MICHBLSON.] LINGUISTIC NOTES. 615 
(f) Simple condition, future tense in both clauses: present sub- 
junctive with wi- in the protasis, and independent future in apodosis. 
Example: winata’we'site ... . kiute'tena’megu (572.5, 6) if he 
shall desire it . . . . you will get it back. 
(g) “Less vivid future” condition of Greek grammarians: present 
subjunctive in the protasis, potential subjunctive in the apodosis. 
Example: pe’mwiyane awi’ta nana’‘ci me’cewi kap** (564.27-28) 
if you should shoot at me you would never hit me. Notice that 
from the Fox point of view this kind of a conditional sentence is 
exactly the same as that of a condition contrary to fact, past time, 
treated under (a). 
Clauses with ‘‘as soon as’’ and the future perfect of the independent 
mode.—There are a few sentences in the Indian text contained in 
this volume which from the English point of view should be translated 
“as soon as”’ with the future perfect indicative. In Fox the case is 
naturally different. The Fox terminations of the entire series is not 
known, though it is likely such a series must have existed. The ter- 
mination for the third person intransitive animate plural is -watini; 
that for thou ... him, her, them (an.) in the transitive forms is 
-Atini. Clearly these forms approach the present subjunctive in 
formation, but also the conjunctive of the interrogative mode. An 
entirely satisfactory solution can not be given on the basis of the 
forms available. Examples will be found at 576.44, 588.21, 588.23, 
588.28. 
The word a'ki‘ce'si’giiwa ‘tc! (604.32) they finished cooking, is pecu- 
liar though the formation is clear; the stem is ki‘ci- “‘completion;” 
-'s- an instrumental particle meaning done by heat; -igi- is naturally 
the animate auxiliary. This explanation, though no doubt correct, 
has some anomalies. 
A pair of peculiar compounds are ke’gi‘kwiwe and kega’pend'™ 
(both at 596.40), meaning “including women” and “including 
children,” respectively. Obviously kegi- is the same as the verbal 
stem kegi- “have with one.’ The terminal e is the same as in the 
case of adverbs and is attached to the nominal stems. 
The word dé uke'kyaimig** (572.11) ‘our elders’? apparently is 
anomalous in formation, but in reality it is not; the u and m are as 
in ordinary possessives; i is the animate auxiliary; i—gi as in indefi- 
nite third persons in the conjunctive. 
A wholly anomalous third person inanimate singular with poten- 
tial or probable force is to be seen in i'cige’no'apa (608.22) it must 
be so, I guess. There are formations in Kickapoo and other Al- 
gonquian languages which are evidently related to this type, but 
the form is too isolated at present to be definitely solved. 
If the text is correct, we have morphological and syntactical pecu- 
liarities at 580.23-24. 
A breach of concordance apparently is to be seen at 606.42—43 
unless one plural is the plural of majestatis. 
