I presume that by this expression M. Maupertuis meant the various modes in which ideas are combined and associated together in the form of words and sentences, and in this sense it is to me perfectly intelligible. The associations expressed by words must be first formed in the mind, and the words shew in what order of succession the ideas were conceived, and in what various groups they arranged themselves before utterance was given to them. The variety of those groups which exist in the different languages forms what M. Maupertuis meant by “plans of ideas,” and indeed, this variety exists even in one and the same language. Thus when we say, “lover,” and “he who loves,” the same group of ideas is differently combined, and of course, differently expressed, and it may well be said that those ideas are arranged “on different plans.”

This difference is strongly exemplified in the Delaware language; I shall only speak at present of what we call the “declension of nouns.” What in our European idioms we call the “objective cases” are one or more words expressive of two prominent ideas, that of the object spoken of, and that of the manner in which it is affected by some other object or action operating upon it. This is done in two ways; by inflecting the substantive, or by affixing to it one or more of those auxiliary words which we call “prepositions.” Thus when we say in English “of Peter” and in German “Peters,” the same two principal ideas are expressed in the former language by two words and in the latter by one, and the termination or inflexion s in German conveys the same meaning as the preposition “of” in English. It is clear that these two ideas, before they were uttered in the form of words, were grouped in the minds both of the German and the Englishman; in the one, as it were at once, and in the other successively: for it is natural to suppose that they were conceived as they are expressed. Again, when you say in Latin amo Petrum, (I love Peter,) the termination um is expressive of the action of the verb love, upon the object, Peter. In the English and German this accessory idea is not expressed by sound, but still it exists in the mind. In every language there are more ideas, perhaps, understood, than are actually expressed. This might be easily demonstrated, if it were here the place.

Let us now consider how the same ideas are combined and expressed in the Delaware language, according to Mr. Zeisberger. When the accessory idea which we call “case” proceeds from the operation of a verb upon a noun or word significant of an object, that idea is not affixed as with us to the noun but to the verb, or in other words, it is not the noun but the verb that is declined by inflexions or cases. Thus when you say “getannitowit n’quitayala, I fear God;” the first word, getannitowit, which is the substantive, is expressed, as we should say, in the nominative case, while the termination of the verb yala, expresses its application to the object. It is precisely the same as if in Latin, instead of saying, Petrum amo, I love Peter, we carried the termination um to the verb, and said Petrus amum. Does not this shew that many various combinations of ideas may take place in the human mind, of which we, Europeans by birth or descent, have not yet formed a conception? Does this not bid defiance to our rules or canons of universal grammar, and may we not say with M. Maupertuis, that in extending our study of the languages of man, we shall probably find some formed upon “plans of ideas” different from our own?

But I perceive that instead of asking you questions, as it is my duty to do, I am losing myself in metaphysical disquisitions; I return, then, to my principal object. A very interesting German book has lately fallen into my hands. It is entitled “Untersuchungen ueber Amerikas Bevœlkerung ans dem alten Kontinente,”[277] and it is written by Professor Vater, of Leipzig. The author, after justly observing that the language of the Delawares is exceedingly rich in grammatical forms, and making the same observation on that of the Naticks, from the venerable Eliot’s translation of the Bible into that idiom, says that, on the contrary, that of the Chippeways is very poor in that respect. “Die Chippewæer,” he says, “haben fast keine formen.”[278] This appears to me very strange, because on examining the various Indian languages from Nova Scotia to Chili, I have been surprised to find that they appear all formed on the same model, and if Professor Vater is correct, the Chippeway dialect will form an exception. I beg, therefore, you will inform me whether there is such a great difference as he states between that and the Delaware. I am much inclined to think that the learned Professor is mistaken. I must take this opportunity, however, to express my astonishment at the great knowledge which the literati of Germany appear to possess of America, and of the customs, manners and languages of its original inhabitants. Strange! that we should have to go to the German universities to become acquainted with our own country.

Another German Professor, of the name of Rudiger, has compiled an interesting work, in which he gives specimens of all the languages in the world, as far as they are known, and among them does not forget those of the Indian nations of America. He gives the numerals of the Delaware language, from a vocabulary of that idiom, printed at Stockholm, in 1696, and made while the Swedes were in possession of that part of this country which they principally inhabited. I find a considerable difference between those numerals and these given by Zeisberger. That you may see in what it consists, I insert them both.

DELAWARE NUMERALS.

According to the Swedish Vocabulary.According to Zeisberger.
1.Ciutte.1.Ngutti.
2.Nissa.2.Nischa.
3.Naha.3.Nacha.
4.Nawo.4.Newo.
5.Pareenach.5.Palenach.
6.Ciuttas.6.Guttasch.
7.Nissas.7.Nischasch.
8.Haas.8.Chasch.
9.Pæschun.9.Peschkonk.
10.Thæræn.10.Tellen.
20.Nissinacke.20.Nishinachke.
100.Ciutabpach.100.Nguttapachki.

Now, there can be no doubt that these two sets of numerals belong to the same language, but I am astonished at seeing the same words written so differently by a Swede and a German, when there is so little difference in the powers of the alphabetical signs of their languages. I am particularly struck with some words that are written with R by the Swede and with L by the German author. In all Zeisberger’s Grammar I have not been able to find the letter R in one single Delaware word, neither is it to be found in any of the words of his Delaware spelling book. No doubt you can inform me of the reason of this difference.

A greater one is still to be found in the Algonkin numerals given by the Baron La Hontan, and those of the Delaware proper. I place them here again in opposition to each other.

Algonkin numerals from La Hontan.Delaware numerals from Zeisberger.
1.Pegik.1.Ngutti.
2.Ninch.2.Nischa.
3.Nissoue.3.Nacha.
4.Neou.4.Newo.
5.Narau.5.Palenach.
6.Ningoutouassou.6.Guttasch.
7.Ninchouassou.7.Nischasch.
8.Nissouassou.8.Chasch.
9.Changassou.9.Peschkonk.
10.Mitassou.10.Tellen.