MICHELSON ] ALGONQUIAN LINGUISTIC GROUPS 265 
The independent mode will be discussed first. WE (excl.)—THEE, 
you agrees in structure with the correspondents in Ottawa, Potawa- 
tomi, Natick, and Peoria (the writer lacks a form to prove this for 
Peoria in the form we (excl.)—you, but the inference is justifiable). 
They approximate the Menominee correspondents. WE (excl. and 
incl.) —1T agrees in structure with Ottawa and the Cree of Fort Totten; 
we (excl. and incl.)—rTHEM inan. agrees with Ottawa (it will be 
remembered that in Cree the third person plural inanimate coincides 
with the singular). me—THEM an., and THEY an.—THEM an. agree 
with Passamaquoddy in formation. 
The subjunctive mode now will be taken up. We (excl.)—THEB, 
you agree in formation with Cree, Fox, Shawnee, Natick, Delaware, 
and presumably also with Peoria. (The correspondent in Ottawa 
for we (excl.)—you is not absolutely certain: see below.) The 
Ojibwa correspondents are passives in structure; the same may be 
said of the same forms of the Ojibwa independent mode. we (excl. )— 
HIM, THOU—HIM, HE intrans., HE—ME, HE—Us (excl.), HE—HIM, 
HE—THEM an., THEY an. intrans., THEY an.—ME, THEY al.—HIM, 
THEY an.—THEM an., THEY a.—IT, THEM inan. are conjunctives in 
structure and agree (with the regular phonetic differences) absolutely 
with the corresponding forms in Fox, and with the exception of 
HE—Us (excl.) and THEY an.—us (excl.) (which differ slightly in strue_ 
ture, though exhibiting the same type of formation) also with those of 
Shawnee. Peoria agrees with the Algonkin forms under discussion 
in the terminations for WE (excl.)—HIM, THOU—HIM, HE intrans., 
HE—ME, HE—HIM, THEY an. intrans., THEY aN.—HIM, THEY an.—It, 
THEM inan. The Algonkin form for THEY an.—wus (excl.), though 
agreeing with Ojibwa in the final syllable, nevertheless agrees with 
Fox (and partially with Shawnee and Cree) in morphological forma- 
tion. It should be noted that the structure of Hk—Uws (exel.) and 
THEY an.—uws (excel.) is fundamentally the same in the corresponding 
forms of the Fox, Shawnee, Cree (and Peoria?) subjunctive; the 
Fox, Shawnee, and Peoria conjunctive; the Fox and Shawnee 
participial. 
With the exceptions noted above, Algonkin agrees completely with 
Ojibwa in the present tense of the independent and subjunctive modes. 
The writer’s personal experience with Ottawa was confined to a few 
hours at Carlisle; hence but a brief description can be given. 
Syllables are slurred over as in Potawatomi, though probably not to 
so great anextent. Examples are kwabamim YE SEE MB, kminin 1 GIVE 
THEE. Final n is almost inaudible; compare the suppression of final 
m, n, lin Nass (Handbook of American Indian Languages, part 1, 
p. 288). In some cases the writer has consistently recorded the sound 
as a mere aspiration, e. g. in the independent forms for we (excl. and 
incl.)—nIM, HE—Uus (excl. and incl.). In the objective forms of 
