The Indian nouns have neither cases nor declensions. They are invariably the same, through both numbers, after the Hebrew manner. In their verbs, they likewise sometimes use the preterperfect, instead of the present tense of the indicative mood; as _Blahsas Aiahre, Apeesahre_, “Yesterday I went and saw;” and _Eemmako Aiahre, Apeesahre_, “Now I go and see.” Like the Hebrews, they have no comparative, or superlative degree. They express a preference, by the opposite extremes; as _Chekusteene_, “You are virtuous;” _Sahakse_, “I am vicious.” But it implies a comparative degree, and signifies, “You are more virtuous than I am.” By prefixing the adverbs, which express _little_, and _much_, to the former words, it conveys the same meaning; the former of which is agreeable to the Hebrew idiom. And a double repetition of the same adjective, makes a superlative, according to the Hebrew manner; as _Lawwa, Lawwa_, “most, or very many.” To add _hah_ to the end of an adjective, unless it is a noun of multitude like the former, makes it also a superlative; as _Hakse to hah_, “They are most, or very wicked.” _Hakse_ signifies vicious, probably when the vicious part of the Israelites were under the hand of the corrector, the judge repeated that word: _ta_, is a note of plurality, and _hah_ an Hebrew accent of admiration; which makes it a superlative. To join the name of God, or the leading vowel of the mysterious, great, divine name, to the end of a noun, likewise implies a superlative; as _Hakse-ishto_, or _Hakse-o_, “He, or she is very wicked.” The former method of speech exactly agrees with the Hebrew idiom; as the original text shews, in innumerable instances. {38} When the Hebrews compare two things, and would signify a parity between them, they double the particle of resemblance; “I am as thou art; and my people as thy people:” And the Indians, on account of that original defective standard of speech, are forced to use the like circumlocution; as _Che Ahōba sia_, “I am like you;” and _Sahottuk Chehottuk tooah_, &c. for _Hottuk_ signifies people, and the _S_ expresses the pronoun my, or mine: and it likewise changes an active, into a passive verb. Although this Indian and Hebrew method of speech, is rather tedious and defective, yet, at the same time, they who attain any tolerable skill in the dialects of the one, and language of the other, will discover the sense plain enough, when a comparison is implied.