Thus far Mr. Dencke. I do not recollect whether I have already explained to you what he says about the “particular” number in the conjugation of the Delaware verbs. There is a distinction in the plural forms. “K’pendameneen, (k’ from kiluna, 'we,’) means generally ‘we have heard,’ or ‘we all have heard,’ not intending to allude to a particular number of persons; in 'n’pendameneen,’ the ‘n’ comes from ‘niluna,’ which means ‘we,’ in particular, our family, nation, select body, &c. ‘Niluna yu epienk,’ ‘we who are here assembled,’ n’penameneen, (for niluna penameneen) we see (we who are together see); n’pendameneen, we hear (we who are in this room hear). But when no discrimination is intended to be made, the form kiluna, or its abridgement k’ is used. Kiluna elenapewit, ‘we, the Indians’ (meaning all the Indians); kiluna yu enda lauchsienk, ‘we all that live upon earth;’ ‘k’nemeneen sokelange,’ we see it rain, (we all see it rain); k’nemeneen waselehelete, we all see the light, (we and all who live upon earth see the light.)”
I believe Mr. Zeisberger does not mention this distinction in his Grammar; but he could not say every thing.
I am, &c.
LETTER XXIII.
TO MR. HECKEWELDER.
Philadelphia, 30th August, 1816.
Dear Sir.—I thank you for your two favours of the 26th and 27th inst. I am very much pleased to find from the valuable extract of Mr. Dencke’s letter, which you have had the goodness to communicate, that the Chippeways have grammatical forms similar to those of the Delawares. Indeed, as far as my researches have extended, I have found those forms in all the Indian languages from Greenland to Cape Horn. The venerable Eliot’s Grammar shews that they exist in the idiom of the New England Indians, as he calls it, which is believed to be that of the Natick tribe. Crantz and Egede prove in the most incontrovertible manner that the language of Greenland is formed on the same syntactic or polysynthetic model. So are the various dialects of Mexico, as far as I can judge from the Grammars of those languages that are in our Society’s library. Indeed, the authors of those Grammars are the first who have noticed the personal forms of the Indian verbs, and given them the name of transitions. I find from Father Breton’s Grammar and Dictionary of the Caribbee language, that those forms exist also in that idiom, and the Abbé Molina, in his excellent History of Chili, has shewn that the Araucanian belongs to the same class of languages. All the genuine specimens that we have seen of the grammatical forms of the Indians from north to south, on the continent, and in the islands, exhibit the same general features, and no exception whatever that I know of has yet been discovered. Father Sagard’s assertions about the Huron are not founded in fact, and are even disproved by the examples which he adduces, and Mr. Dencke’s testimony is sufficient to counterbalance the naked supposition of Professor Vater that the language of the Chippeways has no forms. Too much praise cannot be given to this learned author for the profound researches that he has made on the subject of American languages with a view to discover the origin of the ancient inhabitants of this continent, but not being on the spot, he had not the same means of ascertaining facts that we possess in this country. Had he lived among us, he would not so easily have been persuaded that there was such a difference between the different languages of the American Indians; that some of them were exceedingly rich in grammatical forms, and appeared to have been framed with the greatest skill, while others were so very poor in that respect that they might be compared to the idioms of the most savage nations in north-eastern Asia and Africa.[303] In Philology, as well as in every other science, authorities ought to be weighed, compared, and examined, and no assertion should be lightly believed that is not supported by evident proof faithfully drawn from the original sources.
I do not positively assert that all the languages of the American Indians are formed on the same grammatical construction, but I think I may safely advance that as far as our means of knowledge extend, they appear to be so, and that no proof has yet been adduced to the contrary. When we find so many different idioms, spoken by nations which reside at immense distances from each other, so entirely different in their etymology that there is not the least appearance of a common derivation, yet so strikingly similar in their forms, that one would imagine the same mind presided over their original formation, we may well suppose that the similarity extends through the whole of the languages of this race of men, at least until we have clear and direct proof to the contrary. It is at any rate, a fact well worthy of investigation, and this point, if it should ever be settled, may throw considerable light on the origin of the primæval inhabitants of this country.
The most generally established opinion seems to be, that the Americans are descended from the Tartars who inhabit the north-easternmost parts of Asia. Would it not be then well worth the while to ascertain this fact by enquiring into the grammatical forms and construction of the languages of those people? The great Empress Catharine employed a learned professor to compile a comparative vocabulary of those languages which are spoken within the vast extent of the Russian Empire. This was but the first step towards a knowledge of the character and affinities of those idioms. If something may be discovered by the mere similarity of words, how much farther may not we proceed by studying and comparing the “plans of men’s ideas,” and the variety of modes by which they have contrived to give them body and shape through articulate sounds. This I consider to be the most truly philosophical view of human language generally considered, and before we decide upon the Tartar origin of the American Indians, we ought, I think, to study the grammars of the Tartar languages, and ascertain whether their thoughts flow in the same course, and whether their languages are formed by similar associations of ideas, with those of their supposed descendants. If essential differences should be found between them in this respect, I do not see how the hypothesis of Tartar origin could afterwards be maintained.
Professor Vater is of opinion that the language of the Cantabrians, whom we call Biscayans or Basques, a people who inhabit the sea coast at the foot of the Pyrenean mountains, is formed on the same model with that of the American Indians. We have in our Society’s library, a translation into that idiom of Royaumont’s History of the Bible. I acknowledge, that by comparing it with the original, I have found sufficient reason to incline in favour of the Professor’s assertion. This is a very curious fact, which well deserves to be inquired into. This Basque language, it is to be presumed, was once spoken in a considerable part of the ancient world, and probably branched out into various dialects. How comes it that those polysynthetic forms which distinguish it, have disappeared from all the rest of the continent of Europe, and are only preserved in a single language no longer spoken but by a handful of mountaineers? How comes it that the Celtic which appears no less ancient is so widely different in its grammatical construction? Are we to revive the story of the Atlantis, and believe that the two continents of America and Europe were once connected together? At least, we will not forget that the Biscayans were once great navigators, and that they were among the first who frequented the coasts of Newfoundland.