REVIEWS — AMERICAN PHILOLOGY. 445 



conclude that the Algonquin languages are very rich in that part of 

 speech which, were it the case, would furnish a reply to his own 

 hypothesis of the affinity of these languages with those of the Semitic 

 group which are known to he particularly defective in adjectives. But 

 the very contrary is the fact ; few languages we believe exist, in which 

 there is a greater deficiency of purely adjective forms ; those of which 

 Mr. Schoolcraft gives so copious a list being all verbs, mah-nah-dud, 

 »^ffA-?^a^-6?e-^e, signifying not "bad," but "it is bad," "he is bad." 

 muh-Jcuh-da-wah, muh-kuh-da-we-ze, not " black," but it is black, he is 

 black, which words are capable of being put through all moods and 

 tenses, just as other verbs ; and when we need to express the simple 

 adjective, we cannot get nearer to it than by using what for want of a 

 more appropriate designation may be called a participle, mah-yah-nah- 

 duk, " which is bad ;" mah-yah-nah-de-zid, who is bad ; ma-kuh-da- 

 waug, which is black ; ma-kuh-de-we-zid, who is black ; on-e-she-shin, 

 not "good," but " it is good," the participle of which, wa-rae-,sAe-«Am^, 

 stands in Indian translations for our word good as applied to inanimate 

 nouns. This error vitiates the whole of Mr. Schoolcraft's chapter on 

 adjectives ; but, besides this, he has fallen into many errors in his 

 details ; he has restricted the adjectives muj-je, bad ; me-noo, good, 

 which are two of the very few true adjectives of the language, to ani- 

 mate nouns, than which restriction nothing can be more unfounded : 

 these and all other adjectives being applicable without change of form 

 to both animate and inanimate nouns. Even were we not able to 

 draw on our own knowledge for instances innumerable to the contrary 

 of Mr. Schoolcraft's restriction, we find sufficient for our purpose in 

 what he has himself written, for he gives us the expressions muj-je-be- 

 mah-de-ze-win and me-noo-be-mah-de-se-win for bad conduct, good 

 conduct ; also, a little further on, muj-je-kezh-e-gud me-no-ke-zhe-gud, 

 a bad day, a good day. The truth is that the few adjectives that 

 belong to the language are, without exception, undeclinable, i. e., not 

 possessing distinct animate and inanimate, singular and plural forms. 

 A mode of supplying the deficiency of adjectives that is largely prac- 

 ticed by the Indians seems to have escaped the notice of Mr. School- 

 craft, and, what is still stranger, of Bishop Baraga in his grammar, 

 — which, though extremely deficient in clearness and arrangement, is 

 generally very full and correct, — and that omission is the more to be 

 regretted, as it aifords the comparative philologist one of those few links 

 that serve to bind the languages of the new to those of the old world : we 



