Not the slightest variation is made in these phrases, between who, whose, and whom.

Should we wish to change the interrogative, and to say, he who is there; he who spoke; he who told you, &c., the separable personal p.r.o.noun ween (he) must be used in lieu of the relative, and the following forms will be elicited.

Ween, kau unnonik, He (who) sent you.

Ween, kau geedood, He (who) spoke.

Ween, ai-aud e-mah, He (who) is there.

Ween, kau weendumoak, He (who) told you.

Ween, kau to dung, He (who) did it, &c.

If we object that, that in these forms, there is no longer the relative p.r.o.noun _who_, the sense being simply, he sent you, he spoke, &c., it is replied that if it be intended only to say, he sent you, &c., and not he _who_ sent you, &c., the following forms are used.

Ke gee unnonig. He (sent) you.

Ainnozhid, He (sent) me.

Ainnonaud, He (sent) him, &c.

Iau e-mau, He is there.

Ke geedo, He (spoke.) Kegeeweendumaug, He (told) you.

Ke to dum, He did it.

We reply, to this answer of the native speaker, that the particle _kau_ prefixed to a verb denotes the past tense,--that in the former series of terms, in which this particle appears, the verbs are in the perfect indicative,--and in the latter, they are in the present indicative, marking the difference only between _sent_ and _send_, _spoke_ and _speak_, &c. And that there is absolutely no relative p.r.o.noun, in either series of terms. We further observe, that the personal p.r.o.noun ween, prefixed to the first set of terms, may be prefixed with equal propriety, to the second set, and that its use or disuse, is perfectly optional with the speaker, as he may wish to give additional energy or emphasis to the expression. To these positions, after reflection, discussion and examination, we receive an a.s.sent, and thus the uncertainty is terminated.

We now wish to apply the principle thus elicited to verbs causative, and other compound terms--to the adjective verbs, for instance--and to the other verbal compound expressions, in which the objective and the nominative persons, are incorporated as a part of the verb, and are not prefixes to it. This may be shown in the causative verb, _To make Happy_.

Mainwaindumeid, He (who) makes _me_ happy.

Mainwaindumeik, He (who) makes _thee_ happy.

Mainwaindumeaud, He (who) makes _him_ happy.

Mainwaindumeinung, He (who) makes _us_ happy. (inclusive.) Mainwaindumeyaug, He (who) makes _us_ happy. (exclusive.) Mainwaindumeinnaig, He (who) makes _ye_ or _you_ happy.

Mainwaindumeigowaud, He (who) makes _them_ happy.

And so the forms might be continued, throughout all the objective persons.--

Mainwaindumeyun, Thou (who) makest me happy, &c.

The basis of these compounds is _minno_, good, and _aindum_, the mind.

Hence minwaindum, he happy. The adjective in this connexion, cannot be translated "good," but its effect upon the noun, is to denote that state of the mind, which is at rest with itself. The first change from this simple compound, is to give the adjective a verbal form; and this is effected by a permutation of the vowels of the first syllable--a rule of very extensive application--and by which, in the present instance, the phrase _he happy_, is changed to _he makes happy_, (mainwaindum.) The next step is to add the suffix personal p.r.o.nouns, id, ik, aud, &c., rendering the expressions, he makes _me_ happy, &c. But in adding these increments, the vowel e, is thrown between the adjective-verb, and the p.r.o.noun suffixed, making the expression, not mainwaindum-yun, but mainwaindumeyun. Generally the vowel e in this situation, is a connective, or introduced merely for the sake of euphony. And those who maintain that it is here employed as a personal p.r.o.noun, and that the relative _who_, is implied by the final inflection; overlook the inevitable inference, that if the marked e, stands for _me_ in the first phrase, it must stand for _thee_ in the second, _he_ in the third, _us_ in the fourth, &c. As to the meaning and office of the final inflections id, ik, &c.--whatever they may, in an involuted sense _imply_, it is quite clear, by turning to the list of _suffixed personal p.r.o.nouns_ and _animate plurals_, that they mark the persons, I, thou, he, &c., we, ye, they, &c.

Take for example, minwaindumeigowaud. He (who) makes them happy. Of this compound, minwaindum, as before shown, signifies _he makes happy_. But as the verb is in the singular number, it implies that but _one person_ is made happy, and the suffixed personal p.r.o.nouns _singular_, mark the distinctions between _me_, _thee_, and he, or him.

Minwaindum-e-ig is the verb plural, and implies that several persons are made happy, and, in like manner, the suffixed personal p.r.o.nouns _plural_, mark the distinctions between we, ye, they, &c. For it is a rule of the language, that a strict concordance must exist between the number of the verb, and the number of the p.r.o.noun. The termination of the verb consequently always indicates, whether there be one or many objects, to which its energy is directed. And as animate verbs can be applied only to animate objects, the numerical inflections of the verb, are understood to mark the number of persons. But this number is indiscriminate, and leaves the sense vague, until the p.r.o.nominal suffixes are superadded. Those who, therefore, contend for the sense of the relative p.r.o.noun "who," being given in the last mentioned phrase, and all phrases similarly formed, by a succedaneum, contend for something like the following form of translation:--He makes them happy--him! or Him--he (meaning who) makes them happy.

The equivalent for what, is _Waygonain_.

What do you want? Waygonain wau iauyun?

What have you lost? Waygonain kau wonetoyun?

What do you look for? Waygonain nain dahwaubundamun?

What is this? Waygonain ewinain maundun?

What will you have? Waygonain kau iauyun?

What detained you? Waygonain kau oon dahme egoyun?

What are you making? Waygonain wayzhetoyun?

What have you there? Waygonain e-mau iauyun?

The use of this p.r.o.noun, like the preceding, appears to be confined to simple interrogative forms. The word _auneen_, which sometimes supplies its place, or is used for want of the p.r.o.noun _which_, is an adverb, and has considerable lat.i.tude of meaning. Most commonly it may be considered as the equivalent for _how_, in what manner, or at what time.

What do you say? Auneen akeedoyun?

What do you call this? Auneen aizheneekaudahmun maundun?(i.) What ails you? Auneen aindeeyun?

What is your name? Auneen aizheekauzoyun?

Which do you mean; this or that?(an.) Auneen ah-owainud, woh-ow gamau ewidde?

Which do you mean; this or that?(in.) Auneen eh-eu ewaidumun oh-oo gmau ewaidde?

Which boy do you mean? Auneen ah-ow-ainud?

By adding to this word, the particle _de_, it is converted into an adverb of place, and may be rendered _where_.

Where do you dwell? Auneende aindauyun?

Where is your son? Auneende ke gwiss?

Where did you see him? Auneende ke waub.u.mud?

becomes quite necessary in writing the language. And in the following sentences, the substantive is properly employed after the p.r.o.noun.

This dog is very lean, Gitshee bukaukdoozo woh-ow annemoosh.

These dogs are very lean, Gitshee bukauddoozowug o-goo annemooshug.

Those dogs are fat, Ig-eu annemooshug ween-in-oawug.

That dog is fat, Ah-ow annemoosh ween-in-ao.

This is a handsome knife, Gagait onishishin maundun mokomahn.

These are handsome knives, Gagait wahwinaudj o-noo mokomahnun.

Those are bad knives, Monaududon in-euwaidde mokomahnun.

Give me that spear, Meezhishin eh-eu ahnitt.

Give me those spears, Meezhishin in-eu unnewaidde ahnitteen.

That is a fine boy, Gagait kwonaudj ah-ow kweewezains.

Those are fine boys, Gagait wahwinaudj ig-euwaidde kweewezainsug.

This boy is larger than that, Nahwudj mindiddo woh-ow kweewezains ewaidde dush.

That is what I wanted, Meeh-eu wau iauyaumbaun.

This is the very thing I wanted, Mee-suh oh-oo wau iauyaumbaun.

In some of these expressions, the p.r.o.noun combines with an adjective, as in the compound words, ineuwaidde, and igeuwaidde, _those yonder_, (in.) and _those yonder_ (an.) Compounds which exhibit the full p.r.o.noun in coalescence with the word _Ewaidde_ yonder.

CHRONOLOGY.

Columbus discovered the West Indies Oct. 12, 1492.

Americo Vespucio, discovered the coast of South America, 1497.

Cabot discovered the North American coast 1497.

De Leon discovered Florida 1512.

Cortes, enters the city of Mexico, after a siege, Aug. 13, 1521.