MICHELSON] ALGONQUIAN LINGUISTIC GROUPS 267 
The writer’s personal information on Potawatomi is too slight for 
him to make very definite statements concerning its precise relation- 
ship with Ojibwa, Ottawa, and Algonkin. As stated above, all are 
very intimately related. Potawatomi agrees with Algonkin and 
Ottawa in the structure of the form for wr (excl.)—THEE, you of the 
independent mode as opposed to Ojibwa. On the other hand it agrees 
with the latter language in the formation of we (excl., and presum- 
ably incl.)—1T, THEM inan., of the same mode as opposed to Ot- 
tawa and Algonkin. Potawatomi possesses some marked charac- 
teristics of its own in the formation of the independent mode; we 
(exel.)—aImM (n—G@min) and we (incl.)—HIm (k—damin) have no corre- 
spondents in any Central Algonquian language noted thus far. The 
forms resemble strongly the inanimate correspondents, but the instru- 
mental m (not ¢) distinctly proves that they must be animate. The 
component elements are the respective intransitive correspondents 
combined with the common objective pronoun, third person animate, 
a. The plurals of the forms under discussion must have had a similar 
structure. THEY an.—you (k—gom) is unquestionably a passive in 
formation. Apparently THEY an.—ir has the same termination as 
THEY aN.—THEM inan. 
Owing to phonetic differences, Cree, Menominee, Ojibwa, Algonkin, 
Ottawa, Delaware, and Passamaquoddy seem to agree in the forms 
for HE—ME, THEE as opposed to Sauk, Fox, Kickapoo, Shawnee, and 
Peoria, but Penobscot and Montagnais demonstrate that the phonetic 
change, though the same in the dialects mentioned, is merely a parallel 
development and has no significance in determining the ethnic rela- 
tions of the tribes. The umlaut of Passamaquoddy in the forms 
demonstrates that the change in that dialect at least was a very recent 
one. In the same way Ojibwa -dm is merely the phonetic equivalent 
of Fox amw* and Peoria -amwa. 
The Ojibwa present, of both independent and subjunctive modes 
will now be discussed. Bearing in mind the comments made above 
on Algonkin, Ottawa, and Potawatomi, this will make clear the 
general linguistic relations of the entire group. The special points 
of Peoria are considered below. It may be mentioned here that 
ordinarily in the statistics of linguistic agreements given throughout 
this paper the agreement of Algonkin, Ottawa, and Potawatomi with 
Ojibwa is not noted. Where the agreement of Peoria is important, 
the fact of the agreement is noted. We will begin with the inde- 
pendent mode. 
As noted in the discussion of Fox, Ojibwa shares no terminations 
with that language which are not shared by Cree except the termina- 
tions for HE, THEY an.—uws (incl.) which are allied to the forms for 
HE, THEY an.—wvs (excl.) and THEY inan. intrans. (Fort Totten 
Cree agrees with Ojibwa and Fox in THEY an.—wus (incl.).) For 
