This brings us to the _Kenay_. Word for word _Kenay_ is _Knai_ =
_Tnai_, a modified form of the now familiar root _t-n_ = _man_, a root
which has yet to appear and reappear under various new, and sometimes
unfamiliar and unexpected, forms. A Kenay vocabulary has long been
known. It appears in Lisiansky tabulated with the Kadiak, Sitkan, and
Unalaskan of the Aleutian Islands. It was supplied by the occupants
of Cook's Inlet. Were these Athabaskan? The present writer owes to
Mr. Isbister the suggestion that they were Loucheux, and to the
same authority he was indebted for the use of a very short Loucheux
vocabulary. Having compared this with Lisiansky's, he placed both
languages in the same category--rightly in respect to the main point,
wrongly in respect to a subordinate. He determined the place of the
_Loucheux_ (_Kutshin_ as he would now call them) by that of the Kenay,
and made both Kolush. He would now reverse the process and make both
Athabaskan, as Sir John Richardson has also suggested.
To proceed--three vocabularies in Baer's _Beiträge_ are in the same
category with the Kenay, viz.--
1. The _Atna_.--This is our old friend _t-n_ again, the form _Tnai_
and others occurring. It deserves notice, because, unless noticed, it
may create confusion. As more populations than one may call themselves
_man_, a word like _Atna_ may appear and re-appear as often as there is
a dialect which so renders the Latin word _homo_. Hence, there may not
only be more _Atnas_ than one, but there actually are more than one.
This is a point to which we shall again revert. At present it is enough
that the Atnas under notice are occupants of the mouth of the Copper
River, Indians of Russian America and Athabaskan.
2. The _Koltshani_.--As _t-n_ = _man_, so does _k-ltsh_ = _stranger_,
_guest_, _enemy_, _friend_; and _mûtatis mutandis_, the criticism
that applied to _Atna_ applies to words like _Koltshan_, _Golzan_, and
_Kolush_. There may be more than one population so called.
3. The _Ugalents_ or _Ugalyackh-mutsi_.--This is the name of few
families near Mount St. Elias. Now--
The _Atna_ at the mouth of the Copper River, the _Koltshani_ higher up
the stream, and the _Ugalents_, are all held by the present writer to
be Athabaskan--not, indeed, so decidedly as the Beaver Indians, the
Dog-ribs, or the Proper Chepewyans, but still Athabaskan. They are
not Eskimo, though they have Eskimo affinities. They are not Kolush,
though they have Kolush affinities. They are by no means isolated, and
as little are they to be made into a class by themselves. At the same
time, it should be added that by including these _we raise the value of
the class_.
For all the languages hitherto mentioned we have specimens. For some,
however, of the populations whose names appear in the maps, within the
Athabaskan area, we have yet to satisfy ourselves with the testimony
of writers, or to rely on inference. In some cases, too, we have the
same population under different names. This is the case when we have
a native designation as well as a French or English one--_e. g._
Loucheux, Squinters, Kutshin. This, too, is the case when we have,
besides the native name (or instead of it), the name by which a tribe
is called by its neighbours. Without giving any minute criticism, I
will briefly state that all the Indians of the Athabaskan area whose
names end in-_dinni_ are Athabaskan; viz.--