DOCSLIB.ORG

California Indian Languages

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
California Indian Languages SUB Hamburg B/112081 CALIFORNIA INDIAN LANGUAGES VICTOR GOLLA UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS Berkeley Los Angeles London CONTENTS PREFACE ix PART THREE PHONETIC ORTHOGRAPHY xiii Languages and Language Families Algic Languages / 61 PART ONE Introduction: Defining California as a 3.1 California Algic Languages (Ritwan) / 61 Sociolinguistic Area 3.2 Wiyot / 62 3.3 Yurok / 65 1.1 Diversity / 1 Athabaskan (Na-Dene) Languages / 68 1.2 Tribelet and Language / 2 3.4 The Pacific Coast Athabaskan Languages / 68 1.3 Symbolic Function of California Languages / 4 3.5 Lower Columbia Athabaskan 1.4 Languages and Migration / 5 (Kwalhioqua-Tlatskanai) / 69 1.5 Multilingualism / 6 3.6 Oregon Athabaskan Languages / 70 1.6 Language Families and Phyla / 8 3.7 California Athabaskan Languages / 76 Hokan Languages / 82 PART TWO 3.8 The Hokan Phylum / 82 History of Study 3.9 Karuk / 84 3.10 Chimariko / 87 3.11 Shastan Languages / 90 Before Linguistics / 12 3.12 Palaihnihan Languages / 95 2.1 Earliest Attestations / 12 3.13 Yana / 100 2.2 Jesuit Missionaries in Baja California / 12 3.14 Washo / 102 2.3 Franciscans in Alta California / 14 3.15 Porno Languages / 105 2.4 Visitors and Collectors, 1780-1880 / 22 3.16 Esselen / 112 3.17 Salinan / 114 Linguistic Scholarship / 32 3.18 Yuman Languages / 117 3.19 Cochimi and the Cochimi-Yuman Relationship / 125 2.5 Early Research Linguistics, 1865-1900 / 32 3.20 Seri / 126 2.6 The Kroeber Era, 1900 to World War II / 35 2.7 Independent Scholars, 1900-1940 / 42 Penutian Languages / 128 2.8 Structural Linguists / 49 2.9 The Survey of California (and Other) Indian 3.21 The Penutian Phylum / 128 Languages / 53 3.22 Takelma / 130 2.10 The Contemporary Scene: Continuing 3.23 Klamath-Modoc / 133 Documentation and Research within and 3.24 Maiduan Languages / 136 beyond the Academy / 58 3.25 Wintuan Languages / 140 3.26 Yokuts / 147 Linguistic Culture / 218 3.27 Miwok Languages / 156 4.10 Numerals / 218 3.28 Costanoan (Ohlone) Languages / 162 4.11 Names / 220 3.29 Utian / 168 4.12 Diminutive and Other Expressive Symbolism / 223 4.13 Social and Situational Varieties / 226 Uto-Aztecan Languages / 169 4.14 Precontact Lexical Borrowing / 227 3.30 Uto-Aztecan and Northern Uto-Aztecan / 169 4.15 Postcontact Lexical Borrowing / 230 3.31 Numic Languages / 170 3.32 Takic Languages / 178 3.33 Tubatulabal / 185 PART FIVE 3.34 Giamina (Omomil) / 187 Linguistic Prehistory Languages of Uncertain Affiliation / 188 5.1 The Oldest Stratum? Waikuri, Chumash, 3.35 Yukian Languages / 188 Yukian / 239 3.36 Chumash Languages / 194 5.2 Hokan / 242 3.37 Southern Baja California Languages: Monqui, Waikuri, 5.3 Penutian / 249 and Pericu / 200 5.4 Uto-Aztecan / 254 5.5 Algic / 256 5.6 Athabaskan / 257 PART FOUR Typological and Areal Features: California as a Linguistic Area APPENDIX A. C. HART MERRIAM'S VOCABULARIES AND NATURAL HISTORY WORD LISTS FOR Phonology / 204 CALIFORNIA INDIAN LANGUAGES 259 APPENDIX B. MATERIALS ON CALIFORNIA 4.1 Consonants / 204 INDIAN LANGUAGES IN THE PAPERS OF JOHN 4.2 Vowels / 207 PEABODY HARRINGTON 273 4.3 Pitch Accent and Tone / 209 APPENDIX C. PHONETIC TRANSCRIPTION Grammar / 209 SYSTEMS WIDELY USED IN CALIFORNIA INDIAN LANGUAGE MATERIALS 283 4.4 Morphological Processes / 209 APPENDIX D. BASIC NUMERALS IN SELECTED 4.5 Structural Patterns / 210 4.6 Case Marking / 211 CALIFORNIA LANGUAGES 287 4.7 Marking of Plurality / 213 NOTES 295 4.8 Stem Derivation / 215 BIBLIOGRAPHY 323 4.9 Switch Reference / 218 INDEX 371 VIII CONTENTS.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Toward the Reconstruction of Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan. Part 3: the Algonquian-Wakashan 110-Item Wordlist
    Sergei L. Nikolaev Institute of Slavic studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow/Novosibirsk); [email protected] Toward the reconstruction of Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan. Part 3: The Algonquian-Wakashan 110-item wordlist In the third part of my complex study of the historical relations between several language families of North America and the Nivkh language in the Far East, I present an annotated demonstration of the comparative data that was used in the lexicostatistical calculations to determine the branching and approximate glottochronological dating of Proto-Algonquian- Wakashan and its offspring; because of volume considerations, this data could not be in- cluded in the previous two parts of the present work and has to be presented autonomously. Additionally, several new Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan and Proto-Nivkh-Algonquian roots have been set up in this part of study. Lexicostatistical calculations have been conducted for the following languages: the reconstructed Proto-North Wakashan (approximately dated to ca. 800 AD) and modern or historically attested variants of Nootka (Nuuchahnulth), Amur Nivkh, Sakhalin Nivkh, Western Abenaki, Miami-Peoria, Fort Severn Cree, Wiyot, and Yurok. Keywords: Algonquian-Wakashan languages, Nivkh-Algonquian languages, Algic languages, Wakashan languages, Chimakuan-Wakashan languages, Nivkh language, historical phonol- ogy, comparative dictionary, lexicostatistics. The classification and preliminary glottochronological dating of Algonquian-Wakashan currently remain the same as presented in Nikolaev 2015a, Fig. 1 1. That scheme was generated based on the lexicostatistical analysis of 110-item basic word lists2 for one reconstructed (Proto-Northern Wakashan, ca. 800 A.D.) and several modern Algonquian-Wakashan lan- guages, performed with the aid of StarLing software 3.
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide to Source Material on Extinct North American Indian Languages Author(S): Kenneth Croft Source: International Journal of American Linguistics, Vol
    A Guide to Source Material on Extinct North American Indian Languages Author(s): Kenneth Croft Source: International Journal of American Linguistics, Vol. 14, No. 4 (Oct., 1948), pp. 260-268 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1262881 . Accessed: 22/03/2011 08:07 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International Journal of American Linguistics. http://www.jstor.org A GUIDE TO SOURCE MATERIAL ON EXTINCT NORTH AMERICAN INDIAN LANGUAGES KENNETHCROFT INDIANAUNIVERSITY 0.
    [Show full text]
  • Expanding the JHU Bible Corpus for Machine Translation of the Indigenous Languages of North America
    Expanding the JHU Bible Corpus for Machine Translation of the Indigenous Languages of North America Garrett Nicolai, Edith Coates, Ming Zhang and Miikka Silfverberg Department of Linguistics University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Abstract ence of the language communities. We demonstrate the usefulness of our Indigenous parallel corpus by build- We present an extension to the JHU Bible ing multilingual neural machine translation systems for corpus, collecting and normalizing more than North American Indigenous languages. Multilingual thirty Bible translations in thirty Indigenous training is shown to be beneficial especially for the languages of North America. These exhibit a most resource-poor languages in our corpus which lack wide variety of interesting syntactic and mor- complete Bible translations. phological phenomena that are understudied in the computational community. Neural transla- 2 Corpus Construction tion experiments demonstrate significant gains obtained through cross-lingual, many-to-many The Bible is perhaps unique as a parallel text. Partial translation, with improvements of up to 8.4 translations exist in more languages than any other text 2 BLEU over monolingual models for extremely (Mayer and Cysouw, 2014). Furthermore, for nearly low-resource languages. 500 years, the Bible has had a canonical hierarchical structure - the Bible is made up of 66 books, each of 1 Introduction which contains a number of chapters, which are, in turn, broken down into verses. Each verse corresponds In 2019, Johns Hopkins University collated a corpus of to a short segment – often no more than a sentence.
    [Show full text]
  • Native American Languages, Indigenous Languages of the Native Peoples of North, Middle, and South America
    Native American Languages, indigenous languages of the native peoples of North, Middle, and South America. The precise number of languages originally spoken cannot be known, since many disappeared before they were documented. In North America, around 300 distinct, mutually unintelligible languages were spoken when Europeans arrived. Of those, 187 survive today, but few will continue far into the 21st century, since children are no longer learning the vast majority of these. In Middle America (Mexico and Central America) about 300 languages have been identified, of which about 140 are still spoken. South American languages have been the least studied. Around 1500 languages are known to have been spoken, but only about 350 are still in use. These, too are disappearing rapidly. Classification A major task facing scholars of Native American languages is their classification into language families. (A language family consists of all languages that have evolved from a single ancestral language, as English, German, French, Russian, Greek, Armenian, Hindi, and others have all evolved from Proto-Indo-European.) Because of the vast number of languages spoken in the Americas, and the gaps in our information about many of them, the task of classifying these languages is a challenging one. In 1891, Major John Wesley Powell proposed that the languages of North America constituted 58 independent families, mainly on the basis of superficial vocabulary resemblances. At the same time Daniel Brinton posited 80 families for South America. These two schemes form the basis of subsequent classifications. In 1929 Edward Sapir tentatively proposed grouping these families into superstocks, 6 in North America and 15 in Middle America.
    [Show full text]
  • 33 Contact and North American Languages
    9781405175807_4_033 1/15/10 5:37 PM Page 673 33 Contact and North American Languages MARIANNE MITHUN Languages indigenous to the Americas offer some good opportunities for inves- tigating effects of contact in shaping grammar. Well over 2000 languages are known to have been spoken at the time of first contacts with Europeans. They are not a monolithic group: they fall into nearly 200 distinct genetic units. Yet against this backdrop of genetic diversity, waves of typological similarities suggest pervasive, longstanding multilingualism. Of particular interest are similarities of a type that might seem unborrowable, patterns of abstract structure without shared substance. The Americas do show the kinds of contact effects common elsewhere in the world. There are some strong linguistic areas, on the Northwest Coast, in California, in the Southeast, and in the Pueblo Southwest of North America; in Mesoamerica; and in Amazonia in South America (Bright 1973; Sherzer 1973; Haas 1976; Campbell, Kaufman, & Stark 1986; Thompson & Kinkade 1990; Silverstein 1996; Campbell 1997; Mithun 1999; Beck 2000; Aikhenvald 2002; Jany 2007). Numerous additional linguistic areas and subareas of varying sizes and strengths have also been identified. In some cases all domains of language have been affected by contact. In some, effects are primarily lexical. But in many, there is surprisingly little shared vocabulary in contrast with pervasive structural parallelism. The focus here will be on some especially deeply entrenched structures. It has often been noted that morphological structure is highly resistant to the influence of contact. Morphological similarities have even been proposed as better indicators of deep genetic relationship than the traditional comparative method.
    [Show full text]
  • [.35 **Natural Language Processing Class Here Computational Linguistics See Manual at 006.35 Vs
    006 006 006 DeweyiDecimaliClassification006 006 [.35 **Natural language processing Class here computational linguistics See Manual at 006.35 vs. 410.285 *Use notation 019 from Table 1 as modified at 004.019 400 DeweyiDecimaliClassification 400 400 DeweyiDecimali400Classification Language 400 [400 [400 *‡Language Class here interdisciplinary works on language and literature For literature, see 800; for rhetoric, see 808. For the language of a specific discipline or subject, see the discipline or subject, plus notation 014 from Table 1, e.g., language of science 501.4 (Option A: To give local emphasis or a shorter number to a specific language, class in 410, where full instructions appear (Option B: To give local emphasis or a shorter number to a specific language, place before 420 through use of a letter or other symbol. Full instructions appear under 420–490) 400 DeweyiDecimali400Classification Language 400 SUMMARY [401–409 Standard subdivisions and bilingualism [410 Linguistics [420 English and Old English (Anglo-Saxon) [430 German and related languages [440 French and related Romance languages [450 Italian, Dalmatian, Romanian, Rhaetian, Sardinian, Corsican [460 Spanish, Portuguese, Galician [470 Latin and related Italic languages [480 Classical Greek and related Hellenic languages [490 Other languages 401 DeweyiDecimali401Classification Language 401 [401 *‡Philosophy and theory See Manual at 401 vs. 121.68, 149.94, 410.1 401 DeweyiDecimali401Classification Language 401 [.3 *‡International languages Class here universal languages; general
    [Show full text]
  • Newsletter Xxvi:2
    THE SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF THE INDIGENOUS LANGUAGES OF THE AMERICAS NEWSLETTER XXVI:2 July-September 2007 Published quarterly by the Society for the Study of the Indigenous Lan- SSILA BUSINESS guages of the Americas, Inc. Editor: Victor Golla, Dept. of Anthropology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California 95521 (e-mail: golla@ ssila.org; web: www.ssila.org). ISSN 1046-4476. Copyright © 2007, The Chicago Meeting SSILA. Printed by Bug Press, Arcata, CA. The 2007-08 annual winter meeting of SSILA will be held on January 3-6, 2008 at the Palmer House (Hilton), Chicago, jointly with the 82nd Volume 26, Number 2 annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America. Also meeting concur- rently with the LSA will be the American Dialect Society, the American Name Society, and the North American Association for the History of the CONTENTS Language Sciences. The Palmer House has reserved blocks of rooms for those attending the SSILA Business . 1 2008 meeting. All guest rooms offer high speed internet, coffee makers, Correspondence . 3 hairdryers, CD players, and personalized in-room listening (suitable for Obituaries . 4 iPods). The charge for (wired) in-room high-speed internet access is $9.95 News and Announcements . 9 per 24 hours; there are no wireless connections in any of the sleeping Media Watch . 11 rooms. (The lobby and coffee shop are wireless areas; internet access costs News from Regional Groups . 12 $5.95 per hour.) The special LSA room rate (for one or two double beds) Recent Publications . 15 is $104. The Hilton reservation telephone numbers are 312-726-7500 and 1-800-HILTONS.
    [Show full text]
  • Language Index
    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-86573-9 - Endangered Languages: An Introduction Sarah G. Thomason Index More information Language index ||Gana, 106, 110 Bininj, 31, 40, 78 Bitterroot Salish, see Salish-Pend d’Oreille. Abenaki, Eastern, 96, 176; Western, 96, 176 Blackfoot, 74, 78, 90, 96, 176 Aboriginal English (Australia), 121 Bosnian, 87 Aboriginal languages (Australia), 9, 17, 31, 56, Brahui, 63 58, 62, 106, 110, 132, 133 Breton, 25, 39, 179 Afro-Asiatic languages, 49, 175, 180, 194, 198 Bulgarian, 194 Ainu, 10 Buryat, 19 Akkadian, 1, 42, 43, 177, 194 Bushman, see San. Albanian, 28, 40, 66, 185; Arbëresh Albanian, 28, 40; Arvanitika Albanian, 28, 40, 66, 72 Cacaopera, 45 Aleut, 50–52, 104, 155, 183, 188; see also Bering Carrier, 31, 41, 170, 174 Aleut, Mednyj Aleut Catalan, 192 Algic languages, 97, 109, 176; see also Caucasian languages, 148 Algonquian languages, Ritwan languages. Celtic languages, 25, 46, 179, 183, Algonquian languages, 57, 62, 95–97, 101, 104, 185 108, 109, 162, 166, 176, 187, 191 Central Torres Strait, 9 Ambonese Malay, see Malay. Chadic languages, 175 Anatolian languages, 43 Chantyal, 31, 40 Apache, 177 Chatino, Zenzontepec, 192 Apachean languages, 177 Chehalis, Lower, see Lower Chehalis. Arabic, 1, 19, 22, 37, 43, 49, 63, 65, 101, 194; Chehalis, Upper, see Upper Chehalis. Classical Arabic, 8, 103 Cheyenne, 96, 176 Arapaho, 78, 96, 176; Northern Arapaho, 73, 90, Chinese languages (“dialects”), 22, 35, 37, 41, 92 48, 69, 101, 196; Mandarin, 35; Arawakan languages, 81 Wu, 118; see also Putonghua, Arbëresh, see Albanian. Chinook, Clackamas, see Clackamas Armenian, 185 Chinook.
    [Show full text]
  • Language Contact and the Dynamics of Language: Theory and Implications 10-13 May 2007 Leipzig
    Paper for the Symposium Language Contact and the Dynamics of Language: Theory and Implications 10-13 May 2007 Leipzig Rethinking structural diffusion Peter Bakker First draft. Very preliminary version. Please do not quote. May 2007. Abstract Certain types of syntactic and morphological features can be diffused, as in convergence and metatypy, where languages take over such properties from neighboring languages. In my paper I would like to explore the idea that typological similarities in the realm of morphology can be used for establishing historical, perhaps even genetic, connections between language families with complex morphological systems. I will exemplify this with North America, in particular the possible connections between the language families of the Northwest coast/ Plateau and those of the eastern part of the Americas. I will argue on the basis on typological similarities, that (ancestor languages of ) some families (notably Algonquian) spoken today east of the continental divide, were once spoken west of the continental divide. This will lead to a more theoretical discussion about diffusion: is it really possible that more abstract morphological features such as morpheme ordering can be diffused? As this appears to be virtually undocumented, we have to be very skeptical about such diffusion. This means that mere morphological similarities between morphologically complex languages should be taken as evidence for inheritance rather than the result of contact. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 0. Preface Not too long ago, many colleagues in linguistics were skeptical that many were actually due to contact. Now that language contact research has become much more mainstream and central than when I started to work in that field, it is time to take the opposite position.
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution and Function of Comparative Aspect in Athabaskan/Dene
    Distribution and Function of Comparative Aspect in Athabaskan/Dene Elizabeth Bogal-Allbritten University of Massachusetts Amherst 1 Introduction1 This paper explores the distribution and contribution of morphemes referred to as ‘comparative aspect’ in Athabaskan and Na-Dene languages, considering data from Slave, Witsuwit’en, Navajo, and Tlingit. Comparative aspect morphology marks verb stems denoting gradable adjectival properties (e.g., tall, fast, small, strong). In (1), the same Navajo verb stem -neez ‘tall’ is shown marked with comparative and absolute aspect morphology. The translations associated with comparative and absolute marking are representative of the semantics attributed cross-linguistically to these morphemes. A corresponding pair is shown for Tlingit in (2).2 (1) a. ‘ání¬nééz Comparative 'á-ní-ø-¬-nééz COMPAR-COMPAR-3S-CLASS-long ‘S/he/it is long or tall (in a relative or comparative sense)’ (YM 1987: 117) b. nineez Absolute ni-ø-ø-neez ABS-3S-CLASS-long ‘S/he/it is long or tall (in an absolute sense)’ (YM 1987: 647) (2) a. yé’ ku’wá⋅t’ Comparative yé’ ka-ŭ-ø-ø-ÿát’ COMPAR COMPAR-COMPAR-3S-CLASS-long ‘It is (so) long’ (Leer 1991: 258) b. ÿaÿát’ Absolute ÿa-ø-ø-ÿát’ ABS-3S-CLASS-long ‘It is long’ (Leer 1991: 257) 1 Thanks to Ellavina Perkins and Irene Silentman for generous help with the Navajo language data. Unless otherwise indicated, all Navajo data was collected at the 2008 Navajo Language Academy. Research was made possible by a Joel Dean Grant from Swarthmore College. Many thanks to Theodore Fernald, Keren Rice, Christopher Kennedy, Leonard Faltz, Seth Cable, and audience members at the 2009 Dene Languages Conference at the University of California, Berkeley for helpful discussion.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of Eyak Language Documentation and Study: Fredericæ De Laguna in Memoriam
    A HISTORY OF EYAK LANGUAGE DOCUMENTATION AND STUDY: FREDERICÆ DE LAGUNA IN MEMORIAM Michael Krauss Frederica de Laguna stumbled upon Eyak, i.e. (re-)“discovered” Eyak, in 1930. However, she was by no means the first to stumble upon Eyak. That honor goes to William Anderson in 1778, the first person ever to write down an Eyak word. In fact then from 1778 to 1885 there are over 20 written sources of various kinds, documenting or defining or mapping the Eyak language. Of these sources, six are mere individual or a few words, identified as Eyak or not, but six more are formal vocabularies of Eyak as such, ranging in length from 80 to 1128 words, during the Russian period. Of these formal vocabularies, one was published in English, and two more, including the 1128 words, were published in German. Moreover, there are at least nine sources explicitly recognizing Eyak as a separate language. Two of those are fundamental maps, 1796 and 1863, the latter published in color, no less! The other sources, no fewer than eight, are discussions of Eyak as such and its genetic relations. Six of these were published – mostly in German. Eyak was thus very well recognized and documented by the standards of the time, when Franz Boas arrived – from Germany – upon the American scene. Nevertheless, when in 1930 Frederica de Laguna, Boas’s student, came to Cordova, Alaska, to outfit for Chugach Eskimo archeology, it was mere chance that she then first learned about Eyak. This is a history full of ironies. Krauss hopes to do justice to them for the reader appreciative of humanistics and the history of science.
    [Show full text]
  • Proof of the Algonquian-Wakashan Relationship
    Sergei L. Nikolaev Institute of Slavic studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow/Novosibirsk); [email protected] Toward the reconstruction of Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan. Part 1: Proof of the Algonquian-Wakashan relationship The first part of the present study, following a general introduction (§ 1), presents a classifi- cation and approximate glottochronological dating for the Algonquian-Wakashan languages (§ 2), a preliminary discussion of regular sound correspondences between Proto-Wakashan, Proto-Nivkh, and Proto-Algic (§ 3), and an analysis of the Algonquian-Wakashan “basic lexi- con” (§ 4). The main novelty of the present article is in its attempt at formal demonstration of a genetic relationship between the Nivkh, Algic, and Wakashan languages, arrived at by means of the standard comparative method, i. e. establishing a system of regular sound cor- respondences between the vocabularies of the compared languages. Proto-Salishan is con- sidered as a remote relative of Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan; at the same time, no close (“Mosan”) relationship between Wakashan and Salish has been traced. Additionally, lexical correspondences between Proto-Chukchi-Kamchatkan, Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan, and Proto-Salishan are also reviewed. The conclusion is that no genetic relationship exists be- tween Chukchi-Kamchatkan, on the one hand, and Algonquian-Wakashan, languages (Nivkh included), on the other hand. Instead, it seems more likely that Proto-Chukchi-Kamchatkan has borrowed words from Wakashan, Salishan, and Algic (but probably not vice versa; § 5). The Algonquian-Wakashan, Salishan and Chukchi-Kamchatkan common cultural lexicon is also examined, resulting in the identification of numerous “cultural” loans from Wakashan and Salish into Proto-Chukchi-Kamchatkan. Borrowing from Salishan into Proto-Nivkh was far less intensive, as there are no reliable Nivkh-Wakashan contact words.
    [Show full text]