MICHELSON] ALGONQUIAN LINGUISTIC GROUPS 275 
Ojibwa wabi, Fox wapi; wonkqussis Fox (really a diminutive), Ojibwa 
wa’gue; anoggs STAR, Ojibwa anang, Delaware allanque, Peoria 
alangwa, Fox anagw*%, Cree atak (for the phonetics, see the discussion 
of Cree, p. 239). 
The lexical correspondence with the dialects of the Central subtype 
is far greater than is indicated in Trumbull’s Natick Dictionary. 
(The same may be remarked of the Pequot-Mohegan material pub- 
lished by Speck and Prince.) However, at the present time it is 
impossible to say in which language the greatest number of corre- 
spondents are to be found. 
DELAWARE 
Zeisberger’s material as contained in his grammar! is not good:? 
The forms of the various dialects are given without assigning each 
form to its proper dialect (see Zeisberger, p. 113, footnote); in the 
same paradigm some transitive forms have instrumentals, while 
others lack them; the spelling of one and the same personal termi- 
nation is frequently absolutely inconsistent (e. g., -que, -ke); some 
passives are given as active transitive forms, and in at least one 
instance (possibly in more; see below) an inanimate objective form is 
given as animate. Under these unfortunate conditions the tables 
here given for the present indicative and subjunctive are bound to 
contain errors, for in the absence of Delaware informants represent- 
ing the three dialects the writer has had to use discrimination as to 
the rejection or retention of certain forms. For this reason it is 
impossible to make very definite statements concerning the general 
relationships of Delaware among Algonquian languages. Yet the 
tables will have one result at least, albeit a negative one, namely, that 
the common supposition that Delaware is intimately connected with 
Eastern Algonquian (Micmac, Malecite, Passamaquoddy, Penobscot, 
and Abnaki) is certainly a mistaken one. On the possibility that 
the three Delaware divisions, Munsee, Unami, and Unalachtigo, were 
really separate tribes, each having special points of contact with 
different Central-Algonquian languages, though mutually intelligible, 
and that the apparent unity was only political, see page 279. 
1 A Grammar of the Language of the Lenno Lenape or Delaware Indians, Philadelphia, 1830. 
2 Others also have criticized Zeisberger adversely (see Brinton, The Lenapé, p. 105, Philadelphia, 1885, 
who holds that the criticisms were unnecessarily severe. Correct his last reference to 1869-70, p. 105 ff). 
