Division f G 1 Section .039 THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA ORIGIN OF THE AZTECS AND KINDRED TRIBES SHOWING THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO THE INDO-IRANIANS AND THE PLACE OF THE NAUATL OR MEXICAN IN THE ARYAN GROUP OF LANGUAGES v/ BY T. S. DENISON CHICAGO T. S. DENISON, PUBLISHER 163 RANDOLPH ST. Copyright, 1908 By T. S. Denison DEDICATION Tetech nic-poa inin amoxtli in notechicniuh, Oliver P. Kinsey, mimatini temachtiani, Uei Nemachtilocalco (Uni- versity), Valparaiso, Indiana, United States of America In Tlatolicuiloani CONTENTS PAGE Introduction 7 Chapter I 15 Importance of Indian languages. — Various learned opin- ions. — The numeral “Six.” — The Mexican language — Age, affinities, origin. — Place of Mexican in the Aryan group. — Kinship of languages shown. Chapter II 22 Methods of working. — Ancient forms — Cow — Sheep. — Consonantal equivalence and vowel genesis. — Meanings, their importance. Chapter III 26 Roots — General definition. — Cow, bite, dog, sweat, elbow, ox. — Indra. — Analysis. Chapter IV 31 Roots. — Dictionaries. — What is a root? — Differentiation. — Different values of same root — Kul (kar)— Chichi. — Quetz- alcoatl. Chapter V 38 Morphology of Mexican — Compounds, terminations, “liz- tli,” the honorific “tzin.” — Postpositives — L and r.— Clipped words. Chapter VI 47 Mexican word-studies — Tlani, Quechtli, Tzontli, Xauani, Ualyolcatl, Pixquitl, Tlacatecolotl, Metztli. Tezcatl ipoca, Youalehecatl, Quauh-chimalli, Ozomatli. Mexico. Chapter VII 56 Mexican syntax — The prepositive objective pronoun — sequence in sentence- — Age, syntax as evidence of, connec- tives— Coalescing pronouns — Conjugation — Desinences. Chapter VIII 64 The pronoun “tla.” — “In,” its use and history. — Gram- matical gender — “Animate” and “inanimate.” — Dialects. — Thought forms and style. Chapter IX 71 Individuality of languages. — Inflection. — Accent and rhythmic swing. — Repute and disrepute of words. — An- cient versus modern syntax. 5 6 THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA Chapter X Classification of languages as to thought form. — Incor- poration-Agglutination — Monosyllabism — Inflection. — Conjugation of “speak” in five languages. — Reflections on the probable unity of human speech. — Persistence. — Pho- netic changes. Chapter XI Phonology.— General remarks. — Vowels. — Dentals. — Gut- turals (the kg-q and kq-s sound shifts). — Vocalic conso- nants. — The place of Mexican. — Labials. — Line of descent and assimilation. — The saltillo. — Accent. Chapter XII Notation — The five base — Chica ce, 6. — Ten — The fifteen base. — System Aryan. — Hand counting.— Antiquity. Chapter XIII History and geographical extension of Mexican.— Tribes — Ruins — Population.— Native records and historians. Chapter XIV Origin of the Nauatlaca. — Evidences of language. — Uitzil- opochtli. — Oriental affinities. — Mythology. — Pre-Colum- bian discoveries. Chapter XV Origin of the Nauatlaca. — Historical evidences — The migration — “Chichi” — The Tlacochcalca — Meaning of Aztec. — The Aztlan myth and synonyms of Aztlan. Chapter XVI Aztlan legend — Climate — The “ten” places of the “mi- gration.” — Specific appellations. — Culture names. — Spell- ing of names. — Geographical and mythological names common to Mexico and Asia. Chapter XVII Religion and mythology of the Nahua compared with that of Asia. — General remarks. — Religion of the Nahua com- posite. — Human sacrifice.— Fire-worship.— The blood sac- rifice. — Izcalli, the resurrection. — The unleavened bread. — Winter solstice festival. — Rites of Mitbra. — The descent into hell. — Aztec future states.— Nudity rites. — Immacu- late conception. — The cross. — Prophecies of a Savior. — Confessional and absolution. — Baptism. — Births — Mar- riage-Burial. — List of deities common to America and Asia. Chapter XVIII Civilization not indigenous. — The home land. — Learning and arts. — Domestic life. — Ethics. — Economics and gov- ernment. — Cannibalism. — Nahua disposition and courage. Influence of superstition on the conquest. Index PAGE 77 91 101 108 114 123 134 151 163 183 INTRODUCTION The inertia of the human mind is a constant source of wonder to thinking people. Everyone can easily recog- nize a discovery after it has been made and thrust upon him by a tour de force, while very few even suspected it before. The question: Does a relationship exist between the languages of the New World and those of the Old World has been mooted for the past one hundred years. Professor Yater of Germany and Dr. Barton of Philadel- phia made extensive researches in this direction with little or no success. Even Alexander von Humboldt himself, had his attention attracted to the Mexican word teocalli, a temple, and noticed its striking similarity to “theou kali£,” Greek, “the house of God.” But, apparently, Humboldt abandoned etymology and instead tried to identify Mexican chronological nomenclature with the zodiac and calendars of the various peoples of Asia, with indifferent results. Alonzo de Molina, who published his great Nauatl-Spanish “ Vocabulario” in the City of Mexico in 1555, must have understood Latin as well as he under- stood Spanish. But he passed by such words as Mexican paid - li and Latin pout- is, without noticing their similarity, at least his Dictionary is silent on the subject. But com- parative philology was unknown in his day. Three hundred and twenty years later Remi Simeon wrote his magnificent Nauatl-French Dictionary, based on Molina. It is a monument of scholarship and would be a credit to any language. This and other like work occu- pied him twenty years more or less, and yet he contents himself with suggesting, and this at second hand, a com- 7 8 THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA parison between the Mexican verb mnti, to think, and the Sanskrit man meaning the same. Other eminent philolo- gists contented themselves with mere dicta on the subject of the relationship of the languages of the American Indians to the languages of the Old World, some of them to the effect that such relationship would never be shown. About 17GG there was published an essay by Maupertuis, a French scholar, to the effect that the serious study of barbarous tongues would result profitably in adding to the stock of human knowledge and in extending our concep- tions of thought forms. Max Muller expressed himself to the same effect, but for some reason nobody seriously undertook the labor. Yes, one man, Don Vincente Lopez, of Montevideo, did go about it seriously and made some comparison of Quichua (Peruvian) with the Aryan lan- guages. As I had never heard of his book until my own was well under way, and since I have been unable to find a copy of his work entitled “ Les Races Ary^nnes de la P6rou,” I cannot speak of its character more than I have already said. These preliminary remarks are not made with the pur- pose of magnifying my own work or of disparaging the work of my predecessors, but to illustrate the inertia of the human intellect, already alluded to, and the difficulty wdth which mankind is finally persuaded in a new direction although the way be perfectly obvious. That I engaged in this work I owe to the attack of a painful and lingering disease. Furthermore, I should acknowledge here that everything save health favored my work, acquired linguis- tic knowledge, leisure, inclination. Beyond all these, I began on precisely the right language, as I believe. Had I begun on Algonquin or Tupi my work in all probability would never have been finished. In fact it is not yet THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA 9 complete. Works on philology can be finished only by printing them. I did not undertake this work with any preconceived theory. In fact for more than a year I had no other motive than the love of learning languages outside the Aryan group. I was not looking for “lost tribes” nor seeking to restore vanished continents. I belonged to no “school” of philology, ethnology, or archaeology. For me there were no dogmas or creeds, no historical or scien- tific hypotheses of any sort whatsoever, either to bolster up or to tear down. For these sins of omission I pay the penalty of being classed as an “amateur,” but since this innocent word really means one who loves his work I am willing to accept it. I shall undoubtedly be accused of rashness in suggest- ing daring derivations where greater scholars have been cautious. But this was not the place for hair-splitting discussion of cognates or vowel genesis. Where others have held back I have boldly entered, not from temerity and presumption but from necessity. He who would sail uncharted waters must take chances. Many tentative derivations and hypotheses were found to be wrong and cast aside. It was nearly three years and a half before I could positively derive xiuitl, grass, year. I have tried at all times to distinguish clearly between fact and theory. Doubtless I have retained some things as final which may eventually be found wrong. I am but a pioneer and others may improve my work. But I await intelligent criticism with calmness because my main proposition is unassailable, and it is this: The Mexican language is Aryan in vocabulary and in verb conjugation. Its post- positive system suggests Turanian ( Accadian) kinship, but it is analogous to that of the Indo-Iranian dialects 10 THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA descended from Old Aryan. In antiquity Mexican appears to lie between Sanskrit and Greek as indicated by both vowels and consonants. Mexican mythology partakes of the Aryan, Turanian, and Semitic. I believe that all the American languages may be traced directly to the Old World, though I do not say they are all Aryan. I will give here a single word as an example to illustrate more fully this general statement. Vig, Sanskrit, to go in, settle; vega, a house; ?; The number of Indian languages Las been variously estimated: Adelung, 1,264; Ludevig, 1,106; Squier, 400. The American Bureau of Ethnology estimates the number of groups or families at 100. 2 Encyclopaedia Britannica , article “Philology.” 4 Encyclopaedia Britannica , article “Indians.” THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA 17 like opinion regarding the affinities of the Indo-Enropean group. Max Muller says: “To attempt at present to trace them [the American languages] to a Jewish, Chinese, Phoenician, or Celtic source is simply labor lost and outside the pale of real science.” 1 Professor Theodore Noldeke of the University of Strassburg remarks: “It must be remembered that it is only in exceptionally favorable circumstances that cognate languages are so preserved during long periods as to render it possible for scientific analysis to prove their relationship with one another .” 2 I think he puts the case too strongly, and the isolation of the American languages has furnished exactly the conditions described by the professor as exceptional, but philologists have ignored these conditions and confined themselves to dogmatic assertions not warranted by their knowledge of New World tongues , 3 and this while their profound studies of Old World tongues deserved the greatest praise and excited the admiration of scholars in all departments of learning. Professor Noldeke cites the numeral six as an example of a deceptive root which may lead the incompetent or rash philologist astray by its close resemblance in several languages which cross families, that is, belong to groups but little related according to accepted classifications. Thus: Hebrew, shesh ; Sanskrit, shush ; Modern Persian, shush. Professor Noldeke says the Indo-European root is swelcs or ksweks, while the Semitic root is shidth, which he asserts to be a wholly different root. By pure analysis and reasoning, it would perhaps be equally impossible to l Science of Language, Vol. I, p. 452. 2 Encyclopaedia Britannica, article “ Semitic Languages.” 3 “ In Tartary, 4,000 years really makes no changes in words,” Joseph Edkins, Congress Orientalists , 1893, Vol. II, p. 670. 18 THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA establish his proposition or to disprove it. But in lan- guage, one living, virile expression or phrase upsets a chapter of theory, and the cases of absolute identity of form in such comparisons are so rare as to cut no figure, and would lead no real investigator astray. Professor Noldeke might have added the Mexican chica, a possible *kiks but not in fact, which is the increment sign between five and ten. Thus, macuilli, a “hand grasp,” five, but six is chica ce , that is, simply “ plus one,” five being understood. Chica is the Sanskrit adhika, plus or re- dundant, thus ashtddhikanavati is literally 90 + 8. With adhikanavati, compare Mexican chica naui , nine. But finally, Professor Noldeke’s *kswelcs might, I think, be Semitic shidth, the sibilant descending from a guttural which is regular and common, and the dentals from palatal k which is not so likely. 1 In spite of all these opinions from really learned men whom I greatly respect, I insist that analysis and com- parison are better than theory. I may add here that stray waifs of a universal language may be found every- where. If this happened but a few times it might be attributed to coincidence, but it continually happens. (See footnote, p. 88, on Khassi.) The Mexican language. — The old distinctions, Indo- European, Semitic, Turanian, acquire a local significance when there is introduced to the world a language older than Sanskrit, and to all appearances, much like Zend of 3000 B. c. The Mexican language, better known to philologists as Nauatl (Nahuatl), is, in vocabulary pure Aryan. 2 It probably had its origin in the highlands of East Iran, the country of the Elamites, thus its primal 1 K and t are interchangeable, Grammar of Awabakal , by L. E. Threlkeld. 2 If there be such a thing as pure Aryan. Over 40 per cent, of Greek is unassignable (Rendall). The same may be said of Latin. THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA 19 seat was the Pamir country, “the Koof of the World.” I shall not go into the origin of the Aryans here, but proceed directly to the specific matter in hand. Mexican is Aryan in its verb conjugation. Its pronominal system resembles Semitic with respect to the agglutination of pronouns, the conjugations are rudimentary Aryan, and the prepositive pronouns suggest Accadian (Turanian). While Mexican, in its vocabulary, is Aryan, some of its words appear to be found in Assyrian and some of its very oldest forms may be Accadian, while there are others in Pukhto which may be non-Aryan. It is of course possible that the Semites borrowed freely from the Ac- cadians, who in turn may have borrowed from the con- quering Semites. At any rate the two languages were both for a long time in use in Babylonia side by side, as is evident from the numerous bi-lingual inscriptions. Very much yet remains uncertain concerning Accadian, or, as it is latterly called, Sumerian. 1 In fact, so eminent an authority as Professor Friedrich Delitzscli denied the existence 2 of Accadian, and ventured the opinion that it will prove eventually to be neither more nor less than a hieratic gloss of the popular Assyrian. It is not my purpose to engage in the Sumerian controversy, but when words and roots are found current today on the plains of Anahuac which were in use on the banks of the Indus or the Euphrates 3,000 years ago, the question is pregnant and becomes one of patient research. Mexican occupies an intermediate position between Sanskrit and Old Persian, and in “ thought-forms ” establishes its claim to great age which is further supported by historical and mythological references. i u The Accadians were the Highlanders of Western Asia beyond much doubt.” — A. H. Sayce, Assyrian Lectures , p. 17. 2 Assyrian Grammar , by F. Delitzsch, section 25. 20 THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA Place of Mexican in the Aryan group. — It will doubtless be said at once that language is no final test of race affinity. This is sometimes true, but I will add that language is almost the only thing which priests and politicians have never been able to affect seriously. The Mexican language is so primitive in vocabulary, structure, and “thought-forms,” that if it has been produced by contact or the mingling of races, or by conquest, the fact was accomplished at a very remote period. Its vowel system closely resembles the Avestan. Hence if the Aztecs were not Aryan in race originally, their absorp- tion by Aryans took place so long ago that for linguistic purposes we must call them Aryan. The postpositive system places Nauatl among the Pamir dialects, very primitive, and the modern Aryan languages of India, but the postpositive system is also Turanian . 1 I quote here, as a propos, a description of the Ainu of Japan. “The forehead is narrow and sharply sloped backward; the cheek bones are prominent; the nose is hooked, slightly flattened and broad, with wide strong nostrils; the skin is light reddish brown; eyes set straight in the head; hair for most part black and wavy; beard dark and handsome.” The Ainu are said to be Aryans . 2 Oust describes the Gialchas and the Dardui as pure Aryan stock and pre-Sanskritic. He thinks the Pamir region was the primitive seat of the Indo-Iranians/ Why not of all the Aryans (see “Geographical Names,” chap, xvi) ? But Forlong radically disputes the entire theory of Aryan influence in India, and maintains that Turanians ■For the formation of postpositives and agglutination, see Professor E W. Faye, American Journal of Philology. Nos. 60, 61. 2 The Nation. “ Notes,” Sept. 12, 1907, and note. p. 88, infra. 3 Robert N. Oust, Modern Languages of India, p. 32. THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA 21 have predominated in both language and civilization . 1 The question of color is also pertinent. Were there red Aryans? It is said on good authority, the Vedas, that the Kshattriya, warrior caste, were red, that they gave “the wisdom of India” to the white race, and that Buddha himself was a red man . 2 Their modern de- scendants are the Rajputs. The second Aztec “cycle” was the “Red Age.” “The primitive Aryans were of light color, reddish or brown rather than black,” says Mr. Widney . 3 Kinship of languages . — It is my purpose to support these preliminary statements with about five hundred words, more or less, in a comparative vocabulary, which I deem ample to establish the linguistic unity of the New World with the Old . 4 I do not pretend that the entire Mexican vocabulary may be derived from Old World languages. Doubtless there are words indigenous to the soil of America, and per contra , Aryan roots have been lost or so worn that direct proof of their origin is impos- sible and only analogy establishes their identity. I have examined about thirty languages in pursuing these studies, but shall attempt in this work to show the identity of but one American language, Mexican or Nauatl, with the eastern languages, though I am convinced that what I have done for the Mexican may eventually be done for Shoshone, Quichua, Tupi-Gtuarani, Maya, Algonquin, Dakota, Selish, and other American tongues. 1 J. G. R. Forlong, Short Studies in the Science of Comparative Religions , p. 248. 2 Charles Johnson, of the Bengal service retired, in a Letter to the Nation , August 20, 1908, concerning his translation of the Bhagavad Oita. Also Encyclo- paedia Britannica, Vol. XII, p. 782. 3 Race Life of Aryan Peoples , Vol. I, p. 27. * Physical infirmities have prevented the revisions necessary before publish- ing such a vocabulary. But ample proofs are found in my monograph Mexican in Aryan Phonology. CHAPTER II Method of Working. — Ancient Forms -Cow, Sheep — Conso- nantal Equivalence and Vowel Genesis — Meanings Any explanations of my method of research would be superfluous in the case of the trained philologist, but as this work is intended for general use among educated people, I may be excused for presenting here a few general directions for the guidance of the reader. First of all, let us remember that vowel mutation is very important, though the causes of change are not so easily traced as in consonant mutation which usually takes place under very definite principles of change. 1 Cow . — The Sanskrit root (jo (gau) means cotv. How small the change in 5,000 years. The Sanskrit g has advanced to k in English; the Greek is bous (bo); the Latin bos or vacca. The Mexican for cow is quaquaue (pronounced ka-k&-way). Note here a curious thing. The Aztecs had no cows. The animal, if known to them, could have been known only as the bison (bos bubalus), but their name for cow is doubtless a reduplication of the Sanskrit gau , or ga-ga, with e, a possessive ending. Now, how did they manage to retain this name for several thou- sand years intact, supposing that for a long time they were strangers to the animal? This may be explained if we assume a borrowed Assyrian root, though it is doubtful iln this connection read the phonetic mutations in chap, xi, “Phonol- ogy.” Vowel mutation takes place under well-known definite rules in the Aryan languages. I ask the reader who is not a linguist to accept my statements as authoritative. I refer the philologist to my Mexican in Aryan Phonology. Max Muller says every vowel in the languages of Europe is exactly what it ought to be. If he means according to rule the statement is too strong. 22 THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA 23 if such assumption be sound philology. The root ka once meant any projecting, prominent feature or object as a horn of a cow, a pole set in the ground, and even the human hand. The Accadians used it 5,000 years ago, and the Assyrians much later in the same sense. (See ka in Norris’ Assyrian Dictionary .) Hence, if no Aztec had seen a cow for thousands of years, it would be in keeping with the genius of his language, to resort to the old name. But I do not maintain that this actually hap- pened, since the stag was called mazatl instead of qua- quciae. In the Ioway language the root is cae ; to-cae, bull; cae-me, cow (bulfalo). Sheep. — I will cite here curious facts in the history of a word which is at once peculiarly instructive and histo- rically interesting. Under the article “Mexico” in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the author (E. B. Tylor), dis- cussing the ancient Aztecs, eulogizes their piety as exhib- ited in a prayer which he quotes. The worshiper calls the attention of his god, Tezcatlipoca, to his having sacrificed a sheep to the deity. The author concludes that the prayer had been tinged by Spanish influences because no such animal as the sheep was known to the ancient Mex- icans. Ichcatl, sheep, is chaga, goat, in Sanskrit; skeap, sheep, is Anglo-Saxon; schcif, German. The phonetic changes here are: root is *skag, Mexican *i-skag = ich- cac-tl. 1 The final c is dropped giving ichcatl. In Ger- manic final c becomes p, hence skeap. The prosthetic i is common in Zend and Iranian generally. Such vowels have been termed “irrational.” The only puzzling ques- tion is, why did the transfer of meaning take place from sheep to goat. Perhaps it was the Aryans of Asia who made the transfer to goat. At any rate the Mexicans 1 An asterisk preceding a word indicates a restored or hypothetical form. 24 THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA appear to have had a word for sheep always, and in the prayer alluded to, a wild sheep may have been meant, though it is not at all improbable that the prayer may have been altered by Spanish hands . 1 Remember, too, that the termination tl cuts no figure in the solution. I may add that there is another deriva- tion for ichcatl, which also means cotton ; Mr. Tylor derives it from ichtli, thread, and sheep is “thread thing,” which is phonetically impossible, as shown by the cognate tc-patl, thread, where the soft ch reverts to hard c, but ich - tli may be the same as Sanskrit ish- u, a string . 2 Consonantal affinity and vowel genesis . — The equiva- lence of consonants is perhaps at once the plainest and safest guide in making comparisons. To stray from this fixed principle is to err. There are some very strange exceptions, however, and the most notable perhaps of all is that by which an original g-k becomes t in one lan- guage and v, p, or f in another. For example, Sanskrit, eatur, four; Greek, t§ttares; Welsh, pedwar. But vowel mutation is also exigent and must not be disregarded. But this subject is fully discussed in chap, xi, “Phonology.” Meanings . — Meaning is fully as important for pur- poses of derivation as the proper genesis of letters, pos- sibly it is even more important sometimes. The only thing absolutely immortal is thought, and words are the 1 Encyclopaedia Brittanica , article “Mexico.” In fact the bones of Ovis Canadensis have been found in Arizona ruins ; Smithsonian Report , 1900-1, p. 27. 2 In this book I shall constantly refer to the Sanskrit. A reference to that language takes precedence over all others. But let it be understood once for all that I am not deriving Mexican words from the Sanskrit directly. The Sanskrit possibly possesses the most ancient literature to which we have access ; at any rate, it is very near the Mexican, and for that reason, takes precedence. If the reader neglects this cautkm, he may at times misconstrue my meaning. The same caution applies to all other languages. For example, should I associate, petla, to peddle, with English peddle, I mean simply that both may come from a com- mon pre-literary root, the connection to be proved by cognates or otherwise. THE PBIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA 25 long-enduring, almost indestructible symbols of thought. When one looks into a Sanskrit dictionary and finds that lubh, 4,000 years ago, meant love, as it does today, that bhcir meant bear, and gau meant cow, it is a matter of sur- prise that mere words may be imperishable. It is in fact almost certain that when the meanings of two words identical in form differ radically that they are in no way related. Even slang may teach us concerning language. The persistence of “thought-forms” is simply marvelous, and when words perish the same idea-mold will receive new words and the idiom appears to live forever. I remember having heard as a boy, among my native hills, the common expression “old rip,” used. I looked upon it as simply slang. I cannot prove descent but I believe in it. The expres- sion cast a mild sort of obloquy upon one not deemed bad enough to be designated as an out and out rogue. The Sanskrit root-word rip and its affiliated root Up mean cheat. Hence, to call a person a “rip” is really to call him a cheat and “give me none of your lip” is doubtless near akin to it, though appearing to have a very different origin. There is a deviation of meaning, however, which is allowable arising from figures of speech, where simile, metonomy, synecdoche, cause transfer meanings like sheep to goat, sister to daughter, or extensions like house to family and vice versa, but leave no doubt of the original signification, but even here, the careful philologist rejects all that appears doubtful. CHAPTER III Roots. — Cow, Bite, Dog, Sweat, Elbow, Ox, India — Analysis. Roots are the basis of philological research. Roots originally may have consisted of but two letters or even of but one. In Tupi, words frequently consist of a vowel, and e, for example, has nearly a score of meanings, which are differentiated by prefixes and affixes, and i is a root, to go, in Sanskrit. In Chinese many words appear to con- sist of but two letters, a consonant and a vowel; in fact some claim this to be a rule of Chinese. A compound consonant like ch or ts is counted as a single consonant. The most common form of Aryan roots appears to be: consonant + vowel + consonant, as vat, to know, reveal. But vane, totter, while appearing to be exception, is really a tri-literal root strengthened by n. The n does not appear in Latin where we have uac-illare, totter, Eng- lish mc-illate. Bear in mind this strengthening which occurs frequently in Sanskrit and Greek. This will explain the frequent disappearance of n in comparisons between Mexican and Sanskrit words. Thus man, to think, becomes ma-ti in Mexican, but retains the n in the Eng- lish word mind. Tupi roots, like e, may simply have lost their consonants. Sometimes what appears to be a simple root is really a compound or extension as Sanskrit yudh, to fight which = yu -f dhej Mexican, yao-chiua. Cow . — Very few words may be traced back wholly unmodified for any great period of time, but roots are of great antiquity. I have already mentioned the word gau, coio, as an example from the Sanskrit. But the Greeks 26 THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA 27 employed boil-s (bos). Why was this? Bou may be derived from gau by means of an intermediate parasitic v (gva), but bou may also have been an original root. In nyl-gau we have the root in a compound, “blue-cow.” Bite. — The investigator does not always find his work so easy, aa in the examples named, which are simple. Often but a small portion of a root can be traced in a word, or the whole is so transformed as to be unrecogniz- able. Sometimes only a single letter remains, and some obscure dialect proves the original. For example, German beissen, to bite, is in Mexican ouit- ic, bad, unfortunate, English, bitten; Sanskrit, bind. This was my first derivation, but I find that Forlong derives a word from an old root which appears to be pre-Aryan, bdd, bud, bhud, Tibetan bo and Chinese fo. He connects it with Sanskrit bhuta, from bhu, to be, exist, hence a created being and specifically an evil sj)irit, our English bogy. The word was Turanian and is the Russian Bog, god, Iranian Baga. He does not explain the intrusion of the guttural g. In Mexican b becomes u, hence ouitic bad, oui, dangerous, are more probably derived from bhu than from bhid. This root is wholly distinct from Buddha the name of the Sage. 1 (See p. 152.) Dog. — The names cow, sheep, dog, are naturally among the oldest in any language and dog is especially ancient. In all probability, the dog was a companion of man at the very beginning of civilization. He was even a “sacred” animal. The oldest extant words for dog are formed round a A'-stem. The Sanskrit name is gvcm (? = k or sk) ; the Greek, kvcov-, the Latin, canis; the German, hund; the English is specialized in hound. By reference to the iCf. Mexican in Aryan Phonology, p. 15, and Forlong, Short Studies in the Science of Comparative Religions, pp. 234 ff. 28 THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA chapter “Phonology, gutturals, eastern and western,” it may be seen that Sanskrit k becomes h in Germanic tongues. This leaves the English word dog out of the dis- cussion, which will be confined to the original word with a k- stem. The Mexicans have two words for dog, chichi and itzcuintli or izcuintli. The latter is the usual Aryan word, but in Panjabi we find kutta. The compound consonant tz stands for an earlier s and the i is only a prosthetic glide very common in Zend, Old Persian, and Mexican; 1 tli is the termination which may always be ignored. Hence the original root may in prehistoric times have been slcun instead of kun. 2 The Sanskrit f has a unique value. Derived from an original k, this sound remains k in some tongues and becomes s or sh in others. My object here is twofold: first, to bring my methods of working, in a few examples, so clearly before the reader that he may learn to distinguish disguised forms ; second, to establish the fact that these words of extreme antiquity clearly show the Mexican to be in accord with other Indo- European tongues, or more explicitly an Aryan tongue. Sweat. — On the authority of competent scholars, the statement is made that all the Aryan peoples have the common word siveat, which might indicate that the race originated in a warm climate. The Sanskrit root is svid, Greek, 180? *api' 8 o<;, Latin, sudor, and, curiously enough, these American Aryans of Mexico have the verb itonia, to sweat. If we concede the decay of an introductory sv, then they would be in accord with the Old World mem- bers of the family in * svid-onia. This is analogous to t'So? *afi 8 o<;, but the root is probably tons. 1 See “ irrational vowels,” Mexican in Aryan Phonology , p. 11. 2 Later I find that the Snake dialect of Shdshone actually has what may have been an sk-form in sharay , dog, and in Clallam, a Puget Sound dialect, dog is sfca-ha. Compare skye- terrier. “Clallam differs materially from the other Puget Sound Selish tongues” (Gibbs). THE PKIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA 29 Elbow. — Two or more roots may be used as the base of a vocable, verb or noun. In Sanskrit and Mexican bare roots may be joined into compound words. The Mexican name for elbow is molictli or molicpitl. Mol- ictli = mol+ic-j-tl. Mol is the Aryan root mr in Sanskrit, to crush ; Latin, mol-a ; Greek, yv^-y, a mill ; Anglo-Saxon, meal, and mol-de, crushed earth. This root also meant “mill” in the sense of a fight as it does today. The root inkh (ik) means to move unsteadily (back and forth) in Sanskrit. Omitting n and h as explained, pp. 26, 97, we have Mexican ic, and molictli is “the mill mover,” in allu- sion to the movements, of the elbow in grinding on the ancient hand mill. Pill, may be derived from pid, to press upon, or possibly from pis which in itself means, to grind, crush, mill. Molictli may also be derived, per- haps more directly, from Avestan meregh, rub, wipe. Finally, as an “extended” root, molic-tli may be derived from mrj, to rub, to milk. These ideas are all closely akin. Ox. — The word ox originally meant bull, from Sanskrit uks or vaks, “the sprinkler.” A secondary form was uj or ug, to wet, from which we get the word hygrometer, an instrument to measure humidity; Latin, uvens, *ugvens coelum, the dripping sky; Gothic, auhsa, a bull, hence English, ox ; German, ochse. The old Aryans also em- ployed this word as embodying the idea of virility, power. The Mexican is oquichtli, male. It will be remarked that this latter word expands the root into two syllables, oq-ich (okish) , instead of the Sanskrit uks, and a similar strength- ening of roots also occurs in Zend. 1 Oquichtli in Mexican is the sign of the male gender as: oquich- mazatl, a buck; cihua-mazatl, a doe. 1 See Tolman, Old Persian Inscriptions. 30 THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA Indra, the name of a Vedic god, has never been satis- factorily derived. I offer the following solution. The Mexican particle in has practically the force of the article the. It is always independent or detachable in Mexican and had the same use in Old Persian . 1 Hence Indra may be analyzed: in-\-dra, “thedra.” It remains to find the special meaning of dra which does not concern us here. The Mexican god Tlaloc is certainly Indra, since in Sanskrit Indralokd means Indra’s place, that is, heaven. Tlaloc is plainly [in-]“tla-lok,” god of the Ter- restrial Paradise, the giver of rain, so was Indra, and patron of farmers. Tlaloc is no doubt a transfer meaning from place to lord of the place. Tlaloc was the only Mexican god who had a court ; the instrument of his ven- geance was the thunderbolt — all of which suggests Indra . 2 Analysis. — It is sometimes not easy to determine the root in long compound words such as occur in most Indian languages. For example notlazocniuhtze means “my be- loved and honored friend,” of which no is the pronoun my ; tlazo is clipped from tlazotla, love; icniuhtli, friend, be- comes, by elision of i and clipping off the termination tli, simply the mutilated fragment cniuh ; tzin, honorable, is reduced to tz which combines with e, the sign of the voca- tive case. Temachtiani, a teacher, is resolved into te, some one, mati, to think, which becomes machti in the dative form, and ani, a termination meaning “one who” (does). 1 See the phrase “ in Swindle,” p. 66. 2 The eight Tlalocs were beyond doubt the Vedic eight lokapalA “world protectors.” CHAPTER IY Dictionaries —What Is a Root? — Differentiation — Different Values of Same Root: — “Kul,” “Chichi,” “Quetzalcoatl.” To accomplish anything positive and definitive, philol- ogy should, to use a mining-phrase, reach bed-rock. That is in many cases manifestly impossible. But philol- ogy must dare or else forever remain a stationary science. Far be it from me to say aught in criticism of the illus- trious linguists who have gone before me and whose ripe scholarship in many cases far exceeds any acquirements of mine. I would not pluck a single leaf from their laurels. They laid the foundations for greater work, and it is for the future to utilize their labors, without which nothing could be done. It were invidious to select any particular names for mention from out this army of patient, persever- ing men who have prepared grammars and dictionaries of nearly all the known languages of the world, if not all of them in fact. The patient student who has at hand a magnificent library and behind him the prestige of a great university may, and often does erect a monument to scholarship. But he could accomplish nothing if he had not ready at hand the results of the pioneer’s work, crude as it often is. It is safe to say that philology owes more to religion and the Christian missionaries, from the learned Jesuit father to the humblest preacher, than to all other causes put together, but one thing is to be greatly regretted. The natural bias of the minds of these men and the oneness of the trend of their thoughts, diverted them from anything like applied science in the study of 31 32 THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA languages. They set down faithfully what they heard and saw, but they seldom illuminated it by a spark of reflec- tion. Our dictionaries are good, and constantly growing better, but what the world needs now is a great comparative dictionary, which shall include every word (of common use) in not less than twenty-five of the principal repre- sentative languages. No pretentious dictionary of the future should content itself with repeating parrot-like merely the Romance, Germanic, Sanskritic, and classic equivalents. They are so similar in form, in many cases, that their repetition is not worth the space consumed. French or Italian would answer for all Romance, and Ger- man for all northern languages, resorting to other dialects only for words not found in these. Roots should be given for common words in all these representative languages. The space wasted in superfluous detail under the present system would accommodate the full derivations for say 3,000 common words, a sufficiency for all practical pur- poses ; a number which in fact would cover the whole field. Such a dictionary would enable the comparative philologist to take up his work without the endless and onerous work of collecting materials. What is a root? But firstly, accurate scholarship must determine the roots of the world's languages as carefully as it has been done for the Aryan tongues. This will involve an enormous amount of careful research and patient labor. In fact we may not hope ever to be sure of all or even a moiety of the roots in primitive human speech. Language was at first doubtless a formless sort of thing, which perhaps may be compared to the jelly fish in the animal kingdom. In these remarks I have in mind only definite, formed human speech however crude it may have THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA 33 been, language with a considerable vocabulary and “thought-forms” of definite mold, sufficient to differ- entiate its vocables and prescribe its syntax. Eminent philologists hold to the opinion that a few hundred mono- syllabic roots would adequately include the primitive tongue, admitting for the sake of argument the unity of mankind.’ When is a vocable proved to be a root from the common or mother tongue ? When you can show identity or adduce collateral evidence from several languages widely separated in time and geographical distribution, it is safe to say that you have found such a root. If such proofs are lacking, the supposed root may be local. It is true there is much borrowing done between languages. But the Arab, for instance, has not had any opportunity to borrow from the Eskimo, not for some thousands of years at least. An identical root (phonetic changes considered) with practically the same meaning in both these languages would constitute presumptive evidence of its common origin. Such a work as I have described could be pre- pared only under the patronage of some great institution with sufficient stability and resources to carry it through to a finish. The results would surely justify the expen- diture of time and money. It is also true that two primitive peoples may occasion- ally have independently hit on the same word for the same thing. “ Kaw-kaw” might mean crow anywhere. Hence might spring a root, caw , to croak, to chatter, to mock, etc. This would be true of the small class of imitative or onomatopoetic words such as cacalin, a crow. The Mexican, chichi uaualoa, the dog barks, furnishes a fine example. Compare ha-ha , to laugh, perhaps once a guttural, kha- 1 Max Miiller, “ Rede Lecture,” Chips from a German Workshop. 34 THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA kha, with Sanskrit jask, to laugh, Mexican, uetzca, *ghatska, Latin, cac-c/u'-nare. Max Muller roughly estimates the number of original roots at 500. But some philologists discard entirely the idea of primitive roots. Professor Keane says: “Roots must be relegated to the ante-Cosmos.” 1 I cannot agree with him. Throughout the vast Aryan territory, from the Indus to Anahuac, we can, no matter under what guise or what dress of formative syllables, always trace a phonetic unit and that unit we call a root. Professor A. H. Sayce is of the opinion that the sentence is the unit in human speech. In a qualified sense, and applied to languages already developed, this may be true. It seems obvious that it could not have been true of the first crude begin- nings of articulate speech, unless we consider exclama- tions, such as hark, to be complete sentences. Differentiation of roots . — There must have been some confusion and overlapping of meanings in the primitive days when monosyllabic roots reinforced by signs and gestures constituted language. New meanings were needed and new vocables were necessary to piece out the limited capacity of existing roots. As we have seen, particles like er, ly, ty , were tacked on, while n became an infix, thus constituting words. 2 Finally, long, clumsy compounds were formed which embodied in themselves whole phrases or sentences like the Sanskrit: sakala- nitigastratattva jna, all - behavior - books - essence - knowing. Such phrases constituted adjectives or adverbs. In Quichua they are as formidable as in Sanskrit. Modern 1 A. H. Keane, Ethnology , p. 207 if. 2 Some philologists insist that in comparison both root and termination must rigidly agree. But this is straining a point. I think for practical pur- poses the terminations may be disregarded, as a rule. For example: * vu>v, Greek; cau-is, *kvanis, Latin ; hun-d, German; itzcuin-tli, Mexican. THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA 35 syntax reconstructs such clumsy locutions into subor- dinate clauses. The American languages are celebrated for long words consisting of anywhere from ten to twenty syllables. Nor are they an awkward jumble thrown together clumsily. They are dovetailed with nicety as a rule, though Mexi- can is at times a little cumbersome. They are built up from roots or words with precision and capable of a meaning at once extended but direct and pointed. But let us not be deceived by the amazing words constructed by missionaries and traders for the delectation and ad- miration of the unsophisticated. Wonderful things may be done in that way in German and modern Greek, and nothing could be much worse than some of our English words . 1 Indef&tigably is a pregnant example, a cacoph- onous word with a broken back, and its primary accent four syllables from the end. It is simply barbarous. The following word is given as a sample of one of the very longest words in the Mexican vocabulary, tzonte- quilicatlatquicaualtia. Translated in the same order as the original it is “ judgment- [give] -and-goods-restore- do.” “Give” has been inserted; it is not necessary in the Mexican. The whole means to render judgment for return of goods in an action in trover. O-an-quin- tlaecoltia is a complete sentence, “you them have obeyed.” But Mexican can be simple. Compare etl with English bean, and calpodi, tribe, with cosmopolitan, its cognate. Different values of the same root . — Any inquiry into the exact form of the most primitive roots of articulate 1 The following clipping exactly illustrates the case: “A young German matron once said: ‘Ach, how glad I am that my dear Fritz has been appointed Hauptkassenverwaltungsassistent ’—assistant cashier. ‘Now,’ she went on, ‘ in my title of Hauptkassenverwaltungsassistentin I boast five letters more than that proud Oberhofsteueramtsinspectorin’ — excise inspector’s wife — ‘can claim.’ ” — Philadelphia Press. 36 THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA speech would under the most competent hand be perhaps futile and mere speculation. For the sake of illustration assuming forms so elementary as lea, ale, ba, ab, pil, apil, leo, Icon, pa, pat, at, ap, mac, map, there is under the law of permutations, room for almost numberless changes of form as these bits of speech are tossed on the restless sea of human thought. The wonder is, that anything has been definitely fixed. It is to be kept in mind that language is purely arbitrary. There are many anomalies which defy logic and elude analysis. The Sanskrit demonstrative sas might become sa, euphonically, so; Greek, 6, rj ; Mexican ce, one ? In the oblique cases the word assumed a t-form, as tarn, tat, English that. The German lenabe, boy, may once have been lc e nabe; clan, *k e lan, from the Irish and Gaelic claim, appears to be at home in English as a terse, expressive root. I say it appears to be for the following reasons. Kid . — The old Aryan invaders of India clung to- gether closely, probably for three reasons, family pride, patriotism, and self-defense, since they were hated con- querors in the midst of a partially subdued alien race. In Sanskrit lcula meant swarm, family, kin, tribe. The Mexican says “incal in no-coZ-huan,” the house of my ancestors, literally, “my ancestors, their house.” The Scotchman is very clannish, even yet. When an indi- vidual of the genus “ sport ” meets a chum he may greet him as “cully,” and the other may in return greet his friend with the doubtful word “ pal.” Step by step these once honorable words have reached lower depths. The Scotch clan, *k e lan, was almost certainly once leulan, identical with Sanskrit, lcula; Sioux, kola; Mexican, colli; Panjabi, kul, family; Quichua, holla. The Mexican is used only in compounds, but is the same root, THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA 37 no matter who may have originated the word. The vowel u (o) is an objection to this derivation but it is not insurmountable. Chichi is a dog in Mexican, it is also defined as “one who sucks;” chimalli is a shield, qiwuh-chimalli is a monkey, chimal- ti-tlan is “the place where prayer sticks were set up.” Here are apparently three radically dif- ferent meanings attached to the root chi. Sanskrit, dhi, means to suckle; it also means piety, mind “set” on religion; dhr, chi, means brave, strong. Originally dhi, dhd, meant to put. Hence we get these derived meanings, but chi from dhr would be a homonym Quetzal-coatl. — The Sanskrit, gubh, means (1) to be beautiful, (2) to have a gliding motion. It would seem at first sight impossible to reconcile these meanings, but Mexican usage renders it easier. Coatl in Mexican is serpent, and Quetzal-coatl, plumed serpent ; “ The Fair God,” gliding through the air with his streaming plumes, fulfils both meanings. 2 1 See Mexican in Aryan Phonology , p. 11, sec. 5. Also Quanh-chimalli, below, p. 52. 2 Coatl = *{ub-a.-tl , serpent. Compare with coa-tl, the Babylonian Hoa or Koa whom George Rawlinson believed to be the serpent of Eden. CHAPTER V Morphology of Mexican. — Compounds — Terminations — “Tzin” — Postpositions — L and R — Loss of Terminations. Compounds. — Languages vary much in their methods of compounding words. English has gone to the utmost extreme of simplicity and merely runs two words together without any change whatever, as house-keeper, black- thorn, honey-comb; the same occurs in Sanskrit and Mexican, as Sanskrit, amitrasena, army of enemies ; Mexi- can, cuen-chiua, “wound-put,” or slay. In such cases the subsidiary element is merely an adjective or perhaps an objective as in the last. In Mexican, one of the words is nearly always clipped. For example, colli is house; the possessive pronouns are: no, my; mo, thy; i, his or hers. Hence nocal, my house; mocal, thy house; ical, his house; teotl, god; teocalli, a temple; atl, water; acal, a boat; teachcauhtli, a leader; acalcoteachcauh, a ship captain, literally “ship-in-leader.” Ciuatl is woman; tlacatl, man ; michin, fish ; ciuatlacamichin, mermaid. But Chimalpahin has Aciuatlmichintlaco as the name of a country, “mermaid-land,” in which the terminations remain. It will be seen that the Mexican in compound- ing, sheds all terminations except those belonging to the last word. Sometimes even that is clipped, which is uni- versally true with possessive pronouns as nocal, pronounced nocalh, with breathing after last syllable. In Tupi, the particles are pieced together in bits like a mosaic, aba, man; zoo, flesh; u, use, eat; hence abaroii, a cannibal. In Quicliua, a formidable array of qualifiers, not abbre- viated, fall into line with the precision of soldiers on 38 THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA 39 parade, the principal verb at the conclusion exactly as in the long, mouth-filling, participial phrases of classic Sanskrit, such as the example already quoted. 1 Terminations . — A brief consideration of terminations will help to an understanding of Mexican words just as it will greatly increase our knowledge of English or any other language. In English r = he who does, or is. The Latin ter, as in ma-ter, performs the same office. The Mexican tl is the same, as: camafZ, the mouth; Sanskrit, cam , to sip = camatl, the sipper. But care must be taken to distinguish roots ending in t, in which case the ending is r, as: at-1, water, tzint-li, end. Such words are clipped in compounding as if the termination were tr, tl, as: a-calli, boat; quauh-tein-co, at the foot of the tree. l Lewis H. Morgan has said (.Ancient Society) that perhaps more books have been written about the Aztecs and more speculation indulged concerning them than has fallen to the lot of any other people. The Nauatl language has been slighted or mistreated by many writers who have had occasion to come in con- tact with it. Prescott disliked it and openly expressed his contempt for it, but he may be excused because of his defective eyesight which rendered its study formidable. But he ridiculed the derivations of Kingsborough when in fact Kingsborough was following a trail and Prescott was not. Even such careful writers as Fiske and Morgan misspell Mexican words and evidently at times do not fully comprehend them. The structure of Mexican is such as to lend itself readily to wrong interpretation. The polysyllabic words may at times assume different meanings according to different analyses. Chichimecatl , the name of a tribe, is a case in point. It has been defined by Molina, Simeon, and other authorities, as “one who sucks.” This is an Indian definition and the Indian definition when it can be ascertained positively is obviously best, since a native always knows his own language better than a foreigner. A. F. Bandelier (Pea- body Museum. Report , 1876-79, p. 393) discusses Chichimecatl. He thinks it may mean simply “red men” from chichiltic , red, and mecayotl, kindred. But me- catl may mean a tie, a cord, a whip, a mistress. Chichi, unquestionably may mean dog. Hence chichi-mecatl may mean just as easily an Eskimo dog team as it could mean “ red men,” and one writer suggests it may mean a pack of hounds. The syncope of l weakens Bandolier’s derivation. It should be chichim- mecatl to satisfy his solution from a root chil. Another writer (American Antiquarian), commenting on Bandelier’s derivation, suggests chichic, bitter + metl, “maguey drinkers” (pulque). But this is improbable, I think, since it omits final ca. My own view is that two homonyms obscure the meaning. In Sanskrit dhl, Mexican chi, means to suck; but dhi also means devotion; while dhr, chi, means brave. Hence the Chichi-meca “dogs” were no doubt simply the pious or the brave people. (See quau-chimalli , p. 52. For ca (ka), see Whit- ney, Sanskrit Grammar, secs. 1186a, 1222c.) 40 THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA The principal terminations of nouns in Mexican are tl, tli , li, qui, ni, e, a, ua, uan. Of these, tl, tli, li, qui, ni, all have the force of r — tl, as above, that is, they assert. The difference between tl and tli appears to be one of euphony, as cone/?, son; tlan tli, a tooth. Li, it must be remembered, is equivalent to ri or r of the other tongues, as icpal//, a seat might be *icparri. Such assimi- lation of a consonant is very common in Sanskrit and Latin, as scala, stairway, * scad-la, *scal-la. Qui no doubt = Sanskrit, Jcr (kar) make, one who makes; chiuqui, from cliiua, do, is one who makes and tla-chiuh-tli is a thing done or made. Catl asserts nationality, trades, etc., as: Azt ecatl, an Aztec; puchteca//, a merchant. (See p. 46.) Ni is predicative as, ni-tlatoaw, or is equivalent to tl (r), yaw', a traveler = ya, go-f-ni. Ni is perhaps a more emphatic asseverative in tlatoani one who rules, i. e., who speaks. Ni is much used. It is a frequent ending of adjectives and nouns, as: ni-qualani, I am angry; ti- qualani, thou art angry; qualani, he is angry. Otl, utl is the ending of abstract nouns, though not confined to that class. E is a possessive ending: tlantli, tooth; tlane, toothed. E appears to have the same function in Accadian. Ua is the same; tlatquitl, riches, tlatqui/ma, a rich man; plural, tlatquihwogwe. Ua, uan, New Persian van, means neighbor, as: nota icauallocahuan, my father, his horse, and its companions = my father’s horses. A or tla means “abounding in;” tetl, a stone; tetla, a stony place. Ian, an, is equivalent to Latin um, Greek on; icala- qnian tonatiuh, sunset, literally, his going in place. Adjectives usually end in ic, c, qui, ni, o, que, tli, though there are many irregularities in Mexican and exceptional usages. Examples of regular forms: cbipauac, THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA 41 clean; coztic, yellow; iztac, white; tetl, a stone; tetic, hard; teyo, stony. Yo or o — y in English. Eztli, blood; ezyo, bloody; xochitl, flowers; zochiyo, flowery; citlallin, a star; citlallo , starry; iztatl, salt; iztayo, salty. Ti appears to ascribe quality as in English; eua/fca, seated. Ti has the same genitive use in Chinese, Assyrian, and English. But some adjectives end in in as before stated ; imatini, prudent, from mati, to think. Adjectives also end in ti, as: teycicati, perfect. Words in ati (ti) may be adjectives, verbs, or nouns, as: t-iztlacati (ti-iz), thou art a liar. This is called the substantive verb. It is often almost impossible to distinguish this verb from such an adjective as teycicati, before quoted . 1 Adjectives also appear to end in cci, as: mimatca, subtle = mo + imat + ca, really adverbs. Adverbs are formed from adjectives by suffixing ca, as : chipauac, clean, chipauaca, cleanly; or by suffixing tica, as ilhuitl, a feast; ilhuitica, festively; or with catica, as tlat- quihua, rich; tlatquihuacatica, richly. Ca = Latin que enclitic. Liztli. — Having neither infinitive nor participle the Mexican language lacks the flowing continuity of the other Aryan tongues. The nearest equivalent to the present active participle in other tongues is the verbal noun end- ing in liztli, as chiua, do, make, chiualiztli, “a doing” of something. The passive voice expresses the same idea more specifically as, tlcixcalchiualo, bread is being made. Mexican grammarians treat this verbal ending as liztli, but they were little given to analysis. I think the real 1 Compare this termination ati with musallikati, a pipe cleaner, Arabic; also tl with fatatri, a pastry cook. The copulative verb be (sum) is regularly omitted in Mexican. 42 THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA formation was this: china, do; chiua + m would mean “doing-becomes” or “doing-attains,” which became simply chiualo, “is done or made.” This is identical with the Latin passive voice. Perhaps this word once took the form *chiualis in accordance with the universal Aryan s termination. From this came chinalis -j- tr, a double ter- mination not uncommon in Mexican, hence “chiualiztli,” or, more correctly, “ iztli .” It is sometimes syncopated as: choquiztli, weeping, not choquiliztli. Tzin. — Honorifics are of frequent occurrence in some oriental languages. The Japanese is full of such expres- sions as: “the honorable passengers will deign to claim their respected baggage.” Servility in its varying gra- dations from slave to monarch, found expression in nicely graduated phrases to fit every possible occasion. The chief Mexican honorific, in fact the only one worth men- tioning, is tzin. It means sir, honorable, dear friend, lord, etc. A father says by way of endearment, nopiltzin, my dear son. I do not know the original meaning of tzin. It is possibly the Assyrian sin. Naram -Sin, king of Assyria, was the son of Sargon I, and reigned about 3700 B. o. (later authorities say 3000 B. c.). 1 Cautemocfzm was the last Mexican emperor, dethroned and put to death by Cortez 1524 a. d. Here is an interval of 5,224 years between these monarchs, the first recorded and the last to wear this ancient and honorable title or appellation. Sin or zin is not very closely defined in Norris’ Dictionary, but reference is made in at least one case to its meaning a great and successful hunter, also soldiers and gods. It i Canon Rawlinson in The Five Great Monarchies identifies the “ Sin ” mon- archs with sinu, the moon (god), but I think his acceptation of the word is too narrow. Ta ztnnai, “ beasts of chase ; ” Norris’ Assyrian Diet., p. 357 ; fs changes to sh or s, (Norris) ; “ ili-sunu zinuti. ishtari-snnu sapshati, unikh ; ” “ gods-their armed, goddesses-their, attired, were reposing” (Norris, p. 359). Compare Sargon with Hungarian, sarga, yellow. THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA 43 evidently was applied to very noteworthy personages. As we have seen, tzin became generalized in Mexican, where it finally means little more than Mr. in English. In fact, its use is so generalized as often to seem absurd. It may be tacked on almost any part of speech. Its plural is tzitzin. (Compare Chinese Tientzin.) Postpositions. — Co in Mexican means with or in, as: Mexica, the Mexicans; Mexico, with the Mexicans, that is, in the city. The same “thought-form” prevailed in Greek. The Athenians did not ordinarily call their city Athens, if indeed they ever did. They said ’AOr/vyo-i, with the Athenians. C is probably identical with co as an abbreviation in such words as Chapultepec, cemanauac. This A'-form is also Algonquin apparently. Other postpositives meaning in, or at a place, are tlan, in Coati tlan, place of snakes, qualcan, a good place; tlaqualizpem, meal time; c in Chapultepec, “grasshopper hill.” Pal means in company with, as ipal nemoani , a very ancient phrase meaning deity. Pa signifies like or with, as occ epa, another time; it is also Sanskrit, as push- ed, flourishing. Icpac is summit or top of anything, as quauh-icpac, in the tree-top. All these postpositives were probably once significant words in themselves. As may be seen, they answer to prepositions in the modern lan- guages. They are numerous in Japanese and Chinese, and in the latter language, may precede the words quali- fied. This form of expression indicates the great antiquity of Mexican. But this is not a Mexican grammar and perhaps enough has been said already to make the subject clear. Vestiges of this form of expression linger in Eng- lish: for instance, loard as found in homeward, skyward, equivalent to toward home, toward the sky; manlike, like a man; therein. 44 THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OP AMERICA This feature of syntax is also employed by the Turanian languages and the modern dialects of India. The Turan- ian tongues have a peculiar vowel sequence, traces of which are found in Mexican. 1 L and R . — The Mexican alphabet lacks the letter r, but l is its equivalent. Substituting r for l in atl, we have atr, Slavonic voda, not much different from water, in fact the same word. R and l are peculiar letters in the lin- guistic scheme of the world; 2 besides being interchangeable, they allow vowels to play hide and seek around them in a puzzling way. In Sanskrit, there exists a vocalic r(r) and l which play the part of vowels. The Sanskrit also has a regular r and l and the name for the letter r is ra instead of or. Sanskrit tolerates such forms as ddrgam, I saw. A vanishing vowel, usually an o-sound, must of necessity have preceded or followed r. Otherwise ddrgam is unpro- nounceable. The usual Greek equivalent of vocalic r (r) was ra as in d§rkomai, I see ; 6drakon, I saw. The latter was possibly once 6darakon. The unaccented vowel naturally perished. Every student of Greek may recall the fact that anomalies of this kind were usually explained as metathesis, whereas they were cases of vowel decay. The word for wolf, vrka, in Sanskrit, illustrates admir- ably the vocalic character of r and l, and at the same time their interchangeableness. The word was originally, probably vrk, vragc, *vrask, the tearer. The Greek is liikos, v disappearing and r becoming l; Latin, lupus; Church Slavonic, vluku; English, wolf, *wolk. The English form is wholly unrecognizable were it not for the connecting links in other languages. Observe: that while Sanskrit and Greek retain k; Sanskrit, Church Slavonic, i Mexican in Aryan Phonology, p. 8. 2 Pezzi, Aryan Phonology , pp. 17 If. THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OP AMERICA 45 and English retain initial v; Latin and English have passed from k to p (chapter “Phonology ”). 1 I have gone into the study of r and l at some length, because r in particular is very important in determining derivations, also the value of terminations in many lan- guages. The old Aryan r (ra) had a determining value, or, speaking grammatically it had a nomen agentis value. For example, in the word farmer, farm is the entity or inert object, while r adds the significance by affirming an agency and naming the agent. Hence a farmer is the active agent who utilizes a farm. In Spanish caballo is horse and Caballero, originally horseman, is a gentleman. Here r converts the word horse into a longer word with the resultant meaning “one who rides a horse,” the addi- tional o being simply for euphony, ero=er. Thus the single letter r expands into the relative clause “he who does.” L and R as primitives . — In Mexican, an l may have been originally an r but perhaps it never was. In Sanskrit r prevails; in Zend and Old Persian l is missing. Any discussion of the reason why the Mexicans lost r, b, and g, would involve ingenious speculation, without definite results. The same phenomenon, paucity of consonants, occurs in other ancient languages. The truth may be that some modern forms of speech have simply developed more consonants, though Mexican has unquestionably lost them . 2 It is a question of abstract phonics and vocalization, in short, a history of human utterance. Persons who are not philologists may be disinclined to accept the mere dictum that r so often resolves itself into l. There are numerous instances and there is also evidence, apparently, that the lost r may unaccountably return to a language as in mod- 1 Urku is dog in Assyrian, Norris’ Dictionary , p. 505. 2 “ Ancient languages are very deficient in consonants,” Onft'roy de Thoron article, Aryans of Peru. 46 THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OP AMERICA ern Chinese. 1 I will cite another instance where it appears plain that r and l are synonymous. The Mexican word tlalli means earth, the ground; the old Latin word tellus meant the same ; the modern Arabic tel means land, coun- try. But the later Latin for earth is terra, Sanskrit, trs, to be thirsty (dry). Tel in Mexican has become merely initial tl. The full word may have been *t e lcilli instead of tlalli. In Greek tel ma is a swamp. Mexican possesses no ancient literature, no musty tomes or corroded archives in which to trace the evolution of tel or trci, tla. But with such convincing corroborative evidence in languages so widely separated in time and in geographical distribu- tion, as Greek, Latin, Arabic, Mexican, is there any room for reasonable doubt that the Mexicans long ago said tel- alli or teralli instead of tlalli? Also note what has just been said about d6rkomai. Loss of terminations in plurals and compounds . — It is a curious fact that in Mexican compound words the termination of the first member of the compound almost invariably disappears: Thus cihuatl, woman, no-cihuauh , my wife; maitl , hand; quechtli (slender); maquechtli, the wrist; puchtecatl, a merchant, plural puchteca, merchants. There seems to be a disposition in this very primitive language to look at things in the mass or quantity rather than as individuals. Thus Azteccitl, an Aztec, but Azteca, the mass, is the plural or tribe. It seems to me that the Greek neuter noun which takes its verb in the singular involves a similar basic thought. The only explanation I think of concerning the last example and others like it is this: pushteca is a sentence meaning they guard or care for goods. 2 Popocatepetl is a similar case of a clumsy noun-sentence, literally “smokes-mountain.” 1 Chinese Grammar , by Professor James Summers, Oxford. 2Cf. Pushmun, an Armenian family name. CHAPTER VI Mexican Word Studies. — Tlani, Quechtli, Tzontli, Xauani, Ualyolcatl, Pixquitl, Tlaca-tecolotl, Metztli, Tezcatl-ipoca, Youal-ehecatl, Quauh-chiinalli, Ozomatli, Mexico. Owing to phonetic decay the Mexican language pre- sents some curious forms which may often be classed as homonyms. At first I was greatly puzzled by the radical differences in the meanings of the same word. Some of these forms I have been unable to derive successfully, but I mention them here to illustrate the difficulties which beset the pioneer in the analysis of American languages. Tlani means command, wish, also down; nite- tlani means to gain at play; mfZa-tlani, to lose. The first appears regular, that is, I have commanded some one or had my wish of him ; the second is doubtless one of those idioms found in all languages which cannot be explained by taking the words literally. Nicte-chiuh-f /am in tequitl, “I have acquitted you of the tribute,” is very hard to ex- plain literally unless we understand: I have relieved you by putting your burden on some one else, “te” being the indefinite pronoun for “others.” ' This tlani may be derived from Sanskrit tra, to protect. Tlani , down, may be tr, Trans, through -\-ni, nether, down, as in English ne- ther, millstone. Quechtli is the neck, maquechtli , the wrist, but quech- coatl is a rattlesnake. I derive the first from Sanskrit, k r gj Old Latin, cracentes, classic Latin, gracilis, slender ; the second I derive from Sanskrit, khaj, to shake . 1 1 See Max Muller, synonyms, homonyms, and polynyms, Chips from German Workshop, Vol. II, p. 70. " 47 48 THE PBIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA Tzontli, 400, in enumeration; the head or a head of hair. At first I felt sure this was Sanskrit, §ata, 100; Greek, h6katon; Latin, centum ; English, hundred. Pho- netically this derivation may be termed normal but not proven, hence only meaning may determine. If the word originally meant four hundred, or a large number, then tzontli is doubtless cent- um; but if the original meaning was top, head, then it may possibly be derived from san-u, Sanskrit, top, ridge, a very different word ; or it may be a root not found in other Aryan tongues. Xauani, to drip, and xaua, to adorn, would appear to be related, were it not for the suspicious ending ni. Xaua seems to be found in the Latin, col- or. The fact that these very different forms exist with identical meanings in Latin and Mexican is the strongest kind of proof of the common Aryan origin of the two languages. When I had elaborated my system of phonology sufficiently I noticed this word xaua and argued that a Latin word from the same root should be spelled col. I turned to my Latin dictionary and found the cognate, col-or. But xauani is from Sanskrit, sr, sarana, to run (as liquids). Compare Latin, col- o, and Sanskrit, jala; German, quellen; and for xaua , Sanskrit, gubh, to adorn. 1 Ualyolcatl seems a very strange and forbidding word to English eyes. It means kindred, consanguinity. It is derived from Sanskrit, vr to inclose, surround, hence those selected or set off from the rest of the tribe + vrj, *varg, which means to turn, or to surround, inclose, thus giving a double meaning to the word, “those selected and inclosed” (in a common household), that is, kin, the family. Vrj&na from vrj meant either dwelling-place or dwellers. Pixquitl, harvest, is phonetically Aryan pise ; Latin, 1 See Mexican in Aryan Phonology , p. 11. THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA 49 piscis, a fish; German, fisclie; Anglo-Saxon, pise; Irish, iasg; English, fish. The Mexican word for fish is michin. How then is this transfer of meaning to be explained if pixquitl meant fish? If the Nahua once inhabited the northwest Pacific coast country, their chief occupation was necessarily fishing and to speak of the fish harvest was a natural sequence. But this is one of the cases referred to by Professor Noldeke (see p. 17) where close resemblance of forms leads the negligent philologist astray. Pixquitl is Sanskrit bljci, *biska, seed, and pixqui, priest, is no doubt prach, Latin, prex. Tlacatecolotl, the devil, “the Rational Owl” (Clavijero) , the man owl. This is a very puzzling word (for birds in mythology see p. 116). It may be analyzed tlacatl, man + tecolotl, owl. Since this is the Indian explanation it must not be ignored. But since Mexican has no litera- ture, hence no records of word-history, it is not unreason- able to assume transfer meanings. Tlacci, an adverb, means, by day, visible, and is cognate with Sanskrit, clrg to see; Greek, Sep/copai; tlcichia, to look, observe, is from the same root. Darga in Vedic Sanskrit meant the new moon. Tecolotl, owl, is no doubt Sanskrit, uluka, owl *iilftkatl, and a “bad-luck” bird. The first syllable tec is, I think, from tecolli, a live coal; from Sanskrit, clah, to burn; Anglo-Saxon, dseg; English, day. 1 Hence tlacatec- olotl may mean, “the firebird,” “the shine owl,” “the moon-shiner,” alluding to the bright eyes of the bird or its plumage. This would be a very reasonable definition if darga, the moon, could be made to mean night which it really was. But the Mexicans distinctly meant day in their use of tlacci , thus: “ tlcica ti-ucdla, cimo youaltica ,” you will arrive by day, not by night, hence tlaca may i Mexican in Aryan Phonology , Table 0. 50 THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA mean man since tec supplies the idea of luminosity. 1 In conclusion I may add that there exists today a belief in the “luminous owl.” Metztli furnishes a curious instance of a transfer of meanings. Metztli means: (1) a month ; (2) the moon; (3) a leg. Metztli is identical in verbal form with the Sanskrit mas, the moon, which in turn is derived from md, to measure; Greek, fiijvr); Latin, mensis; German, mond; English, month. The moon was the universal measurer of time in the ancient world and remains so with Moham- medans. Hence moon and month are etymologically iden- tical. But the word leg suggests a difficulty and English history at once offers a solution. Our yard stick was established from the length of a royal arm, and on the authority of Brinton the Mexicans employed the lower extremity as a standard of measure. Tezcatlipoca, a god, the devil, some say chief of the Mexican pantheon. Analyzed, tezcatl + ipoca. Tezcatl is defined a lake, a mirror but this appears to be a transfer meaning; pocatl is smoke, Greek, w/cdfa, shadow; image in the mirror as indicated by the possessive pronoun i. Hence Tezcatlipoca is demon, “his or its image in the mirror.” Tezcatl is Sanskrit (Vedic), tdskarci , thief, hence evil-doer. This personage . was also called tezcci- 'A curious incideut is related by the Rev. Frank Borton ( Independent , Decem- ber, 1906) as told him by a priest. A certain large cross was a favorite with the Indians. Examination revealed inside it a large stuffed owl. — My speculation has been curiously verified later. The “luminous owl” really exists. See T. Digby Pigott, Contemporary Review , July, 1908. Brinton ( Myths of the New World, p. 106) says tlaca was prefixed to tecolotl by the Christans and that no such deity as the “man owl ” ever existed (reference Buschman). He defines tecolotl as “the stone scorpion,” from tetl-\- colotl. Verily some extraordinary conclusions have been drawn from the analysis of Mexican words. As a corroboration of this cult of the devil in Mexico it may be sufficient to recall the rival factions of ancient Persia, followers of Ormazd and Ahriman. A sect in Persia today keeps up this devil worship (Carus, History of the Devil, p. 63). THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA 51 tecolotl, thus merging the two devils Tezcatl-ipoca and Tlaca-tecolotl into one. Tezcatl-ipoca the evil specter may be classed with the mirror and left-hand superstitions — being unlucky, ill-omened, malicious. It is a well-known fact that some tribes of Indians refuse to allow themselves to be photographed because the taking of any picture or representation of the person is “bad medicine.” In this connection compare the Aryan traditions connected with the mirror, such as the universal belief that it is bad luck to break a looking-glass, and the Scotch divinations enacted by lovers before the glass. Uitzilopochtli himself (chap, xiv) was intimately connected with this Old Aryan, “left- hand” superstition. Tezcatlipoca was also called Youal- eheccitl or “Spirit of the Night .” 1 He carried a mirror in which he saw all that went on in the world. The idea thief is plainly embodied in the mirror which, as the Indians believe, steals something from you. Youal-ehecatl, spirit of the night, another name for Tezcatl-ipoca. Analogy and etymology combine to indi- cate that the Greek goddess Hecate or Artemis is indicated here. Hecatos the masculine form was an epithet of Apollo. The torch in her hand was supposed to symbolize the moon. She was distinctly a goddess of the night. 1 The Aztec gods in general had different forms or aspects. Usually they were grotesque or terrible. I will describe one aspect of Tezcatlipoca : A young man of pleasing physiognomy, rather short and stout appearing, and slightly bent forward, this attitude probably assumed to comport with his half bird appearance . His vestment is an ample bird-mantle of blue or pale purple, the wings shading to black at the butts. His boxlike headgear is of the same color and surmounted by waving green plumes. His feet are double, above the human feet, springing from the ankle joints, are the feet of a cock. From his wristlets depend red rib- bons, tipped with yellow. His posture indicates animation. Altogether this gorgeous personage done in purple, black, red, green and yellow barely escapes the grotesque. (Kingsborough’s Mexican Antiquities , Vol. V, p. 189, plate 42; Codice Mexicano, MS 3738 Biblioteca Vaticana.) For a description of the sacrifices to Tezcatlipoca see Prescott, Conquest of Mexico , Vol. I, pp. 79, 80 ; also Sagahun, Historia de Nueva Espana, Lib. II, caps . 2, 5, 24. For a curious account of his apparition and interview with an Aztec chief, see Chimalpahin, Annals , Seventh Relation, 1336, 1457. 52 THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA She presided over magic arts and spells to which the Nahua were greatly addicted. As goddess of the moon she is directly associated with the moon cult as represented in Hindu mythology and by the Algonquin Manabozho. Dogs were sacrificed to her and she was frequently repre- sented as accompanied by dogs. (See Quauh-chimalli. ) Quauh-chimalli, monkey ; chimalli, a shield. Ozomatli “the divine monkey” was one of the “Stations” of the Aztecs in their migration. What connection can possibly exist between a monkey and a shield? I shall try to un- ravel this mystery of mythology by offering what I believe to be at least a plausible solution. The days of the month in Nauatl, Maya and Kich6-Cacchikel were assigned “day gods.” The eighth day in Maya was called Chuen; in Kioh6-Cacchikel, Batzi ; in Nauatl, Ozomatli } Both the latter mean monkey, but chuen looks as if it meant dog, kvwv, canis. Hence there may have been a transfer meaning in the other two languages from dog to monkey, since such transfers are not infrequent. In Nauatl (and Japanese) chi means dog and chuen may be the same. The dog in Mexican was sometimes called “the lightning beast,” from tzitzini- liztli, lightning, an epithet doubtless derived from a homonym, Sanskrit, dina, to light up; Mexican, chinoa. This is a step toward mythology. The monkey is esteemed sacred in India today. Here is a striking coincidence, the words dawn and lightning. A third step is that Sanskrit, dhi, Mexican, chi, means devo- tion. Malli is a puzzle. Is mal a root or is it formative? In Yedic Sanskrit gyama meant dark or black; Qyam&rn (ayas) was iron in the opinion of Dr. Schrader, though termed “black bronze.” From this we see our way to chimalli, shield, black, “iron thing,” dha, to put. Turn 1 In Nauatl, Ozomatli was the 11th day; cf. Cimmerian, cyam&m. THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OP AMERICA 53 again to mythology. Sar&ma, the faithful dog of Indra, came at dawn driving up her cows with two other dogs(?), Oyftmd and Qab&la, familiarly “blackie” and “spot.” 1 The dog which accompanied the “Unknown God” on his visit to the Inca was black (Falb, Land of the Inca), and the dog Ceberus played an important part in Greek mythol- ogy as guardian of the portals of Hades. Here we have the connection between chi or chin, the dog “blackie” and chima- lli, shield (black iron), also the ideas “divine” and “dawn” or “lightning.” But it remains to explain quauh in quauh-chimal, monkey. The Sanskrit name for ape was kapl, which phonetically becomes Mexican kauh. Hence if transfer meaning from dog to monkey took place the whole is clear without employing the specific name of SaiAma’s dog “blackie,” but simply understanding it as the black ape Qym&rft, chimalli, or “the Divine monkey.” 2 I do not call this discussion of quauh-cliimalli strictly scientific, nor is it, in fact, anything more than plausible as before stated. Chimalli may be derived, in its reli- gious aspect, very directly and simply; din, devotion -f- man, to think, *man-ri, malli; hence “the pious, rational ape.” But this will not explain chimalli a shield. Ozomatli. — What was this “divine ape” who gave a day name to the Mexican calendar? As said before leapt Sanskrit for ape became quauh in Mexican as in quauh-chimalli, “monkey-sacred,” not tree monkey. Hanu- man was a king of the monkeys. Rama Chandra was an incarnation of Vishnu, a sort of Hindu Ulysses. In the Vedas we have Vrshd-kapl the virile ape who fought 1 The legend of The Hound of the Baskervilles , by Conan Doyle, was doubt- less founded on this dog or Cerberus legend. This supernatural dog has become a spirit of evil in the Island of Britain. The Welsh call it Own Wybir. 2 The philologist will ask here why cya develops chi rather than chia or cha. I can scarcely answer that question but usage renders either form probable. 54 THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA for Rama. Barth remarks that the modern monkey wor- ship of India may go back to this warrior ape of the Vedas . 1 I would add that it unquestionably does. Matli is probably Sanskrit mad which may mean : joyous, divine, drunk. Mexico.— The origin of the word Mexico has caused much speculation. Clavijero discusses it and connects it with the god Mexitli and no doubt correctly. His “house” was Mexicaltzinco. Lord Kingsborough tried to derive Mexico from the Hebrew meshiak, Messiah, “the anointed.” In my earlier work I connected it with the Assyrian root melch, which derivation I still believe to have a basis in fact . 2 Some think it may be metl, maguey -\-citli, hare, hence Mexitli would be “the hare of the maguey” and probably related to the Algonquin “Great Hare” Manabozho. Others connect it with meyalli , a fountain. This is evidently wrong phonetically. Others suggest metl + ixtli “face to face with the magueys.” This seems absurd and wholly lacking in specific mean- ing since “face to face with the magueys” might mean almost any place in Mexico. When the curse was put upon the Azteca, Uitzilopoch- tli changed their name to Mexica and spake to them: Yacachto ti-tequitizque, “for the first ye shall labor.” Mexitli was another name for Uitzilopochtli. The god Mexitli is, beyond any reasonable doubt, sim- ply the Persian Aliura-il/azda, “the great god,” the 1 A. Barth, Religions of India, p. 265. The phonetics are: vrsha, virile, be- comes ozo (uzo) in Mexican, r being dropped ; in kapi, p=u, hence quauh= ka-u. The frontispiece of The Story of Vedic India, Ragozin, gives in colors a picture of the battle between Rama with his army of apes and the demon king of Lanka (Ceylon). The “divine monkey” is portrayed as performing astounding feats of valor and agility. Of. Paul Carus, History of the Devil, p. 82. 2 References to Mekh, Norris, Assyrian Diet. : mekhazu, stronghold (p. 768) ; mekhira, a superior (772) ; la makhri, unequaled (778) ; mekhran, a city (780). THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA 55 Supreme Being. Ahura, Sanskrit cisura, god, is dropped and only mazda = mexitli remains. It is not uncommon in Iranian to extend a root to two syllables by interposing a vowel. Hence mazd-a becomes *mazid-a, Mexican, mex- it-li. The root is mag as in Latin mag-nus, large . 1 If we consider the Avestan, mazdian then we have Mexi-tli = magian, a priest of the fire worshipers. Tenochtitlan, the more common name for the city of Mexico, is simply “place of the rock cactus” and no doubt was named from his own cognomen by its founder Tenoch. 1 Cf. Gray, Indo-Iranian Phonology , also Tolman, Old Persian Inscriptions, for phonetic changes. Mazda often stands alone. CHAPTER VII Mexican Syntax — The Prepositive-Objective Pronoun and “Thought Forms” — Sequence in Sentence — Syntax and Probable Age of Mexican — Coalescing Pronouns — Con- jugation — “Desinences.” The prepositive object-pronoun in Mexican seems wholly superfluous. This scarcely comes under the head of compounds and yet it is in effect a species of com- pounding. In the sentence: Nic-poa in amoxtli, I read the book, c (qui) is the prepositive objective pronoun which usually indicates that the object will be named later on, but a pronoun must be used whether the object follows or not. The formula is: I-it-read, the book. The indefinite sentence: Peter reads (or reckons) would be: Petolo tla- poa. Qui is not used with “pacientes,” that is, personal objective pronouns as Nimitz-tla^otla, I love you, not Nic-mitz-tlagotla. The indefinite pronoun tla, it, has a similar use but represents things indefinitely while te represents persons. This is a curious survival apparently confined to American languages . 1 We may well speculate concerning the origin of so curious a syn- tactical device. It appears useless now, but once the logi- cal order of expression was different. The primitive man returning tired from the chase or driving his herds, at first sight of his dwelling, exclaimed tersely, “house.” That was the important thing. If he made a statement it was “house, I see it,” “house not far,” etc. Many lan- guages even yet place the object first. It was a long time 1 Compare, ni-te-tla-maca , I give-him-it, with French, je-le-lui-donne, I-it-to- him-give. 56 THE PKIMITIVE AEYANS OF AMERICA 57 before the more analytical, detailed statement “I see our house” could come into use. 1 Perhaps the Mexicans began to place the object after the verb, occasionally, at first, and then generally, and the old instinct probably told them there should still be something before the verb to act as a sort of index. It is possible that c was at first an objective case sign, indicating the object in a tongue, without gender, number, or inflection, like the Japanese ga , the sign of the nominative case. The noun may have been switched over to follow the verb, while the sign got glued to the subject pronoun and remained there. Japa- nese and Chinese still use such signs; also Tupi, to a limited extent. I think, in fact, Tupi may offer a curious corrobora- tion of this view. There is a feature of the possessive- objective in that language which I confess I am unable to understand from the meager, hazy treatment given the subject by Ruiz de Montoya, though I have tried hard to grasp the gist of the matter. He speaks of “reciprocals” and “relatives.” The rule is, that every noun beginning with h, t, r, has its relative g and its reciprocal h. Other nouns have y “relative,” o “reciprocal.” Tera, name; cherera, my name; hera, his (ejus) name; guera, his (suum) name. Example: tub begins with t. Peru yuba ohaihu oci ab6. Peter his father loves, his mother also; g is a “relative” possessive-objective. Tupi is given to queer phonetic changes; tu or tub(a) is father; cheruba is possessive-nominative, my father (che -f- r + ub) ; guba is possessive-objective. May not g, here be an old objec- tive sign coalesced and analogous to the Mexican? The iThe first arrangement has been called the “logical” and the second the “natural.” These are arbitrary terms since both are logical and both natural. Byrne says that thoughtful races adopt the order subject-verb while careless races employ verb-subject. Principles of the Structure of Language, Vol. II, p. 281. 58 THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA formula would be g e + tub. [In fact this seems to be wholly a question of phonetics.] 1 Sequence in sentence. — Modern Mexican places the adjective before the noun, and the object, as a rule, after the verb, thus following the “natural” order. But there are indications that once the “logical” may have at least partially prevailed. The usual order in an indefinite sen- tence is (1) inseparable, nominative pronoun, (2) preposi- tive, objective pronoun, (3) verb; as: ni-tlci-qua, I-it-eat. But the object noun may be clipped of its termination and compounded before the verb as: nacatl, meat, ni-naca- qua, I-meat-eat; finally where nouns are employed for both subject and object the order may be (1) verb, (2) object, (3) subject; as: (a) “ Auh ic quin-macac in ipil- tzin in Ch inancoca itoca Cacamatl Totec; Chinancoca gave them his son by name Cacamatl Totec.” Or the order may be, (1) verb, (2) subject, (3) object: as (6) “ yancuica achtopa oquittaque in Tlacochcalcci-Chalca in opopocac in tepetl, for the first time the Tlacochcalca-Chalca saw [that] smoked the mountain.” 2 Mexican continually em- ploys the predicate adjective in what must be considered as a sentence. Thus Sanskrit, vrshd-kapl, virile ape; but the Mexican reverses this, a Latinism, and says ozo- iln the Tukiok dialect of Polynesia, there is something resembling this: mig ruma or rvma-ig, equally mean, my house. A Melanesian form is etuia-k, my father. In Papuan, ina-gu is my mother. But these affixes are all in the first person. As to position, notice post- and pre-position in the first example quoted. Briuton gives uba, father, but Montoya’s excellent dictionary gives: tu.b, father; cheruba, my father; tuba, ejus pater; guba, suum pater. With such phonetic changes it is very difficult to determine the real root. Brinton apparently held the view that “ relatives” refers to relationship, consanguinity. But there are changes which are not capable of such explanation and are hard to explain in any way as tesa, eyes, cheresa, my eyes; supia, egg; sapucai, hen, but sapucai rupid , a hen’s egg. Compare Sanskrit change of final r to s and nigori in Japanese, as kuni kuni to kuni guni. This change applies to prepositions also in Tupi as tenonde , before; puenonde, before him. 2 References: Chimalpahin, Annals, Seventh Relation (a) year 1342; (6) 1347. The earliest historical account of an eruption of Popocatepetl. THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA 59 matli, the ape [which is] active. Compare the French un homme grand , a man [who is] distinguished, but un grand homme is simply a tall man. Age. — Mexican syntax is also a strong proof of the extreme antiquity of the language. The Yedic Sanskrit allowed much more latitude in the position of modifiers than did the classic Sanskrit. The same feature prevails in the Mexican today. To illustrate: o-mo-ual-cuep, he returned, literally “he back turned.” Here o is the aug- ment which is separated from its verb cuep by the adverb ual and the pronoun mo. This arrangement in Greek would be an impossible barbarism. The augment is fre- quently omitted in Mexican, in perhaps half the cases, the same thing in the same proportion holds good in Vedic Sanskrit. 1 Mexican has no infinitive , though Assyrian possessed an infinitive 5,000 years ago. It is not probable that Mexican once had an infinitive and lost it later. I know of no such case. The rudiments of an infinitive, perhaps the very germ as it were, arrested forever, may be found in the use of tlani. Here one verb was plainly made dependent on another in an infinitive relation, as, nicte- mac tlani, I have ordered it given another ; nicte-chiuhZZam, I caused another to do it, ninomauigolZam, I desire to be honored. Had this usage extended to all verbs instead of being confined to this parasitic tlani , a genuine infinitive would have resulted. Poloa is used similarly. The Mexican is extremely simple in its syntax, never- theless. The adjective as an attributive precedes the noun as in English. Iztacciuatl, the name of the great volcano, should really be spelled as two words: iztac, white, ciuatl , a woman, so called because the snow on its summit lies in 1 Whitney, Sanskrit Grammar, sec. 587, a, b, c, d. 60 THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA a long line resembling the body of a dead woman in her shroud ; in Spanish Mujer Blanca. The possessive adjunct usually precedes its head word, though no ambiguity results if it follows thus: Nota i-cauallo, my father’s horse, literally, “my father, his horse,” or i-cauallocahuan in nota, my father’s horses. This is New Persian as, daman i-koh, hillside. For the important and peculiar use of the possessive pronoun, as used in nota (no tatli), I would refer the reader to a Mexican grammar. Connectives are few in Mexican. There is no true relative pronoun. This lack of connectives gives the lan- guage scantiness of thought or at least the appearance of it, as: Nic-nequi nic-quaz, literally, I wish I shall eat, for I shall eat. There is an ambiguity in the use of the imperative in the singular. Thus: ma nitla-qua may mean (1) May I eat (precative) ; (2) I do not eat; (3) I am going to eat. The voice distinguishes them. 1 Coalescing pronouns. — In Assyrian the possessive pronoun follows its headword instead of preceding it. Thus, “their corpses” would be written pagri-sunu, corpses-their, while the Mexican would say: sunupag , clipping the termination from the last word, assuming that he used the same words. But position may count for lit- tle. Considering the lapse of time, perhaps the Assyrian once said sunupagri. It must be borne in mind that Assyrian was spoken without radical change through a period of nearly 5,000 years. Such language-vitality makes English and other modern languages, except Greek, Lithuanian, Finnish, etc., seem like mere mushrooms of speech. We are 2,500 years later than Nebuchadnezzar, but the latter himself, was 3,200 years later than Sargon I. Both spoke Assyrian. Lithuanian retains a curious sort of i Olmos, Grammar of Nahuatl , p. 82. THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA 61 liaison which practically links two words into one, as the recent investigations of R. Grauthiot in Lithuania conclu- sively show and decide a mooted point. 1 The Hindus wrote an entire sentence as one word, and liaison in pro- nunciation probably took place as in modern Lithuanian in certain cases, though modern grammarians are inclined, I think erroneously, to consider this feature of classic San- skrit as largely artificial. 2 (See the Sanskrit phrase quoted, p. 34.) In language we must accept things as they are, however illogical and arbitrary they may appear. Apparent contradictions may exist side by side in dialects of the same language. Thus in colloquial Arabic, the pronoun, possessive or demonstrative, precedes its noun in Syria, as: thal-beit, this house. In Egypt it usually fol- lows as: el-beit tha. 3 The coalescing possessive pronoun would appear to be Semitic, but it is also Hungarian as, tollci, a pen (feather) ; tollam, my pen; tollad, thy pen. Compare tollci here, with Nauatl tollin, a reed; Spanish tul6. This prepositive adhering pronoun is not a feature of Aryan syntax in general. This fact alone might indicate that Mexican is a Turanian language which separated from the mother tongue along with West-Ugrian (Finnish and Hungarian) before the defection of Aryan, were it not for the Aryan vocabulary of Mexican. The postpositive system is not Western- Ary an, but it finds many parallels in Sanskrit as mcmushvat, as Manu did. But the lack of an infinitive, which Sanskrit possesses, and which is wholly wanting in Mexican, indicates clearly the archaic form of the latter. 1 1 Lithuanian, Buividzi Dialect , Essai, par R. Gauthiot, Paris. 2 Whitney, Sanskrit Grammar , 101, a. 2 Tien's Manual, p. 52. 4 Modern Bulgarian has no infinitive. For discussion of the development of infinitives see Max Mailer, “Rede Lecture” in Chips from a German Workshop. 62 THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA The infinitive proper is a subtlety of speech which indi- cates considerable development in language. Conjugation . — Mexican certainly appears to contain the first stages of Aryan verb conjugation, as exhibited in Sanskrit and Greek. Let us examine the Mexican verb, taking maca, to give, as a model: Ni-c-te-maca, I-it-to someone-give. INDICATIVE MODE PRESENT TENSE Singular, nicte-maca . Plural, ticte-maca ticte-maca anquite-maca quite-maca quite-maca Notice that the third person is subjectless, with regard to pronouns, a defect common to some American lan- guages, also to Japanese, Chinese, etc. The reflective and impersonal, however, employ the subject as: mo-chiua, it is doing. FUTURE Singular, nicte-macaz Plural. ticte-macazqu6 ticte-macaz anquite-macazqu6 quite-macaz quite-macazqu6 PRETERITE Singular, onicte-mac oticte-mac oquite-mac Plural. oticte-macqu6 oanquite-macqu6 oquite-macqu6 Here we perceive distinctly the “s” sign of the future tense and the aorist system as best illustrated in the Greek. In the Mexican future and preterite plural ending, “ que" = lea , I think may be seen the equivalent of the Greek perfect termination lea. The “s” sign of the future, the augment and the perfect sign lea are thoroughly Greek, hence Aryan. It is impossible that this is the ruins of an earlier elaborate system of con- THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA 63 jugation. The usage of the two tenses also corresponds largely as: eur£lca, I have found it; onicte-mac, I gave it, or have given it. [This view, formulated in the earlier part of my work, is perhaps not adequate in the treatment of the verb.] Desinences . — These devices, unknown to western Aryan tongues, give added significance to a verb. Co, quiuh, qui, mean “just done” (venir de faire) nitla-quaco, I come to eat, just arrived; to, tiuh ti, “about to do” (aller faire), antemachti/o, you (plu. ) have gone to teach. The use of the desinences is very subtle, and at times ap- parently arbitrary. An extension of meaning is also given by linking two verbs by ca or ti, as: nitlaquaticac, ti -|- icac, I eat standing up. CHAPTEK VIII The Particle “tla” — “In,” its Use and History — Grammatical Gender — “Animate” and “Inanimate” — Thought Forms and Style. The particle tla. — The Mexican pronoun tla is in constant use, in fact it is greatly overworked. It is an indefinite pronoun, the use of which may be illustrated in this brief sentence: nitla-matoca, I touch it, literally, “I it touch.” The active Mexican verb must always have an object, as has been remarked before, and when the object is unknown or the speaker does not think it worth while to mention it, he merely inserts tla to repre- sent it. Tla begins many verbs, as an integral part of the word, and is often simply initial tr or dr. There are cases where tla seems superfluous, and adds nothing to the meaning, as: tlamana, to make an offering; tlanonolza , to tell a story; tlapixqui, to guard; tlagotla , to love ; tlatlacalhuia, to injure ; tlaicnotililli , impoverished. As may be seen, these verbs are all active, but even a noun or an adjective may take tla in the sense of an ob- ject, as tlatomalli, something unraveled, though in this case the verbal might well govern an object. This con- stant repetition of tla is one of the defects of the language. Such extreme cases as tlatlagotla, to love, arise from ety- mological complications. A large proportion of the excess of words under t, which constitutes about one-fourth of the entire vocabu- lary, is caused by this persistent tla, and tla as an introductory particle or pronoun cannot be easily ex- plained. Mexican grammarians derive tla from itla, 64 THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA 65 thing. Let us insert thing and see if it is adequate. “Raveled-thing” makes sense; but there is no sense in “love-thing,” “pray-thing,” “oration-thing,” “injure- thing.” In my opinion, tla must be sought elsewhere. It is simply tr = through, completely; Latin, trans; Sanskrit, tra. It often appears to be simply an article as: tla- tomalli, unraveled; tla-chiuhtli, a thing done. In its most general sense it has the signification of by, with, through, or because of, but in tlachia , to observe, from dr$, tla is an integral part of the root. A further material increase of verbs under t is caused by the emphatic prefix te (ta) which I take to be some- times the demonstrative pronoun ; Sanskrit, ta, tad ; English, that; but Olmos pronounces it a syncopated form of tequi, much, greatly. In . — The Mexican language has, properly speaking, no article, yet tla in such a word as tlachiuhtli is translated a, a thing done. But in is so often used clearly as an article, that it may almost be said to assume that function. Yet in so often appears superfluous that the reader is continually at a loss to determine its proper significance. The Spanish grammarians of Mexican are accustomed to assert that the Mexicans continually inter- jected superfluous words into their discourse simply to fill up, so to speak, and round a phrase. The poetry of Nezahualcoyotl 1 affords numerous examples corroborating this fact, and the same doubtless may be said of harangues in council. But poetry in all languages abounds in figures, inversions and pleonasm. In serious prose, in probably has always a definite use, but only a Mexican knows its proper use, and he must be an intelligent 1 Daniel G. Brinton’s edition, Philadelphia, 1880. 66 THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA person. It would be profitless to dwell on the subject here. Its place is in a Mexican grammar. But an evi- dence of the extreme antiquity of the word in, in its article sense, is found in an inscription “in Susinak,” 1200 B. o. 1 In modern Persian in is the demonstrative this, and in Mexican inin is this; inon , that. This on, by the way, is thoroughly Saxon, meaning extension, further. Grammatical gender. — English is a language which is strictly logical in its use of gender. It follows nature, the male takes a masculine pronoun, the female a feminine, and all that is neither male nor female is neuter, without exception. Most languages are arbitrary in this respect. In French, a house, maison, is referred to as she, while mar, the wall of the house, is he. Grammatical gender is a subtle question which cannot be discussed fully here. Animate and inanimate. — The Indian languages usually divide all things into two classes, “animate” and “inanimate.” Some philologists consider this classifica- tion as an evidence of great age, but modern Persian has “rational” and “irrational,” which amounts to the same thing, and this distinction, animate and inanimate, is some- times arbitrary. 2 For example, in Chippewa, akkig, a kettle, is an animate object. In Mexican, only animate nounshave plurals, as ichcatl, sheep; plural ichcame', na- ualli, a sorcerer; plural nanaualtin ; ticitl, a doctor, plural titici. Spanish has had some influence in causing inani- mate nouns to assume plurals. Where it is necessary in Mexican to distinguish between male and female, and the words employed do not in them- selves indicate sex, oquiclitli is used for male and cihuatl 1 Jacques de Morgan in Harper’s Magazine, May, 1905. 2 See Veblen, Theory of the Leisure Class, Introduction. THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA 67 for female, as oquiehmazatl, a stag; cihuamazatl, a doe. The same method prevails in modern Persian, as: gav i- nar, a bull (“man cow”); gav i-mada, a cow (“woman cow ” ) . Let the fact be emphasized that animate and inanimate are not synonymous with living and non-living as we understand the terms. Primitive man endowed all things with a relative intrinsic importance, aside from any nat- ural classification. Thus the ground-squirrel might be considered so insignificant as to be placed in the class in- animate, while the camp kettle, by reason of its important place in domestic economy, was raised to the higher clas- sification of animate things. All this may appear very childish. In fact, it is childish, but do we not daily see children talk to their playthings, and even go so far as to reward the good and punish the bad? But primitive man did have reasons for his classification since his animate things were important according to his knowledge of them. Dialects. — The Nauatl language bears internal evidence of differences which probably result from dialectic vari- ations due to the mingling of tribes. The Spanish lexi- cographers and grammarians speak of these dialects and agree that the best Nauatl was spoken at Tezcuco, the Athens of Anahuac. These variations no doubt originated in Asia. For example in Mexican we have telpochtli or telpocatl, a youth ; chiuhc naui or chica naui, nine ; teuctli or tecutli, a chief. The name of the Afghan language is Ptikhto or Pilshto. A philologist writes me: “philolo- gists require uniformity.” Quite so! But they do not always get it. Thought forms and style. — Most students of Nauatl eulogize the beauty and expressiveness of that language. The word nauatl means, sweet sounding , clear , as defined 68 THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA by Molina. The language has at times a sonorousness to be compared favorably with Latin. But I cannot join in unqualified eulogy of the Mexican language. It is lack- ing in that precision which makes equivocation almost impossible in Greek or Latin. It sometimes defies con- struction. Brinton, on this point, says that all words not directly connected with the verb are without construction, but this, while occasionally true, is an extreme statement. The following sentence is a fair example of the capacity of Mexican syntax to express sustained thought: No iquac ipan inin omoteneuh xihuitl in quixixitinique Also then in this aforesaid year (they) demolished nohuian ipan Nueva Espana in inteocal ihuan imixiptla everywhere in New Spain the temples and images in tlacatecollo in quimoteotiaya ueuetque tocolhuan, of the gods, which (they) worshiped, the ancients, our ancestors; ye yuh matlacxiuitl ipan ce xiuitl moetzticate in matlacome already ten years with one year were (here) the twelve San Francisco teopixque inic motlaxixinilique nohuian, San Franciscan priests when (they) destroyed everywhere ye yuh caxtolli on ce [the temples and images of the gods] already fifteen on one xihuitl oacico in Espanoles in iquac tlaxixitin years had arrived the Spaniards when (was) the destruction nohuian. everywhere. ( Annals , 1534.) The first clause is tautological though it is Cliimal- pahin’s regular formula. “No iquac ipan inin” would express the same idea in this context omitting “omoten- euh xiuitl.” Parable of the Woman and the Lost Coin (Luke 15:8) Anozo aquin zoatlacatl quipia matlactli tomin, oquipolo Or what woman has ten tomins (she) has lost THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA 69 ce tomin amo quixotlaltia tlanextli ihuan qu’ichtoa one tomin (does) not sweep (up) the dust and search in calli ihuan necuitlahuiztilica quitemoa in oc quiaziz? the house and diligently it seek until (she) it finds? A favorite construction puts the name of a place in apposition with ompa or oncan, there, as: Ipan inin acito xochiyaoyotl in ompa Chalco-Atenco. Now began (the) “war of flowers” there (at) Chalco-Atenco. The verb ca, to be, is little used and then usually either for emphasis or to denote condition rather than mere existence. Ca fan oc inceltin, in macehualtin, in miquia. (It) was but themselves the vassals who were perishing. Redundancy is of continual occurrence. Ipan inin poliuhque in Cuanahuaca, quinpehuato This (year) fell the Cuernavaca, them -conquered in Mexica. the Mexicans. Nopiltz6, nocuzqu6, noquetzal 6, otiyol, My dear son, my jewel, my plume, thou wert begotten, otilacat, otimotlalticpacquixitico. thou wert born, thou hast arrived on earth. Death of Cauhtemoctzin (Guatemozin), introducing Spanish words. ( Annals , 1524.) 1 Ye yuhqui ye Christianoyotica momiquilli, cruz imac Thus Christian-like he died, cross in hand quitlallique auh in icxicrillos 2 tepozmecatl, inic (it) they placed, also foot-irons (an) iron-chain, as to canticaya inic pilcaticatca 3 pochcauhtitech. him they secured, when he was hanged, (a) silk cotton tree-on. i Hanged in Honduras by Cortez for alleged conspiracy against the Span- iards. 2 Crillo or grillo, a cricket, Spanish; in the plural, fetters. 3 For the precise meaning of these compounds verbs linked by ft, which usually gives emphasis or increased significance, see a Mexican grammar. Can (C’an)=qui-ana, to seize, secure. Pilca, means to hang, to seize, to attach to. 70 THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA The Lord’s Prayer Analyzed Totatzin6 in ilhuicac timojetztica, ma yectenehualo in Our Father heaven-in thou art (rev. 1 ) May be revered the motocatzin, ma huallauh in motlatocayotzin, ma thy-name (rev. 1 ), May (it) come the thy-kingdom (rev. 1 ), May chihualo in tlalticpac in motlanequilitzin in yuh chihualo be done earth-on the Thy-will (rev. 1 ) as (it) is done in ilhuicac. In totlaxcal momoztlae totech monequi ma axcan heaven-in. Our bread daily (as) to us necessary (is) may now xitechmomaquili, ihuan ma xitechmopopolhuili (rev. 1 ) to us thou give (rev. 1 ), and may thou us forgive totlatlacol in yuh tiquintlapopolhuia intechtlatlacalhuia. Ihuan our sins as we them forgive (others) their us-injuring. And macamo xitechmomacahuili inic amo ipan tihuetzizque in never permit us (rev. 1 ) that (not) there we may go (rush) teneyeyecoltiliztli, ganye ma xitechmomaquixtili (rev. 1 ) into (great) temptation, and may thou us not let come in ihuicpa in amo qualli. in contact-with (the) not-good. 1 There is a form of the verb which is called “reverencial.” It is indicated here (rev.). The other words in parentheses are supplied to complete the sense in English. In such situations as in ilhuicac, h is silent and merely separates vowels, or adds stress to the vowel preceding it, as il-ooi-cac. This word is Sanskrit rocanA, heaven. Tzin is honorific. CHAPTER IX Individuality of Languages — Inflection— Accent and Rhythm — Repute and Disrepute of Words — Ancient versus Modern Syntax. Individuality . — It seems a marvelous fact that of all of the myriads of millions of human beings who exist or have existed in the world, no two individuals are exactly alike. It seems equally remarkable that after the lapse of thousands of years, nature appears to produce a dupli- cate of some former individual. For example, Gen. U. S. Grant strikingly resembled a certain Roman emperor. Now if unity of human speech be assumed, as a matter not yet sufficiently settled to be asserted as a fact, how has this great confusion of tongues been brought about? There are in the world, or have been in existence in past times, perhaps 3,000 languages and dialects (only an approximation not capable of proof), and it is a well-known fact that every language is foreign to every other language. 1 Even languages so near akin as Italian and Spanish have comparatively few expressions which are identical. Any untraveled native of the United States who will make a journey to Scotland and attempt to converse with the old-fashioned people of the Scotch villages, will realize for the first time the full meaning of the word dialect. He will surely return satisfied as to his own linguistic poverty. And yet Scotch is only a dialect of English, and not a very pronounced one at that. English and German are closely akin, but an English-speaking person l Quoted from memory, as read in some periodical. I think the figures by far too large, but some place it at 4,000. 71 72 THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA at tlie first attempt will be unable to comprehend a single word of German. We have all met people who under- stand German or French, but who are unable to speak those languages. I leave these remarkable people out of the reckoning. Yet both these languages contain numerous words identical with the English words for the same things. Inflection. — What then causes the radical difference which exists between languages ? If the Aryan 5,000 years ago said lubh, love, bhar, bear, and the American today says love, bear, which though spelled differently, may have had practically the same pronunciation as the ancient Sanskrit, why could not these two individuals readily understand each other if they got together today, granting our Aryan could rise from the dead by a miracle? It sometimes happens that dress makes the man; it is always so in language. The Aryan furnished the root with strengthening devices and pronoun endings longer than the root itself in some instances. 1 If he said something like dray ami, dragdsi , drayati, I drag, thou draggest, he drags, or perhaps very clearly drag-ha-mi, his speech could not by any possibility sound like I dray; but when he said lekshi, thou lickest, he very nearly spoke English. Expressing thought-relations by means of adhering affixes (and infixes) is called inflection, when the word is welded into an inseparable whole. But this subject will be dealt with more fully, farther on. It must have taken the Sanskrit-speaking people fully 1,000 years to 1 In its general sense, Aryan apparently means free people, superior race. Max Muller first used the word in a linguistic sense. There has been much discussion as to the original home of the Aryans. Sayce inclines to northern Europe and cites the fact that the Aryans had three seasons, that the words ice and snow are common, also the fact that the vocalic system of Europe is older than that of Sanskrit. Dr. Schrader inclines to the steppes of Southern Europe and notes that the horse was known, but not the ass or the camel, lhering names the Hindu Kush. His arguments are very full, lucid, and convincing, and I think there can be little doubt of the correctness of his conclusions. THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA 73 build up their marvelously finished system of inflection. It has taken the English-speaking people 500 years to strip off the inflectional system, inherited from Anglo- Saxon. Had we advanced a little farther, and adopted a hieroglyphic or character alphabet, instead of a phonetic, and become an isolated people, we might today abide in the tents of the Chinaman so far as language goes. He is wholly monosyllabic, we are nearly so in the language of every-day life. Instance this sentence: I saw the boy light the straw stack with a match and then take to his heels as fast as he could run. Here twenty-three mono- syllables move along with a jerky, unmelodious sequence, which is characteristically English. Why did inflection fail ? Because, like dress, it became too elaborate and cumbersome. Only natives could use it intelligibly. Hordes of invading foreigners could not master the new tongue. The ignorant, when knowl- edge declined, made many mistakes, confused forms, and obscurity was the result. Circumlocutions were resorted to as an aid, which resulted in corrupting language till finally the whole fabric crumbled and new tongues sprang up, not founded entirely on roots, but partially on the d6bris of collapsed polysyllabism. But there is no apparent reason why a new inflection may not be set up in the course of time. Our English possessive is a case in point. John's book was once John , his book. I have seen it written so in my own time. The term lingua rustica is a stalking-horse, which I believe greatly over- worked. It is employed to explain the differences in vocabulary and syntax between the Romance languages and Latin. 1 I have no doubt the most ignorant Roman l Strange differences do exist, however, side by side. In Java the women speak a dialect different from that of the men. “In Sanskrit plays the women spoke Pali.” Max Muller, Science of Language, Vol. II, p. 44. 74 THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA readily understood Cicero and Cicero could understand him. The capacity of the illiterate to employ habitually and correctly a very intricate language has been under- estimated. Instance Chippewa as a lucid example. We may as well be prepared to believe that the Vedic Aryans who had never heard of phonetics possibly understood fully their sentence liaison (see p. 61). Accent and rhythm . — There is also a rhythmic, tonic and accentual individuality in language. English has a vicious habit of slurring the final syllable of a word. Thus the word “labor” might be spelled indifferently bar, ber, bir, bor, bur. Compared with the nicety of pro- nunciation prevailing in many languages, English is indeed a sloven, but this habit is not confined to English since others have the “neutral” vowel. Accent is usually difficult to acquire, and by accent I do not mean pedantic pronunciation merely. There is a certain indescribable, rhythmic swing, I had almost said lilt, which every lan- guage possesses, and which can be acquired only by careful attention and long practice in speaking with those to whom the language is mother tongue. It is this subtle feature of the French tongue which brings grief to so many who think they have mastered French in school, but who are unable in France, to ask the servant to make a fire for them. The marked undulatory cadence of the Spanish is at once sonorous, melodious, and baffling to a foreigner. Repute and disrepute. — Words, like human beings, are subject to many vicissitudes. Fortune smiles on one and frowns on another. The same word may be in good standing in one language and in bad repute in another. For example, take pal: ipal nemoani is an appellation of god in Mexican ; the English pal may be a thief. 1 Again i Pal and cul-)y are no doubt borrowed from the Gypsies since Romany is an Indo-Iranian tongue. THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OP AMERICA 75 there are vulgar words not admitted in any dictionary, whose roots lurk in speech and may be traced back to prehistoric times. They will never die, though they may be denied print. Others again hover on the ragged edge of respectability. Some words are refused admittance to so-called Saxon dictionaries which are freely admitted to the dictionaries of other nations less prudish. Then fashions in words change, and a word in good repute now, may be fallen very low a hundred years hence. Ancient versus modern syntax .— Ancient thought- forms seem disjointed and scanty compared with the ana- lytical methods of modern tongues. For “I wish to eat,” the Mexican says: “I wish, I shall eat.” The same lack of continuity renders the Assyrian uneven and discon- nected in its style. In Tupi the tenses are clumsily pieced out by means of adverbs marking the time when an action occurs, and the modern value of connectives is not clearly appreciated. Thus: “Peru guba ohaihu, oci ab6;” “Peter his-father loves, his-mother also ,” for the more precise and elegant “Peter loves his father and his mother.” But in its “desinences” (p. 63) Mexican possesses a device of syntax which in English would require a sepa- rate word. Thus: in aquin o-aci-co, “he who has just arrived,” where co indicates an action completed at the present moment like the French: II vient d’arriver. And yet the significant fact remains that these ancient tongues are often competent to express any idea which the human mind is capable of conceiving. The Chinese language, though apparently indefinite to a foreigner, is said by critical students of the language to be wonderfully precise and that equivocation is almost impossible unless it be intentional. Clavijero remarked that Nauatl was capable of expressing the most abstruse conceptions of 76 THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA the Christian religion without the aid of a single foreign word. The chief obstacle in adapting such languages to the needs of modern civilization is the lack of words for the multitude of things of modern invention. The Mexicans, for example, had no horses but they adapted caballo, the Spanish name, as cauallo; but for bridle they invented the formidable compound cauallo-tepuz-tem-meca-yotl , literally, “horse-iron-mouth-cord [thing”]. CHAPTER X Languages as to Thought-Form — Incorporation — Agglutina- tion — Classification — Monosyllabism — Inflection — Rela- tive Merits — “Speak” Conjugated in Five Languages — Unity of Human Speech — Persistence — Phonetic Changes. Languages have been classified as agglutinating, like Turkish; monosyllabic, as Chinese; inflecting, as the Latin and all the Indo-European group; and incorporating, like some of the American languages. Incorporation . — —Mexican has been described as a typical incorporating language. What is incorporation? Professor Henry Sweet says: “If we define inflection as ‘agglutination run mad,’ we may regard incorporation as inflection run madder still: it is the result of attempting to develop the verb into a complete sentence .” 1 In the same connection he says: “Incorporation is nowhere more logically carried out than in Mexican.” I think there is at least room for argument here. In its development, language doubtless followed the universal law of nature that the concrete must precede the abstract. A thing, in other words, must exist before we can speculate on its origin, or discuss its properties. It may be shown that Mexican is scarcely an incorporating language at all, if indeed there really be such a thing as an incorporating language. Analysis resolves all things and substances eventually. Here let me recall a thought of Albert Gallatin’s, no mean authority, by the way, who has a few words to say in this 1 Sweet, History of Language, p. 69. It is manifest that no such conscious attempt was ever made by any people in the growth of a living language. 77 78 THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA connection. I give the substance of his thought, not his exact words. He sensibly concludes that the first whites who attempted to learn the language of the Indians, being guided solely by sounds, and having no written material to exercise the eye upon, naturally mistook phrases for words, sometimes, and consequently joined together par- ticles or words in cases where thought-form really allowed a hiatus. He gives some examples. Continuing in his line of thought , 1 suppose I say in colloquial English: “Gimme some bread.” Would not a foreigner be almost sure to understand “gimme” as one word? The Spaniard says: digaseld, tell to him it, but Spanish is not an incor- porating language, nor is it agglutinating beyond this one single feature, the personal pronouns, in so far as I can recall. When the Spaniard coined the word, “correve- dile,” “run-see-tell-it,” for talebearer, he clipped old words to make the new. Does he compound, incorporate, or agglutinate ? In fact the only feature of Mexican syntax which can be, strictly speaking, classed as incorporative is the curious prepositive object-pronoun (chap. vii). I will take Sweet’s own example, nic-qua, I it eat, where c (qui) is the incor- porated pronoun. Next he considers “ ni-ncikaka ,” “I meat eat.” The Mexican spelling is “ qua ” which is not mentioned here as a correction of Professor Sweet’s spell- ing, since he employs a uniform phonetic system in his admirable book. “I meat eat” illustrates a very common form of expression in Mexican. I admit that the dropping of tl, the termination of naca tl, meat, is an argument in favor of the theory of incorporation, but there must always be an interval, be it ever so slight, between the noun object i “ Introduction to Hale’s Indians of Northwest America,” Transactions American Ethnological Society , 1848. THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA 79 and the verb, and the thematic noun in Mexican had a general collective quality like the Greek neuter, as for example Azteca from Azteca-tl the singular. This hiatus is distinctly marked at times as colli house, but no -calh, my house. 1 Mexican grammarians say that these clippings, as the tl of nacatl, are made largely for purposes of brevity and euphony. But they always occur at a natural cleavage point, if we assume an original agglutination of particles. They cannot be compared at all with such mere mechanical devices as the / in the French sentence : A-/-il fini ? I think the cause of this usage lies farther back than brevity or euphony. Savages had plenty of time to pronounce entire words and were like ourselves scarcely conscious of euphony. In Cree the noun incorporates an objective pronoun- p ostpositive, as: mdokooma, knife; net oo-mookooman-rn, I have a knife. 2 But the Aryan verb incorporates its pro- noun subject, as leg-o, I read. Professor Sweet says, furthermore, that ni, in ra'-naca- qua 3 is additional evidence of incorporation. Why? It is true that it is always printed so, and ni is called insepar- able by the grammarians, while ne and neuatl are called “separable” forms for the pronoun I. The question is merely one of sounds which coalesce readily or the con- trary as the case may be. “Igo,” “yougo,” might look like incorporation or synthesis, while “one goes” and “ Edward goes,” would remain analytic. There are cases where ni does syntactically stand alone; ra'-tlatoani is an example. In such cases the copulative verb be is omitted universally in Mexican. Inserted, it would read ni ca 1 Olmos, Grammar Nahuatl, p. 200. 2 Howse’s phonetics are English; “Italian,” net u-mukuman-in. 3 Sweet, History of Language , p. 70. 80 THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA tlatoani, I am a chief, though this would not be correct Mexican since ca is not properly be, but the Spanish estar. Mexican syntax is synthetic, not incorporating. Its postpositives are as readily detached as is ward in the English word homeward. But it is by no means so com- plex in grammatical structure as is Algonquin or Japanese, for example. The opinion of Clavijero previously referred to, who found it capable of expressing every mystery and subtlety of the Christian religion without borrowing a single word, is surely a strong testimonial for its power of expressing sustained thought. Agglutination. — A few lines will suffice for this subject. I mention it here partly to render my book symmetrical but chiefly to show that Mexican is not agglutinating. All the earliest systems of writing appear to have been syllabic. Sanskrit and Japanese are so today, as well as Cherokee in the United States. The following sentence from King’s Assyrian Grammar will illustrate the system of syllabic writing; the hyphen separates syllables, the words are spaced: i-na di-ma-a-ti a-lul pag-ri-su-nu ; ina dimati alul pagri-sunu; on poles I hung corpses-their. Stratonike (wife of Antioch us Soter) is spelled (in As- syrian) As-ta-ar-ta-ni-ik-ku ; Antipatros, An-ti-pa-at- ru-su. The repetition of a vowel did not necessarily mean it was to be pronounced twice. Remember the unit was a syllable instead of a letter. Thus di-ma-a-ti, simply spells dimati with the a long. This system of writing is per- haps an additional evidence of the agglutinative character of all languages at first. Turkish is a good example of an agglutinating language. It tacks on particle after particle in a most astonishing fashion. Here is an example: Sev is the root-word for love; sevmek is the infinitive to love; THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA 81 sevmemek, is not to love; seve/memek, is not to be able to love; sevdermek, is to cause to love; sevdirmemek, is not to cause to love; sevderehmemek, is not to be able to cause to love. In this linguistic sandwich the infinitive is practically expanded into a sentence. Classification. — Just what fixes a language in a given class is not easy to tell. In fact there is no exact line which divides any one class from any other class. Languages constantly defy classification. According to Max Muller a Turanian language should be, not only agglutinating, but terminational. But the Rev. H. Roberts inclines to class Kliassi as an agglutinating language and says that its particles are without exception prepositive. For example, the verb lait means free; pyl-lait, to make free; jing -pyl-lait, freedom or liberation. Yet this ancient language seems to be Turanian according to Mr. Roberts, though it w 7 ould appear, from the example, to be mono- syllabic, rather. 5 Since the American languages are classed as incorpo- rating it may be interesting to compare a Selisli ( Flathead) verb with the Turkish. Tneskoli 2 (operor) to do, to be busy, is the primitive; kol is the root; tneskol, the form in composition; ieskolm, active causative, I advance a thing, I do; tnesklkoli, reduplication, I do several things; tneleskoli, iterative, I do it again ; tneskolmluisi, frequenta- tive, I do it frequently; tneselkok’li, diminished action, I work lightly or easily; kaeskolstegui, reciprocal, we work to our mutual advantage; tneseskolmisti, reflective, I fashion myself; or tneskolsuti, I work for myself. 1 Khassi is classed by Mr. Roberts in the indefinite group, “ Sub Himalayan.” He estimated that it is spoken by about 250,000 people who inhabit an isolated district of Assam. The language has only lately been reduced to writing. [Actual population, about 175,000.] 2 Tnes , pronounce t«n6s. Kol is possibly identical with Sanskrit, kar , to make, to do ; compare the Turkish sev with Sanskrit sii, to generate ; Mexican, tla-go-tla, to love. 82 THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA Monosyllabism. — Monosyllabic languages or isolating languages may be adequately represented by Chinese, in which every word is theoretically a monosyllable. Some of these primitives are also idea words, that is, they express an idea in themselves as jin, a human being, but specifically, a man; fu-jin is woman, and ur-jin, child. Hence most Chinese words logically are not monosyllables. The early use of arbitrary ideographs or characters instead of a flex- ible alphabet, has arrested the development of Chinese and fossilized the language. Prof. Henry Sweet in speaking of Chinese syntax makes some statements (also made by others) which lead to con- clusions I am unable to reach. I should like to copy them in full, but can only give the substance here. 1 He dis- misses peremptorily (and properly) the notion that Chinese is an analytical language which has outstripped even Eng- lish in freeing itself of inflections and returning to a monosyllabic state. He further says that there exists indisputable internal evidence in the language itself that it was once polysyllabic. These two statements appear to me contradictory. If the Chinese was once polysyllabic, it is safe to assume that it had for “relation” signs either the system of terminations known as inflection or the other system known as postpositive which is, after all, a species of inflection. In fact Chinese employs in practice, both prefixes and affixes today, which are in no way different in function from similar particles in Magyar, Assyrian, Mexican, and Japanese, instance ti, the genitive sign in Chinese, or mun the plural sign. Ti is employed in the same way in Assyrian and Mexican, and is our English ty. In fact such particles whether separate or agglutinated are absolutely necessary to every language. For example, 1 Sweet, History of Language, p. 74. THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA 83 tsai means in, on; niii , interior ; wai, exterior; tsai Yang- tze niii, inside the house; tsai fang-tze wai, outside the house. Along with the idea-words, like boy, dog, wheat, book, there must be relation or form -words like the Chinese ti, the English of, the Mexican co, or the Japanese ga, the sign of the nominative case. It seems impossible that Chinese could ever have been polysyllabic. Some vestiges of the system would surely remain such as ward, in the English word, hometrarcZ. The basis for this theory of the former polysyllabism of Chinese lies in the fact that certain letters have disappeared from Tibetan words within comparatively recent times . 1 Tibetan is a monosyllabic language, in the class with Chinese and certain letters in literary Tibetan are silent. Contemporary Chinese inscriptions indicate that they were sounded in the sixth century, a. d. It is said that in certain parts of the country they are still pronounced. W. D. Whitney holds this as important if proved true and it appears to be true . 2 But a particle may perish without alfecting the monosyllabism of a language, and it seems to me the cases are not parallel. Suppose, for example, the Chinese sign 11 ti" of the genitive case should become useless through juxtaposition or some other device which rendered ti superfluous. Then ti might perish, first the vowel, the t lingering for awhile as a useless silent letter, a parasite on the head word, until it, too, would disappear. Take our English possessive, “John’s book,” once “John his book.” It would be a parallel case to say that s was once a syllable of the word John’s. If the case were to go a step farther, and sometime in the future the posses- 1 According to A. H. Sayce, Chinese has undergone serious phonetic decay (Assyrian Lectures, p. 153). Max Muller, however, maintains the contrary, Science of Language, Vol. I, p. 50. 2 Cf, Keane, Ethnology , pp. 207 ff. 84 THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA sive were indicated by an adjective, “the John book,” the philologist of that day might claim that English never had any other but the adjective possessive. Lacouperie appears to have proved beyond doubt that Tibetan now monosyllabic was once polysyllabic. 1 Hence the inference that the same thing has occurred in Chinese. But admit- ting this fact we have only illuminated a period in linguistic development. The beginning and the end in the growth of language can never be positively determined. Granting that a language is now monosyllabic, English is nearly so, in the past it may have been polysyllabic as we know English to have been, and we also know that English was originally built around monosyllabic Aryan roots which we dare not ignore simply because we cannot account for their origin or assign a date to their beginnings. Tibetan has apparently undergone some extraordinary phonetic changes, and the same may prove true of Chinese, but I know of no adequate scientific study of Chinese phonology and its history, which will decide the matter. Inflection. — Inflecting languages are, for example, San- skrit, Greek, Latin, French, Italian, Spanish, and German. They are so well known as to need no special treatment here, beyond the remark that the conjugation of the Mexi- can verb (p. 62) places that language indisputably in the inflected class. Other American languages belong there. For example, Chippewa is a marvel of inflection, beside which ancient Greek is not difficult, and its vowel changes are developed harmoniously and symmetrically. For a long time the tendency in human speech has been to discard synthetic forms for analytic. Thus instead of expressing the pronominal idea in the verb ending as in l See article “Tibet,” Encyclopaedia B ritannica, by A. Terriende Lacouperie. Also Vol. XVIII, pp. 774, 779, article “Philology,” by W. D. Whitney. THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA 85 Latin leg-o, I read, we say in English “I-read.” The Roman youth said to his sweetheart, amo te, I love you. There was no need of the analytic form ego amo te, unless he wished to be emphatic. Both forms of expression have their advantages. The analytic is simpler but the syn- thetic may be very concise and expressive. The inflec- tional method required the memorizing of such a multi- tude of forms built upon the same root that it seems incredible that the unlettered could have recognized all of them as cognates. It is more probable that to most people they were, in their disguised aspect, separate forms. For example, would it not require a scholar to analyze the Sanskrit compound Hitopadega, “given for instruction” as derived from dhci, to give -j- upci, for, -j- dig to point out, guide instruct? It surely would. Did the illiterate Greek recognize the root dav in reOvdn o?? It is to be doubted . 1 The relative merits of the two systems may be briefly shown in a conjugation of the present tense of the verb speak, talk, in five languages. LATIN dico, I speak dicis, thou speakest dicit, he speaks ITALIAN parlo parli parla dicimus, we speak dicistis, you speak dicunt, they speak parliamo parlate parlano Both Latin and Italian, as may be seen, have six dis-. tinct forms and pronouns are not necessary. . l In this connection I may suggest that grammar existed and was taught long before the art of writing was in existence. How else could such involved tongues as Greek, Sanskrit, Quichua, and Chippewa have been preserved from corruption and final dissolution? It is said that the aborigines of America gave their children at an early age careful instruction in grammar. Hand Book of Indians , Vol. I, “Education,” p. HI. 86 THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA GERMAN ich rede du redest er redet wir reden ihr redet sie reden ENGLISH I speak you speak he speaks we speak you speak they speak German has four forms out of a possible six. English has but two forms, a veritable pauper, and, since pronouns are necessary, it might as well have but one form. Here there appears to be but one form, but there are really two since the lengthening of the final vowel of the plural to distinguish it from the singular is really inflec- tion. It will be observed that the third person singular and plural has no pronoun, a feature which is frequently found in Indian languages. Inflected speech was undoubtedly built up in the first place by the gradual agglutination of independent signifi- cant particles. But when these particles began to lose meaning to the masses of the people and a host of forms 1 required precision in grammar and nicety in pronuncia- tion to avoid equivocation, and the old process began over of piecing out the meaning with other words which became finally auxiliaries, adverbs, or prepositions. Unity of human speech. — The reader has doubtless observed in these pages from time to time, that the origi- 1 The possible number of mutations of a Greek verb was about 570; of a Latin verb 171. I quote from memory, having lost my reference. I confess the total surprised me. MEXICAN ni-tlatoa ti-tlatoa tlatoa ti-tlatoa anmo-tlatoa tlatoa THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA 87 nal unity of human speech is tacitly assumed though nowhere directly asserted. Positive declarations on this subject are hazardous. The prehistoric period of man’s development is, in all probability, of very much longer duration than the historical. To postulate prehistoric speech is impossible. It is also very difficult for the ethnologist to explain scientifically the differentiation which resulted in such extreme physical and mental types, as the negro and the white man exhibit. It is possible that a branch of primitive man may have for many thou- sands of years remained stationary in Africa, while his more favored brethren advanced steadily to the high intellectual standing of the Aryan nations. We have seen how languages may exist unchanged for great periods of time, and a like arrest of physical and mental development may be assumed as not unreasonable. 1 Persistence . — This may be a fitting place to refute the nonsense so often repeated about the rapid changes in the languages of America. I have read repeatedly that the vocabulary of these languages may change so rapidly as to render the tongue unintelligible, within a lifetime. In that case the grandfather could not converse with his grandchildren with any satisfaction. I call this plain nonsense; it might take a stronger term to express the case properly. We have seen that it takes hundreds of years to make material changes in syntax, and we have seen that syntax is no more enduring than word forms. Anyone who will study the words father, mother, house, fire, cow, dog, will at once realize their great antiquity. An exception to this statement may be made in the case of some non-Aryan tribes for special reasons. John l Finnish has remained practically without change for 1,600 years; Sweet, History of Language , p. 118. Also see statement of Joseph Edkins, footnote 3, 88 THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA Fraser, in “An Australian Language,” says that the aborigines of Australia were accustomed to cease using any word found in the name of a dead man, immediately upon his death. If a man were called “Fell in the Water,” a new word must be found for water after his demise. The reason of this curious fact was that they believed a mention of the name of the defunct, would disturb his spirit, which was capable of harming the living. Phonetic changes . — One fact will surely arrest the at- tention of every observant reader. There are usually two or three words for the commonest things. This might appear to be in favor of the argument that language had original development from several independent centers, and that a subsequent mingling gave the multiplication of words like tlacatl, avr/p, avdptoiro^, mas , homo, vir for man; deus, bog, and god; vig, chan ( kshem , ham), cal, and cab for house. These independent words might have been scattered and commingled by the incessant migra- tions of mankind and the mingling of different races through wars and conquest. But the fact that these roots do not appear to be in the least localized, as, for example, pilli, boy, found in Assyria and Mexico, would seem to indicate that all mankind were one, until after definite articulate human speech was firmly established . 1 But very strange permutations may occur through pho- netic changes. Thus Fraser derives ka, eat, and edo, eat, from the same root, k and t being equivalents . 2 The three words given here for god, for example, are really not roots. They are probably all derivatives. 1 There are Hebrew roots in Khassi which the presence of Arabic will not explain. Introduction to Khassi Grammar, by H. Roberts. The Ainu of Japan have been shown to be Aryan in speech by Rev. John Batchelor, The Nation, September 12, 1907, “Notes.” 2 An Australian Language, Introduction. • THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA 89 These independent forms may all have been developed in the same community through figures of speech. But figurative language, as a rule, is plainly traceable to its origin, and simile is usually more verbose than the origi- nal, as: “ship of the desert,” a camel; “king of beasts,” a lion; “lord of creation,” man. When we read that the Arabs have some fifty words for camel, we must allow for the imagination of the writer, as well as of the Arab. In fact Tien gives but three; naqa(t), ebl, jamal. Sacroug gives two: gamal, naka, a she-camel, and naca-tl is the Mexican word for meat . 1 (The g of Egypt is j in Syria.) Max Muller, in a moment of doubt, practically asserts that we have no right to say that the Latin quatuor is a cognate of the Sanskrit catUr (four), or that the Greek tettares is in any sort of relationship to either, and he names other examples to support his idea of the moment. But there is an explanation that is convincing for the relationship existing between catur and quatuor (see “Phonology,” chap. xi). Phonetic laws apply uniformly, and operate through long periods of time, but not in every case. We must recognize phonetic “sports” just as we recognize sports in plant life. A novice in comparative philology would scout the idea that any relationship exists between Aryan ekwo, the Sanskrit agva, horse, the Latin equus, and the Persian asj ). But the laws of phonetics incontestably prove a common origin. If we were to place in the same cate- gory “hack,” “whoa,” and “get up,” a smile would be excited, and yet they are perhaps all from “a£va,” hack being the first syllable and whoa the last. Wlioa is said to be a “horse call” from China round the globe to l Gabriel Sacroug, Traveller's Interpreter , or Arabic without a Teacher , Cairo, 1874. 90 THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA California. In parts of France people say “tip” for “get up,” the Utes of Colorado say the same. The latter phrase probably should be “get ep.” No farmer says “get up” until after he has passed under the influence of the pedagogue. The real meaning then was originally doubtless “get horse,” “go horse,” since “up” (ep) may be traced through hippos to the same source. I have thought this paragraph worthy of print even though it have no better warrant than “travellers’ tales.” If we assume the unity of human speech, as we doubt- less shall be obliged to do in the future, we may then be justified in assuming word relationships which cannot be proved absolutely by any known laws of derivation. CHAPTER XI Phonology. — General Remarks — V owels — Dentals — Gutturals (the kg-q and kg-s Sound shifts) — Vocalic Consonants — The Place of Mexican — Labials — Line of Descent and Assimilation — The Saltillo. — Accent. General remarks. — Heretofore I have given no more attention to phonetics than what I deemed necessary to explain the case in point and to support the thesis which is the common origin of the Mexican and the Indo-Euro- pean group of languages. The remarks in this chapter are merely a brief sketch of elementary principles, since phonology is, in itself, a subject sufficient to fill a large volume . 1 We have all doubtless wondered at the formidable com- pound consonants of Sanskrit, Greek, and Arabic, such as kh in Me dive, sheikh, bh in Magava and combinations like phthisic, pteron. It is not easy to say always just how the ancients pronounced these combinations. One thing is reasonably sure, none of the letters were silent. In bh the h may have been a full aspiration or the briefest possible stop and not a distinct aspiration like our Eng- lish h. Arabic kh is neither A; nor h but both. I confess that I cannot pronounce it exactly as an Arab does. It is a very deep guttural, harsher and more throat filling than German or Scotch ch, or Spanish j. Ask a German to pronounce lcnabe. You will notice that he brings out the k distinctly with a suggestion of a vowel between the 1 See the author’s Mexican in Aryan Phonology and Gray, Indolranian Phonology , for special information bearing on the subject of this book, also Tol- man, Old Persian Inscriptions. 91 92 THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA k and the n. There appears, however, to be no trace of a vowel in the Arabic kh as there is in knabe. Pteron was once *p e teron; phthisic was probably *ph e thisic. As man became more civilized, there was doubtless a tendency to tone down speech and simplify harsh com- pound combinations. Arabic and Quichua are still marked by harsh consonants. The guttural-palatal series is today, in most languages, g, k (c), (/< a survival), German ch, j. The labial series is b, p, f, v, w. The dental series is d, t, th (in thing), th (in that). The liquids are 1, r. The sibilants are s, z, ts, tz, zli, j(dzj), ch, sh. The nasals are m and n. The general tendency, apparently, is to crowd sounds forward in utterance, especially in American languages. Thus Mexican has lost y entirely; k only remains. The Sanskrit q (once k) becomes: c (fc), ch, s, sh, x, in Mexican. Apparently an impulse for an easier sound has dropped b, beginning the series with p, so that the series consists of p, u sometimes, which is zero in the series. Of the liquids, r is either lost or becomes l, and l is never initial. In the dental series, Mexican has lost d and th, only t remains, but Sanskrit d, dh, become ch, dhi = chi, palatal or sibilant, and it may be that t also becomes a sibilant or the equivalent ch. But there is no synchronological uniformity in conso- nant mutation, exhibited in the languages of the world. Grimm’s law is of universal but not uniform and synchro- nous application, hence it must not be strained because the same language may offer side by side words which do not conform as Greek /caw, 7 rw?. But we see Mexican losing g entirely, which English retains in full vigor. Aryan k becomes h (ch) in English as c v anis, dog, English houn-d, but we have English chin THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA 93 and Mexican can-tli. English is older in one respect than New High German, having one less “sound-shift.” 1 The post-consonantal “aspiration” of Sanskrit is lost in most of the other Aryan languages, or more properly speaking, it is peculiar to Sanskrit, and is less often found in Greek as: bhar, carry; ph6ro, Greek; fero, Latin; bear, English; Mexican, pal; bah, *bagh, Greek, 7 rd^u?; Mex- ican, ua-paua; English, bough; bhratr, brother; phr&ter, Greek; frater, Latin; bruder, German; dih, *dhigh, rub; Greek, 6i, to consecrate. The Hindustani word for magi is majus ; for magic, 'azi- raaLkhwani. The Mexican compound verb azi-ca-mati, 2 1 Whitney, Sanskrit Grammar, sec. 219; Mexican in Aryan Phonology, p. 10. 2 Azi is phonetically serpent, ahi, “ serpent wisdom cf. Zend, Azhi dahaka. 100 THE PRIMITIVE ARYANS OF AMERICA means to be wise, to know perfectly. The identification of magian with mauigo thus seems to be indisputable. These Indo-Iranian dialects seem to have run amuck in verbal forms. The Sanskrit for mongoose is nakula , the Panjabi is neul. The Sanskrit, pdcati, means to cook ; Avestan, pacaiti ; New Persian, pazad; Afghan, paxa- vaul; Kurd, patin; 1 Mexican, pahua. The loss of a final palatal is pan-Aryan, as: Pali, manaiii; Sanskrit, manak; Greek, dvy -a-Tr)p-, Sanskrit, duliitr; Mexican, tiuhtli; English, dauter, daughter. Since the Nahua consisted of several tribes it is natural to suppose from these comparisons that they brought with them to the New World some of their peculiarities in dialect . 2 Mexican phonetics are Spanish of the sixteenth century. The system is arbitrary, contradictory, and full of absurdi- ties. The verb qua, eat, is also cua (Sanskrit, gr, gras? de-vorare f) ; uei, large, or huei; Nauatl or Nahuatl. The same word may be spelled with ch, x, z, or s at the caprice of each writer. The vowels o and u are often equivalents, as teotl or teutl, god. For initial s, Mexican employs 9 ; as a rule for medial s, 2 is preferred, but a MS of 1007 everywhere employs s. 3 But Chimalpopoca (1879) employs initial z for s and discards g entirely. In fact, the utmost confusion exists as to s and h and no writer seems to be uniform with him- self. I may as well confess that I, too, have not been uni- form, but not carelessly. I have often dropped h, which is a clumsy makeshift, and in such words as uetzca it is misleading to English readers who would pronounce the word whetzca. 1 Gray, Indo-Iranian Phonology. 2 The Congress of Orientalists announces (1908) the discovery of an extinct Aryan language in Chinese Turkestan which is said to be western. 3 Los Reyes, N ahuatl text, miracle play of Tlatelulco, Chicago Public Library. CHAPTER XII Mexican Notation. — The Five-Base — Chica ce,6 — Ten — The Fif- teen-Base — System Aryan — “ Hand Counting” — Antiquity. The Mexican numeral system and the Aztec calendar 1 are of such importance that they deserve a thorough dis- cussion but the subject can only be mentioned here. The Mexican cycle consisted of 52 years, and at the end of which occurred the ceremonial of “binding up the years,” mo’lpilli in xiuitl. All fires were extinguished, the people rent their garments with lamentations and the sacred fire was rekindled on the breast of a living victim upon a mountain top. When the fire was rekindled 2 swift runners distributed it to the people of Anahuac and rejoicing suc- ceeded the period of gloom. When the Spaniards landed in the country, they were surprised to find that the Aztec calendar was practically correct in actual date, while their own was several days behind time. The year contained 18 months of 20 days each, with a supplementary period of 5 days. Both days and months had specific names. The method of counting was vigesimal, that is by 20s. a The names of the numerals up to fifteen are, in my opinion, pregnant with facts regarding the genesis of numeration. Five, ten, and fifteen have special names unlike those of the true Aryan system. They will be referred to later. Tupi has a word which Ruiz de Montoya in his diction- ary defines as “10 or 11.” Qata, one hundred, in Sanskrit 1 For the Aztec calendar see Prescott, Conquest of Mexico; Chimalpahin’s Annals , Simeon’s edition ; for the names of the months, see Metztli ; for the days , see Ilhuitl in Simeon’s Nauatl-French Dictionary. 2 On Mt. UicA-ach-tecatl ; “keeper of the light?” Uich=i)ii