1885.] *>29 [Brintoiiv 



languages were at first significant words, and the degree to 

 which they have lost their primarj^ significations and have be- 

 come purely formal elements expressing relation, is one of the 

 measures of the grammatical evolution of a tongue. In most 

 American idioms their origin from substantives is readily recog- 

 nizable. P'requently these substantives refer to parts of the 

 body, and this, in passing, suggests the antiquity of this class of 

 words and their value in comparison. 



In Maya tan means in, towai'd, among ; but it is also the breast 

 or front of the body. The Mexican has three classes of prepo- 

 sitions — the first, whose origin from a substantive cannot be de- 

 tected ; the second, where an unknown and a known element are 

 combined ; the third, where the substantive is perfectly clear. 

 An example of the last mentioued is itic^ in, compounded ofite, 

 belly, and the locative particle c ; the phrase ilhuicatl itic^ in 

 heaven, is literally "in the belly of heaven." Precisely the 

 same is the Cakchiquel pa mcff/?, literally, " belly, heaven "^in 

 heaven. In Mexican, notepotzco is " behind me," literally, " my 

 back, at;" this corresponds again to the Cakchiquel chuih., he- 

 hind me, from chi, at, u, my, vih, shoulder-blades. TheMixteca 

 prepositions present the crude nature of their origin without 

 disguise, chisi huahi, belly, house — that is, in front of the house ; 

 sata huahi, back, house — behind the house. 



The conjunctions are equally transparent. "And " in Maya is 

 yetel, in Mexican ihuan. One would suppose that such an indis- 

 pensable connective would long since have been worn down to 

 an insoluble entity. On the contrary, both these words retain 

 their perfect material meaning. Yetel is a compound of y, 

 his, et, companion, and el, the definite termination of nouns. 

 Ihuan is the possessive, i, and huan, associate, companion, used 

 also as a termination to form a certain class of plurals. 



The deficiency in true conjunctions and relative pronouns is 

 met in man}'' American languages by a reversal of the plan of 

 expression with us. The relative clause becomes the principal 

 one. There is a certain logical justice in this ; for, if we reflect, 

 it will appear evident that the major proposition is, in our con- 

 struction, presented as one of the conditions of the minor. " I 

 shall drown, if I fall in the water," means that, of the various 

 results of my falling in the water, one of them will be that I 



PROC. AMER. PHILOS. SOC, XXII. 120. 2f. PRINTED MAY 23, 1885. 



