Part 39

_English_ mouth. Adahi _wacatcholak_. Chetimacha _cha_. Attacapa _katt_. Caddo _dunehwatcha_. Natchez _heche_. Mohawk _wachsacarlunt_. Seneca _wachsagaint_. Sack and Fox _wektoneh_. Mohican _otoun_.

_English_ tongue. Adahi _tenanat_. Chetimacha _huene_. Uché _cootincah_. Choctah _issoonlush_. Knistenaux _otayenee_. Ojibbeway _otainani_. Ottawa _tenanian_.

_English_ hand. Adahi _secut_. Adahi _sicksapasca_ = _nails_. Choctah _shukba_ = _his arm_. Chikkasaw _shukbah_ = _do_. Muskoge _sakpa_ = _do_. Kenay _skona_. Attacapa _nishagg_ = _fingers_. Omahaw _shagai_. Osage _shagah_. Mohawk _shake_. Yancton _shakai_ = _nails_. Otto _shagai_ = _do_.

_English_ blood. Adahi _pchack_. Caddo _baaho_. Passamaquoddy _pocagun_. Abenaki _bagakkaan_. Mohican _pocaghkan_. Nanticoke _puckcuckque_. Miami _nihpeekanueh_.

_English_ red. Adahi _pechasat_. Natchez _pahkop_.

_English_ feet. Adahi _nocat_. Micmac _ukkuat_. Miami _katah_. Taculli _oca_. Chippewyan _cuh_. Ilinois _nickahta_ = _leg_. Delaware _wikhaat_ = _do_. Massachusetts _muhkout_ = _do_. Ojibbeway _okat_ = _do_.

_English_ bone. Adahi _wahacut_. Otto _wahoo_. Yancton _hoo_. Dacota _hoohoo_. Ojibbeway _okun_. Miami _kaanih_. Eskimo _heownik_. Eskimo _oaecyak_.

_English_ house. Adahi _coochut_. Nachez _hahit_. Muskoge _chookgaw_. Choctah _chukka_. Catawba _sook_. Taculli _yock_.

_English_ bread. Adahi _okhapin_. Chetimacha _heichepat chepa_.

_English_ sky. Adahi _ganick_. Seneca _kiunyage_.

_English_ summer. Adahi _weetsuck_. Uché _waitee_.

_English_ fire. Adahi _nang_. Caddo _nako_. Eskimo _ignuck_. Eskimo _eknok_. Eskimo _annak_.

_English_ mountain. Adahi _tolola_. Taculli _chell_.

_English_ stone, rock. Adahi _ekseka_. Caddo _seeeeko_. Nachez _ohk_.

_English_ maize. Adahi _ocasuck_. Nachez _hokko_.

_English_ day. Adahi _nestach_. Muskoge _nittah_. Chikkasaw _nittuck_. Choctah _nittok_.

_English_ autumn. Adahi _hustalneetsuck_. Choctah _hushtolape_. Chikkasaw _hustillomona_. Chikkasaw _hustola_ = _winter_.

_English_ bird. Adahi _washang_. Choctah _hushe_. Sack and Fox _wishkamon_. Shawnoe _wiskiluthi_.

_English_ goose. Adahi _nickkuicka_. Chetimacha _napiche_. Ilinois _nicak_. Ojibbeway _nickak_. Delaware _kaak_. Shawnoe _neeake_.

_English_ duck. Adahi _ahuck_. Eskimo _ewuck_.

_English_ fish. Adahi _aesut_. Cherokee _atsatih_.

_English_ tree. Adahi _tanack_. Dacota _tschang_. Ilinois _toauane_. Miami _tauaneh_ = _wood_.

_English_ grass. Adahi _hasack_. Chikkasaw _hasook_. Choctah _hushehuck_. Uché _yahsuh_ = _leaf_. Chikkasaw _hishe_ = _do_.

_English_ deer. Adahi _wakhine_. Uché _wayung_.

_English_ squirrel. Adahi _enack_. Sack and Fox _aneekwah_. Nanticoke _nowekkey_. Abenaki _anikesses_. Knistenaux _annickochas_.

_English_ old. Adahi _hansnaie_. Caddo _hunaisteteh_. Nottoway _onahahe_.

_English_ good. Adahi _awiste_. Dacota _haywashta_. Yancton _washtai_.

_English_ I. Adahi _nassicon_. Cherokee _naski_.

_English_ kill. Adahi _yoeick_. Caddo _yokay_. Catawba _eekway_.

_English_ two. Adahi _nass_. Algonkin, &c. _nis_, _ness_, _nees_.

_Mexico-Guatemala._--The details of the languages of Mexico and Guatemala that are neither Mexican Proper (Astek) or Maya are difficult. Availing myself of the information afforded by my friend Mr. Squier, and the bibliographical learning of Ludwig, I am inclined to believe

1. That all the following forms of speech are Maya; viz. Chiapa, Tzendal (Celdal), Chorti, Mam, Pocoman (Poconchi), Populuca, Quiche, Kachiquel, Zutugil (Yutukil), Huasteca.

2. That the Zoque, Utlateca, and Lacondona may or may not be Maya.

3. That the Totanaca; and

4. The Mixteca are other than Maya.

5. That, if the statement of Hervas be correct, the Zapoteca, the Mazateca, the Chinansteca, and the Mixe are in the same category.

The Tlapaneka according to Humboldt is a peculiar language.--_Ludwig in voc._

I have done, however, little or nothing, in the way of first hand work with the languages to the South of Sinaloa and the West of Texas. I therefore leave them--leave them with a reference to Ludwig's valuable Bibliotheca Glottica, for a correction of my statement respecting the non-existence of any Indian forms of speech in New Grenada. The notices under _v. v._ ANDAQUIES, COCONUCOS, CORREQUAJES, GUAQUES, INGANOS, will shew that this is far from being the case.

The present paper has gone over so large a portion of North America that it is a pity not to go over the remainder. The ethnology of the Canada, and the British possessions akin to Canada contains little which is neither Eskimo or Algonkin, Iroquois or Athabaskan. Of new forms of speech like those of which Oregon and California have given so many instances it exhibits none. Everything belongs to one of the four above-named classes. The Bethuck of Newfoundland was Algonkin, and so were the Blackfoot, the Shyenne and Arrapaho. Indeed, as has been already stated, the Eskimo and Athabaskan stretch across the Continent. The Blackfoot touches the Rocky Mountains. Of the Sioux class the British possessions shew a sample. The Red River district is Assineboin; the Assineboins being Sioux. So are a few other British tribes.

Upon the whole, however, five well-known families give us all that belong to British America to the East of the Rocky Mountains. As the present paper is less upon the Algonkin, Sioux and like classes than upon the distribution of languages over the different areas of North America this is as much as need be said upon the subject.

For the Northern two-thirds of the United States, _East of the Mississippi_, the same rule applies. The Sioux area begins in the West. The Algonkin class, of which the most Northern branch belongs to Labrador, where it is conterminous with the Eskimo, and which on the west contains the Blackfoot reaches as far south as South Carolina--the Nottoways being Algonkin. The enormous extent of this area has been sufficiently enlarged on. Meanwhile, like islands in an Ocean, two Iroquois district shew themselves. To the north the Iroquois, Hurons and others touch the Lakes and the Canadians frontier, entirely separated from the Tuscaroras who give a separate and isolated area in California. Whether the Iroquois area, once continuous, has been broken-up by Algonkin encroachments, or whether the Iroquois &c. have been projected into the Algonkin area from the South, or, whether _vice versa_, the Tuscaroras are to be considered as offsets from the North is a matter for investigation. The present writer believes that south of N. L. 45. (there or there about) the Algonkins are intrusive.

N. L. 35. cuts the Cherokee, the Woccoon, the Catawba, and the Chocta area--to the west of which lies of the Mississippi.

Between the frontier of Texas, the aforesaid parallel, and the Ocean we have Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana.

Now here the displacement has been considerable. The part played by the Algonkins, Iroquois, and (it may be added) the Sioux is here played by the Cherokees, the Choctahs, and the Creeks. Whatever is other than Creek, Choctah, and Cherokee is in a fragmentary form. The details of what we know through vocabularies are as follows:--

1. _The Woccon_--extinct, and allied to----

2. _The Catawba_--also extinct. These belonged to the Carolinas. The Woccon and Catawba vocabularies are mentioned in the Mithridates.

3. _The Tinqua_--see Ludwig.

4. _The Timuacuana_--see p. 377.

5. _The Uche_--of this we find a specimen in the Archæologia Americana. The tribe belongs to the Creek confederacy and must be in a very fragmentary state.

6. _The Natchez_--on the Mississippi, facing the Caddos, Adahi.

7. _The Chetimacha._--In Louisiana. Vocabulary in _Archæologia Americana_.

In the way of internal evidence (_i.e._ the evidence of specimens of language) this is all we have what may be called the _fragmentary_ languages of the South Eastern portion of the United States. Of the Choctah, Creek, Chikkasah, and Cherokee we have an abundance, just as we have of the Algonkin and Eskimo. It is, however, the fragmentary tribes, the probable representatives of the aboriginal population, which we more especially seek.

As may be expected the fragmentary languages are (comparatively speaking) isolated. The Woccon and Catawba, indeed, are thrown into the same class in the Mithridates: but the Natchez and Uche are, by no means, closely akin. Why should they be? Such transitional forms as may once have existed have been obliterated. Nevertheless, both have miscellaneous affinities.

So much for the languages represented by specimens. In the way of external evidence I go no further than the Mithridates, and the Archæologia.

With the exception of the Woccons the Catawba and a few words from the Timuacana, the Mithridates, gives no specimens--save and except those of the Choctah, Cherokees, and Chikkasah. These two last it looks upon as the representative languages and calls them _Mobilian_ from Mobile. Hence, the question which was put in Texas is, _mutatis mutandis_, put in Florida. What languages are Mobilian? What other than Mobilian?

The Woccons are either only or chiefly known through a work of Lawson's. They were conterminous with the Algonkin Pamticoughs (intrusive?), and the Cherokees.

The Catawba lay to the south of the Woccon. Their congeners are said to be

1. The Wataree;

2. The Eeno--Compare this name with the Texian Ini;

3. The Chowah, or Chowan;

4. The Congaree;

5. The Nachee--Compare with Natchez; word for word;

6. The Yamassee;

7. The Coosah--Compare (word for word) Coosada, and Coshatta.

In the South lay the Timuacana--of which a few words beyond the numerals are given.

In West Florida and Alabama, the evidence (I still follow the Mithridates) of Dr. Pratz scarcely coincides with that of the account of Alvaz Nuñez de Vaca. This runs thus.

In the island of Malhado were spoken languages of

1. The Caoques; 2. The Han.

On the coast--

3. The Choruico--Cherokee? 4. The Doguenes. 5. The Mendica. 6. The Quevenes. 7. The Mariames. 8. The Gualciones. 9. The Yguaces. 10. The Atayos--Adahi? This seems to have been a native name--"_die sich Atayos nennen_." 11. The Acubadaos. 12. The Quitoles. 13. The Avavares--Avoyelles? 14. The Muliacone. 15. The Cutalchiche. 16. The Susola. 17. The Como. 18. The Camole.

Of migrants from the East to the West side of the Mississippi, the Mithridates gives--

1. The Pacana, conterminous with the Attacapas. 2. The Pascagula. 3. The Biluxi. 4. The Appalache.

The Taensa are stated to be a branch of the Natchez.

The Caouitas are, perhaps, word for word the Conchattas; also the Coosa, Coosada, Coshatta.

The _Stincards_ are, word for word, the Tancards = _Tuncas_ = _Tunicas_.

Dr. Sibley gives us _Chetimacha_ as a name; along with specimens of the Chetimacha, Uche, Natchez, Adahi, and Attacapa as languages.

Word for word, _Chetimacha_ seems to _Checimeca_; _Appelusa_, _Apalach_; _Biluxi_ (perhaps the same); _Pascagoula_, _Muscogulge_. How, however, did _Chichimeca_ get so far westwards?

We are scarcely, in the condition to speculate much concerning details of the kind. It is sufficient to repeat the notice that the native languages of the parts in question are in a fragmentary condition; the Uche being the chief representative of them. Whether it were _Savaneric_[49], or not, is uncertain. It is, certainly, _not_ Shawanno, or Shawno, _i. e._ Algonkin. On the contrary it is, as is to be expected, from the encroachments and displacements of its neighbourhood a very isolated language--not, however without miscellaneous affinities--_inter alia_ the following.

[Footnote 49: More languages than one are thus named. See _p._ 375 for a Savaneric in Veragua.]

_English_ sky. Uche _haipoung_. Chiccasaw _abbah_. Catawba _wahpeeh_.

_English_ day. Uche _uckkah_. Attacapa _iggl_. Cherokee _ikah_. Muskoje _hiyiaguy_ = _light_. Cherokee _egah_ = _do_. Catawba _heakuh_ = _do_. Delaware _wakheu_ = _do_. Narrag _wequai_ = _do_. Mapach _do_ = _do_.

_English_ summer. Uche _waitee_. Adaize _weetsuck_.

_English_ winter. Uche _wishtuh_. Natchez _kwishitsetakop_. Chiccasaw _hustolah_. Seneca _oushat_.

_English_ wind. Uche _ahwitauh_. Caddo _houeto_. Muskoje _hotalleye_.

_English_ rain. Uche _chaah_. Chetimacha _kaya_. Attacapa _caucau_. Caddo _cawiohe_.

_English_ river. Uche _tauh_. Salish _saiulk_. Catawba _eesauh_.

_English_ tree. Uche _yah_. Caddo _yako_. Attacapa _kagg_. Catawba _yup_. Quappa _yon_. Esquimaux _keiyu_ = _wood_. Yancton _cha_ = _wood_. Catawba _yay_ = _oak_.

_English_ leaf. Uche _yahsuh_. Muskoghe _ittohise_ = _hair of tree_ = _itta tree_. Chiccasaw _hoshsha_. Choctah _itte hishe_.

_English_ deer. Uche _wayung_. Adahi _wakhine_. Cherokee _ahwhih_.

_English_ bear. Uche _ptsaka_. Natchez _tsokohp_.

_English_ bird. Uche _psenna_. Caddo _bunnit_. Tuscar _tcheenuh_. Ilinois _pineusen_. Ottawa _bennaisewug_. Ojibbwa _pinaisi_.

_English_ fish. Uche _potshoo_. Caddo _batta_. Minetari _boa_.

Such our sketch of the details. They give us more affinities than the current statements concerning the _glossarial_ differences between the languages of the New World suggest. It is also to be added that they scarcely confirm the equally common doctrine respecting their _grammatical_ likeness. Doing this, they encourage criticism, and invite research.

There is a considerable amount of affinity: but it is often of that miscellaneous character which baffles rather than promotes classification.

There is a considerable amount of affinity; but it does not, always, shew itself on the surface. I will give an instance.

One of the first series of words to which philologues who have only vocabularies to deal with have recourse, contains the numerals; which are, in many cases, the first of words that the philological collector makes it his business to bring home with him from rude countries. So generally is this case that it may safely be said that if we are without the numerals of a language we are, in nine cases out of ten, without any sample at all of it. Their value as samples for philological purposes has been noticed in more than one paper of the present writer's here and elsewhere; their value in the way of materials for a history of Arithmetic being evident--evidently high.

But the ordinary way in which the comparisons are made between the numerals gives us, very often, little or nothing but broad differences and strong contrasts. Take for instance the following tables.

ENGLISH. ESKIMO. ALEUTIAN. KAMSKADALE.

_one_ atamek attakon kemmis. _two_ malgok alluk nittanu. _three_ pinajut kankun tshushquat. _four_ istamat thitshin tshashcha. _five_ tatlimat sshang koomdas.

No wonder that the tongues thus represented seem unlike.

But let us go farther--in the first place remembering that, in most cases, it is only as far as _five_ that the ruder languages have distinct numerals; in other words that from _six_ onwards they count upon the same principle as _we_ do after ten, _i. e._ they join together some two, or more, of the previous numerals; even as we, by adding _seven_ and _ten_, make _seven-teen_. The exact details, of course, differ; the general principle, however, is the same viz.: that after _five_ the numerals become, more or less, compound, just as, with us, they become so after _ten_.

With this preliminary observation let us ask what will be the Kamskadale for _seven_ when _nittanu_ = _two_, and _kumdas_ = _five_. The answer is either _nittanu-kumdas_ or _kumdas-nittanu_. But the Kamskadale happens to have a separate word for _six_, viz. _kiekoas_. What then? The word for _seven_ may be one of two things: it may be either = 6 + 1, or 5 + 2. The former being the case, and _kemmis_ = _one_, the Kamskadale for _seven_ should be either _kemmis-kilkoas_ or _kilkoas-kemmis_. But it is neither one nor the other. It is _ittakh-tenu_. Now as _eight_ = _tshok-tenu_ we know this word to be compound. But what are its elements? We fail to find them amongst the simpler words expressive of _one_, _two_, _three_, _four_, _five_. We fail to find them amongst these if we look to the Kamskadale only--not, however, if we go farther. The Aleutian for _one_ = _attak-on_; the Aleutian for _six_ = _attu-on_. And what might be the Aleutian for _seven_? Even _attakh-attun_, little more than _ittakh tenu_ in a broader form.

The Jukahiri gives a similar phenomenon.

Such is the notice of the care with which certain comparisons should be made before we venture to commit ourselves to negative statements.

There is an affinity amongst the American languages, and (there being this) there are also the elements of a classification. The majority, however, of the American languages must be classified according to _types_ rather than _definitions_. Upon the nature of this difference, as well as upon the cause I have written more fully elsewhere. It is sufficient for present purposes to say that it applies to the languages of North America in general, and (of these) to those of the parts beyond the Rocky Mountains more especially. Eskimo characteristics appear in the Athabaskan, Athabaskan in the Koluch forms of speech. From these the Haidah leads to the Chimmesyan (which is, nevertheless, a very outlying form of speech) and the Hailtsa, akin to the Billechula, which, itself, leads to the Atna. By slightly raising the value of the class we bring in the Kutani, the Nutkan and the Chinuk.

In the Chinuk neighbourhood we move _via_ the Jakon, Kalapuya, Sahaptin, Shoshoni, and Lutuami to the languages of California and the Pueblos; and thence southwards.

In American languages simple comparison does but little. We may test this in two ways. We may place, side by side, two languages known to be undoubtedly, but also known to be not very closely, allied. Such, for instance, are the German and Greek, the Latin and Russian, the English and Lithuanic, all of which are Indo-European, and all of which, when placed in simple juxta-position, by no means show themselves in any very palpable manner as such. This may be seen from the following table, which is far from being the first which the present writer has compiled; and that with the special view of ascertaining by induction (and not _a priori_) the value of comparisons of the kind in question.

ENGLISH. LATIN. CAYUSE. WILLAMET.