IN NOETH AMEEICA. 35 



in our own language, how many words which can be easily traced to a common ancestor 

 have no family likeness whatever.' 



M. Jules Vinson who has devoted an elaborate paper to the examination of the rela- 

 tions between the Basque and the American tongues (especially the Algonquin and Iro- 

 quois) fails to recognize any real kinship between them. He acknowledges that, in the 

 formation of compound words, the Basque has a process of syncopated incorporation, 

 which resembles that of the American languages, and in an ascending series, in the order 

 of agglomerative capacity, he places the Basque next to the American family. The order 

 of his enumeration is as follows : — the Dravidian group, very poor in forms ; the Altaic, 

 which has begun to incorporate ; the Basque (M Vinson rejects the term " Iberian " as of 



' Whoever takes the trouble, may discover even in English many instances of words which, though having 

 scant, if any, resemblance to each other, are known to be descended from common ancestors. Of such words are 

 plush and wig, couch and locate, pilgrim and agrarian, vamp and pedestrian, nice and science, daub and alb, bugle and 

 beef. If, crossing the boundaries of our own language, we wander through the extended domain of Aryan speech, 

 we find such instances in still greater abundance. Prof Max Midler mentions as an illustration of phonetic 

 corruption the gradual transformation of duhitar (daughter) or some such form, into the Bohemian dci, and of 

 svasar (sister) into the Pehlvi cho. He points out the identity of the French même with the Low Latin semetipm- 

 rimus, and shows that tear and larme spring from a common far-off source. These instances might be indefinitely 

 multiplied. But for the existence of written literatures, it would be virtually impossible to verify such etymo- 

 logies ; and, judging by analogy, we may reasonably conclude that changes at least not less noteworthy have 

 overtaken the words of unlettered languages, originall}' akin, after being separated for centuries or even millen- 

 niums by continents or oceans. " We have reason to believe," writes Prof Max Miiller, " that the same changes 

 take place with even greater violence and rapidity in the dialects of savage tribes, although, in the absence of a 

 written literature, it is extremely difficult to obtain trustworthy information. But in the few instances where 

 careful observations have been made on this interesting subject, it has been found that among the wild and 

 illiterate tribes of Siberia, Africa and Siam, two or three generations are sufficient to change the whole aspect of 

 their dialects." Now, while avoiding the mistake of denying any stability to our aboriginal tongues — a mistake 

 which would lie corrected by the ascertained general identity of the Huron-Iroquois and Algonquin of the early 

 explorers with those languages as they exist to-day — we cannot dispute the fact that, like tliose dialects of the 

 Old World lo which Prof Miiller refers in the passage just quoted, those of our own Indians are susceptible of 

 constant modification which in the course of time would render unrecognizable the relationship between forms of 

 speech that may have been formerly allied. This would be especially the case where circumstances had crowded 

 a number of disparate tribes, speaking diverse tongues, into a limited area, such as gathered around the trading 

 posts of the Hudson's Bay Company on the Pacific coast. In the Chinook jargon of that region we have ample 

 illustration of the disguises that a language may assume on unaccustomed lips. An Englishman there figures as 

 Kinl-shosh (King George) ; oluman serves to designate an elderly person and is also used as an adjective ; 

 tumola is "to-morrow." Pos (suppose) means "if" or "provided that"; pe (french puis) is "and" as well as 

 " then " ; for " to run " the word is kuli (courir) ; sawash (sauvage) is the usual term for an Indian. Lasuai hakat- 

 chum is the Chinook fora "silk handkerchief" — the former of the two words being evidently a corruption of 

 the french la svie. Paia is intended for " fire " ; tlai for " dry " ; Ktan for les dents (the teeth) ; lamestin for la méde- 

 cine, while clak-hah-ahyah does duty as " how do you do ? " This last phrase " is believed to have originated from 

 their hearing one of the residents at the fort, named Clark, frequently addressed by his friends : "Clark, how are 

 you"? (Wilson's Prehistoric Man, ii. 336). This system of complex speech had been in vogue already (though, 

 without its French and English constituents) before Europeans came in contact with the tribes of the Pacific coast, 

 and we may, therefore, conjecture to what influences language may have been subjected in the course of long 

 preceding generations- How hopeless, then, in the presence of the possibilities thus implied, is any comparison 

 between American and old-world languages based on similarity of spelling or sound, if such likeness were discover- 

 able ! But, on the other hand, the absence of verbal resemblance cannot justly be accepted as sufficient to refute a 

 theory of affinity which is strongly supported by structural analogies. On this point, with special reference to the 

 Basque-American controversy. Sir Daniel Wilson, while admitting that this element of correspondence (that is 

 the general likeness in cast and mould of speech indicated by Mr. Hale) " is sufficiently marked to attract much 

 attention," has come to the following rational conclusion : " We have as yet, however, barely reached the threshold 

 of this all-important inquiry ; and find at every step only fresh evidence of the necessity for the diligent accu- 



