]
Mr. Hurlbut entered into these views. He had now reflected upon them,
and he made some suggestions of philological value. He was an apt
learner of the language, as spoken north of the basin of Lake Superior.
"Orthography," he writes, "though of much importance, did not engage so
much of my attention as the construction of the language. I am not so
sanguine as to that performance (the conjugation of the verb _to see_)
as to be anxious to bring forward another. I am aware that an Indian
speaker, who had never studied his own language, would pronounce much of
that incorrect (in following a particular system imposed on him),
particularly in the characterizing (definitive) form, for in this
conjugation the root always undergoes a change. If the first syllable be
short, it is lengthened, as _be-moo-za, ba-moo-zad._ If it be long,
another is added, as _ouu-bet, ou-euu-bed._[95] But when a particle is
used, as is more generally the case, the root resumes its original form,
as _guu-ouu-bed._ I thought it best to preserve uniformity.
Pages:
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427