APPENDIX. 503 



Here the plural persons are formed by a numerical inflection 

 of the singular. The double plural of the first person, of which 

 both the rule and examples have been incidentally given in the 

 remarks on the substantive, is one of those peculiarities of the 

 language which may, perhaps, serve to aid in a comparison of it 

 with other dialects, kindred and foreign. As a mere conventional 

 agreement for denoting whether the person addressed be included 

 or excluded, it may be regarded as an advantage to the language. 

 It enables the speaker, by the change of a single consonant, to 

 make a full and clear discrimination, and relieves the narration 

 from doubts and ambiguity, where doubts and ambiguity would 

 otherwise often exist. On the other hand, by accumulating dis- 

 tinctions, it loads the memory with grammatical forms, and opens 

 a door for improprieties of speech. We are not aware of any 

 inconveniences in the use of a general plural ; but, in the Indian, 

 it would produce confusion. And it is, perhaps, to that cautious 

 desire of personal discrimination, which is so apparent in the 

 structure of the language, that we should look for the reason of 

 the duplicate forms of this word. Once established, however, 

 and both the distinction, and the necessity of a constant and 

 strict attention to it, are very obvious and striking. How shall 

 he address the Deity? If he say, "Our Father who art in 

 heaven," the inclusive form of our makes the Almighty one of 

 the suppliants, or family. If he use the exclusive form, it throws 

 him out of the family, and may embrace every living being but 

 the Deity. Yet, neither of these forms can be used very well in 

 prayer, as they cannot be applied directly to the object addressed. 

 It is only when speaking of the Deity, under the name of father, 

 to other persons, that the inclusive and exclusive forms of the 

 word our can be used. The dilemma may be obviated by the 

 use of a compound descriptive phrase, Wd b se mig o yun^ signify- 

 ing, "Thou, who art the father of all," or "universal father." 

 In practice, however, the question is cut short by those persons 

 who have embraced Christianity. It has seemed to them that, 

 by the nse of either of the foregoing terms, the Deity would be 

 thrown into too remote a relation to them ; and I have observed 

 that in prayer they invariably address Him by the term used by 

 children for the father of a family — that is, nosa^ " my father." 



The other personal pronouns undergo some peculiar changes 



