Page images
PDF
EPUB

sometimes inserted, varying in the several dialects, and even in the same, according to the termination of the noun. The particles shoh, nie, ogu are used in the Onondago; dah, suh, shoeh in the Seneca.

Seneca; hahjenah, 'a man'; hahdahjenah, 'men'; hudag oohonch, 'a chief'; hudagoohonehsuh, chiefs.'

The Choctaw, the Muskhogee, and the Caddo nouns have, with few special exceptions, no inflection designating the plural. That deficiency is respectively supplied by the words okla, ulgy, or homulgy, and wia, all of which mean, 'several,' many,' a multitude.'

When adjectives are connected (not incorporated) with nouns substantive, the sign of the plural may, in most languages, be transferred to the adjective; and, in the Sioux, the plural sign pee, added to the last word of the sentence, be it noun, verb, or even adverb, makes the whole sentence plural.

The plural of pronouns, personal and possessive, is almost universally designated by particular terminations or inflections, distinct from those assigned to the plural of nouns, and which will be adverted to, when treating of conjugations.

In all the languages which have been investigated, with the exception of those of the Sioux family, concerning which the information is not sufficient, there is, besides the singular and general or indefinite plural, a third number, which is sometimes a dual, more generally a definite or special plural, occasionally assuming both forms.

It is represented as a pure dual by the grammarians of the Eskimau, and of the language of Chili; and it appears to be such in the Athapasca. In the various dialects of the Algonkin-Lenape, and in the Choctaw, it is a definite plural; but, although including always, in every such dialect, a definite number of persons, it is not applied precisely in the same manner in all.

In the Delaware, according to Mr. Heckewelder, it embraces our family, nation, select body, us who are here assembled, in this room; and including therefore, at least when he, or they belong to the nation or select body, the person or persons spoken to. But in the Chippeway, as we are informed by Mr. Schoolcraft, it always excludes the person or persons thus spoken to; and it is used in the same manner in the Micmac.

Seneca Spelling-Book. London, 1818. This was not seen till after the appended vocabularies had been prepared for the press,

6

66

The following examples given by Father Maynard appear conclusive in that respect; "Rik tan kinoo aunka moolk," There is somebody who sees us,' is the indefinite plural ; " Ninenoo-en oolanook najamooloktau," One of us will go this evening to see you,' is the special or definite form; and it is obvious that, 'one of us' contrasted with you,' excludes the person spoken to. The k', characteristic of the second person, is always prefixed in the general, and the n', characteristic of the first person, in the special or definite plural, in both the Chippeway and the Delaware languages. It will be seen hereafter, that it is a constant rule in both, that whenever the second person, whether in the nominative or objective case, is one of the pronouns connected with the verb, k' is prefixed. Therefore, the n' prefixed to the special plural shows that the second person was intended to be excluded, that the Chippeways have preserved the original meaning of that plural, and that the Delawares have departed from it. And this seems to corroborate the opinion, that the Chippeway, or Algonkin, is the primary language, and the Delaware one of those derived from it.

In the Choctaw, where pishno is the pronoun of the first person for the definite, and hupishno that for the indefinite; according to Mr. Wright, "hupishno is used, when speaking of an action in which all the hearers are concerned. But if all the hearers are not concerned in it, but only the speaker and some other persons (understood or designated), pishno is used."

It is not practicable, from the specimens we have of the Caddo, to decide whether the third number is a dual, or a definite plural. It appears to be a dual in the Muskhogee.

In the Cherokee, the distinctions connected with number are more minute than in the Algonkin and Choctaw. There are in that language distinct words or inflections for each of the following combinations of pronouns either personal or possessive, viz. he and I; they and I; thou and I; you and I; you two; you all; they. Of these combinations, the two last are the indefinite plural for the second and third persons; the first, third, and fifth are three distinct forms of the dual; the second and fourth, two distinct forms of a special plural; but none is given for a general plural we which might include you and they with the speaker.

Zeisberger's Grammar of the Onondago throws no light on the subject. But the examples given by Father Brebeuf of the Huron (in the letter already quoted) show, that, though probably differing in the details, the distinctions that relate to the

5

number, are, in the Iroquois languages, founded on the same principle as in the Cherokee. 'We set off, thou and I,' kiarascsa; 'he and I,' aiarascsa; 'we, several of us' (nous autres) asarascsa; 'we along with you,' esarascsa.

In the Eskimau, the dual applies not only to pronouns, but also to nouns which, in that number have a distinct inflection from the plural, viz. k: iglo, a house'; dual, igluk; plural, iglut. In all the other languages, the inflection of nouns is the same for dual, definite, or indefinite plural. The pronouns are alone affected by the distinction, and generally only in the first person; in all the three persons in the language of Chili; in the Cherokee and Iroquois, in the manner already stated. In some languages, the distinction applies only to the nominative, and, in others, embraces also the objective case; but the information is in that respect as yet incomplete.

There is a vocative case in some at least of the AlgonkinLenape languages, terminating, in the singular of the Delaware, in an, and of the Massachusetts in in; in the plural_Delaware in enk, "when coupled with the pronoun our." (Zeisberger, page 99). The same termination eunk is used generally for the second person plural in the Massachusetts. Woi kenaau Jerusalem wuttaunzunk, ‘O ye daughters of Jerusalem.' (Du Ponceau on Eliot). The only instance of an inflection of the noun, in what may be called the direct regimen, corresponding in some degree with the Latin accusative, has been pointed out.* The genitive is designated in the Eskimau by an inflection of the noun; in other languages occasionally by an abbreviated form of the possessive pronoun, generally by the relative position of the two nouns. With respect to the other oblique cases, the offices performed by inflections in the classical languages, and by separable prepositions in most of those of Europe, are, in those of America, generally performed by affixed or prefixed inseparable prepositions. Delaware; uteny, 'a town'; utenink, 'in, from, the town'; menuppeque, 'the lake'; awossenuppeque, 'over the lake.' In the Eskimau, there are but five such prepositions; mik, 'with, through'; mit, 'from'; mut, 'to'; me, 'in, upon'; kut, 'around.' They are more numerous in other languages; † and it might be inferred, from the general

The objective cases of the pronouns, or the manner in which they are supplied, will be adverted to in the conjugations.

In the Onondago, Zeisberger gives fourteen inseparable affixed prepositions, meaning, in, on, at, to, under, along, through, &c.; but some may be added in the separable form.

tendency to incorporate the accessaries in the same word with the noun or verb, that separable prepositions were not to be found, or but rarely used, in any Indian language. Eliot, in the Massachusetts Grammar, and the authors of the English Seneca Spelling-Book, have enumerated respectively the parts of speech of those two languages; and prepositions are omitted in both. But reasoning à priori is unsafe; and facts are still wanted, in order to ascertain, in almost all the Indian languages, the number, the derivation, and the manner of using or compounding the inseparable and separable propositions.

Substantive Verb. Conversion of Nouns into Verbs.

The preceding observations relate rather to peculiarities than to the general character of the Indian languages. The substitution of intransitive verbs for the substantive verb, in cases, where this is generally used in modern languages, may be reckoned as one of the general characters of those at least of our Indians.

It appears certain that the Indians have one or more verbs, expressive of locality, and corresponding with the verb to be, when used in that sense, as, 'Peter is at, or in, such a place.' And it may be, that some of the nations have a verb denoting absolute existence. Mr. Schoolcraft has, in his vocabulary, To be,' v. s. Ja, and I am,' 'thou art,' nin dya, ki dya; Mr. Worcester mentions the Cherokee verb geha, meaning 'I exist,' and sometimes, 'I dwell,' and another defective impersonal verb gesunggi, but which seems rather to denote time, than to apply to existence. Mr. Compere alludes to a Muskhogee verb, domist, as implying existence; and other instances may perhaps be adduced. But, whether such a verb be found or not in some of the languages, and whatever may be its proper meaning, it is at least certain, that no such verb is used, either as an auxiliary in the passive voice, or in connexion with attributes, or with substantives susceptible of a verbal form. Although the English language has a great number of intransitive verbs; yet, in the passive voice, or when it is intended to express a certain particular state of passive existence, implying no voluntary, organic, or instantaneous action, the substantive verb is uniformly used. We say indeed, 'to run,' 'to sleep,' and even, 'to die'; in which last case,

the act of dying is alone implied. But if we intend to express the state, in which that act places the person, we must recur to the substantive verb and say, 'He is dead.' I may not have expressed the difference with sufficient perspicuity; and the line of distinction between the cases, where we use an intransitive, and those in which we must resort to the substantive verb, is not perhaps always accurately drawn in the language. It is sufficient for our purpose to say, that in all the cases, where we use the verb to be, in connexion with an attribute, or with a noun, the Indians use an intransitive verb; and that where we use it in connexion with the participle past, they substitute an inflection. Thus the passive voice in the Indian languages is, as in the simple tenses of the Latin, formed by an inflection, consisting generally of the insertion of a particle, such as xi, ssi, in the Delaware, ull in the Choctaw, &c.* And, instead of saying, 'I am cold,' 'I am sick,' 'I am a man,' &c., they say, I cold, I sick, I man, &c. These various expressions are, each of them, an intransitive verb conjugated through all its persons, tenses, and moods. The only difference is, that, in all those cases, it is the substantive verb which we conjugate; whilst the Indian conjugates what we call the adjective and even the noun itself, in the same manner as he does other intransitive verbs. We find, in the Latin language, several instances of similar neuter or deponent verbs such as sitio, esurio, ægroto, &c, which we cannot render into English, without resorting to the substantive verb. The Indian does, in every instance, that which in Latin occurs only in some cases; and he extends the principle to nouns and even to proper

names.

When the process is applied to a noun, the noun undergoes the inflexion proper to the verb. Thus in the Micmac, from lenno, a man,' is derived the verb, n'looi, 'I am a man,' the conjugation of which will be found in the Appendix. But the adjective, which, according to our habits, we should consider as converted into a verb, appears in the Indian languages, as if it were the simplest form of the verb. In most cases, the word he is cold, or it is cold, is found to be identical with what we

*The passive voice in the Onondago and probably other Iroquois languages is formed by an inflexion, not of the verb, but of the pronoun; and, in the Choctaw, the objective case of the pronoun is used, beside the inserted particle.

« PreviousContinue »