MICHELSON.] LINGUISTIC NOTES. 495 
also a corresponding potential in -weni'a: teagiwetoweni' a’megu 
(434.30) all indeed might (would) be taken. See above also. 
§ 42. Terms of relationship in the singular have peculiar vocatives; 
but note that at 396.17 we have negwi’'s** (which is formed exactly 
like that of ordinary nouns) instead of negwi’‘i the common vocative 
singular of negwi’'s** my son. 
§ 47. At 468.24 i’niyiin™’ is used as an obviative singular in place 
of mniyain®” which certainly should be expected. 
We now come to a few points where references to the grammatical 
sketch are not practical. 
Note that at 398.5—6 and 464.4 inanimate forms are made on the basis 
of an animate one: 4 panate’simiga’tugwiin™ and 4‘ panate’simiga’- 
tenig respectively. This a rhetorical device, and not in common use. 
The colloquial form i'- for wi'- as a sign of the future occurs a few 
times; see 452.35; 478.39-40; 482.10. 
At 476.43,478.1 there is a novel obviative construction, ne‘ tamawi- 
we‘tci ne'si’mi an™ as my younger brother has been killed. The 
same phrase occurs also at 478.15. Terminal -we“tci is doubtless the 
same as discussed above; -Amaw- is the same as discussed by me, in 
the sketch § 34, p. 834 et seq.; the -i- is the same as the objective 
pronoun of the first person singular. 
At 476.21 we have maneto’wipani he has the nature of a manitou. 
The whole formation is quite unclear, though the same occurs in 
Kickapoo, e. g., aniiziipAni he is a fine runner, I would have you 
understand, Jones and Michelson, Kickapoo Tales, 56.10 [Publica- 
tions of the American Ethnological Society, Vol. IX]. 
A curious double object construction occurs at 408.1-2 (ki‘natota- 
‘seti’megu you will indeed ask each other for it), and 478.28; 478.31 
(wi i'cinatota'‘se’tiwagi they will thus ask each other for it [see, too, 
478.29]). The medial -ta- will present no difficulties (phonetically for 
-taw-); but the -‘se- is not so easy of solution. And often -'sw- 
occurs in certain forms (before, for example, -AwA“tei, -a"tci, -“¢tci, 
-iyaAme“tci; but -'senani, -‘senage, -‘sigwe). Furthermore, at least 
one informant uses -‘su- everywhere for -'se-. 
At 412.22 -nittci'™ is clearly nothing but an obviative of the third 
person animate plural of the participial. 
A number of forms in -ta'- -taw- clearly belong together, but I 
have not succeeded in clearing up the matter in a satisfactory manner. 
See 392.31; 392.34; 392.36; 420.11; 426.27; 480.5-6. 
At 430.14,15 wi'atapenawa’gwii ‘ini is clearly an obviative belong- 
ing somehow to the interrogative; but its exact systematic posi- 
tion is not yet solved. 
A most extraordinary construction, namely, transitivizing a verbal 
compound ending in the animate copula -‘si- by means of the instru- 
mental particle -m- (which requires an animate object), is found at 
