The CUSTOMS and the LANGUAGE of the IROQUOIS. FROM the days of the early Jesuit Fathers to the present time the general history and customs of the Iroquois tribes have been so faithfully chronicled that I may be pardoned if I present these people to you to-day only through their own medium of thought, their language. It has been said, "A dead language is full of all monumental remembrances of the people who spoke it. Their swords and their shields are in it; their faces are pictured on its walls, and their very voices sing still through its recesses." While the above has special reference to languages which have left a written record, it applies with even greater force to our aboriginal tongues, in which nearly every word contains its own little legend. Extremely interesting and important is the word-study of the Iroquois dialects, and through this study alone can we arrive at a correct knowledge of the people who used them. Vocabularies giving a general interpretation are useless in comparison with a list of dissected words containing original Indian thought and Indian etymology. Much time, I regret to say, has been lost by those who have analysed these words simply to trace their resemblance to words from Oriental families. Concerning this branch of investigation, I will venture to quote the conclusion of the celebrated etymologist, Skeat: "Mere resemblance of form and apparent connection in sense between languages which have different phonetic laws or no necessary connection are commonly a delusion, and not to be regarded." A closer study of these dialects proves in most instances the fallacy of striving to trace such anologies; e.g., in a late work the Iroquois word eh-take, lit., "on earth," is compared with roots from tongues very far apart, said to signify "inferior." The Iroquois word in its applied sense means "down," and in its literal, " on earth"; from o-he-ta, field, earth, and ke, on; o-he-take," on earth"; in no sense does it signify "inferior." Again, Professor Skeat says: "The whole of a word and not a portion only ought to be reasonably accounted for." In nearly all Iroquois work we find an almost total disregard of this important rule. Even Père Cuoq, who has done so much through his publications, fails in his Lexique, under the portion "Racines Iroquoises," to explain why he retains the incorporated pronouns and prepositions in the list of roots. Why not call them "words," and not "Iroquois roots"? And when these pronouns are dropped in composition, why not explain that fact? Why should he in the verb I-keks, "I eat," say that the first k is servile, instead of calling it the first personal pronoun? In Bruyas's Dictionary, also, we find that when roots are given they are not separated from their pronouns, nor oftentimes from their tense signs. In the Dictionary of Père Marcoux he has given as the root the third person singular of the Indicative, but neither of the authors above referred to has adhered to any such rule. The literal meaning of many Iroquois nouns is extremely interesting. The names of animals in very many cases refer to some peculiarity of the object. The rabbit, Te-yo-hon-tă-ne-keñha, "It has two little ears together," alludes probably to the fact that when running the animal keeps its ears thrown backward and close together. Te-yo-ti-na-"kd-es. It has (two) long horns. He has to him a tassel. Te-wa-hon-"tes. Ta-tis'-ta-tis, its note. It immerses its mouth (lips). The goat and some other animals are named from their odour Birds generally from their note, as: the yellow-bird, ka-tei"ka-u; the whip-poor-will, kwa'"-kurh-'ya"n. The oriole is called tea-kwi-yu, meaning "large-thighed," and the goose wăte-ma” ́1-nyăks, “It breaks its voice." Nearly all trees are named from some quality. Tears translate as "eye-juice," sugar as "tree-juice." The feelings and passions are even more strikingly descriptive. Rhu-lú-nha"-kǎrh-'ya"". He is in agony.. = He eats his life. A thing that is wonderful is scalp-raising; anything tempting, alluring, or captivating, is said " to unhook the mind." Many homonyms occur, and some cause can generally be discovered to account for them, as in the case of the word dandelion," which is the same as that for "sturgeon"; for when the flower makes its appearance in the spring it is the sign for the Tuscarora to take down his spear, and go to the capture of the sturgeon. The word Rhu-nă“kúTMnt, "wood-chuck,” is applied to the Irishman, who, through central New York, was first seen engaged in digging canals and throwing up earth for railway embankments. The interpreter for a person, or for a tribe, is sometimes called "Ear." Different peoples are named after the same fashion. The English, who were first seen coming from the direction of the dawn, received that name with the suffix -ǎ-ka, which may be interpreted ites; whence we have— Nyurh-hûn'ç'-akǎ'. It dawns-ites. = The first regular hatchets were imported by the French, and furnished the name "axe-makers" to the people who bought them. The word Boston, which the Iroquois softened into Waslun, plays no mean rôle in Iroquois nomenclature. As Boston in the early days was an important rallying place for those Americans who first became identified as a nation, the Iroquois added to Was-'lu" the d-'ka, which gives us Was-'lún-a-'ka, or Bostonites, which thereafter represented to them the whole American people. The most important of all the dissectible or connotive words are those in which we find buried an extinct custom. Of such we have the word for hunting-dress, ya”-nya”-tă-rhun"kwa, "what she puts on wood," from o-ya''-'ta, wood, and Rhu'-"rh", "He is arrayed in;" this alludes, no doubt, to the skeleton framework of wood worn by the hunter, over which he could throw the skin of whatever animal he wished to imitate, as he went forth with his concealed bow and arrows to the chase. Another study is the Tuscarora, or rather Turquois, word for warrior, which analysed yields "bone-bearer." What may this signify? The Indians can no longer give an explanation. The word has become simply denotive. We can only surmise. Did the warriors of that olden time bear away from their conflicts the bones of their fallen comrades? Or did they superstitiously carry about themselves some charmed bone to insure their victory ?1 Another suggestive word is the one for burial-ground: = They are sunk as to their trunks; implying the sitting posture as the manner of burial. I might continue enumerating such modern words as Whiskey = Deformed liquid, Brandy Real medicine, and the word for renown, which is, in one of the dialects, the note of a bird which is constantly calling. But I will pass on to a short study concerning the pronouns in Iroquois, in the hope of obtaining an intelligent opinion upon certain points where I have ventured to differ from accepted forms. Allow me here to observe that I had already compiled chrestomathies in four of these dialects before having seen any of the valuable contributions of the French missionaries to this branch of Indian linguistics. Two years since, when at Caughnawage, I obtained, through the courtesy of the Rev. Father Antoine, the Superior of the Order Oblat, and the most obliging missionary, Père Burtin, both celebrated Mohawk scholars, access to the invaluable Dictionary and Grammar of the late Père Marcoux, which books belong to the Mission. Upon examination of this Grammar I perceived that our principal point of difference was in the use of the pronouns, or rather in their distribution or nomenclature. The Mohawk Grammar of Père Marcoux follows the division made of that dialect by the early French Jesuits into two genders, a noble and an ignoble, a division of course necessitating a corresponding classification of the pronouns, which, however much it might facilitate a knowledge of the Iroquois to their own countrymen, would be folly for us to accept as a model for English students. The noble, or masculine, gender of these pioneers included men, angels, and God; the ignoble, or feminine, included Satan, demons, evil spirits, animals, both male and female, things, and women. Modelled as nearly as possible after the French, and with this sweeping feminine gender, there was consequently no use for an it, which is not made to appear, but the indeterminate on of the French finds a place. Mr. Hale, who has followed this classification, expressly says, "There is no neuter form in these dialects," &c. Against such weighty opponents my simple assertion would count for very 1 Since this paper was written and read, Mr. Cushing has explained that it is still the custom among some Western tribes for the warriors to scrape the bones of their slain and carry them home for burial. little; I will therefore present my reasons for assuming my position. The use of the pronouns and their relations to one another may be considered as the greatest difficulties which the student of the Iroquois dialects has to encounter. The peculiarity of different words requiring unlike pronouns for the same person and number, and the great number of these arbitrarily used pronouns, have undoubtedly greatly puzzled most pioneers in Indian languages. Instead of the two genders, "noble" and "ignoble," we find in these dialects the masculine, the feminine, and the neuter genders-three instead of two. The simple proclitic pronouns of third person singular are the only words of the singular number that specify the gender of the objects to which they refer. The simple third person masculine (he) has one form of the prefixive pronoun. It is always incorporated, and in Tuscarora it is rha-, which, in some of the dialects, is aspirated into ha-. The sound rh- is a simple trill of the tongue; hence rhă- is nearly equivalent to r-r-r-a, or r-r-ha, or ha-. The simple third person feminine (she) has three forms, yak, k-, ye-, or ya-; these are always found incorporated. The simple third person neuter also has three, wă-, kα-, yo-, or yu-, which are also always incorporated. The indeterminate, or indefinite, pronoun, is expressed separately, is indeclinable, and is never compounded with verbs, or their equivalents. The Tuscarora Să-ka-na is equivalent to, or is an exact synonym of, the Mohawk oñ-'ka, some one, somebody. This pronoun in the singular, when followed by its verb, which has no incorporated objective personal pronoun, expresses its gender through the verb's incorporated nominative, as, Some one works" becomes Some one he, or she, works," thus: Some one, he knows. Stă-a-wûn-tä yu-yu"nä = Something, it works. The last form is used in speaking of animals or senseless things, but never when speaking of persons. The following are examples of the preceding rule taken from the Mohawk dialect: : |