There is not, perhaps, any one language or speech, except the Hebrew, and the Indian American, which has not a great many prepositions. The Indians, like the Hebrews, have none in separate and express words. They are forced to join certain characters to words, in order to supply that great defect. The Hebrew consonants, called serviles, were tools to supply the place of the prepositions. The Indians, for want of a sufficient number of radical words, are forced to apply the same noun and verb, to signify many things of a various nature. With the Cheerake, Eeankke, signifies a prisoner, captive, slave, awl, pin, needle, &c.; which occasions the Indian dialects to be very difficult to strangers. The Jewish Rabbins tell us, that the Hebrew language contains only a few more than a thousand primitive words, of which their whole language is formed. So that the same word very often denotes various, though not contrary things. But there is one radical meaning, which will agree to every sense that word is used in.
By custom, a Hebrew noun frequently supplied the place of a pronoun; by which means, it caused a tedious, and sometimes an ambiguous circumlocution. From this original defective standard of speech, the Indians have forgotten all their pronouns, except two primitives and two relatives; as, Anòwah, Ego, and Ishna, Tu: the latter bears a great many significations, both as singular and plural, viz. Eeàpa and Eeàko; which signify he, she, this, that, &c.: And they are likewise adverbs of place; as here, there, &c. הוא Hewa, signifies he or she; אני Ani we; and אנ, Anowa, he, she, him, her, &c. {39}
The Hebrew language frequently uses hyperboles, or magnifying numbers, to denote a long space of time: the Indians, accordingly, apply the words, Neetak akroohah, “all days,” or, in other words, “for ever,” to a long series of years. With the Jews, sitting, signified dwelling; and, with the Indians, it is the very same; for, when they ask a person where he dwells, they say, Katèmuk Ishbeneele (chuak?), which is literally “where do you sit?” And when they call us irreligious, they say Nãna U-bat, “No thing,” or literally, “a relation to nothing;” for Nãna signifies a relation: and the other is always a negative adverbial period; which seems also to proceed from a religious custom of the Hebrews, in giving despicable borrowed names to idols; as to בעלים, Baalim, “Particles of air,” meaning, nothing. To which the Psalmist alludes, saying, “I will not take up their names in my lips.” And St. Paul says, “We know that an idol is nothing.” This expression the Indians apply, in a pointed metaphor, to the white people, but never to each other.
Like the Hebrews, they seldom, if ever, double the liquid consonant R; for they generally seem desirous of shuffling over it, at any rate: And they often give it the sound of L; but, if it precedes a word, where the other consonant soon follows, they always give it its proper sound, contrary to the usage of the Chinese: as the name of a stone, they often call, Tahle, instead of Tahrè; but the Indians say, “Tahre lakkana”[lakkana”], literally, “Yellow stone,” i. e. gold.
The Hebrews subjoined one of their serviles, to words, to express the pronoun relative, thy or thine: And as that particle was also a note of resemblance, it shews the great sterility of that language. As a specimen—They said אביך, (Abiche) “your father,” and אמך, (Ameche) “Your mother,” &c. Only that the Hebrew period is initial, in such a case, to the Indian nouns, they always use the very same method of expression. This I shall illustrate with two words in the dialects of the Chikkasah and Cheerake—as Chinge and Chatokta, “your father;” Angge and Aketohta signifying “my father,” in resemblance of אב, Abba, of the same import; likewise Chishka and Chacheeah, “your mother;” for Saske and Akachee signify “my mother,” in imitation of אשה, Ashe. Also Sas Kish signifies podex meus, Chish Kish, podex tuus, and Kish Kish, podex illius; which I guess to be an {40} opprobrious allusion to Kish the father of Saul, for the son’s assuming the throne at the end of the Jewish theocracy. In their adjectives and verbs, they use the same method of speech; as Nahoorèso Chin-Chookoma, “Your book is good.” The former word is compounded of נא (Na) now, or the present time, and Hoorèso, delineated, marked, or painted. Aia signifies to go, and Maia-Cha, “Go along,” or Maia, the same; for, by prefixing מ to it, it implies a requisite obedience. In like manner, Apeesah, to see, and Peesàcha, look, or “see you.” And, when that particle is prefixed to a verb, it always expresses the accusative case of the same pronoun; as Chepeesahre, “I saw you,” and Chepeesahras, “I shall see you.” Each of the Hebrew characters are radicals; although half of them are serviles, according to that proper term of the scholiasts; for, when they are prefixed, inserted, or subjoined, either at the beginning, middle, or end of a radical word, they serve to form its various augments, inflexions, and derivatives. According to this difficult standard of speech, the Indian nouns, moods, and tenses, are variously formed to express different things. As there is no other known language or dialect, which has the same tedious, narrow, and difficult principles; must we not consider them to be twin-born sisters? The want of proper skill to observe the original fixed idea of the Indian words, their radical letters, and the due sounds in each of them, seems to have been the only reason why the writers on the American Aborigines, have not exhibited the true and genuine properties of any one of their dialects; as they are all uniform in principle: so far at least, as an extensive acquaintance reaches.
The Hebrew nouns are either derived from verbs, or both of them are one and the same; as ברכה, (Beroche) “Blessing,” from ברך, (Beroch) “to bless,” and דבר חבר, (Dabar Daber) “he spoke the speech.” This proper name signifies “loquacious,” like the Indian Sekàkee, signifying the “grasshopper.” The Indian method of expression, exactly agrees with that Hebrew mode of speech; for they say Anumbole Anumbole (kis) “I spake the speaking;” and Anumbole Enumbole (kis), “he spoke the speaking, or speech.” And by inserting the name of God between these two words, their meaning is the very same with those two first Hebrew words. I shall subjoin another word of the same sort—Hookseeleta signifies “a shutting instrument;” and they say Ishtookseelèta, or Hookseelèta, Ish-hookseetas, or Hookseetà Cha, “You shall, or, shut you the door.” Their period of the last word, always denotes the second person singular of the imperative mood; {41} and that of the other preceding it, either the first or second person singular of the indicative mood; which is formed so by a fixed rule, on account of the variegating power of the serviles, by affixing, inserting, or suffixing them, to any root. According to the usage of the Hebrews, they always place the accusative case also before the verb; as in the former Indian words.
With the Hebrews, תפלח signified “a prayer,” or a religious invocation, derived from פלח, Phelac, “to pray to, or invoke the Deity.” In a strong resemblance thereof, when the Indians are performing their sacred dance, with the eagles tails, and with great earnestness invoking Yo He Wah to bless them with success and prosperity, Phale signifies, “waving,” or invoking by waving, Ishphāle, you wave, Phalècha, wave you, Aphalàle, I waved, Aphalèlas, I will wave, &c. Psalmodists seem to have borrowed the notes fa, la, from the aforesaid Hebrew words of praying, singing to, or invoking Elohim. פעל, (Phoole) “to work,” is evidently drawn from the former Hebrew word, which signifies to invoke (and probably to wave the feathers of the cherubic eagle before) Yo He Wah. The greatest part of the Levitical method of worshipping, consisted in laborious mechanical exercises, much after the Indian manner; which the popish priests copy after, in a great many instances, as pulling off their clothes, and putting on others; imagining that the Deity is better pleased with persons who variegate their external appearances, like Proteus, than with those who worship with a steady, sincere disposition of mind; besides a prodigious group of other superstitious ceremonies, which are often shamefully blended with those of the old pagans.
As the Hebrew word נא, Na, signifies the present time—so when the Indians desire a person to receive something from them speedily, they say, Nà (short and gutturally) eescha, “take it, now.” He replies Unta, or Omeh, which are good-natured affirmatives. The pronoun relative, “you,” which they term Ishna, is a compounded Hebrew word, signifying (by application) the person present, or “you.”
With the Hebrews, הר הר, Hara Hara, signifies, “most, or very, hot;” the repetition of the word makes it a superlative. In a strict resemblance of that word, and mode of speech, when an Indian is baffled by any of their {42} humorous wits, he says, in a loud jesting manner, Hara Hara, or Hala Hala, according to their capacity of pronouncing the liquid R: and it signifies, “you are very hot upon me:” their word, which expresses “sharp,” conveys the idea of bitter-heartedness with them; and that of bitterness they apply only to the objects of taste.
With the Cheerake, Chikkasah, and Choktah Indians, Nannè signifies “a hill:” and Nannéh, with the two last-mentioned nations, “a fish;” and Unchàba, “a mountain.” But they call an alligator, or crocodile, Nannéh Chunchāba, literally, “the fish like a mountain;” which the English language would abbreviate into the name of a mountain-fish; but, instead of a hyphen, they use the Hebrew כ, a note of resemblance, which seems to point at the language from which they derived it. In like manner, Aà signifies to walk, and Eette, wood; but Eette Chanáa, any kind of wheel; which is consonant to the aforesaid Hebrew idiom; with many others of the like nature: but a specimen of this sort must suffice.