On the South American Origins of Some Mesoamerican Civilizations

LEIDEN UNIVERSITY CENTRE FOR LINGUISTICS (LUCL) LEIDEN UNIVERSITY

ON THE SOUTH AMERICAN ORIGINS OF SOME MESOAMERICAN CIVILIZATIONS

POSTDOCTORAL FINAL REPORT FOR THE “MESANDLIN(G)K” PROJECT

PROJECT ID: 295918 (FUNDED UNDER: FP7-IDEAS-ERC)

ADVISOR: WILLEM ADELAAR

Leiden 2017

To Jesus Thanks for Your guidance

Abstract: In this paper, I present important interdisciplinary evidences that two of the main Mesoamerican populations may have originated in South America, namely the forefathers of the so called Otomangueans and of the Proto-Mayans. Those evidence point to the probability that the Homelands of the Otomangueans’ forefathers and of the Proto-Mayans’ forefathers were respectively Western Colombia and the North-Central Peruvian Coast. The Otomanguean linguistic connections with South America will be dealt in §1. Possible linguistic connections related to the Kandoxis, Kunzas and Mosetens – as well as those related to the Lencans and Misumalpans – will be dealt in §2. Finally, by using the archaeoecolinguistic perspective, an interdisciplinary discussion linking the aforementioned linguistic connections to archaeological and climatological data and a Panorama of some possible prehistoric population movements in the Mesoamerica-Andes Axis are offered in §3-4.

Resumo: Neste artigo, apresento importantes evidências interdisciplinares de que duas das principais populações mesoamericanas teriam se originaram na América do Sul: os antepassados dos chamados otomangueanos e dos Proto-maias. Tais evidências apontam para a probabilidade da terra natal dos antepassados dos ditos otomangueanos e dos antepassados dos Proto-maias serem respectivamente a Colômbia ocidental e a costa norte- central do Peru. As conexões das línguas otomangueanas com a América do Sul serão tratadas em §1. Possíveis conexões linguísticas relacionadas aos kandoxis, kunzas e mosetens – bem como aquelas relacionadas aos lencas e misumalpas – serão tratadas em §2. Finalmente, através da perspectiva arqueo-ecolingüística, uma discussão interdisciplinar que associa tais conexões linguísticas a dados arqueológicos e climatológicos, assim como um panorama de alguns possíveis movimentos populacionais pré-históricos no Eixo Mesoamérica-Andes são oferecidos em §3-4.

3 August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

0. INTRODUCTION

The following paper presents the results of the research done by me between August 2016 and March 2017 under the Mesandlin(g)k project, a.k.a. “The Linguistic Past of Mesoamerica and the Andes: a search for early migratory relations between North and South America”.1

The research goal was, in the broad sense, to establish binary comparisons between the (Proto)languages of ethnolinguistic groups located in the Mesoamerica-Andes Axis, in order to improve the understanding of language contact and linguistic dispersal in the Americas during Prehistory. In the strict sense, Willem Adelaar asked me to contribute to such approach by focusing on finding possible linguistic connections specifically related (i) to the Otomanguean stock, and (ii) to some of the isolate languages and small language families in the Mesoamerica – Andes Axis. As for the second goal of my postdoctoral research, Willem Adelaar recommended me to focus on isolate languages and small language families not yet thoroughly addressed by other project members, such as the followings: Lencan, Misumalpan and the isolate languages from Bolivia. By doing this some previously untold connections between Mesoamerica and South America were successfully detected.

Before going into the results I’ll briefly present the research methods used by me. The starting point of my research was to upgrade the South American Languages Lexical Database which I have built during my PhD (Jolkesky 2016).2 The upgrade refers to the building up of

1 This research was carried out under the direct supervision of Professor Willem Adelaar, whom I earnestly thank for the invitation and opportunity. I’m also thankful to the ERC for funding me and to the Leiden University for all the given support during the 8 months period of my Postdoctoral Scholarship. 2 For more information about the methodology used by me, see Jolkesky (2016:41-43). All the references used by me during compilation of the South American Languages Lexical Database are detailed in Jolkesky (2016:764- 781). The following archaeoecolinguistic notations used my be in my PhD Dissertation are adopted in this paper: for any X (X=language/ethnolinguistic group], (i) pre-Proto-X is used when there is no genealogical continuity between pre-Proto-X and Proto-X and the glottogenesis/ethnogenesis of Proto-X was influenced by a “pre-Proto- X language/ethnolinguistic group” through contact (in this process Proto-X was left with a pre-Proto-X linguistic/cultural substrate, meaning that: (a) if X is a language, pre-Proto-X is diachronically the substrate language of the Proto-X language; (b) if X is an ethnic group, the pre-Proto-Xs were the bearers of a preexistent culture that influenced the culturogenesis of the Proto-Xs); (ii) Proto-Proto-X is used to denote that there is a direct genealogical continuity between the languages/ethnolinguistic groups (it means that Proto-X is the direct descendant of Proto-Proto-X in an arboreal lineage through pure genetic heritage: (a) if X is a language, Proto- Proto-X is diachronically the ancient form of the Proto-X language; (b) if X is an ethnic group, the Proto-Proto-Xs were the forefathers of the Proto-Xs).

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

the American Languages Lexical Database (ALLD) by including lexical data from North- and Mesoamerican (Proto)-languages relevant to this research.3 The added language groups and their data sources are the followings:

• Otomanguean stock: Proto-Mixtecan (Longacre & Millon 1961; Josserand 1983), (Proto-)Zapotecan (Fernández de Miranda 1995; Beam de Azcona 2004; Munro & Lopez 1999; Pickett 2007; Earl & Sheffler de Earl 2011; Campbell 2013; Kaufman 2016a), Proto-Mazatecan (Kirk 1966; Capen 1996), Proto-Otopamean (Hasler 1960; Bartholomew 1965; Cazes 1977), Proto-Chinantecan (Rench 1989), Subtiaba- Tlapanecan (Bauernschmidt, Sánchez Flores & García 1973; Bouda 1975; Campbell 1975; Suárez 1988; Cline 2013) and Manguean (Hamp 1964; Quirós Rodríguez 2002); • Hokan stock (Gursky 1974, 1988, 1989, 1990; Kaufman 1988; Marlett 2007): (Proto- )Yuman (Wares 1968, Couro & Hutcheson 1973, Mixco 1978, Shaterian 1983, Crawford 1989, Munro et alii 1992), Proto-Pomoan (McLendon 1973), Proto- Jicaquean (Campbell & Oltrogge 1980), Seri (Moser & Marlett 2005), Comecrudo (Swanton 1940), Oaxacan Chontal (Turner & Turner 1971, O'Connor 2013), Yana (Sapir & Swadesh 1960); • Yukian family: Proto-Yukian (Schlichter 1985), Yuki (Sawyer & Schlichter 1984), Wappo (Sawyer 1965); • Chumashan family: Ineseño Chumash (SYBCY et alii 2008); • Uto-Aztecan family: Huichol (McIntosh & Grimes 1954), Tarahumara (Hilton 1993), Nahuatl (Brockway et alii 2000); • Mayan family: Proto-Mayan (Kaufman & Justeson 2003); • Mixe-Zoquean family: Proto-Mixe-Zoquean (Wichmann 1995); • Lencan family: Proto-Lencan (Arguedas Cortés 1988, Constenla-Umaña 2002), Honduran Lenca (Herranz Herranz 1987, del Río Urrutia 2004), Salvadoran Lenca; • Misumalpan family: Proto-Misumalpan (Constenla-Umaña 1987, 2002, 2005), Miskito (Brown 2008), Ulwa (CIDCA et alii 1989), Sumo (von Houwald 1980), Cacaopera (Campbell 1975, 1980);

3 A copy of an incomplete version of the ALLD can be freely download HERE.

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

• Chitimacha (Swadesh 1950), Atakapa (Gatschet & Swanton 1932), Natchez (Van Tuyl 1979), Tunica (Haas 1953), Tonkawa (Hoijer 1949), Karankawa (Gatschet 1891), Cuitlatec (Hendrichs Pérez 1939, Weitlaner 1939, Escalante 1962), Salinan (Mason 1918).

The ALLD fundamentally encloses ∼400 terms encompassing the following semantic categories: (i) personal and spatial deictics, (ii) kinship terms, (iii) body/plant parts, (iv) animals and plants, (v) natural phenomena, (vi) utensils and housing, (vii) foods and raw materials, (viii) basic verbs (positional, motion, action, sensory, meteorological, bodily processes), and (ix) adjectives (size, age, temperature, color, value). All these terms were grouped by semantic domains to facilitate the search for lookalikes (any pair of similar roots within the same semantic domain).

Next step was to perform exploratory procedures by assessing the ALLD in search for good lookalikes between any pair of languages under research, always taking into account the aforementioned strict sense research goals. All instances were grouped and sorted out, and for each group of lookalikes the following analytic procedures were applied in sequence:

(i) morphological checking of words, aiming to exclude fortuitous instances; (ii) phonological comparison of all the remained instances (which were taken as possible cognates), in search for sound correspondences.

A possibility of genetic inheritance was raised only when patterns of phonological correspondences were found among any group of possible cognates. Otherwise, these group of shared words were taken as indicative of language contact. The archaeoecolinguistic approach (see Jolkesky 2016) was used as an interdisciplinary platform to substantiate any hypothesis raised by me regarding prehistoric population movements and language contact between the Americas. In what follows I will present the results achieved by this research. In the next two sections I will detail all the results achieved by me.

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

1. PRE-COLONIAL LINGUISTIC CONNECTIONS BETWEEN OTOMANGUEAN AND SOUTH AMERICAN LANGUAGES

The Otomanguean stock is the biggest in the Americas and the most diverse, comprising two main divisions and eight subfamilies (see Chart 1).

Chart 1: The Otomanguean stock, following Kaufman 2006, 2015, 2016a. Although most linguists agree that the existence of this stock has been proven (see Kaufman 2015, Campbell 2017), no detailed reconstruction has been published until now and Brown (2015) recently challenged it, suggesting that it is actually a Sprachbund. If we consider the archaeoecolinguistic perspective, this alternative approach must indeed be taken seriously in upcoming researches. During colonial times, most of the Otomanguean languages were spoken Mexico and only the Manguean branch was spoken as far as Costa Rica. Map 1 shows the approximate distribution of the Otomanguean stock in Mesoamerica during the XV century AD.

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

Map 1: The Otomanguean stock during the XV century AD. During the same period, the ethnolinguistic distribution in Northwestern South America was quite complex. Map 2 shows the approximate ethnolinguistic distribution in Northwestern South America during the XV century AD.

Map 2: The ethnolinguistic distribution in Northwestern South America during the XV century AD (for the abbreviations, see Jolkesky 2016).

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

After an exhaustive mass comparison using the data compiled in the ALLD some quite relevant word resemblances emerged between (Proto-)languages of the Otomanguean stock and those spoken in Northwestern South America. The most striking ones were (i) with language families located within the Northwestern Tip of South America, namely: Chocoan, Barbacoan and Paezan; and (ii) with Saliban-Hoti. Among the shared lexical items, there are few robust parallels with Chocoan and many robust parallels with Paez, Barbacoan and Saliban-Hoti. Three relevant points emerged after analyzing these findings. They will be dealt separately in the following sections.

1.1. OTOMANGUEAN AND CHOCOAN

There is a bunch of high quality lexical parallels shared between the Otomanguean stock and the Proto-Chocoan.4 As shown in Table 1, most of these possible borrowings in Proto-Chocoan may have come from Proto-Otopamean.

TABLE 1: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN OTOMANGUEAN AND CHOCOAN

OTOMANGUEAN CHOCOAN

arm/wing POTP *(n)hoa ‘wing’ PCHK *hua ‘arm’

belly PMZT *pi PCHK *βi > wnn bi

eat PZPT *aku; TPN -ʔkʰu PCHK *ko

eye POTP *-tao (see also: POTP *n-tao ‘seed’) PCHK *dabu > WNN dau, N.EBR dau, S.EBR dau/tau

go POTP *ma/*wa PCHK *ua ̃ > WNN ma, PEBR *wa ̃

hear POTP *ʔo-t > OTM ʔøde, MTZ ʔøti, OCU PCHK *ũri- > PEBR *ũri-, WNN ʔũr ʔøɬ

house PZPT *litʲi ‘house’ > YAZ/SYZ liʒ, COZ PCHK *de ‘house’ > PEBR *de, WNN lid/ni, CTN niː̃ ; PMZT *ʃthe ‘nest’ dih

meat/animal POTP *nʔi-m ‘meat’ PCHK *neme ‘animal’ > WNN nem (see also: WNN nemek ‘meat’), PEBR *ne-̃ ‘thing/animal’

4 The source for Proto-Chocoan/Proto-Embera reconstructions and for the phonological correspondence sets of the Chocoan languages is: Umaña & Peña (1991).

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

TABLE 1: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN OTOMANGUEAN AND CHOCOAN

OTOMANGUEAN CHOCOAN

penis/male POTP *me ‘male’ > OTM/CHO me, NPO PCHC *me ‘penis’ mɛʔ

salt POTP *thõ-s ‘salt’; also: TPN tana PCHC *ta ̃ [*tʰa]̃ ‘medicine’

tongue/face POTP *khia-̃ ‘tongue’ PCHC *kirã ‘face’

tongue/face PMZT *ʔmi ̃ ‘tongue’; POTP *hmi ‘face’ PCHC *me ‘tongue’ > PEBR *kira-̃ me [kʰirã -me]̃ ‘tongue’

wear clothes POTP *he PCHC *hɨ ̃

Besides this, some Chocoan (most Emberan) non-reconstructable terms referring to cultural items have reconstructable counterparts in Otomanguean branches. Most of them have available reconstructions for Proto-Zapotecan, Proto-Mazatecan or Proto-Otopamean. There is a high probability that virtually all those items, shown in Table 2, were borrowed from an Otomanguean source:

TABLE 2: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN OTOMANGUEAN AND EMBERA/WAUNANA

OTOMANGUEAN CHOCOAN

atole/manioc PMZT *nʧaha ‘atole’ > LOM nʧoho N.EBR ʧʰa,̃ WNN ʧʰohõ ‘manioc’

earth PZPT *joː S.EBR joːro (-ro ‘common suffix’)

fire/firewood POTP *ci-p ‘fire/embers/lime’ > OTM PEBR *tɨbɨ ‘firewood’ cibi, MZT sivi ‘fire’

fish PZPT *kʷ-el-a͈ > ISZ benda, SYZ beld, JUZ PEBR *βeda bela,͈ VAZ bel,͈ CUZ mbel

jaguar PZPT *(kʷ-)eːˀʦi ‘jaguar’ > JUZ beʦi, ISZ S.EBR ɨp̃ ʰidi/õpʰɨɗɨ beːʤeˀ, COZ mbiˀʤ, CUZ mbeːz

knife/cut POTP *thi-s ‘knife’ PEBR *tɨ [*tʰɨ] ‘cut’

male POTP *weo-ʔ S.EBR wiu, N.EBR wiɡu

mountain PZPT *keˀja, PCTN *keˀja S.EBR eja/ea, N.EBR eja

old POTP *tʔõ-ma N.EBR drõa, S.EBR ʧõa

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

TABLE 2: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN OTOMANGUEAN AND EMBERA/WAUNANA

OTOMANGUEAN CHOCOAN

person PZPT *kʷ-en͈eˀ ‘people/family’ YAZ ben͈əˀ, PEBR *ebẽ rã ̃ SYZ ben͈ˀ, MIZ beʰn͈, COZ men; PCTN *kʷiniː > CTN kʷiɲiː

see POTP *nõ > OTM nũ, MTZ/CHO nu PEBR*unu

seed PMZT *nthe > LOM tha PEBR *netã *[net̃ ʰa]

sit/seat POTP *ʧhopi ‘seat’; also: PZPT *zoba ‘sit’ N.EBR ʧume/ʧubɨa [ʧʰume]/[ʧʰubɨa], > COZ n-zobˀ WNN hup ‘sit’

sky PZPT *baˀ N.EBR ba, S.EBR pa/ba

tobacco PMZT *ʦhiũ ̃ S.EBR ʧihõ, N.EBR ʧihõ/ʤihõ

urine/sour PZPT *sieˀ ‘sour’, PCTN *tieˀ PEBR *sia ‘urine’

wash POTP *tah-t̃ ‘wash clothes’ N.EBR tʰat̃ ʰo, S.EBR tʰõ ‘wash dishes/clothes’

year/star POTP *khai ‘year’ S.EBR kakhai ‘star’

1.2. OTOMANGUEAN AND BARBACOAN

Most lexical items shared by the Otomanguean and the Barbacoan stocks involved exclusively the Coconucan branch and are reconstructable to Proto-Coconucan but not to Proto-Barbacoan. This is a strong indicative that the forefathers of the Proto-Coconucans possibly underwent a ethnogenetic process, maybe through creolization. Most of those borrowings from an Otomanguean source have available reconstructions for Proto- Zapotecan, Proto-Mazatecan and/or Proto-Otopamean:

TABLE 3: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN OTOMANGUEAN AND BARBACOAN

OTOMANGUEAN BARBACOAN5

1 PZPT *na(ˀ); PZPT *-aˀ ‘1.POS’ PKOK *na

5 The source for Proto-Barbacoan reconstructions and for the phonological correspondence sets of the Barbacoan/Coconucan languages is: Curnow & Liddicoat (1998). The authors didn't reconstruct all the Proto- Coconucan forms used here, but it is possible to make inferences based on the phonological correspondence sets established by them (the only exception, made by me, is the reconstruction of Proto-Coconucan *o > Guambiano u : Totoró o, contrasting with Proto-Coconucan *u > Guambiano u : Totoró u).

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

TABLE 3: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN OTOMANGUEAN AND BARBACOAN

OTOMANGUEAN BARBACOAN5

2 PZPT *-luˀ; PZPT *-uˀ ‘2.POS’; PZPT *nu ‘1.I’ PBBK *nu

3 PZPT *neˀ ‘3.RESP’, PZPT *-eˀ ‘3.POS’; also: PKOK *nɨ PZPT *ni ‘3/this’, PCNT *nə ‘that’ blood/red PMZT *ʔja-ni ̃ ‘red’ (PMZT *ʔja- ‘nominal’) > PKOK *ani ‘blood’ MZM/CQM/SOM ʔani;̃ also: PMZT *hni ̃ ‘blood’ body PZPT *lati > COZ laˀz PKOK *aç bone PPL *tjun-, TPN itsu, SBT ísúː PKOK *tsu- breast PZPT *tʲiˀ, PMZT *ʧiki ‘chest’ PBBK *ʧik > AWP ʧikuza child POTP *ʔoene > OTM/MAZ ʔwɛne PKOK *unɨ coal/ POTP *nca ‘firewood’; PPPL *(n)ʧa ‘fire’ GBN tɕar ‘firewood’; AWP -ʧax, firewood PSBK *-ʦala ‘coal’ cold PMTK *wixi ̱ GBN piʃi ̃ deer POTP *pahnʔ PKOK *pan, AWK paina ear POTP *n-kaõ PKOK *kalo embers/star6 PMZT *(ni-)̃ ɲũce ‘big star’ (PMZT *ni-̃ ‘nominal’) PKOK *oçɨ ‘embers/ashes’ fire PCNT *nakʷɨ > naku PKOK *nakɨ firewood PMTK *sɨʔɨ ̱ TTR tʂɨ, AWP sɨ flesh PMZT *jahu ‘meat/flesh’ > HUM jau PKOK *jau- flower PMZT *na-̃ ʃu PBBK *uʃ flower PCNT *li PSBK *lɨlɨ give PCNT *kʷəŋ > kʷən AWP kʷin pot PMTK *kɨsɨ ‘pot’; PZPT *keso͈ ˀ > COZ ɡeʦ; CNT PKOK *kɨtsɨ ‘pot’ kitʲũˀ hand/foot POTP *koa ‘foot/leg’ > OTM ɡʷa, MAZ ɡʷaʔa, PKOK *kʷal ‘hand/arm’ NPO ma-kʷa; PCNT *kʷeː > kʷah ‘arm’

6 In the worldview of some Northwestern South American societies the souls of the deceased go to the sky and the stars are seen as fireplaces in the villages of the deceased (or even as the embers of those fireplaces).

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

TABLE 3: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN OTOMANGUEAN AND BARBACOAN

OTOMANGUEAN BARBACOAN5 house PZPT *ja ‘sweat lodge’; also: PMZT *(nti)ʔja PBBK *ja ‘house’ (*nti- ‘nominal’ ?) > ni-̃ ʔja leaf POTP *si > OTM/MTZ ʃi, NPO niʃːi PKOK *iʃi- lie down/sit PZPT *sokʷa ‘sit’ > ISZ zuba, COZ n-zobˀ; POTP PKOK *tsop ‘lie down’ *ʧhopi ‘seat’ medicine PCNT *mɨ GBN mɨ mother/nurse OCU ci, NPO cːiʔ, MAZ ʃiʔi ‘nurse’ GBN uɕi ‘mother’ mountain/ PZPT *tun͈i ‘high’ > RCZ tun͈a, YAZ ton͈ə, SYZ PKOK *tuna ‘mountain’ > GBN high ton͈ tun, TTR tuna new PMZT *ce PKOK *çɨ night POTP *saom̃ > MTZ ʃɵmi, MAZ ʃomʉ PKOK *jem nose/calabash PMTK *kɨmʔ ‘calabash’ (see: TPN dako PBBK *kim- ‘nose’ ‘nose/calabash’) place/earth PZPT *juː ‘earth’ PKOK *ju ‘place’, PKOK *-ju ‘LOC’ rain PMZT *sci >LOM ce; also: OTM ʔje PKOK *çe root/manioc PZPT *lo͈ ‘root’ > SYZ/COZ lo; see also: PCNT PKOK *lo ‘manioc’ *luː ‘neck’ rope/snake POTP *ʧi ‘snake’ PKOK *tsi ‘rope’ salt PZPT *seteˀ > SYZ/COZ zedˀ, CTN teheˀ PKOK *tçe shit POTP *phoi > CHO pü, OCU pø, OTM pʰo PBBK *pɨ sky/up POTP *cʔi-ñ ʔ ‘up’; also: PZPT *tse ‘day/night’ PKOK *ɕɨ ‘sky’ > GBN ɕɨ ̃ snake PMTK *lu PKOK *ul speak/tongue PZPT *n͈iˀ ‘speak’; PMZT *ʔne ̃ ‘tongue/word’ PBBK *ni- ‘tongue’ > PSBK *ni-ka; PKOK *ni-lɨ speak POTP *si-p > NPO ʧep, OTM/MAZ ʃipʰi GBN tʃip stone/earth POTP *to ‘stone’ PBBK *to ‘earth’

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

TABLE 3: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN OTOMANGUEAN AND BARBACOAN

OTOMANGUEAN BARBACOAN5 sun PZPT *(ko-)kʷiʦ- ‘sun’ (*ko- ‘nominal’) > ATZ PKOK *pɨtɕa ‘sun’ ubiʦa, VAZ ɡʷbiʤ, CUZ wiz; PCTN *kʷits-aː ‘sun’ tree PMZT *tuciˀi ̃ PKOK *tuç what PZPT *çi PKOK *ʧi-, AWP ʃi wife PZPT *ʦeˀela > CUZ saˀl, COZ ʧalʔ PKOK *çalɨ woman POTP *sõ/*co ‘woman/wife’ > OCU ʧhu, OTM PKOK *iʃu-, TFK sona; PSBK n-xu; PMZT *ʧhũ ‘wife’ (< *n-ʧhu) *so ‘vulva’

1.3. OTOMANGUEAN AND PAEZ

There is a great amount of high quality lexical parallels between the Otomanguean stock and the Paez language, as shown in Tables 4-6. Most of the detected parallels are with Proto-Zapotecan (Table 6).

TABLE 4: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN (PROTO-)OTOPAMEAN AND PAEZ

PROTO-MAZATECAN/PROTO-CHINANTECAN PAEZ

1.SUB MTZ tu-h-, TWK to-, OTM d-; RCZ -tu ‘1.E’ -tʰ(u)

2.SUB OTM ɡ-; TWK khun- ‘2.P’ -ɡ(u)

3.SUB MTZ ku-h- -k(u) (3.SUB.PST)

child OTM loʧi; also: PMTK *luˀu ‘small’ luuʧ

cloud/air/wind POTP *n-tamh̃ ‘air/wind’ taãp̃ ʰ ‘cloud’

fire/smoke POTP *mʔiph ‘smoke’ > OTM ˀbipi, MTZ bipi, MAZ biˀpʰi ipʲ ‘fire’

man OTM me n-mi

scorpion/spider POTP *mes ‘spider’ > OTM/MAZ meʃe us-mitʲ ‘scorpion’ (us = ‘bean/kidney’)

sun/moon POTP *hiat ‘sun’ > OTM hʲadi, MAZ hʲarï aˀte ‘moon’

wife POTP *n-so ‘women/wife’ > OTM n-xu; also: PMZT *ʧhũ n-ju ‘wife’ (< *n-ʧhu); PCNT *ʔjaː ‘female’ > ʔio

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

TABLE 5: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN PROTO-MAZATECAN/PROTO-CHINANTECAN AND PAEZ

PROTO-MAZATECAN/PROTO-CHINANTECAN PAEZ

1.S PMZT *ʔa ̃ a-dʲ

2.S PMZT *hi iː-dʲ, iˀ-kʷe, i-ʧa

3.S PMZT *ʦeˀe >LOM ʦaˀa tʲaː̃

interrogative PMZT *ʔa-, PCNT *ʔa -aˀ

elder/sorcery PMZT *theˀe ‘magic/sorcery’; also: PCNT *tɨ tʰeʔ̃ h ‘elder’ < *n- ‘doctor/teacher’ > teɡ tʰeˀh

husband/father PMZT *na-̃ ʔmi ̃ ‘father/priest’ (PMZT *na-̃ ‘nominal’); also: n-mi ‘husband’ PCNT *hmiː ‘father’

father PMZT *na-̃ ʔ(a)i ̃ > AYM na-̃ ʔai (PMZT *na-̃ ‘nominal’) ; n-ei also: PCNT *ŋiuˀ > neiˀ

jaguar/coyote PMZT *ʦehe ̃ ‘coyote’ > MZM ʦihe ̃ sih ‘jaguar’

mouth PMZT *ʧuˀwa >JDM/SDM juˀwa; also: PZPT *tjoˀwa juwe

speak/tongue PMZT *(na-)hẽ ĩ ̃ ‘tongue’ (PMZT *na-̃ ‘nominal’) > hi ̃ ‘speak’ < *n-hi SOM/LOM (na-)h̃ i ̃

nose/calabash PMZT *ni-sũ ‘calabash’ (PMZT *ni-̃ ‘nominal’) > LOM nis̃ ɨ iʦ̃ ‘nose’ < *n-iʦ

manioc PMZT *ntu-ja (*ntu- ‘nominal ?’) > AYM/CQM/JDM nũja; ɲa < *n-ja also: CRT nuja; also: PZPT *ni-jaˀa ‘milpa’ (PZPT *nĩ- ‘nominal’) > COZ n-iaˀ, CUZ/MHZ n-jaˀ

sweet potato PMZT *ntusʦe (*ntu- ‘nominal ?’) > AYM/JDM nʔũʦe, ũtʰ < *n-utʰ CQM nũʦe

water/liquid PMZT *ʔju ‘drinkable’; also: CUZ juː-, CTN joː ‘river’; MHZ juˀ ‘water’ juː ‘rain’; PCNT *zuː ‘water’

gourd/vase PCNT *ʔɨː ‘gourd’ > sɨː tʰeː ‘gourd’

sun/moon PCNT *sɨːʔ ‘moon’ > θeɡʔ; also: MHZ se ‘day’ sek ‘sun’

penis/male PCNT *ŋiu ‘male’ iu ‘penis’

star PCNT *ʔi-a > ʔa aʔ̃

die/finish PCNT *uː ‘finish’; also: PMTK *kuu ‘die’ uː ‘die’

hog/big game PCNT *kwe ‘big game’ kiwe ‘hog’

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

TABLE 6: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN PROTO-ZAPOTECAN, PROTO-CHATINO AND PAEZ7

PROTO-ZAPOTECAN/PROTO-CHATINO PAEZ

1. abdomen/heart8 PZPT *laˀtʲiˀ ‘heart’ > RCZ laʤiˀ, VAZ laʒəʔ, letʲa ‘abdomen’ < *letʲi-a (-a COZ ledi-o, CUZ lez-oˀ; CTN tiˀ ?)

2. adobe/smash PZPT *kʷaso͈ ˀo ‘adobe’, PCTN *tuː > CTN tʲuː waˀʦʰu ‘smash’ < *baˀʦʰu (also: waˀʦ ‘arepa’)

3. air/wind PZPT *kʷ-eːˀ ‘wind’ > MIZ beh, SBZ bʷɨh; wehja ‘wind’ < *b-eh-ja PCNT *n-kʷiːˀ ‘air’ > kʷiʔ̃ i ̃ ( ‘wind’); also: eː̃ ‘aloft, in the air’ < *n-eː, weh̃ ʲ ‘tobacco’

4. all/much PZPT *tʲaˀ ‘all’ > COZ tæ; CNT taˀ ‘group/a tʰaː-kue ‘much’ lot’; also: CNT ʦaː ‘much’

5. ant/scorpion PZPT *n-kʷe-tʲeˀ ‘ant’ > SBZ biʤih, COZ us-mitʲ ‘scorpion’ (us ‘bean’) < mtʲee; PCTN kʷi-teːˀ CTN kʷitʲeːˀ *us +*n-b-itʲe ‘ant’

6. back PCTN *tinʦuˀ > tiʧõʔ (also: PZPT *t-iʦ͈iˀ > ʦiz < *ʦinsu JUZ xtiʦ͈i, CUZ ʃis, SCZ tiʧ, ISZ d-eʧe, MIZ d- ehts)

9 7. bark/moan PZPT *toço͈ ‘bark, fierce’ tũʧʰ ‘moan’ < *n-tuʧʰu (n- ‘nominal’)

8. bat PZPT *(kʷe-)ketiˀ ‘butterfly’+*sinaˀ ‘mouse’ = kʰih̃ ʦe < *kʰinhiʦen ketiˀsinaˀ > COZ nɡid-zinʔ; pre-PCTN *(kʷi- )kinhi > PCTN *kʷinhi > CTN kʷiː̃ ‘bat’ (pre- PCTN *-kinhi ‘bat’ + pre-PCTN *tinaˀ ‘mouse’ = pre-PCTN *-kinhitinaˀ); also: AMG kiʦʰoon

9. beast/jaguar PZPT *(kʷ-)eːˀʦi ‘jaguar’ (kʷ- ‘nominal’) > eʧ ‘beast’ < *-eʦi MIZ bedz, COZ m-biˀʤ, CUZ beːz; PCTN *kʷiʦi ‘jaguar’; also: TPN ɡiʃaa/ɡiʃjoˀ ‘beast’

7 All Paezan forms following an asterisk represent pre-Paez forms offered by means of internal reconstruction. Morphemes put in brackets weren't relevant in these comparisons. I'm relying on pre-Paez forms by means of internal reconstruction. For instance, all Paez kinship terms have a prefixed n- that seems reminiscent maybe of an inalienable or nominal prefix. It's similar to some nominal prefixes quite common in the Otomanguean languages (na-, ni-, etc.). I'm assuming that pre-Paez has had prefixes like the Otomanguean ones, but that they were lost or assimilated into the lexical roots (resulting in some morphophonological processes like nasalization of vowels/sonorants or palatalization). This approach is still preliminary though. 8 There is also a chance that this form came from Colonial Spanish latido ‘heartbeat’. 9 Maybe from kechua tunʧi ‘wild spirit’.

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

TABLE 6: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN PROTO-ZAPOTECAN, PROTO-CHATINO AND PAEZ7

PROTO-ZAPOTECAN/PROTO-CHATINO PAEZ

10. bee/honey PZPT *(kʷe-)ʦin-aˀ ‘honey’ > ATZ ʦinaˀ, MIZ ʧʰiˀdʲ ‘bee’ <*ʦʰiˀd dzun COZ m-ʤinʔ CUZ m-zin; pre-PCTN *kʷiʦiˀn-a > PCTN *kʷiˀna > CTN *kʷiɲaˀ

11. bee/wasp PZPT * kʷ-ensoˀ ‘bee’ > ISZ bizu, COZ mbeˀz, mezukue ‘wasp’ < *benzu+- CUZ mbed; PCTN *kʷento > kʷetõ ‘bee’ kue (n- ‘nominal’; -kue ‘DIM’)

12. blood PZPT *tʲe-ne > VAZ ɟen, RCZ rɨn, JUZ reː-ne, eː < *tʰeː COZ ten; PCTN *te-ni

13. bone PZPT *tʲita͈ > VAZ ʒit, CUZ siθ, COZ tiθ; PCTN dʲiˀtʰ < *n-tʲiˀtʰa *n-tiha > CTN tʲihja ̃

14. broken/ravine PZPT *kiʦ͈o ‘break/get broken’ kiʦ ‘ravine’

15. cassava/milpa PZPT *ni-jaː ‘milpa’ (*ni- ‘nominal’) ja ̃ < *n-ja ‘cassava’ (*n- ‘nominal’)

16. clothes PZPT *latʲeˀ > MIZ lahd, COZ laˀt; CTN lateˀ atʰe < *latʰe; atʰ ‘put on clothes’ < *latʰ

17. cold PZPT *-ak-a ‘catarrh, cold’ akʰ ‘cold’

18. cook in PZPT *n-is-a͈ ‘water’ > YAZ n-is, COZ niʦ, JUZ iʦ̃ ‘cook in water’ < *n-iʦ water/water inda; PCTN *h-ita > CTN hitʲa

19. correct/right PZPT *li;͈ CTN li ‘right’ dʲih < *dih

20. cover/shell PZPT *çakʷa ‘bark/clothes’, CTN skʷa ʃape ‘shell’

21. dark/darkness PZPT *çin͈i ʃiˀdʲ < *sʲiˀdi

22. door/inside PZPT (kʷe-)liːˀ ‘door’ (see also: PZPT *le͈ ˀa dʲiː ‘inside’ < *diː ‘inside/belly’)

23. drip PZPT *ʦuːˀniˀ, PCTN *suni > CTN ʃniː sud

24. eat PZPT *a-ko > JUZ ɡo, PCTN *ku ũˀ < *buˀ

25. edge PZPT *tʲoˀwa ‘mouth/edge’, PCTN *tuˀkʷa tʰũˀwa/tʰũˀwe ‘ear/edge’ ‘mouth/edge’ > CTN tuˀba

26. excrement *PZPT *keˀe, PCTN *nkiˀe ime < *iɡ̃ e < *n-ɡie (*n- ‘nominal’)

27. fat/avocado PZPT *(k/)n-eçu͈ ‘avocado’ > COZ n-iʃ; PCTN niʃ ‘pulp/fat’ < *n-isʲu *-esu

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

TABLE 6: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN PROTO-ZAPOTECAN, PROTO-CHATINO AND PAEZ7

PROTO-ZAPOTECAN/PROTO-CHATINO PAEZ

28. fence/nest PZPT *loːˀ ‘fence’; also: PZPT *loːˀna ‘bed’ duː ‘nest’

29. field/sow PZPT *tʲaːs-a ‘sow’ > RCZ raz-, ATZ rad-a, tʰaʃ ‘field/bush’ < *tʰasʲ CUZ jad-a , COZ -az-; PCTN *ni-tata > CTN ndʲata

30. firewood/burn PZPT *aˀkiˀ ‘cook/burn’; also: PZPT *kiː ‘fire’, eˀkʲ ‘firewood’ < *eˀki PCTN *kiːˀ

31. fish PZPT *kʷ-el-a͈ > VAZ bel,͈ CUZ mbel; PCTN wedʲ < *bedʲ *kʷela

32. flea/itch PZPT *kʷakʷaˀ ‘itch’ > ISZ babaˀ paˀ̃ pa ̃ ‘flea’ < n-paˀpa (*n- ‘nominal’)

33. fly (insect) PZPT *kʷ-iˀja ‘fly, mosquito’ ɸiʃ̃ ‘fly’ < *n-pisʲa

34. foam/pus PZPT *kuːˀʦeˀ ‘pus’ > JUZ ɡuʦiˀ, RCZ ɡuʤiˀ, buˀʧ < *buˀʦʲe COZ ɡuˀʒ; PCTN *kuʦeˀ

35. foot/arrive PZPT *tʲina ‘arrive’ > CUZ sin ʧidã ‘foot’ < *ʧida

36. forest/‘green PZPT *joː ‘earth’ + PZPT *ka͈ ˀ ‘green’ = jukʰ ‘forest’ earth’ *joːka͈ ˀ; PCTN *juː ‘terra’ + PCTN *kaˀa ‘green’

37. ghost/kin PZPT *kʷeçeˀ ‘ghost’; also: PZPT *kʷeˀ weˀʃ ‘ghost/kin’ < *besʲiˀ ‘3.kinsmen’

38. gourd/vase PZPT *tʲeːˀ ‘vase’ > COZ teːˀ, CUZ reː; PCTN tʰeː ‘gourd’ *nteːˀ > CTN teˀe ̃

39. hair/feather PZPT *k-iʦ͈a(ˀ) ‘hair’ > ATZ iʦ͈aˀ, RCZ ɡ-iʦaˀ, βihʧa ‘bird’ < *bihʦʲa ‘feather COZ ɡ-iʧ, CUZ j-is; PCNT *nkiʦaˀ > CTN ?’10 *kitsaˀ̃

40. hawk PZPT *kʷe-si͈ ˀja > ATZ beθia͈ ˀ, RCZ bisiaˀ, MIZ piʧɣa < *piʧʰija bisih, VAZ bsia, ISZ bisia, CUZ m-ti, COZ m-ʦi; pre-PCTN *kʷitijaˀ > PCTN *kʷijaˀ > CTN kʷiˀja

41. head PZPT *(j-/l-)ek͈ e->͈ SYZ le͈ ɡˀ, RCZ ik-ra͈ ˀ, dʲiktʰe ‘head’ < *dʲikʰ+tʰe (- CUZ/COZ j-ek, MIZ j-ehk; CTN h-ike tʰe maybe from: tʰeɡ ‘look at’); also: dʲkʰas ‘hair’ < *dʲikʰ-kʰas (kʰas ‘wool’)

10 This possible semantic change may be linked to another one: PAE kʰas ‘wool, hair, feather’ < pre-PAE *kʰas ‘wool, hair’).

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

TABLE 6: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN PROTO-ZAPOTECAN, PROTO-CHATINO AND PAEZ7

PROTO-ZAPOTECAN/PROTO-CHATINO PAEZ

42. hot PZPT *ʦaːˀ > ATZ ʦaˀa, MIZ ʤaˀ, COZ ʧæ aʧa < *aʦʲa < *ʦʲaː

43. house/path11 PZPT *neˀe, PCTN *niˀi ̃ dʲiˀh ‘path’ < *diˀh

44. house/sweat PZPT *ja ‘sweat lodge’; also: PMZT *(nti)ʔja jat ‘house’ < *ja-t (*-t ‘?’, see lodge ‘house’ (*nti- ‘nominal’ ?) 86)

12 45. leaf/herb PZPT *(k-)iˀçI͈ ˀ ‘bush/herb’> JUZ/ATZ içi͈ ˀ, eʦ ‘leaf, paper’ < *eʦe SBZ j-içe͈ ˀ, YAZ j-içəˀ͈ , ISZ ɡ-iˀçiˀ, RCZ ɡ-iʃiˀ, COZ j-iʃ; PCTN *kinsIˀ ‘bush/herb’ > CTN kiʃeˀ̃ , kʃiˀ̃

46. life/dwelling PZPT *litʲi ‘dwelling/house’; pre-PCTN *nliti it̃ ʲi ̃ < *nitʲi < *n-litʲi > PCTN *nliˀi > CTN niˀi ̃

47. light PZPT *niːˀ eːn < *neː

48. lizard PZPT *waʦ͈iˀ > COZ/MHZ waʧ; CTN kʷaʦiˀ laweʧ̃ < *law(i)+*weʦi (laβʲ ‘slick’ < *lawi)

49. louse PZPT *(kʷe-)ntʲ͈eːˀ > COZ mti, CUZ mseːˀ, MIZ es̃ < *nse (n- ‘nominal’ ?) beˀʦ; pre-PCTN *(kʷi)-ntiˀ > PCTN *kʷitʲiˀ̃

50. maize PZPT *n-çokʷ-aˀ > COZ n-ʤop, CUZ n-zob, ʃũpʲ ‘boiled maize’ < *n-sʲupe MHZ n-zoˀɸ; PCTN *nsukʷaˀ (n- ‘nominal’ ?)

51. maize/yellow13 PZPT *kuʦ͈i ‘yellow’, CTN kuʦi kutʲʰ ‘maize’ <*kuʦʲʰi

52. male/brother PZPT *kʷ-eˀʦ͈-iˀ ‘brother’ > ATZ beʦ͈iˀ, RCZ pihʦ < *piʦʰu ‘male’ bɨʧ, VAZ biʃ, COZ wiʧ; see also: PCTN *kʷ-iʦ- uˀ > kʷiʧuˀ ‘homosexual’

53. man PZPT *ni-kiˀ(-ju) (*ni- ‘nominal’, *ju ‘3.male’) n-miˀ < *n-biˀ (n- ‘nominal’) >MIZ ni-ɡi, COZ m-ɡiˀ; CTN kiˀ-ju (see also: ju ‘wife’)

54. many/twenty PZPT *kala-͈ ‘twenty’ > RCZ ɡala; CTN kala wala ‘many’ < *bala

55. market/buy PZPT *keˀj-a ‘market’, PCTN *kijaˀ wej < *bej ‘buy’

56. meat PZPT *kʷeːˀlaˀ ‘meat/flesh’ peˀla ‘peace of meat’

11 PZPT *nesa means ‘path’ and may be a complex word composed by ‘house’ and ‘walk’ (PZPT *neˀe ‘house’+ PZPT *sa ‘walk’ > PZPT *nesa ‘path’ > RCZ nɨz, MIZ nehz, COZ nez, CUZ ned). 12 Maybe also: PZPT *(l-/k-)iˀʦi͈ ‘paper’ > JUZ iʦi,͈ ISZ ɡ-iˀʧiˀ, RCZ RCZ ɡ-iʧ(i), SBZ j-iʃ, SBZ l-/j-iʃ; PCTN *kiti. 13 PZPT *keˀtsuˀ ‘grain’ > ATZ jeʦuˀ, ISZ ɡiˀʤuˀ, COZ ɡeˀʒ, CUZ jeˀs; CNT *kitsuˀ > kiʧuˀ.

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

TABLE 6: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN PROTO-ZAPOTECAN, PROTO-CHATINO AND PAEZ7

PROTO-ZAPOTECAN/PROTO-CHATINO PAEZ

57. mucus/rotten PZPT *j-uːˀʦuˀ ‘rotten’, PCTN *(nku-)ʦuˀ > ɲutʲ ‘mucus’ < *n-juʦʲu (n- nɡuʦuˀ ‘nominal’)

58. mouth/meal PZPT *çuwe ‘meal’ > JUZ juwẽ ,̃ ATZ ʤuweː, juwe ‘mouth’ < *juwe MIZ ɟweh, CUZ ʃwi)

59. neck/shoulder PZPT *çiko-͈ ‘shoulder’ > ATZ ʐik-ja,͈ ISZ ʒikeʔ, tʲʰikʰ ‘neck’ < *tʲʰikʰu COZ ʃik; PCTN *n-siku > CTN sikũ

60. night/afternoon PZPT *koʦeˀ ‘afternoon’ >MIZ ɡuʤeh, SBZ kus ‘night’ < *kusɨ ɡuʤɨh; PCTN *(n-)kusi > CTN nkusi ̃

61. nose pre-PZPT *n-isʲeˀ > PZPT *çiˀe > MIZ ʒiˀ, ISZ iʦ̃ < *n-iʦe (n- ‘nominal’ ?) ʒiˀi, COZ ʃeː, CUZ ʃi : PCTN * n-sieˀ > CTN siʔ̃ , sijeˀ̃

62. one/ten CTN tiː ‘ten’; alsoː PZPT *ʦ͈iːˀ ‘ten’ teː- ‘one’

63. penis/male YAZ ʃoˀolə, SBZ ʃoˀole ‘spouse’; PCTN *ʦula > ʧulʲ ‘penis’ <*ʦʲulʲ CTN ʧula ‘male’

64. pot PZPT *keso͈ ˀ > COZ ɡeʦ; PCTN *nkituˀ > CTN mitʲʰ < *nbiʦʰu (n- ‘nominal’ kitʲũˀ ?)

65. powder/sandy PZPT *kuˀçu͈ ‘powder’ kuˀʧ ‘sandy’ < *kuˀʦʲu

66. rabbit/guinea pig PZPT *kʷ-iʦ͈i ‘rabbit’ ɸiʦʰ < piʦi ‘guinea pig’

67. rainbow PZPT *(kʷe-)kit-a͈ ˀ > RCN bi-ɡit-aˀ, CUZ kiˀθ kʲtʰũːs < *kitʰ-ũːs (ũːs ‘spirit’) (<*kiθ-aˀ), COZ m-ɡiθ

68. reed PZPT *kiː, PCTN *kiː kʰiː̃ h < n-kʰiːh

69. reed PZPT *kʷeliːˀ ‘fence of reeds’ pel ‘reed’

70. rope/ixtle PZPT *keːʦe ‘ixtle’, PCTN *kiʦe > CTN kiʧe wes ‘rope’ < *bese

71. sad/poor RCZ jeʧiˀ ‘poor/sad’, SYZ jeʃˀ ‘poor’, COZ jiʒ nʲus ‘sad’ < *n-ɨs (*n- ‘sad’; CTN l-ihʲi ‘nominal’)

72. sand/sprinkled/ PZPT *ɡu-/n-ʦeˀe ‘sprinkle/sprinkled (water or muse ‘sand, sprinkled, tiny’14 tiny dust)’ > YAZ ɡʷ-ʒaˀ/n-ʒaˀ, OCZ ɡʷ-ʒeˀe, SBZ < *n-buse (*n- ‘nominal’) ɡʷ-ʒeˀe/n-ʒeˀ; CTN mʦeˀ ‘tiny'

73. see PZPT *wi- > COZ wi, CUZ wiˀ; CTN kʷiˀ- ui <*uwi

14 PAE (kuet-)muse ‘sand’ (kuet ‘stone’), PAE nus-muse ‘drizzle’ (nus ‘rain’); JUZ iy͈a te͈ ‘drizzle’ (iya͈ ‘rain’ te͈ ‘ash’).

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

TABLE 6: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN PROTO-ZAPOTECAN, PROTO-CHATINO AND PAEZ7

PROTO-ZAPOTECAN/PROTO-CHATINO PAEZ

74. shaman/medicine PZPT *(kʷe-)çosi͈ ‘shaman/father’ > ISZ ʃoze, juˀʦe ‘medicine’ COZ ʃuz, CUZ ʃud; PCTN *suti

75. shout PZPT *kʷ-eʦi ‘shout/call’ weːʧi ‘mock, rebuff’ < *beːʦi

76. shout/make PZPT *(n-)kʷe ‘make noise’ > COZ n-gʷeˀi, wej ‘shout’ < *bei noise PCTN *(n-)kʷiː ‘loud’ > CTN kʷiː̃

77. sickness/bug PZPT *kʷe-eʔ ‘nit/bug’ > ATZ beːʔ; COZ kʷə weː ‘sickness’ <*beː ‘sick’

78. sister-in-law PZPT *kʷe-çisa,͈ PCTN *sita > ʃtʲa p-tʲiˀnsa < *pe-tʲiˀnʦa

79. skin/hide PZPT *kaˀʦ͈iˀ ‘hide/hidden’ > ATZ ɡaʦ͈iˀ, MIZ kʰaˀtʲ ‘skin’ < *kʰaˀtʲi ɡaˀʦ, RCZ ɡaʧiˀ, ISZ ɡaˀʧiˀ, COZ n-ɡaʧ; pre- PCTN *w-kaʦiˀ > PCTN *kʷaʦiˀ > CTN kʷaʦiˀ

80. sky/cover PZPT *kʷaˀ ‘sky’ waˀ ‘cover’ < *baˀ

81. snake PZPT *kʷe-eˀl-a͈ ‘snake, worm’> YAZ bel,͈ COZ ul < *bɨl/*bul m-beˀl; PCTN *n-kʷIla ‘snake’ > kʷaɲa ̃ (< *kʷaila),̃ kʷena ̃ (<*kʷela);̃ also: pre-PCTN *n- kuloˀ > PCTN *kunõˀ ‘worm’ > CTN nkunuˀ

82. sow/plantation PZPT *k-aːsaˀ ‘sow’ > ATZ ɡ-ada, RCZ ɡ-azaˀ, waʦ ‘plantation’ <*baʦ VAZ ɡ-azə, COZ az; PCTN *k-ata

83. spear/arrow PZPT *kʷas-a ‘arrow’ > COZ waˀz, MHZ wad; weˀtʰ ‘spear’ < *beˀtʰ ‘spear’ PCTN CTN *kʷat-i > CTN kʷatʲi ‘bow and arrow’

84. squeeze PZPT *k-çiːˀ ‘squeeze’, PCTN *nkusiː > CTN kuˀs ‘squeeze’ <*kuˀse kusiː̃

85. stand PZPT *soː ũsu

86. stone/egg PZPT *kowe ‘egg’ kuet ‘stone’ < *kuwe-t (-t ‘?’, see 44)

87. sun/day PZPT *ʦa ‘day’, PCTN *n-ʦaː > CTN ʦaː̃ sek

88. sweet PZPT *(s-/k-/n-)eçe͈ > YAZ ziç,͈ JUZ j-içi,͈ MIZ ɲuʃa < *n-ɨsʲɨ-a (-a ?) n-ehʃ, CUZ n-iʃ, COZ n-iθ; PCTN *tisi > CTN tʲiʃi

89. take away PZPT *latEˀ at < *lat

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

TABLE 6: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN PROTO-ZAPOTECAN, PROTO-CHATINO AND PAEZ7

PROTO-ZAPOTECAN/PROTO-CHATINO PAEZ

90. throat/voice PCTN *kʷiː̃ ‘talk’ + PCTN *-tiˀi ‘voice’ = pet̃ ʲʰ ‘throat’ < *pei-t̃ ʲʰi (peĩ *kʷiː̃ tiˀi; PZPT *tʲ͈iˀi ‘voice’ ‘ask’)

91. thunder/sun15 PZPT *ko-kʷiʦ- ‘sun’ (*ko- ‘nominal’) > ATZ kpiˀʃ ‘thunder’ < *ku-piˀs ubiʦa, YAZ ɡubiʤi, OCZ nɡubiʣɨ, MIZ (*ku- ‘nominal’ ?) ɡubihʤ, VAZ ɡʷbiʤ, COZ wiˀʒ, CUZ wiz; PCTN *kʷits-aː ‘sun’; also: OTM n-hʷeʧˀ ‘thunder’

92. thin/small PZPT *-lasi͈ ˀ- ‘thin’ leˀʧ ‘small’ < leˀʧi

93. tip/thorn PZPT *keʦ͈eˀ ‘thorn’, PCTN *kiʦeˀ βiʦ ‘peak/tip’< *ɡiʦe

94. toad PZPT *kʷ-etʲiˀ >COZ m-biʧ, MIZ beʣ, ISZ buʧi < *bɨʧi biʤiˀ; PCTN *kʷitiˀ > CTN kʷitʲiˀ

95. tongue/ PZPT *tʲuˀ- ‘mouth’ + PZPT *-n͈e ‘speak’ = tʰune ‘tongue’ mouth+speak *tʲuˀn͈e; PCTN *tuˀ- ‘mouth’, CTN ni ̃ ‘name’ = *tuˀni ̃

96. tooth/pierce PZPT > *kiːˀto- ‘pierce’; PCTN *w-kihu ?> kiˀtʰ ‘tooth’ < *kiˀtʰu CTN kʷihʲu

97. tube/cane PZPT *(n-/k-/x-)eta͈ ‘cane’ (n-/k-/x- ‘nominal’) jutʰa ‘tube’ < *jɨtʰa > ATZ jetia,͈ YAZ jetʰ, VAZ jetR, RCZ jɨRta; PCTN *(l-)iha > CTN lihʲa

98. turkey PZPT *kʷ-etʲ-o > SBZ/YAZ beʧʰʷ, SYZ beʧʰ; ɸiʤ < *pinʧu CTN kʷitu ‘chicken’; also: AMG kiʦʰon ‘chicken’

99. up PZPT *tʲa-ˀa > ATZ raˀ, RCZ raˀa-, VAZ ʤaʔa; tʰa-kue PCTN *itaːˀ > CTN tʲaːˀ

100. urine/sour pre-PZPT *iseˀ > PZPT *sieˀ ‘sour’ : PCTN iz ‘urine’ <*isẽ < *nise *tieˀ; also: PZPT *n-içe͈ ˀ ‘urine’ > COZ neʦ, YAZ niçəˀ͈ : PCTN *iseˀ ‘sour’> CTN ʃeˀ (CTN tʲiˀa ʃeˀ ‘urine’, lit.: ‘water+sour’)

101. urinate SYZ ʧoʒˀ, SBZ ʧoʒaˀ, YAZ ʧoʒəˀ suˀs

15 The the religious/cosmological associations of the Sun as the ancestral Creator deity as well as of the jaguar and the thunder as manifestations of the divine power constitute central aspects in some cultures of Northwestern South America (Reichel-Dolmatoff 1978, Friedeman & Arocha 1985). Aspects of this worldview is also evident in the archaeological site of San Agustín, in the Southern Colombian Andes (Cubillos 1986).

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

TABLE 6: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN PROTO-ZAPOTECAN, PROTO-CHATINO AND PAEZ7

PROTO-ZAPOTECAN/PROTO-CHATINO PAEZ

102. vulva/female PZPT *kose͈ ˀ ‘female’ > COZ ɡoʦ; PCTN kuʃ ‘vulva’ < *kuʃi *kuteˀ; alsoː COZ nɡuz ‘penis/fruit/egg’

103. water/river PZPT *jawo ‘river’ > COZ ju, JUZ jo, SCZ jouˀ, juˀ ‘water’ < *jauˀ <*jawuˀ YAZ/SYZ jao

104. where? PCTN *n-te > CTN n-de m-tee

105. zapotec/paez PZPT *na ‘1.P.I’+ PZPT *sa ‘zapotec’ = *nasa nasa ‘we the zapotecs’; CTN la-ta ‘zapotec’ (CTN la ‘3.respectful’)

106. 1.P PZPT *wE, CTN kʷa kueˀ-ʃ (-ʃ ‘plural’)

107. 1.S PZPT *naˀ > ISZ naˀa; CTN naˀ adʲ < *ad < *da

108. 2 PZPT *liˀ > RCZ liˀ, VAZ leˀ, ISZ liˀi idʲ < *id < *li

109. flute CTN kuwi kuβʲ < *kuwi

110. fatty seed PZPT *ketʲe, PCTN *kite ‘pine’ kitʰ ‘peanut’

111. peel PZPT *tukʷ͈ iˀ ‘peeled, naked, unprotected’ > tupʲ ‘peel’ < *tupi; tũpʲ JUZ tup͈iˀ, COZ tub (also: CTN tukʷiˀ ‘peel’, m- ‘peeled/naked’ < *m-tupi tukʷiˀ ‘peeled’; PZPT *tuːˀkʷiˀ ‘feather’ > SBZ dobeˀ)

112. garden/grass JUZ tula͈ ‘coarse grass/zacatón’ tul ‘garden’

113. brain/mind SBZ/YAZ ʃbab ‘intelligence/mind’ papa ‘brain’

114. rope/intestines PZPT *toˀ ‘rope’, PCTN *n-hu > CTN hũ ‘rope’ meː-tuˀʰ ‘intestine’ (lit.: ‘shit rope’, ime ‘shit’)

115. woman PCTN *ʦuˀ > CTN ʧoˀ ‘woman/female kin’ uˀj < *juˀ

116. defecate PCTN *(ki-/n-)ʦuˀ ũʧ < *n-ʦʲu (n- nominal’)

117. grind ZPT *k-uːˀ-, PCTN *n-kuː > koː, kõ ũˀkʰ < *n-kʰuˀ (n- nominal’)

118. bend/(go) down PZPT *l-/k-eta͈ ˀ- ‘go down/descent/down’ kitʰe ‘bend’

119. think YAZ/SBZ ʧake jaːkʲ

120. chief/people PZPT *kʷ-en͈eˀ ‘people/family’ YAZ ben͈əˀ, SYZ kuene ‘bright/energy/wisdom’ ben͈ˀ, MIZ beʰn͈, ISZ bin͈i, COZ men; PCTN *kʷiniː > CTN kʷiɲiː

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

In spite that all attempts to classify the Paez languages have failed until now, I could find some robust evidence that Paez and Proto-Zapotecan are genetically related. Considering the internal reconstructions offered for Paez, most of the lexical parallels found between those languages can be seen as real cognates, since they bear recurrent phonological correspondences and are semantically related. Based on the data presented in Table 6, a preliminary analysis of the phonological correspondence sets is offered in bellow.

TABLE 7: PHONOLOGICAL CORRESPONDENCE SETS BETWEEN PROTO-CHATINO, PROTO-ZAPOTEC, PRE-PAEZ AND PAEZ

PROTO- PROTO- PRE-PAEZ PAEZ INSTANCES CHATINO ZAPOTEC

*k͈ʷ *kʷ *kʷ͈ , *kʷ *p ɸ /#_i 33, 66, 98 p /elsewhere 20, 32, 40, 50, 52, 56, 69, 78, 90, 91, 111

*kʷ *kʷ *w *w /_u, _i ∅ 73, 103 *w /elsewhere w 25, 48, 58, 86

*ɡʷ *kʷ *kʷ *b /_ɨ, _u b, ∅ 81, 94 *b /[nasal]_ m 5, 11 *b /elsewhere w 2, 3, 31, 37, 75, 76, 77, 80, 83

*k͈ *k, h *k,͈ *k *kʰ kʰ 8, 17, 36, 41, 59, 68, 79, 117

*k *k *k *k k 14, 30, 51, 60, 65, 67, 84, 86, 96, 102, 110, 118

*ɡ *k *k *b /_ɨ, _u b, ∅ 24, 34 *b /[nasal]_ m 26, 53, 64, 72 *b /elsewhere β /_i 39, 93 w /elsewhere 54, 55, 70, 82

*tʲ͈ *t *tʲ͈, *tʲ *tʲʰ tʲʰ /_i 90 tʰ /elsewhere 4, 16, 25, 29, 38, 95, 99, 110

*tʲ *t *tʲ *ʧ /_u ʤ /[nasal]_ 98 ʧ /elsewhere - *tʲ /elsewhere dʲ /[nasal]_ 13 tʲ /elsewhere 1, 5, 46

*dʲ *j *j *j j 15, 36, 40, 44, 46, 55, 57, 103

*t ͈ *h *t,͈ *t *tʰ tʰ 13, 67, 96, 97, 118

*t *h *t *ʦ /_i ʦ 6 *t /elsewhere t 7, 89, 111, 114

*d *n *n *d dʲ /i_#, ɨ_# 10, 21 d /elsewhere 23, 35, 43, 107

*ʦ͈ʲ, *ʦ *ts,͈ *ʦ *ʦʲ(ʰ) tʲ(ʰ) /_i 51, 57, 79 *ʦʲ ʧ(ʰ) /elsewhere 34, 39, 42, 63, 116

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

TABLE 7: PHONOLOGICAL CORRESPONDENCE SETS BETWEEN PROTO-CHATINO, PROTO-ZAPOTEC, PRE-PAEZ AND PAEZ

PROTO- PROTO- PRE-PAEZ PAEZ INSTANCES CHATINO ZAPOTEC

*ʦ͈ *ts *ʦ͈, *ʦ *ʦ(ʰ) ʧ(ʰ) /._i 9, 10, 48, 66, 75 ʦ(ʰ) /elsewhere 14, 52, 93

*ʦ *ʦ, *s *ʦ *ʃ /i_ ʃ 6 *s /elsewhere z /[nasal]_ 91 s /elsewhere 23, 60, 70, 72, 87

*h ∅ ∅ *h h 3, 19, 39, 43, 68, 114

*s ͈ *t *s,͈ *s *ʦ(ʰ) ʧ(ʰ) /._i 40, 92 ʦ(ʰ) /elsewhere 2, 6, 18, 64, 82

*s *t *s *ʃ /._i ʃ 102 *s /elsewhere z /[nasal]_ 11, 100 s /elsewhere 85, 105

( ) ( ) *sʲ͈ *s *ç,͈ *ç *ʦ ʰ /._e ʦ ʰ 45, 61 *ʦʲ(ʰ) /elsewhere tʲ(ʰ) /_i 59, 78 ʧ(ʰ) /elsewhere 65

*sʲ *s *ç *s /_e s 84 *sʲ /elsewhere ʃ 20, 21, 37, 50, 88

*zʲ *s *ç,͈ *ç *j j 58, 74, 97 *l ͈ *l *l ͈ *dʲ /i_, _i, _e dʲ 19, 22, 31, 41, 108 *d /_u d 28 *l /elsewhere l 54, 81

*l *l *l *l ∅ /#_a 16, 89 l /elsewhere 1, 46, 56, 63, 69, 92

*n͈, *n *n͈, *n *n ni, ∅i ̃ /_i 18, 61 *n m /_b 5, 11 n /elsewhere 15, 27, 46, 47, 53, 95, 105

*a *a *a *a a 2, 4, 15, 16, 17, 20, 25, 29, 32, 35, 39, 40, 42, 44, 54, 56, 78, 80, 82, 89, 97, 99, 105, 107

*æ *a *a *e e 1, 20, 30, 38, 48, 83, 87, 106, 118

*e *e *e *e e 3, 11, 12, 16, 26, 31, 34, 37, 38, 56, 58, 69, 70, 72, 75, 76, 77, 78, 86, 90

*i *e *e e 3, 9, 55, 70

*i *i *e e 8, 45, 47, 62, 74, 84

*i *i *i *i i 1, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 18, 19, 21, 22, 30, 33, 35, 39, 40, 51, 53, 59, 61, 66, 68, 73, 75, 78, 91, 94, 96, 100, 108, 111

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

TABLE 7: PHONOLOGICAL CORRESPONDENCE SETS BETWEEN PROTO-CHATINO, PROTO-ZAPOTEC, PRE-PAEZ AND PAEZ

PROTO- PROTO- PRE-PAEZ PAEZ INSTANCES CHATINO ZAPOTEC

*o *u *o *u ∅ /_# 59, 64, 96, 98, 103 u /elsewhere 2, 7, 11, 24, 25, 28, 50, 74, 85, 91, 114

*u *u *u *u ∅ /_# 6, 23, 27, 51, 65, 102, 111 u /elsewhere 34, 36, 57, 58, 60, 65, 72, 84, 86, 95, 102, 116, 117

*ɨ *i *e *ɨ ∅ /_# 46, 60, 81, 88, 94, 97 u /elsewhere

*i *e *i ∅ /_# 5, 8, 26, 27, 40, 41, 43, 49, 52, 64, 76, 88, i /elsewhere 93, 98, 110

The following Chart is based on the analysis shown in Table 7 and represents a tentative reconstruction of the phonological system of the common ancestor of pre-Paez and Proto-Zapotecan:

CHART 2: PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEM OF THE COMMON ANCESTOR BETWEEN PRE-PAEZ AND PROTO-ZAPOTECAN

[–arred] CONSONANTS [+coronal] [–coronal] VOWELS [+arred] [+ant] [–ant] [–son] t, ʦ k [+high] i ɨ u [–cont] [–low] [+son] d, ʣ ɡ e [–soan] [–high] a o [–son] s h [+low] æ [+cont] [+son] z [–lat] n [+soan] [+lat] l ONSET C ͈ (fortition) RHYME Vː (lenght) SUPRASEGMENTS SUPRASEGMENTS CV (vocalization)16 Vˀ (glotalization)

For some lexical parallels, there are phonemes bearing no recurrent correspondences. These may represent (i) yet unattested but recurrent sound correspondences, (ii) unpredictable sound changes, or even that those lexical parallels represent (iii) loans or (iv) non-cognates. It’s important to emphasize that further research is needed, though. Before going further on the topic of Otomanguean influence in South America, I’d like to draw attention to probable Mayan loans in Paez found by me, shown in Table 8.

16 Vocalized consonants bearing the non-coronal feature surfaced as labialized (◌ʷ), whereas those bearing the coronal feature surfaced as palatalized (◌ʲ).

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

TABLE 8: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN MAYAN AND PAEZ

MAYAN PAEZ

atole/watery pM *ʔuːl > TOJ/QAN ulul ‘atole’ luˀl ‘grind waterly food’ food

bird/cock EM+ *piːtʲˀ ‘bird’ pihʦ ‘cock’

blood/flesh pM *kikˀ ‘blood’ > PCh *ʧˀiʧˀ ʧiʧ ‘flesh’

butterfly pM *pehpen > PCh *pehpem ʦmehme

corn pM *ʔiʃiʔm > PCh *ʔiʃim sʲib

deer/lion pM *kehχ > PCh *ʧiχ ‘deer/horse’ ʃiʔ̃ h ‘lion’

father pM *taːtaʔ tata

house/village EM *kabˀal ‘house’ > WAS ʧabal ʧʰab ‘village’

ladder/high LL+Was *ʔehbˀ > WASw ʔeːb eː̃

live pM *ʔiʔʦˀ ‘alive, awaken’ ɸiʔze ‘life, living’

mountain pM *wiʦ > PCh *wiʦ βiʦ

mouse GM *ʔiʧˀ ɸiʦʰ

old pM *riːχ > TZO/TOJ jiχ iːʃ̃

path/bridge pM *bˀeːh ‘path’ > POP/AKA bˀeh weh ‘bridge’

Pleiades/Via EM+Hue *moʔoʦ ‘Pleiades’ > KCHk mos, PCH aʔ̃ -muʃ ‘Via Lactea’ (aʔ̃ ‘star’) Lactea moːʦ, POP/QAN moʦ

rain CM *mus ‘drizzle’ > PCh *mus nus ‘rain’

rainbow WM *kˀintum kʲtʰũːs < *kitʰ-ũːs (ũːs ‘spirit’)

shine/yellow pM *lem ‘shine’ > PCh *lem lem ‘yellow’

shoot/blowgun EM+ *puhbˀ ‘blowgun’ > PQM puhbˀal ũhpa ‘shoot’

teat EM+*ʧuːʔ/*ʧuːʧ ‘mother/teat’ > KCH/IXL ʧuʧ ʧuʔʧ ‘teat’

teat/stomach CM *tuʔ ‘mother/teat’ > MCH -tuːtuːʔ, PCH -tut tutʲ ‘stomach’

thorn/tooth pM *kˀiʔʃ ‘thorn’ > WASw kˀiːth kiʔtʰ ‘tooth’

tobacco pM *mahʲ wah̃ ʲ

what EM *k-eh kih̃

year/star pM *haʔbˀ ‘year’ > PCh *habˀ aʔ̃ ‘star’

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

1.4. OTOMANGUEAN AND OTHER LANGUAGES FROM NW SOUTH-AMERICA

Besides the above, there are also a good amount of lexical correspondences relating the Otomanguean stock and Language Families whose speakers were settled at least since the XV century AD in Lowlands that lies to the east of the Northern Andes Mountains. In what follows I will show the data for each of them. It must be noted, however, that these comparisons are still preliminary and shall be further addressed in the future.

• SALIBAN-HOTI

I consider that there are some robust parallels between Otomanguean and Duho, most between the Western-Otomanguean and the Saliban-Hoti branches, as seen in Table 9.

TABLE 9: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN WESTERN OTOMANGUEAN AND SALIBAN-HOTI

WESTERN OTOMANGUEAN SALIBAN-HOTI

1.S MTZ tu-h-, TWK to-, OTM d- PSLB *ʧ-/*-d,HTI -t, BTO r- PIA tʰɯ, MKO ɯtʰɯ

2.S TWK ki[t]-, OTM ɡ-; POTM *kʔ(e) PSLB *kʷ-> SLB kʷ-, k-, ɡ-, BTO h- HTI ʰkæ, MKO ɯkʷɯ

2.S/imperative MTZ ʔí-h- ‘2.S’ PIA -ih, -iʔ ‘IMP’

3.P MTZ *-tˀə-hə PSLB *-tʰ > PIA/MKO -tʰ, SLB -h; PIA hituhah, SLB hituha; see also: PIA tɨhãʔ ‘human being’

3.S MTZ ku-h-; also: POTP *khoˀ PSLB *kʰ-> PIA kʰ-, MKO h-, SLB x- ‘who’ PSLB *-kʰ ‘3.S.F’ > PIA -kʰ, MKO -h, SLB -x

3/this POTP *-pi, OTM b- ‘3.S’ HTI bi-, MKO b-, PIA/SLB pi- ‘this’; also: BTO ub(i)- ‘3.P’

arm/branch TPN jaũ, SBT jaŋṹː ‘arm’ SLB ʧako ‘branch’

ashes/dirty TPN idiʔ, SBT idíː ‘ashes’ HTI ini-o ‘ashes’ (-o ‘CLF.tiny’); SLB/PIA idi ‘dirt’

belly/guts CRT si SLB teː(-ʧe) (SLB -ʧe ‘CLS.elongate’) ‘belly’ SLB ite(-bo) (HTI -bo ‘CLS.tubular’) HTI te(-bo) ‘guts’ (HTI -bo ‘CLS.tubular’)

belly-liver TPN ɡikó ‘liver’ HTI ekʲo ‘belly’ SLB ikooʔ ‘stomach’

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

TABLE 9: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN WESTERN OTOMANGUEAN AND SALIBAN-HOTI

WESTERN OTOMANGUEAN SALIBAN-HOTI

blood/meat POTP *n-koe > OTM nɡø, MAZ SLB kʷaʔu, HTI iʰkʷə-, PIA ukʷɤha ŋɡeʔe, NP -ŋɡwɛˀ ‘meat’ ‘blood’

butterfly TPN ʃ-pihpi/bihpi PIA pʰerepʰa

chest/heart POTP *mʉ ‘heart’ > OTP mʉi, HDI me(e), PIA ami, MKO omu, SLB omi-xe ̃ MAZ mʉbˀʉ ‘chest’

child CH ni, OTP ni’i, NPO naʔi SLB neː̃ , HTI ini ̃

chili/medicine SP tetˀe, CH tarˀi, NP stadɛ, OTM HTI laʰ̃ te, PIA rathe, SLB tare, MKO laɗi ˀjet̃ ʰi, MAZ ɲẽʧhẽ ‘medicine’ ‘chili’

corn POTP *nhõamh; CPN ndoma; CRT PIA ɲamẽ /̃ ɲamuɯ, MKO ɲõmu, SLB ʤomo, nahma/ɲuhmi BTO romu, HTI ʰtabũ

cure/shaman CRT n-juuha ‘shaman’ HTI ju, PIA juu ‘cure’

die TPN na-kʰajuũ; SBT ɡa-ɡájũ SLB kae, HTI ʰkai

drink/liquid TPN ɡuwã ‘chicha’ TPN -ʔwãː SLB oɡwa ̄ ‘drink’, SLB oʔwa ̄ ‘wet’ ‘drink’

drink/water POTP *haoˀ ‘drink’ > NP haoˀ PIA au, MKO ou ‘drink’; HTI au ‘water’

eat TPN ʔkʰu PIA/MKO ku, HTI ʰku-

tree/charcoal CRT ɲa ‘tree’ SLB iɲa ‘charcoal’

fire TPN aɡuʔ, SBT áɡu ‘fire’; also: HTI ʰku-, PIA oku-, MKO ɯkwɯ ‘fire’ TPN skoʔ ‘flame’

flesh MTZ *ini HTI ɨñ ɛ, PIA -ide-, MKO -ite-, SLB de

flour/dough TPN ʃuwaʔ ‘dough’ HTI ʰjowa,̃ SLB hʷã ‘flour’; MKO ʧʰõma ‘powder’

gourd/vase POTP *mõ ‘gourd’ SLB -mõ ‘CLF.vase’, HTI bo ‘vase’

hair/leaf POTP *si ‘hair/leaf’ PIA -ʦʔe ‘CLF.hair’

head TPN edʒuː, SBT éʧúː ‘head’ (see PIA u, MKO u-ʤu, SLB i-ʤu, HTI ʰtu ‘head’ also: CRT *hu ‘high’) (MKO -ʤu, SLB -ʧu ‘CLF.round’)

hear/ear POTP *n-kaõ > MZT nɡõˀõ, OTM HTI aku,̃ PIA æ̃hũkũ; SLB -xõ ‘CLF.ear’ ɡũ ‘ear’, TPN tʃaʔhũ/jaʔhũ ‘ear’

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

TABLE 9: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN WESTERN OTOMANGUEAN AND SALIBAN-HOTI

WESTERN OTOMANGUEAN SALIBAN-HOTI

hear/ear MZT nɡõˀõ, OTM ɡũ, PMTZ *nʧɵ, SLB -axõ ̃-xõ (-xo ‘CLF.oval’), PIA -æ̃ha ̃ ‘ear’; TPN tʃaʔhũ/jaʔhũ, SBT jáũ ‘ear’ PIA –æ̃hũkũ ‘hear’

heart TPN ami SLB omeã ̃ (see also: PIA ami ‘chest’)

hot TPN ɾuʔwa/duʔwa SLB duwa-ˀda, PIA duaʔa-, MKO tuba ‘hot’ (also: PIA duwo, HTI ʰtuwɤ ‘summer’)

house POTP *tˀo-s (POTP -s ‘stem HTI/PIA ido-, SLB ito(-xu) (-xu formative’) > MAZ tˀoʃʉ, NP lˀos, ‘CLF.hollow/round’), MKO õdo SP ntˀus, OTM tˀóʃi, CH urˀos

leaf/grass POTM *mhi ‘leaf’ > MTZ/OCU MKO/PIA mehe, HTI me/meʰkʲe ‘grass, mhi savannah’

liquid/honey TPN majũ ‘river’ HTI maɲo, PIA umaju, MKO waʤ̃ õ ‘honey’

live/give birth POTP *mi/*menʔ ‘give birth’ > HTI me ‘live’ OTM mi, CH ime ̃

male POTP *me ‘man’ PIA ubɤ, SLB ũbe ‘man’, SLB -be ‘CLN.man’

manioc/potato SP pikiw, CH pikũ, OTM bɵkˀwa ̃ SLB pikia ‘manioc’ ‘potato’

moon POTP *mˀaõ ˀ > NP mˀaõ ˀ SLB beho

mountain NPO lˀewɛ ‘mountain’ HTI ilæ̃wa,̃ PIA inawa ‘mountain’, MKO inawa ‘stone’

nose POTM *niõ > MAZ ʃihɲũ, OTM PIA tʃɨh̃ i-jũ ̃, SLB ixṹ ̄, HTI iɲ̃ o/ɲo, MKO ʃijũ, SP ʃiɲu ‘nose’ iʧʰũ; ‘nose’ (MKO -ʤũ, PIA -jũ ‘CLF.protruding’)

P.human MTZ *-hə PIA -hah, SLB -ha

path POTP *peñ ʔiõ PIA mænæ, SLB maana, BTO/MKO/HDI mana

people POTP *ho ‘witch’ HTI ho, MKO ho-ho, SLB ho-xo ‘human POTP *-hoi ‘p.hum’ being’ (SLB -xo ‘CLF.human’)

person POTP *te ‘person’ MKO i-te, PIA (i)-de, SLB de- ‘person’

potato/corn TPN iʃiʔ/ehʃi ‘corn’ SLB eːʧe ‘potato’

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

TABLE 9: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN WESTERN OTOMANGUEAN AND SALIBAN-HOTI

WESTERN OTOMANGUEAN SALIBAN-HOTI

river POTP *hje ̃ PIA ahe, MKO ohʷe, SLB óxe-̄ HTI he- ‘river’

see/eye POTP *paohˀ ‘see’ > NP -ppahoˀ SLB paxu ‘eyes’

sit TPN (ʔ)ɡiː SLB iɡ̃́ -

skin/clothes TPN ʃta/ʃtoo PIA ihẽ tã ,̃ HTI hedo-, MKO iɲedõ ̃ ‘skin’

sleep/lay down POTP *ˀo-mˀ ‘lay down’ > MAZ HTI abu, MKO abɯ, PIA æʔɯ, SLB ae ˀobˀʉ, OTM ˀoi ‘sleep’

snake CRT *kuʔ HTI ehko, PIA ækʰa

son POTP *tʔi, TPN ihiː̃ PIA it̃ ʰi,̃ MKO it̃ ʰi,̃ HTI ili ̃

spirit/witch TPN kagu; NP kahó, CH káhó SLB kaõ-ha ̃ ‘spirit’ ‘witch’ HTI ʰkaho-ha ̃ ‘imortal being’

stone POTP *to, MTZ *ninto ‘stone’ HTI iʰto/iʰtɤ, PIA ido- ‘stone’

sun/day POTP *hiat ‘sun’ HTI ʰkʲato ‘day’

that MTZ *tˀə (3.S); TWK nti HTI de-3.S HTI di-, tə-(aquele) SLB -di PIA diʔ (quem) MKO ite 3.S.M HTI dæ 3.S.M MKO ti (quem)

tongue/speak POTP *inã ̃ ‘speak’ PIA/HTI ine ‘tongue’, MKO ine ‘tongue/language’, MKO -ne ‘CLN.tongue’, BTO ine-ka ‘tongue’

tooth/bite TPN ijũ, SBT síjũː ‘tooth’ PIA jɯ̃ , HTI ɲiju, SLB ɲia ‘bite’

tooth/nose TPN ɾakʰoo; SBT dakó ‘nose’ PIA -akʰu, HTI -uhku, SLB -oʔxu ‘tooth’

tree/wood POTP *tʔaot̃ ‘wood’ HTI ʰtau ‘tree.P’; PIA dau, MKO towi ‘tree’

two MTZ nowi, NP noi BTO edoi

water TPN ijaʔ, SBT íja PIA ahija ‘water’, HTI ʰju ‘liquid (potable)’

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

TABLE 9: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN WESTERN OTOMANGUEAN AND SALIBAN-HOTI

WESTERN OTOMANGUEAN SALIBAN-HOTI

what TPN diː PIA ti-, MKO di-, HTI ʰti- ‘what’; PIA diʔ ‘who’

where/LOC TPN naː ‘where’ HTI -na/-ne/-nɯ, MKO -nɯ ‘LOC’ SLB -na, PIA -næ ‘instr’

wind TPN gijuʔⁿ HTI ʰkʸo

woman TPN aʔɡo/ɡoʔo; SBT -aɡuː/ɡu; HTI aũ ‘woman’; PIA -ahu, MKO -uhu POTP *sõ/*co ‘wife’ > OCU ʧhu, ‘CLF.woman’; SLB ɲu-xu/ɲa-xu, BTO ro MAZ suˀu, CH masu ‘woman’; HTI ʰlu ‘wife’

There are also some good parallels between the Eastern-Otomanguean and the Saliban-Hoti branches, as seen in Table 10.

TABLE 10: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN EASTERN OTOMANGUEAN AND SALIBAN-HOTI

EASTERN OTOMANGUEAN SALIBAN-HOTI

3.S PMZT *he, PZPT *he SLB h- (3.M),PIA hi- ‘3.that’, BTO ihe; also: PSLB *- kʰ- ‘3.S.F’ > PIA -kʰ-, MKO -h-, SLB -x-; PSLB *-kʰ ‘3.S.F’

3.S/this PMZT *kwi HTI bi-(este), MKO b-, PIA/SLB pi-(este) BTO ub(i)-(3P)

arm PMZT *tjha > thia PIA tʃihe

belly PPPL *ixku ‘belly’ HTI ekʲo, PIA ikua, MKO ukua ‘belly’; SLB ikooʔ ‘stomach’

belly/guts MTK tiʧi, ʧii; PPPL *ʦeʔe, SLB teː(-ʧe) (SLB -ʧe ‘CLS.elongate’) ‘belly’; SLB PZPT *Leʔe; also: PMZT ite(-bo) (HTI -bo ‘CLS.tubular’), HTI te(-bo) ‘guts’ *nceʔe ‘guts’, PMZT *nteʔe (HTI -bo ‘CLS.tubular’) ‘buttocks’

chest/heart PMZT *ʔme ̃ ‘chest’ HDI me(e), PIA ami, MKO omu, SLB omi-xe ̃ ‘chest’

chili/salt PZPT *zedeʔ ‘salt’ HTI laʰ̃ te, PIA rathe, SLB tare, MKO laɗi ‘chili’

chili/spicy PZPT *ɡiʔinaʔ ‘chili’ SLB iʔda ‘spicy’

cloud PZPT *kwawi HTI ʰkʷa

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

TABLE 10: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN EASTERN OTOMANGUEAN AND SALIBAN-HOTI

EASTERN OTOMANGUEAN SALIBAN-HOTI

corn PMZT *ɲahmẽ /*̃ ɲũhme,̃ PIA ɲamẽ /̃ ɲamuɯ, MKO ɲõmu, SLB ʤomo, BTO PZPT *ɟobaʔ; PPPL romu, HTI ʰtabũ *nahme/*ɲuhme

die PMZT *keʔe ̃ SLB kae, HTI ʰkai

dirty PZPT *di SLB/PIA idi ‘dirt’; HTI ini-o ‘ashes’ (-o ‘CLF.tiny’)

drink PMZT *ʔju ‘drinkable’ HTI ju ‘drink (n.)’

earth/floor PZPT *beNe ‘earth’ BTO umena ‘earth’, SLB ubena ‘on the floor’; also: MKO bena, HTI bɤna ‘here’

father PMZT *(na-)̃ ʔai ̃ HTI ae, PIA -æɤ, SLB ae ‘father’; HTI ai ‘fathers’

five/hand PMTK *ʔom ‘five’ SLB ūmo, PIA ũmu, BTO umo, HTI bõ ‘hand’

gourd PMZT *nã-ʧu, PPPL *ʧu SLB -ɟu ‘CLF.container’

high/head PPPL *hũ PIA u, MKO u-ʤu, SLB i-ʤu, HTI ʰtu ‘head’ (MKO - ʤu, SLB -ʧu ‘CLF.round’)

hot/summer PMZT *shue ‘hot’ SLB duwa-ˀda, PIA duaʔa-, MKO tuba ‘hot’ (also: PIA duwo, HTI ʰtuwɤ ‘summer’)

INSTR/LOC PZPT *na/*ne/*no ‘INSTR’ SLB -na, PIA -næ ‘INSTR’; HTI -na/-ne/-nɯ, MKO - nɯ ‘LOC’

leaf/field PCNT *miːh ‘plain’ MKO/PIA mehe, HTI me/meʰkʲe ‘field, savannah’

leaf/forest PMZT *-hɲa ̃ HTI ʰja, PIA ɤhijæ, MKO iɲ̃ a- ‘leaf’

live/human PMZT *hmi ̃ ‘human being’ HTI me ‘live’ being

male PMZT *na-̃ ʔmi ̃ ‘father’ PIA ubɤ, SLB ũbe ‘man’, SLB -be ‘CLN.man’

moon PZPT *beʔwuʔ SLB beho

mother PZPT *nana SLB naʔ́ na ̄

mountain/stone PMZT *ni-ntũ ‘mountain’ HTI iʰto/iʰtɤ, PIA ido- ‘stone’

mouth/hole PMZT *ʔa ‘hole’ HTI/MKO a, PIA æ, SLB aha ‘mouth’

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

TABLE 10: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN EASTERN OTOMANGUEAN AND SALIBAN-HOTI

EASTERN OTOMANGUEAN SALIBAN-HOTI

name PMZT *ʔmi ̃ PIA imi

near PMZT *tjiɲa ̃ SLB ɟena ‘here’

net PMZT *ntaʔja HTI dijæ, PIA iʦʰ-æja, SLB tesia

nose/tooth PMZT *ni-̃ ʔɲũ ‘tooth’ PIA tʃɨh̃ i-jũ ̃, SLB ixṹ ̄, HTI iɲ̃ o/ɲo, MKO iʧʰũ ‘nose’ (MKO -ʤũ, PIA -jũ ‘CLF.protruding’)

one/two PMZT *thũ ‘first’ HTI hatõ ̃ha,̃ PIA tahũ ̃, SLB tũhũ- ‘two’

path/earth PZPT *neza ‘path’ HTI nedʌ ‘earth’

people MTK o ‘we’ HTI ho, MKO ho-ho, SLB ho-xo ‘human being’ (SLB -xo ‘CLF.human’)

potato/corn PMZT *nʧe ‘corn’ SLB eːʧe ‘potato’

river PMZT *nta-ʃhe PIA ahe, MKO ohʷe, SLB óxe-̄ HTI he- ‘river’

river PMTK *nda, PPPL *ntaʔ SLB -to ‘CLF.liquid’, MKU -(ɯ)dɯ ‘CLF.river’

skin/clothes PMTK *xetu ‘clothes’ PIA ihẽ tã ,̃ HTI hedo-, MKO iɲedõ ̃ ‘skin’

snake PMTK *ʔko, PPPL *ku HTI ehko

squirrel/bat PMTK *kweyu̱ʔ ‘squirrel’ HTI ʰkʷayu-wa,̃ SLB kʷaĩ xu-̃ ɡa ‘bat’

that PZPT *deʔ HTI de-, SLB -di ‘3.S’ also: MKO ite ‘3.S.M’, HTI dæ ‘3.S.M’, HTI di- ‘that’, PIA diʔ ‘who’, MKO ti “who’

tongue/speak PMZT *ʔne ̃ PIA/HTI ine ‘tongue’, MKO ine ‘tongue/language’, ‘language/word’ MKO -ne ‘CLN.tongue’, BTO ine-ka ‘tongue’

two PZPT *tubi BTO edoi

what PZPT *ʤi PIA ti-, MKO di-, HTI ʰti- ‘what’; also: PIA diʔ ‘who’

white MZT tia ‘white’ PIA teaa ‘white/yellow’, SLB dea ‘white/light’, BTO (koko)-siaho ‘white’

woman PMZT *ʧhũ PIA -ahu, MKO -uhu, SLB -xu ‘CLF.woman’, HTI aũ ‘woman’; also: BTO ro ‘woman’, HTI ʰlu ‘wife’

It’s also worth noting that there are resemblances for the first and second persons morphemes between Otopamean, Saliban and Paez, as shown below:

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

TABLE 11: PRONOMINAL PARALLELISMS BETWEEN OTOPAMEAN, SALIBA AND PAEZ OTOMI CHICHIMECO TLAHUICA SALIBA PAEZ

1.S di-nú ̈ ti-nú ti-nʦeː se-d-a ʧ-om-a ũˀne-tʰ 1.S-see 1.S-see 1.S-cry cry-1.S-REAL 1.S-come-REAL cry-1.S.PRES ‘I saw’ ‘I see’ ‘I cry’ ‘I cry/cried’ ‘I come/came’ ‘I cry’ 2.S ɡi-nú ̈ ki-nú ku-nʦeː se-kʷ-a k-om-a ũˀne-ɡ 2.S-see 2.S-see 2.S-cry cry-2.S-REAL 2.S-come-REAL cry-2.S.PRES ‘You saw’ ‘You see’ ‘You cry’ ‘You cry/cried’ ‘You come/came’ ‘You cry’ Muntzel (1986), Slocum (1986), Estrada Ramirez (1996)

• TUCANOAN

In a preliminary comparison, shown in Table 12, there are some promising parallels between Otomanguean and Tucanoan languages.

TABLE 12: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN OTOMANGUEAN AND TUCANOAN

OTOMANGUEAN TUCANOAN

axe/knife ETKN *kome ‘axe’ POTP *koa-m' ‘knife’, POTP *coen ‘axe’

bee ETKN *momi PCNT *miːʔ/*mɨːʔ ‘wasp’ > mumɨʔ

belly ETKN *pa(-ro) POTP *m-pao

burn ETKN *soe POTP *coet, PZPT *ʒuwi; also: PMZT *shue ‘hot’

burn/fire WTKN *ˀɨo ‘burn’ POTP *n-io ‘fire’

charcoal/burn PTKN *neo ‘charcoal’ POTP *naoñ ʔ ‘burn’

charcoal/light PTKN *nitti ‘charcoal’ POTP *neti ‘light’; PMZT *ntjiʔi ‘fire’

child KRG ˀɟii,̃ SIO ˀzi ̃ , SEK zi ̃ OTM ¢’e, n¢’ẽ’

chili PTKN *pˀia CNT mɨʔõ; also: PCNT *mɨ ‘medicine’

cloud/rain SIO/SEK sidi ‘cloud’ PMZT *sci ‘rain’

cotton/thread PTKN *jɨi ‘cotton’, TKN joo PMTK *juʔwe ‘thread’, CRT ɲui ‘rope’, TPN jũː ‘thread’ ‘rope’, PMZT *(na-)̃ ʔɲũ ‘rope’; also: PCNT *ʔjɨː ‘net’, PCNT *ŋi ‘thread’ >ŋji, TPN joː ‘net’

die WTKN *hũˀi PCNT *hũŋ > hũʔni, hũj

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

TABLE 12: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN OTOMANGUEAN AND TUCANOAN

OTOMANGUEAN TUCANOAN

ear PTKN *kʔap̃ ʔo > KRG/SEK POTP *n-kaõ kãho, SIO k’ãho

eat ETKN *ba(ˀ) PCNT *ma

egg/son PTKN *ʦʔia ‘egg’ POTP *tʔi ‘son’; also: PCNT *ziaː ‘grandson’

fat ETKN *ɨˀse PMTK *seʔe ̱

father/ WTKN *ai ‘grandfather’ PMZT *(na-)̃ ʔai ̃ ‘father’ (na-̃ ‘nominal prefix’) grandfather

forest PTKN *maka PCNT *maʔ ‘tree’ + PCNT *ʔŋa ‘forest’ = *maʔʔŋa

go ETKN *waˀ POTP *wa

head PTKN *ʦˀɨ-po ‘head’, PTKN *ʦˀɨ- PCNT *zi ‘head’; also: PMZT *thi ‘round’ se ‘mouth’

heart WTKN *a-wɨ ‘heart’ PCNT *ʔaː ‘heart’ > ʔauʔ ‘your heart’

herb PTKN *ta > WTKN *taja PMZT *nteja/*nteʔe, POTP *tʔe

house PTKN *wɨʔe PCNT *hwɨ ‘village’; PMTK *weʔyi ‘house’

jaguar PTKN *jai PCNT *ʔjaːʔ

knee PTKN *jɨkã PMZT *tjku

liver/chest PTKN *ʦˀeme ‘liver’ POTP *timiã ‘chest’; PCNT *mɨʔ ‘liver’

man PTKN *ɨmɨ PMZT *hmi-̃ ‘human being’, POTP *mi ‘be born’

meat/animal PTKN *waʔi ‘fish/meat’ POTP *mpaiʔ ‘animal’

mouth WTKN *jɨˀo- PMTK *yuʔuʔ, MZT *ncuʔwa, PCNT *siuː HLH ‘lips’

name/speak PTKN *mami ‘name’ POTP *mam̃ ‘speak’; also: PMZT *ʔmi ̃ ‘name’

navel PTKN *ʧõpʔɨ > WTKN *ʧõhõ POTP *cʔaomʔ, PMZT *ʃuʔu

night PTKN *jab̃ i ̃ POTP *saom̃ > MTZ ʃɵmi

one WTKN *teʔe POTP *tʔa

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

TABLE 12: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN OTOMANGUEAN AND TUCANOAN

OTOMANGUEAN TUCANOAN

pain/poison PTKN *eo ‘fishing poison’ POTP *ʔio ‘pain’

path/earth PTKN *ma ‘path’ TPN mba ‘earth’

peccary/meat WTKN *jaˀo ‘peccary’ PMZT *jahu ‘meat’

penis/maize PTKN *no-(ni) ‘penis’ PMTK *noniʔ ‘maize’

people/shaman PTKN *pˀatsã ̃ ‘people’ POTP *pat̃ ‘shaman’

fish poison/ PTKN *tjima ‘fish poison’; TKN POTP *ti/*nim̃ ‘drunk’; also: PMZT *(ti)ʔme ̃ drunk nima ‘curare’ ‘sick’

rainbow WTKN *daˀja(-meku) (WTKN PMZT *nteʔja; also: POTP *thai ‘bow’ *meko ‘eel’)

rainbow/eel WTKN *meko ‘eel’ PCNT *kũː ‘rainbow’ > hmɨkɨ,̃ mɨkũh ‘rainbow’

river/path PTKN *ʦʔia ‘river’ PMZT *n-tija ‘path’; TPN ijaʔ/ijoʔ, SBT íja ‘water’; also: POTP *hje ̃ ‘river’

say/tongue WTKN *kɨa-hi ‘say’ POTP *khiahne,̃ PMZT *na-hẽ ĩ ̃ ‘tongue’

see PTKN *ijã ̃ PZPT *wijaʔ

shaman/jaguar PTKN *jai POTP *n-'iãi-m, PZPT *ʒaʔ ‘shaman’ ‘jaguar/shaman/chief’

speak/voice KRG ʤii, MAK/ORE ji ‘speak’ PZPT *tʲ͈iʔi ‘voice’; also: PCNT *sɨːʔ ‘tongue’

spider monkey PTKN *waˀu PCNT *ʔuːʔ > kwaʔuʔ

sun/moon WTKN *ɨs̃ ɨˀɨ ‘sun’ PCNT *sɨːʔ ‘moon’; also: PCNT *hjɨ ‘light’ > si, sɨ

sweet-potato PTKN *japĩ PMTK *jaʔmi/*ɲaʔmi

vine/snake PTKN *pˀisĩ ‘vine’ PZPT *(ɡo-)kʷisEʔ ‘snake’ (ko- ‘nominal prefix’) >

woman PTKN *tʔõmi POTP *sõ, CRT numi, PMZT *ʧhũ; also: POTP *tõʔmh ‘sow’

woman/female PTKN *-kˀo ‘female’ TPN eʔɡu/aʔɡo ‘woman’

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

• JIRAJARAN

Table 13 presents some promising parallels between Jirajaran and Otomanguean languages, most relating to the Otopamean branch.

TABLE 13: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN OTOMANGUEAN AND JIRAJARAN (AYAMAN) LANGUAGE

OTOMANGUEAN JIRAJARAN (AYAMAN)

1.S. PMZT *ʔa ̃ a-, a-̃

3.S. PMZT *ʃi- ‘that’ si-

armadillo POTP *tho dóu, doux

belly POTP *mpao (a-)bagú

blood POTP *khi > kikhe hi-guí, his-kí, ibi-gui

child/creature OTM ¢’e ‘child’; PMZT *ce ‘new’ tschég ‘creature’

deer/meat POTP *nkoe ‘meat’ > OTM nɡɵ, MAZ ŋɡeˀe, agüí [agʷi], agui [aɡi] ‘deer’ NP ŋɡwɛˀ

dove PMZT *tuhu tojos [tohos]

ear POTP *n-kaõ > OTM ɡũ, MAZ nɡõˀõ (a-)(gi-)guo, (a-)(ki-)huo (*ki ‘face’)

eat POTP *niaoñ ʔ ñan

eye/eyelash PZPT *ɡidi ‘eyelash’ (a-)(ki-)nguici ‘eye’ (*ki ‘face’)

eye/see POTP *paohʔ ‘see’ (a-)(ki-)baux, (a-)(ki-)vóugh ‘eye’ (*ki ‘face’)

fire/burn POTP *coet ‘burn’ due, du ‘fire’

gourd OTP komoʔ, PMTK *kɨmʔ kub

hair PZPT *ɡ-iʦaʔ-, TPN hᵑgiʔʃa (a-)(tog-)isásh, (tog-)is (tog ‘head’)

head PCNT *ki -gi <*ki ‘face’

intestine POTP *phoi; CRT mpuhuj ‘buttocks’ (a-)poh

jaguar/fox POTP *n-ʔio ‘dog’ > OTM ʔjo, MAZ dʲˀoˀo; yu/llu ‘jaguar’ TPN ijaʔ̃ /ijuʔⁿ ‘fox’

liver/tongue TPN ʃkiɡa/ʃkiɡoo, SBT ɡikó/ɡiká ‘liver’ (a-)giga ‘tongue’

maize/potato PMZT *ntusce ‘potato’ dox [doʃ] ‘maize’

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

TABLE 13: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN OTOMANGUEAN AND JIRAJARAN (AYAMAN) LANGUAGE

OTOMANGUEAN JIRAJARAN (AYAMAN)

maize/potato SP pikiw, CH pikũ ‘potato’ pigüio ‘maize’

meat/animal PMZT *ʧu ‘animal’ chuu ‘meat’

moon TPN ɡũʔ/ɡjuʔ, CPN joho, CRT ju yi/yio

mother CRT ɲama; CPN ɲoma; PMTK *ɲam-ʔmamʔ ñom

mouth/speak POTP *sip ‘speak’; also: POTP *cʔimʔ ‘tooth’ (a-)gíp < *kip ‘mouth’ > MAZ s’ibi, MTZ cibi

nose OTP kanu (a-)(gi-)ngano, (a-)(qui-)ngans (*ki ‘face’)

old POTP *tʔõma tum

rain/cloud POTP *nkaom̃ ‘cloud’ > MAZ ngõmʉ̃, OTM ɡoima ‘rain’ gũi

rain/wet POTP *nkʔat ‘wet’ kat, (i-)kas ‘rain’

stone POTP *to > OTM do, MAZ ndoho dox

sun POTP *hiat yivat

wind PMTK *tatiʔ fi-tate, ti-tate, es-téd

woman POTP *sõ, PMZT *ʧhũ esio

In spite that further research is needed to determine if some parallels brought up in this section is fortuitous or a real instance of prehistoric language contact, most of them clearly represents an undeniable proof that the linguistic ecosystem of Northwestern South America during Prehistory has had strong relations to the Otomanguean languages and is actually much more complex than what scholars have thought until now.

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

2. ARCHAEOLINGUISTICS RELATIVE TO SOME ISOLATE LANGUAGES AND SMALL LANGUAGE FAMILIES IN THE AMERICAS

2.1. MESOAMERICAN – BOLIVIAN CONNECTIONS

In this section, I will report some findings that point to precolonial connections between Mesoamerica and Bolivia. My research focused specially in finding any linguistic connections between Mesoamerican languages and the isolate languages from Bolivia (Canichana, Cayuvava, Itonama, Kunza, Leko, Moseten, Movima, Yuracare). After a preliminary mass comparison using the data compiled in the ALLD, I came to the following conclusion: none of the isolate languages from Bolivia can be genetically linked to any Mesoamerican language family. I could, however, detect some words in Kunza and in Moseten that probably represent borrowings from a Mayan source. Mayan-Moseten lexical parallels are shown in the Table below.

TABLE 14: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN MAYAN AND MOSETEN

MAYAN MOSETEN

acid WM+LL *paːχ paʃ

ashes GLL+ *sibˀaq > pCh *sibˀik ʧim

blood pM *kikˀ > PCH *ʧˀiʧˀ > TZO/TZE *ʧˀiʧˀ, ʧeʃ CHT ʧiʧ

brother/sibling GK *ʔaʦ, GM *ʔaʦik ‘older sibling’ otʲiˀ ‘brother’, otʲire ‘cousin’

bamboo/ EM+ *puhbˀ ‘blowgun’ > KCH wub, MAMi wohpina ‘bamboo sp.’ blowgun uːbˀil

chicha/agave PM *kiːh > CM *saq-kiːh > CHR sukʧih ʧukʲe/ʃokdʲeˀ ‘manioc chicha’ ‘agave’

flea/tick pM *kˀaq ‘flea’ > CHJ kˀak kokoˀ ‘tick’

fruit/eye pM *hatʲ ‘eye/fruit/face’ > MOP wiʧ, weʧ/weʃ/wɨʃ/ ‘fruit’; also: MAM/AWA wiʦ; also: pM *meʔʦˀ ‘eyelash’> weʧeʔɲeʔ ‘eye’ KAQ/PCH metzˀ

grandfather pM *maːm > EM *mamaʔ baba

head/eye pM *bˀah ‘head’; also: pM *bˀaqˀ ‘seed’ > TZO beh ‘eye’, beh-yaʔ ‘face’ bˀekˀ; also: EM *ʔaʔbˀaχ ‘stone’

maize/chicha pM *ʔiʃiʔm ‘maize’ simiˀ ‘corn chicha’

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

TABLE 14: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN MAYAN AND MOSETEN

MAYAN MOSETEN

mother pM *naːna > CM *naːn nonoˀ

mouth pM *tʲiːˀ > KAQ ʧiˀ, TZU/PQMj ʧiːˀ ʧʰɨˀ/ʧʰɨˀ̃ ‘mouth’; also: dʲiˀ ‘anus’

mouth/name pM *tjiːˀ ‘mouth’ > QAN tih-eχ, tih ‘name’ TZO/CHL/POP tiˀ; also: Kp *ʦiːχ, GK *ʦiχo ‘talk’

navel GM *muːʃ, WM *muʃuk bõʧ

neck/swallow CM *bˀiqˀ ‘swallow’ > AWA bˀeqˀ, IXL ibˀiqˀa bekaˀ ‘neck’

no pM *haˀ ‘be’ + pM *mi/*ma ‘no’ = *haˀmi ham

nose pM *nhiːʔ > EM *nhuːʔ > PQM χuʔis hoi/həĩ

peccary LL+WM *kitaːm kitiˀ

pepper/salt pM *ʔiːk ‘pepper’ > MCH ʔiːkuˀ ‘enchilar’ hiːko ‘salt’

sand/wet CM *saʔm ‘sand’ > GK *sam-a > QEQ saˀmai ‘wet/damp’; hamaɲ samajiʔ ‘sand’

sky/cloud pM *maj ‘cloud’ maje-d̃ ʲeˀ ‘sky’ (-dʲeˀ ‘NMZ’)

sleep/tired GK *kohs ‘tired’ > TZU xkosi, KCH xkosik; kʰoʃi ‘sleep’ also: GK *koʦˀ ‘lying down’

small WM+Yu *bˀiqˀet > CHL/CHR/TZO/TZE mikitʲ/mikis ‘small’ ; mikiˀ ‘few’ bˀikˀit

son-in-law pM *nhiːʔ ‘father-in-law/son-in-law’ > hɨiˀ ‘son-in-law’ KCH/USP/ TZU χiːˀ

squash pM *kˀuːm ‘squash’ > CHT ʧum, TZO ʧˀum, ʃobo TZE ʧˀuhm, PQMp kˀuːbˀ

sun/today pM *qˀiːnh ‘sun’ > CHL/TZO kˀin, QAN qˀin kʰinˀ ‘today’; ʦɨn ‘sun’

three pM *ʔoːʃ-ibˀ > TZO/KCH/USP/QEQ oxibˀ ʧʰibin

tobacco GLL *kˀuhʦ > CHJ/QAN kˀuʦ kos

walk pM *bˀihn miˀih ‘walk’; mĩh ‘path’

wet/drink pM *ʦˀaq ‘wet/moisten> GK *ʧˀaq > KAQ tʲe-dʲeˀ ‘drink’ (-dʲeˀ ‘NMZ’) ʧeqel; also: pM *tʲaq ‘be dry/thirsty’

Possible Mayan borrowings in Kunza are shown in Tables 15-16. Table 15 specially illustrates some cases in which the Kunza words may also bear crystallized Mayan grammatical

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

features, like “nominalizer” or “inalienable possession” suffixes. For instance, in Chorti (Wichmann 1999) these suffixes are respectively -ir and -er/-ir.

TABLE 15: PROBABLE MAYAN BORROWINGS IN KUNZA BEARING CRYSTALLIZED SUFFIXES

MAYA KUNZA

dead/bury pM *muq ‘bury’ moʁor, muʁar ‘dead’ < * muq-Vr/-ar

earth/cover PHue *qˀap ‘clothes’ ʁabar ‘clothes/cover’ < *qab-Vr

egg/bone GK *molo ‘egg’ mulur ‘bone’ < *mul-Vr

flower GM *ʔubˀeʧ >AWA bˀuʧ puʧur, puʧer < *puʧ-Vr/-er

foot/leg GM *kuʃ ‘leg’ ʁuʧir, kuʧi < *kuʧi-r; khoche ‘foot’

gourd LL *luʧ lauʧur < *lauʧ-Vr

path/walk Hue *bˀehr ‘walk’ > PMAM *bˀeːt, TEK beter < *bet-Vr obˀeːt

powder pM *poːq poʁor < *poq-Vr

smoke/fire QAN *nhubˀ ‘smoke’ humur ‘fire’ < *hum-Vr

Other possible Mayan borrowings in Kunza are listed in Table 16:

TABLE 16: OTHER LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN MAYAN AND KUNZA

MAYA KUNZA

bird EM+ *piːtʲˀ βitti ‘hawk/vulture’ < *bitti

bird Mp *looʃχ ‘vulture’ laːʧir ‘bird’ < *laːʧi-r

bird I+ *qu7s, WM *hos ʁosʁo ‘owl’ < *qos-qo(s)

boil/burn CM *loq ‘boil’ loʁ- ‘burn’ < *loq

clothes/rich PHue *qˀap ‘clothes’ > CHJ kˀapak; Was+Tz ʁapaʁa ‘rich’ < *qapaq-a *paqˀ ‘clothes’

cloud EM *muːnh ‘cloud/shadow’ > AWA mul, molle, mol-ti (-ti ‘NMZ’) < *mol TEK/USP muχ

cold WM *siʔk > QAN/TZO/TZE sik teʁar < *teka-r

cook pM *tʲaqˀ ‘cooked/ripe’ > QEQ/TZU/KCHn ʧeʁan- ‘cook’ < *ʧeq-an (-an ‘?’, ʧaqˀ conf.: pM *-an ‘antipassive’)

sunset/ after pM *kaʔbˀe:χ ‘day after tomorrow’> AWA ʁapin ‘sun/sunset/west’< *kapin tomorrow kaʔpeːn, IXL kaɓeːn

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

TABLE 16: OTHER LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN MAYAN AND KUNZA

MAYA KUNZA

father/old pM *riːχ ‘old man’ > MAM tiːχ, TEK tiχ tiʁan ‘father’ < *tiʁ-an ‘father- man ANP’ (conf.: pM *-an ‘ANP’)

fox Was+EM *ʃoʔχbˀ > PQMp ʃoχm loʁma < *loʁm-ma (*-ma ‘animal’)

hear pM *ʔabˀi > CHJ iʃ-jaɓi, AKA ʃ-jabˀe jebi-

hole pM *χoːl ʁoːls

house EM *tuːnh (*tuːχ ?) ‘temascal’ > USP/KAQ tturi < *ttur-i (-i ?) tuχ, KCH/TZU tuːχ

stone/soil GLL+WM *toːnh ‘stone’ > pCh tun, ttunar ‘soil’ < *ttuna-r TZO/TZE ton

jaguar pM *koχ > USP/KAQ/TZU koχ, KCHq koːχ kuru, kuri, kuhri < *kur-i (-i ?)

leaf/ pM *ʃaq ‘leaf’ laʁar < *laq-Vr ‘green maize’ green maize

cock/feather EM *ʔakˀ- ‘cock/turkey’ aʁiu ‘feather’

live pM *kˀas-al ckausa-

man pM *ʃiːbˀ ‘male’; CM *ʃiːɓaːl ‘woman’s sima brother’ (< pM *ʃiːbˀ-aːl17 ‘male-NMZ’)

moon/wife pM *ʔi:kˀ ‘moon’ liʁ-i ‘wife’, liʁ-aw ‘woman’ < *-lik

nose GLL *sihm seppi < *sepp-i (-i ?)

palate-throat Mp+ *kˀoʔm ‘palate’ ckomal ‘throat’ < *ckom-al18

pepper pM *ʔiːk ‘pepper’ > MCH *ʔiːku siʁu < *siku

pot GQ+ *seːkˀ ʧeʁnar < *ʧekna-r

river CM *bˀeːhhaˀ, EM *ubˀeːhhaˀ baʁʁa

rest/dream pM *hil ‘rest’ hul- ‘sonhar’

teat CM *tuʔ ‘mother, suck’ > MCH -tuːtuːʔ, PCH tutu -tut

today Kp *kamiːk ami

torax/belly Hue *kˀuʔul ‘belly’ > QAN kˀuleχ, POP ʁoli ‘thorax’ < *kol-i (-i ?) kˀule; Kp+ *kˀuʔuʃ

17 pM *-aːl/*-iːl is a derivave suﬃx that turns adjecves into abstract nouns. 18 compare with pM *-a(l)/*-i(l), a suffix that marks dependency (it functions as a prenominal modifier marker).

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

TABLE 16: OTHER LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN MAYAN AND KUNZA

MAYA KUNZA

volcano Kp *kanuːl ‘volcano’ kaur, ʁabur ‘mountain/volcano’ < *kauːr

wet/water pM *ʔaːkˀ ‘wet’ aʁ ‘water’ < *ak

worm GM *tuqˀ, LL+WM *luqum tˀoʁomar, toʁmar < *toqm-ma-r (*-ma ‘animal’)

A further linguist evidence found by me are lexical parallels that may constitute prehistoric Mayan borrowings in Kandoxi. Those parallels are shown in the Table below.

TABLE 17: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN KANDOXI AND MAYAN

KANDOXI MAYAN

1 k- ‘1.S’ pM *q- ‘1.P’

1.P/2.P iː ‘1.P’ pM *eː-/i- ‘2.P’

1.S no pM *nu-

2 ʃi ‘2.S’ pM *eʃ ‘2.P’

3.S w- pM *u-

clothes kamaːʂi < *kamaː-ʂi EM *keːm > MAMi ʧeːmaχ; also: EM *kem ‘weave’ > KCHc ʃu-kemaχ

deer manʧansi EM+ *masaːt

eye kaʧ, waʧo < *(k-/w-)aʧ(-o) pM *hatʲ > KCH/SAK/PCH waʧ

female kiːʂa ‘woman’, wiːʂa-/iʂaː- ‘female’ pM *ʔiʃ ‘female’ < *(k-/w-)iʂa

foot/leg koʦ ‘foot’ GM *kuʃ ‘leg’

fox ʂoʂima Was+EM *ʃoʔχbˀ > PQMp ʃoχm

hair sosi, wasoso < (wa-)sos(-i/-o) GLL *tzoʔtz > TZO/TZE ʦoʦ

hand/arm kow pM *qˀabˀ > TZO kˀobˀ, MAM qˀobˀ, QEQ qˀubˀ

iguana nta WM *inatam > QAN/POP intam

liver ʃiːp EM+ *saseːbˀ

manioc kaʂinʂi, kaʂini, waʂino <*(ka- pM *ʦiˀːn /wa-)ʂin(-ʂi/-i/-o)

navel moʂa GM *muːʃ

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

TABLE 17: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN KANDOXI AND MAYAN

KANDOXI MAYAN

old man ʂitamina Hue *ʔitam

Pleyades masaːʧi EM+Hue *moʔoʦ > SAK maʔʦ, PCH moːʦ

spider/ sinno ‘spider’ pM *siːnaʔnh ‘scorpion’ scorpion

teat/mother mimi ‘teat’ pM *miːm ‘mother’

this ini pM *ʔin

three/third toːʧpa ‘three’ pM *r-oːʃ ‘third’ > IXL toʃpah

tick/bedbug poto ‘tick’ pM *potʲˀ ‘bedbug’

2.2. MESOAMERICA – SOUTHWESTERN US CONNECTIONS

In this section, I will report some findings that point to precolonial connections between Mesoamerica and Southwestern US. The research originally focused in finding any linguistic connections between two small Mesoamerican language families (Lencan and Misumalpan) and languages from South America. However, after a preliminary mass comparison using the data compiled in the ALLD, I could detect a bunch of words in (Proto)- Lencan and (Proto)-Misumalpan that resemble words of Hokan languages. These parallels are shown in Tables 18-19:

TABLE 18: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN HOKAN AND LENCAN

HOKAN LENCAN

2.S PPOM *ʔa:ma (McLendon 1973:88), SRI me- PLKA *ama-nani ‘2.S’ (Arguedas /ma- (Moser & Marlett 2005:822); KMK em- Cortés 1988:105) > amnan LKA-H nan (Swanton 1940:63)

3.S CTL-H/CTL-L i-, SRI i- ‘3.POS’ (Turner & Turner PLKA *i-nani (Arguedas Cortés 1971:327; O'Connor 2013:128, Moser & 1988:103) Marlett 2005:386); KMK i ‘3.corref’ (Swanton 1940:66), KMK nani ‘3.S’ (id.:83), KMK i-nan ‘3?’ (id.:67)

arm PPOM *ʔiː-xal > POM-SE xal (Mclendon LKA-S kal (del Río Urrutia 1973:65) ‘arm’; YNA ɡalu (Sapir & Swadesh 2004:292) 1960:83), PYUM i-ʂalʲ (Gursky 1974:178) ‘arm’; CTL-H ʃaɬ ‘wing’ (Turner & Turner 1971:249)

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

TABLE 18: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN HOKAN AND LENCAN

HOKAN LENCAN

ashes/burn PYUM *pilʲ, POM-SW bil ‘hot, burn’ (Gursky LKA-S pilil ‘ashes’ (del Río Urrutia 1974:194, Gursky 1989:17) 2004:293)

belly CTL-L kˀom ‘upside down’, kˀomu- ‘deitar de LKA-S kˀomo (del Río Urrutia barriga para baixo’ (O'Connor 2013:24/170); 2004:291) POM-C/N/NE komo ‘navel’ (Mclendon 1973:82); PTLJ *kom ‘liver’ (Campbell & Oltrogge 1980:217)

belly PTLJ *-kol, POM-SE kˀo, CTL-L kuʔu ‘belly’ LKA-S kˀul ‘navel’ (del Río Urrutia (Campbell & Oltrogge 1980:213, Gursky 2004:303) 1974:179, O'Connor 2013:14)

blood PPOM *ba:laj (McLendon 1973:68) LKA-S ala (del Río Urrutia 2004:306)

bone/branch SHT ?aːk, SLN aʃaːk (Mason 1918:127), PYUM PLKA *ʦˀek ‘bone’ > LKA-S tseˀk, *ʔjaːk > MHV nʲa-sak, MRK/YMA ʃaːk, KKP jak LKA-H seh (Arguedas Cortés ‘bone’ (Gursky 1974:181; Wares 1968:79); SRI 1988:103); PLKA *sak ‘wood’ i-tak (Moser & Marlett 2005:739) (Arguedas Cortés 1988:104) > ‘bone/branch’ LKA-H sak, LKA-S ʃah

brother KMK kos (Swanton 1940:108) LKA-S koh ‘older brother’ (del Río Urrutia 2004:298)

child SRI ʔoeː (Moser & Marlett 2005:660), CMR PLKA *we (Arguedas Cortés ʔuwɛ- ‘baby’ (Gursky 1988:31) 1988:104)

clothes ACH ilaːm (Gursky 1974:204); YVP s-lam PLKA *lam (Arguedas Cortés ‘shawl’ (Shaterian 1983:610) 1988:105)

cloud/smoke CMR h-opʰat ‘smoking’; SHT –upːa, CMR –ophaʔ LKA-H sopata, LKA-S tsˀupa ‘cloud’ ‘smoke’ (Gursky 1990:8); ACH up/oːp (Gursky (Arguedas Cortés 1988:104) 1974:209), DGÑ ʔuːp, KKP uːp ‘tobacco’ (Wares 1968:94)

cloud/ CTL-L ʧˀihma ‘cloud’ (O'Connor 2013:16) LKA-S ʃo-ʃima ‘thunder’ (del Río thunder Urrutia 2004:310) (see: LKA-S ʃo- ‘rain’ (del Río Urrutia 2004:300))

grandfather/ KKP nʲ-paw (Crawford 1989:190), LKA-H paβi ‘father’ (Herranz father MHV/MRK/YMA/TPI na-paw, ACH wapuʔwi Herranz 1987:453) ‘father’s father’ (Gursky 1974:191); KMK mawis (Swanton 1940:110), DGÑ -paːw ‘father’ (Couro & Hutcheson 1973:74)

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

TABLE 18: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN HOKAN AND LENCAN

HOKAN LENCAN

grandmother/ YNA ʔ-a-maːwi (Sapir & Swadesh 1960:226), LKA-H maβih ‘mother’ (Herranz mother ACH a-muʔwi, PYUM *nʲ-a-maw > MHV/TPI na- Herranz 1987:453) maw, MRK namawi, DGÑ -maːw ‘father’s mother’ (Gursky 1974:191, Couro & Hutcheson 1973:74)

head PPOM *hoʔtˀo ‘brains/head’ (McLendon LKA-S oso (del Río Urrutia 1973:68); CMR h-usu, -uso- ‘eye’ (Gursky 2004:292) 1989:7)

hair/head KMK elax (Swanton 1940:111), SHT innax LKA-S alah, LKA-H aʃa ‘hair’ ‘hair’; SLN aʃaʔx ‘feather’ (Mason 1918:126); (Arguedas Cortés 1988:102) PPLH *laḥ ‘head’ (Gursky 1974:193)

heart/liver SRI -moʃ ‘heart’ (Gursky 1974:193); KKP ʧpusu LKA-H muʃu ‘heart’ (Herranz ‘liver’ (Crawford 1989:479) Herranz 1987:451); see also: *muts'u ‘liver’ (Arguedas Cortés 1988:103) > LKA-H musu

house CMR awa, PYUM *ʔawaʔ >MHV/YMA ʔawa; SLN PLKA *tˀaw (Arguedas Cortés t-ạ ːˀm, SHT ʔamːa, (Mason 1918:130; Gursky 1988:103) 1974:194)

husband/ PYUM *nʲ-iku/*nʲ-aku ‘father’ > KKP/TPI nʲ-iku LKA-S jiku ‘husband’ (del Río father (Gursky 1974:187; Wares 1968:83) Urrutia 2004:301)

leaf/feather PYUM *sama-lʲ > TPI xuʔma-ɬ (Wares 1968:87) LKA-S ʃuma ‘feather’ (del Río ‘leaf’; KKP suːmi ‘feather’ (Crawford 1989:459) Urrutia 2004:305)

leaf/feather TPI waɬ ‘leaf’; PYUM *-waR ‘feather’ (Mixko LKA-H wala ‘leaf’ (Constenla- 1978:85) > HVS wala, WLP/YVP ʔwala, KLW Umaña 2002:198) walu (Wares 1968:83)

maize/eat CMR ama, SLN ama, PPLH *am ‘eat’, PYUM PLKA *ajma ‘maize’ > LKA-H ama, *amaː, KKP ɬʲma ‘eat’ (Gursky 1974:186, LKA-S ima (Arguedas Cortés Crawford 1989:455); YVP ʔʧmaː ‘someone is 1988:104) eating’ (Shaterian 1983:555)

maize/milpa KMK tawelo ‘maize’ (Swanton 1940:112); PYUM LKA-H tawah ‘milpa’ (Herranz *t-awaː ‘grind’ (Gursky 1989:14) > HVS tawa Herranz 1987:457) ‘flour’

maize/milpa YMA tadi:c, KLW taʔjiːt; MHV/MRK taðic, YMA LKA-H taliːh ‘milpa’ (Herranz taðiːc ‘maize’ (Wares 1968:81) Herranz 1987:457)

male/ KMK tkuau ‘husband’ (Swanton 1940:111) PLKA *kew ‘male’ (Arguedas husband Cortés 1988:104)

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

TABLE 18: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN HOKAN AND LENCAN

HOKAN LENCAN

moon/ SRI i-iʃaχ (Moser & Marlett 2005:689), DGÑ LKA-S letsˀa ‘moon’ (del Río pleiades heɬʲa ‘moon’; WLP hiʧa, MRK/DGÑ xeʧa, KKP Urrutia 2004:299) xesaʔ ‘pleiades’ (Wares 1968:90)

mortar KKP/TPI xmu, YMA ʔa-xmo, MHV a-hmo, DGÑ ʔa- LKA-S mohmon (del Río Urrutia hmuː (Wares 1968:88) 2004:304)

mouse KMK kuam (Swanton 1940:114) LKA-S kˀuwa (del Río Urrutia 2004:306)

net PPLH *i-QxIra(w) (Gursky 1974:199) LKA-H sela (Herranz Herranz 1987:459)

nose SLN eːnet ̣ (Mason 1918:126), CTL-L/CTL-H -ʔnaɬ LKA-H neʃe (Herranz Herranz (O'Connor 2013:26, Turner & Turner 1987:452) 1971:294)

oak/acorn YNA -maala, WSH -malŋ ‘acorn’ (Gursky PLKA *mal ‘oak’ (Arguedas Cortés 1974:178) 1988:105)

penis/tail KKP nʲ-ʂʲuɬʲ, TPI ʃuɬ ‘tail’ (Wares 1968:94) LKA-H ʃuːru ‘penis’ (Herranz Herranz 1987:455)

pineapple KKP mˀaɬʲ (Crawford 1989:492) PLKA *maʦˀati (Arguedas Cortés 1988:104)

salt KMK sepen (Swanton 1940:115); SRI ʔantip LKA-H sepe (Herranz Herranz (Moser & Marlett 2005:715) 1987:459), LKA-S tsˀepe (del Río Urrutia 2004:306)

sleep/lay KLW ʔpáa, KKP pat ̣ (Crawford 1989:477), MHV LKA-S pa (del Río Urrutia down upaː (Munro et alii 1992:255), ACH aʔap ‘lay 2004:295) down’ (Gursky 1974:196)

testicles PPOM *jaqolʲ > POM-SW joqoː, POM-S jokːo LKA-S juku (del Río Urrutia (McLendon 1973:93); KKP nʲqal, WSH jaːgɨl 2004:308) (Gursky 1990:15)

tobacco SHT ʔuːwa, ACH oːp, PYUM *-ʔuːv > HVS ʔuva, LKA-S jowa (del Río Urrutia YMA ʔuːv, YVP ʔuːβa (Gursky 1974:209, Wares 2004:307), LKA-H jogwah 1968:94) (Herranz Herranz 1987:456)

tongue PYUM *ʔi-mpal (Mixko 1978:98) > DGÑ enepaɬ LKA-S nepal (del Río Urrutia (Couro & Hutcheson 1973:98); SLN epaɬ 2004:299), LKA-H nepel (Mason 1918:126); SRI -i-pɬ (Moser & Marlett (Constenla-Umaña 2002:198) 2005:687); CTL-L apaɬʔ (O'Connor 2013:35), CTL-H -abaɬ (Turner & Turner 1971:287); PPOM *ha-ʔbalʲ > POM-E/SE bal (McLendon 1973:94)

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

TABLE 18: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN HOKAN AND LENCAN

HOKAN LENCAN

woman/wife PYUM *siɲʔak ‘woman/wife > DGÑ siɲ (Couro LKA-S sija ‘wife’ (del Río Urrutia & Hutcheson 1973:102, Wares 1968:96), KCM 2004:296) siɲ (Mixko 1978:100); SLN sen̥ (Mason 1918:134)

TABLE 19: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN HOKAN AND MISUMALPAN

HOKAN MISUMALPAN

1 PHOK *nʲa (Kaufman 1988:74) KCM ja, CTL- PMSM *jam (Constenla Umaña L/CTL-H i-jaʔ, PYUM *ʔnʲaː ‘1.S’ > KLW ɲaːp 1987:159) > SMU jam [jaŋ]; SMU ja ‘1.S’ (Mixko 1978:88; Turner & Turner ‘1.acc’ (von Houwald 1980:129) 1971:318, O'Connor 2013:22); KKP ɲaː-p ‘1.S.cop’ (Crawford 1989:159); POM-k/n/c ja ‘1.P’ (McLendon 1973:75)

2 PHOK *ma (Kaufman 1988:74), PYUM *ma, PMSM *man/*-ma (Constenla Umaña SRI mɛ-/ma- (Moser & Marlett 2005:822), 1987:159) SMU ma ‘2.acc’ (von PPOM *ʔa:ma (McLendon 1973:88), CTL- Houwald 1980:129) L/CTL-H imaʔ (Turner & Turner 1971:315, O'Connor 2013:37)

3/this PHOK *wi ‘this’ (Kaufman 1988:74) > WLP SMU -wi 3.s (von Houwald wi ‘that one’, KKP wi (Crawford 1989:334) 1980:123)

above/sky MHV ʔa-majk ‘above’ (Munro et alii 1992:27); SMU majak (von Houwald 1980:100) DGN ʔe-maːj (Couro & Hutcheson 1973:77), KKP maːj (Crawford 1989:130); KLW maʔj, MHV/YMA ʔa-maj ‘high/sky’ (Munro et alii 1992:27, Wares 1968:92)

aunt/uncle MHV/TPA napij, YMA/PAI napiː, HVS napiʔ, SMU nabis ‘irma da mãe’ (von MRK napi ‘father’s sister’ (Wares 1968:83); Houwald 1980:103) KKP nʲpiːs ‘father’s sister.P’ (Crawford 1989:191); (see also: PYUM *n-aviː ‘father’s older brother’ > DGN –newis (Gursky 1974:187; Gursky 1989:3))

bone CTL-L ekaɬ (O'Connor 2013:14), CTL-H -eɡaɬ SMU/ULW wakal (Constenla Umaña (Turner & Turner 1971:284); SHT ʔaːk, PYUM 2002:198) *-ak, KCM -ak (Gursky 1974:181; Marlett 2007)

bread/corn MHV/MRK taðic, YMA taðiːc, KLW taʔjiːt ‘corn’ MKT taːni (Brown 2008:171) (Wares 1968:81)

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

TABLE 19: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN HOKAN AND MISUMALPAN

HOKAN MISUMALPAN

brother-in- PPOM *maha- ‘brother-in-law’ (McLendon PMSM *maha > MKT mahma ‘irmão’ law/brother 1973:69); mhk maha-j, MRK/YMA maxa-j (Brown 2008:352), SMU maha ‘guy’; MHV mahaː ‘young’ ‘irmão/primo’ (von Houwald 1980:99)

charcoal PPOM *mahsi-kʔ > POM-S mahsiː, POM-E MKT masku (Brown 2008:359) maːsikʰ (McLendon 1973:74); SLN moʃeʔ (Mason 1918:133)

cloud PPOM *qʰaʔbu > POM-E xaːbo (McLendon PMSM *amu (Constenla Umaña 1973:71) 1987:156)

cold CTL-L tsˀos (O'Connor 2013:16) KAK tus- (Constenla Umaña 2002:198)

come MHV ivaa- (Munro et alii 1992:105), DGN w- SMU/ULW ajwa (Constenla Umaña ejiw (Couro & Hutcheson 1973:68) 2002:199)

day YVP s-maː (Shaterian 1983:454); KKP maː SMU/ULW ma ‘sun/day’ (Constenla ‘sky/above’ (Crawford 1989:119) Umaña 2002:198-199)

dove/pigeon YVP sakwita ‘pigeon’ (Shaterian 1983:449) MKT s-wita ‘dove’ (Brown 2008:171)

drink YNA sii, PYUM *siː (Gursky 1974:185); SRI -asi PMSM *di (Constenla Umaña (Marlett 2007:175); PTLJ *sɨ(th) ‘water’ 1987:152)

ear PYUM *ʂmalʲ (Gursky 1974:185)> KKP PMSM *tupal (Constenla Umaña ʃumalʲ, DGN sumaɬ (Wares 1968:82) 1987:157)

eat/bite SRI kat, CMR qˀat ‘bite’ (Gursky 1988:23) SMU/ULW kas- ‘eat’ (Constenla Umaña 2002:197)

eat/corn CMR ama, SLN ama (Mason 1918:138), PPLH ULW am, SMU ama, KAK/MTG ajma *am ‘eat’, PYUM *amaː, KKP ɬʲma ‘eat’ (Gursky ‘corn’ (Constenla Umaña 1987:156) 1974:186, Crawford 1989:455); YVP ʔʧmaː ‘someone is eating’ (Shaterian 1983:555); MHV ʧamaːʧ (59); KKP samaːs (Crawford 1989:242) ‘meal’

edge/margin KMK kōn ‘edge/beach’ SMU kuŋ ‘edge/margin’; MKT un ‘lip’

egg/chicken KLW hmaʔ, WLP hma, KKP/PAI xma ‘chicken’; SMU suma-n, ULW suma ‘egg’ (von KKP xumaː/xmaː (Crawford 1989:357), DGN Houwald 1980:113 (see also: MKT/ huːmaːj ‘offspring’ (Couro & Hutcheson SMU wahma ‘menino’) 1973:93); (see also: MHV humal/humar ‘baby’ (Munro et alii 1992:80))

fire PYUM *ʔa-ʔaw, SLN *t-ạ ʔaw ‘fire’, YNA ʔaw PMSM *paw ‘red’ (Constenla Umaña (Gursky 1974:188) 1987:158)

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

TABLE 19: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN HOKAN AND MISUMALPAN

HOKAN MISUMALPAN

fish/eel SLN swan ‘fish’ (Mason 1918:123) MKT swara ‘eel’ (Brown 2008:29)

go KMK kio SMU kiu- (von Houwald 1980:50)

go/walk CTL-L ʔwa (O'Connor 2013:36), PYUM *waː PMSM *wa (Constenla Umaña (> TPA wa-m, DGN wamp), KCM l-wa (Mixko 1987:155), MKT wap ‘let’s go’ 1978:86), KRK va; PPOM *-wa-, CMR wam (Brown 2008:468) ‘walk’ (Gursky 1974:100)

goose SLN kalakˀ (Mason 1918:123) SMU kalak ‘kingfisher’ (von Houwald 1980:91)

gourd KKP ɬʲuːmas ‘pot’ (Crawford 1989:494) SMU suma (von Houwald 1980:112/113)

grandfather SLN neneʔ ‘grandparents’ (Mason 1918:134) PMSM *nini ‘grandfather’ (Constenla Umaña 1987:152)

green/grass KRK san,́̄ POM-SW sˀamo, POM-NO camor-, PMSM *sam ‘green’ (Constenla POM-O cˀaba ‘green’; PYUM *sama-l ‘grass’ Umaña 1987:159)

guts/feces KLW paʔ, KKP/TPA pxa, DGN pxaː ‘guts’ ULW ba ‘guts’, SMU ba ‘guts/feces’ (Wares 1968:86); PPOM *ah-pʰa (von Houwald 1980:82, Constenla ‘guts/excrement’ > POM-N/-E pʰa, POM-NE/SE Umaña 2002:200) fa (McLendon 1973:74)

guy/testicle/ YVP wahma ‘testicle’; YVP hma, KKP xma, DGN SMU/ULW/MKT wahma ‘guy/young’ penis hamaa ‘penis’; YVP hmaɲ ‘child’; YVP (von Houwald 1980:120, Brown hme/hmaːr, PAI xmar ‘boy’; YVP home, MRK 2008:463) xomay, PAI xume, KKP xmaː/xuma ‘son’; MHV xumar, MRK xomar, YMA xuːmar ‘young’

hair SLN mas ‘pubic hair’ (Mason 1918:127) SMU/ULW bas ‘hair/leaf’ (von Houwald 1980:83)

honey SRI jamaːχ ‘honey/fermented beverage’ SMU amak ‘honey’, ULW amak ‘bee’ (Moser & Marlett 2005:603) (von Houwald 1980:79)

house PYUM *uvaʔ (Gursky 1974:194), CTL-L a-hutɬʔ PMSM *u, MKT utla (Constenla (O'Connor 2013:22), CTL-H -a-huɬ (Turner & Umaña 1987:153) Turner 1971:261)

husband SRI -aːɬ ‘husband/wife’ (Moser & Marlett SMU/ULW al ‘man/husband’, 2005:39); SLN la ‘husband’ (Mason SMU/ULW jal ‘woman/wife’ (von 1918:134); KRK ʔara (Gursky 1974: 200) Houwald 1980:78/124, Constenla Umaña 2002:198)

kill SRI -ikʷ (Moser & Marlett 2005:693) MKT ik- (Brown 2008:155)

lady YVP hʧaːra (Shaterian 1983:466) MKT tjara (Brown 2008:161)

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

TABLE 19: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN HOKAN AND MISUMALPAN

HOKAN MISUMALPAN

lay down CTL-L taŋ- (O'Connor 2013:24) PMSM *udam [udaŋ] (Constenla Umaña 1987:152)

leaf TPA waɬ, KKP wal; PYUM *-waR ‘feather’ MKT waha (Brown 2008:463) (Mixko 1978:85)

lie/sleep ACH am, SRI om ‘lie’ (Gursky 1989:20); DGN SMU/ULW ama ‘sleep’ (Constenla hemaː (Couro & Hutcheson 1973:92) Umaña 2002:198)

live KLW iwaːj, SHT eːve ‘dwell’; MHV uːva ‘live’ MKT iw- (Brown 2008:235) (Munro et alii 1992:197); KRK ʔiːv-, KCM/DGN ʔewaː, HVS/YVP uwa ‘house’ (Gursky 1974:194; Gursky 1989:13/21)

man/ PPOM *hiʔ-baja > POM-N/-C -baija (Gursky MKT maia ‘husband’ (Brown husband 1989:22, Gursky 1974:197) ‘man’; PYUM 2002:360) *maː(j) ‘man/male’ (Mixko 1978:90)

moon/ KMK ka’n ‘moon’ PMSM *kadu ‘Pleiades’ (Constenla Pleiades Umaña 1987:157)

mother SRI ʔita, PYUM *n-taj, KCM -taj (Gursky SMU/ULW itam [itaŋ] (Constenla 1974:198; Mixko 1978:91) Umaña 2002:198)

mother’s MHV naθiː, YVP neti, HVS naθi, KKP nʲʃiː, KLW MKT anti ‘irmã da mãe’ (Brown sister ʔsiː ‘mother’s sister’ (Wares 1968:88) 2008:254)

mouse/ PYUM *ʔ(a)malʲk ‘mouse’ (Gursky 1974:202) SMU malka ‘paca’ (von Houwald paca 1980:99)

mouth SRI i-ta (Moser & Marlett 2005:648) PMSM *ta (Constenla Umaña 1987:153)

night CTL-L puɡi (O'Connor 2013:26), CTL-H -i-buɡiʔ SMU puk ‘dark’, puk-ta ‘night’, ULW (Turner & Turner 1971:295) pukka ‘night’, MKT puk ‘dark/cloudy’ (von Houwald 1980:107, Brown 2008:394)

path PPOM *hiʔ-da >POM-N/-C/-NE/-E da SMU/ULW ta (Constenla Umaña (McLendon 1973:85) 2002:197)

sea SLN ʃ-kˀem̥ (Mason 1918:132), POM-SW MKT/SMU kabu (Brown 2008:154, qʰamosʔ (Gursky 1975:200, 1989:25), SRI von Houwald 1980:91) χæpæ (Moser & Marlett 2005:799)

seed PPOM *muhka (McLendon 1973:103) MKT/SMU/ULW sau-muk (SMU/ULW sau ‘earth’) (von Houwald 1980:110, Constenla Umaña 2002:199)

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

TABLE 19: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN HOKAN AND MISUMALPAN

HOKAN MISUMALPAN

shoulder/ ACH taːla ‘omoplata’ (50); SLN i-taʔl ‘shoulder’ SMU/ULW salah ‘shoulder’ (von arm/wing (Mason 1918:126); CTL-H/-L -ʃaɬ ‘wing’ Houwald 1980:109) (O'Connor 2013:37, Turner & Turner 1971:249); PPOM *ʔi-ʃaːl, PYUM *i-ʂalʲ ‘arm/wing’ (Gursky 1974:178)

sister CTL ʔapiː (Gursky 1974:205), ACH apis ‘older SMU/ULW ami(s) ‘sister/cousin’ (von sister’ (Gursky 1990:5); PAI/HVS n-ami Houwald 1980:79) ‘mother’s younger sister’ (Wares 1968:88)

son KCM wisa (Mixko 1978:97) KAK/MTG misa (Campbell 1975:150)

speak DGN w-aːj-p (Couro & Hutcheson 1973:94) PMSM *aj- > KAK aj, SMU ajam [ajaŋ], MKT ajs (Constenla Umaña 1987:156, Constenla Umaña 2002:198)

speak PYUM *ʔi: >DGN w-ii (Couro & Hutcheson MKT wi- (Constenla Umaña 1973:56) 2002:198)

speak/ SRI -itom, CTL-T tom, JKQ tol ‘falar’ (Gursky PMSM *tu ‘tongue’ > KAK tu-m, MTG tongue 1990:14) tumam (Constenla Umaña 1987:155; Campbell 1975:150)

spider SLN tsˀopen (Mason 1918:125) SMU supai, ULW suːpim [supiŋ] (von Houwald 1980:113)

stone SLN ʃ-xap (Mason 1918:132); SLN ʃ-apa-neɬ KAK apa, MTG appa (Campbell ‘stone.P’ 1975:149)

sun/moon/ YNA iʔ-lala ‘star’; SLN na’ ‘sun’ (Mason KAK lan, MTG lal ‘sun’ (Campbell star 1918:133); CMR alla ‘sun’, PPOM *ʔa-laː(-ʃa) 1975:149) ‘sun/moon’ > POM-O laː, POM-C laː- (McLendon 1973:81; Gursky 1974:207), KMK a’l

village SLN tama:nẹ ɬ ‘houses’ (Mason 1918:130) MKT/SMU tawan ‘village’ (Brown 2002:441, von Houwald 1980:115)

vulva/ PHOK *i-pis; KRK viːθ ‘vulva’, CTL-H beʃuʔ SMU ip/ipit (von Houwald 1980:90) vagina ‘vagina’ (Gursky 1974:210; Gursky 1990:20); KMK e’p ‘tail’

wildcat/ PYUM *-nmi/*nami > KLW nmi’/ nemi’, MKT limi, KAK nama, MTG namas jaguar MRK/YMA name; SLN s-nam ‘wildcat’ (Mason (Constenla Umaña 1987:158) 1918:124); WLP/YVP/MHV namaθ, TPA/PAI namas ‘raccoon’

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

TABLE 19: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN HOKAN AND MISUMALPAN

HOKAN MISUMALPAN

woman/ KCM -maj, PYUM *-maː(j) ‘breast/nipple/milk’ PMSM *maja ‘wife’ (Constenla breast/wife (Mixko 1978:82) > YVP ʔ-maja ‘milk’, KLW ni- Umaña 1987:154) maju; KKP nʲi-maj ‘nipple’, DGN ɲ-e-maj (Couro & Hutcheson 1973:65)

worm PPOM *biːla (McLendon 1973:100); YVP ʔa- PMSM *bid (Constenla Umaña ʔiːla, WLP/PAI ʔil, DGN ʔiɬ (Wares 1968:96) 1987:155) ‘worm/snake’ > SMU bil ‘snake’, SMU babil ‘worm’, KAK bil ‘worm’ (Constenla Umaña 1987:155)

The following hypotheses were raised: (i) these parallels represent borrowings from a Hokan source; (ii) these parallels represent borrowings from a third source (Uto-Aztecan, Mayan, Otomanguean, etc.); (iii) Lencan and or Misumalpan might be branches of the Hokan stock. If we disregard the last hypothesis, the most plausible explanation for at least some of those parallels may that Lencans and Misumalpans were in contact with Hokan speakers during prehistorical times.

Further possible traces of a northern origin of Lencan and Misumalpan are some lexical parallels that those languages bear with Atakapa, shown in Tables 20-21.

TABLE 20: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN ATAKAPA AND LENCAN

ATAKAPA LENCAN

1.S -o LKA-S -u

2.P ke LKA-S ki-(nani)

3.P ha; a ‘this’ LKA-S a-(nani)

belly kom LKA-S k'omo

bone tsi, tsigg LKA-H seh, LKA-S; tse'k, -ts'e

burn/tree lam ‘burn’ LKA-H iˑlama ‘tree’

crab tsam LKA-S jam

ear/hear an ‘ear’ PLKA *eni ‘hear’; also: LKA-H janh/jam ‘ear’

earth/mud lu ‘mud’ LKA-S luh ‘earth’

egg ku LKA-S kua

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

TABLE 20: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN ATAKAPA AND LENCAN

ATAKAPA LENCAN

forehead itse' LKA-S tits'e

give mi LKA-S mi

go/come ō ‘come’ PLKA *o- ‘go’

name/speak eɲ ‘name’ PLKA *aj- ‘speak’

smoke po' LKA-H po:ro, LKA-S mo

son juts LKA-S ju

this nak PLKA *na

TABLE 21: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN ATAKAPA AND MISUMALPAN

ATAKAPA MISUMALPAN

1.S hi-, i- PMSM *-i, *-ki

air pats (Gatschet & Swanton 1932:161) MKT paːsa

cheek/head al̄ ‘cheek’ (Gatschet & Swanton 1932:164) MKT lal ‘head’

cook/bake am̄ ‘cook’ (Gatschet & Swanton 1932:164) MKT am- ‘bake’, KKP wam ‘baked’

dark/night mel̄ ‘black’ (Gatschet & Swanton KKP mal ‘night’ 1932:162)

fish jal ‘to fish’ (Gatschet & Swanton KKP jal, MTG jale ‘fish’ 1932:167)

fox ʃul (Gatschet & Swanton 1932:116) MKT jul-, SMU sul (von Houwald 1980:112)

go waɲ/wan (Gatschet & Swanton 1932:141) PMSM *wa

green/wood tat̄ ‘green’ SMU tat ‘wood’ (von Houwald 1980:115)

head tol (Gatschet & Swanton 1932:134) SMU tuna(n)/ ULW tun- (von Houwald 1980:117)

hear nak ‘hear’ (Gatschet & Swanton 1932:85) SMU daka- ‘know/feel/hear’ (von Houwald 1980:86)

heart/breast ʃo ‘heart’ (Gatschet & Swanton 1932:169) PMSM *su ‘breast’

hole pa ̄ ‘nest/hole’ (Gatschet & Swanton SMU pa ‘home/hole’ (von Houwald 1932:100) 1980:104)

leaf waʃ (Gatschet & Swanton 1932:170) MKT waha, SMU bas (von Houwald 1980:83)

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

TABLE 21: LEXICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN ATAKAPA AND MISUMALPAN

ATAKAPA MISUMALPAN

man i-ōl (Gatschet & Swanton 1932:171) SMU al

mother teɲ (Gatschet & Swanton 1932:129) SMU itaŋ; also: PMSM *titiŋ ‘grandmother’

mud lu (Gatschet & Swanton 1932:77) MKT lau; SMU sau

name/speak eɲ ‘name’ (Gatschet & Swanton 1932:172) PMSM *ajaŋ ‘speak’ > KKP aj

night tem (Gatschet & Swanton 1932:166) MKT tama

pepper/salt cick̄ ‘salt’ (Gatschet & Swanton 1932:175) SMU tiski ‘pepper’ (von Houwald 1980:116)

pestle pa (Gatschet & Swanton 1932:171) KKP/MTG apa ‘pestle/stone’

sea/paddle kam ‘paddle’ (Gatschet & Swanton MKT kaːbu, SMU kabu ‘sea’ (von Houwald 1932:64) 1980:91)

self/other nuk ‘self’ SMU uk ‘other’ (von Houwald 1980:118)

smoke hak-vu MKT pak-b-, SMU aka-bus-

sun/bright lam ‘bright’ (Gatschet & Swanton KKP lan ‘sun’ 1932:75)

that ja (Gatschet & Swanton 1932:152) SMU ja-ka

that/3 ma ‘that’ (Gatschet & Swanton 1932:78) MKT ba ‘3’

this a SMU a-ka

tree/pine maɲ̄ ‘pine’ (Gatschet & Swanton PMSM *ban ‘tree’ > KKP man 1932:173)

village/ uʃ ‘village’ (Gatschet & Swanton PMSM *u ‘house’ house 1932:180)

word jul (Gatschet & Swanton 1932:181) SMU/ULW jul (von Houwald 1980:125)

One possible explanation would be that the the forefathers of the Atakapans were originally Mesoamericans. This approach is quite preliminary, though, and at least some of those resemblances may be fortuitous or borrowings from a third source (Uto-Aztecan, Mayan, etc.).

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

3. DISCUSSION

The linguistic data presented in §2 challenges the actual scientific understanding of contacts and population movements through the Americas during prehistory and may challenge the whole view. For instance, one of the main arisen questions makes direct reference of the origins of two of the main Amerindian Groups in Mesoamerica, namely the Otomangueans and the Mayans. Since those evidence cannot be neglected and must be accounted for, two patent hypotheses emerge:

• 1st Hypothesis: the forefathers of the Otomangueans and/or of the Mayans were indeed Mesoamericans and some of their descendants ventured into migratory/exploratory travels along the Pacific Coast of South America using seaworthy boats or rafts. • 2nd Hypothesis: the forefathers of the Otomangueans and/or of the Mayans were actually South Americans and their descendants ventured into migratory/exploratory travels along the Pacific Coast into Mesoamerica using seaworthy boats or rafts.

Obviously, based only in linguistic evidence none of those hypotheses can be thoroughly validated, being paramount in this regard the use of interdisciplinary evidence. In what follows I will bring up some important archaeological and archaeoclimatological evidence that will substantiate any further analyses.

Scholars have frequently called the attention to cultural relations between Western Mexico and the Pacific Coast of South America. For instance, some common traits shared between the NW South American and West Mexican archaeological traditions are: (i) shaft tombs and mortuary offerings, including figurines (Kan et alii 1989); (ii) ceramic objects and techniques (Evans & Meggers 1966; Grove 1981:391, 1982; Lathrap 1966, 1975:53-61; Pina Chan 1989:33-38); (iii) metallurgy19; (iv) style and design motifs (Meighan 1969; Anawalt

19 Both metallurgical traditions exhibit striking similarities in design and fabrication techniques, such as: (i) use of copper-silver, copper-arsenic and gold alloys; (ii) use of lost-wax technique for casting; (iii) production of open rings (found in similar contexts: burials associated with the cranium of the deceased; also served as earrings or nose rings), depilatory tweezers (both have beam design, were cold worked to shape and were made of copper)

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

1992); (v) clothing (Anawalt 1992); (vi) architectonic and iconographic techniques (Uhle 1922/1923, Tello 1943, Ford 1969, Willey 1971, Kubler 1984, Janusek 2006); (vii) the use of Spondylus as a symbolic and prestigious item (Marcos 1977/1978), and (viii) the high religious/symbolic status of the jaguar (Castex 2014).

One crucial aspect of most of those shared archaeological traits is that they were found earlier in South America than in Mesoamerica. For instance, American Metallurgy first emerged in the Central Andes during the 2nd millennium BC and it seem to have been spread throughout much of the Andes during the 1st millennium BC (Bruhns 1994; Aldenderfer et alii 2008). In Northern Peru and in Ecuador, some of its diagnostic characteristics were: (i) prevalence of copper-silver and copper-arsenic alloys, and (ii) production of status and utilitarian objects such as needles, axes, hoes, fishhooks, depilatory tweezers and circular open rings. In Western Colombia, metallurgical techniques were used from by 100 BC, with the following characteristics: (i) nearly exclusive use of gold and gold-copper alloys; (ii) nearly exclusive use of lost-wax technique for casting metal; (iii) most items were status objects, such as masks, containers, bells, personal adornments, and figurines. During the 1st millennium AD the most notable pieces were from the Calima and Quimbaya Cultures (Escalera Ureña & Barriuso Perez 1978; Hosler 1988; Hosler et alii 1990). On the other hand, a sudden and late appearance of Metallurgy in in Western Mexico only from around 600 AD appears to be rooted in those South American techniques (Hosler 1988, 1995). The most striking similarities in design and fabrication techniques between those metallurgical traditions are: (i) the use of copper-silver, copper-arsenic and gold alloys; (ii) the use of lost-wax technique for casting metal; (iii) the production of open rings (found in similar contexts: burials associated with the cranium of the deceased and also served as earrings or nose rings in both traditions), depilatory tweezers (in both traditions they have beam design, were cold worked to shape and were made of copper) and bells (they were made in both traditions from copper-gold alloys by lost-wax casting, were outfitted with a suspension ring and contained a clapper).

Since most of those remarkable shared archaeological traits have explicitly older dates in South America, they point towards the 1st Hypothesis, which will be regarded as a premisse

and bells (made from copper-gold alloys by lost-wax casting, were outfitted with a suspension ring and contained a clapper).

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

from now on. In what follows I will bring up possible explanations for the cradle of the forefathers of the Otomangueans and of the Proto-Mayans in South America.

3.1. THE ‘OTOMANGUEANS’ AND THEIR ORIGINS

Before going into any further discussion regarding the forefathers of the Otomangueans, one crucial aspect must be addressed: the validity of the Otomanguean stock as a genealogical unity was recently challenged by Brown (2015). Furthermore, Campbell (2017:12) points that “since most Proto-Otomanguean lexical reconstructions are only single syllables of *(C)CV shape, the potential for chance resemblance is relatively high (Ringe 1999), especially if the semantics of compared forms are not exact, as in many of Rensch’s [1966] cognate sets.” Personally, I agree with Brown (op.cit.) and Campbell (op.cit.). For instance, Proto-Otopamean is in fact quite divergent in terms of grammatical structure and even in lexicon, bearing almost no resemblances with other ‘Otomanguean subgroups’. On the other hand, there is still a chance that some language families assigned to the Otomanguean stock may indeed form a genealogical unity, but proofs have yet to be provided. From now on I’ll assume Brown’s (op.cit.) argument that the ‘Otomanguean stock’ is actually a Sprachbund.

As detailed in §2, previously untold connections between different ‘Otomanguean’ language subgroups and different language families like Paez, Coconucan, Chocoan, Jirajaran, Saliban-Hoti and Tucanoan strongly imply that ethnogenetic processes linking the ancestors of those populations took place during prehistory in the northwestern tip of South America, resulting in strong language interferences. Furthermore, it points to a South American origin for most ‘branches’ of the ‘Otomanguean stock’ (Jolkesky 2017, this paper). It would be hardly convincing that speakers of languages from most ‘branches’ of the ‘Otomanguean stock’ would have traveled southeastwards along the Pacific Coast to trade or to colonize Northwestern South America, since no archaeological evidence exists to support such claim. On the other hand, there is evidence that some cultural aspects spread from the Northwestern South America into Mesoamerica (for instance, Metallurgy).

One coherent explanation for such interdisciplinary evidence would be that different populations generally regarded as “Otomangueans” were indeed from Northwestern South America and that from the 1st millennium BC they started traveling northwestwards along the

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

Pacific Coast in different waves, reaching Southwestern and Western Mexico. This view is in accordance with Anawalt’s claim that some West Mexican villages “were probably originally trading colonies” established by groups of merchants of South American origin “who then stayed on permanently” and that repeated trading/colonizing waves would have prevented these South Americans “from becoming [completely] acculturated Mesoamericans” (Anawalt 1992:127). Such incursions probably led to the emergence of the Western Mexico Shaft Tomb Tradition.

By following this approach, further hypotheses and possible explanations were drawn:

• The discovery of striking lexical and phonological correspondences between Proto- Zapotecan and pre-Paez (shown in §2) makes Paez a remnant “Eastern- Otomanguean” language in South America and hints at a possible Proto-Proto- Zapotecan Homeland in the Southern Colombian Highlands.20 • “Otomanguean” words in Chocoan languages make up a stratum acquired partially by the Proto-Chocoans and partially by some of their descendants due to contact; for instance, the striking lexical correspondences between Proto- Otopamean and Emberan languages actually represent borrowings on the latters, since many of them aren’t reconstructable either to Proto-Emberan or to Proto- Chocoan; this contact situation must have happened during the 1st millennium AD and hint at a possible Proto-Proto-Otopamean Homeland in Western Colombia. • The case of prehistorical contacts between “Otomanguean” and Barbacoan languages poses a big question. On the one hand, only a handful of lexical similarities between “Otomanguean” languages and Proto-Barbacoan, South Barbacoan languages or Awa Pit have been found. On the other hand, parallels with Proto-Coconucan abound. Moreover, some phonological regularities were also foreseen between Proto-Coconucan and some branches of the Otomanguean stock (for instance, Proto-Zapotecan and Proto-Mixtecan). It implies that the emergence of the Proto-Coconucan language was a result of strong linguistic

20 In the light of reliable reconstructions of Proto-Zapotecan-Popolocan (if it indeed holds true) we shall have a more precise explanation about the position of Paez in a possible language stock.

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

interferences (maybe through creolization)21 and hints again at possible Proto- Proto-Zapotecan and Proto-Proto-Mixtecan Homelands in the Southern Colombian Highlands. This contact situation shall be further addressed in the future. • There is also a good amount of lexical correspondences between the “Otomanguean” languages and language families whose speakers probably were settling in or near the Colombian Andes during prehistory, namely: Tucanoan, Saliban-Hoti and Jirajaran; most of the resemblances are with Proto-Otopamean, Proto-Mazatecan and Tlapanecan, and at least part of them may represent borrowings hinting at possible Proto-Proto-Otopamean, Proto-Proto-Tlapanecan and Proto-Proto-Mazatecan Homelands in the Colombian Montaña. The parallels between Otopamean/Tlapanecan and Saliban-Hoti languages are specially intriguing, since they include pronouns and some morphological affixes.

All those comparisons shall be further addressed in the future. Chart 3 resume the possible ecolinguistic connections of the Paez language, the Barbacoan family and the Duho stock in the Otomanguean Sprachbund.

Chart 3: Possible ecolinguistic conections of the Paez language, the Barbacoan family and the Duho stock in the Otomanguean Sprachbund (Tlapanecan, Manguean, Otopamean, Chinantecan, Amuzgoan, Mixtecan, Popolocan and Zapotecan families).

21 Since the Proto-Coconucan language contains a relevant linguistic stratum of Otomanguean origin, it’s plausible that the pre-Proto-Coconucans were Otomanguean language speakers that intermingled with a fraction of Proto-Barbacoan speakers that migrated to the Southern Colombian Andes during prehistory, by which the Proto-Coconucans emerged.

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

3.2. THE PROTO-MAYANS AND THEIR ORIGINS

Crucial aspect to consider in regarding the origins of the Proto-Mayans are the following archaeolinguistic aspects that link their forefathers with South America: (i) prehistoric Mayan loans left in Western Bolivian languages, in Kandoxi and in Paez (presented in §2), (ii) Olson’s claim (1964, 1965) that the Uru-Chipayan and the Mayan languages are genetically related, and (iii) Stark’s claim (1968) that Mochica – an isolate language formerly spoken in the Northern Peruvian Coast – and the Mayan languages are genetically related.22

Another crucial aspect is the archaeological one. On the one hand, there is no evidence that the Mayans left Mesoamerica using seaworthy boats or rafts and ventured into migratory/exploratory travels along the Pacific Coast of South America, even less into the Titicaca basin. On the other hand, many evidences already brought fort by many scholars (Uhle 1922/1923, Tello 1943, Ford 1969, Kubler 1984, Janusek 2006, Castex 2014), highlighted some important correlations linking the Mayans with the Cupisnique-Chavin and Tiwanaku Cultures. For instance, (i) resemblances in their architectonic and iconographic traditions, and (ii) the high religious status of the jaguar.23

Another aspect to consider is the sailing capabilities over long distances. According to Callaghan (2003:796), “while northward voyages may have taken as little as two months, southward voyages would have entailed at least five months and may have required a strategy that took the rafts offshore for as long as a month”, thus, making a southward sailing “a lengthy endeavour requiring considerable navigational skills” (Callaghan id.:803). Furthermore, there is no evidence that the Mayans mastered techniques of offshore sailing.

Taking all this into account, I’m raising the possibility that the forefathers of the Proto- Mayans where the producers of the Cupisnique-Chavin Culture. By assuming this, it would be logical that the Proto-Proto-Mayans’ cultural and linguistic traits were diffused from a common source somewhere in the Peruvian Coast. Following this view, a fraction of the Proto- Mayans’ forefathers would have emigrated from South America along the Pacific using rafts, until reaching the Guatemalan Coast. It may have happened during the end of the 2nd

22 Stark’s work (1968) is currently being reviewed by Rita Eloranta as part of her PhD dissertation on the Mochica language. 23 One of the striking architectonic and iconographic similarities is the use of stone tenon heads protruding from temple walls, that have been analyzed as depictions of rulers, gods and/or transformed shamans/priests.

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

millennium BC and their arrival in the the Guatemalan Coast would have brought intense technological and cultural changes that marked the end of the Early Preclassic (2500 – 1200 BC) and the beginning of the Middle Preclassic (1200 – 400 BC) in the “Mayan Chronology”.24

One possible explanation for the abandonment of their original South American Homeland is the coupling of harsh climatic/geological events, which is not uncommon in the arid lands of Coastal Peru. One of such cases happened, for instance, during the first half of the 2nd millennium BC, causing dramatic impacts upon most Coastal Peruvian cultures. This was due to the coupling of a period with Mega El Niño events increased in frequency and duration (3800 – 1200 BC) partially coincident with a period of high-frequency oscillations in the sea level (2300 – 1500 BC) related to the last postglacial maximum sea transgression (Staller 2015:1-2; Dillehay 2017:573-474;).25 On the other hand, the forefathers of the Proto- Mayans that remained in South America continued to produce the Cupisnique-Chavin Culture (1500 –200 BC), spreading it into the Central Andes and later into the Titicaca basin.

Although Olson’s (1964, 1965) hypothesis that Mayan and Uru-Chipayan language families were genetically related was effectively ruled out by Campbell (1993), the lexical parallels pinpointed by Olson (op.cit) can instead be seen as possible Mayan spurs left in the Uru-Chipayan languages due to contact in prehistorical times. Altogether, Olson’s work and the evidence presented in §2 make up a linguistic evidence of the Mayan presence in the Bolivian Highlands during prehistory. Moreover, as pointed by Jolkesky (2016:666;825-828), all three addressed ethnolinguistic groups (Uru-Chipayan, Moseten, Kunza) took part in the Circum-Titicaca Interaction Sphere (CTIS), whose strength increased from around 300 BC after it underwent syncretic processes that fused the local Titicaca Basin Cultures (Pukara, Chiripa, Wankarani, etc.) into a cultural and cosmological complex called the Yayamama Religious Tradition.26 Interestingly, archaeological records strongly support the claim that those

24 It’s naive the presumption that the “Maya Chronology” since the Archaic Period (8000 BC -) or even the whole Preclassic Period (2500 BC – 250 AD) was entirely produced by speakers of Mayan languages. One such claim implies that an archaeological culture is necessarily bound to a specific linguistic family and hurts the main principles of culturogenesis and ethnogenesis. For more on this view, see Jolkesky (2016:566-571). 25 If this reasoning comes to be true, it is possible that the already known Mixe-Zoquean loans in Proto-Mayan may represent evidence of a culturogenetic/ethnogenetic process that took place with the advance of the Proto- Mayans into Mixe-Zoquean lands. 26 The Yayamama Religious Tradition served as a fundamental basis for the religious constitution of the Tiwanaku Culture (Tiwanaku phases I-III) and of the subsequent Tiwanaku Empire. Its influence was such that from at least 200 AD it already extended throughout the South-Central Andes (Mohr-Chávez 1988: 24; Rex González 2004;

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

syncretic processes that led to the emergence of Yayamama Religious Tradition were not only a result of local evolution, but were in effect heavily influenced by the Paracas (300 – 1 BC) phase of the older Cupisnique-Chavin Culture (1500 – 1 BC) that flourished in the South Central Peruvian Coast (Browman 1975; Mohr Chavez 1977). According to Browman (id.:327), “the Paracas area, which had earlier been overshadowed by Chavin, had become the paramount cult center influencing the highlands from Lake Junin to Lake Titicaca”. In this sense, based on all the above, there is a real chance that bearers of the Cupisnique-Chavin Tradition were speakers of a Mayan language.

Last but not least, a further linguist evidence that relates the Mayans with the Cupisnique-Chavin Tradition are lexical parallels that may constitute prehistoric Mayan borrowings in Kandoxi. The Kandoxi speak a Macro-Arawakan language. According to Jolkesky (2016:613-614), their archaic forefathers (Proto-Proto-Kandoshi-Shapra) presumably emerged in the Yungas of Middle Marañón during the 1st millennium BC after a fraction of the Proto-Macro-Arawakans (producers of the Tutishcainyo Tradition) underwent successive ethnogenic processes by intermixing firstly with bearers of the Kotosh-Wairajirca phase of the Kotosh Tradition (1850 – 1000 BC, Upper Huallaga) and later with the producers of the Bagua Tradition (1200 – 400 BC, Middle Marañón). There are, in fact, several evidences that the ceramics of the Bagua and Huayurco Traditions have been influenced exactly by diagnostic features of Cupisnique-Chavin, Kotosh and Tutishcainyo Traditions (Shady 1987, 1999; DeBoer 2003; Clasby 2014: 313/358-359). On the other hand, the Kotosh-Kotosh phase of the Kotosh Tradition was also heavily influenced by the Cupisnique-Chavin Tradition.27

Taking all this into account, I’m assuming the following hypotheses that shall be further addressed in the future:

(i) the Cupisnique-Chavin Culture (which have influenced Kotosh, Bagua, Paracas and Tiwanaku Cultures) was produced by Mayan speakers.

Korpisaari & Pärssinen 2011: 27-28). The emergence of the Tiwanaku Culture predates in many centuries the arrival of aymaran and kechuan speakers from the South Central Peruvian Andes. 27 This led to the emergence of the last fase of the Kotosh Tradition: Kotosh-Chavin (1000 – 300 BC).

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

(ii) the Proto-Proto-Proto-Kandoxi-Shapra, producers of the Kotosh-Kotosh fase of the Kotosh Tradition, intermixed with those Mayan speakers, resulting in the aforementioned linguistic and cultural influences. (iii) the emergence of the Yayamama Religious Tradition was also heavily influenced by those Mayan speakers that immigrated firstly to Paracas from around 600 BC, and latter to the Titicaca basin from around 300 BC. (iv) the ethnogenesis of the Proto-Kunzan, Proto-Mosetenan, Proto-Uru-Chipayan and Proto-Pukinan speakers took place inside the CTIS and during this process they have engaged in contacts with the aforementioned Mayan speakers; some lexical parallels shown in §2.1 are in fact borrowings from those Mayan sources and represent an additional evidence of the Mayan presence in the Bolivian Highlands during prehistory.28

As also pointed in §2, it’s highly plausible that Lencans and Misumalpans were in contact with Hokan speakers during prehistorical times.29 Since Lencans and Misumalpans are nowadays very far from most Hokan speakers, one possible explanation would be that those peoples were formerly settled closer by. Taking into account the hypothesis that the forefathers of the Proto-Mayans weren’t originally from Mesoamerica, there is a chance that the Homelands of the Proto-Hokans, Proto-Misumalpans and Proto-Lencans were somewhere between the Pacific Coast of Guatemala and Southern Mexico. Following this view, there is a chance that those populations would have produced the Early-Preclassic (2500 – 1200 BC) phase of the “Maya Chronology” and that the arrival of the forefathers of the Proto-Mayans from the North-Central Peruvian Coast around 1200 BC would have led to a harsh reconfiguration of the then existing Mesoamerican ethnolinguistic map. One of such consequences would be the spreading of those older Mesoamerican populations in different directions:

(i) Most descendants of Proto-Hokans went northwestward along the Pacific Coast until the US, where many subgroups emerged through different

28 It must be stressed that the Mayan loanwords in Paez, shown in Table 8, is another linguistic evidence of the Mayan presence in South America. 29 The fact that those lexical parallels between Hokan and Misumalpan or between Hokan and Lencan may represent either cognates or loans doesn’t interfere in the argument that their speakers were once living close by. 65

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

ethnogenic processes, and one (Proto-Tol-Jicaqueans) went eastward until Honduras. (ii) Proto Misumalpans and Proto Lencans took the southeast route along the Pacific Coast until reaching the Gulf of Fonseca, from where they spread in the hinterlands of El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua.

Although those hypotheses can be seen as premature or even controversial by a conservative researcher, I strongly believe that all the aforementioned interdisciplinary evidence represents proofs that cannot be further neglected and must be accounted for in any divergent approach. At this time, the assumptions regarding (i) the origins of the Proto- Mayans, and (ii) where/how the Hokans entered in contact with the Misumalpans and the Lencans must be taken as insights and shall be further addressed in the future in the light of more evidences (or counter-evidences).

4. CONCLUDING REMARKS

The interdisciplinary evidence brought by me in this study raised the possibility that the following population movements happened during Prehistory:

1st o population: forefathers of the Proto-Mayans. o date: 1300 - 1200 BC. o probable route (one migratory wave): Peruvian Coast (Norte Chico) >>> Pacific Coast of Guatemala. o probable cause: population exodus due to harsh climatic coupled events.

2nd o populations: forefathers of the so called “Otomangueans”: Proto-Proto- Otopameans, Proto-Proto-Chinantecans, Proto-Proto-Zapotecans, Proto-Proto- Popolocans Proto-Proto-Amuzgoans, Proto-Proto-Mixtecans, Proto-Proto- Tlapanecans, Proto-Proto-Mangueans. o date: 700 BC - 800 DC. o probable route (many migratory waves): Western Colombia >>> Pacific Coast of Southern and Western Mexico. o probable cause: trade, expansion or possibly population exodus due to a remarkable high increase in volcanic activity along the Northern Andes (Ecuador and Colombia) between 700 BC – 200 AD (Venzke 2013).

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

3rd o population: Mayan speakers (producers of the Chavin Culture). o date: around 300 BC. o probable route: Paracas region >>> Titicaca Basin. o probable cause: the fall of Chavin de Huantar and the emergence of Proto- Quechuan dominance in the Central Peruvian Andes.

If those hypotheses come to be valid, it will have profound consequences in the understanding of the cradle and evolution of the Andean and Mesoamerican Civilizations.

ABBREVIATIONS (LANGUAGES)

ACH Achumawi GK Greater K’iche’an (UK+PQ) AKA Akateko GLL (Yu+Greater Tzeltalan) AMG Amuzgo GM Greater Mamean (I+Mp) ATZ Atepec Zapotec GQ Chujean-Qanjobal-Kotoke AWA Awakateko GTz UK+PQ AWP Awa Pit HTI Hoti AYM S. B. Ayautla Mazatec HUM Huautla de Jimenez Mazatec BTO Betoi HVS Havasupai CH Chichimeco I Ixilan CHL Ch’ol ISZ Isthmus Zapotec CHO Chocho IXL Ixil CHR Chorti JCK Jicaque CHT Ch’olti JDM Jalapa de Díaz Mazatec CM Central Mayan (WM+EM) JUZ Juarez Zapotec CMR Chimariko KAK Cacaopera COZ Coatlan Zapotec KAQ Kaqchikeel CPN Chiapanec KCH K’iche’ CQM S. J. Chiquihuitlan Mazatec KKP Kokopa CRT Chorote KLW Kiliwa CTL-H Highland Chontal KMK Comecrudo CTL-L Lowland Chontal Kp K’iche’an Proper CUZ Cuitla Zapotec KRG Koreguaje DGÑ Diegueño LKA-H Honduran Lenka EM Eastern Mayan (GM+GK) LKA-S Salvadorean Lenka ETKN Proto-Eastern-Tucanoan LL Lowland Mayan (Yu+Cholan) GBN Guambiano LOM S. L. Cuaunecuiltitla Mazatec

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

MAK Makuna PMTZ Proto-Matlazincan MAM Mame PMZT Proto-Mazatecan MAZ Mazahua POM-C Central Pomo MCH Mocho POM-N Northern Pomo MHV Mohave POM-NE Northeastern Pomo MHZ Miahuatlan Zapotec POM-S Southern Pomo MIZ Mitla Zapotec POM-SE Southeastern Pomo MKO Mako POM-SW Southwestern Pomo MKT Miskitu POP Popti MOP Mopan POTP Proto-Otopamean MRK Marikopa PPLH Proto-Palaihnihan MTG Matagalpa PPOM Proto-Pomoan MTZ Matlatzinca PPPL Proto-Popolocan MZM Mazatlan de Flores Mazatec PPYUM Proto-Proto-Yuman N.EBR Northern Embera PQM Poqomam NP Northern Pame PSBK Proto-Southern-Barbacoan NPO Northern Popoloca PSLB Proto-Saliban OCU Ocuiltec PTKN Proto-Tucanoan OCZ Ocotlan Zapotec PTLJ Proto-Tol-Jicaque ORE Orejon PYUM Proto-Yuman OTM Otomi PZPT Proto-Zapotecan PBBK Proto-Barbacoan QAN Q’anjob’al PSBK Proto-Southern-Barbacoan QEQ Q’eqchi’ PCH Poqomchii’ RCZ Rincón Zapotec pCh Proto-Ch’olan S.EBR Southern Embera PCHK Proto-Chocoan SAK Sakapulteko PCNT Proto-Chinantecan SBT Subtiaba PCPN Proto-Chiapanecan SBZ S. B. Chichicapam Zapotec PCTL Proto-Chontal (Hokan) SCZ S. J. Coatecas Zapotec PCTN Proto-Chatino SDM Sto. D. del Río Mazatec PEBR Proto-Embera SEK Secoya PHue Huehuetenango (GQ+GM) SHT Shasta PIA Piaroa SIO Siona PKOK Proto-Coconucan SLB Saliba PLKA Proto-Lenkan SLN Salina pM Proto-Mayan SMU Sumu PMSM Proto-Misumalpan SOM S. M. Soyoltepec Mazatec PMTK Proto-Mixtecan SP Southern Pame

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

SRI Seri UK Uspanteko-K’iche’an SYZ San Pablo Yaganiza Zapotec ULW Ulwa TEK Teko USP Uspanteko TFK Tsafiqui VAZ Villa Alta Zapotec TKN Tukano WAS Wasteko TOJ Tojol’ab’al WLP Walapai TPI Tipai WM Western Mayan (GTz+GQ) TPN Tlapanec WNN Waunana TTR Totoro WTKN Proto-Western-Tucanoan TUZ Tuzanteko YAZ Yatzachi Zapotec TZE Tzeltal YMA Yuma TZO Tzotzil YNA Yana TZU tz’utujiil Yu Proto-Yukatekan TWK Tlawika YVP Yavapai

ABBREVIATIONS (LINGUISTIC NOTATION)

1 First person NMZ Nominalizer 2 Second person P Plural 3 Third person PRES Present tense ANP Antipassive PST Past CLF Classifier REAL Realis E Exclusive S Singular INSTR Instrumental SUB Subject LOC Locative

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ALDENDERFER, M.; CRAIG, N. M.; SPEAKMAN, R. J.; POPELKA-FILCOFF, R. (2008). Four- thousand-year-old gold artifacts from the Lake Titicaca basin, southern Peru. PNAS, 105(13):5002–5005.

ANAWALT, P. R. (1992). Ancient Cultural Contacts between Ecuador, West Mexico, and the American Southwest: Clothing Similarities. Latin American Antiquity, 3.2:114-129.

ARGUEDAS CORTÉS, G. R. (1988). Los Fonemas Segmentales del Protolenca: Reconstrucción Comparativa. Filología y lingüística, XIV:89-109.

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

BARTHOLOMEW, D. A. (1965). The reconstruction of Otopamean (Mexico). Chicago: University of Chicago. PhD dissertation.

BAUERNSCHMIDT, A.; SÁNCHEZ FLORES, I.; GARCÍA, M. B. (1973). Pequeño vocabulario del tlapaneco de Malinaltepec. Manuscript.

BEAM DE AZCONA, R. G. (2004). A Coatlán-Loxicha Zapotec grammar (Mexico). Berkeley: University of California. PhD dissertation.

BENITO, A. A. ET ALII (2008). Vocabulario básico en meꞌphaa. SIL-Mexico Electronic Working Papers, 9.

BOUDA, K. (1975). Tlapanek und Subtiaba. Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher, 47:20-29.

BROCKWAY, E.; BROCKWAY, T. H.; SANTOS VALDÉS, L. (2000). Diccionario Náhuatl del norte del estado de Puebla (Serie de vocabularios y diccionarios indígenas Mariano Silva y Aceves, 42). Coyoacán: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

BROWMAN, D. L. (1975). Trade Patterns in the Central Highlands of Peru in the First Millennium BC. World Archaeology, 6(3):322–329.

BROWN, C. H. (2015). Paleobiolinguistics of New World crops and the Otomanguean language family. Ethnobiology Letters, 6(1):189–191.

BROWN, D. F. M. (2008). Diccionario Español-Miskito / Miskito-Español. Waspam, Río Coco (Wangki Awala).

BRUHNS, K. O. (1994). Ancient South America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

CALLAGHAN, R. T. (2003). Prehistoric trade between Ecuador and West Mexico: a computer simulation of coastal voyages. Antiquity, 77(298):796–804.

CAMPBELL, E. (2013). The internal diversification and subgrouping of Chatino. International Journal of American Linguistics, 79(3):395-420.

______(2017). Otomanguean historical linguistics: Past, present, and prospects for the future. EW Campbell. Language and Linguistics Compass, 11(4):e12240.

CAMPBELL, L. (1975a). Cacaopera. Anthropological Linguistics, 17:146-153.

______(1975b). Subtiaba 1974. International Journal of American Linguistics, 41:80-84.

______(1980). El Idioma Cacaopera (Colección Antropología e Historia, 16). San Salvador: Ministerio de Educación, Dirección de publicaciones.

______(1993). Distant Genetic Relationship and the Maya-Chipaya Hypothesis. Anthropological Linguistics, 35:66-89.

______; OLTROGGE, D. (1980). Proto-Tol (Jicaque). International Journal of American Linguistics, 46:205-223.

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

CAPEN, C. J. (1996). Diccionario Mazateco de Chiquihuitlán, Oaxaca (Serie de vocabularios y diccionarios indígenas "Mariano Silva y Aceves", 34) Tucson: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

CASTEX, A. D. (2014). Jaguar Manifestation in Mesoamerica and Peru. San Francisco: San Francisco State University. Master’s Thesis.

CAZES, D. (1977). Materiales Lingüísticos para la reconstrucción de la Cultura Hña-Maclasinca– Meco (Otopame). Amerindia, 2:71-102.

CIDCA; ULCK; CODIUL/UYUTMUBAL (1989). Diccionario elemental del ulwa (sumu meridional). Managua: CIDCA; Cambridge: LPCCS/MIT.

CLASBY, R. P. (2014). Exploring Long Term Cultural Developments and Interregional Interaction in the Eastern Slopes of the Andes: A Case study from the site of Huayurco, Jaén Region, Peru. New Haven: Yale University. PhD dissertation.

CLINE, K. (2013). The tone system of Acatepec Me'paa. Grand Forks: University of North Dakota. Master’s Thesis.

CONSTENLA-UMAÑA, A. (1987). Elementos de fonología comparada de las lenguas misumalpas. Revista de Filología y Lingüística de la Universidad de Costa Rica, 13:129-161.

______(2002). Acerca de la relación genealógica de las lenguas lencas y las lenguas misumalpas. Revista de Filología y Lingüística de la Universidad de Costa Rica, 28:189-205.

______(2005). ¿Existe relación genealógica entre las lenguas misumalpas y las chibchenses? Estudios de Lingüística Chibcha, 24:7-85.

______; PEÑA, E. M. (1991) Elementos de fonología comparada Chocó. Filología y lingüística, 17:137-191.

COURO, T.; HUTCHESON, C. (1973). Dictionary of Mesa Grande Diegueño. Banning: Malki Museum Press.

CRAWFORD, J. M. (1989). Cocopa dictionary (University of California publications in linguistics, 114) Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.

CUBILLOS, J. C. (1986). Arqueología de San Agustín. Alto del Purutal. Bogotá: FIAN, Banco de la República.

DEBOER, W. (2003). Ceramic Assemblage Variability in the Formative of Ecuador and Peru. In J. Scott Raymond & R. L. Burger (eds), Archaeology of Formative Ecuador, 465-486. Washington: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.

DEL RÍO URRUTIA, X. (2004). El lenca de Chilanga: Léxico. Revista de Filología y Lingüística, XXX:289-313.

DILLEHAY, T. D. (2017). Continuity, Change, and the Construction of the Early Sangamon Society. In: T. D. Dillehay (ed.), Where the Land Meets the Sea: 14,000 Years of Huamn History on the North Coast of Peru, 567-593. Austin: University of Texas Press.

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

EARL, R.; SHEFFLER DE EARL, C. (2011). Diccionario Zapoteco del Rincón. Mexico: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

ESCALANTE, R. (1962). El Cuitlateco (Publicaciones / Instituto Nacional de Antropología, 9). México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

ESCALERA UREÑA, A. A.; BARRIUSO PEREZ. M. A. (1978). Estudio Cientifico de los Objetos de Metal de Ingapirca (Ecuador). Revista Española de Antropologia Americana, 8:19-45.

ESTRADA RAMIREZ, H. (1996). La Lengua Saliba. Clases nominales y sistema de concordancia. Bogota: Colcultura.

EVANS, C. & MEGGARS B. J. (1966). Mesoamerica and Ecuador. In G. F. Ekholm & G. R. Willey (eds.), Archaeological Frontiers and External Connections (Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vol. 4), 243-264. Austin: University of Texas Press.

FEIST, T.; PALANCAR, E. L. (2015). Oto-Manguean Inflectional Class Database. University of Surrey. http://dx.doi.org/10.15126/SMG.28/1. Available at:

FERNÁNDEZ DE MIRANDA, M. T. (1995). El protozapoteco. Mexico D.F.: El Colegio de México and Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

FORD, J. A. (1969). A Comparison of Formative Cultures in the Americas: Diffusion or the Psychic Unity of Man? (Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology, 11). Washington D.C.

FRIEDEMAN, N. S. DE; AROCHA, J. (1985). Herederos del Jaguar y la Anaconda. Bogotá: Carlos Valencia Editores.

GATSCHET, A. S. (1891). The Karankawa Indians: The Coast People of Texas. Cambridge: Peabody Museum.

______; SWANTON, J. R. (1932). Dictionary of the Atakapa Language Accompanied by Text Material. (Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin, 108.) Washington: Smithsonian Institution.

GONZÁLES CASTAÑO, G.; MONTENEGRO, E. D.; ROJAS CURIEUX, T. (2009). Lexico de la lengua namtrik de Totoró.

GROVE, D. C. (1981). The Formative Period and the Evolution of Complex Culture. In J. A. Sabloff (editor), Archaeology (Supplement to the Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 1), 373-391. Austin: University of Texas Press.

______(1982). The Mesoamerican Formative and South America. In J. G. Marcos & P. Norton(editors), Primer simposio de correlaciones antropologicas andino-mesoamericano, 279-297. Guayaquil: Escuela Superior Politecnica del Litoral.

GURSKY, K. (1974). Der Hoka-Sprachstamm: eine Bestandsaufnahme des lexikalischen Beweismaterials. Orbis, 23:170-215.

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

______(1988). Der Hoka-Sprachstamm: Nachtrag I (Abhandlungen der Völkerkundlichen Arbeitsgemeinschaft, Heft 58).

______(1989). Der Hoka-Sprachstamm: Nachtrag II (Abhandlungen der Völkerkundlichen Arbeitsgemeinschaft, Heft 63).

______(1990). Der Hoka-Sprachstamm: Nachtrag II (Abhandlungen der Völkerkundlichen Arbeitsgemeinschaft, Heft 65).

HAAS, M. R. (1953). Tunica dictionary (University of California Publications in Linguistics, 6.2). Berkeley: University of California Press.

HAMP, E. P. (1964). Toward the refinement of Chiapanec-Mangue comparative phonology. In Actas y Memorias, 387-402. México D.F.: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

HASLER, J. A. (1960). Reconstrucciones Matlatzinca-Ocuiltecas. Anales del Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, XIII:269-278.

HENDRICHS PÉREZ, P. R. (1939). Un estudio preliminar sobre la lengua cuitlateca de San Miguel Totolapan. El México Antiguo, 4:329-362.

HERRANZ HERRANZ, A. (1987). El lenca de Honduras, una lengua moribunda. Mesoamérica: Revista del Centro de investigaciones regionales de Mesoamérica, 18:429-466.

HILTON, K. S. (1993). Diccionario tarahumara de Samachique, Chihuahua, Mexico. Tucson: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

HOIJER, H. (1949). An analytical dictionary of the Tonkawa language (University of California publications in linguistics, 5.1). Berkeley: University of California Press.

HOSLER, D. H. (1988). Ancient West Mexican Metallurgy: South and Central American Origins and West Mexican Transformations. American Anthropologist, 90:832-855.

______(1995). Sound, color and meaning in the metallurgy of Ancient West Mexico. World Archaeology, 27:100-115.

______; LECHTMAN, H.; HOLM, O. (1990). Axe-Monies and Their Relatives (Studies in Pre- Columbian Art and Archaeology, 30). Washington, D.C: Dumbarton Oaks.

HUBER, R. Q.; REED, R. B. (1992). Vocabulario Comparativo: Palabras Selectas de Lenguas Indígenas de Colombia. Santafé de Bogotá: ILV.

JAKEZ, F. (2014). Geriadur namtrik pe gwambiaeg - Diccionario namtrik o guambiano. Available at:

JANUSEK, J. W. (2006). The Changing "Nature" of Tiwanaku Religion and the Rise of an Andean State. World Archaeology, 38(3):469-92.

JOLKESKY, M. (2016). Estudo arqueo-ecolinguístico das terras tropicais sul-americanas. Brasília: Universidade de Brasília. PhD dissertation.

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

______(2017a). Lexical parallels between Hokan and Lenca. Manuscript. Available at: ______(2017b). Lexical parallels between Hokan and Misumalpan. Manuscript. Available at:

______(2017c). Otomanguean Words in Northwestern South American Languages. Research talk presented at LUCL, Leiden University. ERC Project: “The Linguistic Past of Mesoamerica and the Andes”. Leiden, The Netherlands. February 28, 2017. Slides available at: JOSSERAND, J. K. (1983). Mixtec Dialect History. Tulane University. PhD dissertation.

KAN, M.; MEIGHAN C.; NICHOLSON, H. B. (1989). Sculpture of Ancient West Mexico: Nayarit, Jalisco, Colima. Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum of Art.

KAUFMAN, T. (1988). A Research Program for Reconstructing Proto-Hokan: First Gropings. In: S. DeLancey (ed.), Papers from the 1988 Hokan–Penutian Languages Workshop (University of Oregon Papers in Linguistics. Publications of the Center for Amerindian Linguistics and Ethnography, 1), 50–168. Eugene: Department of Linguistics, University of Oregon.

______(2006). Oto-Mangean Languages. In: K. Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (2nd ed.), Vol. 9, 118–124.

______(2015). Early Oto-Manguean homelands and cultures: some premature hypotheses. Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, Albany University, State University of New York. Manuscript. Available at:

______(2016a). Proto-Sapotek(an) Reconstructions. Institute for Mesaoamerican Studies, University at Albany, State University of New York. Manuscript. Available at: ______(2016b). Tlapaneko-Sutiaba, Otomangean, and Hokan: where Greenberg went wrong. Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, University at Albany, State University of New York. Manuscript. Available at:

______; JUSTESON, J. S. (2003). A preliminary Mayan etymological dictionary. Available at: .

KEY, M. R.; COMRIE, B. (EDS.) (2015). The Intercontinental Dictionary Series. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available at

KIRK, P. L. (1966). Proto-Mazatec phonology. Seattle: University of Washington. PhD dissertation.

KORPISAARI, A.; PÄRSSINEN, M. (2011). Pariti: The Ceremonial Tiwanaku Pottery of an Island in Lake Titicaca. Humaniora (Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, 364). Helsinki: Finnish Academy of Science and Letters Humaniora.

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

KUBLER, G. (1984). The Art and Architecture of Ancient America. The Mexican Maya and the Andean Peoples. New York: Penguin Books.

LATHRAP, D. W. (1966). Relationships Between Mesoamerica and the Andean Area. In R. Wauchope (ed.), Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 4. Austin: University of Texas Press.

______(1975) Ancient Ecuador: Culture, Clay and Creativity 3000-300 BC. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago.

LONGACRE, R. E.; MILLON, R. (1961). Proto-Mixtecan and Proto-Amuzgo-Mixtecan vocabularies: a preliminary cultural analysis. Anthropological Linguistics, 3:1-44.

MARCOS, J. G. (1977/78). Cruising to Acapulco and Back with the Thorny Oyster set: a model for a lineal exchange system. Journal of the Steward Anthropological Society, 9(182):99-133.

MARLETT, S. A. (2007). Las relaciones entre las lenguas “hokanas” en México: ¿Cuál es la evidencia? In C. Buenrostro et alii (eds.), Memorias del III Coloquio Internacional de Lingüística Mauricio Swadesh, 165-192. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México & Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indígenas.

MASON, J. A. (1918). The Language of the Salinan Indians. (University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, 14.1). Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

MCINTOSH, J. B.; GRIMES, J. E. (1954). Niuqui 'Iquisicayari (Vocabulario huichol-castellano castellano-huichol). Mexico: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

MCLENDON, S. (1973). Proto Pomo. (University of California publications in linguistics, 71) Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.

MEIGHAN, C. W. (1969) Cultural Similarities Between Western Mexico and Andean Regions. In J. C. Kelley & C. L. Riley (editors), Pre-Columbian Contact Within Nuclear America (Mesoamerican Studies, 4), 1-25. Carbondale: University Museum, Southern Illinois University.

MIXCO, M. J. (1978). Cochimí and Proto-Yuman: lexical and syntactic evidence for a new language family in Lower California. (Anthropological Papers / University of Utah, 101). Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

MOHR CHÁVEZ, K. L. (1977). Marcavalle: The Ceramics from an Early Horizon Site in the Valley of Cuzco, Peru, and Implications for South Highland Socioeconomic Interaction. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. PhD dissertation.

______(1988). The Significance of Chiripa in Lake Titicaca Basin Developments. Expedition, 30.3:17-26.

MOSER, M. B.; MARLETT, S. A. (2005). Diccionario seri - español - inglés: cmiique iitom - cocsar iitom - maricáana iitom. Hermosillo: Ed. UniSon.

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

MUNRO, P.; BROWN, N.; CRAWFORD, J. G. (1992). A Mojave dictionary (UCLA occasional papers in linguistics, 10). Los Angeles: Linguistics Department, University of California.

______; LOPEZ, F. H. (1999). Diccionario Zapoteco de San Lucas Quiaviní: San Lucas Quiaviní Zapotec Dictionary. Los Angeles: UCLA Chicago Studies Research Center.

MUNTZEL, M. C. (1986). The Structure of Ocuilteco. Albany: State University of New York. PhD dissertation.

O'CONNOR, L. (2013). Latyaygi - English - Español: A trilingual dictionary of Lowland Chontal of Oaxaca. (Languages of the World/Dictionaries, 48). München: LINCOM.

OLSON, R. D. (1964). Mayan Affinities with Chipaya of Bolivia I: Correspondences. International Journal of American Linguistics, 30:313-324.

______(1965). Mayan Affinities with Chipaya of Bolivia II: Cognates. International Journal of American Linguistics, 31:29-38.

PICKETT, V. B. (2007). Vocabulario zapoteco del Istmo: español-zapoteco y zapoteco-español. Mexico: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

PINA CHAN, R. (1989). The Olmec: Mother Culture of Mesoamerica. New York: Rizzoli.

QUIRÓS RODRÍGUEZ, J. S. (2002). Diccionario español-chorotega, chorotega-español. San José: Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica.

REICHEL-DOLMATOFF, G. (1978). El chamán y el jaguar. México: Siglo XXI.

RENSCH, C. R. (1966). Comparative Otomanguean phonology. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. PhD dissertation.

______(1989). An etymological dictionary of the Chinantec languages: Studies in Chinantec languages (Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington Publications in Linguistics, 87). Dallas.

REX GONZÁLEZ, A. (2004). La arqueología del Noroeste argentino y las culturas Formativas de la cuenca del Titicaca. Relaciones de la Sociedad Argentina de Antropología, 29:7-38.

RINGE, D. (1999). How hard is it to match CVC-roots? Transactions of the Philological Society, 97(2):895 213-244.

RUEGSEGGER, M.; RUEGSEGGER, J. (1955). Vocabulario zapoteco del dialecto de Miahuatlán del Estado de Oaxaca. Mexico: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

SAPIR, E.; SWADESH, M. (1960). Yana Dictionary (University of California Publications in Linguistics, 22). Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

SAWYER, J. O. (1965.) English-Wappo vocabulary. (University of California publications in linguistics, 43). Berkeley: University of California Press.

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

______; SCHLICHTER, M. A. (1984). Yuki Vocabulary. (University of California Publications in Linguistics, 101). Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

SCHLICHTER, M. A. (1985). The Yukian Language Family. Berkeley: University of California. PhD dissertation.

SHADY, R. (1987). Tradición y cambio en las sociedades formativas de Bagua, Amazonas, Perú. Revista Andina, 5:457-487.

______(1999). Sociedades formativas de Bagua-Jaén y sus relaciones Andinas y Amazónicas. In P. Ledergerber-Crespo (ed.), Formativo Sudamericano: Una revaluación, 201- 211. Quito: Abya-Yala.

SHATERIAN, A. W. (1983). Phonology and Dictionary of Yavapai. Berkeley: University of California. PhD dissertation.

SLOCUM, M. C. (1986). Gramática paez. Lomalinda: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

STALLER, J. E. (2015). Geological and Archaeological Evidence of El Niño Events along the Coast of El Oro Province Ecuador: Excavations at La Emerenciana a Late Valdivia (ca. 2200 1450 B.C.) Ceremonial Center. J Bioremed Biodeg, 6:309. doi:10.4172/2155-6199.1000309

STARK, L. R. (1968). Mayan Affinities with Yunga of Peru. New York: New York University. PhD dissertation.

SUÁREZ, J. A. (1988). Tlapaneco de Malinaltepec. (Archivo de Lenguas Indígenas de México, 12). México: El Colégio de México.

SWADESH, M. (1950). Chitimacha-English Dictionary. Manuscript.

SWANTON, J. R. (1940). Comecrudo-English vocabulary recorded by Albert S. Gatschet in 1886. In J. R. Swanton, Linguistic Material from the tribes of Southern Texas and Northeastern Mexico, 55-118. Washington: Government Printing Office.

SYBCY; SYCEC; APPLEGATE, R. B. (2008). Samala-English Dictionary. A Guide to the Samala Language of the Ineseño Chumash People. Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians.

TELLO, J. C. (1943). Discovery of the Chavin culture in Peru. American Antiquity, 9:135-160.

TURNER, P.; TURNER, S. (1971). Chontal to Spanish-English Spanish to Chontal Dictionary. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.

UHLE, M. (1922). Influencias Mayas en el Alto Ecuador. Boletin de la Academia Nacional de Historia (Quito), 4(10-11):205-246.

______(1923). Civilizaciones Mayoides de la Costa Pacifica de Sudamerica. Boletin de la Academia Nacional de Historia (Quito), 6:87-92.

August 2017 Marcelo Jolkesky

VAN TUYL, CH. (1979). The Natchez: Annotated translations from Antoine Simon le Page du Pratz's Histoire de la Louisiane and A Short English-Natchez Dictionary (Series in anthropology, 4). Oklahoma: Oklahoma Historical Society.

VENZKE, E. (ed.) (2013). Volcanoes of the World (v. 4.6.1). Smithsonian Institution. Available at:

VON HOUWALD, G. (1980). Diccionario Español-Sumo Sumo-Español. Managua: Ministerio de Educación.

WARES, A. C. (1968). A comparative study of Yuman consonantism. The Hague: Mouton.

WEITLANER, R. J. (1939). Notes on the Cuitlatec language. El México Antiguo, 4:363-373.

WICHMANN, S. (1995). The Relationship among the Mixe-Zoquean Languages of Mexico (Studies in the Indigenous Languages of the Americas). Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

______(1999). A Ch'orti' morphological sketch. American Indian Languages and Cultures, Department of History of Religions, University of Copenhagen.

WILLEY, G. R. (1971). South America (An Introduction to American Archaeology, Vol. 2). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.