LETTER XVII.

TO THE SAME.

PHILADELPHIA, 3d August, 1816.

DEAR SIR.--I now return to my proper station of a scholar asking questions of his master. In your letter of the 24th ult., you have fully satisfied me that the Indians have a great number of words derived from “_roots_,” much in the same manner as in the languages of Europe, but you have said at the same time “that the manner in which the Indians in general form their words, is different from that of the Europeans.” I am very anxious to have this manner[287] explained, and I shall be very much obliged to you for all the information that you can give me on the subject.

I have told you already that I thought I had reason to believe that all the American languages were formed on the same general plan. If I am correct in my supposition, I think I have found in the language of Greenland, the identical manner of compounding words which I am now calling upon you to explain. You will tell me whether I have judged right, and you will at once destroy or confirm my favourite hypothesis. According to the venerable Egede, words are formed in the Greenland language by taking and joining together a part of each of the radical words, the ideas of which are to be combined together in one compound locution. One or more syllables of each simple word are generally chosen for that purpose and combined together, often leaving out the harsh consonants for the sake of euphony. Thus from “_agglekpok_,” he writes, “_pekipok_,” he mends or does better, and “_pinniarpok_,” he endeavours, is formed the compound word “_agglekiniaret_,” which means, “endeavour to write better.” The first syllable “_agl_,” is taken from “agl_ekpok_,” the second “_ek_” from the same word, and also from the first syllable of “_pekipok_,” leaving out the _p_ to avoid harshness, and the third “_inniar_” from “Pinniar_pok_,” also leaving out the initial consonant for the same reason. It seems to me that I find something like it in the Delaware language. According to Zeisberger, _wet_ooch_wink_ signifies “father.” Now taking the second syllable _ooch_, and placing _n_ before it, you have “_nooch_,” my father. To be sure, it is not the first syllable that is borrowed, as in the above example from the Greenlandish, but the principle appears, nevertheless, to be the same in both languages.

On the subject of this word “_father_” I observe a strange contradiction between two eminent writers on Indian languages, evidently derived from the stock of the Lenni Lenape or Delaware. One of them, Roger Williams, in his Key to the Language of the New England Indians, says “_osh_” (meaning probably _och_ or _ooch_, as the English cannot pronounce the guttural _ch_) father; “_nosh_” my father; “_kosh_” thy father, &c. On the other hand, the Rev. Jonathan Edwards, in his observations on the language of the _Muhhekanew_ (Mohican) Indians, speaks as follows: “A considerable part of the appellations is never used without a pronoun affixed. The Mohegans say, my father, ‘_nogh_’ (again _noch_ or _nooch_) thy father ‘_kogh_,’ &c., but they cannot say absolutely ‘_father_.’ There is no such word in their language. If you were to say ‘_ogh_,’ you would make a Mohegan both stare and smile.” (page 13.)

Which of these two professors is right? It seems that either Rogers invented the word _osh_ for “father,” from analogy, or that Edwards is not correct when he says that _ogh_ or _ooch_ singly, mean nothing in the Indian language. Is he not mistaken when he says that there is no word whatever answering to “father,” or “the father,” in an abstract sense; and if an Indian would stare and smile when a white man says _ooch_, would he smile in the same manner if he said _wetoochwink_? Is it possible to suppose that this respectable author had only a partial knowledge of the language on which he wrote, and that he was not acquainted with the radical word from which _nooch_ and _kooch_ had been formed? Or is there no such radical word, and has Zeisberger himself committed a mistake?

I beg leave to submit to you also another observation that I have made. It appears from the work of the late Dr. Barton, who quotes your authority for it, that the name of the _Lenni Lenape_, means “_the original people_,” and that “_Lenno_” in the Delaware language signifies “man,” in the general sense, (_Mensch_.) Now, it appears that in the language of the _Micmacs_ (a tribe of Nova Scotia,) they call an Indian “_Illenoh_,” and in that of the Canadian mountaineers (whom some believe to be the Algonkins proper) they say “_Illenou_.” (Mass. Histor. Coll. for the year 1799, pp. 18, 19.) I am apt to believe that those names are the same with “_Lenno_,” and that it is from them that the French have formed the name “_Illinois_,” which extends even beyond the Mississippi. In the speech of the Indian chief _Garangula_, to the Governor of Canada, related by La Hontan, the warrior says: “You must know, Onontio, that we have robbed no Frenchmen, but those who supplied the ‘_Illinois_,’ and the ‘_Oumamis_,’ our enemies, with powder and ball.” I am inclined to believe that Garangula when he spoke of the _Illinois_ meant the _Lenni Lenape_, and by the name of _Oumamis_, intended to describe their chief tribe, the _Unamis_. Of this, however, I leave you to judge. But I strongly suspect that “_Lenno_,” “_Lenni_,” “_Illenoh_,” “_Illenou_,” “_Illinois_,” are the same name, and all apply to that great nation whom the Baron La Hontan takes to be the _Algonkins_, who, it would seem, are only called so by way of discrimination, but consider themselves as a branch of the great family of the “_Illenou_.” If I am correct in this, how do you make out that _Lenni Lenape_ means “_original people_”?

The Greenlanders, according to Egede, call themselves _Innuit_, which in their language also signifies _men_. It appears to me to be very much akin to _Illenoh_, _Illeun_. Could the Greenlanders be in any way connected with the _Lenni Lenape_?

Pray tell me from what languages are derived the words _squaw_, _sachem_, _tomahawk_, _calumet_, _wampum_, _papoose_, which are so much in use among us? Are they of the Delaware or the Iroquois stock?

I am, &c.