[Edward Manning Ruttenber (1872)] APPENDIX. 341 whether living or dead; but neck, back, heart, windpipe, take the inanimate form. In like manner eagle, swan, dove, are distinguished as animates; but beak, wing, tail, are arranged with inanimates. So oak, pine, ash, are animates j branch, leaf, root, inanimates. No language is perhaps so defective as to be totally without number. But there are few which furnish so many modes of indicating it as the Algonquin. There are as many modes of forming the plural as there are vowel sounds,' yet there is no dis tinction between a limited and an unlimited substantive plural; al though there is, in the pronoun, an inclusive and an exclusive plu ral. Whether we say man or men, two men or twenty men, the singular inin-e, and the plural ininewug, remain the same. But if we say we, us or our men (who are present), or we, us, or our Indians (in general), the plural we, and us, and our — for they are rendered by the same form — admit of a change to in dicate whether the objective person or persons be included or excluded. This principle forms a single and anomalous instance of the use of particular plurals; and it carries its distinctions, by means of the pronouns, separable and inseparable, into the