immMti 173 



would probably elicit new light respecting some doubtful points in the 

 language, and contribul curious collateral topic — 



the history of Indian opinions [ h d the principle broadly, 



without filling up the si . m fully aa il is in my power, 



and without following its bearings upon points, which will more properly 

 • under discussion, .-it other stages of the inquiry. A sufficient out- 

 line, it is believed, has been given, and having thus met, at the threshold, 

 • principle deeply laid at the foundation of the language, and one which 

 will be perpetually recurring,] shall proceed to enumerate some ether 



prominent features of the suhstai.; 



8 \ - » defective, as to he totally without nam- 



Hat there, are. probably, !<w which furnish so many modes of 



indicating it, as the Ojibwai. Th< • many modes of forming the 



plural, as there are vowel sounds, yet there i-s no distinction between a 



limited and unlimited plural ; although there is, in the pronoun, an inclu - 



sire and an exclusive plural. Whether we say manor men, two men 



or twenty men. the singular, inin i, and the plural ininiwug, remains tin; 



But if we sag we, or us, or our men, (who are present,) or we, 



or us. or our Indians, (in general,) the plural we, and us, and our — for 



they are rendered by the same form — admit of a change to indicate 



whether I ibe weft luded. This principle, 



rmch full \en under the appropriate head, forms 



i f particular plurals. And it 

 of the pronouns, separable and insepa- 

 rable] 'ini: the necessity of double 



nddoublc as, in the plural forms of the first pen 



Thus, the term for ( Kir Father, which, in the inclusive form, - K- nnan, 

 the exclufl tan, 



T • alar plural, which is thus, by the transforming power of the 



, carried from the pronoun into the texture of the verb and sub- 

 stantive, is not limited to any fixed number of] .but 



rb. The general plural is variously 



But the plural, making inflections tak<- upon themselves an ad- 



. by which substantives are distinguished into 



and inanimaJ Without this additional !1 nouns 



plural, would end in the vowi But to mark the gender the 



and the 1' tt<T n, to inanimaf- s, making the 

 j lur -.d of the i 



and class in In, een,in, on, un. Ten modes of forming the plural are 



