Englishsky.Uchehaipoung.Chiccasawabbah.Catawbawahpeeh.Englishday.Ucheuckkah.Attacapaiggl.Cherokeeikah.Muskojehiyiaguy=light.Cherokeeegah=do.Catawbaheakuh=do.Delawarewakheu=do.Narragwequai=do.Mapachdo=do.Englishsummer.Uchewaitee.Adaizeweetsuck.Englishwinter.Uchewishtuh.Natchezkwishitsetakop.Chiccasawhustolah.Senecaoushat.Englishwind.Ucheahwitauh.Caddohoueto.Muskojehotalleye.Englishrain.Uchechaah.Chetimachakaya.Attacapacaucau.Caddocawiohe.Englishriver.Uchetauh.Salishsaiulk.Catawbaeesauh.Englishtree.Ucheyah.Caddoyako.Attacapakagg.Catawbayup.Quappayon.Esquimauxkeiyu=wood.Yanctoncha=wood.Catawbayay=oak.Englishleaf.Ucheyahsuh.Muskogheittohise=hair of tree=itta tree.Chiccasawhoshsha.Choctahitte hishe.Englishdeer.Uchewayung.Adahiwakhine.Cherokeeahwhih.Englishbear.Ucheptsaka.Natcheztsokohp.Englishbird.Uchepsenna.Caddobunnit.Tuscartcheenuh.Ilinoispineusen.Ottawabennaisewug.Ojibbwapinaisi.Englishfish.Uchepotshoo.Caddobatta.Minetariboa.
Such our sketch of the details. They give us more affinities than the current statements concerning theglossarialdifferences between the languages of the New World suggest. It is also to be added that they scarcely confirm the equally common doctrine respecting theirgrammaticallikeness. Doing this, they encourage criticism, and invite research.
There is a considerable amount of affinity: but it is often of that miscellaneous character which baffles rather than promotes classification.
There is a considerable amount of affinity; but it does not, always, shew itself on the surface. I will give an instance.
One of the first series of words to which philologues who have only vocabularies to deal with have recourse, contains the numerals; which are, in many cases, the first of words that the philological collector makes it his business to bring home with him from rude countries. So generally is this case that it may safely be said that if we are without the numerals of a language we are, in nine cases out of ten, without any sample at all of it. Their value as samples for philological purposes has been noticed in more than one paper of the present writer's here and elsewhere; their value in the way of materials for a history of Arithmetic being evident—evidently high.
But the ordinary way in which the comparisons are made between the numerals gives us, very often, little or nothing but broad differences and strong contrasts. Take for instance the following tables.
English.Eskimo.Aleutian.Kamskadale.oneatamekattakonkemmis.twomalgokalluknittanu.threepinajutkankuntshushquat.fouristamatthitshintshashcha.fivetatlimatsshangkoomdas.
No wonder that the tongues thus represented seem unlike.
But let us go farther—in the first place remembering that, in most cases, it is only as far asfivethat the ruder languages have distinct numerals; in other words that fromsixonwards they count upon the same principle aswedo after ten,i. e.they join together some two, or more, of the previous numerals; even as we, by addingsevenandten, makeseven-teen. The exact details, of course, differ; the general principle, however, is the same viz.: that afterfivethe numerals become, more or less, compound, just as, with us, they become so afterten.
With this preliminary observation let us ask what will be the Kamskadale forsevenwhennittanu=two, andkumdas=five. The answer is eithernittanu-kumdasorkumdas-nittanu. But the Kamskadale happens to have a separate word forsix, viz.kiekoas. What then? The word forsevenmay be one of two things: it may be either = 6 + 1, or 5 + 2. The former being the case, andkemmis=one, the Kamskadale forsevenshould be eitherkemmis-kilkoasorkilkoas-kemmis. But it is neither one nor the other. It isittakh-tenu. Now aseight=tshok-tenuwe know this word to be compound. But what are its elements? We fail to find them amongst the simpler words expressive ofone,two,three,four,five. We fail to find them amongst these if we look to the Kamskadale only—not, however, if we go farther. The Aleutian forone=attak-on; the Aleutian forsix=attu-on. And what might be the Aleutian forseven? Evenattakh-attun, little more thanittakh tenuin a broader form.
The Jukahiri gives a similar phenomenon.
Such is the notice of the care with which certain comparisons should be made before we venture to commit ourselves to negative statements.
There is an affinity amongst the American languages, and (there being this) there are also the elements of a classification. The majority, however, of the American languages must be classified according totypesrather thandefinitions. Upon the nature of this difference, as well as upon the cause I have written more fully elsewhere. It is sufficient for present purposes to say that it applies to the languages of North America in general, and (of these) to those of the parts beyond the Rocky Mountains more especially. Eskimo characteristics appear in the Athabaskan, Athabaskan in the Koluch forms of speech. From these the Haidah leads to the Chimmesyan (which is, nevertheless, a very outlying form of speech) and the Hailtsa, akin to the Billechula, which, itself, leads to the Atna. By slightly raising the value of the class we bring in the Kutani, the Nutkan and the Chinuk.
In the Chinuk neighbourhood we moveviathe Jakon, Kalapuya, Sahaptin, Shoshoni, and Lutuami to the languages of California and the Pueblos; and thence southwards.
In American languages simple comparison does but little. We may test this in two ways. We may place, side by side, two languages known to be undoubtedly, but also known to be not very closely, allied. Such, for instance, are the German and Greek, the Latin and Russian, the English and Lithuanic, all of which are Indo-European, and all of which, when placed in simple juxta-position, by no means show themselves in any very palpable manner as such. This may be seen from the following table, which is far from being the first which the present writerhas compiled; and that with the special view of ascertaining by induction (and nota priori) the value of comparisons of the kind in question.
English.Latin.Cayuse.Willamet.manhomoyúantatshánggo.womanmulierpintkhlkaiupummaike.fatherpaterpíntetsima.mothermaterpenínsinni.sonfiliuswáitawakhai.daughterfiliawáitshitapinna.headcaputtalshtamutkhl.haircrinistkhlokomotamutkhl.earauristakshpokta.eyeoculushăkamushkwalakkh.nosenasuspitkhlokenunan.mouthossumkhakshmandi.tonguelinguapushmamtshutkhl.toothdenstenifpúti.handmanusepiptlakwa.fingersdigitiépipalakwa.feetpedestishpuüf.bloodsanguistiweushméëuu.housedomusnishthammeih (—fire).axesecurisyengthokinshkhueshtan.knifecultershekthekemistāh.shoescalceitaitkhloulumóf.skycœlumadjalawaiaamiank.sunsolhuewishampiun.moonlunakatkhltóputap.starstellatkhlikhlishatuininank.daydieseweiuumpium.nightnoxftalpatitshikim.fireignistetshhamméih.wateraquaiskkainishmampuka.rainpluviatishtkitkhlmitingukwíï.snownixpoinukpeik.earthterralingshhunkhalop.riverrivuslushmimantsal.stonelapisápitandi.treearborlauikhuntawatkhl.meatcaropithuliumhók.dogcanisnáapangmantal.beavercastorpiekaakaipi.bearursalimeakshalotufan.birdavistianiyiwapōkalfuna.greatmagnusyaúmuapul.coldfrigidusshungapángkafiti.whitealbustkhlaktkhlákokommóu.blacknigershkupshkúpumaieum.redruberlakaitlakaitutshal.Iegoiningtshii.thoutunikimáha.heillenipkak.oneunusnawáän.twoduoleplinkéën.threetresmatninupshin.fourquatuorpipingtáope.fivequinquetáwithúwan.sixsexnóinátaf.sevenseptemnóilippshinimua.eightoctonōimátkĕëmúa.ninenovemtanáuiaishimshinwanwaha.tendecemningitelptínifia.
Again—the process may be modified by taking two languages known to becloselyallied, and asking how far asimplecomparison of their vocabularies exhibits that alliance on the surface,e. g.:—
English.Beaver Indian.Chippewyan.oneit la dayittla hĕ.twoonk shay daynank hay.threeta dayta he.fourdini daydunk he.fivetlat zoon e de aysa soot la he.sixint zud hal'goot ha hé.seventa e wayt zaytluz ud dunk he.eightetzud een tayl'goot dung he.ninekala gay ne ad ayitla ud ha.tenkay nay dayhona.a mantaz eudinnay you.a womaniay quaytzay quay.a girlid az ooed dinna gay.a boytaz yuz édinnay yoo azay.interpreternao day aydinnay tee ghaltay.tradermeeoo tayma kad ray.moose-deertlay tchin taytunnehee hee.rein-deermay tzeeed hun.beavertzatza.dogtleetlee.rabbitkaghkagh.bearzuszus.wolftshee o naynoo nee yay.foxe yay thaynag hee dthay.
The difference is great: but the two forms of speech are mutually intelligible. On the other hand, the Cayuse and Willamet are more alike than the English and Latin.
Next to the details of our method, and the principles of our classification, the more important of the special questions command attention. Upon the relations of the Eskimo to the other languages of America I have long ago expressed my opinion. I now add the following remarks upon the prevalence of the doctrine which separated them.
Let us imagine an American or British ethnologist speculatingon the origin and unity of the European populations and arriving, in the course of his investigations, at Finmark, or any of those northern parts of Scandinavia where the Norwegian and Laplander come in immediate geographical contact. What would be first? Even this—close geographical contact accompanied by a remarkable contrast in the way of the ethnology: difference in habits, difference in aptitudes, difference in civilisation, difference of creed, difference of physical form, difference of language.
But the different manner in which the southern tribes of Lapland comport themselves in respect to their nearest neighbours, according as they lie west or east, illustrates this view. On the side of Norway few contrasts are more definite and striking than that between the nomad Lap with his reindeer, and reindeer-skin habiliments and the industrial and highly civilized Norwegian. No similarity of habits is here; no affinity of language; little on intermixture, in the way of marriage. Their physical frames are as different as their moral dispositions no and social habits. Nor is this difficult to explain. The Norwegian is not only a member of another stock, but his original home was in a southern, or comparatively southern, climate. It was Germany rather Scandinavia; for Scandinavia was, originally, exclusively Lap or Fin. But the German family encroached northwards; and by displacement after displacement obliterated those members of the Lap stock whose occupancy was Southern and Central Scandinavia, until nothing was left but its extreme northern representatives in the most northern and least favored parts of the peninsula. By these means two strongly contrasted populations were brought in close geographical contact—this being the present condition all along the South Eastern, or Norwegian, boundary of Lapland.
But it is by no means the present condition of those parts of Russian Lapland where the Lap population touches that of Finland Proper.
Here, although the Lap and Fin differ, the difference lies within a far narrower limit than that which divides the Lap from the Norwegian or the Swede. The stature of the Lap is less than that of the Fin; though the Fin is more short than tall, and the Lap is far from being so stunted as books and pictures make him. The habits, too, differ. The reindeer goes with the Lap; the cow with the Fin. Other points differ also. On the whole, however, the Fin physiognomy is Lap, and the Lap Fin; and the languages are allied.
Furthermore—the Fin graduates into the Wotiak, the Zirianean, the Permian; the Permian into the Tsheremiss, the Mordvin &c. In other words, if we follow the Lap eastwards we come into a whole fancy of congeners. On the west, however, the further we went, the less Lap was everything. Instead of being Lap itwas Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, or German. The last of those, however, would lead us into the Sarmatian family, and this would bring us round to the Fins of South Finland. The time, however, may come when Russia will have so encroached upon the Fin populations to the south of the Arctic Circle as for the Lap and Slave to come in immediate contact; and when this contact is effected there will be contrast also—contrast less strong, perhaps, than that between the Lap and Swede, but still contrast.
Mutatis mutandis—this seems to have been the case with the Eskimo and the North American Indians as they are popularly called—popularly but inaccurately; inasmuch as the present writer considers the Eskimo to be as truly American as any other occupants of the soil of America. On the East there has been encroachment, displacement, and, as an effect thereof, two strongly contrasted populations in close geographical contact—viz.: the Eskimos and the northern members of the Algonkin family. On the west, where the change has been less, the Athabaskans, the Kolutshes, and the Eskimos graduate to each other, coming under the same category, and forming part of one and the same class; that class being by no means a narrow, though not an inordinately, wide one.
Another special question is that concerning the origin of the Nahuatl, Astecs, or Mexicans. The maritime hypothesis I have abandoned. The doctrine that their civilisation was Maya I retain. I doubt, however, whether they originated anywhere. By this I mean that they are, though not quitein situ, nearly so. In the northermost parts of their area they may so entirely. When I refined on this—the common sense—view of them I was, like many others, misled by the peculiar phonesis. What it is may be better seen by an example than explained. Contrast the two following columns. How smoothly the words on the right run, how harshly sound (when they can be sounded) those of the left. Not, however, that they give us the actual sounds of the combinationkhl&c. All that this means is that there is some extraordinary sound to be expressed that no simple sign or no common combination will represent. In Mr. Hale's vocabularies it is represented by a single special sign.
English.Selish.Chinuk.Shoshoni.manskaltamekhotkhlekalataka.womansumaămtkhlākélkwuu.boyskokoseatklkaskusnatsi.girlshautumtklalekhnaintsuts.childaktultetshanúkswa.fatherluáustkhliamámaápui.motherskúistkhlianáapia.wifemakhonakhiuakhékalwépui.sonskokoseaetsokhanatsi.daughterstumtshäăltokwukhananai.brotherkatshki (elder)kapkhutamye.sistertklkikeetkhliaunamei.
Now if the Astec phonesis be more akin to the Selish and its congeners than to the Shoshoni and other interjacent forms of speech, we get an element of affinity which connects the more distant whilst it separates the nearer languages. Overvalue this, and you may be misled.
Now, not to mention the fact of this phonesis being an overvalued character, there is clear proof in the recent additions to the comparative philology of California that its distribution is, by no means, what it was, originally, supposed to be. This may be seen from the following lists.
From the North of California.
(1.)
English.Wish-osk.Wiyot.boyligeritlkushama.marriedwehowut'lhaqueh.headwutwetlmetwet.hairpah'tlpaht'l.facekahtsouetlsulatek.beardtseh'plcheh'pl.bodytahhit'l.footwehlihlwellih'tl.villagemohlkatswah'tl.chiefkowquéh'tlkaiowuh.axemahtlmehtl.pipemaht'letlmahtlel.windrahtegut'lruktagun.duckhahalitlhahahlih.
(2.)
English.Hupah.Tahlewah.neckhosewatl——village——wah'tlki.chief——howinnequutl.bow——chetlta.axemehlcohlewatl——
In the South of California.
English.Duguno.Cuchan.legewith'lmisith'l.to-dayenyat'l——to-morrowmatinyat'l——breadmeyut'l——earhamat'lsmyth'l.neck——n'yeth'l.arm}selhiseth'l.handfriend——nyet'l.feather——sahwith'l.
I cannot conclude without an expression of regret that the great work of Adelung is still only in the condition of a second, or (at best) but a third edition. There is Vater's Supplement, and Jülg's Supplement to Vater. But there is nothing that brings it up to the present time.
Much might be done by Buschmann and perhaps others. But this is not enough. It requires translation. The few French writers who treat on Ethnological Philology know nothing about it. The Italians and Spanish are,a fortiori, in outer darkness as to its contents. The Russians and Scandinavians know all about it—but the Russians and Scandinavians are not the scholars in whose hands the first hand information falls first. The Americans know it but imperfectly. If Turner has had easy access to it, Gallatin had not: whilst Hales, with great powers, has been (with the exception of his discovery of the Athabaskan affinities of the Umkwa and Tlatskanai, out of which Turner's fixation of the Apatch, Navaho, and Jecorilla, and, afterwards, my own of the Hoopah, seems to have been developed,) little more than a collector—a preeminent great collector—of raw materials. Nevertheless, the Atna class is his.
However, the Mithridates, for America at least, wants translation as well as revision. It is a work in which many weak points may be (and have been) discovered. Klaproth, himself a man who (though he has saved many an enquirer much trouble) has but few friends, has virulently attacked it. Its higher classifications are, undoubtedly, but low. Nevertheless, it is not only a great work, but the basis of all others. Should any one doubt its acumen let him read the part which, treating on the Chikkasah, demurrs to the identification of the Natchez with that and other forms of speech. Since it was written a specimen of the Natchez language has shewn its validity.
I think that the Natchez has yet to take its full importance. If the language of theTaensasit was, probably, the chief language ofTennessee. But the Creek, or Muscogulge, broke it up. Meanwhile the fragmentary Catawba, with which I believe that the Caddo was connected had its congeners far to westward.
I also think that the Uche represents the old language of Florida—the Cherokee being conterminous with the Catawba.If so, the doctrine of the fundamental affinity between the Pawni, Caddo, Catawba, and Cherokee gains ground.
The Uche demands special investigation. The Tinquin and Timuacana should be compared with it. Then why are they not? Few works are more inaccessible than a SpanishArte,Diccionario, orCatecismo. Thedatafor these enquiries, little known, are still less attainable. Without these, and without a minute study, of the first-hand authorities we can do but little but suggest. All that is suggested here is that the details of Florida (in its widest sense) and Louisiana must be treated under the doctrine that the aborigines are represented by the congeners of the Woccon, Catawba, Uche, Natchez, Tinquin, and Timuacana, inordinately displaced by the Cherokees and Creeks; who (for a great extent of their present area) must be considered as intrusive.
I. PædeuticaPage.Inaugural Lecture1On the study of Medicine15On the study of Language27II. LogicaOn the wordDistributed39III. GrammaticaOn the reciprocal Pronouns, and the reflective Verb45On the connexion between the Ideas of Association and Plurality as an influence in the Evolution of Inflection57On the wordcujum60On the Aorists in KA64IV. MetricaOn the Doctrine of the Cæsura in the Greek senarius68On the use of the signs of Accent and Quantity as guides to the pronunciation of words derived from the classical Languages74V. ChronologicaOn the Meaning of the wordΣΑΡΟΣ81VI. BibliographicaNotice of works on the Provincialisms of Holland85VII. GeographicaOn the Existence of a nation bearing the name ofSeres89On the evidence of a connection between the Cimbri and the Chersonesus Cimbrica93On the original extent of the Slavonic area108On the termsGothiandGetae129On the Japodes and Gepidae131VIII. EthnologicaOn the subjectivity of certain classes in Ethnology138General principles of philological classification and the value of groups, with particular reference to the Languages of the Indo-European Class143Traces of a bilingual town in England152On the Ethnological position of certain tribes on the Garrow hills153On the transition between the Tibetan and Indian Families in respect to conformation154On the Affinities of the Languages of Caucasus with the monosyllabic Languages156On the Tushi Language168On the Name and Nation of the Dacian king Decebalus, with notices of the Agathyrsi and Alani175On the Language of Lancashire under the Romans180On the Negrito Languages191On the general affinities of the Languages of the oceanic Blacks217Remarks on the Vocabularies of the Voyage of the Rattlesnake223On a Zaza Vocabulary242On the Personal Pronouns and Numerals of the Mallicollo and Erromango Languages, by the Rev. C. Abraham245On the Languages of the Oregon Territory249On the Ethnography of Russian America266Miscellaneous contributions to the Ethnography of North America275On a short Vocabulary of the Loucheux Language, by J. A. Isbister298On the Languages of New California300On certain Additions to the ethnographical philology of Central America, with remarks on the so-called Astek Conquest of Mexico317Note upon a paper of the Hon. Captain Fitzroy on the Isthmus of Panama323On the Languages of Northern, Western and Central America326