[ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA]
(1859).
P. [252].—"Is not this Mozino's?"—No. For a further notice see p. [388].
P. [258].—"Kawichen and Tlaoquatch."—The Kawichen is nearer to the Nusdalum, Squallyamish, and Cathlascou than it is to the Tlaoquatch. This may be seen in Buschmann p. 649. At the same time it is more Tlaoquatch than Buschmann makes it.
P. [259].—"The Athabascan languages are undoubtedly Eskimo."—Between the notice contained in p. [299] and the paper which precedes it there is an interval of no less than five years. There is also one of three years between it and the paper which follows.
Now up to 1850 I gave the term Eskimo a power which I afterwards found reason to abandon. I gave it the power of a generic name for a class containing not only the Eskimo Proper, but the Athabascan, and the Kolooch. The genus, though in a modified form, I still believe to exist; I have ceased, however, to think that Eskimo is the best name for it. Hence, expressions like "the Athabascan languages are, undoubtedly, Eskimo—and the Kolooch languages are equally Eskimo with the Athabascan" must be read in the sense of the author as expressed in p. [265]—"that the line of demarcation between the Eskimo and the Indian races of America was far too broad and trenchant."
Whether certain forms of speech were not connected with the Eskimo Proper—the Eskimo in the limited and specific meaning of the term—is another question. The Ugalents was so treated. The Kenay—until the publication of Sir T. Richardson's Loucheux specimens—was made both too Eskimo and too Kolooch. On the other hand, however, both the Eskimo and the Koluch were divisions of the same order. The actual value of the term Kolooch is even now uncertain.
P. [276].—"The Ahnenin etc."—A reference to the word Arrapahoes in Ludwig's Bibliotheca Glottica (both in the body of the work and the Addenda) suggests a doubt as to the accuracy of the form Ahnenin. Should it not be Atsina?
Turner remarks that "there is no evidence that Dr. Latham collated" Mackenzie's vocabulary—which, as far as the text of Ludwig goes, is true enough. I had, however, vivâ voce, informed Ludwig's Editor that I had done so. As Turner knew nothing of this his remark was a proper one. The main question, however, touches the form of the word. Is Ahnenin or Atsina right? I can not make out the later history of the MS. In my own part, I copied, collated, and returned it; and I imagine that it still be amongst either Prichard's or Gallatin's papers. I have the transcript before me at this moment; which runs thus. "The vocabularies of the Blackfeet, of the Crows or Upsarokas, and of the Grosventre, Rapid, or Fall Indians who call themselves Ahnenin; by D. M. M'Kenzie of the St Louis American Furr Comp. They appear to belong to three distinct families. But the Crows speak a dialect clearly belonging to the same language as that of the sedentary Minitares and Mandans, which is Sioux."