LETTER XXIII.

TO MR. HECKEWELDER.

PHILADELPHIA, 30th August, 1816.

DEAR SIR.--I thank you for your two favours of the 26th and 27th inst. I am very much pleased to find from the valuable extract of Mr. Dencke’s letter, which you have had the goodness to communicate, that the Chippeways have grammatical forms similar to those of the Delawares. Indeed, as far as my researches have extended, I have found those forms in all the Indian languages from Greenland to Cape Horn. The venerable Eliot’s Grammar shews that they exist in the idiom of the New England Indians, as he calls it, which is believed to be that of the Natick tribe. Crantz and Egede prove in the most incontrovertible manner that the language of Greenland is formed on the same _syntactic_ or _polysynthetic_ model. So are the various dialects of Mexico, as far as I can judge from the Grammars of those languages that are in our Society’s library. Indeed, the authors of those Grammars are the first who have noticed the personal forms of the Indian verbs, and given them the name of _transitions_. I find from Father Breton’s Grammar and Dictionary of the Caribbee language, that those forms exist also in that idiom, and the Abbé Molina, in his excellent History of Chili, has shewn that the Araucanian belongs to the same class of languages. All the genuine specimens that we have seen of the grammatical forms of the Indians from north to south, on the continent, and in the islands, exhibit the same general features, and no exception whatever that I know of has yet been discovered. Father Sagard’s assertions about the Huron are not founded in fact, and are even disproved by the examples which he adduces, and Mr. Dencke’s testimony is sufficient to counterbalance the naked supposition of Professor Vater that the language of the Chippeways has no forms. Too much praise cannot be given to this learned author for the profound researches that he has made on the subject of American languages with a view to discover the origin of the ancient inhabitants of this continent, but not being on the spot, he had not the same means of ascertaining facts that we possess in this country. Had he lived among us, he would not so easily have been persuaded that there was such a difference between the different languages of the American Indians; that some of them were exceedingly rich in grammatical forms, and appeared to have been framed with the greatest skill, while others were so very poor in that respect that they might be compared to the idioms of the most savage nations in north-eastern Asia and Africa.[303] In Philology, as well as in every other science, authorities ought to be weighed, compared, and examined, and no assertion should be lightly believed that is not supported by evident proof faithfully drawn from the original sources.

I do not positively assert that all the languages of the American Indians are formed on the same grammatical construction, but I think I may safely advance that as far as our means of knowledge extend, they appear to be so, and that no proof has yet been adduced to the contrary. When we find so many different idioms, spoken by nations which reside at immense distances from each other, so entirely different in their etymology that there is not the least appearance of a common derivation, yet so strikingly similar in their forms, that one would imagine the same mind presided over their original formation, we may well suppose that the similarity extends through the whole of the languages of this race of men, at least until we have clear and direct proof to the contrary. It is at any rate, a fact well worthy of investigation, and this point, if it should ever be settled, may throw considerable light on the origin of the primæval inhabitants of this country.

The most generally established opinion seems to be, that the Americans are descended from the Tartars who inhabit the north-easternmost parts of Asia. Would it not be then well worth the while to ascertain this fact by enquiring into the grammatical forms and construction of the languages of those people? The great Empress Catharine employed a learned professor to compile a comparative vocabulary of those languages which are spoken within the vast extent of the Russian Empire. This was but the first step towards a knowledge of the character and affinities of those idioms. If something may be discovered by the mere similarity of words, how much farther may not we proceed by studying and comparing the “plans of men’s ideas,” and the variety of modes by which they have contrived to give them body and shape through articulate sounds. This I consider to be the most truly philosophical view of human language generally considered, and before we decide upon the Tartar origin of the American Indians, we ought, I think, to study the grammars of the Tartar languages, and ascertain whether their thoughts flow in the same course, and whether their languages are formed by similar associations of ideas, with those of their supposed descendants. If essential differences should be found between them in this respect, I do not see how the hypothesis of Tartar origin could afterwards be maintained.

Professor Vater is of opinion that the language of the Cantabrians, whom we call Biscayans or Basques, a people who inhabit the sea coast at the foot of the Pyrenean mountains, is formed on the same model with that of the American Indians. We have in our Society’s library, a translation into that idiom of Royaumont’s History of the Bible. I acknowledge, that by comparing it with the original, I have found sufficient reason to incline in favour of the Professor’s assertion. This is a very curious fact, which well deserves to be inquired into. This Basque language, it is to be presumed, was once spoken in a considerable part of the ancient world, and probably branched out into various dialects. How comes it that those polysynthetic forms which distinguish it, have disappeared from all the rest of the continent of Europe, and are only preserved in a single language no longer spoken but by a handful of mountaineers? How comes it that the Celtic which appears no less ancient is so widely different in its grammatical construction? Are we to revive the story of the Atlantis, and believe that the two continents of America and Europe were once connected together? At least, we will not forget that the Biscayans were once great navigators, and that they were among the first who frequented the coasts of Newfoundland.

But let us leave these wild theories, and not lose sight of our object, which is to ascertain facts, and let others afterwards draw inferences from them at their pleasure. In Father Breton’s Grammar and Dictionary of the Caribbee language, I have been struck with a fact of a very singular nature. It seems (and indeed there appears no reason to entertain the least doubt on the subject) that in that idiom the language of the men and that of the women differ in a great degree from each other. This difference does not merely consist in the inflexions or terminations of words, but the words themselves, used by the different sexes, have no kind of resemblance. Thus the men call an enemy _etoucou_, and the women _akani_; a friend in the masculine dialect is _ibaouanale_, in the female _nitignon_. I might adduce a much greater number of examples to shew the difference between these two modes of speaking. It does not, however, pervade the whole language; sometimes the termination of the words only differs, while in many cases the same words are used exactly alike by both sexes. But those which differ entirely in the two idioms are very numerous, and are in general terms of common use, such as names of parts of the body, or of relationship as father, mother, brother, sister, and many others. It is said a tradition prevails in the Caribbee islands that their nation was once conquered by another people, who put all the males to death and preserved only the females, who retained their national language, and would not adopt that of the conquerors. I am not much disposed to believe this story; the more so as I find similar instances in other idioms of different words being employed by the men and women to express the same thing. Thus among the Othomis, (a Mexican tribe) the men call a brother-in-law _naco_, and the women _namo_; a sister-in-law is called by the men _nabehpo_, and by the women _namuddu_. (Molina’s Grammar of the Othomi language, p. 38.) In the Mexican proper, the men add an _e_ to the vocative of every proper name, and say _Pedroe_ for _Pedro_; while the women leave out the _e_ and distinguish the vocative only by an affected pronunciation. (Rincon’s Mexican Grammar, p. 6.) It is said also that among the Javanese, there is a language for the nobles and another for the common people.[304] These are curious facts, and a discovery of their causes would lay open an interesting page of the great hidden book of the history of man.

As I have determined to abstain from every hypothesis, I shall leave it to others to discover and point out the causes of these extraordinary facts; but I shall be obliged to you for informing me whether in any of the Indian languages that you know, there is any such difference of dialect between the two sexes, and in what it particularly consists. I cannot believe this story of the conquest of the Caribbee islands and of its producing that variety of language. I find it related by one Davis, an English writer, in whom I place no reliance; for he has pretended to give a Vocabulary of the Caribbee language, which he has evidently taken from Father Breton, without even taking the trouble of substituting the English for the French orthography. Carver acted with more skill in this respect.

I thank you for the explanation which you have given of what Mr. Dencke calls the “_particular_ plural,” of the Chippeway and Delaware languages, of which I had no idea, as Zeisberger does not make any mention of it. It appears to me that this numerical form of language (if I can so express myself,) is founded in nature, and ought to have its place in a system of Universal Grammar. It is more natural than the Greek dual, which is too limited in its comprehension, while the particular plural expresses more, and may be limited in its application to two, when the context or the subject of the conversation requires it. I find this plural in several of the modern European languages; it is the _nosotros_ of the Spanish, the _noi altri_ of the Italian, and the French _nous autres_. There is nothing like it in English or German, nor even in the Latin. I am disposed to believe that this form exists also in the Greenland language, and has been improperly called _dual_ by those who have written on it. The Abbé Molina speaks also of a Dual in the Araucanian idiom, which he translates by _we two_. But he may have used a term generally known, to avoid the explanations which a new one would have required. However this may be, the particular plural is well worthy of notice.

I shall be obliged to you for a translation of the Lord’s prayer in the Delaware language, with proper explanations in English. I suspect that in Loskiel is not correct.

In reading some time ago one of the Gospels, (I think St. Mark’s,) in one of the Iroquois dialects, said to be translated by the celebrated chief Captain Brandt, I observed that the word _town_ was translated into Indian by the word _Kanada_, and it struck me that the name of the province of _Canada_ might probably have been derived from it. I have not been able to procure the book since, but I have now before me a translation of the English common prayer-book into the Mohawk, ascribed to the same chief, in which I find these words: “_Ne_ KANADA-_gongh konwayatsk Nazareth_,” which are the translation of “in a CITY called Nazareth,” (Matth. ii. 23.) The termination _gongh_ in this word appears evidently to be a grammatical form or inflexion, and _Kanada_ is the word which answers for “_city_.” I should be glad to know your opinion of this etymology.

I find in Zeisberger’s grammar, in the conjugation of one of the forms of the verb _n’peton_ “I bring,” _n’petagep_ in one place, and in another _n’petagunewoakup_, both translated into German by “_sie haben mir gebracht_,” “they have brought to me.” Are these words synonyma, or is there some difference between them, and which?

I am, &c.