MICHELSON ] ALGONQUIAN LINGUISTIC GROUPS 287 
A detailed discussion is uncalled for. It should, however, be noted 
that Abnaki agrees with Fox as opposed to Shawnee (and Passama- 
quoddy) in the forms for Ys—HIM, THEM an. Initial n apparently is 
lost before certain consonants. This accounts for the strange appear- 
ance of certainforms. The form for we (excl.)—uxrM agrees with Fox 
as opposed to Passamaquoddy. HE—uws (excl.) is the equivalent of Fox 
ne—gopena, of the indefinite passive, independent mode. It may be 
noted that Malecite agrees with Passamaquoddy in this respect. 
From Doctor Sapir’s notes it would seem that in Malecite a faint final 
w is retained after k* where etymologically required, which is lost (or 
at least not recorded by Doctor Gatschet) in Passamaquoddy. The 
writer’s available material is too scanty in the case of Malecite and 
Penobscot to give tables for them; but it is certain that they agreed 
essentially with Passamaquoddy and Abnaki. 
As Eastern Algonquian shows certain points in common with 
Cree-Montagnais as opposed to Ojibwa, etc. (see pp. 238, 284) it may 
be that the pan preterite is really a point of contact between East- 
ern Algonquian and the former; but this is forcing matters, as cer- 
tain personal endings of Eastern Algonquian agree with Ojibwa, 
etc. (those shared also by Shawnee), as opposed to Cree-Montagnais. 
(For additional poimts of contact between Eastern Algonquian 
and Cree-Montagnais, see p. 245,in the discussion of the Micmac 
conjunctive.) Despite the usual view of the subject, the relations 
of Eastern Algonquian with Delaware are not close. On consult- 
ing the tables given in the discussion of Delaware it will be seen 
how few terminations of the independent mode phonetically coin- 
cide with those of Passamaquoddy. There are no agreements be- 
tween the two that are not shared either by Fox or Shawnee; as a 
matter of fact, Delaware agrees in some cases with Fox as opposed 
to Shawnee and Eastern Algonquian. But, as was shown in the 
discussion of Delaware, the existing material is poor, and it is 
clear that the several Delaware dialects had different linguistic 
relations. At present, however, there is not sufficient evidence to 
show that any one of the dialects had especially close relations with 
the Eastern branch of the Eastern-Central group of Algonquian 
languages. ‘ 
A table of the Micmae conjunctive from Doctor Gatschet’s notes is 
here given because the one from the writer’s notes and texts contains 
too many unfilled schedules. The table is supplemented by the form 
for HE—Us (excl.), amet, and these intransitive forms are given: 
I WE (excl.) WE (incl.) THOU YE HE THEY (an.) IT, THEY (inan.) 
-ieg -1gwa -in -yo -d -djig 
