"In America," says Humboldt,[133] "from the country of the Eskimo to the banks of the Oronoco, and again, from these torrid banks to the frozen climate of the Straits of Magellan, mother-tongues, entirely different with regard to their roots, have, if we may use the expression, the same physiognomy. Striking analogies of grammatical construction are acknowledged, not only in the more perfect languages, as that of the Incas, the Aymara, the Guarani, the Mexican, and the Cora, but also in languages extremely rude. Idioms, the roots of which do not resemble each other more than the roots of the Sclavonian and Biscayan, have those resemblances of internal mechanism which are found in the Sanscrit, the Persian, the Greek, and the German languages. Almost everywhere in the New World we recognise a multiplicity of forms and tenses in the verb, an industrious artifice to indicate beforehand, either by inflection of the personal pronouns which form the terminations of the verb, or by an intercalated suffix, the nature and the relation of its object and its subject, and to distinguish whether the object be animate or inanimate, of the masculine or the feminine gender, simple or complex in number. It is on account of this general analogy of structure; it is because American languages, which have no words in common, the Mexican for instance, and the Quichua, resemble each other by their organisation, and form complete contrasts with the languages of Latin Europe, that the Indians of the missions familiarise themselves more easily with other American idioms than with the language of the mistress country." Lastly, definitude was given to these and similar somewhat too general expressions as to the _difference_ in grammatical structure on the part of the American languages from those of the Old World, and their likeness to each other by the analytical investigations of Du Ponceau,[134] whose term _polysynthetic_, as descriptive of the _characteristic and peculiar complicated_ grammar of the American idioms from Greenland to Cape Horn, has been generally received. We now see in a general way (and this is as much as in a work like the present can be shown), the meaning of a statement made in a former page,[135] viz.: that "where the American languages differ from each other they differ in a manner to which Asia supplies no parallel," whilst when they "agree with each they agree in a way to which Asia supplies no parallel"--_i. e._, whilst they agree grammatically they differ glossarially; so exhibiting what may be called a philological paradox.