290 
grammatical construction, or idiom, as well as of root 
words. 
The faintest of these affinities, perhaps (as might naturally 
have been expected), is that existing between the Aryan and 
American families of language. That there are Sanskrit roots 
in some of the latter is beyond all dispute. Take (e. g.) the 
Quichua, or ancient language of Peru, in which the sun is 
called inti, reminding us of the Sanskrit indre. Love is 
called munay, reminding us of the Sanskrit many a) and 
great is called veypul , reminding us of the Sanskrit vipulo. 
In the Chayma language, also, we find az, to be, reminding us 
of the Sanskrit asmi , I am. And in the Yucatan language we 
have the numeral one, which comes from the Latin unus , 
evidently reproduced in the word hun. Nor must we omit to 
notice that whereas vdri in the Sanskrit means water, there 
is an American root word called par , which in Quichua takes 
the shape of para , for rain; and in the Caribbean and 
Brazilian tongue, the shape of parana , for sea. But, not- 
withstanding such analogies in the vocabularies of the Old 
and New World, the idioms and constructions in each are 
very dissimilar, so that any argument for direct affinity 
between them becomes weakened. One interesting simi- 
larity of idiom, however, may be noted. In Chayma they 
reckon the year by the rains of winter ; “ so many years ” 
being expressed by the idiom, “ so many rains,” which is the 
case in Sanskrit. It is possible that further researches may 
discover other such analogies, every addition to which would 
be a fresh link in the chain of evidence. 
A consideration of another analogy which the American 
languages present to those of the Old World will bring us to 
the ancient JEuskaldune, or Iberian , spoken in Spain before 
the migration of the Kelts into Europe. This, however 
(unlike the former), unites the Old World with the New 
more through certain peculiar characteristics of grammatical 
construction than through roots common to their various 
vocabularies. It is well known that the American tongues 
are extremely agglutinate, compounding many words by 
mutilation into one aggregate word of great length. The 
same characteristic is traced in the modern Basque, which is 
a direct descendant from the Euskaldune. Again, the 
location of thoughts in these agglutinate words is the same. 
Thus in Chayma, instead of saying, as we should, “ I do not 
know,” they would say, “ Not knowing, I am.” Exactly 
the same sort of inversion takes place in the Basque. For 
example, instead of saying “ I love him,” it would say, “ I 
loving, have him.” Again, the sound of / is wanting in most 
