INDICATIVE PRESENT.
| Positive Form. | Negative Form. |
|---|---|
| N’dahoaltineen, we love one another. | Mat n’dahoaltiwuneen, we do not love one another. |
| K’dahoaltihhimo, you love one another. | Matta kdahoaltiwihhimo, you do not love one another. |
| Ahoaltowak, they love one another. | Matta ahoaltiwiwak, they do not love one another. |
You will find the whole verb conjugated in Zeisberger, therefore I shall not exemplify further. You see there is no singular voice in this verb, nor is it susceptible of it, as it never implies the act of a single person. In the negative form, “matta” or “atta” is an adverb which signifies “no” or “not,” and is always prefixed; but it is not that alone which indicates the negative sense of the verb. It is also pointed out by wu or wi, which you find interwoven throughout the whole conjugation, the vowel immediately preceding being sometimes changed for the sake of sound, as from “aholtawak,” “they love each other,” is formed “ahoaltiwiwak,” “they do not love each other.”
I will point out further, if you have not already observed it, what I am sure you will think a grammatical curiosity; it is a concordance in tense of the adverb with the verb. Turn to the future of the same negative conjugation in Zeisberger, and you will find:
Mattatsch n’dahoaltiwuneen, we shall or will not love each other. Mattatsch k’dahoaltiwihhimo, you— Mattatsch ahoaltiwiwak, they—
I have said already that atsch or tsch is a termination which in the conjugation of verbs indicates the future tense. Sometimes it is attached to the verb, as in matta ktahoaliwitsch, “thou shalt or wilt not love me,” but it may also be affixed to the adverb as you have seen above, by which means a variety is produced which adds much to the beauty and expressiveness of the language.
You have asked me whether the Delaware language has inversions corresponding with those of the Latin? To this question, not being a Latin scholar, I am not competent to give an answer; I can only say that when the Indian is well or elegantly spoken, the words are so arranged that the prominent ideas stand in front of the discourse; but in familiar conversation a different order may sometimes be adopted. We say, in Delaware, Philadelphia epit, “Philadelphia at,” and not, as in English, “at Philadelphia.” We say “bread give me,” and not “give me bread,” because bread is the principal object with which the speaker means to strike the mind of his hearer.
In the personal forms, or as you call them, transitions of the active verbs, the form expressive of the pronoun governed is sometimes placed in the beginning, as in k’dahoatell, “I love thee,” which is the same as thee I love; for k (from ki), is the sign of the second person; sometimes, however, the governing pronoun is placed in front, as in n’dahoala, “I love him,” n’ being the sign of the first person, I. In these personal forms or transitions, one of the pronouns, governing or governed, is generally expressed by its proper sign, n’ for “I” or “me,” k’ for “thou” or “thee,” and w’ for “he or him;” the other pronoun is expressed by an inflexion, as in k’dahoalohhumo, I love you, k’dahoalineen, thou lovest us, k’dahoalowak, thou lovest them. You may easily perceive that the governing pronoun is not always in the same relative place with the governed.
That these and other forms of the verbs may be better understood, it will not be amiss to say something here of the personal pronouns. They are of two kinds: separable and inseparable. The separable pronouns are these:
Ni, I. Ki, thou. Neka, or nekama, he or she. Kiluna, we. Kiluwa, you. Nekamawa, they.
There are other personal pronouns, which I believe to be peculiar to the Indian languages; such are:
Nepe, I also. Kepe, thou also. Nepena, or kepena, we also. Kepewo, you also. Kepoak, they also.
The inseparable pronouns are n for the first person, k for the second, and w or o for the third, both in the singular and the plural. They are combined with substantives in the possessive forms, as in nooch, my father, kooch, thy father; the third person is sometimes expressed by the termination wall, as ochwall, his or her father, and at other times by w, as in wtamochol, his or her canoe. In the plural, nochena, our father, kochuwa, your father, ochuwawall, their father.
The verbal transitions are compounded of the verb itself, combined with the inseparable pronouns and other forms or inflexions, expressive of time, person, and number. To understand these properly requires attention and study.
These things are not new to you, but they may be of use to those members of the Committee who have not, like yourself, had the opportunity of studying a grammar of this language.
I am, &c.
LETTER XXII.
FROM THE SAME.
Bethlehem, 27th August, 1816.
Dear Sir.—I promised you in one of my former letters that I would write to a gentleman well acquainted with the Chippeway language, to ascertain whether it is true, as Professor Vater asserts, that it is almost without any grammatical forms. I wrote in consequence to the Rev. Mr. Dencke, a respectable Missionary of the Society of the United Brethren, who resides at Fairfield in Upper Canada, and I have the pleasure of communicating to you an extract from his answers to the different questions which my letter contained.