The languages spoken by the pre-Columbian tribes of North America were
many and diverse. Into the regions occupied by these tribes travelers,
traders, and missionaries have penetrated in advance of civilization,
and civilization itself has marched across the continent at a rapid
rate. Under these conditions the languages of the various tribes have
received much study. Many extensive works have been published,
embracing grammars and dictionaries; but a far greater number of minor
vocabularies have been collected and very many have been published. In
addition to these, the Bible, in whole or in part, and various religious
books and school books, have been translated into Indian tongues to be
used for purposes of instruction; and newspapers have been published in
the Indian languages. Altogether the literature of these languages and
that relating to them are of vast extent.
While the materials seem thus to be abundant, the student of Indian
languages finds the subject to be one requiring most thoughtful
consideration, difficulties arising from the following conditions:
(1) A great number of linguistic stocks or families are discovered.
(2) The boundaries between the different stocks of languages are not
immediately apparent, from the fact that many tribes of diverse stocks
have had more or less association, and to some extent linguistic
materials have been borrowed, and thus have passed out of the exclusive
possession of cognate peoples.
(3) Where many peoples, each few in number, are thrown together, an
intertribal language is developed. To a large extent this is gesture
speech; but to a limited extent useful and important words are adopted
by various tribes, and out of this material an intertribal “jargon” is
established. Travelers and all others who do not thoroughly study a
language are far more likely to acquire this jargon speech than the real
speech of the people; and the tendency to base relationship upon such
jargons has led to confusion.
(4) This tendency to the establishment of intertribal jargons was
greatly accelerated on the advent of the white man, for thereby many
tribes were pushed from their ancestral homes and tribes were mixed with
tribes. As a result, new relations and new industries, especially of
trade, were established, and the new associations of tribe with tribe
and of the Indians with Europeans led very often to the development of
quite elaborate jargon languages. All of these have a tendency to
complicate the study of the Indian tongues by comparative methods.
The difficulties inherent in the study of languages, together with the
imperfect material and the complicating conditions that have arisen by
the spread of civilization over the country, combine to make the problem
one not readily solved.
In view of the amount of material on hand, the comparative study of the
languages of North America has been strangely neglected, though perhaps
this is explained by reason of the difficulties which have been pointed
out. And the attempts which have been made to classify them has given
rise to much confusion, for the following reasons: First, later authors
have not properly recognized the work of earlier laborers in the field.
Second, the attempt has more frequently been made to establish an ethnic
classification than a linguistic classification, and linguistic
characteristics have been confused with biotic peculiarities, arts,
habits, customs, and other human activities, so that radical differences
of language have often been ignored and slight differences have been
held to be of primary value.
The attempts at a classification of these languages and a corresponding
classification of races have led to the development of a complex, mixed,
and inconsistent synonymy, which must first be unraveled and a selection
of standard names made therefrom according to fixed principles.
It is manifest that until proper rules are recognized by scholars the
establishment of a determinate nomenclature is impossible. It will
therefore be well to set forth the rules that have here been adopted,
together with brief reasons for the same, with the hope that they will
commend themselves to the judgment of other persons engaged in
researches relating to the languages of North America.
A fixed nomenclature in biology has been found not only to be
advantageous, but to be a prerequisite to progress in research, as the
vast multiplicity of facts, still ever accumulating, would otherwise
overwhelm the scholar. In philological classification fixity of
nomenclature is of corresponding importance; and while the analogies
between linguistic and biotic classification are quite limited, many of
the principles of nomenclature which biologists have adopted having no
application in philology, still in some important particulars the
requirements of all scientific classifications are alike, and though
many of the nomenclatural points met with in biology will not occur in
philology, some of them do occur and may be governed by the same rules.
Perhaps an ideal nomenclature in biology may some time be established,
as attempts have been made to establish such a system in chemistry; and
possibly such an ideal system may eventually be established in
philology. Be that as it may, the time has not yet come even for its
suggestion. What is now needed is a rule of some kind leading scholars
to use the same terms for the same things, and it would seem to matter
little in the case of linguistic stocks what the nomenclature is,
provided it becomes denotive and universal.
In treating of the languages of North America it has been suggested that
the names adopted should be the names by which the people recognize
themselves, but this is a rule of impossible application, for where the
branches of a stock diverge very greatly no common name for the people
can be found. Again, it has been suggested that names which are to go
permanently into science should be simple and euphonic. This also is
impossible of application, for simplicity and euphony are largely
questions of personal taste, and he who has studied many languages loses
speedily his idiosyncrasies of likes and dislikes and learns that words
foreign to his vocabulary are not necessarily barbaric.
Biologists have decided that he who first distinctly characterizes and
names a species or other group shall thereby cause the name thus used to
become permanently affixed, but under certain conditions adapted to a
growing science which is continually revising its classifications. This
law of priority may well be adopted by philologists.
By the application of the law of priority it will occasionally happen
that a name must be taken which is not wholly unobjectionable or which
could be much improved. But if names may be modified for any reason, the
extent of change that may be wrought in this manner is unlimited, and
such modifications would ultimately become equivalent to the
introduction of new names, and a fixed nomenclature would thereby be
overthrown. The rule of priority has therefore been adopted.
Permanent biologic nomenclature dates from the time of Linnæus simply
because this great naturalist established the binominal system and
placed scientific classification upon a sound and enduring basis. As
Linnæus is to be regarded as the founder of biologic classification, so
Gallatin may be considered the founder of systematic philology relating
to the North American Indians. Before his time much linguistic work had
been accomplished, and scholars owe a lasting debt of gratitude to
Barton, Adelung, Pickering, and others. But Gallatin’s work marks an era
in American linguistic science from the fact that he so thoroughly
introduced comparative methods, and because he circumscribed the
boundaries of many families, so that a large part of his work remains
and is still to be considered sound. There is no safe resting place
anterior to Gallatin, because no scholar prior to his time had properly
adopted comparative methods of research, and because no scholar was
privileged to work with so large a body of material. It must further be
said of Gallatin that he had a very clear conception of the task he was
performing, and brought to it both learning and wisdom. Gallatin’s work
has therefore been taken as the starting point, back of which we may not
go in the historic consideration of the systematic philology of North
America. The point of departure therefore is the year 1836, when
Gallatin’s “Synopsis of Indian Tribes” appeared in vol. 2 of the
Transactions of the American Antiquarian Society.
It is believed that a name should be simply a denotive word, and that no
advantage can accrue from a descriptive or connotive title. It is
therefore desirable to have the names as simple as possible, consistent
with other and more important considerations. For this reason it has
been found impracticable to recognize as family names designations based
on several distinct terms, such as descriptive phrases, and words
compounded from two or more geographic names. Such phrases and compound
words have been rejected.
There are many linguistic families in North America, and in a number of
them there are many tribes speaking diverse languages. It is important,
therefore, that some form should be given to the family name by which it
may be distinguished from the name of a single tribe or language. In
many cases some one language within a stock has been taken as the type
and its name given to the entire family; so that the name of a language
and that of the stock to which it belongs are identical. This is
inconvenient and leads to confusion. For such reasons it has been
decided to give each family name the termination “an” or “ian.”
Conforming to the principles thus enunciated, the following rules have
been formulated:
I. The law of priority relating to the nomenclature of the
systematic philology of the North American tribes shall not extend
to authors whose works are of date anterior to the year 1836.
II. The name originally given by the founder of a linguistic group
to designate it as a family or stock of languages shall be
permanently retained to the exclusion of all others.
III. No family name shall be recognized if composed of more than one
word.
IV. A family name once established shall not be canceled in any
subsequent division of the group, but shall be retained in a
restricted sense for one of its constituent portions.
V. Family names shall be distinguished as such by the termination
“an” or “ian.”
VI. No name shall be accepted for a linguistic family unless used to
designate a tribe or group of tribes as a linguistic stock.
VII. No family name shall be accepted unless there is given the
habitat of tribe or tribes to which it is applied.
VIII. The original orthography of a name shall be rigidly preserved
except as provided for in rule III, and unless a typographical error
is evident.
The terms “family” and “stock” are here applied interchangeably to a
group of languages that are supposed to be cognate.
A single language is called a stock or family when it is not found to be
cognate with any other language. Languages are said to be cognate when
such relations between them are found that they are supposed to have
descended from a common ancestral speech. The evidence of cognation is
derived exclusively from the vocabulary. Grammatic similarities are not
supposed to furnish evidence of cognation, but to be phenomena, in part
relating to stage of culture and in part adventitious. It must be
remembered that extreme peculiarities of grammar, like the vocal
mutations of the Hebrew or the monosyllabic separation of the Chinese,
have not been discovered among Indian tongues. It therefore becomes
necessary in the classification of Indian languages into families to
neglect grammatic structure, and to consider lexical elements only. But
this statement must be clearly understood. It is postulated that in the
growth of languages new words are formed by combination, and that these
new words change by attrition to secure economy of utterance, and also
by assimilation (analogy) for economy of thought. In the comparison of
languages for the purposes of systematic philology it often becomes
necessary to dismember compounded words for the purpose of comparing the
more primitive forms thus obtained. The paradigmatic words considered in
grammatic treatises may often be the very words which should be
dissected to discover in their elements primary affinities. But the
comparison is still lexic, not grammatic.
A lexic comparison is between vocal elements; a grammatic comparison is
between grammatic methods, such, for example, as gender systems. The
classes into which things are relegated by distinction of gender may be
animate and inanimate, and the animate may subsequently be divided into
male and female, and these two classes may ultimately absorb, in part at
least, inanimate things. The growth of a system of genders may take
another course. The animate and inanimate may be subdivided into the
standing, the sitting, and the lying, or into the moving, the erect and
the reclined; or, still further, the superposed classification may be
based upon the supposed constitution of things, as the fleshy, the
woody, the rocky, the earthy, the watery. Thus the number of genders may
increase, while further on in the history of a language the genders may
decrease so as almost to disappear. All of these characteristics are in
part adventitious, but to a large extent the gender is a phenomenon of
growth, indicating the stage to which the language has attained. A
proper case system may not have been established in a language by the
fixing of case particles, or, having been established, it may change by
the increase or diminution of the number of cases. A tense system also
has a beginning, a growth, and a decadence. A mode system is variable in
the various stages of the history of a language. In like manner a
pronominal system undergoes changes. Particles may be prefixed, infixed,
or affixed in compounded words, and which one of these methods will
finally prevail can be determined only in the later stage of growth. All
of these things are held to belong to the grammar of a language and to
be grammatic methods, distinct from lexical elements.
With terms thus defined, languages are supposed to be cognate when
fundamental similarities are discovered in their lexical elements. When
the members of a family of languages are to be classed in subdivisions
and the history of such languages investigated, grammatic
characteristics become of primary importance. The words of a language
change by the methods described, but the fundamental elements or roots
are more enduring. Grammatic methods also change, perhaps even more
rapidly than words, and the changes may go on to such an extent that
primitive methods are entirely lost, there being no radical grammatic
elements to be preserved. Grammatic structure is but a phase or accident
of growth, and not a primordial element of language. The roots of a
language are its most permanent characteristics, and while the words
which are formed from them may change so as to obscure their elements or
in some cases even to lose them, it seems that they are never lost from
all, but can be recovered in large part. The grammatic structure or plan
of a language is forever changing, and in this respect the language may
become entirely transformed.
* * * * *