Page:Archæologia Americana—volume 2, 1836.djvu/224

 188 A SYNOPSIS OF THE INDIAN TRIBES. [iNTROD. similar distinction for the plural. And the Delaware conjuga- tions are rendered still more complex, by the transfer of the plural termination of the pronoun, which has separated it from its initial characteristic. This example shows how men, though setting off upon the same principle, may, by pursuing different routes in its applica- tion, impress a different character on their respective languages. Yet the preference given by the Algonkin nations to the second and, next to it, to the first person, though unfortunate in its consequences was very natural. In an oral language, there are always two parties, the person who speaks, and the person or persons whom he addresses. When speaking of the person spoken to in connexion either with himself or with a third person, the person thus addressed is generally the most prom- inent in the mind of the speaker ; and on that account, or from courtesy, he will be named first, without regarding the distinc- tion, whether he be the agent or the object of the action. The Delaware may very naturally have said, ' thee I love,' ' thee he has insulted.' When speaking of himself in connexion with a third person, he becomes the most important party. May we not also trace to an exclusively oral language, com- bined with the habit of public speaking, the special plural of the Indians, as well as the different manner in which it appears to be applied ? According to Mr. Heckewelder, the Dela- wares deliberating in council, on a question of war or peace, say ' we,' meaning all of us here present, our nation, as contra- distinguished from any other body of men, or nation. Accord- ing to Mr. Schoolcraft, the Chippeway, addressing another person in behalf of himself and some others, will, in saying, f we,' exclude the person to whom he speaks. And thus gradually the special plural may have been modified, and have received a different signification in the two languages. Notwithstanding the great number of varied inflections in the transitions of the Algonkin conjugations, and the numerous apparent anomalies in the several tenses and moods, they still exhibit a degree of uniformity which had its origin in analogy; and there can be no doubt that the rules of their formation, though not very obvious, may be deduced from the paradigms collected by Zeisberger and others. It is not intended to inti- mate, that the language was formed according to any such preconcerted rules ; but only that analogy has necessarily pro- duced that uniformity, which renders it practicable to deduce the rules from the language.