Chapter XXI: Part IV: Linguistic (7)

“Se sujetaron de su propria voluntad al Señorio de los Reies de
Castilla, recibiendo al Emperador, como Rei de España, por Señor
supremo y universal, e hicieron ciertas señales, como Firmas; las
quales, con testimonio de los Religiosos Franciscos, que alli estaban,
llevó consigo el buen Obispo de Chiapa, Don Fr. Bartolomé de las
Casas, amparo, y defensa de estos Indios, quando se fué á España.”
Torquemada, _Monarquia Indiana_, lib. xix, cap. xiii.

Footnote 220:

“Letreros de ciertos caracteres que en otra ninguna parte.” Las Casas,
_Historia Apologetica de las Indias Occidentales_, cap. cxxiii.

Footnote 221:

_Relacion Breve y Verdadera de Algunas Cosas de las muchas que
sucedieron al Padre Fray Alonso Ponce, Commissario General, en las
Provincias de la Nueva España_, in the _Coleccion de Documentos para
la Historia de España_, tom. lviii, p. 392. The other traits he
praises in the natives of Yucatan are their freedom from sodomy and
cannibalism. (For the text see later, p. 255.)

Footnote 222:

Bernardo de Lizana, _Historia de Yucatan. Devocionario de Nuestra
Señora de Izamal, y Conquista Espiritual_, 8vo. Pinciæ (Valladolid),
1633.

Footnote 223:

For these facts see Diego Lopez Cogolludo, _Historia de Yucatan_, lib.
ix, cap. xv. Cogolludo adds that in his time (1650–'60) Solana’s MSS.
could not be found; Lizana may have sent them to Spain.

Footnote 224:

I add the original of the most important passage: “La historia y
autores que podemos alegar son unos antiguos caracteres, mal
entendidos de muchos, y glossados de unos indios antiguos, que son
hijos de los sacerdotes de sus dioses, que son los que solo sabian
leer y adivinar, y a quien creian y reverenciavan como á Dioses
destos.”

Footnote 225:

Pedro Sanchez de Aguilar, _Informe contra Idolorum cultores del
Obispado de Yucatan_. 4to. Madrid, 1639, ff. 124.

Footnote 226:

“El primero quo halló las letras de la lengua Maya é hizó el cómputo
de los años, meses y edades, y lo enseño todo a los Indios de esta
Provincia, fué un Indios llamado _Kinchahau_, y por otro nombre
Tzamna.” Fr. Pedro Beltran de Santa Rosa Maria, _Arte del Idioma
Maya_, p. 16 (2d ed., Mérida de Yucatan, 1859).

Footnote 227:

Diego Lopez Cogolludo, _Historia de Yucatan_, lib. iv, cap. III. The
original is: “No acostumbraban escribir los pleitos, aunque tenian
caracteres con que se entendian, de que se ven muchos en las ruinas de
los edificios.”

Footnote 228:

“Porque lo leia su Rey en sus Analtehes, tenian Noticias de aquellas
Provincias de Yucatan (que Analtehes, ò Historias, es una misma cosa)
y de que sus Pasados avian salido de ellas.” _Historia de la Conquista
de la Provincia de el Itza, Reduccion y Progressos de la de el
Lacandon_, etc., (folio, Madrid, 1701) lib. vi, cap. iv.

Footnote 229:

_Ibid._, lib. vii, cap. i.

Footnote 230:

“Y en su casa tambien tenia de estos Idolos, y Mesa de Sacrificios, y
los Analtehes, ò Historias de todo quanto los avia sucedido.” _Ibid._,
lib. viii, cap. xiii.

Footnote 231:

Diego de Landa, _Relacion de las Cosas de Yucatan_, pp. 316, 318,
_seq._

Footnote 232:

Dr. Valentini’s article was published in the _Proceedings of the
American Antiquarian Society_, 1880. More recently Dr. Ed. Seler has
condemned the Landa alphabet as “ein Versuch von Ladinos, von in die
Spanische Wissenschaft eingeweihten Eingebornen in der Art, wie sie
die Spanier ihre Lettern verwenden sahen, auch mit den Eingebornen
geläufigen Bildern und Charaktern zu hantiren.” _Verhandlungen der
Berliner anthropologischen Gesellschaft_, 1887, s. 227. I am far from
adopting this sweeping statement, which I believe is contradicted by
the whole tenor of Landa’s words and the testimony of other writers.

Footnote 233:

Diego de Landa, _Relacion de las Cosas de Yucatan_, p. 44.

Footnote 234:

I add a few notes on this text:

_Enhi_ is the preterit of the irregular verb, _hal_, to be, pret.
_enhi_, fut. _anac_. _Katun yum_, father or lord of the Katun or
cycle. Each Katun was under the protection of a special deity or lord,
who controlled the events which occurred in it. _Tu coɔ pop_, lit.,
“for the rolling up of Pop,” which was the first month in the Maya
year. _Holom_ is an archaic future from _hul_; this form in _om_ is
mentioned by Buenaventura, _Arte de la Lengua Maya_, 1684, and is
frequent in the sacred language, but does not occur elsewhere. _Tucal
ya_, on account of his love; but _ya_ means also “suffering,” “wound,”
and “strength,” and there is no clue which of these significations is
meant. _Ahkinob_; the original has _lukinob_, which I suspect is an
error; it would alter the phrase to mean “In that day there are
fathers” or lords, the word _yum_, father, being constantly used for
lord or ruler. The _ahkin_ was the priest; the _ahbobat_ was a diviner
or prophet. The 9th Ahau Katun was the period of 20 years which began
in 1541, according to most native authors, but according to Landa’s
reckoning in the year 1561.

Footnote 235:

In quoting and explaining Maya words and phrases in this article, I
have in all instances followed the _Diccionario Maya-Español del
Convento de Motul_ (Yucatan); a copy of which in manuscript (one of
the only two in existence) is in my possession. It was composed about
1580. The still older Maya dictionary of Father Villalpando, printed
in Mexico in 1571, is yet in existence in one or two copies, but I
have never seen it.

Footnote 236:

Read before the Numismatic and Antiquarian Society of Philadelphia, at
its twenty-fourth annual meeting, January 5th, 1882, and published in
_The Penn Monthly_.

Footnote 237:

Of the numerous authorities which could be quoted on this point, I
shall give the words of but one, Father Alonso Ponce, the Pope’s
Commissary-General, who traveled through Yucatan in 1586, when many
natives were still living who had been born before the Conquest
(1541). Father Ponce had traveled through Mexico, and, of course, had
learned about the Aztec picture writing, which he distinctly contrasts
with the writing of the Mayas. Of the latter, he says: “_Son alabados
de tres cosas entre todos los demas de la Nueva España, la una de que
en su antiguedad tenian caracteres y letras, con que escribian sus
historias y las ceremonias y orden de los sacrificios de sus idolos y
su calendario, en libros hechos de corteza de cierto arbol, los cuales
eran unas tiras muy largas de quarta ó tercia en ancho, que se
doblaban y recogian, y venia á queder á manera de un libro
encuardenado en cuartilla, poco mas ó menos. Estas letras y caracteres
no las entendian, sino los sacerdotes de los idolos. (que en aquella
lengua se llaman ‘ahkines,’) y algun indio principal. Despues las
entendieron y supieron léer algunos frailes nuestros y aun las
escribien._”—(“_Relacion Breve y Verdadera de Algunas Cosas de las
Muchas que Sucedieron al Padre Fray Alonso Ponce, Comisario-General en
las Provincias de la Nueva España_,” page 392). I know no other author
who makes the interesting statement that these characters were
actually used by the missionaries to impart instruction to the
natives; but I have heard that an example of one such manuscript has
been discovered, and is now in the hands of a well-known Americanist.

Footnote 238:

“_Se les quemamos todos_,” he writes, “_lo qual á maravilla sentian y
les dava pena_.”—“_Relacion de las Cosas de Yucatan_,” page 316.

Footnote 239:

_Relacion de las Cosas de Yucatan_, page 160.

Footnote 240:

See above, pp. 128 and 172. The terminal letter in both these
words—“_chilan_,” “_balam_,”—may be either “_n_” or “_m_,” the change
being one of dialect and local pronunciation. I have followed the
older authorities in writing “_Chilan Balam_,” the modern preferring
“_Chilam Balam_.” Señor Eligio Ancona, in his recently published
_Historia de Yucatan_, (Vol. i., page 240, note, Merida, 1878), offers
the absurd suggestion that the name “_balam_” was given to the native
soothsayers by the early missionaries in ridicule, deriving it from
the well-known personage in the Old Testament. It is surprising that
Señor Ancona, writing in Merida, had never acquainted himself with the
Perez manuscripts, nor with those in possession of Bishop Carrillo.
Indeed, the most of his treatment of the ancient history of his
country is disappointingly superficial.

Footnote 241:

For example, in the _Registro Yucateco, Tome III: Diccionario
Universal de Historia y Geografía, Tome VIII._ (Mexico, 1855);
_Diccionario Historico de Yucatan, Tome I._ (Merida, 1866); in the
appendix to Landa’s _Cosas de Yucatan_ (Paris, 1864), etc. The epochs,
or _katuns_, of Maya history have been recently again analyzed by Dr.
Felipe Valentini, in an essay in the German and English languages, the
latter in the _Proceedings_ of the American Antiquarian Society, 1880.

Footnote 242:

The Abbé’s criticism occurs in the note to page 406 of his edition of
Landa’s _Cosas de Yucatan_.

Footnote 243:

It is described at length by Don Crescencio Carrillo y Ancona, in his,
‘_Disertacion sobre la Historia de la Lengua Maya_’ (Merida, 1870).

Footnote 244:

“_Je dois déclarer que l’examen dans tous leurs détails du ‘Codex
Troano’ et du ‘Codex Peresianus’ m’invite de la façon la plus sérieuse
à n’accepter ces signes, tout au moins au point de vue de l’exactitude
de leur tracé, qu’ avec une certaine réserve._”—Leon de Rosny’s _Essai
sur le Déchiffrement de l’Ecriture Hiératique de l’Amérique Centrale_,
page 21 (Paris, 1876). By the “_Codex Peresianus_,” he does not mean
the “_Codice Perez_,” but the Maya manuscript in the Bibliothêque
Nationale. The identity of the names is confusing and unfortunate.

Footnote 245:

“The Manuscript Troano,” published in _The American Naturalist_,
August, 1881, page 640. This manuscript or codex was published in
chrome-lithograph, Paris, 1879, by the French Government.

Footnote 246:

“_Declarar las necesidades y sus remedios._”—_Relacion de las Cosas de
Yucatan_, page 160. Like much of Landa’s Spanish, this use of the word
“_necesidad_” is colloquial, and not classical.

Footnote 247:

A _Medicina Domestica_, under the name of “Don Ricardo Ossado, (alias,
_el Judio_,)” was published at Merida in 1834; but this appears to
have been merely a bookseller’s device to aid the sale of the book by
attributing it to the “great unknown.”

Footnote 248:

Read before the Numismatic and Antiquarian Society of Philadelphia in
1889.

Footnote 249:

_Los Aztecas_, Mexico, 1888.

Footnote 250:

Dupaix, _Antiquités Mexicaines_. 1st Exped., p. 7, Pl. vi, vii, fig.
6, 7. At that time the flat surface of the rock was the floor of a
cabin built upon it. At present the cabin has disappeared, Mr.
Bandelier does not seem to have visited this stone when he was at
Orizaba, although he refers to Dupaix’s explorations. _Report of an
Archæological Tour in Mexico in 1881_, p. 26 (Boston, 1884). Nor does
M. H. Strebel, though he also refers to it, give any fresh information
about it. See his _Alt-Mexiko_, Band I, s. 30.

Footnote 251:

One appears to be a gigantic full face; another an animal like a frog,
with extended legs; two others are geometrical designs, the outlines
of which have evidently been recently freshened with a steel
implement. Future observers should be on their guard that this
procedure shall not have mutilated the early workmanship.

Footnote 252:

It is needless to expand this explanation of the Aztec Calendar; but
it is worth while to warn the student of the subject that the problem
is an intricate one and has never yet been satisfactorily solved,
because the information presented is both incomplete and
contradictory. I consider the most instructive discussion of the
Calendar is that in Orozco y Berra, _Historia Antigua de Mexico_, Lib.
iv., Cap. 1–6.

Footnote 253:

Father Sotomayor, in the newspaper account above referred to, states
that tradition assigned the inscription to the time of Cortes’ march
to the City of Mexico; a date which he quite properly ridicules as
impossible. The vicinity of Orizaba was, moreover, not a part of the
Mexican State until some time after the middle of the 15th century.
See Bandelier, _Archæological Tour in Mexico_, pp. 22, sqq.

Footnote 254:

_Tzontemoc_, a compound of _tzontli_, hair, and _temoa_, to fall;
_mictlan_, locative from _mictli_, to die; _tecutli_, lord, noble. For
a description of this deity see Sahagun, _Historia de la Nueva
España_, Lib. iii, Appendix, chap. I. I have elsewhere suggested that
the falling hair had reference to the long slanting rays of the
setting sun. See above, p. 146.

Footnote 255:

Both are reproduced in Kingsborough’s _Mexican Antiquities_. But I
would warn against the explanations in Spanish of the _Codex
Telleriano-Remensis_. They are the work of some ignorant and careless
clerk, who often applies the explanation of one plate and date to
another, through sheer negligence.

Footnote 256:

I would refer to an explanation of this system published by me in the
_Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society_, for 1886.

Footnote 257:

The phonetic significance of this symbol is well established. See
Aubin in the Introduction to Brasseur, _Histoire des Nations
Civilisées de la Mexique_, Tome I, p. lxix.

Footnote 258:

_Historia Antigua de Mexico_, Tomo III, p. 426.

Footnote 259:

Ixtlilxochitl, _Historia Chichimeca_, cap. 70. He errs in assigning it
to the year 1503, as all the other narratives of importance are
against him.

Footnote 260:

_Annales de Chimalpahin_, p. 173 (Ed. Siméon, Paris, 1889). His words
are “auh ça niman ihcuac oncan in hual motlatocalli in
Moteuhcçomatzin,” which Siméon renders “Immédiatement apres,” etc.

Footnote 261:

Tezozomoc, _Cronica Mexicana_, cap. 81. This writer adds that the
emperor expected his approaching end, and made a number of
preparations with regard to it. The _Anales de Cuauhtitlan_, p. 80,
places the events of 10 _tochtli_ under the following year 11 _acatl_,
and the reverse. It reads “murio el señor de Tenochtitlan,
Ahuitzotzin, le sucedio immediatamente Moteuczomatzin.”

Footnote 262:

Selections from an Address read before the Numismatic and Antiquarian
Society of Philadelphia, in 1886.

Footnote 263:

An Address delivered by request before the Historical Societies of
Pennsylvania and New York, in 1885. It was printed in the
_Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography_ for that year.

Footnote 264:

For another derivation, see _ante_, p. 182.

Footnote 265:

_Introduction to the Study of Indian Languages._ By J. W. Powell
(second edition, Washington, 1880).

Footnote 266:

This essay is extracted from a more general discussion of Humboldt’s
linguistic philosophy which I read before the American Philosophical
Society in 1885, and which was printed in their _Proceedings_ for that
year. Humboldt’s great work was his Introduction to his essay on the
Kawi language under the title: _Ueber die Verschiedenheit des
menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluss auf die geistige
Entwickelung des Menschengeschlechts_. Prof. Adler translates this,
“The Structural Differences of Human Speech and their Influence on the
Intellectual Development of the Human Race.” The word _geistige_,
however, includes emotional as well as intellectual things. Of the
many commentators on this masterly production, I have used
particularly the following:

_Die Elemente der Philosophischen Sprachwissenschaft Wilhelm von
Humboldt’s. In systematischer Entwicklung dargestellt und kritisch
erläutert_, von Dr. Max Schasler, Berlin, 1847.

_Die Sprachwissenschaft Wilhelm von Humboldt’s und die Hegel’sche
Philosophie_, von Dr. H. Steinthal, Berlin, 1848. The same eminent
linguist treats especially of Humboldt’s teachings in _Grammatik,
Logik und Psychologic, ihre Principien und ihr Verhältniss zu
einander_, pp. 123–135 (Berlin, 1855); in his well-known volume
_Characteristik der Hauptsächlichsten Typen des Sprachbaues_, pp.
20–70 (Berlin, 1860); in his oration _Ueber Wilhelm von Humboldt_
(Berlin, 1883); and elsewhere.

_Wilhelm von Humboldt’s Linguistical Studies._ By C. J. Adler, A. M.
(New York, 1866). This is the only attempt beside my own, so far as I
know, to present Humboldt’s philosophy of language to English readers.
It is meritorious, but certainly in some passages Prof. Adler failed
to catch Humboldt’s meaning.

Footnote 267:

_Ueber die Verschiedenheit_, etc., Bd. vi, s. 271, note. I may say,
once for all, that my references, unless otherwise stated, are to the
edition of Humboldt’s _Gesammelte Werke_, edited by his brother,
Berlin, 1841–1852.

Footnote 268:

_Aus Wilhelm von Humboldt’s letzten Lebensjahren. Eine Mittheilung
bisher unbekannter Briefe_, von Theodor Distel, p. 19 (Leipzig, 1883).

Footnote 269:

From his memoir _Ueber das vergleichende Sprachstudium in Beziehung
auf die verschiedenen Epochen der Sprachentwicklung_, Bd. iii, s. 249.

Footnote 270:

He draws examples from the Carib, Lule, Tupi, Mbaya, Huasteca,
Nahuatl, Tamanaca, Abipone, and Mixteca; _Ueber das Entstehen der
grammatischen Formen, und ihren Einfluss auf die Ideenentwicklung_,
Bd. iii, ss. 269–306.

Footnote 271:

_Ueber die Buchstabenschrift und ihren Zusammenhang mit dem
Sprachbau_, Bd. vi, s. 526.

Footnote 272:

This letter is printed in the memoir of Prof. E. Teza, _Intorno agli
Studi del Thavenet sulla Lingua Algonchina_, in the _Annali delle
Universitá toscane_, Tomo xviii (Pisa, 1880).

Footnote 273:

Compare Prof. Adler’s Essay, above mentioned, p. 11.

Footnote 274:

This is found expressed nowhere else so clearly as at the beginning of
§ 13, where the author writes: “Der Zweck dieser Einleitung, die
Sprachen, in der Verschiedenartigkeit ihres Baues, als die nothwendige
Grundlage der Fortbildung des menschlichen Geistes darzustellen, und
den wechselseitigen Einfluss des Einen auf das Andre zu erörtern, hat
mich genöthigt, in die Natur der Sprache überhaupt einzugehen.” Bd.
vi, s. 106.

Footnote 275:

“Das Studium der verschiedenen Sprachen des Erdbodens verfehlt seine
Bestimmung, wenn es nicht immer den Gang der geistigen Bildung im Auge
behält, und darin seinen eigentlichen Zweck sucht.” _Ueber den
Zusammenhang der Schrift mit der Sprache_, Bd. vi, s. 428.

Footnote 276:

“Eine Gedankenwelt an Töne geheftet.” _Ueber die Buchstabenschrift und
ihre Zusammenhang mit dem Sprachbau_, Bd. vi, s. 530.

Footnote 277:

This cardinal point in Humboldt’s philosophy is very clearly set forth
in his essay, _Ueber die Aufgabe des Geschichtschreibers_. Bd. i, s.
23, and elsewhere.

Footnote 278:

This reasoning is developed in the essay, _Ueber das Vergleichende
Sprachstudium_, etc., _Gesammelte Werke_, Bd. iii, ss. 241–268; and
see Ibid., s. 270.

Footnote 279:

See the essay _Ueber die Buchstabenschrift und ihren Zusammenhang mit
dem Sprachbau_, _Ges. Werke_, Bd. vi, ss. 551–2.

Footnote 280:

_Ueber das Entstehen der grammatischen Formen_, etc., _Werke_, Bd.
iii, s. 292.

Footnote 281:

Speaking of such “imperfect” languages, he gives the following wise
suggestion for their study: “Ihr einfaches Geheimniss, welches den Weg
anzeigt, auf welchem man sie, mit gänzlicher Vergessenheit unserer
Grammatik, immer zuerst zu enträthseln versuchen muss, ist, das in
sich Bedeutende unmittelbar an einander zu reihen.” _Ueber das
Vergleichende Sprachstudium_, etc., _Werke_, Bd. iii, s. 255; and for
a practical illustration of his method, see the essay, _Ueber das
Entstehen der grammatischen Formen_, etc., Bd. iii, s. 274.

Footnote 282:

His teachings on this point, of which I give the barest outline, are
developed in sections 12 and 13 of his Introduction, _Ueber die
Verschiedenheit_, etc. Steinthal’s critical remarks on these sections
(in his _Charakteristik der haupt. Typen des Sprachbaues_) seem to me
unsatisfactory, and he even does not appear to grasp the chain of
Humboldt’s reasoning.

Footnote 283:

_Lettre à M. Abel-Remusat_, Werke, Bd. vii, s. 353.

Footnote 284:

“Daher ist das Einschliessen in Ein Wort mehr Sache der
Einbildungskraft, die Trennung mehr die des Verstandes.” _Ueber die
Verschiedenheit_, etc., s. 327. Compare also, s. 326 and 166.

Footnote 285:

“Der Mexikanischen kann man am Verbum, in welchem die Zeiten durch
einzelne Endbuchstaben und zum Theil offenbar symbolisch bezeichnet
werden, Flexionen und ein gewisses Streben nach Sanskritischer
Worteinheit nicht absprechen.” _Ueber die Verschiedenheit_, etc.,
_Werke_, Bd. vi, s. 176.

Footnote 286:

Read before the American Philosophical Society in 1885, and revised
from the _Proceedings_ of that year.

Footnote 287:

“Diese thatsachen scheinen darauf hinzudeuten, dass jeder grössere in
sich zusammenhängende ländercomplex nur einen oder doch nur ganz
wenige sprachgrundtypen herausbildet, so eigenartig, dass selten eine
spräche ganz aus dem allgemeinen rahmen heraustritt.” Dr. Heinrich
Winkler, _Uralaltaische Völker und Sprachen_, s. 147 (Berlin, 1884).

Footnote 288:

_Report of the Corresponding Secretary to the Committee, of his
progress in the Investigation committed to him of the General
Character and Forms of the Languages of the American Indians._ Read
(12th Jan., 1819) in the _Transactions of the Historical and Literary
Committee of the American Philosophical Society_. Vol. i, 1819, pp.
xxx, xxxi.

Footnote 289:

See _Ueber die Verschiedenheit_, etc., pp. 170–173, 325–6, etc.

Footnote 290:

Published in H. R. Schoolcraft’s _History and Statistics of the Indian
Tribes of the United States_. Vol. ii, pp. 346–349 (Washington, 1853).

Footnote 291:

“Je suis donc autorisé à conclure qu’il faut tenir pour absolument
fausse cette proposition devenue faute d’y avoir regardé de près, une
sorte de clichè: que si les langues Américaines diffèrent entre elles
par la lexique, elles possedent néanmoins en commun une seule et méme
grammaire.” _Examen grammatical comparé de seize langues Américaines_,
in the Compte-rendu of the Congrès international des Américanistes,
1877, Tome ii, p. 242. As no one ever maintained the unity of American
grammar outside of the _Einverleibungssystem_, it must be to this
theory only that M. Adam alludes.

Footnote 292:

_Etudes sur Six Langues Américaines_, p. 3 (Paris, 1878); and compare
his _Examen Grammatical_ above quoted, p. 24, 243.

Footnote 293:

_Grundriss der Sprachwissenschaft_, Von Dr. Friedrich Müller. Compare
Bd. i., s. 68, und Bd. ii, s. 182.

Footnote 294:

_Introduction to the Study of Indian Languages._ By J. W. Powell, p.
55, Second edition. Washington, 1880.

Footnote 295:

This obscure feature in Algonkin Grammar has not yet been
satisfactorily explained. Compare Baraga, _Grammar of the Otchipwe
Language_, p. 116 (Montreal, 1878), and A. Lacombe, _Grammaire de la
Langue des Cris_, p. 155 (Montreal, 1874).

Footnote 296:

See _Grammar of the Chòctaw Languages_. By the Rev. Cyrus Byington.
Edited by D. G. Brinton, pp. 35, 36 (Philadelphia, 1870).

Footnote 297:

_Gramática Quechua, ó del Idioma del Imperio de los Incas._ Por el Dr.
José Dionisio Anchorena, pp. 163–177 (Lima, 1874).

Footnote 298:

_Organismus der Khetsua Sprache._ Von J. J. von Tschudi, p. 368
(Leipzig, 1884).

Footnote 299:

“Ces exemples font comprendre combien quelquefois on peut rendre des
mots tres longs, pour exprimer toute une phrase, quoiqu’ aussi on
puisse facilement rendre les mêmes ideés par des périphrases.”
Lacombe, _Grammaire de la Langue des Cris_, p. 11 (Montreal, 1874).

Footnote 300:

“Se explicara la razon filosófica de los dos modos de usar las
palabras en Mexicano, uno componiendo de varias palabras uno solo, y
otro dejandolas separadas y enlazandolas solo por regimen.” From the
programme of Prof. A. de la Rosa’s course in 1870.

Footnote 301:

The original authorities I have consulted on the Othomi are:

_Reglas de Orthographia, Diccionario, y Arte del Idioma Othomi._ By
Luis de Neve y Molina (Mexico, 1767).

_De Lingúa Othomitorum Dissertatio._ By Emmanuel Naxera (Philadelphia,
1835).

_Catecismo en Lengua Otomi._ By Francisco Perez (Mexico, 1834).

Footnote 302:

He speaks of the Othomi in these terms:—“Une langue aux allures toutes
spéciales, fondamentalement distincte de toutes les langues qui se
parlent aujourd’ hui sur le continent américain.” _Mission
Scientifique au Mexique._ Pt. i. Anthropologie, p. 32 (Paris, 1884).
This is the precise opinion, strongly expressed, that it is my object
to controvert. Many other writers have maintained it. Thus Count
Piccolomini in the _Prolegomena_ to his version of Neve’s Othomi
Grammar says: “La loro lingua che con nessuna altra del mondo
conosciuto ha la menoma analogia, è semplice. * * * La formazione del
loro verbi, nomi ed altri derivati ha molta semplecitá,” etc.
_Grammatica della Lingua Otomi_, p. 3 (Roma, 1841). This writer also
offers an illustration of how imperfectly Duponceau’s theory of
polysynthesis has been understood. Not only does Piccolomini deny it
for the Otomi, but he denies that it is anything more than merely
running several words together with some phonetic syncopation. See the
_Annotationi_ at the close of his Othomi Grammar.

Footnote 303:

This is the orthography of Neve. The terminal vowels are both nasals;
_nhian_ is from the radical _hia_, to breathe, breath.

Footnote 304:

See the “Comparacion del Othomi con el Mazahua y el Pirinda,” in the
_Cuadro Descriptivo y Comparativo de las Lenguas Indigenas de Mexico_,
por Francisco Pimentel. Tomo iii, pp. 431–445 (Mexico, 1875).

Footnote 305:

See Pimentel, _Cuadro Descriptivo_, etc. Tomo iii, pp. 426 and 455.

Footnote 306:

“Parte de la dificultad de este idioma consiste en la syncopa, pues el
no syncopar los principiantes artistas, es causa de que sus periodos y
oraciones sean tan rispidos, y faltos de harmonia, por cuyo motivo los
nativos los murmuran, y tienen (como vulgarmente decimos), por
quartreros.” _Reglas de Orthographia_, etc., p. 146.

Footnote 307:

“L’Othomi nous a tout l’air d’une langue primitivement incorporante,
et qui, parvenu au dernier degré d’usure et délabrement, a fini par
prendre les allures d’un dialecte à juxtaposition.” _Melanges de
Philologie et de Paléographie Américaine._ Par le Comte de Charencey,
p. 80 (Paris, 1883).

Footnote 308:

Neve, _Reglas_ etc., pp. 159, 160.

Footnote 309:

Pimentel, _Cuadro Descriptivo_, Tom. iii, p. 424.

Footnote 310:

Pimentel, _Cuadro Descriptivo_, Tomo iii, p. 462.

Footnote 311:

Wm. M. Gabb, _On the Indian Tribes and Languages of Costa Rica_, in
the Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society for 1875, p.
532.

Footnote 312:

“Dessen einfacher Bau die über die Amerikanischen Sprachen im
Allgemeinen verbreiteten Theorien zu widerlegen im Stande ist.”
_Grundriss der Sprachwissenschaft_, ii Band, s. 318 (Wien, 1882).

Footnote 313:

_Le Taensa a-t-il été forgé de toutes Piéces?_ Réponse à M. Daniel G.
Brinton, Par Lucien Adam, p. 19 (Paris, Maisonneuve et Cie, 1885).

Footnote 314:

_Apuntes Lexicograficos de las Lenguas y Dialectos de los Indios de
Costa-Rica._ Por Bernardo Augusto Thiel, Obispo de Costa-Rica, (San
José de Costa-Rica, 1882. Imprenta Nacional).

Footnote 315:

Gabb, ubi supra, p. 539.

Footnote 316:

“Especial dificultad ofrecen los verbos.” _Apuntes Lexicograficos_,
etc. Introd. p. iv. This expression is conclusive as to the
incorrectness of the opinion of M. Adam, and Prof. Müller above
quoted, and shows how easily even justly eminent linguists may fall
into error about tongues of which they have limited means of
knowledge. The proper course in such a case is evidently to be
cautious about venturing positive assertions.

Footnote 317:

_Transactions of the American Philological Association_, 1872, p. 58.

Footnote 318:

_Grundriss der Sprachwissenschaft_, Bd. ii, p. 387.

Footnote 319:

_The Brazilian Language and its Agglutination._ By Amaro Cavalcanti,
LL. B., etc., p. 5 (Rio Janeiro, 1883).

Footnote 320:

The most valuable for linguistic researches are the following:

_Arte de Grammatica da Lingua maís usada na Costa do Brazil._ By
Joseph de Anchieta. This is the oldest authority, Anchieta having
commenced as missionary to the Tupis in 1556.

_Arte, Vocabulario y Tesoro de la Lengua Guarani, ó mas bien Tupi._ By
Antonio Ruiz de Montoya. An admirable work representing the southern
Tupi as it was in the first half of the seventeenth century.

Both the above have been republished in recent years. Of modern
writings I would particularly name:

_Apontamentos sobre o Abañeénga tambem chamado Guarani on Tupi._ By
Dr. B. C. D’A. Nogueira (Rio Janeiro, 1876).

Footnote 321:

_Notes on the Lingoa Geral_, as above, p. 71.

Footnote 322:

James Howse, _A Grammar of the Cree Language_ (London, 1844). A
remarkable production which has never received the attention from
linguists which it merits.

Footnote 323:

Anchieta, _Arte de Grammatica_, etc., p. 75.

Footnote 324:

_The Brazilian Language_, etc., pp. 48–9.

Footnote 325:

See Anchieta, _Arte de Grammatica_, etc., p. 52.

Footnote 326:

_The Brazilian Language_, etc., p. 111.

Footnote 327:

“Kein polysynthesis und keine incorporation,” says Dr. Heinrich
Winkler (_Uralaltaische Völker und Sprachen_, p. 149), who apparently
has obtained all his knowledge of it from the two pages devoted to it
by Professor Friedrich Müller, who introduces it as “äusserst
einfach.” _Grundriss der Sprachwissenschaft_, Bd. ii, p. 257.

Footnote 328:

_Grammatica Mutsun_; Por el R. P. F. F. Arroyo de la Cuesta; and
_Vocabulario Mutsun_, by the same, both in Shea’s “Library of American
Linguistics.”

Footnote 329:

Read before the American Philosophical Society in 1888, and published
in their _Proceedings_ under the title “The Language of Palæolithic
Man.”

Footnote 330:

“L’homme chelleen n’ avait pas la parole,” Mortillet, _La
Prehistorique Antiquité de l’ Homme_, p. 250 (Paris, 1883).

Footnote 331:

See Dr. H. Steinthal, _Der Ursprung der Sprache_, s. 264, et seq.
(Berlin, 1888), who rehearses the discussion of the point with
sufficient fullness.

Footnote 332:

See, for instance, Plate X of Mortillet, _Musée Préhistorique_:
Cartailhac, _Ages Préhistoriques de l’ Espagne_, plate on p. 27.

Footnote 333:

I have collected the evidence for this in an Essay on Prehistoric
Archæology, in the _Iconographic Encyclopedia_, Vol. ii.

Footnote 334:

See his address on “The Origin of Languages and the Antiquity of
Speaking Man,” in the _Proceedings of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science._ Vol. xxxv, p. 279.

Footnote 335:

_Dix-huit Ans chez les Sauvages_, p. 85.

Footnote 336:

Petitot, _Dictionnaire de la Langue Déné Dindjié_, Introduction.

Footnote 337:

On the astonishingly wide distribution of the n and k sounds as
primitive demonstratives, compare H. Winkler, _Uralaltaische Völker
und Sprachen_, s. 86, 87, (Berlin, 1884). For other comparisons, see
Tolmie and Dawson, _Vocabularies of Inds. of British Columbia_, p.
128.

Footnote 338:

“Es hat offenbar eine Zeit gegeben, in der _ka_ alleiniges Pron. pers.
für alle drei Personen war, erst allmählig entwickelten sich _ño ka_,
ego, _ka m_, tu, _ka y_, ille.” J. J. von Tschudi, _Organismus der
Khetsua Sprache_, s. 184 (Leipzig, 1884). In the language of the
Baures of Bolivia when the verb takes the negative termination
_apico_, the pronominal signs are discarded; thus, _era_, to drink, a
drink; _erapico_—I, thou, he, we, you, they, do not drink. Magio,
_Arte de la Lengua de los Indios Baures_, p. 82 (Paris, 1880). This
reveals a time when both affirmative and negative verbals dispensed
with pronouns altogether.

Footnote 339:

_Apuntes sobre la Lengua Chapaneca, MS._

Footnote 340:

_Arte de la Lengua Guarani_, p. 93.

Footnote 341:

_La Lengua Araucana_, p. 15 (_Santiago de Chile_, 1888).

Footnote 342:

Albornoz, _Arte de la Langua Chapaneca_, p. 10.

Footnote 343:

_Principes de la Langue des Sauvages appellés Sauteux._ Introd.

Footnote 344:

_Arte de la Lengua Guarani, ó mas bien Tupi._ Por el P. Antonio Ruiz
de Montoya, p. 100.

Footnote 345:

_Grammatica de la Lengua Chibcha._ Introd.

Footnote 346:

See Howse. _Grammar of the Cree Language_, pp. 16, 134, 135, 169, etc.

Footnote 347:

_The Religious Sentiment; Its Source and Aim. A Contribution to the
Science of Religion._ By D. G. Brinton, p. 31 (New York, 1876). The
statement in the text can be algebraically demonstrated in the
mathematical form of logic as set forth by Prof. Boole, thus: _A_=not
(not-_A_); which, in its mathematical expression becomes, _x_=_x^2_.
Whence by transposition and substitution we derive, _x^2_=1; in which
equation 1=_A_. See Boole. _An Investigation into the Laws of Thought_
(London, 1854).

Footnote 348:

_On Polysynthesis and Incorporation_, in _Proceedings_ of the American
Philosophical Society, 1885. (See the preceding essay.)

Footnote 349:

_On the Grammatical Construction of the Cree Language_, p. 12 (London,
1875).

Footnote 350:

Steinthal, _Gramatik, Logik und Psychologie_, s. 325.

Footnote 351:

In Maya the conjunction “and” is rendered by _yetl_, a compound of the
possessive pronoun, third person singular _y_, and _etl_, companion.
The Nahuatl, _ihuan_, is precisely the same in composition.

Footnote 352:

“Die meisten amerikanischen Sprachen haben die Eigenthümlichkeit, dass
in der Regel die Haupttempora in Auwendung kommen und unter diesen
besonders das Präsens, selbst wenn von einer bestimmten, besonders
aber von einer unbestimmten Vergangenheit gesprochen wird.” J. J. von
Tschudi, _Organismus der Khetsua Sprache_, s. 189. The same tense is
also employed for future occurrences. What classical grammarians call
“the historical present,” will illustrate this employment of a single
tense for past and future time.

Footnote 353:

The Chiquita of Bolivia is an extreme example. “La distinction du
passé, du présent et du futur n’existe pas dans cette langue étrange.”
_Arte y Vocabulario de la Lengua Chiquita_. Por. L. Adam, y V. Henry,
p. x.

Footnote 354:

_On the Verb in American Languages._ By Wilhelm von Humboldt.
Translated by D. G. Brinton, in _Proceedings of the American
Philosophical Society_, 1885.

Footnote 355:

A striking example is the Chiquita of Bolivia. “No se puede en
chiquito, ni contar dos, tres, cuatro, etc., ni decir segundo,
tercero, etc.” _Arte y Vocabulario de la Lengua Chiquita_, p. 19
(Paris, 1880).

Footnote 356:

Those distinctions, apparently of sex, called by M. Lucien Adam
_anthropic_ and _metanthropic_, _arrhenic_ and _metarrhenic_, found in
certain American tongues, belong to the material, not the formal part
of the language, and, strictly speaking, are distinctions not really
based on sexual considerations. See Adam, _Du Genre dans les Diverses
Langues_ (Paris, 1883).

Footnote 357:

Washington Matthews, _Grammar and Dictionary of the Language of the
Hidatsa_ (New York, 1873) In a letter received since the first
publication of this essay, Dr. Matthews writes that the analysis in
the text is quite correct.

Footnote 358:

Extract from a paper read before the American Philosophical Society in
1886.

Footnote 359:

_Linguistic Essays_, by Carl Abel, Ph. D. (London, 1882).

Footnote 360:

I scarcely need say that I refer to the marvelous words of St. John: ὁ
μη αγαπων. ουκ εγνω τον θεον, οτι ὁ θεος αγαπμ εστιν (1 John iv, 8);
and to the _amor intellectualis_, the golden crown of the philosophy
of Spinoza as developed in the last book of his _Ethica_.

Footnote 361:

Chipeway: _nin sagiiwin_, I love; _sagiiwewin_, love; _saiagiiwed_, a
lover.

Cree: _sâkihituwin_, friendship; _manitowi sâkihewewin_, the love of
God. The words from the Chipeway are from Baraga’s _Otchipwe
Dictionary_; those from the Cree from Lacombe’s _Dictionnaire de la
langue des Cris_, except when otherwise noted.

Footnote 362:

Chipeway: _sagibidjigan_, a string or cord.

Cree: _sakkappitew_, he fastens, he ties; _sakkahigan_, a nail;
_sakkistiwok_, coeunt, copulati sunt.

Footnote 363:

See Joseph Howse, _Grammar of the Cree Language_, p. 165.

Footnote 364:

See the remarks in Andrew’s _Latin Lexicon_, s. v.

Footnote 365:

Cree: _espiteyimit kije-manito_, for the love of God;
_espiteyimatijk_, for the love of the children.

Footnote 366:

Cree: _ni wittjiwâgan_, my friend; _wi’chettuwin_, a confraternity, or
society.

Footnote 367:

Chipeway: _inawema_, I am his relative, or, his friend.

Cree: _ijinákusiw_, he has such an appearance. This particle of
similarity is considered by Howse to be “one of the four primary
generic nouns” of the Algonkin language. _Grammar of the Cree
Language_, p. 135.

Footnote 368:

Chipeway: _nin minenima_, I like (him, her, it).

Footnote 369:

See Howse, _Grammar of the Cree Lang._, p. 157. _Keche_ (_kees_) as an
interjection of pleasure, he considers in antithesis to _ak_ (compare
German _ach!_) as an interjection of pain, and cites abundant
examples.

Footnote 370:

Chipeway: _nin kijewadis_, I am amicable, benevolent; _kijewadisiwin_,
charity, benevolence, benignity, compassion; _kije manitowin_,
God-head, divine nature.

Cree: _kisatew_, he is devoted to (him, her); _kisew_, she loves (her
children); _kisewatisiwin_, charity, the highest virtue; _kise
manito_, “l’esprit charitable, Dieu,” and numerous others.

Footnote 371:

The following words and meanings are from Carochi’s Grammar and
Molina’s Dictionary of this tongue:

_ço_, punzar, sangrar.
_çoço_, ensartar, como flores, cuentas, etc.
_çotica_, estar ensartada la cuenta, etc.
_tlaçotl_, cosa ensartada.

The original meaning of _zo_, a pointed tool or awl, is not given by
Molina, but is repeatedly expressed in the phonetic picture-writing of
the Aztecs.

Footnote 372:

_Estudio de la Filosofia y Riqueza de la Lengua Mexicana._ Par Agostin
de la Rosa, p. 78 (Guadalajara, 1877).

Footnote 373:

There is another word in Nahuatl of similar derivation. It is _pohui_,
to make much of a person, to like one. The root is _po_, which carries
with it the idea of sameness, similarity or equality; as _itelpocapo_,
a boy like himself. (Paredes, _Promptuario Manual Mexicano_, p. 140.)

Footnote 374:

Thus:

_ya_ or _yail_, love; pain, sickness, a wound; difficult, laborious.
_yate_, to love.
_yacunah_, to love.
_yaili_, painfully, laboriously.
_yalal_, to taste; to have relations with a woman.
_yatzil_, love, charity; something difficult or painful.

Footnote 375:

“_Ya_: sentir mucho una cosa.
_yamab_: sin sentir [the _ma_ is the negative].”

_Diccionario Maya-Español del Convento de Motul._ (MS. in my
possession).

Footnote 376:

Thus:

_yahtetabal cah tumen Dios_, we are loved by God.
_u yacunah Dios toon_, the love of God to us.
_yacunahil Dios_, the love with which God is loved.
_mehenbit yacunah_, filial love.
_bakil yacunah_, carnal love.

All from the _Diccionario de Motul_ (MS.).

Footnote 377:

Thus:

_tatu canel ixallé_, my beloved wife.
_ma a canezal a Dios_, dost thou love God?

_Diccionario Huasteca-Español_, por Carlos de Tapia Zenteno (Mex.,
1767).

Footnote 378:

A number of examples are given in the _Diccionario de Motul_ (MS.).

Footnote 379:

“Der blosse Begriff derjenigen Liebe, welche das lateinische Zeitwort
_amare_ ausdrückt, dem Cakchiquel Indianer fremd ist.” _Zur
Ethnographie der Republik Guatemala._ Von Otto Stoll, M. D., p. 146
(Zürich, 1884).

Footnote 380:

_Xelogox ka chiri ruma Akahal vinak_, “they were loved by the Akahal
men.” _Annals of the Cakchiquels_, p. 126 (Vol. VI of Brinton’s
Library of Aboriginal American Literature). In the Quiche _Popol Vuh_
the word has the same meaning, as (page 102):

_chi log u vach_, their beloved face.

In fact, the word Dr. Stoll gives as that now usual among the
Cakchiquels for “to love”—to desire, in the _Popol Vuh_ is applied to
the price paid for wives (p. 304):

_rahil pu mial_, the price of their daughters.

This word may be a derivative from the Maya _ya_, above mentioned.

Footnote 381:

_De Naturâ Deorum_, I, 44.

Footnote 382:

_Gramática Quechua_, por Dr. J. D. Anchorena, pp. 163–177 (Lima,
1874).

Footnote 383:

_Ollanta: Drame en vers Quechuas du Temps des Incas._ Traduit et
commenté par Gavino Pacheco Zegarra (Paris, 1878).

Footnote 384:

Thus, from the _Ollanta_:

_Ollantaytan munar ccanqui_, thou lovest Ollanta! (line 277).
_munacusccallay_, my well beloved! (the Inca to his daughter, line
344).
_munayman_, I should prefer (line 1606).

Holguin, in his _Vocabulario de la Lengua Qquichua_, gives:

_Dios munay_, the love of God.
_munaricuy_, unchaste love.

Footnote 385:

Holguin (u. s.) gives the definitions:

_munana_, la voluntad que es potentia.
_munay_, voluntad, el querer, el gusto, appetito ô amor que es acto.

Footnote 386:

From the _Ollanta_:

_Huay ccoyailay, Huay mamallay,
Ay, huayllucusccay ccosallay._
Oh, my queen! Oh my mother!
Oh, my husband so beloved! (305, 306).

These lines show both the word and its derivation.

Footnote 387:

From the _Ollanta_:

_ña llulluspa_, caress thee, are fond of thee (934).

Footnote 388:

From the _Ollanta_:

_ccuyaccuscallay_, my beloved one (1758).
_ccuyaska_, compassionate (1765).

Footnote 389:

See the Qquichua love songs, _harahui_ and _huaynu_, as they are
called, given by Anchorena in his _Gramática Quechua_, pp. 131–135.

Footnote 390:

See Holguin, _Vocabulario Qquichua_, s. v. _mayhuay_ and
_mayhuayccuni_.

Footnote 391:

Thus:

_Tupa nande raihu_, God loves us.
_Tupa nande haihu_, the love which we have for God.
_ahaihu_, I love her (him, it).

Footnote 392:

_yecotiaha_, friend; compounded of _coti_, a dwelling, and _aha_, to
go,—a goer to a dwelling, a visitor. This, and the other Guarani words
given, are taken from Ruiz de Montoya’s _Tesoro de la Lengua Guarani_
(ed. Vienna, 1876).

Footnote 393:

Another possible derivation would be from _ahii_, desire, appetite
(Spanish, _gana_); and _hu_, in the sense of being present. This would
express a longing, a lust, like love (see above).

Footnote 394:

I find _çaiçu_ given by Dr. Couto de Magalhaes in his _Cours da Lingoa
Geral segundo Ollendorf_ (Rio de Janeiro, 1876); _saisu_ by Dr. Amaro
Cavalcanti in _The Brazilian Language and its Agglutination_ (Rio
Janeiro, 1883); _çauçub_ by Dias, _Diccionario da Lingua Tupy_
(Leipzig, 1858), and by Dr. E. F. França in his _Chrestomathia da
Lingua Brasilica_ (Leipzig, 1859).

Footnote 395:

“_Ani_, es gehört, ist eigen; _ta ani_, nach seiner Art.”
_Arawackisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch._ This dictionary, published
anonymously at Paris, in 1882, in Tome viii of the _Bibliotheque
Linguistique Américaine_, is the production of the Moravian
Missionary, Rev. T. S. Schuhmann. See _The Literary Works of the
Foreign Missionaries of the Moravian Church_. By the Rev. G. H.
Reichelt. Translated and annotated by Bishop Edmund de Schweinitz, p.
13 (Bethlehem, 1886).

Footnote 396:

_The Religious Sentiment, its Source and Aim; a Contribution to the
Science and Philosophy of Religion_, p. 60 (New York, 1876).

Footnote 397:

From the _Proceedings_ of the American Philosophical Society for 1885.

Footnote 398:

_Diccionario del Convento de Motul_, MS., s. v.

Footnote 399:

_Acanceh Cheltun. Titulo de un solar y Monte in Acanceh_, 1767, MS.

Footnote 400:

_Geografia Maya._ _Anales del Museo Nacional de Mexico_, Tomo ii, p.
435.

Footnote 401:

“The metre is the _only measure of dimension_ which agrees with that
adopted by these most ancient artists and architects.”—Dr. LePlongeon.
_Mayapan and Maya Inscriptions_, in _Proceedings_ of the American
Antiquarian Society, April, 1881.

Footnote 402:

“Nearly all the monuments of Yucatan bear evidence that the Mayas had
a predilection for the number _seven_,” etc. LePlongeon, _Vestiges of
the Mayas_, p. 63 (New York, 1881). Of course, this may have other
symbolic meanings also.

Footnote 403:

Coto, _Diccionario de la Lengua Cakchiquel_, MS.

Footnote 404:

Coto, _Diccionario_, MS., s. v. “Ploma de albañil.”

Footnote 405:

“Cuanto se mide con el pulgar y el indice.” Molina, _Vocabulario de la
Lengua Mexicana_.

Footnote 406:

Carochi, _Arte de la Lengua Mexicana_, p. 123.

Footnote 407:

Orozco y Berra, _Historia Antigua de la Conquista de Mexico_, Tomo i,
pp. 557–8, (Mexico, 1880).

Footnote 408:

_Memoria de los Trabajos ejecutados por la comision scientifica de
Pachuca en el año de 1861_, p. 357, quoted by Orozco. Almaraz’s words
are not at all precise: “la unidad lineal, con pequeñas
modificaciones, debió ser cosa de o, m 8, ó cuatro palmos
próximamente.”

Footnote 409:

_The Metrical Standard of the Mound-Builders._ Reduced by the Method
of Even Divisors. By Col. Chas. Whittlesey (Cleveland, 1883).

Footnote 410:

_Notes on Mitla_, in _Proceedings of the American Antiquarian
Society_, April, 1882, p. 97.

Footnote 411:

See Herrera, _Decadas de Indias_, Dec. ii, Lib. vii, cap. xvi, and
Dec. iii, Lib. iv. cap. xvii. “Castigaban mucho alque falseaba
medidas, diciendo que era enemigo de todos i ladron publico,” etc.

Footnote 412:

“Habian terminos señalados de cuantas leguas habian de acudir á los
mercados,” etc. Diego Duran, _Historia de la Nueva España_, Vol. ii,
pp, 215, 217. Both the terms in the text are translated _legua_ in
Molina’s Vocabulary, so that it is probable that the resting places
were something near two and a half to three miles apart.

Footnote 413:

“Todo lo venden por cuenta y medida, excepto que fasta agora no se ha
visto vender cosa alguna por peso.” _Cartas y Relaciones de Hernan
Cortes_, p. 105. (Ed. Gayangos.)

Footnote 414:

“Tenian medida para todas las cosas; hasta la ierva, que era tanta,
quanta se podia atar con una cuerda de una braza por un tomin.”
Herrera, _Decadas de Indias_, Dec. ii, Lib. vii, cap. xvi. In another
passage where this historian speaks of weights (Dec. iii, Lib. iv,
cap. xvii), it is one of his not infrequent slips of the pen.

Footnote 415:

A copy of this curious production called _Cancionero Americano_ is in
the Library of the Bureau of Ethnology at Washington. The introductory
note is as follows:

“Esos cantos, escogidos en el año mil y ocho cientos veinte y siete, ó
veinte y ocho, por un viagero en America, y despues hallados en sus
papeles, no vinieron jamás, siquiera por lo que podemos saber,
conocidos del publico sabio. Estos son los mismos cantos del Pueblo
Taensa, para las orillas del Misisipi ó del Alabama, todos escritos en
el dulce y pulido dialecto de aquel pueblo. Todos los amigos de la
ciencia han de sentir el precio de esta pequeña colleccion.”

It will be noticed that the Spanish is full of errors, as _esos_ for
_estos_, _hallados_ for _encontrados_, _para las orillas_ for _por las
orillas_; and _sentir el precio_ does not mean _appreciate_, as the
author would say, but “regret the price.”

Footnote 416:

The discussion elicited the following additional brochures from M.
Adam: _Le Taensa n’a pas été forgé de toutes piecès. Lettre de M.
Friedrich Müller á Lucien Adam_, pp. 4.

_Dom Parisot ne produira pas le Manuscrit Taensa. Lettre á M. Victor
Henry_, pp. 13.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES

1. P. 67, changed “has certain” to “has a certain”. 2. P. 132, changed “Leixque de la Langue Algonquine” to “Lexique de la Langue Algonquine”. 3. P. 172, changed ‘yalahi: Zazaba’ to ‘yalahi: “Zazaba’. 4. P. 255, changed “qus se doblaban” to “que se doblaban”. 5. P. 255, changed “de un libo encuardenado” to “de un libro encuardenado”. 6. P. 293, changed “A maiden who loves me we” to “A maiden who loves me well”. 7. P. 301, changed “allegiance turn to hatred” to “allegiance turns to hatred”. 8. P. 433, changed “these where spoken” to “these were spoken”. 9. P. 452, removed footnote anchor from the end of “THE CURIOUS HOAX OF THE TAENSA LANGUAGE” as there was no corresponding footnote. 10. Silently corrected typographical errors and also variations in spelling. 11. Retained anachronistic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings as printed. 12. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.

End of Project Gutenberg's Essays of an Americanist, by Daniel G. Brinton