Chapter I. On The Evidence Furnished By A Comparison Of Their Languages Of The Original Unity Of The Various Nations Of The Continents Of Asia, Europe, Africa, And America.
Absolute Identity of the Languages of the Four Continents when compared collectively.
Illustrations from the Names of the Gods of Egypt, Greece, Italy, and India, showing the Origin of Idolatry.
North American Indian Names for “The Great Spirit.”
The proposition which forms the subject of this Chapter will be supported through the course of this work by the progressive development of a series of various but mutually connected proofs, which—both by their individual force, and by their harmonious combination,—will be found to be conclusive.
But of these proofs there is only one branch which admits of being conveniently adverted to in this place. I allude to the evidence collected in Appendix A, in the form of a “Comparison of the most Common Terms in the African, Asiatic, European and American languages.” This comparison, though composing only a part of the proofs adduced, will be found to involve in itself evidence sufficient to establish the suggested [pg 006] conclusion, Moreover, the evidence therein embodied,—though copious in details, and strictly conforming to the principles laid down by philosophical writers on language, is simple in its nature and results, which may readily be appreciated by inquirers totally unaccustomed to philological investigations. For these reasons, the comparison instituted in Appendix A forms an appropriate subject of examination at the commencement of this work.
Here, however, it must be premised that it will be impossible, without a complete perusal, to form a correct appreciation either of the facts or of the consequences developed in that Appendix. The explanations I shall present in this place must be viewed, therefore, in the light of a general and imperfect outline only. These explanations will be directed to—
I. The Nature,
II. The Results of the Comparison contained in Appendix A.
I. Of the Nature of the Comparison in Appendix A.
The languages of Africa have been chosen as the basis or subject of comparison with which the languages of the other three continents have been collated.
This arrangement has been dictated by a consideration of the comparatively slight attention which has hitherto been paid to the languages of the Central and Southern Regions of Africa; and also by the peculiar physiology of the Negro and Hottentot tribes, which has induced some physiologists to refer the origin of these tribes to Races totally distinct from the other Families of mankind.
The extensive researches of Dr. Prichard have satisfactorily shown that the peculiarities of the Negroes and Hottentots are not permanent nor abruptly marked, but local and evanescent, [pg 007] and that they melt away by nice shades of gradation, corresponding with the minute progressive transitions of climate that are traceable through the various regions of the African continent. Hence the possibility of the identity of the Negro and Hottentot Tribes with the inhabitants of the other three great continents may be clearly inferred. But no evidence has yet been produced calculated to establish this conclusion as a positive truth. This desideratum the aid of philology will be found satisfactorily to supply.
In the North of Africa the physiological difficulties which are encountered in the Middle and South do not exist to the same extent in any instance, and in most instances they can scarcely be said to exist at all. The Berbers—the original population of Morocco and the adjoining countries, the lineal descendants of the ancient Numidians—approach very closely to the Spanish population of the opposite coasts of the Mediterranean; and the Egyptians in the north-east of Africa are much more alike to the contiguous Asiatic nations than they are to the Negro Tribes. Hence it follows that the theory that the Negroes and Southern Africans are distinct Races of men, may be as decisively tested by a comparison of their languages with those of the Northern Africans, as by collating them with the languages of the other continents of the globe.
The mode of comparison adopted in Appendix A, has been dictated by these considerations. Accordingly, I have therein separated the languages of Africa into three divisions, those of: 1, North Africa; 2, Negro-land; 3, South Africa; allotting a separate column to each division; while on the opposite page a separate column is devoted to each of the continents of Asia, Europe, and America. This comparison will serve at once to show the general connexion of the African languages with those of Asia, Europe, and America, and at the same time to demonstrate another proposition of nearly equal [pg 008] interest, viz. the close mutual affinity of the languages of Northern, Tropical, and Southern Africa.
With respect to the particular words selected for comparison, I have chosen the names for the following objects: “Fire, Sun, Day, Eye,[22] Moon, Heaven, a Human Being, Man and Woman.” (Homo, Vir, Fœmina, Latin.) The most important parts of the Human Frame, (viz. “The Hand, Arm, Foot, Leg, Ear, Tongue, Head.”) “Water.”
These terms comprise nearly all the specimens of the languages of Africa, which have been collected in “the Mithridates,” of Adelung and Vater. The objects to which these terms have been applied are comparatively few. But for reasons about to be explained, the evidence which may be deduced from the terms themselves is neither scanty nor imperfect, but, on the contrary, very extensive and complete.
The African names for the above-mentioned objects analysed in Appendix A, amount to about 700. The corresponding and analogous terms introduced from the other three Continents are about treble that number.
In determining the mutual relations of different languages, it is obviously not necessary to compare the whole of their component parts. All that is required is a comparison of such portions of each as may be justly viewed in the light of a satisfactory test. That the selected specimens of the languages of Africa are sufficiently numerous for this end is plain. It only remains to be shown that their nature is such as to render them eminently suitable and conclusive.
Now it will be clear from the following considerations, that these specimens are peculiarly calculated to serve as a decisive test of the general composition and structure of languages.
Terms for the Objects above enumerated will be found to include the greatest portion of the primary elements of all languages.[23]
This proposition may be placed in the clearest light by means even of comparatively modern languages, for both modern and ancient tongues will be found principally to consist of the following elements:
1. The nouns above mentioned. Such nouns are in fact the names of the most familiar and conspicuous objects; of those objects which are common to all ages and countries.
Verbs descriptive of the functions of such objects.
2. Names of Animals and Birds.
3. Names of Rivers, the Ocean, Hills, and Mountains.
4. Words expressive of Mental Qualities and Emotions.
5. Pronouns and other Conventional Grammatical Forms.
1. Now, with the exception of the second, all these five classes of words may be shown to be mere modifications of those of the 1st class.
2. Moreover, as regards even the Second Class, names of Animals and Birds, terms of this description are also in a great number, perhaps in the majority of instances compounds chiefly consisting of terms of the First Class, viz., of the words for the “Members of the Body,” for “Water, Fire,” &c., as in “Red-breast,” “Water-wag tail” (English). Sgyvarn-og “a Hare,” from Sgyvarn “an Ear” (Welsh).
There are, it is true, some terms of this class of a more primitive origin, as they plainly consist of imitations of the characteristic cry or note of the Animal or Bird named, as for example “Cuck-oo” (English); “U-lu-la” (Swedish), “U-lu-l-aka” (Sanscrit), “An Owl.” But then it is plain that words [pg 010] of this kind are for the most part confined in their application to the objects designated and do not enter largely into the composition of languages.
3. Words for “Rivers” and “The Ocean” consist of terms for “Water.”
For example: “The Esk” is from Eask (Irish), and Esseg (Dongolan, North Africa), “Water.” “The Usk” or “Ou-isg,” as the word is pronounced by the Welsh, from Uisge, “Water” (Irish), connected with Eask (Irish). “The Ayr” is identical with A.r. “A River,” also “To flow” (Hebrew), “The Yarrow” with Iaro (Egyptian), and the Hebrew words Ee.a.ou.r Ee.a.r (modifications of A.r, Hebrew). Some able Celtic scholars have attempted to explain the origin of such names as “Ayr and Yarrow,” which are very common as names of rivers in Celtic countries, by means of a Celtic term which means “Gentle,” an explanation very inapplicable in many instances. The error of these writers arises from the assumption they are prone to adopt, that the Celtic is an unchanged language, the truth being that the changes which it can be shown to have undergone in more recent times, form a distinct ground for the conclusion that, long prior to the earliest period to which our most ancient Celtic specimens can be referred, the Celts must have lost many words which their forefathers brought with them from the East.
In the names above noticed, not only the general features, but the finer shades of inflection of the Oriental words reappear.
Numerous examples may be pointed out, of words applied in some languages to “Water” generally, appropriated exclusively, in others to the “Sea or Ocean.” Thus we have Shui in Chinese, and Su in Turkish, “Water.” In the German See, the Anglo Saxon Seo Sae, the English “Sea,” and in other analogous terms to be met with in all the Gothic tongues, we [pg 011] recognize the same term as a word for a “Lake,” or for “The Sea.” Adelung has pointed out the resemblance which in some other instances the Turkish bears to the German. The ancestors of the Turks and Germans, it may be observed, are both traceable to contiguous regions of Northern Asia, the great “High Road of Nations” from China to Europe.
Again, in various dialects of the North American Indians we meet with Oghnacauno, Oneekanoosh, &c. “Water.” In Latin and Greek we find the same term “Ocean-os, Ocean-oio”, &c., applied exclusively to “The Ocean.” (See for other examples Appendix A, p. [77].)
Words for Mountains and Hills are almost universally identical with words for “The Head, The Back, The Breast,” &c. Thus even in the English, in which the first meanings of words are often lost, we have “Ridge” (A Back and A Hill), “Head-land,” “Saddle-back” (the name of a mountain.) In the Principality of Wales, in which a less changed and a less conventional language prevails, the common names for hills, “Cevn, Pen, Vron,” &c., are words for “The Back, The Head, The Breast,” &c., appropriated according to the particular shapes of the hills. The same words, as will appear hereafter, were used as names of mountains in ancient Gaul and Spain, &c.
Jugum, “A Yoke and A Hill,” (Latin,) Cadair Idris, “The chair of Idris,” A Fabulous Giant and Astronomer, (Welsh,) are instances of metaphors of a different kind. But generally names of hills are traceable as above described, and are therefore mere forms of terms belonging to the first class.
4. That terms of this Class, viz.: Words descriptive of the Operations and Emotions of the Mind, consist of metaphors derived from words originally appropriated to physical objects and agencies, has been indisputably proved by the celebrated French writer, Court Ghebelin, and by Horne Tooke, [pg 012] whose researches were applied to the analysis of the English language only. Words appropriated to the members of the Human Frame and their Functions, and other terms of the First CIass, are the chief sources of these metaphorical terms.
This philological maxim was supposed by some of the most eminent of those writers by whom it was established, to furnish an argument in favour of the doctrines of Materialism, as when, for example, the English word “Spirit” was derived from the Latin word for “Breath,” Spiritus. But the premises do not appear to furnish any solid support to the inferences they were thought to favour. The same Consciousness which in this case, and in other similar instances, perceives an analogy, perceives also that the connexion is one of analogy only. The true explanation of the relations which exist between these two classes of words may, I conceive, be derived from the consideration, that though Man is endowed with moral and intellectual, as well as with perceptive, faculties,—inasmuch as the perceptive powers are earliest exercised,—the language of his higher sentiments consists of metaphors thence borrowed. “The Hand,” in like manner, as may be inferred from several examples which occur in the course of this work, has, in many instances, metaphorically given names to some of the less conspicuous bodily organs of perception. At the same time, the soundness of the philological principle developed by Ghebelin and Horne Tooke can not reasonably be disputed. In these pages will be found numerous illustrations of its truth. Moreover it will appear that this principle forms the basis of some of the most convincing proofs—that languages afford—of the common origin of nations very remotely situated from each other, as of the Welsh and English, for example, with the Hebrew, and other ancient Syro-Phœnician nations.
5. As regards Pronouns and other Grammatical Forms.
Pronouns enter very largely into the composition of languages, not merely in a separate form, but also as the source from which the most striking peculiarities of other parts of grammar have been derived. It has been shown by Dr. Prichard that the various inflections which distinguish the different persons of the Verb in the Latin and Sanscrit, and other highly-complicated languages of the same class, are identical with pronouns.
In the works of Horne Tooke and others it has been abundantly shown that Pronouns are merely Nouns, viz. Names of the Human Species, “Man, Woman,” &c. In other words they belong to a section of the terms of the First Class.
Hence it will be manifest that an analysis, completely embracing numerous specimens of nouns of the First Class, virtually embraces also numerous specimens of words of the Four other Classes, which, together with the First, compose the principal elements of Human Language. For it must be observed that—
Though the African nouns belonging to the First Class form the only basis or subject of inquiry, the inquiry itself will be found to embrace an extended comparison of those nouns with the kindred terms of the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Classes, which are discoverable in the languages of the other three continents.
Finally, a principle must here be stated and applied, which will be more fully illustrated hereafter.
The names of Objects can be shown in a great variety of instances to be identical with Verbs or terms descriptive of some dominant or conspicuous quality which those Objects display.
This remark applies even to the terms for the Members of the Human Frame, and other Objects of which the names are included in the First Class of Words,—as appears by abundant illustrations in works of authority and research confined to an investigation of the European languages. But the same truth may be much more clearly and unequivocally demonstrated even by the most cursory examination of more ancient and therefore more primitive tongues, such as the Hebrew and the Sanscrit. The application of this principle will be found to unfold a wide range of facts serving to connect the languages of Africa with those of the other Continents; the same terms, which present themselves as Nouns or Conventional names in the languages of Africa, occurring in a great variety of examples in those of the other continents, unaltered or very slightly changed in sound, fulfilling the functions of the corresponding descriptive terms or verbs. Here it may be remarked that the descriptive or metaphorical character, which originally belonged to nouns, and the various modes in which the same objects are susceptible of description, may be viewed as the source of these numerous names for the same objects. But this is a subject which will be more fully discussed in a subsequent part of this work.
The following examples will serve to illustrate at once the principle last stated, and also another principle before suggested, viz. that “The Hand”[24] and its perceptions have metaphorically given names in many instances—not only to the faculties of the Mind,—but also to the other perceptive organs and their functions. For further illustrations, see Appendix A, p. [65], and the subsequent pages.
Tom, (Heb.) “To try,” “To try an experiment,” “To perceive.”
Tom, “The Hand,” (Mexico.)
Tedembeton, “The Hand,” (Nubia.)
Thumb (Eng.), Daum, (Ger.)
Teim-law, “To Feel,” (Welsh.)
“To taste,” “To eat.” Tamma, “The Tongue,” (Hottentots.)
“Mental Taste,” “Discernment,” “Judgment.” Tami-as, “A Judge,” (Greek.)
Doom, Doomsday, (English.)
G.sh. (Heb.), “To feel for.” Guess, (Eng.) See below,
K.s.m, (Heb.)
G.sh.sh. (Heb.), “To feel for repeatedly,” Gus-to, “To taste, To listen,” (Latin.)
“To grope for,” Kchesi, “The Hand,” (Finland.)
Keez, “The Hand,” (Hungarian.)
K.s.m. (Heb.), “To guess hidden things.” “To divine,” “To foretel.”
Keisio, “To seek, To attempt, Endeavour,” (Welsh.)
These examples instructively display the manner in which the Hebrew, which is a language of high antiquity, combines within itself a variety of meanings, which are found only partially preserved in more modern languages. This venerable tongue may be said in these, as in numerous other instances, to confirm, by means of its own intrinsic resources, the results which are deducible from a wide comparison of other languages of which our specimens are more modern.
II. Of the Results of the Comparison, contained in Appendix A.
When the languages of Africa are compared collectively with those of the other three Continents, it will be found:
1. That the names of the most Common Objects, occurring in the various dialects of Africa, may be detected, and as it were restored, in the same or in kindred senses in each of the other three Continents, when all or a considerable portion of their languages are examined.
2. The exceptions to this principle are so insignificant, that the rule, viewed in the light of a philological maxim, may be regarded as universal, especially when it is borne in mind that the specimens we possess of the various languages of Mankind are undoubtedly incomplete.
3. A further remarkable truth is established by Appendix A, viz.:
The resemblances which the African languages display to those of Asia, &c., are as close as those which the Asiatic languages exhibit among themselves; and they are as close as those which the languages termed Indo-European mutually display.
4. What has been stated in the previous explanation of Result 3 applies to the languages of the continent of America as well as to those of Africa.
5. Not only the same words but the same minute transitions which words undergo may be recognized in the Four Continents, and the steps of transition are much more completely traceable when the various Continents form the subject of comparison than when the investigation is confined to one Continent. Compare, for example, (See Appendix A, p. [13],) Ano, “A Day” (Caraibs); Antu, Antú, “The Sun, A Day” (Araucan, South America); Antu, Andru, “A Day” (Madagascar, South Africa); Indra, The Indian “God of Day” (Sanscrit, Asia); Inti, Indi, “The Sun” (South America).
6. It will be seen that in this instance, and in numerous other examples, finer shades of transition are restored by means of a comparison including the Four Continents.
7. As regards the Continent of Africa, by this comparison all its synonymes of the class selected for analysis have, with a few trifling exceptions, been exhausted. As regards the other three Continents, so large a portion, probably the great majority, of these synonymes have been introduced from every region of those continents, that the evidence thus obtained, combined as it is with a complete investigation of the African terms, may be considered as equally conclusive with the proofs which would have been furnished by an exhaustion of the synonymes of all the four continents.
The examination of synonymous terms is the principle which has been pursued by Humboldt, in his work on “The Basque,” and by Du Ponceau in his Treatise on the “Algonquyn Dialects of the North American Indians.” It is the most satisfactory mode of investigating languages, because it involves an explanation of the differences as well as of the resemblances they mutually display.
8. Hence it follows that when all the dialects of each continent are thus compared in the aggregate with those of each of the other three, the very same language is reproduced by the reunion of the “disjecta membra.”
With reference more especially to the third and fourth results above stated, I may here advert to the researches of two philologists of the highest eminence, whose conclusions will not, in the present state of philological knowledge, be disputed,—the German writer Klaproth, and Dr. Prichard: the former has treated of the proofs of affinity observable among the Asiatic languages; the latter has discussed the proofs of mutual resemblance displayed by certain languages usually classed under the term “Indo-European.”
The affinities which present themselves among the different [pg 018] languages of the single continent of Asia, in the following examples, have been selected as evidence of the original connexion of those languages by Klaproth.
Words for “The Sun.”
Asia.—Chor Churr (Ossetian.)
Chor Chorschid (Persian.)
Chorschid (Pehlwi), Huere (Zend.)[25]
America.—Coaracy, Curasi, Quarassi (Brazil.)
Africa.—Koara (Bosjesmans.)
South Africa.—Giro (Kanga, Negro-land.)
Though the Zend, Pehlwi, and Persian are three kindred dialects of Persia, it will be observed that the Pehlwi and Persian words in this example, although clearly allied to the corresponding Zend word (Huere), resemble that word less than they do the American and African terms. On the other hand, the next example presents to us American and African words perfectly identical with this term (Huere).
Words for “The Sun” and “Day.”
Asia.—Huere, “The Sun,” (Zend.)
S. America.—Huarassi, “The Sun” and “Day,” (Omaguans.)
Africa.—Hor, Horus, i.e. “The God of Day,” (Egypt.)
Huer, “Day,” (Iolofs, Negro-land.)
Asia.—Eiere,[26] “Day,” (Zend.)
Africa.—Iirri, “The Sun,” (Wawu, Negro-land.)
The connexion between the previous words for the Sun and the first of the two following classes of terms for the [pg 019] Moon will be manifest. The origin of the relation which is universally traceable between the names of the two great Heavenly Luminaries will be found fully discussed in Appendix A.
Words for “The Moon.”
Asia.—“Wiri Yere Irri” (Samoied), Wurra (Sumbava Island.)[27]
Africa, Negro-land.—“Uhaaire Verr” (Iolofs.)
Asia.—“Sāra” (Syrian), “Sāra” (Mongol and Calmuck.)
Africa, Negro-land.—“Assara” (Gold Coast.)
Dr. Prichard has clearly proved the connexion of the Welsh and other Celtic dialects with the Sanscrit and other “Indo-European” tongues, a class in which he considers that the Celtic dialects ought therefore to be included. The Welsh and Sanscrit words which occur in Appendix A, p. [11], have already been compared by him in his work on the Celtic Languages. The mutual connexion of these words is clear. But it will be equally manifest that the African terms which occur in the same passage, Appendix A, p. [11], are quite as nearly allied to the Welsh words as are the Sanscrit terms with which those words have been collated by Dr. Prichard. In some instances they are even more so. Compare, for example, “Lloer,” The Moon, (Welsh,) with the African word “Leoure,” The Moon, (from the dialect of the “Fulahs.”)
An examination of the names of some of the principal gods of Egypt, Greece, Italy, and India, by means of a comparison of the languages of all the Four Continents, will be found in a very striking manner to illustrate at once the foregoing philological results, and also the origin of those names, and of the systems of Idolatry to which they belonged.
Hor. Hor-us, “The God of Day,” (Egypt,) already explained.
Indra, The Indian “God of Day,” previously explained.
Surya, The Indian “God of the Sun.” His Orb personified, (Sanscrit.) Osira Osiri, and Serap-is or Sorop-is, (believed to have been the same as Osiri,) “Gods of the Sun,” (Egypt.)
The same change of inflection which is observable when “Surya and Osira” are compared with Sero-p-is, occurs in the following:
Surie, Sorrie, Sorré, Sore, “The Sun,” (Hottentots.)
Sor o h-b, “The Sun,” (Corona Hottentots.)
The same change occurs also in the following:
Z.e.r, “To shine brightly,” Sh. r.-ph, “To burn,” Sh.r-ph eem, “Seraphs,” (Hebrew.)
Auror-a, “The Goddess of The Dawn,” (Latin.)
A.ou.r, “Light, Day-light,” (Hebrew.)
Waōūr, “The Dawn,” (Welsh.)
Or, “Day,” Ar-pi, “The Sun,” (Armenian.)
Wurabe, “Day,” (Nubia.)
Ē-o-us, One of the Horses of the Sun, Ēō-s (Eō, EōA, Accusative,) “The Sun, The Dawn, The Goddess” “of The Dawn,” (Greek.)
Eo o hu, Haou, “Day,” (Egypt.) Uwya Ou, “The Sun,” (Negroes.) Huieiou, “The Sun,” (Caraibs, South America.) A u-ō, “To shine,” (Greek.)
Net-phe, “The Goddess of the Heaven or Firmament,” (Egypt.)
Neth-phe Ne-phe ou, “The Heavens or Heaven,” (Egypt.)
Nev, “Heaven,” (Welsh.) Nebo, “Heaven,” (Selaronian.)
Ērē and Aēr (Greek), “The Goddess of The Heaven or Atmosphere,” “Juno.”
Iru, “Heaven,” (Negroes,) Awyr, “The Sky,” (Welsh,) Aër, (Latin), “Air,” (English.)
Juno (Latin), the same as the last. She was also regarded as “The Mother of the Gods.” (See this name explained by means of Sanscrit and Negro words combined, Appendix A, p. [62].)
Khem, A God of “The Sun,” (Egypt.)
K au m-et, “The Sun,” K au m-ei, “The Moon,” (Greenland.)
C'h.m.n.-ee.n, “Sun Images,” (Hebrew.)
C'h.m, “Hot, Heat,” (Hebrew.)
Ee ph-aist-os (Greek), “Vulcan,” “The God of Fire.”
Aifi, “Fire,” (Sumbava,) Fi (Japan), and Fei (Siam), “Fire,” Epee, “Fire,” (Katabans, North America,) Peez Pioe, “Fire,” (Moxians, South America,) Ee.ph.c'h, and Ph.ou.c'h, “To blow upon,” “Kindle,” “Inflame,” (Hebrew.)
Phoi-b-os (Greek), “The God of the Sun, Phœbus.”
“This word (‘Phoibos’) expresses the brightness and splendour of that luminary.” (Lempriere.)
Pha-ō, “To Shine,” (Greek.)
Ee.ph.ō, “To shine forth,” (Hebrew,) “Brightness, Splendour,” (Chald.) Ee.ph.ph.e, “Very Beautiful,” (Hebrew.)
Phōs, “Light,” (Greek.)
Fosseye, “The Sun,” (“Sereres” Negroes.)
Phōs, “A Star,” (Japan.)
The foregoing are merely examples of the mode in which the names of the Heathen Deities are susceptible of explanation, by means of a general comparison of languages. In the course of this work, the names of nearly all the principal [pg 022] Gods of Egypt, Greece, Italy, and India, will be explained in the same manner.
The North American Indians are not Idolaters. They worship a “Great” and “Good Spirit.” They also believe in an “Evil Spirit.”
A large class of Indian dialects have been analysed by Du Ponceau, a writer whose high philosophical reputation, great candour, and perfect knowledge of the dialects he examined, render his researches eminently deserving of attention. In early youth he was secretary to Court Ghebelin. But though a native of France, he passed the principal part of his life in the United States, in the employment of the Government of that country. His essay on the “Algonquyn Dialects of North America,” was elicited from him at a very advanced period of life by a prize offered in Paris, for which he was the successful competitor. By means of his familiar acquaintance with the languages of the Indian Tribes, it is related that he proved a person, whose narrative at one time excited considerable interest both in this country and in France to be an impostor; Hunter, the author of a work professing to give an authentic account of his captivity among the Indian Tribes. In his treatise on those languages, though for the most part he declines to generalize and professes to wish rather to furnish data for others, Du Ponceau expresses himself nevertheless, decidedly adverse to the views of those writers who conceive the Indian Tribes to be descendants of colonists from the Asiatic continent. The Indians and their languages he views as indigenous products of the American soil. After alluding in general terms of respect to the memory of that celebrated writer, he assails with national vivacity Grotius's conclusion with respect to the primitive language, which forms the motto of this work, quoting from Dante a passage in which it is intimated that the primitive language of Man must have perished at the “General Deluge!”
More ample proofs of the connexion of the dialects examined by Du Ponceau with those of the Old World, occur hereafter. In this place I must confine myself to one remarkable example.
With reference to the names given by the Indians to the great object of their worship, Du Ponceau states the result of his analysis to be that the names of the Supreme Being in all the Indian dialects he has explored, primarily mean “a Spirit.” But there is one instance, he adds, in which he has not been able to verify this conclusion, viz. in that of the dialect of the Abenaki tribe. It is true, he remarks, that “Father Raffles” had made a statement tending to show that in this instance there was no exception to the general rule he (Du Ponceau) had adopted, for, according to Father Raffles, in the dialect of the Abenaki the name of the Supreme Being was Ke tsi Niou esk ou, and these words K etsi “Ni ou eskou,” mean the Great “Spirit or Genius;” while the name of the Evil Being was Matsi “Nioueskou,” and these terms mean the Evil “Spirit or Genius.”
But Du Ponceau intimates that he has not been able by means of his own researches to satisfy himself of the accuracy of Father Raffles's statement, as to the origin of these words, and he adds, “I do not know whence this word ‘Ni oueskou’ comes.” (“Je ne sais pas d'où vient ce mot Nioueskou.”)
Among the specimens he has published of words used in the Iroquois dialects, a class of Indian languages which he has not minutely analysed, Du Ponceau gives “N' iou” as the name of “the Deity.”
Now the following comparison exhibits the remarkable fact that these words “N'iou” and “Nioueskou” may be distinctly and extensively recognized in the languages of the old world, in the very sense which, according to Father Raffles, was the primitive meaning of “Nioueskou” among the Abenaki tribe of Indians, viz., in that of “a Spirit or Genius.” They also reappear in physical meanings, which, according to Horne [pg 024] Tooke's principles, may, à priori, be pronounced to be philologically analogous.
The resemblance of the Indian terms to the European and Asiatic words is as close as the resemblance which exists between such words of the two latter classes as belong to the same languages or to the same group of languages. The variation of inflection between N'ioh and Niou-es kou, may also be restored; compare No- (the root or unchangeable part of “Noos,”) with “No-os Nous,” “The Mind,” (in the nominative case, Greek.) Compare also “Nose,” (English,) with “Nas-ika,” (Sanscrit.)
Hebrew, Indo-European, and American Words applied to the Physical Senses.
| Hebrew. | Ind.-Europ. & American. |
| N.sh.-b, N.sh.-ph, “To blow.” | Nos (Sclavonic), Nase, &c. (German and other Gothic tongues), Nas-ika (San.) |
| N.sh.-m, “To breathe out,” N.sh.-m.e, “The Breath,” “Man as a Breathing Animal”.[28] | Nas-us, Nas-um (Latin.) “The Nose,” (English.) |
| N.ph.sh, “Breath.” | |
| Ee-n.sh.ou.ph, “A species of Water-fowl remarkable for its Hard Breathing.” |
Applied to Mental and Physical Objects.
| N.sh.-m.e “Breath,” (as above) “Life,” “Soul,” “Spirit.” | No-os, Nou-s, (No.e.No), “The Mind,” (Greek.) N'ioh.Nioues-kou, “The Genius, Spirit, God,” (North American Indian Dialects, as above.) |
| N.ph.sh. “Breath,” “Life,” “Mind,” “A Person or Man,” N.ph.sh-ce, The Pronoun “I.” | N.ph.sh, or Nouvis, “Full of Life or Spirits,” (Welsh.) |
These examples may be concluded with a very remarkable instance of an important word which occurs in every one of the three great divisions of the globe, except America, and is met with in every one of the three regions of Africa.
Words for “Bread.”
Asia.—Buro (Savu Isle, a Malay dialect.)
Africa.—Bouron (Fulahs, North Africa.)
Bourou (Iolofs, Negro-land.)
Bra Bre (Hottentots, South Africa.)
Europe.—Bara (Welsh.) Bro (Norwegian.) Bread (English.) Brod or Brot (German.)
The source of these words seems to be, B.r.e, B.r.ou.th, “Food,” (Hebrew.) In the same language, Lc'h.m, “Bread,” primarily means “Food, To feed.”
Combined with the phenomenon of the absolute identity of the united elements of the languages of the Four Continents, we encounter a wide, and in many instances a total difference, when two individual languages are compared. And this is true not merely of two languages taken from different continents, but it is true also of languages spoken even in contiguous regions of the same continent.
How then are these singular features of general unity combined with individual diversity to be reconciled? Of this problem the investigation will be found in the following pages.