The Relationship of Uto-Aztecan and Tanoan Author(S): B
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Relationship of Uto-Aztecan and Tanoan Author(s): B. L. Whorf and G. L. Trager Source: American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 39, No. 4, Part 1 (Oct. - Dec., 1937), pp. 609 -624 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/662416 Accessed: 10/09/2009 19:01 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=black. 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 organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Blackwell Publishing and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Anthropologist. http://www.jstor.org THE RELATIONSHIP OF UTO-AZTECAN AND TANOAN By B. L. WHORF AND G. L. TRAGER I TOR a long time it has been thought that the Uto-Aztecan and Tanoan linguistic families were related. J. P. Harrington has alluded to the relationship,' and Sapir includes the two families in his proposed Aztec- Tanoan, in which Tanoan is coupled with Kiowa, and Zuni is given (with a query) as a third component.2 Our purpose in the present paper is to present lexical and phonologic evidence for a rather close relation between Uto-Aztecan and Tanoan, pro- viding the basis for further comparisons with other linguistic families. We propose to adopt Sapir's designation, Aztec-Tanoan, modifying it to Azteco-Tanoan for consistency with this type of linguistic designation, but restricting it for the present to the two families here considered. This restriction is based on what appear to us to be scientifically valid reasons. For Zuni there is available no published vocabulary, and Bunzel's recently published grammar3 does not contain enough lexical material to make possible comparisons on an adequate scale; the general structure of Zuni resembles that of Tanoan, but no details of coincidence in morphemes can be cited. As for Kiowa, Harrington has stated that the relationship is close;4 but an examination of the "Tewa etymologies" he cites, and a comparison of that material and of the whole Kiowa vocabulary with Trager's Taos (see below), indicate only a small number of very striking resemblances, more to Taos than to Tewa, and a larger list of more distant resemblances. The file of phonetic correspondences which has been prepared for this material is such as to indicate that while Kiowa is related to Tanoan, the relationship is on a different plane from that of the Uto-Aztecan. In view of certain possibilities of relationship of our Azteco-Tanoan group to other groups in several directions from it-possibilities adumbrated by significant resemblances, but not ready for publication-we prefer to leave the ques- 1 Vocabulary of the Kiowa Language (Bulletin, Bureau of American Ethnology, No. 84, 1928), p. 1. 2 Central and North American Languages (Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th ed., Vol. 5, pp. 138-41). 3 Ruth L. Bunzel, Zuni (New York, 1935; Extract from Handbook of American Indian Languages, Vol. 4). 4 Vocabulary, p. 1, note 1; On Phonetic and Lexical Resemblances between Kiowa and Tanoan (American Anthropologist, Vol. 12, pp. 119-23, 1910). 609 610 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [N. s., 39, 1937 tion of the inclusion of Kiowa in the Azteco-Tanoan stock5 till another occasion. II The material we present is of such a nature that we believe it definitely establishes a new level of synthesis of a type which has as yet not been published for American languages. The merging of Powell's groups into larger units such as Penutian and Uto-Aztecan is a different thing; these groups were merely narrow preliminary classifications, and their merging was the result of a rather patent kinship and not such a new plane of synthesis as we posit. The structures of the two families, Uto-Aztecan and Tanoan, though of similar type, are on the whole different; this is strikingly true of their pho- netic systems, Tanoan with its glottalized and aspirated series contrasting strongly with Uto-Aztecan. But by reconstructing the ancestral forms of each family, and then by comparative methods delving still deeper into the past, we discover the common ancestor of both. The fundamental matrix of relationships is exposed, and it becomes possible for scholars to proceed on finer and finer lines in order to make historical deductions and reveal time perspectives. By going back in time we reach an ultimate continuity of linguistic culture; the two groups are merged in one language. It is well known that such unity of language cannot result from passing contacts, but must come about from a long continuity of cultural tradition, whatever the biological relationships may have been originally. We must suppose then that the cultural ancestors of all the Uto-Aztecan and Tanoan peoples were at one time speakers of a single language which must itself have been related to other languages near or far. A perspective of vast ethnological and historical interest is thus opened. This perspective has of necessity been formulated on the basis of scat- tered material, much of it poorly recorded. If well-made records, phonemi- cally correct and morphologically adequate, of the complete vocabularies and grammatical systems of the languages under consideration were avail- 6 It is suggestedthat it is time to begin establishinga definiterank for the variousterms used to describelinguistic hierarchies: "dialect" and "language"are fairly clear; "stock"is used by Americanistswhere others more often use "family;"both terms could perhapsbe made use of, one having higherrank than the other (say "stock"higher than "family");a term of still higherorder is needed however,and it may prove convenientto borrowfrom biologythe term"phylum:" we wouldhave then phyla composedof stocks,these composedof familiesof languages,the latter dividedeither into dialects,or, for standardlanguages, into "varieties,"with "local variations"as subdivisionsof dialects or varieties;the terms "sub- dialect," "sub-family,""sub-stock," "sub-phylum" may also prove useful. The larger re- lationshipsof Azteco-Tanoansuggested in the text would constitute a phylum. WHORF AND TRAGER] UTO-AZTECAN AND TANOAN 611 able, it would be possible for the linguist working with them to supply a large amount of valuable data for the culture-historian. We feel that a plea for the appearance of these desiderata before the inevitable disappearance of the languages involved is not presumptuous. III The Uto-Aztecan material presented has been supplied by Whorf, and is based upon a large number of published and unpublished studies.6 The orthographies have been unified by him on a basis of phonemic interpreta- tion wherever the evidence made this possible, and the comparisons presented are based on the principles outlined in his recent paper.7 A suf- 6 The Uto-Aztecan sources are: Aztec: Alonzo de Molina, Vocabulariode la lengua Mexicana (Julio Platzmann, ed., Leip- zig, 1880); Remi Semeon, Dictionnaire de la langue Nahuatl (Paris, 1885); Fr. Bernardino de Sahagfin, Evangeliarium epistolarium et lectionarium aztecum sive mexicanum (B. Biondelli, ed., Milan, 1858); id., Aztec manuscript dictionary in Newberry Library, Chicago (unpub- lished); B. L. Whorf, Notes on Modern Aztec of Milpa Alta, D. F., and Tepoztldn,Morelos (un- published). Cora: Konrad Theodor Preuss, Grammatik der Cora-Sprache (International Journal of American Linguistics, Vol. 7, No. 1, 1932); id., WorterbuchDeutsch-Cora (International Jour- nal of American Linguistics, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1934). Cahuilla and Luisefio: A. L. Kroeber, The Shoshonean Dialects of California (Berkeley, 1907); Notes on Shoshonean Dialects of Southern California (Berkeley, 1909). California Northern Paiute: Jaime de Angulo and L. S. Freeland, Notes on the Northern Paiute of California (Paris, 1929). Hopi: B. L. Whorf, Hopi Dictionary (unpublished); Alexander Stephen, Hopi Journal (with glossary) (E. C. Parsons, ed., New York, 1936). Huichol: C. Lumholtz, Huichol Vocabulary (unpublished, in American Museum of Na- tural History, New York). Luisefio: J. P. Harrington, Notes on the San Luiseno Language (unpublished). See also Cahuilla and Luisefio. Northern Tepehuan: J. Alden Mason, Northern Tepehuan notes (unpublished). Oregon Northern Paiute: W. L. Marsden, Oregon Northern Paiute Texts (unpublished). Opata: D. Francisco Pimentel, Lenguas indigenas de Mixico (Mexico City, 1862) [with Opata vocabulary]. Papago: Juan Dolores, Papago Verb-Stems (Berkeley, 1913). Southern Paiute: E. Sapir, Southern Paiute, a Shoshonean Language (Boston, 1930). Tarahumara: Wendell Bennett, Tarahumara Dictionary (unpublished). Tiibatulabal: Charles F. Voegelin, Tilbatulabal Grammar (Berkeley, 1935); Tilbatulabal Dictionary (unpublished). Tepecano: J. Alden Mason, Tepecano, a Piman Language of WesternMexico (New York, 1917). Varohio and Yaqui (also some Opata and Tarahumara): A. L. Kroeber, Uto-Aztecan Languages of Mexico (Berkeley, 1934). 7 The ComparativeLinguistics of Uto-Aztecan (American Anthropologist, Vol. 37, pp. 600- 608, 1935). 612 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [N. s., 39, 1937 ficient body of descriptive material exists for the Uto-Aztecan languages to obviate the need of any phonetic or morphological description here.