DOCSLIB.ORG

Jicaque As a Hokan Language Author(S): Joseph H

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Jicaque As a Hokan Language Author(S): Joseph H Jicaque as a Hokan Language Author(s): Joseph H. Greenberg and Morris Swadesh Source: International Journal of American Linguistics, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Jul., 1953), pp. 216- 222 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1263010 Accessed: 11-07-2017 15:04 UTC REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1263010?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International Journal of American Linguistics This content downloaded from 12.14.13.130 on Tue, 11 Jul 2017 15:04:26 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms JICAQUE AS A HOKAN LANGUAGE JOSEPH H. GREENBERG AND MORRIS SWADESH COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 1. The problem 2. The phonological equivalences in Hokan 2. Phonological note have been largely established by Edward 3. Cognate list Sapir's work.3 The Jicaque agreements are 4. Use of lexical statistics generally obvious. A special point is that 5. Cognates in test vocabulary xw and x have been replaced by k. Among 6. Hokan-Coahuiltecan relationships some local dialects of Jicaque, r and n 7. Requirements for further study replace the 1 found elsewhere. Stem-finals have sometimes been changed, presumably 1. Jicaque of Honduras in the past has by contraction with an added suffix. Because been listed as an isolated language or classed of the sparsity of Jicaque material no with Paya-Lenca and Chibchan,' but we attempt has been made to distinguish the find unmistakable evidence that it is a dialects. This accounts for variant forms Hokan language. In this paper we set forth sometimes given and for the fact that there structural and vocabulary correspondences are sometimes two or more distinct equiva- to prove the relationship, along with lents. an analysis of the place of Jicaque within Jicaquethe and other forms in this paper stock based upon cognate percentages. have been phonemically interpreted and While the main facts of the linguistic orthographically uniformized; any errors situation stand out clearly, the limited in the phonemic interpretation are surely material available for most of the languages not of a character that would affect the prevents a full development of phonological lexical comparisons. and morphological details at this time. The presence in Jicaque of numerous 3. The search for cognates is considerably Hokan-Siouan correspondences was firsthampered by the meagerness of the avail- noted by Greenberg while making a com-able Jicaque vocabularies and by their parative survey in preparing a paper, emphasis on words, such as plant and Historical Linguistics and Unwritten Lan- animal names, which have little utility for guages, for the International Symposium comparison at a remote time depth. And on Anthropology of the Wenner-Gren similar problems exist for most of the other Foundation.2 The subsequent further study Hokan languages with which Jicaque has of the problem by both authors was done to be compared.4 The extent of the compara- under the Linguistic Divergence Project 3 Especially in The Position of Yana in the sponsored by the Columbia Council for Hokan Stock (UCPAAE 13.1-34, 1917); The Research in the Social Sciences. Hokan and Coahuiltecan Languages (IJAL 1. 280-90, 1917-20); The Hokan Affinity of Subtiaba 1 See Harry Hoijer, Introduction p. 25, Lin- in Nicaragua AA27. 402-35, 491-527, 1925). guistic Structures of Native America (Viking 4 The material on Jicaque is taken from two Fund Publication in Anthropology 6, 1946); sources:J. Walter Lehmann, Zentral Amorika Alden Mason, The languages of South American (Berlin 1920), pp. 654 ff; Edward Conzemius, The Indians p. 174 (Handbook of South American Jicaques of Honduras, IJAL 2.163 ff. (1921-23). Indian, BAE-B 143, vol. 6, 1950. The Chontal is mainly from Francisco Belmar, 2 Subsequently published in Anthropology To- Lenguas Indigenas de Mexico (Mexico 1905), pp. day, 265-86 (Chicago, 1951). 188-217. Other principal sources: A. M. Halpern, 216 This content downloaded from 12.14.13.130 on Tue, 11 Jul 2017 15:04:26 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms NO. 3 JICAQUE AS A HOKAN LANGUAGE 217 tive list should be judged with this in Coahuiltec mind. mai- thou, you; Chitimacha him We list more obvious similarities, thou;with Tunica ma?a thou. emphasis on cases showing relationships Third of person: Jicaque hu-p he; Chontal Jicaque, Hokan-Coahuiltecan and Gulf -u-pe- lan- he; Chumash ho that; Salinan ho guages.5 Comparison with other language that; Chitimacha hus he, ha this, ho these; stocks belonging to Sapir's Hokan Siouan Pomo u that, he (distant). grouping, is made in a few instances where Jicaque na that, nahac there; Yuma the agreement is particularly striking. nYaa- It isthat, -ny stem of pronouns; Salinan convenient to include also some Hokan na that; Yana na-gu- therefore; Comecrudo comparisons without Jicaque cognates, na-ni he, na- stem of pronouns; Tonkawa where we need them for the lexico-statistic na?a thus; Chitimacha naat thus; Coahuiltec counts given farther on. namo then. -k adjective suffix, in Jicaque pek white, Jicaque kiwa here; Washo wa here, tek black, wek good, brek many; Yuman widi this; Yuma va6i here, va6a this; Chiti- milk black, ahotk good, epilk warm; Pomo macha we the, that. kedakedak red; Tonkawa makik yellow, Interrogative: Jicaque kanlepa when, kat maslak white. where; Chontal kana when, kaape where; First person: Jicaque na-p I, na- vestigial Washo kunya where, kunyate what; Tunica prefix my; Yuma nya I; Esselen ene I, ka- interrogative; Coahuiltec xat how many, nis- my; Karok na, ni- I, na- me, nani- xakat why; Comecrudo xat where, tokom my; Washo le I, lew we; Chimariko no?ut whatever, thing; Chimariko qho- interroga- I; Yana ai-?ni- a I; Comecrudo na I; tive. Coahuiltec na- I; Karankawa naayi I; Yuma av- what; Yana ?aci what, ?ambi Tunica -ni I. who; Pomo am who, what; Chimariko Jicaque ku-p we; Chontal ki- I; Chumash ?awilla who; Chitimacha ?am what, ?ast ki- we, our; Tonkawa ka I; Pomo ke we; how, ?ampinki where. Karok kin- us; Yana -ni-gi we; Salinan ke Locative: Yuma -k at; Yana gi location, I, ka we; Chitimacha -ki I, me. object relationship; Chitimacha ki at, kin Second person: Chontal i-ma thou, i- with; Atakapa -ki in, on, -ik with. manki you; Seri me thou; Yuma ma thou; one: Jicaque pani; Chumash paka; Ton- Salinan mo thou, -m- thy; Pomo ma thou, kawa pax; Esselen pek; Yana bai; Chi- mi thee, mi- thy; Esselen nemi thou, menis- mariko p?un; Coahuiltec pil; Comecrudo thy; Yana ai?nu-ma thou; Washo mi thou; pek-weten (cp. elek-weten two). Also Yuki Chimariko mamut, mi- thou, m- thy; Shasta pawa, powik. mai thou; Achomawi-Atsugewi mi- thy; two: Chontal o-keSi; Seri kaxkum; Yuma Karok im thou; Comecrudo em- thou; xavik; Chimariko xoku; Yana ?ux-; Shastan xokwa, hoki; Pomo ko, xo; Esselen xulax. Yuma IJAL 12.25-33, 147-51, 204-12, 13. 18-30, three: Jicaque kont; Chontal a-fan-e; 92-107, 147-66 (1946-7); Edward Sapir and Morris Esselen xulap; Pomo xoxat; Yuma xamok; Swadesh, Yana Dictionary, ms. in American Chitimacha kaayci; Karankawa kaxayi. Philosophical Society Library; A. L. Kroeber, Proto form xwa. The Washo Language of East Central California and Nevada, UCPAAE 4.251-317 (1907); John R. five: see hand. Swanton, Linguistic Material from the Tribes of not: Jicaque kua none; Chontal k-; Southern Texas and Northeastern Mexico (BAE-B Chimariko xu-; Pomo kuyi; Yana ku-; 127, 1940). Karankawa kom; Natchez koosac no; Ton- 5 Gulf is Mary R. Haas' term for 'the Musko- kawa ooko no. gean family of languages plus Natchez, Tunica, Chitimacha and Atakapa.' See The Proto-Gulf all: Jicaque put; Yana buiza-. Word for Water (IJAL 17.71-79, 1951). arm-hand: Jicaque pul, pel arm, pus This content downloaded from 12.14.13.130 on Tue, 11 Jul 2017 15:04:26 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 218 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMERICAN LINGUISTICS VOL. XIX shoulder; Chumash pu arm, hand; mariko Chi- h-ipxa (intestines); Subtiaba amba mariko hitan-pu arm; Salinan (frompuku apa). arm; Subtiaba pahpu. ear: Chontal ismac; Yuma ismalyka; ashes: Jicaque pe; Chontal X-api. Chimariko hisam; Pomo sima; Yana mal?gu; back: Yuma -mak; Yana maki. Seri islo. Also Yuki cema, sum. bad: Jicaque marara; Yana malla-. earth: Jicaque ma; Chontal X-amac; Seri belly: Jicaque kol belly; Chontal amt; X-ikuu; Yuma amat; Chimariko ama; Pomo Pomo koy, xo; Chumash aksu; Washo ama; Comecrudo kamla. Also Siouan ma. cigugus; Cotoname kox; Atakapa kom. eat: Jicaque te-k; Chontal -ka (bite); big: see old. Salinan isax; Tonkawa yaxa-; Comecrudo blood: Jicaque kat, ac; Chontal awas kay; Chitimacha kaht- (bite), ku?t- (eat). (perhaps read awac); Seri avat; Yuma eat: Yuma ama; Yana ma-; Chimariko xwat; Chumash axulis; Salinan ekata; Pomo hamma; Shastan -am-; Esselen am; Chu- hata; Yana wad?du-wi; Shasta-Achomawi mash umu; Salinan amo; Muskogi hump-.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Usage Patterns of Thou, Thee, Thy and Thine Among Latter-Day Saints
    Deseret Language and Linguistic Society Symposium Volume 1 Issue 1 Article 8 4-8-1975 Usage Patterns of Thou, Thee, Thy and Thine Among Latter-day Saints Don Norton Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/dlls BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Norton, Don (1975) "Usage Patterns of Thou, Thee, Thy and Thine Among Latter-day Saints," Deseret Language and Linguistic Society Symposium: Vol. 1 : Iss. 1 , Article 8. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/dlls/vol1/iss1/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Deseret Language and Linguistic Society Symposium by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. 7.1 USAGE PATTERNS OF I.IiQll, mEL Il:IY AND IlilJ:1E Ar·10NG LATTER-DAY SAINTS Don Norton Languages and Linguistics Symposium April 7-8, 1975 Brigham Young University 7.2 USAGE PATTERNS OF Jllill!., IilEL Il:lY. AND IlilliE. Ar10NG LATTER-DAY SAINTS Don Norton Until a couple of years ago, I had always (Selected from Vol. 2, pp. 14-15, Priesthood Manual, assumed that the counsel in the Church to use the pp. 183-4) . respect pronouns thou, thee, thy and thine applied only to converts, children, and a few inattentive Q. Is it important that we use the words adults. On listening more closely, however, I thy, thine, thee, and thou in address­ find cause for general concern. ing Deity; or is it proper vlhen direc­ ting our thoughts in prayer to use The illusion that we use these pronouns freely the more common and modern words, you and correctly stems, I think, from the fact that and yours? two of these pronouns, thee and thy, are common usage: thw presents few problems; the object case A.
    [Show full text]
  • THE LANGUAGE OFTHE SALINAN INDIANS Nominalizing Suffixes
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS IN AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND ETHNOLOGY Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 1-154 January 10, 1918 THE LANGUAGE OF THE SALINAN INDIANS BY J. ALDEN MASON CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION..--.--.......------------........-----...--..--.......------........------4 PART I. P'HONOLOGY ---------7 Phonetic system ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vowels ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 Quality ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------8 Nasalization ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------8 Voiceless vowels.------------------......-------------.........-----------------......---8 Accent --------------------------------------------------9 Consonants ................---------.............--------------------...----------9 Semi-vowels ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------9 Nasals ---------- 10 Laterals -------------------------------------------------------------10 Spirants ---------------------------------------....-------------------------------------------10 Stops .--------......... --------------------------- 11 Affricatives .......................-.................-........-......... 12 Tableof phonetic system ---------------------------.-----------------13 Phonetic processes ---------------------------.-----.--............13 Vocalic assimilation ------------------..-.........------------------13
    [Show full text]
  • The English Language
    The English Language Version 5.0 Eala ðu lareow, tæce me sum ðing. [Aelfric, Grammar] Prof. Dr. Russell Block University of Applied Sciences - München Department 13 – General Studies Winter Semester 2008 © 2008 by Russell Block Um eine gute Note in der Klausur zu erzielen genügt es nicht, dieses Skript zu lesen. Sie müssen auch die “Show” sehen! Dieses Skript ist der Entwurf eines Buches: The English Language – A Guide for Inquisitive Students. Nur der Stoff, der in der Vorlesung behandelt wird, ist prüfungsrelevant. Unit 1: Language as a system ................................................8 1 Introduction ...................................... ...................8 2 A simple example of structure ..................... ......................8 Unit 2: The English sound system ...........................................10 3 Introduction..................................... ...................10 4 Standard dialects ................................ ....................10 5 The major differences between German and English . ......................10 5.1 The consonants ................................. ..............10 5.2 Overview of the English consonants . ..................10 5.3 Tense vs. lax .................................. ...............11 5.4 The final devoicing rule ....................... .................12 5.5 The “th”-sounds ................................ ..............12 5.6 The “sh”-sound .................................. ............. 12 5.7 The voiced sounds / Z/ and / dZ / ...................................12 5.8 The
    [Show full text]
  • Some Morphological Parallels Between Hokan Languages1
    Mikhail Zhivlov Russian State University for the Humanities; School for Advanced Studies in the Humanities, RANEPA (Moscow); [email protected] Some morphological parallels between Hokan languages1 In this paper I present a detailed analysis of a number of morphological comparisons be- tween the branches of the hypothetical Hokan family. The following areas are considered: 1) subject person/number markers on verbs, as well as possessor person/number markers on nouns, 2) so-called ‘lexical prefixes’ denoting instrument and manner of action on verbs, 3) plural infixes, used with both nouns and verbs, and 4) verbal directional suffixes ‘hither’ and ‘thither’. It is shown that the respective morphological parallels can be better accounted for as resulting from genetic inheritance rather than from areal diffusion. Keywords: Hokan languages, Amerindian languages, historical morphology, genetic vs. areal relationship 0. The Hokan hypothesis, relating several small language families and isolates of California, was initially proposed by Dixon and Kroeber (1913) more than a hundred years ago. There is still no consensus regarding the validity of Hokan: some scholars accept the hypothesis (Kaufman 1989, 2015; Gursky 1995), while others view it with great skepticism (Campbell 1997: 290–296, Marlett 2007; cf. a more positive assessment in Golla 2011: 82–84, as well as a neutral overview in Jany 2016). My own position is that the genetic relationship between most languages usually subsumed under Hokan is highly likely, and that the existence of the Ho- kan family can be taken as a working hypothesis, subject to further proof or refutation. The goal of the present paper is to draw attention to several morphological parallels be- tween Hokan languages.
    [Show full text]
  • Thou and You in Shakespeare
    Thou and You in Shakespeare Modern English has only one second person pronoun: you. But Old English had two: thou for second person singular and you for second person plural. By the 13th century, however, people began employing you as a singular pronoun to convey politeness or formality. At this stage, thou and you in English mirrored the French pronouns tu and vous or the Spanish tú and usted: one familiar, the other formal. In the early-modern English of Shakespeare’s time, thou and you could indicate fine distinctions of social status and interpersonal relationships: thou you to social inferiors to social superiors to social equals (lower class) to social equals (upper class) in private in public to express familiarity or intimacy to express formality or neutrality to show scorn or contempt to show respect or admiration Thou A speaker could use the familiar thou to address their social inferiors or to indicate friendship and intimacy. When some one of high rank addressed someone of lower rank (King to subject, parent to child, husband to wife, teacher to student), they would use thou. The subjects, children, wives, and students — on the other hand — would address their betters as you. The hierarchical use of thou made it an excellent way to put someone in their place, condescending to or insulting them. Calling someone thou, implied — all by itself — that they were inferior. But thou could express intimacy as well as superiority. Close friends, romantic partners, husbands and wives (in private) would all use thou to address each other. Speakers also addressed God as thou, signaling a deep spiritual intimacy between the believer and the deity.
    [Show full text]
  • Interdisciplinary Approaches to Stratifying the Peopling of Madagascar
    INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACHES TO STRATIFYING THE PEOPLING OF MADAGASCAR Paper submitted for the proceedings of the Indian Ocean Conference, Madison, Wisconsin 23-24th October, 2015 Roger Blench McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research University of Cambridge Correspondence to: 8, Guest Road Cambridge CB1 2AL United Kingdom Voice/ Ans (00-44)-(0)1223-560687 Mobile worldwide (00-44)-(0)7847-495590 E-mail [email protected] http://www.rogerblench.info/RBOP.htm This version: Makurdi, 1 April, 2016 1 Malagasy - Sulawesi lexical connections Roger Blench Submission version TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................................. i ACRONYMS ...................................................................................................................................................ii 1. Introduction................................................................................................................................................. 1 2. Models for the settlement of Madagascar ................................................................................................. 2 3. Linguistic evidence...................................................................................................................................... 2 3.1 Overview 2 3.2 Connections with Sulawesi languages 3 3.2.1 Nouns..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • THE VOWEL SYSTEMS of CALIFORNIA HOKAN1 Jeff Good University of California, Berkeley
    THE VOWEL SYSTEMS OF CALIFORNIA HOKAN1 Jeff Good University of California, Berkeley Unlike the consonants, the vowels of Hokan are remarkably conservative. —Haas (1963:44) The evidence as I view it points to a 3-vowel proto-system consisting of the apex vowels *i, *a, *u. —Silver (1976:197) I am not willing, however, to concede that this suggests [Proto-Hokan] had just three vowels. The issue is open, though, and I could change my mind. —Kaufman (1988:105) 1. INTRODUCTION. The central question that this paper attempts to address is the motivation for the statements given above. Specifically, assuming there was a Proto-Hokan, what evidence is there for the shape of its vowel system? With the exception of Kaufman’s somewhat equivocal statement above, the general (but basically unsupported) verdict has been that Proto-Hokan had three vowels, *i, *a, and *u. This conclusion dates back to at least Sapir (1917, 1920, 1925) who implies a three-vowel system in his reconstructions of Proto-Hokan forms. However, as far as I am aware, no one has carefully articulated why they think the Proto-Hokan system should have been of one form instead of another (though Kaufman (1988) does discuss some of his reasons).2 Furthermore, while reconstructions of Proto-Hokan forms exist, it has not yet been possible to provide a detailed analysis of the sound changes required to relate reconstructed forms to attested forms. As a result, even though the reconstructions themselves are valuable, they cannot serve as a strong argument for the particular proto vowel system they implicitly or explicitly assume.
    [Show full text]
  • Linguistic Evidence for a Prehistoric Polynesia—Southern California Contact Event
    Linguistic Evidence for a Prehistoric Polynesia—Southern California Contact Event KATHRYN A. KLAR University of California, Berkeley TERRY L. JONES California Polytechnic State University Abstract. We describe linguistic evidence for at least one episode of pre- historic contact between Polynesia and Native California, proposing that a borrowed Proto—Central Eastern Polynesian lexical compound was realized as Chumashan tomol ‘plank canoe’ and its dialect variants. Similarly, we suggest that the Gabrielino borrowed two Polynesian forms to designate the ‘sewn- plank canoe’ and ‘boat’ (in general, though probably specifically a dugout). Where the Chumashan form speaks to the material from which plank canoes were made, the Gabrielino forms specifically referred to the techniques (adzing, piercing, sewing). We do not suggest that there is any genetic relationship between Polynesian languages and Chumashan or Gabrielino, only that the linguistic data strongly suggest at least one prehistoric contact event. Introduction. Arguments for prehistoric contact between Polynesia and what is now southern California have been in print since the late nineteenth century when Lang (1877) suggested that the shell fishhooks used by Native Hawaiians and the Chumash of Southern California were so stylistically similar that they had to reflect a shared cultural origin. Later California anthropologists in- cluding the archaeologist Ronald Olson (1930) and the distinguished Alfred Kroeber (1939) suggested that the sewn-plank canoes used by the Chumash and the Gabrielino off the southern California coast were so sophisticated and uni- que for Native America that they likely reflected influence from Polynesia, where plank sewing was common and widespread. However, they adduced no linguistic evidence in support of this hypothesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Great Vespers on Saturday, May 02, 2020 Tone 2; Third Sunday of Pascha Sunday of the Holy Myrrh-Bearing Women, Pious Joseph of Arimathaea & Righteous Nicodemus
    Great Vespers on Saturday, May 02, 2020 Tone 2; Third Sunday of Pascha Sunday of the Holy Myrrh-Bearing Women, Pious Joseph of Arimathaea & Righteous Nicodemus VARIOUS ARRANGEMENTS OF “CHRIST IS RISEN” Arabic (slow, chant) // English (slow, chant) // English-Arabic-Greek (quick, chant) English-Greek (slow, choral) // Arabic (slow, choral) Priest: Blessed is our God, always, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Choir: Amen. Priest: Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down Death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life! Choir: Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down Death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life! (TWICE) THE PSALM OF INTRODUCTION—PSALM 103 Reader: Bless the Lord, O my soul; O Lord my God, Thou hast been magnified exceedingly. Confession and majesty hast Thou put on, Who coverest Thyself with light as with a garment, Who stretchest out the heaven as it were a curtain; Who supporteth His chambers in the waters, Who appointeth the clouds for His ascent, Who walketh upon the wings of the winds, Who maketh His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire. Who establisheth the earth in the sureness thereof; it shall not be turned back forever and ever. The abyss like a garment is His mantle; upon the mountains shall the waters stand. At Thy rebuke they will flee, at the voice of Thy thunder shall they be afraid. The mountains rise up and the plains sink down, unto the place where Thou hast established them. Thou appointedst a bound that they shall not pass, neither return to cover the earth.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Introduction
    1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Ethnographic setting The Chimariko language was spoken in the nineteenth century in a few small villages in Trinity County, in north-western California. The villages were located along a twenty-mile stretch of the Trinity River and parts of the New River and South Fork River. In 1849, the Chimariko numbered around two hundred and fifty people. They were nearly extinct in 1906, except for a ‘toothless old woman and a crazy old man’, as well as ‘a few mixed bloods’ (Kroeber 1925:109). The ‘toothless old woman’ Kroeber refers to was most likely Polly Dyer and the ‘crazy old man’ Dr. Tom, also identified by Dixon (1910:295) as a ‘half-crazy old man’. The last speaker probably died in the 1940s. First contact with European explorers occurred early in the nineteenth century, in the 1820s or 1830s, when fur trappers came to the region. However, the tribe was left largely unaffected by this encounter (Dixon 1910:297). During the Gold Rush in the 1850s the Chimariko territory was overrun by gold seekers. Continuous gold mining activities in the region threatened the salmon supply, the main food source of the tribe, and led to a bitter conflict in the 1860s (Silver 1978a:205). The fights between European miners and the tribe resulted in the near annihilation of the Chimariko in the 1860s. The few survivors took refuge with the neighboring Shasta on the upper Salmon River or in Scott Valley or with the Hupa to the northwest (Dixon 1910:297). Once the gold was gone and the miners left the region, the survivors returned to their homes after years in exile (Silver 1978a:205).
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2. Native Languages of West-Central California
    Chapter 2. Native Languages of West-Central California This chapter discusses the native language spoken at Spanish contact by people who eventually moved to missions within Costanoan language family territories. No area in North America was more crowded with distinct languages and language families than central California at the time of Spanish contact. In the chapter we will examine the information that leads scholars to conclude the following key points: The local tribes of the San Francisco Peninsula spoke San Francisco Bay Costanoan, the native language of the central and southern San Francisco Bay Area and adjacent coastal and mountain areas. San Francisco Bay Costanoan is one of six languages of the Costanoan language family, along with Karkin, Awaswas, Mutsun, Rumsen, and Chalon. The Costanoan language family is itself a branch of the Utian language family, of which Miwokan is the only other branch. The Miwokan languages are Coast Miwok, Lake Miwok, Bay Miwok, Plains Miwok, Northern Sierra Miwok, Central Sierra Miwok, and Southern Sierra Miwok. Other languages spoken by native people who moved to Franciscan missions within Costanoan language family territories were Patwin (a Wintuan Family language), Delta and Northern Valley Yokuts (Yokutsan family languages), Esselen (a language isolate) and Wappo (a Yukian family language). Below, we will first present a history of the study of the native languages within our maximal study area, with emphasis on the Costanoan languages. In succeeding sections, we will talk about the degree to which Costanoan language variation is clinal or abrupt, the amount of difference among dialects necessary to call them different languages, and the relationship of the Costanoan languages to the Miwokan languages within the Utian Family.
    [Show full text]
  • Cognate Words in Mehri and Hadhrami Arabic
    Cognate Words in Mehri and Hadhrami Arabic Hassan Obeid Alfadly* Khaled Awadh Bin Mukhashin** Received: 18/3/2019 Accepted: 2/5/2019 Abstract The lexicon is one important source of information to establish genealogical relations between languages. This paper is an attempt to describe the lexical similarities between Mehri and Hadhrami Arabic and to show the extent of relatedness between them, a very little explored and described topic. The researchers are native speakers of Hadhrami Arabic and they paid many field visits to the area where Mehri is spoken. They used the Swadesh list to elicit their data from more than 20 Mehri informants and from Johnston's (1987) dictionary "The Mehri Lexicon and English- Mehri Word-list". The researchers employed lexicostatistical techniques to analyse their data and they found out that Mehri and Hadhrmi Arabic have so many cognate words. This finding confirms Watson (2011) claims that Arabic may not have replaced all the ancient languages in the South-Western Arabian Peninsula and that dialects of Arabic in this area including Hadhrami Arabic are tinged, to a greater or lesser degree, with substrate features of the Pre- Islamic Ancient and Modern South Arabian languages. Introduction: three branches including Central Semitic, Historically speaking, the Semitic language Ethiopian and Modern south Arabian languages family from which both of Arabic and Mehri (henceforth MSAL). Though Arabic and Mehri descend belong to a larger family of languages belong to the West Semitic, Arabic descends called Afro-Asiatic or Hamito-Semitic that from the Central Semitic and Mehri from includes Semitic, Egyptian, Cushitic, Omotic, (MSAL) which consists of two branches; the Berber and Chadic (Rubin, 2010).
    [Show full text]