138 SYSTEMS OF CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY 



It was found impossible to recover the etymological signification of the terms of 

 relationship. This signification has long since disappeared beyond retrieval. In 

 a few instances the terms are still significant ; but we know at once, from that fact, 

 that these terms are of modern introduction. The preservation of the meanings of 

 this class of words in languages which have been simply oral from time immemo- 

 rial would have been more remarkable than the loss, since presumptively the larger 

 portion of these terms must have originated in the primitive speech. 



A comparison, in detail, of the forms of consanguinity which prevail in the 

 nations represented in the table (Table II, Part II) will disclose a number 

 of deviations from uniformity. These deviations, since they do not invade the 

 radical features of the system, are invested with special importance. They are 

 insufficient to lessen the number of fundamental characteristics which should be 

 common in order to demonstrate, by internal evidence, the common origin of the 

 system. In general plan, minute details, and apparent design it is one and the 

 same throughout, with the exception of the Eskimo, which detaches itself from the 

 Ganowanian connection. It will be seen and recognized that it is far more difficult 

 to maintain unchanged a complicated and elaborate system of relationship than 

 one which is free from complexity ; although it may be found to be as difficult for 

 one as the other to depart essentially from its radical form. Absolute uniformity in 

 such a system of relationship as the one about to be considered is a naked impos- 

 sibility. Where we know that the period of separation of the several branches of 

 the family from each other must be measured by centuries, not to say by decades 

 of centuries of time, it would be to exclude at once development and modification, 

 both of which, within narrow limits, are inseparable from all~ systems of rela- 

 tionship. When this comparison has been made, the inconsiderable amount 

 of deviation and the constancy of the indicative features of the system will 

 occasion the greater surprise. These diversities were, for a time, a source of 

 much perplexity ; but as the range of investigation widened their limits began to 

 be circumscribed. They appeared to have taken their rise far back in the past, and 

 to have perpetuated themselves in the several subdivisions of that branch of the 

 family in which they originated It was perceived at once that they might envelop 

 a record still decipherable of the immediate genetic connection of those nations, 

 however widely separated geographically, in whose domestic relationship these 

 diversities were common. If they could deliver any testimony upon such questions, 

 they were worthy of careful investigation. These deviations thus become attractive 



head, mouth, nose, or which are subject to personal ownership, as hat, pipe, tomahawk, and so on. 

 In most of our Indian languages there are names for the different species of trees, and of animals, 

 but no generic name for tree, or fish, or deer. The pronoun also is nsually,found incorporated with 

 the names of the different organs of the body, and with the names of objects which are personal. If, 

 for example, I ask an Indian, "What do you call this ?" touching the hat of a person standing near 

 me, he will reply, " His hat;" if I point to mine, "Your hat," and if to his own, he will say, "My hat." 

 This element of change tends to impair the usefulness of these words for comparison. ^Such terms 

 as are founded upon generalizations, as spring, summer, morning, evening, are of but little value. 

 Many of the words commonly used, however, are free from objection, such as fire, water, rain, hail, 

 hot, cold, jngeon, crow, elk ; the names of the colors, the numerals, and other words of that character. 



