292 A SYNOPSIS OF THE INDIAN TRIBES. [iNTROD. -1. Whence a fourth rule is deduced, viz. the designation of the plu- ral by /.•<•, and of the dual hy 5/ ; except the objective case of the dual of the first poison, where the termination ina is substituted for st. But in the transition from the first to the second person, ungya ex- preseea the two persons combined; and the transition from the second to the first person, is expressed by skiya, changed into skina for the dual. The uniformity of the transitions, from which the rules have been deduced, and the defects of those between the first and second person, though obvious in the Table, will be still more apparent in the follow- ing recapitulation, in which the verb itself, (lungiha,) which without any change always terminates the form, is omitted. From the third to another third person, he they nun. ga ana them. te ga te una Between the third and the first or second person, / pi. we du. he and I thou pi. ye du. ye two him. I tsiya I aw tsa j awsta ihya I etsa i esta them. tega tsiya teg awtsa teg awsta teg ihya teg etsa teg esta he. me pi. us du. him and me thee aqua te awka te awgina tsa pi. you du. you tu-o tetsa testa they. gung que teg awka teg awgina ge tsa tege tsa tege sta Between the first and second persons, thou. plural, dual, plural, dual, me us him and me thee you you two skiya te skiya te skina g ungya tets ungya test ungya plural, ye. skiya te skiya te skina pl. toe. its ungya tets ungya tets ungya dual, ye tico, skina te skiya te skina du. he and I. ist ungya tets ungya test ungya It will be perceived that the dual designations are used in the transi- tions between dual and singular, between dual and dual, and between dual and third person plural ; and that .the plural designation prevails in the other transitions between plural and dual, except in the transition Ye — him and me, where ina is used. The defect of the system is obvious in the transitions between the first and second persons, where the same forms are used to express different transitions, and the resulting ambiguity is evident. This is due to the want of a distinctive sign between the singular and plural, either in the nominative or objective case. There is also confusion in the forms tegetsa and tegesta, both of which are applied to two different purposes. In preparing those several tables, the etymology has alone been attended to, and the Cherokee distinction of syllables, as they are pro- nounced, has been disregarded. This distinction is made in Mr. Wor- cester's transitions and notes, as given by him, and to which the atten- tion of the inquisitive reader is specially called. (Grammatical Notices.)
