172 A SYNOPSIS OF THE INDIAN TRIBES. [iNTROD. The following examples given by Father Maynard appear con- clusive in that respect; tk Rik tan kinoo aunka moolk," 'There is somebody who sees us,' is the indefinite plural ; " Ninenoo-en oolanook oajamooloktau," ' One of us will go this evening to see you/ is the special or definite form ; and it isohvious that, ' one of us ' contrasted with ' you,' excludes the person spoken to. The A:', characteristic of the second person, is always prefixed in the general, and the n f , characteristic of the first person, in the special or definite plural, in both the Chippeway and the Del- aware languages. It will be seen hereafter, that it is a constant rule in both, that whenever the second person, whether in the nominative or objective case, is one of the pronouns connected with the verb, A:' is prefixed. Therefore, the v? prefixed to the Special plural shows that the second person was intended to be excluded, that the Chippeways have preserved the original meaning of that plural, and that the Delawares have departed from it. And this seems to corroborate the opinion, that the Chippeway, or Algonkin, is the primary language, and the Dela- ware one of those derived from it. In the Choctaw, where pishno is the pronoun of the first person for the definite, and hupishno that for the indefinite ; according to Mr. Wright, " hupishno is used, when speaking of an action in which all the hearers are concerned. But if all the hearers are not concerned in it, but only the speaker and some other persons (understood or designated), pishno is used." It is not practicable, from the specimens we have of the Caddo, to decide whether the third number is a dual, or a defi- nite plural. It appears to be a dual in the Muskhogee. In the Cherokee, the distinctions connected with number are more minute than in the Algonkin and Choctaw. There are in that language distinct words or inflections for each of the following combinations of pronouns either personal or posses- sive, viz. he and I ; they and I ; thou and I ; you and I ; you two ; you all ; they. Of these combinations, the two last are the indefinite plural for the second and third persons ; the first, third, and fifth are three distinct forms of the dual ; the second and fourth, two distinct forms of a special plural ; but none is given for a general plural we which might include you and they with the speaker. Zeisberger's Grammar of the Onondago throws no light on the subject. But the examples given by Father Brebeuf of the Huron (in the letter already quoted) show, that, though proba- bly differing in the details, the distinctions that relate to the
