Names, then, for numerals in the American languages differ as much as the natural objects from which they may be derived, the separation from the parent-stock of the tongues in which they occur having taken place before the evolution of fixed absolute and abstract terms.
The verb-substantive.—In the Indo-European languages the verb-substantive agrees even where other words differ; the English be is the Latin fu-; the German ist is the Greek ἐστ-ι; the English am is the Latin sum, and the Greek εἰμι. This induces us, in languages where there is no such agreement, to argue in favour of a fundamental dissimilarity. And naturally. Tongues as far apart as the English and Sanskrit agree, where tongues as close to each other as the Adahi and Chetimacha differ. But to expect likeness on this point simply because we find it in Europe and Asia, is to make bricks without straw. In most of the American languages, an idea so abstract as that conveyed by the verb-substantive has yet to be evolved; in other words, there is no verb-substantive at all in the generality of them: according to some writers, it is wanting in all.
Such are some of the facts and suggestions which help to account for the glossarial difference between the American languages, a phænomenon which, even though occasionally overstated, is still a reality to a certain degree. I am fully aware that, at the first view, they seem to prove too much; i.e. they seem, by accounting for the differences, to admit them; just as, in common life, the person who excuses himself for an imputed action, admits the truth of the imputation. How far this is the true view will be seen after the notice of some of the antagonistic phænomena of agreement in the way of grammatical structure.
Negative points of agreement.—Case-endings, properly so called, are either rare or wanting throughout the American tongues. Possession is expressed by the pronouns; just as if we said, father his, or pater suus instead of patri-s, ather-'s. In like manner the pronoun expresses the objective relation; I strike him horse=ferio equu-m.
Signs of number, properly so called, are wanting. The general American equivalent for such a form as the -s in patre-s, or father-s, is a word signifying number, as father many=father-s.
Signs of gender, properly so called, are wanting. This, however, is no more than what occurs in the English adjective.
Signs of the degrees of comparison are wanting. This, however, is no more than what occurs in the French adjective.
Notwithstanding, however, this list of negations—a list capable of being considerably increased—the American grammar is complex; a fact which brings us to the positive characteristics of the language in question. These, also, are very general.
a. The distinction between animate and inanimate objects.—The plural of the name of such an object as a star is of one form; the plural of the name of such an object as a sheep, another. In some languages this distinction extends farther, and applies to the rational and irrational divisions of the animate class.
b. The incorporation of the possessive pronoun.—Certain words like hand, father, son, express, all the world over, objects which are rarely mentioned except in relation to some other object to which they belong—a hand, for instance, is mine, thine, his, and so is a father, a son, a wife, &c. In other words there is almost always a pronoun[141] attached to them. Now in the American languages this is almost always incorporated with the substantive; so that an American can only talk of my father, thy father, &c., being incapable of using the substantive in a sense sufficiently abstract to dispense with the pronoun.