﻿140 
  INDIAN 
  LINGUISTIC 
  FAMILIES. 
  

  

  their 
  syntactic 
  arrangement, 
  is 
  abundantly 
  illustrated. 
  The 
  lan- 
  

   guages 
  are 
  very 
  unequally 
  developed 
  in 
  their 
  several 
  parts. 
  Low 
  

   gender 
  systems 
  appear 
  with 
  high 
  tense 
  systems, 
  highly 
  evolved 
  case 
  

   systems 
  with 
  slightly 
  developed 
  mode 
  systems; 
  and 
  there 
  is 
  scarcely 
  

   any 
  one 
  of 
  these 
  languages, 
  so 
  far 
  as 
  they 
  have 
  been 
  studied, 
  which 
  

   does 
  not 
  exhibit 
  archaic 
  devices 
  in 
  its 
  grammar. 
  

  

  The 
  author 
  has 
  delayed 
  the 
  present 
  publication 
  somewhat, 
  expect- 
  

   ing 
  to 
  supplement 
  it 
  with 
  another 
  paper 
  on 
  the 
  characteristics 
  of 
  

   those 
  languages 
  which 
  have 
  been 
  most 
  fully 
  recorded, 
  but 
  such 
  sup- 
  

   plementary 
  paper 
  has 
  already 
  grown 
  too 
  large 
  for 
  this 
  place 
  and 
  is 
  

   yet 
  unfinished, 
  while 
  the 
  necessity 
  for 
  speedy 
  publication 
  of 
  the 
  

   present 
  results 
  seems 
  to 
  be 
  imperative. 
  The 
  needs 
  of 
  the 
  Bureau 
  of 
  

   Ethnology, 
  in 
  directing 
  the 
  work 
  of 
  the 
  linguists 
  employed 
  in 
  it, 
  and 
  

   especially 
  in 
  securing 
  and 
  organizing 
  the 
  labor 
  of 
  a 
  large 
  body 
  of 
  

   collaborators 
  throughout 
  the 
  country, 
  call 
  for 
  this 
  publication 
  at 
  the 
  

   present 
  time. 
  

  

  In 
  arranging 
  the 
  scheme 
  of 
  linguistic 
  families 
  the 
  author 
  has 
  pro- 
  

   ceeded 
  very 
  conservatively. 
  Again 
  and 
  again 
  languages 
  have 
  been 
  

   thrown 
  together 
  as 
  constituting 
  one 
  family 
  and 
  afterwards 
  have 
  been 
  

   separated, 
  while 
  other 
  languages 
  at 
  first 
  deemed 
  unrelated 
  have 
  

   ultimately 
  been 
  combined 
  in 
  one 
  stock. 
  Notwithstanding 
  all 
  this 
  

   care, 
  there 
  remain 
  a 
  number 
  of 
  doubtful 
  cases. 
  For 
  example, 
  Busch- 
  

   mann 
  has 
  thrown 
  the 
  Shoshonean 
  and 
  Nahuatlan 
  families 
  into 
  one. 
  

   Now 
  the 
  Shoshonean 
  languages 
  are 
  those 
  best 
  known 
  to 
  the 
  author, 
  

   and 
  with 
  some 
  of 
  them 
  he 
  has 
  a 
  tolerable 
  speaking 
  acquaintance. 
  

   The 
  evidence 
  brought 
  forward 
  by 
  Buschmann 
  and 
  others 
  seems 
  to 
  

   be 
  doubtful. 
  A 
  part 
  is 
  derived 
  from 
  jargon 
  words, 
  another 
  part 
  

   from 
  adventitious 
  similarities, 
  while 
  some 
  facts 
  seem 
  to 
  give 
  war- 
  

   rant 
  to 
  the 
  conclusion 
  that 
  they 
  should 
  be 
  considered 
  as 
  one 
  stock, 
  

   but 
  the 
  author 
  prefers, 
  under 
  the 
  present 
  state 
  of 
  knowledge, 
  to 
  hold 
  

   them 
  apart 
  and 
  await 
  further 
  evidence, 
  being 
  inclined 
  to 
  the 
  opinion 
  

   that 
  the 
  peoples 
  speaking 
  these 
  languages 
  have 
  borrowed 
  some 
  part 
  

   of 
  their 
  vocabularies 
  from 
  one 
  another. 
  

  

  After 
  considering 
  the 
  subject 
  with 
  such 
  materials 
  as 
  are 
  on 
  hand, 
  

   this 
  general 
  conclusion 
  has 
  been 
  reached: 
  That 
  borrowed 
  materials 
  

   exist 
  in 
  all 
  the 
  languages; 
  and 
  that 
  some 
  of 
  these 
  borrowed 
  materials 
  

   can 
  1 
  >e 
  traced 
  to 
  original 
  sources, 
  while 
  the 
  larger 
  part 
  of 
  such 
  acquisi- 
  

   tions 
  can 
  not 
  be 
  thus 
  relegated 
  to 
  known 
  families. 
  In 
  fact, 
  it 
  is 
  be- 
  

   lieved 
  that 
  the 
  existing 
  languages, 
  great 
  in 
  number 
  though 
  they 
  are. 
  

   give 
  evidence 
  of 
  a 
  more 
  primitive 
  condition, 
  when 
  a 
  far 
  greater 
  num- 
  

   ber 
  were 
  spoken. 
  When 
  there 
  are 
  two 
  or 
  more 
  languages 
  of 
  the 
  same 
  

   stock, 
  it 
  appears 
  that 
  this 
  differentiation 
  into 
  diverse 
  tongues 
  is 
  due 
  

   mainly 
  to 
  the 
  absorption 
  ( 
  >f 
  < 
  it 
  her 
  material, 
  and 
  that 
  thus 
  the 
  multipli- 
  

   cation 
  of 
  dialects 
  and 
  languages 
  of 
  the 
  same 
  group 
  furnishes 
  evidence 
  

   that 
  at 
  some 
  prior 
  time 
  there 
  existed 
  other 
  languages 
  which 
  are 
  now 
  

   lost 
  except 
  as 
  they 
  are 
  partially 
  preserved 
  in 
  the 
  divergent 
  elements 
  

   of 
  the 
  group. 
  The 
  conclusion 
  which 
  has 
  been 
  reached, 
  therefore, 
  does 
  

  

  