REVIEWS — AMERICAN PHILOLOGY. 447 



solid, undivided, but is the distributive form of the numeral pa-zhik ; 

 and so pa-pa-zhe-goo-gun-zhe signifies not " the animal with a solid 

 hoof," but " the animal with one hoof to each foot," in contradistinc- 

 tion to cloven-footed animals, as the deer, the bison, which have two 

 hoofs to each foot. Mr, Schoolcraft does not appear to have been aware 

 that the Ojibwa is furnished with a set of distributives formed from 

 the cardinals by prefixing a reduplication ; for example, pa-zhik, one ; 

 pa-pa-zhik, one each ; neezh, two ; na-neezh, two apiece, &c., corres- 

 ponding exactly with the Latin " singuli, bini," &c., in which respect 

 it has the advantage of the Greek, where a circumlocution is used to 

 express the distributive idea. 



We will not dwell long on the chapter of pronouns ; but, having 

 made one or two observations, will hurry on to that on verbs ; and 

 the first error of Mr. Schoolcraft, under that head, that we would 

 point out to his and our readers, is another case of false analysis, so 

 many of which are to be found in the whole treatise. We refer to his 

 remarks on the first word of the Lord's prayer, as it occurs in the 

 translation of the Liturgy of the Church of England now used in the 

 Episcopal missions to the Algonquin tribes both in British North 

 America and in the United States. At page 406 he says : " The 

 term Wa-yoo-se-me-goo-yun, signifying father of all, or universal 

 father, seemed precisely the word wanted ; but it was throwing the 

 object in so general a relation that philosophy alone appeared satisfied 

 with it." The word does not signify " Father of all," nor is there 

 the slightest shade of the idea of universality in it, as will be seen 

 from the following analysis : oos is the radix of the word signify- 

 ing father ; oo-yoo-se, he has a father, which becomes passive by the 

 addition of mah, oo-yoo-se-mah, he is held in the relation of father, of 

 which the participial form of the second person plural is wa-yoo-se- 

 me-goo-yun, "thou whom we have for a father," or "thou who art 

 held as a father :" for it is one of the deficiencies of the language that 

 these two ideas are expressed by the same form, or to speak more 

 exactly, that two different parts of the verb in the course of inflexion 

 bring out the same combination of sounds. Thus " you are loved," 

 and "we love you," are expressed by the same word, a deficiency 

 which, however, is no reproach to the language, seeing that it has it 

 in common with others, and those the vernaculars of highly polished 

 and civilized races ; thus we have in Attic Greek Xvy, 3d sing, subj .. 

 pres. active ; Xvy, the indie, pres. 2d sing, passive, and Xvy, the subj.. 



