February 6, 1891.] 



SCIENCE. 



73 



them are found that they are supposed to have descended 

 from a eomniou ancestral speech. 



The evidence of cognation is derived exclusively from the 

 vocabulary. Grammatic similarities are not supposed to 

 furnish evidence of cognation, but to be phenomena, in part 

 relating to stage of culture, and in part adventitious. It must 

 be remembered that extreme peculiarities of grammar, like the 

 vocalic mutations of the Hebrew or the monosyllabic separa- 

 tion of the Cliiuese, have not been discovered among Indian 

 tongues. It therefore becomes necessary, in the classification 

 of Indian languages into families, to neglect grammatic struc- 

 ture, and to consider lexical elements only. But this state- 

 ment must be clearly understood. It is postulated that in 

 the growth of languages new words are formed by combina- 

 tion, and that these new words change by attrition to secure 

 economy of utterance, and also by assimilation (analogy) 

 for economy of thought. In the comparison of languages 

 for the purposes of systematic philology it often becomes 

 necessary to dismember compounded words for the purpose 

 of comparing the more primitive forms thus obtained. The 

 paradigmatic words cansidered in grammatic treatises may 

 often be the very words which should be dissected to discover 

 in their elements primary affinities; but the comparison is 

 still lexic, not grammatic. 



A lexic comparison is between vocal elements : a gram- 

 matic comparison is between grammatic methods, such, for 

 example, as gender systems. The classes into which things 

 are relegated by distinction of gender may be animate and 

 inanimate, and the animate may subsequently be divided 

 into male and female, and these two classes may ultimately 

 absorb, in part at least, inanimate things. The growth of a 

 system of genders may take another course. The animate 

 and inanimate may be subdivided into the standing, the sit- 

 ting, and the lying, or into the moving, the erect, and the 

 reclined ; or, still further, the superposed classiScation may 

 be based upon the supposed constitution of things, as the 

 fleshy, the woody, the rocky, the earthy, the watery. Thus 

 the number of genders may increase, while farther on in the 

 history of a language the genders may decrease so as almost 

 to disappear. All of these characteristics are in part adven- 

 titious ; out to a large extent the gender is a phenomenon of 

 growth, indicating the stage to which the language has 

 attained. A proper case system may not have been 

 established in a language by the fixing of case particles, or, 

 having been established, it may change by the increase or 

 diminution of the number of cases. A tense system also has 

 a beginning, a growth, and a decadence. A mode system 

 is variable in the various stages of the history of a language. 

 In like manner a pronominal system undergoes changes. 

 Particles may be prefixed, infixed, or affixed in compounded 

 words, and which one of these methods will finally prevail 

 can be determined only in the later stage of growth. All of 

 these things are held to belong to the grammar of a language, 

 and to be grammatic methods distinct from lexic elements. 



With terms thus defined, languages are supposed to be 

 cognate when fundamental similarities are discovered in 

 their lexic elements. When the members of a family of 

 languages are to be classed in subdivisions and the history 

 of such languages investigated, grammatic characteristics 

 become of primary importance. The words of a language 

 change by the methods described, but the fundamental 

 elements or roots are more enduring. Grammatic methods 

 also change, perhaps even more rapidly than words; and 

 the changes may go on to such an extent that primitive 

 methods are entirely lost, there being no radical grammatic 



elements to be preserved. Grammatic structure is but a 

 phase or accident of growth, and not a primordial element 

 of language. The roots of a language are its most perma- 

 nent characteristics; and while the words which are formed 

 from them may change so as to obscure their elements, or in 

 some cases even to lose them, it seems that they are never 

 lost from all, but can be recovered in large part. The gram- 

 matic structure or plan of a language is forever changing, 

 and in this respect the language may become entirely trans- 

 formed. 



Below is a list of the fifty-eight families, alphabetically 

 arranged, with a general statement of the habitat of each. 

 Most of the names contained in the list need no explanation, 

 as they are familiar to linguistic students, having appeared 

 years ago in the writings of Gallatin, Latham, Prichard, 

 Scouler, Turner, and others. Several of the names are new. 

 Thus, the name "Chumashan" is applied to the group of 

 languages hitherto generally known under the term "Santa 

 Barbara," and includes the dialects formerly spoken at the 

 several missions along the Santa Barbara Channel, California, 

 and is derived from the name of the Santa Rosa Island tribe. 

 This language is now spoken by a score or more of Indians. 



The Esselenian family applies to the language of a tribe, 

 possibly a small group of tribes, on and south of Monterey 

 Bay. Until recently the language has been supposed to be- 

 long to the Moquelumnan family, but is now believed to 

 represent a distinct group. The family name is derived 

 from the name of the Esselen tribe. The language is now 

 practically extinct, but a short vocabulary was collected by 

 Mr. Henshaw in 1888. 



The Yanan family includes one language only, that of the 

 tribe called by Powers, Gatschet, and others, " Nozi " or 

 " Noces." The word means " people" in their own language. 



List of Families. 



Adaizan. — On Red River, Texas. 



Algonquian. — Of the North Atlantic seaboard, and west 

 through the Northern States, Lake region, and Canada, 

 to the Rocky Mountains. 



Athapascan. — Of the interior of British America; isolated 

 communities on the Columbia River, Oregon, Califor- 

 nia, Arizona, and New Mexico. 



Attacapan. — Area on Texas coast. 



Beothukan. — Portion of Newfoundland. 



Caddoan. — Of northern Nebraska, western Arkansas, south- 

 ern Indian Territory, western Louisiana, and northern 

 Texas. 



Chimakuan. — Of part of the southern shore of Puget Sound. 



Chimarikan. — On New and Trinity Rivers, northern Cali- 

 fornia. 



Chimmesyan. — The region of Nasse and Skeena Rivers, 

 west coast British Columbia. 



Chinookan. — Banks of the Columbia River as far up as the 

 Dalles. 



Chitimachan. — About Lake Barataria, southern Louisiana. 



Chumashan. — Coast of California from about the 34th 

 parallel to a little north of the 35th. 



Coahuiltecan. — Of south-western Texas and north-eastern 

 Mexico. 



Copehan. — ■ West of the Sacramento as far north as Mount 

 Shasta, California. 



Costanoan. — Coast of California from the Golden Gate 

 south to Monterey Bay. 



Eskimauan. — East and west coasts of Greenland; coast of 

 Labrador as far south as Hamilton Inlet; and the Arc- 



