[2-1] Waitz, Anthropologie der Naturvoelker, i. p. 256.
[2-2] Carriere, Die Kunst im Zusammenhang der Culturentwickelung, i. p. 66.
[6-1] It is said indeed that the Yebus, a people on the west coast of Africa, speak a polysynthetic language, and per contra, that the Otomis of Mexico have a monosyllabic one like the Chinese. Max Mueller goes further, and asserts that what is called the process of agglutination in the Turanian languages is the same as what has been named polysynthesis in America. This is not to be conceded. In the former the root is unchangeable, the formative elements follow it, and prefixes are not used; in the latter prefixes are common, and the formative elements are blended with the root, both undergoing changes of structure. Very important differences.
[9-1] Grimm, Geschichte der Deutschen Sprache, p. 571.
[11-1] Peter Martyr, De Insulis nuper Repertis, p. 354: Colon. 1574.
[12-1] They may be found in Waitz, Anthrop. der Naturvoelker, iv. p. 173.
[13-1] The only authority is Diego de Landa, Relacion de las Cosas de Yucatan, ed. Brasseur, Paris, 1864, p. 318. The explanation is extremely obscure in the original. I have given it in the only sense in which the author’s words seem to have any meaning.
[14-1] Humboldt, Vues des Cordillères, p. 72.
[14-2] Desjardins, Le Pérou avant la Conquête Espagnole, p. 122: Paris, 1858.
[16-1] An instance is given by Ximenes, Origen de los Indios de Guatemala, p. 186: Vienna, 1856.