The psychic identity of the Americans is well illustrated in their languages. There are indeed indefinite discrepancies in their lexicography and in their surface morphology; but in their logical substructure, in what Wilhelm von Humboldt called the “inner form,” they are strikingly alike. The points in which this is especially apparent are in the development of pronominal forms, in the abundance of generic particles, in the overweening preference for concepts of action (verbs), rather than concepts of existence (nouns), and in the consequent subordination of the latter to the former in the proposition. This last mentioned trait is the source of that characteristic which is called incorporation. The American languages as a rule are essentially incorporative languages, that is, they formally include both subject and object in the transitive concept, and its oral expression. It has been denied by some able linguists that this is a characteristic trait of American languages; but I have yet to find one, of which we possess ample means of analysis, in which it does not appear in one or another of its forms, thus revealing the same linguistic impulse. Those who reject it as a feature have been led astray either by insufficient means of information about certain languages, or by not clearly comprehending the characteristics of the incorporative process itself.[62]
As intimated, however, in spite of this underlying sameness, there is wide diversity in the tongues themselves. Where we cannot find sufficient coincidences of words and grammar in two languages to admit of supposing that under the laws of linguistic science they are related, they are classed as independent stocks or families. Of such there are about eighty in North and as many in South America. These stocks offer us, without doubt, our best basis for the ethnic classification of the American tribes; the only basis, indeed, which is of any value. The efforts which have been heretofore made to erect a geographic classification, with reference to certain areas, political or physical; or a craniological one, with reference to skull forms; or a cultural one, with reference to stages of savagery and civilization, have all proved worthless. The linguistic is the only basis on which the subdivision of the race should proceed. Similarity of idioms proves to some extent similarity of descent and similarity of psychic endowments. Of course, there has been large imposition of one language on another in the world’s history; but never without a corresponding infiltration of blood; so that the changes in language remain as evidence of national and race comminglings. I select, therefore, the linguistic classification of the American race as the only one of any scientific value, and, therefore, that which alone merits consideration.
The precise number of linguistic stocks in use in America at the discovery has not been made out. In that portion of the continent north of Mexico the researches of the Bureau of Ethnology of the United States have defined fifty-nine stocks, no less than forty of which were confined to the narrow strip of land between the Rocky mountains and the Pacific ocean.
For convenience of study I shall classify all the stocks into five groups, as follows:—
| I. | The North Atlantic Group. |
| II. | The North Pacific Group. |
| III. | The Central Group. |
| IV. | The South Pacific Group. |
| V. | The South Atlantic Group. |
This arrangement is not one of convenience only; I attach a certain ethnographic importance to this classification. There is a distinct resemblance between the two Atlantic groups, and an equally distinct contrast between them and the Pacific groups, extending to temperament, culture and physical traits. Each of the groups has mingled extensively within its own limits, and but slightly outside of them. Each is subject to conditions of temperature, altitude and humidity, which are peculiar to itself, and which have exerted definite influences on the constitution and the history of its inhabitants. Such a subdivision of the race is therefore justified by anthropologic considerations.