260 CLASSIFICATION OF ALGONQUIAN TRIBES [RTH ANN. 28 
the agreement of Fox, Ojibwa, Cree, Montagnais, and Delaware (one 
form) in the termination for HE—Uws (excl.). (Note that Fort Totten 
Cree agrees with Fox and Ojibwa in the forms for HE, THEY an.—us 
(excl. and incl.).) 
Fox, Shawnee, Cree, Montagnais, and Natick lack the nasal in the 
present subjunctive which Ojibwa, Peoria, and Delaware have. It 
will be seen that Cree agrees with Fox, as opposed to Ojibwa, in the 
forms we (excl.)—THEE, YOU; HE—Uws (excl.). Note that Algonkin 
agrees with Fox and Cree in the first two instances and approaches 
them in the last. Presumably Ottawa agrees with Algonkin in the 
last form as it does in the first two. Few transitive forms of the 
Peoria present subjunctive are available, but it is certain that Peoria 
is in substantial concord with Algonkin and Ottawa. The Cree 
forms with the third person plural as subject or object correspond to 
the similar Fox participial forms. In some of these forms therefore 
Ojibwa seems close to Fox, but most of them are entirely different in 
structure from both Cree and Fox. Cree and Ojibwa agree in the 
form for 1—you (pl.) as opposed to Fox. The remarks made concern- 
ing Cree apply with certain limitations to Montagnais. (or these, see 
the discussion of that language, p. 248.) Itis a matter of great regret 
that so few Peoria subjunctive forms are to be found among Doctor 
Gatschet’s papers; for the Peoria conjunctive agrees in the forms for 
the third person plural animate as both subject and object (with the 
apparent exception of the forms We (incl.)—rTHEM an. and THEY an.— 
IT, THEM inan.) with the Fox participial rather than with the Fox 
conjunctive, resembling Cree in the case of the present subjunctive. 
Now, as may be seen by reference to the Algonquian sketch in the 
Handbook of American Indian Languages, the terminations for the 
conjunctive, subjunctive, and participial are closely allied; hence it 
is very probable that the Peoria subjunctive is in similar agreement. 
(See, however, p. 271.) It is remarkable that Micmac in the con- 
junctive, though lacking the nasal, agrees with Peoria in that many 
forms in which the third person animate plural is either subject or 
object coincide with the Fox participial rather than with the sub- 
junctive; but the forms for yYs—THEM, HE—THEM, THEY—-YOU cor- 
respond to the Fox conjunctive, not participial. The forms for 
HE—HIM; THEY al.—HIM, THEM an. differ in structure. (See the dis- 
cussion of the Eastern subtype of Eastern- Central major division of 
Algonquian languages, p. 287.) 
In the discussion of Montagnais it has been pointed out that the 
“suppositif”’ of the ‘mode subjonctif”’ is allied with the Fox poten- 
tial subjunctive. It is repeated here to emphasize the northern 
affinities of Fox. 
The relations of Fox to Delaware may be briefly dismissed. That 
Delaware shares in the independent mode the forms for 1—nrm, 
