press of
Case, Lockwood & Brainard,
Hartford, Conn.
[Transcriber's Note: Published 1870]
On the Composition of IndianGeographical Names
Transcriber's Note: The oo ligature inthe original book is here represented as [oo]. See footnote 4.
A proper name has been defined to be "a mere mark put upon anindividual, and of which it is the characteristic property to bedestitute of meaning."[1] If we accept this definition, it followsthat there are no proper names in the aboriginal languages of America.Every Indian synthesis—names of persons and places not excepted—must"preserve the consciousness of its roots," and must not only have ameaning but be so framed as to convey that meaning with precision, toall who speak the language to which it belongs. Whenever, by phoneticcorruption or by change of circumstance, it loses itsself-interpreting or self-defining power, it must be discarded fromthe language. "It requires tradition, society, and literature tomaintain forms which can no longer be analyzed at once."[2] In our ownlanguage, such forms may hold their places by prescriptive right orforce of custom, and names absolutely unmeaning, or applied withoutregard to their original meaning, are accepted by common consent asthe distinguishing marks of persons and places. We call a man Williamor Charles, Jones or Brown,—or a town, New Lebanon, Cincinnati, BatonRouge, or Big Bethel—just as we put a number on a policeman's badgeor on a post-office box, or a trademark on an article of merchandise;and the number and the mark are as truly and in nearly the same senseproper names as the others are.
Not that personal or proper names, in any language, were originallymere arbitrary sounds, devoid of meaning. The first James or the firstBrown could, doubtless, have given as good a reason for his name asthe first Abraham. But changes of language and lapse of time made thenames independent of the reasons, and took from them all theirsignificance. Patrick is not now, eo nomine, a 'patrician;' Bridgetis not necessarily 'strong' or 'bright;' and in the name of Mary,hallowed by its associations, only the etymologist can detect theprimitive 'bitterness.' Boston is no longer 'St. Botolph's Town;'there is no 'Castle of the inhabitants of Hwiccia'(Hwic-wara-ceaster) to be seen at Worcester; and Hartford is neither'the ford of harts,' (which the city seal has made it,) nor 'the redford,' which its name once indicated.
In the same way, many Indian geographical names, after their adoptionby Anglo-American colonists, became unmeaning sounds. Their originalcharacter was lost by their transfer to a foreign tongue. Nearly allhave suffered some mutilation or change o