S(> 6BAMMAH OF TTIF. T.VNGt'VGE 



Among other reasons equally unsatisfactory, lie object* that 

 the pronoun who or its elements are not to be found in the 



composition of the word: as it' this pronoun could not be un- 

 derstood, as it is in the participial tonus of all languages, when 

 used as substantives. Thus the Latin participle amans may be 

 translated he who loves ill,- qui amat. and yet. not a trace 

 ot 'the pronoun qui is found in it. In the English langua $e the 

 participle present is not generally employed in a substantive 

 sense, therefore the word loving can not be translated by 

 he who lows, hut the meaning of the noun substantive 

 lover may be thus rendered, ami the participle past beloved 

 is often used in that sense, as the bflaveil. he who is he- 

 loved, the pronoun 7r/>o beinsi understood. But the reviewer 

 goes farther, and pretends that there is no word in any In- 

 dian language answering to our pronoun who*. Be i so; 

 but the idea which it convey? certainly exists in the minds of 

 the Indians, and therefore there is the greater necessity for 

 words in which that idea may he comprehended when it 

 cannot be separately expressed. These specimens are suffi- 

 cient to give an idea of the reviewer's course ot' reasoning, 

 nor do the limits of this preface all >w me to pursue it far- 

 ther. 



It is difficult to know to what Indian language this gentle- 

 man's intention has been particularly directed. If we arc to 

 judge from his numerous specimens of Ind an phrases, he 

 should be equally familiar with the idioms of the Delawares, 

 ChippewaySj Sioux, IGckapoos, Sacs ami Foxes. Po ow.no- 

 mi s. Wyandots, an I Shawanese, in all which lie ftiro shes us 

 with sentences, without any apparent object than to show that 

 those languages are poor and illy constructed. Our author, 

 Mr Zeisberger, did not pretend to so much knowledge; the 

 li l.iware and the Ononda^owere all lie prof's, oil to know, 

 and h - proved the justice o( his el dm. by a dictionary of the 



* On the contrary, the pronoun who ha* an equivalent in even Indian 

 lan-Mkiize that I know ot": IV law-are. outre?* ^see this grammar'' : Onoct- 

 dago, seta schune. schuns- schunt Renter's Dictionary ;Meno- 



ruonie. own; Dahcota or Siou.v. tuaa. A.*.. iVo. 



