Though they have lost the true meaning of their religious emblems, except what a very few of us occasionally revive in the retentive memories of their old inquisitive magi; yet tradition directs them to apply them properly.{70} They use many plain religious emblems of the divine names, Yohewah, Yah, and Ale,—and these are the roots of a prodigious number of words, through their various dialects. It is surprising they were unnoticed, and that no use was made of them, by the early voluminous Spanish writers, or by our own, for the information of the learned world, notwithstanding the bright lights they had to direct them in that æra, when the decorations of their holy temples and priests, their religious ceremonies, and sacred hymns of praise to the Deity, of which hereafter, so nearly corresponded with the Israelitish, and might have been readily discovered by any who eyed them with attention. In our time, by reason of their long intercourse with foreigners, we have necessarily but a few dark traces to guide our inquiries, in the investigation of what must have been formerly, shining truths.
I must beg to be indulged with a few more remarks on their verbs.[[28]]—If we prefix As to A-a, “to move,” it becomes A-sâ-a, “to offend.” The monosyllables Ish and Che, variously denote the second person singular; but when the former is by custom prefixed to a verb, the latter then expresses either the accusative or ablative case singular of the pronoun relative; as Ish-a-sâ-ah, “you are offended, or moved to say Ah;” Ish-a-sâ-a-re, “you were displeased;” but Che-a-sâ-ah signifies “I am displeased with you;” and Che-a-sâ-a-re “I was offended by you;” Che-a-sâ-a-chee-le is “I occasion, or have occasioned you to be displeased,” literally, “I produce, or have produced offence to you;” and Che-a-sâ-a-cheê-le Awa, “I shall not cause you to be displeased.” In like manner, they say A-ân-ha, which signifies “I despise,” or literally, “I move ha;” for the mid letter is inserted for distinction-sake, according to their idiom. So A-chîn-ha-chu, “I shall contemn you;” A-chîn-ha-cheê-la A-wa, “I shall not cause you to become despicable.” Chee-le signifies literally, “to bring forth young.” So that the former method of expression is very significant, and yet it shews a sterility of language, as that single word is applicable to every species of female animals, fowls not excepted: Thus, Phoo-she Chee-le, “the birds lay.” Oe-she signifies “a young animal,” of any kind—and likewise an egg. When mentioned alone, by way of excellence, it is the common name of an infant; but when the name of the species of animals is prefixed to it, it describes the young creature. An-push-koosh oo-she, is what the tender mother says to her well-pleased infant. The two words import the same thing. The former resembles the Hebrew, and the latter is likewise a substantive; they {71} say Chool-loo-she Teeth-lâ-a-ta-hâh, “the fox-cubs are run off;”—Choo-la being the name of a fox. Phut-choos-oo-she Wah kâ-as, “let the young duck fly away;” and Phoo-soo-she Hish-she Ool-pha-quî-sa, “the young wild bird’s hairs, or feathers, are not sprung, or budded.” Pa-se signifies the hair of a man’s head, or the mane of animals. Sha-le signifies pregnant, literally, “to carry a burthen;” as Oo-she shâ-le, “she bears, or carries, an infant;” but, when it is born, Shoo-le is the name for carrying it in their arms. This bears off from the divine radix, with great propriety of language. Im prefixed to a verb, denotes the masculine and feminine pronouns, illum and illam. As this is their fixed method of speech, the reader will easily understand the true idiom of their language. Sal-le signifies “I am dead,” Chil-le, you, &c. Il-leh, he, &c. And this is likewise a substantive, as Il-let Min-te, “death is approaching,” or coming: Min-té-cha signifies “come you;” and A-min-té-la A-wa, or Ac-min-tá-qua-chu, “I will not come.”
The former word, Shâ-le, “to carry a burthen,” or, she is pregnant, seems to be derived from ש and אל and, as A-shâ-le, Ish-shâ-le, and E-shâ-le, are the first, second, and third persons singular of the present tense, the latter may allude to her conception by the power of the Deity: and it also points to שול, Sha-wô-le, or Saul, “the grave, or sepulchre,” out of which the dead shall come forth to a new world of light. In like manner Chee-le “to bring forth,” or A-chee-lá-le, “I brought forth,” appears to be derived from כ, a note of resemblance, and אל, A-le, the fruitful Omnipotent. All the American nations, like the Jews, entertain a contemptible opinion of their females that are barren—sterility they consider as proceeding from the divine anger, on account of their conjugal infidelity.
To enable grammarians to form a clear idea of the Indian method of variegating their verbs, and of the true meaning they convey, we must again recur to the former essential word, or rather divine emblem, A-ah, “he moves.” They say A-as, “let him move,” and Ee-má-ko, or Blâ-sas A-â-á-re, “I now move,” or “yesterday I moved;” for, like the Hebrews, they sometimes use the preterperfect, instead of the present tense. A-â-a-ra-chu is the first person singular of the future tense, in the indicative mood. A-â-ta-hah expresses the third person plural of the present tense, and same mood. A-â-ta-hâh-ta-kô-a signifies, by query, “have ye, or will ye move?” It is their method of conjugating their verbs, that occasions any of their {72} radical or derivative verbs to exceed three or four syllables; as we see by this, which, though composed only of two vowels, or short syllables, is yet so greatly deflected. With them two negatives make an affirmative, as Ak-hish-ko-quá, “I shall not drink;” add the strong negative termination A-wa, it is, “I will certainly drink.” An affirmative question frequently implies a strong negative; as Ai-a-râ-ta-kô-a, literally, “will, or should, I go?” that is, “I really will not, or should not go:” and on the contrary, a negative query imports an affirmative assertion; as A-kai-u-quâ-ta-kô-a, “should not I go?” or, “I surely should go.” Ee-á ko A-pâ-ret Sa-kâi-a-qua-ta kô-a, is literally, “if I ate, should not I be satisfied?” which implies, “If I ate, I should be fully satisfied.”[satisfied.”] To drinking, they apply a word that signifies content; and indeed, they are most eager to drink any sort of spiritous liquors, when their bellies are quite full. When they are tired with drinking, if we say to any of them, Un-ta Ang-go-na Che-ma-hîsh-kó-la Chû, “Well, my friend, I will drink with you;” Che-a-yôok-pa-chêe-re Too-gat, “for, indeed, I rejoice in your company;” he replies, Hai-a, Ook-ka Hoo-me Hish-ko Sa-nook-tá-ra; which is, “No; for I am content with drinking bitter waters.” They constantly prefix the substantive before the adjective, and place the accusative case before the verb. If we translate the following words, Ook-ka Pangge Hum-ma Law-wa A-hish-kó-le Bla-sas, they literally signify, “yesterday I drank a great deal of red-grape water,” meaning claret. Thus they say, Tik-ké-ba, Ing-glee-she Fren-she Ee-lap A-bing-ga E-tee-be, “formerly, when the English and French fought against each other;” Fren-she Ing-glee-she A-be-tâ-le, “the French were killed by the English.”
The verbs are seldom defective, or imperfect: though they may seem to be so to persons who do not understand the idiom of their language, they are not; they only appear as such by the near resemblance of words, which convey a different meaning—as A-kai-a, “I go,” Sa-kai-a, “I am satisfied with eating,” and Sal-kai-a, “I am angry, cross, vexed, or disturbed in mind;” Shee-a, Che-kai-a, and Chil-kai-a, in the second person; Ai-a, E-kai-a, and Al-kai-a, in the third person singular. A-pee-sa signifies “to see,” and Al-pêê-sa, “strait, even, or right;”[right;”] Al-poo-ê-ak, the general name of mercantile goods, I subjoin, as such a word is uncommon with them; they seldom use so harsh a termination. I shall here close this argument, and hope {73} enough hath been said to give a clear idea of the principles of the Indian language and dialects, its genius and idiom, and strong similarity to, and near coincidence with the Hebrew—which will be not easily accounted for, but by considering the American Indians as descended from the Jews.
Argument VI.
They count Time after the manner of the Hebrews.
They divide the year into spring—summer—autumn, or the fall of the leaf—and winter: which the Cheerake Indians call Kogeh, Akooèa, Oolekóhstè, Kòra; and the Chikkasah and Choktah nation, Otoolpha, Tóme palle, Ashtòra-móona, Ashtòra. Kógeh is drawn from Anantòge, the general appellation for the sun and moon; because, when the sun returns from the southern hemisphere, he covers the vegetable world with a green livery. Akooèa alludes strongly to the essential divine name, as we have seen in the former argument. With regard to Oolekohste, “the fall of the leaf,” as they call a buzzard, Soore, or Soole; and as Soolekohste signifies troublesome, offensive, disagreeable, the word signifies, that “the fall of the year is as disagreeable a sight, as that of a buzzard.” Kora, as with the Hebrews, signifies the winter; and is likewise the name of a bone: and by joining Hah, an Hebrew note of admiration, to the end of it, as Kora-Hah, it becomes the proper name of a man, signifying, “all bones,” or very bony. Otool-phà, “the spring season,” is derived from Oolpha, the name of a bud, or to shoot out; because then the solar heat causes vegetables to bud and spring. Tomeh signifies “the solar light,” and Palle, “warm or hot;” Ashtora, “winter,” and Moona, “presently,” &c.
They number their years by any of those four periods, for they have no name for a year; and they subdivide these, and count the year by lunar months, like the Israelites, who counted by moons, as their name sufficiently testifies; for they called them ירחים, the plural of ירח, the moon. The Indians have no distinct proper name for the sun and moon; one word, with a note of distinction, expresses both—for example; the Cheerake {74} call the sun Eus-se A-nan-tó-ge, “the day-moon, or sun;” and the latter, Neus-se A-nan-tó-ge, or “the night-sun, or moon.” In like manner, the Chikkasah and Choktah term the one, Neetak-Hasséh, and the other, Neennak-Hasséh; for Neetak signifies “a day,” and Neennak, “a night.”
Here I cannot[cannot] forbear remarking, that the Indians call the penis of any animal, by the very same name, Hasse; with this difference only, that the termination is in this instance pronounced short, whereas the other is long, on purpose to distinguish the words. This bears a strong analogy to what the rabbins tell us of the purity of the Hebrew language, that “it is so chaste a tongue, as to have no proper names for the parts of generation.” The Cheerake can boast of the same decency of style, for they call a corn-house, Watóhre and the penis of any creature, by the very same name; intimating, that as the sun and moon influence and ripen the fruits that are stored in it, so by the help of Ceres and Bacchus, Venus lies warm, whereas on the contrary, sine Cerere & Bacchus, friget Venus.