Part 2 — LETTER XXII. FROM THE SAME.

Bethlehem, 27th August, 1816.

Dear Sir.—I promised you in one of my former letters that I would write to a gentleman well acquainted with the Chippeway language, to ascertain whether it is true, as Professor Vater asserts, that it is almost without any grammatical forms. I wrote in consequence to the Rev. Mr. Dencke, a respectable Missionary of the Society of the United Brethren, who resides at Fairfield in Upper Canada, and I have the pleasure of communicating to you an extract from his answers to the different questions which my letter contained.

EXTRACT.

1. “According to my humble opinion, and limited knowledge of the Indian languages, being chiefly acquainted with the Delaware and Chippeway, of ich alone I can speak with propriety, those two idioms are of one and the same grammatical structure, and rich in forms. I am inclined to believe that Mr. Duponceau is correct in his opinion that the American languages in general resemble each other in point of grammatical construction; for I find in that of Greenland nearly the same inflections, prefixes, and suffixes, as in the Delaware and the Chippeway. The inflexions of nouns and conjugations of verbs are the same. The pronominal accusative is in the same manner incorporated with the verb, which, in this form, may be properly called transitive. See Crantz’s History of Greenland, in German, page 283. These forms, though they are very regular, are most difficult for foreigners to acquire. I might give examples of conjugations in the various forms, but as they have not been expressly called for, I do not think necessary to do it.

“The Greenlanders, it seems, have three numbers in the conjugation of their verbs, the singular, dual, and plural; the Delawares and Chippeways have also three, the singular, the particular, and the plural. For instance, in the Delaware language we say in the plural, ‘k’pendameneen,’ which means ‘we all have heard;’ and in the particular number we say, ‘n’pendameneen,’ 'we, who are now specially spoken of, (for instance, this company, the white people, the Indians,) have heard.’ Upon the whole, Crantz’s History of Greenland has given me a great insight into the construction of the Indian languages; through his aid, I have been able to find out the so necessary infinitive of each particular verb. By means of the transitions, Indian verbs have nine or ten different infinitives, whence we must conclude that it is very difficult to learn the Indian languages. There is also a peculiarity in them, by means of the duplication of the first syllable, as ‘gattopuin,’ ‘to be hungry;’ ‘gagattopuin,’ to be very hungry.

2. “Carver’s Vocabulary of the Chippeway, I believe is not correct, though I have it not at present before me.

3. “The numerals in the Chippeway up to ten, are as follows. I write them according to the German orthography. 1. Beschik. 2. Nisch. 3. Nisswi. 4. Newin. 5. Nanán. 6. N’guttiwaswi. 7. Nischschwaswi. 8. Schwaschwi. 9. Schenk. 20. Quetsch.”

Thus far Mr. Dencke. I do not recollect whether I have already explained to you what he says about the “particular” number in the conjugation of the Delaware verbs. There is a distinction in the plural forms. “K’pendameneen, (k’ from kiluna, 'we,’) means generally ‘we have heard,’ or ‘we all have heard,’ not intending to allude to a particular number of persons; in 'n’pendameneen,’ the ‘n’ comes from ‘niluna,’ which means ‘we,’ in particular, our family, nation, select body, &c. ‘Niluna yu epienk,’ ‘we who are here assembled,’ n’penameneen, (for niluna penameneen) we see (we who are together see); n’pendameneen, we hear (we who are in this room hear). But when no discrimination is intended to be made, the form kiluna, or its abridgement k’ is used. Kiluna elenapewit, ‘we, the Indians’ (meaning all the Indians); kiluna yu enda lauchsienk, ‘we all that live upon earth;’ ‘k’nemeneen sokelange,’ we see it rain, (we all see it rain); k’nemeneen waselehelete, we all see the light, (we and all who live upon earth see the light.)”

I believe Mr. Zeisberger does not mention this distinction in his Grammar; but he could not say every thing.

I am, &c.