seeing its empty condition when pulled on to the beach, said, "'Pow'
fish; bimeby 'pow' wind, plenty fish."

The fluency with which some of these fellows speak a mixture of pigeon
English and whaleman's jargon is quite astonishing, and suggests the
query whether their fluency results from the aggressiveness of the
English or is it an evidence of their aptitude? It seems wonderful how a
people we are accustomed to look upon as ignorant, benighted and
undeveloped, can learn to talk English with a certain degree of fluency
and intelligibility from the short intercourse held once a year with a
few passing ships. How many "hoodlums" in San Francisco, for instance,
learn anything of Norwegian or German from frequenting the wharves? How
many "wharf rats" or stevedores in New York learn anything of these
languages from similar intercourse? Or, for that matter, we may ask, How
many New York pilots have acquired even the smallest modicum of French
from boarding the steamers of the Compagnie Générale Transatlantique?

From a few examples it will be seen that the usage followed by the
Eskimo in its grammatical variations rests on the fixity of the radical
syllable and upon the agglomeration of the different particles intended
to modify the primitive sense of this root, that is to say upon the
principle of agglutinative languages. One or two instances may suffice
to show the agglutinate character of the language. Canoe is "o-me-uk;"
ship "o-me-uk-puk;" steamer "o-me-uk-puk-ignelik;" and this composite
mechanical structure reaches its climax in steam-launch, which they
call "o-me-uk-puk-ignelik-pick-a-nee-nee."

For snow and ice in their various forms there are also many words which
show further the polysynthetic structure of the language--a fact
contrary to that primitive condition of speech where there are no