OCR Text |
Show 392 B..O...O_K_ _\..F.. . I-I I S T 0 R Y 0 F M E X I C 0. fiance without its di!l:intl: and proper app llation. But it is not the leafi f~rpriJ1ng, th at it abounds in wonjs. whic}1 figt~ ify material o?jccts, when there are hardly any wanting of thofe ,,vlnch are ncceib ry to cxprefs fpiritn ~ll ideas . The highdl myfter~es o~ ?llr n.:li~io1~ can. be well expreficd in Mexican, withou t any nccel11ty or llltrod uc111g furergn terms. Aco!l:a wonders, that th ~ Mexicans who had an idea of a fupreme Being, creator of heaven and earth, l:ad not al(o i~ t heir hnguage a word to expre[~ it equivalent to Dtos of -the Sp:uuards, D m.r df the Romans, 7'heos of the Grcci ~ms, El of the Hebrews, and Alt~ of the Arabs: on which accou11t their preachers were obliged to m1ke ufe of the Spani01 term Dios. But if this author had had any knowledge of the Mexican language, he woLlld have k:10wn that the 'l'eotl of the Mexicans fignifi es the fJme thing as the 'I'beos of the Greeks, and that there was no other n:a[on for introducing the Sp:mi01 word Dios, but the ex:cefiive fcruples of the firfl: miffionaries, who, as they burned the hifl:orical p.1intings of the Mexicans, becaufe they fufpetlcd them to be full of fuper!l:itious meanings, (of which alfo Acc> fl:a himfelf j uftl y com plains), likewi fe rejected the Mexican word Tc!otl, bccaufe it had been ufed to exprefs the falfe gods whom they worf1lipped. But it would have been better to have imitated the example of St. Paul, who, when he found that in Greece the name 7'beos· was ufed to fignify certain falfe deities, more abominable fl:ill than thofe of the Mexicans, did not compel the Greeks to adopt theE/, or Adona£, of the Hebrews, b~t retained the ufe of the Greek term, making it be undedl:ood fi·om. that time, to fignify a fupreme, eternal, and infinitely perfect Being. However, many difcerning men who have wrote in the Mexican language, ·have not fcru pled to make uf<:: of the name 'Tcotl, in the .fi1me manner as they all make ufe of the lpalnemoani, of the •rfoque Nabuaque, and other narr.es fignificative of the Supreme Being, which the Mexicans applied to their invifible God. In one of our Di!lertations we fhall give a lift of the authors who have wrote in the Mexican lan., guage on the Chrill:ian religion and morality, and alfo a lift of term , fignifying metaphyfical and mor:1l ideas, in order to expofe the ignorance -and weaknefs of an author (d) who h as had abfurdity enough to publifh (d) lfhe n\ll l.or of the work entitled, Recherches Philofophique~ fur lcs Amcric;liHS. th:lt H I S T 0 R Y 0 F M E X I C 0. that the MexiCans had no words to count above the number three, or to exprefs any metaphy.fical Qr moral ideas~ a!ld that on account of its harOwefs no Spaniard had ever learned to pronounce it. We could here give the numeral words of this language, by which the Mexicans could count up to forty-eight millions at leall:, ai1d could ibcw how com~ mon this language was among the Spaniards, and how w 11 thofe who have written in it have underftood i t. The Mexican language, like the Hebrew and French, wants the fuperlative term, and like the Hebrew, and moil: of the living languages of Europe, the comparative term, which are fupplied by certain particles equivalent to thofe which are ufed in other fuch languages. It abounds more than the Tufcan in diminutives and augmentatives,, ahd more than the Engli01 or any other language we know in verbal and abilract terms ; for there is h ard ly a verb from which there are not many verbals formed, and fcarc ely a fubft:1ntive or adjetl:ive fi·om which there arc not fome abftratl:s formed. It is not lefs copious in verbs than in nouns; as from every ilngle verb others are derived of different fignifications. Cbibua, is to do, Chz(:bibua, to do with dili-gence ' or o-:;l·t en ,. Cht'hu.i !t'a , to do to another ; Chibuaitt'a, to cau.fe to be done; Chihuatiub, to go to do ; Chz'buaco, to come to do ; Chiuhtiuh, to be doing, &c. We could fuy a great deal more on the fubject, if it was permitted in the rules of hiftory. . The ftyle of addrefs in Mexican varies accordm~ to. the rank of the perfons, with whom, or about whom, converfat10~ 1s he.ld, adding to the nouns, verbs, prepofitions, and adverbs, certam part1cles exprefiive of refpetl:: 7'atli, means father; .Amota, your father; Amolatz'in, your worthy father. T!eco, is to afl:md ; if a p~rfon comn:ands his fervant to afcend; certain place) he Gtys fimply J[ttleco ; but tf he aiks fome refpetl:able perfon to do fo, he will fay Xt'mo~lica~ui; ~n~ if he willies to ufe ftill more ceremony and refpetl: Maxtmotlu:ahuttzmo. This variety which gives fo much civilization to the language, does not, howev:r, make it difficult to be fpok.en; becaufe it· is fubjetl:ed to rules which are fixed and eafy; nor do we know any language that is more regular and methodical. . The Mexic:1ns, like the Greeks and other natwns, have the advan. .tage of making compounds of two, three, or four fimple words; but VoL. I. E e e they 393 |