I observe, in the first place, in the eastern parts of Asia, a class

of languages formed on the same model, of which I take that which is

_spoken_ in the empire of China, as it stood before its conquest by

the Tartars, to be the type. In this language, there is but a very

small number of words, all monosyllables. As far as I am able to

judge from the excellent grammars of this idiom of which we are in

possession, the words convey to the mind only the principal or leading

ideas of the discourse, unconnected with many of those accessory

ideas that are so necessary to give precision to language, and the

hearer is left to apply and arrange the whole together as well as he

can. It has but few or no grammatical forms, and is very deficient in

what we call the connecting parts of speech. Hence it is said that

the words spoken are not immediately understood by those to whom

they are addressed, and that auxiliary modes of explanation, others

than oral communication, are sometimes resorted to, when ambiguities

occur. As I am no Sinologist, I will not undertake to say that the

description which I have attempted to give of this language, from

the mere reading of grammars and dictionaries, is very accurate, but

I venture to assert that it differs so much from all others that we

know, that with its kindred idioms, it deserves to form a _genus_ in a

general classification of the various modes of speech. From its great

deficiency of grammatical forms, I would give to this genus the name

_asyntactic_.

My second class of languages would consist of those which possess,

indeed, grammatical forms, sufficient to express and connect together

every idea to be communicated by means of speech, but in which those

forms are so organized, that almost every distinct idea has a single

word to convey or express it. Such are the Icelandic, Danish, Swedish,

and even the German and English. Those forms of the nouns and verbs

which are generally called declensions and conjugations, are in these

languages the result of an analytical process of the mind, which has

given to every single idea, and sometimes to a shade of an idea, a

single word to express it. Thus, when we say “_of the man_,” here

are three ideas, which, in the Latin, are expressed by one single

word “_hominis_.” In the locution “_I will not_,” or “_I am not

willing_,” and in the verbal form “_I will go_,” three or four ideas

are separately expressed in English, which, in Latin, are conveyed

together by single words “_nolo_,” “_ibo_.” From this peculiar quality

of sufficiently, yet separately, expressing all the necessary ideas, I

would denominate this class of languages _analytical_, or _analytic_.

The third class would, of course, be that in which the principal parts

of speech are formed by a synthetical operation of the mind, and in

which several ideas are frequently expressed by one word. Such are what

are called the Oriental languages, with the Latin, Greek, Slavonic, and

others of the same description. These I would call _synthetic_.

The French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese, with their various

dialects, in which conquest has in a great degree intermingled the

modes of speech of the second and third class, would together form a

fourth, which I would call “_mixed_.”

In these various classes I have not found a place for the Indian

languages, which richly deserve to form one by themselves. They are

“_synthetic_” in their forms, but to such a degree as is not equalled

by any of the idioms which I have so denominated, and which are only

such in comparison with others where _analytic_ forms prevail. That

they deserve to make a class by themselves cannot be doubted. They are

the very opposite of the Chinese, of all languages the poorest in

words, as well as in grammatical forms, while these are the richest

in both. In fact, a great variety of forms, necessarily implies a

great multiplicity of words; I mean, complex forms, like those of the

Indians; compound words in which many ideas are included together, and

are made to strike the mind in various ways by the simple addition or

subtraction of a letter or syllable. In the Chinese much is understood

or guessed at, little is expressed; in the Indian, on the contrary,

the mind is awakened to each idea meant to be conveyed, by some one or

other of the component parts of the word spoken. These two languages,

therefore, as far as relates to their organisation, stand in direct

opposition to each other; they are the top and bottom of the idiomatic

scale, and as I have given to the Chinese, and its kindred dialects,

the name of _asyntactic_, the opposite name, _syntactic_, appears to

me that which is best suited to the languages of the American Indians.

I find that instead of asking you questions, as I ought to do, I am

wandering again in the field of metaphysical disquisitions. I shall try

to be more careful in my next letter.

I am, &c.

LETTER XVII.

TO THE SAME.

PHILADELPHIA, 3d August, 1816.

DEAR SIR.--I now return to my proper station of a scholar asking

questions of his master. In your letter of the 24th ult., you have

fully satisfied me that the Indians have a great number of words

derived from “_roots_,” much in the same manner as in the languages of

Europe, but you have said at the same time “that the manner in which

the Indians in general form their words, is different from that of the

Europeans.” I am very anxious to have this manner[287] explained, and I

shall be very much obliged to you for all the information that you can

give me on the subject.

I have told you already that I thought I had reason to believe that

all the American languages were formed on the same general plan. If I

am correct in my supposition, I think I have found in the language of

Greenland, the identical manner of compounding words which I am now

calling upon you to explain. You will tell me whether I have judged

right, and you will at once destroy or confirm my favourite hypothesis.

According to the venerable Egede, words are formed in the Greenland

language by taking and joining together a part of each of the radical

words, the ideas of which are to be combined together in one compound

locution. One or more syllables of each simple word are generally

chosen for that purpose and combined together, often leaving out the

harsh consonants for the sake of euphony. Thus from “_agglekpok_,” he

writes, “_pekipok_,” he mends or does better, and “_pinniarpok_,” he

endeavours, is formed the compound word “_agglekiniaret_,” which means,

“endeavour to write better.” The first syllable “_agl_,” is taken from

“agl_ekpok_,” the second “_ek_” from the same word, and also from the

first syllable of “_pekipok_,” leaving out the _p_ to avoid harshness,

and the third “_inniar_” from “Pinniar_pok_,” also leaving out the

initial consonant for the same reason. It seems to me that I find

something like it in the Delaware language. According to Zeisberger,

_wet_ooch_wink_ signifies “father.” Now taking the second syllable

_ooch_, and placing _n_ before it, you have “_nooch_,” my father. To be

sure, it is not the first syllable that is borrowed, as in the above

example from the Greenlandish, but the principle appears, nevertheless,

to be the same in both languages.

On the subject of this word “_father_” I observe a strange

contradiction between two eminent writers on Indian languages,

evidently derived from the stock of the Lenni Lenape or Delaware.

One of them, Roger Williams, in his Key to the Language of the New

England Indians, says “_osh_” (meaning probably _och_ or _ooch_, as the

English cannot pronounce the guttural _ch_) father; “_nosh_” my father;

“_kosh_” thy father, &c. On the other hand, the Rev. Jonathan Edwards,

in his observations on the language of the _Muhhekanew_ (Mohican)

Indians, speaks as follows: “A considerable part of the appellations

is never used without a pronoun affixed. The Mohegans say, my father,

‘_nogh_’ (again _noch_ or _nooch_) thy father ‘_kogh_,’ &c., but

they cannot say absolutely ‘_father_.’ There is no such word in their

language. If you were to say ‘_ogh_,’ you would make a Mohegan both

stare and smile.” (page 13.)

Which of these two professors is right? It seems that either Rogers

invented the word _osh_ for “father,” from analogy, or that Edwards is

not correct when he says that _ogh_ or _ooch_ singly, mean nothing in

the Indian language. Is he not mistaken when he says that there is no

word whatever answering to “father,” or “the father,” in an abstract

sense; and if an Indian would stare and smile when a white man says

_ooch_, would he smile in the same manner if he said _wetoochwink_?

Is it possible to suppose that this respectable author had only a

partial knowledge of the language on which he wrote, and that he was

not acquainted with the radical word from which _nooch_ and _kooch_

had been formed? Or is there no such radical word, and has Zeisberger

himself committed a mistake?

I beg leave to submit to you also another observation that I have

made. It appears from the work of the late Dr. Barton, who quotes

your authority for it, that the name of the _Lenni Lenape_, means

“_the original people_,” and that “_Lenno_” in the Delaware language

signifies “man,” in the general sense, (_Mensch_.) Now, it appears that

in the language of the _Micmacs_ (a tribe of Nova Scotia,) they call

an Indian “_Illenoh_,” and in that of the Canadian mountaineers (whom

some believe to be the Algonkins proper) they say “_Illenou_.” (Mass.

Histor. Coll. for the year 1799, pp. 18, 19.) I am apt to believe that

those names are the same with “_Lenno_,” and that it is from them that

the French have formed the name “_Illinois_,” which extends even beyond

the Mississippi. In the speech of the Indian chief _Garangula_, to the

Governor of Canada, related by La Hontan, the warrior says: “You must

know, Onontio, that we have robbed no Frenchmen, but those who supplied

the ‘_Illinois_,’ and the ‘_Oumamis_,’ our enemies, with powder and

ball.” I am inclined to believe that Garangula when he spoke of the

_Illinois_ meant the _Lenni Lenape_, and by the name of _Oumamis_,

intended to describe their chief tribe, the _Unamis_. Of this,

however, I leave you to judge. But I strongly suspect that “_Lenno_,”

“_Lenni_,” “_Illenoh_,” “_Illenou_,” “_Illinois_,” are the same name,

and all apply to that great nation whom the Baron La Hontan takes to

be the _Algonkins_, who, it would seem, are only called so by way of

discrimination, but consider themselves as a branch of the great family

of the “_Illenou_.” If I am correct in this, how do you make out that

_Lenni Lenape_ means “_original people_”?

The Greenlanders, according to Egede, call themselves _Innuit_, which

in their language also signifies _men_. It appears to me to be very

much akin to _Illenoh_, _Illeun_. Could the Greenlanders be in any way

connected with the _Lenni Lenape_?

Pray tell me from what languages are derived the words _squaw_,

_sachem_, _tomahawk_, _calumet_, _wampum_, _papoose_, which are so much

in use among us? Are they of the Delaware or the Iroquois stock?

I am, &c.

LETTER XVIII.

FROM MR. HECKEWELDER.

BETHLEHEM, 12th August, 1816.

DEAR SIR.--I have duly received your two letters of the 31st of July

and 3d of August last. I am much pleased with your metaphysical

disquisitions, as you call them, and I beg you will indulge in them

with perfect freedom, whenever you shall feel so disposed. I agree

with you that a proper classification of human languages would be a

very desirable object; but I fear the task is too hard ever to be

accomplished with the limited knowledge of man. There are, no doubt,

many varieties in language yet to be discovered.

As you wish to be acquainted with the manner in which our North

American Indians compound their words, I shall endeavour to satisfy you

as well as I am able. The process is much the same as that which Egede

has described with respect to the Greenland language, and this strongly

corroborates your opinion respecting the similarity of forms of at

least of those of North America. In the Delaware and other languages

that I am acquainted with, parts or parcels of different words,

sometimes a single sound or letter, are compounded together, in an

artificial manner, so as to avoid the meeting of harsh or disagreeable

sounds, and make the whole word fall in a pleasant manner upon the

ear. You will easily conceive that words may thus be compounded and

multiplied without end, and hence the peculiar richness of the American

languages. Of this I can give you numerous examples. In the first

place, the word “_nadholincen_.” It is a simple short word, but means

a great deal. The ideas that are conveyed by it are these: “Come with

the canoe and take us across the river or stream.” Its component parts

are as follows: The first syllable “_nad_” is derived from the verb

“_naten_,” to fetch; the second, “_hol_,” from “_amochol_,” a canoe or

boat; “_ineen_” is the verbal termination for “_us_,” as in _milineen_,

“give us;”--the simple ideas, therefore, contained in this word, are

“_fetch canoe us_,” but in its usual and common acceptation it means,

“come and fetch us across the river with a canoe.” I need not say that

this verb is conjugated through all its moods and tenses. _Nadholawall_

is the form of the third person of the singular of the indicative

present, and means “He is fetched over the river with a canoe,” or

simply, “He is fetched over the river.”

From _wunipach_, a leaf, _nach_, a hand, and _quim_, a nut growing on a

tree (for there is a peculiar word to express nuts of this description

and distinguish them from other nuts) is formed _wunachquim_, an acorn,

and the ideas which by this name are intended to be conveyed are these:

“The nut of the tree the leaves of which resemble a hand, or have upon

them the form of a hand.” If you will take the trouble to examine the

leaves of an oak tree, you will find on them the form of a hand with

outspread fingers. On the same principle are formed

M’sim, _hickory nut_.

Ptucquim, _walnut_.

Wapim, _chestnut_.

Schauwemin, _beech nut_, and many others.

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_.

Achgook, _a snake_.

Suckachgook, _a black snake_ (from _suck_ or _suckeu_, black.)

Mamalachgook, _spotted snake_.

Asgaskachgook, _green snake_.

2. The names of fishes in _meek_ (_Namæs_, a fish.)

Maschilameek, _a trout_ (spotted fish.)

Wisameek, _cat-fish_ (the fat fish.)

Suckameek, _black fish_.

Lennameek, _chub 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 corn[291] _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.

Wulamalessohaluwed, _he who makes happy_.

Wulamalessohalid, _he who makes me happy_.

Wulamalessohalquon, _he who makes thee happy_,

Wulamalessohalat, _he who makes him happy_.

Wulamalessohalquenk, _he who makes us happy_.

Wulamalessohalqueek, _he who makes you happy_.

Wulamalessohalquichtit, _he who makes them happy_.

* * * * *

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:

Eliwulek,[297] } _He who is above every thing_.[299]

Allowilen,[298] }

Eluwantowit,[300] _God above all_; (“getannitowit” means _God_.)

Eluwiahoalgussit, _the beloved above all things_.

Elewassit,[301] _the most powerful_, _the most majestic_.

Eluwitschanessik, _the strongest of all_.

Eluwikschiechsit, _the supremely good_.[302]

Eluwilissit, _the one above all others in goodness_.

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.

Positive Form.

N’dahoaltineen, _we love one another_.

K’dahoaltihhimo, _you love one another_.

Ahoaltowak, _they love one another_.

Negative Form.

Matta n’dahoaltiwuneen, _we do not love one another_.

Matta kdahoaltiwihhimo, _you do not love one another_.

Matta ahoaltiwiwak, _they do not love one another_.

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 “aholt_a_wak,” “they love each

other,” is formed “ahoalt_i_wiwak,” “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:

Mattatsch n’dahoaltiwuneen, _we shall or will not love each other_.

Mattatsch k’dahoaltiwihhimo, _you_--

Mattatsch ahoaltiwiwak, _they_--

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:

Ni, _I_.

Ki, _thou_.

Neka, _or_ nekama, _he_ or _she_.

Kiluna, _we_.

Kiluwa, _you_.

Nekamawa, _they_.

There are other personal pronouns, which I believe to be peculiar to

the Indian languages; such are:

Nepe, _I also_.

Kepe, _thou also_.

Nepena, _or_ kepena, _we also_.

Kepewo, _you also_.

Kepoak, _they also_.

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 which 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_ schingiesch_in_[305] _n’dallemans_

“there lies my beast,” (the verb _schingieschin_[305] being only used

when speaking of animate things;) otherwise they will say: _icka_

schingiesch_en 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.

Ki _Thou_

Wetóchemelenk _our Father_

talli _there_

épian _dwelling_

Awosságame, _beyond the clouds,_

Machelendásutsch _magnified or praised be_

Ktellewunsowágan _thy name_

Ksakimowagan _thy kingdom_

peyewiketsch _come on_

Ktelitehewágan _thy thoughts, will, intention, mind,_

léketsch _come to pass_

yun _here_

Achquidhackamike _upon or all over the earth,_

elgiqui _the same_

leek _as it is_

talli _there_

Awosságame _in heaven or beyond the clouds_,

Milineen _give to us_

eligischquik _on or through this day_

gunagischuk _the usual_, _daily_

Achpoan _bread_,

woak _and_

miwelendammauwineen _forgive to us_

n’tschannauchsowagannéna _our transgressions_ (faults),

elgiqui _the same as_

niluna _we_ (particular plural) _we who are here_

miwelendammáuwenk _we mutually forgive them_,

nik _who or those_

tschetschanilawequéngik _who have transgressed or injured us_

(past participle)

woak _and_

kátschi _let not_

n’páwuneen _us come to that_

li _that_

achquetschiechtowáganink _we fall into temptation_; (ink, _into_),

shuckund _but_ (rather)

ktennineen _keep us free_

untschi _from_

medhicking _all evil_

Alod _for_

Knihillátamen _thou claimest_

ksakimowágan[306] _thy kingdom_

woak _and_

ktallewussoágan _the superior power_

woak _and_

ktallowilissowágan _all magnificence_

ne _from_

wuntschi _heretofore_

hallemiwi, _ever_ (always)

Nanne leketsch. _Amen._ (so be it; so may it come to pass.)

LETTER XXV.

TO MR. HECKEWELDER.

PHILADELPHIA, 1st October, 1816.

DEAR SIR.--Various professional avocations have prevented me from

answering sooner your kind letter of the 5th ult. I thank you for the

Delaware translation of the Lord’s prayer; it does not differ much from

that in Loskiel, but the English explanations which you have given add

greatly to its value.

The information which your letter contains on the subject of the

annexation to the verb of the form or inflexion indicative of the

gender, is quite new to me. Though I was already acquainted with the

principle on which this takes place, I was not fully aware of the

extent of its application. We have already noticed and remarked upon

the combination of the pronominal form with the active verb[307] in

“_getannitowit n’quitayala_, I fear God;” in which the pronoun _him_

is expressed by the last syllable _ala_ or _yala_, so that it is the

same as if you said “_God I fear him_,” in Latin _Deus timeo eum_,

and by contraction, _Deus timeum_. With this it is not difficult to

pursue the same course or “plan of ideas,” by connecting not only the

subject pronoun, but its gender, animate, or inanimate, with the verbal

form. The idea of the sexes, if the language admitted of it, might be

expressed in the same manner. Thus also Latin words might be compounded

on the Delaware plan. If I wished to express in that manner “_I see a

lion_,” I would say _leo video eum_, and by contraction _videum_; and

if the object was of the feminine gender, I would say _videam_, for

_video eam_. The difference between the Latin and the Delaware is that

in the former the ideas of the pronoun and its gender are expressed by

a _nominal_ and in the latter by a _verbal_ form. I consider _leonem

video_, as a contraction of _leo eum video_; the _n_ being interposed

between _leo_ and _eum_, and the _u_ in _eum_ left out for euphony’s

sake. In the same manner _fœminam_ appears to me to be contracted

from _fœmina eam_;[308] whence we may, perhaps, conclude that in the

formation of different languages, the same ideas have occurred to the

minds of those who framed them; but have been differently combined, and

consequently differently expressed. Who would have thought that the

barbarous idioms of the American savages could have thrown light on the

original formation of the noble and elegant language of ancient Rome?

Does not this very clearly shew that nothing is indifferent in science,

and above all, that we ought by no means to despise what we do not know?

I thought we had exhausted all the verbal forms of the Delaware

language, when I accidentally fell upon one which Zeisberger has

not mentioned in his grammar, but of which he gives an example in

his vocabulary or spelling-book. It is a curious combination of the

relative pronoun “_what_” or “_that which_” with an active verb,

regularly conjugated through the several transitions or personal forms.

The author thus conjugates the present of the indicative.

FIRST TRANSITION.

_Singular._ _Plural._

Elan, _what I tell thee_, ellek, _what I tell you_,

elak, _what I tell him_. elachgup, _what I tell them_.

SECOND TRANSITION.

_Singular._ _Plural._

Eliyan, _what thou tellest me_, eliyenk, _what thou tellest us_,

elan, _what thou tellest him_. elachtup, _what thou tellest them_.

THIRD TRANSITION.

_Singular._ _Plural._

Elit, _what he tells me_, elquenk, _what he tells us_,

elquon, _what he tells thee_, elquek, _what he tells you_,

elat, elguk, _what he tells him_. elatup, elatschi, _what he tells

them_.

FOURTH TRANSITION.

_Singular._ _Plural._

Elenk, _what we tell you_, ellek, _what we tell you_,

elank, _what we tell him_. elanquik, _what we tell them_.

FIFTH TRANSITION.

_Singular._ _Plural._

Eliyek, _what you tell me_, eliyenkup, _what you tell us_,

elatup, _what you tell him_. elaachtitup, _what you tell them_.

SIXTH TRANSITION.

_Singular._ _Plural._

Elink, _what they tell me_, elgeyenk, _what they tell us_,

elquonnik, _what they tell thee_, elgeyek, _what they tell you_,

elaachtit, _what they tell him_. elatschik, _what they tell us_.

Thus I have given myself the pleasure of transcribing this single tense

of one of the moods of this beautiful verb, which I find is used also

in the sense of “_as I tell thee_,” &c., and is a striking example of

the astonishing powers of this part of speech in the Delaware language.

Can you tell me where those powers end? Is there anything which a

Delaware verb will not express in some form or other? I am no longer

astonished to find that Mr. Zeisberger has not displayed in his grammar

all the richness of this idiom. A single verb, with its various forms

and transitions, would almost fill a volume, and there are no less than

eight conjugations, all of which were to be explained and illustrated

by examples!

But it is not in the verbs alone that consist the beauties of this

language. The other parts of speech also claim our attention. There I

find, as well as in the verbs, forms and combinations of which I had

not before conceived an idea. For instance, Zeisberger tells us that

there are nouns substantive in the Delaware which have a _passive

mood_! Strange as this may appear to those who are unacquainted with

Indian forms, it is nevertheless a fact which cannot be denied; for

our author gives us several examples of this _passive noun_, all ending

with the substantive termination _wagan_, which, as you have informed

me, corresponds with the English _ness_, in “happiness,” and the German

_heit_ or _keit_, in the numerous words ending with these syllables.

Permit me to select some of the examples given by Zeisberger.

Machelemuxowagan, _honour, the being honoured_.

Gettemagelemuxowagan, _the receiving favour, mercy, tenderness_.

Mamschalgussiwagan,[309] _the being held in remembrance_.

Witahemgussowagan, _the being assisted or helped_.

Mamintochimgussowagan,[310] _the being esteemed_.

Wulakenimgussowagan, _the being praised_.

Machelemoachgenimgussowagan, _the receiving honour and praise_.

Amangachgenimgussowagan, _the being raised or elevated by praise_.

Schingalgussowagan, _the being hated_.

Mamachtschimgussowagan, _the being insulted_.

You will, I am afraid, be disposed to think that we have changed

places, and that I am presuming to give you instruction in the Delaware

language; but I am only repeating to you the lessons that I have

learned from Zeisberger, to save you the trouble of explaining what I

can obtain from another source; to be corrected, if I have committed

mistakes, and to receive from you the information which my author

does not give. Besides, as our correspondence is intended for the use

of the Historical Committee, my occasional extracts from Zeisberger,

and the observations to which they give rise, are addressed to them

as well as to you, and under your correction, may contribute to give

them a clearer idea of the forms of the Indian languages. Our letters

thus form a kind of epistolary conference between the scholar and his

master, held before a learned body, who profit even by the ignorance

of the student, as it draws fuller and more luminous explanations from

the teacher. Had I proceeded otherwise, your task would have been much

more laborious and troublesome, and it would have been ungenerous to

have exacted it from you.

In this manner I have relieved you from the trouble of explaining the

_passive substantives_ of Zeisberger, unless I should have mistaken his

meaning, in which case, you will, of course, set me right. But this

author does not tell us whether there are on the other hand _active

substantives_, such as “_the honouring_,” “_the favouring_,” “_the

remembering_,” “_the praising_,” “_the insulting_,” “_the hating_.”

Here I beg you will be so good as to supply his deficiency, and explain

what he has left unexplained.

I find also that there are diminutive words in the Delaware, as in the

Italian, such as _lennotit_, a little man, (from _lenno_); _amementit_,

a little child, (from _amemens_); _wiquames_, a little house, (from

_wiquam_), &c. Pray, are there also augmentatives? Is there any

difference between the diminutive terminations _tit_ and _es_, and what

is it?

I have been told that you intend soon to visit Philadelphia; I shall

rejoice to find it true, and to form a personal acquaintance with you,

which, I hope, will produce a lasting friendship.

I am, &c.

LETTER XXVI.

FROM MR. HECKEWELDER.

BETHLEHEM, 10th October, 1816.

DEAR SIR.--I have hesitated whether I should answer your favour of

the 1st inst., being very soon to set out for Philadelphia, where I

shall be able to explain to you verbally everything that you wish to

know in a much better manner than I can do in writing. As there are,

however, but few questions in your letter, and those easily answered,

I sit down to satisfy your enquiry, which will for the present close

our correspondence. If you think proper to resume it after my return to

this place, you will find me as ready as ever to continue our Indian

disquisitions.

In the first place, it cannot, I think, properly be said that

substantives in general in the Delaware language have a passive mood;

but there are substantives which express a passive situation, like

those which you have cited, after Mr. Zeisberger. I do not know of any

words which express the same thing _actively_, except the infinitives

of active verbs, which are in that case substantively used. Such are,

Shingalgundin, _to hate_; or _the hating_.

Machelemuxundin, _to honour_; or _the honouring_.

Mamachkimgundin, _to insult_ (by words); or _the insulting_.

The diminutive forms in the Indian are _tit_ and _es_; the former is

generally applied to animate, and the latter to inanimate things.

Thus we say _lennotit_, a little man; _amementit_, a little child;

_wiquames_, a small house; and _amocholes_, a small canoe. This rule

does not hold, however, in all cases; for the little fawn of a deer,

although animate, is called _mamalis_, and a little dog among the

Minsi is called _allumes_, (from _allum_, a dog.) _Chis_ or _ches_, is

also a diminutive termination, which is sometimes applied to beasts;

_achtochis_ and _achtoches_, “a small deer.”

Augmentatives are compounded from the word _chingue_, which signifies

large; and sometimes the two words are separately used.

Chingue, _or_ m’chingue puschis, _a large cat_.

Chingewileno (for _chingue lenno_), _a tall stout man_.

Chingotæney (for _chingue otæney_), _a large town_.

Chingi wiquam, _a large house_.

Chingamochol, _a large canoe_.

Chingachgook, _a large snake_, &c.

There are a few augmentatives formed in a different manner; for

instance, from _pachkshican_ or _kshican_, “a knife,” are formed

_pachkschicanes_, “a small knife,” and _m’chonschicanes_,[311] “a large

knife;” still it is easy to see that _m’chon_, in the latter word, is

derived from _chingue_, large or great, which, with a little variation,

brings it within the same rule with the others.

You have, no doubt, observed in Zeisberger the terminations _ink_ and

_unk_, which express the idea of locality, coupled with a substantive,

as for instance:

Utenink, _or_ otænink, _from_ otæney, _a town_; _in the town_.

Utenink n’da, _I am going to town_, or _into the town_.

Utenink noom, _I am coming from within the town_.

Sipunk, (_from_ sipo) _to_ or _into the river_.

M’bink, (_from_ m’bi) _in the water_.

Hakink, (_from_ hacki) _in_ or _on the earth_.

Awossagamewunk, (_from_ awossageme), _in heaven_.

Wachtschunk n’da, _I am going up the hill_.

Wachtschunk noom, _I come from the hill_.

Hitgunk, _on_ or _to the tree_.

Ochunk, _at his father’s_.

As you must have observed that many of our Indian names of places

end with one or other of these terminations, such as _Minisink_,

_Moyamensing_, _Passyunk_, &c., you will understand that all these

names are in what we might call the _local_ case, which accounts for

the great number of those which end in this manner.

I beg you will not write to me any more for the present, as I do not

know how soon I may have the pleasure of seeing you. I anticipate great

satisfaction from your acquaintance, and hope it will be improved into

a true _Indian_ friendship.

I am, &c.

J. HECKEWELDER.

ERRATA IN PART II.

PAGE 352, LINE 11--For “_Zeisberger_” read “_Heckewelder_.”

359, 24--(of letter vi.) For “_from_” read “_for_.”

362, 15--For “_schawanáki_” read “_schwanameki_.”

16--For “_chwani_” read “_chwami_.”

383, 1--(from the bottom) For “_k’lehelleya_” read

“_k’lehellecheya_.”

386, 21--For “_wulatopnachgat_” read “_wulaptonachgat_.”

23--For “_wulatonamin_” read “_wulatenamin_.”

392, 27--(of letter xvii.) For “_manner_” read “_matter_.”

397, 6 and 7--For “_achpansi_” read “_achpanschi_.”

401, 26--For “_Indian corn_” read “_a particular species of

Indian corn_.”

404, 8--For “_ktahoatell_” read “_ktahoalell_.”

18--For “_gunich_” read “_gunih_.”

410, 12--For “_eliwulek_” read “_eluwilek_.”

13--For “_allowilen_” read “_allowilek_.” For the English

translation, of these two words, substitute “_the most

extraordinary, the most wonderful_.”

14--For “_eluwantowit_” read “_eluwannitowit_.”

16--For “_elewassit_” read “_elewussit_.”

18--For “_the supremely good_” read “_the most holy one_.”

424, 6 and 7--For “_schingieschin_” read “_schingiechin_.”

429, 9--For “_mamschalgussiwagan_” read

“_mamschalgussowagan_.”

11--For “_mamintochimgussowagan_” read

“_mamintschimgussowagan_.”

431, 4--(from the bottom) For “_m’chonschicanes_” read

“_m’chonschican_.”

ADDITIONAL ERRATUM IN PART I.

PAGE 323, LINE 34--For “_Indians_” read “_traders_.”

PART III.

WORDS, PHRASES, AND SHORT DIALOGUES,

IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE

_LENNI LENAPE, OR DELAWARE INDIANS_.

BY THE REV. JOHN HECKEWELDER,

OF BETHLEHEM.

WORDS, PHRASES, ETC.,

OF THE

LENNI LENAPE, OR DELAWARE INDIANS.

N’mítzi, _I eat_.

N’gáuwi, _I drink_.

N’wachpácheli, _I awake_.

N’ménne, _I drink_.

N’papommíssi, _I walk_.

N’gagelícksi, _I laugh_.

N’mamentschi, _I rejoice_.

N’dáschwil, _I swim_.

N’manúnxi, _I am angry_.

N’mikemósi, _I work_.

N’delláchgusi, _I climb_.

N’nanipauwi, _I stand_.

N’lemáttáchpi, _I sit_.

Nópo, nóchpo, n’hóppo, _I smoke_.

N’schiweléndam, _I am sorry_.

N’gattópui, _I am hungry_.

N’gattósomi, _I am thirsty_.

N’pálsi, _I am sick_.

Nolamálsi, _I am well_.

N’nipitíne, _I have the tooth-ache_.

N’wilíne, _I have a head-ache_.

N’wischási, _I am afraid_.

N’wiquíhhalla, _I am tired_.

N’tschittanési, _I am strong_.

N’schawússi, _I am weak_, _feeble_.

N’túppocu, _I am wise_.

N’nanólhand, _I am lazy_.

N’pomóchksi, _I creep_.

N’dellemúske, _I am going away_.

N’gattúngwan, _I am sleepy_.

Oténink n’da, _I am going to town_.

Gelóltowak, _they are quarrelling_.

K’dahólel, _I love you_.

Kschingálel, _I hate you_.

Ponihi, _let me alone_.

Palli áal, _go away_.

Gótschemunk, _go out of the house_.

Ickalli áal, _away with you_.

Kschaméhella, _run_.

Ne nipauwi, _stop there_.

Undach áal, _come here_.

Kpáhi, _shut the door_.

Tauwúnni, _open the door_, _lid_, &c.

Pisellissu, _soft_.

Pisalatúlpe, _soft-shelled tortoise_.

Kulupátschi, _otherwise_, _on the other hand_, _else_, _however_.

Nahalíwi,}

Eiyelíwi,} _both_ (of them.)

Leu, _true_.

Attáne léwi, _it is not true_.

Alla gaski lewi, _it cannot be true_.

Bíschi, bíschihk, _yes_, _indeed_, (it is so.)

N’wingalláuwi, _I like to hunt_.

N’winggi mikemósi, _I like to work_.

N’schíngi mikemósi, _I don’t like to work_.

M’wingínammen, _I like it_.

N’wingándammen, _I like the taste_ (of it).

N’wíngachpihn, _I like to be here_.

N’schíngachpihn, _I dislike being here_.

N’mechquihn, _I have a cold, cough_.

Undach lénni, _reach it hither_.

Undach lénnemáuwil, _reach it to me_.

N’gattópui, _I am hungry_.

N’gattosomi, _I am thirsty_.

N’wiquíhilla, _I am tired, fatigued_.

N’tschitannéssi, _I am strong_.

N’schauwihilla, _I am weak, faint_.

N’wischási, _I am afraid_.

N’daptéssi, _I sweat_.

N’dágotschi, _I am cold, freezing_.

N’dellennówi, _I am a man_.

N’dochquéwi, _I am a woman_.

N’damándommen, _I feel_.

N’leheléche, _I live, exist, draw breath_.

Lécheen, _to exist, breathe, draw breath, be alive_.

Lechéwon, _breath_.

_Note._ As we would ask a person whom we had not seen for a

long time: “Are you _alive_ yet?”--or, is such and such a one

yet _alive_? the Indian would say:

Ili kleheléche? _do you draw breath yet_?

Leheléche íli nítis, N. N.? _does my favourite friend_ N. N. _yet

draw breath_?

Gooch ili lehelecheu? _does your father draw breath yet_?

Gáhawees ili lehelecheu? _does your mother draw breath yet_?

N’tschu! _my friend_.

N’tschútti, _dear, beloved friend_.

Nitis, _confidential friend_.

Geptschat, _a fool_.

Geptschátschik, _fools_.

Leppóat, _wise_.

Leppoeu, _he is wise_.

Leppoátschik, _wise men, wise people_.

Sókelaan, _it rains_.

K’schilaan, _it rains hard_.

Pélelaan, _it begins to rain_.

Achwi sókelaan, _it rains very hard_.

Alla sókelaan, _it has left off raining_.

Peelhácquon, _it thunders_.

Sasapeléhelleu, _it lightens_.

Petaquíechen, _the streams are rising_.

M’chaquiéchen, _the streams are up, high_.

Choppécat, _the water is deep_.

Meetschi higíhelleu, _the waters are falling_.

Síchilleu meétschi, _the waters have run off_.

Tatehúppecat, _shallow water_.

Gahan, _very low water, next to being dried up_.

K’schuppéhelleu, _a strong current, riffle_.

Pulpécat, _deep dead water, as in a cove or bay_.

Clampéching, _a dead running stream, the current imperceptible_.

Kscháchan, _the wind_.

Ta úndchen? _from whence blows the wind_?

Lowannéunk úndchen, _the wind comes from the north_.

Schawannéunk úndchen, _the wind comes from the south_.

Schawanáchen, _south wind_.

Lowannáchen, _north wind_.

Wundchennéunk, _in the west_.

Gachpatteyéunk, _in the east_.

Moschháquot, _a clear sky_.

Kschiechpécat, _clear water, clear, pure water_.

Achgumhócquat, _cloudy_.

Páckenum, _dark_, (very.)

Pekenink, _in the dark_.

Pisgeu, _it is dark_.

Pisgéke, _when it becomes dark_, (is dark.)

Mah! _there, take it_!

Yuni, _this_.

Nanni, nan, _that_.

Wullíh, _yonder_.

Wáchelemi, _afar off_.

Wáchelemat? _is it afar off, a great way off_?

Péchuat, _near, nigh_.

Pechuwíwi, _near_, (not far off.)

Pechútschi, _near_.

Pechu lennitti, _directly, presently_.

Pechu, _soon_, _directly_.

Alíge, _if so_, _nevertheless_.

Alíge n’dallemúsca, _I will go for all_, _nevertheless I will go_.

Yu úndachqui! _this way_, _to this side_!

Icka úndachqui, _to yon side_.

Ickalli úndachqui! _still further on that way!_

Wullih! _yonder!_

Wullíh táh! _beyond that!_

Pennó wullíh! _look yonder!_

Nachgiéchen, _it has hit against something_, (cannot move or be

driven forward,) as _a joist_, _a pin in a building_.

Clagáchen, _it rests on something in the water, is grounded_.

Clagáchen amóchol, _the canoe is aground, rests on something_.

Clagáchen aschwitchan, _the raft has grounded_.

Tauwihilla, _sunk_, _it has sunk_.

N’dámochol k’tauwíhille, _my canoe sunk_.

Gachpattol amóchol, _take the canoe out of the water_.

Gachpallátam, _let us get out and go on shore_.

Pusik! _embark!_ (ye.)

Pusil! _embark!_ (thou.)

Wischíksil! _be thou vigilant, quick, in earnest and exert thyself!_

Wischíksik! _be ye vigilant, in earnest, quick!_ (about it.)

_Note._ The word wischíksi or wischíxi

is by the white people interpreted

as signifying “_be strong_,” which does

not convey the true meaning of this

word: it comprehends more; it asks

for _exertions to be made, to fulfil the

object_.

N’petalogálgun! _I am sent as a messenger!_

N’sagimáum petalogálgun yu pétschi, _my chief has sent me as a

messenger to you_.

Matta nutschquem’páwi, _I am not come for nothing_, (meaning, being

on an errand.)

Pechu k’pendammenéwo wentsche payan, _you will soon hear why I am

come here_.

Tschingetsch kmátschi? _when do you return home again?_

Sédpook! _at day break!_

N’dellgun lachpi gatta páame, _I was told to hasten, and return

quickly_.

Lachpí, _quick_, (without delay.)

N’mauwi pihm, _I am going to take a sweat_ (at the sweat house).

N’dapi pihm, _I am come from sweating_ (from the sweat house).

N’dapelláuwi, _I am come from hunting_.

N’dápi notamæsi, _I come from taking fish with the spear_.

N’dapi áman, _I come from fishing with the hook and line_.

N’dapi achquáneman, _I come from bushnet fishing_.

Notameshícan, _a fishing spear_, _gig_.

Aman, _a fish hook_.

Achquáneman, _a bush net_.

Apatschiáne, _when I return_.

Góphammen, } _to shut up anything close_, _a door_, &c.

K’páhammen, }

Kpáhi, _shut the door_.

Kpáskhamen, _to plug up tight_.

Tauwún, _open the door_.

Tauwúnni, _open the door for me_.

M’biák, _a whale_, (fish.)

Yuh’ allauwítan! _come, let us go a hunting!_

Nelema n’metenaxíwi, _I am not yet ready_.

K’metenaxi yúcke? _are you now ready?_

Nélema ta! _not yet!_

Pechu lenítti, _by and by_.

Laháppa pehil! _wait a little for me!_

Nelema n’gischambíla níwash! _I have not yet done tying up my pack!_

Yúh’ yehúcke allemuskétam! _well now let us go on!_

Schuck sokeláan gachtáuwi! _but it will rain!_

Quanna ta! _even if it does_, _no matter if it does_!

Alla kschilánge, _when the shower is over_.

Ta hatsch gemauwikéneen? _at what place shall we encamp?_

Wdiungoakhánnink, _at the white oak run_.

Enda gochgochgáchen, _at the crossing, fording-place_.

Enda tachtschaúnge, _at the narrows_, (where the hill comes close

on the river.)

Meechek achsinik, _at the big rock_.

Gauwáhenink, _at the place of the fallen timbers_.

Sikhéunk, _at the salt spring_.

Pachséyink, _in the valley_.

Wachtschúnk, _on the hill_.

Yapéwi, _on the river bank_.

Gámink, _on the other side of the river_.

Eli shíngeek, _on the flat_, (level upland.)

Mahónink, _at the lick_, (deer lick.)

Oténink, _in the town_.

Tékenink, _in the woods_.

Hachkihácanink, _in the field_.

Pockhapóckink, _at the creek between the two hills_.

Menatheink, _on the island_.

Enda lechauhánne, _at the forks of the river_.

Enda lechauwíechen, _at the forks of the road_.

Sakunk, _at the outlet of the river_, (mouth of the river.)

T’huppecúnk, _at the cold spring_.

K’mésha? _did you kill a deer?_

Atta, n’palléha! _no, I missed him!_

Yuh’ allácqui! _what a pity!_

Biesch knéwa? _then you did see one?_

Nachen n’newa achúch, _three times I saw deer_.

Quonna eet kpúngum machtit, _perhaps your powder is bad_.

Na leu, _that is true_, _so it turned out to be_.

Achtschíngi pockteu, _it scarcely took fire_.

Achtuchuíke wérnan? _are there plenty of deer where you was?_

Atta ta húsca, _not a great many_.

Nángutti schuck n’peenhálle, _I saw but few tracks_.

Machk kpenhálle? _did you track any bears?_

Biesch n’penhálle mauchsu, _I tracked but one_.

Schuck n’dállemons mekane, _but my dog_.

Palli uchschíha, _drove him off_.

N’gatta amochólhe, _I want to make a canoe_.

Wítschemil! _help me!_

N’pachkamen gachtáuwi, _I want to get bled_.

Yuh, nanne léketsch, _well do so_, _let it be so_.

N’matamálsi, _I feel unwell_.

Woak n’nipitíne, _and have the tooth-ache_.

Wítschemil! _help me!_

Poníhil, _let me alone_.

Tschitgússil! _be still_, _hold your tongue_!

Kscháhel! _strike hard_, _lay on well_! (on wood, &c.)

Míleen, _to give_, _the giving_.

Mil, _give_.

Mili, _give me_.

Milineen, _give us_.

Miltin, _given_, (was already.)

Miltoágan, _a present_.

N’milgun, _it was given to me_.

Milo, _give him_.

Milátamo, _let us give him_.

Sehe! _hush_, _be quiet_!

Elke! _O dear_, _wonderful_!

Ekesa! _miserable_, _for shame_!

Suppínquall, _tears_.

Lepácku, _he cries_.

E gohán, _yes, indeed_.

Kéhella, _aye_, _yes_.

Kehellá? _so, is it possible?_

Kehella lá! _O yes_, _so it is_!

Yuh kehella! _well, then!_

La kella! _to be sure_, _’tis so_!

Kehella kella! _yes, yes!_

E-E, _yes_, (a lazy _yes_.)

Mátta, _no_.

Tá, _no_, (a lazy _no_.)

Tagú, _no_, _not_.

Atta ta, _no, no_.

Eekhockewítschik mamachtagéwak, _the nations are warring against

each other_.

Yuh allácqui na lissichtit, _indeed it is a pity they do so_.

Napenaltowaktsché, _they will be scalping each other_.

Auween won gintsch pat? _who is that who just now came?_

Taktáani, _I don’t know_.

Mauwi pennó, _go and see_.

Auween kháckev? _who are you?_ (of what nation.)

Lennápe n’hackey, _I am an Indian_, (of the Lenni Lenape.)

Ta kóom? _where do you come from?_

Oténink nóom, _I come from the town_.

Auween kpetschi, witscheuchgun? _who came with you here?_

Na nípauwit, _he who stands there_.

Lennápe? _is he an Indian?_ (a Lenni Lenape.)

Tah, Mengwe, _no, he is a Mingo, an Iroquois_.

Kpetschi witscheuchgun otenink untschi? _did he come with you from

the town?_

Matta! n’mattelúkgun, _no! he fell in with me_ (by the way).

Ta tallí? _where?_

Wulli tah achtschaúnge! _yonder at the narrows!_

Ki gieschquíke? _this day?_ (to-day.)

Atta! welaquíke, _no! last evening_.

Kœcu undochwe wentschi yu páat? _what is he come here for_, _what

is he after_?

Taktani, schuck n’tschupínawe! _I don’t know, but I mistrust him!_

Tcshpináxu gáhenna, _he appears suspicious_, _has a suspicious

appearance_.

Gichgemotket quónna, _probably he is a thief_.

Wewitschi eet, _most likely_, (he is such.)

N’gemotemúke n’dállemons nechnaúnges, _my horse has been stolen from

me_.

Wichwínggi gemotgéwak Menge, _the Mingoes are very fond of stealing_.

Yuh amachgídieu, _they are vagabonds_.

Gachtíngetsch, _next year_.

Lehelechejane, _If I live_, (or am alive.)

Gamhackinktsch n’da, _I will go across the sea_, (or more properly)

_to the country beyond the sea_.

Clámachphil! _sit still!_

Schíki a na Lenno, _that is a fine, pretty man_.

Quatsch luppackhan? _why do you cry?_

N’nilchgun na nipauwit, _he that stands there struck me_.

Uchschímo meetschi, _he has already ran off_, _made away with

himself_.

T’chúnno! _catch him!_

Gachbílau! _tie him!_

Lachénau! _let him loose!_

Weemi, _or_ wemi auween lue, _everybody says_.

Wigwingi geloltóak schwánnakwak, _that the white people are fond

of quarrelling_.

N’matúnguam, _I had a bad dream_.

N’mátschi, _I will go home_.

Siquonne lappitsch knewi lehellecheyan! _in the spring you will see

me again if I am alive!_

Yuh, schuck mámschali! _well, but do remember me!_

Natsch leu, _it shall be so_, _that shall be done_.

N’nuntschímke, _I have been called_.

Auween guntschimgun? _who called you?_

N’dochquéum, _my wife_.

N’nitsch undach aal! _come hither my child!_

Lachpi! _quick!_

Nayu nípauwi (or nípawi), _there stand_.

Pelláh, _indeed_, _surely_, _so so_.

Petalamo auween, _somebody sounds_ (calls out) _the alarm yell_,

(signifying danger at hand.)

Yuh, shimoítam! _come, let us run off!_

Nélema ta! _not yet!_

Quanna eet auween gatta napenálgun! _perhaps somebody is coming

to attack and scalp us!_

Wewitschi eet, _probably_, _may-be_.

Pennáu! _look!_

Wulli ta pépannik! _yonder they are coming!_

Auween knéwa? _who do you see?_

Machelook, _or_ chelook schwánnakwak, _many white people_.

Papomiscuak? _are they on foot?_

Alénde, _some of them_.

Schuk matta weémi, _but not all of them_.

Gachtonalukguntsch matta uchschimuiénge, _we shall be attacked if

we do not make off with ourselves_.

Yuh, uchschimuítam alíge, _well then, let us make off at any rate_.

Mattapewíwak nik schwannakwak, _the white people are a rascally set

of beings_.

Kilunéwak wingi, _they are giving to lying_.

Kschinggálguna gehenna, _they hate us truly_.

Gemotemukguna wíngi, _they like, are disposed to rob us, are thieves

upon us_.

Yuh, gachtonalátam! _well, let us fall upon them, attack them_.

Longundowináquot, _it looks likely for peace_, _there is a prospect

of peace_.

Pennau won! _look at that one!_

Achgíeuchsu, _he is drunk_.

Achgepíngwe, _he is blind_.

Achgépcheu, _he is deaf_.

Kpítscheu, _he is foolish_.

Sópsu, _he is naked_.

Mamanúnxu, _he is angry_.

Scháaksu, _he is covetous_.

Pihmtónheu, _he has a crooked mouth_.

Ilau, _he is a great war-captain_.

Sakímau, _he is a chief_.

Kschamehellátam, _let us run together_.

Típaas, _a hen_. Tipátit, _a chicken_.

Tschólens, _a bird_. Tscholéntit, _a little bird_.

INDEX.

Abbott, Rachel, 341.

Abenakis, a name of the Lenape, xliii., 121, 123, 126.

Acadia, inhabited by the Souriquois, etc., 121.

Achsinning, 184.

Achtschingi clammui, 199.

Adair, James I., 126.

_Adelung’s Mithridates_, 124.

Ahouandâte or Wyandots, xliv.

Albany, xxx., xxxi., 61.

Albany River, the, 120.

Algonquins, the, 95;

language, 121, 122, 123, 124.

Allegheny River, the, 84, 294.

Alligewi or Allegheny, the, 48, 53, 126.

Alligewi Sipu, the Allegheny River, 48.

Anderson, John, a Quaker trader, 241 _et seq._

Apalaches or Wapanachkis, the, 126.

Apalachian nation, the, 126.

Aquanoshioni, national name of the Six Nation Indians, 96, 97, 98.

Arundel and Robbins, Messrs., 173.

Assiniboils or Sioux, the, 119, 123.

Assinipoetuk, the, 119.

Aubrey, Lætitia, 336.

Bartholinus, Kasper, 118.

_Barton’s New Views_, 121, 122, 126.

Bear, the naked, 255.

Belts of Wampum, 109.

Benezet, John Stephen, xxx.

Bethlehem, xxx.;

Indians at, 85, 90, 91, 92, 251, 332.

Beverwyck, xxxi.

Big Beaver River, 190, 196.

Blackfoot Indians, 121.

Boudinot, Elias, 331.

Brodhead, General Daniel, 70, 237.

Butterfield’s _Crawford’s Campaign against Sandusky_ referred to, 284.

Calhoon, Thomas, an Indian trader, 270.

Canada, xxxvi., 56, 85, 93, 120, 121, 126, 342.

Canai or Kanhawas, the, xliv., 90, 122.

Canajoharie, xxxi.

Canaways, the, xliv.

Canawese, the, xliv.

Canibas, the, 121.

Carolina, xxxii., xxxvii.

Carolina, North, 122.

Carver, Captain Jonathan, 119;

his “_Three Years’ Travel through the interior parts of North

America_,” _ibid._; 268, 322;

quoted, 324, 339.

Catawbas, the, 126.

Cayahaga, Delaware preacher at, 291.

Cayahaga River, 85.

Cayugas, the, 96, 99.

Chaktawas, the, 126.

Chapman, Abraham, and John, 67.

Chapman, a Jew trader, 257.

Chaquaquock, Indian name for the English, 142.

Charlevoix, Father, 123, 124, 331.

Chemenk, 91, 92.

Chenos, an old Indian, brings down rain, 236.

Cherokees, the, 64, 65, 88, 89, 95;

language of, 119, 171, 327.

Chesapeake Bay, 50.

Chickesaws, the, 125.

Chingleclamoose, 199.

Chippeways or Algonquins, language of, 119; xl., 90, 124, 130, 144,

176, 212.

Choctaws, the, 125.

Christian Indians, xl.

Christinaux, the, 123.

Clavigero, the Abbé, 331.

Cochnewagoes, the, a mixed race of Indians, 93.

Coghnewago, 52.

Coghnewago Hills, 52.

Colden, Cadwallader, his _History of the Five Indian Nations_ quoted,

xxxii., xxxiv., xliii., 55, 120.

_Collections of Maps, Historical Society_, referred to, 93, 94.

_Colonial Records of Penna._, xxxv., 178.

Conecocheague, 341.

Conestoga Indians, the murder of, 68, 80, 184, 192.

Connecticut, 94.

Conois, the, xliv.

Cornplanter, the, 112.

Cornstalk, the, 89, 184.

Coshocton, 237.

Crantz, David, a Moravian historian, his _History of Greenland_

referred to, 118.

Crawford. Col. William, 133;

tortured by Indians, 284;

dialogue with Capt. Wingenund, 285.

Creeks, the, 95, 121, 125.

Cushman, the Rev. Mr., of the Plymouth Colony, 330.

David, a Moravian Indian, 166.

David’s Path, 168.

De Laet, 126.

Delamattenos, the, 80.

De la Ware, Lord, xliii.

Delaware hunter and the bear (anecdote), 255.

Delaware Water Gap, 264.

Denmark, 119.

Detroit, xl., 49, 55, 108, 110, 119, 121, 133, 144, 171, 174, 226,

230, 258, 284.

_Detroit Gazette_ quoted, 243.

Doctol, Indian for Doctor, 231.

Duncan, David, 280.

Dunmore’s War, 89, 263, 278.

Du Ponceau to Heckewelder, letters of, 353, 364, 369, 376, 379, 387,

392, 403, 416, 426.

Du Ponceau to Wistar, letter of, 359.

Du Pratz, 126.

Dutch, Indian account of their arrival in New York, 71 _et seq._;

xxx., xxxii., xxxiii., xxxiv., xxxviii., 61, 74, 75.

Dutchemaan, the Dutch so called by the Indians, 60, 77.

Du Vallon, 126.

Easton, xxxv., 79, 168, 303.

Edwards, Bryan, 331.

Edwards, the Rev. Jonathan, 94, 125, 127.

Egede, P., 118.

Eliot, the Rev. John, 94, 125, 127.

Elliot, Matthew, 152.

Enda Mohatink, “_where human flesh was eaten_,” 200.