CHAPTER IV.

LANGUAGES OF THE NORTH AMERICAN INDIANS

Of a subject so imperfectly understood as that now before us, little can be said, without some risk of falling into error. It is probable that the threefold division, long since made by Mr. Heckewelder, of the Indian languages, spoken within the territory of the United States, may be well founded; and every advance of discovery has but confirmed the views respecting the character of these languages, which were long since elicited and announced in the correspondence between Heckewelder and Mr. Duponceau. We may speak with confidence in relation to all the dialects of the Algonkin, or Lenni Lennape, by which we mean all those having a manifest resemblance to the Delaware, or the Ojibbeway, not only in all the principal peculiarities of structure and idiom, but also in the sound of words. But whenever assertions, founded on an acquaintance with the languages of this family, are, without careful examination, extended to other branches of the American race, they should doubtless be received with caution. It may very probably be true, that the American languages, from one extremity of the continent to the other, have the family resemblance which is so manifest in the physical peculiarities of the race; but this should neither be assumed nor admitted until it has been proved.

That etymology has been of some use in historical inquiries, no one will doubt; but the evidence it affords is commonly fallacious, and where it elucidates one fact, it obscures a thousand. We know, says Sir William Jones, _a posteriori_, that _fitz_ and _hijo_, by the nature of two several dialects, are derived from _jilius_; that _uncle_ comes from _avus_, and _stranger_ from _extra_; that _jour_ is deducible, through the Italian, from _dies_, and _rossignol_ from _luscinia_, or the _singer in groves_: that _sciuro ecureuil_, and _squirrel_, are compounded of two Greek words, descriptive of the animal; which etymologies, though they could not have been demonstrated _a priori_, might serve to confirm, if any such confirmation were necessary, the proofs of a connection between the members of one great empire.

Philogists, on the ground solely of etymology, or rather of similarity and dissimilarity of sound, assign to the limited territory of the United States, many different languages; and if they are content to assign these different languages, as they are pleased to call them, a common origin, and that at no very remote period, it is a matter of indifference how many stocks they enumerate. But if they would claim for each stock a different origin, the sober inquirer will certainly receive their opinions with caution.

It has been stated, that the languages of North America are not only etymologically different from those of Europe and Asia, but that their grammatical forms are also essentially unlike. Either to support or to controvert this assertion, would require a more extensive acquaintance both with American and European languages, than it falls to the lot of many to possess. We may remark, however, that the _synthetic_, or _agglutinated_ structure, is met with in many other languages. _Riggajuhsamat’haroa_, according to Goverdhan Caul, is a compound word in the Sanscrit, made up of _rich_, _yajush_, _saman_; and _at’harvan_, _gauripituriswaren-draciranaihpushyat-sitimnogireh_, is a word in the same language, which may challenge comparison with any of the long and unutterable compounds in the Indian tongues; and at page 361, Vol. I. of the Asiatic Researches, we have the translation of a word which reaches _one hundred and fifty-two syllables_. Some of the compound words in the Greek and Latin, as well as in the English, seem to be formed in a manner precisely analogous to corresponding words in the American dialects. Resemblances and disagreements of this kind, as well as those purely etymological, doubtless may be traced between all languages. _Awight_, the Saxon word equivalent to _aliquid_, has certainly an etymological resemblance to _ahwao_, the same word in the Menomonie dialect; but it will not be inferred from this, or many similar instances, that the Menomonies are of Saxon origin. When we read the conjectures of the most learned and sagacious etymologists, that not only _qualis_ and _talis_; but πηλιος, and τηλιος, have been supposed to come from the Moeso-Gothic _leiks_, and immediately from _guhdeiks_ and _thalik_, whence came also the Anglo-Saxon _thylic_, _lic_, _like_. We shall scarce wish to base upon such a foundation our opinions concerning the early history, or the subsequent migrations of nations. It is admitted that many of the American languages are similar in construction and general outline, and when we see how wide and devious have been the wanderings of the _roots_, even in written languages, we shall cease to expect uniformity of sound, or similar etymology in the various members of a race exposed to numberless and diversified influences in the widely separated parts of our vast continent.

Of two great families of Asiatic languages, or dialects, one abounds in polysyllabic and compound words, and inflected verbs, like the more commonly known American tongues. This family includes the _Persian_, _Sanscrit_, and many others. The second, to use the language of the learned President of the Asiatic Society, _abhors the composition of words_, and also the inflection of verbs. To the latter class belong the Hebrew, the Arabic, and some others; and between these and our dialects strong resemblances have been pointed out, or may be easily discovered from the Hebrew, or some of its kindred idioms, from the Sanscrit, or from the Tartar stock, it is probable the American languages must originally have been derived. But when we have good reason to believe that a rude and wholly illiterate people, removed from a low and fertile, to a cold and mountainous country, will, in the course of a few centuries, entirely change their language, why should we hope to be able to trace the dialects of our Indians satisfactorily to their parent stock?

In a great measure, if not equally vague, must be all conjectures based on mythological opinions and traditionary customs. We believe that those who have been extensively acquainted with our Indians, and have witnessed the variety of forms and dresses in which the same tradition appears, when related in different dialects, will place little reliance on opinions concerning remote history, deduced from such traditions.

One species of relics, found westward of the Mississippi, and perhaps elsewhere, may be thought to afford more conclusive evidence than all derived from language and customs, that the race of Ham have, for immemorial ages, inhabited our country. I allude to those rocks bearing very distinct and deeply indented figures, resembling the impressions of human feet. That these are works of art, is unquestionable, and being found in mountainous and scarce accessible parts of the country, remote from any of the present seats of population, or routes of communication, they afford, by their aspect of undoubted antiquity, conclusive evidence, that in ages long since elapsed, regions now desolate were tenanted, and that a wandering and hunter-population, has succeeded to one whose habits of settled industry enabled them to leave such durable monuments. I am satisfied that a person, in any measure familiar with the valuable records of the Asiatic Society, cannot visit a locality of these ancient relics, without being reminded of a passage in the _Puranes_, where King _Stravana_ is described “on the _white mountains_, meditating on the traces of the _divine foot_.” We are assured, by credible travellers, that this language is not understood figuratively, but that the people of the east boast of stones in their country, on which footsteps are discernible, which they assert are those of _Vishnu_. What is more probable, on the supposition that a branch of this race early found their way to America, than that crafty priests, or persons still possessing some of the arts of the east, should have engraved these figures from the same motives that have supplied similar memorials for the worshippers of _Vishnu_ and _Satyavrata_?

But though we cannot reasonably hope to derive from the study of the American languages and dialects, any very important assistance to aid inquiries into the remote history and connections of the various tribes who speak them, yet there is one view in which these languages will always excite a degree of interest. In them we have an authentic record of a portion of the history of the human mind. To the inquirer of any age, or any nation, who would enlarge his acquaintance with the powers and properties, the capabilities and the propensities of the minds of men, this field can never be entirely uninviting. Human language, it is probable, must ever vary with the degree of refinement, the various revolutions in the manner of thinking, and the endless variations of external influence, to which, in progress of time, they must be exposed. It is well known to every one conversant with the subject of languages generally, that, viewed summarily and superficially, language presents a great, not to say an infinite number of families and dialects. But the Mosaic account of creation, as well as the conclusions of the more sane of the physiologists and natural historians, assure us that all mankind are descended from a single pair, who could consequently have spoken but one language. It is by many supposed that some of the existing dialects spoken as mother tongues at the present day, must have been in being in the ages immediately succeeding the general deluge. At the time of this great catastrophe, it may perhaps be safely supposed, that among the eight persons saved in the ark, but one dialect was commonly spoken, as we have the positive assurance of the inspired historian, that until some time after the deluge, all the earth was of one speech and of one language; according to the computation commonly received in Europe, it is not more than four thousand years since all men spoke a common language. The inquiry which naturally presents itself is, whether the existing ramifications can be satisfactorily traced through any common branches, or directly to their union with the primeval trunk. It may be difficult to clear up this question, as the investigation presupposes a more extensive acquaintance with ancient and modern languages, than falls to the share of many to possess. Yet if, upon careful examination, we find a part, or all the dialects of the American race agreeing, not in the sound of words, but in certain grammatical peculiarities, which have an intimate and inseparable connection with the structure and genius of the language, as some of the physical peculiarities of the race depend unalterably on temperament and peculiarity of structure, co-extensive with the race, we shall then be compelled to adopt one or the other of these conclusions, namely, that all these dialects, or languages, have been derived from the same stock; or, secondly, if, with Malte Brun and others, we admit a number of different emigrations from remote parts of the world, we must then conclude that not only language, but physical conformation, is modified, moulded, and revolutionized by the influence of situation and external causes. If we admit the latter conclusion, and believe that our American race are the descendants of people who came at different and remote periods, from Asia, from Africa, and from Europe, we may then dismiss the inquiry at once. Having admitted the position, that the American languages are now all of the same family, that is, that they resemble each other as much as the men of the different bands and tribes, in external aspect, physical constitution, and moral character, resemble each other, we may cease to inquire whence they derive the peculiarities of person and language, by which they are distinguished from all other men. But we believe that an hypothesis of this kind will gain few advocates among considerate and well-informed inquirers. We believe there will be found in the languages, manners, traditions, as well as in the physical conformation and character of our Indians, proofs sufficient to satisfy the candid inquirer, that they are derived from the Asiatic stock, but not from that branch of it to which belonged the haughty, the noble, the unconquered race of Ishmael; or to that race, more interesting by their history, but less pleasing in person, manners, and character, to which were committed the premises, and from which, according to the flesh, sprang the Saviour of the world. The idea has been a favourite one with many ingenious and pious men, that in our native Americans we see the long lost tribes of Israel. Ingenuity and argument, as far as they can be carried, unsupported by a firm basis of facts, have been exhausted in the discussion of this question. We propose not to enter the field of argument. We admit that several of the usages of the Indians, such as their rigid separation of females during menstruation, the care with which they, in certain feasts or sacrifices, watch that no bone of the victim shall be broken, and many others, form points of strong resemblance between this race and the Hebrews. Yet the one fact, that their languages all delight in the composition of words, sufficiently satisfies us that they cannot have been derived from that stock to which belongs the Hebrew, the Chaldaic, and the Arabic. Other arguments, which, to many minds, will not appear equally conclusive, may be derived from their total ignorance of the rite of circumcision, their considering the flesh of dogs as acceptable, in sacrifice, to their deities, etc. etc. The two facts last mentioned may be allowed to have as much weight in an argument against Hebrew original, as the separation of females, and the practice of preserving entire the bones of animals eaten in war feasts, can have for it. And thus would it be easy to bring some countervailing objection to answer every one of the arguments founded on the customs and opinions of the Indians. It is not, I believe, at this time considered necessary to meet such proofs as those of Adair, which never had any other existence than in his own fancy, nor need we take into consideration the multiplied arguments, and the ingenious speculations of others, who, without sufficient acquaintance with the habits, languages, and opinions either of the remote Hebrews or of our own Indians, have gone about to establish the belief of a strong similarity between them. In the way of a summary answer to all the arguments of these men, we may be allowed to state, that in language, rather than in any other character, would the descendants of a people retain some resemblance to their remote ancestors. Religious ceremonies, civil and domestic customs, in the exposed and wandering life of barbarians, all whose thoughts must often, and perhaps for a greater part of the time, be absorbed in the necessary, and sometimes painful and laborious struggle for self-preservation, often would be intermitted and dispensed with. Previous usages would change to suit the new and ever varying condition of the people. So might language. But being indispensable to the intercourse of every day and every moment, in all situations and emergencies, and unlike religious observances of such a nature, that what is spoken to-day may, under any circumstances, with equal convenience, be spoken to-morrow, and with infinitely more facility than new signs can be invented or understood, is it not reasonable that language, of all those things pertaining to men, by which their family identity might be marked, should change slowest and last?

No extensive acquaintance with our Indians, and their languages, is required to perceive, that in all emergencies of necessity, as in those instances where they are compelled to exchange ideas with foreigners, they readily adopt any terms in a foreign idiom, for which they may not find a corresponding sign in their own; and words thus adopted becoming parts of their own language, are subject to all the inflections and modifications of sound of those which appertain originally to their tongue. Hence that diversity in sound of words in the various dialects, which bids defiance to etymological, or rather phonological investigation. But though sounds, which, for the sake of illustration, may be compared to planks on the frame of a vessel, or shingles on the roof of a house, may be, one by one, removed and substituted by new ones, still the original frame of the language, the grammatical construction, the idiomatic forms, remaining the same, the language certainly remains the same language, though altogether changed in sound, as a vessel, covered with new planks of a different colour and aspect, would still be the same vessel. Therefore, we think that if the American languages can be proved closely and entirely to resemble each other in grammatical forms and general arrangement, we may safely consider them all as dialects of the same stock, though they should now present wide and apparently unaccountable diversities in the sounds of words. How much more easily the sounds of words, standing for the ideas we have in our minds, may be changed, than the grammatical structure and idiom of language, we may every day observe in foreigners, who, though they may ever so carefully and perfectly have learned our language, rarely, if ever, attain to some of the niceties peculiar to our tongue, or ever lay entirely aside some of the characteristic peculiarities of their own. If we reflect on the habits of the life the Indians lead, their frequent migrations, intermarriages with distant bands, their conquests, the numbers of prisoners they adopt, and, more than all, the want of any written characters to represent sounds of what are acknowledged to be the same words in different dialects of the same tongue; nor shall we hastily, on the foundation of mere diversity of sound, attempt to establish a multiplicity of different stocks. It is to be remembered, that the Americans have never, like the ancient Arabs, made the improvement of their idiom a common, or, in any shape, a general or public concern; they have never appointed solemn assemblies for the purpose of exercising their poetical talents, or held it a duty to make their children acquainted with traditionary compositions of any sort, which measures, even had they been adopted, could not have effectually secured their languages against mutations of sound or structure.

But although we can by no means pretend either to trace the American languages to the remote parent stock, or to assert that they have or have not been derived from existing and known languages, we may easily group together those which have manifest resemblance equally in structure and in the sound of words, and the groups thus formed will always be found to bring together assemblages of people, showing strong family resemblance to each other. The threefold division which was long since made by Mr. Heckewelder, of the languages within the United States’ territory, is probably founded in correct observation of the district at that time known. The Lenni Lennape, or Algonkin, the Iroquois, and the Floridian, presenting each numerous and widely dissimilar dialects, occupy all the country from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to Cape Florida, and westward to and beyond the Mississippi. Of the languages spoken in the remote and almost unexplored countries about the Rocky Mountains, too little information has been obtained, to enable us to indicate to what extent the dialects of either of the above mentioned groups may prevail in that direction. Toward the north the Iroquois seem to be limited to a few remaining in the settled parts of Canada, and to the Dahcotah bands extending northward, in the direction of the upper branches of the Mississippi, but scarce reaching the parallel of forty degrees north. Beyond this the Algonkin dialects, particularly the Ojibbeway and Cree, and the Muskegoe, expand through all the country, from near the base of the Rocky Mountains to the south western shores of Hudson’s Bay, and even in the vast peninsula of Labrador.

Westward of Hudson’s Bay, from the Churchill River to the Pacific coast, and northward to the country of the Esquimaux, are found the languages of the Chip-pe-wi-yan[65] group, including the people commonly called Chippewyans, the Sarcess, the Beaver, Red Knife, Strong Bow Indians, and many other tribes. Here we meet with a language far more monosyllabic than any hitherto known among the North Americans; one possessing a dual termination for substantives, but no plural, and whose verbs are nearly or quite incapable of inflection. Yet in the circumstance of a tendency to compounding, we find it not unlike other dialects. The peculiarities of these languages are as yet too little understood to enable the philologist to pronounce with confidence that they have any nearer resemblance to the Algonkin or the Iroquois, than to the Erse or German. Yet the people who speak them have, in their persons, all the prominent peculiarities of the American race.

Of all the remaining parts of North America, information is too scanty to justify any attempt to class the dialects.

In the present state of information on these subjects, more important service will be rendered to philology, by adding to the mass of materials, than by any vague and general discussions; we shall therefore devote the remainder of this chapter to such specimens of Indian languages as have fallen in our way, premising that our aim has been to conform, as nearly as possible, to the orthography of the English language.[66] This orthography is liable to many objections; so also would be any other that could be devised. The sounds of letters must always be somewhat arbitrary, inasmuch as there is no manner of resemblance between the sign and the thing signified.

COMPARISON OF WORDS AND SENTENCES IN THE DIALECTS OF THE OTTAWWAWS AND MENOMONIES

_Ottawwaw._—_Menomonie._—_English._—_Free translation, etc._

Me-notch-pun-gee—Me-na-wutch—A little.

O-ta-me-ne-kwain—Kut-tai-me-no—He will drink. He will drink a little.

Tun-ish-win—Tah-tah-we-nah—Wherefore.

Mow-wy-un?—Us-moke?—Doth he cry?

Ka-gaw-pung-ge-zhe-moke—Ka-zho-nicut—Near sun set. Almost sun set.

Kaw-ween—Kun—Not.

Neen-dah-koose-se—Ne-wa-suk-ko-si-nun—I was not sick.

Ke-tah-koose-nah?—Ke-wa-suk-ko-si-met?—Art thou sick?

Kuh-kish-pin-at-tone-nah?—Kau-to-te-pai-hai-met?—Wilt thou buy? For substances inanimate, or animals not entire, except a stone is spoken of. In the case of entire, or living bodies, Kuh-kish-pin-a-nah-nah, etc.

Ke-pe-nu-gin-nah—Ke-pe-now-wuk-ket—Doest thou bring

She-she-buk?—Sha-shai-puk?—ducks?

Ke-pe-nu-gin-nah—Ke-pe-now-wuk-ket—Dost thou bring

She-sheeb?—Sha-shaip?—a duck? More commonly the order of arrangement is the reverse; Sha-shaip-ke-pe-now, etc.

En-to-kwain—Nin-nauk—I know not.

Ga-get-nah—Kat-ten-nah—Indeed (is)

O-ke-mah-ow?—O-ko-mow-waw-wew?—he is a chief? Is he indeed a chief? or, doth he chief? The resemblance to the Greek Βασιλενω, and the Latin _Regno_, both in composition and signification, need not be pointed out to the philologist.

O-wa-nain—Wah-ne—Who

Gos-kitche-ah-na-pwa-ot?—Skesh-suk-ke-poutch?—bit his nose off?

Nish-a-nau-ba—Ma-cha-ti (adj.?)—An Indian

We-ko-mi-ko-onk—We-ko-mik-ko—at the lodge

We-tush-e—Owa—he will be

Ke-wus-kwa-be—Ke-wus-ke-pe-nun—drunk. He will be drunk at the Indian lodge.

Een-gah-ke-way—Nuh-ke-waim—I will go home. For the ideas of fitness, propriety, personal beauty, and fine quality, as of a blanket, etc., they commonly use the same word.

Bo-zin—Po-she-nun—Embark, (imper.)

Kitche-kwi-naitch—Na-sha-wis-ke-wuh—it is very well

Bo-au-zi-un—Us-hab-po-si-un—that you embark.

O-wa-nain-waw-te-ga-mut?—Wah-wia-ke-mut?[67]—With whom lives he?

Ke-wus-shiz-ze-wuk—Ka-wis-so-wuk ah-wuk—They are orphans.

Ke-we-ah-m’woi-gin-nah?—Push-ke-mwow-wuk-ket?—Will you eat?

Me-she-min-ug?—Me-she-min-uk?—apples?

Maung—Mouk—A loon.

Ma-za-tah-go-zit—Kou-ke-to—he yells. A loon yells.

We’metai-we-wug—Kut-tai-metai-we-wuk—They will have metai.

A-gaw-mink—A-gaw-me—on the other side. They are about to have a medicine dance and feast on the other side of the river.

Kitche—Ketch—Very much

Ke-te-mah-ki-zhe—Ka-ti-mok-ka-zhit—he is poor. He is very poor.

A-gaw-mink—A-gaw-me-um—From the other side

Ne-to-an-je-bah—Ne-to-pe-um—I came. I came across, or from the other side.

Win-ne-ba-go-kwi—Win-ne-ba-go-ke-wun—A Winnebago woman

Mi-uk-e-kway-wan—Wa-wa—he wives;

_Pun-gee_ Ome-nom-o-ne-wew—_Me-na-wutch_ ah-wew—a little, he Menomonies. A Winnebago woman is his wife, himself is a sort of a Menomonie. The arrangement of the words differs in the two dialects. The termination _ah-wew_, which marks the verb, being separated in the Menomonie.

Ah-gwut-ching—A-guat-chew—Without. Out side of the lodge.

Nish-a-nau-haig—Ma-cha-ti-wuk—Indians

Ta-kosh-in-oag—Pe-wuk—they come,

Che-to-wug—Ah-wauk—they say. Indians are coming, they say; or, it is said, Indians are coming.

Ke-ke-waw-nem—Ke-ka-no-kim—Thou liest,

Ke-sa-ah-gis-in-nah?—Ke-ko-ti-met?—Dost thou fear?

Nah-wutch—Ko-kai-win-ne-ko—More

Ke-zhe-kah—Ke-she-ah—he is swift. He is swifter.

U-ne-shaw—Ne-shup-naip—Without cause,

Tah-neen-a-ke-toi-un?—Kis-ke-zha-met? what sayest thou? Εμισησαν με δωρεαν, John xv. 25. “They hated me, _without cause_,” is a form of expression similar to this in the dialect of the Monomonies. _Nas-kup-nai_ ke-pe-um-met? _Without cause, or for nothing_, didst thou come?

Tah-neen a-ke-tote?—Kus-ha-wat-to?—What saith he?

Kub-ba—Ko-pai—Throughout

Ke-zhik—ka-zhik—the day.

Kom-ma-cee, or, kaw-ma-cie—Kun-ne-mah-shew—Not yet

Ne-we-she-ne-se—Ne-meet-che-shim—I eat. I have not yet eaten, or, it is before I have eaten.

No-pe-mik[68]—No-pa-ma—Back

Pe-po-nish-she—Kin-nuh-pe-po-nup-pa—thou wilt winter. The Ottawwaw is in the imperative mood; the Menomonie, in the future, used as imperative.

_Tau-ne-pe_—Ko-pai-pe-pone—All winter,

Ke-pe-po-ne-sheak?—_Tae_ s-kesh-pe-po-na-piak?—when did ye winter? There is here some difference in the arrangement of the words.

Pe-po-nunk?—Winters.

Tau-ne-pe—Tas—Where

Ke-ne-bin-e-she?—O-e-at-ne-bin ah-kwo?—didst thou summer? Where didst thou remain throughout the summer? is the translation of the sentence in Menomonie.

Pe-kwut-tinn-onk—Pe-kwut-ti-no—At Peguttino

Ko-pa-een-je-tah—Ne-kes-kim-me-no ko-pa-ne-bin—I remained all summer.

Tau-ne-pe ke-pe-po-ne-shit—Tas-kesh-pe-po-nup-pet—Where did he winter,

Ke-si-ah?—Ka-sha—thy elder brother? Where did thy elder brother pass the winter?

Tau-ne-pe as-hi-at—Tas-e-et—where remains

Non-gum—Muh-no-nah-new—now

Ke-si-ah?—Ka-sha?—thy elder brother? Where is now your elder brother?

Shi-a—Sha—Soon

Neen-gah-waw-bo-maw—Nuh-nah-wow—I shall see

Ne-si-ah—Na-sha—my elder brother.

Paw-ne-maw—Kun-new—By and by

Neen-gah—Nuh—I shall

Kus-kau-dum—Kus-kai-ne-tum—sorrow. By and by I shall be sorry.

No-pe-mik—No-pa-ma—From back

Nee’toan-je-bah—Ne-to-pe-um—I came. I came from _the lands_, or from the interior.

Ke-ke-pe-mish kaw-nah?—Oos-ke-pish o-met-us-pe-um?—Didst thou paddle? Didst thou come by water? The expressions are not similar in the two dialects.

Kaw-ween—Kum—No;

Pazh-ko-ka-she—Pazh-ko-ka-she—a horse

Neen-pe-pa-mo-mik—Ne-pish-nio-nik—me did bring. No; I came on horse back.

Pah-ti-e-no-wug—Ma-sha—Many

In-nah.

Kah-pe-we-je-wuh-jik?—Pish-we-je-waw-wuk-ket?—did they accompany thee? Did many persons come with thee? _Ket_, at the end of the Menomonie verb, has the force of _in-nah_, or _nah_, which is the mark of interrogation in the Ottawwaw.

Nah-nun—Ne-an-nun—Five

Neen-ge-pe-we-je-wauk—Pish-we-je-waw-wuk—accompanied. Five persons came with me.

‘Nin-ne’ wi-gun—Match-o-to o-kau-nun—Man’s bones

Neen-ge-me-kah-nun—Ne-mah-kun-un—I found. I found human bones, or, the bones of a man.

Tau-ne-pe-ke-ke muh-kum-un—Tas-kesh mak-kaw-mun—Where didst find

O-kun-nun?[69]—O-kau-nun?—bones? Where did you find bones?

Pe-guh-kum-me-gah-sink—Spaw-ke-uh—On a mound

Neen-ge-me-kaw-nun—Ne-mah-kun—I found

O-kun-nun—O-kau-nun—bones. _Ne-nah-kun_, in the Menomonie, appears to be in the past time, without the usual syllable to mark it.

Puk-kau-nun—Puk-kau-nuk—Nuts,

Ne-kish-pin-at-to-nun—Ne-kesh-tah-pah-hak-wuk—I bought them. These examples are not entirely similar; the verb used in the Menomonie being found also in the other dialect, and in both meaning TO PAY, though it is commonly thus used by the Menomonies.

Gau-gwug—Ke-ti-me-wuk—Porcupines,

Me-na-sun—Me-na-sun—thorn apples

Tumm-wow-waun—Ke-me-wuk—they eat. Porcupines eat thorn apples.

Maung—Mouk—A loon

Wi-e-buh be-che-sa—Os-ke-pew—comes early—A loon comes early in spring.

Mau-na-sheens—Mau-na-sha-sha—A fawn

Nah.

Ke-pe-nau?—Ke-pe-now?—dost thou bring? Have you brought a fawn?

Mau-na-sheen-suk—Mau-na-sha-shuk—Fawns

Nah-ke-pe-naug?—Ke-pe-now-wuk-ket?—dost thou bring? Have you brought fawns?

We-yaus-in-nah—Ma-ja-ma-sha—Meat

Ke-pe-tone?—Ke-pe-to-met?—dost thou bring? Do you bring meat?

O-pe-neeg in-nah—O-pai-neuk—Potatoes

Ke-pe-naug?—Ke-pe-now-wuk-ket?—dost thou bring? Do you bring potatoes?

Waw-was-kesh—Pah-zhus—Red deer.

Ka-go—Poan—Do not.

Gi-as-koo-sha—Pas-ke—A gull.

O-nu-mun—O-nah-mum—Red paint.

Min-ne-kwain—Me-nai-nun—Drink thou.

Kok-kin-nah—Mow-wo—All.

O-way-o—Way-uk—Some one

Ne-ke-me-nik—Ne-kesh-ma-nik—me did give. Some one gave it me.

Mok-kuk-ti-wah—Op-pa-je—Black.

Wah-ne—Wah—Who

Wa-che-mau-net?—O-tos-hiah-wik?[70]—is that canoe? Whose canoe is that?

Neesh o-ke-maig—Neesh o-ka-mow-wuk—Two chiefs

Che-mau-ne-wah—O-to-now—it is their canoe. It is the canoe of two chiefs.

Bo-che-kwet—Bo-che-kwet-to—To Green Bay

We-shaw-wuk—Kut-tai we-she-wuk—they will go. They will go to Green Bay, or, Bo-che-kwet.

O-wus-he-mah—Ko-kai-win-ne-ko—More

At-ta o-nis-he-shin—Pus ne-ma-no—could I well

Ne-tai-pe-mah-te-ze—Pa-mah-ta-shim—live

Je-ba-gom-mi-gonk—Je-pi me-ne-kaw-ne—in the town of the dead. I could be more happy to die; or, in the village of the dead I could live better.

Kee-ta-ne-mo-siew-nah?—A-na-mo-neen ke-tai-wim-met?—Art thou a dog?

Ah neet-ane-moose—On-kah’a-nam ne-tai-wim—Yes, I am a dog.

Je-bu-ka-nong—Je-pi e-mik-kun—Road of the dead.

OJIBBEWAY WORDS AND PHRASES.

Fire—Ish-koo-da. Fires—Ish-koo-daig.

Smoke of a distant fire—Puk-kwa-na.

Water—Nee-be.

Ice—Mik-kwun.

Earth—Ah-ke.

Land—Ah-ke.

A little ground—Pun-ge-sha-ah-ke.

Big, big lake—Gitche-gitche-gum-me.[71]

Wave—Tego. Waves—Te-go-wug.

Lake—Sah-gi-e-gun.

Shore—Tid-e-ba.

On the shore—Cheeg-a-beeg.

Island—Me-nis. Islands—Me-nis-un.

River—Se-be. Rivers—Se-be-wun.

Dirty pond—Pe-to-beeg. Small clear pond—Ne-bis.

Rivulet—Se-bo-wis-sha.

Rivulet, or small River—Se-be-ainse.

Up the river—O-ge-tah-je-wun.

Down the river—Nees-sah-je-wun.

Falls—Bow-we-tig.

Rapids—Sah-sah-je-wun.

Boiling spring—Mo-kid-je-wun ne-beeg.

Crossing place—Ah-zhug-ga-win.

Banks of a river—Kosh-kut-te-naunk.

Forks—Saw-waw-koo-te-kwi-aig.

Left hand side—Mum-mun-je-nik e-nuh-kuh-ka-yah.

Right hand—Gitche-nik.

Portage—One-gum.

Hill—Pe-kwut-te-naw.

Mountain—Wud-ju. Mountains—Mud-ju-wun.

Valley—Nas-sah-wut-te-naug.

Valley—Tah-wut-te-naug.

Path—Me-kun-nuh.

War road—Nun-do-bun-ne me-kun-nuh.

Stone—Us-sin. Stones—Us-sin-neeg.

Rock—Ah-zhe-beek.

Sand—Na-gow.

Clay—Waw-be-gun.

Dirt of houses—We-ah-gus-se.

Mud—Uz-zish-ke.

Cavern in rock—Ween-bah-zho-ke-kah.

Cavern, or hole in ground—Weem-baiah.

Salt—She-we-tau-gun.

Salt spring—She-we-tau-gun e-mo-gitche-wun-ne-beeg.

Deer lick—Om-waush ke-wa-wa.

Metal—Pe-waw-be-ko.

Gold—O-zaw-waw-sho-neah.

Silver—Sho-neah.

Copper—Mis-kwaw-beek.

Lead—Os-ke-ko-maung.

Iron—Pe-waw-beek.

Brass—O-saw-waw-beek.

Pewter—Waw-bush-ke-ko-mah.

Birth—Mah-chees-kunk pe-mah-te-se-win.

Death—Skwaw-be-mah-te-se-win.

Love—Meen-oo-neen-de-win.

Hatred—Sheen-ga-neen-de-win.

Marriage—We-te-kun-de-win.

Hunger—Buk-kud-da-win.

Blacking, or fasting—Muk-kud-da ka-win.

Sickness—Ah-koo-se-win.

Pain—Suc-kum-mun-dum-mo-win.

A word—Ke-ke-to-win.

Name—Ah-no-zo-win.

Cold—Kis-se-nah-win.

Heat—Ke-zhe-ta-win.

Dampness—Shuk-kiz-ze-win.

Length—Uh-kwaw-win.

Breadth—Mun-kwut-tia-ah-win.

Height, or tallness—Ke-no-ze-win.

Depth—Keen-ween-du-mah-win.

Shortness—Tuh-ko-ze-win.

Circle—Waw-we-a-ah.

Roundness—Waw-wi-a-ze-win.

Square—Shush-shuh-wao.

Squareness—Shush-shuh-wa-ze-win.

A measure—Te-bi-e-gun.

A hole—No-ko-na-ah.

Calamity, _Bad Look_—Mah-nah-bo-wa-wis.

Harmony—Bup-pe-she-ko-way-win.

Playfulness—Paw-pe-niz-ze-win.

Mind—Gaun-nug-gus-ke wa-shie.

Trouble—Sun-nug-ge-ze-win.

Work—Ah-no-ke-win.

Laziness—Gitche-mish-ke-win.

Strength—Mus-kaw-we-ze-win.

Shape—E-zhe-ke-win.

Breath—Puk-ke-tah-nah-mo-win.

Sleep—Ne-pah-win.

A person—Ah-we-ah.

A thing—Ka-go-shis.

Nothing—Kah-ka-go.

Noise—Be-giz-ze-win.

A shriek—We-suk-wa-win.

Howling—Wah-o-no-win.

Voice—Mus-se-tah-goo-se-win.

White (animate)—Waw-biz-ze.

White (in)—Waw-bish-kaw.

Black—Muk-kud-da-waw.

Red—Mis-kwaw.

Blue—Me-zhuh-kwod—oong; a-zhe-nah-guwt, like the sky.

Yellow—O-saw-waw.

Green—O-saw-wus-kwaw.

Great—Mit-chaw, _Animate_.

Greater—Nah-wud mit-chaw.

Greatest—Mi-ah-mo mit-chaw.

Small—Ah-gah-saw.

Smaller—Nah-wuj ah-gah-saw.

Smallest—Mi-ah-ma ah-gah-saw.

Strong—Soang-gun (tough.)

Hard—Mush-kaw-waw.

Heavy—Ko-se-gwun.

Light—Nahn-gun.

High—Ish-pah.

Low—Tup-pus-sah.

Damp—Tip-pah.

Thick—Kip-pug-gah, as a board.

Thick—Pus-sug-gwaw-gum-me, thick as mush.

Thick—Kip-pug-ge-gut, as cloth.

Thick—Kip-pug-ga-big-gut, as iron.

Sharp—Ke-nah.

Weak—Sha-wiz-ze.

Brave—Soan-ge-ta-ha; _Strong Hearted_.

Brave—Mahn-go-ta-sie; _Loon Heart_.

Coward—Shah-go-ta-a; _Weak Heart_.

Old—Ke-kaw.

Young—O-ske-ne-ge.

Good—O-nish-e-shin.

Bad—Mah-nah-tut, _Inanimate_.

Bad—Mah-nah-diz-ze, _Animate_.

Wicked—Mutche-e-pe-wa-tize.

Handsome—Kwo-nahdj.

Ugly—Mah-nah-diz-ze.

Healthy—Me-no-pe-mah-diz-ze.

Sick—Ah-koo-ze.

Alive—Pe-mah-diz-ze.

Dead—Ne-po.

Sensible—Ne-bwaw-kah.

Cunning—Kuk-ki-a-ne-ze.

Foolish—Ke-pah-te-ze.

Happy—Pau-pin-an-ne-mo.

Cool—Tuk-ka-yah.

Cold—Kis-se-nah.

Warm—Ke-zho-ze, _Animate_; Ke-zho-yah, _Inanimate_.

Hot—Ke-zhaut-ta.

Thirsty—Kos-kun-nah-pah-kwa.

Hungry—Buk-kut-ta.

First—Neet-tum, (_wy-aizsh-kut_.)

Second—A-ko-nee-shink.

Long—Keen-waw; _keen-waizh_, long in time.

Wide—Mun-gut-ta-yah.

Deep—Keen-ween-dum-mo, (_as water_.)

I—Neen.

Thou—Keen.

He—Ween.

She—Ween.

It—E-eu.

We—Neen-ah-wind, (excluding the person addressed.)

We—Keen-ah-wind, (including the person addressed.)

They—E-gieu, or, ween-ah-waw.

Them—E-gieu, (to persons;) e-nieu, (to things.)

My—Our, } Thy—Your, } (None.) His—Their, } Its, }

That—E-eu, _Animate_. That—Wah-ow, _Inanimate_.

This—Mahn-dun, or, O-o, (to things.)

This—Wah-ow, or Mah-bum, (to persons.)

This person—Mah-bum, if near.

This person—Ah-weh, if far off.

These—Ah-noon-dah, if near.

These—An-ne-weh, if far off.

Who—Wa-nain.

Which—Tah-neen-e-eu.

Both—I-eezhe.

Either—Wa-go-to-gwain.

Other—(None,) ah-ne-we, (nearly.)

All—Kok-kin-nuh.

Many—Bah-ti-eem.

Much—Ne-be-waw.

Few—Pun-ge.

A little—(The same.)

More—Min-o-waw.

Some—Ga-go.

Several—Ne-be-waw.

Where—Ah-neen-de.

When—Ah-nuh-pe.

Here—O-mah.

There—E-wid-de.

At—(Inseparable.)

Above—Ish-pe-ming.

Below—Tub-bush—shish.

Over—Gitche-i-e.

Under—A-nah-mi-e-e.

Within—Peenj-i-e.

Near—Ba-sho.

Far—Waw-saw.

Now—Noang-goom.

Soon—Wi-e-buh.

Then—Me-ah-pe.

Always—Mo-zhuk.

Never—Kah-we-kaw, or kaw-ween-we-kaw.

To-day—Nong-gum-ge-zhe-guk.

Yesterday—Pitch-e-nah-go.

To-morrow—Waw-bunk.

Long ago—Shah-shiah.

Hereafter—Pon-ne-mah.

Before—Bwoi.

After—Kah-esh-kwaw.

Once—Ah-be-ding.

Twice—Ne-zhing.

How—Ah-neen.

Well—Kwi-uk, strait.

Ill—Kaw’gwi-uk.

Quickly—Wa-weeb.

Slowly—Ba-kah-diz-ze.

Why—Ah-nish-win.

With—A-i-yeesh.

Without—(None.)

From—Wain-je.

Towards—(None.) Ah-che-waw?

Yes—Uh. Certainly—Me-nung-a-hah.

No—Kaw.

If—Keesh-pin.

And—Gi-a.

Or—(None.)

Also—(None.)

Perhaps—Go-ne-mah, or, kah-nah-butch.

One—Ning-gooj-waw.

Two—Neezh-waw.

Three—Nis-swaw.

Four—Ne-win.

Five—Nah-nun.

Six—Nin-good-waw-swe.

Seven—Neezh-waw-swe.

Eight—Shwaw-swe.

Nine—Shong-gus-swe.

Ten—Me-dos-we.

To eat—Che-we-sin-it.

To be hungry—Che-we-buk-kud-dit.

To drink—Che-min-ne-kwait.

To walk—Che-pe-mo-sait.

To run—Che-pe-me-bat-toan.

To sit down—Che-nam-mad-a-bit.[72]

To lie down—Che-shin-ge-skink.

To stand—Che-ne-bo-wit.

To stay—Cha-ah-bit.[73]

To dance—Cha-ne-mit.

To go—Cha-mah-chaht.

To come—Cha-tah-ko-shink.

To ride—Che-me-zhug-gaut.

To ride—Che-pe-mah-bi-o-goat.

To hunt—Che-ke-o-sait.

To fight—Che-me-kwa-zoat.

To smoke—Che-sug-gus-swawt.

To sing—Che-nug-gah-moat.

To smoke—Che-been-dah-kwait.

To sleep—Che-ne-baht.

To die—Che-ne-bote.

To say—Che-e-ke-doat.

To speak—Che-keke doat.

To treat—Che-to-to-waut.

To marry—Che-we-wit.

To think—Che-nain-dunk.

To know—Che-ke-ken-dunk.

To wish—(This is not a regular verb, in the Ottawwaw.)

To see—Che-wau-bit.

To hear—Che-non-dunk.

To taste—Che-ko-tun-dunk.

To smell—Che-me-non-dunk.

To touch—Che-tahn-je-nunk.

To love—Che-san-gi-unk.

To hate—Che-shin-ga-ne-maut.

To kill—Che-nis-saut.

To scalp—Che-mah-miz-zhwaut.

To give—Che-me-naut.

To take—Che-o-tau-pe-naut.

To bring—Che-be-naut.

To carry—Che-mah-che-naht.

To cut—Che-kis-ke-shunk.

To stick—Che-wa-po-to-waut.

To plant—Che-ke-te-gait.

To burn—Che-chau-ge-zung.

To bury—Che-ning-wo-waut.

To sow—Che-kus-ke-gaw-saut.

To blow—Che-pe-me-bo-tote.

To hide—Che-guk-ket-tote.

To cook—Che-che-bah-kwait.

To melt—Che-nin-ge-taik.

To subdue—Che-muk-dwait.

To have—Che-iaht.

To be—Che-iaht.

He is—Ween-sah.

I am—Neen-sah.

I am cold—Neen-ge-kudj.

I am warm—Neen-ge-zho-se.

I am young—Neen-do-ske-neeg.

I am old—Neen-ge-kaw.

I am good—Ne-meen-no-zhe-wa-bis.

I am strong—Ne-mush-kaw-wees.

I am hungry—Ne-buk-kud-da.

I am sick—Neen-dah-kooz.

It rains—Ke-me-wun.

It is cold—Kis-se-nah.

Go—Mah-jon.

Stay—Ah-bin.

Bring—Pe-toan.

Give—Meezh.

Give me—Me-zhe-shin.

Take him—O-tah-pin.

Take it—O-tah-pe-nun.

He drinks—Ween-min-ne-kwa.

He runs—Ween-pe-me-bat-to.

He sings—Ween-nug-gah-mo.

I sing—Neen-nug-gah-mo.

We eat—We-sin-ne.

I eat—Ne-wee-sin.

I came—Neen-ge-tuh-koo-shin.

He came—Ween-ge-tuh-koo-shin.

We came—Neen-ge-tuh-koo-shin-noam.

I have eat—Ne-ke-we-sin.

Thou hast eat—Ke-ke-we-sin.

He has eat—O-ke-we-sinne.

He saw—O-ke-waw-bo-maun.

He is dead—Ween-ke-ne-bo.

He has been seen—Ke-waw-bo-maw.

He shall speak—Oan-jit-tah kah-ge-e-ke-to, (I make.)

He shall go—Oan-jit-tah tah-mah-jah, (I make, etc.)

He may go—Tah-mah-jah.

We may go—Tah-mah-jah-men.

This dog—Maw-buh-an-ne-moosh.

These dogs—Ah-goon-dah-an-ne-moag.

This is mine—Neen-een-di-eem, (mine it remains.)

That is thine—Keen-ke-ti-eme, (it belongs to thee.)

Whose dog is this?—Wha-nain-wha-ti-et?

What is thy name?—Ah-neen-a-zhe-ne-kah-so-yun.

What do you call this?—Ah-neen-a-zhe-ne-kah-dah-mun?

To whom shall he speak?—O-wa-na-nan ka-kun-no-nah-jit?

Which of us shall go?—O-wa-nain ka-e-shaut?

Who shall go?—Tah-neen-a-ow-ka-e-shaut-shaut?

Either of us shall go—Ne-got-wa-hi-ao o-tai-a-shon.

Who saw these?—Wa-ne-wi-ah-bo-mik?

He—Ween.

My father—Nos-a.

My brother—Ne-kau-nis; n’dah-wa-mah, by the women.

Elder—Nesiah.

Younger—Ne-she-ma.

My sister—N’dah-wa-mah.

Elder—Ne-mis-sah.

Younger—Ne-she-mah.

My son—Ne-gwis.

My daughter—Ne-dan-nis.

My child—Ne-en-jah-nis.

My head—Ne-o-ste-gwon.

My feet—Ne-o-zit-tun.

My dog—Neen-di.

My shoes—Ne-muk-ke-zin-nun.

I saw you—Nee-ke-waw-bo-min.

I love you—Ke-zaw-ge-in; to a woman only, ne-ma-ne-ne-min.

I will marry thee, (a man to a woman)—Neen-gah-we-te-ga-mah; (a woman to a man,) kuh-we-te-ge-min.

He is taller than me—Nah-wudj-ween ke-nose-a-ko-zeaun.

He is a stranger in the village—Mi-ah-mah-mush-kaw-e-zeet o-da-nin-nong.

My wife is called handsomer—Ne-wish nah-wuj kwo-nahj a-zhe-nah-ko-zi-ian.

Your wife is younger than mine—Ke-wis nah-wudj os-ke ne-ge neen-a-pe-te-zit.

My brother is with his wife—Ne-kaun-nis o-we-je-waun we-wun.

My hatchet is in there—Ne-waw-gaw-kwut-peen-dig at-ta.

Where is he?—To-ne-e-peezh at-taik?

I am here—Maun-di-pe een-di-ah.

I am a man—Een-da-nin-ne-ne-ew.

I am a good man—Ne-min-no a-nin-ew.

Thou art a woman—Keet-e-kwa-o.

There is a God—Man-i-to sah-iah.

I am that I am—Neen-goo-sah-neen.[74]

He sings well—Ne-tah-nug-gah-mo.

He sings ill—Kaw’nit-tah nug-gah-mo-se.

He sings slow—Se-bis-kautch e-nug-gah-mo.

He sings quick—Ka-tah-tub-buh-um.

He sings his death song—O-be-mah-tuh-se-win e-nug-gah-mo-toan.

I see him—Ne-waw-bo-maw.

I see a man—E-nin-ne ne-waw-bo-maw.

I see near—Pa-show n’duk-wawb.

I see far off—Was-saw n’duk-wawb.

He came on foot—Ke-bim-me-to-sa.

He came on horseback Ke-be-pe-mom-mi-co.

You came on horseback—Ke-ke-be-pe-mo-mik.

He came by land—Ah-keeng ke-pe-e-zhaw.

He came by water—Ke-be-pe-mish-kaw-nah.

He came before me—Ke-be-ne-kaune.

He came last—Skwi-ahtch ke-ta-koo-shin.

He came without me—Kaw’neen-ge-we-je-we-goo-se.

I struck him—Neen-ge-wa-po-to-waw.

I struck him with my foot—Neen-ge-tun-gish-ko-waw; (I kicked him.)

I struck him with a stone—Us-sin neen-ge-wa-po-to-waw.

I struck him with a hatchet—Waw-gaw-kwut neen-ge-wa-po-to-waw.

I gave it to him—Neen-ge-me-nah.

I did not give it to thee—Ka-ween-keen ke-ke-me-nis-se-noan.

He gave it to me—Neen-neen-ge-me-nik.

What I gave him—Wa-go-to-gwain e-to-ge-gaw-me-nuk.

What he gave me—Wa-go-to-gwain e-to-ge-gaw-me-zhit.

And did he give it to thee?—Ke-ge-me-nik-in-nah?

Hast thou given it to him?—Ke-ge-me-nah-nah? (Didst thou give?)

Wilt thou give it to me?—Ke-kah-me-shin-nah?

May I give it to him?—Kaw-nuh neen-dah-me-nah-se?

I wish to go with thee and catch his horse—Op-pa-tus we-je-win-naun che-tah-ko-nuk o-ba-zheek-o-guh zhe-mun.

Give me some venison to put in his kettle—Me-she-shin we-yos, che-po-tah kwi-aun o-tah-ke-koonk.

We conquered our country by our bravery, we will defend it with our strength—Ne-munk-kund-wa-min ain-dun-uk-ke-ung, e-zhin-ne-ne-wi-aung, (our manliness,) or, ne-mahn-go tah-se-we-win-ne-naun, (our loon heartedness,) ne-kah-ko-no-ain-dah-men ne-mus-kaw wiz-ze-win-ne-naun.

Good morning—Me-gwaitch wi-ah-bah-me-non; (I am glad to see you.)

How is it with thee?—Tah-neen keen-o-waw aiz-zhe-be-mah-te-ze-aik?—(If two or more, ke-me-no be-nah te-ze-nah?—how dost thou live?)

He is a good man—Me-no-pa-mah-tiz-ze e-nin-ne.

Dost thou live well?—Ke-men-no-pe-mah-tiz-ze-nah!

What news?—Ah-heen ain e-kum-me-guk?

I know him—Ne-ke-ken-ne-maw.

I understand—Ne-ke-ken-dum; (weeds and small things; of a tree, or a large stone, they say, ne-ke-ken-ne-maw.)

She is a good woman—Men-no-pa-mah-te-se.

It is a large tree—Gitche-me-tik: (large tree.)

I see it—Ne-waw-bo-maw, if a man, a tree, or a large stone; Ne-waw bun-daun, if inanimate, or a very small animate object.

I give you this canoe—Ke-me-nin[75] maun-dun che-maun.

Take it—O-tau-pe-nun.

I give you this deer—Ke-me-nin maw-buh waw-waw-wash-gais.

Take him—O-tau-pin.

Give me meat—Me-zhe-shinwe-yos; give or hand to me, pe-doan.

Give me that dog—Me-zhe-shin owan-e-moose.

Bring water—Ne-beesh nah-din.

Bring the prisoners—Beesh a-wuh-kau-nug.

This is my father’s canoe—No-si-ah maun-dun o-che-maun.

I gave corn to my father—Mun-dah-me-nun neen-ge-me-nah noas.

I planted corn for my father—Neen-ge ke-te-go-waw noas.

I love my father—Ne-sah-ge-ah noas.

I took corn from my father—Neen-ge o-tah-pe-nun-no-waw noas mun-dah-min.

I came with my father—Ne-pe-we je-waw noas. (I accompanied my father.)

I saw a deer—Neen-ge-waw-bo-mo waw-wash-gais.

I saw two deer—Neesh-waw-wash-gais-e-wug ne-waw-bo-maig.

I killed a deer—Waw-wash-gais neen-ge-ne-sah.

I killed him with my hatchet—Ne-waw-gaw-kwut-ne-ke oon-jin-nee-sah.

I took the skin from the deer—Neen-ge puk-ko-nah, (if he saved the meat;) neen-ge-gitche ke-zwo-ah, (if he threw it away.)

CONJUGATION OF A VERB

To tie—Tah-ko-pitche ga-wing.[76]

Tie him—Tah-ko-pish.

Tie them—Tah-ko-bish ah-giew.

I tie—N’tah-ko-pe-toon.

Thou tiest—Ke-ta-ko-pe-toon in-a-nim.

He ties—O-tah-ko-pe-toon.

We (two) tie—Neen-dah-ko-pe-do-men.

We tie—(The same.)

You (two) tie—Ke-tah-ko-pe-toan-ah-waw.

They tie—O-tuh-ko-pe-toan-ah-waw.

He ties me—Neen-dah-ko-be-nik.

He ties thee—Ke-tah-ko-be-nik.

He ties him—O-tah-ko-be-naun.

He ties her—(The same.)

He ties us (two)—Ke-tah-ko-be-nik o-naun.

He ties us (all)—(The same.)

He ties you (two)—Ke-tah-ko-be-nik-o-waw.

He ties you (all)—(The same.)

He ties them—O-tah-ko-bin-naun.

They tie me—Ne-dah-ko-bin-ne-goag.

They tie thee—Ke-tah-ko-bin-ne-goag.

They tie him—O-tah-ko-bin-ah-waun.

They tie her—(The same.)

They tie us (two)—Ke-tah-ko-bin-ne-ko-nah-nik.

They tie us (all)—(The same.)

They tie you (two)—Ke-tah-ko-bin-ne-go-waug.

They tie you (all)—(The same.)

They tie them—O-tah-ko-bin-nah-waun, (the same as one.)

I tie thee—Ke-tah-ko-be-nin.

I tie him—Neen-dah-ko-be-naun.

I tie you (two)—Ke-tah-ko-be-ne-nim.

I tie you (all)—(The same.)

I tie them—Neen-dah-ko-be-naug.

We (two) tie thee—Ke-tah-ko-bin-ne ne-nin-ne-min.

We (two) tie him—Ne-dah-ko-be nah-naun.

We (two) tie you (two)—Ke-tah-ko-bin-ne nin-ne-min.

We (two) tie you (all)—(The same.)

We (all) tie them—Ke-tah-ko-bin-nah-nah-nik.

Thou tiest me—Ke-tah-ko-bish.

Thou tiest him—Ke-tah-ko-bin-nah.

Thou tiest us (two)—Ke-tah-ko-bish-e-min.

Thou tiest us (all)—(The same.)

Thou tiest them—Ke-tah-ko-bin-naug.

We (all) tie thee—Ke-tah-ko-be-nin-ne-min.

We (all) tie him—Neen-dah-ko-bin-nah-naun.

We (all) tie you (two)—Ke-tah-ko-bin-nun-ne-min.

We (all) tie you (all)—(The same.)

You (two) tie me—Ke-tah-ko-biz-zhim.

You (two) tie him—Ke-tah-ko-bin-nah-waw.

You (two) tie us (two)—Ke-tah-ke biz-zhe-min.

You (two) tie us (all)—(The same.)

You (two) tie them—Ke-tah-ko-bin-nah-waug.

You (two) tie me—Ke-tah-ko-be-zhim.

You (all) tie him—Ke-tah-ko-bin-ah-waw.

You (all) tie us—Ke-tah-ko-biz-zhe-min.

You (all) tie them—Ke-tah-ko-bin-nah-waug.

He has tied us—Een-ge-tah ko-bin-ne-ko-nahn.

He has tied thee—Ke-ke-tah-ko-be-nik.

He has tied him—O-ke-tah-ko-be-nahn.

He has tied us (two)—Een-ge-tah-ko-bin-ne-ko-nahn.

He has tied us (all)—(The same.)

He has tied you (two)—Ke-ke-tah-ko be-nik-o-waw.

He has tied you (all)—(The same.)

He has tied them—O-ke-tah-ko-be-naun.

They have tied me—Neen-ge-tah ko-bin-ne-goag.

They have tied him—O-ke-tah-ko-bin-nah-waun.

They have tied us (two)—Ke-ge-tah-ko-bin-nik o-nah-nik, or, neen-ge, if a third person is addressed.

They have tied us (all)—(The same.)

They have tied you (two)—Ke-ke-tah-ko-bin-nih-o-waug.

They have tied you (all)—(The same.)

They have tied them—O-ke-tah-ko-bin-nah-waun.

I have tied him—Neen-ge-tah-ko-bin-nah.

I have tied them—Neen-ge-tah-ko-bin-nahg.

Thou hast tied me—Ke-ke-tah-ko-bish.

Thou hast tied him—Ke-ke-tah-ko-be-nah.

Thou hast tied us (two)—Ke-ke-tah-ko-biz-zhe-min.

Thou has tied us (all)—(The same.)

Thou hast tied them—Ke-ke-tah-ko-be-nahg.

We have tied him—Neen-ge-tah ko-be-nah-nahn.

We (all) have tied him—(The same.)

You (two) have tied him—Ke-tah-ko-be-nah-waw.

You (all) have tied him—(The same.)

He will tie me—Neen-gah-tah-ko-be-nik.

He will tie thee—Ke-gah-tah-ko-be-nik.

He will tie him—O-gah-tah-ko-be-nahn.

He will tie us (all)—Ke-gah-tah-ko-be-nik-ah-nahn, to the second person; to a third, Nin-gah-tah-ko-bin-nik-ah-nahn.

He will tie them—O-kah-tah-ko-be-nahn.

They will tie me—Neen-gah-tah-ko-bin-ne-goag.

They will tie thee—Ke-gah-tah-ko-bin-ne-goag.

They will tie him—O-gah-tah-go-bin-nah-waun.

They will tie us (two)—Ke-gah-tah-ko-bin-ne-ko-nah-nik, to the second person.

They will tie you (two)—Ke-gah-tah-ko-bin-ne-ko-waug.

They will tie them—O-gah-tah-ko-bin-nah-waun.

I will tie him—Neen-gah-tah-ko-bin-nah.

I will tie them—Neen-gah-tah-ko-bin-nahg.

Thou wilt tie me—Ke-gah-tah-ko-bish.

Thou wilt tie him—Ke-gah-tah-ko-be-nah.

Thou wilt tie them—Ke-gah-tah-ko-be-nahg.

We (two) will tie him—Neen-gah-tah-ko-be-nah-nahn, to the third person.

We (all) will tie him—(The same.)

You (two) will tie him—Ke-gah-tah-ko-be-nah-nahn.

You (all) will tie him—(The same.)

I would tie thee—Ke-tah-tah-ko-be-nin.

I would tie him—Neen-dah-tah-ko-be-nah.

I would tie them—Neen-dah-tah-ko-be-nahg.

He would tie thee—Ke-tah-tah-ko-be-nik.

He would tie him—O-dah-tah-ko-be-nahn.

He would tie them—(The same.)

I might tie thee—Tah-ko-be-nin-naun.

I might tie him—Tah-ko-be-nug.

I might tie them—Tah-ko-bin-nug-waw.

He might tie thee—Tah-ko-bin-naut.

He might tie them—(The same.)

I ought to tie thee—Tah-ko-bin-ne-nahm-bahn.

I ought to tie him—Tah-ko-bin-nug-ge-bun.

He ought to tie thee—Tah-ko-bin-nik-e-bun.

He ought to tie them—Tah-ko-bin-nut-waw-bun.

That I may tie thee—Go-mah-tah-ko-be-nin-nahn.

That I may tie him—Go-mah-tah-ko-bin-nuk.

That I may tie them—Go-mah-tah-ko-bin-nuk-waw.

That he may tie thee—Go-mah-tah-ko-be-zhit.

That he may tie him—Go-mah-ween-tah-ko-be-naht.

That he may tie them—(The same.)

If I tie thee—Tah-ko-bin-ne-naun.

If I tie him—Tah-ko-be-nug.

If I tie them—Tah-ko-be-nug-waw.

If he tie thee—Tah-ko-be-nik-e-bun.

If he tie him—Tah-ko-be-nau-pun.

If he tie them—(The same.)

I make thee tie them—Oon-jit-tah ke-kah-tah-ko-bin-nahg.

I make him tie them—Oon-jit-tah o-kah-tah-ko-be-naun.

I make them tie thee—Oon-jit-tah ke-kah-tah-ko-bin-ne-goge.

He makes me tie them—Ne-kah-gau-zo-nick, tah-ko-be-nug-waw.

He does not tie me—Kaw’neen-dah-ko-bin-ne-ko-se.

He does not tie thee—Kaw’ke-tah-ko-bin-ne-ko-se.

He does not tie him—Kaw’o-tah-ko-bin-nah-zeen.

They do not tie me—Kaw’neen-dah-bo-bin-ne-ko-seeg.

They do not tie him—Kaw’o-tah-ko-bin-nah-se-waun.

He has not tied me—Kaw’neen-ge-tah-ko-bin-ne-ko-se.

He will not tie me—Kaw-ween nun-gah-tah-ko-bin-ne-ko-ze.

He shall not tie me—Kaw-pau-pish neen-dah-tah-ko-bin-ne-ko-se.

That he may not tie me—Ga-mah-tah-ko-biz-zhe-sik.

If he does not tie thee—Tah-ko-be-nis-se-nook.

I will make him tie you—Oon-jit-tah ke-kah-tuh-ko-be-nik.

I will not make him tie thee—Kaw’ne-kah-gah-gaw-zo-mah-se jit-tah-ko-be-nik.

He made me tie thee—Ne-ke-gah-gau-zo-mik ke-chah-tah-ko-be-nean-un.

He did not make me tie thee—Kaw’neege-e-go-so jit-tah-ko be-ne-naun.

I am tied—Neen-dah-ko-bees.

Thou art tied—Ke-tah-ko-bees.

He is tied—Tah-ko-biz-zo.

We (two) are tied—Ke-tah-ko-biz-zo-min; to the second person, nee-dah-ko-biz-zo-min.

We (all) are tied—(The same.)

You (two) are tied—Ke-tah-ko-biz-zoom.

You (all) are tied—(The same.)

They are tied—Tah-ko-biz-zo-wug.

I was tied—Een-ge-tah-ko-bis.

I was tied by thee—Keen-gah oon-je-tah-ko-biz-zo-yahn.

I was tied by him—Ween-gah oon-je-tah-ko-biz-zo-yahn.

He shall be tied—Oon-jit-tah tah-tah-ko-be-zoo.

That he may be tied—Kut-tah tah-ko-be-zo.

I am not tied—Kaw’n’dah-ko-biz-zo-ze.

He is not tied—Kaw’tah-ko-biz-zo-ze.

I was not tied—Kaw’ne-ke-tah-ko-biz-zo-ze.

He shall not be tied—Kaw’tah tah-ko-biz-zo-ze.

He who is tying thee—Ai-neen a-piz-zoi-un.

We tie each other—Mah-ma-ash-kote guh-tah-ko-bin-ne-te-min.

You tie each other—Mah-ma-ash-kote tah-ko-bin-ne-tik.

They tie one another—Tah-ko-bin-ne-te-wug.

I tie myself—N’tah-ko-bin-ne-tis.

He ties himself—Tah-ko-bin-ne-tiz-zo.

We tie ourselves—Nid-dah-ko-bin-ne-tiz-zo-min.

They tie themselves—Tah-ko-bin-ne-tiz-zo-wug.

Does he tie thee?—Ke-tah-ko-bin-nik-in-nah?

Has he tied thee?—Ke-ke-tah-ko-bin-nik-in-nah?

Shall he tie thee?—Ke-kah-tah-ko-be-nik-in-nah?

Do they tie him?—O-tah-ho-bin-nah-waun-in-nah?

Have they tied him?—O-ke-tah-ko-bin-nah-waun-in-nah?

Will they tie him?—O-we-tah-ko-bin-nah-waun-in-nah?

Shall I tie them?—Een-gah-tah-ko-bin-nahg-in-nah?

Wilt thou tie them?—Ke-kah-tah-ko-bin-nahg-in-nah?

Will thou tie him?—Ke-kah-tah-ko-bin-nahn-nah?

LORD’S PRAYER, IN OJIBBEWAY AND ENGLISH

Ko-se-naun, (our Father,) o-wa-nain, (who,) ish-pe-ming, (above,) ain-daut, (liveth,) mah-no-ti esh-she-wa-but, (what you wish to be done,) wah-e-she wa-be-to-e-yun, (let it be done,) Kaw-taw-paw-pish zhin-dah-zeem, (let us not play with thy name,) mah-no-be-zhe nah-zhi-yun nah-gah-muk sa-ne-guk, (let thy great power come,) me-zhe-shin-naung ka-me-je-yaun nong-goom ge-zhe-gut, (give us our food this day,) me-zhe-shin-naung o-ma-ze-naw-o-mon-aung, (give us our debts,) a-zhe-ko-te-bah-mah-tink, (as we give our debtors,) Ka-go e-zhe-wizh-zhis, zhe-kaun-gain mi-ah nah-tuk, (do not lead us into bad things,) kun-no-wa-no mish-she-naung mi-ah-nah-tuk, (keep us from bad things,) naw-gau-ne-zit ta-ba-ne-mut (power belongs to thee,) gia mash-kaw-e-zeet, (and strength,) kau-gin-neek, (for ever.)

LORD’S PRAYER, IN OJIBBEWAY.

Kosenaun owanain ishpeming aindaut mahnoti eshshewabut waheshewabetoeyun kawtawpawpish zhindahzheem mahnobezhe nahzhiyun nahgahmuk saneguk mezheshinnaung, kamejeyaun nonggoom gezhegut mezheshinnaung omazenawomonaung azhekotebahmahtink; Kago ezhewizhzhis zhekaungain miahnahtuk; kunnowano mishshenaung mishnahtuk; nawgaunezit tabanemut gia mashkawezeet, kauginneek.

COMPARISON OF THE LANGUAGE OF ELLIOT’S VERSION OF THE BIBLE, WITH SOME OF THE DIALECTS OF THE PRESENT DAY.

_Elliot._—_Ottawwaw._

Ne-oh-ke-oo-ook[77]—Me-nik ka-ah-ko pe-mah-tug ah-ke—As long as the ground lives.

Oh-ke-ko-nah-kah—O-pe-ga-to-gonk-gia—planting time and

Ke-pe-num-mun-at—O-pe-ma-maung—gathering time,

Toh-koi-hah-kus-si-teau—Kis-se-nah-gia-ke-shaut-ta—cold and heat,

Ne-pun-nah—Ne-bin-gia—summer and

Po-pon—Pe-poan—winter,

Ke-su-kod-kah—Ke-zhi-kut-gia—day and

Nu-kon—Tib-bik-kut—night,

Mat-ta—Kaw-we-kaw—never

Jeish-ah-kwoh-ta-noo—Ta-pun-nah tis-se-noan—shall cease.

While the earth remaineth, seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not fail.—Gen. viii. 22.

* * * * *

Ne-tah-tup—E-she-way-buk—Even so

Nish-noh—Pa-pa-zhik—each

Wun-ne-gen ma-tug—Way-nish-she-shit-me-tik—good tree

Ad-tan-na-gen—Wain-je-ne-tah-we-jink—produceth

Wun-ne-ge-nash mec-chum-mu-on-gash—Mo-zhe-ka-ko-mah-jink—every kind of food,

Gut-match-tit matug—Koo-shah matche-me-tik—but a bad tree

Ad-tan-ne-gen _match-te-toash_—Na-tah-we-git—beareth

_Me-chum-mu-on-gash_—_Mat-che-me-nun_—bad berries.

Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, but a corrupt tree evil fruit. Matt. vii. 17.

* * * * *

Kah o-moh-ku—Gia-pus-e-gwe—And he arose,

Kah _mon-chu-en_ we-kit—Gia-we-ke-wa-mink _e-zhaw_—and to his house he went.

And he arose and went to his house.—Matt. ix. 2.

* * * * *

Mat-ta-pish koo-mit-tam-wus-sis-su—Kaw-ween ke-kah-we-wis-sis-se—Not shalt thou wive,

Kah-mat-ta-pish koo-nau-mo-ni-yeu—Gia-kaw’ke-kah o-kwis-sis-se—and not shalt thou son,

A-suh-koo-taun-i-yeu—Kaw-ke-kah o-dau-nis-sis-se—not shalt thou daughter,

Yeu-ut-a-yeu-on-ga-nit[78]—Maun-di-pe nuk-ka-kum-mik—here in the place.

Thou shalt not take thee a wife, neither shalt thou have sons or daughters in this place.—Jer. xvi. 2.

COMPARISON OF THE LANGUAGE OF SOME VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE, WITH THE OTTAWWAW OF THE PRESENT TIME

Of two existing versions of the Bible, or parts of it, in dialects similar to the Ojibbeway, that of Mr. Elliot, made in 1661, would be most easily adapted to the use of the Ottawwaws and Ojibbeways, in the country about the lakes. The Delaware of Mr. Deuke’s version, printed at New-York, 1818, whether owing to difference of orthography, or some other cause, seems widely unlike any of the Algonkin dialects we have heard spoken. The following comparison with the Ottawwaw of the present day, will perhaps scarce afford a single point of resemblance.

Ehoalachgik? jukwe metschi ktelli wundamemensineen Gelanitawitink; schuk neskwe majawii elsi jauktsch, schuk ktelli majaweten dameneen, nkwuttentsch woachkwake ktellitsch linanizeen elinaxit ktellilsch newoaneen elinaxit.—1 _John iii._ 2. [_Deuche’s version._]

Sah-git-te-wun-nun! (ye beloved!) gee-no-wind (are we) Gitche-Manito, (the great God,) o-gwis-sun (his sons) kaw-ween (not) ke-ke-ken-dun-se-min (ye understand) ka-iz-zhe-wa-biz-zhe-wunk (how we shall be) koo-shah (but) ke-ken-dah-min (we know) ope-che-waw-bu-muk (when he appeareth) ah-yeesh na-she-nah-koo-se-min (we shall resemble him) ke-kah-waw-bo-maw-naun (we shall see him) a-zhe-nah-koo-zit (which he is like.)—Ottawwaw.

Beloved, now are we the sons of God; and it doth not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that, when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.—_English version._

The following are comparisons of passages from Mr. Elliot’s Bible, with the same dialect.

_Elliot._—_Ottawwaw._

Onk-as-kook[79]—Gia-ke-na-beek—And the snake

Un-nan—O-ge-gah-no-naun—said to

Mit-tam-mo-sis-soh—E-kwa-wun—the woman,

Mat-ta—Kaw-ween—not

Woh-nup-poo-e ke-mup-poo—O-jit-tah-ke-kah-ne-boas[80]—shall you die.

And the serpent said unto the woman, thou shalt not surely die.—_Eng. ver. Gen._ iii. 4.

(Elliot, Cotton Mather, and other early protestant divines, thought it not best to attempt translating any of the names of the divinity into the Indian, for the obvious reason, that their language affords no word which would not awake associations in the minds of the natives, very inconsistent with the character of the true and holy God. They thought it better to retain the English appellations, and attempt gradually to elevate the conceptions of the Indians to our standard, than incur the risk of perpetuating their ideas of the characters attributed to their deities, by introducing their original names into the new version of the Scriptures.)

COMPARISON OF A GREEK SENTENCE WITH THE DIALECT OF THE OTTAWWAWS.

αἰ αλωπεκες, [The foxes]—Waw-goo-shug, [foxes]

φωλεους, [holes]—Waw-zhe-wug, [hole, v. a.]

εχονσι, [they possess,]—Gia-nun-nuh-ke-zhik, [and between sky adj.]

χαιτα ῳετειυα, [and the birds]—Be-nais-se-wug, [birds]

του ουρανου, [of heaven]—O-wus-sis-so-ne-wug, [nest, v. a.]

χατασχηνῳσσεις, [nests,]—Koo-shah, [but]

ο δε νιος, [the but son]—O-nin-ne o-gwis, [man his son]

του ανθρωπου, [of man]—Kaw’nin-goo-che, [not any where]

ουκ εχει, [not possesseth]—In-ne-kwa-shin-she, [may lie down.]

ωον, [where]

την κεφαλην, [his head]

κλιην, [he may lay.]

The foxes have dens, and the birds of the air have nests, but the son of man hath not where to lay his head.—Matt viii. 20.

FIRST CHAPTER OF GENESIS, TRANSLATED INTO THE OJIBBEWAY LANGUAGE

1. Wi-azh-kut Man-e-do wa-zhe-toan mahn-dun Ge-zhik gia Ak-ke.

2. Gia pa-bunk ak-ke at-tah go-bun gia kah-ga-go at-ta-sin o-go-bun, gia tib-be-kut o-kit-te-beeg, gia man-e-do o-pug-git-to nah-mo-win o-mam-mah-je-mug-gut o-kit-te-beeg.

3. Man-e-do ke-e-ke-do to-we-was-siah; gia ge-was-siah.

4. Gia man-e-do o-waw-ben-daun was-siah, ge-o-nish-she-shin gia man-e-do o-nah-nah-we-nahn was-siah gia tib-be-kut.

5. Gia ma-ne-do o-ke-shinne-kau-taun was-siah, Ge-zhe-gut gia tib-bik-nis-se o-ke-shinne-kau-taun tib-be-kut, Gia o-nah-koo-shig ke-ke-zhaib ne-tum ke-ge-zhe-guk.

6. Gia man-e-do ke-e-ke-do Kut-ti e-she-wa-bug mahn-dun nun-nuh ge-zeik nus-sow-wi-a-e ne-bish ush-uh-ko-taig, gia aut-taush-ke-no-mink e-toi’a-e, ne-bish e-toi-wi-a-e gitche, te-go-mug-guk ish-pe-ming gia-tub-bush-shish.

7. Gia man-e-do o-ke o-zhe-toan nun-nuh-ge-zhe-gut gia o-na-nah-we-naun ne-beesh ish-pe-ming gitche-tah-goak gia tub-bush-shish gitche-tah-goak, me-kah-e-she-e-wa-buk.

8. Gia man-e-do o-ge-zhin-ne-kau-taun nun-nuh-ge-zhik Ge-zhik a-nah-koo-zhik Ke-ke-zhaib wi-ah-ne-ka-ge-zhe-gut.

9. Gia man-e-do ke-e-ke-do mahn-dun-ne-beesh an-nah-mi-a-e at-taig tum-mah-wun dosh-kah ah-ke-kut tuh-bung-wun, me-kah e-zhe-wa-buk.

10. Gia man-e-do o-ke-zhin-ne-kau-taun ak-ke gia kaw-mow aun-dos-kaug ne-beesh o-ge-zhin-ne-kau-taun Gitche-gum-me gia man-e-do o-waw-ben-daun o-nish-e-shing.

11. Gia man-e-do ke-e-ke-do ak-ke kut-ti on-je-ne-tah-we-gin me-zhus-keen, gia me-zhus-keen tu-e-me-ne-kau-ne-wun-nong, gia me-tig mah-jink wain-je-we-tah-we-gi-uk me-ne-kaun me-tig-goank at-ta on-jit-tah-gum-mig me-kah e-she-wa-buk.

12. Gia shi-a ke-ne-tah we-gin-noan me-zhus-keen gia me-ne kaw-ne-wun-noan mo-zhuk-keen tib-bin-no-wa-go zhe-nah-gwut gia me-tig me-ne-ne kau-ne-we tib-bin-no-wa me-ne-kaw-ne-we tib-bin-no-wa o-ke-tah-kum-mig, Gia man-e-do o-ge-waw-bun-daun uz-zho nish-she-shing.

13. Gia an-nah-koo-zhik Ke-ge-zhaib me-nis-swo ge-zhe-guk.

14. Gia man-e-do ke-e-ke-do tuh-we wah-si-ahn nun-nuh-ge-zhik uh-ge-zhik-oank che-na-nah-we-num-ming ge-zhe-gud gia tib-be-kud, tuh-we ke-kin-no-wautch che-gau-ta gia ke-ke no-no-win-nun ge-zhe-gud gia pe-boan.

15. Gia tuh-we was-si-ahn nun-nuh-we ge-zhik o-ke-tah-kum-mik che-was-siag o-ke-tah-kum-mik, me-kah e-she-wa-bug.

16. Gia man-e-do o-ge-o-zhe-toan neezh gitche was-si-ahn, gitche was-si-ah che-te-ban-dung ge-zhe-gut gia a-gaw-sing was-si-ah che-te-ban-dung tib-be-kut, gia o-ke-o-zhe-naun an-nung-wun.

17. Gia man-e-do puk-kit-te-naun was-si-ah nun-nuh ke-zhik, onk gitche was-si-aig o-ge-tah-kum-mig.

18. Gia che-mus-ko-kung ge-zhe-gut gia tib-be-kut, gia che-na-nau-we num-ming was-si-ah ge-zhe-gut gia tib-be-kut gia man-e-do o-waw-bun-daun o-nish-she-shing.

19. Gia an-nah-koo-zhik ke-ke-zhaib-ne-o-ko-ni-guk.

20. Gia man-edo ke-e-ke-do, ne-beeng tuh-we oan-je ne-tah-we-ga ba-mah-de-zeet mah-nah-cheet gia be-nais-se-wug, ka-pa-ba-buh me-so-jig nun-nuh ke-zhik.

21. Gia man-e-do o-to-zheaun Gitche-mah-nuh-maig-wun, gia kok-kin-nuh ba-mah-de-zid ma-mah-cheet ne-beeng on-je ne-tah-we-kwug, gia ba-ba-zhik wa-nin-gwe kwun-nah-jik be-nais-se-wug, gia man-e-do o-waw-bun-daun o-nish-e-shing.

22. Gia man-e-do o-gug-guh-no-naun e-ke-tong, tuh-oan-je ne-gin gia gitche-ne-bin-nah moosh-kin-nah-toag, gitche-gum-me, tuh-we bah-te-no-wug be-nais-se-wug o-ge-tak kummig.

23. Gia an-nah-koo-zhig ke-ke-zhaib ni-ah-no ko-ni-guk.

24. Gia man-e-do ke-e-ke-do ak-ke tuh-we oan-je ne-ton-we-go-be mah-de-zit ah-wes-se-ug gia ba-bah-ma-to-jig ah-wes-se o-ke-tah-kum-mig me-gah esh-e-wa-buk.

25. Gia man-e-do o-ke-o-zhe-aun ah-wes-se-ug che-she-nah-koo-ze-nit, gia ba-me-nint ah-wes-se, gia kok-kin-nuh a-zhe-nah-koo-zit ba-bah-mo-tait, gia man-e-do o-waw-ben-daun o-nish-she-sheng.

26. Gia man-e-do ke-e-ke-do, gah o-zhe-ah-naun e-nin-ne, a-zhe-nah-koo-ze-unk che-me-nah-koo-zit, a-zhe kok-kin-nuh wautch-che-yah-zho-yunk che-she-nah-goo-zit, gia o-kah te-ba-ne-mah-waun kok-kin-nuh ke-goi-yug gitche-gum-mig gia be-nais-se-wug nun-nuh he-zhik-koank, gia a-wes-se-yug, gia kok-kin-nuh ak-ke, gia kok-kin-nuh ba-bah-mo-ta-jig o-ke-tah-kum-mig.

27. Ge man-e-ko o-ke-o-zhe-aun e-nin-ne-wun a-zhe-nah-koos-nit, a-zhe-nah-ko-zit man-e-do o-ke-e-zhe-aun e-nin-ne-wun, e-kwa-wun o-zhe-naun.

28. Gia man-e-do o-gug-guh-no-naun gia, man-e-do o-din-naun tuh-oan-je ne-tah-we-gin, che-bah-ti-e-no-waud che-moosh-ke-naig ak-ke gich-e-ta-tum-mo-waut, gia, et-be-ne-nah-waut ke-goi-yug, gia be-na-se-wug nun-nuh ke-zhik-koank, gia kok-kin-nuh ba-mah-ta-zit o-ke-tah-kum-mig.

29. Gia man-e-do ke-e-ke-do—ke-me-nin kok-kin-nuh maun-dun, na-tah-we-gi-uk o-ke-tah-kum-mig, gia pa-pa-zhik me-tig, wain-je ne-tah-we gwi-uk ka-ko mah-ji-uk, ke-nah-waw wain-je-ne-tah-we-gi-uk ke-me-je-aig.

30. Gia kok-kin-nuh a-wes-se-yug o-ke-tah-kum-mig, gia be-na-se-wug nun-nuh-ke-zhik, gia ba-bah-mo-ta-jig o-ke-tah-kum-mig, kok-kin-nuh ne-men-aug-we-ug o-me-zhuh-keen, che-nin-je-ga-waut, me-kah-e-she-e-wa-buk.

31. Gia man-e-do o-waw-bun-daun kok-kin-nuh maun-dun wa-zhe-to-te o-nish-she-she-shing, gia an-nah-koo-zhik ke-ke-zhaib ne-kot-wa-as-so-ko-ni guk.

FOOTNOTES

[1] N. A. Review, No. 60, p. 101.

[2] “The little _kingdoms_ and _glories_,” says Cotton Mather, “of the great men among the _Indians_, was a powerful obstacle to the success of _Mr. Elliot’s_ ministry; and it is observable, that several of those nations who thus refused the gospel, were quickly after so _devil-driven_ as to begin an unjust and bloody war upon the English, which issued in their speedy and utter extirpation from the face of God’s earth. It was particularly remarkable in Philip, the ring leader of the most calamitous war ever made upon us; our Elliot made a tender of the _everlasting salvation_ unto that king, but the monster entertained it with contempt and anger, and after the _Indian_ mode of joining signs with words, he took a button upon the coat of the reverend man, adding, that _he cared for his gospel as much as he cared for that button_. The world has heard what terrible ruins soon came upon that monarch and upon all his people. It was not long before the hand that now writes, upon a certain occasion, took off the jaw from the exposed _skull_ of that _blasphemous leviathan_, and the renowned Samuel Lee hath since been a pastor of an English congregation, sounding and showing the praises of heaven upon that very spot of ground where Philip and his Indians were lately worshipping the Devil.” Christian Magazine, p. 514. Vol. I. Boston. Many passages, breathing the same spirit, will at once occur to the recollection of those who are familiar with the writings of the early puritans of New England. When such was the language learned divines chose to record for posterity, it is not difficult to discover what must have been the general tone of feeling toward the Indians.

[3] Letter to Col. McKenney, from the Principal of the Lancasterian Chocktaw School at the Great Crossings, Kentucky, in the National Intelligencer, July, 1828.

[4] “There are no beggars among them, nor fatherless children unprovided for.” Roger William’s Key, ch. 5.

“_Obs._ They are as full of business, and as impatient of hinderance, (in their kind,) as any merchant in _Europe_. Many of them naturally princes, or else industrious persons, are rich; and the poor amongst them will say they want nothing.” Williams, ch. 7. “_Obs._ The women of the family will commonly raise two or three heaps (of corn) of twelve, fifteen, or twenty bushels a heap, which they dry in round broad heaps; and if she has help of her children or friends, much more.” Ch. 16. “I could never discern that excess of scandalous sins amongst them which Europe aboundeth with. Drunkenness and gluttony generally they know not what sins they be. And although they have not so much to restrain them (both in respect of knowledge of God and laws of men) as the English have, yet a man shall never hear of such crimes among them, of robberies, murders, adulteries.” Ch. 22. Quotations to the same effect might be adduced from nearly all the early writers. Yet we are told that in all that regards their moral condition, the Indians have been gainers by their intercourse with the whites!

It is probably within the recollection of many persons now living, when the very considerable quantities of corn required for the fur trade in the country about Lake Superior, were purchased from the Indians, by whom it was raised at a place called _Ketekawwe Seebee_, or Garden river, a small stream falling into the strait between Lakes Superior and Huron, about six miles below the Saut St. Marie. “The Indians at the first settlement of the English, performed many acts of kindness towards them: they instructed them in the manner of planting and dressing the Indian corn,” and “by selling them corn when pinched with famine, they relieved their distresses, and prevented them from perishing in a strange land, and uncultivated wilderness.” _Trumbull’s History of Connecticut_, Vol. I. Ch. 3. In another place, speaking of a famine among the colonists, he says, “In this distressful situation a committee was sent to an Indian settlement called Pocomtock, where they purchased such quantities, that the Indians came down to Windsor and Hartford with fifty canoes at one time laden with Indian corn.” Vol. I. Ch. 6. The Indians on Block Island, according to the same authority, “had about two hundred acres of corn.” This the English, after two days spent on the Island “burning wigwams,” and “staving canoes,” destroyed, and then sailed for the Pequot country. Ib. Ch. 5. Charlevoix, a less exceptionable authority than most of the early French writers, says, that in an incursion into the country of the Senecas, the French destroyed four hundred thousand minots (1,200,000 bushels) of corn. “They also killed a prodigious number of swine, which caused much sickness.” _Hist. de la Nouvelle France_, liv. XI. It is unnecessary to cite passages, hundreds of which might be adduced to prove, what few, except the reviewer above quoted ever considered doubtful.

[5] The name of this man Tanner pronounces _Gish-gau-go_. He has subsequently been well known in Michigan, and other portions of the north-western frontier, by his numerous murders and depredations. He died in prison at Detroit, as lately as the fall of 1825.

[6] _Sa-gui-na_. The word _Sau-ge-nong_, appears to mean, “the town of the Saukees.”

[7] Tanner has much of the Indian habit of concealing emotion; but when he related the above to me, the glimmering of his eye, and a convulsive movement of his upper lip, betrayed sufficiently, that he is not without the enduring thirst for revenge which belongs to the people among whom he has spent his life. “As soon,” said he, in connection with this anecdote, “as I landed in Detroit on my return from Red River, and found a man who could speak with me, I said ‘where is Kish-kau-ko?’ ‘He is in prison.’ ‘Where is Manito-o-geezhik, his father?’ ‘Dead two months since.’ ‘It is well he is dead.’” Intimating that though more than thirty years had elapsed, he intended now to have avenged himself for the injury done him when a boy not eleven years of age.—Ed.

[8] _War-gun-uk-ke-zee_ means, as Tanner says, the bent tree; and the pine, which gave name to the place called by the French _L’Arbre Croche_, was standing when he first visited that village. He spoke with great indignation of the Indian who, through mere wantonness, cut down this remarkable tree.

[9] _Pe-twaw-we-ninne._—This, however, is a Cree word; the name among the Ojibbeways, is _Sug-guo-swaw-we-ninne_. Muskegoe is from _Mus-keek_, a swamp, and is applied to a band of the Ojibbeways, enjoying in general no very good name.

[10] This word, Win-ne-peg, is derived from _win-ne-be-a_, “dirty water,” or _ween-au-gum-ma_, which has nearly the same meaning. The lake is called by the Indians _Win-ne-be-a Sau-gie-gun_, “Dirty Water Lake.”

[11] _Puk-kwi_, the cat-tail flag, (_Typha Latifolia_,) of which we made the coarse mats called by the Menomonies _O-pah-keuk_, by the Ojibbeways of the Upper Mississippi, _O-pah-kwi-wuk._ There is a lake on the route from Green Bay to the Wisconsan, called on the maps _Puck-away_, but the word is, in the country, pronounced _Puk-kwi_.

[12] Or Spit Roasters, so called from their roasting meats on wooden spits.

[13] Assinneboins, Stone Roasters, from using heated stones to boil their provisions.

[14] _A-gutch-a-ninne-wug_, the settled people, called by the white Minnetarees.

[15] Lakes of the largest class are called by the Ottawwaws, Kitchegawme; of these they reckon five; one which they commonly call Ojibbeway Kitchegawme, Lake Superior, two Ottawwaw Kitchegawme, Huron and Michigan, and Erie and Ontario. Lake Winnipeg, and the countless lakes in the north-west, they call Sahkiegunnun.

[16] Naw-we-sah-ki-e-gun.

[17] Nebeninnah-ne-sebee—High Craneberry River; since called Pembinah. The Indian name is derived from that of the viburnum, with large red edible berries, somewhat resembling the craneberry; thence called v. oxycoccus. “Red River” is from the Indian Miskwawgumme-wesebee.

[18] Pronounced by the Indians, We-ge-wham.

[19] Needjee—my friend, is commonly used in friendly conversation; but, as in our language, is often used with a peculiar tone and manner, when a threat is intended.

[20] Jebiug-neezh-o-shin-naut—Two dead lie there.

[21] From _tub-buz-zeen_, imperative, “Do thou dodge down.”

[22] _An-nim-me-keeg wus-re-tah goos-e-wuk_, (Ottawwaw,) _it thunders_.—_na-mah-ke-wuk kau-ke-to-wuk_, (Menomine,) it thunders.—they are both, however, plural nominations, and have verbs in the plural.

[23] The name of this distinguished chief is spelt in “Major Long’s Second Expedition,” _Wa-no-tan_. To an English reader, this orthography conveys as incorrect an idea of the sound of his name, as the engraved portrait in that work, does of his handsome face and person.

[24] This is one of the species of Psoralea, so abundant in the open countries of the Missouri. When boiled or roasted, the roots are exceedingly palatable and nutritious; but the exclusive use of them commonly occasions derangement of the bowels.

[25] _Gah-menomonie gah-wun-zhe-gaw-wie see-bee_, (the river of the wild rice straw.) _Gaw-wun-je_, or _Gaw-wunzk_, is applicable to the stalks or trunks of many plants, shrubs, etc. as _Mee-na-gaw-wunge_, (whortleberry bush,) or, in the plural, _Mee-na-gaw-wa-cheen_, (whortleberry bushes.)

[26] _Devil Lake_, and on the North West Company’s map, _God’s Lake_.

[27] _Muz-zin-ne-neen_, _muz-zin-ne-neen-sug_—singular and plural. _Meshe-nin-ne-shah_, _Meshe-nin-ne-shuk_—Menomonie dialect. These little images, or drawings, for they are called by the same names, whether of carved wood, or rags, or only rudely sketched on birch bark, or even traced in sand, are much in use among several, and probably all the Algonkin tribes. Their use is not confined to hunting, but extends to the making of love, and the gratification of hatred, revenge, and all malignant passions.

It is a prevailing belief, to which the influence of established superstition has given an astonishing power, that the necromancers, men and women of medicine, or those who are acquainted with the hidden powers of their _wusks_, can, by practising upon the Muz-zin-ne-neence, exercise an unlimited control over the body and mind of the person represented. As it may have been, in former times, among the people of our race, many a simple Indian girl gives to some crafty old squaw her most valued ornaments, or whatever property she may possess, to purchase from her the love of the man she is most anxious to please. The old woman, in a case of this kind, commonly makes up a little image of stained wood and rags, to which she gives the name of the person whose inclinations she is expected to control; and to the heart, the eyes, or to some other part of this, she, from time to time, applies her medicine, or professes to have done so, as she may find necessary to dupe and encourage her credulous employer.

But the influence of these images and conjurations, is more frequently tested in cases of an opposite character; where the inciting cause is not love, but hatred, and the object to be attained, the gratification of a deadly revenge. In cases of this kind, the practices are similar to those above mentioned, only different medicines are used. Sometimes the Muz-zin-ne-neence is pricked with a pin, or needle, in various parts, and pain or disease is supposed to be produced in the corresponding part of the person practiced upon. Sometimes they blacken the hands and mouth of the image, and the effect expected, is the change which marks the near approach of death.

In the sanguinary chapter of the Calica Puran, we find reference to a similar superstition among the Asiatics.

“Let a figure be made, either of barley meal or earth, representing the person with whom the sacrificer is at variance, and the head of the figure struck off. After the usual texts have been used, the following is to be used in invoking the axe on the occasion: _Effuse, effuse blood! be terrific, be terrific! seize, seize! destroy, for the love of Ambica, the head of this enemy._ Having struck off the head let him present it, using the texts laid down hereafter for the occasion, concluding with the word PHAT. Water must be sprinkled on the meal or earthen victim, which represents the sacrificer’s enemy, using the text commencing with _Racta draibaih_, (i. e. by streams of blood,) and marks must be made on the forehead with red sanders; garlands of red flowers must be put round the neck of the image, and it must be dressed in red garments, tied with red cords, and girt with a red girdle. Then placing the head towards the north, let it be struck off with an axe, using the _Scanda_ text.”

So general and prevalent, among the Indians, is the confidence in the efficacy of these charms, and of those practised by means of a hair from the head of the intended victim, that the belief in them has extended to many of the more ignorant of the Canadians who reside with the Indians, and even to some of the traders. Instances in which a hair is used in place of the image, or mus-zin-ne-neence, are frequently those of young women; and various, and sometimes dreadful, are the consequences supposed to result. So confident are the representations of whites, and those even of some shrewdness, and so strong the belief of the Indians, in the power of these drawings, as to enforce the conviction that effects have been produced in connection with these mummeries, either by the influence of imagination, or the still more powerful and certain operation of poison, administered secretly. Poisoning is a crime of perhaps greater frequency among the Indians than could have been expected from their situation; and they attribute equal guilt to the poisoner, whether he actually and craftily administers some powerful drug, or whether, at the distance of one or two hundred miles, or at any place, however remote, he so applies medicine to the Muz-zin-ne-neence, or to a hair, as to produce pain, sickness, death, or other suffering, in his enemy. The influence of these superstitions and absurd fears is boundless, and would, perhaps, surpass comprehension and belief if we could not look back to the time when the minds of our own race were similarly enthralled, and when the dread of supernatural powers in the hands of the malicious or the envious, formed one among the most serious and real evils in the life even of the most enlightened and independent. Many cases of sudden sickness occur among them, and many deaths happen entirely in the way of nature, which they, being ignorant of the true cause, attribute to poison, or more frequently to bad medicine; but enough of well authenticated instances exist to prove that they, in some cases, practice upon each other by poison; sometimes using such noxious plants, or other substances as their own country affords, and in other instances procuring arsenic, or other drugs, from the whites. To destroy life in this way is perfectly in accordance with their ideas of bravery, or toughness of heart, (Soug-ge-da-win;) he being often esteemed the bravest man who destroys his enemy with least risk to his own life.

The Chippewyans, whose bleak and inhospitable country, affords neither birch bark nor other similar article, indeed nothing from the vegetable kingdom to serve as a substitute for the birch bark, and whose extreme rudeness has left them ignorant of any method of preparing from stones or earth any things suitable to write or delineate figures upon, use, in their preparations for the medicine hunt, the scapular bone of the rein deer, or such other animals as are found in their country. With an apparent poverty of language, corresponding to the meagerness of their soil, and the bluntness of their intellects, they denominate the drawing used in this kind of hunting, _El-kul-lah ke-eet-ze_, (the shoulder blade bone.) It would appear, also, that the accompanying ceremonies of this superstition are proportionately rude and inartificial. After awkwardly sketching the rein deer, or whatever animal they may happen to consider as indicated to them by their dream, they cast the bone on which the drawing is made into the fire, if, by chance, they happen to have one, and this fulfills all those important ends, which, in the imagination of the Ojibbeway hunter, are dependent upon the proper application of his medicines, and the patient chanting of his prayers.

[28] _Match-a-to-ge-wub_, (in the Cree, _Mait-cha-to-ke-wub_,) in the Ojibbeway, means nearly “Many Eagles sitting.”

[29] _Ne-je_, my friend, used to males; and _nin-dong-gwa_, used by females to one another.

[30] Some of the circumstances of this murder seem to identify it with that of Keveny, for which Charles De Reinhard and Archibald M’Lellan were tried at Quebec, in 1818, and the former condemned to death. De Reinhard, Mainville, and Jose, or Joseph, an Indian, otherwise called the Son of the White Partridge, seem to have been the immediate actors in this affair. It is not surprising that Tanner, who was then, as far as opportunities for particular information on this subject were concerned, on a par with the wildest Indian, should have mistaken foreign names, as well as the comparative rank and importance of foreigners in the country.

[31] Many of the names of white men in the northwest and in other parts of the country, which are mentioned in this narrative, are grossly misspelt; the same principle having been followed in writing both foreign and Indian names, in all instances where the name the narrator intended to mention did not immediately recur to the recollection of the writer. Thus Codman is here written for _Coltman_: in other places, Maveen for _Mainville_; Tussenon for _D’Orsonnens_, etc. It is also not improbable that names may have become confounded in the mind of our hunter himself, who appears to have been more conversant with Indians than white men. Thus, in his account of the murder of a governor of the Hudson’s Bay Company, of the name of M’Donald, or M’Dolland, he may possibly have used one of these names in place of that of Mr. Semple, who was one of the victims to that spirit of bloody rivalry which occasioned these troubles between the trading companies. This want of precision, particularly in the spelling of names, will not, with the candid, impair the credibility of this humble narrative.

[32] O-poih-gun—pipe; O-poih-gun-nun—pipes.

[33] _Nin-us-kun-je-ga kwi-uk we-ke-wah-mik._ See note at the end of the volume on the Menominie word _Ke-kish-kosh-kaw-pe-nin_.

[34] The painful topic of domestic troubles, and the misconduct of persons nearly allied to him, seems to be the only one on which the narrator has not spoken with clearness. There is, in relation to this subject, some want of distinctness; but it is believed this will not be thought to affect the credibility of the narrative, inasmuch as we discover no departure from truth, unless the suppression of some facts can be considered such.

[35] Sug-gus-swaw-waw—the Smoker, in Ojibbeway.

[36] _Ka-gah-gum-ming_, almost water.

[37] This word, in the language of the fur traders, signifies not the coming back of the clerk or person sent out but the peltries acquired by the outfit, and is equally used if the trader never returns in person to his employer.

[38] Some discussion has heretofore taken place concerning the existence of a priesthood among the Indians. A little inquiry will convince any one, that the medicine men are a set of crafty impostors, who subsist, in a great measure, by practising on their credulity; by selling them medicines, or charms, for ensuring success in hunting, for enticing the females, and for other purposes. When one of these has been so fortunate as to gain an ascendance over their superstitious and credulous minds, he sometimes sets up for a prophet, and claims intercourse with superior and invisible beings.

[39] A copious account of the Medicine Dance, or Metai, as it exists among the Me-no-mo-nies, is contained in a manuscript paper, entitled, “Remarks on the Mythology of the Algonkins,” etc. communicated to the New-York Historical Society, in 1827, by the Editor of this narrative.

[40] _O-jee-chau-go-mau_—Schoolcraft. This is the substantive without any inseparable pronoun. It is commonly used in combination, as _Ne-tah-chuk_, my shadow; _Ke-tah-chuk_, thy shadow; _O-tah-chuk_, his shadow, among the Menomonies.

[41] Mas-ge-kwi-min-all—Zeis. p. 83.

[42] A substance is brought by the Indians from a place called Na-kaw-wudj, on the shores of Lake Superior, which, when bruised, imparts a bright carnation colour. It is a small root, probably that of a species of Chenopodium, which is sometimes met with on the borders of swamps about St. Marks.

[43] Probably from _Weah-gush-ke_, dust; or that which is mixed together.

[44] More probably compounded of Mus-keeg, (a swamp,) and Me-taus, (a leggin,) from its resemblance to the leggins worn by the Indians.

[45] From _Shig-gau-ga-winje_, this word, in the singular number, some derive the name Chikago, which is commonly pronounced by the Indians _Shig-gau-go_—_Shig-gau-go-ong_, at Chikago.

[46] _A-wes-sis-sac_, Del. Zeisb. 2d ed. p. 46.

[47] The young of this animal, if taken out of the uterus with care immediately on killing the dam, and put upon a tree, will cling to it, and often live. The Indians relate, that the porcupines, in the prairie countries of the north, pass the winters on oak trees, where they oftentimes have no hole, or any other protection from the weather, than is afforded by the trunk of the tree. They strip all the bark off one tree, before they go to search for another, and one may pass the greater part of the winter on a single tree, if it happens to be a large one. They also pretend to fatten the porcupine in the summer, whenever they can find him in some hole, where he has constructed his nest, which is of his own excrement. This, they say, he eats, and never fails, when thus confined, to become very fat. The porcupine is not disposed to make any other resistance, when attacked by a man, than his spiny skin affords, and the Indians have a saying of this animal, and of the rabbit, that those whom they bite will live to a great age.

[48] From _O-muk-kuk-ke_, (toad,) and _Ah-koo-se-win_, (sickness,) is probably derived the word _Ma-muk-ke-ze-win_, (the small pox.)

[49] The Gween-gwe-sha is met with about the Saut De St. Marie, in the winter season. It is a little smaller than the blue jay, and of a leaden colour on the back, the lower part of the neck, and the wings; a few of the feathers about the belly are a dirty white above, but plumbeous below, as are those on the forward part of the neck, and about the insertion of the beak. It appears to be the _Corous Canadensis_ of Rees’ Cyclop. It is said to have been found as far south in the United States, as the Little Falls of the Mohawk.

[50] This social little bird seems to be not less the favourite and companion of the Indian than of the white man. They relate, that long ago, soon after Nanabush had made the ground, there was an old chief, a great and good man, who, with his wife, had one son. But this young man disregarded the advice and admonitions of his parents; particularly he neglected to fast and pray, as all young men and women are enjoined to do. For many successive days, had his father presented him his breakfast in one hand, and in the other offered charcoals with which to paint his face; but the ungracious son had steadily preferred the venison, or the broth, to the coals. One morning he directed the old woman to make a choice kettle of Mun-dah-min-aw-bo, or corn broth, and taking a bowl full of it in one hand, and as usual some coals in the other, he presented them both to his son. The young man choosing the broth, the father returned to the fire place, and taking a handful of ashes, threw it into the bowl. The young man then took the coals, and rubbing them in his hands, painted his face, and retired to the bushes near by. After he had lain three or four days, his father offered him something to eat, but he would not accept it. This was repeated from time to time, until the tenth day; then the young man still remaining in the bushes, called his father, and his mother, and his relatives, and addressed them thus: “My friends, it has been unpleasant to you to see me eat so much as I have eaten; hereafter I shall eat less; but although I can no longer live with you in the lodge, I shall remain near you, and it shall be my business to forwarn you when any stranger is approaching.” He then took some red paint, and put it on his face and his breast, to signify that his fast was finished, and was immediately changed to a bird called O-pe-che. Still he delights to live near the lodges of those who were his relatives; and oftentimes taking a stand on the highest branch of a tree, he cries out n’doan-watch-e-go, n’doan-watch-e-go, to foretell that some one is coming. But having found that his prediction often proves false, he is ashamed as soon as he has uttered it, and flying down, he hides himself in thick bushes, or on the ground, crying out che! che! che! che!

[51] Ziskemanis, Zeis. 66.

[52] Gok-hos, Z. 11.

[53] Man-e-toanse-sug, or man-e-toanse-ug, small spirits; not exactly synonymous in this application with our word insects, but used to designate, indiscriminately, all very small animals.

[54] Mesissachowak, Zeis. 84.

[55] This is one of those clumsy sphinxes, or moths, that are found on the ground in damp weather, or after showers of rain, and the Indians imagine that they fall from the _Annimekeeg_, the beings whose voice is the thunder.

[56] The Nautoway Indians have a fable, of an old man and woman who watched an ant heap until they saw the little insects changed to white men, and the eggs which they carry in their mouths, to bales of merchandise.

[57] The tribes known to the Ottawwaws, are by them denominated as follows:

1. Ottawwawwug, Ottawwaws, } } Close allies in all past times, 2. Ojibbewaig, Ojibbeways, } and their } dialects very similar. 3. Potiwattimeeg, Potiwattomies, }

4. Kekaupoag, Kickapoos.

5. Oshawanoag, Shawneese, or southern people.

6. Wawbunukkeeg, Stockbridge, or white tops.

7. Muskotanje, Muskantins of the early French writers; formerly lived at Wawkwunkizze, whence they were driven by the Ottawwaws, and the latter now consider them as lost. By some they are supposed to have been a band of Potiwattomies; but the Ottawwaws enumerate them as a distinct people.

8. Osaugeeg, Sankewi.

9. Mahnomoneeg, Menomonies, (wild rice people.)

10. Kneestenoag, Crees. They are said to call themselves Nah-hahwuk.

11. Muskegoag, Muskegoes, (swamp people.)

12. Muskegoag, Nopemit Azhinneneeg, or Nopemetus Anineeg, (back woods people,) a second relationship of Muskegoes.

13. Sheshebug, Ducks.

14. Bowwetegoweninnewug, Fall Indians.

15. Tuskwawomeeg, Uskwawgomees; near Montreal.

The above fifteen tribes are thought to speak languages which resemble Ottawwaw.

16. Nautowaig, Naudoways, (rattle snakes.)

17. Mat-che-naw-to-waig, Bad Naudoways.

18. Ioewaig, Ioways.

19. Nabuggindebaig, Flat heads; said to have lived below the Illinois River.

20. Winnebagoag, Winnebagoes, or Puants.

21. Bwoinug, Sioux; Naudowesseeg, Ott., Roasters.

22. Ussinebwoinug, Assinneboins, (stone roasters.)

23. Agutchaninnewug, Minnetahres, (settled people.)

24. Kwowahtewug, Mandans.

25. Ahmeekkwun Eninnewug, Beaver People; among the Fall Indians.

26. Mukkudda Ozitunnug, Black Feet.

27. Ussinnewudj Eninnewug, Rocky Mountain Indians.

28. Pahneug, Pawnees.

29. Wamussonewug.

30. Kokoskeeg.

31. Aguskemaig, Esquimaux, (those who eat their food raw.)

32. Weendegoag, Cannibals. This last is an imaginary race, said to inhabit an island in Hudson’s Bay. They are of gigantic dimension, and extremely given to cannibalism. The Muskegoes, who inhabit the low and cheerless swamps on the borders of Hudson’s Bay, are themselves reproached by other tribes as cannibals, are said to live in constant fear of the Weendegoag.

33. Ojeeg Wyahnug, Fisher Skins.

[58] A person born in this moon, (January,) will be long lived.

[59] These rude pictures are carved on a flat piece of wood, and serve to suggest to the minds of those who have learned the songs, the ideas, and their order of succession; the words are not variable, but a man must be taught them, otherwise, though from an inspection of the figure he might comprehend the idea, he would not know what to sing.

[60] _Ke-da-ne_, _ke-da_, (thy heart;) but a syllable is added in singing.

[61] The sound of B and P are used indiscriminately in many words, thus: _bena_, _pena_, for the word meaning a pheasant.

[62] In the sitting figures of Na-na-bush, as rudely delineated by the Indians, there is some resemblance to the Asiatic _Iswara_, or _Satyavrata_, who, in the eastern mythology, is connected with one of their deluges. Like Noah, like Saturn, and like Iswara, Na-na-bush preserved, during the inundation, those animals and plants, which were afterwards to be useful to mankind; and his addresses to the animals, which the Indians often repeat, remind us of the age when one language was common to men and brutes. (Tooke’s Pantheon, p. 118. Am. ed.) It is true, that, like the Ovidian Deucalion, Na-na-bush reproduced men, the old stock having been entirely destroyed; but it is to be remembered, that any resemblance, however strong, between these traditions, have had ample time to be obliterated. Instead of complaining that the similarity in the opinions of these people to ancient fables, is no stronger, we ought, perhaps, to be surprised that any resemblance exists. If any one would attempt a comparison between the opinions of the Americans and the Pagans of former ages, or of any other race, he should bear in mind how vague and mutable must be all such traditions, in an unwritten language. He must not be surprised to find, on close examination, that the characters of all pagan deities, male and female, melt into each other, and, at last, into one or two, for it seems a well founded opinion, that the whole crowd of gods and goddesses of ancient _Rome_, the modern _Váránes_ of the east, and _Mani-toag_ of the west, mean, originally, only the powers of nature, and principally those of the sun, expressed in a variety of ways, and by a number of fanciful names. (Asiatic Researches, Vol. I. p. 267, Lond. ed.)

The resemblance between the Algonkin deity, (Na-na-bush,) and Saturn and _Satyavrata_, or _Iswara_, of the Sanscrit, may be farther traced in each being figured with a serpent, sometimes held in the hand, and in other instances, as in many of the Roman figures of Saturn, in the mouth. This resemblance is, perhaps, the more worthy of remark, as the Americans seem not to have retained any very satisfactory explanation of this circumstance.

It will not be supposed that these vague resemblances in religious opinions, if they may be so called, afford the means of tracing the American tribes to their origin. That these people have customs and opinions closely resembling those of the Asiatics, particularly of the Hebrews, previous to the Christian dispensation, will not be denied; but the final result of all inquiries into this subject will, perhaps, be the adoption of the opinion of _Bryant_, of _Sir William Jones_, and other men of profound research, that Egyptians, Greeks, and Italians, Persians, Ethiopians, Phenecians, Celts, and Tuscans, proceeded, originally, from one central place, and that the same people carried their religion and sciences into China and Japan, to Mexico and Peru, and, we may add, to the banks of the Mississippi, and the coasts of Hudson’s Bay.

Some of the arguments adduced in support of the favourite opinion, that the American tribes are the long lost remnant of the children of Israel, certainly require no answer. An intimate acquaintance with many languages is now so widely diffused, as to supersede the necessity of remarking, or of proving, that a strong similarity in the sound of some few words of different languages, even though they should be found similar in meaning, does not establish the fact of community of origin; and the wide dissimilarity between the American and the Hebrew, and its cognate dialects, in the one particular, of the compounding of words, is probably, to the learned, conclusive proof that our tribes are, in no sort, derived from the Hebrew stock.

[63] In Mr. M’Kenney’s “Tour of the Lakes,” p. 202, 205, some account is given of _Na-na-bou-jou_, and the renovation of the earth after the deluge, which agrees, in most particulars, very closely with the traditions among the Attawwaws and Menomonies. But these last relate it with the following addition: “When the earth, which was found in the claws and in the mouth of the muskrat, began to expand itself upon the surface of the water, Na-na-bou-jou sat, day after day, watching its enlargement. When he was no longer able to see the extent of it, he sent out a wolf, and told him to run around all the ground, and then return to him, that he might thus know how large it had become. The wolf was absent only a short time, and returned. After some time he sent him out the second time, with similar directions, and he was gone two years. Again, after this, he sent him out, and he returned no more. Then Na-na-bou-jou gave the animals, all of whom he called Ne-she-mah, (my younger brother,) each his own peculiar kind of food. He also told such of them as were to be for food for men, that he had given them to his uncles, and they must expect, from time to time, to be hunted and killed; he also enjoined it upon them, that as long as men should choose a speedy and merciful method of killing them, they should make no resistance; but, in cases of wanton and cruel injury, they might turn to resist.”

It is also to be observed, that this renovation of the earth is clearly distinguished, in the traditions of the Attawwaws, from the original creation, which was long previous. How much of the instructions of the Jesuits, and of other whites, may now be combined in these legends, it is difficult to say. But they relate that men, before the flood, though they had been long before upright and good, had now become exceedingly degenerate; but they do not assign this as the cause for which the deluge was brought upon the earth. They say that the younger brother of Na-na-bou-jou was slain by the Great Spirit, the father of both, and it was in grief and in anger that Na-na-bou-jou himself caused the earth to be overwhelmed. To so great an extent did he carry his resentment against the Great Spirit, and the other Spirits, that they, with the hope of appeasing him, restored his brother to life. But Na-na-bou-jou said, “No, my brother, this cannot be, that any should die and come again to live here as before; return again to the place to which they had sent you; it is there that many of my uncles and aunts must come every year. You shall be the friend and the protector of those, as I am of the living, who are here on this earth.” He returned accordingly, and it is this brother of Na-na-bou-jou, who is now spoken of as _Ning-gah-be-ar-nong Man-i-to_, (the western god,) though this is not his name, by which he was known to his brother. He is the god of the country of the dead, the towns of the Je-bi-ug, which are always towards the setting sun.

[64] Waw-bun-oank-tus-e-kwa.

[65] Of the origin of the name Chip-pe-wi-yan, by which, since Hearne and M’Kenzie, these people have been called, it may now be difficult to give any satisfactory account. A very intelligent person among the Ojibbeways asserts, that the name is derived from that language, and is only a vicious pronunciation of the compound word _O-jee-gwi-yan_, which means the skin of the fisher weasel. But the Chip-pe-wi-yans, in their own country, have no knowledge of the animal, and it is not easy to imagine how the name of its skin should have been fixed upon by them as a distinctive appellation. They are called by the Canadians, and many white men residing in the Athavasca country, “Mountaineers,” which appellation they derive from the country of bleak and snowy rocks, which they inhabit. Tanner thinks the name _O-jee-gwi-yah-nug_ may be derived from a word which means, “_To pierce with an awl a fold of skin_.”

[66] _A_ is to be sounded as in fate; _ah_ as in father; the still broader sound is marked by _aw_, or _au_. The other English vowels are less ambiguous. _C_ only used before _h_, and the sound thus indicated is never to be compounded with that of _K_. _G_ is always hard, as in _go_; _J_ always soft, as in _June_. At the end of words it has the sound of the English _dge_, as in knowledge; _zh_ sounds as _s_ in pleasure.

Several of the consonant sounds are used interchangeably, not only in different dialects, but even in the same, and by people of the same band: thus, _m_ for _n_, _g_ for _k_, or _t_ for either, _b_ for _p_, _d_ for _t_, _l_ for _n_, and _r_ for either of these. In the Cree dialect, for example, the word, _e-rin-ne_ signifies man; in the Ojibbeway it is _e-nin-ne_; in some other dialect approaching the Delaware, it is _il-len-ni_; in the Delaware, according to Zeisberger, _len-no_; in the Menomonie _e-nain_, or _e-nai-new_, when the meaning of the verb substantive is combined. This observation should be borne in mind by all who take the trouble to compare and examine the written words of any Indian language. To many of the Algonkin dialects the sound of _b_ is entirely foreign; others have no _r_. Many of the guttural and nondescript sounds of the Chippewyan, as well as several of those in the Winnebago, and the nasal in the Algonkin, cannot be represented by our alphabet.

[67] _Wah-wia-ke-mut_? With whom doth he _We-ge-wam_? This is similar to the Greek in John i. 14. “The word was made flesh, and dwelt among us; εσκηνωσεν εν ημιν, literally, tabernacled among us.”

[68] This word, which means, as here used, _back_, or off the routes of communication, has been translated, or rather paraphrased by the traders, _in the lands_. _No-pe-mik_ means, also, at the back side of a house, etc.

[69] From this example compared with the preceding, we may see how flexible are the words in these dialects, when used in combination; _nin-ne-wy-gun_ instead of _a-nin-ne o-kun-nun_.

[70] _Wah-o-tos-hi-ah-wik?_ is pronounced by the Menomonies as one word; it is probable that the interrogative pronoun _wah_ should be considered separate. Of the remaining syllables, the prefix _o_ seems used to indicate the third person; the next syllable, _to_, pronounced _toe_, is the word _oos_, meaning canoe; and _iahwik_ implies possession. The whole sentence is similar in form and signification to what we often hear from Canadians, or persons very imperfectly acquainted with the English language. “Who belongs that canoe?” The word _neen-di-ah_, which has by some been thought to afford an affirmative answer to the question, whether these languages have the verb substantive, to me appears to correspond very accurately with the Latin _habeo_, _Iche iah’t_, _habere_, and like that verb, it may be used for the true verb substantive.

[71] _Gitche-gitche-gum-me_, (far, far across.) This seems to be the only word the western Indians have for the ocean, a circumstance which would induce one to believe, (could any reliance be placed upon a language preserved only by the memories, and consequently depending on the external circumstances of a few rude men,) that these tribes are not the remains of those formerly driven west, but have long occupied their present position. The manner of expressing the superlative degree appears similar to that in the Hebrew, where we are informed the degrees of comparison are made sometimes by prefixing certain syllables, or by repeating the word expressing quality, whether substantive or adjective. By some the word _Gitche-gum-me_ is considered a compound of _Gitche_, (great,) and _gum-maig_, (water.)

[72] _Lemattachpin_, Del. Zeisb. 51, second edition. _Pom-mis-so-wak_, (they walk), Ib. 62. All these words here given as infinitives, have not a form and termination analogous to those of the Delaware infinitives, as given in Zeisberger’s Grammar, but they resemble very closely those of the Massachusetts language, as represented by Mr. Elliot. Infinitives appear not to be used with great frequency by the Chippeways; some examples, however, occur, in which we can scarce suppose ourselves mistaken respecting the mood of the verb; such as this, _n’noan-do-waw a-ne-moose-me-gid_. (I hear a dog bark.) The preposition _to_ appears to have no other signification that our _to_, with infinitives, their _local case_, as it has been called, affording a substitute for it, in all cases where we should prefix _to_ to a substantive, as, _to the house_, _to the town_, _to the substantive_, etc. if they had any such words.

[73] The final _t_ in many of these words would, to many, appear more closely to resemble our consonant sound _d_; but so unsteady is the practice of the Indians themselves in this particular, that the ear must be far nicer than ordinary, that can distinguish, in the language of the best speakers, any steady and invariable usage in pronouncing the same word. It is allowable, in attempting to give a written form to any language, to decide a little arbitrarily in such cases. We may, perhaps, have been influenced to give preference, in some instances, to the sound of _t_, as the termination for this mood, by the example of Mr. Elliot, who steadily gives it in the infinitive forms of the Massachusetts dialect; and we are convinced that no Chippeway will ever mistake any word, on account of its having the final sound _t_, instead of _d_. They are, in the main, perfectly interchangeable.

[74] Neither _i-ah_ nor _goo-sah_, are thought to be the verb substantive in these examples. The former seems to approach, in signification, very closely to the Latin habeo.

[75] _Gemilelen_, Del. Zeib. 2d ed. p. 46.

[76] _Tah-ko-bitche-gum_, (prisoner string,) _Tah-ko-bitche-gun-un_, (prisoner strings.) These cords are made of the bark of the elm tree, by boiling, and then immersing it in cold water; they are from twenty-five to fifty feet in length, and though less than half an inch in diameter, strong enough to hold the stoutest man. They are commonly ornamented with porcupine quills; and _se-bas-kwi-a-gun-un_, or rattles are attached at each end, not only for ornament, but to give notice of any attempt the prisoner may make to escape. The leader of a war-party commonly carries several _Tah-ko-bitche-gun-un’s_ fastened about his waist, and, if in the course of the fight any one of his young men takes a prisoner, it is his duty to bring him immediately to the chief, to be tied, and the latter is responsible for his safe keeping.

[77] Mr. Elliot seems to have used _oh-ke-oo-ook_ as a verb, as if he had said, while the earth _earth’s_, or, “is the earth,” which is perfectly in accordance with the principles of these dialects.

[78] These two examples will be found, in almost every respect, entirely similar, and they afford striking instances of the tendency of these dialects to crowd together, and to change all words to verbs. _Wun-au-mon_, in Elliot’s Bible, means a son.

[79] Many instances might be adduced, to show the close affinity between the language of Mr. Elliot’s version of the Bible, and several of the dialects of the present day. The termination in _wug_ is found among the Crees, and, as in that translation, it is used in speaking of animate objects. _We-at-ehim-me-nash_ (corn,) in the plural number, is the same in both, and the same forms of expression: as, _No-wad-cha-num-un-neek_, (I keep my house,) _No-wad-cha-num-un-ash-noo-we-at-chim-ne-nash_, (I keep my corn). Gram. p. 10, precisely analagous to _n’ko-noan-dun new-ke-wam_, (I keep my house,) _n’ko-no-wa-ne-maug ne-man-dah-min-e-wug_, (I keep my corn of the harvest day.)

[80] Ojibbeway—Me-tus-uh ge-na-beek a-naut a-new-e-kwa-wun, kaw-ween-go-sah ke-kah-ne-boas.—C.J.

MEYERS PRINTING COMPANY MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA

* * * * * *

Transcriber’s note:

The following changes have been made to the text to correct suspected printing errors. Minor changes of punctuation and formatting are not noted; spelling and hyphenation are simply inconsistent.

Page xxi, “forgotton” changed to “forgotten” (it should not be forgotten)

Page xxiii, “then” changed to “than” (of more value than all that has been effected)

Page xxv, “subsistance” changed to “subsistence” (the means of subsistence it offers them)

Page xxvi, “demonds” changed to “demons” (_wild beasts_, _bloodhounds_, _heathen demons_)

Page xxxiv, “meaures” changed to “measures” (By a system of measures of this kind)

Page 14, “run” changed to “ran” (he cut himself loose, and immediately ran)

Page 27, “the” changed to “to” (we continued on to the Lake of the Woods)

Page 75, “hestiate” changed to “hesitate” (I did not hesitate to carry)

Page 79, “pusilanimity” changed to “pusillanimity” (I reproached him for pusillanimity)

Page 84, “abut” changed to “about” (do all that is needful about your lodge)

Page 85, “a” added (where we spent a great part of the summer)

Page 107, “repluse” changed to “repulse” (The Indians laughed heartily at my repulse)

Page 140, “Ba-gis-kun-mung” changed to “Ba-gis-kun-nung” (the band to whom Ba-gis-kun-nung belonged)

Page 145, “Diety” changed to “Deity” (if the Deity had any communications to make)

Page 153, “they” changed to “them” (telling them they preferred)

Page 160, “retured” changed to “returned” (and had returned home)

Page 244, “a” added (the house of a man, whose name, ... was Morgan)

Page 251, “set” changed to “sit” (as long as I was able to sit up)

Page 255, “An-num-mun-se” changed to “An-num-mun-ne” (the mouth of the An-num-mun-ne Se-be)

Page 267, “he” changed to “the” (they accepted the presents)

Page 279, “aproached” changed to “approached” (As the time approached)

Page 300, “Wolverne” changed to “Wolverene” (Gwin-gwaw-ah-ga—Wolverene, (tough beast.))

Page 321, “Beer” changed to “Bear” and “dear” changed to “deer” (Bear moon, Ott.; deer rutting moon, Men.)

Page 337, “artifical” changed to “artificial” (polished and artificial structure)

Page 343, “mischeivous” changed to “mischievous” (We learn how mischievous are these superstitions)

Page 377, “occasionlly” changed to “occasionally” (occasionally aiding with his finger)

Page 377, “fifty” changed to “fifth” (in the fifth and sixth verses)

Page 395, “Εμισησαν με διοξεχν, John xvi. 25.” changed to “Εμισησαν με δωρεαν, John xv. 25.”

Footnote 27, “instatnces” changed to “instances” (enough of well authenticated instances exist)

Footnote 27, “prorportionately” changed to “proportionately” (proportionately rude and inartificial)

Footnote 50, “foretel” changed to “foretell” (to foretell that some one is coming)

Footnote 62, “innundation” changed to “inundation” (during the inundation)

Footnote 62, “bo” changed to “be” (have had ample time to be obliterated)

Footnote 62, “godesses” changed to “goddesses” (gods and goddesses of ancient _Rome_)

Footnote 62, “Persions” changed to “Persians” (Italians, Persians, Ethiopians, Phenecians)