A
GRAMMAR
OF THE
MASSACHUSETTS INDIAN LANGUAGE
BY JOHN ELIOT.
A NEW EDITION :
WITH NOTES AND OBSERVATIONS,
BY
PETER S. DU PONCEAU, LL. D.
AND
AN INTRODUCTION
AND SUPPLE MENTARY
OBSERVATIONS,
BY
JOHN PICKERING.
THE
MASSACHUSETTS LANGUAGE.
INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS.
THE
languages of the American ln dians1 however little
value may be attached to them, as the source of what is
frequently (though without much discrimination) called
useful knowledge, have for some time deeply engaged
the attention of the learned in Europe, as exhibiting nu
merous phenomena, if the term may be applied, the know
ledge of which will be found indispensable to a just theory
of speech. It is true, indeed, that we have long had our
systems of universal grammar, or in other words our the
ories of language, as. deduced from the small number of
European and Oriental tongues, which have been the sub
ject of investigation with scholars; just as in the physi
cal sciences we have had, for example, our theories of
chemistry, founded upon the comparatively small number
of phenomena, which had been observed in past ages.
But the discovery of numerous facts of the most surpris
ing character in that science, even within our own me
mory, has compelled the chemists of the present age to re-
examine the old, and resort to new theories; and from the
great advances made in Comparative Philology in the present
age, particularly by means of an extensive acquaintance with
the unwritten dialects of barbarous nations, there is reason
to believe that some important modifications are yet to be
made in our theories of language.
Among the unwritten languages, those of the continent
of America present us with many new and striking facts.
If we may adopt the opinions of a learned Society in ano
ther part of our country, there appears to be " a wonderful
organization, which distinguishes the languages of the
Aborigines of this country from all other idioms of the
known world;" and they shew us "how little the world
has yet advanced in that science which is proudly called
4 THE MASSACHUSETTS LANGUAGE.
Universal
Grammar."* We find in them (according to a
learned member of the same Society) "a new manner of
compounding words from various roots, so as to strike
the mind at once with a whole mass of ideas; a new man
ner of expressing the cases of substantives by inflecting
the verbs which govern them; a new number (the par
ticular plural) applied to the declension of nouns and con
jugations of verbs; a new concordance in tense of the
conjunction with the verb; we see not only pronouns, as
in the Hebrew and some other languages, but adjectives,
conjunctions, adverbs, combined with the principal part
of speech, and producing an immense variety of verbal
forms;" it is also one of the most remarkable character
isticks of the American languages, that they are " entire
ly. deficient of our auxiliary verbs to have and to be:''
"There are no words that I know of (sap, the same dis
tinguished philologist) in any American idioms to express
abstractedly the ideas signified by those two verbs."t
Some of the facts here stated, however extraordinary
they may be thought by speculative persons, who have
formed their theories upon the study of the European lan
guages alone, will be found to have been noticed in the
following Grammar of the venerable Eliot, composed at
the distance of a century and a half from our own age,
and long before any favourite theory or philological en
thusiasm can be supposed to have warped the judgment
of the writer and led him to distort his facts, in order to
make them suit an ingenious hypothesis; The editor can
not refrain from selecting two or three instances, in which
this indefatigable man, from an examination of a very li
mited number of kindred dialects in this part of the con
tinent, has given similar views to those, which are more
fully presented by the learned writer just cited; who has
extended his investigations to numerous dialects from the
northern to the southern extremity of America.
Of the general power of compounding words, for exam
ple, Eliot (without however describing the particular
" Transactions of the Historical and Literary Committee of the American
Philosophical Society at Philadelphia, vol. i. p. xii.
t Ibid. Report of Mr. Du Ponceau on the Indian Languages, p. xxviii. xl.
THE MASSACHUSETTS LANGUJAGE, 5
mode)
says-" This language doth greatly delight in com
pounding of words, for abbreviation, to speak much in
few words, though they be sometimes long; which is
chiefly caused by the many syllables which the Grammar
Rule requires, and suppletive syllables, which are of no
signification, and curious care of Euphonie."* On the
subject of the declensions he observes-" The variation of
Nouns is not by male and female, as in other, learned lan
guages, and in European nations they do . . . . . There be
two forms or declensions of Nouns, animate, inanimate.
1. The animate form or declension is, when the thing sig
nified is a living creature; and such Nouns do always
make their plural in og, as wosketomp, man, wosketompa
og; a is but for cuphonie. 2. The inanimate form or de
clension of Nouns is, when the thing signified is not a liv
ing creature ; and these make the plural in ash; as hussun,
a stone, hussunash."t Again-in respect to that extraor
dinary characteristick of the Indian languages, the want of
the substantive verb, Eliot says-" We have no compleat
distinct word for the Verb Substantive, as the learned lan
guages and our English Tongue have, but it is under a
regular composition, whereby many words are made Verb
Substantive." Of this mode of forming verbs he then
gives the following among other examples : "The fir t
sort of Verb Substantives is made by adding any of these
terminations to the word; yeuro, arꚙo, oꚙ, with due eu
phonie ; and this is so, be the word a noun, as woske
• Indian Gram. p. 6.
t Ibid. p. 81 9, 10. The Rev. Mr. Heckewelder, in his interesting Corres-
pondcnce with Mr. Du Ponceau, gives the same account of the Delaware
language of the present day: " In the Indian languages (says he) those dis-
criminating words or inflections, which we call genders, are not, as with us,
in general intended to distinguish between male and female beings, but be
tween animate and inanimate things or substances." He adds that "
trees
and plants ( annual plants and grasses excepted) are included within the gene-
rick class of animated beings." On this latter point, however, Eliot
says, that
all Vegetables are of the inanimate form; and he then gives these two exam-
ples; '' mehtug, a tree, mehtugquash; moskeht, grass, mokehtuah."
Wheth-
er this difference of opinion arises from a differe nce between the two
dialects
in this particular, or frou1 some other cause, the editor has not yet been
able to ascertain.
6 THE MASSACHUSETTS LANGUAGE,
tomporo,
he is a man; or adnoun, as wompiyeuꚙ, it ts
white; or be the word an adverb, or the like."*
It is unnecessary to enumerate further particulars in res
pect to the languages of our own part of the country. It
should not, however, be overlooked, that the same obser
vations which Eliot and others have made respecting the
northern dialects, appear to be generally applicable to those
of the south and other parts of the continent. The editor
is the more strongly impelled to extend his remarks on this
point, because the plausible opinions, or rather amusing
dreams, of certain philosophers (as they are sometimes sty
led) have still an influence among us, and continue to give
currency to speculative errours instead of establisl1td facts.
Of these erroneous opinions, founded upon very limit
ed inquiries into the languages of the globe, an ample
specimen is given by Clavigero, in his valuable History
of Mexico; where they are also most thoroughly refuted
by an appeal to facts. To this intelligent author, indeed,
subsequent
writen, both in our own country and in Eu-
rope, have been much indebted, not only for the correc
tion
of errours which had been successfully propagated
respecting these languages, but also for a refutation of the
unfounded opinions of eminent naturalists and philoso
phers respecting the degeneracy of the animal and other
productions of this continent. It will not be useless or
out of place, so far as respects the languages of America,
to advert briefly to those opinions; became they still have,
as above observed, an influence in perpetuating errour.
In respect to the general character of these languages,
(to adopt the remarks of Mr. Du Ponceau) " it has been
• Indian Gram. p.
15. Thi, want of the verb lo be is also noticed in Ed
ward's valuable Observations on /he Language of the Muhhekaneew [Mohe
gan] Indian,, published at New Haven in the year 1788. "They have (says
Edwards) no verb substantive in all the language. Therefore they cannot
say, he is a man, he is a coward, &c. They express the same by one
word,
which is a verb neuter, viz. ne1n.annauwoo, he is a man. Nemannauw is the
noun substantive man: that turned into a verb neuter of the third person sin
gular becomes nemannauwoo, as in Latin it is said Graecor, Graecatur, &c.
Thus they turn any substantive whatever into a verb neuter.,, The learned
author adds in a note-" The circumstance that they have no verb substan
tive, accounts for their not using that verb, when they speak English. They
say, I man, I sick," &c. p. 14.
THE MASSACHUSETTS LANGUAGE, 7
said
and will be said again, that savages, having but few
ideas, can want but few words, and therefore that their lan
guages must necessarily be poor." To which the same
learned writer thus answers by a direct appeal to the sim
ple fact: "Whether savages have or have not many ideas,
it is not my province to determine; all I can say is, that if it
is true that their ideas are few, it is not less certain that they
have many words to express them." He then concludes
his remarks in these strong terms: "For my own part, I
confess that I am lost in astonishment at the copiousness
an& admirable structure of their languages; for which I
can only account by looking up to the GREAT FIRST
CAUSE."*
To the same effect are the observations of the venera
ble Mr. Heckewelder, whose fidelity, and intelligence , and
skill (in the Delaware dialect in particular) are beyond all
question. In one of his letters he tells Mr. Du Ponceau,
that he must not "imagine that their languages are poor"
-that
he will be still more pleased as he becomes more
familiar " with the beautiful idiom of the Lenni Lennape"
-" I should never have done, (he adds) were I to en
deavour to explain to you in all their details the various
modes which the Indians have of expressing their ideas,
shades of ideas and combinations of ideas ," &c. t
Will any one require a confirmation of the testimony
of persons circumstanced as these two writers are; the
one distinguished for those habits of accurate investigation
which belong to his profession, and the other for that per
fect and minute knowledge of his subject, which is the
natural result of forty years' study? If such confirmation
should be required, it will be found at large, in the work of
Clavigero above cited, where the author refutes in detail
many erroneous opinions respecting America, which had
so long prevailed. He thus quotes a celebrated writer on
this subject: "The languages of America are so limited
and so scarce of words, that it is impossible to express any
metaphysical idea in them. In no one of those language s
* Report of Mr. Du Ponceau, p. xxvii-xxix,
t Correspondence, p, 368, 377, 393.
8 THE MASSACHUSETTS LANGUAG E,
can
they count above the number three. It is impossi-
ble to translate a book either into the languages of the Al
gonquines or Paraguese, or even into those of Mexico or
Peru, on account of their not having sufficient plenty of
proper terms to express general ideas." To which Cla
vigero replies: " We have (says he) learned the Mexican,
and have heard it spoken by the Mexicans for many years,
but never knew that it was deficient in numerical terms,
and words signifying universal ideas," &c. " We know
that the Mexicans had numeral words to express as ma
ny thousands or millions as they pleased;" and the au-
thor then subjoins a long list of them, extending to very
high numbers. He then shows that the writers whom he is
here opposing, are equally wrong in asserting that these
languages cannot express metaphysical ideas; and he af-
firms "that it is not easy to find a language more fit to
treat on metaphysical subjects than the Mexican, as it
would be difficult to find another which abounds so much
in abstract terms,'' equivalents to many of which, he de
clares, cannot be found "in the Hebrew, in the Greek, in
the Latin, in the French, in the Italian, in the English, in
the Spanish or Portuguese;" and he gives his readers a
list of abstract terms with the corresponding Mexican
words, "which (he observes) are understood by the rud-
est Indians." He adds, that it is by means of this abun
dance of words of this kind, that the deepest mysteries
of religion have been explained in that language, and that
various books of the Scriptures, and the works of Tho
mas a Kempis and others, have been translated into it;
which, as he justly remarks, could not have been done if
the language had been deficient in terms of this nature.
The same observations, he says, are applicable to all the
languages spoken in the dominions of Mexico, as Gram
mars and Dictionaries and treatises on religion have been
published in them, as well as in the Mexican.*
Such, then, is the character of the languages spoken
by the inhabitants of the middle region of this continent;
and since the publication of Clavigero's work, we have
* Clavigero's Mexico, Dissertat, vi. Sect, 6 ; in vol. 2, edit. 1787.
THE MASSACHUSETTS LANGUAGE.
9
been enabled to obtain
authentick information of various
other languages; particularly of one of the most south ern, that of Chili, (or the Araucanian, as it is often called,) an account of which is given in the Abbe Molina's
ex cellent History
of Chili. It will, assuredly, surprise
most readers to find how exactly the account given of this language by Molina (who furnishes us
with facts in stead of hypotheses) corresponds with what Clavigero
says of the Mexican ; and how completely at variance they both are with those of the speculative writers above alluded
to. "So copious is the Chilian language (says the author) that, in the opinion of those well acquainted with it, a complete dictionary thereof would require more than one large volume;
for, besides the radical
words, which are very numerous, so great is the use of com pounds, that it may almost be said in this consists the very genius of the language." Again-"Abstract
nouns are very frequent;" and, in another
place he states,
as a remarkable property
of this language, that it makes "fre quent use of abstract nouns in a peculiar
manner, Thus, instead
of saying pu Huinca,
the Spaniards, they com-
v manly say, Huincagen, the
Spaniolity ; tamen
cuiagen, your trio, that is, you
other three; epu tamen cajugen layai, two
of you other six will die-literally,
two of your sixths." The author also mentions in this language
(as Eliot, Edwards and others
do in the case of the north ern
dialects) the "practice of converting all the
parts of speech into verbs, in such a manner that the whole know ledge of the Chilian language may be said
to consist in the management of the verbs."* He adds, that "pro per names
are also susceptible of this elegance. Thus from Pedro, is formed the verb Petron, to be Pedro; Petrobui, was Pedro . . . . .
Owing to this property, the translation of European
works into the Chilian is very easy, in which, instead of losing any of their
spirit and elegance, they acquire a degree of precision even supe riour to the originals. This, among other instances that
" To the same effect, Eliot says of the Massachusetts language- " The manner of formation of the nouns and verbs have such a latitude of use, that there needeth little other S1111taxis in the language,"-lndian Gram. p. 23.
10 THE MASSACHUSETTS LANGUAGE ,
might be mentioned, is strongly evinced in the Christian Thoughts of the celebrated Bouhours, which was trans lated in the year 1713. There can be no better test of a language than its translations, as its comparative rich ness or poverty is rendered more apparent in this mode than in anv other."*
But it may possibly still be urged, that whatever is the
fact
with respect to the languages of Mexico, Chili, and
the more civilized parts of
the continent, yet the
dia
lects
of the more
barbarous nations must be
extremely
poor and deficient in the particulars above considered.
As to some of these very
dialects, however, we have the unequivocal testimony of Mr. Heckewelder and Mr. Du Ponceau already cited ; and their opinion
is supported
by that of writers who have preceded them. It may,
perhaps, appear somewhat like want of respect to persons
so well known as those gentlemen are, to adduce the tes
timony
of others
in support of their statements; but
such
has been the influence
of the opposite opinion on this
subject,
that the editor trusts he shall be pardoned for
briefly recurring to two or three preceding writers;
whose observations in this instance are the more impor
tant,
as they are
founded upon the dialects of the northern
nations
alone. Colden informs us, that
"the Six Nations compound their words without end, whereby
their lan
guage becomes sufficiently copious." Edwards observes
-" It has been said, that
savages have no parts of speech
beside
the substantive and the verb. This is not
true
concerning the Mohegan,
nor concerning any other
tribe
of Indians of whose languages I have any knowledge.
The Mohegans have all
the eight parts of speech to be
found in other languages." Again-" It has been said
also,
that savages never abstract, and have no abstract
terms; which -with regard to
the Mohegans is another mistake …. I doubt not, but that there is in this language
the full proportion of abstract to concrete terms, which is commonly to be found in other
languages."t The late
Molina's Hist. of Chili, vol. jj, p, 5, 297, 303, 301, American translation,
t Obserations, &c. p. 16.
THE MASSACHUSETTS LANGUAGE, 11
Mr.
Zei berger affirmed the
Iroquois language (in which
he was thoroughly skilled) to be very copious,
Roger
Williams, who was distinguished for his skill in the In
dian languages, in speaking
of the dialect of the Nara
gansets, declarts in emphatick
terms, that " their lan
guage is exceeding copious,
and they have five or six
words sometimes for one thing."*
If any further proof
were necessary in this case; we have
it conclusively in
the single fact, that
Eliot found a sufficient stock of
words in the Massachusetts dialect, for a complete trans
lation
of the Old and N ew Testaments.
Such, then, are some of the striking facts, which the
investigation of these remarkable dialects
has already
brought into view; and facts of this novel character
could not fail to
stimulate the curiosity of all, who take
an interest in the
study of man, particularly of his
dis
tinguishing characteristick, the faculty of speech For , if
there is any utility in studying language philosophical
ly, (which all admit,)
then it is manifestly indispensable
for those, who claim
the rank of philosophical grammar-
ians, to
make themselves in some degree acquainted with
the languages of the
barbarous, as well as of the civilized
nations
of the globe. Accordingly, the illustrious scholars
of Europe, particularly of Germany, have for
some time
past, with their well known ardour and perseverance,
been pursuing their researches into the curious dialects
of this continent; and they have already examined, with
no inconsiderable degree of minuteness, such a number
of them as will astonish every
reader, whose attention
has not been particularly directed to this subject.
In
that wonderful monument of philological research,
the MITHRIDATES, begun by the
illustrious Professor
Adelung, and continued and augmented by the
celebrated
Professor Vater, by the Honourable Frederick Adelung,
(the distinguished relative of the late
professor,) and by
the learned Baron William von Humboldt, we
find "a
delineation of the grammatical character of thirty-four
American languages, and
the Lord's Prayer in fifty-nine
"Directions prefixed to his Key into the Languages of America. Williams also, in speaking of their numerals; says, "'tis admirable how quick they are in casting up great numbers with the helpe of graines of corne," &c, Key , chap. 1v.
12 THE MASSACHUSETTS LANGUAGE.
different
idioms or dialects of the savages of this coun
trv."* But what will be the reader's astonishment to
learn, that since the publication of the 1.lfi.thridates, the
present learned Adelung has been enabled to make a
more extensive survey of the languages of the globe than
1was before practicable, and has enumerated in America
twelve hundred and .fourteen different dialects!t Justly
may we (to adopt the sentiment of Mr. Du Ponceau)
express our astonishment at the great knowledge which
the Literati of Europe appear to possess of America, and
of the customs, manners and languages of its original
inhabitants; and cheerfully ought we to express our
"thanks to the Germans and Russians, our masters," to
whom "the general science of languages is peculiarly
indebted for the great progress that it has lately made."
The vast field of investigation, which is thus opening
to our view, would be sufficient to dishearten the most
adventurous and resolute philologist, if the American
dialects were subject to the intricate anomalies of the Eu
ropean tongues,‡ and if ·they were, moreover, as ma-
• Report, in Histor. Transact. vol. i. p. xx.xii.
t Uebersicht aller bekannten Sprachen und ihrer Dialekte; or, View of all
the known Languages and their Dialects, 8vo. St. Petersburg, 1820. A copy
of this important work has been presented by the learned author to the Ameri
can Academy of Arts and Sciences. The Historical Transactions, and partic
ularly the labours of Mr. Du Ponceau, are noticed by the author in terms of
just
commendation. In connection with the example of the learned Adelung, I
cannot forbear mentioning, as an incitement to American scholars, in these re
searches, that of Baron William von Humboldt; who ( as an obliging correspon
dent in Germany justly observes) ' unites to his high rank as a po1itici an and
nobleman the distinctions of genius and erudition.'' This eminent philologist,
(says Mr. Du Ponceau) "surrounded with the honours and dignities of his
country, made a journey into the mountains of Biscay and resided there some
months for the sole purpose of studying the Basque Language." Report, p. xxxi.
He has also
been engaged for some years in the study of the Languages of AMERICA.
‡ The
almost inconceivable degree of regularity in the American languages
is not the least curious of their peculiarities. Molina says of that of
Chili
"What is truly surprising in this language is, that it contains no
irregular verb
or noun. Every thing in it may be said to be regulated with a geometrical
precision, and displays much art with great simplicity, and a connection
so
well ordered and unvarying in its grammatical rules, which always make the
subsequent depend upon the antecedent, that the theory of the language is
asy and may bel earned in a few days." Vol. ii, p. 5, .9.mer. edit. Mr.
Heck
ewelder observes of the Delaware, that the ve rbs are conjugated through all
their negati ve, causative and various other forms, with fewer irregularities, than
any other language that I know of." Correspondence, Letter x. Mr. Du
Ponceau
says
too, of the same language, that '" it would rather appear to have been
formed by philosophers in their closets, than by savages in the wilderness."
Report, p. xxvi,
THE MASSACHUSETTS LANGUAGE. 13
ny
have erroneously supposed, for the most part radical
ly different languages. This last unfounded opinion,
which has been too much countenanced by speculative
writers, has doubtless been one reason why our scholars
have not directed their attention to this part of American
history ; for, in the works of most writers upon this
country, we meet with such numbers of Indian names,
often ill-defined and as often misapplied, that we become
perplexed and distracted with the multifarious group:
Just as an uninstructed spectator (to adopt a remark ap
plied on another occasion) who gazes on the endless va
riety of flowers that adorn the earth, or the innumerable
stars that glitter in the heavens, is lost in the irregularity
and disorder which seem to pervade those parts of the
natural world, and despondingly imagines the knowledge
of them to be placed beyond the reach of human attain
ment. But as we are enable by the labours of a New
ton and a Linnaeus to class and systematize the innume
rable subjects of those departments of knowledge, and
find order and regularity amidst the apparent confusion,
so, by the assistance of the Adelungs and Vaters and
Humboldts of the old world, and of their zealous fellow
labourers in our own country. we can class and arrange
the various languages spoken by man; and thus dissipate
the confusion and perplexity which reign through the
chaos, and discover, in this, the like wonderful connexion
and harmony, which are conspicuous in all other parts of
the creation.
We now accordingly find, that the numerous dialects
of North America may probably be reduced to three,
or at most four classes or families :
1. The Kara/it, or language of Greenland and the Es kimaux:
2. The Delaware; and
• Mr. Du Ponceau informs me in a late letter, that he is now ah1e to es
tablish
the correctness of Professor Vater ' s import ant remark-- that this
American language is also spoken in Asia, by the tribe of Tartars called the
Sedentary Tscthuktschi, who inhabit the most eastern peninsula of th e other
continent. See .Mithridates, vol. iii, part 3, p. 464.
14 THE MASSACHUSETTS LANGUAGE,
3.
The Iroquois; to which should be added, as Mr.
Heckewelder is inclined to think,
4.
The Floridian class, comprehending the body of lan
guages spoken on the whole southern frontier of
the United States.
By
the study of only three or four original languages,
therefore, a scholar will be able to command a know
ledge of the numerous dialects which are spread over all
that part of America in which our countrymen will feel
the greatest interest. In the same manner as, by the
knowledge of three or four principal languages of the
old continent, we are able to master all the dialects which
are to be found from the northern to the southern ex
tremities of Europe.
The Massachusetts Historical Society, with the view
of co-operating at this time with their brethren of other
states in affording such aid as may be in their power to
persons engaged in these interesting researches, will de
vote a portion of their Collections to this part of Ameri,
can history; in the course of which it is their intention
to communicate to the publick all rare and valuable me
morials of the Indian languages, whether printed or in
manuscript, which may come into their possession. It
is several years since they republished the principal part
of Roger Williams' small but valuable Vocabulary of the
Naraganset dialect.* They now resume this depart
ment of their work by the republication of the present
Grammar of the Massachusetts Language. This Gram
mar had become so rare, that the Society had not one per
fect printed copy of it in their extensive collection of early
American publications; and they have been indebted to
their obliging and indefatigable correspondent, Mr. Du
PONCEAU, for a manuscript copy, which he has liberally
presented to them. The present n:publication, however,
is made from a printed copy belonging to one of their
members. The Society is abo indebted to Mr. Du Pon
ceau for the Remarks subjoined to the present edition,
* See vols. iii. And v.
THE MASSACHUSETTS LANGUAGE. 15
which
are distinguished by his name: The few other
additions to it have been made by the editor; to whose
care hi colleagues on the Publishing Committee have
confided this part of the present volume.
It was thought proper to resume the Indian publica
tions of the Society with a Grammar of some one of
the dialects, in order that our scholars might at once be
provided with a guide to direct them in their first inqui
ries; and the Committee have been led by their respect
for the memory of the author (and perhaps too by an
excusable partiality for a New England production) to
select that of Eliot; which appears to have been the first
ever published in North America.* The work itself
possesses great merit in many respects ; and, with the
aid of Mr. Du Ponceau's remarks, it will afford essential
aid in the prosecution of these studies.
But it is now proper to submit a few remarks more im
mediately relative to the particular language which is the
subject of the present Grammar ; in doing which it will
be necessary to take a general view of the other New
England dialects.
The
principal nations of Indians in New England, at
the first settlement of the country by our ancestors, were
five:
1,
The Pequots; who inhabited the most southerly part,
which comprehended what is now the State of Con
necticut. They were once "a very warlike and po
tent people."t
2.
The Naragansets; who possessed the country about
Naraganset Bay, including Rhode Island and other
islands in that bay, and also a part of the State of
* In Spanish
America, grammars and dictionaries of the native languages
had been published a century before Eliot's. Among the valuable books on
this subject in the library of Baron W. von Humboldt, of which the
editor has
a list, there is a Vocabulary of the Spanish and Mexican Languages, printed
at Mexico., as early as 1571.
t Gookin's Historical Collections of the Indians in New England; written
in 1674, and first published from the MS. in the Massachusetts Histor. Collect
.
vol. i. p. 147-8.
16 THE MASSACHUSETTS LANGUAGE,
Connecticut. This tribe is spoken of by our early
historians as "a great people."*
S. The Pawkunnawkuts; inhabiting the territory of the
old Colony of Plymouth. These were also known
by the name of Wampanoags, and were once in pos
session of Rhode Island.t
4.
The Massachusetts Indians; occupying principally the
territorv which was afterwards inhabited by the En
glish, on Massachusetts Bay. They are described
as "a numerous and great people."
.5. The Pawtuckets; who dwelt north and east of the
Massachusetts Indians.‡
Besides these five general divisions, or tribes, of the
New England Indians, however, our historians. often
speak of smaller divisions by specifick names, within the
same territory; which smaller divisions seem to have
been
so distinguished, sometimes in consequence of their
local situation, and sometimes on account of a slight dif
ference of dialect.
In respect to the languages of these Indians, there seems
to have been one principal dialect, which extended through
a great part of New England, and was the basis of all the
others. Gookin (in 1674) says--"The Indians of the
parts of New England, especially upon the sea-coasts,
used the same sort of speech and language, only with some
difference in the expressions, as they differ in several coun
tries [qu. counties?] in England, yet so as they can well
understand one another. Their speech is a distinct speech
from any of those used in Europe, Asia or Africa, that I
ever heard of. And some of the inland Indians, particu
larly the Mawhawks or Maquas, use such a language, that
our Indians upon the coast do not understand. So the
Indians to the southward, upon the sea coast about Vir-
•
Ibid. See also Roger William,' Key; where the author Says-"In the
Nariganset countrey (which is the chief people in the land) a wan shall come
to many townes, some bigger, some lesser, it may be a dozen in 20 miles
travel." p. 3.
t Mass. Histor. Collect. vol, viii. p. 159, and vol. x. p. 20, note
‡ Gookin, ubi Supra.
THE MASSACHUSETTS LANGUAGE. 17
ginia,
use a speech much different from those in New En
gland."* Roger Williams also, who is spoken of as par
ticularly "skilful in the Indian tongue,"t agrees, sub
stantially, with Gookin; though from his remarks we
should infer, that there were more differences of dialect
than Gookin's account would lead us to suppose. Wil
liams says-" with this [the Naraganset language] I have
entered into the secrets of those countries wherever En
glish dwell, about two hundred miles, between the French
and Dutch Plantations;" and he adds, that "there is a
mixture of this language North and South from the place
of my abode about six hundred miles; yet within the two
hundred miles aforesaid their dialects doe exceedingly dif
fer; yet not so, but (within that compasse) a man may by
this helpe converse with thousands ef natives all over the
countrcy." In
another place Williams makes a remark
which (as above observed) might lead us, at first view, to
conclude, that there were many radical differences in tlte
various dialects alluded to by him. His words are-" The
varietie of their Dialects and proper speech within thir
tie or fortie miles each of other is very great." But the
example, which he subjoins in proof of this, shows that
his expression is to be taken in a qualified sense, and must
be considered as founded upon minute distinctions, which
would not be thought to constitute "a very great
varietie" of language by any person, except one whose
ear had been long habituated to the niceties of some par
ticular dialect ; every trifling deviation from which
would be as striking, as the slightest violation of the idi
om of his native tongue. He observes, that this very
great variety .Df dialect will appear in this word Anum, a
dog, which he sets down in four of the languages, thus:
"Anum, the Cowweset
Ahim, the Nariganset
Arum, the Qunnipiuck dialect
Alum, the Neepmuck
* Mass. Histor. Collect. vol. i. p. 149.
t Gookin; in Mass. Histor. Collect. vol. i. p. 210.
18 THE MASSACHUSETTS LANGUAGE,
Now, it will be at once perceived, that in three of these
four examples there is no other difference of dialect, than
the slight one occasioned by the very common inter
change of the liquids l, n, r; a difference, which, in a gen
eral view of the subject, would not be called" a very great
one."*
The observation of the old writers, that there was one
principal
or fundamental language throughout New En
gland (and even beyond it} is in accordance with the re
marks of later writers upon this subject; who have taken
a more extended view of these dialects than was practica
ble at the early period when Williams and Eliot wrote.
It will suffice to refer to two writers of our own age,
(one of them still living,} eminently distinguished for their
skill in the Indian languages-the Rev. Dr. Edwards,
whose Observations have been already cited, and the Rev.
Mr. Heckewelder, whose Account of the Indians and their
languages is well known to every reader. These two wri
ters, who agree in every thing material to the present ques
tion, differ only in thi5 circumstance, that each of them
considers the particular dialect with which he happened
to be most familiar, as the principal, or standard language,
* Williams' Key, chap. xvii. p. 106, London edit. of l643; republished
(in part) in Massa. Historical Collect. vols iii. and v. Williams adds a re
mark , which is deserving of notice as a refutation of an opinion which at that
day (as is often the case in our own) had been hastily formed upon a partial
knowledge of the Indian languages : " So that (says he) although some pro
nounce not L nor It, yet it is the most proper dialect of other places; con-
trary to many reports." Ibid
This difference of dialect (which was probably the most important of
any, because it is the most frequently aJlude<l to by the old writers) is
also
noticed by Eliot in much the same manner as by Williams: u. The conso
nants l, n, r (says he) have such a natural coincidence, that it is an eminent
variation of their dialects. We J,1assaehuaetts pronounce then. The Nip-
muk Indians pronounce l. And the Northern Indians pronounce r. As
instance:
We say Anum (um produced)
Nipmuk, Alum a dog.''
Northern, Arim
To
which he adds a remark that should not be overlooked-"So in most
words." Indian Gram. p. 2. The Nipmuk Indians, (or Neepmuck, as
Wil
liams writes it) who are here mentioned, had their principal settlement
about
fifty miles south-west of Boston, on the territory now called Oxford, in the
county of Worcester; but their territory extended into the borders of
Con
necticut. See Massa. Histor. Collect. vo1. ix. p. 80, note.
THE MASSACHUSETS LANGUAGE, 19
and
then compares all the rest with that ; just as an En
glishman would make his own language the standard with
which he would compare the northern dialects of Europe,
or as a native of Italy would take the Italian language as
the standard for those of the south of Europe. Thus
Dr. Edwards, for example, in speaking of the Mohegan
tongue, observes-" This language is spoken by all the
Indians throughout New England. Every tribe, as that
of Stockbridge, that of Farmington, that of New London,
&c. has a d1fterent dialect; but the language is radically
the same. Mr. Eliot's translation of the Bible is in a par
ticular dialect of this language. This language appears
to be much more extensive than any other language
in North America. The languages of the Delawares in
Pennsylvania, of the Penobscots bordering on Nova Sco
tia, of the Indians of St. Francis in Canada, of the Shaw
anese on the Ohio, and of the Chippewaus at the west
ward of Lake Huron, are all radically the same with the
Mohegan That the language of the several tribes
in New England, of the Delawares, and of Mr. Eliot's
Bible, are radically the same with the Mohegan, I assert
from my own knowledge."*
To the same effect are the observations of Mr. Heck
ewelder respecting the Delaware language, more proper
ly called the Lenni Lenape. "The Lenui Lenape or
Delawares (says he) are the head of a great family of In
dian nations who are known among themselves by the
generick name of Wapanachki or Men of the East. The
same language is spread among them all in various dia
lects, of which I conceive the purest is that of the chief
nation, the Lenape, at whose residence the great national
councils meet, and whom the others, by way of respect,
call Grandfather."t In another place he says, that " this
is ,the must widely extended language of any of those that
are spoken on this side of the Mississippi. It prevails in
the extensive regions of Canada, from the coast of La
brador to the mouth of Albany River, which falls into the
* Edwards' Observations, p. 5.
t Correspondence with Mr. Du Ponceau, Letter xiv. (Transactions, p. 391.)
20 THE MASSACHUSETTS LANGUAGE,
southernmost
part of Hudson's Bay, and from thence to
the Lake of the Woods, which forms the north-western
boundary of the United States. It appears to be the lan
guage of all the Indians of that extensive country, except
those of the Iroquois stock, which are by far the least nu
merous . . . . Out of the limits of Canada few Iroquois are
found, except the remnants of those who were once set
tled in the vicinity of the great lakes in the northern parts
of the now State of New York. There are yet some
Wyandots in the vicinity of Detroit. All the rest of the
Indians who now inhabit this country to the Mississippi,
are of the Lenape stock and speak dialects of that lan
guage. It is certain, that at the time of the arrival of the
Europeans, they were in possession of all the coast from
the northernmost point of Nova Scotia to the Roanoke.
Hence they were called Wapanachki or the Abenaki, Men
of the East ," He adds-" In the interior of the country
we find every where the Lenape and their kindred tribes."*
From these different accounts, then, it appears, that the
Lenape may properly enough be considered as the prin
cipal, or standard langu age of the New England Indians,
as well as of various tribes that inhabited the adjacent terri
tories. It appears too, from the concurring testimony of
our early historians, that among the Indians of New En
gland there was "a great and numerous people," well
known and commonly distinguished by the name of the
Massachusetts Indians, who resided principally on the
sea coast of the present State of Massachusetts, the ex
tent of whose territory, however, was probably not very
well defined. The editor, therefore, without regarding
any of the subdivisions of this nation, (subdivisions, which
have given rise to a variety of appellations both for the
different portions of the people and for their slightly differ
ing dialects,) has thought it proper to follow the example
of Eliot in applying to the prevailing dialect of that peo
ple the general name of the Massachusetts Language.
In the same manner, as we include under the general
* Heckewelder's Historical Account of the Indians, chap. ix , ( in Transac-
tion of the Histor, and Literar. Committee, &c. p, 106, 107.)
THE MASSACHUSETTS LANGUAGE. 21
name
of English, all the provincial dialects spoken in
the several counties of England; though, as far as we can
judge, those county dialects differ much more from stand
ard English, than the local dialects of Massachusetts did
from the standard Indian of the country. This same
language is often mentioned by our early writers under
different names; sometimes under the very indefinite ap
pellation of the Indian language; sometimes, however,
it is called by its proper name, the Massachusetts; it
has also been called the Nonantum language; but more
frequently the Natick tongue, apparently from the acci
dental circumstance, that Eliot established his first Indian
church in the town called Natick, which was near Boston
and was once the town of greatest note among the Indians
in this quarter.
With these remarks the editor submits the present edi
tion of this Grammar to the publick, as part of a series of
scarce tracts respecting the Indian Languages, which it is
the intention of the Historical Society to publish, from
time to time, as circumstances shall permit. The present
publication will probably be followed by a valuable En
glish and Indian Vocabulary (of the 1lfassachusetts lan
guage also) composed by Josiah Cotton, Esquire, who was
the son of John Cotton and was once an occasional preach
er among the Indians; he died at Plymouth, in this State,
during the year 1756. The MS. bears the date of the
years 1707 and 1708. They also hope to obtain a Vo
cabulary of the language spoken at the present day by the
small tribe of Indians called the Penobscots, who reside
near the river of that name, in the State of Maine. A vo
cabulary of this dialect (the Abnaki) will be of use in mak
ing a comparison' of the present language with the same
dialect as we find it in Father Rale's MS. Dictionary,
which was formed a century ago. This last work, of
which a short' bibliographical account was given, by the
editor, in the fourth volume of the American Academy's
Memoirs, page 358, and which is the greatest treasure of
Indian, that is to be found in this part of our country,
ought also to be published without delay, lest some acci
dent should depeive us of it forever. But its large size
22 THE
MASSACHUSETTS LANGUAGE,
alone,
even if the MS. were the property of the Historical
Society; would forbid its publication in these volumes.
It is to be hoped, however, that measures will be taken
without loss of time, either under the direction of the Uni
versity, (to whose library it belongs) or of the American
Academy of Arts and Sciences to effect its publication.
The editor has thought it might be acceptable to most
readers, and not without use, to add to this e reface, an
account of the Indian publications made by Eliot; and
the following Li t, which has been collected from the
preceding volumes of the Historical Collections, is ac
cordingly subjoined. A valuable account of the Life of
the venerable author, drawn up by his much respected
descendant, the late Dr. John Eliot, Corresponding Se
cretary of the Society, will be found in the eighth volume.
of these Collections, and also in the New England Bio
graphical Dictionary of the same writer.
JOHN PICKERING.
Salem,
Massachusetts,
July 31, 1821.
List of Eliot's Indian Publications.
1.
The Bible; of which the New Testament was finished Sept. 5,
1661, (See Mass. Hist. Coll. vol. i. p. 176.) and the Old Testa-
ment in 1663. The second edition of the New Test. was pub
lished in 1680, and of the Old Test. in 1685. Eliot, in a letter
of July 7, 1688, to the celebrated Sir Robert Boyle, who was
Governour of the Corporation for propagating the gospel among
the Indians of New England, and occasionally supplied money
for that purpose, speaks of having paid ten pounds to Mr. John
Cotton," who (says he) helped me much in the second edition of
the Bible." See Mass. Hist. Coll. vol. iii. p. 187.-The trans
lation of the New Testament was dedicated to King Charles
the IId; a copy of the " Epistle Dedicatory" may be seen in
the Mass. Hist. Coll. vol. i. p. 174.
2.
Indian Catechisms; several of them.-See vol.i. 172, and viii.33.
3 ____ Grammar; which is printed in some editions of the Bible.-
See vol. viii. 12 and 33.
4. --- Psalter.--Ibid.
5. Singing Psalms.-See vol. i. 172.
6. The Practice of Piety, published in 1686.-See a letter from Eliot
to Boyle, in vol. iii. p. 187.
7. Baxter's Call to the Unconverted.-See vol. i. 172.
THE
INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN:
OR,
AN ESSAY TO BRING THE INDIAN LANGUAGE
INTO
RULES,
FOR THE HELP OF SUCH AS DESIRE TO LEARN THE SAME, FOR-
THE FURTHERANCE OF THE GOSPEL AMONG THEM,
BY JOHN ELIOT.
Isa,
33. 19. Thou shalt not see a fierce people, a people of a
deeper speech than thou canst perceive, of a stammering
tongue, that thou canst not understand.
Isa.
66. 18. It shall come that I will gather all Nations and
Tongues, and they shall come and see my Glory.
Dan. 7. 14. And there was given him Dominion, and Glory,
and a Kingdome, that all People, Nations and Languages
should serve him, &c.
Psal.
19. 3. There is no speech nor language where their voice
is not heard.
Mal.
3. 11. From the rising of the Sun, even to the going
down of the same, my Name shall be great among the Gen
tiles, &c.
CAMBRIDGE:
PRINTED BY MARMADUKE JOHNSON,
1666.
TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE,
ROBERT BOYLE, ESQ;
GOVERNOUR:
WITH THE REST OF THE RIGHT HONOURABLE AND CHRISTIAN
CORPORATION
FOR THE PROPAGATION OF THE GOSPEL UNTO
THE INDIANS IN NEW-ENGLAND.
NOBLE SIR,
YOU were pleased, among other Testimonies of your
Christian
and prudent care for the effectual Progress of
this great Work of the Lord Jesus among the Inhabitants
of these Ends of the Earth, and goings down of the Sun,
to Command me (for such an aspect have your so wise and
seasonable Motions, to my heart) to Compile a Grammar
of this Language, for the help of others who have an heart
to study and learn the same,_fo r the sake of Christ, and of
the poor Souls of these Ruines of Mankinde, among whom
the Lord is now about a Resurrection-work, to call them
into his holy Kingdome. I have made an Essay unto this
difficult Service, and laid together some Bones and Ribs
preparatory at least for such a work. It is not worthy the
Name of a Grammar, but such as it is, I humbly present it
to your Honours, and request your Animadversions upon
the Work, and Prayers unto the Lord for blessing upon all
Essayes and Endeavours for the promoting of his Glory,
and the Salvation of the Souls of these poor People. Thus
humbly commending your Honours unto the blessing of
Heaven and to the guidance of the 01:d of God, which is
able to save your Souls, I remain
Your Honours Servant in the Service
of our Lord Jesus,
JOHN ELIOT.
THE
INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN.
GRAMMAR is the Art or Rule of Speaking.
There be two parts of Grammar:
I. The Art of making words.
2. The Art of ordering words for speech.
The art of making 1. By various articulate sounds.
words, is 2. By regular composing of them,
Syllables
Articulate sounds are composed. Words
The various articulate sounds must be distinguished
Names.
By Characters.
These Names and Characters do make the Alpha-bet.
Because the English Language is the first, and most
attainable Language which the Indians learn, he is a
learned man among them, who can Speak, Reade and
Write the English Tongue.
I therefore use the same Characters which are of most
common use in our English Books; viz. the Roman and
Italick Letters.
Also our Alpha-bet is the same with the English, saying
in these few things following.
1. The difficulty of the Rule about the Letter [c], by
reason of the change of its sound in the five sounds, ca ce
ci co cu; being sufficiently helped by the Letters
[k and s.]: We therefore lay by the Letter [c], [p. 2.]
2 THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN
Saving
in [ch]; of which there is frequent use in the Lan-
guage. Yet I do not put it out of the Alpha-bet, for the
use of it in other Languages, but the Character [ch] next
to it, and call it [chee].
2. I put [i] Consonant into our Alpha-bet, and give it
this
Character [j], and call it ji or [gi], as this Syllable
soundeth in the English word [giant]; and I place it
next after [i vocal]. And I have done thus, because it
is a regular sound in th e third person singular in the Imper
ative Mode of Verbs, which cannot well be distinguish-
ed without it: though l have sometimes used [gh] in
stead of it, but it is harder and more inconvenient. The
proper sound of it is, ,as the English word [age] sound
eth. See it used Genes. 1. 3, 6, 9, 11.
3. We give (v) Consonant a distinct name, by putting
together (ú f) or (uph), and we never use it, save when
it soundeth as it doth in the word (save, have), and place
it next after (u vocal.) Both these Letters (u Vocal,
and v Consonant) are together in their proper sounds in
the Latine word (uva a Vine.)
4. We call w (wee), because our name giveth no hint
of the power of its sound.
These Consonants (l. n. r.) have such a natural coinci
dence, that it is an eminent variation of their dialects.
We Massachusetts pronounce the n. The Nipmuk
Indians pronounce l, And the Northern Indians pro
nounce r. As instance :
We
say Anúm (um produced)
Nipmuk, Alúm A Dog.
Northern, Arúm So in most words.
Our Vocals are five: a e i o u. Dipthongs, or dou
ble sounds, are many, and of much use,
ai au ei ee eu eau oi oo ꚙ,
Especially
we have more frequent use of [o and ꚙ]
than other Languages have: and our [ꚙ] doth always
sound as it doth in these English words (moody, book.)
THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN. 3
We use onely two accents, and but sometime. [p. 3]
The Acute (') to shew which Syllable is first
produced in pronouncing of the word; which if it be not
attended, no Nation can understand their own Language:
as appeareth by the witty Conceit of the Tytere tu's.
ó produced with the accent, is a regular distinction be
twixt the first and second persons plural of the Suppositive
Mode; as
Naumog, If we see: (as in Log.)
Naumóg, lf ye see: (as in Vogue.)
The other Accent is (^), which I call Nasal; and it is
used onely upon (ô) when it is sounded in the Nose, as
oft it is; or upon (â) for the like cause.
This is a general Rule, When two (o o) come togeth
er, ordinarily the first is produced; and so when two (ꚙ)
are together.
All the Articulate sounds and Syllables that ever I heard
(with observation) in their Language, are sufficiently
comprehended and ordered by our Alpha- bet, and the
Rules here set down.
Character. Name. Character. Name.
a n en
b bee o
c see p pee
ch chee q keuh
d dee r ar
e f s es
f ef t tee
g gee as in geese u
h v vf
i w wee
j ji as in giant x ex
k ka y wy
l el z zad.
m em
Here
be 27 Characters: The reason of increasing the
number is above.
4 THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN,
And I have been thus far bold with the Alpha-bet, be
cause it is the first time of writing this Language; and
it is better to settle our Foundation right at first, than tQ
have it to mend afterwards.
[p.
4.] Musical sounds they also have, and perfect
Harmony, hut they differ from us in sound.
There be four several sorts of Sounds or Tones utter-
ed by Mankinde.
l. Articulation in Speech.
2. Laughter.
3. Laetation and Joy: of which kinde of sounds our
Musick and Song is made.
4. Ululation, Howling, Yelling, or Mourning: and
of that kinde of sound is their Musick and
Song made.
In which kinde of sound they also hallow and call,
when they are most vociferous.
And that it is thus, it may be perceived by this, that
their Language is so full of (ꚙ) and ô Nasal.
They have Harmony and Tunes which they sing, but
the matter is not in Meeter.
They are much pleased to have their Language and
Words in Meeter and Rithme, as it now is in The Sing
ing Psalms in some poor measure, enough to begin and
break the ice withall: These they sing in our Musicall
Tone.
So much for the Sounds and Characters.
Now follows the Consideration of Syllables, and
the Art of Spelling.
The formation of Syllables in their Language, doth in
nothing differ from the formation of Syllables in the En-
glish, and other Languages.
When I taught our Indians first to lay out a Word in-
to Syllables, and then according to the sound of every
Syllable to make it up with the right Letters, viz. if it
were a simple sound, then one Vacall made the Syllable;
THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN. 5
if
it were such a sound as required some of the Conso
nants to make it up, then the adding of the right Conso
nants either before the Vocall, or after it, or both. They
quickly apprehended and understood this Epitomie of the
Art of Spelling, and could soon learn to Reade.
The Men, Women, an.d up-grown Youth do thus [p. 5.]
rationally learn to Reade: but the Children learn
by rote and custome, as other Children do.
Such as desire to learn this Language, must be atten
tive to pronounce right, especially to produce that Syllable
that is first to be produced; then they must Spell by Art,
and accustome their tongues to pronounce their Syllables
and Words; then learn to reade such Books as are
Printed in their Language. Legendo, Scribendo, Lo
quendo, are the three means to learn a Language.
So much for the Rule of Making Words.
Now follows the Ordering of them for Speech.
THE several sorts of words are called Parts of Speech ,
which are in number Seven.
I. The Pronoun.
2. The Noun 3. The Adnoun, or Adjective.
4. The Verb. 5. The Adverb.
6. The Conjunction.
7. The Interjection.
Touching these several kindes of Words, we are to
consider,
1. The formation of them asunder by themselves.
2. The construction of them, or the laying them to
gether, to make Sense, or a Sentence.
And thus far Grammar goeth in concatenation with
Logick: for there is a Reason of Grammar. The laying
of Sentences together to make up a Speech, is performed
by Logick: The adorning of that Speech with Elo-
6 THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN,
quence,
is performed by Rhetorick. Such a use and ac
cord there is in these general Arts.
In
the formation of words asunder by themselves,
Consider
I. The general Qualifications, or Affections of
words.
2. The Kindes of Words.
[P· 6.] 1. In respect of their Rise
whence they spring.
The Qualifications are 2. In respect of their Consorts,
how they are yoked.
1. Original words: sure originis.
In
respect of their 2. Ort words sprung out of other:
Rise some are Nominals: or Verbs made
Chiefly out of Nouns.
Verbals: or Nouns made
out of Verbs.
Simple words: one alone.
In respect of Consorts, Compounded words: when two
some are or more are made into one.
This Language doth greatly delight in Compounding
of words, for Abbreviation, to speak much in few words,
though they be sometimes long; which is chiefly caused
by the many Syllables which the Grammar Rule requires,
and suppletive Syllables which are of no signification, and
curious care of Euphonie.
So much for the common Affection of words.
Now follow the severall Kindes of words.
1. Chief leading Nouns.
THERE be two words; Verbs.
kindes : 2. Such as attend upon, and belong
unto the chief leading words.
THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN, 7
1. Such as are proper Adnouns.
Attendants
on the to each; as Adverbs.
Chief, are 2. Such as are of com- Pronouns.
mon use to both; as Conjunctions.
Independent Passions or Interjections come under [p. 7]
no Series or Order, but are of use in Speech, to
express the passionate minde of man.
Touching the principal parts of Speech, this may be said
in general, That Nouns are the names of Things, and
Verbs are the names of Actions; and therefore their pro
per Attendants are answerable. Adnouns are the quali
ties of Things, and Adverbs are the qualities of Actions.
And hence is that wise Saying, That a Christian must
be adorned with as many adverbs as adjectives: He must
as well do good, as be good. When a man's virtuous
Actions are well adorned with Adverbs, every one will
conclude that the man is well adorned with virtuous
Adjectives.
1. Of the Pronoun.
BECAUSE of the common and general use of the Pro
noun to be affixed unto both Nouns, Verbs and other parts
of Speech, and that in the formation of them; therefore
that is the first Part of Speech to be handled.
I shall give no other description of them but this, They
are such words as do express all the persons, both singular
and plural: as.
Neen I. Neenawun or kenawun, We.
Sing. Ken Thou Plu. Kenaau Ye.
Noh or nagum He. Nahoh or Nagoh, T hey.
There be also other Pronouns of frequent use:
As the Interrogative of persons: sing. Howan. pl. Howanig, Who.
sing. Uttiyeu, or tanyeu.
The Interrogative of things; pl. Uttiyeush, Which.
8 T'HE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN,
sing. Yeuoh ,This or
that man. Noh.
Of persons: pl. Yeug, These men. Nag or
neg, They.
Demonstratives
Yeu this. Ne
This.
of things:
Yeush These. Nish These.
[ p. 8.]
Distriubtives;
as Nawhutchee, some. Tohsuog? How man?
Monaog, many. Toshsunash
But because these are not of use in afficing to other
Parts of Speech, they may as well be reckoned among
Adnouns, as some do; though there is another Schesis up
on them, and they attend upon Verbs as well as Nouns.
The first and second persons are of most use in affixing
both of N ouns and Verbs, and other Parts of Speech.
The third person singular is affixed with such Syllables
as these, Wut. wun. um. ꚙ, &c. having
respect to Eupho
nie: And sometime the third person, especially of Verbs,
hath no affix.
These Pronouns, (Neen and Ken) when they are af
fixed, they are contracted into Ne and Ke, and varied in
the Vocal or Vowel according to Euphonie, with the word
it is affixed unto; as Nꚙ. Kꚙ, &c.
If the word unto which it is affixed begin with a Vocal,
then a Consonant of a fitting sound is interposed, to
couple the word and his affix with an Euphonie: as Nut.
kut, num, kum, &c.
I give not Examples of these Rules, because they will
be so obvious anon, when you see Nouns and Verbs affixed.
2. Of a Noun.
A NOUN is a P art of Speech which signifieth a thing;
or it is the name of a thing .
The variation of Nouns is not by Male and Female, as
in other Learned Languages, and in European Nations
they do.
THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN. 9
Nor are they varied by Cases, Cadencies, and Endings:
herein they are more like to the Hebrew.
Yet there seemeth to be one Cadency or Case of the
first Declination of the form Animate, which endeth in oh,
uh, or ah; viz. when an animate Noun followeth a Verb
transitive whose object that he acteth upon is without him
self. For Example: Gen. 1. 16: the last word is anogq
sog, stars. It is an Erratum: 1t should be anogqsoh;
because it followeth the Verb ayim, He made.
Though
it be an Erratum in the Press, it is the [p. 9.]
fitter m some respects for an Example.
In Nouns consider 1. Genera, or kindes of Nouns.
2. The qualities or affections thereof.
The kindes of Nouns are two; according to which
there be two Declensions of Nouns, for the variation of
the number.
Numbers are two: Singular and Plural.
The first kinde of Nouns is, when the thing signified is
a living Creature.
The second kinde is, when the thing signified is not a
living Creature.
Therefore I order them thus:
There
be two forms or declensions of Nouns: Animate
Inanimate
The Animate form or declension is, when the thing sig-
nified is a living Creature: and such Nouns do alwayes
make their Plural in ( og); as,
Wosketomp, Man. Wosketompaog.
(a) is but for Eupho
Mittamwossis, A Woman. Mittamwossissog. , [nie.
Nunkomp, A. young Man. Nunkompaog.
Nunksqau, A Girl. Nunksqauog.
Englishman. Englishmanog.
Englishwoman. Englishwomanog.
So Manit, God. Manittoog.
Mattannit, The Devil. Mattannittoog.
So Ox, Oxesog, Horse, Horsesog.
10 THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN.
The Stars they put in this form:
Anogqs, A Star. Anogqsog.
Muhhog, The Body. Muhhogkꚙog.
Psukses, A little Bird. Psuksesog.
Ahtuk, A Deer. Ahtuhquog.
Mukquoshim, A Wolf. Mukquoshimwog,
Mosq, A Bear. Mosquog.
Tummunk, The Beaver. Tummunkquaog.
Puppinashim, A Beast. Puppinashimwog.
Askrok, A Snake or Worm. Askrokquog.
Namohs, A Fish. Namohsog. &c.
Some few Exceptions I know.
[p.
10.] 2. The Inanimate form or declension of Nouns,
is when the thing signified is not a living Crea
ture: and these make the Plural in ash; as
Hussun, A Stone. Hussunash.
Qussuk, A Rock. Qussukquanash.
Of this form are all Vegitables:
Mehtug, A Tree. Mehtugquash.
Moskeht, Grass. Moskehtuash
And of this form are all the parts of the Body: as
Muskesuk, The Eye or Face. Muskesukquash.
Mehtauog, An Ear. Mehtauogwash.
Meepit, A Tooth. Meepitash.
Meenan, The Tongue. Meenanash,
Mussissillron, A Lip. Mussissittronash.
Muttron, A Mouth. Muttronash.
Menutcheg, A Hand. Menutchegash.
Muhpit, An Arm. Muhpittenash.
Muhkont, A Leg. Muhkontash.
Musseet, The Foot. Musseetash.
Of this form are all Virtues, and all Vices: as
Waantamoonk, Wisdome. Waantamꚙongash, or onganash.
All Verbals are of this form, which end in onk, and
make
their Plural in ongash, or in onganash.
THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN 11
All Virtues and Vices (so far as at present I discern)
are Verbals; from their activity and readiness to turn into
Verbs.
All Tools and Instruments of Labour, Hunting, Fishing,
Fowling, are of this form. . All Apparel, Housing: All
Fruits, Rivers, Waters, 8c.
So much for the kindes of Nounes.
The common Affections or Qualifications are two:
1. The affixing of the Noun with the Pronoun.
2. The ranging them into several Ranks.
1. The way of affixing of Nouns, is the putting [p. 11]
or using of the Noun in all the three persons, both
Singular and Plural.
This manner of speech being a new thing to us that
know the European or Western Languages, it must be
demonstrated to us by Examples.
Metah, the Heart,
Nuttah, my heart. Nuttahhun,
our heart.
Sing. Kuttah, thy heart. Pl. Kuttahhou,
your heart.
Wuttah, his heart. Wuttahhou, their heart.
Menutch eg, A Hand.
Nunnutcheg, my hand. Nunnutcheganun, our hand
Sing. Kenutcheg,
thy hand. P. Kenutcheganꚙ, your hand.
Wunnutcheg, his hand. Wunnutcheganoo,
their hand.
Nunnutcheganash, my hands.
Sing. Kenutchegash, or kenutcheganash, thy hands.
Wunnutchegash or
wunnutcheganash, his hands.
Nunnutcheganunnonut, our hands.
Plu. Kenutcheganꚙwout, your hands.
Wunnutcheganꚙwout, thei r hands.
Wetu, A House.
Neek, my house. Neekun,
our house.
Sing. Keek, thy house. Pl: Keekou, your
house,
Week, his house. Weekou, their house
12 THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN,
ut, in.
Neekit, in my house. Neekunonut, in our house.
Sing. Keekit,
in thy house. Pl. Keekuwout, in your house
Weekit, in his house, Weekuwout, or wekuwo
[mut,
in his house.
Hence we corrupt this word Wigwam.
So much may at present suffice for the affixing of Nouns.
[p. 12.] Now for the ranging them into ranks.
The
Primitive.
There be three Ranks of Nouns; The Diminutive.
The Possessive.
The same Noun may be used in all these Ranks.
The primitive Rank expresses the thing as it is: as
Nunkomp, a Youth. Nunksqua, a Girl. Ox. Sheep.
Horse. Pig. So Hassuu, a stone. Mehtug, a tree. Mos
keht, grass or herb.
2. The diminutive Rank of Nouns doth lessen the thing,
and expresses it to be a little one; and it is formed by add
ing, with a due Euphonie (es) or (emes) unto the prim
itive Noun. For Example, I shall use the same Nouns
named in the first Rank, here in the second Rank: as
Nunkompaes or emes. Nunksquaes or emes. Oxemes.
Sheepsemes. Horsemes. Pigsemes. Hassunemes. Meh
tugques, or Mehtugquemes. Moskehtuemes.
And so far as I perceive, these two endings (es and
emes) are degrees of diminution: ( emes) is the least,
3. The possessive Rank of Nouns, is when the person
doth challenge an interest in the thing. Hence, as the
other Ranks may be affixed, this must be affixed with
the Pronoun.
And it is made by adding the Syllable ( eum or ꚙm, or
um) according to Euphonie, unto the affixed Noun. For
Example: Num-Manittꚙm, my God.
Nuttineneum, my
man. Nunnunkompꚙm. Nunnunksquaeum.
Nutoxin
eum. Nusheepseum. Nuthorsesum. Nuppigsum. Nu-
THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN. 13
thassunneum.
Nummehtugkmm. Nummoskehteum. Num
moskehteumash.
Both the primitive Noun, and the diminutive Noun,
may be used in the form possessive; as Nutsheepsemeseum,
and the like.
Nouns may be turned into Verbs two wayes:
1.
By turning the Noun into the Verb-substantive
form: as Wosketompoꚙ, He became a man.
Of this see
more in the Verb Substantive.
2. All Nouns that end in onk, as they come [p. 13]
from Verbs by adding (onk) so they will turn
back
again into Verbs, by taking away (onk) and forming
the word according to the Rule of Verbs; as
Waantamoonk is Wisdome: take away onk, and then it may be
formed Nꚙwaantam, I am wise. Kꚙwaantam , Thou wise, &c.
Waantam, He wise, &c.
3. Of Adnouns.
AN Adnoun is a part of Speech that attendeth upon a
Noun, and signifieth the Qualification thereof.
The Adnoun is capable of both the Animate and Inan
imate forms; and it agreeth with his leading Noun, in
form, number, and person.
For example: Rev. 4. 4. there is Neesneechagkodtash
nabo yau appuongash, Twenty four Thrones. And Nees
neechagkodtog yauog Eldersog, Twenty four Elders.
Here
be two Nouns of the two several forms, Animate
and Inanimate; and the same Adnoun is made to agree
with them both.
The Inanimate form of Adnouns end some in i, and
some in e.
14 THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN,
The Animate form in es, ot esu: and those are turned
into Verbs by taking the affix. As
Wompi, White. Wompiyeuash.
Mꚙoi, Black. Mꚙesseuash.
Menuhki,
Strong. Menuhkiyeuash.
Nꚙchumwi, Weak. Nꚙcchumwiyeuash.
The same words in the Animate form:
Wompesu. Wompesuog.
Mꚙoesu. Mꚙoesuog.
Menuhkesu. Menuhkesuog.
Nꚙchumwesu. Nꚙchumwesuog.
Put the affix to these, and they are Verbs.
[p.
14] NUMERALs belong unto Adnouns, and in them
there is something remarkable.
From the Number 5 and upward, they adde a word
suppletive, which signifieth nothing, but receiveth
the Grammatical variation of the Declension, according to
the things numbered, Animate or Inanimate. The Ad
ditional is (tohsú) or (tahshé) which is varied (tohsúog,
tohsúash, or tohshinash.)
For Example:
1 Nequt, 6 Nequtta tahshe.
2 Neese. 7 Nesausuk tahshe.
3 Nish. 8 Shwosuk tahshe.
4 Yau. 9 Paskoogun tahshe.
5
Napanna tahshe tohsua 10 Piuk. Piukqussuog, Piuk-
tohswash. qusswash.
Then from 10 to 20 they adde afore the Numeral (nab
or nabo) and then it is not needful to adde the following
additional, though sometimes they do it.
THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN. 15
As for Example:
11 Nabo nequt. 16 Nabo nequtta.
12 Nabo neese, 17 Nabo nesausuk.
13 Nabo nish. 18 Nabo shwosuk.
14 Nabo yau. 19 Nabo paskoogun.
15
Nabo napanna. 20 Neesneechag kodtog.
kodtash.
Then upwards they adde to Neesneechag, the single
Numbers to 30, &c.
30 Nishwinchag kodtog, kodtash.
40
Yauunchag kodtog, kodtash.
50 Napannatahshinchag kodtog, kodtash.
60 Nequtta tahshinchag kodtog, kodtash.
70 Nesausuk tahshinchag kodtog, kodtash.
80 Shwosuk tahshinchag kodtog, dodtash. [p. 15.]
90 Paskoogun tahshinchag kodtog, kodtash.
100 Nequt pasuk kꚙog. kꚙash.
1000
Nequt muttannonganog kodtog. or kussuog.
kodtash.
kussuash.
The Adnoun is frequently compounded with the Noun,
and then usually they are contracted: as
Womposketomp, A white man.
Mꚙosketomp, A black
man.
Menuhkoshketomp, A strong man,
Menuhkekont, A strong leg. Qunuhtug, of qunni, long.
Mehtug, Wood or Tree. And this word is used for a Pike.
When the Noun becometh a Verb, then the Adnoun
becometh an Adverb.
There is no form of comparison that I can yet finde,
but degrees are expressed by a word signifying more: as
Anue menuhkesu, More strong: And Nano More and
more. Mꚙcheke, Much.
Peesik or Peasik, Small.
16 THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN.
4. Of the Verb
A VERB is when the thing signified is an Action.
There
be two sorts of Verbs. The Verb Substantive.
Active.
The Verb Substantive, is when any thing hath the sig
nification of the Verb Substantive added to it: as (am, art
is, are, was, were) &c. Actuall being is above the nature
of a Noun, and beneath the nature of a Verb Active.
We have no compleat distinct word for the Verb Sub
stantive, as other Learned Languages, and our English
Tongue have, but it is under a regular composition where
by many words are made Verb Substantive.
[
p. 16] All may be referred to three sorts, so far as yet
I see.
I. The first sort of Verb Substantives is made by adding
any of these Terminations to the word, yeuꚙm, aꚙ, oꚙ; with
due Euphonie: And this is so, be the word a Noun; as
Wosketompoꚙ, He is a man: Or Adnoun;
as Wompiyeuꚙ,
It is white: Or be the word an Adverb, or the like; as
James 5. 12. Mattayeuꚙutch, Let it be
nay: Nuxyeuꚙ
utch, Let it be yea. The words in the Text are spelled
with respect to pronunciation, more than to Grammaticall
composition: here I spell them with respect to Grammat
ical! composition. See more Examples of this, Exod. 4.
3, 4, 6, 7.
2. The second sort of Verb Substantives is when the
animate Adnoun is made the third person of the Verb, and
so formed as a Verb: as Wompesu, White; Menuhkesu,
Strong; may be formed as a Verb: Nꚙwompes, Kꚙwom
pes, Wompesu. And so the like words.
And of this sort are all Adnouns of Vertue or Vice: as
Waantam, Wise: Assꚙtu, Foolish, &c.
Whatever is affirmed to be, or denied lo be, or if it be
asked if it be, or expressed to be made to be; All such
words may be Verb Substantives. I say, may be, because
THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN, 17
there
be other wages in the Language to express such a
sense by. But it may be thus.
3. The third sort are Verb Substantive passive, when
the Verb Substantive (am, is, was, &c.) is so annexed to a
Verb Active, that the person affixed is the object of the act;
as Nꚙwadchanit, I am
kept.
So much for the Verb Substantive.
Now followeth the Verb Active.
A Verb Active is when the word signifieth a compleat
action, or a causall powe1exerted.
Verbs inceptives or inchoatives, I find not; such a no
tion is expressed by another word added to the Verb, which
signifieth to begin, or to be about to do it.
Also when the Action is doubled, or frequented,
&c.
this notion hath not a distinct form, but is [p. 1.7]
expressed by doubling the first Syllable of the
word: as Mohmoeog, they oft met; Sasabbath-
dayeu, every Sabbath.
There be two sorts or forms of Verbs Active:
1. The Simple form
2. The Suffix form.
The Simple form of the Verb Active, is when the act
is conversant about a Noun inanimate onely: as
Nꚙwadchanumunneek, I keep my house.
And this Verb may take the form of an Adnoun: as
Nꚙwadchanumunash nꚙwéatchimineash, I
keep my corn.
Or every person of this Verb, at least in the Indicative
Mode, will admit the plural Number of the Noun inani
mate.
The Suffix form of the Verb Active, is when the act is
conversant about animate Nouns onely; or about both an
imate and inanimate also: as
Kꚙwadchansh, I keep thee.
Kꚙwadchanumoush, I keep it for thee.
18 THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN,
There be jive Concordances of the Suffix form Active,
wherein
the Verb doth receive a various formation. I
think there be some more, but I have beat out no more.
The reason why I call them Concordances, is, Because
the
chief weight and strength of the Syntaxis of this Lan-
guage, lyeth in this emment manner of formation of
Nouns and Verbs, with the Pronoun persons.
1. The first Concordance is, when the object of the act
is an animate Noun. I call it, The Suffix animate ohject: as
Kꚙwadchansh, I keep
thee.
2. The Suffix animate mutual: when animates are
each others ohject : as
Nꚙwadchanittimun, We keep each other.
This form ever wanteth the singular Number.
3. The Suffix animate end, and inanimate object: as
Kꚙwadchanumoush, I keep it for thee; or, for thy use.
[p. 18.] 4. The Suffix animate form social: as
Kꚙweechewadchanumwomsh, I keep it with thee.
5. The Suffix form advocate or in stead form, when one
acteth in the room or stead of another: as
Kꚙwadchanumwanshun, I keep it for thee; I act in thy stead.
This form is of great use in Theologie, to express
what Christ hath done for us: as
Nunnuppꚙwonuk, He died for
me.
Kenuppꚙwonuk, He died for
thee.
Kenuppꚙwonukqun, He died
for us.
Kenupprowonukro, He died for you. &c.
All these forenamed forms of Verbs, both Verb Sub
stantives and Verbs Active, both Simple and Suffix, may be
varied under three distinct forms of variation; viz.
Affirmative: when the act is affirmed .
Negative:
when the act is denied.
Interrogative: when the act is question'd.
THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN. 19
Again, many of these forms may also be varied in a
form causative, in all cases where the efficient is capable to
be compelled, or caused to act.
All these will be more conspicuous in the Paradigms,
or Examples.
To make compleat work, I should set down many ex-
amples. .
But I shall (at present) set down onely two examples:
One of the Simple form Active, which may generally
serve for all the Verb Substantives. ·
The second Example of the Suffix animate form, which
may generally serve for all the Concordances of Verbs suf
fixed. Even as the Meridian of Boston may generally serve
for all New-England: And the Meridian of London
may generally serve for all England.
And these will be enough to busy the heads of Learn
ers for a while.
Note this, That all Verbs cannot be formed [p. 19]
through all these forms, but such Verbs as in
reason
of Speech are useable all these wayes, which sundry
Verbs are not; as, I sleep, eat, piss, &c.
Before I come to the Paradigms, there be other gene
ral considerations about Verbs.
1. Divers Modes of the action.
In Verbs consider 2. Divers Times of the action.
First, The Modes of actions in this Language are five.
l. The Indicative, Demonstrative, or Interrogative
Mode, which doth fully assert the action or deny it, or en
quire if it be asserted:
Nꚙwadchanumun, I do keep it.
As Nꚙwadchanumroun, I do not keep it.
Nꚙwadchanumunas, Do
I keep it?
2. The Imperative, or Hortative, or Praying and Bless
ing Mode, is when the action is Commanded, or Exhorted
20 THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN,
to
be done, or Prayed for. When a Superiour speaks in
this Mode, be commands. When an Inferiour speaks in
this Mode, he prayes and intreats. When a Minister
speaks in this Mode, he exhorts, and blesseth.
Wadchansh, Keep thou.
Wadchaneh, K eep me,
3. The Optative, Wishing, or Desiring Mode, when
one desireth the action to be done: as
Nꚙwaadchanumun toh, I wish or desire to keep it.
4. The Subjunctive, or rather the Supposing, or Sup
positive Mode, when the action is onely supposed to be; as
in these three expressions:
If it be.
When it is.
It being.
And this third sense and meaning of this Mode of the
Verb, doth turn this Mode into a Participle, like an Ad
noun, very frequently.
[p. 20.] 5. The Indefi,nite Mode, which doth onely as-
sert the action without limitation of person or
time; and it is made of the Indicative Mode by adding
the termination (at) and taking away the suffix: as
Wadchanumunat, To keep.
There is another Mode of the Verb in reason of speech,
and in some other Languages, viz. The Potential, which
doth render the action in a possibility to be. But this
Language hath not such a Mode, but that notion is ex
pressed by a word signifying (may) to the Indicative
Mode. The usual word w1th us 1s (woh) may or can.
All these Modes of the Verb are timed by Tenses, sav
ing the Indefinite Mode, and that is unlimited,
The times are two; Present, and Past. The time to
come is expressed by a word signifying futurity, added to
the Indicative Mode, as (mos, pish, shall, or will.)
THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN. 21
In the Roman Language there do belong unto this In
definite Mode, gerundive, lofty, and vapouring Expressions;
also supine, sluggish, dull, and sunk-hearted Expressions.
And though the spirit of this People, viz. the vapouring
pride of some, and the dull-hearted supinity of others,
might dispose them to such words and expressinns, yet I
cannot find them out.
As Nouns are often turned into Verbs, so Verbs are
often turned into Nouns; and a frequent way of it is,
by
adding (onk) to the Verb: as
Nꚙwompes, I am white.
Kꚙwompes, Thou art
white.
Nꚙwompesuonk, My
whiteness.
Kꚙwompesuonk, Thy whiteness.
Every person of the Verb that is capable of such a
change in the reason of Speech, may so be turned into a
Noun singular or plural.
Before I set down the Examples of Formation of Verbs,
I will finish a few Observations about the remaining Parts
of Speech.
[p. 21.]
5. Of Adverbs.
AN Adverb is a word that attendeth upon the Verb,
and signifieth the quality of the action, by Extension, Dim
inution, Rectitude, Curvation, Duration, Cessation, &c. ac
cording to the various qualities of all sorts of actions.
Adverbs do usually end in (é or u), as wame or wamu,
All: Menuhke or Menuhku, Strongly.
The several sorts of Adverbs (according as Learned
Grammarians have gathered them together) are
1. Of Time. Yeuyeu, Now. Wunnonkou, Yesterday.
Saup, Tomorrow. Ahquompak, When. Paswu, Lately.
22
THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN,
Nôadtuk, A long time. Teanuk, Presently. Kuttumma,
Very lately.
2. Of Place. Uttiyeu, Where. Naut, There. Ano
mut, Within. Woskeche, Without. Onkoue, Beyond.
Negonnu, First. Wuttat, Behinde.
3. Of Order. Negonnu, First. Nahohtôeu, Second.
Nishwu, Third, &c.
4. Of Asking. Sun, Sunnummatta; ls it? or Is it
not? Tohwutch, Why.
5. Of Calling. Hoh. Chuh.
6. Affirming. Nux, Yea. Wunnamuhkut, Truely.
7. Denying. Matta, Matchaog, No. Also Mo some
times signifieth No. They have no Adverbs of Swearing,
nor any Oath, that I can yet finde: onely we teach them
to Swear before a Magistrate By the great and dreadful
name of the Lord. The word we make for swearing,
signifieth to speak vehemently.
8. Of Exhorting or Encouraging. Ehhoh, Hah.
9. Of Forbidding. Ahque, Beware, Do not.
10. Of Wishing. Woi, Napehnont, Oh that it were.
Toh.
l I. Of Gathering together. Moeu, Together. Yeu
nogque, This way-ward. Ne nogque, That way-ward.
Kesukquieu, Heaven-ward. Ohkeiyeu, Earth-ward.
12. Of Choosing. Anue, More rather. Teaogku, Rath
er, unfinished. Nahen, Almost. Asquam, Not yet.
[p. 22·] 13. Of Continuation. Ash, Still.
14. Of Shewing. Kusseh, Behold.
15. Of Doubting. Pagwodche, It may be. Toh, It
may be.
16. Of Likeness. Netatup, Like so. Nemehkuh, So.
Neane, As.
17. Of unexpected Hap. Tiadche, Unexpectedly.
18. Of Quality. Wunnegen. Matchet. Waantamwe, 8rc.
Of this kinde are au Virtues and Vices, &c.
Adverbs are oft turned into Adnouns, especially when
his Verb is turned into a Noun.
THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN, 23
6. Of the Conjunction.
A Conjunction is a Part of Speech to joyn Words and
Sentences: As
Causatives. Wutcb, wutche, newutche. For, from,
because. Yeu waj, For this cause.
Disjunctives. Asuh, Or.
Discretives. Qut, But.
Suppositives. Tohneit, If.
Exceptives. Jshkont, Least. Chaubohkish, Except,
or besides. Kuttnmma, Unless.
Diversatives. Tohkônogque,
Although.
Of Possibility. Woh, May or Can.
Of Place. In, en, ut, át. In, At or To.
7. Of Interjections.
AN Interjection is a word or sound that uttereth the pas-
sion of the minde, without dependance on other words.
Of
Sorrow. Woi, ꚙwee.
Of Marvelling. Hó, hꚙ.
Of Disdaining. Quah.
Of Encouraging. Hah, Ehoh.
There be also· suppletive Syllables of no signi- [p. 23]
fication, but for ornament of the word: as tit, tin,
tinne;
and these in way of an Elegancy, receive the affix
which belongeth to the Noun or Verb following; as nuttit,
kuttit, wuttit, nuttin, kuttin, wuttin, nuttinne, kuttinne, wut
tinne.
Other Languages have their significant suppletives for
Elegancy: and some of our English Writers begin so to
use [Why], but I conceive it to be a mistake. Our sup-
pletive is rather [Weh], and [Why] is a significant word.
It
oft puts the Reader to this inconvenience, to stay and
look whether it be significant or not; and some are slum-
24 THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN,
bled
at it. It is seldome an Elegancy, to make a significant
word a meer suppletive.
So much for the formation of words asunder.
For
the Construction of words together, I will give three
short Rules.
l. WHEN two Nouns come together, one of them is
turned into a kinde of an Adverb, or Adnoun, and that
is an Elegancy in the Language: of which see frequent
Examples. See 1 Pet. 2. 2. Pahke sogkodtungane
wuttinnowaonk, The pure milkie word, for milk of the
word. The like may be observed a thousand times.
2. When two Verbs come together, the latter is the In
finitive Mode: as in the same 1 Pet. 2. 5. Kꝏweekikon
itteamwꝏ sephausinat. Ye are built, &c. to sacrifice, &c.
And a thou sand times more this Rule occurs.
3. When a Noun or a Verb is attended upon with an
Adnoun,
or Adverb, the affix which belongeth to the Noun
or Verb is prefixed to the Adnoun or Adverb: as in the same
Chapter, I Pet. 2. 9. Ummonchanatamwe wequaiyeumut,
His marvellous light: The affix of Light is prefixed to
marvellous. Kꝏwaantamwe ketꝏhkam, Tlwu speakest
wisely: The affix of speaking is prefixed to wisely. This
is a frequent Elegancy in the Language.
But the manner of the formation of the Nouns
and Verbs have such a latitude of use, that there needeth little
other Syntaxis in the Language.
[p.
24] I shall now set down Examples of Verbs: and
first of the Simple form. And here
First, I shall set down a Verb Active, whose object is
Inanimate:
as Nꝏwadchanumun, I keep it. (Be it tool or garment.)
And secondly, I shall set down a Verb Substantive:
as Nꝏwaantam, I am wise.
Both these I shall set down Parallel in two Columes.
ú
THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN. 25
The form Affirmative.
Indicative Mode.
Present tense. Present tense.
I keep it. I am wise.
Nꝏwadchanumun Nꝏwaantam
Sing.
Kꝏwadchanumun Sing. Kꝏwaantam
ꝏwadchanumun. Waantam noh.
Nꝏwadchanumumun Nꝏwaantamumun
Plur.
Kꝏwadchanumumwꝏ Plur. Kꝏwaantamumwꝏ
Wadchanumwog. Waantamwog.
Praeter tense. Praeter tense.
Nꝏwadchanumunap Nꝏwaantamup
Sing.
Kꝏwadchanumunap Sing. Kꝏwaantamup
ꝏwadchanumunap. Waantamup.
Nꝏwadchanumumunnónup Nꝏwaantamumunnónup
Pl.
Kꝏwadchanumumwop Kꝏwaantamúmwop
Wadchanmnuppanneg: or pl.
ꝏwadchanummuaop. Waantamuppanneg.
The Imperative Mode, when it Commands or Exhorts it
wanteth the first person singular: but when we Pray in
this Mode, as alwayes we do, then it hath the first person;
as, Let me be wise: but there is no formation of the word
to express it; yet it may be expressed by add-
ing this word unto the Indicative Mode [pa], as, [p. 25.
Pânꝏwaantam, Let me be wise. Our usual for-
mation
of the Imperative Mode is without the first person
singular, casting away the affix.
Imperative Mode.
Present tense. Present tense.
Wadchanish Waantash
Sing. Wadchanitch. Sing. Waantaj.
Wadchanumuttuh Waantamuttuh
plur. Wadchanumꝏk plur. Waantamꝏk
Wadchanumahettich. Waantamohettich.
The Imperative Mode cannot admit of any other time
than the Present.
26 THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN,
The Optative Mode.
Present tense. Present tense.
Nꝏwáadchánumun-toh Nꝏwáaantamun-toh
Sing. Kꝏwáadchanumun-toh Sing.
Kꝏwáaaantamun-toh
oowaadchanumuncau-toh.
ꝏwáaantamun-toh.
Nꝏwaadchanumunnan-toh Nꝏwáaantamunan-toh
plur. Kꝏwaadchanumunnan-toh Pl. Kꝏwáaantamunaz-toh
ꝏwaadchanumunaz-toh
ꝏwáaantamuneau-toh.
Praeter tense. Praeter tense.
Nꝏwaadchanumunaz-toh Nꝏwáaantamunaz-toh
Sing.
Kꝏwaadchanumunaz-toh S. Kꝏwáaantamunaz-toh
ꝏwaadchanumunaz-toh. ꝏwáaantamunaôiz-toh
Plu. Plu.
Nꝏwadchanumunannonuz-toh Nꝏwáaantamúnanôiz-toh
Kꝏwadchanumunaóuz toh Kꝏwáaantamunaôiz-toh
ꝏwadchanumunaóuz-toh. ꝏwáaantamunaôiz-toh.
It seems their desires are slow, but strong;
Because they be utter'd double-breath't, and long.
[p.
26.]
The Suppositive Mode: which usually flats the first Vo
cal and layes by the affix.
Present tense. Present tense.
Wadchanumon Waantamon
Sing. Wadchanuman Sing. Waantaman
Wadchanuk. Waantog.
Wadchanumog Waantamog
plur. Wadchanumóg plur. Waantamóg
Wadchanumahettit. Waantamohettit.
Praeter tense. Praeter tense.
Wadchanumos Waantamos
Sing.
Wadchanumôsa Sing. Waantamas
Wadchanukis. Waantogkis.
Wadchanumogkus Waantamogkis
plur.
Wadchanumógkus plur. Waantamógkis
Wadchanumahettis. Waantamohettis.
THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN, 27
The Indefinite Mode.
Wadchanumunát Waantamunát.
Indicative Mode. The form Negative, which is varied
from the Affirmative by interposing [ꝏ].
Present tense. Present tense.
Nꝏwadchanumꝏun Nꝏwaantamꝏh
Sing.
Kꝏwadchanumꝏun Sing. Kꝏwaantamꝏh
ꝏwadchanumꝏun. Waantamꝏh.
Nꝏwadchanumꝏunnonup Nꝏwaantanmꝏmun
plur.
Kꝏwadchanumꝏwop plur. Kꝏwaantamromwꝏ
Wadchanumꝏog. Waantamꝏog
Praeter tense.
Nꝏwadchanumꝏunap
Nꝏwaantamꝏp
Sing. Kꝏwadchanumꝏunap Sing. Krowaantamrop
ꝏwadchanumꝏunap. ꝏwaantamop
Plu. Plu.
Nꝏwadchanumꝏunnanónup
Nꝏwaantamꝏmunaonup
Kꝏwadchanumrowop Kꝏwaantamꝏmwop
Wadchanumꝏpanneg. Waantamꝏpanneg.
[p. 27.]
The Imperative Mode of the Negative simple form.
Present tense. Present tense.
Wadchanuhkon Waantukon
Sing. Wadchanuhkitch. Sing. Waantukitch
Wadchanumꝏuttuh Waantamꝏuttuh
plur. wadchanumꝏhteó waantamꝏhteók
wadchanumohettekitch. waantamóhettekitch.
The
Optative Mode is of seldome use, and very difficult,
therefore I pass it by.
27 THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN.
The Suppositive Mode of the Simple form.
Present tense. Present tense.
Wadchanumꝏun Waantamꝏon
Sing. Wadchanumꝏan Sing. Waantamꝏan
Wadchanꝏg. Waantamꝏg,
Wadchanumꝏog Waanlamꝏog
Plur. Wadchanumꝏóg Plur. Waantamꝏóg
Wadchanumꝏahettit, or Waantamꝏohettit or
ꝏhetteg.] [ꝏhetteg.
Praeter tense, Praeter tense.
Wadchanumꝏos Waantamꝏos
Sing. Wadchanumꝏosa Sing. Waantamꝏoas
Wadchanumꝏgkis. Waantamꝏogkis.
Wadchanumꝏogkus Waanlamꝏogkus
Plur. Wadchanumꝏókus Plur. Waantamꝏógkus
Wadchanumꝏahettis. Waantemꝏohettis.
The Indefinite Mode of the Simple form Negative.
Wanchanumoounát Waantamꝏunát.
The
Simple form Interrogative, is formed onely in the
Indicative Mode: All Questions are alwayes asked in
this Mode of the Verb, and in no other; and it is form
ed by adding [as] to the Affirmative.
Indicative Mode.
Present tense. Present tense.
Nꝏwadchanumunás Nꝏwadchanumunnanonus
Sing. Kꝏwadchanumunás Plur. Kꝏowadchanumunnaóus
ꝏwadchanumunáous. ꝏwadchanumunnaóus Nag.
THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN. 28
[p. 28.]
The Suffix form animate Affirmative.
Here I carry in a Parallel our English Verb (Pay) that so any
may distinguish betwixt what is Grammar, and what belongs to
the word. And remember ever to pronounce (pay), because else you
will be ready to reade it (pau). Also remembe that (Paum) is the
radicall word, and all the rest is Grammar. In this remarkable
way of speech, the Efficient of the Act, and the Object, and some-
times the End also, are in a regular composition comprehended in
the
Verb: and there is no more difficulty in it, when use hath
brought our Notion to it, than there is in other Languages, if so
much.
Indicative Mode. Present tense.
I keep thee, I pay thee,
Kꝏwadchansh. Kuppaumush.
1 I keep him, 1 I pay him,
Sing. Nꝏwadchan Plur. Nuppayum.
I keep you, I pay you,
Kꝏwadchanunumwꝏ. Kuppaumunumꝏo.
I keep them, I pay them,
Nꝏwadchanóog. Nuppaumôog.
Thou keepest me, Thou payest me,
Kꝏwadchaneh. Kuppaumeh.
2 Thou keepest him, 2 Thou payest him,
Sing. Kꝏwadchan. Plur. Kuppaum.
Thou keeptst us, Thou payest us,
Kꝏwadchanimun. Kuppaumimun.
Thou keepest them, Thou payest them
Kꝏwadchanoog. Kuppaumoog.
He keepeth me, He payeth me,
Nꝏowadchanuk. Nuppaumuk.
3 He keepeth thee, 3 He payeth thee,
Sing. Kꝏwadchanuk. Plur. Kuppaumuk.
He keepeth him, He payeth him,
ꝏwadchanuh. Uppaumuh.
He keepeth us, He payeth us,
Kꝏwadchanukqun. Kuppaumukqun
He keepeth you, He payeth you,
Kꝏwadchanukꝏ. Kuppaumukou.
He keepeth them, He payeth them,
ꝏwadchanuh. Uppaumuh nah
29 THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN.
[p. 29]
Indicative Mode.
Present tense.
Present
tense.
We keep thee, We pay thee,
Kꝏwadchanunumun. Kuppanmunmnun.
1 We keep him, 1 We pay him,
plur. nꝏwadchanoun. plur. nuppaumoun.
We keep you, We pay you,
kꝏwadchanunumun(wame) kuppaumunumun
We keep them, We pay them,
nꝏwadchanóunonog nuppamnounónog.
Ye keep me, Ye pay me
Kꝏwadchanimwꝏ. Kuppaumimimwꝏ.
2 Ye keep him, 2 Ye pay him,
plur. kꝏowadchanau. plur. kuppaumau.
Ye keep us, Ye pay us,
kꝏwadchanimun.
Kuppaumimun.
Ye keep them, Ye pay them,
kꝏwadchanoog. kuppaumoog.
They keep me, They pay me,
Nꝏwadchanukquog. Nuppaumukquog.
3 They keep thee, 3 They pay thee,
plur. kꝏwadchanukquog. plur. kuppaumukquog.
They keep him, They pay him,
ꝏwadchanouh. uppaumouh.
They keep us, They pay us,
nꝏwadchanukqunnonog.
nuppaumukqunnonog
They keep you, They pay you,
kꝏwadchanukꝏoog.
kuppaumukꝏoog.
They keep them, They pay them,
ꝏwadchanouh nah. uppaumouh nah.
THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN. 30
[p. 30]
Indicative Mode.
Praeter tense. Praeter tense.
I did keep thee, I did pay thee,
Kꝏwadchanunup. Kuppaumunup
1 I did keep him, 1 I did pay him,
sing. nꝏwadchanóp. sing. nuppaumóp.
I did keep you, I did pay you,
kꝏwadchanunnumwop. kuppaumunumwop.
I did keep them, I did pay them,
nꝏwadchanópauneg. nuppaumópanneg.
Thou didst keep me, Thou didst pay me,
Kꝏwadchanip. Kuppaumip.
2 Thou didst keep him, 2 Thou didst pay him,
sing. kꝏwadchanóp sing. kuppaumóp.
Thou didst keep us, Thou didst pay us,
kꝏwadchanimunonup. kuppaumimunonup.
Thou didst keep them, Thou didst pay them,
kꝏwadchanopanneg. kuppaumopanneg,
He did keep us, He did pay us
Nꝏwadchanukup.
Nuppaumukup.
3 He did keep thee, 3 He did pay thee
sing. kꝏwadchanukup sing. kuppaumukup
He did keep him, He did pay him,
ꝏwadchanópoh. uppaumopoh.
He did keep us, He did pay us,
nowadchanukqunnonup. Nuppaumukqunnonup.
He did keep you, He did pay you,
kꝏwadchanukꝏop. kuppaumukꝏwop.
He did keep them, He did pay them,
ꝏwadchanrópoh. uppaumopoh nah.
31 THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN,
[p. 31.]
Indicative Mode.
Praeter tense. Paeter tense.
We did keep thee, We did pay thee,
Kꝏwadchaninumunonup, kuppaumunumunonup.
1 We did keep him, 1 We did pay him,
plur nꝏwadhanóunonup. plur nuppaumounonup.
We did keep you, We did pay you,
kmwadchanmumunonup, kuppaumunumunonup.
We did keep them, [ neg. We did pay them,
nꝏwadchanounonuppan- nuppaumounonuppanneg.
Ye did keep me, Ye did pay me,
Kꝏwadchanimwop, Kuppaumimwop.
2 Ye did keep him, 2 Ye did pay him,
plur kꝏwadchanuop.
plur kuppaumauop.
Ye did keep us, Ye did pay us,
kꝏwadchanumunonup. kuppaumimunonup.
Ye did keep them, Ye did pay them,
kꝏwadchanoopanneg. kuppaumauopanneg.
They did keep me, They did pay me,
Nꝏwadchanukuppanneg. Nuppaumukuppaneg.
3 They did keep thee, 3 They did pay thee,
plur kꝏwadchanukuppanneg. plur kuppaumukuppanneg.
They did keep him, They did pay him,
ꝏwadchananopoh. uppaumauopoh.
They did keep us, [ neg. They did pay us, [neg.
kꝏwadchanukqunonuppan- nuppaumukqunnouppan-
They did keep you, They did pay you,
kꝏwadchanukꝏoopanneg. kuppaumukꝏopanneg,
They did keep them, They did pay them,
ꝏwadchanꝏopoh nah. uppaumꝏoopoh
nah.
THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN. 32
[p. 32.]
The Imperative Mode of the Suffix form animate
Affirmative.
Note,
That this Mode of the Verb doth cast off the Affix, or prefix
ed Pronoun, using onely the suffixed Grammaticall variations.
Present tense. Present tense.
Let me keep thee, Let me pay thee,
Wanchanunutti. Paumunutti.
1 Let me keep him, 1 Let me pay him,
sing. wadchanonti. sing. paumonti.
Let me keep you, Let me pay you,
wadchanunonkqutch. paumunonkqutch.
Let me keep them, Let me pay them,
wadchanonti nagoh. paumonti
Do thou keep me, Do thou pay me,
Wadchaneh. Paumeh.
2 Do thou keep him, 2 Do thou pay him,
sing. wadchan. sing. paum
Do thou keep us, Do thou pay us
wadchaninnean. pauminnean.
Do thou keep them, Do thou pay them,
wadchan nag. paum.
Let him keep me, Let him pay me,
Wadchanitch. Paumitch.
3 Let him keep thee, 3 Let him pay thee,
sing. wadchanukqush. sing. paumukqush.
Let him keep him, Let him pay him,
wadchanonch. paumonch.
Let him keep us, Let him pay us,
wadchanukqutteuh. paumukqutteuh.
Let him keep you, Let him pay you,
wadchanukꝏk. paumukrok.
Let him keep them, Let him pay them,
wanchanonch. paumonch.
33 THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN.
[p. 33.
Imperative Mode.
Present tense. Present tense.
Let us keep thee, Let us pay thee,
Wadchanunuttuh. Paumunutti.
1 Let us keep him, 1 Let me pay him,
plur. wadchanontuh.
plur. paumontuh.
Let us keep you, Let us pay you,
wadchanunuttuh. paumunuttuh.
Let us keep them, Let us pay them,
wadcbanontuh. paumontuh.
Do ye keep me, Do ye pay me,
Wadchanegk. Paumegk.
2 Do ye keep him, 2 Do ye pay him,
plur. Wadchanók. plur. paumók.
Do ye keep us, Do ye pay us,
wadchaninnean. pauminnean.
Let us keep them, Do ye pay them,
wadchanók. paumók
Let them keep me, Let them pay me,
Wadchanukquttei
or wad Paumukquttei, or Paumé
chanhettich. hettich.
3 Let them keep thee, 3 Let them pay thee,
plur. wadchanukqush. plur. paumukqush.
Let them keep him, Let them pay him,
wadchanáhettich. paumáhettich.
Let them keep us, Let them pay us,
wadchanukqutteuh. paumukqutteuh.
Let them keep you, Let them pay you,
wadchanukꝏk. paumukꝏk.
Let them keep them, Let them pay them,
wadchanáhettich. paumáhettich.
THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN, 34
[p. 34.]
The
Optative Mode of the Suffix form animate Affirmative.
This
Adverb- (toh) or (napehnont) properly signifleth (utinam) I
wish it were. ind see how naturally they annex it unto every
variation of this Mode of the Verb. Note also, That this
Mode keepeth the Affix, or prefixed Pronoun.
Present tense. Present tense.
I wish I keep thee, I wish 1 pay thee,
Kꝏwaadchanunan-toh, or Kuppapaumunun-toh.
napehnont.
1
I wish I keep him, 1 I wish 1
pay him,
sing. Nꝏnwaadchanun-toh. sing. nuppapaumon-toh
I wish I keep you, I wish I pay you,
Kꝏwaadchanununeau-toh. kuppapaumuneau-toh.
I wish I keep them, I wish I pay them,
Nꝏwaadchanóneau-toh. nuppapaumóneau-toh.
I wish thou keep me, I wish thou pay me,
Kꝏwaadchanin-toh. kuppapaumin-toh.
2 I wish thou keep him, 2 I wish thou pay him
sing. kꝏwaadchanon-toh. sing. kuppapaurnon-toh.
I wish thou keep us, I wish thou pay us,
kꝏwaadchaninneau-toh. kuppapaurnuneau-toh.
I wish thou keep them, I wish thou pay them,
kꝏwaadchanoneauh-toh. kuppapaumóneau-toh.
I wish he keep me, I wish he pay me,
Nꝏwaadchanukqun-toh,
Nuppapaumukqun-toh.
3 I wish he keep thee, 3 I wish he
pay thee,
sing. kꝏwaadchanukqun-toh. sing. kuppapaumukqun-toh.
I wish he keep him, I wish he pay him,
ꝏwaadchanon-toh. uppapaumon-toh.
I wish he keep us, I wish
he pay us,
kꝏwaadchanukqunan-toh.
kuppapaumukqunan-toh.
I wish he keep you, I wish
he pay you,
kꝏwaadchanukquneau-toh. kuppapaumukquneau-toh,
I wish he keep them, I wish he pay them,
ꝏowaadchanon-toh. uppapaumon-toh,
35 THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN.
[p. 35]
Optative Mode.
Present tense. Present tense.
I wish we keep thee, I wish we pay thee,
Kꝏwaadchanunan-toh. Kuppapaumunan-toh
1 I wish we keep him, 1 I wish we pay him,
plur. nꝏwaadchanonan-toh. plur. nuppapaumónan-toh.
I wish we keep you, I wish we pay youó
kꝏwaadchanunnan-toh. kuppapaumunan-toh
I wish we keep them; I wish we pay them,
nꝏwaadchanonan-toh. nuppapaumonan-toh
I wish ye keep me, I wish ye pay me,
Kꝏwaadchanuneau-toh. Kuppapaumuneau-toh
2 I wish ye keep him, 2 I wish ye pay him,
plur. kꝏwaadchanóneau-toh. plur. kuppapaumóneau-toh.
I wish ye keep us, I wish ye pay us,
kꝏwaadchanunean-toh. kuppapaumunean-toh.
I wish ye keep them, I wish ye pay them,
kꝏwaadchanóneau-toh. kuppapaumóneau-toh.
I wish they keep me, I wish they pay me,
Nꝏwaadchanukquneau-toh Nuppapaumukquneau-toh.
3 I wish they keep thee, 3 I wish they pay thee,
plur. kꝏwaadchanukquneau-toh. plur. kuppapaumukquneau-toh.
I wish they keep him, I wish they pay him,
ꝏwaadchanóneau-toh. uppapaumóneau-toh.
I wish they keep us, I wish they pay us,
nꝏwaadchanukqunan-toh. nuppapaumukqunan-toh.
I wish they keep you, I wish they pay you,
kꝏwaadchanukquneau-toh. kuppapaumukquneau-toh.
I wish they keep them, I wish they pay them,
ꝏwaadchanóneau-toh. uppapaumóneau-toh.
THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN. 36
[p. 36.]
Optative Mode.
Praeter tense. Praeter tense.
I wish I did keep thee, I wish I did pay thee,
Kꝏwaadchanununaz-toh. Kuppapaumununaz-toh
1 I wish I did keep him, 1 I wish I did pay him,
sing. nꝏwaadchanónaz-toh. sing. nuppapaumónaz-toh.
I wish I did keep you, I wish I did pay you,
kꝏwaadchanununnaouz kuppapaumununnaouz-toh.
toh.
I wish I did keep them, I wish I did pay them,
nꝏwaadchanónaóoz-toh. nuppapaumonaouz-toh.
I wish thou didst keep me, I wish thou didst pay me,
Kꝏwaadchaninneaz-toh. Kuppapaumineaz-toh.
2 I wish thou didst keep him, 2 I wish thou didst pay him,
sing. kꝏwaadchanónaz-toh.
sing. kuppapaumonaz-toh
I wish thou didst keep us, I wish thou didst pay
us,
kꝏwaadchanuneanonuz- kuppapaumuneanonuz-toh
toh.
I wish thou didst keep them I wish thou didst pay them,
kꝏwaadchanónaouz-toh. kuppapaumónaouz-toh.
I wish he did keep me, I wish he did pay me,
Nꝏwaadchanukqunaz-toh. Nuppap aumukqunaz-toh.
3 I wish he did keep thee, 3 I wish he did pay thee,
sing. kꝏwaadchanukqunaz-toh. sing. kuppapaumukqunaz-toh.
I wish he did keep him. I wish he did pay him,
ꝏwaadchanónaz-toh. uppapaumónaz-toh.
I wish he did keep us, I wish he did pay us,
nꝏwaadchanukqunanonuz- nuppapaumukqunanonuz-
toh. toh.
I wish he did keep you, I wish he did pay you,
kꝏwaadchanukqunnaouz- kuppapauamkqunaouz-toh.
toh.
I wish he did keep them, I wish he did pay them,
ꝏwaadchanonaouz-toh. uppapaumonaouz-toh.
37 THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN,
[p. 37.]
Optative Mode.
Praeter tense. Praeter tense.
I wish we did keep thee, I wish we did pay thee,
1 Kꝏwaadchanonanonuz-
1 Kuppapaumunanonuz-toh.
plur toh. plur
I wish we did keep him, I wish we did pay him,
nꝏwaadchanònanonuz-toh. nuppapaumónanonuz-toh.
I wish we did keep you, I wish we did pay you
kꝏwaadchanunanònaz-toh. kuppapaumunanonuz-toh.
I wish we did keep them, I wish we did pay them,
nꝏwaadchanonanonuz-toh. nuppapaumonanonuz-toh,
I wish ye did keep me, I wish ye did pay me,
Kꝏwaadchanineaouz-toh. Kuppapaumineaouz-toh.
2 I wish ye did keep him, 2 I wish ye did pay him,
plur kꝏwaadchaninneanonuz-
plur kuppapaumineanonuz-toh.
toh.
I wish ye did keep them, I wish ye did pay them,
kꝏwaadchanónaouz-toh. kuppapaumonaouz-toh.
I wish they did keep me, I wish they did pay me,
Nꝏwaadchanukqunnaóuz
Nuppapaumukqunaouz-toh
toh,
3 I wish they did keep thee, 3 I wish they did pay thee,
plur. kꝏwaadchanukqunaóuz-
plur kuppapaumukqunaóuz-toh.
toh.
I wish they did keep him, I wish they did pay him,
ꝏwaadchanónaóuz-toh. uppapaumónaòuz-toh.
I wish they did keep us, I wish they did pay us,
nꝏwaadchanukqunnanouz- nuppapaumukqunanonuz
toh. toh.
I wish they did keep you, I wish they did pay you,
kꝏwaadchanukqunaouz-
kuppapaumukqunaouz-toh.
toh.
I wish they did keep them, I wish they did pay them,
ꝏmwaadchanónaouz-toh. uppapaumónaouz-toh.
THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN. 38
[p. 38.]
The Suppositive Mode of the Suffix form animate
Affirmative.
Note, That this Mode also doth cast off the Affix, or prefixed Pronoun,
Present tense. Present tense.
If I keep thee, If I pay
thee,
1 Wadchanunon. 1 Paumunon.
sing. If I keep him, sing. If I pay him,
wadchanog. paumog.
If I keep you, If I pay you,
wadchanunóg. paumunóg
If I keep them, If I pay them,
wadchaog. paumog.
If thou keep me, If thou pay me,
2 Wadchanean. 2 Paumean.
sing. If thou keep him, sing. If thou pay him,
wadchanadt. paumadt.
If thou keep us, If thou pay us,
wadchaneog. paumeog.
If thou keep them, If thou pay them,
wadchanadt. paumadt.
If he keep me, If he pay me,
3 Wadchanit. 3 Paumit.
sing. If he keep thee, sing. If he pay thee,
wadchanukquean. paumukquean.
If he keep him, If he pay him,
wadchanont. paumont.
If he keep us, If he pay us,
wadchanukqueog.
paumukqueog.
If he keep you, If he pay you,
wadchanukqueóg. paumukqueóg
If he keep them, If he pay them,
wadchanáhettit, or ont. paumáhettit.
39 THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN.
[p. 39.]
Suppositive Mode.
Note, Where the singular and plural are alike, they are dis
tinguished by Noh or Neen in the singular, and Nag or Nenawun
in the plural.
Present tense. Present tense.
If we keep thee, If we pay thee,
1 Wadchanunog. 1 Paumunog.
plur. If we keep him, plur. If we pay him,
wadchanogkut. paumogkut.
If we keep you,
If we pay you,
wadchanunog. paumunog.
If we keep them, If we pay them
wadchanogkut. paumogkut
If ye keep me, If ye pay me,
2 Wadchaneóg. 2 Paumeóg.
plur. If ye keep him, plur. If ye pay him,
wadchanóg. paumóg.
If ye keep us, If ye pay us,
wadchaneog. paumeóg.
If ye keep them, If ye pay them,
wadchanóg. paumóg.
If they keep me, If they pay me,
3 Wadchanhettit. 3 Paumhettit,
plur.
If they keep thee, plur. If they pay thee,
wadchanukquean. paumukquean.
If they keep him, If they pay him,
wadchanukáhettit. paumáhettit.
If they keep us, If they pay us,
wadchanukqueog.
paumukqueog.
If they keep you, If they pay you,
wadchanukqueòg. paumukqueòg.
If they keep them, If they pay them,
wadchanáhettit. paumáhettit.
THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN, 40
[p. 40.]
Suppositive Mode.
Praeter tense. Praeter tense.
If I did keep thee, If I did pay thee,
1 Wadchanunos, 1 Paumunos.
sing. If I did keep him, sing. If I did pay him,
waadchanogkus. paumogkus.
If I did keep you, If I did pay you,
wadchanunógkus. paumunógkus.
If I did keep them, If I did pay them,
wadchanogkus. paumogkus.
If thou didst keep me, If thou didst pay me,
2 Wadchaneas. 2 Paumeas.
sing. If thou didst keep him, sing. If thou didst pay him,
wadchanas. paumas.
If thou didst keep us, If thou didst pay us,
wadchaneogkus. paumeogkus.
If thou didst keep them, If thou didst pay them,
wadchanas. paumas.
If he did keep me, If he did pay me,
3 Wadchanis 3 Paumis.
sing. If he did keep thee, sing. If he did pay thee,
wadchanukqueas. paumukqueas.
If he did keep him, If he did pay him,
wadchanós, paumos.
If he did keep us, If he did pat us,
wadchanunkqueogkuys paumukqueogkus.
If he did keep you, If he did pay you,
wadchanukqueógkus. paumukqueógkus.
If he did keep them, If he did pay them,
Wadchanos. paumos.
41 THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN.
[p. 41.]
Suppositive Mode.
Praeter tense. Praeter tense.
If we did keep thee, If we did pay thee,
1 wadchanunogkus. 1 Paumunogkus.
plur. If we did keep him, plur. If we did pay him,
wadchanogkutus paumunogkutus.
If we did hep you, If we did pay you,
wadchanunogkus. paumunogkus.
If we did keep them, If we did pay them,
wadchanogkutus. paumogkutus
If ye did keep me, If ye did pay me,
2 Wadchaneógkus. 2 Paumeogkus.
plur. If ye did keep him, plur. If ye did pay him,
wadchanógkus. paumogkus.
If ye did keep us, If ye did pay us,
wadchaneogkus. paumeogkus.
If ye did keep them, If ye did pay them
wadchanógkus; paumógkus.
If they did keep me, If they did pay me,
3 wadchanhettis. 3 Paumehettis.
plur. If they did keep thee, plur. If they did pay thee,
wadchanukqueas. paumukqueas.
If they did keep him, If they did pay him,
wadchanahettis. paumahettis.
If they did keep us, If they did pay us,
wadchanukqueógkus. paumukqueógkus.
If they did keep you, If they did pay you,
wadchanukqueógkus. paumukqueógkus.
If they did keep them, If they did' pay them,
wadchanahettis. paumahettis.
THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN. 42
[p. 42.]
The Indefinite Mode.
Present tense. Present tense.
To keep, To pay,
Wadchanónat. Paummuonat.
The third Person of the Suffix form Animate is capa-
ble to be expressed in the Indefinite Mode.
Note
also, That this mode followeth the Indicative and keepeth
the Affix.
As for Example.
To keep me, To pay me
Nꝏwadchanukqunat. Nuppaumunkqunat.
To keep thee, To pay thee,
kꝏwadchanukqunat.
kuppaumukqunat.
To keep him, To pay him,
ꝏwadchanonat.
uppaumonat
To keep us,
To
pay us,
nꝏwadchamunkqunnanonut nuppaumukqunnanonut.
To keep you, To pay you,
kꝏwadchanukqunnaout. kuppaumukqunnaout.
To keep them, To pay them,
ꝏwadchanonaout, uppaumonaoont.
So much for the Suffix form Animate Affirmative.
(A blank page follows, in the original, between this page and 44. En.]
44 THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN,
[p. 44.]
The Suffix: form Animate Negative.
Indicative Mode.
Present tense. Present tense.
I keep not thee, I pay not thee,
1 Kꝏwadchanunroh. 1 Kuppaumunꝏh.
sing. I keep not him, sing. I pay not him,
nꝏwadchanòh. nuppaumòh
I keep not you, I pay not you,
kꝏwadchanoog. kuppaumunꝏmwoo.
I keep not them, I pay not them,
Mat nꝏwadchanoog. Mat nuppaumoog.
Thou keep not me, Thou pay not me,
2 Kꝏwadchaneúh. 2 Kuppaumeuh
sing. Thou keep not him, sing. Thou pay not him,
kꝏwadchanoh. kuppaumòh.
Thou keep not us, Thou pay not us,
kꝏwadchaneumun. kuppaumeumun.
Thou keep not them, Thou pay not them,
Mat kꝏwadchanoog. Mat kuppaumeumoog.
He keep not me, He pay not me,
3
Nꝏwadchanukꝏh, 3 Nuppaumukꝏh.
sing. He keep not thee, sing. He pay not thee,
kꝏwadchanukꝏh, Kuppaumukꝏh.
He keep not him, He pay not him,
Mat ꝏwadchanuh. Mat uppaumoh
He keep not us, He pay not us,
nꝏwadchanukꝏun. nuppaumukꝏun.
He keep not you, He pay not you,
Mat kꝏwadchanukꝏ. Mat kuppaumukꝏh.
He keep not them, He pay not them,
Mat ꝏwadchanuh. Mat uppaumuh.
THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN, 45
[p. 45]
Indicative Mode.
Present tense. Present tense.
We
keep not thee, We pay not thee,
1 Kꝏwadchanunꝏmun. 1 Kuppaumunꝏmun.
plur.
We keep not him, plur. We pay not him,
mat nꝏwadchanóun. mat nuppanumoun.
We keep not you, We pay not you,
kꝏwadchanunꝏmun. kuppaumunꝏmun,
We keep not them, We pay not them,
mat nꝏwadchanounonog. mat nuppaumounonog.
Ye keep not me, Ye pay not me,
2 Kꝏwadchaneumwꝏ. 2 Kuppaumeumwꝏ.
plur. Ye keep not him, plur. Ye pay not him,
mat kꝏwadchanau. mat kuppaumau.
Ye keep not us, Ye pay not us,
kꝏwadchaneumun. kuppaumeumun.
Ye keep not them, Ye pay not them,
mat kꝏwadchanoog. mat kuppaumoog.
They keep not me, They pay not me,
3 Nꝏwadchanukꝏog. 3 Nuppaumukꝏog.
plur. They keep not thee, plur. They pay not thee,
kꝏwadchanukꝏog. kuppaumukꝏog.
They keep not him, They pay not him,
mat ꝏwadchanouh. mat uppaumouh.
They keep not us, They pay not us,
nꝏwadchanukꝏunonog. nuppaumukꝏunonog
They keep not you, They pay not you,
kꝏwadchanukrꝏoog. kuppaumukꝏoog.
They keep not them, They pay not them,
mat ꝏwadchanouh. mat uppaumouh.
46 THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN,
[p. 46.]
Indicative Mode.
Praeter tense. Praeter tense.
I did not keep thee, I did not pay thee,
1 Kꝏwadchanunꝏp. 1 Kuppaumunꝏp.
sing. I did not keep him, sing. I did not pa him,
mat nꝏwadchanóhp. mat nuppaumóp
I did not keep you, I did not pay you,
kꝏwadchanunꝏmwop. kuppaumunꝏmwop
I did not keep them, I did not pay them,
mat nꝏwadchanopanneg, mat nuppaumopanneg,
Thou didst not keep me, Thou didst not pay me,
2 Kꝏwadchaneup. 2 Kuppaumeup.
sing. Thou didst not keep him, sing. thou didst not pay him,
mat kꝏwadchanóp. mat kuppaumop,
Thou didst not keep us, Thou didst not pay us,
kꝏwadchaneumunonup.
Kuppaumeumunònup.
Thou didst not keep them, Thou didst not pay them,
mat krowadchanopanneg. Lma,t kuppaumopanneg.
He did not keep me, He did not pay me,
3 Nꝏwadchanukꝏp. 3 Nuppaumukꝏp
sing. He did not keep thee, sing. he did not pay thee,
kꝏwadchanukꝏp. kuppaumukꝏp.
He did not keep him, He did not pay him,
mat ꝏwadchanòpoh. Mat paumópoh.
He did not keep us, He did not pay us,
nꝏwadchanukꝏunonup, nuppaumukꝏunonup
He did not keep you, He did not pay you,
kꝏwadchanukꝏop. kuppaumukꝏp,
He did not keep them, He did not pay them,
mat ꝏwadchanopoh. mat uppaumopoh,
THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN. 47
[p. 47.]
Indicative Mode.
Praeter tense. Praeter tense.
We did not keep thee, We did not pay you,
1 kꝏwadchaninoomunonup, 1 kuppaumunoomunonup.
plur. We did not keep him, plur. We did not pay him,
mat nꝏwadchanounonup mat nuppaumòunonup.
We did not keep you, We did not pay you
kꝏwadchaninꝏmunonup, kuppaumunꝏmunonup.
We did not keep them, We did not pay them,
mat
nꝏwadchanounonup- mat nuppaumounonup
panneg. pāneg.
Ye did not keep me, Ye did not pay me,
2 Kꝏwadchaneumwop. 2 Kuppaumeumwop
plur. Ye did not keep him, plur. Ye did not pay him,
mat kꝏwadchanꝏop. mat kuppaumꝏop.
Ye did not keep us, Ye did not pay us,
kꝏwadchaneumunonup. kuppaumeumunonup.
Ye did not keep them, Ye did not pay them,
mat kꝏwadchanoopanneg. mat kuppaumꝏopanneg.
They did not keep me, They did not pay me,
3
Nꝏwadchanukꝏpanneg. 3 Nuppaumukꝏpanneg.
plur. They did not keep thee, plur. They did not pay thee,
kꝏwadchanukꝏpanneg. kuppaumukꝏpanneg.
They did not keep him, They did not pay him,
mat ꝏwadchanꝏopoh. mat uppaumꝏopuh.
They did not keep us, They did not pay us,
nꝏwadchanukꝏunonup-
nuppaumukoounonuppan
panneg. neg.
They did not keep you, They did not pay you,
kꝏwadchanukꝏoopanneg, kuppaumukꝏóopanneg.
They did not keep them, They did not pay them,
mat ꝏwadchanꝏopoh. mat uppaumꝏopoh.
48 THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN.
[p. 48.]
The Suffix form animate Negative.
Imperative Mode.
Present tense. Present tense.
Let me not keep thee, Let me not pay thee,
1 Wadchanunꝏutti 1 Paumunutti.
sing. Let me not keep him, sing, Let me not pay him,
wadchanoonti. paumoonti.
Let me not keep you, Let me not pay you,
wadchanunonkqutti. paumunooutti.
Let me not keep them, Let me not pay them,
wadchanoonti. paumoonti.
Do thou not keep me, Do thou not pay me,
2 Wadchanohkon. 2 Paumehkon.
sing. Do thou not keep him, sing. Do thou not pay him,
wadchanuhkon. paumuhkon.
Do thou not keep us, Do thou not pay us,
wadchaneittuh.
paumeittuh.
Do thou not keep them, Do thou not pay them,
wadchanuhkon. paumóhkon.
Let not him keep me, Let not him pay me,
3 Wadchanehkitch. 3 Paumehkitch.
sing. Let not him keep thee, sing. Let not him pay thee,
wadchanukꝏhkon. paumukꝏhkon.
Let not him keep him, Let not him pay him,
wadchanuhkitch. paumuhkitch.
Let not him keep us, Let not him pay us,
wadchanukꝏuttuh. paumukꝏuttuh.
Let not him keep you, Let not him pay you,
wadchanukꝏhteók. pailmukꝏhteók
Let not him keep them, Let not him pity them,
wadchanuhkitth. paumuhkitch,
THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN. 49
[ p. 49.]
Imperative Mode.
Present tense. Present tense.
Let not us keep thee, Let not us pay thee,
1 Wadchanunmuttuh. 1 Paumunꝏuttuh.
plur. Let not us keep him, plur. Let not us pay him,
wadchanóontuh. paumꝏntuh.
Let not us keep you, Let not us pay you,
wadchanunmuttuh. paumunꝏuttuh.
Let not us keip them, Let not us pay them,
wadchanoontuh. paumoontuh.
Do not ye keep me, Do not ye pay me,
2 Wadchanehteók. 2 Paumehteok.
plur. Do not ye keep him, plur. Do not ye pay him,
wadchanuhteók. paumuhteok.
Do not ye keep us, Do not ye pay us,
wadchanéinnean. pauméinnean
Do not ye keep them, Do not ye pay them,
wadchanuhteók. paumuhteok.
Let not them keep me, Let not them pay me,
3 Wadchanehettekitch. 3 Paumehettekitch.
plur. Let not them keep thee, plur. Let not them pay thee,
wadchanukꝏhkon. paumukꝏhkon.
Let not them keep him, Let not them pay him,
wadchanahettekitch. paumahettekitch.
Let not them keep us, Let not them pay us,
wadchanukꝏuttuh. paumukꝏuttuh.
Let not them keep you, Let not them pay you
wadchanukꝏhteok. paumukꝏhteok
Let not them keep them, Let not them pay them,
Wadchanahettekithch. paumahettekitch.
50 THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN
[p.50]
The Suffix form Animate Negative.
Optative Mode.
Present tense. Present tense.
I wish I keep not thee, I wish I do not pay thee,
1 Kꝏwaadchanunꝏun-toh, 1 Kuppapaumunꝏun-toh.
sing. I wish I keep not him, sing. I wish I do not pay him,
nꝏwaadchanoun-toh. nuppapaumoon-toh.
I wish I keep not you, I wish 1 do not pay
you,
kꝏwaadchanunꝏuneau-toh nuppapaumounwuneau-toh.
I wish I keep not them, I wish I do not pay them,
nꝏwaadchanouneau-toh. nuppapaumouneau-toh.
I wish thou donot keep me, I wish thou do not pay me,
2
Kꝏwaadchanein-toh. 2 Kuppapauméin-toh.
sing. I wish thou do not keep him sing. I wish thou do not pay him,
kꝏwaadchanoon-toh. Kuppapaumoon-toh.
I wish thou do not keep us, I wish thou do not pay
us,
kꝏwaadchanein-toh. Kuppapauméinan-toh.
I wish thou do not keep them I wish thou do not pay
them,
kꝏwaadchanouneau-toh. kuppapaumouneau-toh.
I wish he do not keep me I wish he do not pay
me,
3 Nꝏwaadchanukwun-toh. 3 Nuppapaumukꝏun-toh.
sing. I wish he do not keep thee, sing. I wish he do not pay thee,
kꝏwaadchanukꝏun-toh. kuppapaumukꝏun-toh.
I wish he do not keep him, I wish he do not pay him,
ꝏwaadchanoon-toh. uppapaumoun-toh.
I wish he do not keep us, I wish he do not pay us,
nꝏwaadchanukꝏunan-toh. nuppapaumukꝏunan-toh.
I wish he do not keep you, I wish he do not pay you,
kꝏwaadchanukꝏuneau-toh kuppapaumukꝏuneau-toh.
I wish he do not keep them, I wish he do not pay
them,
ꝏwaadchanoon-toh. uppapaumouneau-toh.
THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN. 51
[p. 51.]
Optative Mode.
Present tense. Present tense,
I wish we do not keep thee, I wish we do not pay thee,
1 Kꝏwaadchanunmunan-toh. 1 Kuppapaumunꝏon-toh.
plur.
I wish we do not keep him, plur. I wish we do not pay him,
nꝏwaadchanounan-toh. nuppapaumoon-toh.
I wish we do not keep you, I wish we do not pay you,
kꝏwaadchanounan-toh. kuppapaumunꝏunan-toh.
I wish we do not keep them I wish we do not pay them,
nꝏwaadchanounan-toh. nuppapaumounan-toh.
I wish ye do not keep me, I wish ye do not pay me,
2 Kꝏwaadchaneinneau-toh. 2 Kuppapauméineau-toh.
plur. I wish ye do not keep him, plur. I wish ye do not pay him
kꝏwaadchanouneau-toh. kuppapaumooneau-toh.
I wish ye do not keep us, I wish ye do not pay us,
kꝏwaadchanéinnean-toh. kuppapauméinan-toh.
I wish ye do not keep them, I wish ye do not pay them,
kꝏwaadchanouueau-toh. kuppapaumooneau-toh.
I wish they do not keep me, I wish they do not pay me,
3 Nꝏwaadchanukꝏuneautoh. 3 Nuppapaumukmuneau-toh.
plur.
I wish they do not keep thee, plur. I wish they do not pay
thee,
kꝏwaadchanukꝏuneau-toh kuppapaumukꝏuneau-toh.
I wish they do not keep him, I wish they do
not pay him,
ꝏwaadchanouneau-toh. uppapaumouoeau-toh,
I wish they do not
keep us, I wish they do not pay us,
nꝏwaadchanukꝏunan-toh. nuppapaumukꝏunan-toh.
I wish they do not keep you, I wish they do not pay you,
kꝏwaadchaoukꝏuoeau-toh kuppapaumukꝏuneau-toh.
I wish they do not keep them, I wish they do not pay
them,
ꝏwaadchanouneau-toh. uppapaumouneau-toh,
52 THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN.
[p.
52]
Optative Mode.
Praeter tense. Praeter tense.
I wish I did not keep thee, I wish 1 did not pay thee,
1 Kꝏwaadchanunꝏunaz-toh. 1 Kuppapaumunꝏunaz-toh.
sing. I wish I did not keep him, sing. I wish I did not pay him,
nꝏwaadchanounaz-toh. nuppapaumounaz-toh.
I wish I did not keep you, I wish l did not pay you,
kꝏwaadchanunounaouz- kuppapaumunꝏunaouz-toh
toh.
I wish I did not keep them, I wish I did not pay them,
nꝏwaadchanounaouz-toh. nuppapaumounaouz-toh.
I wish thou didst not keep me, I wish thou didst not pay me,
2 Kꝏwaadchaneinaz-toh. 2 Kuppapaurnéinaz-toh.
sing. I wish thou didst keep him, sing. I wish thou didst
not pay him,
kꝏwaadchanóunaz-toh. kuppapaumounaz-toh.
I wish thou didst not keep us, I wish thou
didst not pay us,
kꝏwaadchaneinanonaz-toh
kuppapauméinanonuz-toh.
I wish thou didst not keep them, I wish thou didst
not pay them,
kꝏwaadchanounnaouz-toh. kuppapaumounaouz-toh.
I wish he did not keep me, I wish he' did not pay me,
3 Nꝏwaadchanukꝏunuz-toh. 3 Nuppapaumukꝏunaz-toh.
sing. I wish he did not keep thee, sing. I wish he did not
pay thee,
kꝏwaadchanukꝏunaz-toh. kuppapaumukꝏunaz-toh.
I wish he did not keep him, I wish he did not pay him,
ꝏwaadchanounaz-toh. uppapaumóunaz-toh.
I wish he did not keep us, I wish he did not pay us,
nꝏwaadchanukrounanon-
nuppapaurnukꝏuanonuz-
uz-toh. toh.
I wish he did not keep you, I wish he did not pay you,
kꝏwaadchanukꝏaunouz toh. kuppapaumukꝏunaouz-toh
I wish he did not keep them, I wish he did not pay them,
ꝏwaadchanòunaouz-toh. uppapaumounaz-toh.
THE INDAN GRAMMAR BEGUN. 53
[p. 53]
Optative Mode.
Praeter tense. Praeter tense.
I wish we did not keep thee, I wish we did not pay thee,
1 Kꝏwaadchanunrouuanon-
1 Kuppapaumunꝏunanonuz-
plur. uz-toh. plur. toh.
I wish we did not keep him, I wish we did not pay him, nꝏwaadchanounanouz-toh. nuppapaumounanonuz-toh.
I wish we did not keep you, I wish we did not pay you,
kꝏwaadchanrounaouz- kupapaumunꝏunaoaz-toh
toh.
I wish we did not keep them, I wish we did not pay them,
nꝏwaadchanrounaòuz-toh. nuppapaumôunaòaz-toh.
I wish ye did not keep me, I wish ye did not pay me,
2 Kꝏwaadchanéinaòuz-toh. 2 Kupapauméinaoaz-toh.
plur. I wish ye did not keep him, plur. I wish ye did not pay him,
kꝏwaadchanónuaouz-toh. kuppapaumoonaoaz-toh.
I wish ye did not keep us, I wish ye did not pay us,
kꝏwaadchanounaouz-toh. kuppapaumoonaoaz-toh.
I wish ye did not keep them, I wish ye did not pay them,
I wish they did not keep me, I wish they did not pay me,
3 Nꝏwaadchanukrounaz-toh. 3 Nuppapaumukꝏunaooz-toh.
plur.
I wish they did not keep thee, plur. I wish they did not pay
kꝏwaadchanukꝏunaz-toh. kuppapaumukꝏunaooz-toh
I wish they did not keep him, I wish they
did not pay him
ꝏmwaadchanounaoaz-toh.
uppapaumoon az-toh.
I wish they did not keep us, I wish they
did not pay us,
nꝏwaadchanukꝏunanon- nuppapaumukꝏnnuanonaz
az-toh. toh.
I wish they did not keep you, I wish they did not pay you,
kꝏwaadchanukꝏunaouz toh. kuppapaumukꝏunaoaz-toh
I wish they did not keep them, I wish they did not pay them,
ꝏrowaadchanounaoaz-toh. uppapaumounaoaz-toh.
54 THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN.
[P.
54]
The Suffix form Animate Negative.
Suppositive Mode.
Present tense. Present tense.
If 1 keep not thee, If 1 pay not thee,
1 Wadchanunꝏon. 1 Paumunꝏon
sing. If I keep not him, sing. If I pay not him,
wadchanoog. Paumoog
If I keep not you; If I pay not you,
wadchanunꝏog. Paumununꝏóg.
If 1 keep not them, If I pay not them,
wadchanoog. Paumoog.
If thou keep not me, If thou pay not ·me,
2 wadchaneean. 2 Paumeean.
sing. If thou keep not him, sing. If thou pay not him,
wadchanoadt. Paumoadt.
If thou keep not us, If thou pay not
us,
wadchaneeog. Paumeeog.
If thou keep not them, If thou pay not them,
wadchanoadt. Paumoadt.
If he keep not me, If he pay not me,
3 Wadchaneegk. 3 Paumeegk.
sing. If he keep not thee, sing. If he pay not thee,
wadchanukꝏan. paumukꝏan.
If he keep not him, If he pay not him,
wadchanunk. paumunk.
If he keep not us, If he pay not us,
wadchanukꝏog. paumukꝏog,
If he keep not you, If he pay not you,
wadchanukꝏog. paumukꝏóg.
If he keep not them, If he pay not them,
wadchanunk. paumunk,
THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN. 55
[p. 55]
Suppositive Mode.
Present tense. Present tense.
If we keep not thee, If we pay not thee,
1 Wadchanunꝏog. 1 Paumunꝏog.
plur. If we keep not him, plur. If we pay not him,
wadchanoogkut. paumoogkut.
If we keep not you, If we pay not you,
wadchananunꝏog. paumunꝏóg.
If we keep not them, If we pay not them,
wadchanoogkut. paumoogkut.
If ye keep not me, If ye pay not me,
2 Wadchaneeóg, 2. Paumeeòg.
sing. If ye keep not him, plur. If ye pay not him,
wadchanoóg. paumunꝏóg,
If ye keep not us, If ye pay not us,
wadchaneeog. paumeeog.
If ye keep not them, If ye pay not them,
wadchanoóg.
paumô
g.
If they keep not me, If they pay not me,
3 Wadchanehetteg. 3 Paumchetteg.
plur. If they keep not thee, plur. If they pay not thee,
wadchanukꝏan. paumukꝏan,
If they keep not him, If they pay not him,
wadchanahetteg. paumahetteg.
If they keep not us, If they pay not us,
wadchanukꝏmog. paumukꝏog.
If they keep not you, If they pay not you,
wadchanukꝏóg. paumukꝏóg,
If they keep not them, If they pay not them,
wadchanahetteg. paumahetteg.
56 THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN.
[p. 56]
Suppositive Mode.
Praeter tense. Praeter tense.
If I did not keep thee, If I did not pay thee,
1 Wadchanunꝏos. 1 Paumunꝏos
sing. If I did not keep him, sing. If I did not pay him,
wadchanoogkus. paumoogkus.
If I did not keep you, If I did not pay you,
wadchanunꝏókus. paumunꝏógkus.
If I did not keep them, If I did not pay them,
wadchanoogkus. paumoogkus.
If thou didst not keep me, If thou didst not pay me,
2 Wadchaneeas. 2 Paumeeas.
sing. If thou didst not keep him, sing. If thou didst not pay him,
wadchanukꝏas. paumoas.
If thou didst not keep us, If thou didst not pay us,
wadchaneeogkus. paumeeogkus.
If thou didst not keep them, If thou didst not pay them,
wadchanoógkus. pauinoógkus.
If he did not keep me, If he did not pay me,
3 Wadchaneekus. 3 Paumeekus
sing. If he did not keep thee, sing. If he did not pay thee,
wadchanukꝏas. paumukꝏas.
If he did not keep him, If he did not pay him,
wadchanunkus. paumunkus.
If he did not keep us, If he did not pay us,
wadchanukꝏógkus. paumukꝏogkus.
If he did not keep you, If he did not pay you,
wadchanukogkus. paumukꝏógkus.
If he did not keep them, If he did not pay them,
wadchanunkus. paumunkus.
THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN. 57
[p. 57.]
Suppositive Mode.
Praeter tense. Praeter tense,
If we did not keep thee, If we did not pay
thee,
1 Wadchanuncoogkus. 1 Paumunꝏogkus.
plur. If we did not keep him, plur. If we did not pay him,
wadchanoogkutus. paumoogkutus.
If we did not keep you, If we did not pay you,
wadchanunꝏógkus. paumunꝏógkus.
If we did not keep them, If we did not pay them,
wadchanoogkutus. paumoogkutus.
If ye did not keep me, If ye did not pay me,
2 Wadchaneeógkus. 2 Paumeeógkus.
plur. If ye did not keep him, plur. If ye did not pay him,
wadchanoógkus. paumoógkus.
If ye did not keep us, If ye did not pay us,
wadchaneeogkus. paumeeogkus.
If ye did not keep them, If ye did not pay them,
wadchanoógkus. paumoógkus.
If they did not keep me, If they did not pay me,
3 Wadchanehettegkis. 3 Paumehettegkis.
plur. If they did not keep thee, plur. If they did not pay thee,
wadchanukmas. paumukꝏas.
If they did not keep him, If they did not pay him,
wadchanunkus. paumunkus.
If they did not keep us, If they did not pay
us,
wadchanukmogkus. paumukꝏogkus.
If they did not keep you, If they did not pay you,
wadchanukꝏógkus. paumukꝏògkus.
If they did not keep them, If they did not pay them,
wadchanahettegkis. paumahettegkis.
58 THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN,
[p. 58.]
The Indefinite Mode.
Present tense. Present tense.
Not to keep, Not to pay,
Wadchanounat. Paummuounat.
The third Person of the Suffix form Animate Negative
is found expressible in this Mode Indefinite: As
Not to keep me, Not to pay me,
3 Nꝏwadchanukꝏunat.
3 Nuppaumunkꝏunat.
sing. Not to keep thee, sing. Not to pay thee,
kꝏwadchanukꝏunat. kuppaumukꝏunat.
Not to keep him, Not to pay him,
ꝏwadchanounat. uppaumounat.
Not to keep us, Not to pay us,
nꝏwadchanukꝏunnanonut. nuppaumukꝏunnanonut.
Not to keep you, Not to pay you,
kꝏwadchanukꝏunnaout. kuppaumukꝏunnaout.
Not to keep them, Not to pay them,
ꝏrowadchanounat. uppaumounnaout.
So much for the Suffix form Animate Negative.
THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN. 59
[p. 59.]
The Suffix form Animate Causative is not universally
applicable to this Verb; neither have I yet fully beat it
out: onely in so me chief wayes of the use of it in
Speech I shall here set down, leaving the rest for after
wards, if God will, and that I live to adde unto this be
ginning.
Affirmative. Negative .
I cause thee to keep me, I cause thee not to keep me,
Kꝏwadchanumwaheshnuh-
Kꝏwadchanuwahuꝏhnuh.
1 hog. 1 hog.
I cause thee to keep him, I cause thee not to
keep him,
kꝏwadchanumwahunun. kꝏwadchanumwahunꝏn.
I cause thee to keep them, I cause thee not to
keep them,
kꝏwadchanumwahunununk. kꝏwadchanumwahunꝏ-
unuk.
Thou makest me keep him, Thou makest me not keep him,
Kꝏwadchanumwahen. Kꝏwadchanumwahéin.
2 Thou makest me keep them, 2 Thou makest me not keep them,
kꝏwadchanumwáheneunk, kꝏwadcbanumwaheinunk.
He maketh me keep him, He maketh me not keep him,
3 Nꝏwadchanumwábikqun- 3 Nꝏwadchanumwahikꝏun-
uh. uh.
He maketh me keep them, He maketh me not keep them,
Nah nꝏwadchanumwaheh. Ibid.
Imperative Mode.
Make me keep him, Make me not keep him,
Wadchanumwaheh n noh. wadcbanumwahehkon.
Make me keep them, Make me not keep them,
Nah wadchanumwaheh. Ibid.
Suppositive Mode.
If thou make me keep him, If thou make me not keep him,
Wadchanumwahean yeuoh Wadchanumwaheean.
60 THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN,
[p. 60.]
I WAS purposed to put in no more Paradigms of
Verbs; but considering that all Languages (so farre as I
know) and this also, do often make use of the Verb Sub
stantive Passive, and in the reason of Speech it is of
frequent use: Considering also that it doth differ in its
formation
from other Verbs, and that Verbals are often deri
ved out of this form, as Wadchanittuonk. Salvation, &c.
&c. I have therefore here put down an Example thereof
The Verb Substantive Passive.
Nꝏwadchanit, I am kept.
Indicative Mode.
Present tense. Present tense.
I am kept, We are kept,
Nꝏwadchanit. Nꝏwadchanitteamun,
sing. Thou art kept, plur. Ye are kept,
kꝏwadchanit. kꝏwadchanitteamwꝏ.
He is kept, They are kept,
wadchanau. wadchanoog.
Praeter tense. Praeter tense.
I was kept, We were kept,
Nꝏwadchanitteap. Nꝏwadchanitteamunónup.
sing. Thou wast kept, plur. Ye were kept,
kꝏwadchanitteap. kꝏwadchanitteamwóp.
He was kept, They were kept,
wadchanop. wadchanopanneg.
THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN. 61
[p. 61.]
Imperative Mode.
Let me be kept, Let us be kept,
Wadchanilteadti. Wadchanitteatuh.
sing. Be thou kept, sing. Be ye kept
wadchanilleash. wadchanitteak.
Let him be kept, Let them be kept,
wadchanaj. wadchanaj.
Optative Mode.
Present tense. Present tense.
I wish I be kept, I wish we be
kept,
Nꝏwaadchaniltean-toh. Nꝏwaadchanitteanan-toh.
sing. I wish thou be kept, sing. I wish ye be kept,
kꝏwaadchanittean-toh. kꝏwaadchanitteaneau-toh.
I wish he be kept, I wish they be kept,
waadchanon-toh, waadchanoneau-toh.
Praeter tense. Praeter tense.
I wish I was kept, I wish we were kept,
Nꝏwaadchanitteanaz-toh. Nrowaadchanilleananonuz-
sing. sing. toh.
I wish thou wast kept, I wish ye were kept,
kꝏwaadchanitteanaz-toh. kꝏwaadchanilteanaouz-toh
I wish he was kept, I wish they were kept,
waadchanònaz-toh. waadchanonaouz-toh.
62 THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN.
[p. 62]
Suppositive Mode.
Present
tense. Present tense.
When I am kept, When we are kept ,
Wadchanitteaon. Wadchanitteaog.
sing. When thou art kept, plur. When ye are kept,
wadchanitteaan. wadchanitteaóg.
When he is kept, When they are kept,
wadchanit nob, wadchanit nag,
The Praeter tense is formed by adding ( us or ás) unto
the Present tense,
Indefinite Mode.
Wadchanittéinát, To be kept
The form Negative of the Verb Substantive Passive.
Indicative Mode.
Present tense. Present tense.
I am not kept, We are not kept,
Nꝏwadchanitteòh. Nꝏwadchanitteoumun.
sing. Thou art not kept plur. Ye are not kept,
kꝏwadchanitteòh. kꝏwadchanitteoumwꝏ
He is not kept, They are not kept,
Mat wadchanau. Mat wadchanoog.
Praeter tense. Praeter tense.
I was not kept, We were not kept, [up.
Nꝏwadchanitteohp. Nrowadchanitteoumunnon-
sing. Thou wast riot kept, plur. Ye were not kept,
kꝏwadchanitteohp. kꝏwadchanitteoumwop.
He was not kept, They were not kept,
Mat wadchanôuop, Mat wadchanoop,
THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN. 63
[p. 63.]
Imperative Mode of the form Negative Passive.
Be thou not kept, Be not ye kept,
Wadchanittuhkon. Wadchanittuhkꝏk.
sing.
Let not him be kept, plur. Let not them be kept,
wadchittekitch. wadchanittekhettich.
Suppositive Mode Passive Negative.
Present tense. Present tense.
When I am not kept,
Wadchaneumuk. The Plural is formed by
When thou art not kept, adding (Mat) unto the
wadchaninromuk. form Affirmative.
When he is not kept,
wadchanómuk.
The Praeter tense is formed by adding [ us or ás] to
the Present tense.
The
Indefinite Mode Passive Negative.
Wadchanóunat, Not to be kept.
64 THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN ,
[p.
64.]
A
TABLE of the Grammar of the Suffix Verbs Aff
matical Addition after the word, are set down: As
in the Indicative and Optative Modes; The Imperative
by the Suffix. Also note that ( I him) and ( Thou
the Affix; and (Do thou him) in the Imperative
and what is prefixed or suffixed to the Radix is
Indicative Mode. Imperative Mode.
Present tense. Praeter tense
1 oush 1 unup 1 unutti
1 2 radic. 2 óp 2 onti
3 unumwꝏ 3 unumwop 3 un nkqutch
4 oog 4 opanneg 4 ont1
1 eh or ah 1 ip 1 eh
2 2 radic. 2 op 2 radic.
3 1mun 3 imunónup 3 innean
4 oog 4 p[ammeg 4 radic.
1 uk 1 ukup 1 itch
3 2 uk 2 ukup 2 ukqush
3 oh or uh 3 opoh 3 onch
4
ukqun 4 ukqunónup 4 ukqutteuh
5 ukkou 5 ukꝏwop 5
ukꝏk
6 oh or uh 6 opoh 6 onch
1 unumun 1 unumunónup 1 unuttuh
1 2 óun 2 óunónup 2 ontuh
3 unumun 3 unumunónup 3 unuttuh
4 óunónog 4 óunónuppanneg 4 ontuh
1
imwꝏ 1 imwop 1 egk or ig
2 2 au 2 auop 2 ók
3 imun 3 imunónup 3 innean
4 auoog 4 auopanneg 4 ók
1 ukquog 1 ukuppanneg 1 ukquttei or é-
3 2 ukquog 2 ukuppanneg 2 ukqush [Hettich
3 ouh 3 auopuh [neg 3 ahettich
4 ukqunonog 4 ukqunónuppan- 4 ukqutteuh
5 ukꝏoog 5 ukꝏópanneg 5
ukꝏk
6 ouh 6 auopoh 6
ahettich
THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN. 65
[p.
65.]
firmative, wherein onely the Suffixes, viz. The Gram
for the Affix or Prefix, you may observe it is used onely
and Suppositive Modes lay it by, and arc varied onely
him) in the Indicative Mode, is the Radicall word with
Mode is the Radicall word without any Affix or Suffix:
Grammar.
Optative Mode. Suppositive Mode.
Present tense. Praeter tense Present tense. Praeter tense.
1 unon 1 unuaz 1 unon 1
unos
1 2 on 2 ónaz 2 og 2
ogkus
3 uneau 3 ununnaóuz 3 unog 3
unogkus
4 óneau 4 ónaóuz 4 og 4
ogkus
1 in 1 ineaz 1 ean 1
eas
2 2 on 2 onsx 2 adt or at 2
as
3 unean 3 uneanónuz 3 eog 3
egkus
4 óneau 4 ónaóuz 4 adt or at 4
as
1 ukqun 1 ukqunaz 1 it 1
is
3 2 ukqun 2 ukqunaz 2 ukquean 2
ukqueas
3 on 3 onaz 3 ont 3
os
4 ukqunán 4 ukqunanonuz 4 ukqueog 4
ukqueogkus
5 ukquneau 5 ukqunaóuz 5 ukqueóg 5
ukqueógkus
6 on 6 onaouz 6 ont 6
os
1 unan 1 unanóunuz 1 unog 1
unogkus
2 ónan 2 ónanónuz 2 ogkut 2
ogkutus
3 unan 3 unanónuz 3 unog 3
unogkus
4 ónán 4 ónanonuz 4 ogkut 4
ogkutus
1 uneau 1 ineaóuz 1 eóg 1
eógkus
2 oneau 2 ónaóuz 2 óg 2
ógkus
3 unean 3 ineanonuz 3 eóg 3
eógkus
4 óneau 4 ónaouz 4 ò 4
ogkus
1 ukquneau 1 ukqunaouz 1 hettit 1
ehettis
2 ukquneau 2 ukquanaouz 2 ukquean 2
ukqueas
3 óneau 3 ónaouz 3 áhettit 3
ahettis
4 ukqunán 4 ukqunanonuz 4 ukqueog 4
ukqueogkus
5 ukquneau 5 ukqunaóuz 5 ukqueóg 5
ukqueòg
6 óneau 6 ónaóuz 6 ahettit 6
ahettis
Onely remember that (toh) is to
be anuexed to every person
and variation in this .Mode.
66
THE INDIAN GRAMMAR BEGUN.
[p, 66 . ]
I HAVE now finished what I shall do at present. and in
a word or two to satisfie the prudent Enquirer how I found
out these new wayes of Grammar, which no other Learned
Language (so fur .as I know) useth; I thus inform him:
God first put into rny heart a compassion over their poor
Souls, and a desire to teach them to know Christ, and to bring
them into his kingdome. Then presently I found out ( by
God's wise providence) a pregnant witted young man, who
had been a Servant in an English house, who pretty well un-
derstood his own Language, and hath a clear pronunciation:
Him I made my Interpreter. By his help I translated the
Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, and many Texts of
Scripture: also I compiled both Exhortations and Prayers
by his help. I diligently marked the difference of their
Grammar from ours: When I found the way of them, I
would
pursue a word, a noun, a verb, through all varia
tions I could think of and thus I came at it. We must
not sit still and look for miracles; V p, and be doing, and
the Lord will be with thee. Prayer and pains, through
faith in Christ Jesus will do any thing. Nil tam deficile
quod non-I do believe and hope that the Gospel shall
be spread to all the ends of the Earth, and dark corners of
the world by such a way, and that such Instruments as the
Churches shall send forth for that end and purpose. Lord
hasten those good days, and pour out that good Spirit upon
thy people. Amen.
FINIS.
NOTE
ANDOBSERVATIONS ON ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR ,
ADDRESSED TO JOHN PICKERING, Esq. By PETER S.
Du PONCEAU,*
THE great and good man, whose work has given rise to
the following observations, did not foresee, when he wrote his
Indian Grammar, that it would be sought after and studied by
the learned of all nations, as a powerful help towards the im
provement of a science not then in existence; I mean the
Comparative Science of Languages, which of late has made such
progress in our own country, as well as in Europe where our
aboriginal idioms have become a subject of eager investiga
tion. The Augustine of New England had no object in view,
but, that which he expresses in his title page-" the help of such
as desired to learn the Indian language for the furtherance of
the Gospel among the natives." But that worldly fame, which
he did not seek, awaited him at the end of two centuries; and
his works, though devoted to religion alone, have become im
portant sources of human learning.
Religion and Science, well understood, are handmaids to each
other. In no instance is this truth more evident than in the
branch of knowledge of which we are treating. For it is to the
unwearied and truly apostolick labours of Christian missionaries,
and of societies instituted for the propagation of the Gospel
among distant nations, that we are indebted for the immense
materials which we already possess on the subject of the vari
ous languages of the earth. The Roman Cong regation De
propaganda fide t gave the first impulse, which the zeal of the
other Christian denominations has, in later times, not only fol
lowed but improved upon. The numerous translations of the
sacred volume, which have been made under the patronage of
the British; Russian, and American Bible Societies, into langua-
*
These Remarks having been written at the suggestion of my learned
friend, Mr. Pickering, I have thought it right to inscribe them to him as a just
tribute of friendship and respect. P. S. D.
t Many Grammars, Dictionaries and Vocabularies of Asiatick, African and
American languages, have been published under the direction of that Society,
the only complete collection of which, perhaps, is in the Vatican or in
their
own library. As the science advances, they will no doubt be reprinted, as the
present work is, for the benefit of the learned.
ii NOTES ON ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR.
ges,
many of which were till then unknown, except by their
names, have afforded ample means of comparison between
those various idioms; the value of which is not yet so fully
understood, as there can be no doubt it will be at a future day.
The object of this science is the study of man through that
noble faculty, which distinguishes him from the rest of the ani
mal creation; the faculty of" holding communication from soul
to soul;" an earnest, as I might say, and a foretaste of the en
joyments of celestial life. It is a branch, and an important
one, of the " history of the human mind ;" a subject, to the
study of which the Lockes, the Mallebranches, the Reids, the
Stewarts, the Wolfs, the Leibnitzs and other distinguished men,
whose names it is needless to mention here, have devoted their
lives. The ignorant, it is true, have said that " metaphysicks
is vanity;" but the ignorant may jest as much as they will,
they can never succeed in eradicating from the breast of im-
mortal man
"This pleasing hope, this fond desire,
This longing after something unpossess'd,"
which
so powerfully impels him to search into every thing that
may throw light on his physical and moral existence.
"'Tis the Divinity that stirs within us"--
It
makes us feel that our soul is immortal; and it is the agitation
produced by this feeling, that makes us very naturally seek and
love to dwell on the proofs of our glorious immortality.
Hence the delight, which we take in the study of ourselves and
of every thing that relates to us, and the efforts, which we
make
to carry our knowledge as far as the Almighty has per
mitted it to extend. He, who created the desire, well
knows how to set bounds to our foolish inquiries; but, limited
as it is, the whole circle, by which our knowledge is bounded,
is still open to our researches; and we are yet very far from
having reached its utmost verge.
God has revealed himself to mankind in two ways; by his
sacred writings, and by the works of nature, constantly open
before us; and it is the privilege as well as the duty of man to
study both to the advancement of his glory. Therefore while
the divine labours to discover the truths, which are concealed or
rather veiled under the mysterious language of the former, the
philosopher, irresistibly impelled by a similar desire, will in
terrogate the latter; and, with due submission, will view and
NOTES ON ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR. iii
compare
all that can be grasped by his understanding and by
his senses. Who knows but that, as this world advances to
wards its inevitable end, it may have been decreed that the
knowledge of man should go on increasing, until the blaze of
eternal light should burst at once upon the whole race? But I
find I have been involuntarily drawn into the regions of fancy;
it is time to turn to the Jess fascinating topicks which are the
subject of these notes.
Yet before I proceed to the Language of the Massachusetts
Indians,
I may be permitted to shew what fruits have been de
rived from the pursuit of our science, since it has begun to be
considered as an interesting object of study. What great ad
vantage may be derived from it in the end-whether it will ena-
ble us to solve the problem of the origin of the population of
this continent, facilitate the formation of an universal oral or
written language, or lead to some other discovery not yet
thought of, though not less important than those that have been
ment10ned, is yet in the womb of futurity ; nevertheless it is
certain, that the researches of modern philologists have brought
to light many curious and interesting facts, of which our ances
tors were entirely ignorant, and by means of which the science
has acquired certain fixed points, from whence we may proceed
with greater ease to further and more particular investigations.
By the lahours of the illustrious Adelung, a census, as 1t were,
has been taken of all the languages and dialects (that are known
to us) existing on the surface of the earth. They have been all
registered and enumerated, and it is now ascertained, as nearly
as possible, that their aggregate numbers amount to 3064; of
which Africa has 276, Europe 587, Asia 987, and America (the
largest number of all) 1214, being more than _Asia and Africa
together, and nearly as many as the whole of the old continent,
Africa excepted. It is true that in the interior, and, perhaps,
even on the coast of the latter country, there are nations yet
undiscovered, and whose languages, of course, are not known
to us; and in the enumeration of American idioms it is easy to
perceive, that the same tribes are sometimes registered more
than once under different names; but when we consider, that
there are also unknown Indian nations on our continent, we shall,
by setting off these against those that are variously exhibited,
have a tolerable approximation of their numbers and different
idioms; and, upon the whole, this inquiry leads us to the almost
certain conclusion, that all the languages and dialects of our
globe, known and unknown, do not exceed the number of four
thousand, but, on the contrary, the probability seems to be that
they do not reach it.
iv NOTES ON ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR.
It is ascertained, at least nothing has yet appeared to the con
trary, that the languages of our American Indians are rich in
words and grammatical forms; that they are adequate to the ex
pression even of abstract ideas, and that they have a mode (dif
ferent from our own) by which they can easily combine their
radical sounds with each other so as to frame new words, when
ever they stand in need of them. What is still more extraordi
nary, the model of those languages has been found to be the
same from north to south, varieties being only observed in some
of the details, which do not affect the similarity of the general
system; while on the Eastern continent languages are found,
which in their grammatical organization have no relation what
ever with each other. And yet our American idioms, except
where they can be traced to a common stock, differ so much
from each other in point of etymology, that no affinity whatever
has been yet discovered between them. The philosopher, who
considers this wonderful richness of forms in the languages of
our Indians, will be apt to think, that it is the first stage of hu
man speech; that all languages have been thus complex in
their origin, and have acquired simplicity in the progress of ci
vilization; but if he will only bestow a single look upon the
oral language of the Chinese, he will find his system strongly
shaken; for it cannot be civilization, that made this most imper
fect idiom what it is; and not a single vestige remains in it to
shew that it was ever a complex or even a polysyllabick lan-
guage. On the contrary, it is to be presumed, that if the Chinese
were to adopt an alphabetical mode of writing in lieu of their
hieroglyphicks, their oral speech would be found insufficient at
least for written communications, and the nation would be com
pelled to adopt new words and new grammatical forms. For
their written characters represent no sounds to the ear, but only
ideas to the mind; the beauty of their poetry, as well as their
prose, consists in the elegance of the associations ideas present-
ed to the mind through th!! visual sense; and their communica
tions through the ear serve only for the more common and coars
er purposes of life. What affinity is there then between such a
language and those of the Indians of America; and how can they
be said to be derived from each other? This is an interesting
problem,
the solution of which yet remains to be discovered.
It has been, moreover, ascertained that one nation at least on
the
eastern continent of Asia, the Sedentary Tschuktschi, speak
an American language; a dialect of that, which begins in Green-
land, crosses the Amerii::an continent,(on both coasts of which it
is found among the people called Eskimaux,) is spoken at Norton
Sound, and the mouth of the Anadir, and from thence northward,
NOTES ON ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR. v
along
the coast, to the peninsula called Tschutschkoi Noss, or the
promontory of the Tschutschki. On the other hand, no nation
has yet been discovered on this continent, that speaks an Asia
tick language. The grammatical forms of the languages of the
Koriaks, Lamouts, Kamtchadales, and other nations of the east
ern coast of Asia, are not yet known to us; and while we are
taking pains to investigate the languages of our own country,
it is much to be wi5hed, that the learned men of the Russian
empire would collect and communicate information respecting
those of their Kamtchadale, Samoyed and Siberian tribes; so
that a full comparison might be established between them and
those of our Indians. '
It has been also ascertained, (and the discovery was first
partially made by the great navigator Cook,) that from the pe
ninsula of Malacca in Asia to the Cocos Island. a hundred
leagues from the coast of Tierra .Firm e, and through the various
clusters of islands in the South Sea, and also in the Island of
Madagascar, dialects of the same language (the Malay) are spo
ken; which, with other indications, has led an ingenious Ameri
can writer, Dr. McCulloh of Baltimore, to suppose that the
South Sea was once a continent, and that America was peopled
through that channel.* This question deserves further inves
tigation; and the Malay, as well as its cognate languages, ought
to be studied with that view. No traces of this language have
been yet discovered .on the coast of the . American continent;
but they may appear on further research.
I should exceed the bounds which I have prescribed to my
self,
if I were to take notice of all the interesting facts, which
the comparative science of languages has brought to light. Nor
is this the proper place to do it. My task is that of an annotator
of the venerable Eliot's Grammar of the (Massachusetts) In
dian language; and my object is to commuuicate, in aid of this
valuable work, some of the most material facts and observations
which several careful perusals of its contents, with collateral
studies, have disclosed and suggested to me. Among those stu
dies, I have not neglected that of his translation of the sacred
writings, from which I have derived a greater insight into the
nature, forms and construction of this curious language, than
could be obtained from the Grammar alone; for this is by no
means so full as it might have been, if the illustrious author, im
pelled by his zeal for the propagation of the Christian faith, had
• Researches on America, being an attempt to settle some points re1ative
to the Aborigines of America, &c. By James H. McCullah, junr. M. D.
Baltimore, Robinson, 1817. Octavo.
vi NOTES ON ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR.
not
written it for immediate use, as introductory to the further
instruction, which he was so well qualified to give to those who
stood in need of it. I have had no other view in writing these
notes than to facilitate the labours of my fellow students, and
shall be happy, if my efforts shall prove successful, though but in
an inconsiderable degree.
There can be no doubt, that this language is a dialect of that
widely extended idiom which was spoken, with more or less
variation, by the Souriquois and Micmacs in Nova Scotia, the
Etchemins, who inhabited what is now the State of Maine, the
Massachusetts, Narragansets and other various tribes of the Al
mouchiquois* in New England, the Knisteneaux, and Algonkins
or Chippeways in Canada, the Mohicans in New York, the
Lenni Lenape, or Delawares, Nanticokes and other nations of
the same stock in Pennsylvania and Maryland, and lastly, by
the Powhatans in Virginia; beyond which, to the southward, their
race has not been discovered, but extended itself westward, un
der various names, such as Kickapoos, Potawatamies, Miamis or
Twightwees, &c. to the great river Mississippi; on the other side
of which the Sioux or Naudowessie, and the language of the
Pawnees, (or Panis,) branching into various dialects, appear to
predominate. On this side, this rich idiom of the Wapanachki,
or Men of the East, and the Iroquois with its kindred languages,
the Huron or Wyandot, and others, enjoyed exclusive sway;
while to the southward, towards Louisiana and Florida, a num
ber of idioms are found, which do not at all appear to be deriv
ed from each other, such as the Creek or Muskohgee, Chicka
saw and Choctaw, Uchee, (yet unknown, but said to have a
character peculiar lo itself,) Atacapas, Chatimachas and others,
among which no analogy is to be found by the comparison of
their different vocabularies. The same phenomenon has been
observed in the kingdom of Mexico; where several languages
entirely different are crowded together on a small spot, while
elsewhere, as in Peru, Chili and Paraguay, some one or two
master idioms extend their dominion in various dialects, like our
Wapanachki and Iroquois, to a very great distance.t These
remarkable facts will not escape the attention of the philoso-
pher;
but being foreign to my present subject, I have thought
it sufficient merely to point them out to the observation of those
who feel an interest in these disquisitions,
* The French called the New Epgland Indians by the general name of
Almouchiquois or Armouchiquois, which name is to be seen in several of the
ancient maps.
t The Aztek or Mexican proper, Othomi, Tarascan, Huastecan, &c.
NOTES ON ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR, vii
I shall not waste time in proving, by the analogy of words,
the strong affinity which exists between the Massachusetts and
the Lenape, Algonkin and Mohican languages; of all which the
former more or less partakes, not without a mixture of the Souri
quois, Etchemin and other Nova Scotia dialects; it is sufficient
to quote what my venerable friend, Mr. Heckewelder, wrote to
me on the 8th of April, 1819.* "I once had," he s:i.ys, "Eliot's
Bible here for examination, and well understanding the Mohican
language, I soon worked myself into the Natick, so that I could
not only understand the one half of it at least, but became
quite familiar with the language. There are certain letters in
the words which are changed, as I have already somewhere
mentioned to you." This change of letters is noticed by Eliot
himself in his Grammar, page 2, where he instances the word dog,
called anum by the Massachusetts proper, alum by the Nip
muk, and arum, by the northern Indians. The Delawares say
allum, the Algonkins alim, the Etchemins (Indians of Penobscot
and St. John's) allomoos, and the Miamis lamah.t The changes
of the consonants l, m, n, and r for each other are very frequent
in the various dialects of American languages. Thus the Dela
wares of New Sweden called themselves Renni Renape, instead
of Lenni Lenape, making use of the r where the others have the
l. These variations are very necessary to be attended to in
the comparative study of our aboriginal idioms; other instances
of them will appear in the course of these notes.
Notwithstanding the strong affinity, which exists between the
Massachusetts and these various languages of the Algonkin or
Lenape class, is too clear and too easy of proof to be seriously
controverted, yet it is certain that a superficial observer might
with great plausibility deny it altogether. He would only have
to compare the translation of the Lord's prayer into the Massa
chusetts, as given by Eliot in his Bible, Matthew vi; 9, and Luke
xi. 2, with that of Heckewelder into the Delaware from Mat
thew, in the Histor. Transactions, vol. i. page 439, where he
would not find two words in these two languages bearing the least
affinity to each other, But this does not arise so much from the
difference of the idioms, as from their richness, which afforded to
the translators multitudes of words and modes of expressing the
same ideas, from which to make a choice; and they happened
* The numerous letters and other communications, which I have received
from Mr. Heckewelder on the subject of the Indian languages, be consid
ered at a future day a, a most valuable and interesting collection. They are
carefully preserved.
t See Barton'& New Views, Comparative Vocab. Verbo Dog.
viii NOTES ON ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR.
not
to hit upon the same forms of expression. Thus Eliot trans
lates the words "Our father which art in heaven," by Nooshun Ke
sukqut, which literally means, "Our father who art in the starry
place, among the great luminaries of the sky," from the Dela
ware Gischuch, the sun, which the Narragansets called Keesuck
quand, and adored it hy that name;* whence Kesuck, or
Keesuck, (or rather Keesukh with a guttural x at the end,) by
which these nations designated what we call the sky or the heav
ens, and also the wn and the space of a day. This NroshunKesuk
qut might easily have been rendered in the Delaware by Nooch
Gischuchink, "Our father heaven or sun in," (the preposition in
Leing expressed in the Massachusetts by \he termination ut or
qui, and in the Delaware by ink, as is usual in the Indian lan
guages;) but Zeisberger and H eckewelder preferred substituting
for the word Nooch, which is that by which children address
their natural father, the more elegant word Wetochemelenk; and
turning to Mr. Heckewel<ler's Correspondence in the Histor.
Transactions, p. 421, it will be found, that they had still a choice
of other terms for the same word father; such is the wonderful
richness of these barbarous languages. It may be remarked
here, that even Eliot's own translations of the Lord's prayer, as
given in Matthew and Luke, differ from each other more than the
variations of the text require; as for instance, in the sentence
"Give us this day (or day by day) our daily bread;" in Matthew
this is translated by Nummeetsuongash asekesukokish t assamaiinean
yeuyeu lcesukod, which literally means" Our victuals of every day
give ns this this (for energy's sake) <lay on, or sun on." And in
Luke xi. 2, he translates it thus: Assamaiinnean kokokesulwdae
nutasesesukokke't petukqunneg, by which the text is literally ren
dered, in the same order of words: "Give us day by day our
daily bread." These observations J have thought it necessary
to make, with the expectation that they may be useful to the
student, in his comparative views of the Indian languages.
I ought to observe here also, that the language of Eliot's Gram-
mar may, possibly, not be exactly the same with that of his trans-
* See Roger William,' Key, Chap. xii. in 3 Mass. Hist. Col. p. 217.
t Daily or every day, every sun; from kesuk, sun, as above mentioned.
+
I am inclined to believe, that there is here an errour of the press, and that
this word should have been printed nuttasekesukokke, from kesuk, day or sun ,
and the t should have been duplicated for the·sake of the affixed pronoun n,
so as to read nut-ta or n'ta, and not nu-ta, &c.
[Mr. Du Ponceau's conjecture is well founded. He uses the edition
of 1680, which, although it is the revised one, is evidently incorrect in
this in-
stance. The edition of 1661 has the word as Mr. Du Ponceau here supposes
it should br--nutasekesukokke.)
NOTES ON ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR. ix
lation
of the Bible. There are some differences in the words, as
well as in the forms of speech, which it is indispensable that the
student should be aware of. For instance; in his Grammar, page
14, he gives the word nequt, (from the Delaware n'gutti,) ta ex
press the numeral one, whereas in his Bible he more commonly
makes use of pasuk, from the Algonkin pegik and Chippeway
pashilc. Thus he says pasuk cherub, '' one cherub." 2 Chron,
iii. 11, Pa.sv.k ox, lamb, ram. Numb. xxviii. 27, 28, 29. "Pa
sukqunnuro
weyausro," om flesh, Gen, ii. 24. And so in other
places. As I proceed in my observations upon his Grammar, I
shall also shew some differences in the forms, Yet the two lan
guages (if in fact he did employ more than cine dialect) appear
to be substantially the same.
This translation of the Bible by our venerable Eliot is a rich
and valuable mine of Indian philology. A complete grammar
and dictionary might, with labour and perseverance, be extract
ed from it; for there is hardly a mode or figure of speech, which
is not to be found somewhere in the sacred writings. It has been
of great use to me in the investigation of the character and struc
ture of the American languages, and I hope to derive still further
benefit from it. Every copy of it, that is yet extant, ought
to be preserved with the greatest care, as it is hardly to be
hoped that it will ever be entirely reprinted.
It is not, however, every attempt at translation into the In
dian languages, that ought to be trusted to by the student, In
deed, it is but too true, that even simple vocabularies, when not
made by persons, who have resided long among the Indians or
who are extremely careful and judicious, are ip general mis
erably deficient. Such is that of the language of the Delawares
of New Sweden, published by Campanius Holm at Stockholm in
1696, with Luther's Catechism in Swedish and Indian; both of
which (the vocabulary and the translation) are exceedingly faul
ty, and betray the grossest ignorance of the language. Mr.
Heckewelder is of opinion, that the writer knew but little of it
himself, and that he compiled his work with the aid of Indian
traders, by whom he was constantly led into errour. Some of
his mistakes are truly ludicrous. He translates the words
"Gracious God" by Sweet Manitto; but the word vinckan,
(it should be wingan,) by which he attempts to express sweet,
is one, which, in the Delaware language, is only applied to eata
bles; so that the sense, which he conveys to an Indian, is that of
0 sweet tasted .111anitto ! Yet no language is richer in suitable ap
pellations for the Deity. In the same manner, when he means
to express the verb " to love" in a divine sense, he uses the
word tahottamen, applicable only to the liking, which men have
x NOTES ON ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR.
for
perishable things, when he had eholan, from the substantive
ahollowagan, (love,) which it is most probable he was unac
quainted with. These observations were communicated to me
by Mr. Heckewelder, with many others of the same kind; which,
while they prove the ignorance of the writer of that book, af
ford additional evidence of the astonishing richness of our
Indian languages, and of the multitude of words, by means of
which they can discriminate between the most delicate shades
of the same thought. The verb to love is still differently,
but not improperly, expressed by our Eliot: "Womonrok kum
matwommóg," love one another. Matt. v. 44. This word is deri
ved from wunnege1i, good; Delaware wuliechen, it is good or well
done. Kah kusseh mo ahche wunnegen, "And behold it was very
good," Gen. i. 31. From the same root is the word wunanum,
bless; Wunanum Jehovah, "Bless the Lord." Ps. ciii. 1. There
appears to be no end to this rich variety.
I cannot help observing here, that the same richness, not on
ly in terms applicable to physical subjects, but in moral and
metaphysical terms, is to be found in the southern as well as in
the northern languages, Thus in the Huastecan idiom (New
Spain) we have
Canezomtaba, love, in a general sense.
Canezal, to love (in this sense.)
Lehnaxtalah,
love with desire (amor deseando,)
Lehnal, to love, in this sense (apetecer.)
Cacnaxtabal, love with courtship (amor cortesario.)
Cacnal, to love, in this sense (cortejarr.)
Cacnax,
a lover, in this sense (cortejo.)
ZENTENO'S GRAMMAR, p.
51.
But it is time that I should have done with these general
observations. I shall proceed now to remarll: more directly on
the contents of the Grammar, which is the immediate subject
of these notes.
I. Alphabet
(Gram. p. 1.) *
IT is much to be regretted, that the learned have not yet
agreed upon some mode of communicating to the ear, through
the eye, an uniform impression of the effects of the various
sounds produced by the human organs of speech. The only
* The reader will observe, that this and the other references to the Gram
mar are made to the original paging of that work, which is preserved in the
margin of the present
edition.
NOTES ON ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR. xi
way
to obtain this desirable end, is for some person endowed
with correct judgment and a nice, discriminating ear, to propose
an alphabet, or table of signs, which, after a time, cannot fail
(with perhaps some slight variations) to be generally adopted.
My learned friend, Mr. Pickering, of Salem, in an excellent
Essay, lately published in the fourth volume of the Memoirs of
the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, has broken the ice
and proposed an alphabet for our own Indian languages, which
has the merit of great simplicity. It is understood, that its
principles are to be followed in the publication of several
vocabularies, that are to be inserted in the Journal of the late
Expedition to the "Westward under the command of Major
Long, which is shortly to be put to the press by Mr. Nuttall;
and there is no doubt that his example will be followed by
others, particularly by missionaries, to whom the Essay has
been transmitted by the missionary societies. If, as there
is great reason to expect, Mr. Pickering's orthography gets into
general use among us, America will have had the honour of
taking the lead in procuring an important auxiliary to philolo
gical science.
It is universally admitted, that the alphabets of the principal
European nations, which have been hitherto used to represent
the sounds of our Indian, languages, are inadequate to the pur
pose. The English is anomalous, and its powers not sufficient
ly determined. Its system of vowels is particularly defective.
The French partakes of the same defects, though in a less de
gree; and in other respects is too often apt to mislead, because
its consonants are generally unarticulated at the end of words.
The German is more perfect than either; but German ears do
not sufficiently discriminate between the hard and soft conso
nants, such as b and p, g hard and le, and d and t, by which
considerable confusion is introduced. It will be recollected,
that in Zeisberger's Vocabulary of the Delaware, the letter g
is frequently used as homophonous with le, because, it is said, the
printer had not a sufficient number of types to furnish the lat
ter character as often as it was wanted. Notwithstanding this
defect, however, it must be acknowledged that a better idea of
the sounds of the Indian languages is given by means of the
German alphabet than of any other.
Our author has, of course, made use of the English letters to
express the sounds of the Massachusetts language; in cons e
quence of which, it is sometimes difficult to recognize even the
same words differently spelt by Zeisberger in the Delaware.
Thus the latter writes n'dee, (my heart,) which is to be pro
nounced as if spelt n'day, according to the powers of the
xii NOTES ON ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR.
English
alphabet. Eliot, on the contrary, writes it nuttah. This
makes it appear a different word, in which we scarcely per
ceive an analogy with the former. By the first syllable, nut,
he means to express the sounds, which the German represents
by n'd, (perhaps n't, for the reason above suggested,) the short
u standing; for the interval, or sheva, between the two conso
nants ; which Zeisberger more elegantly represents by an apos
trophe. The last syllable, tah, is the German dee or tee, (English
day or tay,) the a being pronounced acute, as in grace, face. If
our author had selected the diphthong ay to express this sound,
and reserved the a to represent its broad pronunciation in far,
car, the student would have been much better able to perceive
the analogy between the Massachusetts and its cognate idioms.
But that was not his object; and it was enough for him that
the mode of spelling, which he adopted, was sufficient for his
purpose. Had he taken the other course, n'dee and n'tay
would have been immediately recognized to be the same word;
while n'dee and nuttah hardly shew any resemblance. It
ought to be observed, that, although our venerable grammarian,
in his alphabet, ascribes the acute pronunciation to the letter a,
(except when it takes its short sound before a consonant,) and
generally expresses the broad sound of that letter by au, yet
there are many words, in which it has the. open sound, espe
cially when followed by h: But this can only be discovered
by comparison with other languages, derived from the same
stock.
The whistled W, of which he takes no notice, but which it is
evident exists in the Jl'lassac husetts, as well as in the other Wa
panachki idioms, he repr esents sometimes by w and sometimes
also by short 1.1, as in uppaumauopoh, " they did pay him," for
w'paumauopoh. This is placed beyond a doubt by the circum
stance of the personal pronouns affixed to the verbs; n' for the
first person, k' for the second, and w' for the third; being the
same in the Delaware and Massachusetts languages. Before a
vowel, he employs the w, as in wantamooh, "he is not wise;"
and sometimes prefixes the ro, as in "ꝏwadchanumꝏun,"
he
does not keep it. This ꝏ, placed before the w, was probably
meant to express the peculiarity of the whistled sound, by which
he seems to have· been not a little embarrassed. I believe he
once meant lo have represented this sound by vf, to which he
ascribes a peculiar pronunciation, different from that of v in
save, have. (See his alphabet, and his observations on the v
consonant in his Grammar, page 2.) But he does not seem to
have kept to his purpose; for I do not find the vf employed
elsewhere, either in his Grammar or in his translation of the
NOTES ON ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR. xiii
Bible and New Testament, but always either the w, the ꝏw
or the short u when followed by a consonant.
It is remarkable, that our author appropriates no character,
or combination of characters, to express the guttural sound of
the Greek x;, which is very frequent in these languages. This
is a defect very common to Englishmen, who attempt to express
Indian sounds by the letters of their alphabet. This sound, being
entirely wanting in our language, is very often neglected and
not at all noticed. In some vocabularies it is expressed by
gh; but as these letters arc always united in proper English
words, it is difficult to know when they are to be pronounced,
or are merely used to lengthen the sound of the preceding
vowel or diphthong.
The letter q is often employed by our author, without any
other apparent' power than that of k, as in "tꝏhkequn," heavy,
1
Samuel, iv. 18; but he also uses it more properly as in
English before ua and uo, as in wuskesukquash, "his eyes," and
in squontamut, "the gate." Ibid. 15, 18.
Upon the whole, this alphabet, though not so perfect as it
might be in the eyes of the scholar, appears, nevertheless, to
have fully answered the pious purpose of the excellent author;
for he tells us in his Grammar, page 4, that the Indians, by
means of it, "soon apprehended and understood this Epitome
of the Art of Spelling, and (by its means) COULD SOON LEARN TO
READ."
II. Noun Substantive.
(Gram. p. 8.)
OUR
author gives but little information on this subject; per
haps there is but little to be given. The genders, as in the
Delaware, are not masculine and feminine, but animate and
inanimate. Trees, plants, and grasses arc in the class of inani
mates; which is different from the Delaware, for in that they
are classed as animates, except annual plants and grasses.
1 Hist. Trans. p. 367,368.
Substantives are not varied by" Cases, Cadencies and End
ings," except animates, when governed by a verb transitive, when
they end in oh, uh, or ah. The genders are also distinguished by
a difference of termination, but merely for the designation of the
plural number. This termination is og in the animate, and ash
in the inanimate form. In the Delaware, the animate has ak,
and the inanimate all or wall, In the Narraganset, the plural
xiv NOTES ON ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR.
endings
are ock, og, auock, for the animate, and ash, anash for
the inanimate. Mithrid. vol. iii. part iii. page 381.
We are not a little surprised, however, after the positive
statement of our author, that substantives are not distinguished
by cases, (except as above mentioned,) to find different termi
nations of the same word, in various parts of his translation of
the Bible, of which he makes no mention and gives no expla
nation in his Grammar: Wuttaunoh Zion, "Daughter of Zion."
Lament. ii. 8. Woi Jerusalemme wullaunin, "0 daughter of
Jerusalem." Woi penomp Zione wullaunin, "0 virgin daughter
of
Zion." Ibid. 13. Woi kenaau Jerusaleme wullaimeunk, "0 ye
daughters of Jerusalem." Solom. Song, ii. 7. Kah ompetak
wuttaneu, "And she bare a daughter. " Gen. xxx. 21.
The first of these terminations is correct; nullanoh, kullanoh,
wuttanoh, "my, thy, his daughter," are the proper nominatives of
this word; and its being used in the genitive in the passage
cited (the wall of the daughter of Zion) does not militate
against the rule laid down ; but the termination in in the voca
tive singular, and unk in the vocative plural, cannot he account
ed for, any more than eu in the accusative governed by an ac
tive verb. The proper plural ending of this word is the ani
mate form og, which our author frequ ently employs. Qushkeh
wonk nuttaunog, "Turn again, my daughters," Ruth, i. 12,
I am at a loss how to explain these variations, otherwise than
by the conjecture offered before, that our author might have
had recourse to different Indian dialects in translating the sa
cred writings. The Delaware has a vocative case, which
generally ends in an: Wo Kitanittowian ! O God; Wo Nihilla-
lan, 0 Lord, &c. Zeisberger's MS. Grammar.
III. The Article.
IT is remarkable, that this language appears to possess
a definite article, although no mention is made of it in this
Grammar. This article is mo, contracted from monko, and
properly signifies it. Kah MONKO nnih; "And IT (was) so,"
Gen. i, 7, 9, 11, 24, 30. Onk Mo nnih, " And IT (was) so."
Ibid. 15. Kah kusseh MO ahche wunnegen, "And behold IT
(was) very good." Ibid. 31.
This pronoun, when used as an article, is still -furth er con
tracted into m, which, when followed by a consonant, Eliot
connects with it by the English short u, according to his meth
od, and sometimes by short e. Thus he writes metah, "the
heart," which should be pronounced m'tah. It is evident, that
NOTES ON ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR. xv
them
stands here for an article, because the personal affixes
my, thy, his, are n, k, and w; nuttah or n'tah, "my heart,"
kuttah or k'tah, "thy heart," wuttah or w'tah, "his or her
heart,"
and not n'mettah, k'mettah, w'mettah. In the translation of the
Bible, this article frequently appears. Kesteah pakke METAH,
"Create in me a clean heart." Psalm li. 10. Pohqui kah tan-
nogki METAH, "A broken and contrite heart." Ibid. 17. Sever
al words are also found in his Grammar, in which this article
is prefixed, though not noticed as such. Mukquoshim, (m'quosh
im,) a wolf, muhhog, (m'hog,) the body, &c. When the perso
nal form is employed, the m is left out, and the pronominal
affix substituted: Yeu nuhhog, "This is my body." Matt.
xxvi.36;
This article exists in several of the Indian languages, as in
the Othomi, where it is expressed by na: Na hay, the earth, na
metze, the ice, na qhi, the blood, &c.--(See Molina.) It appears
also in the Algonkin and its cognate idioms: Mittick, meeteek,
(Algonk. an Chippew.) a tree; Delaware, hittuck, and I
think also m'hittuck; Mahican, metooque; Shawanese, meticqueh;
all which appear to be the same word.--Barton's New Views,
verbo wood. So also the Mahican, mooquaumeh, ice, (Bar
ton;) Shawanese, m'quama, (Johnston;) Potowatameh, muequam,
(Barton;) Delaware, m'hoclcquammi, ( Heckewelder,) and
moseet, which, in the language of the Indians of Penobscot and
St: John's, means the foot, ( Barton,) and is clearly the
Delaware n'seet, k'seet, w'seet, (my, thy, his foot,) which Mr.
Heckewelder writes n' sit, &c., but observes that the i is long.*
* Since writing the above notes, I have received an answer to a letter,
which I addressed to Mr. Heckewelder on the subject of the definite article, a
part of speech, which had not been noticed by grammarians in the Indian
languages; and 1 have now the satisfaction to find, that the opinions above
expressed were well founded. The letter also corroborates some of my ety
mological statements; and, as it is short, I have thought it best to insert it
en
tire:
"Bethlehem, 23d August, 1821
"MY DEAR FRIEND,
"I
HAVE this moment received your favour of the 21st, and having time left
sufficient to answer thereto, before the closing of the mail, I comply with
your
request. The article "mo" for a or the, which you discovered to
be prefixed
to substantive s in the language of the Naticks, is the same in the language of
the Lenape. We frequently leave the letter m out, in writing, as the word
is well understood without it, and because a reader, not acquainted with the
language, might pronounce it too harsh, as em, or emdee, for the heart.
So it is with other words also, as for instance, in those you quote. The Lena
per say, m'hittuk, the tree, or a tree. The Minsi say, michtuk, a tree; also
xvi NOTES ON ELIOT' S INDIAN GRAMMAR.
IV. Adjectives
(Gram. p. 13.)
ADJECTIVES are seldom use d singly in the Indian languages,
because they are easily compounded with the verb and other
parts of speech; with the verb as in the Latin sapio, frigeo, &c.
and with the substantive in a variety of ways, which will be
best explained by examples. I lately sent to Mr. Hecke
welder the Empress Catharine's Vocabulary, in the German
language, requesting him to fill it up with the same words in
the Delaware. He very kindly complied with my request,
but left some blanks in the Indian pare, for which he referred
me to notes, (also written in German,) which accompanied
it. Among the words thus left blank, were the adjectives
OLD and YOUNG, which he said he could not express by terms
sufficiently general. The notes on these two words have ap
peared to me so interesting, and so well calculated to shew the
peculiar construction of the Indian languages, that I have
thought the reader would not be displeased to have a transla
tion of them. I shall, therefore, fill up the present article
with the valuable information which they contain.
" Notes on the word OL-D,
"On this I have to observe, that there are many words which
it is difficult, and some even impossible to render by terms,
which convey precisely the same general idea; the Indians be
ing so very nice in their discriminations, and having words
adapted to every shade which they wish to distinguish. They
are particularly attentive to distinguishing between what is ani
mate and what is inanimate. Sometimes, also, there are words
which have a double meaning. I will give some examples.
m'tachan, wood; the Minsi say, Machtachan; yet both hittuk and tachan
answer the same purpose,
"With regard to the latter part of your letter, I can only repeat what I
have
in former letters already noticed, viz. that in the Mahicani and other eastern
idioms, (the Natick, &c.) the changing of certain letters in words, and the
dropping here and there a letter at the end of a word, from that of the mother
tongue, (the Lenape,) causes a difference in the 1vritin,g and speaking, but
not in understanding the same, by any person who can speak, or understand
the Lenape. Examples: The Lenape say, n'dellan, the Mahicani n'tennan,
changing the letter l into the letter n. The mail being about to close, I
con
clude in haste. I shall writ e to you further very soon.
JOHN HECKEWELDER."
NOTES ON ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR. xvii
"The word old is employed by us in the most general
sense. We say in our languages, an old man, an old
horse, an old dog, an old house, an old basket, &c. The
Indians, on the contrary, vary their expressions, when
speaking of a thing that has life and of one that has not; for
the latter, instead of the word old, they use terms which
convey the idea, that the thing has lasted long, that it has been
used, worn out, &c. Of all which take the following examples:
1. Kikey, old, advanced in years (applied to things animate.)
2. Chowioy, or chowiyey, old by use, wearing, &c.
"Note. The first syllable in the word kikey, compounded
with other syllables, conveys the idea of parents, (Lat. majores;
Germ. eltern,) and in brutes is expressive of the stock or race,
from which they proceed:
"Compounds.
Kikey, or kikeyin, (i long,) to be old, advanced in years.
Kiktyitschik, old, elderly people.
Kikeyilenno, an old man, advanced in years.
Kikeyóchqueu,
an old, elderly woman.
Kikechum, the old one of the brute kind.
Kikehelleu, the old ones of the feathered tribe.
"There are also suffixes, denoting the age of animated beings1 which are worthy of remark; as
Mihillusis, an old man, (Germ. ein alter Greis; Fr. un vieillard,
un barbon.)
Chauchschisis, an old woman, (Germ. altes mutterchen; Fr,
vieille bonne femme.)
Mihilluschum, an old male quadruped.
Chauchschachum, an old female quadruped.
"The general words for things inanimate are,
Chowiey, or chowiyey, (Minsi, m'chowiey,) old.
Chowigawan, an old house, (from wikwam, or wigwam.)
Chohagihacan, an old field, (from hacki, earth or land.)
Choutaeney, an old town, (from utaeney, or uteney, a town.)
Chowaxen, old shoes, (from maxen, mockasons, or shoes.)
Chowasquall, old grass, (from maskik, grass.)
Chowiey schakhócqui, old coat, old garment,
xviii NOTES ON ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR.
"There are other words, which denote a thing being old from
use or wearing; as
Metchihilleu, old; worn out, (as an edged tool.)
Pigihilleu, torn by long use or wearing.
Lógihilleu, fallen to pieces, &c.
"Notes on the word YOUNG,
"It is here again difficult to find an adequate general term,
as the Indians are always fond of discriminating, and using
words peculiarly applicable to the thing spoken of. As we say
'a new born child or infant,' instead of 'a young child,'
so
in Delaware, the word wuski, which signifies new, is em-
ployed to convey the idea of youth; and they compound it in
the following manner:
Wuski, new, young, (Minsi, wuskiey.)
Wasken, wesgink, the new.
Wuskilenno, a young man.
Wuskóchgueu, or wuskiechqueu, a young woman,
Wuskelenapewak,
young people.
Wuskchum, a young quadruped.
Wuskigawan, a new house.
Wuskihagihacan, a new field.
Wuskutaeney, a new town.
Wuskhaxen, new shoes.
Wuskiguall, new grass.
Wuskachpoan, new bread, (achpoan, bread.)
Wuskitamen, to renew something, &c.
"Although the syllable wusk, prefixed to words, serves
both to denote young and new, yet the Indians have, besides,
a variety of other words for distinguishing the young among
animals. For instance; their general term for 'the young,'
the immediate offspring, is nitschan, (w'nitschanall, his or her
young or offspring, who have been brought alive and suckled,)
and this applies to man, and beasts of the genus Mammalia;
but when they speak of the feathered kind, or when the
young is produced from the egg by hatching, they say, anin
schihilleu; plural, aninschihilleisak; barely implying that the
animals are young feathered creatures. See Zeisberger's Del-
aware Spelling Book, p, 100."
NOTES ON ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR. xix
V. Pronouns.
(Gram. p. 7.)
THE personal pronouns in the Massachusetts, as in the Dela
ware language, are divided into separable and inseparable;
and their etymology may be clearly traced to the same
source. They are in the two languages as follows:
MASSACHUSETTS, DELAWARE
I, Neen. Ni.
Thou, Ken. Ki.
He or she, Noh or nagum. Nacama, or neka.
We, Neenawun, or kenawun. Niluna, or kiluna.
Ye, Kenaau. Kiluwa.
They, Nahoh, or nagoh. Necamawa.
The inseparable pronouns, personal and possessive, are the
same in both languages; n representing the first person, k the
second, and w, o, or ꝏ, (as euphony may require,) the third,
both in th e singular and plural numbers.
The particular plural of the Delawares, or the American
plural, as Mr. Pickering very properly calls it, has excited
much attention among philologists. Our author makes no
mention of this distinction; yet there is great reason to believe,
that it exists in the Massachusetts idiom. In the Delaware, the
particular plural, though not mentioned in Mr. Zeisberger's
Grammar, is expressed by niluna, which means we, some of us,
with relation to a particular number of persons. It is to be
observed, that it begins with the letter n, indicative of the first
person; which, being repeated in the last syllbable na, seems
as if it meant to say, we, we; that is, we, particularly
speaking, but not all; whereas the general plural, kiluna,
(we, all of us,) begins with the pronominal affix of the second per
son, as if to say, we and you, or we you and all. The same dif
ference is found in the Massachusetts, where we is expressed in
two modes, neenawun and kenawun; th one in the same man
ner beginning with the affix of the first person, afterwards re
peated, and the other with that of the second person; from
whence, and the great affinity of the two languages, I strongly
conjecture, that NEENAWUN means the particular, and KENAWUN
the general plural. This might, I dare say, he ascertained by
searching for examples in our author's translation of the Bi
ble; but these notes having been called for sooner than I ex-
xx NOTES ON ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR.
pected,
I have not time at present for the investigation. If the
rules of analogy are not deceptive, it will be found, I believe,
that I am right in my conjecture.
Our author does not speak of a dual number; nor is it
probable there is any, other than the particular plural.
The question whether all the Indian languages have the
particular plural, or some of them the dual in. lieu of it, is an
interesting one. I at first inclined to the form er opinion; but
recent inquiries make the latter seem the most probable. In one
of them, at least, (the Cherokee,) it appears that there is a dual
number. Mr. Pickering, in consequence of the general remarks
on this subject, in the Transactions of the Historical and Literary
Committee, was led to conjecture, that what had been called the
dual in the Cherokee, was in fact only the particular or limited
plural, which is common to other Indian dialects. But he has
since inform ed me, that upon conversing on this point with an
intelligent young man of that nation, (who is perfectly familiar
with our own language,) he has ascertained that this opinion
was unfounded, and that the Cherokee language has a proper
dual number, like the languages of antiquity. There are varie
ties in the polysynthetick forms of the Indian languages, which
do not, however, affect their general character. Absolute uni
formity is not to be found in any of the works of nature; and
there is no reason why languages should be excepted from this
universal rule.
The interrogative pronoun, as our author denominates it,
howan, plural howanig (who,) is also found in the Lenni Lena
pe. Zeisberger and Heckewelder spell it auwen, which, ac
cording to the German pronunciation, gives the same sound,
except the h at the beginning. This pronoun, in the Dela
ware, is formed into a verb in the following curious manner,
which I extract from Zeisberger's MS. Grammar:
From AUWEN, who
Singular. Ewenikia, who I am.
Ewenikian, who thou art.
Ewenikit, who he is.
Plural.
Ewenikiyenk, who we are.
Ewenikiyek, who you are.
Ewenikichtit, who they are.
It is worthy of remark, that this nation, whose language
(as I shall hereafter have occasion to observe) wants the sub
stantive verb, I am, has come so near it, as in these examples,
NOTES ON ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR. xx
without
being able to find it. It is said that they cannot trans-
late into it the sublime sentence in Exodus iii. 14, I AM THAT I
AM. This pronominal verb would, it seems, admirably express
the last member of it, at least in the sense of the Vulgate trans-
lation, Ego sum Qu1. su111. These are anomalies, which further
study and inquiry may, perhaps, enable us to reconcile.
The demonstrative pronoun yeu is in Delaware yun; and,
upon the whole, there is a great resemblance, in this part
of speech, between the two languages. But neither Eliot nor
Zeisberger have expatiated sufficiently upon it. Indeed, these
languages are so rich in forms, that a complete grammar of
any of them would be too voluminous for common use.
VI. Verbs.
( Gram. p. 15.)
THE Verb is the triumph of human language. Its funda
mental idea is that .of existence; I am, sum. This abstract
sentiment receives shape and body from its combination with
the various modifications of being, by action, passion and
situation, or manner of existing; I am loving, loved, sleeping,
awake, sorry, sick; which the Latin tongue more synthetically
expresses by amo, amor, dormio, vigilo, contristor, agroto.
Next come the accessary circumstances of person, number,
time, and the relations of its periods to each other; I am, thou
art, we are, I was, I shall be, I had been, I shall have been,
Here the Latin again combines these various ideas in one
word with the former ones; sum, es, sumus, cram, ero, fueram,
fuero. Sometimes it goes further, and combines the negative
idea in the same locution, as in nolo; this, however, hap
pens but rarely; and here seem to end the verbal powers of
this idiom. Not so with those of the Indian nations. While
the Latin combines but few adjectives under its verbal forms,
the Indians subject this whole class of words to the same pro
cess, and every possible mode of existence becomes the subject
of a verb. The gender or genus, (not, as with us, a mere divi
sion of the human species by their sex, but of the whole creation
by the obvious distinction of animate and inanimate,) enters also
into the composition of this part of speech; and the object of
the
active or transitive verb is combined with it by means of
those forms, which the Spanish-Mexican grammarians have
called transitions, by which one single word designates the per-
xxii NOTES ON ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR.
son
who acts, and that which is acted upon. The mbstantive
is incorporated with the verb in a similar manner: thus in the
Delaware, n'matschi, " I am going to the house, I a m going
home;" nihillapewi , "I am my own master, I am free;" tpisqui
hilleu, "the time approaches," (properal hora.) The adverb
likewise: nachpiki, "I am so naturally;" nipahwi, "to travel by
night," ( noctanter;) pachsenummen, "to divide (something)
equally," &c. In short, every part of speech in these langua
ges is capable of being associated with the verb and compound
ed with it, by means of its various inflexions and forms. What
shall we say of the reflected, compulsive, meditative, communi
cative, reverential, frequentative and other circumstantial verbs,
which are found in the idioms of New Spain , and other Ameri
can Indian languages? The mind is lost in the contemplation
of the multitude of ideas thus expressed at once by means of a
single word, varied through moods, tenses, persons, affirmation,
negation , transitions, &c. by regular forms and cadences, in
which the strictest analogy is preserved! Philosophers may,
if they please, find here proofs of what they have thought
proper to call barbarism; for my part, I am free to say, that I
cannot so easily despise what l feel myself irresistibly compell
ed to admire.
It is to be regretted, that our venerable author has given but
few Paradigms of the conjugations of the verbs in the Massa
chusetts language. There are, in fact, in this Grammar, but three-
the active verbs to keep and to pay, and the neuter verb
to be wise; the two first of which are conjugated through their
negative and transitive forms, and the latter only in the affirm
ative and negative. He makes us acquainted with the interro
gative mood, and prescribes the form of conjugating verbs
through it; but, beyond that, the information which he gives,
on the subject of this part of speech, is very scanty; while
Zeisberger, on the contrary, in his MS. Grammar, has given
us a profusion of the Delaware verbs, regularly conjugated, which
will be found to afford much assistance to the student, and give
him a great insight into the manner of compounding and con
jugating verbs in these languages.
Whether there are any, or how many, different forms of con
jugation in this language, does not appear. In the Delaware
there
are eight, distinguished by the terminations of their infin
itive, or of the first person of the present tense of the indicative
mood. Zeisberger enumerates them as follows:
NOT ES ON ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR. xxii
The 1st ending in in; n'da ppin, to be there.
The 2d in a; n'da, 1 am going.
The 3d in elendam indicates a dispo-
sition of the mind; niwelendam, I am sad
The 4th in men; gattamen, I request.
The 5th in an; ahoalan, to love.
The 6th in e or we; n'dellowe, I say.
The 7th in in, but used only in the
transitive forms; miltin, to give.
The 8th in on; n'pelon, I bring.
The moods and tenses of these two languages appear to be
the same, though differently classed by their grammarians.
Eliot divides the subjunctive mood into two, the optativc and
suppositive, each having hut one tense, which Zeisberger calls
the present and conditional tenses of the conjunctive. Our au
thor takes no notice of the participles, which the other includes
under the infinitive mood. They are numerous, and susceptible
of various transitions and forms. Thus the verb ganwin; "to
sleep," besides having three tenses in the infinitive, to wit, the
present, gauwin, the past or preterite, gauwineep," lo have slept,"
and the future, gauwintschi, which cannot he rendered into Eng-
lish, but in Latin dormiturus esse, has the following participles:
present, gewit, "sleeping;" (plural, gewitschik ) preterite, gewitup,
"having slept;" plural, gewitpannik. The future is given in
other verbs. Examples of the conjugation of the participle of
the causative verb, through the transitive forms, arc given in the
Historical Transactions, vol. i. p. 416, which I think unne
cessary to repeat here. I have no doubt, that these forms sub
stantially exist in the Massachusetts idioms; hilt our author's
Grammar is by far too much abridged to admit of their being
exhibited,
The formation of the future tense of the indicative mood is
different in the Massachusetts and Delaware languages. In the
former, it is expressed by the auxiliaries mos and pish; as, kah
pish kuttayim, "and thou shalt make;" kah pish neemunumwog
gold, "and they shall take gold;" kah pish kupponamunash,
"
and thou shalt put." Exod. xxviii. 2, 5, 12. In the Dela
ware, the future is designated by the termination tsch; as in
n'pomsi, "I go;" future, n'pomsitsch, "I shall or will
go." In
the negative form, this termination is sometimes attached to the
conjunction not; as mattatsch n'dawi , "I shall not go," for
mattu
n'dawitsch. This is one of the elegancies of the language; very
different, however, from any thing that we have seen or heard
of in the idioms of the old world.
xxiv NOTES ON ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR.
We must not expect, in these languages, to find any thing
like the Greek aorists, or those nice distinctions of time and its
different periods in relation to each other, which are found in
the learned tongues. The varieties of the Indian verbs are
applied to other objects. I do not mean to speak,·ho wever, of
the Mexican languages, in which the verbs arc conjugated
through all the forms. moods and tenses of the Latin. There
you find' tbe imperfect, preterite, pluperfect and even the ge
runds in di, do, durn, and tbe supine.* I have observed else
where, that those who write Indian grammars strive too much
to assimilate the forms of those languages to their own or to
the Latin, whereas they have a grammar peculiar to themselves,
which ought to he s'tudied and explained. The curious and
not very natural coincidence, which the Spanish grammarians
have almost generally found between the Latin forms and those
of the languages of their Indians, inclines me to suspect the
accuracy of those writers. It is, nevertheless, evident, that the
southern idioms havr more tenses in their verbs, or forms of
conjugation in relation to time, than those of the more northern
tribes; in which latter I have only, as yet, been able to disco
ver the present, past and future.
I observed, in my Report to the Historical Committee on
the subject of the lndi:rn languages, (Hist. Trans. p. xi.) that
it appeared to me, that they were generally destitute of the
auxiliary verbs to be and to have; which I shewed to be the case
not only in our own northern, but in the Mexican and Othomi
idioms. I added, on the authority of Father Zenteno, that the
Mexicans could not translate into their language the sublime
sentence, "I AM THAT I AM," Exod. iii. 14. In this sentiment
I am confirmed, at least as far as concerns the Wapanachki lan
guages, by our venerahle author, who expressly says, in page
15 of his Grammar, "We" (the Massachusetts)" have no com
pleat distinct word for the Verb Substantive, as other, learned
Languages, and our English Tongue have; but it is under a regu
lar composition, whereby marry words are made Verb Sub
stantive,"
This curious fact early attracted the notice of the Honourable
Judge Davis, of Boston, who, in a letter l.o me of the 26th of
* In Basalenque's Tarascan Grammar, pages 33 and 34, under the verb
pani, "to carry," (llevar,) are the following paradigms:
Gerund in di, Paquaro esti--tiempo de llev'ar.
--- in do, Paparin--llerando.
--- in dum, Pani-nirihaca-roy a llevar.
Supine in um, Hichen himno esca pani-a me me combiene lleval"
--- in u, Paquanhaxeti-coza digna, de ser llevada.
NOTES ON ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR. xxv,
March,
1819, suggested some doubts upon the subject; and
this circumstance led to a correspondence with the Rev. Mr.
Heckewelder and the Rev. Mr. Deneke, which I think suffi
ciently interesting to warrant the insertion of some extracts
from their communications in this place.
I shall extract, in the first place; from Judge Davis's letter,
who wrote as follows:
"At present I will only suggest a difficulty, which occurs
in relation to a remark in page xi. of your Report con
cerning the substantive verb lo be, in the American languages.
I have a manuscript Vocabulary of the language of the Southern
or Old Colony Indians of Massachusetts, (compiled by Josiah,
Cotton, Esq. missionary to those Indians early in thee last cen
tury,) in which the verbs to be and to have are expressed in a
variety of modifications. I have only room for the infinitive
moods of these verbs, and the indicative mood, present tense,
with numbers and persons:
'AINNEAAT, to be.
Nennont, I am. Nenauunyeu, we are.*
Kennont, thou art. Kenauna, you are.
Nohne, he is. Nagna, they are.
'AHTOUNNAT, to have.
'Nummahche, I have. Nenauun
nummahche, we have.
Kummahche, thou hast, Kenau kummahche, you have.
Noh mahche, he has. Nag mahche, they have.'
"In Eliot's Bible, the sublime passage (Exod. iii. 14.) I am
that I am, is thus translated: Nen nullinniin nen nuttinniin.
Galatians iv. 12, I am as ye are, is thus rendered: Nen neyane
kenaau. How is the first of these expressions to be grammat
ically resolved, if there be no substantive verb in the language?
The last quotation is elliptical in the Greek καγω ως υμεις
and so it is in the Indian, which, literally, would be, Ι as you.
Nen I take to be a pronoun, and so is kenaau.......Ι find, in
A.
Fabre's Grammar of the Chili Language, the following sen
tence: 'Los nombres abstractos, como bondad, blancura, &c.
se
hacen posponiendo el verbo sum, es, est, a los adjetivos ò sub-
* The
original MS. of Cotton has here Kenauun yeu: which, agreeably to
Mr. Du Ponceau's opinion, (in his remarks on the Pronouns,) was the general
plural; nenaun yeu being the particular or limited plural.-EDITOR.
xxvi NOTES ON ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR.
stantivos.'-Molina,
I believe, has a similar remark; but the
doctrine is not so distinctly announced as by Fabres, to whom
Molina appears to have been principally indebted for his ob
servations on the langtiage of Chili.--Jean de Lael also gives us
the substantive verb in the Brazilian language; aico, je sui,1
ereico, tu es, oico, il est oroico, nous sommes, peico, vous estes,
aurae oico, ils sont. In the third person plural, only, the pro
noun is prefixed; whereas, in the example from Cotton's MS.
(whose Vocabulary, I find, has generally a close correspond
ence with the Natick,) we notice the pronouns throughout. On
this
subject of the substantive verb, and especially of its applica
tion in the admirable language of Chili, I had some floating
ideas, which I had digested into a sort of theory. Schemes of
thought are not always readily abandoned; but I find mine
not a little disturbed by the remark in that part of your discus
sion. I may hereafter communicate to you the views to which
I refer." Judge Davi adds, in a Postscript to his letter, the
following remark: " Eliot often expresses J am by the word
nen alone; but 1s it not because the phrase is often elliptical in
the Greek? In John viii. 58, 'Before Abraham was I AM' is,
thus rendered: Negonne onk Abrahamwi nutapip. The expres
sion there is not elliptical in the original; the word nutapip I
consider as corresponding to εγω ειμι, though I am not
able to
trace its origin."
This doubt, suggested from so respectable a quarter, and
supported, besides, with so much learning and ingenuity, made
me distrust my own opinion, and led me to inquire further into
the matter. Still I could not help believing, as I am yet in
clined
to th1nk, that the want of the substantive verb was a
general rule in the Indian languages. I knew too well the in
clination of grammarians to assimilate those idioms to their
own, to be shaken by paradigms, in which the verb sto, for
instance, might be translated by sum or Jam, for want of suffi
cient attention to the shade of difference between them; but
the words Nen nuttiniin nen nuttiniin, by which our author had
rendered Jain that I am in his translation of the Bible, though
they might not have the precise meaning of the original text,
must yet mean something; and I was curious to know by what
analogous mode of expression the venerable apostle had got
out of this immense difficulty, when he himself had told his
readers, that there was "no compleat distinct word for the Verb,
Substantive" in the language.* I therefore determined to con-
* Grammar, p. 15.
NOTES ON ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR. xxvii
sult my oracle, Mr. Heckewelder, from whom I speedily re-
ceived an answer, of which I shall here communicate some
extracts:
"8th April, 1819,
" I cannot believe, that any of the tribes connected with the
Lenni Lenape can translate into their language the words I am
that I am, so as to come up to the same meaning. The late
David Zeisbergcr and myself sought many years in vain for
this substantive verb. We had the best chapel interpreters, I
may say orators, some of whom were not at a loss to interpret
critically almost all scripture passages and expressions; yet
with regard to the one in question, they never came up to the
meaning, but made use of the best substitute they could; for
instance: I abtschi gutteli n'dellsin, 'I always act the same;'
elsia, natsch abtschi n'dellsin, 'so as I do, 1 shall always do,'
or 'I shall always act the same;' or again, elinaxia abtschitsch
n'dellinaxin, 'as I appear, (am to appearance,) I shall always
be.' I cannot find a single instance in the language, in which
the verb I am is used by itself, that is to say, uncombined with
the idea of the act about to be done."
"You have, no doubt, observed, in my Historical Account,
page 232, that the Indian, striking his breast, says with con
scious pride, I AM A MAN. This he. expresses by the words
Lenno n'hackey; literally, my body is a man (qr, 'I am a man
body,' in the sense that we say, She is a clever body, a young,
a handsome body.) I might then translate 'I am that I am' by
n'hackey iabtschi n'hacky, 'my body (is) always my body.'
This word n'hackey, with the Indians, is a most expressive word.
In the Indian song, of which I have given a translation, (Hist.
Trans. p. 204,) the sentence at the beginning, 0 poor me! is
expressed in Indian by Wo gettemaki n'hackey! ' 0 poor my
body!' &c.
"All I can say, at present, of Eliot's translation of 'I am that
I am' by Nen nuttinniin nen nuttiniin is, that it can never be a
literal translation of the text. The passage in Galatians iv. 12,
'I am as ye are,' which Eliot translates by Nen neyane kenaau,
I presume means, ' I look like you, we are alike, or we look like one
another. I suppose a Delaware translator would say, Elinaxi-
yek, nepe n'delinaxin; that is, 'as ye are, so I am also;' but this
is always said in the sense of personal appearance, shape, face,
countenance, size, &c. He might have said, also, n'gutti ktel
linaxihhena, 'we look alike,' 'we look one,' or, n' gutteli
xxviii NOTES ON ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR.
k'delsihhena, 'we do, act, alike;' or, lastly, ni n'dellsin elsiyek,
'I do as ye do,' &c,"
In the same letter Mr. Heckeweldr enclosed to me a copy
of one be had received from the Rev. Mr. Dencke of Lititz,
to whom he h:id written on the same subject. I trust I shall
be excused for translating here some extracts from this letter
also, which is written in German:
"I have never known," says Mr. Deneke, " the verb to be
to exist, either in the Delaware or Chippeway language, and I
can find nothing in those idioms that expresses it literally.
The nearest to it is (in the Delaware) ni n'dellsin elsia, ' as I
do.' The pronoun ni is duplicated to strengthen the expres
sion of the idea of the first person of the verb; elsi a is con
tracted from elgiqui, 'as,' and lissia, 'as I do,' (da ich thue.)
Out of this pronoun ni, or nen, perhaps, a new verb might be
framed, which, I am inclined to think, Mr. Eliot has done in
the Natick. This was easy to be done; but such a word is
not genuine Indian. I have been, in vain, trying to understand
the meaning of Nen nuttinniin nen nuttinniin , which appears to
be the same sentence twice repeated, but have not been able
to succeed:- - - - ."
"Ni n'delinaxin elinaxia, 'as I appear so I am,' (Ich bin dem
so
gleich, so wie ich bin.) But this is not answering Mr. Du Pon
ceau's question, I should probably express 'I am as ye are,'
by Ni n'dellsin elsiyeek; and I do not think that there is any
thing that comes nearer to it.
"I think we must remain where we are; agreeing, however,
upon this point, that in the Indian languages that we are ac
quainted with, 'I am that I am' cannot be literally expressed,
but a substitute must be employed," &c. ·
In a Postscript, which follows the copy of Mr. Dencke's let-
ter, Mr, Heckewelder concludes, that if Nen nuttinniin nen nut-
tinniin
means any thing, it must be either '' I am a man, I am a
man," or, "I do so, I do so."
After much consideration and study of the subject, I incline
much to the opinion, that Mr. Heckewelder is right in his last
conjecture; and, as it appears to be full time to put an end to
these Notes, and the remaining parts of speech suggest no inter
esting observations, I shall conclude with stating the grounds
upon which this conjecture is founded.
It appears to me, in the first place, that the Massachusetts
verb nuttinniin is the same with the Delaware verb n'dell sin,
'I do or act,' which the German s not unfrequently spell n'tellsin,
confounding the t with the d, because their ears do not suffi-
NOTES ON ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR. xxix
ciently
distinguish between the two sounds. Now the first
syllable of nuttinniin, 'nut,' in which the short u is employed
to express the interval or sheva between the two consonants,
is the same with the Delaware n'd or n't; the middle syllable
tin is the Delaware tel or del, changing e into i and l into
n; in is the termination of the verbal form in the Massachu
setts, which in this word is the same as.in the Delaware; and
nen is the duplication of the personal pronoun, for the sake of
greater energy, as Mr. Deneke has very properly observed.
This etymological deduction would not prove much, without
shewing that the verb nuttinniin means "to do or act" in the
Massachusetts,
as n'dellsin does in the Delaware. This, I
think, can be done by recurring to examples in our author's
translation of the Bible. For instance: To kittinheh, "What
is it that thou hast done unto me?" Gen: xii. 8. To means
"what;" kittinheh is probably the interrogative form of the
verb nuttinniin, or n'tinniin, k't, kut, or kit, being the affix
form of the second person, which the letter k represents
in the Massachusetts as well as in the Delaware. To kutussem?
"What hast thou done?" Gen. iv, 10. Here the verb is em-
ployed in another form, not being combined with the idea of
to me, which appears expressed in the former word by the n,
descriptive of the first person. This is, however, but my
humble conjecture, which I offer with great diffidence, after
the question has been given up by those who are much more
skilled than I am in the Indian languages; of which I profess
to know nothing except the little I have acquired in the soli
tude of the closet.
I have only to add a remark respecting the verb nutapip,
which, as Judge Davis observes, (in the Postscript to his
letter,) is used for I am, in Eliot's Bible: " Before Abraham
was, I AM--Negonne onk Abrahamwi nutapip. John viii. 58,"
At the time when Judge Davis wrote to me, J could not ex
plain the meaning of nutapip; but I am now able to do it.
N'dappin is a Delaware verb, which signifies to be (in a par
ticular
place) stare; the preterite is n'dappineep, stabam, hic
stabam. There can be no doubt but Eliot's nutiipip, that is
to say, n'tapip or n'dapip, is a contraction of the Delaware
n'dappineep, and means, I was there,
xxx NOTES ON ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR.
SUPPLEMENTARY OBSERVATIONS. BY THE EDITOR.
AFTER
the Notes and Observations of Mr. Du Ponceau had
been delivered to the printer, I employed the few leisure mo
ments, which I could command, in considering some of the
points discussed in them; and in the course of my inquiries
some unexpected facts came under my notice. These sug-
gested reflections, which led to a further correspondence be
tween Mr. Du Ponceau and Mr. Heckewelder; and as this
correspondence throws much light upon the structure of the
Indian Languages, I have thought it would be useful to state
in this place some of the facts, to which I have alluded, to
gether with the substance of their additional remarks upon
them.
I. On the Verb TO BE.
IT will he recollected, that in conformity with what has been
observed in modern times, by Dr. Edwards in the Mohegan
language and by Mr. Zeisberger and Mr. Heckewelder in the
Delaware, the author of the present Grammar had said a
century and a half ago of the .Maua.c/iusetts language-" We
have no compleat distinct word for the Verb Substantive, as
other, learned languages, and our English tongue have; but it
is under a regular composition, whereby many words are
made verb substantive;" which kind of "composition," he
adds, takes place in nouns, adnouns, adverbs, or the like.
Notwithstanding this emphatick observation, however, the
venerable
author, in his version of the Scriptures, had repeat
edly found occasion to translate the verb to be, and accord
ingly often attempted to render it by some equivalent Indian
word; a striking instance of which is to be found in the
passage already brought under discussion in the preceding
Notes: I am that I am, "Nen nuttinniin nen [or ne]nuttiniin."*
This circumstance led me to examine some of the passages, in
which the verb to be occurred in the English version of the
*
Eliot's first edition has nen nuttinniin NE nuttinniin; but the second has
nen in both places. This difference will not affect the reasoning re
specting the substantive verb, but will only make a difference in the gram-
matical analysis of the sentence.
NOTES ON ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR. xxxi
Bible;
and I soon found, that Eliot appeared to have been
driven to the necessity of resorting to Indian words, appar
ently very different from each other. For one example of
this we need not go beyond the very text above cited;
where, though in the first part of the verse he employs the
expression Nen NUTTINIIN for I am, yet, in the latter part, he
uses the words Nen UKOH: I AM hath sent me unto you--"Nen
ukoh anꝏteamwe nuttamꝏnuk en kuhhogkaꝏnt." In
other
parts of his version he uses various other forms of ex
pression for the different tenses of the English verb; as will
be seen in the following examples;
Gen. iii. 9. Where art thou? Toh kutapin ?
-- v. 24, And he was not. Kah mallah na wutápein.
--
xviii. 24. For the fifty Newutche napannatahshinchag-
righteous that are there- odtog sampwesecheg na apit-
in. cheg.
Exod. viii. 21, And also the Kah wame ohkeit ne apehttit.
ground whereon they are.
--
xx, 21. Where God Ne God apit.
was.
1 Sam, xix. 3. Where thou Uttoh apean.
art.
1
Kings xxii. 4. I am as thou Nen netatuppe ken.
art.
Job
xxxviii. 4. Where wast Uttoh kutapineas?
thou?
Psalm xxxvii. 36. And lo he Kah kusseh matta ohtano.
was not.
Isa.
xxiii. 13. This people Yeug missinuinnuog matta ap-
was not, till the Assyrian, pupaneg noh pajeh Assyri-
&c. ansog, &c,
John viii. 58. Before Abra- Negonne Abrahamwi, nutapip,
Ham was I am.
Rev.
i. 4,8, & iv.8 . From Wutch noh noh koh, noh koh mo,
him which is, and which noh paont.
was and which is to come.
-- xvii. 8. The beast that Puppinashimwoh, noh mo, kah
was
and is not and yet is noh matta, kah noh yeuyeu
apit.
In many other places, however, the author uses some
form of the word nuttiniin:
xxxii NOTES ON ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR.
Gen. xxxi. 40. Thus I was Yeu mo nuttinaiin, kesukodaeu
in the day the drought kusittau nuttonauushkik, kah
consumed me and the frost tꝏhpu nukonaeu.
by night.
-- xxxi. 41. Thus I have Yeu nuttinaiin neesnechage kod-
been twenty years in thy tumae kekit.
house.
This apparent diversity in the modes of expressing the
same idea excited my curiosity. It was manifest that the
venerable author had experienced a difficulty in finding;
what he calls in his Grammar, a "complete" verb substan-
tive; and that he had been obliged to content himself with
words which only approximated to the strict signification of
that verb. I therefore endeavoured to ascertain the precise
import of the words, which he _thus appeared to have used
as substitutes for it. With this view, I began to re d Cotton's
English and Indian Vocabulary, (the lHS. mentioned in the
Introductory Observations to the present Grammar,) from which
the Hon. Judge Davis had extracted the example of the
verb to be, that had given rise to the discussion in Mr. Du
Ponceau's Notes.* In the course of my reading, I soon met
with the verb nuttiniin, used by Eliot, in Exod. iii. 14. But I
was not a little surprised at the same time to find, that Cotton
translated it, not by our verb to be, but by the verb to be
come. He gives it in this form;
" I am become, …………nuttinni.
We are become,…………------ yumun.
To become, ……………. Unniinat."
This discovery now led me to examine Eliot's Bible for
texts where the verb to become occurred; in order to see how
far Eliot agreed with Cotton, in rendering that English verb;
and I found, that he also had rendered it sometimes by
nuttinniin, the very word, which he had in other places used
for the verb to be.
Upon returning to my examination of Cotton's Vocabulary,
I soon met with another of Eliot's substitutes for the verb
to be-the word nutapip, which occurs in this text: Before
Abraham was I am--" Negonne onk Abrahamwi nutapip."
John viii. 58. But here again I found that Cotton had affixed
* See page xxxv. of the Notes,
NOTES ON ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR. xxxiii
to
the Indian word a different idea from that which Eliot
seemed to have done; for Cotton explained nutapip by our
verb to be able, in different modes and tenses as follows:
"I
am able, nuttâppinum.
Thou art able, ken kuttâppinum,
He is able, nagum tâppinnum.
We
are able, nuttâppinnumumun.
Ye are able, kuttâppinnumumwꝏ.
They are able, nâg tappinumwog, &c.
I was able, nuttâppinumup.
Thou wast able, kuttâppinumup.
Be thou able, ken tapinish.
Let him be able, noh tapinetch.
Let us be able, tapinumuttuh.
Be
ye able, tapinnumook.
Let them be able tapinnumhittitch.
Art thou able? sun kuttapinnum?
To be able, tapinumunat."
As I had discovered these various explanations of the In
dian words in question, in the same manuscript where the
Hon. Judge Davis had found the supposed substantive verb
(ainneat) which had given occasion to the discussion in
the preceding Notes, I communicated to Mr. Du Ponceau the
facts, which had thus fallen under my observation, and refer
red him to several texts of Eliot's Bible, where the words in
question occurred; requesting him, at the same time, to fa
vour me with his reflections on the subject; for whether
Cotton
was right in translating nuttinniin by become, while
Eliot had rendered it by our verb to be, was a point which
my own acquaintance with the language did not enable me
to determine. ,
Mr. Du Ponceau, in his reply to my letter, (after observing,
that "perhaps Cotton could find no better word for become")
says-" But if the word means strictly and precisely become,
how can it mean TO BE in the text, I am that I am? Eliot's
translation would then be--I become, I become. This is still
farther from the meaning of his text than the Delaware
n'dellsin, I AM so.* If I may indulge a conjecture, I should
* See Mr. Du Ponceau's Note, p, xxviii.
xxxiv NOTES ON ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR.
say,
that the Wapanachki had no proper word for either be or
become, and have perhaps used the same approximation in both
cases. In general, it appears to me, that the idea of existence
is never presented singly in any Indian word, but always
coupled with some accessary idea, which connects the word
with what is to follow. Thus, if they meant to say I have
now
become good, they would probably say, I am now so that
I am good, or use a word implying or leading to that com
pound idea. It is true, the relation back to what I formerly
was, does not here appear; and there lies the difficulty." Mr.
Du Ponceau, however, without expressing a settled opinion of
his own, consulted Mr. Heckewelder, and has obligingly fur
nished me with their correspondence; the substance of which
I cannot communicate to the reader in a more useful and
interesting form than their own language.
In the first letter which Mr. Du Ponceau wrote to Mr.
Heckewelder
(Oct. 8, 1821) he made the following inquiries:
"I wish t9 know how you express the word become in Dela
ware, as thus : I was once bad, I have now become good; and
these Scriptural phrases:
The
man is become as one of us. Gen. iii. 22.
What will become of his dreams ? Gen: xxxvii. 20.
What is become of him? Exod. xxxii. 1.
To them gave he power to become the sons of God. John i. 12.
"In the Natick, (or Massachusetts,) Eliot expresses this
word by nuttinniin, the same which he uses for I am that I am.
I think this word is derived from the Delaware n'dellsin,
n'tellsin, changing the l into n, which is very frequent among
Indians. If the Delawares use n'dellsin for become, it will
confirm me in my opinion.
"In the short History of the Bible, at the end of Zeisber
ger's Spelling Book, it seems to roe I have found the word
become expressed by n'dellsin. See page 127, line 10-That
they would become too powerful. It seems to me that the
word wtellitsch, in the translation, is meant to express become.
See also page 136, line 9-wtellitsch sokenapalan. Does not
this mean, should be, or became baptized? You will find the
word become in several other parts of Zeisberger's History
of the Bible; as, for instance, pages 119 and 120, third
paragraph-become confirmed; page, 123, second line from
the bottom-become universal. In these phrases I do not find
NOTES ON ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR. xxxv
n'dellsin, nor indeed any word to express become; which
seems m the Delaware to he understood."
To these inquiries, Mr. Heckewelder replied in two dif
ferent letters. In his first (in consequence of being request
ed to return an immediate answer) he merely gives a transla
tion in Delaware of the English phrases proposed, without
any comment or grammatical explanation, as follows :
"1. To become
Allumilissin--elsin.
2. I was once bad, I have now become good.
Nemomachtschilissihump, schukmetschi n'nolilissi.*
3. The man is become as one of us.
Na lenno lussu, elsiyenk.
4. What will become of his dreams?
Ta
hatsch leke eechdelungwamoagcma untschi? or, koecu
hatsch w'delungwamoagana untschi? what benefit will
he derive from his dreams? t
5. What is become of him?
Ta eli achpit? (where is he?) or, ta uchtenden? how is
he? what is he about? or, ta leke hocheyal, how
does it look about him? (Germ. Wie sieht es um
ihn aus?)
6. To them gave he power to become the sons of God.
Milap nikik allewussowoagan wentschitsch gask wequi
semuxit na-Gettanittowit; or, milap nekik wdalle
wussoagan wentschitschgaski getannellowitall qui
semaouna."
Mr. Heckewelder's second letter (of Oct. 13) contains a
minute consideration of the word become, with an explanation
of the true import of the different words by which it is
expressed in the Delaware language ; and the whole letter
* "Machtschi, bad; schuk, but; metschi, ready, already; olilis, good,
(from wulit.) P. S. D;"
t
Nane leketsch; amen, so be it, so may it happen ; koecu, what, some-
thing. P, S. D."
xxxvi NOTES ON ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR.
is
so interesting, and throws so much light upon the struc-
ture of the Indian languages, that I am unwilling to abridge it.
He writes as follows:
"By your two letters of the 8th and 9th of October, I
discover that my first answer to your questions had not reached
you. In that I attempted to translate the Scripture passages
quoted by you, for the purpose of discovering what word the
Delawares have for our word BECOME, or TO BECOME; the
German word for it being werden.
"I have since also given the quotations from Scripture,
contained in your last letters, due consideration, but cannot
discover any kind of word in the Delaware language, that
would answer generally to the English word become, or the
German werden; neither do I believe there is such a word in
their language. Yet they are never at a loss to convey the
sense or meaning of this word by means of syllables from
two or more words joined together; and, indeed, often the
termination of a word is sufficient for that purpose. The
word allemi, which implies something progressing, advancing
towards a close, going on, &c., is with them joined (generally
prefixed) to a word which is expressive of the object it is
progressing to: Thus, allemiken (to ripen) contains the mean
ing of the two words, allemi gischiken, which, when separated,
are lengthened out as here written; tepiken (Zeisb. p, 37) being
the general word for any thing that bears fruit or grain, when
or being ripe, full-grown, &c. Again: the word allemilek im-
plies a prediction, or any thing expected, progressing towards the
point, or towards establishing the fact; as for instance, when
I say--metschi ALLEMILEK endchen ndelloweneep, it is the same
as saying, all that I had said (or foretold) is now coming to
Pass.
"In this way the word become is, in a manner, interwoven
in the words of their language; and by examining the pas-
sages you quote from Zeisberger's Translation, it will be
found
so. As, in his History of the Bible, p, 119, third
paragraph, for the English word increase, or, that they in-
creased, he has the word allemikenewo, from the word allemi
gischiken (the termination ewo signifying they) that is, they be
came more numerous.* At pages 126-7, where you take the
word wtellitch to express become, (which word, however, has
* "The word gischiken is also applicable to the birth of an infant
sound born, J. H."
NOTES ON ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR. xxxvii
a
different signification) Zeisberger says--ahanhocqui gischiga
pannik; which words imply an additional or extraordinary in
crease, which had taken place in Egypt, &c.; and for the
words--the king became apprehensive, Zeisberger has--wentschi
Sakima nechasop* wtellitsch wsami m'chelhittin, woak allowiwu-
nan--which is--therefore the King became fearful, that by means
of this increase they might finally be too powerful for them:
Here sop answers for jealous.
"The passage wtellitsch Sokenapalan, which you quote
from page 136, line 9--nil milapanil Allouchsowoagan went
schitsch undamemensichtit Getannittowittink is translated from
the German text, which reads thus: Denen gab er macht kinder
Gottes zu werden. John i. 12. The words kinder zu werden
(in English, to become children) are expressed in the Indian
word undamemensichtit; in which the two last syllables ichtit
express the words to become; (Germ. werden;) so that the
two last words, undamemensichtit Getannittowitink, taken to
gether, clearly imply to become children of God.
"The next passage you quote, (from page 108, and which
you find in Matth. xviii. 3,)
Mattatsch gluppiweque, woak mattatsch amemensuwiweque,
(Eng. If not you turn back, and if not as children ye become,)
(GERM. Wo nicht ihr umkehret, und wo nicht als die kinder ihr werdet,)
is
as clearly set forth in their language as in either of ours;
the word become (Germ. werden) being incorporated in the last
word, or expressed -by the last syllables wiweque. The word
wentschi for therefore, (in German, darum,) Zeisb. p. 17, with
the tsch at the end of it, points or directs to something that is
to take place in future; it implies as much as to say in German
--damit
es geschehen moge. The reason for my going there
is also expressed by them thus--wentschitsch na ayane.
"Thus there are many Indian words, which, though neces
sary in explaining a thing, do not effect it without an additional
word. For example, the word anenawi would be; in German,
endlich, and in English, at last,finally, &c: Now, by adding the
syllable itsch to it, so as to make it anenawitsch, it directs you
forward, to something that is yet to take place, which is generally
set forth in the next following word or words; as anenawitsch
*
"For nechasin and nechasil; see Zeisb, p. 30. Nechasop, in the text,
stands for jealous, fearful, &c. J. H."
xxxviii. NOTES ON ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR.
knemeneen
Menachking, that is, in German, endlich werden wie
doch Pittsburg sehen--finally, or at last, we shall see Pittsburg,
or (as is properly meant) arrive at Pittsburg; the last word in
this Indian expression being their name for that place. But I
may
also say--auwiewi knementsch Menachking, finally we shall
see (or arrive at) Pittsburg."
These observations of Mr. Heckewelder will be rendered
still more useful to the student, by the following additional
explanations, which were communicated in a subsequent let
ter to Mr. Du Ponceau. Mr, H. says-
The structure of the Indian languages is, as you observe,
truly wonderful….. I once believed myself competent to under
stand
every word they used; and I can still plainly see the
necessity of every syllable in a word, by which to explain
themselves properly. Not being able, however, to answer
your questions intelligibly, otherwise than by examples, set-
ting
forth words and phrases, which will lead to the re
quired solution, I shall adopt that method.
"Thus with regard to the syllable UND. I begin with the
word unden, Zeisb. p. 16. This (says Z.) is to take from,
which so far is correct; for, if an I ndi an becomes possessed of
an article not seen with him before, he will be asked-" TA
GUNDEN?* where did you get it? or how did you come by it?" for
the word unden of itself instructs us, that the article was ob
tained at some place, or came to hand through or from some
source. As, Zeisberger, p. 67-UNDENUMM.EN, to take it from,
or, more properly, to have obtained it (es bekmnmeri)—WUND-
ENSIK, where it is to be got from (Zeisb. p. 72) points to a
certain place where the article was obtained or may be had.
"When the syllable UND or WEND is prefixed, in a spiritual
sense, it applies to favours, gifts, &c., not to things purchased,
or on which a price is set. Thus WENDENUXOWOAGAN, reception,
admittance. Zeisb. 111,--UNDOOCHWENALL, he came for their
sake, Zeisb. 67.-" Christ undoochwenep getemaxitschit" is,
Christ came for the purpose of (saving or relieving) the poor,
or needy. WENDaptonachga, of, or from the word, Zeisb. 95,
-Christ
wundaptonalgun, Christ (by or through his word)
speaks unto us (that is, we do not ourselves hear him speak,
yet what he says is directed to us) from his place of abode;
* In this word gunden, and some others, Mr. Heckewelder seems (according
to the practice of German writers) to use the letter g fork; this latter
being
the usual prefix to denote the second person.
NOTES ON ELJOT'S INDIAN GRAMMA. xxxix
UNDEN Christink, it proceedeth or cometh from him; UND
amemensemichtit, through or by….. to become, &c.
"I can go no further in explaining the syllable und (from
unden) than to add, that when used in a temporal sense, it
implies lo get or have gotten, procured or purchased such a thing
or article from the place or person at the time named. In a
spiritual
sense, it is applied to a thing obtained by free will or
through grace-to be admitted, received, BE, or BECOME a par
taker, &c. of, in, or to whatever qne or the other of the
connected words indicates.
"WENTSCHI is simply therefore (Germ. darum, um desswillen.)
"WENTSCHITSCH is thereby (Germ. dadurch) and directs to
the future.
"We have no such words as nentschi, lcenlschi, in the lan
guage. The letter w, in wentschi, does not point to the third
person, but is necessary to distinguish that word from UNTSCHI,
from, of, (Zeisb. 16,) which, being a general word, is fre
quently either. wholly or partly incorporated in other words;
as, for instance: Ta untschiey--where does it come from? Nik
lennowak wemi utenink UNTSCHijeyih--those men are all come
from the city.
"NUNTSCHihilla uteney--I came, with speed, from the city:
Kuntschihilla uteney--are you come, with speed, from the city?
Untschihilleu uteney--he came, speedily, from the city or town.
Kuntschihillahummo uteney—are all come from the city
or town?"*
To these remarks should be added a brief explanation of
the terminations muxit and sichtit, which occur in some of the
preceding examples:
"In looking over your letter (says Mr. H.) after I had written
this, I find that I had not sufficiently explained the terminations
muxit and sichtit. Please to turn to Zeisberger's Spelling
Book, page 104, for the word MACHELEMUXOWOAGAN, honour;
p. 82, for the word MACHELEMUXIT, the that is honoured;
and p. 52, for MACHELENDAM, to honour, &c. Now MACHELEMAU
or MACHELEMAE is, honour him, &c.; MACHELEMUXichtit, may
be or become honoured. Now it will be understood as ex-
* "The syllables hilla (taken from the word schihilla, quickly, speedily)
added to the word untschi, make the compound untschihilla, and denote
either quick running or riding. J. H.''
t "It is all the same whether I write this word muxit or mucksit: I have
seen the word maxen (shoes) written mocksen, &c. J. H."
xl NOTES ON ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR,
actly
the same thing, whether I say WENTSCHI MACHELEMUX-
ichtitetsch, or WENTSCHitsch MACHELEMUXxichtit, to become hon
oured. The same thing takes place in the word UND-AΜΕΜΕΝ-
sichtit; the future, to be made, become, in the first words, is in
the termination ichtitetsch; in the last, it is partly in the ter
mination of the word wentschitsch, and partly in the termina
tion of the second word ichtit."
I cannot omit adding here (from a letter of Mr. Du Ponceau)
the following elucidation of the Indian method of expressing
our verbs:
"We are now (says he) upon the word become; and Μr.
Heckewelder has told us, that there is no proper word for it
in the language of the Delawares, but yet that they are never
at a loss for a method of conveying that idea. Let us see
how they go about it. Mr. H. instances the words to be
come honoured; in Delaware wentschi machelemuxichtitelsch,
or (what is equivalent) wentschitsch machelemuxichtit. This
may be parsed as follows:
"Wentschi (as explained in Mr. Heckewelder's letter) is
therefore; wentschitch is thereby, and directs to the future.
"Machelemuxichtit. In the Transactions of the Historical and
Literary Committee, (p. 445 of Mr. Heckewelder's Correspond
ence,) we have the substantive machelemuxowoagan, honour, or
the being honoured. The verb is machelendam (3d conjug.) to hon
our; machelemuxit (particip.) he who is honoured; machelemux
ichtit (3d pers. plur. conditional, or conjunctive) if, or when
they
are honoured. Observe, that the phrase lo be honoured
is here taken in a plural sense-wentschimachelemuxichtitetsch
or wentschitsch machelemuxichtit. Tsch is the sign of the fu
ture; and it is a matter of indifference, says Mr. Heckewelder,
whether it is suffixed to the preposition by it, or to the verb
to be honoured; hence, the two modes of rendering the sen
tence. Thus "to become the children of God" is expressed
in Zeisberger's Harmony; by " wentschitsch undamemensichtit
Getannittowitink;" WENTSCHITSCH, thereby in future, UNDAMEM-
ENSICHTIT, (from awemens, child,) to become the children. Here the
word become is not at all used, but a compound verb, from
the substantive child, expresses the idea; as in the Latin
word beatificari (a word formed much after the Indian manner)
the syllable fi awakening in the mind the. idea of fieri; but
as there is no such word as fieri in the Indian (in the mere
abstract sense) the same idea is differently expressed. Lastly;
GETANNITTOWITINK, of God,--ink or onk is a termination of
NOTES ON ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR. xli
relation,
and here expresses the genitive. See Zeisberger's
Grammar: "Nihillalquonk Allogewoaganall, God's the Lord's
works."
The preceding discussion respecting the verbs to be and to
become, has been confined (as the reader will have observed) to
two of the Indian languages only, the Delaware of the present
day, and the Massachusetts as spoken a century and a half
ago. But since the correspondence of Mr. Heckewelder and
Mr. Du Ponceau, I have been enabled to extend my inquiries
on the present question to some other Indian dialects; though
not with the same minuteness and certainty as in the case of
the Delaware language. For the information which I have
obtained, I am indebted to the Rev. Herman Daggett, Super
intendant of the Foreign Missionary School, established at
Cornwall, in the State of Connecticut; who, notwithstanding
the pressure of ill health, was so obliging as to make particular
inquiries for me on this subject of the different Indian pupils
under his care, In his letter to me, of the 22d of October, 1821,
he says--
"I have, strictly speaking, but four Indian languages in my
school; the Choctaw, the Cherokee, the Muhhekunneau (or
Stockbridge) and the Iroquois, including the Oneida, Tuscarora
and Caughnewaga. The youth of the se nations, or tribes,
agree in saying, as far as I can make them understand the
subject, that they have no substantive verb. Where we should
say, I am here, they can only say, I here, or I stand or live
here. I have now but one Stockbridge lad; he recognizes, in
some measure, his own language in the few words you have
given from Eliot, but appears to know nothing of the verb
conjugated by Cotton.* The word nuttinniin , he says, signifies
always the same, without change; and nutapip, I was born, or
I born.
''The attempts of the different youth s at translating the
given passages [of scripture] are not very satisfactory. Some
of them have a word, or part of a word, which, they say, sig
nifies AM or WAS, in connexion; but they say it has not that
meaning by itself. Their translation, they say, is good Chero
kee or good Choctaw, &c.; but when I try to bring them to
* The words of Eliot here alluded to, were--Negonne onk Abrahamwi
nutapip--John viii. 58; and the verb conjugated by Cotton was ainneat,
which is given above, at p. xxv. As to the close affinity between the
Muhheakunneau (Mohegan) and the Massachusetts, see above, Introductory
Observations, p. 19.
xlii NOTES ON ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR.
explain
and analyze, they are at a loss......I can plainly dis
cover that there is a beautiful contexture in their languages."*
From the whole of this investigation, then, it appears-
1. That the observation made by Eliot, at the very early
period when he wrote, that there was "no complete distinct
word for the verb substantive" in the Massachusetts language,
is very fully confirmed by what we find to be the case in the
Delaware language; which is the main stock of the Massachu
setts and other northern dialects, and from which we may rea
son (in respect to general properties) to the derivative dia
lects, without much hazard of falling into any material errours.
2. That the Massachusetts verb nuttinniin (or n'tinniin, as it
would now be written) which Eliot sometimes uses for our
verb to be, and sometimes for become, is nothing more than an
approximation to the strict meaning of those English words.
But the precise import of the Massachusetts verb nuttinniin
does not yet appear so clearly as to leave no uncertainty upon
the subject; though it seems to have a close affinity with the
Delaware verb n'dellsin, and probably is (as Mr. Du Ponceau
has above observed) the very corresponding verb in that
kindred dialect. If, upon further investigation, this should
prove to be the fact, beyond all doubt, then we shall need no
other authority for the fundamental idea of this verb, than that
of Mr. Heckewelder, who informs us, that in the Delaware it
is, I act so, I act for myself (in German, so bin ich gestellt.)
Yet, until the identity of the two verbs is incontrovertibly
established, it may be allowable in an inquiry of this nature
to offer even conjectures; with the hope, that if such conjec-
tures should not be entirely well founded in themselves, they
may be the means of exciting such further investigations, as
may at last conduct us to the true solution of the problem.
Under this impression, I shall submit one other view of the
subject, which has occurred to me upon a fresh examination of
Eliot's Grammar, and some other works relative to the dialects
of our northern Indians. I offer it as a mere conjecture; and
I should not venture to do even that, if I had not obtained the
approbation of Mr. Du Ponceau himself, who thinks this
view not unworthy of being submitted to the reader.
Eliot, in p. 23 of his Grammar, has the following curious
remark: "There be also suppletive syllables of no significa-
*
For specimens of the Cherokee language, the reader is referred to Dr.
Jarvis's Discourse on the Religion of the Indian Tribes of North America;
the learned Notes of which contain much valuable information on the Lan-
guages of the Indians,
NOTES ON ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR. xliii
lion
but for ornament of the word, as tit, tin, tinne; and these,
in way of an elegancy, receive the affix, which belongeth to
the noun or verb following, as nuttit, lcuttit, wuttit, NUTTIN,
kuttin, wuttin, NUTTINNE, kuttinne, wuttinne."
During a very recent perusal of his Grammar, this remark
attracted my notice; and it immediately occurred to me that,
possibly, the suppletive syllable tinne might be a constitu
ent part of the verb nuttinniin; in which case the verb itself
would be simply nuttiin, or (as we should now write it) n'tiin.
Pursuing the investigation, upon this hypothesis, I found in
Cotton's MS. Vocabulary several instances, in which the
suppletive tin (as well as some of the other suppletives)
appeared to be thus incorporated into different verbs with
the affixes of the different persons, in conformity with Eliot's
observation. This led me to continue my inquiries for a verb
of the form I have mentioned (n'tiin); and I had the satisfac-
tion at last of meeting with it in Roger Williams's Vocabulary
of: the Naraganset dialect; which is now well known to be
nearly the same language with the Massachusetts. In that
Vocabulary, the verb in question occurs in the three following
phrases; in one of which, however, it is somewhat obscured by
the author's very irregular orthography;
"Yo nttin ……. I live here.
Tou wuttiin? …….. where lives he ?
Tuckuttiin [tou kuttin?] … where keep you?" *
Now, if Eliot's verb nuttinniin is in fact the same with
Williams's verb n'ttin, the signification of it, as the reader
perceives, is very different from that of the pure substantive
verb; some other idea being united with that of mere
existence in the abstract. How far this analysis of the verb
nuttinniin may be well founded, is submitted to the candid
reader, with all that hesitation, which ought to be felt by
one, who has no more knowledge of the Indian languages
than I possess,
Thus far the present remarks have been directed to the
meaning of Eliot's verb nuttinniin; and it now only remains,
to ascertain the signification of his other substitutes for the
* The English word keep seems to be here used by Williams, in the provin
cial signification, which it has in some parts of New England at the present
day; that is, in the sense of to stay, reside, or (as Williams says in the
other
two phrases) to live. See his Key, chap. i. in Massachusetts Historical Collec-
tions, vol. v. pp. 80, 81.
xliv NOTES ON ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR.
"complete
substantive verb," which occur in the texts above
cited (p. xxxi.) The explanations of these last will take up
the less time, as the remarks upon the former, in connexion
with the general question, have been extended to so great a
length. I shall give them in a very concise form, as they
occur in Mr. Du Ponccau's letters to me. He says-
"I have studied the problems; and think I have gone a
great way towards solving them.
"I. Rev. i. 4. From him which is, and which was, and
which is to come--Wutch noh, noh koh, noh koh, noh paont.
WUTCH (Delaw. wentschi) from.
NOH, he, him (Gram. p. 7.) used again for who or which.
KOH. This word is embarrassing, because of the letter k,
indicating the second person. I am unable at present to
explain
it in a manner perfectly satisfactory to myself.
NOH PAONT, This is easily explained from the Delaware.
In
that language, we find PAHUMP, to come; PEU, he comes;
PEWAK, they come. PAONT is undoubtedly an inflexion of the
same verb. In Eliot's Grammar, p. 22, we find woi NAPEH
NONT, O! that it were; which literally is-O that it came
(to pass.)
Mo. That MO is a particle indicative of the past, I have
little doubt; as in Gen. xxxi. 40, above quoted: YEU MO
NUTTINNAIIN--YEU, this, (used for thus)--Mo, heretofore, NUTTIN-
NAIIN, was so or so (from n'dellsin,) as stated in the notes
before communicated.
"If I am right thus far, then every thing is explained but
koh, which I cannot yet sufficiently account for.
"II. Rev. xvii. 8..........and yet is--kah noh yeuyeu APIT.
KAH NOH YEUVEU APIT-and he, this this (yen yeu, Gram.
p.
8.) is there; apit (pronounced as epit in German) illic stat.
Yeu duplicated, perhaps used for which.
"III. Gen. v. 4....... .kah matta na WUTAPEIN.
NA is an expletive which I cannot explain.
WUTAPEIN (Delaw. w'dappin, he is there.) See Zeisb. Dela-
ware Grammar.
"IV. Psalm xxxvii. 36..........matta ohtano, was not.
OHTANO is probably a form of the same verb, and means
he was not there. W'dano, w'tano, ohtano; the o, u and oh
are often used by Eliot for the Delaware w sibilant. For
the same reason, we say, the Ottawas, Utawas, while their
proper name is W'tawas, or Wtawas."
NOTES ON ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR. xlv
II. Numerals.
ELIOT, in his Grammar, gives as the numeral one, the word
nequt only, corresponding to the Delaware n'gutti, and the
Naraganset nquit. But in his Bible he uses also the word
pasuk, corresponding to the Abnaki pezekou of Father Rale's
dictionary, and the Naraganset pawsuck of Roger Williams's
Key. Now, in reading Cotton's valuable Vocabulary, the
following curious distinction, in the use of these two different
numerals, attracted my notice:
"Nequt, a thing that is past.
Pasuk, a thing in being."
I. lost no time in communicating this distinction of Cotton's
to Mr. Du Ponceau, with a wish that he would ascertain from
Mr. Heckewelder, whether any thing of the kind was to be
found in the Delaware language. This circumstance gave rise
to the following interesting observations on the Delaware
numerals:
"The Delawares (says Mr. II. in his first letter) have the
following words for one, viz: n'gutti, mawat, mauchsu and
majouchsu. The tw first are generally made use of for what
is inanimate; the latter two, for what is animate. Paschuk is
the true Mahicanni word for one."
In a subsequent letter, Mr. H. gives the following more
copious explanation in respect. to the Delaware numerals;
which serves at the same time to elucidate the curious struc
ture of the Indian languages:
"Not being quite satisfied with the partial answer I gave
you in a hurry respecting the numeral one, I will now expa
tiate more fully thereon ; first, pointing out what words the
Delawares have in their language, equally necessary to be
known, in addition to the one above quoted; as much de
pends, in speaking their language, upon having each word in
its proper place; for although the numeral n'gutti, for one,
may be in a manner considered as the general word in this
language for the number one, (be the same animate or inani
mate) yet it is not always the case. Indeed the first syllable
of that word, n'gut, (/ leave out always the prefixed n, there
being no necessity for it, as it is only put there to explain the
numeral; as by saying "one single one") I say, that al-
xlvi NOTES ON ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR.
though
this first syllable is very useful, and prefixed to a great
number of compound words, all which tend to show that this
syllable gut cannot be dispensed with, as will by and by be
shown by examples; yet, the latter syllable of the numeral,
the ti, is not only in numerous cases useless, but would be
even improper, if retained. Ex. The Indian name or word
for a one-legged person, being gut-gat, is a compound of two
words;
gut, from GUTTI, one, and gat, from WICHGAT, the leg:
GUTGATSU, he is on e-legged, or has but one leg. GUTOKENAK is
the word for one day; GUTAWICAN, one fathom (awican be
ing the word for one fathom, or six feet;) GUT-TAPACHKI, one
hundred,
&c. Generally speaking, the Indians are very nice
in the selecting of words. I will give you such as are in con
junction with the one in question, viz. GUTTI, one: Zeisb. 11,
MAWAT (only) one.' Zeisb. 13, MAYAAT (is the same in the
Minsey.) The two latter of these three words can in no wise
be made use of with that which is animate; on the other hand,
the words MAUCHsu and MAYAUCHSU are the proper words
for what is animate: MAUCHSU LENNO is one man; MAUCHSU
TIPAS, one (single) fowl, &c. (Mayauchsu is the Minsey word
for the same. See Z eisberger, 52, at bottom.) If I meant
to
say to a Lenape, that of all the men who had returned
from hunting, only one (single person) had killed a deer, I
could not make use of the numeral n'gutti, for that one, but
I must say--bischi apallauwiwak lennowak weemi, allod mauchsu.
(or mayauchsu ) schuk, mescheu, See, for mayauchsu, Zeisb.
p. 52, at bottom; and for MEmayauchsiyENK, every ONE of us,
MEmayauchsiyEEK, every ONE of you, Zeisb. p. 105.
"You inquire further, whether it is the same in the Dela
ware, as Cotton says it is in the Natick [Massachuselts) that
there are 'two words for the numeral one--n'gutte or nequt,
for
a thing past, and pasu k, for a thing present.' In this
remark, I consider Cotton to be under a mistake; for I am
sure,
that the Mahicanni word n'gutte (the same as the Dela
ware n'gutti or gutti) is a general word, and in constant use
for the present. The Mahicanni say-gutte or gutta for one:
"Gutta-gun (in Delaware, gutti-gull) ONE six-penn y piece--
n'gutt6xena (Delaw. guttaxen) ONE pair of shoes, &c. I pre
sume the Natick word nequt answers to the Delaware gut
TEN, since it points to the past, as for instance-gutTEN
n'gachti angeln, ONCE l was on the point of dying; gutTEN-woa
pan, ONCE of a morning; schuk gutTEN Cuequenaku m'pahn,
ONLY ONCE I hci-ve been at Philadelphi a, &c. The Delawares
have also the word nekti (See Zeisb. p. 14) much in use
NOTES ON ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR. xlvii
when
s peaking of any one thing or article, and not being
possessed of mor e than the one of that kind.
"I have already said (in my last letter) that paschuk is a
true Mahicanni word for one; and so I suppose nequt to be,
in its proper place.
"You inquire how this word paschuk is pronounced,
whether as in German), or as in English, with the acute a.
I always write words according to the pronunciation of the
Germans; but in writing the word according to the English
alphabet, I should write it pawshuk.
"I will add one observation on certain differences between
the
languages of the Mohegans (or Mahicanni) and the Dela
wares, both in respect to the words themselves, and the man
ner of pronouncing. The Mohegans, by changing some of
their
letters in words from that of the Delawares, by drop
ping others entirely, and by drawing out their words in
speaking, give the language a different sound from what it
otherwise would have, were they to abide by the proper
letters, and speak off hand as th e Delawares do. They
generally drop the letter L of the Delawares, and supply its
place with the letter N; and w he re the Delawares have a
single vowel, they sound their word as if there were two.
For example:
For the Delaware ….. koecu (what) they say,
GAQUAI;
For ….. auween (who) …. AWAAN;
For …… ni (I) …. NIA ;
For …. oyos (meal) …. WIAAS ;
For ….. niluna (we) …. NIANA;
For …… dee (heart) …. OTTAHA, &c.
To these remarks on the Indian numerals, it may be use-
ful to add an important observation made by Mr. Hecke
welder, in the Transactions of the Historical and Literary
Committee. He there says--"On the subject of the numerals,
I have had occasion to observe, that they sometimes differ
very much in languages derived from the same stock. Even
the
Minsi, a tribe of the Lenape or Delaware nation, have
not all their numerals like those of the Unami tribe, which
is the principal among them." *
* Correspondence with Mr. Du Ponceau, in the Transaction, p. 381,
xlviii INDEX TO ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR.
INDEX
OF INDIAN WORDS IN ELIOT'S GRAMMAR; INCLUDING
SELECT WORDS FROM HIS TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE,
Advertisement. THE following Ind ex was originally intended by the
editor to include on]y those Indian words, which are contained in Eliot' s
Grammar; and Mr. Du Ponceau had prepared (from the Grammar and
Bible together) a separate List of words, corresponding to the seventy English
words of the Comparative Vocabularies in Dr. Barton's New Views of the
Tribes and Nations of America. But, as many of the words in Dr. Du Pon-
ceau's List were also to be found in the Grammar, and would of course be
repeated in an index to that work, the editor has (with the concurrence of
Mr. Du Ponceau) incorporated the whole into the present Index. In order,
however, to enable the reader to select from it all the words, which corres-
pond to those of Dr. Barton's List, and thus supply the want of a separate
Vocabulary, such corresponding words are here printed in SMALL CAPITALS.
The words selected from the Bible, by Mr. Du Ponceau, will be readily distin
guished by their having no references to pages annexed to them.
Page A
A
(a vowel often inserted for came a man; wompi,
white,
the sake of euphony) wompiyeuoo, it
is white, 12, 16
See Gram. p. 9 Aruúm (in the" Northern" di-
Ahque (adv. of forbidding) alect) a dog …. 2
beware, do not …. 21 indicative mode of
verbs,
ACHQUNNON, rain. See SOKANON in order to make it inter-
Ah (an inflexion of animate rogative. See Gram. p. 27
nouns.) See Gram… 8 It is also used, to change
Ahquompak, when …. 21 the present tense into the
Ahtuk, a deer …. 9 pretetite. See Gram, PP· 62,65
Alum
(in the Nipmuk dia- Ash (adv. of
continuation)
lect) a dog ….. 2 still …. 21
ANOGQS, a star …. 9 Ash (the plural termination
Anomut, within …. 21 of inanimate nouns.) See
Anue
(adv.of choosing) more Gram. …. 10
rather; …. 21 ASKONUH, skin
also a sign of the compar Askook, a snake or
worm 9
ative degree: Anue menuh- Asquam (adv. of
choosing)
kesu, more strong …. 15 not yet …. 21
Anum, a dog 2 Assootu, foolish … 16
Ao,
oꝏ and yeuꝏ; termina Asuh, or … 22
tions added to nouns, adjec At; a termination
used in
tives, adverbs, &c. in order forming the in
finitive
to change them into verbs node, which is
done by
substantive; as, woske adding this
termination to
tomp,
a man, wosketom- the indicative, and
taking
poꝏ, he is a man, or he be- away the s1rffe ….
20
TO ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMA. xlix-A
At, en, in, ut: ( prep.) in, at
or to …. 22
Ayim,
he made. …. 8
C.
Chaubohkish;
except, besides 22
Chuh (adv. of calling; the
same as hoh) …. 21
E.
E
(used as the termination of
the inanimate form of some
adjectives.) See Gram. p. 13
E
or u; the common termina
tions of adverbs; as wame
or wamu, all; menuhke or
menuhku, strongly …. 21
Ehhoh, hah (adv. of exhorting
or
encouraging) …. 21
Ehob, (interj. of encouraging) 22
En. See á
Emes or es; terminations added
to primitive nouns
to make them diminutives;
emes is the least of them 12
Es (mark of diminutive. See
emes)
Es
and esu (terminations of
the animate form of some
adjectives.) See Gram. p. 13
Eum,
ꝏm, or um; the sign of
the "possessive rank" of
nouns …. 12
H.
Hah; the same as ehoh …. 22
Hó (interj. of wondering) 22
HOG, body
Hóh
(adv. of calling; the
same as chuh) …. 21
Hꝏ; the same as hó …. 22
Horsemes;
diminutive of the
English word horse …. 12
Horsesog;
the plural of the
English word horse …. 12
Howan, who …. 7
Howanig; plural of howan 7
TO ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMA. xlix-B
Hussun, a stone ….10
Hussunemes; diminutive of
Hussun …. 12
I.
I
(used as the termination of
the inanimate form of some
adjectives.) See Gram. p. 13
In (prep.) See át
Ishkont, lest …. 22
K.
Keek, thy house …. 11
Keekit, in thy house …. 11
Keekou, your house (plur.) 11
Keekuwout, in your house (pl.)11'
Ken, thou ….. 7
Kenaan, ye …. 7
Kenawun or neenawun, we 7
Kenuppꝏwonuk,
he died for
thee* …. 18
Kenuppꝏwonukqun,
he died
for us* …. 18
Kenuppꝏwonukꝏ,
he died for
you,* …..18
Kenutcheg, thy hand ….. 11
Kenutcheganash
or kenutche
gash, thy hands ….. 11
Kenutcheganꝏ, your hand (pl.)11
Kenutchegash.
See kenut
cheganash
Kenutcheganꝏwout,
your hands …. 11
KESUK,
heaven
KESUKOD, day
Kesukquieu, toward heaveu 21
KꝏN, snow
Kꝏwadchansh, I keep thee 17
Kꝏwadchanumoush, I keep it
for thee or for thy use …. 17
Kꝏwadchanumwanshun, I
keep it for thee, I act in
thy stead ….. 18
* "This form [of the verb] is of great use in Theologie,
to express what Christ hath done for us." Gram. p. 18.
l-A INDEX TO ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR.
Kꝏwaantam, thou [art] wise 13
Kꝏweechewadchanumwomsh,
I
keep it with thee ….. 18
Kꝏwompes, thou art white 16
Kꝏwompesuonk, thy white-
ness 20
Kusseh (adv.) behold ….. 22
Kuttah, thy heart ….. 11
Kuttahhou,
your heart (plur.) 11
Kuttumma, (adv.) very lately 21
Kuttumma, (conj.) unless …. 22
M
MAHTUG(lUE, wood. See Mehtug
MAMAHCHEKESUKQUT, air
MANIT, God ….. 9
Massachusetts* ….. 2
Matchaog, no ….. 21
Matchet,
wunnegen, waan-
tamwe (adverbs of quality.)
"Of this kinde are all Vir
tues and Vices."
See Grammar, p. 22
Matta, no ….. 21
Mattannit, the Devil ….. 9
Mattayeumutch, let it be nay.
James v. 12 ….. 16
MEENAN, the tongue …. 10
MEENANNOH.
See meenan
MEEPIT, a tooth ….. 10
MEESUNK, hair. See weshagan
MEHTAUOG, an ear ….. 10
Mehtug,
a tree. See mah-
tugque ….. 10
Mehtugques
or mehtugque-
mes; dimin. of mehtug 12
Menuhke or menuhku,
strongly ….. 21
Menuhkekont (from menuhki,
strong, and muhkont, a leg )
a strong leg ….. 15
* "Massa-chusett--an hill in the form of
an Arrow's Head." Cotton's MS. Vocabulary of
the Language of the Plymouth Indians.
l-B INDEX TO ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR.
Menuhki, strong ….. 15
Menuhkoshketomp
(from me
nuhki, strong, and woske
tomp, a man ) a strong-man 15
Menuhku.
See menuhke
MENUTCHEG, a hand ….. 10
METAH, the heart. See tah 11
MEYASUNK,
hair. See meesunk
MISSIS, sister
MITTAMWOSSIS, a woman …. 9
Mo, sometimes signifies not 21
Moeu (adv. ) together ….. 21
Mohmoeg (frequentative verb)
they oft met *. ….. 17
MOHTOMPOG, morning
Monaog, many ….. 8
Mꝏcheke (an intensive ) much 15
Mꝏi, black ….. 15
Mꝏmosketomp (from mꝏi and
wosketomp) a black man 15
Mos, pish; words added to
the indicative mode to ex-
press futurity …. 20
Moskeht, grass ….. 10
Moskehtuemes; diminutive
of moskeht ….. 12
Mosq, a bear …. 9
MUHHOG, the body. See hog 9
Muhkont, a leg ….. 10
Muhpit, an arm ….. 10
Muhquoshim, a wolf ….. 9
MUKKIESOH, MUKKIS, a child
MUKKIS.
See mukkiesoh
MUSKESUK, the eye or face 10
MUSSEET, the foot …. 10
Mussissittꝏn, a lip …..10
MUTTꝏN, a mouth
N.
Nabo;
used in the numerals.
See Gram. 14
* "When the action is doubled or frequented, &c.
this notion hath not a distinct form, but is expressed by
doubling the first syllable of the word." Gram. p. 17.
INDEX TO ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR, li-A
Nag or neg, they …. 7
Nagoh or uahoh, they …. 7
Nagum or noh, he …. 7
Nahen, (adv.) almost ….. 21
Nahoh.
See nagoh
Nahohtoeu (adverb of order)
second ….. 21
NAMOHS, a fish ….. 9
Nano
(a sign of the compara
tive degree) more and more 15
Napehnont, woi, toh; oh that
it were: Lat. utinam 21, 34
Naumóg
(the ó accented be-
ing pronounced as in the Eng-
lish word vogue) if YE SEE 3
Naumog
(the o unaccented be
ing pronounced as in log)
if WE SEE …. 3
NAUMoN, son
NAUT, there ….. 21
Nawhutche, some ….. 8
Ne, that ….. 7
Neane (sometimes written in
Eliot's Bible, neyane) as 22
Neek, my house ….. 11
Neekit, in my house ….. 11
Neekun, our house ….. 11
Neekunonut, in our house .. 11
NEEMAT, my brother
Neen, I (ego) …. 7
Neenawun or kenawun, we* 7
Neetomp,
my friend
Neg. See nag
Negonnu
(adv. of order) first 21
Nemehkuh, so ….. 22
Nen, I (ego)
Ne
nogque, towards that way 21
NEPAUSHADT, moon
NEPAUZ, sun
NEPUN, summer
Nequt (numeral) one t ….. 14
The other numerals will be
* See Mr. Du Ponceau's remarks on these two forms of the
plural, p. xix. of his Notes.
t Cotton, in his MS. Vocabulary of the Language of the Plymouth In-
INDEX TO ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR, li-B
found in the same part of
the Grammar.
Netatup (addverb of likeness)
like
so ….. 22
Newutche, wutch, wutche;
for, from, because … 22
Neyane.
See neane
NIPPE, water
Nipmuk; the name of a tribe
of
Indians. See Introduc
tory Observations, p. 18, note.
Nish, these ….. 7
Nishwu (adv. of order) third 21
Noadtuck (adv.) a long time 21
NOGKUS, belly
Nogque. See ne nogque and
yeu nogque
Noh or nagum, he ….. 7
NꝏSH, my father
Nꝏchumwi, weak …. 13
NꝏTAU,
fire
Nꝏwaadchanumun-toh;
I
wish, or desire, to keep it 19
Nꝏwadchanit, I am kept ….. 16
Nꝏwadchanittimun,
we keep
each other. This form
always wants the singular
number ….. 17
Nꝏwadchanumꝏun,
I do not
keep it …. 19
Nꝏwadchanumun, I do keep
it. ….. 19
Nꝏwadchanumun neek,
I keep my house …. 17
Nꝏwadchanumuuas? do I
keep it? ….. 19
Nꝏwadchanumunash
nꝏwéat-
chimiueash, I keep my corn 17
Nꝏwaantam, I am wise 13, 24
Nꝏwompes, I am white 16, 20
Nꝏwompesuonk,
my white-
ness …. 20
dians,
has this remark--"Nequt, a thing that is past:
Paruk, a thing in being." But see the observations
on this subject, p. xiv. of the preceding Notes.
lii-A INDEX TO ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR.
N'puhkuk, my head. See
PUHKUK
Nuhog,
my hotly. See hog
NUKON, night
Nummissis, my sister
NUNKOMP,
a young man, a
youth ….. 9
Nunkompaemes (diminutive
of nunkomp) …. 12
Nunkompaes (diminutive of
nunkomp) ….. 12
NUNKSQAU* a girl …. 9
Nunksquaemes (diminutive
of nunksquau) ….. 12
Nunksquaes (diminutive of
nunksquau) ….. 12
NUNNAUMON, my son
Nunnogkus, my belly. See
nogkus
Nunnuppꝏwonuk, he died for me ….. 18
Nunnutcheg,
my hand ….. 11
Nunnutcheganash, my hands 11
Nunnutcheganum, our hand 11
Nunnutchegannunnonut, our hands …. 11
NUPPꝏONK, death
Nuskon,
my bone. See uskon
Nusseet, my foot. See seet
Nutcheg. See menutcheg
Nuttah, my heart. See metah
and tah ….. 11
Nuttahhun, our heart. See
metah and tah ….. 11
Nuttaunoh, my daughter. See
taunoh
Nuttin. See tin….. 23
Nuttron, my mouth
Nux; yea, yes …. 21
* The last syllable of this word is printed in the
original edition of the Grammar as it is in the present
one (qau); but the diminutive, at p. 12, has the same
syllable printed qua, as it is also in the Bible. See Joel iii.
3; Zech. viii. 5. The form qau, therefore, seems to be
an errour of the press,
lii-B INDEX TO ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR.
Nuxyeuꝏutch, let it be yea.
James v. 12 …..16
O.
Og (thr plural termination of
animate nouns.) See Gram. p. 9
Oh
(an inflexion of animate
nouns.) See Grammar, p. 8
OKASOH,
mother
OHKE, earth
Ohkeiyeu
(adv.) towards the
earth ….. 21
Ongash
and onganash (the
plural termination of ver
bal nouns in ONK,) See Gram. p. 10
Onk; a termination often
added to verbs, in order to
turn them into nouns 13, 20
Onkoue,
beyond ….. 21
Oꝏ See aꝏ
ꝏom. See eum
ꝏSQHEONK, blood
ꝏwee (interj. of sorrow) ….. 22
Oxemes (diminutive of the
English word) ox ….. 9
Oxesog
(plur. of the English
word ox) oxen …. 9
P.
Pâ;
a particle added to the
indicative mode, to give it
the sense of the first per
son of the imperative ….. 25
Pagwodche (adv. of doubting)
it maybe. …. 22
Pasuk
(numeral) one. See
the note on nequt
Paswu, lately …. 21
Paummuonat, to pay* ….. 42
* Roger Williams says, this is "a
word newly made from the English
INDEX TO ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR. liii-A
Paummuounat,
not to pay ….. 58
Peasik or peesik, small; used
in
expressing a degree of
comparison …. 15
PETUHQUNNEG, bread
Pigsemes
(diminutive of the
English word) pig …. 12
Pish. See mos
POMANTAMÓONK, life
POPON, winter
PSUKSES, a little bird …. 12
Puppinashim, a beast …. 9
PUHKUK, a head
Q.
Quah (interj. of disdaining) 22
Qunnuhtug
(from qunni, long,
and mehtug, wood or tree)
used to denote a pike ….. 15
Qussuk, a rock ….. 10
Qut, but ….. 22
S.
Sasabbath-dayeu,
every sab
bath (made a frequentative
by doubling the first sylla-
ble. See note on the word
mohmoeg.
SAUP,
tomorrow . . . . 21
SEPU, river
SEET, foot
Sheepsemes (diminutive of
the English word) sheep 12
Sohsúmóonk, forest
SOKANON, SOKANUNK; rain
Sun,
sunnummatta? (adv. of
asking) is it, or is it not? 21
word
pay." Key into the Languages of America,
ch. xxv.; in Mas Hist. Collect. vol. v. p. 100, Wil
liams
writes the first person singular, indicative mode,
cuppáimish, I will pay you; but Eliot write, it kuppau
mush, at the same time directing the reader to pronounce
pay and not pau, See Gram. p, 28.
INDEX TO ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR. liii-B
T.
TAH,
the heart. See metah
Tahshé; a suppletive word
used with the numerals.
See Gram. …. 14
TASKON,
horn
TAUNOH, daughter
Teanuk, presently ….. 21
Teaogku
(ndv.) rather, unfin-
ished ….. 21
Tiadche, unexpectedly ….. 22
Tin,
tinne, tit; suppletive
syllables used "for orna
ment of the word." See Gram. ….. 23
Tinne. See tin Tit. See tin
Toh;
annexed to every person and
variation in the optative mood.
See p. 65. See also nahpenont
Toh (adverb of doubting) it may be …. 22
TOHKOI,
it was cold
Tohkônogque, although ….. 22
Tohneit, if …. 22
Tohsu; a suppletive, used
with
the numerals ….. 14
Tohsunash, how many ….. 8
Tohsuog, how many …..8
Tohwutch, why ….. 20
TOOHPU; ice, frost
TꝏN,
mouth. See muttꝏn
Tummunk, the beaver ….. 9
U.
Uh (an inflexion of animate
nouns.) See Grammar, p. 8
Um. See eum
Us;
a syllable added to the present tense
in order to form the preterite ….. 62, 63
USKON,
a bone
Ut. See át
Uttiy u, or tanyeu (pron. rel.)
Which …… 7
Uttiyeu (adv.) where …. 21
liv-A INDEX TO ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR.
W.
Waantam, he [is] wise …. 13
Waantamoonk, wisdom…. 10
Waantamunát, to be wise ….. 26
Wantamꝏunat
(the negative
form of the preceding verb) 27
Waantamwe (adv. of quality) 22
Wadchaneh (imperat. mode)
keep me …. 19
Wadchanittéinat, to be kept 62
Wadchanónat (animate form)
to keep ….. 42
Wadchanounat
(anim. form
neg.) not to keep ….. 58
Wadchanóunát
(infin. pass.
neg.) not to be kept ….. 63
Wadchansh, keep thou …. 19
Wadchanumunat (inan.form)
to
keep it, e.g. a tool, a gar
ment, &c ….. 26
WADCHu,
mountain
WANNONKꝏꝏK, evening
Wahsuk. See wasuk
Wame or wamu (adv.) all 21
WAWUK, husband
Week, his house ….. 11
Weekit, in his house ….. 11
Weekou, their house, ….. 11
Weekuwout
or weekuwomut,
in his house: "Hence we
corrupt this word Wig
wam." Gram. …. 11
Wehtauog, his ear. See MEH-
TAUOG
WEQUAI, light
Weshagan,
hair of animals.
See meesunk
Wetu, a house …. 11
WEYAUS, flesh
WISHITꝏ, the beard
Woh (conj. Of possibility
may or can. This word
is added to the indicative
potential …. 20
liv-B INDEX TO ELIOT'S INDIAN GRAMMAR.
Woi. See napehnont
Woi (interj. of sorrow) the
same with ꝏwee 22
WOMONITTUONK, love
Wompesu, he is white …. 16
Wompi, white ….. 13
Wompiyeuꝏ, it is white ….. 16
Womposketomp
(from wom-
pi and wosketomp) a white man 15
Woskeche (adv.) without …. 21
WOSKETOMP, a man ….. 9
Wosketompoꝏ, he is a man,
or he became a man 12, 16
Wunnamuhkut, truly ….. 21
Wunnegen (adv. of quality) 22
WUNNEPAG, leaf
Wunnonkou, yesterday ….. 21
Wunnutcheg, his hand ….. 11
Wunnutcheganm, their hand 11
Wunnutcheganꝏwout, their hands …. 11
Wunnutcheganash,
wunnut-
chegash, his hands …. 11
WUSKODTUK, his forehead
WUTCH (subst.) a nose
Wutch (conj.) See newutche
Wutche.
See newutche
Wuttah, his heart. See metah
Wuttahhou, their heart ….. 11
Wuttaskonoh, his horn. See taskon
Wuttát, behind .…. 21
Y.
Yeu (inan.form sing.) this 7
Yeug
(anim.form plur.) these 7
Yeu nogque, towards this way 21
Yeuoh (anim.form sing.) this
or that ….. 7
Yeum. See aꝏ
Yeush (inan. form plur.) these 7
Yeu wa,j, for this cause ….. 22
Yeu yeu, now ….. 21
POSTSCRIPT.
THE
following Extract of a letter from Mr. Du Ponceau was to have been
added to the Notes on Eliot's Grammar as published m the Historical
Collections; bot an accidental delay rendered this impracticable. The
importance of it, however, has induced the Editor to add it to those copies
of the Grammar, which are printed in a separate pamphlet.
Extract of a Letter from Mr. Du Ponceau to the Editor.
"IN
Barton's New Views (Appendix, p. 5) there is a pretended
List of the numerals of the .Nanticoke language, which Dr. Bar
ton says he obtained from Mr. Pyrlreus, through Mr. Hecke
welder, and which was found among the papers of the former.
After I had for some time begun the study of the Indian lan
guages, it struck me, that these numerals could not be those of
the .Nanticoke, of which I had a vocabulary, shewing it to be
an idiom nearly allied to the Delaware. I therefore took the
first opportunity of asking information of Mr. Heckewelder;
and the result of what he told me is contained in the following
Note, which I made at the time in my copy of Dr. Barton's
work:
'April 30, 1818. Mr. Heckewelder told me this day, that the
Nanticoke language is a dialect of the Algonkin or Delaware; and
so it appears by tlie vocabularies communicated by him to Mr. Jeffer
son. He may have formerly believed otherwise, and ma y have told
Dr. Barton what he states above. The above list of numerals was
indeed made by Mr. Pyrlreus and found among his papers; but it
does not appear to what language it belongs.'
"I had lost sight of those numerals and my note, when Mr.
Nuttall, told me some days ago, that he had discovered a
curious fact, which was, that the numerals of the Nanticoke
were exactly similar to those of the Bambara Negroes. I asked
him, whether he alluded to Dr. Barton's Nanticoke numerals;
and upon his answering in the affirmative, I informed him that
those
were not genuine; and we both came to the conclusion,
that either Mr. Pyrlreus himself, before he came to this country,
had been a Moravian missionary in Africa, or that he had ob
tained the numerals from some of his brethren who had been;
or, perhaps, that he had taken them from some Negro in this
country. But it is not the less true, that if the same observation
should occur to an European, he might be incautiously led to
the conclusion, that the American languages were nearly con
nected with those of the Negroes of Africa; then the inference
would be drawn, that the American race was evidently derived
lvi POSTSCRIPT.
from
the African, theories would arise without end, find ingeni
ous arguments would be found, a priori, to prove the migration
of the Africans to this Continent; and even the physical causes
would be discovered, which turned their black colour into red,
and the wool of their heads into hair. It is right, that the
learned should be put on their guard against errours of this
kind. I subjoin the different numerals here referred to:
"True
Nanticoke Dr. Barton's sup- Numerals of the
Numerals.* posed Nanticoke Bambara Afri-
Numerals. cans.
t
"One Nickquit Kílli Killi
Two
Na-eez Fílli Foolla
Three Kis-whu Sabo Sabba
Four Yaugh-whu Náno Nani
Five Nup-pai-a Túro Looroo
Six Hoquuttah Wóro Wora
Seven My-yay-wah Wóllango Worroola
Eight Tzah Sécki Sagi
Nine Pasa-conque Cóllengo Konunto
Ten Millah Tà Ta."
*
"This list was obtained from a vocabulary taken in the year I792,
by
Gen. William Vans Murray, at a Nanticoke Indian town in Dorset County,
Maryland, and communicated by him to Mr. Jefferson, who gave it to me.
Compare this list with the Delaware numerals in Historical Transactions,
pp. 374,375. P. S. D."
t "From Bowditch's Mission to Ashantee, p. 193, Appendix. See the
same work for the numerals of the true Mandingo, and also of a corrupt
Bambara or Mandingo dialect. Ibid. and p. 182. P. S. D."
Corrections in Eliot's Grammar.
1.
INTROD. OBSERVAT. p. 233, line 30, after the word America, insert on
the East side of the Mississippi.
Ibid. p. 234. The MS. copy of Eliot's Grammar, here mentioned , was
presented by the American Philosophical Society, on the motion
of Mr.
Du Ponceau.
Ibid. p. 235, lines 14, 15, dele the aid of.
2. In the GRAM. p. 66, line 20, for deficile read difficile.
3. In the NOTES,
p. vi. line 29, for Chatimachas read Chetimachas.
p.
vii. line 17, after Etchemins in.,ert or Abenakis.
p x. line 26, for cortesario read cortesano.
p. xiii. line 10, for always united read almost always mute.
p. xiv. line 11, after Ibid. 13. insert Wuthassuneutunk wuttanoh Zion,
"The wall of the daughter of Zion." Lamentat. ii. 8,
p. xxxii. (in the note at bottom) for xxxv. read xxv.
THE END.