MICHELSON] ALGONQUIAN LINGUISTIC GROUPS Dit 
We will first discuss the in- 
dependent mode. The first 
thing that will be noticed is 
the diversity of forms for one 
and the same person as sub- 
ject and object. Such diver- 
sity is not found among other 
Algonquian languages and at 
once arouses suspicion that 
the multiplicity of forms is 
due to the fact that the dif- 
ferent forms really belong to 
separate dialects. When we 
note further that the different 
forms point to contact with 
different Algonquian lan- 
guages, the probability of this 
inference is heightened. Thus, 
n’—neen WE (excl. intrans.), 
k’—loneen we (excl.)—THEE, 
k’—ineenTHOU,YE—Uws (excl.), 
agree with Cree-Montagnais; 
n’—hhena we (excl., intrans.), 
k’—lohhena wk (excl.)—THEE, 
k’—hhena THOU, YE—US 
(excl.) agree with Fox and 
Passamaquoddy; n’—a 1— 
HIM, k’—a THOU—HIM agree 
with Passamaquoddy, Shaw- 
| nee, and Ojibwa; n’—awa 1— 
HIM, k’—awa THOU—HIM with 
Fox, Menominee, and Cree- 
Montagnais; n’—guna HE—US 
= ES (excl.) agrees with Passama- 
quoddy, Shawnee, and Peo- 
| ria(?); n’—guneen HE—US 
(excl. ) with Fox, Cree-Montag- 
nais, and Ojibwa; n’—aneen 
WE (excl.)—nIM agrees with 
Ojibwa and Cree-Montagnais; 
n’—ohhena we (excl.)—nHIM 
agrees with Fox. 
The cognates of the remain- 
ing forms so far as available 
they an. 
-chtite 
-ichtite 
-quenke 
-quonne 
-queque 
-achtite 
-achtite 
-awachtite 
-amichtite 
he 
-te 
-ite 
-quenke 
-quonne 
-queque 
-ate 
-achtite 
-akhittite 
-anke 
ye 
-achtique 
[-eki?] 
-ameque 
-yeque 
-iyeque 
-iyenke 
-aque 
-awake 
thou 
-yane 
-iyane 
-iyenke 
-anne 
-awonne 
-achte 
-awawonne 
-amane 
| 
we incl. 
-anque 
-awonque 
we excl. 
-lenque 
-leque 
-amenke 
-amenque 
~achtite 
-awake 
-ama 
-llane 
-leque 
-achte 
{ae 
Intrans. 
usexcl. . 
usincl. . 
them an. 
it (them inan.?) . 
thee 
you 
him 
