to us, we can only guess from what language or languages it has been
corrupted.

The analysis of those names even whose composition appears to be most
obvious must be accepted as _provisional_ merely. The recovery of a
lost syllable or of a lost guttural or nasal, the correction of a
false accent even, may give to the synthesis another and hitherto
unsuspected meaning. It would be surprising if some of the
translations which have been hazarded in this paper do not prove to be
wide of their mark. Even English etymology is not reckoned among the
exact sciences yet,--and in Algonkin, there is the additional
disadvantage of having no Sanskrit verbs "to go," to fall back on as a
last resort.

Recent manifestations of an increasing interest in Indian onomatology,
or at least of awakened curiosity to discover the meanings of Indian
names, may perhaps justify the writer in offering, at the close of
this paper, a few suggestions, as to the method of analysis which
appears most likely to give correct results, and as to the tests by
which to judge of the _probability_ that a supposed translation of any
name is the true one.

1. The earliest recorded form of the name should be sought for, and
every variation from it should be noted. These should be taken so far
as possible from original manuscripts, not from printed copies.

2. Where the difference of forms is considerable, knowledge of the
character and opportunities of the writer may sometimes determine the
preference of one form to others, as probably the most accurate. A
Massachusetts or Connecticut name written by John Eliot or Experience