Part 2 — LETTER XXIV. FROM MR. HECKEWELDER.

Bethlehem, 5th September, 1816.

Dear Sir.—I have received your favour of the 30th ult. I answer it first at the end, and begin with your etymology of the word Canada. In looking over some of Mr. Zeisberger’s papers, who was well acquainted with the language of the Onondagoes, the principal dialect of the Iroquois, to which nation the Mohawks belong, I find he translates the German word stadt (town) into the Onondago by “ganatage.” Now, as you well know that the Germans sometimes employ the G instead of the K, and the T instead of the D, it is very possible that the word Kanada may mean the same thing in some grammatical form of the Mohawk dialect. As you have seen it so employed in Captain Brandt’s translation, there cannot be the least doubt about it. This being taken for granted, it is not improbable that you have hit upon the true etymology of the name Canada. For nothing is more certain than what Dr. Wistar once told you on my authority, that the Indians make more use of particular than of generic words. I found myself under very great embarrassment in consequence of it when I first began to learn the Delaware language. I would point to a tree and ask the Indians how they called it; they would answer an oak, an ash, a maple, as the case might be, so that at last I found in my vocabulary more than a dozen words for the word tree. It was a good while before I found out, that when you asked of an Indian the name of a thing, he would always give you the specific and never the generic denomination. So that it is highly probable that the Frenchman who first asked of the Indians in Canada the name of their country, pointing to the spot and to the objects which surrounded him, received for answer Kanada, (town or village), and committing the same mistake that I did, believed it to be the name of the whole region, and reported it so to his countrymen, who consequently gave to their newly acquired dominions the name of Canada.

I had never heard before I received your letter that there existed a country where the men and the women spoke a different language from each other. It is not the case with the Delawares or any Indian nation that I am acquainted with. The two sexes with them speak exactly the same idiom. The women, indeed, have a kind of lisping or drawling accent, which comes from their being so constantly with children; but the language which they speak does not differ in the least from that which is spoken by their husbands and brothers.

The question you ask about n’petageep and n’petagunewoakup, both of which Zeisberger translates by sie haben mir gebracht, is easily answered. The translation is correct in both cases, according to the idiom of the German language, from which alone the ambiguity proceeds. N’petageep means “they have brought to me,” but in a general sense, and without specifying by whom the thing has been brought. Es ist mir gebracht worden, or “it has been brought to me,” would have explained this word better, while n’petagunewoakup is literally rendered by “they,” (alluding to particular persons,) “have brought to me,” or sie haben mir gebracht. You have here another example of the nicely discriminating character of the Indian languages.

I believe I have never told you that the Indians distinguish the genders, animate and inanimate, even in their verbs. Nolhatton and nolhalla, both mean “I possess,” but the former can only be used in speaking of the possession of things inanimate, and the latter of living creatures. Nolhatton achquiwanissall, “I have or possess blankets;” cheeli kœcu n’nolhattowi, “many things I am possessed of,” or “I possess many things;” woak nechenaunges nolhallau, “and I possess a horse,” (and a horse I possess.) The u which you see at the end of the verb nolhalla, conveys the idea of the pronoun him, so that it is the same as if you said, “and a horse I possess him.” It is the accusative form on which you observed in one of your former letters and is annexed to the verb instead of the noun.

In the verb “to see,” the same distinction is made between things animate and inanimate. Newau, “I see,” applies only to the former, and nemen to the latter. Thus the Delawares say: lenno newau, “I see a man;” tscholens newau, “I see a bird;” achgook newau, “I see a snake.” On the contrary they say, wiquam nemen, “I see a house;” amochol nemen, “I see a canoe,” &c.

It is the same with other verbs; even when they speak of things lying upon the ground, they distinguish between what has life and what is inanimate; thus they say, icka schingieschin305 n’dallemans “there lies my beast,” (the verb schingieschin305 being only used when speaking of animate things;) otherwise they will say: icka schingieschen n’tamahican, “yonder lies my ax.” The i or the e in the last syllable of the verb, as here used in the third person, constitutes the difference, which indicates that the thing spoken of has or has not life.

It would be too tedious to go through these differences in the various forms which the verb can assume; what I have said will be sufficient to shew the principle and the manner in which this distinction is made.

I inclose a translation of the Lord’s Prayer into Delaware, with the English interlined according to your wishes. I am, &c.

THE LORD’S PRAYER IN THE DELAWARE LANGUAGE.

Ki Thou

Wetóchemelenk our Father

talli there

épian dwelling

Awosságame, beyond the clouds,

Machelendásutsch magnified or praised be

Ktellewunsowágan thy name

Ksakimowagan thy kingdom

peyewiketsch come on

Ktelitehewágan thy thoughts, will, intention, mind,

léketsch come to pass

yun here

Achquidhackamike upon or all over the earth,

elgiqui the same

leek as it is

talli there

Awosságame in heaven or beyond the clouds,

Milineen give to us

eligischquik on or through this day

gunagischuk the usual, daily

Achpoan bread,

woak and

miwelendammauwineen forgive to us

n’tschannauchsowagannéna our transgressions (faults),

elgiqui the same as

niluna we (particular plural) we who are here

miwelendammáuwenk we mutually forgive them,

nik who or those

tschetschanilawequéngik who have transgressed or injured us (past participle)

woak and

kátschi let not

n’páwuneen us come to that

li that

achquetschiechtowáganink we fall into temptation; (ink, into),

shuckund but (rather)

ktennineen keep us free

untschi from

medhicking all evil

Alod for

Knihillátamen thou claimest

ksakimowágan306 thy kingdom

woak and

ktallewussoágan the superior power

woak and

ktallowilissowágan all magnificence

ne from

wuntschi heretofore

hallemiwi, ever (always)

Nanne leketsch. Amen. (so be it; so may it come to pass.)