THE LORD’S PRAYER IN THE DELAWARE LANGUAGE.
| Ki | Thou |
| Wetóchemelenk | our Father |
| talli | there |
| épian | dwelling |
| Awosságame, | beyond the clouds, |
| Machelendásutsch | magnified or praised be |
| Ktellewunsowágan | thy name |
| Ksakimowagan | thy kingdom |
| peyewiketsch | come on |
| Ktelitehewágan | thy thoughts, will, intention, mind, |
| léketsch | come to pass |
| yun | here |
| Achquidhackamike | upon or all over the earth, |
| elgiqui | the same |
| leek | as it is |
| talli | there |
| Awosságame | in heaven or beyond the clouds, |
| Milineen | give to us |
| eligischquik | on or through this day |
| gunagischuk | the usual, daily |
| Achpoan | bread, |
| woak | and |
| miwelendammauwineen | forgive to us |
| n’tschannauchsowagannéna | our transgressions (faults), |
| elgiqui | the same as |
| niluna | we (particular plural) we who are here |
| miwelendammáuwenk | we mutually forgive them, |
| nik | who or those |
| tschetschanilawequéngik | who have transgressed or injured us (past participle) |
| woak | and |
| kátschi | let not |
| n’páwuneen | us come to that |
| li | that |
| achquetschiechtowáganink | we fall into temptation; (ink, into), |
| shuckund | but (rather) |
| ktennineen | keep us free |
| untschi | from |
| medhicking | all evil |
| Alod | for |
| Knihillátamen | thou claimest |
| ksakimowágan[306] | thy kingdom |
| woak | and |
| ktallewussoágan | the superior power |
| woak | and |
| ktallowilissowágan | all magnificence |
| ne | from |
| wuntschi | heretofore |
| hallemiwi, | ever (always) |
| Nanne leketsch. | Amen. (so be it; so may it come to pass.) |
LETTER XXV.
TO MR. HECKEWELDER.
Philadelphia, 1st October, 1816
Dear Sir.—Various professional avocations have prevented me from answering sooner your kind letter of the 5th ult. I thank you for the Delaware translation of the Lord’s prayer; it does not differ much from that in Loskiel, but the English explanations which you have given add greatly to its value.
The information which your letter contains on the subject of the annexation to the verb of the form or inflexion indicative of the gender, is quite new to me. Though I was already acquainted with the principle on which this takes place, I was not fully aware of the extent of its application. We have already noticed and remarked upon the combination of the pronominal form with the active verb[307] in “getannitowit n’quitayala, I fear God;” in which the pronoun him is expressed by the last syllable ala or yala, so that it is the same as if you said “God I fear him,” in Latin Deus timeo eum, and by contraction, Deus timeum. With this it is not difficult to pursue the same course or “plan of ideas,” by connecting not only the subject pronoun, but its gender, animate, or inanimate, with the verbal form. The idea of the sexes, if the language admitted of it, might be expressed in the same manner. Thus also Latin words might be compounded on the Delaware plan. If I wished to express in that manner “I see a lion,” I would say leo video eum, and by contraction videum; and if the object was of the feminine gender, I would say videam, for video eam. The difference between the Latin and the Delaware is that in the former the ideas of the pronoun and its gender are expressed by a nominal and in the latter by a verbal form. I consider leonem video, as a contraction of leo eum video; the n being interposed between leo and eum, and the u in eum left out for euphony’s sake. In the same manner fœminam appears to me to be contracted from fœmina eam;[308] whence we may, perhaps, conclude that in the formation of different languages, the same ideas have occurred to the minds of those who framed them; but have been differently combined, and consequently differently expressed. Who would have thought that the barbarous idioms of the American savages could have thrown light on the original formation of the noble and elegant language of ancient Rome? Does not this very clearly shew that nothing is indifferent in science, and above all, that we ought by no means to despise what we do not know?
I thought we had exhausted all the verbal forms of the Delaware language, when I accidentally fell upon one which Zeisberger has not mentioned in his grammar, but of which he gives an example in his vocabulary or spelling-book. It is a curious combination of the relative pronoun “what” or “that which” with an active verb, regularly conjugated through the several transitions or personal forms. The author thus conjugates the present of the indicative.