268 CLASSIFICATION OF ALGONQUIAN TRIBES [ETH. ANN. 28 
this reason we can definitely state that Ojibwa has few, if any, special 
points of contact with Fox. As is pointed out in the discussion of 
Shawnee, Ojibwa shares the following forms with that language: 
I—HIM, THEM an.; THOU—HIM, THEM an.; YE—HIM, THEM an.; HE— 
you (pl.), nim; THEY an.—you (pl.), nim. It will be observed 
that Passamaquoddy likewise shares these forms except that for 
YE—THEM an. It should be noted that the Shawnee forms for 
I, THOU, YE, HE, THEY aN.—THEM inan.; YE, THEY an.—IiT certainly 
are closely connected with the Ojibwa correspondents. It is unfortu- 
nate that the Passamaquoddy equivalents are not available. How- 
ever, it should be noted that Cree agrees in general structure with 
Shawnee in these forms with the exception of HE, THEY an.—THEM 
inan., THEY an.—ir. On account of the unsatisfactory material at 
our disposal, it is best to abstain from a discussion of the relations of 
Ojibwa to Delaware regarding the independent mode here and refer 
the reader to the section dealing with Delaware. It will be noted 
that Ojibwa and Natick show some very marked agreements in the 
independent mode, namely, in the terminations for the first (excl., 
and incl.?) and second persons plural as both subject and objects. 
Owing to the deficient orthography, it is difficult to establish other 
close relations with Natick, but it is clear that in a considerable 
number of cases Natick differs from Ojibwa. With Cree, Ojibwa 
shares no forms that are not shared also by other Algonquian 
languages outside the Ojibwa group. (Forms are lacking to prove 
this for WE (incl.)—HIM, THEM an.; but the mference can be made 
with certainty.) The same applies to Menominee. The Menominee 
forms for we (excl. and incl.), YB intrans., YE—ME approximate the 
Ojibwa correspondents, but it should be noted that in these cases 
Natick likewise resembles them. The same applies to 1,.wE excl.— 
you. (The form ws (incl.) intrans. is lacking, but the analogy of WE 
(excl.) intrans. permits us to infer the form.) The agreement of Cree 
and Menominee with Ojibwa in the forms of 1, THou—1r, and their 
approximation in the forms for YE—HIM, THEM an. should be noted; 
as also the approximation of the Cree form for ye—1r. 
We will now proceed to discuss the subjunctive. The presence of 
the nasal as in Algonkin, Ottawa, Potawatomi (?), Peoria, and Dela- 
ware will be noted. But Ojibwa has little in common with the last 
language in this mode outside the presence of the nasal. The ter- 
minations of the third person animate, plural, as both subject and 
object, for the greater part arein-wa. It should be noted that Peoria 
differs most from Ojibwa in the same persons of the conjunctive 
and hence presumably (see below) in the subjunctive. Algonkin 
and Ottawa agree with Ojibwa in this formation. It is a matter of 
regret that a table for the Potawatomi present subjunctive is not 
available, as it would be of great assistance in determining the pre- 
