291 
of the American tongues. So in the Basque. Finally, in 
both there is a strong dislike to any immediate joining of 
mute and liquid consonants. These analogous characteristics 
are very striking, and naturally lead us to the supposition that 
the languages at some remote period, since which their 
vocabularies have been changed, were derived from the same 
parent stock. In confirmation of this, relationship, a few of 
their common root words may be noted. Thus in Basque we 
have for sun egusquicc, which might easily have sounded like 
the word, in Choctaw, huslike. For hand, es-cua ; in Chilian, 
cue. Compare gua , in Ottomi, for foot. For I, nic or nik ; 
in the Chinook tribe of Columbia, naik ; and in another of the 
Columbian tribes, innik. Further researches into this branch 
of the subject seem to me to be peculiarly desirable, and 
would tend, I have no doubt, in a very helpful manner to 
strengthen the force of this most interesting argument. 
Let us now look at the Semitic family of languages, which 
is certainly represented in those of America. A valuable 
paper* in the Transactions of the American Ethnological 
Society tells us that in all the languages of that continent 
which have been investigated “ the Possessive pronouns 
united with the noun, and the Personal pronouns in both the 
nominative and oblique case united with the verb, form but 
one word.” Thus, “ my son,” “ thy father,” “ I love thee,” 
“he sends him,” are each represented in the American 
languages by simple words. How this construction, it is well 
known, marks the Hebrew and other Semitic languages. So 
far, then, the connection is direct and plain. Nor is it 
without companionship in regard to vocabularies. For ex- 
ample, — sun, which in the Pareni language is camosi , in 
Phoenician is chemosh ; tree, which in Choctaw is itte , is in 
Hebrew aits ; the verb to fetch, which in Algonkin, is naten , 
is in Hebrew identically the same. 
If we pass to the Mongolian family of languages, we shall 
come upon even clearer affinities than these; not so much, 
however, from grammatical as from widely spread verbal 
relationships, far too numerous to specify in this place. Take 
the word man as a first example. On the Mongolian side we 
have Kamboja, mans ; Chinese, nan; and Samoyede, ninec ; 
among all of which we observe a marked repetition of the 
root nan } or nin. So on the American side. Thus in 
Algonkin we have nenao ; Athapaska dim ; Chippeway, 
inini ; Iroquois, nenekin ; Blackfeet, ninao ; Huastica, inic ; 
Quichua, nineiC ; Ottomi, nanye ke. Take the various re- 
* By M. GallatiD. 
