The basis of these compounds is _minno_, good, and _aindum_, the mind. Hence minwaindum, he happy. The adjective in this connexion, cannot be translated "good," but its effect upon the noun, is to denote that state of the mind, which is at rest with itself. The first change from this simple compound, is to give the adjective a verbal form; and this is effected by a permutation of the vowels of the first syllable--a rule of very extensive application--and by which, in the present instance, the phrase _he happy_, is changed to _he makes happy_, (mainwaindum.) The next step is to add the suffix personal pronouns, id, ik, aud, &c., rendering the expressions, he makes _me_ happy, &c. But in adding these increments, the vowel e, is thrown between the adjective-verb, and the pronoun suffixed, making the expression, not mainwaindum-yun, but mainwaindumeyun. Generally the vowel e in this situation, is a connective, or introduced merely for the sake of euphony. And those who maintain that it is here employed as a personal pronoun, and that the relative _who_, is implied by the final inflection; overlook the inevitable inference, that if the marked e, stands for _me_ in the first phrase, it must stand for _thee_ in the second, _he_ in the third, _us_ in the fourth, &c. As to the meaning and office of the final inflections id, ik, &c.--whatever they may, in an involuted sense _imply_, it is quite clear, by turning to the list of _suffixed personal pronouns_ and _animate plurals_, that they mark the persons, I, thou, he, &c., we, ye, they, &c. Take for example, minwaindumeigowaud. He (who) makes them happy. Of this compound, minwaindum, as before shown, signifies _he makes happy_. But as the verb is in the singular number, it implies that but _one person_ is made happy, and the suffixed personal pronouns _singular_, mark the distinctions between _me_, _thee_, and he, or him. Minwaindum-e-ig is the verb plural, and implies that several persons are made happy, and, in like manner, the suffixed personal pronouns _plural_, mark the distinctions between we, ye, they, &c. For it is a rule of the language, that a strict concordance must exist between the number of the verb, and the number of the pronoun. The termination of the verb consequently always indicates, whether there be one or many objects, to which its energy is directed. And as animate verbs can be applied only to animate objects, the numerical inflections of the verb, are understood to mark the number of persons. But this number is indiscriminate, and leaves the sense vague, until the pronominal suffixes are superadded. Those who, therefore, contend for the sense of the relative pronoun "who," being given in the last mentioned phrase, and all phrases similarly formed, by a succedaneum, contend for something like the following form of translation:--He makes them happy--him! or Him--he (meaning who) makes them happy. The equivalent for what, is _Waygonain_.