Since but a moment was sometimes at my disposal for collecting a few words, I chose a list of twenty of those that frequently occur, and asked for them first, in order to make a comparison and draw conclusions regarding the relationship of the tribes. These words were as follows:

In each of the vocabularies I have noted the source from which it was obtained. The order in which the tribes are arranged is not according to linguistic relationship, but alphabetical for the sake of easier reference.

From an examination of the following examples of the languages of twenty-three peoples it appears, as is observed by the Rev. Dr. Reck, a philologist,[236] that the Sauki, Musquake, Kickapuh, Ojibua, and Krih tribes belong together—a circumstance that has long been known. The speech of the Wasaji [Osage], Konsa, Oto, Omaha, Punca, Dacota, Assiniboin, and Mandan tribes appear to be only dialects of the Dacota (Sioux) linguistic group, of which the last, which I can give most completely, has been but little known. The ten remaining tribes seem to be more foreign to one another—only between the Blackfoot and Snake (Shoshone) dialects, do we find word relationships. There are likewise many similarities between the Mandan and Minnitarri languages; but these, as I was repeatedly assured, arose only after the two peoples had lived near each other, as I have already related elsewhere in the account of my travels. The name of the deity is "manito" among the Musquake [Fox], Sauki, Kickapuh, Ojibua, and Krih tribes, all of which belong to the Algonkin, or Algic linguistic group; among the seven tribes of the Dacota group, it is "wakonda," or "wakanda," which has the same or a similar meaning in half of the tribes mentioned. The word for water is very similar among most of these people, and the name of the tobacco pipe is the same or similar in half of the dialects.

First and last, various corrections have been made in these lists; yet they remain incomplete, and further observation will add many new corrections. I must, therefore, as always, request consideration from learned critics. Finally, I must note that if in the body of my narrative some words are not written as in the vocabularies, the spelling of the latter is to be preferred.[237]

FOOTNOTES:

[222] S. Delafield, Inquiry into the origin of the antiquities of America. Cincinnati, 1836.—Maximilian.

Comment by Ed. The author is John Delafield, Jr., and the work bears the imprint of New York, London, and Paris, 1839. A few copies are also marked Cincinnati, 1839.

[223] For d'Orbigny, see our volume xxiii, p. 300, note 273.—Ed.

[224] Chevalier Lorenzo Boturini Beneduci was an Italian scholar who came to Mexico in 1736 on a mission for a descendant of Montezuma. Becoming interested in Mexican antiquities, Boturini spent eight years in making a valuable collection of aboriginal manuscripts; but having incurred the suspicion of the government, he was imprisoned and his collection confiscated (1745). On his return voyage to Spain, whither he was sent for trial, the galley was captured by the English, and the last vestiges of his antiquities disappeared. In Spain he sought redress, which was granted him, but this of course did not restore his collection. While in Spain he published Idea de una nueva historia general de la America septentrionale (Madrid, 1746), in which appears a catalogue of this collection. A portion was recovered, and is now in the museum in the City of Mexico. The manuscript seen by Delafield was the property of William Bullock (for whom see our volume xix, preface), who was also a specialist in Mexican antiquities.—Ed.