The Iroquois Book Of Rites Part 4

The phonology of the language is at once simple and perplexing.

According to M. Cuoq, twelve letters suffice to represent it: _a, c, f, h, i, k, n, o, r, s, t, w_. Mr. Wright employs for the Seneca seventeen, with diacritical marks, which raise the number to twenty-one. The English missionaries among the Mohawks found sixteen letters sufficient, _a, d, e, g, h, i, j, k, n, o, r, s, t, u, w, y._ There are no l.a.b.i.al sounds, unless the _f_, which rarely occurs, and appears to be merely an aspirated _w_, may be considered one. No definite distinction is maintained between the vowel sounds _o_ and _u_, and one of these letters may be dispensed with. The distinction between hard and soft (or surd and sonant) mutes is not preserved. The sounds of _d_ and _t_, and those of _k_ and _g_, are interchangeable. So also are those of _l_ and _r_, the former sound being heard more frequently in the Oneida dialect and the latter in the Canienga. From the Western dialects,--the Onondaga, Cayuga and Seneca,--this _l_ or _r_ sound has, in modern times, disappeared altogether. The Canienga _konoronkwa_, I esteem him (in Oneida usually sounded _konolonkwa_), has become _konoenkwa_ in Onondaga,--and in Cayuga and Seneca is contracted to _kononkwa_.

Aspirates and aspirated gutturals abound, and have been variously represented by _h, hh, kh_, and _gh_, and sometimes (in the works of the early French missionaries) by the Greek [Greek: chi] and the _spiritus asper_. Yet no permanent distinction appears to be maintained among the sounds thus represented, and M. Cuoq reduces them all to the simple _h_.

The French nasal sound abounds. M. Cuoq and the earlier English missionaries have expressed it, as in French, simply by the _n_ when terminating a syllable. When it does not close a syllable, a diaeresis above the n, or else the Spanish _tilde (n)_ indicates the sound. Mr.

Wright denotes it by a line under the vowel. The later English missionaries express it by a diphthong: _ken_ becomes _kea; nonwa_ becomes _noewa_; _onghwentsya_ is written _oughweatsya_.

A strict a.n.a.lysis would probably reduce the sounds of the Canienga language to seven consonants, _h, k, n, r, s, t,_ and _w_, and four vowels, _a, e, i_, and _o_, of which three, _a, e, and o_, may receive a nasal sound. This nasalizing makes them, in fact, distinct elements; and the primary sounds of the language may therefore be reckoned at fourteen. [Footnote: A dental _t_, which the French missionaries represent sometimes by the Greek _theta_ and sometimes by _th_, and which the English have also occasionally expressed by the latter method, may possibly furnish an additional element. The Greek _theta_ of the former is simply the English _w_.] The absence of l.a.b.i.als and the frequent aspirated gutturals give to the utterance of the best speakers a deep and sonorous character which reminds the hearer of the stately Castilian speech.

The "Book of Rites," or, rather, the Canienga portion of it, is written in the orthography first employed by the English missionaries. The _d_ is frequently used, and must be regarded merely as a variant of the _t_ sound. The _g_ is sometimes, though rarely, employed as a variant of the _k_. The digraph _gh_ is common and represents the guttural aspirate, which in German is indicated by _ch_ and in Spanish by _j_. The French missionaries write it now simply _h_, and consider it merely a harsh p.r.o.nunciation of the aspirate. The _j_ is sounded as in English; it usually represents a complex sound, which might be a.n.a.lysed into _ts_ or _tsi_; _jathondek_ is properly _tsiatontek_. The _x_, which occasionally appears, is to be p.r.o.nounced _ks_, as in English. _An, en, on_, when not followed by a vowel, have a nasal sound, as in French. This sound is heard even when those syllables are followed by another _n_. Thus _Kanonsionni_ is p.r.o.nounced as if written _Kanonsionni_ and _yondennase_ as if written _yondennase_. The vowels have usually the same sound as in German and Italian; but in the nasal _en_ the vowel has an obscure sound, nearly like that of the short _u_ in _but_. Thus _yondennase_ sounds almost as if written _yondunnase_, and _kanienke_ is p.r.o.nounced nearly like _kaniunke_.

The nouns in Iroquois are varied, but with accidence differing from the Aryan and Semitic variations, some of the distinctions being more subtle, and, so to speak, metaphysical. The dual is expressed by prefixing the particle _te_, and suffixing _ke_ to the noun; thus, from _kanonsa_, house, we have _tekanonsake_, two houses. These syllables, or at least the first, are supposed to be derived from _tekeni_, two. The plural, when it follows an adjective expressive of number, is indicated by the syllable _ni_ prefixed to the noun, and _ke_ suffixed; as, _eso nikanonsake_, many houses. In other cases the plural is sometimes expressed by one of the words _okon_ (or _hokon_) _okonha_, _son_ and _sonha_, following the noun. In general, however, the plural significance of nouns is left to be inferred from the context, the verb always and the adjective frequently indicating it.

All beings are divided into two cla.s.ses, which do not correspond either with the Aryan genders or with the distinctions of animate and inanimate which prevail in the Algonkin tongues. These cla.s.ses have been styled n.o.ble and common. To the n.o.ble belong male human beings and deities. The other cla.s.s comprises women and all other objects. It seems probable, however, that the distinction in the first instance was merely that of s.e.x,--that it was, in fact, a true gender. Deities, being regarded as male, were included in the masculine gender. There being no neuter form, the feminine gender was extended, and made to comprise all other beings.

These cla.s.ses, however, are not indicated by any change in the noun, but merely by the forms of the p.r.o.noun and the verb.

The local relations of nouns are expressed by affixed particles, such as _ke_, _ne_, _kon_, _akon_, _akta._ Thus, from _ononta_ mountain, we have _onontake_, at (or to) the mountain; from _akehrat_, dish, _akehratne_, in (or on) the dish; from _kanonsa_, house, _kanonsakon_, or _kanonskon_, in the house, _kanonsokon_, under the house, and _kanonsakta_, near the house. These locative particles, it will be seen, usually, though not always, draw the accent towards them.

The most peculiar and perplexing variation is that made by what is termed the "crement," affixed to many (though not all) nouns. This crement in the Canienga takes various forms, _ta, sera, tsera, kwa._ _Onkwe_, man, becomes _onkweta_; _otkon_, spirit, _otkonsera_; _akawe_, oar, _akawetsera_; _ahta_, shoe, _ahhtakwa_. The crement is employed when the noun is used with numeral adjectives, when it has adjective or other affixes, and generally when it enters into composition with other words. Thus _onkwe_, man, combined with the adjective termination _iyo_ (from the obsolete _wiyo_, good) becomes _onkwetiyo_, good man. _Wenni_, day, becomes in the plural _niate_ _niwenniserake_, many days, etc. The change, however, is not grammatical merely, but conveys a peculiar shade of meaning difficult to define. The noun, according to M. Cuoq, pa.s.ses from a general and determinate to a special and restricted sense.

_Onkwe_ means man in general; _asen nionkwetake_, three men (in particular.) One interpreter rendered _akawetsera_, "the oar itself."

The affix _sera_ or _tsera_ seems to be employed to form what we should term abstract nouns, though to the Iroquois mind they apparently present themselves as possessing a restricted or specialized sense. Thus from _iotarihen_, it is warm, we have _otarihensera_, heat; from _wakeriat_, to be brave, _ateriat.i.tsera_, courage. So _kakweniatsera_, authority; _kanaiesera_, pride; _kanakwensera_, anger. Words of this cla.s.s abound in the Iroquois; so little ground is there for the common opinion that the language is dest.i.tute of abstract nouns. [Footnote: See, on this point, the remarks of Dr Brinton to the same effect, in regard to the Aztec, Qquichua, and other languages, with interesting ill.u.s.trations, in his _"American Hero Myths"_, p. 25]

The adjective, when employed in an isolated form, follows the substantive; as _kanonsa kowa_, large house; _onkwe honwe_ (or _onwe_) a real man. But, in general, the substantive and the adjective coalesce in one word. _Ase_ signifies new, and added to _kanonsa_ gives us _kanonsase_, new house. Karonta, tree, and _kowa_, or _kowanen_, great, make together _karontowanen_, great tree. Frequently the affixed adjective is never employed as an isolated word. The termination _iyo_ (or _iio_) expresses good or beautiful, and _aksen_, bad or ugly; thus _kanonsiyo_, fine house, _kanonsasken_, ugly house. These compound forms frequently make their plural by adding _s_, as _kanonsiyos_, _kanonsaksens_.

The p.r.o.nouns are more numerous than in any European language, and show clearer distinctions in meaning. Thus, in the singular, besides the ordinary p.r.o.nouns, I, thou, he and she, the language possesses an indeterminate form, which answers very nearly to the French _on_. The first person of the dual has two forms, the one including, the other excluding, the person addressed, and signifying, therefore, respectively, "thou and I," and "he and I." The first person plural has the same twofold form. The third persons dual and plural have masculine and feminine forms. Thus the language has fifteen personal p.r.o.nouns, all in common use, and all, it may be added, useful in expressing distinctions which the English can only indicate by circ.u.mlocutions.

These p.r.o.nouns are best shown in the form in which they are prefixed to a verb. The following are examples of the verb _katkahtos_, I see (root _atkahto_) and _kenonwes_, I love (root _nonwe_), as conjugated in the present tense:--

_katkahtos_, I see.

_satkahtos_, thou seest.

_ratkahtos_, he sees.

_watkahtos_, she sees, _iontkahtos_, one sees.

_tiatkahtos_, we two see (thou and I.) _iakiatkahtos_, we two see (he and I.) _tsiatkahtos_, ye two see.

_hiatkahtos_, they two see (masc.) _kiatkahtos_, they two see (fem.) _tewatkahtos_, we see (ye and I.) _iakwatkahtos_, we see (they and I.) _sewatkahtos_, ye see.

_rontkahtos_, they see (masc.) _kontkahtos_, they see (fem.)

_kenonwes_, I love.

_senonwes_, thou lovest.

_rononwes_, he loves.

_kanonwes_, she loves.

_icnonwes_, one loves.

_teninonwes_, we two love (thou and I) _iakeninonwes_, we two love (he and I) _seninonwes_, ye two love.

_hninonwes_, they two love (masc.) _keninonwes_, they two love (fem.) _tewanonwes_, we love (ye and I.) _iakwanonwes_, we love (they and I.) _sewanonwes_, ye love.

_ratinonwes_, they love (masc.) _kontinonwes_, they love (fem.)

It will be observed that in these examples the prefixed p.r.o.nouns differ considerably in some cases. These differences determine (or are determined by) the conjugation of the verbs. _Katkahtos_ belongs to the first conjugation, and _kenonwes_ to the second. There are three other conjugations, each of which shows some peculiarity in the prefixed p.r.o.nouns, though, in the main, a general resemblance runs through them all. There are other variations of the p.r.o.nouns, according to the "paradigm," as it is called, to which the verb belongs. Of these paradigms there are two, named in the modern Iroquois grammars paradigms K and A, from the first or characteristic letter of the first personal p.r.o.noun. The particular conjugation and paradigm to which any verb belongs can only be learned by practice, or from the dictionaries.

The same prefixed p.r.o.nouns are used, with some slight variations, as possessives, when prefixed to a substantive; as, from _sita_, foot, we have (in Paradigm A) _akasita_, my foot, _sasita_, thy foot, _raosita_, his foot. Thus nouns, like verbs, have the five conjugations and the two paradigms.

Iroquois verbs have three moods, indicative, imperative, and subjunctive; and they have, in the indicative, seven tenses, the present, imperfect, perfect, pluperfect, aorist, future, and paulo-post future. These moods and tenses are indicated either by changes of termination, or by prefixed particles, or by both conjoined. One authority makes six other tenses, but M. Cuoq prefers to include them among the special forms of the verb, of which mention will presently be made.

To give examples of these tenses, and the rules for their formation, would require more s.p.a.ce than can be devoted to the subject in the present volume. The reader who desires to pursue the study is referred to the works of M. Cuoq already mentioned.

The verb takes a pa.s.sive form by inserting the syllable _at_ between the prefixed p.r.o.noun and the verb; and a reciprocal sense by inserting _atat_. Thus, _kiatatas_, I put in; _katiatatas_, I am put in; _katatiatatas_, I put myself in; _konnis_, I make; _katonnis_, I am made; _katatonnis_, I make myself. This syllable _at_ is probably derived from the word _oyala_, body, which is used in the sense of "self," like the corresponding word _hakty_ in the Delaware language.

The "transitions," or the p.r.o.nominal forms which indicate the pa.s.sage of the action of a transitive verb from the agent to the object, play an important part in the Iroquois language. In the Algonkin tongues these transitions are indicated partly by prefixed p.r.o.nouns, and partly by terminal inflections. In the Iroquois the subjective and objective p.r.o.nouns are both prefixed, as in French. In that language "_il me voit_" corresponds precisely with RAKAthatos, "he-me-sees." Here the p.r.o.nouns, _ra_, of the third person, and _ka_ of the first, are evident enough. In other cases the two p.r.o.nouns have been combined in a form which shows no clear trace of either of the simple p.r.o.nouns; as in _helsenonwes_, thou lovest him, and _hianonwes_, he loves thee. These combined p.r.o.nouns are very numerous, and vary, like the simple p.r.o.nouns, in the five conjugations.

The peculiar forms of the verb, a.n.a.logous to the Semitic conjugations are very numerous. Much of the force and richness of the language depends on them. M. Caoq enumerates--

1. The diminutive form, which affixes _ha_; as _knekirhaHA_, I drink a little; _konkweHA_ (from _onkwe_, man), I am a man, but hardly one (_i.e._, I am a little of a man).

2. The augmentative, of which _tsi_ is the affixed sign; as, _knekirhaTSI_, I drink much. This is sometimes lengthened to _tsihon_; as _wakatonteTSIHON_, I understand perfectly.

3 and 4. The cislocative, expressing motion towards the speaker, and the translocative, indicating motion tending from him. The former has _t_, the latter _ie_ or _ia_, before the verb, as _tasataweiat_, come in; _iasataweiat_, go in.

5. The duplicative, which prefixes _te_, expresses an action which affects two or more agents or objects, as in betting, marrying, joining, separating. Thus, from _ikiaks_, I cut, we have _tekiaks_, I cut in two, where the prefix _te_ corresponds to the Latin bi in "bisect". The same form is used in speaking of acts done by those organs of the body, such as the eyes and the hands, which nature has made double. Thus _tekasenthos_, I weep, is never used except in this form.

6 The reiterative is expressed by the sound of _s_ prefixed to the verb.

It sometimes replaces the cislocative sign; thus, _tkahtenties_, I come from yonder; _skahtenties_, I come again.

7. The motional is a form which by some is considered a special future tense. Thus, from _khiatons_, I write, we have _khiatonnes_, I am going to write; from _katerios_, I fight, _katerioseres_, I am going to the war; from _kesaks_, I seek, _kesakhes_, I am going to seek. These forms are irregular, and can only be learned by practice.

8. The causative suffix is _tha_; as from _k'kowanen_, I am great, we have _k'kowanaTHA_, I make great, I aggrandize. With _at_ inserted we have a simulative or pretentious form, as _katkowanaTHA_, I make myself great, I pretend to be great. The same affix is used to give an instrumental sense; as from _keriios_, I kill, we have _keriiohTHA_, I kill him with such a weapon or instrument.

9. The progressive, which ends in _tie_ (sometimes taking the forms _atie_, _hatie_, _tatie_), is much used to give the sense of becoming, proceeding, continuing, and the like; as _wakhiatontie_, I go on writing; _wakatrorihatie_, I keep on talking; _wakeriwaientatie_, I am attending to the business. The addition of an _s_ to this form adds the idea of plurality or diversity of acts; thus, _wakhiatonties_, I go on writing at different times and places; _wakatrorihaties_, I keep on telling the thing, _i. e._, going from house to house.

10. The attributive has various forms, which can only be learned by practice or from the dictionaries. It expresses an action done for some other person; as, from _wakiote_, I work, we have _kiotense_, I work for some one; from _katatis_, I speak, _katatiase_, I speak in favor of some one.

11. The habitual ends in _kon_. From _katontats_, I hear, I consent, we have _wakatontatskon_, I am docile; from _katatis_, I speak, _wakatatiatskon_, I am talkative.

12. The frequentative has many forms, but usually ends in _on_, or _ons_. From _khiatons_, I write, we have in this form _khiatonnions_, I write many things; from _katkahtos_, I look, _katkahtonnions_, I look on all sides.

These are not all the forms of the Iroquois verb; but enough have been enumerated to give some idea of the wealth of the language in such derivatives, and the power of varied expression which it derives from this source.

The Iroquois has many particles which, like those of the Greek and French languages, help to give clearness to the style, though their precise meaning cannot always be gathered by one not perfectly familiar with the language. _Ne_ and _nene_ are frequently used as subst.i.tutes for the article and the relative p.r.o.nouns. _Onenh_, now; _kati_, then, therefore; _ok_, _nok_, and _neok_, and; _oni_ and _neoni_, also; _toka_ and _tokat_, if, perhaps; _tsi_, when; _kento_, here; _akwah_, indeed, very; _etho_, thus, so; _are_, sometimes, again; _ken_, an interrogative particle, like the Latin _ne_--these and some others will be found in the Book of Rites, employed in the manner in which they are still used by the best speakers.

It must be understood that the foregoing sketch affords only the barest outline of the formation of the Iroquois language. As has been before remarked, a complete grammar of this speech, as full and minute as the best Sanscrit or Greek grammars, would probably equal and perhaps surpa.s.s those grammars in extent. The unconscious forces of memory and of discrimination required to maintain this complicated intellectual machine, and to preserve it constantly exact and in good working order, must be prodigious. Yet a comparison of Bruyas' work with the language of the present day shows that this purpose has been accomplished; and, what is still more remarkable, a comparison of the Iroquois with the Huron grammar shows that after a separation which must have exceeded five hundred years, and has probably covered twice that term, the two languages differ less from one another than the French of the twelfth century differed from the Italian, or than the Anglo-Saxon of King Alfred differed from the contemporary Low German speech. The forms of the Huron-Iroquois languages, numerous and complicated as they are, appear to be certainly not less persistent, and probably better maintained, than those of the written Aryan tongues.

ANCIENT RITES OF THE CONDOLING COUNCIL.

[Originally presented as one page Iroquois, followed by one page English translation. This is confusing in electronic texts, so have changed it here to be the complete Iroquois text followed by the complete English translation.]

OKAYONDONGHSERA YONDENNASE.

OGHENTONH KARIGHWATEGHKWENH: