The Phonological History of the Quichean Languages

UNIVERSITY MUSEUM STUDIES

Number 1

THE PHONOLOGICAL HISTORY OF THE QUICHEAN LANGUAGES

By James Larry Grimes

University Museum Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Illinois

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 72-5369

UNIVERSITY MUSEUM RESEARCH RECORDS

QE

~

UNIVERSITY MUSEUM

Southern Illinois University

Carbondale, Illinois 62901

Chief Editor: Basil C. Hedrick Associate Editor: Carroll L. Riley Managing Editor: Geraldine Kelley Mesoamerican Studies:

Editor: J. Charles Kelley Co-editor: Ellen Abbott Kelley

Southern Illinois Studies:

Editor: Frank Rackerby Co-editor: Edwin A. Cook

University Museum Studies:

Editor: B. C. Hedrick Co-editor: Geraldine Kelley

Research Records, publications of the University Museum, provide early release to interested colleagues of the miscellaneous research reports and records of the multiple programs carried out by the University Museum of Southern Illinois University--Carbonda1e. The Research Records consist of three series: 1. 2. 3.

Mesoamerican Studies Southern Illinois Studies University Museum Studies

Somewhat detailed reports on specific topics, sites, artifacts, ethnic groups, and other studies in archaeology, ethnology, history, geography, and cultural ecology of Mesoamerica and southern Illinois will be released in the appropriate series as they become available. While the series were established primarily as an outlet for researchers of the Southern Illinois University, reports on related research by others may be included on occasion. The series will utilize inex­ pensive means of reproduction in order to make possible issuance of the maximum number of reports but will be published in limited numbers. Single copy purchase or continuing subscription for all titles issued in all series may be effected by writing to: University Museum, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois 62901.

ii

PREFACE With the publication of this monograph by James Larry Grimes, the SIU Museum Research Records, Miscellaneous Studies, presents to the scientific community a basic and important contribution in the field of Mayan linguistics.

Dr. Grimes

is one of a number of linguists--many of them young--who in the past decade or so have made great strides in the complex study of Mayan languages, past and present.

Their work is

especially important because of the premier position of the May~

tion.

Indians in the development of native American civiliza­ The Maya speak several closely related languages and

their culture, as exemplified by rich archaeological finds and even by some textual materials, can be traced for many centuries. Detailed and skilled linguistic analysis of the type presented in this publication allows us, little by little, to throw light on the dynamics and interaction of Maya language and culture.

Basil C. Hedrick

Carroll L. Riley

iii

INTRODUCTION

The following is a slightly modified version of a 1969 University of Texas dissertation in linguistics.

The field

research was carried out in Guatemala between 1966-1968 and was financed by the Institute of Latin American Studies of the University of Texas at Austin.

This support is gratefully

acknowledged. The Mayan family of languages is possibly one of the most thoroughly studied linguistic groupings in the world. Mqst notably the works of McQuown and Kaufman have shed a great deal of light on the processes of historical develop­ ment in this family as a whole. When the topic for this work was chosen it was believed that a rather detailed analysis of the history of a single branch of the family was a necessary addition to the literature which heretofore had consisted largely of synchronic studies of single languages and broad reconstructions for the family as a whole.

It was further hoped that this work would be

followed by similar studies of developments in other branches of the family.

One continues to be very optimistic about the

potential this kind of coordinated research might have for the complete understanding of the developmental processes operant in the history of Mayan and in language in general.

iv

As a doctoral dissertation this work was directed by Professor Nicholas A. Hopkins.

I am greatly indebted

to Professor Hopkins and to Professor Rudolph C. Troike for their assistance in the preparation of the original work.

The responsibility for its contents, however, 1s

mine alone.

James L. Grimes May 1972 Carbondale, Illinois

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter I.

Page INTRODUCTION .

.

1

Footnotes to Chapter I II.

12

•

THE QUICHEAN LANGUAGES .

14

16

17

18

Quichean Sound Systems .

Historical Linguistics.

Proto-Quichean Phonology.

Distinctive Features • . . ..

Proto-Quichean Vowels ...

Summary to Chapter II . . . . • .

Footnotes to Chapter II ....•

23

. .

I II.

,

42

47

49

51

PROTO-MAYAN TO PROTO-QUICHEAN

Footnotes to Chapter III

61

IV.

MARKEDNESS THEORY

62

V.

QUICHEAN DIALECTS

67

67

Quic he . .

Ac hi . . .

Cakchique1 . Tzutuji1 .

Uspantec .

Footnotes to Chapter V

VI.

VII.

.

..

72

74

79

80

82

INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL LINGUISTIC RELATIONSHIPS

83

Historical Relationships . . . .

Pocomam and Pocomch!

Footnotes to Chapter VI . . . . .

86

89

95

96

CONCLUSION. BIBLIOGRAPHY

,

vi

...

.

...

,.

. . . .

98

LIST OF MAPS,

TABLES,

AND CHARTS

Map 1.

Page Map of the Quichean Area .

14

Table 1. , Population in the Quichean Area

15

Chart

~.

1.

Quichean Consonantal Phonemes

16

2,

Quichean Vowel Phonemes

17

3,

Proto-Quichean Consonantal Phonemes

19

4, ' .

Proto-Quichean Vowel Phonemes

22

5,

Distinctive Features of Consonants

23

6,

Summary of Rules Involving Glottal Stop

41

7,

Distinctive Features of Vowels.

42

8,

Underlying Vowels of Cakchiquel, and Uspantec .

9,

Tzutuj!l, 43

Underlying Vowels of Quiche

43

10.

Underlying Vowels of Ach!

44

11.

Proto-Mayan Phonological Elements

Sl

12,

Markedness Values of Proto-Mayan Vowels

64

13.

Shared Lexical Retentions for Quiche,

68

14.

Lexical Retentions for Three Quiche Dialects.

69

15.

Eastern and Western Cakchiquel Vowels

74

16.

Lexical Retentions for Cakchiquel Dialects

78

vii

Chart

Page

17.

Lexical Retentions for Tzutujil Dialects

79

18.

Lexical Retentions Between Quichean Languages •

85

19.

Historical Relationships

89

20.

Shared Lexical Retentions Kekchian-Quichean .

90

21.

Kekchian-Quichean Phonological Correspondences

91

22.

Quichean Relationships Including Poe-Porn

94

viii

I.

INTRODUCTION

The Quichean branch of the Mayan language family is composed of five closely related languages.

These languages

are spoken by approximately 900,000 people in the western high­ lands of Guatemala. The first serious attempt at classification of these languages was made by Stoll.

1

With the genetic model of lin­

guistic relationships clearly in mind,

Stoll included Quiche,

Uspantec,

Cakchiquel,

and Tzutuj!l in his Quichean branch.

Regarding

the internal relationships in the branch,

Stoll makes

the following statement: En una epoca remota se dividi6 el grupo Quiche en los idiomas Quiche y Cakchiquel. Posteriormente surgi6 de este ultimo el Tzutuj!l, a la vez que dentro del mismo idioma Quiche se desarrol1aba la lengua del senorio de Uspantan formandose e1 Uspanteca. 2 ,3 . The first classification which included Ach! in the Quichean branch was

that of McQuown.

4

Kaufman,

in his 1964

classification of these languages includes Quiche, Tzutuj!l,

Cakchique1,

and Ach! in the Quichean branch and excludes Uspantec.

It is not clear if this was done because of a

lack of Uspantec

material or because the author assumed Uspantec of one of the other languages.

5

In a

to be a dialect

later work Kaufman makes

clear that he considers Uspantec a separate language.

1

6

2

Th~

relationship between Cakchiquel and Tzutuj{l has

recently been investigated by Grimes.

7

This work has shown

that lexical and phonological data give no support to a classi­ fication of Cakchiquel and Tzutuj{l as separate

languages.

Descriptive material on the Quichean languages is very limited.

There are no complete grammars

guages. Fox),

for any of

Grammatical sketches do exist for Quich'

Ach!

Uspantec

(Shaw and Neuenswander),

(Stoll).

the

lan­

(Brasseur,

Cakchiquel (Stoll,

Townsend),

There are no published works on grammar or

syntax for Tzutuj!l. In his

1896 volume,

between Quiche and Uspantec, Uspantan.

Stoll briefly notes

the similarity

the language spoken in San Miguel

Stoll suggested that due

marriage with Quiche speakers,

to

the practice of inter­

the people of Uspantan might in

a short time be speaking only Quiche.

8

It was probably this

statement and the lack of additional Uspantec data later investigators

led

to assume the extinction of Uspantec.

Uspantec word list presented by Stoll of Uspantec grammar also by Stoll on this

that

language known to

10

9

The

and a very brief account

are the only published data

the present writer.

Published data for Tzutuj!l are limited to brief phono­ logical

and

not publish,

' 13 Qu i c h e.

lexical data.

11 12 '

Andrade collected,

extensive materials on Tzutuj!l,

though did

Cakchiquel,

and

3

The primary goal of this work is the reconstruction of the sound system of Proto-Quichean.

This reconstruction will

be based on phonological and grammatical materials from several dialects of each of the languages of the branch.

Secondly,

the

relationships between the languages of the Quichean branch will be fully specified.

The relationship of Quichean to Pocomam

and Pocomch! will also be given special consideration.

This

investigation will be based on the reconstructed Proto-Quichean phonology, and on lexical and limited grammatical considerations. The present writer has been engaged in the study of the Quichean languages since 1965. De c.,e mb e r,

During the months of May through

1 9 68 , I i n g u i s tic d a taw ere gat her e d fro m 3 0 10 cat ion s

within the area dominated by the Quichean languages. survey data were mainly lexical and phonological.

These

The materials

gathered were intended to provide data on all of the phono­ logical variations found in modern Quichean dialects.

In addi­

tion to the phonological materials, grammatical data were collected from one dialect of each of the languages. these data,

Based on

the grammatical factors by which each of the Quichean

languages is differentiated will be stated.

The interpretation

of these materials along with the results of a shared lexical retention survey is presented in the chapter on modern Quichean dialects. The presentation of phonological and grammatical material will be made in the theoretical framework of transformational

4

generative linguistics.

The

generative linguist has at sense, means

term 'grammar'

least

two meanings.

the competence which a

own language.

as used by the Grammar,

native speaker has

This competence entails

in his

the ability to produce

and understand an infinite set of strings or sentences. grammar of a

language,

in the second sense,

is

the

formal account of the native speaker's competence. torical generative is also

the

formal account of

speaker of a as

linguistics,

the grammar of a

Because that is

the breakup of the

the case,

The

linguist's In his­

proto-language

the posited competence of a

language at a point in time,

it existed prior to

in one

the

i.e.,

the

language

linguistic community.

formal account of that historical

grammar--as of every grammar--must be governed by universal guistic a

theory.

In other words,

the account of

proto-language is not in principle different

of .the grammar of any natural

language.

apply to

spoken

manner

the description of a

to

the description of

lin­

the grammar of from the account

The constraints

that

language apply in the same

the grammar of a reconstructed

language. The model himself is

a

to which the generative

formal and substantive one.

it makes explicit all

linguist confines It is formal

its assumptions and assertions,

is substantive in that it makes empirical claims. this

the model

against grounds.

is falsifiable.

That is,

in

that

and it

Because of

it can be checked

the data and can be rejected on completely specifiable

5

The model of generative linguistics universal

linguistic

phonetics,

theory.

Jakobson's

is based on a

theory of universal

and those systems developed from it,

late universal constraints on phonetic feature and feature contrast. of a

Any account

constraint~--this

account of a historical

language into

of universal

theory,

linguist

is paramount.

It is

the

the

formal

Unfortunately, vehicle for

the

term

time

in the

'sound changes'

is misleading.

change in the phonology of a

The history of a

language

linguistic community.

'sound change'

in sounds, but rather change in

forces

language or

traditionally involves a series of

which take place through

that

the acceptable framework

The phonological history of a family

co-occurrence

The historical

these constraints and others

linguistic

formu­

these constraints without

compelling evidence is unacceptable.

adherence to

to

(synchronic or diachronic)

language which violates one of

must abide by these

.

seek

language is

the grammar of

the

The not change

language.

language is a history of its grammars--not

sounds or grammatical forms.

It

is

fundamentally

this

its

empiri­

cally based conviction that places on historical grammars

the

same constraints as on synchronic ones. There are several types of change in

the grammar of a

language

that can take place

to produce sound change.

One of

the ways sound change can take place is by the addition of a rule

to

the grammar.

Rule addition is a common occurrence,

6

and may take place at . t h e ser1es

0

.f

addition is a~dition

the end of the grammar or elsewhere in

ru 1 es. 14

An example of sound change by rule

the Grimm's

of this rule

Law change in Indo-European.

By the

to some dialects of Indo-European,

voice­

less obstruents became continuants:

+ obstruent] [ - voice Rule

loss

[+ continuant]

is a second kind of phonological change.

example of sound change by rule of this work.

loss is discussed in Chapter II

In this case the Proto-Quichean rule by which

velar stops are palatalized in certain environments ~he

grammar of Achl.

where

two

An

Rule deletion often leads

lost in

to a situation

languages or dialects differ by one rule.

case with the addition of a rule,

is

As was

the

rule deletion may take place

at the end of the grammar or elsewhere in the series of rules. Another way language may change is A language contains

in its grammar

by rule reordering.

two rules which at one point

in time are ordered to apply rule X first and rule Y second. At another point in time

the rules apply

to produce a different output,

1

first and X second

provided the rules are crucially

ordered. Finally,

a very common type of

linguistic change is

that brought about by rule simplification. is often achieved by the suppression of a The rules may become more general if, ture

Increased generality feature

in a rule.

by suppression of a

in the structural description of the rule,

fea­

the class of

7

elements

to which

might be

increased also by making

ment

in which

the rule applies

the rule is

is expanded.

Generality

less specific

the environ­

to apply.

Recent enrichments of phonological vided for

the

linguist an even more powerful way of capturing

the generalizations about

language.

and Jakobsonian ideas about values a

Based on early Praguian

'natural'

in a particular context,

or

'expected'

feature

Chomsky and Halle have proposed

theory of Marked-Unmarked feature values.

is a very brief discussion of as

theory have pro­

the proposed

15 16 '

The

following

theory of markedness

it contrasts with the earlier version of phonological In the earlier

tionary entry of a

theory of systematic phonology

(+

indicates

the absence of

cia ted with present

in

the

and

that segment).

this

+, -, or zero for each

the presence of

the feature,

predictable for

theory has

the

zero' states

feature, that

equal cost

the more economical one.

In addition sion of

the

to

+

and -

the

indicates

the feature

is

the role of counting elements

lexical entries and in rules

to both the

-

The simplicity metric asso­

in such a way that

the more highly valued phonological system for will always be

the dic­

form is a matrix in which each segment of

the entry is given a specification of feature.

theory.

markings and no cost

two

language

The metric assigns an

lexical entries,

theory provides for

a given

this

to

zero.

17

earlier ver­

types of rules.

Morpheme

structure rules operate on dictionary entries and insert

8

+/- features for unspecified (zero) markings.

These rules

apply only within morpheme boundaries and can be being part of the

lexicon.

Phonological rules

ate on segments of strings of morphemes by the

transformational component of

'morphophonemic'

alternations,

thought of as

(P-rules) oper­

in utterances supplied

the grammar

to account for

and more generally,

to

supply a

phonetic interpretation for each sentence generated by

the

grammar. In markedness

theory,

dictionary representations values,

~

and costless

th~deeper

unmarked

instead of a single

level of

there are now two distinct

levels.

(M or U),

and lexical entries are

18

so

that

will charge only for marked values. abstract

level of representation,

terms of

+

or -

These rules,

These

markings.

. b Y t h e app Ii catLon

0

the evaluation measure On the second,

In effect,

+

and 0

f 'Lnterpretat i on.' 19

theory makes

the complexity the claim that

underlying the phonological system of every language a universal phonological structure.

Furthermore,

text some feature value is

and

the complexity of

'natural'

the grammar.

and has a cost.

less

values are arrived at

in no way affect

this

or

feature specification is in

f " unLversa 1 ru 1 es

being universal,

of the grammar.

fully specified in

Unmarked values do not contribute to

the complexity of the system,

'unnatural'

On

level features have only the values of marked or

terms of M's and U's.

add to

+ and ­

in terms of equally costly

there

is

in every con­

therefore do~s

not

The other value is

9

The

theory of markedness seems

implications for

to have interesting

the historical linguist.

Chomsky and Halle

propose a measure of degree of phonological admissibility which makes use of the concept of

'natural'

environments.

20

The

earlier theory of systematic phonology provided one with a set of evaluation criteria by which the proposed reconstruction of the sound system of a or unacceptable. ment

that

This was possible on the basis of the require­

the reconstructed sound system must conform to uni­

versal phonetic

theory.

an additional metric, bi!i.ty' of a

language could be pronounced acceptable

The proposed markedness

viz,

one by which the

'degree of admissi­

of a sound system can be specified.

The sound system

language or the system of a proto-language can be formally

scrutinized as

to

McQuown,

the degree of

'naturalness'

in his work on Proto-Mayan,

it attains. reconstructs a

sound system which has 58 consonantal phonemes, being stops.

It is a weakness of

yet in no way indicates 'Natural' others.

of such a system,

that such a system is very 'unnatural.'

is used here in the sense of Jakobson, This is not

have 35 stops,

35 of these

the older theory which allows

one to fully specify the distinctive features

is

theory provides

to assert

for some might.

that in a system such as

that a natural

and

language cannot

What is meant by

'unnatural'

the one proposed for Proto-Mayan,

many contrasts are exploited which are not the sense used by Jakobson,

Postal,

'normal'

(again,

and most recently by Chomsky and

in

10

Halle).

Markedness

exploits

features

theory will state that a sound system which

such as

[+

check],

[+

sharpJ,

[+

peripheral],

etc., will be more heavily marked and therefore will cost more (be less plausible,

less natural)

than a system where only

plain stops are present. It can be seen that the markedness value of sound sys­ terns can become a useful forces

him to seek the

tool for

the historical linguist.

It

least heavily marked solution which

will adequately account for

the data.

A second kind of consideration coming from the discus­ sion of markedness is of direct concern to historical

linguis-

The following statement comes from Postal: given two series of related segments, one of which is of the Unmarked type, that sound change will frequently merge the Marked with the Unmarked, or change the Marked in some other way. Hence one would expect to find dialects differing in that, for example, one had two series of con­ sonants, one glottalized and the other not, while the other had only non-glottalized consonants which were cognate with both these series in the former, etc. But opposite situa­ tions in which there is loss or merger of 'normal' to 21 'nonnormal' types should be extremely rare or nonexistent. It is precisely this framework in which the history of Quichean sound systems will be presented. not only provides

the means

the sound changes

from Proto-Quichean to

guages,

Markedness

theory

for an unambiguous description of the contemporary lan­

but also presents empirically based motivation for

those changes.

It will be shown that a number of

the develop­

ments were mergers of marked with unmarked phonemes.

The

11

sequence of mergers through which some' of the Quichean vowel systems have passed is of special interest.

12

References Cited

1. Otto Stoll, Etnograf!a de Guatemala, Seminario de Integracion Social Guatemalteca, Guatemala (1958). 2.

~.,

pp.

3.

Ibid.,

p.

4. Languages,!

251-254. 253.

Norman A. IJAL vol.

McQuown, 'The Classification of 22, 191-195 (1956).

the Mayan

5. Terrence S. Kaufman, "Materiales linguisticos para el estudio de las re1aciones internas y externas de la familia de idiomas mayanos, I in Desarrollo Cultural de Los Mayas, Evon Z. Vogt and Albert Ruz L., Editors, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, pp. 85-86 (1964). 6. Terrence S. Kaufman, IJAL vol. 35, 154-175 (1969).

'Teco:

A New Mayan Language,'

7. James L. Grimes, 'The Linguistic Unity of Cakchiquel­ Tzutuj!l, IJAL vol. 34, 104-114 (1968). 8.

Otto Stoll,

9.

~.,

pp.

10. Otto Stoll, Part II. Wien (1888). 11.

James L.

~.

cit.,

p.

179.

56-94. Die Maya-Sprachen der Pokom-Gruppe.

Grimes,

~.

..s!J:..,

pp.

112-114.

12. James L. Grimes, 'The Palatalized Velar Stop in Proto-Quichean,' ~ vol. 35, 20-24 (1969). 13. Manuel J. Andrade, 'Materials on the Quiche, Ca k chi que 1 , and Tzu t u j ! 1 Languages,' MCMMA CAllI 1 , University of Chicago Library, Chicago, Vol. IX, 942 pp. 14. See Paul Kiparsky, 'Linguistic Universals and Lin­ guistic Change,' in Universals in Linguistic Theor~, Emmon Bach and Robert T. Harms, editors, New York, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc. (1968). 15. Noam Chomsky and Morris Halle, Sound Pattern of English. New York, Harper and Row, pp. 400-435 (1968).

13

Theory.

pp.

16. Also see Paul M. Postal, Aspects of Phonological New York, Harper and Row (1968) . .1 7.

Ibid.,

pp.

18.

Ibid.,

p.

19. 405-414.

153-207. 167.

Noam Chomsky and Morris Halle,

20.

Ibid.

21.

Paul M.

Postal,

~.

cit.,

p.

~.

171.

­

cit. ,

THE QUICHEAN LANGUAGES

The area dominated by speakers of the Quichean languages lies mainly to the north and west of the capital of Guatemala. This area includes all or parts of the departments of Guatemala, Sacatepequez, El Quiche,

Chimaltenango,

Baja Verapaz,

Totonicapan, Quezaltenango,

Escuintla,

Suchitepeqllez,

Sololri, Retalhuleu.

and Huehuetenango.

Cakchiquel

The exact number of speakers of the Quichean is unknown.

The Guatemalan census records

individual speaks an Indian language,

14

the fact

languag~s

that an

but does not specify

IS

which

language he speaks.

The census figures

from 1950 and

1964 show a growing Indian population ip all departments but one where a Quichean language is spoken.

1

TABLE 1 POPULATION IN THE QUICHEAN AREA Department Guatemala Sacatepequez Chima1tenango Escuint1a Solola Totonicapan Quezaltenango Suchitepequez Reta1hu1ea Huehuetenango E1 Quiche Baja Verapaz

Total Pop. 1950

Total Pop. 1964

483,913 60,124 121,480 123,759 82,921 99,354 184,213 124,403 66,861 200,101 174,911 66,313

777,440 79, 120 161,760 251,980 108,500 142,500 265,520 181,200 112,820 285,180 255,260 95,700

Indian 1950

lndian 1964

79,514 30,994 94,243 19,660 77,817 96,138 124,473 84,252 34,696 146,678 147,094 38,776

80,000 36,040 123,060 17,880 100,500 135,880 143,420 97,800 38,280 192,620 216,320 50,040

(Except in Huehuetenango and Baja Verapaz speakers of a Quichean language make up more than 80 per cent of the Indian population in the departments listed.)

In the five departments with the heaviest concentration of Quichean speakers,

the percentage of Indians versus non-Indians

did not vary significantly between 1950 and 1964.

TABLE 2 PERCENTAGE INDIAN 1950-1964 Department Totonicapan Sol01a E1 Quiche Chima1tenango Queza1tenango

1950

1964

97 94 84 78 68

95 93 85 76 54

Change -2 .-1

+1 -2 -14

16

Quichean Sound Systems The sound systems of the Quichean languages are quite similar to one another.

The following charts specify a unique

symbol for every systematic phonological element in any language.

These symbols are not to be interpreted as

phonemes,

Quich~an

taxonomic

but rather as abstractions at the level of systematic

phonemics.

(This interpretation should be given to all the

phoneme display charts in this work.)

CHART 1

QUICHEAN CONSONANTAL PHONEMES

p

t

c

p'

t!

m

n

w

1

kY

k

q

c'

k'

q

s

h

!

?

r

The stop series is made up of 15 elements from the bilabial, alveolar,

alveopalatal,

of articulation. final

position.

2

velar,

postvelar, and glottalic points

The non-glottalized series is aspirated in The only stop which is regularly voiced in

all the Quich.an languages

is the glottalized bilabial stop,

which is voiced in initial and medial positions,3 The liquids and glides are realized as voiceless in word final position.

l7

CHART 2

QUICHEANVOWEL PHONEMES

i

i·

u

u·

e

e·

o

o·

a

a·

The vowel system displayed in Chart 2 has and six lax vowels. cally as

The feature

l+

tense]

is

five

tense

realized phoneti­

length in some dialects and as close versus open

articulation in others. dialect variants Notes:

[e],

The /a/ phoneme has

[e],

(a],

1.

k Y and k Yf

2.

i.,

e·,

and

the surface-level

[i].

are not present

a·,

0.,

U·

in AchL

are a b sen t i n Ac h!

and Quiche. 3.

is absent in Ach!.

9

Historical Linguistics The principles which define modern taxonomic diachronic linguistics are generally dominated by the Neogrammarian con­ cept of sound change. is entirely regular,

This concept asserts that

is,

that sound change

there are no environments in

which the outcome of the change is ambiguous. according

to

4

the Neogrammarian-Taxonomic notion,

are of a purely phonetic character.

Secondly, sound changes

Simply stated,

the position

18

holds

that no regular sound changes require reference

morphophonemic or grammatical environments. have been criticized by Halle, not be

Postal,

further discussed here.

these points see Postal, It is pertinent

These principles

and others,

and will

(For a complete discussion of

1968). to

this work,

however,

to note

the Neogrammarian principles are not consistent with of generative phonology. logical component of a

Accordi~g

to

the

theory,

The

that any explanation of sound change will

possibility of some phonetic changes ments which require reference matical structures.

the

theory therefore

include

Proto-Quich~an

to morphophonemic and/or gram­

It is basically this assertion that places

Phonology

necessarily surface

linguistics

level.

the primary materials are

In modern diachronic

(taxonomic)

reconstructed units are generally intended to

correspond

to

phonemes.

They are

taxonomic phonemes or a sequence of taxonomic the result of manipulations of surface

level phenomena such as complementary distribution, etc.

theory

the Neogrammarian principles.

In historical

linguistics,

the

taking place in environ­

the notion of sound change based on systematic phonemic in opposition to

theory

the phono­

the existence of an independent phonology and

predicts

that

language is an extension of and depen­

dent on the grammatical and semantic components. denies

to

contrast,

19

Such is not the case in historical generative linguistics.

In the following presentation of the Proto-

Quichean sound system the units which have been presented are to be interpreted as the systematic phonemes of the Proto-Quichean language.

The cognate sets offered as sup­

porting evidence for the reconstructions are approximations of the lexical entries at the systematic phonetic level. CHART 2

PROTO-QUICHEAN CONSONANTAL PHONEMES

p

t

c

p'

t'

C

I

s m

*/p/

*/p'/

q

kt

q'

h

x

7

n

1

Quiche

k

r

Ach!

Cakchiquel

Tzutuj!l

Uspantec

pim

pim

pi· m

pi" m

pi· m

THICK

pux

pux

pux

pux

pux

PUS

sip

sip

si.p

si·p

si·p

TIC

b'aq

b'aq

b'a.q

b'a'q

b'a.q

BONE

sip'

sip'

sip'

sip'

sip'

SMOKE

kap'

kap'

ka.p'

ka·p'

ka.p'

PANELA

20

*/t/

* / t' /

Quiche

Ach!

tap

tap

tux

Tzutuji'.1

Uspantec

tap

tap

tap

CRAB

tux

tu·x

tu.x

tu.x

SWEAT HOUSE

po?t

po·t

po?t

po?t

po. t'

BLOUSE

t'

t'

t'

d'

t'

SNAIL

0

t

0

t

Cakchiquel

0

t

0

t

0

t

t' is

t' is

t' is

d'is

c' is

SEW

ca?m

ca·m

ca?n

ca?m

ca·m

NOSE

cae

cae

cae

cae

cae

THICK LIQUID

*/c'/ c' i I

c' i I

c' i· I

c' i. I

c' i. I

DIRTY

c' i ?

c' i?

c' i?

c' i?

c' i ?

DOG

soc'

soc'

so.c'

so· c'

so·c'

BAT

~un

~un

~u·n

~u·n

~u.n

LIME

~aka~

~akac

~aka~

~aka~

caka~

BASKET

~'at

~Iat

~'at

~'at

c'at

BED

~, i~'

~, i~'

~'i~'

~'ic'

c'

METAL

kar

kar

kar

kYaq

kaq

k Yaq

?ik

?ik

*/c/

*/~/

*/c'/

*/k/

kar

FISH

kYaq

kYaq

RED

?i . k

?i·k

? i. k

CHfLl

k' ox

k'o·x

k'o·x

k'o·x

MASK

kY'aq

k'aa

kY'aa

kY'aq

kY'aq

FLEA

sik'

sik'

si· k'

~i·

si. k'

WING

quI

quI

quI

quI

quI

NECK

muq

muq

muq

muq

muq

BURY

iaq

saq

sa·q

~a·q

v sa.q

LEAF

*/k'/ k'ox

*/q/

i~'

k'

21

* Iq 1 I

*/11

*1s 1

*/~I

*/hl

*/xl

*/ml

*/nl

*11,11

..

-

*/11

Quiche

Achl

Cakchique1

Tzutujll

Uspantec

q'oq'

?o?

q '0 - q ,

q 10 _q

qlo-q'

WHITE SQUASH

q'an

?an

q'an

qlan

qlan

YELLOW

kYaql

ka?

k Yaq

kYaq'

GUAYABA

?o~

?ox

?0 - X

?o - X

?o - x

AVOCADO

b 'i?

b'i?

b'i?

b Ii?

b'ix

NAME

seq

saq

saq

seq

seq

WHITE

sik'

sik'

s i' k'

si-k'

si'k '

CIGARETTE

k'as

k'as

k'a-s

kla-s

k'a-s

DEBT

sim

sim

sim

sim

sim

KNOT

sikin

sikln

slkln

sikln

sik!n

EAR

musus

mu~u~

musu?~

musl.J?s

mu-sis NAVEL

ha?

ya?

ya?

ya?

ha?

WATER

b'eh

b'eh

b'e-y

b'e-y

b'e-h

ROAD

hah

hah

ha.y

ha.y

ha·h

HOUSE

q'ix

?ix

q f i-x

q' i, x

q'i-x

SUN

mam

mam

ma'm

ma-m

ma'm

GRANDCHILD

k'um

k'um

k'u-m

k'u·m

k'u·m

SQUASH

nim

nim

nim

nim

nim

BIG

nox

nox

nox

nox

nox

FULL

bIen

?an

b'en

b'en

blan

TO MAKE

wah

wah

way

way

wah

TORTILLA

war

war

war

war

war

SLEEP

loq'

10?

10q'

10q'

10q'

TO BUY

q'ol

? 01

q'

q'0, 1

q'

0 -

I

1

k Yeq

I

I

0 _

1

SAP

22

*/r/

Quiche

Ach!

ri?x

rix

ri?x

ri?x

ri?x

OLD

q'or

?or

q '0. r

q'o.r

q '0· r

CORN DOUGH

Cakchiquel

Tzutuj!l

Uspantec

CHART 4

PROTO-QUICHEAN VOWEL PHONEMES

i

i·

u

u·

e

e·

o

o·

a a

*/i/

*/i·/

*/e/

* / e· /

*/03/ ~

*/a/

Cakchiquel

a·

Tzutuj !l

Uspantec

Quiche

Ach!

k'im

k'im

k'im

k'im

k'im

STRAW

kin~q'

kina?

ki n~q ,

kin~q'

kin~q'

BEAN

hiq

hiq

hi· q

hi·q

hi.q

TO CHOKE

sip

sip

si.p

si·p

si.p

TIC

k'el

k'el

k'el

k'el

k'el

CHOCOYO

set

set

set

set

set

ROUND

mem

mem

me·m

me. m

me·m

MUTE

b'eh

b'eh

b'e.y

b'e·y

b'e·h

ROAD

wac

wac

wac

wacv

wac

EYE,

q'ap'

?a?

q'a?

q'a?

q'ap'

HAND

k'am

k'am

k'am

k'am

k'am

TO TAKE

wah

wah

way

way

wah

TORTILLA

FACE

23

Achi

Cakchiquel

Tzutujil

Uspantec

k'am

k'a·m

k'a.m

k'a·m

VINE

q' aq'

?a?

q'a'q'

q I a. q I

q I a. q I

FIRE

tox

tox

tox

tox

tox

TO PAY

nox

nox

nox

nox

nox

FULL

pom

pom

po.m

po·m

po.m

INCENSE

k 'ox

k'ox

k'o·x

k'o·x

k'o·x

MASK

?us

?us

?us

?us

?us

FLY

c'up'

C'Up'

C'Up'

c'up'

C'Upl

TO KISS

cun

cU'n

v cu·n

cU'n

LIME

k'um

k'u·m

k'u.m

k'u·m

SQUASH

Quiche */a·/ k'am

*/0/

* /0' /

*/u/

*/u./ cun k'um

Distinctive Features CHART 5 DISTINCTIVE FEATURES OF PROTO-QUICHEAN

CONSONANTAL PHONEMES

CNS

q'

k

k' x

P

p'

t

t'

c

c' C

c'

v s s r

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+ +

+ + +

+ + + + + + + + ­ + - + + + + + + -

+

VOC GRV DIF

+

CHK CNT

+

+

+ +

+

+ +

­

­

+ + + +

+

­ + +

NAS

+

STD FLT

1 m n w ? h

q

+

+

+

­

24

The

following set of rules

developments by which Quichean system.

+ + + -

P-Q Rule

+

cns voc grv dif nas

cns voc grv dif nas

-

+ + -

1 states

languages.

that

in Cakchiquel, Tzutuj:(l, Ach!, and Uspantec



Evidence

Ipl I

and

...

Iplanl

.....

for positing

e.g.,

[?]

"hand"

these

When

forms

This

is changed by a

(Cubulco)

Ipll

in

the

is quite strong.

occurs with

[q ' a?l

most easily motiv.ated explanation of which an underlying

in Ach!

the pluralizer suffix

following alteration occurs:

realized

in some forms:

the glottalized bilabial stop

when uninflected,

[qle?].

is

in Tzutuj!l

"to do"

underlying representations of

become

in all contemporary Quichean

level as

[qle?]

Quiche,

*/pl I

and

the glottalized bilabial stop

Iqlep'l

The Tzutuj!l form,

*/pl

the proto-phonemes

Ipl

However,



the systematic phonetic

the

the Proto-Quichean sound

1

systematic phonemes

stop,

the modern

5

-

at

the series of

the consonantal phonemes of

languages were derived from

Proto-Quichean Rule

*

indicates

the glottal

lal

+ [a] .....

these

facts

is added,

[q'ab'a]. is one

in

is posited in stem final position.

late rule

to

I?I

if

the

form is

not

suffixed. When the Ach! ing changes occur:

form is

inflected for person

the

follow­

The

25

Ikl

(incomplete aspect) +

Iplanl

linl

(verb stem) - [kim?an]

(first person singular) + "I do it"

By a low level P-rule the feature values for [grave] and [diffuse]

in the nasal segment are made to agree with the

values for those features in the following consonant. Ach! Rule 1

+ cns

*[+ nas] -

A later rule changes

[~ ~~~] Ipll

I

- voc - cnt ex grv /3 dif

to [?], but the influence of the

upderlying bilabial by Rule 1 is retained. Proto-Quich~an

*

Rule 2

+ cns

+ cns

- voc - grv + dif - nas - std

- voc - grv + dif - nas - std

in Cakchiquel, Tzutujil, Ach!, and Uspantec

Quich~,

P-Q Rule 2 states that proto-phonemes */t/ and */t'l become systematic phonemes /t/ and It'/ in all contemporary languages. phoneme in

Quich~an

The glottalized alveolar stop is an extremely rare theQuich~an

languages.

Tzutuj!l has a rule which

voices this phoneme in all environments:

26

(

Tzutujl.l Rule 1

*

+ cns

- voc

- grv

+ dif + nas

- std

+ chk

[+ vce]

-+

The aberrant form in Uspantec for !!to sew!! is thought to be a borrowing from one of the neighboring Mamean languages.

Cakchiquel

Quiche

Uspantec

Ixil

t'is

t'is

c'is

c'is

Aguacatec c'is

Proto-Quichean Rule 3

*

+ cns

-

voc grv + dif + std

+ cns

-

voc grv dif + + std

in Cakchiquel, Tzutuj{l, Quiche, Ach{, and Uspantee

-

-+

P-Q Rule 3 states that proto-phonemes

Icl

systematic phonemes

and

le'l

*/cl

and

*/c'l

become

in all contemporary Quichean

languages. Proto-Quichean Rule 4

*

+ cns -

voe grv dif cnt

+ ens

[-

voc

grv dif

cnt

in Cakehiquel, Tzutuj:£'l, Quiche, Ach:£., and Uspantec

P-Q Rule 4 states that proto-phonemes */~I and

*/~'I

become

27

systematic phonemes /~/ and /~,/ in all contemporary Quich~an languages. It should be recalled that the series of rules pre­ sented here does not represent rules in the grammar of a ..

language.

Evidence for

the rules may come from the grammar of

modern Quichean languages or from rules in the grammar of ProtoQuichean.

The rules presented here are formal representations

of the series of historical processes by which modern Quichean languages developed.

Proto-Quichean Rule 5

*

+

+

cns voc + grv - dif

cns - voc + grv - dif

- fIt

- fIt

-

-

-

cnt

in Achi

cnt

P-Q Rule 5 states that proto-phonemes */k/ and */k'/ become systematic phonemes /k/ and /k' / environments.

in contemporary Ach! in all

Proto-phonemes */k/ and */k'/ become systematic

phonemes /k/ and /k'/ also in Cakchiquel, and Uspantec,

Tzutuj!l, Quiche,

but with environmental limitations.

These limi­

tations are fully specified in P-Q Rule 6. The process represented in P-Q Rule 6 has been fully discussed in the context of the grammar of the Proto-Quichean language.

6

It was shown that a rule similar,

if not identical

to P-Q Rule 6 existed in the grammar of Proto-Quichean,

and

that by that rule the palatalization of initial velars was completely predictable.

28

Proto-Quich'an Rule 6 * + cns - voc + grv - dif - flt - cnt

...

[+ shp]

/

V

+ cns

- voc

+ grv - dif + fIt

in Cakchiquel, Tzutuj 0, Quiche, and Uspantec

P-Q Rule 6 states that proto-phonemes */k/ and */k'/ become systematic phonemes /k Y/ and /k Y'/ in a specific environment in Cakchiquel, Tzutuj!l, Quiche, and Uspantec_

The fo llow­

ing set of items is representative of those forms in which /k Y/ and /k Y'/ appear in modern Quich'an languages_ SET I Quiche

Ach!

kYex

kex

kYex

kYex

kYex

HORSE,

kYaq

kaq

kYaq

kYaq

kYaq

RED

kY'aq

k'aq

kY'aq

kY'aq

kY'aq

FLEA

?ikYax

?ikax

?ikYax

?ikYax

?ikYex AX

Cakchiquel

Tzutujil

Uspantec DEER

At the same time there are other items which fit the general description of the rule, but lack palatalization in the initial segment. SET I I Cakchiquel

Tzutuj!l

Uspantec

Quiche

Achi

kax

kax

ka-x

ka-x

ka-x

SKY

kox

kox

ko-x

ko·x

ko. x

LION

29

Examination of both sets of forms makes

it clear

that no

obvious synchronic rule could be written which would palatal­ ize the initial velar stops

in Set I without acting on the

forms which in the contemporary languages do not occur with palatalized initial velars.

It has been suggested that

explanation of the above data is as exist

follows:

Proto-Quich~an

in the grammar of

velar stops before final post-velars,

that a rule did

which palatalized initial and

that during the

at which this rule was present in the grammar of the forms

in Set I were all of shapes

this rule.

The items

the

time

Proto-Quich~an

that were acted upon by

in Set II must have been of a

shape

that

e. g. ,

w.snot acted upon by that rule: /kax/ /kox/ Subsequent to developments have

the breakup of

trace.

In Ach£

lost.

In the other

Proto-Quich~an,

Firstly,

taken place.

ta1ized velar stops was left no

+­

languages,

rule had dropped out of the phonology,

several

the rule which pala­

the

loss of this rule

however,

though

the

the forms which had been

previously acted on by the rule continued to occur with pala­ That is,

talized initial velars. the lexicon.

Palatalization of

they were restructured in

the velars had become phonemic

in the sense that the underlying forms to

the breakup of

Proto-Quich~an

talized initial velars.

7

in grammars subsequent

would have to contain pala­

30

It should be clear then that there is no need to reconst~uct

a palatalized velar series for

spite of the fact

Proto-Quich6an in

that palatalized velars are phonemic

both senses of the word)

(in

in several of the contemporary

Quich6an languages.

Proto-Quich6an Rule 7

*

+ cns

+ cns -

voc + grv - dif + fIt - cnt

-

voc

+ grv

in Cakchiquel, Tzutujil, Ach{, and Uspantec

-

dif + fIt

- cnt

P-Q Rule 7 states

that proto-phonemes

systematic phonemes

Iql

and

Iq'l

*/ql

and

*/q'l

Quich6,

become

in all contemporary Quichean

languages.

In Achi

the glottalized post-velar stop is

realized at

the systematic phonetic

level as

[?1 in all

environments:

[?a?l

" fire"

[b'a?l

"stone,

At the systematic phonemic between

Iq'l

such as

the vowel

on

I?I ....

(?]

I?I

and

pit"

level it is necessary to distinguish

in the grammar of Achi.

Certain rules,

length rule discussed in this chapter,

but not on

act

Iq'/ .... Pl.

Proto-Quichean Rule 8

*

-

..

+ cns

+ cns voc + grv - dif + cnt

....

-

voc

-

dif

+ grv + cnt

in Cakchiquel, Tzutujil, Achi, and Uspantec

Quiche,

31

P-Q Rule 8 states

that proto-phoneme

Ixl

systematic phoneme In all

*/xl

becomes

the

in all contemporary Quichean

languages.

the Quichean languages this phoneme is realized pho­

netically as a voiceless vocoid in initial position.

In final

position it is realized as a voiceless velar or post-velar fricative. Proto-Quichean Rule 9

*

[+

cns] voc grv cnt

-

+

[~

-+

P-Q Rule 9 states

cns] voc grv cn t .

in Cakchiquel, Tzutuj{l, Achi, and Uspantec

that proto-phonemes

sY'stematic phonemes

lsi

and

lsI

*/sl

and

*/sl

Quiche,

become

in all contemporary languages

of the branch. Proto-Quichean Rule 10

+ [+ 10 states

P-Q Rule

cns] voc

in Cakchiquel, Tzutujll, Quiche, Achi, and Uspantec

that proto-phonemes

systematic phonemes Irl and III languages.

*/rl

the

These phonemes are both realized as phonetically

[+ -

+

in final position

languages of the branch.

Proto-Quichean Rule

*

*/11 become

in all contemporary Quichean

voiced in initial position and as voiceless in all

and

cns] voc nas

-+

11

+ [+

ens] voe nas

in Cakchiquel, Tzutuj{l, Achi, and Uspantec

Quiche,

32

P-Q Rule

11 states

that proto-phonemes

systematic phonemes

Iml

and

Inl

*/ml

*/nl

and

become

in all contemporary Quichean

languages. Proto-Quichean Rule

* [--

ens] voc

[-- voc ens] + grv + dif

~

+ grv + dif

P-Q Rule 12 states atic phoneme

Iwl

12

in Cakchiquel, Tzutuj{l, Achl, and Uspantec

that proto-phoneme

*/wl

becomes

Quiche,

the system­

in all contemporary Quichean languages.

This

phoneme is realized as phonetically voiced in initial position and as voiceless the branch.

in final position in all

In Quiche,

Achl,

high,

In Cakchiquel and Tzutujll in final

realized as a voiceless, Catarina Palop6

lab~o-dental

the final

Iwl

languages of

and Uspantec in final position

this phoneme is realized as a voiceless, vocoid.

the

close,

back

position it is

fricative

.

(in Santa

is realized phonetically as a

voiceless bi-labial stop). Proto-Quichean Rule 13

*

[= ~::] - [= ~:~] -

grv

-

P-Q Rule 13 states atic phoneme Quiche,

Achl,

Ihl

grv

in Cakchiquel, Tzutuj{l, Quiche, Ach!, and Uspantec

that proto-phoneme

*/hl

becomes

the system­

in all contemporary Quichean languages.

and Uspantec

In

this phoneme is realized phoneti­

cally as a voiceless vocoid in initial position.

In final

33

position in those realization.

languages the phoneme

Ihl

has no phonetic

In Cakchiquel and Tzutujil this phoneme is

realized phonetically as

[y]

in initial and final positions.

Quiche

Achi

[b t e)

[b t e]

[b1e.y]

[b'e.y]

[b' e.]

ROAD

[ha? ]

[ ya ?]

[ ya

[ya?]

[ha?]

WATER

Cakchiquel

Tzutujil

? ]

Uspantec

The aberrant form in Achi for "water" is thought to be a bor­ rowing from neighboring Cakchiquel. The grammars of all the Quichean languages have an additional rule which specifies the distribution of the

Ihl

phoneme in medial position. Quichean Rule

• [- ens] -

voc grv

....

+ voc ex grv

I

dif y fIt /) cmp

~

- cns

+ voc ex grv ~

y /)

By this rule

ICVhCI ....

[CV·C].

C

dif fIt cmp

The rule states

that

Ihl

ing a vowel and preceding a consonant becomes a vowel.

follow­ The

feature values of the preceding vowel are traced onto the underlying

.

Ih/ .

34

Proto-Quich~an

* [--

cns] voc grv dif

+ -

Rule

14 states

Rule 14

[: ~:~]

-

+ -

*I?I

that

Quichean languages. guages have

be~omes

I?I

in all contemporary

The grammars of all the

furthe~

this phoneme.

in Cakchiquel, Tzutujll, Quiche, Achl, and Uspantec

grv dif

The following set of rules specifies completely

regarding the proto-phoneme

the modern

*I?I.

cbronic grammars of one or more of these however,

they are

Quich~an

Some of these

rules may be identical to morpheme structure rules

context,

lan­

rules which specify the distribution of

the developments from Proto-Quichean to languages,

Quich~an

languages.

in the syn­ In this

to be interpreted only as diachronic

in nature. Proto-Quichean Rule

* [--

+ -

Rule

ens] voc grv dif

l4a states

~

l4a

[: ~:~] + -

that

I #

grv dif

*I?I

in Cakchiquel, Tzutuj{l, Achi, and Uspantec

Quich~,

is realized in all

Quichean languages as underlying

I?I

the contemporary

in initial and final

positions in the morpheme. The occurrence of

I?I

in medial position in the mor­

pheme is common to many Mayan languages. given rise

This pattern has

to what have been traditionally treated as canonical

35

forms CV'C and CVI'VIC.

Because in the case of ~VI'VIC the

quality of the second vowel is identical to

that of the first,

an alternative representation of underlying ICVI'VICI might be

Icv·?C/.

Proper placement of the vowel in languages which

have surface [CVI'VIC] structure rule.

could easily be handled by a morpheme

In languages where

the underlying tense-lax

distinction is maintained the solution involving underlying

Icv· ?cl

might be more economical than the one involving underThis is because lexical representations of

these forms would specify the quality of only one vowel rather than two. In Cakchiquel,

Tzutuj!l,

Quiche,

and Ach! it is

the case

that the most natural set of rules which predict the realiza­ tion of

*I?I

This is

true even though the lax-tense distinction is maintained

is

that set which acts on a posited ICVI?VIC/.

For Uspantec,

in Cakchiquel and Tzutuj!l. most desirable from

ICV·?C/.

however,

it seems

to derive the forms with medial glottal stop For this reason,

as well as

the above mentioned

considerations of economy,

it is suggested that Proto-Quichean

underlying forms

involving

[+ tense] vowels and glottal stop

are of

*/cv·?C/.

the shape

Secondly,

a rule is posited for

Proto-Quichean which changed

*/cv· ?CI

Tzutuj!l,

In Uspantec Proto-Quichean

Quiche,

and Ach!.

was maintained as underlying

ICV·?C/.

to ICVI?VICI in Cakchiquel,

*/cv· ?Cl

36

Proto-Quichean Rule * SD:

[:

l4b

cns] voc

[:

ens]

1

....

1

2

.....

[

3

-+

3

4

....

4

By l4b /CV·?C/

voc grv dif

2

1

SC:

ens] [+

[~

voc tns

.....

-

cns] voc

-

4

3

tns]

+ [-

2

tns]

[CVl?VlC]

in Cakchiquel,

Tzutuj;(l, Quiche,

and AchL The following sets of ordered rules ment of */7/ within each language.

the develop­

Some rules are common to

the developments in all of the languages, each set for

trac~

and are repeated in

the sake of clarity.

Cakchiquel-Tzutuj!l Rule l4c * [- cns] + voc

By Rule

.....

[+ tns]

l4c */CV7C/

.....

[CV·?C].

relationship with (provides states

[~

/

cns] voc grv d lf

C

This rule is in a feeding

the input to) rule

l4d.

Rule l4c

that any vowel occurring before a glottal stop -

sequence becomes

l+ tense]

By Rule l4c

consonant

37

eakchiquel-Tzutujil Rule l4d * [-- voc cns] + grv

- dif

91 /

~

By Ru 1 e 14 d [ev.? e ]

e

[ ev· e] .

Rule l4d states that glottal

stop is deleted when occurring immediately before any consonant. By Rule l4d

[ka. ?x]

~

[ka·x]

[ku. ?k]

~

[ku. k]

eakchiquel-Tzutuj!l Rule l4e

*

-

- cns [-- voc ens]

cns

+ voc

a grv t' dif

+ voc ~

91 /

a grv

+ grv

t' dif

-

dif

e

y fIt

0 cmp·

Y fIt 0 cmp

Rule l4e states that a vowel is deleted when it occurs following an identical vowel - glottal stop sequence and before any consonant. By Rule l4e

~

/ca?am/

[ca?m]

Quiche Rule l4f

* [-- voc cns] + grv

- dif

By Rule l4f */eV?e/

o/ ~

e

[eVe].

Rule l4f states that glottal

stop is deleted when occurring immediately before any consonant, Quiche Rule l4f is equivalent to eakchiquel-Tzutuj{l Rule l4d.

38

By Rule 14 f

Quich~

*/ka"xl

....

[ kax]

*/ku'1kl

....

[kuk]

Rule

l4g

cns

* -

-

+ voc

cns

+ voc

a:

grv f3 dif r fIt 8 cmp

....

a:

grv f3 dif r fIt 8 cmp

I

(6

[-+ ens] - voc grv - dif

C

Rule 14g states that a vowel is deleted when it occurs following an identical vowel stop sequence and before any consonant.

Quich~

equivalent to Cakchique1-Tzutuj!1 Rule l4e. Quich~

glottal

Rule 14g is

It is clear that

differs historically from Cakchiquel-Tzutuj!l in the

absence of a rule equivalent to Cakchiquel-Tzutuj!l Rule

l4c.

Either Quiche never had a rule equivalent to 14c, or did have such a rule and later lost it. By

Quich~

Rule l4g

Ipo?otl

....

[po?t]

Ica?aml

....

[ca?m]

Ach! Rule l4h

* [-+ By Rule

ens]

voc grv

dif

....

l4h */CV?CI

(6

I

....

C

[CVC].

Rule 14h states that glottal

stop is deleted when occurring immediately before any conso­ nant.

Ach! Rule l4h is equivalent to Quiche Rule

Cakchiquel-Tzutuj!l Rule

l4d.

l4f and

39

Achi Rule l4h

By

*/ka?x/

....

[kax]

*/ku?k/

....

[kuk]

Achi Rule 14 i

* [--

ens]

voc + grv - dif

....

it /

- cns + voc Q grv j3 dif r fIt 5 cmp

- cns + voc Q grv j3 dif r fIt 5 cmp

[ cv 1VIC]

equals V·.)

.

Rule 141 states that glottal stop is deleted

when occurring between two like vowels. By

Rule l4i /po?ot/

( po· t]

/ca?am/

[ca·m]

Uspantec Rule l4j [+tns]

By R u 1 e

14 j

* / cv

?

C/

....

/

-[+ -

c ns] voc grv dif

C

[CV·?C/ Rule l4j states that any vowel

occurring before a glottal stop - consonant sequence

be('~)m('s

[+ tense). By

Rule 14j */ka?x/

,>

....

[ka' ?x] [ku.?k]

Uspantec Rule 14j is equivalent to Cakchiquel-Tzutujfl Rule 14., (This rule merges reflexes of

~/CV·?C/

and */CV?C/.)

40

Uspantec Rule 14k

* [:

~:~] nas

[+ chk]

-+

- cnt

By Rule 14k */CV· ?C/

-+

ens] -- voc + grv [ - dif •

/

[ CV· ? C I] and. [ CV· ? C]

....

[ CV·

?

c· ] ,

when the final C in the series is a stop or an affricate. Because feature values for exploited,

[nasal] and [continuant] are

this rule must apply after segment structure rules

have specified the values for these features. By Rule 14k

* / po· ? t / [ku.?k]

....

[ po.

-

[ku.?k ' ]

?

t

I

]

lfspantec is the only language of the Quichean branch to have a rule like 14k which derives glottalized consonants from the underlying sequence glottal stop - consonant. Uspantec Rule 14£

* [:+

~:~ ] grv

....

0 /_ C

- dif

[ cv . C'] and l CV· ? C]

By rule 14£ [CV.?C']

[ cv . C] •

Rule 14£ states that glottal stop is deleted when occurring immediately before any consonant. By Rule 14£ -+

[po. t' J

[ku. ?k']

....

[ku.k']

[ka. ?xl

-+

[ka.x]

*/ca. ?m/

....

[ca.m]

[po·?t

l

]

41

Uspantec Ru Ie 14£ is equivalent to

Cakchiquel-T~utuj{l

Quiche Rule l4f, and Ach! Rule 14h.

Rule 14 d,

The grammar of Uspantec

differs from that of Cakchiquel-Tzutuj{l in that it either 10 s or never had a rule equivalent to 14e, and tha

t

it added Rule 14£.

CHART 6

SUMMARY OF RULES INVOLVING GLOTTAL STOP

Cakchiguel-TzutuJll

*CV.~C

14b

CV?VC

?

... ...

£I I

VI

...

£I I VI

l4c

V

14d 14e

? C

[+ tns] I

- C?

*CV'C

CV·?C CV·C

C

CV?C

•

Quiche CV?VC

14b 14f

?

14 8

VI

... ...

-

£I I

cvc

C

£I IV I ?

C

CV?C

AchI CV?VC

14b l4h

?

-+

£I I

l4i

?

-+

£I IV I _

CVC

C VI

CV·C

Us(!antec 14j

V

-+

[+ tns]/

14k

C

-+

[+ chk]/?

14£

?

-+

£I I

c

-

? C

t

CV· ?C

CV, ?C

CV· ? C!

CV· ? C'

CV.C

CV·C

42

Proto-guichean Vowels

"

CHART 7

PROTO-QUICHEAN VOWEL PHONEMES

i

i·

e

e· a

+

+

+

+

+ .+ + +

+

+ +

+

+

a·

a

0

o· u

u·

+ +

+ +

+ +

+

+ +

+ + + +

CNS VOC GRV DIF TNS FLT

+ + +

+

CMP

The Proto-Quichean phoneme system has five tense and six lax vowels at the systematic phonemic level.

The fo llowi ng

rules trace the series of developments from the Proto-Quichean phonological system to the sound systems of contemporary Quichean languages.

These rules are critically ordered with

respect to one another, and may be thought of as reflecting stages of development through which the languages have passed. Three of the Quichean languages,

Cakchiquel, Tzutujil,

and Uspantec, have entered stage one and have undergone no further development. Proto-Quichean Rule 15 (Stage 1)

*

[~~:~J

-

[~~:~J

Rule 15 states that the vowel system of Proto-Quichean is maintained intact.

For Cakchiquel, Tzutuj{l, and Uspantec

43

Rule 15 provides

the complete history of development from Proto-,

Quichean.

CHART 8

UNDERLYING VOWEL SYSTEM OF CONTEMPORARY

CAKCHIQUEL, TZUTUJIL, AND USPANTEC

i

e

e·

a

u

u·

o

o•

a·

Quiche and Ach! vowel systems passed through stage one into stage two of the development from Proto-Quichean. Proto-Quichean Rule 16 (Stage 2)

* [: ~:~J This rule states

- [that

tense vowels is lost.

tns]

the distinction between tense and nonFor the Quiche vowel system Rules 15 and

16 provide the complete history of development.

CHART 9

UNDERLYING VOWEL SYSTEM OF

CONTEMPORARY QUICHE

i

u

e

o

a

44

Rule 17 is unique

to the history of Ach! and indicates

the development by which the Achi vowel system passed from historical stage two

to stage three.

of application of Rules ter IV,

16 and 17 will be discussed in Chap­

the chapter on markedness.)

Proto-Quichean Rule 17

* [+

cns] voc

(Stage 3)

[+ cmp]

By Rule 17 the [- cmp] vowel vowel

(An alternative order

lal

in Achi.

lal

is merged with the

The sequence of Rules

IS,

[+ cmp]

16, and 17 pro­

vides the history of the development of Ach! vowels.

CHART 10 UNDERL~ING

VOWEL SYSTEM OF CONTEMPORARY ACHI

i

u

e

o

a

The history of developments in the Quichean vowel sys­ terns is presented as a series of rules.

These rules represent

the languages at various stages of development.

Rules

16 and

17 have had the effect of simplifying the underlying systems of Quiche and Ach!.

Rule

IS indicates

that

vowel system is maintained in Cakchiquel,

the Proto-Quichean

Tzutujil,

and Uspantec.

45

Associated with the long vowel series of Uspantec is a system of tones.

All Uspantec long vowels are produced with

either a rising or a falling tone.

It appears that these

tones are not predictable by any obvious rule,

and will there­

fore have to be specified in the underlying forms of Uspantec lexical entries. tinctive feature

This will probably involve use of the dis­

[!

high] on all [+ tense] vowels.

McQuown posits tones in his 1964 reconstruction of Proto-Mayan phonology.

8

This was done primarily on the basis

of the Yucatec vowel system.

Vowel systems with tones have

been reported for some dialects of Tzeltal, Tzotzil,

and Mocho

9 10 11 (Motocintleco).' ,

synchronic

In all three of these cases,

tones can be predicted historically on the basis of rules acting on Proto-Mayan canonical forms.

12

Though rules for predicting

tone5 in Yucatec have not been specified,

it is likely that

those tones may also be reflexes of Proto-Mayan */CVhC/, *?CV?C/,

etc.

13

At this time rules that historically predict Uspantec tones can not be fully specified.

Tones do seem to be fully

phonemic in Uspantec (in both senses of the word).

The follow­

ing set of Uspantec forms specifies the system of tones at the level of systematic phonetics.

(Forms are listed according to

the quality and length of the vowels and the proto-canonical forms. )

14

46

Gloss

Pro to

BONE

b'a.q

b'a.q

falling

PANELA

ka·b'

ka·b

falling

DEBT

k'a·s

k'a·s

rising

GOPHER

b'a·h

b'a.h

rising

CIGARETTE

si·k '

si.k '

rising

TIC

si.p

si·p

falling

MASK

k'o·x

k'o·x

rising

GRANDCHILD

mOl'm

ma.m

rising

SWEAT HOUSE tU'IJ

tu·x

rising

LIME

cu.n

cu·n

rising

SKY

ka'IJ

ka·x

falling

SQUIRREL

ku'k

ku·k '

falling

WHETSTONE

nu's

wu·s

rising

PETATE

pohp

po·p

rising

SKIN

c'uhum

clu·m

falling

NOSE

ca'am

ca.m

rising

BLOUSE

po'ot

po' t

TOOTH

'e·h

'e·h

rising

TONGUE

'Ol.q

'a.ql

rising

AVOCADO

'o'IJ

'o·x

falling

NECKLACE

'u·h

'u·h

rising

STONE

'a·b'ax

'a·b'ax

falling

ti. ,

ci. ,

rising

s i· ,

rising

MOUTH

.

FIREWOOD

Uspantec

I

~

si . ,

Tone

falling

47

The

Gloss

Proto

TREE

,..te·"

ceo "

rising

GRINDSTONE

ka·"

ka. "

rising

tones in all

Uspantec

the above items are

possessed and unpossessed forms. which

the

tone changes

Tone

the same in

There are a

few items in

in the possessed form.

Gloss

Unpossessed

Tone

ROAD

b'e·h

falling

"inb'e·h

rising

INCENSE

po·m

rising

"inpo.m

falling

PAPER

wu·x

falling

"inwu.x

rising

CHILI

"1. k

rising

wi.k

falling

VINE

k'a·m

rising

"ink'a·m

falling

Possessed

Tone

Summary Examination of the rules */"/,

involving Proto-Quichean */h/,

and Proto-Quichean vowels makes

it clear

vowels in modern Quichean languages come Cakchiquel,

sources. Quichean surface */CV"C/,

[+ [+

tense] tense]

*/CV· C/,

Tzutuj:U,

vowels. vowels

[+

[+

tense]

from several historical

and Uspantec maintain Proto-

These

three

languages also have

from rules acting on Proto-Quichean

*/CVhC/,

Ach! also have surface

that

and */CV· hC/ tense]

forms.

Quiche and

vowels from rules acting on

48

Proto-Quichean */CV·?C/ and */CV·hC/ forms, the underlying tense-lax distinction.

but do not maintain

49

References Cited

1. Septimo Censo de Poblaci6n, Republica de Guatemala. Direcci6n General de Estadisticas, Guatemala, Guatemala. 2. Most of the phonetic and phonemic symbols used in this work are standard to American Indian linguistics (see International Journal of American Linguistics). 3. A case might be made for the underlying glottalized bilabial stop being distinctively voiced. The solution pre­ sented in this work is, however, the most economical. 4. Charles Hockett, 185-205 (1965).

'Sound Change,

I

Language vol.

41,

5. For the sake of this presentation, the concept of a 'rule' has been violated in some cases. Firstly, some of the 'rules' do not indicate any historical change. These can not legitimately be called historical rules. Secondly, most of the rules presented indicate historical developments in more than one phoneme. That is, the rules indicate change or lack of change in an archiphoneme rather than in a phoneme. This is done to eliminate redundant and uninteresting rules. 6. James L. Grimes, 'The Palatalized Velar Stop in Proto-Quichean,' IJAL vol. 35, 20-24 (1969). 7.

Ibid.,

p.

24.

8. Normal McQuown, 'Los origenes y la diferenciacion de los mayas segun se infiere del estudio comparativo de las lenguas mayanas, I in Desarrollo Cultural de Los Mayas, Evon Z. Vogt and Albert Ruz L., editors, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, pp. 49-80 (1964). 9. Nicholas A. Terrence S. Kaufman.

Hopkins, personal communication to

10. Harvey Sarles, 'A Descriptive Grammar of the Tzotzil Language as Spoken in San Bartolome de los Llanos, Chiapas, Mexico, I unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago, Department of Anthropology. 11. Terrence S. Kaufman, Moch6 Dictionary, manuscript, Berkeley, California (1968).

unpublished

50

12. The best example of such a set of rules in the Moch6 Dictionary by Kaufman.

is found

13. Though the Yucatec tone system is rather complex, and dialect variations do exist, Kaufman feels that they will be predictable on historical grounds and therefore does not reconstruct tones for Proto-Mayan. 14. The proto-forms that appear in this work are taken from the work by Kaufman, 'Teco: A New Mayan Language,' IJAL vol. 35, 154-174 (1969).

111.

PROTO-MAYAN TO PROTO-QUICHEAN

The most recent presentation of the Proto-Mayan phonological system is

that of Kaufman.

1

This work is based

on extensive amounts of data from all branches of the family. In his presentation,

Kaufman posits

the following phonological

elements for Proto-Mayan:

CHART 11

PROTO-MAYAN PHONOLOGICAL ELEMENTS

P

t

b'

t

,..t I

t

I

c

~

k

q

C I

~I

k'

q

s

~

"

m

n

w

1

x

IJ

i f

?

h

i·

u u·

e e'

0

o·

a 9'

a a·

y

A comparison of the Proto-Mayan phonological system with the system presented for Proto-Quichean in Chapter II of this work seems to indicate two major points of interest. Firstly,

there is a high degree of overall similarity

between the two systems.

Between the periods of development

represented by Proto-Mayan and Proto-Quichean only a small amount of systematic phonological change took place. significant that Quichean is

It seems

the only branch in the family

51

52

which is reported in the

literature to maintain both the Proto-

Mayan tense-lax distinction and the six vowel system.

It may

be the case that Quichean is,

the most

phonologically speaking,

conservative branch of the Mayan family.

Final judgment on

this point awaits further comparative work within the remaining branches of the family. A second point of interest is

that most of the changes

which took place between Proto-Mayan and Proto-Quichean were the results of a process of simplification.

This is probably

not the case in the proto-sound systems of other branches of the family.

It is certainly not the case with respect

Mamean branch,

a group of languages closely related to

to

the

the

Quichean languages. Because the Proto-Mayan and Proto-Quichean sound sys­ tems are very similar, only those areas of the phonologies in which significant change has in detail. units at the

taken place will be discussed here

Where change has not taken place between cognate two historical

levels of development,

this conti­

nuity will be indicated by a schematic presentation of the following type: /PM /ql/ This notation is

PQ /q'/

to be interpreted as stating that the Proto­

Mayan unit which is represented as

the glottalized,

post-velar

stop is maintained in all environments in Proto-Quichean.

.

53

The following set of rules and notations indicates

the

series of developments by which the phonemes of the ProtoQuichean sound system were derived from Proto-Mayan. Pre-Proto-Quichean Rule 1 PM

Ipl

~

PQ

Ipl

Proto-Mayan

*/pi.ml */si·pl

Proto-Quichean

... ...

*/pi.ml */si.pl

Pre-Proto-Quichean Rule 2 PM

Ib'l

~

PQ

Ip'l

*/b'e.hl */ka.btl

*/p'e.hl

...

*/ka.p'l

Pre-Proto-Quichean Rule 3 PM

It I

PQ

~

It I

*/ti?1

~

*/ti?1

*/setl

~

*/setl

*/t'otl

~

*/t'otl

Pre-Proto-Quichean Rule 4 PM

It'l

~

PQ

It' I

Pre-Proto-Quichean Rule 5

PM

~

It I

The unit

'"

PQ

I cI

It I posited for Proto-Mayan by Kaufman probably was a

voiceless,

1"\

palatalized, alveolar stop.

If this were the case,

the rule which would derive the Proto-Quichean phoneme

*/cl

would probably involve a second degree of the feature [+ sharp].

*lci·'1

... One form which is reconstructed by Kaufman as

*/ce·?1

*/tetl "thick "

1"\

liquid" appears in all the modern Quichean languages as

Icecl

2

54

rather than

*/~e~/.

It is not clear at this time whether there

are restrictions which preclude this series, or possibly the reconstruction is incorrect. form

la~o~1

The Quichean languages do have a

"house" coming from Proto ... Mayan lotot/.

'" '"

This might

lead one to suspect the reconstruction. Pre-Proto-Quichean Rule 6 ~

PM Icl

PQ lei

Proto-Mayan

Proto-Quichean

*/cu.nu?nl

*/cu·nu?nl

*/ca?aml

*/ca?aml

Pre-Proto-Quichean Rule 7 PM I c ' I

~

PQ I c ' I

*/c'i·ll

~

*/c'i·l/

*/so.c'l

~

*/so.c'l

·Pre-Proto-Quichean Rule 8 PM

I~I

PQ

~

I~I

*/~u'nl

~

*/~u.nl

*/~u·l/

~

*/~u·l/

*/~'ohl

~

*/~'ohl

*/~'umil/

~

*/~'umil/

*/keql

~

*/keql

*/ki.sl

~

*/ki·sl

*k'a·sl

~

*/k'a'sl

*/k'eql

~

*/k'aql

*/~a.ql

~

l'Sa.ql

*/muql

~

Imuq I

Pre-Proto-Quichean Rule 9 PM

I~'

I

~

PQ

I~'I

Pre-Proto-Quichean Rule 10 PM Ikl

PQ Ikl

~

Pre-Proto-Quichean Rule 11 PM I k' I

~

PQ I k' I

Pre-Proto-Quichean Rule 12 PM I q I

~

PQ I q I

55

Pre-Proto-Quichean Rule 13

...

PM Iq'l

PQ Iq

I

Proto-Mayan

I

*/q'a·q'l */q'o'q'l

Proto-Quichean

... ...

*/q'a'q' I

*/q1o.qll

Pre-Proto-Quichean Rule 14 PM 1"11

...

PQ 1"11

*/si·?1

*/ka"lxl

... ... ...

*/siopl

...

*/si·pl

*/ki·sl

...

*/ki·sl

*1"Ii.kl */s1·"11

*1"Ii·kl

*/ka"lxl

Pre-Proto-Quichean Rule 15 PM lsi

...

PQ lsi

Pre-Proto-Quichean Rule 16 PM I'SI

-+

*/k'i'Sl

... ...

*/xull

...

*/xul/

*/xo·xl

...

*/xo.xl

*/'Si·kl

PQ lsi

*/s1.kl */k'isl

Pre-Proto-Quichean Rule 17 PM Ixl

...

PQ Ixl

Pre-Proto-Quichean Rule 18

* [--

cns]

voc - grv

...

[++

grv] dif

I

[-++ cns] +

voc grv dif

By Pre-Proto-Quichean Rule 18 PM */hl ment preceding a vowel

that is

-+

PQ */wl in the environ­

[+ grv] and [+ difl.

Pre-Pro to­

Qu1chean Rule 18 is an assimilation rule in which the features [grave]

and [diffuse] of PM */hl are given the values of the

following [+ grave],

[+ diffuse] vowel.

56

Proto-Mayan

Proto-Quichean

*/wu'sl .....

*/wu'xl

In all other environments Proto-Mayan */h/ becomes Proto­ Quichean*/h/.

*/ha?1

.....

*/ha'i

... Pre-Proto-Quichean Rule 19 PM Im/

-+

PQ Iml

-+

*/ma·m/

*/pi.ml

...

*/pi.ml

*/niml

-+

*/niml

*/pi.m/

...

*/pi.ml

Pre-Proto-Quichean Rule 20 PM /n/

-+

PQ In/

Pre-Proto-Quichean Rule 21 * + cns

- voc

+ grv

- dif

+ nas By Pre-Proto-Quichean Rule 21 PM */~/ becomes PQ */xl in all environments. nasal becomes

Rule 21 states [- nasal]

that

the Proto-Mayan velar

in Proto-Quichean.

By this rule

the

Proto-Quichean reflex of Proto-Mayan */~I is merged in all positions with Proto-Quichean */xl coming from Proto-Mayan

* / x/ .

57 Proto-Mayan

Proto-Quichean

*/fJa.hl

-+

*/xa·hl

*/q I i'fJl

-+

*/qli'xl

*/wi?1

....

*/wi?1

*/kawl

....

*/kowl

Pre-Proto-Quichean Rule 22 PM Iw I

.....

PQ Iwl

Pre-Proto-Quichean Rule 23 PM 111

~

PQ 111

*/1oq'l

*/1oq'l

*/q ' 0 .11

*/q '0.11

Pre-Proto-Quichean Rule 24

*[: ~:~] - grv

B~

~ [!+ ~:~] cnt

fre-Proto-Quichean Rule 24 Proto-Mayan */yl becomes Proto-

Quichean */rl in all environments.

A case might be presented

for positing the Proto-Quichean reflex of PM */yl as underlying PQ */yl (or at the level of Proto-Mayan as */r/).

If this

phoneme were to be limited in its distribution in the contem­ porary Quichean languages in a way similar to not to the liquids,

the glides but

this would be evidence in favor of the

alternative solution.

At this time no constraints are known to

apply either to the glides or to the liquids but not to both.

*/keyl */ya?"tl Pre-Proto-Quichean Rule 25

*

[~~:~] - tns

-+

[~~:~] - tns

-+

*/kerl

58

Rule 25 indicates that all non-tense vowels in Pro to-Mayan become non-tense vowels in

Proto-Quich~an.

The following se t

of schema indicate the developments within that set of nontense vowels: Proto-Mayan PM

PM

PM

PM

IiI

-+

leI ....

lal

191

-+

-+

PQ

PQ

PQ

PQ

IiI

leI

lal

lOll

Proto-Quichean

*/ti?1

-+

*/ti?1

*/kik'l

-+

*/kik'l

*/setl

-+

*/setl

*/k'el/

-+

*I?ak'l

-+

*/k'ak'l

*I?axl

-+

*I?axl

*/w9tl

-+

*/wecl

*/fJ91/

-+

*/xall

*/k'ell

•

A number of forms which are reconstructed for Proto-Mayan with

*/al must be reconstructed for Proto-Quichean with */a/.

Like­

wise, a few forms which are reconstructed for Proto-Mayan with

*/91 must be reconstructed for In reconstructing Proto-Mayan given to the Tzeltal

Proto-Quich~an

with

*/al or */0/.

*/91 a good deal of weight was

lal - Tzotzil 101 correspondences.

Though

most often these do correspond to

lOll in the

in those cases where they do not,

the Proto-Mayan reconstruc­

Quich~an

tions might well be reexamined in light of the

languages,

Quich~an

materials.

The following is a list of those forms where the reconstructed non-tense mid-vowel does not correspond between Proto-Quichean and Proto-Mayan:

59

PM 101

PM luI

-+

Proto-Mayan

Proto"'Quich~an

*I?a·b'axl

*I?a'p'axl

STONE

*/b'anl

*/p'enl

TO DO

*/tapl

*/tapl

CRAB

*/kaq'l

*/kaq'l

GUAVA

*/saql

*/s9ql

WHITE

*I?isk'aql

*1?iS'k'aql

FINGER NAIL

*/IJab ' I

*/xep'l

RAIN

PQ 101

Proto-Mayan

PQ luI

-+

Proto-Quichean

*/noxl

-+

*/noxl

*/tosl

-+

*/toxl

* I xu 1/

-+

* Ixu 1/

*/muql

-+

*/muql

Pre-Proto-Quichean Rule 26

* [-+

cns] voc + tns

-+

[;

~:~J

+ tns

Rule 26 indicates that all tense vowels in Proto-Mayan become tense vowels in Proto-Quichean.

The following set of schema

indicate the developments within the tense vowels: PM li.1

PM le·1

PM la·1

-+

-+

-+

PQ li·1

PQ le·1

PQ la·1

*/si·pl

-+

*/si'pl

*/S'i·k'l

-+

*/S'i.k'l

*/me'nl

-+

*/me·ml

*I?e·hl

-+

*I"e.hl

*/q1a'q'l

-+

*/q'a'q'l

*/kla.sl

-+

*kla·sl

60

Proto"Quich~an

Pro to-Mayan

PM 1&· I

PM 10' I

PM I u' I

-+

... -+

PQ

PQ

PQ

la·1

10' I

I u· I

*/ke.?1

...

*/ka·?1

*1?Q'q'l

....

*1?a'q'l

*1?o·fJI

...

*1?IO·xl

*/q'o'yl

... ... ...

*/q'o.rl

*/xu.n/ */cu·n/

*/xu·nl */cu·nl

61

References Cited

1.

Kaufman

p.

158 (1969).

2. It is a weakness of the earlier system of distinc­ tive features that forces a solution involving two degrees of the feature sharp. This rather ad hoc solution might be obviated by use of the Chomsky-Halle-iystem of distinctive features, in particular the feature [+ distributive]. In the example of PM */t/ ~ PQ */~/ the difference between the two ". units can be expressed in terms of one feature, [- dis] ~ [+ dis]. This is a more general and therefore a more highly valued solution.

IV.

MARKEDNESS THEORY AND PROTO-QUICHEAN

The theory of markedness proposed by Chomsky and Halle not only provides a framework for describing sound change, also attempts changes. edness

to

~resent

an explanation for certain sound

Given a phoneme X which merges with phoneme Y, mark­

theory should indicate whether

that merger was more or

less natural than a merger of Y with X.

If a glottalized stop

and its homorganic non-glottalized stop merge, ral kind of merger is for the glottalized stop, marked member of the pair, stop.

but

Markedness

the most natu­ the more highly

to merge with the non-glottalized

theory does not rule out the possibility of

the opposite merger occurring,

that is,

the non-glottalized

stop merging with the glottalized.

What is indicated is that

this second merger is less natural,

less highly favored than

the first.

The theory further states that in all languages,

the more natural, more highly favored kinds of sound changes will be more plentiful than the unnatural ones. cally,

the theory makes claims

lik~

More specifi­

the following.

If a

language has two high vowels, one will be front unrounded, the other back and rounded.

and

Languages with two high vowels

where this is not the case should be very rare. In most areas of phonology markedness theory, current form,

makes only very general claims.

62

in its

For example,

63

the only claim made about nasal segments is that if a has only one nasal phoneme, alveolar) nasal.

Hopefully,

language

that phoneme will be a dental (or further refinements will allow

the theory to make many more substantive claims. A few significant phonological changes occurred between Proto-Mayan and Proto-Quichean.

Proto-Mayan */~/,

nasal, merged in all environments with */x/,

a velar

a velar or post-

velar fricative in Proto-Quichean.

*

+ cns - vO'c + grv dif + nas

cnt

-

-+

[- nas] + cnt

-

Markedness

theory says nothing about this merger.

However,

this change is more complex in terms of the metric associated with the older version of the theory than a merger of */~I with */n/,

*

i.e.,

+ cns

-

voc

-

dif nas

cnt

+ grv + -

-+

[+ difl

Though markedness makes no claims regarding the naturalness of this change,

it seems

likely that the

theory,

assess a judgment, would indicate that the I~I more natural than I~I ~

if it were to -+

Inl

merger is

Ix/.

Utilizing the distinctive features and conventions proposed by Chomsky and Halle,

1

the following

table presents

64

the markedness values for Proto-Mayan vowels:

CHART 12 MARKEDNESS VALUES OF PROTO-MAYAN VOWELS

i

i-

e

e-

a

a·

a

a·

0

o'

u

u·

LOW

U

U

U

U

U

U

M

M

U

U

U

U

HIGH

U

U

M

M

U

U

M

M

M

M

U

U

U

U

+

+

+

+

+

+

BACK ROUND

U

U

U

U

U

U

M

M

U

U

U

U

LONG

U

M

U

M

U

M

U

M

U

M

U

M

complexity

1

2

2

3

0

1

4

5

2

3

1

2

The most highly marked vowel in the system is */9- /, mid,

central vowel.

ness theory,

It is this vowel that,

is most susceptible to change.

that the merger of this vowel with */a./, central vowel,

according to marked· It is the case

the tense,

low,

is the only change in the vowel system between Proto-Quich~an

Proto-Mayan and

(Pre-Proto-Quich~an

The vowel systems of three of the modern guages,

the tense,

Cakchique1,

Tzutuj!l,

changes since the stage of

and Uspantec,

Proto-Quich~an.

Rule 26),

Quich~an

lan­

have undergone no The changes

that

have taken place in Quich~-Ach! are discussed in Chapter II and can be summarized in the following manner: Quich~

V·

-+

V

(Pre-Proto-Quich~an

Rule 16)

65

Ach! V·

-+

V

(Pre-Proto-Quichean Rule 16)

e

-+

a

(Pre-Proto-Quichean Rule 17)

Markedness values for

these vowels suggest that a more natural

ordering of the rules for Ach! might be Rule 17 followed by Rule 16.

This is because Proto-Quichean */a/ with a markedness

value of 4 is

the most highly marked vowel and should merge

with */a/ before the tense vowels with values of 2 and 3 merged with the non-tense vowels which have values of 1 and 2. Likewise,

according to markedness it is unnatural that

Quiche should maintain */a/ while losing the

tense-lax

distinction. In Cakchiquel, one of the languages which maintains Proto-Quichean */9/,

that is most subject to

These variations will be discussed in

dialect variation. detail in Chapter V, is precisely this

it is this vowel

and are mentioned here only because it

type of variation (involving the most heavily

marked vowel) that markedness theory predicts.

66

References Cited

1.

435.

Noam Chomsky and Morris Halle,

~.

.=.!.!.,

pp.

400­

V.

QUICHEAN DIALECTS

The discussion of modern Quichean dialects in this chapter is not an exhaustive study of the topic.

Phonological

and lexical materials from all parts of the Quichean area will be discussed, presented.

and certain grammatical considerations will be

A definitive statement on modern dialects may

require a more complete examination of grammar and syntax than can be attempted here. It was shown in the preceding chapters that most of tbe" variations in the phonologies of modern Quichean languages are limited to the vowels and certain of the glides.

It

appears that most of the variations in the consonant systems histori~ally

of these languages are surface level phenomena and speaking are probably very recent developments.

Most of the significant dialect variations also involve the glides and vowel systems of these languages.

Because of

this fact the following discussion of dialect variations will consider these areas of phonology in some detail. Quiche The

~uiche

language, with approximately 500,000 speak­

ers, has one of the widest geographic dispersals and more speakers than any other Guatemalan Mayan language.

67

1

Chart 13

68

presents the percentages of shared lexical retentions between dialects spoken in several Quiche towns.

2

CHART 13 PERCENTAGES OF SHARED RETENTIONS FOR QUICHE

Tot Totonicapan

...

Ixt

Nah

C1a

Cnt

Pal

Chi

Chn

Joy

89

91

87

89

93

89

89

82

91

88

87

92

86

88

83

94

89

95

87

89

83

84

91

85

87

87

90

84

88

81

89

95

84

91

84

Ixtahuacan

89

Nahua1a

91

91

Santa Clara

87

88

94

Cantel

89

87

89

84

E1 ·Pa1mar

93

92

95

91

90

Chiquimu1a

89

86

87

85

84

89

Chinique

89

88

89

87

88

95

91

Joyabaj

82

83

83

87

81

84

84

88 88

These towns represent the geographic extremities of the Quiche area.

It is possible that some linguistic isolate is not

represented in this group.

3

Examination of the figures the Quiche area is

in Chart 13 indicates that

lexically very homogeneous.

appears to be the most conservative dialect, retention rate of 91 per cent.

Joyabaj

is,

the least conservative dialect represented, retention rate of 84 per cent.

E1 Palmar

with an average lexically speaking, and has an average

(It is possible that Joyabaj

69

should be classified with Achi. more completely below.)

This question will be examined

The average retention rate between

all the pairs in Chart 13 is 87 per cent. Chart 14 displays the retention rates between three Quiche dialects and several dialects of the other Quichean languages.

4

CHART 14 E.Cak

C.Cak

W.Cak

Tzu

Achi

.!!.!..e.

Nahual.d.

74-78

80-81

80-82

81-83

83-84

70

El Palmar

76-79

81-83

80-83

80-83

86-89

72

Jayabaj

72-76

78-80

78-79

76-77

80 .. 81

70

These retention rates seem in general to reflect geographic relationships

be~ween

dialects.

Nahuala and El Palmar have

highest retention rates with Achi. with Quiche.

Ach! has a common border

Tzutujil and Western Cakchiquel are the next

most closely related dialects.

These dialects also have com­

mon borders with the Nahuala dialect of Quiche. Cakchiquel borders Joyabaj.

Central

This is reflected by the higher

retention rate between Joyabaj .nd Central Cakchiquel than between Joyabaj and Western or Eastern Cakchiquel dialects. The low retention rates for Uspantec are not indica­ tive of geographic position, since the town of Uspant.d.n is surrounded by Quiche speakers.

This retention rate is thought

70

to reflect the more distant genetic relationship·of Uspantec to Quiche.

Of the five Quichean languages under consideration,

Uspantec probably split off from Proto-Quichean first, with Cakchiquel-Tzutujll and Quiche-Achl splitting somewhat later. The lexical homogeneity of the Quiche area is paral­ leled by a high degree of phonological similarity in all the towns investigated.

There appear to be no variations on the

underlying six vowel system presented for Quiche in Chapter III of this work.

The surface tense vowels come from the applica­

tion of rules which operate on underlying /CVlhVlC/ in all the towns investigated. Apparent exceptions to this statement are found in the sound system of the language spoken in Joyabaj.

The classifi­

cation of the language spoken in this town has been rather uncertain. 5

This language has common borders with Central

Cakchiquel, Cubulco Achl,

and Northeastern Quiche.

Joyabaj

dialect has surface tense vowels coming from rules which oper­ ate on underlying /CVlhVlC/. /CV·C/.

Also, underlying /CVl'VlC/ ­

This second development is not common to Quiche, but

is found in the Cubulco dialect of Ach!. A development Joyabaj shares uniquely with dialects of Achl is the rule by which all underlying glottalized postvelar stops are realized at the systematic phonetic level as glottal stop.

71.

There are a few grammatical considerations which suggest a close relationship between the language spoken in Joyabaj the dialects of Achi.

The first person singular nominal

possessive prefix in Joyabaj and Cubulco Ach{ is l'in/-. all dialects of Quiche investigated this form is Secondly,

and

the independent pronouns in Joyabaj

In

Inu/-.

are identical to

those items in Rabinal Ach{:

Singular Is t

?in

2nd

'a t

Plural ?ox

Though some variations do exist, most of the Quiche towns investigated have the following set of independent pronouns: Singular Is t

1in

2nd

?at

Plural

3rd A third grammatical factor which may indicate a close relationship between Joyabaj word meaning "what." Ach{ the form is

and Ach! is

the question markerl

This word in Joyabaj

Isa/.

is

Isu· I.

In most Quiche dialects

In Rabinal

this form is

Ihas/. Though the above factors are certainly not major grammatical variations, dependent pronouns,

those areas mentioned (independent and

question markers along with verb aspect

72

markers) appear to be the most important grammatical factors by which dialect and language variations are indicated in Quich~an.

It is extremely unlikely that any deep syntactic

differences exist between Cakchiquel, Tzutujil, Achi.

Quich~,

and

These languages are very closely related, and simply

do not exhibit the time depth generally necessary to allow the development of more than surface variations.

Factors

Achi and no t to

c

...

[CV.C]

l.

/CV1?V1C/

2•

/q 1/

3.

dependent pronouns

4.

independent pronouns

5.

question marker/word

...

[ ? ]

No case can be made on the basis of lexicon for a closer relationship between Joyabaj and and Ach! (see Charts 13 and 14).

Quich~

than between Joyabaj

On the basis of all the above

mentioned factors it is suggested that the language spoken in Joyabaj is more correctly classified as a dialect of Achi than as a dialect of

Quich~.

Ach! The Achi language is spoken by approximately 35,000 people in the departments of Baja Verapaz and El

Quich~.

dialects of Achi are Cubulco, Rabinal, and Joyabaj.

These

The

73

dialects are distinguished from one another by the following factors: Phonological Factors Cubulco

Rabinal

Joyabaj

1.

*/CV ?V C/

[ CV· C1

[CV·Cl

2.

*/CVlhV1C/

[Cv.c]

[ CV. C]

1

1

Grammatical Factors 3.

Question word

[wa~]

[ sa]

[ su • ]

4. Independent Pronouns Cubulco

Joyabaj

Rabinal

sing.

plu.

sing.

p 1 u.

sing.

ls t

yin

yox

?in

'lox

'1in

2nd

yet

yis

?at

'1is

?at

3rd

re'1

ke?

re'1

ke?

re?

...

p 1 u.

5. Nominal possessive prefix

Cubulco

Rabinal

Joyaba,j

/?in/-

/nu/-

/?in/­

Lexical Relationships Cub Cubulco Rabinal

90

Joyabaj

81

Rab

Joy

90

81

80

80

74

Cakchiquel Cakchiquel is spoken by approximately 300,000 people, primarily in the departments of Guatemala, Chimaltenanco, and Solola.

Sacatepequez,

This area is divided into at

least three major dialects with sub-divisions in each of these three major areas.

The dialects are distinguished mainly on

phonological grounds. Western Cakchiquel

Central Cakchiquel

San Antonio Palop6

San Martin Jil.

Cuarrancho

Snta.

Santiago Sac.

San Juan Sac.

Panajachel

Sumpango

San Pedro Sac.

San Jorge

Chimaltenango

San Raimundo

and others

Acatenanco

Snta.

Patzun

and others

Catarina Palop6

Eastern Cakchisuel

Maria de Jesus

Patzicia Tecpan Snta.

Apo10nia

Coma1apa and others The Proto-Quichean lax-tense distinction on maintained in Eastern and Western Cakchiquel. CHART 15 EASTERN AND WESTERN CAKCHIQUEL VOWELS i

L

u

u'

e

e·

o

o·

a a

a·

v~wels

is

75

Eastern Cakchiquel is further distinguished from the other dialects by the following combination of factors: l.

minus Proto-Quichean Rule 6. x */kl .... IkYI I V q ) q'

(By this rule

.

2.

.... [ i]

lsi

This late p ho no log i cal rule is common

to Eastern Cakchiquel and part of Central Cakchiquel. 3.

long central vowels become glides in all environments:

Ime·ml

[mj,.em]

MUTE

lee.?1

[eie?] ....

TREE

I?o.xl

[?09X] ....

AVOCADO

Ik'o.xl

[k ' 09X]

MASK

'"

This late phonological rule seems to be present only in the grammar of the dialect spoken in Santa Maria de Jesus.

These central vowels are the most highly marked

tense vowels in the system.

Markedness theory predicts

that these vowels are more likely to undergo altera­ tions such as gliding, merger, highly marked

Iii, lui,

and

etc.,

la/.

than the less

The change here from

long vowel to vowel plus glide is,

in terms of marked­

ness theory, a very natural change. Central Cakchiquel is geographically the largest dia­ lect, and has more speakers than either Eastern or Western Cakchiquel.

This dialect is distinguished by the following

combination of factors:

76

1. The Proto-Quichean lax-tense distinction is not regularly maintained.

Townsend, writing in 1926,

described the Cakchiquel from Comalapa as having the lax-tense distinction for IiI,

/a/, and leI.

6

It

appears that this distinction is maintained in con­ temporary Comalapa Cakchiquel only for

/i/ and /a/.

Evidence further suggests that the lax-tense dis tinc­ tion is maintained for /i/ and optionally for /a/ in most of Central Cakchiquel.

The only exception to

this encountered is the Cakchiquel of San Jose Poaquil, an extremely isolated area, where the lax-tense dis­ tinction is maintained for IiI,

leI,

/a/,

/0/, and

/u/ •

2. plus Proto-Quichean Rule 6

/9/

-.

['] in San Martin Jilotepeque and Sumpango

4. /e/

....

[e] in Patzun, Patzicia, Comalapa, Poaqu!l,

3.

and others. Western Cakchiquel is spoken in several of the towns located on the shore of Lake Atit14n.

Evidence seems to indi­

cate that several of the lakeside towns do not share the fea­ tures which are characteristic of Western Cakchiquel, and may have migrated to their present locations from the Central Cakchiquel area.

In the Annals of the Cakchiquels only seven

lakeside towns are mentioned.

7

Today there are 15 lakeside

'\.

towns.

Some of the lake towns,

such as Santiago Atit14n, were

77

the results of population resettlement by the Spanish.

8

Others

may have migrated to the lake area since the colonial period. Several of the older residents of San Marcos la Laguna relate having moved from near Patu16l, a town south of the lake,

to

Cerro de Oro, and later to a site near the present location of San Marcos.

9

Many of the older residents of Cerro de Oro speak

Central Cakchiquel and wear the costume typical of Patzicia, a Central Cakchiquel town in Chimaltenango.

10

San Lucas Toli­

man also appears to be an area of heavy in-migration.

Santa

Cruz la Laguna appears to be a migrant town from the Central Cakchiquel area.

The independent pronouns of this dialect are

more'iike those of Central Cakchiquel than those of the Western Cakchiquel spoken in Santa Catarina Palop6 and San Antonio Palop6. Comalapa

Santa Cruz

San Antonio P.

sing.

pI u.

sing.

pI u.

sing.

plu.

1st

yin

rox

yin

rox

yin

ri ?ox

2nd

rat

ris

rat

ris

yet

ri?yis

3rd

riha?

rihe?

riha?

rihe?

ri?a?

ri?ye?

Santa Cruz la Laguna is the only Cakchiquel town which uses the Tzutuj{l word

/~IU?/

"fish" rather than the Proto-Mayan */key/

which goes to Cakchiquel /k.r/.

This may support the notion

that these people migrated from an area where fish were not an important item, and borrowed the Tzutuj{l term when they

78

arrived at

the lake.

A large number of the houses in Santa

Cruz do not have windows. other lakeside towns,

This house type is not common in

but is found at higher altitudes and

colder climates where Central Cakchique1 is spoken. Western Cakchique1 is spoken in the lakeside towns of Santa Catarina Palop6,

San Antonio Palop6,

dents of San Lucas TolimAn,

and Panajachel,

The following combination of features

by some resi­

and in San Jorge.

is present in this

dialect: 1.

lax-tense distinction for IiI,

2•

plus Proto-Quichean Rule 6

"3.

lsI

[ e]

4.

Iwl

[ p]

I

leI,

lal, 101, luI

# in Santa Catarina Palop6 only

The following chart presents the percentages of shared retentions between towns in each of the Cakchique1 dialects. CHART 16 LEXICAL RETENTIONS BETWEEN CAKCHIQUEL DIALECTS Central

Eastern Chu Chuarrancho Snta.

Maria J.

Western

SaM

Sum

SnM

Poa

SaC

SaP

SCr

SnJ

83

84

89

85

89

87

85

88

86

86

85

88

86

83

87

90

91

90

90

88

90

88

90

89

91

91

88

87

88

88

97

95

98

93

95

83

Sumpango

84

86

San Martin J.

89

86

90

Poaquil

85

85

91

88

89

88

90

90

88

San Antonio P.

87

86

90

89

87

97

Snta.

85

83

88

91

88

95

93

88

87

90

91

88

98

95

Snta.

Cat.

P.

Cruz L.

San Jorge

92 92

79

The Western or lakeside towns seem to be lexically more conservative than the Central and Eastern towns. dialect towns are closer lexically to than to

the Eastern towns.

equally close to

The Central

the Western dialect towns

The Eastern towns are about

the Western and Central

towns.

The Western

dialect towns San Antonio Palop6 and Santa Catarina Palop6 maintain several Proto-Mayan lexical items found in no other Cakchiquel town investigated,

e.g.,

*/'i·s/

/'i.s/

POTATO

*/we.~/

/we.s/

PANTS

TZ\.I.tuj!l The Tzutuj!l language is spoken by approximately 25,000 people in five towns on or near the south and west shores of Lake Atitlan.

ll

The percentages of shared lexical retentions

between Tzutujil towns indicate an extremely homogeneous lin­ guistic community. CHART 17 LEXICAL RETENTIONS BETWEEN TZUTUJIL TOWNS

Snt

Cerro 94

Santiago Atitlan

Pedro

Juan

Mar!a

92

91

89

93

90

92

95

89

Cerro de Oro

94

San Pedro L.

92

93

San Juan L.

91

90

95

Santa Maria Vis.

89

92

89

90 90

80

Santa Maria Visitaci6n, group of Tzutujil speakers,

lexically the

least conservative

has been separated from the remain­

ing Tzutujil area by the intrusion of Quiche speakers at Santa Clara la Laguna.

Many of the Tzutujil speakers in

Cerro de Oro are fairly recent migrants from'Santiago Atitlan. This fact,

along with the close economic ties between the two

towns,

explains

the high retention rate between these communi­

ties.

The high retention rate between San Pedro la Laguna and

San Juan la Laguna reflects

the close geographic proximity of

these towns. The Tzutujil spoken in the five

lakeside towns investi­

gateo seems to display no systematic phonological variations of the type evidenced in Cakchlquel. factors

Only minor phonetic

distinguish Tzutujil from the lakeside Cakchiquel

spoken in San Antonio Palop6 and Santa Catarina Palop6. may be that

these lakeside Cakchiquel and Tzutujil towns form

a relic area. similarity,

It

These towns exhibit a high degree of lexical

and maintain most of the Proto-Quichean phonological

system intact.

Uspantec The Uspantec people in the

language is spoken by approximately 500

town of San Miguel Uspantan,

2,000 people in the aldea Las Pacayas.

12

and by approximately There appear to be

no dialect differences between these two groups of speakers. The group now residing in Las Pacayas reportedly migrated from

81

Uspantan about fifty years ago. caused by an influx of The

speake~s

Quich~

This movement was probably

speakers from the south.

of Uspantec in the town of Uspant'n are

apparently all bilingual

Quich~

speakers.

It is reported

that the group in Las Pacayas are bilingual Kekch{ speakers.

13

82

References Cited

1. For a complete listing of modern Quiche dialects see the review by David G. Fox of Quiche-English Dictionary, by Munro S. Edmonson. The review appe~red in Language, vol. 44, 191-197. 2. Shared retentions are computed from the Swadesh 100-word basic vocabulary list. Minimal centuries of diver­ gence are not calculated for these towns because it is felt that when dealing with very shallow time depths the minimal century figures would be less useful (and probably inaccurate

.E!.!.

~).

3. The Quiche spoken in Cunen may be such an isolate. This dialect exhibits lexical and phonological irregularities which may be the result of borrowing from neighboring Uspantec and Ixil. 4. Abbreviations used are for Central Cakchiquel, E a s toe r n Ca k chi que 1 , We s t ern Ca k chi que 1 , Tzu t u j 1. 1 and Us pan t e c . 5.

David G.

Fox, 2.E, .

..s..!:.!.,

p.

192.

6. W. Cameron Townsend, lCakchiquel Grammar,! in Malan Studies I. Edited by Benjamin Elson, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, pp. 10-11 (1960). 7. The Annals of the Cakchiquels, translated by Adrian Recinos and Delia Goetz, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, p. 136 (1953). 8.

~.,

9.

I am indebted to Benjamin Paul for this information.

p.

24.

10. A very interesting linguistic division has occurred in Cerro de Oro, with the older generation migrants from Patzicia speaking Cakchiquel, while their children, under influ­ ence from neighboring Santiago Atitlan, speak Tzutuj!l. 11. There is a group of Tzutuj{l speakers in San Pedro Cutzan. These people are from the lakeside town of San Pedro la Laguna and speak the same dialect of Tzutuj1.1. I am indebted to Jim Butler for this information. 12. These estimates were given to me by Wayne Huff, a Summer Institut of Linguistics linguist who has been living in San Miguel Uspantan since November, 1967. 13.

Personal communication, Wayne Huff.

VI.

INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL LINGUISTIC RELATI6NSHIPS

The most conservative Quich'an com~unit(es, respect to phonology, Tzutuj!l. identical

with

appear to be Western Cakchiquel and

The sound systems of these communities are nearly to

that of Proto-Quich'an.

Along with Eastern Cak­

chiquel these communities maintain all

the distinctions present

in the Proto-Quich'an vowel system. The vowel systems of Quich' and Ach!, have undergone several changes. the vowel systems of these two

on the other hand,

These changes have simplified languages,

making them the

least

conservative languages of the branch on phonological grounds. Uspantec is in most areas of the phonology as conserva­ tive as Western Cakchiquel and Tzutujil. the Proto-Quich'an lax-tense vowels,

Uspantec maintains

and all

found in the Proto-Quich'an consonant system. is

the distinctions However,

Uspantec

the most innovative Quich'an language with respect to the

prosodic features of tone and stress.

The tone system of this

language is discussed briefly in Chapter II of this work.

There

is no other Quich'an language which demonstrates a system of tones,

either surface or underlying,

In all Quich'an languages

except Uspantec stress falls on the ultimate syllable of most native words.

In Uspantec

the rules involve stress placement

on syllables with long vowels.

In words which do not have

83

84

long vowels,

the general stress rule will place stress on the

first or second syllable. The rules for predicting stress in Uspantec are not completely specifiable at this time.

The following Uspantec

words exhibit the most common stress patterns for nouns in this language.

In the following words stress falls on syl­

lables with long vowels: ?inp6.t'

MY BLOUSE

?ink'a·s

MY DEBT

?inb'e·h

MY ROAD SALT

wac'a.m

MY SALT

Stress on nouns with bi-syllabic roots and no long vowels always falls on the second syllable: c' a

U~m

TABLET

?inc'alam

MY TABLET

sikin

EAR

?insikin

MY EAR

Stress on nouns with mono-syllabic roots and no long vowels always falls on the first syllable: ?{nha?

MY WATER

?inc'!?

MY DOG

?{nk'im

MY STRAW

?{nx .. l

MY EAR OF CORN

85

The

Quich~an

languages

share

the

following

lexical

retention rates: CHART 18 LEXICAL RETENTIONS BETWEEN QUICHEAN LANGUAGES

Cak

Tzu

Qui

Ach

Usp

Cakchiquel Tzutujil

93

Quiche

77

79

Achi

82

81

85

Uspantec

69

69

70

The average languages are as

The

lexical retention rates

72

for

the Quichean

follows:

Cakchiquel

80

Tzutuj i l

81

Quiche

78

Ach!

80

Uspantec

70

languages with

the highest percentages of shared

lexical retentions are Cakchiquel and Tzutujil

(93 per cent).

The next highest percentage of shared retentions Quiche and Achi

(85 per cent).

Uspantec shares approximately

the same number of cognates with all languages.

is between

four of the other

86

Historical Relationships The phonological and lexical data presented in work seem to support among

average unique

the following historical relationships

the Quichean languages.

the first

language

It appears

that Uspantec was

to split off from Proto-Quichean.

lexical retention rate to Uspantec seem to

of isolation from

The

(70) and the prosodic

indicate a

features

the remaining Quichean languages.

the phonoldgy.

Except for

stress and tone patterns,

low

relatively long period

has been rather conservative regarding developments areas of

this

Uspantec in most

the developments

in

the

only minor variations distinguish

tKe Uspantec sound system from that of Proto-Quichean. Somewhat after

the split of Uspantec

from Proto­

Quichean,

Proto-Quiche-Ach{ split off from Proto-Cakchiquel-

Tzutujl.

This split is probably best defined on the basis of

rules affecting

the underlying

vowel systems.

Subsequent to

of Cakchiquel from Tzutuj!l,

lax-tense distinction in the this split,

but before

Quiche and Ach! separated.

most important phonological factors pertinent ration again involve

the split

the vowel systems:

to

this

The

sepa­

Quiche underlying six

vowel system versus Achl underlying five vowel system. Phonologically and lexically there are no grounds positing a

for

division between Western Cakchiquel and Tzutuj{l.

The underlying sound systems of ties are identical,

and

the

these

two

linguistic communi­

lexical retention rates are

87

extremely high (89-93 per cent).

On the basis of certain

grammatical considerations, a very recent separatirin between these communities is suggested.

The following grammatical data

are offered in support of this split: Independent Pronouns singular

plural

(Though Iri? + ?atl,

W.

Cakchiquel

Tzutuj!l

1st

yin

?anin

2nd

ri?at

? a te t

3rd

riya?

ha'

Is t

ri'ox

?axox

2nd

ri?is

'eses

3rd

riya?

he'

Iri? + ?ox/, etc. are complex historically,

in the synchronic grammar they will be considered a single unit.) Aspect Markers Western Cakchiquel

Incomplete-Transitive singular

plural

noqablan

1st

nubian

2nd

nab'en

nib'en

3rd

nubian

nikib'an

(/b'enl

lito makelto do") Tzutuj:!l

singular

plural

IJqab'an

1st

kimb'an

2nd

nablan

neb'an

3rd

nub'en

IJkeb'an

88

Aspect Markers (con't) Incomplete-Intransitive singular

Western Cakchiquel

lstgipe?

plural

IJqope?

2nd

IJape?

IJgi~pe?

3rd

nipe?

IJgepe?

(/pel

"to come") Tzutuj{l

singular

1s t

k imp eta?

2nd

IJkatpeta?

IJkespeta?

3rd

mpeta?

IJkepeta?

plural

IJqopeta?

It is clear that most of the distinction between the incomplete aspect markers in intransitive verbs in Western Cakchiquel and Tzutuj!l is surface level.

The phonetic [g]

in Western Cak­

chiquel is derived from underlying Ik/ as is Tzutujil [k]. Question Markers Western Cakchiquel

Tzutuj{l

HOW/WHAT

?aeike?

naq

HOW MUCH

hampe?

haru

WHEN

hampe?

naq'ix (/naq/ + /q1ix/)

WHERE

?akuei?

b'a •.. naq

The tree diagram on page 89 reflects the historical relationships between the

Quich~an

languages.

The relationship

between Cakchiquel and Tzutuj!l is closer than the relationship '-

between Ach! and

Quich~.

The relationship between Proto­

89

CHART 19

HISTORICAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN QUICHEAN LANGUAGES

Uspantec

Ach!

Quiche

Tzutuj{l

Cakchiquel

Cakchiquel-Tzutuj!l and Proto-Quiche-Achi is closer than the relationship between either of those sub-branches and Uspantec .• It is not possible to determine whether Uspantec is closer to Cakchiquel-Tzutuj{l or Quiche~Achi.

Pocomam and Pocomchi Pocomam and Pocomch{ have,

until recently,

been

classified with Kekchias part of the Kekch!an branch of 1 2 Eastern Mayan.'

Mayers has questioned this

classification,

and on the basis of lexical retentions placed Pocomam and Pocomch! with Quichean.

3

The foltowing chart presents

the

percentage of shared retentions and minimal centuries of divergence between the Quichean languages.

'Kekchian'

languages and three of the

90

CHART 20 SHARED RETENTIONS BETWEEN KEKCHIAN AND QUICHEAN

Kek Kekeh!

Porn

Poe

Cak

Qui

Usp

18

16

22

22

20

11

12

13

18

15

17

19

8

11

Pocomam

55

Pocomch!

60

71

Cakchiquel

51

68

62

Quiche

50

66

59

77

Uspantec

54

57

56

69

11 70

Pocomam and Pocomch! share the greatest number of lexi­ cal items with one another. appears

Following this relationship it

that Pocomam and Pocomch! share a slightly greater

number of cognates with Quichean languages

than with

Kekch!

The retention rate between Cakchiquel and Pocomam may be influ­ enced by the geographic position of the Central Pocomam tbwns where the data for

two

languages.

this work were

gathered are surrounded by Eastern Cakchiquel. not border Cakchiquel,

The

Pocomch! does

but does share a border with Quiche.

It seems clear that

there is no solid lexical evidence

for a close relationship between Pocomam-Pocomch! and Kekch!. The only slightly higher retention rates between Pocomam­ Pocomch! and the Quichean languages do not amount

to sufficient

evidence for positing a closer relationship between these lan­ guages

than between Pocomam-Pocomch! and Kekch!.

91

Phonologically Pocomam and Pocomch! appear to be most

llke Cakchlquel and Tzutuj!l.

All these languages have the

underlying lax-tense contrast in the vowels. not have this distinction.

Kekch! does

These and other correspondences

involving the vowel systems are summarized as follows: CHART 21 KEKCHIAN-QUICHEAN PHONOLOGICAL CORRESPONDENCES

Proto-Mayan

Pom-Poc

Cak-Tzu

Kek

*/Vo/

/Vo/

IVo /

/V /

*/CV ?V C/ 1 l

/CV?C/

/CV?C/

/CV ?V C/

1 1

*/CV?C/

/CVoC/

/CVoC/

/CVC/

*/CVhC/

/CVhC/

/CVoC/

/CVoC/

*/CV hV C/ l 1

/CV hV C/ 1 1

/CVoC/

/CVoC/

In Central Pocomam and some dialects of Pocomch! a threeway contrast in the bilabial series is attested.

Kaufman has

suggested that the .oecurrence of the voiceless, glottalized bilabial may be predictable.

4

It appears that underlying /b'/

becomes devoiced when it occurs in the same word with a voice­ less spi ran t. Regardless of the source of /p'/ in Pocomam and

Pocomch!~

three-way bilabial contrast is not present in Quichean nor in Kekchi.

This contrast should not,

therefore, influence the

a

92

classification of Pocomam-Pocomch!.

If solid evidence were

to indicate that the historical source of Pocomam-Pocomch! /p'/ were Proto-Mayan /b'/,

the sound systems of modern Pocomam

and Pocomch! could be naturally derived from the sound system of Proto-Quichean with no modifications to the proto-system. Because of the overall similarity between the sound systems of Pocomam and Pocomch! on the one hand and those of the modern Quichean languages and Proto-Quichean on the other hand, it is here suggested that Pocomam and Pocomch! be clas­ sified as a separate sub-branch of the Quichean branch of Eastern Mayan. Though only limited grammatical materials from Pocomam and Pocomchf have been investigated, these data appear to support the proposed classification.

The most common negative

in the Quichean languages and in Pocomam and Pocomch! is a dis.continuous /ma ••• tah/.

In Kekch!, on the other hand, the

most common negative is /?ink'a?/.

A more limited and

specialized use is given to the negative /moko ••• tah/ in Kekchf.

5

Dependent second and third person plural pronouns

in Pocomam and Pocomchf verbs are framing particles: Transitive Verb

6

Pocomam

Pocomch!

2nd

plural

fa ••• teh/

/a ••• taq/

2nd

plural

/a ••• tah/

/a ••• taq/

Intransitive

93

Pocomam and Pocomch! nominal possessors also have this con­ struction: Pocomam

Pocomch{

2nd

plural

/ha ••• tah/

/?a ••• taq/

3rd

plural

/ki. •• keh /

/ki /

This construction is not common in Kekch{, but is found in Uspantec: Transitive Verb

Uspantec

2nd

plural

/a •.• atiqa?n/

3rd

plural

/i •.• atiqa?n/

2nd

plural

/at ••• taqa?n/

3rd

plural

/ti ••• taqa?n/

Intransitive

Though the grammatical materials offered in support of tha reclassification of Pocomam and Pocomch{ are very limited, it seems likely that a more exhaustive study of the grammars of these languages will lead to further evidence in support of the proposed classification. When Pocomam and Pocomch{ are included in the Quichean branch, the following set of historical relationships seems probable:

94

CHART 22 QUICHEAN RELATIONSHIPS INCLUDING POCOMAM AND POCOMCHI

Poc~mam

Pocomch!

Uspantec

Quiche

Ach!

Tzutuj{l

Cakchiquel

On the basis of grammatical and phonological evidence, Pocomam and Pocomch! seem to be more closely related to Uspantec than to Cakchiquel-Tzutuj!l or Quiche-Ach!.

It seems probable

that rates of lexical retention between these languages are affected by geographic position, and do not necessarily pro­ vide a good index of genetic relationships.

95

References Cited 1. Norman A. Mcquown, 'The Classification of the Mayan Languages,' ld!1 vol. 22, 191-195 (1956). 2. Terrence S. Kaufman, review of Languaaes of Guatemala, Marvin Mayers, editor, ld!1 vol. 34, p. 225 (1968).

3. Marvin K. Mayers, Lanausaes of Guatemala, Janua Linguarum, Series Practica 23. The Hague: Mouton and Co., pp. 272-273 (1966). 4.

Terrence S. Kaufman, personal communication.

5. Ray A. Freeze, personal communication regarding Kekch! grammar. 6. Pocomch! materials are taken from unanalyzed field notes gathered by Ray Freez~~

VII.

CONCLUSION

It has been the purpose of this work to present a complete history of the developments the

Quich~an

languages.

in the sound systems of

Rules are presented in Chapter II

which outline the history of developments from the period of Proto-Quich~an

to the contemporary languages.

The consonant

systems of these languages were shown to be extremely similar, the major phonological differences between contemporary lan­ guages being in the areas of the vowel and the glides. In Chapter III,

the history of phonological develop­

ments from Proto-Mayan to

Proto-Quich~an

are presented.

These

changes are few in number and mainly involve simplification of the sound system.

It may be the case that

the

Quich~an

guages are the most conservative phonologically of all

lan­ the

Mayan languages. The phonological divergences within each of the modern Quich~an

languages are investigated in Chapter V.

The vowels

and glides were found to be most important in defining general dialect boundaries.

Lexical and grammatical data are pre­

sented in Chapter V in support of the notion that the language spoken in Joyabaj

is Achi.

In Chapter VI,

data are presented which seem to sup­

port a reclassification of Pocomam and Pocomchi.

96

It is

97

suggested that these languages are more correctly classified with the Quich~an languages than with Kekch!. closely related languages in the chiquel and Tzutujll.

Quich~an

The most

branch are Cak­

Achl and Quich~ are very closely

related as are Pocomam and Pocomchl.

Uspantec seems

the most divergent language of the branch,

to be

and may be more

closely related to Pocomam-Pocomchl than to Quiche. This work has dealt almost exclusively with phonology. Certainly a comprehensive study of the history and classifica­ tion of the Quichean languages will deal in detail with com­ parative syntax.

Several important areas for investigation

hav~ been only briefly treated or completely untouched by

work.

Some of the more important areas are:

relationship of Uspantec to

the grammatical

the other Quichean languages;

grammatical relationship of Pocomam and Pocomch{ to Quichean languages;

this

the

the other

the relationship of the Quichean languages

to Kekchl. It is hoped that this work will prove to be an addition to the kind of detailed historical work that must take place before a complete history of Proto-Mayan can be presented.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andrade, Manuel J. 'Materials on the Quiche, and Tzutuj!l Languages, I MCMMACA #11, Chicago Library, Chicago. Chomsky,

Fox,

Cakchiquel, University of

Noam, and Morris Halle. 1968. Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper 4nd Row.

David G. 1968. Review of Quiche-English Dictionary. By Munro S. Edmonson. In Language vol. 44 191-197.

Hockett,

1965.

Charles.

t

Sound Change.

I

In Language vol.

41

185-205. Grimes, James L. Tzutuj!l.

1968. I

In

'The Linguistic Unity of Cakchiquel­ vol. 34 104-114.

~

1969. 'The Palatalized Velar Stop in Proto-Quichean. In IJAL vol. 35 20-24. Kaufman,

Terrence S. 1964. 'Materiales linguisticas para el estudio de las relaciones internas y externas de la familia de idiomas mayanos.' In Desarrollo Cultural de Los Mayas. Evon Z. Vogt and Albert Ruz L., editors. Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, 85-136.

1968. Ma ye r s,

Review of Languages of Guatemala. e d ito r . I n I J AL vol. 34 2 24 - 2 3 1 •

1968. Berkeley,

Moch6 Dictionary. California.

1969. 'Teco: 35 154-174.

By Marvin

Unpublished manuscript,

A New Mayan Language.'

In IJAL

vol.

Kiparsky, Paul. 1968. 'Linguistic Universals and Linguistic Change.' In Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Mayers, Marvin K. (ed.). Janua Linguarum, Mo u ton and Co.

1966. Languages of Guatemala. Series Practica 23. The Hague:

Mcquown, Norman. 1956. 'The Classification of the Mayan Languages. 1 In IJAL vol. 22 191-195.

98

I

99

1964. fLos origines y la diferenciacidn de los mayas segun se infiere del estudio comparativo de las lenguas mayanas. f In Desarrollo Cultural de Los Mayas. Evon Z. Vogt and Albert Ruz L., editors. Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, 49-80. Postal, Paul M. 1968. Aspects of Phonological Theory. York: Harper and Row. Recinos,

New

Adrian, and Delia Goetz (translators). 1953. The Annals of the Cakchiguels. Norman: The University of Oklahoma Press.

Sarles, Harvey. 1965. fA Descriptive Grammar of th~ Tzotzil Language as Spoken in San Bartolome de Los Llanos, Chiapas, Mexico.' University of Chicago dissertation. Stoll,

Otto. 1888. Die Maya-Sprachen der Pokom-Gruppe, Part II, Die Sprache der Kfe'kchi-Indianer. Wien: K. F. Ko ler. 1958. Etnografla de Guatemala. Guatemala: Seminario de Integracid Social Guatemalteca.

Townsend, W. Cameron. 1960. I Cakchiquel Grammar.' Studies I, Benjamin Elson, editor. Norman: of Oklahoma Press.

In Mayan University