EXTRACT.
1. “According to my humble opinion, and limited knowledge of the Indian languages, being chiefly acquainted with the Delaware and Chippeway, of ich alone I can speak with propriety, those two idioms are of one and the same grammatical structure, and rich in forms. I am inclined to believe that Mr. Duponceau is correct in his opinion that the American languages in general resemble each other in point of grammatical construction; for I find in that of Greenland nearly the same inflections, prefixes, and suffixes, as in the Delaware and the Chippeway. The inflexions of nouns and conjugations of verbs are the same. The pronominal accusative is in the same manner incorporated with the verb, which, in this form, may be properly called transitive. See Crantz’s History of Greenland, in German, page 283. These forms, though they are very regular, are most difficult for foreigners to acquire. I might give examples of conjugations in the various forms, but as they have not been expressly called for, I do not think necessary to do it.
“The Greenlanders, it seems, have three numbers in the conjugation of their verbs, the singular, dual, and plural; the Delawares and Chippeways have also three, the singular, the particular, and the plural. For instance, in the Delaware language we say in the plural, ‘k’pendameneen,’ which means ‘we all have heard;’ and in the particular number we say, ‘n’pendameneen,’ 'we, who are now specially spoken of, (for instance, this company, the white people, the Indians,) have heard.’ Upon the whole, Crantz’s History of Greenland has given me a great insight into the construction of the Indian languages; through his aid, I have been able to find out the so necessary infinitive of each particular verb. By means of the transitions, Indian verbs have nine or ten different infinitives, whence we must conclude that it is very difficult to learn the Indian languages. There is also a peculiarity in them, by means of the duplication of the first syllable, as ‘gattopuin,’ ‘to be hungry;’ ‘gagattopuin,’ to be very hungry.
2. “Carver’s Vocabulary of the Chippeway, I believe is not correct, though I have it not at present before me.
3. “The numerals in the Chippeway up to ten, are as follows. I write them according to the German orthography. 1. Beschik. 2. Nisch. 3. Nisswi. 4. Newin. 5. Nanán. 6. N’guttiwaswi. 7. Nischschwaswi. 8. Schwaschwi. 9. Schenk. 20. Quetsch.”
Thus far Mr. Dencke. I do not recollect whether I have already explained to you what he says about the “particular” number in the conjugation of the Delaware verbs. There is a distinction in the plural forms. “K’pendameneen, (k’ from kiluna, 'we,’) means generally ‘we have heard,’ or ‘we all have heard,’ not intending to allude to a particular number of persons; in 'n’pendameneen,’ the ‘n’ comes from ‘niluna,’ which means ‘we,’ in particular, our family, nation, select body, &c. ‘Niluna yu epienk,’ ‘we who are here assembled,’ n’penameneen, (for niluna penameneen) we see (we who are together see); n’pendameneen, we hear (we who are in this room hear). But when no discrimination is intended to be made, the form kiluna, or its abridgement k’ is used. Kiluna elenapewit, ‘we, the Indians’ (meaning all the Indians); kiluna yu enda lauchsienk, ‘we all that live upon earth;’ ‘k’nemeneen sokelange,’ we see it rain, (we all see it rain); k’nemeneen waselehelete, we all see the light, (we and all who live upon earth see the light.)”
I believe Mr. Zeisberger does not mention this distinction in his Grammar; but he could not say every thing.
I am, &c.
LETTER XXIII.
TO MR. HECKEWELDER.
Philadelphia, 30th August, 1816.
Dear Sir.—I thank you for your two favours of the 26th and 27th inst. I am very much pleased to find from the valuable extract of Mr. Dencke’s letter, which you have had the goodness to communicate, that the Chippeways have grammatical forms similar to those of the Delawares. Indeed, as far as my researches have extended, I have found those forms in all the Indian languages from Greenland to Cape Horn. The venerable Eliot’s Grammar shews that they exist in the idiom of the New England Indians, as he calls it, which is believed to be that of the Natick tribe. Crantz and Egede prove in the most incontrovertible manner that the language of Greenland is formed on the same syntactic or polysynthetic model. So are the various dialects of Mexico, as far as I can judge from the Grammars of those languages that are in our Society’s library. Indeed, the authors of those Grammars are the first who have noticed the personal forms of the Indian verbs, and given them the name of transitions. I find from Father Breton’s Grammar and Dictionary of the Caribbee language, that those forms exist also in that idiom, and the Abbé Molina, in his excellent History of Chili, has shewn that the Araucanian belongs to the same class of languages. All the genuine specimens that we have seen of the grammatical forms of the Indians from north to south, on the continent, and in the islands, exhibit the same general features, and no exception whatever that I know of has yet been discovered. Father Sagard’s assertions about the Huron are not founded in fact, and are even disproved by the examples which he adduces, and Mr. Dencke’s testimony is sufficient to counterbalance the naked supposition of Professor Vater that the language of the Chippeways has no forms. Too much praise cannot be given to this learned author for the profound researches that he has made on the subject of American languages with a view to discover the origin of the ancient inhabitants of this continent, but not being on the spot, he had not the same means of ascertaining facts that we possess in this country. Had he lived among us, he would not so easily have been persuaded that there was such a difference between the different languages of the American Indians; that some of them were exceedingly rich in grammatical forms, and appeared to have been framed with the greatest skill, while others were so very poor in that respect that they might be compared to the idioms of the most savage nations in north-eastern Asia and Africa.[303] In Philology, as well as in every other science, authorities ought to be weighed, compared, and examined, and no assertion should be lightly believed that is not supported by evident proof faithfully drawn from the original sources.
I do not positively assert that all the languages of the American Indians are formed on the same grammatical construction, but I think I may safely advance that as far as our means of knowledge extend, they appear to be so, and that no proof has yet been adduced to the contrary. When we find so many different idioms, spoken by nations which reside at immense distances from each other, so entirely different in their etymology that there is not the least appearance of a common derivation, yet so strikingly similar in their forms, that one would imagine the same mind presided over their original formation, we may well suppose that the similarity extends through the whole of the languages of this race of men, at least until we have clear and direct proof to the contrary. It is at any rate, a fact well worthy of investigation, and this point, if it should ever be settled, may throw considerable light on the origin of the primæval inhabitants of this country.
The most generally established opinion seems to be, that the Americans are descended from the Tartars who inhabit the north-easternmost parts of Asia. Would it not be then well worth the while to ascertain this fact by enquiring into the grammatical forms and construction of the languages of those people? The great Empress Catharine employed a learned professor to compile a comparative vocabulary of those languages which are spoken within the vast extent of the Russian Empire. This was but the first step towards a knowledge of the character and affinities of those idioms. If something may be discovered by the mere similarity of words, how much farther may not we proceed by studying and comparing the “plans of men’s ideas,” and the variety of modes by which they have contrived to give them body and shape through articulate sounds. This I consider to be the most truly philosophical view of human language generally considered, and before we decide upon the Tartar origin of the American Indians, we ought, I think, to study the grammars of the Tartar languages, and ascertain whether their thoughts flow in the same course, and whether their languages are formed by similar associations of ideas, with those of their supposed descendants. If essential differences should be found between them in this respect, I do not see how the hypothesis of Tartar origin could afterwards be maintained.
Professor Vater is of opinion that the language of the Cantabrians, whom we call Biscayans or Basques, a people who inhabit the sea coast at the foot of the Pyrenean mountains, is formed on the same model with that of the American Indians. We have in our Society’s library, a translation into that idiom of Royaumont’s History of the Bible. I acknowledge, that by comparing it with the original, I have found sufficient reason to incline in favour of the Professor’s assertion. This is a very curious fact, which well deserves to be inquired into. This Basque language, it is to be presumed, was once spoken in a considerable part of the ancient world, and probably branched out into various dialects. How comes it that those polysynthetic forms which distinguish it, have disappeared from all the rest of the continent of Europe, and are only preserved in a single language no longer spoken but by a handful of mountaineers? How comes it that the Celtic which appears no less ancient is so widely different in its grammatical construction? Are we to revive the story of the Atlantis, and believe that the two continents of America and Europe were once connected together? At least, we will not forget that the Biscayans were once great navigators, and that they were among the first who frequented the coasts of Newfoundland.
But let us leave these wild theories, and not lose sight of our object, which is to ascertain facts, and let others afterwards draw inferences from them at their pleasure. In Father Breton’s Grammar and Dictionary of the Caribbee language, I have been struck with a fact of a very singular nature. It seems (and indeed there appears no reason to entertain the least doubt on the subject) that in that idiom the language of the men and that of the women differ in a great degree from each other. This difference does not merely consist in the inflexions or terminations of words, but the words themselves, used by the different sexes, have no kind of resemblance. Thus the men call an enemy etoucou, and the women akani; a friend in the masculine dialect is ibaouanale, in the female nitignon. I might adduce a much greater number of examples to shew the difference between these two modes of speaking. It does not, however, pervade the whole language; sometimes the termination of the words only differs, while in many cases the same words are used exactly alike by both sexes. But those which differ entirely in the two idioms are very numerous, and are in general terms of common use, such as names of parts of the body, or of relationship as father, mother, brother, sister, and many others. It is said a tradition prevails in the Caribbee islands that their nation was once conquered by another people, who put all the males to death and preserved only the females, who retained their national language, and would not adopt that of the conquerors. I am not much disposed to believe this story; the more so as I find similar instances in other idioms of different words being employed by the men and women to express the same thing. Thus among the Othomis, (a Mexican tribe) the men call a brother-in-law naco, and the women namo; a sister-in-law is called by the men nabehpo, and by the women namuddu. (Molina’s Grammar of the Othomi language, p. 38.) In the Mexican proper, the men add an e to the vocative of every proper name, and say Pedroe for Pedro; while the women leave out the e and distinguish the vocative only by an affected pronunciation. (Rincon’s Mexican Grammar, p. 6.) It is said also that among the Javanese, there is a language for the nobles and another for the common people.[304] These are curious facts, and a discovery of their causes would lay open an interesting page of the great hidden book of the history of man.
As I have determined to abstain from every hypothesis, I shall leave it to others to discover and point out the causes of these extraordinary facts; but I shall be obliged to you for informing me whether in any of the Indian languages that you know, there is any such difference of dialect between the two sexes, and in what it particularly consists. I cannot believe this story of the conquest of the Caribbee islands and of its producing that variety of language. I find it related by one Davis, an English writer, in whom I place no reliance; for he has pretended to give a Vocabulary of the Caribbee language, which he has evidently taken from Father Breton, without even taking the trouble of substituting the English for the French orthography. Carver acted with more skill in this respect.
I thank you for the explanation which you have given of what Mr. Dencke calls the “particular plural,” of the Chippeway and Delaware languages, of which I had no idea, as Zeisberger does not make any mention of it. It appears to me that this numerical form of language (if I can so express myself,) is founded in nature, and ought to have its place in a system of Universal Grammar. It is more natural than the Greek dual, which is too limited in its comprehension, while the particular plural expresses more, and may be limited in its application to two, when the context or the subject of the conversation requires it. I find this plural in several of the modern European languages; it is the nosotros of the Spanish, the noi altri of the Italian, and the French nous autres. There is nothing like it in English or German, nor even in the Latin. I am disposed to believe that this form exists also in the Greenland language, and has been improperly called dual by those who have written on it. The Abbé Molina speaks also of a Dual in the Araucanian idiom, which he translates by we two. But he may have used a term generally known, to avoid the explanations which a new one would have required. However this may be, the particular plural is well worthy of notice.
I shall be obliged to you for a translation of the Lord’s prayer in the Delaware language, with proper explanations in English. I suspect that in Loskiel is not correct.
In reading some time ago one of the Gospels, (I think St. Mark’s,) in one of the Iroquois dialects, said to be translated by the celebrated chief Captain Brandt, I observed that the word town was translated into Indian by the word Kanada, and it struck me that the name of the province of Canada might probably have been derived from it. I have not been able to procure the book since, but I have now before me a translation of the English common prayer-book into the Mohawk, ascribed to the same chief, in which I find these words: “Ne Kanada-gongh konwayatsk Nazareth,” which are the translation of “in a City called Nazareth,” (Matth. ii. 23.) The termination gongh in this word appears evidently to be a grammatical form or inflexion, and Kanada is the word which answers for “city.” I should be glad to know your opinion of this etymology.
I find in Zeisberger’s grammar, in the conjugation of one of the forms of the verb n’peton “I bring,” n’petagep in one place, and in another n’petagunewoakup, both translated into German by “sie haben mir gebracht,” “they have brought to me.” Are these words synonyma, or is there some difference between them, and which?
I am, &c.
LETTER XXIV.
FROM MR. HECKEWELDER.
Bethlehem, 5th September, 1816.
Dear Sir.—I have received your favour of the 30th ult. I answer it first at the end, and begin with your etymology of the word Canada. In looking over some of Mr. Zeisberger’s papers, who was well acquainted with the language of the Onondagoes, the principal dialect of the Iroquois, to which nation the Mohawks belong, I find he translates the German word stadt (town) into the Onondago by “ganatage.” Now, as you well know that the Germans sometimes employ the G instead of the K, and the T instead of the D, it is very possible that the word Kanada may mean the same thing in some grammatical form of the Mohawk dialect. As you have seen it so employed in Captain Brandt’s translation, there cannot be the least doubt about it. This being taken for granted, it is not improbable that you have hit upon the true etymology of the name Canada. For nothing is more certain than what Dr. Wistar once told you on my authority, that the Indians make more use of particular than of generic words. I found myself under very great embarrassment in consequence of it when I first began to learn the Delaware language. I would point to a tree and ask the Indians how they called it; they would answer an oak, an ash, a maple, as the case might be, so that at last I found in my vocabulary more than a dozen words for the word tree. It was a good while before I found out, that when you asked of an Indian the name of a thing, he would always give you the specific and never the generic denomination. So that it is highly probable that the Frenchman who first asked of the Indians in Canada the name of their country, pointing to the spot and to the objects which surrounded him, received for answer Kanada, (town or village), and committing the same mistake that I did, believed it to be the name of the whole region, and reported it so to his countrymen, who consequently gave to their newly acquired dominions the name of Canada.
I had never heard before I received your letter that there existed a country where the men and the women spoke a different language from each other. It is not the case with the Delawares or any Indian nation that I am acquainted with. The two sexes with them speak exactly the same idiom. The women, indeed, have a kind of lisping or drawling accent, which comes from their being so constantly with children; but the language which they speak does not differ in the least from that which is spoken by their husbands and brothers.
The question you ask about n’petageep and n’petagunewoakup, both of which Zeisberger translates by sie haben mir gebracht, is easily answered. The translation is correct in both cases, according to the idiom of the German language, from which alone the ambiguity proceeds. N’petageep means “they have brought to me,” but in a general sense, and without specifying by whom the thing has been brought. Es ist mir gebracht worden, or “it has been brought to me,” would have explained this word better, while n’petagunewoakup is literally rendered by “they,” (alluding to particular persons,) “have brought to me,” or sie haben mir gebracht. You have here another example of the nicely discriminating character of the Indian languages.
I believe I have never told you that the Indians distinguish the genders, animate and inanimate, even in their verbs. Nolhatton and nolhalla, both mean “I possess,” but the former can only be used in speaking of the possession of things inanimate, and the latter of living creatures. Nolhatton achquiwanissall, “I have or possess blankets;” cheeli kœcu n’nolhattowi, “many things I am possessed of,” or “I possess many things;” woak nechenaunges nolhallau, “and I possess a horse,” (and a horse I possess.) The u which you see at the end of the verb nolhalla, conveys the idea of the pronoun him, so that it is the same as if you said, “and a horse I possess him.” It is the accusative form on which you observed in one of your former letters and is annexed to the verb instead of the noun.
In the verb “to see,” the same distinction is made between things animate and inanimate. Newau, “I see,” applies only to the former, and nemen to the latter. Thus the Delawares say: lenno newau, “I see a man;” tscholens newau, “I see a bird;” achgook newau, “I see a snake.” On the contrary they say, wiquam nemen, “I see a house;” amochol nemen, “I see a canoe,” &c.
It is the same with other verbs; even when they speak of things lying upon the ground, they distinguish between what has life and what is inanimate; thus they say, icka schingieschin[305] n’dallemans “there lies my beast,” (the verb schingieschin[305] being only used when speaking of animate things;) otherwise they will say: icka schingieschen n’tamahican, “yonder lies my ax.” The i or the e in the last syllable of the verb, as here used in the third person, constitutes the difference, which indicates that the thing spoken of has or has not life.
It would be too tedious to go through these differences in the various forms which the verb can assume; what I have said will be sufficient to shew the principle and the manner in which this distinction is made.
I inclose a translation of the Lord’s Prayer into Delaware, with the English interlined according to your wishes. I am, &c.