44 
The words are much less hand- 
some than the monumental glyphs; 
they are also uncouth glyphs in rows 
formed by irregular or flexuous hea- 
vy strokes, inclosing within in small 
strokes, nearly the same letters as 
in the monuments. It might not be 
impossible to decypher some of these 
manuscripts written on metl paper: 
since they are written in languages 
yet spoken, and the writing was un- 
derstood in Central America, as late 
as 200 years ago. If this is done it 
will be the best clue to the monu- 
mental inscriptions. 
C. S. Ravines que. 
Philadelphia , February , 1832. 
Note. — While this letter is going 
to press, we hear of the death of the 
learned Champollion, a great loss to 
sciences and erudition. The 3 let- 
ters directed to him were written in 
January, February and March of 
this year, while his career of useful- 
ness was yet unimpaired; but they 
were as much intended for the learn- 
ed all over the world, as for himself, 
and therefore were printed instead 
of being sent. The third which is 
to appear in the next' number, will 
however be inscribed to Klaproth as 
a substitute. 
We have lately heard that the 1st 
number of 3 excursions to Mitla and 
Falenque, performed in 1805 to 
1807, by Capt. Depaix, has lately 
been published in Paris under the 
title of Mexican Antiquities; but it 
has not reached us. 
3. Primitive Origin of the En- 
glish Language. 
The best work on the philosophy 
and affinities of the English lan- 
guage is at present, the Introduction 
by Noah Webster, to his great Dic- 
tionary. Yet although he has taken 
enlarged views of the subject, and 
by far surpassed every predecessor, 
he has left much to do to those fu- 
ture philologists and philosophers 
who may be inclined to pursue the 
subject still further: not having 
traced the English language to its 
primitive sources, nor through all its 
variations and anomalies. 
Rut no very speedy addition to 
this knowledge is likely to be pro- 
duced, since Mr. Webster has stated 
in a letter inserted in the Genesee 
Farmer of March 1832, (written to 
vindicate some of his improvements 
in Orthography) that no one has been 
found in America nor England able 
to review his introduction ! although 
many have been applied to ! But I 
was not one of those; few knowing 
of my immense researches in lan- 
guages, I was not consulted, else I 
could have done ample justice to the 
subject and Mr. W ebster. 
It is not now a review of his la- 
bours that I undertake, but merely 
an enquiry into the primitive origin 
of our language, extracted from my 
manuscript philosophy of the En- 
glish, French and Italian languages 
compared with all the other langua- 
ges or dialects of the whole world, 
not less than 3000 in number! 
The modern English has really 
only one immediate parent. The Old 
English , such as it was spoken and 
written in England between the 
years 1000 and 1500, lasting about 
500 years,- which is the usual dura- 
tion of fluctuating languages. Our 
actual English is a natural deviation 
or dialect of it, begun between 1“475 
and 1525, and gradually improved 
and polished under two different 
forms, the written English and the 
spoken English, which are as differ- 
ent from each other as the English 
from the French. These two forms 
have received great accession, by 
the increase of knowledge and bor- 
rowing from many akin languages, 
words unknown to the Old English. 
They are both subject yet to fluctu- 
ations of orthography and pronun- 
ciation, which gradually modify 
them again. 
The Old English existed probably 
also under these two forms, and had 
several contemporaneous dialects, 
as the modern English, of which the 
Yorkshire and Scotch dialects are 
most striking in Europe, while the 
