vary the form of the verb kill, but would use the verb
kute, meaning shoot whether with arrow or bullet. Except that the Dak.
order corresponds to the Icelandic the only difference in structure
between the Dak. and English expression is that the Dakota word kte may
mean any time, the particular time being indicated whenever desirable in
all cases in Dak. as mostly in English by auxiliary verbs and adverbs.
If the word man were represented by a pronoun the Dak. would be still
more analytic, since its pronoun would indicate any actor, male or
female, or inanimate, unless it were desirable to distinguish, in which
case the distinction would be made by compounding the pronoun with a
suitable auxiliary word. In this feature, often given as characteristic
of American languages, is a variation the greatest possible between two
languages closely related. It is also worthy of remark that the
Minnetaree, which I should suppose the most analytic of the group next
to the Dakota, is one of those that least resembles the Dakota in
vocabulary. Some of the features often assigned as peculiarities of
American languages were according to Bopp and Schleicher features of the
I. E. languages in their earlier stages. Of most other features said to
characterize American languages I find in Dak. but faint traces. The
Dak. _does have_ verbs nearly synonymous with _go_, _walk_, _eat_,
_drink_, _strike_, _etc._ _It is well supplied with purely copulative
verbs. It has differentiated_ the various parts of speech even to the
_definite_ and _indefinite article_. It is sufficiently supplied with
nouns denoting genera and classes. This is not a feature of recent
development. A much smaller proportion of general than of special names
have lost trace of origin.

The Dak _does not_ have inclusive and exclusive plurals, etc. It _does
not_ have a multiplicity of verb forms to denote mode and tense, but
when necessary does denote them with elegance and precision, by
auxiliary verbs and adverbs, very much as we do in English. The Dakota
is not made up chiefly of very long words. On the other hand it uses a
great many little particles and connectives to express fine shades of
meaning, wonderfully reminding one of the Greek. It fully agrees with
other American languages in its wonderful facility for forming
derivatives. The I. E. languages in their earlier stages possessed equal
facility.

As a matter of fact we know scarcely anything concerning the structure