The word for sled in that dialect is _midu-maidutsada_. The first part of this compound, _midu_, means anything of wood or into which wood enters. Fire is _midé_ because it is kept up with wood. With the phonetic laxity which I have before noted, the first syllable _mi_ may as correctly be pronounced _bi_ or _wi_. It is a common nominal prefix, of vague significance, but seems to classify objects as distinctives. _Ma_ designates objects whose immediate use is not expressed; _i_ denotes instrument or material; _du_, conveys that the cause of the action is not specified; _tsa_ intimates the action is that of separating; _da_, that this is done quickly (_tsa-da_, to slide).[357]
Thus by the juxtaposition of one classificatory particle after another, seven in number, all of them logical universals, the savage makes up the name of the specific object.
This system was probably the first adopted by man when he began to set in order his perceptions within the categories of his understanding, with the aim of giving them vocal expression. It is a plan which we find most highly developed in the rudest languages, and therefore we may reasonably believe that it characterized prehistoric speech.
The question has been put by psychological grammarians, which one of the senses most helped man in the creation of language—or to express it in modern scientific parlance, was primitive man a _visuaire_ or an _auditaire_? Did he model his sounds after what he heard, or what he saw? The former opinion has been the more popular, and has given rise to the imitative or “onomatopoetic” theory of language. No doubt there is a certain degree of truth in this, but the analysis of American tongues leans decidedly toward classing primitive man among the _visuaires_. His earliest significant sounds seem to have been expressive of motion and rest, energy and its absence, space and direction, color and form, and the like. A different opinion has been maintained by Darwin and by many who have studied the problems presented by the origin of words from a merely physical or physiological standpoint, but a careful investigation shows that it was the sense of sight rather than of hearing which was the prompter to vocal utterance. But the consideration of the source of primitive significant sounds lies without the bounds of my present study.