¹ Linguistic structures of native America 85–129 (VFPA 6; New York, 1946). Our abbreviations are F(ox), C(ree), M(enomini), O(jibwa), P(otawatomi), and P(roto) C(entral) A(lgonguian).

² James A. Geary, Proto-Algonquian *çk, further examples, Lg. 17.304–11 (1941), esp. 309.

³ Leonard Bloomfield, Notes on the Fox language, IJAL 4.181–219 (1927). Where Bloomfield sets up two or more modes with the same endings, on the basis of presence or absence of initial change or a pre verb, we set up only a single mode; the forms differentiated other than by endings might be termed ‘submodes’. His F ‘negative’ and ‘iterative’ are our ‘iterative’; similarly in some cases in the other languages.

The ‘conjunct’ modes are for the most part found in subordinate clauses, appended either to an independent verb or to a particle.

⁴ A different, or perhaps additional, source of this C mode might be as follows. Bloomfield (LSNA 101) reconstructs the iterative mode-sign as PCA *-ini. But this is on the basis of F, M, and O, where PCA *n and *1 fall together as n; we could just as well set up *-ili. This in C would give -i. Bloomfield informs us (LSNA 93 fn., and in more detail in the preface to Sacred Stories of the Sweet Grass Cree [National Museum of Canada, Bulletin 60; Ottawa, 1930]) that all Cree final vowels have an h-like offglide; there is therefore, perhaps, no phonemic contrast in C between -ih and -i, so that the former notation would do as well. This would account for the iterative function of the C -ih mode; the other source, if both were involved, would account in part for its subjunctive functions. By way of comparison, note that the PCA singular and plural obviative noun endings *-ali and *-ahi fall together as C -a(h).

If the iterative occurs in Shawnee or other southwestern dialects where PCA *1 and *n are not merged, and there appears with n, then the above suggestion must be rejected.

⁵ In P we use ‘u’ as a typographically convenient symbol for a mid-central unrounded short vowel, about like the u of English cup.

⁶ The argument is not completely convincing, since P, which far more than O parallels the F use of the indicative with e·h-, may have acquired this habit through post-differentiation contact with F. If the required steps in developing P and O from PCA (§§4–6) were not so simple, the argument from syntactical similarity could probably not stand.