and <xll>. Their interpretation continues to be a matter of debate, in particular because the sounds they represent were subject to change during the last centuries of the language’s existence. Hovdhaugen (1992) and Torero (1986, 1997) have established a correlation between palatal and plain consonants, which covers most of the system, except for the labial series and the vibrants. The occurrence of a palatality contrast in the velar series is defended in Torero (1986, 1997). The areas of the consonant system that were most affected by change during the period between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries were the laterals and the sibilants. The laterals partly developed into velar fricatives; a crucial sibilant contrast disappeared. Carrera Daza appears to have represented the Mochica consonants quite adequately, but, as in contemporary Spanish, competing symbols and symbol combinations sometimes referred to a single sound. The absence of comments on the pronunciation of a symbol may be held to indicate phonetic similarity with the corresponding Spanish sound. This is of particular importance for the sibilants. 116 117
Although no long e¯ is foreseen in Middendorf’s phonetic introduction, he does, inconsistently, use that symbol in his examples (for instance in k¯en ‘half’, Middendorf 1892: 62). At least in one case, a long vowel in Middendorf is matched by a more complex sequence in seventeenth-century Mochica: Carrera Daza piiœc [piyək] ‘to give’ versus Middendorf p¯ık (cf. Torero 1997: 120).
3.4 The Mochica language
325
The symbols for voiceless labial consonants and were probably pronounced as in Spanish, although the fricative f may have been bilabial, rather than labiodental. In the nineteenth century, f had developed an optional voiced allophone in intervocalic and syllable-final positions; e.g. cɥ œfœt ‘snake’ (Villareal 1921: 17) is represented as c´ huvet or ts˚uv¨at in Middendorf. A remarkable fact is the absence of the glide or semi-vowel [w] in seventeenth century Mochica. In loans from Quechua or Spanish, [w] or [β] of the original language were consistently replaced by , e.g. faccɥ a ‘poor’ (Villareal 1921: 21) from Quechua wakˇca, and fak ‘ox’ (Middendorf 1892: 60) from Spanish vaca. As in most countries where a Spanish writing tradition prevails, Carrera Daza wrote for the velar stop before e and i, but elsewhere. Seventeenth-century Mochica apparently had no velar fricatives. The nasal series comprised four positions: bilabial <m>, alveodental , palatal <˜n> and velar . Carrera Daza also uses the velar nasal symbol when the velar character of the sound can be derived from environmental restrictions, as in c¸ engque ‘throat’ (Altieri 1939: 80). The vibrant series presumably included a trilled and a tap , a contrast that does not seem to have been distinctive.118 Both and are found in word-initial, medial and final position. The glide y (often written , see above) was a consonant phoneme in Mochica. In the alveodental series two sounds were recorded, voiceless and voiced . The status of is somewhat problematic, as it did not occur in word-initial position but mainly in suffixes and at the end of morphemes. If it was a voiced stop, it would have had neither velar nor labial counterparts. The lack of comments in the sources concerning its pronunciation suggests that it was in most instances pronounced as in Spanish, in which case it may have been a fricative. The sibilants and their corresponding affricates were characterised by a contrast between a palatal articulation, on the one hand, and what were possibly apical and dental articulations on the other. The palatal sibilant and affricate were written <x> [ˇs] and [ˇc], respectively, as was the common usage in many parts of the Spanish realm. The non-palatal sibilants were indicated by means of the symbol sets <s>, <ss>, and , <¸c>, , respectively. Torero (1997: 109–12) assigns an apico-alveolar interpretation (presumably as in Castilian Spanish) to the <s>, <ss> set, which mainly rests on the fact that Carrera Daza’s comments do not suggest otherwise. Cerr´on-Palomino (1995b: 103–5) prefers a retroflex interpretation. Both authors coincide in assigning an (alveo)dental value to the , <¸c>, set. The real phonetic nature of these two sets of symbols may very well always remain unknown, because the assumed contrast was lost after Carrera Daza’s time. Torero further analyses the sequences , 118
Remember, however, the case of the Quechua dialect of Pacaraos (section 3.2.9.), which exhibits a non-predictable contrast between r and rr, even though minimal pairs are lacking.
326
3 The Inca Sphere Table 3.17 Sibilants in seventeenth-century Mochica (following Torero 1997)
Dental Apical
Plain
Palatal
c, c¸ , z [s] s, ss [¸s]
ci, c¸ i, iz [sy ] x, ix [ˇs]
<¸ci>, as representing the palatal counterpart of the dental sound represented by the , <¸c>, set. This is plausible because in Carrera Daza the palatality marker is frequently found in that environment, but never in the immediate vicinity of <s>, <ss>. Taking a further step, Torero then interprets the palatal sibilant <x> as the palatal counterpart of <s>, <ss>. His analysis of the sibilants is represented in table 3.17. The coincidence of the presumed apical and dental series led to a reordering of the palatality distinction. This becomes evident in Middendorf’s work, where the symbols s and ss can be accompanied by i when s, ss corresponds to in Carrera Daza. (238) c¸ iad-ein˜ (Villareal 1921: 12) siad-ein, ˜ ssiad-ein˜ (Middendorf 1892: 89, 91) sleep-1S.SG ‘I sleep’ The affricate , one of the new symbol combinations introduced by Carrera Daza, corresponds with an alveodental affricate [ts ] in nineteenth- and twentieth century Mochica. There would be no reason to assume that the seventeenth-century affricate recorded by Carrera Daza was anything else than [ts ], had he not himself underscored the exotic properties of the sound represented by his symbol . Carrera Daza’s orthography also suggests something more complex than [ts ]. Where other authors stick to the alveodental interpretation, Torero (1997) holds that must be interpreted as an apico-alveolar affricate, which would indeed have been an exotic sound to the ears of a colonial Spaniard.119 The subsequent disappearance of the apical–dental contrast would then have affected the affricate as well, reducing it to a more ‘normal’ alveodental affricate [ts ]. The sequence is also found in combination with the palatality marker , for instance in cuntzhiu ‘overhanging lock of hair’ (Villareal 1921: 14). Hovdhaugen,
119
An apico-alveolar affricate [ts¸ ], traditionally written as ts, is found in Basque. One cannot expect Carrera Daza to have been familiar with it.
3.4 The Mochica language
327
who takes to be dental rather than apico-alveolar, treats the combination as its palatal counterpart [cy ],120 but Torero (1997: 115) suggests that it may rather be the palatal counterpart of the stop t. Whatever solution is chosen, the sound was presumably an affricate since Middendorf (1892: 59) recorded kunzio for the word in question. One of the most intriguing symbols in Carrera Daza’s work is , which is reported to represent a sound similar to, but distinct from the affricate symbolised by [ˇc], hence the ‘reversed’ h. In the seventeenth century it was found in all positions, including the word- and syllable-final positions, e.g. in lecɥ ‘head’. Although several instances of original had become ch by the end of the nineteenth century, the sound in question was still clearly present in the time of Middendorf, who represents it as c´ h. He describes the sound as an alveodental stop followed by an ‘ich-laut’ [tc¸ ] (Middendorf 1892: 51). Carrera Daza’s is interpreted as a palatalised alveodental stop [ty ] by Cerr´on-Palomino (1995b: 96), as a palatalised palatal affricate [ˇcy ] by Hovdhaugen (1992) and as a palatalised velar stop [ky ] by Torero (1986, 1997). The latter somewhat remarkable interpretation is based on the argument of homorganity in consonant clusters. As a matter of fact, was favoured over after a velar stop during the process of borrowing the Quechua word wakˇca ‘poor’. The latter became faccɥa [fakty a ∼ fakky a], not *faccha [fakˇca], in Mochica. Furthermore, nasal consonants could be velar before , suggesting assimilation to the initial sound of an affricate with a velar initial element, as in (239): (239) cangcɥ ɥu (Villareal 1921: 12) kangchu (Middendorf 1892: 59) ‘jaw’ However, there are counterexamples, such as (240), where no assimilation to the velar position has been recorded. (240) cœncɥ ɥo (Villareal 1921: 12) kuncho ˚ (Middendorf 1892: 61) ‘meat’ Seventeenth-century Mochica had a remarkable system of laterals, in which the oppositions of voice and palatality played a central role. One of the special symbols introduced by Carrera Daza, <xll> has been identified as a voiceless palatalised lateral [l y ] (Torero 1986).121 It contrasted with a voiced counterpart ly . Between the seventeenth and the nineteenth centuries the voiceless sound developed into a palatalised velar fricative [¸c], written ’ by Middendorf (241), whereas the voiced sound remained unchanged (242).
120 121
For reasons of notational uniformity, we substitute [cy ] for Hovdhaugen’s [t¸s¸]. Hovdhaugen interprets this symbol as a palatalised alveopalatal fricative [ˇsy ].
328
3 The Inca Sphere (241) xllaxll
(Villareal 1921: 44) ’ai’
(242) llapti loc
(Villareal 1921: 26)
llapti jok
(Middendorf 1892: 62) (Middendorf 1892: 59)
‘silver’ ‘sole of the foot’
Carrera Daza’s grammar does not contain evidence of the existence of a pair of nonpalatal laterals parallel to the palatal ones. Only one lateral is attested. In many cases this lateral developed into a velar fricative j [x] between the seventeenth and the nineteenth centuries; cf. (242), and the examples in (243): (243) a. la b. col
(Villareal 1921: 24)
j¯a
(Villareal 1921: 14)
koj
(Middendorf 1892: 63) (Middendorf 1892: 60)
‘water’ ‘horse’ (< * ‘llama’)
In other cases, however, the lateral was preserved (244). On this basis and for reasons of symmetry, one may assume, with Torero (1986), that there may have existed a contrast between voiced and voiceless plain laterals as well, one of which developed into a velar fricative, whereas the other did not. Since there is no direct evidence for such a development, it must remain a matter of speculation. (244) loqu-ein˜ (Villareal 1921: 26) want 1S.SG ‘I want’
lok-ein˜ (Middendorf 1892: 184)
Table 3.18 presents an overview of the principal consonant symbols and symbol combinations used by Carrera Daza and Middendorf and their possible values at different stages of their development. 3.4.2 Mochica grammar Mochica is predominantly a suffixing language with a rather loose morphological structure. Grammatical relations are indicated by case or postpositions. There are no affixes indicating the grammatical person of the possessor. The genitive case form of personal and demonstrative pronouns is used for that purpose. As in Aymara and Quechua, modifiers precede the head. Irregular forms, including those involving ablaut and root substitution, are common. As a result of the way in which the language was documented, it is no longer possible to obtain a full picture of these irregularities. Furthermore, the sources show a certain amount of insecurity where vowels are concerned. Very often, alternative possibilities are presented as equivalent, without a suggestion of semantic or pragmatic differences that could have played a role.
3.4 The Mochica language
329
Table 3.18 Overview of the consonant symbols in the Mochica grammars of Carrera Daza (1644) and Middendorf (1892) Carrera Daza (1644)
Middendorf (1892)
Possible phonetic values and historical development
p f t d c, c¸ , z tzh s, ss ch x cɥ c, qu xll ll l l r, rr m n n˜ ng i,y
p f, v t d s, ss ts s, ss ch sˇ c´ h k ’ ll l j r, rr m n n˜ ng i
p f, ϕ > v, β t ð, θ s ts¸ , ts > ts s¸ > s cˇ sˇ ky , ty , tc¸ > ty , tc¸ k l y > c¸ ly l l, l > x r, rr m n ny ŋ y
Several characteristics of Mochica are reminiscent of the Mayan languages. The language has a system of numeral classifiers and a fully developed passive. Passive constructions are often preferred over active constructions, the agent being expressed in the genitive case or, with some nouns (mainly kinship terms), by a special agentive case marker. Many substantives have two forms, a possessed (relational) form and a non-possessed (absolute) form. One of the most remarkable features of Mochica is the use of verbal personal reference markers that can either be suffixed to the verb stem itself, or follow the element preceding the verb stem. They indicate the person of the subject, whereas person of object is not expressed in the verb form. Although these personal reference markers are not formally related to the independent personal pronouns, their combined use as subject markers is considered ungrammatical (Villareal 1921: 6). In example sentence (245), the marker for first-person singular -ei˜n is attached to the root met ‘to bring’. Alternatively, it can
330
3 The Inca Sphere
be located after the element which precedes the root, in this case the object pup ‘wood’ (246): (245) met-ein˜ pup m¨ain˜ an ai-n¨am bring-1S.SG wood I.G house make-F.SP ‘I bring wood in order to build my house.’ (246) pup ein˜ met m¨ain˜ an ai-n¨am wood 1S.SG bring I.G house make-F.SP ‘I bring wood in order to build my house.’
(Middendorf 1892: 160)
(Middendorf 1892: 160)
Alternatively, the personal pronoun moi˜n ‘I’ is located before the root met from which it is separated by either one of the elements e, fe or ang. The grammatical descriptions do not provide information as to a possible semantic difference between these three options, which are all translatable as ‘I bring’ (247): (247) moin˜ e´ met xllac122 or moin˜ fe met xllac or moin˜ ang met xllac I be bring fish ‘I bring fish.’ (Altieri 1939: 51) The invariable elements e, fe and ang are described as equivalents of the verb ‘to be’ and can be used as such in combination with a free pronoun (248): (248) moin˜ e or moin˜ fe or moin˜ ang I be ‘I am.’
(Villareal 1921: 5)
Mochica also has a conjugated verb chi conveying the meaning ‘to be’.123 In combination with this verb, the use of the independent pronoun as subject is rejected. When followed by the element -pa, the conjugated forms of the verb ‘to be’ obtain the meaning of ‘to have’ (249): (249) chi-n˜ 124 be-1S.SG ‘I am.’
chi-n-pa ˜ be-1S.SG-have ‘I have.’
(Villareal 1921: 5, 100)
Finally, the notion ‘to be’ can be expressed by locating a personal reference marker directly after a full pronoun. In that case the use of the independent pronoun in 122 123 124
The element e is often, but not always, found as e´ in Carrera Daza (Altieri 1939). The verb chi is mainly used in a copula function. For existential ‘to be’ loc/lok is preferred. For the suppression of the vowel in -ei˜n see below.
3.4 The Mochica language
331
Table 3.19 Personal reference in Mochica (Altieri 1939: 19–21) Pronouns
1 pers. sing. 1 pers. plur. 2 pers. sing. 2 pers. plur. 3 pers. sing.
3 pers. plur.
(close) (neutral) (far) (close) (neutral) (far)
Affixes
Nominative
Genitive
-ei˜n -eix -az -az-chi -ang
moi˜n mœich tzhang ∼ tzha tzhœich ∼ tzha-chi mo c¸ io aio mo-ng-œn c¸ io-ng-œn aio-ng-œn
mœi˜n[-ˆo] mœich[-ˆo] tzhœng[-ˆo] tzhœich[-ˆo] mu-ng[-ˆo] c¸ iu-ng[-ˆo] aiu-ng[-ˆo] mu-ng-œn[-ˆo] c¸ iu-ng-œn[-ˆo] aiu-ng-oen[-ˆo]
-œn-ang
combination with the corresponding personal reference marker does not appear to be problematic (250): (250) moin˜ ein˜ I 1S.SG ‘I am.’
(Villareal 1921: 5)
Interrogative sentences of the disjunctive type provide the only context in which the personal reference markers occur in a sentence-initial position, e.g. in (251) and (252), without having to be preceded by any other element. It follows from this that the Mochica personal reference markers cannot be considered to be bound affixes in the strict sense, although they do behave as such when they occur after a verb stem (see below). (251) as ton-od ts¨ang ef 2S beat/kill-PA you.G father.RL ‘Did you beat your father?’ (252) ang funo-´ch¨am 3S eat-PR ‘Is he/are they eating?’
(Middendorf 1892: 136)
(Middendorf 1892: 95)
The personal reference system of Mochica is based on three persons and two numbers. Personal pronouns exist for first and second persons singular and plural. For third-person demonstrative pronouns are used. In third-person forms and in nouns in general, plurality is expressed optionally by means of the suffix -œn/-¨an. In table 3.19 the personal reference markers are represented in their affix shape, along with the corresponding free pronouns
332
3 The Inca Sphere
(including demonstratives for third person) in their nominative and genitive forms. The short forms of the genitive pronouns are used as modifiers in noun phrases and as agents in passive constructions. The long forms in -ˆo /-¯o are used in predicative constructions with ‘to be’.125 As shown in table 3.19, the vowel of the first-person suffixes -ei˜n, -eix/-eiˇs can be suppressed by a preceding vowel, as in chi-˜n ‘I am’, funo-i˜n ‘I eat’ (funo ‘to eat’). The vowel of the second-person suffix -az/-as is unstable; it is alternatively found as -œz/-¨as or -ez/-es, and it is also affected by suppression after another vowel, e.g. chi-z ‘you are’, funo-z ‘you eat’. Note that the velar nasal preceding the pluralising suffix -œn in the nominative forms (in mo-ng-œn, for instance) is not part of the postvocalic realisation of that suffix. With other vowel-final roots, such as c¸ iorna/ssiorna ‘(someone) alone’, a hiatus is preferred before -œn: c¸ iorna œn/ssiorna-¨an. In the genitive forms, however, -ng- is the normal postvocalic realisation of the marker for that case (here accompanied by ablaut). Although Mochica has no general case marker for objects – they are indicated in the same way as subjects –, some pronouns do have a special form for that purpose. A firstperson-plural accusative or dative object (‘us’) is indicated by n˜ of; the demonstratives have object forms moss, c¸ ioss/ssioss and aioss, respectively. Case marking in Mochica is constructed around the nominative–genitive distinction. The remaining case markers have been analysed as postpositions, which are either added to the nominative or to the genitive form.126 It should be observed, however, that this is the traditional view, and that some of the elements which are directly added to the ‘nominative’ root, such as -len ‘with (comitative)’, -mœn/m¨an ‘as’, ‘following’, -na ‘through’ (adverbialiser), -(ng)er ‘with (instrumental)’, -(n)ich ‘from’, -pœn/-p¨an ‘as’, ‘in the function of’, -tim ‘for the sake of’ and -totna ‘towards’ may be case suffixes, rather than postpositions127 (cf. Middendorf 1892: 125–6). (253) ssiung fanu-len128 he.G dog-C ‘with his dog’ (254) pen-o-p¨ ˜ an ang ak-¨am good-AR-CP be say-PS ‘He is held to be good.’ 125 126 127 128
(Middendorf 1892: 98)
(Middendorf 1892: 100)
The existence of forms with and without -ˆo motivated Carrera Daza to declare that there were two genitives in Mochica (Altieri 1939: 15–16). There is one preposition pir ‘without’. It is followed by substantives in their relational form (e.g. pir chi¸cœr ‘without judgment’, from chi¸cœc ‘judgment’, ‘understanding’). The allomorphs with an initial nasal are postvocalic; -totna may be related to tot ‘face’. Middendorf (1892: 55) mentions a case of -len following the short form of the genitive (in fanu-ng-len ‘with the dog’).
3.4 The Mochica language
333
One postposition, the benefactive marker -pœn/-p¨an, follows the ‘long’ genitive case form, expanded with the element -ˆo. (255) mo cɥ ɥilpi ang mœin˜ ef-ei-ˆo-pœn this blanket be I.G father-G-AJ-B ‘This blanket is for my father.’
(Altieri 1939: 13)
The postpositions that follow the ‘short’ genitive form all have to do with location in space. The marker -nic/-nik indicates location or motion towards ‘in’, ‘at’, whereas -lec/ -lek refers to a less specific location ‘near’, ‘at’ (256). Several substantives have special locative forms in which an ending -Vc/-Vk, with an unpredictable vowel i, e or œ/¨a, is added directly to the root, e.g. en-ec/en-ek ‘at home’ (cf. an ‘house’), mœcɥ -œc/m¨ach-¨ak ‘in the hands’ (cf. mœcɥ /m¨ach ‘hand’). These cases are said by Middendorf (1892: 96) to take their origin in the combination of genitive stems followed by -nic/-nik, a conclusion which in our view remains open for discussion. The remaining postpositions that follow genitive stems indicate spatial positions in relation to an object. Several of them are derived from body part names and contain the element -Vc/-Vk (257), e.g. lecɥ œc/ jech¨ak ‘above’ (cf. lecɥ /jech ‘head’), lucɥ œc/juch¨ak ‘among’, ‘between’ (cf. locɥ /joch ‘eyes’), tutœc/tut¨ak ‘before’, ‘in front of’ (cf. tot ‘face’). The postpositions capœc/kap¨ak ‘on top of’, ssecœn/ssek¨an ‘below’ and turquich/turkich ‘behind’ are less easy to analyse. (256) pedro-ng-lec Pedro-G-L ‘at Pedro’s’ (257) chap-e jech-¨ak129 roof-G head-L (above) ‘on top of the roof’
(Villareal 1921: 110)
(Middendorf 1892: 97)
The shape of the genitive of Mochica nouns is partly unpredictable. In wordlists (e.g. Middendorf 1892: 58–64; Villareal 1921: 9–44) the genitive ending is added to each entry. According to Middendorf (1892: 52–4), -œr-ˆo/-¨ar-¯o is found after voiceless stops, nasals and part of the affricates (ts, ch). After other consonants -ei-ˆo/-ei-¯o is found. The genitive ending after vowels is -ng-ˆo/-ng-¯o. The plural suffix -œn-/-¨an- is inserted before the genitive suffixes -œr-/-¨ar- and -ei-, but after -ng-. (258) mud-ei-¯ ¯ o ant-G-AJ ‘belonging to the ant’ 129
mud-¨ ¯ an-ei-¯o ant-PL-G-AJ ‘belonging to the ants’
(Middendorf 1892: 53)
Villareal (1921: 110) an-i cɥ ap-œ lecɥ -œc ‘above the roof of the house’.
334
3 The Inca Sphere chelu-ng-¨an-¯o (259) chelu-ng-¯o130 hawk-G-AJ hawk-G-PL-AJ ‘belonging to the hawk’ ‘belonging to the hawks’
(Middendorf 1892: 53)
Instead of -ei-ˆo, Carrera often has -ii-ˆo. This is frequently the case after roots ending in palatal consonants; e.g. c¸ iœiz/ssi¨as ‘word’, genitive c¸ iœiz-ii-o (Altieri 1939: 69).131 However, genitives in -ii-ˆo were also recorded with roots not ending in a palatal consonant (e.g. far/farr ‘celebration’, genitive far-`ıi-o), whereas -ei-ˆo has been found after a palatal consonant; e.g. eiz/eis ‘child (relative)’, genitive eizi-ei-o (eis-i-¯o in Middendorf 1892: 56). Middendorf also gives a number of exceptions and irregular forms, such as rak-ei-¯o from rak ‘mountain-lion’, pe-ng-¯o from pei ‘grass’ and pojod-ei-¯o from poj ‘spleen’.132 The word col/koj for ‘horse’ (originally ‘llama’) has two irregular options for the genitive: col-ui-ˆo and col-ung-ˆo (Altieri 1939: 15). The interrogative pronouns ei˜n ‘who’ and ech ‘what’ have special genitive forms: i˜n-ˆo/i˜n-¯o and ich-ˆo/ich-¯o (Altieri 1939: 22). As we anticipated, the element -ˆo/-¯o, traditionally described as a component of all genitive endings, is absent from genitive nouns modifying another noun in a possessive construction, in genitive nouns referring to the agent of a passive construction and before postpositions (except benefactive -pœn/-p¨an, see above). Middendorf (1892: 52) points out that -ˆo was not only stressed and long, but that it was also pronounced separately. It may be assumed that -ˆo was a grammatical element of its own, indicating, among other things, the predicative character of a genitive noun. The ‘short’ endings of the genitive are -œr/-¨ar, -e and -ng, respectively. (260) mœin˜ ef-e cɥ ɥ ilpi-ss I.G father-G blanket-RL ‘my father’s blanket’ (261) ni-ng ˜ j¯a sea-G water ‘the water of the sea’ (262) mo an ang aio nofn-¨ ˜ ar ef-ei-¯o this house be that man-G house-G-AJ ‘This house belongs to that man’s father.’ (263) c´ huvet-¨ar rr¯an-¨ad.o snake-G bite-SN ‘bitten by a snake’ 130 131 132
(Villareal 1921: 71)
(Middendorf 1892: 55)
(Middendorf 1892: 56)
(Middendorf 1892: 55)
In Carrera Daza (Altieri 1939: 83) the word for ‘hawk’ is recorded as cɥ elˆu. The diacritic on the ending -ˆo is often left out in Carrera Daza’s grammar. In Carrera Daza (Altieri 1939: 81) pol, polod-ei-o.
3.4 The Mochica language (264) nech-¨ar-nik river-G-L ‘in(to) the river’
335
(Middendorf 1892: 96)
As we anticipated, a number of kinship terms which form their genitive in -ei-ˆo/ -ei-¯o also have a special case ending -en to indicate the agent in a passive construction (265). The agentive form of ei˜n ‘who’ is i˜n-in (Altieri 1939: 22) or i˜n-en (Middendorf 1892: 133). (265) uxllur-en ein˜ xllip-quem nephew-GA 1S.SG speak-T.PS ‘I am called by my nephew.’
[xllip-co ‘call’, ‘address’] (Altieri 1939: 16)
The formation of relational substantives, also referred to in the literature as the ‘second nominative’ (Middendorf 1892: 56), often involves a suffix -s or -ss, as in cɥ ilpi-ss; cf. (260). The agentive nominalisation in -(V)pœc/-(V)p¨ak can be made relational by adding -œss/-¨ass, e.g. chi-co-pœc-œss ‘someone’s creator’ (from chi ‘to be’ and -co/ -ko ‘transitiviser’; cf. Altieri 1939: 14). Of many bisyllabic substantives which end in -Vc/-Vk, a relational counterpart is obtained by changing the final stop into -r; e.g. n˜ e˜n-uc/˜ne˜n-uk ‘toy’ (from n˜ ei˜n ‘to play’), relational n˜ e˜n-ur (Middendorf 1892: 57; Villareal 1921: 33). A third possibility to form relationals is by the addition of -Vd, e.g. col-œd/koj-¨ad from col/koj ‘horse’. With typically possessed nouns, the relational form may be the more basic one, whereas the absolute form is more marked. Such nouns often have the ending -quic/-kik in the absolute, which is either absent, or replaced by -Vng in the relational. (266) a. ef-kik ‘father’ (absolute) b. pol-kik ‘heart’ (absolute)
ef ‘father’ (relational) pol-¨ang ‘heart’ (relational)133 (Middendorf 1892: 57)
The relational and absolute forms of substantives need not be etymologically related. This appears to be the case with the word mecherrœc/mecherr¨ak ‘woman’ (absolute) in relation to ssonœng/sson¨ang ‘wife’ (relational). Adjectives in Mochica precede the substantive they modify. In that case they are often followed by a suffix -o (-io after vowels), which is not to be confounded with the marker -ˆo/-¯o of the extended genitive. Carrera Daza’s grammar also contains many cases of -o with adjectives in a predicative position (267). When the adjective acts as a modifier, the plural marker -œn/-¨an is attached to the modifying adjective rather than to the modified 133
Villareal (1921: 37) translates the word polquic as ‘stomach’ or ‘will’.
336
3 The Inca Sphere
substantive, in which case it precedes -o (268). When the substantive is in the genitive case, the plural marker remains on the substantive (269). (267) mœich eix utzh-o ˆ we 1S.PL tall-AR ‘We are tall.’ (268) uts-¨ ¯ an-o nep¨at big-PL-AR tree ‘high trees’ (269) uts-o ¯ nep¨at-¨an-¨ar-¯o big-AR tree-PL-G-AJ ‘belonging to high trees’
(Altieri 1939: 32)
(Middendorf 1892: 65)
(Middendorf 1892: 65)
The suffix -o is also found after substantive roots that are used attributively before another noun. (270) mecherrœc-o nai ˜ n˜ woman-AR bird ‘a female bird’
(Villareal 1921: 33)
Adjectives can be turned into abstract nouns by adding the suffix -œss/-¨ass, as in pe˜n-œss ‘goodness’ from pe˜n ‘good’. Such nouns are always relational. The verbal system of Mochica presents a rather hybrid picture, in which suffixes, prefixes, as well as adverb-like elements play a part. The preterit is formed by the addition of a suffix -(V)da- (-da- after vowels), to which the personal reference markers are attached. When the personal reference markers are moved to a position which precedes the verb (see above), the resulting preterit stem ends in -(V)d, e.g. met-ed (bring-PA). The future tense of the verb met ‘to bring’ is formed by means of a prefix tfollowed by (partially reduced) personal reference markers and subsequently by the root. In seventeenth-century Mochica the second-person plural marker was split into a prefix and a suffix part (Altieri 1939: 34).134 Both the preterit and the future are represented in table 3.20. A remote past tense can be expressed by adding the suffix -top, but only with a third-person subject. (271) ssiu-ng kap¨ak jum-top ˚ that-G upon die-RM ‘On that (the Cross) He died.’
134
(Middendorf 1892: 158)
In nineteenth-century Mochica this was no longer the case, as can be seen in the example t-¨as-chi tem (F-2-PL love) ‘you (plural) love’ (Middendorf 1892: 80).
3.4 The Mochica language
337
Table 3.20 Mochica preterit and future tenses (Altieri 1939) Preterit 1 pers. sing. 1 pers. plur. 2 pers. sing. 2 pers. plur. 3 pers. sing. 3 pers. plur.
met-eda-i˜n met-eda-ix met-eda-z met-eda-z-chi met-eda-ng met-ed-œn-ang
Future ‘I brought.’ ‘We brought.’ ‘You brought.’ ‘You brought.’ ‘He brought.’ ‘They brought.’
t-i˜n-met t-ix-met t-œz-met t-œz-met-chi t-œng-met t-œng-met-œn
‘I shall bring.’ ‘We shall bring.’ ‘You shall bring.’ ‘You shall bring.’ ‘He shall bring.’ ‘They shall bring.’
Another paradigm which may be formed synthetically is the desiderative. It is formed by inserting -ma- between the root and the personal reference markers, as in met-ma-i˜n ‘may I bring!’ As an alternative, Middendorf mentions an analytic construction with the element mang indicating desiderative, which is used in the same position as the elements e, fe and ang (see above); e.g. moi˜n mang tem ‘may I love!’ The imperative ending for second person is -an (plural -an-chi). When the verb root ends in a vowel (e.g. xllipco/’ipko ‘to call’), the ending is -n (xllipco-n/’ipko-n). (272) met-an mullu bring-2S.IM egg ‘Bring eggs!’ (273) met-an-chi pei bring-2.IM-PL grass ‘Bring (plural) grass!’
(Middendorf 1892: 149)
(Middendorf 1892: 150)
It is also possible to locate an element an before the verb root. The resulting construction has an imperative meaning and can be translated as ‘Come and . . . !’ (274). Although this preverbal element an has been interpreted as an instance of the imperative marker (Middendorf 1892: 140), there seems to be no reason to assume that the two markers an share a common origin. As a matter of fact, an is also found before the so-called ‘supine’ ending in -(V)d (see below). In that case the interpretation of the resulting construction is ‘Go and . . . !’ (275). (274) an funo 2S.IM eat ‘Come and eat!’ (275) an funo-d 2S.IM eat-SP ‘Go and eat!’
(Villareal 1921: 105)
(Villareal 1921: 103)
338
3 The Inca Sphere
The adverbial elements ca/ka and pi˜n can be postponed to a verb form, either alone or in combination, in order to add additional shades of tense. The element pi˜n indicates transposition of an event to the past (276), whereas ca indicates directedness towards the future (277). (276) met-ein˜ pin˜ bring-1S.SG PA ‘I was bringing.’ (277) chi-da-in˜ ca be-PA-1S.SG F ‘I would have been.’
met-eda-ix pin˜ bring-PA-1S.PL PA ‘We had brought.’
(Villareal 1921: 51)
(Altieri 1939: 31)
The adverbial element chœm/ch¨am indicates obligation (278). It must not be confounded with the affix -cɥ œm/-´ch¨am, which is said to indicate progressive aspect in combination with polite respect, as illustrated in (279). (278) chi-jx chœm135 be-1S.PL OB ‘We must be.’ (279) ciad-a-cɥ ɥœm-ang136 sleep-EU-PR.CS-3S ‘You are asleep.’
(Altieri 1939: 30)
(Villareal 1921: 90)
The passive is formed morphologically by adding to the verb root either one of the suffixes -œr/-¨ar∼ -er or -œm/-¨am ∼ -em. With non-derived verb bases both endings are used indistinctly, although -Vr is usually presented as the first option.137 Passive verbs are conjugated as any other verb. The choice of the vowel appears to be free, although the ‘impure’ vowel is preferred when the passive suffix occurs in word-final position, e.g. in (281). (280) zoc-œrr-ein˜ pong-er tœp-œr-ein˜ lactu-ng-er throw-PS-1S.SG stone-IS beat-PS-1S.SG hide-EU-IS ‘They throw at me with stones and beat me with hides.’ (lit.: ‘I am being thrown at with stones and beaten with hides.’)138 135 136 137 138
The sequence ijx is an orthographic variant of iix. In this example a euphonic vowel (copying the root vowel) is inserted. A further alternative is -(V)p, as in ai-ep ‘to be made’. This example sentence was left untranslated by Carrera Daza and considered untranslatable by Villareal (1921: 98). It could be interpreted with the help of the verb lexicon in Middendorf (1892: 102). There is no ready explanation for the semantic question involved by ‘beating with hides’. Possibly, a leather whip was meant.
3.4 The Mochica language
339
(281) mœin˜ e met-œr ca lena pein˜ pol-er mœin˜ sson¨ang I.G be bring-PS F along good heart139 -IS I.G wife ‘I would be pleased to bring along my wife.’ (lit.: ‘By me would be brought along with pleasure my wife.’) (Villareal 1921: 98) Verbal derivational morphology is weakly developed in Mochica. However, at least two suffixes appear to be productive, ‘transitiviser’-co-/-ko- and ‘applicative’ -c-/-k(also -ec-/-ek- or -œc-/-¨ak-). The transitiviser, which may or may not have a causative interpretation, is often found in combination with passive, in which case the resulting portmanteau marker is -quem-/-kem-. (282) fain-ko ˜ lie-T ‘to cheat someone’ (283) funo-kem-ein˜ eat-T.PS-1S.SG ‘I am being fed.’
(Middendorf 1892: 148)
(Middendorf 1892: 148)
The applicative suffix may cause ablaut in a root to which it is attached, as in the case of met ‘to bring’. (284) mit-c-an moin˜ xllac bring-AP-IM.2S I fish ‘Bring me some fish!’ (285) xllipqu-ec-an mœin˜ eiz call-AP-IM.2S I.G son ‘Call my son for me!’
(Villareal 1921: 30)
(Villareal 1921: 30)
Nominalisations in Mochica include an agentive, a stative and an instrumental nominalisation, as well as an abstract verbal noun. The agentive is formed by the addition of the affixes -(V)pœc/-(V)p¨ak. The connective initial vowel of the suffix appears after consonant-final stems. In Carrera it is a (286), less frequently œ (especially in roots with a suffix extension). Middendorf (1892: 141) provides a more complex picture including cases of harmony between the root vowel and the connective vowel (287a), as well as absence of the latter (287b). 139
The form pol-er is derived from pol-quic/pol-kik ‘heart’ with elimination of the absolute affix -quic/-kik.
340
3 The Inca Sphere (286) a. b. (287) a. b.
fel ai pui fol
‘sit’ ‘make’ ‘ascend’ ‘breed’
fil-apœc ai-apoec pui-up¨ak fol-p¨ak
‘one who sits’ (Villareal 1921: 22) ‘the creator’ (Villareal 1921: 9) ‘one who ascends’ (Middendorf 1892: 140) ‘one who breeds’ (Middendorf 1892: 140)
The agentive nominalisation is frequently followed by an affix -o, which may be the same as the one found with adjectives (see above). The resulting form is interpreted as ‘being in the habit of . . . ing’ and functions simultaneously as a verb stem. The main vowel of the agentive suffix can then be suppressed: (288) ai-ap¨ak-o ai-ap(¨a)k-o-in˜
‘in the habit of making’ ‘I am in the habit of making.’
(Middendorf 1892: 113) (Middendorf 1892: 113)
Forms resulting from stative nominalisation, usually called ‘participles’ in the literature, refer to accomplished events. They have passive meaning when the verb base is transitive but active meaning when it is intransitive. Stative nominalisation is indicated by the ending -(V)d-o. Its connective initial vowel is found after consonants and tends to harmonise with the root vowel, although there are several cases where such harmony is not found. No harmony is observed in roots with an internal vowel i, where the connective vowel can be either a or œ/¨a. Middendorf (1892: 142) points to the fact that stative participles are formally related to the preterit stem (ending -(V)d-a, see above), where he finds a similar inconsistency in the choice of the connective vowel. As a matter of fact, the final vowel of the preterit ending -(V)d-a- is often replaced by o (289). The articulated character of the ending -(V)d-o is shown by the fact that a plural marker can be inserted between the two components (290). (289) met-ed.o bring-SN ‘brought’ (290) jum-¨ ˚ ad-¨an-o die-SN-PL-SN ‘those who have died’
met-ed.a-in˜ ∼ met-ed.o-in˜ bring-PA-1S.SG ‘I brought.’ (Villareal 1921: 52–3)
(Middendorf 1892: 144)
Stative participles can be used in combination with verbs ‘to be’ in order to indicate an accomplished event. The homophony (and possible identity) of the participle and preterit forms can lead to ambiguity in the interpretation of such constructions in relation to periphrastic verb forms. With transitive verb stems, a periphrastic construction will be interpreted as active if the verb is in the preterit, whereas it will be passive if the verb is in its participle form.
3.4 The Mochica language (291) moin˜ e tem-ed.o I be love-PA ‘I have loved.’
341
moin˜ e tem-ed.o I be love-SN ‘I have been loved.’
(Middendorf 1892: 136)
Stative participles play an important role in the formation of relative clauses. Carrera Daza mentions sentence (292) as an example of how relative clause constructions should look like in Mochica. (292) œnta-zta f(e) queix Limac tœ-d.ˆo nofœn ˜ not-NE be return Lima go-SN man ‘The man who went to Lima has not yet returned.’140
(Altieri 1939: 19)
Instrumental nominalisation consists in adding a suffix -ic/-ik or -uc/-uk to a consonant- final verb root. The relational form corresponding to these nominalisations ends in -ir/-ur (cf. the case of n˜ e˜n-uc/˜ne˜n-ur ‘toy’, which was mentioned before). In some cases, both vowel options co-occur yielding different meanings (293): (293) man-ik ‘cup’, ‘drinking-vessel’ [from man ‘eat’, ‘drink’]
man-uk ‘dining-room’ (Middendorf 1892: 109)
Abstract events are referred to by forms in -i(z)¸cœc/-iss¨ak. Middendorf (1892: 110) gives examples of the use of -i(z)¸cœc/-iss¨ak both with verb roots and with adjectives followed by the affix -o and the verb chi- ‘to be’. The relational counterpart of this affix likewise ends in -r: -i(z)¸cœr/-iss¨ar. (294) a. jum-iss¨ ˚ ak ‘death’ from jum ˚ ‘die’ [<*lœm] b. t¨arr¨ak-o chi-ss¨ak ‘slowness’ from t¨arr¨ak ‘slow’ [< *tœrrœc] (295) œnta f(e) ezta in˜ aj-i¸cœr œzta mo ef-quic not be NE who.G make-N.RL NE this father-A ‘This Father is of no one’s making.’141 (Altieri 1939: 87) Mochica is rich in non-finite subordinate verb forms, traditionally referred to as gerunds and supines. The ending -nœm/-n¨am, with occasional ablaut in the root (e.g. mit-nœm from met ‘to bring’) indicates a purpose ‘in order to’; cf. examples (245)– (246) above. The ending -(V)scœf/ -(V)sk¨af indicates an event that has been completed before the main event (‘after . . . ing’); -(V)lœc/ -(V)l¨ak and -(V)ssœc/-(V)ss¨ak indicate 140
141
In Carrera Daza’s text the first part of this sentence is subdivided as œntaz taf queix. It must have incited Villareal (1921: 39) to include a non-existing verb tafqueix ‘to return’ in his word list. In reality, we are dealing with a contraction of two negative markers œnta and ezta, followed by an abbreviated form of fe ‘to be’ (cf. Middendorf 1892: 117). The verb ‘to return’ is queix/keˇs (Middendorf 1892: 87). I˜n is the (short) genitive of ei˜n ‘who’; aj- is an alternative way of writing for ai- ‘to make’.
342
3 The Inca Sphere
simultaneousness (‘while . . . ing’). Finally, -(f)uno, -(f)unta and -(f)un can indicate a negative subordination (‘without . . . ing’).142 (296) mœin˜ ef ang lœm-œd.o, tzhang Limac chi-lœc I.G father.RL be die-SN you Lima be-GR ‘My father died while you were in Lima.’
(Villareal 1921: 102)
Particularly intriguing because of their often irregular formation and their ability to express the active–passive distinction are the supines that indicate the complement of verbs of motion (including the hortative particle an ‘go and . . . !’; see above). The verb met ‘to carry’ has an active supine tet and a passive supine tinipœd/tinip¨ad. Most other verbs form their active supine in -(œ)d/-(¨a)d, -(V)p-œd/-(V)p-¨ad being a frequent option for the passive. Both the syntax and the limited choice of the postconsonantal vowel suggest that there is no close relation with the preterit and the stative participle in these cases. (297) an tin-ip-œd nof ˜ faichca go.and bring-PS-SP we.AC firewood ‘Go and have us brought firewood!’ (298) xllon-quic ang ta tet food-A 3S come bring.SP ‘He has come to bring (you) food.’
(Villareal 1921: 103)
(Altieri 1939: 60)
Mochica has a system of numeral classifiers which refer to tens and, to a lesser extent, hundreds of a specific class of objects. There are no numeral classifiers for units. The first four numerals have free forms (including genitives), as well as bound forms which are used in combination with the classifiers or as multipliers of other numerals. Even though there is a special word for ‘ten’, as shown in table 3.21, the usual way to count in tens was by combining the bound forms of the numerals (or full forms when bound forms are lacking) with a numeral classifier referring to ten units of a particular subclass of nouns. For instance, pong was used for (tens of) people, animals and reeds, and ssop for (tens of) coins or time units (day, year). The classifier cɥ oquixll/choki’ was used for (tens of) fruits and ears of maize. (299) c¸ oc-pong cɥ ɥ eluˆ four-CL.10 hawk ‘forty hawks’ (300) na-ssop xllaxll one-CL.10 money ‘ten reales’ 142
The forms with initial f occur after o (e.g. funo-funta ‘without eating’).
(Altieri 1939: 83)
(Altieri 1939: 82)
3.4 The Mochica language
343
Table 3.21 Numerals 1 to 10 in Mochica (Altieri 1939: 82)
‘one’ ‘two’ ‘three’ ‘four’ ‘five’ ‘six’ ‘seven’ ‘eight’ ‘nine’ ‘ten’ *
Nominative
Genitive
Bound
onœc aput* c¸ opœt nopœt exllmœtzh tzhaxlltzha n˜ ite langœss tap c¸ iœcɥ
onc-œr-o apt-ur-o c¸ opt-œr-o nopt-œr-o exllmœtzh-œr-o tzhaxlltzha-ng-o n˜ ite-ng-o langœss-œr-o tap-œi-o c¸ iœcɥ -œi-o
napacc¸ ocnoc-
The Altieri edition mentions the form atput (genitive apt-ur-o) alongside aput. All the other sources only have aput.
(301) pak-choki’ mang two-CL.10 maize ‘twenty ears of maize’
(Middendorf 1892: 130)
The word for ‘hundred’ palœc/pal¨ak could be combined with the bound forms of the numerals, yielding na-palœc ‘100’, pac-palœc ‘200’, etc. In order to count ‘hundreds of fruits or crops’ there was a special numeral classifier chiœng/chi¨ang. (302) pak-chi¨ang c´ hun two-CL.100 gourd ‘two hundred gourds’ In addition to the classifiers for tens and hundreds there are also classifiers for pairs. The classifier luc/luk was used for counting fruits and crops, whereas felœp/fel¨ap was used for domestic fowl and vessels. The word cœss was recorded by Carrera Daza as a classifier for counting time in tens of days, e.g. exllmœtzh cœss ‘fifty days’ (Altieri 1939: 84). In Middendorf’s time the word k¨ass apparently had lost its decimal meaning. It was still combinable with bound numerals but with the meaning of ‘day’ rather than ‘ten days’. Other lexical items referring to time, such as sˇi ‘month’ and f¯ur ‘year’, could also be combined with the bound numerals (e.g. nok-f¯ur ‘four years’). The Mochica numeral system also included a word for ‘thousand’ cunˆo/kuno. Complex numerals involving the addition of units to tens, tens to hundreds, etc., were constructed by means of the connector allo, e.g. n˜ ite palœc allo na-pong allo onœc ‘711’ (Altieri 1939: 83).
344
3 The Inca Sphere
3.4.3 Mochica sample texts The Mochica texts that have been preserved from the colonial period are all religious texts pertaining to Roman Catholic faith and practice. It is likely that all these texts were translated into Mochica from Latin or from Spanish, although they certainly provide a good impression of the structure of the language. A substantial corpus of such texts can be found in Carrera Daza’s grammar of 1644 (Altieri 1939), and some have been transposed into a nineteenth century version by Middendorf (1892). Middendorf also included a few short sample texts on the daily life of the Mochica people at the end of the nineteenth century. In what follows we will first present the Lord’s Prayer in Carrera Daza’s seventeenth-century version of Mochica, and subsequently a short text about fishing practices recorded by Middendorf. The Lord’s Prayer 1. mœich ef, ac az loc cu¸cia-ng-nic we.G father.RL that 2S be heaven-G-L ‘Our Father who art in heaven.’ The relativising element ac is explained by Middendorf (1892: 105) as a form of the verb ac/ak ‘to look’, which he associates with the habit of the Mochica people to introduce sentences with the word ak-an ‘(now) look!’ However, since ac is followed by the second-person subject marker -az, we must conclude that ac has become part of the clause and that it functions as a relative clause marker. 2. tzhœng oc mang lic-œm mœcha you.G name.RL be.DE make.PS holy ‘Hallowed be thy name.’ The noun oc/¯ok must be in its relational form, which apparently is identical to the absolute form (if such a form indeed exists). The expression lic mœcha means ‘to worship’ (Villareal 1921: 26).143 3. piyc-an nof ˜ tzhœng cu¸cia-s give-2S.IM we.AC you.G heaven-RL ‘Thy kingdom come.’ The Mochica text literally says: ‘Give us your heaven!’ 4. ei-œp-ma-ng tzhœng pol-œng mœn do-PS-DE-3S you.G will-RL as ‘Thy will be done.’ 143
The Quechua verb muˇca- ‘to worship’, ‘to kiss’ is probably related to mœcha; the direction of borrowing may have been either way.
3.4 The Mochica language
345
The verb ei-œp is a variant of ai-ep, the passive of ai ‘to make’. 5. mo œiz-i capœc cu¸cia-ng-nic mœn this earth-G on.top.of heaven-G-L as ‘On earth as it is in heaven.’ 6. aio in-eng in-eng-ˆo mœich xllon piyc-an nof ˜ allˆo mo-lun that when-G when-G-AJ we.G food.RL give-2S.IM we.AC also this-day ‘Give us this day our daily bread.’ The form in is an interrogative root meaning ‘when’, ‘where’, ‘which’. The expression in-eng in-eng-o is translated as ‘habitual’ in Middendorf’s translation of the Prayer. The form xllon/’on is the relational form of xllon-quic/’on-kik ‘food’. 7. efqu-ec-an nof ˜ ixll-œss forgive-AP-2S.IM we.AC sin-RL ‘And forgive us our trespasses.’ The verb efco/efko is glossed as ‘to save’, ‘to free’ by Middendorf; -co may be the transitivising suffix. The suffix -œss may be the same as the one used with adjectives to form abstract relational nouns (cf. pe˜n, pe˜n-œss). 8. aie acan aix efco xllangmu-ss-ei-o mœich, c¸ io mœn like that 1S.PL free enemy-RL-G-AJ we that like ‘As we forgive those who trespass against us.’ The expression aie kan is discussed in Middendorf (1892: 159); it means ‘in the same way as . . . ’; the element kan is frequently used to introduce correlative constructions. In sentence 8 acan also has a correlative function, in which it interacts with c¸ io. The initial vowel in acan may be due to interference with the verb ac/ak ‘to look’; cf. sentence 1. The element aix is a variant of the personal reference marker eix. The form xllangmu-ss-ei-o can be translated as ‘those (the sins) of our enemies’. 9. amoz tocœn nof ˜ xllangmu-ss-e mœllœc-zœr-e-nic nam-nœm do.not let we.AC enemy-RL-G talk-N.RL-G-L fall-F.SP ‘And lead us not into temptation.’ The negative adverb amoz/amoss is used in negative imperatives, in which case the verb that follows has no imperative ending -an. The verb tocœn ‘to let’ is listed as tokn by Middendorf (1892: 90). The verb mœllœc ‘to talk’, ‘to reason’ is listed as muillk, m˚ullk and m¨all¨ak (Middendorf 1892: 88, 162). The ending -(i)zœr/-iss¨ar indicates an abstract deverbal noun in its relational form. A literal translation would be: ‘Do not let
346
3 The Inca Sphere
us fall into the enemy’s talk!’ 10. lecɥna-n efco nof ˜ piss-i-nqu-ich rather-LS free-2S.IM we.AC bad-G-L-AB ‘But deliver us from evil.’ The word lecɥ na/jechna ‘more’ (cf. lecɥ /jech ‘head’) is used as a modifier with adjectives. The form in -n (lecɥ na-n) may have been used in an adverbal function, since it conveys the meaning of ‘rather’. The verb efco may be read as efco-n, where -n is the postvocalic imperative marker.144 The analysis of the form pissinquich ‘(to free) from evil’ is problematic. It contains the root piss ‘bad’ and the ablative marker -ich. The intervening element has been interpreted as -ing- (cf. Middendorf 1892: 172), in a possible parallelism with another form, i’i-ng-ich ‘(to free) from sin’ mentioned by the same author (p. 168). Nevertheless, the form pissinquich is repeated several times in Carrera Daza’s explanation of the Lord’s Prayer, so that an error is not likely. In the same context, the expression infierno-ng-niqu-ich ‘from inside hell’ contains a sequence of the locative affix -nic and the ablative marker -ich, suggesting a similar analysis for pissinquich (from piss-i-niqu-ich with a syncopated vowel); the element -ipreceding -n(i)c may represent a genitive case marker. Middendorf himself is in doubt as elsewhere he transcribes the form in question as piss¨an-k-ich (p. 105) without further explanation. A conversation about fishing (Middendorf 1892: 186–7) 1. amoch kotsk-¨ad ssi¯aj, m¯ach-n¨am ’ak let.us.go throw-SP fishing-net catch-F.SP fish ‘Let us go and throw out the net, in order to catch fish!’ The form amoch is a defective verb with the meaning ‘let us do/go’. Its complement is expressed by the supine of the following verb. The verb k˚utsk ‘to send’, ‘to throw’ (<*cœtzhc-) is recorded in Middendorf’s verb list (1892: 86–91). A verb m¯ac´ h ‘to seize’, ‘to catch’ is also recorded in that list. 2. m¨an ang chi oˇs ’ak here 3S be many fish ‘There is a lot of fish here.’ 3. tarr siet-an ang chi n¯ ˜ ass ssi´o fe more far-DG 3S be nice that be ‘Further away that is where the best place is.’ 144
Alternatively, one may interpret the final -n in lecɥ na-n as a cliticised imperative marker an. Whether or not this is a realistic interpretation requires further research.
3.4 The Mochica language
347
We tentatively analyse the suffix -an as an adverbial degree marker. 4. ts´ak-an ssi¯aj ni-nek ˜ carry-2S.IM net sea-L ‘Carry the net into the sea!’ The verb ‘to carry’ is listed as tsak (<*tzhac-) in Middendorf’s verb list. The postposition nek is a variant of nik ‘in’, ‘into’; a genitive stem marker is lacking in the word for ‘sea’ n˜ i. 5. pok-an tarr siet-an ni-ng-nek enter-IM.2S more far-DG sea-G-L ‘Go further into the water!’ The word ni translated as ‘water’ is probably the same as n˜ i ‘sea’. 6. min a¨ nta ang m¯ach-¨ar ’ak here not 3S catch-PS fish ‘Fish cannot be caught here.’ 7. m¨an ang chi kochkoch here 3S be seaweed ‘There is seaweed here.’ 8. akop t¨ak-p-ang ssi¯aj already withhold-PS-3S net ‘The net is being withheld.’ The adverb ak means ‘already’; akop appears to have the same meaning. The verb t¨ak-p could not be found in the word lists; because of its shape it appears to be a passive, and so it is translated by Middendorf; the verb t˚uk ‘to go’ does not fit this context. 9. orronch-an ssi¯aj pull.out-2S.IM net ‘Pull out the net!’ The verb ‘to pull’ is recorded as orrnch in Middendorf’s verb list. 10. m¯ach-an mo sop catch-2S.IM this knot ‘Get hold of this knot!’ 11. ’tan lok esta tuij-u-n¨am not want NE come.out-EU-F.SU ‘It (the net) does not want to move.’
348
3 The Inca Sphere
The verb tui’ (from *tuxll) ‘to come out’ is recorded in Middendorf’s verb list. The second u in this verb form is a euphonic extension of the root. The elements tan and esta are both part of the negation. The apostrophe in ’tan suggests that Middendorf considers this form to be an abbreviated variant of the negative adverb a¨ nta. The verb lok ‘to want’ lacks a third-person subject marker here; its complement is indicated by the future supine in -n¨am. 12. amoch orronch-¨ad isk-¨ar-tot-¨an let.us.go/do pull.out-SU all-G-with-PL ‘Let us pull all together!’ The form isk- is from iss¨ak (<*iz¸cœc) ‘all’, genitive issk-¨ar-¯o. The marker -tot indicates ‘in combination with’, ‘in the company of’, ‘with’. Normally, it does not follow a genitive stem (Middendorf 1892: 98). 13.
akop tuij-m-ang ssi¯aj already come.out-VE-3S net ‘The net is already out.’
The verb tuij is the same as tui’; see sentence 11. The analysis of the verb form is problematic because it contains an unexplained derivational affix -m(e)-, which is also found elsewhere in the same text (Middendorf 1892: 187): tuij-me-ko-n¨am ‘in order to make (the blood) come out’. 14. mokats (mukaits) mo ’ak-¨an take this fish-PL ‘Take these fish!’ The verb mokats or mukaits (<*mucaitzh, Altieri 1939: 44) is a defective imperative form with the meaning ‘take!’ 15. amoss nam-ko uij-e kap¨ak do.not fall-T earth-G upon ‘Do not drop them on the ground!’ According to Middendorf (1892: 63), the genitive of the noun uij is uij-¨ar-´o,145 not *uij-ei-¯o; however, a genitive interpretation seems to be the only one possible. From a historical point of view, the word uij (<*œiz) ‘earth’, ‘dust’ is remarkable because of the change *z > j, which is not attested elsewhere. Apart from Middendorf, all published sources, including Lehmann, recorded a sibilant in this form. 145
The notation -´o is clearly equivalent to -¯o.
3.4 The Mochica language
349
16. chimpo-n sop mov, ma-n¨am m¨aich take-2S.IM three corvina146 , eat-SU we ‘Take three corvinas for us to eat!’ Middendorf’s verb list contains a verb chimp ‘to take’; also chinp ‘to lay apart’, ‘to separate’; the form in the text suggests that the element -o was part of the root. Sop is a short form for sop¨at ‘three’. Ma-n¨am is the future supine of man ‘to eat, drink’ (also man-an¨am). 17. llollek ’ak t-¯ısˇ eiˇs poj other fish F-1S.PL1S.PL sell ‘The other fish we shall sell.’ The verb poj (<*pol) means ‘to sell’; the sentence apparently contains double personal reference marking in a future construction (t-iˇs-poj). 18. in˜ ein˜ lok ma-n¨am ’ak who who want eat-SU fish ‘Who wants to eat fish?’ The repetition of the interrogative pronoun (e)i˜n ‘who’ indicates a plural. As in sentence 11 the verb lok lacks a third-person subject marker. 19. chuken e toij ni-ng-e-nek-ich ˜ just.now be come.out sea-G-EU-L-AB ‘They have just now come out of the sea.’ The verb toij is the same as tui’; see 11–13. The first vowel e in n˜ i-ng-e-nek-ich can only be a euphonic extension. 20. chipan chi-ng siam still be-3S alive ‘They are still alive.’ In this sentence chi ‘to be’ is used as an auxiliary with the root siam ‘to live’. ˚ a¨ nta 21. kˇotsk-an ja ’ak kap¨ak, tem ang jum throw-2S.IM water fish on.top.of, so.that 3S die not ‘Throw water upon the fish, so they will not die!’ The form k˘otsk is an orthographic variant of kotsk / k˚utsk (see also the first sentence of this text). A genitive stem marker is lacking before kap¨ak. The root tem (from tem 146
Corvina: a type of fish popular in Peru (Sciaena gilberti). In one of Middendorf’s word lists m¯ov is listed as cachema fish (Cynoscion analis).
350
3 The Inca Sphere
‘to love’, ‘to ask for’) is used as a conjunction in combination with the negative marker a¨ nta. 22. amoss tokan ’ang-nek do.not leave sun-L ‘Do not leave them in the sun!’ A genitive marker is lacking here before -nek; a common alternative is the expression ’ang-ik ‘in the sun’.
3.5 Puquina and Callahuaya In spite of the fact that Puquina was recognised as a ‘general language’ during the initial part of the colonial period, it rapidly became extinct without being adequately documented. The Puquina linguistic area covered a relatively large but fragmented territory, exposing the main reason for its decline. Successive invasions, in particular of Aymara-speaking peoples, had broken the unity of the Puquina nation long before the Spaniards reached Peru. In the first half of the fifteenth century the most important Puquina-speaking group were the Colla, who had their centre of power west of Lake Titicaca in the present-day department of Puno. During their expansion, the Incas subjugated the Colla, who fiercely resisted submission. The chronicler Cabello Valboa (1586) relates how the Incas sealed their victory as the Colla king Colla Capac was taken to Cuzco and sacrificed to the Sun (cf. Torero 1987). Afterwards, a series of new rebellions weakened the position of the Colla even further. Our knowledge of the distribution of the Puquina-speaking peoples is based on two sources of information: toponymy and colonial documents. Torero (1987) concludes that the Puquina language was predominant in three areas: (i) the altiplano and mountains surrounding Lake Titicaca, with the exception of its Aymara-speaking southwestern shore; this area includes Charazani, home of the Callahuaya practitioners of traditional medicine, who conserve a professional language with a Puquina lexical basis, and two of the principal islands of the lake, Amantan´ı and Taquile; (ii) the region between Arequipa and Tacna on the Pacific side of southern Peru (the area of the historical Coli people); and (iii) an area in the Bolivian highlands situated between the towns of Sucre and Potos´ı. There are indications, however, that the Puquina were cosmopolitan enough not to remain confined to these areas. The colonial church at Andahuaylillas, not far from Cuzco, contains a multilingual wall inscription in five languages, one of which is Puquina. It is not sure when the Puquina language eventually disappeared. The last mentions of its existence date from the years shortly before the independence of Peru and concern the area east of Arequipa. This is also the region where the Puquina toponymy is most conspicuous: place names ending in -baya, -coa and -laque (e.g. Socabaya, Calacoa,
3.5 Puquina and Callahuaya
351
Matalaque) are diagnostic of Puquina presence. Interestingly, the mountainous interior of the department of Moquegua today harbours an Aymara-, a Quechua- and a Spanishspeaking area. All three have predominant Puquina toponymy. The only grammar of Puquina known to have existed was that of Alonso de Barzana of 1590. Unfortunately, it has not survived. The principal source for the language is a religious text, Rituale seu Manuale Peruanum, published in Naples by Ger´onimo de Or´e (1607). It contains prayers, instructions for confession and catechisms in Quechua, Aymara, Puquina, Guaran´ı and Mochica. A first analysis of the Puquina material was made by de la Grasserie (1894), who published a vocabulary, grammatical notes and transcribed texts. A second attempt is Torero’s unpublished doctoral dissertation of 1965. A vocabulary and a historical study of the Puquina language have appeared in Torero (1987), some grammatical notes and comparative remarks in Torero (1992). Most of the analytic observations on Puquina in this section have been inspired by Torero’s work.147 A comparison with the Callahuaya language makes it clear that Puquina must have been subdivided into rather divergent local varieties. One such dialect provided the basis for most of the lexicon of Callahuaya, its morphology being derived from that of the surrounding Quechua. The variety underlying the Callahuaya lexicon was certainly not the Puquina known to Or´e but rather a sister dialect of it. For instance, whereas many Puquina words begin with a consonant cluster consisting of s followed by a stop, the corresponding Callahuaya words do not exhibit that initial s, as in Puquina sper ‘four’, Callahuaya pily ; Puquina scana ‘silver’, Callahuaya qena. In other cases, the two languages may have been more similar than the sources suggest. Present-day Callahuaya distinguishes between velar and uvular articulation positions, and has a contrast between plain, aspirated and glottalised stops. Although Or´e’s material is ambiguous in this respect, it is probable that the variety of Puquina with which he was familiar knew such distinctions too. There are several spellings suggesting the existence of different stops and fricatives in the velar–uvular area, e.g. , , , , , , <x>. Even though the distinction between the front vowels e and i, and between the back vowels o and u may not have had a heavy functional load, there is reason to assume that these contrasts were distinctive, as is illustrated by se e [seʔe] ‘heart’ versus sipi- ‘to beat’, and so ‘two’ versus suma- (∼¸cuma-) ‘to live’. Cases such as se e (∼sehe, ∼see) ‘heart’, gui in ‘like’, and qui illa- ‘to think’ suggest the presence of an intervocalic glottal stop. Consonant clusters of two consonants in initial and final position, and of three consonants in word-internal position occur, but the pronunciation of such sequences 147
Torero (2002) contains a detailed analysis of Puquina, which became available after the completion of this chapter.
352
3 The Inca Sphere
(e.g. mocsca- ‘to bring together’) is open to different interpretations. Nasal consonants sometimes occur after a consonant in word-final position, either suggesting a vocalic realisation, or the presence of an unwritten schwa-type vowel. This can be the case when the instrumental case suffix -m ‘with’ or a rare genitive suffix -n (only attested in Dios-n Yglesia ‘God’s Church’) are added to a base ending in a consonant.148 The stops k (/) and p tend to become voiced (or even reduced to an approximant [w] in the latter case) in intervocalic position, as will be illustrated in some of the examples that follow. The fact that in some lexical items either only <s>, or only <¸c> occur in initial position leaves open the possibility that there may have been two distinct sibilants ([s], [ˇs]) as in seventeenth-century Cuzco Quechua.149 For the remainder, the sound inventory of Puquina may have been similar to that of Aymara and Quechua. Not surprisingly, the Puquina lexicon contains several borrowings from both these languages. Some of the borrowed items underwent important phonological adaptations, e.g. Puquina macu [maku] ‘king’, Aymara maly ku, and Puquina suca [suka] ‘youngest’, Aymara suly ka, Cuzco Quechua suly k’a. However, in other cases of lexical similarity Puquina may have been the source language, as in Aymara layqa ‘witch’ from Puquina reega (Callahuaya reqa ‘cat’, ‘witch’). The Aymara interrogative stem k h iti ‘who’, which is absent from the sister language Jaqaru, is reminiscent of Callahuaya kh i: ‘what’ (Puquina qui-) and Callahuaya ki, k h iru ‘who’. (The element -ti could be associated with the Aymara negative marker.) From a morphosyntactic point of view the Puquina language is somewhat different from the surrounding Andean languages. Although the main morphological device of the language is suffixation, there is a set of possessive pronominal elements which are confined to a position before the head noun. These elements are free forms, rather than prefixes, because they may be separated from the noun by an adjective, as in (303) and (304): (303) no atot hucha-nch 1P.SG great sin-DV ‘It is my great sin.’ (304) po coma hucha 2P all sin ‘all your sins’
148
149
[Aymara, Quechua hucha ‘guilt’] (Or´e 1607: 164)
(Or´e 1607: 164)
The normal genitive construction is by juxtaposition following the order modifier–modified. The two parts of the construction are optionally separated by a possessive pronoun chu ‘his/her/its’ (Torero 1994a). In contradistinction to the transcription of other Andean languages, such as Muisca, Mochica, Chol´on and Allentiac, the (infrequent) symbol <x> clearly did not refer to [ˇs] in Puquina (cf. Torero 1995).
3.5 Puquina and Callahuaya
353
Table 3.22 Puquina personal and possessive pronouns
1 pers. sing. 2 pers. 3 pers. 1 pers. plur.
Personal pronouns
Possessive pronouns
ni pi chu se˜n
no po chu se˜n
However, with some adjectives the reverse occurs (305): (305) puta po hucha sisqu-eno Dios all 2P sin know-AG God ‘God, who knows all your sins’
(Or´e 1607: 167)
Personal and possessive pronouns in Puquina are reminiscent of the prefixes used for personal reference in most of the Arawakan languages. This is one of the main reasons why Puquina has occasionally been presented as genetically related to Arawakan, the lexical similarities being very limited (cf. Torero 1992). Table 3.22 shows the personal and possessive pronouns of Puquina. The pronouns for first person singular, second and third person can be compared to the personal reference prefixes in Arawakan languages. For instance, in I˜napari (Madre de Dios, southeastern Peru) the singular personal reference prefixes nu-, pi- and ru- indicate first, second person singular and third person feminine, respectively (Parker 1995). Person of subject and object are indicated in the suffix part of the verb form in a system of transitions typologically reminiscent of Aymara and Quechua. In the examples (306) and (307) a first- and a second-person subject are indicated by means of the suffixes -qu(i) ∼ -gu(i) and -p(i) ∼ -u(i)- ∼ -v(i), respectively. (306) ni-ch baptiza-gu-ench yqui-m chuscu-m Spiritu.sancto-m men-ut ` I-E baptise-1S.SG-DV father-CO son-CO holy.spirit-CO name-L ‘I baptise (you) in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.’ (Or´e 1987: 37) (307) quin˜ too-pi, raago aya-y inque atago aya-y what150 bring-2S man child-IR or woman child-IR ‘What do you bring (to the church), a boy or a girl?’ (Or´e 1607: 69)
150
The interrogative stem ‘what’ is generally found as qui˜n when used independently. In combinations it is qui-; e.g. quigui ‘how’.
354
3 The Inca Sphere
The addition of a suffix -s- before the subject marker generates an inverse relation in which the original subject marker refers to an object and the actor becomes third person: (308) apa pampacha-gue-s-p-anch not forgive-F-I-2O-DV ‘He will definitely not forgive you.’ (309) patero-s cha-que-s-c-anch father-E scold-F-I-1O.SG-DV ‘The Father will scold me. ‘
[Quechua pampaˇca- ‘to forgive’] (Or´e 1607: 167)
(Or´e 1607: 167)
As in Quechua, a special first-person subject ending obtains in the future tense: -(gui-)na: (310) ni-cha co apa qui.illa-su ata-gui-na I-E this not think-SN ask-F-1S.SG.F ‘I will ask you about what you have not thought of.’
(Or´e 1607: 167)
The imperative mood has endings -ta for second- person and -anta for third-person subject; the transition of a second-person subject with a first-person object has the ending -suma: (311) ama scalli-ta do.not be.afraid-2S.IM ‘Do not be afraid!’ (312) Dios huacaycha-s-p-anta God protect-I-2O-3S.IM ‘May God protect you!’ (313) catalla-suma no ha-r`ey151 listen-2S.1O.IM 1P.SG son-VO.MS ‘Listen to me, my son!’
[Quechua ama ‘do not’] (Or´e 1607: 167) [Quechua waqayˇca- ‘to protect’] (Or´e 1607: 167)
(Or´e 1607: 166)
Declarative predicates are normally followed by a suffix -(a)nch or -(e)nch, as in (303), (306) and in (308)–(309). (The vowel alternation is not yet well understood.) The absence of this suffix entails an interrogative interpretation of the predicate, as can be deduced from the interaction of questions and answers in (314): (314) cuhana-pi ˜ believe-2S ‘Do you believe?’
151
cuhane-qu-ench ˜ believe-1S.SG-DV ‘I do’.
(Or´e 1607: 126–7)
The form ha-r`ey probably contains a vocative element -re, used for addressing men; women are addressed with -ye. A more regular alternative for ha-r`ey is haya-re (Or´e 1607: 173).
3.5 Puquina and Callahuaya
355
Number is indicated in the verb form, as can been seen in (315) and (316): (315) quin˜ hata-i Yglesia-huananac what want-3S Church-AB ‘What does he/she want from the Church?’ (316) quin˜ hata-nu-y Yglesia-huananac what want-PL-3S Church-AB ‘What do they want from the Church?’
(Or´e 1607: 69)
(Or´e 1607: 70)
The use of derivational suffixes, in the case of the causative, can be illustrated by pairs such as halla- ‘to die’ and halla-na- ‘to kill’ (de la Grasserie 1894: 9, 16); yti- ‘to receive’ and yt-na- ‘to hand over’ (Or´e 1607: 223). The most frequent nominalisations are characterised by the suffixes -(s)so∼-(s)su ‘stative participle’ (310) (317), -no ‘infinitive’ (318), and -eno (with suppression of a previous non-high vowel) ‘agentive’ (319). (317) no hucha pampacha-sso asch-anta 1P.SG sin forgive-SN be-3S.IM ‘Let my sins be forgiven!’ (Or´e 1607: 127) (318) vinaya ˜ c¸ uma-no [Aymara winaya ˜ ‘eternal’] eternal live-IF ‘eternal life’ (Or´e 1607: 70) (319) regah coa uppall-eno men˜ chat-eno-ui Padre yna Visitador yna witch idol worship-AG man denounce-AG-2S Father either Visitador or ‘Have you denounced the witch and the idolater to the Father or to the Visitador?’ (Or´e 1607: 172) In sentence (319) there may be two instances of the agentive morpheme. As illustrated in chatenoui (from chata- ‘to denounce’, ‘to accuse’; Aymara and Quechua cˇ ’ata-), the second-person subject affix in its form -ui [wi] is often found attached to what is formally an agentive nominalisation. Tentatively, this form may be interpreted as a habitual past, or a general preterit. The gloss ‘either . . . or . . . ’ for yna is a context-bound translation; if it is correct, the expected case marker must have been suppressed. Alternatively, yna may itself be interpreted as a case marker (-na is ‘locative case’). Subordination with identical subjects is frequently indicated by a suffix -tahua (or -rahua), as in (320). (The example suggests vowel suppression before the reflexive suffix -sca-, as so often occurs in the Aymaran languages; cf. section 3.3.4). (320) ca po sehe sip-sca-tahua a-ta now 2P heart beat-RF-SU.SS say-2S.IM ‘Now say, while beating yourself on the breast: . . . !’
(Or´e 1607: 127)
356
3 The Inca Sphere
Puquina has a rich system of case markers, consisting of suffixes and postpositions, some of which can be combined. The direct object is not marked for case, but the language has an ergative case marker -s (∼ -sa), which is attached to a noun or a pronoun referring to the actor of a transitive construction (321). (321) nu-s ˜ baptiza-s-pi who-E baptise-I-2O ‘Who baptised you?’
(Or´e 1607: 167)
The examples (306) and (309)–(310) contain further instances of ergative constructions. However, the ergative marker found in (306) and (310) is -ch(a), rather than -s, and the two may not have exactly the same function. Torero (1987: 358) analyses -ch as a marker of a second-person object encoded in a combination with a first-person subject. A suffix -ch also marks ablative case, which could provide yet another interpretation for these cases. (322) po caru-ch pacari-eno Iesus po haya coha-na-ssuma [Quechua paqari- ‘to appear’] 2P womb-AB appear-AG Jesus 2P son see-CA-2S.1O.IM ‘Show us to your son Jesus, who came forth from your womb!’ (Or´e 1607: 401)
Other frequent case markers are -m ‘instrumental–comitative’, ‘coordinative’ (306), -(u)t ‘locative’ (306), -na ‘locative’, -guta ‘allative’ and -gua ‘benefactive’. The plural of nouns is marked with -gata or -cuna (from Quechua -kuna). Topics can be emphasised with -ghe or -x (possibly the same suffix), indefiniteness and concatenation (‘also’, ‘too’) with -hamp. The existence of the Callahuaya language has been attested in the area surrounding the town of Charazani in the province of Bautista Saavedra (department of La Paz). Girault (1984: 24) mentions Curva, Chajaya and Khanlaya as communities where the language is used. A different name for the language is Machaj juyay [maˇc’ax huyay] ‘language of the fellow-countrymen’ (Oblitas Poblete 1968). Callahuaya is not used for daily communication but in curing rituals by professionally trained healers. These healers are Quechua speakers but master the Callahuaya language as a second language in the context of their training. By tradition, only male Callahuaya can become healers, and there are no indications that the language was ever used as anyone’s mother tongue. Only a few older healers still know how to speak it (Muysken 1997b: 428). There is an extensive ethnographic literature on the Callahuaya people and their curing practices (Bastien 1978; Girault 1984; R¨osing 1990). Among the authors that have supplied extensive information on the Callahuaya lexicon in particular we may mention Oblitas Poblete (1968), Girault (1989) and Aguil´o (1991). Observations on Callahuaya phonology and grammar can be found in Stark (1972b) and in Muysken (1997b).
3.5 Puquina and Callahuaya
357
The main characteristic of Callahuaya stressed in literature is the fact that it combines Quechua morphology with a vocabulary that is predominantly Puquina. The following two examples cited in Muysken (1997b: 431) illustrate this: (323) cˇ ’ana-ˇci-rqa-yki isna-pu-na-yki-pax call-CA-PA-1S.2O go-RS-FN-2S-B ‘I had you called so that you can go.’ (324) mi:-qa ly aly i oxa-ku-x-mi aˇca-n human.being-TO well eat-RF-AG-AF be-3S ‘The man is a very greedy eater.’
(Oblitas Poblete 1968: 44)
(Oblitas Poblete 1968: 40)
In (323) and (324) all the suffixes are from Quechua (cf. section 3.2.6 ). In contrast, the roots can be associated with lexical items found in Puquina (Torero 1987): cˇ ’ana- ‘to call’, ‘to shout’ (Puquina cha-); isna- ‘to go’ (Puquina es-); mi: ‘human being’ (Puquina me˜n, mi˜n); oxa- ‘to eat’ (Puquina occa-, oxa-, uxa-); aˇca- ‘to be’ (Puquina ascha-, acha-). The only remaining root ly aly i is reminiscent of Quechua aly i(n) ‘good’. Stark (1972b: 206) reports that in a basic vocabulary list of 200 words, 70 per cent of the vocabulary is from Puquina, 14 per cent from Quechua, 14 per cent from Aymara and 2 per cent from Uru–Chipaya. In a less selective perspective, many Callahuaya lexical items are not relatable to any of these languages. A Tacanan influx has been suggested (Muysken 1997b), but even then there are items that remain unaccounted for. It should be emphasised that only a fraction of the Puquina lexicon is known, so that possible similarities with Callahuaya are inevitably missed. Alb´o (1989) observes that Callahuaya has native terms for several objects and animals that were introduced through contact with the Spaniards, a situation not normally found in the other Andean languages. The replacement of common words, even if of foreign origin, underscores the character of Callahuaya as a secret professional language. When comparing Puquina and Callahuaya vocabulary items, it is difficult to detect regular sound correspondences. Words may be either the same, or formally related in a non-systematic way. Borrowed roots are sometimes extended with a (non-Quechuan) suffix of unknown function, such as -naxa, as in cˇ ani-naxa ‘price, measure’ (Quechua cˇ ani) and intente-naxa- ‘to understand’ (Spanish entender). This suffix also occurs in non-borrowed roots as a verbaliser (e.g. in latais-naxa- ‘to be absent’ from latais ‘absent’). The existence of suffixes such as -naxa and -sti (e.g. in ph oqo-sti ‘white’, cf. ph oqo ‘ripe’, ‘full’) suggests that not all pre-Quechuan morphology has been replaced. The formal basis of Callahuaya morphology takes its origin in the variety of Quechua spoken in the provinces of Bautista Saavedra and Mu˜necas. It is defined as Northern Bolivian Quechua in Stark (1985b) and is more similar to Cuzco and Puno Quechua than to mainstream Bolivian Quechua. A conservative feature of this dialect is that it preserves syllable-final stops and affricates which have become fricatives in the surrounding
358
3 The Inca Sphere
dialects. At least one verbal suffix attested in Callahuaya (-ra- ‘one by one’, cf. Stark 1972b: 211) is originally an Aymara suffix, which is also found in Puno Quechua, a Quechua variety with a powerful Aymara substratum (cf. Adelaar 1987). The data presented by the different authors, in particular Oblitas Poblete (1968) and Girault (1989), are far from identical. The discrepancies in question may reflect separate local traditions. Girault’s material is of particular interest because it exhibits a number of innovations in the pronominal and possessive personal reference systems (cf. Muysken 1997b). One of these innovations concerns a tendency to switch the second- and thirdperson markers. The other innovation consists in the presence of a separate class of possessive modifiers, which are reminiscent in function, though not in form, of the Puquina possessive modifiers. According to all sources, the second-person pronoun in Callahuaya is cˇ u:, a form which coincides with the third-person pronoun chu in Puquina, suggesting that it replaced the original second-person pronoun pi of that language. In Girault’s data the Callahuaya third-person pronoun is cˇ uynin, reflecting a combination of the stem cˇ u: ∼ cˇ uy and the Quechua third-person possessive ending -(ni)n. For the same purpose, Oblitas’s examples consistently feature a pronoun or demonstrative stem hiru.152 It is likely that this shift in function of the Puquina third-person pronoun may have triggered the confusion between second- and third-person endings attested in Girault’s materials. Apart from a few minor differences, the endings of the Callahuaya verbal paradigm are consistent with those of the Quechua verbal paradigm. Muysken (1997b) points at two Callahuaya sample phrases in Girault (1989: 149) where an original second-person ending -nki occurs with a third-person subject. Both, however, contain the form aˇcapunki (presumably from aˇca- ‘to be’). Additional data are needed in order to establish whether this is a regular verb form, or a form with a special (non-verbal?) status. A Callahuaya genitive construction involving two nouns is consistent with the Quechua model, which combines head and dependent marking, except that the thirdperson ending of a possessed substantive has a special allomorph -an occurring after consonants, which is not attested in Quechua (where it is -nin). The genitive case marker is either -pax or -x.153 (325) Petruˇcu-(pa)x atasi-n Pedro-G woman-3P ‘Pedro’s wife’
152 153
(Girault 1989: 147)
In addition to hiru, Oblitas Poblete also mentions the forms cˇ uynin and piˇci. The latter may reflect the Puquina second-person marker pi, in which case a full swap would have occurred. It is not clear whether Callahuaya makes a distinction between syllable-final x (velar) and x. (uvular), as does Cuzco Quechua. Therefore, we write x everywhere.
3.5 Puquina and Callahuaya
359
Table 3.23 Possessed nouns in Callahuaya (following Girault 1989: 145) 1st person
2nd person
3rd person
Plain
Emphatic
Plain
Emphatic
Plain
Emphatic
usi: ka:ni ly oqeni
usi:ku ka:niku ly oqeniku
usin ka:nin ly oqenin
usinku ka:ninku ly oqeninku
usiki ka:ki ly oqenki
usikiˇci ka:kiˇci ly oqenkiˇci
(326) Pawluˇcu-(pa)x ly oqen-an Pablo-G bull-3P ‘Pablo’s bull’
(Girault 1989: 147)
When a noun is marked for person of possessor without being part of a genitive construction, or when it is part of a genitive construction in which the modifying element is a free pronoun, both the head and the modifier take special endings. These endings have their origin in different varieties of Quechua, but the corresponding functions do not coincide. The result is a complete split between pronominal and nominal possessive constructions. The possessive endings of Callahuaya denote person, not number. A first-person is indicated by vowel length, by -ni or by -i; a second-person by -n, by -nin or by -in; a third-person by -ki. The endings -i and -in are found after stems ending in -n, whereas -ni and -nin are found after any other stem ending in a consonant or a long vowel. Vowel lengthening and -n are reserved for stems that end in a short vowel. The elements -ku and -ˇci, corresponding to the Quechua pluralisers -ku and -ˇcik/-ˇcis, respectively, can be added to the person markers but only for emphasis. They no longer indicate plural. The suffix -ku accompanies first- and second-person markers, whereas -ˇci is found with third-person markers. The resistance against plural marking is reminiscent of the situation in Puquina, which lacks a number distinction in possessives (except for first-person). Table 3.23 contains examples of personal reference marking with the nouns usi ‘house’, ka: ‘tooth’ and l y oqen ‘bull’. The reversal of second- and third-person markers in Callahuaya must be relatively recent, because it is not found in the Lord’s Prayer presented in Girault, nor in the version reproduced by Oblitas Poblete (1968: 33): (327) mini:-ki wak’a-naxa-sqa aˇca-ˇcun name-2P believe-LS-SN be-3S.IM ‘Thy Name be hallowed!’
(Girault 1989: 19)
360
3 The Inca Sphere
Table 3.24 Personal and possessive pronouns in Callahuaya (following Girault 1989: 144–5)
Personal pronouns 1 pers. 2 pers. 3 pers.
sing. plur. sing. plur. sing. plur.
nisi nisinˇcex cˇ u: cˇ u:kunas cˇ uynin cˇ uyninkunas
Possessive pronouns Set 1
Possessive pronouns Set 2
nisip
nisixta nisinˇcix cˇ u:xta cˇ u:kunaxta cˇ uninkux cˇ uninkux
cˇ unikix cˇ uninku
The possessive pronouns in Callahuaya are made up of non-Quechuan pronominal stems and Quechua endings. The exact composition of these forms is not regular and either reflects different stages in the development of Quechua, or a different dialectal origin. There are two sets, a prenominal set reminiscent of the Puquina possessive modifiers, and an independent set, which is not confined to the prenominal position (compare English ‘my’ versus ‘mine’). Only the second set allows a number distinction. Table 3.24 contains an overview of the Callahuaya personal pronouns and the two sets of possessive pronouns. The first-person pronoun nisi reflects Puquina ni ‘I’. It contains an element -si also attested in other Callahuaya words such as atasi ‘woman’ (Puquina atago). Possibly, -si reflects the ergative case marker -s of Puquina. The possessive sets contain two original genitive endings corresponding to different stages in the development of Quechua, namely -p and -x. The concatenation of a genitive and an accusative marker (-ta) is found in Quechua but has a very different syntactic function. It brings into evidence the amount of restructuring that has occurred in Callahuaya. Not all the forms represented in table 3.24 are attested in Oblitas Poblete (1968). Oblitas gives nisinˇcis instead of both nisinˇcex and nisinˇcix.154 Furthermore, the Quechua plural marker -kuna is not followed by the Spanish plural marker -s, as is the case in Girault’s data. Among other points in which Callahuaya differs from Quechua, we may mention the fact that the accusative case marker -ta is often omitted in direct objects (especially in Girault’s data). Negation is indicated by means of a negative marker u:, which has no formal counterpart in Puquina. Syntactically, u: behaves like the Quechua negative particle mana.
154
The vowel contrast represented in nisinˇcex and nisinˇcix may possibly be related to different articulations of the following fricative (as in Cuzco Quechua). Since we have no specific information on this point, we follow Girault’s orthography.
3.5 Puquina and Callahuaya
361
Table 3.25 Callahuaya consonant inventory (based on Stark 1972b)
Plain stops/affricates Aspirated stops/affricates Glottalised stops/affricates Fricatives/sibilants Nasals Vibrant Laterals Glides
Labial
Alveolar
Palatal
Velar
Uvular
p ph p’
t th t’ s n r l
cˇ cˇ h cˇ ’ sˇ ny
k kh k’ h [x]
q qh q’
m
w
ly y
(328) tutas u: tutas cold not cold ‘cold’ ‘of moderate temperature’ (Oblitas Poblete 1968: 82, 139) 155 (329) hikutawan u:-ˇcu hata-wax hata-y-ni:-ta also not-IR love-2S.PO love-IF-1P-AC ‘So you could not care for my affection any more?’ (Oblitas Poblete 1968: 43) An overview of the Callahuaya phonemes can be found in Stark (1972b). Oblitas Poblete (1968) presents a traditional but relatively precise inventory. The transcription in Girault (1989) is inaccurate, but his publication contains a recorded tape which gives a good impression of the pronunciation of Callahuaya. All authors agree that Callahuaya has a five vowel system with distinctive vowel length (a, e, i, o, u; a:, e:, i:, o:, u:). The consonant inventory, which is very similar to that of Bolivian and Cuzco Quechua, is represented in table 3.25. As a commentary to the consonant inventory in table 3.25, one may observe that a palatal sibilant sˇ, in opposition to s, is not convincingly attested. Furthermore, Girault’s data point at the existence of a glottal stop that occurs between same vowels, for instance, in ji’i [hiʔi] ‘llama’. In this respect Callahuaya would agree with Puquina, although the items in which the alleged glottal stop occurs are usually not the same. There is no precise information about a possible lowering effect of uvular consonants on high vowels, as found in Quechua and Aymara, but several examples suggest that such an effect may play a role. As a further illustration of the lexical relationship between Puquina and Callahuaya the principal numerals in both languages are given below. Note that the Callahuaya words 155
The first-person marker -ni: corresponds to -ni in Girault (1989).
362
3 The Inca Sphere
for the numbers five and higher are very different from their Puquina counterparts. The etymology of these Callahuaya forms is not known. Puquina:
hucsto (‘one’), so (‘two’), cap(p)a (‘three’), sper (‘four’), tacpa (‘five’), chichu (‘six’), stu (‘seven’), quinas (‘eight’), checa (‘nine’), scata (‘ten’) Callahuaya: uksi ∼ uxsi (‘one’), su: ∼ so: (‘two’), kapi (‘three’), pily (‘four’), cˇ isma (‘five’), taxwa (‘six’), qaxsi (‘seven’), wasa (‘eight’), nuki (‘nine’), qh oˇca ∼ x.oˇca (‘ten’), tikun (‘one hundred’).
3.6 The Uru–Chipaya languages The speakers of the Uru–Chipaya language family are often believed to belong to one of the oldest population layers of the Bolivian and Peruvian altiplano. Traditionally, they have been associated with an aquatic habitat and a lifestyle of fishing and hunting characteristically found along the shores and on the islands of the lakes Titicaca and Poop´o, as well as along the Desaguadero river, which connects the two lakes (cf. Wachtel 1978). However, lifestyle and language did not necessarily go together. About 1600, Uruquilla was the name used for the Uru–Chipaya languages, although it may have covered some other language groups as well. Uruquilla-speaking groups were found scattered over the western part of the Bolivian altiplano from Lake Titicaca to the area of L´ıpez in the south of the department of Potos´ı (cf. Bouysse-Cassagne 1975). Not all Uruquilla speakers mentioned in the colonial sources shared the typical aquatic lifestyle. In Zepita (province of Chucuito, Puno, Peru) a community of relatively prosperous farmers spoke Uruquilla but did not differ in their ways from their Aymara-speaking neighbours (Torero 1987). The term Uro (Uru) was used mainly for referring to groups who remained attached to the aquatic way of life, thus resisting their incorporation into the Spanish system of domination. One such group were the Ochosuma, who occupied the Desaguadero region, and of which the Iru Itu community (see below) may be a remnant. Another name for the Uru is Kot-su˜n (from qota ‘lake’ and suny i ‘people’). Today, communities that have preserved or adopted the Uru way of life are mostly Aymara speakers. This is the case with the Uru who live on reed islands in the Bay of Puno (Peru) and of the Murato communities located near Lake Poop´o (department of Oruro, Bolivia). The Murato have preserved some vocabulary originally from an Uru language, as can be seen in the Murato oral testimonies published in Miranda Mamani et al. (1992). The Uru–Chipaya peoples (see also the map in section 3.3) have been the object of extensive anthropological studies (Vellard 1954, Wachtel 1990). Unfortunately, the description of their languages has not fared nearly so well. So far, there is no published grammar, nor a dictionary of any of the Uru–Chipaya languages. The only Uru–Chipaya language still viable today is Chipaya. It is spoken by an agricultural community of
3.6 The Uru–Chipaya languages
363
some 1,000 people in the villages of Santa Ana de Chipaya and Ayparavi in the Bolivian department of Oruro (province of Atahuallpa), including an increasing number of migrants in northern Chile and in the town of Oruro. The Uru language of Iru Itu (also Iruitu, Irohito) is spoken in a township, which was originally part of a larger community called Ancoaqui. It is located in the district (cant´on) of Jes´us de Machaca in the Bolivian department of La Paz (province of Ingavi). When Vellard studied this community in the 1940s he witnessed a major crisis due to a lowering of the water level in the lake, which led to a disintegration of the community. The Uru were forced to leave their native village for other places, where several married Aymara-speaking partners. The Uru language was already close to extinction by then. A subsequent rehabilitation of the water level made it possible for most Uru to return, and since then their community has achieved a remarkable comeback (Ticona and Alb´o 1997). Today, one fluent speaker remains, as well as a number of semi-speakers. Nevertheless, there is a wish to revitalise the language, which is now preferably referred to as Uchumataqu ‘our speech’ or ‘the speech of the Desaguadero area (Ochosuma)’. At the time of writing (2002) Muysken was conducting descriptive research on the language in response to the educational aspirations of the community. A third Uru language was formerly spoken in the village of Ch’imu (or Ts’imu), a township of Ichu, situated on the shore of Lake Titicaca a few kilometres east of Puno. This variety was discovered and studied in 1929 by the German Americanist Lehmann. His elaborate notes are kept in the Library of the Ibero-American Institute in Berlin. Some lexical data from these notes have been published by Torero (1992), who claims that Uru of Ch’imu is the most divergent of the three Uru–Chipaya languages.156 Finally, Olson (1964: 313) mentions a fourth variety of Uru spoken on the Isla del Sol (‘Sun Island’) in Lake Titicaca, presumably in the 1960s. Some lexical items of this dialect, collected by de Lucca, are reproduced in Olson (1965: 37–8). Documentation on the Uru–Chipaya languages is relatively recent. Uhle visited the area in 1894 and left substantial lexical material on both Chipaya and Uchumataqu, as well as a grammatical sketch of the latter language. They are preserved in manuscript form in the Library of the Ibero-American Institute in Berlin. M´etraux (1935–6, 1936) provided data on both languages, as did Posnansky (1915, 1934). For Uchumataqu we may also mention Polo (1901) and an unpublished vocabulary by Lehmann (1929). One of the richest sources for Uchumataqu is Vellard (1950, 1951, 1967). It consists of short narratives, and words and phrases, written down with great phonetic detail and provided with glosses, as well as some grammatical notes. Nevertheless, they are hardly sufficient to obtain a clear picture of the morphosyntax of the language. The current research by 156
Rodolfo Cerr´on-Palomino and Peter Masson are planning a publication of these materials, to be entitled El Uru de la Bah´ıa de Puno (Puno Bay Uru).
364
3 The Inca Sphere
Table 3.26 Chipaya consonant inventory (based on Cerr´on-Palomino, MS) Labial Alveolar +affr* Apical Palatal Retroflex Velar +lab** Postvelar +lab Plain obstruents Glottalised obstruents Aspirated obstruents Fricatives Nasals Laterals Lateral fricative Vibrant Glides
kw
p
t
c
cˇ
cˇ.
k
p’
t’
c’
cˇ ’
cˇ. ’
k’
q’
ph
th
ch
cˇ h
cˇ. h
kh
qh
sˇ ny ly
sˇ.
m
s n l l
s¸
h
hw
q
x***
qw
xw
ŋ
r w
y
affr. = affricate lab. = labialised *** We follow Cerr´ on-Palomino and Olson in writing the postvelar or fortis velar fricative (and its labialised counterpart) as x (xw ), not x. (x.w ). *
**
Muysken has not provided a better view of it. A comparison of the Vellard materials with the data collected by Uhle is probably the best basis for further analysis. There have been several attempts to study and document the Chipaya language. In the 1960s, Olson collected extensive lexical material. Part of it is included in two articles designed to present evidence for a putative genetic relationship of Uru–Chipaya with the Mayan languages in Mesoamerica (Olson 1964, 1965). (For the reception of Olson’s views on this see section 1.7.) A third article (Olson 1967) deals with Chipaya syllable structure and contains a discussion of its phoneme inventory. In the 1980s, Porterie-Guti´errez also brought together a substantial amount of Chipaya material, but the publication of it was prevented by her untimely death. An annotated and translated text belonging to this material was published posthumously by Howard (Porterie-Guti´errez 1990). In 2001, Cerr´on-Palomino began a new research effort geared at the documentation of Chipaya. The Chipaya data presented in the following pages are largely based on his results obtained so far (Cerr´on-Palomino MS). A comparison with Uchumataqu will be made when relevant and possible. The two languages are clearly related, although probably not mutually intelligible (Torero 1992: 181). See Olson (1965: 37–8) for a list of 87 obvious cognates, in which most pairs show only minor phonetic differences. The consonant inventory of the Chipaya language is presented in table 3.26. The consonant inventory in Olson (1967) differs from the one presented in table 3.26 by the fact that the aspirated consonants and the lateral fricative (lh) are interpreted as
3.6 The Uru–Chipaya languages
365
sequences of consonants, rather than as unit phonemes. He characterises the fricatives in the postvelar column (x, xw ) as ‘fortis velars’. The palatal and the apical fricatives are treated as allophones of a phoneme /s./ which occurs as palatal [ˇs] after high vowels and as a backed alveolar [s.] elsewhere. Olson (1967: 300), furthermore, noted the use of a glottal stop in women’s speech; for instance, in oqaʔa ‘I am going’ (as against oqaˇc.a in men’s speech). This usage did not seem to be continued by the younger generation, however. Cerr´on-Palomino notes an absence of restrictions upon the use of aspirated and glottalised consonants within a root. They occur initially in a syllable but this need not be the first syllable in the root (e.g. in toth i ‘cow’s horn’, kunt’´ıs¸ ‘to be sure’). Furthermore, glottalised and aspirated consonants can co-occur in the same root (e.g. in ph anˇc’u ‘soft’, c.ˇ ’ik h a ‘equal’). Considering their great frequency in native roots, there appears to be no reason to assume that glottalisation and aspiration are borrowed features in Chipaya. Note that glottalisation and aspiration are not contrastive in the labiovelar and labiopostvelar stop series. According to Cerr´on-Palomino, it may be due to a recent simplification of the system because free variation between labialised and non-labialised aspirated consonants is still observed in roots such as qh a¸s ∼ qhw a¸s ‘water’. In addition, the same variation can be found in the alveodental stop series (e.g. in th at¸s ∼ t hw at¸s ‘to pile up’). These examples suggest that the labial element may have had the status of a segmental phoneme, rather than that of a feature of the consonant with which it is associated. At present, the loss of labialisation seems to have become a general tendency in the language. Nasal contrasts are maintained in syllable-final position, even that between alveodental n and velar ŋ, as in lan¸s ‘to touch’ and laŋs¸ ‘to work’. The glide consonant w is often realised as a fricative [β], especially when in contact with front vowels (e.g. siwi [siwi ∼ siβi] ‘winter’). Both elements are reminiscent of the situation in the Aymara of northern Chile (cf. section 3.3.3). In comparison to Aymara and Quechua, the articulation point of the postvelars in Chipaya is less retracted and does not normally reach the uvular range. This can make it difficult to recognise the distinction between velars and postvelars. Nevertheless, there is an ample choice of minimal pairs illustrating the contrast: (330) kara ‘wide’ (331) k’oru ‘bowl’
qara ‘comb’ q’oru ‘a type of hat’
(Cerr´on-Palomino, MS) (Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)
The consonant inventory of Uchumataqu, as established by Muysken (MS), is similar to Cerr´on-Palomino’s Chipaya inventory but for the absence in the former of the apical and retroflex series (¸s; c.ˇ , c.ˇ ’, c.ˇ h , .sˇ). In addition, the alveolar affricate series is only represented by plain c; the velar nasal (ŋ ) and the labialised postvelars (qw , xw ) are lacking; and glottalised p’ and t’ occur very seldom. Possibly, the situation of near
366
3 The Inca Sphere
extinction in which the Uchumataqu language has found itself for decades may be responsible for a reduction of the sound system, but it could also be the result of earlier developments. Both Chipaya and Uchumataqu have a five-vowel system with distinctive vowel length (a, e, i, o, u; a:, e:, i:, o:, u:).157 The contrast of high and mid vowels in Chipaya is illustrated in the following examples: (332) uwa ‘food’ (333) hik¸s ‘road’
owa ‘knee’ hek¸s ‘to appear’
(Cerr´on-Palomino, MS) (Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)
The contrast is also retained in the environment of a postvelar consonant. In contradistinction to Aymara and Quechua, the automatic lowering of high vowels is either minimal, or does not occur at all in that environment: (334) qh uˇca ‘potsherd’ (335) qh iny a ‘crippled’
qh oˇca ‘foot’ qh eny a ‘slow’, ‘dull’
(Cerr´on-Palomino, MS) (Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)
The difference between short and long vowels is illustrated in (336) and (337): (336) uˇs.a ‘north’ (337) qa¸s ‘to talk’
u:ˇsa ‘sheep’ [Spanish oveja] qa:¸s ‘to cry’
(Cerr´on-Palomino, MS) (Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)
Vowel length in Chipaya is often the result of contractions, which seem to occur frequently in the language; for instance, we:n ‘night’ corresponds to Uchumataqu wiyani (cf. Olson 1965: 37–8). It may provide an explanation for the relatively low functional load of the length distinction. Cerr´on-Palomino notes that after lateral and velar fricatives, as well as after aspirated consonants, vowels tend to be voiceless when the following consonant is also voiceless, e.g. l oki [loki] ‘mud’, t h ut¸s [thut¸s] ‘to spit’. In Olson (1967) such voicelessness is ˚ ˚ generally interpreted as the manifestation of a syllable-final fricative. Chipaya accepts clusters of two consonants in word-initial and word-final position. Most characteristic are the word-initial clusters consisting of a sibilant which is either followed by a bilabial stop or nasal, or by a velar or postvelar stop. Their occurrence is reminiscent of Puquina (cf. section 3.5). In these clusters the opposition between the sibilants s, s¸ and .sˇ remains intact:
(338) skara ‘hat’ s¸kara ‘toad’ sˇ. kati ‘nearby’ (339) smoya ‘mosquito’ s¸mali ‘strong’
157
(Cerr´on-Palomino, MS) (Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)
For Uchumataqu Uhle mentions a sixth vowel, underlined e, reported to sound like the vowel in German a¨ . Its occurrence still needs to be studied in the word lists he collected.
3.6 The Uru–Chipaya languages
367
Word-final clusters can be part of a truncated root (for instance, in hik¸s ‘road’, from *hik¸sa; compare hik¸sa-l y a ‘little road’). More often they are the result of suffixation, for instance, when the infinitive marker -¸s is added to a verb root. Before -¸s root-final vowels are suppressed (except when preceded by a sequence of more than one consonant). (340) qulu ‘salt block’ (341) wiya ‘dream’
qul-¸s ‘to salt’ wiy-¸s ‘to dream’
(Cerr´on-Palomino, MS) (Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)
As can be deduced from the example of the infinitive marker, vowel suppression is a common procedure in Chipaya, in which respect it resembles Aymara. Although in Chipaya word stress is characteristically located on the penultimate syllable, it may remain on the last syllable when the vowel of a word-final syllable is suppressed. A comparison with Uhle’s data shows that the infinitive marker was originally syllabic (-ˇca), hence an example such as (342) in which stress is on the final syllable: (342) u¸s´ın-¸s [<*u¸s´ın-ˇca] ‘to play’
(Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)
Within noun phrases the final vowel of the modifying element, which precedes the head, is also subject to truncation; compare the situation in Aymara: (343) o¸s ph eta [o¸s(a) ph eta] nose opening ‘nostril’
(Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)
In Uchumataqu, Muysken (MS) recorded consonant clusters of even greater complexity than those found in Chipaya but notes that these tend to become simplified in the speech of the present generation of semi-speakers. The principal morphological device of Chipaya is suffixation. The overall picture, however, is rather different from that in the neighbouring languages. Nominal morphology is relatively elaborate and comprises a distinction between feminine and masculine gender, as well as a fair number of case markers. Subject and object are not marked for case. Personal possession is indicated by means of free pronouns marked for genitive case. In a verb phrase person, gender and number of the subject can be specified by means of clitic elements. These elements are normally attached to a non-case-marked expression that accompanies the verb (preferably the object or an adverb, occasionally the subject). Verbal suffixes indicate tense, aspect, mood and evidentiality. The shape of tense/aspect suffixes is to a certain extent again determined by person, gender and number of the subject. The preferred word order in Chipaya is subject–object–verb and within the noun phrase modifier–head.158 158
In Uchumataqu there are a few instances of the reversed order (head–modifier), e.g. in xa´us w´ıri ‘anus’ (xa´us ‘hole’, w´ıri ‘buttocks’); see Muysken (2000: 102).
368
3 The Inca Sphere
The main strategy to indicate feminine gender in nouns is by the addition of a suffix -i. This suffix replaces an original stem-final vowel, if present (344): (344) a¸snu ‘donkey’
a¸sn-i ‘female donkey’
[Spanish asno]
(Cerr´on-Palomino, personal communication)
Final -i is often elided when preceded by a single consonant (345), except when such an elision would lead to the coincidence of a feminine form with its masculine counterpart. This is the case, for instance, in Spanish proper names ending in a consonant (346). u:ˇs-i ∼ u:ˇs ‘ewe’
(345) u:ˇsa ‘sheep’
[Spanish oveja]
(Cerr´on-Palomino, personal communication)
(346) huwan ‘John’
huwan-i ‘Joan’
[Spanish Juan]
(Cerr´on-Palomino, personal communication)
The demonstratives ti: ‘this’ and ni: ‘that/he’, as well as the numeral ci: ‘one’, have special feminine forms: ta:, na: and ca:, respectively. The markers of the genitive case with nouns are also sensitive to gender. When used as modifiers, masculine nouns take s.ˇ, whereas feminine nouns replace their final -i with -a. (347) kuˇc-ˇs. kh uny i pig-G.MS ear ‘pig ears’
kuˇc-a kh uny i [kuˇci ‘pig’, Old Spanish coche] pig-G.FE ear ‘sow ears’ (Cerr´on-Palomino, personal communication)
According to Cerr´on-Palomino (personal communication), pronouns (both masculine and feminine) have a special genitive case marker -(i)ˇs., which has the function of indicating the agent in a passive construction. (The long allomorph -iˇs. is found after the personal pronoun stems wer ‘I’ and am ‘you’, which end in a consonant.) With demonstrative pronouns a genitive of possession is also formed in this way. When used independently or predicatively, all genitives of possession (whether nominal or pronominal) are followed by an element -ta, which is sensitive to the gender distinction; for instance, in (348): (348) ni:-ˇs.-ta that-G-N ‘his one’
ni:-ˇs.-t-i that-G-N-FE ‘his female one’
(Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)
The personal pronouns wer ‘I’ and am ‘you’ have special genitive forms we-t(a) and am-ta, respectively, for both attributive and predicative possessive use. The short form we-t is used as a prenominal modifier (349). The final element -ta is again subject to the gender distinction (350).
3.6 The Uru–Chipaya languages (349) we-t cˇ uwa I-G plate ‘my plate’ (350) we-ta I-G.N ‘(it is) mine’
369
(Cerr´on-Palomino, personal communication)
we-t-i I-G.N-FE ‘(it is) my female one’
(Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)
In a verb phrase with a third-person subject, gender is reflected in the choice of the clitic that accompanies the verb. In the following examples the clitic elements -(i)ˇs. for masculine, and -(i)l for feminine, are attached to the adverb maxny a. The element -ki-, which accompanies the future-tense marker -a-, is used with all persons except first singular and plural (exclusive). It is not sensitive to gender. (351) ni:-nak-ki maxny a-ˇs. th ax-a-ki-ˇc.a159 that.MS-PL-TO early-MS sleep-F-F.NS-DV ‘They (those men) will sleep early.’ (352) na:-nak-ki maxny a-l th ax-a-ki-ˇc.a that.FE-PL-TO early-FE sleep-F-F. NS-DV ‘They (those women) will sleep early.’
(Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)
(Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)
Although in the context illustrated in (351) and (352) the sole function of -(i)l and -(i)ˇs. is to distinguish gender, they can have other functions as well. The element -(i)l is used with the first person singular and plural exclusive, and with the third person feminine singular and plural; -(i)ˇs. is used with the first person plural inclusive, with the second person plural, and with the third person masculine singular and plural. A special clitic -(i)m, akin to the second-person-singular pronoun am, is used in verb phrases with a second-person-singular subject. (The long forms -il, -im and -iˇs. occur after consonant-final personal pronouns.) The use of the first and second persons singular is illustrated in (353) and (354). Note that the required enclitics are attached to the subject of these sentences as no other constituents are available. (353) wer-il sat-a-ˇc.a I-1 run-F-DV ‘I shall run.’ (354) am-im sat-a-ki-ˇc.a you-2.SG run-F-F.NS-DV ‘You (singular) shall run.’ 159
(Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)
(Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)
Cerr´on-Palomino reports that the ending -ki-ˇc.a is pronounced [kˇs.] in non-careful speech, in which case stress is located on the vowel immediately preceding it.
370
3 The Inca Sphere
If a sentence contains a direct object, the latter often carries the clitic element: (355) Luwisitu-ki t’anta-ˇs. lul-ny i-ˇc.a Luisito-TO bread-3.MS eat-CU.3.MS-DV ‘Luisito is in the habit of eating bread.’
(Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)
Although the preferred word order is subject–object–verb, other order options are allowed as well. As a result, a sentence such as (356), in which the object carrying the clitic follows the verb, is acceptable. (356) Luwisitu-ki lul-ny i-ˇc.a t’anta-ˇs. Luisito-TO eat-CU.3.MS-DV bread-3.MS ‘Luisito is in the habit of eating bread.’
(Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)
If there is no other stem to which the clitic element can be attached, it may also occur as a proclitic with the verb itself. Example (357) illustrates the use of a proclitic corresponding to a first person plural inclusive.160 (357) sˇ. -lik-la 4-drink-4.IM ‘Let us drink!’
(Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)
Cerr´on-Palomino notes that the use of clitics indicating subject reference could be entering a phase of obsolescence. Present-day speakers tend to omit them without affecting the acceptability of the utterance. He observes, furthermore, that the location of the clitic in the sentence can have a focalising function. As we anticipated, the shape of the tense–aspect markers is also partly determined by the person and the number of the subject, thus generating complicated patterns of concord. These concord patterns may differ in accordance with the tense–aspect paradigm involved. Consider the use of the element -ki- in the future-tense paradigm (see above). As an additional illustration, the paradigm of the unmarked present tense is reproduced in table 3.27. It contains a suffix -u- in forms with a first-person-singular subject, whereas in all other person–number combinations the corresponding slot remains empty. The exemplified phrase contains an adverb s¸ina ‘alone’ followed by the delimitative suffix -ly a ‘only’ (a suffix presumably borrowed from Quechua, where it has the same shape and meaning). This adverb also carries the enclitic that indicates person, gender and number. The exemplified verb is t h ax- ‘to sleep’. Table 3.27 suggests that there is no formal difference between singular and plural in the third person. However, other tense–aspect paradigms have different forms for singular and plural in the third person feminine. Such, for instance, is the case in the 160
Muysken reports that Uchumataqu also allows proclitic subject markers.
3.6 The Uru–Chipaya languages
371
Table 3.27 Unmarked present tense in Chipaya (from Cerr´on-Palomino, MS). 1 pers. 2 pers. 3 pers. 3 pers. 4 pers.
masc. masc. fem. fem.
sing. plur. (excl.) sing. plur. sing. plur. sing. plur. plur. (incl.)
s¸ina-ly a-l th ax-u-ˇc.a s¸ina-ly a-l th ax-ˇc.a s¸ina-ly a-m th ax-ˇc.a s¸ina-ly a-ˇs. th ax-ˇc.a s¸ina-ly a-ˇs. th ax-ˇc.a s¸ina-ly a-ˇs. th ax-ˇc.a s¸ina-ly a-l th ax-ˇc.a s¸ina-ly a-l th ax-ˇc.a s¸ina-ly a-ˇs. th ax-ˇc.a
‘I sleep alone.’ ‘We (excl.) sleep alone.’ ‘You (sing.) sleep alone. ‘You (plur.) sleep alone.’ ‘He sleeps alone.’ ‘They (men) sleep alone.’ ‘She sleeps alone.’ ‘They (women) sleep alone.’ ‘We (incl.) sleep alone.’
past-tense (completive) paradigm illustrated below: (358) na:-ki maxny a-l th ax-ˇcin-ˇc.a that.FE-TO early-3.FE sleep-PA.3.FE.SG-DV ‘She slept early.’ (Cerr´on-Palomino, MS) (359) na:-nak-ki maxny a-l th ax-ˇci-ˇc.a that.FE-PL-TO early-3.FE sleep-PA.3.FE.PL-DV ‘They (those women) slept early.’ (Cerr´on-Palomino, MS) The element -ˇc.a, which we have glossed as a declarative marker, is also found after a noun or adjective in verbless equational clauses, such as (360): (360) am qh oya qh ay-ˇcuka ew-ˇc.a you house buy-FN new-DV ‘The house that you are going to buy is new.’
(Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)
The declarative marker -ˇc.a is almost certainly related to the very characteristic ending -ˇcay of Uchumataqu. Muysken (2000) discusses its function in that language and finds that it is used in declarative and exhortative sentences, as well as in yes/no questions and in some wh-questions. It is not used in imperatives and in infinitival complements. Like its Chipaya equivalent, the element -ˇcay is also found affixed to nouns and adjectives. An example of a declarative sentence in Uchumataqu is: (361) w´ır-il x´ala k’´ay˘a p´e.k u-ˇcay161 I-1 llama buy want-PN.1.SG-DV ‘I want to buy a llama.’ 161
(Vellard 1967: 14)
In examples taken from Vellard we have tried to respect his phonetic notation. The apostrophe (as in pˇe.k’-u-ˇcay ‘I want’) is reproduced in a slightly different way in order to avoid confusion with the glottalisation sign.
372
3 The Inca Sphere
Vellard (1951: 37–9) presents some partial Uchumataqu verb paradigms. They suggest a structure comparable to that of Chipaya (see also Muysken 2000). The Chipaya examples given in Olson (1967) contain evidential elements referring to hearsay and probability that appear to fill the slot of the tense–aspect markers (e.g. ap-ˇs.-ki-ˇc.a ‘he is following, they say’; e:kt-qal-ˇc.a ‘he surely had hungered’).162 Olson (1965: 33) also notes causative formations such as t-xaw-un- ‘to cause to shout’ from qh aw- ‘to shout’. A reflexive marker -s- is recorded by Cerr´on-Palomino in the form peka-s- ‘to love each other’ (cf. Aymara -si-). These examples make it clear that the verbal morphology of Chipaya still holds a number of areas to investigate. Cerr´on-Palomino mentions several verbal affixes that are used as nominalisers. Verbs such as pek(a)- ‘to want’ can be used with infinitive complements containing the affix -¸s (362). Note the absence of an infinitive marker in a parallel construction in Uchumataqu (361). (362) ni:-ki cˇ h iˇswi-ˇs. lul-¸s pek-ˇc.a he-TO meat-3.MS eat-IF want-DV ‘He wants to eat meat.’
(Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)
There are several other nominalising affixes, -ˇcuka ‘potential’, -ny i ‘agentive’, -ˇci and -ta ‘resultative’, which can be used to form relative clauses and complement clauses. Relative clauses and complement clauses precede the noun or the verb, respectively, on which they depend. Their internal order is subject–object–verb. Note, however, that the (human) subject of an embedded complement clause can be extracted to a position preceding the (non-human) subject of the main clause, as illustrated in (360); a further example is (363): (363) am kula lul-ˇci ana wali-ˇc.a [Spanish vale ‘it is worth’; Aymara you quinoa eat-SN not good-DV wali ‘good’] ‘The quinoa you have eaten is not good.’ (Cerr´on-Palomino, MS) A complement clause without subject extraction is illustrated in (364): (364) am-ki wer cˇ h iˇswi lul-ˇci s¸i¸s-ˇc.a you-TO I meat eat-SN know-DV ‘You know that I have eaten meat.’
(Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)
Relative or complement clauses containing the nominaliser -ˇci, as exemplified in Cerr´on-Palomino (MS), follow the pattern of main clauses in that their subjects are not 162
The source does not offer any morpheme glosses for these forms.
3.6 The Uru–Chipaya languages
373
marked for case. If the nominaliser is -ta (compare Aymara -ta) the agent of the clause can take (possessive) genitive case marking: (365) we-t qam-ta qh oya qac-ˇci-ˇc.a I-G live-SN house be.lost-PA.3.MS-DV ‘The house where I used to live got lost.’
(Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)
Chipaya has a special nominaliser -i expressing the action goal of verbs of motion (a function which in Aymara and Quechua is fulfilled by the agentive nominalisation). Less immediate goals can be expressed by the combination -¸s-xapa (infinitive + benefactive case). (366) wer-naka lul-i-l oq-a-ˇc.a I-PL eat-GO-1 go-F-DV ‘We will go and eat.’ (367) wer-ki laŋ ŋ-¸s-xapa th on-ˇcin-ˇc.a I-TO work-IF-B come-PA.1-DV ‘I have come in order to work.’
(Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)
(Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)
Chipaya has an active switch-reference system operating in subordinate clauses. The endings used for this purpose have a double function. They specify the identity of the subject of a subordinate verb in relation to the verb to which it is subordinated (same or different), and they contain an indication of the temporal relationship of the two verbs (simultaneous or consecutive). The following examples illustrate the use of switch-reference with simultaneous events; the endings are -kan for same, and -nan for different subjects. It has not been determined yet whether or not the element -¸s- in (368) is to be seen as a part of the switch-reference marker. We assume that in (369) the element -ˇs. corefers with the third-person subject of the main clause. (368) ni:-ki cˇ h iˇswi lul-¸s-kan tik-ˇci-ˇc.a he-TO meat eat-?-SM.SS die-PA.3.MS-DV ‘He died while he was eating meat.’ (Cerr´on-Palomino, MS) h (369) wer-ˇs. u:ˇsa kon-nan we-t hila-ki t on-ˇci-ˇc.a [Aymara hila ‘brother] I-3.MS sheep kill-SM.DS I-G brother-TO come-PA.3.MS-DV ‘When I was killing the sheep, my brother arrived.’ (Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)
Example (370) illustrates the use of switch-reference (different subjects) between verbs referring to consecutive events. The ending -tan indicates that the subordinate event is previous to the one expressed by the main verb.
374
3 The Inca Sphere (370) th uny i qat-tan waxta th on-ˇcam-ˇc.a sun fall-PV.DS town come-PA.2.SG-DV ‘When the sun had fallen, you came to the village.’ (Cerr´on-Palomino, MS)
Apart from the genitive (see above), the Chipaya case system comprises an instrumental–comitative -(ˇs.)tan, illative -(ˇs.)ki¸s, ablative (also in comparisons) -ki¸stan, two locatives -ki¸s and -kin, perlative -nuˇs. and benefactive -xapa. Cerr´on-Palomino reports that where there is a choice the shorter forms are used with feminine nouns. The benefactive must be preceded by a genitive marker. (The same may hold for the instrumental–comitative and illative endings.) There are some additional case markers of Quechua origin. The two locative case markers are distinguished as follows: -ki¸s is used when the location referred to coincides with that of the speaker (371). If not, -kin is used (372). (371) wer-ki urur-ki¸s qam-u-ˇc.a I-TO Oruro-L.PX live-PN.1.SG-DV ‘I live here in Oruro.’ (Cerr´on-Palomino, personal communication) (372) wer-ki urur-kin qam-u-ˇc.a I-TO Oruro-L.DT live-PN.1SG-DV ‘I live in Oruro (not here).’ (Cerr´on-Palomino, personal communication) The Uchumataqu case markers only partly resemble their Chipaya counterparts, e.g. comitative -st´a(ni), instrumental -st´a ∼ -n´a, ablative -kistani, allative -k´ı(na) and perlative -nis. Illative is -w´ınta ∼ -wint´ani and locative is -(kos)t´a (Vellard 1967: 27; Muysken 2000). Other locative endings are (with motion) -ki (kw´as-ki ‘into the water’) and -nik (uhˇc-nik ‘into the fire’) and (without motion) -na/-nu (kw´as-na, kw´as-nu ‘in the water’, Vellard 1967: 4–5). Some Uchumataqu examples are given below: (373) w´ır-il o´¸ kwa-ˇca ki-st´ani I-1 go-DV he-C ‘I go with him.’ (374) w´ır-il w´at ta-k´ına o´¸ kwa-ˇcay I-1 village-AL go-DV ‘I go to the village.’ (375) w´ır-il w´at ta-kistani p´ıcˇ a-ˇcay I-1 village-AB come-DV ‘I come from the village.’ (376) w´at -nis o´¸ kw-´a-ˇcay village-PT go-F-DV ‘I shall go through the village.’
(Vellard 1967: 28)
(Vellard 1967: 29)
(Vellard 1967: 29)
(Vellard 1967: 29)
3.7 The Atacame˜no language
375
The personal pronouns of Chipaya are wer ‘I’, wer-naka ‘we (exclusive)’, uˇc.umnaka ‘we (inclusive)’, am ‘you (singular)’, am-ˇc.uk ‘you (plural)’, ni: ‘he’, ni:-naka ‘they (masculine)’, na: ‘she’, na:-naka ‘they (feminine)’; the Uchumataqu pronouns are wir/wer ‘I’, uˇcum(i) ‘we (exclusive)’, am ‘you (singular)’, am-ˇcuka ‘you (plural)’, ni ‘he’, ‘she’, ni-naka ‘they’. For the inclusive first person Vellard (1951: 16) gives a form w´aq pa cˇ u´ mi, probably from waqpaˇca ‘all’ and uˇcumi ‘we’. The pluraliser suffix -naka coincides with Aymara and may be a borrowed element. The interrogative pronouns h´ek ‘who’, cˇ ul(˜u) ‘what’, ks´ım ‘where’ and kas´ut ‘when’ were recorded by Vellard (1967) for Uchumataqu; cf. Chipaya hek ‘who’ (PorterieGuti´errez 1990) and c.ˇ h ulu ‘what’ (Olson 1965: 31). Vellard (1951, 1967) recorded a full decimal set of numerals for Uchumataqu: ¸ti ‘one’, p´ısˇk i ‘two’, cˇ e.´ p i ‘three’, p´axk u p´ıki ‘four’, t´ax s n´uko. ‘five’, t´ax-t-n´uko. ‘six’, to.˜´ko. ‘seven’, ko.˜´ko. ‘eight’, s´ar-n´uko. ‘nine’ and kalu/kalo. ‘ten’. Chipaya has preserved only four of its original numerals: ti: ‘one’ (Olson 1965: ch i:), piˇska ‘two’, cˇ h ep ‘three’, paqpik ‘four’; the remaining numbers are borrowed from Aymara. There is a special term for ‘two people’: Uchumataqu p´ıkilt´a(ni) (Vellard 1967), Chipaya pukultan (PorterieGuti´errez 1990). Vellard, furthermore, mentions the existence of an ancient numeral system recorded near Tiahuanaco, which in the 1940s was known to some of the Uru. Some of its components bear a resemblance to Aymara, others to Uchumataqu. Olson (1964: 313) reports that in his unpublished vocabulary of Chipaya 33 per cent of the items are loans from Aymara, Quechua and Spanish. We may assume that a similar figure holds for Uchumataqu. A high percentage of borrowings does not surprise, considering the sociolinguistic situation. There seem to be cases, however, where Uru– Chipaya must have been the giving language. Aymara speakers in Solajo near Carumas (Moquegua, Peru) use a verb lul(u)- ‘to eat’, which is similar in form to the Uru–Chipaya term (Chipaya lul-).163 It has not been found in other Aymaran dialects. Furthermore, it would be a mistake to limit the attention to the three languages mentioned above. Uru–Chipaya also has some vocabulary in common with Puquina and with Moset´en, e.g. Chipaya s¸i¸s-, Uchumataqu sˇiˇs-, Puquina sisca ‘to know’; Uchumataqu t´ara, Moset´en (Sakel 2003) t y a˜ r˜aʔ ‘maize’. For more cases of Uru–Puquina contact see Torero (1992). 3.7 The Atacameno ˜ language The people of the Atacama desert in northern Chile have attracted the attention of travellers and scientists by their relatively isolated position and the impressive natural setting that surrounds their picturesque old villages. The habitat of the Atacame˜nos is situated in the Chilean region of Antofagasta, between the river Loa (east of Calama) and the border with Argentina and Bolivia, which is marked by a series of 6,000 metre 163
Recorded by the author during fieldwork in Moquegua in 1984.
376
3 The Inca Sphere
high volcanoes. The main oasis San Pedro de Atacama is dominated by the Licancabur (‘the mountain of the community’, by which San Pedro is understood). Most Atacame˜no villages, such as C´amar, Peine, Socaire, S´oncor, Tilomonte, Tilopozo and Toconao, are situated to the south and southeast of San Pedro, between the Atacama salt-lake (Salar de Atacama) and the border. A second area is situated at a distance north of San Pedro near the banks of the Loa and Salado rivers; it comprises the villages of Caspana and Chiu Chiu. The language of the Atacame˜no people is also known as Kunza, a word meaning ‘ours’ in Atacame˜no, or as Lican antai ‘language of the community’. Several sources report that its area of influence, and possibly the language itself, once extended further east into adjacent parts of Argentina (Philippi 1860) and the southwestern tip of Bolivia (Ibarra Grasso 1958). A genetic relation of Atacame˜no with what was originally its eastern and southern neighbour, the Diaguita or Kak´an language group, was long considered likely (Schuller 1908; Mason 1950), but the absence of any reliable Diaguita data (cf. Nardi 1979) precludes the verification of this hypothesis.164 Kunza received a substantial amount of attention in publications of the nineteenth century. They give an interesting view of the protracted process of extinction that has affected the language. Foreign scientists, Chilean state officials and local parish priests165 collaborated in collecting word-lists and grammatical notes, which are useful but insufficient to obtain a full picture of the language (Philippi 1860; von Tschudi 1866–9; Moore 1878). The best sources date from the 1890s. They consist of a grammatical sketch by the Chilean engineer Francisco San Rom´an (1890), based on data collected after 1883, and a word list (glosario) with pronunciation notes, the product of a joint effort of several interested scholars (Va¨ısse, Hoyos and Echeverr´ıa y Reyes 1896). A drawback to the study of Atacame˜no is the absence of text. Several ritual songs that are performed without being understood any longer and two versions of the Lord’s Prayer, written down by the Swiss Americanist Johann Jakob von Tschudi, make up the entire corpus (cf. Lehnert Santander 1976). At the end of the eighteenth century the Atacame˜no language was still in use, although the community itself was probably never greater than a few thousand. Since colonial times many Atacame˜no people were experts in leading pack-animals across the icy and desolate Puna de Atacama (cf. Bowman 1924). This activity took them to places far 164
165
Swadesh (1959: 18) saw a connection between Atacame˜no and two native languages of Rondˆonia, Brazil: Kapishana (now known as Kanoˆe) and Mashub´ı. To date, Mashub´ı is classified as a Jabut´ıan language and considered unrelated to Kanoˆe. A rapid comparison of an unpublished vocabulary of the Kanoˆe language (Bacelar 1996) with the Atacame˜no lexical material has brought no evidence that would support a relationship between these two languages. At the church of San Pedro a tablet proudly commemorates the efforts of those who studied the Kunza language, in particular, the parish priests Benito Maglio and Emilio Va¨ısse.
3.7 The Atacame˜no language
377
away from their native oases, a circumstance which may have speeded up the demise of the language. In 1858 Tschudi estimated the number of Atacame˜no speakers at less than 200. At the end of the nineteenth century, San Rom´an reported that the language was known only by a few octogenarians and that it would soon be gone. Va¨ısse et al. (1896) estimated the number of Kunza speakers at less than two dozen. It comes, therefore, as a surprise that sixty years later Mostny was still able to locate (semi-)speakers in the village of Peine (Mostny 1954). Mostny’s data, however limited, are relevant for the understanding and interpretation of the nineteenth-century material. Among other things, she published a local version (in Kunza) of the tal´atur, a ritual song related to the annual ceremony of cleaning the irrigation canals, and made a valuable effort to interpret its contents. Later on, another version of the tal´atur, recorded in 1976 and originally from the village of Socaire, also appeared in press (Rodr´ıguez 1991).166 Atacame˜no is fairly well documented as far as its lexicon goes. All the available lexical data have been brought together by a research group from the University of Valpara´ıso in an (unpublished) computerised dictionary (S´aez Godoy et al. 1974). On the other hand, the grammatical information is extremely limited and sketchy, because San Rom´an only gives information on a few selected aspects of the grammar. The case system, for instance, is not presented at all. As for the sounds of Atacame˜no, the sources coincide in saying that it was a harsh-sounding language with many unpronounceable sounds, which could not be represented easily with the symbols of the Latin alphabet. The orthography which is used by the different sources is far from consistent. Nevertheless, both San Rom´an and Va¨ısse et al. offer interesting observations on the pronunciation, which make it possible to reconstruct several aspects of the Atacame˜no sound inventory. In contrast to Aymara and Quechua, Atacame˜no had five distinct (short) vowels: a, e, i, o, u.167 Contrastive pairs for the front and back vowels, respectively, are sem(m)a ‘one’ vs. sim(m)a ‘man’, and potor ‘landslide’ vs. putchur ‘flower’. Cases of distinctive vowel length are found in some environments at least, e.g. ckacka ‘forehead’, ckaacka ‘stutterer’. The hyphen in forms such as cki-itur ‘to fight’ and ma-istur ‘to find’ suggests the presence of an intervocalic glottal stop. The spelling of the verb balt-hitur ‘to run’ in Va¨ısse et al. possibly indicates that the glottal stop could occur in other positions as well. Interestingly, few lexical items in the glossary of Va¨ısse et al. begin with a vowel; a and i are the only vowels found in that position. Items that do have an initial vowel 166
167
The tal´atur and another Kunza ritual song, the cauz´ulor, have been brought out on music albums: Le Chant du Monde: Chez les indiens du d´esert d’Atacama LDZ-S-4287 (no date); and Unesco Collection Musical Sources: Amerindian Ceremonial Music from Chile 6586-026 (1975). Mostny (1954) recorded a word containing schwa-type vowels (ˇcərə snə r ‘narrow opening in the rocks that lets through water’).
378
3 The Inca Sphere
are mainly grammatical words (e.g. ackcka ‘I’; inti ‘that much’) and loan words (e.g. atitur ‘to win’, ‘to be superior’, from Quechua ati-; astatur ‘to whip’, from Spanish azotar). Most of the non-grammatical native words with initial a that are listed in the Va¨ısse glossary have alternative forms beginning with an aspiration (h), e.g. ara ∼ hara ‘lodging place’, ‘temporary shelter’, atta ∼ hatta ∼ haata ‘yesterday’.168 The interrelation between aspiration and vowel length, as illustrated in the latter example, is of particular interest. San Rom´an states explicitly that aspirations in Kunza are followed by ‘a notable lengthening of the vowel’. In his conjugation of the verb ‘to eat’, San Rom´an registers ohlmtur (with the aspiration written after the vowel), whereas Va¨ısse et al. have holmtur. This suggests that the aspiration may have been simultaneous with the vowel, rather than previous or successive to it. Cases of postvocalic aspiration as recorded by San Rom´an (e.g. in ohlmtur ‘to eat’ and pahni ‘child’) have been interpreted as a phenomenon accessory to phonemic vowel length (Lehnert Santander 1987). On the other hand, as we have just seen, there are also cases where aspiration triggers length, rather than the opposite. The consonant inventory of Atacame˜no, as represented in the glossary of Va¨ısse et al., is surprisingly small. There is no doubt that glottalisation could be distinctive in the labial and in the alveolar positions (e.g. poi.ya169 [poyya] ‘calf of leg’, ppoya [p’oya] ‘two’; tilir ‘spicy’, ttelir [t’elir] ‘vicu˜na’). Nevertheless, many forms are listed with both a glottalised and a plain initial, indicating that the distinctive value of glottalisation may have been limited. For the palatal series the glossary employs only one symbol: tch. The added explanation (Va¨ısse et al. 1896: 33) suggests that it referred to a glottalised, rather than to a plain alveopalatal affricate comparable to Spanish ch. However, San Rom´an makes a distinction between the symbols ch (as in choraca [ˇcoraka] ‘ostrich’) and chch (as in chchoya [ˇc’oya] ‘seven’), thereby indicating a glottalisation distinction in the palatal series as well. Strangely, the Va¨ısse glossary contains no evidence of glottalisation in the velar or postvelar series, nor does it distinguish between these two series at all. It employs the symbol ck to cover all of the velar and postvelar areas of articulation (except for h). The sound corresponding to ck is described as comparable to ch in German followed by a sound similar to r, thereby creating the suggestion of a postvelar fricative (Va¨ısse et al. 1896: 15).170 However, San Rom´an affirms that there were several k-like sounds in Atacame˜no, ‘to be written c or k, in accordance with their degree of strength’. He 168 169 170
There are a few non-grammatical items with initial i in the Va¨ısse glossary: ipnatur ‘to stick to’ and ittin(tur) ‘(to put) straight’; they have no alternative forms with initial h. From here on, the hyphen in the glossary is replaced by a dot, in order to avoid confusion with morpheme boundary markers. The symbol ck is used in the descriptive tradition of the Argentinian Quechua dialect of Santiago del Estero for the representation of a uvular stop.
3.7 The Atacame˜no language
379
assigns a special status to a sound which he writes qc or q-c, in l´ıqcau ‘woman’ (Va¨ısse et al.: lickau), and which is supposed to be pronounced with ‘a certain tenderness’. His characterisation of the initial consonant in khˆuro ‘wind’ (ckuri ∼ ckuru´ı.ya in Va¨ısse et al.) seems to refer to a strongly aspirated postvelar stop.171 Other spellings used by San Rom´an are c-k in v´ac-ka ‘river’ (back.cka in Va¨ısse et al.), cj in cjaratur ‘to break’, cc in ccaratur ‘to cut’ (both ckaratur in Va¨ısse et al.), and qqu in qquepe ‘eye’ (ckepe or ckepi in Va¨ısse et al.) The initial sound in this last word also drew the attention of von Tschudi, who wrote igkjepe and described a deeply guttural sound, both preceded and followed by affrication (S´aez Godoy 1971). In sum, there can be no other conclusion than that Va¨ısse et al. fell short in establishing the relevant distinctions that existed between Atacame˜no velar and postvelar sounds.172 The other symbols that are found in the Va¨ısse glossary are b (sometimes written v), l, m, n, r, s and y. All are described as having similar functions as their equivalents in Spanish or other languages. The sound b is historically related to w in other Andean languages, as can be seen in integrated loan words, such as baina ‘boy-friend’, ‘lover’ (Quechua wayna) and backtcha ‘poor’, ‘orphan’ (Quechua wakˇca).173 The sound [w] itself, written hu, is limited to loans (e.g. hualcka ‘necklace’, from Quechua waly qa; huata ‘belly’ from Chilean Spanish guata) and onomatopoeic expressions. In contradistinction to Aymara and Quechua, there were no palatal laterals and nasals (ly , ny ). Philippi (1860) and von Tschudi (1866–9) recorded what may have been a voiceless, aspirated lateral in the word h( j)lacse ‘head’ (Va¨ısse et al.: lacksi). In addition to the consonants just mentioned, there was an affricate ts ∼ tz, which may have had the status of a separate phoneme. It was apparently not very frequent; e.g. aytzir ‘vizcacha (an Andean rodent)’; tserar ∼ serar ‘cold’, ‘winter’; tsimir ∼ tchimir ‘snow’. Table 3.28 represents a tentative, if not speculative, overview of the speech sounds that may have existed in Atacame˜no. Consonants for which we have no direct evidence are given between square brackets. Round brackets indicate that the sound is limited to loan words. Clusters of up to three consonants, in medial position, and of two consonants, in initial or final position, are not uncommon, e.g. ckolcktur ‘to fall’, icks ‘like that’. Remarkable is the frequent occurrence of geminate consonants in medial position (e.g. ackcka ‘I’). 171 172
173
Note that Va¨ısse et al. have ckuru for ‘mountain-lion’, whereas San Rom´an has k´uhri (cf. Lehnert Santander 1987). Confusion may have arisen in one or the other of the two sources. In 1981 Bill Harrison (personal communication) recorded names of fields, plants and a few lexical items in the village of Caspana. His taped recording contains ample evidence of glottalised as well as aspirated velars and uvulars. Only two conclusions can be reached: either the Atacame˜no of the Salado river basin differed considerably from that of the San Pedro area, or Va¨ısse et al. somehow failed to recognise the distinctions. A similar development (*w > β) can be observed in the Aymara of northern Chile (cf. Clair-Vassiliadis 1976) and in Chipaya (section 3.6).
380
3 The Inca Sphere
Table 3.28 Tentative inventory of the Atacame˜no sounds
Plain stops Glottalised stops Plain affricates Glottalised affricates Fricatives Nasals Plain lateral Voiceless lateral Vibrant Glides Vowels:
Labial
Alveolar
p p’
t t’ c
b m
Palatal
Velar
Postvelar
Glottal
k [k’]
q [q’]
ʔ
x, γ
x.
h
cˇ cˇ ’
s n l l r
(w)
y a, e, i, o, u, ə(?) length aspiration (= h)
‘These consonants are pronounced more strongly and more separate than in Italian’, says San Rom´an (1967: 88). Gemination may have been the result of an active phonological process, because it could affect loan words from Quechua and Spanish as well as native words, e.g. ckas.sa ‘mountain-pass’ (from Quechua q’asa), am.mu ‘boss’, ‘master’ (from Spanish amo). However, the existence of gemination has not been recorded for all lexical items containing an intervocalic consonant. Theoretically, the orthographic gemination may have represented glottalisation, as in ttelir ‘vicu˜na’, but the inventory of consonants affected (stops, fricatives, resonants) and the frequent presence of a hyphen between two identical consonants does not seem to favour such a conclusion. As far as the rudimentary data available allow a general characterisation of the language, the following grammatical facts emerge. Atacame˜no presents a mixture of prefixation and suffixation. Personal reference affixes were prefixed to both verb and noun. Tense, mood, nominalisation and negation with verbs, as well as nominal case were indicated by means of suffixes. The morphology does not seem to be very elaborate. Perhaps this can be attributed to the state of decay in which the language found itself when it was recorded. The general order was subject–object–verb, and modifiers preceded heads with one notable exception: adjectives were located after substantives, as in puri lari ‘red water’ (from puri ‘water’ and lari ‘red’).174 174
This situation is characteristic of a whole range of languages native to northern Argentina and northern Chile, such as Atacame˜no, Lule, Santiago del Estero Quechua and possibly also Diaguita (Nardi 1979). It corresponds to type 24 in Greenberg’s classification of basic wordorder types (Greenberg 1966: 109).
3.7 The Atacame˜no language
381
Table 3.29 Possessive nominal paradigm in Atacame˜no (based on San Rom´an 1967)
1 pers. 2 pers. 3 pers.
singular plural singular plural singular plural
locjma
‘dog’
c’-locjma-ia cun-locjma-ia s’-locjma-ia chin-locjma-ia ai-locjma-ia c’-locjma-ia
‘my dog’ ‘our dog’ ‘your (sing.) dog’ ‘your (plur.) dog’ ‘his/her dog’ ‘their dog’
The possessive nominal paradigm as given by San Rom´an is illustrated in table 3.29 with the noun l´ocjma (Va¨ısse et al.: lockma) ‘dog’. Note that a relational element -ia ∼ -ya is added to the root. The significance of the apostrophe that occurs with some of the prefixes remains unexplained. It may indicate the absence of a syllabic vowel. In Va¨ısse et al. many grammatical elements, including bound morphemes, are listed as separate lexical items. The prefixes for first- and second-person possessor are recorded as cki.i and iss, respectively. The latter form can be recognised in one of the versions of the Lord’s Prayer collected by von Tschudi (377). (In this and in the following examples the square brackets indicate the forms such as they occur in Va¨ısse et al.) (377) is chea {is-che-ya} 2P.SG-name-RL ‘Thy Name’175
[tchei ‘name’]
(von Tschudi 1866–9, in Echeverr´ıa y Reyes 1967)
San Rom´an assigns two other functions to the element ia ∼ ya. One of these functions is that of an affixed article with nouns (378). It is possible that this so-called article indicated possession of a noun by a non-identified possessor. (378) sil´a-ya llama-RL ‘the llama’ (maybe: ‘someone’s llama’)
175
[sil.la, sila ‘llama’] (San Rom´an 1967: 79)
The full sentence is santi.hijia is-che-a ya-clo ‘Hallowed be Thy Name!’ (hallowed 2P.SG-nameRL be-IM). At the present state of our knowledge it is not possible to analyse the expression santi hijia, but note its resemblance to Spanish santificar (‘to hallow’).
382
3 The Inca Sphere
Table 3.30 Atacame˜no personal and possessive pronouns (San Rom´an 1967; Va¨ısse et al. 1896)
I you (sing.) we you (plur.) he *
San Rom´an
Va¨ısse et al.
acca chema cuna chime ia, ya
ackcka tchema ckunna tch´ımi ´ı.ya
San Rom´an mine yours (sing.) ours yours (plur.) his
Va¨ısse et al.
acsa, a´ jsaya* acksaya chienza, ch´ensaya tch´ensaya cunza ckunsa chienza, chinzaya tch´ensaya isa, is´aya issi.ya
The j sounds as ch in German (San Rom´an 1967: 83).
The other function of ia ∼ ya is that of a predication marker (copula) with pronominal predicates (379). Whenever two nominals (i.e. a noun and an adjective) were connected predicatively, a copula or predication marker was apparently not required (380). (379) chema ya you be ‘You are.’ ‘It’s you.’ (380) pauna v´alchar child bad ‘The child is bad.’
[tchema ‘you’] (San Rom´an 1967: 85) [pauna ‘child’; baltchar ‘bad’] (San Rom´an 1967: 87)
There are two sets of pronouns to match the possessive prefixes: a set of personal pronouns and a derived set of possessive prounouns, containing the genitive element -sa. The pronouns that can be extracted from San Rom´an’s work and the corresponding forms from the Va¨ısse glossary are given in table 3.30. A number of the possessive pronouns have only been found followed by the element -ya, which possibly indicates a predicative function (‘it is mine’, etc.). In a possessive construction in which the pronoun is expressed explicitly, both the possessive pronoun and a possessive prefix are required: (381) chien-za chin-tic.han-ia you.PL-G 2P.PL-father-RL ‘your (plural) father’
[tickan ‘father’] (San Rom´an 1967: 80)
Nominal plural is indicated by means of a suffix -ckota,176 which can be attached both to nouns and to the third-person pronoun root i-:
176
Compare the Puquina nominal pluraliser -gata (cf. section 3.5).
3.7 The Atacame˜no language
383
Table 3.31 Verbal past-tense paradigm in Atacame˜no (based on San Rom´an 1967)
1 pers. 2 pers. 3 pers.
sing. plur. sing. plur. sing. plur.
yocon-tur
‘to speak’
acca q’-yocon-a cuna cun-y´ocon-a chema se-y´ocon-a chime chin-y´ocon-a ya s’-y´ocon-a cota et’-y´ocon-a
‘I spoke.’ ‘We spoke.’ ‘You (sing.) spoke.’ ‘You (plur.) spoke.’ ‘He spoke.’ ‘They spoke.’
(382) a. ´ı-cota ∼ i-ckota b. l´ıqcau-cota ∼ lickau-ckota
‘they’ ‘women’
[´ı.ya ‘he’] (San Rom´an 1967: 79, 85)
The prefixes that identify person of subject in a verb are partly coincident with the possessive personal prefixes of the noun. The past-tense paradigm of the verb yockontur ‘to speak’, as given by San Rom´an (1967: 86), is presented in table 3.31. The full personal pronouns that precede each verb form were probably optional. As in the case of the possessive prefixes the significance of the apostrophe remains unexplained. The evidence for a third-person-singular marker s’ is weak, because it is not attested in the other third-person subject forms occurring in the data. (One either finds zero, or q’, which may not be a personal person reference marker.) The prefix et’- (note the initial e) is not found in Va¨ısse et al. The pronominal form cota is an abbreviated variant of ´ı-cota ‘they’. Note in passing the possible diachronic link between the pronouns and the person prefixes. The endings of the past tense are said to be unpredictable (San Rom´an 1967: 86). Other tense and mood categories are indicated by specific endings, where necessary accompanied by morphophonemic adjustments, such as -ma for present tense, -(o)lo for future tense and -(l)s for obligation. (383) a. acca q’-minij-ma b. acca q’-c´olc-olo c. acca q’-lan-s
‘I see’ ‘I will fall’ ‘I will go’
[minck-tur ‘to see’] [ckolck-tur ‘to fall’] [lan-tur ‘to go’]
Examples of the Atacame˜no imperative appear in Moore (1878) and in the Lord’s Prayer versions transmitted by von Tschudi, but we owe the identification of the ending -k.al(o) as a marker of the imperative to Mostny (1954: 141).177 Another imperative ending found in the Lord’s Prayer versions is -alo. The examples suggest that the former 177
It is likely that a uvular stop is intended to be represented by the symbol k..
384
3 The Inca Sphere
occurred after a vowel (384), whereas the latter was found after bases ending in a consonant (385). (384) k.ilap´anya a´ıta-k.alo ckilapana drink-2S.IM ‘Drink ckilapana!’178 (385) can-alo give-2S.IM ‘Give!’
[cf. haita-tur ‘to drink’] (Mostny 1954: 142) [cf. ckan-tur ‘to give’] (Tschudi 1866–9, in Echeverr´ıa y Reyes 1967)
The negation of the imperative was expressed by means of a suffix -ˇca- (Mostny 1954: 153). A good example of this construction is again found in the Lord’s Prayer versions (386). The base verb is the Spanish loan dejar ‘to leave’, ‘to abandon’. (386) cum deja-cha-calo 1O.PL leave-NE-2S.IM ‘Don’t let us (fall into temptation)!’ (Tschudi 1866–9, in Echeverr´ıa y Reyes 1967)
Example (386) also illustrates the use of prefixes or preposed elements referring to person of object, in this case, cum [kun] ‘us’. Va¨ısse et al. mention at least two other elements that are used in this way: ack for first-person-singular object and tchencki for second-person-singular object. One may venture the idea that the latter was in fact a complex form referring to the transition of a first-person subject (cki-) to a second-person object (tchem-). The categories of deverbal nominalisation comprise the characteristic infinitive ending in -tur, amply illustrated in the current section. Doubtless, there are other possibilities, such as those illustrated by the forms l´alack-ma ‘daybreak’ and lalck-tchir ‘light’, both derived from lalck-tur ‘to become light (of days)’ (Va¨ısse et al. 1896: 24). More verbal morphology consists in the existence of a transitive or causative formation involving an element -un-, as in (387): (387) lalck-tur ‘to become light’ lalack-un-tur ‘to give/make light’
(Va¨ısse et al. 1896: 24)
The existential verb ‘to be’ in Atacame˜no is given as ttanzi [t’ansi] in San Rom´an and as ttansi-r or ttans-tur in Va¨ısse et al. Its negation was expressed by sin(t)cha.
178
Ckilapana: a fermented drink made from pods of the algarroba tree (Prosopis chilensis). The ending -ya is not explained in this case.
3.8 The Lule–Tonocot´e language
385
Example (388) from Mostny illustrates this: (388) t´e sinˇca o t’´ansi tea not.be or be ‘Is there any tea, or not?’
(Mostny 1954: 170)
The SOV word order of Atacame˜no is illustrated in (389). Note the absence of a subject prefix.179 The element -ne- remains unexplained; it may be part of the presenttense ending. There is no case marker for the goal. (389) a´ cca l´ıcan s´aj-ne-ma I town go-?-PN ‘I am going to town.’
[lickan ‘town’; sack-tur ‘to go’] (San Rom´an 1967: 78)
Case markers and other elements referring to grammatical relations cannot easily be recovered because they are not treated in the sources. Only a few case endings, such as -ckol ‘instrumental’ (Va¨ısse et al. 1896: 19; Mostny 1954: 154) and -p(a)s ‘allative’ (Mostny 1954: 154), have been identified beyond doubt. From a lexical point of view, it is interesting to note that the Atacame˜no language had a full inventory of decimally organised numerals, which also included a non-borrowed term for ‘hundred’: sem(m)a ‘one’, ppoya ‘two’, pp´alama ‘three’, tchalpa [ˇc’alpa] ‘four’, m´utusma (San Rom´an: m´utsisma) ‘five’, m´ıtchala ‘six’, tch´oya [ˇc’oya] ‘seven’, tch´olama [ˇc’´olama] ‘eight’, t´eckara ‘nine’, sutchi ‘ten’, haaras ‘hundred’ (San Rom´an: aras). The connecting element was -ta, as in suchi-ta ppoya ‘twelve’ (San Rom´an 1967: 80). Atacame˜no had borrowed many lexical items from Quechua, notwithstanding von Tschudi’s emphatic denial of such being the case (S´aez Godoy 1971: 20), e.g. ckausa-tur ‘to live’, from Quechua kawsa-, and tussu-tur ‘to dance’, from Quechua tusu- (for other examples see the preceding pages). Borrowings from other languages are represented in tchamma ‘force’, from Aymara cˇ ’ama, and in horsa-tur ‘to rape’, from Spanish forzar. 3.8 The Lule–Tonocot´e language The Lule were one of the semi-nomadic peoples who inhabited the Gran Chaco between the Pilcomayo river and the Andean foothills of northwestern Argentina. Their language is known through a grammar and vocabulary published by Machoni de Cerde˜na in 1732. Machoni called his work Arte de la lengua Tonocot´e y Lule (Grammar of the Tonocot´e and Lule Language), suggesting that the Lule and Tonocot´e languages were one and the same. This is confusing because in early colonial sources such as the Relaciones geogr´aficas de Indias (Jim´enez de la Espada 1965, I: 390–6; II: 78–85) the two nations 179
According to San Rom´an (1967: 87), the Atacame˜nos ‘used few auxiliaries and abbreviated everything they could’.
386
3 The Inca Sphere
and their languages are treated as separate. In the sixteenth century the Tonocot´e were part of the sedentary indigenous population of the provinces of Tucum´an and Santiago del Estero, now occupied by speakers of the Quechua dialect of the same name (cf. Mart´ınez Sarasola 1992: 549–52). They suffered constant attacks from the Lule. At the beginning of the eighteenth century part of the Lule population had been brought together in a mission in eastern Salta, which was subsequently transferred to a location south of Tucum´an in 1737, where a town called Lules still exists (Furlong 1941). Machoni justifies his procedure by affirming that the language which he describes was spoken by five nations: Tonocot´e, Lule, Ysistin´e, Toquistin´e and Oristin´e. He claims that the Tonocot´e, whom he located in the interior of the Gran Chaco, were the most numerous of the five and had not yet been converted to Christianity in his time. Since the languages of the tribes in question have long been extinct and only one variety has been documented, the question whether Lule and Tonocot´e were indeed identical, and if not, whether Machoni’s grammar deals with the former or with the latter, may remain open. The view that Machoni’s Lule is genetically related to the moribund or extinct Vilela language of the R´ıo Bermejo basin has received attention since the end of the nineteenth century (Lafone Quevedo 1894a, b, 1895; Balmori 1967). It is probably correct, although the relationship is certainly not a close one (Viegas Barros 2001). There is no easily detectable genetic relationship between Lule–Vilela and the other two main linguistic groups of the Argentinian Chaco, Guaicuruan and Matacoan. There are some similarities with Matacoan, which may be due to contact. Machoni describes a relatively small inventory of sounds consisting of five vowels, a, e, i, o, u and a limited number of consonants. Stress is predominantly word-final.180 The symbol y is used as an equivalent of i, especially when stressed, but also for referring to a semi-consonant. According to Machoni, the main difficulties of Lule pronunciation consist in distinguishing between the sibilants c, c¸ , and s and in the existence of complex consonant clusters involving sibilants in word-initial and word-final postion (e.g. quelp¸c [kelpts ] ‘I spit’, slimst [slimst] ‘I make a sound with the nose’, oal´ecst [wal´ekst] ‘I know’, stu¸c [stuts ] ‘I throw’). Machoni’s description of the sibilants is not free of contradiction and is therefore hard to interpret. His symbols c, c¸ , and apparently also z, seem to stand for a sound which may be identified tentatively as an alveodental affricate [ts ]; the language has no ch [ˇc] as in Spanish. However, Machoni adds that in some words the c has to be pronounced as a (Spanish) c¸ or ss (normally the pronunciation of his symbol s). Another inconsistency in the use of the symbol c is that it can both refer to [ts ] and to 180
Word-final accent is usually written with an acute by Machoni. The examples given are in Machoni’s original spelling.
3.8 The Lule–Tonocot´e language
387
[k]. This becomes evident from the different derivations of the imperative, as in uec-y ‘die!’ [wets´ı] from uec-¸c [wets ts ] ‘I die’ against poqu-y [pok´ı] ‘dig!’ from poc-¸c [pokts ] ‘I dig’. The simplicity of the Lule sound inventory is surprising when we consider the rather complex inventories of the related Vilela language (which has postvelar stops, a voicing distinction and a glottalisation distinction) and of almost all the surrounding languages, including the modern Quechua dialect of Santiago del Estero. It is conceivable that Machoni may have missed such distinctions. There are no indications to that effect, except for the word tt´a ‘egg’, in which the double consonant symbol may point at the existence of glottalisation. On the other hand, the highly informative vocabulary that accompanies Machoni’s grammar contains evidence of voiceless laterals (quilh´a [kil a´ ] ‘Indian girl’; cf. Vilela kil e ‘woman’) and, possibly, of a voiceless nasal (nhal´a pul´u ‘sugar cane’). The existence of a glottal stop is suggested by se¸c ∼ s.he¸c [sʔets ] ‘I support’, in which s and the vowel must be pronounced separately, and se¸c [sets ] ‘I cry’, in which they are pronounced without interruption. From a superficial point of view, Lule appears to be a typically Andean language with a suffixing structure, a moderately complex morphology and case markers. However, a closer look at the verbs included in Machoni’s Spanish–Lule vocabulary shows that this picture is not entirely correct. These verbs exhibit different sorts of derivational morphology including prefixation, compounding and reduplication. There are, for instance, verb sets characterised by a root and different prefixes referring to an instrument or body part with which the action is performed. The root cannot occur without one of these prefixes, nor are these prefixes formally related with corresponding nouns. For instance, the root -calam- ‘to press’ is absent from the vocabulary, except when it occurs with one of the instrumental elements illustrated in (390).
(390) ni-calamyacs-calamsi-calamti-calamna-calam-
‘to press with the hands’ ‘to press with the feet’ ‘to press with knees or body’ ‘to press the earth (of rain)’ ‘to press the earth (of running water)’
cf. ys ‘hand’ cf. ell´u ‘foot’ cf. toi- ‘body’ cf. auy´a ‘rain-water’ cf. t´o ‘water’
The root -moi- ‘to kill’ is found both with a generic and with an instrumental prefix (391): (391) tac-mois-moinic-moina-moiap-moi-
‘to kill’ ‘to kill with an arrow or a spear’ ‘to kill (chicken) with the hands’ ‘to kill with a string or lasso’ ‘to kill with a bullet’
388
3 The Inca Sphere
Compounding can be illustrated by the encoding of bodily positions in a verb such as ui- [wi] ‘to sleep’ (392): (392) lo-ui-181 ‘to sleep while sitting’ qui-ui- ‘to sleep while standing’ ele-ui- ‘to sleep while lying’
cf. lo-, loho-182 ‘to sit (down)’ cf. qui- ‘to stand’ cf. ele- ‘to lie (down)’
Further illustrations of compounding involving verb roots can be observed in (393) and (394): (393) ti-tuc- ‘to try’ ne-tuc- ‘to try and eat’, ‘to taste’ (394) tic-tun- ‘to finish’ ne-tun- ‘to finish eating’ Note that the common term for ‘to eat’ is not *ne- but cai-. Furthermore, Lule has a wide array of terms for eating depending on what is eaten: e.g. pel- ‘to eat flour’, let‘to eat soft fruits’, ues- ‘to eat beans or cabbage’, anc- [ants ] ‘to eat soup’. Lule verbs may differ lexically in function of the number (395) or the gender (396) of the subject: (395) u´os-¸c ual-cen (396) pac- [pats ] yes-
arrive-1S.SG arrive-1S.PL ‘to carry (of men)’ ‘to carry (of women)’
‘I arrive’ ‘we arrive’
Reduplication of the initial syllable is found in derived verbal substantives that refer to an instrument, as in (397): (397) ne-neyu-p´e ‘flute’
cf. neyu- ‘to play the flute’
Verbs are inflected for person and number. The endings which are used for the nonfuture indicative tenses coincide roughly with the endings indicating person and number of the possessor with nouns. Examples with the verb amaici- ‘to love’ and uy´a ‘house’ are given in table 3.32. The ending of the verbal first person singular varies between -¸c, -s, -t, and zero. The latter two possibilities are used as alternatives after roots ending in a consonant cluster with a final sibilant, as in oal´ecs-t (∼ oal´ecs-¸c, oal´ec-¸c) ‘I know’ or stops-t (∼stops-¸c, stops) 181 182
In the examples the symbol v has been replaced by u, because the former is a mere notational variant of the latter. The interpretation of the symbol h between vowels is ambiguous. Apart from indicating a glottal or velar fricative, it can also refer to a glottal stop.
3.8 The Lule–Tonocot´e language
389
Table 3.32 Lule personal endings for unmarked tense and nominal possession
1 pers. 2 pers. 3 pers.
sing. plur. sing. plur. sing. plur.
amaici-
‘to love’
uy´a
‘house’
amaici-¸c amaici-c´en amaici-c´e amaici-lom amaici-p amaici-p´an
‘I love.’ ‘We love.’ ‘You (sing.) love.’ ‘You (plur.) love.’ ‘He/she loves.’ ‘They love.’
uy´a-s uya-cen uya-c´e uya-lom uya-p uya-p´an
‘my house’ ‘our house’ ‘your (sing.) house’ ‘your (plur.) house’ ‘his/her house’ ‘their house’
Table 3.33 Lule future and imperative verbal paradigms
1 pers. 2 pers. 3 pers.
sing. plur. sing. plur. sing. plur.
Future
Imperative
-n-s -n-cen -psse -n-(pe)lom -n-t -n-pan
– -pe, -cen + V, −y -uan -pep, -to -(n-)pan
‘I pour (a liquid)’. The choice between -¸c and -s appears to be arbitrary. As for substantives, Machoni affirms that they normally take -s, but that some take -¸c; e.g. y(h)´a-¸c ‘my brother’. The third-person-singular ending of the verbs has two forms: -p and -t. According to Machoni, the verbs that take -t instead of -p are those that have roots ending in -a-, -e-, -u-, -li- and -qui-, e.g. e-t ‘he sees’, taclu-t ‘he throws’. The Lule verbal system comprises different tenses and moods, as well as devices for subordination and nominalisation, all indicated by means of suffixation. There are no indications of object encoding within the verb. Near and remote past are characterised by the affixes -ni- and -(y)ate-, respectively, which are inserted between the root and the person and number affixes. The imperative and, to a lesser extent, the future paradigm have special endings for person and number. These are represented in table 3.33. Apart from the second-person-singular ending all future endings contain an element -n-. This same element is used to distinguish between an unmarked active participle in -ton and a future active participle in -n-ton, e.g.: (398) amaici-t`on amaici-n-t`on 183
‘he who loves’ ‘he who will love’183
In this case Machoni uses a grave instead of an acute accent. The reason for it is not known.
390
3 The Inca Sphere
Both participles can be used as finite verbs replacing present-tense and future forms, respectively. The second-person-singular imperative ending consists of a vowel -y after roots ending in a consonant, and a lengthened final vowel after roots ending in a vowel. This is indicated by doubling of the last vowel. It is not sure whether the added vowel was pronounced separately, as vowel length, or that it was merely stressed. There are some irregular imperatives, such as cai ‘go!’, ei ‘see!’ and nei ‘come!’ (from ca-, e- and ne-, respectively). (399) taclu-u´ taclup-y
‘throw!’ ‘turn upside down!’
The subordinate form of the verbs is formed by adding the element -l´e to the unmarked tense of the indicative (e.g. amaici-¸c-l´e ‘when I love’). The element -l´e coincides in form with a case marker that indicates location involving motion (‘into’, ‘from’). The interpretation of the case marker depends on the meaning of the verb or the context. The second l´e in (400) and (401) is described as a part´ıcula de ornato (ornamental particle) by Machoni. (400) uya-l´e l´e ne-¸c house-L – come-1S.SG ‘I come from the house.’ (401) uya-s-l´e l´e ca-¸c house-1P.SG-L – go-1S.SG ‘I go to my house’ Lule nouns referring to human beings can be marked for plural, although this is not obligatory. The exact rules of plural formation are difficult to glean from Machoni’s grammar. (402) cu´e zal´a
‘son or daughter’ ‘young man’
cu´e-l ‘children’ zala-til ‘young people’
Personal possessive endings are added to the plural ending, if any, e.g.: (403) Pedro cu´e-l-p uy´e Pedro child-PL-3P.SG not.be ‘Pedro has no children.’ As can be seen in (403), the genitive construction is characterised by possession marked on the head. The modifier (possessor) precedes the head and remains unmarked.184 If 184
Adjectives follow the noun they modify, as in t´o ytyps ‘lukewarm water’.
3.9 Extinct and poorly documented languages
391
the head consists of the words p´e ‘father’ or umu´e ‘mother’, the possessive ending -p is left out whenever the possessor is present. If the possessor is not present, the ending is compulsory. (404) Juan pe-p Juan p´e
‘the father of Juan (not present)’ ‘the father of Juan (present)’
The personal pronouns of Lule are not related to the verbal endings. Some of them, however, can be related to verbal endings in the Vilela language: quis ‘I’, u´e ‘you’, u´a ‘we’, mi-l ‘you (plural)’. In Vilela -ki-s is a first-person-dual or plural verbal ending (singular -ki), whereas -mi refers to a second person singular (Lozano 1977).185 The reflexive pronoun in Lule is formed on the basis of a root lo- to which personal possessive endings are added. Pronouns used in object function, including the reflexives, are located before the verb. (405) u´e y´o ne-¸c you take come-1S.SG ‘I have come to take you.’ (406) lo-s tec-¸c [los tekts ] self-1P.SG fight-1S.SG ‘I battle’, ‘I fight’
[y´o ne- ‘to take’, ‘to fetch’]
The numeral system of Lule is not typically Andean in that it consists of only four basic items: alape´a ‘one’, tam´op ‘two’, tamlip ‘three’ and locu´ep ‘four’ (cf. lucu´e ‘man’). The numeral locu´ep provides the basis for higher numbers, as in locu´ep moitl´e tamlip ‘seven’ (‘three added to four’) and in locu´ep moitl´e locu´ep alape´a ‘nine’ (‘four added to four plus one’). The word for ‘ten’ ysyauomp is derived from ys ‘hand’ and yauo´o ‘together’. It is used as a basis for further counting, as in ysav´omp moitl´e tam´op ‘twelve’ (‘two added to ten’). Multipliers precede the number they multiply, as in tamlip ysav´omp ‘thirty’. Lule contains several loan words from Quechua, such as yapa- ‘to add’ (Quechua yapa-), tanta ‘bread’ (Quechua t’anta), tity ‘tin’ (Quechua titi), utc´u ‘cotton’ (Quechua utku). Interesting are several loans from Spanish that have been modified almost beyond recognition, e.g. capl´a ‘goat’ (Spanish cabra), ceual´a ‘millet’ (Spanish cebada), polot´o ‘bean’ (Spanish poroto) and telec´o ‘wheat’ (Spanish trigo). 3.9 Extinct and poorly documented languages of the Inca Sphere As anticipated in section 3.1, the Middle Andean region was originally a linguistically diverse area with numerous local languages. The decline of these languages was almost 185
It is interesting to observe that -l, -l and -s also act as nominal pluralisers in Matacoan (Tovar 1981; Gerzenstein 1994).
392
3 The Inca Sphere
certainly triggered by the political unification of the area by the Incas, but many of them were still widely spoken when the Spanish conquerors arrived. Much of the linguistic diversity in the Middle Andean region was lost during colonial rule and in the first century of independence. With the exception of the languages treated in the preceding sections 3.4–3.8, all the languages that vanished during that period have remained undocumented. Place names, personal names and, in the best case, short word lists must be relied upon for a reconstruction of some of the characteristics of these languages. Their existence is sometimes confirmed by mentions in the historical literature. For a discussion of these languages we distinguish three relevant areas: Ecuador, northern Peru and northwestern Argentina. 3.9.1 Ecuador In the highlands of Ecuador it is possible to reconstruct much of the original language situation, characterised by a series of distinct language areas that can be identified on the basis of toponymy and other information. In the coastal area this is nearly impossible. Coastal Ecuador was (and is) a densely populated area, but, apart from its northernmost sector (see chapter 2) its linguistic past remains hidden. At the time of the conquest, the ethnic group that inhabited the region of Guayaquil and the lower valley of the Daule river was called Huancavilca (Cieza de Le´on 1553). The Huancavilca were in the habit of removing part of their front teeth, and this is what their name in the native language is reported to have referred to (Velasco 1789). There were intensive trade relations with the islanders of Pun´a and with the inhabitants of the port of T´umbez in northern Peru. Jij´on y Caama˜no (1941: 385–97) and Paz y Mi˜no (1961a) treat all these groups as a linguistic unity, called Atall´an by the latter. Jij´on y Caama˜no adds the language of the area of Manta in the province of Manab´ı to this complex. He considers the Manab´ı– Huancavilca–Pun´a group to represent a single language with dialects, belonging to a family that also comprises Mochica and the Ca˜nar and Puruh´a languages in the highlands further east. Although other classifications (Loukotka 1968) have followed this suggestion, there seems to be no significant empirical evidence for it. Several other groups, such as the Indians of the Car´aquez bay (Manab´ı), the Chono of the Guayas river basin, the Campaces of the upper Daule valley and the Colima (location unclear), have not been associated with the Huancavilca complex. Jij´on y Caama˜no proposes a Barbacoan connection for the latter two, suggesting that the Campaces may have been identical to the Tsafiki-speaking Colorado (cf. section 2.17 ; see also Hartmann 1980). Newson (1995) proposes a similar connection for the Chono. In 1593 the Diocesan Synod of Quito issued an instruction calling for catechisms and confessionaries in the following languages: Quillacinga, Pasto, Puruh´a, Ca˜nar, ‘the language of the plains’ (la de los Llanos) and the Atallana (Jij´on y Caama˜no 1941: 385). Assuming that the Atallana language mentioned in this document was in fact the
3.9 Extinct and poorly documented languages
393
Tall´an language of Piura in present-day Peru (see section 3.9.2), we may identify the ‘language of the plains’ with that of the Huancavilca complex, which could have been predominant in southern coastal Ecuador. Another document of 1605, Descripci´on de la Gobernaci´on de Guayaquil, refers to an extreme linguistic diversity in the Portoviejo area in the province of Manab´ı. The same source reports that in about 1600 Spanish was already becoming the contact language in the coastal area (Hartmann 1980). In the highland part of Ecuador we find a succession of languages, which from north to south are the following: Pasto, Cara, Panzaleo, Puruh´a, Ca˜nar, and a language complex comprising Palta, Malacato, Rabona, Bolona and Xiroa. These languages are mentioned in early sources such as Cieza de Le´on (1553) and the Relaciones geogr´aficas de Indias (Jim´enez de la Espada 1965). They have been the object of studies by the Ecuadorian scholars Jij´on y Caama˜no (1940, 1941) and Paz y Mi˜no (1940, 1941a, b, 1942, 1961b), who inventoried recurrent roots and endings, as well as other salient features of these languages that can be deduced from place names, family names and historical accounts. However important their work may be have been, a reassessment of the results following modern techniques and insights is very much needed. Pasto is usually classified with the Barbacoan family, together with its neighbour Cuaiquer or Awa Pit (cf. section 2.17). The (extinct) variety of Muellamu´es (Nari˜no, Colombia), of which a short word list was recorded during the nineteenth century, was clearly related, though not identical, to Awa Pit and had a higher incidence of Quechua loan words (cf. Jij´on y Caama˜no 1940: 197). It may have represented one of the last surviving dialects of the Pasto language. Muellamu´es piar ‘maize’ can be recognised in the place name Piartal, in Carchi province (Ecuador); the interpretation of -tal is ‘rock’ (Paz y Mi˜no 1940). The Pasto territory was situated around the border towns of Tulc´an and Ipiales, striding the Colombian–Ecuadorian border. In Ecuador it included the Andean part of Carchi. Typical elements in Pasto place names are -quer (Mayasquer, Altaquer) and -es (Ipiales, Pupiales, T´uquerres). The language has been replaced by Spanish. The territory of the Cara or Caranqui language extended from the valley of the Mira and Chota rivers to the city of Quito, covering the Andean region situated in the province of Imbabura and in the north that of Pichincha. Important centres in this area are Otavalo, Cayambe and Ibarra (Carangue). In a study of local place and family names, Salomon and Grosboll (1986) show that the Cara linguistic area may have reached the northern outskirts of Quito, where it bordered on the Panzaleo language further south. The area is today inhabited by a dynamic indigenous population speaking a variety of Quechua known as Imbabura Quechua. In particular the people of Otavalo and surrounding villages are known for their rich folklore and economic success. Cara may have been used until well into the eighteenth century (Caillavet 2000: 103), before it became fully replaced by Quechua. A possible substratum element from Cara preserved
394
3 The Inca Sphere
in modern Imbabura Quechua is the use of a labial fricative f (from earlier Quechua *ph ; cf. section 3.2.5). Place names with characteristic stems and endings, as well as a fair number of family names mentioned in the colonial documents, constitute evidence of the past existence of Cara and give an impression of its phonology. Some endings (e.g. -mued, -pud ) are shared with Pasto, suggesting some kind of relationship between the two languages. River names in -p´ı/-b´ı (e.g. Calap´ı, Chulxab´ı) suggest a connection with the Barbacoan languages, where this element has the meaning of ‘water’ or ‘river’. Paz y Mi˜no (1941a) favours the view that Cara was related to Tsafiki (cf. section 2.17). Among the most frequent endings in place names is -qu´ı [k´ı] (compare Pasto -quer), for instance, in Cochasqu´ı, Pomasqu´ı and Tuntaqu´ı. Caillavet identifies further toponymical elements, such as -puela/-buela ‘field’, -pigal ‘earth ridge’ and -yasel ‘artificial mound (locally known as tola)’. A recurrent element in personal names is ango, identified as ‘lord’. It is found, for instance, in the name of the sixteenth-century cacique of Otavalo, Otavalango, but it also occurs by itself (Caillavet 2000: 28). Unfortunately, there are hardly any Cara forms of which the meaning is known with certainty. One of the very few cases is the element -piro/-biro, identified as ‘lake’ or ‘pond’ in the Relaciones geogr´aficas, which is found in the place names Pimampiro and Tumbabiro (Jim´enez de la Espada 1965, II: 236, 248).186 Paz y Mi˜no (1961a) refers to an (extinct) Cara population on the Ecuadorian coast, near Car´aquez bay (Manab´ı). Presumably, this idea was inspired by Velasco’s controversial account of the Cara or Scyri rulers, who would have invaded the highlands from the coast in pre-Inca times (Velasco 1789). Regardless of the question whether Velasco’s account has any historical basis, there is no reason to assume that the Cara language as we know it from toponymy and historical sources was the product of such a coastal invasion. The Panzaleo language owes its name to the Inca settlement of the same name, situated not far from Quito (cf. Salomon 1986). The Panzaleo area extended from Quito in the north to the town of Mocha in the south, covering the provinces of Cotopaxi and Tungurahua, as well as the southern part of Pichincha. The main centres in the area, apart from Quito itself, are Ambato and Latacunga. The Panzaleo area may have been the first in the Ecuadorian highlands to become thoroughly Quechuanised. Typical toponymical endings of the Panzaleo area are -(h)al´o (Pilal´o, Mulahal´o), -leo (Tisaleo, Pelileo) and -lagua/-ragua (Cutuglagua, Tunguragua). The possibility that the original language of the Quijos Indians, an ethnic group inhabiting the Andean foothills in the western part of the province of Napo, was actually a variety of Panzaleo (as suggested by Cieza de Le´on) is discussed in Jij´on y Caama˜no (1940: 289–95). The evidence is not 186
Translated as ‘great lake’ and ‘bird lake’, respectively. Note, however, that pim´an means ‘bridge’ in Tsafiki (Moore 1962).
3.9 Extinct and poorly documented languages
395
conclusive. Loukotka (1968) in his classification presents Panzaleo as related to P´aez (see section 2.15). One of the sources for this view is Jij´on y Caama˜no (1940: 395–6), who recognises that the evidence is weak and adds that any observed similarities, when valid at all, may be attributed to contact. Puruh´a or Puruguay was once the dominant language in the present-day province of Chimborazo, except in its southernmost section of Alaus´ı and Chunchi, where Puruh´a overlapped with neighbouring Ca˜nar. Jij´on y Caama˜no (1940: 417) leaves open the possibility of an extension into the Chimbos area further west (province of Bol´ıvar), but this idea is not accepted by Paz y Mi˜no (1942). The main centre of the former Puruh´a area is Riobamba. In spite of this strategic position, the amount of information on the language that has been preserved is disappointingly small. A late seventeenthcentury grammar is reported lost. Modern Puruh´a descendants now generally speak Quechua. Family names frequently end in -cela or in -lema. Examples are Duchicela, the lineage of Atahuallpa’s mother, reportedly of Puruh´a descent (Velasco 1789), and Daquilema, the name of a nineteenth-century rebel. Frequent endings of Puruh´a place names are -shi (e.g. Pilligshi), -tus (e.g. Guasunt´us), -bug (e.g. Tulubug). More complex endings are -cahuan, -calpi and -tactu. Some of these elements occur in combination with Quechua roots, as in Supaycahuan (Quechua supay ‘devil’). Puruh´a is generally believed to be related to Ca˜nar. Nevertheless, the two languages are kept distinctly apart in the colonial Spanish sources. Some phonological characteristics not usually found in the languages further north are shared by Puruh´a and Ca˜nar, for instance, the use of voiced stops in word-initial position. Another interesting common feature is the existence of a voiced palatal fricative [ˇz] (written zh), which is not demonstrably a reflex of earlier ly (as it is in some Ecuadorian Quechua dialects). It is found word-initially in Ca˜nar place names, e.g. Zhud (R. Howard, pers. comm.). The Ca˜nar language was spoken in the Ecuadorian highlands, in the provinces of Ca˜nar and Azuay, and in parts of southern Chimborazo (Alaus´ı). According to the Relaciones geogr´aficas de Indias (Jim´enez de la Espada 1965, II: 279), it was also used in Saraguro in the northern part of the province of Loja, in spite of the fact that the Indians of Saraguro were hostile to the Ca˜nar people further north. The Ca˜nar people played a crucial role in the history of the Inca empire. After they had been conquered, the Incas embellished their principal town of Tomebamba (Cuenca), which was then destroyed during the civil war between Atahuallpa and Huascar. Many Ca˜nar people were sent to other parts of the empire as mitimaes. Ca˜nar troops were sought out for police tasks and special assignments, which they continued to perform under Spanish rule. The influence of Quechua became particularly strong in the Ca˜nar region. Nevertheless, Ca˜nar continued to be used during the colonial period until it was eventually replaced by Quechua. Today, the main centres of the area are Cuenca, Azogues and Ca˜nar.
396
3 The Inca Sphere
Ca˜nar toponymy is highly characteristic and easier to recognise than that of Puruh´a. Nevertheless, some endings (-pala, -pud, -bug, -shi) are shared by the two languages. Luckily, the Relaciones geogr´aficas de Indias (Jim´enez de la Espada 1965, II: 265, 274– 5, 278, 280) are somewhat more informative about the meaning of Ca˜nar place and family names than about those of other Ecuadorian highland languages. For instance, Leoquina is translated as ‘snake in a lake’; Paute as ‘stone’; Peleusi (or Pueleusi) as ‘yellow field’; Pue¸car as ‘broom’. The Jubones river was called Tamalaycha or Tanmalanecha ‘river that eats Indians’. A particularly interesting explanation concerns that of the plain in which the city of Cuenca is situated. It was called Guapdondelic ‘large plain resembling heaven’. This explanation allows an interpretation of quite a few place names, such as Bayandeleg, Chordeleg, etc., which contain the element deleg ‘large plain’. Other place names contain an element del (e.g. in Bayandel), which may have had a related meaning.187 The most frequent ending in place names is -cay [kay]. It has been interpreted as ‘water’ or ‘river’, presumably because of its occurrence in river names, such as Saucay and Yanuncay (Paz y Mi˜no 1961b). Other examples of endings occurring in Ca˜nar place names are -copte (Chorocopte), -hui˜na (Catahui˜na), -turo (Molleturo), -zhuma (Guagualzhuma) and -zol (Capzol). In addition to the original Ca˜nar place names, Quechua names are also frequent. The ending -pamba ‘plain’, for instance, is more common than the native -deleg. In the sixteenth century the province of Loja was inhabited by a number of small ethnic groups, which the Spaniards found difficult to control. The language they spoke was known as Palta. Another language, Malacato, was spoken in a limited area south of the town of Loja. Caillavet (2000: 233) also mentions an enclave of Ca˜nar speakers (Amboca) situated to the northwest of that town. The Palta language had a wide distribution with eastern outliers in the Zamora region and in the area of Ja´en (department of Cajamarca, Peru).188 Furthermore, its use may have extended to the area of Zaruma in the presentday province of El Oro (Caillavet 2000: 216). Today the area, which no longer has a substantial indigenous population, is mainly Hispanophone, with the exception of the Quechua-speaking community of Saraguro in the north. Several observations in the Relaciones geogr´aficas de Indias seem to indicate that the languages of the area were closely related. It is generally believed that they belonged to the Jivaroan language family. The only Palta words that were recorded are not from Loja, but from a mountainous area called Xoroca not far from Ja´en (Jim´enez de la Espada 1965, III: 143). Of these four words (yum´e ‘water’, xeme ‘maize’, capal ‘fire’, let ‘firewood’) the three first ones have been recognised as Jivaroan (Gnerre 1975). Many place
187 188
Bay´an is the name of a shrub. On Ecuadorian maps the area of Ja´en is normally represented as a part of Ecuador, as a result of the boundary conflict between the two countries.
3.9 Extinct and poorly documented languages
397
names in the Loja area end in -anga (Cariamanga), in -numa (Purunuma) or in -nam´a (Cangonam´a, Gonzanam´a). Gnerre (1975) interprets the two latter endings as instances of a Jivaroan locative case marker -num ∼ -nam, whereas Torero (1993a) offers a different interpretation by associating the ending -nam´a with Aguaruna nam´ak(a) ‘river’.189 Similar elements are found in place names further east in the area of Zamora, where the Relaciones geogr´aficas de Indias (Jim´enez de la Espada 1965, III: 136–42) mention the existence of three other languages, Bolona, Rabona and Xiroa (possibly a variant of J´ıvaro). For the Rabona language a certain number of vocabulary items, mainly plant names, are listed. Torero (1993a) has identified some of these items as Candoshi (e.g. chicxi ‘sapodilla’, Candoshi cˇ´ıcˇ i(ri)), but others are reminiscent of Aguaruna (e.g. guapuxi ‘large guava’, Aguaruna w´ampuˇsik, Wipio Deicat 1996: 140). In spite of the fact that Rivet (1934), Loukotka (1968) and Torero (1993a) have classified the Rabona language as a member of the Candoshi family, we prefer to leave the matter undecided. The affiliations of the Bolona language cannot be known for lack of data; it has been classified as Jivaroan by Loukotka, whereas Torero suggests a connection with Ca˜nar based on the geographical location of Bolona. Few of the communities of the Zamora region mentioned in the early sources have survived, as much of the area was devastated by intensive colonisation during the sixteenth century and by the subsequent Jivaroan uprising (cf. Velasco 1789; Taylor 1999). As a final addition to this discussion of the pre-Quechuan Ecuadorian highland languages, we may observe that, with the exception of the languages of Loja and possibly also of Panzaleo, these languages share a number of distinctive elements that seem to point at a common origin or a long period of interaction at the least. Examples of such elements are words ending in the voiced consonants -d and -g, the ending -pud, and syllables with a complex labial onset (mue, pue, bue).190 The fact that Pasto, with its probable Barbacoan affinity, is one of the languages exhibiting these shared characteristics seems to suggest a Barbacoan connection for this whole group of languages. Although far from being proven, such a connection is more likely than the alleged relationship with Mochica advocated by Jij´on y Caama˜no. 3.9.2 Northern Peru In seventeenth-century sources the northern Peruvian Andes and coast are singled out as a multilingual area that resisted Quechuanisation. Blas Valera, cited in Garcilaso de 189 190
The usual meaning of nam´ak(a) in the Jivaroan languages is ‘fish’, but in Aguaruna it has the additional meaning of ‘river’. Complex labial onsets are also found in Awa Pit (Curnow 1977: 34), where labial consonants have a labial off-glide before the high central vowel ([pw ], [mw ]). Allophonic labial off-glides following labial consonants have furthermore been encountered in Muisca (section 2.9.2), in Shuar and in Yanesha (chapter 4).
398
3 The Inca Sphere
la Vega (1609, Book 7, chapter 3), reports that the Quechua language was ‘unknown in the administrative domain of Trujillo and other provinces belonging to the jurisdiction of Quito’. The present situation and the little we know of past linguistic developments in northern Peru give support to Valera’s impression. A number of non-Quechuan native languages survived the conquest, giving way to Spanish often as late as in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. On the other hand, Quechua is not absent from the area. It has survived in three distinct areas of northern Peru (see sections 3.1, 3.2.3), and it was certainly more widely used in the sixteenth century (Rivet 1949: 2–3). The near absence of documentation concerning the non-Quechuan languages of northern Peru is striking. Except for the cases of Mochica and Chol´on, there are neither grammars, nor dictionaries of these languages, not even the sort of religious texts that Spanish priests considered necessary for evangelisation (cf. Adelaar 1999). An essential source is Bishop Mart´ınez Compa˜no´ n (1985 [1782–90]), who provided word lists of 43 items each for nine languages spoken in his diocese (figure 1): Castilian (Spanish); Quechua; the Yunga language of the provinces of Trujillo and Sa˜na (Mochica, see section 3.4); the languages of Sechura, Col´an and Catacaos in the province of Piura (Sechura and Tall´an); the Culli language of the province of Huamachuco; and the languages of the Hivitos and Cholones of the Huailillas missions (Hibito and Chol´on, see section 4.11). The most comprehensive attempt to reconstruct the colonial language map of northern Peru is found in Torero (1986, 1989, 1993a). In this context a distinction should be made between languages effectively mentioned in the sources and those whose former existence is merely assumed on the basis of clusters of place and family names with shared characteristics. Among the well-attested languages are those of the coastal plain of the department of Piura. One of these languages, known as Sechura, has been associated with the port of Sechura at the mouth of the Piura river. A second language or language group, generally kown as Tall´an, was found along the Chira river, including the coastal towns of Col´an and Paita, and along the middle course of the Piura river, where it was spoken, among other places, in the important indigenous community of Catacaos (near the town of Piura). Ramos Cabredo (1950) provides an extensive list of place names, family names and native words still in use in the Tall´an area. Typical endings for place names are -l´a, -r´a (e.g. Narigual´a, Tangarar´a) and -ura (as in Nonura, Piura, Sechura). Family names often end in -lup´u (Belup´u, Sirlup´u), in -bal´u∼-gual´u (Cutibal´u, Mangual´u), in -naqu´e (Lequernaqu´e, Yamunaqu´e) and in -cherre (Pacherre, Tupucherre). The word lists included in Mart´ınez Compa˜no´ n exemplify the so-called ‘languages of Col´an and Catacaos’, as well as ‘the language of Sechura’. The Col´an and Catacaos lists represent closely related varieties, possibly dialects of the same language. A notable difference between the two is that Catacaos often features a final element -chim on nouns, whereas the Col´an equivalents only have a nasal (e.g. Catacaos puruchim, Col´an
399
C Patrimonio Nacional, Madrid Figure 1 Mart´ınez Compa˜no´ n’s word lists of 43 items each for nine languages spoken in his diocese. Copyright
400
3 The Inca Sphere
purum˜ ‘sister’). Another interesting correspondence is phonological. Col´an syllableinitial dl (possibly a voiced lateral affricate) is either d or l in Catacaos (e.g. Col´an dlacati, Catacaos lacatu ‘to die’; Col´an dlur˜um, Catacaos durum ‘earth’).191 Mart´ınez Compa˜no´ n’s Sechura list represents a separate language, because only about 30 per cent of the vocabulary items show a similarity with either Col´an or Catacaos (Torero 1986: 532). Among the possible cognates we find Sechura lactuc, Col´an dlacati, Catacaos lacatu ‘to die’; Sechura colt, Catacaos ccol ‘meat’; Sechura n˜ angru, Col´an nag ([naŋ]?), Catacaos nam ‘moon’; Sechura fic, Catacaos vic ‘wind’; Sechura yaibab, Col´an yaiau, Catacaos yeya ‘bird’. In 1863 Richard Spruce obtained from a native speaker in Piura a list of 38 words which was later published by von Buchwald (1918). It has been identified as a sample of the Sechura language on the basis of a comparison with Mart´ınez Compa˜no´ n’s word lists (Torero 1986: 542). The available data suggest that Sechura was a suffixing language. Kinship terms often contain the elements -ma and -˜ni (e.g. Spruce n˜ osma, Mart´ınez Compa˜no´ n n˜ os˜ni ‘son or daughter’), which were possibly possessive endings. Sechura verbs as listed in Mart´ınez Compa˜no´ n usually end in -(u)c (e.g. unuc ‘to eat’, nic ‘to cry’). Rivet (1949) treats Sechura and Tall´an as a single language, which he calls Sek, adopting the denominaton Sec introduced by Calancha (1638). This procedure is justly rejected by Torero (1986). However, the possibility of a language family, including both Sechura and Tall´an (Col´an–Catacaos), must remain open, considering the limited number of vocabulary items that are available. A possible extension of the Sechura language was found in the desert oasis of Olmos in the present-day department of Lambayeque. When referring to the Sec language, Calancha observed that the people of Olmos ‘change letters and endings’ (mudan letras y finales). Although the name ‘Sec’ could also have referred to the Tall´an language, later ethnographic research by Br¨uning (1922) gives support to the idea of a special connection between Olmos and Sechura suggested by oral tradition and the coincidence of weaving terminology. For a detailed discussion see Torero (1986), who ventures the idea that a Callahuaya-type situation may have existed in Olmos (cf. section 3.5). Finally, the linguistic unity of Olmos and Sechura–Tall´an is confirmed in an archival document of 1638 enumerating the administrative and religious divisions of the northern Peruvian coastal region (Ramos Cabredo 1950: 53–5). The original language situation in the interior highland part of the department of Piura with its centres Ayavaca and Huancabamba is difficult to reconstruct. Today its predominantly indigenous population is reported to be Spanish-speaking. During the colonial period Quechua may have been the dominant language in that area, as was 191
˜ reflects an inconsistency in Mart´ınez It may be assumed that the difference between -um˜ and -um Compa˜no´ n’s orthography.
3.9 Extinct and poorly documented languages
401
also the case further east in Tabaconas, in the area descending towards the Amazon (Torero 1993a), and in the Huambos area further south in the department of Cajamarca. A systematic investigation of place names and family names in eastern Piura remains a task for the future. Another well-attested language in northern Peru is Culli (or Culle). Culli was once the dominant language in the Andean hinterland of the coastal town of Trujillo. Its former area comprises four provinces of the department of La Libertad (Julc´an, Otuzco, Santiago de Chuco and S´anchez Carri´on), the province of Cajabamba (department of Cajamarca) and the province of Pallasca (department of Ancash). Pallasca was part of the colonial province of Conchucos, which also included Quechua-speaking areas in northern and eastern Ancash. The Culli translation of Conchucos is ‘water land’ (co˜n ‘water’, chuco ‘land’). The Mara˜no´ n river valley constituted the eastern border of the Culli-speaking area. To the southwest it bordered on the Quingnam language of the Trujillo coastal plain (see section 3.4). Further extensions of the Culli language in Ancash and Cajamarca, as well as the possibilities of overlap with other languages, are controversial. The main historical centre of the Culli-speaking people was the town of Huamachuco, now the capital of S´anchez Carri´on province. It was the seat of an important religious cult to the creator god Ataguju and the thunder god Catequil. In spite of violent persecution by the Incas, the Huamachuco cult was still vigorous when the Spaniards arrived. The Augustinian friars Juan de San Pedro and Juan del Canto, who soon after the conquest attempted to convert the local population, wrote a detailed account of local beliefs and customs, in which a Huamachuco language and several native names and terms are mentioned (Castro de Trelles 1992). Towards the end of the sixteenth century a travel account by Toribio de Mogrovejo, archbishop of Lima, of his visit to the area refers to a language called Linga or Ilinga (cf. Rivet 1949). Notwithstanding the fact that these terms seem to represent modified versions of lengua del Inga ‘language of the Inca’, the geographic setting indicates that only Culli could be meant. The earliest mention of the name Culli itself is found in the abovementioned document of 1638 published in Ramos Cabredo (1950). For a historical overview of the Culli language and its speakers see Silva Santisteban (1982). The primary sources for Culli are two word lists. One list of 43 words, referring to the Culli language of the province of Huamachuco, is found in Mart´ınez Compa˜no´ n (1985 [1782–90]), whereas the other was collected around 1915 in a hamlet called Aija near Cabana in the province of Pallasca by a local parish priest, father Gonz´alez. This list of 19 words was published in Rivet (1949: 4–5).192 In recent years, a number of students from the area (Flores Reyna 1996; Andrade Ciudad 1999; Cuba Manrique 2000; Pantoja 192
We have obtained the information concerning the place of origin of the Gonz´alez list from the field notes of Walter Lehmann, kept at the Ibero-American Institute in Berlin.
402
3 The Inca Sphere
Alc´antara 2000) have succeeded in expanding the lexical data base of the Culli language by collecting words and expressions still in use today. Flores Reyna reports that Culli was spoken by at least one family in the town of Tauca (Pallasca province) until the middle of the twentieth century. Although Culli has been replaced by Spanish, the possibility that speakers survive in remote villages cannot be ruled out entirely (cf. Adelaar 1988). The ethnolinguistic atlas published by Chirinos Rivera (2001) contains several mentions of municipalities in the Culli area for which the census of 1993 reports the existence of speakers of an unidentified native language. In spite of the extremely scanty data it is possible to tentatively determine a number of characteristics of the Culli language. In compounds a modifying element precedes the head, like in Quechua. Verb forms as given by Mart´ınez Compa˜no´ n all end in a suffix -`u ([u]∼ [w]), e.g. canqui`u ‘to laugh’, cˇ ollap`u ‘to die’ (see below for a possible interpretation of the diacritic on cˇ ). The language may have had prefixes for possessive personal reference considering the fact that several kinship terms feature an initial velar stop (viz. quin`u ‘father’, quimit ‘brother’, ca˜ni ‘sister’). Possibly, the same element is found in quiyaya, a form of ritual singing, which may contain the word yaya ‘god’.193 Like Quechua and Aymara, the language may have had a three-vowel system (a, i, u). The occurrence of mid vowels (e, o) is limited and seems to be favoured by the neighbourhood of c, qu, g, no matter if the latter occur in clusters or by themselves (e.g. mosˇca´ r ‘bone’, ogˇoll ‘child’, co˜n ‘water’; Quesquenda ‘a place name’). It suggests that the language may have had a velar–postvelar opposition, an assumption fed by the fact that Mart´ınez Compa˜no´ n often uses a haˇcek-style diacritic when c and g are adjacent to a mid vowel or a. Other instances of mid vowels (especially o) are found in the environment of r (e.g. in the place name Choroball) and in contexts in which vowel harmony appears to play a role (e.g. in Chochoconday, the name of a mountain). Variation between mid and high vowels is frequent in place names (e.g. Sanagor´an, Candigur´an; Corgorguida, Llaugueda). A characteristic feature of Culli is that the second member in a compound often begins with a voiced stop, producing internally dissimilar consonant clusters when the first member ends in a voiceless consonant (for instance, in place names such as Chiracbal and Ichocda). If the same element occurs independently or in initial position it has a voiceless stop. Compare, for instance, Chusg´on (a river name) and Conchucos (both containing the element con∼-gon ‘water’); also Parasive and Pushvara. Frequent endings of Culli place names are -day∼-tay ‘mountain’, -chugo∼-chuco ‘earth’, -gon∼-go˜n ‘water’, -gueda ∼-guida∼-queda ‘lake’, -gur´an∼-gor´an ‘river’, -pus ∼-pos ‘earth’; the elements 193
The analysis of qu(i)- as a prefix is, however, contradicted by the fact that some early Culli family names contain the element quino (Pantoja Alc´antara 2000). In addition, Torero (1989: 225) recognises the element quin`u in the divinity name paiguinoc ‘lord of the guinea-pigs’ mentioned in the Augustinian chronicle. Note also that quiyaya appears as quillalla in Mart´ınez Compa˜no´ n.
3.9 Extinct and poorly documented languages
403
-bal∼-ball, -bara∼-huara∼-vara, -chal, -da∼-ta, -gal∼-galli∼-calli, -ganda, -maca, -sicap∼-s´acap(e) ∼-ch´acap(e), all of undetermined meaning; and the borrowed elements -malca ‘village’ and -pamba ‘plain’ (from Quechua -marka and -pampa, respectively). For an extensive list of Culli place names see Torero (1989). Place names combining a Culli element with a Quechua or a Spanish element (Mumalca,194 Naopamba, Cruzmaca) are frequent and indicate that these languages must have coexisted for a considerable time. From a phonological point of view, it is possible to distinguish several dialect areas. Place names in the province of Pallasca and neighbouring parts of Santiago de Chuco exhibit endings with the palatal final consonants -˜n [ny ] and -ll [ly ] (e.g. Acogo˜n, Camball) whereas non-palatal endings appear elsewhere (e.g. Chusg´on, Marcabal). The distribution of palatal and non-palatal endings coincides with the geographical distribution of the lexical endings -day and -ganda as noted by Torero (1989: 226). The Culli word lists show a relatively high incidence of Quechua loans (e.g. aycha, Qu. ayˇca ‘meat’; challuˇa, Qu. cˇ aly wa ‘fish’; cuhi, Qu. kuˇsi ‘pleasure’). The item mi`u ‘to eat’ appears to reflect a hypothetical pre-Quechua *mi-, which can be reconstructed on the basis of modern Quechua miku- ‘to eat’ and miˇci- ‘to herd’. Other items, however, show no relationship with Quechua whatsoever and suggest that the language is genetically independent. Similarities with the Piuran languages and Mochica are also limited (cum`u, Col´an c˜um ‘to drink’; chuip, Catacaos chupuchup ‘star’; paihaˇc, Mochica pey ‘herb’). They may be due to contact. The department of Cajamarca has a dense, predominantly indigenous population. The accounts of colonial inspection visits (visitas) to this area (Remy and Rostworowski de Diez Canseco 1992) feature a wide variety of family names reflecting the existence of several unidentified languages. The toponymy is also highly varied and exotic. Nevertheless, only Quechua has survived in a small number of well-defined localities. Interestingly, Cajamarca Quechua (Quesada Castillo 1976a, b) contains a substantial amount of non-Quechuan vocabulary. In Pantoja Alc´antara’s study of the Culli linguistic heritage in the Spanish of Santiago de Chuco, an area quite distant from Cajamarca, the following correspondences between Santiago de Chuco Spanish and Cajamarca Quechua have come to light:
194
Santiago de Chuco Spanish
Cajamarca Quechua
cˇ ukake cˇ urgap(e) dasdas inam
sˇukaki cˇ urʁ ap dasdas inap
‘headache with nausea’ ‘cricket’ ‘hurry up!’ ‘rainbow’
The meaning of mu is ‘fire’; the other Culli elements have not been identified.
404
3 The Inca Sphere kaduly kunguly lambake mindz˙ o sˇayape sˇirak(e) udzˇ um
kaˇsul kulk´ul lambax. mundz˙ u .sˇayaϕ sˇirax. uˇsun
‘toasted maize’ ‘tadpole’ ‘tasteless’ ‘navel’ ‘a plant name’ ‘a plant name’ ‘(honey of) wild bee’
These and other examples suggest the existence of a Culli substratum in the area now covered by Cajamarca Quechua, in particular in the district of Chetilla, where some of the above items were recorded. A linguistic link between Cajamarca and the Culli area is explicitly mentioned by Cieza de Le´on (1553, chapter 81) when he observes that ‘the province of Huamachuco is similar to that of Cajamarca, and that the Indians have the same language and dress the same way’.195 However, in a careful analysis of Cajamarcan place names, Torero (1989) concludes that Culli could not have been the language of the department of Cajamarca because, apart from its southeasternmost province of Cajabamba, the characteristic Culli toponymy is not predominant there. Instead, he distinguishes two toponymical areas, each characterised by the frequent occurrence of a particular ending in place names, and takes them to have represented two hypothetical languages. One area, defined by the ending -den and its variants -don, -ten and -ton, covers the western and central highlands of the department of Cajamarca (including part of the newly formed province Gran Chim´u of the department of La Libertad), with eastward extensions reaching the river Mara˜no´ n to the north of Celend´ın and in the valley of the river Crisnejas. To the south the Chicama, Chuquillanqui and San Jorge rivers constitute a boundary separating the -den area from areas with typical Culli toponymy (cf. Krzanowski and Szemi´nski 1978). Torero associates the language represented by the -den area with the pre-Inca kingdom of Guzmango, which was centred in the province of Contumaz´a (southwest Cajamarca). Espinoza Soriano (1977: 449, 456) found three indigenous words in a report commissioned by a member of the Guzmango royal lineage, Sebasti´an Ninaling´on, curaca (chieftain) of Xaxad´en. According to Torero (1989: 232), these three words (nus ‘lady’, losque ‘young girl’, mizo ‘female servant’) are attributable to the -den language. Further research is needed in order to explain the contradiction between the absence of Culli place names in western Cajamarca and the presence of a sizeable amount of Culli lexicon in the Quechua of that same area.
195
‘La provincia de Guamachuco es semejable a la de Caxamalca y los indios son de una lengua y traje . . .’
3.9 Extinct and poorly documented languages
405
The second toponymical area, defined by the ending -cat(e) and its variants -cot(e), -gat(e) and -got(e), includes the town of Cajamarca and stretches out in a triangular shape towards the Mara˜no´ n river, covering parts of the provinces of Cajamarca, Celend´ın and San Marcos. It also includes a stretch of land in the northern provinces of Cutervo and Chota. As Torero observes, the ending -cat and its variants are found throughout most of northern Peru. The same holds for a few other endings occurring in the area at issue (-can, -con, -gan, -gon, -uran). It appears that the -cat area, as defined above geographically, is a toponymical default area characterised by a low incidence of -den endings and other recognisable toponymy (although there is a substantial cluster of Culli place names not far from Celend´ın). Torero (1989: 236–7) ventures the idea that -cat (∼-cot) may have had the meaning of ‘water’ or ‘river’. In that case, a further comparison with the Chol´on language of the Huallaga basin would be in order. Torero notes that the place name Salcot, which occurs at least three times in Cajamarca, is formally identical to Zalcot, a Chol´on village meaning ‘black water’ in that language. The Relaciones geogr´aficas de Indias (Jim´enez de la Espada 1965, III: 143–6) contain a document entitled Relaci´on de la tierra de Ja´en (Account of the Land of Ja´en). It offers a detailed description of the complex language situation in the area surrounding the bend of the Mara˜no´ n or Upper Amazon in the northern part of the present-day departments of Amazonas and Cajamarca. This document has been analysed in Rivet (1934) and in Torero (1993a). It registers the existence of a particular language called the language of Sacata. Other sources associate the people of Sacata (or Z´acata) with a well-organised ethnic group, the Chillao, who inhabited opposite banks of the Mara˜no´ n valley near Cujillo (province of Cutervo) and Yam´on (province of Utcubamba, Amazonas). Only three Sacata words are mentioned in the Relaci´on: unga ‘water’, umague ‘maize’ and chichache ‘fire’. On this basis Rivet proposed a relationship with the Candoshi languages, whereas Torero opts for an Arawakan connection. The factual basis is insufficient for either conclusion. The bottom of the Mara˜no´ n valley between the mouths of its tributaries Chamaya and Utcubamba, and the lower reaches of the valleys of these two rivers (province of Bagua, Amazonas; province of Cutervo, Cajamarca) were inhabited by an ethnic group called Bagua (Torero) or Patag´on de Bagua (Rivet). Three words of this language are mentioned: tuna ‘water’, lancho ‘maize’ and nacx´e ‘come here’. Although tuna coincides with the word for ‘water’ in many Cariban languages, the evidence is not sufficient to allow any reliable classification. The area of Old Ja´en, Perico and Tomependa (province of Bagua, Amazonas; province of Ja´en, Cajamarca) on the left bank of the Mara˜no´ n near its confluence with the Chinchipe was inhabited by a population called the Patag´on (or Patag´on de Perico in Rivet’s terminology). The four words that have been recorded, tun´a ‘water’, an´as ‘maize’, viue ‘firewood’ and coar´a ‘sheep’ (here to be interpreted as ‘sloth’), indicate
406
3 The Inca Sphere
a northern Cariban affinity, for instance, with Carijona or with one of the languages of the Roraima region (Torero 1993: 451). Another group, the Tabancale, inhabited the village of Aconipa in an elevated area near the upper reaches of the Chinchipe river, approximately in the border area of Ecuador (province of Zamora-Chinchipe) and Peru (province of San Ignacio, Cajamarca). Five words of their language have been recorded: yema ‘water’, moa ‘maize’, oyme ‘firewood’, lalaque ‘fire’ and tie ‘house’. Their language must remain unclassified because these words do not exhibit any significant affinity with other known languages. Still another unclassified language was spoken in the villages of Copall´en (today Copall´ın), Llanque and Las Lomas del Viento. They were situated on a plateau dominating the Utcubamba river east of Bagua (provinces of Bagua and Utcubamba, Amazonas). Of this language of Copall´en the following words have been recorded: quiet ‘water’, chumac ‘maize’, olaman ‘firewood’ and ismare ‘house’. Apart from a similarity between its word for ‘water’ and the element -cat treated above, nothing can be said about the genetic affinities of this language. The Chirino constituted one of the principal ethnic groups in the area, occupying parts of the valley of the Chinchipe river and a vast territory extending east of it. Their language has been identified as a member of the Candoshi family (Rivet 1934, Torero 1993a). The four words of this language that were recorded in the Relaci´on de la tierra de Ja´en are yungo ‘water’, yugato ‘maize’, xum´as ‘firewood’ and paxquiro ‘grass’. For the Jivaroan-speaking Xoroca see section 2.9.1. All the languages found in the region of Bagua and Ja´en in the sixteenth century disappeared at an early stage. The region north of the Mara˜no´ n is now partly occupied by Aguaruna and other Jivaroan peoples. The pre-Inca native peoples of the highlands of the department of Amazonas (capital Chachapoyas), situated east of the Mara˜no´ n river, were known as the Chachapoya. Impressive ruined cities such as Cu´elap and Gran Vilaya are witnesses of important past cultural developments in this remote area. After being conquered by the Incas, a large portion of the Chachapoya were taken away to other areas of the Inca empire, for instance, to the surroundings of Cuzco and Quito, whereas Quechua-speaking mitimaes were sent to the Chachapoyas region. The original language of the region is sometimes referred to as Chacha. It is nearly unknown, although some of its most conspicuous characteristics could be recovered from local place names and family names. Zevallos Qui˜nones (1966) collected several hundred Chachapoya family names from colonial documents. Taylor (1990a) has compared these names with present-day family names recorded by him in the Chachapoyas region. Several of the colonial names are still in use. As a result of transmigration, Chachapoya family names were also found in other parts of the former Inca empire, for instance, in Quito, where one Juan Yoplachacha was found among the Chachapoya mitimaes (Salomon 1986: 160); cf. the Chachapoya family name Yoplac. Taylor observes that many Chachapoya names are monosyllabic
3.9 Extinct and poorly documented languages
407
(Cam, Hob, Oc∼Occ, Sup, Yull). Others are formed by the repetition of a monosyllabic element (Pispis, Solsol), or consist of a combination of elements (Detquis´an, Subsolsol, Visalot). Voiced stops could occur word-initially (Det, Buelot, Gaslac), suggesting that there was an opposition between voiced and voiceless stops in that environment. Initial consonants often appear to be palatalised or velarised (for instance, in Guiop [gy op] and in the place name Cu´emal [kw e´ mal]), although an interpretation in terms of rising diphthongs is also possible. The only frequent non-rising diphthong was uy (e.g. Puyqu´ın). The language seems to have distinguished at least five vowels (a, e, i, o, u). Taylor reports that the pronunciation of some Chachapoya family names was modified due to the radical phonetic changes that affected the local Quechua that eventually replaced the Chachapoya language (and is now itself nearing extinction); for instance, the name Surueque or Zuruec became s´urix in Quechua. Only in a very few cases could the meaning of a name or of one of its constituents be traced. Taylor reports that the name Oc(c) [ox] may have meant ‘puma’ or ‘bear’ according to an oral tradition of the village of La Jalca. Frequent endings in place names are -huala, -lap(e) and -mal (e.g. Shucahuala, Cu´elap, Yulmal). Taylor tentatively interprets these elements as ‘mountain’, ‘fortress’ and ‘plain’ on the basis of the type of location they usually refer to. An additional ending -lon is mentioned by Torero (1989). Taylor, furthermore, notes the occurrence of the endings -gach(e), -gat(e) and -gote (e.g. Sh´ıngache, T´ongate), and suggests that these could mean ‘river’, ‘water’. Note the striking parallelism with Hibito kaˇci and Chol´on kot ‘water’, ‘river’ (cf. section 4.11.1), and remember the discussion of the hypothetical -cat language of Cajamarca. The extension of the Chachapoya language area is a matter that remains to be investigated. In the department of Amazonas it may have included the provinces of Bongar´a, Chachapoyas, Luya, Rodr´ıguez de Mendoza and part of Utcubamba. In addition, the language may well have been used in parts of Cajamarca, in the area of Bol´ıvar (ex-Cajamarquilla) in the department of La Libertad, and in the northwest and west of the department of San Mart´ın (where the ruins of Gran Pajat´en, located in a depopulated forest area, may have had connections with the ancient Chachapoya culture). The possibility of connections with Hibito–Chol´on, the language of Copall´en and the -cat language would be worth investigating if the data were not so scarce. 3.9.3 Northwestern Argentina In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the Andean region of northwestern Argentina was the home of a large ethnic group, the Diaguita, subdivided into numerous subtribes (Calchaqu´ı, Capay´an, Hualf´ın, Paccioca, Pular, Quilme). They occupied an extensive area, including the provinces of Catamarca and La Rioja and the Andean parts of the provinces of Salta and San Juan. They also inhabited parts of the pre-Andean provinces of
408
3 The Inca Sphere
Santiago del Estero and Tucum´an, which they shared with the Tonocot´e (cf. section 3.8). One of their most famous strongholds were the Calchaqu´ı valleys (Valles Calchaqu´ıes), which extend from north to south in the provinces of Salta, Tucum´an and Catamarca. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the name Diaguita was often used in a narrower sense, referring to the inhabitants of Catamarca and La Rioja but excluding the inhabitants of the Calchaqu´ı valleys. In a letter dated 1594 the Jesuit missionary Alonso de Barzana gives a detailed description of the ethnic situation in northwestern Argentina and of the languages that were spoken there (Jim´enez de la Espada 1965, II: 78–86). He reports that the language of the Diaguita was called Caca, a name subsequently modified to Kak´an. Barzana was the author of a grammar of the Kak´an language, which has not survived. Between 1630 and 1660, as a reaction to Spanish exploitation, the Diaguita united in a series of rebellions, headed in their final phase by an Andalucian adventurer Pedro Boh´orquez, who had assumed the title of ‘Inca’ (Piossek Prebisch 1976; Isabel Hern´andez 1992). After their defeat most of the Diaguita were deported to other areas. The Calchaqu´ı valleys were entirely depopulated. The Quilme tribe, which had fought particularly bravely, was relocated in what is now the town of Quilmes near Buenos Aires. Others were distributed as servants to Spanish colonists. Mainly as a result of these events, the Kak´an language soon became extinct. Although almost nothing is known of the Kak´an language, personal names and toponymy are well represented. For the names of chiefs participating in the Boh´orquez rebellion see Piossek Prebisch (1976: 109) or Isabel Hern´andez (1992: 160). Diaguita place names are found along the Andes in an area extending approximately from Jujuy to Mendoza; for an inventory see Mart´ın (1964). Lozano (1874–5) provides an explanation for some elements of frequent occurrence, such as the ending -ahaho∼ -ahao∼ -ao meaning ‘village’ or ‘town’, which usually follows the name of an ethnic subgroup or a chief (e.g. Anguinahao, Colalao, Luracatao). A further example of this ending is found in the place name Tuc(u)manaha(h)o, named after a chief who also gave his name to the town and province of Tucum´an (Nardi 1979: 11). Another ending meaning ‘village’ or ‘town’ is -gasta (e.g. in Antofagasta,196 Payogasta, Tinogasta). It is one of the most characteristic endings throughout the Argentinian northwest, but it has been attributed to Tonocot´e by Lozano. Whereas Mart´ın assigns the -gasta ending to southern Diaguita, Nardi (1979: 7) keeps open the possibility that it may indeed have been a borrowed element, because its area of distribution is wider than that of the Kak´an language alone. Serrano (1936) remarks that the endings -ao/-ahaho and -gasta often occur attached to
196
The Chilean town of Antofagasta, which dates from the middle of the nineteenth century, was presumably named after the old mining settlement Antofagasta de la Sierra, situated in the highlands (puna) of the province of Catamarca (Argentina).
3.9 Extinct and poorly documented languages
409
the same root (e.g. Amanao/Amangasta, Tucumanao/Tucumagasta), suggesting that the endings could have been switched at a certain point. A genuine Kak´an ending is -vil (e.g. in Quimivil, Yocavil), which appears to be related with notions like ‘water’. Nardi (1979) provides the most comprehensive overview of what we know about Kak´an. He observes that most of the colonial authors who had access to this language emphasise its guttural and ‘strangely difficult’ character. Kak´an probably had postvelar fricatives, both voiced and voiceless. This can be deduced from the fact that the Quechua dialect of Santiago del Estero has some vocabulary derived from a nonQuechuan substratum (probably Diaguita) in which these sounds occur (e.g. wax.alu ‘a type of ant’, oˇcoʁ o ‘an aquatic bird’). Many Diaguita names contain f (as in the place names Famatina and Cafayate; and in Ficpam, the name of a chief); palatal consonants (ˇc, sˇ, ly , ny ) are particularly frequent. The presence of r and a contrast between voiced and voiceless stops are both uncertain. The materials included in Nardi’s article show a low incidence of mid vowels, suggesting that the language may have had a three-vowel system like Aymara and Quechua. By combining all possible information Nardi managed to identify a few lexical items, such as ango/anco ‘water’, huilla ‘hare’, ismi ‘bird’, mampa ‘irrigation canal’, talca ‘guanaco’, tancol ‘arrow’ and zupca ‘place of sacrifice’ (mentioned in Lozano 1754–55, II: 295). He, furthermore, ventures the opinion that in Kak´an adjectives may have followed the noun they modify, as in Angualasto, the name of a river which today is called R´ıo Blanco (hypothetically, ango walasto ‘white water’). There is evidence that the Kak´an language was subdivided into dialects. The Capay´an variety of the La Rioja area has been mentioned as a separate language for which interpreters were needed (Cabrera 1917; Canals Frau 1946). Another dialect name, Yacampis, may have referred to the dialect of the Diaguita heartland in Catamarca or to that of the Calchaqu´ı valleys. Nardi (1979) holds the view that the differences between these varieties were only dialectal, although he admits the possibility of a division between a northern dialect including the Calchaqu´ı valleys and a southern dialect comprising most of Catamarca and La Rioja. According to tradition, the Diaguita domain extended into northern Chile covering the actual area of Copiap´o, Vallenar and La Serena in the regions of Atacama and Coquimbo. A town in the valley of Elqui still bears the name of Diaguita. However, the first Spanish visitors to the area found a great linguistic variety on their journey southward through northern Chile. Ger´onimo de Bibar (1558), the chronicler of Pedro de Valdivia’s Chilean expedition, reports that the inhabitants of the valleys of Copiap´o and Huasco (Atacama region) spoke closely related languages, but that the Indians of Coquimbo and Limar´ı (Coquimbo region) each had their own languages. The Chilean Diaguita have left very few traces, even in the toponymy. In the extreme northwest of Argentina, in the western parts of the provinces of Jujuy and Salta, a presence of the Atacame˜no language and culture is attested. Local
410
3 The Inca Sphere
groups are known as Apatama, Casabindo, Churumata and Cochinoca. The Quebrada de Humahuaca, a valley which crosses the heart of Jujuy province from north to south, is believed to have had its own language (Loukotka 1968), which is usually referred to as Humahuaca (or Omaguaca). There is hardly any linguistic information on this group, which apparently was subdivided into several smaller units called Fiscara, Jujuy, Ocloya, Osa, Purmamarca and Tiliar (Isabel Hern´andez 1992: 127). The name of Viltipoco, the ruler of Tilcara, who resisted the Spaniards in the sixteenth century, and the local surname Vilte suggest a connection with the Atacame˜no language. In Atacame˜no bilti means ‘falcon’.
4 The languages of the eastern slopes
As the alter ego of Mario Vargas Llosa strolls through Florence, trying to put all matters Peruvian out of his mind in order to read Machiavelli and Dante, he stumbles onto an exhibit of dusty photographs of the Machiguenga. In El hablador (The Speaker; 1987), documentary and novel, this nation plays a central role, one of the countless groups of Indians struggling in small bands on the eastern foothills of the Andes and on the Amazonian plains, in order to maintain their cultural and linguistic integrity. This chapter will try to give a necessarily brief account of the very diverse languages of these groups. Since it is impossible to say precisely where the slopes and foothills end and where the plains begin, we artificially delimit the area discussed in this chapter as the republics of Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia east of the Andes. The Chaco area of southeastern Bolivia extends into western Paraguay and into northwestern Argentina, and these are included as well. The Chaco languages are not covered by Dixon and Aikhenvald (1999). For these reasons, we include some material on all of the Chaco languages, even though they merit a more extensive separate treatment. Strictly speaking, this means that too many languages are included: languages of the Amazonian plains cannot properly be called Andean. On the other hand, it turns out that Quechua influence, one of the topics we will be concerned with in this chapter, extends far beyond the foothills. Another not altogether felicitous result of our delimitation is that the Colombian Amazonian plain, which forms a natural continuation of that of Ecuador and Peru, is not discussed here (it was dealt with in chapter 2). A. C. Taylor (1999: 198–9) describes some of the relations that existed between monta˜na and sierra cultures. Most of these were broken as a result of the colonisation process, and highland and lowland groups grew apart. In pre-Columbian times, Cochabamba (in what is now Bolivia) and Hu´anuco (in what is now Peru) served as trading centres for lowland groups. In northern Bolivia the Callahuaya chiefdoms acted as intermediaries between Quechua and Aymara cazicazgos and lowland Mojo, Tacana, and lesser Arawak groups. In Peru, the Campa of the Ucayali river established links with interfluvial Panoans and with the Piro on the Urubamba. The Incas had an open frontier,
A
R
QUECHUA
U
añ ar M
U
AC
P
ón
N
A
CHOLÓN(†)
HIBITO(†)
Chachapoyas
QUECHUA SENSI(†)
CAPANAHUA
ya l
R.
SHIPIBO
PÁNOBO(†)
PIRO
Moyobamba
U
YAGUA
MAYO
OMAGUA(†)
MAYORUNA
YAMEO(†)
COCAMA
URARINA
HUITOTO
COCAMA
B
Amazon R.
TICUNA
OCAINA MUINANE OREJÓN
BORA
. Putumayo R HUITOTO MURUI RESÍGARO
Iquitos
IQUITO
CAHUARANO
JEBERO CHAMICURO MUNICHE
E
TEKIRAKA(†)
R
MAYNA(†)
CHAYAHUITA
S
QUECHUA
TAUSHIRO
CANDOSHI
HUAMBISA
R.
C O L O M B I A
EC ARABELA HU ANDOA(†) A
HUAO
ZÁPARO
QUECHUA
Nap o
Uca
Map 7 Eastern lowland languages: Ecuador and northern Peru
Cajamarca
Cuenca
Guayaquil
Piura
QUECHUA
COFÁN TETETÉ (†) SIO NA SIONA SECOY A
ECUADOR
TSAFIKI
Quito
CHA′PALAACHI
R
SH
A
R
U
UA
H
.
U
AG
Q
Huallag aR
YA
R
O
L
I
E C
. iR
Z
A
4 Languages of the eastern slopes
413
ISCONAHUA
. nR
ASHÁNINCA
R.
BO SHI CA
yali U ca
ó añ ar
. aR llag
Q
CULINA MARINAHUA SHARANAHUA CASHINAHUA
E C
H UA
YANESHA′ Perené R . ASHÁNINCA NO
E CAMPA CAQUINTE
IÑAPARI
UAMAHUACA
NAHUA Puerto KUGAPACORI Maldonado MACHIGUENGA MASHCOESE'EJJA PIRO PIRO m HARAKMBUT b
ba
Ap
ur
im
ac
aR .
R.
Cuzco
V
Ayacucho
R PIRO
Ur u
A G EN U
Lima
P
MA TS IG
YAMINAHUA
A
U
AMAHUACA
I
M
a Hu
B R A Z I L
SHIPIBO
Pucallpa
L
I
Q U E C H UA
A
O
R
B
A
AY
M
Lake Titicaca
CHILE
Map 8 Eastern lowland languages: southern Peru
stimulating links of dependency of local chieftains with Cuzco, but leaving local links intact. As a result of the colonisation process, all these links were weakened considerably or disappeared altogether. The population of the lowlands is sparse, and far from homogeneous sociologically. Taylor (1999: 194–5) divides the current population into racionales (‘rational people’, mestizos or highland Indians who have abandoned their original ethnic identity), nativos ‘natives’ or mansos ‘tame people’ (Amerindian groups living in accessible settlements but maintaining their ethnic identity), and aucas ‘wild, inimical people’ (groups who maintain a distance from the mestizo world).
414
4 Languages of the eastern slopes
B
R
A
Z
I
L
éR
.
.
Ben iR
TOROMONA
or
CHÁCOBO
MORÉ
ITONAMA
CAVINEÑA
JORÁ
CAYUVAVA TACANA
REYESANO
CANICHANA
MOVIMA
MOJO
Lake Titicaca
La Paz
or é
MOSETÉN
BAURE
SIRIONÓ
. lR gue Mi San
LECO
Trinidad Mam
CHIMANE
R.
NA . ER guá R US Pana PA
P E R U
ARAONA
ap
. ios R de D e dr ESE'EJJA
Gu
M a
PACAGUARA
GUARAYO
B O L I V I A YURACARÉ YUQUI
Cochabamba
Santa Cruz
CHIQUITANO
Sucre
AYOREO
C
CHANÉ CHIRIGUANO
H
MATACO TAPIETÉ
PA R A G U AY
I L
E
A R G E N T I N A
Map 9 Eastern lowland languages: Bolivia
C
E
L
I
H
A
O
R
L
V
H
IR
G
I O
AN
GU CHOROTE CHULUPÍ
E N T
rm
I
Be
TAPIETÉ
A
O NO AC UA AT G M I
Orán
Salta
C
I
ejo
N
R.
PI
ANGAITÉ SANAPANÁ
TOBAMASCOY
R.
VÍ O
Resistencia
VILELA
Paraná R.
TOBA
Asunción
EMOK TOBA
LENGUA
L A Pilcom ay MAKÁ G o
A
GUANÁ
MAKÁ
MBYÁ
ACHÉ MBYÁ
CHIRIPÁ
˜ PAI-TAVYTERÃ
B R A Z I L
PARAGUAY
CHULUPÍASHLUSHLAY
CHOROTE
CHAMACOCO
AYOREO
G
CHIR I
Map 10 Eastern lowland languages: the Chaco area
B
MO C
ANÍ
O
Á
UA R
C TA MA guay R. Para
416
4 Languages of the eastern slopes
B. Grimes (1996) lists 111 documented languages for the area (excluding for the moment lowland varieties of Quechua, sign languages, Low German and Amazon Spanish). Twenty-one languages were claimed to be extinct in 1992, some more may have disappeared as we write this, and more yet when this book comes out in print. The number of languages listed is somewhat arbitrary in that it is difficult to say where two varieties should be counted as dialects, and where as separate languages. The Ethnologue uses both criteria of linguistic distinctiveness and of ethnic self-identification. We see no reason not to follow these criteria, although in details we will diverge from the list of languages given there. In any case, it is clear we are dealing with large numbers of languages. ‘No other area of South America has greater linguistic diversity’, Steward (1948: 507) writes. There are a few larger language families represented in the area under consideration, a number of language families with few identified members and numerous language isolates. We will begin by presenting the major language families that are represented in the area, and then turn to the numerous language isolates or languages which so far have not been definitively classified. We have chosen four languages for a more detailed sketch: the Jivaroan language Shuar from the Ecuadorian–Peruvian border area, the almost extinct isolate Chol´on from the Andean foothills in northern Peru, Arawakan Yanesha (Amuesha) further to the south, and the Bolivian language isolate Chiquitano. For all languages sufficient information is available to gain some idea of the language, but no recent and easily accessible detailed description in English. It is difficult to convey to the reader the feeling of devastation and loss one has when reading about the cultures and languages of the eastern slopes and the Amazon. Although a sizeable portion of the original ethnic groups is still in existence, in some form or another, their way of life has changed enormously. Since the armies of Inca Tupac Yupanqui (1473–92) tried to conquer Madre de Dios and more northern lowland regions, the vast but ecologically delicate Amazon basin has been under constant siege from the highlands, with greater and greater success. From the 1540s onwards Jesuits, Franciscans and Dominicans founded missions, and tried to ‘reduce’ the Indians, nomadic or dispersed, into ordered settlements on the European model. In the reducciones, ‘reductions’, as the Spanish friars called the settlements, different Indian nations were mixed; sometimes new groups emerged. The greater concentration lead to greater ease of ‘benign’ exploitation by the missionaries, but also to greater vulnerability to epidemics; successive waves of smallpox for example in 1660, 1669, 1756 and 1762 decimated many groups (Phelan 1967: 47). In 1768 only 500 Chamicuro survived a smallpox epidemic on the Huallaga river (Chirif and Mora 1977); another group that suffered greatly from the epidemics are the Z´aparo. A. C. Taylor (1999: 240) claims that ‘the Indian societies of the central selva and further south were in fact infinitely better able to resist the colonist missionary onslaught than those in the reducciones, even to
4 Languages of the eastern slopes
417
the point of being able, between 1742 and 1770, to clear the region of all non-natives’. The Franciscans in that area in the early stages weakened indigenous societies less than the Jesuits, because they tended to keep the groups contacted much more isolated than the Jesuits. Some groups were also subject to raids by other Indians. In the eighteenth century the Arawakan Piro sold Machiguenga (also Arawakan) women and children on the market in the Spanish hacienda Santa Rosa in Rosalino. The Piro and the Shipibo–Conibo (Pano) enslaved many Amahuaca as well. Other Indian nations suffered from the colonial wars between the Portuguese and the Spanish. The Omagua, who fell victim to Portuguese slave-raiders, went from 15,000 to 7,000 in the forty years after 1641 (Chirif and Mora 1977). Later strife between the Peruvian and Colombian armies affected the Huitoto Murui. All these earlier assaults on their physical and cultural integrity pale, however, when compared to the effects of the rubber boom in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Fawcett 1953; Taussig 1987). Rubber traders and companies enslaved many Indians, and resettled entire groups. The number of deaths is staggering. The Huitoto Murui went from 50,000 to 7,000 in the first decade of this century, the Bora from 15,000 in 1915 (Whiffen 1915) to 427 in 1940, and of the thousands of Omagua only 120–50 were left in 1925. Other groups gravely affected by the rubber boom are the Andoque, the Capanahua, the Amarakaeri and the Ese ejja. After 1850 the Peruvian Corporation enslaved many Campa and Yanesha (Amuesha) on the rivers Ene and Peren´e. Many Chamicuro were dislocated, transported to the Yavar´ı and Napo rivers and to Brazil. Since this period groups have managed for a considerable period at best to remain stable or increase slightly in number. In the modern era, Andean governments have often thought that the ‘empty’ spaces in the lowlands would be able to absorb the overflow from the highlands, and promoted resettlement and ‘colonisation’ in the traditional Indian territories. Mineral, logging and cattle-breeding companies have gained large concessions and employ the local Indians in highly unfavourable conditions. Adventurous highland settlers have profited from the isolation of many regions to establish themselves as patr´on and recreate conditions of virtual slavery through artificial indebtedness, forced barter and plain violence. There are many cases documented where the Indians, part of a hunting/extraction economy, depend on the outsiders and are for example forced to supply a fixed number of skins. It is reported that the Amarakaeri work for outsiders looking for gold (Gray 1986). For the dependency of the Yagua on tourism and other external forces see Chaumeil (1984). In some areas these conditions have long persisted, for instance, in the area of Atalaya. Now tribal groups have gained some rights to their territories there (Garc´ıa, Hvalkof and Gray 1998). It is one of the great challenges of our era to create the conditions under which cultural pluralism can thrive, when no physical means of refuge is left.
418
4 Languages of the eastern slopes
A. C. Taylor (1999: 204–5) argues that the locations of individual groups have not changed a great deal, but other changes are massive. In the sixteenth century the Amerindian societies were much more diversified sociologically than they are now. There were a number of highly Incanised tribes, such as the upland Jivaroans (cf. section 3.9.1), but also J´ıvaro who lived in small bands in the jungle. There were groups like the Z´aparo and interfluvial Pano that lived in small units and had no complex social structure next to large riverside groups like the Conibo and Omagua. A general issue of considerable interest that needs careful study is the role of the respective sign languages in the Amazon basin. Nordenski¨old (1912: 315–21) reports for the Gran Chaco, the border area between Bolivia and Paraguay, that within the mestizo Spanish communities the deaf had a marginal position while in the Indian communities they were fully integrated. The reason is the very different status of the respective sign languages. The Tapiet´e, the example he uses, obligatorily express numbers and measures through signs, and in their narratives, sign accompanies the spoken word continuously. All members of the group can use sign with the deaf, and hearing Tapiet´e will often use sign language among themselves, for example when they want to communicate silently across a distance. Not all travellers, collectors and researchers were as careful and unbiased as Nordenski¨old, who provides five pages of description of the Tapiet´e signs, but reports of gestural communication abound. The reason we cannot deal with this issue any further is lack of systematic study. 4.1 The Pano–Tacanan languages The Pano–Tacanan language family is mostly spoken in the Peruvian lowlands, and to a lesser extent in contiguous areas of Brazil and Bolivia. In Bolivia, Panoan languages include Ch´acobo, Pacaguara and Yaminahua; and Tacanan languages: Araona, Cavine˜na, Ese ejja or Huarayo, Reyesano (a language virtually extinct), Tacana and Toromona. The Tacanan branch is represented in Peru by Ese ejja or Huarayo speakers on either side of the Bolivian border. The Panoan branch is spread out throughout the eastern Peruvian lowlands and, in particular, near the Ucayali river basin, with extensions along the Brazilian border both in the northern department of Loreto and the southern departments of Ucayali and Madre de Dios. As d’Ans (1970) and Kensinger (1985) explain, there is no consensus as to which Panoan languages have to be distinguished. Shell and Wise (1971) observe that speakers of different Panoan languages may partly understand each other but that Cashibo is not intelligible to speakers of other Panoan languages. Wise (1985) mentions the following extant Panoan languages in Peru: Amahuaca, Capanahua, Cashibo– Cacataibo, Cashinahua, Cujare˜no, Isconahua, Mayoruna, Morunahua, Parquenahua or Nahua, Pisabo, Sharanahua, Shipibo–Conibo–Shetebo and Yaminahua. The Ethnologue adds Mayo, which is reported extinct by Wise (1985). Varese (1983) also mentions
4.1 The Pano-Tacanan languages
419
Marinahua and Mastanahua. Kensinger (1985) reports that they constitute a mixed group with the Sharanahua. Chirif and Mora (1977) mention a small group called Chandinahua. Amahuaca, Cashinahua, Mayoruna and Yaminahua are spoken in Brazil as well. Many Panoan groups were contacted in the eighteenth century. The Cashibo were first visited by missionaries in 1757. Around 1870 the Pachitea river Cashibo were subject to attacks by the Setebo and the Conibo (Chirif and Mora 1977). The Panoan languages are all closely related, and have been the subject of a number of comparative studies by d’Ans (1970), Kensinger (1985), Shell and Wise (1971) and Wise (1985). In Key (1968) and Girard (1971) the Tacanan languages are compared phonologically and cognate sets are given for this subfamily, some members of which appear to be rather closely related. These sources also present convincing phonological evidence for the link between the Tacanan and the Panoan branches. Girard (1971: 4, 145) stresses the puzzling fact that phonological changes in lexical roots have been limited within both the Panoan and Tacanan branches, but that morphological changes, particularly in the ‘root extensions’, have been radical. This pattern points to an interesting early contact phase in these language groups. For many of the language groups in the monta˜na little is known about their history. Lathrap (1970) speculates that the split in the Panoan groups resulted from demographic pressures. While all Panoan groups presumably originate from the Cumancaya culture (around AD 1000), we now find the Shipibo–Conibo being settled along the Ucayali river basin, with an enriched culture (which also includes culture elements borrowed from the Tup´ıan Cocama). The Cashibo have been pushed into forest regions to the west and the Amahuaca, Remo and Mayoruna into areas to the east, and their present culture (as far as ceramics and other visual manifestations is concerned) is an impoverished version of that found a millennium ago. As far as information is available, the Panoan and Tacanan languages appear to be all SOV. From Loos’s (1969) grammatical analysis of Capanahua it becomes clear that it has postpositions and prenominal possessors. The position of the adjectives and other modifiers is less clear: both prenominal and postnominal adjectives are mentioned. There appears to be a validator or mood particle (glossed ‘affirmative’ here) in surface second position, which can be preceded by the subject, the object, an adverb or even the untensed verb. (1) a. mani ta how-ti-ʔʔ-ki banana AF ripe-TF-PN-AF ‘The bananas are ripening.’ b. mani ta ʔ n his-i banana AF 1.SG see-PN ‘I see bananas.’
(Loos 1969: 91)
(Loos 1969: 91)
420
4 Languages of the eastern slopes c. baʔʔkiˇs ta koka ka-no-ˇs.iʔʔi-ki tomorrow AF uncle go-F.EU-IU-AF ‘Uncle will go tomorrow.’ d. bana ta ʔ n ha-ipi-ki plant AF 1.SG do-RE-AF ‘I planted.’
(Loos 1969: 91)
(Loos 1969: 91)
That the mood particle or validator occurs after the true first element of the clause becomes evident when an (emphatic) first- or second-person pronoun is placed in initial position. It is repeated in the clause, and thus it seems that the emphatic pronoun is left-dislocated: (2) mia taʔʔ min ʔ ani-ki 2.SG.EM AF 2.SG big-AF ‘YOU are big.’
(Loos 1969: 92)
The relation between ta(ʔ) and the particle -ki, which also has affirmative value, needs further study. In the present tense -ki is obligatory with third-person subjects, but not with first- and second-person subjects. In other tenses -ki is found with all persons (Loos and Loos 1998: 34). A remarkable feature of Capanahua concerns recursive negation with ma of a deictic pronoun: (3) ha: ha:-ma ha:-ma-ma ha:-ma-ma-ma
‘he’ ‘not he’ ‘not not he’ (= he indeed) ‘not not not he’ (= someone else)
(Loos 1969:41)
There is a set of adverbial subordinating suffixes (attached to the clause-final verb), sensitive to the relation between the tenses of the adverbial clause and the main clause, to possible coreference of the subjects (switch-reference), and to possible transitivity of the matrix verb (Loos 1969: 67–77; Loos and Loos 1998: 660–3).1 (4) -kin -ton
1
simultaneous action (‘while’) same subject simultaneous action (‘while’) subject of subordinate clause is object of main clause
The resemblance between some of the Capanahua suffixes and their counterparts in Chipaya is striking (cf. section 3.6): Cap. -kin / Ch. -kan ‘simultaneous; same subject’; Cap. -ton / Ch. -tan ‘simultaneous and previous, respectively; different subjects’; Cap. -non / Ch. -nan ‘subsequent and simultaneous, respectively; different subjects’.
4.1 The Pano-Tacanan languages -ya -ʔʔaˇs.
-ˇs.on
-noˇs.on -non
421
simultaneous action (‘while’, ‘when’, ‘if’, ‘because’) different subjects preceding action (‘after’, ‘when’, ‘if’, ‘because’) same subject matrix verb intransitive preceding action (‘after’, ‘when’, ‘if’, ‘because’) same subject matrix verb transitive subsequent action (‘in order to’) same subject subsequent action (‘so that’) different subjects
A curious fact concerning switch-reference in Capanahua is that the subject of the matrix verb in a switch-reference construction cannot be a full pronoun. The latter can only occur in the subordinate clause, as shown by the contrast in (5): (5) a. ∗ ka-ʔʔaˇs. ha: nokoti go-SS 3.SG arrive b. ha: ka-ʔʔaˇs. nokoti 3.SG go-SS arrive ‘Having gone he arrived.’
(Loos 1969: 88)
Often Capanahua utterances consist primarily of a verb with its suffixes. Verbs may be marked as transitive with the (often causative) suffixes -ha, -n and -tan, and there is a suffix -kʔt / -()ʔt that makes a verb medial or reflexive in nature (Loos 1969: 143–7). There is also an extensive set of tenses. According to Loos, both for the past and for the future, a four-way distinction is made: (6) remote past recent past present immediate future near future distant future remote future
x > 6 months 6 months > x > 1 month 1 month > x > 1 day 1 day > x > present x = present present < x < few hours x = tonight, tomorrow morning tomorrow < x x = some time in the future
(Loos 1969: 28)
Valenzuela (2000a, b) has explored ergative splits in the Pano–Tacanan languages. Camp (1985) shows how noun/pronoun contrasts, and among the personal pronouns, person
422
4 Languages of the eastern slopes
contrasts, determine ergative and absolutive case in Cavine˜na. When a third-person subject interacts with a first- or second-person object, as in the independent clause in (7), the third person is obligatorily ergative: (7) ya-ce-ra hipe-etibe-ya-hu ta-ce-ra ya-ce isara-ca-kw are 1-D-E approach-on.way.back-PN-DS 3-D-E 1-D(A) greet-arriving.object-RM ‘As we approached them, they greeted us.’ (Camp 1985: 44–5) Similarly, when a second-person subject interacts with a first-person object, that second person is obligatorily ergative: (8) riya-ke wekaka mi-ra e-kw ana isara-nuka-wa this-which day 2.SG-E 1-PL(A) greet-again-RE ‘Today you spoke to us again.’
(Camp 1985: 45)
Guillaume (2000) is currently studying Cavine˜na from the perspective of spatial deixis. 4.2 The Arawakan languages The Arawakan language family, also referred to as Maipuran (David Payne 1991a), has a wide distribution in many areas of Central and South America. A. C. Taylor (1999: 205) observes that Arawakans lived in a fringe extending from the Pampas del Sacramento in the central Peruvian forest area to the Bolivian llanos. This fringe was broken by the Harakmbut and by Tacanan peoples. Taylor points at the variety in lifestyle among the Arawak, which included monta˜na people (e.g. the Amuesha or Yanesha ), riverside dwellers (e.g. the Piro), atomised small groups, such as the Machiguenga, and wellorganised chiefdoms, such as the Mojos. There was extensive trading between different groups. Taylor also includes the Panatagua, an extinct group of central Peruvian monta˜na dwellers among the Arawakans. However, the linguistic affiliation of the Panatagua has never been established with certainty. The Arawak family is represented in Bolivia by the Mojo language, which is split into two subgroups identified by their ancient mission names, Ignaciano and Trinitario (Olza Zubiri et al. 2002). A second Arawakan language is Baure. David Payne (1991b) has shown that Apolista or Lapachu, a nearly extinct language which has been reported by Monta˜no Arag´on (1987–9) as still spoken, should also be classified as Arawakan. The Chan´e, another Arawakan group, subjugated to the Tupi–Guaran´ı Chiriguano of the Argentinian–Bolivian border area, preserved its language until the twentieth century. Some smaller Arawakan groups (Paunaca, etc.) were incorporated by the Chiquitano. Very close to the Andes in Peru we find Campa, Machiguenga and Yanesha . The Yanesha have a history of frequent contacts with members of other groups; they live
4.2 The Arawakan languages
423
Table 4.1 The relationship between the Arawakan languages of the pre-Andean area (based on Payne 1991a, b) Northern
Apolista Baniva–Yavitero Caribbean North Amazon
Western
Amuesha Chamicuro Parecis-Saraveca Bolivia-Paran´a Campa Piro–Apurin˜a
Central Southern
Apolista Baniva del Guain´ıa, Yavitero Guajiro, Paraujano Achagua, Cabiyar´ı, Curripaco, Maipure, Piapoco, Res´ıgaro, Tariana, Yucuna Amuesha Chamicuro Saraveca Baure, Guan´a (Chan´e), Mojo (Ignaciano, Trinitario) Ash´eninca, Machiguenga Piro, I˜napari
near the Cerro de la Sal, a site of traditional pilgrimages and trade. From 1635 onward they were in contact with the Franciscans, and in 1742 there was the rebellion of Juan Santos Atahuallpa, which led to the chasing away of the missions (Varese 1968). In 1881 the Franciscans returned. Taylor (1999: 241) argues that the Campa and Yanesha were less dependent on the highlands for metal tools because they had their own forges. Campa is subdivided into several subgroups, the largest being called Ash´aninca and Ash´eninca. Chirif and Mora (1977) mention a small group split off from the Machiguenga called Kugapakori or Pucapacuri. A fourth Arawakan language in the southeastern lowland is Piro, described by Matteson (1965). Campa and Piro are spoken in Brazil as well. The remaining Arawakan languages in eastern Peru are I˜napari (in Madre de Dios), Chamicuro and Res´ıgaro (both in Loreto). The latter two have also undergone profound phonological change. Speakers of Res´ıgaro live near the Bora and Huitoto along the Colombian border. There are no Arawakan languages spoken in Ecuador. The Arawakan language family is one of the best-studied families in the area. Partly based on earlier work of Wise and other scholars, David Payne (1991a) has managed to reconstruct a large number of features of this language family, and put its internal classification on a sounder footing. For the area under consideration the relationship between the different Arawakan languages is as in table 4.1. This is a fairly conservative grouping. It may be that southern and western Arawakan are closer than is apparent from this classification. David Payne speculates that Proto-Arawakan was highly agglutinative, with a set of person prefixes (both on nouns and verbs) and a third-person-singular gender distinction. There are also noun class suffixes, and a number of valency-changing verbal elements are suffixal. We will not enter into a detailed discussion here of the typological characteristics of the Arawakan languages, referring the reader to David Payne (1991a) and the work cited there, and for syntactic properties to Derbyshire (1986) and Wise (1986). Wise
424
4 Languages of the eastern slopes
Table 4.2 Yanesha (Amuesha) phoneme inventory (based on Fast 1953 and Duff-Tripp 1998)∗
Voiceless stops Voiced stops Affricates Voiceless fricatives Voiced fricatives Nasals Lateral Vibrant Glides
Mid Low ∗
Labial
Palatal labial
p b
py
Dental
Palatal
t
ty
c s
cˇ sˇ
Retroflex
Velar
Palatal velar
k
ky
by
m
my
n
ny ly
cˇ. x γ
zˇ.
r w
y
Front
Central
Back
e
(ə) a
o
Yanesha vowels can be plain, long (a:, e:, o:), aspirated (ah , eh , oh ), or glottalised (aʔ , eʔ , oʔ ).
stresses the highly verb-centred character of the Arawakan clause, and surmises that the original word order of the family was SOV, while now various orders are found, including for the area under study SOV, VSO and OVS. However, the special status of Yanesha , also called Amuesha (Wise 1976), as a language strongly influenced by Quechua, warrants a more detailed presentation. This case shows how far-reaching Quechua influence has been on some neighbouring monta˜na languages. Not only has Yanesha adopted a great many Quechua loans, including some core vocabulary, and the numerals from ‘six’ to ‘nine’, but it has also developed, for all practical purposes, a three-vowel system like Quechua instead of the four-vowel system of related Arawak varieties such as Campa. Furthermore, it has adopted a retroflex palatal affricate c.ˇ , according to Wise, from central Peruvian Quechua varieties such as Jun´ın, Pasco or Hu´anuco. Finally, it does not allow the vowel sequences common in related Arawak varieties but impossible in Quechua. The phonological changes in Yanesha had made it difficult for earlier researchers to classify the language as Arawak (Wise 1976). 4.2.1 Yanesha phonology The consonant inventory of Yanesha is given in table 4.2. It is based on Duff-Tripp (1998), which builds on Fast (1953) and Duff (1957). These two sources present a threevowel system for the language, which is expanded to four vowels in Duff-Tripp (1998). The Yanesha texts available indicate that the overwhelming majority of words involve
4.2 The Arawakan languages
425
the three vowels a, e, o. These vowels occur in different phonation types: they can be plain, long, aspirated, or glottalised.2 A central feature of the consonant inventory is the systematic opposition of palatal and non-palatal stops. A word series as in (9) illustrates vowel length and glottalisation, as well as the opposition between palatal, alveolar and retroflex affricates: (9) cˇ op cˇ. o:p ty o:p coʔ ty oʔ 4.2.2
‘it grows’ ‘corn’ ‘an insect’ ‘fire’ ‘grandfather’
(Fast 1953: 192)
The principal grammatical features of Yanesha
Nominal elements There is no grammaticalised gender in Yanesha , but a number of kinship terms are indeed differentiated for natural gender. Words for brother and sister and son and daughter are also differentiated for the gender of Ego (po- ∼ pw e- is a possessive prefix; the variation is dialectal; some nouns take paʔ - or poʔ - instead; cf. Duff-Tripp 1997: 144): (10) a. paʔ -moʔ naˇseny p-oʔ cˇ. poʔ -se paʔ -moʔ neˇz. b. po-ˇcemer, pw e-ˇcemer po-ˇcoyor, pw e-ˇcoyor poʔ -seny
‘his brother’ ‘his sister’ ‘her brother’ ‘her sister’ ‘his son, daughter’ ‘her son, daughter’ ‘his daughter’, ‘his/her niece (by sibling of same sex)’ (Duff-Tripp 1997: 25, 31, 33)
There are compounds with the nucleus at the end: (11) a. sˇony ker-(e)po worm-time ‘season of the worms’ b. aˇsoʔ sˇ-esmeʔ ly armadillo-tail ‘armadillo tail’
2
(Duff-Tripp 1997: 25)
Vowel length and aspiration are not systematically indicated in Duff-Tripp (1997, 1998).
426
4 Languages of the eastern slopes
Some compounds have a non-nominal initial element: (12) a. ataˇz.-poʔ big-house ‘big house’ b. anoˇz.-pw ec sit-place ‘a place to sit’
(Duff-Tripp 1997: 38)
Personal reference Prefixal person marking in Yanesha can refer to possessors, objects, and subjects. The paradigm is as in (13) (Duff-Tripp 1997: 29): (13) nepepo/pw e-
1.SG 2.SG 3.SG
yesepo-/pw e- .. -et
1.PL 2.PL 3.PL
Notice that this system has been considerably simplified when compared to the Proto-Arawakan system reconstructed by David Payne: (14)
∗
nup∗ l∗ h t u∗
1.SG 2.SG 3.SG.MS 3.SG.FE
∗
wahi∗ na∗
1.PL 2.PL 3.PL (David Payne 1991a: 376)
When the prefix is a possessor, there may be suffixal person marking on the enclitic element ‘to be’. (15) no-pakly -oʔ -ce:n-en 1P.SG-house-L-be-1S.SG ‘I am/was in my house.’
(Wise 1986: 571)
The paradigm for this suffixal marking is as follows: (16) -Vn -Vpy /-Vp ∅
1.SG 2.SG 3.SG
-Vy -Vs -et
1.PL 2.PL 3.PL
(Duff-Tripp 1997: 41)
The nature of the vowel in these suffixes is determined by phonological characteristics of the base word. Notice the close link between these suffixes and the prefix paradigm in (13). When the possessor is not the original possessor of a noun, double prefixal marking can occur:
4.2 The Arawakan languages (17) no-paʔ -smeʔ ly -o:r 1P.SG-3P.SG-tail-RL ‘my tail (which I have obtained from some animal)’
427
(Wise 1986: 575)
With respect to possession, four classes of nouns must be distinguished (Duff-Tripp 1997: 30–5): (18) a. possessive marking obligatory (basic kinship terms such as ‘sister’ and ‘daughter’ and elements that always form part of a whole): pw e-setmaʔ ty 3P.SG-horizontal.beam (Duff-Tripp 1997: 31) ‘the horizontal beam of a house’ b. possessive marker normally present (body parts, kinship terms such as ‘husband’ and ‘wife’, abstract nouns, normally possessed elements). These elements carry the privative marker -c/-Vc when the possessor is not specified: p-ony ony -ec 3P.SG-head head-PI ‘her/his head’ ‘head’ (Duff-Tripp 1997: 31) poʔ -ny ony ny ony -ec 3P.SG-word word-PI ‘her/his word’ ‘word’ (Duff-Tripp 1998: 603) c. possessive marker optional (many objects, animals, kinship terms such as ‘mother’ and ‘father’): p-oˇck-ar oˇcek 3P.SG-dog-RL dog ‘her/his dog’ ‘dog’ (Duff-Tripp 1998: 254) d. possessive marker impossible (a small class including cˇ eˇsaʔ ‘child’ and wokˇcaneˇsaʔ ‘orphan’) This classification of four classes of nouns intersects with one concerning the form of the possessive marking. Most inanimate objects, all body parts and some of the kinship terms for children and siblings just receive a possessive prefix. However, animate beings, most kinship terms, words for food and some nominalisations receive the possessive prefix as well as a suffix -Vr, illustrated with p-oˇck-ar ‘her/his dog’ in (18c). With verbs, the person prefix normally marks the subject (cf. the examples below). In certain circumstances, e.g. in relative clauses in which the subject is unspecified, the
428
4 Languages of the eastern slopes
prefixal person marking can refer to the object: (19) ny eny ty ye-co:y-oʔ t-amp-e:n-eʔ which 1O.PL-light-EU-DA-PR-UN ‘which lights us (the sun)’
(Wise 1986: 571)
Marking of grammatical relations and adpositions Objects and subjects are not marked overtly, but there is a generalised relational (locative, genitive, instrumental) case marked -o, which can be further specified by an additional suffix or suffix combination: (20) nony ty -o nony ty -o-ty nony ty -o-ty -eny nony ty -o-ty -eyeʔ nony ty -o-nety nony ty -o-wa nony ty -o-ʔ mar
locative ablative
allative delimitative approximate location
‘in/to the canoe’ ‘from the canoe’ ‘from the canoe onward’ ‘a bit beyond the canoe’ ‘towards the canoe’ ‘until the canoe’ ‘near the canoe’ (Duff-Tripp 1997: 35–6)
There is no set of postpositions, with the exception of a marker -Vkop for benefactive and purpose: (21) cˇ eˇsa-neˇsa-ty oly -eˇc.n-okop child-group-DI-various-B ‘for all various classes of small children’
(Duff-Tripp 1997: 48)
Many spatial distinctions are marked with (possibly internally complex) adverbs, such as: (22) aly ‘there’ aʔ yo ‘there (distant)’ yom-taʔ n ‘on the other side’ aly -apy ar ‘far’
aˇz. ‘here’ ty -aˇz.-o ‘there (not so distant)’ any emy -taʔ n ‘on this side’ (Duff-Tripp 1997: 126)
Verbs An example of a highly complex verb in Yanesha is given in (23): (23) ∅-omaˇz.-amy -eʔ t-ampy -es-y-e:s-n-e:n-a 3S-go.downriver-DB-EU-DA-EU-PL-EU-late-PR-RF ‘They are going downriver by canoe in the late afternoon stopping often along the way.’ (Wise 1986: 582)
4.2 The Arawakan languages
429
Striking is the frequent occurrence of euphonic markers, which also appear to have a grammatical function. Note also the use of a tense marker indicating ‘late afternoon’; it contrasts with a marker indicating ‘early morning’. The element -ampy -, glossed ‘dative’ by Wise, deserves special mention. It can add a slot for an affected oblique object to an intransitive: (24) a. ne-mah t-a 1S.SG-run-RF ‘I run.’ b. ne-mah t-ampy -s-apy -a 1S.SG-run-DA-EU-2O.SG-RF ‘I run away from you.’
(Wise 1986: 592)
(Wise 1986: 592)
y
Sometimes this function of -amp - leads to a passive-like structure, as in (25b): (25) a. ∅-wah t-a 3S-rain-RF ‘It rained.’ b. no-wah t-ampy -s-a 1S.SG-rain-DA-EU-RF ‘I was caught in the rain.’
(Wise 1986: 593)
(Wise 1986: 593)
The rich suffixal verbal morphology expresses a wide range of concepts. One example is subjunctive mood: (26) pe-ˇso:r-aʔ n-mw -e:paʔ 2S.SG-fall-AB-CM-SJ ‘Be careful lest you fall.’
(Wise 1986: 602)
Another one involves reciprocal marking: (27) ∅-y-aʔ n-aʔ t-ann-aʔ t-a 3S-cry-RR-EU-RC-EU-RF ‘They cry for one another.’
(Wise 1986: 579)
Word order Basic word order in main clauses is VSO: (28) oʔ kaʔ zˇ. -at-eˇz.-ey aˇc.kaˇs3 y-aˇc-or already eat-CA-RP-1S.PL dwarfs 1P.PL-mother-RL ‘The dwarfs have already fed our mother.’ (Duff-Tripp 1997: 177) 3
Possibly a borrowing from neighbouring Quechua I dialects, where aˇc.kaˇs means ‘lamb’.
430
4 Languages of the eastern slopes
However, often a topic marked with -paʔ (either subject or object) occurs preverbally: (29) paʔ -tak-paʔ awoʔ pampw -eny -et-aʔ paʔ -ˇcoy-o 3P-foot-TO HS bury-PR-3S.PL-AN 3P-field-L ‘One foot (of his) they buried in the field.’
(Duff-Tripp 1997: 179)
Auxiliary elements precede the verb, while oblique complements tend to follow it: (30) aw-oʔ ∅-aw-an-mw -e:t ent-o AX-HS 3S-go-AB-CM-3S.PL.RF sky-L ‘Then they went up to the sky.’
(Wise 1986: 605)
Modifiers such as possessors precede the head noun: (31) a:ˇc pw -eʔ m-a:r mother 3P-baby-RL ‘mother’s baby’
(Wise 1986: 607)
4.2.3 Complex sentences in Yanesha Adverbial clauses generally precede the main clause and are marked with -paʔ : [cf. Quechua ama ‘don’t’] (32) ama ye-ˇz.-en-aʔ -paʔ oʔ cˇ y-eʔ potaʔ t-a not 1S.PL-eat-PR-AN-TO F 1S.PL-wash.hands-RF ‘Before eating we wash our hands.’ (Duff-Tripp 1997: 191)
In relative clauses a relativiser ny eny ty appears at the beginning of the clause, before the verb, and the clause is marked again with the topic marker -paʔ : (33) any -ny a paʔ -tak, ny eny ty ∅-pampw -en-et-aʔ paʔ -ˇcoy-o-paʔ , awoʔ anapy this-SQ 3P-foot, R 3S-bury-PR-3.PL-AN 3P-field-L-TO, HS 3S.answer.3O ‘The foot they buried in the field answered.’ (Duff-Tripp 1997: 206) Notice that the clause follows the antecedent. 4.3 Tupi–Guaran´ı The very important Tupi–Guaran´ı language family is mostly spoken in the area south of the Amazon, in Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay and Peru. In Bolivia, it is represented by Chiriguano–Ava, Chiriguano–Tapyi or Izoce˜no, Guarayo, Jor´a, Pauserna–Guarasugw´e, Sirion´o and Yuqui. It also includes the Chan´e, a former Arawakan group which now speaks Chiriguano, and the Tapiet´e. The Tapiet´e are claimed by Nordenski¨old (1912: 310) to be originally a Mataco-related group. Some of the other Tupi–Guaran´ı groups are small (the nomadic Sirion´o) or nearing extinction (the Jor´a and the Pauserna–Guarasugw´e).
4.3 Tupi–Guaran´ı
431
Table 4.3 The relationship among the pre-Andean members of the Tupi–Guaran´ı language family (based on Rodrigues 1984–5) I
II
III
∗
Chiriguano–Ava (including Tapiet´e) Chiriguano–Tapyi or Izoce˜no Guaran´ı Guarayo Pauserna–Guarasugw´e∗ Sirion´o, Jor´a Yuqui∗ Cocama, Cocamilla Omagua
Pauserna–Guarasugw´e and Yuqui are not classified in Rodrigues (1984–5).
The Chiriguano have always been a militarily powerful group; they invaded the Andean territories proper both during the Inca period and in colonial times. Tupi–Guaran´ı languages are found in Peru along the Amazon and Ucayali rivers. There are two languages, Cocama, including Cocamilla, and Omagua. A few speakers of Cocama can be found in Brazil as well. Early explorers of the Amazon such as Orellana marvelled at the riches of the Omagua city-like settlements along the rivers. Cocama is giving way to Spanish at the present moment, and the people are now often acculturated and live dispersed. The Cocama were first contacted in 1559, and the Cocamilla much later, in 1651. In 1666 the two groups rebelled together against the Spaniards (Chirif and Mora 1977). The relationship among the Bolivian and Peruvian members of this extensive language family (found also in Brazil and Paraguay) has been the subject of some disagreement, due to different classificatory techniques. Firestone (1965) has applied lexicostatistic techniques, and Lemle (1971) has traced some phonological innovations, while Rodrigues (1984/5) has combined several types of diagnostic criteria, and Dietrich (1990) has done a sophisticated analysis of the number of phonological and morphological features separating these languages. The groupings proposed by Dietrich (1990), as a consequence, not only reflect genetic relationships but also degree of innovation. Here we follow Jensen (1998), a comparative reconstruction of Tupi–Guaran´ı morphosyntax, in taking Rodrigues (1984–5) as our point of departure. The relevant branches of the Tupi–Guaran´ı family are given in table 4.3. While the family as a whole has preserved many of its original features relatively intact, a number of languages have undergone considerable changes. Sirion´o, Jor´a and, presumably, Yuqui have been much simplified, possibly because these languages are the
432
4 Languages of the eastern slopes
result of the adoption of Tupi–Guaran´ı as a second language by people who originally spoke something else (Rodrigues 1984–5: 43). The nature of these simplification processes remains to be studied, however. In any case, the present-day differences between Guarayo and the other members of its group are much larger than their joint classification would suggest (Dietrich 1990: 111). The case of Cocama also is of great interest from the perspective of language history and language contact. While phonologically and lexically it is undoubtedly a Tup´ıan language, closely related to Tupinamb´a from Brazil, structurally it is not (Rodrigues 1984–5: 43–4; Cabral 1995, 2000). It has different pronouns when spoken by the two genders, and in several cases the feminine form is of Tupi origin (bold here), while the masculine is not (the reverse never happens):4 (34) 1.SG 2.SG 3.SG 1.IN 1.EX 2.PL
FE = e´ ce e´ ne FE = a´ y ´ıni FE = p´enu e´ pe
MS = ta MS = u´ ri MS = t´ana (Cabral 1995: 132)
Rodrigues (personal communication) suggests that the language resulted from a fairly recent migration of a group speaking a Tupinamb´a-related language from the lower to the upper Amazon, perhaps in the immediate preconquest era, and its subsequent incorporation in a different language group. 4.4 The Jivaroan languages Jivaroan is represented by four languages: Aguaruna, Huambisa, Achuar (or Achual) and J´ıvaro or Shuar. All four languages are closely related. Jivaroan speakers show a particularly strong ethnic consciousness. The Aguaruna territory in Peru is quite extensive and covers parts of the departments of Loreto and Amazonas. The Huambisa are mainly in Loreto. The Shuar (also known as the J´ıvaro) occupy the eastern slopes of the Ecuadorian Andes, mainly in the province of Morona–Santiago, up to the very limits of the Andean ridge proper. The Sangay volcano is their sacred mountain. To the east of the Shuar live the Achuar (partly also in Loreto, Peru). Thus the southern part of the Ecuadorian oriente is dominated by a single family of closely related languages, Jivaroan. It may be that previously the Jivaroan area extended into the highlands of the Ecuadorian province of Loja. Like their Peruvian relatives the Aguaruna, the Ecuadorian Shuar are known for their high level of political organisation. 4
See, however, Schleicher (1998) for an explanation of the Cocama first person-singular prefix -ta within the context of Tupi–Guaran´ı historical development.
4.4 The Jivaroan languages
433
The Jivaroan groups have a long and complex history of interactions with the highland cultures. The Shuar are renowned for having raided Andean territories as late as the colonial period. They were first contacted by the Spanish early on, in 1534, and rebelled succesfully in 1599. In 1816 a new attempt was made to subdue them. The Aguaruna were attacked by the Incas upon several occasions, and after 1549 the Spaniards attempted to bring them together in reducciones. In 1886 they rebelled against the Jesuits (Chirif and Mora 1977). The Huambisa have managed to stay further apart from the Spanish, due to their location further into the interior. As mentioned above, Shuar is one of the most important languages of the Ecuadorian lowlands. Part of the Jivaroan language family, it is closely related to and mutually intelligible with Achuar and slightly more distantly related to and partly intelligible with Aguaruna and Huambisa. While the Shuar are very well known, under the name J´ıvaro, and have been the subject of extensive ethnographic studies, particularly by Karsten (1935) and Harner (1972), there is surprisingly little in terms of full linguistic descriptions. The sketch here takes the brief account presented by Karsten (1935) as its basis, and includes some of the data presented in Beuchat and Rivet (1909, 1910a), Alvarez ([c.1915] 1983), Flornoy (1938), Turner (1958), Pellizzaro (1969), Juank (1982), Rouby and Riedmayer (1983) and Gnerre (1986). It has not been possible to completely homogenise the spelling from the different sources, since it is not always clear whether the differences arise from orthographic conventions, phonetic versus phonological spelling, or from regional or diachronic variation. Finally, there is the problem that in Macas a pidgin version of Shuar was in use by and with mestizo settlers (Gnerre 1986: 340), and it may be that Karsten’s account is influenced by this pidgin Shuar. Gnerre (1986: 309–11) draws attention to the wide variety of registers that were available in traditional Shuar, including ceremonial visiting dialogues, ceremonial war party dialogues and traditional narrative styles. In the course of the twentieth century, these styles have largely disappeared; it would be interesting to study the features of recently developed styles, such as the Shuar used in radio transmissions.
4.4.1 Shuar phonology The major source on Shuar phonology is Turner (1958). He presents the phoneme inventory given in table 4.4. There is a nasal–oral contrast in the vowel system, but most of the consulted sources indicate nasality inconsistently or not at all. Sequences of same vowels occur, some of which may be due to the loss of an intervocalic consonant (e.g. in waakis ‘Gualaquiza’). Karsten (1935) sometimes indicates vowel length, where other sources have plain vowels. Most sources use the symbols e or i for the central vowel established by Turner (1958). There is also a vowel [e] which in most contexts is best analysed as underlyingly /a/. Thus we have:
434
4 Languages of the eastern slopes Table 4.4 Shuar phoneme inventory (based on Turner 1958)∗
Stops Affricates Fricatives Nasals Vibrant Glides
Labial
Alveolar
p
t c s n r
m
Glottal
k h ŋ
y
Front
∗
Velar
cˇ sˇ
w
High Mid Low
Palatal
Central
i
Back u
a
Vowel nasality and stress are contrastive. Karsten (1935) and Juank (1982) also distinguish vowel length.
´ 5 (35) y˜aw˜a-i dog-3P.SG ‘his dog’
>
´ [y˜aw˜ey] (Turner 1958: 89)
In view of the uncertain interpretation of the vowels, we write nuclear vowels as they appear in each source. For consonants and non-nuclear vowels we use the phoneme inventory introduced by Turner, although we do write palatalisation if the original source has it. Most consonants have palatalised allophones after i. Stops and affricates are voiced (and sometimes deaffricated) after nasals (Turner 1958). There is a pervasive tendency towards penultimate stress on the radical, which does not shift, e.g.: (36) wak´era-tiny u wish-IF ‘in order to wish’
(Karsten 1935: 544)
Although Turner (1958) does not elaborate the point, there is some evidence that radical– final nasals in some cases correspond to underlying prenasalised stops ∗ ŋk, ∗nt, ∗mp. These have been preserved as such in the more conservative Aguaruna. (37) a. nuh´ın+ +ur egg-1P.SG ‘my egg’
5
[nuh´ıntur] (Turner 1958: 93)
Note the similarity with Tupi–Guaran´ı yaγ w a´ ‘dog’. Jivaroan has a number of words that appear to be borrowings from Tupi–Guaran´ı.
4.4 The Jivaroan languages b. sˇ´ıam+ +aˇs chick-DU ‘a chick perhaps’
435
[ˇs´ıampaˇs] (Turner 1958: 93)
Because of the unsolved status of the homorganic nasal-stop sequences in Shuar, the stop element will be written as in the original source. A very frequent process in Shuar is metathesis: (38) a. p´antam+ +n apuhu-y ´ banana-AC place-3S ‘He is planting bananas.’ b. u:nt [u:nt] u:nt-ru-ˇsa [´u:ntruˇsa] u:nt-ru [´u:ntur]
[p´anman ap´uhuy] (Turner 1958: 93)
‘elder’ ‘also my elder’ ‘my elder’
(Juank 1982: 10)
Finally, we should mention the epenthesis of vowels to suffixed radicals: (39) peŋ ŋker-a-yti6 good-EU-be.3S.SG ‘It is good.’
(Pellizzaro 1982: 9)
4.4.2 The principal grammatical features of Shuar In Shuar there are productive categories of nouns (including various classes of pronouns), verbs, adjectives and adverbs. A few verbs can be used as auxiliaries. Postpositions, determiners and conjunctions are enclitic elements. There is also a large group of ideophonic interjections. Nominal elements Noun phrases tend not to be very complex in Shuar, and neither is there a very complex nominal morphology. Bare nouns can have both indefinite and definite reference, but nouns can be made specific in three ways: with the enclitic particle -ka, with the preceding third-person pronoun ni, and with a following demonstrative nu: (40) sˇu´a:ra-ka ni p´aŋgi unta ´ nu
‘the Shuar’ ‘the big serpent (anaconda)’ ‘the chief’, ‘the old one’
(Karsten 1935: 544–5)
The particle -ka may also be added to pronouns and some adverbs. There is no grammaticalised gender or number marking. Diminutives are commonly formed with the particle -ˇci, and in poetic usage sometimes with -ta: 6
Pronunciation suggested in Rouby and Riedmayer (1983): [pw e´ ŋgar´eyti].
436
4 Languages of the eastern slopes (41) a. uˇ ´ ci-ta son-DI ‘my little son’ b. nuku-ˇ ´ ci mother-DI ‘my little mother’
(Karsten 1935: 546)
(Karsten 1935: 546)
Other nominal enclitics are -ki ‘alone’ (-k according to Turner 1958) and -ˇsa ‘also’:7 (42) a. w´ı-ki 1.SG-DL ‘I alone’ b. nuwa-ˇ ´ sa woman-AD ‘the woman also’
(Karsten 1935: 559)
(Pellizzaro 1969: 13)
Beuchat and Rivet (1909: 814–15) mention the existence of compounds; note that (43a) appears to be right-headed, and (43b) left-headed. (Beuchat and Rivet’s examples are given in the original spelling.) (43) a. x.apa-yagw a deer-dog ‘leopard’ b. akap-nawe stomach-foot ‘foot sole’
(Beuchat and Rivet 1909: 814)
(Beuchat and Rivet 1909: 815)
They also mention cases of reduplication: (44) tagw a tagw a kaˇsi kaˇsi
‘hat’ ‘day after tomorrow’
[cf. tagw asa ‘feather crown’] [kaˇsi ‘tomorrow’] (Beuchat and Rivet 1909: 815)
Personal reference Shuar distinguishes three persons and the opposition singular/plural is sometimes marked as well. The personal pronouns are: (45) 1.SG 2.SG 3.SG
7
wi a´ m(u)e ni, a´ u
1.PL 2.PL 3.PL
i: atum´ı ni, a´ u
Compare the Aymara suffixes -ki and -sa, which have the same meaning.
(Juank 1982: 3)
4.4 The Jivaroan languages
437
The status of the third-person pronominal form a´ u is unclear. (Sometimes it seems that in the plural a´ u is preferred over ni; in other cases, a´ u seems to refer to elements new in the discourse, and ni to elements already referred to before.) The labial in a´ u may be the source for the labial in the third-person-singular verbal agreement marker below. There is a corresponding set of verbal agreement markers: (46) 1S.SG 2S.SG 3S.SG
-ha(y) -me -wa(y)
1S.PL 2S.PL 3S.PL
-hi -rme -yny a-wa(y)
(Juank 1982: 7)
The short forms without -y are found before the interrogative marker -k. There is an opposition between the deictic pronouns hu ‘this’ and nu ‘that’, which might be related to the difference between -ha(y) ‘first-person singular’ and ni ‘she, he’. Inflected verbs need not have an overt subject: (47) winy a´ -me-k come-2S.SG-IR ‘Are you coming?’
(Juank 1982: 3)
Notice that in wh-questions, an even shorter form of the verbal agreement marker appears. Consider the following contrast: (48) ity urak ´ a´ -yny a how be-3S.PL ‘How are they?’
hu-nik ´ a´ -yny a-way this-like be-3.PL-3S ‘They are like this.’
(Juank 1982: 16)
This alternation may result from a contrast between declarative and non-declarative verb forms, as in the Barbacoan languages. Nouns can appear uninflected for person (there are numerous examples of uninflected possessed nouns in the sources), but there is also a set of person markers: (49) 1P.SG 2P.SG 3P.SG
-r(u) -ram -ri
1P.PL 2P.PL 3P.PL
-ri -ri -ri
(Juank 1982: 3, 5)
With nouns, however, a pronominal possessor generally must be overt: (50) atum´ı n´a:-r´ı you.PL name-P ‘your (plur.) name’
(Juank 1982: 5)
438
4 Languages of the eastern slopes
The agreement markers in Shuar are not pronominal in being able to occur by themselves, even if there may be a correspondence of -w (wi / -ru) in the first person and of -am (am(u)e / -ram) in the second person singular. The exception are kinship terms, which may appear without the possessor pronoun: (51) nukuˇ ´ ci-ru-ka cap´ıki uya-yi ´ grandmother-1P.SG-DF Tsapiki be.RM-3S ‘My grandmother was Tsapiki.’
(Juank 1982: 9)
Kinship terms optionally and body part terms obligatorily have another person marker in the second (-em/-im) and third person (-e/-i): (52) a. b. c. d.
ame nuw´a-ram / ame nuw-em ´ ni nuwa-r´ı / ni nuw-´e ame nihy a´˜-im ni nihy a´˜-i
‘your wife’ ‘his wife’ ‘your forehead’ ‘her/his forehead’ (Juank 1982: 36)
In copular constructions, the copula inflected for person appears as an enclitic on the predicate: (53) p´eŋker-´a-yt-hay good-EU-be-1S.SG ‘I am good.’
(Juank 1982: 13)
Marking of grammatical relations and adpositions Subjects are not overtly marked, and (direct or indirect) object and possessor NPs may remain unmarked as well (see also the section on word order below). Beuchat and Rivet mention an object marker -n, -na, or -m for Gualaquiza Shuar, as in: (54) yusa santo naha-ri-n andaram tax.-aip God holy name-3P.SG-AC in.vain say-2S.NE.IM ‘Don’t say God’s holy name in vain.’ (Beuchat and Rivet 1909: 817) According to Pellizzaro (1969: 15), and at variance with example (54), the object marker -n is only used when the subject of the sentence is first person singular or third person. It is found as -an/-en after consonants, and as -in after a second-person possessive ending in -m. The ending -na is found as an alternative for -n, in which case the preceding vowel is suppressed (e.g. n´uwa-r´u-n ∼ nuw´a-r-na ‘to my wife’). The suffix is also present in the related language Aguaruna (Corbera Mori 2000).
4.4 The Jivaroan languages
439
(55) tar´acˇ -rum-in naw´ant-an sus´a-hay cloth-2P-AC girl-AC give-1S.SG ‘I gave your cloth (tarachi) to the girl.’
(Pellizzaro 1969: 15)
There are special strong possessive forms for the pronouns: (56) wi-ny a ‘my, mine’ ami-ny u ‘your, yours’ ni:-ny u, au-nu ‘his, her(s), their(s)’
i:-ny u ‘ours’ atum(i)-ny a ‘yours’ (Pellizzaro 1969: 16)
The element -na/-nu, discernable in the possessive form of the pronouns, is also found with other nouns, where it indicates attribution or destination. Pellizzaro (1969: 16) indicates that -na is used after consonants and after monosyllabic stems (which apparently may not contain a long vowel or a diphthong), whereas -nu is used elsewhere. (57) a. hu m´acˇ it u:nt-na-yti ´ this machete chief-G-be.3S.SG ‘This machete belongs to the chief.’ b. hu m´acˇ it suŋ ŋka-nu-yti this machete Sunka-G-be.3S.SG ‘This machete belongs to Sunka.’
(Juank 1982: 36)
Location and time can be indicated by means of the suffixes -nam and -num. According to Pellizzaro (1969: 17, 21) and Juank (1982: 30), the phonological conditioning of these allomorphs is the reverse of that of attributive -na and -nu; -num is used after consonants and -nam after vowels. Further allomorphs are -i (after the first-person possessive marker -ru), -in (after second-person possessive markers in -m), and -n (after the possessive marker -ri). Karsten (1935) mentions the forms -numa and -n´ama but without the alleged conditioning. (58) a. he:a-numa house-L ‘in the house’ b. he:a-numa we´a-hey house-L go-1S.SG ‘I go to my house.’ c. he:a-numa winy a´ -hey house-L come-1S.SG ‘I come from my house.’
(Karsten 1935: 558)
(Karsten 1935: 559)
(Karsten 1935: 559)
440
4 Languages of the eastern slopes
Notice that -numa can mark both Source and Goal. With verbs of motion the postposition is often omitted. The suffix -nama(n) can also be translated as ‘(in exchange) for’ (Karsten 1935: 559). Direction (allative) is indicated by means of a suffix -(V)ni. It is often found after the locative ending -n(u)ma in a sequence -n(u)mani. After personal possessive endings this sequence is reduced to -i-ni (Pellizzaro 1969: 21, Juank 1982: 30). (59) a. mur´a-ni w´ea-hay mountain-AL go-1S.SG ‘I am going towards the mountain.’ b. nihy a´˜y-ru-´ı-ni forehead-1P.SG-L-AL ‘ahead of me’
(Juank 1982: 28)
(Juank 1982: 28)
Separation (ablative) is indicated by -y˜a ‘from’. Like -(V)ni, it can occur after the locative marker (-num-y˜a, -nma-y˜a), and again the sequence is reduced to -i-y˜a after personal possessive endings. Notice the use of tu-y´am ‘from where’, rather than ∗ tu-y˜´a, as well as the short form -m for the second-person subject marker in a wh-question, in (60a): (60) a. tu-y´am winy a´ -m where-AB come-2S.SG ‘Where do you come from?’ b. T´ayˇs-ny um-y˜a winy a´ -hay Taisha-L-AB come-1S.SG ‘I come from Taisha.’
(Juank 1982: 6)
(Juank 1982: 6)
Instrumental, comitative or manner are indicated by means of the ending -hay (Karsten 1935: 546; Juank 1982: 36): (61) a. ap´acˇ i-hey we´a-hey white.man-IS go-1S.SG ‘I go with the white man.’ b. naŋ ŋki-hey ma-ma lance-IS kill-PF ‘killed with a lance’ c. sˇu´ar-ˇcam-hay Shuar-language-IS ‘in the Shuar language’
(Karsten 1935: 546)
(Karsten 1935: 546)
(Juank 1982: 36)
4.4 The Jivaroan languages
441
Verbs Verbs can be marked for a number of suffixes. There are a number of highly complex morphophonological adjustment rules and the sources only give sketchy information. Hence, the following account, needless to say, can only be preliminary. A first set of affixes is attached directly to the verbal root: (62) -u -i -mtik(i) -n -nay -ŋ ŋk y a -te
‘go to . . .’ ‘come to . . .’ causative passive reciprocal ‘almost’ inchoative
(Juank 1982: 77)
Some examples include: (63) a. nek´a-mtiki-a-ta-y know-CA-SA-HO-1S.PL ‘Let us make it known.’ b. amu-te-k-hay ´ finish-IC-IT-1S.SG ‘I have started to finish.’
(Juank 1982: 77)
(Juank 1982: 77)
A second set of affixes marks completive or perfective aspect (there is a broad distinction in Shuar between perfective and imperfective verbs). The form of the aspectual marker gives additional information (Pellizzaro 1969: 26; Juank 1982: 54). See also the two preceding examples. (64) -i- / -∅ ∅-a-k-r-s-k(i)-
imperfective simple iterative / intensive with plural object diminutive / affective neglected action
The imperfective is unmarked after stems ending in a single consonant, otherwise the ending is -i- (Pellizzaro 1969). External to aspect marking we find tense and mood markers, but they can be preceded by the negation marker -ˇca-. The tenses include (Juank 1982: 26, 33):
442
4 Languages of the eastern slopes (65) -m(a) -my a -tta
past at a definite point in time past at an indefinite point in time future
Examples are: (66) um´a-r-ˇca-m-hay8 drink-3O.PL-NE-DF.PA-1S.SG ‘I didn’t drink (yesterday).’ (67) tak´a-s-ˇca-tta-rme work-DI-NE-F-2S.PL ‘You (plur.) will not work.’
(Juank 1982: 26)
(Juank 1982: 33)
External to tense markers we find verbal agreement, optionally followed by dubitative -(a)ˇs or a question marker -k: (68) a. naruk-a-y-k ´ cook-SA-3S.SG-IR ‘Does it cook?’ b. naruk-ˇ ´ c-i-aˇs cook-NE-3S.SG-DU ‘It perhaps does not cook.’
(Juank 1982: 12)
(Juank 1982: 12)
Mood markers appear to occupy the same position as the tense markers. They include imperative, potential and irrealis: (69) a. yu-´a-t´a eat-SA-IM.2S ‘Eat!’ b. war´a-s-´aynt-me enjoy-DI-PO-2S.SG ‘You could enjoy it.’ c. war´a-s-´a-me enjoy-DI-IE-2S.SG ‘You could have enjoyed it.’
(Juank 1982: 12)
(Juank 1982: 67)
(Juank 1982: 67)
Summarising, the Shuar verb can have the following types of verbal affixes: (70) – – – – / – – / Again, this is only a preliminary sketch. A number of affixes has been left out of consideration, including the numerous nominalisers in Shuar. 8
Note the similarity with Aymara uma- ‘to drink’.
4.4 The Jivaroan languages
443
In addition to the negation formed with -ˇca there is also a negative suffix -cu or -ˇcu:9 (71) tak´a-ˇcu work-NE ‘He does not work.’
(Karsten 1935: 554)
This suffix may also be added to non-verbal predicates: (72) a. p´ıŋger-a-ˇcu good-EU-NE ‘It is not good.’ b. w´ı-ny a-ˇcu 1.SG-G-NE ‘It is not mine.’
(Karsten 1935: 554)
(Karsten 1935: 554) y
Negative imperatives are formed with the ending -aypa [eyp a]; this form is optionally shortened: (73) wini:-(ay)pa come-2S.IM.NE ‘Do not come!’
(Karsten 1935: 554)
There is also a possibility, finally, of forming a negative existential: (74) ac´a-way not.be-3S.SG ‘There is not.’
(Juank 1982: 6)
Word order Word order is one of the features of the language on which there is firm agreement among the different authors. The basic order is SOV: (75) ni p´aŋgi uncuri ´ e´ yncu amuk-ma ´ 3.SG snake many people kill-PF ‘The snake killed many people.’
(Karsten 1935: 545)
Auxiliaries follow their verbal complement, like the auxiliary puha-. It is used in progressive constructions together with a gerund ending on the verb: (76) kanu nah´ana-sa puh´a-hey canoe make-GR be-1S.SG ‘I am making a canoe.’ 9
Cf. Quechua -ˇcu ‘negation’.
(Karsten 1935: 555)
444
4 Languages of the eastern slopes
Possessors precede possessed elements: ´ umi ´ (77) w´ı-ny a yacu-ru 1.SG-G brother-1P.SG blowgun ‘my brother’s blowgun’
(Karsten 1935: 546)
Adjectives precede the noun: (78) unta pinˇcu big hawk ‘the great hawk (eagle)’
(Karsten 1935: 547)
Similarly, adverbial modifiers such as the exclamative degree marker ma ti, expressing wonder, precede the adjective: (79) a. ma ti p´ıŋgera very more beautiful ‘most beautiful’ b. suŋ ´ ŋgura ´ımy a uncuri ´ e´ yncu amuk-ma ´ epidemic very many people kill-PF ‘The epidemic has killed very many people.’
(Karsten 1935: 547)
(Karsten 1935: 548)
Both enclitic and non-enclitic adpositions follow the element they modify: (80) a. ´ınca-numa river-L ‘in the river’ b. w´a at´asˇi nukki ´ unta ´ partridge hen like big ‘The partridge is big like a hen.’
(Karsten 1935: 558)
(Karsten 1935: 559)
A possible deviation from the prototypical SOV head-final pattern of Shuar is the demonstrative and the relative clause (to be illustrated below). Demonstratives may precede or follow the noun: (81) a. nu he:a w´ı-ny a that house 1S.SG-G ‘That house is mine.’ b. he:a nu, w´ı-ny a he:a house that 1.SG-G house ‘That house is mine.’
(Karsten 1935: 550)
(Karsten 1935: 550)
The status of nu is not quite clear, however, since it may also modify predicates. Karsten gives examples where for emphasis it both precedes and follows the predicate:
4.4 The Jivaroan languages (82) a. Andiˇce, nu h´ama nu Andiche that ill that ‘Andiche is really ill.’ b. p´a:ndama, nu puhu-ma ´ nu plantain that be-PF that ‘Is there any plantain?’
445
(Karsten 1935: 550)
(Karsten 1935: 550)
It may be that nu is not a dependent determiner, but a separate emphasis marker, thus not constituting a counterexample to a head-final analysis for Shuar. 4.4.3 Complex sentences in Shuar Complex sentences in Shuar appear to be of at least six types. First, causal and conditional clauses are often formed with the postposition-like complementiser assa: (83) a. ni h´ama a´ ssa wini:-ˇca-ma 3.SG ill SU come-NE-PF ‘Because he is ill, he has not arrived.’ b. a´ mue wak´era-ma a´ ssa sum´ak-ta-hey 2.SG like-PF SU buy-F-1S ‘If you like, I will buy from you.’
(Karsten 1935: 558)
(Karsten 1935: 558)
As these examples show, adverbial clauses tend to precede main clauses. Another possible strategy, used particularly with temporal and conditional adverbials, is the use of the gerund particle -sa:10 (84) a. a´ ma-sa sus´a-ˇcays have-GR give-F.DU ‘If I had, I would give you.’ b. sˇu´ara namb´era11 nah´ana-sa ih´ermas-ma Shuar feast make-GR fast-PF ‘When a Shuar prepares a feast, he fasts.’
(Karsten 1935: 558)
(Karsten 1935: 557)
A third possibility for adverbial clauses is simple juxtaposition. The examples given have the particle -ma on the first verb. This may indicate temporal sequence: (85) a. ni wini:-ma we´a-ta-hey he arrive-PF go-F-1S ‘When he arrives, we will go.’ 10 11
(Karsten 1935: 557)
Cf. Aymara -sa ‘gerund’. A root similar to nambera ‘feast’ may have been borrowed into Otavalo Quechua (province of Imbabura, Ecuador), where we have n˜ amor ‘feast’. This could point to Jivaroan influences in the northern Ecuadorian highlands in pre-Inca times (see chapter 3).
446
4 Languages of the eastern slopes
Table 4.5 The Shuar switch-reference system illustrated with the verb ant- ‘to hear’ (from Juank 1982: 76)
1 pers. sing. 2 pers. sing. 3 pers. sing. 1 pers. plur. 2 pers. plur. 3 pers. plur.
–simultaneous identical subjects
simultaneous identical subjects
–simultaneous different subjects
simultaneous different subjects
ant-´uk-an . . .-´uk-am . . .-´uk . . .-´uk-ar(i) . . .-´uk-rum . . .-´uk-ar
a´ nt-ak-un . . .-ak-um . . .-ak(u) . . .-ak-ur(i) . . .-ak-rum . . .-uyny -ak(-u)
ant-´uk-matay . . .-´uk-akmin . . .-´uk-matay . . .-uk-´akrin . . .-uk-´akrumin . . .-´uk-ar-matay
a´ nt-ak-uy . . .-ak-min . . .-ak-uy . . .-ak-rin . .-ak-rumin . . .-uyny -ak-uy
b. yumi ´ yutuk-ˇ ´ ca-ma we´a-t-ey water rain-NE-PF go-HO-1S.PL ‘Let us go before it rains.’
(Karsten 1935: 557)
In Juank (1982: 76) there is mention of a switch-reference system for gerunds, including the distinctions presented in table 4.5 (ant- ‘to hear’). Perhaps Karsten’s ma corresponds to third-person-singular (–simultaneous, –identical subject) matay in Juank. There are numerous cases of shortened verbal affixes in Shuar. Finally, sometimes an adverbial clause is formed with the postposed deictic particle nu: (86) noa, ih´erma-sa puhu-ma ´ nu, nam´an-ki yuo-ca-ma ´ woman fast-GR be-PF that meat-DL eat-NE-PF ‘The woman, while she was fasting, did not eat meat.’ (Karsten 1935: 554) Complement clauses are often formed with the infinitive marker -tiny u: (87) a. w´ari sum´ak-tiny u winy a´ -hey things buy-IF come-1S.SG ‘I have come to buy things.’ b. w´ı-ny a e´ yncu ´ıs-tiny u we´a-hey 1.SG-G relative see-IF go-1S.SG ‘I go off to see my relatives.’
(Karsten 1935: 558)
(Karsten 1935: 553)
An alternative appears to be the use of the gerund t(u)-sa- of the verb ti- ‘to say’, as cited by Juank (1982: 64):12 12
The use of forms meaning ‘saying’ to indicate intention of the speaker is frequently found in Quechua and in other Andean languages. However, in the lowland varieties of Ecuadorian Quechua adjacent to Shuar it covers the same range as in Shuar, including infinitival purposives.
4.5 Cahuapana
447
(88) a. pa:ntma-n suruk-t´a-h t-sa-n w´ea-hay plantain-AC sell-HO-1S.SG say-GR-1S.SG go-1S.SG (Juank 1982: 3) ‘I go to sell plantain.’ y b. iˇs´ıcˇ ik um-in ´ -´a-yt-hey namp´ek-ay-h tu-sa-n modest drink-AG-EU-be-1S.SG get.drunk-NE-1S.SG say-GR-1S.SG ‘I am a modest drinker, not wanting to get drunk.’ (Juank 1982: 12) c. wi-ˇsa nek´a-ta-h tu-sa-n t´ı wak´er-iny -a-yt-hay 1.SG-AD know-HO-1S.SG say-GR-1S.SG very want-AG-EU-be-1S.SG ‘Me too, I am very interested in knowing (it).’ (Juank 1982: 15) Relative clauses are formed with the deictic particle nu ‘that’ at the end. They can follow their head noun, but may also be extraposed: (89) w´ı-ny a uˇci, sˇua:ra ma:-ma nu, ih´erma-sa puhu-ma ´ 1.SG-G son enemy kill-PF that fast-GR be-PF ‘My son, who killed an enemy, is fasting.’ (Karsten 1935: 551) (90) urutay ´ sˇua:ra wak´ı-tiny u, iky a´ ma we´a-ma nu when Indian return-IF forest go-PF that ‘When will the Indians that went to the forest return?’ (Karsten 1935: 551)
4.5 Cahuapana A small language family is found along the eastern slopes of the northern Peruvian Andes (department of Loreto), Cahuapana, which is made up of two languages, Chayahuita and Jebero. The Chayahuita were contacted first by the Jesuits. The Jebero accepted protection by the missions after 1638 because they were attacked by the Mayna. Of these languages little is known so far. A few features of the grammar of Chayahuita can be reconstructed from a set of phrases in Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano (ILV) (1979), and there is a new Chayahuita dictionary available (Hart 1988) with a brief grammatical sketch. Garc´ıa Tom´as (1993–4) constitutes a four-volume collection of texts, testimonials, etc. It seems to be a language with a fairly consistent OV pattern. Thus there is adjective–noun order and object–verb order in sentences such as: (91) panka non13 nowantr-aw big canoe want-1S.SG ‘I want the big canoe.’ 13
Notice the similarity with Panoan nonti and Yanesha nony ty ‘canoe’.
(ILV 1979: 72)
448
4 Languages of the eastern slopes
There is also adverb–verb order in expressions such as: (92) manoton pa-koʔʔ quickly go-2S.IM.PL ‘Go quickly!’
(ILV 1979: 72)
Case relations are indicated by means of suffixes, such as the locative marker -k; e.g. ins-k ‘where’, non-k ‘in a canoe’ (cf. Hart 1988: 282). Question words appear in clause-initial position, as in: (93) onpo koˇsi-roʔʔsaʔʔ-taʔʔ kpar-an how.much pig-PL-Q take-2S.SG ‘How many pigs did you take (to sell)?’
[cf. Quechua kuˇci ‘pig’; Old Spanish coche] (Hart 1988: 267)
From expressions such as atari kayoʔ ‘chicken egg’ it appears that in nominal compounds or complex nominals the head is rightmost. There may also be prefixes, however, such as the negative prefix ko- (combined with the negative suffix -wʔ ): noya ‘good’ versus ko-noya-wʔ ‘bad’. There is a prohibitive negator ama.14 A striking feature of Chayahuita is the frequent occurrence of compound verbs (Hart 1988: 271, 481–3), in which the first element marks manner or instrument, and the second element the type of action. An example is pʔ-ˇcar-in ‘he/she tears it with much force’ (pʔ- ‘with much force’). Component elements include: (94) a. first element aʔʔopʔ toʔʔwnb. second element -ˇca -ka -ni -pas -ta
‘with one’s teeth’, ‘with its beak’ ‘lifting’ ‘with force’, ‘hanging’ ‘with one’s foot’ ‘squeezing’ ‘tear’ ‘clash’ ‘finish’ ‘take a piece’ ‘drop’
Bendor-Samuel (1961) documents a similar level of complexity for Jebero verbs, confirming the observation in (94). Striking is the frequent use of directional
14
From Quechua ama, which has the same meaning.
4.6 Bora–Huitoto
449
suffixes: (95) iya-wk’-wa-t-nˇcaʔʔ-ð ð k-aŋ ŋ want-come-DR-DF-return.H-3O.PL-GR ‘wanting to come towards them when returning’ (Bendor-Samuel 1961: 106)
(96) nampk’-wa-t-ap(a)-ila-ly i-(i)ma climb-DR-DF-CN-TH-3S.PN-and ‘and he is climbing towards . .’
(Bendor-Samuel 1961: 107)
Rivet and Tastevin (1931: 241) note the occurrence of noun incorporation in this language: (97) ikr-mutu-lk hurt-head-1S.SG.PN ‘My head hurts.’
(Rivet and Tastevin 1913: 241)
Jebero has the interesting feature of two inclusive first persons, a singular and a plural. See, for instance, the set of possessive nominal suffixes in (98). (98) -wk -mapuʔʔ -pŋ -nŋ
1.SG 1.SG.IV (=1.D) 2.SG 3.SG
-wið ð k -mapuʔʔ-waʔʔ -pŋ-maʔʔ -nŋ-maʔʔ
1.PL.EX 1.PL.IV 2.PL 3.PL (Bendor-Samuel 1961: 97)
4.6 Bora–Huitoto This family has two main branches (Aschmann 1993): A. Huitoto–Ocaina and B. Bora– Muinane. Branch A consists of Ocaina and Huitoto, which in turn can be subdivided into Npode and the cluster of Mnca, Murui and Huitoto Muinane. This branch has over a thousand speakers in Peru. Branch B consists of Bora Muinane and Bora (including its dialect Mira˜na) and has about 1,500 speakers in Peru. All these languages are also spoken in Colombia. The unity and internal structure of this family needs to be studied in more detail, since the relationship between Huitoto and Bora is rather remote. Aschmann (1993) concludes, on the basis of lexical comparison, a definite relationship between the two main branches, with 20 per cent shared vocabulary. From the Huitoto Muinane phrases in ILV (1979) it is clear that we are dealing with a consistent head-final SOV language with fairly transparent mostly suffixal morphology. There are prenominal possessors and postpositions; prepositional phrases precede verbs and adjectives precede nouns. Verbal negation is expressed with a suffix. The form of the personal affixes is very similar to that of the free forms. According to Petersen
450
4 Languages of the eastern slopes
Table 4.6 Phoneme inventory of Bora (based on Thiesen 1996)∗
Plain stops Aspirated stops Plain affricates Aspirated affricates Fricatives Nasals Sonorants
High Mid Low ∗
Labial
Alveolar
p ph
t th c ch
cˇ cˇ h
n r
(ny ) (y)
β m
Palatal
Velar k kh
Coarticulated labiovelar
Glottal
kp
ʔ
x
Front
Central
Back
i e
ɯ o
a
Bora has long or doubled vowels, each vowel being potentially tone-bearing, and a distinction between high tone and low tone. Most consonants have palatalised allomorphs; ny and y are the palatalised counterparts of n and r, respectively.
and Pati˜no (2000), the Huitoto verbal complex roughly consists of the following main components: (99) Root Predicate Mood/aspect/ Tense/voice -ta causative negation/ -d/-t (active) verbalisers nominal -ka/-ga (passive) classifiers -dzˇ (future passive)
Participant -kw e (1st person) -o (2nd person) -e (3rd person)
Thiesen’s grammar of Bora (1996) gives a good overview of that language. The phoneme inventory is as in table 4.6. There are two tones, high and low. Only in word-final position can there be two adjacent syllables with low tone. There is palatalisation of a number of consonants after i, and in some specific cases after a. There are both suffixes and prefixes in the language, but suffixes predominate. The (animate) personal pronouns are the following (Thiesen 1996: 33). (100) o´o
1.SG
ɯ ɯ´
2.SG
ti´ıpy e ti´ıcˇ e
3.SG.MS 3.SG.FE
mɯ ɯʔ -ch i mɯ ɯʔ -ph me´e a´ mɯ ɯʔ -ch i a´ mɯ ɯʔ -ph hy ti´ıt e´ -ch i ti´ıthy e´ -ph
1.D.MS.EX 1.D.FE.EX 1.D.IV 2.D.MS 2.D.FE 3.D.MS 3.D.FE
mɯ ɯɯ ɯʔ ´ ʔa
1.PL.EX
me´e a´ mɯ ɯɯ ɯʔ ´ ʔa
1.PL.IV 2.PL
ti´ıthy e
3.PL
4.7 The Zaparoan languages
451
While the pronouns distinguish for gender, prenominal possessive markers do not (Thiesen 1996: 51–2): (101) th atii-
1P.SG 2P.SG 3P.SG
th aʔʔ-xy a tiʔʔ-xy a iʔʔ-xy a
‘my house’ ‘your house’ ‘his/her/their (own) house’
The third-person possessive prefix is used when the possessor is identical to the subject of the clause; with other third persons a full possessor pronoun is required. The exact shape of the possessor prefix is determined by the sound features of the possessed noun. One of the most striking features of the language is the nominal classifier system, which is quite complex. The animate classifiers are marked for feminine and masculine, and have a singular, dual, plural distinction, just like the personal pronoun system, to which they are related morphologically (Thiesen 1996: 102). The inanimate simple classifiers include: (102) -ʔʔe -kh o -ʔʔa´am -kpa -pa -x -m -i´ıʔ y o -ne
trees, plants sticks, etc. sheets, books, etc. flat objects, boards cartons, boxes, etc. flat, thin and round objects, like disks canoes and other vessels extended objects objects in general
(Thiesen 1996: 102–3)
In addition to the animate and inanimate classifiers, there are classifiers based on verbal roots that mark the shape or quality an entity has adopted: (103)
ɯme-ʔ ɯ´ ʔe´ -kpay´aa´ ɯ tree-CL:tree-bent.over ‘a bent over tree’
(Thiesen 1996: 103)
Finally, some classifiers also function as separate nouns, such as kh o´ o´ x´ ‘day’, which can function as a classifier when augmented with x-, as in th e´ -x-kh o´ox ‘that day’ (Thiesen 1996: 104). The classifiers play a pervasive role in the structuring of the grammar and discourse of the Bora–Huitoto language family, ensuring referential cohesion. 4.7 The Zaparoan languages The Zaparoan languages are all in a precarious state. The following languages remain: Andoa, Arabela, Cahuarano, Iquito and Z´aparo itself. The Z´aparo language, which once was widely spoken, is almost extinct in Ecuador, having been replaced by Ecuadorian Amazonian Quechua. Some speakers are said to be immigrants from Peru. Apart from
452
4 Languages of the eastern slopes
Z´aparo, all members of the family are exclusively found in Peru, and all languages have no more than a handful of speakers, most of them bilingual in either Quechua or Spanish. The Ecuadorian Z´aparo speakers live in the province of Pastaza. The Andoa were brought into a reducci´on in 1701, and in 1737 a Dominican mission was established. The Iquito were unknown to the colonisers before the eighteenth century, and since 1737 they stayed in the missions intermittently (Chirif and Mora 1977). Peeke (1962) provides an interesting sketch of Z´aparo morphosyntax. It appears to be a language with relatively free word order, and no person marking on the verb. Rather remarkably, it appears that a lexical subject, even an element like no-ka ‘it’ (third person singular neutral), is almost always obligatory. Possibly, -ka functions as an impersonal classifier, comparable to Bora -ne (cf. section 4.6): (104) i´a kom´a no-k´a anawkt-k´a naw very strongly 3.SG-NU hurt-CN 3.SG ‘It hurts him very much.’ (105) no-k´a cˇ at´ -ka 3.SG-NU rain-CN ‘It rains.’ (106) noar´ı no-k´a na snt´a-ka after 3.SG-NU F cool-CN ‘Afterwards it will cool off.’
(Peeke 1962: 132)
(Peeke 1962: 148)
(Peeke 1962: 135)
Z´aparo has a four-vowel system (i, , o, a), a fairly simple syllable structure, and fourteen consonants, including c and ʔ. In (106) the future auxiliary na precedes the main verb, as it does in (107). However, other markers are suffixed to the verb: (107) k´ana-ha na in´aw-ha no-ka no 1.PL-EM F give-F 3.SG-NU 3.SG ‘We shall give it to him.’
(Peeke 1962: 137)
In compounds the nucleus is last: (108) sawanaw iawka [sawan´awka] cotton thread ‘cotton thread’
(Peeke 1962: 150)
The same we see in possessor constructions, (109)–(110), and adjective–noun combinations, (111): (109) kina n´ıata 2P.PL town ‘your (plur.) town’
(Peeke 1962: 152)
4.8 The Tucanoan languages
453
(110) ko-´ano ari´awko 1P.SG-mother dog ‘my mother’s dog’ (111) r´oto-ka mar´ayha ik´ı-ˇca slippery-NU fish be-CN ‘It is a slippery fish.’
(Peeke 1962: 153)
(Peeke 1962: 158)
Notice that there appears to be no overt subject in (111) (except for the enclitic neuter element -ka), and that in (110) the person marker is proclitic. Both these phenomena are illustrated in (112):
(112) ko-nok´ı:ˇca-ka ik´ı-ˇca 1S.SG-see-NU be-CN ‘It is my custom of seeing.’
(Peeke 1962: 147)
Here the person marker is attached to the nominalised verb. There is double negation: (113) taykw a´ ko m´ı-no k´ork cˇ irip´aka ira not 1.SG have-NE money papaya B ‘I have no money for papayas.’
[cf. Ec. Quechua kuly ki ‘money’] (Peeke 1962: 130–1)
The person marker paradigm is given in (114): (114) kw i / ko(-) /kcˇ a(-) /knaw /no /nno-ka
1.SG 2.SG 3.SG 3.SG-NU
kana, kaʔʔno pa /pkina, kiʔʔno na
1.PL.EX 1.PL.IV 2.PL 3.PL
4.8 The Tucanoan languages The Tucanoan languages in Peru are Angutero, Orej´on or Coto, and Secoya or Pioj´e. Secoya is also spoken in Ecuador. There are several other groups speaking closely related Tucanoan languages in Ecuador: the Siona and the Tetet´e. All these languages belong to the western branch. The Siona and Secoya are growing into a single community of an estimated 600 people. Of Tetet´e, closely related to Siona, there were only two speakers left in 1969. Although its speakers have dwindled to an insignificant number, Siona was once important enough to be considered a lengua general by the Spanish colonial administration (Ortega Ricaurte 1978); cf. chapter 2.
454
4 Languages of the eastern slopes Table 4.7 Phoneme inventory of Huao (based on Saint and K. L. Pike 1962)∗
Voiceless stops Implosive click Voiced stops Nasals Implosive nasal Glide
Labial
Dental
Palatal
Velar
p (p< ) b m (m< ) w
t
(ˇc)
k
d∼r n
y ∼ dy ny
g ŋ
Oral
High Mid Low ∗
Nasal
Front
Central/back
Front
Central/back
i e æ
o a
˜ı e˜ æ˜
o˜ a˜
The extra-systemic sounds cˇ , p< and m< are limited to onomatopoeic expressions and exclamations. All sounds are subject to allophonic variation. The phonemes o and o˜ vary between back and central and can take the character of a glide ([γ ], [γ˜]) in non-nuclear position.
4.9 Small families and supposed language isolates in Ecuador In addition to these larger and smaller language families there are a number of families with only a few members and language isolates. We will discuss these starting with the remaining Ecuadorian languages. In the Ecuadorian oriente several small tribes are found along the Colombian border. They are the linguistically isolated Cof´an and western Tucanoan tribes already mentioned in chapter 2. In the Ecuadorian lowland province of Pastaza, another linguistic isolate is found. It is Huao, the language of a tribe alternatively referred to as Auca, Huaorani, Sabela or Auishiri. This tribe for long remained hostile to outside contacts. Most linguistic work on this language has been done by the Summer Institute linguist Catherine Peeke (1973, 1979), and Rachel Saint has collected a number of Huao texts (cf. E. G. Pike and Saint 1988). The phoneme inventory has been described by Saint and K. L. Pike (1962) as in table 4.7. There are three marginal phonemes: /ˇc/, used in onomatopoetic descriptions; /p< /, a labial inverse oral click, used as emphatic negative; and /m< /, inverse pulmonic nasal. There are no syllable-final consonants and no consonant clusters, while there are numerous vowel clusters. Nasalisation plays an important role in the language.
4.9 Small families and supposed isolates in Ecuador
455
There is fairly extensive verb suffixing, as in: (115) apæ ˜ -ne-ga-d˜an(i)-˜ı-pa speak-CL:mouth-RM-3S.PL-IL-AF ‘They spoke long ago.’
(Pike and Saint 1988: 119)
There is evidence of noun classification; the examples given all involve body parts, as -ne- ‘mouth’ above, -miœ ˜ - ‘tail’ and -po- ‘finger’: (116) bo-t˜o ta:-miæ ˜ -kæ-bo-˜ı-pa 1.SG-PU cut-CL:tail-IC-1S.SG-IL-AF ‘I am going to cut off his tail.’ (Pike and Saint 1988: 125) (117) deye ˜ı-ma˜ı w˜ee˜ -n˜e e˜ -po-k˜a-ta-pa spider.monkey this-like long.ago-L exist-CL:finger-3S.SG-PA-AF ‘Long ago the spider monkey had four fingers and a thumb.’ (Pike and Saint 1988: 129)
These forms also illustrate a number of other features of the language: the contrast between past and remote-past tenses, the presence of aspect categories such as inceptive, and of evidentials, including an inferential marker, the use of person markers, and case suffixes. The suffixal person markers differentiate for number (singular, dual and plural), gender (animate, inanimate) and (feminine) honorific. The second- and third-person dual and plural forms do not only refer to number, but are also used to denote specific relations in the kinship system (Peeke 1973: 40). Note that all stop symbols in Peeke’s inventory of person markers reproduced below have to be pronounced as nasals when preceded by a nasal vowel. So -d˜adi is either pronounced [d˜ani], or [n˜ani]; -k˜a is either [k˜a] or [ŋ˜a], etc. (118) 1
singular -bo
dual -b¯oda
2 3 animate 3 inanimate
-bi -k˜a ∅
-b˜ıda -da
plural -b˜odi (exclusive) -b˜o (inclusive) -b˜ıdi -d˜adi
The feminine honorific forms are designed to address mothers and women of an equivalent rank in relation to the speaker. They distinguish between second and third person, which are -b˜ı and -d˜a, respectively.
456
4 Languages of the eastern slopes
The case markers include: (119) -ba˜ı -d˜e -d˜o -ke
‘like’ ‘in’ ‘toward another, to’ ‘limit, until’
The case markers in (119) that have voiced initials are subject to nasalisation as described for the person markers above. There is no marking for subjects and objects, which are differentiated through the (fairly strict) SOV constituent order. An indication of the complexities of the interaction of person marking and subordination is given in (120). (Note that -d˜ani refers to secondperson plural in permissive complement clauses such as illustrated in the following example.) (120) m˜a-n˜ani a-te “p˜on˜o-m˜ıni kæ-m˜o-e-d˜ani” a˜ -ny o˜ -ŋ ŋa˜ -te, ba ba a˜ -n˜ani have-3S.PL see-SU give-2S.PL eat-1O.PL.EX-PM-2S.PL say-PR-3S-SU no no say-3S.PL {When, seeing they had, the (others) said: you give (you permit) us to eat, they said no no.} ‘Since they had lots of corn, when the others asked: “Can we have some of your corn to eat”, they refused.’ (Pike and Saint 1988: 115) The subordination marker -te generally marks identical subjects, but not always. 4.10 Small families and supposed language isolates in Peru In the northern half of the Peruvian lowlands, the linguistic situation is characterised by the presence of several language isolates and small families. On the eastern slopes of the Andes two families are on the verge of extinction, Chol´on (discussed in detail below in section 4.11) and Muniche. Muniche is spoken in the village of Muniches on the Paranapura river (department of Loreto) (Gibson 1996). The unclassified and nearly extinct Taushiro language of the Tigre river (department of Loreto) has been mentioned in connection with Zaparoan (cf. Fabre 2001: 1007). Kaufman (1994) gives evidence for a possible genetic relation between Taushiro, the extinct Mayna or Omurano language (once spoken on the Urituyacu river in Loreto) and Candoshi (see below). Another unclassified and possibly extinct language of the Peruvian lowlands is Au(i)shiri or Tekiraka, once spoken near lake Vacacocha in the Curaray river area (Tessmann 1930). In spite of the similarity in the name, the vocabulary given by Tessmann indicates no relationship with Auishiri, one of the alternative designations of the Huaorani people (see above section 4.9).
4.10 Small families and supposed isolates in Peru
457
Further north, Candoshi, Shapra or Murato is the last member of a small family; other members were contacted during the sixteenth century (cf. chapter 3: sections 3.9.1 and 3.9.2). It has often been classified with the neighbouring Jivaroan languages, but David Payne (1990) argues that this is a misclassification due to borrowing. Shapra also refers to a variety of Candoshi spoken by a rather isolated subgroup. The Murato were first contacted in 1744, but resisted missionary efforts of the Jesuits in 1748 (Chirif and Mora 1977). Further east in Loreto, Urarina or Simacu is a language isolate with a few thousand speakers. The group is now also known by its own denomination Kach´a. Based on the sentences given in ILV (1979: 139–42), we can draw the following preliminary sketch of the language. In noun phrases, adjectives (actually stative verbs) follow nouns: (121) aka helaher˜ı: aka aharot˜ı:
‘cold water’ ‘hot water’
Possessors and demonstratives precede the noun, however: (122) a. i: kra: ‘your name’ i: lureri ‘your house’ b. ka: nenaha kra: this settlement name ‘the name of this settlement’ c. ka: nke kra: this river name ‘the name of this river’ We have the order modifier–modified: (123) atawari tahe ‘chicken egg’ The object precedes the verb: (124) a. kan ama- Atalaya- 1.SG take-IM Atalaya-AL ‘Take me to Atalaya!’ b. karay abio:n sar--ˇce for.me airplane push-IM-PL ‘Please push the airplane!’
458
4 Languages of the eastern slopes
Information status is marked with clause-final particles, such as the question clitic -na in (125a): (125) a. kna-a-na hurt-3S-Q ‘Does it hurt?’ b. kna-to-a hurt-VE-3S ‘It hurts.’ c. kna-i hurt-3S.NE ‘It doesn’t hurt.’ Question words are fronted. They include: (126) dz a dz a-bana dz a-el˜o dz a-hia dz a-toan-˜ey dz
‘what?’, ‘who?’ ‘when?’ ‘in which direction?’ ‘along where?’ ‘how?’ ‘where?’
[tona ‘compare’, -˜ey ‘gerund’]
There is evidence of a demonstrative paradigm intersecting with the question-word system (-hia indicates location in a wide sense). (127) dz a-hia ta-hia ka-hia
‘whereabout?’ ‘over there’ ‘here’
It is difficult to gain a good picture of the morphology, except that it is suffixal. There are a great many suffixes and about twelve suffix positions. Cajas Rojas (1990) deals with the complex interaction between (progressive) nasalisation and nasal weakening in Urarina. The language is currently being studied by Knut Olawsky.15 The Zaparoan family, mentioned above, and the Peba–Yagua family fill part of the space separating the Amazon river from the Colombian and Ecuadorian border. Peba– Yagua is now represented by a single language, Yagua. Yameo, another language of the same family, became extinct in the 1960s. Doris Payne (1986) and Payne and Payne (1990) contain extensive data on Yagua. Near the place where Peru meets with Colombia and Brazil the isolate Ticuna is spoken (cf. section 2.20). 15
We thank Knut Olawsky for his revision of the Urarina examples given in this section.
4.10 Small families and supposed isolates in Peru
459
There are two languages in the southern Peruvian lowlands which have been misclassified as Arawakan: Culina and Harakmbut. The Culina live on both sides of the Brazilian border. There is a larger Culina population in Brazil. Culina belongs to the Araw´a family; the Culina constituted a warrior group and were first sighted in 1869 by the English explorer Chandless; in the 1890s they suffered intensive exploitation and by the end of the 1940s they established themselves in the Alto Pur´us (Chirif and Mora 1977). Harakmbut (spoken in Madre de Dios) has long been considered a language isolate known by several names. Adelaar (2000), however, has argued a link with the Katukina language family in Brazil. There are several dialects which fall into two large clusters (Helberg Ch´avez 1990: 227–8). Toyoeri and Huachipaeri form one cluster, while the other is formed by Sapiteri, Arasaeri and Amarakaeri, which is the best known and has the largest number of speakers. It has been studied by Helberg Ch´avez (1984, 1990). After an initial incursion by the Inca Tupac Yupanqui, a new attempt to conquer Madre de Dios was made by the Spaniards in 1566. The Huachipaeri managed to attack highland haciendas from time to time in the colonial period. Towards the end of the nineteenth century the Toyoeri were decimated by the infamous rubber-baron Fitzcarraldo, an event which resulted in an internecine war between the survivors and other Harakmbut subtribes (Gray 1996). In 1950 there was successful renewed contact with Dominican missionaries. Helberg Ch´avez (1990) provides detailed information about the highly complex structure of the Amarakaeri verb. Verbs can have both prefixes and suffixes, and a number of semantic categories can be marked on the verb: transitivity, causativity, intensive/extensive, and person, tense/mood/aspect, and polarity. The personal markers, pronominal and prefixal, are (Helberg Ch´avez 1990: 243–4): (128) 1.SG 2.SG 3.SG 1.PL 2.PL 3.PL
n
doʔʔ o˜ n k˜en oro opdn k˜en-˜o-my
ih iʔʔoʔʔoʔʔm bo- / m˜oo˜ nʔʔ-
Two examples can serve to illustrate the complexities of Harakmbut verbal morphology, which includes a complex system of classifiers marking shape: (129) ih -waʔʔ-pet-n da-piʔʔ ˜ıh -n˜o-p˜o-˜e-˜ı 1S.SG-go-PO-IT-DU 1.SG-CL:centre-CL:round.form-know-1.SG ‘I think I will go a long time from now.’ (Helberg Ch´avez 1990: 239)
460
4 Languages of the eastern slopes
The classifier system has been described in some detail by Hart (1963): morphemes referring to body parts are often combined with morphemes denoting more abstract spatial features. These can occur in nouns, but also in adjectives and verbs. An example of a nominal complex is (130), containing a nominalising classifier prefix: (130) wa-pa-pi-k-ti-pi N-CL:rod-CL:stick-CL:head-CL:extension-CL:stick ‘shin’
(Hart 1963: 3)
The data in ILV (1973) allow us to draw some preliminary typological conclusions as well. Compounds have the order modifier–modified, and the same holds for adjective– noun and determiner–noun order: (131) a. baka o˜ nʔʔw˜eh b. kargŋ w˜eʔ e˜ y c. ˜ın wa-km˜aiʔʔ
cow milk ‘cows’ milk’ cold water ‘cold water’ this N-CL:pill ‘this pill’
Case is expressed through suffixes: (132) ˜ın-te iʔʔ-m˜aiʔʔ-po
this-L 2S.SG-drink-IS
‘here’ ‘while you drink . . .’
4.11 Chol´on We now will provide a sketch of Chol´on, a language of the upper Huallaga valley in northern Peru, north of the town of Tingo Mar´ıa. There was also a language closely related to Chol´on, Hibito. Only a few elderly people remembered Chol´on until recently (reportedly in Si´on, department of San Mart´ın). Both Chol´on and Hibito are now probably extinct. Chol´on is discussed in some detail below. This language has been documented in a number of sources: – Pedro de la Mata’s (1748) Arte de la lengua cholona. The manuscript was purchased by the British Library in 1863 and has been – rather unfaithfully and only partly – transcribed by Julio Tello (1923: 690–750). We went back to a filmed copy of the British Museum text, which has been prepared for publication by Astrid Alexander-Bakkerus. – Mart´ınez Compa˜no´ n’s (1985 [1782–90]) comparative word list of 43 items gathered from speakers in the same mission areas (conversiones), particularly the conversi´on de Hivitos. The list includes several other languages besides Chol´on and ‘Hivito’ (see section 3.9.2). – G¨unter Tessmann’s (1930) 30-item word list from his large comparative study of northeastern Peru, based on data provided by Harvey Baessler from an old man living in Pachiza.
4.11 Chol´on
461
4.11.1 The Chol´on lexicon and relationship with Hibito There is some dispute about the genetic relationship between Chol´on and Hibito. Most scholars, and most convincingly Rivet (1949), have argued that the two languages are closely related, but Torero (1986: 533) casts doubt on this claim. In our view, the lexical correspondences strongly support the relationship. Pedro de la Mata, at the end of his Chol´on grammar, gives a list of both the Chol´on- and the Hibito-speaking towns, presumably intending his grammar to be used in both. Consider the following items, taken from Pedro de la Mata (PM), Mart´ınez Compa˜no´ n (MC) and Tessmann (T), which surely belong to the core vocabulary of both languages. This makes Torero’s suggestion that shared lexicon has resulted from extensive language contact less plausible: (133) tree, stick water daughter son fruit woman
nu ˜ (PM), -nu ˜ (MC) pul (PM), -pul (MC) queniya (MC) ila (PM), yla (MC), hil´a (T)
man
nun (PM), num (MC), lun(o) ¯ (T)
father mother
nguch ‘his/her father’ (PM) nguetz, neetz, ˜ n˜guech ‘his/her mother’ (PM) ngoli=cho ˜ (MC), col- (PM) zal, tzal, chal (PM) chel (PM, MC) an- (PM), ans- (T) ip- (PM), hips- (T) is- (PM), hies- (T) yip, (t)zip (PM), h¯ıp(o) (T) pei, pey (PM), lluspey (MC), p¯eij (T) setch (PM), mutsitˇse´ (T) ta (PM), t¯a (T)
die black bone one two three house earth head stone 16
Chol´on mech (PM), mees=ngup ˜ (MC), mesˇ (T) ¯ cot (PM), qu˜ot (MC), k¨o˘ ta (T)
Compare Culli pus ∼ pos ‘earth’.
Hibito mixs (MC), mitˇs (T) cachi (MC), otˇsj (T) noo ˜ (MC) pool (MC) llagna (MC) etlec (MC), udu, ¯ alu (T) nuum (MC), num, ¯ nun (T) cotc (MC) queec (MC) calgesquim (MC) uts´almana (T) chepce (MC) ets´ı (T) optˇse¯ (T) utsi ´ (T) ¯ıp (T) puts16 (T) s´otˇsa (T) tˇse¯ (T)
462
4 Languages of the eastern slopes
Sound correspondences may include: (134) Chol´on ta c, cˇ o u
Hibito cˇ e, cˇ i c a o:, u:
There are also a number of items which do not correspond, but part of the noncorrespondence may simply be due to the elicitation procedure. Of Hibito, no more than fifty words are known: those recorded by Mart´ınez Compa˜no´ n and by Tessmann. A very interesting case involves the Chol´on words for ‘father’ and ‘mother’, which are regularly inflected with person prefixes except for the suppletive third-person form, as Pedro de la Mata notes: (135) ‘father’ a-pa mi-pa pi-pa ŋuˇc
‘mother’ a-paŋ ŋ mi-paŋ ŋ pi-paŋ ŋ ŋeˇc
1P.SG 2P.SG.MS 2P.SG.FE 3P.SG
The last two forms, however, can be regularly derived from *ŋ-kuˇc and *ŋ-keˇc, which presumably contain the older forms for ‘father’ and ‘mother’, respectively, if we take the Hibito evidence into account. 4.11.2 Gender-determined language use Certain forms of Chol´on language use are determined by the gender of the (singular) addressee. Consider first the contrast between the following examples: (136) a. inˇcam-ma what-MS ‘What do you say or want (man)?’ b. inˇcam-pa what-FE ‘What do you say or want (woman)?’ The same contrast with m for masculine forms and p for feminine forms we find with second-person-singular prefixes:
4.11 Chol´on
(137) amipi-
1P.SG 2P.SG.MS 2P.SG.FE
463
a-kcok mi-kcok pi-kcok
‘my box’ ‘your (masc.) box’ ‘your (fem.) box’
[kacok ‘box’]
We find p for feminine also in the contrasting address forms: there is an -ey ending for men, and -pey for women. 4.11.3 Chol´on phonology On the basis of the historical sources it is not easy to get a clear idea of Chol´on phonology. Pedro de la Mata developed elaborate transcription conventions in his Arte, but does not indicate with which sounds his diacritics correspond. Tessmann, however, uses a much more uniform and precise system, so that we have a reasonable general idea. The sound inventory is roughly as in table 4.8. Vowel length is not distinctive, according to Pedro de la Mata, and there is no contrastive stress. Stress is word final, except on certain verb tenses, where we have stress on the penultimate syllable. For the notation of Chol´on we use a spelling based on a reconstruction of the Chol´on sound system developed by Alexander-Bakkerus (in preparation).17 Doubled consonants, which are usually presented as alternatives for simple consonants in de la Mata’s grammar, are written as single consonants. There is evidence of harmony for high vowels in the prefixes, as can be seen in the following contrasts: (138) ki-coc ‘our guinea pig’ i-coc ‘their guinea pig’
ku-cuˇc ‘our alfalfa’ u-cuˇc ‘their alfalfa’
[yoc ‘guinea-pig’, yuˇc ‘alfalfa’]
Syllables tend to be simple, as will become clear from the examples below. 4.11.4 The principal grammatical features of Chol´on As far as the morphology of this language is concerned, a large part of Chol´on morphology is clearly suffixal and agglutinative, but person markers are prefixal. There is some compounding as well. There is a complex set of morphophonological adjustment rules for the third-person prefix, as will be shown below. Chol´on has a number of word classes, in addition to nouns and verbs, which are the two dominant categories in the language and to which we will return below.
17
Much of the morphological analysis underlying the interpretation of the example sentences in this section is also based on Alexander-Bakkerus’s unpublished work.
464
4 Languages of the eastern slopes Table 4.8 The sound inventory of Chol´on (based on Alexander-Bakkerus, forthcoming)∗
Voiceless stops Voiced stops Fricatives Affricates Nasals Vibrant Laterals Glides
Labial
Dental
p (b) (f )
t (d) s c n
m
High Mid Low ∗
sˇ cˇ ny (r) ly y
l w Front
Palatal
Central
i e
Velar
Laryngeal
k (g) h
ʔ
ŋ
Back u o
a
The elements in parentheses occur only in Spanish loan words. The exact value of the mid vowels is uncertain; the assumption of a glottal stop phoneme is tentative.
Exclamatives Just like Quechua, Chol´on has a wide variety of exclamatives, some of which resemble those of that language: (139) ah aha aku alew aly aw, atih ampaˇslen anih empek, ma empek any iw aŋ ŋ iˇcay, iˇcakay iˇci, iˇcyey iˇsiw onew oy uˇcu, uˇcuw uny uw
neutral exclamation, also: to scare children ‘what a shame!’ ‘affectionate, pity’ ‘cold’ ‘pain’ ‘pity’ ‘very well! well done!’ ‘desire’ ‘admiration’ ‘disapproval’ ‘fear’ ‘how wicked, how insolent!’ ‘anger or annoyance’ ‘concession or assent’ ‘how hot!’ ‘marvel, praise’
4.11 Chol´on
465
Conjunctions and clausal enclitics There is a small set of sentential affixes, which includes: (140) a. b. c. d. e.
-le -pit -simaly -(w)a -(w)aˇco
‘or’, interrogative marker ‘and, also’ ‘and, also’ (used with verbs) ‘as for’ (topic marker) ‘and, but’
The form sim-al y ‘and, etc.’ may consist of sim, which occurs rarely by itself, and the delimitative clitic -(a)l y . Some examples of sentential affixes are given below. (141) mi-le ok-le ki-ly a-kt-an18 2.SG-IR 1.SG-IR 1S.PL-go-F-IA ‘Shall I go, or will you go?’ (142) ok a-ly a-kt-an mi-na-ha-waˇco mu-mutaŋ ŋ-ha-te [putam ‘village’] 1.SG 1S.SG-go-F-IA 2-PU-PL-but 2P.SG-RL.village-PL-L ‘I will go, but you (plural) (will stay) in your village.’
Question words Question words include the following, where -(a)m is a question marker: (143) ol-am inˇca-m intoŋ ŋko-m ana-mek-am
‘who?’ ‘what?’ ‘which?’ ‘how much/many?’
[mek ‘all’]
They can be modified by the enclitic conjunction -pit ‘also’ and then have an indefinite meaning:19 (144) ol-pit inˇca-pit intoŋ ŋko-pit
18
19
‘someone’ ‘something’ ‘anyone’
There is evidence that m and ŋ were the only nasals occurring in word-final as well as rootfinal position in Chol´on, and that the imperfective suffix -(a)n was in fact pronounced [(a)ŋ]. Likewise, the most likely interpretation for the final nasal in -mutaŋ- (∼ mutam), in (142), is a velar nasal. Compare Quechua -pas/-pis with the same meaning.
466
4 Languages of the eastern slopes
For the use of the question words, consider the following cases: (145) a. inˇca-m ma-kot-an what-Q 2.SG.AP-be-IA ‘What do you have?’ b. inˇca-pit-ma a-kot-p-an what-AD-NE 1.SG.AP-be-NE-IA ‘I have nothing.’ c. a-paŋ ŋ-a ol-am a-ˇsot-a ol-lol-am cˇ e-kt-an-pit20 1P.SG-mother-TO who-Q 1P.SG-brother-TO who-PL-Q 3S.PL-be-IA-AD ‘Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?’ d. ana-mek-am hayu putam-te i-toŋ ŋ21 how.many-all-Q person village-L 3S.PL-be/sit ‘How many Indians are there in the village?’ It is clear that many question words contain the element -am but the data are not sufficient to determine what exactly this form means. Possibly, it has a function comparable with Quechua -taq (see section 3.2.6).
Pronouns There is a regular personal pronoun system. Notice that the second-person-plural form can be derived synchronically from its singular counterpart: (146) ok ‘I’ mi ‘you’ sa ‘he’
ki-ha ‘we’ mi-na-ha ‘you’ cˇ i-ha ‘they’
These pronouns can be case-marked as well. Some of them also form the basis for the person prefixes, as we will see below. In addition, there are demonstrative pronouns, encoding three degrees of distance: (147) ko iŋ ŋko pe 20
21
‘this here’ ‘that there’ ‘that over there’
The internal vowel of the verb root kot ‘to be’ is suppressed in order to avoid the occurrence of a non-initial open syllable; it does not happen in (145a), where the root is preceded by an applicative prefix (Alexander-Bakkerus, personal communication). The verb -toŋ ‘to sit’ is exceptional in that it does not take the imperfective suffix -(a)n in non-applicative forms with a third-person subject.
4.11 Chol´on
467
Nouns Nouns can appear inflected or uninflected for person, and there is some nominal morphology as well. There is the possibility of nominal gender marking through compounding with nun ‘man’ and ila ‘woman’: (148) nun hayu / hayu nun ila hayu / hayu ila kuˇci nun ately pa nun
‘man’ ‘woman’ ‘boar’ ‘rooster’
[hayu ‘person, Indian’] [kuˇci ‘pig’, old Spanish coche] [ately pa ‘chicken’, Quechua atawal y pa]
There is a large set of nominal suffixes, which are either derivational, or mark case distinctions, and are then postpositional in nature. Derivational affixes are: (149) a. -(a)ly b. -(k)e c. d. e. f.
-(k)ely -puˇc -puly em -ciw23
‘only . . .’22 ‘made of . . .’, ‘child of (dead persons)’, ‘former’, ‘the late . . .’ (nominal past) ‘having excess of . . .’ [possibly -(k)e + -(a)ly ] ‘totally’ ‘and natural counterpart’ ‘having a lack of . . .’, ‘in need of’
Examples of these affixes are given below: (150) cˇ ow-nik-aly louse-C-DL ‘with only lice’ (151) a. ampal-e ‘thing of the past’ b. cˇ eˇco-ke ‘(made) of silver’ c. Juana-ke u-ny u Juana-NP 3P.SG-daughter ‘daughter of the late Juana’ (152) seˇc-ely ‘big headed’
22 23
Cf. Quechua -l ya with the same meaning. In Pedro de la Mata ziu or chiu.
[ampal ‘past’] [ˇceˇco ‘silver’]
[seˇc ‘head’]
468
4 Languages of the eastern slopes [a- ‘one’, -lek ‘ten’] (153) a-lek-puˇc ‘completely ten’ (154) a. ŋuˇc-puly em [ŋ ŋuˇc ‘3P.SG.father’] ‘father and son’ b. ŋeˇc-puly em [ŋ ŋeˇc ‘3P.SG.mother’] ‘mother and daughter’ [a-le ‘1P.SG-tooth’] (155) a. a-le-ciw ‘without my teeth’, ‘I, without teeth’ b. a-le-saly -ciw ‘without any of my teeth’, ‘I, absolutely toothless’
The expression kamayok ‘person in charge of . . .’, from Quechua kamayuq (same meaning), can also be used as a postposition-like element:
(156) weˇsa kamayok ‘shepherd’ palol kamayok ‘doorman’
[weˇsa ‘sheep’, from Spanish oveja] [palol ‘door’]
Case markers and postpositions are sometimes difficult to distinguish because de la Mata does not indicate word boundaries consistently. They include:
(157) -he ‘for’, ‘aim’, benefactive case -(ly ak)pat ‘by’, ‘because of’, instrumental case -(ly ak)tep ‘from’, ablative case -manap ‘between’, ‘after’ -nik ‘with’, ‘company’, comitative case -(pat)le ‘until, up to’, limitative case -te locative case, allative case -tu motion towards a person, allative case (158) Examples of -he benefactive: a. ok-he 1.SG.PU-B ‘for me’ b. Dios-he a-lu.pakt-an [lu ‘entrails’, pakot- ‘to be there’] God-B 1S.SG-think/consider-IA ‘I think of God.’
4.11 Chol´on
(159)
(160)
(161)
(162)
24
469
c. a-cm-o-k-te-he [yam-/cam- ‘to learn’] 1S.SG-learn-TV-N-L-B ‘so that I can learn’ d. kaˇc-he a-kt-an maize-B 1S.SG-be-IA ‘I need maize’ e. a-am-o-k-he-na a-ki-an 1S.SG-eat-TV-N-B-QU 1S.SG-feel-IA ‘I feel like eating.’ Examples of -pat instrumental: a. a-moncey-pat a-hl-an [hil ‘to speak’] 1P.SG-tongue-IS 1S.SG-speak-IA ‘I speak with my tongue.’ b. mi-pat 2.SG.PU-IS ‘because of you’ c. a-lek libra kuka-pat a-coˇcok a-ms-i [pis ‘to buy’, ‘to ask for’] one-ten pound coca-IS 1P.SG-trousers 1S.SG-3O.SG.buy-PF ‘With my ten pounds of coca I bought my trousers.’ Example of -tep ablative: Espiritu.Santo i-cmey-tep hayu ∅-ki-i Holy.Ghost 3P.SG-creation-AB man 3S.SG-become-PF ‘Man was born from the Holy Ghost.’ Examples of -nik comitative: a. cˇ eˇco-nik a-kt-an money-C 1S.SG-be-IA ‘I have money.’ (lit. ‘I am with money.’) b. ki-ha-nik 1.PL-PL.PU-C ‘with us’ c. inˇcana-m mi-mot-nik me-kt-an how-Q 2P.SG-name-C 2.SG-be-IA ‘What is your name?’ (lit. ‘How are you with your name?’)24 Example of -le limitative: liman-le mountain-LI ‘up to the mountains’
For the combination -nik-aly see the example (150) above.
470
4 Languages of the eastern slopes (163) Example of -te locative: ki-cip-te ke-tŋ ŋ-an 1P.PL-house-L 1S.PL-sit-IA ‘We are in our house.’ (164) Example of -tu allative: Juan-tu a-ly w-an Juan-AL 1S.SG-go-IA ‘I am going to Juan’s place.’
[yip ‘house’, toŋ ŋ- ‘to sit’]
[ly a(w)- ‘to go’]
There is a genitive marker -low, which can only occur with a possessive personal prefix.
(165) a. ok a-low ko-wa 1.SG.PU 1P.SG-G this-TO ‘This is mine.’ b. ok a-low ŋ-a-ly ah-an 1.SG.PU 1P.SG-G 3S.SG-1.SG.AP-take-IA ‘He takes mine (away).’ c. ol i-low-am ko-wa who 3P.PL-G-Q this-TO ‘Whose is this?’ There is some evidence that the suffix -tup represents an agent-disambiguator or an ergative case marker. (Unfortunately de la Mata does not contain many example sentences.)
(166) Juan-tup Pedro i-∅ ∅-lam-i25 Juan-E Pedro 3S.SG-3O.SG-kill-PF ‘Juan killed Pedro.’ Rivet (1956) draws attention to the numeral classifier system of Chol´on.26 The numerals are prefixed to generally monosyllabic morphemes particular to a semantic class. The
25 26
Compare Mapuche langm- ‘to kill’ (see chapter 5). Rivet argues on this basis, in our view without enough support, that Chol´on was related to the Chibchan languages.
4.11 Chol´on
471
list of classes and classifiers is as follows: (167) -ˇce -cel ∼ -ˇcel , -ta -ˇcaŋ ŋ -ˇcup -hil -liw -pimok -pok -poŋ ŋ -puˇc -puk -ˇsuŋ ŋ -tip -tuh
round objects, birds, fruit humans, horses, hands bundles, handfuls, bunches clothing, dresses, axes, machetes, fish, books, feathers, scissors, knives, combs, shoes, stockings words, precepts, ordinances, commands diverse objects, colours, parrots skies, ceilings, rooms, divisions of space, folds times troops, companies, armies, herds fields mouthfuls towns, places, posts, piles halves, pieces of meat pieces, chunks, nodes, joints
Adjectives Chol´on only has substantives that can be used adjectivally, such as waliw ‘something strong’27 and al y hi ‘something sweet’.28 They can either precede or follow the head noun, according to de la Mata, but the examples given involve adjective–noun order: (168) a. iˇsiwah hayu ‘bad man’ b. yamkuyla hayu-he diligent man-B ‘for the diligent man’ Person prefixes All nouns, verbs, pronouns and even some postpositions are used with prefixes. These are given in (169), together with the full pronouns listed above. For most person–number combinations, there is a clear relationship between both. (N- is either n-, or nasalisation of an initial stop): (169) pronouns affixes 27 28
1.SG ok a-
2.SG mi mi-
3.SG sa N-/∅ ∅-
Possibly from Spanish vale ‘it is worth’, ‘it is good’. Compare Quechua al y i(n) ‘good’.
1.PL ki-ha ki-
2.PL mi-na-ha mi-..-ha
3.PL cˇ i-ha (ˇc)i-
472
4 Languages of the eastern slopes
These prefixes fuse with their base, and de la Mata’s grammar gives extensive paradigms, which at first sight look quite confusing, particularly where third person singular is involved: (170) a-pul ‘my son’ a-taka ‘my thighbone’ a-coc ‘my guinea pig’ a-nly o ‘my pupil’
mul ‘his son’ taka ‘his thighbone’ coc ‘his guinea pig’ naly o ‘his pupil’
[pul ‘son’] [taka ‘thighbone’] [yoc ‘guinea pig’] [naly o ‘pupil’]
There are several regular processes at work in the process of prefix fusion: (a) before vowels -n- is inserted; (b) a palatal glide is replaced by the affricate c-; (c) stem-initial labial stops may become nasal; with some nouns this only happens to mark third person singular; (d) stem-initial velar stops become nasal to mark third person singular; (e) before an alveolar or palatal sound (ˇc, c, s, sˇ, t, l y ) the third-person prefix is zero; the same holds before nasals as defined under (a), (c) and (d); (f) the third-person-plural prefix is i- before alveolars and palatals, cˇ ielsewhere (or u-, cˇ u- through vowel harmony). Verbs The verbal paradigm in Chol´on is quite complex. The basic forms for person are the ones listed above in (169). We have the following present-tense paradigm for the verb kot-‘to be’; cf. also (145). Notice that the third-person-singular form of an intransitive verb such as kot- has no personal reference marker. (171) 1S.SG 2S.SG.MS 2S.SG.FE 3S.SG
a-kt-an me-kt-an pe-kt-an kot-an
1S.PL 2S.PL
ke-kt-an me-kt-i-ha-[a]n
3S.PL
cˇ e-kt-an
Tense and aspect are marked with suffixes. Some are (using the terminology of de la Mata): (172) -(a)n -Vy / -Vw / -i / -yi -Vy / -Vw / -i / -yi + (k)e -(k)t-an
present / imperfective preterite / perfective pluperfect future
In addition, there are a number of mood markers, marking optative, exhortative, subordination (gerund). Some of them contain a nominalising element -k- (see below).
4.11 Chol´on (173) -(k-)hu -(ŋ ŋ)o-ke / -(k-)te-ke -(k-)he
473 gerund (with switch-reference) optative exhortative (third-person-subject imperative)
There is also a negative element -p-, which interacts with tense-agreement marking: (174) a-kot-p-an 1S.SG-be-NE-IA or 1.SG.AP-be-NE-IA ‘I am not.’ or ‘I have not.’ Thus we have a basic ‘formula’ for the verb as in: (175) -- (-) (-) / However, when we consider forms such as the following, we realise that the full complexities of the Chol´on verbal system still call for further analysis. (Notice the vowel harmony in /pakot-o-ke/ > pokot-o-ke.). (176) a-kt-i pokot-o-ke [pakot ‘be there’] 1S.SG-be-PF be.there-FN-NP (optative) ‘I could have been.’ (lit. ‘I have been from having to be’) There are very strong and productive patterns of nominalisation in the language; some involve a nominaliser -k- The locative -te is used here with a directional meaning: (177) a. liman a-ly a-k-te a-meny -an mountains 1S.SG-go-N-L 1S.SG-3O.SG.want-IA ‘I want to go to the mountains.’ b. Dios-a ŋol-e-k-te ki-meny -an God-TO 3O.SG.love-TV-N-L 1S.PL-3O.SG.want-IA ‘We want to love God.’ c. Dios-tup i-k-kol-e-k-te i-meny -an God-E 3S.SG-1O.PL-love-TV-N-L 3S.SG-3O.SG.want-IA ‘God wants to love us.’ When we look at the transitions between subject and object marking, things are again more complicated, however. First of all, there can be a third-person-plural object marker -po- following the person prefixes, so that we would get: (178) - . - - - /
474
4 Languages of the eastern slopes
Examples are: (179) a-po-koly -an mi-po-koly -an mi-po-koly -i-ha-(a)n
1S.SG-3O.PL 2S.SG-3O.PL 2S.PL-3O.PL
‘I love them.’ ‘You love them.’ ‘You (plur.) love them.’
There is also an applicative marker -pa(ha)- ‘for them’, in forms such as: (180) i-sak a-paha-puˇc-an 3P.PL-food 1S.SG-3.PL.AP-put-IA ‘I put the food out for them.’ When the plural -la- appears without either -po- or -pa- it means the subject is thirdperson plural and the person prefixes mark the person of the object. In the following example, as in (179), the verb contains the perfective marker -i, which in these cases is semantically void. (181) a-koly -i-la-n mi-koly -i-la-n
3S.PL-1O.SG ‘They love me.’ 3S.PL-2O.SG ‘They love you.’
Compound verbs Another feature worthy of note in Chol´on is the fact that nouns or other elements can be combined with an auxiliary-like verb to form a complex predicate. Consider: (182) a. a-kuly ha a-kt-an 1P.SG-life 1S.SG-be-IA ‘I live.’ (lit. ‘I am my life.’) b. mu-kuly ha me-kt-an 2P.SG-life 2S.SG-be-IA ‘You live.’ (lit. ‘You are your life.’)
[kuly ha ‘life’; kot- ‘to be’]
There is a verb ki-, which has the meaning ‘to be’ or ‘to become’: (183) kama a-ki-an mise ∅-ki-an ciw mi-ki-(e)y-ha-n hayu ∅-ki-y
‘I am ill.’ ‘He feels cold.’ ‘You (plur.) are needy.’ ‘He became a man.’
Similarly, verbs can be made from nouns. (Note that the root vowel of yip- / cip- ‘to make a house’ remains unchanged.)
4.12 Small families and supposed isolates in Bolivia (184) a. a-cip-an 1S.SG-house-IA ‘I make my house.’ b. liw a-lw-e-n letter 1S.SG-write-IA ‘I write.’
475
[yip ‘house’, -cip ‘someone’s house]
[liw ‘painting’, liw-e- ‘to write’]
4.11.5 The basic word order of Chol´on Chol´on has many characteristics of a classical OV language, in addition to fairly consistent verb-final clauses: (185) kuˇci-le me-kt-an maly a mu-∅ ∅-ly up-o-wa pig-or 2S.SG-be-IA raw.thing 2S.SG-3O.SG-eat-FN-TO ‘Or are you a pig that you eat raw stuff?’ Possessors precede their head noun: (186) Pedro ∅-n-eˇstek sa-ˇco ∅-kot-an29 Peter 3P.SG-RL-clothes old-already 3S.SG-be-IA ‘Peter’s clothes are already old.’ Modifiers precede their head noun as well: (187) cˇ eˇco-ke kaloˇc silver-NP plate ‘silver plate’ 4.12 Small families and supposed language isolates in Bolivia In the Bolivian lowlands surrounding the northern edge of the Andean high plateau there is a wide array of small, genetically isolated languages. From west to east, they are Leco, Moset´en–Chimane, Movima, Cayuvava, Canichana, Itonama and, further south, Yuracar´e. Most of these languages are far from being adequately documented at present. Leco had been considered extinct, but van de Kerke (1998, 1999, 2000, 2002) has found more than forty-five speakers. The language has (direct and indirect) object person prefixes but an extensive verbal suffixing system, as well as case suffixes. An example is: (188) mi:s yo-yo-ki yin-hal-di-ra-no-te wes-ra tomorrow 1P.SG-mother-RL 1.SG.DA-buy-IC-F-ID.N-DV Guanay-L ‘Tomorrow my mother will go and buy me (a new one) in Guanay.’ (van de Kerke 2002: 246) 29
It could not be determined whether the root for ‘old’ exemplified here is actually sa or saˇco.
476
4 Languages of the eastern slopes
There are a few simple cases: -ki ‘dative, benefactive’, -i ‘comitative, instrumental’, -ra ‘locative, instrumental’, -rep ‘ablative’, as well as bi-syllabic case markers such as the Quechua or Aymara borrowings -kama ‘until’ and -baˇca ‘reason’. Gill (undated) and Sakel (2002, 2003) provide detailed studies of Moset´en–Chimane. It is best to consider this group as a set of three closely related varieties: Santa Ana Moset´en, Covendo Moset´en and Chimane proper. Sakel (2002) documents how gender marking has become grammaticalised as a pervasive feature of a number of grammatical subsystems of Moset´en. Basic data for Movima have been provided by Judy and Judy (1962, 1967) and Grinevald (2002), and the language is currently being studied by Katharina Haude. It has a complex system of classifiers (Grinevald 2002). An example from the verbal domain is: (189) ona-raona-moona-waxona-poy-
‘know (the thing)’ ‘know (a bird)’ ‘know (a place)’ ‘know (an animal)’
(Judy and Judy 1962: 151)
Aspects of the small isolate Cayuvava have been documented by Key (1967). This language is in urgent need of further documentation and analysis. Itonama and the probably extinct Canichana are currently being studied by Mily Crevels. Itonama phonology has been analysed by Liccardi (1968). Yuracar´e has been documented by Adam (1893) on the basis of a much earlier manuscript by the missionary de la Cueva. It is currently being studied by Rik van Gijn. It has complex reduplication patterns, involving either the initial syllable, the final syllable, or the entire word: (190) a. burusa- ‘to get rent’ b. sama- ‘to die’ c. bene-bene-‘to be poor, to need’
burus-bu- ‘to rend’ sama-ma- ‘to kill’ (Adam 1893: 46–8)
Yuracar´e is an SOV agglutinative language with both prefixes and suffixes. As in Leco, personal nominal possession and object markers are prefixal, while subject markers are suffixal. Applicatives are prefixal, while other verbal derivation markers, including causative and reflexive, tense/mood/aspect markers, case markers and sentenceorganising elements are suffixal. The following example, adapted from de la Cueva’s work, illustrates some of these characteristics: (191) ka-n-yuxu-ma ka-la-sa-ˇco-w 3O.SG-AP.GO-tell-IM.2.SG 3O.SG-AP.SO-finish-HO-3S.PL ‘Tell them to leave it (to stop doing it).’ (Adam 1893: 11, 37)
4.13 Chiquitano
477
Interesting here is the use of different applicatives to mark motion away from or towards a reference point, as well as beneficiary or purpose. The use of singular third-person object markers is allowed here because plural is encoded in the complement verb (Adam 1893: 37). A genetically isolated language, as far as we know (but see below), with a rapidly decreasing number of speakers for which a modern description is urgently needed, is Chiquitano in the eastern department of Santa Cruz de la Sierra. Chiquitano being a former mission language, remnants of other tribes can be found among its speakers. The sources do not indicate whether these groups have preserved elements of their original languages. The remaining language families represented in Bolivia are found in the north of the country: Chapacuran, with one language called Itene or Mor´e (Angenot-de Lima 2001), the Pano–Tacanan languages (section 4.1), members of the Arawakan family (section 4.2) and Tupi–Guaran´ı languages (section 4.3).
4.13 Chiquitano Now we will try to provide a sketch of Chiquitano. The size of the ethnic group of Chiquitanos is estimated by Riester (1986a) at 35,000–40,000, a minority of which are speakers of Chiquitano. In the period of Jesuit control over the area (1691–1767) Chiquitano was chosen as a lingua franca and imposed in ten reducciones, newly created settlements. Jesuit policy allowed settlements where other languages with a few thousand speakers, such as Zamuco, dominated, as long as these speakers also knew Chiquitano. Speakers of minor languages, however, were encouraged to become integrated into the Chiquitano ethnic group. While there must have been extensive multilingualism in the Chiquitano reducciones in the eighteenth century, Alcide d’Orbigny did not find many traces of the other languages when he visited the missions in 1831. Riester (1986: 31) describes the situation in the early nineteenth century as follows: several Arawakan languages (Paiconeca, Paunaca, Saraveca), Chapacuran languages (Chapacura, Kitemoca, Napeca) and Otuque (a Bororoan language) were still spoken but were losing ground in a process of language shift towards Chiquitano. Now only in two communities near Concepci´on do we find some Chiquitanos who speak Paunaca, and Kitemoca may still be in existence as well. The Jesuits effectively created a semi-standardised language, in which quite a few religious texts were written: sermons, prayers, catechisms, stories from the Scriptures. In addition, there were several grammars and vocabularies. Most of this material has remained in manuscript form (cf. the description in Riester et al. 1986), and much of it has been lost. Two manuscripts (containing a grammar, some dialogues and a vocabulary), one of which is partly based on the other, found in libraries of La Paz, Jena and Paris, were collated and
478
4 Languages of the eastern slopes
published by Adam and Henry (1880) in their Biblioth`eque Linguistique Am´ericaine. A recent brief sketch is provided in Riester et al. (1986) by Barbara Schuchard, who summarises the Adam and Henry material and confronts it with modern spoken Chiquitano. Max Fuss, who lived in the area for a long time, prepared a manuscript vocabulary, which was checked and expanded by Riester, and published in Riester et al. (1986). The Franciscan Jes´us Galeote Tormo has written an accessible pedagogical grammar, in fairly traditional terms (1993; 2nd edn 1996), of the Lomer´ıo variety, called Besro. In addition, the Summer Institute linguists D. and M. Kr¨usi (1978a, b) have described some aspects of the Besro Chiquitano spoken in Lomer´ıo, and published a number of texts in the language. Even though Chiquitano was still known widely enough to be used as a cypher language during the Chaco War between Bolivia and Paraguay, now it has lost its role as a lingua franca to Spanish. It is still widely used, but only in in-group situations, and has undergone influence from Spanish. For this reason, according to Riester, most speakers only know dialectal Chiquitano now; knowledge of the lingua franca form of the language codified in the Jesuit materials is mostly lost. Galeote Tormo (1993: 18, 30) reports that there is considerable mutual comprehension between the varieties of Chiquitano, of which the three main ones are referred to as Besro or Lomer´ıo, San Javier and San Miguel (the latter two often taken together). The main difference has to do with more nasalisation in Lomer´ıo. In addition, the latter dialect has word-final .sˇ where the others have h. Since the eighteenth-century sources analysed by Adam and Henry (1880) are much more detailed than the twentieth-century ones, we will take the former as a point of departure, and only note differences where these have been mentioned by Schuchard. There have been many changes in the language in the last two centuries, which remain to be studied. Chiquitano remains an isolate genetically.
4.13.1 Gender-determined language use in Chiquitano Differences related to gender are reported to play a central role in Chiquitano, particularly in the earlier varieties. Women use the unmarked form, while men use masculine forms and masculine endings when they speak ‘of Gods or divine persons or angels, demons, men, false gods; in sum, of everything that painters paint with men’s shapes.’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 5). Thus, not only does men’s speech as such have particular features (to be listed below), also men make gender distinctions when referring to other entities while women do not. The only time a woman will make gender distinctions is when she is quoting or making fun of men’s speech; similarly, the only occasion a man will not use them is when he quotes women’s speech.
4.13 Chiquitano
479
Specific features of men’s speech reported in the literature include (Adam and Henry 1880: 5–6, 9–10): a. the ending -ti: on forms inflected for masculine third person singular, and the ending -()ma in the plural; b. the class prefix i- in the singular and ma- in the plural for some person names; men say i-ˇsa:raˇs. ‘white man’ and ma-ˇsa:ra-ka ‘white men’, women sˇa:raˇ.s and sˇa:ra-ka; c. the class prefix o- for words denoting animals and trees; men say o-petaˇs. ‘turtle’, women petaˇs.; d. pronouns and adverbs limited to men; e. nouns that men never use; f. nouns that women use inflected, men uninflected, and vice versa; g. almost all kinship terms have an infix for the third-person masculine possessive form, e.g.: (192) a. a-to-bo-ti: stepson-MS-LS-3P.MS ‘his stepson’ b. ipak-to-ˇs.-ti: mother-MS-P-3P.MS ‘his mother’
abo-ˇs. ‘her stepson’
ipak-ˇs. ‘her mother’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 6)
We use the term ‘unmarked’ rather than ‘feminine’, in opposition to ‘masculine’, because it includes everything but the specifically designated group of masculine entities. 4.13.2 Chiquitano phonology Chiquitano has the consonantal phonemes presented in table 4.9. It can also be seen that there are six oral vowels. There is distinctive vowel length, and there can be vowel sequences, which are pronounced separately and not diphthongised. In addition, all vowels can be nasalised. When a noun or a verb base is affixed with an element that contains a nasal or a nasalised vowel, some consonants are nasalised – a case of nasal spread: (193) b : m r:n y : ny In speech there are frequent cases of elisions, when one word begins in a vowel and the preceding word ends in one.
480
4 Languages of the eastern slopes Table 4.9 Chiquitano phoneme inventory∗
Voiceless stops Voiced stop Fricatives Affricate Nasals Vibrant Glide
High Mid Low ∗
Labial
Dental
Palatal
p b
t
ty
s
sˇ cˇ ny r y
m
n
Retroflex
sˇ.
Velar
Glottal
k
ʔ
x
Front
Central
Back
i e
u o
a
There is a distinction between short and long vowels. Nasal vowels occur (Adam & Henry 1880), but have also been interpreted as sequences of a vowel and a nasal consonant (Galeote Tormo 1993, 1996). In present-day Chiquitano, stops (not glottal stop) and nasals have palatalised allophones after i.
4.13.3 The principal grammatical features of Chiquitano Most words in Chiquitano appear to be classifiable as either nominal or verbal. Nouns. There are three classes of nouns (Adam and Henry 1880: 8): a. nouns that never appear with person marking; this category includes the names of animals and trees; b. nouns that are optionally marked for person; this category includes many inanimate objects; c. nouns that are obligatorily marked for person: kinship terms, names for body parts, and names for ‘body parts’ of plants and trees such as ‘bark’ and ‘flower’. In relation to the category of animals, in order to indicate possession, a generic term with the meaning of ‘animal’ is introduced that can be marked for person.30 (194) a. y-au tamokoˇs. 1P.SG-animal dog ‘my dog’ b. tamokoˇs. y-au-ˇs.-ti: dog 3P.MS-animal-P-MS ‘his dog’ 30
This feature is also found in Guaran´ı.
(Adam and Henry 1880: 8)
4.13 Chiquitano
481
Adjectives. There is no class of adjectives properly speaking in Chiquitano. Two obligatorily inflected pronouns are used adjectivally: ny etama ‘alone’ and ny atony e ‘self’. Another fairly small group of adjectivally used nouns is largely uninflected and refers to stable properties such as size, colour and quality. Numerals. Apart from the word etama ‘one’, there are no numerals properly speaking in Chiquitano. Numbers are indicated with quantifiers and gestural indexing. Personal pronouns. Independently used personal pronouns can appear in subject and in direct-object position. In subject position they are often preceded by the particle aˇ.s-, which Fuss and Riester (1986) gloss as a deictic particle. The forms are: (195) ny h31 ti:
1.SG 2.SG 3.SG masculine
som ony any o ma iny o
1.PL exclusive 1.PL inclusive 2.PL 3.PL masculine 3.PL unmarked
There is no third-singular unmarked pronoun; a demonstrative ty one is used in this case. Notice that there is a first-person-plural inclusive/exclusive distinction. Other cases of pronominal usage are reflected in person marking on nouns, verbs, postpositions, etc., the topic to which we now turn. Person marking. Person is marked through prefixation. Although there appears to be a great deal of allomorphic variation in the prefixes and the traditional grammars in Adam and Henry (1880: 12) distinguish five declensions, the pattern is fairly regular. Thus we have: (196) i-po:-ˇs.-ma 3P.MS-house-P-MS.PL ‘their (masc.) house’
(Adam and Henry 1880: 13)
Compare now the pronoun forms with the (abstract underlying) person prefix forms. The symbol Y indicates weakening or palatalisation (k : s, t : cˇ , : sˇ) of the root-initial consonant. (197) pron ny h ti: 31
pref iY-
1.SG
aii-
2.SG 3.SG masculine 3.SG unmarked
Galeote Tormo (1996) has ()k instead of h.
pron som ony any o ma iny o
pref soiYoauiyo-
1.PL exclusive 1.PL inclusive 2.PL 3.PL masculine 3.PL unmarked
482
4 Languages of the eastern slopes
When we denasalise the pronoun forms, several of them are very similar to the prefix form: (198) pron *y h ti: -
pref iY-
1.SG
aii-
2.SG 3.SG masculine 3.SG unmarked
pron *sob *oy *ayo *ba *iyo
pref soiYoauiyo-
1.PL exclusive 1.PL inclusive 2.PL 3.PL masculine 3.PL unmarked
There appears to be a diachronic relation for 1.SG, 1.PL exclusive, 1.PL inclusive, 2.PL, 3.PL unmarked, even though it is impossible to derive the prefixes from the pronouns synchronically. The pattern under discussion bears much resemblance to the i-, a-, iʔ- pattern for personal pronominal prefixes, which has a much wider distribution in South America. It is described by Greenberg (1987), who takes Chiquitano as an example. Postpositions and case markers. The Chiquitano system of case markers and adpositions is quite complex. There are a number of elements that can only be used postpositionally. Some of these can be analysed as case markers; others correspond to body parts. In addition, there are elements that can be used either with person prefixes, or in uninflected form. Finally, there are elements that can only be used transitively, in uninflected form. There is very extensive use in Chiquitano of postpositions with pronominal prefixes to mark the other relations that pronominal elements can have to the predicate. They provide further illustration of the allomorphic variation in the person prefix system. The genitive is used for independent possessives glossed ‘mine’, etc. but can also be used periphrastically with nouns. To say ‘my house’, there are two possibilities: (199) i-po: 1P.SG-house ‘my house’
po:-ˇs. i-sa house-P 1P.SG-possession ‘my house’
Combining the two possibilities is ungrammatical, however: (200) *i-po:-ˇs. i-sa 1P.SG-house-P 1P.SG-possession
(Adam and Henry 1880: 22)
The dative postposition is used for recipients, as well as benefactive and experiencer objects: (201) a. y-aˇce-ka a-˜emo 1S.SG-give-ND 2P.SG-DA ‘I give you.’
4.13 Chiquitano b. i-samu-ka po:-ˇs. a-˜emo 1S.SG-build-ND house-P 2P.SG-DA ‘I build a house for you.’ c. amia˜a mo-ti: 3S.SG.seem DA-3.MS ‘It seems to him.’
483
(Adam and Henry 1880: 22)
General accusative does not involve case marking but is simply the base pronoun, as was mentioned already. There is a special case used with verbs of desiring, one used with the verb y-asa-ka ‘to see’, and one used with verbs of waiting. The forms are not entirely regular, however, as can be illustrated with the forms for the first person singular: (202) ny iYiny -˜emo iy-o is-ari is-ubi s-obi
pronoun prefix dative with verbs of desiring with ‘to see’ (other persons have -kari) with verbs of waiting (other persons have -kubi) agentive (also found with unique expressions such as ane sobi ‘I have’)
There are also some oblique cases (termed ‘ablative’) in Adam and Henry (1880: 24). One of them is given above, the agentive case, which appears in passive sentences such as: (203) s-obi i-kunomo 1P.SG-by 3S.SG-write (passive) ‘It has been written by me.’
(Adam and Henry 1880: 24)
It has an active equivalent, but the two verbs are derived from identical stems in this case: (204) i-kunomo-ka aˇs.-ny 1S.SG-write-ND PU-1.SG ‘I have written.’
(Adam and Henry 1880: 24)
Only with experiencer verbs such as ‘to love’ do we get a dative subject: (205) i-suba-ka iny -˜emo 3S.SG-love-ND 1P.SG-DA ‘She was loved by me.’
(Adam and Henry 1880: 24)
484
4 Languages of the eastern slopes
A few of the other morphemes that can be used as postpositions are (Adam and Henry 1880: 25–8): (206) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j.
-aka -anene, -a:p -au -ˇcepe -ibi -kuata (∼-suata) -ny nana -(o)pnanaki -taku (∼-ˇcaku) -ubo
‘with’, comitative ‘about’, ‘above’ ‘in the absence of’ ‘conjointly with’, ‘like’ ‘source’, ‘from’ ‘because of’ ‘than (in comparisons)’, oblique object, ablative ‘away from’, separation ‘for the sake of’ ‘with’, instrumental
Some examples are: (207) a-kosi y-aka-bo-ti: 2S-go.IM 3P.SG-company-LS-MS ‘Go with him!’ (208) i-suˇce-ka y-au-ti: 1.SG-be.sad-ND 3P.SG-absence-MS ‘I am sad in his absence.’ (209) ny -˜a:ki-ka iyo a-ibi 1S.SG-ask-ND 3.SG 2P.SG-from ‘I ask it of you.’ (210) i-skiˇsoto-ka i-ny nana 1S.SG-abhor-ND 3P.SG-OC ‘I abhor this.’ (211) a-kosi-bo ny -opnanaki 2S.SG-get.away-F.IM 1P.SG-away.from ‘Get away from me!’ (212) a-aiki soi-ˇcaku 2S-pray.IM 1P.PL.EX-sake ‘Pray for us!’
(Adam and Henry 1880: 26)
(Adam and Henry 1880: 25)
(Adam and Henry 1880: 25)
(Adam and Henry 1880: 25)
(Adam and Henry 1880: 25)
(Adam and Henry 1880: 25)
As can be seen in (207, 212), the second-person imperatives are base forms. Case-marked personal pronouns can be used prepositionally with nouns: (213) y-aˇce-ka ny ome pa-ka 1S.SG-give-ND 3.PL.FE.DA woman-PL ‘I give the women.’
(Adam and Henry 1880: 27)
4.13 Chiquitano
485
Some prepositions only occur in a fixed form, with the third-person prefix. We list some of the locatives: (214) i-ku i-kumoeta i-pnana i-ta -takuisr
‘on or over flat objects’ ‘in the middle of’ ‘between’ ‘on or over non-flat, round objects’ ‘on or over high objects’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 27)
Notice, however, that the element they govern can only be an object, and hence the invariance may be accidental, though presumably this could be plural as well as singular in reference. Verbs. The Chiquitano verb consists of a stem with a person prefix, generally identical to the person prefix of nouns and postpositions, and tense and mood suffixes. According to Galeote Tormo (1996: 148–50), the verb can have various forms: (215) absolute (without an object) active transitive active with pronominal object passive
pron. prefix a-ACTIVE STEM-ka pron. prefix i-ACTIVE STEM-ta pron. prefix i-ACTIVE STEM-ka-pron. suffix pron. prefix-PASSIVE STEM-ka
Passive can be distinguished from the active forms either by stem modification (weakening of the initial consonant, the addition of a prefix), or the stems can be identical; absolute and transitive uses of the verb are distinguished by affixes. The suffix -ka does not normally occur with third-person subject forms, where, depending on the verb, it is replaced by one out of a set of other suffixes (-o, -bo, -ko, -na, -no, -ra, -ro, -so, -yo) or some additional modification. The manuscripts edited by Adam and Henry describe the system as involving a different ending for when the action of the verb is determined by some reason or not, and depending on the nature of the object. In addition to absolute (no object), active (a specific nominal object), and reflexive (coreferential pronominal object), they distinguish: (216) respective 1: respective 2:
masculine pronominal object unmarked pronominal object
Combined with the ± determined distinction this gives the following paradigm (for first-person-singular subject present):
486
4 Languages of the eastern slopes (217) absolute: active: reflexive: respective 1 respective 2
−determined ny a..ka i..ka i..ka-ny i..ka-ti: i..to
+determined ny a.. i..no i..no-ny i..no-ti: i..
(Adam and Henry 1880: 37)
Notice the discrepancy between the different sources: the i .. ta combination in (215) does not figure in this list. For the reflexive and respective 1 usages a pronoun is simply added in final position. However, this pronoun may undergo a complex series of allomorphic changes depending on the shape of the verbal stem. The fundamental three-way distinction mentioned can be illustrated by the following forms of tomo˜e- ‘to tie’: (218) ny a-tomo˜e-ka i-tomo˜e-ka i-ˇcomo˜e-ka
absolute active passive
Some verbs are inherently transitive: koko- ‘obey’, ny oko- ‘leave’, yabu- ‘open’, n en- ‘hold’, ny ama- ‘close’ (Galeote Tormo 1996: 149). Likewise, the number of verbs that can be passivised is limited, including chop- ‘wound’, tomo˜e- ‘tie’. Some verbs, like ‘go’, ‘come’ and ‘be’ have irregular or at least untransparent paradigms. Past tense is marked adverbially or with a prefix t- (which precedes person prefixes). Some verbs allow an affix -ki for future tense, but in most cases this is marked adverbially (Galeote Torno 1996: 176). The particle -ka is used in indicative contexts, for different tenses. It can be preceded by the future particle -ra-/-na- (or another one), and remote future can be expressed by an adverbial element, so that we have forms such as: y
(219) tari i-tomo˜e-na-ka-ti: RU 1S.SG-tie-F-ND-3O.MS ‘I’ll tie him up later.’
(Adam and Henry 1880: 40)
Other time references can be formed in a similar way with pre- or postposed adverbial elements. There is a future or subjunctive prefix that occurs before the person marker: (220) m-iˇs-ane˜e SJ-1S.SG-eat ‘so that I eat it’
[-aka ‘eat’] (Adam and Henry 1880: 41)
4.13 Chiquitano
487
There are no affixes for nominalised or infinitive forms. Gerunds are formed with a preposition and an article: (221) au-n-i-tomo˜e-u in-DF-1S.SG-tie-3O.SG ‘when tying it up’ (lit. ‘in my tying it’)
(Adam and Henry 1880: 42)
Predicative expressions are formed by adding pronouns as enclitics to the predicate. Predicates can be nouns, adjectives and interrogative pronouns: (222) a. riaboˇs.-ny captain-1S.SG ‘I am a captain.’ b. riaboˇs.-h captain-2S.SG ‘You are a captain.’
(Adam and Henry 1880: 45)
These essentially stative predicates can be made resultative through the addition of -ka-: (223) riaboˇs.-ka-ny captain-ND-1S.SG ‘I have become a captain.’
(Adam and Henry 1880: 45)
Possession can be expressed by prefixing a noun with a person marker and adding -ka at the end: (224) i-po:-ka 1P.SG-house-ND ‘I have a house.’
(Adam and Henry 1880: 46)
Negation is expressed through the addition of -i at the end of the verb, hence: (225) i-tomo˜e-to-i 1S.SG-tie-3O.SG-NE ‘I didn’t tie it up.’
(Adam and Henry 1880: 45)
Verbal derivation and composition. There are very complex processes of verbal derivation and composition in Chiquitano. An example is the causative: (226) ny otubori-ka ny otumoni-ma-ka-ka
‘to have food’ ‘to cause someone to have food’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 46)
The consonantal changes are due to nasal spreading, as explained above.
488
4 Languages of the eastern slopes
The range of (generally post-stem) derivational affixes is quite wide. The following list illustrates just a few: (227) sura-ka sura-pa-ka sura-taki-ka sura-sr-ka sura-sipi-ka
‘to speak’ ‘to speak to another’ ‘to speak frequently’ ‘to speak before others’ ‘to talk dirty’
(Adam and Henry 1880: 50)
4.13.4 Chiquitano word order Clearly, Chiquitano is an (S)VO language: (228) i-tomo˜e-ka n-burikaˇs. 1S.SG-tie-ND DF-mule ‘I tie the mule.’
[cf. non-standard Spanish burrica] (Adam and Henry 1880: 52)
We also saw that prepositions precede nominal complements: (229) ipnana n-oseoˇs. between DF-corn ‘between the corn’
(Adam and Henry 1880: 27)
The position of the subject is less clear, given the paucity of examples with nominal subjects. Chiquitano has adopted the Spanish coordinating conjunctions y ‘and’ and o ‘or’. These, as well as native Chiquitano adverbial subordinating conjunctions, precede the clause they modify. 4.14
The languages of the Chaco region: Guaicuruan, Matacoan, Zamucoan and Lengua–Mascoy In the Chaco region, which covers part of southeastern Bolivia, western Paraguay and the northern Argentinian border region, three small language families are spoken: Guaicuruan, Matacoan and Zamucoan. In addition, there are speakers of Lengua–Mascoy and of Tupi–Guaran´ı languages (cf. section 4.3). For Lule–Vilela, now practically extinct, see chapter 3 (sections 3.1 and 3.8). Furthermore, Guaicuruan, Matacoan and Lule– Vilela connections have been proposed for the extinct Charr´uan languages, once spoken in Uruguay (cf. section 1.7.3). Censabella (1999) gives a survey of the sociolinguistic situation in the Argentinian part of the Chaco. The Guaicuruan family includes Pilag´a, Toba, Mocov´ı and the extinct Abip´on in Argentina and Paraguay, while Kadiweu is spoken in the state of Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil. There were Toba speakers in Bolivia in the nineteenth century, but from 1916
4.14 The languages of the Chaco region
489
Table 4.10 Phoneme inventory of Toba (based on Messineo 2000)∗
Voiceless stops Voiced stops Voiceless fricatives Voiced fricative Nasals Laterals Glides
High Mid Low ∗
Labial
Alveolar
Palatal
Velar
Uvular
Glottal
p
t d s
cˇ
k g
q
ʔ
w
sˇ zˇ ny ly y
Front
Central
m
n l
i e
h
Back
o a
In Klein (1978), vowel length is distinctive. The voiced stop d has a frequent tap allophone [r], and Klein’s inventory posits a phoneme /r/, instead of /d/. In some dialects h is absent in word-initial position.
onwards they were pushed out of Bolivia, and now a handful at most are left there, although there are many more in Argentina and Paraguay. Pilag´a is spoken in the province of Formosa, Argentina, and Mocov´ı in the southern part of the province of Chaco and northern part of Santa Fe province, Argentina. While Toba language and culture have been extensively studied (Censabella 1996; Klein 1973, 1978, 1981; Messineo 2000), Pilag´a has been analysed by Vidal (2001). Grammars of Mocov´ı have been written by Gualdieri (1998) and Grondona (1998). The now extinct language Abip´on has been documented by Najlis (1966). The phoneme system of Toba has been analysed by Messineo (2000) as in table 4.10. Syllables tend to be fairly simple. Examples of the most complex syllables include dayk ‘big’ (CVCC) and pyoq ‘dog’ (CCVC). The resonants l and n can be syllabic in word-initial position. Some prefixes and suffixes contain an unspecified vowel which harmonises with the vowel of the word base. There is frequent palatalisation, of both vowels and consonants, triggered by the presence of the vowel i. Stress falls on the last syllable of the word. The most striking grammatical feature of Toba is the so-called Active valency-marking system, illustrated by the following contrast (Messineo 2000: 75–6): (230) a. s-apaGagen na qom l-ʔʔaqtaq 1S.SG-teach DC Toba 3P-language ‘I teach the Toba language.’
490
4 Languages of the eastern slopes b. maˇse s-aˇsek already 1S.SG-go ‘I am going already.’ (231) a. ayem zˇ -asamny i 1.SG 1.UG.SG-be.tired ‘I am tired.’ b. Romualdo ∅-ˇz-awa-Gan Romualdo 3S.SG-1.UG.SG-beat-T ‘Romualdo beat me.’
There are two person paradigms for the first and second persons, A used for transitive subjects (230a) and subjects of intransitive dynamic verbs (230b), and B used for subjects of stative verbs (231a) and direct objects (231b). In addition, there is a nominal possessor paradigm C (Messineo 2000: 133), and a medial paradigm D. (232) 1.SG 2.SG 1.PL 2.PL
A. Subject s(V)ʔ aws(V)qaw-...-i
B. Undergoer zˇ (V)ʔ adqadqad-...-i
C. Possessor iʔ adqadqad-...-i
D. Medial ny (V)ʔ anny (V)qan-...-i
The nominal possessor forms in C are largely identical to the undergoers in B. Whether a verb enters into paradigm A or B is not only a question of transitivity or the degree of control of the subject, but also of the dynamicity of the predicate. The verbs entering into class B are limited to about twenty. The class includes true statives and descriptives (which may be expressed as adjectives in other languages). Klein (1981) has provided an interesting analysis of the verbs used with prefixes from paradigm D. She argues that the basic meaning of the /n/-class prefixes of paradigm D is adcorporeal movement, i.e. towards the torso. Metaphorically, this is extended to reflexive, reciprocal and medial uses. Consider the following contrastive pair (Klein 1981: 230):
(233) a. ny i-kor-ek 1S.SG.MD-pour-outward ‘I pour out (perfume, syrup – inward motion).’ b. se-kor-ek 1S.SG-pour-outward ‘I pour out (liquid, e.g. from a pail – motion away from the body).’
4.14 The languages of the Chaco region
491
For the third person, the situation is more complicated (Messineo 2000: 80–6): (234) i – / yd(V)∅nl-
transitive subjects, subjects of some intransitive verbs subjects of typically intransitive verbs inanimate subjects and subjects of locative verbs subjects of medial verbs (reflexive, ‘hither’) possessors
In addition, there is an optional third-person object suffix -a. In the plural, all third persons are marked with the suffix -d- (or -ʔ in word-final position). Several authors, including Klein (1981) and Messineo (2000), have discussed the locative and directional markers of Toba. These are striking because of the range of semantic distinctions expressed and their morphological features. They are separated from the verbal root by the aspectual morphemes, suggesting a status of inflectional element; at the same time, however, they often interact with the meaning of the root, suggesting a status as derivational element. There are three pairs of strictly directional markers (Messineo 2000: 114):
(235) a. -(w)ek -wo b. -ˇsigem -ny i c. -(a)Gasom -waq
‘outward’ ‘inward’ ‘upward’ ‘downward’ ‘toward water’ ‘toward fire’
An example would be:
(236) naˇce ny i nsoGoy ʔ am ya-maG-awaq zˇ e norek then DC Nsooy 2.SG 3S.SG-push-DR DC fire ‘Then Nsooy pushes you toward the fire.’
(Messineo 2000: 121)
Notice that both the prefix i- ‘3S.SG’ and the directional suffix -waq are separated from the base by a copied or harmonising epenthetic vowel a. (All the directional elements, except -(w)ek, receive a connective vowel when they are added to a stem ending in a consonant.) The directional suffix -waq bears no resemblance to the lexical root norek ‘fire’.
492
4 Languages of the eastern slopes
The locational suffixes are not structured in pairs (Messineo 2000: 122–31): (237) -lek -gi -ʔʔot -(a)sop -ʔʔaoga -a -ta -iʔʔ -ge -get
‘above’ ‘inside’ ‘stuck away underneath’ ‘underneath’, ‘near’ ‘on the outside’32 ‘precisely there’ ‘on the side of, at the border of’ ‘there’ (deictic) ‘orientational’ ‘in confrontation or contact with’
In the noun, in addition to possessor, dual, paucal and plural number can be expressed (Messineo 2000: 136–9): (238) a. ya-pia-te 1P.SG-leg-D ‘my two legs’ (dual) b. ʔ alo-l woman-PC ‘(a few) women’ (paucal) c. waqahny i-pi star-PL ‘stars’ (plural)
(Messineo 2000: 137)
(Messineo 2000: 137)
(Messineo 2000: 138)
There is both alienable and inalienable possession in the language. The latter involves body parts, kin terms, parasites, diseases, images of the body (like shadow), intrinsic human properties (like names) and some objects made by humans. There is a system of nominal classifiers, intersecting with masculine and feminine gender marking, indicating various semantic categories. In addition, there is a system of six deictic roots, which combine with various other gender and number affixes (Messineo 2000: 157): (239) na so ka da zˇ i ny i 32
‘close’ ‘distant’ ‘absent’ ‘vertical extension’ ‘horizontal extension’ ‘not extended, three-dimensional’
Also recorded as -ʔoga (Klein 1978, 1981).
4.14 The languages of the Chaco region
493
Table 4.11 Phoneme inventory of Bolivian (Noctenes) Mataco (based on Claesson 1994)∗
Stops Affricate Fricative Lateral Nasal Glides
High Mid Low ∗
Labial
Dental
p
t c s l n
m w
Palatal
Velar
Labiovelar
Uvular
Glottal
ky
kw
q
ʔ
x
xw
h
y Front
Back
i e a
u o ɑ
Vocalic length and stress are phonemic. Vowel nasality occurs but is not contrastive. The sound [k] is an allophone of either kw or q. Stops and affricates combine with the glottal stop ʔ and with the glottal fricative h to form glottalised and aspirated consonants, respectively. In the same way, resonants can be preglottalised or postglottalised, when they appear in a cluster with ʔ; when followed by h they become voiceless.
Word order in Toba is relatively free. In transitive clauses, SVO predominates, and in intransitive clauses VS. Possessors tend to follow possessed elements. There is no clearly defined class of adpositions, but the few elements glossed as such precede their complements. The informative grammar of Mocov´ı by Gualdieri (1998) illustrates many of these aspects of this very interesting language family. Matacoan or Mataguayan includes Mataco, Chulup´ı–Ashlushlay, Chorote and Mak´a. The languages of the Matacoan family are mostly spoken in Paraguay and Argentina. There may be some speakers of Chulup´ı–Ashlushlay and Chorote left in Bolivia, but most are in Paraguay and Argentina. Mataco, Wichi or Weenhayek is the only language with a sizeable number of speakers in Bolivia, along the southwest bank of the Pilcomayo river in the department of Tarija. There is no sign of language loss among the Mataco, although the majority of the Mataco also know Spanish. The Bolivian variety is also referred to as Noctenes (Claesson 1994). An overview of earlier materials and a thematically organised vocabulary list is presented in Lehmann-Nitsche (1926). Tovar (1981) presents texts and a grammar of Mataco. The phoneme system of Mataco is presented in table 4.11. The language is reported to have a four-person pronominal prefix system (Claesson 1994: 7–10). (The fourth person represents first person inclusive.) The set of nominal
494
4 Languages of the eastern slopes
possessive prefixes is presented below: (240) ʔ o:ʔ ala(ʔʔi)##la:-
1P 2P 3P 4P
(but ʔ o- before ##l or t’)33 (but ʔ - replacing ##l or t’) (but ∅- before ##l or t’) (also ʔ i- before ##l)
Mataco has an elaborate tense system, with a distinction between witnessed and nonwitnessed past. The latter is generally distinguished with ʔ- preceding the tense marker of the non-witnessed past (Claesson 1994: 9): (241) neʔʔ / ʔ neʔʔ mheʔʔ / ʔ mheʔʔ m´at(hiʔʔ) / ʔ m´at(hiʔʔ) n´ax(iʔʔ) / ʔ n´ax(iʔʔ)
(non)witnessed immediate past (non)witnessed habitual action in recent past (non)witnessed past of today and the past night (non)witnessed past of yesterday and back some weeks mh´ax(iʔʔ) / ʔ mh´ax(iʔʔ) (non)witnessed habitual action from yesterday back to remote past (h)teh / pʔʔanteh (non)witnessed remote past for single action
Only in the last case are the forms substantially different. At least some tense markers can also be attached to nouns. (242) ha-ʔʔwe:t-teh34 2P-place-RM ‘your home long ago’
(Claesson 1994: 8)
There are several case markers: (243) a. ʔ i la-ʔʔw´e:t-eh 3S.be 3P-place-L ‘(S)he is at home.’ b. ʔ i-wo ʔ ahu:cax-aʔʔ 3S-do caracara-AC ‘(S)he dances the caracara (a traditional dance).’
(Claesson 1994: 4)
(Claesson 1994: 4)
Chulup´ı–Ashlushlay or Nivacl´e is spoken in Paraguay (departments of Boquer´on and Presidente Hayes) and Argentina (Salta Province). A detailed dictionary of this language with sentence examples is available (Seelwische 1980). Chorote is also spoken 33 34
The voiceless lateral and the glottalised alveolar stop are analysed as sequences lh, tʔ in Claesson (1994). Stress is not indicated on word-final syllables. Notice that the possessive prefix ʔa- is ha- before a preglottalised consonant.
4.14 The languages of the Chaco region
495
Table 4.12 Reconstructed consonant system of Proto-Matacoan (based on Viegas Barros 2002)
Plain stops Glottalised stops Fricatives Lateral fricative Lateral Nasals Glides
Labial(ised)
Dental
Alveolar
Palatal(ised)
Velar
Uvular
∗p ∗p’ ∗xw
∗t ∗t’
∗c ∗c’ ∗s ∗#l ∗l ∗n
∗ky ∗ky ’
∗k ∗k’ ∗x
∗q
∗m ∗w
∗x.
∗y
in Paraguay (department of Boquer´on) and Argentina (Salta Province). Mak´a, finally, is only spoken in Paraguay (department of Presidente Hayes), and has been the subject of excellent studies by Gerzenstein (1994, 1999). This small but vital language is probably the best-described Chaco language. It is shown to have ergative-like patterning in the verb morphology and word order (SVO in transitive, VS in intransitive clauses). However, a detailed reanalysis of the data may well show that typologically it is more Active, like the Guaicuruan languages. It has a set of mostly locative postpositions. Inalienable nominal possession is marked by prefixes (V is a harmonising vowel; it occurs before consonants). (244) yi-, y(V)(V-) # l (V)in-
1P 2P 3P 4P (1st person inclusive)
(Gerzenstein 1994: 147)
Alienably possessed nouns that refer neither to a body part, nor to a kinship relation, receive, in addition to the person prefix, an element -q(V)-, for instance, in ye-qe-nenek ‘my spoon’ (Gerzenstein 1994: 149). Some nouns referring to humans or human attributes are marked with a suffix -(k)iʔ or -(l)eʔ when feminine, for instance, in puk’al-eʔ ‘(female) blind’, maka-kiʔ ‘Mak´a woman’ (Gerzenstein 1994: 152). Najlis (1984) is a reconstruction of Proto-Matacoan phonology, excluding Mak´a. The data in Gerzenstein (1978, 1979, 1983) show that the two varieties of Chorote have phonemes very much like these of Mak´a. However, the phonological analysis of Claesson (1994) gives a rather different picture. He analyses the series of glottalised and aspirated stops and of pre-aspirated sonorants reconstructed by Najlis as consonantal sequences. In addition, he assumes only six vowels, where Najlis reconstructs eight. Viegas Barros (2002) reanalyses all the data available and arrives at a new reconstruction of the ProtoMatacoan consonant inventory, presented in table 4.12.
496
4 Languages of the eastern slopes
Table 4.13 Phoneme inventory of Ayoreo (based on Briggs 1973)∗
Voiceless stops Voiced stops Fricatives Vibrant Nasals Voiceless nasals Glides
Labial
Dental
Palatal
Velar
Glottal
p b
t d s r n hn
cˇ
k g
ʔ
m hm w
h ny h ny y
Oral Front High Mid Low ∗
Centre
i e
ŋ
Nasal Back
Front
u o
˜ı e˜
a
Centre
Back u˜ o˜
a˜
Vowel length and stress are contrastive.
Zamucoan includes Zamuco or Ayoreo and the language Chamacoco, spoken in Paraguay. The majority of the Ayoreo or Ayor´eode (ayor´e means ‘person’) live in Bolivia in the department of Santa Cruz, still preserving their nomadic way of life to some extent. There are also Ayoreo in Paraguay. The language with the same name is seriously endangered. Fischermann (1988: 111) notes that there is surprisingly little dialect variation, even if the Ayoreo live rather dispersed. In some southern varieties, intervocalic r is not pronounced. Thus Ayoreo is pronounced as [ayoweo], and the word parakar˜a ‘rattle’ as [pa:ka:]. The manuscript Zamuco grammar by Ignace Chom´e (written between 1738 and 1745) has been published by Lussagnet (1958). In addition, Lussagnet (1961–2) has made available vocabulary items from older sources in different Zamucoan languages. Zolezzi and Riester (1985) present a number of Ayoreo texts. Although little systematic study has been carried out, Ayoreo may be assumed to have the phoneme system given in table 4.13, combining information from different sources. Clearly more work is needed here urgently. There is general agreement that there is a five-vowel system, with an oral and a nasal series. The words given in the texts by Briggs suggest vowel harmony: words generally (though not quite always) contain vowels from only one of the series. There can be several vowels in a row, but consonant clusters are not possible. From Briggs (1973: 156), some insight into the structural properties of Ayoreo can be gained. There is a masculine/feminine distinction in nouns, as well as a singular/plural distinction. Adjectives agree in gender and number with the nouns they modify. There is some derivational nominal morphology, and nouns can be marked for possession. In
4.14 The languages of the Chaco region
497
the verbal system there are derivational affixes, person prefixes, and tense and aspect particles. A preliminary analysis of the following narrative fragment presented by Briggs (1973: 157) gives an indication of some of the features of the language: (245) ∅-uh´e:ʔʔ t´ıgre e˜ ŋa˜ he a˜ :ˇc e˜´ r˜akeʔʔ yu ih´ıʔ t´a y-ibatig´ai. 1S.SG-kill jaguar and EC jump 1.SG.PU L there 1P.SG-honey. hunting.trip ‘I was trying to kill a jaguar, and he jumped me while I was on the honey-hunting trip. i-ˇcagu´ ŋa˜ r˜an˜ı´ mu˜ cˇ -˜ıh n˜ı´:m˜eʔ y-˜asor´e t˜eŋa˜ ∅-˜ah n˜aʔ 1S.SG-lance come.DS but 3S.SG-take.out 1P.SG-lance and 1S.SG-follow I lanced him as he came, but he took away my lance and I followed him e˜ ŋa˜ hek i:si-hiʔʔ to´˜:n˜ıny e˜ keʔʔ. and EC 1S.SG.find-DR long.ways.away. and found him a long way away. ∅-ah´o y-˜asor´e tah´aʔ mu, ˜ bag´e t-ua:t´ı d´a:y ka:si:k´aiteʔʔ 1S.SG-put.down.upon 1P.SG-lance AL but Bagu´e FE.DC father late I went to kill him with my lance but Bagu´e’s late father cˇ´ı:seʔʔ yu ih´ıʔ e˜ ŋa˜ cˇ -uh´e:ʔʔ ih´ıʔ y-˜ıh ma´˜:˜ın˜ıeʔʔ. 3S.SG-find 1.SG.PU L and 3S.SG-kill L 1P.SG-hand came right in and killed him under my nose. or´e:ʔʔ cˇ -˜ıh no´˜keʔʔ ah´aʔ degui. ´ 3.PL 3S-carry.on.shoulders AL camp They carried him back to camp.’ The first-person-singular prefix i-/y-/- can be used both as a possessive and as a subject marker with verbs (and may well be related to the pronoun yu ‘first person singular’). It is not clear that this holds for all persons. The language has relational elements (prepositions or postpositions), like ih´ıʔ ‘locative’ and ah´aʔ ‘directional’. Verbs precede the direct object (SVO), and in the text given, the possessor precedes the possessed. Lengua–Mascoy has been described as an isolate with several dialects, or as a small language family, Mascoyan (Campbell 1997). Very little systematic linguistic research has been carried out on this language. A phonological analysis remains to be done, but it is clear that there is extensive vowel harmony. Suˇsnik (1977) is a very interesting ethnolinguistically oriented description of Lengua– Mascoy vocabulary, grammar and culture. The Lengua–Mascoy verb is marked with a
498
4 Languages of the eastern slopes
rich array of verbal classifiers, marking such notions as direction and location. Pronominal object marking only involves the first person. Subject marking exists for first person, second/third person (differentiated for masculine and feminine gender) and first person plural (Suˇsnik 1977: 97–100). It is not clear whether there is an inclusive/exclusive distinction. In the unmarked case, the person prefixes are: (246) kap nnnky el-
1S.SG 2/3S.SG.MS 2/3S.SG.FE 1S.PL 2/3S.PL
(Suˇsnik 1977: 98)
The independent pronouns are only in part related to these forms: (247) koʔʔo35 λ-y-p36 λ-y nŋkoʔʔo ky el-l ŋky -p ky el-l ŋky
1.SG 2/3.SG.MS 2/3.SG.FE 1.PL 2/3.PL.MS 2/3.PL.FE
Person marking interacts strongly with indicative, future and negation marking on the verb (Suˇsnik 1977: 99–101). On the noun, person marking is obligatory with body parts and kin terms (Suˇsnik 1977: 113–14). Gender distinctions pay an important role in the language. Nominal possessors precede the possessed element: (248) kla:na ak-ta-l nama of.the.woman 3P.SG.F-dress ‘the woman’s dress’
(Suˇsnik 1977: 117)
Nominalised verbs also typically receive person marking, and play an important role in the formation of complex clauses. Two interesting collections of translated religious texts in Lengua are Nimpasmo nimpaiwa nelmathnangkama and Nimpaiwa ningminaigm`asch`ama (Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge 1907, 1911). There have been many population movements in the Chaco during the twentieth century, both as the result of the Chaco War between Bolivia and Paraguay and of subsequent socio-economic developments. Stahl (1982: 16) gives a systematic overview 35 36
Pronunciation suggested in Lowes (1954); Suˇsnik writes k´oo´ . We tentatively represent Suˇsnik’s tl as a voiceless lateral affricate (λ-); the symbols c¸ and c¸ l are interpreted as realisations of a voiceless lateral fricative phoneme (l ); Lowes (1954) writes th and explains it as a dental fricative.
4.15 Quechua influences
499
of the distribution of the languages of the Paraguayan Chaco as spoken around 1900. In the northwest Chiriguano–Guaran´ı was spoken, in the northeast the Zamucoan languages Chamacoco and Ayoreo, and in the centre west Tapiet´e. In the southwest Chulup´ı and Mak´a were spoken, and in the southeast the Mascoyan languages. In the far south Toba was spoken, just north of Asunci´on. There has been much discussion about the possible relatedness of the languages of the Chaco (see section 1.7). Now that many detailed dictionaries and grammatical descriptions have become available, this question can be taken up again. In any case, it is clear that the languages share a number of grammatical and phonological features, as far as can be ascertained. There is nasalisation and vowel harmony, and consonant clusters generally are simple. There often is an Active or ergative system with SVO/VS word order. Person is marked by prefixes, both on the noun and on the verb. In the noun there often is an alienable/inalienable possession distinction. Once the Zamucoan languages and Lengua–Mascoy have been better analysed, a full-scale comparative survey can be undertaken. 4.15 Quechua influences on eastern slopes languages There are a number of instances of Quechua influence in the Amazon region. Some scholars seem to feel that the highlands cultures and languages have had relatively little influence in the lowlands. ‘The extraordinarily limited influence of the Highland on the Monta˜na is intelligible mainly in terms of unlike environmental conditioning of the cultures’, Steward (1948: 508) writes. This may be so for cultural patterns in general, but linguistically the influence of the highlands, in the case of Quechua, is far from trivial. In addition, later research has pointed to extensive interchanges between monta˜na and sierra (Raymond 1988). Tessmann (1930: 623) claims that Chol´on is the only case where a mixed language has developed from Quechua and the monta˜na languages.37 This is not true, in our opinion. It simply shares a number of features with Quechua, as well as with eastern slope languages, and shares a limited set of particular derivational morphemes with Quechua. Other languages such as Yanesha and Shuar have also adopted some Quechua suffixes, particularly case markers and clausal markers. However, it is difficult to be certain about the status of Quechua-like suffixes in Chol´on and Shuar because these languages belong to small language families of which a possible distant genetic relation to Quechua needs to be studied more. Moreover, there has been no systematic study of the sharing of grammatical or lexical items between the languages treated in this chapter, and thus the phenomenon may be much more widespread. 37
‘der einzige Fall, dass sich eine Mischsprache zwischen Ketschua und Waldlandsprachen gebildet hat’.
500
4 Languages of the eastern slopes
Quechua influence takes several forms. First, a number of varieties of Quechua are spoken as native languages in the lowlands. Second, Quechua has functioned and still functions as a lingua franca in a wide area. Third, many languages have adopted Quechua vocabulary, for material items, in the numeral system and for certain animals. Examples include Shuar sˇaya and Muniche saʔa, from Quechua sara ‘maize’, and Shuar kaˇci ‘salt’. Quechua numerals are found in Conibo, Shipibo, Muniche, Tacana, Urarina,Yameo and Yanesha . A particularly striking case of cultural diffusion is analysed by Nordenski¨old (1922). The chicken was unknown in pre-Columbian South America, and it was probably introduced into Brazil in 1500. Nordenski¨old claims that the species was traded up the Amazon and throughout Brazil, among others by the Arawak, before it reached the Incas from the Gran Chaco, through the Guaran´ı, who named it uru γ w asu, big ‘uru’, where the ‘uru’ was a small native fowl. Nordenski¨old claims the Incas took over the bird and named it ata-wal y pa, where ata is said to be derived from hatun ‘big’ and served as an augmentative, similar to γ w asu. There are numerous speculations as to why the last Inca received this name, but this is unresolved. The Quechua word atawaly pa for ‘chicken’ then spread from the P´aez in Colombia to the Mapuche in central Chile, and into the jungle as far as the Huitoto. Nordenski¨old argues that this must have happened before the destruction of the Inca empire. Later a Spanish word would have been chosen. Much later Quechua influence is unlikely because soon the term for ‘chicken’ became simply wal y pa (in Amazon Quechua walipa), everywhere but in parts of Ecuador. This chapter ends with a list of words for ‘chicken’ in a number of pre-Andean Amazonian languages (the words have been taken from various sources). Quechua-based terms: Achuar at´asˇ Aguaruna at´asˇ, at´asˇu Amahuaca hatap´a Amarakaeri wa-tawah Apolista atalpa Campa atawal´ıpa Campa Ash´aninca atawa, tawalpa, (ta)waripa, tawarina Canelo Quechua at´al ya Capanahua atapa Cashibo a´ taba, a´ tapa, attapa-awi, a´ t´oripa Chamikuro ataw´ali Chasutino Quechua w´ad ypa Chayahuita at(o)ad´ı, at(o)ar´ı, ataˇs Chol´on at´el ywa, atel yw´a Cocama ataw´ali, atawari Hibito udzˇ pa Huambisa ataˇs, sˇiam
Huariapano ihtori Huitoto a´ taba, at´aba I˜napari tawari Lamista Quechua w´al ypa Napo Quechua atal´ıpa, at´al ya Nocam´an at´apa Nomatsiguenga ti´ape Panobo ixtori Piro xat yawripa Quijos Quechua at´alipa, at´al ypa Setebo it´odi Shipibo/Conibo a´ tapa, atapa Shuar at´asˇ(i) Ticuna o´ ta Urarina atawar´ı, atawari Yagua to´ari, tawal yi, tawariy, tuwariy Yanesha atol yop, at´olup Yuracar´e talipa Z´aparo at´awali
4.15 Quechua influences Other: Andoa karar´a, kakar´a Arabela kakaray´a Bora kh a´ rakh a Candoshi kt´asˇo, kat´asˇu Chiquitano kurass.ˇ, (o)kurubass.ˇ Coto/Orej´on kur´a Iquito kakarra, kakar´a Jebero waʔγ a´ ntk
501
Muniche kaka, cˇ aˇcan yʔ Muinane kat´awua, adaba Omurana m´ata Secoya/Pioje k´uda, kur´a Sensi oˇcici Tekiraka: Abishira a˜a, tawaruy´a Tekiraka: Vacacocha aya´u Yameo sekən, seik´en
5 The Araucanian Sphere
The term ‘Araucanian Sphere’ has been chosen to cover the central part of what is today the Republic of Chile, extending from the Aconcagua river valley to the island archipelago of Chilo´e. At the arrival of the European invaders this area was predominantly inhabited by a single ethnolinguistic group: the Araucanians. This powerful nation became partly incorporated within the colonial society, but also included an important sector which succeeded in preserving its independence until 1882. In this chapter we furthermore give attention to the central-western part of Argentina, comprising the hilly region known as the Sierra de C´ordoba and the Andean foothills region known as Cuyo (including parts of the provinces of Mendoza, San Juan and San Luis). Like the Araucanians, the original inhabitants of central-western Argentina were agriculturalists. They became involved in the process of colonisation right from the beginning, and lost their identity and their languages at an early stage (Mart´ınez Sarasola 1992: 58–63). Of the various native languages that were once spoken in centralwestern Argentina only the Huarpean languages, Allentiac and Millcayac, have been documented. They constitute a family of closely related languages. Allentiac was spoken in the southern part of San Juan and in northern San Luis, whereas Millcayac extended southward from the culturally important wetlands of Guanacache to the R´ıo Diamante, covering most of Mendoza. The native languages of the province of C´ordoba were the languages of the Comechingones (in the sierras of western C´ordoba) and the Sanavirones (in the northern sierra of C´ordoba and its eastern lowlands, including the banks of the lake called Mar Chiquita). These languages are virtually undocumented. Although Loukotka (1968) includes the Comeching´on language (with its presumed dialects Henia and Camiare) within the Huarpean family, the evidence consists of no more than a couple of words. In 1594 Barzana (Jim´enez de la Espada 1965, II: 79) reported that more than eight or nine different languages were spoken in the Sierra de C´ordoba, which indicates that the Comeching´on language probably did not constitute a unity. The Sanavir´on language is classified as a linguistic isolate in Loukotka (1968), but the amount of evidence is so small that a possible genetic relationship could not be detected, even when it existed.
5 The Araucanian Sphere
503
PERU
B R A Z I L
B O L I V I A
PARAGUAY
G
R UA
CHILE
G
IT
A
ÓN VIR NA
KAINGANG
Córdoba CHANÁ
T I AC MILLCAYAC
URUGUAY CHARRÚA
Buenos Aires PEHUENCH E
ARAU C A N I A N
Temuco Valdivia
ABIPÓN
SA
ALLEN
Santiago
COMECHIN GÓN
DI
Í AN
A
U
QUERANDÍ
ARGENTINA
GÜNÜNA YAJICH
TEUSHEN
Chiloé
CHONO
K AW
TEHUELCHE
ESQ AR
Map 11 The Araucanian Sphere: approximate distribution of languages at the time of the Spanish conquest (sixteenth century)
504
5 The Araucanian Sphere
PERU
B R A Z I L
B O L I V I A
L
E
PARAGUAY
I
ARGENTINA
RANQUELCHE
Bi
obí
URUGUAY
Buenos Aires MAPUCHE
MAPUCHE
Concepción
(19th CENTURY)
Santiago
C
H
Córdoba
o
R.
GÜNÜNA YAJICH(†)
Temuco
E
Chiloé
UCH
HUILLICHE
MAP
Osorno
TEHUELCHE
Map 12 The Araucanian Sphere: twentieth-century distribution of indigenous languages
5 The Araucanian Sphere
505
An overview of the Araucanian Sphere would not be conceivable without paying some attention to the Argentinian pampas and Patagonia (including the provinces of Buenos Aires, La Pampa, R´ıo Negro and Chubut), which for centuries constituted an outlet for the expansion of the freedom-loving Araucanians. Among the native groups of these sparsely peopled southern extensions were the nomadic Pehuenche, who inhabited the eastern Andean slopes and foothills south of the Huarpeans, in the province of Neuqu´en. These Pehuenche owed their name to their dependency on the collection of pine-nuts of the Araucaria tree (pewen in Mapuche). Most early sources agree in affirming that the Pehuenche had a language and an identity of their own, distinct from those both of the Araucanians and the Huarpeans. Unfortunately, nothing is known of the original Pehuenche language. The present-day group called Pehuenche is located in Chile, on the upper reaches of the Biob´ıo river (between Santa B´arbara and Lonquimay) and in other pre-cordilleran areas further south, between the lakes Icalma and Panguipulli. They speak a Mapuche dialect and are not necessarily related to the historical Argentinian Pehuenche. The Querand´ı of Buenos Aires were the first to become exposed to the European colonisation of the R´ıo de La Plata in the seventeenth century. They soon lost their ethnolinguistic identity. Only two sentences and a few words of their language were recorded by French sailors around 1555. On the basis of these few data Viegas Barros (1992) shows that Querand´ı may have been closely related to the language of the G¨un¨una K¨une or Puelche. If this conclusion is correct, it would identify the Querand´ı as the northernmost representative of the Chon language family. The Tehuelche complex, which includes G¨un¨una K¨une and various other representatives of the Chon family, will be discussed in chapter 6. During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries all these peoples came into contact with the expanding Araucanians, who either subjugated them by force, or assimilated them through alliance. As a result, a number of Araucanianspeaking mixed groups came into existence, some of which are still aware of their non-Araucanian origins. This, for instance, is the case with the Araucanised Tehuelche, who live in El Chal´ıa in southwestern Chubut. The Tehuelche origin of this group is confirmed by the use of Tehuelche vocabulary items and phonological features, such as the use of a uvular stop and glottalisation, common in Tehuelche but otherwise unknown in Araucanian (Fern´andez Garay 1997a). For some interesting examples of Chubut Mapuche usage see also D´ıaz-Fern´andez (1992). Some of the mixed groups, such as the Ranqueles,1 for a time became powerful nations until they were annihilated by the Argentinian army in 1879–81. In spite of its geographical location, which could be considered peripheral within a South American context, the Araucanian Sphere belongs to the oldest inhabited areas 1
The Ranqueles (or raŋkl-ˇce ‘people of the reeds’) originally had their territory in southern C´ordoba. In 1900 they were relocated in Colonia Emilio Mitre, in northwestern La Pampa (Fern´andez Garay 1998a).
506
5 The Araucanian Sphere
of the American continent. Excavations conducted at Monte Verde near Puerto Montt in the far south of continental Chile have seriously challenged the convictions of archaeologists that the human occupation of South America must have been posterior to the Clovis horizon (9500–9000 BC), when Paleo-Indian big-game hunters roamed on the North American plains (Fiedel 1992). The existence of a 12,000-year-old preagricultural village in this remote area of South America suggests an earlier arrival of the first inhabitants than was held possible so far (Dillehay 1989–97). Although the Araucanian Sphere region was neither an area of cultural prestige, nor of great artistic production, it was certainly not unimportant from a political and a demographic point of view. In spite of fierce resistance of the Araucanians, the Inca rulers succeeded in conquering the northern part of it, including central Chile and the Cuyo region, but their control must have remained limited to the existence of military outposts and probably some mitimaes (see chapter 3). The limit of the Inca military advance, to either the Maule river (altitude of Talca) or to the Biob´ıo (altitude of Concepci´on), is still a matter of debate. The Incas called the Araucanians Auca (from Quechua awqa ‘enemy’, ‘rebel’), a name which the Araucanians proudly adopted as a self-designation.2 Soon after their first attempts at colonisation, the Spanish conquerors became acquainted with the stubborn and fierce resistance of the Araucanians. The dramatic events of the mid sixteenth century, when the Spanish conquistador Pedro de Valdivia tried to establish a colony in central Chile at the cost of many Spanish and Indian lives, are vividly narrated in Alonso de Ercilla’s epic poem La Araucana (1569–89). After these turbulent beginnings, a status quo arose in which central Chile and the far south (including the town of Valdivia and the island of Chilo´e) were under Spanish control, whereas most of the intervening area (including the present-day provinces of Arauco, Biob´ıo, Malleco and Caut´ın) remained independent and outside the domain of Christian influence. The Araucanians strengthened their position thanks to an unusually effective military organisation, great strategic experience and dexterity in the use of horses. In the seventeenth century the Araucanians supported the Dutch in their short-lived attempt of 1642–3 to establish a colony in Valdivia under the leadership of Hendrik Brouwer. As soon as it became clear that the newcomers could not live up to the Indians’ expectations and started to behave like a colonial power themselves, the Araucanians withdrew their support. The dominant group among the unsubdued Araucanians were the Mapuche (‘people of the land’). Consequently, the denomination Mapuche became almost a synonym of Araucanian. The latter name was probably derived from that of the town of Arauco, situated at the northern border of the independent Mapuche territory. This territory was 2
A more specific denomination used in the colonial period is that of promaucaes (from Quechua purum awqa ‘uncivilised enemy’).
5 The Araucanian Sphere
507
known as La Araucan´ıa during the colonial period and in the nineteenth century. Outside its borders the Araucanians were either completely assimilated (in the north), or gradually dwindled in numbers also by assimilation (in the south). After the independence of Chile (in 1818) the Mapuche in the independent territory retained their autonomy, although it came gradually under the pressure of a consolidating Chilean state. In 1860 Antoine Or´elie de Tounens, a notary-clerk from the P´erigord in France, came to the Araucan´ıa and had himself crowned King of Araucania (and later also Patagonia) under the name of Or´elie-Antoine I. Although many Mapuche recognised and supported him, the Chilean and Argentinian authorities succeeded in evicting him twice in succession. Some of Or´elie-Antoine’s relatives still claim rights to the Araucanian throne today. The final blow to the Araucanian independence in Chile came in the 1880s when the Chilean military occupied the area in a campaign known as pacificaci´on de la Araucan´ıa (pacification of Araucania). The Mapuche were confined in reserved areas (reducciones), separated by pieces of land that were handed out to Chilean peasants and newly arrived immigrants from Europe. This policy, aimed at destroying the unity and organisational traditions of the Mapuche, created many antagonisms between Indians and non-Indians. So far, it has proved effective. The Mapuche became a marginal and much discriminated population, plagued by poverty and internal strife. During the Pinochet dictatorship of 1973–89 the Mapuche suffered heavy oppression and adverse legislation aimed at the dismantlement of the reducciones system. It is estimated that more than a hundred thousand Mapuche have migrated to Santiago and other towns outside their native territory.3 Meanwhile, the provinces of Malleco and Caut´ın (in the ex-Araucan´ıa) have remained predominantly Mapuche. The Araucanians who entered Patagonia and the Argentinian pampas did so partly in order to establish colonies, and partly for raiding expeditions. These raiding expeditions, known by the name of mal´on, were conducted with great efficiency and violence. They had a terrifying effect on the white settlers in these sparsely inhabited regions. Alliances between Indian groups sometimes also involved adventurers of European extraction, who tried to escape the control of the young Argentinian state. Some of these groups for some time acted as separate political entities, a situation which is described by the Argentinian colonel Mansilla in the account of his visit to the Ranqueles in 1870 (Mansilla 1947). Throughout most of the nineteenth century southern Argentina remained dominated by Indians, Buenos Aires being situated close to the frontier. The anti-Indian animosity among the authorities and citizens of Buenos Aires grew such that the Indians were finally subdued in several military campaigns, especially those of 1833 and 1879–81. The latter campaign led by
3
Most of the statistical information in this chapter has been obtained from the website Estado actual de las lenguas abor´ıgenes de Chile (http://rehue.csociales.uchile.cl) of Gilberto S´anchez. It contains information from the 1988 census.
508
5 The Araucanian Sphere
General Roca, during the government of Sarmiento, is known as conquista del desierto (‘conquest of the desert’) and was geared towards the total destruction of the Indian communities in the pampas and in northern Patagonia. The survivors of this campaign were rounded up in reservations. Considering that most of the other languages belonging to the domain of this chapter are extinct and very poorly documented, our attention will mainly go to the Araucanian language and its local varieties. At the end of the chapter some general features of a Huarpean language (Allentiac) will be given. 5.1 Araucanian or Mapuche At the arrival of the Spanish conquerors, Araucanian was the dominant, if not the only language spoken in central Chile, the non-insular part of southern Chile and the island of Chilo´e. Luis de Valdivia,4 the author of the first description of Araucanian (1606), speaks of the ‘language which is used in the entire Kingdom of Chile’ (la lengua que corre en todo el Reyno de Chile). In a later stage of the colonial period the name Chilidugu (ˇcili θuŋu ‘language of Chile’) came into use (cf. Havestadt 1777). The modern name of the Araucanian language is Mapudungun, to be analysed as mapu-θ uŋu-n ‘language of the (people of the) land’, by analogy with Mapuche (mapu-ˇce ‘people of the land’), as the Araucanians nowadays prefer to call themselves. Nevertheless, the language too is often referred to as Mapuche. Early colonial observers (Bibar 1558) point at the linguistic homogeneity of central and southern Chile when the area was first visited by Spanish military expeditions. There is a marked contrast with the situation of linguistic diversity and multilingualism emerging from seventeenth-century descriptive accounts of almost any other area in the Americas. Spanish religious authorities used the Araucanian language in order to subdue and evangelise non-Araucanian peoples, such as the Chono of the islands south of Chilo´e, to the Christian faith. Although it appears that dialect differences did not stand in the way of mutual understandability, Valdivia gives a more subtle picture of the situation of the language. His work is of particular interest due to his exposure to a variety of Araucanian that has long been extinct, the dialect of the bishopric of Santiago. This variety was also known as Mapocho or Mapuchu5 after the name of the river that runs through the Chilean capital today. Valdivia explicitly mentions several distinctive elements of the Santiago dialect, which are not found in the varieties spoken today. When he mentions such characteristics, he often contrasts them with linguistic habits that were prevalent among the Araucanians 4 5
The Jesuit grammarian Luis de Valdivia is not to be confused with the conquistador Pedro de Valdivia, who died under Araucanian torture in 1552. The river name Mapocho seems to have no relation with ‘Mapuche’, the present-day name of the Araucanian people.
5.1 Araucanian or Mapuche
509
further south (‘arriba’), to which he often referred as the Beliche (from wil y i-ˇce ‘people of the south’). Some of the characteristics that Valdivia considered typical for ‘arriba’ or Beliche speech apply nowadays to the language of the Mapuche heartland in Malleco and Caut´ın, in southern Chile. An example is the absence of the pluralising morpheme y`uca [yka], which, according to Valdivia, was used in the bishopric of Santiago as a postposed element with non-animate nouns (e.g. ruca y`uca [ɹuka yka] ‘houses’), in contradistinction to the prefix-like element pu which marked plurality with animate nouns, as in pu che [pu cˇ e] ‘people’. ‘The Beliches apply pu to every sort of thing’, says Valdivia (1606: 10). The modern Mapuche language uses pu for human beings and only exceptionally for objects (Augusta 1903: 16), which is roughly in accordance with Valdivia’s observation about the Beliche practice. In addition to such explicit mentions, Valdivia’s description contains several lexical items and grammatical elements that are not found in present-day varieties of the language. Examples are the verb cu- [ku] ‘to go’ (modern Mapuche amu-) and the verbal derivational suffix -clo- [klo] ‘to help’, which has no equivalent in present-day Mapuche. In part, they may have been specific features of the Santiago dialect, but we could also be dealing with expressions that became obsolete during the last four centuries. During the colonial period all of central Chile north of the Biob´ıo river became thoroughly Hispanicised. The Mapocho dialect and maybe some other varieties became extinct. The Araucanian dialects that survived are those of the former Araucan´ıa and those of the territories further south, including Chilo´e. The varieties that spread into Argentina were brought there mainly by refugees or migrants from the former Araucan´ıa, which is confirmed by the close linguistic similarity between the Chilean and Argentinian Mapuche. The one considerably divergent variety of Araucanian still spoken today is the dialect of the present-day Huilliche, who live in the southernmost provinces of Valdivia, Osorno and Chilo´e, in the Chilean region of Los Lagos. Its local name in San Juan de la Costa (Osorno), cesuŋun ‘speech of the people’, reflects some of its phonetic characteristics (Alvarez-Santullano Busch 1992).6 Further characteristics of the Huilliche dialect are discussed in Salas (1992a: 86–92). In the past several attempts were made at subdividing the Chilean Araucanians into ethnolinguistic subgroups. Best known is the classification of Lenz (1895–7) who, in addition to the Huilliche, distinguished the Picunche (pikum-ˇce ‘people of the north’) in the northern part of the former Araucan´ıa (province of Malleco), Moluche or Ngoluche (ŋulu-ˇce ‘the Chilean Mapuche as they are called by their (eastern) Argentinian kinsmen’, probably related to ŋul y -ant ‘evening’) in the southern part of Araucan´ıa (province of Caut´ın), and the Pehuenche (‘people of the Araucaria pine’), who live near the cordillera. Croese (1980, 1985) distinguishes eight dialect areas in Chile, two of which correspond 6
The equivalent expression in Mapuche would be cˇ e-θ uŋ u-n.
510
5 The Araucanian Sphere
to Lenz’s Picunche and one of which corresponds to Huilliche. There appears to be a consensus that, with the exception of Huilliche, all the Chilean dialects are mutually intelligible. The Picunche dialect stands out by the fact that its interdental and labiodental fricatives are voiced ([ð], [v]), whereas they are voiceless ([θ ], [f]) in the Mapuche dialects further south (Salas 1992a: 92). In this respect, the Picunche dialect coincides with the extinct northern variety described by Valdivia. Valdivia’s transcription (, ∼ ) suggests that the fricatives in that variety were also voiced. The Argentinian dialects are only slightly different from their Chilean relatives, with the exception of occasional substratum influence from Tehuelche or other local languages. They may share specific features with one of the Chilean dialects, thus betraying the homeland from which they once migrated. For instance, the Ranquelino dialect of La Pampa province shares the use of voiced fricatives with Picunche, which may be its closest relative in Chile (cf. Fern´andez Garay 1991). Approximately 400,000 Mapuche people live in the Chilean region of Araucan´ıa (provinces of Caut´ın and Malleco), where they are the majority of the rural population. There seem to be no reliable figures concerning the number of speakers of the language, but it may be assumed that a substantial part of the Mapuche population in this area continue to speak it. Some smaller groups of Mapuche are located in Arauco and Biob´ıo (region of El Biob´ıo) and in Valdivia (region of Los Lagos). The Huilliche people inhabit a discontinuous area in the region of Los Lagos, including the coast of Osorno (San Juan de la Costa), the interior of Valdivia (Isla Huapi in Lake Ranco) and several locations near Quell´on at the southern tip of Chilo´e (e.g. the community of Huequetrumao). Referring to Isla Huapi and San Juan de la Costa, Contreras and Alvarez-Santullano (1989) insist that only people over sixty can speak the language to a satisfactory degree. Given the critical situation of the Huilliche language, it is unlikely that there remain more than a few thousand speakers. Estimates concerning the number of Mapuche in Argentina fluctuate between 27,000 and 60,000 (Mart´ınez Sarasola 1992: 493). The largest group of Argentinian Mapuche live in Neuqu´en, but there are also communities in the provinces of Buenos Aires, Chubut, La Pampa and R´ıo Negro. Very little can be said about the actual number of speakers of Mapuche in Argentina, as in many locations the language is being replaced by Spanish (Fern´andez Garay 1996). 5.1.1 Mapuche studies The Mapuche language has been studied more intensely than many other South American Indian languages. A good overview of what has been done is Salas (1992b). The Mapuche grammatical tradition begins with Valdivia (1606), whose work was followed in the second half of the eighteenth century by the grammars of Febr´es (1764) and Havestadt (1777), the latter one in Latin. At the end of the nineteenth century Rodolfo Lenz (1895–7) published an extensive series of studies, known as Estudios Araucanos (Araucanian Studies), including many
5.1 Araucanian or Mapuche
511
texts in different dialects, accompanied by ethnographic and linguistic observations. Lenz also became known for his claim that Chilean Spanish, as pronounced by the lower class, is essentially Spanish with Araucanian sounds (Lenz 1893: 208; 1940: 249). The arguments upon which he based this assertion were successfully refuted by Alonso (1953). Nevertheless, the idea of an Araucanian substratum in Chilean Spanish may encounter a more favourable ear today. Approximately in the same period, Bavarian missionaries renewed the Mapuche descriptive tradition. Their most outstanding figure was F´elix Jos´e de Augusta, known for his grammar (Augusta 1903) and dictionary of the language (Augusta 1916), by far the best dictionary of the Mapuche language to date. Augusta also published a collection of traditional text and ethnographic notes, Lecturas Araucanas (Araucanian Readings), collected by himself and Sigifredo de Fraunhæusl (Augusta 1910). To the same grammatical tradition belongs a grammar by Ernesto de Moesbach (1963). Doubtless, his most valuable contribution is the edition of the autobiography and memoirs of Pascual Co˜na, a Mapuche chief, who lived through the turbulent years of the last great Argentinian raids and the pacification of the Araucan´ıa (Moesbach 1930). Both in content and in form it is a monument of native American literature. Among the more substantial contemporary contributions to the study of Chilean Mapuche, the work of Salas (1979, 1992a, 1992b) occupies a central position. Salas (1992a) also contains an extensive treatment of the different genres in Mapuche folk literature, including some annotated and translated texts. Smeets’s unpublished dissertation of 1989 contains the most detailed grammatical description of the Mapuche language so far, accompanied by analysed and translated texts.7 Catrileo (1987) is a classroom textbook for learning Mapuche. A recent grammatical description of Mapuche is Z´un˜ iga (2000). Most of the publications concerning the Chilean Mapuche language are in the form of articles in journals. We will mention just a few examples. Important articles on Mapuche phonology are Su´arez (1959), Echeverr´ıa Weasson (1964), Echeverr´ıa and Contreras (1965), Lagos Altamirano (1981) and Rivano (1990). The complex system of personal reference marking in Mapuche is discussed, inter alia, in Fontanella de Weinberg (1967), Salas (1978, 1979), Grimes (1985), Rivano (1988, 1989) and Arnold (1996). Several aspects of Mapuche grammar are discussed by Harmelink (1987, 1988, 1990, 1992). The historical-comparative position of Araucanian is discussed in Key (1978), Stark (1970) and Croese (1991). In relation to the Argentinian varieties of Mapuche we can mention the publications of Fern´andez Garay on the Ranquel dialect (Fern´andez Garay 1989b, 1991, 1998b, 2001), as well as Golbert’s text edition Epu pe˜niwen (Two Brothers) (Golbert de Goodbar 1975).
7
A published version of Smeets (1989) is in preparation.
512
5 The Araucanian Sphere
5.1.2 The sounds of Mapuche The phonological structure of a Mapuche word is relatively straightforward. It is reminiscent of Quechua in that consonant sequences are limited to the intervocalic position and consist of no more than two consonants.8 However, in contradistinction to Quechua and Aymara, vowel sequences are common, as in (1): (1) leli-a-e-n-ew watch-F-I-1.SG.ID-3.OV ‘He will watch me.’ The Mapuche vowel inventory consists of six vowels a, e, i, o, u, . Their pronunciation and analysis do not present any particular difficulties, except for . There are no length distinctions. The vowel has a variable realisation, which can either be a schwa [ə ], or an unrounded high central vowel [¨ı] according to the environment in which it occurs. In many cases the presence of the vowel has not been perceived at all in the past. In fact, the recognition of as a unit phoneme is a relatively recent phenomenon. In the publications of the Bavarian missionaries the different alleged realisations of were distinguished in writing, either as <¨u>, or as <ə >, e.g. w¨un· ‘daybreak’, wən· ‘mouth’ (Augusta 1916), whereas in reality these two words do not differ in pronunciation [w n]. Furthermore, Valdivia (1606) and Augusta (1903) often write consonant sequences, where contemporary descriptions would assume the presence of an intervening . (2) Valdivia (1606: 10) tva (3) Augusta (1903/1990: 29) konn
modern tfa modern kon- n
‘this’ ‘I entered.’
The non-recognition of the intervening vowel is not just an omission. Valdivia (1606: 9) explicitly states that Araucanian had word-final clusters.9 It is the overall word structure of the Mapuche language that has incited contemporary linguists to assume the presence of a vowel not recognised so far. The morphophonological behaviour of 8
9
Occasionally, triconsonantal clusters involving the semi-vowel w occur, as in aŋkaθfwin ‘I had him on the back of my horse’ (cf. Smeets 1989: 55). The element -fwi- is a contraction of -fu‘past tense’ and -fi- ‘third-person object marker’. Valdivia (1606: 9): . . . y se siguen despues dellas dos consonantes assi de las que en Espa˜na solemos juntar, como de las que no solemos, y vna de las consonantes que suelen juntar es la –[ŋ] [authors’addition] – que pusimos en el notable seg˜udo. Y no se deue pensar que entonces ay nueua sylaba de mas de la vocal, porque no es mas de vna (‘. . . and after these (vowels) two consonants may follow, like those we are accustomed to put together in Spain, as well as those we would not put together. And one of the consonants they are accustomed to put together is [ŋ], which we have treated in our second remark. And one must not think that there is a new syllable then in addition to (the one of) the vowel, because there is no more than one’).
5.1 Araucanian or Mapuche
513
may have played a role in the way its status was perceived by different authors. As in the case of the ‘impure’ vowels of Mochica (section 3.4), it can be used as a full root vowel (as in wn ‘mouth’), but also as a means to avoid non-licensed consonant sequences. Example (3), kon-n, is a case in point. The first-person-singular subject ending is -n; after bases ending in a consonant - - is inserted in order to avoid sequences such as *-nn. An additional complication is the fact that the vowel is often accompanied by a voiced velar glide or semi-vowel [γ ]. Although there is some individual variation, the presence of the glide is on the whole predictable, so that it need not be analysed as a separate consonant phoneme. However, the rules governing the behaviour of [γ ] are so specific and complicated that it turns out easier to include it with a separate symbol in the orthography (Smeets 1989: 32–4). In some environments, i.e. between a full vowel and a consonant, the semi-vowel is the only possible realisation, e.g. in reγle ‘seven’. Elsewhere, γ is added either before or after the vowel , according to the position in the word. (4) γy kuwγ
‘name’ ‘hand’
Valdivia (1606) is quite consistent in writing <´u> (or any of its graphic variants <`u>, <¨u>) both for the vowel, and for the semi-vowel (re´ule, u´ j, cu´u). Augusta (1916) uses the symbol for some postvocalic realisations of [γ ]: word-internally (e.g. in reqle [ɹeγle]); word-finally in (near) monosyllables (e.g. liq ∼ l¨uq [liγ ] ∼ [lγ ] ‘white’, kuq [kuwγ ] ‘hand’); and word-finally after vowels other than (e.g. umaq [umaγ ] ‘sleep’). Elsewhere, including in word-initial position, he does not write the semi-vowel (e.g. u¨ ´ı [γ y] ‘name’, ant¨u [ant(γ )] ‘day’). The relation that holds between the semi-vowels y and w and the vowels i and u, respectively, is somehow comparable to that between γ and the vowel . However, the position of y and w as consonant phonemes is much firmer due to their typically consonantal behaviour. In Mapuche of Caut´ın the verbal indicative (or third-person subject) ending -y is obligatorily preceded by a connective vowel after a base ending in a consonant. (Optionally, this sequence may be replaced by -iy; cf. Smeets 1989: 42, 227.) (5) lef-y run-3.ID ‘He/she ran.’ (6) lef-y-mi run-ID-2.SG ‘You ran.’
514
5 The Araucanian Sphere
It should be observed that in many other varieties of Mapuche, the sequence *y (∼iy) is realised as i (e.g. kon-i ‘he entered’, kim-i ‘he knows’), a state of affairs which suggests that the consonantal status of y in those varieties may be less pronounced (see, for instance, D´ıaz-Fern´andez 1992; Augusta 1903, 1916). On the other hand, Augusta does register the word wen y (written wen·¨ui) for ‘friend’. The status of w can best be illustrated with verbs containing the reflexive suffix -(u)w-; they are clearly different in pronunciation from their counterparts without that suffix. (7) elu-w-a-n give-RF-F-1.SG.ID ‘I shall give to myself.’
elu-a-n give-F-1.SG.ID ‘I shall give (to someone).’ (Smeets 1989: 31)
(8) elu-w-ke-n give-RF-CU-1.SG.ID ‘I usually give to myself.’
elu-ke-n give-CU-1.SG.ID ‘I usually give (to someone).’10 (Smeets 1989: 31)
The Mapuche consonant inventory is characterised by a rather extensive array of articulatory positions. Valdivia (1606) already observed the existence of a phonemic opposition between interdental [l , n] and alveolar [l, n] resonants. He used the symbols ˆ <´l> and <´n>, respectively, to represent the interdental sounds. However, Valdivia did not recognise the interdental stop [t ], which is also recorded in Mapuche, reserving his ˆ symbol <¯t> for the retroflex stop (see below). At present, the different local varieties of Mapuche, both on the Chilean and on the Argentinian side, have either preserved or lost the distinction between interdental and alveolar consonants. For instance, in Argentina the Ranquelino dialect of northwestern La Pampa lacks the distinction (Fern´andez Garay 1991), whereas the dialect of Rucachoroy in Neuqu´en (Golbert de Goodbar 1975) preserves it. In Chile, the Huilliche (cesuŋ un) variety of San Juan de la Costa (Osorno) no longer preserves the distinction in the nasal and the stop series, but has developed a distinctive retroflex .l in addition to a plain l and a ‘postdental’ (interdental) lˆ (Alvarez-Santullano Busch 1992).11
10 11
A parallel case with y is leli-e-n ‘you watched me’ versus leli-ye-n ‘I watched many things’ (Smeets 1989: 30). Alvarez-Santullano Busch provides no examples of the ‘postdental’ l . The examples given by ˆ her and by Salas (1992a: 87) suggest a historical correlation between the interdental l of central ˆ Mapuche and the retroflex .l of Huilliche. The matter needs further investigation.
5.1 Araucanian or Mapuche
515
The continued existence of the interdental–alveolar distinction in the Chilean Mapuche heartland has been the object of conflicting observations. Salas (1992b: 502–3) insists that the distinction is fully in use. He refers to the work of Lenz (1895–7), Echeverr´ıa Weasson (1964) and Lagos Altamirano (1981), who confirm this, and states that three different groups of native language planners and educators have considered it necessary to include the distinction in the orthography.12 On the other hand, Croese (1980: 14), in his Mapuche dialect survey, affirms that the distinction is practically lost, and that he found no awareness among the natives of its possible relevance. This is confirmed by Smeets (1989: 34–6). She gave the matter special attention but was forced to conclude that her consultants, all fluent speakers of the language, did not make the distinction.13 As it appears now, the preservation of the interdental–alveolar distinction in Mapuche must be related to the individual or family level, rather than to geographically based dialects. An additional problem concerning the interdental–alveolar distinction in Mapuche is the inconsistency of the observations. Lexical items, such as l afken ‘sea’, namun ‘foot’ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ and mt a ‘horn’, are usually among those recorded with interdental consonants, but in ˆ other cases there is no such consistency. For instance, Salas (1992a) writes t u¨ fa ‘this’, ˆ ant u¨ ‘day’ and k¨ulen ‘tail’, where Augusta (1916) has təfa, ant¨u and kəlen, respectively. ˆˆ ˆ Given the frequency of occurrence of at least the two first items, this is a remarkable discrepancy.14 In addition to the alveolar and interdental nasals, all Mapuche dialects distinguish at least three more nasals: bilabial m, palatal ny and velar ŋ.15 The interesting feature of the Mapuche nasals is not their number, which more or less follows the selection of obstruent articulations, but rather the fact that, within the limitations of Mapuche word structure, they can occur in almost any position and combination. Nasal clusters are frequent even within morphemes. The low level of nasal assimilation (none at all at morpheme boundaries) is remarkable. The following examples illustrate some of the
12
13
14
15
These groups are the committee responsible for the development of the Alfabeto mapuche unificado (Unified Mapuche Alphabet), the members of an alphabetisation workshop organised by the Catholic University of Temuco, and the native authors participating in the workshops of the Summer Institute of Linguistics. The late Luis Quinchavil Su´arez from Nueva Imperial, the principal Mapuche consultant of the Leiden project underlying Smeets’s dissertation of 1989, was aware of the interdental–alveolar distinction among elder Mapuche speakers but did not make the distinction himself. When Mapuche speakers abandon the alveolar–interdental distinction, it does not mean that the interdental articulation as such is lost. The overall make-up of the Mapuche sound system favours interdental, rather than alveolar pronunciation. This may explain why present-day observers tend to record more interdentals than those historically attested. The usual transcription of the ny and the ŋ is n˜ and ng, respectively. For the latter sound, Valdivia used the symbol <¯g>.
516
5 The Araucanian Sphere
positions that nasals can take.16 (9) lamŋ ŋen ‘sister’, ‘brother of a woman’ (10) many ke ‘condor’ (11) man-kuw-l-n right-hand-T-IF ‘to give one’s right hand to someone’ (12) aku-ny ma-n weˇsa θŋu arrive-DM-1.SG.ID bad word ‘I got some bad news.’ (13) wely -wn-ŋ ŋe-n imperfect-mouth-CV-IF ‘to have an imperfect beak (of a parrot)’
(Augusta 1966: xiii)
(Augusta 1966: 265)
The fricative series of seventeenth-century Araucanian was remarkable not so much for what it included, but more so for what it lacked. Valdivia (1606) is very explicit in his statement that the language had no <¸c> [s], no <x> [ˇs], no <j> [h ∼ x] and no [f], in the way Spaniards would pronounce them. Instead, there was a voiced interdental fricative [ð], a voiced bilabial or labiodental fricative, written or [v ∼ β], and a voiced retroflex fricative or glide reminiscent of the English ‘r’ in ‘to worry’, which was written [ɹ]. This, at least, is the picture that can be reconstructed by referring to the situation in the different varieties of the language today. In the modern dialects the voiced pronunciation of the labial and interdental fricatives has been preserved in Ranquelino and in the northern (Picunche) half of the Araucanian heartland (especially in Arauco, Biob´ıo and Malleco). In the southern half of the Araucanian heartland and in the Huilliche area the voiceless fricatives [θ ] and [f] are preferred over voiced [ð], [v], [β].17 Fern´andez Garay (1991) notes that the Argentinian varieties of Neuqu´en and R´ıo Negro show variation with a preference for the voiceless options. Most contemporary varieties of Mapuche have introduced a voiceless alveodental sibilant s, a voiceless alveopalatal sibilant sˇ, or both. These sounds are found in borrowed words and, at least in the Temuco area, in forms that are somehow sound-symbolically 16
17
With the exception of material taken from Valdivia, all examples borrowed from the literature will henceforth be transposed into the current notation system of this book. Given the controversy on the interdentals, these will be indicated even when the original source does not distinguish them from the alveolars. In the word muðay ‘chicha (an alcoholic drink)’ voiced [ð] is found, even with speakers who normally use the voiceless realisation ([θ ]).
5.1 Araucanian or Mapuche
517
Table 5.1 Mapuche consonant inventory
Obstruents Fricatives Laterals Nasals Glides
Labial
Interdental
Alveolar
Retroflex
Palatal
Velar
p f
t ˆ θ l ˆ n
t (s) l n
cˇ. r [ɹ]
cˇ (ˇs) ly ny y
k
m w
ˆ
ŋ (γ )
related to words containing r or θ, e.g. kure ‘wife’, kuˇse, kuse ‘old woman’, kuθe ‘old woman (despective)’; cf. Smeets (1989: 38). In several old loan words the Spanish plural marker -s has been replaced by Mapuche -r (e.g. awar ‘beans’ from Spanish habas), a fact which illustrates the difficulty that seventeenth century Araucanian speakers must have experienced when trying to pronounce the Spanish s. The velar voiceless fricative is still absent from the present-day Mapuche varieties. Its Spanish representative has been replaced by a stop k in some loan words (e.g. keka-w- ‘to complain’ from Spanish quejarse; Smeets 1989: 69). In Huilliche, the modern reflex of the r sound is a retroflex sibilant, as in kuˇ.sam ‘egg’, Mapuche kuram. A glottal or velar voiceless fricative [h ∼ x] is optionally found as a variant of f, as in kohke ‘bread’, Mapuche kofke; and xoˇs.u ‘bone’, Mapuche foro (Salas 1992a: 87–8). The stops and affricates of Mapuche have the characteristic in common that they can only occur syllable-initially. The labial and velar stops p and k appear in non-productive morphophonologically related verb-pairs such as af- ‘to end’ (intransitive), ap-m- ‘to end’ (transitive), and naγ- ‘to descend’ (intransitive), nak-m- ‘to take down’ (transitive), which indicate an extinct process of fricativisation in root-final position. There are two affricates, palatal cˇ and retroflex c.ˇ (traditionally written ch and tr, respectively). The retroflex varies between an affricate and a stop. Valdivia’s representation of this sound by means of the symbol <¯t> indicates that the stop realisation may have been the only one possible in the seventeenth-century Santiago dialect. In summary, the original Mapuche consonant inventory is represented in table 5.1. Borrowed sounds and sounds of debatable phonemic status are given between brackets. The obsolescent character of the interdentals is not taken into account. The classification of the resonant r as a fricative is motivated by its interrelations with the other fricatives. 5.1.3 Grammar The overall structure of the Mapuche language resembles that of the central Andean languages Aymara and Quechua as far as the complexity and the transparency of the morphology, as well as the dependency on suffixes, are concerned. Nevertheless, there
518
5 The Araucanian Sphere
are some notable differences. Whereas the verbal morphology is exceptionally rich, including, for example, a productive system of noun incorporation, nominal morphology is weakly developed. Although noun incorporation is a frequent phenomenon in the New World, it is relatively rare in the Andean area. Araucanian noun incorporation drew the attention of Valdivia (1606), who recorded some very illustrative examples of object incorporation in the seventeenth-century language, permitting us to observe the difference between an incorporated and a non-incorporated construction. (The examples are given here in the original spelling and their phonetic interpretation between square brackets.) (14) quine ˜ huinca mo are-tu-bi-n ta ni ˜ huayqui [kiny e wiŋka mo are-tu-βi-n ta ny i wayki] one foreigner OC lend-LS-3O-1.SG.ID FO 1P.SG lance ‘I lent my lance to a Spaniard.’ (Valdivia 1606: 40) (15) are-huayqui-bi-n ta quine ˜ huinca [are-wayki-βi-n ta kiny e wiŋka] lend-lance-3O-1.SG.ID FO one foreigner ‘I lent my lance to a Spaniard.’ (Valdivia 1606: 40) Although the two sentences are translated in the same way, Valdivia points out the syntactic consequences of using either construction. In (14) the noun phrase referring to the recipient contains the postposition mo (also mu or mew in modern Mapuche), which indicates an oblique case. The third-person object marker -ßi- corefers to ‘my lance’, which is the direct object. In (15) the noun referring to the lance is incorporated in the verb form. The object marker -ßi- corefers to the next object available, which is the recipient in this case. Valdivia describes the incorporated variant as ‘an elegant way of speaking’ (elegante modo de hablar).18 In the present-day language noun incorporation is still fully in use (cf. Harmelink 1992). In addition to object incorporation, theme subjects can be incorporated as well, as in kuˇc.an-loŋko- ‘to have a headache’, from kuˇc.an- ‘to be ill’, ‘to be in pain’ and loŋko ‘head’. The incorporated noun always follows the verb root. In fact, Mapuche noun incorporation must be analysed as part of a general tendency of the language towards compounding, which again is more salient in the verb than in the noun (cf. Smeets 1989: 416–20). The possibilities of Mapuche verbal compounding are illustrated in example (16), which contains a compound of two verb roots and an incorporated object associated with the second verb root. The incorporated object iyal ‘food’ (from i- ‘to eat’, -a- ‘future 18
In modern Mapuche the form are-tu- (which includes a lexicalised suffix -tu-) means ‘to borrow’, rather than ‘to lend’, for which the causative are-l- is now preferred. The root are- no longer occurs by itself. We can only conclude that in seventeenth-century Santiago Araucanian are-tuwas used in the meaning ‘to lend’, whereas the root are- was reserved for incorporation.
5.1 Araucanian or Mapuche
519
Table 5.2 Personal and possessive pronouns in Mapuche Independent personal pronouns
1 pers. 2 pers. 3 pers. *
Possessive personal modifiers
Singular
Dual
Plural
Singular
Dual
Plural
iny cˇ e* eymi fey
iny cˇ iu eymu fey-eŋ u
iny cˇ iny eymn fey-eŋ n
ny i mi ny i
yu mu ny i . . . e ŋ u
yiny mn ny i . . . eŋ n
In Mapuche studies, the nasal in the first-person pronouns is usually marked as palatal, but the palatal element is, in fact, a case of assimilation of the nasal with the following affricate (Smeets 1989: 129). The sources are not consistent in their treatment of this cluster; Augusta, for instance, records i˜nche ‘I’ (1966: 73), but minche ‘below’ (1966: 150).
tense’, and -(e)l ‘non-subject nominaliser’) is itself a nominalised verb form containing a tense marker. (16) kim-θ ewma-iyal-la-y19 know-make.ready-food-NE-3.ID ‘He does not know how to cook.’ The image of Araucanian as a language entirely depending on suffixation is nuanced by the fact that it has a unique set of possessive modifiers, which play a crucial role in the grammar. These possessive modifiers have no independent referential meaning and can only occur before nouns and nominalised verbs. They must not be treated as prefixes, however, because there is no phonetic coalescence, and because they can be separated from the noun by another modifier, such as an adjective. The possessive modifiers are formally related to the independent personal pronouns. The grammatical distinctions expressed in the pronominal system are person (first, second, third) and number (singular, dual, plural). Number of a third person is expressed by postposed cliticlike elements (dual eŋu, plural eŋn), which can but need not merge with the preceding noun or pronoun. Table 5.2 contains the inventory of personal pronouns and possessive modifiers in Mapuche. In a possessive construction the presence of a possessive personal modifier is obligatory. When the possessive modifier is not preceded by a pronoun or another modifier, an element ta- can be prefixed to it without a notable change in meaning, e.g. ta-ny i, ta-mi, etc. The possessive personal modifier can be preceded by an independent personal pronoun for emphasis or disambiguation (in the case of ny i, which is used both for first person singular and for third person). The pronoun and the possessive modifier must 19
Sequences of vowel-final and vowel-initial stems in compounds may be separated by a pause or a phonetic glottal stop, as is the case in (16).
520
5 The Araucanian Sphere
agree in person and, if not third person, also in number. (17) mi ruka 2P.SG house ‘your house’
eymi mi ruka you.SG 2P.SG house ‘your house’
Number of third person is marked only once, either directly on the pronoun, or by eŋu/eŋn following the head (Smeets 1989: 130). (18) fey-eŋ ŋu ny i ruka he/she/it-D 3P house ‘the house of the two of them’
ny i ruka eŋ ŋu 3P house 3.D ‘the house of the two of them’
The genitive construction in Mapuche patterns in the same way as the possessive constructions containing a personal pronoun illustrated in (17) and (18), with the restriction that the possessive modifier must be third person. (19) tfa-ˇci wenˇc.u ny i ruka this-AJ man 3P house ‘this man’s house’ Whereas in possessive constructions the modifier precedes the modified, this may be the other way round if the genitive relationship is not explicitly marked. Such constructions usually have a part-of-whole interpretation, e.g. me yene ‘amber’, literally, ‘whale’s dung’, from me ‘dung’ and yene ‘whale’ (Augusta 1966: 143). By contrast, noun phrases in which the modifier precedes the modified, e.g. pron fw ‘knotted thread’, ‘quipu’ (cf. chapter 3), or awkan θuŋu ‘war matter’ (see the text in section 5.1.5), are more common. Real compounds, such as mapu-ˇce also have the latter order of constituents. Mapuche has only one true case marker, the postposition mew (also mo, mu), which indicates oblique or circumstantial case. Its uses are so manifold that it is difficult to reduce them to a single semantic definition. It can refer to any non-specific location (‘at’, ‘to’, ‘from’), time (‘since’, ‘after’, ‘during’), instrument or means (‘with’, ‘by’), cause (‘because of’), circumstance (‘in’), as well as the standard of a comparison (cf. Harmelink 1987; Smeets 1989: 76–83). It can also indicate an indirect object; see (14). More specific spatial relations can be expressed either by means of adverbs indicating the position of a referent (20), or by means of verbs which encode such relations in their lexical meaning (21). (20) inal-tu l afken ˆ shore-AV sea ‘at the seashore’
(Augusta 1991: 266)
5.1 Araucanian or Mapuche
521
(21) inal-kle-y l ewf mew ˆ be.at.the.edge-ST-3.ID river OC ‘It is at the banks of the river.’
(Augusta 1966: 72)
The Mapuche construction that expresses the concept of comitative does not involve any case marker. Instead, the distinctions of person and number (dual and plural) pertaining to the personal reference system are exploited. There is a special set of markers exclusively for use in the comitative construction, in which those referring to first person dual and plural are identical to the corresponding personal pronouns (iny cˇ iu, iny cˇ iny ); the markers for second person dual and plural are emu and emn, respectively, and those for third person, eŋu and eŋn.20 The comitative marker specifies the grammatical person of the group of referents following a 1 > 2 > 3 hierarchy and the total number of referents (Smeets 1989: 177–9; Salas 1992a: 99–100). (22) inycˇ e amu-a-n temuko nyi pu karukatu21 inycˇ iny I go-F-1.SG.ID Temuco 1P.SG PL neighbour C.1.PL ‘I shall go to Temuco with my neighbours.’ (lit.: ‘I shall go to Temuco my neighbours all of us.’)
(Salas 1992a: 99)
Characteristic of this construction is that there are always at least two referents involved, but that only one of them needs to be overtly expressed. In that case the addressee has to derive person and number of the referent not mentioned by subtracting the person and number features of the overt participant from the person and number features conveyed by the comitative marker (Augusta 1990: 125–7). For instance, in (23) the unexpressed referent is the child’s mother. (23) ta-mi pnyeny emu DC-2P.SG child (of woman) C.2.D ‘you and your child (addressing a woman)’ (lit.: ‘your child, the two of you’)
(Augusta 1990: 126)
When a verb is part of the construction, it may follow the comitative marker and agree with it in person and in number (24). (24) eymn iny cˇ iny amu-a-yiny you.PL C.1.PL go-F-1.PL ‘You people will go with me.’ (lit.: ‘You (plural), we (plural), all of us will go.’) 20 21
(Augusta 1990: 125)
Salas (1992a: 99) calls these markers grupalizadores ‘group makers’. The word karukatu ‘neighbour’ has been derived from the expression ka ruka ‘the next house’ (from ka ‘other’ and ruka ‘house’).
522
5 The Araucanian Sphere
A prefix-like element that serves the purpose of indicating a location is pu. It is used with nouns referring to places, as in pu ruka ‘at home’, pu wariya ‘in town’. Its homophone pu is used mainly with nouns referring to human beings to indicate plural (25). (25) nyi pu wen y aku-a-y 1P.SG PL friend arrive-F-3.ID ‘My friends will arrive.’
(Smeets 1989: 91)
Other nominal plural markers are -ke and -wen. The former is used with modifiers, in particular, adjectives. It is a distributive suffix translatable as ‘each’ (26).22 Valdivia (1606: 10) considers its use a characteristic of the southern Beliche Indians. The suffix -wen indicates pairs that generically belong together; the stem refers to one of the members of the pair (27). (26) fcˇ a-ke cˇ e old-DB human ‘old people’ (27) fot m-wen ˆ son (of man)-GP ‘father and son’
(Augusta 1966: 53)
As in Quechua and Aymara, the verb in Mapuche typically consists of a root followed by one or more optional derivational affixes and an inflectional block. The latter comprises negation, mood, tense, personal reference and nominalisation. The personal reference markers in Mapuche are of considerable interest. As in the case of the pronouns and possessive modifiers, there is a three-way distinction both in person (first, second, third) and in number (singular, dual, plural). In the case of first and second person, number marking is compulsory; with third person it is optional. Person and number of subject are generally expressed in the verb; if there is an object, person and number of the object can also be expressed in the verb. The combined codifications of subject and object are traditionally referred to as ‘transitions’ (transiciones), a concept which goes back to a sixteenth-century Quechua grammar (cf. section 3.2.6), and which was further developed by Valdivia (1606).23
22 23
The parallelism with the way the affix -kama is used in Quechua is remarkable. The concept of ‘transition’ as used by Peter S. DuPonceau (1760–1844) and other founding fathers of the North American descriptive tradition in linguistics may have been borrowed from one of the Araucanian grammars (Mackert 1999).
5.1 Araucanian or Mapuche
523
Table 5.3 Mapuche subject endings
1 pers. sing. 1 pers. dual 1 pers. plur. 2 pers. sing. 2 pers. dual 2 pers. plur. 3 pers.
Indicative
Conditional
Imperative
-()n -yu -yiny -()y-mi -()y-mu -()y-mn -()y
-l-i -l-iu -l-iiny -()l-mi -()l-mu -()l-mn -l-e
-ˇci -yu -yiny -ŋ e -mu -mn -pe
A feature of Mapuche distinct from Aymara and Quechua is that a third-person object can also be codified within the verb form. When both the subject and the object are third person, there are two possibilities. These are illustrated in (28) and (29). (28) l aŋ ŋm-fi-y24 ˆ kill-3O-3.ID ‘He killed him.’ (29) l aŋ ŋm-e-y-ew ˆ kill-I-3.ID-3.OV ‘He killed him.’
(We are talking about X; X killed Y.)
(We are talking about X; Y killed X.)
The third-person object indicated by -fi- in (28) refers to an entity or person which plays a less dominant role in the discourse than the referent of the subject. The latter is in focus at the moment of speaking. In (29) it is the other way round: the referent of a third person which is in focus is the patient of an action effectuated by a third-person actor who is not yet in focus at the moment of speaking.25 The two third-person categories emerging from this opposition have been interpreted in terms of a proximate–obviative distinction as known from the grammatical tradition of the Algonquian languages (Arnold 1996). The third person in focus is the proximate, whereas the one not in focus is termed obviative. The endings which indicate grammatical person and number of a subject exhibit many formal similarities with the personal pronouns and possessive modifiers. They vary according to moods, three in number, with which they can be combined: the indicative mood (marker -y- or -∅-), the conditional mood (‘if’; marker -l-), and the imperative– hortative mood (no specific marker). Table 5.3 shows the subject endings that correspond to each mood. As can be seen from table 5.3, the indicative marker -y- is only clearly present in the second-person endings; in the first person non-singular and in the third person a fusion 24 25
After -fi- the pronunciation of the suffix -y is optional (cf. Smeets 1989: 65). One may be tempted to interpret these forms as passives. However, Mapuche also has a true passive (suffix -ŋe-), which can only be used when the actor is unexpressed.
524
5 The Araucanian Sphere
of indicative and person markers may have occurred, and in the first person singular there is no indicative marker at all. The difference in pronunciation between the non-singular first-person conditional endings and those of the other two moods appear to be induced by the phonological context, rather than by their being different endings. The third-person endings can be put into dual or be pluralised by means of the elements eŋu (dual) and eŋn (plural), respectively, which are located after the verb (30). These elements can apply to a third-person subject, as well as to a third-person object. When they indicate plural or dual of the subject, they can be attached directly to the verb after the loss of their initial vowel e (31). (30) elu-e-y-ew eŋ ŋn pcˇ. em give-I-3.ID-3.OV 3.PL tobacco ‘He gave them tobacco.’ (31) cˇ. ipa-ke-y-ŋ ŋn pun go.out-CU-3.ID-3.PL night ‘They go out at night.’
(Augusta 1966: 39)
(Smeets 1989: 461)
When the subject is either first or second person, a third-person object can be marked straightforwardly by means of the suffix -fi-. This marker is used with definite, known objects; if the object is indefinite it can be left out. (32) n-n mapu take-1.SG.ID land ‘I took land.’ (33) n-fi-n mapu take-3O-1.SG.ID land ‘I took the land.’
(Smeets 1989: 19)
(Smeets 1989: 19)
When a third-person actor is combined with a first- or second-person patient, the latter is indicated by means of the corresponding subject ending. At the same time, two elements must be added: a suffix -e-, which occupies a position to the left of the subject ending, and an element -ew or mew, which appears immediately after the subject ending. When the first- and second-person markers are singular and in the indicative, -ew is added directly to these markers; the second-person marker -y-mi loses its final vowel. When the markers are dual or plural the added element is -mew or -mu. (34) leli-e-n-ew watch-I-1.SG.ID-3.OV ‘He watched me.’ (35) leli-e-y-m-ew watch-I-ID-2.SG-3.OV ‘He watched you.’
(Salas 1992a: 120)
(Salas 1992a: 121)
5.1 Araucanian or Mapuche (36) kuly i-e-yiny -mu pay-I-1.PL.ID-3.OV ‘He paid us.’ (37) pe-e-y-mu-mew see-I-ID-2.D-3.OV ‘He saw the two of you.’ (38) leli-e-ˇci-mu watch-I-1.SG.IM-3.OV ‘May he watch me!’
525
(Smeets 1989: 195)
(Salas 1992a: 125)
(Smeets 1989: 235)
As we have seen in the example of l aŋm-e-y-ew (29), a similar formation to the above ˆ obtains when an obviative third-person actor is combined with a proximate third-person patient. All the forms in -e . . . (m)ew have in common that they involve a third-person actor which is considered to be lower than the patient in a saliency hierarchy defined by Arnold (1996: 26) as 1 > 2 > 3 proximate > 3 obviative (cf. also Salas 1992a: 125). The suffix -e-, which is present in all these forms, has been interpreted as an inverse marker (Arnold 1996: 30).26 The inverse marker -e- also plays a role in the combination of a second-person actor with a first-person patient. When the inverse marker -e- is accompanied by a firstperson-singular subject ending (-n, -l-i), the resulting form refers to the transition of a second-person actor to a first-person patient with the restriction that both must be singular. In this case the imperative and indicative forms are identical (Smeets 1989: 235; Salas 1992a: 127–8). (39) leli-e-n watch-I-1.SG.ID(IM) ‘You watched me.’ ‘Watch me!’
(Salas 1992a: 128)
When either the actor or the patient is non-singular, another inverse suffix, -mu-, takes the place of -e-. Number distinctions are indicated in the first person (the patient), but are left implicit in the second person (the actor); the imperative endings are used where relevant (cf. Smeets 1989: 199). (40) leli-mu-ˇci watch-I-1.SG.IM ‘Watch (dual or plural) me!’
26
(Salas 1992a: 127)
Grimes (1985) is reported to have been the first to treat the Mapuche personal reference transitions as an inverse system.
526
5 The Araucanian Sphere (41) leli-mu-yu watch-I-1.D.ID ‘You (any number) watched the two of us.’
(Salas 1992a: 128)
In the combination of a first-person actor and a second-person patient the inverse suffix plays a limited role, possibly because the requirement of the actor being hierarchically lower in saliency than the patient is not met. Nevertheless, a form in -e-yu is used to denote the combination of a first-person actor with a second-person patient when the total number of participants is no more than two; hence the presence of the first-person-dual ending -yu. If the sum of the participants is more than two, the reflexive suffix -(u)w-27 is used in combination with the first-person-plural ending -yiny . (42) leli-e-yu watch-I-1.D.ID ‘I watched you.’ (43) leli-w-yiny watch-RF-1.PL.ID ‘I watched you (more than two)’. ‘We watched you’. ‘We (more than two) watched each other’.
(Salas 1992a: 128)
(Salas 1992a: 128)
The situation outlined above is that of the Mapuche heartland (former Araucan´ıa). Valdivia (1606) recorded a very different use of the marker -e- in the seventeenth-century Santiago dialect. In that variety the inverse system was apparently not checked by any considerations of hierarchy, the inverse suffix -e- being freely combined with the secondperson subject endings in order to indicate any combination of a first-person actor with a second-person patient. There were number distinctions only for the (second-person) patient, not for the (first-person) actor: elueymi ‘I/we give to thee’, elueymu ‘I/we give to you two’ and elueymn [elueymn] ‘I/we give to you all’.28 A similar situation was recorded for the ‘Indians of the South’, presumably the Huilliche, by Augusta (1990: 84); cf. also Salas (1992a:128). The Mapuche language has an elaborate system of verbal nominalisations, which play a central role in the formation of complex sentences, relative and temporal clauses, etc. The nominalisation in -()n, as in lef-n ‘run’, ‘running’ or aku-n ‘arrive’, ‘arrival’, has many characteristics of an infinitive. It is limited in its morphological possibilities, in
27
28
The marker -(u)w- in its transitional function is to be kept apart from -(u)w- in its truly reflexive function, because the order and combinational possibilities of the two differ considerably (Smeets 1989: 385–6). Strangely, with a singular second-person object, the imperative form (elueymi) was identical to its indicative counterpart, but when the object was dual or plural, there was a difference: eluemu ‘let me/us give to you two’, eluemn [eluemn] ‘let me/us give to you all’.
5.1 Araucanian or Mapuche
527
particular in relation to tense, but it is used in a wide range of syntactic constructions. The actor corresponding to the event can be indicated by a possessive modifier (44). (44) ramtu-e-yu chew ny i mle-n ask-I-1.D.ID where 3P be-IF ‘I asked you where he lives.’
(Smeets 1989: 238)
Stative and agentive nominalisations can be formed by adding the affixes -el and -lu, respectively. Both types of nominalisation can be combined with tense (see later) and have an extensive range of syntactic uses. Nominalised verbs in -el can refer either to the event denoted by the base itself, or to any entity which is not the actor of that event. It can be used in relative clauses or when referring to occurrences in general. The actor can be indicated by a possessive modifier. (45) kim-nie-n cˇ em mi entu-el know-CN-1.SG.ID what 2P.SG take.out-SN ‘I know what you took out.’ (46) fali-y ta-mn kely u-el be.worth DC-2P.PL help-SN ‘It is good that you helped.’
(Smeets 1989: 239) [Spanish valer ‘to be worth’] (Smeets 1989: 257)
The agentive nominalisation in -lu refers to the actor or theme of the event denoted by the base (‘the one who . . . ’), especially in relative clauses. It can also act as the verb in a temporal clause. In one specific combination, with the future marker -a-, it can be used as a finite verb, thus competing with the future indicative. (47) l a-lu el-el-ŋ ŋe-ke-y ko kiny e metawe mew ˆ die-AG put-BN-PS-CU-3.ID water one jug OC ‘The deceased is provided with water in a jug.’ (48) piˇci cˇ e kim-nu-lu small human know-NE-AG ‘a child that does not know’ (49) pe-fi-lu nyi cˇ aw amu-tu-y see-3O-AG 3P father go-RS-3.ID ‘When he saw his father, he went back.’ (50) fey fta-ŋ ŋe-a-lu ˆ he/she husband-CV-F-AG ‘She will be married some day.’
(Augusta 1990: 192)
(Smeets 1989: 282)
(Smeets 1989: 287)
(Smeets 1989: 290)
In the Mapuche of the Araucan´ıa an adjectivising suffix -ˇci takes the place of -lu in relative clauses of which the verb precedes the antecedent immediately. Interestingly, this
528
5 The Araucanian Sphere
must be the result of relatively recent restructuring. Valdivia (1606) describes relative clauses in -lu followed by cˇ i, and then by the antecedent. It appears that in such cases cˇ i was a deictic element.29 (51) ely a pra-pa-ˇci kyen mew a.little rise-H-AJ moon OC ‘at the time when the moon had risen only a little (was in its first quarter)’ (Augusta 1990: 191) (52) huya acu-tu-lu chi Patiru vey may ta inche [wiya aku-tu-lu cˇ i patiru βey may ta iny cˇ e] yesterday arrive-RS-AG DC Father that then FO I/me ‘The Father who arrived yesterday, that was me.’ (Valdivia 1606: 47–8) Although the syntactic uses of -el and -lu nominalisation are complementary, one remarkable anomaly has to be mentioned. In temporal clauses, a form in -el can replace the verb form in -lu when the subject of the verb is a first person singular (cf. Smeets 1989: 262, 290). The replacement is optional. With any other person or number it would be impossible. Example (53) illustrates the use of first person singular -el (in amu-el). It further contains an instance of -el, shortened to -l, as required after the future-tense marker -a- (in umaw-tu-a-l); such forms in -a-l indicate a goal. (53) fey-eŋ ŋn ay-w-y-ŋ ŋn iny cˇ e amu-el ny i umaw-tu-a-l he/she-3.PL enjoy-RF-3.ID-PL I go-SN 1P.SG sleep-V-F-SN ‘They were glad when I went to sleep.’ (Smeets 1989: 262) As in Quechua (but unlike Aymaran), the personal reference transitions of Mapuche have been copied onto the nominalisations. Although not all the possible combinations can be marked explicitly, the direct–inverse distinction is reflected by the use of different forms (cf. Arnold 1996: 35). In the direct (non-inverse) transitions, as well as in the (inverse) transition of a second-person actor with a first-person patient, a special ending -fi-el takes the place of -el in the present-day dialect of the Araucan´ıa heartland. In this ending the element -fi- no longer has its original function of a third-person object marker. In the seventeenth-century Santiago dialect -fi-el did not occur; instead of it, the ending -bi-n [βin] was used. (54) ta-mi elu-bi-n [ta-mi elu-βi-n] DC-2P.SG give-3O-IF ‘what I give to you’ 29
(Valdivia 1606: 28)
This state of affairs still exists in the Argentinian Ranquelino dialect (Fern´andez Garay, personal communication).
5.1 Araucanian or Mapuche
529
The possessive modifier which must precede the -fi-el nominalisation normally refers to the subject (actor) of the nominalised verb. There is one notable exception, however. In the interaction between a first and a second person the possessive modifier always marks second person, even when it corefers to the object (1S.2O), rather than to the subject of the nominalised verb. The example from Valdivia (54) illustrates this anomaly. Disambiguation of the actor and patient roles is effectuated by the addition of personal pronouns located on either side of the construction, following the SVO pattern (Smeets 1989: 272). (55) iny cˇ e mi pe-fi-el eymi I 2P.SG see-3O-SN you ‘that I see you’ (56) eymi mi pe-fi-el iny cˇ e you 2P.SG see-3O-SN I/me ‘that you see me’
(modifier refers to patient)
(modifier refers to actor)
The inverse transitions that have a third-person actor are expressed in the nominalisation by means of the ending -e-t-ew, which, among other elements, contains the inverse marker -e-. In this case it is the patient that is identified by the possessive marker. (57) ny i pe-e-t-ew 3P see-I-N-3.OV ‘the fact that an (obviative) third person sees him/her/them’ (58) ny i pe-e-t-ew 1P.SG see-I-N-3.OV ‘the fact that (any) third person sees me’ (59) yu pe-e-t-ew 1P.D see-I-N-3.OV ‘the fact that (any) third person sees the two of us’ Another nominalisation strategy in Mapuche involves the suffix -m, which refers to a place, an instrument, or a tense-marked event. It is used for specific events with known participants. It does not occur by itself but is found in combinations with temporal elements, namely -a-m ‘future place or means’, ‘aim’, -mu-m ‘past place or means’, ‘past infinitive’ and -pe-ye-m ‘usual place or means’ (cf. Smeets 1989: 263–71). The suffix -we indicates a place or instrument with general value (no specification of tense or participant).30 The suffix -fe (-voe in seventeenth-century Santiago Araucanian) indicates an actor without any specification of tense or situation. 30
The suffix -we in Mapuche is reminiscent of Aymara -(:)wi, which has almost exactly the same function. Both are frequently used in place names.
530
5 The Araucanian Sphere (60) meta-we (61) meta-we-fe31
‘jug’ ‘jug maker’
[meta- ‘to carry in arms’] (Augusta 1966: 145)
Several other strategies are in use to form adjectives from verbs, e.g. -fal in ay-fal ‘lovable’ from ay- ‘to love’. A non-productive formation is the suffix -en, which forms both adjectives and nouns from intransitive verb stems ending in --, e.g. ray-en ‘flower’, from ray- ‘to flower’, and aŋk-en (∼ aŋk-n) ‘dry’, from aŋk- ‘to dry’ (cf. werk-en in section 5.1.5). The verbal tenses of Mapuche are particular in that there is no real present tense. If the verb represents an event, the unmarked tense is normally translated as a preterit. If, on the other hand, it refers to a state or quality, a present-tense interpretation is preferred.32 This state of affairs seems to be typical for the Mapuche of the Araucanian heartland. There is no sign of it in Huilliche (Contreras and Alvarez-Santullano 1989), nor was it common practice in the Mapocho dialect of Santiago. Valdivia (1606: 13) describes it as a characteristic of the southern Indians (Beliches), but adds that they would preferably include a suffix -lle- [ly e] in the verb form (elullen ‘I gave it’). In modern Mapuche -l y e- is an emphatic suffix not related to tense. Valdivia also affirms that the Indians of Santiago were in the habit of ‘adorning’ their verb forms with an infixed element -poand a postposed element -che [ˇce]; e.g. pe-po-n-che ‘I see’. Some basic examples of the unmarked tense in Araucan´ıa Mapuche are: (62) kpa-n come-1.SG.ID ‘I came.’ (63) kim-n know-1.SG.ID ‘I know.’ There are explicit markers which indicate past (-fu-) and future (-a-). These tense markers can occur in most combinations, although not in the imperative, nor with certain nominalisers. They can also be used cumulatively (-a-fu-) in order to indicate a future of the past. Since the unmarked tense refers to past actions as well, the use of -fu- implies that an event is completed and that its results are no longer valid, nor relevant. Very often it refers to actions that failed (cf. Smeets 1989: 300–3). After a vowel a the future suffix usually takes the shape -ya-. The suffix -()wye- indicates previousness and can be 31 32
Null verbalisation is found with verbs of manufacturing; compare ilo- ‘to slaughter’ (ilo ‘meat’), kofke- ‘to make bread’ (kofke ‘bread’). Smeets (1989: 203–5) assigns perfective aspect meaning (implying successful completion) to the unmarked tense form, but makes an exception for the verbs meke- ‘to be busy’ and ŋe- ‘to be’, ‘to exist’. In this perspective, the verbs kim- ‘to learn’, ‘to know’ and nie- ‘to get’, ‘to have’ are ambivalent.
5.1 Araucanian or Mapuche
531
followed by other tense markers in anterior past and anterior future constructions. The suffix -()wma can indicate a perfect tense or previousness, but it does not take personal reference markers. The resulting form can be interpreted both as a verb and as a noun (Augusta 1903: 44; Smeets 1989: 291–2). (64) aku-a-n arrive-F-1.SG.ID (Augusta 1990: 29) ‘I will arrive.’ (65) aku-fu-n arrive-PA-1.SG.ID ‘I was arriving/did arrive (but that is no longer relevant).’ (Augusta 1990: 28)
(66) aku-la-ya-fu-n arrive-NE-F-PA-1.SG.ID ‘I was not going to arrive (I did not have that intention).’ (Augusta 1990: 29)
(67) l a-wye-ya-n ˆ die-PV-F-1.SG.ID ‘I will be dead by then.’ (68) ncˇ. am-ka-e-n-ew cˇ um-ŋ ŋe-wma ti walon33 conversation-V-I-1.SG.ID-3.OV how-LS-PE DC war ‘He told me how the war had been.’
(Augusta 1990: 44)
(Smeets 1989: 292)
In order to describe ongoing events explicitly linked to the present, the Mapuche language has a series of options which are partly morphological and partly syntactic. The suffix -nie- is homophonous and probably historically identical to the verb nie- ‘to have’. It is used with transitive verbs, where it conveys the meaning of a continued or ongoing transitive action (45), (69). The suffix -(k)le- (-kle- after consonants, -le- after vowels) is used either to denote a state resulting from an event, or, with intransitive verbs, an ongoing event, depending on the (telic or atelic) semantics of the verb (21), (70), (71); cf. Smeets (1989: 368–75). The suffix or root -meke- can indicate an event in progress with any verb of action (72). Finally, the adverb petu ‘still’ located before the verb also has the effect of referring to present tense (73). Without further indication all verbs carrying these elements are interpreted as present tense. (69)
33
ay-nie-e-yu love-CN-I-1.D.ID ‘I love you’
Walon: a variant of malon ‘raid’.
(Smeets 1989: 388)
532
5 The Araucanian Sphere (70)
(71)
(72)
(73)
aku-le-y arrive-PR-3.ID ‘He is arriving.’ an-m-kle-y sit-T-ST-3.ID ‘It is planted.’ i-meke-n eat-PR-1.SG.ID ‘I am eating.’ petu i-n PN eat-1.SG.ID ‘I am eating.’
(Smeets 1989: 370)
(Smeets 1989: 369)
The verbal suffix -ke- indicates a customary action. It can be combined with other elements, including tense and aspect markers. Without further-tense specification it refers to a habit in the present, as in (47), (74) and (75). (74) kpa-ke-y-mi come-CU-ID-2.SG ‘You always come.’ (75) i-ke-fu-y-ŋ ŋn eat-CU-PA-3.ID-PL ‘They used to eat.’
(Augusta 1990: 40)
(Augusta 1990: 40)
Negation is indicated morphologically in Mapuche. There are three different markers: -la-, -nu- (or -no-) and -ki-l-. In modern Mapuche, the distribution of the negative markers is relatively straightforward. The marker -la- is used in the indicative mood, as in (16), (66) and (76); -ki-l- (or -ki-nu-l-) is used in the imperative (77); and -nu- is used in the conditional mood (78), in all nominalisations (48), and in nominal expressions such as negative pronouns (79) and negative nominal predicates (80). In the latter case nu is a free element or a clitic, rather than a suffix.
(76) amu-la-yu go-NE-1.D.ID ‘The two of us did not go.’ (77) amu-ki.l-yu go-NE-1.D.IM ‘Let us not go (the two of us)!’
(Smeets 1989: 236)
(Smeets 1989: 236)
5.1 Araucanian or Mapuche (78) amu-nu-l-iu go-NE-CD-1.D ‘if the two of us do not go’ (79) cˇ em nu rume what NE ever ‘nothing’ (80) fey θ omo nu he/she/it woman NE ‘He is not a woman.’
533
(Smeets 1989: 236)
The ending -ki-l- consists of two elements, which can be separated by the inverse marker -e- and by the third-person object marker -fi-. In some transitional combinations requiring the inverse marker, the endings following -l- are those of the conditional mood, rather than those of the imperative. This is the case in the transition of a second-personsingular actor to a first-person-singular patient: (81) leli-ki-e-l-i (not: ∗ leli-ki-e-l-ˇci) watch-NE-I-CD-1.SG ‘Do not watch me!’
(Smeets 1989: 237)
The formal relationship between the negative imperative marker and the conditional mood marker is strongly confirmed by Valdivia’s observations concerning the seventeenth-century Santiago dialect. In that dialect the negative imperative marker -qui- [ki] was entirely embedded in the conditional mood paradigm (82), although some hybrid forms were also recorded (83). (82) elu-qui-l-mi (not: ∗ elu-qui-l-¯ge) [elu-ki-l-mi] give-NE-CD-2.SG ‘Do not give!’
(Valdivia 1606: 24)
(83) elu-qui-l-e [elu-ki-l-e] give-NE-CD-3 ‘That he may not give!’
(Valdivia 1606: 24)
elu-qui-le-pe [elu-ki-l-e-pe] give-NE-CD-3-3.IM ‘That he may not give!’
Valdivia (1606: 24) also reports the use of -no-, in competition with -la- in indicative forms such as elu-po-no-n-che ‘I do not give’. The Mapuche verb can contain a large variety of derivational extensions. Among them are valency-changing affixes, as well as spatial, modal and aspectual affixes. Some
534
5 The Araucanian Sphere
aspectual affixes have already been mentioned in connection with the present tense. The following overview is not meant to be exhaustive. Among the valency-changing affixes, the following may be mentioned: a reflexive -(u)w- (-uw- after consonants), cf. (7), (8); a passive -ŋe- (with an unspecified agent), cf. (47); a benefactive -(l)el- (-el- after consonants, -l- or -lel- after vowels), cf. (47); a detrimental -(ny )ma- (-ma- or -ny ma- after consonants), cf. (12); and a causative transitiviser -(e)l- (-el- or -l- after consonants). A further non-productive formation used for causative transitivisation is the suffix -()m- (cf. section 5.1.2). Example (84) illustrates three of the valency-changing extensions mentioned here: (84) l a-ŋ ŋ-m-ny ma-ŋ ŋe-y ny i cˇ. ewa ˆ die-EU-CA-DM-PS-3.ID 3P dog ‘He was affected by the killing of his dog.’ Among the spatial markers of Mapuche, -me-, -pa- and -pu- occupy a central position. Whereas -me- indicates motion away from the speaker to another location, with a connotation of temporariness (‘itive’, ‘thither’), -pa- indicates motion towards the speaker or location near the speaker (‘ventive’, ‘hither’). The third element indicates a location remote from the speaker without a previous motion. Both -pa- and -pu- can be preceded by an element -()r- yielding meanings, such as ‘on the way here’ and ‘on the way there’. Circular motion can be indicated by means of the suffix -yaw- (-kiaw- after consonants). (85) fey-pi-ŋ ŋe-r-pa-n that-say-PS-MT-H-1.SG.ID ‘I was told on my way here.’ (86) kla cˇ. ipantu-∅ ∅-me-n34 arxentina three year-V-TH-1.SG.ID Argentina ‘I spent three years in Argentina.’ (87) lef-kiaw-n run-CR-IF ‘to run around’
(Smeets 1989: 338)
(Smeets 1989: 342)
(Augusta 1966: 118)
Among the remaining modal and aspectual suffixes that are worth mentioning is -()rke-, which combines the meanings of a reportative and a sudden discovery form (cf. section 3.2.6 on Quechua grammar). The suffix -knu- indicates ‘to leave the patient in a situation’.35 The suffix -tu- indicates restitution of an original situation; a second 34 35
A case of null verbalisation: c.ˇ ipantu- ‘to be/spend a year’, from c.ˇ ipantu ‘year’. The function of -knu- is reminiscent of that of -rpari- in Quechua; cf. section 3.2.7.
5.1 Araucanian or Mapuche
535
application of -tu- is that of a non-causative transitiviser. The suffix -fal- can be interpreted as ‘must’ or, as a transitiviser ‘to order’; -faluw- indicates ‘simulation’. The suffixes -fem- ‘immediately’ and -we- ‘already’, ‘again’ have time-related functions. (88) weny e-nie-ny ma-rke-fi-y-ŋ ŋn ny i mapu steal-CN-DM-SD-3O-3.ID-3.PL 3P land ‘They kept robbing them of their land without them being aware of it.’ (Smeets 1989: 323) (89) cˇ. ana-knu-y36 ny i l a kawely u ˆ lie.down-LB-3.ID 3P dead horse ‘He left his dead horse behind (and continued his way).’ (Augusta 1966: 236)
(90) n-tu-a-yiny mapu take-RS-F-1.PL.ID land ‘We will take land back!’ (91) tofk-tu-n spit-T-IF ‘to spit at someone’ (92) wiya cˇ. ipa-fal-fu-y-mi yesterday leave-OB-PA-ID-2.SG ‘You should have left yesterday.’ (93) iny cˇ e ŋily a-fal-n kamisa I buy-OB.T-1.SG.ID shirt ‘I had a shirt bought.’ (94) ly aγ γ aly k-n, welu aly k-w-faluw-la-n half hear-1.SG.ID but hear-RF-SI-NE-1.SG.ID ‘I heard half of it, but I pretended not to hear.’ (95) kintu-fem-fu-y ka θ omo look.for-M-PA-3.ID other woman ‘He immediately looked for another woman.’ (96) kpa-we-la-ya-y come-CM-NE-F-3.ID ‘He will not come anymore.’
(a land reform slogan)
(Augusta 1991: 150)
(Augusta 1990: 292)
(Smeets 1989: 359)
(Smeets 1989: 349)
(Smeets 1989: 345)
(Augusta 1966: 261)
In spite of the large choice of morphological options of the Mapuche verb, several modal functions are indicated by means of preverbal adverbs, rather than by affixes. Two examples of such adverbs are kpa ‘want’ and pepi ‘can’. 36
‘To lie down’, ‘to lie bare’ is c.ˇ ana-le-; cf. c.ˇ an- ‘to fall’.
536
5 The Araucanian Sphere (97) kpa amu-la-y want go-NE-3.ID ‘He does not want to go.’ (98) pepi amu-la-ya-n can go-NE-F-1.SG.ID ‘I won’t be able to go.’
(Augusta 1966: 113)
(Augusta 1966: 180)
The expression of nominal predicates in Mapuche is realised in different ways. One option is to verbalise the noun either by means of zero verbalisation (99), or by a verbal derivational affix used for that purpose, as in (100) and (101). (99) lγ -∅ ∅-y white-V-3.ID ‘It became white.’ (100) lγ -kle-y white-V.ST-3.ID ‘It is white.’‘It has become white.’ (101) kiˇsu-le-y alone-V.ST-3.ID ‘He is (left) alone.’
(Smeets 1989: 204)
(Smeets 1989: 34)
(Smeets 1989: 156)
Another option is to affix the element -ŋe-. This element, which is homophonous with the verbal passive marker, is historically derived from *ŋe- ‘to be’, ‘to be there’. Although still used independently in the seventeenth century (cf. Valdivia 1606), the verb ŋe- is now limited to negative (ŋe-la-) and spatially marked (ŋe-me-, ŋe-pa-) verb forms (cf. Smeets 1989: 159–60). The suffix -ŋe- indicates a property of the subject. Its base may be a noun, as well as an adjective (102). In some cases it refers to possession (‘to have’, ‘to get’), as in (103), and it can also refer to existence, as in (104). (102) nor-ŋ ŋe-y straight-CV-3.ID ‘It is straight (always).’ (103) kure-ŋ ŋe-n wife-CV-IF ‘to be married’, ‘to marry (of men)’ (104) krf-ŋ ŋe-y wind-CV-3.ID ‘There is wind.’
(Smeets 1989: 156)
(Augusta 1966: 107)
(Smeets 1989: 158)
Still another option for expressing a nominal predicate relation is by juxtaposing the nouns. This option indicates that two entities are identical, rather than that one is the
5.1 Araucanian or Mapuche
537
property of the other (105). For an example with a negation see (80). For a seventeenthcentury example, in which the nominal predicate is introduced by the focus marker ta, see (52). ŋen (105) fey-ˇci θ omo ny i inan lamŋ that-AJ woman 1P.SG next.in.line sister ‘That woman is my youngest sister.’
(Smeets 1989: 182)
Deixis in Mapuche comprises a system of demonstratives, which includes three degrees: tfa ‘this’, (t)fey ‘that (near addressee)’ and tye ‘that (distant)’. When used as modifiers, these deictic elements must be followed by the adjectivising suffix -ˇci. Valdivia (1606) records these same forms, but adds that Santiago dialect speakers preferred ma and ma-chi to tva [tßa] and tva-chi [tßaˇci], respectively. The word fey is also used for ‘he’, ‘she’ and ‘it’, Mapuche having no grammatical gender distinctions. There are special deictics for ‘here’ (faw) and ‘there’ (tyew, γ yw) and a deictic verb root fem‘to do like that’ (cf. Quechua hina-). Two deictic elements, ta and ti, are widely used for different purposes. Smeets (1989: 108–14) analyses them as anaphoric elements, of which the first one appeals to knowledge shared by the speech participants, and the second one to general knowledge. One of the functions of ta is to focalise a noun or noun phrase that occupies the final position in a sort of cleft construction; see (52). For an example of ti, see (68). Interrogative elements are partly derived from a verb root cˇ um- as in cˇ uml ‘when?’, cˇ um-ŋe-ˇci ‘how?’ and cˇ um-ŋe-lu ‘why?’. The related roots cˇ em and cˇ ew refer to ‘what?’ and ‘where?’, respectively.37 Note also iney ‘who?’, tu-ˇci ‘which?’ and tunt e(n) ‘how ˆ much?’ (Smeets 1989: 132–5). Indefinite pronouns are formed by adding rume to the interrogative root, negative pronouns by adding nu rume; cf. (79). Mapuche has a fair number of sentence particles with functions that are reminiscent of those of the sentential suffixes in Aymara and Quechua; e.g. cˇ i expresses doubt, kay a pivotal question, and may provokes an affirmative answer (Smeets 1989: 431–49). (106) iny cˇ e amu-tu-a-n, eymi kay I go-RS-F-1.SG.ID you how.about ‘I am going back, how about you?’
(Smeets 1989: 435)
5.1.4 Lexicon The root lexicon of the Mapuche language is rich and varied, as is witnessed by Augusta’s authoritative dictionary (1916). It is the lexicon of a people that regarded proficiency 37
There is a striking analogy with the Aymara interrogative roots kam(a)- and kaw(ki); cf. section 3.3.7.
538
5 The Araucanian Sphere
in rhetoric as a prerequisite for leadership and one that succeeded in staying aloof from European cultural influence and forced Christianisation until a relatively recent date. Its pride and spirit of independence will certainly have played a role. The Mapuche lexicon may have remained more intact than that of other languages. However, Valdivia’s grammar contains terms referring to military activity, which are no longer viable today (e.g. queta-cara-n ‘to destroy cities’). Borrowed elements from Aymara, Quechua and Spanish are clearly discernible but do not play a dominant role. The influence of Aymara (not Quechua) in the numeral system (pataka ‘hundred’) is worth mentioning. Quechua loans are aˇcawal y ‘chicken’, ‘rooster’ (Quechua atawal y pa name of the last Inca ruler), awka ‘rebel’ (Quechua awqa), cˇ al y wa ‘fish’ (Quechua cˇ al y wa), cˇ il y ka-tu- ‘to write’ (Quechua qil y qa), miŋgako- ‘to hire farm-hands’ (Quechua minka-ku-, probably through Spanish), wampo ‘boat’ (Quechua wampu). Spanish loans were often adopted in the early contact period when the phonetic permeability between the two languages was not yet very advanced. They include some very characteristic cases, such as al y fiθ ‘pea’ (Spanish arveja), kapra ‘goat’ (Spanish cabra), manˇsun ‘ox’ (Spanish mans´on ‘big tame one’), napor ‘turnips’ (Spanish nabos) and ufiˇsa ‘sheep’ (Spanish oveja); cf. Smeets (1989: 68–71). The numbering system of Mapuche is decimal. The first ten numbers do not show any influence from other known languages: kiny e ‘one’, epu ‘two’, kla ‘three’, meli ‘four’, keˇcu ‘five’, kayu ‘six’, reγle ‘seven’, pura ‘eight’, ayl y a ‘nine’, mari ‘ten’. Multipliers precede the higher units, whereas units follow them, e.g. epu mari ‘twenty’, mari kiny e ‘eleven’. ‘Hundred’ (pataka) and ‘thousand’ (waraŋka) are from Aymara (pataka, waranqa), although originally from Quechua. Valdivia (1606: 50) mentions the existence of a system of month names, which have long since fallen into oblivion. The Mapuche kinship system remained well preserved until relatively recently. Augusta (1990: 251–4) and Moesbach (1963: 193–5) provide an insightful inventory of Mapuche kinship terms. Kinship terms may differ according to gender of ego, except for the terms for father (ˇcaw) and mother (ny uke), which are the same for both. Where a man distinguishes son (fotm) and daughter (ny awe), a woman uses one term for both ˆ (pny eny ). The terminology for in-laws (cover term ŋil y any ) is nearly as complex and specific as that for blood relatives (cover term moŋeyel). Many terms have double or complementary functions. For instance, a woman calls her paternal grandmother kuku, but also her son’s children. The term lamŋen means ‘sister of man’, but also ‘brother or sister of woman’. Additionally, a woman calls lamŋen her cousins by an uncle on her father’s side, and by an aunt on her mother’s side. The colour terms of Mapuche are of interest in that most of them seem to fit in a single phonological model, which consists of an initial k, a variable vowel, a resonant or fricative (in one case a cluster), and a high vowel : kal y f ‘blue’, kar ‘green’, kaˇs
5.1 Araucanian or Mapuche
539
‘grey’, kel ‘red’, kol ‘brown’, kur ‘black’.38 ‘White’ (lγ) and ‘yellow’(ˇcoθ) do not fit this pattern. Mapuche is rich in verbal expressions involving reduplicated roots, which in many cases have an onomatopoeic character; e.g. nuf=nuf-tu- ‘to sniff’, wir=wir- ‘to screech’, wirar=wirar-ŋe- ‘to cry constantly’ (Smeets 1989: 403–8). 5.1.5 Mapuche sample text Mapuche oral literature is rich and varied. Salas (1992a) distinguishes two types of genre: the epew or apew, which relates mythical events and traditions, and the nc.ˇ am or ŋc.ˇ am, which is supposed to have a historical content. A well-known example of a traditional myth is Manquian, the story of a man who changes into a rock in the ocean. Appertaining to daily life is the series of narratives known as Federico n˜ i n¨utram (Federico’s Stories) by Segundo Llam´ın Canulaf (1987). Most narratives are characterised by an abundant use of direct speech accompanied by the verb pi- or fey-pi- ‘to say’. The embedding of direct speech in direct speech can attain great complexity and may result in long sentences. Hearsay is frequently indicated, either by means of the reportative (verbal suffix -rke-), or by the expression pi-am ‘it is said’.39 The following text fragment is taken from Pascual Co˜na’s Testimonio de un cacique mapuche (Testimony of a Mapuche Chief) (Co˜na 1984: 270–1), first published in Moesbach (1930). It describes the climate which eventually led to the last great uprising of the Mapuche chiefs in 1881.40 1. kuyfi tfa-ˇci mapu-ˇce mt e-we γθ e-ke-fu-y pu wiŋ ŋka. ˆ in.old.times this-AJ land-people much-LS hate-CU-PA-3.ID PL non-Indian In old times these Mapuche people used to hate the Huincas very much. The term huinca is used by the Mapuches for all non-Indian people, including white Argentinians and Chileans, but also Spanish-speaking mestizos. The adverb mt e means ˆ ‘much’; its longer variant mt e-we indicates a very high degree ‘too much’. The combiˆ nation -ke-fu- refers to a habit in the past. ŋka-ny ma cˇ e. 2. “ˇcem-ye-la-fi-yiny fey-ˇci pu wiŋ what-V-NE-3O-1.PL.ID that-AJ PL non.Indian-LS human “We are not related to those half-foreign people. 38
39 40
A similar persistent pattern for colour terms is found in Arawakan languages (cf. Payne 1991a). The reason for this remarkable similarity remains to be explored. Cf. also Atacame˜no ckaˆala ‘yellow’, ckaˆari ‘green’ (Va¨ısse et al. 1896) and Quechua qil y u ‘yellow’. Not attested in the sample text. Direct speech is indicated by means of double quotation marks (“”); embedded direct speech by single quotation marks (‘’); and second degree embedded direct speech by pointed brackets (<>).
540
5 The Araucanian Sphere
The verbalising element -ye- can be translated as ‘to have (someone) in a (type of relationship)’; cf. Smeets (1989: 164). It may be derived from the verb ye- ‘to carry’. The combination cˇ em-ye- with a negation is to be interpreted as ‘not to have any relationship (by blood or other) with someone’. The term wiŋka-ny ma ‘Hispanicised Indian’ (Augusta 1966: 276) contains a suffix -ny ma, which is formally identical to the verbal detrimental suffix. It is often found in adverbs, but here it means something like ‘pseudo-’ or ‘half-’. 3.
ŋn”, pi-ke-fu-y-ŋ ŋn. ka moly fny tfa yeŋ other blood this 3.PL say-CU-PA-3.ID-3.PL They are of a different blood,” they used to say.
The word ka means ‘other’, ‘another’; the expression ka mol y fny means ‘of different blood’, ‘not related’. After a vowel the third-person plural element eŋn can be preceded by y-. 4. kiny e-ke mu cˇ. r-m-ke-fu-y-ŋ ŋn malon θ ŋu tfa-ˇci ly ek-le-ˇci pu loŋ ŋko pu wiŋ ŋka mew. one-DB OC be.equal-CA-CU-PA-3.ID-3.PL raid thing this-AJ close-ST-AJ PL chief PL non-Indian OC Sometimes these chiefs who were neighbours to the Huincas used to organise some raid against them. The word kiny e-ke (from kiny e ‘one’) means ‘some’, ‘one by one’; followed by mu or mew it is translated as ‘sometimes’, ‘on some occasions’. The verb c.ˇ r-m- ‘to make equal’, ‘to compensate’ is also used in the meaning ‘to organise’, ‘to set up’. The expression malon θŋu, literally ‘raid-thing’, is translated by Augusta (1966: 33) as ‘some raid’. The continuative suffix -(k)le- in l y ek-le-ˇci acts as a verbaliser. 5. fey mew cˇ. aw-lu eŋ ŋn kewa-tu-ke-fu-y-ŋ ŋn, inaw-tu-ke-fu-y-ŋ ŋn. that OC unite-AG 3.PL fight-LS-CU-PA-3.ID-3.PL close-T-CU-PA-3.ID-3.PL Then they would come together and fight, and they would suffer a disaster. The verb kewa-tu- ‘to fight’, ‘to hit’ is derived from kewa-, which has the same meaning. The verb inaw-tu- (or iny aw-tu-) means ‘to suffer a disaster’; its semantic relation to ina ‘next’ and inaw ‘vicinity’ is not transparent. 6.
fey mew θ oy γθ e-wiŋ ŋka-ke-fu-y-ŋ ŋn. that OC more hate-non.Indian-CU-PA-3.ID-3.PL After that they used to be even bigger Huinca-haters.
5.1 Araucanian or Mapuche 7.
541
fem-ŋ ŋe-ˇci ny i mt e-we γθ e-wiŋ ŋka-ke-n eŋ ŋn cˇ. r-rke-y iˇc.o-kom ˆ y y mapu mew eŋ ŋn n i awka-n -pe-ŋ ŋe-a-l kom wiŋ ŋka. act.thus-LS-AJ 3P much-LS hate-non.Indian-CU-IF 3.PL be.equal-SD3.ID right-all country OC 3.PL 3P revolt-EU-see-PS-F-SN all non.Indian Because they had such hatred of the Huincas, they had agreed that all Huincas everywhere in the country would be faced with an uprising.
The expression fem-ŋe-ˇci means ‘in that way’, ‘thus’; it is derived from the deictic verb fem- ‘to act thus’. The infinitive with incorporated noun γθe-wiŋka-ke-n is used without a marker as a causal complement, ‘because of their strong hatred’, ‘being such their hatred’. The verb c.ˇ r- means ‘to be equal’; here it has the connotation of plotting. The sudden discovery marker -()rke- may indicate that the preparations had been carried out in secret. The word iˇc.o-kom means ‘all without exception’ (kom ‘all’). The verb awka-ny -pe- means ‘to rise in rebellion against someone’, ‘to riot against someone’; it is derived from awka- ‘to rebel’, ‘to rise’. For the interpretation of the element -ny -pe-, the following option is the most likely: -ny - can be a euphonic element which is often found at the division of compounds before -k- and -p- (as in tofk-ny -pra-m‘to spit upwards’); in that case pe- may be identified as the verb ‘to see’. There are two more derived verbs which contain -ny -pe-, il y ku-ny -pe- (from il y ku- ‘to become angry’) and l y aθk-ny -pe- (from l y aθk- ‘to become sad’) both meaning ‘to scold’ (Smeets 1989: 66).
8. wne werk-l-pa-rke-y θ ŋu pu pewen.ˇce loŋ ŋko nekulmany ŋulu mapu y loŋ ŋko mew forowe mle-lu n i cˇ. r-a-m awka-n tfa-ˇci ŋulu mapu mew cˇ um-ŋ ŋe-ˇci ny i cˇ. r-m-n pu pewen.ˇce loŋ ŋko arxentina mew. first send-CA-H-SD-3.ID word PL Pehuenche chief Neculma˜n west country chief OC Boroa be.there-AG 3P be.equal-F-GR rebel-IF this-AJ west country OC act.how-PS-AJ 3P be.equal-CA-IF PL Pehuenche chief Argentina OC The first to send word over here were the Pehuenche chiefs in a message to the Chilean chief Neculma˜n, who resided in Boroa, calling on him to prepare an uprising in Chile that would match the preparations of the Pehuenche chiefs in Argentina.
The intransitive/transitive verb pair c.ˇ r- ‘to be equal’ and c.ˇ r-m- ‘to make equal’, ‘to compensate’ have the connotation of plotting and arranging. Augusta (1966: 252) translates c.ˇ r-m θuŋu as ‘stratagem’ or ‘trick’.
542
5 The Araucanian Sphere 9. ka werk-le-rke-y pron fw eŋ ŋn ny i tunt e.n mew ny i nie-a-l tfa-ˇci ˆ y malon fil -ple. further send-ST-SD-3.ID knot thread 3.PL 3P how.much OC 3P hold-F-SN this-AJ raid every-side Furthermore, they had sent a knotted thread establishing the date when this general rebellion was to take place.
The word ka ‘other’ can further be interpreted as ‘also’, ‘furthermore’. The expression tunt e(n) means ‘how much’, ‘how big’, etc.; when followed by mew, it means ‘when’. ˆ The expression fil y -ple ‘everywhere’ has been translated as ‘general’ here. The ‘knotted thread’ pron fw refers to the Araucanian equivalent of the Peruvian quipu. 10. aku-lu fey-ˇci werken pewen.ˇce tuw-lu, fey wl-pa-y θ ŋu: arrive-AG that-AJ messenger Pehuenche come.from-AG he/she/it give-H-3.ID word When the messenger arrived, coming from the Pehuenche, he brought the following news. The noun werken ‘messenger’ is derived from werk- ‘to send’. The verb tuw- means ‘to proceed from’; its complement is always the place of origin; a relation with tu‘to get’ is doubtful. Mapuche has two verbs ‘to give’, elu- and wl-: with the former object markers are interpreted as recipients, whereas with the latter object markers are interpreted as real objects and no recipient can be expressed. We interpret fey wl-pa-y θŋu as: ‘This is the message he came to deliver.’ 11. “werk-ŋ ŋe-n”, pi-pa-y. send-PS-1.SG.ID say-H-3.ID “I was sent,” he came to tell. 12. “werk-e-n-ew chayweke loŋ ŋko, ka ny amunkura loŋ ŋko, ka foyely loŋ ŋko, ka aŋ ŋkaˇc.r loŋ ŋko. send-I-1.SG.ID-3.OV Chaihueque chief and Namuncura chief and Foyel chief and Ancatrir chief “I was sent by chief Chaihueque, chief Namuncura, chief Foyel and chief Ancatrir. These are names of Argentinian caciques.41 The spelling of Namuncura is a bit odd, as the etymology of this name is doubtless namu n kura ‘leg of stone’.
41
See Vignati (1942–6) for historical data regarding some of these indigenous leaders.
5.1 Araucanian or Mapuche
543
ŋko’ pi-e-n-ew ny i pu loŋ ŋko. 13. ‘pe-lel-a-e-n ny i pu ŋulu loŋ see-BN-F-I-1.SG.ID 1P.SG PL west chief say-I-1.SG.ID-3.OV 1P.SG PL chief My chiefs said to me: ‘You will see for me the chiefs of Chile.’ This sentence contains two instances of the possessive modifier which do not seem to have a clear possessive function; as an alternative, the first ny i could be interpreted as ‘his’, ‘their’, but this would make little sense; imaginably, a rhetorical device or a marker of respect is involved. The Spanish translation speaks of ‘the’, not ‘my’ Chilean chiefs. Note also the use of the singular in pe-lel-a-e-n, although four chiefs are involved. 14. fey mew kpa-n. that OC come-1.SG.ID Therefore I have come. 15. ‘mle-y may pu wiŋ ŋka, kom may awka-ny -pe-a-fi-yiny ’ y pi-∅ ∅ may n i loŋ ŋko. be.there-3.ID yes PL non.Indian all yes revolt-EU-see-F-3O-1. PL.ID say-3.ID yes 1P.SG chief ‘As we know well, there are Huincas here; we all intend to rise against them, don’t we?’, so my chief said. The primary meaning of may is ‘yes’; as a particle, it is used to provoke the approval of the addressee (cf. Smeets 1989: 436–7). After a root ending in -i- (pi-), the third-person indicative suffix -y is often not pronounced. 16. ‘pi-me-a-fi-∅ ∅-mi fey-ˇci ŋulu loŋ ŋko’, pi-ŋ ŋe-n. say-TH-F-3O-ID-2.SG that-AJ west chief say-PS-1.SG.ID I was told: ‘You will go and say it to those Chilean chiefs.’ The indicative suffix -y- is not pronounced after the suffix -fi-. 17. ‘, pi-ke-yin . we yes 1P.PL Pehuenche-CV-IF end-CA-F-3O-1.PL.ID this-AJ PL non.Indian say-CU-1.PL.ID ‘<We, being the Pehuenche, we will finish off these Huincas>, that is what we intend to do. The element -ŋe-n, infinitive of the copula verbaliser (originally ‘to be’), is used here to characterise the Pehuenche as a collectivity; this collectivity is viewed as if it were ‘owned’ by the Pehuenche, hence the possessive modifier. The transitive verb ap-m- ‘to bring to an end’ is correlated to intransitive af- ‘to come to an end’. The use of -ke- in
544
5 The Araucanian Sphere
pi-ke-yiny points at a firm and constant intention; in addition to ‘to say’, pi- also has the meaning ‘to want’. 18. ’ ”. that OC one-V.RF-IF have-F-1.PL.ID revolt-IF thing So united we shall have a war at hand.>’” The reflexive suffix -(u)w- here takes the function of a verbaliser, as it often does. The expression kiny e-w-n is used adverbially ‘together’, ‘in unity’. For the interpretation of awka-n θ ŋu compare malon θ ŋu in sentence 4. 5.2 The Allentiac language A reasonable amount of documentation exists on the Huarpean languages Allentiac and Millcayac. All of it is due to Luis de Valdivia, who also authored the first grammar of the Araucanian language. Two samples of the original edition of Valdivia’s work on Allentiac, containing a ‘doctrina’, a catechism with instructions for confession, a grammar and a Spanish–Allentiac word list (1607) were preserved until the twentieth century, one in Lima (subsequently lost) and one in the National Library at Madrid. The work was re-edited by Medina in 1894 and discussed in Mitre (1909–1910, volume I). Mitre expanded the vocabulary with an Allentiac–Spanish word list and altered the original spelling in several respects, substituting the symbol j for Valdivia’s <x> on the (unmotivated) assumption that the latter represented a velar fricative, rather than a palatal sibilant.42 Valdivia’s work on Millcayac grammar remained lost for a long time, leading to doubt as to whether it had ever been published, until in 1938 a copy of it was discovered in the University Library of Cuzco by M´arquez Miranda. He had it photographed by the Cuzco photographer Chambi and published its contents (M´arquez Miranda 1943). We will give an impression here of Allentiac. 42
The alternative use of the forms acasllahue and acaxllahue for ‘virgin’ in Valdivia’s Allentiac catechism speaks in favour of a (palatal) sibilant interpretation for <x>. The alternation of x and ch in the verbal morphophonemics points in the same direction.
5.2 The Allentiac language
545
The absence of explanation concerning the pronunciation of Valdivia’s symbols makes it a hazardous task to reconstruct the Allentiac sound system. On the morphological and syntactic level a fuller picture of the language may eventually be obtained by a thorough analysis of the religious texts that accompany the grammar (a first attempt is Bixio 1993). The Allentiac language apparently had a six-vowel system, similar to that in Araucanian. Valdivia uses the symbol <`u> or <´u> for the sixth vowel, which may have been an unrounded high back or central vowel, as in chal`u [ˇcal]43 ‘arrow’. It is possible that Valdivia did not always write the sixth vowel, which could explain the presence of occasional word-initial consonant clusters, e.g. in pxota [p()ˇsota] ‘girl’ and qleu [k()lew] ‘on top of’. In one case both spellings are found: qtec and q`utec [k()tek] ‘fire’. To be noticed is the frequent occurrence of what was apparently a syllabic lateral, as in lpu`u [lpu] ‘finger’. The language had a series of sibilants or assibilated affricates, ˚ of which the exact value can only be guessed on the basis of the information given by Valdivia. They are written <s>, <x>, and , respectively. The symbol <s> is limited in its distribution. It is found at the end of a syllable, usually before another consonant (e.g. in taytayes-nen ‘I vanquish’), and in the word huss´u [hus] ‘ostrich’.44 Examples of <x>, and are xapi [ˇsapi] ‘death’, hueze [weze] ‘leg’ and zhuc˜na [ˇzukny a] ‘frog’. The interpretation of the symbols and as voiced fricatives ([z], [ˇz]) is tentative and, in the case of , partly based on the fact that there seems to have been an opposition between and <ss> in intervocalic position. In other positions may have had the value [s]. Allentiac is presented by Valdivia as an agglutinating, dominantly suffixing language. It differs from Araucanian in having a well-developed set of case markers and postpositions (e.g. -ta locative; -tati causal; -tayag beneficiary; -ye dative; -yen instrumental; -ymen comitative). Person of possessor is indicated by adding the genitive case marker -(e)ch or -(i)ch to the personal pronouns cu ‘I’, ca ‘you’ and ep ‘he/she/it’, viz. cu-ch ‘my’, ca-ch ‘your’, ep-ech ‘his’. The same holds for the corresponding plural forms, which are obtained by adding -cha to the personal pronouns, e.g. ep-cha ‘they’, ep-cha-ch ‘their’. However, in pronouns associated with forms of the verbal paradigm the plural marker is noted as -chu, rather than -cha (cu-chu, ca-chu, ep-chu). No inclusive–exclusive plural 43
44
Self-evidently, the phonetic transcriptions proposed in this paragraph are merely suggestive. The combination gu can be interpreted as [w] before a, o, u; before i and e, the combination hu serves that purpose. The symbol g alone and the combination gu before e and i may have referred to a voiced velar stop, but more likely to a voiced velar fricative. The voiceless velar stop [k] is written qu before e and i, q before silent u` or u´ , and c elsewhere. The symbols ch, ll and n˜ were almost certainly as in Spanish. The form huss´u (with final u´ ) is explicitly mentioned in Mitre (1909, I: 374), whereas Medina’s edition has hussu. We assume that in this case Mitre’s observation is correct because of his having had direct access to the original edition, notwithstanding the fact that the word list in Medina’s edition is a lot more trustworthy than Mitre’s.
546
5 The Araucanian Sphere Table 5.4 Unmarked verbal paradigm in Allentiac
1 pers. 2 pers. 3 pers.
sing. plur. sing. plur. sing. plur.
quillet-
‘to love’
quillet-c-a-nen quillet-c-a-c-nen quillet-c-a-npen quillet-c-a-m-ne-c-pen quillet-c-a-na quillet-c-a-m-na
‘I love, want.’ ‘We love, want.’ ‘You (sing.) love, want.’ ‘You (plur.) love, want.’ ‘He/she loves, wants.’ ‘They love, want.’
distinction has been recorded. Plural of substantives is indicated by means of the element guiam, e.g. in pia guiam ‘fathers’. The verbal morphology of the Allentiac verb appears to be quite rich. Valdivia offers an overview of the endings referring to person-of-subject, tense, mood, voice, interrogation, nominalisation and subordination. There is also evidence of some derivational morphology which is not described systematically. The root of Valdivia’s model verb quillet- ‘to love’, ‘to want’ is followed by a lexical extension -(e)c- in all of its paradigms except for the future tense and its derivates. This extension is found with a number of other verbs as well. Its function remains unexplained. The personal endings are preceded by a thematic vowel -a-, which can be left out as a result of morphophonemic adaptations (see below). In the endings the pluralising elements -c- (for first and second person) and -m- (for second and third person) can be recognised. The unmarked paradigm (present or preterit) of quillet- is shown in table 5.4. The same endings are found in the imperfect or habitual past, where an element -yaltis inserted after -(e)c-: quillet-ec-yalt-a-nen ‘I used to love, want’. Future is indicated by the element -ep- (-ep-m- for the plain future), with elimination of the -(e)c- extension: quillet-ep-m-a-nen ‘I shall love, want’. Verb roots which do not have the -(e)c- extension in their paradigms may be subject to morphophonemic adaptations, such as the loss of the thematic vowel a and other modifications, e.g. pacax-nen ‘I remove’, but pacach-a-npen ‘you remove’. The endings of the imperative and interrogative paradigms differ considerably from their affirmative counterparts. An example of the unmarked tense of the interrogative is given in table 5.5. Negation is indicated by means of a free element naha,45 as in naha quillet-c-a-nen ‘I don’t want’, but for the imperative there are special negative markers, as can be seen 45
The negative marker naha is sometimes found as a prefix or proclitic na-, for instance, in na-cu-ymen ‘without me’ (cu ‘I’, -ymen ‘with’).
5.2 The Allentiac language
547
Table 5.5 Interrogative verbal paradigm in Allentiac quillet1 pers. 2 pers. 3 pers.
sing. plur. sing. plur. sing. plur.
quillet-c-a-lte quillet-c-a-c-lte quillet-c-a-n quillet-c-a-m-ne quillet-c-a-nte quillet-c-a-m-te
‘Do I love, want?’ ‘Do we love, want?’ ‘Do you (sing.) love, want?’ ‘Do you (plur.) love, want?’ ‘Does he/she love, want?’ ‘Do they love, want?’
in (107) and (108): (107) quillet-ec-gua, quillet-ec-xec love-VE-2S.IM ‘Love!’ (108) quillet-ec uche love-VE 2S.IM.NE ‘Don’t love!’ In some parts of the verbal paradigm only number, not person, is morphologically distinguished, as in the subordinative form called gerundio de ablativo by Valdivia (109): (109) quillet-ec-ma-ntista love-VE-SU-SU ‘When I/you/he/she wants . . .’ quillet-ec-ma-m-nista love-VE-SU-PL-SU ‘When we/you (plural)/they want . . .’ Active participles are formed by adding the elements yag ‘this’ or an-tichan to the verb stem, passive participles by adding el-tichan. According to Valdivia, the el-tichan nominalisation can serve as the basis for a passive construction in combination with the verb m(a)- ‘to be’, but he also mentions an alternative construction consisting of the active form preceded by the element quemmec. (110)
quillet-ec el-tichan m-a-npen love-VE PS-N be-TV-2S ‘You are loved.’
548
5 The Araucanian Sphere (111)
quemmec quillet-c-a-npen PS love-VE-TV-2S ‘You are loved.’
The verbal transitions (object marking) are indicated by means of special pronominal elements which precede the verb root and which are inserted between the pronominal subject (if any) and the verb root itself. The first-person singular object marker is either cu-ye (pronoun ‘I’ + dative case), or in a contracted form que; its plural counterpart is either quex, xque, or cuchanen. The second-person-singular object marker is ca-ye (pronoun ‘you’ + dative case); its plural counterpart is either cax, xca or xcaummi. The third-person object marker is pu or p`u for the singular, and either pux or p`ux, or xpu or xp`u for the plural. In the transition 1S-2O the object marker can either precede the verb, or be infixed, so that we have the following alternatives: (112) cu ca-ye quillet-c-a-nen I you-DA love-VE-TV-1S ‘I love you (singular).’ (113) quillet-ec-ca-nen love-VE-2O-1S ‘I love you (singular).’ The transition 2S-1O can be expressed in two ways, either as described above, or by special endings: (114) ca-chu que quillet-c-a-m-ne-c-pen you-PL 1.SG.DA love-VE-TV-PL-2S-PL-2S ‘You (plural) love me.’ (115) ca-chu quillet-ec-quete you-PL love-VE-2S.PL.1O.SG ‘You (plural) love me.’ Reflexivity is indicated by means of the root ychacat [iˇcakat] ‘self’, which can be used with a pronoun, as in cu ychacat ‘I myself’. Alternatively, it can be infixed in the verb (before the extension, if any). (116) Pedro quillet-ychacat-c-a-na Pedro love-RF-VE-TV-3S ‘Pedro loves himself.’ Valdivia’s Allentiac lexicon contains very few terms referring to nature and environment. Mitre (1909, I: 349) attributes this to the fact that Valdivia’s consultants were emigrated Huarpeans who had preferred the relative security of Spanish rule in Chile
5.2 The Allentiac language
549
to their original habitat, surrounded as it was by warlike neighbours. The language has a decimal system of numerals: lcaa ‘one’, yemen ‘two’, ltun ‘three’, tut ‘four’, horoc ‘five’, zhillca ‘six’, tucum ‘ten’; the numbers for ‘seven’, ‘eight’ and ‘nine’ are compounds, respectively, yemen-qlu, ltun-qleu, tut-qleu. The word for ‘hundred’ is pataka, a loan from Aymara or Mapuche. Interesting is the shape of colour terms; they all consist of a reduplicated element followed by the ending -niag: hom=hom-niag ‘black’, zas=zas-niag ‘red’. Valdivia’s Allentiac lexicon contains a few loan words, such as, y˜naca ‘princess’ (Aymara iny aqa ‘young lady’), mita ‘time’, ‘turn’ (Quechua mit’a), mucha-pia-nen ‘I kiss’ (Quechua muˇc’a- ‘to kiss’) and quillca-tau-nen ‘I write’ (Quechua qil y qa- ‘to write’). The functions of the elements -pia- and -tau- in the last two examples are not known; they may reflect either cases of derivation, or compounds containing the roots pia ‘father’ (or another element yet to be identified) and tau- ‘to put’. Interesting cases are the word for ‘house’ ut(u), reminiscent of Aymaran uta, and the word for ‘bread’ kupi. Mitre (1909, I: 382) affirms that this is an arbitrary, transcultural translation of Valdivia, because kupi referred to a staple food of the Huarpeans, the dried roots of reed-plants from the lakes. The resemblance with Mapuche kofke ‘bread’ is noteworthy.
6 The languages of Tierra del Fuego
On Tierra del Fuego, the archipelagos surrounding it and the neighbouring mainland, Patagonia, nine indigenous languages were spoken, of which only a few have survived to the present day. With respect to the peoples of Tierra del Fuego, a distinction is made traditionally between the canoe nomads, including the Chono, the Kawesqar and the Yahgan, and the foot nomads, including the Haush and the Selk nam. In the latter group the G¨un¨una K¨une, the Tehuelche and the Tehues or Teushen are also included (Clairis 1985). As Guyot (1968) notes, the area of Tierra del Fuego had already been visited by eightyone exploratory expeditions by the time the HMS Beagle, carrying Charles Darwin, passed through the area. Different visitors projected different images onto the nomadic groups they encountered. Thus Darwin writes: ‘The language of these people, according to our notions, scarcely deserves to be called articulate’ ([1906] 1983: 195). The Fuegians could be seen as a decidedly lower step in human development, in his perception. It was against this view that Thomas Bridges, a missionary in the area from 1869 to 1887 on behalf of the South American Missionary Society, argued with his massive 30,000-word Yahgan–English dictionary. On the basis of it he is quoted by Guyot (1968) as having written in an Argentinian newspaper that ‘Incredible though it may seem, the language of one of the poorest tribes, without literature, nor poetry, nor songs, nor science, has nonetheless, owing to its structure and its functions, a list of words which surpasses that of tribes much more evolved with respect to their art and the satisfaction of their needs’ (translated from French in Guyot 1968: 8). The large speculative and impressionistic literature on these groups has not automatically led to very thorough descriptions and profound analyses, however. Here we try to give a sketch of some of the linguistic properties of the languages involved, building on the recent careful historical, descriptive and comparative work of scholars such as Casamiquela, Clairis, Fern´andez Garay and Najlis, and on the monumental earlier studies of Bridges, Cooper and Gusinde, among others. Cooper (1946a) tries to give a general description of the traditional cultures of Tierra del Fuego, partly on the basis of accounts of travellers who came into contact with
551
O(†
)
6 The languages of Tierra del Fuego
CH
ON
TEUSHEN(†)
C
ARGENTINA TEHUELCHE
H Ch
R.
I
Puerto Edén
ico
L
K AW
TEHUELCHE
ESQ
E
AR
Punta Arenas
SELK'NAM(†) HAUSH(†)
Ushuaia
YAHGAN
Map 13 The languages of Tierra del Fuego
these generally nomadic groups. The people living at this end-point of the world had gathering economies; cultivated plants were only found in the north, at the margins of the Araucanian Sphere. Their only domestic animals were the dog and – for some groups – the horse. Dogs were for some groups only adopted in the colonial period, and horses came in during the eighteenth century. They had moveable shelters, and no raised beds or hammocks. Their weapons were made of stone, wood or bone. Metal weapons and tools were introduced after contacts with Europeans. The canoe nomads lived mainly on seals, fish and shellfish; the pedestrian nomads hunted land animals such as the guanaco (a relative of the llama) and the rhea (an ostrich-like creature). On the Atlantic
552
6 The languages of Tierra del Fuego
side the emphasis was on land hunting, while on the Pacific side the early inhabitants lived from fishing and sea hunting, supplemented by shellfish gathering and hunting of sea birds (Rivera 1999: 754). The area shows 6,000 years of continuous occupation, made possible by low population density and enormous maritime resources (Rivera 1999: 756). The people lived in well-organised families and monogamy was prevalent. Social organisation was in terms of bands, without clearly distinct chiefs, corresponding perhaps to extended families. Land-tenure was organised along the lines of the family huntingground system. When food was becoming scarce in one place, the family or band would move on to a different area and settle temporarily. There is no evidence of cannibalism, and people held theistic or shamanistic beliefs. We will now turn to a brief description of the distribution of the different language groups in the area. 6.1 The languages and their distribution A schematic representation of the traditional areas of the Fuegian languages is given on the map at the beginning of this chapter. Turning counter-clockwise along the coast of Chile, the northernmost group is the Chono or Aksan´as (the Kawesqar word for ‘man’), now extinct, who lived in the area from the Corcovado Gulf, south of Chilo´e, to the Gulf of Pe˜nas. Cooper (1917) has carefully summarised all that can be gathered from accounts of the Chono, from Jesuit missionaries in 1612 to an English ship captain in 1875. Canoe nomads, they had adopted a few Araucanian elements (Cooper 1946b): sporadic gardening (e.g. potatoes) and herding, the polished stone ax and the plank boat (dalca). Below we will briefly present the available data about possible numbers of Chono speakers. Cooper (1917) concludes from a survey of the ways the language of the Chono is described in the sources, including accounts of interpreting etc., that Chono was certainly distinct from Mapuche and Tehuelche, and more probably than not also from Kawesqar. An independent Chono group figured already in Chamberlain’s classification of 1913. Clairis (1985) bristles at the idea of speaking of a language that we know almost nothing about, except for some ethnohistorical accounts. Here we will be more audacious and try to sift through the information there is, particularly the eighteenthcentury catechism found in Rome archives and published by Bausani (1975), with a tentative interpretation. A similar attempt has been undertaken by Viegas Barros (to appear a). In table 6.1 we give the correspondences between lexical elements tentatively identified by Bausani and their equivalents in the data presented by Skottsberg (1913) and Clairis (1985). Skottsberg claimed to have discovered a group of ‘West Patagonian Canoe Indians’ distinct from the Kawesqar and presumably identical to the Chono. The word lists presented suggest that this is not the case, however. On
6.1 The languages and their distribution
553
Table 6.1 The relation between putative Chono words identified by Bausani (1975) and their possible equivalents in the Alacalufan materials of Skottsberg (1913) and Clairis (1987) (supplemented by Viegas Barros 1990) Bausani*
Skottsberg
Clairis
sky
acha
arrx h
father man
sap yema
cˇ´ıcˇ a:r a´ kˇseˇs
three
tas
good yes believe [credere] son one
lam jo jo-cau cot u¨ e˜nec
no
yamchiu
t´aw-kl(k) uklk-at-tawɹlk l´a:yip a´ ylo kstiˇsy ‘speak’ ´ıky awt ‘baby’ t´akso d´akuduk t´axli, kyip
acaqsta ‘warm, good weather’ ac’ayes ‘sun’ cecar aqsenes, aqsanas yema ‘white man, Chilean’ tow, taw ‘other’, wokst´ow ‘three’ (Aguilera 1978) layep, layeq ayaw afsaqh as ‘speak’ eyxy ol ‘son’ taqso
*
qyep, qyeloq
The Bausani spellings are the original ones.
the whole the words given by Skottsberg correspond to those presented by Clairis. Only rarely do the words given by Bausani correspond directly with those provided by Clairis and Skottsberg, although Viegas Barros (to appear a) argues that 45 per cent of the Chono lexical and grammatical elements resemble those of Kawesqar and/or Yahgan. The Kawesqar (also referred to as Qawasqar) or Alacaluf traditionally occupied the territory from the Gulf of Pe˜nas to the islands west of Tierra del Fuego, and lived mostly from fishing, like the Chono. Bird (1946) estimates that there may have been maximally a few thousand Kawesqar at the time of first contact; according to Clairis (1985) there were forty-seven Kawesqar left in 1972, living on the bay of Puerto Eden on the east coast of Wellington Island. The 1984 census gives twenty-eight speakers. There was some original confusion about this language. Clairis (1985) criticised Loukotka for distinguishing two linguistic isolates among the sea nomads who inhabited the southern Chilean archipelago between Chilo´e and Tierra del Fuego. Following Hammerly Dupuy (1947), Loukotka recognised a separate group, Aksan´as or Kaueskar, that would have been different from Alacaluf. Clairis observes that Qawasqar (Kaueskar) is the autodenomination of the Alacaluf, whereas Aksan´as means ‘man (male)’ in their language. It appears from the listing of languages included in Loukotka’s Aksan´as group that he attributed some of the ethnonyms referring to the Alacaluf to the
554
6 The languages of Tierra del Fuego
extinct Chono or Guaiteca Indians, who lived in the province of Ais´en, north of the Alacaluf. Aguilera (1978) and Clairis (1987) are the most recent descriptions of the language, and particularly Aguilera’s work (e.g. 1988, 1997, 1999) provides reliable data. Viegas Barros (1990) has done a comparative analysis of all available sources and given a dialectological survey of the language, concluding that there are three recognisably distinct varieties: northern, central and southern Kawesqar. The Yahgan (also Yagan) or Yamana occupied the southern coast of Tierra del Fuego and the archipelago surrounding it, extending to Cape Horn. While there were still between 2,500 and 3,000 Yahgan in 1875 (Cooper 1946c), Clairis (1985) mentions six to eight elderly speakers of Yahgan living on Navarino island. There were two in 1994. The principal traditional sources on Yahgan are Thomas Bridges, who produced a large dictionary in 1879 (1933) and wrote a set of notes (1894), Adam (1884–5), and Gusinde (1937). Golbert de Goodbar (1977, 1978) presents glossed sentences with brief grammatical descriptions. In contrast with these three groups, that all represent canoe nomads, the Selk nam or Ona were a land people. The Selk nam were also much taller than the Chono, Kawesqar and Yahgan, averaging six feet or 1.80 cm. Their traditional habitat was the northern and central part of the island of Tierra del Fuego proper (Cooper 1946d). There was only one (older) person who could still speak the language in the 1980s, according to Clairis (1985), while Najlis (1973, 1975) mentions several speakers. The Selk nam were a hunting nation, living mainly on guanaco meat. Of the Haush or Manekenkn the last speakers died around 1920; they lived on the eastern point of the island of Tierra del Fuego, and shared their lifestyle with the Selk nam. Guyot (1968: 12) suggests that they were earlier settlers than the Selk nam, and were subsequently pushed to the southeast. It is even possible that the Haush in turn had taken over the island from the Yahgan. In Patagonia, on the continent proper, the people have been designated traditionally as Patagones or Tehuelche. Clairis (1985), following Casamiquela, divides the Patagones into four groups. The northernmost group died out early in the nineteenth century, and nothing is known about their language. The group slightly to the south is known as G¨un¨una K¨une, and also as Gennaken and Pampa. The last speaker of their language, referred to as G¨un¨una Yajich [gnn a yax cˇ ], died in 1960, and Casamiquela (1983) provides a very useful sketch of it. The group known as Tehues or Teushen, yet further to the south, also died out in recent history. Some early twentieth-century materials have been published by LehmannNitsche (1913). The one group still surviving is called Aonek’enk or Tehuelche (as mentioned above, also the name for all the indigenous groups of continental Patagonia). According to Clairis (1985) about thirty members of the group are alive (more recent
6.2 Ethnohistory
555
Table 6.2 Historical demographic data for the canoe nomads (summarised)
until 1850 1875 1900 1925 1950 1985
Chono
Kawesqar
Yahgan
21 fam. 1 fam
4,000
2,900 2,500+ 130–945 50 40 6–8
150–400 100 28
–
Table 6.3 Historical demographic data for the hunter nomads (summarised)
until 1850 1875 1900 1925 1950 1975 1985
Selk nam
Haush
G¨un¨una K¨une
Tehues
Tehuelche
3,600 2,000 <1,500 70–100 20 2–3 1
300
some
500–600
9,000–10,000 2,000–6,000 <300
1–3
10–12 40
–
–
–
100 29
estimates give 200), of whom three to four are reasonably fluent speakers. Fern´andez Garay has provided a detailed description of this language (1993a, b, 1995, 1998c). G¨un¨una Yajich is the sole documented member of the northern branch of the Chonan family. The proportion of common vocabulary between G¨un¨una Yajich and Tehuelche does not exceed 11 per cent (Clairis 1985). 6.2 Ethnohistory The contact with Europeans was disastrous for the indigenous peoples of Tierra del Fuego. Tables 6.2 and 6.3 give an overview of the available population data, culled from Cooper (1917, 1946a, b, c, d), Bird (1946), Guyot (1968), Najlis (1973) and Clairis (1985). While these tables give a false sense of precision, based as they are on many different sources of various types, the overall pattern presented is clear. Particularly in the final part of the nineteenth century, the indigenous populations declined rapidly. In the case of the canoe nomads, who originally lived in rather inaccessible and undesirable surroundings (from the point of view of colonists), the causes of decline were new contagious respiratory diseases, measles and smallpox. The contagion was aggravated by the
556
6 The languages of Tierra del Fuego
colonial and missionary policy of concentrating these originally nomadic and dispersed peoples on certain sites. Wilbert and Simoneau (1984: 1–3) and Fern´andez Garay (1989a) outline several phases in the post-Columbian history of the Patagones. Originally a strong and numerous people, they had only incidental contacts with Europeans from 1520 until the eighteenth century, when the Jesuits started missions. The Patagones adopted horses and other cultural elements of either Spanish or Mapuche origin, and became a group of hunters on horseback. Horses changed their lifestyle drastically, as they had in the case of the Plains Indians in North America. In the second half of the eighteenth century, the Mapuche started taking over the Tehuelche territories, and after 1800 they defeated the Tehuelche. Afterwards came the attempted extermination campaigns by white settlers, who wanted the lands of Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego. The decisive wars against the land nomads were the Pampa Wars, waged by the Argentinian army against the Mapuche and Patagones from 1879 to 1883. After 1883 Indian resistance was broken, and white colonisation entered into full swing. From 1898 onward several reserves were created, most of which were reclaimed again by the government in the 1960s, and two of which remained (Fern´andez Garay 1989a). These reserves were not large enough for the indigenous population to continue its original way of life as hunters, and the reserve inhabitants were forced to seek low-paying jobs as farm-hands on neighbouring estates. As to their current social position and cultural function, it is clear that by now the languages have a quite marginal function, inasmuch as they have survived at all. 6.3 Problems in classification Quite aside from problems of classification, a problem has been that of the identification of the different languages and ethnic groups. The major efforts are by Lehmann-Nitsche, Cooper, Casamiquela and Clairis, and the results are by no means conclusive. The consensus so far is that the languages of the hunter nomads – Selk nam, Haush, G¨un¨una Yajich, Teushen and Tehuelche – are related (and together classified as the Chonan family) and share between 10 and 55 per cent of their (core?) vocabulary, depending on their geographical distance. Little is known yet about relations between the languages of the canoe nomads, although Key and Clairis (1978) brought forward the possibility of a genetic relationship between Kawesqar and the Chonan languages, a hypothesis which awaits further testing. Viegas Barros (1998, to appear a) is exploring the possibility that Chono, Kawesqar and Yahgan are all related. More systematic work in this area is needed. Clairis (personal communication 1988) found Y´amana (Yahgan) genetically more isolated than any other language of the region. To what extent the sharing of vocabulary between the languages of Tierra del Fuego is indicative of a genetic relationship and to what extent it is due to borrowing is not discussed. A problem is that we have only a few reliable grammatical descriptions, and that
6.3 Problems in classification
557
these descriptions are done in maximally divergent grammatical traditions. Nonetheless, there are some morpheme correspondences in the personal inflection system: (1) 1 pers. sing. 2 pers. sing.
Selk nam ym-
G¨un¨una Yajich ym-
For Selk nam these forms are straightforward and given as such by Najlis (1973: 21). Consider, for instance, the pronoun system and the personal prefixes (first and second persons singular): (2) a. yah ‘I’ b. y-ʔ ʔɔly ‘my clothes’ c. y-sɔhy mxε ε:n mer xoʔ ʔεn 1O.SG-cured DT.PX witchdoctor ‘The (female) witch-doctor cured me.’
mah ‘you’ m-ʔ ʔɔly ‘your clothes’ m-sɔhy mxε ε:n mer xoʔ ʔεn 2O.SG-cured DT.PX witchdoctor ‘The (female) witch-doctor cured you.’
For G¨un¨una Yajich, however, the matter is slightly more complicated. We find the mfrequently occurring in the subject and object inflection paradigms and it is present in the personal pronoun for ‘you’. For the first person we find y, also -¸s, and cˇ , in some forms: (3) a. pronouns (Casamiquela 1983: 51): 1 2 3 koa kmaw s¸a¸s singular ks¸aw kmaw waw dual ks¸an kman s¸a¸s plural b. most frequent subject markers (Casamiquela 1983: 69): 1 2 3 kuˇcamuna-/ku-/wasingular skamukuwudual nakakmaka-/waplural c. object marking (Casamiquela 1983: 80–1): 1 2 3 -ya -ma -a singular -yup -mup - p dual -¸sn -mn - n plural
558
6 The languages of Tierra del Fuego
The fact that the object inflection is the most regular, and that there is no clear alternative, makes it more plausible to reconstruct -y for G¨un¨una Yajich. This said and done, however, it is hard to find other direct evidence for a genetic relationship between the two languages in specific grammatical morphemes. We will consider other possible resemblances below. Before going on, it may be worthwhile pointing out that for the other languages, the first- and second-person elements do not appear to correspond directly, although there is some possible resemblance among the second persons: (4) 1 pers. sing. 2 pers. sing.
Chono (?) te- (?)
Kawesqar ce caw
Yahgan ha-, hey ∼ hay s-, sa
6.4 Linguistic features Since some of the Tierra del Fuego languages have been described only partially, some not at all, it is difficult to give a detailed picture of their linguistic characteristics. We will try to give some idea of the typological features of the languages involved, as far as these can be reconstructed from the published sources, and then describe one language, Yahgan, in slightly more detail. Given that we have several sources for Yahgan, it is not surprising that the evidence is somewhat contradictory. We return to this in much more detail below. However, we begin by first looking at the languages of the Chonan family, then at Chono and Kawesqar, and finally we turn to Yahgan. The amount and types of information available on the languages of Tierra del Fuego differ widely, and therefore it is difficult to compare them typologically. We will begin by looking at the sound systems of the languages involved, then turn to their basic morphological patterns and categories, and conclude by describing basic word-order patterns. In a summarising section we give a comparative sketch of the phonological characteristics of these languages. 6.4.1 The Chonan languages Of the Chonan languages, some information is available on Selk nam (Najlis 1973), G¨un¨una Yajich (Casamiquela 1983) and Tehuelche (Fern´andez Garay 1998c). Selk nam has a highly articulated consonantal system, and a relatively simple vowel system, represented in table 6.4. In Najlis’s analysis (1973: 100), vowels followed by h are both lengthened and lowered; by consequence, V: in Viegas Barros (1993) corresponds to Najlis’s Vh. Selk nam syllables can be quite complex, as in s¸q’ɔht’ε ‘to gather’ and haʔmqn [haʔmxqn] ‘coast’ (Najlis 1973: 95). Viegas Barros (1993) shows that the alternation between /r/ and /l/ in Selk nam sometimes reflects free variation (5a), sometimes geographical variation (5b) or even
6.4 Linguistic features
559
Table 6.4 Phoneme inventory of Selk nam (based on Najlis 1973)
Plain stops Glottalised stops Fricatives Nasals Lateral Vibrant Glides
Labial
Dental
p p’
t t’ s n l
m
Apical
s¸
Uvular
Laryngeal
cˇ
k k’ x
q q’
ʔ h
r w
Close Open Close Open
Low
Velar
sˇ
y Front
High
Palatal
Central
e ε
Back o ɔ
a α
variation between different branches of the Chonan family (5c), and sometimes soundsymbolism (6): (5) a. o:tr ∼ o:tl ‘eye’ b. ʔɔ:sr (central and southern) / ʔɔ:sl (northern) ‘forehead’ c. p’α r (Selk nam) / p’ole (Tehuelche) / p’al (Haush) ‘(to be) black’ The sound-symbolic weight of the alternation /r/∼/l/ shows up in a series of minimal pairs with related meanings. (6) a. b. c. d.
wer ‘foam’ ʔayruʔ ʔ ‘Kawesqar man’ tε εr ‘finger’ ur ‘peak, point’
wel ‘saliva, phlegm’ ʔayleʔ ʔ ‘Yahgan man’ tel ‘little finger’ ul ‘nose’
In the analysis of Najlis (1973), Selk nam verbal roots, of which there are only a limited number, have the form (C)V. There are six prefixes, which are inflectional and may actually be proclitics. They all have the form C-. The number of suffixes is much larger, and they may have the forms -C, -V, -CV, -VC, or -CVC. There is vowel infixation, leading to double vowel sequences. The analysis of Viegas Barros (1993) may have consequences for Najlis’s analysis of Selk nam roots, however, since what are separate morphemes in Najlis’s analysis may actually be part of the root. Most words have quite a complicated morphological structure.
560
6 The languages of Tierra del Fuego
In the description of Najlis (1973), Selk nam is an object–verb–auxiliary (verb)– subject language, with the head noun in final position and with postpositions: (7) yε εpr t’ε ε:n han¸s t’elqn meat eat CU girl ‘The girl usually eats meat.’ (8) tε εwr xey wε εʔ sɔ ɔ-¸s mah perhaps come can NE-DU 2.SG ‘Perhaps you cannot come.’ (9) xe-nn mer cˇ onn come-AF.MS DC man ‘The man came.’
(Najlis 1973: 15)
(Najlis 1973: 8)
(Najlis 1973: 8)
This latter example also illustrates two other features of Selk nam: a partially gendersensitive evidential system and a complex nominal deixis system. The evidential system involves a three-way distinction: (10) a. affirmative/certitive: -nn (masculine), -ε εn (feminine), -n (neutral); cf. (9) b. dubitative: -¸s; cf. (8) c. surprise: -y The deictic system involves a sequence of optional elements which refer to different semantic categories (Najlis 1973: 22–6): (11) There are eight positional elements: (12) han a q’α on t’am ʔay xa pe
‘displacement respective to speaker’ ‘displacement of other’, ‘dispersion of individuals’ ‘dispersion of mass’ ‘shapeless substance’ ‘fixed’ ‘vertical’ ‘horizontal’ ‘balanced’, ‘seated’
The category of plural distinguishes between ε ‘general plural’, and mε εy ‘collective plural’. Distance involves three categories. (13) na ‘near speaker’ mer ‘separate from speaker but not distant’ may ‘distant but in view’
6.4 Linguistic features
561
Five cardinal directions are distinguished: (14) εy ɔqn ahwqn hɔɔht qɔɔn
‘south’ ‘north’ ‘west’ ‘east (heights)’ ‘east (plain)’
Finally, absence may be indicated. In one variety there appears to be a distinction made between the absence of an animate (hα sˇ) and an inanimate (hαy) entity. An example of a complex Selk nam deictic expression is: (15) pem εy ʔα h naʔ ʔ seated south behind woman ‘that woman seated to the south’
(Najlis 1973: 25)
In G¨un¨una Yajich we find, according to Casamiquela (1983), something like the phoneme inventory in table 6.5. Syllables can be closed or open, but are fairly simple in structure, as words such as cqall ‘star’ and yakalcˇ ‘help’ show. It is not made clear to what extent all sounds listed are also phonemic; there is no analysis in terms of minimal pairs. In G¨un¨una Yajich there are both suffixes and prefixes or proclitics, in Casamiquela’s (1983) description. In addition, there may be compounds; compound-like structures tend to contain a linking particle a. Reduplications may be iconic in nature, e.g. gap=gap ‘dust’ or hal=hal ‘fast’. G¨un¨una Yajich has postpositions: (16) a. kawal-hna horse-L ‘on the horse’ b. puk-kan stick-IS ‘with a stick’
[Spanish: caballo] (Casamiquela 1983: 58)
(Casamiquela 1983: 44)
In other respects, word-order patterns are less clear, however. There are compound-like prenominal modifiers, as in (17): (17) atek a gamakya mountain LK chief ‘God or chief of the mountains’
(Casamiquela 1983: 42)
562
6 The languages of Tierra del Fuego
Table 6.5 Phoneme inventory of G¨un¨una Yajich (based on Gerzenstein’s 1968 interpretation of Casamiquela’s field data)* Labial Dental Alveolar Apical Palatal Retroflex Velar Uvular Laryngeal affricate Plain stops Glottalised stops Voiced stops Fricatives Nasals Voiced laterals Voiceless lateral Vibrant Glides
High Mid Low *
p p’ b m
t t’ d s n
c c’
cˇ cˇ ’ s¸
sˇ
l l
ly
cˇ. cˇ. ’
k k’ g x
q
ʔ
h
rr w
y Front
Central
Back
i e
ə a
u o
The consonants c.ˇ, c.ˇ ’, and s¸ are characterised as ‘apico-prepalatal’ in Gerzenstein (1968). The explanation of the two affricates in Casamiquela (1983) is contradictory, but their retroflex nature is made plausible (partly on historical grounds) in Viegas Barros (1992). The spelling of c.ˇ as tr in personal names and place names (e.g. in Tretruill) suggests that Viegas’s interpretation is correct. In contrast, Casamiquela’s description of s¸ as similar to the s of Castilian Spanish suggests an apical, rather than a retroflex interpretation for this sound. Both Gerzenstein and Casamiquela report an additional distinction between open and closed high central vowels. The distinction appears to be marginal and of a low contrastive value (if any at all), so it is not taken into account in the examples.
Adjectives tend to occur postnominally, however: (18) atek a bahai mountain LK big ‘big mountain’
(Casamiquela 1983: 43)
Striking is the number of VOS sentences in the texts, as in (19), although SVO also occurs, as in (20): (19) k cˇ ug n y h cˇ a-ka sc.ˇ did business-3P mouse ‘The mouse made his declaration.’ (20) koa nubanal s¸a¸sa sc.ˇ I kill that mouse ‘I kill that mouse.’
(Casamiquela 1983: 105)
(Casamiquela 1983: 106)
6.4 Linguistic features
563
Table 6.6 Phoneme inventory of Tehuelche (based on Fern´andez Garay 1998c)
Plain stops Glottalised stops Voiced stops Fricatives Nasals Lateral Vibrant Glides
Labial
Dental
Palatal
Velar
Uvular
Laryngeal
p p’ b
t t’ d s n l r
cˇ cˇ ’
k k’ g x
q q’ x.
ʔ
m
sˇ
w
y Front
Mid Low
Short Long Short Long
Central
e e:
Back o o:
a a:
In Fern´andez Garay’s analysis, Tehuelche has the phoneme inventory given in table 6.6. This is very similar to that of Selk nam. The syllable structure is complex, and consonants can be the nucleus of a syllable. Sequences of three consonants can occur, as in kˇsxaw ‘to borrow’. Stress is initial, and there are some lexical tone distinctions conditioned by the presence of a glottal stop. These may have been borrowed from another language, possibly G¨un¨una Yajich. Final consonant devoicing is obligatory. There is extensive suffixing in Tehuelche, but only a few verbal prefixes are mentioned. In addition there is compounding and there are possibly some cases of incipient noun incorporation, which may be due to Mapuche influence. The latter often follows an OV pattern, as can be seen from examples such as:
(21) kay-xolen-naon-k’o cloak-sew-for-thing ‘needle to sew cloaks’
(Fern´andez Garay 1998c: 136)
Case relations are expressed with affixes and enclitic postpositions. In addition, there is a complex system of person agreement markers, which show sometimes an ergative and sometimes an accusative pattern, for reasons not clear. Possibly there is an ongoing change. When both subject and object are pronominal, we generally find SOV ordering. There are also some other cases of SOV.
564
6 The languages of Tierra del Fuego (22) sˇewla sˇ wat’en ma:t’e-k’-ʔ ʔo ˇ Sewla S sash make-RD-DV ˇ ‘Sewla makes a sash.’
(Fern´andez Garay 1998c: 409)
In clause-second postion we often find a subject marker. In (22) it is preceded by the lexical subject, but in (23) by a time adverb: (23) maʔ ʔ sˇ e-t-ʔ ʔo:mk’e-ˇs-k’ now S 1S.SG-3O.SG-know-PD-RD ‘Now I know her.’
(Fern´andez Garay 1998c: 342)
In imperatives, the clitics occur after the verb. Returning briefly to the issue of the relationship between Selk nam, Tehuelche and G¨un¨una Yajich within the Chonan family, the very brief typological comparison made here is not conclusive. The phonological inventories of the languages are not dissimilar (especially taking into account that Casamiquela may well be making more distinctions than warranted by phonological oppositions), and the languages have complex morphologies involving both prefixing and suffixing. The word orders of the three languages do not correspond, but this may be a matter of external syntactic influences, an issue to which we return below. 6.4.2 Chono and Kawesqar From the data available in Bausani (1975) the sound pattern of Chono can be reconstructed roughly as follows. Syllables are often closed, but need not be. There are only a few consonant clusters, but vowel clusters are frequent. From the Spanish transcription, which may of course have been highly inadequate, we arrive at the tentative sound inventory in table 6.7. The following sample forms, in the original orthography and with Bausani’s tentative translation if available, illustrate these patterns: (24) quentaumet jeyeulam ue ¨ nec ˜ cot sap
‘exist’ ‘do’+‘good’ ‘one’ ‘son’ ‘father’
zuquena vla jaguaitau agic eyuic
‘true’ ‘for the sake of’
About Chono morphology, little can be said, except that it does not appear to be a highly agglutinative language. Question particles, etc, appear to be enclitic. Sometimes they are written as part of the preceding word, sometimes they appear separately. There appears to be one reduplicated form: lam=lam ‘very good’.
6.4 Linguistic features
565
Table 6.7 Tentative sound inventory of Chono (based on the materials in Bausani 1975) Labial Voiceless stops Voiced stops Fricative Nasal Lateral Glide
Dental
p b f m
z (?)*
Palatal
Velar
t
cˇ
k g x ŋ
s n l
ny ly y
w Front
High Mid
Alveolar
Central
i e
Glottal
h
Back u o
a Diphthongs: aw, ew, ow, ay, yu, wa, we, wi *
For the symbol various possible pronunciations are imaginable: [θ], as in Mapuche, [z], [ts ] or [s].
Chono, as far as it can be established from Bausani’s tentative deciphering of the catechism manuscript, was OV and had postpositions or postnominal case markers:
(25) lam jeyeu lam toquieu? good do good wish ‘beneficient and benevolent?’ (26) acha-tau met Dios? heaven-L be.there God ‘Is God in heaven?’
(Bausani 1975: 108)
(Bausani 1975: 108)
Viegas Barros (to appear a) presents a highly informed listing of the lexicon and of individual endings plausibly attributable to Chono, on the basis of the text in Bausani (1975), place names and travellers’ accounts. The sounds of Kawesqar are presented in table 6.8. However, in the Kawesqar alphabet adopted in Aguilera (1984a, b) a number of sounds do not occur. These are put in brackets in the array in table 6.8. Consonant clusters may occur in both syllable-initial and -final position: awspena ‘tired’, yetapaks ‘weave’, and fte ‘fear’ illustrate this. Clairis (1987) does not give an explicit description of Kawesqar morphology, but from his description it appears there are (a) free forms; (b) suffixes; (c) enclitic
566
6 The languages of Tierra del Fuego
Table 6.8 Phonemes of Kawesqar (based on Clairis 1987 and Aguilera’s website http://www.kawesqar.uchile.cl 2002)*
Plain stops Glottalised stops Aspirated stops Fricatives Nasals Lateral Vibrant Glides
Labial
Dental
Palatal
Velar/Uvular
Glottal
p p’ (ph ) f m
t t’ (th ) s n l r ∼ rr
cˇ ∼ c cˇ ’ ∼ c’
(k) q k’ ∼ q’ (kh ∼ qh ) x ∼ x.
h
w
y Front
High Mid Low *
(i) e (æ)
Central
Back (u) o
a
Clairis treats the uvular and velar stops (k, q) as realisations of a single phoneme, whereas Aguilera considers this distinction to be contrastive. Aguilera treats the aspirated stops as allophones of their non-aspirated counterparts. Clairis identifies a three-vowel system (a, e, o), whereas Aguilera recognises six vowels.
elements; (d) optionally enclitic elements (e.g. person markers). In addition, there is some reduplication (aswalaq=aswalaq ‘the day after tomorrow’), and there may be compounding. Aguilera (1997: 275) shows that the language contains a number of time and aspect suffixes. Time is organised on a continuous axis, marked by the following verbal suffixes: (27) -seku´e -yen´ak -pas -afq´at -h´oraras -h´oyok
‘future’ (seqwe in Clairis 19871 ) ‘present’ ‘inmediate past’ ‘recent past’ ‘remote past’ ‘narrative or mythical past’
Kawesqar, from the sentences presented in Clairis (1987), frequently has an SOV order with a postverbal auxiliary (SOV Aux), although there is considerable word-order
1
Clairis (1987, part III) does not accept Aguilera’s distinction between velar k and uvular q and uses q in both cases.
6.4 Linguistic features
567
freedom: (28) manteqa qyexena butter want ‘I want butter.’ (29) aswalaq ce qoteyo . . . yetas seqwe tomorrow 1.SG again weave F ‘Tomorrow I am going to weave again.’ (30) caw-nowaq cefalay-qh ar cefalay seqwe yemase 2-C drink-N drink F boat ‘Let us go and drink wine together in the boat.’
[cf. Spanish manteca] (Clairis 1987: 456)
(Clairis 1987: 461)
(Clairis 1987: 464)
In addition, it seems to be postpositional: (31) qalpon alewe dormitory inside ‘inside the dormitory’
[cf. Spanish galp´on] (Clairis 1987: 459)
Head nouns occur at the end of the nominal complex: (32) nawareno-s qwaseq Navarino-G board ‘on board the Navarino’
(Clairis 1987: 459)
6.4.3 Yahgan We will now turn to one particular Fuegian language, Yahgan, and try to describe it in more detail, basing our descriptions on the main sources available for this language: Adam (1884–5), Bridges ([1879] 1933, 1894), Gusinde (1926, 1937), Golbert de Goodbar (1977, 1978, 1985), and Poblete and Salas (1999). Adam has reconstructed aspects of the grammar of Yahgan from various printed sources, without any fieldwork of his own. We referred to Bridges’s monumental work in the introduction to this chapter. In addition to his dictionary, he wrote a brief but illuminating grammatical sketch of the language. In his enormously detailed monograph on the Yahgan (1937), Gusinde describes the life and culture of the group in nearly 1,500 pages, but relatively little space is devoted to their language. In an earlier article (1926) he just describes the phonological system of Yahgan and the other Fuegian languages. Golbert de Goodbar worked in 1973 with the one surviving speaker of the language in Ushuaia, Argentina, someone who had grown up and lived on a Protestant mission, and whose speech was consequently influenced by English. Her articles deal with basic syntax and with verbal and nominal morphology. Poblete and Salas (1999), finally, have worked with the two surviving speakers on Navarino Island.
568
6 The languages of Tierra del Fuego
Table 6.9 Phoneme inventory of Yahgan (based on Golbert de Goodbar 1977 and Poblete and Salas 1999)*
Obstruents Fricatives Nasals Lateral Vibrants Glides
Labial
Dental
Palatal
Retroflex
Velar
Laryngeal
p f m
t s n l r
cˇ sˇ
(ˇc.)
k x
(ʔ)
y
(ɹ)
w
High Mid Low *
Front
Central
Back
i e (æ)
ə a
u o (ɑ)
The three consonants that only occur in Poblete and Salas are placed between parentheses. Notice that ŋ in some of Golbert de Goodbar’s examples is not represented in the phoneme inventory. Her unspecified lateral l has not been included either. It does not seem to coincide with the voiceless lateral (l ) of the earlier sources Adam and Bridges. For Golbert de Goodbar ɑ and ə are allophones of a single phoneme, the former occurring under the accent, the latter in non-accentuated position. Poblete and Salas treat the vowels æ and ə as phonemically distinct. Apparently, their fronted low vowel æ corresponds to the back low vowel ɑ of Golbert de Goodbar. All authors coincide in that the place of the accent in Yahgan is not phonologically predictable.
The sound inventory of contemporary Yahgan is presented in table 6.9, which is based on Golbert de Goodbar (1977) and Poblete and Salas (1999). The phonological description of Golbert de Goodbar (1977) and Poblete and Salas (1999) is roughly the same, except that the latter source mentions an additional distinctive vowel, as well as a glottal stop and a retroflex series (c.ˇ, ɹ). By contrast, it lacks a special lateral sound represented as l, which was noted by Golbert de Goodbar.2 In Adam (1885), however, a more complex inventory is given, particularly for the consonants, as shown in table 6.10. In this table a series of preaspirated glides is postulated: h w, h y, h r, in addition to dental fricatives and voiced stops. Adam’s description corresponds roughly to that of Bridges (1894), so it may well be that the language has been simplified phonologically in the century intervening between the earlier studies and Golbert de Goodbar’s work. The fact that Gusinde (1926) describes an intermediary
2
Golbert de Goodbar (1977) reports that it was not possible to determine the phonetic characteristics of Yahgan l, due to the fact that her consultant missed her teeth.
6.4 Linguistic features
569
Table 6.10 Phoneme inventory of Yahgan (based on Adam 1885)* Labial Interdental Alveolar Palatal Retroflex Velar Laryngeal Voiceless obstruents Voiced obstruents Voiceless fricatives Voiced fricatives Nasals Pre-aspirated nasal Lateral Voiceless lateral Vibrants Pre-aspirated vibrant Glides Pre-aspirated glides
p b f v m
θ δ
t d s z n hn l l r hr
k g x
h
ŋ
w
ɹ
y hy
hw
Front
High Mid Low
cˇ dzˇ sˇ
Central
Short
Long
i e
i: e:
Short
ə a
Back Long
Short
Long
u o
u: o: [ɔ:]
a:
Diphthongs: aw, ow, ay, oy *
The ts present in some of Bridges’s examples is not represented. Adam records two different palatal sibilants (written sh and sch, respectively). The corresponding phonetic difference is not known.
phonological system in which the voiced stops occur, but the dental fricatives and the coarticulated velar fricatives do not, supports this hypothesis, which must remain tentative until a full-scale lexical analysis is undertaken. In what remains we will follow Golbert de Goodbar’s analysis and transcription. The opposition in length in the vowel system is allophonic, according to her, conditioned by stress. She describes syllable structure as being quite simple. According to Golbert de Goodbar onsets consist of at most two consonants, of which the second must be a sonorant. However, the data presented show several clusters involving sounds other than sonorants, and Bridges (1894: 54) shows sequences of complex consonants in his data, as in tstwi:a: ‘paint brush’. Codas consist of one consonant at most. There may be extra-long vowels in stressed positions. Bridges (1894: 54) claims that the Yahgan stress system is rather irregular, but that in bisyllabic words penultimate stress is prevalent, while in longer words (very frequent) ante-penultimate stress is prevalent. Poblete and Salas (1999), however, claim that penultimate stress is prevalent throughout. There is a
570
6 The languages of Tierra del Fuego
complex set of morphophonemic alternations evident when words are combined. Bridges (1894: 55) gives the following pairs of sounds: (33) r t,d p g k
sˇ h
r
f x x
əra ‘cry’ / kuˇsmu:ta ‘she is crying’ ata ‘take’ / annu: guh r ‘he has taken’ a:pu: ‘pull up by the roots’ / əfga:mata ‘pull up the wrong one’ ta:gu: ‘give’ / tə əxlə əbata ‘to give several’ yi:ku: ‘scrape’ / kə ənna yixgaye:te: ‘who is scraping?’
As in Kawesqar, some lexical elements belong to several grammatical categories, but for the rest there is a clear opposition between verbs and nouns. Adjectives often resemble nouns, and both classes may be marked with the predicate marker -a(ki): (34) a. ur´atur l´ıf wɑ ɑl´ıcˇ -´a sɑ´ x up´ay3 some plant good-PD illness for ‘Some plants are good for illness.’ b. par´ıkan-´oyna yɑ ɑsˇ-´a break-IM.2S hand-PD ‘Break it with your hands.’
[cf. English leaf; Spanish valer ‘be worth’] (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 24)
(Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 7)
While generally predicate phrases are marked with verbal inflection, this predication marker -a(ki) either marks secondary predication, as in (35), or appears in basic predicative constructions on the predicate, as in (36): (35) antɑ ɑp-´aki ha-wɑ ɑsˇt´ak-oan at´ama meat-PD 1.SG-make-F meal ‘I am going to prepare a meal with meat.’ (36) h´ıpay wɑ ɑl´ıcˇ yɑ ɑhɑ´ (ki) 1.D good boy.PD ‘We two are good boys.’
(Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 7)
(Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 7)
Nominal compounds are right-headed: (37) tala-glas eye-glass ‘spectacles’
[cf. English glass] (Guerra Eissmann 1995: 273)
Yahgan verbal morphology, as we will see, contains compounding, derivational prefixes, proclitic pronouns and enclitic tense markers. Nominal morphology is mostly 3
In Golbert de Goodbar’s example sentences the symbol ɑ stands for a low back vowel when stressed; elsewhere it is [ə].
6.4 Linguistic features
571
limited to a few case suffixes. One of the most striking features of Yahgan is its verbal morphology. ‘Singular, dual, and plural verbs are a specialty in Yahgan, and simplify its syntax. The dual verbs are an inflection of the singular, but the plural verbs are to a very large extent totally different from their singular forms’, Bridges (1894: 67) writes. What is remarkable about the suppletive pattern is that it seems ergative in nature in that objects pattern with intransitive subjects. Consider the paradigm in (38): (38)
singular
dual
plural
ta:gu: ta:gu:pay yatu: ata ata:pay tu:mi:na atə əpi atə əpipay wa:gu:pi --------------------------------------------apə əna apə əna:pay ma:maya kə əna kə əna:pay a:lu: ka:taka
ka:taka:pay
u:tuˇsu:
‘to give 1, 2, more things’ ‘to take 1, 2, more things’ ‘to put 1, 2, more things on board’ ‘1, 2, more die’ ‘1, 2, more are aboard, are on the water’ ‘1, 2, more go on foot’ (Bridges 1894: 68)
With transitive verbs the number of the object determines the shape of the verb, with intransitives the number of the subject. Another feature of Yahgan verbal morphology worth mentioning, and which resembles Selk nam and many Algonquian and northwest-coast languages of North America, is verb compounding and verb classification, which has led to an enormous lexicon in the language. Bridges (1894) gives a number of examples; we will illustrate the process with the derivatives of the verb kwissa ‘to pull’: (39) kwisseta kwissakaya kwissa:mana:tsikari kwissa:muˇci kwissa:teka kwisso:ara:gu: kwisso:anari kwissa:pu:ku: kwisso:ana kwissa:ku:ˇci kwissa:tə əpi kwissu:aka:na
‘to pull along, to draw on to some place’ ‘to pull up’ ‘to pull out’ ‘to drag in’ ‘to drag one thing to another, so as to be on it’ ‘to drag ashore’ ‘to pull into the water’ ‘to pull into the fire’ ‘to drag past’ ‘to pull into a boat any living object’ ‘to hoist on board’ ‘to pull down, as trees down a steep bank’
572
6 The languages of Tierra del Fuego kwissu:ala kwissayaˇsa / kwissa:tayaˇsa kwissu:ara:pu kwissu:ispe:ata kwissəmma / kwissə əmmata kwissu:a:turi kwissu:unna ‘and so on, ad libitum’4
‘to pull out, undo, as a piece of knitting’ ‘to pull over and cove’ ‘to pull up, as a boat up a creek, by a line’ ‘to pull awry, so as to be no longer straight’ ‘to rend, tear, pull to pieces, as a garment’ ‘to pull down, as, for instance, the higher yards and masts’ ‘to draw, as a horse does a cart’ (Bridges 1894: 70)
Bruce Chatwin gives the following characterisation in his In Patagonia (1983: 128–9) of the Yahgan derivations, to support his view of Man as the Essential Wanderer: The Yahgan tongue – and by inference all language – proceeds as a system of navigation. Named things are fixed points, aligned and compared, which allow the speaker to plot the next move. Bridges gives many examples of the way meanings are formed, through often complex chains of metaphorisation. The root yi:nara ‘to gnaw’ yields yenuˇsyella ‘to continue gnawing’, which in turns gives rise to cˇ i:nuˇsyella ‘to leave unconsumed by gnawing, as dogs the skeleton of an animal’. The latter form then comes to mean simply ‘skeleton’ (Bridges 1894: 70). The verbs of motion in Yahgan can be prefixed and, in many discourse contexts, must be prefixed with directional particles. These include the following: (40) kə ə-, ka:gku:-, kwiku:t-, ku:ta:-
ku:p-, ku:pama:n-, manama-, ma:tmə ət-, mə əta-
‘upward’, ‘the upper end of the wigwam’, ‘westward’ ‘westward’ ‘southward’, ‘to go out, as on a bowsprit, or to the edge of a cliff or branch to do anything’, ‘to go out from shore, whatever the direction’ ‘downward’ ‘outward’ ‘northward’, ‘to go or come ashore’, ‘to remove from off the fire to its confines, as the hob’ ‘eastward’, ‘inward’, ‘to get to do anything well from custom’ (Bridges 1894: 71)
4
The forms taken from Bridges (1894) that are listed in (39) and elsewhere are based on a tentative interpretation of his rather idiosyncratic orthography and have to be considered with reserve.
6.4 Linguistic features
573
Adam (1885: 26) notes that some of these prefixes may also be suffixed to noun phrases: (41) əkə əh r-ku house-west ‘to the west of the house’
(Adam 1885: 26)
It is clear from Bridges’s description that these elements may also be used referentially: (42) a. hawa-mə ə-ˇci 1.SG-east-side ‘the person to the east of me’ b. si-mə ə-ˇci 2.SG-east-side ‘the person to the east of you’
(Bridges 1894: 59)
From a syntactic perspective, the Yahgan inflection system can be characterised as follows: (43) ( ) Modals, such as k´ay ‘can’, k´uru ‘want’ and m´ay ‘habitual’, are never inflected for person and tense, and their complement is infinitive: (44) h´ıpay k´ay una ´ p´okˇsu y´enɑ ɑ m´ola 1.D can walk fast L day ‘We can walk fast during the day.’ (45) h´ay kuru ´ muru ´ a´ nˇci wɑ´ rˇs 1.SG want climb that tree ‘I want to climb that tree.’ (46) ɑ´ kɑ ɑr kɑ´ mi-a m´ay il´ana house wood-PD CU build ‘Houses are generally built from wood.’
(Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 40)
(Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 41)
(Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 41)
The modal t´eynik(ɑ), marking external obligation, can either function as an impersonal verb, taking the clause as its complement, as in (47), or it can occupy the customary modal position, as in (48): (47) lɑ´ kɑ ɑx tɑ´ rɑ ɑ t´eynik h´ıpay una ´ utɑ ´ ɑsˇ night during it.is.necessary 1.D walk slowly ‘At night we must walk slowly.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 55)
574
6 The languages of Tierra del Fuego (48) s´an t´eynikɑ ɑ at´ama e´ rli 2.PL it.is.necessary eat early ‘You must eat early.’
[cf. English early] (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 42)
The following tense and mood markers occur, as verbal suffixes: (49) -oan -ona -oa -on -o -te -ute -ote -ite -utey -ɑ ɑrɑ ɑ -arɑ ɑ -ina -oyna -wina
future past I past II 2nd person imperative
The forms in (49) are given by Golbert de Goodbar (1977, 1985: 422). She distinguishes two types of future marking – ona and oa – without being able to differentiate them semantically. Given the other forms encountered, however, it is likely that we are dealing with allomorphs here. In Bridges (1894) future is indicated by -(y)u:a or -o:a, past by -ude: or -ara / - ra, and imperative by -i:na. In the present, there is no tense marking, and generally timeless statements are also without marking, as are infinitives. Often, past tense is not marked overtly either. It is not clear from the texts what the difference is between the te tense and the ɑrɑ tense; both are simply glossed and translated as past tenses. There is also a set of aspectual suffixes, related to motion particles, described by Golbert de Goodbar (1985: 422): (50) -k´ata -tikila -y´ata
‘arrive / continuative’ ‘make steps / imprecision, movement’ ‘lie down / durative, stative’
When the subject is third person (generally a full noun phrase), the verb tends to be inflected, through a prefix: (51) a´ nˇci yɑ ɑsˇ ɑ´ la-n-t´an ka-wunors´ın-ote lɑ´ kɑ ɑx that dog-LK-PL 3S-bark-PA night ‘Those dogs barked last night.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 9) With first- and second-person pronominal subjects, it rarely is: (52) h´ay tɑ ɑn-k´ata n´ayf 1.SG have-CN knife ‘I have a knife.’
[cf. English knife] (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 13)
Table 6.11 summarises the distribution of pronouns and inflection in the sentences presented in the materials in Golbert de Goodbar (1977), disregarding structures involving
6.4 Linguistic features
575
Table 6.11 Person inflection in Yahgan (based on the materials in Golbert de Goodbar 1977) noun (phrase) 3-V noun (phrase) (3) ∅-V null 3-V pronoun 1, 2-V pronoun (1, 2) ∅-V null 1, 2-V null ∅-V
21 5 3 5 33 5 2
modals. The subject can remain empty, e.g. with expletive subjects or with weather verbs: (53) he´ın kuka ´ s´a t´eri very like 2.SG cold ‘It seems you are cold.’ (54) tu´ la p´alax´ana ur´atur k-ayn-´ona if rain few 3S-come-F ‘If it rains, few people will come.’
(Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 12)
(Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 25)
Similarly with pronominal subjects in certain discourse contexts: (55) h´ay tu´ la t´eke ha-t-ay-´ona 1.SG if see 1S.SG-3O-call-F ‘I will call him if (I) see (him).’
(Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 58)
The basic word order of Yahgan is rather difficult to determine from the data in Golbert de Goodbar (1977). Yahgan basically has subject–auxiliary–verb–object order, with some variations. The system in the noun phrase is predominantly head-final (56a–c), although some determiners can optionally occur postnominally, as shown in (57): (56) a. wɑ ɑl´ıcˇ yɑ´ hɑ ɑ
good boy
‘good boy’
b. a´ nˇci y´amana
that man
‘that man’
c. h´awa tuko ´
1P.SG wife
‘my wife’
(Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 7) (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 8) (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 8)
576
6 The languages of Tierra del Fuego (57) yɑ ɑsˇ ɑ´ la a´ nˇci dog that ‘that dog’
(Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 8)
There are two prepositions, t´esa ‘like’ and y´enɑ ‘in, at, on’, glossed here as locative (L):
(58) a. h´aw uˇ ´ ska p´a kukan ´ t´esa sin´a 1P.SG clothes not equal like 2P.SG ‘My clothes are not like yours.’ b. h´aw uˇ ´ ska y´enɑ ɑ p´okˇs 1P.SG clothes L box ‘My clothes are in the box.’
(Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 51) [cf. English box] (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 52)
Postpositions are much more common, however:
(59) a. yɑ´ muhkɑ ɑ stuwɑ ´ ɑk´ata h´awan tɑ´ wlo far city here from ‘The city is far from here.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 53) b. antɑ´ pa ps´ı y´enɑ ɑ s´ospi meat without L pot ‘There is no meat in the pot.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 54) c. lɑ´ kɑ ɑx tɑ´ rɑ ɑ t´eynik h´ıpay una ´ utɑ ´ ɑsˇ night during it.is.necessary 1.D walk slowly (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 55) ‘At night we must walk slowly.’ Subordinate clauses always occur to the right of the matrix clause:
(60) h´ay k´atak-´oa snɑ´ tin pɑ´ lɑ ɑx´ana 1.SG go.out-F although rain ‘I will go out even though it rains.’
[cf. English it is nothing] (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 57)
Conjunctions, such as t´eke ‘that’(?< Spanish de que ‘that’), a´ sta ‘until’ (< Spanish hasta), and t´ula ‘if ’ precede their clause:
(61) a. h´ay kuru ´ t´eke s´a at´ama 1.SG want that 2.SG eat ‘I want you to eat.’
(Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 57)
6.4 Linguistic features b. xw an k-ɑ´ kɑ ɑŋ-k´ata a´ sta s´a mat´amati Juan 3.SG-sleep-CN until 2.SG arrive ‘Juan is asleep till you arrive.’ c. h´ay tu´ la t´eke ha-t-ay-´ona 1.SG if see 1S.SG-3O-call-F ‘I will call him if I see (him).’
577
(Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 57)
(Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 58)
Adverbs either follow or precede the verb phrase: (62) xw a´ n ka-tup´oan-ote ɑ´ wi utɑ ´ ɑsˇ Juan 3.SG-throw-PA stone slowly ‘Juan threw the stone slowly.’ (63) hɑ´ rˇs p´okˇsu t´ato horse fast run ‘Horses run fast.’
(Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 45) [cf. English horse] (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 37)
The fundamental order of object and verb is likewise not unproblematic. Generally objects follow the verb, both in main clauses and in subordinate clauses: (64) s´an at-ɑ´ rɑ ɑ m´ani p´oket-n t´awlo you.PL take-PA money pocket-LK from ‘You (plur.) took money from the pocket.’
[cf. English money, pocket] (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 28)
(65) xw a´ n ka-k´alek-´arɑ ɑ p´edro-n-ˇci.k´a: akup´ana h´awan yɑ ɑsɑ´ la Juan 3.SG-order-PA Pedro-LK-AC kill 1P.SG dog ‘Juan ordered Pedro to kill my dog.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 36) There are a number of object–verb sequences, however: (66) lam´a y´amana h´a-k´a: ka-kɑ ɑsit´at-ote drunk man 1.SG-AC 3.SG-accompany-PA ‘The drunk accompanied me.’
(Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 27)
(67) h´awa tuku ´ w´ata kɑ ɑ-k´atak-ute uˇsk´a tukˇ ´ si p´ay 1P.SG wife before 3.SG-go-PA clothes wash for ‘My wife went (away) to wash clothes.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 56) It is not clear from the texts what causes this alternation. The cases where the object precedes the verb include indefinite noun phrases (without determiner) and pronouns.
578
6 The languages of Tierra del Fuego
Question words include the following: (68) k´ana/kan kan´ı kunˇ ´ ci kunˇ ´ ci pl´eys kunt´a k´owtu
‘who’ ‘of whom, with whom’ ‘which’ ‘where’ ‘which, how, which class of’ ‘what, what kind of’
[cf. English place]
Questioned elements tend to be fronted, but this does not appear to be obligatory: (69) sin uˇ ´ ska kunt´a-m a´ lak´ana 2P.SG clothes how-LK look ‘What did your clothes look like?’ (70) kunˇ ´ ci pl´eys tumu-t´atata aˇsukar ´ which place CA-buy sugar ‘Where do they sell sugar?’
(Golbert de Goodbar 1978: 20)
(Golbert de Goodbar 1978: 20)
This concludes our very brief sketch of Yahgan. A more detailed analysis, particularly of the very rich nineteenth-century materials, including New Testament translations and the Bridges dictionary, will be very worthwhile. 6.4.4 Areal-typological features of the Fuegian languages The question arises, naturally, whether Tierra del Fuego and Patagonia are one linguistic family and, if not, form a linguistic area. These questions need a more careful treatment than is possible here, where we can only make a few preliminary observations. More complete descriptions and more detailed comparative studies are needed before we can draw a firm conclusion. Nonetheless, Clairis (1998: 24) ventures the hypothesis that all the languages in the area are related. He stresses the shared phonological characteristics of the Fuegian languages, presented in table 6.12. These inventories are fairly similar in terms of the number of vowels and consonants distinguished, although there are differences in the actual inventories, and the data in Adam suggest that the original systems may have been more divergent than what we encounter in the recent sources. Voiced and glottalised consonants are present but not widespread, and retroflex articulations are not frequent. These data do not differentiate between areal and genetic relations by themselves. A similar general superficial correspondence is evident in the morphologies shown in table 6.13, where suffixation and encliticisation are widespread, as well as compounding and reduplication. Prefixation and procliticisation are also present in a number of languages, while suppletion appears to be rare. A big caveat here is that much more detailed morphological analysis is needed before firm conclusions can be drawn.
6.5 Linguistic features
579
Table 6.12 Phonological features of the Fuegian languages*
#C #V Syl *
Chono
Kawesqar
Yahgan
Selk nam
G¨un¨una Yajich
Tehuelche
19 6 CVVC
20/21 3/6 CCVVCC
15/31 6/12 CCVVC
21 6 CCVCCC
30 7/8 CVVC
25 6 CCVCC
#C = number of consonant phonemes; #V = number of vowel phonemes; Syl = maximal syllabic complexity
Table 6.13 Morphological features of the Fuegian languages
Suffix Prefix Proclitic Enclitic Compounding Suppletion Reduplication
Chono
Kawesqar
Yahgan
Selk nam
G¨un¨una Yajich
Tehuelche
+ − − + ? ? +
+ − − + + − +
+ + + + + + +
+ + + + + − ?
+ + ? ? + − +
+ + + + + − ?
Table 6.14 Constituent order features of the Fuegian languages (NP = noun phrase; P = postposition) Chono
Kawesqar Yahgan
Postpositional NP P NP P phrase Noun phrase ? AJ N Clause OVS/SOV SOV
NP P
Selk nam G¨un¨una Yajich Tehuelche NP P
AJ N N AJ SVO/SOV OVS
NP P
NP P
N AJ VOS/SVO
N AJ SOV
Turning now to the word order of the languages of Tierra del Fuego, again there are certain widespread basic word-order patterns, as shown in table 6.14. Most languages appear to be of the OV type, but the position of the subject varies considerably, and table 6.14 oversimplifies matters somewhat. While these observations certainly tend to underline the similarities between these languages, it would be premature to conclude on their basis that we are dealing with a linguistic area here. A wider range of more specific features needs to be compared for this cluster of languages.
580
6 The languages of Tierra del Fuego
6.5 Oral literature There is a rich tradition of oral literature for most of the groups mentioned. Wilbert’s work includes edited English-language versions of the folk tales collected by Martin Gusinde in the 1920s among the Selk nam (Wilbert 1975) and Yahgan (Wilbert 1977). Wilbert and Simoneau (1984) bring together Tehuelche folk tales from a wide variety of sources, mostly Argentinian, and the publication of a volume of Kawesqar folk literature is announced. A collection of Tehuelche texts with translation and notes is available in Fern´andez Garay (1997b). Guyot (1968) analyses and compares Selk nam and Yahgan myths, again on the basis of the Gusinde materials, within the tradition of L´evi-Strauss. She notes the many parallels between the mythology of these unrelated but neighbouring peoples, suggesting prolonged cultural contact.
6.6 Language contact Reports about contacts between the canoe nomads are mixed. Gusinde (1937: 233– 46) argues that geographical conditions inhibited contacts between the Yahgan and their neighbours: Kawesqar in the west, and Haush and Selk nam in the east. Only in late colonial times were contacts more frequent. Viegas Barros (1993) argues that the amount of linguistic borrowing suggests much closer ties between the Selk nam and the Kawesqar than between the Selk nam and the Yahgan. There was barter of artifacts and raw materials, and some exchange marriages. Knowledge of each other’s language was limited and rare, however. Eastern Yahgan took over some Selk nam words, and the reverse happened as well. The Selk nam were driven into Yahgan territory during the extermination raids of the late nineteenth century. Contacts between the Yahgan and the Kawesqar were somewhat more frequent, in part because both groups had a similar economic basis. Lucas Bridges ([1948] 1987: 61) suggests that there were incidental marriages between the Kawesqar and the Yahgan in the latter half of the nineteenth century, and reports cases of Yahgan–Kawesqar bilingualism (1987: 131). Bilingualism was rare, however. There was no occasion for barter. Gusinde (1931: 142–3) notes that meetings between the Selk nam and the Kawesqar were rather more frequent, but again limited to barter. There was no evidence of people knowing the language of the other groups, except for some borrowings. Lucas Bridges (1948: 132), however, mentions an encounter with Chono speakers where one Kawesqar knew that language.5 The foot nomads showed more evidence of multilingualism. The Tehuelche moved around in a large territory, and intermarried with Mapuche and Europeans of different 5
We are indebted to H´el`ene Brijnen for calling our attention to this passage in Bridges’s book.
6.6 Language contact
581
nationalities. At one point, some Tehuelches knew Spanish, Mapuche, G¨un¨una Yajich and Teushen in addition to Tehuelche. D’Orbigny mentions one quadrilingual Tehuelche woman, Lunareja, around 1830 (d’Orbigny 1945). Fern´andez Garay (1998c: 49–50) stresses the fact that linguistic taboo, the prohibition among the Tehuelche of using words resembling the name of a deceased person for a year, may have stimulated linguistic borrowing. Viegas Barros (to appear b) interprets a word list collected by Olivier van Noort in the Strait of Magellan in 1599, arguing that it represents the speech of a group of foot nomads who had adopted (or possibly maintained from an earlier period) canoe transport, and while speaking a Chonan language, adopted a number of Kawesqar words. The mirror image of this group is that of a group of Kawesqar living on the Brunswick Peninsula who had adopted part of the foot nomad culture and a number of Tehuelche words in the nineteenth century (Viegas Barros, to appear b). Viegas Barros argues on the basis of a number of borrowings and of a shared term for the Kawesqar in Selk nam and Tehuelche that contacts between the foot and canoe nomads must have dated back to prehistoric times. Summing up, the various forms of contacts in the whole region reported (sometimes without much substantiation) by the various authors took the form of: – mixed marriages, particularly in the late colonial period; – barter between the Selk nam on one side and the Yahgan or Kawesqar on the other; – slaving raids (e.g. by the Chono in Kawesqar territory); – shared fishing grounds (e.g. between the Kawesqar and the Yahgan); – capture of Kawesqar women by the Tehuelche; – migration of groups of Selk nam across the Strait of Magellan and integration of the latter into the Tehuelche, – migration of Tehuelches across the Strait of Magellan; – extensive migration of Mapuche Indians into Patagonia. Europeans were first looked upon with some awe, and were later much hated and despised. Gusinde reports that Europeans were called palala by the Yahgan. Bridges (1894) gives as the meaning of a possibly related word upalalana ‘to make a noise by vibrating the tongue in the mouth violently’; thus the term would refer to the incomprehensible way of speaking of Europeans. Another possible source is patalsala, according to Gusinde, which means something like ‘incomprehensible people’. In any case, it is clear that the contacts with the Europeans meant the end of the peoples and languages of Tierra del Fuego. We now turn to the effect these contacts had on the languages of the area. It should be clear that what follows is highly tentative, incomplete and preliminary. Much more
582
6 The languages of Tierra del Fuego
work is needed, for instance, on the lexical influence that the different languages had on each other. Both Yahgan and Kawesqar contain a substantial number of European borrowings. Yahgan tends to have borrowed more from English than from Spanish, Kawesqar almost exclusively from Spanish. English borrowings in Yahgan include: m´aykl ‘Michael’, m´ari ‘Mary’, p´eyper ‘paper’, n´ayf ‘knife’, h´arˇs ‘horse’, m´ani ‘money’, pl´eys ‘place’, k´ɑrpɑntɑr ‘carpenter’, e´ rli m´oniŋ ‘early morning’, l´ıf ‘leaf’. Spanish borrowings include x w a´ n ‘John’, aˇsu´ kar ‘sugar’, r´uta ‘route’, wɑl´ıcˇ ‘good’, and m´aytro ‘teacher’. Particularly in the case of Kawesqar, words have been extensively adapted phonologically. Words largely, but not exclusively, refer to borrowed culture items. In the Kawesqar texts in Clairis (1987) only borrowed nouns appear, while in the Yahgan material in Golbert de Goodbar (1977) we find conjunctions as well: (71) bɑ´ t snɑ´ tin bif´or i o a´ sta p´orke
‘but’ ‘even though’ ‘before that’ ‘and’ ‘or’ ‘until’ ‘because’
[English but] [English it is nothing] [English before] [Spanish y] [Spanish o] [Spanish hasta] [Spanish porque]
Remarkably, no elements have been incorporated as verbs or prepositions, with the possible exception of the modal operator t´eynik(ɑ) ‘obligation’, which could be derived from Spanish tiene que ‘has to’. G¨un¨una Yajich contains a number of Mapuche and Spanish borrowings. Tehuelche and G¨un¨una Yajich have taken over the Aymara words for ‘hundred’ and ‘thousand’ from the Araucanians. Casamiquela speculates that the G¨un¨una Yajich word order he recorded from the last speaker of the language was influenced by Mapuche, and Viegas Barros (1995) suggests that the orginal person system of the Chonan languages has been restructured under the influence of Mapuche. Fern´andez Garay (1998c) gives a very detailed description of processes of language attrition that have affected Tehuelche. 6.7 A Tehuelche text Several spontaneous texts have been published in the languages of Tierra del Fuego. We include here a southern Tehuelche flood myth, part of the Elal cycle, told shortly after 1920 by K’opach¨us to J. C. Wolf, who ‘called himself encargado of the Linguistics section of the Museo de la Plata’ (G. Hern´andez 1992: 115). The myth is reproduced in G. Hern´andez (1992: 132–3, 138). Below the original orthography in the source text we present in curly brackets an approximate phonetic rendition and analysis, based
6.7 A Tehuelche text
583
on Fern´andez Garay (1997b, 1998c, personal communication). Casamiquela (1992) provided additional notes. 1. Tsh´onke tsh´aink’ t¨aRnk¨a k!¨a-u; {ˇc’o:nk cˇ ’ay-n-k ter-n-k k’ew} people be.big-N-MS be.tall-N-MS formerly ‘They were tall, big people formerly.’ 2. m´atshke tschonk, t!¨aRosh {ma:-ˇs-k’e cˇ ’o:nk t’ero-ˇs} kill-PD-RD.MS6 people be.bad-PD ‘They were man-killers and bad.’ 3. m´ashke tsh´onkie, w´ıllum n´au o´ iyu, {ma:-ˇs-k’e cˇ ’o:nk, welom na:w ʔoyo} kill-PD-RD.MS people all guanaco ostrich ‘They killed people. All the guanaco, the ostrich,’ 4. tsh´aRo7 o´ ienkl, m´ashke tsh´onke. {k’aroʔ ʔoygl ma:-ˇs-k’e cˇ ’o:nk} hawk condor kill-PD-RD.MS people ‘the hawk, the condor used to kill people.’ 5. K’¨anuknk’on d´ıos tsh´ait g´atken¨ashke, {qenkenk’en dios cˇ ’ay-t(o) ga:nkene-ˇs-k’e} sun god be.big-AV be.angry-PD-RD.MS ‘The Sun God became very angry’ 6. k¨a-ut¨ ´ ashk¨a l¨a-¨a t¨aRnk¨a. {k-e:wet’e-ˇs-k’e leʔ ter-n-k} 3O.MS-send-PD-RD.MS water be.high-N-MS ‘and sent a big flood.’ ´ 7. O-ukt¨ a w´anken x´ono sh¨ahuen k’¯on l¨a-¨a a´ intke, {ʔe:w-k’ t-waʔn-k’n xono sˇanwen8 k’o:n leʔ ʔayn-t-k’e} upward-AL 3S-go-RD.NU sea spring river water rise-MD-RD.MS ‘Upwards came the sea, the springs and rivers; the water rose,’ 8. willum tsh´aRa¨ k¨an g¨a-ut¨a. Willom x´amtsh. {welom t-ˇsa:re-k’n ge:wte welom xa:m-ˇc} all 3S-be.filled-RD.NU land all die-PL ‘until all the land was covered. Then they all died.’ 6 7 8
The endings of the realis mood (RD) encode a gender distinction; the gender indicated is that of a following noun (Fern´andez Garay 1998c: 275). The form tsh´aRo (probably [ˇc’arroʔ]) may represent a dialectal variant of k’aroʔ ‘hawk’. Both the pronunciation and interpretation of sh¨ahuen are incertain. The word sˇanwen ‘whirlpool’, mentioned in Fern´andez Garay (1998c: 98), seems to fit the context here.
584
6 The languages of Tierra del Fuego 9. P´ain u´aitshk¨a u´ait¨a {pa:y(n) w-ayt-ˇs-k’e w-ayte} consequently RF-get.lost-PD-RD.MS RF-get.lost ‘So then they disappeared, they disappeared.’ 10. K’¨anuknk’on ¨ d´ıos k¨a-ut¨ ´ ashke k’aRuya g¨a-ut’ a¨ k¨anu; {qenkenk’en dios k-e:wet’e-ˇs-k’e k’aroʔ . . . ge:wt ʔay k’e-n naon} Sun god 3O.MS-send-PD-RD.MS hawk . . . land L look.around-IF BN ‘The Sun God then sent the hawk to look around on earth,’ 11. g´omshkent tu´al k’´aRo {k’om-ˇs-k’n t-wa:l k’aroʔ} not-PD-RD.NU 3S-come.back hawk ‘but the hawk did not come back.’ 12. g´omshkent x¨an a¨ -uk; tsh´ait x´atkan k’´or. {k’om-ˇs-k’n t-xeʔn ʔe:w-k’ cˇ ’ay-t(o) xa:t’e-k’n k’o:r} not-PD-RD.NU 3S-fly upward-AL, be.big-AV eat-RD.NU grass ‘He could not fly any more; he had eaten too much grass.’ 13. K’¨anuknk’on ¨ k¨a-ut¨ ´ ashken k´amk¨om; {qenkenk’en k-e:wet’e-ˇs-k’n kamk’om} sun 3O.FE-send-PD-RD.FE dove ‘Then the Sun God sent the dove.’ 14. k’´or a´ n¨ashk a¨ -uk k´amk¨om. {k’o:r ʔa:ne-ˇs-k’ ʔe:w-k’ kamk’om} grass bring-PD-RD upward-AL dove ‘The dove brought (a leaf of) grass upwards.’ 15. G¨a-ut a´ rshk¨an {ge:wt ʔa:r-ˇs-k’n} land be.dry-PD-RD.NU ‘Then the land was dry.’
7 The Spanish presence
Manuel Tenorio, over sixty years old, and a Quechua peasant from central Ecuador, recounts how he learned Spanish as a boy, on the job at the hacienda and during visits to the market town. When a white man came by on horseback, Manuel was obliged to say the greeting alabado sacramento ‘blessed (be the) Sacrament’ or alabado evangelio ‘blessed (be the) Gospel’, and was answered back alabado hijo ‘blessed (be the) Son’ (perhaps also ‘blessed, sonny’). However, as a Quechua speaker he had great difficulties with the vowels [e] and [o] (often pronouncing them as [i] and [u], respectively), and the punishment for mispronunciation was fierce, so he used to dive into the irrigation channel when he heard a horse approaching. Almost at the end of his life, in spite of years in the capital as a construction worker, his Spanish still shows many traces of his Indian background. The Spaniards have imposed their language in all their former colonies in the New World. Not only the immigrants from Europe speak Spanish, but the descendants of the African slaves and Chinese coolies, and a large part of the native Amerindian population as well. Nonetheless, the transplanted forms of the language have undergone many modifications, as in the speech of Manuel Tenorio, and the relationship between Spanish and the dominated Amerindian languages is a complex one. In this chapter we discuss various aspects of the relation between Spanish and the native languages of the Andes. We first look at Andean Spanish from a number of perspectives, and then at various dimensions of language planning and bilingual education. Other immigrant languages, such as Mennonite German and Japanese in Bolivia, Chinese in Peru, and Lebanese Arabic in different Andean countries, will not be discussed: they are characteristic of the New World as a whole rather than of the Andean nations. 7.1 Characteristics of Andean Spanish Andean Spanish can be approached from many perspectives. We will briefly discuss the relation of this variety to the dialects of the metropolis, before turning to issues such as the influence it may have undergone from Quechua and other Amerindian languages.
586
7 The Spanish presence
7.1.1 Demography and Iberian dialectal origins The question of which Iberian dialects contributed most to New World Spanish is a vexed one, but a modicum of consensus emerged in the 1970s, mainly due to work by Boyd-Bowman (e.g. 1973). There are several main issues: (a) The varieties of Spanish in the New World are much more homogeneous than the ones in Spain itself, in spite of the much wider geographical spread, the lack of interregional communication, the potential diversifying influence of Amerindian substratum languages, etc. This is part of a general phenomenon noticed by the anthropologist George Foster in his Culture and Conquest (1960), namely that export varieties of a culture represent only a limited subset of the cases of variation present in the source culture. Boyd-Bowman (1973) points to the fact that in the early period, 1490–1520, there may have been extensive dialect levelling in the Antilles, and that the mainland was populated from the islands. Also, the Canary Islands may have been a site for dialect levelling intermediate between Spain and the New World. From other studies of export varieties of European languages and from creole studies we know that often the early period in colonisation is decisive for the establishment of new linguistic norms. The levelling process may already have been started in Seville, the Spanish port through which the emigration stream was funnelled, and this brings us to the second issue. (b) A classic problem has always been that Latin American Spanish resembles the southern varieties of peninsular Spanish, particularly Andalucian Spanish, more than the standard in the sixteenth century, which was surely that of the court in Toledo and later Madrid, i.e. Castilian. We have already pointed to the role of Seville as the Atlantic port, but Boyd-Bowman’s main contribution lies in establishing that indeed the main body of emigrants to the New World was from the south. For the whole period 1493–1579, 35.8 per cent of the settlers came from Andalucia and 16.9 per cent from neighbouring Extremadura. The two Castiles together only provided 29.5 per cent. For the early period, the figures are even more striking. Thus between 1493 and 1519 the Seville province provided six times as many (1,259 of a total of 5,481) emigrants as the province of Toledo (208), and the nearby provinces Huelva, Badajoz and C´aceres provided another 1,174. If we look at women settlers, who may have played a crucial role in creating the new linguistic norms, between 1509 and 1519, when the New World society was being given shape, over half (of 308 total) were from Seville. This type of figure is fairly constant for the different Andean regions, although it is noted by Boyd-Bowman that Colombia and Venezuela had a somewhat higher proportion of settlers from the two Castiles than Peru. (c) A third main issue concerns the somewhat surprising fact that the lowland coastal areas tend to resemble Andalucian speech more directly than the highland areas, actually throughout Latin America. Boyd-Bowman (1973: 67) tentatively explains this in terms
7.1 Characteristics of Andean Spanish
587
of ‘a vast maritime empire the ports of which were linked by sea to Seville (and to each other) along trade routes controlled and maintained predominantly by Andalucian sailors and merchants’. The ensuing network may have had a more direct and enduring influence on the coastal areas around the ports than on the highland regions. 7.1.2 Linguistic features It has been said many times before, but systematic and reliable studies on varieties of South American Spanish are few and far between; cf. the critical evaluation by Lipski (1994) of a number of studies, as well as Fontanella de Weinberg (1976). The discussion of specific Andalucian dialect features has focused on phonology. The most striking feature, of course, shared by Latin America and southern Spain is the absence of the [θ]/[¸s] contrast (‘ceceo’ versus ‘seseo’) so characteristic of Castilian. Other features, such as aspiration and loss of word-final /s/, loss or weakening of intervocalic /d/, and merger of /ly / and /y/ (‘ye´ısmo’) can also be mentioned, but are characteristic of the coastal areas, not of the highlands. In addition, these features are not realised uniformly either in southern Spain or in Latin America, and in many places need more detailed study. The most immediately striking difference in the domain of morphosyntax concerns the second-person pronouns. Very roughly, the present situation in some places is as follows: (1) Spain 2.SG familiar: tu´ 2.SG polite: usted 2.PL familiar: vosotros/as 2.PL polite: ustedes
South America 2.SG familiar: vos 2.SG intimate: tu´ 2.SG polite: usted 2.PL ustedes
Here ‘intimate’ refers to respectful address in a close relationship, and with ‘familiar’ no particular respect is implied. The form vos was present in older peninsular Spanish as a polite second-personsingular pronoun, but has largely disappeared in Spain and in parts of Latin America, such as coastal Peru and Ecuador. In some areas (e.g. Argentina), t´u has been replaced almost entirely by vos, and there the original verbal inflections associated with the latter pronoun are preserved as well. Elsewhere, vos is used with the verbal inflections associated with t´u. In areas where both t´u and vos occur, the former is used in more formal contexts and the latter is often considered a sign of lack of a proper education. In parts of Colombia, finally, usted, the polite second-person-singular form elsewhere, is often called for in non-intimate but familiar contexts. There are a great many lexical differences both between the varieties of Spanish in the different countries of South America, and between this continent and Spain. These
588
7 The Spanish presence
Table 7.1 Major isoglosses in the Andean areas of Latin American Spanish (based on Zamora Munn´e and Guitart 1982)
IV. V. VI. VII.
Colombia except the coast Pacific coast of Ecuador and Colombia Coast of Peru, except the extreme south Rest of Ecuador and Peru, west and centre of Bolivia, northwest Argentina VIII. Chile
/s/
/x/
vos
+ – – +
– – – +
± ± – ±
–
+
±
need not concern us at the moment, although we will return to items borrowed from Amerindian languages. Zamora Munn´e and Guitart (1982) provide a fairly balanced and comprehensive account of some of the major dialectal divisions in Latin American Spanish. They base themselves on three diagnostic features, which constitute major isoglosses: (a) the retention (+) versus loss or aspiration (−) of final /s/; (b) the velar (+) or glottal (−) realisation of /x/; (c) general use of vos (+), of t´u (−), of both (±). For the regions that concern us most, they distinguish the five major dialect areas (with their numbering) listed in table 7.1. Surely other or finer divisions are imaginable, but the dialect splits outlined in table 7.1 correspond fairly well to global impressions of speakers of varieties of Andean Spanish. It should be stressed that thorough descriptive work of Andean Spanish dialects is uneven in quality and coverage (Bolivian Spanish, for instance, has been barely investigated); in addition, different studies have focused on widely different features. A classical study remains Kany’s (1945) survey of regional grammatical features in the different varieties of Latin American Spanish, based on written sources. Lipski (1994) provides an excellent country-by-country account of available studies. Perl and Schwegler (1998) survey the evidence for African influences on Ibero-American language varieties. Colombian Spanish is fairly well described, starting with the pioneering work of Rufino Jos´e Cuervo (1867) on the speech of Bogot´a. More recent studies include, for instance, de Granda’s interesting study of Afro-Hispanic speech varieties of the Colombian Pacific coast area (1977). Present-day Ecuadorian Spanish has been described most completely by Toscano Mateus (1953). There are considerable lexical and phonological differences between Coastal and Highland Spanish, on the one hand, and between educated urban Spanish and different rural varieties on the other. On the whole Ecuadorian Spanish conforms to the generalisation that holds for all varieties of South American Spanish: many archaic
7.2 Amerindian substratum influence
589
Peninsular features have been preserved, and the dominant dialectal influence has been the Andalucian dialects of southern Spain. The major source for Peruvian Spanish remains Benvenutto Murrieta (1936), although numerous articles and monographs have appeared on individual phenomena. Ana Mar´ıa Escobar (2000) surveys much current research on Peruvian Spanish, paying particular attention to semantic factors, and Rivarola (1985a, 1985b, 1986, 1987) has investigated the origins and development of Peruvian Andean Spanish. Another good general source is Klee (1996). Reliable information about Bolivian Spanish is rather limited. Building on an earlier study by Kany (1947), there is a brief but detailed phonetic study by Gordon (1980), showing that Bolivian Spanish cannot be simply subsumed under the varieties of neighbouring countries, dialectologically. Further, work by Herrero (1969) and Laprade (1981) argues that different varieties of Bolivian Spanish have undergone Quechua and Aymara substrate influence, respectively. The complex lexical interactions between Bolivian Quechua and Spanish are studied in Van Hout and Muysken (1994). Alb´o (1988b) documents the ‘llapuni’ Spanish of highland migrants to the tropical Santa Cruz area. For Chile the best recent source remains Oroz (1966). A dialect atlas of southern Chile was compiled under the direction of Guillermo Araya (Araya et al. 1973). An interesting study of mining vocabulary in northern Chile, which reveals the presence of several Quechua and Aymara words, is Parada et al. (1976). Mining vocabulary, incidentally, has also been studied, albeit in a rather amateurish way, in Bolivia, but this extremely rich subject, revelatory of the shaping of a mixed Amerindian–Hispanic technology and culture, still awaits a more definitive study. Quechua influence on the Spanish of northwestern Argentina has recently been studied by de Granda (1995, 1996, 1997a, b). 7.2 Amerindian substratum influence The possibility of various Amerindian languages influencing Andean Spanish has been a long-standing issue in Hispanicist scholarship, with important cultural implications as well. When the new republics gained independence from Spain in the 1830s, an important link to the old metropolis, but also something linking the young nations themselves, was the Spanish language. This led to a set of contradictory attitudes. On the one hand, the unity of Latin America, the old dream of Sim´on Bol´ıvar, was best maintained through a unified Spanish, and thus directly a continuation of the metropolitan norm. If each new nation were left to its own devices, it was felt, the Spanish of the Americas would fragment just as Vulgar Latin had in the Dark Ages. On the other hand, the Latin Americans felt a need to express, in their language, both a distance from Spain and the many particular features of the New World and of the area they inhabited and were trying to forge into a country.
590
7 The Spanish presence Table 7.2 Types of speakers of Spanish that may show influence from Quechua (A) Quechua speakers learning Spanish (B) Stable Quechua–Spanish bilinguals (C) Spanish monolinguals living in bilingual communities (D) Spanish monolinguals living in bilingual regions (E) Spanish monolinguals living in bilingual countries
It is against this background that we must see the debates about possible Amerindian influences on Andean Spanish (for a general account of the role of language ideology see Woolard and Schieffelin 1994). But there is more. The Spanish colonial empire was founded on the assumption that what is Hispanic has inherent value, and what is native is worthless if not downright ungodly. It is not until the indigenista movements of the 1920s that the Amerindian heritage was recognised as worthwhile, not just for the Indian peasants themselves, but for the countries in general. There have been discussions in the literature about various cases of Amerindian language influence on Spanish. Araucanian influence on Chilean Spanish, was proposed by Lenz (1893) (cf. chapter 5). Similarly, several studies have focused on Aymara influence on the Spanish of the Bolivian altiplano (Hardman 1981). Nonetheless, the main debate has focused on Quechua influence, and this is what we will concentrate on here, mentioning Aymara only in passing. Given the many structural and semantic parallels between these two languages (cf. chapter 3), it would be surprising if the influence of Quechua and Aymara on Spanish in southern Peru and Bolivia had not led to mutual reinforcement. When we consider Quechua influence on Spanish, the picture is quite complex, since much depends on which variety of Spanish is meant: the Spanish of the whole central Andes, of the areas where Quechua is or was spoken, of lower-class mestizos in those areas, or of Quechua–Spanish bilinguals? Taking the whole central Andes is too wide, yet taking just bilinguals is too narrow, we believe. There are also considerable regional and national differences. Finally, it depends what aspect of the language is considered. Schematically, the Spanish of the different speaker types is shown in table 7.2. On the whole, these categories are arranged implicationally: if a Quechua feature occurs with speakers of type (D), it will also occur in (B), but not necessarily vice-versa. However, we will see that in some cases Quechua influence exerts itself in the Spanish speech of stable bilinguals, while the same feature is not present in the speech of incipient bilinguals. Lexically, the influence of Quechua on Spanish has been slight, limited to the domains of agriculture, food, flora and fauna, the household and clothing, musical folklore,
7.2 Amerindian substratum influence
591
Table 7.3 Sprachbund phenomena in the pronunciation of liquids and vibrants in different varieties of Quechua and Spanish in Ecuador
North South North South
Quechua
Spanish
Quechua
Spanish
[ˇz] [ly ] [ˇz. ], [ˇr] [rr]
[ˇz] [ly ] [ˇz. ], [ˇr] [rr]
[aˇzi] ‘good’ [aly i] [ˇz. iŋri], [ˇrinri] ‘ear’ [rriŋri]
[poˇzo] ‘chicken’ [poly o] [peˇz. o], [peˇro] ‘dog’ [perro]
popular religion and illnesses. The vast majority of borrowed elements are nouns, such as llama, alpaca and chacra ‘field’. There are a handful of derived verbs, such as yapar ‘to add a bit (in a sales transaction)’, chimbar ‘to cross’, pircar ‘build a wall of stones and adobe’ and chancar ‘to flatten’, an occasional adverb such as pite pite ‘bit by bit’, and exclamatives such as achachay ‘brrr, cold’ (Buesa Oliver 1965). A few Quechua words have gained acceptance beyond Spanish, such as English jerky from charki ‘dried meat’ and Louisiana French la-gnappe ‘small added bit’ from the above-mentioned yapa. Mej´ıas (1980) has shown that there were Quechua lexical items used in Spanish from the sixteenth century onwards; their number gradually increased, at least until the eighteenth century. Lexical influence is the only type of Quechua influence of type (E) in the scheme above. Of course, it varies a great deal in terms of region, type of speaker, setting and domain, etc. The lexical influence of Aymara has been somewhat more limited in its diffusion. In La Paz Spanish many Aymara words are used, such as chusca ‘square carrying cloth’, imilla ‘girl’, colla ‘inhabitant of the altiplano’ and cala ‘stone’ (Laprade 1981), but these are not known much outside the region. An important issue mentioned by Laprade concerns lexical semantic influence exercised by Amerindian languages on Spanish. A case in point is pie, which in metropolitan Spanish means ‘foot’, but under the influence of Aymara kayu has come to refer to most of the leg. This same phenomenon merits detailed investigation in the case of Quechua influence on Spanish as well. On the phonological level, the one case of Quechua influence on Spanish reported by all authors is the pronunciation of /o/ as [u] and of /e/ as [i]. More precisely, we encounter fusion of /e/ and /i/ into something varying between [e] and [i], and of /o/ and /u/ into something varying between [o] and [u]. Quechua-speakers may pronounce pero ‘but’ as [piru], but also cubicar ‘make into a cube’ as [kobekar], due to hypercorrection. This influence, though general in the whole Quechua-speaking Andes, is limited, however, to (A) and (B). Even lower-class mestizo monolinguals do not have it. In Ecuador, there are two interesting sprachbund or convergence phenomena, both involving liquids, as shown in table 7.3. In the northern part of the Ecuadorian highlands the palatalised [ly ], which is widely found in Andean Spanish and in Quechua,
592
7 The Spanish presence
is pronounced as a voiced palatal sibilant in the local dialects of both languages, and the Spanish trilled [rr] (with its Quechua equivalent in word-initial position) is a voiced retroflex fricative or an assibilated retroflex vibrant. Notice that it cannot be plausibly claimed that Quechua influenced Spanish here, since the more conservative varieties of Quechua (here represented by the south of Ecuador) do not possess the features in question. Syntactically and semantically, Quechua may have had some influence on the monolingual highland varieties of rural Spanish (C and D), in addition to stamping the bilingual varieties. If we try to imagine how this influence was exerted, the most plausible scenario is one of second-language learning by Quechua speakers in a sociolinguistically complex environment. The particular stratification of variable elements within the Spanish target-language speech community affects the process of acquisition of these elements. This stratification is crucial because it may reflect, in part, stages of interrupted or incomplete L2 acquisition at an earlier point in time. As time goes on, the products of intermediate and advanced interlanguage grammars (A and B) are incorporated into the native speech community (C and D), but most often as vernacular, non-standard forms. In a synchronic perspective, then, native speakers of the target vernacular end up producing outputs which seem like interlanguage outputs. The particular interlanguage features which come to be adopted as non-standard features in the Spanish target speech community serve as models, at a later stage, for new learners. L´opez and Jung (1989) show how non-standard features are present in primary school in the speech of the local teachers with bilingual backgrounds. The process of selection and adoption of these features, however, may be governed by factors such as superficial resemblance to native language features. This selection and adoption may result in a situation in which two speech communities may have different vernacular varieties, while they result from the interaction and contact of the same L1 and L2. We will illustrate this by comparing the acquisition of Spanish by Quechua speakers in different regions of the Andes. Quite different forms of Spanish vernacular have emerged in the different contexts, making a simple prediction on the basis of a contrastive analysis of Quechua and Spanish implausible. The existing literature on non-standard Spanish, as used in regions with Quechua– Spanish bilingualism, is by now quite extensive, but little of it is based on accountable and rigorous data. Most studies deal with Peru. We will take the situation of Peruvian Andean Spanish as our frame of reference and contrast it with what is known of other areas. The main grammatical constructions and semantic features mentioned are listed in table 7.4. We will discuss the features in table 7.4 one by one.
7.2 Amerindian substratum influence
593
Table 7.4 Features claimed to be due to Quechua in different varieties of Spanish a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.
Double possessives Clitic usage Object–verb sequences Irregular gender and number concord, and irregular verb morphology The redundant use of the preposition en ‘in’ in locative expressions The frequent use of gerunds Sentential particles and discourse organisation Semantics of tense, notably of the sudden discovery tense
A. Double possessives are a good case to start with. They occur in examples such as (Lozano 1975): (2) Era su amiga de Juan. it.was 3P girlfriend of John ‘It was John’s girlfriend.’ (Type I) (3) Se quem´o del joven su pantal´on. RF it.burned of.the young.man 3P trousers ‘The young man’s trousers burned.’ (Type II) Note that in the first example the possessor noun, Juan, follows the possessed noun, amiga, while in the second one the order is the reverse. In both, there is a possessor noun as well as the possessive pronoun su. Lozano (1975), based on material from Ayacucho, south-central Peru, is not very explicit about his data base, and describes different aspects of Ayacucho rural Spanish deviant from Lima standard Spanish, focusing on the question of possible influence from Quechua. Lozano does not report on the frequencies of the constructions described or on the issue of whether they typify monolingual vernacular or bilingual Spanish. He concludes (1975: 304) that all cases are traceable, at least indirectly, to Quechua interference. However, the ways in which the innovations have been formed are varied and complex. While Lozano (1975) makes strong claims concerning the influence of Quechua on bilingual Spanish, Puente (1978) would like to limit this influence to subordinate bilinguals, more proficient in Quechua than in Spanish. Puente’s work is based on observations from Huancayo, central Peru, and Ayacucho, south-central Peru. Puente claims that type II sentences are more frequent with compound bilinguals. Rodr´ıguez Garrido (1982) argues that type I, with a following possessor noun, is characteristic of Peruvian Spanish in general, and an archaic construction. It is absent
594
7 The Spanish presence
with anything but persons or at least animate beings, and then limited to the third person. We do not find: (4) a. ∗ su ladrillo del muro 3P brick of.the wall ‘the brick of the wall’ b. ∗ mi casa de m´ı my house of me ‘my house (of mine)’ These restrictions are absent in type II, which is limited to the strong Quechua area of the southern highlands, and surprisingly, to Amazon Spanish, and here Rodr´ıguez Garrido claims that Quechua influence is likely. In Ecuadorian Spanish the situation is quite different. In recordings of an early bilingual we find twenty-six cases of possessed NP de possessor NP, as in vecino de Francisco ‘neighbour of Francisco’. In addition there was one case of possessor/possessed: Francisco casa (rather than la casa de Francisco) ‘Francisco’s house’, and one case of a noun preceded by the noun it is supposed to identify, but without the preposition de: diez Tigua ‘ten from Tigua’ (rather than diez de Tigua). Other speakers in the recordings sample show a large predominance of standard structures, and very few deviant examples. Interestingly enough, the construction mentioned in the Peruvian research literature involving the redundant possessive pronoun su is entirely lacking. It is very possible that the absence of the double genitive in Ecuadorian Spanish is due to its absence in Ecuadorian Quechua. Compare the following examples: (5) a. Peru Juan-pa mama-n John-G mother-3P ‘John’s mother’ b. Ecuador Juan-pak mama John-G mother ‘John’s mother’
de Juan su madre of John 3P mother ‘John’s mother’ la madre de Juan the mother of John ‘John’s mother’
In the Peruvian case, the possessed noun receives a third-person marker -n, which corresponds semantically to the ‘redundant’ su. This marker is absent in Ecuador. The differences within Quechua do not explain the differences between the two countries, however, for possessor/possessed order, unless we would argue that the presence of su makes it possible in Peru to interpret the possessor phrase de Juan as sort of leftdislocated within the whole nominal constituent containing the possessed phrase, thus
7.2 Amerindian substratum influence
595
maintaining a seeming parallelism with the Quechua word order. Similar left-dislocated possessors are found in many other languages, e.g. Papiamentu Wanchu su kas ‘John’s house’. De Granda (1997a) claims that the Peruvian pattern is found in northwestern Argentina as well. B. Clitic usage is a more complicated issue. While deviant object clitic usage has often been linked to Quechua influence, neither the phenomenon itself nor the possible Quechua source are very well circumscribed. The phenomenon includes redundant lo object clitics in relative clauses, as in: (6) el hombre que lo v´ı the man that 3O.MS.SG I.saw ‘the man that I saw’ The use of a resumptive pronoun rather than a gap strategy in relative clauses may well be a result of surface simplification in a context of extensive bilingualism. A second type of example involves lo in main clauses, marking emphasis. Haboud de Ortega (1985), a rich but mostly descriptive study based on material from San Pedro de Casta, Huarochir´ı, Peru, contains examples such as: (7) Usted lo siembra la papa con su abono y todo. you.CS 3O.MS.SG sow the potato(FE.SG) with 3P fertiliser and all ‘You sow the potatoes with their fertiliser and everything.’ Godenzzi (1986), an analysis of object clitic usage based on recordings from Puno, southern Peru, gives many examples as well (see also Godenzzi 1992): (8)
Lo ve´ıa las armas. 3O.MS.SG (s)he.saw the weapons(FE.PL) ‘(S)he saw the weapons.’
Cerr´on-Palomino (personal communication) suggests that redundant lo in Central Peruvian Spanish is both formally and semantically related to the Quechua perfective verbal suffix -rqu-, which is pronounced as [ʔlu] in some dialects (cf. section 3.2.6). The suffix -rqu- often has a telic interpretation, implying some action with respect to an object. The formal similarity is limited to the Huanca region, but the semantic similarity may have caused a correspondence in a much wider area. A third cluster of phenomena includes the absence of an object clitic when its referent has been mentioned immediately before, in the same clause or in the discourse context: (9) Nuestra musica ´ no podemos dejar de lado. our music(FE.SG) not we.can to.leave of side ‘We cannot leave our music aside.’
[compare dejarla to.leave.3O.FE.SG]
596
7 The Spanish presence
Stratford (1989: 115) states that this is common for all kinds of speakers, monolingual and bilingual, urban and rural, alike. She also notes that the presence of another clitic, for instance, se, is a favourable environment for direct object omission. De Granda (1996) argues that absence of object clitics is frequent in northwestern Argentinian Spanish as well. There is frequent clitic doubling: (10)
Lo veo a Juan. 3O.MS.SG I.see DA John ‘I see John.’
[compare Veo a Juan. I.see DA John ‘I see John.’]
Furthermore, gender (lo/la) and number (le/lo, les/los) distinctions are often confused: (11)
Lo veo a Maria. 3O.MS.SG I.see DA Mar´ıa ‘I see Mar´ıa.’
[compare La veo . . . 3O.FE.SG I.see . . . ‘I see her (Mar´ıa).’]
Note that here the ‘doubled’ clitic lo, which is analysed as masculine in standard Spanish, does not agree with the object, Mar´ıa, in gender. Ana Mar´ıa Escobar (1990), in a study of deixis, location, and object marking in the speech of bilinguals from Ayacucho, south-central Peru, looks at clitics in some detail, as well. Camacho et al. (1995) argue that the clitic lo in inalienable possessor constructions in Andean Spanish, as in (12), is a case of genitive clitic doubling: (12)
Lo amarran su pata del condor. 3O.SG.MS they.tie 3P leg(FE) of.the condor ‘They tie the condor’s leg.’
In Ecuador we find that clitics are used rather unsystematically in rural Spanish, and particularly that third-person object clitics such as le are often absent. This feature is characteristic of the vernacular in general, and corresponds to Lozano’s observation that third-person clitics are absent when their referent has been previously mentioned. Again, -rqu- is not present in Ecuadorian Quechua, which could lead to an explanation for the absence of lo in interlanguage and in the vernacular. Still, Cerr´on-Palomino’s explanation is too dialect-specific and does not cover all the occurrences of lo. More probable is that the fact that Ecuadorian Spanish is extremely leista, i.e. does not have lo as a verbal clitic at all, accounts for the absence of lo in Ecuadorian Quechua–Spanish interlanguage.
7.2 Amerindian substratum influence
597
It is clear from the discussion so far that the use of lo in Andean Spanish is a multifaceted phenomenon, and needs more investigation. C. Object–verb sequences have been frequently noted. Very characteristic of Andean Spanish are sentences such as: (13) A Juan conoc´ı. DA John I.knew ‘I knew John.’ (‘I made his acquaintance.’) Here the object often precedes the verb, which is a marked pattern in standard Spanish. Luj´an, Minaya and Sankoff (1981), using data from Cuzco, southern Peru (cf. also Minaya and Luj´an, 1982), primarily study word-order phenomena such as the OV orders in the light of typological universals. In contrast to Lozano and Puente, their study is based on children’s speech (three 5-, three 7- and three 9-year-olds, recorded one hour each, in an informal classroom setting) and provides quantitative data. The variables studied are both verb/object, adjective/noun, and possessor/possessed order. The results show that the 5-year-olds in the sample show 51 per cent SOV, 64 per cent possessor/possessed, and 91 per cent adjective/noun order, as in la bonita casa ‘the pretty house’. Further, for the other age groups there is a regular decrease of these word orders, which are slowly being replaced by the word orders characterising the regional standard: the 9-year-olds show only 30 per cent SOV, 33 per cent possessor/possessed and 38 per cent adjective/noun orders. Luj´an et al. claim that the pattern they find is the only one possible, given the typological characteristics of both Quechua and Spanish and the universal consistency hypothesis proposed by Hawkins (1979). Crucial is that the transition from possessor/possessed to the reverse cannot take place without a transition from SOV to SVO; otherwise implicational universals are violated. Finally, Luj´an et al. mention a type of construction where the verb is doubled, producing a type of SVOV order: (14) Conozco a los cabritos conozco. I.know DA the little.goats I.know ‘I know the little goats.’ Courtney (2000) argues that this duplication pattern is visible in Quechua itself, and is in fact a pragmatic strategy to denote emphasis. It occurs with elements other than verbs: (15) Y ya no es loco ya. and already not he.is crazy already ‘And he isn’t crazy any more.’
598
7 The Spanish presence
It is even possible to duplicate the element in a different language. In (16) kan is taken from Quechua, while the form it duplicates, hay, is Spanish: (16) Hay bastante-s fiesta-s ka-n. there.is enough-PL holiday-PL be-3S ‘There are many holidays.’ In recorded Ecuadorian spoken Spanish, there is also a tendency for highly frequent OV orders to be associated with Quechua–Spanish bilinguals, and VO order with middleclass Spanish monolinguals (Muysken 1984). This accords, in principle, with the main thrust of the findings of Luj´an et al., but it is striking that in all the recorded material there is no single case of a true SOV sequence, i.e. one with both subject and object present. What we find is OVS, OV, OSV, i.e. all cases where the order of the object preceding the verb could be due to object fronting, for focus: (17) a. Papas comi´o. potatoes he.ate ‘He ate potatoes.’ b. Papas Juan comi´o. potatoes John he.ate ‘John ate potatoes.’ c. Papas comi´o, Juan. potatoes he.ate John ‘John ate potatoes.’ ∗ d. Juan papas comi´o. John potatoes he.ate ‘John potatoes ate.’ Example (17d) is excluded because it is not possible in Spanish, even though it directly reflects the usual Quechua order. Thus the word-order correspondence between rural Spanish and Quechua may be one of superficial resemblance (in the OV sequences), rather than of deap-seated structural congruence. The case could still be made for Quechua influence, through the increased incidence of word orders permitted in Spanish that are similar to Quechua. No cases of verb doubling have been noted so far in Ecuadorian Quechua. D. Irregular gender and number concord and irregular article usage are highly frequent, particularly in bilingual or lower-class monolingual speech. In Ecuador as well as Peru, plurals are only infrequently marked. Note that in Quechua, in contrast to Spanish, plural marking is optional. Definite and indefinite articles are frequently not present where they would be expected in regional standard contexts. This feature, while needing much more study, appears to be characteristic of vernacular Spanish in the area in general.
7.2 Amerindian substratum influence
599
Verb marking is highly irregular. In clear first-person-singular contexts, we find thirdperson forms, first-person-plural forms and irregular forms for ‘I went’: (18) ju-´e jui-mos jui-ndo
went-3S.SG went-1S.PL went-GR
‘he went’ ‘we went’ ‘going’ (lit. ‘went-ing’)
While other bilingual speakers in the community also show some cases of irregular verb marking, this is not a feature of non-standard Spanish on the whole, and it disappears rapidly with more advanced speakers. E. Preposition usage shows seemingly contradictory tendencies for different groups of speakers. Puente (1978) notes cases such as (19), in which a locative adverb is redundantly preceded by a locative preposition: (19) En all´ı est´a creciendo la lena. ˜ in there is growing the firewood ‘There trees for firewood are growing.’ The Ecuadorian recorded Spanish data suggest that this feature may be due to Quechua semantic influence, but it is not present in early interlanguage. 36 per cent of the prepositions obligatory in Spanish (39 out of 109 cases) have been deleted. This concerns primarily locative en (16 out of 33 cases) and directional a (17 out of 22 cases). This tendency diminishes quickly for the more advanced bilinguals, who may well extend the locative use of Quechua, where place adverbs (non-distinct from deictics) are marked with the demonstrative as well, to Spanish all´ı ‘there’. In Quechua we have chay-pi (/-L) F. Gerunds have been frequently noted, e.g. by Toscano Matteus (1953), Muysken (1984), Ni˜no-Murcia (1995) and Haboud (1996, 1998), who documents the use of the gerundive perfective construction by broad sectors of the population for Ecuador, by Cerr´on-Palomino (1972, 1976c, 1981) for Peru, and by de Granda (1995) for northwestern Argentina. Examples from incipient bilinguals in Ecuador are: (20) Ya desyerbar terminando, a la yerba lo llevado a la casa. already to.weed finishing, DA the weed(FE) 3O.SG taken to the house ‘Having already finished weeding, I took the weeds to the house.’ (21) Yo saliendo de la escuela mi de entrar en colegio. I leaving of the school me/my of to.enter in high.school ‘After leaving school I am going to enter high school.’ Menges (1980), the first bilingual acquisition study carried out in Ecuador, is based on the application of a culturally adapted and expanded bilingual syntax measure to twelve
600
7 The Spanish presence
Indian and twelve non-Indian first graders. The variable studied is the form and function of the main verb, whether in inflected, infinitive, or gerund form. The analysis of the interview data indicated that the Indian L2 learners were operating with a simplified verb system having the gerund as its base form (1980: 105). For stable bilinguals, the gerund is not so much the base form for main-clause verb usage, but rather a marker for adverbial clauses. G. A number of studies draw attention to sentential particles. There are cases of the Quechua topic marker -ka occurring in Ecuadorian Spanish: (22) Ah´ı-ka barrio chiquito. there-TO village small ‘Over there is a small village.’ (23) Quedamos-ka lo que da la gana come hago. we.stay-TO 3O.SG what gives the feeling eat I.make ‘If we stay, I will prepare to eat whatever comes to our minds.’ More prevalent are Spanish sentential particles used in a Quechua-derived or Quechualike fashion. We find enclitic tan (from Spanish tambi´en ‘also’) as a negative emphatic marker or as an indefinite marker in Ecuador: (24) a. nada m´as-tan nothing more-AD ‘nothing else’ b. Onde-tan has ido? where-AD you.have gone ‘Wherever did you go to?’ ?
This use of tan directly resembles the semantic range of Quechua -pis/-pas ‘and, also, indefinite, emphatic’. It may well be that the way tan is used is a calque on Quechua. Just like the topic marker -ka, this phenomenon is not limited to bilinguals, but it certainly is stigmatised as lower-class rural speech. Laprade mentions a number of particles occurring in La Paz Spanish the use of which may have been influenced by Aymara (1981: 216–19), such as no m´as ‘just’, and pues ‘then’. An example of the latter would be: ?
(25)
Qu´e cosa pues quieres? what thing then you.want ‘What then do you want?’
The trouble is that these elements have such a wide diffusion in rural Spanish that much more specific argumentation than given would be needed to make their Aymara base conclusive.
7.2 Amerindian substratum influence
601
Another problem is that Aymara and Quechua have so many structural and semantic parallels, as was shown in chapter 3, that the use of many elements in Spanish could be influenced by both or either language. A case in point is the Spanish pluperfect to mark the sudden discovery tense, something to which we will turn shortly, and the use of siempre ‘always’ in the sense of ‘after all’, as in: (26) Tengo que irme siempre. I.have that to.go.away.1O.SG always ‘I have to go after all.’ This feature has been reported for La Paz Spanish by Laprade (1981: 218), as modelled on the Aymara emphatic marker -pini/-puni, and for Cochabamba Spanish by Herrero (1969), as modelled on Quechua -puni. In this case, substrate influences from various languages may have reinforced one another. Another source for the use of siempre could be the Quechua suffix -raq, generally glossed as ‘still’. On the precise meaning of siempre and other discourse markers in different Andean regions more comparative study is needed. A case where specific Aymara influence may be involved is the use of pero ‘but’ in sentence-final position (Laprade 1981: 219), as in: !
(27)
Ya hablas aymara pero! already you.speak Aymara but ‘But you speak Aymara already!’
The source for this usage would be the Aymara objector suffix -raki. H. In all varieties of Quechua there is a special tense to mark events which took place unbeknownst to the speaker; Adelaar (1977) terms this the sudden discovery tense, marked with -sqa or a similar form. It is used in narrative but also to express surprise, etc. In Andean Spanish the category is expressed with present perfect haber with past participle (Ecuador) or pluperfect haber with past participle (Peru and Bolivia): (28) a. (Ecuador) b.(Peru and Bolivia) Qu´e rico ha sido! Qu´e rico hab´ıa sido! how good it.has been how good it.had been ‘This is really good! (said to the host)’ !
!
This concludes a preliminary survey of possible Amerindian features in Andean Spanish. The data are sometimes contradictory between different studies and a far from clear picture emerges. This may be due to differences in focus of research and data-collection procedures, to differences between the varieties of Quechua involved, or to differences in the selection of interlanguage features which are absorbed into the vernacular.
602
7 The Spanish presence
The convergence process, which results from bilingualism over a long period of time, provides a way for the L2 learner to structure his interlanguage grammar. Where no linguistic convergence between Quechua and Spanish has taken place (e.g. person– number marking, marking of grammatical relations, subordination), the L2 learner will produce idiosyncratic and irregular forms of interlanguage structures, involving deletion, overgeneralisations, paratactic structures and the like. Where we do find convergence phenomena (word order, gerunds, tense marking to some extent), the acquisition process is more regular: the L2 learner falls quickly into the groove as it were, and starts to behave as a member of a speech community. We hope the discussion of individual variables has substantiated this distinction. 7.3
Language mixture and pidginisation in the Andes and the Amazon basin Several contact varieties have emerged out of the intermixing between Spanish and the native languages. We will briefly mention two of them here: Media Lengua, spoken in various parts of Ecuador, and Amazon Spanish pidgin. The variety of Media Lengua (lit. ‘half language’ or ‘halfway language’) described here is spoken in parts of the province of Cotopaxi in central Ecuador (Muysken 1979, 1981b, 1986, 1997a). Other varieties have been documented for Ca˜nar and Saraguro in southern Ecuador. Linguistically speaking, Media Lengua is essentially Quechua with the vast majority of its stems replaced by Spanish forms. This process of replacement is commonly called relexification. Two examples of Media Lengua utterances are given below, with the (b) examples presenting the regional Quechua equivalent, and the (c) examples the regional Spanish equivalent. (29) a. Unu fabur-ta pidi-nga-bu bini-xu-ni. one favour-AC ask-FN-B come-PR-1S.SG ‘I come to ask you a favour.’ b. sˇuk fabur-da many a-nga-bu sˇamu-xu-ni. one favour-AC ask-FN-B come-PR-1S.SG ‘I come to ask you a favour.’ c. Vengo para pedir un favor. I.come in.order.to ask.IF one favour ‘I come to ask you a favour.’
(Media Lengua)
(Quechua)
(Spanish)
It is clear that (a) has resulted from putting the phonological shapes of the words in (c) into the lexical entries in (b). Thus sˇuk is replaced by unu, man y a- by pidi-, etc. Several things should be noted. First, we get an emphatic form of the indefinite article in Media Lengua, unu, rather than Spanish unemphatic un. Second, the Spanish irregular verb
7.3 Language mixture and pidginisation
603
form vengo appears in a regularised stem form bini. Third, the Quechua rule voicing the accusative case marker -ta to -da after fabur has not applied in Media Lengua; Quechua dialectological evidence suggests that this is a recent rule. Fourth, what is peculiar about Media Lengua is not so much that it contains Spanish words (many dialects of Quechua do as well), but that all Quechua words, including all core vocabulary, have been replaced. Fifth, the Spanish forms have been adapted phonologically to Quechua; mid vowels have been replaced by high vowels. Quechua word order and morphology have been retained. A similar example is: (30) a. Kuyi-buk yirba nuwabi-ˇska guinea.pig-B grass not.be.there-SD.3S.SG ‘There turns out to be no grass for the guinea-pigs.’ b. Kuyi-buk kh iwa ily a-ˇska guinea.pig-B grass not.be.there-SD.3S.SG ‘There turns out to be no grass for the guinea-pigs.’ c. No hay hierba para los cuyes not there.is grass for the guinea.pigs ‘There is no grass for the guinea-pigs.’
(Media Lengua)
(Quechua)
(Spanish)
Note that the Quechua word kuyi ‘guinea-pig’ appears in the local Spanish as well. The Media Lengua verb maintains the Quechua-specific sudden discovery tense marking -ˇska. The Quechua negative existential verb stem il y a- has been relexified with a newly formed ‘frozen’ stem nuwabi-, derived from Spanish no and haber ‘have’. The Spanish verb ‘have’ has an impersonal form hay which also has existential meaning. These examples illustrate that: (a) Media Lengua is essentially the product of replacing the phonological shapes of Quechua stems with Spanish forms, maintaining the rest of the Quechua structure; (b) The Spanish forms chosen have undergone regularisation and adaptation to Quechua morphophonology. (c) Media Lengua is conservative in sometimes reflecting earlier stages in Quechua pronunciation. (d) It is not made up on the spot every time it is spoken. (e) The occurrence of Spanish strong alternants such as unu in stead of un, and of frozen composites such as nuwabi- is an indication that we do not have a simple process of vocabulary replacement here. The Amazon Spanish pidgin, although clearly showing non-Spanish (possibly Shuar) features, is more the result of simplification than of relexification. There were and are Spanish pidgins spoken in the western Amazon basin, and also by the Cayapa on the
604
7 The Spanish presence
Pacific coast in northern Ecuador. Simson (1886) in a travel account and Gnerre (1975) have provided some data on varieties of this pidgin. Sample sentences are: (31) Ese canoa andando Consacunti cuando ser´a llegando ese Tonantins tiene? that canoe going (to) Consacunti when will.be arriving that Tonantins has.got (roughly) ‘This canoe going along to the Consacunti when will it be reaching the Tonantins?’ (32) Ese Consacunti, Carapan´a llegando, m´as.lejos ser´a tiene ese Carapan´a, Tonantins llegando? that Consacunti Carapan´a arriving farther will.be has.got that Carapan´a Tonantins arriving (roughly) ‘Arriving in Consacunti and Carapan´a, will it be further from Carapan´a to Tonantins?’ (33) Tuyo no sabiendo lena ˜ cortando. yours not knowing wood cutting ‘You do not know how to cut wood.’ Features that can be identified on the basis of Gnerre’s and Simson’s pidgin data are that the verb is in the gerundive form and a verb form est´a meaning ‘to be, to be characterised by’. In Simson’s data it is not the verb estar that is overgeneralised in its use, but rather the future of the verb ser, i.e. ser´a lit. ‘he will be’. There is SOV word order, with the main sentence verb following the subordinate sentence verb (consistent with SOV basic order). Prepositions tend to be absent. We find the generalised use of Spanish tiene ‘has got’, probably as an emphatic marker. The Spanish demonstrative pronoun ese ‘that’ is used as definite marker. While in Gnerre’s data the second-person pronoun is vos ‘(informal) you’, Simson has tuyo ‘(intimate) yours’. 7.4 African influences From the very beginning, the Spanish conquistadores brought African slaves with them to the Andes. While the black population did not become the dominant one, as in the Caribbean, Africans were forcibly settled in most Andean countries. This includes not only Venezuela and Colombia, where their presence and influence is clearest, but also the coastal regions of Peru and Ecuador, and, for instance, the silver mines of Potos´ı in Bolivia, at an altitude of over 4,000 metres. While only one clearly distinct new language emerged out of African slavery in the area we are concerned with, Palenquero, other varieties of Spanish in different regions clearly display African traits. Romero (1988) shows that this influence on the Peruvian Spanish lexicon has been quite extensive.
7.5 Language planning and bilingual education
605
Palenquero is spoken in one village near Cartagena in northern Colombia, San Basilio del Palenque (Friedemann and Pati˜no 1983; Megenney 1986). It descends from the language spoken by the slaves who built the fortifications of Cartagena during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, and a group of whom escaped in 1603. Isolation has helped maintain the language, but now all remaining speakers are bilingual. Indeed, many utterances contain Spanish elements (given in capitals in the fragment presented here; Bickerton and Escalante 1970): (34) no. ma´ılo mi kel´e nu. EL NO ME kel´e mi as´ına. w´eno ki i par´ı un mon´a TO LOS A . . . anda, panda ga´ına, ke ta kum´e to al´o no. husband me want not. he not me want me like that. good that I bear a child all the y . . . go on, scare hen, that is eat all rice ‘No. My husband does not want it. He does not like me like that. It is good that I bear a child every year. . . . Go on, chase the hen away, it eats all the rice.’ It is clear that the basic vocabulary derives from Spanish, but there is also an important Bantu component (Bickerton and Escalante 1970). In the coastal regions of southern Colombia and northern Ecuador, Nari˜no and Esmeraldas, respectively, non-standard Afro-American varieties of Spanish, are spoken. Lipski (1987) considers these as non-creoles; they are only different from other varieties of local Spanish in non-core lexicon and pronunciation, and even in the latter have many features of coastal (Andalucian) Spanish in general. However, the variety spoken by descendants of slaves of highland Jesuit plantations in the Chota valley, Imbabura and Carchi provinces in northern Ecuador, does exhibit a few remnants which point to a creole or partly creolised antecessor. First, -s is often deleted word-finally, but not in other contexts, while in coastal Spanish it is frequently aspirated or deleted in all contexts. At the same time, the non-Afro-American surrounding varieties of highland Spanish exhibit no s-deletion to speak of. Furthermore, there are cases of improper agreement both in the noun phrase and in the verb phrase. These are characteristic of Quechua– Spanish bilinguals, as we have seen, but not of monolinguals such as the chote˜nos. From all this, Lipski (1987) concludes that we must distinguish between traits which AfroAmerican Spanish may simply have inherited from coastal Spanish in general, and cases where there is evidence for antecedent creole varieties, the case in point being the Chota valley. 7.5
Language planning and policy with respect to the Amerindian languages and to bilingual education The various Andean countries differ in the legal status of the native languages, both due to the ethnic constitution of the different nations and to their political systems and degree of ethnic mobilisation. Nonetheless, it should be clear that everywhere the Amerindian
606
7 The Spanish presence
languages are oppressed, to use Alb´o’s term (1977). In spite of the secondary role that some Amerindian language may play, the dominant role is reserved for Spanish (see L´opez and Jung 1998 for a useful overview). It should not be forgotten, and this is stressed again by Jung (1991), that a so-called ‘minority language problem’ is really a problem of the majority, and of the degree to which this majority is willing to accommodate and respect other languages. Bilingualism is all too often a one-sided affair, with speakers of a dominated language learning the dominant one, and not the other way around. When we talk about bilingual education for native groups in the Andes, two distinctions are quite important. (a) Projects are experimental in status, and cease when the evaluation has been completed or when the funding has dried up. Programmes are more permanent, and reflect the commitment of educational planning authorities towards a given practice. (b) In transitional models the non-dominant language has an intermediate role, primarily to help the child adjust to the dominant ‘national’ culture and language, which are diffused through the schools. Often use of the Amerindian language will be limited to a few subjects in the first three years or so. In maintenance models the educational programme is geared towards the stimulation of the non-dominant language and culture. Use of the Amerindian language will be much more extensive and continues through the years of schooling. This requires both more widespread literacy in the Amerindian languages and the development of these languages as written languages (L´opez and Jung 1987, 1998). Hornberger (1988, 1989) discusses the complex role of education, even if conducted in the native language, in Amerindian communities. We will return to some general issues after surveying the situation in the different Andean countries. Venezuela. In Venezuela roughly 1 per cent of the population speaks an Amerindian language. Spanish is the only official language, but since 1979 there is legislation that supports bilingual education programmes (von Gleich 1989a: 357–63; Toledo 1989). The official policy is towards transitional programmes, stressing linkage to la vida nacional ‘the life of the nation’, but there are initiatives, particularly in the Upper Amazon basin (Eguillor 1989; Jim´enez Tur´on 1989), for maintenance programmes, with the support of church groups and tribal organisations (Mosonyi 1972, 1987). Colombia. As in Venezuela, Spanish is the only official language of Colombia, where about 2 per cent speaks an Amerindian language (von Gleich 1989a: 215–29). Legislation dating from 1978 outlines a type of bilingual education geared towards language maintenance, with strong community input. There are two centres for the training of Indian teachers. Under the general denominator of etnoeducaci´on there are a number of programmes, run by Amerindian organisations, in part in collaboration with church groups. The constitution of 1991 has provided new rights for indigenous groups.
7.5 Language planning and bilingual education
607
Two organisations have been quite active in promoting the further study and documentation of the Colombian Amerindian languages: the Summer Institute of Linguistics and the CCELA (Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Abor´ıgenes) at the Universidad de los Andes (cf. chapter 2). Ecuador. In Ecuador perhaps as many as a quarter of the population may consider itself to be Indian, but not all speak an Amerindian language. While Spanish is the official language, the constitution recognises Quechua and the other Amerindian languages as part of the culture of the nation. A law dating from 1981 formally acknowledges the need for bilingual intercultural education in predominantly Indian areas, and it is safe to say that in Ecuador bilingual education is more advanced than in the other Andean countries. Educational programmes are functioning in most Indian areas in the country, and there are four teacher training colleges specialising in bilingual education: two in the lowlands, and two in the highlands. There is a standardised variety termed quichua unificado ‘unified Quechua’. King (2000) suggests that tensions emerge between this unified variety and local varieties, perceived as more authentic. These tensions are probably inherent in any standardisation effort, but are of particular importance in the fragile situation of the standardisation of an Amerindian language variety. An important role in the propagation of a unified Quechua was played by radio stations such as La Voz de los Andes (The Voice of the Andes). Peru. In Peru the official language is Spanish, while Quechua and Aymara can also be used officially, and the other native languages form part of the cultural heritage of the nation as well, according to article 83 of the constitution (L´opez 1990). Discrimination on the basis of language is specifically prohibited, and each person has the legal right to use her or his own language in dealings with the judiciary system. Thus, for a while, Peru accorded the highest legal status to the Amerindian languages of all of South America (von Gleich 1989a: 318–55; see Mannheim 1984 for a historical account of the development of language policies in Peru). Nonetheless, daily life is different for most of the almost four million speakers of Amerindian languages in Peru. In fact, languages such as Quechua are rarely used officially, though it is spoken widely, even in migrant neighbourhoods in urban centres. Myers (1973) is an interesting early study of the use of Quechua in the barriadas (popular neighbourhoods) of Lima and her results have been confirmed in later research. Gugenberger (1995) illustrates the mixed feelings that bilingual migrants to the city of Arequipa have about their native language and Spanish. Von Gleich (1989b) reports on a study in which attitudes towards Quechua and Spanish in the Ayacucho area are studied, conjointly with W. W¨olck, with ten-year intervals from 1968 onward. In 1984 legislation was passed which made bilingual education possible, leading to the ‘progressive Hispanicisation’ of the Indian children. There are three centres for the training of bilingual teachers: in Iquitos, supported by CAAAP (Centro Amaz´onico de
608
7 The Spanish presence
Antropolog´ıa y Aplicaci´on Pract´ıca); Puno, founded by the German-funded Proyecto Experimental de Educaci´on Biling¨ue; and Yarinacocha, founded by the Summer Institute of Linguistics. A number of bilingual education projects have been set up. In Ayacucho there have been Quechua–Spanish activities, with some interruptions, since 1964, directed primarily at the early grades of schooling. In 1983 a project started on the R´ıo Tambo, directed at the Ash´aninca. Finally, in Puno a project ran between 1977 and 1988 which was one of the largest in the Andes, in terms of staff, publications, etc. (cf. section 3.2.12). It has been amply documented; an external evaluation of the project is presented in Hornberger (1988, 1989). Bolivia. Even though almost half of the population usually speaks a different language in Bolivia (Alb´o 1980), the only official language is Spanish (von Gleich 1989a: 204–14). An impression of the complex Quechua–Spanish bilingual setting in the Cochabamba area is given in Alb´o (1968, 1974), and Alb´o (1995) provides an exhaustive survey, based on census-data, of the multilingual situation in the early 1990s. Present-day legislation only mentions Amerindian languages with respect to (adult) alphabetisation and basic education programmes. Nonetheless, educational planning does include bilingual programmes as one of its objectives. There are three centres for the training of bilingual teachers, one focusing on Aymara, one on Quechua and one on Guaran´ı. Chile. There are large groups of speakers of Amerindian languages, particularly Mapuche, but Spanish is the only official language in Chile. Such legislation as there is specifically referring to native groups focuses on integration in national society. There are no specific training programmes for bilingual teachers. In the rural education programme for the Mapuche area the language itself is not taught (von Gleich, 1989a: 230–4). Argentina. Argentina has a small but sizeable minority (over 300,000) of speakers of Amerindian languages. Spanish is the official language. There is legislation that supports a generally transitional model of bilingual education, but there are no training programmes for bilingual teachers (von Gleich, 1989a: 198–202). Messineo (1989) describes a programme training ‘auxiliary’ Toba teachers, in order to set up bilingual schools. 7.6 Andean languages in the modern world Nelly Ramos Pizarro (1989: 40) writes in an article on the bilingual competence of Mapuche secondary school students: ‘In what will Mapudungun be useful for a girl that will develop her whole life in a huinca (white) context?’ This is the problem in a nutshell facing bilingual education in the Andes. Schools cannot be thought of as islands in a society otherwise hostile to native languages and cultural values, and neither can educational reform replace social and cultural reform.
7.6 Andean languages in the modern world
609
In a number of articles in the journal Pueblos Ind´ıgenas y Educaci´on mathematics classes in native languages are discussed in great detail. How do we adapt the numerical systems of the native languages to the requirements of modern mathematics teaching? How do we develop a new meta-vocabulary in these languages? Some authors struggle on with the set-theoretical mathematics already abandoned in the western school systems from which it was imported into the Andes in the 1970s. Ingenious though the solutions presented are, the question is how the mathematical knowledge inculcated in Shuar or Aymara will serve an adolescent negotiating in the local Sunday feria (market). A related issue is how the reading knowledge in the Amerindian languages will be put to use in primarily oral societies. An ever larger group of Indian children grows up learning poor Spanish at home, rather than the Amerindian languages. For this group a transitional model does not make much sense, since their primary language is the nationally dominant one. Thus we need to think of different models, perhaps maintenance or recovery models, when we think of bilingual intercultural education. Some such models have been sketched for North America, e.g. in Craig (1991) and Watahomigie and Yamamoto (1992). Talking about Andean languages in the modern world runs the risk of making the error sketched in the beginning of this book, when we discussed the train image from L´evi-Strauss’s Race et histoire. Of course, the Andean languages are as much in history and part of history as the European languages. Chiquito was used by the Bolivian army as a secret code in the Chaco War between Bolivia and Paraguay. Similarly, Aymara is being promoted in La Paz as an ideal computer language, due to its highly regular and transparent agglutinative morphology, by Ivan Guti´errez. Still, there can be no doubt that for many Andean languages, to be part of the modern world simply means not to be there at all. We have listed enough cases of linguistic decay and threatened ethnic and physical survival in this book to make the grim picture sketched in Michael Krauss (1992) applicable to South America as well: about 90 per cent of the languages spoken now may disappear in the next century, and indeed many of the languages are disappearing at an alarming rate. However, there are some cases where Amerindian communities have managed to regain sufficient control of their environment and local autonomy to ensure that their language has at least a chance of surviving.
Appendix Inventory of languages and language families of the Andean region
The following list contains an overview of the languages and language families represented in the Andean region (including the Paraguayan languages and some other languages not systematically treated in this book). For some languages it also includes alternative names and names used by ethnolinguistic groups for referring to themselves. Approximative speaker numbers (s.) are given for languages still in use, but it should be remarked that many sources do not make a specific distinction between the number of speakers of a language and the number of members of an ethnic group. For instance, the Colombian statistics usually refer to the totality of ethnic communities and may be too high when used as an indication of language retention. By contrast, Peruvian figures may well be too low because they are based on the results of a census involving questions on language use, of which the answer depends on the willingness of individuals to supply the requested information. Most importantly, both the estimates of speaker numbers and of ethnic group membership may differ widely according to the sources. In this overview, minimum and maximum estimates (separated by a hyphen) are given in cases of contradiction. For very specific high estimates, round figures may be given instead of the original numbers. Sources that have been consulted for the statistical information are, for Argentina, Censabella (1999); for Colombia, Arango and S´anchez (1998), in an extract kindly provided by Jon Landaburu, and the website Etnias de Colombia (http://www. indigenascolombia.org); for Ecuador, Juncosa (2000); for Paraguay, Meli´a (1997); for Peru, Brack and Y´an˜ ez (1997), Pozzi-Escot (1998) and Chirinos Rivera (2001); for ˜ an˜ ez (2000) and Mosonyi and Mosonyi (2000). For Bolivia, Venezuela, Gonz´alez N´ Ecuador and Peru, we have furthermore used the online information collected by Mily Crevels for the UNESCO Red Book of Endangered Languages (http://www.tooyoo.l. u-tokyo.ac-jp/Redbook/SAmerica). An online source for Chile was the website Lenguas y Culturas de Chile (http://rehue.csociales.uchile.cl). More specific sources, such as the online information of the Cabeceras Aid Project (http://www.onr.com/cabeceras), administrated by Christine Beier and Lev Michael, have been consulted for particular languages. (Online sources updated for May 2003.) 610
Inventory of Andean languages and language families
611
Aguano: unclassified. Peru (Loreto); extinct. Andaqu´ı or Aguanunga: isolate. Colombia (Caquet´a, Huila); reportedly extinct; possibly related to P´aez. Andoque: isolate. Colombia (Amazonas): 518 s. Araucanian: language family, two languages. Huilliche: Chile (Los Lagos); a few thousand speakers. Mapuche or Mapudungun: Argentina (Buenos Aires, Chubut, La Pampa, Neuqu´en, R´ıo Negro), c. 40,000 s.; Chile (Araucan´ıa, Biob´ıo, Los Lagos), speaker estimates range from 200,000 to 500,000 s. Araw´a: language family, one language in Per´u; more in Brazil. Culina: Peru (Ucayali): 250–400 s.; more in Brazil. Arawakan: language family. Achagua: Colombia (Meta): 280 s.; extinct in Venezuela. Amuesha or Yanesha : Peru (Hu´anuco, Jun´ın, Pasco): 1,750–7,000 s. Ash´aninca (including Ash´eninca and Gran Pajonal Campa): Peru (Ayacucho, Cuzco, Jun´ın, Pasco, Ucayali): 30,150–52,000 s.; more in Brazil. Baniva del Guain´ıa: Colombia (Guain´ıa): a few; Venezuela (Amazonas): 1,130 s. Bar´e: Venezuela (Amazonas): a few; more in Brazil (probably extinct). Baure: Bolivia (Beni): 13 s. (in ethnic group of 630). Cabiyar´ı: Colombia (Vaup´es): 277 s. Campa Caquinte or Poyenisati: Peru (Cuzco, Jun´ın): 230–300 s. Campa Nomatsiguenga: Peru (Jun´ın): 4,000–5,530 s. Chamicuro: Peru (Loreto): 2 s. (in ethnic group of 126). Curripaco (includes Baniva del Isana): Colombia (Guain´ıa): 7,066 s.; Venezuela (Amazonas): 2,760–4,000 s.; more in Brazil. Guajiro or Wayuunaiki: Colombia (Guajira): 144,000 s.; Venezuela (Zulia): 180,000 s. (cf. Alvarez 1994). I˜napari: Peru (Madre de Dios): 4 s. Kugapakori or Pucapacuri or Nanti: Peru (Cuzco, Madre de Dios): 250 s., possibly more uncontacted (information Cabeceras Aid Project). Machiguenga: Peru (Cuzco, Madre de Dios): 5,910–8,680 s. Machineri: Bolivia (Pando): 140 s.; more in Brazil. Mashco-Piro: Peru (Madre de Dios): limited contact, no data. Mojo (includes the varieties Ignaciano and Trinitario): Bolivia (Beni): over 10,000 s. Paraujano or A˜nun or A˜nuu: Venezuela (Zulia): 20–30 s. Paunaca: Bolivia (Santa Cruz): a few. Piapoco: Colombia (Meta, Guan´ıa, Vichada): 4,466 s.; Venezuela (Amazonas): 1,167–3,000 s.
612
Appendix
Piro or Yine: Peru (Cuzco, Loreto, Madre de Dios, Ucayali): 2,150–3,500 s. Res´ıgaro: Peru (Loreto): 11 s. in 1971 (in mixed group with Bora and Huitoto). Tariana: Colombia (Vaup´es): ethnic group of 332; more in Brazil; 100 s. in both countries (Aikhenvald 1999). Warekena: Venezuela (Amazonas): 400–500 s.; more in Brazil. Yavitero: Venezuela (Amazonas): 1 s.; similar to Baniva del Guain´ıa. Yucuna: Colombia (Amazonas): 500 s. Presumably extinct languages belonging to this family: Amarizana: Colombia (Casanare). Apolista or Lapachu: Bolivia (La Paz). Caquet´ıo: Venezuela (Apure, Falc´on, Lara, Yaracuy); Dutch Antilles (Aruba, Bonaire, Cura¸cao). Chan´e: Argentina (Salta); Bolivia (Santa Cruz); language shifted to Chiriguano. Gar´u or Guar´u: Colombia (Amazonas). Maipure: Colombia (Vichada). Paiconeca: Bolivia (Santa Cruz). Saraveca: Bolivia (Santa Cruz). Atacame˜no or Kunza: isolate. Argentina (Salta); Chile (Antofagasta); possibly also Bolivia (Potos´ı); possible subgroups in Argentina: Apatama, Casavindo, Churumata, Cochinoca; reportedly extinct. Aymaran: language family, three languages. Aymara: Bolivia (Cochabamba, La Paz, Oruro, Potos´ı): 1,600,000 s.; Chile (Tarapac´a): 16,000 s.; Peru (Moquegua, Puno, Tacna): 466,000 s. Cauqui: Peru (Lima): 11 s. in larger community. Jaqaru: Peru (Lima): 725 s. Bagua or Patag´on de Bagua: unclassified. Peru (Amazonas, Cajamarca); extinct. Barbacoan: language family, five languages. Awa Pit or Cuaiquer: Colombia (Nari˜no): ethnic group of 13,000; Ecuador (Carchi): 2,000–3,000; percentage of speakers unknown. Cha palaachi or Chachi or Cayapa or Nigua: Ecuador (Esmeraldas): 7,600 s. Guambiano: Colombia (Cauca): ethnic group of 20,780, mostly speakers. Totor´o: Colombia (Cauca): 4 s. in community of 3,600. Tsafiki or Colorado: Ecuador (Pichincha): 2,000 s. Extinct languages belonging to this family: Barbacoa: Colombia (Nari˜no). Cara: Ecuador (Imbabura, Pichincha); affiliation uncertain. Coconuco: Colombia (Cauca). Pasto (including Muellamues): Colombia (Nari˜no); Ecuador (Carchi). Sindagua or Malla: Colombia (Nari˜no).
Inventory of Andean languages and language families
613
Betoi: language family. Colombia (Arauca, Casanare); Venezuela (Apure); several ethnic groups: Airico, Betoi, Ele, Jirara, Lolaca, Situfa, etc.; the languages are extinct. Bora-Huitoto: language family consisting of two distinct subfamilies. Boran: Bora: Colombia (Amazonas): 646 s.; Peru (Loreto): 2,000 s. Mira˜na: Colombia (Amazonas): 660 s. Muinane: Colombia (Amazonas): 547 s. Huitotoan: Huitoto (subgroups M-in-ica, Murui, N-ipode): Colombia (Amazonas, Caquet´a, Putumayo): 6,245 s.; Peru (Loreto): 1,133–1,917 s. Nonuya: Colombia (Amazonas): 2 s. Ocaina: Colombia (Amazonas): 126 s.; Peru (Loreto): 54–188 s. Cahuapanan: language family with two surviving languages; possibly related to Jivaroan. Chayahuita: Peru (Loreto, San Mart´ın): 7,875–13,717 s. Jebero: Peru (Loreto): 500–2,500 s.; language becoming obsolescent. Probably extinct language belonging to this group: Cahuapana: Peru (Loreto). Canichana: isolate. Bolivia (Beni). 3 semi-speakers in community of 583 (field data Crevels). Candoshi: language family with one surviving language. Candoshi or Murato or Shapra: Peru (Loreto): 1,900–3,000 s. Extinct languages belonging to this family: Chirino: Peru (Amazonas, Cajamarca). Rabona: Ecuador (Zamora-Chinchipe); affiliation uncertain. Ca˜nar-Puruh´a: putative language family; two languages, both extinct. Ca˜nar: Ecuador (Azuay, Ca˜nar, Chimborazo, El Oro, Loja). Puruh´a: Ecuador (Bol´ıvar, Chimborazo, Tungurahua). Cariban: language family. Carijona or Guaque or Hianacoto or Umaua: Colombia (Amazonas, Guaviare): 30 s. Japreria: Venezuela (Zulia): number included in Yucpa. Yukpa or Yuco or Motilones mansos: Colombia (Cesar): 3,529 s.; Venezuela (Zulia): 1,500–3,500 s. Extinct languages belonging to this family: Op´on–Carare: Colombia (Santander); probably extinct; maybe two languages. Patag´on: Peru (Amazonas, Cajamarca). Extinct languages which may have belonged to this family: Muzo–Colima: Colombia (Boyac´a, Cundinamarca). Panche: Colombia (Cundinamarca, Tolima).
614
Appendix
Pijao: Colombia (Tolima); strong Cariban influence, but language probably not Cariban. Cayuvava: isolate. Bolivia (Beni): 2 semi-speakers in group of 800 (field data Crevels). Chacha: unclassified. Peru (Amazonas, possibly also in La Libertad and San Mart´ın); extinct. Chapacuran: language family; one language in Bolivia. Mor´e or Itenez: Bolivia (Beni): 76 s., including 21 active speakers (field data Angenot de Lima). Extinct languages that belonged or may have belonged to this family: Chapacura or Huachi: Bolivia (Santa Cruz). Herisebocona: Bolivia (Santa Cruz). Kitemoca: Bolivia (Santa Cruz); possible speakers left. Napeca: Bolivia (Santa Cruz). Rocorona: Bolivia (Santa Cruz). Charr´uan: language family (languages: Chan´a, Charr´ua, Guenoa or Minuane): Argentina (Entre R´ıos); Uruguay; all extinct; possibly related to Guaicuruan. Other extinct ethnic groups of Entre R´ıos and Santa Fe (Argentina) that may have been associated with this language family: Carcara˜na´ , Colastin´e, Corond´a, Mbegu´a, Mepene, Quiloaz´a, Timb´u. Chibchan: language family; more languages in Costa Rica, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama. Bar´ı or Dobocubi or Motilones bravos: Colombia (Cesar, Norte de Santander): 3,530 s.; Venezuela (Zulia): 1,500 s. Chimila or Ette taara: Colombia (Magdalena): 900 s. Cuna or Tule: Colombia (Antioquia, Choc´o): 1,166 s.; more in Panama. Damana or Arsario or Guamaca or Malayo or Marocasero or Sanj´a or Wiwa: Colombia (Cesar): 1,850 s. Ika or Arhuaco or B´ıntukua: Colombia (Cesar, Magdalena): 14,300 s. Kogui or K´aggaba: Colombia (Magdalena): 9,765 s. Uw Cuwa or Tunebo: Colombia (Arauca, Boyac´a, Norte de Santander, Santander): 7,000 s.; Venezuela (Apure): some. Extinct languages belonging to this family: Cat´ıo Chibcha: Colombia (Antioquia). Duit: Colombia (Boyac´a). Kanku´ı or Kankuamo or At´anquez: Colombia (Cesar). Muisca: Colombia (Cundinamarca, Distrito Capital). Nutabe: Colombia (Antioquia). Chiquitano or Bes-iro: isolate. Bolivia (Santa Cruz): 5,855 s. in ethnic group of c. 47,000; varieties: Churapa, Sansimoniano, Tao.
Inventory of Andean languages and language families
615
Chocoan: language family; two languages. Ember´a or Cat´ıo or Cham´ı or Saija: Colombia (Antioquia, Caldas, Cauca, Choc´o, C´ordoba, Risaralda): 71,400 s.; Ecuador: 60 s.; more in Panama. Waunana or Wounaan or Noanama: Colombia (Choc´o, Valle del Cauca): 7,960 s. Chon: language family with one surviving language. Tehuelche or Aonek’enk: Argentina (Santa Cruz): 4 s. Extinct languages belonging to this family: G¨un¨una Yajich or Puelche: Argentina (Chubut, R´ıo Negro). Haush: Argentina (Tierra del Fuego). Selk nam or Ona: Argentina (Tierra del Fuego); Chile (Magallanes). Tehues or Teushen: Argentina (Chubut, Santa Cruz). Extinct language that possibly belonged to this family: Querand´ı: Argentina (Buenos Aires, La Pampa). Other language names associated with this group: Chechehet, Divihet, Het, Hongote, Taluhet, etc. Chono: unclassified. Chile (Ais´en); extinct; affiliation with Kawesqar suggested. Cof´an or A’inga´e: isolate. Ecuador (Sucumb´ıos): 800 s.; Colombia (Nari˜no, Putumayo): 1,457 s. Comeching´on: unclassified. Argentina (C´ordoba); extinct; possibly a cluster of languages, rather than a single one; subgroups: Camiare, Henia; affiliation with Huarpean suggested. Copall´en: unclassified. Peru (Amazonas); extinct. Cueva: unclassified language of eastern Panama; extinct. Culli: unclassified. Peru (Ancash, Cajamarca, La Libertad); presumably extinct. Diaguita or Kak´an: unclassified language or language family. Argentina (Catamarca, La Rioja, Salta, Santiago del Estero, Tucum´an); Chile (Atacama, Coquimbo). Many subgroups (Calchaqu´ı, Capay´an, Hualf´ın, Pular, Quilme, Tolomb´on, Yacampis, etc.); extinct; extent of internal diversification unknown. Esmeralde˜no or Atacame: isolate. Ecuador (Esmeraldas); extinct. Guahiboan: language family, four languages. Cuiba: Colombia (Arauca): 2,275 s.; some in Venezuela (Apure). Guayabero: Colombia (Meta, Guaviare): 1,060 s. Hitn¨u or Macaguane: Colombia (Arauca): 542 s. Sikuani or Guahibo or Hiwi (includes Amor´ua, Chiricoa, Masiguare and Tsiripu): Colombia. (Arauca, Casanare, Guain´ıa, Meta, Vichada): 21,410 s.; Venezuela (Amazonas, Apure): 9,220 s. Guaicuruan: language family, three languages (and one in Brazil: Kadiw´eu). Mocov´ı: Argentina (Chaco, Santa Fe): 3,000–5,000 s. Pilag´a: Argentina (Formosa): 2,000–5,000 s.
616
Appendix
Toba: Argentina (Chaco, Formosa, Salta, Santa Fe) 36,000–60,000 s.; Paraguay (Presidente Hayes, San Pedro): 755 s. (Emok–Toba or Toba Qom). Extinct languages belonging to this family: Abip´on: Argentina (Chaco, Corrientes, Santa Fe). Mbay´a: Argentina (Chaco). Payagu´a: Paraguay (on the Paraguay river). Guamo: language family. Venezuela (Apure, Barinas, Gu´arico, Portuguesa); all extinct. Harakmbut or Hate: Language with some internal variety, located in Peru (Cuzco, Madre de Dios): 800–1,600 s.; several subgroups: Amarakaeri, Arasairi, Huachipairi, Kisamberi, Pukieri, Sapiteri, Toy(o)eri or Tuyuneiri; it has been linked to the Katukinan family in Brazil (Adelaar 2000); further connections with Macro-Ge and Tupi possible. Hibito-Chol´on: language family, two languages both probably extinct; the name ‘Cholona’, from Spanish la lengua cholona (Loukotka 1968), is in error. Chol´on or Seepts´a: Peru (San Mart´ın). Hibito: Peru (San Martin). Huancavilca: unclassified. Ecuador (Guayas); extinct; it may have included the language of the island Pun´a. Huarpean: language family; all extinct. Allentiac: Argentina (San Juan, San Luis). Millcayac: Argentina (Mendoza). Huaorani or Huao or Auca or Auishiri or Sabela: isolate. Ecuador (Napo, Pastaza): 1,200 s. Humahuaca: unclassified language or language family. Argentina (Jujuy); all extinct; subgroups: Fiscara, Humahuaca, Jujuy, Ocloya, Osa, Purmamarca, Tiliar; possible overlap with Atacame˜no influence sphere. Itonama: isolate. Bolivia (Beni): less than 10 aged speakers in an ethnic group of 5,000 (field data Crevels). Jirajaran: language family; all extinct. Ayam´an or Ayom´an: Venezuela (Lara). Gay´on: Venezuela (Lara). Jirajara: Venezuela (Lara). Jivaroan: Language family, four languages. Aguaruna or Awahun or Aents: Peru (Amazonas, Cajamarca, San Mart´ın): 34,000– 45,000 s. Achuar (including Shiwyar) or Aents: Ecuador (Zamora-Chinchipe): 4,000 s.; Peru (Loreto): 2,800–4,700 s. Huambisa: Peru (Amazonas, Loreto): 4,000–8,000 s.
Inventory of Andean languages and language families
617
Shuar: Ecuador (Zamora–Chinchipe, Morona-Santiago): 35,000 s.; Peru (Loreto): a few. Extinct languages associated with this family: Malacato: Ecuador (Loja). Palta: Ecuador (Loja). Xoroca: Ecuador (Zamora–Chinchipe). Kams´a or Sibundoy or Coche: isolate. Colombia (Putumayo): 4,022 s. Kawesqar or Alacaluf or Aksan´as: isolate. Chile (Magallanes): less than 20 s. Leco or Rik’a or Buruwa: isolate. Bolivia (La Paz): c. 50 speakers living in dispersed locations (field data van de Kerke). Lengua–Mascoy: language family, five closely related languages. Angait´e: Paraguay (Boquer´on, Concepci´on, Presidente Hayes): 971 s. Guan´a: Paraguay (Concepci´on, Presidente Hayes): 24 s. Lengua (or Enxet): Paraguay (Boquer´on, Presidente Hayes): 9,387 s. Sanapan´a: Paraguay (Presidente Hayes): 789 s. Toba Mascoy: Paraguay (Alto Paraguay, Boquer´on, Concepci´on, Presidente Hayes): 1,312 s. Lule–Vilela: language family with one surviving language. Vilela: Argentina (Chaco, Santa Fe): possibly a few speakers left; community merged with Mocov´ı and Toba. Extinct languages belonging to this family: Lule: Argentina (Salta, Santiago del Estero, Tucum´an). Tonocot´e: Argentina (Santiago del Estero, Tucum´an); may be related to Lule, or independent; no data. Mac´u–Puinave: language family, three languages; more in Brazil. Yuhup–Hupd´a: Colombia (Vaup´es): 363 s.; more in Brazil. Kaku´a-Nukak (Nukak is Mac´u del Guaviare): Colombia (Guaviare, Vaup´es): 525 s.; more in Brazil. Puinave: Colombia (Guain´ıa, Vichada): 5,380 s.; Venezuela (Amazonas): 774 s. Macro-Ge: Widely extended language phylum with a few representatives in the preAndean region. Bororo family: Bororo: Bolivia (Santa Cruz): 4 s.; migrants from Brazil; more in Brazil. Otuque (includes Covareca and Curuminaca): Bolivia (Santa Cruz): extinct. Ge family (Kaingang subgroup): Guayana: Argentina (Misiones): extinct. Ingain: Argentina (Misiones): extinct. Guat´o: Isolate. A few in Brazil near the border with Bolivia (Santa Cruz).
618
Appendix
Matacoan: language family, four languages. Chulup´ı or Ashlushlay or Nivacl´e: Argentina: 200–1,200 s.; Paraguay (Boquer´on, Presidente Hayes): 7,780 s. Chorote or Manjui or Yofuaha: Argentina (Salta): 1,200–2,100 s; Paraguay (Boquer´on): 208 s. Mak´a: Paraguay (Alto Paran´a, Asunci´on, Caaguaz´u, Central, Concepci´on, Itap´ua, Presidente Hayes): 990 s. Mataco or Wich´ı or Weenhayek (varieties: Guisnay, Noct´en, Vejoz): Argentina (Chaco, Formosa, Salta): 35,000–60,000 s.; Bolivia (Tarija): 1,800 s. Mochica or Muchik or Yunga: isolate. Peru (La Libertad, Lambayeque); presumably extinct. Mosetenan: language family, two closely related languages. Chimane or Tsimane: Bolivia (Beni): 4,000–8,000 s. (Sakel 2003). Moset´en: Bolivia (La Paz): 750–800 s. (Sakel 2003). Movima: isolate. Bolivia (Beni): 1452 s. Munichi or Otanabe: isolate. Peru (Loreto): 3 s. (in 1988). Omurana or Mayna: isolate. Peru (Loreto): extinct. Otomaco or Taparita: language family. Venezuela (Apure): extinct. P´aez or Nasa Yuwe: isolate (with variety Paniquit´a). Colombia (Cauca, Huila): at least 40,000 s. within ethnic group of 119,000. Pano–Tacana: language family consisting of two distinct branches. Panoan: Amahuaca: Peru (Madre de Dios, Ucayali): 247 s.; more in Brazil. Capanahua: Peru (Loreto): 120 to 267 s. Cashibo–Cacataibo or Uni: Peru (Hu´anuco, Ucayali): 1,500–1,800 s. Cashinahua or Junikuin: Peru (Ucayali): 900–1,000 s.; more in Brazil. Ch´acobo or No iria: Bolivia (Beni): 550 s. Isconahua: Peru (Ucayali): 50 s. Marubo: Peru (Loreto); now only in Brazil. Mayo–Pisabo: Peru (Loreto): 100 s. Mayoruna–Mats´es: Peru (Loreto): 1,177–2,500 s.; more in Brazil. Nahua or Yora or Parquenahua: Peru (Cuzco, Madre de Dios, Ucayali): c. 170 s.; uncontacted groups associated with the Nahua: Chandinahua (300), Chitonahua (50), Maxonahua or Cujare˜no (100), Morunahua (100); closely related to Yaminahua. Pacaguara: Bolivia (Beni): 9–18 s. Sharanahua or Onicoin: Peru (Ucayali): 450–500 s.; associated groups: Marinahua (50–150), Mastanahua (150); more in Brazil.
Inventory of Andean languages and language families
619
Shipibo–Conibo (includes extinct Shetebo): Peru (Loreto, Ucayali): 16,000– 27,000 s. Yaminahua: Bolivia (Pando): 137 s.; Peru (Ucayali): 380–1000 s.; more in Brazil. Extinct languages belonging to this subfamily: Arazaire: Peru (Cuzco); the name seems to coincide with Arasairi, one of the neighbouring Harakmbut groups. Atsahuaca or Chaspa: Peru (Madre de Dios). Nocam´an: Peru (Ucayali). P´anobo or Huariapana: Peru (Loreto). Remo: Peru (Loreto); also in Brazil (Amazonas). Sensi: Peru (Loreto). Yamiaca or Ha˜au˜neiri: Peru (Madre de Dios). Tacanan: Araona: Bolivia (La Paz): 81 s. Cavine˜na: Bolivia (Beni, Pando): 1,180 s. Eseejja or Chama or Huarayo: Bolivia (Beni, La Paz, Pando): 225 s.; Peru (Madre de Dios): 500–600 s. Reyesano: Bolivia (Beni): possibly a few elderly speakers within ethnic group of 4,000. Tacana: Bolivia (La Paz): 1,820 s. Toromona: Bolivia (La Paz): 25–200 s. Panzaleo: unclassified. Ecuador (Cotopaxi, Pichincha, Tungurahua): extinct. Puquinan: language family with only one surviving member. Callahuaya: Boliva (La Paz); professional language predominantly based on Puquinan lexicon, only used as a second language; a few users. Extinct language: Puquina: Bolivia (La Paz); Peru (Arequipa, Cuzco, Moquegua, Puno, Tacna); Coli may have been the name of the coastal variety of Puquina formerly spoken in Moquegua and Tacna. Quechuan: language family with an undetermined number of local varieties usually referred to as dialects. Quechua I: Peru (Ancash, Huancavelica, Ica, Hu´anuco, Jun´ın, La Libertad, Lima, Pasco): 750,000 s. Quechua II: Argentina (Jujuy, Santiago del Estero; formerly also Catamarca and La Rioja): 70,000–130,000 s.; Bolivia (Cochabamba, La Paz, Oruro, Potos´ı, Santa Cruz, Sucre, Tarija): 2,400,000 s.; Chile (Antofagasta): a few; Colombia (Caquet´a, Nari˜no, Putumayo; formerly also Cauca and Huila): 17,855 s.; Ecuador (Azuay, Bol´ıvar, Ca˜nar, Chimborazo, Cotopaxi, Imbabura,
620
Appendix
Loja, Morona–Santiago, Napo, Pastaza, Pichincha, Sucumb´ıos, Tungurahua): 1,400,000–2,000,000 s.; Peru (Amazonas, Apurimac, Arequipa, Ayacucho, Cajamarca, Cuzco, Huancavelica, Lambayeque, Lima, Loreto, Madre de Dios, Moquegua, Piura, Puno, San Mart´ın): 2,675,000 s. Quingnam: unclassified. Peru (Ancash, La Libertad): extinct; possibly identical with the Lengua (Yunga) Pescadora mentioned in colonial documents. Sacata: unclassified. Peru (Cajamarca): extinct. Saliban: language family, two languages. Piaroa or Dearuwa or Woth¨uha: Colombia (Vichada): 800 s.; Venezuela (Amazonas): 9,000–11,000 s. S´aliba: Colombia (Arauca, Casanare): 1,300 s. Sanavir´on: unclassified. Argentina (C´ordoba, Santiago del Estero): extinct. Sechuran: language family, all extinct. Olmos: Peru (Lambayeque). Sechura or Sec: Peru (Piura). Tabancale or Aconipa: unclassified. Border area of Ecuador (Zamora-Chinchipe) and Peru (Cajamarca): extinct. Tall´an: language family, all extinct; possibly related to Sechuran. Catacaos: Peru (Piura). Col´an: Peru (Piura). Taushiro or Pinche: unclassified. Peru (Loreto): 7 s. in 1975; possibly related to Zaparoan. Tekiraka or Abishira or Auishiri (with variety: Vacacocha): isolate. Peru (Loreto): presumably extinct. Ticuna or Tucuna: isolate. Colombia (Amazonas): 6,585 s.; Peru (Loreto): 1,787 s.; more in Brazil (c. 32,000 s.). Timote–Cuica: language family or isolate with internal variation. Venezuela (M´erida, Trujillo); presumably extinct, but possible language survival in Mut´us (M´erida) to be verified. Tiniguan: language family with one surviving language. Tinigua: Colombia (Meta): 2 s. Extinct languages belonging to this group: Majigua: Colombia (Meta). Pamigua: Colombia (Meta). Tucanoan: language family. Angutero: Peru (Loreto): 100 speakers, mixed with the Secoya (Wheeler 2000). Bar´a or Waimaj˜a: Colombia (Vaup´es): 96 s. Barasana (including Taiwano or Eduria): Colombia (Vaup´es): 1,910 s.; more in Brazil. Carapana: Colombia (Vaup´es): 412 s.; more in Brazil. Cubeo: Colombia (Vaup´es): 6,035 s.; more in Brazil.
Inventory of Andean languages and language families
621
Desano: Colombia (Vaup´es): 2,136 s.; more in Brazil. Koreguaje–Tama: Colombia (Caquet´a): 2,100 s. Macuna or Sara: Colombia (Vaup´es): 922 s.; more in Brazil. Makaguaje: Colombia (Putumayo): 50 s. Matap´ı: Colombia (Amazonas): 200 s. Orej´on or Maijuna or Coto: Peru (Loreto): 288 s. Piratapuyo: Colombia (Vaup´es): 630 s.; more in Brazil. Pisamira: Colombia (Vaup´es): 25 s. (in ethnic group of 54). Secoya (or Pioj´e): Ecuador (Sucumb´ıos): 350 s.; Peru (Loreto): 678 s.; also known as Pai Coca in Ecuador. Siriano: Colombia (Vaup´es): 715 s.; more in Brazil. Siona: Colombia (Putumayo): 700 s.; Ecuador (Sucumb´ıos): 250 s.; also known as Pai Coca in Ecuador. Tanimuca-Letuama (also Retuar˜a): Colombia (Amazonas): 1,800 s. Tatuyo: Colombia (Vaup´es): 294 s. Tetet´e: Ecuador (Sucumb´ıos): probably extinct. Tucano or Yepa Masa: Colombia (Vaup´es): 6,837 s.; more in Brazil. Tuyuca: Colombia (Vaup´es): 570 s.; more in Brazil. Wanano: Colombia (Vaup´es): 1,172 s.; more in Brazil. Ya(h)una: Colombia (Amazonas): 95 s. Yurut´ı: Colombia (Vaup´es): 610 s.; more in Brazil. Presumably extinct groups (no recent data): Coret´u or Curet´u: Colombia (Amazonas). Icaguate: Colombia (Putumayo). Encabellado: Peru (Loreto). Yupua or Sok´o or Uri or Durin˜a: Colombia (Amazonas); cf. Landaburu (1996a). Tupi: widely extended language stock, represented in the area by one family; Tupi is possibly related to Cariban and to Macro-Ge (Rodrigues 2000). Tupi–Guaran´ı: Ach´e or Guayak´ı: Paraguay (Alto Paran´a, Caaguaz´u, Caazap´a, Canindey´u): 538 s. Chiriguano or Ava or Guaran´ı Boliviano: Argentina (Salta): 15,000 to 20,000 s.; Bolivia (Santa Cruz, Sucre, Tarija): 33,670 s. (a local variety in Bolivia is called Izoce˜no); Paraguay (Boquer´on): 24 s. (the local variety is called Guarayo). Chirip´a or Av´a-Guaran´ı: Paraguay (Alto Paran´a, Amambay, Caaguaz´u, Canindey´u, Concepci´on, San Pedro): 1,930 s.; more in Brazil (Nhandeva). Cocama-Cocamilla: Peru (Loreto): 11,000 to 18,000 in ethnic group; language becoming obsolete; some in Brazil. Guaran´ı Correntino or Goyano: Argentina (Corrientes, Formosa, Misiones, Santa Fe): 100,000–500,000 s.
622
Appendix
Guaran´ı or Paraguayan Guaran´ı: Paraguay: c. 4,648,000; more in Brazil. Guarayo: Bolivia (Santa Cruz): 5,933–10,029 s. Guarasugw´e or Pauserna: Bolivia (Beni, Santa Cruz): 4 s. in 1974; probably extinct; may be extinct in Brazil as well. Jor´a: Bolivia (Beni): 5 s. in 1974; possibly extinct. Mby´a: Argentina (Misiones): 2,500–3,500 s.; Paraguay (Alto Paran´a, Caaguaz´u, Caazap´a, Canindey´u, Guair´a, Itap´ua, Misiones, San Pedro): 2,435 s.; more in Brazil. Omagua: Peru (Loreto): ethnic group of c. 600; language nearly extinct; more in Brazil (Cambeba). Pa˜ı Tavyter˜a: Paraguay (Amambay, Canindey´u, Concepci´on, San Pedro): 500 s. Sirion´o or Mbia: Bolivia (Beni, Santa Cruz): 400 s. Tapiet´e: Bolivia (Tarija): 70 s.; Paraguay (Boquer´on): 123 s.; Argentina (Salta): 384 s. ˜ Yeral (from Portuguese l´ıngua geral ) or Nengat´ u: Venezuela (Amazonas): 730– 2,000 s.; more in Brazil; some in Colombia (Guain´ıa, Vaup´es). Yuqui or Bia: Bolivia (Cochabamba): 125 s. Urarina or Kacha or Simacu or Itucale: isolate. Peru (Loreto): 564–3,000 s. Uru–Chipaya: language family with two surviving languages; historical varieties commonly referred to as Uruquilla. Chipaya: Bolivia (Oruro): 1,000 s. Uchumataqu or Uru of Iru-Itu: Bolivia (La Paz): 2 s. Extinct languages belonging to this family: Murato: Bolivia (Oruro); no data. Uru of Ch’imu: Peru (Puno). Yaguan: language family with one surviving language. Yagua or Yihamwo: Colombia (Amazonas): 294 s.; Peru (Loreto): 760–4,000 s; some in Brazil. Extinct languages belonging to this family: Peba: Peru (Loreto). Yameo: Peru (Loreto). Yahgan or Yamana: isolate. Chile (Magallanes): 2 s. Yaruro or Pum´e: isolate. Venezuela (Apure): 5,000 s. Yuracar´e: isolate. Bolivia (Cochabamba): 2,675 s. Yur´ı: unclassified. Colombia (Amazonas): 200 s. Yurumangu´ı: isolate. Colombia (Cauca, Valle del Cauca): extinct. Zamucoan: language family, two languages. Ayoreo or Moro: Bolivia (Santa Cruz): 771 s.; Paraguay (Alto Paraguay, Boquer´on): 815 s.
Inventory of Andean languages and language families Chamacoco: Paraguay (Central, Boquer´on): 1,187 s. Extinct languages belonging to this family (possibly Ayoreo dialects): Guara˜noca: Bolivia (Santa Cruz). Zamuco: Bolivia (Santa Cruz). Zaparoan: language family (information Cabeceras Aid Project). Andoa or Shimigae: Peru (Loreto): 5 s. in 1975; reportedly extinct. Arabela: Peru (Loreto): 30–40 s. to 100 s. Cahuarano: Peru (Loreto): 5 s. in 1976; reportedly extinct. Iquito: Peru (Loreto): 22–26 s., 15–20 semi-speakers. Z´aparo or Kayapi: Ecuador: 1–4 s. Extinct languages: Gae, Coronado, Oa, etc. (Ecuador).
Languages which cannot be classified for absence of data: Arma-Pozo: Colombia (Caldas, Risaralda). Atunceta: Colombia (Cauca, Valle del Cauca). Anserma (incl. Caramanta, Cartama): Colombia (Antioquia, Risaralda). Bolona: Ecuador (Loja, Zamora–Chinchipe). Campaces: Ecuador (Manab´ı, Los R´ıos, Pichincha). Canelo: Ecuador (Pastaza). Carabayo: Colombia (Amazonas); uncontacted group. Chancos: Colombia (Choc´o, Valle del Cauca). Chango: Chile (Antofagasta, Tarapac´a). Chitarero: Colombia (Norte de Santander). Chono: Ecuador (Guayas, Los R´ıos). Ciaman: Colombia (Cauca, Valle del Cauca). Colima: Ecuador (Guayas?). Gorgotoqui: Bolivia (Santa Cruz). Guaca and Nori: Colombia (Antioquia, C´ordoba). Guane: Colombia (Santander). Guanaca: Colombia (Cauca, Huila). Hacaritama: Colombia (Norte de Santander). Idabaez: Colombia (Choc´o). Jamund´ı: Colombia (Valle del Cauca). Jitirijiti: Colombia (Valle del Cauca). Irra: Colombia (Caldas, Risaralda). Lache: Colombia (Boyac´a, Santander) Lili: Colombia (Valle del Cauca). Malaba: Ecuador (Esmeraldas).
623
624
Appendix
Malib´u: Colombia (Atl´antico, Bolivar, Magdalena). Manta: Ecuador (Manab´ı); possibly a cluster of languages. Mocana: Colombia (Atl´antico, Bol´ıvar). Morcote: Colombia (Boyac´a). Pacabuey: Colombia (Bol´ıvar, Cesar, Magdalena). Panatagua: Peru (Hu´anuco). Pant´agora: Colombia (Caldas). Pehuenche: Argentina (Neuqu´en). Pubenza: Colombia (Valle del Cauca). Quijo: Ecuador (Napo). Quimbaya: Colombia (Caldas, Quind´ıo, Risaralda). Quind´ıo: Colombia (Quind´ıo). Sin´u or Zen´u: Colombia (C´ordoba, Sucre); subgroups Fincen´u, Pancen´u, Sinufana. Sutagao: Colombia (Cundinamarca, Meta) Tegua: Colombia (Boyac´a, Casanare). Timan´a: Colombia (Huila). Yalc´on: Colombia (Huila). Yames´ı: Colombia (Antioquia). Yar´ı: Colombia (Caquet´a); uncontacted group. Yarigu´ı or Yarig¨u´ı: Colombia (Santander). Yumbo: Ecuador (Pichincha).
REFERENCES
Academia Mayor de la Lengua Quechua (1995) Diccionario Quechua–Espa˜nol–Quechua/ Qheswa–Espa˜nol–Qheswa Simi Taqe. Cuzco: Editorial Mercantil. Acosta, Jos´e de (1954 [1590]) Historia natural y moral de las Indias. In: Francisco Mateos (ed.), Obras del P. Jos´e de Acosta. Biblioteca de autores espa˜noles 73, pp. 1–247. Madrid: Atlas (1987 edition by Jos´e Alcina Franch, Madrid: Historia 16). Acosta Orteg´on, Joaqu´ın (1938) El idioma chibcha aborigen de Cundinamarca. Bogot´a: Imprenta del Departamento. Acosta Saignes, Miguel (1983) Estudios de etnolog´ıa antigua de Venezuela (1st edition 1953). Havana: Casa de las Am´ericas. Adam, Lucien (1878) De la langue chibcha. In: Etudes sur six langues am´ericaines: dakota, chibcha, nahuatl, kechua, quiche, maya, pp. 29–63. Paris: Maisonneuve. (1885) Grammaire de la langue jˆagane. Paris: Maisonneuve. (1893) Principes et dictionnaire de la langue Yuracar´e ou Yurujur´e compos´es par le R.P. de la Cueva et publi´es conform´ement au manuscrit de A. d’Orbigny. Biblioth`eque linguistique am´ericaine 16. Paris: Maisonneuve. Adam, Lucien and Victor Henry (1880) Arte y vocabulario de la lengua chiquita con algunos textos traducidos y explicados compuestos sobre manuscritos in´editos del XVIII siglo. Biblioth`eque linguistique am´ericaine 6. Paris: Maisonneuve. Adelaar, Willem F. H. (1977) Tarma Quechua: Grammar, Texts, Dictionary. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press (distributed by E. J. Brill, Leiden). (1982) L´exico del quechua de Pacaraos. Documento 45. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Centro de Investigaci´on de Ling¨u´ıstica Aplicada. (1984) Grammatical vowel length and the classification of Quechua dialects. International Journal of American Linguistics 50, 1, pp. 25–47. (1986a) Morfolog´ıa del quechua de Pacaraos. Documento 53. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Centro de Investigaci´on de Ling¨u´ıstica Aplicada (also published in 1987 by Facultad de Letras y Ciencias Humanas, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima). (1986b) La relaci´on quechua-aru: perspectivas para la separaci´on del l´exico. Revista Andina 4, 2, pp. 379–426 (continued in 1987 in Revista Andina 5, 1, pp. 83–91). Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´e de Las Casas. (1987) Aymarismos en el quechua de Puno. Indiana 11, pp. 223–31. Ibero-amerikanisches Institut Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag. (1988) Search for the Culli language. In: Maarten Jansen, Peter van der Loo and Roswitha Manning (eds.) Continuity and Identity in Native America. Essays to Honor Benedikt Hartmann, pp. 111–31. Leiden, New York, Copenhagen, Cologne: E. J. Brill (published in
625
626
References
Spanish as ‘En pos de la lengua culle’ in: Cerr´on-Palomino and Sol´ıs Fonseca (1990), pp. 83–105). (1989) Review of Joseph H. Greenberg Language in the Americas (1987). Lingua 78, pp. 249–55. Amsterdam. (1991) The endangered languages problem: South America. In: Robert H. Robins and Eugenius M. Uhlenbeck (eds.), Endangered Languages, pp. 45–91. Collection Diog`ene. Oxford and New York: Berg Publishers. (1994) ¿Hasta donde llega la inflexi´on? Criterios para una clasificaci´on interna de los sufijos verbales en quechua de Tarma/Norte de Jun´ın. In: Calvo P´erez (1994), pp. 65–83. (1995a) Les cat´egories verbales ‘conjugaison’et ‘genre’ dans les grammaires de la langue chibcha. In: Troiani (1995), pp. 173–82. (1995b) Ra´ıces ling¨u´ısticas del quichua de Santiago del Estero. In: Fern´andez Garay and Viegas Barros (1995), pp. 25–50. (1996) La nasal velar en el aymara y en el jaqaru. Opci´on 12, 19, pp. 5–19. Maracaibo: Universidad del Zulia. (1999) Unprotected languages: the silent death of the languages of northern Peru. In: Anita Herzfeld and Yolanda Lastra (eds.), Las causas sociales de la desaparici´on y del mantenimiento de las lenguas en las naciones de Am´erica, pp. 205–22. Hermosillo, Sonora: Editorial Unison. (2000) Propuesta de un nuevo v´ınculo gen´etico entre dos grupos ling¨u´ısticos ind´ıgenas de la Amazon´ıa occidental: Harakmbut y Katukina. In: Miranda Esquerre (2000), vol. 2, pp. 219–36. Adelaar, Willem F. H. and Jorge Trigoso (1998) Un documento colonial quechua de Cajamarca. In: Dedenbach-Salazar S´aenz et al. (1998), pp. 641–51. Aguiar, Maria Suel´ı de (1994) Fontes de Pesquisa e Estudo da Fam´ılia Pano. Campinas: Editora da Unicamp. Aguilar P´aez, Rafael (1970) Gram´atica quechua y vocabularios (adaptation of Antonio Ricardo 1586). Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Aguilera Fa´undez, Oscar E. (1978) L´exico Kaw´esqar-Espa˜nol, Espa˜nol-Kaw´esqar (Alacalufe septentrional), Bolet´ın de Filolog´ıa 29, pp. 7–149. Santiago de Chile: Universidad de Chile, Facultad de Filosof´ıa y Humanidades, Departamento de Ling¨u´ıstica y Filolog´ıa. (1984a) Puerto Ed´en revisitado. Cuarta Expedici´on Etnoling¨u´ıstica entre los Alacalufes de la Patagonia Occidental (en colaboraci´on con Mar´ıa Eugenia Brito y Hugo Nervi). Trilog´ıa 4, 6, pp. 7–12. Santiago de Chile: Instituto Profesional de Santiago. (1984b) Pronombres kaw´esqar. Trilog´ıa 4, 7, pp. 59–83. Santiago de Chile: Instituto Profesional de Santiago. (1988) Review of Clairis (1987). Lenguas Modernas 15, pp. 173–200. Santiago de Chile: Universidad de Chile, Facultad de Filosof´ıa y Humanidades, Departamento de Lenguas Modernas. (1997) La expresi´on del tiempo en kaw´esqar. Onom´azein 2, pp. 269–304. Santiago de Chile: Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica de Chile. (1999) En torno al orden de las palabras en kaw´esqar: componentes morfol´ogicos del verbo. Onom´azein 4, pp. 301–20. Santiago de Chile: Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica de Chile. Aguil´o, Federico (1991) Diccionario kallawaya. La Paz: Museo Nacional de Etnograf´ıa y Folklore. Aguirre Licht, Daniel (1998) Fundamentos morfosint´acticos para una gram´atica ember´a. Bogot´a: Universidad de los Andes: Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Abor´ıgenes. (1999) Ember´a. Munich and Newcastle: LINCOM Europa. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (1999) Areal diffusion and language contact in the I¸cana-Vaup´es basin, northwest Amazonia. In: Dixon and Aikhenvald (1999), pp. 384–416.
References
627
(2001a) Areal diffusion, genetic inheritance, and problems of subgrouping: a North Arawak case study. In: Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon (eds.), Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance, pp. 167–94. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (2001b) Dicion´ario Tariana-Portuguˆes e Portuguˆes-Tariana. Boletim do Museu Paraense Em´ılio Goeldi. S´erie Antropologia 17, 1. Bel´em do Par´a. (2002) Language Contact in Amazonia. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (2003) A Grammar of Tariana, from Northwest Amazonia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Albis, Manuel Mar´ıa (1860–1) The Indians of Andaqui, New Granada. Notes of a Traveller: published by Jos´e Mar´ıa Vergara y Vergara and Evaristo Delgado, Popay´an 1885; translated from the Spanish by J. S. Thrasher, Esq., for the American Ethnological Society. Bulletin of the American Ethnological Society, vol. 1, pp. 53–72. Alb´o, Xavier (1968) Social Constraints on Cochabamba Quechua. PhD diss. Cornell University, Ithaca. (1974) Los mil rostros del quechua. Socioling¨u´ıstica de Cochabamba. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. (1977) El futuro de las lenguas oprimidas en los Andes. Documento de Trabajo 33. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Centro de Investigaci´on de Ling¨u´ıstica Aplicada. (1980) Lengua y sociedad en Bolivia, 1976. La Paz: Instituto Nacional de Estad´ıstica. ed. (1988a) Ra´ıces de Am´erica: el mundo aymara. Madrid: Alianza Editorial and Unesco. (1988b) Bilingualism in Bolivia. In: Christina Bratt Paulston (ed.), International Handbook of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education, pp. 85–108. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. (1989) Introducci´on. In: Girault (1989), pp. 13–18. (1995) Bolivia pluriling¨ue. Gu´ıa para planificadores y educadores. Cuadernos de investigaci´on 44. 2 vols., maps, appendices. La Paz: Unicef and Centro de Investigaci´on y Promoci´on del Campesinado (CIPCA). Alb´o, Xavier and F´elix Layme (1992) Literatura aymara. Antolog´ıa. I: Prosa. La Paz: CIPCA, Hisbol and Jayma. (1993) Los textos aymaras de Waman Puma. In: Duviols (1993), pp. 13–41. (forthcoming) M´as sobre el aymara de Guaman Poma. To appear in Jean-Philippe Husson (ed.), Entre tradici´on e innovaci´on: cinco siglos de literatura amerindia. Actas del simposio ‘Fondo aut´octono y aportes ind´ıgenas en las literaturas amerindias – aspectos metodol´ogicos y filol´ogicos’. 50 Congreso Internacional de Americanistas (Warsaw, July 2000). Lima: Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u. Alderetes, Jorge R. (1994) El quechua de Santiago del Estero. Gram´atica y vocabulario. Tucum´an: Universidad Nacional de Tucum´an. (New edition 2001.) Alexander-Bakkerus, Astrid (2000) Fray Pedro de la Mata, Arte de la Lengua Cholona (1748). Una gram´atica colonial: problemas en su uso. In: Miranda Esquerre (2000), vol. 2, pp. 317–28. (2002) Nominal morphophonological processes observed in Pedro de la Mata’s ‘Arte de la Lengua Cholona’ (1748). In: Crevels et al. (2002), pp. 103–10. (MS) Pedro de la Mata: Arte de la lengua cholona, 1748. The British Library MS Additional 25, 322 (transcription). (forthcoming). A grammar of the Chol´on language based on the interpretation of the manuscript of Pedro de la Mata (1748). The British Library Ms. Additional 25, 322. Leiden University. Allaire, Louis (1999) Archaeology of the Caribbean region. In: Salomon and Schwartz (1999), part 1, pp. 668–773. Allin, Trevor R. (1976) A Grammar of Res´ıgaro, 3 vols. Horsleys Green, High Wycombe, Bucks.: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
628
References
(1979) Vocabulario res´ıgaro. Documento de Trabajo 16. Lima: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. Alonso, Amado (1953) Examen de la teor´ıa indigenista de Rodolfo Lenz. In: Estudios Ling¨u´ısticos. Temas Hispanoamericanos 5, pp. 332–98. Madrid: Gredos. Alonso, Amado and Raimundo Lida, eds. (1940) El Espa˜nol en Chile. Trabajos de Rodolfo Lenz, Andr´es Bello y Rodolfo Oroz. Biblioteca de Dialectolog´ıa Hispanoamericana 6. Buenos Aires: Facultad de Filosof´ıa y Letras de la Universidad de Buenos Aires, Instituto de Filolog´ıa. Altieri, Radam´es A., ed. (1939) Fernando de la Carrera, Arte de la lengua Yunga (1644). Tucum´an: Universidad de Tucum´an, Instituto de Antropolog´ıa. Alvar, Manuel (1977) La gram´atica mosca de Fray Bernardo de Lugo. Bogot´a: Instituto Caro y Cuervo. (1978) Resurrecci´on de una lengua: introducci´on a la edici´on facsimilar de la Gram´atica Chibcha del Padre Fray Bernardo de Lugo, editada en 1619. Madrid: Ediciones Cultura Hisp´anica and Centro Iberoamericano de Cooperaci´on. Alvarez, Eud´ofilo (1983 [c.1915]) Vocabulario shuar-castellano. Ecuador: Mundo Shuar. Alvarez, Jos´e (1985) Aspects of the Phonology of Guajiro. PhD diss. University of Essex. (1990) Coronalidad voc´alica y anterorizaci´on de vocales en los prefijos guajiros. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Etnoling¨u´ısticos 7, pp. 50–61. Lima: Ignacio Prado Pastor. (1993) Antolog´ıa de textos guajiros interlineales. Maracaibo: Gobernaci´on del Estado Zulia, Secretar´ıa de Cultura. (1994) Estudios de ling¨u´ıstica guajira. Maracaibo: Gobernaci´on del Estado Zulia, Secretar´ıa de Cultura. (1996) Construcciones posesivas en guajiro. Opci´on 12, 19, pp. 21–44. Maracaibo: Universidad del Zulia. Alvarez-Brun, F´elix (1970) Ancash, una historia regional peruana. Lima: Ediciones Pablo L. Villanueva. Alvarez-Santullano Busch, M. Pilar (1992) Variedad interna y deterioro del dialecto huilliche. Revista de Ling¨u´ıstica Te´orica y Aplicada 30, pp. 61–74. Concepci´on, Chile. Anchieta, Joseph de (1595) Arte de grammatica da lingua mais usada na costa do Brasil. Coimbra: Antˆonio Mariz (1946 edition, S˜ao Paulo: Editora Anchieta). Andagoya, Pascual de (1986 [1545]) Relaci´on y documentos, ed. Adri´an Bl´azquez. Madrid: Historia 16. Andrade Ciudad, Luis Florentino (1999) Top´onimos de una lengua andina extinta en un listado de 1943. Lexis 23, 2, pp. 401–25. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u, Departamento de Humanidades. Angenot-de Lima, Geralda (2001) Description phonologique, grammaticale et lexicale du mor´e, langue amazonienne de Bolivie et du Br´esil, 2 vols. Guajar´a Mirim: Editora da Universidade Federal de Rondˆonia. Animato, Carlo, Paolo A. Rossi and Clara Miccinelli (1989) Quipu. Il nodo parlante dei misteriosi Incas. Genoa: Edizioni Culturali Internazionali. Anonymous (1928 [18th century]) Vocabulario Andaqui-Espa˜nol. In: Cat´alogo de la Real Biblioteca, vol. VI: Manuscritos. Lenguas de Am´erica, pp. 175–95. Madrid. Ans, Andr´e Marcel d’ (1970) Materiales para el estudio del grupo ling¨u´ıstico pano. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos: Plan de Fomento Ling¨u´ıstico. (1977) Chilueno ou arauco, langue des Changos du nord du Chili (dialecte mapuche septentrional). Amerindia 2, pp. 135–8. Paris: Soci´et´e d’Etudes Linguistiques et Anthropologiques de France. Apaza Apaza, Ignacio (1999) Los procesos de creaci´on l´exica en la lengua aymara. La Paz: Magenta Industria Gr´afica. (2000) Estudio dialectal del aymara. Caracterizaci´on ling¨u´ıstica de la regi´on intersalar de Uyuni y Coipasa. La Paz: Instituto de Estudios Bolivianos.
References
629
Appel, Ren´e and Pieter C. Muysken (1987) Language Contact and Bilingualism. London: Edward Arnold. Arango Ochoa, Ra´ul and Enrique S´anchez Guti´errez (1998) Los pueblos ind´ıgenas de Colombia 1997: desarrollo y territorio. Bogot´a: Tercer Mundo and Departamento Nacional de Planeaci´on. Araya, Guillermo et al. (1973) Atlas ling¨u´ıstico-etnogr´afico del Sur de Chile (ALESUCH) I, Valdivia: Instituto de Filolog´ıa de la Universidad Austral de Chile. Arcila Robledo, Gregorio (1940) Vocabulario de los indios yurumangu´ıes. Voz Franciscana, 16, 179, pp. 341–43. Bogot´a. Ardila, Olga (1993) La subfamilia ling¨u´ıstica tucano-oriental: estado actual y perspectivas de investigaci´on. In: Rodr´ıguez de Montes (1993), pp 219–33. (2000) Fonolog´ıa del guahibo (o sikuani). In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 571–4. Arnold, Jennifer (1996) The inverse system in Mapudungun and other languages. Revista de Ling¨u´ıstica Te´orica y Aplicada 34, pp. 9–48. Concepci´on, Chile. Arriaza, Bernardo T. (1995) Beyond Death: the Chinchorro Mummies of Chile. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Aschmann, Richard P. (1993) Proto Witotoan. SIL Papers in Linguistics 114. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of Texas at Arlington. Augusta, F´elix Jos´e de (1903) Gram´atica araucana. Valdivia: Imprenta Central J. Lampert. (1910) Lecturas araucanas. Valdivia: Imprenta de la Prefectura Apost´olica (republished in 1991, Temuco: Editorial Kushe). (1916) Diccionario Araucano–Espa˜nol Espa˜nol–Araucano. (1966) Diccionario araucano. Tomo Primero: Araucano–Espa˜nol (re-edition of the first part of Augusta 1916). Padre las Casas (Chile): Imprenta y Editorial ‘San Francisco’. (1990) Gram´atica mapuche biling¨ue (re-edition of Augusta 1903). Santiago de Chile: Ediciones Seneca. (1991) Diccionario Espa˜nol–Mapuche (re-edition of the second part of Augusta 1916). Santiago de Chile: Ediciones Seneca. Bacelar, La´ercio Nora (MS 1996) Vocabul´ario preliminar Portuguˆes-Kanoˆe. Goiˆania. Ball´on Aguirre, Enrique and Rodolfo Cerr´on-Palomino (1990) Diglosia linguo-literaria y educaci´on en el Per´u. Homenaje a Alberto Escobar. Lima: Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia (CONCYTEC) and Deutsche Gesellschaft f¨ur technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ). Ball´on Aguirre, Enrique, Rodolfo Cerr´on-Palomino and Emilio Chambi Apaza (1992) Vocabulario razonado de la actividad agraria andina. Terminolog´ıa agraria quechua. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´e de Las Casas. Balmori, Clemente Hernando (1967) Estudios de a´ rea ling¨u´ıstica ind´ıgena. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosof´ıa y Letras, Centro de Estudios Ling¨u´ısticos. Barbira, Fran¸coise (1979) Ethnicity and Boundary: Maintenance among Peruvian Forest Quechua. PhD diss. Cambridge University. Bastian, Adolf (1878) Die Culturl¨ander des alten America, vol. 1. Berlin. Bastien, Joseph W. (1978) Mountain of the Condor. Metaphor and Ritual in an Andean Ayllu. St Paul: West Publishing Company (1985 edition, Prospect Heights, Ill.: Waveland Press). Bausani, Alessandro (1975) Nuovi materiali sulla lingua Chono. In: Cerulli and Della Ragione (1975), pp. 107–16. Belleza Castro, Nely (1995) Vocabulario Jacaru–Castellano, Castellano–Jacaru (aimara tupino). Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´e de Las Casas. Belleza Castro, Neli, Marco Ferrell Ram´ırez and Felipe Huayhua Pari (MS 1992) Jaqaru Iskriwitkuna – Jaqi Aru Qillqatanaka – Kachyath Jaqaru Iskriwitkuna – Kachuyatha Jaqi Aru Qillqatanaka. Lima.
630
References
Bendor-Samuel, John T. (1961) The Verbal Piece in Jebero. Supplement to Word 17. Monograph no. 4. Bengoa, Jos´e (1985) Historia del pueblo mapuche. Siglo XIX y XX. Santiago de Chile: Ediciones Sur (6th edition 2000, Santiago de Chile: Editorial Lom). Benvenutto Murrieta, Pedro Manuel (1936) El lenguaje peruano I. Lima: Talleres de Sanmart´ı y c´ıa. Bertonio, Ludovico (1603a) Arte breve de la lengua aymara para introducci´on del arte grande de la misma lengua. Rome: Luis Zanetti. (1603b) Arte y grammatica muy copiosa de la lengua aymara. Rome: Luis Zanetti (1879 edition by Julius Platzmann, Leipzig: B. G. Teubner). (1612a) Vocabulario de la lengua aymara. Juli, Chucuito: Francisco del Canto (1984 edition by Xavier Alb´o and F´elix Layme, Cochabamba: Centro de Estudios de la Realidad Econ´omica y Social, Instituto Franc´es de Estudios Andinos and Museo Nacional de Etnograf´ıa y Folklore). (1612b) Libro de la vida y milagros de Nuestro Se˜nor Iesu Christo en dos lenguas, aymara y romance. Juli, Chucuito: Francisco del Canto. Betanzos, Juan de (1987 [1551]) Suma y narraci´on de los Incas, ed. Mar´ıa del Carmen Mart´ın Rubio. Madrid: Atlas. Beuchat, Henri and Paul Rivet (1909) La langue jibaro ou sˇiwora 1. Anthropos 4, pp. 805–22, 1053–64. (1910a) La langue jibaro ou sˇiwora 2. Anthropos 5, pp. 1109–24. ´ (1910b) Affinit´es des langues du Sud de la Colombie et du Nord de l’Equateur. Le Mus´eon, NS 11, pp. 33–68, 141–98. Louvain. Beyersdorff, Margot and Sabine Dedenbach-Salazar S´aenz, eds. (1994) Andean Oral Traditions: Discourse and Literature. Bonner amerikanistische Studien 24. Bonn: Holos. Bibar, Ger´onimo de (1966 [1558]) Cr´onica y relaci´on copiosa y verdadera de los Reynos de Chile hecha por Ger´onimo de Bibar, natural de Burgos. Santiago de Chile: Fondo Hist´orico y Bibliogr´afico Jos´e Toribio Medina; Chicago: Newberry Library (see also Vivar). Bickerton, Derek and A. Escalante (1970) Palenquero: a Spanish-based creole of northern Colombia. Lingua 24, pp. 254–67. Bills, Garland D., Bernardo Vallejo and Rudolph Troike (1969) An Introduction to Spoken Bolivian Quechua. Austin: University of Texas Press. Bird, Junius (1946) The Alacaluf. In: J. H. Steward (1946a), pp. 55–79. Bixio, Beatriz (1993) Categor´ıas vac´ıas en allentiac. Actas de las Primeras Jornadas de Etnoling¨u´ıstica (Rosario, 16–18 June 1993), vol. 1, pp. 61–71. Rosario: Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Bonilla, V´ıctor Daniel (1972) Servants of God or Masters of Men? The Story of a Capuchin Mission in Amazonia. London: Pelican Books. Borman, Marlytte B. (1976) Vocabulario cof´an. M´exico: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. Bouysse-Cassagne, Th´er`ese (1975) Pertenencia e´ tnica, status econ´omico y lenguas en Charcas a fines del siglo XVI. In: Noble David Cook (ed.), Tasa de la visita general de Francisco de Toledo, pp. 312–28. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Bowman, Isaiah (1924) Desert Trails of Atacama. New York: American Geographical Society (republished in 1971, New York: AMS Press). Boyd-Bowman, Peter (1973) Patterns of Spanish emigration to the New World (1493–1580). Special Studies No. 34. Buffalo: Council on International Studies, State University of New York at Buffalo. Brack Egg, Antonio and Carlos Y´an˜ ez (1997) Amazonia Peruana. Comunidades ind´ıgenas, conocimientos y tierras tituladas. Atlas y base de datos. Global Environment Facility, Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarollo and United Nations Office for Project Services. Lima.
References
631
Branks, Thomas, and Judith Branks (1973) Fonolog´ıa del guambiano. In: Sistemas fonol´ogicos de idiomas colombianos, vol. 2, pp. 39–56. Lomalinda: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano (Editorial Townsend). Bravo, Domingo A. (1956) El quichua santiague˜no. Reducto idiom´atico argentino. Tucum´an: Universidad Nacional de Tucum´an. (1993) El quichua santiague˜no es el quichua argentino. In: Viegas Barros and Stell (1993), pp. 35–46. Bridges, Lucas (1987 [1948]) Uttermost Part of the World. London, Melbourne, Auckland, Johannesburg: Century Hutchinson. Bridges, Thomas (1894) A few notes on the structure of Yahgan. The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 23, pp. 53–80. (1933 [MS 1879]) Yamana–English: a Dictionary of the Speech of Tierra del Fuego, ed. D. Hestermann and M. Gusinde. M¨odling near Vienna: Verlag der Internationalen Zeitschrift Anthropos. Briggs, Janet R. (1973) Ayor´e narrative analysis. International Journal of American Linguistics 39, pp. 155–63. Briggs, Lucy Therina (1976) Dialectal Variation in the Aymara Language of Bolivia and Peru. PhD diss. University of Florida, Gainesville. (1988) Estructura del sistema nominal. In: Hardman et al. (1988), pp. 171–264. (1993) El idioma aymara. Variantes regionales y sociales. La Paz: Ediciones Instituto de Lengua y Cultura Aymara (ILCA). Briggs, Lucy Therina and Sabine Dedenbach-Salazar S´aenz, eds. (1995) Manuela Ari: an Aymara Woman’s Testimony of her Life. Bonner amerikanistische Studien 25. Bonn: Holos. Brinton, Daniel Garrison (1891) The American Race: a Linguistic Classification and Ethnographic Description of the Native Tribes of North and South America. New York: N. D. C. Hodges. Brundage, Burr Cartwright (1967) Lords of Cuzco: a History and Description of the Inca People in their Final Days. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Br¨uning, Enrique (1922) Estudios monogr´aficos del departamento de Lambayeque. Fasc´ıculo 2: Olmos. Chiclayo: Dionisio Mendoza (republished in 1989, Chiclayo: Sociedad de Investigaci´on de la Ciencia, Cultura y Arte Norte˜no (SICAN)). Buchwald, Otto von (1918) Migraciones sudamericanas. Bolet´ın de la Sociedad Ecuatoriana de Estudios Hist´oricos Americanos 1, pp. 227–36. Quito. (1922) An´alisis de una gram´atica atacame˜na. Bolet´ın de la Academia Nacional de Historia 5, 12–14, pp. 292–301. Quito. Buesa Oliver, Tom´as (1965) Indoamericanismos l´exicos en espa˜nol. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cient´ıficas. B¨uttner, Thomas Th. (1983) Las lenguas de los Andes centrales. Estudios sobre la clasificaci´on gen´etica, areal y tipol´ogica. Madrid: Ediciones Cultura Hisp´anica del Instituto de Cooperaci´on Iberoamericana. (1993) Uso del quichua y del castellano en la sierra ecuatoriana. Quito: Abya-Yala. B¨uttner, Thomas Th. and Dionisio Condori Cruz (1984) Diccionario Aymara–Castellano. Arunakan liwru: Aymara–Kastillanu. Puno: Proyecto Experimental de Educaci´on Biling¨ue. Cabello Valboa, Miguel (1951 [1586]) Miscel´anea ant´artica. Una historia del Per´u antiguo. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Facultad de Letras, Instituto de Etnolog´ıa. Cabral, Ana Suelly Arruda Cˆamara (1995) Contact-Induced Language Change in the Western Amazon: the Non-Genetic Origin of the Kokama Language. PhD diss. University of Pittsburgh. (2000) ¿En qu´e sentido el kok´ama no es una lengua tupi-guaran´ı? In: Miranda Esquerre (2000), vol. 2, pp. 237–51.
632
References
Cabrera, Pablo (1917) Datos sobre etnograf´ıa diaguita: un documento interesante. Revista de la Universidad Nacional de C´ordoba 4, 10, pp. 430–63. C´ordoba, Argentina. Cadogan, Le´on (1952) Ayvu Rapyta, Textos m´ıticos de los mby´a-guaran´ı del Guair´a. Boletim n´um. 227, Antropologia 5. S˜ao Paulo: Universidade de S˜ao Paulo, Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciˆencias e Letras. (1968) Diccionario Guayak´ı–Espa˜nol. Paris: Soci´et´e des Am´ericanistes, Mus´ee de l’Homme. Caillavet, Chantal (1983) Toponimia hist´orica, arqueolog´ıa y formas prehisp´anicas de agricultura en la regi´on de Otavalo, Ecuador. Bulletin de l’Institut Fran¸cais d’Etudes Andines 12, 3–4, pp. 1–21. Paris and Lima. (2000) Etnias del norte. Etnohistoria e historia de Ecuador. Madrid: Casa de Vel´azquez; Lima: Instituto Franc´es de Estudios Andinos; Quito: Abya Yala. Cajas Rojas, Judith (1990) Nasalizaci´on en urarina. In: Cerr´on-Palomino and Sol´ıs Fonseca (1990), pp. 217–25. Calancha, Antonio de la (1977 [1638]) Cr´onica moralizada. 6 vols., ed. Ignacio Prado Pastor. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Calvache Due˜nas, Roc´ıo (1989) Fonolog´ıa e introducci´on a la morfosintaxis del Awa Pit. MA thesis Universidad de los Andes, Departamento de Antropolog´ıa. Bogot´a. (2000) Fonolog´ıa y aproximaci´on a la morfosintaxis del Awa Pit. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 97–116. Calvo P´erez, Julio (1993) Pragm´atica y gram´atica del quechua cuzque˜no. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´e de Las Casas. ed. (1994) Actas de las II Jornadas Internacionales de Lengua y Cultura Amerindias, Valencia, 24–26 November 1993. Valencia: Universidad de Valencia, Departamento de Teor´ıa de los Lenguajes. (1998a) Ollantay. Edici´on cr´ıtica de la obra an´onima quechua. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´e de Las Casas. (1998b) Hip´otesis sobre los or´ıgenes del quechua y el aymara. In: Luis Miranda Esquerre and Amanda Orellana (eds.), Actas del II Congreso Nacional de Investigaciones Ling¨u´ıstico-Filol´ogicas, vol. 2, pp. 25–44. Lima: Universidad Ricardo Palma. Camacho, Jos´e, Liliana Paredes and Liliana S´anchez (1995) The genitive clitic and the genitive construction in Andean Spanish. Probus 7, pp. 133–47. Berlin. Camp, Elizabeth L. (1985) Split ergativity in Cavine˜na. International Journal of American Linguistics 51, 1, pp. 43–7. Campbell, Lyle (1973) Distant genetic relationship and the Maya–Chipaya hypothesis. Anthropological Linguistics 15, 3, pp. 113–35. (1995) The Quechumaran hypothesis and lessons for distant genetic comparison. Diachronica 12, 2, pp. 157–200. (1997) American Indian Languages: the Historical Linguistics of Native America. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Campbell, Lyle and Marianne Mithun, eds. (1979) The Languages of Native America: Historical and Comparative Assessment. Austin: University of Texas Press. Canals Frau, Salvador (1946) Una encomienda de indios capayanes. Anales del Instituto de Etnograf´ıa Americana 7, pp. 197–223. Mendoza: Universidad Nacional de Cuyo, Facultad de Filosof´ıa y Letras. (1953) Las poblaciones ind´ıgenas de la Argentina. Buenos Aires: Sudamericana. C´ardenas, V´ıctor Hugo and Xavier Alb´o (1983) El aymara. In: Pottier (1983), pp. 283–307. Carpenter, Lawrence K. (1982) Ecuadorian Quechua: Descriptive Sketch and Variation. PhD diss. University of Florida, Gainesville. Carrera Daza, Fernando de la (1644) Arte de la lengua yunga (for 1939 edition see Altieri).
References
633
Casamiquela, Rodolfo M. (1983) Nociones de gram´atica del G¨un¨una K¨une. Paris: Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. (1992) Comments on the texts of J. C. Wolf. Latin American Literatures Journal 8, 2, pp. 143–51. Castellanos, Juan de (1944 [1589]) Eleg´ıas de varones ilustres de Indias. Biblioteca de Autores Espa˜noles, vol. IV. Madrid: Atlas. Castro de Trelles, Lucila, ed. (1992) Relaci´on de la religi´on y ritos del Per´u hecha por los padres agustinos. Lima: Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u. Catrileo, Mar´ıa (1987) Mapudunguyu. Curso de lengua mapuche. Valdivia: Universidad Austral de Chile. Catta Quelen, Javier (1994) Gram´atica del quichua ecuatoriano (3rd edition). Quito: Abya-Yala. Celed´on, Rafael (1878) Gram´atica, catecismo i vocabulario de la lengua goajira. Biblioth`eque linguistique am´ericaine 5. Paris: Maisonneuve. (1886) Gram´atica de la lengua k¨oggaba, con vocabularios y catecismos, y un vocabulario espa˜nol, chimila, guamaka y bintukua. Biblioth`eque linguistique am´ericaine 10. Paris: Maisonneuve. Censabella, Marisa (MS 1996) El toba. Estudio fonol´ogico de las variedades regionales habladas en las provincias de Chaco y Formosa, Argentina. Report for Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cient´ıficas y T´ecnicas (CONICET). Buenos Aires. (1999) Las lenguas ind´ıgenas de la Argentina. Una mirada actual. Buenos Aires: Editorial Universitaria de Buenos Aires. Cerr´on-Palomino, Rodolfo M. (1967) Fonolog´ıa del wanka. In: Escobar et al. (1967), pp. 53–80. (1972) Ense˜nanza del castellano: deslindes y perspectivas. In: Escobar (1972), pp. 143–67. (1973a) Retroflexivizaci´on y deslateralizaci´on en wanka. Documento de Trabajo 8. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Centro de Investigaci´on de Ling¨u´ıstica Aplicada. (1973b) La evoluci´on del fonema */q/ en Yaʔa-Wanka. Documento de Trabajo 15. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Centro de Investigaci´on de Ling¨u´ıstica Aplicada. (1976a) Gram´atica quechua Jun´ın–Huanca. Lima: Ministerio de Educaci´on, Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. (1976b) Diccionario quechua Jun´ın–Huanca. Lima: Ministerio de Educaci´on, Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. (1976c) Calcos sint´acticos en el castellano andino. San Marcos 14, 9, pp. 3–10. Lima. (1977a) Huanca Quechua Dialectology. PhD diss. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. (1977b) Cambios gramaticalmente condicionados en quechua: una desconfirmaci´on de la teor´ıa neogram´atica del cambio fon´etico. Lexis 1, 2, pp. 163–86. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u, Departamento de Humanidades. (1979) La primera persona posesora-actora del protoquechua. Lexis 3, 1, pp. 1–39. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u, Departamento de Humanidades. (1981) Aprender castellano en un contexto pluriling¨ue. Lexis 5, 1, pp. 39–51. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u, Departamento de Humanidades. ed. (1982) Aula quechua. Lima: Ediciones Signo. (1985) Panorama de la ling¨u´ıstica andina. Revista Andina 3, 2, pp. 509–72. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´e de Las Casas. (1986) Comentario de Willem F. H. Adelaar, La relaci´on quechua-aru: perspectivas para la separaci´on del l´exico. Revista Andina 4, 2, pp. 403–8. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´e de Las Casas. (1987a) Ling¨u´ıstica quechua. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´e de Las Casas. (2nd edition 2003).
634
References
(1987b) Unidad y diferenciaci´on ling¨u´ıstica en el mundo andino. Lexis 11, pp. 71–104. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica. (1987c) La flexi´on de persona y n´umero en el protoquechua. Indiana 11, pp. 263–76. Ibero-amerikanisches Institut Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag (also published in Language Sciences 9, 1, pp. 77–89). (1989a) Lengua y sociedad en el valle del Mantaro. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. (1989b) Language policy in Peru: a historical overview. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 77, pp. 11–33. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. (1989c) Quechua y mochica: lenguas en contacto. Lexis 12, 1, pp. 47–68. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u, Departamento de Humanidades. (1990) Reconsideraci´on del llamado ‘quechua coste˜no’. Revista Andina 8, 2, pp. 335–409. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´e de Las Casas (also published in: Ball´on Aguirre and Cerr´on-Palomino (1990), pp. 179–240). (1993) Quechu´ıstica y aimar´ıstica: una propuesta terminol´ogica. Signo & Se˜na 3: Etnoling¨u´ıstica, pp. 19–53. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosof´ıa y Letras. (1994a) Quechumara. Estructuras paralelas de las lenguas quechua y aimara. La Paz: Centro de Investigaci´on y Promoci´on del Campesinado (CIPCA). (1994b) Vocales largas en jacaru: Reconsideraci´on. Lexis 18, 1, pp. 69–81. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u, Departamento de Humanidades. (1995a) Dialectolog´ıa del aimara sure˜no. Revista Andina 13, 1, pp. 103–72. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´e de Las Casas. (1995b) La lengua de Naimlap. Reconstrucci´on y obsolescencia del mochica. Lima: Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u. (1998) El cantar de Inca Yupanqui y la lengua secreta de los Incas. Revista Andina 16, 2, pp. 417–50. (2000) Ling¨u´ıstica aimara. Lima: Centro Bartolom´e de Las Casas, Programa de Formaci´on en Educaci´on Intercultural Biling¨ue para los Paises Andinos (PROEIB Andes). (MS 2002) Bosquejo estructural del chipaya. (2003) Castellano andino: aspectos socioling¨u´ısticos, pedag´ogicos y gramaticales. Lima: Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u and Deutsche Gesellschaft f¨ur technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ). Cerr´on-Palomino, Rodolfo M. and Enrique Ball´on Aguirre (MS 2003) Vocabulario Castellano–Chipaya Chipaya–Castellano. Cerr´on-Palomino, Rodolfo M. and Gustavo Sol´ıs Fonseca, eds. (1990) Temas de ling¨u´ıstica amerindia (Actas del Primer Congreso Nacional de Investigaciones Ling¨u´ıstico-Filol´ogicas, Lima, November 1987). Lima: Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnolog´ıa (CONCYTEC) and Deutsche Gesellschaft f¨ur technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ). Cerulli, Ernesta and Gilda Della Ragione, eds. (1975) Atti del XL Congresso Internazionale degli Americanisti (Rome-Genoa, 3–12 September 1972), vol. 3: Linguistica – Folklore – Storia americana – Sociologia. Genoa: Tilgher. Chamberlain, Alexander Francis (1913) Linguistic stocks of South American Indians (with distribution map). American Anthropologist 15, pp. 236–47. Chaparro, Carmelo (1985) Fonolog´ıa y lexic´on del quechua de Chachapoyas. Lima: Sagsa. Chase-Sardi, Miguel (1972) The present situation of the Indians in Paraguay. In: Dostal (1972), pp. 173–217. Chase Smith, Richard (1979) The Multinational Squeeze on the Amuesha People of Central Peru. IWGIA Document 35. Copenhagen: International Work Group of Indigenous Affairs. Chatwin, Bruce (1983) In Patagonia. London: Picador.
References
635
Chaumeil, Jean-Pierre (1984) Between Zoo and Slavery: the Yagua of Eastern Peru in their Present Situation. IWGIA Document 49. Copenhagen: International Work Group of Indigenous Affairs. Chaves Mendoza, Alvaro, Jorge Morales G´omez and Horacio Calle Restrepo (1995) Los indios de Colombia. Quito: Abya-Yala (first published in 1992 by Editorial MAPFRE, Madrid). Chirif, Alberto and Carlos Mora (1977) Atlas de comunidades nativas. Lima: Sistema Nacional de Apoyo a la Movilizaci´on Social (SINAMOS). Chirinos Rivera, Andr´es (1998) Las lenguas ind´ıgenas peruanas m´as all´a del 2000. Revista Andina 16, 2, pp. 453–79. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´e de Las Casas. (2001) Atlas ling¨u´ıstico del Per´u. Cuzco and Lima: Centro Bartolom´e de Las Casas, Ministerio de Educaci´on. Chirinos Rivera, Andr´es and Alejo Maque Capira (1996) Eros andino: Alejo Khunku willawanchik. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´e de Las Casas. Chom´e, Ignace (1958 [1738–45]) see Lussagnet (1958). Cieza de Le´on, Pedro de (1984 [1553]) Cr´onica del Per´u: primera parte. Lima: Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u. Claesson, Kenneth (1994) A phonological outline of Mataco/Noctenes. International Journal of American Linguistics 60, 1, pp. 1–38. Clair-Vassiliadis, Christos (1976) Esquisse phonologique de l’aymara parl´e au Chili. La linguistique 12, pp. 143–52. Paris. Clairis, Chistos (1985) Indigenous languages of Tierra del Fuego. In: Klein and Stark (1985a), pp. 753–83. (1987) El Qawesqar. Ling¨u´ıstica fueguina, teor´ıa y descripci´on. Estudios Filol´ogicos, Anejo 12 (1985). Valdivia: Universidad Austral de Chile, Facultad de Filosof´ıa y Humanidades. (1998) Ling¨u´ıstica fueguina 1997. In: Marisa Censabella and Jos´e Pedro Viegas Barros (eds.), Actas de las III Jornadas de Ling¨u´ıstica Aborigen (Buenos Aires, 20–23 May 1997), pp. 21–44. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosof´ıa y Letras, Instituto de Ling¨u´ıstica. Clastres, H´el`ene (1975) La terre sans mal. Le proph´etisme tupi-guarani. Paris: Editions du Seuil. Cobo, Bernab´e (1890–5 [1653]) Historia del Nuevo Mundo, 4 vols., ed. Marcos Jim´enez de la Espada. Sevilla: E. Rasco (1892 edition by Atlas, Madrid). Cole, Peter (1982) Imbabura Quechua. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company. Cole, Peter, Wayne Harbert and Gabriella Hermon (1982) Headless relative clauses in Quechua. International Journal of American Linguistics 48, 2, pp. 113–24. Cole, Peter, Gabriella Hermon and Mario Daniel Mart´ın, eds. (1994) Language in the Andes. Newark, Del.: Latin American Studies Program, University of Delaware. Co˜na, Pascual (1984) Testimonio de un cacique mapuche. Santiago: Pehuen Editores. Condori, Bernab´e and Rosalind Gow (1982) Kay pacha (2nd edition). Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´e de Las Casas. Condori Mamani, Gregorio (1977) Autobiograf´ıa, ed. Ricardo Valderrama Fern´andez and Carmen Escalante Guti´errez. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´e de Las Casas. Constenla Uma˜na, Adolfo (1981) Comparative Chibchan Phonology. PhD diss. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. (1984) Los fonemas del muisca. Estudios de Ling¨u´ıstica Chibcha, vol. 3, pp. 65–111. San Jos´e: Universidad de Costa Rica, Departamento de Ling¨u´ıstica. (1988) Indicios para la reconstrucci´on de clasificadores en el sintagma nominal protochibcha (1). Filolog´ıa y Ling¨u´ıstica 14, 2, pp. 111–18. San Jos´e: Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica.
636
References
(1989) Subagrupaci´on de las lenguas chibchas: algunos nuevos indicios comparativos y lexicoestad´ısticos. Estudios de Ling¨u´ıstica Chibcha 8, pp. 17–72. San Jos´e: Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica. (1990a) Introducci´on al estudio de las literaturas tradicionales chibchas. Filolog´ıa y Ling¨u´ıstica 16, 1, pp. 55–96. San Jos´e: Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica. (1990b) Una hip´otesis sobre la localizaci´on del protochibcha y la dispersi´on de sus descendientes. Filolog´ıa y Ling¨u´ıstica 16, 2, pp. 111–23. San Jos´e: Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica. (1991) Las lenguas del Area Intermedia: introducci´on a su estudio areal. San Jos´e: Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica. (1993) La familia chibcha. In: Rodr´ıguez de Montes (1993), pp. 75–125. Constenla Uma˜na, Adolfo and Enrique Margery Pe˜na (1991) Elementos de fonolog´ıa comparada choc´o. Filolog´ıa y Ling¨u´ıstica 17, 1–2, pp. 137–91. San Jos´e: Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica. Contreras, Constantino and M. Pilar Alvarez-Santullano Busch (1989) Los huilliches y su sistema verbal (Estudio introductorio). Revista de Ling¨u´ıstica Te´orica y Aplicada 27, pp. 39–65. Concepci´on, Chile. Coombs, David, Heidi Coombs and Robert Weber (1976) Gram´atica quechua San Mart´ın. Lima: Ministerio de Educaci´on, Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Cooper, John Montgomery (1917) Analytical and Critical Bibliography of the Tribes of Tierra del Fuego and Adjacent Territory. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 63. Washington. (1946a) The Southern Hunters: an introduction. In: Steward (1946a), pp. 13–15. (1946b) The Chono. In: Steward (1946a), pp. 47–54. (1946c) The Yahgan. In: Steward (1946a), pp. 81–106. (1946d). The Ona. In: Steward (1946a), pp. 107–25. Corbera Mori, Angel (2000) Aspectos de la morfolog´ıa nominal aguaruna (j´ıbaro). In: van der Voort and van de Kerke (2000), pp. 213–23. Cordero, Luis (1967 [1892]) Diccionario Quichua–Espa˜nol Espa˜nol–Quichua. Cuenca: Publicaciones de la Universidad de Cuenca (1992 edition, Quito: Corporaci´on Editora Nacional). Correa, Fran¸cois and Ximena Pach´on, eds. (1987) Introducci´on a la Colombia amerindia. Bogot´a: Editorial Presencia. Correal Urrego, Gonzalo and Thomas van der Hammen (1977) Investigaciones arqueol´ogicas en los abrigos rocosos del Tequendama: 12,000 a˜nos de historia del hombre y su medio ambiente en la altiplanicie de Bogot´a. Bogot´a: Fondo de Promoci´on de la Cultura del Banco Popular. Cotari, Daniel, Jaime Mej´ıa and V´ıctor Carrasco (1978) Diccionario Aymara–Castellano Castellano–Aymara. Cochabamba: Instituto de Idiomas Padres de Maryknoll. Courtney, Ellen (2000) Duplication in the L2 Spanish produced by Quechua-speaking children: transfer of a pragmatic strategy. In: Dicky Gilbers, John Nerbonne and Jos Schaeken (eds.), Languages in Contact, pp. 87–98. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Craig, Colette (1991) Ways to go in Rama. In: Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, vol. 2, pp. 455–92. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. (1992) A constitutional response to language endangerment: the case of Nicaragua. Language 68, 1, pp. 17–24. Creider, Chet (1967) Fonolog´ıa del quechua de Picoy. In: Escobar et al. (1967), pp. 41–52. Cr´equi-Montfort, Georges de and Paul Rivet (1925–7) La langue uru ou pukina. Journal de la Soci´et´e des Am´ericanistes de Paris 17 (1925), pp. 211–44; 18 (1926), pp. 111–39; 19 (1927), pp. 57–116.
References
637
Crevels, Mily, Hein van der Voort, S´ergio Meira and Simon van de Kerke, eds. (2002) Current Studies on South American Languages. (Contributions to the 50th International Congress of Americanists, Warsaw, 2000). Indigenous Languages of Latin America Series no. 3. Leiden: Research School CNWS of Asian, African and Amerindian Studies. Croese, Robert A. (1980) Estudio dialectol´ogico del mapuche. Estudios Filol´ogicos 15, pp. 7–38. Valdivia: Universidad Austral de Chile. (1985) Mapuche dialect survey. In: Klein and Stark (1985a), pp. 784–801. (1990) Evidencias lexicales y gramaticales para una posible filiaci´on del mapudungu con la macro familia arawak. In: Cerr´on-Palomino and Sol´ıs Fonseca (1990), pp. 275–90 (republished in 1991 in: Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Etnoling¨u´ısticos 6, pp. 283–96, Lima: Ignacio Prado Pastor). Cuba Manrique, Mar´ıa del Carmen (2000) Vocabulario de Tauribara. In: Miranda Esquerre (2000), vol. 2, pp. 13–40. Cuervo, Rufino Jos´e (1867) Apuntaciones cr´ıticas sobre el lenguaje bogotano. (9th corrected edition, 1955.) Bogot´a: Instituto Caro y Cuervo. Curnow, Timothy Jowan (1997) A Grammar of Awa Pit (Cuaiquer): an indigenous language of south-western Colombia. PhD diss. Australian National University, Canberra. (1998) Why P´aez is not a Barbacoan language: the nonexistence of ‘Moguex’ and the use of early sources. International Journal of American Linguistics 64, 4, pp. 338–51. (MS) Conjunct/Disjunct in the Barbacoan Languages of South America. Curnow, Timothy Jowan and Anthony J. Liddicoat (1998) The Barbacoan languages of Colombia and Ecuador. Anthropological Linguistics 40, 3, pp. 384–408. Cusihuaman Guti´errez, Antonio (1976a) Gram´atica quechua Cuzco-Collao. Lima: Ministerio de Educaci´on, Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. (1976b) Diccionario quechua Cuzco-Collao. Lima: Ministerio de Educaci´on, Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Darwin, Charles (1983 [1906]) The Voyage of the ‘Beagle’. London, etc.: Dent. Davidson Jr, Joseph O. (1977) A Contrastive Study of the Grammatical Structures of Aymara and Cuzco Quechua. PhD diss. University of California, Berkeley. Davis, Irvine (1968) Some Macro-Jˆe relationships. International Journal of American Linguistics 34, 1, pp. 42–47 (reprinted in: Klein and Stark (1985a), pp. 286–303). Dedenbach-Salazar S´aenz, Sabine (1985) Un aporte a la reconstrucci´on del vocabulario agr´ıcola de la e´ poca incaica. Diccionarios y textos quechuas del siglo XVI y comienzos del XVII usados como fuentes hist´orico-etnoling¨u´ısticas para el vocabulario agr´ıcola. Bonner amerikanistische Studien 14. Bonn: Universit¨at Bonn, Seminar f¨ur V¨olkerkunde. (1990) Inka pachaq llamanpa willaynin: uso y crianza de los cam´elidos en la e´ poca incaica. Estudio ling¨u´ıstico y etnohist´orico basado en las fuentes lexicogr´aficas y textuales del primer siglo despu´es de la conquista. Bonner amerikanistische Studien 16. Bonn: Universit¨at Bonn, Seminar f¨ur V¨olkerkunde. (1994) El arte verbal de los textos quechuas de Huarochir´ı (Per´u, siglo XVII) reflejado en la organizaci´on del discurso y en los medios estil´ısticos. In: Beyersdorff and Dedenbach-Salazar S´aenz (1994), pp. 21–49. Dedenbach-Salazar S´aenz, Sabine and Juan de Dios Yapita Moya (1994) Las oraciones compuestas en aymara – aproximaciones para su comprensi´on y su estudio. In: Cole et al. (1994), pp. 126–50. Dedenbach-Salazar S´aenz, Sabine and Lindsey Crickmay, eds. (1999) The Language of Christianisation in Latin America: Catechisation and Instruction in Amerindian Languages. Bonner Amerikanistische Studien 32 / Centre for Indigenous American Studies and Exchange – St Andrews Occasional Papers 29. Markt Schwaben: Anton Saurwein.
638
References
Dedenbach-Salazar S´aenz, Sabine, Carmen Arellano Hoffmann, Eva K¨onig, and Heiko Pr¨umers, eds. (1998) 50 Years Americanist Studies at the University of Bonn. Bonner amerikanistische Studien 30. Bonn and Markt Schwaben: Anton Saurwein. D´el´etroz Favre, Alain (1993) Huk kutis kaq kasqa . . . Relatos del distrito de Coaza (Carabaya, Puno). Cuzco: Instituto de Pastoral Andina. Derbyshire, Desmond C. (1986) Comparative survey of morphology and syntax in Brazilian Arawakan. In: Derbyshire and Pullum (1986), pp. 469–566. (1987) Morphosyntactic areal characteristics of Amazonian languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 53, 3, pp. 311–26. Derbyshire, Desmond C. and Geoffrey K. Pullum, eds. (1986–98) Handbook of Amazonian Languages, vol. 1 (1986); vol. 2 (1990); vol. 3 (1991), vol. 4 (1998). D´ıaz-Fern´andez, Antonio Edmundo (1992) Aprenda mapuzungun! Viedma, R´ıo Negro: Fundaci´on Ameghino. Dickinson, Connie (1999) Semantic and pragmatic dimensions of Tsafiki evidential and mirative markers. Chicago Linguistic Society 35. The Panels, pp. 29–44. (2000) Mirativity in Tsafiki. Studies in Language 24, 2, pp. 379–421. (2002) Complex Predicates in Tsafiki. PhD diss. University of Oregon, Eugene. Dietrich, Wolf (1986) El idioma chiriguano. Madrid: Ediciones Cultura Hisp´anica, Instituto de Cooperaci´on Iberoamericana. (1990) More Evidence for an Internal Classification of Tupi-Guaran´ı Languages. Indiana, Supplement 12. Berlin. Diez Astete, Alvaro and David Murillo (1998) Pueblos ind´ıgenas de las tierras bajas: caracter´ısticas principales. La Paz: Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarollo. Dillehay, Tom D. (1989–97) Monte Verde: a Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile, 2 vols. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Dixon, R. M. W. and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, eds. (1999) The Amazonian Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dostal, Walter, ed. (1972) The Situation of the Indian in South America. Geneva: World Council of Churches. Duff, Martha (1957) A syntactical analysis of an Amuesha (Arawak) text. International Journal of American Linguistics 23, 3, pp. 171–8. Duff-Tripp, Martha (1997) Gram´atica del idioma Yanesha (Amuesha). Serie Ling¨u´ıstica Peruana 43. Lima: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. (1998) Diccionario Yanesha (Amuesha) ∼ Castellano. Serie Ling¨u´ıstica Peruana 47. Lima: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. Dum´ezil, Georges (1954) Remarques sur les six premiers noms de nombre du turc. Studia Linguistica 8, 1, pp. 1–15. Lund. (1955) Remarques compl´ementaires sur les six premiers noms de nombre du turc et du quechua. Journal de la Soci´et´e des Am´ericanistes de Paris 44, pp. 17–37. (1956) Structure du quechua (dialecte cuzqu´enien). Travaux de Linguistique 1, pp. 125–34. Paris: Klincksieck. D¨ummler, Christiane (1997) La Nueva Granada como campo de labor ling¨u´ıstico-misionera: presentaci´on y an´alisis de varias obras de la e´ poca colonial. In: Zimmermann (1997), pp. 413–32. Duque G´omez, Luis (1970) Los Quimbayas. Bogot´a: Instituto Colombiano de Antropolog´ıa. Durbin, Marshall (1985) A survey of the Carib language family. In: Klein and Stark (1985a), pp. 325–70. Durbin, Marshall and Hayd´ee Seijas (1973a) A note on Opon-Carare. Zeitschrift f¨ur Ethnologie 98, 1–2, pp. 242–5. Braunschweig. (1973b) A note on Panche, Pijao, Pantagora (Palenque), Colima and Muzo. International Journal of American Linguistics 39, 1, pp. 47–51.
References
639
(1973c) Proto Hianacoto: Guaque–Carijona–Hianacoto–Umaua. International Journal of American Linguistics 39, 1, pp. 22–31. (1975) The phonological structure of the western Carib languages of the Sierra de Perij´a, Venezuela (1). In: Cerulli and Della Ragione (1975), pp. 69–77. Duviols, Pierre (1971) La lutte contre les religions autochtones dans le P´erou colonial. ‘L’extirpation de l’idolˆatrie’ entre 1532 et 1660. Lima: Institut Fran¸cais d’Etudes Andines. ed. (1993) Religions des Andes et langues indig`enes. Equateur-P´erou-Bolivie avant et apr`es la conquˆete espagnole. Aix-en-Provence: Publications de l’Universit´e de Provence. Eakin, Lucille (1991) Lecciones para el aprendizaje del idioma yaminahua. Documento de Trabajo 22. Lima: Ministerio de Educaci´on, Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. Ebbing, Juan Enrique (1965) Gram´atica y diccionario aimara. La Paz: Editorial ‘Don Bosco’. Echeverr´ıa Weasson, Sergio (1964) Descripci´on fonol´ogica del mapuche actual. Bolet´ın del Instituto de Filolog´ıa de la Universidad de Chile 16, pp. 13–59. Santiago de Chile. Echeverr´ıa, Max S. and Heles Contreras (1965) Araucanian phonemics. International Journal of American Linguistics 31, 2, pp. 132–35. Echeverr´ıa y Reyes, An´ıbal (1967) La lengua atacame˜na. Revista de Cultura Universitaria Ancora 3, pp. 89–100. Antofagasta (first published in 1890 as Noticias sobre la lengua atacame˜na, Santiago de Chile: Imprenta Nacional). Eckstein, Susan, ed. (1989) Power and Popular Protest: Latin American Social Movements. Berkeley: University of California Press. Eguillor, Mar´ıa Isabel (1989) Educaci´on intercultural biling¨ue yanomami, una alternativa a la situaci´on actual. Pueblos Ind´ıgenas y Educaci´on 10, pp. 55–82. Quito: Abya-Yala and Proyecto de Educaci´on Biling¨ue e Intercultural (EBI). Elson, Benjamin Franklin, ed. (1962) Studies in Ecuadorian Indian Languages, vol. 1. Norman, Oklahoma: Summer Institute of Linguistics. England, Nora Clearman (1988) Sufijos verbales derivacionales. In: Hardman et al. (1988), pp. 94–137. Ercilla, Alonso de (1969 [1569–1589]) La Araucana. Santiago de Chile: Editorial Universitaria. Escalante Guti´errez, Carmen and Ricardo Valderrama Fern´andez (1992) Nosotros los humanos. ˜ Nuqanchik runakuna. Testimonios de los quechuas del siglo XX. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´e de Las Casas. Escobar, Alberto (1967) Fonolog´ıa del quechua de Yanacocha. In: Escobar et al. (1967), pp. 7–24. ed. (1972) El reto del multiling¨uismo en el Per´u. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Escobar, Alberto, Gary Parker, Chet Creider and Rodolfo Cerr´on (1967) Cuatro fonolog´ıas quechuas. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Plan de Fomento Ling¨u´ıstico. Escobar, Ana Mar´ıa (1990) Los biling¨ues y el castellano en el Per´u. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. (2000) Contacto social y ling¨u´ıstico. El espa˜nol en contacto con el quechua en Per´u. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica. Escribens Trisano, Augusto (1977) Fonolog´ıa del quechua de Ferre˜nafe. Documento de Trabajo 37. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Centro de Investigaci´on de Ling¨u´ıstica Aplicada. Espejo Ayka, Elvira (1994) Jichha na: parlt’a:. Ahora les voy a narrar, ed. Denise Y. Arnold and Juan de Dios Yapita Moya. La Paz: UNICEF, Casa de las Am´ericas (Havana). Espinoza Soriano, Waldemar, ed. (1964) Visita hecha a la provincia de Chucuito por Garci Diez de San Miguel en el a˜no 1567. Lima: Ediciones de la Casa de la Cultura del Per´u. (1977) La poliginia se˜norial en el reino de Caxamarca. Revista del Museo Nacional 63, pp. 399–466. Lima. Fabre, Alain (1995) Lexical similarities between Uru-Chipaya and Pano-Takanan languages: genetic relationship or areal diffusion? Opci´on, 11, 18, pp. 45–73. Maracaibo: Universidad del Zulia.
640
References
(1998) Manual de las lenguas ind´ıgenas sudamericanas, 2 vols. Munich and Newcastle: LINCOM Europa. (2002) Algunos rasgos tipol´ogicos del Kams´a (Valle de Sibundoy, Alto Putumayo, sudoeste de Colombia), vistos desde una perspectiva areal. In: Crevels et al. (2002), pp. 169–98. Faller, Martina (2002) Semantics and Pragmatics of Evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. PhD diss., Stanford University, Stanford. Fals Borda, Orlando (1976) Capitalismo, hacienda y poblamiento en la costa atl´antica. Bogot´a: Punta de Lanza. Farf´an, Jos´e Mar´ıa B. (1947–51) Colecci´on de textos quechuas del Per´u central. Revista del Museo Nacional 16, pp. 85–122; 17, pp. 120–50; 18, pp. 121–66; 19–20, pp. 191–269. Lima. (1952–3) Textos del Haqe-aru o Kawki. Revista del Museo Nacional 21 (1952), pp. 77–91; 22 (1953), pp. 61–74. Lima. (1955) Estudio de un vocabulario de las Lenguas Quechua, Aymara y Haqe-aru. Revista del Museo Nacional 24, pp. 81–99. Lima. (1961) Diccionario conciso Castellano–Haqearu–Quechua. Revista del Museo Nacional 30, pp. 19–40. Lima. Fast, Peter W. (1953) Amuesha (Arawak) phonemes. International Journal of American Linguistics 19, 3, pp. 191–4. Faust, Norma W. (1972) Gram´atica Cocama: lecciones para el aprendizaje del idioma cocama. Serie Ling¨u´ıstica Peruana 6. Lima, Yarinacocha: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. Fawcett, Percy Harrison (1953) Exploration Fawcett. London: Hutchinson. Febr´es, Andr´es (1764) Arte de la lengua general del reino de Chile (reprinted in 1975 by Ediciones Cabildo, Vaduz, Georgetown). Fern´andez Garay, Ana V. (1989a) Situaci´on de la lengua tehuelche a mediados del siglo XIX. Un caso de muerte de lengua. Cuadernos del Sur 21/22, pp. 113–30. Bah´ıa Blanca: Universidad Nacional del Sur, Departamento de Humanidades. (1989b) Aspectos dialectales del ranquel. Actas de Lengua y Literatura Mapuche 3, pp. 73–90. Temuco: Universidad de la Frontera. (1991) Phonology of Ranquel and phonological comparisons with other Mapuche dialects. In: Key (1991), pp. 97–110. (1993a) G´enero y sexo en tehuelche. In:Viegas Barros and Stell (1993), pp. 95–106. (1993b) Le tehuelche. Description d’une langue en train de disparaˆıtre. Doctoral thesis, Universit´e de la Sorbonne, Paris V, Paris. (1995) La posesi´on en tehuelche. In: Fern´andez Garay and Viegas Barros (1995), pp. 251–8. (1996) Situaci´on de las lenguas ind´ıgenas en la Provincia de Chubut, Argentina. Lengua y Literatura Mapuche 7, pp. 75–86. Temuco: Universidad de la Frontera. (1997a) El sustrato tehuelche en una variedad del mapuche argentino. II Jornadas de Etnoling¨u´ıstica, vol.1, pp. 199–205. Rosario: Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Departamento de Etnoling¨u´ıstica, Escuela de Antropolog´ıa, Facultad de Humanidades y Artes. (1997b) Testimonios de los u´ ltimos Tehuelches. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosof´ıa y Letras, Instituto de Ling¨u´ıstica. (1998a) Una ceremonia tehuelche entre los ranqueles. Memorias de las Jornadas Ranquelinas, pp. 111–17. Santa Rosa, La Pampa: Gobierno de la Provincia de La Pampa. (1998b) Afijos y modalidades en el verbo ranquel. In: Golluscio and Kuramochi (1998), pp. 19–34. (1998c) El tehuelche. Una lengua en v´ıas de extinci´on. Estudios Filol´ogicos, Anejo 15. Valdivia: Universidad Austral de Chile, Facultad de Filosof´ıa y Humanidades.
References
641
(2001) Ranquel–Espa˜nol Espa˜nol–Ranquel, diccionario de una variedad mapuche de La Pampa (Argentina) Indigenous Languages of Latin America Series no. 2. Leiden: Research School CNWS of Asian, African and Amerindian Studies. (2002) Testimonios de los u´ ltimos Ranqueles. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosof´ıa y Letras, Instituto de Ling¨u´ıstica. Fern´andez Garay, Ana V. and Luc´ıa Golluscio, eds. (2002) Temas de Ling¨u´ıstica Aborigen II. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosof´ıa y Letras, Instituto de Ling¨u´ıstica. Fern´andez Garay, Ana V. and Jos´e Pedro Viegas Barros, eds. (1995) Actas II Jornadas de Ling¨u´ıstica Aborigen (Buenos Aires, 15–18 November 1994). Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosof´ıa y Letras, Instituto de Ling¨u´ıstica. Fern´andez de Oviedo y Valdez, Gonzalo (1851–5) Historia general y natural de las Indias, Islas y Tierra Firme del Mar Oc´eano, 4 vols. Madrid: Imprenta de la Real Academia de la Historia. Ferrario, Benigno (1956) La dialettologia ed i problemi interni della Runa-Simi (vulgo Qu´echua). Orbis 5, pp. 131–40. Louvain. (MS c.1957) Las lenguas ind´ıgenas del Uruguay. Ferrell Ram´ırez, Marco A. (1996) Textos aimaras en Guaman Poma. Revista Andina 14, 2, pp. 413–55. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´e de Las Casas. Fiedel, Stuart J. (1992) Prehistory of the Americas (1st edition 1987). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Figueredo, Juan de (1964 [1700]) Vocabulario de la lengua chinchaisuyo y algunos modos mas usados en dicha lengua. In: Luis A. Pardo and Carlos Galimberti Miranda (eds.), Diego de Torres Rubio: Arte de la lengua quichua, pp. 112–20. Cuzco: H. G. Rozas. Firestone, Homer L. (1965) Description and classification of Sirion´o. The Hague: Mouton. Fischer, Manuela and Konrad Th. Preuss (1989) Mitos Kogi. Quito: Abya-Yala. Fischermann, Bernd (1988) Zur Weltsicht der Ayor´eode Ostboliviens. PhD diss. University of Bonn. Flores Reyna, Manuel (1996) Tras las huellas de una lengua perdida. La lengua culle de la sierra norte del Per´u. Paper read at the First Encounter of Peruvianists (Universidad de Lima, September 1996). Lima. Flornoy, Bertrand (1938) Contribution a` l’´etude de la langue j´ıvaro ou sˇuor. Journal de la Soci´et´e des Am´ericanistes de Paris 30, pp. 333–41. Floyd, Rick (1999) The Structure of Evidential Categories in Wanka Quechua. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington. Fontanella de Weinberg, Mar´ıa Beatriz (1967) Componential analysis of personal affixes in Araucanian. International Journal of American Linguistics 33, 4, pp. 305–8. (1976) La lengua espa˜nola fuera de Espa˜na. Buenos Aires: Editorial Paidos. Foster, George (1960) Culture and Conquest: America’s Spanish Heritage. Chicago: Quadrangle Books. Frank, Erwin H., with Javier Villacorte Bustamante, Chaparo Villacorte M¨ea and C. Santiago M¨ea (1990) Mitos de los uni. En¨ex ca Santa Martanu ic¨e Unin bana ic¨en. Quito: Abya-Yala. Frank, Paul S. (1985) The verb phrase in Ika. Estudios de Ling¨u´ıstica Chibcha 4, pp. 57–99. San Jos´e: Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica. (1990) Ika Syntax. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington. Friede, Juan (1952) Consideraciones sobre la lengua andaki. Revista de Antropolog´ıa y Etnolog´ıa 6, pp 187–222. Madrid. (1953) Los Andak´ı 1538–1947. M´exico: Fondo de Cultura Econ´omica.
642
References
Friedemann, Nina S. de and Jaime Arocha Rodr´ıguez (1982) Herederos del Jaguar y la Anaconda (2nd edition 1985). Bogot´a: Carlos Valencia. Friedemann, Nina S. de and Carlos Pati˜no Rosselli (1983) Lengua y sociedad en el Palenque de San Basilio. Bogot´a: Instituto Caro y Cuervo. Furlong, Guillermo (1941) Entre los lules de Tucum´an. Buenos Aires: Talleres Gr´aficos ‘San Pablo’. Fuss, Max and J¨urgen Riester (1986) Vocabulario Espa˜nol–Chiquito y Chiquito–Espa˜nol. In: Riester (1986b), pp. 115–385. Galeote Torno, Jes´us (1993) Manityana auki bes¨ıro. Gram´atica moderna de la lengua chiquitana y vocabulario b´asico (2nd edition 1996). Santa Cruz de la Sierra: Centro de Estudios Chiquitanos. Garc´ıa Hierro, Pedro, Søren Hvalkof and Andrew Gray (1998) Liberation through Land Rights in the Peruvian Amazon. IWGIA Document 90. Copenhagen: International Work Group of Indigenous Affairs. Garc´ıa Tom´as, Mar´ıa Dolores (1993–4) Buscando nuestas ra´ıces, 4 vols. Lima: Centro Amaz´onico de Antropolog´ıa y Aplicaci´on Pr´actica (CAAAP). Garcilaso de la Vega (1959 [1609]) Comentarios Reales de los Incas, 4 vols. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Garro, J. Eugenio (1942) The northern Kechuan dialects of Peru. American Anthropologist 44, pp. 442–50. Gelles, Paul H. and Gabriela Mart´ınez Escobar (1996) Andean Lives: Gregorio Condori Mamani and Asunta Quispe Huam´an. Austin: University of Texas Press. Gerdel, Florence (1973) P´aez phonemes. Linguistics 104, pp. 28–48. Gerdel, Florence and Marianna Slocum (1981) Estudios en p´aez. S´erie Sint´actica no. 12. Lomalinda: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano (Editorial Townsend). Gerzenstein, Ana (1968) Fonolog´ıa de la lengua g¨un¨una-k¨ena. Cuadernos de ling¨u´ıstica ind´ıgena 5. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosof´ıa y Letras, Centro de Estudios Ling¨u´ısticos. (1978–9) Lengua chorote, vol. 1 (1978); vol. 2 (1979). Archivo de lenguas precolombinas 3. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Instituto de Ling¨u´ıstica. (1983) Lengua chorote. Variedad No. 2. Archivo de lenguas precolombinas 4. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosof´ıa y Letras, Instituto de Ling¨u´ıstica. (1989) Lengua mak´a: aspectos de la fonolog´ıa. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosof´ıa y Letras, Instituto de Ling¨u´ıstica. (1994) Lengua mak´a: estudio descriptivo. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosof´ıa y Letras, Instituto de Ling¨u´ıstica. (1999) Diccionario etnoling¨u´ıstico Mak´a–Espa˜nol (DELME). Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosof´ıa y Letras, Instituto de Ling¨u´ıstica. Gibson, Michael Luke (1996) El muniche: un idioma que se extingue. Serie Ling¨u´ıstica Peruana 42. Yarinacocha: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Gilij, Filippo Salvadore (1780–4) Saggio di storia americana, o sia, Storia naturale, civile e sacra dei regni, e delle provincie spagnuole di Terra-Ferma nell’America Meridionale descritto dall’abate F. S. Gilij, 4 vols. Rome. Gill, Wayne (undated) Diccionario Tsimane–Castellano. New Tribes Mission, Bolivia. Girard, Victor (1971) Proto-Takanan Phonology. University of California Publications in Linguistics 70. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Girault, Louis (1984) Kallawaya, gu´erisseurs itin´erants des Andes. Paris: Editions de l’ORSTOM. (1989) Kallawaya: el idioma secreto de los Incas: Diccionario. La Paz: Unicef, Panamerican Health Organisation (OPS) and World Health Organisation (OMS).
References
643
Gleich, Utta von (1989a) Educaci´on primaria biling¨ue intercultural en Am´erica Latina. Eschborn: Deutsche Gesellschaft f¨ur technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ). (1989b) Actitudes ling¨u´ısticas entre hablantes biling¨ues en Ayacucho. In: L´opez et al. (1989), p. 97–122. (1992) Changes in the status and function of Quechua. In: Ulrich Ammon and Marlis Hellinger (eds.), Status Change of Languages, pp. 43–64. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter. (1998) El impacto ling¨u´ıstico de la migraci´on: ¿desplazamiento, cambio o descomposici´on del quechua? In: Dedenbach-Salazar S´aenz et al. (1998), pp. 679–704. (2001) Multilingualism and Multilingual Literacies in Latin American Educational Systems. Working Papers in Multilingualism 28. Sonderforschungsbereich 538: Mehrsprachigkeit. Hamburg: University of Hamburg. Gnerre, Maurizio (1975) L’utilizzazione delle fonti documentarie dei secoli XVI e XVII per la storia linguistica J´ıbaro. In: Cerulli and Della Ragione (1975), pp. 79–86. (1986) The decline of dialogue: ceremonial and mythological discourse among the Shuar and Achuar. In: Sherzer and Urban (1986), pp. 307–41. Godenzzi, Juan Carlos (1986) Pronombres de objeto directo e indirecto del castellano en Puno. Lexis 10, pp. 187–201. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u, Departamento de Humanidades. (1991) Discordancias gramaticales del castellano andino en Puno (Peru). Lexis 14, pp. 107–18. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u, Departamento de Humanidades. ed. (1992) El quechua en debate. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´e de Las Casas. Golbert de Goodbar, Perla (1975) Epu pe˜niwen (‘los dos hermanos’). Cuento tradicional araucano. Buenos Aires: Centro de Investigaciones en Ciencias de la Educaci´on, Secci´on Lenguas Ind´ıgenas, Instituto Torcuato di Tello. (1977–8) Yag´an I. Las partes de la oraci´on, II. Morfolog´ıa nominal. VICUS Cuadernos. Ling¨u´ıstica 1 (1977), pp. 87–101; 2 (1978), pp. 5–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (1985) Hacia una morfolog´ıa verbal del Yag´an. International Journal of American Linguistics 51, 4, pp. 421–4. Golluscio, Luc´ıa (1998) Aspecto verbal en mapudungun. In: Golluscio and Kuramochi (1998), pp. 35–47. Golluscio, Luc´ıa and Yosuke Kuramochi, eds. (1998) Ling¨u´ıstica y literatura mapuche. Aproximaciones desde ambos lados de los Andes (Trabajos del I Simposio Binacional de Ling¨u´ıstica y Literatura Ind´ıgenas, Temuco, 23–25 October 1995). Temuco: Universidad Cat´olica de Temuco; Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires. G´omez-Imbert, Elsa (1982) De la forme et du sens dans la classification nominale en tatuyo. Th`ese de troisi`eme cycle, Universit´e Sorbonne-Paris IV. Paris. (2000) Lenguas abor´ıgenes de la Amazonia septentrional de Colombia. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 317–20. Gonzales de Barc´ıa Carballido y Z´un˜ iga, Andr´es, ed. (1737–8) Ep´ıtome de la biblioteca oriental y occidental, n´autica y geogr´afica de Don Antonio de Le´on Pinelo, 3 vols. Madrid: Francisco Mart´ınez Abad. Gonz´alez Holgu´ın, Diego (1607) Gram´atica y arte nueva de la lengua general de todo el Per´u llamada lengua qquichua o lengua del Inca. Lima: Francisco del Canto (1842 edition, Genoa: Pagano). (1608) Vocabulario de la lengua general de todo el Peru llamada lengua qquichua o del Inca. Lima: Francisco del Canto. (1952 edition by Ra´ul Porras Barrenechea, Lima: Imprenta Santa Mar´ıa; 1989 reprint, Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos). ˜ an˜ ez, Omar (2000) Las lenguas ind´ıgenas del Amazonas venezolano. In: Queixal´os Gonz´alez N´ and Renault-Lescure (2000), pp. 385–418.
644
References
Gonz´alez de P´erez, Mar´ıa Stella (1980) Trayectoria de los estudios sobre la lengua chibcha o muisca. Bogot´a: Instituto Caro y Cuervo. (1987) ‘Diccionario y gram´atica chibcha’. Manuscrito an´onimo de la Biblioteca Nacional de Colombia. Bogot´a: Instituto Caro y Cuervo. Gonz´alez de P´erez, Mar´ıa Stella and Mar´ıa Luisa Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000) Lenguas ind´ıgenas de Colombia. Una visi´on descriptiva. Bogot´a: Instituto Caro y Cuervo. Gordon, Alan M. (1980) Notas sobre la fon´etica del castellano en Bolivia. Actas del VI Congreso Internacional de Hispanistas (Toronto), pp. 349–51. Toronto: University of Toronto, Department of Spanish and Portuguese. Goulet, Jean-Guy (1981) The Guajiro kinship system: its semantic structure and social significance. Anthropological Linguistics 23, 7, pp. 298–325. Granda, Germ´an de (1977) Estudios sobre un a´ rea dialectal hispanoamericana de poblaci´on negra. Las tierras bajas occidentales de Colombia. Publicaciones del Instituto Caro y Cuervo 61. Bogot´a: Instituto Caro y Cuervo. (1993) Quechua y espa˜nol en el noroeste argentino. Una precisi´on y dos interrogantes. Lexis 17, pp. 259–74. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u, Departamento de Humanidades. (1995) Un quechuismo morfosint´actico en dos a´ reas extremas del espa˜nol andino. Las per´ıfrasis verbales de gerundio con valor perfectivo en el noroeste argentino y el sur de Colombia. Anuario de Ling¨u´ıstica Hisp´anica 11, pp. 153–9. Valladolid. (1996) Origen y mantenimiento de un rasgo sint´actico (o dos) del espa˜nol andino. La omisi´on de cliticos preverbales. Lexis 20, pp. 275–98. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u, Departamento de Humanidades. (1997a) Replantamiento de un tema controvertido. G´enesis y retenci´on del doble posesivo en el espa˜nol andino. Revista de Filolog´ıa Espa˜nola 77, pp. 139–7. (1997b) Un fen´omeno de convergencia ling¨u´ıstica por contacto en el quechua de Santiago del Estero. El desarrollo del futuro perifr´astico. Estudios Filol´ogicos 32, pp. 35–42. Valdivia: Universidad Austral de Chile, Facultad de Filosof´ıa y Humanidades. (2001) Estudios de Ling¨u´ıstica andina. Lima: Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u. Grasserie, Raoul de la (1894) Langue puquina. Paris: Jean Maisonneuve. Gray, Andrew (1986) And after the Gold Rush. . .? Human Rights and Self-Development among the Amarakaeri of Southeastern Peru. IWGIA Document 55. Copenhagen: International Working Group of Indigenous Affairs. (1996) Mythology, Spirituality and History in an Amazonian Community, vol. 1 The Arakmbut of Amazonian Peru. Providence, RI: Berghahn Books. Greenberg, Joseph H. (1959) Linguistic classification of South America. In: Steward and Faron (1959), pp. 22–3. (1960a) The general classification of Central and South American languages. In: Anthony Wallace (ed.), Men and Cultures: Selected Papers of the 5th International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences (1956), pp. 791–4. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. (1960b) Linguistic classification of South America. In: Sol Tax (ed.), Aboriginal languages of Latin America. Current Anthropology 1, 5–6, pp. 431–6. Chicago. (1966) Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In: Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Language (2nd edition), pp. 73–113. Cambridge, Mass., and London: MIT Press. (1987) Language in the Americas. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Greenberg, Joseph H., Christy G. Turner II and Stephen L. Zegura (1985) Convergence of evidence for the peopling of the Americas. Collegium Antropologicum 9, 1, pp. 33–42. Zagreb.
References
645
(1986) The settlement of the Americas: a comparison of the linguistic, dental, and genetic evidence. Current Anthropology 27, 477–88. Grimes, Barbara F., ed. (1996) Ethnologue (13th edition). Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Grimes, Joseph (1985) Topic inflection in Mapudungun verbs. International Journal of American Linguistics 51, 2, pp. 141–63. Grinevald, Colette (2002) Nominal classification in Movima. In: Crevels et al. (2002), pp. 215–39. Grondona, Ver´onica Mar´ıa (1998) A Grammar of Mocov´ı. PhD diss. University of Pittsburgh. Groot de Mahecha, Ana Mar´ıa and Eva Maria Hooykaas (1991) Intento de delimitaci´on del territorio de los grupos e´ tnicos pastos y quillacingas en el altiplano nari˜nense. Bogot´a: Banco de la Rep´ublica. Gualdieri, Cecilia Beatriz (1998) Mocovi (Guaicuru). Fonologia e morfosintaxe. Doctoral diss., Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Brazil. Guaman Poma de Ayala, Felipe (1936 [1615]) Nueva cor´onica y buen gobierno. Paris: Universit´e de Paris, Institut d’Ethnologie. Guerra Eissmann, Ana Mar´ıa (1995) Los sintemas del yagan. In: Fern´andez Garay and Viegas Barros (1995), pp. 271–6 Gugenberger, Eva (1995) Identit¨ats- und Sprachkonflikt in einer pluriethnischen Gesellschaft. Eine soziolinguistische Studie u¨ ber Quechua-Sprecher und -Sprecherinnen in Peru. Vienna: WUV-Universit¨atsverlag. Guillaume, Antoine (2000) Le Cavine˜na (langue Takana de Bolivie): e´ l´ements de morphosyntaxe. M´emoire de DEA de Science du Langage. Lyon: Universit´e Lumi`ere Lyon 2. Gusinde, Martin (1926) Das Lautsystem der feuerl¨andischen Sprachen. Anthropos 21, pp. 1000–24. (1931–7) Die Feuerland-Indianer I: die Selk’nam (1931); II: Die Yamana (1937). M¨odling near Vienna: Verlag der Internationalen Zeitschrift Anthropos. Guyot, Mireille (1968) Les mythes chez les Selk’nam et les Yamana de la Terre du Feu. Paris: Institut d’Ethnologie. Haan, Harry de (MS) Nouns in Chiquitano. Rotterdam: Erasmus University. Haboud, Marleen (1996) Quechua and Spanish in the Ecuadorian Andes: the effects of prolonged contact. PhD diss. University of Oregon (Spanish version appeared as Haboud 1998). (1998) Quichua y castellano en los Andes ecuatorianos: los efectos de un contacto prolongado. Quito: Abya-Yala. Haboud de Ortega, Marleen (1985) La variante ling¨u´ıstica del poblador rural y su influencia en la educaci´on (San Pedro de Casta, Huarochir´ı). Revista de la Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Ecuador 13, 43, pp. 137–64. Haboud de Ortega, Marleen, Luis Montaluisa Chasiquiza, Fabi´an Muenala Pineda and Froil´an Viteri Gualinga (1982) Caimi n˜ ucanchic shimiyuc-panca. Quito: Ministerio de Educaci´on y Cultura, Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica. Hammerly Dupuy, Daniel (1947) Clasificaci´on del nuevo grupo ling¨u´ıstico Aksan´as de la Patagonia occidental. Ciencia e Investigaci´on 3, 12, pp. 492–501. Buenos Aires. Hamp, Eric P. (1967) On Maya–Chipayan. International Journal of American Linguistics 33, 1, pp. 74–6. (1971) On Mayan–Araucanian comparative phonology. International Journal of American Linguistics 37, 3, pp. 156–9. Hardman, Martha James (1966) Jaqaru: Outline of Phonological and Morphological Structures. The Hague and Paris: Mouton. (1975) Proto-Jaqi: reconstrucci´on del sistema de personas gramaticales. Revista del Museo Nacional 41, pp. 433–56. Lima.
646
References
(1978a) La familia ling¨u´ıstica andina jaqi: Jaqaru, Kawki, Aymara. VICUS Cuadernos. Ling¨u´ıstica 2, pp. 5–28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (1978b). Jaqi: the linguistic family. International Journal of American Linguistics 44, 2, pp. 146–53. ed. (1981) The Aymara Language in its Social and Cultural Context. A collection of essays on aspects of Aymara language and culture. Gainesville: University Presses of Florida. (1983a) Jaqaru. Compendio de estructura fonol´ogica y morfol´ogica. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos e Instituto Indigenista Interamericano. (1983b) Jaqaru short vowels. International Journal of American Linguistics 49, 2, pp. 186–95. (1986) Data-source marking in the Jaqi languages. In: Wallace Chafe and Johanna Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: the Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, pp. 113–36. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. (2000) Jaqaru. Munich: LINCOM Europa. Hardman, Martha James, Juana V´asquez and Juan de Dios Yapita Moya (1974) Outline of Aymara Phonological and Grammatical Structure. Gainesville: University of Florida. (1988) Aymara: compendio de estructura fonol´ogica y gramatical. La Paz: Ediciones ILCA (Instituto de Lengua y Cultura Aymara); Gainesville: The Aymara Foundation. Hardman-de-Bautista, M. J. see Hardman, Martha James. Harmelink, Bryan L. (1987) The uses and functions of ‘mew’ in Mapudungun. Lenguas Modernas 14, pp. 173–8. Santiago de Chile: Facultad de Lenguas Modernas, Universidad de Chile. (1988) The expression of temporal distinctions in Mapudungun. Lenguas Modernas 15, pp. 125–30. Santiago de Chile: Facultad de Lenguas Modernas, Universidad de Chile. (1990) El hablante como punto de referencia en el espacio: Verbos de movimiento y sufijos direccionales en mapudungun. Lenguas Modernas 17, pp. 111–25. Santiago de Chile: Facultad de Lenguas Modernas, Universidad de Chile. (1992) La incorporaci´on nominal en el mapudungun. Lenguas Modernas 19, pp. 129–38. Santiago de Chile: Facultad de Lenguas Modernas, Universidad de Chile. Harms, Philip Lee (1994) Epena Pedee Syntax. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of Texas at Arlington. Harner, Michael (1972) The Jivaros. New York: Doubleday. Harrington, John Peabody (1943) Hokan discovered in South America. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 33, pp. 334–44. Washington. (1944) Sobre fon´etica witoto. Anales del Instituto de Arqueolog´ıa y Etnolog´ıa 5, pp. 127–8. Mendoza: Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Harris, Olivia (1974) Los laymis y machas del norte de Potos´ı. Semana – Ultima Hora (11–10–1974). La Paz. Hart, Helen (1988) Diccionario Chayahuita–Castellano. Canponanqu¨e nisha nisha nonacaso . Serie Ling¨u´ıstica Peruana 29. Lima: Ministerio de Educaci´on and Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. Hart, Raymond E. (1963) Semantic components of shape in Amarakaeri grammar. Anthropological Linguistics 5, 9, pp. 1–7. Hartmann, Roswith (1979) ¿Quechuismo preincaico en el Ecuador? Ibero-amerikanisches Archiv 5, 3, pp. 267–99. (1980) Lenguas abor´ıgenes del Ecuador. Historia del Ecuador 4, pp. 60–2. Barcelona and Quito. Haude, Katharina (2003) Zur Semantik von Direktionalit¨at und ihren Erweiterungen: das Suffix -su im Aymara. Arbeitspapier Nr. 45 (Neue Folge). Cologne: Institut f¨ur Sprachwissenschaft, Universit¨at zu K¨oln. Havestadt, Bernardus (1777) Chilid´ug´u sive res chilensis, 2 vols. M¨unster, Westfalen.
References
647
Hawkins, John A. (1979) Implicational universals as predictors of word order change. Language 55, pp. 618–48. Hayes, Bruce (1982) Extrametricality and English stress. Linguistic Inquiry 13, pp. 227–76. Headland, Edna de (1977) Introducci´on al tunebo. Bogot´a: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. Headland, Edna Romayne (1997) Diccionario biling¨ue Uw Cuwa (tunebo)-Espa˜nol Espa˜nol-Uw Cuwa (tunebo) con una gram´atica uw cuwa (tunebo). Bogot´a: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. Helberg Ch´avez, Heinrich A. (1984) Skizze einer Grammatik des Amarakaeri. PhD diss. University of T¨ubingen. (1990) An´alisis funcional del verbo amarakaeri. In: Cerr´on-Palomino and Sol´ıs Fonseca (1990), pp. 227–49. Hemming, John (1973) The Conquest of the Incas (1st edition 1970). New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich. (1978) The Search for Eldorado. London: Michael Joseph. Hermon, Gabriella (1985) Modularity in Syntax: Evidence from Quechua and Other Languages. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Hern´andez, Graciela Beatriz (1992) Southern Tehuelche mythology according to an unpublished manuscript. Latin American Literatures Journal 8, 2, pp. 115–42. Hern´andez, Isabel (1992) Los indios de Argentina. Madrid: Ediciones MAPFRE (2nd edition in 1995, Quito: Abya-Yala). Herrero, Joaqu´ın (1969) Apuntes del castellano hablado en Bolivia. Bolet´ın de Filolog´ıa Espa˜nola 16, pp. 37–43. Madrid: Instituto ‘Miguel de Cervantes’. Herrero, Joaqu´ın, Daniel Cotari and Jaime Mej´ıa (1978) Lecciones de aymara: Niveles I y II (2nd edition). Cochabamba: Instituto de Idiomas, Padres de Maryknoll. Herrero, Joaqu´ın, and Federico S´anchez de Lozada (1978) Gram´atica quechua. Estructura del quechua boliviano contempor´aneo. Cochabamba: Editorial Universo. Herv´as y Panduro, Lorenzo (1784) Catalogo delle lingue conosciute e notizia della loro affinit`a e diversit`a. Part 1 of: Idea dell’universo: che contiene la storia della vita dell’uomo, elementi cosmografici, viaggio estatico al mondo planetario, e storie della terra e delle lingue (1784–7). Cesena: Biasini. (1800–5) Cat´alogo de las lenguas de las naciones conocidas, y numeraci´on, divisi´on, y clases de estas seg´un la diversidad de sus idiomas y dialectos, 6 vols. (vol. 1: Lenguas y naciones americanas). Madrid. Hildebrandt, Martha (1963) Diccionario Guajiro–Espa˜nol. Caracas: Comisi´on Indigenista, Ministerio de Justicia. Hintz, Daniel John (2000) Caracter´ısticas distintivas del quechua de Corongo. Perspectivas hist´orica y sincr´onica. Serie Ling¨u´ıstica Peruana 50. Lima: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. Hoff, Berend Jacob (1968) The Carib Language. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Holmer, Nils Magnus (1946) Outline of Cuna grammar. International Journal of American Linguistics 12, 4, pp. 185–97. (1947) Critical and Comparative Grammar of the Cuna Language. Etnologiska Studier 14. G¨oteborg: Etnografiska Museet. (1949) Goajiro (Arawak). International Journal of American Linguistics 15, 1, pp. 45–56; 15, 2, pp. 110–20; 15, 3, pp. 145–57; 15, 4, pp. 232–5. (1951) Cuna Chrestomathy. Etnologiska studier 18. G¨oteborg: Etnografiska museet. (1952) Ethnolinguistic Cuna Dictionary. Etnologiska studier 19. G¨oteborg: Etnografiska museet. (1953) Contribuci´on a la ling¨u´ıstica de la Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta. Revista Colombiana de Antropolog´ıa, 1, pp. 311–355.
648
References
Holmer, Nils Magnus and S. Henry Wass´en (1953) The Complete Mu-Igala in Picture Writing: a native record of a Cuna Indian medicine song. Etnologiska studier 21. G¨oteborg: Etnografiska museet. Holt, Dennis (1989) On Paya causatives. Estudios de Ling¨u´ıstica Chibcha 8, pp. 7–15. San Jos´e: Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica. Hornberger, Nancy H. (1988) Bilingual Education and Language Maintenance: a southern Peruvian case. Dordrecht and Providence, RI: Foris Publications. (1989) Haku yachaywasiman: la educaci´on biling¨ue y el futuro del quechua en Puno (Spanish edition of Hornberger 1988). Lima and Puno: Programa de educaci´on biling¨ue de Puno. Hos´okawa, Koomei (1980) Diagn´ostico socioling¨u´ıstico de la regi´on Norte de Potos´ı. La Paz: Instituto Nacional de Estudios Ling¨u´ısticos. Hout, Roeland van and Pieter C. Muysken (1994) Modelling lexical borrowability. Language Variation and Change 6, pp. 39–62. Hovdhaugen, Even (1992) A grammar without a tradition? Fernando de la Carrera’s ‘Arte de la lengua yunga’ (1644). In: Anders Ahlqvist (ed.), Diversions of Galway: Papers on the History of Linguistics from ICHoLS V (Galway, 1–6 September 1990), pp. 113–22. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Howard, Linda (1977a) Esquema de los tipos de p´arrafo en cams´a. In: Howard and Sch¨ottelndreyer (1977), pp. 1–67. (1977b) Cams´a: certain features of verb inflection as related to paragraph types. In: Robert E. Longacre (ed), Discourse Grammar: Studies in Indigenous Languages of Colombia, Panam´a, and Ecuador, part 2, pp. 273–99. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of Texas at Arlington. (1979) Fonolog´ıa del cams´a. In: Sistemas fonol´ogicos de idiomas colombianos, vol. 1, pp. 77–92. Lomalinda: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano, Editorial Townsend. Howard, Linda and Mareike Sch¨ottelndreyer (1977) Estudios en cams´a y cat´ıo. Lomalinda: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano, Editorial Townsend. Howard, Rosaleen (MS) From ‘Coca Cola’ to ‘Inca Kola’: Quechua Alphabets and the Politics of Language Identity in the Andes. University of Liverpool. Howard-Malverde, Rosaleen (1981) Dioses y diablos, tradici´on oral de Ca˜nar, Ecuador. Amerindia num´ero sp´ecial 1. Paris: Association d’ethnolinguistique am´erindienne. (1990) The Speaking of History: ‘Willapaakushayki’ or Quechua Ways of Telling the Past. London: University of London, Institute of Latin American Studies. (1995) ‘Pachamama is a Spanish word’: linguistic tension between Aymara, Quechua, and Spanish in northern Potos´ı (Bolivia). Anthropological Linguistics 37, 2, pp. 141–68. ed. (1997) Creating Context in Andean Cultures. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Howkins, Douglas W. (1973) A Quechua Legend of Peru: Yaku runa or ‘River Man’. Glasgow: University of Glasgow, Institute of Latin American Studies. Hoyos Ben´ıtez, Mario Edgar (2000) Informe sobre la lengua ember´a del r´ıo Napip´ı. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 73–83. Huber, Randall Q. and Robert B. Reed (1992) Comparative Vocabulary: Selected Words in Indigenous Languages of Colombia. Bogot´a: Asociaci´on Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. ¨ Humboldt, Wilhelm von (1836) Uber die Kawi-Sprache auf der Insel Java, nebst einer Einleitung u¨ ber die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluss auf die geistige Entwicklung des Menschengeschlechts. Berlin: K¨onigliche Akademie der Wissenschaften. (1971) Linguistic Variability and Intellectual Development, trans. George C. Buck and Frithjof A. Raven. Coral Gables, Fla.: University of Miami Press.
References
649
Husson, Jean-Philippe (1985) La po´esie quechua dans la chronique de Felipe Waman Puma de Ayala. De l’art lyrique de cour aux chants et danses populaires. Paris: L’Harmattan. (2001) La Mort d’Ataw Wallpa ou La fin de l’empire des Incas. Trag´edie anonyme en langue quechua du milieu du XVIe si`ecle. Geneva: Editions Pati˜no. Ibarra Grasso, Dick (1958) Lenguas ind´ıgenas americanas. Buenos Aires: Editorial Nova. (1982) Lenguas ind´ıgenas de Bolivia. La Paz: Editorial Juventud. Imbelloni, Jos´e (1926) El idioma de los Incas del Per´u en el grupo ling¨u´ıstico melanesio-polin´esico. In: Jos´e Imbelloni (ed.), La esfinge indiana. Antiguos y nuevos aspectos de los or´ıgenes americanos, pp. 352–68. Buenos Aires: El Ateneo. (1928) L’idioma Kichua nel sistema linguistico dell’Oceano Pacifico. Atti del XXII Congresso Internazionale degli Americanisti (1926), vol. 2, pp. 495–509. Rome. Inda, Lorenzo and Pieter C. Muysken (MS 2002) El idioma uchumataqu. Irohito: Distrito Nacionalidad Ind´ıgena Urus de Irohito. Instituto Ind´ıgenista Interamericano (1993) Am´erica Ind´ıgena 53, 4. Mexico DF. Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano (1973) Vocablos y expresiones m´edicos m´as usuales en veinte idiomas vern´aculos peruanos. Lima. (1979) Palabras y frases u´ tiles en algunos idiomas de la selva peruana. Lima. Irala, Jos´e S., Francisco R´aez and Jos´e Gregorio Castro (1905) Vocabulario pol´ıglota incaico. Lima: Colegio de Propaganda Fide del Per´u (1998 edition by Rodolfo Cerr´on-Palomino, Lima: Ministerio de Educaci´on). Isbell, William H. and Katherina J. Schreiber (1978) Was Huari a state? American Antiquity 43, 3, pp. 372–89. Itier, C´esar (1991) Lengua general y comunicaci´on escrita: cinco cartas en quechua de Cotahuasi – 1616. Revista Andina 9, 1, pp. 65–107. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´e de Las Casas. (1992) La tradici´on oral quechua antigua en los procesos de idolatr´ıas de Cajatambo. Bulletin de l’Institut Fran¸cais d’Etudes Andines 21, 3, pp. 1009–51. Lima. (1995) El teatro quechua en el Cuzco, vol. 1: Dramas y comedias de Nemesio Z´un˜ iga Cazorla. Lima: Institut Fran¸cais d’Etudes Andines. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´e de Las Casas. (1997) Parlons quechua. La langue du Cuzco. Paris: L’Harmattan. Jackson, Jean (1983) The Fish People: Linguistic Exogamy and Tukanoan Identity in Northwest Amazonia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jahn, Alfredo (1927) Los abor´ıgenes del occidente de Venezuela. Su historia, etnograf´ıa y afinidades ling¨u´ısticas. Caracas: El Comercio (2nd edition 1972, Caracas: Monte Avila). Jake, Janice L. (1985) Grammatical Relations in Imbabura Quechua. New York and London: Garland Publishing. Jamioy Muchavisoy, Jos´e Narciso (1992) Tiempo, aspecto y modo en kam¨ent¨sa´ . In: II Congreso del CCELA. Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Abor´ıgenes: Memorias 2, pp. 199–208. Bogot´a: Universidad de los Andes. (1995) La lengua nativa es parte de la ‘identidad ind´ıgena’. In: Pab´on Triana (1995b), pp. 9–18. Jaramillo G´omez, Orlando (1987a) Bar´ı. In: Correa and Pach´on (1987), pp. 63–73. (1987b) Yuko-yukpa. In: Correa and Pach´on (1987), pp. 75–82. Jensen, Cheryl (1998) Comparative Tup´ı-Guaran´ı syntax. In: Derbyshire and Pullum (1998), pp. 489–616. Jij´on y Caama˜no, Jacinto (1936–8) Sebasti´an de Benalc´azar, vol. 1 (1936) Quito: Imprenta del Clero; vol. 2 (1938) Quito: Editorial Ecuatoriana. (1940–5) El Ecuador interandino y occidental antes de la conquista castellana, vol. 1 (1940), vol. 2 (1941), vol. 3 (1943), vol. 4 (1945). Quito: Editorial Ecuatoriana (1998 edition, Quito: Abya-Yala).
650
References
Jim´enez de la Espada, Marcos, ed. (1965 [1586]) Relaciones geogr´aficas de Indias: Per´u, 3 vols. Biblioteca de Autores Espa˜noles 183–5. Madrid: Atlas. Jim´enez Tur´on, S. (1989) La educaci´on intercultural biling¨ue entre los Ye kuana de Venezuela. Pueblos Ind´ıgenas y Educaci´on 10, pp. 83–90. Quito: Abya-Yala and Proyecto de Educaci´on Biling¨ue e Intercultural (EBI). Jones, Wendell and Paula Jones (1991) Barasano Syntax. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington. Juajibioy Chindoy, Alberto (1962) Breve estudio preliminar del grupo aborigen de Sibundoy y su lengua cams´a en el sur de Colombia. Bolet´ın del Instituto de Antropolog´ıa 2, 8. Medell´ın: Universidad de Antioquia. Juajibioy Chindoy, Alberto and Alva Wheeler (1973) Bosquejo etnoling¨u´ıstico del grupo kams´a de Sibundoy. Bogot´a: Ministerio de Gobierno. Juank, Aij´ıu (1982) Aujmatsatai, yatsuchi. Manual de aprendizaje de la lengua shuar, vol. 1 (2nd edition). Ecuador: Mundo Shuar. Judy, Robert A. and Judith Judy (1962) Movima y castellano. Vocabularios bolivianos 1. Cochabamba: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano (1967) Movima. In: Matteson (1967), 2, pp. 353–408. Julien, Catherine Jean (1979) Koli: a language spoken on the Peruvian coast. Andean Perspective Newsletter 3, pp. 5–11. Austin: University of Texas, Institute of Latin American Studies. (1983) Hatunqolla: a View of Inca Rule from the Lake Titicaca Basin. University of California Publications in Anthropology 15. Berkeley: University of California Press. Juncosa, Jos´e E. (2000) Mapa ling¨u´ıstico de la Amazonia ecuatoriana. In: Queixal´os and Renault-Lescure (2000), pp. 263–75. Jung, Ingrid (1989) Grammatik des P´aez: ein Abriss. PhD diss. University of Osnabr¨uck. (1991) Das Zweisprachenprojekt in Puno-Peru. Erziehungspolitik im Sprachen- und Kulturkonflikt. Bildungsreport Nr. 51. Eschborn: Deutsche Gesellschaft f¨ur technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) (2000) El p´aez. Breve descripci´on. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 139–49. Jusay´u, Miguel Angel and Jes´us Olza Zubiri (1981) Diccionario de la lengua guajira. Castellano–Guajiro. Caracas: Universidad Cat´olica Andr´es Bello, Maracaibo: Corpozulia. (1988) Diccionario sistem´atico de la lengua guajira. Caracas: Universidad Cat´olica Andr´es Bello. Kany, Charles F. (1945) American Spanish Syntax. Chicago: Chicago University Press. (1947) Some aspects of Bolivian popular speech. Hispanic Review 15: pp. 193–206. Karsten, Rafael (1932) Indian tribes of the Argentine and Bolivian Chaco. Ethnological Studies. Helsingfors: Akademiska Bokhandeln. Leipzig: Harassowitz. (1935) The Head-hunters of Western Amazonas: the Life and Culture of the Jibaro Indians of Eastern Ecuador and Peru. Helsingfors: Akademiska Bokhandeln. Leipzig: Harassowitz. Kaufman, Terrence S. (1990) Language history in South America: what we know and how to know more. In: Doris L. Payne, (1990a), pp. 13–73. (1994) The native languages of South America. In: Moseley and Asher (1994), pp. 46–76. Keatinge, Richard W., ed. (1988a) Peruvian Prehistory: an Overview of Pre-Inca and Inca Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (1988b) A summary view of Peruvian prehistory. In: Keatinge (1988a), pp. 303–16. Kensinger, Kenneth M. et al. (1975) The Cashinahua of Eastern Peru. Providence, RI: Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology. (1985) Panoan linguistic, folkloristic and ethnographic research. In: Klein and Stark (1985a), pp. 224–85.
References
651
Kerke, Simon C. van de (1996) Affix Order and Interpretation in Bolivian Quechua. PhD diss. University of Amsterdam. (1998) Verb formation in Leko: causatives, reflexives and reciprocals. In: Leonid Kulikov and Heinz Vater (eds.), Typology of Verbal Categories. Papers Presented to Vladimir Nedjalkov on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday, pp. 195–203. T¨ubingen: Niemeyer. (1999) A 19th century Christian doctrine in the Leko language. In: Dedenbach-Salazar S´aenz and Crickmay (1999), pp. 115–50. (2000) Case marking in the Leko language. In: van der Voort and van de Kerke (2000), pp. 25–37. (2002) Complex verb formation in Leko. In: Crevels et al. (2002), pp. 241–54. Key, Harold (1967) Morphology of Cayuvava. The Hague: Mouton. Key, Mary Ritchie (1968) Comparative Tacanan Phonology. The Hague, Paris: Mouton. (1978) Araucanian genetic relationships. International Journal of American Linguistics 44, 4, pp. 280–93. (1979) The Grouping of South American Indian Languages. T¨ubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. ed. (1991) Language Change in South American Indian languages. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Key, Mary Ritchie and Christos Clairis (1978) Fuegian and central South American language relationships. Actes du 42`eme Congr`es International des Am´ericanistes (Paris, 2–9 September 1976), vol. 4, pp. 635–45. Paris: Soci´et´e des Am´ericanistes, Mus´ee de l’Homme. King, Kendall A. (2000) Inspecting the unexpected: language status and corpus shifts as aspects of Quichua language revitalization. Language Problems and Language Planning 22, pp. 109–32. Kingsley Noble, G. (1965) Proto-Arawakan and its Descendants. The Hague: Mouton; Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Kirtchuk, Pablo (1987) Le parler quechua de Santiago del Estero: quelques particularit´es. Amerindia 12, pp. 95–110. Paris: Association d’ethnolinguistique am´erindienne. Klee, Carol A. (1996) The influence of Quechua on Spanish language structure. In: Ana Roca and John B. Jensen (eds.), Spanish in Contact, pp. 73–91. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Press. Klein, Harriet E. Manelis (1973) A Grammar of Argentine Toba: Verbal and Nominal Morphology. PhD diss. Columbia University. (1978) Una gram´atica de la lengua toba. Morfolog´ıa verbal y nominal. Montevideo: Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias, Universidad de la Rep´ublica. (1981) Location and direction in Toba: verbal morphology. International Journal of American Linguistics 47, 3, pp. 227–35. (1985) Current status of Argentine indigenous languages. In: Klein and Stark (1985a), pp. 691–731. Klein, Harriet E. Manelis and Louisa R. Stark, eds. (1985a) South American Indian Languages: Retrospect and Prospect. Austin: University of Texas Press. (1985b). Indian languages of the Paraguayan Chaco. In: Klein and Stark (1985a), pp. 802–45. Kramer, Fritz (1990) Literature among the Cuna Indians. G¨oteborg: Etnografiska museet. Krauss, Michael (1992) The world’s languages in crisis. Language 68, pp. 4–10. Kr¨usi, Martin and Dorothy Kr¨usi (1978a) Phonology of Chiquitano. Work Papers of SIL-Bolivia 1972–1976, pp. 53–93. Riberalta: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. (1978b) The use of modes in Chiquitano discourse. Work Papers of SIL-Bolivia 1972–1976, pp. 95–162. Riberalta. Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. Krzanowski, Andrzej and Szemi´nski, Jan (1978) La toponimia ind´ıgena en la cuenca del r´ıo Chicama (Per´u). Estudios Latinoamericanos 4. Wroclaw: Ossolineum. Ladefoged, Peter (1975) A Course in Phonetics. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
652
References
Lafone Quevedo, Samuel A. (1894a) Los Lules. Bolet´ın del Instituto Geogr´afico Argentino 15, pp. 185–246. Buenos Aires. (1894b) Calepino Lule-Castellano. Vade mecum para el Arte del Padre Antonio Machoni S.I. Bolet´ın del Instituto Geogr´afico Argentino 15, pp. 305–85. Buenos Aires. (1895) La lengua vilela o chulup´ı. Estudio de filolog´ıa chaco-argentina fundados sobre los trabajos de Herv´as, Adelung y Pelleschi. Bolet´ın del Instituto Geogr´afico Argentino 16, pp. 39–125. Buenos Aires. Lagos Altamirano, Daniel S. (1981) El estrato f´onico del mapudungu(n). Revista del Pac´ıfico 19–20, pp. 42–66. Valpara´ıso. Lak¨amper-Acebey, Renate (2001) Plural- und Objektmarkierung in Quechua. Doctoral diss., Philosophische Fakult¨at, Heinrich-Heine-Universit¨at, D¨usseldorf. Lak¨amper, Renate and Dieter Wunderlich (1998) Person marking in Quechua: a constraint-based minimalist analysis. Lingua 105: pp. 113–48. Landaburu, Jon (1979) La langue des Andoke (Amazonie colombienne). Paris: Soci´et´e d Etudes Linguistiques et Anthropologiques de France. (1988) El sistema de designaci´on de la persona sujeto en la lengua ika. Amerindia 13, pp. 157–67. Paris: Association d’ethnolinguistique am´erindienne. (1992) La langue ika ou arhuaco: morphosyntaxe du noyau verbal. Amerindia 17, pp. 1–30. Paris: Association d’ethnolinguistique am´erindienne. ed. (1994) Estructuras sint´acticas de la predicaci´on: lenguas amerindias de Colombia. Bulletin de l’Institut Fran¸cais d’Etudes Andines 23, 3. Bogot´a: Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Abor´ıgenes, Universidad de los Andes. ed. (1996–9) Documentos sobre lenguas abor´ıgenes de Colombia del archivo de Paul Rivet, vol. 1: Lenguas de la Amazon´ıa colombiana (1996a), vol. 2: Lenguas de la Orinoqu´ıa y del Norte de Colombia (1998), vol. 3: Lenguas del Sur de Colombia (1999). Bogot´a: Editorial Uniandes, Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Abor´ıgenes and Colciencias. (1996b) La langue ika ou arhuaco: phonologie. Amerindia 21, pp. 21–36. Paris: Association d’ethnolinguistique am´erindienne. (2000a) La lengua Ika. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 733–48. (2000b) Clasificaci´on de las lenguas ind´ıgenas de Colombia. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 25–48. Landerman, Peter N. (1973) Vocabulario quechua del Pastaza. Serie Ling¨u´ıstica Peruana 8. Yarinacocha: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. (1978) The Proto-Quechua first person marker and the classification of Quechua dialects. Paper presented at the 2nd Workshop on Andean Linguistics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. (1991) Quechua Dialects and their Classification. PhD diss. University of California, Los Angeles. (1994) Glottalization and aspiration in Quechua and Aymara reconsidered. In: Cole et al. (1994), pp. 332–78. Laprade, Richard (1981) Some cases of Aymara influence on La Paz Spanish. In: Hardman (1981), pp. 207–27. Lara, Jes´us, ed. (1957) Tragedia del fin de Atawallpa. Cochabamba: Edici´on Universitaria. (1969) La literatura de los quechuas. Ensayo y antolog´ıa (2nd edition). La Paz: Juventud. (1971) Diccionario Qh¨eswa–Castellano Castellano–Qh¨eswa. Cochabamba: Los Amigos del Libro. Larra´ın Barros, Horacio (1991) Limpia de canales de Toconce: descripci´on de una ceremonia-faena tradicional. Hombre y Desierto 5, pp. 3–19. Antofagasta: Universidad de Antofagasta, Instituto de Investigaciones Antropol´ogicas.
References
653
Lastra, Yolanda (1968) Cochabamba Quechua Syntax. The Hague and Paris: Mouton. Lathrap, Donald W. (1970) The Upper Amazon. London: Thames and Hudson; New York: Praeger. Lefebvre, Claire (1984) Grammaires en contact: d´efinitions et perspectives de recherche. Revue qu´eb´ecoise de linguistique 14, 11–48. Lefebvre, Claire and Pieter C. Muysken (1982) Relative Clauses in Cuzco Quechua: Interactions between Core and Periphery. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. (1988) Mixed Categories: Nominalizations in Quechua. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Lehmann, Walter (MS 1929) Vocabulario de la lengua uro. Berlin: Ibero-amerikanisches Institut Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Lehmann-Nitsche, Robert (1913) El grupo ling¨u´ıstico Tshon de los territorios magall´anicos. Revista del Museo de la Plata 22, pp. 217–76. Buenos Aires. (1926) Vocabulario mataco (Chaco salte˜no) con bibliograf´ıa. Bolet´ın de la Academia Nacional de Ciencias 28, 3–4, pp. 251–66. C´ordoba, Argentina. Lehnert Santander, Roberto (1976) La lengua kunza y sus textos. Cuadernos de Filolog´ıa 5, pp. 71–80. Antofagasta: Universidad de Chile, Instituto de Literatura Nortina. (1987) En torno a la lengua kunza. Language Sciences 9, 1, pp. 103–12. (1991) Pr´estamos del runa-simi a la lengua kunza. Hombre y Desierto 5, pp. 30–48. Antofagasta: Universidad de Antofagasta, Instituto de Investigaciones Antropol´ogicas. Lemle, Miriam (1971) Internal classification of the Tupi-Guaran´ı linguistic family. In: Tupi Studies I. SIL Papers in Linguistics 29, pp. 107–29. Norman, Okla.: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Lengerke, Geo von (1878a) Palabras de los dialectos de los indios del Opone. Zeitschrift f¨ur Ethnologie 10, pp. 306. (1878b) Palabras indias dictadas por un indio de la tribu de Carare. Zeitschrift f¨ur Ethnologie 10, p. 306. Lenz, Roberto (1893) Beitr¨age zur Kenntnis des Amerikospanischen I. Zeitschrift f¨ur romanische Philologie 17, pp. 188–214. Halle: Max Niemeyer (published in Spanish as ‘Para el conocimiento del espa˜nol de Am´erica’ in: Alonso and Lida (1940), pp. 209–58. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires. (1895–7) Estudios araucanos. Materiales para el estudio de la lengua, la literatura y las costumbres de los indios mapuches o araucanos. Santiago: Imprenta Cervantes (originally published in 12 separate articles in the volumes 90–1, 93–4 and 97–8 of the Anales de la Universidad de Chile). (1905–10) Los elementos indios del castellano de Chile. Estudio ling¨u´ıstico y etnol´ogico. Diccionario etimol´ogico de las voces chilenas derivadas de lenguas ind´ıgenas americanas. Annex to Anales de la Universidad de Chile. Santiago: Imprenta Cervantes. L´evi-Strauss, Claude (1948) Sur certaines similarit´es structurales des langues chibcha et nambikwara. Actes du 28`eme Congr`es International des Am´ericanistes (1947), pp. 185–92. Paris. (1952) Race et histoire. Paris: Unesco (1961 edition, Paris: Gauthier). Levinsohn, Stephen H. (1976) The Inga Language. The Hague and Paris: Mouton. Liccardi, Millicent (1968) Itonama intonation and phonemes. Linguistics 38, pp. 36–41. Liedtke, Stefan (1996) The Languages of the ‘First Nations’: Comparison of Native American Languages from an Ethnolinguistic Perspective. Munich and Newcastle: LINCOM Europa. Lindskoog, John N. and Ruth M. Brend (1962) Cayapa phonemics. In: Elson (1962), pp. 31–44. Lindskoog, John N. and Carrie A. Lindskoog (1964) Vocabulario cayapa. M´exico: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano.
654
References
Lipski, John M. (1987) The Chota valley: Afro-Hispanic language in highland Ecuador. Latin American Research Review 22, pp. 155–70. (1994) Latin American Spanish. London: Longmans Linguistics Library. Lira, Jorge A. (1941) Diccionario Kkechuwa–Espa˜nol. Tucum´an: Universidad Nacional de Tucum´an (1982 edition, Bogot´a: Cuadernos Culturales Andinos 5). (1990) Cuentos del Alto Urubamba. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´e de Las Casas. Llam´ın Canulaf, Segundo (1987) Federico n˜ i n¨utram, 4 vols. Temuco: Imprenta y Editorial K¨ume Dungu. Llanos Vargas, H´ector and Roberto Pineda Camacho (1982) Etnohistoria del Gran Caquet´a (Siglos XVI–XIX). Bogot´a: Fundaci´on de Investigaciones Arqueol´ogicas Nacionales and Banco de la R´epublica. Llerena Villalobos, Rito (1987) Relaci´on y determinaci´on en el predicado de la lengua kuna. Bogot´a: Universidad de los Andes: Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Abor´ıgenes. ˜ era oriental del Alto And´agueda. In: (1994) Sintaxis de la predicaci´on de la lengua Ep˜ Landaburu (1994), pp. 437–62. ed. (1995) Estudios fonol´ogicos del grupo choc´o. Bogot´a: Universidad de los Andes, Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Abor´ıgenes. (2000) Elementos de gram´atica y fonolog´ıa de la lengua cuna. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 59–71. Loewen, Jacob Abraham (1960) Spanish loan words in Waunana. International Journal of American Linguistics 26, 4, pp. 330–4. (1963a) Choc´o I: introduction and bibliography. International Journal of American Linguistics 29, 3, pp. 239–63. (1963b) Choc´o II: phonological problems. International Journal of American Linguistics 29, 4, pp. 357–71. Long, Violeta (1985) Estudio de la lengua guambiana. University of St Andrews Centre for Latin American Studies Working Paper No. 20. Larnaca, Cyprus. Longacre, Robert E. (1968) Comparative reconstruction of indigenous languages. In: Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), Current Trends in Linguistics 4: Ibero-American and Caribbean Linguistics, pp. 320–60. The Hague: Mouton. Loos, Eugene (1969) The Phonology of Capanahua and its Grammatical Basis. Norman, Okla.: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Loos, Eugene and Betty Loos (1998) Diccionario Capanahua–Castellano. Yarinacocha: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. L´opez, Lorenzo E., ed. (1985) N. Federmann, U. Schmidl: Alemanes en Am´erica. Madrid: Historia 16. L´opez, Luis Enrique, ed. (1988) Pesquisas en ling¨u´ıstica andina. Lima: Consejo Nacional de Ciencias y Tecnolog´ıa (CONCYTEC). Puno: Universidad del Altiplano and Deutsche Gesellschaft f¨ur technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ). (1990) El biling¨uismo de los unos y de los otros: diglosia y conflicto ling¨u´ıstico en el Per´u. In: Ball´on Aguirre and Cerr´on-Palomino (1990), pp. 91–130. L´opez, Luis Enrique and Ingrid Jung (MS 1987) Las dimensiones pol´ıticas de una escritura: el caso del quechua en el Per´u. (1989) El castellano del maestro y el castellano del libro. In: L´opez et al. (1989), pp. 197–217. eds. (1998) Sobre las huellas de la voz. Socioling¨u´ıstica de la oralidad y la escritura en su relaci´on con la educaci´on. Madrid: Ediciones Morata; Cochabamba, Bolivia: Programa de Formaci´on de Educaci´on Intercultural Biling¨ue para los Paises Andinos (PROEIB Andes); Bonn: Deutsche Stiftung f¨ur internationale Entwicklung.
References
655
L´opez, Luis Enrique and Domingo Sayritupac Asqui, eds. (1985) Wi˜nay pacha I. Chucuito and Puno: Instituto de Estudios Aymara. eds. (1990) Wi˜nay pacha (Tierra y tiempo eternos) II. Puno: Academia de la Lengua Aymara. L´opez, Luis Enrique, In´es Pozzi Escot, and Madeleine Z´un˜ iga, eds. (1989) Temas de ling¨u´ıstica aplicada (Actas del Primer Congreso Nacional de Investigaciones Ling¨u´ıstico-Filol´ogicas, Lima, November 1987). Lima: Consejo Nacional de Ciencias y Tecnolog´ıa (CONCYTEC), Deutsche Gesellschaft f¨ur technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ). L´opez Garc´ıa, Angel (1995) Gram´atica muisca. Munich and Newcastle: LINCOM Europa. ˇ Loukotka, Cestm´ ır (1935) Clasificaci´on de las lenguas sudamericanas. Ling¨u´ıstica sudamericana, nr. 1. Prague. (1968) Classification of South American Indian Languages, ed. Johannes Wilbert. Los Angeles: University of California (UCLA), Latin American Center. Lowes, R. H. G. (1954) Alphabetical list of Lengua Indian words with English equivalents (Paraguayan Chaco). Journal de la Soci´et´e des Am´ericanistes de Paris 43, pp. 85–107. Lozano, Anthony G. (1975) Syntactic borrowing in Spanish from Quechua: the noun phrase. In: Rosal´ıa Avalos de Matos and Rogger Ravines (eds.), Ling¨u´ıstica e indigenismo moderno de Am´erica. Actas y memorias del XXXIX Congreso Internacional de Americanistas 5 (Lima, 1970), pp. 297–305. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Lozano, Elena (1970) Textos vilelas. La Plata: Universida Nacional de La Plata, Facultad de Humanidades. (1977) Cuentos secretos vilelas: I. La mujer tigre. VICUS Cuadernos. Ling¨u´ıstica 1, pp. 93–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lozano, Pedro (1754–5) Historia de la Compa˜n´ıa de Jes´us en la provincia del Paraguay, 2 vols. Madrid: Viuda de Manuel Fern´andez, Supremo Consejo de la Inquisici´on. (1874–5) Historia de la conquista del Paraguay, R´ıo de la Plata y Tucum´an, 5 vols. Buenos Aires. Lucca, Manuel de (1987) Diccionario pr´actico Aymara–Castellano Castellano–Aymara. La Paz, Cochabamba: Los Amigos del Libro. Lucena Salmoral, Manuel, ed. (1967–70) Gram´atica chibcha del siglo XVII. Revista Colombiana de Antropolog´ıa 13 (1967), pp. 31–90; 14 (1970), pp. 203–20. Bogot´a. Lugo, Bernardo de (1619) Gram´atica de la lengua general del Nuevo Reyno, llamada mosca. Madrid: Bernardino de Guzm´an (1978 edition, Madrid: Ediciones Cultura Hisp´anica and Centro Iberoamericano de Cooperaci´on). Luj´an, Marta, Liliana Minaya and David Sankoff (1981) El Principio de Consistencia Universal en el habla de los ni˜nos biling¨ues peruanos. Lexis 5, 1, pp. 95–110. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u, Departamento de Humanidades. (1984) The Universal Consistency Hypothesis and the prediction of word order acquisition stages in the speech of bilingual children. Language 60, pp. 343–71. Lumbreras, Luis G. (1974) The Peoples and Cultures of Ancient Peru. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Lussagnet, Suzanne, ed. (1958) Ignace Chom´e. Arte de la lengua zamuca (1738–1745). Journal de la Soci´et´e des Am´ericanistes de Paris 47, pp. 121–79. (1961–2) Vocabulaires samuku, morotoko, poturero et guara˜noka, pr´ec´ed´es d’une e´ tude historique et g´eographique sur les anciens Samuku du Chaco bolivien et leurs voisins. Journal de la Soci´et´e des Am´ericanistes de Paris 50 (1961), pp. 185–243; 51 (1962), pp. 35–64. Lynch, Thomas F. ed. (1980) Guitarrero Cave: Early Man in the Andes. New York: Academic Press. (1999) The earliest South American lifeways. In: Salomon and Schwartz (1999), part 1, pp. 188–263.
656
References
Lyon, Patricia Jean, ed. (1974) Native South Americans: Ethnology of the Least Known Continent. Boston and Toronto: Little, Brown and Company (republished in 1985 by Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, Ill.) Macera, Pablo (1978) Visi´on hist´orica del Per´u (del Paleol´ıtico al Proceso de 1968). Lima: Milla Batres. Machoni de Cerde˜na, Antonio (1732) Arte y vocabulario de la lengua lule y tonocot´e. Madrid: Herederos de Garc´ıa Infanz´on (1877 edition, P. E. Coni, Buenos Aires). Mackert, Michael (1999) Horatio Hale’s grammatical sketches of languages of the American Northwest Coast: the case of Tsihaili-Selish. In: Nowak (1999), pp. 155–73. MacNeish, Richard Scott (1979) The early man remains from Pikimachay cave, Ayacucho basin, highland Peru. In: R. L. Humphrey and D. Stanford, Pre-Llano Cultures of the Americas: Paradoxes and Possibilities, pp. 1–48. Washington, DC: Anthropological Society of Washington. McQuown, Norman A. (1955) The indigenous languages of Latin America. American Anthropologist, NS, 57, pp. 501–70. Malone, Terry (1997–1998) Mora, minimal foot and segmental phonology in Chimila. Estudios de Ling¨u´ıstica Chibcha 16–17, pp. 19–69. San Jos´e: Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica. Mannheim, Bruce (1984) Una naci´on acorralada: southern Peruvian Quechua language planning and politics in historical perspective. Language in Society 13, pp. 291–309. (1985a) Southern Peruvian Quechua. In: Klein and Stark (1985a), pp. 481–515. (1985b) Contact and Quechua-external genetic relationships. In: Klein and Stark (1985a), pp. 644–88. (1990) La cronolog´ıa relativa de la lengua y literatura cuzque˜na. Revista Andina 8, 1, pp. 139–78. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´e de Las Casas. (1991) The Language of the Inka since the European Invasion. Austin: University of Texas Press. Mannheim, Bruce and Madeleine Newfield (1982) Iconicity in phonological change. In: Anders Ahlqvist (ed.), Papers from the Fifth International Conference of Historical Linguistics, pp. 211–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Mansen, Richard and David Captain (2000) El idioma wayuu (o guajiro). In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 795–810. Mansilla, Lucio Victorio (1947 [1890]) Una excursi´on a los indios ranqueles. Mexico, Buenos Aires: Fondo de Cultura Econ´omica (published in English in 1997 as ‘An Expedition to the Ranquel Indians’, Austin: University of Texas Press). Markham, Clements R. (1911) The Incas of Peru. London: Smith, Elder and Co. M´arquez Miranda, Fernando (1943) Los textos millcayac del P. Luis de Valdivia con un vocabulario Espa˜nol–Allentiac–Millcayac. Revista del Museo de La Plata, NS, 2, Secci´on de Antropolog´ıa 12, pp. 61–223. La Plata: Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Mart´ın, Eusebia H. (1964) Notas sobre el cac´an y la toponimia del noroeste argentino. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosof´ıa y Letras, Centro de Estudios Ling¨u´ısticos. Martin, Laura (1988) Fonolog´ıa. In: Hardman et al. (1988) pp. 24–66. Mart´ınez, Angelita (2000) Lenguaje y cultura. Estrategias etnopragm´aticas en el uso de los pronombres cl´ıticos lo, la y le, en la Argentina, en zonas de contacto con lenguas abor´ıgenes. PhD diss. Leiden University. Mart´ınez Compa˜no´ n, Baltasar Jaime (1985 [1782–90]) Trujillo del Per´u en el siglo XVIII, vol. 2. Madrid: Ediciones Cultura Hisp´anica. Mart´ınez Sarasola, Carlos (1992) Nuestros paisanos los Indios: vida, historia y destino de las comunidades ind´ıgenas de la Argentina. Buenos Aires: Emec´e Editores.
References
657
Martins, Silvana and Valteir Martins (1999) Mak´u. In: Dixon and Aikhenvald (1999), pp. 251–67. Masferrer Kan, Elio (1983) Situaci´on social de los grupos ind´ıgenas. Informe Unesco N´umero III. M´exico DF. Mason, John Alden (1950) The languages of South American Indians. In: Steward (1950), pp. 157–317. Mata, Pedro de la (1748) Arte de la lengua cholona. MS Additional 24, 322. British Library, London (transcribed and edited by Astrid Alexander-Bakkerus, MS); see also Tello (1923). Matisoff, James (1990) On megalo-comparison, a discussion note. Language 66, pp. 106–20. Matteson, Esther (1965) The Piro (Arawakan) Language. University of California Publications in Linguistics 62. Berkeley: University of California Press. ed. (1967) Bolivian Indian Grammars, 2 vols. Norman, Okla.: Summer Institute of Linguistics. (1972) Proto Arawakan. In: Esther Matteson et al. Comparative Studies in Amerindian Languages, pp. 160–242. The Hague and Paris: Mouton. Mayer, Enrique and Elio Masferrer (1979) La poblaci´on ind´ıgena de Am´erica en 1978. Am´erica Ind´ıgena 39, 2, pp. 211–338. Megenney, William W. (1986) El palenquero: un lenguaje post-criollo de Colombia. Bogot´a: Instituto Caro y Cuervo. Meggers, Betty Jane (1979) Climatic oscillation as a factor in the prehistory of Amazonia. American Antiquity 44, 2, pp. 252–66. Meillet, Antoine and Marcel Cohen, eds. (1924) Les langues du monde. Collection linguistique, vol. 16. Paris: Soci´et´e Linguistique de Paris (revised 1952 edition, Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique). Meira, S´ergio (2000) A Reconstruction of Proto-Taranoan. Munich: LINCOM Europa. Mej´ıa Fonnegra, Gustavo (2000) Presentaci´on y descripci´on fonol´ogica y morfosint´actica del waunana. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 85–96. Mej´ıas, Hugo A. (1980) Pr´estamos de lenguas ind´ıgenas en el espa˜nol americano del siglo XVII. M´exico DF: Universidad Nacional Aut´onoma de M´exico. Mel´endez Lozano, Miguel Angel (1989) El nominal en achagua. In: Mel´endez Lozano and Tobar Ortiz (1989), pp. 3–66. (1998) La lengua achagua: estudio gramatical. Bogot´a: Universidad de los Andes: Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Abor´ıgenes. (2000a) Rese˜na bibliogr´afica del chimila. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 789–91. (2000b) Rese˜na bibliogr´afica del tunebo. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 703–4. (2000c) Rese˜na bibliogr´afica del kams´a. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 135–7. (2000d) Rese˜na bibliogr´afica del kakua. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 561–2. Mel´endez Lozano, Miguel Angel & Nubia Tobar Ortiz (1989) Lenguas abor´ıgenes de Colombia: Descripciones no. 4: Orinoqu´ıa. Bogot´a: Universidad de los Andes, Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Abor´ıgenes. Meli`a, Bartomeu (1997) Pueblos ind´ıgenas en el Paraguay. Demograf´ıa hist´orica y an´alisis de los resultados del Censo Nacional de Poblaci´on y Viviendas, 1992. Fernando de la Mora: Direcci´on General de Estad´ıstica, Encuestas y Censos. Meneses Morales, Teodoro (1987) La Muerte de Atahuallpa. Drama quechua de autor an´onimo. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Menges, Patricia A. (1980) Acquisition of Spanish by Quichua Children in Ecuador: Some Aspects of Main-Verb Form, Frequency, and Function. MA thesis, University of Amsterdam.
658
References
Messineo, Mar´ıa Cristina (1989) Ling¨u´ıstica y educaci´on ind´ıgena. Una experiencia en comunidades toba de la provincia del Chaco (Argentina). Pueblos Ind´ıgenas y Educaci´on 12, pp. 9–28. Quito: Abya-Yala and Proyecto de Educaci´on Biling¨ue e Intercultural (EBI). (2000) Estudio del toba hablado en la provincia del Chaco (Argentina). Aspectos gramaticales y discursivos. Doctoral diss. University of Buenos Aires. Buenos Aires. M´etraux, Alfred (1935–6) Les indiens uro-chipaya de Carangas. Journal de la Soci´et´e des Am´ericanistes de Paris 27, pp. 111–28, pp. 325–415; 28, pp. 155–207, pp. 337–94. (1936) Contributions a` l’ethnographie et a` la linguistique des indiens uro d’Ancoaqui (Bolivie). Journal de la Soci´et´e des Am´ericanistes de Paris 28, pp. 75–110. (1948) Tribes of the eastern slopes of the Bolivian Andes. In: Steward (1948), pp. 465–503. Middendorf, Ernst W. (1890–92) Die einheimischen Sprachen Perus. 6 volumes. 1. Das Runa-Simi oder die Keshua-Sprache wie sie gegenw¨artig in der Provinz Cuzco gesprochen wird (1890a) (published in Spanish in 1970 in a translation by Ernesto More as Gram´atica Keshua, Madrid: Aguilar). 2. W¨orterbuch des Runa-Simi oder der Keshua-Sprache (1890b). 3. Ollanta, ein Drama der Keshua-Sprache (1890c). 4. Dramatische und lyrische Dichtungen der Keshua-Sprache (1891a). 5. Die Aimar`a-Sprache (1891b). 6. Das Muchik oder die Chimu-Sprache mit einem Anhang u¨ ber die Chibcha-Sprache (1892). Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus. Migliazza, Ernest C. (1978a) Some Evidences for Panoan–Yanomama Genetic Relationship. Paper presented at the LSA Summer Meeting, Urbana, Ill. (MS 1978b) Pano–Tacana Northern Relationship. (1985) Languages of the Orinoco–Amazon region: current status. In: Klein and Stark (1985a), pp. 17–139. Migliazza, Ernest C. and Lyle Campbell (1988) Panorama general de las lenguas ind´ıgenas en Am´erica. Caracas: Academia Nacional de la Historia de Venezuela. Millones, Luis, ed. (1973) Un movimiento nativista: el Taki Onqoy. In: Ossio Acu˜na (1973), pp. 83–94. ed. (1990) El retorno de las Huacas: estudios y documentos sobre el Taki Onqoy, Siglo XVI. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, Sociedad Peruana de Psicoan´alisis. Minaya, Liliana and Marta Luj´an (1982) Un patr´on sint´actico h´ıbrido en el habla de los ni˜nos biling¨ues en quechua y espa˜nol. Lexis 6, 2, pp. 271–93. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u, Departamento de Humanidades. Miranda Esquerre, Luis, ed. (2000) Actas I Congreso de Lenguas Ind´ıgenas de Sudam´erica (Lima, 4–6 August 1999), 2 vols. Lima: Universidad Ricardo Palma, Facultad de Lenguas Modernas. Miranda Mamani, Luis, Daniel Moricio Choque and Saturnina Alvarez de Moricio (1992) Memorias de un olvido. Testimonios de vida Uru-Muratos (edited by Rossana Barrag´an). La Paz: Fundaci´on para la Investigaci´on Antropol´ogica y el Etnodesarrollo ‘Antrop´ologos del Surandino’ (ASUR) and Editorial Hisbol. Mitre, Bartolom´e (1909–10) Cat´alogo razonado de la secci´on Lenguas Americanas, 3 vols. Buenos Aires: Museo Mitre. Moesbach, Ernesto Wilhelm de (1930) Vida y costumbres de los ind´ıgenas araucanos en la segunda mitad del siglo XIX, presentadas en la autobiograf´ıa del ind´ıgena Pascual Co˜na. Santiago de Chile: Imprenta Cervantes (new edition see Co˜na 1984). (1963) Idioma mapuche. Padre Las Casas, Chile: Imprenta y Editorial ‘San Francisco’. Mogoll´on P´erez, Mar´ıa Cristina (2000) Fonolog´ıa de la lengua bar´ı. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 719–27. Mogrovejo, Toribio Alfonso de (1920–1 [1593]) Diario de la segunda visita que hizo de su arquidi´ocesis el Ilustr´ısimo se˜nor don Toribio de Mogrovejo, arzobispo de Los Reyes. Revista del Archivo Nacional del Per´u, 1 (1920), pp. 49–81, 227–9, 401–19; 2 (1921), pp. 37–78.
References
659
Molina, Crist´obal de (1574 [1989]) Relaci´on de las f´abulas y ritos de los Incas. In: Henrique Urbano and Pierre Duviols (eds.), C. de Molina, C. de Albornoz, F´abulas y mitos de los Incas, pp. 9–134. Madrid: Historia 16. Mongu´ı S´anchez, Jos´e Ra´ul (1981) La lengua kame.ntz´a. Fonolog´ıa – fon´etica – textos. Bogot´a: Instituto Caro y Cuervo. Monta˜no Arag´on, Mario (1987–92) Gu´ıa etnogr´afica ling¨u´ıstica de Bolivia, vols. 1, 2 (1987–9): Tribus de la selva; vol. 3 (1992): Tribus del Altiplano y valles: primera parte. La Paz: Editorial Don Bosco. Montes Rodr´ıguez, Mar´ıa Emilia (1995) Tonolog´ıa de la lengua ticuna. Bogot´a: Universidad de los Andes Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Abor´ıgenes. Montoya, Rodrigo, Luis Montoya and Edwin Montoya (1987) La sangre de los cerros. Urqukunapa yawarnin (Antolog´ıa de la poes´ıa quechua que se canta en el Per´u), 2 vols. Lima: Centro Peruano de Estudios Sociales, Mosca Azul Editores and Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Moore, Bruce R. (1961) A statistical morpho-syntactic typological study of Colorado (Chibcha). International Journal of American Linguistics 27, 4, pp. 298–307. (1962) Correspondences in South Barbacoan Chibcha. In: Elson (1962), pp. 270–89. (1966) Diccionario Castellano–Colorado Colorado-Castellano. Quito: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. Moore, Thomas H. (1878) Vocabulaire de la langue atacame˜na. Compte-Rendu de la Seconde Session du Congr`es International des Am´ericanistes, vol. 2, pp. 44–54. Luxemburg. Mortensen, Charles Arthur (1999) A Reference Grammar of the Northern Embera languages. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics International and the University of Texas at Arlington. Moseley, Chris and R. E. Asher, eds. (1994) Atlas of the World’s Languages. London: Routledge. Mosonyi, Esteban Emilio. (1972) Indian groups in Venezuela. In: Dostal (1972), pp. 388–91. (1993) Algunos problemas de clasificaci´on de las lenguas arawak (Colombia – Venezuela). In: Rodr´ıguez de Montes (1993), pp. 165–88. (2000) Introducci´on al an´alisis del idioma baniva. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 499–513. Mosonyi, Esteban Emilio and Jorge Carlos Mosonyi (2000) Manual de lenguas ind´ıgenas de Venezuela, 2 vols. Caracas: Fundaci´on Bigott. Mosonyi, Jorge Carlos (1987) Lenguas ind´ıgenas de Venezuela. Bolet´ın de Ling¨u´ıstica 6, pp. 20–40. Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela. Mostny, Grete (1954) Peine, un pueblo atacame˜no. Santiago de Chile: Universidad de Chile, Instituto de Geograf´ıa. Murra, John V. (1975) Formaciones econ´omicas y pol´ıticas del mundo andino. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Mur´ua, Mart´ın de (1987 [1613]) Historia general del Per´u. Madrid: Historia 16. Muysken, Pieter C. (1977) Syntactic Developments in the Verb Phrase of Ecuadorian Quechua. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press (also published by Foris, Dordrecht). (1979) La mezcla entre quechua y castellano. Lexis 3, 1, pp. 41–56. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u, Departamento de Humanidades. (1981a) Quechua word structure. In: F. Heny (ed.), Filters and Binding, pp. 279–329. London: Longmans. (1981b) Halfway between Quechua and Spanish: the case for relexification. In: Albert Valdman and Arnold Highfield (eds.), Historicity and Variation in Creole Studies, pp. 52–78. Ann Arbor: Karoma. (1984) The Spanish that Quechua speakers learn: L2 learning as norm-governed behaviour. In: R. W. Andersen (ed.), Second Languages: a Cross-Linguistic Perspective, pp. 101–24. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
660
References
(1986) Contactos entre quichua y castellano en el Ecuador. In: Segundo E. Moreno Y´anez (ed.), Memorias del Primer Simposio Europeo sobre Antropolog´ıa del Ecuador, pp. 377–451. Quito: Ediciones Abya Yala. (1997a) Media Lengua. In: Thomason (1997), pp. 365–426. (1997b) Callahuaya. In: Thomason (1997), pp. 427–47. (2000) Drawn into the Aymara mold? Notes on Uru grammar. In: van der Voort and van de Kerke (2000), pp. 99–109. (MS 2002) The Uru Languages. Nijmegen. Myers, Sarah K. (1973) Language Shift among Migrants to Lima, Peru. Research Paper 147. Chicago: University of Chicago, Department of Geography. Najlis, Elena L. (1966) Lengua abipona, 2 vols. Archivo de lenguas precolombinas 1. Universidad de Buenos Aires: Instituto de Ling¨u´ıstica. (1973) Lengua selknam. Filolog´ıa y Ling¨u´ıstica 3. Buenos Aires: Universidad del Salvador. (1975) Diccionario selknam. Filolog´ıa y Ling¨u´ıstica 4. Buenos Aires: Universidad del Salvador. (1984) Fonolog´ıa de la protolengua mataguaya. Cuadernos de Ling¨u´ıstica Ind´ıgena 9. Universidad de Buenos Aires: Instituto de Ling¨u´ıstica. Nardi, Ricardo L. J. (1962) El quechua de Catamarca y La Rioja. Cuadernos del Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Folkl´oricas 3, pp. 189–285. Buenos Aires. (1979) El kak´an, lengua de los Diaguitas. Sapiens 3, pp. 1–33. Chivilcoy (Buenos Aires): Museo Arqueol´ogico Dr Osvaldo F. A. Menghin. (2002) Introducci´on al quichua santiague˜no, ed. Lelia In´es Albarrac´ın, Mario C. Tebes and Jorge R. Alderetes. Asociaci´on de investigadores en lengua quechua (ADILQ), Tucum´an. Buenos Aires: Editorial Dunken. Nebrija, Antonio de (c.1488) Introductiones Latinae. Salamanca (1981 edition, Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca). Neira, Alonso de and Juan Ribero (1928 [1762]) Arte y vocabulario de la lengua achagua. Doctrina Christiana, confesionario de uno y otro sexo e´ instruccion de cathecumenos. In: Cat´alogo de la Real Biblioteca, vol. 6: Manuscritos. Lenguas de Am´erica, pp. 1–174. Madrid. Newson, Linda A. (1995) Life and Death in Early Colonial Ecuador. Norman Okla., and London: University of Oklahoma Press. Nieves Oviedo, Roc´ıo (1991a) La predicaci´on nominal en nasa yuwe. In: Rojas Curieux (1991c), pp. 101–38. (1991b) Fonolog´ıa: variante Caldono. In: Nieves Oviedo (1991e), pp. 9–42. (1991c) Fonolog´ıa comparada. In: Nieves Oviedo (1991e), pp. 121–50. (1991d) Fonolog´ıa: variante Paniquit´a. In: Nieves Oviedo (1991e), pp. 151–84. ed. (1991e) Estudios fonol´ogicos de la lengua p´aez (nasa yuwe). Bogot´a: Universidad de los Andes: Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Abor´ıgenes. (2000) P´aez: Lista de Morris Swadesh. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 150–2. Ni˜no-Murcia, Mercedes (1995) The gerund in the Spanish of the north Andean region. In: Carmen Silva-Corval´an (ed.), Spanish in Four Continents. Studies in Language Contact and Bilingualism, pp. 83–100. Washington: Georgetown University Press. ¨ Nordenski¨old, Erland (1905) Uber Quichua sprechende Indianer an der Ostabh¨angen der Anden im Grenzgebiet zwischen Peru und Bolivia. Globus 88, 7, pp. 101–8. (1912) Indianerleben. El Gran Chaco (S¨udamerika). Leipzig: Albert Bonnier. (1922) Deductions Suggested by the Geographical Distribution of some Post-Columbian Words Used by the Indians of South America. Comparative Ethnographical Studies 5. G¨oteborg: Elanders Boktryckeri. (1924) The Ethnography of South America Seen from Mojos in Bolivia. Comparative Ethnographical Studies 3. G¨oteborg: Elanders Boktryckeri.
References
661
(1928–30) Picture-Writings and Other Documents, vol. 1 (1928) Comparative Ethnographical Studies 7, 1; vol. 2 (1930a) Comparative Ethnographical Studies 7, 2. G¨oteborg: Elanders Boktryckeri. (1930b) Modifications in Indian Culture through Inventions and Loans. Comparative Ethnographical Studies 8. G¨oteborg: Elanders Boktryckeri. (1938) An Historical and Ethnological Survey of the Cuna Indians (posthumous edition by S. Henry Wass´en). G¨oteborg: G¨oteborgs museum, etnografiska avdelningen. Nowak, Elke, ed. (1999) Languages Different in All their Sounds: Descriptive Approaches to Indigenous Languages of the Americas 1500 to 1850. Studium Sprachwissenschaft, Beiheft 31. M¨unster: Nodus. Nuckolls, Janis B. (1997) Sounds Like Life: Sound-Symbolic Grammar, Performance, and Cognition in Pastaza Quechua. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Obando Ord´on˜ ez, Pedro (1992) Awa-Kwaiker: an Outline Grammar of a Colombian–Ecuadorian Language, with a cultural sketch. PhD diss. University of Texas, Austin. Oblitas Poblete, Enrique (1968) El idioma secreto de los Incas. Cochabamba: Los Amigos del Libro. Olaya Perdomo, Noel (2000) Descripci´on preliminar del sistema verbal de la lengua kogui (o kawgi). In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 781–7. Olson, Ronald D. (1964) Mayan affinities with Chipaya of Bolivia 1: Correspondences. International Journal of American Linguistics 30, 4, pp. 313–24. (1965) Mayan affinities with Chipaya of Bolivia 2: Cognates. International Journal of American Linguistics 31, 1, pp. 29–38. (1967) The syllable in Chipaya. International Journal of American Linguistics 33, 4, pp. 300–4. Olza Zubiri, Jes´us and Miguel Angel Jusay´u (1978) Gram´atica de la lengua guajira. Caracas: Universidad Cat´olica Andr´es Bello, Ministerio de Educaci´on. Olza Zubiri, Jes´us, Conchita Nuni de Chapi and Juan Tube (2002) Gram´atica moja ignaciana (morfosintaxis). San Crist´obal: Universidad del T´achira; Caracas: Universidad Cat´olica Andr´es Bello. Oramas, Luis R. (1913) Contribuci´on al estudio de la lengua guajira. Caracas: Publicaciones de la ‘Revista T´ecnica del Ministerio de Obras P´ublicas’ de los EE.UU. de Venezuela. (1916) Materiales para el estudio de los dialectos ayam´an, gay´on, jirajara, ajagua. Caracas: El Comercio. Orbigny, Alcide Dessalines d’ (1839) L’homme am´ericain (de l’Am´erique m´eridionale) consid´er´e sous ses rapports physiologiques et moraux. Paris. (1945) Viaje a la Am´erica meridional. Brasil. Rep´ublica del Uruguay. Rep´ublica Argentina. La Patagonia. Rep´ublica de Chile, Rep´ublica de Bolivia, Rep´ublica del Per´u. Realizado de 1826 a 1833. Buenos Aires: Editorial Futura. Or´e, Luis Jer´onimo de (1607) Rituale seu Manuale Peruanum. Naples. Oroz, Rodolfo (1966) La lengua castellana en Chile. Santiago: Universidad de Chile, Facultad de Filosof´ıa y Educaci´on, Instituto de Investigaciones Hist´orico-Culturales, Instituto de Filolog´ıa. Orr, Carolyn J. and Robert E. Longacre (1968) Proto Quechumaran. Language 44, pp. 528–55. Ortega Ricaurte, Carmen (1978) Los estudios sobre lenguas ind´ıgenas de Colombia. Bogot´a: Instituto Caro y Cuervo. Ortiz, Sergio El´ıas (1946) Los indios yurumangu´ıes. Acta Americana 4, pp. 10–25. (1965) Lenguas y dialectos ind´ıgenas de Colombia. Part 3 of Luis Duque G´omez (ed.), Historia extensa de Colombia, vol. I: Prehistoria. Academia Colombiana de Historia. Bogot´a: Ediciones Lerner.
662
References
Ortiz Ricaurte, Carolina (1989) La composici´on nominal en kogui. In: Trillos Amaya et al. (1989), pp. 181–272. (1994) Clases y tipos de predicados en la lengua kogui. In: Landaburu (1994), pp. 377–99. (2000) La lengua kogui: fonolog´ıa y morfosintaxis nominal. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 757–80. Ossio Acu˜na, Juan Mar´ıa, ed. (1973) Ideolog´ıa mesi´anica del mundo andino. Lima: Ignacio Prado Pastor Ostler, Nicholas (1993) Cases, directionals and conjunctions in Chibcha. Estudios de Ling¨u´ıstica Chibcha 12, pp. 7–33. San Jos´e: Universidad de Costa Rica. (1994) Syntactic typology of Muisca – a sketch. In: Cole et al. (1994), pp. 205–30. (1995) Fray Bernardo de Lugo: two sonnets in Muisca. In: Troiani (1995), pp. 129–42. (1999) Las oraciones y el catecismo breve en muisca del MS 2922: Historia, texto, terminolog´ıa. In: Dedenbach-Salazar S´aenz and Crickmay (1999), pp. 41–59. (2000) The development of transitivity in the Chibchan languages of Colombia. In: John Charles Smith and Delia Bentley (eds.), Historical Linguistics 1995, vol. 1: General Issues and Non-Germanic Languages, pp. 279–93. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Ostler, Nicholas and Mar´ıa Stella Gonz´alez de P´erez (forthcoming) Chibcha in its Linguistic Context: Grammar, Dictionary, Texts and Reconstruction. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Pab´on Triana, Marta (1995a) La Lengua de Totor´o: historia de una causa. In: Pab´on Triana (1995b), pp. 91–110. Bogot´a. ed. (1995b) Lenguas abor´ıgenes de Colombia (VII Congreso de Antropolog´ıa; Simposio ‘La recuperaci´on de lenguas nativas como b´usqueda de identidad e´ tnica’; Medell´ın, June 1994), Memorias 3. Bogot´a: Universidad de los Andes, Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Abor´ıgenes. Pach´on, Ximena, (1987) P´aez. In: Correa and Pach´on (1987), pp. 217–34. P´aez, Justiniano (1936) Investigaciones sobre la lengua de los indios motilones. Hacaritama 2, pp. 337–43. Oca˜na, Colombia. Palavecino, Enrique (1926) Elementos ling¨u´ısticos de Ocean´ıa en el quechua. In: Jos´e Imbelloni (ed.), La esfinge indiana. Antiguos y nuevos aspectos de los or´ıgenes americanos, pp. 335–49. Buenos Aires: El Ateneo. Paniagua Loza, F´elix (1986) Qala chuyma. Canciones tradicionales aymaras. Q’axilunaka – Cajelos. Puno: Proyecto Experimental de Educaci´on Biling¨ue. Pantoja Alc´antara, Isabel del Roc´ıo (MS 2000) Presencia del culli en el castellano regional de Santiago de Chuco – La Libertad. MA thesis Facultad de Letras y Ciencias Humanas, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Lima. Pantoja Ramos, Santiago, Jos´e Ripkens and Germ´an Swisshelm (1974) Cuentos y relatos en el quechua de Huaraz, 2 vols. Estudios Culturales Benedictinos 3. Huaraz. Parada, Enrique, Humberto Valdivieso and Miguel A. Alarc´on (1976) El l´exico de las minas del carb´on. Concepci´on, Chile: Universidad de Concepci´on. Pardo Rojas, Mauricio and Daniel Aguirre Licht (1993) Dialectolog´ıa choc´o. In: Rodr´ıguez de Montes (1993), pp. 269–312. Park, Marinell, Nancy Weber and V´ıctor Cenepo Sangama (1976) Diccionario quechua San Mart´ın. Lima: Ministerio de Educaci´on, Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Parker, Gary John (1963) La clasificaci´on gen´etica de los dialectos quechuas. Revista del Museo Nacional 32, pp. 241–52. Lima. (1965) Gram´atica del quechua ayacuchano. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Plan de Fomento Ling¨u´ıstico. (1969a) Ayacucho Quechua Grammar and Dictionary. The Hague and Paris: Mouton.
References
663
(1969–71) Comparative Quechua phonology and grammar. I: Classification, Working Papers in Linguistics 1, 1, pp. 65–87; II (1969b): Proto-Quechua phonology and morphology, WPIL 1, 2, pp. 123–47; III (1969c): Proto-Quechua lexicon, WPIL 1, 4, pp. 1–61; IV (1969d): The evolution of Quechua A, WPIL 1, 9, pp. 149–204; Corrigenda et Addenda to Chapters I–IV, WPIL 2, 2, pp. 111–16; V (1971): The evolution of Quechua B, WPIL 3, 3, pp. 45–109. Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Department of Linguistics. (1976) Gram´atica quechua Ancash–Huailas. Lima: Ministerio de Educaci´on, Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Parker, Gary John and Amancio Ch´avez (1976) Diccionario quechua Ancash–Huailas. Lima: Ministerio de Educaci´on, Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Parker, Stephen G. (1987) Vocabularios y textos chamicuro. Yarinacocha: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. (1995) Datos de la lengua i˜napari. Documento de Trabajo 27. Lima, Yarinacocha: Ministerio de Educaci´on, Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. Parker, Stephen G. with Gregorio Orbe Caro and Alfonso Patow Chota (1987) Kana acha’taka ijnachale kana chamekolo. Vocabulario y textos chamicuro. Documento de Trabajo 21. Lima: Ministerio de Educaci´on, Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. Parker, Stephen G. with Arqu´ımedes Sinuiri Nunta and Antonio Ram´ırez Cairuna (1992) Datos del idioma huariapano. Documento de Trabajo 24. Lima: Ministerio de Educaci´on and Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. Pati˜no Rosselli, Carlos (2000) Lenguas abor´ıgenes de la Amazonia meridional de Colombia. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 169–70. Patte, Marie-France (1978) Etude phonologique de la langue a˜nun (paraujano) parl´ee dans la r´egion de Sinamaica (V´en´ezu´ela). Amerindia 3, pp. 57–83. Paris: Association d’ethnolinguistique am´erindienne. (1981) Les pr´efixes personnels en a˜nu´ n. Amerindia 6, pp. 7–16. Paris: Association d’ethnolinguistique am´erindienne. (1986) De los A˜nun. Chantiers Amerindia: Suppl´ement 2 au no 11 d’Amerindia. Paris: Association d’ethnolinguistique am´erindienne. (1989) Estudio descriptivo de la lengua A˜nun (o ‘Paraujano’). San Crist´obal: Universidad Cat´olica del T´achira. ˜ Payaguaje, Alfredo and Celestino Payaguaje (1988) Nama, yaio’i cui’ne cutihue cou. El venado, los tigres y la tortuga. Cultura siona – secoya. Cuadernos de lectura 1. Quito: Organizaci´on de Ind´ıgenas Secoya-Siona del Ecuador, Centro de Investigaciones Culturales de la Amazona Ecnatoriana and Confederaci´on de Nacionalidades Ind´ıgenas de Ecuador. Payne, David L. (1981) Bosquejo fonol´ogico del proto-shuar-candoshi. Revista del Museo Nacional 45, pp. 323–77. Lima. (1985) The genetic classification of Res´ıgaro. International Journal of American Linguistics 51, 2, pp. 222–31. (1990) Some widespread grammatical forms in South American languages. In: Doris L. Payne (1990a), pp. 75–87. (1991a) A classification of Maipuran (Arawakan) languages based on shared lexical retentions. In: Derbyshire and Pullum (1991), pp. 353–499. (1991b) Apolista (Lapachu) as a Maipuran language. Paper presented at the 47th International Congress of Americanists, New Orleans. (1991c) Clasificadores nominales: la interacci´on de la fonolog´ıa, la gram´atica, y el l´exico en la investigaci´on comparativa del maipuran. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Etnoling¨u´ısticos 6, pp. 241–57. Lima: Ignacio Prado Pastor. (1993) Una visi´on panor´amica de la familia ling¨u´ıstica arawak. In: Rodr´ıguez de Montes (1993), pp. 127–64.
664
References
Payne, Doris L. (1984) Evidence for a Yaguan-Zaparoan connection. In: Desmond Derbyshire (ed.), SIL Work Papers, University of North Dakota Session 28, pp. 131–56. (1985) -ta in Zaparoan and Peban-Yaguan. International Journal of American Linguistics 51, 4, 529–31. (1986) Basic constituent order in Yagua clauses. Implications for word order universals. In: Derbyshire and Pullum (1986), pp. 440–65. ed. (1990a) Amazonian Linguistics: Studies in Lowland South American Languages. Austin: University of Texas Press. (1990b) Morphological characteristics of lowland South American Languages. In: Doris L. Payne (1990a), pp. 213–42. Payne, Doris L. and Thomas E. Payne (1990) Yagua. In: Derbyshire and Pullum (1990), pp. 249–474. Payne, Johnny (1984) Cuentos cusque˜nos. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´e de Las Casas. Paz y Mi˜no, Luis T. (1936–7) Contribuci´on al estudio de las lenguas ind´ıgenas del Ecuador. Bolet´ın de la Academia Nacional de Historia 14 (1936), pp. 40–54; 15 (1937), pp. 9–41. Quito. (1940–2) Lenguas ind´ıgenas del Ecuador. I (1940) La lengua pasto, Bolet´ın de la Academia Nacional de Historia, 20, 56, pp. 161–78; II (1941a) La lengua kara, BANH, 21, 57, pp. 28–52; III (1941b) La kito o panzaleo, BANH, 21, 58, pp. 145–70; IV (1942) La lengua puruguay, BANH 22, 59, pp. 42–74. Quito. (1961a) Las agrupaciones y lenguas ind´ıgenas del Ecuador, en 1500 y 1959. Bolet´ın de la Academia Nacional de Historia 43, 97, pp. 5–16. Quito. (1961b) Lenguas ind´ıgenas del Ecuador: la lengua ka˜nar. Bolet´ın de la Academia Nacional de Historia 43, pp. 193–229. Quito. Peeke, M. Catherine (1962) Structural summary of Z´aparo. In: Elson (1962), pp. 125–216. (1973) Preliminary Grammar of Auca. Summer Institute of Linguistics Publications in Linguistics and Related Fields 39. Norman, Okla.: Summer Institute of Linguistics. (1979) El idioma huao: gram´atica pedag´ogica, vol. 1. Cuadernos Etnoling¨u´ısticos 3. Quito: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. Pellizzaro, Siro M. (1969) Apuntes de gram´atica shuar. Quito: Federaci´on Provincial de Centros Shuar de Morona-Santiago. Perea y Alonso, Sixto (1937) Apuntes para la prehistoria ind´ıgena del R´ıo de la Plata y especialmente de la banda oriental de Uruguay, como introducci´on a la filolog´ıa comparada de las lenguas y dialectos Arawak. Bolet´ın de Filolog´ıa 1, pp. 217–45. Montevideo: Universidad de Montevideo. P´erez de Barradas, Jos´e (1955) Les Indiens de l’Eldorado. Etude historique et ethnographique des Muiscas de Colombie. Paris: Payot (originally published in Spanish in Madrid, 1951). P´erez van Leenden, Francisco (2000) Lenguas abor´ıgenes de la pen´ınsula de la Guajira. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 793–4. Perl, Matthias and Armin Schwegler, eds. (1998) Am´erica Negra: panor´amica actual de los estudios ling¨uisticos sobre variedades hispanas, portuguesas y criollas. Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert. Petersen de Pi˜neros, Gabriele (1994) La lengua uitota en la obra de K. Th. Preuss. Bogot´a: Editorial Universidad Nacional. Petersen de Pi˜neros, Gabriele and Carlos Pati˜no Rosselli (2000) El idioma uitoto. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 219–38. Phelan, John Leddy (1967) The Kingdom of Quito in the Seventeenth Century. Madison, Milwaukee and London: University of Wisconsin Press. Philippi, Rodulfus Amandus (1860) Reise durch die W¨uste Atacama auf Befehl der chilenischen Regierung im Sommer 1853–1854. Halle: Eduard Anton.
References
665
Pigafetta, Antonio (1956) Relation du premier voyage autour du monde par Magellan [1519–1522]. Commentary and transcription by L´eonce Peillard. Paris: Club des Librairies de France. Pike, Evelyn G. and Rachel Saint, eds. (1988) Workpapers concerning Waorani Discourse Features. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Pineda Giraldo, Roberto and Miguel Fornaguera (1958) Vocabulario opon-carare. In: Academia Colombiana de Historia, ed. Homenaje al Profesor Paul Rivet. Bogot´a: Editorial ABC. Piossek Prebisch, Teresa (1976) La rebeli´on de Pedro Boh´orquez. El Inca del Tucum´an (1656–1659). Buenos Aires: Ju´arez. Pitkin, Harvey (1984) Wintu Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press. (1985) Wintu Dictionary. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pizarro, Pedro (1986 [1571]) Relaci´on del descubrimiento y conquista de los reinos del Per´u (2nd edition). Lima: Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u. Plaza Mart´ınez, Pedro and Juan Carvajal Carvajal (1985) Etnias y lenguas de Bolivia. La Paz: Instituto Boliviano de Cultura. Poblete Mendoza, Mar´ıa Teresa and Adalberto Salas (1997) El aymara de Chile (fonolog´ıa, textos, l´exico). Filolog´ıa y Ling¨u´ıstica 23, 1, pp. 121–203. San Jos´e: Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica. Poblete Mendoza, Mar´ıa Teresa and Adalberto Salas (1999) Fonemas yamana (yagan). Estructura fonol´ogica de la palabra. Revista de Ling¨u´ıstica Te´orica y Aplicada 37, pp. 107–22. Concepci´on (Chile). Polo, Jos´e Toribio (1901) Indios uros del Per´u y Bolivia. Bolet´ın de la Sociedad Geogr´afica de Lima 10, pp. 445–82. Lima. Porterie-Guti´errez, Liliane (1988) Etude linguistique de l’aymara septentrional (P´erou-Bolivie). Th`ese Amerindia. Paris: Association d’ethnolinguistique am´erindienne. (1990) Documentos para el estudio de la lengua chipaya. Amerindia 15, pp. 157–91. Paris: Association d’ethnolinguistique am´erindienne. Posnansky, Arturo (1915) La lengua chipaya. Memorias presentadas al XIX Congreso Internacional de Americanistas. La Paz: Instituto Tiahuanacu de Antropolog´ıa, Etnograf´ıa y Prehistoria. (1918) Los chipayas de Carangas (2nd edition). La Paz: Escuela tipogr´afica salesiana. (1934) Los urus o uchumi. Actas del XXV Congreso Internacional de Americanistas (La Plata, 1932), vol. 1, pp. 235–300. La Plata, Argentina. Pottier, Bernard, ed. (1983) Am´erica Latina en sus lenguas indigenas. Caracas: Unesco and Monte Avila. Pozzi-Escot, In´es (1998) El multilingu¨ısmo en el Per´u. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´e de Las Casas; Cochabamba: Programa de Formaci´on en Educaci´on Intercultural Biling¨ue para los Pa´ıses Andinos (PROEIB Andes). Preuss, Konrad Theodor (1921–5) Forschungsreise zu den K´agaba-Indianern der Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta. Anthropos 16–17 (1–3), pp. 459–80, (4–6), pp. 737–64; 18–19 (1–3), pp. 125–54, (4–6), pp. 890–950; 20 (1–2), pp. 77–119, (3–4), pp. 461–95. St Gabriel, M¨odling near Vienna: Anthropos Verlag. (1921–3) Religion und Mythologie der Uitoto. Textaufnahmen und Beobachtungen bei einem Indianenstamm in Kolumbien, S¨udamerika. G¨ottingen and Leipzig: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Proulx, Paul (1969) Proto-Quechua person suffixes. International Journal of American Linguistics 35, 1, pp. 25–7. Puente Baldoceda, Blas (1978) Influencia morfo-sint´actica del quechua sobre el castellano andino del Per´u. Paper presented at a Workshop on Andean Linguistics organised by the Linguistic Society of America (University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, August 1978).
666
References
Pyle, Ransford Comstock (1981) Aymara kinship, real and spiritual. In: Hardman (1981), pp. 80–9. Queixal´os, Francisco (1985) Fonolog´ıa sikuani. Bogot´a: Instituto Caro y Cuervo. (1989) Diccionario Sikuani–Espa˜nol. Bogot´a: Universidad de los Andes: Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Abor´ıgenes. (1993) Lenguas y dialectos de la familia ling¨u´ıstica guahibo. In: Rodr´ıguez de Montes (1993), pp. 189–217. (1998) Nom, verbe et pr´edicat en sikuani (Colombie). Paris: Soci´et´e d’Etudes Linguistiques et Anthropologiques de France and Peeters. (2000) Syntaxe sikuani (Colombie). Paris: Soci´et´e d’Etudes Linguistiques et Anthropologiques de France and Peeters. Queixal´os, Fran¸cois and Odile Renault-Lescure, eds. (2000) As l´ınguas amazˆonicas hoje. S˜ao Paulo: Institut de recherche pour le d´eveloppement, Instituto Socioambiental and Museu Paraense Em´ılio Goeldi. Quesada Castillo, F´elix (1976a) Gram´atica quechua Cajamarca–Ca˜naris. Lima: Ministerio de Educaci´on and Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. (1976b) Diccionario quechua Cajamarca–Ca˜naris. Lima: Ministerio de Educaci´on and Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Quesada Pacheco, Miguel Angel (1991) El vocabulario mosco de 1612. Estudios de Ling¨u´ıstica Chibcha 10, pp. 29–99. San Jos´e: Universidad de Costa Rica. Quijano Otero, Jos´e Mar´ıa, ed. (1881) Grammatica, frases, oraciones, cathezismo, confessionario y bocabulario de la lengua chibcha [1620]. In: Actas del Congreso Internacional de Americanistas IV (Madrid 1881), vol. 2, pp. 226–95. Madrid: Imprenta de Fortanet (republished in 1968 by Kraus Reprint, Nendeln, Liechtenstein). Rabinowitz, Joel (1983) La lengua pescadora: the lost dialect of Chimu fishermen. In: Daniel H. Sandweiss (ed.), Cornell University Investigations of the Andean Past, Papers from the First Annual Northeast Conference on Andean Archaeology and Ethnohistory, pp. 243–67. Ithaca: Cornell University. Raimondi, Antonio (1873) El departamento de Ancachs y sus riquezas minerales. Lima: P. Lira. Ram´ırez, Henri (1997) A Fala Tukano dos Ye pˆa-Masa, vol. I: Gram´atica; vol. II: Dicion´ario. Manaus: Inspetoria Salesiana Mission´aria da Amazˆonia and Centro ‘Iavaret´e’ de Documentac˜ao Etnogr´afica e Mission´aria (CEDEM). Ramos Cabredo, Josefina (1950) Las lenguas en la regi´on tallanca. Cuadernos de Estudio del Instituto de Investigaciones Hist´oricas 3, 8, pp. 11–55. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u. Ramos Pizarro, Nelly (1989) Biling¨uismo castellano mapudungun en poblaci´on escolar media de la IX regi´on (Chile). Pueblos Ind´ıgenas y Educaci´on 12, pp. 29–42. Quito: Abya-Yala and Proyecto de Educaci´on Biling¨ue e Intercultural (EBI). Ravines, Rogger and Avalos de Matos, Rosal´ıa (1988) Atlas etnoling¨u´ıstico del Per´u. Lima: Instituto Andino de Artes Populares del Convenio Andr´es Bello, Comisi´on Nacional del Per´u. Raymond, J. Scott (1988) A view from the tropical forest. In: Keatinge (1998), pp. 279–300. Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo (1947) La lengua chimila. Journal de la Soci´et´e des Am´ericanistes de Paris 36, pp. 15–50. (1950–1) Los kogi: una tribu de la Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, 2 vols. Bogot´a: Editorial Iqueima (new edition 1985, Bogot´a: Procultura). (1965) Excavaciones arqueol´ogicas en Puerto Hormiga (Departamento de Bol´ıvar). Bogot´a: Universidad de los Andes. (1972) San Agust´ın. New York and Washington: Praeger.
References
667
(1989) Materiales ling¨u´ısticos de 1.947. ‘Contribuciones al conocimiento del idioma sank´a’. In: Trillos Amaya et al. (1989), pp. 143–80. Remy, Pilar and Mar´ıa Rostworowski de Diez Canseco, eds. (1992) Las visitas a Cajamarca 1571–2/1578, 2 vols. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Reuse, Willem J. de (1986) The lexicalization of sound symbolism in Santiago del Estero Quechua. International Journal of American Linguistics 52, 1, pp. 54–64. Ricardo, Antonio, ed. (1985 [1584]) Doctrina Christiana y catecismo para instrucci´on de los indios. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cient´ıficas. ed. (1586) Arte, y vocabulario en la lengua general del Peru llamada quichua, y en la lengua espa˜nola. Lima (revised edition see Aguilar P´aez 1970). Rick, John W. (1988) The character and context of highland preceramic society. In: Keatinge (1988), pp. 3–40. Riester, J¨urgen (1976) En busca de la Loma Santa. La Paz, Cochabamba: Los Amigos del Libro. (1986a) Introducci´on. In: Riester (1986b), pp. 17–84. ed. (1986b) Z´ubaka. La Chiquitan´ıa: visi´on antropol´ogica de una regi´on en desarrollo, vol. 1: Vocabulario del chiquito Cochabamba: Los Amigos del Libro. Rivano, Emilio (1988) Morphosyntactic functions in Mapudungu. Revista de Ling¨u´ıstica Te´orica y Aplicada 26, pp. 57–90. Concepci´on, Chile. (1989) Persons, interactions, proximity, and metaphorical grammaticalization in Mapudungu. Working Papers 35, pp. 149–68. Lund University, Department of Linguistics. (1990) Notes on the feature matrix for Mapudungu vowels and related issues. Revista de Ling¨u´ıstica Te´orica y Aplicada 28, pp. 135–45. Concepci´on, Chile. Rivarola, Jos´e Luis (1985a) Lengua, comunicaci´on e historia del Per´u. Lima: Lumen (also published in Bolet´ın de la Academia Peruana de la Lengua 19 (1984), pp. 125–60, Lima). (1985b) Un testimonio del espa˜nol andino en el Per´u del siglo 17. Anuario de Ling¨u´ıstica Hisp´anica 1, pp. 203–11. Valladolid. (1986) El espa˜nol del Per´u. Balance y perspectiva de la investigaci´on. Lexis 10, pp. 25–52. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u, Departamento de Humanidades. (1987) Parod´ıas de la ‘lengua del indio’ en el Per´u (SS XVII–XIX). Lexis 11, pp. 137–64. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u, Departamento de Humanidades. (1990) La formaci´on ling¨u´ıstica de Hispanoam´erica. Lima: Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u. Rivera, Mario A. (1999) Prehistory of the Southern Cone. In: Salomon and Schwartz (1999), part 1, pp. 734–68. Rivet, Paul (1924a) Langues am´ericaines, II: Langues de l’Am´erique du Sud et des Antilles. In: Meillet and Cohen (1924), pp. 639–712. (1924b) La langue andak´ı. Journal de la Soci´et´e des Am´ericanistes de Paris 16, pp. 99–110. (1925) Les Australiens en Am´erique. Bulletin de la Soci´et´e Linguistique de Paris 26, pp. 23–63. Paris. (1927) La famille linguistique timote. International Journal of American Linguistics 4, 2–4, pp. 137–67. (1934) Population de la province de Ja´en. Equateur. In: Congr`es international des sciences anthropologiques et ethnologiques: compte-rendu de la premi`ere session, pp. 245–7. London: Royal Institute of Anthropology. (1942) Un dialecte hoka colombien: le yurumang´ı. Journal de la Soci´et´e des Am´ericanistes de Paris 34, pp. 1–59. (1943a) La influencia karib en Colombia. Revista del Instituto Etnol´ogico Nacional 1, pp. 55–93, 283–95. Bogot´a. (1943b) La lengua chok´o. Revista del Instituto Etnol´ogico Nacional 1, pp. 131–96. Bogot´a.
668
References
(1943–6) Nouvelle contribution a` l’´etude de l’ethnologie pr´ecolombienne de Colombie. Journal de la Soci´et´e des Am´ericanistes de Paris 35, pp. 25–39. (1947) Les indiens malib´u. Journal de la Soci´et´e des Am´ericanistes de Paris 36, pp. 139–44. (1949) Les langues de l’ancien dioc`ese de Trujillo. Journal de la Soci´et´e des Am´ericanistes de Paris 38, pp. 1–51. (1956) Les affixes classificatoires des noms de nombre. Journal de la Soci´et´e des Am´ericanistes de Paris 45, pp. 179–88. Rivet, Paul and Ces´areo de Armellada (1950) Les indiens motilones. Journal de la Soci´et´e des Am´ericanistes de Paris 39, pp. 15–57. Rivet, Paul and Georges de Cr´equi-Montfort (1951–6) Bibliographie des langues aymar´a et kiˇcua, 4 vols. Paris: Universit´e de Paris, Institut d’Ethnologie. ˇ Rivet, Paul and Cestm´ ır Loukotka (1952) Langues de l’Am´erique du Sud et des Antilles. In: Meillet and Cohen (revised edition 1952), pp. 1099–160. Rivet, Paul and Cl´ement Tastevin (1931) Nouvelle contribution a` l’´etude du groupe kahuapana. International Journal of American Linguistics 6, 3–4, pp. 227–71. Robayo Moreno, Camilo Alberto (2000) Introducci´on al estudio de la lengua yuko o yukpa. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 709–17. Rochereau, Henri (1926–7) La lengua tuneba y sus dialectos, fasc. I: Ensayo gramatical. (1926); fasc. II: Vocabulario (1927). Pamplona: Imprenta de la Di´ocesis de Pamplona. Rodrigues, Aryon Dall’Igna (1984–5) Rela¸co˜ es internas na fam´ılia ling¨u´ıstica tupi-guaran´ı. Revista de Antropologia 27/28, pp. 33–53. S˜ao Paulo: Universidade de S˜ao Paulo, Departamento de Ciˆencias Sociais. (1985a) Evidence for Tupi–Carib relationships. In: Klein and Stark (1985a), pp. 371–404. (1985b) The present state of the study of Brazilian Indian languages. In: Klein and Stark (1985a), pp. 405–39. (1986) L´ınguas brasileiras. S˜ao Paulo: Edi¸co˜ es Loyola. (1999) Macro-Jˆe. In: Dixon and Aikhenvald (1999), pp. 164–206. (2000) ‘Ge-Pano-Carib’ x ‘Jˆe-Tup´ı-Karib’; sobre relaciones ling¨u´ısticas prehist´oricas en Sudam´erica. In: Miranda Esquerre (2000), vol. 1, pp. 95–104. Rodr´ıguez, Gustavo (1991) The Tal´atur. Ceremonial chant of the Atacama people. In: Key (1991), pp. 181–92. Rodr´ıguez Baquero, Luis Enrique (1995) Encomienda y vida diaria entre los indios de Muzo (1550–1620). Bogot´a: Instituto Colombiano de Cultura Hisp´anica. Rodr´ıguez Garrido, Jos´e A. (1982) Sobre el uso del posesivo redundante en el espa˜nol del Peru. Lexis 6, pp. 117–23. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u, Departamento de Humanidades. Rodr´ıguez Gonz´alez, Sandra Patricia (2000). Estudios sobre la lengua koreguaje. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 199–213. Rodr´ıguez de Montes, Mar´ıa Luisa, ed. (1993) Estado actual de la clasificaci´on de las lenguas ind´ıgenas de Colombia. Bogot´a: Instituto Caro y Cuervo. Rojas Curieux, Tulio (1991a) Las estructuras de la oraci´on en p´aez. In: Rojas Curieux (1991c), pp. 7–100. (1991b) Fonolog´ıa: variante Munchique. In: Nieves Oviedo (1991e), pp. 43–96. ed. (1991c) Estudios gramaticales de la lengua p´aez (nasa yuwe). Bogot´a: Universidad de los Andes, Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Abor´ıgenes. (1998) La lengua p´aez: una visi´on de su gram´atica. Santaf´e de Bogot´a: Ministerio de Cultura. Rojas de Perdomo, Lucia (1979) Manual de arqueolog´ıa colombiana. Bogot´a: Carlos Valencia Editores. ˜ Romero, Fernando (1988) Quimba, Fa, Malambo, Neque. Afronegrismos en el Per´u. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.
References
669
Romoli, Kathleen (1987) Los de la lengua de Cueva. Los grupos ind´ıgenas del istmo oriental en la e´ poca de la conquista espa˜nola. Bogot´a: Instituto Colombiano de Antropolog´ıa, Instituto Colombiano de Cultura (Ediciones Tercer Mundo). Rona, Jos´e Pedro (1964) Nuevos elementos acerca de la lengua charr´ua. Montevideo: Universidad de la Rep´ublica, Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias, Departamento de Ling¨u´ıstica. R¨osing, Ina (1990) Introducci´on al mundo callawaya: curaci´on ritual para vencer penas y tristezas, vol. I: Introducci´on y documentaci´on. Cochabamba: Los Amigos del Libro. Rouby, Angel and Otto Riedmayer, with Luis Mar´ıa Caillet (1983) Shuar chicham. Gram´atica shuar. Vocabulario Castellano – Shuar. Ecuador: Mundo Shuar. Rowe, John Howland (1947) The distribution of Indians and Indian languages in Peru. The Geographical Review 37, pp. 202–15. New York. (1948) The kingdom of Chimor. Acta Americana 6, 1–2, pp. 26–59. (1950a) The Idabaez: Unknown Indians of the Choc´o coast. Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers no. 1, pp. 34–44. Berkeley. (1950b) Sound patterns in three Inca dialects. International Journal of American Linguistics 16, 3, pp. 137–48. (1974) Sixteenth and seventeenth century grammars. In: Dell Hymes (ed.), Studies in the History of Linguistics: Traditions and Paradigms, pp. 361–79. Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press. S´aez Godoy, Leopoldo, ed. (1971) Johann Jakob von Tschudi: la lengua cunza. Signos 5, 1, pp. 15–20. Valpara´ıso: Universidad Cat´olica de Valpara´ıso, Instituto de Lenguas y Literatura. S´aez Godoy, Leopoldo, et al. (MS 1974) Diccionario Espa˜nol–Kunsa Kunsa–Espa˜nol. Seminario de titulaci´on ‘la lengua kunsa’. Valpara´ıso: Universidad Cat´olica de Valpara´ıso. Saint, Rachel and Kenneth L. Pike (1962) Auca phonemics. In: Elson (1962), pp. 2–30. Sakel, Jeanette (2002) Gender agreement in Moset´en. In: Crevels et al. (2002), pp. 287–305. (2003) A Grammar of Moset´en. PhD diss. University of Nijmegen. Salas, Adalberto (1978) Terminaciones y transiciones en el verbo mapuche. Cr´ıtica y bases para una nueva interpretaci´on. Revista de Ling¨u´ıstica Te´orica y Aplicada 16, pp. 167–79. Concepci´on, Chile. (1979) Semantic Ramifications of the Category of Person in the Mapuche Verb. PhD diss. State University of New York, Buffalo. (1984) Textos orales en mapuche o araucano del centro-sur de Chile. Concepci´on: Editorial de la Universidad de Concepci´on. (1992a) El mapuche o araucano. Fonolog´ıa, gram´atica y antolog´ıa de cuentos. Madrid: Editorial MAPFRE. (1992b) Ling¨u´ıstica mapuche. Revista Andina 10, 2, pp. 473–537. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´e de Las Casas. Salas, Adalberto and Mar´ıa Teresa Poblete Mendoza (1997) El aymara de Chile (II L´exico). Filolog´ıa y Ling¨u´ıstica 23, 2, pp. 95–138. San Jos´e: Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica. Salas, Jos´e Antonio (2002) Diccionario Mochica–Castellano Castellano-Mochica. Lima: Universidad de San Mart´ın de Porres, Escuela Profesional de Turismo y Hoteler´ıa. Salas, Julio C. (1924) Or´ıgenes americanos: lenguas indias comparadas, vol. 1. Caracas: Editorial Sur-America. Salomon, Frank (1986) Native Lords of Quito in the Age of the Incas: the Political Economy of North Andean Chiefdoms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Salomon, Frank and Sue Grosboll (1986) Names and peoples in Incaic Quito: retrieving undocumented historic processes through anthroponymy and statistics. American Anthropologist 88, pp. 387–99.
670
References
Salomon, Frank and Stuart B. Schwartz, eds. (1999) The Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of South America, vol. 3: South America, 2 parts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Salomon, Frank and George L. Urioste (1991) The Huarochir´ı Manuscript. A Testament of Ancient and Colonial Andean Religion. Austin: University of Texas Press. San Pedro, Juan de and Juan del Canto (1918) Relaci´on de la religi´on y ritos del Per´u, hecha por los primeros religiosos Agustinos que all´ı passaron para la conversi´on de los naturales. In: Horacio H. Urteaga and Carlos H. Romero (eds.), Informaciones acerca de la Religi´on y Gobierno de los Incas. Colecci´on de Libros y Documentos referentes a la historia del Per´u, vol. 11, pp. 3–58. Lima (for the 1992 edition see Castro de Trelles). San Rom´an, Francisco J. (1967) La lengua cunza de los naturales de Atacama. Revista de Cultura Universitaria Ancora 3, pp. 76–88. Antofagasta (first published in 1890 in Revista de la Direcci´on de Obras P´ublicas: Secci´on de Geograf´ıa 5, Santiago: Imprenta Gutenberg). Santa Gertrudis, Juan de (1970) Maravillas de la naturaleza, 4 vols. Bogot´a: Editorial Kelly. Santo Tom´as, Domingo de (1560a) Grammatica o arte de la lengua general de los indios de los reynos del Peru. Valladolid: Francisco Fern´andez de C´ordova (also published in 1951 by Ra´ul Porras Barrenechea, Lima; and in 1994, with an introductory study, by Rodolfo Cerr´on-Palomino, Madrid: Ediciones de Cultura Hisp´anica and Unesco). (1560b) Lexicon o vocabulario de la lengua general del Peru. Valladolid: Francisco Fern´andez de C´ordova (also published in 1994 by Rodolfo Cerr´on-Palomino, Madrid: Ediciones de Cultura Hisp´anica and Unesco). Schleicher, Charles Owen (1998) Comparative and Internal Reconstruction of the Tupi-Guaran´ı Language Family. PhD diss. University of Wisconsin, Madison. Schuchard, Barbara (1986) Apuntes sobre la gram´atica. In: Riester (1986b), pp. 85–101. Schumacher de Pe˜na, Gertrud (1991) El vocabulario mochica de Walter Lehmann (1929) comparado con otras fuentes l´exicas. Lima: Instituto de Ling¨u´ıstica Aplicada (CILA), Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Schuller, Rudolph R. (1908) Vocabulario y nuevos materiales para el estudio de la lengua de los indios Lican-antai (Atacame˜nos) – Calchaqu´ı. Santiago de Chile: Imprenta Cervantes. Seelwische, Jos´e (1980) Nivacle Ihcliish – Sˆomto Ihcliish. Diccionario Nivacle – Castellano. Filadelfia, Paraguay: Asociaci´on de Servicios de Cooperaci´on Ind´ıgena-Menonita (ASCIM). Seifart, Frank (2002) El sistema de clasificaci´on nominal del mira˜na. Bogot´a: Universidad de los Andes: Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Abor´ıgenes (CCELA). Seler, Eduard (1902) Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur altamerikanischen Sprach- und Alterthumskunde, vol. 1. Berlin: A. Asher & Co. Serrano, Antonio (1936) Contribuciones al estudio de lenguas ind´ıgenas en la Argentina: observaciones sobre el kak´an, el extinguido idioma de los diaguitas. Bolet´ın de la Academia Argentina de Letras, 4, 14, pp. 261–72. (1947) Los abor´ıgenes argentinos. Buenos Aires: Editorial Nova. Shady Sol´ıs, Ruth (1988) La e´ poca Huari como interacci´on de las sociedades regionales. Revista Andina 6, 1, pp. 67–134. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´e de Las Casas. (1997) El centro urbano primigenio de Caral, Supe, costa nor-central del Per´u. Bolet´ın del Instituto de Investigaciones Ling¨u´ısticas (INVEL) 3. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Facultad de Letras y Ciencias Humanas. Shafer, Robert (1959) Algumas equa¸co˜ es fon´eticas em Arawakan. Anthropos 54, pp. 542–62. (1962) Aruacan (not Arawakan). Anthropological Linguistics 4, 4, pp. 31–40. Shell, Olive (1965) Pano Reconstruction. PhD diss. University of Pennsylvania. (1975) Estudios Panos III: Las lenguas panos en su reconstrucci´on. Serie Ling¨u´ıstica Peruana 12. Lima, Yarinacocha: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano.
References
671
Shell, Olive A. and Mary Ruth Wise (1971) Grupos idiom´aticos del Per´u (2nd edition). Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos and Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. Sherzer, Joel F. (1974) Namakke, sunmakke, kormakke: three types of Cuna speech event. In: Richard Baumann and Joel Sherzer, Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking, pp. 263–82. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (1975) A problem in Cuna phonology. Journal of the Linguistic Association of the Southwest 1, 2, pp. 45–53. (1978) Cuna numeral classifiers. In: Mohammad Ali Jazayeri, Edgar C. Polom´e and Werner Winter (eds.), Linguistic and Literary Studies in Honor of Archibald A. Hill, vol. 2: Descriptive Linguistics, pp. 331–7. The Hague, Paris and New York: Mouton. (1983) Kuna Ways of Speaking: an Ethnographic Perspective. Austin: University of Texas Press. (1986) The report of a Kuna curing specialist: the poetics and rhetoric of an oral performance. In: Sherzer and Urban (1986), pp. 169–212. Sherzer, Joel F. and Greg Urban, eds. (1986) Native South American Discourse. Berlin, New York and Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. Silva Santisteban, Fernando (1982) La lengua culle de Cajamarca y Huamachuco. Cantuta 9, pp. 138–48. Lima: Universidad Nacional de Educaci´on (reprinted 1986 in: Fernando Silva Santisteban, Waldemar Espinoza Soriano and Rogger Ravines (eds.), Historia de Cajamarca II: etnohistoria y ling¨u´ıstica, pp. 365–70, Cajamarca: Instituto Nacional de Cultura). Silver, Shirley and Wick R. Miller (1997) American Indian Languages. Cultural and Social Contexts. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Sim´on, Pedro (1882–92 [1626]) Noticias historiales de las conquistas de Tierra Firme en las Indias Occidentales, several volumes. Bogot´a: Imprenta de Medardo Rivas (1982 edition, Bogot´a: Biblioteca Banco Popular). Simson, Alfred (1886) Travels in the Wilds of Ecuador and the Exploration of the Putumayo River. London: Sampson Low, Marston, Searle & Rivington. Skottsberg, Carl (1913) Observations on the natives of the Patagonian Channel region. American Anthropologist 15, pp. 578–616. Smeets, Ineke (1989) A Mapuche Grammar. PhD diss. Leiden University. Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (1907) Nimpasmo nimpaiwa nelmathnangkama: Portions of the Book of Common Prayer in the Lengua Language as Spoken by a Tribe of Indians of the Paraguayan Chaco. London. Society for Promoting Christian knowledge (1911) Nimpaiwa ningminaigm`asch`ama: Original Hymns and Paraphrases of Well-known Hymns in the Lengua Language as Spoken by a Tribe of Indians of the Paraguayan Chaco. London. Sol´a, Donald F. (1967) Gram´atica del quechua de Hu´anuco. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Plan de Fomento Ling¨u´ıstico. Sol´ıs Fonseca, Gustavo and Jorge Esquivel Villafana (1979) El fonema postvelar quechua y sus efectos coarticulatorios. Documento de Trabajo 40. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Centro de Investigaci´on de Ling¨u´ıstica Aplicada. Sorensen, Arthur P. (1967) Multilingualism in the Northwest Amazon. American Anthropologist 69, pp. 670–84. (1985) An emerging Tukanoan linguistic regionality. In: Klein and Stark (1985a), pp. 140–56. Soto Ruiz, Clodoaldo (1976a) Gram´atica quechua Ayacucho–Chanca. Lima: Ministerio de Educaci´on, Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. (1976b) Diccionario quechua Ayacucho–Chanca. Lima: Ministerio de Educaci´on, Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. (1979) Quechua. Manual de ense˜nanza. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.
672
References
Squier, Ephraim George (1877) Peru Illustrated or Incidents of Travel and Exploration in the Land of the Incas. New York: Hurst & Company. Stahl, Wilmar (1982) Escenario ind´ıgena chaque˜no. pasado y presente. Filadelfia, Paraguay: Asociaci´on de Servicios de Cooperaci´on Ind´ıgena-Menonita (ASCIM). Stark, Louisa R. (1968) Mayan Affinities with Yunga of Peru. PhD diss. New York University. (1970) Mayan affinities with Araucanian. Papers from the 6th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 16–18 April 1970, pp. 57–69. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. (1972a) Maya–Yunga–Chipaya: a new linguistic alignment. International Journal of American Linguistics 38, 2, pp. 119–35. (1972b) Machaj–Juyay: secret language of the Callahuayas. Papers in Andean Linguistics 1, 2, pp. 199–218. (1985a) Ecuadorian highland Quechua: history and current status. In: Klein and Stark (1985a), pp. 443–80. (1985b) The Quechua language in Bolivia. In: Klein and Stark (1985a), pp. 516–45. (1985c) Indigenous languages of lowland Ecuador. In: Klein and Stark (1985a), pp. 371–404. Stark, Louisa R. and Pieter C. Muysken (1977) Diccionario Espa˜nol–Quichua Quichua–Espa˜nol. Quito and Guayaquil: Museos del Banco Central del Ecuador, Archivo Hist´orico del Guayas. Stevenson, William Bennett (1825) A Historical and Descriptive Narrative of 20 Years Residence in South America, 2 vols. London: Hurst, Robinson and Co. Steward, Julian Haynes, ed. (1946–50) Handbook of South American Indians, vol. 1 (1946a): The Marginal Tribes; vol. 2 (1946b): The Andean Civilizations; vol. 3 (1948): The Tropical Forest Tribes; vol. 6 (1950): Physical Anthropology, Linguistics and Cultural Geography of South American Indians. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 143. Washington DC: United States Government Printing Office. Steward, Julian Haynes and Louis C. Faron (1959) Native Peoples of South America. New York, Toronto and London: McGraw-Hill. Stratford, Billie Dale (1989) Structure and Use of Altiplano Spanish. PhD diss. University of Florida, Gainesville. Strom, Clay (1992) Retuar˜a Syntax. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington. Su´arez, Jorge A. (1959) The phonemes of an Araucanian dialect. International Journal of American Linguistics 25, 3, pp. 177–81. (1969) Moset´en and Pano–Tacanan. Anthropological Linguistics 11, 9, pp. 255–66. (1973) Macro–Pano–Tacanan. International Journal of American Linguistics 37, 3, pp. 137–54. (1974) Classification of South American Indian languages. Encyclopaedia Britannica (15th edition). Macropaedia 17, pp. 105–12. Chicago. Su´arez Roca, Jos´e Luis (1992) Ling¨u´ıstica misionera espa˜nola. Oviedo: Pentalfa. Suˇsnik, Branislava J. (1958) Ee n¸cl¨ıt a´ ppaiwa. Lengua–Maskoy. Estructura gramatical. Parte 1ra Bolet´ın de la Sociedad Cient´ıfica del Paraguay y del Museo Andr´es Barbero etnogr´afico e hist´orico natural, vol. 2, Etnoling¨u´ıstica 2. Asunci´on (Paraguay). (1977) Lengua–maskoy. Su hablar, su pensar, su vivencia. Lenguas chaque˜nas IV. Asunci´on: Museo Etnogr´afico ‘Andr´es Barbero’. (1978) Los abor´ıgenes del Paraguay, vol. 1: Etnolog´ıa del Chaco Boreal y su periferia (Siglos XVI y XVII). Asunci´on: Museo Etnogr´afico ‘Andr´es Barbero’. (1986–7) Los abor´ıgenes del Paraguay, vol. 7,1: Lenguas chaque˜nas. Asunci´on: Museo Etnogr´afico ‘Andr´es Barbero’. Swadesh, Morris (1954) Perspectives and problems of Amerindian comparative linguistics. Word 10, pp. 306–32.
References
673
(1959) Mapas de clasificaci´on ling¨u´ıstica de M´exico y las Am´ericas. Cuadernos del Instituto de Historia, Serie Antropol´ogica 8. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Aut´onoma de M´exico. (1962) Afinidades de las lenguas amerindias. In: Akten des 34. Amerikanistenkongresses (Vienna, 18–25 July 1960), pp. 729–38. Vienna: Fred Berger. (1967) Lexicostatistic classification. In: Robert Wauchope and Norman A. McQuown (eds.), Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 5: Linguistics, pp. 79–115. Austin: University of Texas Press. (1971) The Origin and Diversification of Language. New York: Aldine-Atherton. Sweet, David G. (1974) A Rich Realm of Nature Destroyed: the Central Amazon Valley, 1640–1750. PhD diss. University of Wisconsin, Madison. Swisshelm, Germ´an (1971) Un an´alisis detallado de la fonolog´ıa del quechua de Huaraz. Estudios Culturales Benedictinos 1. Huaraz. (1972) Un diccionario del quechua de Huaraz (Quechua–Castellano Castellano–Quechua). Estudios Culturales Benedictinos 2. Huaraz. (1974) Los sufijos de derivaci´on verbal en el quechua de Huaraz. In: Pantoja Ramos et al. (1974), vol. 2, pp. 471–577. Szemi´nski, Jan (1990) Un texto en el idioma olvidado de los Inkas. Hist´orica 14, 2, pp. 379–89. Jerusalem. (1998) Del idioma propio de los incas cuzque˜nos y de su pertenencia ling¨u´ıstica. Hist´orica 22, 1, pp. 135–68. Jerusalem. Tate, Norman (1981) An ethnosemantic study of Aymara: ‘to carry’. In: Hardman (1981), pp. 57–70. Taussig, Michael T. (1987) Shamanism, Colonialism, and the Wild Man: a Study in Terror and Healing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Taylor, Anne Christine (1999) The western margins of Amazonia from the early sixteenth to the early nineteenth century. In: Salomon and Schwartz (1999), part 2, pp. 188–256. Taylor, Douglas (1978) Four consonantal patterns in northern Arawakan. International Journal of American Linguistics 44, 2, pp. 121–30. Taylor, G´erald (1975) Le parler quechua d’Olto, Amazonas (P´erou). Phonologie, esquisse grammaticale, textes. Paris: Soci´et´e d Etudes Linguistiques et Anthropologiques de France. (1979a) Morphologie compar´ee du verbe quechua: l’expression de l’actance. Premi`ere partie: Le Sujet. In: Cath´erine Paris (ed.), Relations pr´edicat-actant(s) dans des langues de types divers, pp. 171–86. LACITO-documents. Paris: Soci´et´e d Etudes Linguistiques et Anthropologiques de France. (1979b) Diccionario normalizado y comparativo quechua: Chachapoyas–Lamas. Paris: L’Harmattan. (1982a) Breve presentaci´on de la morfolog´ıa del quechua de Ferre˜nafe. Lexis 6, 2, pp. 243–70. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u, Departamento de Humanidades. (1982b) Aspectos de la dialectolog´ıa quechua, vol. 1: Introducci´on al quechua de Ferre˜nafe. Chantiers Amerindia. Paris: Association d’ethnolinguistique am´erindienne. (1984) Yauyos: un microcosmo dialectal quechua. Revista Andina 2, 1, pp. 121–46. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´e de Las Casas. (1990a) La lengua de los antiguos chachapuyas. In: Cerr´on-Palomino and Sol´ıs Fonseca (1990), pp. 121–39. (1990b) Le dialecte quechua de Laraos, Yauyos: e´ tude morphologique. Bulletin de l’Institut Fran¸cais d’Etudes Andines 19, 2, pp. 293–325. Lima. (1994) Estudios de dialectolog´ıa quechua (Chachapoyas, Ferre˜nafe, Yauyos). Lima: Universidad Nacional de Educaci´on. (1996a) El quechua de Ferre˜nafe: fonolog´ıa, morfolog´ıa, l´exico. Cajamarca: Acku Quinde.
674
References
(1996b) La tradici´on oral quechua de Chachapoyas. Lima: Instituto Franc´es de Estudios Andinos. Cuzco: Asociaci´on Archivo de la Tradici´on Oral Quechua (ATOQ). (2000) Estudios ling¨u´ısticos sobre Chachapoyas. Lima: Fondo Editorial de la Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos and Instituto Franc´es de Estudios Andinos. Taylor, G´erald and Antonio Acosta (1987) Ritos y tradiciones de Huarochir´ı del siglo XVII. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos and Instituto Franc´es de Estudios Andinos. Tello, Julio C. (1913) Algunas conexiones gramaticales de las lenguas campa, ipurina, moxa, baure, amuesha, goajira, del grupo o familia arawak o maipure. Revista Universitaria 8, 1, pp. 506–32. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. (1923) Arte de la lengua cholona por Fr. Pedro de la Mata. In: Inka vol. 1, pp. 690–750. Lima. Tello, Julio C. and Toribio Mej´ıa Xesspe (1979) Las lenguas del Centro Andino. In: Julio C. Tello and Toribio Mej´ıa Xesspe, Paracas. Segunda parte: Cavernas y necr´opolis, pp. 7–29. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. New York: Institute of Andean Research. Tessmann, G¨unter (1928) Menschen ohne Gott. Ein Besuch bei den Indianern des Ucayali. Stuttgart: Strecker and Schr¨oder. (1930) Die Indianer Nordost-Perus. Hamburg: Friederichsen, de Gruyter and Co. (published in Spanish in 1999 as Los ind´ıgenas del Per´u nororiental, Quito: Abya-Yala). Thiesen, Wesley (1996) Gram´atica del idioma bora. Serie Ling¨u´ıstica Peruana 38. Lima: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. Thiesen, Wesley and David J. Weber (forthcoming) A Grammar of Bora. Publications in Linguistics. Dallas: SIL International and the University of Texas at Arlington. Thomason, Sarah G., ed. (1997) Contact Languages: A Wider Perspective. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Thomason, Sarah G. and Terrence S. Kaufman (1988) Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press. Ticona Alejo, Esteban and Xavier Alb´o Corrons (1997) La lucha por el poder comunal. Jes´us de Machaqa: la marka rebelde. La Paz: Centro de Documentaci´on e Informaci´on (CEDOIN) and Centro de Investigaci´on y Promoci´on del Campesinado (CIPCA). Tobar Ortiz, Nubia (1989) El nominal en guayabero. In: Mel´endez Lozano and Tobar Ortiz (1989), pp. 67–134. Bogot´a: Universidad de los Andes: Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Abor´ıgenes. (2000) La lengua tinigua: anotaciones fonol´ogicas y morfol´ogicas. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 669–79. Toledo, Domingo (1989) R´egimen de educaci´on intercultural biling¨ue en Venezuela: interpretaci´on oficial. Pueblos Ind´ıgenas y Educaci´on 10, pp. 43–54. Quito: Abya-Yala and Proyecto de Educaci´on Biling¨ue e Intercultural (EBI). Toliver, Ralph (MS 1987) Informe sobre las variedades del quechua pasque˜no. Lima: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. Torero Fern´andez de C´ordova, Alfredo A. (1964) Los dialectos quechuas. Anales Cient´ıficos de la Universidad Agraria 2, 4, pp. 446–78. La Molina, Lima. (1965) Le puquina, la troisi`eme langue g´en´erale du P´erou. Doctoral dissertation, Universit´e de la Sorbonne, Paris. (1968) Procedencia geogr´afica de los dialectos quechua de Ferre˜nafe y Cajamarca. Anales Cient´ıficos de la Universidad Agraria 6, 3–4, pp. 291–316. Lima. (1970) Ling¨u´ıstica e historia de la sociedad andina. Anales Cient´ıficos de la Universidad Nacional Agraria 8, 3–4, pp. 231–64. Lima (also published in: Escobar (1972), pp. 46–106). (1974) El quechua y la historia social andina. Lima: Universidad Ricardo Palma. (1983) La familia ling¨u´ıstica quechua. In: Pottier (1983), pp. 61–92. (1984) El comercio lejano y la difusi´on del quechua: el caso del Ecuador. Revista Andina 2, 2, pp. 367–402. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´e de Las Casas.
References
675
(1986) Deslindes ling¨u´ısticos en la costa norte peruana. Revista Andina 4, 3, pp. 523–48. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´e de Las Casas. (1987) Lenguas y pueblos altipl´anicos en torno al siglo XVI. Revista Andina 5, 2, pp. 329–405. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´e de Las Casas. (1989) Areas topon´ımicas e idiomas en la sierra norte peruana: un trabajo de recuperaci´on ling¨u´ıstica. Revista Andina 7, 1, pp. 217–57. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´e de Las Casas. (1990) Procesos ling¨u´ısticos e identificaci´on de dioses en los Andes centrales. Revista Andina 8, 1, pp. 237–63. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´e de Las Casas (1992) Acerca de la familia ling¨u´ıstica uruquilla (uru-chipaya). Revista Andina 10, 1, pp. 171–91. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´e de Las Casas. (1993a) Lenguas del nororiente peruano: la hoya de Ja´en en el siglo XVI. Revista Andina 11, 2, pp. 447–72. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´e de Las Casas. (1993b) Fronteras ling¨u´ısticas y difusi´on de culto: el caso de Huari y de Contiti Viracocha. In: Duviols (1993), pp. 219–33. (1994a) El ‘idioma particular’ de los Incas. In: Calvo P´erez (1994), pp. 231–40. (1994b) Las sibilantes del quechua yunga y del castellano en el siglo XVI. In: Calvo P´erez (1994), pp. 241–54. (1995) Historias de /x/: el proceso de velarizaci´on de /ˇs/ castellana seg´un su uso en escrituras de lenguas andinas en los siglos XVI y XVII. In: Teresa Echenique et al. (eds.), Historia de la lengua espa˜nola en Am´erica y Espa˜na, pp. 185–203. Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch. (1996) Las hablas cauquis de Yauyos (Per´u) dentro de una propuesta de reconstrucci´on fonol´ogica del proto-aru. Libro electr´onico del I Congreso Europeo de Latinoamericanistas. Instituto de Ibero-am´erica y Portugal de la Universidad de Salamanca. (1997) La fonolog´ıa del idioma mochica en los siglos XVI–XVII. Revista Andina 15, 1, pp. 101–29. Cuzco: Centro Bartolom´e de Las Casas. (1998) El marco hist´orico-geogr´afico en la interacci´on quechua-aru. In: Sabine Dedenbach-Salazar S´aenz et al. (1998), pp. 601–30. (2002) Idiomas de los Andes: ling¨u´ıstica e historia. Lima: Instituto Franc´es de Estudios Andinos, Editorial Horizonte. Torres Rubio, Diego de (1616) Arte de la lengua aymara. Lima: Francisco del Canto (republished in 1966 by Mario Franco Inojosa, Lima: Imprenta Lyrsa). (1619) Arte de la lengua quichua. Lima: Francisco Laso (republished in 1964 by Luis A. Pardo and Carlos Galimberti Miranda, Cuzco: H. G. Rozas). Toscano Mateus, Humberto (1953) El espa˜nol en el Ecuador. Revista de Filolog´ıa Espa˜nola, Anejo 61. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaci´on Cient´ıfica. Tovar, Antonio (1981) Relatos y di´alogos de los matacos. Madrid: Ediciones Cultura Hisp´anica, Instituto de Cooperaci´on Iberoamericana. (1983) Linguistic similarity and its significance: comparative procedures. In: Shirˆo Hattori and Kazuko Inoue (eds.), Proceedings of the XXIII International Congress of Linguists (Tokyo, 29 August–4 September 1982), pp. 259–69. Tokyo. (1986) Las lenguas arahuacas: hacia una delimitaci´on m´as precisa de la familia arahuaca. Bogot´a: Instituto Caro y Cuervo (also in Thesaurus 41, pp. 15–57). Tovar, Antonio and Consuelo Larrucea de Tovar (1984) Cat´alogo de las lenguas de la Am´erica del Sur con clasificaciones, indicaciones tipol´ogicas, bibliograf´ıa y mapas. Madrid: Editorial Gredos. Triana y Antorveza, Humberto (1987) Las lenguas ind´ıgenas en la historia social del Nuevo Reino de Granada. Bogot´a: Instituto Caro y Cuervo. (1993) Las lenguas ind´ıgenas en el ocaso del imperio espa˜nol. Bogot´a: Instituto Colombiano de Antropolog´ıa – Colcultura.
676
References
Trillos Amaya, Mar´ıa (1989) Aspecto, modo y tiempo en damana. In: Trillos Amaya et al. (1989), pp. 1–142. (1994) Voz y predicaci´on en damana. In: Landaburu (1994), pp. 401–34. (1997) Categor´ıas gramaticales del ette taara: lengua de los chimilas. Bogot´a: Universidad de los Andes, Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Abor´ıgenes. (1999) Damana. Munich and Newcastle: LINCOM Europa. (2000) S´ıntesis descriptiva de los sistemas morfol´ogico y morfosint´actico del damana. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 749–56. Trillos Amaya, Mar´ıa, Gerardo Reichel-Dolmatoff and Carolina Ortiz Ricaurte (1989) Lenguas abor´ıgenes de Colombia: Descripciones no. 3: Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta. Bogot´a: Universidad de los Andes, Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Abor´ıgenes. Trivi˜no Garz´on, Lilia (1994) Hacia una tipolog´ıa de la predicaci´on de la oraci´on simple en la lengua guambiana. In: Landaburu (1994), pp. 601–18. Troiani, Duna, ed. (1995) La ‘d´ecouverte’ des langues et des e´ critures d’Am´erique. Actes du colloque international (Paris, 7–11 September 1993), Amerindia 19–20. Paris: Association d’ethnolinguistique am´erindienne. Tschopik, Harry (1946) The Aymara. In: Steward (1946b), pp. 501–73. (1948) Aymara texts: Lupaca dialects. International Journal of American Linguistics 14, 2, pp. 108–14. Tschudi, Johann Jakob von (1853) Die Kechua-Sprache, 3 vols. Vienna: Kaiserlich-k¨onigliche Hof- und Staatsdruckerei. (1866–9) Reisen durch S¨udamerika, 5 vols. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus. Turner, Glen D. (1958) Alternative phonemicizing in Jivaro. International Journal of American Linguistics 24, 2, pp. 87–94. Uhle, Max (1890) Verwandtschaften und Wanderungen der Tschibtscha. Acts of the 7th International Congress of Americanists (Berlin 1888), pp. 466–89. (MS 1895) Grundz¨uge einer Uro-Grammatik und Uro Vokabular. Berlin: Ibero-amerikanisches Institut Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Uricoechea, Ezequiel (1871) Gram´atica, vocabulario, catecismo i confesionario de la lengua chibcha. Collection linguistique am´ericaine, vol. 1. Paris: Maisonneuve (republished in 1968 by Kraus Reprint, Nendeln, Liechtenstein). Va¨ısse, Emilio, F´elix Hoyos and An´ıbal Echeverr´ıa y Reyes (1896) Glosario de la lengua atacame˜na. Santiago de Chile: Imprenta Cervantes (first published in 1895 in Anales de la Universidad de Chile 91, pp. 527–56, Santiago de Chile). Valdivia, Luis de (1606) Arte y gramatica general de la lengua que corre en todo el Reyno de Chile, con un vocabulario, y confessionario. Lima: Francisco del Canto (republished in 1887 by Julio Platzmann, Leipzig: B. G. Teubner). (1894 [1607]) Doctrina Cristiana y catecismo con un confesionario, Arte y vocabulario breves en lengua allentiac, ed. Jos´e Toribio Medina. Seville: E. Rasco. Valenti, Donna (1986) A Reconstruction of the Proto-Arawakan Consonantal System. PhD diss. New York University. Valenzuela, Pilar M. (2000a) Ergatividad escindida en wariapano, yaminawa y shipibo-konibo. In: van der Voort and van de Kerke (2000), pp. 111–28. (2000b) Major categories in Shipibo ethnobiological taxonomy. Anthropological Linguistics 42, pp. 1–36. (2003) Transitivity in Shipibo-Konibo Grammar. PhD diss. University of Oregon, Eugene. Varese, Stefano (1968) La sal de los cerros. Lima: Universidad Peruana de Ciencias y Tecnolog´ıa, Departamento de Publicaciones. (1983) Los grupos etnoling¨u´ısticos de la selva andina. In: Pottier (1983), pp. 119–55.
References
677
Vargas Llosa, Mario (1987) El hablador. Barcelona: Editorial Seix Barral. V´asquez de Ruiz, Beatriz (1988) La predicaci´on en guambiano. Bogot´a: Universidad de los Andes: Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Abor´ıgenes. (1994) La oraci´on compuesta en guambiano. In: Landaburu (1994), pp. 619–37. (2000) Guambiano: algunos aspectos sobre morfolog´ıa nominal. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 155–67. Velasco, Juan de (1787) Vocabulario de la lengua ´ındica (1964 edition, Quito: Instituto Ecuatoriano de Antropolog´ıa y Geograf´ıa y Biblioteca Ecuatoriana ‘Aurelio Espinoza Polit’). (1789) Historia del Reino de Quito en la Am´erica meridional, 3 vols. (1981 edition of volumes 2 and 3 by Alfredo Pareja Diezcanseco, Caracas: Biblioteca Ayacucho). V´elez Di´eguez, Juan (1980) Clave artificial para identificar los peces marinos comunes en la costa central del Per´u. Bolet´ın de Lima 9 (November 1980), pp. 41–56. Lima. Vellard, Jehan A. (1950–1) Contribution a l’´etude des indiens uru ou kot’suns. Travaux de l’Institut Fran¸cais d’Etudes Andines 2 (1950), pp. 51–88; 3 (1951), pp. 3–39. Paris, Lima. (1954) Dieux et parias des Andes. Les ourous, ceux qui ne veulent pas eˆ tre des hommes. Paris: Emile-Paul. (1967) Contribuci´on al estudio de la lengua uru. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosof´ıa y Letras, Centro de Estudios Ling¨u´ısticos. Vidal, Alejandra (2001) Pilag´a Grammar. PhD diss. University of Oregon, Eugene. Viegas Barros, Jos´e Pedro (1990) Dialectolog´ıa qawasqar. Amerindia 15, pp. 43–73. Paris: Association d’ethnolinguistique am´erindienne. (1992) La familia ling¨u´ıstica tehuelche. Revista Patag´onica, 12, 54, pp. 39–46. Ushuaia, Argentina. (1993) La alternancia R/L en selknam: indicios de lexicalizaci´on de simbolismo f´onico. In: Viegas Barros and Stell (1993), pp. 271–8. (1995) La reconstrucci´on de los personales en Proto-Chon. In: Fern´andez Garay and Viegas Barros (1995), pp. 271–6. (1998) Explorando la hip´otesis del parentesco alacalufe-yagan. Actas VI Jornadas de Lengua y Literatura Mapuche (Temuco, 1994), pp. 281–5. Temuco: Universidad de la Frontera. (2001) Evidencias de la relaci´on gen´etica lule-vilela. LIAMES 1, pp. 107–26. Campinas: Universidade Estadual de Campinas. (2002) Fonolog´ıa del proto-mataguayo. In: Crevels et al. (2002), pp. 137–48. (MS. to appear a) La lengua de los chonos del sur de Chile: una comparaci´on con el qawasqar y el yagan. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cient´ıficas y T´ecnicas (CONICET) and Universidad de Buenos Aires. (MS. to appear b) Enoo y Gua¨ıcaro: dos entidades ling¨u´ısticas problem´aticas de la Patagonia Austral. CONICET and Universidad de Buenos Aires. Viegas Barros, Jos´e Pedro and Nelida N. Stell, eds. (1993) Actas Primeras Jornadas de Ling¨u´ıstica Aborigen (Buenos Aires, 6–7 October 1992). Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosof´ıa y Letras, Instituto de Ling¨u´ıstica. Vienrich, Adolfo (1906) Tarmapap pachahuarainin: ap´ologos quechuas. Tarma: La Aurora de Tarma (republished in 1999 by Pedro D´ıaz Ortiz as Azucenas quechuas – F´abulas quechuas, Lima: Ediciones Lux). Vignati, Milc´ıades Alejo (1942–6) Iconograf´ıa aborigen 1, 2, 3. Revista del Museo de la Plata, NS, 2: Secci´on de Antropolog´ıa 10, pp. 13–48; 13, pp. 225–36; 15, pp. 277–99. La Plata: Museo Nacional de La Plata. Villareal, Federico (1921) La lengua yunga o mochica seg´un el arte publicado en Lima en 1644 por el licenciado D. Fernando de la Carrera. Lima: Imprenta Peruana de E. Z. Casanova.
678
References
Villarejo, Avencio (1953) As´ı es la selva. Estudio monogr´afico de la Amazon´ıa nor-oriental del Per´u. Maynas-Loreto-Requena (1st edition 1943). Lima: Sanmarti y c´ıa (republished in 1979 by Centro de Estudios Teol´ogicos de la Amazon´ıa, Iquitos). (1959) La selva y el hombre: estudio antropocosmol´ogico del aborigen amaz´onico. Lima: Editorial Ausonia SA. Vink, Hein (MS 1992) L´exico del quechua de Maca˜n´ıa (Pataz). Leiden. Vittadello, Alberto (1988) Cha palaachi: el idioma cayapa, 2 vols. Guayaquil: Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Ecuador: Sede de Esmeraldas. Museos del Banco Central del Ecuador. Vivar, Jer´onimo de (1988 [1558]) Cr´onica de los reinos de Chile. Madrid: Historia 16 (see also Bibar). Voegelin, Carl F. and Florence M. Voegelin (1965) Languages of the world: Native America fascicle 2, Anthropological Linguistics 7, 1, pp. 146–7. Voort, Hein van der and Simon van de Kerke, eds. (2000) Essays on Indigenous Languages of Lowland South America. (Contributions to the 49th International Congress of Americanists, Quito, 1997). Indigenous Languages of Latin America Series no. 1. Leiden: Research School CNWS of Asian, African and Amerindian Studies. Wachtel, Nathan (1978) Hommes d’eau: le probl`eme uru (XVIe –XVIIe si`ecles). Annales Economies Soci´et´es Civilisations 33, 5–6, pp. 1127–59. Paris: Armand Colin. (1990) Le retour des ancˆetres: les indiens uru de Bolivie XXe –XVIe si`ecle. Essai d’histoire r´egressive. Paris: Gallimard. Wagner, Erika (1967) The Prehistory and Ethnohistory of the Carache Area in Western Venezuela. New Haven: Yale University, Department of Anthropology. Watahomigie, Lucille J. and Akira Y. Yamamoto (1992) Local reactions in perceived language decline. Language 68, pp. 10–17. Weber, David John (1983) Relativization and Nominalized Clauses in Huallaga (Huanuco) Quechua. University of California Publications in Linguistics 103. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press. ed. (1987a) Juan del Oso. Serie Ling¨u´ıstica Peruana 26. Yarinacocha: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. (1987b) Estudios quechua: planificaci´on, historia y gram´atica. Serie Ling¨u´ıstica Peruana 27. Yarinacocha: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. (1989) A Grammar of Huallaga (Hu´anuco) Quechua. University of California Publications in Linguistics 112. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press. (1994) Ortograf´ıa. Lecciones del quechua. Serie Ling¨u´ıstica Peruana 32. Lima: Ministerio de Educaci´on, Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. Weber, David John and Peter N. Landerman (1985) The interpretation of long vowels in Quechua. International Journal of American Linguistics 51, 1, pp. 94–108. Weber, David John, F´elix Cayco Zambrano, Teodoro Cayco Villar and Marlene Ballena D´avila (1998) Rimaycuna. Quechua de Hu´anuco. Diccionario del quechua del Huallaga con ´ındices castellano e ingl´es. Serie Ling¨u´ıstica Peruana 48. Lima: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. Weisshar, Emmerich (1982) Die Stellung des Warao und Yanomama in Beziehung zu den indigenen Sprachen S¨udamerikas n¨ordlich des Amazonas: Studien zur genetischen und areal-typologischen Klassifikation. PhD diss. University of T¨ubingen. Wheeler, Alva (2000) La lengua siona. In: Gonz´alez de P´erez and Rodr´ıguez de Montes (2000), pp. 181–98. Whiffen, Thomas (1915) The North-West Amazonas: Notes of Some Months Spent among Cannibal Tribes. London: Constable.
References
679
Whitehead, Neil L. (1999) The crises and transformations of invaded societies: the Caribbean (1492–1580). In: Salomon and Schwartz (1999), part 1, pp. 864–903. Wilbert, Johannes, ed. (1975) Folk Literature of the Selknam Indians. Martin Gusinde’s Collection of Selknam Narratives. Los Angeles: UCLA, Latin American Center Publications. (1977) Folk Literature of the Yamana Indians: Martin Gusinde’s Collection of Yamana Narratives. Los Angeles: UCLA, Latin American Center Publications. Wilbert, Johannes and Karin Simoneau, eds. (1984) Folk Literature of the Tehuelche Indians. Los Angeles: UCLA, Latin American Center Publications. Willey, Gordon R. (1971) An Introduction to American Archaeology, vol. 2: South America. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc. Wilson, Peter J. (1992) Gram´atica del achagua (arawak). Bogot´a: Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. Wipio Deicat, Gerardo (1996) Diccionario Aguaruna–Castellano Castellano–Aguaruna. Lima: Ministerio de Educaci´on and Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano. Wise, Mary Ruth (1976) Apuntes sobre la influencia inca entre los amuesha: factor que oscurece la clasificaci´on de su idioma. Revista del Museo Nacional 42, pp. 355–66. Lima. (1982) Una contribuci´on de Julio C. Tello a la clasificaci´on de las lenguas aut´octonas. Lexis 6, 1, pp. 125–9. Lima: Pontifica Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u, Departamento de Humanidades. (1985) Indigenous languages of Lowland Peru: history and current status. In: Klein and Stark (1985a), pp. 194–223. (1986) Grammatical characteristics of Pre-Andine Arawakan languages of Peru. In: Derbyshire and Pullum (1986), pp. 567–642. (1991) Un estudio comparativo de las formas pronominales y sus funciones en las lenguas arawakas norte˜nas. In: Ling¨u´ıstica arawaka. Estudios presentados en el 46o Congreso Internacional de Americanistas (Amsterdam, 4–8 July 1988). Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Etnoling¨u´ısticos 6, pp. 183–99. Lima: Ignacio Prado Pastor. W¨olck, Wolfgang (1972) Foco y especificaci´on en quechua. Documento de Trabajo 4. Lima: Plan de Fomento Ling¨u´ıstico. (1987) Peque˜no breviario quechua. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Wolf, Teodoro (1892) Geograf´ıa y geolog´ıa del Ecuador. Leipzig. Woolard, Kathryn A. and Bambi Schieffelin (1994) Language ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology 23, pp. 55–82. ˜ Y´anez Coss´ıo, Consuelo and Fausto Jara Jara (1983) Nucanchic llactapac shimi, vol. 1 (3rd edition). Quito: Centro de Investigaciones para la Educaci´on Ind´ıgena. Yapita, Juan de Dios (1991) Curso de aymara pace˜no. St Andrews: Institute of Amerindian Studies, University of St Andrews. Yokoyama, Masako (1951) Outline of Quechua structure. I: Morphology. Language 27, 1, pp. 38–67. Yule Yatacu´e, Marcos (1991a) Estructura distribucional del verbo en nasa yuwe. In: Rojas Curieux (1991c), pp. 139–90. (1991b) Fonolog´ıa: variante Torib´ıo. In: Nieves Oviedo (1991e), pp. 97–120. Zamora Munn´e, Juan C. and Jorge M. Guitart (1982) Dialectolog´ıa hispanoamericana: teor´ıa, descripci´on, historia. Salamanca: Ediciones Alma. Zamponi, Raoul (1996) Materiali in betoi e variet`a linguistiche affini dei ‘llanos’ colombiani. Quaderno 3 del Seminario Interdisciplinare della Facolt`a di Lettere e Filosofia. Siena: Universit`a degli Studi di Siena. Zevallos Qui˜nones, Jorge (1948) Primitivas lenguas de la costa. Revista del Museo Nacional 17, pp. 114–19. Lima. (1966) Onom´astica prehisp´anica de Chachapoyas. Lenguaje y Ciencias 6, pp. 28–41. Trujillo, Peru: Universidad de Trujillo, Departamento de Idiomas y Ling¨u´ıstica.
680
References
(1989) Los cacicazgos de Lambayeque. Trujillo, Peru: Gr´afica Cuatro SA. (1992) Los cacicazgos de Trujillo. Trujillo, Peru: Gr´afica Cuatro SA. Zimmermann, Klaus, ed. (1997) La descripci´on de las lenguas amerindias en la e´ poca colonial. Bibliotheca Iberoamericana, vol. 63. Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert; Madrid: Iberoamericana. Zolezzi, Gabriela and J¨urgen Riester (1985) Cantar´e a mi gente. Canto y poes´ıa de los ayor´eode. Cochabamba and Santa Cruz: Apoyo para el Campesino Ind´ıgena del Oriente Boliviano (APCOB). Z´un˜ iga, Fernando (2000) Mapudungun. Munich: LINCOM Europa. Zwartjes, Otto, ed. (2000) Las gram´aticas misioneras de tradici´on hisp´anica (siglos XVI–XVII). Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi.
AUTHOR INDEX
Acosta, A. 255 Acosta, J. de 23–4, 48 Acosta Orteg´on, J. 83 Acosta Saignes, M. 130 Adam, L. 83, 91, 476–88, 554, 567–73, 578 Adelaar, W. F. H. xv, 21, 39, 43, 87, 170, 173, 186, 188–90, 193, 203, 224–5, 227, 242, 262, 398, 402, 459, 601, 616 Aguilar P´aez, R. 191 Aguilera Fa´undez, O. 553–4, 565–6 Aguil´o, F. 356 Aguirre Licht, D. 57–60 Aikhenvald, A. Y. 2, 21, 39, 164, 411, 612 Albis, M. M. 140 Alb´o Corrons, X. 14, 176, 261–2, 296–7, 357, 363, 589, 606, 608 Alderetes, J. R. 221 Alencastre, A. 255 Alexander(-Bakkerus), A. 460, 463–4, 466 Allaire, L. 8 Allin, T. R. 39, 162 Alonso, A. 511 Altieri, R. 322–46 Alvar, M. 82 Alvarez, E. 433 Alvarez, J. 115–23 Alvarez-Brun, F. 170 Alvarez-Santullano Busch, M. P. 509–10, 514, 530 Andagoya, P. de 49, 53 Andrade Ciudad, L. F. 401 Angenot-de Lima, G. 477, 614 Animato, C. 254 Ans, A.-M. d’ 176, 418–19 Appel, R. 19
Arango Ochoa, R. 56, 66, 75, 80, 109, 112, 116, 141, 151, 164, 610 Araya, G. 589 Arcila Robledo, G. 60 Ardila, O. 162, 164 Arguedas, J. M. 256 Ari, M. 296 Armellada, C. de 80, 116 Arnold, D. 296 Arnold, J. 511, 523–5, 528 Arocha Rodr´ıguez, J. 62 Arriaza, B. T. 2 Aschmann, R. P. 164, 449 Asher, R. E. 21 Augusta, F. J. de 509, 511–16, 519–22, 524, 526–41 Avila, F. de 174, 255 Bacelar, L. N. 376 Baessler, H. 460 Balmori, C. H. 31, 386 Barzana (B´arcena, B´arzana), A. de 20, 351, 408, 502 Bastian, A. 57 Bastien, J. 356 Bausani, A. 552–3, 564–5 Beier, C. 610 Belleza Castro, N. 171, 260, 265, 267, 281, 301–6, 313–15, 317–19 Bendor-Samuel, J. T. 448–9 Benvenuto Murrieta, P. M. 589 Berm´udez, G. 81 Bertonio, L. 16, 20, 191, 259, 264, 266, 270, 276–8, 280–5, 287, 289–90, 293–6 Betanzos, J. de 178–9 Beuchat, H. 141, 433, 436, 438
682
Author index
Bibar, G. de 22, 409, 508 Bickerton, D. 605 Bird, J. 553, 555 Bixio, B. 545 Bonilla, V. D. 151 Borman, M. B. 161 Bouysse-Cassagne, T. 171, 176, 263, 362 Bowman, I. 376 Boyd-Bowman, P. 586–7 Brack Egg, A. 610 Branks, J. 142–3 Branks, T. 142–3 Bravo, D. A. 177, 193 Brend, R. M. 142 Bresson, A. 176 Bridges, L. 580 Bridges, T. 550, 554, 567–74, 578, 581 Briggs, J. R. 496–7 Briggs, L. T. 168, 262, 264–6, 268, 271, 273, 275, 277–8, 280–5, 287–90, 293, 295–6, 298, 300, 496 Brijnen, H. B. 580 Brinton, D. G. 20, 25–6, 141 Brundage, B. C. 167 Br¨uning, E. 321, 400 Buchwald, O. von 400 Buesa Oliver, T. 591 B¨uttner, T. T. 194, 260, 278–9 Cabello Valboa, M. 320, 350 Cabral, A. S. A. C. 432 Cabrera, P. 409 Caillavet, C. 393–4 Cajas Rojas, J. 458 Calancha, A. de la 320, 400 Calle Restrepo, H. 49 Calvache Due˜nas, R. 57, 142–5, 148 Calvo P´erez, J. 255 Camacho, J. 596 Camp, E. L. 421 Campbell, L. 21, 35, 38, 42, 497 Canals Frau, S. 409 Canto, J. del 401 Captain, D. 117, 120, 121 Carlin, E. B. 115 Carpenter, L. K. 192 Carrasco, V. 260 Carrera Daza, F. de la 16, 84, 319–46
Casamiquela, R. M. 550, 554, 556–8, 561–4, 582–3 Casanova, V. 315 Castellanos, J. de 48, 124 Castro de Trelles, L. 401 Catarroja, F. de 80 Catrileo, M. 511 Celed´on, R. 67, 117, 124 Cenepo Sangama, V. 193 Censabella, M. 21, 41, 488–9, 610 Cerr´on-Palomino, R. M. xv, 13, 20–1, 35, 168–70, 178–9, 182, 189, 192–4, 197, 201–4, 210, 213, 257, 259–60, 265–6, 270, 273–4, 276, 280–2, 285–6, 301–2, 305, 317, 320–4, 327, 363–74, 595–6, 599 Chamberlain, A. F. 26, 552 Chandless, W. 459 Chaparro, C. 207 Chatwin, B. 572 Chaumeil, J.-P. 417 Chaves, M. 114 Chaves Mendoza, A. 49, 52, 75 Ch´avez, A. 193 Chirif, A. 416–17, 419, 423, 431, 433, 452, 457, 459 Chirinos Rivera, A. 13, 168, 187, 258, 262, 402, 610 Chom´e, I. 496 Cieza de Le´on, P. de 22, 48–9, 179, 392–4, 404 Claesson, K. 493–5 Clairis (Clair-Vassiliadis), C. 21, 265, 379, 550, 552–6, 565–7, 578, 582 Cobo, B. 22, 24, 178 Cohen, M. 26 Cole, P. 17, 193–4 Comrie, B. xv, 224 Condori Cruz, D. 260, 278–9 Condori Mamani, G. 249, 255 Constenla Uma˜na, A. 30, 37–8, 49–53, 55–8, 61–2, 70, 73–4, 80, 82–8, 114–15, 128–30, 142, 145, 155–6, 161 Contreras, C. 510, 530 Contreras, H. 511 Co˜na, P. 511, 539 Coombs, D. 193 Coombs, H. 193 Cooper, J. M. 550–6 Corbera Mori, A. 438
Author index Cordero, L. 192, 255 C´ordova, L. 243 Correal Urrego, G. 8 Cotari, D. 260, 278–80, 290 Courtney, E. 597 Creider, J. 201 Cr´equi-Montfort, G. de 39, 175, 191 Crevels, M. 476, 610, 613–14, 616 Crickmay, L. 17 Croese, R. A. 40, 509, 511, 515 Cuba Manrique, M. del C. 401 Cuervo, R. J. 588 Cueva, R. P. G. de la 476 Curnow, T. J. xv, 38, 57, 141–8, 150, 397 Cusihuaman, A. 193, 250, 252 Dadey, J. 83 Darwin, C. 550 Davidson, J. O. 35 Davis, I. 34, 40 Dedenbach(-Salazar S´aenz), S. 16, 192, 292, 296 Derbyshire, D. 21, 423 D´ıaz Fern´andez, A. E. 505, 514 Dickinson, C. 147 Dietrich, W. 431–2 Diez de San Miguel, G. 259, 264 Dillehay, T. D. 1, 506 Dixon, R. M. W. 2, 21, 411 Duff(-Tripp), M. 424–30 Dum´ezil, G. 34 D¨ummler, C. 16, 83 DuPonceau, P. S. 522 Duque G´omez, L. 49 Durbin, M. 38, 53, 112–16, 161 Duviols, P. 191 Ebbing, J. E. 260, 285 Echeverr´ıa, M. S. 511 Echeverr´ıa y Reyes, A. 376 Echeverr´ıa Weasson, S. 511, 515 Eckstein, S. 10 Eguillor, M. I. 606 England, N. C. 278–81, 299 Ercilla, A. de 506 Escalante, A. 605 Escalante Guti´errez, C. 249, 255–6 Escobar, A. 201 Escobar, A. M. 589, 596 Escribens Trisano, A. 192, 207
683 Espejo Ayka, E. 296 Espinoza Soriano, W. 259, 404 Esquivel Villafana, J. 192 Fabre, A. 21, 171 Fals Borda, O. 62 Farf´an, J. M. B. 192, 305, 315–19 Faron, L. C. 27–8 Fast, P. W. 424 Fawcett, P. H. 417 Febr´es, A. 510 Febr´es Cordero, T. 124 Fern´andez Garay, A. V. xv, 505, 510–11, 514, 516, 528, 550, 555–6, 558, 563–4, 580, 582–3 Fern´andez de Oviedo y Valdez, G. 116 Ferrario, B. 41, 181 Ferrell, M. A. 171, 261–2 Fiedel, S. J. 1–2, 506 Figueredo, J. de 181 Firestone, H. L. 431 Fischer, M. 56 Fischermann, B. 496 Flores Reyna, M. 401 Flornoy, B. 433 Fonseca, A. 124–5 Fontanella de Weinberg, M. B. 511, 587 Fornaguera, M. 114 Foster, G. 586 Frank, P. S. 66–70, 72–4 Fraunhaeusl, S. de 511 Friede, J. 138–40 Friedemann, N. S. de 62, 605 Furlong, G. 386 Fuss, M. 478, 481 Galeote Tormo, J. 478, 481, 485–6 Garc´ıa Hierro, P. 417 Garc´ıa Tom´as, M. D. 447 Garcilaso de la Vega, Inca 23, 172, 178–81, 397 Gelles, P. H. 249, 254 Gerzenstein, A. 391, 495, 562 Gibson, M. L. 456 Gijn, R. van 476 Gilij, F. S. 24 Gill, W. 476 Girard, V. 39, 171, 419 Girault, L. 356–61 Gleich, U. von 258, 606–8
684
Author index
Gnerre, M. 172, 396, 433, 604 Godenzzi, J. C. 595 Golbert de Goodbar, P. 511, 514, 554, 567–78, 582 G´omez-Imbert, E. 162–4 Gonzales de Barc´ıa Carballido y Z´un˜ iga, A. 32 Gonz´alez, T. A. 401 Gonz´alez Holgu´ın, D. 16–18, 20, 191, 199, 219 ˜ an˜ ez, O. 610 Gonz´alez N´ Gonz´alez de P´erez, M. S. 21, 55, 59, 81, 83–5, 87–109, 164 Gordon, A. M. 589 Goulet, J. -G. 117 Granda, G. de 177, 588–9, 595–6, 599 Grasserie, R. de la 351–5 Gray, A. 3, 417, 459 Greenberg, J. H. 26–9, 37–45, 57, 61–2, 142, 175, 380, 482 Grimes, B. F. 125, 416 Grimes, J. 511, 525 Grinevald (Craig), C. 102, 476, 609 Grondona, V. M. 489 Groot de Mahecha, A. M. 53 Grosboll, S. 393 Gualdieri, C. B. 489, 493 Guaman Poma de Ayala, F. 174, 254, 261, 296 Guardia, J. 236 Guerra Eissmann, A. M. 570 Gugenberger, E. 607 Guillaume, A. 422 Guitart, J. M. 588 Gusinde, M. 550, 554, 567–9, 580–1 Guti´errez, C. 80 Guti´errez, I. 609 Guyot, M. 550, 554–5, 580
Harrison, W. 379 Hart, H. 447 Hart, R. E. 460 Hartmann, R. 182, 392–3 Haude, K. 476 Havestadt, B. de 508, 510 Hawkins, J. A. 597 Hayes, B. 118 Headland, E. R. 110–12 Helberg Ch´avez, H. 459 Hemming, J. 3, 46–8, 75, 179 Henry, V. 478–88 Hermon, G. 192, 194 Hern´andez, G. B. 582 Hern´andez, I. 408, 410 Herrero, J. 193, 260, 265, 275, 589, 601 Herv´as y Panduro, L. 17, 24–5 Hildebrandt, M. 117, 122 Hoff, B. J. 24, 113, 115 Holmer, N. M. 56, 62–5, 67, 117 Holt, D. 73 Hooykaas, E. M. 53 Hornberger, N. 194, 606 Hos´okawa, K. 176 Hout, R. van 589 Hovdhaugen, E. 321, 324, 326–7 Howard, L. 56, 151–4 Howard(-Malverde), R. 256–7, 262, 364, 395 Howkins, D. W. 197 Hoyos, F. 376 Hoyos Ben´ıtez, M. E. 59 Huayhua Pari, F. 171 Huber, R. Q. 55, 85 Humboldt, W. von 18 Husson, J.-Ph. 254 Hvalkof, S. 417
Haboud (de Ortega), Marleen 595, 599 Hammen, Th. van der 8 Hammerly Dupuy, D. 553 Hamp, E. P. 38 Hardman (-de-Bautista), M. J. 21, 34, 170–1, 174, 211, 260, 264–5, 269, 272, 283–7, 290–3, 301–17, 590 Harmelink, B. L. 511, 518, 520 Harms, Ph. L. 59–60 Harner, M. 433 Harrington, J. P. 26, 34 Harris, O. 262
Ibarra Grasso, D. 41, 176, 376 Imbelloni, J. 41 Isbell, W. H. 165 Itier, C. 168, 183, 236 Jackson, S. 164 Jahn, A. 124–30 Jamioy Muchavisoy, J. N. 152 Jaramillo G´omez, O. 112 Jensen, C. 431 Jij´on y Caama˜no, J. 26–7, 36–8, 41, 49, 61, 155–9, 172, 321, 392–5, 397
Author index Jim´enez de la Espada, M. 174, 261, 385, 393–7, 405, 408, 502 Jim´enez Turr´on, S. 606 Jones, P. 164 Jones, W. 164 Juajibioy Chindoy, A. 152–5 Juank, A. 433–43, 445–7 Judy, J. 476 Judy, R. A. 476 Julien, C. J. 175 Juncosa, J. E. 610 Jung, I. 131–8, 140, 592, 606 Jusay´u, M. A. 117, 120, 122, 124 Kany, C. F. 588–9 Karsten, R. 433–6, 439, 447 Kaufman, T. S. 2, 21, 26, 29–34, 38, 40, 43, 61, 142, 188, 456 Keatinge, R. W. 7 Kensinger, K. M. 418, 419 Kerke, S. C. van de 21, 192, 475–6, 617 Key, H. 476 Key, M. R. 21, 28, 31, 39, 419, 511, 556 Kilku Warak’a 255 King, K. A. 607 Kingsley Noble, G. 39, 175 Kirtchuk, P. 197 Klee, C. A. 589 Klein, H. E. M. 21, 177, 489–92 Kramer, F. 56 Krauss, M. 609 Kr¨usi, D. 478 Kr¨usi, M. 478 Krzanowski, A. 404 Ladefoged, P. 117 Lafone Quevedo, S. A. 386 Lagos Altamirano, D. S. 511, 515 Lanchas de Estrada, S. 60–1 Landaburu, J. 34, 54–5, 67–71, 73, 114, 162–4, 610, 621 Landerman, P. N. 185, 187–9, 192–3, 197, 200 Laprade, R. 589, 591, 600–1 Lara, J. 193, 254–5 Lares, J. I. 124 Larra´ın Barros, H. 188 Larrucea de Tovar, C. 21 Lastra, Y. 193 Lathrap, D. W. 27, 182, 419 Layme, F. 261, 296–7
685 Lefebvre, C. 17, 19, 192, 226 Lehmann, W. 321, 344–8, 363, 401 Lehmann-Nitsche, R. 41, 493, 554, 556 Lehnert Santander, R. 376–9 Lemle, M. 431 Lengerke, G. von 114 Lenz, R. 509–11, 515, 590 L´evi-Strauss, C. 4, 37, 580, 609 Levinsohn, S. H. 19, 193 Liccardi, M. 476 Liddicoat, A. J. 38, 57, 141–5, 150 Liedtke, S. 34 Lindskoog, C. A. 142, 145, 147–50 Lindskoog, J. N. 142, 145, 147–50 Lipski, J. M. 587, 605 Lira, J. A. 192, 255 Llam´ın Canulaf, S. 539 Llerena Villalobos, R. 49, 57–9, 62–6 Loewen, J. A. 57–9 Long, V. 142–3, 145, 150 Longacre, R. E. 35, 38, 195 Loos, B. 420–21 Loos, E. 419–21 L´opez, Lorenzo E. 129 L´opez, Luis E. 194, 296, 592, 606–7 L´opez Garc´ıa, A. 83 ˇ 21, 26, 30–4, 37, 52, 56, 62, Loukotka, C. 142, 159, 162, 176, 180, 392, 395, 397, 410, 502, 553–4, 616 Lowes, R. H. G. 498 Lozano, A. G. 593, 596–7 Lozano, E. 31, 178, 391, 408–9 Lozano, P. 408–9 Lucca, M. de 260, 363 Lucena Salmoral, M. 82–3, 87, 98 Lugo, B. de 16, 82–8, 95, 97–9, 102, 106–7 Luj´an, M. 597–8 Lumbreras, L. G. 165 Lussagnet, S. 496 Lynch, T. F. 2, 8 Lyon, P. J. 22 Macera, P. 1 Machoni de Cerde˜na, A. 385–90 Mackert, M. 522 MacNeish, R. 1 McQuown, N. A. 27–8, 30, 180 Maglio, B. 376 Malone, T. 76
686
Author index
Mannheim, B. 3, 24, 175, 179–80, 183–5, 191–5, 200, 261–2, 607 Mansen, R. 117, 120–1 Mansilla, L. V. 507 Maque Capira, A. 262 Margery Pe˜na, E. 38, 57–8 Markham, C. R. 192 M´arquez Miranda, F. 544 Mart´ın, E. H. 408 Martin, L. 259, 269, 271 Mart´ın, M. D. 194 Mart´ınez Compa˜no´ n B. J. 20, 173, 320, 398–402, 460–2 Mart´ınez Escobar, G. 249, 254 Mart´ınez Sarasola, C. 386, 502, 510 Martins, S. 163 Martins, V. 163 Mason, J. A. 26, 30, 35, 180, 376 Masson, P. 363 Mata, P. de la 20, 460–75 Matisoff, J. 43 Matteson, E. 39, 423 Medina, J. T. 544–5 Megenney, W. W. 605 Meggers, B. J. 27 Meira, S. 161 Meillet, A. 26 Mej´ıa, J. 260 Mej´ıa Fonnegra, G. 59 Mej´ıas, H. A. 591 Mel´endez Lozano, M. 75, 110, 152–5, 163–4 Meli´a, B. 610 Meneses Morales, T. 254 Menges, P. A. 599 Mera, J. L. 255 Messineo, M. C. 489–93, 608 M´etraux, A. 363 Miccinelli, C. 254 Michael, L. 610 Middendorf, E. W. 18–19, 25, 83, 192, 261, 320–50 Migliazza, E. C. 21, 37, 40 Millones, L. 9 Minaya, L. 597 Miranda Mamani, L. 362 Mithun, M. 42 Mitre, B. 544–5, 548 Moesbach, E. W. de 511, 538–9 Mogoll´on P´erez, M. C. 80–1
Mogrovejo, T. de 401 Molina, C. de 254 Mongu´ı S´anchez, J. R. 151–2, 154–5 Monta˜no Arag´on, M. 422 Montes Rodr´ıguez, M. E. 164 Montoya, R. 256 Moore, B. R. 142–5, 147, 394 Moore, T. H. 376, 383 Mora Bernasconi, C. 416–7, 419, 423, 431, 433, 452, 457, 459 Morales G´omez, J. 49 Moseley, C. 21 Mosonyi, E. E. 117, 120, 124, 606, 610 Mosonyi, J. C. 117, 124, 606, 610 Mostny, G. 377, 383–5 Murra, J. V. 6 Mur´ua, M. de 178 Mutis, J. C. 54, 82, 140 Muysken, P. C. xv, 17, 19, 192, 226, 239, 356–8, 363–5, 367, 370–4, 589, 598–9 Myers, S. K. 607 Najlis, E. L. 489, 495, 550, 554–5, 557–61 Nardi, R. L. J. 177–8, 192, 376, 380, 408–9 Nebrija, A. de 16 Neira, A. de 162 Newfield, M. 195 Newson, L. A. 392 Nieves Oviedo, R. 130–5, 138 Ninaling´on, S. 404 Ni˜no Murcia, M. 599 Noort, O. van 581 Nordenski¨old, E. 5, 48, 56, 418, 430, 500 Nowak, E. 17 Obando Ord´on˜ ez, P. 142 Oblitas Poblete, E. 356–61 Olawsky, K. xv, 458 Olaya Perdomo, N. 67, 73–4 Olson, R. D. 38, 43, 175, 363–6, 372, 375 Olza Zubiri, J. 117, 120, 122, 124, 422 Oramas, L. R. 129 Orbigny, A. D. d’ 25, 477, 581 Or´e, L. J. de 322, 351–6 Oroz, R. 589 Orr, C. J. 35, 195 Ortega Ricaurte, C. 54–5, 453–9 Ortiz, S. E. 55, 61
Author index Ortiz Ricaurte, C. 67–70, 72 Ossio Acu˜na, J. M. 9 Ostler, N. xv, 52, 55, 82–4, 87, 89–96, 98–102, 106–9, 111 Pab´on Triana, M. 141 Pach´on, X. 130–1 P´aez, J. 116 Pallares, J. M. 155 Paniagua Loza, F. 296 Pantoja Alc´antara, I. del R. 401–3 Parada, E. 589 Pardo Rojas, M. 57–8 Park, M. 193 Parker, G. J. 34, 181, 185–6, 192–3, 195, 203, 205, 207, 209–10, 216, 223, 232 Parker, S. G. 39, 353 Pati˜no Rosselli, C. 164, 450, 605 Patte, M.-F. 116–18 Payne, David L. 39–40, 116, 162, 422–30, 457, 539 Payne, Doris L. 21, 34, 40, 164, 458 Payne, T. E. 164, 458 Paz y Mi˜no, L. T. 172, 392–6 Peeke, M. C. 452, 454–5 Pellizzaro, S. M. 433–6, 438–41 Perea y Alonso, S. 41 P´erez de Barradas, J. 22 P´erez van Leenden, F. 115 Perl, M. 588 Petersen de Pi˜neros, G. 449 Phelan, J. L. 155, 416 Philippi, R. A. 376, 379 Piedrahita, L. F. de 52 Pigafetta, A. 15 Pike, E. G. 454–6 Pike, K. L. 454 Pineda Giraldo, R. 114 Piossek Prebisch, T. 408 Pizarro, P. 181 Poblete Mendoza, M. T. 265, 567–70 Polo, J. T. 363 Porterie-Guti´errez, L. 260, 265, 272, 364, 375 Posnansky, A. 363 Pottier, B. 21 Pozzi-Escot, I. 13, 171, 258, 610 Preuss, K. Th. 56, 67 Proulx, P. 189 Puente Baldoceda, B. 593, 597, 599
687 Pullum, G. 21 Pyle, R. C. 294 Queixal´os, F. 21, 162, 164 Quesada Castillo, F. 193, 403 Quesada Pacheco, M. A. 82, 87, 100–101, 106 Quijano Otero, J. M. 82 Quinchavil Su´arez, L. 515 Quispe Huam´an, A. 249 Rabinowitz, J. 320 Raimondi, A. 170 Ramos Cabredo, J. 320, 398, 400–1 Ramos Pizarro, N. 608 Raymond, J. S. 6, 499 Reed, R. B. 55, 85 Reichel-Dolmatoff, A. 114 Reichel-Dolmatoff, G. 8, 53, 56, 67, 75, 114 Remy, P. 403 Renault-Lescure, O. 21 Reuse, W. de 202 Ribero, J. 162 Ricardo, A. 182, 191, 219 Rick, J. W. 1 Riedmayer, O. 433, 435 Riester, J. 477–8, 481, 496 Rivano, E. 511 Rivarola, J. L. 167, 182, 589 Rivera, M. A. 552 Rivet, P. 26, 34, 36–9, 41, 49, 54–5, 57, 61, 80, 116, 124–8, 138, 140–1, 161, 173, 175, 191, 320, 397–8, 400–1, 405–6, 433, 436, 438, 449, 461, 470 Robayo Moreno, C. A. 112–14 Rochereau, H. 110 Rodrigues, A. D. 34, 39–40, 431–2, 621 Rodr´ıguez, G. 377 Rodr´ıguez Baquero, L. E. 115 Rodr´ıguez Garrido, J. A. 593–4 Rodr´ıguez Gonz´alez, S. P. 163 Rodr´ıguez de Montes, M. L. 21, 55, 59, 164 Rojas Curieux, T. 132–6 Rojas de Perdomo, L. 8 Romero, F. 604 Romoli, K. 3, 62 Rona, J. P. 41 R¨osing, I. 356
688
Author index
Rossi, P. A. 254 Rostworowski de Diez Canseco, M. 403 Rouby, A. 433, 435 Rowe, J. H. 16, 56, 62, 180, 258, 320 Ru´ız, G. 32 S´aez Godoy, L. 377, 379, 385 Saint, R. 454–6 Sakel, J. 375, 476, 618 Salas, A. 21, 265, 509–11, 514–17, 521, 525–6, 539, 567–70 Salas, J. A. 321 Salas, J. C. 125 Salomon, F. 255, 393–4, 406 San Pedro, J. de 401 San Rom´an, F. 376–85 S´anchez, G. 507 S´anchez Guti´errez, E. 56, 66, 75, 80, 109, 112, 116, 141, 151, 164, 610 S´anchez de Lozada, F. 193 Sankoff, D. 597 Santa Gertrudis, J. de 53 Santacruz, M. de 296 Santo Tom´as, D. de 16–18, 174, 179, 181, 187, 191, 198, 261 Sapir, E. 36 Sayritupac Asqui, D. 296 Schieffelin, B. 590 Schleicher, C. O. 432 Sch¨ottelndreyer, M. 56 Schreiber, K. J. 165 Schuchard, B. 478 Schuller, R. 376 Schumacher de Pe˜na, G. 321 Schwegler, A. 588 Seelwische, J. 494 Seely, M. 125 Seijas, H. 38, 53, 112–16, 161 Seler, E. 34, 155–9 Serrano, A. 408 Shady Sol´ıs, R. 2, 165 Shafer, R. 39, 66 Shell, O. 39, 418 Sherzer, J. 56, 62–6 Silva Santisteban, F. 401 Sim´on, P. 22–3, 48 Simoneau, K. 556, 580 Simson, A. 604 Skottsberg, C. 552–3
Smeets, I. 511, 513–44 Sol´a, D. F. 193, 197 Sol´ıs Fonseca, G. 192, 194 Sorensen, A. P. 164 Soto Ru´ız, C. 193, 216 Spruce, R. 400 Stahl, W. 498 Stark, L. R. 21, 38, 182, 188, 192, 200, 321, 356–8, 361, 511 Stevenson, W. B. 155 Steward, J. H. 27–8, 416, 499 Stratford, B. D. 596 Strom, C. 164 Su´arez, J. A. 31, 32, 39–41, 511 Su´arez Roca, J. L. 16 Suˇsnik, B. J. 41, 497–8 Swadesh, M. 29–30, 34, 39, 42–3, 376 Swisshelm, G. 193 Szemi´nski, J. 178, 404 Tastevin, C. 449 Tate, N. 294 Taussig, M. T. 3, 417 Taylor, A. C. 140, 397, 411–18, 423 Taylor, D. 116 Taylor, G. 173, 186, 189, 192–3, 198, 207, 221, 255, 406–7 Tello, J. C. 39, 460 Tenorio, M. 585 Tessmann, G. 456, 460–3, 499 Thiesen, W. 164, 450–1 Ticona, A. E. 363 Tobar Ortiz, N. 161, 164 Toledo, D. 606 Toliver, R. 197, 202 Torero Fern´andez de C´ordova, A. A. xv, 21, 34, 170, 172–5, 178, 181, 185–6, 189–90, 192, 194–5, 199, 207, 256, 261–3, 320, 323–4, 326, 328, 350–7, 362, 364, 375, 397–403, 461 Torres Rubio, D. de 18, 259 Toscano Mateus, H. 588, 599–600 Tovar, A. 21, 39, 40, 391, 493 Triana y Antorveza, H. 3, 46, 53, 55, 163 Trillos Amaya, M. 66–9, 71–3, 75–9 Trivi˜no Garz´on, L. 142, 146, 150 Troiani, D. 16 Tschopik, H. 263, 296 Tschudi, J. J. von 192, 376–7, 379–85
Author index Turner, C. G. 42 Turner, G. D. 433–6 Uhle, M. 25, 37, 52, 363–4, 366–7 Uricoechea, E. 48, 54, 81–3, 91, 100, 103, 109–10, 130 Urioste, G. L. 255 Va¨ısse, E. 376–85, 539 Valderrama, R. 249, 256 Valdivia, L. de xvi, 16, 508–10, 512–18, 522, 526–30, 533, 536–8, 544–9 Valenti, D. 39 Valenzuela Bismarck, P. M. 421 Valera, B. 254, 397–8 Varese, S. 13, 418, 423 Vargas Llosa, M. 411 V´asquez, J. 260 V´asquez de Ru´ız, B. 142–3, 146 Velasco, J. de 192, 392, 394, 397 Vellard, J. A. 362–4, 371–5 Vidal, A. 489 Viegas Barros, J. P. 41, 386, 495, 505, 552–3, 556, 558–9, 562, 565, 580–2 Vienrich, A. 192 Vignati, M. A. 542 Villareal, F. 322–5, 333, 335, 338, 341–2 Vink, H. 173 Vittadello, A. 141–2, 145 Voegelin, C. F. 38 Voegelin, F. M. 38 Wachtel, N. 175–6, 259, 362 Wagner, E. 124 Wass´en, S. H. 56
689 Watahomigie, L. J. 609 Weber, D. J. 17, 164, 189, 192–3, 197, 256–7 Weber, N. 193 Weber, R. 193 Weisshar, E. 37 Wheeler, A. 152–5 Whiffen, Th. 417 Whitehead, N. L. 62 Wilbert, J. 30, 556, 580 Willey, G. R. 156 Wilson, P. J. 164 Wipio Deicat, G. 397 Wise, M. R. 22, 39, 118, 418, 423–30 W¨olck, W. 192–3, 607 Wolf, J. C. 582 Wolf, T. 155 Woolard, K. A. 590 Yamamoto, A. 609 Y´an˜ ez, C. 610 Yapita Moya, J. de D. 260, 265, 268, 270–3, 275–6, 281–93, 296–7 Yapu Mamani, E. 296 Yokoyama, M. 19 Yule Yatacu´e, M. 132–3 Zamora Munn´e, J. C. 588 Zamponi, R. 161 Zegura, S. 42 Zevallos Qui˜nones, J. 320, 406 Zimmermann, K. 16 Zolezzi, G. 496 Z´un˜ iga, F. 511 Z´un˜ iga Cazorla, N. 255 Zwartjes, O. 17
INDEX OF LANGUAGES AND ETHNIC GROUPS
abajero (dialect of Guajiro) 115, 121 Abip´on 488–9 Achagua 24, 55, 116, 162, 164, 423 Achual, Achuar 432–3 Aconipa, see Tabancale Afro-American Spanish 605 Agatano 52 Aguaruna 173, 397, 406, 432–5, 438 Aimara (historical nation) 179, 259 Aimara ayacuchano 262 Ai-ngae, see Cof´an Airico (Betoi subgroup) 161 Aksan´as 30–3, 552–3 Akuriyo 161 Alacaluf, Alakaluf, Alakuluf, see Kawesqar Alacalufan 32, 553 Algonquian languages 523, 571 Allentiac xvi, 16, 42, 44, 352, 502, 508, 544–9 Alto Pativilca–Alto Mara˜no´ n–Alto Huallaga (Quechua dialect group) 185, 193 Amahuaca 417–19 Amarakaeri (Harakmbut subgroup) 417, 459 Amazon Spanish 416 Amazon Spanish pidgin 602–4 Amazonas (Chachapoyas) Quechua 193, 200, 207, 213 Amazonian Quechua 500 Amerind 26, 42–3 Amerindian languages 585–6, 591, 605–9 Amuesha, see Yanesha Ancash Quechua (dialect group) 168, 180, 192–3, 202–7, 224–31, 235 Ancash–Huaylas (regional standard dialect) 193, 256 Andalucian Spanish 586–7, 589, 605 Andaqu´ı, Andaqui, Andaki 26, 28–30, 33, 37–8, 44, 48, 54, 138–41, 161
Andean 28, 42, 44 Andean A 28 Andean B 28 Andean–Equatorial 28, 42 Andean Spanish 160, 206, 217, 224, 585–602 Andoa 451–2 Andoque, Andoke 31, 33–4, 44, 164, 417 Angutero 453 Anserma (language of ) 49 Antioquia (languages of ) 44, 49 A˜nu´ n, see Paraujano Aonek enk, see Tehuelche Apatama 410 Apolista 28, 39, 44, 422–3 Apolo (Quechua dialect) 200 Arabela 44, 451 Araona 418 Arasaeri (Harakmbut subgroup) 459 Araucan´ıa Mapuche 526–30 Araucanian xvi, 14, 22–3, 28, 39–40, 43–4, 77, 89, 176, 508–44, 552, 590 Araucanians 3, 9, 502–8, 582 Araucanised Tehuelche 505 Araw´a, Arawa, Araw´an, Araua (group) 28–9, 31, 33, 39–40, 44, 459 Arawak (group) 28, 31, 33, 411, 422–30, 500 Arawakan 22, 24, 26–30, 32, 36, 39–41, 44, 53, 66, 115–16, 125, 128–9, 162, 175, 353, 405, 416–17, 422–30, 459, 477, 539 Arawakan languages of the Caribbean islands 116 Arawakan languages of the Lesser Antilles 116–38, 141 Arequipa (Quechua dialect) 35, 195, 199 Arhuacan 28, 37, 44, 66–74, 76 Arhuaco, see Ika Arma and Pozo (language of) 49
Index of languages and ethnic groups arribero (dialect of Guajiro) 115 Arsario, see Damana Aru (group), see Aymaran Aruaco, Aruak (group), see Arhuacan Ash´aninca 423, 608 Ash´eninca 423 Atacame, see Esmeralde˜no Atacame˜no, Atacameno, Atacama 27–9, 31, 33, 34, 42, 44, 120, 176–8, 375–85, 409, 539 Ataguitan 27 Atall´an 392 Atallana 392 Atunceta 49 Auca, see Huao Auishiri, see Huao Auishiri, Auixira, Auixiri, Aushiri, see Tekiraka Australian languages 36 Awa 141 Awa Pit 26, 28, 38, 44, 53, 54, 57, 141–8, 150, 160, 393, 397 Ayacucho Quechua 168, 187, 188, 192–3, 198–202, 208–32, 235–6, 258 Ayacucho rural Spanish 593 Ayacucho–Chanca (regional standard dialect) 193, 256 Ayam´an, Ayom´an 129–30 Aymara, Aymar´a, Aimara 2, 5, 13–14, 16–18, 20–5, 27, 29–31, 34, 38, 41, 44, 103, 167–79, 182, 187–8, 191, 195, 214, 243, 259–319, 321, 328, 350–62, 365–7, 372–5, 377, 402, 409, 411, 436, 442, 445, 512, 517, 522–3, 529, 537–8, 549, 582, 589–91, 607–9 Aymara, Aimara (group) 28, 31–3, 42, 44 Aymara of Guaman Poma de Ayala 261 Aymaran 5, 22, 33, 34–6, 145, 168, 170–1, 173–4, 181, 199, 259–319, 375, 528 Ayoreo, Ayor´eode 496–7, 499 Bagua 405 Baniva del Guain´ıa 162, 423 Baniva do I¸cana 162 Baniva–Yavitero 423 Bantu 605 Bar´a 164 Barasana, Barasano 164 Barbacoa, Barb´acoa (group) 30, 33, 44
691
Barbacoan, Barbak´oan 26, 33, 37–8, 43, 53–4, 57, 141–51, 155, 159, 171, 392–4, 397, 437 Bar´ı 37, 44, 50, 80–1, 112, 117 Basque 326 Baud´o river (dialect of Ember´a) 58 Baure 422–3 Beliche 509, 522, 530 Besro (dialect of Chiquitano) 478 Betoi 161 Betoi (group) 30, 33, 37, 38, 44, 130, 161 B´ıntukua, see Ika Bolivia–Paran´a (division of Southern Arawakan) 423 Bolivian Aymara 260–1 Bolivian Quechua (dialect group) 168, 180, 187–8, 192–3, 195–206, 214, 221, 231, 235, 270, 357, 361 Bolivian Spanish 588–9 Bolona 393, 397 Bora 162, 164, 417, 423, 449–51 Bora (group) 31–3, 44 Bora–Huitoto, Bora–Uitoto 44, 449–51 Bora–Huitotoan 32 Bora–Muinane 449 Boran, B´oran 26, 29, 33–4, 164 Bororo, Bor´oro (group) 28, 31, 33, 44 Bororoan, Bor´oroan 29, 33–4, 477 Bribri 73 Cab´ecar 73 Cabiyar´ı 162, 423 Caca, see Diaguita Cahuapana (group) 28, 31–3, 44, 447–9 Cahuapanan 40 Cahuarano 451 Caingang (group), see Kaingangan Cajamarca Quechua 167, 193, 198, 200–1, 213, 221, 261, 403–4 Cajamarca–Ca˜naris (regional standard dialect) 193, 256 Cajatambo Quechua 207 Calchaqu´ı (Diaguita subgroup) 407 Caldono (dialect of P´aez) 130–2 Californian Penutian 43 Callahuaya 5, 30, 33–4, 44, 175, 350–2, 356–62, 400, 411 Callej´on de Huaylas Quechua 197, 201–3 Camiare (Comeching´on subgroup) 502 Campa 29, 39, 411, 417, 422–3 Campaces 392
692
Index of languages and ethnic groups
Campan 29 Cams´a, see Kams´a Candoshi 33, 37, 40, 44, 397, 405–6, 456–7 Canichana 28–9, 31, 33, 44, 475–6 Ca˜nar, Ca˜nari 29, 167, 172, 237, 321, 392–3, 395–7 Ca˜nar Quechua 160 Capanahua 417–21 Capay´an (Diaguita subgroup) 407, 409 Caquet´ıo 129 Cara, Caranqui 38, 44, 142, 172, 393–4 Carangas (Aymara dialect) 265–6, 271 Car´aquez Bay Indians 394 Carapana 164 Carare 114 Carib (group) 28, 44, 173 Cariban 22, 24, 29, 31–3, 38, 40, 50, 57, 80, 112–15, 125, 161, 405 Caribbean (division of Northern Arawakan) 423 Carijona 161, 406 Casabindo 410 Cashibo 418–19 Cashibo–Cacataibo 418 Cashinahua 418–19 Castilian Spanish 181, 243, 325, 398, 562, 586–7 Catacao, Catacaos 28, 31, 33, 44, 398–400, 403 Catalan 293 Catamarca and La Rioja (Quechua dialect) 187 -cat(e) (hypothetical language) 405, 407 Cat´ıo (Choc´o) 56–7 Cat´ıo Chibcha 37, 44, 49, 57 Catuquina (group), see Katukina Cauca valley (tribes of the) 49 Cauqui 27, 29–30, 34, 171, 259, 264–6, 306, 315 Caut´ın (Mapuche dialect) 513 Cavine˜na 418, 422 Cayapa 26, 38, 44, 54, 141–51, 155, 159–60, 603 Cayuvava 28, 31, 33, 44, 475–6 Cayuvavan 29 Central Aimara, see Tupino Aimara Central Arawakan 423 Central Peruvian Quechua 17, 191, 286, 301, 314–15, 318, 424 Central Peruvian Spanish 595
Central Quechua 185 Cerro de Pasco Quechua 258 cesuŋun, see Huilliche Chacha 167, 173, 406 Chachapoya 406–7 Chachapoyas (Amazonas) Quechua 186, 194, 198, 407 Chachi, see Cayapa Ch´acobo 418 Chamacoco 496, 499 Cham´ı 57, 59 Chamicuro 28–9, 39, 44, 416–17, 423 Chancos (language of the) 49 Chandinahua 419 Chan´e 422–3, 430 Chango 176 Chapacura 477 Chapacura (group) 31, 33, 44 Chapacura–Uanhaman 28 Chapacuran, Chapak´uran 29, 33, 477 Cha palaachi, see Cayapa Charrua (group) 28, 31–3 Charr´uan, Charruan 29, 33, 40, 44, 488 Chayahuita 44, 447–8 Chayma 112 Chechehet 29, 31–2 Chetilla (Quechua dialect) 404 Chibcha 16, 46–8 Chibcha (group) 31–3, 37, 44 Chibcha–Duit 28 Chibchan, Ch´ıbchan 22, 25–6, 29–30, 32–4, 36–8, 40, 42, 44, 46, 49–53, 55–6, 61–112, 114, 125, 130, 140, 142, 145–6, 151, 159, 470 Chibchan proper 28 Chibchan–Paezan 42, 44 Chicha (historical nation) 176 Chilean Aymara 265–6, 365, 379 Chilean Diaguita 409 Chilean Quechua 188 Chilean Spanish 379, 511, 590 Chilidugu 508 Chillao (historical nation) 405 Chimane 476 Chimila 37, 44, 48, 52, 55, 75–80, 85–6 Chim´u, Chimu 28, 31, 33, 37–8, 44, 320 Chim´uan 33 Chinchaisuyo 181 Chinese 585
Index of languages and ethnic groups Chipaya xv, 33, 38–9, 43, 175, 362–75, 379, 420 Chiquitano, Chikitano, Chiquita, Chiquito 28–9, 31, 33, 34, 44, 64, 416, 422, 477–88, 609 Chiriguano 8, 14, 422, 430 Chiriguano–Ava 430–1 Chiriguano–Guaran´ı 499 Chiriguano–Tapyi 430–1 Chirino 29, 406 Chitarero 52 Choc´o, Choco, Chok´o (group) 28–9, 31–3, 44, 57 Chocoan 38, 50, 54, 56–61, 65, 111, 117 Chol´on xvi, 20, 21, 97, 173, 352, 398, 405, 407, 416, 456, 460–75, 499 Cholona (group) 31, 33, 37, 44 Chol´onan 33 Cholones 398 Chon (group) 29, 31–3, 36, 39, 41, 44, 505 Chonan 555–64, 581–2 Chongos Bajo (Quechua dialect) 202, 217 Chono (Chile) 508, 550, 552–4, 556–8, 564–5, 580 Chono (Ecuador) 392 Chorote 493–5 Chubut (Mapuche dialect) 505 Chucuito (Aymara dialect) 265, 272 Chulup´ı, Chulup´ı–Ashlushlay 493–4, 499 Chupaca (Quechua dialect) 202 Churumata 410 Ciaman 49 coastal dialect of Quechua 182, 185, 187, 191, 198, 207, 261 Cobar´ıa (dialect of Tunebo) 109–10 Cocama 164, 419, 431–2 Cocamilla 431 Cochabamba Quechua 43, 193, 236 Cochabamba Spanish 601 Coche, see Kams´a Cochinoca 410 Coconucan 26, 29, 38, 141–2 Coconuco 141 Coconuco (group) 9, 30 Cof´an, Cofan 26, 28–9, 31, 33, 37, 42, 44, 50, 141, 161, 454 Col´an, Colan 28, 398–400, 403 Coli (historical nation) 175, 350 Colima (Colombia) 38, 48, 114–15
693
Colima (Ecuador) 392 Colla (historical nation) 234, 350 Collavino Aimara 170 Collavino Quechua 170, 187 Colombian Chibchan 37, 55 Colombian Quechua 208 Colombian Spanish 61, 588 colonial Cuzco Quechua 213, 228 Colorado, see Tsafiki Colorado–Cayapa 28 Comeching´on 502 Comechingones 502 Compi, La Paz (Aymara dialect) 275 Concepci´on (Quechua dialect) 201–5 Conibo 418–19, 500 Conima, Huancan´e (Aymara dialect) 266 Copall´en 30–2, 406–7 Copiap´o valley (Indians of the) 409 Coquimbo valley (Indians of the) 409 Coto, see Orej´on Cotopaxi (Ecuadorian Quechua dialect) 204 Covendo Moset´en 476 Cuaiquer, see Awa Pit Cubeo 164 Cueva 3, 57, 62 Cuiba 162 Cuica 124–9 Cuitlatec 42 Cujare˜no 418 Culina 459 Culli, Culle 25, 28, 31, 33, 44, 161, 172–3, 398, 401–5, 461 Cullian 29 Cumanagoto 112 Cuna 26, 37, 48–50, 55–6, 61–6, 79, 85–6, 111 Cuna (group) 44 Cuna–Cueva 28 Cundinamarcan Chibchan 37 Curripaco 162, 423 Cuzco (alternative name for the Quechua dialect of Santiago del Estero) 180 Cuzco Quechua 17, 20, 35, 167, 168, 180–3, 187–8, 191–206, 208–31, 235–6, 249–54, 256–7, 270, 292, 352, 357–8, 360, 361 Cuzco–Bolivian (Quechua dialect group) 195 Cuzco–Collao (regional Quechua standard dialect) 193
694
Index of languages and ethnic groups
Damana 44, 50, 55, 66–74, 117 -den (hypothetical language) 404 Desano 164 Diaguita, Diaguit 20, 27, 30–2, 177–8, 376, 380, 407–9 Dobocub´ı, see Bar´ı Dorasquean 37 Duit 23, 37, 44, 46, 50, 81–2, 85 Duitama (language of ) 82 Easter Island language 41 Eastern Apurimac (Quechua dialect) 200 Eastern Tucanoan 163–4 Eastern Yahgan 580 Ecuadorian Amazonian Quechua 186, 451 Ecuadorian Coastal Spanish 605 Ecuadorian Highland Quechua 131, 149, 172, 186, 195–204, 208–31 Ecuadorian Highland Spanish 605 Ecuadorian Quechua 168, 192–3, 207, 218, 235, 237–42, 289, 395, 594, 596–8 Ecuadorian Spanish 588, 594, 598–600 Ele (Betoi subgroup) 161 Ember´a 50, 54–60, 62 English 16, 66, 324, 360, 516, 567–70, 574–8, 582, 591 Equatorial 28, 42, 44 Equatorial–Tucanoan 42, 44 Eseejja 417–18 Eskimo–Aleut 42 Esmeralde˜no, Esmeralda, Ezmeralda 28–30, 33–4, 42, 44, 54, 155–61, 172 Ette Ennaka, see Chimila Ette Taara, see Chimila European languages 586 Ferre˜nafe (Quechua dialect) 186, 189, 193, 198, 200, 207, 220–1 Fiscara (Humahuaca subgroup) 410 Fisherman’s language 320 French 103 Fuegian languages (languages of Tierra del Fuego) xvii, 5, 21, 31, 41, 550–82 Fuegians 3, 550 Galibi 113 Gay´on 129 Ge (group) 28–9, 32–4, 163 Ge–Kaingan 44 Ge–Pano–Carib 28, 42, 44
General Language of the Inca 179, 186 Gennaken, see G¨un¨una K¨une German 16, 323, 378 Gorgotoqui, Gorgotoki 30–3 Grau, Apurimac (Quechua dialect) 199 Guach´ı 29 Guachian 29 Guahibo, see Sikuani Guahibo (group) 32–3, 44 Guahibo–Pamigua 28 Guahiboan 29–30, 33, 162 Guaicuru (group) 31–3, 44 Guaicuruan 14, 29, 33, 40–1, 178, 386, 488–93, 495 Guaiteca, see Chono (Chile) Guajiro xvi, 53–4, 115–24, 162, 423 Gualaquiza (Shuar dialect) 438 Guallatire, northern Chile (Aymara dialect) 266 Guamaca, see Damana Guambiano 26, 38, 43–4, 54–5, 57, 131, 141–50 Guamo 31, 33, 44, 163 Guan´a 423 Guanaca 138, 142 Guanano 164 Guanca (historical nation), see Huanca Guane 52 Guaque, see Carijona Guaran´ı 24, 351, 431, 480, 500, 608 Guarayo 430–2 Guat´o, Guato 28–9, 31, 33–4, 44 Guatuso 26, 86 Guayabero 55, 162, 164 Guaycur´u–Charruan 32 Guaycuru–Opaie 28 G¨un¨una K¨une 5, 28–9, 31, 33, 44, 505, 550, 554 G¨un¨una Yajich 554–8, 561–4, 581–2 Hacaritama 116 hahuasimi 174, 261 Haki (group), see Aymaran Harakmbut, Har´akmbut 2, 28, 31–3, 39, 43–4, 163, 422, 459–60 Haush 41, 550, 554, 556, 580 Hawaiian 41 Henia (Comeching´on subgroup) 502 Het, see Chechehet Hianacoto, see Carijona
Index of languages and ethnic groups Hibito, Hivito 44, 173, 398, 407, 460–2 Hibito–Chol´on 28–9, 407 Highland Jivaroans 418 Hirah´aran, see Jirajaran Hitn¨u 162 H´ıvaro (group), see Jivaroan Hivito, Hivitos, see Hibito Hokan 28, 34, 36, 42, 44, 61 Hokan–Siouan 37 Hongote 29 Huachipaeri (Harakmbut subgroup) 459 Hualf´ın (Diaguita subgroup) 407 Huallaga (Quechua dialect) 189 Huamachuco (language of ) 401 Huambisa 432–3 Huanca (Quechua dialect group) 179, 181, 188, 192–3, 196, 201–6, 210–31, 236, 256–8, 261, 595 Huancan´e (Aymara dialect) 283 Huancavilca 392–3 Huancayo (Quechua dialect) 197, 202–5, 208 Huangascar–Topar´a (Quechua dialect group) 185 H´uanuco Quechua (Quechua dialect group) 192–3, 200–1, 217–31, 257, 424 Huao, Huaorani 28, 30–3, 44, 454–6 Huarayo, see Eseejja Huaraz (Quechua dialect) 207 Huari 29 Huarochir´ı manuscript (Quechua dialect of the) 192, 198, 231, 318 Huarpe (group) 28, 31, 33 Huarpean 29, 42, 502–5, 508, 544, 548 Huasco valley (Indians of the) 409 Huaylas–Conchucos (Quechua dialect group) 185 Huilliche 509–10, 514, 516–17, 526, 530 Huitoto 56, 162, 164, 423, 449–50, 500 Huitoto–Bora–Z´aparo 37 Huitoto Muinane 449 Huitoto–Ocaina 449 Huitotoan 26, 28–9, 31–4, 162, 164 Humahuaca 27, 30–2, 177, 410 Hupda 163 Iberian dialects (of Spanish) 586–7 Idabaez 31–2, 56 Ignaciano 422, 423 Ika 50, 55, 66–74, 76, 93 Ilinga 401
695
Imbabura Quechua 193, 199, 204, 393 Inca 16 Inca (general) language 182, 191–2, 198 Incas (secret language of the) 178 Inga, Ingano (Colombian Quechua dialect) 53, 151, 179–80, 186, 193, 202 inga sˇimi 180 I˜napari 353, 423 Iquito 44, 451–2 Irapa (dialect of Yukpa) 112–13 Iroka (dialect of Yukpa) 112 Irra (language of) 49 Isconahua 418 Italian 24, 380 Itene 477 Itonama 28–9, 31–3, 44, 475–6 Itucale, see Urarina Itucale–Sabela 44 Izoce˜no 430–1 Jabut´ıan 376 Japanese 585 Japreria 52, 112–13 Jaqaru 27, 34, 44, 171, 259–60, 264–70, 275–6, 281, 287, 290, 293, 295, 300–19, 352 Jaqi (group), see Aymaran jaqi aru, see Aymara Jaruro, see Yaruro Jauja (Quechua dialect) 197, 201–5 Jauja–Huanca (Quechua dialect group) 185 Je (group), see Ge Jebero 44, 447–9 Jebero–Jivaroan 32 J´ıbaro, Jibaro (group), see Jivaroan Jibaro–Kandoshi, see J´ıvaro–Candoshi Jicaque 37 Jirajara 129 Jirajara, Jirajira (group) 28, 31, 33, 44, 129 Jirajaran 29, 33, 37, 52, 129–30 Jirara (Betoi subgroup) 130, 161 jitano 82 Jitirijiti 49, 53 J´ıvaro, see Shuar J´ıvaro–Cahuapana, Jivaroan–Cahuapanan 29 J´ıvaro–Candoshi 28, 40, 42, 44 Jivaroan 31–3, 40, 44, 172–3, 396–7, 406, 416, 432–47, 457 Jopoqueri (Aymara dialect) 293 Jor´a 430–1
696
Index of languages and ethnic groups
Jujuy (Humahuaca subgroup) 410 Juli (Aymara dialect) 293 Jun´ın (Quechua dialect group) 281, 424 Jun´ın–Huanca (regional Quechua standard dialect) 193 Jur´ı 33, 178 Kach´a, see Urarina Kadiweu 488 Kagaba, K´aggaba, see Kogui Kahuapana (group), see Cahuapana Kahuapana–Zaparo 44 Kaingan, Kaing´an (group) 31–3, 44 Kaingang 163 Kaingangan 28–9 Kak´an, see Diaguita Kakua 163 kam nˇc.a´ , see Kams´a Kams´a 28–30, 33, 37–8, 44, 53–4, 56, 151–5, 161 Kandoshi, see Candoshi Kanichana, see Canichana Kankuamo, Kanku´ı 50, 67 Kanoˆe 29, 34, 376 Kapishana, Kapishan´a, see Kanoˆe Karaib (group), see Cariban K´ariban, see Cariban Kariri–Tupi 44 Katak´aoan 33–4 Katio, see Cat´ıo Chibcha Katukina (group) 29, 39, 43, 459 Kaueskar, see Chono (Chile) Kawap´anan, see Cahuapana Kawesqar, Kaw´eskar 28–33, 41, 44, 550, 552–4, 556–8, 564–7, 580–2 Kayuvava, see Cayuvava Kechua (group), see Quechua Kechumaran, see Quechumaran Kitemoca 477 Kof´an, see Cof´an Kogui 44, 50, 55–6, 66–74, 86 Kolyawaya, see Callahuaya kot-su˜n, see Uru kougian, see Kogui Kugapakori 423 Kulyi, see Culli Kunza, Kunsa, see Atacame˜no La Paz (Aymara dialect) 265–6, 270–7, 283–4, 286, 289, 293
La Paz Spanish 591, 600–1 Lache 52 Lamista Quechua 186 languages of Andean tribes 30 languages of the Amazonian lowlands xvii languages of the Cauca valley 49–50 languages of the Gran Chaco 488–99 languages of the Magdalena valley 50 languages of Paleo–American tribes 30 languages of the Sierra Nevada the Santa Marta, see Arhuacan languages of Tropical Forest tribes 30 languages of the Upper Magdalena region 138–41 Lapachu, see Apolista Laraos (Quechua dialect) 186 Latin 16, 24, 344, 510 Latin American Spanish 586–8 Lebanese Arabic 585 Leco, Leko 21, 28–9, 31, 33, 44, 475–6 Lenca 37, 50 Lengua 498 Lengua (group) 31, 33, 44 lengua general (del Inga) 179, 182 lengua del Inga 53, 401 lengua linga 53 lengua de los Llanos 392 lengua pescadora 320 lengua yunga pescadora 320 Lengua–Mascoy 29, 40, 488, 497–9 Letuama, see Tanimuca–Retuar˜a lican antai, see Atacame˜no Lili 49 Lima standard Spanish 593 Limar´ı valley (Indians of the) 409 Lincha (Quechua dialect) 186, 189 Linga, see Ilinga L´ıpez (historical nation) 176 llapuni 589 Llata (Quechua dialect) 193 Lokono 116–17 Lolaca (Betoi subgroup) 161 Lomer´ıo (dialect of Chiquitano) 478 Louisiana French 591 Low German 416 Lule 28–34, 44, 177–8, 380, 385–91 Lulean 31–2 Lule–Tonocot´e 385 Lule–Vilela 41, 44, 386, 488
Index of languages and ethnic groups Lupaca (historical nation, Aymara dialect) 264, 266 Macaguane, see Hitn¨u machaj juyay, see Callahuaya Machiguenga 29, 39, 411, 417, 422–3 Macoita (dialect of Yukpa) 112–14 Macro-Arawakan 29, 44 Macro-Carib 28, 29, 42, 44 Macro-Chibchan 28, 32, 36–8, 42 Macro-Ge, Macro-Jˆe 28, 32, 34, 39–40, 42, 44 Macro-Hokan 30 Macro-Mayan 29, 32 Macro-Pano–Tacanan 32 Macro-Panoan 28, 42, 44 Macro-Penutian 38 Macro-Quechuan 29 Macro-Tucanoan 28, 42, 44 Macu (Venezuelan) 29 Macuan 29 Macuna 164 Made´an (Quechua dialect) 186 Madi (group), see Araw´a Magdalena valley (tribes of the) 48 Magdalena valley Cariban 112–15 Maipuran 24, 39, 44, 422 Maipure 162, 423 Maip´urean 33 Majigua 161 Mak´a 493, 495, 499 Mak´u (group) 31, 33, 163 Mak´u–Puinave, Mac´u–Puinave 29, 163 Mak´uan 163 Malacato 172, 393, 396 Malayo, see Damana Malibu (group) 44 Malib´u 52 Mandarin Chinese 147 Manekenkn, see Haush Manta 392 Mapocho, Mapuchu (Santiago dialect of Araucanian) 508–9, 517–18, 526–7, 528–30, 533, 537 Mapuche xvi, 2–3, 5, 9, 14, 16, 21, 28, 31, 33, 38, 40–1, 103, 123, 171, 321, 470, 500, 505–44, 551, 552, 563, 565, 580–2, 608 Mapuchean 29 Mapudungu, Mapudungun, see Mapuche Marinahua 419
697
Marocasero, see Damana Mascoy (group) 28 Mascoyan, Mask´oian 33, 497–9 Mashco 33 Mashub´ı 29, 376 Mastanahua 419 Mataco 493–4 Mataco (group) 28, 31, 33, 44, 430 Mataco–Guaicuru 44 Matacoan, Mat´akoan 14, 29, 33, 40–1, 386, 391, 488, 493–5 Mataguayan, see Matacoan Matanau´ı 29 Mayan 31–2, 38–9, 321, 329, 364 Mayna 28–31, 33, 40, 44, 447, 456 Mayo 418 Mayoruna 418–19 Media Lengua 5, 602–3 Mennonite German 585 Millcayac 16, 44, 502, 544 Mnka (dialect of Huitoto) 164, 449 Mira˜na 164, 449 Mirrip´u (dialect of Timote) 125 Misumalpa (group) 30, 33–4, 37, 50 Mobima, see Movima Mocana 52 Mochica xvi, xvii, 2, 16, 22–3, 28–9, 37–8, 61, 84, 120, 172–3, 319–50, 351–2, 392, 397–8, 403, 513 Mocoa, see Kams´a Mocov´ı 488–9, 493 Moguex 142 Mojo 16, 411, 422–3 Moluche, see Ngoluche (Mapuche subgroup) Mor´e 477 Morocomarca, northern Potos´ı (Aymara dialect) 283, 287, 310 Morocosi, see Mojo 16 Morunahua 418 Mosca, see Muisca Moset´en, Moseten, Mosetene 28–9, 31–3, 39, 44, 375, 476 Moset´en–Chimane 475–6 Motilon, see Bar´ı Motilones 38, 80, 112 Movima 28–9, 31, 33, 44, 475–6 Muchic, Muchik 172, 320 Mucuch´ı (dialect of Timote) 125–8 Muellamu´es 393 Muinane 164
698
Index of languages and ethnic groups
Muisca xvi, 3, 18, 23, 37, 46, 50, 52, 54–5, 81–109, 111–12, 352, 397 Munchique (dialect of P´aez) 130–1 Muniche, Munichi 28, 30–1, 33, 44, 456, 500 Mura–Pirah´a 29 Muran 29 Murato (Candoshi) 31, 33, 37, 457 Murato (Uru–Chipaya) 362 Murui (dialect of Huitoto) 164, 417, 449 Mut´us 125 muysc cubun, see Muisca Muzo 38, 48, 114–15 Na–Dene 42 Nahua 418 Nambikwara (group) 29, 37 Napeca 477 Napip´ı river (dialect of Ember´a) 59 Nasa, see P´aez Nasa Yuwe, see P´aez Neuqu´en (Mapuche dialect) 516 New World Spanish 586 Ngoluche (Mapuche subgroup) 509 Npode (dialect of Huitoto) 164, 449 Nivacl´e, see Chulup´ı Noctenes (dialecto of Mataco) 493 Nonuya 164 North Amazon (division of Northern Arawakan) 423 North Barasana 164 Northern Bolivian Quechua 35, 200, 357 Northern Amerind 44 Northern Andean 44 Northern Arawakan 423 Northern Aymara 265 Northern Jun´ın (Quechua dialect group) 189, 194, 201–6, 210–33, 237, 257 Northwest-Coast languages 571 Nuclear Chibchan 44 Nuclear Paezan 44 Nukak 163 nuna sˇimi 179 Nutabe 37, 44, 49 Ocaina 164, 449 Ochosuma, see Uru Ocloya (Humahuaca subgroup) 410 Ofai´e–Xavante 29 Old Cat´ıo, see Cat´ıo Chibcha Olmos (language of ) 320, 400
Omagua 24, 417–18, 431 Omaguaca, see Humahuaca Omasuyos (Aymara dialect) 275 Omurano, see Mayna Ona, see Selk nam Op´on 114 Op´on–Carare 38, 53, 112, 114–15 Orej´on 453 Oristin´e 386 Osa (Humahuaca subgroup) 410 Otavalo Quechua 445 Ot´ı 29 Otomac, Otomaco (group) 31, 33, 44, 163 Otomaco–Taparita 28 Otom´akoan 33 Otuque 477 Pacabueyes 52 Pacaguara 418 Pacaraos (Quechua dialect) 186, 189–90, 193, 197–229, 234–5, 242–50, 261, 279, 325 Paccho (Quechua dialect) 198–9 Paccioca (Diaguita subgroup) 407 Pachitea (Quechua dialect) 202 P´aesan 33 Paez (group) 33, 44 P´aez 9, 26, 30, 38, 48, 50, 54–5, 57, 125, 130–8, 140–2, 395, 500 Paez–Coconuco 28 Paezan 28–9, 38, 42, 44 Paiconeca 477 Palenquero 604 Paleo–Chibchan 159 Palta 172, 393, 396–7 Pamigua 161 Pampa, see G¨un¨una K¨une Panatagua 422 Panche 38, 48, 53, 114–15 Paniquita 142 Paniquit´a (dialect of P´aez) 130 Paniquitan 26 Pano (group) 31–3, 411, 417–18 Pano–Tacana, Pano–Tacanan 29, 31, 39, 44, 418–22, 477 Panoan, P´anoan 33–4, 39–40, 44, 261, 418–21, 447 Pant´agora 38, 48, 114 Panzaleo 393–5, 397 Papiamentu 595
Index of languages and ethnic groups Paraujano 53, 115–16, 118, 423 Parecis–Saraveca (division of Central Arawakan) 423 Pariri (dialect of Yukpa) 112–13 Parquenahua 418 Pasco (Quechua dialect group) 281, 424 Pastaza (Quechua dialect) 187, 193 Pasto 38, 53, 142, 151, 392–4, 397 Patagon (group), see Chon Patag´on, Patag´on de Perico 173, 405, 554–6 Patag´on de Bagua, see Bagua Patagonian languages 5, 21, 31, 41, 578 Paunaca 422, 477 Pauserna–Guarasugw´e 430–1 Paya 37, 73 Paya–Chibchan 37 Peba–Yagua 458 Peban 28 Pehuenche (independent group) 505 Pehuenche (Mapuche dialect) 505, 509 peibu, see Kogui peninsular Spanish 586–9 Peruvian Andean Spanish 589, 592 Peruvian Aymara 260–1 Peruvian Spanish 589, 593, 604 Piapoco 116, 162, 423 Piaroa 162 Piaroa (group) 31, 33, 44 Pichincha (Quechua dialect) 199 Picoy (Quechua dialect) 201 Picunche (Mapuche dialect) 509–10, 516 Pijao 38, 48, 53, 114–15, 138, 141 Pilag´a 488–9 Pioj´e, see Secoya Piratapuyo 164 Piro 39, 411, 417, 422–3 Piro–Apurin˜a 423 Pisabo 418 Pisamira 164 Piura (languages of ) 403 Plains Indians 556 Polynesian languages 41 Portuguese 181 Pre-Andine subgroup of Arawakan 22, 39 Pre-Quechuan languages of highland Ecuador 25, 38, 172, 195, 391–7 Proto-Arawakan 423–6 Proto-Aymaran 35, 171, 263, 265–7, 287
699
Proto-Barbacoan 57 Proto-Chibchan 37, 73, 80 Proto-Chocoan 57–8 Proto-Colombian Chibchan 96 Proto-Ember´a 58 Proto-Matacoan 495 Proto-Quechumaran 195 Proto-Quechua(n) 35, 181, 187–8, 190, 192, 194–204, 206–7, 213, 244, 267 Proto-Yukpa 113 Pucapacuri, see Kugapakori Puelche, see G¨un¨una K¨une Puinave 163 Puinave (group) 28, 44 Puin´avean 33 Pular (Diaguita subgroup) 407 Pum´e, see Yaruro Pun´a (language of) 155 Puno (Aymara dialect) 269 Puno Bay Uru 363 Puno Quechua 35, 187, 199, 201–2, 292, 357 Puquina, Pukina xv, xvi, 5, 26, 30–4, 36, 39, 43–4, 167, 175–6, 178, 263, 350–62, 366, 375, 382 Purmamarca (Humahuaca subgroup) 410 Puruh´a, Puruguay 29, 167, 172, 321, 392–3, 395–6 Qawasqar, see Kawesqar Quechua xvi, 2–3, 5–6, 12–25, 27, 31–6, 38, 41, 53, 103, 123, 129–30, 139, 142, 145–6, 149–51, 160, 165–320, 328, 344, 351–61, 365–6, 370–5, 377–85, 393–6, 398, 400–6, 409, 411–16, 424, 430, 443, 446, 452, 464, 465–8, 471, 499, 506, 512, 517, 522–3, 527–8, 534, 537–8, 539, 585, 589–603, 605, 607–8 Quechua (group) 22, 28, 42, 44 Quechua (historical nation) 179 Quechua A 185 Quechua B 185 Quechua I 185–6, 188–91, 197–207, 210–37, 243, 258, 278, 281, 429, 506 Quechua II 185–91, 212–32, 234–6, 243, 270 Quechua IIA 186–91, 198 Quechua IIB 186–91, 196–207, 213–31, 235–6, 243 Quechua IIC 186–91, 195–206, 212–32, 234–6, 293
700
Index of languages and ethnic groups
Quechua III 186 Quechua(n) dialects 34–5, 160, 168, 177, 179–81, 183–91, 256, 305 Quechua standard language (lengua general ) 182–3 Quechuan 5, 29, 34–6, 53, 168–71, 179–263, 318 Quechumaran 27, 32, 34–6 Querand´ı 505 Quichua 12–13, 168, 177 Quichua (historical nation) 179 quichua unificado 607 Quijos 394 Quillacinga 53, 151, 392 Quilme (Diaguita subgroup) 407–8 Quimbaya 3, 57 Quimbaya, Carrapa, Picara and Paucura (language of the) 49 Quind´ıo (language of the) 49 Quingnam 173, 320, 401 Rabona 393, 397 Ranqueles 505, 507 Ranquelino, Ranquel (Mapuche dialect) 510–11, 514, 516, 528 Remo 419 Res´ıgaro 39, 44, 162, 423 Reyesano 418 R´ıo Negro (Mapuche dialect) 516 Rionegrino (dialect of Yukpa) 112–13 Roraima (languages of ) 406 Rucachoroy, Neuqu´en (Mapuche dialect) 514 Rumanian 217 runa simi 130, 179, 259 Russian 231 Sabela, see Huao Sacata 405 Saija 57–60 Salasaca (Quechua dialect) 204, 237–42 Saliba, S´aliba 44, 162–3 Saliban, S´alivan 28, 29, 33, 162 Salinas de Garci Mendoza (Aymara dialect) 266 Samb´u 57 Sam´ukoan, see Zamucoan San Javier (dialect of Chiquitano) 478 San Mart´ın (regional Quechua standard dialect) 193, 203, 236, 256
San Miguel (dialect of Chiquitano) 478 San Pedro de Cajas (Quechua dialect) 193, 197, 225, 229, 237 Sanaviron, Sanavir´on 31–2, 502 Sanavirones 502 Sanj´a, Sank´a, see Damana Santa Ana Moset´en 476 Santiago dialect of Araucanian, see Mapocho Santiago de Chuco (dialect of Spanish) 403–4 Santiago del Estero Quechua, Santiague˜no Quechua 177, 187–8, 193, 197, 202–4, 221, 231, 258, 378, 380, 386, 387, 409 S´aparoan, see Zaparoan Sapiteri (Harakmbut subgroup) 459 Saraguro Indians 6, 395 Saraveca 423, 477 Sebondoy, see Kams´a Sec (group) 29 Sechura, Sec 25, 28, 31, 33–4, 44, 172, 320, 398–400 Secoya 453 Sek 400 Selk nam 28, 36, 41, 44, 550, 554, 556–7, 558–64, 571, 580–1 Setebo 419 Shaparu (dialect of Yukpa) 112–13 Shapra, see Candoshi Sharanahua 418 Shipibo 500 Shipibo–Conibo 417, 419 Shipibo–Conibo–Shetebo 418–19 Shuar 13, 172, 397, 416, 418, 432–47, 499–500, 603, 609 Shuar pidgin 433 Sibundoy, see Kams´a sign languages 416, 418 Sikuani 55, 162, 164 Simacu, see Urarina Sindagua 53 S´ınsiga 110 Sin´u 50, 57 Siona 163, 453 Siriano 164 Sirion´o 430–1 Sitajara, Tacna (Aymara dialect) 281, 283–4, 288, 307 Situfa (Betoi subgroup) 161 Slavic languages 231 Sokorpa (dialect of Yukpa) 112 Sonchon (group) 29
Index of languages and ethnic groups Sora (historical nation) 178 South American Spanish 587–8 South Bolivian Quechua 35 Southern Andean 44 Southern Aimara, see Collavino Aimara Southern Arawakan 423 Southern Aymara 265 Southern Barbacoan 149 Southern Peruvian Quechua 253 Southern Quechua I 250 Spanish 3–6, 11–13, 24, 53, 59, 66–7, 74, 82–7, 116–18, 128–9, 131, 139, 155, 170, 173, 179, 182–3, 197, 216–17, 256, 258–9, 262, 267, 293, 324–5, 344, 351, 368, 378–81, 386–7, 393–6, 398, 400–4, 418, 452, 471, 478, 493, 500, 510–11, 544–5, 576, 581, 585–605 Spanish of northwestern Argentina 589, 595–6 Subtiaba 37 Swedish 217 Ta–Arawak 116 Tabancale 29–32, 406 Tacana 418, 500 Tacana (group) 31–3, 411 Tacana–Pano 28 Tacanan, Tak´anan 26, 33–4, 36, 39, 44, 171, 357, 418–19 Tacna (Aymara dialect) 271 Ta´ıno 116 Tairona 48, 52, 67 Taiwano 164 Talamancan 26, 73 Tall´an 25, 34, 172, 179, 393, 398–400 Tamanaco 112 Tanimuca 164 Tanimuca–Retuar˜a 164 Tapiet´e 418, 430–1, 499 Tapo (Quechua dialect) 225 Tarascan 29, 34, 42 Tarata (Aymara dialect) 265–6 Tariana 162, 164, 423 Tarma (Quechua dialect) 192–4, 197–206, 210–33, 235–6, 258 Tatuyo 164 Taushiro 40, 456 Tegr´ıa (dialect of Tunebo) 109–10 Tehuelche 28, 36, 41, 505, 510, 550, 552, 554–6, 558, 563–4, 580–4 Tehues, see Teushen
701
t´eiˇzua (ceremonial language) 67 Tekiraka 28–9, 31, 33, 44, 456 Temuco, Caut´ın (Mapuche dialect) 516 Tena (Quechua dialect) 242 T´erraba 73 terruna shayama (ceremonial language) 67 Tetet´e 453 Teushen 41, 550, 554, 556, 581 Ticuna, Tikuna 28–9, 31, 33, 44, 55, 164, 458 Ticuna–Yuri 44 Tiliar (Humahuaca subgroup) 410 Timan´a 138 Timote 124–9, 130 Timote (group) 28–9, 31, 33, 37, 44 Timote–Cuica xvi, 52, 124–30 Tim´otean 33 Timucua 29, 42 Tinigua 161–2 Tinigua (group) 31, 33, 44 Tiniguan, Tin´ıwan 29, 33 Toba 40, 488–93, 499, 608 Tonocot´e 177–8, 385–6, 408 Toquistin´e 386 Torib´ıo (dialect of P´aez) 130–3 Toromona 418 Totor´o 38, 54, 141 Toyeri, see Harakmbut Toyoeri (Harakmbut subgroup) 459 Trinitario 422–3 Trio 115, 161 Trumai 29 Tsachila 141 Tsafiki 26, 38, 44, 54, 141–51, 159–60, 225, 228, 392, 394 Tshon (group), see Chon, Chonan Tucano 164 Tucano (group) 28, 31, 33, 37, 44 Tucanoan, Tuk´anoan 29, 33, 55, 141, 162–4, 453 Tucuna, see Ticuna Tule, see Cuna Tunebo 37, 44, 52, 85, 109–12 Tunebo (group) 28, 52, 85, 87, 109–10, 112, 161 Tupi, Tup´ı (group) 22, 28–9, 31, 33, 40, 44, 432 Tupi–Guaran´ı 14, 24, 26–7, 99, 422, 430–2, 434, 477, 488 Tup´ıan 33, 419, 432 Tupinamb´a 432
702
Index of languages and ethnic groups
Tupino Aimara 170 Turkish 34 Tuyuca 164 Tuyuneri, see Harakmbut Uchumataqu, see Uru Uitoto (group), see Huitotoan Umaua, see Carijona Upper And´agueda (Ember´a Cham´ı dialect) 59 Urarina 28–9, 31, 33, 44, 457–8, 500 Uro (group) 31–3, 44 Uru, Uro 28, 36, 38–9, 176, 259, 362–3, 366–7, 370, 375 Uru of Ch imu 175, 363 Uru of Iru Itu (Iruitu) 175, 363 Uruan, see Uru–Chipaya Uru–Chipaya 26, 29, 31, 38–9, 43, 175–6, 259, 321, 357, 362–75 Uruquilla 175–6, 362 Uw Cuwa, see Tunebo Uwa, U wa, see Tunebo Viakshi (dialect of Yukpa) 112 Vilela 28–9, 31–4, 44, 178, 386–7, 391 Vi˜nac (Quechua dialect) 186 Vulgar Latin 589 Wah´ıvoan, see Guahiboan Waikur´uan, see Guaicuruan Wamo, see Guamo Warao 32, 37 Warpe (group), see Huarpe Wasama (dialect of Yukpa) 112–13 Waunana 54, 56–9 Wayuunaiki, see Guajiro Weenhayek, see Mataco West Patagonian Canoe Indians 552 Western Arawakan 423 Western Tucanoan 163 Wichi, see Mataco Wintu 43 Witotoan, Wit´otoan, see Huitotoan Wiwa, see Damana Xauxa (historical nation) 181 Xibito-Cholon, see Hibito-Chol´on Xidehara, see Jirajara Xinca 37
Xiroa 393, 397 Xoroca 396, 406 Yacampis (Diaguita subgroup) 409 Yagua 164, 417, 458 Yagua (group) 31, 33, 44 Yaguan 28–9, 33–4 Yahgan, Yagan 28, 31, 33, 41, 44, 550, 553–4, 556–8, 567–82 Yalc´on 48, 138 Yamana, Y´amana, see Yahgan 554, 556 Yamanan 29 Yameo 458, 500 Yaminahua 418 Yanahuanca (Quechua dialect) 201 Yanesha 5, 22, 28–9, 39, 44, 397, 416–17, 422–30, 447, 499–500 yanga sˇimi 180 Yanomama, Yanoama (group) 32, 37 Yanomaman 40 Yaru (Quechua dialect group) 185, 193 Yaruro 28–30, 33–4, 42, 44, 159, 163 Yauyos (dialect group) 186, 192, 200, 205, 214 Yavitero 162, 423 Y´awan, see Yaguan Ysistin´e 386 Yuco, see Yukpa Yucuna 162, 423 Yuhupde, see Hupda Yukpa 38, 52, 80, 112–15 Yunga, Yunca 28, 38, 172, 320, 398 Yuqui 430–1 Yuracar´e, Yuracare, Yurakare, Yurucare 28–9, 31–3, 39, 44, 475–7 Yur´ı, Yuri 28, 31, 33, 44, 164 Yur´ıan 29 Yurumangu´ı, Yurumangui, Yurimangui, Yurimangi 28–9, 31, 33, 36–7, 41–2, 44, 54, 60–1, 161 Yurut´ı 164 Zamuco 477, 496 Zamuco (group) 28, 31, 33, 44 Zamucoan 29, 33, 488, 496–7, 499 Z´aparo 451–3 Z´aparo, Zaparo (group) 31, 33, 44, 416, 418 Zaparoan 26, 28–9, 33–4, 172, 451–3, 456, 458 Zuni 29
SUBJECT INDEX
ablative 189, 215, 273, 277, 303, 374, 428, 440, 469 ablativus absolutus 251 ablaut 328 abolition of Quechua in the official domain 183, 255 absolute (transitive without an object) 485–6 abstract terms 234 Abya-Yala, organisation 13 Academia de la Lengua Quechua 181 accent 76, 153, 568 Aconcagua river 502 active (as opposed to passive) 485–6 active participle 547 active–stative distinction 122, 134–5, 489, 495, 499 accusative 71–2, 145, 213, 224, 303–4, 360 adcorporeal movement 490 adjectives, syntactic behaviour of 208, 335, 336, 353, 380, 390, 409, 419, 444, 449, 457, 471, 481, 562 adstratum 195 African–Amerindian relations in Pacific Ecuador 155 Africanisms 5, 588, 604 agent (of a passive construction) 329, 335, 368, 483 agent disambiguator 470 agentive nominalisation 227, 276, 288, 311, 335–6, 339–40, 355, 372, 527–8 agglutination 59, 64, 207, 267, 423, 463, 476, 545, 564, 609 agreement/concord 125, 370, 496, 563 agricultural terraces 2, 124 agriculture 2, 10, 21, 175, 502 Ais´en, region 554
alienable/inalienable distinction 119, 492, 495, 499 allative 69, 100, 214–15, 274–328, 356, 385, 428, 440, 470 allophonic lowering of high vowels 195, 257, 361, 366 allophonic variation 62, 196 altiplano 6–7, 38, 165, 171, 175–6, 296, 350, 362 Alto Per´u 171 Alto Pur´us (upper Pur´us valley) 459 alveolar affricate 265, 302, 386 Amantan´ı, island 350 Amazon, river and region 5, 6, 161, 173, 431, 499, 603 The American Race (Brinton) 25 Amerindian contact vernaculars 5 Amerindian grammatical patterns 43, 482 Ampudia, Juan de (conquistador) 138 analytic conjugation 122–3 anaphoric 537 Ancoaqui, indigenous community 363 Andahuaylillas, town 350 Andamarca, Quechua-speaking community 258 Andean civilisation 2, 35, 165–7 Andean Cordilleras 6, 168 Andean millenarism 1 animal fables 192 antecedent 17, 213, 430 anticompletive 251 Antilles 586 Antofagasta, town and region 408 A˜nasco, Pedro de (conquistador) 48, 138 Anthropos 56 apico-alveolar fricative 325–6, 365, 562 applicative 339, 474, 476–7
704
Subject index
aquatic lifestyle (of the Uru) 259, 362 La Araucana 506 Araucan´ıa 14, 507–10 Araucanian-speaking mixed groups 505 Araucanian Sphere 5, 177, 502–8 Araucaria pine 505 Arauco, town and region 506, 510, 516 archaeological horizons 7 Area Intermedia 50 Arequipa, town and region 262 Arhuacan culture 67 Ariguan´ı river 75 Arte de la lengua cholona 460–75 Arte de la lengua tonocot´e y lule 385 Arte de la lengua yunga 322 aspect 133, 153, 190, 221, 226, 231, 281–2, 441, 455, 574 aspirated consonants 35, 57–8, 131, 133, 187–8, 195, 198–9, 264, 266–8, 282, 302, 313, 351, 364–5, 379, 495 aspirated vowels 87, 110, 131, 425 aspiration 378 Atacama desert 375 Atacames, town 155 Atahuallpa (Inca ruler) 8, 167, 179, 395 Atalaya, town 417 At´anquez, town 67 Atrato river 62 attenuator 272, 291 auca 413, 506 augmentative 126, 216 Augustinians 173, 320, 401, 402 autobiography 255, 296, 511 auto sacramental 255 auxiliary verb 59, 65, 70–1, 76, 137, 146, 150, 443, 474 Ayacucho, battle of 9 Ayacucho, town and region 258, 263 ayllu (lineage group) 234 Aymara (name) 259 Aymara substratum (in Arequipa and Puno) 262 Aymaraes, region 259 Aymaranised nouns 267 Bacat´a 46 Bagua, town 406 Bah´ıa de Solano 56 barriadas (popular neighbourhoods) 607 basic colours 236, 295, 538, 549
Bavarian mission 511, 512 behetr´ıas 48 Belalc´azar (or Benalca¸car, Benalcazar), Sebasti´an de (conquistador) 9, 53, 61 Bel´en de los Andaqu´ıes, settlement 139 Benedictines 193 benefactive 278, 289, 303, 333, 356, 374, 428, 468–9, 534 beneficiary 71–2, 230, 280–1, 477 Bermejo river 386 Biblioth`eque Linguistique Am´ericaine 54, 478 bilingual education 4, 5, 12–13, 15, 168, 194, 585, 605–9 bilingualism 131, 258, 262, 580, 592–6, 606 Biob´ıo, region 510, 516 Biob´ıo river 9, 505–6, 509 bipartite division of Quechuan dialects 181, 186, 188, 191 bishopric of Trujillo 23 body-part terms 140, 213, 333, 427, 480, 482 Bogot´a, valley of 46 Boh´orquez, Pedro (rebel) 408 Bol´ıvar, Sim´on (liberator) 9–10, 183, 589 Bourbon administration 3, 167, 183 Boyac´a, region 81–2 British Library 20, 460 Brouwer, Hendrik (settler) 506 Brunswick Peninsula 581 Buenos Aires, region and state capital of Argentina 507 Cabana, town 401 Cabeceras Aid Project 610–11, 623 cabildo 79 Cachuy, indigenous community 171 cacicazgos (chiefdoms) 411 Cagu´an river 139, 163 Cajamarca, town and region 186, 403–7 Calchaqu´ı valleys, see Valles Calchaqu´ıes Caldas, Quind´ıo and Risaralda, region 49 Callej´on de Huaylas valley 2 Canary Islands 586 Canas and Canchis, region 262 Ca˜nar, town and region 256, 395, 602 canoe nomads 550–4, 555, 556, 581 Cape Horn 6, 554 Capuchins 151 Caquet´a river 139, 164 Caral/Chupacigarro, preceramic settlement 2 Car´aquez, Bay of 392
Subject index Carare river 114 cardinal directions 561 Caribs (as a cover term for hostile Indians) 24, 52, 75 Carumas, town and indigenous community 375 Casas, Bartolom´e de las (defender of Indian rights) 191 case 59, 65, 69–70, 79, 89, 99–101, 111, 128–9, 140, 145, 153–4, 156, 158–9, 213–16, 226, 277–8, 303, 328, 332, 356, 367, 374, 380, 385, 387, 448, 460, 468–70, 476, 482–5, 494, 520, 545, 563, 565 case governed by verbs 101, 483 Caspana, indigenous community 376, 379 Catacaos, town and indigenous community 398 Catalogue of the National Library, Madrid 140 Catamarca, town and region 407–9 catechisms 16, 20, 81, 106, 130, 182, 351, 392, 477, 544, 552, 565 Catequil (deity) 401 Catherine II of Russia 54 Cauca, region 141 Cauca river and valley 3, 48 causative 59, 64, 74, 133, 136, 216, 233, 279, 305, 355, 372, 384, 441, 534 Caut´ın, region 507, 509–10 Cayapas river 141 ceceo 587 Central Andean linguistic features 145 central Chile 506 Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) 55 Centro Amaz´onico de Antropolog´ıa y Aplicaci´on Pr´actica (CAAAP) 607 Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Abor´ıgenes (CCELA) 21, 55 Cen´ufana (chiefdom) 50 ceramic phase of Andean prehistory 7 ceramics 8 ceremonial language 67 ceremonial speech 64 Cerro de la Sal 423 Cesar river 75 Chachapoyas, town and region 167, 173, 406–7 Chaco War 296, 478, 498 Chamaya river 6, 405
705 Chancay culture 165 Chancay river 165, 242–3 Chanch´an, site 165, 320 charango (musical instrument) 236–7 Charazani, town 350, 356 Charles III (king of Spain) 3 Charles V (emperor) 48 Chaupi˜namca (deity) 174 Chav´ın culture 8 Chav´ın de Hu´antar, site 7, 165 Checras, Quechua-speaking community 258 Chibcha Sphere 5, 46 Chicama river 320 Chiclayo, town 319 Chilo´e island 14, 502, 506, 508–10, 552, 553 Chimborazo, region 395 Chimbos, region 395 Chim´u, Chimor, kingdom 8, 165, 320 Ch’imu, Ts’imu, indigenous community 31, 363 Chinchaisuyo, administrative quarter of the Inca empire 181 Chinchipe river 405–6 Chinchorro culture 2 Chiquitano, region 5 Chiquitos missions 25 Chira river 398 Chita, town 110 Choc´o, region 56–9, 62 Chota river and valley 605 chroniclers 181 Chucuito, town and region 259, 262–4 circum-Caribbean cultures 8 cislocative 230 Ciudad Perdida 48 Ciudad de los Reyes 182 class-free suffixes 209 classification 5, 22–45, 556 classification networks 29–30 classifiers 150, 153, 164, 451, 455, 459–60, 476 classifying affixes 67, 125–6, 158, 160 cleaning of the irrigation canals 377 cleft construction 118 climate 7 clitics 367–70, 595 Clovis horizon 1, 506 coarticulated stop 85 coca 7 Cochabamba, town and region 411
706
Subject index
Coconuco, indigenous community 141 Colla Capac (indigenous ruler) 350 Collaguas, region 174, 262 Collasuyo, administrative quarter of the Inca empire 174 colonial occupation by Spain 2–3, 9, 20, 131, 344–8, 350, 362, 395, 411–13, 453, 548 comarca (autonomous region) 62 combinations of personal pronouns and case 99 comitative 123, 136, 215, 332, 440, 469, 521 complement clause 226, 372–3, 446 complementiser ‘saying’ 446 completive 253 complex sentences 292, 430, 445–7, 498, 516 compound tense 223, 229 compound verbs 59, 388, 448, 487, 571 compounds 66, 70, 236, 274, 402, 425, 436, 452, 518, 561, 566, 570 computer language 609 Concepci´on, town in the Chiquitos area 477 Conchucos, region 401 condenado 253 conditional 523–4, 533 conjecture 286 conquista del desierto 508 conquistadores 9, 16, 46–9, 53, 165–7, 392, 506, 508, 604 Consejo Regional Ind´ıgena del Cauca (CRIC) 131 conservative classifications 26–7, 30, 31 consonant clusters 68–9, 81, 85, 88–9, 110, 113, 128, 132, 153, 206, 268, 269, 273, 293, 351, 366–7, 379, 386, 402, 512–13, 545, 563, 569 consonant lenition 199–200 constitutions 11–15 of Argentina 15 of Bolivia 14 of Chile 14 of Colombia 4, 12 of Ecuador 13 of Peru 13–14 of Venezuela 11–12 contrary-to-fact 153 contrast 209 convergence 5–6, 175, 591, 602 conversi´on de Hivitos 460 conversiones 460 coordination 18, 215, 356
copula/verb ‘to be’ 59–60, 135, 155, 207, 209, 275, 312–13, 330, 340–2, 382, 438 copula verbaliser 275–6, 291, 426 correlative 19 Cotopaxi, region and sacred mountain 241, 394, 602 creole studies 586 Cu´elap, site 406 Cuenca, town 395 cultural diffusion 500 Cumancaya culture 419 Cuna, pictographic writing system of the 48 Cundinamarca, region 38, 46, 81 Cuntisuyo, administrative quarter of the Inca empire 174 Curaray river 456 Current Anthropology 27–8, 43 Curva, indigenous community 356 customary action 532 Cuyo, region 502, 506 Cuzco, name 178 Cuzco, capital of the Incas, town and region 165–7, 180–3, 191, 255, 262, 350, 406, 413 cuzqueros 180 cypher language 478 dalca (traditional boat) 552 Daquilema (Indian leader) 395 Darien, region 3, 56–7, 62 data source 209 dative 71–2, 79, 332, 429, 482–3 Daule river 392 Death of Atahuallpa (traditional play) 254 debt slavery 417 decimal counting 74, 123, 128, 140, 235, 375, 385, 538, 549 declarative 76–7, 111, 146–7, 354, 371, 437 definiteness 122, 217, 435 deictic roots 492, 560–1 demographic decline 167 demographic situation of Andean Indians 4 demonstratives 65, 105, 122, 331, 368, 444, 457, 466, 537 dental fricative 568 depalatalisation 204 Desaguadero river 362–3 Descripci´on de la Gobernaci´on de Guayaquil 393 descriptions 192, 416, 499, 557
Subject index descriptive and comparative studies 4 desiderative 285–6, 337 determined/non-determined distinction 485–6 detrimental 280–1, 534 dialect chain 188 dialectal variation 181, 265–6 dialectology 192–3, 264 Diamante river 502 dictionaries 191–3, 257, 260, 265, 294, 494, 499, 511, 537, 550, 578 difrasismo 236 diminutive 126, 216, 435 Diocesan Synod of Quito 392 diphthongs 197, 322 Direct knowledge 135 direct speech 234, 292–3, 539 directional 59, 64–5, 190, 231, 278, 304–5, 448, 491, 498 directional verb stems 64–5 discourse structure 151, 225 distal past 70 distance scale 122, 537, 560 distribution of languages in highland Bolivia 176, 262 Doctrina Christiana 20, 182, 296 domestication of animals (camelids) 2, 7 domestication of plants 2, 7 dominance of Aymara in the Bolivian highlands 263 domination by Spanish 4, 196 Dominicans 82, 191, 416–17, 452, 459 double negation 453 double personal reference marking 426 double possessive 593 dual 60, 65, 77, 155, 451, 455, 492, 519, 521, 522, 524, 526, 571 Duchicela (indigenous rulers) 395 duplication pattern 597 durative aspect 65 Dutch occupation of Valdivia 506 dynamicity 490 earliest waves of migration 22–4, 42 Early Horizon 7 early human settlement in the Andes 1–2, 7 ejective 187 El Dorado (legend of ) 3, 8, 47–8 El Ecuador Interandino y Occidental antes de la Conquista Espa˜nola 36 Elal (deity) 582
707 Eleg´ıas de Varones Ilustres de Indias 124 elision 206, 243, 368, 479 Elqui valley 409 embedded clause 137 enclitics 209 encomenderos 138 encomienda 138 Encyclopaedia Britannica 27–8, 31 Ene river 417 Entre R´ıos, region 41 epew (literary genre) 539 epidemic diseases 3, 8, 182, 416, 555 epistemic modality 70, 134–5 equational clause 371 ergative 59–60, 70, 79, 111, 356, 360, 421–2, 470, 499 ergative patterning in verbal morphology 495, 563, 571 Esmeraldas river 155 Esmeraldas, town 155 Estudios Araucanos 510 Estudios de Ling¨u´ıstica Chibcha 55 Eten, town 321 Ethnographic Museum, G¨oteborg 56 Ethnographic Museum, Hamburg 321 Ethnologue 125, 416, 418 etnoeducaci´on 606 euphonic element 429 evangelisation 3, 20, 25, 182, 398 evidentials 153, 210, 283, 286–7, 367, 455, 560 exclamative 464 exhortative 94–5, 473 existential verb 150, 330, 384 expansion of the Aymaran languages 171, 176, 260–1, 263 expected event 137 experiencer verb 483 experiential past 229 Experimental Project of Bilingual Education 194, 257, 296 expulsion of the Jesuits 24 extinction of languages 22 extirpador de idolatr´ıas 255 extra-long vowels 569 extra-short vowels 301 extrametrical syllable 118 factual mood 71–3 failed action 530
708
Subject index
family names 140, 395, 398–401, 403, 406–7 far-remote past 283 Federmann, Niklaus (conquistador) 129 Felipillo (interpreter) 179 Fell’s Cave, site 1 Fincen´u, chiefdom 50 first Amerindian words borrowed into Spanish 116 first-person marker in Quechua 189, 197, 207 first-person-plural inclusive 211, 269, 370, 375, 449 fishing and shellfish-gathering 7, 552 Fitzcarraldo (rubber baron) 459 five-vowel system 196, 257, 366 focus 134, 523 folk literature 55–6, 511 foot nomads 550–2, 555, 580 Formative Period 165 fortis velar 365 four-term system of personal reference xx, 211–12, 218, 269, 493 four-vowel system 452 fourth person 211, 213, 269 Franciscans 56, 416–17, 423, 478 frequentative 91–2, 94 fricativisation 199–201 Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC), guerrilla movement 10 fusion of tribes 5 future tense 92–3, 219, 284, 306–8, 336–7, 370, 383, 389, 452, 486, 530, 574 La Gaitana 48 geminate consonants 62–3, 76, 81, 144, 379–80 gender 125, 134, 367–9, 423, 451, 455, 476, 496, 498, 560, 583 gender of addressee 462–3 gender distinction in pronouns 149, 432, 451, 498 gender–number 118–19 gender-related language use 365, 478–9 generic prefix 125 generic term for possessed items 480 genetic diversity 42 genetic relations 22–45, 159, 364, 431, 456, 499, 556, 564, 578 genetically isolated languages 2, 22–3, 30, 61, 164, 416, 454, 456, 475, 477–8
genitive 59, 61, 69–70, 80, 101–2, 111, 120, 145, 149, 154, 213, 322, 328–9, 332–5, 352, 367–9, 470–1, 520, 545 genitive clitic doubling 596 genitive pronouns 332 genitive–locative 273 genocide 3, 10 geographic intertwining of languages 262–3 gerund 473, 599–600 glottal stop 68–9, 110, 113, 116, 118, 143, 147, 351, 361, 365, 377, 387–8, 519, 563, 568 glottalised consonants 35, 187–8, 195, 198–200, 264, 266, 302, 351, 365, 378, 379–80, 387, 494–5, 505, 578 glottalised vowels 75, 110, 131, 425 Goal 38, 99–100, 440 gold 8, 417 Government and Binding 19 grammars (colonial) 16–18, 20, 82–9, 191–2, 219, 319, 477, 496, 522, 544 Gran Chaco, region 5, 14, 40, 385–6, 411, 418, 488–99, 500 Gran Pajat´en, site 407 Gran Vilaya, site 406 Great Civilisations 18 Guajira peninsula 115 Guamb´ıa, indigenous community 141 Guanacache, wetlands 502 guano exploitation 10 Guatavita, cacique of 47 Guaviare river 162 Guayas river 392 g¨uecha 48 guerrilla movements 10 Guitarrero cave, site 2 Guzmango, kingdom 404 habitual past 223, 227, 276 haciendas 3, 459, 585 Handbook of South American Indians 26 Hatun Colla, ancient town 234 heavy syllable 118 Hispanic values 590 Hispanicisation 174, 176–7, 509, 607 Hispaniola island 116–17 Historia del Nuevo Mundo 24 Historia natural y moral de las Indias 23 homeland of Aymaran 263 homeland of Quechua 180–2, 263
Subject index honorific 455 horse 556 Huailillas, mission 398 Huallaga river 405, 416, 460 Huamachuco, town and region 398, 401, 404 Huambos, region 401 Hu´anuco, town and region 411 Huari, site 7, 165 Huarochir´ı, town and region 174, 255 Huarochir´ı manuscript 174, 187, 192, 255, 261 Huascar (Inca ruler) 8, 167, 395 Huayna Capac (Inca ruler) 3, 8, 165–7 huaynos 256 Huila, region 141 huinca 539, 608 Humboldt current 7 hunters and gatherers 7 hunting and extraction economy 417 Hunza 46 hypercorrection 203 Ibero-American Institute, Berlin 363, 401 ich-laut 326–7 iconicity 195 idiomatic expressions 103 illative 374 imperative 90, 92, 94, 127, 140, 153, 157, 219, 222, 273, 284–5, 290, 309, 337, 354, 383–4, 387, 389–90, 442, 523, 546, 564 imperfective aspect 91–2 impersonal 71–2 implosive 57–8 impure vowel 323, 513 Inca empire 3, 5, 23–5, 180–1, 260–1, 500 Inca nobility (colonial) 183 Inca Sphere 5, 165, 391 Incanised ethnic groups 418 Incas 8–9, 165–7, 178–81, 195, 254–5, 261, 263, 320, 350, 392, 401, 406, 411, 433, 459, 500, 506 inclusive/exclusive distinction 73, 222, 455, 481 indefinite 12–13 independence (of the Andean states) 3, 10, 183, 350, 507 independent suffixes 208–9, 224, 273–5, 290–2, 313–14 Indian movements 4, 10 indigenista movement 4, 181, 254–5, 590
709 indigenous communities (comunidades ind´ıgenas) 10, 79, 237, 320, 362–3, 418 indirect-object marking (on verbs) 71 inferential 286–7, 455 inferential past 224 Inferential knowledge 135 infinitive 152, 226, 288, 355, 384, 526 infinitive complement 137, 226, 372, 573 information status 458 Instituto Caro y Cuervo, Bogot´a 55, 83 Instituto Ling¨u´ıstico de Verano (ILV) 19, 447, 449, 457, 460 instrument nominaliser 227–8, 289, 339–41, 529 instrumental 215–16, 312–13, 332, 352, 385, 440, 469 instrumental prefixes 387, 448 instrumental–comitative 278, 356, 374 instrumental–coordinative 304 interdental 510, 514–15, 516 interlanguage 592, 596 intermediary periods (archaeological) 7 Intermediate Area 50 internal vowel change 89–90 International Journal of American Linguistics xvi interrogative (as a verbal category) 76, 93, 111, 146–7, 153, 546, 547 Interrogative / no knowledge 135 interrogative pronouns 105, 118, 295, 313, 334, 352, 375 interrogatives 61, 93, 313, 437, 537 intralocutive 71 intransitivisers 73–4 Introductiones Latinae 16 inverse/direct distinction 354, 525–6, 528–9 inverse pulmonic nasal 454 Ipomoea batatas (sweet potato) 41 irrealis 442 irregular concord 598–9 irrigation 2 Iru Itu, indigenous community 362 Isla del Sol, island 363 Isla Huapi, island 510 Issa Oristuna, indigenous reserve 75 itive 231, 534 Ja´en, town and region 396, 405–6 Jequetepeque river 320
710
Subject index
Jesuits 17–18, 24, 163, 254, 259, 264, 408, 416, 433, 447, 457, 477–8, 552, 556, 605 Jim´enez de Quesada, Gonzalo (conquistador) 46 Jivaroan uprising 397 joint action 133, 151 Juan del Oso (mythical figure) 256 Juan Santos Atahuallpa, rebellion of 423 Juli, town and mission centre 264 kankurua (place of worship) 67, 438 kinship terms 106, 235, 294, 329, 425, 427, 455, 480, 538 La Leche river 320 La Pampa, region 505, 514 La Plata, town and river in Colombia 138–9 La Rioja, town and region 407–9 La Tolita culture 156 labial click 454 labialised consonant 131, 365 labiodental fricative 510, 516 labio-postvelar 365 labiovelars 63, 69, 76, 84, 131, 365, 407 lack of polysynthesis 40 Lamas, town and region 186 Lambayeque, town and region 319, 400 landholding system 10 language attrition 580–2 language contact 4–6, 195, 386, 580–2 language families 26, 416, 454, 499 Language in the Americas (Greenberg) 27 language maintenance 5, 194, 256, 258 language mixture 602 language planning 515, 585, 605–8 language shift 6, 258–9, 262 language surveys 21 Les langues du monde (Meillet and Cohen) 26 laryngealisation 198–9 Late Horizon 8 lateral fricative 144, 364–6 lateralisation 205 Lecturas Araucanas 511 lengua general (general language) 81, 163, 167, 175, 296, 350, 453 lengua matriz 25 Leticia triangle 164 lexical and grammatical entwining (of Aymaran and Quechuan) 36
lexical borrowing 6, 36, 66, 159, 352, 357, 434, 549, 580–2 from Aymaran 171, 263, 279, 302, 375, 385, 476, 538, 549, 591 from Quechuan 131, 160, 175, 295, 314, 325, 378, 385, 391, 393, 403, 424, 448, 476, 538, 549, 590–1 from Spanish 59, 74, 87, 105, 128–9, 131, 150, 152–3, 196–7, 233–4, 236, 241, 245–6, 253, 280, 293, 298, 325, 378, 384–5, 391, 488, 517, 538, 582 lexical gender (in verbs) 388 lexical diffusion 5, 500 lexical number (in verbs) 388, 571 lexical similarities 49, 57, 140, 142 lexical suffix 79, 140 lexico-statistics 431 Library of the Royal Palace, Madrid 82–3 Licancabur, mountain 376 Lima, as a centre of migration 258 Lima, Aymaran communities in the department of 261 Lima, Peruvian state capital and former residence of the Spanish viceroys 167, 182, 205 limitative 469 lingua franca 3, 477–8, 500 linguistic area 579 linguistic diversity 2, 22, 81, 183, 416 linguistic fieldwork 20, 191 linguistic rights 3 linguistic taboo 581 L´ıpez (region) 362 literary production 254–6, 296, 539, 580 lithic technology 7 llanos (eastern plains of Colombia and adjacent Venezuela) 24, 162–3 Loa river 375–6 Location 99, 100 location (as a verbal category) 498 locative 60, 70, 136–7, 189, 214, 276, 312–13, 356, 374, 397, 428, 439, 447–8, 470, 485, 491–2 locative–accusative 145 locative–genitive 276, 303 locative–possessive verbalisation 276 Loja, town and region 396–7, 432 loose morphological structure 40 Lord’s Prayer 106–9, 344–6, 359, 376, 381–4 Loreto, region 418, 423, 456
Subject index loss of aspiration 266 lowering of water level (in Lake Titicaca) 363 Lucanas, region 262 Lupaca, kingdom 7 Lur´ın river 165 Macotama, religious centre 66 Madeira river 40 Madre de Dios, region 416, 418, 423, 459 Magalh˜aes (Magellan), Fernando de 15 Magdalena river and valley 9, 38, 46, 48, 52–3, 75, 112, 114–15, 138, 161 maintenance model (of bilingual education) 606–9 maize 7 Malleco, region 507, 509–10, 516 mal´on (Indian raid) 507 mama (spiritual leader) 67 Manab´ı, region 392–3 Mantaro river and valley 257, 261 manuscripts 20 Mapuche uprising 539 Mar Chiquita, lake 502 Maracaibo, town 115 Maracaibo, lake 11, 38, 52, 99, 112, 115, 124 mathematics teaching 609 Maule river 506 metathesis 435 Mara˜no´ n river 319, 401, 405–6 M´erida, town and region 124 Mesoamerica 120, 156, 364 Messianic movements 9 mestizo 255, 418, 590–1 Meta river and region 162–3 Middle Horizon 7 migration to urban areas 258, 507 milenarismo andino, see Andean Millenarism mining vocabulary 589 missions 4, 16–17, 24–5, 56, 67, 131, 139, 151, 163, 408, 416, 419, 423, 447, 452, 457, 459, 460, 476, 477, 552, 556, 567 mitimaes 167, 176, 237, 261, 319, 395, 406, 506 mixed dialect 82 Moche, town and indigenous community 320 Mochica culture 165 modal suffix 183 moh´an (indigenous priest) 84 Mojos, Moxos, chiefdom 422 Mojos, Moxos missions 25
711 Monsef´u, town 321 monta˜na (Andean-Amazonian foothills in Peru) 9, 13, 411, 419, 424, 499 Monte Verde, site 1, 506 month names 538 mood 218, 222, 282–7, 380, 389, 442, 472, 522, 523–4, 573 Moquegua, town and region 263 morphological transparency 209, 274 morphophonemic variation 117, 202, 481–2, 512, 517, 546 morphophonemics 69, 267, 323, 441, 463 morphosyntax 69 motion 153, 477 Motupe, town 320 mucuch´ıes 128 Muequet´a 46 multilateral comparison 43 multilingualism 4, 67, 164, 180–1, 477, 580 multiple vibrant (trill) 58, 68, 81, 117, 205, 243, 325 mummification techniques 2 Mus´ee de l’Homme, Paris 55 Museo de la Plata 582 Nabus´ımake, indigenous town 66 Napo river 417 narrative past 224 nasal cluster 515 nasal contour 163 nasal spread 58, 164, 478, 479, 487 nasal vowels 69, 81, 113, 131, 143, 147, 156, 433, 454–6, 479, 496, 499 National Library, Madrid 192, 544 National Library of Colombia 82–3 nationalism 10 nativos 413 Navarino island 554, 567 Nazca culture 165, 263 near past 389 near-remote past 283 negation 70–1, 78, 93, 133, 153, 158, 209–10, 281, 291, 309, 313, 360, 380, 420, 441, 443, 448–9, 473, 487, 522, 532–3, 546 negative command 90, 384, 443, 448, 533 negative participle 70–1 negative possession 158 negative subordination 342 negative verb 119, 385, 603 Nele Kantule (Indian leader) 62
712
Subject index
neologisms 123 Neuqu´en, region 514 New Granada 23, 48, 53–4, 74, 84 New Testament translations 578 nominal derivation 467–8 nominal inflection 36 nominal negation 133, 137, 532 nominal person markers 212, 269, 426 nominal predicate 98, 118, 134–5, 207, 209, 275–6, 382, 487, 536–7 nominal tense 494 nominalisation 17–18, 69–70, 72, 76, 93, 137, 140, 146, 150, 218, 224, 226–9, 265, 275, 288–90, 311–12, 339, 355, 372–3, 380, 384, 389, 453, 473, 498, 519, 522, 526–30, 547 nominative 332 nominative–accusative system 145, 207 non-finite verbs 70, 76 Non-involver 286–7, 290 non-possession 119, 329, 427 Norte de Potos´ı, region 176 noun classes 423, 427, 480 noun incorporation 59, 66, 159, 449, 518–19, 563 number 111, 125, 133, 153, 221, 269, 354, 388, 455, 496, 519, 522–3, 538, 547 number of language families 2 number of eastern lowland Indians 13–14 number of speakers of highland languages (Aymara, Mapuche, Quechua) 13–14, 168, 258 numeral classifiers 66, 79, 329, 342–3, 470, 471 numerals 34, 66, 74, 79, 83, 106, 111–12, 123, 128, 140, 150, 235, 277, 294–5, 314–15, 343, 361, 368, 375, 385, 391, 424, 470, 500, 549 n¨utram (literary genre) 539 object marking (on nouns) 136, 303 object marking (personal reference in verbs) 71, 78, 97–8, 154, 208, 218, 264, 275, 282, 306–8, 310, 353, 384, 473–6, 498, 524, 548, 557 object-oriented nominaliser 137 object pronoun 147 obligation 289, 338, 383, 573 obviative/proximate distinction 523–5 Oca˜na, town and region 116
Ollantay (theatre play) 192, 255 onomatopoeic roots 236–7 Op´on river 114 optative 222, 224, 473 Or´elie-Antoine I (king of Araucania and Patagonia) 507 Orellana, Francisco de (explorer) 431 oriente (Amazonian lowlands of Ecuador) 12–13, 454 Orinoco river 161, 163 Orteguaza river 163 orthography xvi–xix, 86, 183, 194, 257–9, 270, 302, 377, 513, 515, 544, 572 Otavalo, town 393–4 ownership 216–17, 277, 289 Pacaicasa, site 1 Pacasmayo river 320–1 Pachacamac, site and religious centre 8, 165 Pachacuti Inca Yupanqui (Inca ruler) 8 Pachitea river 419 pacification of Araucania 9, 507, 511 Paij´an, town 320 palatalisation 131, 407, 434, 450, 481, 489 palatals 322–3, 324–8, 403, 425 Paleo-Indian hunters 506 Pallasca, town and region 401–3 Pampa Wars 556 pampas 10, 505, 507–8 Pampas del Sacramento 422 Pancen´u, chiefdom 50 Paracas culture 165 Paraguayan missions 24 Paranapura river 456 Pariacaca (deity) 174 partial reduplication 388, 476 participle 92–5, 156, 340, 390 passive participle 95, 547 passive voice 64, 95–6, 123, 150, 329, 335, 338–42, 368, 483, 485–6, 523, 534, 547 past tense 92, 383, 485–6, 530 Pastaza river and region 454 Pasto, town 142 Patagonia 505, 507–8, 550, 554–6 Path 99–100 paucal 492 Peine, indigenous community 376–7 Pe˜nas, Gulf of 553 percentages of Indian population 11 Peren´e river 417
Subject index perfective aspect 221, 231, 441, 530, 595 perlative 374 permissive 456 person hierarchy 521, 525–6 personal names 408 personal reference 35, 59, 61, 65, 71–3, 77, 88–9, 96–8, 119, 122, 133–6, 140, 147, 153–4, 156–7, 189, 192, 211–12, 218–21, 226, 269, 275, 282–3, 306, 329–32, 353, 358, 380, 383, 388–9, 423, 426, 436–8, 453, 459, 463, 471–2, 481–2, 498, 511, 521–3, 545, 557, 582 personal reference number marking 212–13, 222, 546 Peruvian Corporation 417 petrified suffix 69, 74 Philip II (king of Spain) 182 phonology 57–9, 62–3, 68–9, 75–6, 81–9, 112, 117–18, 143–5, 152, 156, 194–207, 270–4, 301–2, 321, 361, 364–7, 377–80, 386–7, 424–5, 433–5, 450, 454, 463, 479, 489, 496, 512–17, 564–5, 567–70, 591 phonotactics 35, 267, 293 phylum 28 physical characteristics of the Andean region 6–7 pidginisation 602 Pikimachay, site 1 Pilcomayo river 385, 493 Pinochet Ugarte, Augusto, military government of 507 pitch accent 118 Piura, town and region 398 Pizarro, Francisco (conquistador) 8, 167, 179 Plate, River 3, 6, 505 pluperfect 601 plural 60, 65, 77, 155, 190, 212, 221–2, 269, 277, 281–2, 305, 331–2, 356, 375, 382, 390, 492, 509, 521–2, 524–5, 545, 560 polar question 209–10, 291, 331 Poop´o, lake 362 Popay´an, town 142 portmanteau suffix 190, 208, 219–20, 245–6, 339 Portuguese 417 Portuguese slave-raiders 417 possession 119, 239, 367, 487, 496 possession acted upon 71
713 possessive affix 98, 119, 277, 359, 381, 389, 390–1, 402, 420–1, 425, 427, 449, 451, 476, 490, 494 possessive construction 77, 214, 278, 358, 382, 390, 452, 519 possessive modifier 419, 444, 449, 457, 519–20, 527, 529 possessive pronoun 65, 77, 147–8, 352, 358, 360, 382, 439, 451, 482 postposition 79, 89, 101, 129, 154, 328, 332–3, 356, 419, 449, 468, 482–3, 495, 520, 545, 560–1, 563, 565, 567, 576 posture verb 65, 150, 388 postvelar 365–6, 378–9, 402, 409 potential 153, 284–6, 309, 372, 442 preaspirated consonant 145, 495 preaspirated glide 568 preceramic phase of Andean prehistory 2, 7 predicate marker 570 prefix fusion 472 preglottalised consonant 76, 144 prehistory 7–8 prenasalised consonant 58, 75, 131, 133, 152, 434 preposition 128, 332, 484–5, 497, 576, 599 present tense (absence of ) 530 preterit 336, 337 preverb 133 preverbal adverb 535 preverbal complement 273 proclitic 370, 453, 559, 561 professional language 357 Programa de Formaci´on en Educaci´on Intercultural Biling¨ue para los Pa´ıses Andinos (PROEIB Andes) 257 progressive aspect 221, 224, 231, 281, 338 promaucaes 506 pronominal possession 69, 136, 437 pronouns 73, 111, 127, 147, 155, 269, 329, 353, 358, 360, 367–8, 375, 382–3, 391, 436, 450–1, 466, 481–2, 498, 519–20, 529, 545, 557, 574–5 proto-language 35, 80, 112, 202, 266–7 Proyecto Experimental de Educaci´on Biling¨ue (PEEB) 257, 296, 608 pseudo-passive 123 Pubenza federation 142 Puerto Eden, town 553 Pueblo Llano, town 125 Puerto Hormiga, site 8
714
Subject index
Puerto Montt, town 506 Pun´a, island 392 Puna de Atacama 376 Puno, Bay of 259, 362 Puno, town and region 350, 595 Purac´e, indigenous community 141–2 purpose clause 228, 239–40, 288–9, 312, 341, 428, 446 Putumayo river 151, 163–4 Quebrada de Humahuaca 410 quechua as a generic term 168 Quechua (name) 179, 259 quechua leg´ıtimo 181 Quechua renaissance 183 Quechuanisation 12, 170, 175, 394, 397 Quell´on, town 510 question words 18–19, 137, 209, 236, 291, 448, 458, 465–6, 578 Quichua (name) 179 Quimbaya, goldsmith’s art of the 48 Quimbaya federation 49 quipu 254, 542 quipucamayoc 254 Quisg´o, indigenous community 141 Quito, capital of the northern Inca empire and of the Republic of Ecuador 167, 393–4, 398, 406 racionales 413 raised fields 2 Ranco, lake 510 real mood 73, 583 realised event 137 realised/non-realised distinction 223 reciprocal 279, 305, 429 recognition of Quechua as a national language 4, 256 reconstruction 37, 55, 194–5, 267, 431, 495 reducciones 416, 433, 452, 477, 507 reduplication 119, 123, 232–3, 295–6, 436, 539, 549, 561, 564, 566 reflexive 133, 279, 305, 372, 485–6, 526, 534 reflexive pronoun 391, 548 regional kingdoms 8 regional standard language 256 regionalisation 8 Relaci´on de la tierra de Ja´en 173, 405 Relaciones geogr´aficas de Indias 174, 261, 385, 393–7, 405
relational–possessive form 113–14, 119–20, 329, 332, 335, 381 relational case marker 428 relational stem 120–1 relative clause 15, 17–19, 69, 102, 118, 123, 137, 213, 288, 292, 341, 372–3, 427, 430, 447, 526–8 relative verbs 93 relativiser 292, 430 relexification 5–6, 602 religion 7–8, 84 remote past 389, 455 reportative 534 Reproacher tense 285–6 resguardos 12, 112, 141 resistance (indigenous) 9, 48–9, 75, 131, 138, 139, 431, 433 restrictions on verb structure 217–18 resultative 372 resumptive pronoun 595 retroflex 365, 568 retroflex affricate 113, 189, 201, 264–5, 302, 424–5, 514, 517 retroflex flap 117 retroflex glide 516 retroflex sibilant 202, 325 retroflex vibrant 204 retroflex voiced fricative 591 reversal of personal reference categories 359 reversive 231 rhetoric 538 rhetorical question 245 rich obstruent inventories 264 Rimac river 205 Riobamba, town 395 rise of sea levels 1 Rituale seu Manuale Peruanum 322, 351 Robledo, Jorge (conquistador) 49 Roca, Julio Argentino (military leader) 10, 508 root economy 26, 293 root structure 269 Royal Commentaries of the Incas 23 rubber exploitation 3, 10, 162, 164, 417 sabana 46, 50 Salado river, Argentina 188 Salado river, Chile 376, 379 Salar de Atacama 376 saltpetre exploitation 10
Subject index San Agust´ın, site and culture 8, 48, 53, 138–9 San Agust´ın, stone sculptures of 48, 138 San Andr´es de Sotavento, town and indigenous community 52 San Basilio del Palenque, Afro-Colombian settlement 605 San Blas, archipelago of 62 San Dami´an de Checas, indigenous community 255 San Juan river 56 San Juan de la Costa, town 509–10, 514 San Mart´ın, Jos´e de (liberator) 9, 183 San Miguel de los Ayamanes, indigenous community 129 San Pedro de Atacama, town and indigenous community 376 San Pedro de Casta, indigenous community 595 sandhi 62–4, 270 Sangay, volcano 432 Santa Ana de Chipaya, indigenous community 363 Santa Cruz de la Sierra, town and region 477 Santa Elena Peninsula 8 Santaf´e de Bogot´a, state capital of Colombia and former capital of New Granada 81 Santo Domingo de los Colorados, town and indigenous community 141 Santa Marta, town 52 Santa Rosa, hacienda 417 Santiago del Estero, town and region 168, 177, 386, 408 Saraguro, town and indigenous community 395–6, 602 Sarmiento, Domingo Faustino (president of Argentina) 508 schwa 323, 352, 377, 512 Scyri 394 Sech´ın Alto, site 7 second language (L2) acquisition 592 second-person pronouns (of Spanish) 587 selva (Amazonian forest area in Peru) 13 semantic influence 591 semantic interpretation, range of 234 semantic underspecification 103 semi-vowel 513–14 Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path), guerrilla movement 10 sentential particles 537, 600 sentential suffixes 208–9, 291, 465
715 sequences of case markers 216 Seville 586–7 shape morphemes 459–60 shape of object, verbs varying according to 74 shared lexicon 35, 140, 159–60, 267, 461, 499, 555–6 sierra (Andean highlands) 20, 181, 411 Sierra de C´ordoba 502 Sierra de la Macarena 161 Sierra Nevada del Cocuy 52, 109–10 Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta 37, 48, 50–2, 66–7, 75 Sierra de Perij´a 50, 80, 112 Silvia, town 141 Simancas, colonial settlement 139 Sinamaica, lagoon of 116 singulative 155 Sin´u river 62 Si´on, ancient mission 460 Siquesique, town 129 Socaire, indigenous community 376–7 Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge 498 Sogamoso, town and religious centre 46 song texts 256, 261, 296 sound correspondence 462 sound symbolism 199, 203–4, 315, 516, 559 Source 440 South American Missionary Society 550 Spaniards 8–9, 124, 138–9, 179, 263, 350, 401, 409, 417, 433, 585 Spanish American republics 10, 589 spatial adverbs 104, 520–1 spatial deixis 235–6, 295, 422 spatial distinctions 79, 275, 278–9, 293, 304, 333, 428, 533–4 spatial nouns 304 speaker/non-speaker distinction 146 speech registers 64, 433 spheres, cultural and linguistic 4–5 spondylus shell 8 sprachbund 204, 591 standardisation 20, 117, 194, 256–8, 477, 607 state 157–8 stative nominalisation 228, 289–90, 311–12, 339–41, 355, 527 stative verbs 91–2, 122, 490 stem modification 485 stock (language) 28, 30
716
Subject index
Strait of Magellan 1, 581 stress 69, 110, 132, 145, 156, 190, 206–7, 243, 270–2, 273, 367, 386, 434, 463, 489, 569 structural similarities between Aymaran and Quechuan 267 structural transformation 36 studies on Quechua 191–4 Suaza river 139 subject-centred nominaliser 17, 137, 227, 229, 288 subject extraction 372 subject marker 564 subject/non-subject distinction 17–19 subjunctive mood 429 subordinate clause 209, 373–4, 576 subordination 137, 149, 218, 223, 224–6, 275, 287, 310–11, 341, 355, 389–90, 420–1, 456, 547 substratum 6, 149, 172, 358, 393, 404, 409, 510, 511, 586, 589 Sucre, Antonio Jos´e de (liberator) 9 sudden discovery tense 224, 534, 601, 603 suffix order 209, 232, 274 Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) 19, 21, 55, 454, 608 supine 95, 342 suppletion 89, 328, 571 Swadesh list of basic vocabulary 130–1 sweet potato 41 switch-reference 146, 149, 189, 218, 223, 225–6, 238, 241, 275–6, 287, 310, 373–4, 420–1, 446, 473 syllabic lateral 545 syllable structure 131, 206 syncope 63–4 synonyms 236 synthetic conjugation 122–3 Tabaconas, town 401 tagmemics 19, 193 Tahuantinsuyo 165 Taki Onqoy (religious movement) 9 tal´atur (ceremonial song) 377 Taquile, island 350 Tauca, town 402 Telarmachay, site 2 Telemb´ı river 141 temperate altitude zone 179 temporal deixis 295
tense 73, 111, 218, 222–4, 282–7, 306–8, 380, 389, 421, 429, 441, 494, 522, 530–2, 566, 574 tense–aspect 370–2, 472 Tequendama, site 8 Tercer Concilio Limense (Third Lima Council) 20, 182 textiles 8 texts in Andean languages 21 theatre plays 183, 255 three-vowel system 156, 195, 270, 301, 402, 409, 424–5 Tiahuanaco, site 7, 165, 375 Tierra del Fuego 550–82 Tigre river 456 Timan´a, town 138–9 Tingo Mar´ıa, town 460 Titicaca, lake 7, 170, 175, 259, 262–4, 275, 350, 362–3 Tolima, region 114 Tomebamba, ancient town 395 tonal languages 80, 163, 164, 450 tone, grammatical 80, 164 tone, lexical 75–6, 80, 110–11, 563 topicalisation 70, 136, 209–11, 291–2, 313, 356, 430, 600 toponymical area 404–5 toponymy 21, 53, 114, 125, 140, 170, 172–6, 261–3, 350–1, 392–409, 562, 565 totora 175 Tounens, Antoine Or´elie de 507 tourism 417 traditional healers 356 trans-Andean contacts (between tropical forest and coastal plains) 6 trans-Pacific connections 41 transition (combined personal reference marking of subject and object in verbs) 219, 282, 306–8, 353, 384, 473–4, 522, 525–6, 528–9 transitional model (of bilingual education) 606–8 transitive/intransitive distinction 64, 90–1, 94, 233, 420–1 transitiviser 73–4, 339, 384, 421 transitivity 490 trapecio andino 174 tripartite division of native American languages 42
Subject index Trujillo, town and region in Venezuela 124 Trujillo, town in Peru 320, 328, 398, 401 truncation 367 Ts’imu, see Ch’imu Tucum´an, town and region 386, 408 T´umbez, town 179, 392 Tupac Amaru II (Jos´e Gabriel) 3, 9, 183 Tupac Amaru, rebellion of 183, 255 Tupac (Inca) Yupanqui 8, 416, 459 Tupe, indigenous community 171 typological distance 2 typological regions 50, 55 Ucayali, region 418 Ucayali river 411, 418–19, 431 United Provinces of R´ıo de la Plata 3 universal quantifiers 137 Universidad de los Andes, Bogot´a 21, 55 University of Costa Rica 55 University of Florida 260 University of San Marcos, Lima 18 University of Valpara´ıso 377 University Library of Cuzco 544 unku 254 Upper Amazon valley 24, 432 Upper Magdalena region 53, 139–40, 163 Urab´a, Gulf of 50, 61 Urituyacu river 456 Urubamba river 411 Ushuaia, town 567 Utcubamba river 405 uvulars 178, 183, 194–8, 201–2, 243, 257, 259, 264, 301, 351, 358, 361, 365, 379, 383, 387, 505, 566 Vacacocha, lake 456 Valdivia, town and region 506, 509, 510 Valdivia, Pedro de (conquistador) 409, 506, 508 valency-changing affixes 73–4, 89, 218, 229, 232, 305, 423, 533–4 validation 70, 210–11, 419–20 Valles Calchaqu´ıes (Calchaqu´ı valleys) 408–9 Vaup´es, river and region 162–3 velar glide 513
717 velar nasal 144, 194, 264, 266, 302, 304, 325, 332, 365, 465 Velasco Alvarado, Juan, military government of 256 ventive 227, 230, 280, 289, 305, 534 verb classes 571 verb-initial languages 118, 155 verbal complement 102–3 verbal derivation 208–9, 218, 229–32, 275, 278, 280, 293–4, 304–5, 339, 355, 475–6, 487–8, 491, 509, 522, 533, 546, 571–2 verbal inflection 35, 442, 522, 573–5 verbalisation 277, 474–5, 530, 534 verbs of ‘carrying and holding’ 235, 293–4 verbs of communication 233–4, 293, 446, 539 verbs of ‘eating’ 105, 388 verbs ‘to do’ 150 vertically organised network of cooperation 6 viceroys of Peru 167, 182 Vichada river 162 vigesimal count 106 Vilcabamba, Inca stronghold 9 Viltipoco (Indian leader) 410 Viracocha (Quechua name for Spaniards) 179 virtual mood 73 visitas 138, 259, 403 voiced palatal fricative 395 voiceless lateral 327–8, 379, 387, 494, 498 voiceless nasal 387 voiceless vowels 143, 366 voicing 182, 198–9, 266 vowel fluctuation 198 vowel harmony 264, 268, 339, 463, 473, 495–7, 499 vowel length 76, 81, 110–11, 118, 131, 143, 190, 195, 270–1, 275–6, 284, 287, 289, 301–17, 322, 323–4, 327, 361, 366, 377–8, 425, 433, 463, 479 vowel loss 198, 268, 323 vowel suppression 35, 89, 101, 110, 267–8, 271–4, 278, 281–2, 286, 293, 302–3, 355, 367 La Voz de los Andes (radio broadcasting station) 607 Wafer, Lionel (ship’s doctor) 62 Wars of Independence (against Spain) 9–10
718
Subject index
war of succession (between Atahuallpa and Huascar) 8, 167 witnessed/non-witnessed 494 word order 59, 61, 65, 69, 70, 79, 99, 111, 114, 118, 127, 129, 145, 207, 274, 367, 370, 380, 385, 419, 424, 429, 443–5, 447, 449, 452, 456, 457, 460, 475, 476, 488, 493, 495, 497, 560–4, 566–7, 575–9, 597–8, 603–4 writing system, lack of indigenous 2 yanacona 53 Yar´ı river 162 Yavar´ı river 417
ye´ısmo 587 Yurumangu´ı river 60 zambos 155 Zamora, town and region 397 Za˜na, town 319 zaque (indigenous ruler) 46 Zepita, town 362 zero complement 273–4, 288, 303 zero person 118–23 zipa (indigenous ruler) 46–7 Zipaquir´a, town 82 zones of refuge 6 Zulia, region 115–17
