MICHELSON] ALGONQUIAN LINGUISTIC GROUPS 269 
cise relations of that language to the other members of the division. 
A similar formation is found in Menominee and also in Cree (Kast 
Main). See the section on Menominee. Owing to phonetic changes, 
Ojibwa and Cree seem to agree often as opposed to Fox, Peoria, and 
Shawnee, but this is quite accidental. The terminations for wE 
(excl.)—THEE, YoU are really passives in formation; Algonkin and 
Ottawa represent the original type. The formation of the termi- 
nations of HE—Uws (excl.), THEY an.—us (excl.) is characteristic of 
Ojibwa, quite irrespective of the fact that the last ends in -wa. The 
forms are certainly allied to the forms for we (excl.)—nHIM, THEM 
an. The termination for I—you agrees with Cree and Peoria as 
opposed to Fox. Exclusive of the formations mentioned, the agree- 
ment between Ojibwa, Cree, and Fox in this mode is remarkable. 
There are a few other points to be considered. Ojibwa can form a 
preterite in ban. Cree and Delaware have a correspondent and the 
formation of past tenses of subordinate modes by means of this 
suffix is an important point of contact between these languages. It 
is remarkable that Montagnais, though sharing the formation in the 
indicative, apparently lacks it in subordinate modes. Penobscot and 
Malecite likewise share the formation in the indicative, but the writer 
can not say whether they use it in the formation of past tenses of 
the subordinate modes. However, here we find a point of con- 
tact with Eastern Algonquian. Peoria has a similar formation but 
with a suffix pa. So far as known to the writer, its use is confined 
to the independent mode. Delaware possesses the same formation 
and it is also used to build up past tenses of subordinate modes. It 
is found also in Natick but seems to be confined to the independent 
mode. In Micmac it is attached to the conjunctive mode (which 
is used as an indicative) to form a past tense of the indicative; 
it is used in the subjunctive also, to judge from |’Abbé Maillard’s 
Grammaire de la Langue Mikmaque (New York, 1869). On the same 
authority it may be added that Micmac apparently has the equivalent 
of the Ojibwa ban preterite, but only in the subjunctive, not else- 
where. These features make the Micmac forms seem so strange. 
To sum up, Ojibwa chief linguistic relations are with Ottawa, 
Potawatomi, Algonkin, and (somewhat removed) with Peoria (see 
below). It has relations also with Eastern Algonquian and Cree; 
it is apparently but distantly related to Fox (also to Sauk and 
Kickapoo); it apparently has important points of contact with 
Shawnee, but, as stated in the discussion of that language, these, for 
the greater part, may be dueto the fact that Shawnee has much in com- 
mon with Eastern Algonquian. Ojibwa and Delaware, exclusive of 
the nasality and the ban preterite (both of which are striking), have 
not very much in common, but the trouble may be with our material. 
Ojibwa is not closely related to Menominee. 
