|
|
The languages spoken by the pre-Columbian tribes of North America
were many and diverse. Into the regions occupied by these tribes
travelers, traders, and missionaries have penetrated in advance of
civilization, and civilization itself has marched across the
continent at a rapid rate. Under these conditions the languages of
the various tribes have received much study. Many extensive works
have been published, embracing grammars and dictionaries; but a far
greater number of minor vocabularies have been collected and very
many have been published. In addition to these, the Bible, in whole
or in part, and various religious books and school books, have been
translated into Indian tongues to be used for purposes of
instruction; and newspapers have been published in the Indian
languages. Altogether the literature of these languages and that
relating to them are of vast extent.
While the materials seem thus to be abundant, the student of Indian
languages finds the subject to be one requiring most thoughtful
consideration, difficulties arising from the following conditions:
1 A great number of linguistic stocks or families are discovered.
2 The boundaries between the different stocks of languages are not
immediately apparent, from the fact that many tribes of diverse
stocks have had more or less association, and to some extent
linguistic materials have been borrowed, and thus have passed out of
the exclusive possession of cognate peoples.
3 Where many peoples, each few in number, are thrown together, an
intertribal language is developed. To a large extent this is gesture
speech; but to a limited extent useful and important words are
adopted by various tribes, and out of this material an intertribal
“jargon” is established. Travelers and all others who do not
thoroughly study a language are far more likely to acquire this
jargon speech than the real speech of the people; and the tendency
to base relationship upon such jargons has led to confusion.
4 This tendency to the establishment of intertribal jargons was
greatly accelerated on the advent of the white man, for thereby many
tribes were pushed from their ancestral homes and tribes were mixed
with tribes. As a result, new relations and new industries,
especially of trade, were established, and the new associations of
tribe with tribe and of the Indians with Europeans led very often to
the development of quite elaborate jargon languages. All of these
have a tendency to complicate the study of the Indian tongues by
comparative methods.
The difficulties inherent in the study of languages, together with
the imperfect material and the complicating conditions that have
arisen by the spread of civilization over the country, combine to
make the problem one not readily solved.
In view of the amount of material on hand, the comparative study of
the languages of North America has been strangely neglected, though
perhaps this is explained by reason of the difficulties which have
been pointed out. And the attempts which have been made to classify
them has given rise to much confusion, for the following reasons:
First, later authors have not properly recognized the work of
earlier laborers in the field. Second, the attempt has more
frequently been made to establish an ethnic classification than a
linguistic classification, and linguistic characteristics have been
confused with biotic peculiarities, arts, habits, customs, and other
human activities, so that radical differences of language have often
been ignored and slight differences have been held to be of primary
value.
The attempts at a classification of these languages and a
corresponding classification of races have led to the development of
a complex, mixed, and inconsistent synonymy, which must first be
unraveled and a selection of standard names made there from
according to fixed principles.
It is manifest that until proper rules are recognized by scholars
the establishment of a determinate nomenclature is impossible. It
will therefore be well to set forth the rules that have here been
adopted, together with brief reasons for the same, with the hope
that they will commend themselves to the judgment of other persons
engaged in researches relating to the languages of North America.
A fixed nomenclature in biology has been found not only to be
advantageous, but to be a prerequisite to progress in research, as
the vast multiplicity of facts, still ever accumulating, would
otherwise overwhelm the scholar. In philological classification
fixity of nomenclature is of corresponding importance; and while the
analogies between linguistic and biotic classification are quite
limited, many of the principles of nomenclature which biologists
have adopted having no application in philology, still in some
important particulars the requirements of all scientific
classifications are alike, and though many of the nomenclatural
points met with in biology will not occur in philology, some of them
do occur and may be governed by the same rules.
Perhaps an ideal nomenclature in biology may some time be
established, as attempts have been made to establish such a system
in chemistry; and possibly such an ideal system may eventually be
established in philology. Be that as it may, the time has not yet
come even for its suggestion. What is now needed is a rule of some
kind leading scholars to use the same terms for the same things, and
it would seem to matter little in the case of linguistic stocks what
the nomenclature is, provided it becomes denotive and universal.
In treating of the languages of North America it has been suggested
that the names adopted should be the names by which the people
recognize themselves, but this is a rule of impossible application,
for where the branches of a stock diverge very greatly no common
name for the people can be found. Again, it has been suggested that
names which are to go permanently into science should be simple and
euphonic. This also is impossible of application, for simplicity and
euphony are largely questions of personal taste, and he who has
studied many languages loses speedily his idiosyncrasies of likes
and dislikes and learns that words foreign to his vocabulary are not
necessarily barbaric.
Biologists have decided that he who first distinctly characterizes
and names a species or other group shall thereby cause the name thus
used to become permanently affixed, but under certain conditions
adapted to a growing science which is continually revising its
classifications. This law of priority may well be adopted by
philologists.
By the application of the law of priority it will occasionally
happen that a name must be taken which is not wholly unobjectionable
or which could be much improved. But if names may be modified for
any reason, the extent of change that may be wrought in this manner
is unlimited, and such modifications would ultimately become
equivalent to the introduction of new names, and a fixed
nomenclature would thereby be overthrown. The rule of priority has
therefore been adopted.
Permanent biologic nomenclature dates from the time of Linnæus
simply because this great naturalist established the binominal
system and placed scientific classification upon a sound and
enduring basis. As Linnaeus is to be regarded as the founder of
biologic classification, so Gallatin may be considered the founder
of systematic philology relating to the North American Indians.
Before his time much linguistic work had been accomplished, and
scholars owe a lasting debt of gratitude to Barton, Adelung,
Pickering, and others. But Gallatin’s work marks an era in American
linguistic science from the fact that he so thoroughly introduced
comparative methods, and because he circumscribed the boundaries of
many 10 families, so that a large part of his work remains and is
still to be considered sound. There is no safe resting place
anterior to Gallatin, because no scholar prior to his time had
properly adopted comparative methods of research, and because no
scholar was privileged to work with so large a body of material. It
must further be said of Gallatin that he had a very clear conception
of the task he was performing, and brought to it both learning and
wisdom. Gallatin’s work has therefore been taken as the starting
point, back of which we may not go in the historic consideration of
the systematic philology of North America. The point of departure
therefore is the year 1836, when Gallatin’s “Synopsis of Indian
Tribes” appeared in vol. 2 of the Transactions of the American
Antiquarian Society.
It is believed that a name should be simply a denotive word, and
that no advantage can accrue from a descriptive or connotive title.
It is therefore desirable to have the names as simple as possible,
consistent with other and more important considerations. For this
reason it has been found impracticable to recognize as family names
designations based on several distinct terms, such as descriptive
phrases, and words compounded from two or more geographic names.
Such phrases and compound words have been rejected.
Next
Indian Linguistic Families of America North of
Mexico, 1891
Linguistic
Families
 |
