266 CLASSIFICATION OF ALGONQUIAN TRIBES [BTH. ANN. 28 
THEM inan. the writer has consistently recorded the terminal n as 
full-sounding, as also in the forms for t—1T, THOU—IT, HE—HIM, 
HE—THEM an., HE—IT, THEY al.—HIM, THEM an., THEY an.—iT. In 
the remaining cases where final n is to be expected in the independent 
mode, excepting the form for 1—rHEE, the writer has been inconsistent 
in the recording and non-recording of the sound in question. The 
problem is further complicated by the fact that the informant likewise 
spoke Ojibwa, and gave certain forms with the terminal n as Ojibwa 
and the correspondents without them (at least to the writer’s ear) as 
Ottawa. Hence it is possible that confusion of dialect may account for 
the apparent inconsistency noted above. It may be mentioned that the 
late Doctor Gatschet’s notes on Ottawa show forms without terminal 
n when etymologically expected; but the writer can not say whether 
the former was consistent in his usage. Another point in phonetics 
worth noting is that the terminal vowel in the forms i—HIm, THOU— 
HIM, YE—HIM is distinctly aspirated. Surd-and sonant when terminal 
are extremely hard to distinguish. This applies especially to d and t. 
The writer is convinced that with the possible exception in the forms 
HE—THEE, IT, THEY Iman., intransitive, of the subjunctive, k does 
not occur terminally, and that forms which sound as if containing 
this really end in strong (impure) sonant g. Medially surds and 
sonants are far easier to keep apart. Corresponding to Ojibwa and 
Algonkin terminal ng in the subjunctive the writer consistently heard 
a post-palatal y without a following stop. 
Turning now to the verbal forms of the present independent and 
subjunctive which show the general relationship of Ottawa to other 
members of the group: In the independent mode the forms for wE 
(excl. and inecl.)—17, THEM inan.; WE (excl.)—THEE, You agree in for- 
mation with Algonkin as opposed to Ojibwa. (The form for we (excl.) 
—THEE, rou k—ninim is noteworthy for the difference in phonetics as 
compared with the Algonkin correspondent.) In the same mode Ot- 
tawa agrees with Ojibwa as opposed to Algonkin in the forms for HE— 
THEM an., THEY an.—THEM an. Distinctive of Ottawa (apparently) is 
the fact that the form for THEY an.—1r is the same as THEY an.—THEM 
inan. In the subjunctive it may be noted that the forms for wr 
(excl.)—HIM, THOU—HIM, HE intrans., HE—ME, HE—HIM, HE—THEM 
an., THEY an..intrans., THEY al.—ME, THEY aN.—HIM, THEY an.—THEM 
an. are subjunctives (cf. Ojibwa) and not conjunctives (cf. Algonkin). 
The forms that the writer received for HE—Uws (excel.), THEY an.—UsS 
(excl. and incl.), THEY an.—THEE, THEY an.—yYOU are passives in 
formation, probably due to some misunderstanding. The structure 
of we (excl.)—THEE (and presumably we (excl.)—you) agrees with 
Algonkin as opposed to Ojibwa. It should be noted that the form 
for THEY an.—IT, THEM inan., andwdd, apparently is absolutely 
unique, but the form evidently is to be associated with 1r, THEM inan. 
in objective forms of the independent mode. 
