The tree which we call “Spanish oak,” remarkable for the largeness of its leaves, they call “Amanganaschquiminschi,” “the tree which has the largest leaves shaped like a hand.” If I were to imitate the composition of this word in English and apply it to our language, I would say Largehandleafnuttree, and softening the sounds after the Indian manner, it would perhaps make Larjandliffentree, or Larjandlennuttree, or something like it. Of course, in framing the word, an English ear should be consulted. The last syllable of that which I have last cited, is not taken from the proper name for tree, which is hittuck; but from “achpansi,”288 which means the “stock, trunk or body of a tree” (in German “der stamm”). The last syllable of this word, “si,” is in its compound converted into schi, probably for the sake of euphony, of which an Indian ear in this case is the best judge.

Again, “nanayunges,” in Delaware means “a horse.” It is formed from awesis, a beast, from which the last syllable es is taken, and nayundam, to carry a burden on the back or shoulders; for when something is carried in the hands or arms, the proper verb is “gelenummen.” The word which signifies “horse,” therefore, literally means, “the beast which carries on its back,” or in other words, “a beast of burden.” Were asses or camels known to the Indians, distinctive appellations for them would soon and easily be formed.

Thus much for the names of natural substances, and words which relate to visible objects. Let us now turn to the expression of ideas which affect the moral sense.

You will remember that I have told you before that “wulik” or “wulit” signifies “good,” and in the various derivations which flow from it means almost every thing that is good, just, proper, decent, pleasing or agreeable. When an Indian wishes to express that he is pleased with something that you have told him, he will say in his metaphorical language: “You have spoken good words.” Now let us see how this compound idea is expressed. “Kolamoe” is one of the forms of the past tense of a verb which means “to speak the truth,” and properly translated signifies “thou hast spoken the truth,” or “thou hast spoken good words.” K, from ki, expresses the second person, “ola” is derived from wulit and conveys the idea of good; the rest of the word implies the action of speaking.

In the third person, “wulamoe” means “he has spoken the truth;” from which is formed the noun substantive wulamoewagan, “the truth:” wagan or woagan (as our German Missionaries sometimes write it to express the sound of the English w) being a termination which answers to that of “ness” in English, and “heit” or “keit” in German. Pursuing further the same chain of ideas, wulistamoewagan or wulamhittamoewagan, means “faith” or “belief,” the belief of what a man has seen or heard; for glistam is a verb which signifies “to hear, hearken, listen;” hence “wulista,” believe it, wulistam, he believes; wulisto, believe ye, &c. The Indians say klistawi! hear me! nolsittammen, I believe it; ammen or tammen abridged from hittammen, where they are employed as terminations, mean “to do, perform, adopt.” See what a number of ideas are connected together in single words, and with what regularity they are compounded, with proper terminations indicating the part of speech, form, mood, tense, number and person, that they respectively belong to! The various shades of thought that those different modes of speech discriminate are almost innumerable; for instance, wulistammen means simply to believe; wulamsittammen to believe with full conviction. I would never have done, if I were to point out to you all the derivatives from this source, or connected with the idea of belief, which word I bring forward merely by way of example, there being many others equally fruitful. There is wulamoinaquot, credible, worthy of belief (sometimes used as an impersonal verb, “it is credible, it deserves to be believed”); welsittawot, a believer; welsittank, a believer in the religious sense, &c.

The syllable pal or pel prefixed to some words, implies denial, and also frequently denotes wrong and is taken in a bad sense. Hence palsittamoewagan, unbelief; palsittammen, to disbelieve; pelsittank, an unbeliever; pelsittangik, unbelievers. Again, palliwi, otherwise; palliton, to spoil, to do something wrong; palhiken, to make a bad shot, to miss the mark in shooting; palhitechen, to aim a stroke and miss it; pallahammen, to miss in shooting at game; pallilissin, to do something amiss or wrong.

M. de Volney has very justly observed on the Miami language, which is a dialect of the Lenape, that m at the beginning of a word implies in general something bad or ugly. It is certainly so in the Delaware, though not without exceptions, for mannitto, a spirit, by which name God himself, the great and good Spirit is called, begins with that ill-omened letter. Nevertheless the words “machit,” bad, and “medhick,” evil, have produced many derivatives, or words beginning with the syllables med, mach, mat, mui, me, mas, &c., all of which imply something bad, and are taken in a bad sense. For instance, mekih and melih, corruption; machtando, the devil; machtageen, to fight, kill; machtapan, a bad, unpleasant morning; machtapeek, bad time, time of war; machtonquam, to have a bad dream, &c. I mention this merely to do justice to the sagacity of M. Volney, whose few observations upon the Indians induce us to regret that he was not in a situation to make more.

I begin to feel fatigued, and therefore shall take leave of you for the present and reserve the remainder of my answer for my next letter.

I am, &c.

LETTER XIX.
FROM THE SAME.

Bethlehem, 15th August, 1816.

Dear Sir.—I sit down to conclude my answer to your letter of the 3d inst.

Before I begin this task, let me give you some examples that now occur to me to shew the regularity of the formation of Indian words.

1. The names of reptiles generally end in gook or gookses.

2. The names of fishes in meek (Namæs, a fish.)

3. The names of other animals, have in the same manner regular terminations, ap, or ape, for walking in an erect posture; hence lenape, man; chum, for four-legged animals, and wehelleu, for the winged tribes. I need not swell this letter with examples, which would add nothing to your knowledge of the principle which I have sufficiently explained.

I now proceed to answer your letter.

Notwithstanding Mr. Edwards’s observation (for whom I feel the highest respect), I cannot help being of opinion, that the monosyllable ooch, is the proper word for father, abstractedly considered, and that it is as proper to say ooch, father, and nooch, my father, as dallemons, beast, and n’dallemons, my beast; or nitschan, child, or a child, and n’nitschan, my child. It is certain, however, that there are few occasions for using these words in their abstract sense, as there are so many ways of associating them with other ideas. Wetoochwink and wetochemuxit both mean “the father,” in a more definite sense, and wetochemelenk is used in the vocative sense, and means “thou our father.” I once heard Captain Pipe, a celebrated Indian chief, address the British commandant at Detroit, and he said nooch! my father!

The shades of difference between these several expressions are so nice and delicate, that I feel great difficulty in endeavouring to explain them. Wetochemuxit, I conceive to be more properly applicable to the heavenly Father, than to an earthly one. It implies an idea of power and authority over his children, superior to that of mere procreation, therefore I think it fittest to be used in prayer and worship. Wetoochwink, on the contrary, by the syllable we or wet, prefixed to it, implies progeny and ownership over it;289 and wink or ink conveys the idea of the actual existence of that progeny. Yet Mr. Zeisberger, who well understood the language, has used wetoochwink in the spiritual sense. Thus, in his Delaware Hymn Book,290 you find, page 15, Pennamook Wetoochwink milquenk! which is in English “Behold what the Father has given us!” Again, in the same book, page 32, we read, “Hallewiwi wetochemuxit;” which means “The Father of Eternity.” Upon the whole I believe that ooch is a proper word for “father” or “a father,” but wetoochwink may also be used in the same sense, notwithstanding its more definite general acceptation. There is little occasion, however, to use either with this abstract indefinite meaning.

I agree with you that lenni, lenno, illenoh, illenou, illinois, appear to have all the same derivation, and to be connected with the idea of man, nation, or people. Lenno, in the Delaware language, signifies man, and so does Lenape, in a more extended sense. In the name of the Lenni Lenape, it signifies people; but the word lenni, which precedes it, has a different signification and means original, and sometimes common, plain, pure, unmixed. Under this general description the Indians comprehend all that they believe to have been first created in the origin of things. To all such things they prefix the word lenni; as, for instance, when they speak of high lands, they say lenni hacki (original lands), but they do not apply the same epithet to low lands, which being generally formed by the overflowing or washing of rivers, cannot, therefore, be called original. Trees which grow on high lands are also called lenni hittuck, original trees. In the same manner they designate Indian corn, pumpkins, squashes, beans, tobacco, &c., all which they think were given by the Great Spirit for their use, from the beginning. Thus, they call Indian corn291 lenchasqueem, from lenni and chasqueem; beans, lenalachksital, from lenni and malachksital; tobacco, lenkschatey, from lenni and kschatey; which is the same as if they said original corn, original beans, original tobacco. They call the linden tree lennikby, from lenni and wikby; the last word by itself meaning “the tree whose bark peels freely,” as the bark of that tree peels off easily all the year round. This bark is made use of as a rope for tying and also for building their huts, the roof and sides of which are made of it. A house thus built is called lennikgawon, “original house or hut,” from lennikby, original, or linden tree, wikheen, to build, and jagawon or yagawon, a house with a flat roof. It is as if they said “a house built of original materials.”

Lennasqual, in the Minsi dialect, means a kind of grass which is supposed to have grown on the land from the beginning. English grasses, as timothy, &c., they call schwannockasquall, or white men’s grass. The chub fish they call lennameek, because, say they, this fish is in all fresh water or streams, whereas other fish are confined to certain particular waters or climates.

They also say lenni m’bi, “pure water;” leneyachkhican, a fowling piece, as distinguished from a rifle, because it was the first fire-arm they ever saw; a rifle they call tetupalachgat. They say, lenachsinnall, “common stones,” because stones are found every where, lenachpoan, “common bread,” (achpoan means “bread”); lenachgook, a common snake, such as is seen every where (from achgook, a snake); lenchum, the original, common dog, not one of the species brought into the country by the white people. I think I have sufficiently explained the name “Lenni Lenape.”

As I do not know the Greenland language, I cannot say how far the word “innuit” is connected with lenni or lenno, or any of the words or names derived from them.

The words squaw, sachem, tomahawk, and wigwam, are words of Delaware stock, somewhat corrupted by the English. Ochqueu, woman; sakima, chief; tamahican, hatchet;292 wickwam (both syllables long, as in English weekwawm), a house. Hence, nik, my house; kik, thy house; wikit, his house; wikichtit, their houses; wikia, at my house; wiquahemink, in the house; again, wickheen, to build a house; wikhitschik, the builders of a house; wikheu, he is building a house; wikhetamok, let us build a house; wikheek (imperative), build a house; wikhattoak, they are building (a house or houses).

Calumet is not an Indian word; M. Volney thinks it is an English word for a tobacco pipe; it is certainly not proper English, but I have always thought that it was first used by the English or the French. The Delaware for a tobacco pipe is Poakan (two syllables).

Wampum is an Iroquois word, and means a marine shell.

Papoose, I do not know; it is not a word of the Delaware language, yet it is possible that it may be used by some Indian nations, from whom we may have borrowed it. I have been told that the Mahicanni of New England made use of this word for a child. I am, &c.

LETTER XX.
TO MR. HECKEWELDER.

Philadelphia, 21st August, 1816.

Dear Sir.—I have read with the greatest pleasure your two interesting letters of the 12th and 15th. I need not tell you how pleased the Historical Committee are with your correspondence, which is laid before them from time to time. I am instructed to do all in my power to induce you to persevere in giving to your country the so much wanted information concerning the Indians and their languages. The Committee are convinced that the first duty of an American Scientific Association is to occupy themselves with the objects that relate to our own country. It is on these subjects that the world has a right to expect instruction from us.

I am busily employed in studying and translating the excellent Delaware Grammar of Mr. Zeisberger; I hope the Historical Committee will publish it in due time. The more I become acquainted with this extraordinary language, the more I am delighted with its copiousness and with the beauty of its forms. Those which the Hispano-Mexican Grammarians call transitions are really admirable. If this language was cultivated and polished as those of Europe have been, and if the Delawares had a Homer or Virgil among them, it is impossible to say with such an instrument how far the art could be carried. The Greek is admired for its compounds; but what are they to those of the Indians? How many ideas they can combine and express together in one single locution, and that too by a regular series of grammatical forms, by innumerably varied inflexions of the same radical word, with the help of pronominal affixes! All this, my dear sir, is combined with the most exquisite skill, in a perfectly regular order and method, and with fewer exceptions or anomalies than I have found in any other language. This is what really astonishes me, and it is with the greatest difficulty that I can guard myself against enthusiastic feelings. The verb, among the Indians, is truly the word by way of excellence. It combines itself with the pronoun, with the adjective, with the adverb; in short, with almost every part of speech. There are forms both positive and negative which include the two pronouns, the governing and the governed; ktahoatell,293 “I love thee;” ktahoalowi, “I do not love thee.” The adverb “not,” is comprised both actively and passively in the negative forms, n’dahoalawi, “I do not love;” n’dahoalgussiwi, “I am not loved;” and other adverbs are combined in a similar manner. From schingi, “unwillingly,” is formed schingattam, “to be unwilling,” schingoochwen, “to go somewhere unwillingly,” schingimikemossin, “to work unwillingly;” from wingi, “willingly,” we have wingsittam, “to hear willingly,” wingachpin, “to be willingly somewhere,” wingilauchsin, “to live willingly in a particular manner;” from the adverb gunich,294 “long,” comes gunelendam, “to think one takes long to do something;” gunagen, “to stay out long;” and so are formed all the rest of the numerous class of adverbial verbs. The adjective verbs are produced in the same way, by a combination of adjective nouns with the verbal form. Does guneu mean “long” in the adjective sense, you have guneep, it was long, guneuchtschi, it will be long, &c.; from kschiechek, “clean,” is formed kschiecheep, “it was clean;” from machkeu, “red,” machkeep, “it was red;” and so on through the whole class of words. Prepositions are combined in the same manner, but that is common also to other languages. What extent and variety displays itself in those Indian verbs, and what language, in this respect, can be compared to our savage idioms?

Nor are the participles less rich or less copious. Every verb has a long series of participles, which when necessary can be declined and used as adjectives. Let me be permitted to instance a few from the causative verb wulamalessohen, “to make happy.” I take them from Zeisberger.

Now comes another participial-pronominal-vocative form; which may in the same manner be conjugated through all the objective persons. Wulamalessohalian! THOU WHO MAKEST ME HAPPY!

I will not proceed further; but permit me to ask you, my dear sir, what would Tibullus or Sappho have given to have had at their command a word at once so tender and so expressive? How delighted would be Moore, the poet of the loves and graces, if his language, instead of five or six tedious words slowly following in the rear of each other, had furnished him with an expression like this, in which the lover, the object beloved, and the delicious sentiment which their mutual passion inspires, are blended, are fused together in one comprehensive appellative term? And it is in the languages of savages that these beautiful forms are found! What a subject for reflection, and how little do we know, as yet, of the astonishing things that the world contains!

In the course of my reading, I have often seen the question discussed which of the two classes of languages, the analytical or the synthetical (as I call them), is the most perfect or is preferable to the other. Formerly there seemed to be but one sentiment on the subject, for who cannot perceive the superiority of the Latin and Greek, over the modern mixed dialects which at present prevail in Europe? But we live in the age of paradoxes, and there is no opinion, however extraordinary, that does not find supporters. To me it would appear that the perfection of language consists in being able to express much in a few words; to raise at once in the mind by a few magic sounds, whole masses of thoughts which strike by a kind of instantaneous intuition. Such in its effects must be the medium by which immortal spirits communicate with each other; such, I should think, were I disposed to indulge in fanciful theories, must have been the language first taught to mankind by the great author of all perfection.

All this would probably be admitted if the Latin and Greek were only in question: for their supremacy seems to stand on an ancient legitimate title not easy to be shaken, and there is still a strong prepossession in the minds of the learned in favour of the languages in which Homer and Virgil sang. But since it has been discovered that the barbarous dialects of savage nations are formed on the same principle with the classical idioms, and that the application of this principle is even carried in them to a still greater extent, it has been found easier to ascribe the beautiful organisation of these languages to stupidity and barbarism, than to acknowledge our ignorance of the manner in which it has been produced. Philosophers have therefore set themselves to work in order to prove that those admirable combinations of ideas in the form of words, which in the ancient languages of Europe used to be considered as some of the greatest efforts of the human mind, proceed in the savage idioms from the absence or weakness of mental powers in those who originally framed them.

Among those philosophers the celebrated Dr. Adam Smith stands pre-eminent. In an elegant treatise on the origin and formation of language, he has endeavoured to shew that synthetical forms of speech were the first rude attempts which men made to communicate their ideas, and that they employed comprehensive and generic terms, because their minds had not yet acquired the powers of analysis and were not capable of discriminating between different objects. Hence, he says every river among primitive men was the river, every mountain the mountain, and it was very long before they learned to distinguish them by particular names. On the same principle, he continues, men said in one word pluit (it rains,) before they could so separate their confused ideas as to say the rain or the water is falling. Such is the sense and spirit of his positions, which I quote from memory.

This theory is certainly very ingenious; it is only unfortunate that it does not accord with facts, as far as our observations can trace them. You have shown that the comprehensive compounds of the Delaware idiom are formed out of other words expressive of single ideas; these simple words, therefore, must have been invented before they were compounded into others, and thus analysis presided over the first formation of the language. So far, at least, Dr. Smith’s theory falls to the ground; nor does he appear to be better supported in his supposition of the pre-existence of generic terms. For Dr. Wistar has told me, and quotes your authority for it, that such are seldom in use among the Indians, and that when a stranger pointing to an object asks how it is called, he will not be told a tree, a river, a mountain, but an ash, an oak, a beech; the Delaware, the Mississippi, the Allegheny. If this fact is correctly stated, it is clear that among those original people every tree is not the tree, and every mountain the mountain, but that, on the contrary, everything is in preference distinguished by its specific name.

It is no argument, therefore, against the synthetical forms of language, that they are in use among savage nations. However barbarous may be the people by whom they are employed, I acknowledge that I can see nothing barbarous in them, but think, on the contrary, that they add much to the beauty of speech. This is neither the time nor the place to enter into an elaborate discussion of this subject, but I beg leave to be allowed to illustrate and support my opinion by a lively example taken from the Latin tongue.

Suetonius relates that the Roman Emperor Claudius (one of the most barbarous tyrants that ever existed,) once gave to his courtiers the spectacle of a naval combat on the Fucine lake, to be seriously performed by gladiators. When the poor fellows saw the Emperor approaching, they hailed him with “Ave, Imperator, MORITURI te salutant!” In English this means, “Hail, Cæsar! THOSE WHO ARE GOING TO DIE salute thee!” The tyrant was so moved, or rather struck with this unexpected address, that before he had time to reflect he returned the salutation Avete vos! “Fare ye well!” This gracious reply, from the mouth of an Emperor, amounted to a pardon, and the gladiators, in consequence, refused to fight. But the monster soon returned to his natural ferocity, and after hesitating for a while whether he would destroy them all by fire and sword, he rose from his seat, and ran staggering along the banks of the lake, in the most disgusting agitation, and at last, partly by exhortations and partly by threats, compelled them to fight.295 Thus far Suetonius.

Now, my dear sir, I put the question to you; if the gladiators, instead of morituri, had said in English those who are about or going to die; would the Emperor even have hesitated for a moment, and would he not at once have ordered those men to fight on? In the word morituri, he was struck at the first moment with the terrible idea of death placed in full front by means of the syllable MOR; while the future termination ITURI with the accessory ideas that it involves was calculated to produce a feeling of tender compassion on his already powerfully agitated mind, and in fact did produce it, though it lasted only a short time. But if, instead of this rapid succession of strong images, he had been assailed at first with five insignificant words Those—who—are—going—to, foreseeing what was about to follow, he would have had time to make up his mind before the sentence had been quite pronounced, and I doubt much whether the gladiators would have been allowed time to finish it. In German, Diejenigen welche am sterben sind, would have produced much the same effect, from the length of the words diejenigen and welche, which have no definite meaning, and could in no manner have affected the feelings of the tyrant Claudius. Ceux qui vont mourir, in French, is somewhat shorter, but in none of the modern languages do I find anything that operates on my mind like the terrible and pathetic morituri. May we not exclaim here with the great Gœthe: O, eine Nation ist zu beneiden, die so feine Schattirungen in einem Worte auszudruecken weiss! “O, how a nation is to be envied, that can express such delicate shades of thought in one single word!”296

I hope, indeed I do not doubt, that there is a similar word in the Delaware language; if so, please to give it to me with a full explanation of its construction and meaning.

I thank you very much for the valuable information you have given on the subject of the word “father;” the distinction between wetochemuxit, and wetoochwink, appears to me beautiful, and Zeisberger seems to have perfectly understood it. When he makes use of the first of these words, he displays the “Father of Eternity” in all his glory; but when he says, “Behold what the Father has given us!” he employs the word wetoochwink, which conveys the idea of a natural father, the better to express the paternal tenderness of God for his children. These elegant shades of expression shew in a very forcible manner the beauty and copiousness of the Indian languages, and the extent and the force of that natural logic, of those powers of feeling and discrimination, and of that innate sense of order, regularity and method which is possessed even by savage nations, and has produced such an admirable variety of modes of conveying human thoughts by means of the different organs and senses with which the Almighty has provided us.

Will you be so good as to inform me whether the Delaware language admits of inversions similar or analogous to those of the Latin tongue; and in what order words are in general placed before or after each other? Do you say “bread give me,” or “give me bread”?

I am, &c.

LETTER XXI.
FROM MR. HECKEWELDER.

Bethlehem, 26th August, 1816.

Dear Sir.—Your letter of the 21st inst. has done me the greatest pleasure. I see that you enter the spirit of our Indian languages, and that your mind is struck with the beauty of their grammatical forms. I am not surprised to find that you admire so much wulamalessohalian, it is really a fine expressive word; but you must not think that it stands alone; there are many others equally beautiful and equally expressive, and which are at the same time so formed as to please the ear. Such is eluwiwulik, a name which the Indians apply to Almighty God, and signifies “the most blessed, the most holy, the most excellent, the most precious.” It is compounded of allowiwi, which signifies “more” and wulik, the meaning of which has been fully explained in former letters. It is, as it were allowiwi wulik; the vowel a, in the first word being changed into e. By thus compounding this word allowiwi with others the Delawares have formed a great number of denominations, by which they address or designate the Supreme Being, such are:

I have no doubt you will admire these expressions; our Missionaries found them of great use, and considered them as adding much to the solemnity of divine service, and calculated to promote and keep alive a deep sense of devotion to the Supreme Being. I entirely agree with you in your opinion of the superior beauty of compound terms; the Indians understand very well how to make use of them, and a great part of the force and energy of their speeches is derived from that source: it is very difficult, I may even say impossible, to convey either in German or English, the whole impressiveness of their discourses; I have often attempted it without success.

The word “morituri” which you cite from the Latin, affords a very good argument in support of the position which you have taken. It is really very affecting, and I am not astonished at the effect which it produced upon the mind of the cruel emperor. We have a similar word in the Delaware language, “Elumiangellatschik,” “those who are on the point of dying, or who are about to die.” The first part of it, elumi, is derived from the verb n’dallemi, which means “I am going about” (something). N’dallemi mikemosi, “I am going to work,” or “about to work.” N’dallemi wickheen, “I am going to build.” N’dallemi angeln, “I am about dying,” or “going to die.” The second member of the word, that is to say angel, comes from angeln, “to die;” angloagan, “death,” angellopannik, “they are all dead.” The remainder is a grammatical form; atsch, indicates the future tense; the last syllable ik, conveys the idea of the personal pronoun “they.” Thus elumiangellatschik, like the Latin morituri, expresses in one word “they or those who are going or about to die,” and in German “Diejenigen welche am sterben sind.”

I am pleased to hear that you discover every day new beauties as you proceed with the study of the Indian languages, and the translation of Mr. Zeisberger’s Grammar. You have, no doubt, taken notice of the reciprocal verb exemplified in the fifth conjugation, in the positive and negative forms by “ahoaltin,” “to love each other.” Permit me to point out to you the regularity of its structure, by merely conjugating one tense of it in the two forms.

INDICATIVE PRESENT.

You will find the whole verb conjugated in Zeisberger, therefore I shall not exemplify further. You see there is no singular voice in this verb, nor is it susceptible of it, as it never implies the act of a single person. In the negative form, “matta” or “atta” is an adverb which signifies “no” or “not,” and is always prefixed; but it is not that alone which indicates the negative sense of the verb. It is also pointed out by wu or wi, which you find interwoven throughout the whole conjugation, the vowel immediately preceding being sometimes changed for the sake of sound, as from “aholtawak,” “they love each other,” is formed “ahoaltiwiwak,” “they do not love each other.”

I will point out further, if you have not already observed it, what I am sure you will think a grammatical curiosity; it is a concordance in tense of the adverb with the verb. Turn to the future of the same negative conjugation in Zeisberger, and you will find:

I have said already that atsch or tsch is a termination which in the conjugation of verbs indicates the future tense. Sometimes it is attached to the verb, as in matta ktahoaliwitsch, “thou shalt or wilt not love me,” but it may also be affixed to the adverb as you have seen above, by which means a variety is produced which adds much to the beauty and expressiveness of the language.

You have asked me whether the Delaware language has inversions corresponding with those of the Latin? To this question, not being a Latin scholar, I am not competent to give an answer; I can only say that when the Indian is well or elegantly spoken, the words are so arranged that the prominent ideas stand in front of the discourse; but in familiar conversation a different order may sometimes be adopted. We say, in Delaware, Philadelphia epit, “Philadelphia at,” and not, as in English, “at Philadelphia.” We say “bread give me,” and not “give me bread,” because bread is the principal object with which the speaker means to strike the mind of his hearer.

In the personal forms, or as you call them, transitions of the active verbs, the form expressive of the pronoun governed is sometimes placed in the beginning, as in k’dahoatell, “I love thee,” which is the same as thee I love; for k (from ki), is the sign of the second person; sometimes, however, the governing pronoun is placed in front, as in n’dahoala, “I love him,” n’ being the sign of the first person, I. In these personal forms or transitions, one of the pronouns, governing or governed, is generally expressed by its proper sign, n’ for “I” or “me,” k’ for “thou” or “thee,” and w’ for “he or him;” the other pronoun is expressed by an inflexion, as in k’dahoalohhumo, I love you, k’dahoalineen, thou lovest us, k’dahoalowak, thou lovest them. You may easily perceive that the governing pronoun is not always in the same relative place with the governed.

That these and other forms of the verbs may be better understood, it will not be amiss to say something here of the personal pronouns. They are of two kinds: separable and inseparable. The separable pronouns are these:

There are other personal pronouns, which I believe to be peculiar to the Indian languages; such are:

The inseparable pronouns are n for the first person, k for the second, and w or o for the third, both in the singular and the plural. They are combined with substantives in the possessive forms, as in nooch, my father, kooch, thy father; the third person is sometimes expressed by the termination wall, as ochwall, his or her father, and at other times by w, as in wtamochol, his or her canoe. In the plural, nochena, our father, kochuwa, your father, ochuwawall, their father.

The verbal transitions are compounded of the verb itself, combined with the inseparable pronouns and other forms or inflexions, expressive of time, person, and number. To understand these properly requires attention and study.

These things are not new to you, but they may be of use to those members of the Committee who have not, like yourself, had the opportunity of studying a grammar of this language.

I am, &c.

LETTER XXII.
FROM THE SAME.

Bethlehem, 27th August, 1816.

Dear Sir.—I promised you in one of my former letters that I would write to a gentleman well acquainted with the Chippeway language, to ascertain whether it is true, as Professor Vater asserts, that it is almost without any grammatical forms. I wrote in consequence to the Rev. Mr. Dencke, a respectable Missionary of the Society of the United Brethren, who resides at Fairfield in Upper Canada, and I have the pleasure of communicating to you an extract from his answers to the different questions which my letter contained.

EXTRACT.

1. “According to my humble opinion, and limited knowledge of the Indian languages, being chiefly acquainted with the Delaware and Chippeway, of ich alone I can speak with propriety, those two idioms are of one and the same grammatical structure, and rich in forms. I am inclined to believe that Mr. Duponceau is correct in his opinion that the American languages in general resemble each other in point of grammatical construction; for I find in that of Greenland nearly the same inflections, prefixes, and suffixes, as in the Delaware and the Chippeway. The inflexions of nouns and conjugations of verbs are the same. The pronominal accusative is in the same manner incorporated with the verb, which, in this form, may be properly called transitive. See Crantz’s History of Greenland, in German, page 283. These forms, though they are very regular, are most difficult for foreigners to acquire. I might give examples of conjugations in the various forms, but as they have not been expressly called for, I do not think necessary to do it.

“The Greenlanders, it seems, have three numbers in the conjugation of their verbs, the singular, dual, and plural; the Delawares and Chippeways have also three, the singular, the particular, and the plural. For instance, in the Delaware language we say in the plural, ‘k’pendameneen,’ which means ‘we all have heard;’ and in the particular number we say, ‘n’pendameneen,’ 'we, who are now specially spoken of, (for instance, this company, the white people, the Indians,) have heard.’ Upon the whole, Crantz’s History of Greenland has given me a great insight into the construction of the Indian languages; through his aid, I have been able to find out the so necessary infinitive of each particular verb. By means of the transitions, Indian verbs have nine or ten different infinitives, whence we must conclude that it is very difficult to learn the Indian languages. There is also a peculiarity in them, by means of the duplication of the first syllable, as ‘gattopuin,’ ‘to be hungry;’ ‘gagattopuin,’ to be very hungry.

2. “Carver’s Vocabulary of the Chippeway, I believe is not correct, though I have it not at present before me.

3. “The numerals in the Chippeway up to ten, are as follows. I write them according to the German orthography. 1. Beschik. 2. Nisch. 3. Nisswi. 4. Newin. 5. Nanán. 6. N’guttiwaswi. 7. Nischschwaswi. 8. Schwaschwi. 9. Schenk. 20. Quetsch.”

Thus far Mr. Dencke. I do not recollect whether I have already explained to you what he says about the “particular” number in the conjugation of the Delaware verbs. There is a distinction in the plural forms. “K’pendameneen, (k’ from kiluna, 'we,’) means generally ‘we have heard,’ or ‘we all have heard,’ not intending to allude to a particular number of persons; in 'n’pendameneen,’ the ‘n’ comes from ‘niluna,’ which means ‘we,’ in particular, our family, nation, select body, &c. ‘Niluna yu epienk,’ ‘we who are here assembled,’ n’penameneen, (for niluna penameneen) we see (we who are together see); n’pendameneen, we hear (we who are in this room hear). But when no discrimination is intended to be made, the form kiluna, or its abridgement k’ is used. Kiluna elenapewit, ‘we, the Indians’ (meaning all the Indians); kiluna yu enda lauchsienk, ‘we all that live upon earth;’ ‘k’nemeneen sokelange,’ we see it rain, (we all see it rain); k’nemeneen waselehelete, we all see the light, (we and all who live upon earth see the light.)”

I believe Mr. Zeisberger does not mention this distinction in his Grammar; but he could not say every thing.

I am, &c.

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.

LETTER XXIV.
FROM MR. HECKEWELDER.

Bethlehem, 5th September, 1816.

Dear Sir.—I have received your favour of the 30th ult. I answer it first at the end, and begin with your etymology of the word Canada. In looking over some of Mr. Zeisberger’s papers, who was well acquainted with the language of the Onondagoes, the principal dialect of the Iroquois, to which nation the Mohawks belong, I find he translates the German word stadt (town) into the Onondago by “ganatage.” Now, as you well know that the Germans sometimes employ the G instead of the K, and the T instead of the D, it is very possible that the word Kanada may mean the same thing in some grammatical form of the Mohawk dialect. As you have seen it so employed in Captain Brandt’s translation, there cannot be the least doubt about it. This being taken for granted, it is not improbable that you have hit upon the true etymology of the name Canada. For nothing is more certain than what Dr. Wistar once told you on my authority, that the Indians make more use of particular than of generic words. I found myself under very great embarrassment in consequence of it when I first began to learn the Delaware language. I would point to a tree and ask the Indians how they called it; they would answer an oak, an ash, a maple, as the case might be, so that at last I found in my vocabulary more than a dozen words for the word tree. It was a good while before I found out, that when you asked of an Indian the name of a thing, he would always give you the specific and never the generic denomination. So that it is highly probable that the Frenchman who first asked of the Indians in Canada the name of their country, pointing to the spot and to the objects which surrounded him, received for answer Kanada, (town or village), and committing the same mistake that I did, believed it to be the name of the whole region, and reported it so to his countrymen, who consequently gave to their newly acquired dominions the name of Canada.

I had never heard before I received your letter that there existed a country where the men and the women spoke a different language from each other. It is not the case with the Delawares or any Indian nation that I am acquainted with. The two sexes with them speak exactly the same idiom. The women, indeed, have a kind of lisping or drawling accent, which comes from their being so constantly with children; but the language which they speak does not differ in the least from that which is spoken by their husbands and brothers.

The question you ask about n’petageep and n’petagunewoakup, both of which Zeisberger translates by sie haben mir gebracht, is easily answered. The translation is correct in both cases, according to the idiom of the German language, from which alone the ambiguity proceeds. N’petageep means “they have brought to me,” but in a general sense, and without specifying by whom the thing has been brought. Es ist mir gebracht worden, or “it has been brought to me,” would have explained this word better, while n’petagunewoakup is literally rendered by “they,” (alluding to particular persons,) “have brought to me,” or sie haben mir gebracht. You have here another example of the nicely discriminating character of the Indian languages.

I believe I have never told you that the Indians distinguish the genders, animate and inanimate, even in their verbs. Nolhatton and nolhalla, both mean “I possess,” but the former can only be used in speaking of the possession of things inanimate, and the latter of living creatures. Nolhatton achquiwanissall, “I have or possess blankets;” cheeli kœcu n’nolhattowi, “many things I am possessed of,” or “I possess many things;” woak nechenaunges nolhallau, “and I possess a horse,” (and a horse I possess.) The u which you see at the end of the verb nolhalla, conveys the idea of the pronoun him, so that it is the same as if you said, “and a horse I possess him.” It is the accusative form on which you observed in one of your former letters and is annexed to the verb instead of the noun.

In the verb “to see,” the same distinction is made between things animate and inanimate. Newau, “I see,” applies only to the former, and nemen to the latter. Thus the Delawares say: lenno newau, “I see a man;” tscholens newau, “I see a bird;” achgook newau, “I see a snake.” On the contrary they say, wiquam nemen, “I see a house;” amochol nemen, “I see a canoe,” &c.

It is the same with other verbs; even when they speak of things lying upon the ground, they distinguish between what has life and what is inanimate; thus they say, icka schingieschin305 n’dallemans “there lies my beast,” (the verb schingieschin305 being only used when speaking of animate things;) otherwise they will say: icka schingieschen n’tamahican, “yonder lies my ax.” The i or the e in the last syllable of the verb, as here used in the third person, constitutes the difference, which indicates that the thing spoken of has or has not life.

It would be too tedious to go through these differences in the various forms which the verb can assume; what I have said will be sufficient to shew the principle and the manner in which this distinction is made.

I inclose a translation of the Lord’s Prayer into Delaware, with the English interlined according to your wishes. I am, &c.

THE LORD’S PRAYER IN THE DELAWARE LANGUAGE.