, a. i., and onishishsha, a. a., become wänishishing, "That which is good or fair," and wänishishid, "He who is good or fair." The following examples will exhibit this rule under each of its forms: