CHAPTER X.
LANGUAGE AND ITS RELATION TO NORTH AMERICAN MIGRATIONS.
Diversity of Languages in America—Causes of Diversity—Richness of American Languages—Polysynthesis—Grimm’s Law—The Maya-Quiché Languages—Stability of the Maya—Oldest American Language—The Maya compared to the Greek, the Hebrew, the North European, the Basque, West African, and the Quichua Languages—Epitome of Maya Grammar—The Mizteco-Zapotec Languages—The Nahua or Aztec—The Classic Tongue—Ancient and Modern Nahua—Epitome of Aztec Grammar—Geographical Extension of the Aztec—In the South—In the North-west—Buschmann’s Researches—Sonora Family—Opata-Tarahumar-Pima Family—Moqui and Aztec Elements—Aztec in the Shoshone and in the Languages of Oregon and the Columbian Region—Line of Aztec Elements—The Nahua probably the Language of the Mound-builders—The Otomi—Supposed Chinese Analogies—Japanese Analogies—Geographical Names.
LANGUAGE in aboriginal America may be pronounced a mystery of mysteries and a Babel of Babels. Mr. Bancroft has catalogued nearly six hundred distinct languages, existing between northern Alaska and the Isthmus of Panama. Many of these, however, scarcely deserve to be called more than dialects; while each has its individuality, it is true that all have certain characteristics in common, a fact which by some has been considered sufficient ground for belief in the unity of the American race, a hypothesis which is by no means tenable. The geographical division and intermixture of languages, for instance, in California, is without a parallel elsewhere in the world. By the accidents attendant upon savage life, resulting from ceaseless hostilities and the frequent inroads of tribes upon their neighbors, a nation has often been scattered in fragments, and its refugees, separated into small bands, have taken up their residence in the midst of other tribes at localities far removed from their central home. In a generation or two a modification of the parent speech has been brought about by the surrounding influences, all of which vary in the several localities in which the refugees have found their new homes. New tribes thus formed, soon become unintelligible to their brothers, who have developed a dialect under different influences from theirs. When we consider that for thousands of years this wholesale division and subdivision of tribes and languages has been going on, as the result of ceaseless hostilities, we can easily account for the multitude of languages and dialects on the one hand, and the existence of a thread of unity or similarity on the other, said to run through them all. Supposing the continent to have received its population from several different quarters, the natural expectation would be that in the course of time this process of general intermixture would result in developing in each language much that was common to the others—hence the foundation for the hypothesis of their unity of origin. In the study of American languages it has often been a matter of surprise that their structure and expressiveness indicates a degree of perfection far in advance of the civilization out of which they had sprung. This superiority, we think, can be accounted for on the principle, first, that the evolution of languages on this continent has been more active and constant here than elsewhere, though unfortunately not always operating under favorable conditions; and second, that in the frequent catastrophes which have resulted from inter-tribal warfare, even in language, the law of the survival of the fittest is apparent, in the preservation of those etymological forms and principles of structure which are most useful. We by no means agree with the eminent philologist Dr. W. Farrar, F.R.S., chaplain to the Queen, and others who, taking but a partial and second-hand view of American languages, pronounce their elaborateness a childish excess, and their vaunted wealth a concealment of their poverty.[701] An examination of the poems of Nezahualcoyotl, king of Tezcuco, recorded by Ixtlilxochitl, will afford sufficient proof of the expressiveness and richness of the Aztec language.[702] The song on the “Mutability of Life” and the ode on the tyrant Tezozomoc have often been translated and admired.[703] One of the leading characteristics of American language, it has been said, is “agglutination,” but we must add that the term employed is not sufficiently comprehensive. “Agglutination,” says Farrar, “may be described as that principle of linguistic structure which consists in the mere placing of unaltered roots side by side; as when to express ‘discipline’ the Chinese say ‘law-soldier,’ or for ‘elders’ ‘father-mother,’ or for ‘enjoyment’ ‘luxury-play-food-clothes.’”[704]
The term polysynthesis, the synthesis of many words into one, with a little explanation will describe the characteristic, so prominent, to which we allude. In their polysynthesis, the syllables or words which are compressed into one long word, no longer retain their individual forms, but are clipped and altered so as to be scarcely recognizable. A sentence by this process of fusion is compressed into a single long word. Dr. Farrar cites the following example from the Aztec: achichillacachocan, means “the place where people weep because the water is red.” The component parts are: atl “water,” chichiltic “red,” tlacatl “man,” chorea “weep,” all of which have nearly lost their identity in the inflection and contraction necessary in the synthesis.[705] As in the Aryan and other families, Grimm’s system of Lautverschiebung—sound changing, or shunting—better known by Prof. Max Müller’s designation as “Grimm’s law” prevails, so there are groups or families in northern Mexico pointed out by Buschmann to which this law is clearly applicable. No doubt the number of relationships already established between aboriginal languages, as the result of classification, will be greatly augmented when, if ever, the subject receives special attention.[706] Mr. Bancroft classifies the languages in his catalogue under three great families, namely, the Tinneh, Aztec and Maya. The first, which covers the territory around the northern extremity of the Rocky Mountains, and sends its offshoots as far south as northern Mexico, only concerns us incidentally in treating the ancient languages of North America.[707] The two families (and their far-reaching branches) in which we are interested, are the Maya and the Aztec, the latter the survivor of the speech of the Nahuas.
To the Maya, or rather, the Maya-Quiché stock, no doubt belongs the greatest antiquity assignable to any language or languages on the continent. The mother tongue, the Maya, prevails throughout all of Yucatan, and together with its dialects extends itself over Tabasco, Chiapas and Guatemala, and is even present in the states of Tamaulipas and Vera Cruz, in the Huastic and Totonac languages. Numerous catalogues of the branches of this family have been made, but the most recent, and we think the most complete, is one constructed in 1876 on Señor Pimentel’s classification by the Mexican scholar, Señor Garcia y Cubas. It is as follows: 1. Yucateco or Maya; 2. Punctunc; 3. Lacandon or Xochinel; 4. Peten or Itzae; 5. Chañabal, Comiteco, Jocolobal; 6. Chol or Mopan; 7. Chorti or Chorte. 8. Cakchi, Caichi, Cachi or Cakgi; 9. Ixil, Izil; 10. Coxoh; 11. Quiché, Utlatec; 12. Zutuhil, Zutugil, Atiteca, Zacapula; 13. Cachiquel, Cachiquil; 14. Tzotzil, Zotzil, Tzinanteco, Cinanteco; 15. Tzendal, Zendal; 16. Mame, Mem, Zaklohpakap; 17. Poconchi, Pocoman; 18. Atche, Atchi; 19. Huastic, and probably 20. the Haytian, Quizqueja or Itis, with their affinities, the Cuban, Boriguan and Jamaican languages.[708]
The author of the above list has compensated us for its length by giving each of the names with its variation in orthography according to different writers. The classification is altogether superior to any other. The Maya is of peculiar interest to us, especially since within the territory over which it extends are found the most celebrated architectural remains known to Central American archæology. The majority of the sculptured tablets which are preserved are no doubt in the Maya or some of its dialects. What is most satisfactory to us, is the probability that the language is spoken to-day by the mass of the native population of Yucatan as it was anciently, for says Señor Pimentel, “the Indians have preserved this idiom with such tenacity that to this day they will speak no other,” and he adds that it is necessary for the whites to address them in their own tongue in order to communicate with them.[709]
Señor Orozco y Berra furnishes us evidence that little change has taken place in the language since the earliest times, in the statement that all the geographical names of the peninsula are Maya, which is considered proof in his judgment that the Mayas were the first occupants of the country.[710] It is but a reasonable expectation, therefore, that at no distant day, by the aid of Landa’s alphabet, the inscriptions will be compelled to reveal their mysterious contents. The Tzendal, the language in which Votan is said to have written a history of the foundation of his city, and still spoken near the ruins of Palenque, is said to have been the oldest of American languages, but linguistic investigations have proven that it is an offshoot from the Maya, the mother tongue.[711] It is probable that the Maya was first planted at some point in the territory which it now occupies, and gradually extended its domain until its colonies reached northern Vera Cruz and southern Nicaragua. Whether at any time it was the language of a people inhabiting central and southern Mexico at a date anterior to the arrival of the Nahuas, is unknown though probable. Señor Orozco y Berra has shown by linguistic studies that probably the Mayas occupied the Atlantic seaboard of the United States, having in their migration passed from the Floridian peninsula to Cuba and thence to the other Caribbean isles, and to Yucatan. He states that the Mayas possess traditions of a northern home from which they passed by means of the islands of the Gulf to Yucatan. Both he and Señor Pimentel agree that the languages of the West Indies belong to the Maya family.[712]
The characteristics of the Maya-Quiché languages are; flexibility, expressiveness, vigor, approximating harshness, yet on the contrary rich and musical in sound. The Maya itself has more than once been compared to the Greek, and even said to be derived from it. Dr. Le Plongeon, who for four years has been exploring the ruins of Yucatan and especially of Chichen-Itza, writes thus in connection with the discovery of a well-sculptured bear’s head at Uxmal: “When did bears inhabit the peninsula? Strange to say, the Maya does not furnish the name for bear. Yet one-third of this tongue is pure Greek. Who brought the dialect of Homer to America? Or who took to Greece that of the Mayas? Greek is the offspring of the Sanscrit. Is Maya? Or are they coeval? A clue for ethnologists to follow the migrations of the human family on this old continent. Did the bearded men whose portraits are carved on the massive pillars of the fortress at Chichen-Itza, belong to the Mayan nations? The Maya is not devoid of words from the Assyrian.”[713] He does not hesitate to say that “the Maya, containing words from almost every language, ancient or modern, is well worth the attention of philologists,” a statement which might with but little breach of propriety be made as well concerning almost any other language. In referring to its antiquity, the writer says, “I must speak of that language which has survived unaltered through the vicissitudes of the nations that spoke it thousands of years ago, and is yet the general tongue in Yucatan—the Maya. There can be no doubt that this is one of the most ancient languages on earth. It was used by a people that lived at least 6000 years ago, as proved by the Katuns, to record the history of their rulers, the dogmas of their religion, on the walls of their palaces, on the façades of their temples.”[714] The Mexican scholar, Señor Melgar, is convinced that he sees resemblances between the names employed by the Chiapenecs in their calendar, and the Hebrew, and furnishes comparative lists to sustain his hopeless theory.[715]
The speculations of the Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg are none the less remarkable and about equally as plausible as those of Dr. Le Plongeon or Señor Melgar. The Abbé after years of study among the peoples of Central America, was convinced beyond a doubt that a marked relationship existed between the Quiché-Cakchiquel and Zutugil and the languages of the north of Europe. He considers the evidence sufficient that peoples speaking the Germanic and Scandinavian languages migrated to Central America and infused their idioms into the Maya.[716]
With Mr. Bancroft we agree that no value can be attached to these speculations, until impartial comparisons are made by scholars who have no theories to substantiate. It is worthy of note that several eminent scholars have observed the remarkable similarity of grammatical structure between the Central American and certain transatlantic languages, especially the Basque[717] and some of the languages of Western Africa.[718] Dr. Le Plongeon, after several years spent amid the antiquities of Peru and in the study of the Quichua language, says, “The Quichua contains many words that seem closely allied to the dialects spoken by the nations inhabiting the regions called to-day Central America, and the Maya tongue.” In referring to the mural paintings at Chichen-Itza, he further remarks, “By comparing them with those of the Quichuas, I cannot but believe that Manco’s ancestors emigrated from Xilbalba or Mayapan, carrying with them the notions of the northern country.”[719] Interesting as these speculations are, they must be received with allowance and viewed with doubt, until thorough linguistic researches test their value.
The most important features of Maya grammar are as follows: The letters of the alphabet are, a b c ɔ e, ch, ch, h, i, k, l, m, n, o, p, p, ó, pp, t, th, tz, u, x, y, y, z. The letter ɔ is pronounced like the English dj, h is not aspirated, th is hard, and the k guttural. Much of the beauty of the pronunciation depends on the elision of certain vowels and consonants, as for instance instead of ma in kati they say min kati, or instead of ti ca otoch they would say ti c otoch. The plural is distinguished from the singular by the addition of ob (those). Verbs ending in an take tac in the plural. The masculine of rational beings is denoted by the prefix ab, the feminine by ix. The words xibil and chupul, signifying male and female respectively, are used to express the gender of animals. The case of nouns is determined by their position in the sentence and their relation to the prepositions, the most frequent of the latter being ti, which has various significations. Adjectives accompanying substantives always precede them, but the number is only expressed by the substantive. The comparative is formed by adding l to the adjective, sometimes il, and prefixing u or y the pronoun of the third person. The superlative is formed by prefixing hach to the positive.
The Maya pronouns are as follows:
| Personal Pronouns. | Possessives. | Reciprocals. | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ten, en, | I | In, u, | Mine. | Inba, | Myself. |
| Tech, ech, | Thou. | A, au, | Thine. | Aba, | Thyself. |
| Lay, laylo, lo, | He, that. | U, i, | His, of that. | Uba, | Himself. |
| Toon, on, | We. | Ca, | Ours. | Caba, | Ourselves. |
| Teex, ex, | You. | Aex, auex, | Yours. | Abaex, | Yourselves. |
| Loob, ob, | They, those. | Uob, yob, | Of those. | Ubaob, | Themselves. |
The verb has four conjugations and that of the auxiliary teni, to be, the present tense of which is the same as the personal pronouns given in the left hand column, Ten, Tech, etc. The other cases are as follows: Imperfect, Ten cuchi; Perfect, Ten hi; Pluperfect, Ten hi-ilicuchi; Future, Bin ten-ac; Future perfect, Ten hi-ili coshom; Imperative, Ten-ac; Subjunctive present, Ten-ac en; Imperfect, Hi ten-ac.
The verb Nacal, to ascend, of the first conjugation, is inflected as follows:
Present Indicative.
Singular, 1st per., Nacal in cah; 2d per., Nacal a cah; 3d per., Nacal u cah.
Plural, 1st per., Nacal ca cah; 2d per., Nacal a-cah-ex; 3d per., Nacal-u-cah-ob.
The Imperfect, Nacal in cah-cuchi; Perfect, Nac-en; Pluperfect, Nacen ili cuchi; Future, Bin nacac-en; Future perfect, Nacen ili-cuchom; Imperative, Nacen.
The Lord’s Prayer in Maya.
Cayum
Our Father ianeeh
who art ti
in càannob
Heaven cilichthantabac
blessed be akaba
Thy name; tac a
it may come ahaulil
Thy kingdom c’
us okol.
over. Mencahac
Be done a
Thine nolah
will uai
as ti
on luum
earth bai
as ti
in caanè.
heaven. Zanzamal
Daily uah
bread ca
us azotoon
give heleae
to-day caazaatez
us forgive c’
our ziipil
sins he bik
as c’
we zaatzic
forgive uziipil
their sins ahziipiloobtoone,
to sinners, ma ix
not also appatic
let c’
us lubul
fall ti
in tuntah
temptation caatocoon
us deliver ti
from ob.[720]
evil.
In the state of Oajaca and occupying the western portion of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, in a position intermediate between the Maya on the one hand and the Nahua on the other, is found the ancient family of languages known as the Mizteco-Zapotec, the various dialects of which are spoken to this day by the natives occupying those regions. No tradition throws any light on the origin of this group, nor do any affiliations in vocabulary or grammmatical structure seem to exist between them and any other family, American or foreign. The Miztec language is exceedingly difficult to acquire, being characterized by words of extraordinary length. The Zapotec on the contrary, with its several dialects, is elegant, sonorous, and less difficult.[721]
The language pre-eminent above all others in Mexico for its territorial extent, for the refinement and civilization which it represented, and its own inherent beauty and elegance, is known as the Nahua or Aztec, or more modernly the Mexican. It was the language of the Toltecs and of their advanced civilization, and after them of the seven tribes of Nahuatlacas, that in the year 1196 established themselves in the Mexican plateau. The Aztecs, one of these tribes, in the course of events gaining the ascendency, gave their name to the language which their conquests speedily extended over a territory four hundred leagues in length, and in width from the Gulf to the Pacific, in the latitude of the capital. The Aztec tongue prevailed continuously from a point on the Gulf of California, under the twenty-sixth parallel of latitude south-easterly to Rios Goatzacoalco and Tobasco; and southward to the fifteenth parallel, extending along the coast of San Salvador and appearing in the interior of Nicaragua. Its dialectical extension north of Mexico we will consider on a future page. Twenty languages besides the Aztec are said to have been spoken throughout Montezuma’s empire, but the Aztec alone was recognized as the official and classic tongue. The Chichimecs are said to have spoken a language of their own, until the ruler Techotlalatzin commanded them to learn the Mexican.[722] Mr. Bancroft is of the opinion that the Nahua was the original language of the Chichimecs, and consequently does not agree with Señor Pimentel who advocates the opposite view, and, we think, sustains it.[723] The copiousness and grace of the Aztec has furnished a theme for many Spanish writers whose praises have found an echo in the works of our most able scholars and historians. If the Maya has been compared to the Greek, the Aztec has often been likened to the Latin, not in structure or vocabulary, but in its relation to ancient American civilization, in its expressiveness, politeness, its capacity for the sublime, and for the romantic coloring with which it is able to clothe that which is humble and even insignificant. “It was the court language,” says Mr. Bancroft, “of American civilization, the Latin of medieval and the French of modern times.”[724]
The Nahua attained its highest development during the century preceding the conquest in the schools of oratory, poetry and history, established at Tezcuco, to which the sons of nobles were sent, as much to acquire the purity of the idiom as the science which they taught.[725] Señor Orozco y Berra says that the difference existing between the ancient Nahua and the modern, may be compared to that difference observed between the Castilian of the Romance of the Cid and that of the present day.[726]
The outlines of the Aztec grammar are briefly as follows: The alphabet contains the letters a, ch, e, h, i, k, l, m, n, o, p, t, tl, tz, u, v, x, y, z, but lacks our consonants b, d, f, r, g, s. No word commences with l. The a is clear; ch before a vowel is pronounced as in Spanish, but before a consonant or when final it differs somewhat; e is clear; h is moderately aspirated and soft, but strong when it precedes u; t is omitted except when it comes between two l’s. The tl in the middle of a word is soft as in Spanish, but at the end is pronounced tle, the e being half mute. The pronunciation of tz is similar to the Spanish s, but stronger. The v is pronounced by the women as in Spanish and French, but by the men like hu in Spanish; x, soft like the English sh, and z like the Spanish s, but not quite so hissing.[727]
By composition, words containing sixteen syllables are formed, though many simple words are quite long. We have already explained the process of polysynthesis or compounding by means of clipping the syllables and words with a view to brevity and euphony. The following example furnished by Pimentel and copied by Mr. Bancroft, further illustrates the principle: tlazotli, esteemed or loved; maviztik, honored or reverenced; teopixki, priest; tatli, father, and no, mine, furnishes as a result: notlazomaviztcopixkatatzin, “my esteemed father and reverend priest.” An example of the termination tzin, signifying respect, is presented in this word. Several illustrations of the same principle are furnished by Señor Pimentel, showing that often a sentence is compounded into a single word. Indeed a great many of the component parts of these long words, though words in themselves, are incapable of being used separately. In composition the verb succeeds the nominative and is placed at the end of the sentence. The adverb precedes the verb, as does the adjective the substantive.
The Aztec is rich in terminations for the formation of the plural. Generally no change is required for inanimate objects, as multiplicity is expressed by means of numerals or the adverb miek (much), e. g., ze tetl, one stone; yei tetl, three stones; miek tetl, many stones, though often the terminations used for the plural of persons is applied to inanimate objects, particularly when they are connected with persons, as zoquitl, mud; tizoquime, we are earth; however, there are exceptions to the rule, as in the Aztec words for the heavens, the mountains and the stars. Furthermore, the first syllable is often doubled in order to form the plural of inanimate things. Señor Pimentel has embraced the entire subject of the formation of the plural in six rules.
1. Primitive words form their plural in me tin or ke, as ichkatl, a ewe, a sheep; ichkame, sheep; zolin, a quail; zoltin, quail; kokoxki, sick; kokoxke, sick (plural).
2. Derivatives form their plural as follows: the so-called “reverentials” in tzintli, have the plural in tzitzintin; the diminutives in tontli form the plural totontin, and the diminutives in ton and pil, augmentatives in pol and reverentials in tzin double the final syllable; as, tlakatzintli, person; tlakatzitzintin, persons, etc.
3. Words either primitive or derived into which the possessive pronouns enter, form the plural in van (huan according to the common orthography); as, noichkavan, my sheep, noichkatotonvan, my little sheep.
4. The words tlakatl, person; zivatl, woman; terms of gentilitious character or expressive of office and profession, form their plural by the omission of the final letters, as Mexicatl, a Mexican; Mexika, Mexicans; in which case the final vowel is accented.
5. Some words form the plural by omitting the terminals and by doubling the first syllable, while others double the first syllable without omitting the terminal; as, teotl, god; teteo, gods; zolin, quail; zozoltin, quails; telpochtli and ichpochtli, double the syllable po.
6. Some adjectives have various plurals, as miek, much; whose plural is miektin, miekintin or miekin.
In most cases the adjective and its substantive agree in number. The only means of expressing gender is by adding the words okichtli, male, and zivatl, female.
In the absence of a regular declension the cases are formed as follows: The genitive is indicated by the possessive pronoun or by the juxtaposition of the words, the dative by means of verbs called applicatives, the accusative by certain particles accompanying the verb or by juxtaposition, the vocative by adding e to the nominative or by the change of i into e in words ending in tli or li and the in into e in words ending in tzin.
The ablative is indicated by various particles and prepositions. The language surpasses the Italian in the number of its augmentatives and diminutives. The former take the syllable pol, the latter tontli and ton. The Aztec is richer in verbal nouns than any other language. Those derived from active, neuter, passive, reflective and impersonal verbs, terminate in ni, oni, ya, ia, yan, kan or ian, tli, li, liztli, oka, ka, ki, k, i, o, tl.
Table of Pronouns.
| Personals. | Possessives. | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Nevatl, neva, ne, | I. | No, | Mine. |
| Tevatl, teva, te, | Thou. | Mo, | Thine. |
| Yevatl, yeva, ye, | He, or somebody. | I, | His. |
| Tevantin, teva, | We. | To, | Ours. |
| Amevantin, amevan, | You. | Amo, | Yours. |
| Yevantin, yevan, | They. | In or im, | Theirs. |
| Te, | Of or belonging to others. | ||
“The possessives,” says Pimentel, “are always used in composition, and change the final syllable of the word to which they are joined; as, teotl, God, noteuh, my God,” etc.[728]
The modes of the verb are: the indicative, imperative, optative and subjunctive. The indicative has the following tenses: present, imperfect, perfect, pluperfect, future. The subjunctive has one tense which is translated by the imperfect.
The following example of the conjugation is given from Pimentel:
| Indicative. | |||
| Present. | |||
| Ni-chiva, | I make. | Ti-chivâ, | We make. |
| Ti-chiva, | Thou makest. | An-chivâ, | You make. |
| Chiva, | He makes. | Chivâ, | They make. |
| Imperfect. | |||
| Ni-chiva-ya, | I made. | ||
| Perfect. | |||
| Oni-chi-uh, | I have made. | ||
| Pluperfect. | |||
| Oni-chi-uhka, | I had made. | ||
| Future. | |||
| Ni-chiva-z, | I shall make. | ||
| Imperative. | |||
| Present: | Ma xi-chiva, | Make thou. | |
| Future: | Ma ti-chiva-z, | Make thou presently. | |
| Optative. | |||
| Imperfect: | Ma ni-chiva-ni, | Would that I should make. | |
| Perfect: | Ma oni-chi-uh, | Would that I have made. | |
| Subjunctive. | |||
| Imperfect: | Ni-chiva-zkia, or Ni-chiva-zkiayo, | That I should make. | |
There is no infinitive in the conjugation, it being expressed by the future indicative. Only verbs in liztli have this mode. The passive voice, save in a few exceptional cases, is formed as follows: lo is added to the present indicative of the active voice. In the perfect tense, k is added to the previously affixed o in the singular and ke in the plural. The other modes and tenses form their passive voice by adding to the present indicative passive their own final termination, as, for instance, we have nichiva, I make, nichivalo, I am made, onichivalok, I was made, onichivaloka, that I should be made, etc. The Aztec contains only six irregular verbs.
The Lord’s Prayer in Aztec.
Totatzine
Our reverend Father in
who ilvikak
heaven in timoyetztika
art ma yektenevalo
be praised in
() motokatzin
thy name mavallauh
may come in
() motlatokayotzin
thy kingdom ma chivalo
be done in
() tlaltikpak
earth above in
() motlanekilitzin
thy will in
() yuh
as chivalo
is done in
() ilvikak.
heaven in. In
() totlaxkal
our bread mo
every moztlae
day totech
to us moneki
is necessary ma axkan
to-day xitechmomakili,
give us ivan
and ma xitechmopopolvili
forgive us in
() totlatlakol
our sins in
() yuh
as tikintlapopolvia
we forgive intechtlatlakalvia
those who us offend ivan
and makamo
not xitechmomakavili
lead thou us inik
that amo
not ipan
in tivetzizke
we fall in
() teneyeyekoltiliztli,
temptation, zanye
but ma xitechmomakixtili
deliver us in
() ivikpa
against in
() amo
not kualli.[729]
good.
Language has ever been an important factor in determining the original home and the migrations of peoples. With this view the Aztec has received the attention of some of the best scholars of both continents. The most prominent results merit attention. The Nahua language is unquestionably spoken far to the south, in Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua, and this fact has been persistently cited as conclusive proof of the southern origin of the Nahuas; but even Mr. Bancroft, the most eminent of the advocates of this hypothesis, admits that there “it is dialectic rather than aboriginal in appearance, so that the testimony of language is all in favor of the plateau of Anahuac having been the primal centre of the Aztec tongue.”[730]
The reports of several of the adventurers into the unexplored north, were to the effect that the aborigines whom they encountered spoke Aztec. Father Roque of Oñate’s expedition into New Mexico at the close of the sixteenth century, and Father Gerónimo de Zárate subsequently at the Rio del Tizon, are authority for the most positive statements that the Mexican was encountered. Mr. Anderson, a companion of Captain Cook in 1778, discovered the Aztec terminal l tl or z of frequent occurrence among the Nootkas of the North-west coast. With this data and the traditions of the Aztecs, which all point to the north as their ancient home, sufficient basis was found for a general belief that the Mexican peoples had migrated down the coast of California and left an unbroken linguistic line along the entire route of their wanderings. At the beginning of the present century, the great German philologist, Vater, sought to establish this line by his extensive investigations, published in his Mithridates.[731] Unfortunately for his labors, later researches have shown his generalizations too sweeping. Wilhelm von Humboldt considered the Cora, under the twenty-second degree of latitude on the Rio de Santiago, to be a mixture of Aztec and some older and rougher language.[732] In 1855–59, Dr. Buschmann of Berlin issued two celebrated works,[733] in which the subject was critically examined, and as far as possible, with the data at hand, the true proportion of Aztec elements entering into all the languages spoken north of the Mexican plateau, was indicated. The researches were systematically made, beginning with the North Mexican, languages and proceeding northward in the supposed line of the Aztec migration. In four languages of North-western Mexico in particular, did Dr. Buschmann find the conspicuous presence of Aztec elements. These are the Cora of Jalisco, referred to above; the Tepehuana of northern Sinaloa, Durango and southern Chihuahua, spoken between the twenty-third and twenty-seventh parallels, in a crescent-shaped territory the points of which touch the Aztec on the west, intervening between it and the Gulf of California; the Tarahumara, spoken in the Sierra Madre, of the State of Chihuahua and Sonora, and fourthly, the Cahita occupying the east coast of the Gulf of California between the twenty-sixth and twenty-eighth parallels. By a liberty in classification, Buschmann calls this group the Sonora family, although the languages are entirely different from each other, with the exception that they are all pervaded by the Aztec element. This is their only bond of union. They contain about two hundred Aztec words, and about eight hundred words derived from the Aztec in the several idioms.[734] “The Aztec tl, and tli in the Cora, are found changed in ti, te and t; in the Tepehuana into de, re and sci; in the Tarahumara into ki, ke, ca and la, and in the Cahita, into ri. In all four of the languages substantive endings are dropped, first, in composition when the substantive is united with the possessive pronoun; secondly, before an affix; thirdly, in the Cora alone, before the ending of the plural and before affixes in the formation of words.”[735] North-east of the Tarahumara and reaching to the Rio Grande is the Cnocho, and directly to the east of the Cnocho, is the territory of the Toboso, also bounded on the north by the Rio Grande. It is uncertain whether the Aztec was ever the language of these large districts, though testimony is not wanting that it was understood by both peoples.[736] In fact throughout all northern Mexico, the Aztec was understood, and, in some instances, entered prominently into the languages of the north-western tribes. Grimm’s law of Lautveränderung, sound changing or shifting, is as conspicuous in its application to the Aztec-Sonora family of Buschmann as it is to the members of the Aryan family, and often far more so. Occupying the north-western extremity of Mexico are the Pima-Alto and Bajo, and the Opata, the principal dialect of the latter being the Eudeve. Here again the Aztec appears both in the identity of words and the similarity of grammatical structure. These languages are recognized as branches of the Aztec-Sonora family, so much so that Orozco y Berra has classified them together under the name of the Opata-Tarahumar-Pima. He accounts for the presence of the Aztec element upon the supposition that the language and civilization of Mexico once extended over this region, but were subverted and displaced by the incursions of northern peoples toward the close of the twelfth century.[737] Not only is this probable, but, on the other hand, it would be a matter of surprise if traces of the Aztec were not found in languages bordering upon so vast and powerful an empire as that of Montezuma. Still this fact alone is scarcely sufficient to account for the prominence of the Aztec element in the northern languages, while it is almost totally wanting in others more central and southern. Crossing into the United States territory, we first encounter the Moqui of the pueblo towns of Arizona; to the west in south-eastern California, we meet the Cahuillo, Chemehuevi, Kizh, Netela and Kechi; at the other extreme on the east, we have the Comanche of New Mexico and Texas, while to the north, in Utah, Nevada, Idaho and Oregon, we have the great Shoshone and Utah families. But why group these languages in such a wholesale manner? Is it because of inter-linguistic affinities? No. Simply because of the Aztec element (though insignificant it is true), which unquestionably pervades them all.[738] Six of the Moqui towns speak the language which bears their name. But, strange to say, Harno the Seventh uses the Tequa, a language of one of the New Mexican Pueblos. The Moqui language contains much that is Aztec, and because of its substantive endings in pe and be, etc., is considered by Buschmann a branch of his Shoshone-Comanche family of the Sonora idiom.[739] Coupling this fact with the traditions of the Moquis (see [pages 302–304]) descriptive of their migrations from the North under the pressure of the hordes of savages who deprived them of their cultivated lands and slaughtered their families, we are at a loss to account for this infusion of Aztec elements, except on the hypothesis that at a remote day large numbers of Nahuas came in contact with the ancestors of this people in their ancient home. Equally conspicuous is the Aztec element in south-east California languages and the great Shoshone and Utah families, which occupy the great central basin and stretch away into Idaho and Oregon. Grimm’s law of sound-shifting is seen in their adjective and substantive endings, p, pa, pe, pi, be, wa, ph, pee, rp, and rpe. The Shoshone and Utah still retain ts, tse, and tsi, all of which are but variations of the Aztec tl, tli, according to the law above-named. Buschmann pronounces this group the capstone of his Sonora edifice.[740] In Western Oregon, from the source to the mouth of the Willamette River, the Yamkally and Calapooya languages preserve traces of the Aztec both in words and terminal sounds.[741] The same is even more evident concerning the Chinook, of the lower Columbia River, in which the Aztec thl and tl is a regular termination.[742] Throughout the entire region drained by the Columbia and its tributaries, Dr. Buschmann found well-marked Aztec elements. The Clallum and Lummi languages of the great Salish or Flathead family, which touches the coast opposite Vancouver’s Island and extends into the interior, have the tl termination and other phonetic resemblances to the Aztec.[743] Furthermore, Mr. Gibbs has discovered that the cardinals employed by the Clallam and Lummi in their system of enumeration are of a threefold character, and, as Mr. Gallatin has shown, are similar to those of the Mexicans and Mayas.[744]
Whether the Aztec is represented in the language of the Nootkas on Vancouver’s Island is uncertain. Certainly strong marks of similarity are observable. Buschmann, while admitting the existence of resemblances, thinks that hardly enough of them exist to warrant relationship.[745] The inquiry naturally arises, how came this Aztec element which, three and a half centuries after the overthrow of the Aztec empire, we observe in faint, though unbroken lines running from the centre of Mexico to the vicinity of Vancouver’s Island to find its way into a multitude of languages, some of which are separated from others by a vast region more than two thousand miles in width? How did it come to be the only bond of union between so many languages in all other respects so dissimilar? It has been suggested that this wide-spread dissemination of the Aztec is owing to the trade probably carried on between Mexico and the North. However, this is merely conjecture and is incapable of proof. It will be observed that the linguistic line is faintest in the central basin among the Shoshones and Utahs, where the relationship is established mainly by the sound-shifting of the terminals according to Grimm’s law, but in the languages of the Columbia River and its tributaries, and especially of the Salish or Flathead family bordering on the strait of Juan de Fuca, the Aztec terminal is actually present and in constant use. The most critical researches have established this as an incontestable fact. In this connection it is worthy of note (as shown in our first chapter) that the works of the Mound-builders abound in this region in great numbers, extending into the interior, appearing upon the upper Missouri and its tributaries, and continuing to the Mississippi Valley and thence into Mexico instead of following the coast or the central basin at the west. Whether the Nahua was the language of the Mound-builders of the United States, we are unable to determine, but the probabilities that it was are considerable; because (1) the people of the mounds built structures similar to those which prevail all over Mexico, though in a less degree of perfection; (2) they carried obsidian from Mexico to the North Mississippi Valley, showing both regions to have enjoyed intimate commercial relations. This is no evidence that the Mound-builders were colonists sent out from Mexico, since it is improbable that colonists would have penetrated into the extreme North-west by way of the Missouri River. Furthermore we have the valuable argument of Baron von Hellwald made at the Luxembourg session of the Congrès International des Américanistes in favor of a migration from north to south, in his reply to Mr. Robert S. Robertson’s paper on “the Mound-builders,” namely, that no evidence exists of the Mexicans or Central Americans having worked copper mines anterior to the conquest; hence it follows that since copper was employed by both Mexicans and Mound-builders, it must have been carried southward by the latter.[746] (3) We have testimony of the early writers that the Nahuas came from the North-east; Sahagun says from the direction of Florida, which then embraced the Mississippi Valley. (4) We have the statements of Acosta and Sahagun that the Apalaches occupying the region east of the Mississippi extended their colonies far into Mexico. According to Acosta the Mexicans called them Apalaches, Tlautuics or Mountaineers. “Sahagun speaking of them says: ‘They are Nahuas and speak the Mexican language.’ This is by no means improbable, as the Aztec is found eastward in the present states of Tamaulipas and Coahuila, and thence the distance to the Mississippi is not so far.”[747] In their search for the Aztec element in the North, every investigator—Buschmann among the rest—has made a great oversight. They have expected to find resemblances to the Aztec as it was spoken at the time of the conquest after centuries of culture had been bestowed upon it in the schools of Mexico and Tezcuco. It appears never to have occurred to these scholars, that if Mexican similarities exist at the North they are with the ancient form of the Nahua, which Orozco y Berra tells us “differs as much from the modern Nahua or Aztec as the Spanish of the Romance of the Cid from the Spanish of to-day,” or coming nearer home, we may say that it probably differed as much as the Anglo-Saxon of King Alfred and the English of the present. The linguistic researches referred to have certainly been made over a wide chasm of time and change, as viewed in this light, and when we consider the instability of language in America, the wonder is that any Nahua traces exist at the North-west at this late date.[748] This phenomenon can only be accounted for on the supposition that, at a remote period, large numbers of Nahua-speaking people resided for a considerable length of time in those regions. The presence of the mounds in such numbers in Washington and the British possessions north of it, leads to this view, provided it can be established that the Mound-builders were Nahuas. The fact that the line of mounds is toward the interior precludes the expectation that the Nahua is to be found prominently present west of the Rocky Mountains. It is plausible to consider the Moquis a branch from the Nahuas, separating from them at an early day and establishing themselves in Southern Oregon and Utah, whence, according to their tradition, they were driven by the Utes. In the course of time, their language, which contains a Nahua element, may have become changed and lost much of its original character. To their residence, migration, and the possible captivity of many of their number, the traces of Aztec found in the Shoshone and Utah tongues may be due.
Analogies between the Nahua and all the other languages of the world have been assiduously sought for, and supposed affiliations advocated by theorists, but in the present unsatisfactory state of philological science it would be presumptuous for us to pretend that any claim for linguistic analogies with the old world could be sustained. There is no doubt that strong analogies are observable between the Otomi and the Chinese. Señor Najera, to whom the former is vernacular, has appended to his excellent grammar of the Otomi a comparative table of Chinese and Otomi words, which while it shows strong resemblances, is not sufficient in itself to establish relationship.[749]
Warden has treated the grammatical resemblances, which in many respects are striking.[750] It is one of the most singular phenomena met with in the whole range of ethnography and philology, that a monosyllabic language should be found in the very heart of Mexico surrounded by the most remarkable poly-syllabism in the world, touching the capital on the south-east and extending north-west into San Luis Potosi and over portions of Queretaro and Guanajuato. It is no doubt a language of great antiquity, and whether Chinese in origin is not fully determined.[751] Numerous claims have been set forth that some of the Californian languages bear a striking resemblance to the Chinese, and that Indians and Chinese in some cases have found so much in common in their respective languages as to be able to hold conversations with each other. These claims have in most instances been supported by persons having little knowledge of the principles of philology, and who are scarcely aware of the difficulty of comparing two monosyllabic languages in which the finest shade of pronunciation carries with it the greatest significance.[752] Japanese claims have been urged with some reason by ethnologists no less eminent than Latham, who is confident that the “Kamskadale, Koriak, Aino-Japanese and the Korean are the Asiatic languages most like those of America.”[753]
Comparisons of the Indian languages with those of the old world have often been made, most frequently in a haphazard manner and to little purpose. Recently, however, Herr Forchhammer of Leipzig published a truly scientific comparison of the grammatical structure of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Muskogee and Seminole languages, with the Ural-Altaic tongues, in which he has developed many interesting points of resemblance.[754] Prof. Valentini has called attention to the fact that Ptolemy (Geography, Asia Minor, Chapter X, Armenia Major) gives in his list of cities belonging to the Roman province in his time (A.D. 140), the names of five cities situated in the region of the historic Ararat, which have nearly their counterpart in five proper names applied to localities in Mexico by its ancient colonists. The cities of Armenia Major, according to Ptolemy, are: Chol, Colua, Zuivana, Cholima, Zalissa. “The first name Chol is contained in Cholula; the second, Colua, in Coluacan; the third, Zu vana, in Zuivan, which is the ancient name of the Yucatanic province of Bacalab (see Perez in Stephens’ Yucatan, Appendix, vol. ii, Chronology of Yucatan). Cholima is to-day written Colima, Zalissa is contained in Xalisco, the Spanish x sounding in the Nahua language like the English sh.”[755] Generally we have been disposed to pronounce all such coincidences accidental, as most of them certainly are. In this case we leave the decision to the reader. In this chapter we have noticed two prominent families of languages, (1) the Maya-Quiché, having such transatlantic affinities as to furnish presumptive evidence that if it did not originate from, it was at least influenced by the West European or African languages. (2) The great Nahua family, which linguistic researches, together with the circumstantial evidence furnished by architectural remains, commercial intercourse and the testimony of early writers, assign to at least a temporary occupancy of the Columbian region on the North-west coast. Concede this fact, and you must look elsewhere, possibly to the opposite continent, for the early beginnings of a language so ancient and polished.
While the proof is not conclusive, yet we think it is presumptive that both of these families, as well as some other American languages, are of old world origin.