CHAPTER XIV.

Remarks on American Languages in general—Conflicting Opinions of Philologists—Religious Zeal a Stimulus that has produced the Grammars and Vocabularies of the American Languages—Sketch of the Grammar of the Maya Tongue—Concluding Observations respecting its Origin.

The origin and the mutual relations of the American languages have long been favorite topics of discussion among philologists; but their researches and speculations have led to results so contradictory and utterly irreconcilable, that we are left, after a thorough perusal of the leading works upon the subject, in the same state of doubt and uncertainty with which we commenced it. Mr. Gallatin, in the prefatory letter to his learned and profound essay, entitled “A Synopsis of the Indian Tribes within the United States, East of the Rocky Mountains, and in the British and Russian Possessions in North America,” remarks, that “amid the great diversity of American languages, considered only in reference to their vocabularies, the similarity of their structure and grammatical forms has been observed and pointed out by the American philologists. The substance of our knowledge in that respect will be found, in a condensed form, in the appendix. The result appearsto confirm the opinions already entertained on that subject by Mr. Du Ponceau, Mr. Pickering, and others; and to prove that all the languages, not only of our own Indians, but of the native inhabitants of America, from the Arctic Ocean to Cape Horn, have, as far as they have been investigated, a distinct character common to all, and apparently differing from those of the other continent with which we are the most familiar.” Mr. Gallatin, however, in a note appended to this paragraph, qualifies it by stating that “the grammar of the language of Chili is the only one, foreign to the immediate object of the ‘Synopsis,’ with which a comparison has been introduced. Want of space did not permit him to extend the inquiry into the language of Mexico and other parts of Spanish America.” Mr. Bradford, however, in his “Researches into the Origin and History of the Red Race,” p. 309, states unqualifiedly that “philologists have examined into the form and character of the American languages, and have established satisfactorily that they have all sprung from one common source. The features of resemblance are such as enter into their elementary construction; the diversities, those to which all languages are exposed, by the separation and dispersion of those who speak them.”

On the other hand, Baron Von Humboldt, in his “Political Essay on the Kingdom of New Spain,” vol. i. p. 138, after some remarks upon the migrations of the American tribes, proceeds to state that “the great variety of languages still spoken in the kingdom of Mexico proves a great variety ofraces and origin. The number of these languages exceeds twenty, of which fourteen have grammars and dictionaries tolerably complete. The following are their names: the Mexican or Aztec language; the Otomite; the Tarasc; the Zapotec; the Mistec; the Maya or Yucatan; the Totonac; the Popolouc; the Matlazing; the Huastec; the Mixed; the Caquiquel; the Taraumar; the Tepehuan; and the Cora. It appears that the most part of these languages, far from being dialects of the same, (as some authors have falsely advanced,) are at least as different from one another as the Greek and the German, or the French and the Polish. This is the case with at least seven languages of New Spain, of which I possess the vocabularies. The variety of idioms spoken by the people of the new continent, and which, without the least exaggeration, may be stated at some hundreds, offers a very striking phenomenon, particularly when we compare it with the few languages spoken in Asia and Europe.”

We might give quotations from other writers, of an equally contradictory nature, were it our design to write a treatise upon the origin or the resemblances of the American languages in general. We intend, however, to confine our attention solely to the language of Yucatan, or the Maya tongue, mentioned above, by Humboldt, as one of the original languages of New Spain.

The Maya was the sole language spoken throughout the peninsula of Yucatan, and the northern portion of Guatemala, at the time of the first settlementof the Spaniards in Campeachy. The difficulty of opening an intercourse with the Indians, and of mastering their language, was at first exceedingly great; but was finally surmounted by the learning and religious zeal of the Catholic priesthood, who, after years of incessant labor and self-denial, under the most discouraging circumstances, succeeded not only in acquiring a knowledge of the Maya tongue, sufficient to enable them to converse with and preach to the natives, but to invent a written language, and to compose a grammar and a vocabulary. It is impossible to reflect upon the physical and mental exertions of the Catholic missionaries among the Indians of America, without admiration. The Jesuits in Paraguay, Chili, Peru, and, in truth, throughout the whole of South America, animated by an unextinguishable zeal in the cause of religion, buried themselves in the most remote districts, in the midst of the most appalling dangers, and quietly and undauntedly set about the task of conquering the Indian, not with the sword, but with the pen; and they ceased not until they had obtained that key to his heart, in the shape of an embodied language, which all the political changes of the continent, during the lapse of centuries, have not been able to wrest from them. The Indian in Yucatan and Guatemala, as well as in South America, acknowledges no authority but that of the priest, and it is through the influence of the Church alone, that the temporal power is enabled to keep up even the semblance of government. The Padre is to the Indian a guide, father, and friend; he consults him on alloccasions. We hazard little in saying that throughout nine tenths of the peninsula of Yucatan, if we except the seaport towns, the entire control of the Indians is in the hands of the priesthood, and that the political relations now existing as between the government and the governed, would be instantly dissolved were the clergy to withhold their co-operation; and that the result would be the same, whatever mutations may take place among the parties which may now or hereafter contend for political supremacy.

Humboldt speaks of fourteen languages of New Spain as having grammars and vocabularies tolerably complete. We will endeavor, by means of the Maya grammar and vocabulary in our possession, to give such a slight sketch of its structure, as we have been enabled to glean from its pages. The first Maya grammar was composed by Father Louis de Villalpando, the first Catholic priest that set foot upon the peninsula of Yucatan, at Campeachy. This grammar was never published, and was much improved by Father Landa, the first provincial minister, and the second bishop of Yucatan. His treatise, with the additions of the bishop, remained in manuscript, but was the basis of the grammars of Fathers Juan Coronel and Gabriel de San Bonaventure, which in their turn were largely used by the author of the work in our possession. It is a remarkable fact, tending to show the decline of literary taste among even the priesthood of Yucatan, that we were unable, after the most active research, to find any of the worksabove mentioned, and we have reason to believe that few if any copies now exist. The grammar in our possession was written by Father Pedro Beltran, a Franciscan, and published at the city of Mexico, in 1746, see note[3]. The author, in his preface, characterizes the Maya, as “graceful in diction, elegant in its periods, and concise in style; often, in a few words of few syllables, expressing the meaning of many sentences. If the learner can overcome the obstacle presented by the difficulty of pronouncing some of the consonants, which are intensely guttural, he will find the language of easy acquisition.” After some remarks upon the mode in which he proposes the trial of his subject, he concludes with the following remarks, which we have condensed here, to show that religious zeal was the moving cause which produced all the grammars and vocabularies of the Indian languages: “I will not rest my appeal in behalf of the Maya upon considerations of mere personal interest, or of the pleasure which must be the result of being able to communicate ideas in a foreign tongue; I would elevate my thoughts above such comparatively base and vulgar views; since I dedicate my work as an instrument for the service of the Divine Majesty, knowing, from my personal experience, that the brethren of the church will obtain abundant fruit among the poor Indians, by instructing them from the pulpit and the confessional, and likewise holding converse with them, in their native tongue: since by this means we shall most successfully thwart the Devil, who will be cast down if wesucceed, and who often interposes ridiculous difficulties in our path, which we can easily surmount; the Accursed One well knowing, that in turning aside, and not acquiring this language, we deeply offend God, in that we cause the ruin of many souls. Therefore, beloved reader, apply yourself carefully to this treatise, to the end that you may please God, by opening the ears of this poor people, and feeding them with spiritual bread.”

The Maya alphabet consists of only twenty-two letters, of which the following, viz.,

ↄ, ch, k, pp, th, tz,

are peculiar to the language, and are very difficult of pronunciation. Mechanical rules, representing their sounds, are given in the grammar, but it is almost impossible to acquire them without the assistance of a native. It is deficient in the following letters:—

d, f, g, j, q, r, s.

The remaining letters are sounded as in Spanish.

The parts of speech are the same as in English. The noun is indeclinable, that is, the cases are formed solely by means of prepositions; the accusative, like the objective in English, requiring no preposition when governed by an active verb. The genders are natural, as in English, and are designated by the particleAh, for the masculine, andIxfor the feminine, neuter nouns having no prefix; thus—

These monosyllables, however, are generally written simply H and X. They are often used in a pronominalsense when mention is made of any peculiarity or attribute of a living person; thus,nohochbeing an adjective, signifyinggreat, andpola noun, meaning head, we should say—

The genders of beasts and birds are still further designated by the prefixxibilfor the male, andchupulfor the female.

The numbers are expressed by affixing to the substantive the particleob, to signify the third person plural, and the personal pronouns to express the first and second persons. The adjective is, like the substantive, indeclinable; admitting only, as in English, of the variation of degrees of comparison. These are formed by doubling the last syllable, and prefixing a pronoun for the comparative; as—

The prefix ofuchanged toy, and sounded with the adjective, when it begins with a vowel. The final syllable of all comparatives has been gradually corrupted intoilorel, in the spoken language.

The relation of comparison between two persons or things is expressed by several words analogous tothan, in English; but this part of the subject belongs more properly to the syntax.

The superlative degree is formed by simply prefixing to the adjective the wordhach,very; as—

The pronouns are very difficult to classify. The author, however, arranges them in five divisions, of which two are demonstrative, two mixed, or partaking of the possessive nature, and one reciprocal or reflective.

The first, which is prefixed solely to active or transitive verbs, or used as a relative, is declined as follows:—

The second is suffixed to all tenses of neuter or substantive verbs, except the present and imperfect. It also serves as an objective when following an active verb, and, joined with a past participle, forms a neuter verb. It is thus declined:—

The two demonstrative and possessive pronouns are as follows:—

The numerous and delicate distinctions between these last, as shown by the author in many examples, would be fatiguing to the reader were they set forth at length. It is enough to remark here, that the first is used in the conjugation of certain tensesof the verbs, and the second in certain others; and that, as a possessive, the first is used before nouns beginning with a consonant, and the second before those commencing with a vowel.

The reciprocal or reflective pronoun is declined as follows:—

This is used precisely as in English: thus,cimzah, to kill;cimzahba, to kill one’sself.

The verbs are divided into four conjugations; of which the first comprehends all absolute or neuter verbs. The verbs of the other conjugations are all active or transitive, but are rendered passive by being conjugated after the first conjugation; whence all passive verbs may be said likewise to be embraced under this form. All verbs of this conjugation, with a few exceptions, terminate, in the infinitive, in the letterl, and are of more than one syllable. The perfect tense ends always ini, and the future inc. We give a few examples, to show the symmetry of the arrangement of the Spanish grammarian.

The second conjugation, which is the first of the active verbs, is indicated by the termination,ah. The perfect likewise ends inah, being distinguishedfrom the present by a different pronoun, and the future inz. A few examples follow:—

The verbs of the third conjugation are all monosyllabic, and form the preterite by the addition ofah, and the future inéorabindiscriminately; as, for example:—

The verbs of the fourth conjugation differ from those of the third, in being polysyllabic. They form the preterite by addingtah, and the future by addingtéto the body of the verb. If the infinitive end intah, the preterite remains the same. Some examples follow:—

The irregular verbs, of which there are about as many as in our own language, are to be learned only from practice. The auxiliary verbs likewise require much attention, to enable the student to conjugate the regular verbs. They are used in the different tensesand modes precisely as the auxiliaries in the modern European languages, except that they sometimes follow the participles in place of preceding them. We give the reader a specimen of the mode of conjugating a verb of the second conjugation in the present and imperfect tenses, our limits not allowing us to give all its modifications.

PRESENT INDICATIVE.

IMPERFECT INDICATIVE.

Were we to give the remaining portions of this verb, as conjugated by Father Beltran, the reader would be filled with admiration at the clearness and simplicity of his arrangement, and perceive how much his labors have facilitated the acquisition of this language.

The great obstacle, however, to the perfect knowledge of the Maya, and which can only be removed by continual converse with the natives themselves, is the frequent use of elisions and syncopes. The author has devoted several pages to this part of hissubject, and has laid down many rules to guide the learner; but finally he is obliged to confess that no written directions can be given to embrace every case. The Maya tongue, in this respect, resembles many other Indian languages, in which words are elided, syncopated, and consolidated together, until the grammatical construction can only be conjectured by the philologist, and the radices become jumbled up and difficult to distinguish. The utmost that the grammarian can accomplish, is to separate the different parts of speech, and to classify them scientifically. A spoken language is always more or less elided in conversation, however distinctly the words may be written in books; but the written languages of South America present consolidated masses of words truly formidable to behold, and which tend utterly to discourage the most patient philologist. Humboldt mentions the wordNotlazomahuiztespixcalatzin, signifying “venerable priest, whom I cherish as my father,” as used by the Mexicans when speaking to the curates; and the vocabularies of Indian languages, both of North and South America, exhibit words of even greater longitude. It is evident that so long as the words of a language are, as it were, fused together, almost according to the fancy of the speaker, grammatical rules will be of little practical use to guide the scholar, and that he must acquire the language mostly by the ear. This perhaps accounts for the disappearance of all grammars and vocabularies of the Maya tongue from the peninsula of Yucatan, the priests finding it much easier to learnthe language directly from the Indian, than to acquire it from books. I offer this, however, as a suggestion, rather than as an explanation.

The brief sketch we have given of some of the features of the Maya tongue, naturally leads to speculations concerning its origin, and that of the nation by which it is spoken.

There appears to be but little resemblance between the Maya, and the Mexican or Aztec, although they are both intensely guttural, and have a great similarity when viewed superficially by a cursory observer. The Maya bears evident marks of very great antiquity, and may have been the language of Mexico before the great invasions of the Toltecs and Aztecs. There are some who suppose that the present inhabitants of Yucatan are but the scattered remnants of a great nation, which once ruled a large portion of the continent, and had its central seat of power in the peninsula; and that it was gradually forced to yield to the assaults of more warlike nations, who invaded it from the North, and retired within the boundaries of the peninsula, where it decayed by degrees, until all vestige of political power was lost, long before the arrival of the Spaniards. Its temples and pyramids, and its spoken tongue, are the only memorials from which we can form any idea respecting its origin. This question necessarily involves a solution of the great problem of the origin of the American race in general.

The opinions of writers upon this subject are diverse, and are supported on each side with a greatvariety of interesting facts and inferences. It has long been a favorite idea with most who have treated of this topic, that America originally derived its population from Europe or Asia, or, to speak in the usual manner, that theNewWorld was peopled from theOld. This hypothesis seems to have been assumed in the first instance as a premise; at least, most arguments upon this head seem to indicate that it has served as a sort of basis to the train of deductions; and the most ingenious suppositions and skilfully arranged facts have been adduced to support a foregone conclusion. Whether the American continent was peopled at a very remote or a comparatively recent date, is not of so much moment, although there is a great diversity of opinion also in this respect. Mr. Gallatin, in his “Prefatory Letter,” above mentioned, is of opinion that “this continent received its first inhabitants at a very remote epoch, probably not much posterior to the dispersion of mankind;” thus evidently referring to and supporting the theory of immigration, and of the derivation of all diversities of the human race from one type; while Mr. Bradford, in the final chapter of his elaborate work, before cited, agrees with Mr. Gallatin in the hypothesis that “the Red Race penetrated at a very ancient period into America,” but differs with him in the conclusion that it “appears to bea primitive branch of the human family.” Baron Von Humboldt, however, in his great work upon New Spain, terms the Indians “indigenous,” and, although he quotes the opinions of many authors in favor of their Asiatic origin, he atthe same time combats their views with sundry striking facts, and finally modestly dismisses the subject with the remark, that “the general question of the first origin of the inhabitants of a continent is beyond the limits prescribed to history, and is not, perhaps, even a philosophical question.”

We will candidly confess that we could never understand why philosophers have been so predisposed to advocate the theory which peoples America from the Eastern hemisphere. We think the supposition that the Red Man is a primitive type of a family of the human race, originally planted in the Western continent, presents the most natural solution of the problem; and that the researches of physiologists, antiquaries, philologists, and philosophers in general, tend irresistibly to this conclusion. The hypothesis of immigration, however inviting it appear at first to the superficial observer, and however much he may be struck with certain fancied analogies between the architectural or astronomical peculiarities of the American and the Asiatic, is, when followed out, embarrassed with great difficulties, and leads to a course of interminable and unsatisfying speculations.

APPENDIX.

Back to Index Next