LANGUAGE AND ITS RELATION TO NORTH AMERICAN MIGRATIONS.
Diversity of Languages in America — Causes of Diversity — Richness
of American Languages — Polysynthesis — Grimm’s Law — The
Maya-Quiché Languages — Stability of the Maya — Oldest American
Language — The Maya compared to the Greek, the Hebrew, the
North European, the Basque, West African, and the Quichua
Languages — Epitome of Maya Grammar — The Mizteco-Zapotec
Languages — The Nahua or Aztec — The Classic Tongue — Ancient
and Modern Nahua — Epitome of Aztec Grammar — Geographical
Extension of the Aztec — In the South — In the North-west —
Buschmann’s Researches — Sonora Family — Opata-Tarahumar-Pima
Family — Moqui and Aztec Elements — Aztec in the Shoshone and
in the Languages of Oregon and the Columbian Region — Line
of Aztec Elements — The Nahua probably the Language of the
Mound-builders — The Otomi — Supposed Chinese Analogies —
Japanese Analogies — Geographical Names.
Language in aboriginal America may be pronounced a mystery of mysteries
and a Babel of Babels. Mr. Bancroft has catalogued nearly six hundred
distinct languages, existing between northern Alaska and the Isthmus
of Panama. Many of these, however, scarcely deserve to be called more
than dialects; while each has its individuality, it is true that all
have certain characteristics in common, a fact which by some has been
considered sufficient ground for belief in the unity of the American
race, a hypothesis which is by no means tenable. The geographical
division and intermixture of languages, for instance, in California,
is without a parallel elsewhere in the world. By the accidents
attendant upon savage life, resulting from ceaseless hostilities and
the frequent inroads of tribes upon their neighbors, a nation has often
been scattered in fragments, and its refugees, separated into small
bands, have taken up their residence in the midst of other tribes at
localities far removed from their central home. In a generation or
two a modification of the parent speech has been brought about by the
surrounding influences, all of which vary in the several localities in
which the refugees have found their new homes. New tribes thus formed,
soon become unintelligible to their brothers, who have developed a
dialect under different influences from theirs. When we consider that
for thousands of years this wholesale division and subdivision of
tribes and languages has been going on, as the result of ceaseless
hostilities, we can easily account for the multitude of languages
and dialects on the one hand, and the existence of a thread of unity
or similarity on the other, said to run through them all. Supposing
the continent to have received its population from several different
quarters, the natural expectation would be that in the course of time
this process of general intermixture would result in developing in
each language much that was common to the others—hence the foundation
for the hypothesis of their unity of origin. In the study of American
languages it has often been a matter of surprise that their structure
and expressiveness indicates a degree of perfection far in advance of
the civilization out of which they had sprung. This superiority, we
think, can be accounted for on the principle, first, that the evolution
of languages on this continent has been more active and constant
here than elsewhere, though unfortunately not always operating under
favorable conditions; and second, that in the frequent catastrophes
which have resulted from inter-tribal warfare, even in language, the
law of the survival of the fittest is apparent, in the preservation
of those etymological forms and principles of structure which are
most useful. We by no means agree with the eminent philologist Dr.
W. Farrar, F.R.S., chaplain to the Queen, and others who, taking
but a partial and second-hand view of American languages, pronounce
their elaborateness a childish excess, and their vaunted wealth a
concealment of their poverty.[701] An examination of the poems of
Nezahualcoyotl, king of Tezcuco, recorded by Ixtlilxochitl, will
afford sufficient proof of the expressiveness and richness of the
Aztec language.[702] The song on the “Mutability of Life” and the ode
on the tyrant Tezozomoc have often been translated and admired.[703]
One of the leading characteristics of American language, it has been
said, is “_agglutination_,” but we must add that the term employed is
not sufficiently comprehensive. “Agglutination,” says Farrar, “may be
described as that principle of linguistic structure which consists
in the mere placing of unaltered roots side by side; as when to
express ‘discipline’ the Chinese say ‘law-soldier,’ or for ‘elders’
‘father-mother,’ or for ‘enjoyment’ ‘luxury-play-food-clothes.’”[704]
The term _polysynthesis_, the synthesis of many words into one, with a
little explanation will describe the characteristic, so prominent, to
which we allude. In their polysynthesis, the syllables or words which
are compressed into one long word, no longer retain their individual
forms, but are clipped and altered so as to be scarcely recognizable.
A sentence by this process of fusion is compressed into a single
long word. Dr. Farrar cites the following example from the Aztec:
_achichillacachocan_, means “the place where people weep because the
water is red.” The component parts are: _atl_ “water,” _chichiltic_
“red,” _tlacatl_ “man,” _chorea_ “weep,” all of which have nearly lost
their identity in the inflection and contraction necessary in the
synthesis.[705] As in the Aryan and other families, Grimm’s system of
_Lautverschiebung_—sound changing, or shunting—better known by Prof.
Max Müller’s designation as “Grimm’s law” prevails, so there are groups
or families in northern Mexico pointed out by Buschmann to which
this law is clearly applicable. No doubt the number of relationships
already established between aboriginal languages, as the result of
classification, will be greatly augmented when, if ever, the subject
receives special attention.[706] Mr. Bancroft classifies the languages
in his catalogue under three great families, namely, the Tinneh, Aztec
and Maya. The first, which covers the territory around the northern
extremity of the Rocky Mountains, and sends its offshoots as far south
as northern Mexico, only concerns us incidentally in treating the
ancient languages of North America.[707] The two families (and their
far-reaching branches) in which we are interested, are the Maya and the
Aztec, the latter the survivor of the speech of the Nahuas.
To the Maya, or rather, the Maya-Quiché stock, no doubt belongs the
greatest antiquity assignable to any language or languages on the
continent. The mother tongue, the Maya, prevails throughout all of
Yucatan, and together with its dialects extends itself over Tabasco,
Chiapas and Guatemala, and is even present in the states of Tamaulipas
and Vera Cruz, in the Huastic and Totonac languages. Numerous
catalogues of the branches of this family have been made, but the most
recent, and we think the most complete, is one constructed in 1876 on
Señor Pimentel’s classification by the Mexican scholar, Señor Garcia y
Cubas. It is as follows: 1. Yucateco or Maya; 2. Punctunc; 3. Lacandon
or Xochinel; 4. Peten or Itzae; 5. Chañabal, Comiteco, Jocolobal; 6.
Chol or Mopan; 7. Chorti or Chorte. 8. Cakchi, Caichi, Cachi or Cakgi;
9. Ixil, Izil; 10. Coxoh; 11. Quiché, Utlatec; 12. Zutuhil, Zutugil,
Atiteca, Zacapula; 13. Cachiquel, Cachiquil; 14. Tzotzil, Zotzil,
Tzinanteco, Cinanteco; 15. Tzendal, Zendal; 16. Mame, Mem, Zaklohpakap;
17. Poconchi, Pocoman; 18. Atche, Atchi; 19. Huastic, and probably
20. the Haytian, Quizqueja or Itis, with their affinities, the Cuban,
Boriguan and Jamaican languages.[708]
The author of the above list has compensated us for its length by
giving each of the names with its variation in orthography according
to different writers. The classification is altogether superior to any
other. The Maya is of peculiar interest to us, especially since within
the territory over which it extends are found the most celebrated
architectural remains known to Central American archæology. The
majority of the sculptured tablets which are preserved are no doubt
in the Maya or some of its dialects. What is most satisfactory to us,
is the probability that the language is spoken to-day by the mass of
the native population of Yucatan as it was anciently, for says Señor
Pimentel, “the Indians have preserved this idiom with such tenacity
that to this day they will speak no other,” and he adds that it is
necessary for the whites to address them in their own tongue in order
to communicate with them.[709]
Señor Orozco y Berra furnishes us evidence that little change has
taken place in the language since the earliest times, in the statement
that all the geographical names of the peninsula are Maya, which
is considered proof in his judgment that the Mayas were the first
occupants of the country.[710] It is but a reasonable expectation,
therefore, that at no distant day, by the aid of Landa’s alphabet, the
inscriptions will be compelled to reveal their mysterious contents.
The Tzendal, the language in which Votan is said to have written a
history of the foundation of his city, and still spoken near the ruins
of Palenque, is said to have been the oldest of American languages,
but linguistic investigations have proven that it is an offshoot from
the Maya, the mother tongue.[711] It is probable that the Maya was
first planted at some point in the territory which it now occupies, and
gradually extended its domain until its colonies reached northern Vera
Cruz and southern Nicaragua. Whether at any time it was the language
of a people inhabiting central and southern Mexico at a date anterior
to the arrival of the Nahuas, is unknown though probable. Señor Orozco
y Berra has shown by linguistic studies that probably the Mayas
occupied the Atlantic seaboard of the United States, having in their
migration passed from the Floridian peninsula to Cuba and thence to the
other Caribbean isles, and to Yucatan. He states that the Mayas possess
traditions of a northern home from which they passed by means of the
islands of the Gulf to Yucatan. Both he and Señor Pimentel agree that
the languages of the West Indies belong to the Maya family.[712]
The characteristics of the Maya-Quiché languages are; flexibility,
expressiveness, vigor, approximating harshness, yet on the contrary
rich and musical in sound. The Maya itself has more than once been
compared to the Greek, and even said to be derived from it. Dr. Le
Plongeon, who for four years has been exploring the ruins of Yucatan
and especially of Chichen-Itza, writes thus in connection with the
discovery of a well-sculptured bear’s head at Uxmal: “When did bears
inhabit the peninsula? Strange to say, the Maya does not furnish the
name for bear. Yet one-third of this tongue is pure Greek. Who brought
the dialect of Homer to America? Or who took to Greece that of the
Mayas? Greek is the offspring of the Sanscrit. Is Maya? Or are they
coeval? A clue for ethnologists to follow the migrations of the human
family on this old continent. Did the bearded men whose portraits
are carved on the massive pillars of the fortress at Chichen-Itza,
belong to the Mayan nations? The Maya is not devoid of words from the
Assyrian.”[713] He does not hesitate to say that “the Maya, containing
words from almost every language, ancient or modern, is well worth
the attention of philologists,” a statement which might with but
little breach of propriety be made as well concerning almost any
other language. In referring to its antiquity, the writer says, “I
must speak of that language which has survived unaltered through the
vicissitudes of the nations that spoke it thousands of years ago, and
is yet the general tongue in Yucatan—the Maya. There can be no doubt
that this is one of the most ancient languages on earth. It was used by
a people that lived at least 6000 years ago, as proved by the Katuns,
to record the history of their rulers, the dogmas of their religion, on
the walls of their palaces, on the façades of their temples.”[714] The
Mexican scholar, Señor Melgar, is convinced that he sees resemblances
between the names employed by the Chiapenecs in their calendar, and
the Hebrew, and furnishes comparative lists to sustain his hopeless
theory.[715]
The speculations of the Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg are none the
less remarkable and about equally as plausible as those of Dr. Le
Plongeon or Señor Melgar. The Abbé after years of study among the
peoples of Central America, was convinced beyond a doubt that a marked
relationship existed between the Quiché-Cakchiquel and Zutugil and the
languages of the north of Europe. He considers the evidence sufficient
that peoples speaking the Germanic and Scandinavian languages migrated
to Central America and infused their idioms into the Maya.[716]
With Mr. Bancroft we agree that no value can be attached to these
speculations, until impartial comparisons are made by scholars who
have no theories to substantiate. It is worthy of note that several
eminent scholars have observed the remarkable similarity of grammatical
structure between the Central American and certain transatlantic
languages, especially the Basque[717] and some of the languages of
Western Africa.[718] Dr. Le Plongeon, after several years spent amid
the antiquities of Peru and in the study of the Quichua language,
says, “The Quichua contains many words that seem closely allied to the
dialects spoken by the nations inhabiting the regions called to-day
Central America, and the Maya tongue.” In referring to the mural
paintings at Chichen-Itza, he further remarks, “By comparing them with
those of the Quichuas, I cannot but believe that Manco’s ancestors
emigrated from Xilbalba or Mayapan, carrying with them the notions of
the northern country.”[719] Interesting as these speculations are, they
must be received with allowance and viewed with doubt, until thorough
linguistic researches test their value.
The most important features of Maya grammar are as follows: The letters
of the alphabet are, a b c ɔ e, ch, c_h_, h, i, k, l, m, n, o, p, _p_,
ó, pp, t, th, tz, u, x, y, _y_, z. The letter ɔ is pronounced like the
English _dj_, _h_ is not aspirated, _th_ is hard, and the _k_ guttural.
Much of the beauty of the pronunciation depends on the elision of
certain vowels and consonants, as for instance instead of _ma in kati_
they say _min kati_, or instead of _ti ca otoch_ they would say _ti c
otoch_. The plural is distinguished from the singular by the addition
of _ob_ (those). Verbs ending in _an_ take _tac_ in the plural. The
masculine of rational beings is denoted by the prefix _ab_, the
feminine by _ix_. The words _xibil_ and _chupul_, signifying male and
female respectively, are used to express the gender of animals. The
case of nouns is determined by their position in the sentence and
their relation to the prepositions, the most frequent of the latter
being _ti_, which has various significations. Adjectives accompanying
substantives always precede them, but the number is only expressed
by the substantive. The comparative is formed by adding _l_ to the
adjective, sometimes _il_, and prefixing _u_ or _y_ the pronoun of the
third person. The superlative is formed by prefixing _hach_ to the
positive.
The Maya pronouns are as follows:
----------------------------+------------------------+------------------
_Personal Pronouns._ | _Possessives._ | _Reciprocals._
----------------------------+------------------------+------------------
Ten, en, I |In, u, Mine. |Inba, Myself.
Tech, ech, Thou. |A, au, Thine. |Aba, Thyself.
Lay, laylo, lo, He, that. |U, i, His, of that.|Uba, Himself.
Toon, on, We. |Ca, Ours. |Caba, Ourselves.
Teex, ex, You. |Aex, auex, Yours. |Abaex, Yourselves.
Loob, ob, They, those.|Uob, yob, Of those. |Ubaob, Themselves.
----------------------------+------------------------+------------------
The verb has four conjugations and that of the auxiliary _teni_, to
be, the present tense of which is the same as the personal pronouns
given in the left hand column, _Ten_, _Tech_, etc. The other cases are
as follows: Imperfect, _Ten cuchi_; Perfect, _Ten hi_; Pluperfect,
_Ten hi-ilicuchi_; Future, _Bin ten-ac_; Future perfect, _Ten hi-ili
coshom_; Imperative, _Ten-ac_; Subjunctive present, _Ten-ac en_;
Imperfect, _Hi ten-ac_.
The verb _Nacal_, to ascend, of the first conjugation, is inflected as
follows:
PRESENT INDICATIVE.
Singular, 1st per., _Nacal in cah_; 2d per., _Nacal a cah_; 3d per.,
_Nacal u cah_.
Plural, 1st per., _Nacal ca cah_; 2d per., _Nacal a-cah-ex_; 3d per.,
_Nacal-u-cah-ob_.
The Imperfect, _Nacal in cah-cuchi_; Perfect, _Nac-en_; Pluperfect,
_Nacen ili cuchi_; Future, _Bin nacac-en_; Future perfect, _Nacen
ili-cuchom_; Imperative, _Nacen_.
THE LORD’S PRAYER IN MAYA.
Cayum ianeeh ti càannob cilichthantabac akaba; tac a
Our Father who art in Heaven blessed be Thy name; it may come
ahaulil c’ okol. Mencahac a nolah uai ti luum bai ti caanè.
Thy kingdom us over. Be done Thine will as on earth as in heaven.
Zanzamal uah ca azotoon heleae caazaatez c’ ziipil he bik c’
Daily bread us give to-day us forgive our sins as we
zaatzic uziipil ahziipiloobtoone, ma ix appatic c’ lubul ti tuntah
forgive their sins to sinners, not also let us fall in temptation
caatocoon ti lob.[720]
us deliver from evil.
In the state of Oajaca and occupying the western portion of the Isthmus
of Tehuantepec, in a position intermediate between the Maya on the
one hand and the Nahua on the other, is found the ancient family of
languages known as the Mizteco-Zapotec, the various dialects of which
are spoken to this day by the natives occupying those regions. No
tradition throws any light on the origin of this group, nor do any
affiliations in vocabulary or grammmatical structure seem to exist
between them and any other family, American or foreign. The Miztec
language is exceedingly difficult to acquire, being characterized by
words of extraordinary length. The Zapotec on the contrary, with its
several dialects, is elegant, sonorous, and _less_ difficult.[721]
The language pre-eminent above all others in Mexico for its territorial
extent, for the refinement and civilization which it represented, and
its own inherent beauty and elegance, is known as the Nahua or Aztec,
or more modernly the Mexican. It was the language of the Toltecs and
of their advanced civilization, and after them of the seven tribes of
_Nahuatlacas_, that in the year 1196 established themselves in the
Mexican plateau. The Aztecs, one of these tribes, in the course of
events gaining the ascendency, gave their name to the language which
their conquests speedily extended over a territory four hundred leagues
in length, and in width from the Gulf to the Pacific, in the latitude
of the capital. The Aztec tongue prevailed continuously from a point
on the Gulf of California, under the twenty-sixth parallel of latitude
south-easterly to Rios Goatzacoalco and Tobasco; and southward to the
fifteenth parallel, extending along the coast of San Salvador and
appearing in the interior of Nicaragua. Its dialectical extension north
of Mexico we will consider on a future page. Twenty languages besides
the Aztec are said to have been spoken throughout Montezuma’s empire,
but the Aztec alone was recognized as the official and classic tongue.
The Chichimecs are said to have spoken a language of their own, until
the ruler Techotlalatzin commanded them to learn the Mexican.[722] Mr.
Bancroft is of the opinion that the Nahua was the original language of
the Chichimecs, and consequently does not agree with Señor Pimentel
who advocates the opposite view, and, we think, sustains it.[723] The
copiousness and grace of the Aztec has furnished a theme for many
Spanish writers whose praises have found an echo in the works of our
most able scholars and historians. If the Maya has been compared to the
Greek, the Aztec has often been likened to the Latin, not in structure
or vocabulary, but in its relation to ancient American civilization,
in its expressiveness, politeness, its capacity for the sublime, and
for the romantic coloring with which it is able to clothe that which is
humble and even insignificant. “It was the court language,” says Mr.
Bancroft, “of American civilization, the Latin of medieval and the
French of modern times.”[724]
The Nahua attained its highest development during the century preceding
the conquest in the schools of oratory, poetry and history, established
at Tezcuco, to which the sons of nobles were sent, as much to acquire
the purity of the idiom as the science which they taught.[725] Señor
Orozco y Berra says that the difference existing between the ancient
Nahua and the modern, may be compared to that difference observed
between the Castilian of the Romance of the Cid and that of the present
day.[726]
The outlines of the Aztec grammar are briefly as follows: The alphabet
contains the letters a, ch, e, h, i, k, l, m, n, o, p, t, tl, tz, u, v,
x, y, z, but lacks our consonants b, d, f, r, g, s. No word commences
with l. The _a_ is clear; _ch_ before a vowel is pronounced as in
Spanish, but before a consonant or when final it differs somewhat; _e_
is clear; _h_ is moderately aspirated and soft, but strong when it
precedes _u_; _t_ is omitted except when it comes between two _l’s_.
The _tl_ in the middle of a word is soft as in Spanish, but at the end
is pronounced _tle_, the _e_ being half mute. The pronunciation of _tz_
is similar to the Spanish _s_, but stronger. The _v_ is pronounced
by the women as in Spanish and French, but by the men like _hu_ in
Spanish; _x_, soft like the English _sh_, and _z_ like the Spanish _s_,
but not quite so hissing.[727]
By composition, words containing sixteen syllables are formed, though
many simple words are quite long. We have already explained the process
of polysynthesis or compounding by means of clipping the syllables
and words with a view to brevity and euphony. The following example
furnished by Pimentel and copied by Mr. Bancroft, further illustrates
the principle: _tlazotli_, esteemed or loved; _maviztik_, honored
or reverenced; _teopixki_, priest; _tatli_, father, and _no_, mine,
furnishes as a result: _notlazomaviztcopixkatatzin_, “my esteemed
father and reverend priest.” An example of the termination _tzin_,
signifying respect, is presented in this word. Several illustrations of
the same principle are furnished by Señor Pimentel, showing that often
a sentence is compounded into a single word. Indeed a great many of the
component parts of these long words, though words in themselves, are
incapable of being used separately. In composition the verb succeeds
the nominative and is placed at the end of the sentence. The adverb
precedes the verb, as does the adjective the substantive.
The Aztec is rich in terminations for the formation of the plural.
Generally no change is required for inanimate objects, as multiplicity
is expressed by means of numerals or the adverb _miek_ (much), e. g.,
_ze tetl_, one stone; _yei tetl_, three stones; _miek tetl_, many
stones, though often the terminations used for the plural of persons is
applied to inanimate objects, particularly when they are connected with
persons, as _zoquitl_, mud; _tizoquime_, we are earth; however, there
are exceptions to the rule, as in the Aztec words for the heavens,
the mountains and the stars. Furthermore, the first syllable is often
doubled in order to form the plural of inanimate things. Señor Pimentel
has embraced the entire subject of the formation of the plural in six
rules.
1. Primitive words form their plural in _me tin_ or _ke_, as _ichkatl_,
a ewe, a sheep; _ichkame_, sheep; _zolin_, a quail; _zoltin_, quail;
_kokoxki_, sick; _kokoxke_, sick (plural).
2. Derivatives form their plural as follows: the so-called
“reverentials” in _tzintli_, have the plural in _tzitzintin_; the
diminutives in _tontli_ form the plural _totontin_, and the diminutives
in _ton_ and _pil_, augmentatives in _pol_ and reverentials in
_tzin_ double the final syllable; as, _tlakatzintli_, person;
_tlakatzitzintin_, persons, etc.
3. Words either primitive or derived into which the possessive pronouns
enter, form the plural in _van_ (_huan_ according to the common
orthography); as, _noichkavan_, my sheep, _noichkatotonvan_, my little
sheep.
4. The words _tlakatl_, person; _zivatl_, woman; terms of gentilitious
character or expressive of office and profession, form their plural by
the omission of the final letters, as _Mexicatl_, a Mexican; _Mexika_,
Mexicans; in which case the final vowel is accented.
5. Some words form the plural by omitting the terminals and by doubling
the first syllable, while others double the first syllable without
omitting the terminal; as, _teotl_, god; _teteo_, gods; _zolin_, quail;
_zozoltin_, quails; _telpochtli_ and _ichpochtli_, double the syllable
_po_.
6. Some adjectives have various plurals, as _miek_, much; whose plural
is _miektin_, _miekintin_ or _miekin_.
In most cases the adjective and its substantive agree in number. The
only means of expressing gender is by adding the words _okichtli_,
male, and _zivatl_, female.
In the absence of a regular declension the cases are formed as
follows: The genitive is indicated by the possessive pronoun or by
the juxtaposition of the words, the dative by means of verbs called
applicatives, the accusative by certain particles accompanying the verb
or by juxtaposition, the vocative by adding e to the nominative or by
the change of _i_ into _e_ in words ending in _tli_ or _li_ and the
_in_ into _e_ in words ending in _tzin_.
The ablative is indicated by various particles and prepositions. The
language surpasses the Italian in the number of its augmentatives and
diminutives. The former take the syllable _pol_, the latter _tontli_
and _ton_. The Aztec is richer in verbal nouns than any other language.
Those derived from active, neuter, passive, reflective and impersonal
verbs, terminate in _ni_, _oni_, _ya_, _ia_, _yan_, _kan_ or _ian_,
_tli_, _li_, _liztli_, _oka_, _ka_, _ki_, _k_, _i_, _o_, _tl_.
TABLE OF PRONOUNS.
PERSONALS. | POSSESSIVES.
|
_Nevatl_, _neva_, _ne_, I. | _No_, Mine.
_Tevatl_, _teva_, _te_, Thou. | _Mo_, Thine.
_Yevatl_, _yeva_, _ye_, He, or somebody. | _I_, His.
_Tevantin_, _teva_, We. | _To_, Ours.
_Amevantin_, _amevan_, You. | _Amo_, Yours.
_Yevantin_, _yevan_, They. | _In_ or _im_, Theirs.
| _Te_, Of or belonging
to others.
“The possessives,” says Pimentel, “are always used in composition, and
change the final syllable of the word to which they are joined; as,
_teotl_, God, _noteuh_, my God,” etc.[728]
The modes of the verb are: the indicative, imperative, optative
and subjunctive. The indicative has the following tenses: present,
imperfect, perfect, pluperfect, future. The subjunctive has one tense
which is translated by the imperfect.
The following example of the conjugation is given from Pimentel:
INDICATIVE.
_Present._
_Ni-chiva_, I make. _Ti-chivâ_, We make.
_Ti-chiva_, Thou makest. _An-chivâ_, You make.
_Chiva_, He makes. _Chivâ_, They make.
_Imperfect._
_Ni-chiva-ya_, I made.
_Perfect._
_Oni-chi-uh_, I have made.
_Pluperfect._
_Oni-chi-uhka_, I had made.
_Future._
_Ni-chiva-z_, I shall make.
IMPERATIVE.
_Present_: _Ma xi-chiva_, Make thou.
_Future_: _Ma ti-chiva-z_, Make thou presently.
OPTATIVE.
_Imperfect_: _Ma ni-chiva-ni_, Would that I should make.
_Perfect_: _Ma oni-chi-uh_, Would that I have made.
SUBJUNCTIVE.
_Imperfect_: _Ni-chiva-zkia_, or } That I should make.
_Ni-chiva-zkiayo_, }
There is no infinitive in the conjugation, it being expressed by the
future indicative. Only verbs in _liztli_ have this mode. The passive
voice, save in a few exceptional cases, is formed as follows: _lo_ is
added to the present indicative of the active voice. In the perfect
tense, _k_ is added to the previously affixed _o_ in the singular and
_ke_ in the plural. The other modes and tenses form their passive
voice by adding to the present indicative passive their own final
termination, as, for instance, we have _nichiva_, I make, _nichivalo_,
I am made, _onichivalok_, I was made, _onichivaloka_, that I should be
made, etc. The Aztec contains only six irregular verbs.
THE LORD’S PRAYER IN AZTEC.
Totatzine in ilvikak timoyetztika ma yektenevalo in
Our reverend Father who heaven in art be praised ()
motokatzin mavallauh in motlatokayotzin ma chivalo in tlaltikpak in
thy name may come () thy kingdom be done () earth above ()
motlanekilitzin in yuh chivalo in ilvikak. In totlaxkal mo moztlae
thy will () as is done () heaven in. () our bread every day
totech moneki ma axkan xitechmomakili, ivan ma xitechmopopolvili in
to us is necessary to-day give us and forgive us ()
totlatlakol in yuh tikintlapopolvia intechtlatlakalvia ivan makamo
our sins () as we forgive those who us offend and not
xitechmomakavili inik amo ipan tivetzizke in teneyeyekoltiliztli, zanye ma
lead thou us that not in we fall () temptation, but
xitechmomakixtili in ivikpa in amo kualli.[729]
deliver us () against () not good.
Language has ever been an important factor in determining the original
home and the migrations of peoples. With this view the Aztec has
received the attention of some of the best scholars of both continents.
The most prominent results merit attention. The Nahua language is
unquestionably spoken far to the south, in Guatemala, Honduras and
Nicaragua, and this fact has been persistently cited as conclusive
proof of the southern origin of the Nahuas; but even Mr. Bancroft, the
most eminent of the advocates of this hypothesis, admits that there
“it is dialectic rather than aboriginal in appearance, so that the
testimony of language is all in favor of the plateau of Anahuac having
been the primal centre of the Aztec tongue.”[730]
The reports of several of the adventurers into the unexplored north,
were to the effect that the aborigines whom they encountered spoke
Aztec. Father Roque of Oñate’s expedition into New Mexico at the close
of the sixteenth century, and Father Gerónimo de Zárate subsequently
at the Rio del Tizon, are authority for the most positive statements
that the Mexican was encountered. Mr. Anderson, a companion of Captain
Cook in 1778, discovered the Aztec terminal _l_ _tl_ or _z_ of frequent
occurrence among the Nootkas of the North-west coast. With this data
and the traditions of the Aztecs, which all point to the north as their
ancient home, sufficient basis was found for a general belief that the
Mexican peoples had migrated down the coast of California and left an
unbroken linguistic line along the entire route of their wanderings.
At the beginning of the present century, the great German philologist,
Vater, sought to establish this line by his extensive investigations,
published in his _Mithridates_.[731] Unfortunately for his labors,
later researches have shown his generalizations too sweeping. Wilhelm
von Humboldt considered the Cora, under the twenty-second degree of
latitude on the Rio de Santiago, to be a mixture of Aztec and some
older and rougher language.[732] In 1855–59, Dr. Buschmann of Berlin
issued two celebrated works,[733] in which the subject was critically
examined, and as far as possible, with the data at hand, the true
proportion of Aztec elements entering into all the languages spoken
north of the Mexican plateau, was indicated. The researches were
systematically made, beginning with the North Mexican, languages and
proceeding northward in the supposed line of the Aztec migration. In
four languages of North-western Mexico in particular, did Dr. Buschmann
find the conspicuous presence of Aztec elements. These are the Cora
of Jalisco, referred to above; the Tepehuana of northern Sinaloa,
Durango and southern Chihuahua, spoken between the twenty-third and
twenty-seventh parallels, in a crescent-shaped territory the points
of which touch the Aztec on the west, intervening between it and the
Gulf of California; the Tarahumara, spoken in the Sierra Madre, of
the State of Chihuahua and Sonora, and fourthly, the Cahita occupying
the east coast of the Gulf of California between the twenty-sixth and
twenty-eighth parallels. By a liberty in classification, Buschmann
calls this group the Sonora family, although the languages are entirely
different from each other, with the exception that they are all
pervaded by the Aztec element. This is their only bond of union. They
contain about two hundred Aztec words, and about eight hundred words
derived from the Aztec in the several idioms.[734] “The Aztec _tl_,
and _tli_ in the Cora, are found changed in _ti_, _te_ and _t_; in
the Tepehuana into _de_, _re_ and _sci_; in the Tarahumara into _ki_,
_ke_, _ca_ and _la_, and in the Cahita, into _ri_. In all four of
the languages substantive endings are dropped, first, in composition
when the substantive is united with the possessive pronoun; secondly,
before an affix; thirdly, in the Cora alone, before the ending of the
plural and before affixes in the formation of words.”[735] North-east
of the Tarahumara and reaching to the Rio Grande is the Cnocho, and
directly to the east of the Cnocho, is the territory of the Toboso,
also bounded on the north by the Rio Grande. It is uncertain whether
the Aztec was ever the language of these large districts, though
testimony is not wanting that it was understood by both peoples.[736]
In fact throughout all northern Mexico, the Aztec was understood,
and, in some instances, entered prominently into the languages of the
north-western tribes. Grimm’s law of _Lautveränderung_, sound changing
or shifting, is as conspicuous in its application to the Aztec-Sonora
family of Buschmann as it is to the members of the Aryan family, and
often far more so. Occupying the north-western extremity of Mexico
are the Pima-Alto and Bajo, and the Opata, the principal dialect of
the latter being the Eudeve. Here again the Aztec appears both in the
identity of words and the similarity of grammatical structure. These
languages are recognized as branches of the Aztec-Sonora family, so
much so that Orozco y Berra has classified them together under the name
of the Opata-Tarahumar-Pima. He accounts for the presence of the Aztec
element upon the supposition that the language and civilization of
Mexico once extended over this region, but were subverted and displaced
by the incursions of northern peoples toward the close of the twelfth
century.[737] Not only is this probable, but, on the other hand, it
would be a matter of surprise if traces of the Aztec were not found
in languages bordering upon so vast and powerful an empire as that of
Montezuma. Still this fact alone is scarcely sufficient to account for
the prominence of the Aztec element in the northern languages, while it
is almost totally wanting in others more central and southern. Crossing
into the United States territory, we first encounter the Moqui of the
pueblo towns of Arizona; to the west in south-eastern California, we
meet the Cahuillo, Chemehuevi, Kizh, Netela and Kechi; at the other
extreme on the east, we have the Comanche of New Mexico and Texas,
while to the north, in Utah, Nevada, Idaho and Oregon, we have the
great Shoshone and Utah families. But why group these languages in
such a wholesale manner? Is it because of inter-linguistic affinities?
No. Simply because of the Aztec element (though insignificant it is
true), which unquestionably pervades them all.[738] Six of the Moqui
towns speak the language which bears their name. But, strange to say,
Harno the Seventh uses the Tequa, a language of one of the New Mexican
Pueblos. The Moqui language contains much that is Aztec, and because
of its substantive endings in _pe_ and _be_, etc., is considered by
Buschmann a branch of his Shoshone-Comanche family of the Sonora
idiom.[739] Coupling this fact with the traditions of the Moquis (see
pages 302–304) descriptive of their migrations from the North under the
pressure of the hordes of savages who deprived them of their cultivated
lands and slaughtered their families, we are at a loss to account for
this infusion of Aztec elements, except on the hypothesis that at a
remote day large numbers of Nahuas came in contact with the ancestors
of this people in their ancient home. Equally conspicuous is the Aztec
element in south-east California languages and the great Shoshone and
Utah families, which occupy the great central basin and stretch away
into Idaho and Oregon. Grimm’s law of sound-shifting is seen in their
adjective and substantive endings, _p_, _pa_, _pe_, _pi_, _be_, _wa_,
_ph_, _pee_, _rp_, and _rpe_. The Shoshone and Utah still retain _ts_,
_tse_, and _tsi_, all of which are but variations of the Aztec _tl_,
_tli_, according to the law above-named. Buschmann pronounces this
group the capstone of his Sonora edifice.[740] In Western Oregon, from
the source to the mouth of the Willamette River, the Yamkally and
Calapooya languages preserve traces of the Aztec both in words and
terminal sounds.[741] The same is even more evident concerning the
Chinook, of the lower Columbia River, in which the Aztec _thl_ and _tl_
is a regular termination.[742] Throughout the entire region drained
by the Columbia and its tributaries, Dr. Buschmann found well-marked
Aztec elements. The Clallum and Lummi languages of the great Salish or
Flathead family, which touches the coast opposite Vancouver’s Island
and extends into the interior, have the _tl_ termination and other
phonetic resemblances to the Aztec.[743] Furthermore, Mr. Gibbs has
discovered that the cardinals employed by the Clallam and Lummi in
their system of enumeration are of a threefold character, and, as Mr.
Gallatin has shown, are similar to those of the Mexicans and Mayas.[744]
Whether the Aztec is represented in the language of the Nootkas
on Vancouver’s Island is uncertain. Certainly strong marks of
similarity are observable. Buschmann, while admitting the existence
of resemblances, thinks that hardly enough of them exist to warrant
relationship.[745] The inquiry naturally arises, how came this Aztec
element which, three and a half centuries after the overthrow of the
Aztec empire, we observe in faint, though unbroken lines running from
the centre of Mexico to the vicinity of Vancouver’s Island to find its
way into a multitude of languages, some of which are separated from
others by a vast region more than two thousand miles in width? How
did it come to be the only bond of union between so many languages
in all other respects so dissimilar? It has been suggested that this
wide-spread dissemination of the Aztec is owing to the trade probably
carried on between Mexico and the North. However, this is merely
conjecture and is incapable of proof. It will be observed that the
linguistic line is faintest in the central basin among the Shoshones
and Utahs, where the relationship is established mainly by the
sound-shifting of the terminals according to Grimm’s law, but in the
languages of the Columbia River and its tributaries, and especially of
the Salish or Flathead family bordering on the strait of Juan de Fuca,
the Aztec terminal is actually present and in constant use. The most
critical researches have established this as an incontestable fact. In
this connection it is worthy of note (as shown in our first chapter)
that the works of the Mound-builders abound in this region in great
numbers, extending into the interior, appearing upon the upper Missouri
and its tributaries, and continuing to the Mississippi Valley and
thence into Mexico instead of following the coast or the central basin
at the west. Whether the Nahua was the language of the Mound-builders
of the United States, we are unable to determine, but the probabilities
that it was are considerable; because (1) the people of the mounds
built structures similar to those which prevail all over Mexico,
though in a less degree of perfection; (2) they carried obsidian
from Mexico to the North Mississippi Valley, showing both regions
to have enjoyed intimate commercial relations. This is no evidence
that the Mound-builders were colonists sent out from Mexico, since it
is improbable that colonists would have penetrated into the extreme
North-west by way of the Missouri River. Furthermore we have the
valuable argument of Baron von Hellwald made at the Luxembourg session
of the Congrès International des Américanistes in favor of a migration
from north to south, in his reply to Mr. Robert S. Robertson’s paper
on “the Mound-builders,” namely, that no evidence exists of the
Mexicans or Central Americans having worked copper mines anterior to
the conquest; hence it follows that since copper was employed by both
Mexicans and Mound-builders, it must have been carried southward by the
latter.[746] (3) We have testimony of the early writers that the Nahuas
came from the North-east; Sahagun says from the direction of Florida,
which then embraced the Mississippi Valley. (4) We have the statements
of Acosta and Sahagun that the Apalaches occupying the region east of
the Mississippi extended their colonies far into Mexico. According to
Acosta the Mexicans called them Apalaches, Tlautuics or Mountaineers.
“Sahagun speaking of them says: ‘They are Nahuas and speak the Mexican
language.’ This is by no means improbable, as the Aztec is found
eastward in the present states of Tamaulipas and Coahuila, and thence
the distance to the Mississippi is not so far.”[747] In their search
for the Aztec element in the North, every investigator—Buschmann
among the rest—has made a great oversight. They have expected to
find resemblances to the Aztec as it was spoken at the time of the
conquest after centuries of culture had been bestowed upon it in the
schools of Mexico and Tezcuco. It appears never to have occurred to
these scholars, that if Mexican similarities exist at the North they
are with the ancient form of the Nahua, which Orozco y Berra tells us
“differs as much from the modern Nahua or Aztec as the Spanish of the
Romance of the Cid from the Spanish of to-day,” or coming nearer home,
we may say that it probably differed as much as the Anglo-Saxon of
King Alfred and the English of the present. The linguistic researches
referred to have certainly been made over a wide chasm of time and
change, as viewed in this light, and when we consider the instability
of language in America, the wonder is that any Nahua traces exist
at the North-west at this late date.[748] This phenomenon can only
be accounted for on the supposition that, at a remote period, large
numbers of Nahua-speaking people resided for a considerable length of
time in those regions. The presence of the mounds in such numbers in
Washington and the British possessions north of it, leads to this view,
provided it can be established that the Mound-builders were Nahuas.
The fact that the line of mounds is toward the interior precludes the
expectation that the Nahua is to be found prominently present west of
the Rocky Mountains. It is plausible to consider the Moquis a branch
from the Nahuas, separating from them at an early day and establishing
themselves in Southern Oregon and Utah, whence, according to their
tradition, they were driven by the Utes. In the course of time, their
language, which contains a Nahua element, may have become changed and
lost much of its original character. To their residence, migration, and
the possible captivity of many of their number, the traces of Aztec
found in the Shoshone and Utah tongues may be due.
Analogies between the Nahua and all the other languages of the world
have been assiduously sought for, and supposed affiliations advocated
by theorists, but in the present unsatisfactory state of philological
science it would be presumptuous for us to pretend that any claim for
linguistic analogies with the old world could be sustained. There is no
doubt that strong analogies are observable between the Otomi and the
Chinese. Señor Najera, to whom the former is vernacular, has appended
to his excellent grammar of the Otomi a comparative table of Chinese
and Otomi words, which while it shows strong resemblances, is not
sufficient in itself to establish relationship.[749]
Warden has treated the grammatical resemblances, which in many respects
are striking.[750] It is one of the most singular phenomena met with
in the whole range of ethnography and philology, that a monosyllabic
language should be found in the very heart of Mexico surrounded by
the most remarkable poly-syllabism in the world, touching the capital
on the south-east and extending north-west into San Luis Potosi and
over portions of Queretaro and Guanajuato. It is no doubt a language
of great antiquity, and whether Chinese in origin is not fully
determined.[751] Numerous claims have been set forth that some of the
Californian languages bear a striking resemblance to the Chinese, and
that Indians and Chinese in some cases have found so much in common in
their respective languages as to be able to hold conversations with
each other. These claims have in most instances been supported by
persons having little knowledge of the principles of philology, and
who are scarcely aware of the difficulty of comparing two monosyllabic
languages in which the finest shade of pronunciation carries with
it the greatest significance.[752] Japanese claims have been urged
with some reason by ethnologists no less eminent than Latham, who is
confident that the “Kamskadale, Koriak, Aino-Japanese and the Korean
are the Asiatic languages most like those of America.”[753]
Comparisons of the Indian languages with those of the old world
have often been made, most frequently in a haphazard manner and
to little purpose. Recently, however, Herr Forchhammer of Leipzig
published a truly scientific comparison of the grammatical structure
of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Muskogee and Seminole languages, with the
Ural-Altaic tongues, in which he has developed many interesting points
of resemblance.[754] Prof. Valentini has called attention to the fact
that Ptolemy (Geography, Asia Minor, Chapter X, Armenia Major) gives in
his list of cities belonging to the Roman province in his time (A. D.
140), the names of five cities situated in the region of the historic
Ararat, which have nearly their counterpart in five proper names
applied to localities in Mexico by its ancient colonists. The cities
of Armenia Major, according to Ptolemy, are: Chol, Colua, Zuivana,
Cholima, Zalissa. “The first name _Chol_ is contained in _Cholula_;
the second, _Colua_, in _Coluacan_; the third, _Zu vana_, in _Zuivan_,
which is the ancient name of the Yucatanic province of Bacalab (see
Perez in Stephens’ _Yucatan_, Appendix, vol. ii, _Chronology of
Yucatan_). _Cholima_ is to-day written _Colima_, _Zalissa_ is contained
in _Xalisco_, the Spanish _x_ sounding in the Nahua language like the
English _sh_.”[755] Generally we have been disposed to pronounce all
such coincidences accidental, as most of them certainly are. In this
case we leave the decision to the reader. In this chapter we have
noticed two prominent families of languages, (1) the Maya-Quiché,
having such transatlantic affinities as to furnish presumptive evidence
that if it did not originate from, it was at least influenced by the
West European or African languages. (2) The great Nahua family, which
linguistic researches, together with the circumstantial evidence
furnished by architectural remains, commercial intercourse and the
testimony of early writers, assign to at least a temporary occupancy of
the Columbian region on the North-west coast. Concede this fact, and
you must look elsewhere, possibly to the opposite continent, for the
early beginnings of a language so ancient and polished.
While the proof is not conclusive, yet we think it is presumptive that
both of these families, as well as some other American languages, are
of old world origin.