One of the most common forms of sentences in American languages is to
bring together an adjective and a substantive, the substantive verb
being omitted.
Mexican: _in Pedro qualli_, the Peter (is) good.
Totonaca: _aquit chixco_, I (am) a man.
Huasteca: _naxe uxum ibaua tzichniel_, this woman (is) not thy
servant.
In the Mixteca language such expressions have a peculiar arrangement.
The adjective must precede the substantive, or rather the predicate
must precede the subject, as in the reverse case the words are
understood separately, and are not connected into a sentence: _quadza
ñaha_, the woman is bad; _ñaha quadza_, the bad woman.
In the language of the Mbayas, a sentence can be made with any verb by
dropping the verbal affixes, by transposing a letter characterizing
the nouns as such, appending an adjective suffix, and uniting this
with an independent pronoun. The grammars of this language call this
form a passive, but it is just as much a neuter, and is not a verb but
a phrase. From _iigaichini_, to teach, we have _n-iigaichin-igi_,
taught, and as first person _e n-iigaichin-igi_, I am taught. The
initial _n_ which accompanies all nouns in this language, is merely
the possessive pronoun of the third person, added according to the
usage of many of these tongues to leave no noun without a possessive;
the termination _igi_ is a particle which indicates the place where
anything remains. Literally, therefore, _eniigaichinigi_ means, I (am)
the stopping-place of his teaching, _i. e._, one who is taught. All
affixes of mode and tense, however, may be united to this phrase, so
that thus it approaches a verb.
Regarded apart from the changes through tenses and modes, the union of
the subject and predicate with the substantive verb omitted, is
admirably adapted to express the conjunction of two words in one idea,
and as the languages which make use of it also possess the ordinary
forms of conjugation, they thus possess a special expression for both
the forms of verbs above referred to. We shall note this particularly
in the Beto language.
When the subject is not an independent part of speech, but an affixed
pronoun, the analogy of this method of notation to a verbal form
increases. For this is present even when no characteristic of a tense
is added, simply by the union of an attribute and a pronoun. It should
be remarked once for all, however, that too much weight must not be
attached to whether these elements form one word or not, as this is
not an infallible criterion.
The verb cannot be considered to be present as a separate part of
speech, when a verb can thus be made out of any word, not merely those
stamped as verbs, but also out of those which bear the express
characteristics of nouns; and therefore I include all these cases in
the class under consideration. For in all these languages there is in
fact no verb, but only separate elements of speech with the verb
omitted. Such cases are, however, interesting, as showing the gradual
approach to the verb, and the effort of the instinct of language to
arrive at grammatical form.
The independent personal pronoun rarely makes an element of verbal
form, as in speaking it is generally worn down to an affix. When it is
used to form a verbal expression, the difference of the elements is
1 3 3 1
apparent. Thus, in the Carib, _anaiaca puin au_--I (am) not a divider.
In that tongue, however, this placement is not applicable to every noun,
but only after certain definite verbal forms, especially in negative
expressions.
The Lule language confines this notation to participials, and expresses
by it the condition of the action and also its time; [TN-7]_mil quis
1 2 3
amaiciton_, you (are) me loving.
The affixed pronouns are either special, confined to these
expressions, or if elsewhere in the tongue, are not employed with
verbs, or not in this manner; or they are the pronominal affixes of
the verb itself.
The Maya or Yucatecan language has a special pronoun which added to
any noun forms a sentence with it, and possesses the power to add the
idea of the verb; _Pedro en_, I am Pedro. But when it stands alone,
without a predicate, it loses this power, as _en_ alone does not mean,
"I am."
In the Beto language there is, indeed, no special pronoun of this
kind, as the one used is also a possessive. Its position, however,
makes the difference. When it is prefixed, it is the possessive, but
when suffixed it carries with it the power of the verb: _humani rru_,
man I (am); _fofei rru_, bad I (am). In a similar manner this tongue
forms a substantive verb, _ajoi rru_. The meaning of the root is not
given, but it seems to mean something present, at hand. It is
suggestive that in these phrases the accent is always on the pronoun,
as if to signify that that is the important element.
It is very common in American languages to find the noun and the verb
using the same pronouns, with the former to indicate possession, with
the latter the subject. This might be explained by supposing that the
action is regarded as the possession of the agent. But it is simpler
to suppose that in each case the connection of the person with the
noun and the verb is in the thoughts, and this relation is recognized
in expression.
In this way the Mbaya language has a sort of descriptive conjugation;
connecting the participles with possessive pronouns; _i-iligodi_, I
(am) explaining; but no doubt less definitely, "my explaining," "I to
explain."
The language of the Abipones slightly alters the possessive pronouns
in some persons and uses them in a similar manner: _ri-aal_, I am
lazy; _yo-amkata_, he is good.
When the verbal pronoun is used in such expressions, it is entirely
identical with the verb.
This is the case with the Mexican, where the verbal pronoun united to
the participle forms a sentence: _ni-tlaçotlani_, I (am) a lover. This
expression differs from the present indicative only in the form of the
root-word, _ni-tlaçotla_; but it cannot form another tense or mode.
The grammarians call such an expression a tense indicating habit.
This, however, would not be a tense but a mode, and, in fact, the term
rests on a misunderstanding. That such expressions indicate habit is
shown by the fact that they do not apply, like the present of the
verb, to the temporary action, but convey that it is a custom, or a
business; not that I am loving just now, but that I am habitually a
lover.
An entirely similar instance occurs in the North Guaranay language,
which also permits, besides the regular conjugation, a union of the
root of the verb with a pronoun, the verb being omitted. The
grammarians of that tongue say that this adds extension and emphasis
to the sense of the verb. The real difference, however, is that this
procedure treats the verb as a noun, and the extension comes from
considering the action expressed by the verb to have become a
permanent quality; _a poro iuca_, I kill men (ordinary conjugation);
_xe poro iuca_, I (am) a man-killer (form with the possessive
pronoun); I kill men as my business.
In both these languages, therefore, what have been represented as
peculiar and separated forms, tenses indicating habit, or forms of
extension, are simply erroneous explanations of quite simple
constructions. In Mexican the correctness of this explanation is
confirmed by the forms of the vocative, which are identical with this
supposed tense, _in ti tlatlacoani_, O thou sinner; literally, thou
who (art) a sinner.
In the above examples the verbal power lies in the pronouns. But the
Mbaya language constructs verbal sentences by adding the sign of the
future to any adjective without a pronoun. This sign is _de_, or
before a vowel _d_: _de liidi_, it will be pleasant to the taste; _d
otiya_, he will be fat. I do not find other examples, and am uncertain
whether other tenses and modes are thus formed. In that case the
pronouns would have to be added, and the expression would lose its
peculiarity, which is that the tense sign alone carries with it the
notion of Being.
The Othomi language makes use in such expressions not only of the
pronouns but of all the affixes of the verb, and conjugates a noun
together with its article, treating it as a verbal radical:
_qui-no-munti-maha_, Thou wert the enriched. Here _no-munti_ is "the
enriched," and all the remaining syllables are verbal inflections.
Sandoval, who wrote a grammar of the language, explains _no_ as an
auxiliary verb; but with the noun he calls it an article, as it is,
and he evidently misunderstood the expression. It is wholly a verbal,
but as this procedure can be applied to any noun whatever, such an
expression is far removed from a real, well-defined verbal form.
The same language has another peculiar form with the possessive, which
can only be explained by supplying an omitted verb. _Na nuhti_ means
"my property;" but if to this is added the abbreviated pronoun used as
a verbal affix, _na-nuhti-g[=a]_, the words mean, "this property
belongs to me," or, "my property is it, mine."
In the grammatically obscure consciousness of these people, the ideas
of verbal and merely pronominal expression are confounded, as also in
the Brazilian language, where "my father" and "I have a father" are
expressed by the same word.
The advantages which these languages derive from the formation of
sentences with the verb omitted are two.
They can change any noun into a verb, or at least they can treat it as
such. It is true that this can also be done by a substantive verb when
one is found, but as the languages in question unite the noun to the
verbal flexions, their freedom is much greater.
The second advantage is, that when it is desirable to discriminate
clearly between the two kinds of verbs, the one which has at base an
energic attribute, the other which merely expresses the relation of
predicate to subject, a thing to its qualities, this end can be much
better reached by the process described than even by the substantive
verb, which, by its full verbal form, always recalls the action of an
energic attribute.
Many of the languages named include in these expressions particles of
time, thereby obscuring the distinction referred to. But in others
this is not the case. Thus in the Maya and Beto there are two
conjugations, one with the pronoun without time particles, and one
with them; and as in both these tongues the present of the true
conjugation has a characteristic tense sign, a separate aorist of the
present is formed by the other conjugation, which our cultivated
tongues cannot express so conveniently.
2. _When the notion of Being is expressed by a special word, but
without a phonetic radical._
Although the assumption here expressed sounds at first rather
enigmatical, yet one can soon see that if the notion of Being is to be
conveyed without a phonetic radical, it can only be done through the
sign of the person, that is, in the pronoun, with or without a tense
sign. This is actually the case in two languages, the Maya and the
Yaruri.
We have already seen that in the Maya there is a special pronoun
which unites a predicate to the idea of person into one sentence.
There is also another which by itself conveys the idea of the verb,
and of which each person has the signification both of the pronoun and
the substantive verb, "I" and "I am," "thou" and "thou art," etc. Not
only is it so used in the present, but it can take the signs of the
tenses. It is distinguished from the pronouns previously referred to
in the first and second persons of both numbers only by a prefixed
_t_, as follows:
Pronouns which, with a predicate, Pronouns which, by themselves,
convey a verbal idea. possess verbal power.
Singular.
1. en ten
2. ech tech
3. lai lo lai
Plural.
1. on toon
2. ex teex
3. ob loob
This similarity leads to the thought that a true phonetic radical may
exist in this _t_, and may induce us to consider this word not as a
pronoun but as a substantive verb. But this makes no difference. The
fact remains that the word is used both as a simple pronoun and also
as a substantive verb. In the translation of the Lord's Prayer, the
word _toon_ is a simple pronoun. If _t_ is a radical, it may just as
well come from the pronoun. Some languages offer clear examples of
this. In the Maipure the expression for the third person singular
recurs with all the other persons, as if this sound meant the person,
the man generally, and the first and second persons were denoted as
the "I-person," "thou-person," etc. In the Achagua language the same
radical occurs in all the pronouns, but does not, as in the Maipure,
stand alone for the third person singular, but in it, as in the other
persons, appears as an affix.
At any rate, this pronoun answers, in the Maya, all the purposes of
the substantive verb, and there is no other in the language.
It is quite intelligible that in the conceptions of rude nations the
idea of an object, and especially of a person, cannot be separated
from the idea of his existence. This may be applied to the forms of
expression above mentioned. What seems a violent and ungrammatical
omission of the verb, is probably in those people an obscure
association of thoughts, a non-separation of the object from its
being. Probably it is from the same source that in some American
languages every adjective is so considered that it includes not the
idea alone, but the expression, "it is thus, and thus constituted."
In the Yaruri language the absence of a phonetic radical meaning "to
be" is yet more apparent. Each person of the pronoun is a different
word, and they have no single letter in common. The pronoun which has
verbal power is almost identical with the independent personal
pronoun. The tense signs are prefixed to it. Thus, _que_, I am; _ri
que_, I was, &c. This _ri_, however, is merely a particle which
expresses that something is remote, and corresponds with our "from."
_Ui-ri-di_, there was water there, literally "water far is" (from us
is). The subjunctive of this substantive verb is given as _ri_, "if I
were." This means, however, "in," and is a particle. The notion of
Being is added, as in the pronoun; and the ideas, "in the being," and
"if I were," pass into each other.
Strictly speaking, both the verbal notations here expressed are
identical with those already mentioned. Here also the verb is supplied
by the mind. The difference is that in the latter case the pronouns
alone signify being, and contain this notion in themselves, whereas in
the other cases this notion arises from the conjunction of subject and
predicate. Then also in the Maya language there is a special pronoun
for this sole purpose. As far as the forms go, they entirely resemble
those of a true verb, and if _que_ and _ten_ are regarded as mere
verbs substantive, one who did not examine their elements would take
them to be true verbs like the Sanscrit _bh[=u]_, the Greek ~eimi~,
and the Latin _sum_. The example of these languages thus teaches that
in the analysis of the substantive verbs of other tongues it is not
necessary that a common phonetic radical need be employed.
In the Huasteca language the substantive verb is replaced by affixing
a tense sign to the independent pronouns; _naua itz_, I was, _tata
itz_, thou wert, etc. But the case is not the same. The pronoun
receives the verbal power by the suffix _itz_, and this appears only
in later times to have become a sign of the preterit, and in an
earlier period to have had a general sense. The mountaineers who seem
to have retained the older forms of the tongue use the _itz_, not only
in the preterit, but in the present and future. It was doubtless the
expression of some general verbal idea, as, to be, to do, etc.