REVIEWS AMERICAN PHILOLOGY. 449 



priate if nin-dauw signified "I am a man," or even if it ever so 

 remotely contained the idea of body. 



In the beginning of the chapter on verbs, we have an elaborate 

 dissertation in which the untenable theory of the originally monosyl- 

 labic character of the Algonquin languages is maintained, the author 

 says, page 424, " It is evident that such particles as ak, be, ge were 

 invested with generic meanings before they assumed the concrete 

 forms of a-ke, earth ; ne-be, water ; ge-zis, sky." We would ask. 

 Evident from what ? and what were the ancient generic meanings of 

 those particles ? how does the author know that such was the case ? 

 and, supposing his monosyllabic theory admitted, how does he know 

 that ke, ne, zis were not the particles invested with generic meanings ? 

 for on none of those very natural points of inquiry has he given his 

 readers any information. We have at page 426 an instance of the 

 absurdities into which an unfounded theory will lead a person practi- 

 cally unacquainted with the subject on which he is philosophizing. 

 One would have supposed that the word " JBoz," embark, was suffici- 

 ently short to have been admitted by Mr. Schoolcraft to the dignity 

 of a primitive radix, but not even so thin a hair as this can escape 

 him, he must split it up till not the most microscopic philology can 

 discover its component parts, its "disjecta membra," in the wide field 

 of the Algonquin vocabulary. On this word he has the following 

 very characteristic passage : " This is the simplest form in which the 

 word occurs colloquially, but it will at once be perceived to be a com- 

 pound. Ozh seems to be the root of every species of contrivance 

 designed to float on the water, which has been made with hands ; the 

 latter idea is incorporated in the word and appears to be derived from 

 oo-zTie-ah to make up (v ep) oo-zhe-toon (v anti ep). Osh appears to 

 be the root for the name of a vessel," Now, in the first place, we 

 would ask on what principle it is evident that this word is a compound ? 

 certainly not from Mr. Schoolcraft's own theory of monoysllabic roots 

 for 602; is nearly as short a monosyllable as could be." How does ozh 

 appear to be the root of every species of contrivance designed to float 

 on water ? certainly not from the vocabularies that he has given at 

 the end of his treatise, (which though by no means correct, yet bear 

 marks of having been contributed by persons knowing much more of 

 the language than he does,) for there we find two words, and only two, 

 denoting contrivances designed to float on water, namely : nah-be-quaun 

 — a ship, na-bug-e-chem-aun — a boat, into neither of which, does the 



