Chapter VI. On The Chinese Language.

Chapter VI. On The Chinese Language.High Antiquity of the Chinese Empire and Remains discredited by Sir William Jones and Adelung. But the Differences between the Chinese Language and those of Western Asia more ancient than the peculiarities which distinguish the African Languages from those of Europe and Western Asia. These Differences not fundamental. Identity of the Chinese with the Hebrew and with the English and other European Languages, &c.Adelung, like Sir William Jones before him, quite discredits the supposed antiquity of the Chinese Empire and the claims set up by the Chinese to a high and ancient civilization. The Great Wall, said by their historians to have been built 240 yearsb.c., is not mentioned by early writers, especially Marco Polo, who visited China from the West in 1270. He regards the scientific knowledge of the Chinese as inferior to that of several adjoining nations, and Confucius's morality as nothing better than a medley of sound opinions, such as any man of strong sense might have compiled! The materials of their paper are so frail that it is impossible any of their MSS. can be very ancient, and in the fidelity or[pg 148]knowledge of their Transcribers he places no confidence! Finally, he views the infantine character of their language, a feature in which the Chinese are inferior to the wildest American tribes, as forming in itself a proof of the absence of a high culture, to which, he maintains, it constitutes an almost insuperable obstacle.On the other hand, unfavorable as its characteristics are to the supposed antiquity and extent of their civilization, he nevertheless considers these very peculiarities of their language in the light of decisive proofs of the high antiquity of the Chinese nation, viewed simply as a distinct branch of the human race.In the last chapter were discussed the peculiarities of structure which distinguish the Egyptian and Semetic tongues from those of the Indo-European class; peculiarities which were shown to consist, not in a fundamental difference of elements, but simply in various conventional arrangements of the same elements. This explanation will now be proved to apply also to the characteristics which distinguish the Chinese from the principal Asiatic and European languages, with this qualification however, that these characteristics, as contrasted with those of other classes of tongues, imply a separation from a parent stock at a much earlier era in the history of the human species than those which have been noticed in the last chapter, as distinguishing the Indo-European, Semetic, and Egyptian languages respectively.According to Adelung's lucid analysis, the following are the principal steps by which language is formed. 1. The first words are vowels, or sounds produced simply by the opening of the mouth and the emission of the breath. 2. Next in order are monosyllables, consisting of a vowel and a consonant preceding, as in P-a. 3. Arise monosyllables, formed of a vowel between two or more consonants,[pg 149]as in P-a-p. 4. Lastly are constructed polysyllabic words, formed by a combination into one word of two or more of the monosyllabic terms.The African, American,129European, and all the Asiatic languages, with the exception of those spoken in China and the contiguous countries of the south-west of Asia, display a consummation of all these four stages. The Chinese exhibits results of the first and second steps of the series only. In other words, the Chinese may be described not simply as a languagepurely monosyllabic, but as one in which themonosyllables are of the most elementary and infantine character, viz., those which consist of one consonant and a vowel(as inPa). They have no words which have a second consonant, as inP-a-p.Having no polysyllables, the Chinese supply their place by a minute variety in their vowel sounds. They have no grammar:130the same word is at once an adjective, a substantive, and a verb! Affixes and suffixes, such as occur in give, giv-er, gif-t, are unknown. The modifications of meaning these forms convey are expressed either by altering the position of the words or by additional terms. The plural is the same as the singular; though, to avoid obscurity, in extreme cases the clumsy expedient of repetition is resorted to, as in Tschin-tschin,“Man-man”(i.e. Men); or distinct words indicative of number are prefixed, such as Muen,“Many,”Tschung,“All!”It was the opinion of Adelung that the Chinese language differed not merely in its structure, but in its elements, from the other languages of the human race. He supposed this nation to have sprung from the same stock as those of western[pg 150]Asia. But their speech he conceives to have been constructed after the separation.The peculiar monosyllabic structure of the Chinese seems to justify the conclusion, that the nations of Europe and western Asia are more nearly allied in descent to the Negro tribes of the interior of Africa and to the Indian tribes of America than they are to the Chinese and the nations of the contiguous countries of the south-west of Asia. But that Adelung's conclusion, that the Chinese is a radically distinct tongue is an erroneous one will now be shown by examples, to which thepeculiar structure of that language will only serve to give additional131force; for while in most of the following examples the words compared are essentially the same, the Chinese monosyllables being identical with Hebrew or European monosyllables, or with terms which partake of that character, in other instances it will be found that the differences which occur have been caused solely by the addition of the characteristic suffixes and affixes of the polysyllabic languages, which are not used in the Chinese! Thus we have Mu,“A Mouse,”(Chin.,) Mū-s, Mu-os, Mu (Greek), the root in the latter being the same as in the former; Fo and Foo Tsin,“A Fa-ther,”(Chin.,) Moo and Moo Tsin,“A Mo-ther,”(Chin.)I shall commence these examples with the Chinese pronouns, most of which are absolutely identical with those of the polysyllabic languages. This branch of the comparison will serve to place in a striking point of view the erroneous nature of the opinion generally received among philologists, that nations which agree are necessarily more nearly allied than those which differ132in their grammatical forms, the Chinese being found in this respect to agree in an unequivocal manner[pg 151]with the kindred English and German, in some of those very points in which they mutually differ widely!Pronouns of the First Person,“I”and“We.”—Ngan, Ngoo Ngo,“I”and“We,”(Chinese.) Iōnga, Egōn,“I,”(Greek.)Pronouns of the Second Person,“Thou”and“Ye.”—Irr,“Thou”and“Ye,”(Chinese.) Ihr,“Ye,”(German.) Yú, Yŏh,“Thou”and“Ye,”(Chinese.) You,“Ye,”(English.) Yō (Provincial English). Eoh (Anglo-Saxon),“Ye.”Nee, Nai, Nyú,“Thou”and“Ye,”(Chinese.) Ne,“You,”(Mandans, a North American Tribe.)In these instances the English“You”and the German“Ihr”differ totally. Moreover, in each language separately considered the plural differs altogether from the singular, which in German is expressed by“Du,”and in the English by“Thou.”The Chinese, which uses these terms,“Ihr”and“You,”conjointly and in both numbers, furnishes a satisfactory clue to these anomalies!Pronouns of the Third Person.—E.e,“He,”“She,”“It,”(Chinese.) E.ee.a, E.v.e, (Hebrew.) He, masculine, (English.) He, feminine, (Welsh.)—Peé,“He,”“She,”“It,”also“That,”(Chinese.) Phe, Ph,“This,”“That,”(Hebrew.) Pha or Pe, the article“The,”(Egypt.)Specimens of Chinese Words, identical with equivalent Terms in the Languages of Europe and Western Asia, &c.Keuen,“A Dog,”(Chinese), Kuōn (Greek), Coun (Plural,Welsh), Can-is (Latin).—Ma,“A Horse,”(Chinese), Morin Mantschu), Mä-hre (German), Ma-re (English), Ma-rch (Welsh.)—Mu,“A Mouse,”(Chinese), Mu-s, Mu-os Mu[pg 152](Greek), Mu-s (Latin.)—Lung,133“A Wolf,”(Chinese), Lukon (Greek), Lloun-og,“A Fox,”(Welsh.)—Ioanģ, Iong, Io,“A Sheep,”(Chinese), Oin (Greek), Oen,“A Lamb,”(Welsh), Oi, Ai, Yi (Irish.)Foò“A Father,”Moo“A Mother;”also Foò Tsin“A Father,”and Moó Tsin“A Mother.”Tsin means“A Relation,”(Chinese.) The equivalent terms in the English and other Gothic dialects consist of the Chinese root, and a distinct suffix (answering the purpose of the separate Chinese word Tsin.) Fä-der (Anglo-Saxon), Fa-ther (English), Fa-ter (German), Mo-ther, (English), Mua-ter (Old high German.)134Nan and Yin,“A Man,”(Chinese.) Ninetz,“Men,”their national name, (Samoieds.) Ninnee Inin,“A Man,”(Algonquyn Dialects of N. America.)Nan“A Son,”(Chinese,) N.n [Parturio] (Heb.)—Neang,“A young Lady,”(Chinese,) Non (Mantschu,) Nonn-us (Lat.,) Nun,“Tender,”(Chinese.)—Nyu,“A Daughter,”(Chinese,) Nea, Feminine,“Young,”[Juvenis] (Greek,) New (Eng.)—Chan,“To produce, bear,”(Chinese,) Gen-i (Welsh,) Genn-ao (Greek.)—Chuen,“A Boat, or Ship,”(Chinese,) Kahn (Ger.,) Cymba (Latin,) Kumbī (Greek.)Chuy,“To blow, The Breath,”(Chinese,) Chwa (Welsh.)—Fe,“Fat,”(Chinese), Fe-tt (German,) Fa-t (English.)—Ho,“Fire,”(Chinese,) Ho-t (English.) These words Ho-t and Fe-tt seem to have been regularly formed as past participles from Ho and Fe, the roots preserved in the Chinese.—Hoo,[pg 153]“To escort,”(Chinese,) Hü-ten (Ger.)—Fan,“To subvert, Contrary,”(Chinese,) Ph.n.e, [To turn, turn out] (Hebrew,) Fun,“To divide,”(Chinese,) Fun do, Fin do (Latin.)—Gan,“Favor,”(Chinese,) Gönn-en, Gun-st (German,) Gynn a (Swedish,) c'H.n (Hebrew.)—Gaou,“Proud,”(Chinese,) Ga, Ga.ou.e, Ga.ee.oun (Hebrew) Gang“Lofty,”Ge“The Forehead,”Ke“To rise,”Ka.ou“High,”(Chinese,) Ga-e,“To rise,”(Heb.)—Kang,“More,”(Chinese,) Chwaneg (Welsh.)—Hae,“A large River, The Sea,”(Chinese,) Aa (Icelandic,) Eia (Ang.-Sax.,) Wy (Welsh.)—Heuen,“To explain,”Heaou“To understand,”Heo“To learn,”(Chinese,) c'Hou.e“To show, explain, declare,”(Hebrew,) He-ar (Eng.)—Hwō,“Living,”(Chinese) c'Hee.a, E.ou.e (Hebrew.)—Kwae,“Prompt, active,”(Chinese,) Chwae (Welsh.)—Kia“A Family,”Kiwo“A Nation,”(Chinese,) Kiw (Welsh,) Gou.e (Heb.)—Keen,“To see,”135(Chinese), Ken (English,) Kee,“And,”(Chinese,) Kai (Greek and Algonquyn Tribes of N. America,) King“To respect,”(Chinese,) Kun-ēō (Greek,) Kwăn,“Fatigued,”(Chin.,) Gwan (Welsh.)—Laou,“Labour,”(Chinese,) La.e (Hebrew), La-bor (Latin.)—Mae,“To buy,”(Chinese,) Emo (Latin.)—Lo,“Green,”(Chinese,) L.c'he, (Hebrew.)—Leo,“Small,”Lu, (Irish,) Low (English.)—Muen,“Many,”(Chinese,) Many (English.)—Yaou Yo,“To will, desire,”(Chinese,) Aeō (Greek,) Aveo (Lat.)—Meen,“To dispose,”(Chinese,) M.n.e (Hebrew.)—Mien,“The Face,”(Chinese,) Mine (French,) Mien (English.)—Pew,“Spotted Tiger,”(Chinese,) Pie [Colour] (English,) Pei,“To receive,”(Chinese,) Piai,“To possess,”(Welsh.)—Pin,“Poor,”Penuria (Latin.)—Sae,“To agitate,”(Chinese,) Sway (English.)—Saou,“A Brush,”(Chinese,) Shoue,“To rub,”(Hebrew.)—Scun,“To inspect,”(Chinese,) Sehen (German.)—Sha,“To[pg 154]kill,”(Chinese,) Sha.e (Hebrew.)—Shen,“Good, Pious,”(Chinese,) Sanctus (Latin,) Shin,“A Spirit, God,”(Chinese.)—Shing,“To ascend,”(Chinese,) Scan-deo (Latin.)—Shwa,“To sport, Play,”(Chinese,) Sho sho (Hebrew,) Soo,“To number,”(Chinese,) Shou e (Hebrew.)—Sung,“To present to,”(Chinese,) Schenk-en (German.)—Sing,“A Star,”(Chinese,) Schein-en,“To shine,”(German,) Sun (English.)—Yun,“Fog, Cloud,”Ying,“Shadow,”Wan,“Evening,”(Chinese,) On.n,“A Cloud, To cloud over,”(Hebrew.)—Wang,“To hope.”(Chinese,) Chwannawg,“Desirous,”(Welsh.)—We,“Taste,”(Chinese,) Chwae-th (Welsh.)[pg 155]Chapter VII. On The Origin Of The American Tribes.Identity of the American Tribes with the Nations of the other Continents. High Mental and Moral qualities of the North American Indians. Views of Cooper, Du Ponceau, and Catlin. Clear nature of the proofs derivable from Language of the Identity of the N. A. Indians with the European and Asiatic Nations. Catlin's views as to the Identity of the Mandans, a Tribe of N. A. Indians, with the Welsh. Union in the Dialects of the N. A. Indians, of Greek, and other Indo-European and Tartar Inflections, with the Pronouns of the Hebrew and the Welsh. Close Approximation of these Dialects to the Greek and other European Tongues, and to the Languages of the North of Europe and Asia.That the Tribes of the American Continent are descended from the same stock as the Asiatic and European nations is a proposition with respect to which the evidence contained in Appendix A must, I conceive, be felt to be conclusive when combined with Dr. Prichard's proofs that the Physiology of the Human race in different countries is the result of climate and other external agencies. As regards the mental and moral qualities of the native American nations, there seems to be no solid ground for the inference maintained in some[pg 156]quarters that they are a different, because in these respects an inferior, race. It is impossible to peruse Mr. Catlin's living picture of the manners and social habits of the North American Indians without being deeply impressed with the conviction that these Tribes, both intellectually and morally, are as highly gifted by nature as those nations who have inherited the blessings of a refined civilization. That the same remark applies to the more Southern American populations, such as the Mexicans and Peruvians, may be shown by an appeal to numerous considerations. In this place, however, I shall confine my observations to the Septs generally termed North American Indians, the original inhabitants of the United States and the regions in the same latitude. This race of men has been thus described in a celebrated work of fiction, which owes its chief interest to the vivid portraiture it exhibits of Indian life and manners.136“It is generally believed that the Aborigines of the American continent have had an Asiatic origin. There are many physical as well as moral facts which corroborate this opinion, and some few that would seem to weigh against it.“The colour of the Indian, the writer believes, is peculiar to himself, and while his cheek-bones have a very striking indication of a Tartar origin, his eyes have not. Climate may have had great influence on the former, but it is difficult to see how it can have produced the substantial difference which exists in the latter. The imagery of the Indian, both in his poetry and his oratory, is Oriental, chastened, and perhaps improved, by the limited range of his practical knowledge. He draws his metaphors from the clouds, the seasons, the birds, the beasts, and the vegetable world. In this, perhaps, he does no more than any other energetic and imaginative race would do, being compelled[pg 157]to set bounds to his fancy by experience; but the North American Indian clothes his ideas in a dress that is so different from that of the African for instance, and so Oriental in itself as to be remarked. His language, too, has the richness and sententious fulness of the Chinese. He will express a phrase in a word, and he will qualify the meaning of an entire sentence by a syllable; he will even convey different significations by the simplest inflections of the voice.“Philologists who have devoted much time to the study, have said that there were but two or three languages, properly speaking, among all the numerous tribes which formerly occupied the country that now composes the United States. They ascribe the known difficulty one people have in understanding one another to corruptions and dialects.“The writer remembers to have been present at an interview between two chiefs of the Great Prairies west of the Mississippi, and when an interpreter was in attendance who spoke both their languages. The warriors appeared to be on the most friendly terms, and seemingly conversed much together, yet, according to the account of the interpreter, each was absolutely ignorant of what the other said. They were of hostile tribes, brought together by the influence of the American Government; and it is worthy of remark that a common policy led them both to adopt the same subject. They mutually exhorted each other to be of use in the event of the chance of war throwing either of the parties into the hands of his enemies. Whatever may be the truth, as respects the root and the genius of the Indian tongues, it is quite certain they are now so distinct in their words as to possess most of the disadvantages of strange languages; hence much of the embarrassment that has arisen in learning their histories, and most of the uncertainty which exists in their traditions.”[pg 158]The traits of character embodied in this passage are not those of an inferior, but of a highly acute and imaginative race!The Philological objections to the proposition that the North American Tribes are of Asiatic origin have by many writers been regarded as insuperable. Du Ponceau, who has given profound attention to the subject, dwells, 1, On the differences in words among the American languages themselves; 2, On the failure which he imputes to those writers who have attempted to identify the Indians with some one individual Asiatic nation, as the Chinese, the Tartars, or the Jews, &c.; and 3, On the differences in the Grammars of the North American dialects and those of the languages of the Old World, which he treats as a conclusive refutation of all arguments in favour of original unity! Mr. Catlin also lays great stress on the first of these considerations, viz. the great differences he found in the words of the dialects of the Tribes he visited.To every one of these objections the general principles developed in the previous pages will be found to involve a complete answer. 1. The differences apparently fundamental in the words of American languages may be accounted for in the same manner as similar differences in the languages of the old world (the Gothic and Celtic for example,) have already been explained, viz. by the tendency to abandon different synonymes. 2. That attempts to prove a close specific relation between the North American dialects and any one Asiatic language, such as the Chinese or the Hebrew, should have failed, was to be expected as a consequence of the same tendency. 3. Finally, differences of Grammar have been shown to be fallacious evidence viewed separately and without due regard to other features of language.137Moreover, it will[pg 159]presently appear clearly that, even as regards the Grammar of the Indian Dialects, Du Ponceau's impressions can be distinctly proved to be erroneous, an extended comparison serving to render manifest the interesting fact that, as respects the elements of Grammar, these dialects perfectly agree with the Asiatic and European languages, while in the mode of combining those elements, they do not differ from those languages more widely than the latter differ among themselves.If the ancestors of the American Indians emigrated at a remote period from the opposite Asiatic Coasts, we have no right to anticipate in their dialects a complete conformity to any one language of the old world, but general and varying features of resemblance to several. The kindred dialects of the same Continent after the lapse of a considerable time do not exhibit any other kind of resemblance! Now this is the species of relation which the North American Indian dialects actually display when compared to the Languages of the Old World!The chief examples which I have selected as illustrations of this proposition have been taken from the Algonquyn dialects, the very class examined by Du Ponceau himself, to which I have added a few corroborative instances from those of the tribes of the regions to the west of the Mississippi which have been lately described by Mr. Catlin. The dialects termed Algonquyn by Du Ponceau were formerly spoken by numerous tribes who, though not the sole inhabitants, were originally spread through the whole of the present territory of the United States, including the“Lenni Lenapé,”the“Chippeways,”and other powerful septs.With regard to this class of Indian Dialects I propose to show: 1. That as regards Words they bear a close resemblance to a great variety of Asiatic and European languages. 2. That their grammatical peculiarities, in like manner, combine[pg 160]those of various languages of the Old World, as in the instance of their Verbs and Pronouns, in which the inflections of the Greek and other Indo-European Tongues are found united with separate Pronouns identical with those common to the Welsh on the one hand and the Hebrew and its kindred Semetic dialects on the other.Words from the North American Indian Dialects of the Algonquyn Class compared with analogous Terms in Asiatic and European Languages.Man ittou,“The Deity, a Spirit,”(Ind.,138) Mouno he ka,“Ghosts,”(Mandan,139) Manes,“The Spirits of the Dead,”(Latin,) Manus,“The Mind,”(Sanscrit,) Mēn,“The Mind,”(Greek,) Mens, Ment-is (Latin), Pata-maw-os,“The Deity,”from Pata-maw-an,“To adore,”(Ind.,) Poth-ēmenai,“To seek, or pray to,”(Doric,) for Poth-ein (Greek), Peton,“To worship,”Peta,“A Prayer,”(Old High German,) Bet-en, Bitte (German); see, as to N'iou and Nioueskou, two remarkable words for“The Deity,”(Ind.,) pages22,23,24. For names of the Heavenly Bodies, seeAppendix A.“Father,”Ooch, Oss (Ind.), Ozha (Sclavon.), Otze (Dalmatian), Wosch (Lusatian), Otzie (Bohemian), Nosa (Ind.), Niza, Niesee (Samoieds).“Mother,”Anna (Ind.), Ana (Turkish), Anya (Hungarian), Nanna (Ind.), Nain140(Welsh), Ningé (Ind.), Naing (Irish), Nik, Nêkaoui (Ind.), N.k.be141(Hebrew).“A Woman,”Panum, Phanem (Ind.), Banen (Cornish), Been (Welsh), Pin,“A Female,”applied to animals, (Chinese.)[pg 161]“A Girl,”Kan-isswah (Ind.), Gen eez (Pers.), Nunk-shoué, Nunk142(Ind.), Neang (Chin.), Non (Mantschu).“Husband,”Nap-é, Nap eem (Ind.), Nub-o, Nuptiæ (Lat.), Nuptials (Eng.)—“Husband,”Weew-ehsa, Wasuk (Ind.),“Wife,”Weewo, Weowika (Ind.),“Marriage,”Wiwaha (Sanscrit), Wife (Eng.)“A little Child,”Awusk, Awash ish (Ind.),“A Child,”Watsah (Sanscrit),“Young,”Wuski (Ind.),“A Youth,”Was or Gwas (Welsh).“High,”Hockunk (Ind.), Hoch, Höhe, Hoheit (German), High, Height (Eng.), Hitké143(Iroquois).“The Earth,”Hacki, Ki, Ackour (Ind.), Ge (Greek), Ager (Latin), Agr-os (Greek).“Foot,”Sit (Ind.), St.o,“I stand,”(Latin).“Good,”Wuilit (Ind.), Wohl (Ger.), Weal, Well, Wealth (Eng.), Ee.o.l,“To profit, benefit,”(Hebrew).“To fight,”Pachg-amen144(Ind.), P.g.ee (Heb.), Pug-no (Latin).“To give,”Mekan (Ind.), M.gn (Hebrew).“Night,”Nukon (Ind.), Nux (Greek), Nox (Latin), Noc (Polish), Noc (Hungarian).“Blood,”M'huk, Mokum (Ind.), Mucum, Mucus (Latin).“Cold,”Kisina (Ind.), Kuisne,“Ice,”(Irish,) K.sh.a,“To harden, stiffen,”“A Cucumber,145from its cooling properties,”(Hebrew).“Sleep,”Nipu, Nip-awin,“To sleep,”Nupp (Ind.), Nap (Eng.), Hup-nos (Greek), Nim pamino,“I sleep,”(Ind.), N.m., N.ou.m.e (Hebrew).[pg 162]“To touch,”Aman damaog-an (Ind.), Man-us (Latin).“Man,”Nin (Ind.), Ninetz“Men,”(Samoieds,) a diminutive race in the North-east of Asia. The national name they have given to themselves is the above word, Ninetz“Men.”I shall add a few further illustrations from the specimens of the languages of the Indian Tribes to the West of the United States, which have been published by Mr. Catlin.“Spirits, Ghosts,”Mouno he ka (Mandan,)—and see above, Manitto,“A Spirit,”(Ind.)—Manes,“The Spirits of the Dead,”(Latin).“Bad,”Khe cush (Mandan), Kakos (Greek).“A Bear,”Mah to (Mandan), Matto (Sioux), Medve (Hungarian), Medvid (Sclavonian), Metzwetz (Lusatian), Koonoghk (Riccaree), Chiung (Chinese).“Dog,”Shonka (Riccaree), Shunah (Sanscrit), Shun (Armenian), A meeteh (Blackfeet), Meda (Taraikai,North-east of Asia), Madaidh (Irish).“A Raven,”Kaka (Mandan), To kah ka (Riccaree), Kaka (Sanscrit).“River,”Pass ahah (Mandan). See Appendix A. p.78.“Ears,”Ookah nay146(Tuskaroras), Ucho (Sclavonian), Ochtowaga (Shawannos), Ohto kiss (Blackfeet), Ōta (Greek.) See p.73, Appendix A.“Hand,”Onka (Mandan.) See Appendix, page69. Ohahna (Tuskaroras.) See Appendix, p.68.“Head,”Otahra (Tuskaroras), Otri (Ashantees Negroes), Utieri (Aminas Negroes.)“Nose,”Pahoo (Mandan), Pei Pi (Chinese), Pah.soo (Sioux), Ph.o.e,“To Breathe,”(Hebrew), Phusa-o,“To Breathe,”(Greek.)[pg 163]Want of space, and the extensive nature of the evidence contained in Appendix A, alone deter me from greatly multiplying these examples.2. As regards Grammatical forms:Nothing can be more erroneous than the inference that the North American Indian dialects differ in this respect from those of Asia and Europe. In the previous comparison numerous examples present themselves in which the same words unequivocally exhibit at once both the roots and the inflections of words belonging to the languages termed Indo-European, as inPatam-awan,Patam-awos,Kis-ina,M. huk,Mok-um,Khe-cush,Nimp-amino, &c.!These are not isolated instances. I do not hesitate to affirm that it may be shown by means of the very terms he has selected for examination, that those North American Indian dialects which Du Ponceau has analyzed, abound in similar examples! That the same remark is true with regard to the dialects of the Western Tribes described by Mr. Catlin, is a proposition which will now be illustrated in a remarkable instance!Among the tribes with whom he resided this writer has especially noticed a highly interesting sept, the Mandans, in whose dialect he has pointed out a variety of instances of close resemblance to the Welsh, which he has left to the judgment of those who are conversant with that language. On this subject I conceive there cannot be any difference of opinion among those who are vernacularly acquainted with the venerable tongue of the Cymry. Of the Mandan terms selected by Mr. Catlin (which are subjoined below), the majority must be admitted to present plain and unequivocal features of resemblance, or rather of identity, to the equivalent Welsh terms.[pg 164]Now, it will be seen that of these147examples of affinity the greater number consist of terms which belong exclusively to the province of Grammar!English.Mandan.Welsh.Other Asiatic And European Languages.I.Me.Me.Me (LatinandEng.), Eme (Greek.)You.Ne.Chwe.Nee, (Chinese.)He.E.E.E.ee.a, E.ou.e, or E.v.e,“He, She, It,”(Heb.)She.Ea.E, Hee.Ea,“She,”(Latin.)It.Ount.Hooyant,“They”(Plural.)148Onuh,“It, Him, Her,”(Turkish.)They.Eonah, (Onúh ha, Honúh ha,“They,”Iroquois Dialects.Nhou,“They,”Hyny,“Those.”E.n.e,“They,”(Hebrew), Oona,“They,”also“He, She, It,”(Mixed Indian Dialects of Asia.)Ainah, Ont, Ent, (Endings of the third person plural of Indo-European Verbs.)149We.Noo.Nee.Nōi (Greek), Nou, Nc'hnou (Hebrew.)No, or, There is not.Megosh.150Nagoes, Nage.Head.Pan.Pen.The Great Spirit.Maho peneta.Mawr151Penaether Yysprid Mawr.[pg 165]By some of our countrymen it has been sanguinely maintained that the descendants of a body of Welsh, who left their country under Prince Madoc in the twelfth century, may be still traced by affinities of language among the North American Indian Tribes. Struck by the resemblances he has detected, Mr. Catlin has been led to favour the same conclusion, and to suggest that the Mandans may probably be shown to be the descendants of the lost Cambrian Colony!But the examples selected by this writer, however creditable to his accuracy and research, do not tend, as he suggests, to prove the existence of a specific connexion between the Welsh and the Mandans! This will be evident from the words contained in the right-hand column (which have been added by the author of this work). An examination of the whole comparison will serve to show clearly, that though in most of the instances he has noticed the resemblance displayed by the Mandan to the Welsh is a close one, in many of them it displays an equally close affinity to the Latin and Greek, &c., while in some—this North American Indian dialect totally differs from the Welsh tongue, and at the same time agrees with—other languages of the Old World. Many of those examples which precede the Comparison are also illustrations of the principle that the Mandan, like other North American Indian dialects, exhibits a general resemblance to all, and not a specific relation to any one of the Asiatic and European tongues. Thus Khe cush,“Bad,”which is identical with the Greek, but is totally unlike the Welsh, is a Mandan word!The prevalent theory, that there exists a group of Indo-European languages and nations—peculiarly connected among themselves—peculiarly isolated from others—will, I conceive, be found to be fallacious; and what is highly remarkable, distinct proofs of its fallacy, as will presently be seen, are derivable from the dialects of the North American Tribes![pg 166]The writers by whom this theory has been maintained have overlooked, on the one hand, the numerous points of resemblance which connect the Indo-European languages with other Tongues; while, on the other hand, they have also overlooked the numerous points of difference which they mutually display. On a close investigation it will be evident that it is only in the basis of their Grammars that any of the ancient languages of Asia and Europe, even those which are very nearly related, agree; they do not display an identity of Grammatical forms! Compare, for example, the inflections of the Verbs in the Latin and the Greek, and the numerous points of difference which they exhibit in almost every tense, combined with mere partial coincidences. That these remarks are equally true of the relation displayed by the North American Indian dialects compared to those of the Old World will be apparent from the following examples, in which it will be manifest that these dialects in their basis agree with, and in their inflections and details only partially differ from, the Asiatic and European languages!Present Tense of a Verb in two Dialects of the Algonquyn Class.“Chippeway”Dialect.“Lenni Lenape”Dialect.(Root)Nond—“Understand.”(Root)Pend—“Understand.”152Singular.Singular.N'-nond-OM.N'-pend-AMEN.“I understand.”“I understand.”K'-nond-OM.K'-pend-AMEN.“Thou understand-est.”“Thou understand-est.”---- -Nond-om.---- -Pend-amen.“He understand-s.”“He understand-s.”Plural.Plural.N'-nond-AM-IN.N'-pend-AMEN-EEN.“We understand.”“We understand.”K'-nond-AM.K'-pend-AM-OHUMO.“Ye understand.”“Ye understand.”---Nond-UM-ÔG.---Pend-AMEN-OWO.“They understand.”“They understand.”It will be observed that the inflections of the Algonquyn Verb, indicative of persons (corresponding to those in Leg-o, Leg-is, Leg-it,Latin), are“Om and Amen.”In another form of the Algonquyn Verb,“Amo”is also used.These forms,“Om, Amo, Amen,”are the common inflections of the first person in all the Indo-European languages. (See Dr. Prichard on the Eastern Origin of the Celtic Nations, pp. 130, 136.) In the North American Indian dialects it will be seen that they occur in all the three persons. There are instances of the same kind in the Indo-European Tongues for the Doric Greek Infinitive as in Poth-emen-ai,“To desire,”and the Greek Passive Participle as in Tupt-omen-os, Tupt-omen-e,“Struck,”are examples of the application of“Amen or Omen”to any individual of the Human Race, in other words,to all the three persons!This inflection“Amen”exists in the Tartar dialects in the first person, as in Bol-amen,“I am,”Bol-asin,“Thou art,”&c.The following are examples of its use for the first person in the Greek:Singular.Plural.Amen, used as an Inflection for“I.”Amen, used as an Inflection for“We.”E-tupt-omēn,“I was struck.”Tupt-omen,“We strike.”Tupt-oi-mēn,“Would that I were struck.”Ē-mēn,“I had been.”Ē-men,“We were.”[pg 168]These examples will serve to illustrate the proposition that in inflections and other grammatical details the North American Indian dialects partially coincide with individual Indo-European languages in the same manner as those languages partially agree among themselves! It remains to be pointed out that where these two groups of tongues differ, the differences are such as time might have produced, and that they have the same basis in common.“Om, Amo, Amen,”are according to Dr. Prichard, pronouns confused with the verb. It is an interesting fact, that“Amo”153is actually used as the separate pronoun of the third person“He”in the dialect of the“Blackfeet,”one of the N. American Indian Tribes to the west of the Mississippi visited by Mr. Catlin! Now, as all pronouns were originally154nouns, names for a“Human Being,”(see p.13,) words of this class must have been in the first instance applied indifferently to all the three Persons. But in the course of time—1, In some languages different nouns were appropriated to different Persons,—the most common noun being applied to the First; (this accounts for the occurrence of“Amo Om Amen,”probably forms of the most primitive155noun—in the first Person of the Indo-European languages!)—2, In other tongues supplementary pronouns were used to mark the requisite distinction of Persons, the most common nouns being still used agreeably[pg 169]to previous habit,—(though no longer of practical service)—in combination with the verb; (this is the case in the Algonquyn dialects in which the same inflection is repeated in all the three persons, and the requisite distinction of persons is made by means of pronoun prefixes or supplementary pronouns, a distinction which, in the Greek, &c., is made by varying the final inflections or original pronouns, as in“Tupt-oi-mēn, Tupt-oi-o,”&c.)156The pronoun prefixes of these North American Indian dialects, which as previously intimated, are common to the Welsh and the Hebrew, and other Semetic tongues remain to be noticed.Algonquyn Pronoun Prefixes.(See previous specimens of Algonquyn Verbs.)N'“I”and“We.”This is an abbreviated form used in conjunction with the verb as a prefix. The pronoun in full is Ni Nin“I,”Ninou“We.”Both the pronoun itself and the abbreviated form in which it is used as a prefix, occur in the Hebrew in which the latter is used as a suffix!This Algonquyn pronoun is identical with an Algonquyn word for“A Man,”which, it will be observed, renders the proofs of affinity between the Semetic and Algonquyn dialects in this instance complete.[pg 170]Algonquyn.Semetic.Welsh.“Man.”“I,”or“Me.”“I,”or“Me.”Anini.157A.nee, (Heb.) A.n.a, (Arabic.)Innai.Ini.Innai.N-nin.“I,”or“Me.”Nin.Ni.158Nee, (Heb.)N'.“We.”“We.”“We.”A.n.ou, A.n.c'h.n.ou.Ni.Nin-ou.N.c'h.n.ou, (Heb.)Nyni.Nin-owin.N.h.h.n, (Arabic.)Nyninnou.K',“Thou”and“Ye.”159This is also an abbreviation, the Pronoun in full is Ki, K-in, K-il,“Thou;”Kin-owa, and Kil-ou,“Ye.”Algonquyn.Semetic.Welsh.“Thou, Thine.”“Thee, Thy.”K'.C'. (Heb.)Kee.C'.ee. (Heb.)“Ye, Yours.”“Ye.”K'.Ki.Chwi.Ki-nowa.C-oun. C-n. (Chald.) C-m. (Heb.)Kil-ou.[pg 171]Du Ponceau notices another grammatical feature in which it is clear, though he was unconscious of that fact, that these North American Indian dialects form a connecting link between the Semetic and Indo-European languages.“We find,”he observes,“many Nouns substantive with M prefixed in such a way as to form an integral part of the words.”This is a Semetic mode of forming a Noun from a Root! In Latin, Nouns are formed from Roots by the same Letter placed at the end of words, as in Regn-um, a mode of which we have also had an example in the Algonquyn dialects, in the words M'-huk, Mok-um!Where long intervals of time have elapsed, it is in all cases difficult to discriminate between the proofs of a general and remote, and those of a near and specific relation. Still I conceive the previous examples tend, in some measure, to render it probable that there is a closer affinity between the North American Indians and the inhabitants of Northern Asia and of Europe, especially the Russians, Hungarians, and other nations located in its Northern and Western Regions, than exists between these American Septs and the inhabitants of Southern Asia. Should this proposition be confirmed by further investigation, it will be found to be in unison with Adelung's conclusion, that the route by which the first Colonists of Europe came from Central Asia lay through the Steppes which separate the Chinese and Russian Empires. The Nomade Hordes of these vast plains,—the great“Officina Gentium,”—were probably the parent Septs of all or most of the European nations on the one hand, and of the populations of the North-east of Asia and of the opposite American coasts on the other![pg 172]Of the general proposition, that the American Tribes and the Nations of the Old World are descended from the same Parent Stock, I conceive the evidence adduced in the previous pages will be deemed to be conclusive.[pg ApA001]

Chapter VI. On The Chinese Language.High Antiquity of the Chinese Empire and Remains discredited by Sir William Jones and Adelung. But the Differences between the Chinese Language and those of Western Asia more ancient than the peculiarities which distinguish the African Languages from those of Europe and Western Asia. These Differences not fundamental. Identity of the Chinese with the Hebrew and with the English and other European Languages, &c.Adelung, like Sir William Jones before him, quite discredits the supposed antiquity of the Chinese Empire and the claims set up by the Chinese to a high and ancient civilization. The Great Wall, said by their historians to have been built 240 yearsb.c., is not mentioned by early writers, especially Marco Polo, who visited China from the West in 1270. He regards the scientific knowledge of the Chinese as inferior to that of several adjoining nations, and Confucius's morality as nothing better than a medley of sound opinions, such as any man of strong sense might have compiled! The materials of their paper are so frail that it is impossible any of their MSS. can be very ancient, and in the fidelity or[pg 148]knowledge of their Transcribers he places no confidence! Finally, he views the infantine character of their language, a feature in which the Chinese are inferior to the wildest American tribes, as forming in itself a proof of the absence of a high culture, to which, he maintains, it constitutes an almost insuperable obstacle.On the other hand, unfavorable as its characteristics are to the supposed antiquity and extent of their civilization, he nevertheless considers these very peculiarities of their language in the light of decisive proofs of the high antiquity of the Chinese nation, viewed simply as a distinct branch of the human race.In the last chapter were discussed the peculiarities of structure which distinguish the Egyptian and Semetic tongues from those of the Indo-European class; peculiarities which were shown to consist, not in a fundamental difference of elements, but simply in various conventional arrangements of the same elements. This explanation will now be proved to apply also to the characteristics which distinguish the Chinese from the principal Asiatic and European languages, with this qualification however, that these characteristics, as contrasted with those of other classes of tongues, imply a separation from a parent stock at a much earlier era in the history of the human species than those which have been noticed in the last chapter, as distinguishing the Indo-European, Semetic, and Egyptian languages respectively.According to Adelung's lucid analysis, the following are the principal steps by which language is formed. 1. The first words are vowels, or sounds produced simply by the opening of the mouth and the emission of the breath. 2. Next in order are monosyllables, consisting of a vowel and a consonant preceding, as in P-a. 3. Arise monosyllables, formed of a vowel between two or more consonants,[pg 149]as in P-a-p. 4. Lastly are constructed polysyllabic words, formed by a combination into one word of two or more of the monosyllabic terms.The African, American,129European, and all the Asiatic languages, with the exception of those spoken in China and the contiguous countries of the south-west of Asia, display a consummation of all these four stages. The Chinese exhibits results of the first and second steps of the series only. In other words, the Chinese may be described not simply as a languagepurely monosyllabic, but as one in which themonosyllables are of the most elementary and infantine character, viz., those which consist of one consonant and a vowel(as inPa). They have no words which have a second consonant, as inP-a-p.Having no polysyllables, the Chinese supply their place by a minute variety in their vowel sounds. They have no grammar:130the same word is at once an adjective, a substantive, and a verb! Affixes and suffixes, such as occur in give, giv-er, gif-t, are unknown. The modifications of meaning these forms convey are expressed either by altering the position of the words or by additional terms. The plural is the same as the singular; though, to avoid obscurity, in extreme cases the clumsy expedient of repetition is resorted to, as in Tschin-tschin,“Man-man”(i.e. Men); or distinct words indicative of number are prefixed, such as Muen,“Many,”Tschung,“All!”It was the opinion of Adelung that the Chinese language differed not merely in its structure, but in its elements, from the other languages of the human race. He supposed this nation to have sprung from the same stock as those of western[pg 150]Asia. But their speech he conceives to have been constructed after the separation.The peculiar monosyllabic structure of the Chinese seems to justify the conclusion, that the nations of Europe and western Asia are more nearly allied in descent to the Negro tribes of the interior of Africa and to the Indian tribes of America than they are to the Chinese and the nations of the contiguous countries of the south-west of Asia. But that Adelung's conclusion, that the Chinese is a radically distinct tongue is an erroneous one will now be shown by examples, to which thepeculiar structure of that language will only serve to give additional131force; for while in most of the following examples the words compared are essentially the same, the Chinese monosyllables being identical with Hebrew or European monosyllables, or with terms which partake of that character, in other instances it will be found that the differences which occur have been caused solely by the addition of the characteristic suffixes and affixes of the polysyllabic languages, which are not used in the Chinese! Thus we have Mu,“A Mouse,”(Chin.,) Mū-s, Mu-os, Mu (Greek), the root in the latter being the same as in the former; Fo and Foo Tsin,“A Fa-ther,”(Chin.,) Moo and Moo Tsin,“A Mo-ther,”(Chin.)I shall commence these examples with the Chinese pronouns, most of which are absolutely identical with those of the polysyllabic languages. This branch of the comparison will serve to place in a striking point of view the erroneous nature of the opinion generally received among philologists, that nations which agree are necessarily more nearly allied than those which differ132in their grammatical forms, the Chinese being found in this respect to agree in an unequivocal manner[pg 151]with the kindred English and German, in some of those very points in which they mutually differ widely!Pronouns of the First Person,“I”and“We.”—Ngan, Ngoo Ngo,“I”and“We,”(Chinese.) Iōnga, Egōn,“I,”(Greek.)Pronouns of the Second Person,“Thou”and“Ye.”—Irr,“Thou”and“Ye,”(Chinese.) Ihr,“Ye,”(German.) Yú, Yŏh,“Thou”and“Ye,”(Chinese.) You,“Ye,”(English.) Yō (Provincial English). Eoh (Anglo-Saxon),“Ye.”Nee, Nai, Nyú,“Thou”and“Ye,”(Chinese.) Ne,“You,”(Mandans, a North American Tribe.)In these instances the English“You”and the German“Ihr”differ totally. Moreover, in each language separately considered the plural differs altogether from the singular, which in German is expressed by“Du,”and in the English by“Thou.”The Chinese, which uses these terms,“Ihr”and“You,”conjointly and in both numbers, furnishes a satisfactory clue to these anomalies!Pronouns of the Third Person.—E.e,“He,”“She,”“It,”(Chinese.) E.ee.a, E.v.e, (Hebrew.) He, masculine, (English.) He, feminine, (Welsh.)—Peé,“He,”“She,”“It,”also“That,”(Chinese.) Phe, Ph,“This,”“That,”(Hebrew.) Pha or Pe, the article“The,”(Egypt.)Specimens of Chinese Words, identical with equivalent Terms in the Languages of Europe and Western Asia, &c.Keuen,“A Dog,”(Chinese), Kuōn (Greek), Coun (Plural,Welsh), Can-is (Latin).—Ma,“A Horse,”(Chinese), Morin Mantschu), Mä-hre (German), Ma-re (English), Ma-rch (Welsh.)—Mu,“A Mouse,”(Chinese), Mu-s, Mu-os Mu[pg 152](Greek), Mu-s (Latin.)—Lung,133“A Wolf,”(Chinese), Lukon (Greek), Lloun-og,“A Fox,”(Welsh.)—Ioanģ, Iong, Io,“A Sheep,”(Chinese), Oin (Greek), Oen,“A Lamb,”(Welsh), Oi, Ai, Yi (Irish.)Foò“A Father,”Moo“A Mother;”also Foò Tsin“A Father,”and Moó Tsin“A Mother.”Tsin means“A Relation,”(Chinese.) The equivalent terms in the English and other Gothic dialects consist of the Chinese root, and a distinct suffix (answering the purpose of the separate Chinese word Tsin.) Fä-der (Anglo-Saxon), Fa-ther (English), Fa-ter (German), Mo-ther, (English), Mua-ter (Old high German.)134Nan and Yin,“A Man,”(Chinese.) Ninetz,“Men,”their national name, (Samoieds.) Ninnee Inin,“A Man,”(Algonquyn Dialects of N. America.)Nan“A Son,”(Chinese,) N.n [Parturio] (Heb.)—Neang,“A young Lady,”(Chinese,) Non (Mantschu,) Nonn-us (Lat.,) Nun,“Tender,”(Chinese.)—Nyu,“A Daughter,”(Chinese,) Nea, Feminine,“Young,”[Juvenis] (Greek,) New (Eng.)—Chan,“To produce, bear,”(Chinese,) Gen-i (Welsh,) Genn-ao (Greek.)—Chuen,“A Boat, or Ship,”(Chinese,) Kahn (Ger.,) Cymba (Latin,) Kumbī (Greek.)Chuy,“To blow, The Breath,”(Chinese,) Chwa (Welsh.)—Fe,“Fat,”(Chinese), Fe-tt (German,) Fa-t (English.)—Ho,“Fire,”(Chinese,) Ho-t (English.) These words Ho-t and Fe-tt seem to have been regularly formed as past participles from Ho and Fe, the roots preserved in the Chinese.—Hoo,[pg 153]“To escort,”(Chinese,) Hü-ten (Ger.)—Fan,“To subvert, Contrary,”(Chinese,) Ph.n.e, [To turn, turn out] (Hebrew,) Fun,“To divide,”(Chinese,) Fun do, Fin do (Latin.)—Gan,“Favor,”(Chinese,) Gönn-en, Gun-st (German,) Gynn a (Swedish,) c'H.n (Hebrew.)—Gaou,“Proud,”(Chinese,) Ga, Ga.ou.e, Ga.ee.oun (Hebrew) Gang“Lofty,”Ge“The Forehead,”Ke“To rise,”Ka.ou“High,”(Chinese,) Ga-e,“To rise,”(Heb.)—Kang,“More,”(Chinese,) Chwaneg (Welsh.)—Hae,“A large River, The Sea,”(Chinese,) Aa (Icelandic,) Eia (Ang.-Sax.,) Wy (Welsh.)—Heuen,“To explain,”Heaou“To understand,”Heo“To learn,”(Chinese,) c'Hou.e“To show, explain, declare,”(Hebrew,) He-ar (Eng.)—Hwō,“Living,”(Chinese) c'Hee.a, E.ou.e (Hebrew.)—Kwae,“Prompt, active,”(Chinese,) Chwae (Welsh.)—Kia“A Family,”Kiwo“A Nation,”(Chinese,) Kiw (Welsh,) Gou.e (Heb.)—Keen,“To see,”135(Chinese), Ken (English,) Kee,“And,”(Chinese,) Kai (Greek and Algonquyn Tribes of N. America,) King“To respect,”(Chinese,) Kun-ēō (Greek,) Kwăn,“Fatigued,”(Chin.,) Gwan (Welsh.)—Laou,“Labour,”(Chinese,) La.e (Hebrew), La-bor (Latin.)—Mae,“To buy,”(Chinese,) Emo (Latin.)—Lo,“Green,”(Chinese,) L.c'he, (Hebrew.)—Leo,“Small,”Lu, (Irish,) Low (English.)—Muen,“Many,”(Chinese,) Many (English.)—Yaou Yo,“To will, desire,”(Chinese,) Aeō (Greek,) Aveo (Lat.)—Meen,“To dispose,”(Chinese,) M.n.e (Hebrew.)—Mien,“The Face,”(Chinese,) Mine (French,) Mien (English.)—Pew,“Spotted Tiger,”(Chinese,) Pie [Colour] (English,) Pei,“To receive,”(Chinese,) Piai,“To possess,”(Welsh.)—Pin,“Poor,”Penuria (Latin.)—Sae,“To agitate,”(Chinese,) Sway (English.)—Saou,“A Brush,”(Chinese,) Shoue,“To rub,”(Hebrew.)—Scun,“To inspect,”(Chinese,) Sehen (German.)—Sha,“To[pg 154]kill,”(Chinese,) Sha.e (Hebrew.)—Shen,“Good, Pious,”(Chinese,) Sanctus (Latin,) Shin,“A Spirit, God,”(Chinese.)—Shing,“To ascend,”(Chinese,) Scan-deo (Latin.)—Shwa,“To sport, Play,”(Chinese,) Sho sho (Hebrew,) Soo,“To number,”(Chinese,) Shou e (Hebrew.)—Sung,“To present to,”(Chinese,) Schenk-en (German.)—Sing,“A Star,”(Chinese,) Schein-en,“To shine,”(German,) Sun (English.)—Yun,“Fog, Cloud,”Ying,“Shadow,”Wan,“Evening,”(Chinese,) On.n,“A Cloud, To cloud over,”(Hebrew.)—Wang,“To hope.”(Chinese,) Chwannawg,“Desirous,”(Welsh.)—We,“Taste,”(Chinese,) Chwae-th (Welsh.)[pg 155]Chapter VII. On The Origin Of The American Tribes.Identity of the American Tribes with the Nations of the other Continents. High Mental and Moral qualities of the North American Indians. Views of Cooper, Du Ponceau, and Catlin. Clear nature of the proofs derivable from Language of the Identity of the N. A. Indians with the European and Asiatic Nations. Catlin's views as to the Identity of the Mandans, a Tribe of N. A. Indians, with the Welsh. Union in the Dialects of the N. A. Indians, of Greek, and other Indo-European and Tartar Inflections, with the Pronouns of the Hebrew and the Welsh. Close Approximation of these Dialects to the Greek and other European Tongues, and to the Languages of the North of Europe and Asia.That the Tribes of the American Continent are descended from the same stock as the Asiatic and European nations is a proposition with respect to which the evidence contained in Appendix A must, I conceive, be felt to be conclusive when combined with Dr. Prichard's proofs that the Physiology of the Human race in different countries is the result of climate and other external agencies. As regards the mental and moral qualities of the native American nations, there seems to be no solid ground for the inference maintained in some[pg 156]quarters that they are a different, because in these respects an inferior, race. It is impossible to peruse Mr. Catlin's living picture of the manners and social habits of the North American Indians without being deeply impressed with the conviction that these Tribes, both intellectually and morally, are as highly gifted by nature as those nations who have inherited the blessings of a refined civilization. That the same remark applies to the more Southern American populations, such as the Mexicans and Peruvians, may be shown by an appeal to numerous considerations. In this place, however, I shall confine my observations to the Septs generally termed North American Indians, the original inhabitants of the United States and the regions in the same latitude. This race of men has been thus described in a celebrated work of fiction, which owes its chief interest to the vivid portraiture it exhibits of Indian life and manners.136“It is generally believed that the Aborigines of the American continent have had an Asiatic origin. There are many physical as well as moral facts which corroborate this opinion, and some few that would seem to weigh against it.“The colour of the Indian, the writer believes, is peculiar to himself, and while his cheek-bones have a very striking indication of a Tartar origin, his eyes have not. Climate may have had great influence on the former, but it is difficult to see how it can have produced the substantial difference which exists in the latter. The imagery of the Indian, both in his poetry and his oratory, is Oriental, chastened, and perhaps improved, by the limited range of his practical knowledge. He draws his metaphors from the clouds, the seasons, the birds, the beasts, and the vegetable world. In this, perhaps, he does no more than any other energetic and imaginative race would do, being compelled[pg 157]to set bounds to his fancy by experience; but the North American Indian clothes his ideas in a dress that is so different from that of the African for instance, and so Oriental in itself as to be remarked. His language, too, has the richness and sententious fulness of the Chinese. He will express a phrase in a word, and he will qualify the meaning of an entire sentence by a syllable; he will even convey different significations by the simplest inflections of the voice.“Philologists who have devoted much time to the study, have said that there were but two or three languages, properly speaking, among all the numerous tribes which formerly occupied the country that now composes the United States. They ascribe the known difficulty one people have in understanding one another to corruptions and dialects.“The writer remembers to have been present at an interview between two chiefs of the Great Prairies west of the Mississippi, and when an interpreter was in attendance who spoke both their languages. The warriors appeared to be on the most friendly terms, and seemingly conversed much together, yet, according to the account of the interpreter, each was absolutely ignorant of what the other said. They were of hostile tribes, brought together by the influence of the American Government; and it is worthy of remark that a common policy led them both to adopt the same subject. They mutually exhorted each other to be of use in the event of the chance of war throwing either of the parties into the hands of his enemies. Whatever may be the truth, as respects the root and the genius of the Indian tongues, it is quite certain they are now so distinct in their words as to possess most of the disadvantages of strange languages; hence much of the embarrassment that has arisen in learning their histories, and most of the uncertainty which exists in their traditions.”[pg 158]The traits of character embodied in this passage are not those of an inferior, but of a highly acute and imaginative race!The Philological objections to the proposition that the North American Tribes are of Asiatic origin have by many writers been regarded as insuperable. Du Ponceau, who has given profound attention to the subject, dwells, 1, On the differences in words among the American languages themselves; 2, On the failure which he imputes to those writers who have attempted to identify the Indians with some one individual Asiatic nation, as the Chinese, the Tartars, or the Jews, &c.; and 3, On the differences in the Grammars of the North American dialects and those of the languages of the Old World, which he treats as a conclusive refutation of all arguments in favour of original unity! Mr. Catlin also lays great stress on the first of these considerations, viz. the great differences he found in the words of the dialects of the Tribes he visited.To every one of these objections the general principles developed in the previous pages will be found to involve a complete answer. 1. The differences apparently fundamental in the words of American languages may be accounted for in the same manner as similar differences in the languages of the old world (the Gothic and Celtic for example,) have already been explained, viz. by the tendency to abandon different synonymes. 2. That attempts to prove a close specific relation between the North American dialects and any one Asiatic language, such as the Chinese or the Hebrew, should have failed, was to be expected as a consequence of the same tendency. 3. Finally, differences of Grammar have been shown to be fallacious evidence viewed separately and without due regard to other features of language.137Moreover, it will[pg 159]presently appear clearly that, even as regards the Grammar of the Indian Dialects, Du Ponceau's impressions can be distinctly proved to be erroneous, an extended comparison serving to render manifest the interesting fact that, as respects the elements of Grammar, these dialects perfectly agree with the Asiatic and European languages, while in the mode of combining those elements, they do not differ from those languages more widely than the latter differ among themselves.If the ancestors of the American Indians emigrated at a remote period from the opposite Asiatic Coasts, we have no right to anticipate in their dialects a complete conformity to any one language of the old world, but general and varying features of resemblance to several. The kindred dialects of the same Continent after the lapse of a considerable time do not exhibit any other kind of resemblance! Now this is the species of relation which the North American Indian dialects actually display when compared to the Languages of the Old World!The chief examples which I have selected as illustrations of this proposition have been taken from the Algonquyn dialects, the very class examined by Du Ponceau himself, to which I have added a few corroborative instances from those of the tribes of the regions to the west of the Mississippi which have been lately described by Mr. Catlin. The dialects termed Algonquyn by Du Ponceau were formerly spoken by numerous tribes who, though not the sole inhabitants, were originally spread through the whole of the present territory of the United States, including the“Lenni Lenapé,”the“Chippeways,”and other powerful septs.With regard to this class of Indian Dialects I propose to show: 1. That as regards Words they bear a close resemblance to a great variety of Asiatic and European languages. 2. That their grammatical peculiarities, in like manner, combine[pg 160]those of various languages of the Old World, as in the instance of their Verbs and Pronouns, in which the inflections of the Greek and other Indo-European Tongues are found united with separate Pronouns identical with those common to the Welsh on the one hand and the Hebrew and its kindred Semetic dialects on the other.Words from the North American Indian Dialects of the Algonquyn Class compared with analogous Terms in Asiatic and European Languages.Man ittou,“The Deity, a Spirit,”(Ind.,138) Mouno he ka,“Ghosts,”(Mandan,139) Manes,“The Spirits of the Dead,”(Latin,) Manus,“The Mind,”(Sanscrit,) Mēn,“The Mind,”(Greek,) Mens, Ment-is (Latin), Pata-maw-os,“The Deity,”from Pata-maw-an,“To adore,”(Ind.,) Poth-ēmenai,“To seek, or pray to,”(Doric,) for Poth-ein (Greek), Peton,“To worship,”Peta,“A Prayer,”(Old High German,) Bet-en, Bitte (German); see, as to N'iou and Nioueskou, two remarkable words for“The Deity,”(Ind.,) pages22,23,24. For names of the Heavenly Bodies, seeAppendix A.“Father,”Ooch, Oss (Ind.), Ozha (Sclavon.), Otze (Dalmatian), Wosch (Lusatian), Otzie (Bohemian), Nosa (Ind.), Niza, Niesee (Samoieds).“Mother,”Anna (Ind.), Ana (Turkish), Anya (Hungarian), Nanna (Ind.), Nain140(Welsh), Ningé (Ind.), Naing (Irish), Nik, Nêkaoui (Ind.), N.k.be141(Hebrew).“A Woman,”Panum, Phanem (Ind.), Banen (Cornish), Been (Welsh), Pin,“A Female,”applied to animals, (Chinese.)[pg 161]“A Girl,”Kan-isswah (Ind.), Gen eez (Pers.), Nunk-shoué, Nunk142(Ind.), Neang (Chin.), Non (Mantschu).“Husband,”Nap-é, Nap eem (Ind.), Nub-o, Nuptiæ (Lat.), Nuptials (Eng.)—“Husband,”Weew-ehsa, Wasuk (Ind.),“Wife,”Weewo, Weowika (Ind.),“Marriage,”Wiwaha (Sanscrit), Wife (Eng.)“A little Child,”Awusk, Awash ish (Ind.),“A Child,”Watsah (Sanscrit),“Young,”Wuski (Ind.),“A Youth,”Was or Gwas (Welsh).“High,”Hockunk (Ind.), Hoch, Höhe, Hoheit (German), High, Height (Eng.), Hitké143(Iroquois).“The Earth,”Hacki, Ki, Ackour (Ind.), Ge (Greek), Ager (Latin), Agr-os (Greek).“Foot,”Sit (Ind.), St.o,“I stand,”(Latin).“Good,”Wuilit (Ind.), Wohl (Ger.), Weal, Well, Wealth (Eng.), Ee.o.l,“To profit, benefit,”(Hebrew).“To fight,”Pachg-amen144(Ind.), P.g.ee (Heb.), Pug-no (Latin).“To give,”Mekan (Ind.), M.gn (Hebrew).“Night,”Nukon (Ind.), Nux (Greek), Nox (Latin), Noc (Polish), Noc (Hungarian).“Blood,”M'huk, Mokum (Ind.), Mucum, Mucus (Latin).“Cold,”Kisina (Ind.), Kuisne,“Ice,”(Irish,) K.sh.a,“To harden, stiffen,”“A Cucumber,145from its cooling properties,”(Hebrew).“Sleep,”Nipu, Nip-awin,“To sleep,”Nupp (Ind.), Nap (Eng.), Hup-nos (Greek), Nim pamino,“I sleep,”(Ind.), N.m., N.ou.m.e (Hebrew).[pg 162]“To touch,”Aman damaog-an (Ind.), Man-us (Latin).“Man,”Nin (Ind.), Ninetz“Men,”(Samoieds,) a diminutive race in the North-east of Asia. The national name they have given to themselves is the above word, Ninetz“Men.”I shall add a few further illustrations from the specimens of the languages of the Indian Tribes to the West of the United States, which have been published by Mr. Catlin.“Spirits, Ghosts,”Mouno he ka (Mandan,)—and see above, Manitto,“A Spirit,”(Ind.)—Manes,“The Spirits of the Dead,”(Latin).“Bad,”Khe cush (Mandan), Kakos (Greek).“A Bear,”Mah to (Mandan), Matto (Sioux), Medve (Hungarian), Medvid (Sclavonian), Metzwetz (Lusatian), Koonoghk (Riccaree), Chiung (Chinese).“Dog,”Shonka (Riccaree), Shunah (Sanscrit), Shun (Armenian), A meeteh (Blackfeet), Meda (Taraikai,North-east of Asia), Madaidh (Irish).“A Raven,”Kaka (Mandan), To kah ka (Riccaree), Kaka (Sanscrit).“River,”Pass ahah (Mandan). See Appendix A. p.78.“Ears,”Ookah nay146(Tuskaroras), Ucho (Sclavonian), Ochtowaga (Shawannos), Ohto kiss (Blackfeet), Ōta (Greek.) See p.73, Appendix A.“Hand,”Onka (Mandan.) See Appendix, page69. Ohahna (Tuskaroras.) See Appendix, p.68.“Head,”Otahra (Tuskaroras), Otri (Ashantees Negroes), Utieri (Aminas Negroes.)“Nose,”Pahoo (Mandan), Pei Pi (Chinese), Pah.soo (Sioux), Ph.o.e,“To Breathe,”(Hebrew), Phusa-o,“To Breathe,”(Greek.)[pg 163]Want of space, and the extensive nature of the evidence contained in Appendix A, alone deter me from greatly multiplying these examples.2. As regards Grammatical forms:Nothing can be more erroneous than the inference that the North American Indian dialects differ in this respect from those of Asia and Europe. In the previous comparison numerous examples present themselves in which the same words unequivocally exhibit at once both the roots and the inflections of words belonging to the languages termed Indo-European, as inPatam-awan,Patam-awos,Kis-ina,M. huk,Mok-um,Khe-cush,Nimp-amino, &c.!These are not isolated instances. I do not hesitate to affirm that it may be shown by means of the very terms he has selected for examination, that those North American Indian dialects which Du Ponceau has analyzed, abound in similar examples! That the same remark is true with regard to the dialects of the Western Tribes described by Mr. Catlin, is a proposition which will now be illustrated in a remarkable instance!Among the tribes with whom he resided this writer has especially noticed a highly interesting sept, the Mandans, in whose dialect he has pointed out a variety of instances of close resemblance to the Welsh, which he has left to the judgment of those who are conversant with that language. On this subject I conceive there cannot be any difference of opinion among those who are vernacularly acquainted with the venerable tongue of the Cymry. Of the Mandan terms selected by Mr. Catlin (which are subjoined below), the majority must be admitted to present plain and unequivocal features of resemblance, or rather of identity, to the equivalent Welsh terms.[pg 164]Now, it will be seen that of these147examples of affinity the greater number consist of terms which belong exclusively to the province of Grammar!English.Mandan.Welsh.Other Asiatic And European Languages.I.Me.Me.Me (LatinandEng.), Eme (Greek.)You.Ne.Chwe.Nee, (Chinese.)He.E.E.E.ee.a, E.ou.e, or E.v.e,“He, She, It,”(Heb.)She.Ea.E, Hee.Ea,“She,”(Latin.)It.Ount.Hooyant,“They”(Plural.)148Onuh,“It, Him, Her,”(Turkish.)They.Eonah, (Onúh ha, Honúh ha,“They,”Iroquois Dialects.Nhou,“They,”Hyny,“Those.”E.n.e,“They,”(Hebrew), Oona,“They,”also“He, She, It,”(Mixed Indian Dialects of Asia.)Ainah, Ont, Ent, (Endings of the third person plural of Indo-European Verbs.)149We.Noo.Nee.Nōi (Greek), Nou, Nc'hnou (Hebrew.)No, or, There is not.Megosh.150Nagoes, Nage.Head.Pan.Pen.The Great Spirit.Maho peneta.Mawr151Penaether Yysprid Mawr.[pg 165]By some of our countrymen it has been sanguinely maintained that the descendants of a body of Welsh, who left their country under Prince Madoc in the twelfth century, may be still traced by affinities of language among the North American Indian Tribes. Struck by the resemblances he has detected, Mr. Catlin has been led to favour the same conclusion, and to suggest that the Mandans may probably be shown to be the descendants of the lost Cambrian Colony!But the examples selected by this writer, however creditable to his accuracy and research, do not tend, as he suggests, to prove the existence of a specific connexion between the Welsh and the Mandans! This will be evident from the words contained in the right-hand column (which have been added by the author of this work). An examination of the whole comparison will serve to show clearly, that though in most of the instances he has noticed the resemblance displayed by the Mandan to the Welsh is a close one, in many of them it displays an equally close affinity to the Latin and Greek, &c., while in some—this North American Indian dialect totally differs from the Welsh tongue, and at the same time agrees with—other languages of the Old World. Many of those examples which precede the Comparison are also illustrations of the principle that the Mandan, like other North American Indian dialects, exhibits a general resemblance to all, and not a specific relation to any one of the Asiatic and European tongues. Thus Khe cush,“Bad,”which is identical with the Greek, but is totally unlike the Welsh, is a Mandan word!The prevalent theory, that there exists a group of Indo-European languages and nations—peculiarly connected among themselves—peculiarly isolated from others—will, I conceive, be found to be fallacious; and what is highly remarkable, distinct proofs of its fallacy, as will presently be seen, are derivable from the dialects of the North American Tribes![pg 166]The writers by whom this theory has been maintained have overlooked, on the one hand, the numerous points of resemblance which connect the Indo-European languages with other Tongues; while, on the other hand, they have also overlooked the numerous points of difference which they mutually display. On a close investigation it will be evident that it is only in the basis of their Grammars that any of the ancient languages of Asia and Europe, even those which are very nearly related, agree; they do not display an identity of Grammatical forms! Compare, for example, the inflections of the Verbs in the Latin and the Greek, and the numerous points of difference which they exhibit in almost every tense, combined with mere partial coincidences. That these remarks are equally true of the relation displayed by the North American Indian dialects compared to those of the Old World will be apparent from the following examples, in which it will be manifest that these dialects in their basis agree with, and in their inflections and details only partially differ from, the Asiatic and European languages!Present Tense of a Verb in two Dialects of the Algonquyn Class.“Chippeway”Dialect.“Lenni Lenape”Dialect.(Root)Nond—“Understand.”(Root)Pend—“Understand.”152Singular.Singular.N'-nond-OM.N'-pend-AMEN.“I understand.”“I understand.”K'-nond-OM.K'-pend-AMEN.“Thou understand-est.”“Thou understand-est.”---- -Nond-om.---- -Pend-amen.“He understand-s.”“He understand-s.”Plural.Plural.N'-nond-AM-IN.N'-pend-AMEN-EEN.“We understand.”“We understand.”K'-nond-AM.K'-pend-AM-OHUMO.“Ye understand.”“Ye understand.”---Nond-UM-ÔG.---Pend-AMEN-OWO.“They understand.”“They understand.”It will be observed that the inflections of the Algonquyn Verb, indicative of persons (corresponding to those in Leg-o, Leg-is, Leg-it,Latin), are“Om and Amen.”In another form of the Algonquyn Verb,“Amo”is also used.These forms,“Om, Amo, Amen,”are the common inflections of the first person in all the Indo-European languages. (See Dr. Prichard on the Eastern Origin of the Celtic Nations, pp. 130, 136.) In the North American Indian dialects it will be seen that they occur in all the three persons. There are instances of the same kind in the Indo-European Tongues for the Doric Greek Infinitive as in Poth-emen-ai,“To desire,”and the Greek Passive Participle as in Tupt-omen-os, Tupt-omen-e,“Struck,”are examples of the application of“Amen or Omen”to any individual of the Human Race, in other words,to all the three persons!This inflection“Amen”exists in the Tartar dialects in the first person, as in Bol-amen,“I am,”Bol-asin,“Thou art,”&c.The following are examples of its use for the first person in the Greek:Singular.Plural.Amen, used as an Inflection for“I.”Amen, used as an Inflection for“We.”E-tupt-omēn,“I was struck.”Tupt-omen,“We strike.”Tupt-oi-mēn,“Would that I were struck.”Ē-mēn,“I had been.”Ē-men,“We were.”[pg 168]These examples will serve to illustrate the proposition that in inflections and other grammatical details the North American Indian dialects partially coincide with individual Indo-European languages in the same manner as those languages partially agree among themselves! It remains to be pointed out that where these two groups of tongues differ, the differences are such as time might have produced, and that they have the same basis in common.“Om, Amo, Amen,”are according to Dr. Prichard, pronouns confused with the verb. It is an interesting fact, that“Amo”153is actually used as the separate pronoun of the third person“He”in the dialect of the“Blackfeet,”one of the N. American Indian Tribes to the west of the Mississippi visited by Mr. Catlin! Now, as all pronouns were originally154nouns, names for a“Human Being,”(see p.13,) words of this class must have been in the first instance applied indifferently to all the three Persons. But in the course of time—1, In some languages different nouns were appropriated to different Persons,—the most common noun being applied to the First; (this accounts for the occurrence of“Amo Om Amen,”probably forms of the most primitive155noun—in the first Person of the Indo-European languages!)—2, In other tongues supplementary pronouns were used to mark the requisite distinction of Persons, the most common nouns being still used agreeably[pg 169]to previous habit,—(though no longer of practical service)—in combination with the verb; (this is the case in the Algonquyn dialects in which the same inflection is repeated in all the three persons, and the requisite distinction of persons is made by means of pronoun prefixes or supplementary pronouns, a distinction which, in the Greek, &c., is made by varying the final inflections or original pronouns, as in“Tupt-oi-mēn, Tupt-oi-o,”&c.)156The pronoun prefixes of these North American Indian dialects, which as previously intimated, are common to the Welsh and the Hebrew, and other Semetic tongues remain to be noticed.Algonquyn Pronoun Prefixes.(See previous specimens of Algonquyn Verbs.)N'“I”and“We.”This is an abbreviated form used in conjunction with the verb as a prefix. The pronoun in full is Ni Nin“I,”Ninou“We.”Both the pronoun itself and the abbreviated form in which it is used as a prefix, occur in the Hebrew in which the latter is used as a suffix!This Algonquyn pronoun is identical with an Algonquyn word for“A Man,”which, it will be observed, renders the proofs of affinity between the Semetic and Algonquyn dialects in this instance complete.[pg 170]Algonquyn.Semetic.Welsh.“Man.”“I,”or“Me.”“I,”or“Me.”Anini.157A.nee, (Heb.) A.n.a, (Arabic.)Innai.Ini.Innai.N-nin.“I,”or“Me.”Nin.Ni.158Nee, (Heb.)N'.“We.”“We.”“We.”A.n.ou, A.n.c'h.n.ou.Ni.Nin-ou.N.c'h.n.ou, (Heb.)Nyni.Nin-owin.N.h.h.n, (Arabic.)Nyninnou.K',“Thou”and“Ye.”159This is also an abbreviation, the Pronoun in full is Ki, K-in, K-il,“Thou;”Kin-owa, and Kil-ou,“Ye.”Algonquyn.Semetic.Welsh.“Thou, Thine.”“Thee, Thy.”K'.C'. (Heb.)Kee.C'.ee. (Heb.)“Ye, Yours.”“Ye.”K'.Ki.Chwi.Ki-nowa.C-oun. C-n. (Chald.) C-m. (Heb.)Kil-ou.[pg 171]Du Ponceau notices another grammatical feature in which it is clear, though he was unconscious of that fact, that these North American Indian dialects form a connecting link between the Semetic and Indo-European languages.“We find,”he observes,“many Nouns substantive with M prefixed in such a way as to form an integral part of the words.”This is a Semetic mode of forming a Noun from a Root! In Latin, Nouns are formed from Roots by the same Letter placed at the end of words, as in Regn-um, a mode of which we have also had an example in the Algonquyn dialects, in the words M'-huk, Mok-um!Where long intervals of time have elapsed, it is in all cases difficult to discriminate between the proofs of a general and remote, and those of a near and specific relation. Still I conceive the previous examples tend, in some measure, to render it probable that there is a closer affinity between the North American Indians and the inhabitants of Northern Asia and of Europe, especially the Russians, Hungarians, and other nations located in its Northern and Western Regions, than exists between these American Septs and the inhabitants of Southern Asia. Should this proposition be confirmed by further investigation, it will be found to be in unison with Adelung's conclusion, that the route by which the first Colonists of Europe came from Central Asia lay through the Steppes which separate the Chinese and Russian Empires. The Nomade Hordes of these vast plains,—the great“Officina Gentium,”—were probably the parent Septs of all or most of the European nations on the one hand, and of the populations of the North-east of Asia and of the opposite American coasts on the other![pg 172]Of the general proposition, that the American Tribes and the Nations of the Old World are descended from the same Parent Stock, I conceive the evidence adduced in the previous pages will be deemed to be conclusive.[pg ApA001]

Chapter VI. On The Chinese Language.High Antiquity of the Chinese Empire and Remains discredited by Sir William Jones and Adelung. But the Differences between the Chinese Language and those of Western Asia more ancient than the peculiarities which distinguish the African Languages from those of Europe and Western Asia. These Differences not fundamental. Identity of the Chinese with the Hebrew and with the English and other European Languages, &c.Adelung, like Sir William Jones before him, quite discredits the supposed antiquity of the Chinese Empire and the claims set up by the Chinese to a high and ancient civilization. The Great Wall, said by their historians to have been built 240 yearsb.c., is not mentioned by early writers, especially Marco Polo, who visited China from the West in 1270. He regards the scientific knowledge of the Chinese as inferior to that of several adjoining nations, and Confucius's morality as nothing better than a medley of sound opinions, such as any man of strong sense might have compiled! The materials of their paper are so frail that it is impossible any of their MSS. can be very ancient, and in the fidelity or[pg 148]knowledge of their Transcribers he places no confidence! Finally, he views the infantine character of their language, a feature in which the Chinese are inferior to the wildest American tribes, as forming in itself a proof of the absence of a high culture, to which, he maintains, it constitutes an almost insuperable obstacle.On the other hand, unfavorable as its characteristics are to the supposed antiquity and extent of their civilization, he nevertheless considers these very peculiarities of their language in the light of decisive proofs of the high antiquity of the Chinese nation, viewed simply as a distinct branch of the human race.In the last chapter were discussed the peculiarities of structure which distinguish the Egyptian and Semetic tongues from those of the Indo-European class; peculiarities which were shown to consist, not in a fundamental difference of elements, but simply in various conventional arrangements of the same elements. This explanation will now be proved to apply also to the characteristics which distinguish the Chinese from the principal Asiatic and European languages, with this qualification however, that these characteristics, as contrasted with those of other classes of tongues, imply a separation from a parent stock at a much earlier era in the history of the human species than those which have been noticed in the last chapter, as distinguishing the Indo-European, Semetic, and Egyptian languages respectively.According to Adelung's lucid analysis, the following are the principal steps by which language is formed. 1. The first words are vowels, or sounds produced simply by the opening of the mouth and the emission of the breath. 2. Next in order are monosyllables, consisting of a vowel and a consonant preceding, as in P-a. 3. Arise monosyllables, formed of a vowel between two or more consonants,[pg 149]as in P-a-p. 4. Lastly are constructed polysyllabic words, formed by a combination into one word of two or more of the monosyllabic terms.The African, American,129European, and all the Asiatic languages, with the exception of those spoken in China and the contiguous countries of the south-west of Asia, display a consummation of all these four stages. The Chinese exhibits results of the first and second steps of the series only. In other words, the Chinese may be described not simply as a languagepurely monosyllabic, but as one in which themonosyllables are of the most elementary and infantine character, viz., those which consist of one consonant and a vowel(as inPa). They have no words which have a second consonant, as inP-a-p.Having no polysyllables, the Chinese supply their place by a minute variety in their vowel sounds. They have no grammar:130the same word is at once an adjective, a substantive, and a verb! Affixes and suffixes, such as occur in give, giv-er, gif-t, are unknown. The modifications of meaning these forms convey are expressed either by altering the position of the words or by additional terms. The plural is the same as the singular; though, to avoid obscurity, in extreme cases the clumsy expedient of repetition is resorted to, as in Tschin-tschin,“Man-man”(i.e. Men); or distinct words indicative of number are prefixed, such as Muen,“Many,”Tschung,“All!”It was the opinion of Adelung that the Chinese language differed not merely in its structure, but in its elements, from the other languages of the human race. He supposed this nation to have sprung from the same stock as those of western[pg 150]Asia. But their speech he conceives to have been constructed after the separation.The peculiar monosyllabic structure of the Chinese seems to justify the conclusion, that the nations of Europe and western Asia are more nearly allied in descent to the Negro tribes of the interior of Africa and to the Indian tribes of America than they are to the Chinese and the nations of the contiguous countries of the south-west of Asia. But that Adelung's conclusion, that the Chinese is a radically distinct tongue is an erroneous one will now be shown by examples, to which thepeculiar structure of that language will only serve to give additional131force; for while in most of the following examples the words compared are essentially the same, the Chinese monosyllables being identical with Hebrew or European monosyllables, or with terms which partake of that character, in other instances it will be found that the differences which occur have been caused solely by the addition of the characteristic suffixes and affixes of the polysyllabic languages, which are not used in the Chinese! Thus we have Mu,“A Mouse,”(Chin.,) Mū-s, Mu-os, Mu (Greek), the root in the latter being the same as in the former; Fo and Foo Tsin,“A Fa-ther,”(Chin.,) Moo and Moo Tsin,“A Mo-ther,”(Chin.)I shall commence these examples with the Chinese pronouns, most of which are absolutely identical with those of the polysyllabic languages. This branch of the comparison will serve to place in a striking point of view the erroneous nature of the opinion generally received among philologists, that nations which agree are necessarily more nearly allied than those which differ132in their grammatical forms, the Chinese being found in this respect to agree in an unequivocal manner[pg 151]with the kindred English and German, in some of those very points in which they mutually differ widely!Pronouns of the First Person,“I”and“We.”—Ngan, Ngoo Ngo,“I”and“We,”(Chinese.) Iōnga, Egōn,“I,”(Greek.)Pronouns of the Second Person,“Thou”and“Ye.”—Irr,“Thou”and“Ye,”(Chinese.) Ihr,“Ye,”(German.) Yú, Yŏh,“Thou”and“Ye,”(Chinese.) You,“Ye,”(English.) Yō (Provincial English). Eoh (Anglo-Saxon),“Ye.”Nee, Nai, Nyú,“Thou”and“Ye,”(Chinese.) Ne,“You,”(Mandans, a North American Tribe.)In these instances the English“You”and the German“Ihr”differ totally. Moreover, in each language separately considered the plural differs altogether from the singular, which in German is expressed by“Du,”and in the English by“Thou.”The Chinese, which uses these terms,“Ihr”and“You,”conjointly and in both numbers, furnishes a satisfactory clue to these anomalies!Pronouns of the Third Person.—E.e,“He,”“She,”“It,”(Chinese.) E.ee.a, E.v.e, (Hebrew.) He, masculine, (English.) He, feminine, (Welsh.)—Peé,“He,”“She,”“It,”also“That,”(Chinese.) Phe, Ph,“This,”“That,”(Hebrew.) Pha or Pe, the article“The,”(Egypt.)Specimens of Chinese Words, identical with equivalent Terms in the Languages of Europe and Western Asia, &c.Keuen,“A Dog,”(Chinese), Kuōn (Greek), Coun (Plural,Welsh), Can-is (Latin).—Ma,“A Horse,”(Chinese), Morin Mantschu), Mä-hre (German), Ma-re (English), Ma-rch (Welsh.)—Mu,“A Mouse,”(Chinese), Mu-s, Mu-os Mu[pg 152](Greek), Mu-s (Latin.)—Lung,133“A Wolf,”(Chinese), Lukon (Greek), Lloun-og,“A Fox,”(Welsh.)—Ioanģ, Iong, Io,“A Sheep,”(Chinese), Oin (Greek), Oen,“A Lamb,”(Welsh), Oi, Ai, Yi (Irish.)Foò“A Father,”Moo“A Mother;”also Foò Tsin“A Father,”and Moó Tsin“A Mother.”Tsin means“A Relation,”(Chinese.) The equivalent terms in the English and other Gothic dialects consist of the Chinese root, and a distinct suffix (answering the purpose of the separate Chinese word Tsin.) Fä-der (Anglo-Saxon), Fa-ther (English), Fa-ter (German), Mo-ther, (English), Mua-ter (Old high German.)134Nan and Yin,“A Man,”(Chinese.) Ninetz,“Men,”their national name, (Samoieds.) Ninnee Inin,“A Man,”(Algonquyn Dialects of N. America.)Nan“A Son,”(Chinese,) N.n [Parturio] (Heb.)—Neang,“A young Lady,”(Chinese,) Non (Mantschu,) Nonn-us (Lat.,) Nun,“Tender,”(Chinese.)—Nyu,“A Daughter,”(Chinese,) Nea, Feminine,“Young,”[Juvenis] (Greek,) New (Eng.)—Chan,“To produce, bear,”(Chinese,) Gen-i (Welsh,) Genn-ao (Greek.)—Chuen,“A Boat, or Ship,”(Chinese,) Kahn (Ger.,) Cymba (Latin,) Kumbī (Greek.)Chuy,“To blow, The Breath,”(Chinese,) Chwa (Welsh.)—Fe,“Fat,”(Chinese), Fe-tt (German,) Fa-t (English.)—Ho,“Fire,”(Chinese,) Ho-t (English.) These words Ho-t and Fe-tt seem to have been regularly formed as past participles from Ho and Fe, the roots preserved in the Chinese.—Hoo,[pg 153]“To escort,”(Chinese,) Hü-ten (Ger.)—Fan,“To subvert, Contrary,”(Chinese,) Ph.n.e, [To turn, turn out] (Hebrew,) Fun,“To divide,”(Chinese,) Fun do, Fin do (Latin.)—Gan,“Favor,”(Chinese,) Gönn-en, Gun-st (German,) Gynn a (Swedish,) c'H.n (Hebrew.)—Gaou,“Proud,”(Chinese,) Ga, Ga.ou.e, Ga.ee.oun (Hebrew) Gang“Lofty,”Ge“The Forehead,”Ke“To rise,”Ka.ou“High,”(Chinese,) Ga-e,“To rise,”(Heb.)—Kang,“More,”(Chinese,) Chwaneg (Welsh.)—Hae,“A large River, The Sea,”(Chinese,) Aa (Icelandic,) Eia (Ang.-Sax.,) Wy (Welsh.)—Heuen,“To explain,”Heaou“To understand,”Heo“To learn,”(Chinese,) c'Hou.e“To show, explain, declare,”(Hebrew,) He-ar (Eng.)—Hwō,“Living,”(Chinese) c'Hee.a, E.ou.e (Hebrew.)—Kwae,“Prompt, active,”(Chinese,) Chwae (Welsh.)—Kia“A Family,”Kiwo“A Nation,”(Chinese,) Kiw (Welsh,) Gou.e (Heb.)—Keen,“To see,”135(Chinese), Ken (English,) Kee,“And,”(Chinese,) Kai (Greek and Algonquyn Tribes of N. America,) King“To respect,”(Chinese,) Kun-ēō (Greek,) Kwăn,“Fatigued,”(Chin.,) Gwan (Welsh.)—Laou,“Labour,”(Chinese,) La.e (Hebrew), La-bor (Latin.)—Mae,“To buy,”(Chinese,) Emo (Latin.)—Lo,“Green,”(Chinese,) L.c'he, (Hebrew.)—Leo,“Small,”Lu, (Irish,) Low (English.)—Muen,“Many,”(Chinese,) Many (English.)—Yaou Yo,“To will, desire,”(Chinese,) Aeō (Greek,) Aveo (Lat.)—Meen,“To dispose,”(Chinese,) M.n.e (Hebrew.)—Mien,“The Face,”(Chinese,) Mine (French,) Mien (English.)—Pew,“Spotted Tiger,”(Chinese,) Pie [Colour] (English,) Pei,“To receive,”(Chinese,) Piai,“To possess,”(Welsh.)—Pin,“Poor,”Penuria (Latin.)—Sae,“To agitate,”(Chinese,) Sway (English.)—Saou,“A Brush,”(Chinese,) Shoue,“To rub,”(Hebrew.)—Scun,“To inspect,”(Chinese,) Sehen (German.)—Sha,“To[pg 154]kill,”(Chinese,) Sha.e (Hebrew.)—Shen,“Good, Pious,”(Chinese,) Sanctus (Latin,) Shin,“A Spirit, God,”(Chinese.)—Shing,“To ascend,”(Chinese,) Scan-deo (Latin.)—Shwa,“To sport, Play,”(Chinese,) Sho sho (Hebrew,) Soo,“To number,”(Chinese,) Shou e (Hebrew.)—Sung,“To present to,”(Chinese,) Schenk-en (German.)—Sing,“A Star,”(Chinese,) Schein-en,“To shine,”(German,) Sun (English.)—Yun,“Fog, Cloud,”Ying,“Shadow,”Wan,“Evening,”(Chinese,) On.n,“A Cloud, To cloud over,”(Hebrew.)—Wang,“To hope.”(Chinese,) Chwannawg,“Desirous,”(Welsh.)—We,“Taste,”(Chinese,) Chwae-th (Welsh.)

High Antiquity of the Chinese Empire and Remains discredited by Sir William Jones and Adelung. But the Differences between the Chinese Language and those of Western Asia more ancient than the peculiarities which distinguish the African Languages from those of Europe and Western Asia. These Differences not fundamental. Identity of the Chinese with the Hebrew and with the English and other European Languages, &c.

Adelung, like Sir William Jones before him, quite discredits the supposed antiquity of the Chinese Empire and the claims set up by the Chinese to a high and ancient civilization. The Great Wall, said by their historians to have been built 240 yearsb.c., is not mentioned by early writers, especially Marco Polo, who visited China from the West in 1270. He regards the scientific knowledge of the Chinese as inferior to that of several adjoining nations, and Confucius's morality as nothing better than a medley of sound opinions, such as any man of strong sense might have compiled! The materials of their paper are so frail that it is impossible any of their MSS. can be very ancient, and in the fidelity or[pg 148]knowledge of their Transcribers he places no confidence! Finally, he views the infantine character of their language, a feature in which the Chinese are inferior to the wildest American tribes, as forming in itself a proof of the absence of a high culture, to which, he maintains, it constitutes an almost insuperable obstacle.

On the other hand, unfavorable as its characteristics are to the supposed antiquity and extent of their civilization, he nevertheless considers these very peculiarities of their language in the light of decisive proofs of the high antiquity of the Chinese nation, viewed simply as a distinct branch of the human race.

In the last chapter were discussed the peculiarities of structure which distinguish the Egyptian and Semetic tongues from those of the Indo-European class; peculiarities which were shown to consist, not in a fundamental difference of elements, but simply in various conventional arrangements of the same elements. This explanation will now be proved to apply also to the characteristics which distinguish the Chinese from the principal Asiatic and European languages, with this qualification however, that these characteristics, as contrasted with those of other classes of tongues, imply a separation from a parent stock at a much earlier era in the history of the human species than those which have been noticed in the last chapter, as distinguishing the Indo-European, Semetic, and Egyptian languages respectively.

According to Adelung's lucid analysis, the following are the principal steps by which language is formed. 1. The first words are vowels, or sounds produced simply by the opening of the mouth and the emission of the breath. 2. Next in order are monosyllables, consisting of a vowel and a consonant preceding, as in P-a. 3. Arise monosyllables, formed of a vowel between two or more consonants,[pg 149]as in P-a-p. 4. Lastly are constructed polysyllabic words, formed by a combination into one word of two or more of the monosyllabic terms.

The African, American,129European, and all the Asiatic languages, with the exception of those spoken in China and the contiguous countries of the south-west of Asia, display a consummation of all these four stages. The Chinese exhibits results of the first and second steps of the series only. In other words, the Chinese may be described not simply as a languagepurely monosyllabic, but as one in which themonosyllables are of the most elementary and infantine character, viz., those which consist of one consonant and a vowel(as inPa). They have no words which have a second consonant, as inP-a-p.

Having no polysyllables, the Chinese supply their place by a minute variety in their vowel sounds. They have no grammar:130the same word is at once an adjective, a substantive, and a verb! Affixes and suffixes, such as occur in give, giv-er, gif-t, are unknown. The modifications of meaning these forms convey are expressed either by altering the position of the words or by additional terms. The plural is the same as the singular; though, to avoid obscurity, in extreme cases the clumsy expedient of repetition is resorted to, as in Tschin-tschin,“Man-man”(i.e. Men); or distinct words indicative of number are prefixed, such as Muen,“Many,”Tschung,“All!”

It was the opinion of Adelung that the Chinese language differed not merely in its structure, but in its elements, from the other languages of the human race. He supposed this nation to have sprung from the same stock as those of western[pg 150]Asia. But their speech he conceives to have been constructed after the separation.

The peculiar monosyllabic structure of the Chinese seems to justify the conclusion, that the nations of Europe and western Asia are more nearly allied in descent to the Negro tribes of the interior of Africa and to the Indian tribes of America than they are to the Chinese and the nations of the contiguous countries of the south-west of Asia. But that Adelung's conclusion, that the Chinese is a radically distinct tongue is an erroneous one will now be shown by examples, to which thepeculiar structure of that language will only serve to give additional131force; for while in most of the following examples the words compared are essentially the same, the Chinese monosyllables being identical with Hebrew or European monosyllables, or with terms which partake of that character, in other instances it will be found that the differences which occur have been caused solely by the addition of the characteristic suffixes and affixes of the polysyllabic languages, which are not used in the Chinese! Thus we have Mu,“A Mouse,”(Chin.,) Mū-s, Mu-os, Mu (Greek), the root in the latter being the same as in the former; Fo and Foo Tsin,“A Fa-ther,”(Chin.,) Moo and Moo Tsin,“A Mo-ther,”(Chin.)

I shall commence these examples with the Chinese pronouns, most of which are absolutely identical with those of the polysyllabic languages. This branch of the comparison will serve to place in a striking point of view the erroneous nature of the opinion generally received among philologists, that nations which agree are necessarily more nearly allied than those which differ132in their grammatical forms, the Chinese being found in this respect to agree in an unequivocal manner[pg 151]with the kindred English and German, in some of those very points in which they mutually differ widely!

Pronouns of the First Person,“I”and“We.”—Ngan, Ngoo Ngo,“I”and“We,”(Chinese.) Iōnga, Egōn,“I,”(Greek.)

Pronouns of the Second Person,“Thou”and“Ye.”—Irr,“Thou”and“Ye,”(Chinese.) Ihr,“Ye,”(German.) Yú, Yŏh,“Thou”and“Ye,”(Chinese.) You,“Ye,”(English.) Yō (Provincial English). Eoh (Anglo-Saxon),“Ye.”Nee, Nai, Nyú,“Thou”and“Ye,”(Chinese.) Ne,“You,”(Mandans, a North American Tribe.)

In these instances the English“You”and the German“Ihr”differ totally. Moreover, in each language separately considered the plural differs altogether from the singular, which in German is expressed by“Du,”and in the English by“Thou.”The Chinese, which uses these terms,“Ihr”and“You,”conjointly and in both numbers, furnishes a satisfactory clue to these anomalies!

Pronouns of the Third Person.—E.e,“He,”“She,”“It,”(Chinese.) E.ee.a, E.v.e, (Hebrew.) He, masculine, (English.) He, feminine, (Welsh.)—Peé,“He,”“She,”“It,”also“That,”(Chinese.) Phe, Ph,“This,”“That,”(Hebrew.) Pha or Pe, the article“The,”(Egypt.)

Specimens of Chinese Words, identical with equivalent Terms in the Languages of Europe and Western Asia, &c.

Keuen,“A Dog,”(Chinese), Kuōn (Greek), Coun (Plural,Welsh), Can-is (Latin).—Ma,“A Horse,”(Chinese), Morin Mantschu), Mä-hre (German), Ma-re (English), Ma-rch (Welsh.)—Mu,“A Mouse,”(Chinese), Mu-s, Mu-os Mu[pg 152](Greek), Mu-s (Latin.)—Lung,133“A Wolf,”(Chinese), Lukon (Greek), Lloun-og,“A Fox,”(Welsh.)—Ioanģ, Iong, Io,“A Sheep,”(Chinese), Oin (Greek), Oen,“A Lamb,”(Welsh), Oi, Ai, Yi (Irish.)

Foò“A Father,”Moo“A Mother;”also Foò Tsin“A Father,”and Moó Tsin“A Mother.”Tsin means“A Relation,”(Chinese.) The equivalent terms in the English and other Gothic dialects consist of the Chinese root, and a distinct suffix (answering the purpose of the separate Chinese word Tsin.) Fä-der (Anglo-Saxon), Fa-ther (English), Fa-ter (German), Mo-ther, (English), Mua-ter (Old high German.)134

Nan and Yin,“A Man,”(Chinese.) Ninetz,“Men,”their national name, (Samoieds.) Ninnee Inin,“A Man,”(Algonquyn Dialects of N. America.)

Nan“A Son,”(Chinese,) N.n [Parturio] (Heb.)—Neang,“A young Lady,”(Chinese,) Non (Mantschu,) Nonn-us (Lat.,) Nun,“Tender,”(Chinese.)—Nyu,“A Daughter,”(Chinese,) Nea, Feminine,“Young,”[Juvenis] (Greek,) New (Eng.)—Chan,“To produce, bear,”(Chinese,) Gen-i (Welsh,) Genn-ao (Greek.)—Chuen,“A Boat, or Ship,”(Chinese,) Kahn (Ger.,) Cymba (Latin,) Kumbī (Greek.)

Chuy,“To blow, The Breath,”(Chinese,) Chwa (Welsh.)—Fe,“Fat,”(Chinese), Fe-tt (German,) Fa-t (English.)—Ho,“Fire,”(Chinese,) Ho-t (English.) These words Ho-t and Fe-tt seem to have been regularly formed as past participles from Ho and Fe, the roots preserved in the Chinese.—Hoo,[pg 153]“To escort,”(Chinese,) Hü-ten (Ger.)—Fan,“To subvert, Contrary,”(Chinese,) Ph.n.e, [To turn, turn out] (Hebrew,) Fun,“To divide,”(Chinese,) Fun do, Fin do (Latin.)—Gan,“Favor,”(Chinese,) Gönn-en, Gun-st (German,) Gynn a (Swedish,) c'H.n (Hebrew.)—Gaou,“Proud,”(Chinese,) Ga, Ga.ou.e, Ga.ee.oun (Hebrew) Gang“Lofty,”Ge“The Forehead,”Ke“To rise,”Ka.ou“High,”(Chinese,) Ga-e,“To rise,”(Heb.)—Kang,“More,”(Chinese,) Chwaneg (Welsh.)—Hae,“A large River, The Sea,”(Chinese,) Aa (Icelandic,) Eia (Ang.-Sax.,) Wy (Welsh.)—Heuen,“To explain,”Heaou“To understand,”Heo“To learn,”(Chinese,) c'Hou.e“To show, explain, declare,”(Hebrew,) He-ar (Eng.)—Hwō,“Living,”(Chinese) c'Hee.a, E.ou.e (Hebrew.)—Kwae,“Prompt, active,”(Chinese,) Chwae (Welsh.)—Kia“A Family,”Kiwo“A Nation,”(Chinese,) Kiw (Welsh,) Gou.e (Heb.)—Keen,“To see,”135(Chinese), Ken (English,) Kee,“And,”(Chinese,) Kai (Greek and Algonquyn Tribes of N. America,) King“To respect,”(Chinese,) Kun-ēō (Greek,) Kwăn,“Fatigued,”(Chin.,) Gwan (Welsh.)—Laou,“Labour,”(Chinese,) La.e (Hebrew), La-bor (Latin.)—Mae,“To buy,”(Chinese,) Emo (Latin.)—Lo,“Green,”(Chinese,) L.c'he, (Hebrew.)—Leo,“Small,”Lu, (Irish,) Low (English.)—Muen,“Many,”(Chinese,) Many (English.)—Yaou Yo,“To will, desire,”(Chinese,) Aeō (Greek,) Aveo (Lat.)—Meen,“To dispose,”(Chinese,) M.n.e (Hebrew.)—Mien,“The Face,”(Chinese,) Mine (French,) Mien (English.)—Pew,“Spotted Tiger,”(Chinese,) Pie [Colour] (English,) Pei,“To receive,”(Chinese,) Piai,“To possess,”(Welsh.)—Pin,“Poor,”Penuria (Latin.)—Sae,“To agitate,”(Chinese,) Sway (English.)—Saou,“A Brush,”(Chinese,) Shoue,“To rub,”(Hebrew.)—Scun,“To inspect,”(Chinese,) Sehen (German.)—Sha,“To[pg 154]kill,”(Chinese,) Sha.e (Hebrew.)—Shen,“Good, Pious,”(Chinese,) Sanctus (Latin,) Shin,“A Spirit, God,”(Chinese.)—Shing,“To ascend,”(Chinese,) Scan-deo (Latin.)—Shwa,“To sport, Play,”(Chinese,) Sho sho (Hebrew,) Soo,“To number,”(Chinese,) Shou e (Hebrew.)—Sung,“To present to,”(Chinese,) Schenk-en (German.)—Sing,“A Star,”(Chinese,) Schein-en,“To shine,”(German,) Sun (English.)—Yun,“Fog, Cloud,”Ying,“Shadow,”Wan,“Evening,”(Chinese,) On.n,“A Cloud, To cloud over,”(Hebrew.)—Wang,“To hope.”(Chinese,) Chwannawg,“Desirous,”(Welsh.)—We,“Taste,”(Chinese,) Chwae-th (Welsh.)

Chapter VII. On The Origin Of The American Tribes.Identity of the American Tribes with the Nations of the other Continents. High Mental and Moral qualities of the North American Indians. Views of Cooper, Du Ponceau, and Catlin. Clear nature of the proofs derivable from Language of the Identity of the N. A. Indians with the European and Asiatic Nations. Catlin's views as to the Identity of the Mandans, a Tribe of N. A. Indians, with the Welsh. Union in the Dialects of the N. A. Indians, of Greek, and other Indo-European and Tartar Inflections, with the Pronouns of the Hebrew and the Welsh. Close Approximation of these Dialects to the Greek and other European Tongues, and to the Languages of the North of Europe and Asia.That the Tribes of the American Continent are descended from the same stock as the Asiatic and European nations is a proposition with respect to which the evidence contained in Appendix A must, I conceive, be felt to be conclusive when combined with Dr. Prichard's proofs that the Physiology of the Human race in different countries is the result of climate and other external agencies. As regards the mental and moral qualities of the native American nations, there seems to be no solid ground for the inference maintained in some[pg 156]quarters that they are a different, because in these respects an inferior, race. It is impossible to peruse Mr. Catlin's living picture of the manners and social habits of the North American Indians without being deeply impressed with the conviction that these Tribes, both intellectually and morally, are as highly gifted by nature as those nations who have inherited the blessings of a refined civilization. That the same remark applies to the more Southern American populations, such as the Mexicans and Peruvians, may be shown by an appeal to numerous considerations. In this place, however, I shall confine my observations to the Septs generally termed North American Indians, the original inhabitants of the United States and the regions in the same latitude. This race of men has been thus described in a celebrated work of fiction, which owes its chief interest to the vivid portraiture it exhibits of Indian life and manners.136“It is generally believed that the Aborigines of the American continent have had an Asiatic origin. There are many physical as well as moral facts which corroborate this opinion, and some few that would seem to weigh against it.“The colour of the Indian, the writer believes, is peculiar to himself, and while his cheek-bones have a very striking indication of a Tartar origin, his eyes have not. Climate may have had great influence on the former, but it is difficult to see how it can have produced the substantial difference which exists in the latter. The imagery of the Indian, both in his poetry and his oratory, is Oriental, chastened, and perhaps improved, by the limited range of his practical knowledge. He draws his metaphors from the clouds, the seasons, the birds, the beasts, and the vegetable world. In this, perhaps, he does no more than any other energetic and imaginative race would do, being compelled[pg 157]to set bounds to his fancy by experience; but the North American Indian clothes his ideas in a dress that is so different from that of the African for instance, and so Oriental in itself as to be remarked. His language, too, has the richness and sententious fulness of the Chinese. He will express a phrase in a word, and he will qualify the meaning of an entire sentence by a syllable; he will even convey different significations by the simplest inflections of the voice.“Philologists who have devoted much time to the study, have said that there were but two or three languages, properly speaking, among all the numerous tribes which formerly occupied the country that now composes the United States. They ascribe the known difficulty one people have in understanding one another to corruptions and dialects.“The writer remembers to have been present at an interview between two chiefs of the Great Prairies west of the Mississippi, and when an interpreter was in attendance who spoke both their languages. The warriors appeared to be on the most friendly terms, and seemingly conversed much together, yet, according to the account of the interpreter, each was absolutely ignorant of what the other said. They were of hostile tribes, brought together by the influence of the American Government; and it is worthy of remark that a common policy led them both to adopt the same subject. They mutually exhorted each other to be of use in the event of the chance of war throwing either of the parties into the hands of his enemies. Whatever may be the truth, as respects the root and the genius of the Indian tongues, it is quite certain they are now so distinct in their words as to possess most of the disadvantages of strange languages; hence much of the embarrassment that has arisen in learning their histories, and most of the uncertainty which exists in their traditions.”[pg 158]The traits of character embodied in this passage are not those of an inferior, but of a highly acute and imaginative race!The Philological objections to the proposition that the North American Tribes are of Asiatic origin have by many writers been regarded as insuperable. Du Ponceau, who has given profound attention to the subject, dwells, 1, On the differences in words among the American languages themselves; 2, On the failure which he imputes to those writers who have attempted to identify the Indians with some one individual Asiatic nation, as the Chinese, the Tartars, or the Jews, &c.; and 3, On the differences in the Grammars of the North American dialects and those of the languages of the Old World, which he treats as a conclusive refutation of all arguments in favour of original unity! Mr. Catlin also lays great stress on the first of these considerations, viz. the great differences he found in the words of the dialects of the Tribes he visited.To every one of these objections the general principles developed in the previous pages will be found to involve a complete answer. 1. The differences apparently fundamental in the words of American languages may be accounted for in the same manner as similar differences in the languages of the old world (the Gothic and Celtic for example,) have already been explained, viz. by the tendency to abandon different synonymes. 2. That attempts to prove a close specific relation between the North American dialects and any one Asiatic language, such as the Chinese or the Hebrew, should have failed, was to be expected as a consequence of the same tendency. 3. Finally, differences of Grammar have been shown to be fallacious evidence viewed separately and without due regard to other features of language.137Moreover, it will[pg 159]presently appear clearly that, even as regards the Grammar of the Indian Dialects, Du Ponceau's impressions can be distinctly proved to be erroneous, an extended comparison serving to render manifest the interesting fact that, as respects the elements of Grammar, these dialects perfectly agree with the Asiatic and European languages, while in the mode of combining those elements, they do not differ from those languages more widely than the latter differ among themselves.If the ancestors of the American Indians emigrated at a remote period from the opposite Asiatic Coasts, we have no right to anticipate in their dialects a complete conformity to any one language of the old world, but general and varying features of resemblance to several. The kindred dialects of the same Continent after the lapse of a considerable time do not exhibit any other kind of resemblance! Now this is the species of relation which the North American Indian dialects actually display when compared to the Languages of the Old World!The chief examples which I have selected as illustrations of this proposition have been taken from the Algonquyn dialects, the very class examined by Du Ponceau himself, to which I have added a few corroborative instances from those of the tribes of the regions to the west of the Mississippi which have been lately described by Mr. Catlin. The dialects termed Algonquyn by Du Ponceau were formerly spoken by numerous tribes who, though not the sole inhabitants, were originally spread through the whole of the present territory of the United States, including the“Lenni Lenapé,”the“Chippeways,”and other powerful septs.With regard to this class of Indian Dialects I propose to show: 1. That as regards Words they bear a close resemblance to a great variety of Asiatic and European languages. 2. That their grammatical peculiarities, in like manner, combine[pg 160]those of various languages of the Old World, as in the instance of their Verbs and Pronouns, in which the inflections of the Greek and other Indo-European Tongues are found united with separate Pronouns identical with those common to the Welsh on the one hand and the Hebrew and its kindred Semetic dialects on the other.Words from the North American Indian Dialects of the Algonquyn Class compared with analogous Terms in Asiatic and European Languages.Man ittou,“The Deity, a Spirit,”(Ind.,138) Mouno he ka,“Ghosts,”(Mandan,139) Manes,“The Spirits of the Dead,”(Latin,) Manus,“The Mind,”(Sanscrit,) Mēn,“The Mind,”(Greek,) Mens, Ment-is (Latin), Pata-maw-os,“The Deity,”from Pata-maw-an,“To adore,”(Ind.,) Poth-ēmenai,“To seek, or pray to,”(Doric,) for Poth-ein (Greek), Peton,“To worship,”Peta,“A Prayer,”(Old High German,) Bet-en, Bitte (German); see, as to N'iou and Nioueskou, two remarkable words for“The Deity,”(Ind.,) pages22,23,24. For names of the Heavenly Bodies, seeAppendix A.“Father,”Ooch, Oss (Ind.), Ozha (Sclavon.), Otze (Dalmatian), Wosch (Lusatian), Otzie (Bohemian), Nosa (Ind.), Niza, Niesee (Samoieds).“Mother,”Anna (Ind.), Ana (Turkish), Anya (Hungarian), Nanna (Ind.), Nain140(Welsh), Ningé (Ind.), Naing (Irish), Nik, Nêkaoui (Ind.), N.k.be141(Hebrew).“A Woman,”Panum, Phanem (Ind.), Banen (Cornish), Been (Welsh), Pin,“A Female,”applied to animals, (Chinese.)[pg 161]“A Girl,”Kan-isswah (Ind.), Gen eez (Pers.), Nunk-shoué, Nunk142(Ind.), Neang (Chin.), Non (Mantschu).“Husband,”Nap-é, Nap eem (Ind.), Nub-o, Nuptiæ (Lat.), Nuptials (Eng.)—“Husband,”Weew-ehsa, Wasuk (Ind.),“Wife,”Weewo, Weowika (Ind.),“Marriage,”Wiwaha (Sanscrit), Wife (Eng.)“A little Child,”Awusk, Awash ish (Ind.),“A Child,”Watsah (Sanscrit),“Young,”Wuski (Ind.),“A Youth,”Was or Gwas (Welsh).“High,”Hockunk (Ind.), Hoch, Höhe, Hoheit (German), High, Height (Eng.), Hitké143(Iroquois).“The Earth,”Hacki, Ki, Ackour (Ind.), Ge (Greek), Ager (Latin), Agr-os (Greek).“Foot,”Sit (Ind.), St.o,“I stand,”(Latin).“Good,”Wuilit (Ind.), Wohl (Ger.), Weal, Well, Wealth (Eng.), Ee.o.l,“To profit, benefit,”(Hebrew).“To fight,”Pachg-amen144(Ind.), P.g.ee (Heb.), Pug-no (Latin).“To give,”Mekan (Ind.), M.gn (Hebrew).“Night,”Nukon (Ind.), Nux (Greek), Nox (Latin), Noc (Polish), Noc (Hungarian).“Blood,”M'huk, Mokum (Ind.), Mucum, Mucus (Latin).“Cold,”Kisina (Ind.), Kuisne,“Ice,”(Irish,) K.sh.a,“To harden, stiffen,”“A Cucumber,145from its cooling properties,”(Hebrew).“Sleep,”Nipu, Nip-awin,“To sleep,”Nupp (Ind.), Nap (Eng.), Hup-nos (Greek), Nim pamino,“I sleep,”(Ind.), N.m., N.ou.m.e (Hebrew).[pg 162]“To touch,”Aman damaog-an (Ind.), Man-us (Latin).“Man,”Nin (Ind.), Ninetz“Men,”(Samoieds,) a diminutive race in the North-east of Asia. The national name they have given to themselves is the above word, Ninetz“Men.”I shall add a few further illustrations from the specimens of the languages of the Indian Tribes to the West of the United States, which have been published by Mr. Catlin.“Spirits, Ghosts,”Mouno he ka (Mandan,)—and see above, Manitto,“A Spirit,”(Ind.)—Manes,“The Spirits of the Dead,”(Latin).“Bad,”Khe cush (Mandan), Kakos (Greek).“A Bear,”Mah to (Mandan), Matto (Sioux), Medve (Hungarian), Medvid (Sclavonian), Metzwetz (Lusatian), Koonoghk (Riccaree), Chiung (Chinese).“Dog,”Shonka (Riccaree), Shunah (Sanscrit), Shun (Armenian), A meeteh (Blackfeet), Meda (Taraikai,North-east of Asia), Madaidh (Irish).“A Raven,”Kaka (Mandan), To kah ka (Riccaree), Kaka (Sanscrit).“River,”Pass ahah (Mandan). See Appendix A. p.78.“Ears,”Ookah nay146(Tuskaroras), Ucho (Sclavonian), Ochtowaga (Shawannos), Ohto kiss (Blackfeet), Ōta (Greek.) See p.73, Appendix A.“Hand,”Onka (Mandan.) See Appendix, page69. Ohahna (Tuskaroras.) See Appendix, p.68.“Head,”Otahra (Tuskaroras), Otri (Ashantees Negroes), Utieri (Aminas Negroes.)“Nose,”Pahoo (Mandan), Pei Pi (Chinese), Pah.soo (Sioux), Ph.o.e,“To Breathe,”(Hebrew), Phusa-o,“To Breathe,”(Greek.)[pg 163]Want of space, and the extensive nature of the evidence contained in Appendix A, alone deter me from greatly multiplying these examples.2. As regards Grammatical forms:Nothing can be more erroneous than the inference that the North American Indian dialects differ in this respect from those of Asia and Europe. In the previous comparison numerous examples present themselves in which the same words unequivocally exhibit at once both the roots and the inflections of words belonging to the languages termed Indo-European, as inPatam-awan,Patam-awos,Kis-ina,M. huk,Mok-um,Khe-cush,Nimp-amino, &c.!These are not isolated instances. I do not hesitate to affirm that it may be shown by means of the very terms he has selected for examination, that those North American Indian dialects which Du Ponceau has analyzed, abound in similar examples! That the same remark is true with regard to the dialects of the Western Tribes described by Mr. Catlin, is a proposition which will now be illustrated in a remarkable instance!Among the tribes with whom he resided this writer has especially noticed a highly interesting sept, the Mandans, in whose dialect he has pointed out a variety of instances of close resemblance to the Welsh, which he has left to the judgment of those who are conversant with that language. On this subject I conceive there cannot be any difference of opinion among those who are vernacularly acquainted with the venerable tongue of the Cymry. Of the Mandan terms selected by Mr. Catlin (which are subjoined below), the majority must be admitted to present plain and unequivocal features of resemblance, or rather of identity, to the equivalent Welsh terms.[pg 164]Now, it will be seen that of these147examples of affinity the greater number consist of terms which belong exclusively to the province of Grammar!English.Mandan.Welsh.Other Asiatic And European Languages.I.Me.Me.Me (LatinandEng.), Eme (Greek.)You.Ne.Chwe.Nee, (Chinese.)He.E.E.E.ee.a, E.ou.e, or E.v.e,“He, She, It,”(Heb.)She.Ea.E, Hee.Ea,“She,”(Latin.)It.Ount.Hooyant,“They”(Plural.)148Onuh,“It, Him, Her,”(Turkish.)They.Eonah, (Onúh ha, Honúh ha,“They,”Iroquois Dialects.Nhou,“They,”Hyny,“Those.”E.n.e,“They,”(Hebrew), Oona,“They,”also“He, She, It,”(Mixed Indian Dialects of Asia.)Ainah, Ont, Ent, (Endings of the third person plural of Indo-European Verbs.)149We.Noo.Nee.Nōi (Greek), Nou, Nc'hnou (Hebrew.)No, or, There is not.Megosh.150Nagoes, Nage.Head.Pan.Pen.The Great Spirit.Maho peneta.Mawr151Penaether Yysprid Mawr.[pg 165]By some of our countrymen it has been sanguinely maintained that the descendants of a body of Welsh, who left their country under Prince Madoc in the twelfth century, may be still traced by affinities of language among the North American Indian Tribes. Struck by the resemblances he has detected, Mr. Catlin has been led to favour the same conclusion, and to suggest that the Mandans may probably be shown to be the descendants of the lost Cambrian Colony!But the examples selected by this writer, however creditable to his accuracy and research, do not tend, as he suggests, to prove the existence of a specific connexion between the Welsh and the Mandans! This will be evident from the words contained in the right-hand column (which have been added by the author of this work). An examination of the whole comparison will serve to show clearly, that though in most of the instances he has noticed the resemblance displayed by the Mandan to the Welsh is a close one, in many of them it displays an equally close affinity to the Latin and Greek, &c., while in some—this North American Indian dialect totally differs from the Welsh tongue, and at the same time agrees with—other languages of the Old World. Many of those examples which precede the Comparison are also illustrations of the principle that the Mandan, like other North American Indian dialects, exhibits a general resemblance to all, and not a specific relation to any one of the Asiatic and European tongues. Thus Khe cush,“Bad,”which is identical with the Greek, but is totally unlike the Welsh, is a Mandan word!The prevalent theory, that there exists a group of Indo-European languages and nations—peculiarly connected among themselves—peculiarly isolated from others—will, I conceive, be found to be fallacious; and what is highly remarkable, distinct proofs of its fallacy, as will presently be seen, are derivable from the dialects of the North American Tribes![pg 166]The writers by whom this theory has been maintained have overlooked, on the one hand, the numerous points of resemblance which connect the Indo-European languages with other Tongues; while, on the other hand, they have also overlooked the numerous points of difference which they mutually display. On a close investigation it will be evident that it is only in the basis of their Grammars that any of the ancient languages of Asia and Europe, even those which are very nearly related, agree; they do not display an identity of Grammatical forms! Compare, for example, the inflections of the Verbs in the Latin and the Greek, and the numerous points of difference which they exhibit in almost every tense, combined with mere partial coincidences. That these remarks are equally true of the relation displayed by the North American Indian dialects compared to those of the Old World will be apparent from the following examples, in which it will be manifest that these dialects in their basis agree with, and in their inflections and details only partially differ from, the Asiatic and European languages!Present Tense of a Verb in two Dialects of the Algonquyn Class.“Chippeway”Dialect.“Lenni Lenape”Dialect.(Root)Nond—“Understand.”(Root)Pend—“Understand.”152Singular.Singular.N'-nond-OM.N'-pend-AMEN.“I understand.”“I understand.”K'-nond-OM.K'-pend-AMEN.“Thou understand-est.”“Thou understand-est.”---- -Nond-om.---- -Pend-amen.“He understand-s.”“He understand-s.”Plural.Plural.N'-nond-AM-IN.N'-pend-AMEN-EEN.“We understand.”“We understand.”K'-nond-AM.K'-pend-AM-OHUMO.“Ye understand.”“Ye understand.”---Nond-UM-ÔG.---Pend-AMEN-OWO.“They understand.”“They understand.”It will be observed that the inflections of the Algonquyn Verb, indicative of persons (corresponding to those in Leg-o, Leg-is, Leg-it,Latin), are“Om and Amen.”In another form of the Algonquyn Verb,“Amo”is also used.These forms,“Om, Amo, Amen,”are the common inflections of the first person in all the Indo-European languages. (See Dr. Prichard on the Eastern Origin of the Celtic Nations, pp. 130, 136.) In the North American Indian dialects it will be seen that they occur in all the three persons. There are instances of the same kind in the Indo-European Tongues for the Doric Greek Infinitive as in Poth-emen-ai,“To desire,”and the Greek Passive Participle as in Tupt-omen-os, Tupt-omen-e,“Struck,”are examples of the application of“Amen or Omen”to any individual of the Human Race, in other words,to all the three persons!This inflection“Amen”exists in the Tartar dialects in the first person, as in Bol-amen,“I am,”Bol-asin,“Thou art,”&c.The following are examples of its use for the first person in the Greek:Singular.Plural.Amen, used as an Inflection for“I.”Amen, used as an Inflection for“We.”E-tupt-omēn,“I was struck.”Tupt-omen,“We strike.”Tupt-oi-mēn,“Would that I were struck.”Ē-mēn,“I had been.”Ē-men,“We were.”[pg 168]These examples will serve to illustrate the proposition that in inflections and other grammatical details the North American Indian dialects partially coincide with individual Indo-European languages in the same manner as those languages partially agree among themselves! It remains to be pointed out that where these two groups of tongues differ, the differences are such as time might have produced, and that they have the same basis in common.“Om, Amo, Amen,”are according to Dr. Prichard, pronouns confused with the verb. It is an interesting fact, that“Amo”153is actually used as the separate pronoun of the third person“He”in the dialect of the“Blackfeet,”one of the N. American Indian Tribes to the west of the Mississippi visited by Mr. Catlin! Now, as all pronouns were originally154nouns, names for a“Human Being,”(see p.13,) words of this class must have been in the first instance applied indifferently to all the three Persons. But in the course of time—1, In some languages different nouns were appropriated to different Persons,—the most common noun being applied to the First; (this accounts for the occurrence of“Amo Om Amen,”probably forms of the most primitive155noun—in the first Person of the Indo-European languages!)—2, In other tongues supplementary pronouns were used to mark the requisite distinction of Persons, the most common nouns being still used agreeably[pg 169]to previous habit,—(though no longer of practical service)—in combination with the verb; (this is the case in the Algonquyn dialects in which the same inflection is repeated in all the three persons, and the requisite distinction of persons is made by means of pronoun prefixes or supplementary pronouns, a distinction which, in the Greek, &c., is made by varying the final inflections or original pronouns, as in“Tupt-oi-mēn, Tupt-oi-o,”&c.)156The pronoun prefixes of these North American Indian dialects, which as previously intimated, are common to the Welsh and the Hebrew, and other Semetic tongues remain to be noticed.Algonquyn Pronoun Prefixes.(See previous specimens of Algonquyn Verbs.)N'“I”and“We.”This is an abbreviated form used in conjunction with the verb as a prefix. The pronoun in full is Ni Nin“I,”Ninou“We.”Both the pronoun itself and the abbreviated form in which it is used as a prefix, occur in the Hebrew in which the latter is used as a suffix!This Algonquyn pronoun is identical with an Algonquyn word for“A Man,”which, it will be observed, renders the proofs of affinity between the Semetic and Algonquyn dialects in this instance complete.[pg 170]Algonquyn.Semetic.Welsh.“Man.”“I,”or“Me.”“I,”or“Me.”Anini.157A.nee, (Heb.) A.n.a, (Arabic.)Innai.Ini.Innai.N-nin.“I,”or“Me.”Nin.Ni.158Nee, (Heb.)N'.“We.”“We.”“We.”A.n.ou, A.n.c'h.n.ou.Ni.Nin-ou.N.c'h.n.ou, (Heb.)Nyni.Nin-owin.N.h.h.n, (Arabic.)Nyninnou.K',“Thou”and“Ye.”159This is also an abbreviation, the Pronoun in full is Ki, K-in, K-il,“Thou;”Kin-owa, and Kil-ou,“Ye.”Algonquyn.Semetic.Welsh.“Thou, Thine.”“Thee, Thy.”K'.C'. (Heb.)Kee.C'.ee. (Heb.)“Ye, Yours.”“Ye.”K'.Ki.Chwi.Ki-nowa.C-oun. C-n. (Chald.) C-m. (Heb.)Kil-ou.[pg 171]Du Ponceau notices another grammatical feature in which it is clear, though he was unconscious of that fact, that these North American Indian dialects form a connecting link between the Semetic and Indo-European languages.“We find,”he observes,“many Nouns substantive with M prefixed in such a way as to form an integral part of the words.”This is a Semetic mode of forming a Noun from a Root! In Latin, Nouns are formed from Roots by the same Letter placed at the end of words, as in Regn-um, a mode of which we have also had an example in the Algonquyn dialects, in the words M'-huk, Mok-um!Where long intervals of time have elapsed, it is in all cases difficult to discriminate between the proofs of a general and remote, and those of a near and specific relation. Still I conceive the previous examples tend, in some measure, to render it probable that there is a closer affinity between the North American Indians and the inhabitants of Northern Asia and of Europe, especially the Russians, Hungarians, and other nations located in its Northern and Western Regions, than exists between these American Septs and the inhabitants of Southern Asia. Should this proposition be confirmed by further investigation, it will be found to be in unison with Adelung's conclusion, that the route by which the first Colonists of Europe came from Central Asia lay through the Steppes which separate the Chinese and Russian Empires. The Nomade Hordes of these vast plains,—the great“Officina Gentium,”—were probably the parent Septs of all or most of the European nations on the one hand, and of the populations of the North-east of Asia and of the opposite American coasts on the other![pg 172]Of the general proposition, that the American Tribes and the Nations of the Old World are descended from the same Parent Stock, I conceive the evidence adduced in the previous pages will be deemed to be conclusive.

Identity of the American Tribes with the Nations of the other Continents. High Mental and Moral qualities of the North American Indians. Views of Cooper, Du Ponceau, and Catlin. Clear nature of the proofs derivable from Language of the Identity of the N. A. Indians with the European and Asiatic Nations. Catlin's views as to the Identity of the Mandans, a Tribe of N. A. Indians, with the Welsh. Union in the Dialects of the N. A. Indians, of Greek, and other Indo-European and Tartar Inflections, with the Pronouns of the Hebrew and the Welsh. Close Approximation of these Dialects to the Greek and other European Tongues, and to the Languages of the North of Europe and Asia.

That the Tribes of the American Continent are descended from the same stock as the Asiatic and European nations is a proposition with respect to which the evidence contained in Appendix A must, I conceive, be felt to be conclusive when combined with Dr. Prichard's proofs that the Physiology of the Human race in different countries is the result of climate and other external agencies. As regards the mental and moral qualities of the native American nations, there seems to be no solid ground for the inference maintained in some[pg 156]quarters that they are a different, because in these respects an inferior, race. It is impossible to peruse Mr. Catlin's living picture of the manners and social habits of the North American Indians without being deeply impressed with the conviction that these Tribes, both intellectually and morally, are as highly gifted by nature as those nations who have inherited the blessings of a refined civilization. That the same remark applies to the more Southern American populations, such as the Mexicans and Peruvians, may be shown by an appeal to numerous considerations. In this place, however, I shall confine my observations to the Septs generally termed North American Indians, the original inhabitants of the United States and the regions in the same latitude. This race of men has been thus described in a celebrated work of fiction, which owes its chief interest to the vivid portraiture it exhibits of Indian life and manners.136

“It is generally believed that the Aborigines of the American continent have had an Asiatic origin. There are many physical as well as moral facts which corroborate this opinion, and some few that would seem to weigh against it.

“The colour of the Indian, the writer believes, is peculiar to himself, and while his cheek-bones have a very striking indication of a Tartar origin, his eyes have not. Climate may have had great influence on the former, but it is difficult to see how it can have produced the substantial difference which exists in the latter. The imagery of the Indian, both in his poetry and his oratory, is Oriental, chastened, and perhaps improved, by the limited range of his practical knowledge. He draws his metaphors from the clouds, the seasons, the birds, the beasts, and the vegetable world. In this, perhaps, he does no more than any other energetic and imaginative race would do, being compelled[pg 157]to set bounds to his fancy by experience; but the North American Indian clothes his ideas in a dress that is so different from that of the African for instance, and so Oriental in itself as to be remarked. His language, too, has the richness and sententious fulness of the Chinese. He will express a phrase in a word, and he will qualify the meaning of an entire sentence by a syllable; he will even convey different significations by the simplest inflections of the voice.

“Philologists who have devoted much time to the study, have said that there were but two or three languages, properly speaking, among all the numerous tribes which formerly occupied the country that now composes the United States. They ascribe the known difficulty one people have in understanding one another to corruptions and dialects.

“The writer remembers to have been present at an interview between two chiefs of the Great Prairies west of the Mississippi, and when an interpreter was in attendance who spoke both their languages. The warriors appeared to be on the most friendly terms, and seemingly conversed much together, yet, according to the account of the interpreter, each was absolutely ignorant of what the other said. They were of hostile tribes, brought together by the influence of the American Government; and it is worthy of remark that a common policy led them both to adopt the same subject. They mutually exhorted each other to be of use in the event of the chance of war throwing either of the parties into the hands of his enemies. Whatever may be the truth, as respects the root and the genius of the Indian tongues, it is quite certain they are now so distinct in their words as to possess most of the disadvantages of strange languages; hence much of the embarrassment that has arisen in learning their histories, and most of the uncertainty which exists in their traditions.”

The traits of character embodied in this passage are not those of an inferior, but of a highly acute and imaginative race!

The Philological objections to the proposition that the North American Tribes are of Asiatic origin have by many writers been regarded as insuperable. Du Ponceau, who has given profound attention to the subject, dwells, 1, On the differences in words among the American languages themselves; 2, On the failure which he imputes to those writers who have attempted to identify the Indians with some one individual Asiatic nation, as the Chinese, the Tartars, or the Jews, &c.; and 3, On the differences in the Grammars of the North American dialects and those of the languages of the Old World, which he treats as a conclusive refutation of all arguments in favour of original unity! Mr. Catlin also lays great stress on the first of these considerations, viz. the great differences he found in the words of the dialects of the Tribes he visited.

To every one of these objections the general principles developed in the previous pages will be found to involve a complete answer. 1. The differences apparently fundamental in the words of American languages may be accounted for in the same manner as similar differences in the languages of the old world (the Gothic and Celtic for example,) have already been explained, viz. by the tendency to abandon different synonymes. 2. That attempts to prove a close specific relation between the North American dialects and any one Asiatic language, such as the Chinese or the Hebrew, should have failed, was to be expected as a consequence of the same tendency. 3. Finally, differences of Grammar have been shown to be fallacious evidence viewed separately and without due regard to other features of language.137Moreover, it will[pg 159]presently appear clearly that, even as regards the Grammar of the Indian Dialects, Du Ponceau's impressions can be distinctly proved to be erroneous, an extended comparison serving to render manifest the interesting fact that, as respects the elements of Grammar, these dialects perfectly agree with the Asiatic and European languages, while in the mode of combining those elements, they do not differ from those languages more widely than the latter differ among themselves.

If the ancestors of the American Indians emigrated at a remote period from the opposite Asiatic Coasts, we have no right to anticipate in their dialects a complete conformity to any one language of the old world, but general and varying features of resemblance to several. The kindred dialects of the same Continent after the lapse of a considerable time do not exhibit any other kind of resemblance! Now this is the species of relation which the North American Indian dialects actually display when compared to the Languages of the Old World!

The chief examples which I have selected as illustrations of this proposition have been taken from the Algonquyn dialects, the very class examined by Du Ponceau himself, to which I have added a few corroborative instances from those of the tribes of the regions to the west of the Mississippi which have been lately described by Mr. Catlin. The dialects termed Algonquyn by Du Ponceau were formerly spoken by numerous tribes who, though not the sole inhabitants, were originally spread through the whole of the present territory of the United States, including the“Lenni Lenapé,”the“Chippeways,”and other powerful septs.

With regard to this class of Indian Dialects I propose to show: 1. That as regards Words they bear a close resemblance to a great variety of Asiatic and European languages. 2. That their grammatical peculiarities, in like manner, combine[pg 160]those of various languages of the Old World, as in the instance of their Verbs and Pronouns, in which the inflections of the Greek and other Indo-European Tongues are found united with separate Pronouns identical with those common to the Welsh on the one hand and the Hebrew and its kindred Semetic dialects on the other.

Words from the North American Indian Dialects of the Algonquyn Class compared with analogous Terms in Asiatic and European Languages.

Man ittou,“The Deity, a Spirit,”(Ind.,138) Mouno he ka,“Ghosts,”(Mandan,139) Manes,“The Spirits of the Dead,”(Latin,) Manus,“The Mind,”(Sanscrit,) Mēn,“The Mind,”(Greek,) Mens, Ment-is (Latin), Pata-maw-os,“The Deity,”from Pata-maw-an,“To adore,”(Ind.,) Poth-ēmenai,“To seek, or pray to,”(Doric,) for Poth-ein (Greek), Peton,“To worship,”Peta,“A Prayer,”(Old High German,) Bet-en, Bitte (German); see, as to N'iou and Nioueskou, two remarkable words for“The Deity,”(Ind.,) pages22,23,24. For names of the Heavenly Bodies, seeAppendix A.

“Father,”Ooch, Oss (Ind.), Ozha (Sclavon.), Otze (Dalmatian), Wosch (Lusatian), Otzie (Bohemian), Nosa (Ind.), Niza, Niesee (Samoieds).

“Mother,”Anna (Ind.), Ana (Turkish), Anya (Hungarian), Nanna (Ind.), Nain140(Welsh), Ningé (Ind.), Naing (Irish), Nik, Nêkaoui (Ind.), N.k.be141(Hebrew).

“A Woman,”Panum, Phanem (Ind.), Banen (Cornish), Been (Welsh), Pin,“A Female,”applied to animals, (Chinese.)

“A Girl,”Kan-isswah (Ind.), Gen eez (Pers.), Nunk-shoué, Nunk142(Ind.), Neang (Chin.), Non (Mantschu).

“Husband,”Nap-é, Nap eem (Ind.), Nub-o, Nuptiæ (Lat.), Nuptials (Eng.)—“Husband,”Weew-ehsa, Wasuk (Ind.),“Wife,”Weewo, Weowika (Ind.),“Marriage,”Wiwaha (Sanscrit), Wife (Eng.)

“A little Child,”Awusk, Awash ish (Ind.),“A Child,”Watsah (Sanscrit),“Young,”Wuski (Ind.),“A Youth,”Was or Gwas (Welsh).

“High,”Hockunk (Ind.), Hoch, Höhe, Hoheit (German), High, Height (Eng.), Hitké143(Iroquois).

“The Earth,”Hacki, Ki, Ackour (Ind.), Ge (Greek), Ager (Latin), Agr-os (Greek).

“Foot,”Sit (Ind.), St.o,“I stand,”(Latin).

“Good,”Wuilit (Ind.), Wohl (Ger.), Weal, Well, Wealth (Eng.), Ee.o.l,“To profit, benefit,”(Hebrew).

“To fight,”Pachg-amen144(Ind.), P.g.ee (Heb.), Pug-no (Latin).

“To give,”Mekan (Ind.), M.gn (Hebrew).

“Night,”Nukon (Ind.), Nux (Greek), Nox (Latin), Noc (Polish), Noc (Hungarian).

“Blood,”M'huk, Mokum (Ind.), Mucum, Mucus (Latin).

“Cold,”Kisina (Ind.), Kuisne,“Ice,”(Irish,) K.sh.a,“To harden, stiffen,”“A Cucumber,145from its cooling properties,”(Hebrew).

“Sleep,”Nipu, Nip-awin,“To sleep,”Nupp (Ind.), Nap (Eng.), Hup-nos (Greek), Nim pamino,“I sleep,”(Ind.), N.m., N.ou.m.e (Hebrew).

“To touch,”Aman damaog-an (Ind.), Man-us (Latin).

“Man,”Nin (Ind.), Ninetz“Men,”(Samoieds,) a diminutive race in the North-east of Asia. The national name they have given to themselves is the above word, Ninetz“Men.”

I shall add a few further illustrations from the specimens of the languages of the Indian Tribes to the West of the United States, which have been published by Mr. Catlin.

“Spirits, Ghosts,”Mouno he ka (Mandan,)—and see above, Manitto,“A Spirit,”(Ind.)—Manes,“The Spirits of the Dead,”(Latin).

“Bad,”Khe cush (Mandan), Kakos (Greek).

“A Bear,”Mah to (Mandan), Matto (Sioux), Medve (Hungarian), Medvid (Sclavonian), Metzwetz (Lusatian), Koonoghk (Riccaree), Chiung (Chinese).

“Dog,”Shonka (Riccaree), Shunah (Sanscrit), Shun (Armenian), A meeteh (Blackfeet), Meda (Taraikai,North-east of Asia), Madaidh (Irish).

“A Raven,”Kaka (Mandan), To kah ka (Riccaree), Kaka (Sanscrit).

“River,”Pass ahah (Mandan). See Appendix A. p.78.

“Ears,”Ookah nay146(Tuskaroras), Ucho (Sclavonian), Ochtowaga (Shawannos), Ohto kiss (Blackfeet), Ōta (Greek.) See p.73, Appendix A.

“Hand,”Onka (Mandan.) See Appendix, page69. Ohahna (Tuskaroras.) See Appendix, p.68.

“Head,”Otahra (Tuskaroras), Otri (Ashantees Negroes), Utieri (Aminas Negroes.)

“Nose,”Pahoo (Mandan), Pei Pi (Chinese), Pah.soo (Sioux), Ph.o.e,“To Breathe,”(Hebrew), Phusa-o,“To Breathe,”(Greek.)

Want of space, and the extensive nature of the evidence contained in Appendix A, alone deter me from greatly multiplying these examples.

2. As regards Grammatical forms:

Nothing can be more erroneous than the inference that the North American Indian dialects differ in this respect from those of Asia and Europe. In the previous comparison numerous examples present themselves in which the same words unequivocally exhibit at once both the roots and the inflections of words belonging to the languages termed Indo-European, as inPatam-awan,Patam-awos,Kis-ina,M. huk,Mok-um,Khe-cush,Nimp-amino, &c.!

These are not isolated instances. I do not hesitate to affirm that it may be shown by means of the very terms he has selected for examination, that those North American Indian dialects which Du Ponceau has analyzed, abound in similar examples! That the same remark is true with regard to the dialects of the Western Tribes described by Mr. Catlin, is a proposition which will now be illustrated in a remarkable instance!

Among the tribes with whom he resided this writer has especially noticed a highly interesting sept, the Mandans, in whose dialect he has pointed out a variety of instances of close resemblance to the Welsh, which he has left to the judgment of those who are conversant with that language. On this subject I conceive there cannot be any difference of opinion among those who are vernacularly acquainted with the venerable tongue of the Cymry. Of the Mandan terms selected by Mr. Catlin (which are subjoined below), the majority must be admitted to present plain and unequivocal features of resemblance, or rather of identity, to the equivalent Welsh terms.

Now, it will be seen that of these147examples of affinity the greater number consist of terms which belong exclusively to the province of Grammar!

By some of our countrymen it has been sanguinely maintained that the descendants of a body of Welsh, who left their country under Prince Madoc in the twelfth century, may be still traced by affinities of language among the North American Indian Tribes. Struck by the resemblances he has detected, Mr. Catlin has been led to favour the same conclusion, and to suggest that the Mandans may probably be shown to be the descendants of the lost Cambrian Colony!

But the examples selected by this writer, however creditable to his accuracy and research, do not tend, as he suggests, to prove the existence of a specific connexion between the Welsh and the Mandans! This will be evident from the words contained in the right-hand column (which have been added by the author of this work). An examination of the whole comparison will serve to show clearly, that though in most of the instances he has noticed the resemblance displayed by the Mandan to the Welsh is a close one, in many of them it displays an equally close affinity to the Latin and Greek, &c., while in some—this North American Indian dialect totally differs from the Welsh tongue, and at the same time agrees with—other languages of the Old World. Many of those examples which precede the Comparison are also illustrations of the principle that the Mandan, like other North American Indian dialects, exhibits a general resemblance to all, and not a specific relation to any one of the Asiatic and European tongues. Thus Khe cush,“Bad,”which is identical with the Greek, but is totally unlike the Welsh, is a Mandan word!

The prevalent theory, that there exists a group of Indo-European languages and nations—peculiarly connected among themselves—peculiarly isolated from others—will, I conceive, be found to be fallacious; and what is highly remarkable, distinct proofs of its fallacy, as will presently be seen, are derivable from the dialects of the North American Tribes!

The writers by whom this theory has been maintained have overlooked, on the one hand, the numerous points of resemblance which connect the Indo-European languages with other Tongues; while, on the other hand, they have also overlooked the numerous points of difference which they mutually display. On a close investigation it will be evident that it is only in the basis of their Grammars that any of the ancient languages of Asia and Europe, even those which are very nearly related, agree; they do not display an identity of Grammatical forms! Compare, for example, the inflections of the Verbs in the Latin and the Greek, and the numerous points of difference which they exhibit in almost every tense, combined with mere partial coincidences. That these remarks are equally true of the relation displayed by the North American Indian dialects compared to those of the Old World will be apparent from the following examples, in which it will be manifest that these dialects in their basis agree with, and in their inflections and details only partially differ from, the Asiatic and European languages!

Present Tense of a Verb in two Dialects of the Algonquyn Class.

It will be observed that the inflections of the Algonquyn Verb, indicative of persons (corresponding to those in Leg-o, Leg-is, Leg-it,Latin), are“Om and Amen.”In another form of the Algonquyn Verb,“Amo”is also used.

These forms,“Om, Amo, Amen,”are the common inflections of the first person in all the Indo-European languages. (See Dr. Prichard on the Eastern Origin of the Celtic Nations, pp. 130, 136.) In the North American Indian dialects it will be seen that they occur in all the three persons. There are instances of the same kind in the Indo-European Tongues for the Doric Greek Infinitive as in Poth-emen-ai,“To desire,”and the Greek Passive Participle as in Tupt-omen-os, Tupt-omen-e,“Struck,”are examples of the application of“Amen or Omen”to any individual of the Human Race, in other words,to all the three persons!

This inflection“Amen”exists in the Tartar dialects in the first person, as in Bol-amen,“I am,”Bol-asin,“Thou art,”&c.

The following are examples of its use for the first person in the Greek:

These examples will serve to illustrate the proposition that in inflections and other grammatical details the North American Indian dialects partially coincide with individual Indo-European languages in the same manner as those languages partially agree among themselves! It remains to be pointed out that where these two groups of tongues differ, the differences are such as time might have produced, and that they have the same basis in common.

“Om, Amo, Amen,”are according to Dr. Prichard, pronouns confused with the verb. It is an interesting fact, that“Amo”153is actually used as the separate pronoun of the third person“He”in the dialect of the“Blackfeet,”one of the N. American Indian Tribes to the west of the Mississippi visited by Mr. Catlin! Now, as all pronouns were originally154nouns, names for a“Human Being,”(see p.13,) words of this class must have been in the first instance applied indifferently to all the three Persons. But in the course of time—1, In some languages different nouns were appropriated to different Persons,—the most common noun being applied to the First; (this accounts for the occurrence of“Amo Om Amen,”probably forms of the most primitive155noun—in the first Person of the Indo-European languages!)—2, In other tongues supplementary pronouns were used to mark the requisite distinction of Persons, the most common nouns being still used agreeably[pg 169]to previous habit,—(though no longer of practical service)—in combination with the verb; (this is the case in the Algonquyn dialects in which the same inflection is repeated in all the three persons, and the requisite distinction of persons is made by means of pronoun prefixes or supplementary pronouns, a distinction which, in the Greek, &c., is made by varying the final inflections or original pronouns, as in“Tupt-oi-mēn, Tupt-oi-o,”&c.)156

The pronoun prefixes of these North American Indian dialects, which as previously intimated, are common to the Welsh and the Hebrew, and other Semetic tongues remain to be noticed.

Algonquyn Pronoun Prefixes.

(See previous specimens of Algonquyn Verbs.)

N'“I”and“We.”

This is an abbreviated form used in conjunction with the verb as a prefix. The pronoun in full is Ni Nin“I,”Ninou“We.”Both the pronoun itself and the abbreviated form in which it is used as a prefix, occur in the Hebrew in which the latter is used as a suffix!

This Algonquyn pronoun is identical with an Algonquyn word for“A Man,”which, it will be observed, renders the proofs of affinity between the Semetic and Algonquyn dialects in this instance complete.

K',“Thou”and“Ye.”159

This is also an abbreviation, the Pronoun in full is Ki, K-in, K-il,“Thou;”Kin-owa, and Kil-ou,“Ye.”

Du Ponceau notices another grammatical feature in which it is clear, though he was unconscious of that fact, that these North American Indian dialects form a connecting link between the Semetic and Indo-European languages.“We find,”he observes,“many Nouns substantive with M prefixed in such a way as to form an integral part of the words.”

This is a Semetic mode of forming a Noun from a Root! In Latin, Nouns are formed from Roots by the same Letter placed at the end of words, as in Regn-um, a mode of which we have also had an example in the Algonquyn dialects, in the words M'-huk, Mok-um!

Where long intervals of time have elapsed, it is in all cases difficult to discriminate between the proofs of a general and remote, and those of a near and specific relation. Still I conceive the previous examples tend, in some measure, to render it probable that there is a closer affinity between the North American Indians and the inhabitants of Northern Asia and of Europe, especially the Russians, Hungarians, and other nations located in its Northern and Western Regions, than exists between these American Septs and the inhabitants of Southern Asia. Should this proposition be confirmed by further investigation, it will be found to be in unison with Adelung's conclusion, that the route by which the first Colonists of Europe came from Central Asia lay through the Steppes which separate the Chinese and Russian Empires. The Nomade Hordes of these vast plains,—the great“Officina Gentium,”—were probably the parent Septs of all or most of the European nations on the one hand, and of the populations of the North-east of Asia and of the opposite American coasts on the other!

Of the general proposition, that the American Tribes and the Nations of the Old World are descended from the same Parent Stock, I conceive the evidence adduced in the previous pages will be deemed to be conclusive.

Back to IndexNext