How shall a man say
"raca," or "that fox," if there be no equivalents for the words in
barbarous languages? The truth is that this people find no-difficulty in
expressing the exact meanings, although the form of the words is
peculiar. The derogative sense of sly and cunning, which is, in the
original, implied by the demonstrative pronoun "that," a Chippewa would
express by a mere inflection of the word fox, conveying a bad or
reproachful idea; and the pronoun cannot be charged with an
ironical meaning.
In _ke-bau-diz-ze,_ which is an equivalent for _raca_, there is a
personal pronominal prefix, and an objective pronominal suffix. The
radix, in _baud_, has thus the second person thou in _ke_; and the
objective inflection, _iz-ze,_ means a person in a general sense. This
reveals two forms of the Chippewa substantive, which are applicable to
all words, and leaves nothing superfluous or without "significance." In
fact, the whole language is susceptible of the most clear and exact
analysis. This language is one of the most pure, clear, and
comprehensive forms of the Algonquin.
Pages:
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444