3. The Choruico--Cherokee?
4. The Doguenes.
5. The Mendica.
6. The Quevenes.
7. The Mariames.
8. The Gualciones.
9. The Yguaces.
10. The Atayos--Adahi? This seems to have been a native name--"_die
sich Atayos nennen_."
11. The Acubadaos.
12. The Quitoles.
13. The Avavares--Avoyelles?
14. The Muliacone.
15. The Cutalchiche.
16. The Susola.
17. The Como.
18. The Camole.
Of migrants from the East to the West side of the Mississippi, the
Mithridates gives--
1. The Pacana, conterminous with the Attacapas.
2. The Pascagula.
3. The Biluxi.
4. The Appalache.
The Taensa are stated to be a branch of the Natchez.
The Caouitas are, perhaps, word for word the Conchattas; also the
Coosa, Coosada, Coshatta.
The _Stincards_ are, word for word, the Tancards = _Tuncas_ = _Tunicas_.
Dr. Sibley gives us _Chetimacha_ as a name; along with specimens of
the Chetimacha, Uche, Natchez, Adahi, and Attacapa as languages.
Word for word, _Chetimacha_ seems to _Checimeca_; _Appelusa_,
_Apalach_; _Biluxi_ (perhaps the same); _Pascagoula_, _Muscogulge_.
How, however, did _Chichimeca_ get so far westwards?
We are scarcely, in the condition to speculate much concerning
details of the kind. It is sufficient to repeat the notice that
the native languages of the parts in question are in a fragmentary
condition; the Uche being the chief representative of them. Whether
it were _Savaneric_[49], or not, is uncertain. It is, certainly,
_not_ Shawanno, or Shawno, _i. e._ Algonkin. On the contrary it is,
as is to be expected, from the encroachments and displacements of
its neighbourhood a very isolated language--not, however without
miscellaneous affinities--_inter alia_ the following.
[Footnote 49: More languages than one are thus named. See _p._ 375 for
a Savaneric in Veragua.]
_English_ sky.
Uche _haipoung_.
Chiccasaw _abbah_.
Catawba _wahpeeh_.
_English_ day.
Uche _uckkah_.
Attacapa _iggl_.
Cherokee _ikah_.
Muskoje _hiyiaguy_ = _light_.
Cherokee _egah_ = _do_.
Catawba _heakuh_ = _do_.
Delaware _wakheu_ = _do_.
Narrag _wequai_ = _do_.
Mapach _do_ = _do_.
_English_ summer.
Uche _waitee_.
Adaize _weetsuck_.
_English_ winter.
Uche _wishtuh_.
Natchez _kwishitsetakop_.
Chiccasaw _hustolah_.
Seneca _oushat_.
_English_ wind.
Uche _ahwitauh_.
Caddo _houeto_.
Muskoje _hotalleye_.
_English_ rain.
Uche _chaah_.
Chetimacha _kaya_.
Attacapa _caucau_.
Caddo _cawiohe_.
_English_ river.
Uche _tauh_.
Salish _saiulk_.
Catawba _eesauh_.
_English_ tree.
Uche _yah_.
Caddo _yako_.
Attacapa _kagg_.
Catawba _yup_.
Quappa _yon_.
Esquimaux _keiyu_ = _wood_.
Yancton _cha_ = _wood_.
Catawba _yay_ = _oak_.
_English_ leaf.
Uche _yahsuh_.
Muskoghe _ittohise_ = _hair of tree_ = _itta tree_.
Chiccasaw _hoshsha_.
Choctah _itte hishe_.
_English_ deer.
Uche _wayung_.
Adahi _wakhine_.
Cherokee _ahwhih_.
_English_ bear.
Uche _ptsaka_.
Natchez _tsokohp_.
_English_ bird.
Uche _psenna_.
Caddo _bunnit_.
Tuscar _tcheenuh_.
Ilinois _pineusen_.
Ottawa _bennaisewug_.
Ojibbwa _pinaisi_.
_English_ fish.
Uche _potshoo_.
Caddo _batta_.
Minetari _boa_.
Such our sketch of the details. They give us more affinities than the
current statements concerning the _glossarial_ differences between
the languages of the New World suggest. It is also to be added that
they scarcely confirm the equally common doctrine respecting their
_grammatical_ likeness. Doing this, they encourage criticism, and
invite research.
There is a considerable amount of affinity: but it is often of
that miscellaneous character which baffles rather than promotes
classification.
There is a considerable amount of affinity; but it does not, always,
shew itself on the surface. I will give an instance.
One of the first series of words to which philologues who have only
vocabularies to deal with have recourse, contains the numerals;
which are, in many cases, the first of words that the philological
collector makes it his business to bring home with him from rude
countries. So generally is this case that it may safely be said that
if we are without the numerals of a language we are, in nine cases
out of ten, without any sample at all of it. Their value as samples
for philological purposes has been noticed in more than one paper of
the present writer's here and elsewhere; their value in the way of
materials for a history of Arithmetic being evident--evidently high.
But the ordinary way in which the comparisons are made between the
numerals gives us, very often, little or nothing but broad differences
and strong contrasts. Take for instance the following tables.