MICHELSON] ALGONQUIAN LINGUISTIC GROUPS 271 
Owing to the fact that Peoria phonetically is more archaic than 
Ojibwa in some respects, some of the forms of the independent mode 
seem to resemble more closely Fox than Ojibwa (the same applies to 
the conjunctive mode). But passing these over, Peoria has at least 
these formations which have no correspondents in Ojibwa: I—you 
(pL.); we (excl.)—rTHEE; THEY an.—IT, THEM inan. ‘The first two 
agree with Algonkin, Ottawa, Potawatomi, and Natick, the last 
with Fox, Cree, and Menominee. It is a matter of regret that 
Doctor Gatschet made no systematic collection of indicative forms, 
as some of them might prove to be important in establishing the 
relations of Peoria. However, from the meager terminations that 
the writer has been able to collect, it is possible to infer with cer- 
tainty the forms for I—THEE, THOU—HIM, THOU—THEM an., YE—ME, 
YE—HIM, YE—THEM al., HE—YOU, THEY an.—THEE, THEY al.— YOU; 
and these confirm us in maintaining that Peoria belongs with Ojibwa, 
Ottawa, Algonkin, and Potawatomi. The form for HE—Uvs (excl.) is 
extremely interesting: unless there is a phenomenon similar to that 
in Ottawa, and unfortunately we have not sufficient material to deter- 
mine this, we have a point of contact with Shawnee (which geo- 
graphically would not be surprising). If the form in question is really 
identical with the Shawnee form, then we can infer with absolute 
surety that the forms for He—vs (incl.), THEY an.—uws (excl. and 
incl.) agree with their Shawnee correspondents. 
The Peoria conjunctive and subjunctive are discussed in the sec- 
tions dealing with Cree and Sauk. The terminations of the con- 
junctive, in which the third person plural animate is subject or object, 
correspond to the Fox, Shawnee, and Ojibwa participial mode. Now, 
as in Algonquian the terminations of the conjunctive, participial, and 
subjunctive are very closely allied, we may infer that the Peoria sub- 
junctive in these persons agreed with the conjunctive. It will be 
observed that, with the apparent exception of the terminations for 
HE—THEM an. and we (incl.)—rTHEM an., these forms would agree 
(as do those of the conjunctive) with the Cree subjunctive. (Inreading 
Doctor Gatschet’s texts the writer has met with -atci and -awatci, the 
terminationsfor HE—HIM, THEM an., THEY an.—HIM, THEM an., respec- 
tively. These are true conjunctive forms. The question hence arises 
to what an extent his notes giving the forms in the table should be 
accepted. The true conjunctive forms agree with the Fox and Shaw- 
nee correspondents of the same mode, and with the Algonkin corre- 
spondents of the subjunctive mode.) Even substituting the Ojibwa 
participial for the subjunctive in these persons, THEY an.—vs(excl.) 
represent a different structure from that of the Ojibwa correspondent; 
note also the same difference exists in the form for Hz—wus (excl.) (see 
the discussion of Algonkin and Menominee, pp. 252, 265). THEY an.— 
IT, THEM inan. is a true conjunctive and agrees exactly with the Fox 
and Shawnee form of the same mode, and the corresponding Algon- 
