137 



These pronominal inflections are carried mncli further in the Ganowanian lan- 

 guages than philologists have generally supposed, although this characteristic has 

 been fully recognized.' From the fact that the terms of relationship almost uni- 

 versally involve the pronoun it became important — to secure the advantages which 

 would result from a comparison of these terms as Avell as for ascertaining the direct 

 relationship to Ego of his blood kindred — that all the answers to the questions in the 

 table should be in the same pronominal form. These questions, therefore, are to 

 be understood as made in the direct form. " What do I call the person (described 

 in the question) when I speak to him by the relationship which he sustains to 

 me f and the term given in the table is to be understood as responsive to the 

 question in this form ; e. g., " my father," " my son," " my nephew." It would be 

 impossible for an American Indian, in most of the nations, to use one of these terms 

 in the abstract.^ There are some exceptions. 



» There are specializations in the dual and plural numljers which, so far as the writer is aware, 

 have never been presented by Indian grammarians. My attention was first called to these additional 

 inflections by the Rev. Evan Jones, who for upwards of forty years has been a missionary among the 

 Cherokees, and who during this period has fully mastered the structure and principles of this lan- 

 o-uage. The pronoun mijself in the Cherokee is perfect and independent ; the pronoun mij, as also 

 in Iroquois, is capable of a separate inflection ; and all the terms of relationship pass through the 

 same form. The following illustrations arc from the Cherokee : — 



" Many of the words used in the formal vocabularies of the philologists are inferior for comparison, 

 particularly such as are generic, as tree, fish, deer; such as relate to objects which are personal, as 

 18 December, 1869. 



