Congo Western Africa, tat, tata.
Japan dialect tete; Chinese dialect tia.
Turko Tartar, Turkish ata; Tatar ata, atha; Kunan atta; Kasanish, Orenburg, Kirgis ata; Samoyedic dialects, Eastern Russia and Western Siberia ata, atai, atja, tatai; Finno Hungarian, Lap attje; Hungarian atja.
Caucasus, Kisti dada. Basque (Pyrenees Mountains) aita.
Indo European: Sanskrit ata, tata; Hindustanee dada; Latin, atta, tatta; Greek atta, tatta; Albanian, Albania, at, atti; Calabria and Sicily tata; Celtic, Welsh tad; Cornish and Bret tat; Irish, daid; Gaelic daidein; English (according to Skeats of Welsh) dad, daddy; Old Slav, tata otici; Moldavian tata; Wallachian tate; Polish tatus; Bohemian, Servian Croatian otsche; Lithuanian teta; Preuss thetis; Gothic ata; Old Fries tate; O. H. G. tato; Old Swed atin; Swed island Runoe dadda.
In fifty-nine of the one hundred and forty-six versions of the Lord's prayer given by Adelung in the Sclavonic, Lithuanian and Teutonic families, the word for father is from this base. Atta is the form used in Ulfillas Gothic version of the fourth century, the oldest Teutonic relic.
Papa and mama in Dak., as in I. E. languages, occupy a subordinate position, having about the same scope as in Latin and Greek. Words apparently related to these are rare in N. A. languages, but frequent in S. A., African, Malay Polynesian and Turanian languages. The Semitic aba, etc., is perhaps related. The base ana, nana (Dak. ina), though not very much used in I E languages appears to be more widely distributed than any of the others.
All the Dakota pronouns which show much similarity to other American forms are representative of Fick's I E bases, and appear to be widely disseminated. Adelung and Latham do not however give pronominal forms in as many languages as they give words for father and mother, and I cannot so well determine their distribution.
Professor Roehrig, in his able paper on the Dakota, points out some very interesting analogies to Turanian languages. Others might be added. These similarities are chiefly in features common to I. E. and Turanian. On the other hand the Dakota shows on the surface striking contrasts to Turanian languages. The numerals are eminently dissimilar. The Dakota, like I. E. languages, varies both root and suffix in forming words, and uses both prefixes and suffixes. In Turanian languages the suffix only is varied, and prefixes are scarcely at all used.
It seems to me therefor that it is not unscientific to inquire whether the similarities of the various Dakotan languages to various European languages, modern and ancient, so often remarked are or are not accidental. It is very easy to see that the Dakota resembles the English in vocabulary much more than it resembles the Chippewa. The similarities of the Dakota suffixes, pronouns and prepositions to those given by Bopp, and the general resemblance of Dakotan languages to Sanskrit, Gothic, etc., in vocabulary, made me certain of relationship before I ever saw Fick's dictionary. Yet as I turned over his pages I was amazed at the similarity of the I. E. roots to the Dak roots. The Slav Teut bases of Fick seem to me most similar to the Dak. I am certain that neither the Teutonic or Graeco-Italic dictionaries resemble the Dakota as much as do the European, Indo. European and Aryan dictionaries. The I. E. consonants are represented in Dakota, Santee and Titon dialects, and in Minnetaree in accordance with the following table. I omit representatives concerning which I am doubtful. I have too little material on the other languages to justify me in including them.