Such are the vocabularies for the Oregon Territory of North America. In
number they amount to forty-one. Dealing with speech as the instrument
of intercourse, it is highly probable that these vocabularies may
represent as many as nineteen different languages, that is, modes of
speech, mutually unintelligible. Dealt with, however, ethnologically,
their number is evidently capable of being reduced.
In the present state of our knowledge, it is convenient to leave the
Shoshonie language[31] unplaced. All that we possess of it is the
vocabulary noticed above. It consists of only twenty-four words. Their
affinities (such as they are) are miscellaneous
[Footnote 31: Since this statement was read, the author has been
enabled, through the means of a Cumanche vocabulary, with which he was
favoured by Mr Bollaert, to determine that these two languages are
allied. (This was written in 1845. Since, then, the evidence that the
Shoshoni and Cumanch belong to the same family has become conclusive.)]
English, _beaver_.
_Shoshonie_, hanish.
_Chenook_, eena.
_Haidah_, tzing.
_Cathlascou_, kanook.
English, _salmon_.
_Shoshonie_, augi.
_Haidah_, swaggan.
English, _horse_.
_Shoshonie_, bunko.
_Blackfoot_, pinnechometar.
pennakomet.
English, _woman_.
_Shoshonie_, wepee.
_Souriquois_, meboujou.
_Penobscot_, m'phenim.
_Micmac_, epit.
_Echemin_, apet.
_Pima_, uba.
_Calapooiah_, apomeik.
English, _friend_.
_Shoshonie_, hauts.
_Chetimacha_, keta.
_Onondago_, ottie.
English, _water_.
_Shoshonie_, pa.
_New Sweden_, bij.
_Algonkin_, ne-pi, passim.
English, _good_.
_Shoshonie_, saut.
_Shahaptan_, tautz.
_Pima_, tiuot.
_Chocta_, chito = _great_.
_Crow_, esah = _great_.
bassats = _many_.
English, _go_.
_Shoshonie_, numeraro.
_Kawitchen_, namilthla.
English, _come_.
_Shoshonie_, keemak.
_Nez Perces_, come.
English, _awl_.
_Shoshonie_, weeu.
_Ahnenin_, bay.
English, _no_.
_Shoshonie_, kayhee.
_Ahnenin_, chieu.
_Potowotami_, cho.
_Ojibbeway_, kaw.
_Ottawa_, kaween.
_Old Algonkin_, kah.
_Chetimacha_, kahie.
It is also advisable to deal cautiously with the Sussee language.
Umfreville's vocabulary is short, and consisting almost exclusively of
the names of articles of commerce. Lists of this sort are of little
value in ethnography. Still, upon the whole, it confirms the current
opinion as to the place of the Sussee language, viz. that it is[32]
Athabascan. At any rate, it has certain miscellaneous affinities.
[Footnote 32: The evidence of this being the case has since become
conclusive.--1859.]
English, _eye_.
_Sussee_, senouwoh.
_Kenay_, snaga.
_Taculli_, onow.
_Chipewyan_, nackhay.
English, _five_.
_Sussee_, coo.
_Chipewyan_, coun.
English, _kettle_.
_Sussee_, usaw.
_Taculli_, osa.
English, _axe_.
_Sussee_, chilthe.
_Taculli_, chachil.
English, _knife_.
_Sussee_, marsh.
_Illinois_, mariesa.
_Minitari_, matse.
English, _shoes_.
_Sussee_, siscau.
_Taculli_, kiscot.
English, _one_.
_Sussee_, uttegar.
_Eskimo_, attowseak.
adaitsuk.
adoajak.
atamek.
English, _three_.
_Sussee_, tauky.
_Kenai_, tohchke.
_Taculli_, toy.
_Chipewyan_, taghy.
English, _four_.
_Sussee_, tachey.
_Kenai_, tenki.
_Taculli_, tingkay.
_Chipewyan_, dengky.
English, _seven_.
_Sussee_, checheta.
_Mohawk_, chahtahk.
_Onondago_, tschoatak.
_Seneca_, jawdock.
_Oneida_, tziadak.
_Nottoway_, ohatay.
English, _ten_.
_Sussee_, cuneesenunnee.
_Chipewyan_, canothna.
Laying these two languages aside, and reserving the Blackfoot
for future inquiries, the other vocabularies are referrible to
two recognized groups. The Nagail and Taculli are what Gallatin
calls _Athabascan_. All the[33] rest are what Prichard calls
_Nootka-Columbian_. Respecting the former class, the evidence is
unequivocal, and the fact generally admitted. Respecting the latter,
the statement requires consideration.
[Footnote 33: The Umqua has since been shewn to be the
Athabaskan--1859.]
At first glance, Mr Tolmie's vocabularies differ materially from each
other; and only a few seem less unlike each other than the rest. Such
are the Kliketat and Shahaptan, the Calapooiah and Yamkallie, the
Kawitchen and Tlaoquatch, the Chenook and Cathlascou. Besides this, the
general difference between even the allied vocabularies is far more
visible than the general resemblance. Finally, the numerals and the
fundamental terms vary in a degree beyond what we are prepared for, by
the study of the Indo-European tongues.
Recollecting, however, the compound character of the most fundamental
words, characteristic of all the American language; recognising, also,
as a rule of criticism, that in the same class of tongues the evidence
of the numerals is unimportant in the determination of _differences_,
and comparing the sixteen Oregon vocabularies of Mr Tolmie with each
other, we may satisfy ourselves as to the radical unity of the group.
To these lists, and to the accompanying paper of Dr. Scouler, reference
is accordingly made. The _value_ of these groups (the Athabascan and
the Nootka-Columbian) is a different and a more difficult question. The
_maximum_ difference between any two known languages of the Athabascan
group is that between English and German. The _maximum_ difference
between the most unlike languages of the Nootka-Columbian group is
that between the modern Greek and Portuguese, _i. e._ the most distant
tongues of the classical stock of the Indo-European tribe. Hence, the
terms in question are equivalent to the more familiar terms, _Gothic_,
_Celtic_, _Slavonic_, &c. All this, however, is illustration, rather
than absolute arrangement; yet it serves to give definitude to the
current opinions upon the subject.
To the current views, however, the writer takes exception. He considers
that the groups in question have too high a value; and that they are
only equivalent to the primary subdivisions of _stocks_ like the
Gothic, Celtic, and Classical, rather than to the stocks themselves.
Still less can they have a higher and more exaggerated value, and be
dealt with as equivalent to groups like the _Indo-European_.
Hence, the differences between the Athabascan languages of the Oregon
and the Nootka-Columbian languages of the Oregon, are the differences
between the Latin and Greek, the Welsh and Gaelic, the German and
Icelandic, rather than those between the German and Russian, the Latin
and Persian, the Greek and Lithuanic, &c.
In determining the higher and more comprehensive class, we must take in
a third group of languages. These are those of Russian America. They
have generally been referred to two groups of uncertain value, viz.
the Kolooch and the Eskimo; the former, for the part about Sitca, or
Norfolk Sound, the latter for the parts about the Island of Cadiack,
and the Peninsula of Aliaska.
Now, the Athabascan languages are undoubtedly Eskimo; a fact stated
by the writer, at the meeting of the British Association at York, and
founded upon the comparison of the Athabascan vocabularies of Mackenzie
and Dobbs, on the one side, with the Western Eskimo ones, on the other.
And the Kolooch languages are equally Eskimo with the Athabascan. This
may be seen by reference to Lisiansky's vocabularies, and a comparison
between the Sitca and Cadiack.