It is not merely that the American languages differ from other forms of speech in their general phonetic, structural and lexical features; they differ from them in their very morphology, as much, for instance, as in the zoological world class differs from class, order from order. They have all of them developed on the same polysynthetic lines, from which if a few here and there now appear to depart, it is only because in the course of their further evolution they have, so to say, broken away from that prototype[761]. Take the rudest or the most highly cultivated anywhere from Alaska to Fuegia--Eskimauan, Iroquoian, Algonquian, Aztec, Tarascan, Ipurina, Peruvian, Yahgan--and you will find each and all giving abundant evidence of this universal polysynthetic character, not one true instance of which can be found anywhere in the eastern hemisphere. There is incorporation with the verb, as in Basque, many of the Caucasus tongues, and the Ural-Altaic group; but it is everywhere limited to pronominal and purely relational elements. But in the American order of speech there is no such limitation, and not merely the pronouns, which are restricted in number, but the nouns with their attributes, which are practically numberless, all enter necessarily into the verbal paradigm. Thus in Tarascan (Mexico): _hopocuni_ = to wash the hands; _hopodini_ = to wash the ears, from _hoponi_ = to wash, which cannot be used alone[762]. So in Ipurina (Amazonia): _nicucacatcaurumatinii_ = I draw the cord tight round your waist, from _ni_, I; _cucaca_, to draw tight; _tca_, cord; _turuma_, waist; _tini_, characteristic verbal affix; _i_, thy, referring to waist[763]. We see from such examples that polysynthesis is not a primitive condition of speech, as is often asserted, but on the contrary a highly developed system, in which the original agglutinative process has gone so far as to attract all the elements of the sentence to the verb, round which they cluster like swarming bees round their queen. In Eskimauan the tendency is shown in the construction of nouns and verbs, by which other classes of words are made almost unnecessary, and one word, sometimes of interminable length, is able to express a whole sentence with its subordinate clauses. H. Rink, one of the first Eskimo scholars of modern times, gives the instance: "Suerukame-autdlasassoq-tusaramiuk-tuningingmago-iluarin-gilat = they did not approve that he (_a_) had omitted to give him (_b_) something, as he (_a_) heard that he (_b_) was going to depart on account of being destitute of everything[764]." Such monstrosities "are so complicated that in daily speech they could hardly ever occur; but still they are correct and can be understood by intelligent people[765]."