1864.] REVIEW. 151 



however informs us of very interesting facts respecting the compo- 

 sition of the tenses of the verbs, as compared with the Hebrew 

 forms, and it is more of these interesting facts that we would 



desire. 



Again, while N. 0. is quite right on scientific grounds to con- 

 demn M. Kenan's unphilosophical reference of certain analogies to 

 chance, it may not be quite right to object as he does, to what 

 M. Renan has to say on the subject of onomatopoeia, and in which 

 he but coincides with such eminent modern critics as Gesenius, 

 Fiirst, etc. N. 0. is doubtless acquainted with the original He- 

 brew text of the Scriptures. Can he, then, ignore the remark- 

 able prevalence of Onomatopoeia, more especially in the early books 

 of the Sacred Volume ? And need we remind him that this preva- 

 lence of onomatopoeia in the early history of the language is of 

 no small value in discussing the question of the primitive language 

 — "unite primordiale dulangage" which, saysN. 0., is treated by 

 M. Renan as " ridicule chimere, et mythe le plus bizarre." "We are 

 not quite clear as to whether the reviewer holds the Hebrew to be the 

 primitive language of man ; but for his Algonquin " kokoc, kokoko, 

 kackacipinesi, kakaki, makaki, etc.," how many examples could we 

 cite, not only in the Hebrew, but in the later Latin family of lan- 

 guages. Here are a few: Hebrew ppb", lackack, English, he licked ; 

 Italian leccare; French Idcher : so in Greek T^^x^'tf, German lecken. 

 Next Hebrew «np, kara ; English, he cried ; Italian, gridare ; Fr. 

 crier ; Ger. schreien. Our limited space, however, compels us to 

 leave this topic here. Scarcely more satisfied are we with the meagre 

 list of quadriliteral and quinquiliteral Iroquois roots which N. 0. 

 opposes to a yet shorter list of Hebrew and other similar roots, 

 as an offset to those " dont M. Renan fait un si pompeux etalage." 

 We shall wait for the more elaborate effort which we desire to see 

 from the reviewer before we fully give in our adhesion to the fol- 

 lowing important claims : " Concluons done qu'en matiere d'ono- 

 matopdes, les langues am^ricaines ne le cedent a aucune, et que 

 parmi elles, I'iroquois se distingue par des tendances a revetir la 

 forme quadrilitere." 



Similar objections may be raised to comparisons of Algonquin 

 with Greek and Latin, as ' enim,' above referred to, or the root 

 " tang " in the verb to touch, or another which has been suggested 

 as a parallel, — the prevalence of the root " ouk," or " oik," in the 

 sense of house or dwelling. More especially would such objections 



