262 CLASSIFICATION OF ALGONQUIAN TRIBES [urH, ANN. 28 
spemegi, Fox a pemegi (cf. Menominee icpimiya OVER and ABOVE). 
It is pointed out in the section on Sauk, etc., that Shawnee shares 
the loss of -wa with Ojibwa after 7 and @, e. g., Fox ineniwa, Menom- 
inee indniwa, Cree (Moose) deliw, Shawnee hileni, Ojibwa ineni, 
Ottawa nine, Potawatomi nene (Peoria liéini-a; see below); Fox 
ugimaiw*, Menominee okémaw*, Cree okimaw, Shawnee hugima, 
Ojibwa ogima, Algonkin okima, Ottawa tigima (Gatschet), Peoria 
kima. Final wa is lost after e(@) im Ojibwa, Algonkin, Ottawa, and 
Potawatomi: Fox vkwiw* woman (Shawnee “kwéiw%), Cree iskweé-u, 
Ojibwa vkwd, Algonkin ikwe, Ottawa “kue (Gatschet), Potawatomi 
kwé (Gatschet). 
OJIBWA, POTAWATOMI, OTTAWA, AND ALGONKIN 
According to Dr. William Jones, Ojibwa, Ottawa, and Potawatomi 
are very closely related. This opinion is confirmed by Doctor 
Gatschet’s notes and by personal information. Doctor Jones makes 
the observation that Potawatomi has a tendency to slur over sylla- 
bles; this also can be confirmed from Doctor Gatschet’s notes and the 
writer’s personal information (e. g., nenwag MEN, Ojibwa neniwag). 
Following is the table for the Ojibwa independent and subjunctive 
modes, taken from Bishop Baraga’s Grammar of the Otchipwe Lan- 
guage (second edition, Montreal, 1878). The second n of nin in the 
independent mode is the accretion spoken of above. Under certain 
conditions it is omitted. Presumably Algonkin agrees in the usage. 
(It may be noted that apparently the dialect of the Mississippi band 
of Ojibwa at White Earth, Minn., does not completely agree with 
the usage given by Baraga in his paradigms.) 
The very close relationship of Algonkin may be seen from the tables 
showing the Algonkin present, independent, and subjunctive modes, 
extracted from Lemoine’s Dictionnaire Frangais-Algonkin (Quebec, 
1911). 
