290 CLASSIFICATION OF ALGONQUIAN TRIBES [BTH. ANN. 28 
Shawnee, should be emphasized. Owing to the peculiarity in Micmac, 
noted on page 289, it is not possible to be so confident as to whether 
this relationship extends as intimately in this language; but the con- 
junctive mode points in this direction.! 
1Tt will be noticed that on the accompanying map showing the distribution and interrelation of the 
Algonquian dialects (pl. 103), there are many names of dialects not dealt with systematically in the texts. 
This is because the existing material did not make such treatment feasible. The author does not doubt 
that Nanticoke, etc., are Algonquian dialects. (Dr. Frank G. Speck, of the University of Pennsylvania, 
has kindly made for the use of the writer extracts from manuscripts in the library of the American 
Philosophical Society, demonstrating that Nanticoke belongs to the Eastern-Central major division of 
Algonquian languages. Unfortunately verbal forms were practically absent; so until our knowledge of 
Unami, Unalachtigo, and Munsee shall be more extensive, it will not be possible to settle definitely the 
exact position of Nanticoke. Hence it is probable that the other southern Algonquian dialects along 
the Atlantic coast belong to the Eastern-Central division.) In this connection it may be stated that 
Pennacook is assigned to the A bnaki-Micmac group, partly for geographical reasons, partly on account of the 
history of the tribe. The early French and English writers can not be relied on regarding the intimate 
or remote relationships among the various Algonquian dialects, except where they can be corroborated 
by existing dialects. The reason for this is not far to seek. As before stated (p. 237). the Central Algon- 
quian dialects are very intimately related, and philology at the time had not reached a point where fine 
distinctions could be made. It will be remembered how recently it has been possible for philology to 
determine the interrelations of the dialects within the major divisions of Indo-European languages, and 
how deficient even to-day is our knowledge of the interrelations of the major divisions of those languages. 
Moreover, inaccurate phonetics would blur out many distinctive points. It is simply a waste of time to 
attempt to unravel the vagaries of the orthography of the older writers in the case of dialects existing to-day. 
The accompanying map does not attempt torepresent the distribution of Algonquian dialects at any one 
period. It will be remembered that our knowledge of the various tribes was not synchronous. It would 
have been feasible to make a map showing their localities, with dates, provided the interrelations were not 
shown; but the prime object was to show the interrelations. (A case in point is the localization of the 
habitat of the Sauk. They were first known in the eastern peninsula of Michigan, only later in the locality 
shownonthe map.) The authority for the localizations can usually be found in the Handbook of American 
Indians (Bulletin 80,B.A.E.). With respect to the map the following departures from the color scheme 
should be noted: Prince Edward Island and Cape Breton formed part of the Micmac territory. Mani- 
toulin Island and the peninsula between Georgian Bay and Lake Huron were occupied by Ottawa and 
the peninsula between Lakes Superior and Michigan east of the Menominee by Chippewa. 
It may be noted that under the name Abnaki, the Abnaki (properly speaking), Malecite, Passama- 
quoddy, and Penobscot are included. 
The form Chippewa on the map follows that of the Handbook of American Indians; the form Ojibwa 
in the text conforms to the orthography of the Handbook of American Indian Languages (Bulletin 40, 
B.A.E.). ; 
From Edwards’ Observations on the Language of the Muhhekaneew Indians, reprinted in Mass. Hist. 
Coll., 2d ser., X (Boston, 1823), p. 81 ff., some notes may be made on the language of the Indians of 
Stockbridge, Mass., though unsystematically. The words amisque BEAVER, spummuck HEAVEN at once 
show the dialect does not belong with Delaware. So does pawmseauk WE (excl. or incl.?) WALKING 
(Fox pémusdyage or -yAgwe) by lacking a nasal in the pronominal ending. The words npehtuhquisseh- 
nuh WE ARE TALL, nmeetsehnuh WE EAT (both exclusive in formation) demonstrate that the dialect is 
not to be associated with Natick, Delaware, or the Abnaki group. The termination n—nuh suggests that 
the termination for WE incl. intrans. was k—nuh: this last coincides with a variant Cree correspondent 
given by Lacombe. On the other hand n—nuh and k—nuh resemble very much the Menominee corre- 
spondents save the lack of the m syllable. On a later occasion the writer will return to this particular 
point. Hereit may be said that the m + vowel is not so vitally important as the other portions of the 
termination. The phonetics of metoogue woop are also against intimate relationship with Cree. The 
word ktuhwhunoohmuh I LOVE you resembles closest the Natick form; but nduhwhunuw I LOVE HIM 
has a different look. The phonetics of nogh MY FATHER suggest affinity with Delaware; cf. nuZwa MY 
FATHER (Sapir). These notes were made subsequent to the printing of the map (pl. 103). 
It is needless to say that all Algonquian tribes and subtribes could not be shown on the map for want 
of space. 
