Comparative Reconstruction of Indigenous Languages

  • Robert E. Longacre

Abstract

O.For many years the accomplishment of Indo-European comparative reconstruction has stood in lonely splendor without a serious rival (in depth and scope) in other linguistic stocks. Current work in Latin America and the Caribbean is, however, now going forward at such a pace that in the near future it will no longer be possible to equate comparative linguistics with Indo-European studies. In Mesoamerica comparative reconstruction is reaching a very mature stage — especially in the Otomanguean and Mayan stocks and in the Mixe-Zoque family. Proto-Otomanguean, embracing some thirty languages grouped into seven component families, is currently on the drawing boards. Meanwhile, phonologies of component families have either been worked out as of several years ago or are currently being completed. Etymological dictionaries — sizeable bodies of cognate sets — will soon be available for component families and the stock as a whole. Current work in the Mayan stock is also very promising with a proven link of Mayan to one South American language. Mixe-Zoque is shaping up well. Good work has been done recently in Utoaztecan but we still lack an etymological dictionary of adequate size for that stock. Less advanced are available comparative studies in Totonac-Tepehua (not to mention the vexed question of ‘Mexican Penutian’: Mayan, Totonac-Tepehua, Mixe-Zoquean) and in Yuman (Hokan).

Keywords

Indigenous Language Language Family Consonant Cluster Tone Sandhi Component Family 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference

  1. 1.
    William L. Wonderly, ‘Some Zoquean phonemic and morphophonemic correspondences’, IJAL 15. 1–11 (1949).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Norman Nordell, ‘On the status of Popoluca in Zoque-Mixe’, IJAL 28. 146–9 (1962).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Terrence Kaufman, unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shirley Lyon, ‘Tlahuiltoltepec Mixe clause structure’ IJAL 33.25–33 (1967). A similar analysis is followed in unpublished materials of Searle Hoogshagen and John Crawford for two other Oaxaca Mixe dialects.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Norman McQuown, ‘The indigenous languages of Latin America’, AmA 57. 501–70 (1955).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Norman A. McQuown, ‘The classification of the Mayan languages’, IJAL 22. 191–5 (1956).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cf. Eric Hamp, On Maya–Chipayan’, IJAL 33–74–76 (1967).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Benjamin L. Whorf, ‘The comparative linguistics of Uto-Aztecan’, AmA 37. 600–8 (1935).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    C. F. and F. M. Voeglin, and Kenneth L. Hale, ‘Typological and comparative grammar of Uto-Aztecan: I (phonology)’, Indiana University publications in anthropology and linguistics memoir 17 of IJAL 28 (Jan., 1962 ).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Burton William Bascom Jr., ‘Proto-Tepiman’, unpublished manuscript, ( University of Washington, 1965 ). I have had access only to an abstract prepared by Bascom.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Swadesh has analyzed the available scanty material on the extinct Tamaulipeco language in the south of the state of Tamaulipas. He concludes that Tamaulipeco was an independent division within Utoaztecan. ‘El Tamaulipeco’, RMEA 19. 93–104 (1963).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Comparative linguistics, as developed on the terrain of Indo-European studies, has not considered percentages of shared cognates to be decisive of genetic grouping. On the contrary, the principle of shared innovations has been held to be the criterion. See Eric Hamp as quoted in 4. 3.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cf. e.g. Hansjakob Seiler, ‘Accent and morphophonemics in Cahuilla and in Uto-Aztecan’, IJAL 31. 50–9 (1965).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eric P. Hamp, ‘Protopopoloca internal relationships’, IJAL 24. 151 (1958).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Alan Campbell Wares, ‘A comparative study of Yuman consonantism’, unpublished manuscript (University of Texas, 1965). I have had access to an abstract prepared by Wares. cf. also Mary R. Haas, ‘Shasta and Proto-Hokan’, Lg 39. 40–59 (1963).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Paul Kirchhoff, ‘Mesoamerica’, Acta Americana 1. 92–107 (1943).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Morris Swadesh, ‘The phonemic structure of Proto-Zapotec’, IJAL 13. 220–30 (1947).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stanley Newman and Robert Weitlaner, ‘Central Otomian I: Proto-Otomí reconstructions’ and ‘Central Otomian II: primitive central Otomian reconstructions’, IJAL 16.1–19 and 73–81 (1950).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Robert E. Longacre, ‘Proto-Mixtecan’, IJAL part III (1957). For an alternative reconstruction of Proto-Mixtecan (based on a narrower empirical base) see Evangelina A. Osnaya, ‘Relaciones internas del Mixteco-Trique’, AnINA 12. 219–73 (1960).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sarah C. Gudschinsky, ‘Proto-Popotecan’ Indiana University publications in anthropology and linguistics memoir 15 of IJAL 25 (April, 1959 ). Paul Kirk, with access to an enlarged corpus of Ma7atec dialect material, has recently completed a more definitive and detailed reconstruction of Proto-Mazatec ( Proto-Mazatec Phonology, unpublished dissertation, University of Washington, 1966 ).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Maria Teresa Fernandez de Miranda and Roberto J. Weitlaner, ‘Sobre algunas relaciones de la familia Mangue’, AnL 3: 7. 1–99.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Calvin Ross Rensch, ‘Proto-Chinantec phonology’, unpublished thesis, (University of Pennsylvania, 1963 ).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Doris Bartholomew, ‘Some revisions of Proto-Otomi consonants’, IJAL 26. 317–29 (1960).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Doris Bartholomew, ‘The reconstruction of Otopamean (Mexico)’, unpublished dissertation, ( University of Chicago, 1965 ). I have had access only to an abstract prepared by Bartholomew.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    This is fortunate in view of the untimely death of our colleague. Plans have been initiated for posthumous publication of her work.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    On Linguistic Affinities of Amuzgo’, IJAL 32.46–49 (1966); ‘The Linguistic Affinities of Amuzgo’, Homonajea Roberto Weitlaner (Mexico City, 1967); ‘Progress in Otomanguean reconstruction’, Pro- ceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists, Cambridge, Mass., 1962, 1017–19 (The Hague, 1964).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Longacre, ‘Progress in Otomanguean reconstruction’, 1016–25.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cf. the isoglosses considered in my article, ‘Swadesh’s Macro-Mixtecan hypothesis’, IJAL 27. 9–29 (1961).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cornelia Mak and Robert Longacre, ‘Proto-Mixtec phonology’, IJAL 26. 23–40 (1960).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Robert E. Longacre, ‘Amplification of Gudschinsky’s Proto-Popolocan-Mixtecan’, IJAL 28.22742, especially 231–4 (1962).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cf. fn. 26.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Amplification of Gudschinsky’s Proto-Popolocan-Mixtecan’, 231–2. ‘0 ‘The phonemic structure of Proto-Zapotec’, 221.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    The phonemic structure of Proto-Zapotec’, 223.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Longacre, ‘Progress in Otomanguean reconstruction’, 1023.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bill Upson and Robert Longacre, ‘Proto-Chatino phonology’, IJAL 31. 312–22 (1965).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Francisco Belmar, Breve resew histórica y geografica del estado de Oaxaca (Oaxaca City, 1901).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cf. fn. 23. “ Cf. fn. 28.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Cf. fn. 29.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cf. Longacre, ‘Progress in Otomanguean reconstruction’, 1023.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rensch’s work was preceeded by Roberto Weitlaner and Paul Smith, ‘Detalles de la fonologia del idioma Proto-Chinanteco’, unpublished manuscript (Mexico City, 1957 ).Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    The Oto-Manguean hypothesis and Macro-Mixtecan’, 1JAL 27.9–29 (January, 1961 ). ‘Interim Notes on Oaxacan phonology’, SJA 20.168–89 (Summer, 1964). ‘Algunos problemas de la lingüística Otomangue’, Anales de antropologia 1. 91–123 (1964).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    René Millon and Robert E. Longacre, ‘Proto-Mixtecan and Proto-Amuzgo-Mixtecan vocabularies: a preliminary cultural analysis’, AnL 3: 2. 1–44 (1961).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Richard Stockton MacNeish, ‘First’ and ‘Second annual reports of the Tehuacan archeological-botanical project’ (Andover, 1961) cf. MacNeish and Antoninette Nelken, ‘Le Mexique et les débuts de l’agriculture au Nouveau Monde’, L’Anthropologie 65: 349–53 (1961).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Norman McQuown, ‘Los origenes y la diferenciacibn de los Mayas segun se infiere del estudio comparativo de las lenguas Mayanas’, Desarrollo cultural de los Mayas 49–80, especially 77–80 (Mexico City, 1964 ).Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Howard W. Law, ‘A reconstructed proto-culture derived from some Yuman ocabularies’, AnL 3: 4. 45–57 (1961).Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    A. Richard Diebold, Jr., ‘Determining the centers of disposal of language groups’, HAL 26. 1–10 (1960).Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Longacre, ‘Systemic comparison and reconstruction of Middle American Indian languages’, to appear in McQuown, ed. Handbook of Middle American Indians 5.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Swadesh’s Macro-Mixtecan Hypothesis’, 12–19.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    cf. fns. 7 and 54.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sarah C. Gudschinsky, ‘Mazatec dialect history, a study in miniature’, Lg 34. 469–81 (1958).Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Heymann Steinthal, ‘Das verhâltniss, das zwischen dem Keschua und Aymara besteht’, 7 Congreso Internacional de Americanistas, 462–4 (Berlin, 1888 ).Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    J. Alden Mason, ‘The languages of South American Indians’, ed. Julian H. Steward, Handbook of South American Indians, 6.157–317 (Washington, 1950 ).Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    The Haquearu language of west central Peru (which Ferrario considered to be simply an Aymara dialect) should also be included in the sphere of investigation: cf. José M. Farfan, ‘Diccionario conciso Castellano-Haquearu-Quechua’, Revista de Museo Nacional 30.19–40 (1961).Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Benigno Ferrario, ‘La dialettologia della Runa-Simi’, Orbis 5.131–40 (1956). I am indebted to Miss Yolanda Lastra and Mr. Alfred Pietrzyk of the Center for Applied Linguistics (Washington, D.C.) for securing for me copies of this and other articles which were hard for me to obtain under field conditions.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    John Rowe, ‘Sound patterns in three Inca dialects’, IJAL 16. 137–48 (1950).Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Since submitting this article, Orr and I have further studied the Quechua-Aymara problem. Our joint paper, •Proto-Quechumaran’, is committed to the thesis that the two languages are genetically related. We now reconstruct glottalization and aspiration as Proto-Quechua features.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Norman McQuown, ‘The indigenous languages of Latin America’, AmA 57. 501–70 (1955).Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Benigno Ferrario, ‘Las lenguas indigenas del Uruguay’, unpublished manuscript, 160 handwritten pages.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Antonio Tovar has written two articles on Matacan, but I was not able to obtain access to them in the limited time available before submitting this paper: ‘El grupo mataco y su relación con otras lenguas de America del Sur’, Congreso Intemacional de Americanistas Actas y memorias 2.439–52 (1964); ‘Relación entre las lenguas del grupo mataco’, Homenaje a Fernando Marquez-Miranda, 370–7 (Madrid-Sevilla, 1964 ).Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    José Pedro Rona, Nuevos Elementos acerca de la Lengua Charrúa, (Montevideo, 1964). In this 28-page work, Rona first analyzes some proper names (found in the Jesuit mission records of the town of São Borja, Rio Grande de Sul, Brazil) for names of possible Charruan origin. The restricted nature of extant data on the Charruan languages necessitates efforts of this sort. The second section of the article presents comparative evidence that Charruan pertains to the Lule-Vilela:n subdivision of Macro-Guaycuruan rather than to the Matacan sub-division.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Sixto Perea y Alonso, Filologia comparada de las lenguas y dialectos Arawak 1 (Montevideo, 1942). Reproduces his earlier work ‘Apuntes para la prehistoria indigena del Rio de la Plata y especialmente de la banda Oriental del Uruguay, como introduccién a la filologia comparada de la lengua y dialectos Arawak’, BFM 1.217–45 (1937) cf. Olaf Blixen, Acerca de la supuesta filiacidn Arawak de las lenguas indigenas del Uruguay (Montevideo, 1958 ).Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    After this article went to the editor the following monograph appeared: G. Kingsley NobleGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Proto-Arawakan and its Descendants’, IJAL (July, 1965 ) (Part II). As the author admits ‘The sources of data have often been rather inexact transcriptions. Sometimes, they have represented compilations of several, often unobtainable primary sources’ ( 113 ). In addition, the book tries to cover an immense area linguistically. Not only is Arawakan proper included, but Uru-Chipayan is assumed to be Arawakan (on the basis of some twenty sets) and included in the line-up along with Tupian and Chapacuran, for which data are given on the assumption that they are related to the Arawakan stock. A brief sketch of Goajiro is included as a control. Nevertheless, the overall result is almost as diffuse as Shafer’s brief sketch described in this section. Noble, however, pays some attention to morphological features and to shared innovations — whether phonological, grammatical, or lexical. In this way he obtains a family tree for Arawakan and related languages. It needs to be emphasized, however, that without a detailed reconstruction of a proto-language shared innovations are not surely distinguished from shared retentions. Some use is made of glottochronology.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Robert Shafer, ‘Algumas equaçóes fonéticas em Arawakan’, Anthropos 54. 542–62 (1959).Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    H. C. van Renselaar and J. Voorhoeve, ‘Rapport over een ethnologische studiereis door Mata’, BijdrTLV 3.328–61 — probably 1959 ).Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Douglas Taylor, ‘Surinam Arawak as compared with different dialects of Island Carib’, BijdrTLV 3.362–73 (1959?) cf. earlier article ‘Some problems of sound correspondence in Arawak’, IJAL 24. 234–9 (1958).Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Irvine Davis, ‘Comparative J8 phonology’, unpublished manuscript, Brazilian branch of the Summer Institute of Linguistics (1964).Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Ursula Weisemann, ‘Notes on Proto-Kaingang: a study of four dialects’, unpublished manuscript, Brazilian branch of the Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Cf. Weisemann, Notes on Proto-Kaingang (2,3): ‘According to the phonemic analysis now established for Parana dialects as spoken at Rio dos Cobras however, [b], [d], and [g] do not have phonemic status. They occur only contiguous to homorganic nasals….’ It is possible that this analysis could also be established for some of the other dialects if sufficient data were available.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Wanda Hanke, Morris Swadesh, and Aryón D. Rodrigues, ‘Notas de fonologia Mekens’, Miscellanea Paul Rivet octogenario dicata (Mexico City, 19581.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Aryón D. Rodrigues, ‘Classification of Tupi-Guarani’, IJAL 24. 231–4 (1958).Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Loraine I. Bridgeman, ‘Preliminary notes on a comparative study of five Tupi-Guarani languages’ (1965).Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Bernard Pottier, ‘Problemes de dialectologie dans le domaine du Tupi-Guarani’, Orbis 10: 1. 31–4 (1961).Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Bruce R. Moore, ‘Correspondences in South Barbacoan Chibcha’, Benjamin Elson, ed., Studies in Ecuadorian Indian Languages 1: 270–89, (Norman, 1962 ).Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Desmond Derbyshire, ‘Comparative notes on three Carib dialects’, Boletim do Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi, nova série, Anthropologia 14 (1961).Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Jacob A. Loewen, ‘Chocó I: introduction and bibliography’, IJAL 29. 239–63 (1963).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert E. Longacre

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations