MICHELSON] ALGONQUIAN LINGUISTIC GROUPS 245 
statistics throughout this paper it is understood that all are in agree- 
ment, unless the contrary is expressly stated.) 
The discussion of the subjunctive-participial does not require such 
elaborate statistics. 
The variant forms of the third person plural animate both as sub- 
ject and object, ending tn -w, are stated by Horden to be distinctive of 
East Main Cree, with the exception of the variants for tory an.—HIM, 
THEM an. which occur elsewhere as well. The forms under discussion 
closely resemble the correspondents in Menominee, Algonkin, Ojibwa, 
and (to a lesser extent) Ottawa. (In Ojibwa THEY an.—uvs excl. 
has different formation, but has the characteristic ending.) More- 
over, the respective forms of the second table of Fort Totten Cree 
(which is discussed below) show the same general structure. The 
other forms of the third person an. plural as both subject and object 
(except HE—THEM an., which is a true subjunctive) correspond to the 
Fox, Shawnee, and Ojibwa participial—not subjunctive. Even so, 
THEY an.—uws (excl.) agrees with Fox (and approximates the Shawnee 
form), not Ojibwa. 1—you agrees with Menominee, Ojibwa, and 
Algonkin. we (excl.)—THEE, YoU is a true active common Central 
Algonquian form as opposed to the Ojibwa (and probably Potawa- 
tomi) correspondents, which are passives in structure. 
Outside the above, excluding phonetic differences, as the presence 
of the nasal in Ojibwa (also in Delaware), the agreement between 
Cree, Ojibwa, and Fox in this mode is remarkable. It is a matter 
of great regret that hardly a single transitive form of the Peoria sub- 
junctive or participial is found among Doctor Gatschet’s papers. The 
terminations of the participial, subjunctive, and conjunctive modes 
are closely allied in Algonquian (compare the tables in the Hand- 
book of American Indian Languages). Fortunately Doctor Gatschet 
has left examples of transitive forms of the Peoria conjunctive, so 
we can make some conjectures concerning the subjunctive. It pos- 
sessed the nasal as in Ojibwa, and the forms for the third person 
plural animate, both as subject and object, corresponded exactly 
with the exception of WE incl.—THEM an., THEY an.—HIM, THEM 
an., to Cree. The personal terminations for WE—THEE, you (pl.) 
were the true active ones; HE—Us (excl.) agreed with Fox and Cree, 
as also that for THEY an.—uws (excl.). (For the last two cf. Shaw- 
nee, Algonkin, and Menominee.) The form for 1—you (pl.) agreed 
with Ojibwa, Algonkin, and Cree. Herein we find an important 
point of contact with Peoria. (See, however, p. 271.) It should be 
noted that the Micmac conjunctive agrees partially with Peoria in 
having forms for the third person plural animate both as subject 
and object that correspond to the Fox participial, not conjunctive. 
We may accordingly conjecture that the Micmac subjunctive agrees 
partially with Cree in the same way. This together with the reten- 
