Part 2 — LETTER XXV. TO MR. HECKEWELDER.

Philadelphia, 1st October, 1816

Dear Sir.—Various professional avocations have prevented me from answering sooner your kind letter of the 5th ult. I thank you for the Delaware translation of the Lord’s prayer; it does not differ much from that in Loskiel, but the English explanations which you have given add greatly to its value.

The information which your letter contains on the subject of the annexation to the verb of the form or inflexion indicative of the gender, is quite new to me. Though I was already acquainted with the principle on which this takes place, I was not fully aware of the extent of its application. We have already noticed and remarked upon the combination of the pronominal form with the active verb307 in “getannitowit n’quitayala, I fear God;” in which the pronoun him is expressed by the last syllable ala or yala, so that it is the same as if you said “God I fear him,” in Latin Deus timeo eum, and by contraction, Deus timeum. With this it is not difficult to pursue the same course or “plan of ideas,” by connecting not only the subject pronoun, but its gender, animate, or inanimate, with the verbal form. The idea of the sexes, if the language admitted of it, might be expressed in the same manner. Thus also Latin words might be compounded on the Delaware plan. If I wished to express in that manner “I see a lion,” I would say leo video eum, and by contraction videum; and if the object was of the feminine gender, I would say videam, for video eam. The difference between the Latin and the Delaware is that in the former the ideas of the pronoun and its gender are expressed by a nominal and in the latter by a verbal form. I consider leonem video, as a contraction of leo eum video; the n being interposed between leo and eum, and the u in eum left out for euphony’s sake. In the same manner fœminam appears to me to be contracted from fœmina eam;308 whence we may, perhaps, conclude that in the formation of different languages, the same ideas have occurred to the minds of those who framed them; but have been differently combined, and consequently differently expressed. Who would have thought that the barbarous idioms of the American savages could have thrown light on the original formation of the noble and elegant language of ancient Rome? Does not this very clearly shew that nothing is indifferent in science, and above all, that we ought by no means to despise what we do not know?

I thought we had exhausted all the verbal forms of the Delaware language, when I accidentally fell upon one which Zeisberger has not mentioned in his grammar, but of which he gives an example in his vocabulary or spelling-book. It is a curious combination of the relative pronoun “what” or “that which” with an active verb, regularly conjugated through the several transitions or personal forms. The author thus conjugates the present of the indicative.

FIRST TRANSITION.

Singular. Plural.

Elan, what I tell thee, ellek, what I tell you

elak, what I tell him. elachgup, what I tell them.

SECOND TRANSITION.

Singular. Plural.

Eliyan, what thou tellest me, eliyenk, what thou tellest us,

elan, what thou tellest him. elachtup, what thou tellest them.

THIRD TRANSITION.

Singular. Plural.

Elit, what he tells me, elquenk, what he tells us,

elquon, what he tells thee, elquek, what he tells you,

elat, elguk, what he tells him. elatup, elatschi, what he tells them.

FOURTH TRANSITION.

Singular. Plural.

Elenk, what we tell you, ellek, what we tell you,

elank, what we tell him. elanquik, what we tell them.

FIFTH TRANSITION.

Singular. Plural.

Eliyek, what you tell me, eliyenkup, what you tell us,

elatup, what you tell him. elaachtitup, what you tell them.

SIXTH TRANSITION.

Singular. Plural.

Elink, what they tell me,, elgeyenk, what they tell us,

elquonnik, what they tell thee, elgeyek, what they tell you,

elaachtit, what they tell him. elatschik, what they tell us.

Thus I have given myself the pleasure of transcribing this single tense of one of the moods of this beautiful verb, which I find is used also in the sense of “as I tell thee,” &c., and is a striking example of the astonishing powers of this part of speech in the Delaware language. Can you tell me where those powers end? Is there anything which a Delaware verb will not express in some form or other? I am no longer astonished to find that Mr. Zeisberger has not displayed in his grammar all the richness of this idiom. A single verb, with its various forms and transitions, would almost fill a volume, and there are no less than eight conjugations, all of which were to be explained and illustrated by examples!

But it is not in the verbs alone that consist the beauties of this language. The other parts of speech also claim our attention. There I find, as well as in the verbs, forms and combinations of which I had not before conceived an idea. For instance, Zeisberger tells us that there are nouns substantive in the Delaware which have a passive mood! Strange as this may appear to those who are unacquainted with Indian forms, it is nevertheless a fact which cannot be denied; for our author gives us several examples of this passive noun, all ending with the substantive termination wagan, which, as you have informed me, corresponds with the English ness, in “happiness,” and the German heit or keit, in the numerous words ending with these syllables. Permit me to select some of the examples given by Zeisberger.

Machelemuxowagan, honour, the being honoured. Gettemagelemuxowagan, the receiving favour, mercy, tenderness. Mamschalgussiwagan,309 the being held in remembrance. Witahemgussowagan, the being assisted or helped. Mamintochimgussowagan,310 the being esteemed. Wulakenimgussowagan, the being praised. Machelemoachgenimgussowagan, the receiving honour and praise. Amangachgenimgussowagan, the being raised or elevated by praise. Schingalgussowagan, the being hated. Mamachtschimgussowagan, the being insulted.

You will, I am afraid, be disposed to think that we have changed places, and that I am presuming to give you instruction in the Delaware language; but I am only repeating to you the lessons that I have learned from Zeisberger, to save you the trouble of explaining what I can obtain from another source; to be corrected, if I have committed mistakes, and to receive from you the information which my author does not give. Besides, as our correspondence is intended for the use of the Historical Committee, my occasional extracts from Zeisberger, and the observations to which they give rise, are addressed to them as well as to you, and under your correction, may contribute to give them a clearer idea of the forms of the Indian languages. Our letters thus form a kind of epistolary conference between the scholar and his master, held before a learned body, who profit even by the ignorance of the student, as it draws fuller and more luminous explanations from the teacher. Had I proceeded otherwise, your task would have been much more laborious and troublesome, and it would have been ungenerous to have exacted it from you.

In this manner I have relieved you from the trouble of explaining the passive substantives of Zeisberger, unless I should have mistaken his meaning, in which case, you will, of course, set me right. But this author does not tell us whether there are on the other hand active substantives, such as “the honouring,” “the favouring,” “the remembering,” “the praising,” “the insulting,” “the hating.” Here I beg you will be so good as to supply his deficiency, and explain what he has left unexplained.

I find also that there are diminutive words in the Delaware, as in the Italian, such as lennotit, a little man, (from lenno); amementit, a little child, (from amemens); wiquames, a little house, (from wiquam), &c. Pray, are there also augmentatives? Is there any difference between the diminutive terminations tit and es, and what is it?

I have been told that you intend soon to visit Philadelphia; I shall rejoice to find it true, and to form a personal acquaintance with you, which, I hope, will produce a lasting friendship.

I am, &c.