letter M placed between them makes, or supplies the place of our

infinitive. I cannot go, _Haoahen m'ahik_. _Haoahen_ and _ahik_, are both in the first person of the present of the indicative, M only being placed between. Thou knowest not how to teach me: _Chig graařaige m'riapa grañi_. Wilt thou be baptized, or, as the Abipones say, wilt thou have thy head washed? _Mik mich grehech m'nakarigi gremarachi?_

They elude the necessity of an infinitive, of gerunds, and supines, by various modes of speech peculiar to themselves. It may be as well to illustrate this by some examples. When we say, Can I go? an Abipon would express it in this way: I will go. There is no difficulty, or is there any difficulty? _Lahikam. Chigeeka loaik_, or _Mañigà loaik?_ Thou oughtest to go, an Abipon would render thus: _Yoamkatà kët, lame_: It is right that thou shouldest go. Thou oughtest not to go, or it is not convenient: _Mich grehech m'amè? oagan chik yoamk_: Wilt thou go? though that is not convenient. How skilful this man is in swimming! an Abipon would express thus: What a swimmer this man is! _Kemen álařankachak yóale!_ I shall be strong by eating: _Rihotam am hakeñe_: I shall be strong whilst I eat. I come to speak to thee: _Hëëchiapegrari; kleranam kaúe, la nauè_: I will speak to thee; that was the reason why I came now. The boy is wont to tell lies: _La noaharegřan kén oenek_. The particles _kén_ and _aage_ signify custom. An Abipon would also express the above sentence in this way: _Noaharegřan oenek: la lahërek_: The boy tells lies: now it is his custom. I am accustomed to pray: _Klamach hanáyaagè m'hëëtoalá_.

The passive voice in affirming has no particular form, but is expressed by some passive participle, or by active verbs. When we say that a thing is lost or ended, they say that the thing has perished, ceased, does not appear, &c. _Yúihak oaloà_, or _chitlgihe_: The ox hath perished, or does not appear. In denying, the passive is explained by an active verb only, with the addition of the particle _chigat_, or _chigíchiekat_: thus: It is not known: _Chigat yaraigè_. _Yaraigè_ is the indicative mood, present tense, third person singular, of the active verb. That is not eaten: _Chigat yaìk_. That is not usurped: _Chigat eygà_. I was not informed: _Chigat ripachigui_. The horses were not well guarded, therefore they perished: _Machka chigat nkehayape enò ahëpega, maoge oaloéra_. The stars cannot be counted: _Chigichiekat nakatñi eeřgřae_. What is not known, ought not to be told. _Am chigat yaraige, chigichiekat yaratapekam, &c._

Of many active verbs, both active, and passive, but not future participles are formed. _Rikapit_, I love, _amo_. From it are formed: _Ykapicher̂_, beloved by me, or my beloved; _a me amatus, meus amatus_. _Grkapicheřachi_, thy beloved, _tuus amatus_. _Lkapicheřat_, his beloved: _suus amatus_. From this comes the feminine. _Ykapichkatè_, my beloved; _mea amata_. _Grkapichkachi_, thy beloved; _tua amata_. _Lkapichkatè_, his beloved, _illius amata_. I am beloved by all; _ego sum amatus ab omnibus_: _Lkapicheraté Kenoataoge_. From this participle are derived, _Kapicheřa_, love, _amor_. _Ykapicheřa_, my love; _amor meus_. _Kapichieraik_, loving, a lover, _amans_, _amator_.

_Rikaùagè_, I pity, I feel a kindness for any one. Its passive participle is, _Ykáuagřat_, kindly affected by me. Substantive, _Ykaúgřa_, my good-will. _Kauagřankatè_, the instrument, manner, or place of good-will, or the benefit itself. _Kauagřankachak_, benevolent, compassionate. _Ykaúagek_, kindly regarded by me. _Grkaúagigì_, kindly regarded by thee.

_Hapagřanatřan_, I teach. _Napagřanatřanak_, the master who teaches. _Napagřanatek_, the scholar who is taught. _Napagřanatřanřek_, teaching, instruction. _Napagřanatrankatè_, the place where, or the matter which the scholar is taught.

We now enter a labyrinth of the Abiponian tongue, most formidable to learners, where, unless guided by long experience, as Theseus was by Ariadne, you will not be able to walk without risk of error. I am speaking of those verbs which grammarians call transitive, or reciprocal. In our language, the action of one person, or thing, upon another, is easily described by the pronouns themselves, _I_, _thou_, _he_, _we_, _you_. The Abipones, on the contrary, neglecting the use of the above pronouns, effect this by various inflections of the verbs, and by here and there combining new particles with them. This shall be made plainer by examples. _I love thee_, _thou lovest me_, _he loves me or thee_. _We love him_, _ye love us or them_. The Latins, in this manner, express mutual love, to which purpose the Abipones use much circumlocution, and various artifices, thus: _Rikapit_, I love. _Rikapichieřou_, I love thee. _Grkapichioà_, thou lovest me. _Nkapichioà_, he loves me. _Nkapichieřoà_, he loves thee. _Grkapitaè_, we love him. _Grkapitla_, we love them. _Matníkapitalta_, I love myself. _Nikapichialta_, thou lovest thyself. _Grkapitáatá_, we love one another. But would that this were a paradigm of all the verbs! Others take other particles, and changes of syllables, thus:

_Rikauagè_, I pity. _Rikauágyégarigè_, I pity thee. _Grkauagiygè_, thou pitiest me. _Grkauág yegarik_, thou pitiest us. _Nkauágigyè_, he pities me. _Nkauág yegarigé_, he pities thee. _Nkaúagegè_, he pities him. _Grkaúagekápegetaá_, we pity one another. _Ñikaúakáltaá_, I pity myself.

_Hapagřanatřan_, I teach. _Neapagřan_, I teach myself. _Hapagřankátápegetà_, we teach one another. _Hapagrani_, I teach thee. _Riápagřani_, thou teachest me. _Riapagřan_, he teaches me. _Yapagřan_, he teaches him.

_Hamelk_, I whip. _Hámelgi_, I whip thee. _Riámelgi_, thou whippest me. _Riamelk_, he whips me. _Gramelgi_, he whips thee. _Yamélk_, he whips him.

_Hakleenté_, I remember. _Hakleenchitápegřari_, I remember thee. _Hakkenchitapegii_, thou rememberest me. _Yákleentetápegiì_, he remembers me. From these instances, you will perceive the variation in transitive verbs, as sometimes _eřoà_, sometimes _yégarige_, sometimes _raři_, or other particles, must be added to the different persons. Believe me, the learning of them is extremely tedious to Europeans, and can only be effected by long acquaintance with these savages. Other Americans also use these transitive verbs, but their form is the same, whether mutual action or passion is expressed. Thus the Guaranies say, _Ahaĭhù_, I love. _Orohaĭhù_, I love thee. _Ayukà_, I kill. _Oroyukà_, I kill thee. _Amboé_, I teach. _Oromboe_, I teach thee, &c. What can be easier or more expeditious than this?

They sometimes express the relative who, by _eknam_, or, in the plural number, _enonam_, thus: _Dios eknam Kaogarik_: God who is the creator. _Hemokáchin nauáchiekà, enonam yapochi_: I esteem soldiers who are brave. Sometimes, in the manner of the Latins, they suppress the relative who, and supply its place by a participle, or adjective. _Riákayà netegingà oakaika, kach quenò ahamr̂aeka_: I abominate biting and dead dogs.