Page:Archæologia Americana—volume 2, 1836.djvu/232

 196 A SYNOPSIS OF THE INDIAN TRIBES. [iNTROD, certain, that the separate pronouns are distinguished from each other in the three numbers ; that they are used in an abbre- viated form in the simple conjugations and in the transitions ; ami that they are always aliixed to the verb, as well as to the noun. The objective case of the personal is said to be identic with the possessive pronoun. Separate. M Nomin. /, unga, nga, ICC tlCOy aaguk, guk, ICC, uagut, gut, thou, iblit, tit, yc two iliptik, tik, ye, ilipse, se, he, una, k, au, they, okko, uk, ut, Abbreviations. Object., Possess, ga, ra, puk, guk, vuk, put, gut, vut, et, it, t, tik, sik, tik, se, ne, me, a, at, aet, /, we tico. toe, thou, yc two <J e , he, they, wash self, selves, ermikp unga, " oguk, " ogut, « otit, " otik, " ose, " ok, " ut, wash him. ermikp ara, " arpuk, " arput, " et, " artik, " arse, " aek. It appears from all the information we possess on the subject, that all the inflections of person and number, which are found in the Indian languages, connected with the verb, are in reality, as from their nature they might be expected to be in primitive oral inflected languages, the inflections of the pronoun and not of the verb. If, considering the limits of this essay, more space has been allowed to this branch of the subject than may appear necessary, it is because it was the only one, respecting which the materials within our reach were sufficiently ample, for the double purpose of reducing it to rules, and of instituting a comparison between the several modes which nations, that had adopted the same principle, have pursued in the applica- tion of that principle. It must also be recollected, that nine tenths, at least, of the several hundred inflections found in the conjugations of some verbs are due to those pronominal com- binations ; and that, as a preliminary process, they must be fully- understood, and the noun and verb be disentangled from those accessaries, before any progress can be made in the acquire- ment of the language. It is undoubtedly for that reason, that both Eliot and Zeisberger have allotted so great a portion of their Grammars to that object. There can be no doubt that, even in those languages which appear most complex, the power of analogy in the human mind is such as necessarily to produce a sufficient degree of uniformity for common purposes ; and that accordingly all those