Like the Hebrews, they seldom, if ever, double the liquid consonant _R_; for they generally seem desirous of shuffling over it, at any rate: And they often give it the sound of _L_; but, if it precedes a word, where the other consonant soon follows, they always give it its proper sound, contrary to the usage of the Chinese: as the name of a stone, they often call, _Tahle_, instead of _Tahrè_; but the Indians say, _“Tahre lakkana”_, literally, “Yellow stone,” _i. e._ gold. The Hebrews subjoined one of their serviles, to words, to express the pronoun relative, _thy_ or _thine_: And as that particle was also a note of resemblance, it shews the great sterility of that language. As a specimen—They said אביך, (Abiche) “your father,” and אמך, (Ameche) “Your mother,” &c. Only that the Hebrew period is initial, in such a case, to the Indian nouns, they always use the very same method of expression. This I shall illustrate with two words in the dialects of the Chikkasah and Cheerake—as _Chinge_ and _Chatokta_, “your father;” _Angge_ and _Aketohta_ signifying “my father,” in resemblance of אב, _Abba_, of the same import; likewise _Chishka_ and _Chacheeah_, “your mother;” for _Saske_ and _Akachee_ signify “my mother,” in imitation of אשה, _Ashe_. Also _Sas Kish_ signifies podex meus, _Chish Kish_, podex tuus, and _Kish Kish_, podex illius; which I guess to be an {40} opprobrious allusion to Kish the father of Saul, for the son’s assuming the throne at the end of the Jewish theocracy. In their adjectives and verbs, they use the same method of speech; as _Nahoorèso Chin-Chookoma_, “Your book is good.” The former word is compounded of נא (_Na_) now, or the present time, and _Hoorèso_, delineated, marked, or painted. _Aia_ signifies _to go_, and _Maia-Cha_, “Go along,” or _Maia_, the same; for, by prefixing מ to it, it implies a requisite obedience. In like manner, _Apeesah_, to see, and _Peesàcha_, look, or “see you.” And, when that particle is prefixed to a verb, it always expresses the accusative case of the same pronoun; as _Chepeesahre_, “I saw you,” and _Chepeesahras_, “I shall see you.” Each of the Hebrew characters are radicals; although half of them are _serviles_, according to that proper term of the scholiasts; for, when they are prefixed, inserted, or subjoined, either at the beginning, middle, or end of a radical word, _they serve_ to form its various augments, inflexions, and derivatives. According to this difficult standard of speech, the Indian nouns, moods, and tenses, are variously formed to express different things. As there is no other known language or dialect, which has the same tedious, narrow, and difficult principles; must we not consider them to be twin-born sisters? The want of proper skill to observe the original fixed idea of the Indian words, their radical letters, and the due sounds in each of them, seems to have been the only reason why the writers on the American Aborigines, have