fPECK) A MOHEGAN-PEQUOT DIARY 215 



with the Delaware and Mahican-Wappmger, both m speech and in 

 habits, than with the Wabanaki. Doctor Michelson, referring to 

 dialect, assents to this probability in his painstaking study of 

 Algonkian languages. He says: "Pequot and Mohican (Mahican) 

 are not closely related, though . . . Mohican is more closely related 

 to Pecjuot than it is to Delaware-Munsee," ' and adds orally, "as 

 will be elaborated later." 



His conclusion in reference to Natick and Pequot is based largely 

 upon phonetic values and upon his analysis of the pronominal 

 features. There is an additional dialectic mark which is worth con- 

 sideration as bearing upon the point. 



The locatives in -t and -g in Mohegau-Pequot show that it coin- 

 cides in this particular respect with the Wappinger-Mahican division 

 on the west rather than with the Massachusetts-Narragansett on the 

 east. The peculiarity is exhibited in many place names throughout 

 central and western Connecticut to the Hudson River ending in -k 

 or-g, while eastward in Rhode Island and Massachusetts the place 

 names, manj' of them dialectic cognates with the Connecticut terms, 

 end in locative -t. 



A small vocabulary in De Forest's History of the Indians of Connec- 

 ticut provides a little comparative material from the Naugatuck 

 language, spoken in western Connecticut on the Naugatuck River, 

 an eastern affluent of the Housatonic. These terms evidently rep- 

 resent the dialect of the Paugusset tribe and conform in several cases 

 to the phonetics {r in place of n, I, y) of the Wappmger-Mattabesec 

 as spoken at Scatticook. They, too, show a close analogy with 

 Mohegan-Pequot in lexicon, allowing for characteristic r equiva- 

 lents, and some differences in word usage from Massachusetts- 

 Narragansett, at least to the general extent that we are accustomed 

 to find in comparing dialects which conform to certain groupings. 

 Bear, Naugatuck awaususo, M.-P. awasus, contrasts with Massa- 

 chusetts mashq; man, Naugatuck rinh (rin), M.-P. i'n; woman, 

 Naugatuck wenih (winai), M.-P. imnais (denunciative); night, 

 Naugatuck toofka (misprint for tooplca) M.-P. dupka; fire, Naugatuck 

 TU uh tah, M.-P. yut. This all points a hint as to the intermediate 

 position of Mohegan-Pequot between its nearest relative, theMahican- 

 Wappinger, and Massachusetts-Narragansett. In consequence, not 

 forgetting, however, that our material covering other desirable points 

 is so meager, we may venture an indi-^ation on the chart of the 

 relationship. 



We are led to it, moreover, from a consideration of the dialectic 

 graduations toward the Delaware and Mahican-Wappinger divisions, 

 which link the Massachusetts and eastern Connecticut dialects with 

 the Hudson River dialects through the intermediate ?■ dialects 



' Miehelson, lutomational Journal of American Linguistics, vol. I, no. 1, pp. 56-57 (1917). 



