If, in what I have said of the adjective, I have expressed myself clearly and satisfactorily; you will easily observe, that adjectives, though convenient abbreviations, are not necessary to language: and are therefore not ranked by me amongst the parts of speech. And perhaps you will perceive in the misapprehension of this useful and simple contrivance of language, one of the foundations of those heaps of false philosophy and obscure (because mistaken) metaphysic, with which we have been bewildered. You will soon know what to do with all the technical impertinence about qualities, accidents, substances, substrata, essence, the adjunct natures of things, &c. &c. And will, I doubt not, chearfully proceed with me, in some future conversation, to

66

a very different sort of logick and critick than what we have been hitherto acquainted with." Of which, a knowledge of the nature of the language and of the meaning of words, is a necessary fore

runner.

F. That must be seen hereafter. But, if this be the case with adjectives, whence arise the different sorts of terminations to different adjectives; when one sort of termination would have answered the purpose of attribution? Why have we adjectives ending in ly, ous, ful, some, les, ish, &c? For you have taught me that terminations are not caprici

quoique placés dès leur origine dans l'etat de dependance et “de soumission, ils ne laissent pas que d'etre par leurs couleurs ❝et par leur magnificence une des plus brillantes parties de la "parole, un champ fertile pour la poesie, une ressource delicate "pour les grands orateurs, et le point capital des mediocres."

ously or fortuitously employed; though you will not allow them to be often the original and mere productions of art.

H. Adjectives with such terminations are, in truth, all compound words: the termination being originally a word added to those other words, of which it now seems merely the termination; though it still retains its original and distinct signification. These terminations will afford sufficient matter for entertainment to etymologists, which is not necessary for our present investigation. They are now more numerous in our language than they were formerly because our authors have not been contented only to supply our defects by borrowing adjectives which we wanted in our language: but they have likewise borrowed and incorporated many adjective terminations which we did not want, being before in possession of correspondent terminations of our own, which answered the same purpose with those which they have unnecessarily adopted. So that we have now in some words a choice of different terminations by which to express one and the same idea: such as, bountiful and bounteous, beautiful and beauteous, joyful and joyous, &c. Which choice is indeed of advantage to the variety and harmony of the language, but is unphilosophical and unnecessary.

F. In the course of our conversation, besides noticing the defect of our own antient language, from a paucity of adjectives; you have been pleased (I know not on what foundation) to suppose that the want of an adjective termination was origi

nally the case with all terms in the rude state of all languages. But this is only your supposition in order to support your own theory. Does there, from all antiquity, remain a single instance, or even the mention or suspicion of an instance, of any language altogether without adjectives?

H. Though nothing of the kind should remain, it will not in the least affect my explanation nor weaken my reasoning.

F. But, if there were such an instance; or even any traditional mention made of such a circumstance; it would very much strengthen your argument in my opinion, and more readily induce my assent.

H. I suppose you are not so obstinately attached to antiquity, but that a modern instance would answer the purpose as well.

F. Any instance of the fact from sufficient authority.

H. Then I believe I can suit you.....Doctor Jonathan Edwards, D. D. Pastor of a church in New-Haven, in "observations on the language of "the MUHHEKANEEW Indians, communicated to "the Connecticut society of Arts and Sciences: "published at the request of the society, and "printed by Josiah Meigs, 1788."

Gives us the following account.

"When I was but six years of age, my father " removed with his family to Stockbridge, which "at that time was inhabited by Indians almost "solely. The Indians being the nearest neigh"bours, I constantly associated with them; their

"boys were my daily school-mates and play"fellows. Out of my father's house, I seldom "heard any language spoken beside the Indian. By these means I acquired the knowledge of that

language, and a great facility in speaking it: it "became more familiar to me than my mother. "tongue. I knew the names of some things in "Indian, which I did not know in English: even "all my thoughts ran in Indian; and though the "true pronunciation of the language is extremely

difficult to all but themselves, they acknowledg"ed that I had acquired it perfectly; which, as "they said, 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-Americans "called Mohegans. This language is spoken by "all the Indians throughout New England. Every "tribe, as that of Stockbridge, of Farmington, of "New London, &c. has a different dialect; but "the language is radically the same. Mr. Elliot's "translation of the Bible is in a particular dialect "of this language. This language appears to be "much more extensive than any other language "in North America. The languages of the Dela"wares in Pennsylvania; of the Penobscots, bor

66

dering on Nova Scotia; of the Indians of St. "Francis, in Canada; of the Shawanese, on the

"Ohio; and of the Chippewaus, at the westward

"of Lake Huron ; are all radically the same with the Mohegan. The same is said concerning the languages of the Ottowaus, Nanticooks, Mun"sees, Menomonees Messisaugas, Saukies, Otta"gaumies, Killistinoes, Nipegons, Algonkins, Winnebagoes, &c. That the languages of the "several tribes in New England, of the Delawares, " and of Mr. Elliot's Bible, are radically the same "with the Mohegan, I assert from my own know"ledge."

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

"The Mohegans have no adjectives in all their "language. Although it may at first seem not only singular and curious, but impossible, that a language should exist without adjectives, yet it is "an indubitable fact."

66

66