66

English even all my thoughts ran in Indian; and though. "the true pronunciation of the language is extremely difficult "to all but themselves, they acknowledged that I had acquired it perfectly; which, as they faid, never had been acquired before by any Anglo-American."

After this account of himself, he proceeds,

"The language which is now the subject of Observation, is "that of the Muhhekaneew, or Stockbridge Indians. They, as "well as the tribe at New London, are by the Anglo-Ameri

66

cans called Mohegans. This language is fpoken by all the "Indians throughout New England. Every tribe, as that of

66

Stockbridge, of Farmington, of New London, &c. has a dif"ferent dialect; but the language is radically the fame. Mr. "Elliot's tranflation of the Bible is in a particular dialect of "this language. This language appears to be much more ex"tenfive than any other language in North America. The

66

languages of the Delawares in Penfylvania; of the Penob"fcots, bordering on Nova Scotia; of the Indians of St. "Francis, in Canada; of the Shawanefe, on the Ohio; and "of the Chippewaus, at the weftward of Lake Huron; are all radically the fame with the Mohegan. The fame is faid concerning the languages of the Ottowans, Nanticooks, Munfees, Menomonees, Meffifaugas, Saukies, Ottagaumies, "Killiftinoes, Nipegons, Algonkins, Winnebagoes, &c. That "the languages of the feveral tribes in New England, of the "Delawares, and of Mr. Elliot's Bible, are radically the fame "with the Mohegan, I affert from my own knowledge."

66

Having thus given an account of himself, and of his knowledge of the language; of the extensiveness of this language; and of a tranflation of a Bible into this language; he proceeds (in page 10) to inform us, that

66

"The Mohegans have no Adjectives in all their language.. Although it may at first seem not only fingular and curious, "but impoffible, that a language fhould exift without Adjec"tives, yet it is an indubitable fact."

ЕПЕА

EILEA IITEPOENTA, &c.

ΕΠΕΑ

CHAP. VII.

OF PARTICIPLES.

LE

66

F.

ET us proceed, if you please, to the PARTICIPLE: which, you know, is so named because-" partem capit a Nomine, partem a Verbo."-" Ortum a Verbo, fays Scaliger, traxit "fecum tempora et fignificationem, adjunxitque generi et "cafibus."—"Ut igitur Mulus, fays Voffius, afini et equæ, "unde generatur, participat indolem; ita hujus claffis omnia, "et nominis et verbi participant naturam: unde, et meritò, Participia nominantur.”

66

I have a strong curiosity to know how you will dispose of this Mule, (this tertium quid,) in English; where the Participle has neither Cafes nor Gender; and which (if I understood you rightly fome time fince) you have ftripped alfo of Time. We certainly cannot fay that it is, in English,—" Pars orationis "cum tempore et Cafu:" or,-" Vox variabilis per Cafus, fig"nificans rem cum tempore." Indeed fince, by your account, it takes nothing from the Verb, any more than from the Noun; its prefent name ought to be relinquifhed by us: for at

all events it cannot be a PARTICIPLE in English. This however will not much trouble you: for, though Scaliger declares the PARTICIPLE to exift in language "neceffitate quadam ac "vi naturæ ;" you, by denying it a place amongst the Parts of Speech, have decided that it is not a neceffary word, and perhaps imagine we may do as well without it.

H.

I fear you have miftaken me. I did not mean to deny the adfignification of Time to ALL the Participles; though I continue to withhold it from that which is called the Participle Prefent.

F.

All the Participles! Why, we have but Two in our language -The Prefent and the Paft.

H.

We had formerly but two. But fo great is the convenience and importance of this ufeful Abbreviation; that our authors have borrowed from other languages and incorporated with our own, Four other Participles of equal value. We are obliged to our old tranflators for thefe new Participles. I wish they had understood what they were doing at the time: and had been taught by their wants, the nature of the advantages which the learned languages had over ours. They would then perhaps have adopted the contrivance itself into our own language: inftead of contenting themselves with taking individually the terms which they found they could not tranflate. But they proceeded in the fame manner with thefe new Participles,

Ooo

ciples, as with the new Adjectives I before mentioned to you: they did not abbreviate their own language in imitation of the others; but took from other languages their abbreviations ready made. And thus again the foreigner, after having learned all our English verbs, must again have recourse to other languages in order to understand the meaning of many of our Participles.

I cannot however much blame my countrymen for the method they pursued: because the very nations who enjoyed thefe advantages over us, were not themselves aware of the nature of what they poffeffed: at least so it appears by all the accounts which they have left us of the nature of Speech; and by their diftribution and definitions of the parts of which it is compofed and their pofterity (the modern Greeks and the Italians) have been punished for the ignorance or careleffness of their ancestors, by the lofs of great part of these advantages: which I fuppofe they would not have loft, had they known what they were.

As for the term PARTICIPLE, I fhould very willingly get rid of it: for it never was the proper denomination of this fort of word. And this improper title, I believe, led the way to its faulty definition: and both together have caused the obftinate and still unfettled disputes concerning it; and have prevented the improvement of language, in this particular, generally through the world.

The elder Stoics called this word-" Modum Verbi cafualem.” And, in my opinion, they called it well: except only that, inftead of Cafualem, they should have faid Adjectivum: for the circumftance

6