{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_36646/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_36646","id":"gutenberg_36646","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/36646","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Language & Communication","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Grammar, Comparative and general","Humboldt, Wilhelm, Freiherr von, 1767-1835","Indians -- Languages"],"text":"</pre>\n\n\n\nProduced by Julia Miller and the Online Distributed\nProofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was\nproduced from images generously made available by The\nInternet Archive)\n\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Note\n\nA number of typographical errors have been maintained in this version\nof this book. They have been marked with a [TN-#], which refers to a\ndescription in the complete list found at the end of the text.\n\nText surrounded with ~ was originally printed in Greek.\n\nThe following codes for less common characters were used:\n\n  [=a]  a with macron\n  [=u]  u with macron\n  +     dagger\n  ++    double dagger\n  ||    double vertical line\n\n\n\n\n  THE\n\n  PHILOSOPHIC GRAMMAR\n\n  --OF--\n\n  AMERICAN LANGUAGES,\n\n  As Set Forth by Wilhelm von Humboldt;\n\n  WITH THE TRANSLATION OF AN UNPUBLISHED MEMOIR BY\n  HIM ON THE AMERICAN VERB.\n\n  --BY--\n\n  DANIEL G. BRINTON, A.M., M.D.,\n\n  PROFESSOR OF ETHNOLOGY AND ARCH\u00c6OLOGY AT THE ACADEMY OF NATURAL SCIENCES,\n  PHILADELPHIA.\n\n  President of the Numismatic and Antiquarian Society of Philadelphia;\n  Member of the American Philosophical Society, the American Antiquarian\n  Society, the Pennsylvania Historical Society, etc.; Membre de la\n  Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Royale des Antiquaires du Nord; de la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Am\u00e9ricaine\n  de France; D\u00e9l\u00e9gu\u00e9 G\u00e9n\u00e9ral de l'Institution Ethnographique;\n  Vice-Pr\u00e9sident du Congr\u00e8s International des Am\u00e9ricanistes;\n  Corresponding Member of the Anthropological\n  Society of Washington, etc.\n\n  (_Read before the American Philosophical Society, March 20, 1885._)\n\n  PHILADELPHIA:\n  PRESS OF MCCALLA & STAVELY, 237-9 DOCK STREET.\n  1885.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n_The Philosophic Grammar of American Languages._\n\n\n   \u00a71. Introduction, p. 3. \u00a72. Humboldt's Studies in American Languages,\n     p. 4. \u00a73. The Final Purpose of the Philosophy of Language, p. 7.\n     \u00a74. Historical, Comparative and Philosophic Grammar, p. 9. \u00a75.\n     Definition and Psychological Origin of Language, p. 10. \u00a76.\n     Primitive Roots and Grammatical Categories, p. 11. \u00a77. Formal and\n     Material Elements of Language, p. 13. \u00a78. The Development of\n     Languages, p. 14. \u00a79. Internal Form of Languages, p. 16. \u00a710.\n     Criteria of Rank in Languages, p. 17. \u00a711. Classification of\n     Languages, p. 21. \u00a712. Nature of Incorporation, p. 22. \u00a713.\n     Psychological Origin of Incorporation, p. 24. \u00a714. Effect of\n     Incorporation on Compound Sentences, p. 25. \u00a715. The Dual in\n     American Languages, p. 27. \u00a716. Humboldt's Essay on the American\n     Verb, p. 28.\n\n\n_On the Verb in American Languages. By Wilhelm von Humboldt, p. 29._\n\nVerbal forms classified as they indicate the notion of Being:\n\nI. When the notion of Being is expressed independently, p. 31.\n\n   1. When the notion of Being is understood, p. 32. 2. When the notion\n     of Being is expressed by a special word, but without a phonetic\n     radical, p. 35.\n\nII. The notion of Being is incorporated with the verb as an auxiliary,\np. 37.\n\n   Analysis of the Maya Verb, p. 38. Other Examples. The idea of past\n     time as related to death and negation, p. 40.\n\nIII. The notion of Being is present in the verbal form only in idea,\np. 41.\n\n   Case 1st. When the person, tense and mode signs are separable, p. 41.\n     Case 2d. When either the person, or the tense and mode signs, are\n     attached to the verb, p. 41. Case 3d. When both person and tense\n     and mode signs are attached to the verb. 1. Approach toward a Fixed\n     Form, p. 44. 2. Divisibility of Verbal Forms to allow the insertion\n     of governed parts of speech, p. 47. General Conclusions on the\n     organism of American Languages, p. 48.\n\n   Notes (by the Translator) on the various American Tribes and\n     Languages mentioned by Humboldt in the preceding Memoir, p. 49.\n\n\n\n\nThe Philosophic Grammar of American Languages.\n\n\n\u00a7 1. INTRODUCTORY.\n\nThe foundations of the Philosophy of Language were laid by Wilhelm von\nHumboldt (b. June 22, 1767, d. April 8, 1835). The principles he\nadvocated have frequently been misunderstood, and some of them have\nbeen modified, or even controverted, by more extended research; but a\ncareful survey of the tendencies of modern thought in this field will\nshow that the philosophic scheme of the nature and growth of\nlanguages, which he set forth, is gradually reasserting its sway,\nafter having been neglected and denied through the preponderance of\nthe so-called naturalistic school during the last quarter of a\ncentury.\n\nThe time seems ripe, therefore, to bring the general principles of his\nphilosophy to the knowledge of American scholars, especially as\napplied by himself to the analysis of American languages.\n\nAny one at all acquainted with Humboldt's writings, and the literature\nto which they have given rise, will recognize that this is a serious\ntask. I have felt it such, and have prepared myself for it not only by\na careful perusal of his own published writings, but also by a\ncomparison of the conflicting interpretations put upon them by Dr. Max\nSchasler,[3-*] Prof. H. Steinthal,[3-+] Prof. C. J. Adler,[3-++] and\nothers, as well as by obtaining a copy of an entirely unpublished\nmemoir by Humboldt on the \"American Verb,\" a translation of which\naccompanies this paper. But my chief reliance in solving the\nobscurities of Humboldt's presentation of his doctrines has been a\nclose comparison of allied passages in his various essays, memoirs and\nletters. Of these I need scarcely say that I have attached the\ngreatest weight to his latest and monumental work sometimes referred\nto as his \"Introduction to the Kawi Language,\" but whose proper title\nis \"On Differences in Linguistic Structure, and their Influence on the\nMental Development of the Human Race.\"[4-*]\n\nI would not have it understood that I am presenting a complete\nanalysis of Humboldt's linguistic philosophy. This is far beyond the\nscope of the present paper. It aims to set forth merely enough of his\ngeneral theories to explain his applications of them to the languages\nof the American race.\n\nWhat I have to present can best be characterized as a series of notes\non Humboldt's writings, indicating their bearing on the problems of\nAmerican philology, introducing his theories to students of this\nbranch, and serving as a preface to the hitherto unpublished essay by\nhim on the American Verb, to which I have referred.\n\n\n\u00a7 2. HUMBOLDT'S STUDIES IN AMERICAN LANGUAGES.\n\nThe American languages occupied Humboldt's attention earnestly and for\nmany years. He was first led to their study by his brother Alexander,\nwho presented him with the large linguistic collection he had amassed\nduring his travels in South and North America.\n\nWhile Prussian Minister in Rome (1802-08), he ransacked the library of\nthe _Collegio Romano_ for rare or unpublished works on American\ntongues; he obtained from the ex-Jesuit Forneri all the information\nthe latter could give about the Yurari, a tongue spoken on the Meta\nriver, New Granada;[4-+] and he secured accurate copies of all the\nmanuscript material on these idioms left by the diligent collector\nand linguist, the Abb\u00e9 Hervas.\n\nA few years later, in 1812, we find him writing to his friend Baron\nAlexander von Rennenkampff, then in St. Petersburg: \"I have selected\nthe American languages as the special subject of my investigations.\nThey have the closest relationship of any with the tongues of\nnorth-eastern Asia; and I beg you therefore to obtain for me all the\ndictionaries and grammars of the latter which you can.\"[5-*]\n\nIt is probable from this extract that Humboldt was then studying these\nlanguages from that limited, ethnographic point of view, from which he\nwrote his essay on the Basque tongue, the announcement of which\nappeared, indeed, in that year, 1812, although the work itself was not\nissued until 1821.\n\nTen years more of study and reflection taught him a far loftier\nflight. He came to look upon each language as an organism, all its\nparts bearing harmonious relations to each other, and standing in a\ndefinite connection with the intellectual and emotional development of\nthe nation speaking it. Each language again bears the relation to\nlanguage in general that the species does to the genus, or the genus\nto the order, and by a comprehensive process of analysis he hoped to\narrive at those fundamental laws of articulate speech which form the\nPhilosophy of Language, and which, as they are also the laws of human\nthought, at a certain point coincide, he believed, with those of the\nPhilosophy of History.\n\nIn the completion of this vast scheme, he continued to attach the\nutmost importance to the American languages. His illustrations were\nconstantly drawn from them, and they were ever the subject of his\nearnest studies. He prized them as in certain respects the most\nvaluable of all to the philosophic student of human speech.\n\nThus, in 1826, he announced before the Berlin Academy that he was\npreparing an exhaustive work on the \"Organism of Language,\" for which\nhe had selected the American languages exclusively, as best suited for\nthis purpose. \"The languages of a great continent,\" he writes,\n\"peopled by numerous nationalities, probably never subject to foreign\ninfluence, offer for this branch of linguistic study specially\nfavorable material. There are in America as many as thirty little\nknown languages for which we have means of study, each of which is\nlike a new natural species, besides many others whose data are less\nample.\"[6-*]\n\nIn his memoir, read two years later, \"On the Origin of Grammatical\nForms, and their Influence on the Development of Ideas,\" he chose most\nof his examples from the idioms of the New World;[6-+] and the year\nfollowing, he read the monograph on the Verb in American languages,\nwhich is printed for the first time with the present essay.\n\nIn a later paper, he announced his special study of this group as\nstill in preparation. It was, however, never completed. His earnest\ndesire to reach the fundamental laws of language led him first into a\nlong series of investigations into the systems of recorded speech,\nphonetic hieroglyphics and alphabetic writing, on which he read\nmemoirs of great acuteness.\n\nIn one of these he again mentions his studies of the American tongues,\nand takes occasion to vindicate them from the current charge of being\nof a low grade in the linguistic scale. \"It is certainly unjust,\" he\nwrites, \"to call the American languages rude or savage, although their\nstructure is widely different from those perfectly formed.\"[6-++]\n\nIn 1828, there is a published letter from him making an appointment\nwith the Abb\u00e9 Thavenet, missionary to the Canadian Algonkins, then in\nParis, \"to enjoy the pleasure of conversing with him on his\ninteresting studies of the Algonkin language.\"[6-||] And a private\nletter tells us that in 1831 he applied himself with new zeal to\nmastering the intricacies of Mexican grammar.[6-\u00a7]\n\nAbout 1827, he found it indispensable to subject to a critical\nscrutiny the languages of the great island world of the Pacific and\nIndian oceans. This resulted at last in his selecting the Kawi\nlanguage, a learned idiom of the island of Java, Malayan in origin but\nwith marked traces of Hindu influence, as the point of departure for\nhis generalizations. His conclusions were set forth in the\nintroductory essay above referred to.\n\nThe avowed purpose of this essay was to demonstrate the thesis that\nthe _diversity of structure in languages is the necessary condition of\nthe evolution of the human mind_.[7-*]\n\nIn the establishment of this thesis he begins with a profound analysis\nof the nature of speech in general, and then proceeds to define the\nreciprocal influences which thought exerts upon it, it upon thought.\n\nPortions of this work are extremely obscure even to those who are most\nfamiliar with his theories and style. This arises partly from the\ndifficulty of the subject; partly because his anxiety to avoid\ndogmatic statements led him into vagueness of expression; and partly\nbecause in some cases he was uncertain of his ground. In spite of\nthese blemishes, this essay remains the most suggestive work ever\nwritten on the philosophy of language.\n\n\n\u00a7 3. THE FINAL PURPOSE OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE.\n\nHumboldt has been accused of being a metaphysician, and a scientific\nidealist.\n\nIt is true that he believed in an ideal perfection of language, to\nwit: that form of expression which would correspond throughout to the\nhighest and clearest thinking. But it is evident from this simple\nstatement that he did not expect to find it in any known or possible\ntongue. He distinctly says, that this ideal is too hypothetical to be\nused otherwise than as a stimulus to investigation; but as such it is\nindispensable to the linguist in the pursuit of his loftiest task--the\nestimate of the efforts of man to realize perfection of\nexpression.[7-+]\n\nThere is nothing teleological in his philosophy; he even declines to\nadmit that either the historian or the linguist has a right to set up\na theory of progress or evolution; the duty of both is confined to\nderiving the completed meaning from the facts before them.[8-*] He\nmerely insists that as the object of language is the expression of\nthought, certain forms of language are better adapted to this than\nothers. What these are, why they are so, and how they react on the\nminds of the nations speaking them, are the questions he undertakes to\nanswer, and which constitute the subject-matter with which the\nphilosophy of language has to do.\n\nHumboldt taught that in its highest sense this philosophy of language\nis one with the philosophy of history. The science of language misses\nits purpose unless it seeks its chief end in explaining the\nintellectual growth of the race.[8-+]\n\nEach separate tongue is \"a thought-world in tones\" established between\nthe minds of those who speak it and the objective world without.[8-++]\nEach mirrors in itself the spirit of the nation to which it belongs.\nBut it has also an earlier and independent origin; it is the product\nof the conceptions of antecedent generations, and thus exerts a\nformative and directive influence on the national mind, an influence,\nnot slight, but more potent than that which the national mind exerts\nupon it.[8-||]\n\nSo also every word has a double character, the one derived from its\norigin, the other from its history. The former is single, the latter\nis manifold.[8-\u00a7]\n\nWere the gigantic task possible to gather from every language the full\nrecord of every word and the complete explanation of each grammatical\npeculiarity, we should have an infallible, the only infallible and\nexhaustive, picture of human progress.\n\n\n\u00a7 4. HISTORICAL, COMPARATIVE AND PHILOSOPHIC GRAMMAR.\n\nThe Science of Grammar has three branches, which differ more in the\nmethods they pursue than in the ends at which they aim. These are\nHistoric, Comparative and Philosophic Grammar. Historic Grammar\noccupies itself with tracing the forms of a language back in time to\ntheir earlier expression, and exhibits their development through the\narchaic specimens of the tongue. Comparative Grammar extends this\ninvestigation by including in the survey the similar development of a\nnumber of dialects of the same stock or character, and explains the\nlaws of speech, which account for the similarities and diversities\nobserved.\n\nBoth of these, it will be observed, begin with the language and its\nforms, and are confined to these. Philosophic Grammar, on the other\nhand, proceeds from the universal constructive principles of language,\nfrom the abstract formul\u00e6 of grammatical relations, and investigates\ntheir application in various languages. It looks upon articulate\nspeech as the more or less faithful expression of certain logical\nprocedures, and analyzes tongues in order to exhibit the success, be\nit greater or less, which attends this effort. The grammatical\nprinciples with which it deals are universals, they exist in all\nminds, although it often happens that they are not portrayed with\ncorresponding clearness in language.[9-*]\n\nPhilosophic Grammar, therefore, includes in its horizon all languages\nspoken by men; it essays to analyze their inmost nature with reference\nto the laws of thought; it weighs the relations they bear to the\ncharacter and destiny of those who speak them; and it ascends to the\npsychological needs and impulses which first gave them existence.\n\nIt was grammar in this highest sense, it was the study of languages\nfor such lofty purposes as these, with which Humboldt occupied himself\nwith untiring zeal for the last fifteen years of his life, when he had\nlaid aside the cares of the elevated and responsible political\npositions which he had long filled with distinguished credit.\n\n\n\u00a7 5. DEFINITION AND PSYCHOLOGICAL ORIGIN OF LANGUAGE.\n\nHumboldt remarks that the first hundred pages or so of his celebrated\n\"Introduction\" are little more than an expansion of his definition of\nlanguage. He gives this definition in its most condensed form as\nfollows: \"Language is the ever-recurring effort of the mind to make\nthe articulate sound capable of expressing thought.\"[10-*]\n\nAccording to this definition, language is not a dead thing, a\ncompleted product, but it is an ever-living, active function, an\nenergy of the soul, which will perish only when intelligence itself,\nin its highest sense, is extinguished. As he expresses it, language is\nnot an ~ergon~, but an ~energeia~. It is the proof and the product of\na mind _consciously_ working to a definite end.\n\nHence, in Humboldt's theory the psychological element of\n_self-consciousness_ lies at the root of all linguistic expression. No\nmere physical difference between the lower animals and man explains\nthe latter's possession of articulate speech. His self-consciousness\nalone is that trait which has rendered such a possession\npossible.[10-+]\n\nThe idea of Self necessarily implies the idea of Other. A thought is\nnever separate, never isolated, but ever in relation to another\nthought, suggested by one, leading on to another. Hence, Humboldt\nsays: \"The mind can only be conceived as in action, and _as action_.\"\n\nAs Prof. Adler, in his comments on Humboldt's philosophy, admirably\nobserves: \"Man does not possess any such thing as an absolutely\nisolated individuality; the 'I' and the 'thou' are the essential\ncomplements of each other, and would, in their last analysis, be found\nidentical.\"[11-*]\n\nOn these two fundamental conceptions, those of Identity and Relation,\nor, as they may be expressed more correctly, those of Being and\nAction, Humboldt builds his doctrines concerning the primitive\nradicals of language and the fundamental categories of grammar.\n\n\n\u00a7 6. PRIMITIVE ROOTS AND GRAMMATICAL CATEGORIES.\n\nThe roots of a language are classified by Humboldt as either\n_objective_ or _subjective_, although he considers this far from an\nexhaustive scheme.[11-+]\n\nThe objective roots are usually descriptive, and indicate an origin\nfrom a process of mental analysis. They bear the impress of those two\nattributes which characterize every thought, Being and Action. Every\ncomplete objective word must express these two notions. Upon them are\nfounded the fundamental grammatical categories of the Noun and the\nVerb; or to speak more accurately, they lead to the distinction of\nnominal and verbal themes.\n\nThe characteristic of the Noun is that it expresses Being; of the Verb\nthat it expresses Action. This distinction is far from absolute in the\nword itself; in many languages, especially in Chinese and some\nAmerican languages, there is in the word no discrimination between its\nverbal and nominal forms; but the verbal or nominal _value_ of the\nword is clearly fixed by other means.[11-++]\n\nAnother class of objective root-words are the adjective words, or\nDeterminatives. They are a later accession to the list, and by their\naddition bring the three chief grammatical categories, the Noun, the\nVerb and the Adjective, into correlation with the three logical\ncategories of Substance, Action and Quality.\n\nBy the subjective roots, Humboldt meant the personal pronouns. To\nthese he attributed great importance in the development of language,\nand especially of American languages. They carry with them the mark of\nsharp individuality, and express in its highest reality the notion of\nBeing.\n\nIt is not easy to understand Humboldt's theory of the evolution of the\npersonal pronouns. In his various essays he seems to offer conflicting\nstatements. In one of his later papers, he argues that the origin of\nsuch subjective nominals is often, perhaps generally, locative. By\ncomparing the personal pronouns with the adverbs of place in a series\nof languages, he showed that their demonstrative antedated their\npersonal meaning.[12-*] With regard to their relative development, he\nsays, in his celebrated \"Introduction\":\n\n\"The first person expresses the individuality of the speaker, who is\nin immediate contact with external nature, and must distinguish\nhimself from it in his speech. But in the 'I' the 'Thou' is assumed;\nand from the antithesis thus formed is developed the third\nperson.\"[12-+]\n\nBut in his \"Notice of the Japanese Grammar of Father Oyanguren,\"\npublished in 1826, he points out that infants begin by speaking of\nthemselves in the third person, showing that this comes first in the\norder of knowledge. It is followed by the second person, which\nseparates one object from others; but as it does so by putting it in\nconscious antithesis to the speaker, it finally develops the\n\"I.\"[12-++]\n\nThe latter is unquestionably the correct statement so far as the\nhistory of language is concerned and the progress of knowledge. I can\nknow myself only through knowing others.\n\nThe explanation which reconciles these theories is that the one refers\nto the order of thought, or logical precedence, the other to the order\nof expression. Professor Ferrier, in his \"Institutes of Metaphysics,\"\nhas established with much acuteness the thesis that, \"What is first in\nthe order of nature is last in the order of knowledge,\" and this is an\ninstance of that philosophical principle.\n\n\n\u00a7 7. FORMAL AND MATERIAL ELEMENTS OF LANGUAGE.\n\nA fundamental distinction in philosophic grammar is that which divides\nthe _formal_ from the _material_ element of speech. This division\narises from the original double nature of each radical, as expressing\nboth Being and Action.\n\nOn the one hand, Action involves Relation; it assumes an object and a\nsubject, an agent, a direction of effort, a result of effort; usually\nalso limitations of effort, time and space, and qualifications as to\nthe manner of the effort. In other words, Action is capable of\nincrease or decrease both in extension and intension.\n\nOn the other hand, Being is a conception of fixed conditions, and is\ncapable of few or no modifications.\n\nThe _formal_ elements of a language are those which express Action, or\nthe relation of the ideas; they make up the affixes of conjugations\nand declensions, the inflections of words; they indicate the parts of\nspeech, the so-called \"grammatical categories,\" found in developed\ntongues. The _material_ elements are the roots or stems expressing the\nnaked ideas, the conceptions of existence apart from relation.\n\nUsing the terms in this sense, Humboldt presents the following terse\nformula, as his definition of Inflection: \"_Inflection is the\nexpression of the category in contrast to the definition of the\nidea._\"[13-*] Nothing could be more definitive and lucid than this\nconcise phrase.\n\nThe inflectional or formal elements of language are usually derived\nfrom words expressing accessory ideas. Generally, they are worn down\nto single letters or a single syllable, and they usually may be traced\nback to auxiliary verbs and pronouns.\n\nOften various accessories are found which are not required by the main\nproposition. This is a common fault in the narratives of ignorant men\nand in languages and dialects of a lower grade. It is seen in the\nmultiplication of auxiliaries and qualifying particles observed in\nmany American languages, where a vast number of needless accessories\nare brought into every sentence.\n\nThe nature of the relations expressed by inflections may be manifold,\nand it is one of the tasks of philosophic grammar to analyze and\nclassify them with reference to the direction of mental action they\nimply.\n\nIt is evident that where these relations are varied and numerous, the\nlanguage gains greatly in picturesqueness and force, and thus reacts\nwith a more stimulating effect on the mind.\n\n\n\u00a7 8. THE DEVELOPMENT OF LANGUAGES.\n\nHumboldt believed that in this respect languages could be divided into\nthree classes, each representing a stage in progressive development.\n\nIn the first and lowest stage all the elements are material and\nsignificant, and there are no true formal parts of speech.\n\nNext above this is where the elements of relation lose their\nindependent significance _where so used_, but retain it elsewhere. The\nwords are not yet fixed in grammatical categories. There is no\ndistinction between verbs and nouns except in use. The plural conveys\nthe idea of many, but the singular not strictly that of unity.\n\nHighest of all is that condition of language where every word is\nsubject to grammatical law and shows by its form what category it\ncomes under; and where the relational or formal elements convey no\nhint of anything but this relation. Here, only, does language attain\nto that specialization of parts where each element subserves its own\npurpose and no other, and here only does it correspond with clear and\nconnected thinking.\n\nThese expressions, however, must not be understood in a genetic sense,\nas if historically one linguistic class had preceded the other, and\nled up to it. Humboldt entertained no such view. He distinctly\nrepudiated it. He did not believe in the evolution of languages. The\ndifferences of these classes are far more radical than that of sounds\nand signs; they reach down to the fundamental notions of things. His\nteaching was that a language without a passive voice, or without a\ngrammatical gender can never acquire one, and consequently it can\nnever perfectly express the conceptions corresponding to these\nfeatures.[14-*]\n\nIn defining and appraising these inherent and inalienable qualities of\nlanguages lies the highest end and aim of linguistic science. This is\nits true philosophic character, its mission which lifts it above the\nmere collecting of words and formulating of rules.\n\nIf the higher languages did not develop from the lower, how did they\narise? Humboldt answered this question fairly, so far as he was\nconcerned. He said, he did not know. Individuals vary exceedingly in\ntheir talent for language, and so do nations. He was willing to call\nit an innate creative genius which endowed our Aryan forefathers with\na richly inflected speech; but it was so contrary to the results of\nhis prolonged and profound study of languages to believe, for\ninstance, that a tongue like the Sanscrit could ever be developed from\none like the Chinese, that he frankly said that he would rather accept\nat once the doctrine of those who attribute the different idioms of\nmen to an immediate revelation from God.[15-*]\n\nHe fully recognized, however, a progress, an organic growth, in human\nspeech, and he expressly names this as a special branch of linguistic\ninvestigation.[15-+] He lays down that this growth may be from two\nsources, one the cultivation of a tongue within the nation by\nenriching its vocabulary, separating and classifying its elements,\nfixing its expressions, and thus adapting it to wider uses; the\nsecond, by forcible amalgamation with another tongue.\n\nThe latter exerts always a more profound and often a more beneficial\ninfluence. The organism of both tongues may be destroyed, but the\ndissolvent force is also an organic and vital one, and from the ruins\nof both constructs a speech of grander plans and with wider views.\n\"The seemingly aimless and confused interminglings of primitive tribes\nsowed the seed for the flowers of speech and song which flourished in\ncenturies long posterior.\"\n\nThe immediate causes of the improvement of a language through forcible\nadmixture with another, are: that it is obliged to drop all\nunneccessary[TN-1] accessory elements in a proposition; that the\nrelations of ideas must be expressed by conventional and not\nsignificant syllables; and that the limitations of thought imposed by\nthe genius of the language are violently broken down, and the mind is\nthus given wider play for its faculties.\n\nSuch influences, however, do not act in accordance with fixed laws of\ngrowth. There are no such laws, which are of universal application.\nThe development of the Mongolian or Aryan tongues is not at all that\nof the American. The goal is one and the same, but the paths to it are\ninfinite. For this reason each group or class of languages must be\nstudied by itself, and its own peculiar developmental laws be\nascertained by searching its history.[16-*]\n\nWith reference to the growth of American languages, it was Humboldt's\nview that they manifest the utmost refractoriness both to external\ninfluence and to internal modifications. They reveal a marvellous\ntenacity of traditional words and forms, not only in dialects, but\neven in particular classes of the community, men having different\nexpressions from women, the old from the young, the higher from the\nlower classes. These are maintained with scrupulous exactitude through\ngenerations, and except by the introduction of words, three centuries\nof daily commingling with the white race, have not at all altered the\ngrammer[TN-2] and scarcely the phonetics of many of their languages.\n\nNor is this referable to the contrast between an Aryan and an American\nlanguage. The same immiscibility is shown between themselves. \"Even\nwhere many radically different languages are located closely together,\nas in Mexico, I have not found a single example where one exercised a\nconstructive or formative influence on the other. But it is by the\nencounter of great and contrasted differences that languages gain\nstrength, riches, and completeness. Only thus are the perceptive\npowers, the imagination and the feelings impelled to enrich and extend\nthe means of expression, which, if left to the labors of the\nunderstanding alone, are liable to be but meagre and arid.\"[16-+]\n\n\n\u00a7 9. INTERNAL FORM OF LANGUAGES.\n\nBesides the grammatical form of a language, Humboldt recognized\nanother which he called its _internal form_. This is that subtle\nsomething not expressed in words, which even more than the formal\nparts of speech, reveals the linguistic genius of a nation. It may be\ndefined as the impression which the language bears of the clearness of\nthe conceptions of those speaking it, and of their native gift of\nspeech. He illustrates it by instancing the absence of a developed\nmode in Sanscrit, and maintains that in the creators of that tongue\nthe conception of modality was never truly felt and distinguished from\ntense. In this respect its inner form was greatly inferior to the\nGreek, in the mind of which nation the ideally perfect construction of\nthe verb unfolded itself with far more clearness.\n\nThe study of this inner form of a language belongs to the highest\nrealm of linguistic investigation, and is that which throws the most\nlight on the national character and capacities.[17-*]\n\n\n\u00a7 10. CRITERIA OF RANK IN LANGUAGES.\n\nHumboldt's one criterion of a language was its tendncy[TN-3] to\n_quicken and stimulate mental action_. He maintained that this is\nsecured just in proportion as the grammatical structure favors clear\ndefinition of the individual idea apart from its relations, in other\nwords, as it separates the material from the inflectional elements of\nspeech. Clear thinking, he argued, means progressive thinking.\nTherefore he assigned a lower position both to those tongues which\ninseparably connect the idea with its relations, as the American\nlanguages, and to those which, like the Chinese and in a less degree\nthe modern English, have scarcely any formal elements at all, but\ndepend upon the position of words (placement) to signify their\nrelations.\n\nBut he greatly modified this unfavorable judgment by several\nextenuating considerations.\n\nThus he warns us that it is of importance to recognize fully \"that\ngrammatical principles dwell rather in the mind of the speaker than in\nthe material and mechanism of his language.\"[17-+]\n\nThis led him to establish a distinction between _explicit_ grammar,\nwhere the relations are fully expressed in speech, and _implicit_\ngrammar, where they are wholly or in part left to be understood by the\nmind.\n\nHe expressly and repeatedly states that an intelligent thinker,\ntrained in the grammatical distinctions of a higher language, can\nexpress any thought he has in the grammar of any other tongue which he\nmasters, no matter how rude it is. This adaptability lies in the\nnature of speech in general. A language is an instrument, the use of\nwhich depends entirely on the skill of him who handles it. It is\ndoubtful whether such imported forms and thoughts appeal in any direct\nsense to those who are native to the tongue. But the fact remains that\nthe forms of the most barbarous languages are such that they may be\ndeveloped to admit the expression of any kind of idea.\n\nBut the meaning of this must not be misconstrued. If languages were\nmerely dead instruments which we use to work with, then one would be\nas good as another to him who had learned it. But this is not the\ncase. Speech is a living, physiological function, and, like any other\nfunction, is most invigorating and vitalizing when it works in the\nutmost harmony with the other functions. Its special relationship is\nto that brain-action which we call thinking; and entire harmony\nbetween the two is only present when the form, structure and sounds of\nspeech correspond accurately to the logical procedure of thought. This\nhe considered \"an undeniable fact.\"\n\nThe measure of the excellence of a language, therefore, is the\nclearness, definiteness and energy of the ideas which it awakes in the\nnation. Does it inspire and incite their mind? Has it positive and\nclear tones, and do these define sharply the ideas they represent,\nwithout needless accessories? Does its structure present the leading\nelements of the proposition in their simplicity, and permit the\nsecondary elements to be grouped around them in subordinate positions,\nwith a correct sense of linguistic perspective? The answers to these\nqueries decide its position in the hierarchy of tongues.[18-*]\n\nAs its capacity for expression is no criterion of a language, still\nless is the abundance or regularity of its forms. For this very\nmultiplicity, this excessive superfluity, is a burden and a drawback,\nand obscures the integration of the thought by attaching to it a\nquantity of needless qualifications. Thus, in the language of the\nAbipones, the pronoun is different as the person spoken of is\nconceived as present, absent, sitting, walking, lying, or running, all\nquite unnecessary specifications.[19-*]\n\nIn some languages much appears as form which, on close scrutiny, is\nnothing of the kind.\n\nThis misunderstanding has reigned almost universally in the treatment\nof American tongues. The grammars which have been written upon them\nproceed generally on the principles of Latin, and apply a series of\ngrammatical names to the forms explained, entirely inappropriate to\nthem and misleading. Our first duty in taking up such a grammar as,\nfor instance, that of an American language, is to dismiss the whole of\nthe arrangement of the \"parts of speech,\" and, by an analysis of words\nand phrases, to ascertain by what arrangement of elements they express\nlogical, significant relations.[19-+]\n\nFor example, in the Carib tongue, the grammars give _aveiridaco_ as\nthe second person singular, subjunctive imperfect, \"if thou wert.\"\nAnalyze this, and we discover that _a_ is the possessive pronoun\n\"thy;\" _veiri_ is \"to be\" or \"being\" (in a place); and _daco_ is a\nparticle of definite time. Hence, the literal rendering is \"on the day\nof thy being.\" The so-called imperfect subjunctive turns out to be a\nverbal noun with a preposition. In many American languages the\nhypothetical supposition expressed in the Latin subjunctive is\nindicated by the same circumlocution.\n\nAgain, the infinitive, in its classical sense, is unknown in most,\nprobably in all, American languages. In the Tupi of Brazil and\nfrequently elsewhere it is simply a noun; _caru_ is both \"to eat\" and\n\"food;\" _che caru ai-pota_, \"I wish to eat,\" literally \"my food I\nwish.\"\n\nIn the Mexican, the infinitive is incorporated in the verb as an\naccusative, and the verb is put in the future of the person spoken of.\n\nMany writers continue to maintain that a criterion of rank of a\nlanguage is its lexicographical richness--the number of words it\npossesses. Even very recently, Prof. Max M\u00fcller has applied such a\ntest to American languages, and, finding that one of the Fuegian\ndialects is reported to have nearly thirty thousand words, he\nmaintains that this is a proof that these savages are a degenerate\nremnant of some much more highly developed ancestry. Founding his\nopinion largely on similar facts, Alexander von Humboldt applied the\nexpression to the American nations that they are \"des d\u00e9bris \u00e9chapp\u00e9s\n\u00e0 un naufrage commun.\"\n\nSuch, however, was not the opinion of his brother Wilhelm. He sounded\nthe depths of linguistic philosophy far more deeply than to accept\nmere abundance of words as proof of richness in a language. Many\nsavage languages have twenty words signifying to eat particular\nthings, but no word meaning \"to eat\" in general; the Eskimo language\nhas different words for fishing for each kind of fish, but no word \"to\nfish,\" in a general sense. Such apparent richness is, in fact, actual\npoverty.\n\nHumboldt taught that the quality, not merely the quantity, of words\nwas the decisive measure of verbal wealth. Such quality depends on the\nrelations of concrete words, on the one hand, to the primitive\nobjective perceptions at their root, and, on the other, to the\nabstract general ideas of which they are particular representatives;\nand besides this, on the relations which the spoken word, the\narticulate sound, bears to the philosophic laws of the formation of\nlanguage in general.[20-*]\n\nIn his letter to Abel-Remusat he discusses the theory that the\nAmerican languages point to a once higher condition of civilization,\nand are the corrupted idioms of deteriorated races. He denies that\nthere is linguistic evidence of any such theory. These languages, he\nsays, possess a remarkable regularity of structure, and very few\nanomalies. Their grammar does not present any visible traces of\ncorrupting intermixtures.[21-*]\n\nIn a later work he returns to the subject when speaking of the Lenape\n(Algonkin Delaware) dialect, and asks whether the rich imaginative\npower, of which it bears the evident impress, does not point to some\nyouthful, supple and vigorous era in the life of language in\ngeneral?[21-+] But he leaves the question unanswered.\n\n\n\u00a7 11. CLASSIFICATION OF LANGUAGES.\n\nThe lower unit of language is the Word; the higher is the Sentence.\nThe plans on which languages combine words into sentences are a basic\ncharacter of their structure, and divide them into classes as distinct\nand as decisive of their future, as those of vertebrate and\ninvertebrate animals in natural history.\n\nThese plans are four in number:\n\n1. By Isolation.\n\nThe words are placed in juxtaposition, without change. Their relations\nare expressed by their location only (placement). The typical example\nof this is the Chinese.\n\n2. By Agglutination.\n\nThe sentence is formed by suffixing to the word expressive of the main\nidea a number of others, more or less altered, expressing the\nrelations. Examples of this are the Eskimo of North America, and the\nNorthern Asiatic dialects.\n\n3. By Incorporation.\n\nThe leading word of the sentence is divided and the accessory words\neither included in it or attached to it with abbreviated forms, so\nthat the whole sentence assumes the form and sound of one word.\n\n4. By Inflection.\n\nEach word of the sentence indicates by its own form the character and\nrelation to the main proposition of the idea it represents. Sanscrit,\nGreek and Latin are familiar examples of inflected tongues.\n\nIt is possible to suppose that all four of these forms were developed\nfrom some primitive condition of utterance unknown to us, just as\nnaturalists believe that all organic species were developed out of a\nhomogeneous protoplasmic mass; but it is as hard to see how any one of\nthem in its present form could pass over into another, as to\nunderstand how a radiate could change into a mollusk.\n\n\n\u00a7 12. NATURE OF INCORPORATION.\n\nOf the four plans mentioned, Incorporation is that characteristic of,\nthough not confined to, American tongues.\n\nIt may appear in a higher or a lower grade, but its intention is\neverywhere the effort to convey in one word the whole proposition. The\nVerb, as that part of speech which especially conveys the synthetic\naction of the mental operation, is that which is selected as the stem\nof this word-sentence; all the other parts are subordinate\naccessories, devoid of syntactic value.\n\nThe higher grade of incorporation includes both subject, object and\nverb in one word, and if for any reason the object is not included,\nthe scheme of the sentence is still maintained in the verb, and the\nobject is placed outside, as in apposition, without case ending, and\nunder a form different from its original and simple one.\n\nThis will readily be understood from the following examples from the\nMexican language.\n\nThe sentence _ni-naca-qua_, is one word and means \"I, flesh, eat.\" If\nit is desired to express the object independently, the expression\nbecomes _ni-c-qua-in-nacatl_, \"I it eat, the flesh.\" The termination\n_tl_ does not belong to the root of the noun, but is added to show\nthat it is in an external, and, as it were, unnatural position. Both\nthe direct and remote object can thus be incorporated, and if they are\nnot, but separately appended, the scheme of the sentence is still\npreserved; as _ni-te-tla-maca_, literally, \"I, something, to somebody,\ngive.\" How closely these accessories are incorporated is illustrated\nby the fact that the tense augments are not added to the stem, but to\nthe whole word; _o-ni-c-te-maca-e_, \"I have given it to somebody;\"\nwhen the _o_ is the prefix of the perfect.\n\nIn these languages, every element in the sentence, which is not\nincorporated in the verb, has, in fact, no syntax at all. The verbal\nexhausts all the formal portion of the language. The relations of the\nother words are intimated by their position. Thus _ni-tlagotlaz-nequia_,\nI wished to love, is literally \"I, I shall love, I wished.\" _Tlagotlaz_,\nis the first person singular of the future, _ni-nequia_, I wished, which\nis divided, and the future form inserted. The same expression may stand\nthus: _ni-c-nequia-tlagotlaz_, where the _c_ is an intercalated relative\npronoun, and the literal rendering is, \"I it wished, I shall love.\"\n\nIn the Lule language the construction with an infinitive is simply\nthat the two verbs follow each other in the same person, as _caic\ntucuec_, \"I am accustomed to eat,\" literally, \"I am acustomed,[TN-4] I\neat.\"\n\nNone of these devices fullfils[TN-5] all the uses of the infinitive,\nand hence they are all inferior to it.\n\nIn languages which lack formal elements, the deficiency must be\nsupplied by the mind. Words are merely placed in juxtaposition, and\ntheir relationship guessed at. Thus, when a language constructs its\ncases merely by prefixing prepositions to the unaltered noun, there is\nno grammatical form; in the Mbaya language _e-tiboa_ is translated\n\"through me,\" but it is really \"I, through;\" _l'emani_, is rendered\n\"he wishes,\" but it is strictly \"he, wish.\"\n\nIn such languages the same collocation of words often corresponds to\nquite different meanings, as the precise relation of the thoughts is\nnot defined by any formal elements. This is well illustrated in the\nTupi tongue. The word _uba_ is \"father;\" with the pronoun of the third\nperson prefixed it is _tuba_, literally \"he, father.\" This may mean\neither \"his father,\" or \"he is a father,\" or \"he has a father,\" just\nas the sense of the rest of the sentence requires.\n\nCertainly a language which thus leaves confounded together ideas so\ndistinct as these, is inferior to one which discriminates them; and\nthis is why the formal elements of a tongue are so important to\nintellectual growth. The Tupis may be an energetic and skillful\npeople, but with their language they can never take a position as\nmasters in the realm of ideas.\n\nThe absence of the passive in most, if not all, American tongues is\nsupplied by similar inadequate collocations of words. In Huasteca, for\nexample, _nana tanin tahjal_, is translated \"I am treated by him;\"\nactually it is, \"I, me, treats he.\" This is not a passive, but simply\nthe idea of the Ego connected with the idea of another acting upon it.\n\nThis is vastly below the level of inflected speech; for it cannot be\ntoo strenuously maintained that the grammatical relations of spoken\nlanguage are the more perfect and favorable to intellectual growth,\nthe more closely they correspond to the logical relations of thought.\n\nSometimes what appears as inflection turns out on examination to be\nmerely adjunction. Thus in the Mbaya tongue there are such verbal\nforms as _daladi_, thou wilt throw, _nilabuite_, he has spun, when the\n_d_ is the sign of the future, and the _n_ of the perfect. These look\nlike inflections; but in fact _d_, is simply a relic of _quide_,\nhereafter, later, and _n_ stands in the same relation to _quine_,\nwhich means \"and also.\"\n\nTo become true formal elements, all such adjuncts must have completely\nlost their independent signification; because if they retain it, their\nmaterial content requires qualification and relation just as any other\nstem word.\n\nA few American languages may have reached this stage. In the Mexican\nthere are the terminals _ya_ or _a_ in the imperfect, the augment _o_\nin the preterit, and others in the future. In the Tamanaca the present\nends in _a_, the preterit in _e_, the future in _c_. \"There is nothing\nin either of these tongues to show that these tense signs have\nindependent meaning, and therefore there is no reason why they should\nnot be classed with those of the Greek and Sanscrit as true\ninflectional elements.\"[24-*]\n\n\n\u00a7 13. PSYCHOLOGICAL ORIGIN OF INCORPORATION.\n\nThis Incorporative plan, which may be considered as distinctive of the\nAmerican stock of languages, is explained in its psychological origin\nby Humboldt, as the result of an _exaltation of the imaginative over\nthe intellectual elements of mind_. By this method, the linguistic\nfaculty strives to present to the understanding the whole thought in\nthe most compact form possible, thus to facilitate its comprehension;\nand this it does, because a thought presented in one word is more\nvivid and stimulating to the imagination, more individual and\npicturesque, than when narrated in a number of words.[25-*]\n\nBut the mistake must not be made of supposing that Incorporation is a\n_creative act_ of the language-sense, or that its products, the\ncompounds that it builds, are real words. Humboldt was careful to\nimpress this distinction, and calls such incorporated compounds\nexamples of _collocation_ (Zusammensetzung), not of _synthesis_\n(Zusammenfassung). On this ground, he doubted, and with justice, the\nassertion of Duponceau, that the long words of the Lenape (Delaware)\ndialect are formed by an arbitrary selection of the phonetic parts of\na number of words, without reference to the radical syllables.[25-+]\nHe insisted, as is really the case, that in all instances the\nsignificant syllable or syllables are retained.\n\n\n\u00a7 14. EFFECT OF INCORPORATION ON COMPOUND SENTENCES.\n\nAs has been seen, the theory of Incorporation is to express the whole\nproposition, as nearly as possible, in one word; and what part of it\ncannot be thus expressed, is left without any syntax whatever. Not\nonly does this apply to individual words in a sentence, but it extends\nto the various clauses of a compound sentence, such as in Aryan\nlanguages show their relation to the leading clauses by means of\nprepositions, conjunctions and relative pronouns.\n\nWhen the methods are analyzed by which the major and minor clauses are\nassigned their respective values in these tongues, it is very plain\nwhat difficulties of expression the system of Incorporation involves.\nFew of them have any true connecting word of either of the three\nclasses above mentioned. They depend on scarcely veiled material\nwords, simply placed in juxtaposition.\n\nIt is probable that the prepositions and conjunctions of all\nlanguages were at first significant words, and the degree to which\nthey have lost their primary significations and have become purely\nformal elements expressing relation, is one of the measures of the\ngrammatical evolution of a tongue. In most American idioms their\norigin from substantives is readily recognizable. Frequently these\nsubstantives refer to parts of the body, and this, in passing,\nsuggests the antiquity of this class of words and their value in\ncomparison.\n\nIn Maya _tan_ means in, toward, among; but it is also the breast or\nfront of the body. The Mexican has three classes of prepositions--the\nfirst, whose origin from a substantive cannot be detected; the second,\nwhere an unknown and a known element are combined; the third, where\nthe substantive is perfectly clear. An example of the last mentioned\nis _itic_, in, compounded of _ite_, belly, and the locative particle\n_c_; the phrase _ilhuicatl itic_, in heaven, is literally \"in the\nbelly of heaven.\" Precisely the same is the Cakchiquel _pamcah_,\nliterally, \"belly, heaven\"=in heaven. In Mexican, _notepotzco_ is\n\"behind me,\" literally, \"my back, at;\" this corresponds again to the\nCakchiquel _chuih_, behind me, from _chi_, at, _u_, my, _vih_,\nshoulder-blades. The Mixteca prepositions present the crude nature of\ntheir origin without disguise, _chisi huahi_, belly, house--that is,\nin front of the house; _sata huahi_, back, house--behind the house.\n\nThe conjunctions are equally transparent. \"And\" in Maya is _yetel_, in\nMexican _ihuan_. One would suppose that such an indispensable\nconnective would long since have been worn down to an insoluble\nentity. On the contrary, both these words retain their perfect\nmaterial meaning. _Yetel_ is a compound of _y_, his, _et_, companion,\nand _el_, the definite termination of nouns. _Ihuan_ is the\npossessive, _i_, and _huan_, associate, companion, used also as a\ntermination to form a certain class of plurals.\n\nThe deficiency in true conjunctions and relative pronouns is met in\nmany American languages by a reversal of the plan of expression with\nus. The relative clause becomes the principal one. There is a certain\nlogical justice in this; for, if we reflect, it will appear evident\nthat the major proposition is, in our construction, presented as one\nof the conditions of the minor. \"I shall drown, if I fall in the\nwater,\" means that, of the various results of my falling in the water,\none of them will be that I shall drown. \"I followed the road which\nyou described,\" means that you described a road, and one of the\nresults of this act of yours was that I followed it.\n\nThis explains the plan of constructing compound sentences in Qquichua.\nInstead of saying \"I shall follow the road which you describe,\" the\nconstruction is \"You describe, this road I shall follow;\" and instead\nof \"I shall drown if I fall in the water,\" it would be, \"I fall in the\nwater, I shall drown.\"\n\nThe Mexican language introduces the relative clause by the word _in_,\nwhich is an article and demonstrative pronoun, or, if the proposition\nis a conditional one, by _intla_, which really signifies \"within\nthis,\" and conveys the sense that the major is included within the\nconditions of the minor clause. The Cakchiquel conditional particle is\n_vue_, if, which appears to be simply the particle of affirmation\n\"yes,\" employed to give extension to the minor clause, which, as a\nrule, is placed first.\n\nOr a conventional arrangement of words may be adopted which will\nconvey the idea of certain dependent clauses, as those expressing\nsimilitude, as is often the case in Mexican.\n\n\n\u00a7 15. THE DUAL IN AMERICAN LANGUAGES.\n\nIn his admirable philosophical examination of the dual number in\nlanguage, Humboldt laid the foundation of a linguistic theory of\nnumerals which has not yet received the development it merits. Here he\nbrings into view the dual and plural endings of a list of American\nlanguages, and explains the motives on which they base the inclusive\nand exclusive plurals so common among them. It is, in fact, a species\nof pronominal dual confined to the first person in the plural.\n\nThis, he goes on to say, is by no means the only dual in these\ntongues. Some of them express both the other classes of duals which he\nnames. Thus, the Totonaca has duals for all objects which appear as\npairs in nature, as the eyes, the ears, the hands, etc.; while the\nAraucanian equals the Sanscrit in extending the grammatical expression\nof the dual through all parts of speech where it can find proper\napplication.[27-*]\n\n\n\u00a7 16. HUMBOLDT'S ESSAY ON THE AMERICAN VERB.\n\nThe essay on the American verb translated in the following pages has\nnever previously appeared in print, either in German or English. The\noriginal MS. is in the Royal Library at Berlin, whence I obtained a\ntranscript. The author alludes to this essay in several passages of\nhis printed works, most fully in his \"Letter to M. Abel-Remusat\"\n(1826), in which he says:\n\n\"A few years ago, I read before the Berlin Academy a memoir, which has\nnot been printed, in which I compared a number of American languages\nwith each other, solely with regard to the manner in which they\nexpress the verb as uniting the subject with the attribute in the\nproposition, and from this point of view I assigned them to various\nclasses. As this trait proves to what degree a language possesses\ngrammatical forms, or is near to possessing them, it is decisive of\nthe whole grammar of a tongue.\"\n\nOn reading the memoir, I was so much impressed with the acuteness and\njustness of its analysis of American verbal forms that I prepared the\ntranslation which I now submit.\n\nIn the more recent studies of the American verb which have appeared\nfrom the pens of Friedrich M\u00fcller, J. Hammond Trumbull and Lucien\nAdam, we have the same central element of speech subjected to critical\ninvestigation at able hands. But it seems to me that none of them has\napproached the topic with the broad, philosophic conceptions which\nimpress the reader in this essay of Humboldt's. Although sixty years\nand more have elapsed since it was written, I am confident that it\nwill provide ample food for thought to the earnest student of\nlanguage.\n\n\n\n\n_On the Verb in American Languages. By Wilhelm von Humboldt[TN-6]\nTranslated from the unpublished original. By D. G. Brinton, M.D._\n\n\nYou recently had the goodness to give an appreciative hearing to my\nessay on The Origin of Grammatical Forms.\n\nI desire to-day to apply the principles which I then stated in general\nto a particular grammatical point through a series of languages. I\nchoose those of America as best suited to such a purpose, and select\nthe Verb as the most important part of speech, and the central point\nof every language. Without entering into an analysis of the different\nparts of the verb, I shall confine myself to that which constitutes\nits peculiar verbal character--the union of the subject and predicate\nof the sentence by means of the notion of Being. This alone forms the\nessence of the verb; all other relations, as of persons, tenses, modes\nand classes, are merely secondary properties.\n\nThe question to be answered is therefore:--\n\nThrough what form of grammatical notation do the languages under\nconsideration indicate that subject and predicate are to be united by\nmeans of the notion of Being?\n\nI believe I have shown with sufficient clearness that a language may\nhave a great diversity of apparent forms, and may express all\ngrammatical relations with definiteness, and yet when taken as a whole\nit may lack true grammatical form. From this arises an essential and\nreal graduated difference between languages. This difference, however,\nhas nothing to do with the question whether particular languages\nemploy exclusively agglutination or inflection, as all began with\nagglutination; but in the languages of the higher class, it became in\nits effects on the mind, identical with inflection.\n\nAs languages of the higher class, one has but to name the cultivated\nidioms of Asia and Europe, Sanscrit, Greek and Latin, in order to\napply to them the above statement. It is still more necessary,\nhowever, to understand thoroughly the structure of those languages\nwhich are on a lower plane, partly because this will convince us of\nthe correctness of the classification, partly because these tongues\nare less generally known.\n\nIt is enough to take up some single leading grammatical relation. I\nselect for this purpose the verb as the most important part of speech,\nwith which most of the others come into relation, and which completes\nthe formation of the sentence, the grammatical purpose of all\nlanguage--and often embraces it wholly in itself. But I shall confine\nmyself solely to that which makes the verb a verb, the characteristic\nnotation of its peculiar verbal nature. In every language this point\nis the most important and the most difficult, and cannot be made too\nclear to throw light upon the whole of the language. Linguistic\ncharacter can be ascertained through this point in the shortest and\nmost certain manner.\n\nThe verb is the union of the subject and predicate of the sentence by\nmeans of the notion of Being; yet not of every predicate. The\nattribute which is united to the substance by the verb must be an\nenergic one, a participial. The substance is represented in the verb\nas in motion, as connecting the Being with the energic attribute. By\nmeans of this representation, and the peculiar nature of the\nattribute, the verb is distinguished from the mere logical copula,\nwith which it is liable to be confounded if these ideas are not\nunderstood. If the verb is explained merely as a synthesis of Being\nwith any other attribute, then the origin of the tenses cannot be\nwholly derived from one idea, for the idea of time alone would allow\nonly a three-fold distinction. Moreover, in such case the true and\nefficient nature of the verb is misunderstood. In the sentence, \"The\nman is good,\" the verb is not a synthesis of the adjective \"good\" with\nthe substantive, but it is a participial of the energic attribute \"to\nbe good,\" which contains a condition, having beginning, middle and\nend, and consequently resembles an action. Fully analyzed, the\nsentence would be, \"He is being good.\" Where the substantive verb\nstands without a visible predicate, as in the sentence, \"I am,\" then\nthe verb \"to be\" has itself as the object of a synthesis, \"I am\nbeing.\" But as rude nations would find this difficult to comprehend,\nthe verb \"to be\" is either entirely lacking, as in many American\nlanguages, or else it has an original material sense, and is\nconfounded with \"to stand,\" \"to give,\" \"to eat,\" etc., and thus\nindicates Being as identical with the most familiar occupations.\n\nThe subject, the substance represented as in action, may be one\nindependent of the speakers, or it may be identical with one of them,\nand this identity is expressed by the pronouns. From this arises the\npersons. The energic attribute may exert its action in various manners\nin the substance or between two substances; this gives rise to the\nforms or classes of verbs. Their action must be confined to a given\npoint or period of time. The Being may be understood as definite or\nindefinite, etc., and in this is the origin of modes. Being is\ninseparably connected with the notation of time. This, united with the\nfixation of the point or period of time of an action, forms the\ntenses. No verb, therefore, can be conceived as without persons and\ntenses, modes and classes; yet these qualities do not constitute its\nessence, but arise from the latter, which itself is the synthesis\nbrought about by the notion of Being. The signs of these qualities\nmust be made to appear in the grammatical notation of the verb, but in\nsuch a manner that they appear dependent on its nature, making one\nwith it.\n\nThe energic attribute, which aids in forming the verb, may be a real\nmovement or action, as going, coming, living, working, etc., or merely\na qualitative Being, as a being beautiful, good, mortal, or immortal.\nIn the former case, we have a real attributive verb, in the latter a\nsubstantive verb, in which an attribute is considered as at rest,\nhence as an adjective. Although in both cases the nature of the verb\nis the same, yet in many languages this difference leads to a\ncorresponding variety in grammatical notation.\n\nIn accordance with these ideas culled from universal grammar, the\nforms of the conjugations in the various languages will now be\nconsidered.\n\nI have taken as a basis for this investigation as many American\nlanguages as I thought sufficient for the purpose, and as would not make\nthe survey oppressive by their number; but as I do not name all of them,\nand pay still less attention to pointing out in what other groups of\nlanguages the peculiarities named occur, it must be understood that what\nis here said is not intended as a characterization of American\nlanguages. This is reserved for another study.\n\nIn order to judge how closely these languages approach grammatical\nperfection in this point, we must take as our criterion that condition\nof speech where there is a class of words, which possess verbal power,\nand are at the same time separated by a definite form from all other\nparts of speech. With reference to this condition as the highest, we\nmust arrange in various grades all other structural forms or\nparaphrases of the verb.\n\nThe notion of Being, which constitutes the basis and the essence of\nthe verb, can be indicated either,\n\n1. As expressed independently.\n\n2. As incorporated in the verbal form as an auxiliary verb.\n\n3. As included in the verbal form merely as an idea.\n\nThe differences of the languages under comparison can be appreciated\nmost correctly by means of these three headings; but it must not be\nforgotten that any language may use the first and one of the last two\nmethods, and that in languages which have a substantive verb\nconjugated with and without auxiliary verbs, all three may be\nemployed.\n\n\nI.\n\nWHEN THE NOTION OF BEING IS EXPRESSED INDEPENDENTLY.\n\nI must except from this class all instances where the substantive verb\nis formed from a radical, inasmuch as this root, like any other, must\nassume the verbal form, and thus come under one of the two other\ndivisions. In such case it expresses the notion of Being, either by an\nauxiliary, as in the German _Ich bin gewesen_, or simply in the form,\nas, _I am_. When it is remembered that the substantive verbs of all\nlanguages are derived from concrete conceptions and impart to these\nmerely the general notion of Being, the above becomes still more\nobvious.\n\nNow if there is no root-form for the substantive verb, and yet it is\nexpressed independently, and not by another verbal form, this can only\nbe done either by the position of the governing and governed words, or\nby linguistic elements which are not properly verbs, but only become\nso by this use. In the former case the substantive verb is merely\nunderstood, in the latter it appears in a definite word, but without a\nfixed radical.\n\n1. _When the notion of Being is understood._\n\nOne of the most common forms of sentences in American languages is to\nbring together an adjective and a substantive, the substantive verb\nbeing omitted.\n\nMexican: _in Pedro qualli_, the Peter (is) good.\n\nTotonaca: _aquit chixco_, I (am) a man.\n\nHuasteca: _naxe uxum ibaua tzichniel_, this woman (is) not thy\nservant.\n\nIn the Mixteca language such expressions have a peculiar arrangement.\nThe adjective must precede the substantive, or rather the predicate\nmust precede the subject, as in the reverse case the words are\nunderstood separately, and are not connected into a sentence: _quadza\n\u00f1aha_, the woman is bad; _\u00f1aha quadza_, the bad woman.\n\nIn the language of the Mbayas, a sentence can be made with any verb by\ndropping the verbal affixes, by transposing a letter characterizing\nthe nouns as such, appending an adjective suffix, and uniting this\nwith an independent pronoun. The grammars of this language call this\nform a passive, but it is just as much a neuter, and is not a verb but\na phrase. From _iigaichini_, to teach, we have _n-iigaichin-igi_,\ntaught, and as first person _e n-iigaichin-igi_, I am taught. The\ninitial _n_ which accompanies all nouns in this language, is merely\nthe possessive pronoun of the third person, added according to the\nusage of many of these tongues to leave no noun without a possessive;\nthe termination _igi_ is a particle which indicates the place where\nanything remains. Literally, therefore, _eniigaichinigi_ means, I (am)\nthe stopping-place of his teaching, _i. e._, one who is taught. All\naffixes of mode and tense, however, may be united to this phrase, so\nthat thus it approaches a verb.\n\nRegarded apart from the changes through tenses and modes, the union of\nthe subject and predicate with the substantive verb omitted, is\nadmirably adapted to express the conjunction of two words in one idea,\nand as the languages which make use of it also possess the ordinary\nforms of conjugation, they thus possess a special expression for both\nthe forms of verbs above referred to. We shall note this particularly\nin the Beto language.\n\nWhen the subject is not an independent part of speech, but an affixed\npronoun, the analogy of this method of notation to a verbal form\nincreases. For this is present even when no characteristic of a tense\nis added, simply by the union of an attribute and a pronoun. It should\nbe remarked once for all, however, that too much weight must not be\nattached to whether these elements form one word or not, as this is\nnot an infallible criterion.\n\nThe verb cannot be considered to be present as a separate part of\nspeech, when a verb can thus be made out of any word, not merely those\nstamped as verbs, but also out of those which bear the express\ncharacteristics of nouns; and therefore I include all these cases in\nthe class under consideration. For in all these languages there is in\nfact no verb, but only separate elements of speech with the verb\nomitted. Such cases are, however, interesting, as showing the gradual\napproach to the verb, and the effort of the instinct of language to\narrive at grammatical form.\n\n  The independent personal pronoun rarely makes an element of verbal\n  form, as in speaking it is generally worn down to an affix. When it is\n  used to form a verbal expression, the difference of the elements is\n                                    1          3   3               1\n  apparent. Thus, in the Carib, _anaiaca puin au_--I (am) not a divider.\n  In that tongue, however, this placement is not applicable to every noun,\n  but only after certain definite verbal forms, especially in negative\n  expressions.\n\n  The Lule language confines this notation to participials, and expresses\n  by it the condition of the action and also its time; [TN-7]_mil quis\n               1        2    3\n  amaiciton_, you (are) me loving.\n\nThe affixed pronouns are either special, confined to these\nexpressions, or if elsewhere in the tongue, are not employed with\nverbs, or not in this manner; or they are the pronominal affixes of\nthe verb itself.\n\nThe Maya or Yucatecan language has a special pronoun which added to\nany noun forms a sentence with it, and possesses the power to add the\nidea of the verb; _Pedro en_, I am Pedro. But when it stands alone,\nwithout a predicate, it loses this power, as _en_ alone does not mean,\n\"I am.\"\n\nIn the Beto language there is, indeed, no special pronoun of this\nkind, as the one used is also a possessive. Its position, however,\nmakes the difference. When it is prefixed, it is the possessive, but\nwhen suffixed it carries with it the power of the verb: _humani rru_,\nman I (am); _fofei rru_, bad I (am). In a similar manner this tongue\nforms a substantive verb, _ajoi rru_. The meaning of the root is not\ngiven, but it seems to mean something present, at hand. It is\nsuggestive that in these phrases the accent is always on the pronoun,\nas if to signify that that is the important element.\n\nIt is very common in American languages to find the noun and the verb\nusing the same pronouns, with the former to indicate possession, with\nthe latter the subject. This might be explained by supposing that the\naction is regarded as the possession of the agent. But it is simpler\nto suppose that in each case the connection of the person with the\nnoun and the verb is in the thoughts, and this relation is recognized\nin expression.\n\nIn this way the Mbaya language has a sort of descriptive conjugation;\nconnecting the participles with possessive pronouns; _i-iligodi_, I\n(am) explaining; but no doubt less definitely, \"my explaining,\" \"I to\nexplain.\"\n\nThe language of the Abipones slightly alters the possessive pronouns\nin some persons and uses them in a similar manner: _ri-aal_, I am\nlazy; _yo-amkata_, he is good.\n\nWhen the verbal pronoun is used in such expressions, it is entirely\nidentical with the verb.\n\nThis is the case with the Mexican, where the verbal pronoun united to\nthe participle forms a sentence: _ni-tla\u00e7otlani_, I (am) a lover. This\nexpression differs from the present indicative only in the form of the\nroot-word, _ni-tla\u00e7otla_; but it cannot form another tense or mode.\nThe grammarians call such an expression a tense indicating habit.\nThis, however, would not be a tense but a mode, and, in fact, the term\nrests on a misunderstanding. That such expressions indicate habit is\nshown by the fact that they do not apply, like the present of the\nverb, to the temporary action, but convey that it is a custom, or a\nbusiness; not that I am loving just now, but that I am habitually a\nlover.\n\nAn entirely similar instance occurs in the North Guaranay language,\nwhich also permits, besides the regular conjugation, a union of the\nroot of the verb with a pronoun, the verb being omitted. The\ngrammarians of that tongue say that this adds extension and emphasis\nto the sense of the verb. The real difference, however, is that this\nprocedure treats the verb as a noun, and the extension comes from\nconsidering the action expressed by the verb to have become a\npermanent quality; _a poro iuca_, I kill men (ordinary conjugation);\n_xe poro iuca_, I (am) a man-killer (form with the possessive\npronoun); I kill men as my business.\n\nIn both these languages, therefore, what have been represented as\npeculiar and separated forms, tenses indicating habit, or forms of\nextension, are simply erroneous explanations of quite simple\nconstructions. In Mexican the correctness of this explanation is\nconfirmed by the forms of the vocative, which are identical with this\nsupposed tense, _in ti tlatlacoani_, O thou sinner; literally, thou\nwho (art) a sinner.\n\nIn the above examples the verbal power lies in the pronouns. But the\nMbaya language constructs verbal sentences by adding the sign of the\nfuture to any adjective without a pronoun. This sign is _de_, or\nbefore a vowel _d_: _de liidi_, it will be pleasant to the taste; _d\notiya_, he will be fat. I do not find other examples, and am uncertain\nwhether other tenses and modes are thus formed. In that case the\npronouns would have to be added, and the expression would lose its\npeculiarity, which is that the tense sign alone carries with it the\nnotion of Being.\n\nThe Othomi language makes use in such expressions not only of the\npronouns but of all the affixes of the verb, and conjugates a noun\ntogether with its article, treating it as a verbal radical:\n_qui-no-munti-maha_, Thou wert the enriched. Here _no-munti_ is \"the\nenriched,\" and all the remaining syllables are verbal inflections.\nSandoval, who wrote a grammar of the language, explains _no_ as an\nauxiliary verb; but with the noun he calls it an article, as it is,\nand he evidently misunderstood the expression. It is wholly a verbal,\nbut as this procedure can be applied to any noun whatever, such an\nexpression is far removed from a real, well-defined verbal form.\n\nThe same language has another peculiar form with the possessive, which\ncan only be explained by supplying an omitted verb. _Na nuhti_ means\n\"my property;\" but if to this is added the abbreviated pronoun used as\na verbal affix, _na-nuhti-g[=a]_, the words mean, \"this property\nbelongs to me,\" or, \"my property is it, mine.\"\n\nIn the grammatically obscure consciousness of these people, the ideas\nof verbal and merely pronominal expression are confounded, as also in\nthe Brazilian language, where \"my father\" and \"I have a father\" are\nexpressed by the same word.\n\nThe advantages which these languages derive from the formation of\nsentences with the verb omitted are two.\n\nThey can change any noun into a verb, or at least they can treat it as\nsuch. It is true that this can also be done by a substantive verb when\none is found, but as the languages in question unite the noun to the\nverbal flexions, their freedom is much greater.\n\nThe second advantage is, that when it is desirable to discriminate\nclearly between the two kinds of verbs, the one which has at base an\nenergic attribute, the other which merely expresses the relation of\npredicate to subject, a thing to its qualities, this end can be much\nbetter reached by the process described than even by the substantive\nverb, which, by its full verbal form, always recalls the action of an\nenergic attribute.\n\nMany of the languages named include in these expressions particles of\ntime, thereby obscuring the distinction referred to. But in others\nthis is not the case. Thus in the Maya and Beto there are two\nconjugations, one with the pronoun without time particles, and one\nwith them; and as in both these tongues the present of the true\nconjugation has a characteristic tense sign, a separate aorist of the\npresent is formed by the other conjugation, which our cultivated\ntongues cannot express so conveniently.\n\n2. _When the notion of Being is expressed by a special word, but\nwithout a phonetic radical._\n\nAlthough the assumption here expressed sounds at first rather\nenigmatical, yet one can soon see that if the notion of Being is to be\nconveyed without a phonetic radical, it can only be done through the\nsign of the person, that is, in the pronoun, with or without a tense\nsign. This is actually the case in two languages, the Maya and the\nYaruri.\n\nWe have already seen that in the Maya there is a special pronoun\nwhich unites a predicate to the idea of person into one sentence.\nThere is also another which by itself conveys the idea of the verb,\nand of which each person has the signification both of the pronoun and\nthe substantive verb, \"I\" and \"I am,\" \"thou\" and \"thou art,\" etc. Not\nonly is it so used in the present, but it can take the signs of the\ntenses. It is distinguished from the pronouns previously referred to\nin the first and second persons of both numbers only by a prefixed\n_t_, as follows:\n\n        Pronouns which, with a predicate,  Pronouns which, by themselves,\n             convey a verbal idea.             possess verbal power.\n\n  Singular.\n        1.          en                                ten\n        2.          ech                               tech\n        3.          lai lo                            lai\n\n  Plural.\n        1.          on                                toon\n        2.          ex                                teex\n        3.          ob                                loob\n\nThis similarity leads to the thought that a true phonetic radical may\nexist in this _t_, and may induce us to consider this word not as a\npronoun but as a substantive verb. But this makes no difference. The\nfact remains that the word is used both as a simple pronoun and also\nas a substantive verb. In the translation of the Lord's Prayer, the\nword _toon_ is a simple pronoun. If _t_ is a radical, it may just as\nwell come from the pronoun. Some languages offer clear examples of\nthis. In the Maipure the expression for the third person singular\nrecurs with all the other persons, as if this sound meant the person,\nthe man generally, and the first and second persons were denoted as\nthe \"I-person,\" \"thou-person,\" etc. In the Achagua language the same\nradical occurs in all the pronouns, but does not, as in the Maipure,\nstand alone for the third person singular, but in it, as in the other\npersons, appears as an affix.\n\nAt any rate, this pronoun answers, in the Maya, all the purposes of\nthe substantive verb, and there is no other in the language.\n\nIt is quite intelligible that in the conceptions of rude nations the\nidea of an object, and especially of a person, cannot be separated\nfrom the idea of his existence. This may be applied to the forms of\nexpression above mentioned. What seems a violent and ungrammatical\nomission of the verb, is probably in those people an obscure\nassociation of thoughts, a non-separation of the object from its\nbeing. Probably it is from the same source that in some American\nlanguages every adjective is so considered that it includes not the\nidea alone, but the expression, \"it is thus, and thus constituted.\"\n\nIn the Yaruri language the absence of a phonetic radical meaning \"to\nbe\" is yet more apparent. Each person of the pronoun is a different\nword, and they have no single letter in common. The pronoun which has\nverbal power is almost identical with the independent personal\npronoun. The tense signs are prefixed to it. Thus, _que_, I am; _ri\nque_, I was, &c. This _ri_, however, is merely a particle which\nexpresses that something is remote, and corresponds with our \"from.\"\n_Ui-ri-di_, there was water there, literally \"water far is\" (from us\nis). The subjunctive of this substantive verb is given as _ri_, \"if I\nwere.\" This means, however, \"in,\" and is a particle. The notion of\nBeing is added, as in the pronoun; and the ideas, \"in the being,\" and\n\"if I were,\" pass into each other.\n\nStrictly speaking, both the verbal notations here expressed are\nidentical with those already mentioned. Here also the verb is supplied\nby the mind. The difference is that in the latter case the pronouns\nalone signify being, and contain this notion in themselves, whereas in\nthe other cases this notion arises from the conjunction of subject and\npredicate. Then also in the Maya language there is a special pronoun\nfor this sole purpose. As far as the forms go, they entirely resemble\nthose of a true verb, and if _que_ and _ten_ are regarded as mere\nverbs substantive, one who did not examine their elements would take\nthem to be true verbs like the Sanscrit _bh[=u]_, the Greek ~eimi~,\nand the Latin _sum_. The example of these languages thus teaches that\nin the analysis of the substantive verbs of other tongues it is not\nnecessary that a common phonetic radical need be employed.\n\nIn the Huasteca language the substantive verb is replaced by affixing\na tense sign to the independent pronouns; _naua itz_, I was, _tata\nitz_, thou wert, etc. But the case is not the same. The pronoun\nreceives the verbal power by the suffix _itz_, and this appears only\nin later times to have become a sign of the preterit, and in an\nearlier period to have had a general sense. The mountaineers who seem\nto have retained the older forms of the tongue use the _itz_, not only\nin the preterit, but in the present and future. It was doubtless the\nexpression of some general verbal idea, as, to be, to do, etc.\n\n\nII.\n\nTHE NOTION OF BEING IS INCORPORATED WITH THE VERB AS AN AUXILIARY.\n\nAuxiliary verbs are used only for certain tenses, or form the entire\nconjugation. The former arises from accidental causes having relation\nonly to these tenses, not to the verb in general. The latter readily\narises when a substantive verb offers an easy means of conjugation by\nuniting with another verb. Sometimes the conjugation by means of an\nauxiliary shows that the linguistic sense of a notion sought something\nbeyond the person and tense signs to express the verbal power itself,\nand therefore had recourse to a general verb. This can, indeed, only\nbe constituted of those elements and a radical; but the want in the\nlanguage is thus supplied, once for all, and does not return with\nevery verb.\n\nAn excellent example of this is furnished by the Maya conjugation. In\nan analysis of it we find an element that neither belongs to the root,\nnor is a person, tense or mode sign, and when their varieties and\nchanges are compared, there is evident throughout a marked anxiety to\nexpress the peculiar verbal power in the form of the verb.\n\nThe conjugation in the Maya language is formed by affixing the\npronouns and mode and tense signs to the stem. The pronoun is,\naccording to a distinction to be noted hereafter, either the\npossessive pronoun or that one which, without verbal power in itself,\nyet receives it when a predicate is attached to it to form a sentence.\n\nBesides this, the suffix _cah_ accompanies all verbs in the present\nand imperfect; and the suffix _ah_ accompanies all transitive verbs\nthrough the remaining tenses, except the future. Present, 1st person,\nsing., _canan-in-cah_, I guard; imperf. 1st pers. sing., _canan-in cah\ncuchi_; perf., 1st pers. sing., _in canan-t-ah_. _In_ is the\npossessive pronoun, _cuchi_ the sign of the imperfect, _t_ in the\nperfect is a euphonic letter.\n\nThe idea of transitive verbs is here taken somewhat narrower than\nusual. Only those are included which govern a word outside of\nthemselves. All others are considered intransitive, even those which\nof themselves are active, but either have no expressed object (as, I\nlove, I hate, etc.), or the word which they govern is in the verb\nitself, as in the Greek ~oikodomeo, oikoure\u00f4~. As these can\ngovern a second accusative, the object incorporated in the verb is\nincluded in the idea they express.\n\nThe tenses of the intransitive verbs, except the present and\nimperfect, while they drop _ah_ and the possessive pronoun, are formed\nwith that pronoun which forms sentences with a predicate.\n\nThere are cases where not only the present omits _cah_, but where the\nstem, if it ends in _ah_ as is often the case, drops it, and\nsubstitutes _ic_. The signification then alters, and indicates an\nhabitual action or quality. As _ic_ is the sign of the gerund, this\nchange appears to be the transformation of the verb into a verbal, and\nto effect this, it must be united to that pronoun which serves as the\nsubstantive verb; _ten yacunic_, I love, properly, I am loving\n(habitually).\n\nWhat _cah_ and _ah_ mean by themselves, we are not informed. Where\n_cah_ is attached to the stem of some verbs it signifies intensity.\n_Ah_ is as a prefix the sign of the male sex, of the inhabitant of a\nplace, and of names derived from active verbs. Hence it seems to have\nmeant at first person, man, and later to have become a pronoun, and\nfinally an affix. It is noteworthy that the same difference exists\nbetween _ah_ and _cah_, as between _en_ and _ten_. The _c_ may\ntherefore be a radical sound. In the conjugation, _cah_ is treated\nwholly as a verb. For in this the possessive pronoun is always\nprefixed; and as in the present and imperfect it is placed after the\nstem of the verb and before _cah_, it is evident from the difference\nbetween the two forms _canan-in-cah_ and _in-canan-t-ah_, that in the\nformer _cah_, and in the latter _canan_, are regarded as the verbs.\n_Canan-in-cah_ is precisely as the English \"I do guard.\"\n\n_Cah_ is consequently a true auxiliary verb; _ten_, when it appears in\nconjunction with _en_ must have the notion of Being understood: _ah_\nappears to be of similar nature, but as it appears only in the\nconjugation of transitive verbs, it is a verbal sign, and thus\nreceives its verbal power. That _cah_ and _ah_ do really possess this\npowever[TN-8] is evident from the fact that they are never used\nwhenever either of the pronouns which are always associated with the\nnotion of Being is present.\n\nExcept in the future of transitive verbs, there is no instance in the\nconjugation where the stem of the verb is not accompanied by one of\nthese four syllables, all of which indicate Being, and all of which\nhave the force of auxiliary verbs.\n\nThe future of transitive verbs not only does not take any of these\nsyllables, but even rejects _ah_ when it is the terminal syllable of\nthe stem. In this case no other termination replaces it. On the\ncontrary, all other verbs receive a new suffix in their future,\nvarying as they are of one or many syllables. The nature of these\nsuffixes has not been explained.\n\nThe definite results of this analysis are as follows:\n\n1. The Maya language possesses in its conjugation, besides the\ninflection syllables of the persons and tenses, another element,\nwhich, except in the simple future of transitive verbs, distinctly\ncarries with it the notion of Being; in the future of most verbs there\nis such an element, but of unknown origin, and it only fails in the\nfuture of one class of verbs.\n\n2. This language displays an effort to express, besides the other\npurposes of the verb, particularly its synthetic power, which is all\nthe more apparent as it uses different means in different cases, but\nall designed to accomplish the same purpose.\n\nThe Yaruri language constructs the whole of its conjugation in a yet\nsimpler manner by means of an auxiliary verb.\n\nThe union of the pronoun and the tense sign which, as we have already\nseen, forms the substantive verb, affixed to the stem, completes the\ninflections of the one and only conjugation of attributive verbs,\nexcept that the independent pronouns are prefixed. Neither the stem\nnor the auxiliary words suffer any changes, except the insertion of an\n_n_ in one person. The union remains, however, a loose one, and when\nperson and tense are manifest by the connection, the auxiliary verb is\nomitted. This happens in certain verbs ending in _pa_. These, contrary\nto the usual rule, change in the perfect this termination to _pea_, by\nwhich the tense is made apparent, and as the person is evident from\nthe prefixed personal pronoun, the auxiliary can be dropped without\ndanger of obscurity.\n\nThe formation of certain tenses by means of auxiliaries is also\nfrequent in American languages.\n\nAn optative of this nature in the Lule language has already been\nmentioned.\n\nIn the Mixteca tongue the imperfect is thus formed from the present,\nwhich carries with it the personal sign, and the perfect without its\npersonal sign, a proceeding which, however rude and awkward it may be,\nshows a just appreciation of the peculiarity of this past tense, which\nexpresses an action as going on, and therefore present in past time.\nThe expression of continuous action is placed first, \"I sin,\" then\nthis is more precisely defined by the mark of past time, \"this was\nso;\" _Yo-dzatevain-di-ni-cuvui_. _Yo_ is the sign of the present, _ni_\nof the preterit, _di_ is the pronoun; the other two words, _to sin_\nand _to be_: \"I was sinning.\"\n\nThe sign of the present, _yo_, is probably an abbreviation of the verb\n_yodzo_, I stand upon or over something, and so there is a second\nauxiliary in the sentence. This may often be a means of discovering\nthe origin of tense signs, as, especially in American tongues, tenses\nare often formed by the union of verbs, as also occurs in Sanscrit and\nGreek.\n\nThe Othomi distinguishes certain past tenses, which, however, are\nseparated by other characteristics, by a prefixed _xa_, which is\ncalled the third person singular of a substantive verb. As these\ntenses are precisely those in which the action must be completed, the\nperfect, pluperfect and future perfect, not, however, the imperfect\nand past aorist, such a connection is very suitable. Of this verb we\nhave only _xa_, and there is another substantive verb _gui_, which\nitself takes _oca_ in its conjugation.\n\nThe Totonaca language unites the perfect, in the person spoken of,\nwith the third person singular of the future of the substantive verb,\nto form a future perfect. This is no completed form, but only an\nawkward sequence of two verbs; _yc-paxquilh-na-huan_, literally, \"I\nhave loved, it will be,\"=\"I shall have loved.\"\n\nIn similar manner the substantive verb is used to form a tense of the\nsubjunctive.\n\nThe sign of both the perfects in this tongue is the syllable _nit_,\nand _niy_ means \"to die.\" It is not improbable that this affix is\nderived from this verb. Death and destruction are suitable ideas to\nexpress the past, and some languages employ negative particles as\nsigns of the preterit. In the Tamanaca this is not exactly the case,\nbut the negative particle _puni_ added to a word which signifies an\nanimate thing, intimates that it has died; _papa puni_, the deceased\nfather, literally, \"father not.\" In the Omagua tongue the same word\nsignifies old, dead, and not present.\n\nIn the Maipure and Carib tongues the negative particles _ma_ and _spa_\nare also the signs of the preterit. Bopp's suggestion that the\nSanscrit augment was originally _a_ privative finds support in this\nanalogy. Yet I would not speak conclusively on this point, as probably\nthat, the Greek augment ~e~, and the Mexican _o_, are only\nlengthened sounds, intended to represent concretely the length of the\npast time. At any rate one must regard the negation as an actual\ndestruction, a \"been, and no longer being,\" not as simply a negation\nof the present.\n\n\nIII.\n\nTHE NOTION OF BEING IS PRESENT IN THE VERBAL FORM ONLY IN IDEA.\n\nIn this case the verb consists only of the stem, and the person,\ntense, and mode signs. The former are originally pronouns, the latter\nparticles. Before they are worn down by use to mere affixes, the three\nfollowing cases may arise:\n\n1. That all three of these elements are equally separable and loosely\nconnected.\n\n2. That one of the two, the person or the tense and mode signs,\nobtains a closer connection with the stem, and becomes formal, while\nthe other remains loosely attached.\n\n3. That both these are incorporated with the stem, and the whole\napproaches a true grammatical form, although it does not fully\nrepresent it.\n\n_Case 1st._\n\nThe only language I can instance here is that of the Omaguas, as I\nknow no other with such a decided absence of all true grammatical\nforms in the verb. The independent pronouns, the stem words of the\nverbs, and the particles of tense and mode are merely placed together\nwithout any change, without internal connection, and apparently\nwithout fixed order; _usu_, to go; 1st pers. sing. pres. _ta usu_; 2d\npers. sing. perf. _avi ene usu_ (_ene_ is the pronoun, _avi_ the sign\nof the perfect). Subjunctive, 1st pers. sing. pres. _ta usu mia_; 2d\npers. sing. perf. _avi epe usu mia_.\n\nSometimes, when a misunderstanding is not feared, the verbal stem is\nemployed without these qualifying particles, and cannot then be\ndistinguished from a noun. _Paolo amai amano_. The last word means \"to\ndie,\" but grammatically the sentence can as well be rendered, \"Paul\nonly die\" (_i. e._ has died), as \"Paul only dead.\"\n\nIt is true that the suffix _ta_ changes nouns to verbs: _zhiru_,\nclothes, _zhiru-ta_, to clothe; but it also changes verbs to nouns,\n_yasai_, to cover, _yasai-ta_, a cover. This may be explained by the\ntheory that this suffix conveys the idea _to make_, which is taken\nsometimes actively, sometimes passively.\n\nAccording to the above, the Omagua conjugation falls in the class\nwhere an attributive is united to a pronoun and the verb is omitted;\nonly that here definite tense syllables appear, and this brings the\nconstruction nearer to the idea of a conjugation.\n\n_Case 2d._\n\n1. The Maipure, Abipone, Mbaya and Mocobi languages place only the\npersonal sign in intimate connection with the verb, and allow the\ntense and mode signs to be loosely attached. They have therefore but\none type of personal forms to be applied in every tense and mode by\nmeans of the particles or the affixes formed from them. This type,\ntaken alone, usually forms the present; but, accurately speaking, this\nname cannot be assigned it; because the signs of the other tenses are\nalso dropped when this can be done without obscurity.\n_Ya-chaguani-me-yaladi._ Here the first word is in the indefinite\nform, though it is not the present but the perfect. The _me_ is really\nthe preposition \"in;\" but usage has adopted it for the subjunctive\nsign, and so the Spanish grammarians call it; or rather, the verb is\nconsidered to be introduced by a conjunction, \"if,\" \"as,\" so that it\nis usually not in the present but a past tense. If this is the case\nwith the last verb, the first one must have the same tense, and so the\nwhole phrase, without any tense sign, means, \"I had helped him when I\nsaid it.\"\n\nOne would scarcely expect to find anything like this in cultivated\nlanguages. Yet it does occur in both Sanscrit and Greek. The now\nmeaningless particle _sma_ in Sanscrit when it follows the present\nchanges it into a past, and in Greek ~an~ alters the indicative\ninto a subjunctive.\n\nTo form this general type, the Maipure makes use of the unchanged\npossessive pronoun, and treats nouns and verbs in the same manner. The\nnoun must always be united to a possessive pronoun, a trait common to\nall the Orinoco tongues and many other American languages. In the 3d\nperson sing., however, neither the verb nor the noun has such a\npronoun, but it is to be understood; _nuani_, my son; _ani_, alone,\nnot son, but \"his son.\" The 3d pers. sing. of the verb is often the\nmere stem, without a personal sign, but that this peculiarity should\nalso extend to the noun I have met only in this tongue. It is evident\nthat a pronoun is considered as essential to a noun as to a verb, and\nalthough a similar usage is found in many tongues, yet it appears in\nnone so binding. There are, indeed, some nouns which are free from the\nnecessity of thinking them in connection with a person, but these have\nthe suffix _ti_, which is dropped when the possessive pronoun is\nadded; _java ti_, a hatchet, _nu java_, my hatchet. From this it is\nevident that _ti_ does not belong to the stem, and is incompatible\nwith the use of a possessive, hence it is the sign of the substantive,\nin its independent condition. The same occurs in Mexican, and the\nchief termination of substantives, _tli_, is almost identical in sound\nwith that in the Maipure.\n\nIn this respect the verbal, conjugated with the personal signs,\ndiffers nothing from the noun united to its possessive pronouns.\nGrammatically, the form first becomes a verbal one by the added\nparticles of tense and mode. The signification of these can generally\nbe clearly ascertained, and thus are united closely to the stem.\n\nThe particles which the language of the Abipones uses to form the\ngeneral verbal type are quite different from the possessives. The\ntense and mode particles have elsewhere in the tongue independent\nmeanings. Thus _kan_, the sign of the perfect, means a thing which has\nbeen, time that has past.\n\nIn the language of the Mocobis the personal signs consist merely in\nletters, prefixed and suffixed, and have no apparent relationship to\nthe pronouns. By affixing these letters, phonetic changes take place\nso that the stem is combined with them into one form.\n\nAmong the tense signs, a prefixed _l_ indicates a past time, a\nsuffixed _o_, the future; but the others are independent particles,\nloosely attached to the stem.\n\nI have already shown how the Mbaya language conjugates adjectives with\nthe independent pronoun, and participles with the possessive pronoun.\nThe signs used in the conjugation proper of the attributive verb, do\nnot appear elsewhere in the tongue, and must have descended from an\nolder period of its existence.\n\nIn the tense and mode signs it is easily perceived how descriptive\nphrases pass into true forms. For the imperfect and pluperfect the\nspeaker can choose among a number of particles, all of which indicate\npast time. The modes have definite signs, but these are merely\nappended, and some have separate significations. The future and\nperfect have not merely fixed particles, but these are worn down to\none letter, so that the stem is actually incorporated with them.\n\n2. In the languages heretofore considered the personal signs added to\nthe word make up the conjugation, and the other signs are attached\nloosely and externally. The reverse of this, though not perfectly so,\nappears in the Lule language. The tense and mode signs, often of but\none letter, are immediately and firmly attached to the stem, and the\npronouns are affixed to this to complete the conjugation. These\npronouns are, however, the ordinary possessives, so that noun and verb\nbecome in a measure identical; thus, _camc_ means both \"I eat\" and \"my\nfood;\" _cumuee_, \"I marry\" and \"my wife;\" only in a few examples are\nthe verbal pronouns distinct from the possessives.\n\nIn this case, therefore, the personal signs are independent elements,\noccurring elsewhere in the language, while the tense and mode signs\nare true affixes.\n\nThe inflection-syllables form with the stem real verbal forms, and so\nfar the conjugation of this language belongs to the third case. But\neach of the elements has its fixed position, and as soon as one has\nthe key to the combination, he can recognize and separate them at\nonce.\n\nReasons which it would require too much space to set forth render it\nprobable that all the tense signs are really auxiliary verbs or come\nfrom them. This is evident of the optative, as has already been shown.\nThe present only is simple, as it has no tense sign.\n\nSlight differences are found between the personal signs of some\ntenses, so that these tenses can be distinguished by them, a trait\nusually seen only in tongues so far cultivated that the grammatical\nforms have undergone such changes as no longer to present simple and\nuniform combinations. Equally curious is the regular omission of the\ntense sign of past time in the third person plural only. Although,\nexcept in this case and that of the present, each tense has its\ndefinite sign, inserted between the stem and the personal sign, yet\nthere are, besides these, various particles expressing past time,\nwhich can accompany the usual tense form, so that there is a double\nsign of time, one in the word itself and one loosely attached to it.\n\nThe languages of the Mbayas, Abipones, Mocobis and Lules are closely\nallied both in words and in some grammatical forms. It is all the more\nextraordinary, therefore, to find the last-mentioned pursuing a method\nin the structure of its verb which is almost totally opposed to that\nin the other three tongues.\n\n_Case 3d._\n\nThe languages of this class approach in their conjugations those of\nthe more cultivated tongues, in which each verbal inflection has a\nfixed and independent form. Both the person, the tense and the mode\nsigns are united to the stem, in such a manner that none of the three\ncan be said to be either less or more loosely attached than the\nothers.\n\nAll the conjugations about to be discussed lack, however, that fixity\nof form which grammatically satisfies the mind.\n\nThe elements are placed definitely and regularly one by the other, but\nare not incorporated into each other, and are therefore readily\nrecognizable.\n\nThey are found, moreover, outside of the verb elsewhere in the\nlanguage either without any change or with slight differences of\nsound; the personal signs as pronouns, the other affixes as particles.\n\nThe composition of the verb is separable, and may receive into itself\nother parts of speech.\n\nNo American language is free from these drawbacks to perfection of\nform in the conjugations. In some all three are found; in most the\nfirst and last. In really grammatically developed tongues, as in the\nSanscrit, Greek, Latin and German, none of these imperfections exists.\nThe verb includes in itself no part of its object, the affixes\nmodifying the stem have lost all independent life, and the analysis of\nthe formal elements becomes a difficult philological task, which often\nfails and only rarely can be fully proved.\n\nI shall discriminate in regard to the conjugations about to be\nconsidered that which is an approach toward a fixed form from the\nintentional separation of the form to insert a governed word.\n\n_1. Approach toward a Fixed Form._\n\nIn the Mixteca language, the personal sign is the unchanged possessive\npronoun. If the verb is governed by a noun in the third person, the\npossessive is dropped. It is left to the speaker to choose whether he\ndesignates the person, either by prefixing the personal pronoun or\nsuffixing the possessive. The tense signs are prefixed syllables, but\nthe perfect and future signs are altogether different from those of\nthe present, and materially alter the verbal stem.\n\nThe Beto language prefixes the personal signs and also the possessive\npronouns to the nouns. As the latter are not fully known, we cannot\njudge of their identity with the verbal pronouns. The latter do not\nseem to differ much from the personal pronouns. The tense signs are\neasily recognized suffixes.\n\nAnother conjugation of the same language, by the suffixed pronoun\nwithout tense signs, and with the verb omitted, has been mentioned\nabove (I, 1), as forming a substantive verb.\n\nA second substantive verb arises from the conjugation above explained,\nwith the tense signs.\n\nThese two forms may also be combined, and this illustrates with what\nsuperfluous fullness grammatical forms spring up even among rude\nnations. The conjugation with the tense sign is changed by a\nparticipial suffix into a verbal, and then the pronoun is suffixed, as\nin the conjugation without the tense sign. The latter, therefore,\nstands twice in the form. The pronoun used in the conjugation with\ntense signs may also be prefixed to a simple adjective, and the\npronoun used in the conjugation without tense sign is suffixed to\nthis, and the participial ending is then added. This is treated as a\nverb with the substantive verb understood. But sometimes the verb \"to\nbe\" in the form without tense signs is added, and then the whole form\ncontains the pronoun three times, without gaining thereby any\nadditional meaning.\n\nThe Carib conjugation seems to have arisen from the forms of many\ndialects or epochs, and is therefore more complicated and formal, and\nless easy to analyze.\n\nThe personal signs are prefixed. In the substantive verb there are two\nclasses, of which only one is also common to attributive verbs. The\nother indicates in the verb \"to be\" also the connection of persons\nwith the infinitive and gerund, and is therefore of the nature of a\npossessive. It may also be that when it is combined with other tenses,\nthe notion among these nations is altogether a substantial one, as we\nhave already seen with the subjunctive.\n\nThe stem often receives the addition _r_ or _ri_, the meaning of which\nis not known.\n\nThe structure of the Tamanaca conjugation also reveals a combination\nof at least two separate structures. Some tenses use as their personal\nsigns entire pronouns, almost identical with the personals. Other\ntenses merely change the initial letter of the verb, while there is\nlittle similarity between these affixes and the pronouns. In the\nplural some of the persons insert a syllable between the verb and the\ntense sign.\n\nThe tense signs are suffixed, and consist merely of terminal letters\nor syllables, except two true particles, which distinguish the\ncontinued present from the present aorist.\n\nThere are an initial _y_ and a _t_ occasionally appearing in all\npersons, of which we can only say that they are not radicals.\n\nThe conjugation of this language, therefore, consists of elements not\nreadily analyzed.\n\nThe Huasteca language prefixes the possessive pronouns as personal\nsigns. It may also drop them, and use in their stead the independent\npronouns; or may combine both; or may use abbreviated personals; so\nthat there is a prevailing arbitrariness in this part of the verbal\nform.\n\nThe tense signs are usually suffixes; but in the future they are\nprefixes, which are incorporated with the personal sign placed between\nthem and the stem. They consist of simple sounds, of no independent\nsignification. But the particles of the imperative are so separable\nthat when this mode is preceded by an adverb, they attach themselves\nto it.\n\nThe Othomi language does not make use of the possessive pronouns in\nthe conjugation, but suffixes abbreviated forms of the personals, or\nelse prefixes others of special form, but identical in many letters\nand syllables with the personals. In the present condition of the\nlanguage the suffixes are used only with the substantive verb; in the\nattributive verb, however, they may have been driven forward by the\ngoverned pronouns suffixed. Every verbal inflection may also take,\nbesides its pronominal prefix, also the unabreviated[TN-9] personal\npronoun in front, or the abbreviated one after it.\n\nThe tense signs consist principally of single vowels, by means of\nwhich the pronominal prefixes are attached to the stem. The imperfect\nand pluperfect alone have besides this a loosely attached particle.\nThe past tenses possess a prefix, which we have already seen appears\nto have been derived from an auxiliary verb.\n\nIn the third person of some tenses in certain verbs the stem undergoes\na change of its initial letters, which appears to transform these\ninflections into verbal adjectives, an instance of the confusion of\nthe ideas of noun and verb common in all these languages.\n\nThe Mexican language possesses a peculiar class of verbal pronouns\nwhich form the personal signs. This pronoun is similar to the personal\nin its consonants, but has a vowel of its own. It is a prefix. The\nplural is marked by the accent, or by a special termination. This\npersonal sign is inseparable from the verb, but the speaker may also\nprefix the independent personal pronoun.\n\nThe tense signs are all without signification, being single letters or\nsyllables. The perfect is marked not so much by an affix, as by\nchanging, the termination of the verb in various ways, but chiefly by\nshortening and strengthening the sound. All tense designations are\nplaced at the end of the word, except the augment for past time. If by\naugment we mean a vowel sound prefixed to the verb in certain tenses\nin addition to their usual signs, then the Mexican is the only\nAmerican language which possesses one.\n\nThe modes are designated by loosely attached particles, also by a\ndifferent structure of the tenses, and in the second person a peculiar\npronoun.\n\nThus the Mexican conjugation consists of true verbal forms, not of\nseparate parts of speech of independent significance; but the elements\nof these forms are easily recognizable, and can be reached without\ndifficulty.\n\nThe most difficult to analyze, and hence the most nearly approaching\nour conjugations, is that of the Totonaca language.\n\nThe personal signs differ from the pronouns. That of the 2d pers.\nsing. is not easily recognized, and several forms of it must be\nassumed. Its position as a prefix or suffix differs, and it is\nvariously located with reference to the other verbal signs. Still more\ndifficult is it to distinguish the tense signs. There are three\ndifferent systems of prefixes and suffixes in the conjugation, and the\nplan on which these are combined with each other serves to distinguish\nthe tense. But only a few of these affixes really appear to designate\ntense; of the others this may be suspected at best, and of others\nagain it is improbable.\n\nThus there are verbal affixes which cannot be considered to designate\neither persons, modes or tenses.\n\nThe stem undergoes little change, but the attaching of the affixes to\nit renders it impossible to apply the same scheme to all verbs, and\nhence leads to a division of them into three conjugations.\n\nSome tenses have two different forms, without any change in\nsignification.\n\n_2. Divisibility of Verbal Forms to allow the insertion of governed\nparts of speech._\n\nOf the Mixteca tongue it cannot exactly be said that it divides the\nessential parts of the verbal form to allow the insertion of the\ngoverned object. As a rule, the object is merely appended, and where\nit appears in the form itself, it is inserted between the stem and the\nsuffixed pronoun. The latter is, however, no necessary part of the\nform, as it is dropped when the verb is governed by a noun, and can\nalways be replaced by prefixing the indefinite pronoun.\n\nNor is it mentioned that the Beto language includes the object in the\nverb.\n\nThe Carib tongue unites the governed pronoun with the verbal form, and\nin some cases the personal sign is thus displaced. But here the object\nis not inserted in the middle, but is prefixed or suffixed.\n\nOur information about the Tamanaca language discloses nothing on this\npoint.\n\nIn the Huasteca, the governed pronoun separates sometimes the last,\nsometimes the first syllable of the inflectional form from the stem.\n\nThe Othomi merely attaches the governed words closely to the verbal\nform, in this resembling the Mixteca.\n\nThe Mexican language is that which has developed this peculiarity to\nthe greatest degree. The governed noun is placed in the middle of the\nverb; or, if this is not done, a pronoun representing it is inserted.\nIf there are two objects, an accusative and a dative, then two\ncorresponding pronouns are inserted; and if no object is named, but\nthe verb is of that class which is followed by an immediate or remote\nobject, or both, then two indefinite pronouns appear in the verb. The\nMexican verb therefore, expresses either a complete sentence, or else\na complete scheme of one, which merely requires to be filled out. It\nsays, in one word, \"I give something to somebody,\" _nititlamaca_, and\nthen defines what it is and to whom.\n\nIt follows necessarily that a part of the verbal form is fluctuating\naccording to the sense and connection of the sentence, and that the\ngoverning pronoun stands sometimes immediately before the verb, and\nsometimes is separated from it by indefinite pronouns or even nouns.\n\nIn the Totonaca language, the prefixes and suffixes make room for the\ngoverned words between themselves and the stem.\n\nThis examination of the languages whose conjugations approach a fixed\nform, shows clearly that this fixedness is seriously shaken precisely\nwhere it is most important, through this insertion of the governed\nwords.\n\n                                 ------\n\nNow if we reflect on the structure of the various verbal forms here\nanalyzed, certain general conclusions are reached, which are\ncalculated to throw light upon the whole organism of these languages.\n\nThe leading and governing part of speech in them is the Pronoun; every\nsubject of discourse is connected with the idea of Personality.\n\nNoun and Verb are not separated; they first become so through the\npronouns attached to them.\n\nThe employment of the Pronoun is two-fold, one applying to the Noun,\nthe second to the Verb. Both, however, convey the idea of belonging to\na person; in the noun appearing as Possession, in the verb as Energy.\nBut it is on this point, on whether these ideas are confused and\nobscure, or whether they are defined and clear, that the grammatical\nperfection of a language depends. The just discrimination of the kinds\nof pronouns is therefore conclusive, and in this respect we must yield\nthe decided pre-eminence to the Mexican.\n\nIt follows that the speaker must constantly make up his verbs, instead\nof using those already on hand; and also that the structure of the\nverb must be identical throughout the language, that there must be\nonly one conjugation, and that the verbs, except a few irregular ones,\ncan possess no peculiarities.\n\nThis is different in the Greek, Latin and ancient Indian. In those\ntongues many verbs must be studied separately, as they have numerous\nexceptions, phonetic changes, deficiencies, etc., and in other\nrespects carry with them a marked individuality.\n\nThe difference between these cultivated and those rude languages is\nchiefly merely one of time, and of the more or less fortunate mixture\nof dialects; though it certainly also depends in a measure on the\noriginal mental powers of the nations.\n\nThose whose languages we have here analyzed are, in speaking,\nconstantly putting together elementary parts; they connect nothing\nfirmly, because they follow the changing requirements of the moment,\njoining together only what these requirements demand, and often leave\nconnected through habit, that which clear thinking would necessarily\ndivide.\n\nHence no just division of words can arise, such as is demanded by\naccurate and appropriate thought, which requires that each word must\nhave a fixed and certain content and a defined grammatical form, and\nas is also demanded by the highest phonetic laws.\n\nNations richly endowed in mind and sense will have an instinct for\nsuch correct divisions; the incessant moving to and fro of elementary\nparts of speech will be distasteful to them; they will seek true\nindividuality in the words they use; therefore they will connect them\nfirmly, they will not accumulate too much in one, and they will only\nleave that connected which is so in thought, and not merely in usage\nor habit.\n\n                               ------------\n\n_Notes (by the translator) on the various American Tribes and\nLanguages mentioned by Humboldt in the preceding Memoir._\n\n_Abipones._--A tribe formerly residing on the broad grassy plains\nknown as _El Gran Chaco_, west of the Parana river and on the right\nbank of the Rio Vermejo. They are a nomadic, hunting people, and are\nrelated by language closely to the Mocobis and Tobas, more remotely to\nthe Mbayas. The Jesuit, Father Jose Brigniel, wrote an _Arte y\nVocabulario de la Lengua Abipona_, which has not been published.\n\n_Achaguas._--A small tribe formerly living in Venezuela, between the\nApure and Meta rivers. They are mentioned by Piedrahita as an\nintelligent people. Aristides Rojas says they are now extinct\n(_Estudios Indigenas_, p. 214. Caracas, 1878).\n\n_Beto._--Usually spelled _Betoi or Betoya_. They live on the upper\nwaters of the Meta river in Colombia and are related to the Yaruris.\n\n_Caribs._--This widely extended stock occupied much of the northern\ncoast of South America and had planted colonies on many of the\nAntilles. It is believed that they are distantly connected with the\nTupis and Guaranis.\n\n_Guaranis._--The name of a number of affiliated tribes in Southern\nBrazil, Paraguay, Uruguay and the Argentine Republic. The Tupis of\nBrazil are a branch of the Guaranis.\n\n_Huastecas._--A northern colony of the great Maya stock of Yucatan,\ndwelling in the province of Tampico on the river Panuco. At the time\nof the discovery they were an important and cultured nation.\n\n_Lule._--One of the nations of _El Gran Chaco_, west of the Parana\nriver. The _Arte y Vocabulario de la Lengua Lule y Tonocote_, by\nFather Antonio Machoni de Cerde\u00f1a (Madrid, 1732), was republished with\na careful ethnographic introduction by J. M. Larsen, at Buenos Ayres,\n1877.\n\n_Maipures._--Tribes of various dialects who live on both sides of the\nOrinoco river where it forms the boundary between Venezuela and New\nGranada, about 5\u00b0 N. lat.\n\n_Mayas._--Natives of Yucatan, and the most highly developed of any of\nthe American nations. Related dialects are spoken in Guatemala, in\nTabasco, and by the Huastecas.\n\n_Mbayas._--A people of the _Gran Chaco_ in the northern part of the\nArgentine Republic, and distantly related to the Abipones.\n\n_Mexican._--Otherwise called the Nahuatl or Aztec language. Spoken in\nthe greatest purity in the valley of Mexico, it extended from the Gulf\nof Mexico to the Pacific, and along the latter from Sonora to\nGuatemala, with few interruptions.\n\n_Mixtecas._--A tribe speaking several dialects living in the State of\nOaxaca, Mexico.\n\n_Mocobis._--One of the four principal nations who formerly occupied\n_El Gran Chaco_, west of the Parana river. By some the name is spelled\n_Mbocoby_.\n\n_Omaguas._--Once a nation of considerable extent and culture between\nthe Mara\u00f1on and the Orinoco.\n\n_Othomis._--A tribe resident near San Louis Potosi, Mexico, and\nneighboring parts. Their proper name is said to be _Hi[=a]-hi[=u]_.\nTheir language is monosyllabic and nasal.\n\n_Tamanacas._--These dwell on the right bank of the Upper Orinoco, and\nare connected by dialect with the Carib stock on the one hand and the\nGuaranay on the other.\n\n_Totonacas._--A nation asserted by Pimentel to speak a mixed language\n(Nahuatl and Maya) dwelling in the southern portion of the Province of\nVera Cruz, Mexico, and parts adjacent.\n\n_Tupis._--The natives of the eastern area of Brazil, related to the\nGuaranis of the south and perhaps to the Caribs of the north. The\n_Lingoa Geral_ of Brazil is a corrupt Tupi.\n\n_Yaruris._--Residents on the upper streams of the Meta river in New\nGranada, related to the Betoi.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[3-*] _Die Elemente der Philosophischen Sprachwissenschaft Wilhelm von\nHumboldt's. In systematischer Entwicklung dargestellt und kritisch\nerl\u00e4utert_, von Dr. Max Schasler, Berlin, 1847.\n\n[3-+] _Die Sprachwissenschaft Wilhelm von Humboldt's und die\nHegel'sche Philosophie_, von H. Steinthal, Dr., Berlin, 1848. The same\neminent linguist treats especially of Humboldt's teachings in\n_Grammatik, Logik und Psychologie, ihre Principien und ihr Verh\u00e4ltniss\nzu einander_, pp. 123-135 (Berlin, 1855); in his well-known volume\n_Characteristik[TN-10] der Haupts\u00e4chlichsten Typen des Sprachbaues_,\npp. 20-70 (Berlin, 1860); in his recent oration _Ueber Wilhelm von\nHumboldt_ (Berlin, 1883); and elsewhere.\n\n[3-++] _Wilhelm von Humboldt's Linguistical Studies._ By C. J. Adler,\nA.M. (New York, 1866). This is the only attempt, so far as I know, to\npresent Humboldt's philosophy of language to English readers. It is\nmeritorious, but certainly in some passages Prof. Adler failed to\ncatch Humboldt's meaning.\n\n[4-*] _Ueber die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und\nihren Einfluss auf die geistige Entwickelung des Menschengeschlechts._\nProf. Adler translates this \"The Structural Differences of Human\nSpeech and their Influence on the Intellectual Development of the\nHuman Race.\" The word _geistige_, however, includes emotional as well\nas intellectual things.\n\n[4-+] _Ueber die Verschiedenheit_, etc., Bd. vi, s. 271, note. I may\nsay, once for all, that my references, unless otherwise stated, are to\nthe edition of Humboldt's _Gesammelte Werke_, edited by his brother,\nBerlin, 1841-1852.\n\n[5-*] _Aus Wilhelm von Humboldt's letzien Lebensjahren. Eine\nM\u00fctheilung bisher unbekannter Briefe._ Von Theodor Distel, p. 19\n(Leipzig, 1883).\n\n[6-*] From his memoir _Ueber das vergleichende Sprachtstudium[TN-11] in\nBeziehung auf die verschiedenen Epochen der Sprachentwicklung_, Bd.\niii, s. 249.\n\n[6-+] He draws examples from the Carib, Lule, Tupi, Mbaya, Huasteca,\nNahuatl, Tamanaca, Abipone, and Mixteca; _Ueber das Entstehen der\ngrammatischen Formen, und ihren Einfluss auf die Ideenentwicklung_,\nBd. iii, ss. 269-306.\n\n[6-++] _Ueber die Buchstabenschrift und ihren Zusummenhang[TN-12] mit\ndem Sprachbau_, Bd. vi, s. 526\n\n[6-||] This letter is printed in the memoir of Prof. E. Teza, _Intorno\nagli Studi del Thavenet sulla Lingua Algonchina_, in the _Annali delle\nUniversit\u00e0 toscane_, Tomo xviii (Pisa, 1880).\n\n[6-\u00a7] Compare Prof. Adler's Essay, above mentioned, p. 11.\n\n[7-*] This is found expressed nowhere else so clearly as at the\nbeginning of \u00a7 13, where the author writes: \"Der Zweck dieser\nEinleitung, die Sprachen, in der Verschiedenartigkeit ihres Baues, als\ndie nothwendige Grundlage der Fortbildung des menschlichen Geistes\ndarzustellen, und den wechsel seitigen Einfluss des Einen auf das\nAndre zu er\u00f6rtern, hat mich gen\u00f6thigt, in die Natur der Sprache\n\u00fcberhaupt einzugehen.\" Bd. vi, s. 106.\n\n[7-+] \"Der Idee der Sprachvollendung Dasein in der Wirklichkeit zu\ngewinnen.\" _Ueber die Verschiedenheit_, ss. 10 and 11. The objection\nwhich may be urged that a true philosophy of language must deal in\nuniversals and not confine itself to mere differentiations\n(particulars) is neatly met by Dr. Schasler, _Die Elemente der\nPhilosophischen Sprachwissenschaft_, etc., p. 21, note.\n\n[8-*] In his remarkable essay \"On the Mission of the Historian,\" which\nProf. Adler justly describes as \"scarcely anything more than a\npreliminary to his linguistical researches,\" Humboldt writes: \"Die\nPhilosophie schreibt den Begebenheiten ein Ziel vor: dies Suchen nach\nEndursachen, man mag sie auch aus dem Wesen des Menschen und der Natur\nselbst ableiten wollen, st\u00f6rt und verfalscht alle freie Ansicht des\neigenth\u00fcmlichen Wirkens der Kr\u00e4fte.\" _Ueber die Aufgabe des\nGeschichtschreibers_, Bd. i, s. 13.\n\n[8-+] \"Das Studium der verschiedenen Sprachen des Erdbodens verfehlt\nseine Bestimmung, wenn es nicht immer den Gang der geistigen Bildung\nim Auge beh\u00e4lt, und darin seinen eigentlichen Zweck sucht.\" _Ueber den\nZusammenhang der Schrift mit der Sprache_, Bd. vi, s. 428.\n\n[8-++] \"Eine Gedankenwelt an T\u00f6ne geheftet.\" _Ueber die\nBuchstabenschrift und ihre Zusammenhang mit dem Sprachbau_, Bd. vi, s.\n530.\n\n[8-||] This cardinal point in Humboldt's philosophy is very clearly\nset forth in his essay, \"_Ueber die Aufgabe des Geschichtschreibers_,\"\nBd. i, s. 23, and elsewhere.\n\n[8-\u00a7] See _Ueber die Buchstabenschrift_, etc., Bd. vi, s. 530.\n\n[9-*] \"Les notions grammaticales resident bien plut\u00f4t dans l'esprit de\ncelui qui parle que dans le mat\u00e9riel du language.\" Humboldt, _Lettre \u00e0\nM. Abel-Remusat Werke_, Bd. vii, s. 396. On the realms of the three\nvarieties of grammar, see also Dr. M. Schasler, _Die Elemente der\nPhilosophischen Sprachwissenschaft_, etc., s. 35, 36, and Friedrich\nM\u00fcller, _Grundriss der Sprachwissenschaft_, Band 1, ss. 8-10 (Wien,\n1876). Schasler observes that a main object in philosophic grammar is\nan investigation of \"die genetisch-qualitativen Unterschiede der\nRedetheile,\" that is, of the fundamental psychological differences of\nthe parts of speech, as, what is the ultimate distinction between noun\nand adjective, etc.?\n\n[10-*] Steinthal does not like Humboldt's expression \"to make capable\"\n(f\u00e4hig zu machen). He objects that the \"capacity\" to express thought\nis already in the articulate sounds. But what Humboldt wishes to\nconvey is precisely that this capacity is only derived from the\nceaseless, energizing effort of the intellect. Steinthal, _Die\nSprachwissenschaft Wilhelm von Humboldt's_, s. 91, note. The words in\nthe original are: \"Die sich ewig wiederholende Arbeit des Geistes, den\narticulirten Laut zum Ausdruck des Gedanken f\u00e4hig zu machen.\"\n\n[10-+] \"Nur die St\u00e4rke des Selbstbewusstseins n\u00f6thigt der k\u00f6rperlichen\nNatur die scharfe Theilung und feste Begrenzung der Laute ab, die wir\nArtikulation nennen.\" _Ueber das Vergleichende Sprachstudium in\nBeziehung auf die Verschiedenen Epochen der Sprachentwicklung_, Bd.\niii, s. 244.\n\n[11-*] Ubi supr\u00e1, p. 17. Compare Humboldt's words, \"Im Ich aber ist\nvon selbst auch das Du gegeben.\" _Ueber die Verschiedenheit_, etc.,\nBd. vi, s. 115.\n\n[11-+] _Ueber die Verschiedenheit_, etc., Bd. vi, s. 116; and compare\nDr. Schasler's discussion of this subject (which is one of the best\nparts of his book), _Die Elemente der Phil. Sprachwissenschaft_, etc.,\nss. 202-14.\n\n[11-++] Expressed in detail by Humboldt in his _Lettre \u00e0 M.\nAbel-Remusat sur la nature des formes grammaticules_, etc., Bd. vii,\nss. 300-303.\n\n[12-*] _Ueber die Verwandtschaft der Ortsadverbia mit dem Pronomen in\neinigen Sprachen_, in the _Abhandlungen der hist.-phil. Classe der\nBerliner Akad. der Wiss._ 1829.\n\n[12-+] _Ueber die Verschiedenheit_, etc., Bd. vi, s. 115.\n\n[12-++] _Gesammelte Werke_, Bd. vii, ss. 392-6.\n\n[13-*] His explanation of inflection is most fully given in his\nIntroductory Essay, _Ueber die Verschiedenheit_, etc., \u00a7 14,\n_Gesammelte Werke_, s. 121, sqq. A sharp, but friendly criticism of\nthis central point of his linguistic philosophy may be found in\nSteinthal, _Charakteristik der Haupts\u00e4chlichsten Typen des\nSprachbones_,[TN-13] ss. 58-61. Humboldt certainly appears not only\nobscure in parts but contradictory.\n\n[14-*] See these teachings clearly set forth in his Essay, _Ueber das\nvergleichende Sprachstudium in Beziehung auf die verschiedenen Epochen\nder Sprachentwicklung, Werke_, Bd. iii, especially, s. 255 and s. 262.\n\n[15-*] The eloquent and extraordinary passage in which these opinions\nare expressed is in his _Lettre \u00e0 M. Abel-Remusat, Gesammelte Werke_,\nBd. vii, ss. 336-7.\n\n[15-+] _Gesammelte Werke_, Bd. iii, ss. 248, 257.\n\n[16-*] This reasoning is developed in the essay, _Ueber das\nVergleichende Sprachstudium_, etc., _Gesammelte Werke_, Bd. iii, ss.\n241-268; and see ibid, s. 270.\n\n[16-+] See the essay _Ueber die Buchstabenschrift und ihren\nZusammenhang mit dem Sprachbau, Ges. Werke_, Bd. vi, ss. 551-2.\n\n[17-*] On this subtle point, which has been by no means the least\ndifficult to his commentators, see Humboldt's Introduction _Ueber die\nVerschiedenheit_, etc., _Ges. Werke_, Bd. vi, ss. 45-6, 92-5, 254-5,\nby a careful comparison of which passages his real intent will become\napparent.\n\n[17-+] _Lettre \u00e0 M. Abbe-Remusat,[TN-14] Ges. Werke_, Bd. vii, s. 396.\n\n[18-*] \"Nicht was in einer Sprache ausgedr\u00fcckt zu werden vermag,\nsondern das, wozu sie aus eigner, innerer Kraft anfeuert und\nbegeistert, entscheidet \u00fcber ihre Vorz\u00fcge oder M\u00e4ngel.\" _Ueber das\nEntstehen der Grammatischen Formen_, etc[TN-15], _Werke_, Bd. iii, s.\n272. Compare with this the expression in his celebrated _Einleitung_:\n\"Die Sprache ist das bildende Organ des Gedanken,\" _Werke_, Bd. vi, s.\n51. A perfected language will \"allseitig und harmonisch durch sich\nselbst auf den Geist einwirken.\" Ibid, s. 311.\n\n[19-*] [TN-16]_Ueber das Entstehen der grammatischen Formen_,\" etc.,\n_Werke_, Bd. iii, s. 292.\n\n[19-+] Speaking of such \"imperfect\" languages, he gives the following\nwise suggestion for their study: \"Ihr einfaches Geheimniss, welches\nden Weg anzeigt, auf welchem man sie, mit g\u00e4nzlicher Vergessenheit\nunserer Grammatik, immer zuerst zu entr\u00e4thseln versuchen muss, ist,\ndas in sich Bedeutende unmittelbar an einander zu reihen.\" _Ueber das\nVergleichende Sprachstudium_, etc., _Werke_, Bd. iii, s. 255; and for\na practical illustration of his method, see the essay, _Ueber das\nEntstehen der grammatischen Formen_, etc., Bd. iii, s. 274.\n\n[20-*] His teachings on this point, of which I give the barest\noutline, are developed in sections 12 and 13 of his Introduction,\n_Ueber die Verschiedenheit_, etc. Steinthal's critical remarks on\nthese sections (in his _Charakteristik der haupt. Typen des\nSprachbaues_) seem to me unsatisfactory, and he even does not appear\nto grasp the chain of Humboldt's reasoning.\n\n[21-*] _Lettre \u00e0 M. Abel-Remusat, Werke_, Bd. vii, ss. 353-4.\n\n[21-+] _Ueber die Verschiedenheit_, etc., Sec. 23, _Werke_, Bd. vi, s.\n329.\n\n[24-*] \"Der Mexikanischen kann man am Verbum, in welchem die Zeiten\ndurch einzelne Endbuchstaben und zum Theil offenbar symbolisch\nbezeichnet werden, Flexionen und ein gewisses Streben nach\nSanskritischer Worteinheit nicht absprechen.\" _Ueber die\nVerschiedenheit_, etc., _Werke_, Bd. vi, s. 176.\n\n[25-*] \"Daher ist das Einschliessen in Ein Wort mehr Sache der\nEinbildungskraft, die Trennung mehr die des Verstandes.\" _Ueber die\nVerschiedenheit_, etc., s. 327. Compare also, s. 326 and 166.\nSteinthal points out the disadvantages of the incorporative plan and\nputs it lower than the isolating system of the Chinese; but fails to\nrecognize its many and striking advantages. See his remarks, \"Ueber\ndas Wesen und Werth der Einverleibungsmethode,\" in his _Charakteristik\nder haupt. Typen des Sprachbaues_, s. 214.\n\n[25-+] _Ueber die Verschiedenheit_, etc., in _Werke_, Bd. vi, ss. 323\nsqq.\n\n[27-*] See the essay, _Ueber den Dualis, Gesammelte Werke_, Bd. vi,\nss. 562-596.\n\n\n\n\nLIBRARY OF ABORIGINAL AMERICAN LITERATURE.\n\nGENERAL EDITOR AND PUBLISHER: D. G. BRINTON, M.D.\n\n\nThe aim of this series of publications is to put within the reach of\nscholars authentic materials for the study of the languages and\nculture of the native races of America. Each work is the production of\nthe native mind, and is printed in the original tongue, with a\ntranslation and notes, and only such are selected as have some\nintrinsic historical or ethnological importance. The volumes of the\nseries are sold separately, at the prices named.\n\n_NOW READY._\n\n=No. I. THE CHRONICLES OF THE MAYAS.=\n\n=Edited by DANIEL G. BRINTON, M.D. 279 pages. Cloth, uncut, $5.00.\n($3.00 when a complete set is ordered.)=\n\nThis volume contains five brief chronicles in the Maya language of\nYucatan, written shortly after the Conquest, and carrying the history\nof that people back many centuries. To these is added a history of the\nConquest, written in his native tongue, by a Maya Chief, in 1562. The\ntexts are preceded by an introduction on the history of the Mayas;\ntheir language, calendar, numeral system, etc.; and a vocabulary is\nadded at the close.\n\n=No. II. THE IROQUOIS BOOK OF RITES.=\n\n=Edited by HORATIO HALE. 222 pages. Cloth, uncut, $3.00.=\n\nThis work contains, in the Mohawk and Onondaga languages, the\nspeeches, songs and rituals with which a deceased chief was lamented\nand his successor installed in office. It may be said to throw a\ndistinct light on the authentic history of Northern America to a\nperiod fifty years earlier than the era of Columbus. The Introduction\ntreats of the ethnology and history of the Huron-Iroquois. A map,\nnotes and a glossary complete the work.\n\n=No. III. THE COMEDY-BALLET OF G\u00dcEG\u00dcENCE.=\n\n=Edited by DANIEL G. BRINTON, M.D. 146 pages. Cloth, uncut, $2.50.=\n\nA curious and unique specimen of the native comic dances, with\ndialogues, called _bailes_, formerly common in Central America. It is\nin the mixed Nahuatl-Spanish jargon of Nicaragua, and shows\ndistinctive features of native authorship. The Introduction treats of\nthe ethnology of Nicaragua, and the local dialects, musical\ninstruments, and dramatic representations. A map and a number of\nillustrations are added.\n\n=No. IV. A MIGRATION LEGEND OF THE CREEK INDIANS.=\n\n=By A. S. GATSCHET. 251 pages. Cloth, uncut, $3.00.=\n\nThis learned work offers a complete survey of the ethnology of the\nnative tribes of the Gulf States. The strange myth or legend told to\nGov. Oglethorpe, in 1732, by the Creeks, is given in the original,\nwith an Introduction and Commentary.\n\n=No. V. THE LEN\u00c2P\u00c9 AND THEIR LEGENDS.=\n\n=By Dr. DANIEL G. BRINTON. Cloth, uncut, $3.00.=\n\nContains the complete text and symbols, 184 in number, of the WALAM\nOLUM OR RED SCORE of the Delaware Indians, with the full original\ntext, and a new translation, notes and vocabulary. A lengthy\nintroduction treats of the Len\u00e2p\u00e9 or Delawares, their history,\ncustoms, myths, language, etc., with numerous references to other\ntribes of the great Algonkin stock.\n\n_IN PREPARATION_:\n\n=THE ANNALS OF THE CAKCHIQUELS.= By Francisco Arana Ernantez Xahila.\n    With a translation and notes by Dr. D. G. Brinton.\n\n=ABORIGINAL AMERICAN ANTHOLOGY.= Chiefly original material, furnished\n    by various collaborators.\n\n\n\n\nRECENT PUBLICATIONS ON AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY.\n\n\n_AMERICAN HERO-MYTHS._\n\nA Study in the Native Religions of the Western Continent. By Daniel G.\nBrinton, A.M., M.D., etc. 1 vol., 8vo, pp. 251. (Philad'a, 1882.)\nCloth, Price, $1.75.\n\n=NOTICES OF THE PRESS.=\n\n\"Dr. Brinton writes from a minute and extended knowledge of the\noriginal sources. * * His work renders a signal service to the cause\nof comparative mythology in our country.\"--_The Literary World_\n(Boston).\n\n\"This study of certain of the most remarkable stories of American\nmythology is exceedingly interesting.\"--_The Saturday Review_\n(London).\n\n\n_ABORIGINAL AMERICAN AUTHORS_, And Their Productions. Especially those\nin the Native Languages. A Contribution to the History of Literature.\nBy Daniel G. Brinton, A.M., M.D., etc. 1 vol., 8vo, pp. 63. Boards,\nPrice, $1.00.\n\nAn essay founded on an address presented to the Congress of\nAmericanists, at Copenhagen, in 1883. It is an extended review of the\nliterary efforts of the red race, in their own tongues, and in\nEnglish, Latin and Spanish (both manuscript and printed).\n\n\n_A GRAMMAR OF THE CAKCHIQUEL LANGUAGE_ of Guatemala. Translated with\nan Introduction and Additions by Daniel G. Brinton, M.D. Map, pp. 72.\nPrice, boards, $1.00.\n\n\n_THE NAMES OF THE GODS IN THE QUICHE MYTHS_, of Central America. By D.\nG. Brinton, M.D., 8vo, pp. 38, paper, 50c.\n\n\n_THE LINEAL MEASURES OF THE SEMI-CIVILIZED NATIONS_ of Mexico and\nCentral America. By D. G. Brinton, M.D., pp. 14, paper, 25c.\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Note\n\n\nThe following typographical errors were maintained in this version of the\nbook.\n\n         Page    Error\n  TN-1     15    unneccessary should read unnecessary\n  TN-2     16    grammer should read grammar\n  TN-3     17    tendncy should read tendency\n  TN-4     23    acustomed, should read accustomed\n  TN-5     23    fullfils should read fulfils\n  TN-6     29    Humboldt should read Humboldt.\n  TN-7     33    _mil quis amaiciton_, should have numbers over the words\n                 to match numbers on the next line\n  TN-8     39    powever should read power\n  TN-9     46    unabreviated should read unabbreviated\n  TN-10 fn 3-+   Characteristik should read Charakteristik\n  TN-11 fn 6-*   Sprachtstudium should read Sprachstudium\n  TN-12 fn 6-++  Zusummenhang should read Zusammenhang\n  TN-13 fn 13-*  _Sprachbones_, should read Sprachbaues\n  TN-14 fn 17-+  Abbe-Remusat, should read Abel-Remusat\n  TN-15 fn 18-*  etc should read etc.\n  TN-16 fn 19-*  _Ueber_ should read \"_Ueber_\n\n\n\n\n\n<pre id=\"pg-footer\">","title":"The Philosophic Grammar of American Languages, as Set Forth by Wilhelm von Humboldt: With the Translation of an Unpublished Memoir by Him on the American Verb","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":21989}