Page:American Anthropologist NS vol. 22.djvu/276

There was a problem when proofreading this page.

264 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [N. s. f 22, 1920

relative; nor, reciprocally, is the child-in-law's brother or sister a relative.

4. Relatives by affinity continue to be called by the same terms after the death of the connecting link. Thus, a man's brother-in- law (wife's brother) is termed q'a(Symbol missinglanguage characters)ä(Symbol missinglanguage characters)n even after his wife's death. This again is contrary to the custom of many western American Indian tribes.

II. LINGUISTIC COMMENTS

A few linguistic remarks are possible, though, for the most part, the terms do not yield to any far-reaching linguistic analysis. Most striking is the employment of distinctive vocatives. In most cases (nos. 1, 4, 7, 10, 11 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 25) the vocative is merely the noun stem, unprovided with a possessive suffix. In a considerable number of cases, however, the vocative is different from the noun stem. Sometimes the vocative is etymologically unrelated to it (nos. 5, 7a, 7b, perhaps also 14), more often it is a shorter or otherwise modified form of the stem (nos. 2, 3, 6, 8, 9). A number of nouns beginning with nd- (m-, n-) lose this element in the vocative (nos. 2, 3, 8, 9). It is probable that this prefix occurs also in the term for "father" (no. 5); possibly also in that for "mother" (no. 6).

The etymology of the n- prefix is quite obscure, as there seem to be no obvious analogies in the formative elements of either Nass or Tsimshian proper ascertained by Boas. It may be an old classificatory prefix for terms of relationship, now preserved only in four or five terms. Possibly, however, it is the subjective first person singular pronominal prefix n- "I" (e.g., (Symbol missinglanguage characters) "I say so," contrast de'-ya "he says so"; see Boas, op. cit., 53), originally characterizing, it may be, terms of relationship as contrasted with other nouns. In that case such a form as (Symbol missinglanguage characters) "grandfather" would originally have meant "my grandfather," only secondarily, as the use of the w-prefix in a possessive pronominal sense became obsolete, "grandfather." The use of the first personal singular possessive pronominal suffix -t' in such terms of relationship would be due to the analogy of the vast majority of nouns. At any rate,.