weakly developed. In some languages syntactical cases occur
(e.g. in certain Californian tongues), while in many others they are
quite unknown. Altogether the most recent investigations have
revealed a much greater variety in morphological and in grammatical
processes than was commonly believed to exist, so that the general
statement that the American Indian tongues are all clearly and
distinctly of the “incorporating” and “polysynthetic” types
needs considerable modification. Using criteria of phonetics,
morphology, grammar, &c., some of the best authorities have been
able to suggest certain groups of North American Indian languages
exhibiting peculiarities justifying the assumption of relationship
together. Thus Dr Franz Boas (Mem. Intern. Congr. Anthrop.,
1893, pp. 339-346, and Ann. Archaeol. Rep. Ontario, 1905, pp. 88-106)
has grouped the linguistic stocks of the North Pacific coast
region as follows: (1) Tlingit (Koluschan) and Haida; (2) Tsimshian;
(3) Wakashan (Kwakiutl-Nootka), Salish, Chemakum; (4)
Chinook. In the same region the present writer has suggested a
possible relationship of the Kootenay with Shoshonian. In the
Californian area Dr R. B. Dixon and Dr A. L. Kroeber have made
out these probable groups among the numerous language stocks
of that part of the United States: (1) Chumashan and Salinan;
(2) Yurok (Weitspekan), Wishoskan, Athabaskan, Karok (Quoratean),
Chimarikan; (3) Maidu (Pujunan), Lutuamian, Wintun
(Copehan), Yukian, Pomo (Kulanapan), Costanoan, Esselenian,
Yokuts (Mariposan), Shoshonian, Shastan, Moquelumnan and
possibly Washoan; (4) Yanan; (5) Yuman. Suggestions of even
larger groups than any of these have also been made. It may be
that, judged by certain criteria, the Kootenay, Shoshonian,
Iroquoian and Siouan may belong together, but this is merely tentative.
It is also possible, from the consideration of morphological peculiarities,
that some if not all of the languages of the so-called
“Palaeo-Asiatic” peoples of Siberia, as Boas has suggested (Science, vol.
xxiii., n.s., 1906, p. 644), may be included within the American
group of linguistic stocks. Indeed Sternberg (Intern. Amer.-Kongr.
xiv., Stuttgart, 1904, pp. 137-140) has undertaken to show the
relationship morphologically of one of these languages, the Giliak
(of the island of Saghalin and the region about the mouth of the
Amur), to the American tongues, and its divergence from the
“Ural-Altaic” family of speech. Here, however, more detailed
investigations are needed to settle the question.
At one time the opinion was widely prevalent that primitive languages changed very rapidly, sometimes even within a generation, and the American Indian tongues were rather freely used as typical examples of such extreme variation. The error of this view is now admitted General character of Indian languages. everywhere, and for the speech of the New World aborigines Dr Franz Boas states (Hndb. Amer. Ind. pt. i., 1907, p. 759): “There is, however, no historical proof of the change of any Indian language since the time of the discovery comparable with that of the language of England between the 10th and 13th centuries.” Another statement that has obtained currency, appearing even in otherwise reputable quarters sometimes, is to the effect that some of the vocabularies of American Indian languages consist of but a few hundred words, one being indeed so scanty that its speakers could not converse by night, since darkness prevented resort to the use of gesture. This is absolutely contrary to fact, for the vocabularies of the languages of the American Indians are rich, and, according to the best authority on the subject, “it is certain that in every one there are a couple of thousand of stem words and many thousand words, as that term is defined in English dictionaries” (Boas). The number of words in the vocabulary of the individual Indian is also much greater than is generally thought to be the case. It was long customary, even in “scientific” circles, to deny to American Indian tongues the possession of abstract terms, but here again the authority of the best recent investigators is conclusive, for “the power to form abstract ideas is, nevertheless, not lacking, and the development of abstract thought would find in every one of the languages a ready means of expression” (Boas). In this connexion, however, it should be remembered that, in general, the languages of the American aborigines “are not so well adapted to generalized statements as to lively descriptions.” The holophrastic terms characteristic of so many American Indian languages “are not due to a lack of power to classify, but are rather expressions of form of culture, single terms being intended for those ideas of prime importance to the people” (Boas). This consideration of American primitive tongues in their relation to culture-types opens up a comparatively new field of research, and one of much evolutional significance.
As a result of the most recent and authoritative philological investigations, the following may be cited as some of the chief characteristics of many, and in some cases, of most of the languages of the aborigines north of Mexico.
1. Tendency to express ideas with great graphic detail as to place, form, &c.
2. “Polysynthesis,” a device making possible, by the use of modifications of stems and radicals and the employment of prefixes, suffixes, and sometimes infixes, &c., the expression of a large number of special ideas. By such methods of composition (to cite two examples from Boas) the Eskimo can say at one breath, so to speak, “He only orders him to go and see,” and the Tsimshian, “He went with him upward in the dark and came against an obstacle.” The Eskimo Takusariartorumagaluarnerpâ ? (“Do you think he really intends to go to look after it?”) is made up from the following elements: Takusar(pâ), “he looks after it”; iartor (poq), “he goes to”; uma (voq), “he intends to”; (g) aluar (poq), “he does so, but”; nerpoq, “do you think he.” The Cree “word” “kekawewechetushekamikowanowow” (“may it,” i.e. the grace of Jesus Christ, “remain with you”) is resolvable into: Kelawow (here split into ke at the beginning and -owow as terminal), “you” (pl.); ka = sign of futurity (first and second persons); we = an optative particle; weche = “with”; tusheka = verbal radical, “remain”; mik = pronominal particle showing that the subject of the verb is in the third person and the object in the second, “it-you”; owan = verbal possessive particle, indicating that the subject of the verb is something inanimate belonging to the animate third person, “his-it.” The Carrier (Athabaskan) lekœnahweshœndœthœnœzkrok, “I usually recommence to walk to and fro on all fours while singing,” which Morice calls “a simple word,” is built up from the following elements: le = “prefix expressing reciprocity, which, when in connexion with a verb of locomotion, indicates that the movement is executed between two certain points without giving prominence to either”; kœ = particle denoting direction toward these points; na = “iterative particle, suggesting that the action is repeated”; hwe = particle referring to the action as being in its incipient stage; shœn = “song” (when incorporated in a verb it “indicates that singing accompanies the action expressed by the verbal root”); dœ = “a particle called for by shœn, said particle always entering into the composition of verbs denoting reference to vocal sounds”; thœ = “the secondary radical of the uncomposite verb thîzkret inflected from thi for the sake of euphony with nœz”; nœz = “the pronominal element of the whole compound” (the n is demanded by the previous hwe, œ marks the present tense, and z marks the first person singular of the third conjugation); krok = “the main radical, altered here by the usitative from the normal form kret, and is expressive of locomotion habitually executed on four feet or on all fours.”
3. Incorporation of noun and adjectives in verb, or of pronouns in verb. From the Kootenay language of south-eastern British Columbia the following examples may be given: Natltlamkine = “He carries (the) head in (his) hand”; Howankotlamkine = “I shake (the) head in (my) hand”; Witlwumine = “(His) belly is large”; Tlitkatine = “He has no tail”; Matlnaktletline = “He opens his eyes.” In these expressions are incorporated, with certain abbreviations of form, the words aqktlam, “head”; aqkowum, “belly”; aqkat, “tail”; aqkaktletl, “eyes.” In some languages the form for the noun incorporated in the verb is entirely different from that in independent use. Of pronominal incorporation these examples are from the Kootenay: Nupqanapine = “He sees me”; Honupqanisine = “I see you”; Tshatlipitlisine = “He will kill you”; Tshatlitqanawasine = “He will bite us”; Tshatltsukwatisine = “He is going to seize you”; Hintshatltlpatlnapine = “You will honour me.” For incorporation of adjectives these examples will serve: Honitenustik = “I paint (my face),” literally, “I make it red” (kanohos, “red”; the radical is nōs or nūs for nōhōs); Howitlkeine = “I shout,” literally, “I talk big”; Howitlkaine = “I am tall (big).” In some languages the pronouns denoting subject, direct object and indirect object are all incorporated in the verb.
4. The formation of nouns of very composite character by the use of stems or radicals and prefixes, suffixes, &c., of various sorts, the intricacy of such formations exceeding often anything known in the Indo-European and Semitic languages. Often the component parts are “clipped,” or changed by decapitation, decaudation, syncopation, &c., before being used in the compound. The following examples from various Indian languages will illustrate the process:—Kootenay: Aqkinkanuktlamnam = “crown of head,” from aq (prefix of uncertain meaning), kinkan = “top,” tlam = “head,” -nam (suffix = “somebody’s”). Tlingit: Kanyiqkuwate = “aurora,” literally, “fire (kan)-like (yiq)-out-of-doors (ku)-colour (wate).”
5. The development of a great variety of forms for personal and demonstrative pronouns. In the latter, sometimes, the language distinguishes “visibility and invisibility, present and past, location to the right, left, front and back of, and above and below the speaker” (Boas). According to Morice (Trans. Canad. Inst., 1889–1890, p. 187), the Carrier language of the Athabaskan stock has no fewer than seventeen possessive pronouns of the third person.
6. Indistinctness of demarcation between noun and verb; in some languages the transitive and in others the intransitive only is really verbal in form.
