Part 2 — LETTER XV. FROM THE SAME.

Bethlehem, 24th July, 1816.

Dear Sir.—I have now to answer your question on the subject of the Delaware verb, n’dellauchsi, which Zeisberger translates by “I live, or move about,” or “I so live that I move about.” You ask whether this is the only verb in the language which expresses “to live,” and whether the Indians have an idea of life, otherwise than as connected with locomotion?

Surely they have; and I do not see that the contrary follows from Mr. Zeisberger’s having chosen this particular verb as an example of the first conjugation. I perceive you have not yet an adequate idea of the copiousness of the Indian languages, which possess an immense number of comprehensive words, expressive of almost every possible combination of ideas. Thus the proper word for “to live” is in the pure Unami dialect lehaleheen. An Unami meeting an aged acquaintance, whom he has not seen for a length of time, will address him thus: “Ili k’lehelleya?”282 which means, “are you yet alive?” The other will answer “Ili n’papomissi,”283 “I am yet able to walk about.” The verb n’dellauchsin, which Mr. Zeisberger quotes, is more generally employed in a spiritual sense, “n’dellauchsin Patamawos wulelendam,” “I live up, act up to the glory of God.” This verb, like pommauchsin, implies action or motion, connected with life, which is still the principal idea. I do not know of any thing analogous in the English language, except, perhaps, when we say “To walk humbly before God;” but here the word walk contains properly no idea in itself but that of locomotion, and is not coupled with the idea of life, as in the Indian verb which I have cited. The idea intended to be conveyed arises in English entirely from the figurative sense of the word, in the Delaware from the proper sense.

I should never have done, were I to endeavour to explain to you in all their details the various modes which the Indians have of expressing ideas, shades of ideas, and combinations of ideas; for which purpose the various parts of speech are successively called to their aid. In the conjugations of the verbs, in Zeisberger’s Grammar, you will find but three tenses, present, past, and future; but you will be much mistaken if you believe that there are no other modes of expressing actions and passions in the verbal form as connected with the idea of time. It would have been an endless work to have given all those explanations in an elementary grammar intended for the use of young Missionaries, who stood in need only of the principal forms, which they were to perfect afterwards by practice. Let me now try to give you a faint idea of what I mean by a few examples in the Delaware language.

N’mitzi, I eat.284 N’mamitzi, I am eating, or am in the act of eating. N’mitzihump, I have eaten. Metschi n’gischi mitzi, I am come from eating. N’dappi mitzi, I am returned from eating.

The first two n’mitzi and n’mamitzi, both mean I eat, but the one is used in the indefinite, and the other in the definite sense, and a good speaker will never employ the one instead of the other. The three last expressions are all past tenses of the verb “I eat,” and all mean, “I have eaten,” but a person just risen from table, will not say, “n’dappi mitzi;” this expression can only be used after leaving the place where he has been eating, in answer to a person who asks him “where he comes from.” The word “n’dappi” is connected with the verb apatschin, to return. There is another distinction, proper to be mentioned here. If the place where the person comes from is near, he says “n’dappi,” if distant “n’dappa.” Thus:

N’dappi pihm, I am come from sweating (or from the sweat oven.) N’dappihackiheen, I am come from planting. N’dappi wickheen, I am come from building a house. N’dappimanschasqueen, I am come from mowing grass. N’dappi notamæsin, I am come from striking fish with a spear. N’dappallauwin, I am come (returned) from hunting. N’dappachtopalin, I am come (returned) from making war.

In the future tense I could shew similar distinctions, but it would lead me too far.

I must now take notice of what Father Sagard says, as you have mentioned in your letter of the 13th inst., that the Indian languages have “no roots, and that there is no regularity in the formation of their words.” It is certain that the manner in which the Indians in general form their words is different from that of the Europeans, but I can easily prove to you that they understand the manner of forming them from “roots.” I take, for instance, the word wulit, good, proper, right, from which are derived:

Wulik,

the good

.

Wulaha,

better

.

Wulisso,

fine, pretty

.

Wulamoewagan,

truth

.

Wulatenamuwi,

happy

.

Wulatenamoagan,

happiness

.

Wulapensowagan,

blessing

.

Wulapan,

fine morning

.

Wuliechen,

it is good, or well done

.

Wulittol,

they are good

.

Wuliken,

it grows well, thrives

.

Wuliechsin,

to speak well

.

Wulelendam,

to rejoice

.

Wulamallsin,

to be well, happy

.

Wulandeu,} Wuligischgu,}a fine day.

Wulapeyu,

just, upright

.

Wuliwatam,

to be of good understanding

.

Wuliachpin,

to be in a good place

.

Wulilissin,

to do well

.

Wulilissu,

he is good

.

Wulilissick,

behave ye well

.

Wulinaxin,

to look well

.

Wulamoeyu,

it is true

.

Wulantowagan,

grace

.

Wulatopnachgat,

285

a good word

.

Wulatopnamik,

good tidings

.

Wulatonamin,

286

to be happy

.

Wulissowagan,

prettiness, handsome appearance

.

Wulihilleu,

it is good

.

Wulineichquot,

it is well to be seen

.

Wulelemileu,

it is wonderful

.

Wulitehasu,

well cut or hewed

.

Wuliwiechinen,

to rest well

.

Welsit Mannitto,

the Good Spirit

.

From Machtit,

bad

.

Machtitsu,

nasty

.

Machtesinsu,

ugly

.

Machtschi

or

Matschi Mannitto

or

Machtando,

the evil Spirit, the Devil

, &c.

You will naturally observe that the words derived from the root Wulit, imply in general the idea of what is good, handsome, proper, decent, just, well, and so pursuing the same general object to happiness and its derivatives; happiness being considered as a good and pleasant feeling, or situation of the mind, and a person who is happy, as being well. This does not, as you might suppose, make the language ambiguous; for the Indians speak and understand each other with great precision and clearness.

I have yet to answer your question about the f and w. There are in the Delaware language no such consonants as the German w, or English v, f, or r. Where w in this language is placed before a vowel, it sounds the same as in English; before a consonant, it represents a whistled sound of which I cannot well give you an idea on paper, but which I shall easily make you understand by uttering it before you when we meet.

I am, &c.