michelson: ameeican Indian languages 227 



themselves more with the linguistic problems of historical lan- 

 guages, and less with the remote Indo-European parent language. 



Let us return again to the question of the multiplicity of Ameri- 

 can stocks. As stated above, .this is today almost without parallel. 

 However it does not follow that this has always been the case. 

 In Europe we know definitely that Etruscan has been wiped out ; 

 but we do not know how many distinct stocks were obliterated 

 by the spread of Indo-European languages. It is entirely pos- 

 sible that many have been so obliterated. If they have, we have 

 then a case quite analogous to the situation in America. But 

 this is merely speculation. The problem may be approached 

 from a different point of view. There is no reason to suppose 

 that the migration from Asia was all from a single stock, in other 

 words, that the differentiation has all been on American soil. 

 Were that the case, in spite of the enormous lapse of time, surely 

 we would be able to find at least one striking morphological trait 

 common to all American Indian languages, for the morphology 

 of a language is its most permanent feature. 



Though, as intimated above, we have an apparent multiplicity 

 of stocks which can not be reduced, nevertheless a number have 

 resemblances to each other. An example is Siouan and Musko- 

 gean. The question resolves itself to this: Are these resem- 

 blances indicative of a common origin so remote that it is no longer 

 possible absolutely to prove it, or are such similarities due to 

 borrowings? To settle the question we must know what may 

 be borrowed. That sounds may be borrowed across extremely 

 divergent linguistic stocks is abundantly proved by the languages 

 of the Northwest coast where we have the condition that lan- 

 guages whose morphology and vocabulary are distinct have prac- 

 tically the same phonetic elements. That vocabulary may be 

 borrowed across linguistic stocks is too well-known to require 

 illustration. That syntax may be borrowed across linguistic 

 stocks is shown by the languages of Mexico where Spanish 

 syntax has patently influenced that of American Indian languages. 

 At this point we may ask a question, namely, can morphological 

 features be borrowed? This is one of the most pressing problems 

 of linguistic science awaiting solution. Unfortunately we have 



