Page images
PDF
EPUB

express by 'I am,' and to all those, such as, 'I sleep,' 'sunnusse'; 'I die,'' sulle'; in which the person appears to be the object of the action, rather than an active agent.* But when action is implied in the intransitive verb, the pronoun is put in the nominative case: I sing,' taloalle;' I came,'' mintilletokok.'

*

If we now turn to the numerous paradigms of the simple conjugations in Zeisberger's Granımar of the Delaware, amongst those anomalies, which compelled him to class the verb into eight conjugations, and many other even in verbs of the same conjugation, we find upon the whole a great uniformity and regularity, and also sufficient evidence that the inflections belong to the pronoun. The initial characteristics of the three persons, which precede the root of the verb, are generally preserved in the indicative mood; the principal exception being found in the frequent omission of the characteristic of the third person, sometimes accompanied by a change of the termination into u, or eu. The plural termination of the first person eneen, or hena, is derived from that of the possessive pronoun ena, or of the separable una, both allied to the Chippeway termination inan. The plural termination of the third person, wak, or ewo, is likewise derived from that of the separable pronoun wa. But the connexion between the separable pronoun and its termination when united with the verb is lost in the second person plural, which in the last case ends always in himo, or humo. Referring to the tables in the Appendix for details, the following examples of the present tense of the indicative will be sufficient to explain what precedes.

[subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small]

But, if we pass to the transitions, we find a multitude of varied terminations, for which it appears extremely difficult to find any general rules. There is however one respecting the initial characteristic, which at once strikes the eye. It has

* The same principle is found in the passive form of Latin deponent (neuter) verbs.

been seen, that, in the Hebrew, in our modern languages, and in the Choctaw, the pronoun, in the nominative, is always distinguished from that in the objective case by their relative position. That fundamental and essential principle has been entirely neglected in the Delaware, and probably in all the other languages of the same family. Instead of this, it will be found, that a preference has been given, in the first place, to the second, and in the next to the first person. When the second person occurs in the transition, whether in the nominative, or in the objective case, we find its characteristic k placed before the verb. Whenever the transition is from the first to the third, or from the third to the first person, the n, characteristic of the first is, in like manner, placed before the verb, whether that person be the agent, or the object of the action. When the action passes from one third to another third person, its initial characteristic w is placed before the verb, or is omitted altogether. It thence follows, that the termination, placed after the root of the verb, must perform the various offices of distinguishing, which of the two pronouns is in the nominative or objective case; whether both, or, if only one, which of the two is in the plural; and, whenever the second is one of the persons concerned, that is to say in sixteen cases out of twentyeight, whether the other pronoun is of the first or third person. To distinguish with precision all the various combinations, resulting from those several offices, requires twenty-eight distinct, different terminations for each tense. The Choctaw requires but twelve, in the same manner as, in English, twelve words are sufficient in order to effect the same purpose; and these run regularly through all the tenses and moods of the verb, whilst numerous discrepancies are found in that respect in the Delaware.

The comparative simplicity of the Hebrew, of the English, and of the Choctaw rests on three principles, neither of which has been observed in the Delaware; the regular relative position assigned to the pronouns in the nominative and objective. case; the distinct designation by which the objective is always distinguished from the nominative case of the pronoun; and a

* There are a few anomalies, some only in appearance, such as k'milgneen,' they give to us,' in which the k designates the indefinite plural. But the rule may be considered as general. No exception to it is found in the paradigms of the Massachusetts conjugations in Eliot's Grammar.

similar distinction for the plural. And the Delaware conjugations are rendered still more complex, by the transfer of the plural termination of the pronoun, which has separated it from its initial characteristic.

This example shows how men, though setting off upon the same principle, may, by pursuing different routes in its application, impress a different character on their respective languages. Yet the preference given by the Algonkin nations to the second and, next to it, to the first person, though unfortunate in its consequences was very natural. In an oral language, there are always two parties, the person who speaks, and the person or persons whom he addresses. When speaking of the person spoken to in connexion either with himself or with a third person, the person thus addressed is generally the most prominent in the mind of the speaker; and on that account, or from courtesy, he will be named first, without regarding the distinction, whether he be the agent or the object of the action. The Delaware may very naturally have said, 'thee I love,' 'thee he has insulted.' When speaking of himself in connexion with a third person, he becomes the most important party.

May we not also trace to an exclusively oral language, combined with the habit of public speaking, the special plural of the Indians, as well as the different manner in which it appears to be applied? According to Mr. Heckewelder, the Delawares deliberating in council, on a question of war or peace, say' we,' meaning all of us here present, our nation, as contradistinguished from any other body of men, or nation. According to Mr. Schoolcraft, the Chippeway, addressing another person in behalf of himself and some others, will, in saying, 'we,' exclude the person to whom he speaks. And thus gradually the special plural may have been modified, and have received a different signification in the two languages.

Notwithstanding the great number of varied inflections in the transitions of the Algonkin conjugations, and the numerous apparent anomalies in the several tenses and moods, they still exhibit a degree of uniformity which had its origin in analogy; and there can be no doubt that the rules of their formation, though not very obvious, may be deduced from the paradigms. collected by Zeisberger and others. It is not intended to intimate, that the language was formed according to any such preconcerted rules; but only that analogy has necessarily produced that uniformity, which renders it practicable to deduce the rules from the language.

The characteristic letter or syllable which precedes the root of the verb designates only, when it is k', that one of the two pronouns is that of the second person; when it is n', that the two pronouns are those of the first and third person; when it is w', that both pronouns are in the third person. The termination must show, in the first case, to what person the other pronoun belongs; in every case, which of the two pronouns. is in the objective case; and that termination must also designate, when required, whether one, or both, and, if only one, which of the two pronouns is in the plural number. If therefore, we select those transitions only, in which the action passes from a person in the singular number to another person also in the singular, the termination, not being encumbered with the varied signs of the plural or plurals, must only show in what manner the pronoun, when unknown, is discovered, and which of the two is in the objective case.

There are in each tense seven such transitions from the singular to the singular; and the table, in the Appendix, of the transitions of the present of the indicative of the five Delaware paradigms given by Zeisberger, shows, that when the action passes from the first or second person singular to the third person singular, a particle, viz. a, an, awa, or awan is inserted immediately after the root, or unchangeable part of the verb; when the action passes from the third singular to the first or second person singular, the particle inserted is uk, ag, or agun; when the action passes from the first to the second person singular, the particle is ell or olen; and when the action passes from the second to the first person singular, the particle is i, or awi. The four characteristic letters used in the four cases respectively are a, or wa; g, or k; l; and i; the other sounds or letters aw, un, &c., varying according to euphony or usage. Those letters or sounds stand respectively; a or wa for him; g, k for he; l for 1; i for me. And combined with the initial characteristics n', k', w', (the last often omitted,) they are sufficient to designate with precision the two pronouns involved in each transition, and which of them is in the objective case. When the action passes from one third to another third person singular, although this might be deemed the simplest case, it presents in our five paradigms more varieties than any other case. They are as follows.

Second pers. sing. Imperative. Third pers. sing. transition to third pers. sing.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

A single example will be sufficient to illustrate the rules for the six other transitions :

[blocks in formation]

With each of these seven transitions from the singular to the singular, three others are connected, in which either one or the other, or both the pronouns are in the plural number. Thus we have, I give him, I give them, They give me, They give us; and so on for each of the seven primitive transitions. The terminations added to these primitive transitions designate therefore, whether one or both the pronouns are in the plural, and, if only one, which of the two. This is effected with great precision for every case, so as to prevent any confusion or ambiguity; but it is difficult to reduce those final terminations to uniform rules. The following table, subject to several exceptions and anomalies, shows the most usual or general of those plural terminations.

[blocks in formation]

These plural terminations, which are nearly the same with those of the simple conjugation, combined with the four inserted particles a, g, l, i, and with the three initial characteristics n, k, w, constitute the twenty-eight personal forms or transitions of the present of the indicative; and united, though not with perfect uniformity, with the particles ep, up, and tsh, which are the respective signs of the preterite and future tenses, they also form the twenty-eight transitions of each of those tenses

« PreviousContinue »