There is no infinitive in the conjugation, it being expressed by the future indicative. Only verbs in liztli have this mode. The passive voice, save in a few exceptional cases, is formed as follows: lo is added to the present indicative of the active voice. In the perfect tense, k is added to the previously affixed o in the singular and ke in the plural. The other modes and tenses form their passive voice by adding to the present indicative passive their own final termination, as, for instance, we have nichiva, I make, nichivalo, I am made, onichivalok, I was made, onichivaloka, that I should be made, etc. The Aztec contains only six irregular verbs.
The Lord’s Prayer in Aztec.
Totatzine
Our reverend Father in
who ilvikak
heaven in timoyetztika
art ma yektenevalo
be praised in
() motokatzin
thy name mavallauh
may come in
() motlatokayotzin
thy kingdom ma chivalo
be done in
() tlaltikpak
earth above in
() motlanekilitzin
thy will in
() yuh
as chivalo
is done in
() ilvikak.
heaven in. In
() totlaxkal
our bread mo
every moztlae
day totech
to us moneki
is necessary ma axkan
to-day xitechmomakili,
give us ivan
and ma xitechmopopolvili
forgive us in
() totlatlakol
our sins in
() yuh
as tikintlapopolvia
we forgive intechtlatlakalvia
those who us offend ivan
and makamo
not xitechmomakavili
lead thou us inik
that amo
not ipan
in tivetzizke
we fall in
() teneyeyekoltiliztli,
temptation, zanye
but ma xitechmomakixtili
deliver us in
() ivikpa
against in
() amo
not kualli.[729]
good.
Language has ever been an important factor in determining the original home and the migrations of peoples. With this view the Aztec has received the attention of some of the best scholars of both continents. The most prominent results merit attention. The Nahua language is unquestionably spoken far to the south, in Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua, and this fact has been persistently cited as conclusive proof of the southern origin of the Nahuas; but even Mr. Bancroft, the most eminent of the advocates of this hypothesis, admits that there “it is dialectic rather than aboriginal in appearance, so that the testimony of language is all in favor of the plateau of Anahuac having been the primal centre of the Aztec tongue.”[730]
The reports of several of the adventurers into the unexplored north, were to the effect that the aborigines whom they encountered spoke Aztec. Father Roque of Oñate’s expedition into New Mexico at the close of the sixteenth century, and Father Gerónimo de Zárate subsequently at the Rio del Tizon, are authority for the most positive statements that the Mexican was encountered. Mr. Anderson, a companion of Captain Cook in 1778, discovered the Aztec terminal l tl or z of frequent occurrence among the Nootkas of the North-west coast. With this data and the traditions of the Aztecs, which all point to the north as their ancient home, sufficient basis was found for a general belief that the Mexican peoples had migrated down the coast of California and left an unbroken linguistic line along the entire route of their wanderings. At the beginning of the present century, the great German philologist, Vater, sought to establish this line by his extensive investigations, published in his Mithridates.[731] Unfortunately for his labors, later researches have shown his generalizations too sweeping. Wilhelm von Humboldt considered the Cora, under the twenty-second degree of latitude on the Rio de Santiago, to be a mixture of Aztec and some older and rougher language.[732] In 1855–59, Dr. Buschmann of Berlin issued two celebrated works,[733] in which the subject was critically examined, and as far as possible, with the data at hand, the true proportion of Aztec elements entering into all the languages spoken north of the Mexican plateau, was indicated. The researches were systematically made, beginning with the North Mexican, languages and proceeding northward in the supposed line of the Aztec migration. In four languages of North-western Mexico in particular, did Dr. Buschmann find the conspicuous presence of Aztec elements. These are the Cora of Jalisco, referred to above; the Tepehuana of northern Sinaloa, Durango and southern Chihuahua, spoken between the twenty-third and twenty-seventh parallels, in a crescent-shaped territory the points of which touch the Aztec on the west, intervening between it and the Gulf of California; the Tarahumara, spoken in the Sierra Madre, of the State of Chihuahua and Sonora, and fourthly, the Cahita occupying the east coast of the Gulf of California between the twenty-sixth and twenty-eighth parallels. By a liberty in classification, Buschmann calls this group the Sonora family, although the languages are entirely different from each other, with the exception that they are all pervaded by the Aztec element. This is their only bond of union. They contain about two hundred Aztec words, and about eight hundred words derived from the Aztec in the several idioms.[734] “The Aztec tl, and tli in the Cora, are found changed in ti, te and t; in the Tepehuana into de, re and sci; in the Tarahumara into ki, ke, ca and la, and in the Cahita, into ri. In all four of the languages substantive endings are dropped, first, in composition when the substantive is united with the possessive pronoun; secondly, before an affix; thirdly, in the Cora alone, before the ending of the plural and before affixes in the formation of words.”[735] North-east of the Tarahumara and reaching to the Rio Grande is the Cnocho, and directly to the east of the Cnocho, is the territory of the Toboso, also bounded on the north by the Rio Grande. It is uncertain whether the Aztec was ever the language of these large districts, though testimony is not wanting that it was understood by both peoples.[736] In fact throughout all northern Mexico, the Aztec was understood, and, in some instances, entered prominently into the languages of the north-western tribes. Grimm’s law of Lautveränderung, sound changing or shifting, is as conspicuous in its application to the Aztec-Sonora family of Buschmann as it is to the members of the Aryan family, and often far more so. Occupying the north-western extremity of Mexico are the Pima-Alto and Bajo, and the Opata, the principal dialect of the latter being the Eudeve. Here again the Aztec appears both in the identity of words and the similarity of grammatical structure. These languages are recognized as branches of the Aztec-Sonora family, so much so that Orozco y Berra has classified them together under the name of the Opata-Tarahumar-Pima. He accounts for the presence of the Aztec element upon the supposition that the language and civilization of Mexico once extended over this region, but were subverted and displaced by the incursions of northern peoples toward the close of the twelfth century.[737] Not only is this probable, but, on the other hand, it would be a matter of surprise if traces of the Aztec were not found in languages bordering upon so vast and powerful an empire as that of Montezuma. Still this fact alone is scarcely sufficient to account for the prominence of the Aztec element in the northern languages, while it is almost totally wanting in others more central and southern. Crossing into the United States territory, we first encounter the Moqui of the pueblo towns of Arizona; to the west in south-eastern California, we meet the Cahuillo, Chemehuevi, Kizh, Netela and Kechi; at the other extreme on the east, we have the Comanche of New Mexico and Texas, while to the north, in Utah, Nevada, Idaho and Oregon, we have the great Shoshone and Utah families. But why group these languages in such a wholesale manner? Is it because of inter-linguistic affinities? No. Simply because of the Aztec element (though insignificant it is true), which unquestionably pervades them all.[738] Six of the Moqui towns speak the language which bears their name. But, strange to say, Harno the Seventh uses the Tequa, a language of one of the New Mexican Pueblos. The Moqui language contains much that is Aztec, and because of its substantive endings in pe and be, etc., is considered by Buschmann a branch of his Shoshone-Comanche family of the Sonora idiom.[739] Coupling this fact with the traditions of the Moquis (see [pages 302–304]) descriptive of their migrations from the North under the pressure of the hordes of savages who deprived them of their cultivated lands and slaughtered their families, we are at a loss to account for this infusion of Aztec elements, except on the hypothesis that at a remote day large numbers of Nahuas came in contact with the ancestors of this people in their ancient home. Equally conspicuous is the Aztec element in south-east California languages and the great Shoshone and Utah families, which occupy the great central basin and stretch away into Idaho and Oregon. Grimm’s law of sound-shifting is seen in their adjective and substantive endings, p, pa, pe, pi, be, wa, ph, pee, rp, and rpe. The Shoshone and Utah still retain ts, tse, and tsi, all of which are but variations of the Aztec tl, tli, according to the law above-named. Buschmann pronounces this group the capstone of his Sonora edifice.[740] In Western Oregon, from the source to the mouth of the Willamette River, the Yamkally and Calapooya languages preserve traces of the Aztec both in words and terminal sounds.[741] The same is even more evident concerning the Chinook, of the lower Columbia River, in which the Aztec thl and tl is a regular termination.[742] Throughout the entire region drained by the Columbia and its tributaries, Dr. Buschmann found well-marked Aztec elements. The Clallum and Lummi languages of the great Salish or Flathead family, which touches the coast opposite Vancouver’s Island and extends into the interior, have the tl termination and other phonetic resemblances to the Aztec.[743] Furthermore, Mr. Gibbs has discovered that the cardinals employed by the Clallam and Lummi in their system of enumeration are of a threefold character, and, as Mr. Gallatin has shown, are similar to those of the Mexicans and Mayas.[744]
Whether the Aztec is represented in the language of the Nootkas on Vancouver’s Island is uncertain. Certainly strong marks of similarity are observable. Buschmann, while admitting the existence of resemblances, thinks that hardly enough of them exist to warrant relationship.[745] The inquiry naturally arises, how came this Aztec element which, three and a half centuries after the overthrow of the Aztec empire, we observe in faint, though unbroken lines running from the centre of Mexico to the vicinity of Vancouver’s Island to find its way into a multitude of languages, some of which are separated from others by a vast region more than two thousand miles in width? How did it come to be the only bond of union between so many languages in all other respects so dissimilar? It has been suggested that this wide-spread dissemination of the Aztec is owing to the trade probably carried on between Mexico and the North. However, this is merely conjecture and is incapable of proof. It will be observed that the linguistic line is faintest in the central basin among the Shoshones and Utahs, where the relationship is established mainly by the sound-shifting of the terminals according to Grimm’s law, but in the languages of the Columbia River and its tributaries, and especially of the Salish or Flathead family bordering on the strait of Juan de Fuca, the Aztec terminal is actually present and in constant use. The most critical researches have established this as an incontestable fact. In this connection it is worthy of note (as shown in our first chapter) that the works of the Mound-builders abound in this region in great numbers, extending into the interior, appearing upon the upper Missouri and its tributaries, and continuing to the Mississippi Valley and thence into Mexico instead of following the coast or the central basin at the west. Whether the Nahua was the language of the Mound-builders of the United States, we are unable to determine, but the probabilities that it was are considerable; because (1) the people of the mounds built structures similar to those which prevail all over Mexico, though in a less degree of perfection; (2) they carried obsidian from Mexico to the North Mississippi Valley, showing both regions to have enjoyed intimate commercial relations. This is no evidence that the Mound-builders were colonists sent out from Mexico, since it is improbable that colonists would have penetrated into the extreme North-west by way of the Missouri River. Furthermore we have the valuable argument of Baron von Hellwald made at the Luxembourg session of the Congrès International des Américanistes in favor of a migration from north to south, in his reply to Mr. Robert S. Robertson’s paper on “the Mound-builders,” namely, that no evidence exists of the Mexicans or Central Americans having worked copper mines anterior to the conquest; hence it follows that since copper was employed by both Mexicans and Mound-builders, it must have been carried southward by the latter.[746] (3) We have testimony of the early writers that the Nahuas came from the North-east; Sahagun says from the direction of Florida, which then embraced the Mississippi Valley. (4) We have the statements of Acosta and Sahagun that the Apalaches occupying the region east of the Mississippi extended their colonies far into Mexico. According to Acosta the Mexicans called them Apalaches, Tlautuics or Mountaineers. “Sahagun speaking of them says: ‘They are Nahuas and speak the Mexican language.’ This is by no means improbable, as the Aztec is found eastward in the present states of Tamaulipas and Coahuila, and thence the distance to the Mississippi is not so far.”[747] In their search for the Aztec element in the North, every investigator—Buschmann among the rest—has made a great oversight. They have expected to find resemblances to the Aztec as it was spoken at the time of the conquest after centuries of culture had been bestowed upon it in the schools of Mexico and Tezcuco. It appears never to have occurred to these scholars, that if Mexican similarities exist at the North they are with the ancient form of the Nahua, which Orozco y Berra tells us “differs as much from the modern Nahua or Aztec as the Spanish of the Romance of the Cid from the Spanish of to-day,” or coming nearer home, we may say that it probably differed as much as the Anglo-Saxon of King Alfred and the English of the present. The linguistic researches referred to have certainly been made over a wide chasm of time and change, as viewed in this light, and when we consider the instability of language in America, the wonder is that any Nahua traces exist at the North-west at this late date.[748] This phenomenon can only be accounted for on the supposition that, at a remote period, large numbers of Nahua-speaking people resided for a considerable length of time in those regions. The presence of the mounds in such numbers in Washington and the British possessions north of it, leads to this view, provided it can be established that the Mound-builders were Nahuas. The fact that the line of mounds is toward the interior precludes the expectation that the Nahua is to be found prominently present west of the Rocky Mountains. It is plausible to consider the Moquis a branch from the Nahuas, separating from them at an early day and establishing themselves in Southern Oregon and Utah, whence, according to their tradition, they were driven by the Utes. In the course of time, their language, which contains a Nahua element, may have become changed and lost much of its original character. To their residence, migration, and the possible captivity of many of their number, the traces of Aztec found in the Shoshone and Utah tongues may be due.
Analogies between the Nahua and all the other languages of the world have been assiduously sought for, and supposed affiliations advocated by theorists, but in the present unsatisfactory state of philological science it would be presumptuous for us to pretend that any claim for linguistic analogies with the old world could be sustained. There is no doubt that strong analogies are observable between the Otomi and the Chinese. Señor Najera, to whom the former is vernacular, has appended to his excellent grammar of the Otomi a comparative table of Chinese and Otomi words, which while it shows strong resemblances, is not sufficient in itself to establish relationship.[749]
Warden has treated the grammatical resemblances, which in many respects are striking.[750] It is one of the most singular phenomena met with in the whole range of ethnography and philology, that a monosyllabic language should be found in the very heart of Mexico surrounded by the most remarkable poly-syllabism in the world, touching the capital on the south-east and extending north-west into San Luis Potosi and over portions of Queretaro and Guanajuato. It is no doubt a language of great antiquity, and whether Chinese in origin is not fully determined.[751] Numerous claims have been set forth that some of the Californian languages bear a striking resemblance to the Chinese, and that Indians and Chinese in some cases have found so much in common in their respective languages as to be able to hold conversations with each other. These claims have in most instances been supported by persons having little knowledge of the principles of philology, and who are scarcely aware of the difficulty of comparing two monosyllabic languages in which the finest shade of pronunciation carries with it the greatest significance.[752] Japanese claims have been urged with some reason by ethnologists no less eminent than Latham, who is confident that the “Kamskadale, Koriak, Aino-Japanese and the Korean are the Asiatic languages most like those of America.”[753]
Comparisons of the Indian languages with those of the old world have often been made, most frequently in a haphazard manner and to little purpose. Recently, however, Herr Forchhammer of Leipzig published a truly scientific comparison of the grammatical structure of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Muskogee and Seminole languages, with the Ural-Altaic tongues, in which he has developed many interesting points of resemblance.[754] Prof. Valentini has called attention to the fact that Ptolemy (Geography, Asia Minor, Chapter X, Armenia Major) gives in his list of cities belonging to the Roman province in his time (A.D. 140), the names of five cities situated in the region of the historic Ararat, which have nearly their counterpart in five proper names applied to localities in Mexico by its ancient colonists. The cities of Armenia Major, according to Ptolemy, are: Chol, Colua, Zuivana, Cholima, Zalissa. “The first name Chol is contained in Cholula; the second, Colua, in Coluacan; the third, Zu vana, in Zuivan, which is the ancient name of the Yucatanic province of Bacalab (see Perez in Stephens’ Yucatan, Appendix, vol. ii, Chronology of Yucatan). Cholima is to-day written Colima, Zalissa is contained in Xalisco, the Spanish x sounding in the Nahua language like the English sh.”[755] Generally we have been disposed to pronounce all such coincidences accidental, as most of them certainly are. In this case we leave the decision to the reader. In this chapter we have noticed two prominent families of languages, (1) the Maya-Quiché, having such transatlantic affinities as to furnish presumptive evidence that if it did not originate from, it was at least influenced by the West European or African languages. (2) The great Nahua family, which linguistic researches, together with the circumstantial evidence furnished by architectural remains, commercial intercourse and the testimony of early writers, assign to at least a temporary occupancy of the Columbian region on the North-west coast. Concede this fact, and you must look elsewhere, possibly to the opposite continent, for the early beginnings of a language so ancient and polished.
While the proof is not conclusive, yet we think it is presumptive that both of these families, as well as some other American languages, are of old world origin.