Adair's History of the American Indians

by James Adair

Argument V.

The Indian language, and dialects, appear to have the very idiom and genius of the Hebrew. Their words and sentences are expressive, concise, emphatical, {37} sonorous, and bold—and often, both in letters and signification, synonymous with the Hebrew language. It is a common and old remark, that there is no language, in which some Hebrew words are not to be found. Probably Hebrew was the first, and only language, till distance of time and place introduced a change, and then soon followed a mixture of others. The accidental position of the characters, might also coincide with some Hebrew words, in various dialects, without the least intention. As the true pronunciation of the Hebrew characters, is lost in a considerable degree, it is too difficult a task, for a skilful Hebraist, to ascertain a satisfactory identity of language, between the Jews, and American Aborigines; much more so to an Indian trader, who professes but a small acquaintance with the Hebrew, and that acquired by his own application. However, I will endeavour to make up the deficiency of Hebrew, with a plenty of good solid Indian roots.

The Indian nouns have neither cases nor declensions. They are invariably the same, through both numbers, after the Hebrew manner. In their verbs, they likewise sometimes use the preterperfect, instead of the present tense of the indicative mood; as Blahsas Aiahre, Apeesahre, “Yesterday I went and saw;” and Eemmako Aiahre, Apeesahre, “Now I go and see.” Like the Hebrews, they have no comparative, or superlative degree. They express a preference, by the opposite extremes; as Chekusteene, “You are virtuous;” Sahakse, “I am vicious.” But it implies a comparative degree, and signifies, “You are more virtuous than I am.” By prefixing the adverbs, which express little, and much, to the former words, it conveys the same meaning; the former of which is agreeable to the Hebrew idiom. And a double repetition of the same adjective, makes a superlative, according to the Hebrew manner; as Lawwa, Lawwa, “most, or very many.” To add hah to the end of an adjective, unless it is a noun of multitude like the former, makes it also a superlative; as Hakse to hah, “They are most, or very wicked.” Hakse signifies vicious, probably when the vicious part of the Israelites were under the hand of the corrector, the judge repeated that word: ta, is a note of plurality, and hah an Hebrew accent of admiration; which makes it a superlative. To join the name of God, or the leading vowel of the mysterious, great, divine name, to the end of a noun, likewise implies a superlative; as Hakse-ishto, or Hakse-o, “He, or she is very wicked.” The former method of speech exactly agrees with the Hebrew idiom; as the original text shews, in innumerable instances. {38}

When the Hebrews compare two things, and would signify a parity between them, they double the particle of resemblance; “I am as thou art; and my people as thy people:” And the Indians, on account of that original defective standard of speech, are forced to use the like circumlocution; as Che Ahōba sia, “I am like you;” and Sahottuk Chehottuk tooah, &c. for Hottuk signifies people, and the S expresses the pronoun my, or mine: and it likewise changes an active, into a passive verb. Although this Indian and Hebrew method of speech, is rather tedious and defective, yet, at the same time, they who attain any tolerable skill in the dialects of the one, and language of the other, will discover the sense plain enough, when a comparison is implied.

There is not, perhaps, any one language or speech, except the Hebrew, and the Indian American, which has not a great many prepositions. The Indians, like the Hebrews, have none in separate and express words. They are forced to join certain characters to words, in order to supply that great defect. The Hebrew consonants, called serviles, were tools to supply the place of the prepositions. The Indians, for want of a sufficient number of radical words, are forced to apply the same noun and verb, to signify many things of a various nature. With the Cheerake, Eeankke, signifies a prisoner, captive, slave, awl, pin, needle, &c.; which occasions the Indian dialects to be very difficult to strangers. The Jewish Rabbins tell us, that the Hebrew language contains only a few more than a thousand primitive words, of which their whole language is formed. So that the same word very often denotes various, though not contrary things. But there is one radical meaning, which will agree to every sense that word is used in.

By custom, a Hebrew noun frequently supplied the place of a pronoun; by which means, it caused a tedious, and sometimes an ambiguous circumlocution. From this original defective standard of speech, the Indians have forgotten all their pronouns, except two primitives and two relatives; as, Anòwah, Ego, and Ishna, Tu: the latter bears a great many significations, both as singular and plural, viz. Eeàpa and Eeàko; which signify he, she, this, that, &c.: And they are likewise adverbs of place; as here, there, &c. הוא Hewa, signifies he or she; אני Ani we; and אנ, Anowa, he, she, him, her, &c. {39}

The Hebrew language frequently uses hyperboles, or magnifying numbers, to denote a long space of time: the Indians, accordingly, apply the words, Neetak akroohah, “all days,” or, in other words, “for ever,” to a long series of years. With the Jews, sitting, signified dwelling; and, with the Indians, it is the very same; for, when they ask a person where he dwells, they say, Katèmuk Ishbeneele (chuak?), which is literally “where do you sit?” And when they call us irreligious, they say Nãna U-bat, “No thing,” or literally, “a relation to nothing;” for Nãna signifies a relation: and the other is always a negative adverbial period; which seems also to proceed from a religious custom of the Hebrews, in giving despicable borrowed names to idols; as to בעלים, Baalim, “Particles of air,” meaning, nothing. To which the Psalmist alludes, saying, “I will not take up their names in my lips.” And St. Paul says, “We know that an idol is nothing.” This expression the Indians apply, in a pointed metaphor, to the white people, but never to each other.

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”[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 not exhibited the true and genuine properties of any one of their dialects; as they are all uniform in principle: so far at least, as an extensive acquaintance reaches.

The Hebrew nouns are either derived from verbs, or both of them are one and the same; as ברכה, (Beroche) “Blessing,” from ברך, (Beroch) “to bless,” and דבר חבר, (Dabar Daber) “he spoke the speech.” This proper name signifies “loquacious,” like the Indian Sekàkee, signifying the “grasshopper.” The Indian method of expression, exactly agrees with that Hebrew mode of speech; for they say Anumbole Anumbole (kis) “I spake the speaking;” and Anumbole Enumbole (kis), “he spoke the speaking, or speech.” And by inserting the name of God between these two words, their meaning is the very same with those two first Hebrew words. I shall subjoin another word of the same sort—Hookseeleta signifies “a shutting instrument;” and they say Ishtookseelèta, or Hookseelèta, Ish-hookseetas, or Hookseetà Cha, “You shall, or, shut you the door.” Their period of the last word, always denotes the second person singular of the imperative mood; {41} and that of the other preceding it, either the first or second person singular of the indicative mood; which is formed so by a fixed rule, on account of the variegating power of the serviles, by affixing, inserting, or suffixing them, to any root. According to the usage of the Hebrews, they always place the accusative case also before the verb; as in the former Indian words.

With the Hebrews, תפלח signified “a prayer,” or a religious invocation, derived from פלח, Phelac, “to pray to, or invoke the Deity.” In a strong resemblance thereof, when the Indians are performing their sacred dance, with the eagles tails, and with great earnestness invoking Yo He Wah to bless them with success and prosperity, Phale signifies, “waving,” or invoking by waving, Ishphāle, you wave, Phalècha, wave you, Aphalàle, I waved, Aphalèlas, I will wave, &c. Psalmodists seem to have borrowed the notes fa, la, from the aforesaid Hebrew words of praying, singing to, or invoking Elohim. פעל, (Phoole) “to work,” is evidently drawn from the former Hebrew word, which signifies to invoke (and probably to wave the feathers of the cherubic eagle before) Yo He Wah. The greatest part of the Levitical method of worshipping, consisted in laborious mechanical exercises, much after the Indian manner; which the popish priests copy after, in a great many instances, as pulling off their clothes, and putting on others; imagining that the Deity is better pleased with persons who variegate their external appearances, like Proteus, than with those who worship with a steady, sincere disposition of mind; besides a prodigious group of other superstitious ceremonies, which are often shamefully blended with those of the old pagans.

As the Hebrew word נא, Na, signifies the present time—so when the Indians desire a person to receive something from them speedily, they say, Nà (short and gutturally) eescha, “take it, now.” He replies Unta, or Omeh, which are good-natured affirmatives. The pronoun relative, “you,” which they term Ishna, is a compounded Hebrew word, signifying (by application) the person present, or “you.”

With the Hebrews, הר הר, Hara Hara, signifies, “most, or very, hot;” the repetition of the word makes it a superlative. In a strict resemblance of that word, and mode of speech, when an Indian is baffled by any of their {42} humorous wits, he says, in a loud jesting manner, Hara Hara, or Hala Hala, according to their capacity of pronouncing the liquid R: and it signifies, “you are very hot upon me:” their word, which expresses “sharp,” conveys the idea of bitter-heartedness with them; and that of bitterness they apply only to the objects of taste.

With the Cheerake, Chikkasah, and Choktah Indians, Nannè signifies “a hill:” and Nannéh, with the two last-mentioned nations, “a fish;” and Unchàba, “a mountain.” But they call an alligator, or crocodile, Nannéh Chunchāba, literally, “the fish like a mountain;” which the English language would abbreviate into the name of a mountain-fish; but, instead of a hyphen, they use the Hebrew כ, a note of resemblance, which seems to point at the language from which they derived it. In like manner, Aà signifies to walk, and Eette, wood; but Eette Chanáa, any kind of wheel; which is consonant to the aforesaid Hebrew idiom; with many others of the like nature: but a specimen of this sort must suffice.

The Hebrew and Indian words, which express delineating, writing, decyphering, marking, and painting, convey the same literal meaning in both languages; as Exod. xvii. 14. כתב שפר (Chethéba Sepháre) “delineate this with delineations;” and, with the Indians, Hoorèso is, in like manner, the radical name of books, delineating, &c.; and Ootehna that for numbering, instead of reading. The nearest approach they can make to it, is, Anumbōle hoorèso Ishanumbōlas, “You shall speak the speech, which is delineated.”

They call a razor, Baspoo Shaphe, “A shaving knife:” and Shaphe always signifies to shave; probably, because when they first began to shave themselves, they were ridiculed by the higher, or more religious part of the people, for imitating that heathenish custom. The Hebrew שפּה (Shaphe) signifying lip, confession, or worship; which divine writ assures us, the descendants of Noah changed, when they opposed the divine will of settling various parts of the earth, and built the great tower of Babel, as an emblem of greatness, to get them a name[^[X]]. {43}

[X]. Skin signifies an eye; and Skeeshāpha, one-eyed; as if proceeding from the divine anger. They often change i into ee.

Loak signifies fire, and Loak Ishtohoollo, “the holy or divine fire,” or the anger of Ishtohoollo, “the great, holy One;” which nearly agrees with the Hebrew להט, that which flames, or scorches with vehement heat. And it is the scripture method of conveying to us a sensible idea of the divine wrath, according to the cherubic name אש, which likewise signifies fire. But the Persians worshipped the burning fire, by the name of Oromazes; and darkness, or the spirit, by that of Aramanius; quite contrary to the religious system of the Indian Americans: and the aforesaid Indian method of expression, seems exactly to coincide with the Hebrew idiom.

Buk-she-ah-ma is the name of their Indian flap, or broad slip of cloth with which the men cover their nakedness; but the word they use to express our sort of breeches, is a compound, Bala-phooka, derived from the Hebrew באל, which signifies, behind; and the Indian Naphooka, a coat, any kind of clothes, or covering; Baloka signifies, behind; silently telling us, they formerly wore a different sort of breeches to what they use at present. They likewise say, Neeppe-Phú-ka, “A flesh-covering.”

The father of King Saul was called Kish, “podex;” which signifies also the rear of an army, or the hindermost person, according to the Hebrew idiom. Thus the Indians, by Kish, express the podex of any animal—the hindermost person—the gavel-end of an house, and the like. Kish Kish, is with them a superlative, and, as before hinted, used to convey the contempt they have for that proper name. May not the contemptible idea the West-Florida-Missisippi Indians affix to the name of Kish, be on account of his son’s succession to the throne, at the end of the theocracy of Israel, and beginning a despotic regal government?

The Indians, according to the usage of the Hebrews, always prefix the substantive to the adjective; as Netak Chookòma, “A good day;” Nakkàne and Eho Chookòma, “A goodly man and woman.” The former of which is termed, in Hebrew, Yoma Tobe, signifying, according to our method of salutation, a good-day, a merry season, a festival day, &c. And the Indian appellatives are similarly exprest in Hebrew, Behtobe and Ashe-Tobe, “A good, goodly, discreet, or wise man and woman.” Chookoma, with the Indians, is the proper name of a comely woman, when A is prefixed to it; as A-chookòma, “My goodly, or beautiful:” they use it for a warrior, {44} when it is compounded without the A; as Chookòma hummáshtàbe, “One who killed a beautiful, great, red, or war-chieftain;” which is compounded of Chookoma, comely, Humma, red, אש, Ash, fire, and Abe, a contraction of אבל, Abele, signifying grief, or sorrow. Hence it appears, that because the Hebrews affixed a virtuous idea to Tobe, goodly; the Indians call white by the same name, and make it the constant emblem of every thing that is good, according to a similar Hebrew custom. Of this the sacred oracles make frequent mention.

The Jews called that, which was the most excellent of every thing, the fat; and the Indians, in like manner, say, Oosto Neehe, “The fat of the pompion,” Tranche Neehe, “The fat of the corn.”[corn.”] Neeha is the adjective, signifying fat, from which the word Neeta, “a bear,” is derived. They apply the word heart, only to animate beings.

As the Deity is the soul of every system—and as every nation, from the remotest ages of antiquity, believed that they could not live well, without some god or other; when, therefore, we clearly understand the name, or names, by which any society of people express their notions of a deity, we can with more precision form ideas of the nature of their religious worship, and of the object, or objects, of their adoration. I shall therefore here give a plain description of the names by which the Indian Americans speak of God.

Ishtohoollo is an appellative for God. Ishtohoollo points at the greatness, purity, and goodness, of the Creator in forming איש[איש] and אישא: it is derived from Ishto, GREAT, which was the usual name of God through all the prophetic writings; likewise, from the present tense of the infinitive mood of the active verb, Ahoollo, “I love,” and from the preter tense of the passive verb, Hoollo, which signifies “sanctifying, sanctified, divine, or holy.” Women set apart, they term, Hoollo, i. e. sanctifying themselves to Ishtohoollo: likewise, Netakhoollo signifies “a sanctified, divine, or holy day;” and, in like manner, Ookka Hoollo, “water sanctified,” &c. So that, Ishtohoollo, when applied to God, in its true radical meaning, imports, “The great, beloved, holy Cause;” which is exceedingly comprehensive, and more expressive of the true nature of God, than the Hebrew name Adonai, which is applicable to a human being. Whenever the {45} Indians apply the epithet, compounded, to any of their own religious men, it signifies the great, holy, beloved, and sanctified men of the Holy One.

They make this divine name point yet more strongly to the supreme author of nature; for, as אב, signifies father; and as the omnipresent Spirit of the universe, or the holy father of mankind, is said to dwell above, they therefore call the immense space of the heavens, Aba, Abáse, and Abatàra: and, to distinguish the King of kings, by his attributes, from their own Minggo Ishto, or great chieftains, they frequently name him Minggo Ishto Aba, &c.; Ishto Aba, &c.; Minggo Aba, &c.; and, when they are striving to move the passions of the audience, Ishtohoollo Aba. The Hebrew servants were not allowed to call their master or mistress אב, Abba, till they were adopted: to which custom St. Paul alludes, Rom. viii. 15.

They have another appellative, which with them is the mysterious, essential name of God—the tetragrammaton, or great four-lettered name—which they never mention in common speech,—of the time and place, when, and where, they mention it, they are very particular, and always with a solemn air.

There is a species of tea, that grows spontaneously, and in great plenty, along the sea-coast of the two Carolinas, Georgia, and East and West Florida, which we call Yopon, or Cusseena:[^[22]] The Indians transplant, and are extremely fond of it; they drink it on certain stated occasions, and in their most religious solemnities, with awful invocations: but the women, and children, and those who have not successfully accompanied their holy ark, pro Aris et Focis, dare not even enter the sacred square, when they are on this religious duty; otherwise, they would be dry scratched with snakes teeth, fixed in the middle of a split reed, or piece of wood, without the privilege of warm water to supple the stiffened skin.

When this beloved liquid, or supposed holy drink-offering, is fully prepared, and fit to be drank, one of their Magi brings two old consecrated, large conch-shells, out of a place appropriated for containing the holy things, and delivers them into the hands of two religious attendants, who, after a wild ceremony, fill them with the supposed sanctifying, bitter liquid: then they approach near to the two central red and white seats, (which the {46} traders call the war, and beloved cabbins) stooping with their heads and bodies pretty low; advancing a few steps in this posture, they carry their shells with both hands, at an instant, to one of the most principal men on those red and white seats, saying, on a bass key, Y’ah, quite short: then, in like manner, they retreat backward, facing each other, with their heads bowing forward, their arms across, rather below their breast, and their eyes half shut; thus, in a very grave, solemn manner, they sing on a strong bass key, the awful monosyllable, O, for the space of a minute: then they strike up majestic He, on the treble, with a very intent voice, as long as their breath allows them; and on a bass key, with a bold voice, and short accent, they at last utter the strong mysterious sound, Wah, and thus finish the great song, or most solemn invocation of the divine essence. The notes together compose their sacred, mysterious name, Y-O-He-Wah.[^[23]]

That this seems to be the true Hebrew pronunciation of the divine essential name, יהוה, Jehovah, will appear more obvious from the sound they seem to have given their characters. The Greeks, who chiefly copied their alphabet from the Hebrew, had not jod, but ιοτα, very nearly resembling the sound of our Y. The ancient Teutonic and Sclavonian dialects, have Yah as an affirmative, and use the consonant W instead of V. The high importance of the subject, necessarily would lead these supposed red Hebrews, when separated from other people in America, to continue to repeat the favourite name of God, YO He Wah, according to the ancient pronunciation.

Contrary to the usage of all the ancient heathen world, the American Indians not only name God by several strong compounded appellatives, expressive of many of his divine attributes, but likewise say Yah at the beginning of their religious dances, with a bowing posture of body; then they sing Yo Yo, He He, and repeat those sacred notes, on every religious occasion: the religious attendants calling to Yah to enable them humbly to supplicate, seems to point to the Hebrew custom of pronouncing, יה, Yah, which likewise signifies the divine essence. It is well known what sacred regard the Jews had to the four-lettered divine name, so as scarcely ever to mention it, but once a year, when the high-priest went into the holy sanctuary, at the expiation of sins. Might not the Indians copy from them, this sacred invocation? Their method of invoking God, in a {47} solemn hymn, with that reverential deportment, and spending a full breath on each of the two first syllables of the awful divine name, hath a surprizing analogy to the Jewish custom, and such as no other nation or people, even with the advantage of written records, have retained.

It may be worthy of notice, that they never prostrate themselves, nor bow their bodies, to each other, by way of salute, or homage, though usual with the eastern nations, except when they are making or renewing peace with strangers, who come in the name of Yah; then they bow their bodies in that religious solemnity—but they always bow in their religious dances, because then they sing what they call divine hymns, chiefly composed of the great, beloved, divine name, and addressed to Yo He Wah. The favoured persons, whom the religious attendants are invoking the divine essence to bless, hold up the shells with both hands, to their mouths, during the awful sacred invocation, and retain a mouthful of the drink, to spirt out on the ground, as a supposed drink-offering to the great self-existent Giver; which they offer at the end of their draught. If any of the traders, who at those times are invited to drink with them, were to neglect this religious observance, they would reckon us as godless and wild as the wolves of the desart[^[XI]]. After the same manner, the supposed holy waiters proceed, from the highest to the lowest, in their synedrion: and, when they have ended that awful solemnity, they go round the whole square, or quadrangular place, and collect tobacco from the sanctified sinners, according to ancient custom; “For they who serve at the altar, must live by the altar.”

[XI]. The Mosaic law injoined the offering of libations; as Exod. xxix. and Numb. xv. And the heathens, especially the ancient Greeks and Romans, mimicked a great deal of the Mosaic institution. They observed the like ceremonies in their idolatrous sacrifices. The priests only tasted, and then spilt some wine, milk, or other liquor, in honour of the Deity, to whom the sacrifice was offered. Alexander is said to have sacrificed a bull to Neptune, and to have thrown a golden vessel used for the libation, into the sea.

The Cheerake method of adjuring a witness to declare the truth, strongly corroborates the former hints, and will serve as a key to open the vowels of the great, mysterious, four-lettered name of God. On small affairs, the judge, who is an elderly chieftain, asks the witness, Cheeakõhgà (sko?) “Do you lie?” To which he answers, Ansa Kai-e-koh-gà, “I do not lie.” But {48} when the judge will search into something of material consequence, and adjures the witness to speak the naked truth, concerning the point in question, he says “O E A (sko?)” “What you have now said, is it true, by this strong emblem of the beloved name of the great self-existent God?” To which the witness replies, O E A, “It is true, by this strong pointing symbol of YO He Wah.” When the true knowledge of the affair in dispute, seems to be of very great importance, the judge swears the witness thus: O E A—Yah (sko?) This most sacred adjuration imports, “Have you now told me the real truth by the lively type of the great awful name of God, which describes his necessary existence, without beginning or end; and by his self-existent literal name, in which I adjure you.” The witness answers, O E A—Yah, “I have told you the naked truth, which I most solemnly swear, by this strong religious picture of the adorable, great, divine, self-existent name, which we are not to prophane; and I likewise attest it, by his other beloved, unspeakable, sacred, essential name.”

When we consider that the period of the adjurations, according to their idiom, only asks a question; and that the religious waiters say Yah, with a profound reverence, in a bowing posture of body, immediately before they invoke YO He Wah,—the one reflects so much light upon the other, as to convince me, that the Hebrews, both invoked and pronounced the divine tetragrammaton, YO He Wah, and adjured their witnesses to give true evidence, on certain occasions, according to the Indian usage; otherwise, how could they possibly, in a savage state, have a custom of so nice and strong-pointing a standard of religious caution? It seems exactly to coincide with the conduct of the Hebrew witnesses even now on the like religious occasions—who being sworn, by the name of the great living God, openly to declare the naked truth, hold up their right hand, and answer, אמנ אמנ Amen Amen, or “very true;” “I am a most faithful witness.” The Hebrew word signifies faithful, and by being repeated twice, becomes a superlative, and O E A—Yah is one of the highest degree.

St. John, in his gospel, according to the Hebrew method of adjuration, often doubles the Amen. And the same divine writer, at the beginning of each of his seven epistles, in describing the glorious and transcendant qualities of Jesus Christ, and particularly in the epistle to the church of Laodicea, points at the same custom, “These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God.” {49}

The Cheerake use another expression, which bears a strong analogy to the former method of adjuration; though it is not so sacred in their opinion, because of one letter prefixed, and another subjoined. The judge, in small controversies, asks the witness, To e u (sko?) To which he answers, To e u, or To e u hah, “It is very true,” or “a most certain truth.” Such an addition of any letter, or letters, to the vowels of the supposed divine, four-lettered name, seems to proceed from a strict religious custom of proportioning them to the circumstances of persons and things, lest, otherwise, they should blaspheme, or prophane the emblems of the great divine name. And the vowel U seems to allude to אחד, i. e. One—a name of God, figuratively—for, in their dialect, when it is a period, it makes a superlative, according to their usage in applying the rest of the divine appellatives, symbols, or names.

They esteem To e u hah so strong an assent to any thing spoken, that Cheesto Kaiēhre, “the old rabbet,” (the name of the interpreter) who formerly accompanied seven of their head warriors to London,[^[24]] assured me, they held there a very hot debate, in their subterranean lodgings, in the dead hours of the night of September the 7th, 1730, whether they should not kill him, and one of the war-chieftains, because, by his mouth, the other answered To e u hah to his Majesty’s speech, wherein he claimed, not only their land, but all the other unconquered countries of the neighbouring nations, as his right and property. When they returned home, they were tried again, by the national sanhedrim, for having betrayed the public faith, and sold their country, for acknowledged value, by firm compact, as representatives of their country; they having received a certain quantity of goods, and a decoying belt of white wampum: but, upon serious deliberation, they were honourably acquitted, because it was judged, the interpreter was bound, by the like oath, to explain their speeches; and that surprise, inadvertence, self-love, and the unusual glittering show of the courtiers, extorted the sacred assent, To e u hah, out of the other’s mouth, which spoiled the force of it; being much afraid, lest they should say something amiss, on account of the different idiom of the English, and Indian American dialects[^[XII]]. As there is no alternative between a falsehood, and a lie, they {50} usually tell any person, in plain language, “You lie,” as a friendly negative to his reputed untruth. The cheerful, inoffensive old rabbet told me, he had urged to them, with a great deal of earnestness, that it was certain death by our laws, to give his Majesty the lie to his face; and cautioned them to guard their mouths very strongly from uttering such dangerous language: otherwise, their hearts would become very heavy, and even sorrowful to death; as he would be bound as firmly by our holy books, to relate the bare naked truth, as they were by repeating To e u ah, or even O-E-A—Yah.

[XII]. The strong sentiments, natural wit, and intense love of liberty, which the Indians shew themselves possessed of, in a high degree, should direct our colonists to pursue a different method of contracting Indian covenants than they have commonly used. First, let them consider the general good of the community, who chose them for that end; and then make a plain agreement with the Indians, adapted to their fixed notion of liberty, and the good of their country, without any deluding sophisms. If they do not keep these essential points of amity in view, we shall fare again, as hath Georgia; for, by a childish treaty with the Muskohge Indians, when defeated An. 1715, its most northern boundaries are confined to the head of the ebbing and flowing of Savannah river. We are said to have flourished off very commodious Indian treaties in the council-books, with the Muskohge, which the community know nothing of, except a few plain common particulars, as they some years since declared.

The Chikkasah and Choktah method of adjuring a witness to give true evidence, is something similar to the former attestation, by To e u hah: when they ask them, whether they do not lie, they adjure them thus, Chiklooska ke-e-u Chua? The termination implies a question of the second person, singular number, and the whole oath signifies literally, “Do not you lie? Do you not, of a certain truth?” To which he answers by two strong negative asseverations, Aklooska Ke-e-u-que-Ho, “I do not lie; I do not, of a certain truth.” When the Choktah are averring any thing asked of them, they assert it, by saying Yah. This shews their ignorance of the vowels of the supposed divine four-lettered name, in comparison of the Cheerake; and that they are become less religious, by prophaning the divine name, Yah; which confirms me in the opinion, that the Cheerake Indians were a more civilized people than any of the other neighbouring Indians.

We are told that the northern Indians, in the time of their rejoicings, repeat YO Ha Han; which, if true, evinces that their corruption advances, in proportion as they are distant from South-America, and wanted a {51} friendly intercourse with those who had an open communication with those southern regions[^[XIII]]. Living in moderate high latitudes, would naturally prevent them from sinking into effeminacy, and inspire them with martial tempers, (as we are told of the Chili Indians) without being originally a bloodier people than any of the southern nations. However, we should be sparing of credit to what unskilful writers have carefully copied from each other, and transmitted to the learned world.

[XIII]. They who have a desire to see the genuine oratory of the Indians, may find it partly exhibited to the public, by the laborious Mr. Colden, mostly in the manner, as I am told, he found it in the council-books. As that gentleman is an utter stranger to the language and customs of the Indians, it was out of his power to do justice to the original. Their speech, in general, abounds with bolder tropes and figures than illiterate interpreters can well comprehend, or explain. In the most essential part of his copied work, he committed a very material blunder, by writing in the first edition, the Indian solemn invocation, YO Ha Han. I was well assured by the intelligent Sir William Johnson, and the skilful, benevolent, pious, and reverend Mr. John Ogilvie, that the northern Indians always pronounce it YO He A `Ah; and so it is inserted in the second edition. In justice to this valuable luminary of the church, and the worthy laity of the city of New-York, I must observe, that, while the rest of his sacerdotal brethren were much blamed for neglecting their office of teaching, and instead thereof, were militating for an episcopate, that gentleman was universally beloved by all ranks of people. He spent his time, like a true servant of God, in performing the various duties of his sacred office; and had the utmost pleasure in healing breaches, both in public society, and in private families. Great numbers of the poor negroe slaves, were instructed by him in the principles of Christianity, while the other clergymen were earnestly employed in disturbing the quiet of the public, for the sake of their favourite Peter’s pence.

I shall hereafter, under another argument, shew, that the Indians variously transpose, shorten, and lengthen, each syllable of the great divine name, YO He Wah, in a very extraordinary manner, when they are singing and dancing to, and before, the divine essence: and that they commonly derive such words as convey a virtuous idea, from, or compound them with that divine, essential name.

I shall now shew a farther parity, between the Hebrew language, and the Aboriginal American dialects.

Pushkoosh signifies an infant, Neetta a bear, Nassooba a wolf, &c.——By joining the word Ooshe, to the end of the names of animals, it makes a {52} distinction; as Nassoob-ooshe, a wolf-cub, Neett’-ooshe a bear-cub: but though the word Oophe signifies a dog, as an exception to their general method of speech, they call a puppy Ooph-ishik, because he is so domestic, or sociable, as ישק, to kiss, or fondle. In like manner, Pishi signifies milk; and Pishik a woman’s breast, or the udder of any animal; as the young ones, by kissing, or sucking, shade the breast, פי, with their mouth, and thereby receive their nourishment. With the Hebrews,עפך (Oophecha) signifies active, or restless: which, according to the Indian idiom, expresses the quality of a dog; Oophe is therefore the name of this animal, and their period denotes a similarity, according to the usage of the Hebrews.

Shale and Shatèra, signify to carry, Shapore, a load. The former word consists of Sheth and Ale. Illeh imports dead, and Kaneha lost. They say Shat Kaneha, to carry a thing quite away, or to Canaan.—Likewise, Illeht Kaneha, literally, dead, and lost, or probably, gone to Canaan. Several old Indian American towns are called Kanāai; and it hath been a prevailing notion with many Jews, that when any of their people died in a strange land, they passed through the caverns of the earth, till they arrived at Canaan, their attractive centre. And the word Oobèa, likewise imports dead, or cut off by O E A, or Yohewah; for they firmly believe, as before hinted, they cannot outlive the time the Deity has prescribed them. They likewise say, Hasse Ookklīlle Cheele, “the sun is, or has been, caused to die in the water,” i. e. sun-set. When they would say, “Do not obscure, or darken me,” they cry Ish-ookkīlle Chīnna, verbatim, “Do not occasion Ish, me, to become like the sun, dead in the water.” They call the new moon, Hasse Awáhta, “the moon is called upon to appear by Yohewah:” which plainly shews, that they believe the periodical revolutions of the moon to be caused, and the sun every day to die, or be extinguished in the ocean, by the constant laws of God. When we ask them, if to-day’s sun is drowned in the western ocean, how another can rise out of the eastern ocean to-morrow? they only reply, Pilla Yammi, or Yammi mung; or such is the way of God with his people. It seems to be a plain contraction of יה and אממי Ammi; which was the name of Israel during the theocracy. Besides, Aeemmi signifies, “I believe;” as the peculiar people believed in Yohewah. And it likewise imports, “I am the owner of, &c.”——according to the Hebrew idiom, the words and meaning nearly agree. {53}

Ette signifies wood; and they term any kind of chest, box, or trunk, Eette Oobe; and frequently, Oobe; which seems to point to the “ark of the purifier,” that was so fatal to the laity even to touch; a strong emanation of the holy fire, light, and spirit, residing in it, as well as in that which the priests carried to war, against the devoted enemy.

The Chikkasah settled a town, in the upper, or most western part of the Muskohge country, about 300 miles eastward of their own nation, and called it Ooe-ása;[^[25]] which is derived from O E A, and Asa, “there,” or “here, is;” i. e. “YO He Wah presides in this place.” And, when a person is removing from his former dwelling, they ask him, Ish-ooè-à (tūm?) “are you removing hence, in the name, or under the patronage, of YO He Wah?” And it both signifies to ascend, and remove to another place. As, O E A, Aba, the omnipresent father of mankind, is said to dwell above, so the Indian hopes to remove there from hence, by the bounty of Ishtohoollo, the great holy One: according to their fixed standard of speech, had they made any nearer approach to O E A, the strong religious emblem of the beloved four-lettered name, it would have been reckoned a prophanation.

Phutchik signifies a star, and Oonna “he is arrived:” but Phutchik Oonnache, “the morning-star;” because he is the forerunner of light, and resembles the sun that reflects it. And Oonna-hah signifies to-morrow, or it is day. The termination denotes their gladness, that the divine light had visited them again: and, when they are asking if it is day, they say Onna He (tak?). The last monosyllable only asks a question; and the fæminine gender treble note is the mid syllable of the great divine name—which may reflect some light upon the former observations.

Although the Hebrews had a proper name for the human soul, calling it נפש; yet in Prov. xx. 27, it is called נר יהוה, “The candle, or lamp of God;” and figuratively applied, it conveys a strong idea of the human soul: Thus the Indians term it, Nāna Ishtohoollo, “something of, or a relation to, the great holy One;” very analogous to the former method of expressing the rational Fire, as they believe the Deity resides in the new year’s, supposed principle, in allusion to the celestial cherubic name אש, Ashe, holy fire. Because Ish, Man, received his breath from the divine inspiration of the beneficent creator Yah, they term the human {54} species, in their strong-pointing language, Yāhwè; which, though different from the divine, essential, four-lettered name, in sound has יה, Yah, for its radix. But, because the monkey mimics Yahweh, or the rational creation, more than any other brute, in features, shape, gesture, and actions; in proportion to the similitude, they give him a similar name, Shaw-we. This indeed makes a near approach to Ish and Yah, and to Yahwe; but it wants the radix of both, and consequently bears no signification of relation to either. While they urge, that the regularity of the actions of the brute creatures around them, expresses a nice understanding or instinct; they deny their being endued with any portion of the reasoning, and living principle, but bear only a faint allusion to Nana Ishtohoollo, the rational soul. The most intelligent among them, say the human soul was not made of clay, like the brute creation, whose soul is only a corporeal substance, attenuated by heat, and thus rendered invisible.

Through a seeming war-contempt of each other, they all use a favourite termination to their adjectives, (very rarely to their substantives) and sometimes to their verbs; especially when they are flourishing away, in their rapid war-speeches, which on such occasions they always repeat with great vehemence. I shall give a specimen of two words, in the dialects of our southern Indians. RI is the favourite period of the Katāhba Indians; as Mare-ŕi, or Wahre-ŕi, “Good,” and Maretawah-ŕi, or Wah-rètawàh-ŕi, “best,” or very good; Wah, the last syllable of the great divine name, is evidently the radix, and magnifies the virtuous idea to a superlative. In like manner, Shegàre-Wahŕi, “not bad,” but Sheekàre-ŕi, signifies “bad.” With these Indians, Sheeke is the name of a buzzard, which they reckon to be a most impure fowl, as it lives on putrid carcasses; upon which account, they choose that word to convey a vicious idea.

Quo is the sounding termination of the Cheerake; as Seohsta-quo, “good,”—and O-se-u, “best,” or very good. Here they seem to have studiously chosen the vowels:—As the following words will illustrate, Tonnàte-ū, “very honest,” or virtuous, and Y-O-U, “Evil,” or very bad. To corroborate the hints I gave, concerning the Indian names of monkey, and the human species, let it be observed, that though their words convey a virtuous or vicious idea, in proportion as they are constituted out of {55} any of their three divine names, Yohewah, Yah, and Ishtohoollo; or contain the vowels of the great sacred name, yet the aforesaid word Y-O-U, is so far from being a deviation from that general custom, it is an emphatical, and emblematical term to express evil, by the negative of good; for, as it is the only substantive or adjective of that word, it is a strong expressive symbol of the nature, and physical cause of moral evil, by separating YO, the first syllable of the divine four-lettered name into two syllables; and adding U, as a superlative period, to make it malum malorum.

Shèh is the sounding criterion of the Muskohge, or Creek Indians,—a kind of cant jargon, for example; Heettla-sheh, signifies “good,” and Heettla-wah-E-sheh, “very good;” according to their universal standard of speech, it becomes a superlative, by subjoining that part of the divine name to it. With the Chikkasah and Choktah, Heettla signifies dancing; probably because that religious exercise was good and highly pleasing to them, when, according to ancient custom, they danced in their symbolical circles, to, and before, YO He Wah. With the former, Apullowhage sheh, expresses “bad,” or evil, thereby inverting the divine letters.

Skeh is the favourite termination of the Chikkasah and Choktah—as Chookòma-skeh, “good,” Chookòmasto-skeh (alluding to Ishto) “very good;” and Ookproo-skeh, “bad.” Likewise, Ookproosto, “worst,” or very bad; for, by annexing the contracted initial part of the divine name, Ishtohoollo, to the end of it, it is a superlative. These remarks may be of service to the inhabitants of our valuable and extensive barriers, in order to discover the national name of those savages, who now and then cut them off.

Ookproo-see, with those Indians, signifies “accursed;” the two last letters make only a samech, which implies a neuter passive: and, as Ookproo is the only substantive or adjective they use to express “evil,” by doubling the leading vowel of the four-lettered divine name, both at the beginning and end of the word; may we not conjecture at its origin, as glancing at the introduction of sin or evil by man’s overacting, or innovating, through a too curious knowledge, or choice? “Ye shall be as gods,” and, in order to gain the resemblance, they ate what was forbidden. {56}

The greater number of their compounded words, (and, I believe, every one of them) which convey a virtuous or pure idea, either have some syllables of the three divine names, or visibly glance at them; or have one or two vowels of the sacred name, Yo He Wah, and generally begin with one of them; which I shall exemplify, with a few Chikkasah and Cheerake words. Isse-Ahowwè, “Deer;” Yanàsa, Buffalo, which as it begins with the divine name, Yah, contains no more of their beloved vowels: in like manner, Wahka, “cattle;” Ishke-Oochēa, “a mother.” This last seems to be drawn from Isha, the mother of all mankind. Ehó and Enekia signify “a woman.” The latter is derived from the active verb, Akekiuhah, signifying “to love ardently,” or like a woman; Nakkàne Askai, “a man.” From this word, the Chikkasah derive Nakke, the name of an arrow or bullet: and with the Cheerake Askai signifies “to fear;” as all the American brute animals were afraid of man, &c.

Words, which imply either a vicious or impure idea, generally begin with a consonant, and double those favourite vowels, either at the beginning and end, or in the middle, of such words; as Nassooba Woheea, “a wolf.” With the Chikkasah, Eassooba signifies “bewildered;” Patche, “a pigeon,” and Patche Eassooba, “a turtle-dove.” Soore and Sheeke are the Chikkasah and Cheerake names of a “Turkey-buzzard;” Choola and Choochòla, “a fox;” Shookqua and Seequa, an “opossum,” or hog; Ookoonne, “a polecat;” Ookoonna, “a badger;” Chookphe and Cheesto, “a rabbet.” The last word is derived from the defective verb Chesti, “forbear,” or do not meddle with; and rabbets were prohibited to the Israelites. In like manner, Ooppa and Ookookoo, “a night-owl;” Oophe and Keera, “a dog;” Nahoolla and U-nēhka, “white people,” or “impure animals.” The Chikkasah both corrupt and transpose the last part of the divine name, Ishtohoollo; and the Cheerake invert their magnifying termination U, to convey an impure idea. And through the like faint allusion to this divine name, Hoollo signifies “idols, pictures, or images;” a sharp-pointed sarcasm! for the word, Hoollo, signifies also “menstruous women,” who were for the time an equal abomination to the Israelites, and with whom they were to have no communion. These two words seem to bear the same analogy to each other, as אל, Al, a name of God, and אלה, Aleh, signifying the covenant of the holy One to redeem man, and אלוה, Aloah, execrated, or accursed of God, as idols were. {57}

With the Cheerake, Awwa, or Amma, signifies “water,” and Ammoi, “a river;” not much unlike the Hebrew. They likewise term salt, Hawa; and both the conjunction copulative, and “to marry,” is Tawa. The name of a wife is Awah; which written in Hebrew, makes הוה, Eve, or Eweh, the name of our general mother. So that the Indian name of a wife, is literally and emphatically, his And, “One absolutely needful for the well-being of Ish, or man;” Ishtawa (tim?) signifies “have you married?” We gain additional light from the strong significant appellative, Ish-ke, “a mother;” which is an evident contraction of Isha, the mother of Yawe, or mankind, with their favourite termination, ske, subjoined; the word becomes thus smoother than to pronounce it at its full length, Isha-ske. If we consider that the Hebrews pronounced ו, Vau, when a consonant, as W, here is a very strong, expressive gradation, through those various words, up to the divine, necessary, And, who formed and connected every system of beings; or to the Hebrew divine original YO He Wah: at the same time, we gain a probable reason why so many proper names of old Indian places, in South-Carolina, and elsewhere, along the great continent, begin with our Anglo-Saxon borrowed character, W; as Wampee, Watboo, Wappoo, Wadmolā, Wassamèsāh, &c. Chance is fluctuating, and can never act uniformly.

To elucidate the aforesaid remarks, it may not be amiss to observe, that, according to the Israelitish custom both of mourning, and employing mourners for their dead, and calling weeping, the lifting up of their voices to God, the Choktah literally observe the same custom; and both they and the Chikkasah term a person, who through a pretended religious principle bewails the dead, Yah-ah, “Ah God!” and one, who weeps on other occasions, Yāhma, “pouring out salt tears to, or before God;” which is similar to יהמי. When a person weeps very bitterly, they say, Yahmishto, which is a compounded word, derived from יה, and ומי, with the initial part of the divine name, Ishtohoollo, subjoined, to magnify the idea, according to the usage of the Hebrews. When the divine penman is describing the creation, and the strong purifying wind, which swept along the surface of the waters, he calls it, “the air, or spirit;” and, more significantly, “the wind of God,” or a very great wind: and, in other parts of the divine oracles, great hail, a {58} great lion, and the like, are by the same figure, called the hail of God. They also apply the former words, Yah-ah, Yah-ma, and the like, to express the very same ideas through all the moods and tenses as Cheyaàras, “I shall weep for you;” Sawa Cheyaàra Awa, “Wife, I will not weep for you.” And when the violence of their grief for the deceased, is much abated, the women frequently, in their plaintive notes, repeat Yo Hé (tà) Wāh, Yo Hé (tà) Weh, Yò Hé ta Há, Yo Hê tà Héh; with a reference probably to the Hebrew custom of immoderately weeping and wailing for their dead, and invoking the name of God on such doleful occasions; and which may have induced these supposed red Hebrews to believe the like conduct, a very essential part of religious duty. Neetak Yah-ah signifies “a fast day,” because they were then humbly to say Ah, and afflict their souls before Yah. In like manner, Yah Abe signifies “one who weeps for having killed, or murdered another.” Its roots are יה, Yah, their continual war-period, and, אבל, Abele, signifying “sorrow or mourning;” for, as killing, or murdering, is an hostile act, it cannot be drawn from אבה, which signifies brotherly love, or tender affection. Nana-Yah-Abe describes a person weeping, while another is killing him. Now, as Nana is “a relation,” Yah “God,” and Abe as above, the true meaning seems to be, “One, like bleeding Abele, weeping to God.” Likewise their name for salt, Hawa, may inform us, that though at present they use no salt in their religious offerings, they forbore it, by reason of their distant situation from the sea-shore, as well as by the danger of blood attending the bringing it through an enemy’s country; for, according to the idiom of their language, if they had not thought salt an essential part of the law of sacrificature, they most probably, would not have derived it from the two last syllables of the great divine name; whereas they double the consonant, when they express water, without drawing it from the clear fountain of living waters, YO He Wah.

With the Hebrews, as before observed[^[XIV]], טפל, Tephale, signifies “shaking or pulling of the hand, cohesion, conjunction, or entering into society;” and “praying, or invoking.” In conformity to that original standard, when the Indians would express a strong, lasting friendship, they have no {59} other way, than by saying, Aharattlè-la pheena chemanumbóle, “I shall firmly shake hands with your discourse, or speech.”

[XIV]. Page 42.

When two nations of Indians are making, or renewing peace with each other, the ceremonies and solemnities they use, carry the face of great antiquity, and are very striking to a curious spectator, which I shall here relate, so far as it suits the present subject. When strangers of note arrive near the place, where they design to contract new friendship, or confirm their old amity, they send a messenger a-head, to inform the people of their amicable intention. He carries a swan’s wing in his hand, painted all over with streaks of white clay, as an expressive emblem of their embassy. The next day, when they have made their friendly parade, with firing off their guns and whooping, and have entered the beloved square, their chieftain, who is a-head of the rest, is met by one of the old beloved men, or magi, of the place. He and the visitant approach one another, in a bowing posture. The former says, Yò, Ish la chu Anggòna? “Are you come a friend in the name of God?” Or, “Is God with you, friend?” for, Yo is a religious contraction of Yohewah,—Ish “the man,” La a note of joy, Chu a query, and Anggona “a friend.” The other replies, Yah—Arahre-O, Anggona, “God is with me, I am come, a friend, in God’s name.” The reply confirms the meaning of the questionary salute, in the manner before explained. The magus then grasps the stranger with both his hands, around the wrist of his right hand, which holds some green branches—again, about the elbow—then around the arm, close to his shoulder, as a near approach to the heart. Then his immediately waving the eagles tails over the head of the stranger, is the strongest pledge of good faith. Similar to the Hebrew word, Phále with the Indians, signifies “to wave,” and likewise to shake; for they say, Skooba—Phále, “shaking one’s head.” How far the Indian oath, or manner of covenanting, agrees with that of the Hebrews, on the like solemn occasion, I refer to the intelligent reader. Their method of embracing each other, seems to resemble also that custom of the Hebrews, when a stranger became surety for another, by giving him his wrist; to which Solomon alludes, “If thou hast stricken hand with the stranger, &c.”—Their common method of greeting each other, is analogous with the above; the host only says, Ish-la Chu? and the guest replies, Arahre-O, “I am come in the name of O E A,” or Yo He Wah. {60}

When O is joined to the end of words, it always denotes a superlative, according to their universal figurative abbreviations of the great beloved name; thus with the Chikkasah, Isse, “deer,” and Isse-O, “very great deer;” Yanása, “a buffalo,” Yanas-O, “a very extraordinary great buffalo;” which is, at least, as strong a superlative, as אל ביח אל, signifying “the house of the Omnipotent,” or “the temple.”

With the Cheerake Indians, A (wàh tà) howwe signifies “a great deer-killer:” it is compounded of Ahowwe, “a deer,” Wah—the period of the divine name, and Ta, a note of plurality. The title, “the deer-killer of God for the people,” was, since my time, very honourable among them, as its radical meaning likewise imports. Every town had one solemnly appointed; him, whom they saw the Deity had at sundry times blessed with better success than the rest of his brethren, in supplying them with an holy banquet, that they might eat, and rejoice, before the divine essence. But now it seems, by reason of their great intercourse with foreigners, they have left off that old social, religious custom; and even their former noted hospitality. I will also observe, that though necessity obliged them to apply the bear’s-grease, or oil, to religious uses, they have no such phrase as (Wah ta) eeōna; not accounting the bear so clean an animal as the deer, to be offered, and eaten in their religious friendly feasts; where they solemnly invoked, ate, drank, sung, and danced in a circular form, to, and before, YO He Wah.

The Indian dialects, like the Hebrew language, have a nervous and emphatical manner of expression.—The Indians do not personify inanimate objects, as did the oriental heathens, but their style is adorned with images, comparisons, and strong metaphors like the Hebrews; and equal in allegories to any of the eastern nations. According to the ages of antiquity, their war-speeches, and public orations, always assume a poetical turn, not unlike the sound of the measures of the celebrated Anacreon and Pindar. Their poetry is seldom exact in numbers, rhymes, or measure: it may be compared to prose in music, or a tunable way of speaking. The period is always accompanied with a sounding vehemence, to inforce their musical speech: and the music is apparently designed to please the ear, and affect the passions. {61}

After what hath been said of their language, it may be proper here to shew how they accent the consonants: I shall range them in the order of our alphabet, except those they pronounce after our manner. When CH begins a word, or is prefixed to a vowel, it conveys a soft sound, as Cháa, “high;” but otherwise it is guttural: as is D, which is expressed by fixing the tip of the tongue between the teeth, as Dawi, for David. G is always guttural, as we accent Go. They cannot pronounce Gn; and they have not the Hh, neither can it be expressed in their dialects, as their leading vowels bear the force of guttural consonants. They have not the Jod, as I can any way recollect, or get information of; nor can they repeat it, any nearer than Chot. They pronounce K, as in Ko; L and N, as D—S, by fixing the tongue to the lower teeth; T like D, as in the old Hibernian, or Celtic affirmative, Ta. They cannot pronounce V, or X; they call the governor of Moveel, (Mobille) Goweno-Moweeleh: and they have not a word which begins or ends with X. KS are always divided into two syllables; as Hak-se, “mad,” &c. They have not the letter Z; much less any such harsh sound as Tz, although they have Tl. As they use the Hebrew consonants Y and W, in their most solemn invocation YO He Wah, instead of the present Hebrew Jod and Vau; so they seem to exclude them intirely out of their various dialects: the pronunciation therefore of the Hebrew characters, which are supposed to convey the other sounds, they are unacquainted with; and those which seem to be transposed, may be clearly ascertained by persons of proper capacity and leisure, by comparing a sufficient number of Hebrew and Indian words together. The Indian accents, Oo, and O, Qu, and Tl, may, prove a pretty good key to speculative enquirers.

Tl often occur in their words; as Tlumba, “to bleed with a lancet, to bore, scoop, or make any thing hollow;” and Heettla, “to dance.” And the South-Americans, we are told, had likewise the same sound, as in that national name, Tlaskala: it seems to have been universal over the extensive continent. And, from a similarity of the Hebrew manners, religious rites, civil and martial customs, we have a strong presumptive proof, that they used the aforesaid double vowels, and likewise a single vowel, as a termination, to give their words a soft accent: and it is plain to me, that the Hebrew language did not sound so harsh, as it is now commonly expressed, but like the American dialects it was interspersed with vowels, {62} and a vowel was commonly subjoined to each word, for the sake of a soft cadence; as Abele, and Ale, instead of אבל, Abel, and אל, Al &c.

The English characters cannot be brought any nearer to the true pronunciation of the Indian words, than as above set down: so that former writers have notoriously strayed, by writing conjecturally, or taking things on the wing of fame. What Indian words we had, being exceedingly mangled, either by the fault of the press, or of torturing pens, heretofore induced skilful persons to conjecture them to be hieroglyphical characters, in imitation of the ancient Egyptian manner of writing their chronicles.

The Indians express themselves with a great deal of vehemence, and with short pauses, in all their set speeches; but, in common discourse, they express themselves according to our usual method of speech, only when they scold each other: which I never observed, unless they were intoxicated with spiritous liquors, or casually overheard a husband when sober in his own family. They always act the part of a stoic philosopher in outward appearance, and never speak above their natural key. And in their philosophic way of reasoning, their language is the more sharp and biting, like keen irony and satyr, that kills whom it praises. They know, that thus they correct and subdue the first boilings of anger; which, if unchecked, proves one of the most dangerous passions to which human nature is subject. So that remote savages, who have heard only the jarring screeches of night-owls, and the roaring voices of ravenous beasts of prey, in this respect give lessons, and set a worthy example to our most civilized nations.

I have heard several eloquent Indian leaders, just as they were ready to set off for war, to use as bold metaphors and allegories in their speeches—and images almost as full and animating, as the eloquent penman of the old divine book of Job, even where he is painting, with his strong colours, the gladness and contempt of the beautiful war-horse, at the near approach of the enemy. I heard one of their captains, at the end of his oration for war, tell the warriors that stood outermost, he feelingly knew their guns were burning in their hands; their tomohawks thirsty to drink the blood of their enemy; and their trusty {63} arrows impatient to be on the wing; and, lest delay should burn their hearts any longer, he gave them the cool refreshing word, “Join the holy ark, and away to cut off the devoted enemy.” They immediately sounded the shrill whoo-whoop, and struck up the solemn, awful song, Yo, &c.

In Virginia, resides the remnant of an Indian tribe, who call themselves Sepóne;[^[26]] which word, with the Egyptians, signifies the time of putting their wine into vessels; derived, according to mythologists, from Saphan, “to inclose or conceal.” From thence they formed the fictitious Tisiphone, the punisher of sins, animated with hatred; and also the rest of their pretended furies, from the like circumstances of the year. Our early American writers have bestowed on these Indians an emperor, according to the Spanish copy, calling him Pawhatan—contrary to the Indian method of ending their proper names with a vowel; and have pictured them as a separate body of fierce idolatrous canibals. We however find them in the present day, of the same temper and religious tenets, as the rest of the Indian Americans, in proportion to their situation in life. Considering the nearness of Egypt to Judea, they might have derived that appellative from the Egyptians,—especially, as here, and in several of our American colonies, (particularly on the north side of Susquehāna river, in Pensylvania) are old towns, called Kanāa. There was about thirty years ago, a remnant of a nation, or subdivided tribe of Indians, called Kanāai; which resembles the Hebrew proper name, כנענ, (Canaan, or Chanoona). Their proper names always end with a vowel: and they seldom use a consonant at the end of any word[^[XV]]. I cannot recollect {64} any exceptions but the following, which are sonorous, and seem to be of an ancient date; Ookkàh, “a swan;” Ilpàtak, “a wing;” Kooshàk, “reeds;” Sheenuk, “sand;” Shūtik, “the skies;” Phutchik, “a star;” Soonak, “a kettle;” Skin, “the eye;” Ai-eep, “a pond;” and from which they derive the word Ai-ee-pe, “to bathe,” which alludes to the eastern method of purifying themselves. Ilbàk signifies “a hand;” and there are a few words that end with sh; as Soolish, “a tongue,” &c.

[XV]. If we consider the proximity of those Indians to a thick-settled colony, in which there are many gentlemen of eminent learning, it will appear not a little surprizing that the name Canaanites, in the original language, according to the Indian method of expressing it, as above, did not excite the attention of the curious, and prompt them to some enquiry into the language, rites, and customs, of those Aborigines: which had they effected, would have justly procured them those eulogia from the learned world, which their society profusely bestowed on the artful, improved strokes of a former prime magistrate of South-Carolina, whose conduct in Indian affairs, was so exceedingly singular, if not sordid and faulty, (as I publicly proved when he presided there) that another year’s such management would have caused the Cheerake to remove to the French barrier, or to have invited the French to settle a garrison, where the late unfortunate Fort-Loudon stood. But a true British administration succeeding, in the very critical time, it destroyed their immature, but most dangerous threatening scheme. This note I insert here, though rather out of place, to shew, that the northern gentlemen have not made all those observations and enquiries, with regard to the Indians, which might have been reasonably expected, from so numerous and learned a body.

The Indians call the lightning and thunder, Eloha, and its rumbling noise, Rowah, which may not improperly be deduced from the Hebrew. To enlighten the Hebrew nation, and impress them with a reverential awe of divine majesty, God spoke to them at Sinai, and other times during the theocracy, with an awful or thundering voice. The greater part of the Hebrews seem to have been formerly as ignorant of philosophy, as are the savage Americans now. They did not know that thunder proceeded from any natural cause, but from the immediate voice of Elohim, above the clouds: and the Indians believe, according to this Hebrew system of philosophy, that Minggo Ishto Eloha Alkaiasto, “the great chieftain of the thunder, is very cross, or angry when it thunders:” and I have heard them say, when it rained, thundered, and blew sharp, for a considerable time, that the beloved, or holy people, were at war above the clouds. And they believe that the war at such times, is moderate, or hot, in proportion to the noise and violence of the storm.

I have seen them in these storms, fire off their guns, pointed toward the sky; some in contempt of heaven, and others through religion—the former, to shew that they were warriors, and not afraid to die in any shape; much less afraid of that threatening troublesome noise: and the latter, because their hearts directed them to assist Ishtohoollo Eloha[^[XVI]]. May not this {65} proceed from an oral tradition of the war which the rebellious angels waged against the great Creator; and which the ancient heathens called the war of the giants? Nothing sounds bolder, or is more expressive, than the Cheerake name of thunder, Eentaquàróske. It points at the effects and report of the battles, which they imagine the holy people are fighting above. The small-pox, a foreign disease, no way connatural to their healthy climate, they call Oonatàquára, imagining it to proceed from the invisible darts of angry fate, pointed against them, for their young people’s vicious conduct. When they say, “I shall shoot,” their term is, Ake-rooka. The radix of this word is in the two last syllables; the two first are expressive only of the first person singular; as Akeeohoosa, “I am dead, or lost;” and Akeeohooséra, “I have lost.” Rooka seems to have a reference to the Hebrew name for the holy Spirit.

[XVI]. The first lunar eclipse I saw, after I lived with the Indians, was among the Cheerake, An. 1736: and during the continuance of it, their conduct appeared very surprizing to one who had not seen the like before; they all ran wild, this way and that way, like lunatics, firing their guns, whooping and hallooing, beating of kettles, ringing horse-bells, and making the most horrid noises that human beings possibly could. This was the effect of their natural philosophy, and done to assist the suffering moon. And it is an opinion of some of the East-Indians, that eclipses are occasioned by a great monster resembling a bull-frog, which now and then gnaws one edge of the sun and moon, and would totally destroy them, only that they frighten it away, and by that means preserve them and their light. (A). Mooney says that the belief that the eclipse monster can be so frightened away was universal among primitives. (W)

The most southern old town, which the Chikkasah first settled, after the Chokchoomah,[^[27]], Choktah, and they, separated on our side of the Missisippi, into three different tribes, they called Yanèka, thereby inverting Yahkàne, the name of the earth; as their former brotherhood was then turned into enmity[^[XVII]]. The bold Creeks on the opposite, or north side of them, they named Yahnàbe, “killing to God,” or devoting to death; for the mid consonant expresses the present time. And their proper names of persons, and places, are always expressive of certain circumstances, or things, drawn from roots, that convey a fixed determinate meaning.

[XVII]. They call the earth Yahkàne, because Yah formed it, as his footstool, by the power of his word. In allusion also hereto, Nakkàne signifies a man, because of the mother-earth; and Nakke a bullet, or arrow. When the Cheerake ask a person, Is it not so? they say, Wahkane? The divine essential name, and Kane, are evidently the roots of these words.

With the Muskohge, Algeh signifies “a language,” or speech: and, because several of the Germans among them, frequently say Yah-yah, as an affirmative, they call them Yah-yah Algeh, “Those of the blasphemous speech;” which strongly hints to us, that they still retain a glimpse of the third moral command delivered at Sinai, “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain,” or apply the name of Yohewah, thy Elohim, to vain, or created things. {66}

These Indians, to inculcate on their young people, that YO He Wah is the Author of vegetation, call the growth of vegetables, Wahráah, “moved by Yohewah;” for Aàh signifies to walk, or move; and the consonant is an expletive of distinction. In like manner, Wah-àh signifies, that “the fruits are ripe,” or moved to their joy, by Yohewah. They likewise call the flying of birds, Wahkáàh; as Yohewah gave them that swift motion. And, when young pigeons are well feathered, they say, Patche hishshè oolphotàháh—Patchè signifies “a pidgeon,” Hishshè, “leaves, hair, or feathers,” oolpha, or oolpho, “a bud,” ta, a note of plurality, and háh of admiration, to make it a plural superlative. But, when the pigeons, in winter, fly to a moderate climate in great clouds, they use the word, Wah-àh, which in every other application describes vegetation, and say, Patche Wah-àh, “the pigeons are moved to them by Yohewah;” which seems to allude to the quails in the wilderness, that were miraculously sent to feed the Israelites.

Clay basons they call Ai-am-bo, and their old round earthen forts, Aiambo Cháah, this last word signifying “high,” or tall: but a stockade, or wooden fort, they term, Hoorèta, and to inswamp, Book-Hoore, from Bookse, “a swamp,” and Hoorèta, “a fort, or place of difficult access.” High waters, conveys to them, an idea only of deepness; as Ookka phobe, “deep waters.” And they say, Ookka chookòma intáa, “The water glides, or moves along pleasantly, or goodly.” That the word Intâa, has Ya-ah for its radix, is apparent from their name for a rapid current, Yahnāle, “it runs with a very extraordinary force;” the mid consonant is placed there, to give the word a suitable vehemence of expression—and the word is compounded of יה, Yah, and אל, Ale, two names of God. In like manner[manner], Yahnhà signifies “a pleurisy,” fever, and the like; because they reckon, when Yah says ha in anger, to any of their vicious people, he immediately fires the blood, and makes it run violently through all the veins of the body. Ashtahále signifies the reflection of the celestial luminaries, which is composed of two of the divine names; as אש, Ash, the celestial, cherubimical name of God, signifying fire, ta, a contraction of the conjunction copulative, and אל, Ale, the strong, or omnipotent. They say a river, or warm victuals, is A-shu-pa; that is, the former is become fordable, and the latter eatable. They here divide Ash into two syllables; and the termination alludes to the word, Apà, which signifies eating. {67}

Páàh signifies to raise the voice, Vocifero—for פי, Phi, signifies “the mouth,” and Aàh, “to move.” Opáe is the name of a war-leader, because he is to move his mouth to O E A, or invoke YO He Wah, while he carries the beloved ark to war, and is sanctifying himself and his party, that they may obtain success against the enemy. But Pae-Minggo signifies a far-off, or distant chieftain. Pa yak Matàháh, is the high name of a war-leader, derived from Páah, to raise the voice to Yah, and Tahàh, “finished,” meaning his war-gradation: the M prefixed to it, makes it a substantive, according to the usage of the Hebrews. Any thing liquid they term Ookche, from Ookka and che: and Ookchaah signifies “alive.” It is drawn from Ookka, “water,” Ch, a note of resemblance, and Aàh, “moving;” i. e. a living creature resembles moving water. In like manner, Ookchà signifies to awake out of sleep; and also to plant any vegetable substance, alluding to their three different states—they first were enabled to move about—then rest, or sleep is necessary, and also being planted in the earth—but they hope that in due time, they shall be moved upward, after they have slept a while in the earth, by the omnipotent power of Yah. They have an idea of a resurrection of the dead body, according to the general belief of the Jews, and in conformity to St. Paul’s philosophical axiom, that corruption precedes generation, and a resurrection.

Keenta signifies “a beaver,” Ookka “water,” and Heenna “a path;” but, for a smooth cadence, they contract them into one word, Keentookheenna; which very expressively signifies “a beaver-dam.”

The Indian compounded words, are generally pretty long; but those that are radical, or simple, are mostly short: very few, if any of them, exceed three or four syllables. And, as their dialects are guttural, every word contains some consonants; and these are the essential characteristics of language. Where they deviate from this rule, it is by religious emblems; which obviously proceeds from the great regard they paid to the names of the Deity; especially, to the four-lettered, divine, essential name, by using the letters it contains, and the vowels it was originally pronounced with, to convey a virtuous idea; or, by doubling, or transposing them, to signify the contrary. In this they all agree. And, as this general custom must proceed from one primary cause, it seems to assure us, they were not in a {68} savage state, when they first separated, and variegated their dialects, with so much religious care, and exact art. Blind chance could not direct so great a number of remote and warring savage nations to fix on, and unite in so nice a religious standard of speech. Vowels are inexpressive of things, they only typify them; as Oo-E-A, “to ascend, or remove:”—O E A, a most sacred affirmation of the truth. Similar to these are many words, containing only one consonant: as To-e-u, “it is very true;” O-se-u, “very good;” Y-O-U, “evil, or very bad;” Y-â-a, “he moves by the divine bounty;” Nan-ne Y-a, “the divine hill, or the mount of God,” &c. If language was not originally a divine gift, which some of our very curious modern philosophers deny, and have taken great pains to set aside; yet human beings are possessed of the faculties of thinking and speaking, and, in proportion to their ideas, they easily invented, and learned words mixed with consonants and vowels, to express them. Natural laws are common and general. The situation of the Indian Americans, has probably been the means of sinking them into that state of barbarism we now behold—Yet, though in great measure they may have lost their primitive language, not one of them expresses himself by the natural cries of brute-animals, any farther than to describe some of the animals by the cries they make; which we ourselves sometimes imitate, as Choo-qua-lê-qua-lôô, the name they give that merry night-singing bird, which we call “Whip her will my poor wife,” (much like our cuckoo) so termed from its musical monotony. No language is exempt from the like simple copyings. The nervous, polite, and copious Greek tongue had the loud-sounding Böô Böao, which the Romans imitated, by their bellowing Boves Böum; and the Indians say Pa-a, signifying the loud noise of every kind of animals, and their own loud-sounding war Whoô Whoóp. Where they do not use divine emblems, their words have much articulation of consonants. Their radicals have not the inseparable property of three consonants, though frequently they have; and their words are not so long, as strangers conjecturally draw them out. Instead of a simple word, we too often insert the wild picture of a double, or triple-compounded one; and the conjugation of their verbs, utterly deceives us. A specimen of this, will shew it with sufficient clearness, and may exhibit some useful hints to the curious searchers of antiquity.

A-nô-wa signifies “a rambler, renegadoe, or a person of no settled place of abode.” A-nó-wah, the first person, and Ish-na, the second person {69} singular, but they have not a particular pronoun for the third; they distinguish it by custom. Si-a, or Sy-ah, is “I am;” Chee-a, or Chy-ah, “you are;” and Too-wah, “he is.” Ay-ah signifies “to go;” Ay-a-sa, “I remain;” Ish-i-a-sa, “you remain;” A-sa, “he remains.” A-OO-E-A is a strong religious emblem, signifying “I climb, ascend, or remove to another place of residence.” It points to A-nó-wah, the first person singular, and O-E-A, or YO He Wah; and implies, putting themselves under his divine patronage. The beginning of that most sacred symbol, is, by studious skill, and a thorough knowledge of the power of letters, placed twice, to prevent them from applying the sacred name to vain purposes, or created things. In like manner they say, Nas-sap-pe-O Ish-OO-E-A, “You are climbing a very great acorn-tree,” meaning an oak; for Nas-se is the name of an acorn; and the mid part of that triple compounded word, is derived from Ap-pê-la, “to help;” Che-ap-pê-la A-wa, “I do not help you.” The termination, according to their mixed idiom, magnifies it to a superlative. Quoo-ran-hê-qua, a noted old camping place, fourteen miles above the settlement of Ninety-six, and eighty-two below the Cheerake, signifies, in their dialect, “the large white oaks.” Oos-sak is the name of a “hickory-nut,” and Oos-sak Ap-pe-O as above. Oot-te signifies “a chestnut;” Noot-te, “a tooth;” Soot-te, “a pot;” and Oo-te, “to make a fire,” which may be called an Indian type for eating boiled chestnuts.

When they say, “He is removing his camp,” they express it in a most religious manner, Al-bé-na-OO-E-A. Al-be-nâs-le signifies “I camped;” Al-be-nâs-le-chû, “I shall, or will, camp:” but, according to their religious mode of speaking, Al-bé-na A-OO-E-A-re, expresses the former, and Al-bé-na A-OO-E-A-ri-chû, the latter phrase; likewise, Al-bé-na OO-E-As signifies Castra Moveto, imperatively. It is worthy of notice, that as they have no pronoun relative to express the third person singular, they have recourse to the first syllable of the essential word, Toowah, “He is.” In allusion to that word, they term the conjunction copulative, Ta-wah, and Tee-U-Wah, “resting.” So mixed a train of nice and exact religious terms, could not be invented by people, as illiterate and savage as the Indians now are, any more than happen by accident.

Though they have lost the true meaning of their religious emblems, except what a very few of us occasionally revive in the retentive memories of their old inquisitive magi; yet tradition directs them to apply them properly.{70} They use many plain religious emblems of the divine names, Yohewah, Yah, and Ale,—and these are the roots of a prodigious number of words, through their various dialects. It is surprising they were unnoticed, and that no use was made of them, by the early voluminous Spanish writers, or by our own, for the information of the learned world, notwithstanding the bright lights they had to direct them in that æra, when the decorations of their holy temples and priests, their religious ceremonies, and sacred hymns of praise to the Deity, of which hereafter, so nearly corresponded with the Israelitish, and might have been readily discovered by any who eyed them with attention. In our time, by reason of their long intercourse with foreigners, we have necessarily but a few dark traces to guide our inquiries, in the investigation of what must have been formerly, shining truths.

I must beg to be indulged with a few more remarks on their verbs.[^[28]]—If we prefix As to A-a, “to move,” it becomes A-sâ-a, “to offend.” The monosyllables Ish and Che, variously denote the second person singular; but when the former is by custom prefixed to a verb, the latter then expresses either the accusative or ablative case singular of the pronoun relative; as Ish-a-sâ-ah, “you are offended, or moved to say Ah;” Ish-a-sâ-a-re, “you were displeased;” but Che-a-sâ-ah signifies “I am displeased with you;” and Che-a-sâ-a-re “I was offended by you;” Che-a-sâ-a-chee-le is “I occasion, or have occasioned you to be displeased,” literally, “I produce, or have produced offence to you;” and Che-a-sâ-a-cheê-le Awa, “I shall not cause you to be displeased.” In like manner, they say A-ân-ha, which signifies “I despise,” or literally, “I move ha;” for the mid letter is inserted for distinction-sake, according to their idiom. So A-chîn-ha-chu, “I shall contemn you;” A-chîn-ha-cheê-la A-wa, “I shall not cause you to become despicable.” Chee-le signifies literally, “to bring forth young.” So that the former method of expression is very significant, and yet it shews a sterility of language, as that single word is applicable to every species of female animals, fowls not excepted: Thus, Phoo-she Chee-le, “the birds lay.” Oe-she signifies “a young animal,” of any kind—and likewise an egg. When mentioned alone, by way of excellence, it is the common name of an infant; but when the name of the species of animals is prefixed to it, it describes the young creature. An-push-koosh oo-she, is what the tender mother says to her well-pleased infant. The two words import the same thing. The former resembles the Hebrew, and the latter is likewise a substantive; they {71} say Chool-loo-she Teeth-lâ-a-ta-hâh, “the fox-cubs are run off;”—Choo-la being the name of a fox. Phut-choos-oo-she Wah kâ-as, “let the young duck fly away;” and Phoo-soo-she Hish-she Ool-pha-quî-sa, “the young wild bird’s hairs, or feathers, are not sprung, or budded.” Pa-se signifies the hair of a man’s head, or the mane of animals. Sha-le signifies pregnant, literally, “to carry a burthen;” as Oo-she shâ-le, “she bears, or carries, an infant;” but, when it is born, Shoo-le is the name for carrying it in their arms. This bears off from the divine radix, with great propriety of language. Im prefixed to a verb, denotes the masculine and feminine pronouns, illum and illam. As this is their fixed method of speech, the reader will easily understand the true idiom of their language. Sal-le signifies “I am dead,” Chil-le, you, &c. Il-leh, he, &c. And this is likewise a substantive, as Il-let Min-te, “death is approaching,” or coming: Min-té-cha signifies “come you;” and A-min-té-la A-wa, or Ac-min-tá-qua-chu, “I will not come.”

The former word, Shâ-le, “to carry a burthen,” or, she is pregnant, seems to be derived from ש and אל and, as A-shâ-le, Ish-shâ-le, and E-shâ-le, are the first, second, and third persons singular of the present tense, the latter may allude to her conception by the power of the Deity: and it also points to שול, Sha-wô-le, or Saul, “the grave, or sepulchre,” out of which the dead shall come forth to a new world of light. In like manner Chee-le “to bring forth,” or A-chee-lá-le, “I brought forth,” appears to be derived from כ, a note of resemblance, and אל, A-le, the fruitful Omnipotent. All the American nations, like the Jews, entertain a contemptible opinion of their females that are barren—sterility they consider as proceeding from the divine anger, on account of their conjugal infidelity.

To enable grammarians to form a clear idea of the Indian method of variegating their verbs, and of the true meaning they convey, we must again recur to the former essential word, or rather divine emblem, A-ah, “he moves.” They say A-as, “let him move,” and Ee-má-ko, or Blâ-sas A-â-á-re, “I now move,” or “yesterday I moved;” for, like the Hebrews, they sometimes use the preterperfect, instead of the present tense. A-â-a-ra-chu is the first person singular of the future tense, in the indicative mood. A-â-ta-hah expresses the third person plural of the present tense, and same mood. A-â-ta-hâh-ta-kô-a signifies, by query, “have ye, or will ye move?” It is their method of conjugating their verbs, that occasions any of their {72} radical or derivative verbs to exceed three or four syllables; as we see by this, which, though composed only of two vowels, or short syllables, is yet so greatly deflected. With them two negatives make an affirmative, as Ak-hish-ko-quá, “I shall not drink;” add the strong negative termination A-wa, it is, “I will certainly drink.” An affirmative question frequently implies a strong negative; as Ai-a-râ-ta-kô-a, literally, “will, or should, I go?” that is, “I really will not, or should not go:” and on the contrary, a negative query imports an affirmative assertion; as A-kai-u-quâ-ta-kô-a, “should not I go?” or, “I surely should go.” Ee-á ko A-pâ-ret Sa-kâi-a-qua-ta kô-a, is literally, “if I ate, should not I be satisfied?” which implies, “If I ate, I should be fully satisfied.”[satisfied.”] To drinking, they apply a word that signifies content; and indeed, they are most eager to drink any sort of spiritous liquors, when their bellies are quite full. When they are tired with drinking, if we say to any of them, Un-ta Ang-go-na Che-ma-hîsh-kó-la Chû, “Well, my friend, I will drink with you;” Che-a-yôok-pa-chêe-re Too-gat, “for, indeed, I rejoice in your company;” he replies, Hai-a, Ook-ka Hoo-me Hish-ko Sa-nook-tá-ra; which is, “No; for I am content with drinking bitter waters.” They constantly prefix the substantive before the adjective, and place the accusative case before the verb. If we translate the following words, Ook-ka Pangge Hum-ma Law-wa A-hish-kó-le Bla-sas, they literally signify, “yesterday I drank a great deal of red-grape water,” meaning claret. Thus they say, Tik-ké-ba, Ing-glee-she Fren-she Ee-lap A-bing-ga E-tee-be, “formerly, when the English and French fought against each other;” Fren-she Ing-glee-she A-be-tâ-le, “the French were killed by the English.”

The verbs are seldom defective, or imperfect: though they may seem to be so to persons who do not understand the idiom of their language, they are not; they only appear as such by the near resemblance of words, which convey a different meaning—as A-kai-a, “I go,” Sa-kai-a, “I am satisfied with eating,” and Sal-kai-a, “I am angry, cross, vexed, or disturbed in mind;” Shee-a, Che-kai-a, and Chil-kai-a, in the second person; Ai-a, E-kai-a, and Al-kai-a, in the third person singular. A-pee-sa signifies “to see,” and Al-pêê-sa, “strait, even, or right;”[right;”] Al-poo-ê-ak, the general name of mercantile goods, I subjoin, as such a word is uncommon with them; they seldom use so harsh a termination. I shall here close this argument, and hope {73} enough hath been said to give a clear idea of the principles of the Indian language and dialects, its genius and idiom, and strong similarity to, and near coincidence with the Hebrew—which will be not easily accounted for, but by considering the American Indians as descended from the Jews.